ML20040B469: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:i
{{#Wiki_filter:i DUKE POWEH COMi%NY l'owEu lluim No 422 SOUTIl CIIUlfCII STif EET, CitAHL.OTTE, N. C. 20m j
* I DUKE POWEH COMi%NY l
W I L LI AM O. PA n M E H, J R.
l'owEu lluim No l
s,'/ic r Pat ss ot ee t TEt tPmONE: AaE A 703 January 6, 1982 t-p couc' o~
422 SOUTIl CIIUlfCII STif EET, CitAHL.OTTE, N. C. 20m                                               j W I L LI AM O. PA n M E H, J R.
373-dos)
TEt tPmONE: AaE A 703 s,'/ic t- rpPat ss ot o~ee t couc' January 6, 1982                                         373-dos)
Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator
Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator                                                         '
, i, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission N,,
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                                       ,
ff.
                                                                                                                      , i, Region II                                                                                N,,           ff.
Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 v
101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100                                                             v
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
                                                                                                                      '','g Atlanta, Georgia 30303                                                                      $,
' ', ' g g
g                n Re: Catawba Nuclear Station                                                                                     'l Unit 2                                                                                 P c';
n Re: Catawba Nuclear Station
i Docket No. 50-414                                                                                   ,,
'l Unit 2 P
i c';
Docket No. 50-414


==Dear Mr. O'Reilly:==
==Dear Mr. O'Reilly:==
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55c, please find attached Significant Deficiency Report SD 414/81-31.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55c, please find attached Significant Deficiency Report SD 414/81-31.
7         74 Very truly yours,                                                                     y'     \
7 74
7'N
\\
                                                                                                                                  'l \
7'N Very truly yours, y'
                                      ,                                                      /-                                       \
'l \\
: u.      '_ (O     cw \       ,
/-
                                                                                                                                    }
\\
William O. Parker, Jr.                                                                                       1,             j
'_ (O cw \\
                                                                                                                                      ~/
}
RWO/php Attachment cc: Director                                                   Mr. Robert Guild, Esq.
u.
Office of Inspection and Enforcement                 Attorney-at-Law U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                   314 Pall Mall Washington, D. C. 20555                               Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Mr. P. K. VanDoorn                                   Palmetto Alliance NRC Resident Inspector                               2135 Devine Street Catawba Nuclear Station                               Columbia, South Carolina 29205 t<*.    .
William O. Parker, Jr.
9201260001 820106                                                                                    'I ' JI'Y PDR ADOCK 05000414 S                           pop
1, j
                                                                                                  -{       }'
RWO/php
~/
Attachment cc: Director Mr. Robert Guild, Esq.
Office of Inspection and Enforcement Attorney-at-Law U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 314 Pall Mall Washington, D. C. 20555 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Mr. P. K. VanDoorn Palmetto Alliance NRC Resident Inspector 2135 Devine Street Catawba Nuclear Station Columbia, South Carolina 29205 t<*.
'I ' JI'Y 9201260001 820106 PDR ADOCK 05000414 S
pop
-{
}'
r
r
                                                                                                        / /
/ /


1
PAGE 1 0F 2 REPORT NUMBER: SD-414/81-31 REPORT DATE: January 6, 1982 FACILITY: Catawba Nuclear Station - Unit #2 IDENTIFICATION OF DEFICIENCY During Penetrant Test of a 1" stainless steel socket weld, a linear indication was detected in the 90 elbow on one side of the weld. This fitting was to be installed in the Safety Injection (NI) System which is ASME Section III Class 2.
      .                                                                PAGE 1 0F 2         l REPORT NUMBER: SD-414/81-31 REPORT DATE: January 6, 1982 FACILITY: Catawba Nuclear Station - Unit #2 IDENTIFICATION OF DEFICIENCY During Penetrant Test of a 1" stainless steel socket weld, a linear indication was detected in the 90 elbow on one side of the weld. This fitting was to be installed in the Safety Injection (NI) System which is ASME Section III Class 2.
IN7TIAL REPORT On December 8,1981, Mr. J. Bryant of NRC Region II, Atlanta, Georgia, was notified of this deficiency by Messers W. O. Henry and J. H. Lanier of Duke Power Company, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28242. This notification was a result of Potentially Repurtable Item CA-81-62.
IN7TIAL REPORT On December 8,1981, Mr. J. Bryant of NRC Region II, Atlanta, Georgia, was notified of this deficiency by Messers W. O. Henry and J. H. Lanier of Duke Power Company, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28242. This notification was a result of Potentially Repurtable Item CA-81-62.
SUPPLIER AND/0R COMPONENT The fitting in question is a 1" 6000# stainless steel socket weld 90 elbow to ASME SA-182 F304. The manufacturer is CAMC0 Fitting Company of Hamden, Connecticut 06508.
SUPPLIER AND/0R COMPONENT The fitting in question is a 1" 6000# stainless steel socket weld 90 elbow to ASME SA-182 F304. The manufacturer is CAMC0 Fitting Company of Hamden, Connecticut 06508.
DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY The PT of the socket weld picked up linear indication on the socket area of the elbow which was described by our Non-conforming Item Report #13,435 as being approximately 1 1/2" long and 1/64" wide. This fitting was purchased to ASME Section III Class 2 so PT of the fitting by the manufacturer is not a Code requi rement. The indication was explored by grinding and the thickness remaining as measured by ultrasonic methods was .270". The standard to which this fitting was produced, CISI B16.ll, requires a minimum thickness at the socket of .273".
DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY The PT of the socket weld picked up linear indication on the socket area of the elbow which was described by our Non-conforming Item Report #13,435 as being approximately 1 1/2" long and 1/64" wide. This fitting was purchased to ASME Section III Class 2 so PT of the fitting by the manufacturer is not a Code requi rement. The indication was explored by grinding and the thickness remaining as measured by ultrasonic methods was.270".
Due to the extent of the exploratory grinding, there is no visible portion of the indication left. Considering the location of the indication, we suspect that it was a very tight lap or tear which opened-up under the heat and shrinkage of the adjacent socket weld.
The standard to which this fitting was produced, CISI B16.ll, requires a minimum thickness at the socket of.273".
Due to the extent of the exploratory grinding, there is no visible portion of the indication left.
Considering the location of the indication, we suspect that it was a very tight lap or tear which opened-up under the heat and shrinkage of the adjacent socket weld.


    ^
REPORT NUMBER:
      , REPORT NUMBER:         SD-414/81-31                                 PAGE 2 0F 2 REPORT DATE:
SD-414/81-31 PAGE 2 0F 2
ANALYSIS OF SAFETY IMPLICATIONS This fitting was being used in a portion of the Safety Injection System which has design conditions of 2750 psi at 300 F. At 300 F a 1" 6000# socket weld fitting of Grade 304 stainless steel is rated by B16.ll at approximately 6300 psig. Under our Piping Specification, the most severe design conditions at which this fitting could have been used are 2750 psi at 650 F.         At 650 F this fitting is rated at approximately 6100 psi. Considering the facts listed below, it is our judgement that this fitting would not have failed had this indication gone undected:
^
: 1. Stainless steel is a very ductile naterial
REPORT DATE:
: 2. The encroachment on material specification minimum wall was minimal
ANALYSIS OF SAFETY IMPLICATIONS This fitting was being used in a portion of the Safety Injection System which has design conditions of 2750 psi at 300 F.
: 3. There is a large margin on pressure rating versus design conditions.
At 300 F a 1" 6000# socket weld fitting of Grade 304 stainless steel is rated by B16.ll at approximately 6300 psig. Under our Piping Specification, the most severe design conditions at which this fitting could have been used are 2750 psi at 650 F.
At 650 F this fitting is rated at approximately 6100 psi. Considering the facts listed below, it is our judgement that this fitting would not have failed had this indication gone undected:
1.
Stainless steel is a very ductile naterial 2.
The encroachment on material specification minimum wall was minimal 3.
There is a large margin on pressure rating versus design conditions.
We,therefore, conclude that there would ha'/e been no significant safety impact on the plant if this condition had gone ondetected.
We,therefore, conclude that there would ha'/e been no significant safety impact on the plant if this condition had gone ondetected.
CORRECTIVE ACTION This fitting has been removed from the System. It will be sent to the                       [
CORRECTIVE ACTION This fitting has been removed from the System.
manufacturer for his testing and analysis. We will provide a follow-up report                   c on their findings by February 26, 1982.
It will be sent to the
[
manufacturer for his testing and analysis. We will provide a follow-up report c
on their findings by February 26, 1982.
l l
l l
[
[
l
l n
                                                              - ,. _  .- . ._          , __ n -,.. ,.}}
-,..,.}}

Latest revision as of 22:21, 19 December 2024

Significant Deficiency Rept SD-414/81-31 Re Linear Indication in 90 Degree Elbow on Side of 1-inch Stainless Steel Socket Weld,Initially Reported 811208.Fitting Removed from Sys.Followup Rept Will Be Submitted by 820226
ML20040B469
Person / Time
Site: Catawba Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 01/06/1982
From: Parker W
DUKE POWER CO.
To: James O'Reilly
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
References
10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, SD-4-4-81-31, NUDOCS 8201260081
Download: ML20040B469 (3)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:i DUKE POWEH COMi%NY l'owEu lluim No 422 SOUTIl CIIUlfCII STif EET, CitAHL.OTTE, N. C. 20m j W I L LI AM O. PA n M E H, J R. s,'/ic r Pat ss ot ee t TEt tPmONE: AaE A 703 January 6, 1982 t-p couc' o~ 373-dos) Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator , i, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission N,, ff. Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 v Atlanta, Georgia 30303 ' ', ' g g n Re: Catawba Nuclear Station 'l Unit 2 P i c'; Docket No. 50-414

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55c, please find attached Significant Deficiency Report SD 414/81-31. 7 74 \\ 7'N Very truly yours, y' 'l \\ /- \\ '_ (O cw \\ } u. William O. Parker, Jr. 1, j RWO/php ~/ Attachment cc: Director Mr. Robert Guild, Esq. Office of Inspection and Enforcement Attorney-at-Law U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 314 Pall Mall Washington, D. C. 20555 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Mr. P. K. VanDoorn Palmetto Alliance NRC Resident Inspector 2135 Devine Street Catawba Nuclear Station Columbia, South Carolina 29205 t<*. 'I ' JI'Y 9201260001 820106 PDR ADOCK 05000414 S pop -{ }' r / /

PAGE 1 0F 2 REPORT NUMBER: SD-414/81-31 REPORT DATE: January 6, 1982 FACILITY: Catawba Nuclear Station - Unit #2 IDENTIFICATION OF DEFICIENCY During Penetrant Test of a 1" stainless steel socket weld, a linear indication was detected in the 90 elbow on one side of the weld. This fitting was to be installed in the Safety Injection (NI) System which is ASME Section III Class 2. IN7TIAL REPORT On December 8,1981, Mr. J. Bryant of NRC Region II, Atlanta, Georgia, was notified of this deficiency by Messers W. O. Henry and J. H. Lanier of Duke Power Company, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28242. This notification was a result of Potentially Repurtable Item CA-81-62. SUPPLIER AND/0R COMPONENT The fitting in question is a 1" 6000# stainless steel socket weld 90 elbow to ASME SA-182 F304. The manufacturer is CAMC0 Fitting Company of Hamden, Connecticut 06508. DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY The PT of the socket weld picked up linear indication on the socket area of the elbow which was described by our Non-conforming Item Report #13,435 as being approximately 1 1/2" long and 1/64" wide. This fitting was purchased to ASME Section III Class 2 so PT of the fitting by the manufacturer is not a Code requi rement. The indication was explored by grinding and the thickness remaining as measured by ultrasonic methods was.270". The standard to which this fitting was produced, CISI B16.ll, requires a minimum thickness at the socket of.273". Due to the extent of the exploratory grinding, there is no visible portion of the indication left. Considering the location of the indication, we suspect that it was a very tight lap or tear which opened-up under the heat and shrinkage of the adjacent socket weld.

REPORT NUMBER: SD-414/81-31 PAGE 2 0F 2 ^ REPORT DATE: ANALYSIS OF SAFETY IMPLICATIONS This fitting was being used in a portion of the Safety Injection System which has design conditions of 2750 psi at 300 F. At 300 F a 1" 6000# socket weld fitting of Grade 304 stainless steel is rated by B16.ll at approximately 6300 psig. Under our Piping Specification, the most severe design conditions at which this fitting could have been used are 2750 psi at 650 F. At 650 F this fitting is rated at approximately 6100 psi. Considering the facts listed below, it is our judgement that this fitting would not have failed had this indication gone undected: 1. Stainless steel is a very ductile naterial 2. The encroachment on material specification minimum wall was minimal 3. There is a large margin on pressure rating versus design conditions. We,therefore, conclude that there would ha'/e been no significant safety impact on the plant if this condition had gone ondetected. CORRECTIVE ACTION This fitting has been removed from the System. It will be sent to the [ manufacturer for his testing and analysis. We will provide a follow-up report c on their findings by February 26, 1982. l l [ l n -,..,.}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20040B469&oldid=4557301"