ML20091J269
| ML20091J269 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1984 |
| From: | Gerrets T LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Jay Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| References | |
| 74, NCR-7680, W3K84-1261, NUDOCS 8406050456 | |
| Download: ML20091J269 (17) | |
Text
s a e
142 DELARONDE STREET POWER & LIGHT P o. Box 6008. NEW ORLEANS. LOUISIANA 70174 * (504) 366-2345 UiluTiES SYSTEM May 28, 1984 W3K84-1261 Q-3-A35.07.74 Mr. John T. Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012 E' ' n
)
Dear Mr. Collins:
}.jff 3 l jgS1
SUBJECT:
Waterford SES Unit No. 3 Docket No. 50-382 Significant Construction Deficiency No. 74 "T&B Undersized Socket Welds" The attached information is submitted as requested by Mr. R. Hall at the USNRC Inspection 84-24 exit.
Very truly yours, T. F. Gerrets Corporate Qualiry Assurance Manager TFG:CNH:VBR Attachment 8406050456 840528 PDR ADOCK 05000302 S
PDR I E-2 7 1
1
l M E M O R'A N D U M May 23, 1984 To:.
S. Horton/J. Pertuit b A67 From:
J. DeBruin
~sf./PW
Subject:
LOUISIANA POWER &' LIGHT COMPANY i.
WATERFORD SES - UNIT NO. 3 NCR 7680 IMPACT ON SCD 74; SCHEDULE 80 UNDERSIZE SOCKET WELDS Ref:
(1) QA Memo W3QA28185 dated April 27, 1984 (2) Attachment No. 1, NCR 7680 (3) Attachment No. 2, Memo from R. Sankar
-(4) Attachment No. 3, Summary of SCD #74
- CR 7680 was ' initiated as a result of LP&L QA identification of 12 undersize N
schedule 80 socket welds on piping isometric CC-IC-47.- Six of the welds require
-repair in order to meet ASME Code requirements. These welds were not originally in the inspection sample conducted as part of SCD 74.
One requests engineering to assess the impact of this NCR on SCD 74 evaluation.
It'is my assessment that this NCR has no impact on the original SCD evaluation.
The basis for this decision is as follows:
(1) Under the ' scope of SCD 74, 660 Schedule 8i0 fitting. socket welds from a
. croes section of piping systems were ultimately reinspected, ufive socket
-welds did not meet code requirements and; therefore, required repair. This was deemed.an isolated number of repairs and not indicative of generic concerns.
In addition, none of the -53 schedule 80 fitting socket welds re-examined as part of NCR 2461 were found undersized.
(2) -A review of the weld maps documented in NCR 7680 reveals-that only one of-
'the six welds was uniformly undersized. The remaining five welds has only isolated section of weld which did not meet code requirements. Four of the six welds exhibited undersize conditions for 45* or less of.the weld circumference.
One weld had two isolated sections of weld undersize.- Of-the 725 schedule 80 fitting socket welds re-examined as part of NCR 7680, (12), NCR 2461 (53). andNCRQ670(660) (SCD 74), only the one weld F
discussed-above was documente to be uniformly undersized.
ObO pepo W23/9Y (3) Jrhe worst undersize conditions documented in NCR 7680 are bounded by the finite element analysis performed as part of SCD 74. Attachment No. 2 confirms the weld size successfully analyzed for 2" nominal diameter schedule 80 piping. The analysis verifies that even with the worst forces
~
and moments that can be applied, the code allowable stresses are not exceeded.
2-May 23, 1984 S. Horton/J. Portuit Given the above, no further action is required.
SCD 74 shall remain as originally dispositioned.
Attachment No. 3 provides a summary of SCD 74.
This summary was prepared at the request of the NRC during a recent discussion relative to SCD 74.
JD/ll Attachment
-cc: With Attachment J. Houghtaling T. Cutrona M. Yates L. A. Stinson T. Grant ESSE File P.2 t
e n
e
,--e.
,r,,,,
,v,,
,,, - -,,e n-,,
's,
. 4,$.
- ., 600, sis i s.77 E3ASCO SEKylCES INCORPO7t ATED Distributs :
n Ot.' ALITY ASSURANCE aroqT wo.m /r 3 3 '%90 soscoiroauiscsaseca;&
g"-
,or.
+.
l o
3s INSTRUCTIONS: (See k of formt e f.l,XOO.co.5Sfyf 4(
\\
h.SJEc7 423 OR AWING No./s p EC N o, 131 Lthh'A&~$A WD Sc1 usn*I"Z" 1.~~W, E3029 4W3-CC-97 so. g ce }.T R u c T ion oc oR CONTRACTOR i..
.. o. N o....
y,,
j,g g y.C-//c-4 N YASCKbl 7?'19?nsas -EfeXWi>%r suf
$9 y n, ;.30.2 9 L W ).j u.3 p or coupoNENT. pART oR sysTEMiel j
ggf g UNOGRCs M un:L M wG Ar9 A -240A AT&~ r in_tf A 1.
DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFO RM ANCE (Irems Involved, Specification, Code or Standard to Which I* cms Do Not Comply, r
Submit Sketc li if Applicable)
FIIEL D v FR1i'linnn) nl: HA/DERTUG' r} ELDS
/DFA TN/b D RP' /HfMD /1/M-? 3-0 W 3
/
Cl17) / ')AR/'ll /Y / 91'3 (A 77A CNj*1FAlf" Ab. )
Rfl/fA/A 17/E' OdA/DJUDA/C AS REALG7'fd I
M/ A 17An H M A~ Alt AAL .
f:R/2Kn &4. AsspdA/DFS 70 THC PfM4/A/ DER 0/~ }~/sr/Duft~s STA7/D 0/ s%ffMG
/
(A/7ADHmi.~NT A4.)) Aff #A/ A FA'eh AffA/7 /U. 5.
[ A77A0//M ~A/7T w7Al 9 P4&fS.\\
)
7 76/*19 : cme N AM2 AND SIGN ATURE OF P Q REPORTfNG NONCONFORMANC E tel TI T I.E / c oM P A N Y DATE 19)
-r <r ~
PGAS EA.&SC0 4 * / 2~ f4 i- ' W.,rd GCc"R c
8 t.
RECOMENDED Dl5W51'$56'N '*' (Submit Sketch if Applicable)
MMgg g
g1 esc 5l'~~
'70 A~'/ALtJA'T26 (A M'1. 0,
Or' 101'1RELUi% OM' fme M m /m 7 hen 77 cm) AMWe% wru.
,a
,n m,,
mW Nd. 2 M od*d. yd -U by:/uMf/59 l
G5SE Tc5 ODRAGCT' /30n1GTRic-beAtordGS M
/&TSn MI A7fACHM93T & 3 lI l
j NAM 2ANDsIG '
RE OF PERSON REC N
G Oss os ION till TIT LE /C OMP A N DATE 121 A
SO kWC0 Y /$ W l}
toJB^)
/
a m EVAltNTION OF Di$PO$lTION BY(EBASCO, REA50k FOR Dl5P051Tiotl"38 I l l.
l. Cc, a c o it ta.h m A1 TAC.H *4 MAv-$ $x. -t't4ts UCf 9 Ae.-f a v 4c,0 N4 Am e nj-Fee-u w 4 A M,
kc Jw w4 M o 7sA c., %Aos.J h. jgftAc,w.# '$ 5 * $
- t..
I V. CORRECTIVE ACTION "
"*' '9 " " N W4MVM I"
O.x
- o.\\44 4 4M9 c Af r Qof39 4%U bd. SNt'd M Fen
%J-S. 6_ 3o. %i 4~T l
4 % v 6.c AM % s oG uJee W G M *C 6^45 [5/t6/M R r-E.E A.h,Eu k
~
vim 8 EMG!NEERING g
% QU ALITY ASSUR ANCE,.
U CONSTRUCTICbD hTHM N
9 CE islGN A TUREl
'NAME (slG N A TUR EI NAME (slGN A TURE D NAME 'slG N A TUR EI L
W "' &
?AttAJAMW M1 O
DATE
'Q A
'(
QATE DATE C ACCEPTED 0 REJECTED ACCEPTED O arseCTro O ACCEPTEo O ae><cTEo O ^ccePTro C ardecreo
.O ACCEPTED WITH COMMENTS # _ ACCEPTED WITH COMMENTS O ACCEPTED WITH COMMENTS C_ ACCEPTED wlTH COMMENTS
' dRl"F[ CIT'l0N F DIS I
a otsinE C NOT REQUIRED V
Het seasco vs=oon o4 on om seeinsseine
a-0aa.o Lo m
fo< ut.fi a
- A]
LOUISIANA gg m onaao~oE staur POWER & LIGHT /
p o soxsoc8 NEW oaLEANs. LoutSIANA 70174 NEssysS$
March 18, 1983 O
W3K-83 0343 Q-3-A35.02.33 Response Reg'd: Yes By: ASAP l
TO:
L. A. Stinson Manager, Site Quality Program Ebasco Services, Incorporated FROM:
L. L. Bass ~
Project QA Engineer
SUBJECT:
Waterford SES Unit 3 Verification Walkdown for Start-Up System (SUS) 46E (T-B)
LP&L Construction QA has completed its subsequent plant walkdown of the Tompkins-Beckwith portion of SUS 46E and is rejecting Tompkins-Beckwith physical hardware for discrepancies. The attached pages provide a listing of these discrepancies.
Ebasco should take corrective action in ordcr to assure that %e physical hardware is acceptable. A re-review shall be conducted following completion of Ebasco's corrective action.
Please respond to these discrepancies by identifying the corrective action taken and what was done to preclude repetition.
LLB:grf Attachment cc:
T. F. -;errets g
gSh f
gg g
Nuclear Records (2) gj Central Records I n:
LP&L Site QA File HAR 211983 Q.A.
TNs is Attachment de71a to NCR W3.,uf0 pog, \\
(
csEis-350i of a
U
l i; * - *
- LP&L CONSTRUCTION QA CO}DfENTS STATUS REVIEW SUS 46E PIPING (T&B) Walkdown Verification Document Number or Identification Comments Iso. No. LW3-CC-47 Wmld No.
- W-2 Walkdown shows 90 ell WCR states 45 ell FW-4 We.1d undersize W-6 Wald undersize FW-71 Weld was made on CC-48 not CC-47 SW-1 R-1 Wald undersize 3
Weld undersize 6 RW1 Wald undersize SW-18 thru SW-25 These welds don' t exist on pipe in field. All these documented on LW3 CC-48 by mistake.
SW-26 RW-1 Wald undersize SW-29 Wald undersize 1
SW-30 Wald undersize I
SW-31 Wald undersize SW-37 Wald undersize SW-38 Weld undersize I
~
SW-39 Weld undersize ACIC-6 SW-59 Wald is pipe to tee, not 9d ell as shown on WCR AC-LW3-50 SW-64 Iso shows valve V720, WCR shows V727 valkdown verified valve to be V729.
- w. w Aw..as \\
N 393 P
to NCR W3--
n ei5-93 8A l
\\
Of g-g
.. - e i q,.,,
_P&L CONSTRUCTION QA CO.'DtENTS STATUS REVIEW SUS 46E PIPING (T&B) Walkdown Verification Document Number or 6"
-Identification Commenes AC-IC-1222__
W3 & 18 The insulation was removed between N18 and north side of J wall.
This spool.was cut and no spool number or heat number could be found to verify the traceability of the pipe material.
FW 6 & 17 The insulation was removed between FW6 & 17.
This spool was cut and no spool number or heat number could be found to verify the traceability of the pipe material.
W7 & 27 The insulation was removed between FW 7 & 27.
i This spool was cut and new material was added.
The heat number on the pipe was N97405 but the weld record had N94705 W-14 & 34 Did not have adequate time to remove the insulation 19 & 20 and reinstalling it today by 3:30. These two pipe spools were not inspected but the question still exists about the material traceability.
AC-IC-1222 Detail A'for Vent Line is oriented 1800 to the isomatic drawing.
4 n
TW M Attachment __L.__
!n CT: V"3.3391Q
,.cgc3_,,
W-3--.. g./A-333 1
,.--.,-..m---
SKETCH NO.
TOMPKINS-BECKWITH AS-BUILT SKETCH hfB" O'
S HIT / o F +
M 4-/L-84 FIELD ENG. C.. J DATE 4/1z/d4 AREA SYS.
DRAVO ISO NO. Lu/ 3 -<-C - 4 7 PLAN DWG NO, SPOO L SK. NO.
REV'D PER REVIEWED BY PROJ. ENG.
At.L 1A/E7 D.S At?.5 t%)N i e D e
}
?. '/4 p-Y+
F= Il4 F1 3//(,
P= '/4-ps 3//c.
P= V4 PN f* '/q f* V4 f* '/4-
\\
l F = Y4 9S 40' p, fa -
p= '/g.
F = 3),a F y4 WGI D N o.
SVI-h I SW 30 WsLD n o.
G'/-. L o o a/N d' W&~5 7~
f/. l_o ex sy 4 N, E, P= *ll&
p= Y+
F =ta.
p= y, p= 3//9
- p. %
p, %.
p= ys.
78 3//4
. \\
[Fs 3//4, Fs '/+
7: t/p ovex u f P=
SW7-G This is Attachtnent 2 L o oesNg N'N NCR W3 7f 99 h
_- cadk 's l-o ok/N G NOR 7 H ct 4 A2 1m._Hi y_.
SKETCH NC.
~'
TOMPKINS-BECKWITH AS-BUILT SKbl CH f i&1xs GA.
,:ri m z s M FIELD ENG DATE 4 is a AREA
- SYS, DRAVO ISO NO. Lv/3 -cc #-7 PLAN DWG NO.
SPOOL SK. NO.
REV'D PER REVIEWED BY PROJ. ENG.
Al. l. v/Ez)),s A 2E~ PA !N TEID i
l
?. ' f p.
'/4 F* 3l}6 f' 3lp,
- p. Yr p. y+
p-v.
- p. =hu
/
F* ' t Fx 3fy, F= Nj(,
\\
Fs sj,9 p 'h p= 3/is' E" '4 P'
l 3lj(,
l Wet D No, SW ~ fs F W Wgt.D n o, EL. 4 00 K/MG No R rH E7. L a oici26 so at 7H p= '/+
P: 0/jo F= T//t, F=
3);y p.
- p. %
- p. %
e
/is -
F1 C/fy
\\
Ps 9,q, F= I/g.
y F= 3);(,
p= 3/10 P= %
5/'19 F* 9/4
,g WELo No.
S w-/
WEco No, su/-O This is Attachrner#MS PLAN
,, ya w2, 7gy of,,, z FL 4 A/
w-nu
~
SXETCH NO.
' ~ ~ '
TOMPKINS-BECKWITH AS-BUILT SKETCH f ECan? G.A.
-f-/2-a f y 3,s FIELD ENG. cdM, 4 DATE 1//2'/84 AR EA SYS.
DRAVO ISO NO.
/ W3-C C-47 PLAN DWG NO.
SPOO L SK. NO.
REV'D PER REVIEWED BY PROJ. ENG.
Act wetns ARC PietN7e*D
- p. '/+
- p. 9/o F= 3p6 F=
\\
yg.
Ps Y+
l/&
p
- /iG A'$ '
p,3//c.
ps F' 3ll4
\\
F= slq F= 3/,g, Fs 3/g P1 3l14 p= 3l9
/
F=
sjg
-F=
3,,9 war.m N o.
F W - 7_.
wet _D n o.
SW-G 2.. J. DOM /N4
- 5. W, Et, L n,is i ver A/O LTII Mr V+
p='/s x
f' '/t F= 3/ja P. 3/10
- p. /1y p, V6 Pe '/8-e/4
\\
Fe Fs yy Ps 3/jy
\\
3j,y F=
o 3C0 p=
- /10 P= V3
~~
3///,,
- ~~ '/+
l wet.O No, sw-2 9 w ge_.o yo, Sw _3 p j
ty pl.m This is Attachrnen* #2 gm w-na,u
= ?C W;
"'2'
^
l
= - -
=eth h.td
e' SXETCH NO.
~:
TOMPKINS-BECKWlTH AS-BUILT SKETCH
~
/f 19rSCO GA.
W 4 iz.g +
M 4dM FIELO ENG.
DATE f//2 /8+
AREA SYS.
DRAVO ISO NO. 4W3-C C d7 Pt.AN DWG NO.
SPOO L SK. NO.
REV'D PER REVIEWED BY PROJ. ENG.
FLL. WGLDS Atte PAwTED i
~
3 ify Fs fs i
Pr '/ 9 ps I/8 -
P-P-
3 l
Ps ojp
\\
4f F= gj F=
F=
i i'-
f r J//G Ps F2 ll F *.
I.
i wer a N o.
SW-37 wer_a n o.
t 4N pt nu l
5 F=
F=
Pa pn 9,
P=
\\
lFs Fe Fs P=
l
~
fs F-l WELD N o.
WEco N o.
This is a c ent #2 3,,.
t.MN ?!?
.. _..... e* 4 8 4 "WW V.
_..,,. -.10k.f*W m -
7 ISO. No. LW3-CC-47 FW Comments:
Walkdown shows 900 ELL, WCR states 45 ELL.
Ebasco Q.A. Finding:
8 A review of Weld Control Record (WCR) shows HT S201, E
E review of CMTR shows HT S201 to be 900 LL.
Based on this review and field verification we find no basis for the concern.
FW Comments:
Weld was made on CC-48 not CC-47.
Ebasco Q.A. Finding:
Field verification shows that FW-7 exists in the Field on both lines ISO. LW3-CC-47 and LW3-CC-48.
SW-18 Thru SW-25 Comments:
These welds don't exist on pipe in field. All these documented on LW3-CC-48 by mistake.
Ebasco Q.A. Findrug:
These welds exist in field on Line #3CC2-240A, ISO.
No. LW3-CC-47, ISO Package Weld Control Records are locatdd in ISO. Package LW3-CC-47 in the vault.
ISO. NO. ACIC-6 SW-59 Comments:
Weld is pipe to tee, not 900 ELL as shown on WCR.
Ebasco Q.A. Finding:
Verification of records show that Weld Control Record (WCR) has recorded HT C344 for veld SW-59 fitting, I
I CMTR shows HT C344 to be 1" Tee 3000 SW, thus we find no basis for this concern. Field walkdown verifys as build to be weld for pipe to tee.
ISO. NO. AC-LW3-30 SW-C4 Comments:
ISO shows valve V720, WCR shows V727, walkdown verified valve to be V729 Ebasco Q.A. Finding:
Field verification shows valve V727-12 to be installed per drawing requirement, Weld Control Record shows V727-12 installed at Weld SW-64, material list shows V727-12 taken from warehouse for installation.
We find no just-ification for concern.
ISO. NO. AC-IC-1222 Comments:
Detail "A" for vent line is oriented 180 to the isometeric I
drawing.
This is Attachmer#
to NC.'l W3 #
P*** ! -
c1 2 S
- ~#~
F
,.,.,, -,,,,.$ REM
_. ~.
(t} C-TE-t Z 2 2ecdN.
4-/bH Ebasco Q.A. Finding.
Field verification verifies this to be true, reco mend drawing to be redlined to show this.
ISO NO. AC-IC-1222 (cent')
-/t+1 FW 3 & 18 Comments:
The insulation wag y' olir$ cut and no spool number or r moved between FW 18 and North side of"J* wall. This ;rpo heat number could be found to verify the traceability of of the pipe material.
Ebasco Q.A. Comments:
A review of the installation records show that the material used is traceable to an acceptable CMTR. As long as material is traceable up to and including installation Ebasco Q.A. finds this acceptable and no justification for concern.
FW 6 & 17 Comments:
The insulation was removed between FW 6 & 17.
This spool was cut and no spool number or heat number could be found to verify the traceability of the pipe material.
Ebasco Q.A. Comments:
Same as the comments for FW 3 & 18.
FW 7 & 27 Comments:
The insulation was removed b'etween FW 7 & 27.
This spool was cut and new material was added.
The heat number on the pipe was N97405 but the weld record had N94705.
Ebasco Q.A. Comments:
The Weld Control Record has been changed to reflect as built condition.
FW 14 & 34 19 & 20 Comments:
Did not have adequate time to remove the insulation and reinstalling it today by 3:30. These two pipe spools were not inspected but the question still exists about the material traceability.
Ebasco Q.A. Comments:
'~
Same as the comments for FW 3 & 18 concerning material traceability. Lack of time has no affect on the quality of material or installation. We can find no justifi-cation for this concern.
This is Attachmen+ D to NCR W3I ' 7N paga 4.
az
/d 9-iz-5_:'
y
~
Form 6009-11/2-82-A 1-
..~
ATTACHMENT # h Page
/ of f
NONCONFORMANCE REPORT W3-M
~
2semTm32L27Y EVALUATION OF ef9P99EM ON - EBASCO QUALITY ASSURANCE Tae ofs1c1s,ocs ra Sea %0 sec e s r asto s taas Paavicewl
_T D G d'T ~L T 1 G o A%
b1 C. N Z.72 C AUT hcNsM.Je7JoH 06FIC ZC-NC i No. Y VIA
[ - Al 5 - kM 0, Tue cort <zoe,2 as Act :os goet Sco " W enueo Fcct a
sametc ec-2g soc.c n o a ep Sea 80 sece r whos, llu c~'c.wec-agan Ahl4 LM S7S WAS DE(Z F0d mGO OF (MO(t h"i C A S E-517tJWi"4 6ed W A2C4 k?4 5 i n f-E A%*2. %
Fo?
A c ce A n rag. T H C-bCW 70 sotre-v vaos 4tocc or7 4 THC %Arn P LE. 'JNb PR 170 4, TNG DIRPo[27'Jodof THJS Ald A/C04 Fd tn14NcG S Mott SE cont 94 7 2 Rt s W17 4 TH A.~r o p Al(R-W3-5740 nao esmarzv,wss7s maor 2s Sc0%.
- haise oc4 7HE ebovG Tos NC R ' a.Wat L BE a0040 ro sc0 *W F2.ce As aco r 7sean s u po s.<n a rscr4 avr occs, hc7 A& M18e T4G _Sco SG r.c-c P5d'o s
- C: pics of the following documents shall be returned with this Nonconformance Report to Eb:cco Quality Assurance to verify corrective action taken. This shall also include 4
i cny additional documents generated as required by_the Quality Assurance Program and cetendant procedures. The following documents have been requested by Ebasco Quality A::urance:
PT/RT/UT Report Nos.
Procedure Nos.
PCS/ Traveler Nos.
Drawing Nos.
DCN/FCR Nos.
i Sketch Nos.
Inspection Report Nos.
Test Report Nos.
- Calibration Report Nos.
$1CM tt
. f-NRc' 150 s
Name and Signature
,k.'$NCat%G.Q Title V
/3 E^/
~
This is AttacW
=
to NCR W'3 7kA10-- F36*- b '-
i gg
<DL 4nM G
' arness 4
.,'4' EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
~
sv ddMEMS 4 /J.gg FIE W
[
cATE SHet7 or WATERFORO 3 og py, CHNO.SV DATE OPS Mo.
NO.
CUENT d.
W OTERF W D SEs tw/r w
n os c, A/df-W3-7680, [2204-AC-/t-022, t;- 857, Sc3 sues er A/Cf-W3-7/.o80 AWACHM 5'
\\
-,ao.--
?
7D Reft /C7' 'IGS E//M7'"
<4
,N A
's 4'
s N
i 8
g N \\#
o h
I 47 19-4 W
b-Interoffice Correspondence DATE May 18, 1984 FILE REF.
TO J;hn DeBruin OFFICE LOCATION Waterford Site FRou L Sankar OFFICE LOCATION 89th. Floor East 2,-W'IC sueJECT L WIZED WELDS TER0AT SIZES ITa61 FOR. ANALYSIS This is to confirm that the sise of the weld used for 2" 0.D. pipe l und:rsized veld in the finite element analysis is as given below l
l Throat 0.080" Leg O. 113" l All the cases given on Pages 73 to 81 of AF report use these dimensions.
Updated weld sizes were used only for cases other than the 2" 0.D. pipe.
c i
- RS/ar I
cc E C Iotti M Badrian T J Grant ff 9
0 s
,-e n--.---.-.-,-
--,,-----------,.-_..-,-,y-
e
. '
- ATTACHMENT 3 o
SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY NO. 74 UNDERSIZE SCHEDULE 80 SOCKET WELDS SU_MMARY 0F ENGINEERING EVALUATION The following is a brief summation of the Ebasco Engineering disposition of NCR 5760 (SCD 74) involving undersize fillet welds on schedule 80 2" and under l
piping, ASME Section III Class 2 and 3.
i (1) 544 fillet welds were initially reinspected by Tompkins-Beckwith QA.
j (2) Nine of the 544 welds involved flanged connections. Five of the nine flange welds did not meet the ASME Section III fillet weld size requirements. Ultimately, after some additional sampling, all schedule 80 ASME Section III 2" and under flange welds were reinspected.
Welds not meeting ASME Code requirements were repaired.
(3) Of the remaining 535 fillet welds made on socket weld fittings (i.e. tees, coupling, elbows and valves, etc), 54 did not meet the ASME Section III size requirement (Cx = 1.09T )*.
g
- 14) The 54 undersize welds were evaluated using the allowable size requirements eatablished by ASME Code Case N316 (Cx =.75T )*
Only two of the 54 undersize welds did not meet the code case re uirement.
Base 3 on the low reject rate upon application of the code case requirements, it was deemed unnecessary to reinspect the balance of the Schedule 80 fitting socket welds except as noted below, j
(5)
In order to apply the code case, it is necessary to use.a more conservative l
stress intensification factor in the pipe stress analysis (2.1 vs 1.3).
[
Therefore, it was necessary to establish which pipe regions exceeded the ASME Section III allowable stresses resulting from application of the
.a l'
higher stress intensification factor. An additional 125 schedule 80 fitting socket welds. required reinspection as a result. Fillet welds in l_
these pipe regions must meet the 1.09T requirement. Three of the 125 l
reinspected welds did not meet the code requirement and were subsequently t
reworked.
t l'
- T =-pipe nominal wall thickness; T = fitting n minal wall thickness based g
2 on ANSI B16.11 dimensions.
l l,
i t
I
. _ _ _. ___.,_,_