ML19343D402
| ML19343D402 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1981 |
| From: | Muscente M, Gary Purdy, Saltarelli E HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8105040413 | |
| Download: ML19343D402 (69) | |
Text
i i
I 2:
4l i'
3 i
.: M IIDco m SP01QE:iC3 Si L
6' 7l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3;
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9j 0:
h, BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3
4 In the Matter of:
3 6
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER Docket Nos. 50-4980L 7i COMPANY, ET AL.
5 50-4990L S' '
S g
(South Texas Project, 9
0+
Units 1 & 2) 5 1
5 2
3 4
TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, ET AJ.
9i 6
OF 7i 8l MR. EUGENE A. SALTARELLI g.d;[ f E'/,-
9 MR. MATTHEW D. MUSCENTE 0'
MR. GORDON R. PURDY
.f.f'Q,,
s 7
1 MR. J. RODOLFO MOLLEDA
/gv n
J I.,.U
~i MR. LOGAN D. WILSON E
%j l*Jf[,' O 11981 MR. MICHAEL D.
SULLIVAN lli DR. DANIEL HAUSER iS e--
'Q, D2E't^* j73) 6
'w
<f 7;
on S;
f,'ou f, \\
THE WELDING PROGRAM AT STP 9!
~
01 1
0
\\
4 2:
N 3i
/
to 4l
/C
,Mc (f
pR 27 lt!
GSD $
A 7l
. r.,.i e.e sec27
-, a Sr.t3 3
g li t,
_co O
g... s
~
1l 81050AoW4r c,0 \\
I
L!
l, 3l 5L 3 'i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 'j 7h 3i 7l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
L!
2!
In the M5tter of:
5 3
5 4
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S
Docket Nos. 50-4980L U
5 50-4990L 6
5 7i (South Texas Project, 5
g!
Units 1 & 2)
I 9l O:
1 2!
TESTIMONY OF 3!
MR. EUGENE A.
SALTARELLI, MR. MATTHEW D. MUSCENTE, 4i MR. GORDON R. PURDY, MR. J. RODOLFO MOLLEDA, 5:
MR. LOGAN D. WILSON, MR. MICHAEL SULLIVAN AND 6
DR. DANIEL HAUSER REGAPDING 7 ;i THE STP WELDING PROGRAM S!
9i Q. 1 Please state your names.
O!
A.
1 Eugene A.
Saltarelli, Matthew D. Muscente, Gordon R.
y,
- Purdy, J. Rodolfo Molleda, Logan D. Wilson, Michael Sullivan, 3
i and Daniel Fauser.
s 6'
Q. 2 Mr. Molleda and Mr. Wilson, by whom are you i7 iS.
employed?
19 i iO i A.
2 (JRM, LDW):
Houston Lighting & Power Company
- 1 i i2l (HL&P).
i3 \\
Q. 3 Mr. Saltarelli, Mr. Muscente, and Mr. Purdy, by whom are you ' employed?
6 j 17 !
A.
3 (EAS, MDM, GRP):
Brown & Root, Inc. (B&R).
18 19 30 51 l
_2_
6 1
l 1
i 2o 3!
4!
5l Q. 4 Mr. Sullivan, by whom are you employed?
6l 7j A. 4 (MS):
Nuclear Technology, Inc. (NUTECH), a 8I 9l consulting firm specializing in nuclear plant analysis and
.0 design, with particular expertise in American Society of 2!
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code applications.
.3
.4 Q. 5 Dr. Hauser, by whom are you employed?
.C,
.6 A.
5 (DH):
Battelle Columbus Laboratories (Battelle),
.7l
,gl a research and development firm which performs, among other o;
}
things, studies of welding procedures, inspection processes 81
'}
and metallurgy.
13 Q. 6 Mr. Saltarelli, what is your position and what
!4 15 >
are your current responsibilities?
!6
!7 A.
6 (EAS):
I am Senior Vice President and Chief
!S '
gg Engineer of the B&R Power Group.
I am responsible for the 10 31,
engineering of all fossil and nuclear power plants in the l2,
Power Group, including South Texas Project (STP).
Since 34 April 1980 when I joined B&R, one of my responsibilities has la 16l been to help develop plans for the STP welding reexamination, 17 !
18 !
repair, and restart, programs.
In addition,,I have closely 19 !
10 j followed the Welding Task Force activities through regular 11gj meetings with the Task Force Chairman who reports directly 13 I l
to me.
g4l 15!
Q. 7 Mrs. Muscente, what is your position and what are 16 ;
17 !
your current responsibilities?
18 !
19 !
50 j 51 l
-3 v
m'
i li 2L 3l 41
$ ^
A. 7 (MDM):
I am the Welding Program Manager for STP 6l 7i and am responsible for coordinating and directing all welding i
8 g
activities including welder training, engineering surveillance
{
of production welding, and development and implementation of
[2 l welding specifications and procedures.
I am also responsible
.3,
L4 for directing the STP welding reexamination, repair, and L3,
L6 restart program and overseeing the evaluation of inaccessible L7 l (g l welds being performed by outside consultants.
I report to,
{~',
directly to the STP General Manager.
nj} i Q. 8 Mr. Molleda, what is your position and what are 13 '
your current responsibilities?
14 25 A.
8 I am HL&P's Supervising Engineer and Lead Project 16 23 l Engineer for mechanical-nuclear systems on STP.
In this 17 j gg j position, I provide direction and guidance to HL&P's STP 30 i 31 Mechanical, Nuclear, Health-Pnysics and Nuclear Fuels Engineerin,g f3 2
Teams, which perform design reviews of the Westinghouse 34 l Nuclear Steam Supply System, B&R designed systems and other 35 6
3637j vendor supplied designs.
Additionally we review numerous 38 !
specifications for items other than equipment such as weld.
39 l to i filler material, stress analysis documents and various NRC 11 ;
42,
issued documents.
%3 I g4 Our principal duties relating to the STP welding program 45 are to review and approve the welding specifications and II associated welding Technical Reference Documents (TRD) 48 49,
30l 51 1
-+-
l li 2:
3l 4
5li generated by B&R.
We review design criteria, design specifi-6l 7{
cations and changes to the criteria orospecifications to 8l 9
assure that the design properly addresses appropriate engi-neering requirements, including regulatory requirements,
.2l applicable industry standards and HL&P's design preferences.
.3 '
.4 HL&P Engineering also participates in the resolution of
.5,
.6,
problems that are identified during the design and construction,
.7 i
,gj such as the resolution of field design change requests and
'9 '
O nonconformance reports, and participation in the recent Task u,
}{
Force effort to reexamine the adequacy of Project welds made f3 prior to April 11, 1980.
e4 15 Q. 9 Mr. Purdy, what is your position and what are
'6 r7 l your current responsibilities?
'S,
g A. 9 (GRP):
I am the Quality Engineering (QE) Manager 10 '
for the B&R Power Group.
I am responsible for the manage-f3 ment and direction of QE personnel at the STP site where I d
report to the Project Quality Assurance (QA) Manager for
>=
l6 i STP.
Since April 1979 when I first joined B&R, I have been 17 i l8 !.
directly responsible, among other things, for development of 19 1
~
iO j the welding program QA procedures at STP.
il i
,2,
Q. 10 Mr. Wilson, what is your position and what are
.3 l 4j your current responsibilities?
,5 !
A.
10 (LDW):
This information is set forth in A.2 and
,6 i II
.'8 A.3 of my testimony regarding allegations of harassment and r9l intimidation of QC Inspectort.
10 :
il j i
-o-1
1f 2,
3l 4l 5:
Q. 11 Mr. Sullivan, what is your position and what are 6i 7i your current responsibilities?
8i9l A. 11 (MS):
I am a Principal Consultant for NUTECH 0
and am responsible for advising clients on welding and 3
i 2!
metallurgical construction problems.
Since May 1980, I have 3
3 4'
been NUTECH's Project Engineer on the STP Welding Task 2
6i Force, managing the activities of several NUTECH welding 7i g'
engineers at the STP site and at NUTECH's home office.
I 9\\
0 also directed the work performed at STP by Southwest Research 1}
Institute (SWRI), a consulting firm under subcontract to h
NUTECH that performed and interpreted nondestructive examina-5:
tions during the Task Force investigation following the 6
7i NRC's Order to Show Cause.
S 9,
Q. 12 Dr. Hauser, what is your position and what are 0'
1i your current responsibilities?
2 A.
12 (DH):
I am a Senior Research Scientist at 3
i Battelle, and am currently the Program Manager for the 2
6, Battelle evaluation of the inaccessible AWS structural welds 7!
8!
at STP.
^
9I 0j Q. 13 Mr. Saltarelli, please summarize your professional 1J 2;
qualifications.
3!
4' A.
13 (EAS):
I received a Bachelor of Mechanical 5
6 Engineering degree from the University of Detroit in 1949
~
and a Master of Science degree f.n Mechanical Engineering 8
0l 9
1l i
-o-
1 I
t:2i 3l 4i 5i from Northwestern University in 1950.
I am a Registered 61 7!
Professional Engineer in seven Stztes; Pennsylvania, New 8:
9l York, West Virginia, Michigan, Te" ', California and Maryland, and am a member of the ASME and the American Nuclear Society.
.2!
Prior to joining B&R, I worked for twenty-four years in the
.3 '
.4 nuclear power industry, primarily in the areas of nuclear
.5
.6 :
system design and analyses with respect to plant safety and
.7l
,g; plant operations.
oI y;
From 1956 to 1967, I was employed at the Bettis Atomic 31 Power Laboratory, Westinghouse Electric Corporation in
!2 1@4 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
I began my career at Bettis as a
!5 Senior Engineer in fluid systems design for Navy nuclear 16 17 !
power plants and was promoted to various management positions 18,
gg !
including Bettis Chief Test Engineer at the Mare Island 10 gy,
Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California, in which I was respon-32 13 sible for the technical direction of testing and initial 14 startup of reactor plants for nuclear submarines.
My design 15 16 experience at Bettis encompassed total responsibility for 17 i 38,
nuclear fluid systems for Navy nuclear plants as well as the 39 1
~
go i design, system construction, and technical direction of the g1 l
gj, decontamination of the Shippingport Atomic Power Plant.
I i
L3 i g4 also directed the program to accomplish decontamination of 15!
the Navy nuclear submarines.
46 '
47 l 48 i 49 l 50 ;
51 l l
I 1l 2:
3!
4' 5'
From May 1967 to April 1980, I was employed by NUS 6I 7!
Corporation where I began as the Manager of power plant 3l 9
engineering and was promoted to positions of increasing 10 management responsibility including Vice-President, Technical 1.3 12 l Director; Vice-President, Engineering Division; and Group 13 I 14 Vice-President, Engineering and Operating Services.
While 15,
16 ;
serving in these positions, I provided consulting services 17 :
15ll to foreign clients in Japan, Taiwan, Sweden, Germany, and Ta'g '
Brazil.
In addition, I was associated with the STP since 99"j its inception, participating in the development of the 33 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) and managing the 2, i 25 l organization that designed several of the nuclear interface 26 27 i systems.
I joined B&R in April 1980 and assumed my present 28 i 29 position as Senior Vice-President and Chief Engineer of the 30 ;
31 B&R Power Group.
37'i 3
Q. 14 Mr. Muscente, please summarize your professional i
qualifications.
32 36 l A.
14 (MDM):
I received a Bachelor of Science degree 37 i 38 !
in Metallurgical Engineering at the University of Pittsburgh 39 i 40 i in 1958.
I am a Registered Professional Engineer in California 41 42 ;
and a member of the American Welding Society (AWS) and the 43 !
44 l ASME.
45 '
46 !
Preor to joining B&R, I worked for twenty-two years in 4~'
l l
the nu<;1 ear power industry, primarily in the areas of design, j
48 l g
49 l 50 l 31 l l
1
-6
+
l i 2:
3!
4i5i fabrication, and construction of nuclear power plant systems 6l 7i and components.
I spent eight years working on the design 81 9l and construction of nuclear powered submarines, and twelve 0'
'y(
years working for General Electric Company as the Manager of
.2 !
Field Welding Engineering at nuclear power plants in India
.3 4'
and Switzerland, and as the Manager of Materials Engineering
.6 ;
and QA at nuclear power plants in Switzerland, Spain, and
.7 i
,gl Italy.
I joined B&R in July 1980 and assumed my present position.
,, i
{g j Q. 15 Mr. Molleda, please summarize your professional 3
qualifications.
4 l3 A.
15 (JRM):
I was graduated from the University of 15 i
!7 i Texas at Austin in 1972 with a Bachelor of Science degree in
!S i
!9}
Mechanical Engineering.
That year I joined the City Public 10 !
[1 i Service Board (CPSB) as an engineer in the Generation Design 12 :
- 3 l Division.
I was involved in various enginearing assignments
,d concerning the design and construction of fossil fueled a,
jl power plants.
As a result of CPSB's interest in nuclear is 18 power, in 1975 I wa,s assigned to Florida Power & Light's St.
19 !
iO j Lucie Nuclear Power Station as a startup engineer.
There I 11 !
,2 wrote and performed preoperation tests on the plant's nuclear
,3 i
,,g l
and balance of plant systems.
In 19"i I was assigned to
'h !
HL&P to work on the STP, where I reviewed equipment specifi-
'O i
'I!
cations and system designs.
In 1977 I joined HL&P as a i8 ;
t9 i
- 0 i il l l
t t
L' 2,
3!
4!
5l Senior Engineer in the Nuclear Engineering Division.
I 6I headed a team of six engineers who performed reviews of STP 7 !
8l9j nuclear systems and design documents generated by Westing-0!
house and Brown & Root (B&R).
In 1979 I was promoted to my 11 2
present position.
3 4
I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of
~
6:
Texas and a member of the American Nuclear Society.
7.gj Q. 16 Mr. Purdy, please summarize your professional of qualifications.
1 A.
16 (GRP):
Prior to joining B&R, I spent twenty-one 2
3 years working in the nuclear power industry, eighteen of 9
which were spent in the United States Naval Nuclear Power 6;
7j Program.
I worked primarily in the area of construction,
.S !
9' operation, and maintenance of nuclear power plants.
I also 0>
g, spent approximately one year with Bechtel Power Corporation 2'
as a mechanical Quality Control (QC) engineer.
I joined B&R
- I 4'
o!,
in April 1979 as the supervisor of the mechanical QE program 6
7l for the Power Group.
In October of that year, I was promoted i
8 to my present posit, ion, in which I have been responsible
,9 !
- o j for, among other things, the development of QA procedures 1'
2, regarding welder and inspector training at STP.
3, jl Q. 17 Mr. Wilson, please summarize your profeesional
'h qualifications.
,o
.7 l
,a !
.9l i0 i il l
-lu-
I 1!
2i 31 4l 5,
A. 17 That information is set forth in A. 2ofmy 6I 7I testimony regarding allegations of harassment and intimida-i 89l tion of QC Inspectors.
Q. 18 Mr. Sullivan, please summarize your professional
'2 qualifications.
- 3 L1 A.
18 (MS):
In 1970, I received a Bachelor of Science LU ;
L6 degree in Mechanical Engineering from California State
'7[g f Polytechnic University in Pomona, California.
I received a 79 i 50 Masters degree in Metallurgical Engineering from Lehigh Ill University in 1974.
Prior to joining NUTECH, I spent approxi-12 13 mately five years at General Electric Company, including 14 '
!5 '
three years in GE's Fast Breeder Reactor Department as the 16 i
17 ;
project leader for welding process development, and two
!S !
gg i years with GE's Nuclear Energy Group developing automatic 10 I gy welding equipment and test programs to simulate installation 32 !
or modification of components in Boiling Water Reactors.
I 13 :
I4!
joined NUTECH in 1979 as a Senior Consultant and was promoted 15 !
16 j to my present position as NUTECH's Principal Consultant in 17 !
18 '
September 1980.
19 i 10 i Q. 19 Dr. Hauser, please summarize your professional 11 i 52 ;
qualifications.
13 i A.
19 (DH):
I received a B.S.
in Metallurgical Engi-y 15 '
neering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1962, an l o, II -
M.S. in Metallurgical Engineering from Syracuse University L8 l 19l 10 '
il 11-
I L i 2,
3i 4l 5i in 1965, and a Ph.D. in Metallurgical Engineering from Ohio 6!
7 state University in 1973.
I have been employed by Battelle I
8g!
for approximately 17 years, during which time I have been involved in a variety of materials-joining research projects.
2l These projects have involved arc, electron beam, and solid-state
.3,
.4 welding of a wide variety of metals and alloys.
I have
.o ;
.6 ;
investigated repair-welding practices for cast and wrought
.7.
,g '
alloys and assisted in designing and setting up large-scale
[9 welding operations.
Other projects have related to gas 0
1
}i turbines, pressure-vessel steel, and railroad components.
-}
I have been the Battelle Program Manager of a project
- 9 to develop a remote mechanized repair system for nuclear
.6
- 7,
reactor piping.
This includes developing equipment and
'B -
.;9 '
procedures and qualifying personnel for pipe severing, joint
- 0 '
1 preparation, counterboring and welding.
I have also been the Battelle Program Manager of an
,d' investigation involvino laboratory development of experimental o
- 6
- 7!
arc welding equipment and procedures including the develop-18 '
ment an all solid-state microprocessor controlled automatic
- 9 ;
0j welding system.
3, 2,
I have conducted studies of repair-welding practices r3,,; ;
for cast and wrought heat-resistant alloys, such as HK-40 6l and Incoloy 800 used in the petrochemical industry.
I have
.' 8 l also been involved in the development of improved repair 7
3
.9 l iO i ?.
i
-Az-
\\
1 i 2l 3
4 5
procedures for nickel and cobalt base superalloys in gas 6!
7i turbines.
In the coarse of this work, experimental repairs al 9j were made with IN-738 alloy blades.
'.0['
I have been the Battelle Chief Investigator of a program 34 2!
to design and fabricate small-diameter rocket-motor cases
.3 ;
.4 from 18Ni(350) maraging steel.
A significant part of this
.D
.6 i program was directed toward the development of gas tungsten-arc
.7 i
,gl and electron-beam welding procedures.
In another program, I
[9 assisted in the development of fabrication procedures for 0
'gf H-ll high-strength steel components.
I have also helped 1
{
3.e develop electron-beam welding procedures for M-50 tool steel l5 :
spheres, and have received a patent for a specialized tech-l6 i
F7 nique invented during the program.
iS,
!9 '
I have also investigated the effects of welding processes, 10 '
g1 '
welding procedures, post-weld heat treatment and base-plate 12 i 13 composition on 3.5-inch-thick SA508 Class 2 steel in connec-l',
tion the welding and multiple repairs of a nuclear reactor la? 1 16 pressure vessel.
17}
IS Finall,y, I have investigated the effects of delta 19 !
LOj ferrite content of E308-16 stainless steel weld metal, 11 i
[2 j incit: ding testino of ultimate and yield strengths, creep 13 I g,; '
rupture, elongation, reduction in area and elastic modulus over the temperature range of 70-1200F.
10 17,
Q. 20 Panel, what is the purpose of this testimony?
18 I 19l 10 il i
Ll 2P 3!
4l 5l A. 20 (Panel):
The purpose of this testimony is to 6:
7i describe the welding program for the South Texas Project.
I 8 I This description will include a discussion of the welding g
0 program requirements; the status of the welding program 2
prior to the NRC Order to Show Cause; the results of the 3;
4 Welding Task Force activities performed in response to 5,
6, Item 3(a) of the NRC Order to Show Cause; the recent improve-7i g!
ments implemented in the welding program; the status of the o;
}l welding reexamination, repair and restart programs; and the t}I engineering evaluation of the previously made inaccessible 3
4' 5
Q, 21 W.lat NRC requirements and industry Codes govern 6
i 7t the safety-related welding program at STP?
3-9 A.
21 (Panel):
The STP welding program is governed by 0!
yj the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B with respect to welding procedures, QA and nondestructive examination 3
Additionally, at STP, the ASME Boiler and 2 i 6!
7' Pressure vessel Code governs pressure-retaining piping, pipe 8
components and supp~ orts, and the AWS Structural Welding Code i
9!
0' governs heavy structural steel and supplementary steel such 13:
as electrical cable tray and pipe supports.
(For purposes 3i
,'f !,
include only those welds on the piping, supports, and steel o
'7 I listed above.)
These Codes set forth requirements for such
,aj
,9 i
10 i il
_14
1i 2V 3l 4l1 things as welder qualifications, verification of the adequacy 56l 7j of welding procedure specifications, NDE acceptance criteria l
for completed welds, and appropriate NDE methods for particular
.0 types of welds.
The ASME Code also requires that an independent
~2i third party, the Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI), approve
'3 L4 all elements of the ASME welding and NDE Programs, and that L3 L6 '
this ANI oversee the implementation of these programs.
'7i (g l Finally, several NRC Regulatory Guides provide require-
'9-
{0, ments to supplement those contained in the AWS and ASME n-I Codes.
These requirements, which apply primarily to mater-22 l~
ials, welding and NDE methods, set forth minimum standards 14 15 to be followed in particular situations such as limited 16 i 17 access welding.
23 i gg,
Q. 22 Mr. Saltarelli, Mr. Muscente, Mr. Wilson and Mr.
30 ;
33 Purdy, how have the requirements mandated by the NRC and 32 !
Codes been implemented at STP?
33 ;
34 I A.
22 *(EAS, MDM, LDW, GRP):
B&R, with HL&P review and 3a -
36 !
approval, has developed several Construction and QA procedures 37 !
38 ;
to implement the requirements mandated in the applicable Codes
~
39 !
40 and standards.
In general, four types of procedures are l{'
utilized to control the welding activities at STP.
4 j
43 1.
Materials Engineering Construction Procedures 44 45 (MECPs) require a welder to be tested in each specific 4 e, ii 47 I welding process to be used.
Each welder must make a certain 48 !
49 l 50 i 51 l i
-xo-
l 1l 2.
31 4,
5i number of test welds which are visually examined by Qc 6i 7i Inspectors and subjected to destructive or nondestructive 8i 9 i testing.
The test welds must be found acceptable before a LO '
(y j welder is permitted to perform production welding.
L2 I 2.
MECPs also specify the sequence of operational L3 L4 tasks in making both AWS and ASME welds and the methods by Ls L6 ;
which each task is to be performed.
These tashs include L7 'f LE cleaning of the weld area, verifying proper weld filler L9 ;
10 material, checking weld joint dimensions, joining the materials l'gj at the weld joint, controlling the heat applied to a weld f.3 joint and visually checking the finished weld.
13 3.
Quality Assurance Procedures (QAPs) provide that 26 17 during the making of the welds, QC inspection must be performed 13 i 29 !
at several procedurally designated " hold points", and that 30 '
31 QC personnel periodically must check such items as welding 32 '
33 equipment, Velding temperature and current.
A visual exami-3]' '
na ion is performed when welds are completed, and if the c
3 36 '
work is deemed satisfactory, NDE is performed and the results 3/
3S :
evaluated by certified NDE Inspectors.
39 1 10 i 4.
QAPs also require that NDE inspectors must receive 11 i 12 ;
a minimum amount of formal training and perform a minimum 13 :
g4l number of inspections prior to being examined and certified 15 l 16 by Level III Inspectors.
These procedures also identify, define and illustrate acceptance criteria for each type of 19l 50 l il I i
1 i 2
3!
4!
5 NDE.
NDE includes, among other things, liquid penetrant 6i 7
testing (use of red liquid dye which slightly penetrates the 8
9 weld surface where defects are located), magnetic particle
'0l testing (application to the weld of small metal particles 1
,i I
which assume irregular patterns wherever defects are located
.';a 4
when a magnetic field is applied); and radiographic testing a
.6 ;
(photographing the interior of the weld by using Gamma
,C '
rays).
oi O
This general procedural framework has been and still is is'j in effect at STP, but the detailed procedures have been 3
revised during the course of implementation of the welding 13 program, as will be explained later in this testimony.
16
!7.
To monitor the overall implementation of the NRC and
!S 19 :
Code requirements and the STP welding procedures, B&R conducts 10
- 1 regular audita of the welding program.
These audit.= are l}'
conducted approximately twice per year; once at the site and
,h$
once in Houston.
o<
16 17,!
(LDW):
Establishment of the Materials Engineering, IS i Construction and QA Procedures training methods, and welding e
19 -
iO i material specifications is the primary responsibility of d
,2 i B&R.
HL&P QA reviews and approves these procedures to e3 I assure that the QA requirements are properly reflected.
.5 One. aspec'c of the welding program in which we were
.6
'Il involved early in the Project was the establishment of the g
9l 10 :
il i i
i 1 i 2'
3l 4l 5l specific welding procedures for the aluminum-bronze pipe in 61 7!
the Essential Cooling Water (ECW) system.
Aluminum-bronze 8l 9j is an unusual material and industry has very little experience
.0 i
.1l in welding large diameter pipe made of this material.
As a nf
}
result of investigations we performed, HL&P added a require-ment to the inspectica procedures that the ECW welds be spot ol radiographed on a random selection basis to track welder
.7.
3l performance, even though the ASME Code does not require any 9
O radiographic examinations.
1' 2'
HL&P has performed documented surveilance on c monthly
~
4 basis covering all aspects vi welding, including both weld 3
making and NDE activities.
In total, we have performed 374 6,
7i formal inspections.
We also have attended B&R training Si 9,
classes for welding and inspection in order to evaluate the 0;
1' instruction given.
2-3; Q. 23 Mr Purdy, what was the status of welding at STP at the time of issuance of the NRC Investigation Report 6
I 79-19 and the NRC Order to Show Cause?
I l A.
23 (GRP):
At the time of issuance of the NRC 0l Investigation Report 79-19 and the NRC Order to Show Cause, 1i 2l there was no safety-related welding being performed at the 31 4lI site due to the issuance of a Stop Work Order on April 11, 56l 1980 by the B&R Power Group QA Manager.
Prior to the Stop
{i
~
j Work, approximately thirty-five percent of the total AWS 9l 0i 1l l
1 2>
3l 4l 5;
heavy structural steel welding, approximately two percent of 6'
the total AWS supplementary steel welding and less than one 7I!
percent of the tc'.al ASME welding had been performed at 9;
Ol Unit 1.
Less than one percent of the total AWS and ASME 1!
2i welding had been performed at Unit 2.
3'
.4 Q. 24 Please explain why safety-rel.ted welding at STP
.D
.6,
was stopped.
- 7ii A.
24 (GRP):
Problems revealed as a result of two g
9 audits and a special investigation conducted in late 1979 0!
l' and early 1980 indicated that the STP welding procedures 2,
.3 '
were not being fully and properly implemented.
While the
- 4
- 5 welding program, as set forth in those procedures, was
- 6,
- 7 ;
generally in compliance with applicable codes and standards,
'Sl
[9 QC Inspectors were not always identifying procedural deficien-0!
cies during the welding process, and NDE Inspectors were not 12 I always identifying deficiencies in the completed welds.
13 ;
14 This failure to implement adequately all Project procedures IS '
16 :
resulted in a level of welding quality at STP which was less 17!
38 l than that mandated by the program.
In order to concentrate 19 i 10 j all efforts on resolving the problems, to assess the impli-l'gj, cations of the problems that had been occurring and to S
14 ;i prevent recurrence of those problems, the B&R Power Group QA 15 Manager issued a Stop Work order on safety-related welding 16 17 !
on April ll, 1980.
lal 19 ;
50 :
51 i ll li Li 2L 3!
4t5' Q. 25 Please describe the specific problems which 6
7j formed the basis for the decision to stop work.
V I A. 25 (GRP):
In late 1979 and early January 1980, g
0l during the course of an NRC audit of the STP QA Program, NRC 1
2 investigators verbally indicated to HL&P that they had 2
4 discovered some problems with radiography, particularly in C
6 the areas of radiographic quality and interpretation.
In 7i al.
response to these NRC concerns, a review was performed of gi
}l existing production weld radiographs.
The results of this 3 r review indicated that some of the film quality did not satisfy procedural requirements, that defect indications 5
sometimes went undetected, and that indications observed by 6 i 7i radiographic interpreters were often not recorded on the 3,
g appropriate forms.
As a result of these findings, all NDE O!
conducted at the Site was suspended in January 1960 except 9
n
}
for that which was conducted under the direct supervision of iI the NDE Level III Inspectors.
This temporary suspension of al 7l almost all site NDE provided an opportunity to ensure that 6
8 no site NDE would b,e performed until NDE personnel were 9!
0l properly retrained and certified.
1 2;
In March 1980, a scheduled Materials Engineering audit 3i 4l of the we: ling program was completed, and several problems 5l were identified.
Specifically, the Procedure Qualification
,0 '
7!
Records did not always contain enough information to indicate 8!
9 0j 1!
l l
-LU-
1l 2!
3!
4l 5,
proper qualification of Weld Procedure Specifications, the 6i 7i QA Program of a subcontractor that performed certain types 8
of NDE for the Houston Materials Engineering Laboratory had g
not been properly qualified, and the QA Program of the k2 !
calibration facility used by the Materials Engineering
.3
'. 4 Laharatory had not been properly qualified.
'5
?,6 As a result of the findings in the Materials Engineering
'7
. g>
audit, a special follow-up audit of the welding program at
'C Q
STP was conducted in early April 1980.
This audit indicated n i j}
that although welders were trained and qualified in accordance 13 '
with the requirements of the ASME Code, some did not possess 14 15 enough "on-the-job" practical knowledge to assure performance 16 17,
of high quality field welding, that the QC Inspector assigned 13 gg to monitor welder qualification testing was not properly 20jy i certified to inspect welding operations, and that several 32 '
welding construction procedures did not comply with applicable 33 ;
3,'
2 specification requirements.
3:
36 [
37 !
Q. 26 Mr. Muscente and Mr. Purdy, what conditions did 38 '
B&R and HL&P set fo,r the lifting of the Stop Work Order?
39 i 40 ;
A.
26 (MDM, GRP):
B&R and HL&P jointly agreed to take l';j,
the following corrective actions prior to lifting the Stop
{},il Work Order:
- 1) confirm tr a qualification of STP safety-related fff welding proce'dures; 2) review construction procedures against 90 47 '
ASME Code requirements and revise if necessary; 3) review 48 i 49 l 50,
51 l 1:
2; 3l 4:
5i procedures to ensure that weld acceptance criteria have been 67I approved by Level III QA personnel; 4) ensure that all 8i 9j welder qualifications have been inspected by certified QC
'0 I 3 j Inspectors; 5) improve adherence to procedures for weld
'S{-t filler material control; and 6) develop a Materials Engineer-L4 ing Procedure for the control of weld precedure qualifications.
La, L6,
HL&P informed the NRC's Region IV of these planned corrective L7 i
($ '
actions on April 15, 1980, and the Region IV Director confirmed io,
{0!
his understanding of the actions on April 17, 1980.
n j,7-Work on these six items subsequently was integrated 3-;j, into a comprehensive restart program for safety-related 25 welding which will be discussed later in this testimony.
16 17 !
Items 1, 2, 3,
4, and 6 were satisfactorily closed out by 23.
29 '
NRC Inspection Report 80-38 dated January 30, 1981.
Item 5 30 '
31 was satisfactorily closed out by NRC Inspection Report 81-03 3
3 dated February 11, 1981.
3*2 Q. 27 What findings concerning the STP welding program 33 36 l were contained in the NRC Inspection Report 79-19?
37 38 '
A.
27 (MDM, G,RP ) :
Less than three weeks after STP 39 i 40 i welding was stopped, the NRC issued Inspection Report 79-19 41,
42.
which identified the following items of noncompliance with 43 I 44 l respect to the STP welding and NDE programs: 1) B&R Weld 45 1 46 l iller Material Specification did not contain the latest
,fI!
Document Change Notices (DCN's); 2) STP construction procedures a!
49 !
!h!
s- !
i l
i,
, 1 I
l 1l 2,
31 4!
5l failed to incorporate requirements for welding protection 6!
7l against adverse environmental conditions; 3) the quality of i
8gj several radiographs was such that proper interpretation was not possible; 4) linear indications contained in several
.2 I radiographs were not recorded on interpretation sheets; 5)
.3 3
.4 the evaluation of certain liquid penetrant indications was
.5
.6 ;
not in compliance with the ASME Code; and 6) radiographic
.17
,gl evaluaticn of some welder qualification tests did not comply o.
~'
0i with the ASME Code in that the penetrameter (radiographic 1
3; image quality indicator) was placed on the side of the test
.3 '
pipe close to the radiographic film (" film side") rather 4
5 than close to the radiation source (" source side").
6 7,
Q. 28 What actions were taken to resolve these items
.3.
9; of noncompliance?
O g,
A.
28 (MDM, GRP):
All of the items of noncompliance 2!
listed in Inspection Report 79-19 were satisfactorily closed 3 i 4j out by the NRC within a few months after the Report was a:
6!
7!
issued.
First, the Weld Filler Material Specification and 8!
all other outdated documents were brought up to date by 9;
Oj incorporating the latest revisions.
1l 2,
Second, STP welding procedures were revised to include 3
4 requirements for protection against rain, snow, wind and
~3 airborne particles.
Compliance with the revised procedures 6
7!
SI was stressed both in welder training sessions and in the 9l field.
0 1
e
i 1i 2;
3i 4
5 Third, a QAP setting forth methods for radiographic film 6I 7!
processing was developed.
In addition, the QAP with respect 8
g to radiographic film examination was revised to require the 0{
recording of all observed film conditions on interpretaton 2l sheets.
These procedures were implemented just after the 3
4 NRC completed its audit, and compliance was closely monitored
.o 6
by QA/QC personnel.
7l gl Fourth, all NDE personnel who conducted liquid penetrant C
f, testing were given additional training in inspection tech-1 niques and procedures.
While this retraining was taking
]
place, all such testing was suspended at the STP site unless 5
under the direct supervision of the NDE Level III Inspector.
6 7i Finally, source side penetrameters were required to be 5
9; used when feasible in both welder qualification tests and 0
field welding.
Radiography personnel were retrained and 3
n j,
recertified according to the correct procedures and were
,?,
lectured as to the need to follow applicable project require-o 6'
ments.
In addition, a test was set up to ccapare the qualifi-7l 8'
cation results actu, ally obtained with the results which 9
0 would have been obtained using source side penetrameters.
13; The test indicated no significant difference in results and 3
4 supported the acceptability of the welder qualification s
i testa.
i 6!
7l Q. 29 Mr. Saltarelli, what action was taken in response 8-9l to the NRC's Order to Show Cause?
O i 1!
i L
2, 3l 4l 5,
A. 29 (EAS):
Upon issuance of the Show Cause Order on 6!
7i April 30, 1980, B&R and HL&P formed a special Task Force to 8l determine whether the safety-related welding completed at g
- f,
STP as of April 11, 1980 was performed in compliance with
.2 i Code and Project requirements.
The Task Force was also 3
.;}
given the responsibility of identifying any repair work that
.3
.6,
might be required and establishing a schedule for completion
.7 i
,g; of such work.
oi
}',
Q. 30 Mr. Saltarelli and Mr. Sullivan, how was the
{g Task Force crganized and who were its members?
]
A.
30 (EAS, MS):
The Task Force was separated into a l5 Review Team and an Independent Review Committee.
The Review
'6 r7,
Team, which formulated the investigation plan and conducted 13,
's ;
the investigations, was chaired by the B&R Engineering 10 '
1, Project Manager for STP.
Its members included B&R engineers
}i and technicians from the Materials Engineering, Construction 9
$f !
and QA Departments and engineers from HL&P and NUTECH.
.o :
}j NUTECH retained additional specialists in nondestructive si
.'S i
examination from Southwest Research Institute to assist in 9:
0i reviewing the radiography, visual and liquid penetrant t
2i examinations.
3,
,4 l The Independent Review Committee consisted of two
'D,!
NUTECH engineers knowledgeable about the ASME Code and
-Q 7i iS l
'b !
- 0 j il I i
I
~43=
1; 2r 3l 4j 5i nuclear plant construction, and one SwRI engineer knowledge-6!
7i able about NDE at nuclear power plants.
This Committee 8 i 9l reviewed and approved the Review Team investigation plan, monitored the investigation to ensure that the plan was f7 properly implemented, provided technical assistance and L3 L4 assisted the Task Force in formulating recommendations for L3 L6 further investigation and corrective action.
L7.
Lg '
Q. 31 Mr. Molleda, how did HL&P participate in the oi g] i Task Force?
21
{};
A.
31 (JRM):
At the time that the Show Cause Order was issued, the Project was in the process of reevaluating 15 '
the welding program.
A Stop Work Order had been issued on 16 17 ;
safety related welding on the Project, and I was involved in 13 ;
19 ;
the evaluation of the alternatives for correcting the welding 10 31 problems that had been identified.
I was also designated by 12 !
g3,
HL&P to keep abreast of the work of the welding Task Force.
- 3. I 2is :I I reviewed the progress of the Task Force efforts to assure 16j that the NRC Welding concerns were adequately addressed, 1/ ;
18 that a comprehensiv,e investigation was performed and that 19 l 10 l the results NeDr properly reported to the NRC.
11 8 52 l I assigded Mr. Daniel Martinez, HL&P's cognizant Engineer 13 :
i g4 '
for ASME Code welding, to work on the Task Force.
Mr.
l"~
l Martinez work'd full time for about two months to complete e
g II the work of the Task Force subgroup that investigated appli-18 I9 cable Codes and standards that affected the weldinc program.
,o s
il i
1l 2L 3l 41 5!
During the field activities of the Task Force, I visited the 6l 7j site weekly to review the progress of the Task Force and to 9l 8
discuss the status of the various subtasks that it was
.0 performing.
Additionally, I met with the Task Force leader
.1
.2 '
in Houston to discuss the overall efforts of the Task Force,
.3
.4 '
received weekly updates on the status of the Task Force
.5 1
.5 '
efforts and reviewed the documents that defined and estab-
.7 l
,g; lished the proposed course of action.
Ultimately my group o.
}!
in HL&P Engineering reviewed and commented on the Task Force it I reports discussing their examination of the welding program.
Ci Q. 32 Mr. Saltarelli and Mr. Sullivan, what was the
'4 l5 '
scope of the Task Force investigation?
!6 17 ;
A.
32 (EA3, MS):
The Task Force defined the scope of
!S :
- 9 >
its revicw to encompass examination of randomly selected 10 g;
safety-related ASME piping welds and ANS structural welds l'
',3 l made by B&R from the start of construction until the time i
%ai safety-related welding was stopped on April 11, 1980.
All i
16 !
STP welding procedures and documentation were also examined.
17 !
18 <
The Task Force members developed a plan to evaluate four 19 i ic j specific areas of the welding program:
(1) the safety-related
((1 AWS welding program; (2) the ASME welding program including welder qualifications; (3) the Nondestructive Examination
-i
,Pl program; and (4) Code commitments as identified in the
.6 i7 !
engineering specifications and implementing procedures.
i8 !
is; 50 i ill t
2,-
a
1 i 2i 3I 4l
^~
5i
- g. 33 Mr. Saltarelli, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Molleda, 6\\
7i please summarize the conclusions contained in the Task Force 8l 9 i Interim Report issued July 28, 1980.
'OI A.
33 (EAS, MS, JRM):
The Task Force Interim Report, toi which formed the basis for HL&P's response to the NRC's
-~
L3 :
L4 Order to show Cause, was issued after completion of approxi-L3 L6 ;
mately 75 percent of the investigation previously described.
L7,
(g i The Report indicated that much of the documentation and most IC,
j~l of the procedures were in compliance with Code and Project njj requirements.
However, deficiencies were identified in the i
13 AWS and ASME welds as well as in the performance of NDE.
To 24 ;,
13 correct these deficiencies, the Task Force recommended 16 i 17 i repair of specific deficient welds and further investigation IS 29 '
to identify possible additional deficiencies.
The sW sequent 30 i 31 i reexamination, repair, and restart programs, described later 32 !
33 in this testimony, were developed by B&R and HL&P after 33 !
careful consideration of the findings in this Report.
30 l 36 !
Q. 34 Mr. Sullivan, please describe the Task Force 3s 38 l investigations performed after issuance of the Interim 39 ;
10 i Report.
11 42 ;
A.
34 (MS):
The Task Force completed its investigations 13 ;
g4 '
with some restructuring of its originally planned activities.
1 ~5 The Task Force continued its review of ASME documentation i
6 17 i and procedures but revise.d and increased the scope of its 48 19 l 50 i i
.l' a
-2e-
l l
1 4
i 2U 3l 4i 5l inspection program for ASME welds by examining additional 6\\
7l welds made prior to the Stop Work Ordar of April 11, 1980.
8 g
The Task Force completed its investigations and issued its 0
Final Report in April 1981.
This Final Report superseded y
2 the Interim Report.
3'
.4 Q. 35 Mr. Saltarelli and Mr. Muscente, what actions 6,
were taken in response to the recommendations contained in 7i gl the Task Force Final Report?
Q 0
A.
35 (EAS, MDM):
All significant Task Force recommen-1
},
dations with respect to procedural changes were implemented 3,l as part of the corrective actions required prior to initiating S
the welding restart program.
Moreover, all of the Task 6:
7 Force recommendations with respect to reexamination and 8
9i repair of accessible ASME and AWS welds and evaluation of 0'
1i inaccessible welds are being implemented.
2' 3
Q. 36 Mr. Sullivan, please summarize the conclusions fal contained in the Task Force Final Report with respect to AWS 6,
7l 8!
A. 36 (MS):
,The Task Force visually examined a random 9!
0I sample of seventy-nine safety-related AWS welds selected 1
2 from all areas of the plant in accordance with accepted 3!
4l sampling procedures.
This examination revealed sixcy-one 5l 6I welds with nonconformances such as undersized welds, improper 7l contour, overlap, undercut, and arc strikes.
8!
9l 0:1l li 2L 3l 4l 5i The Task Force therefore recommended that all accessible 6l 7i safety-related structural welds be reexamined, that all such 8i 9j welds not in compliance with the AWS Code be repaired and
- 0 that the adequacy of all inaccessible AWS welds be determined based on the types of nonconformances found in the reexamina-
-+
.3 ;
'. 4 tion of the accessible welds.
In addition, it was recommended
.B
'6 that all AWS welders and inspectors be retrained to the
.7 i
,g j requirements of the AWS Code and applicable STP procedures.
o,
{0l Q. 37 Please summarine the conclusions contained in si{}j the Task Force Final Report with respect to the AWS construc-13 tion procedures and weld documentation.
14,
15 A.
37 (MS):
The AWS welding procedure specifications 16,
17 were reviewed and found to be substantially in compliance IS l gg I with Code requirements.
AWS construction procedures were 30 :
31 !
also found to be substantially in compliance with Code 32 :
13 ;
requirements except for two discrepancies with respect to
- 3. !
2la li the frequency of code-required examinations and tests.
36!
37 l Corrective action was recommended.
39 !
The AWS shop and field erection weld documentation 59 !
10 I system was found to be generally in compliance with the Code, 11 i 42,
although inspected welds could not always be traced to a 13 :
g4l specific inspector or inspection report.
In addition, it 15 1 16 !
was not always possible to verify that only qualified welders 47 !
were making welds, or that qualified welders were always ta; 19 i 50 i 51 i
1l 2L 3l 4i 5l welding within their qualifications.
Although this detailed 6i 7{
information is not required by the Code or Project procedures, 8
the Task Force recommended that the AWS documentation system g
i LO !
be modified to ensure that all inspected welds are traceable L1 i L2 !
to an inspector and to an inspection report.
It was also L3 i L4 recommended that each welder and welding procedure specifi-L5 i L6 cation be identified for each weld to facilitate tracking of L7 i (g l welder performance.
L9 l Q. 38 Please summarize the conclusions contained in 20 21 '
the Task Force Final Report with respect to the ASME welds.
s2 23 '
A.
38 (MS):
All radiographs of completed and accepted 24 '
2S :
ASME welds were reviewed by certified NDE Level III Examiners 26,
27 in radiography.
Twenty-five percent of the radiographed 28 '
gg welds which previously had been accepted were considered S~O i y,
unacceptable because of radiographic discrepancies with 32 !
technique, film quality or interpretation of indications.
-34,j Approximately fifteen percent of the welds had radiographs 35 t 36 -
with rejectable indications requiring repair.
37 !
38 >
In addition to the review of all radiographed ASME 39 :
40 j welds, the Task Force repeated Code-required visual examina-4{'!
4 l
tion and liquid penetrant testing on a random san.ple of ASME welds that originally were accepted on the basis of these 45 !
types of NDE.i The review of twelve welds from the Essential 46 !
47 !
Cooling Water (ECW) system revealed arc strikes, weld 48 i 49 l 50 51 1
i 4
-al-l
1 1
2i 3!
4 5l spatter and other minor surface imperfections.
This review 6i 7I was deemed to be inconclusive, however, due to the small 8!
9; sample population (only twenty-six welds accessible) and the I
10 l nonrandom sample distribution.
The review of a random 12 j sample of ninety-three of approximately four hundred ASME 13 14 welds in the non-ECW system revealed that thirteen of 15 16 forty-three socket welds and one of fifty groove welds had L7,
lg !
penetrant test noncompliances.
Two additional groove welds to,
~~,
had visual noncompliances.
Si
,'}
Based on this information, the Task Force recommended 3'
that the following actions be taken:
(1) all accessible 25 ASME welds with known deficiencies should be repaired; (2) 26 i
27 i all other accessible ASME welds should be visually reexamined, 23 l 29,
liquid penetrant tested and repaired if necessary; and (3) 30 '
31 data from the reexamination should be used in the evaluation 32 ;
33 i f the adequacy of the inaccessible ASME welds.
3i Q. 39 Please summarize the conclusions contained in 3o 36 :
the Task Force Final Report with respect to ASME documentation.
37 :
38 l A. 39 (MS):
Several types of documentation such as 39 l 40 j weld data cards and weld material requisitions were examined il 42,
for approximately thirteen hundred ASME welds.
The results
$3 i
516j meets the ASME Code requirements, although a few minor 47 !
discrepancies such as inaccurate data entries were found.
48 '
19 l 50 I 51 i I
-az-
1 i 2,
3l; 4
5l The Task Force recommended that these be corrected and that 6i 7j the documentation review be improved.
8 Ig' The Task Force review of weld filler material documenta-tion including purchase orders, filler material specifications 2l and certified material test reports indicated that all weld 3
4 filler material was supplied by properly approved vendors 5
6 and that the specific material used complied with Code 7i gl requirements.
The Task Force also found the ASME construction o
~
procedures and welding procedure specifications to be substan-1 3
tially in compliance with the Code.
Minor discrepancies 3
were noted and corrections recommended.
4' 5
- g. 40 Please summarize the conclusions contained in 6
7, the Task Force Final Report with respect to welder S
9, qualifications.
0 1
A. 40 (MS):
The Task Force evaluated welder performance 2
test records and weld data Cards to Verify welder qualification 2'
tests and to determine whether welders were qualified to oi 6l perform the production welding already completed. The infor-S mation on the weld data cards supported the adequacy of the
~
9i 0j qualifications and except for one minor discrepany, was 1 i j;
found to meet Code and Project requirements.
The welder 3'
4l qualification test records revealed two problems:
5!
(1) film side'penetrameter placement for some of the tests; 6
7!
and (2) the use of ASME acceptance criteria for both ASME Sl
.c O;
l 1l l
6
Il i 2;
3' 4i 5l and AWS welder qualifications.
The Task Force recommended 6i 7l that the possible effects of the first problem be investigated, 8
g but found the second not serious enough to require further investigation.
l2 Q. 41 Please summarize the conclusions contained in 13 14 '
the Task Force Final Report with respect to the NDE Program.
15 16 41 (MS):
The Task Force compared the NDE procedures 2.
L7 ;
Lg '
for radiography, magnetic particle, liquid penetrant and 10 20 visual testing with applicable Code requirements.
All 392j procedures were found to be substantially in compliance with 13 the Code, although the Task Force recommended several revisions 24 25 to correct minor discrepancies.
25,
27 !
The Task Force review of the qualification files for 23 '
29 i NDE Inspectors identified various types of irregularities 30 31 in the qualification of twenty-one of the seventy personnel, 32;j including uncertified personnel performing NDE, an inspector 33 33 who signed as a higher level and expiration of an eye exam um 36 !
certification.
In addition, the review determined that 37 !
38 documentation regar, ding nine of the twenty-one inspectors 39 !
40 l showed insufficient training and/or experience in performing 41 42,
examinations.
The Task Force concluded, however, that 43 :
44 l program improvements implemented since the stop work order 45 '
of April 11,.'180 were sufficient to ensure proper control 46 47 !
of the NDE
~aector certification processes.
48 I i
49 '
I 50 :
51 i,
-J4-
l 1 1 2P 3l 4t 5l The Task Force reviewed the NDE certification examina-6' 7l tions and training courses a:.d found them to be appropriate O
for each certification level.
Recommendations to improve O
the overall certification program included updating NDE 1
2l qualification examinations by replacing old questions, 3
4 providing a Level III review of all inspector qualifications 5'
6 and reexamining all inspections performed by unqualified 7i g;
Inspectors.
o Q. 42 Please summarize the conclusions contained in 1
the last section of the Task Force Final Report with respect 2
3 to the identification of Code commitments in specifications 4'
5 and procedures.
6, 7;
A. 42 (MS):
The Task Force reviewed Engine ni.:g 3:
9; specifications and implementing Constructione;A procedures 0'
in order to determine whether applicable Codes and standards y
23; were adequately identified and whether the same commitments i
4' had been made in all documents.
The Task Force found minor 5'
6j 7,!
inconsistencies in the identification of the applicable 8l edition and addendum of the relevant Codes, and found an oi o) occasional failure to indicate revision numbers in certain
~
T i j;
procedures and specifications.
These inconsistencies were 31 4
not found to have had any detrimental effect on weld quality, 3!
but the Task Force recommended that the inconsistencies be 6;
7!
S 9 i 0!
9
- l l-
-sa-
s G
i 1!
2:
3l 4i 5!
corrected and that Engineering specifications and construc-6!
7!
tion QA procedures be revised to reflect the most recent 8I 9l project commitments.
Q. 43 Mr. Pur'y, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Muscente, who was 2I responsible for evising and approving the STP Construction
.3,
.4 and QA procedures so that the Stop Work Order could be
.6 lifted and the welding restart program initiated?
.7 i
,gl A.
43 (GRP, LDW, MDM):
The revision of the STP welding o<
}<
procedures was a joint undertaking by B&R, HL&P, and third-9 l}
party consultants.
B&R's Chief Welding Engineer and B&R j
personnel from Materials Engineering and QA, including QE, a
.5 proposed a number of changes to the welding procedures.
.6
.7 !
These changes were then reviewed and commented upon by B&R
.3
,9,
Construction and Level III Inspectors from B&R and HL&P.
- 0
- g Further review was provided by the Task Force and by an
'2 independent Level III Inspector retained by B&R in July 1980 3
['
to oversee the welding restart activities.
Final revisions
.o j
were agreed upon and the new procedures were approved by all
./
lS affected B&R and HL&P disciplines.
19
,0 i Q. 44 Please describe the revisions made to the STP el
,2 i Construction and QA procedures.
t 4]
A.
44 (MDM, LDW, GRP):
QAPs and MECPs, including Welder Performance Qualifications, Category I Structural ec i II ',
Steel (AWS) Safety-Related Welding, ASME Safety-Related 68 -
19 :
10,
il,
1 1 i 2 L 3l 4I 5i Piping and Support Welding, and Weld Filler Material Control, 6!
7; were revised in several respects.
Words and definitions 8!
g!
were simplified to increase clarity and facilitate ease of
- 0 l understanding.
The structure of the procedures was reorga-2l nized so that all related items for each affected craft were
.3
.4 grouped together and superfluous procedures eliminated.
.6 This reorganization eliminated inconsistent references among
.7,
,3 -
procedures for different crafts.
Finally, all Code and o.
specification requirements were incorporated directly into njj the text of the procedures so that the procedures were 3
"self-contained" without reference to outside materials.
l3 Q. 45 Mr. Wilson, has the HL&P program for welding 16,
!7 i changed as a result of the B&R audits in late 1979-early
!S l9 1980, the NRC's investigation during the same period and the 10 :
- 1 NRC's Show Cause Order?
I go I
A. 45 (LDW):
Yes.
Numerous improvements in our la l]'
program resulted from the intensive reexamination of the 16 i welding and QA programs which began in early 1980.
HL&P QA 17 !
IS I has increased its involvement in the consideration of noncon-19 !
formances concerning welding and NDE.
The NCR's are trended 10 il
- 2,
by our QA Systems group members who notify me of any significant i3 :
- ,; l trends.
In addition, my group reviews and approves the disposition of all welding or NDE NCR's and Corrective j
e=
Action Requests.
We can and have asked for HL&P engineering 18 i 19l 10,
ill i
-a/-
l!
2c 3l 4l 5i assistance in reviewing specific proposed dispositions.
6!
7l This approval process assures that proposed resolutions meet 8t 9l Project quality requirements.
This involvement with NCR's 0'
1 and the trending also increases our ability to recognize and 2 !
address any significant programmatic deficiencies.
3 4
We also work with the B&R QE and QA organizations in
.s 6;
evaluating programmatic deficiencies and proposing solutions.
7i g
This process has been greatly enhanced by our moving into o
O the offices occupied by our counterparts at B&R.
g Another significant change has been the creation of an 7
HL&P QC group to perform most of the HL&P field inspections.
3 By relieving my QA personnel of the time-consuming hardware
,,o 7
inspection process, we are better able to analyze the overall 8
9:
operation of the QA/QC program.
The HL&P QC Inspectors also 0'
1>
are available to do special inspections or verifications at 2
3 the request of my QA group.
i!
While the QC personnel do most HL&P inspections, my o'
fj group witnesses special inspections of particularly critical
/ '
8!
or difficult work..These inspections are not planned, but 9;
Oj rather, are performed whenever we believe the need exists.
1 2l A recent example was the reinspection of three aluminum-bronze 3i 4l pipe welds which confirmed that the original inspections 5l
- f*
P*ff f**d PE P* fly-6i 7'
8!
9!
0!
1l i
l i 2L 3
4f 5
Under the previous QA program, HL&P QA reviewed radio-6l 7l graphs on a monthly surveillance basis.
This random review 8.
proved insufficient in scope and frequency to detect the g
.0
.1li problems with film quality and interpretation which were
.2 noted by the NRC.
We are committed to ensuring that all
.3
.4 future radiography meets Project requirements.
We currently
.6 have an HL&D certified Level III NDE Inspector review 100
.7.
,g '
percent of the radiographs and test reports in addition to e
}i B&R's Level III Inspector.
This effort represents an addi-
,3 tional level of review that completely duplicates B&R's
- 2
'3 efforts.
This 100 percent review will continue until a long
!4 5
term trend of high reliability is attained.
We also witness
- S
.7 the performance of other NUE tests in the field on a random
!S,9 '
basis in order to check their compliance with procedural 10 '
g; requirements.
['7 l Another major change has been the use of implementation 13 ;j,!
reviews, in lieu of checklists, as the primary tool for ic 16 17 ;
evaluating B&R's QA/QC performance.
The checklists covered IS l a great many items,, but in restricted detail.
Because it 19.
- 0 j was time consuming to review each of the large number of
'4 U~ :
checklist items, HL&P did not conduct an in-depth examination t ae 7
of any single area.
In contrast, the implementation review 15 can be tailored to fit particular circumstances and expanded 46 47 to any depth.
It is, in esser.ce, an indepth review of L8 19,
I 10 '
il
1 i 2V 3!
4:
5!
adherence to program requirements.
The checklist system 6{i 7
normally detected occasional procedural deficiencies, but it 8'
9l was very difficult to detect systematic or programmatic i
0I problems and underlying causes.
The implementation review 1>
2; allows us to examine a particular activity from start to 3
.4 finish, in detail and in-depth.
This type of examination is
.5
.6,
much more likely to provide us with a good evaluation of the
.7 i
,g !
QA program being investigated.
Q
}
Another area of change has been in our personnel.
We have enlarged the staff, but more importantly, we are con-
.2 3
tinually upgrading the quality of our staff.
One of our new l4
- 5 employees is a former Authorized Nuclear Inspector and
'6
,7 ancther is an expert in NDE who is certified as a Level III
!S,
- g.
Inspector of radiography.
Each person working in the section 10 g,,
is given a series of tests to determine technically strong ge and weak areas.
13,
We then schedule training on both a quarterly 14 and yearly basis to enhance skills and improve weak areas on la 16 j an individual-by-individual basis.
In addition, all HL&P QA iT '
3S 1
personnel must pass required tests and participate in an 39 i 10 internship program to familiarize them with the STP QA l'gj program before conducting any implementation reviews.
Salaries and ' relocation benefits also have been increased in 14 i
<3 order to attract more experienced personnel and we are using 16
%7 !
a personnel search firm to find prospective employees.
18 i 49 l
50 '
51 ;
i
-+v-
l i 2 L 3l 4l 5'
Q. 46 Mr. Saltarelli, Mr. Muscente and Mr. Purdy, have 6!
7i additional organizational or programmatic improvements been 8i 9
made to the STP welding program?
If so, please describe 10 them.
11 1
A. 46 (EAS, MDM, GRP):
Several additional improvements 14 have been made to the STP welding program.
First, Mr. Muscente 13 15 '
was hired to provide management oversight of the entire 17.
Lg l welding program in the newly-created position of STP Welding TC
'~
20 Pr gram Manager.
His respcnsibilities include maintaining 2}1 proper coordination among the Engineering, Construction, and 3
[3 QA elements of the welding program and assuring that welding 23 program requirements are satisfactorily implemented.
25 27 Mr. Muscente prepared an STP Welding Program Description 13 29 '
which defines the responsibilities and interrelated functions 30 31 of the various welding-related organizations including 32 l 3
33 C nstruction, Engineering, and QA.
This document has been 3.2 issued to all affected B&R and HL&P personnel on the project, 23 36 37 ;
and should help ensure that each employee understands his 3S responsibilities an,d is capable of performing his tasks 39 !
10 i properly.
11 12,
To assure that welders are properly trained and qualified, 13
- 4l the welder training program has been divided into five 15 16 separate programs based on experience and quality of perfor-17 '
Separate training programs are given to experienced mance.
18 1 19l 50 !
il,'
i t
-+1-
1 i 2r 3 ;I 4
5 and inexperienced new hires, and to employed welders who are 6
7i performinj well, having occasional difficulties or having 8 i difficulties with particular processes.
As a result of g
these distinct types of training, the overall program has 2!
been tailored to each individual welder's needs.
.3
~
.4 To attract more experienced new welders and keep quali-
.3 fied welders at STP, a welder incentive program has been
.7 !
,g adopted.
This program offers increased hourly salaries for C
]'
certain classes of welders with specific qualifications and o
performance records.
A bonus is also offered to those who l2
- 3 meet all requirements for a period of six months.
l4 l3 To assure that welder proficiency is maintained at a
!6 t7 l high level and that welding problems are quickly discovered,
!S i gg systems for tracking welder proficiency and repair rates 10 have been developed.
-The Project Welding Engineering Depart-2-
2 ment now keeps records of the number of welds made by each d'
welder and the number of weld repairs.
Welding Engineering b
16 also decides, based on these records, whether additional 17 ;
IS,
training is necessa,ry.
19 '.
- c Six experienced welding supervisors and four qualified Li;j welding engineers were newly hired or transferred to the STP 13 site.
These additional personnel should help improve the y
f3!
overall quality of the welding and welding supervision at
,o i
II !
STP.
18l i
19 ;
ll 30 l t l I
p.
}
i I
-ss-
i 12L 3!
i 4j 5;
Responsibility for controlling certain welding activities 6!
7i has been redefined.
For example, to prevent the use of 8'
9j incorrect weld material, specific responsibility for controlling 0{I and issuing weld material has been assigned to one person a
who keeps records as to the material being utilized, the
'- i
.3,
4 users of the material, and where the welding was occurring.
,=
.6,
The NDE certification examination questions have been
.7.
,5l rewritten to apply more directly to specific NDE activities o
[0 at STP.
These revisions should allow more effective evalu-o
.?
ation of potential NDE Inspectors, and should improve the
.j quality of those Inspectors finally certified.
15 Finally, to improve the attitude of the welders, welding
~6
- 7 supervisors and other welding personnel, the "zero defects"
'3
- 9 concept has been initiated.
In addition, the importance of l0
- l quality workmanship and adherence to project requirements
'2
- 3 repeatedly has been emphasized in informal meetings and f
training sessions.
These meetings will continue until STP (6 -
construction is completed.
e/ l
- 8 '
Q. 47 Mr. Sal,tarelli, Mr. Purdy, Mr. Wilson and Mr.
91 0l Muscente, have revised procedures and programmatic changes 2\\
2, been effective?
3;
.,; l A. 47 (EAS, GRP, LDW, MDM):
Yes.
The new procedures 5I 6!
and programmatic changes have clarified the division of responsibility among the different disciplines, resulting in
,8 l
.o bl 1i l
r 1l 2'
3l 4i 5!
fewer impediments to getting the work done in an orderly 6;
manner.
The welding records are more accurate, resulting in 7!
8 9:
a smoother, more efficient flow of documentation.
- Finally,
.0 i
the welder training program is more thorough and supervision (em t
and inspection are more rigorous, resulting in higher quality
,3 L4 welds, as will be explained in more detail below.
L5 L6 Q. 48 Mr. Saltarelli and Mr. Muscente, in addition to L7 i
- 3-the procedural and programmatic revisions, what actions were rc l taken with respect to weld deficiencies?
0 nj}
A.
48 (EAS, MDM):
As a result of the Task Force conclusions with respect to weld deficiencies, B&R and HL&P 15 senior management decided in September 1980 that reexamina-16 17 tion of all accessible safety-related AWS and ASME welds and 13 19 repair, where required, was the most conservative course to 30 '
31 follow.
This reexamination and repair program is more 37gj extensive than that recommended by the Task Force, however, 3}.!
because it will encompass radiography of 100 percent of the 3
36 accessible ASME welds in the ECW system, requiring that
)
3/
i 38 those ECW welds buried under backfill be unearthed.
39
~
This 10 i program is being conducted pursuant to a detailed reexamina-11 12 ;
tion and repair plan suomitted by HL&P to the NRC's Region 13
- 4l IV on September 10, 1980.
1: I 5!
Q. 49 When were the reexamination, repair and restart to I[ !
programs for AWS and ASME welding implemented?
to 19 '
$0 51 i
~ ~ ~
-44
1<
2 3l 4
5; A. 49 (EAS, MDM):
In October 1980, the NRC's Region 6!
-j IV authorized that reexamination and repair of AWS welds, as 1
8 i well as a limited restart of new AWS welding, could commence 9 !,
,0 l on October 6, 1980.
Similar authorization was given for
.1 '
.2 !
ASME reexamination, repair and limited restart on Povember
.3
.4 24, 1980.
These authorizations were based on the following
'}
findings:
(1) management systems and special control proce-
-*i '
dures were established; (2) personnel training was completed;
.c ;
e,-
(3) adequate staffing existed to perform and manage the 11 work; (4) all commitments regarding sa fety-related welding 13 13 made in the Response to the NRC order to Show Cause were 14 15 fulfilled; and (5) all corrective actions for previously Sc{h; identified noncompliances related to AWS and ASME welding 7C jg were completed.
0' In late October 1980, the NRC authorized an expansion 3
of AWS production welding activities through December 1980 34 i in accordance with a previously submitted twelve-week work 35 '
36 ;
plan.
A similar expansion of ASME production welding in 37 '
33 accordance with a ten-week work plan was authorized in 39 '
40 i January 1981.
Reexamination and repair activities for AWS a,jj and ASME welds were to continue as originally planned.
j3:
The AWS twelve-week work plan was successfully completed 44
.-s
'3 46 l as scheduled,,and the NRC Region IV authorized resumption of 1
47 '
AWS welding on a normal production basis in January 1981.
48 j i
49 ;
!l 50 51 ;
l i
"T)"
9 1,
2 3l 4!
5 ASME welding is proceeding according to a new twelve-week 6
7l work plan, after which B&R and HL&P will propose a resumption 8;
9j of normal production basis ASME welding.
- O i
,l Q. 50 Mr. Wilson, what has been HL&P involvement in o
."3 l the development of the welding reexamination, repair and
.4 restart programs?
.6,
A.
50 (LDW):
As noted earlier, we were extensively
.7.
.5 l involved in the procedure revisions which necessarily preceded c1
{0' initiation of these programs.
We also reviewed and commented ng'j' upon the specific plans developed by B&R.
After the AWS and ASME programs began, we conducted an extensive implementa-15 '
tion review to assure adherence to program requirements.
16 17 i During this review, we checked to be sure that the relevant IS i 19,
Project procedures and welding restart program commitments 10 i 31 were being implemented.
We found that the B&R personnel 32 i i
generally understood the ne4 procedures and were properly 33 34
implementing them.
We did uncover a few minor problems 3
30 37 ;
which are currently being resolved.
38 Q. 51 Mr. Sal,tarelli and Mr. Muscente, please summarize 39,
10 !
the results of the ASME and AWS reexamination and repair il.
12 -
programs.
13 :
g4 ;!
A.
51 (EAS, MDM):
To date, approximately half of f
accessible AWS welds made prior to the Stop Work Order have II i been reexamined.
Only six percent of these welds contained 18 !
- g '
50 '
51
- s f
1 2 ;
3 l 4 j 3 i deficiencies directly related to weld strength such as 6
7!
undercut and undersized welds, while fifty-four percent 89l:
contained deficiencies related to workmanship stand:rds such LO '
L1,
as arc strikes or weld spatter, which are easily corrected t ~o t
{,
by grinding or brushing the weld surface.
All deficiencies 1 }4 have been repaired, inspected and accepted.
{
L6 Approximately half of the accessible non-ECW ASME welds L/
LE made prior to the Stop Work Order have been reexamined, and L3 10 '
eight percent contained deficiencies.
In addition, fifteen 11.
g2,
percent of the accessible ECW pipe welds have been reexamined
>i by both visual and liquid penetrant methods, as required by l~0 the ASME Code, and by radiography, which is not Code required.
3.3 s4 Surface testing showed deficiencies in one percent of the 13 -
19 !
welds, while radiographs of the same walds showed indications 10 11 l of deficiencies in eighty-three percent of the welds.
All 12 13,
deficiencies have been repaired, and the repairs inspected 14 ;
33 and accepted.
16 !
$7 j Because virtually all of the ECW welds were found to be 30 19,
acceptable pursuant.to the Code-required testing, it is our lo '
judgment that the welds would be suitable for their intended 11 '
I2 service even without repair of the deficiencies identified i3 i4 ;
by radiography.
Nevertheless, B&R and HL&P have committed iS I i6,
to radiographinc 100 percent of the ECW welds and repairing i7 gg all deficienc ies.
Thus, when the reexamination and repair l
program is completed, the welds will have been examined and i0,
8--
found acceptable under the strictest of standards.
l I
l i
2 3
-4 5
l Q. 52 Mr. Saltarelli, Mr. Muscente and Mr. Wilson, 6
i 7
please summarine the results of the ASME and AWS restart a l 9;
programs.
0 l A.
52 (EAS, MDM, LDW):
Since the restart of AWS 1 !
welding, the reject rate has been maintained at less than 3
4' one percent.
This means that one percent of the completed o'
welds inspected by QC personnel have been rejected as not 7
El complying with Project procedures and have had to be repaired.
9, o
The reject rate for ASME non-ECW class 3 pipe welds made 1 !
3 since January 5, 1981 has been maintained at about two em j
percent; six percent for radiographed ASME class 2 pipe 3
welds; 6,
and twenty-two percent for radiographed butt welds in 7'
aluminum-bronze ECW piping which is due to the difficulty of 3.'
9i welding on this type of material.
All of these reject rates 0
1 represent significant reductions in the rates achieved prior 3,
to implementation of the welding program improvements, 2l particularly the rate for aluminum-bronze ECW piping which
- C formerly was approximately sixty percent.
~
/',
Si 9i In addition to these relatively low reject rates, Oj reports issued by the independent third-party Level III 1
2-Inspector surveying the AWS and ASME welding restart programs 3i 4j indicate that the procedures, personnel training, and manage-51 6
ment systems associated with the welding are being properly I
8I implemented to assure that welds will satisfy applicable 9i 0l 1;
i l
1 ~=
l
l i
1, 2;
3 4
5i Code requirements and procedures.
Results of QC in.pactions 6i 7i indicate that all quality requirements are being met and 8i g
HL&P's Level III Inspector has noted considerable improvement 0{
in the performance of radiographic testing.
Finally, NRC
'. 2 i
inspections conducted subsequent to the restart activities L3 L4 have found no items of noncompliance relative to AWS or ASME L3,
L6 welding activities.
L7
'g' Q. 53 How would you evaluate the results of the reexami-oy nation, repair, and restart programs?'
n j}'
A.
53 (EAS, MDM, LDW):
The high percentage of acceptable AWS and ASME welds made under the restart programs and the 15 favorable inspections by both QC personnel, the independent 17 !
Level III Inspector and the NRC indicate that the corrective IS,
19 actions taken by B&R and HL&P to improve the welding program 10 '
31 are sound and are being implemented satisfactorily.
There-32 '
f re, we are c mpletely confident that these "new" welds 13 d,
meet all applicable Code and Project requirements.
We are
>=
10 also confident that in the future, the STP welding program 1/
IS will continue to be, fully implemented so that weld deficien-19 10 cies will be identified by QC personnel and repaired as 11
[2,
necessary.
13
Stop Work Order are being reexamined, repaired when necessary to 17 i la i 19l 10 ;
il ;
i.
1 2l 3l 4<
5.
and inspected by personnel who have been retrained, requali-6!
7l fied, and/or recertified pursuant to STP's revised procedures.
8 g
Because the restart program is proceeding so successfully ff pursuant to the new procedures, we are confident that the L2 reexamination and repair program will proceed equally well, L3 L4 '
and that when the program is completed in late 1981, the L3 L6 '
"old" welds will meet applicable Code and Project requirements.
L7,
(g '
Q. 54 Mr. Muscente and Mr. Molleda, in addition to the to
{f reexamination and repair work performed on accessible welds n
jgi made prior to April 1980, what action was taken regarding 13 inaccessible welds?
14 ;
15 A.
54 (MDM, JRM):
Consistent with the Task Force 25 17 i recommendations, B&R and HL&F fetermined that an engineering 13 '
gg analysis should be made of all inaccessible ASMF and Category 30 31 I structural steel (AWS) welds made prior to April 11, 1980 32 l 33 determine what kinds of deficiencies are likely to exist t
- 3. !
3:2 '
in these wel.ds and what effect such deficiencies may have on 36j.
the structura. integrity of the welds.
For purposes of this 3, ;
38 !
analysis, inaccessible welds are defined as those embedded 39 !
10 l in concrete or buried under concrete structures.
Approxi-11 i
- 2l mately 500 AWS welds, or 1.5 percent of the approximately 1, i
- }
35,000 AWS welds made as of April ll, 1980 are inaccessible.
If Approximately. fifty A5ME welds, or 2.9 percent of the approxi-to II mately 1700 ASME welds made prior to April ll, 1980, are 19!
inaccessible.
30.
3-i l
-au-
e t
i 1
2:
3i 4l 5
Q. 53 Mr. Muscente and Mr. Molleda, who was chosen to 6i 7,
perform the evaluation of inaccesible AWS welds, and when 8i 9;
were they chosen?
A.
55 (MDM, JRM):
In February 1981, B&R, with HL&P 2
approval, retained Battelle to perform the engineering
.3
.4 evaluation of the inaccessible welds.
Battelle is a research
.5
.6 and development firm with expertise in welding analyses,
.7
.g !
metallurgy and NDE.
B&R, with HL&P approval, also retained ei
}'
Professor Roy B. McCauley, a noted expert in the field of 1
metallurgy, welding engineering, testing, and evaluation to a
assist Battelle and make independent conclusions about the S
conditions of the welds.
Professor McCauley's resume is 6
7' attached hereto as Attachment No.
1.
S 9i Q. 56 Mr. Molleda, how has EL&P been involved in the 0i evaluation of inaccessible welds?
e A.
56 (JRM):
HL&P reviewed and approved the plan for 3
4 2
the study and concurred in the selection of consultants for a.
o the work.
We have met with Dr. Hauser and with Professor 7
S McCauley to discuss the program and have accompanied them in 9',
Ol visits to the STP site to examine and select representative 1
2 welds for laboratory testing.
As the program progresses, we 3
4, intend to continue our involvement in the work activities
= i being performpd by B&R and the consultants by particip-+.ing
.o 7'
in meetings, reviewing and commenting on reports and records,
-8' 9!
and participating in discussions with B&R engineers.
l 0;
il ;
_31 9'
s t
i 1i 2;
3 4
5 Q. 57 Dr. Hauser, please explain the staffing and 6i 7i organization of the evaluation team.
Sgf A. 57 (DH):
Battelle has designed an evaluation
'0
'l 3, ;
program and since March has been analyzing the accessible o
"- 2 welds in order to develop information for use in evaluating
.3
.4 the inaccessible welds.
Battelle is providing appronimately
.6,
thirteen scientists, welding experts, and ma.thematicians,
.7,
,3 !
plus support staff to condact this program.
Professor o-
]
McCauley has advised Battelle in desioning and implementing
'1 the evaluation program.
He will continue to review Battelle's work until completion, at which time he will review the S
final results of Battelle's engineering analyses, advise B&R
'6
- 7 i and HL&P as to the condition of the inaccessible AWS welds,
'S
- 9 and reccmmend any corrective action that may be required.
- 0
- 1 B&R and HL&P have and will continue to coordinate and direct 3},
all evaluation activities, provide data to Battelle from the
,'l&;
reexamination and repair program, and review and approve all 6
i program decisions.
.i l
- S Q. 58 Please, describe the scope of the evaluation of 9
i 0i inaccessible AWS welds and how the work is organized.
i 1
2-A.
58 (DH):
Battelle and Professor McCauley were 3i 4
charged with assessing the structural integrity of the i
ft1 inaccessible AWS welds at STP.
With Professor McCauley's C
'I $
assistance, Battelle determined that this goal could be 3!
9l 0i il !
i l
~52-
1; 2,
31 4'
5i achieved by reviewing and thoroughly analyzing the data 6\\
7!
generated from the ongoing STP reexamination and repair 8
9 program for accessible AWS welds.
Evaluation of this data will continue until Battelle decides, based on statistical 2l and engineering judcament, that an acceptable data base 3
4 exists from which to establish final conclusions.
Battelle S
6 is also reviewing the original STP design drawings of acces-7' g
sible and inaccessible welded connections, reviewing pertinent
['
literature about the significance of various types of weld i'
deficiencies on strucutural integrity, and examining and 3
testing representative samples of existing AWS welds contain-9 5
ing deficiencies.
6, 7'
Using this information, Battelle is conducting a program e
I 9
comprising three tasks:
(1) a statistical analysis to 0
determine the type, characteris, tics, size and frequency of 1,
2 deficiencies that may exist in the inaccessible welds; (2) a 4
4,f.
stress analysis, incorporating the statistical results, to 6
7' determine the actual load-carrying capacity of the inacces-S sible welds and the allowable loads which can be applied to 9'
O j.
welds with certain combinations of weld deficiencies, for 1I l
2:
comparison with the STP design loads; and (3) a metallurgical i
3 4
analysis of sample welds and weld deficiencies to provide j
5 additional information for the statistical and stress analyses.
7 All of these tasks are being performed concurrently.
8 i
9 i
Oj l
1i l
l i
-oh-o
E 1,
2 i' 3l 4'
5, Q. 59 What stress analysis methods did Battelle select, 6'
and why are they considered reasonable?
.I i
3i A. 59 (DH):
The stress analyses of AWS welded connec-9;
.0l tions will be performed using accepted design stress and
.1 i
.2 elementary fracture mechanics techniques.
Some stress
.3
.4 analyses may be performed using a sophisticated computer
]
method of finite element analysis.
All of these methods
- h '
have been utilized frequently in analyses of nuclear systems 3'
and have yielded conservative results.
Battelle therefore Il considers their use reasonable in the STP evaluation.
22 13 Q. 60 Is it your judgement that the various types AWS 14 25 Code deficiencies have different effects on the strength or ZS i 17 performance of welds?
13jg A.
60 (DH):
Yes.
The presence of a deficiency in a 30 weld does not necessarily mean that the weld will be unable e
f-to perform its intended service.
Indeed, the presence of a.
34 '
certain types of deficiencies will have little or no effect 35 i 36 on the performance of the weld.
For example, when a weld is 37,
38 moderately concave or convex, or contains weld spatter or 30 40,'
small amounts of porosity, there is little or no likelihood I
l;,
that the weld strength will be reduced.
43 i The material being welded can also influence the effect 44 i 43 f of deficiencies on the structural integrity of the welds.
10 I
47 !
The material used at STP is a low hardenability carbon steel 48 i 49 ;
50 ;
51 I i
I
_w
1, 2L 4i 3
which is not as susceptible to brittleness or to cracking as 6i 7,
many other types of steel.
Thus, deficiencies like arc strikes and spatter are likely to have an insignificant effect on the structural integrity of the STP welds.
- Moreover,
.2 !
a material like A-36 steel generally is very ductile; i.e.,
.3
.4 it is able to absorb strain without breaking or cracking.
.1:
6 Welds made of this material can therefore withstand deficiencies
.7,g '
that concentrate strain, such as undercut, surface roughness c],
and overlap, with little or no strength reduction.
it Q. 61 Has Battelle previously performed evaluations
'3 similar to the STP inaccessible AWS weld evaluation?
If so,
'4
'5 please describe them.
15 r7 i A.
61 (DH):
Battelle has performed numerous analyses
!S gg which are similar to the statistical, stress, and metallur-
'O
- 3 gical analyses being performed at STP.
For example, Battelle
!;?
has conducted a metallurgical failure analyis of a stainless
,a I
l2,'
steel joint from a nuclear power plant, has statistically
>=
16 17 '
analyzed the effects of weld deficiencies in Navy nuclear i
IS,
piping to determine,the actual cyclic load-carrying capacity 19 io i of the welds, and has compared the results of the analysis 33' with Navy design specifications.
Q. 62 Is it your judgement that the methods being used f *t I
"' I N
to perform the inaccessible AWS weld evaluation at STP are
.6 Il reasonable and sound?
,8 i
.9 l
- o
il l
-as-
1 2
3l 4:
5 A. 62 (DH):
Yes.
As I previously described, Battelle 1
6; 7l is using sophisticated computer techniques in conjunction 8'
9 with analytical methods which are frequently used in the
.0 l design and evaluation of nuclear systems.
In addition, the
.2 information being generated by the STP reexamination and
.3
.4 repair program is detailed and thorough.
Finally, Professor
.5
.6l McCauley and Battelle analysts are highly qualified and
.7
.g experienced in their respective fields.
This combination of c
};
factors undoubtedly will produce a reliable assessement of 9
the condition of the inaccessible AWS welds at STP.
2 j
Q. 63 What is the st-
_s of the inaccessible AWS veld 4
5 evaluation program?
5 7-A.
63 (DH):
The evaluation program should be completed Sl 9
and a Final Report issued in late 1981 or early 1982.
O g,
Q. 64 Mr. Muscente, who will perform the evaluation of 2'
ina cessible ASME welds and how will the evaluation team be 3
4I organized?
9i 6
A.
64 (MDM):
In early May 1981, B&R, with HL&P approval, 13l plans to identify a,n outside firm with special expertise to 9!
0, perform an evaluation of the inaccessible ASME welds made 1'
2:
prior to April 11, 1980 to determine whether they are suit-3i 4;
able for their intended service.
The subcontractor will develop an evaluation plan and will perform all analyses.
o i 7j S!
9l 0;
1 i i
i 8
24 3l 4i 5l B&R and HL&P will coordinate and direct all evalt:Ation 6i 7;
activities, provide data to the subcontractor, and review 8
9 and approve all program decisions.
l Q. 65 Please describe generally how the evaluation 12 l will be performed.
13 14 A.
65 (MDM):
I anticipate that the evaluation will 13 16 encompass three principal tasks, although these may change 17.
L g-depending upon the recommendations of the subcorttractor.
1C jf '
These tasks are:
fh 1.
A determination of the condition of the welds based t-13 on a review of the available radiographs and the data obtained 24 23 from the reexamination and repair program; 26 27,
2.
A review of original STP design specifications alm 23 29 '
operational criteria relative to the temperature, pressure, 30 31 and thermal cycles which the ECW and non-ECW systems must 3'
yj; withstand; and f2 3.
An evaluation, based on data from the first and s:
36 second tasks, as to whether the welds are suitable for their 37 3S intended service under actual operating conditions at STP.
39,
40 Q. 66 What is the expected schedule for the inaccessible 41 42 ASME weld evaluation?
43 :
44 ;
A.
66 (MDM):
The evaluation should commence in May 1981
't l se.
and should be. completed in late 1981, at which time the 4[ !
subcontractor will issue a Final Report.
1C !
49 '
l' 50 <
51 '
TH:06:G I
i
-b/-
e CAREER SUPPARY Attachment No. 1 ROY BARNARD McCAULEY Occypation:
Director, Center for Welding Resear-h Professor Departments of Welding Engineering and Metallurgical Engineering Welding Engineering Laboratories The Ohio State University 190 West 19th Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43210 Phone:
614/422-3241 Specilization:
Fabrication Meta'lurgist (1) Welding Enginearing Education (2) Quality Performance Audits (3) Welding Metallurgy (4) Discontinuity Studies (5) Testing and Evaluation' Degrees, Institutions, Date:
B. A. - Cornell College - 1940 M.S. - Illinois Institute of Technology - 1943 Teaching Experience:
Assistant in Metallurgy, 1940 Illinois Institute of Technology Instructor in Metallurgy, 1943 """
Acti 19 Chairman, Met. E:^.gr. 1944-46
~"
Assistant Professor, Met. Engr. 1947-50 Instructor, Welding Engr., 1950 The Ohio State University Assoc. Prof. & Chm., Welding Engr., 1954 Research Supervisor - Engineering Experiment Station, 1954-60 Assistant to the Dean of Engineering, 1957-59 Prof. Welding Engr.,19'56-Date - The Ohio State University Chairman Welding Engr.
- E36-79 Director, Welding Ressarch - 1960-79 Building Representatiw - Welding Engr.' Labs, 1969-79 Professor, Metallurgical Engineering,1972-date, The Ohio State University Full Time Industrial Experience
Columbia Tool 5 teel Company - 1938-39 Part Tira Industrial Experience:
' ice President, McCauley Alloy Co. (Chicago, IL) 1941-42 Consultant Manufacturing Metallurgy and Quality Assurance,1943-date Registered Professional Engineer, State of Illinois, 1946-date State of Ohio,1966-date Licensed Radioisotope Radiographer, Health Office, A.E.C. 1952-65 PDDR ORSINAL
s Honarary Affiliations:
Cornell Men's Senate Key The Society of the Sigma Xi Tau Beta Pi Phi Lambda Upsilon Pi Tau Sigma Sigma Gamma Epsilon Principal Publications:
(seeseparatesheets)
Contributor to:
American Society for Metals Handbook Society for Nondestructive Testing Handbook Society of Tool Engineers Handbook Lincoln Electric Company Procedure Handbook Other Career Summaries:
Who's Who in America Who's Who in the Midwest Who Knows -- and What Who's Who in American Education The Blue Book Leaders in Ameri an Science Honorarium Americana Engineers of Distinction Who's Who in Europe American Men & Woman of Science Scientific End Professional Society Affiliations:
Member - American Society for Nondestructive Testing, !? 2-date Handbook Committee - 1957-65; 1977-date -
Mehl Honor Lecture - 1965 Member - American Society for Metals Education Committee - 1947 Seminar Committee - 1948 Handbook Committee No. 8 - 1957-58 National Handbook Committee - 1961-63 Handbook Chapter Chairman - 1964-71 Member - American Society for Engineering Education, 19a0-77 Chairman, Curriculum Committee, Illinois-Visconsin-Indiana Section - 1944-48 Research Pelations with Industry - 1962-date Member - American Society of Mechanical Engineers Nuclear Survey - 197C-date Member - American Foundryman's Association, 1944-50 Handbook Committee, 1946-48 1
. l P00RORMAL
Member - American Welding Society,1956-date Technical Representative, Columbus Section, 1952-54 Director, Columbus Section, 1954 Secretary, Columbus Section, 1954-55 Vice Chairman, Columbus Section, 1955-55 Chairman, Columbus Section, 1956-57 xecutive Comittee, Columbus Section, 1957-58 e
(ice Chairman, National Educational Activities Com.1956-5B Chairman, National Educational Advisory Council, 1956-58 National Nominating Comittee, 1953-59 Meritorious Certificate Award,1959 National Membership Comittee, 1957-60 Director-at-Large, 1960-63 Adams Memorial Membership, 1960 Vice President, 1963-66 Chairman, Publication & Promotion Council,1963 Chairman, Technical Council,1964 Chairman, Districts Council,1965 President, 1955 Chairman, Administrative Council,1966 Chairman, National Nomination Comittee,1967 Board of Directors, 1967-70 Chairman, Executive & Finance Comittee,1963 Member Educational Activities Comittee, 1969-76 Pipeline Materials Task Force-Welding Research Council,1973-date.
Chairman, Com.ittee on Higher Education, 1977-date Samuel W. Miller Gold Medal 1978 Member - International Institute of Welding,1960-date Expert, American Council, New York City, 1961 Expert, American Council, Oslo, Norway,1962 Expert, American Council, Helsenki, Finland,1963 Chairman, Commission on Education, Prague, Czechoslovakia,1954 Chairman, Comission on Education, Paris, France,1955 Chaiman, Comission on Education, Delft, Holland,1966 Chairman, Comission on
- Education, London, England,1967 Chairman, Colloquim on Education, London, England, 1967 Chairman, Commission on Education, Warsaw, Poland, 1968 Chairman, Comission on Education, Kyoto, Japan,1969 Chairman, Comission on Education, Lausanne, Switzerland,1970 Member Subecenission SF Defects in Welds,1970-date Chairman, Comission on Education, Stockholm, Sweden,1971 Chairman. Comission on Education, Toronto, Canada,1972 Chairman, Commission on Education, Dresseldorf, Gemany,1973 Chairman, Commission on Ecucation, Budapest, Hungary, 1974 Chairman, Cc=ission on Education, Sidney, Australia,1976 Subcomission Chairman, Destructive Testing, 5-D,1977-date Chaiman, Comission on Education, Copenhagen, Denmark,1977 Chairman, Comission on Education, Dublin, Ireland,1973 Chairman, Comission on Education, Bratislava, Czechoslovakia,1979 Chair an, Com.:ission on Education, Lisbon, Portu;:a1,1950 Member - International Platfom Association, 1974-76 1976-date Smithsonian Associates, National Member 1974-date Organizational Member American Council, II'J 1977-date USA TechnicaT Advisory Group, ISO /TC44-SC5, Comittee on Mechanical Testing of Welds P00RGRl8lm
Married:. Audrey Paulsen McCauley, October 10, 1941 Children:
koy Ba'rnard McCauley, III, September 20, 1943 Paul Thomas McCauley, August 23, 1945 Robert Willf am McCauley, May 21, 1952 j
Andrew John McCauley, October,1955 i
.ipecial Activities:-
Church School Teacher, Maple Grove Methodist Church, Columbus, Ohio Member, Worthington Garden Club Board of Trust::es, Wesley Foundation, The Ohio State University Board of Advisers, Franklin County Agricultural Extension Service Faculty Associate - Blackburn House, The Ohio State University Other Honors:
1959 National Meritorious Certificate Award, American Welding Society 1950 Adams Memorial Membership Award, American Welding Society 1954-date Chairman, Cc= mission on Educatien, Internaticnal Institute of Melding 1955 Robert F. Mehl Lecture, American Society of nor. destructive Testing 1955 Silver Certificate, American Society for Metals 1955 President, American Welding Society 1957 1.ife Membership, American Welding Society 1972
- R. D. Tnomas International Achievement Award, American Welding Society 1974-date Chairman, Subco
- . mission en Destructive Testing, International Institute of Welding 1975 Distinguished Service Award, American Welding Society 1978 Samuel Wylie Miller Gold Metal, American Welding Society 1979 Silver Plaque - International Institute of-Welding 1979 Member, Ohio State University Welding Enginaering Alumni Club 1980 Silver Certificate American Welding Society Professional Recognition:
1945-date, Registered Professional Engineer, State of Illinois, #5560 1955-date, Registered Professional Engineer, State of Ohio, !31314 1975-for life, Certified Manufacturing Engineer, Society of Mfg. Ingrs..
P00RORSINAL,
6 e
LIST OF CONSULTANTS 1960 - date Roy 8. McCauley 1959-1962 Republic Steel Company 1960-1961 Dravo Corporation 1960-1962 Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric 1961-1962 Robert W. Hunt Company 1961-1962 U. S. Army Engineers - Washington, D.C.
1962-1963 Dayton Li9ht & Power 1963-1964 Capitol Manufacturing Company 1962-1964 Svendrup Parcel & Associates 1963-1964 United Air Products 1963-1964 Picklands Mather Corp.
1961-1964 Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Company 1963-1964 Colonial Pipeline Corp.
1964-1965 North American Aviation, Division Space and Information 1960-date U. S. Air Force - Arnold Air Force Base 1964-1971 U. S. Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District 1964-1980 Union Carbide,'Ruclear Divisi6n' '
1964-1971 Whirlpool Corp. - Research Laboroatires 1965-1972 U. S. Navy - Ordnance 1967-1971 Bethlehem Steel Corp.
1967-date National Board of Boiler & Pressure Vessel Inspectors 1969-date American Society of Mechanical Engineers 1969-1970 Harischfeger Corp.
1971-1972 C. E. Morris Company 1971-1972 Detroit Edison, Inc.
1971-1976 Travelers Insurance 1972-1974 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
1972-1974 Bishopric Products 1972-1974 Sun Shipbuilding 1972-date Batteile Memorial Institute 1972-1973 Zurich Insurance 1974-1976 Aerojet Nu' clear Company 1974-date U. S. Corps of Engineers, Huntington District 1974-date Allegheny Power Service Corp.
1974-date Zimpro Corp.
1974-date Aladdin Industrics 1975-1977 Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Company 1975-1977 Triodyne, Inc.
1976-date Technical Audits Associates 1976-1977 National Bureau of Standards 1977-1978 Consolidated Paper Company 1977-date Boeing Airplane Company 1977-1905 General Motors Company
~'~
POOR ORIGINAL
t S tort' Ciurses for Ie,dvstrial Engineering versonne s.
g Tne Ohio State University University of Minnesota Dravo Corporation Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Co.
Erie Mining Company
- Jeffrey Manufacturing Corp.
Union Carbide Corporation, Nuclear Division Oak Ridge Nuclear P.esearch Institute Bettis Atomic Division, Westinghouse Electric Co.
Morgan Engineering Corp.
U. 5. Army Engineers U. 5. Air Force Humble Oil Company Associated Welding Societies of Yugoslavia isarican Welding Society, School of Welding Technology North American Aviation Corp., Division of Space and Infort.ation National Board of Boiler & Pressura Vessel Inspectors Aladdin Industries Aluminum Company of America Union Carbide Corp., Plastics and Chemicals Division Nuclear Pegulatory Authority
-6.
3, u
r ARTICLES Roy B. McCauley causes and Cures of Defects in Magnesium Castings,, Metal Proeress, May 1944.
Causes and Cures of Defects in Heat Treating Magnesium Castings, Metal Progress, June 1944.
A Rapid Metallographic Polishing Method, Materials and Methods, June 1945.
Hardness Prediction in Welding, Engineering e.xcariment Station News, The Chic State University, February 1954.
The Ohio State University, (R. S. Green a Roy S. McCauley) "The Relationship Between Hardenability of Steels and Their Waldability", Cleveland Ordnance District U. S. Army Research coi=and, Project No. T34-10 (RF 509), January 1,1955.
Welding Engineering at The Ohio State University, Engineerine Excerir.ent Station News, The Ohio State University, February 1955.
Sebavior of Spot Welds Under Stress, The Welding Journal, February 1955.
Spot Welds Under Stress, The Welding Engineer, Nay 1955.
One Solution to Manpcwer--Welding Technology, The Nelding Journal, April 1957.
What Industry Ca'1 Do to Assist Engineering Education, proceedings Internatienal Acetylene Association,1957.
Welding Engineering in Engineering Education, Educational Sym csium, American Welding Society,1957.
Effects of Porosity on Mild Steel Welds, The Welding Journal, May 1958.
A Quantitative Evaluation of Residual Stress Relief in Pipe Heldments, The Welding Journal, April 1953.
The Technical Institute in Welding Educatica, The Welding Journal, April 1955.
New to Educate for Welding, Welding Engineer, August 1950, p. 33-35.
The Ohio State University, Lawrence Friedman & R. B. McCauley, " Influence of Metallurgical and Related Characteristics en Resistance Spot Welding or ualvanized Steel", International Lead Zinc Research Organization, Praject No. ZL97, EES 244, July 15,1965.
The Welding Industry Needs More Graduate Welding Engineers, Welding Design a Fabrication, March 1951, p. 8-11.
Semi-Autematic Arc Welding: A Basic Cost Cutting Tool, Part I, Tactory, June 1963, p. 80-85 P00R ORENAL
' q g McCau ley. - m....-
A Basic Cost Cuti:ing Tool,'Part 2, Factory, w
Semi-Automatic Arc Welding:
July 1963, p.92-100.
Chio State'Universit;y, Quentin Van Winkle & R.
Aeronautical Systems Division Air Force Systems Comand, Project ho. WADD-TR-60-520 (7331) (EES 912), February 1954.
1 The Effects of Porosity in Quenched and Tempered Steel, The W September 1964, p. 408-414.
Measurement and Improvement Methods and Materials Concerned Flaw Detection,1955 Conference American Society of Quality Co Research to Develop Methods for Measuring the Properties of Pene Inspection Materials, WAD Technical Report, Final (WA (Project 7381 Task No. 738102)
Part III, Feb.1953, Part IV,.Feb.1954.
Examination and Detection of Weld Defects, Natio (1955),p.29-79.
Discontinuity Evaluation, Proceedines of the 1966'Symocsium en N Testinc of Welds, p. 12-21.
Standards for the Acceptance of Weld Defects, Proceedines Fifth Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Montreal,1957, p. 472-477.
Quality Assurance in Welding, American Iren & Steel' Symocsium Congress, Detroit, October 1958, Metals Engineerinc Quar:arlv, Feb.
1959. Vol. 9, No.1, pp.95-101; 111so Selding Mich Strenctn Steels, Materials and Processes e.ngineering Book Shelf, American Soc Metals (1969).
Influence of Metallurgical Characteristics on Resistance Welding o Steel, The Weldine Journal, October 1959, pp. 454s-462s.
The Effects of Porosity en High Strength Aluminum 7039 Welds, The H Journal _, July,1970, pp. 311s-321s.
The Meetings of Comis:icn XIV - Welding Instruction at the Lausann Welding in the World, Vol. 9, No. 7/8,1971, pp. 265-259.
Report of the Stockholm- (Sweden) Assembly Mee pp. 160-172.
Report of the Toronto (Canada) Meetings of the Comission XIV Weldina in the World, Vol. II, No. 5/6, 1973, pp. 173-17S.
Ultrasonic 1.ongitudinal Mode Welding of Aluminum Wire, The Weld June 1974, pp. 252s-250s.
. P00R ORENAL
R, B. NcCauley - Art +cles -
b
- 1975,
. hic Strikes on High Strength, The Welding Jo'urnal, Decem er pp. 879-884.
Report of the Dusseldorf ( Germany ) Meetings of t Waldability Considerations for ASTM A633 High Strength Lew Alloy Steel, The Weldine Journal.
Report of the Budapest ( Hungary ) Meetings of.the Report of the Tel Aviv ( Israel ) Meetings of the Com
' Hyperbaric Welding, Weldine Design and Fabrication, April 1977, pp.98-100, The Welding Engineering Program at The Ohio State University, Me Conference, Australia Institute of Metals.
Report of the Sydney ( Australia } Meetings of the C Report of the Cepenhagen (Denmark) Meetings of the Comissien Instruction, Weldin; in the World.
Report of the Dublin (Ireland) Meetings of the Co=ission XIV Weld Weldina in the World, Vol.16, No. 7/8 (1978) pp.152-155.
3 P00R ORIGINA
THESES DIRECTED BY PROF. ROY B. McCAULEY 1
Wal ter Rex Edwards....................
1953 Correlation between observed and predicted effects of heat input on the physical and metallurgical properties o,f the heat-affected zone for bead-on-plate welds.
2.
Richard E. Xutchara....................
1953 Mechanisms of embrittlement in titanium alloys.
3.
J ohn F. Ru dy.......................
19 5 3 The effects of the macro-metallurgical structure of a spot weld on its physical properties.
Gordon E. Cossaboom..................... l 9'54 4.
An investigation of the correlation of weldability and hardenability of steels ~by use of charpy v-notch impact specimens.
5.
David R. Mitchell.....................
1954 A study of the weldability of certain Alpha-Seta titanium alloys.
6.
Xe nne th J. I rwin.....................
19 5 5 An analysis of the correlation between variable microstructure and energy impact values.
7.
Pa ul' W. Tu rne r......................
19 5 5 Data en.the weldability of certain Alpha-Bata titanium alloys.
8.
J a ck E. Coo k.......................
19 5 7 A quantitative evaluation of residual stress relief in pipe weldments.
9.
George X. Hickox.
1959 A study of strength factors on induction brazed butt joints.
- 10. Robe rt X. Fink......................
1960 Studies in the mechanics of brittle fracture in steel.
- 11. Will iam H. Hill......................
1961 A study of residual stress and cracking in preheated welds of a thin ultra high strength steel.
- 12. J:hn Deen Bramblett....................
1953 Arc physics - CO fineweld consumable electrode 2
wel ding.
e.
v s
2
.13. J oe D. Nunr.i khoven....................
1963 A method of measuring the reflection of a rudy laser li ht beam from a metal surface.
9
- 14. James Willard Bradl ey...................
1963 The effects of porosity on high-strength 2 teel welds.
- 15. Ronal d P. Hudec.......................
196 5 Measurement of residual stress in a variable restraint weld specimen by x-ray diffraction.
- 16. Joseph E. Stari......................
1955 Incomplete penetration in low-carbon martinsitic stainless steel weldments.
- 17. Lawrence M. Friedman...................
1965 Influence of metallurgical and related characteristics on resistance spot welding of galvani:ed steel.
- 18. Robert D. Anspoker....................
1955 The effect of selected heat inputs and arc atmospheres hydrogen parcentages on gas tungsten arc welding on 18% nickel maraging steel.
- 19. Dona.ld Harvey Orts....................
1957 The effects of zine coating in resistance spot welding galvanized steel.
- 20. Ron al d J. Shore......................
19 5 8 Effects of porosity on high strength aluminum 7039 welds.
- 21. Ching Hua Chien......................
1971 Arc strikes and their influence on pipe material properties.
- 22. J ame s C. Y eh.......................
19 71 Ultrasonic longitudinal mode welding of aluminum wire.
- 23. Xenneth Coryell......................
197 3 Weldability considerations for ASTM A633 high-strength low-alloy pipeline steel.
- 24. Mi chael L. Killian....................
1974 Hyperbaric gas tungsten-arc welding.
- 25. Carlos Nol asco......................
1974 Welded HAZ tougness characterization of the line pipe ASTH-A-633 steel.
l
-o.
~ -
- 26. Thomas A. Nevi tt.....................
1975 Application of hypertaric gas tungsten are welding to high strength low alloy steels.
- 2 7. Eori s Anzulovic.... -..................
1975 Analysis of vibrational stress relieving.
2 8. Scott A. Anderson.............. -.......
1979 The influences of hyperbaric plasma arc welding on the thermal and mechanical properties of a HSLA microalloyed steel.
e b
8 f
s