ML20244D839
Text
-
fickx{ l Zic m
[i a
((pm
, ,h, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOfJ e
j WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 a
g' -.....f MAY 71986 i
l Docket No: 50-443 MEMORANDUM FOR: Ronald Ballard, Chief Engineering Branch Division of PWR Licensing-A 1
}
FROM: Ted Sullivan, Section Leader Materials Engineering Section Engineering Branch I i
Division of PWR Licensing-A
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT ON SITE VISIT TO SEABROOK STATION UNIT I FOR
, CAST STAINLESS STEEL ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION DEMONSTRATION l
The staff (Robert McBrearty (Region I), Ted Sullivan, George Johnson, and Sam Lee) attended a meeting at the Seabrook Station Unit I site on April 15, 1986 to observe a demonstration of the ultrasonic examination procedure of statically cast stainless steel primary loop welds. The ultrasonic examination demonstration ir, required of Public Service Company of New Hampthire (the applicant) to resolve an Open Item for Seabrook Unit 1.
The meeting was attended by personnel frori the applicant, Westinghouse (the applicant's ultrasonic examination contractor for the subiect cast stainless steel welds), and NRC (staff and consultants).
The effectiveness of ultrasonic examination of cast stainless steel (CSS) is affected by the material microstructure (grain size and structure) and is found to be weld specific even within the same heat of material. The steff is aware that although an ultrasonic examination procedure may meet the ASME Code l Section XI (or Section V) requirements, the ability to detect a defect, if l present, may not be assured. Thus, the staff requires perfonnance i
demonstrations of CSS examinations at plant sites.
l Attachments 1 and 2 are detailed trip reports prepared by NRC consultants from Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, respectively. The following is a brief sumary of the staff evaluation of the CSS examination being conducted by the applicant at Seabrook Unit 1:
(1) The Westinghouse examination procedure based on a calibration block fabricated from an elbow obtained from the Shearon Harris facility appears to meet the Code requirements. The reference distance amplitude correction (DAC) curve is obtained from referencing the 1/4T side-drilled hole and is allowed by Article 5 of Section Y (and Article IWA-2232 of SectionXI). The scanning sensitivity is set at 80% full screen height off the 3/4T hole and appears to exceed the Code requirement (Article 111-2430 of Section XI). The calibration block was found to have similar acoustical properties as CSS at Seabrook Unit 1.
I
Contact:
- 5. Lee I;28701
_&u sa a ne3
l J 7 1986 i
Ronald L. Ballard -?-
4 (2) The applicant has demonstrated that adequate ultrasonic penetration of !
the CSS can be obtained with their examination procedure. Thus, the l !
detection of significant defects, if present, is possible at Seabrook Unit 1.
l (
{
(31 The applicant will fully document all ultrasonic indications due to geometric reflectors (weld root and counterbore) obtained during the )
preservice inspection (PSI). Any change-in the indications detected I during subsequent inservice inspection (ISI) is to be carefully evaluated to determine the cause of the change.
The staff has determined that the fitting and piping welds in the primary l coolant system at Seabrook Unit I have adequate acoustical properties to l pennit a valid ultrasonic examination with the proposed examination procedure.
Therefore, the staff considers the issue of the preservice ultrasonic examination of welds in the primary coolant system to be resolved. The staff also discussed relief requests that were being proposed by the applicant. The applicant will submit a request for relief by the end of May or early June.
The staff also requested that the CSS examination report to include a copy of the Westinghouse procedure for staff review. Upon receipt of the applicant's submittal a safety evaluation input will be prepared.
After the CSS examination demonstration, from approximately 5 pm to 8 pm, the staff was provided with an excellent detailed plant tour of the Seabrook Station by the NRC Resident Inspector (Rich Barkley). Seabrook Unit 1 was reported to be approximately 70 days to fuel loading. Thus, all of the components were in place and were being prepared for start up. This provided a rare opportunity to tour a complete plant without any concern of radiation exposure. This was particularly beneficial to Sam Lee who had not been to a nuclear plant site. , ,
CV D Ted Sullivan, Section Leader )
Materials Engineering Section Engineering Branch Division of FWR Licensing-A Attachments: As stated cc: C. Rossi DISTRIBUTION:
M. Hum Docket Files !
R. McBrearty PAEB Reading Files V. Nerses PAEB Plant Files B. Brown, INEL T. Taylor, PNL R. Barkley E. Sullivan f," SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE SHEET
- PAEB* PAEB b '
Slee:vt EJSullivan 5/ /86 S/ } /86
Rpnald L. Ballard \
(2 The applicant has demonstrated that adequate ultrasonic penetration of the CSS can be obtained with their examination procedure. Thus, the detection of significant defects, if present, is possible at Seabrook Unit,1.
(3) The applicant will fully document all ultras'onic indications due to !
ceometric reflectors (weld root and counterbore) obtained during the preservice inspection (PSI). Any change in the indications detected 7 during subsequent inservice inspection (ISI) is to be carefully evaluated to determine the cause of the change.
The staff has det' ermined that the fitting and piping welds in the primary coolant system at Seabrook Unit I have adequate acoustical properties to permit a valid ultrasonic examination with the proposed examination procedure.
Therefore, the staff considers the issue of the preservice ultrasonic examination of welds in the primary coolant system to be resolved. The staff also discussed relief requests that were being proposed by the applicant. The applicant will submit a request for relief by the end of May or early June.
The staff also requested that the CSS examination report to include a copy of the Westinghouse procedure for staff review. Upon receipt of the applicant's submittal a safety evaluation input will be prepared.
After the CSS examination demonstration, from approximately 5 pm to 8 pm, the staff was provided with an excellent detailed plant tour of the Seabrook Station by the NRC Resident Inspector (Rich Barkley). Seabrook Unit I was reported to be approximately 70 days to fuel loading. Thus, all of the components were in place and were being prepared for start up. This provided a rare opportunity to tour a complete plant without' any concern of radiation exposure. This was particularly beneficial to Sam Lee who had not been to a nuclear plant site.
1 Ted Sullivan, Chief ]
Materials Engineering Section Engineering Branch Division of PWR Licensing-A 1 l
Attachments: As stated I cc: C. Rossi DISTRIBUTION:
M. Hum Docket Files R. McBrearty PAEB Reading Files V. Nerses PAEB Plant Files B. Brown, INEL ,
T. Taylor, PNL !
R. Barkley i E. Sullivan .
G. Johnson j S. Lee j PAEB Slee:vt gh PAEB b EJSullivan i 5/ 6 /86 5/ (i /86 ;
l ATTACHMENT I PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NUMBER 50-443 TRIP REPORT - SEABROOK CAST STAINLESS STEEL EXAMINATION, APRIL 15, 1986 This report was prepared with the technical assistance of DOE contractors from the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. I A meeting was held April 15, 1986 at the Seabrook plant site with the NRC staff, the Applicant, Westinghouse, and NRC consultants from INEL and PNL present to discuss the ultrasonic examination (UT) procedures and instrumentation that were used during the preservice inspection (PSI) of the primary coolant system's statically cast stainless steel fittings.
- The Applicant was also requested to demonstrate the effectiveness of the instrumentation and procedures on select large diameter reactor coolant pressure boundary fittings constructed from thick-walled (aprox. 3 inches) statically cast stainless steel as certain ultrasonic techniques may not be adequate to consistently detect and reliably characterize service-induced flaws to the required acceptance standards. See the attached agenda for the items covered during the one day meeting and the attached roster of the persons in attendance during the entrance and exit meetings.
The calibration block used at Seabrook was fabricated from an elbow I obtained at the Shearon Harris facility. It was determined that the 1 material from which the calibration block was fabricated (Material Specification SA-351, Grade CF8A) has the same acoustic properties as the i static cast fitting material at both Seabrook Units 1 and 2, and was possibly obtained from the same supplier (Breda) as the Seabrook fittings. The basic calibration block contained 3/16 inch diameter ,
side-drilled holes at depths from the entry surface of 1/4,1/2, and 3/4 of the block thickness. Distance amplitude correction (DAC) curves were established on these side-drilled holes at the reference gain settings.
The search unit Westinghouse used for the examinations at Seabrook was a 1 MHz,1 inch diameter transducer which produced a 41' nominal refracted longitudinal wave. This search unit utilizes a water-filled boot to facilitate coupling on slightly irregular surfaces, but may cause problems with angle variations as a il' variation in incident angle will cause a 10' range of refracted angles. The search unit, instrumentation, and procedure used were reported to be basically the same as demonstrated to the staff by Westinghouse at Callaway, Commanche Peak, and Millstone 3. -
The Westinghouse examinations, using the 41' nominal refracted longitudinal wave, were completed from the static cast fitting side of the welds as the wrought side of the welds had been previously examined by l another contractor (NES). If indications were found or significant {
attenuation changes noted, the 41' refracted longitudinal wave !
examination was then also completed from the wrought material side (pipe side) of the weld. All geometric indications 50% DAC or greater were I
1
recorded. Root geometry reflections were verified by construction radiographs and counterbore reflectors were verified using a longitudinal ;
wave examination performed perpendicular to the pipe seface (straight beam examination). The Applicant reported that most c:anterbores had been ,
mmoved by grinding; therefore, on most welds they are only seen l intermittently by UT. '
FolloMng a verification of equipment calibration on the Seabrook calibration block, Westinghouse demonstrated the detectability of mechanical fatigue cracks in Westinghouse blocks and ir, thermal fatigue cracks in specimens made available by the PNL consultant. No difficulties were encountered locating the Westinghouse mechanical fatigue cracks which i were reported to be 5% and 15% through wall. The PNL specimens contained tight thermal fatigue cracks up to 35% through wall with a columnar grain structure on one side of the weld and an equiaxed grain structure on the other side of the weld. In one specimen the crack was detected from both sides 'of the weld, however the crack reflection was significantly stronger !
- through the columnat grain structure than the equiaxed grain structure.
In the second specimen, the thermal fatigue crack was oniy detected after it was identified by the PNL consultant and then on?y frem the columnar grain structure side of the weld. The PNL consultant reported that the Applicant's detectability of the cracks in these specimens, using the approved instrumentation and proceduro, was as good or better than he had previously seen demonstrated.
The Applicant reported that attenuation measurements were taken on all static cast fittings ori all four loops of the primary coolant system. The records showed that the attenuation of these fittings varied from -6db to
+14db from that of the calibration standard. The three most attenuative fittings were +7db, +10db, and +14db. The inspection records for the
+10db weld (Weld No.1-1-3) showed evidence of intermittent counterbore; therefore, this weld was selected for. demonstration of the examination technique. The requested demonstration showed the intermittent counterbore which was subsequently verified using a longitudinal wave examination performed perpendicular to the pipe surface (straight beam examination). The material attenuation opeared to remain constant during these examinations.
Field examinations were also demonstrated by the Applicant on Loop 2 Steam
- Generator nozzle-to-elbow weld 5-1-1, and the adjacent elbow-to-pipe weld i S-1-2. These welds had been preselected for examination by,the MC staff. When examining weld 5-1-2 with the 41' refracted longitud 1nal wave search unit, from the cast fitting side, the counterbore'could be located intermittently. The Applicant also attributed this to the counterbore having been removed by grinding. Weld 5-1-1 showed no evidence of counterbore. On these and all other welds looked at during-the day, the weld surfaces and adjacent base metal were well prepared for UT examination with essentially flat scanning surfaces.
1 The Aoplicant also demonstrated the UT examination technicue on a statically cast elbow-to-wrought pipe weld where evidence of the counterbots was continuous on the cast elbow using both straight and angle i bean, techniques. ,
]
1 2
During the plant demonstrations, the staff also viewed several welds where the weld geometry or other geometric interferences may prohibit completing the Code-reautred examinations. Examples of these were the reactor vessel-to-safe end welds 3-1-3, 6-1-3, 9-1-3, and 12-1-3, and the reactor coolant pump discharge welds where the weld configuration may prohibit complete examination.
Following the plant demonstrations, an exit meeting was held to discuss the days findings and determine when the Applicant would submit all relief requests for staff review. The Applicant reported that all relief ,
requests will be submitted for staff review by the end of May or early.
June. The staff requested that the report, with regards to examination of the cast stainless steel fittings, include a copy of the Westinghouse UT procedure for examination of the subject welds and also include a discussion of the techniques used for evaluation of any indications.
Based on the discussions and demonstrations during the meeting at the Seabrook plant site, the staff reached the following conclusions regarding the preservice ultrasonic examination of the cast stainless steel pipe welds: .
(1) The examination procedures meet the methodology requirements of Section XI of the ASME Code, (2) the ultrasound was penetrating the region of the weld subject to examination and produced reflections from inherent geometrical conditions in the pipe that could be interpreted, and (3) the detection of significant construction-type defects, if present, was possible with the ultrasonic signal to noise ratios observed.
The staff has determined that the fitting and piping welds in the primary coolant system at the Seabrook Unit 1 plant have sufficiently good acoustical properties to permit a valid ultrasonic examination with state-of-the-art instrumentation. Therefore, the staff considers the issue of the preservice ultrasonic examination of welds in the primary coolant system to be resolved.
i i
1 i
o l
);
I 3
l
l DEMONSTRATION OF ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION OF CAST STAINLESS STEEL WELDS ;
SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT I APRIL 15, 1986 ATTENDEES Richard Barkley NRC - Seabrook John Bell Westinghouse NSID Boyd Brown EG&G/INEL '
George Johnson NRC/NRR l Dave King- YAEC Jack Lance YNSD Sam Lee NRC/NRR Bernie Lefebvre Westinghouse NSID J. L. Marchi NHY Robert McBrearty NRC RiI Gerald F. Mcdonald YAEC Rick Rishel Westinghouse GTSO V. W. Sanchez YAEC Ted Sullivan NRC/NRR
- Tom Taylor PNL Matthew Welch YAEC-QAE Attended only opening meeting
- Attended only closing meeting I
1 i
1 -
1 4 I l
l
/
ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION OF STATICALLY CAST STAINLESS STEEL COMPONENTS AT SEAPR00K STATION DISCUSSIONS AND DEMONSTRATIONS AGENDA APRIL 15, 1986
- 1. Description of ultrasonic test [UT) instrumentation, calibration blocks, procedures, and data recording methods.
- 2. . Discussion of weld examinations performed, in particular, any welds
., that could not be ultrasonically examined. (see attachment)
- 1. Discussion of any relief requests that will be submitted to the NRC staff for review and evaluation as a result of the inability to ultrasonically examine welds and/or base materials.
- 4. Demonstration of calibration of UT instrumentation.
- 5. Demonstration of the detectability of cracks in the Westinghouse blocks.
- 6. Demonstration of the detectability of cracks in speciinens made available by Tom Taylor from Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL). ,
- 7. Demonstration of examination of' statically cast elbow-to-wrought pipe joint where evidence of root & counterbore was previously indicated by UT examination. Demonstration should include straight and angle beam examinations on cast side of joint.
- 8. Demonstration of examination of statically cast elbow-to-crought pipe joint where root and counterbore were not indicated by previous UT examination. Demonstration should include both straight and angle beam examination attempts on cast and wrought sides of joint.
- 9. Demonstration of examination of welds #5-1-1 & #5-1-2 (Loop 2, Steam Generator Nozzle-to-Elbow and Elbow-to-Pipe Welds) that were pre-selected by NRC staff. (seeattachment)
' 10. Sumary of examinations performed and assessment of examination program for cast stainless steel components of Westinghouse Owners Group.
R
.4 !
I l
pUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE !
SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NUMBER 50-443 i
TRIP rep 0RT - SEABROOK CAST STAINLESS STEEL EXAMINATION, APRIL 15, 1986 )
This report was prepared with the technical assistance of DOE contractors )
from the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
A meeting was held April 15, 1986 at the Seabrook plant site with the NRC j staff, the Applicant, Westinghouse, and NRC consultants from INEL and PNL l present to discuss the ultrasonic examination (UT) procedures and 1 instrumentation that were used during the preservice inspection (PSI) of j the primary coolant system's statically cast stainless steel fittings. ]
The Applicant was also requested to demonstrate the effectiveness of the instrumentation and procedures on select large diameter reactor coclant pressure boundary fittings constructed from thick-walled (aprox. 3 inches) statically cast stainless steel as certain ultrasonic techniques may not be adequate to consistently detect and reliably characterize service-induced flaws to the required acceptance standards. See the attached agenda for the items covered during the one day meeting and the attached roster of the persons in attendance during the entrance and exit meetings.
The calibration block used at Seabrook was fabricated from an elbow obtained at the Shearon Harris facility. It was determined that the material from which the calibration block was fabricated (Material ,
Specification SA-351, Grade CF8A) has the same acoustic properties as the j static cast fitting material at both Seabrook Units 1 and 2, and was j possibly obtained from the same supplier (Breda) as the Seabrook !
fittings. The basic calibration block contained 3/16 inch diameter l side-drilled holes at depths from the entry surface of 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 )
of the block thickness. Distance amplitude correction (DAC) curves were I established on these side-drilled holes at the reference gain ssittings. {
The search unit Westinghouse used for the examinations at Seabrook was a :
1 MHz, 1 inch diametcr transducer which produced a 41* nominal refracted longitudinal wave. This search unit utilizes a water-filled I boot to facilitate coupling on slightly irregular surfaces, but may cause problems with angle variations as a 11* variation in incident angle will cause a 10* range of refracted angles. The search unit, instrumentation, and procedure used were reported to be basically the same as demonstrated to the staff by Westinghouse at Callaway, Commanche Peak, and Millstone 3.
The Westinghouse examinations, using the 41* nominal refracted longitudinal wave, were completed from the static cast fitting side of the welds as the wrought side of the welds had been previously examined by another contractor (NES). If indications were found or significant attenuation changes noted, the 41* refracteu longitudinal wave examination was then also completed fra the wrought material side (pipe side) of the weld. All geometric indications 50". DAC or greater were 1
l
~ ~ _ _ _ _ . _ _
a Root geometry reflections were verified by construction recorded.
radiographs and counterbore reflectors were verified using a longitudinal wave examinationThe performed perpendicular to the pipe surface (straight Arplicant reported that most counterbores had been
}'
beam examination). removed by grir. ding; therefore, on most welds they are intermittently by UT.
Following a verification of equipment calibration on the mechanical fatigue cracks in Westinghouse blocks No anddifficulties in thermal fatigue cracks in specimens made available by the PNL consultant. h were encountered locating the Westinghouse mechanical fatigue cracks wh were reported to be 5% and 15% through wall.
tight thermal fatigue cracks up to 35% through wall with a columnar grai structure on one side of the weld and an equiaxed grain structur !
other side of the weld.
sides of the weld, however the crack reflection was significantly stronger through the columnar grain structure than the equiaxed grain structure.
In the second specimen, the thermal fatigue crack was only detected after it was identified by the PNL consultant The PNLand then only consultant fromthat reported thethe columnar grain structure side of the weld.
Applicant's detectability of the cracks in these specim previously seen demonstrated.
The Applicant reported that attenuation measurements were taken The on all
. static cast fittings on all four loops of the primary coolant The three most attenuative
+14db from that of the calibration standard.The inspection records for the fittings were +7db, +10db, and +14db.
+10db weld (Weld No.1-1-3) showed evidence of intermittent counterbore; 4 '
therefore, this weld was selected for demonstration of the examination technique. The requested demonstration showed the intermittent counterbore which was subsequently verified using a longitudinal wave examination performed perpendicular to the pipe surface (stra d examination).
these examinations.
Field examinations were also demonstrated by the Applicant on Loop 2 Steam Generator nozzle-to-elbow weld 5-1-1, and the adjacent elbow-to-pipe weld These welds had been preselected for examination by the NRC 5-1-2. When examining weld 5-1-2 with the 41" refracted longitudinal l staff. search unit, from the cast fitting side, the counterbore could be wave
, located intermittently. The Applicant also attributed this to the Weld 5-1-1 showed no
- counterbore having been removed by grinding.On these and all other welds loo evidence of counterbore.the day, the weld surfaces and adjacent base met UT examination with essentially flat scanning surfaces.
The Applicant also demonstrated the UT examination technique on a j statically cast elbow-to-wrought pipe weld where evide beam techniques.
2 l i
am ,
During the plant demonstrations, the staff also viewed several welds where the weld geometry or other geometric interferences may prohibit completing the Code-required examinations. Examples of these were the reactor i vessel-to-safe end welds 3-1-3, 6-1-3, 9-1-3, and 12-1-3, and the reactor i coolant pump discharge welds where the weld configuration may prohibit complete examination. i 1
Following the plant demonstrations, an exit meeting was held to discuss j the days findings and determine when the Applicant would submit all relief I requests for staff review. The Applicant reported that all relief requests will be submitted for staff review by the end of May or early June. The staff requested that the report, with regards to examination of the cast stainless steel fittings, include a copy of the Westinghouse UT procedure for examination of the subject welds and also include a discussion of the techniques used for evaluation of any indications.
Based on the discussions and demonstrations during the meeting at the Seabrook plant site, the staff reached the following conclusions regarding the preservice ultrasonic examination of the cast stainless steel pipe welds:
(1) The examination procedures meet the methodology requirements of l
Section XI of the ASME Code, (2) the ultrasound was penetrating the region of the weld subject to examination and produced reflections from inherent geometrical conditions in the pipe that could be interpreted, and (3) the detection of significant construction-type defects, if present, was possible with the ultrasonic signal to noise ratios observed.
The staff has determined that the fitting and piping welds in the primary )
coolant system at the Seabrook Unit 1 plant have sufficiently good I acoustical properties to permit a valid ultrasonic examination with state-of-the-art instrumentation. Therefore, the staff considers the issue of the preservice ultrasonic examination of welds in the primary coolant system to be resolved.
I r
1 l
3
DEMONSTRATION OF ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION OF CAST STAINLESS STEEL WELDS l
SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 APRIL 15, 1986 i ATTENDEES
- Richard Barkley NRC - Seabrook John Bell Westinghouse NSID Boyd Brown EG&G/INEL George Johnson NRC/NRR Dave King YAEC Jack Lance YNSD Sam Lee NRC/NRR Bernie Lefebvre Westinghouse NSID
- J. L. Marchi NHY
. Robert McBrearty NRC RiI l Gerald F. Mcdonald YAEC Rick Rishel Westinghouse GTSD V.'W. Sanchez YAEC Ted Sullivan NRC/NRR
- Tom Taylor PNL Matthew Welch YAEC-QAE
- Attended only opening meeting
- Attended only closing meeting i
i 1
~.<
4 4
. ~ . - - - . - - .. .. . - . .
ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION OF STATICALLY CAST STAINLESS STEEL COMPONENTS AT SEAFR00K STATION DISCUSSIONS AND DEMONSTRATIONS AGENDA APRIL 15, 1986
- 1. Description of ultrasonic test (UT) instrumentation, calibration blocks, procedures, and data recording methods.
- 2. Discussion of weld examinations performed, in particular, any welds that could not be ultrasonically examined. (see attachment)
- 1. Discussion of any relief requests that will be submitted to the NRC staff for review and evaluation as a result of the inability to ultrasonically examine welds and/or base materials.
- 4. Demonstration of calibration of UT instrumentation. :
- 5. Demonstration of the detectability of crteks in the Westinghouse blocks.
- 6. Demonstration of the detectability of cracks _ in specimens made available by Tom Taylor from Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL). ,
- 7. Demonstration of examination of statically cast elbow-to-wrought pipe i i
joint where evidence of root & counterbore was previously indicated by UT (
examination. Demonstration should include straight and angle beam '
examinations on cast side of joint.
- 8. Demonstration of examination of statically cast elbow-to-wrought pipe joint where root and counterbore were not indicated by previous UT examination. Demonstration should include both straight and angle beam examination attempts on cast and wrought sides of joint.
- 9. Demonstration of examination of welds #5-1-1 & #5-1-2 (Loop 2, Steam Generator Nozzle-to-Elbow and Elbow-to-Pipe Welds) that were pre-selected by NRC staff. (see attachment)
- 10. Summary of examinations performed and assessment of examination program for cast stainless steel components of Westinghouse Owners Group.
.