ML20199A546
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. = =. :-.- m_ _ :.. = - - - C&q, % % ~ MM MM @CD.MT3' M TS32* s V ..oe~......c,...sose ...o. s.. e April 4, 1978 i ANFP-10687-JA2 E wD => Mr. Idson G. Case. Acting Director / .~ ?- Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatic: if U. 5. Nuclear Regulatore Conmsissien h Wash 1=gton, D. C. 205!5 5 d. e t.:t W
== E ~~ Re: Palo Verde Nu' clear Generating Sta:1on, Uni:s 1, 2 and 2-4 Dockat Nos. S'"N 50-523/529/520
Subject:
Control of Low Eydrogen, Covered, Arc-Welding Elec= odes ~ at Palo Verde Units 1, 2 and 3 3 ear Sir: This 's:: : =ansni:s for your reviev, :hirty copies cf a report and two copies of the appendices c the report developed by Sech:e1 :o i demonstrate :ha:'the meisture cou:rols used by APS a: Palc Verde are more :han adequate :c prevent hydroge= induced cracking is production veldi:3 i The ma:arial presanted for your review, is a study of the Wdity i e*fae-a en 17011 electrodes and j_ustifies en alternative electrod_a l c_ontrol or_ ogres to that of AWS D1.1. This study, in cur epi = ton, i j clearly demonscrates snat: j (1) The moisture.concarsa are not justified fer :he velding l cf mild steel when E7Cl3 elec: odas are cen: rolled in accordance vi:h our construe:ica procedurse, 3echtel Standard WFMC-1, Ravision 6; and (2)l The 12-hour.Jzimum out-of-even :1me is a conservative I requirement v'en compared to the test results tha: in-n l cluded exposure to 100 percen: humidity for periods of 15 and 20 hours. l 1 On the basis cf :he cas: data presan:ed and a further reviev of the i A*45 Code, APS in cencer: vi:h Bech:a1 as :he Insiseer, as defined cy AWS D1.1, has reviewed these tests and other per:1: :: data s=d con-ciudea : hat the 3echtel Standard WFMC-1 Revision 6, is qualified as persi::ed by Paragraph 5.2 of AWS D1.1. Censequac C y, we plan :o reisstate by Apr C 2!., 1978, the scis:::e cen=cis of icv hydr: gen veld electrodes as er;;ersed in Bech:e; Sta=dard *.C'C-1, Revisi:n 6, a=d described is our cons::ue:1:n specift:a isus c s11 saia:7-related systa=s a=d s::uctures u:ili:ing =1*.d and aus:eni:i: s.a' 'ess s: eel s=d ni:kel ' esse =a:):ials. f* 0.jp h f 6 e606120469 860604 m f PDR FOIA s v = GARDE 86-A-20 PDR w-b w
= .'~Mr. Edson G. Casa Acting Director ANFF-10687-JAR April 4, 1978 'Page 2 Please review this information and advise us of any comments or questions you may have by April 21, 1978. We will be pleased to . meet tr. h you to discuss these itens if you so desire. Very truly yours, / F P J> > h M l nU L /' Edwin I, van Brun:, Jr. APS Vice President Construction Projects ANFF Project Director EEv5Jr/ JAR:ske Enclosures cc:
- 1. E. Engelkan, NRC IEE, Ragion V w/ enclosures j
A. C. Gehr, Snell and *411mer v/ enclosures l STA3 OF ARIZCNA ) )ss. Cou=:7 of MARICOPA) The foregoing ins:rumanc was ack=owledged before me this 4th day of Aoril, 1975, by Edwi= E. Van Brunt, Jr.. Vice President of I AR:20NA PU3LIC SERVICI CCMPANT, an Arizar.a corporation on behalf f I of the corporation. ,/ j [ r Y V Notary Public My Ocamission Expires: 4a c - Q i 9 5 z-- ._,,,__,,4. --m,- ,~,_..-,,,
M S e e e' e j l ? O e acIstuu Tarr rm O e 4 9 e 6 e e 2.4 5'+hh A e h--- _d ^ e a
..: :-....=.--- .=.....;..-- ~. ~
- 4 QUALIFICATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE ELECTRODE CONTROL PROGRAM FOR AWS D1.1 POR THE ARI:0NA NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT PALD VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION 1MITS 1, 2 AND 3 MMICH 15,1973 i
M[ n Prepared by: B. D. Hackney i Registered Metallurgical Engineer . State of California #1369 ) ks 1 '-t Reviewed by: W. R. Mth, Sr. Manager of M4QS Department uQ h Approved for i.n Use on PVNGS: VLV. Al N--.ad. - S W. G. Binghan Project Engineering h ager I l \\ i JOB NUMBER 10407 l l BECHIEL POWER CORPORATION NORWALK, CALIFORNIA ns.. i ' ifW7f 0N70 h j
J 1 2 CONTENTS 4 Illi 1 INTRODUCTION....................... 1 11 Obj ec t ive...................... 1 J 12 Scope........................ 1 2. SM9 FART.......................... 1 j 3. CONCLUSIONS........................ 2 4. BAC EROUND........................ 3 41 AUSD11....................... 3 ) 411 AUS D1.1, Paragraph 4 9 2 - Electrode Storage i and Issues.................. 3 j 412 AUS D1.1. Paragraph 5.2 - Cualification of 1 Other Procedures............... 4 42 Proj ect Biatory................... 4 5. LITERATRE SEVET AND PRELIMIEARY EVALUATION....... 5 1 51 Basis for 4 Eour Esposure Requirement in D1 1.... 5 4 j 511 Base Materials................ 6 512 Other Codes.................. 6 g 'l 52 Evaluation of the Literature.... .r. 7 L 53 Alternate Procedures................. 8 1 54 VRC Bulletin 216.......... 9 i ? 6. IEDUSTRY PRACTICF AND EIFERTIENCE............. 9 J 1 l! 6.1 Summanry of Industrial Emperience........... 9 l 7. RECENT TEST PROGRAMS................... 10 7.1 FTNGS Test Program.................. 10 L j 7.2 MIT Test Program................... 11 1 1 S. CONSULTANTS REVIEN AND ColetINTARY............. 12 lj 81 BioSraphie Sketebes of Consultants.......... 12 J S.2 Smry of Consultants Comentary.......... 12 L 8.2 1 Cosmetary of C. 3. Robinson......... 12 822 Comentary of A. J. Julicher......... 13 823 Commentary of Dr. A. Imenewich........ 13 h 3 ij l'
t CONTENTS (continued) AFFINDICES Anoendix A - Letter from ANS DI.1 Structural Welding Coenittee Secretary to CB&I dated December 19, 1974. { Appendiz 3 " Justification for E7018 Low Bydrogen Electrode Storage, Esposure and Recycling in a Menner Other than Prescribed by ANS DI.1," by F. C. Breissaister. Anoendiz C - Bechtel Test Program Report, "The Effects of Eigh Pimidity Esposure on E7018 Electrodes, " by F. C. Breisseister. Appendia D - 1. Two Chemetron Test Program Reports "Effe:t of Eigh Eunidity on E7018 Electrodes," by T. Siewert. 2. Bechtel Commentary on Chenetron Baport. Anoendiz E - 1. " Eliminating the flee of Portable Bad Warners," by E. W. Straiton. 2. "Further Information on Eliminating the Use of Portable Bod Warners," by G. B. Schmidt. q I 3 Seven Literature References. Anoendiz F - 1. WRC Bulletin 216, " Preventing Eydrogen-Induced Cracking After Walding of Pressure Tassel Steels by Use of Imv Temperature Postwald Beat Treatments," by J. S. Caplan j and E. Emnderman. 2. "The Eew Moisture Resistant Electrodes," by L. M. Barbin, { Welding Journal, July, 1977. 3 "A Study of Eydrogen Cracking in lladerwater Steel Walds," by E. Masubuchi, et al, Welding Journal August, 1977. Anoendix G - Summary of Alternate Electrode Control Practices and Emperiene Anwendiz E - 1. Commentar'y of C. 3. Robinson 2. Commentary of A. J. Julicher 3 Commentary of A. Leonewich f n
-... ~.. l 1 INTRODUCTION Weld red control as specified to AUS DI.1 is overly restrictive for welding sild steel with E7018 electrodes. For welding at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (FYNGS), IRC Inspection and Enforcement has required 7 that the project strictly enforce the 4-hour out-of-even time specified in j ANS B1 1. In addition, to mitigate contern resulting from inconsistencies j with other codes (e.g., ASME Section III Div 1), the NRC requires that the more conservative AWS D1 1 requirement be applied to all welding at the site. l 11 OBJgCTIVE i This report provides information which enables Arizona Public Service ? Company (APS) through its Engineer, Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel), to qualify an alternative electrode control procedure to that presented in AVS. D1 1. His alternative electrode control procedure allovo a 12-hour out-of-oven tT K. This time limit applies to the valains of all sild and 5 sustenitic stainless steels and nickel base saterials. 12 SCOPE The compilation of information and data presented in this report is inten-l ded to provide the necessary technical justification for this alternative 'i alectrode control procedure. To assure proper documentation for qualifi-cation and acceptance by the Engineer in accordance with AUS DI.1, the i qualification program includes the following key elements dich are described in this report: A. Literature search 1; i 3. Industry practice and experience C. FTBCS Test Program D. MIT Test Program E. Independent consultant review r l i 2. gUMMET l [ The American Velding Society's Structural Welding Code, AWS DI.1, is [ frequently referenced as a standard governing structural welding. Bowever, h D1 1 is relatively restrictive regarding the requirements for storage and isses of low hydrogen electrodes (E7018) when used to weld mild steel base setals. l This report states and reviaus the probima, outlines the project history, j and discusses a literature survey and the historical basis for alternative electrode controls. Information is provided on some of the current industry practices and on high humidity tests which have been conducted to I 1
show weld quality. Cousentary is provided from three independest senaultants sa various aspects of acceptable longer out-of-even tim includtag review of test data. The conclusion reached from the program is that the AWS DI.1 controls on storage and issue of electrodes are unnecessarily conservative for velding mild steel, and that a specific alternative electrode program ubich allows out-of-even time up to 12 hours is qualified under AUS D1 1, paragraph 5 2. i 3 CONCLUSIONS A. The historic concerns for short out-of-even times are not just-fled for the welding of mild steel ubes E7018 electrodes are controlled in accordance with the requirements of Bechtel Standard WFIC-1, Revision 6 (UFIC-1 is included as part of Appendiz C). D e essential control elements of WFMC-1 inelade storage in 200F l minimum ovens, issue to the welder in individually identified i l containers, and controlled retrieval at shift and or 12 hours, whichever comes first. few allov electrode controls== not _investimated and so change should be made in control of low alloy l electrodes based sa this data. B. Da principal conclusion regarding the adequacy of WFNC-1, Rev-1sion 6, is supported by the literature, by the results of the MIT j testing, by the esperience of fabricators, the Navy, shipyards and heavy constructica projects and, most specifically, by the results of the FTNGS tests which qualified the alternative electrode control program to the requirements of AWS D1 1. C. The 12-hour meziam out-of-even time is a conservative requirement when compared to the test results that included esposure to 100-f percent humidity for periods of 15 and 20 hours. f D. Independent z.1 view by three consultants experienced and knowledge-able in welding and welding metallurgy have substantiated the test results and have provided agreement with the alternative electrode j j control procedure permitting a sexista 12-hour out-of-even time t for E7018 electrodes for mild steel welding applications. I l E. The haineer, as defined by AUS D1.1, has reviewed test sad other pertinent data. This comprehensive review and the conclusive test l data presented provides a technically sound base for the Engineer l to accept VFMC-1, Revision 6 as qualified in accordance with l paragraph 5 2 of ANS D1.1. F. In the interest of consistency and ease in administrating a single electrode control procedure, the 12-hour maximum out-of-even time i should be applicable to welding on all safety related systems and structures utilising mild and austenitic stainless steels and nickel base materials regardless of which e-de or standard is applicable. 9 i
l o i i 4. BACEGROWID 4 in 1975, af ter estensive review by Bechtel of the literature, a ' compilation of industrial practice and world wide construction esperience, it was determine 4 that portable rod warmers were technically not required for E7018 electrodes used to weld mild steel for out-of-oven times of up to 12 bours. During February. 1976, the filler metal control procedure being used to weld mild steel, sustenitic stainless steel, and nickel base j materials for ASME applications on seclear projects, was changed to reflect 4 the results of this evaluation. In late 1976 and'early'1977, it became apparent that the AWS.D1 1 paragraph 4 9 2 restriction on esposure time for the alloyed electrodes of Specification ANS/SFA 5.5 was being interpreted as applying to the E7018 mild steel electrodes of Specification $$/SFA 51. In addition to the difficulties in interpretation between the requirements of MS D1 1 and the several ANS/SFA specifications, incessistencies in the requirements for j alectrode moisture control between codes governing structural, liner plate, j and ASME piping applications have further complicated the issue. 41 AUS D1 1 l $$ D1 1 bas evolved as a consensus standard representing good practice. . It is generally a nonwaandatory code used for mutual convenience and by l mutual agreement. AUS D1 1 is a conservative code in many regards, such that manufacturers and installers meeting all stated requirements need i seither qualify nor demonstrata the adequacy of fabrication and installa- [ tion procedures. One of the conservative ANS D1 1 requirements is stated } in paragraph 4 9 2, which, in part, deals with moisture control of E7018 L electrodes. Bowever, MS D1 1 in paragraph 5 2 makes provisions for alter-h native procedures and assigns the responsibility for acceptance of any I alternative to the Eugineer. Acceptance by the Engineer of an alternative electrode control procedure is clearly permitted as stated by 35 in correspondence inc1'aded in Appendiz A. 411 AUS D1 1. Paragraph 4 9 2-Electrode Storane and Issue Paragraph 4 9 2 r'aquires thatt 5 "All electrodes having low hydrogen coatings conforming to Specifi-i cation AES/SFA 51 shan be purchased in hermeticany sealed I containers or shall be dried for at least 2 hours between 450F 5 (230C) and 500F (260C) before they are used. Electrodes having low hydrogen coatings conforming to Specification AWS/SFA.5.5 shall be i purchased in hermeticany sealed containers or shan be dried at least I hour at temperatures between 700F (370C) and 900F (403C) before use. Electrodes shall be dried prior to use if the hermet-ically sealed containers show evidesce of damage. Immediately after l the opening of the barneticany sealed container or removal of the I alectrodes from drying ovens, electrodes shall be stored in ovens held at a temperature of at least 2507 (120C). E70XI electrodes i 2 ? 3 l P k.
l l that are not used within 4 hours, 380EX within 2 hours. E90EI within 1 hour, E100II and E11011 withis one-half hour af ter the opening of [ the hermetically sealed container or removal of the electrodes from f a drying or storage even shall be redried before use. Electrodes f that have been wet shall not be used." 4 1.2 AUS D1 1. Persaraoh 5 2 - Qualifiestion of other Procedures In part 25 D1 1 provides that welding procedures which conform is all respects to the provisions for Design, Workmanship, and Technique (including electrode storage 'and issue) shall be deemed prequalified and are esempt from tests or qualifications. Fabricators and installers need act demon-strate the adequacy of procedures conforming in all respects with MS D1 1. Paragraph 5 2 of m s D1.1 sekas provisions for other procedures, as follows: I "Except for the procedures exempted in 51, joint welding procedures which are to be employed in executing contract work under this Code shall be qualified prior to use, to the satisf action of the Engineer, by tests as prescribed in Part 3 of this section. The Engineer, at his discretion, may accept evidence of previous qualification of the joint welding procedures to be employed." l The AWS Committee has advised that these provisions may be used to qualify alternative electrode control procedures to those requirements in paragraph 492 Refer to Appendix A. 4.2 FROJECT EISTORY In response to a finding resulting from the difference between the control program being implemented for A5ME E7018 electrodes used at the PTNGS jobsite and the SS D1 1 requiremente for storage and issue of these same type mild steel electrodes to weld structural steel. AFS requested an informal hearing with the ERC I & E regional office at Walnut Creek to ' review the basis for the alternate ASME filler metal control procedures. This meeting was held June 1,1977, and the points considered are outlined in Appendiz 3. In November, 1977, the ERC's Metallurgy Section of the Materials Engineering Branch developed an evaluation and position which was forwarded to AFS in December,1977. This position recognised that hydrogen underbead cracking had not been reported in plain carbon (mild) steels and indicated a slight modifiestion in the MS D1.1 requirement for welding mild steel with 17018 electrodes 'could be permitted. Bowever, the use of portable rod warmers or a 4-hour mezimum out-of-oven time was still required. Since the requirement for a 4-hour out-of-oven time or the use of rod warmers for 17018 electrodes when welding mild steel did not appear to be technically justifiable, in late January 1978. AFS requested techtel to develop data for longer out-of-even times and elimination of E7018 portable rod warmers. Rod warmers for low alloy steel electrodes would continue to be used. The data was to provide the qualification of an alternative procedure in compliance with $$ D1 1, paragraph 5.2. 4 ~.
~. . - -. ~. - In early February, Bechtel began a test program for several brands of E7018 electrodes (including those used at the FVNCS jobsite) in order to provide the gus11fication test report. At this same time Cheaetron, the principal PTpCS jobsite supplier of E7018 electrodes, uns authorised under Bechtel direction to conduct en independent parallel progran for confirmation of results using their products. On February 14, 1978, the.Bechtel test program was espanded to include repeated ecyosures to 100-percent humidity and the addition of circular patch test coupons. On February 15, 1978, Cheaetron was commissioned to coeduct a parallel ampanded scope program. The techtel test program and data are reported in Appendix C. The Cheaetron reports are included in Appendix D as is the Bechtel Comentary to the Cheaetron reports. It is also intended that test results will be submitted to ANS D1 1 for conside-ration in revision of paragraph 4 9 2 in time for the next meeting to be held in October of 1978. 5 LITERATURE SURVEY AND PRELIMINAEY EVALUATION During 1975, an estensive review of the technical literature was performed to determine the technical justification, if any, for E7018 4-hour out-of-oven time or use of-portable rod warmers uben welding mild steel. The review has been expended and kept current. Efforts have also been directed toward determining the basis for the AUS D1 1 electrode control require-masts. These reviews and efforts were prompted by the ERC I&E requirement on au projects that E701.3 electrode out-of-oven time not exceed a bours. 51 BASIS FOR 4-BOUR MAXIMIM EXPOSURE REOUIIBGNT IN AWS D1 1 In 1966, AUS DI.1 (D1.0 and D2 0 at that time) imposed 4-hour requirenants on storage and issue of all low hydrogen electrodes. In 1969, the require-ments were modified, with separate statements being made for AWS/8FA 51 electrodes and more restrictive statements made for the AWS/SFA 5 5 electrodes. It appears that the e-hour esposure limit in D1 1 paragraph 4 9 2 is based upon avoidance of porosity with the worst of the six electrodes tested by D.C. Smith in 1956. The D.C. Smith Welding Research Council (WRC) report is included in Appendix E. Recent inquiry was made to Dr. T. G. Ferrell, current Chairman of the D1 1 subcommittee having jurisdiction over paragraph 4 9 2, as to the basis for the requirement. It was indicated by Mr. Ferren that this was based on electrode manufacturer reconnandations, and that the most conservative or worst case was used as the AUS D1.1 basis. It appears that U.S. Steel test data for ANS/SFA 5 5 low alloy electrodes ras also considered by the Subcommittee. Mr. Ferreu did not recall if the restrictions in paragraph 4 9 2 were originally intended to apply to unalloyed mild steel electrodes, as won as to alloyed electrodes. Es indicated that the paragraph is not clearly written. He also indicated that AUS DI.1 is considering changes to the paragraph to allow longer times based upon fabricators
- or insta11ers' Mr. Ferrell agreed that the 4-hour limit applied to E7018 tests.
electrodes when welding mild steel was conservative. l 1 5 l
=._ ::.- -.:.-. a:- l 91milar inquiry was pode of A. J. Julicher, long standing member of the MS c1 1 Main Committee, sad Dr. A. Leonewich, Director of Research at Airco Welding Products and President-Elect of MS. h oe gentlemen were in l agreement that the historic basis of the 4-hour requirement resulted from the most conservative of the electrode asaufacturers' recommendations. l h re was alop agreement that the (,honra - --rvative when aaelied to E7018 electre, des when welding mild steel and uns probably intended for i l those cases ween E7Gli ele 6rodes wouis se.,,ises to alloy steel. Further d51sils on tne evolesson or sass requirement in MS D1 1 is provided in the Comentary by A. J. Ju11cher (Appendiz E). De Commentary on the Structural Welding Code MS D1 2, was issued by the M S in 1977. De Caumentary en SS D1 1, paragraph 4 9 2 deals mostly with alloy electrodes and the case uben lower strength electrodes (E7018) were used to weld A514 and A517 steels (100,000 psi yield strength materials). h last two paragraphs in the AUS Commentary dealing with this subject confine that the moisture control requirements are based upon the noisture absorption of the worst case electrodes and that the requirements are conservative. De last MS Comentary paragraph on this subject states: " De time restrictions on the use of electrodes after removal from l a storage even may seen overly conservative to some users. h rate of moisture absorption in areas of low humidity is lower than that encountered in areas of high humidity. h Code covers the i most restrictive situations." i 511 Esse Materials l Most grades and types of structural steels used in seclear power plant construction do not require the use of low hydrogen electrodes. h structural and piping steels for the most part are 38,000 poi yield strength or less. MS D1 1 permits the use of ace-low hydrogen electrodes i for mild steels and does not impose storage or issuance restrictions on the l non low hydrogen electrodes. As AUS D1 1 would permit the entire mild steel structural fabrication to be mode without low hydrogen electrodes, it i is entremely conservatives if not contradictory, to impose restrictions on the E7018 low hydrogen electrodes used to weld mild steel. Appendiz 3 contains further discussion of this subject including the reasons why low 4 l hydrogen E7018 electrodes are selected. De reasons for 17018 selection relate to welder appeal and usability. De SS D1 1 requirements appear to assume that fabricators or installers will use 17018 electrodes only as [ required by the Code and further assume that E7018 electrodes will not be } used istless required. R ose are not valid assumptions. t 5.1 2 other Codes Other SS codes and specifications do not provide specific restrictions on electrode storage and issuance. Some of these are discussed in Appendix 3. De Specification for Velding Industrial and Mill Cranes, ANS D14.1, is c 1 aute on the subject of electrode control. h responsibility for procedures i
and practice will result in weld, joints meeting specification requirements is assigned to the manufacturer. h is approach all'ows fabricators and installers to develop appropriate electrode controls for each application. Similar practices are followed by ANSI 331.1 for power piping and ASNE Section III, Division 1. S.2 EVALUATICE OF TEE LITERATURE i D e data presented and discussed in Appendix E represents a great deal of the information on moisture absorptioQy low hydrogen electrode coatings. j pour of the references (4. 5, 6 and 7 dich are reproduced in Appendiz E) i relate to the specific percentages of moisture gained or lost by electrodes and the significance of this moisture gain is interpolated to effects on porosity or underbead cracking. l At this point, it should be re-emphasised that the various investigators of electrode moisture and hydregen cracking have generally produced what is 8 best described as negative data or indirect evidence for the welding of mild steel with E7018 electrodes. Se data which has been published i relates primarily to those asterials which are susceptible to the phenom-enon of hydrogen embrittlenes.t and underbesd cracking. Sus, the data on i eracking presented in Appendia E and the enclosed references is not relevant to power plant construction using mild steels because the base asterials tested represented higher carbon contents, higher alloy content, or higher strength levels. he data presented in Appendia I is valid as regards porosity since porosity is not related to base material hardenability or restraint. Investigators have used alloy asterials because these steels have sufficient hardenability to develop the microstructures susceptible to underbead cracking. A significant fact frequently overlooked is that Mallet and Raippel at Batte11a, (Appendia E. Reference 4) in a first test series did not find underbead cracking with low hydrogen electrodes which had been steamed to produce 6-percent moisture in the casting. Ilon-low hydrogen electrodes produced significant cracking in other test series using an unspecified alloy steel. Se other test series used a higher alloy content plate that was more crack eensitive. This data is significant because it shows that moisture absorption alone is not a determining factor in developing underbead cracking and demonstrates the importance of the alloyed base metal in developing underbead cracking. Reference 4 in Appendiz E clearly indicates that the absorbed noisture is converted by the are energy to moleenlar hydrogen (5) and is dissolved in the molten weld metal in direct reistion to the square root of its partial pressure. E dissolved in weld metal will be lower if the partial pressures of C0 O, or CO, from limestone in the coating are increased in the are atmosphere. AgEin Appendix E. Reference 4 indicates the significance of crack sensitive steels. s. Reference numbers are as shown in Appendiz E on the last page of "Further Information on Eliminating the Use of portable Rod Warners," by G. E. Schmidt dated July 30, 1976. i 7 ,*.c mu
- N-a M M hh am.
41. 9-- h.m# . amen h- &M-~'"%
..... ~ -. -....... -.. ~... - - stout and Doty in Weldability of steels, page 165, indicates that as sesen-tial feature for underbead cracking is the transformation of austenite to i martensite. Weldability of Steels is referenced by Appendia I, but is not included. De formation of martensite is dependent se base metal alloy composition and cooling rates free sustenitic temperatures. Plain carbon steals are not sufficiently alloyed or hardesable to fore martensite with l the cooling rates associated with shielded metal are welding. Cooling rate effects are clearly shown in Appendia E. Reference 2, 71gure 12 dich was developed by Burdekin, et al of the British Walding Essearch Association. De area labeled 30 CRACEING gUSCEFIIBILITY represents the sild steels and the. welding conditions of interest. De steels are shown by the abscissa (carbon equivalent), and the cooling rates of interest for shielded metal are welding are shown by the ordinate rates (five degrees C per second or less). This figure shows that for the asterials of interest l there is a wide safety margin in cooling rates before cracking suscept-ibility is reached. Appendia E Enference 2 also stresses the importance of the partensitic structure in developing susceptibility to hydrogen cracking. 21s author is somsdat eritical of other investigators (such as those in Appendia E, Esference 3) for developing formulas applicable to a relatively limited range of steel compositions dich are useful for laboratory cooperisons of steels, electrodes, and procedures, but not useful for i specification or acceptance purposes. l De criticism of Enference 3 and many similar articles is valid for the l reasons given and because esperience of 30 years has shown the resnits of Esference 3 to be ultraconservative for mild steel. De results have validity limited to low alloy materials similar to those used ta the data l base. Reference 3 has taken 'an interesting theoretical approach to quantifying preheat and energy tapet for various welding processes grouped l by hydrogen potential. De theory is composed of two basic assumptions: first, that a hardness level can be determined below dich eracking will l not be present even in restrained joints, and second, that this hardness l 1evel can be related to a critical cooling rate. De approach breaks down l because it fails to recognise the importance of microstructure, as distinguished from hardness, and does not properly address the influence of alloying on hardness or microstructure at a given cooling rate. On the second peint, shown in Figure 3C of Beference 3, the hardness data l for very low alloy steals and mild steels did not fit the theoretical curve based on alloy steel so that authors developed a correction factor. It is j these points on which this theoretical approach breaks down and results in i overly conservative results and conclusions. Se authors recognised that l welding engineers have tended to consider the resultaat diagram overly conservative and discussed several additional reasons for this ' opinion, but overlooked the error of estrapolating alloy steel data to mild steel i applications. 53 ALTERNATE PROCEDURES f Recognition of the difficulty in converting laboratory data and technical reports to meaningful results in practical situations led to the l development of Appendiz 3, a brief summary of industrial experience, requirements of v.trious codes and standards, and an esplanation of why low bydrogen electrodes are used in power plant installation even though such a ---.--s -m.-,_r-- .,-y,,,,,___-,---._,-,,,m --_.,,_,-,_m_
i electrodes are not metallurgically necessary for mild steel welding. i l Appendia B esils attention to the specification for Mild Steel Electrodes, i AUS/SFA 5.1,to esplain the original purpose of E7018 electrodes. Dese electrodes were developed for welding higher strength, high carbon er alloy steels in dich electrodes other than low bydrogen electrodes produced underbead cracking. Although these cracks do not occur in mild steels they may eccur eenever.a son-low hydrogen electrode is used on high strength steels. 5 5.4 WRC BU11ET D 216 Mis bulletin, published in 1976, is a definitive study of the hydrogen f cracking problem and, while not directly addressing structural steels or mild steel welding, does provide guidance on the conditions necessary for L j the cracking phenomenon. This bulletin is included as part of Appendiz 7. pbur conditions are required for hydrogen induced cracking. He conditions are a source of hydrogen, tensile stress, a susceptible microstructure, and low temperature. At least two of the required conditions are not obtain-able in mild steels. It is not possible to develop the required residual l tensile stress in asterial of 38.000 yield strength or less. Additionally, it is not possible to develop the required martensitic structure in mild e [ steels welded with E7018 electrodes because the cooling rates are ( insufficient. Any prebest application essentially eliminates the low f temperature requirement as hydrogen rapidly diffuses from preheated joints. Sus, two or three of the four requisite conditions necessary for hydrogen i induced cracking are not present in mild steel meldsents. i 6. ausn aY FRACTICE AND EIFERID CE L l Industry practice and esperience vary over a wide spectrus from almost so control to the very tight controls found in some fabrication shops and shipyards welding low alloy quenched and tempered steels. Some of the practices and emperiences of alternative electrode control for structural I applications. Navy and shipyard practices, and heavy construction projects ( are summarised in Appendia G. l L 61 SthetARY OF INDUSTRIAL IIPSIENCE Bechtel and others have demonstrated that alternative E7018 electrode t l controls may be successfully implemented in severe environments. l Successful implementation has several common features. Rose common features ares A. The electrodes are issued for a shift and retrieved at the end of ( shif t. 3. De electrodes are stored in heated storage ovens with minimum temperatures of 150F. C. Outdoor applications involved electrodes issued in containers and a rod warmers. D. The applications are on mild steel. ) =
It has bessee apparent that 30 years of soccessist alternative industrial praattee with E7018 electrodes when combined with the data reported in the literature, has substantiated that there seed be no concern for hydrogen tracking ta mild steels when E7018 electrodes are used. 7. RECENT TEST 750 GRAM 5 goveral recent test programs have been conducted to demonstrate the effects of asposure to high huidity on the usability of E701g electrodes and the metallurgical acceptability of the resultaat weld joints. These test programs have directly addressed the two concerns regarding E7018 electrodes used on.aild steel weldsents after esposure to high humidity: these are hydroges embrittlement, especially underbead cracking, and weld metal porosity. 71 FTBCS TEST PROCEAN A test program was conducted by Bechtel to Justify the alternative electrode control program at the FTNGS jobsite, under the worst satteipated conditions of exposure by qualifying an alternative electrode control procedure in accordance with AUS .1, Paragraph 5 2 (refer to Appendiz A). The test program was esponded to inelade data is escess of that required by AN5 D1 1 for qualification, in order to produce conclusive and conservative l data for the worst conditions of humidity, exposure time, restraint and l relevant base metal. This program is reported la Appendiz C. The prograa was designed to evaluate the met effects of es,posure time and percent beidity on the usability of E7018 electrodes based on the metallurgical g and radiegraphic acceptability of completed mild steel weld joints. Similarly, Chametros Corporation was commissioned to conduct a parallel program to that of Bechtel using their electrodes to provide support and confirmation of the Bechtal data. The results of this program are reported in Appendia D. The test results reported in Appendices C and D conclusively demonstrate that even under the moet severe conditions of esposure to humidity and restraint that a 12 hour minimum out-of-even time is technically justified and fully qualified to the requirements of Paragraph 5 2 of ANS D1 1. The electrodes tested were from manufacturers presently being used at pTNGS I from other potential sources. Electrodes were esposed to 100 percent busidity prior to welding. This represents a saturated condition at which condensata will form en cooler surfaces. The saturated condition represents the worst possible humidity situation. Elaetrodes were esposed to 100 percent huidity for repetitions of 20-hour periods. In addition, higher strength mild steel esterials were tested. The A316, Grade 70 asterial with 70 hai minime ultimata strength represents the apper end of the mild steals in terms of hardesability and susceptibility to underbead cracking. Using circular patch tests, an estreme degree of restraint was developed. The diameter of the patch, in relation to coupon size uns selected to assure weld strength level residual stresses (Velding Metallurgy, Volume 2, 3rd Edition, page 636, by Lianert). The usability evaluation was based upon weld metal porosity. The ASME Section III radiographic seceptance standard was seed since this is the criterios required for most construction weld joints, and is as severe or more severe than the ANS D1 1 criterion. Are stability and slag character-istics for welder appeal were evaluated by the test welder. 10
The metallurgical acceptability was based upon mechanical tests and metal-lography. D e transverse mechanical tests were choses in place of all weld metal specimens so that the beat affacted some (EAE) could also be evaluated. Beed speciness were selected becanoe the test loadias rate is more appropriate to show potential bydrogen embrittlement. Also, EAZ impact test results would be more dependent upon base metal characteristics rather than electrode charseteristics. The radiographic acceptability of all tests co goas imeloding the root layer welded without preheat en cold plate deserves special emphasis, as it i demonstrates that the 3007 interpass temperature ubich was subsequently j developed for the later fill and cap passes was not a controlling or 11mittag factor sa the program results. The test program fully qualified the weld filler metal control procedure WFMC-1, Bevision 6, and abowed that hydrogen embrittlement or ederbead cracking will not occur when implementing this procedure on mild steel weldsents and that porosity will not be a probles or result in unacceptable P welds when implementing this procedure. f 72 MIT TEST F30GEAM i l A U.S. government sponsored study at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology has investigated hydrogen ersching in underwater steel welds. This study has shown no observable hydrogen cracks in either underwater or surface welding of mild steel. The data indicates that at least a 50,000 poi yield strength steel was required to induce hydrogen erseking in underwater welding applications. This data is significant because of the g ultimate moisture present to the underunter environment on both the base metal and in the electrode coattags, and because of the extremely rapid cool rates achieved due to water quenching. 17018 electrodes were included in these conclusions. This was reported in the August,1977. Welding Journal and is included in Appendia F. These underwater welds were conducted on the severe YUlit self-restrained cracking test cogon. This compos is severe beesume of the presence of a geometric notch in additica to restraint. The water envirossent presented as valinited hydrogen potential to the wald joint from the are atmosphere by reduction of the liquid phase. Various coattag types and waterproofings were studied and found to have little effect on results. The water environment at 70F provided a large beat sink capable of quenching the weld metal and best affected sones. Figure 3 of this F referenes shows the E7013 weld metal and adjacent heat affected sones to be crackfree. Figure 4 of the reference shows the mild steel beat affected some to have a b Widmaastatten structure, not martensite, and not susceptible to underbead cracking even when water quesebed. The validity of the test procedure was demonstrated by the cracking obtsised nem higher strength or alloy materials were welded ederwater. Duplieste Y-elit restrained tests welded l in air en mild steel and alloy steel base metal confirmed that mild steels are not susceptible to underbead cracking.
. l 8. CONSULTANTS RET 1tv AND CM9pTART Three independent consultants of varied professional welding backgrounds were utilised to provide impertial and experienced evaluation of the test progran and its results. Cae of the consultants C. 5. Robinson, was also asked to act as a witness to monitor the Bechtel portion of the pTucS test program to assure that performance was as described ta the various reports. Se commentary of each consultant la contained in Appendia E. 81 BIOGRAFRIC SEITCE OF CONSULTANTS C. 3. Robinson has more than 40 years practical esperience, first with the D. S. Bevy, and them with private industry. Es is currently as active consultaat to several Bay Area fabricators and a comercial shipyard. A. J. Julicher is a member of the ABS D1 1 committee and has served so that committee for many years. pormerly associated with the Estional Boreau of Standards, he is an active consultaat to many organisations including the U.S. Air Force. Dr. A. Leonewich is Director of Essearch, Airco Wel' ding Products, and President-Elect of the ANS for 1978-1979. Es is a recognised authority in welding, metallurgy and welding electrodes. 8 2 SmetARY OF CONSULTANTS COIGIENTARY The commentary of all three consultants indicates agreement with the test results and with the soundness of the conclusion that a nazimum 12-hour out-of-eves time for*E7018 electrodes used for welding mild steel is ~ technically justified. 821 Coupestery of C. 3. Robisoop The cosmestery of C. 3. Robinson indicates the Bechtel and Chemetros test results show that even teder the severe condition of 100-percent humidity esposare for as long as 12 hours E7018 electrodes are acceptable in welding mild steel. This conclusion is reinforced and emphasised by C. E Robinson's witnessing sad somitoring of the Bechtel test program. The commentary discusses the acceptable mechanical and bend test results. It is noted that the radiographic esamination revealed acceptable film clarity and there is a lack of evidence of underhead cracking. Es acumented on the single cluster of porosity found ta one of the 86-percent humidity coupons and indicated that metallographic examination showed so ersching even in the highly restraised aircular patch coupons. The commentary then discusses the need to distribute low hydrogen electrodes in controlled containers, although they need not be heated, for periods of as long as 12 hours. The point is made that unused electrodes should be returned to holding evens and, if esposed for more than 12 hours, the electrodes should be reconditioned in accordance with manufacturer's seconneadations or discarded. The commentary concludes that the 12-hour limit on esposure and the require-mest to issue electrodes la mahested containers is acceptable and that test results qualify WFMC-1, Revision 6 as an alternative electrode control procedure as permitted by paragraph 5 2 of AUS D1 1. 12 u --w.- -- 1 -- -.cmw.- - m ~ ~.
l l 622 Comentary of A. J. Ju11eher he somentary of A. J. Julicher begins with a statement of the thoroughness k and esopleteness of the Rechtel and Cheaetros tests and results. Based on the test results, it is concluded that WMc-1, Revision 6 has bees qualified as as alternative electrode control procedure. It is also noted that [ WFMC-1, Revistoa 6 with the 12-hour esposure limit is conservative in terms of the 20-hour test data, and tacorporates issue of electrodes is identified , con a ners w ti h provisions for retrieval of unused electrodes. ti 3 1i ne e m stery provides a rather lengthy discussion of the evolution of 3 electrode moisture requirement in MS D1 1. H is information may be of interest to those wishing same insight into the history of this requirement. j Se history does indicate, however, that the MS D1.1 Comittee has had i see difficulty in decidias how or if to state electrode moisture require-seats ' sad that the trend has been to adopt the most conservative approach. De commentary concludes with the reconnendation that the techtel and Cheaetros test results be submitted to MS D1 1 for use in modifyug the E7013 electrode moisture control requirements and suggests that additional j testing be conducted en higher strength low hydrogen electrodes and higher j strength steels. Current test data will be submitted to AWs01 1 with a i request to modify present electrode moisture control requirements. 323 Connestery of Dr. A. Lessewich J De consestary of Dr. Lesnewich starts with agreement with conclusions of 1 the Bechtel and Chametros reports that E7013 electrodes can be esposed to j moist air for extended times without resulting in either porosity or delayed 1 cracking in weldments of structural grades of carbon steels. After j discussing the amount of moisture that can be espected to be absorbed by E7013 electrodes and relating this to Airco Products, the toportant point is j made that hydrogen induced cracking also requires high stresses, susceptible microstructures and time, in addition,to the presence of hydrogen. Se consentary continues by emphasising the importance of nierostructure and residual stresses. It is acted that residual stresses are probably below 70 kai; however, it should be remembered that circular patch tests were conducted and that these tests are among the most highly restrained yet devised. Also mentioned is the 300F interpess temperature and the benefits that result in mitigating hydrogen induced cracking. Bis observation is correct, but it should be poisted out that the interpass temperature is a requirement of ANS/AEME 5 2 and is used in all testing of 4 fill esterial to this specification. De commentary concludes that based on review of the 3echtel and Cheaetros data, as well as other published information Dr. Imenewich is in agreement ) l that E7018 electre, des can be esposed for at least 12 hours without rqsulting i in defects in mild steel weldsents. j 4 O 1 I i 13 l
e. .t
- f I
l APPENDIX "A" e 1 ] o o O 4 q l 4 I i 1
.F.N,%MEiCAN WELDING'.JOCIETY 5 ~ . _. -. m S. S,. g,;. .e i j .g . T :... g- .s- .,e ...4r: ....c - s. ..,.. ~ ./.. i ,. December. 19, 1974 l A. 5 o s a me n g. ~- ...e.. (gl 9. g g.; z l O x,. x.
- 2. Christens
%,, f ca.tca o aridse.. Iron Co. 800 serie 3144. l .'.e- ? ~ '.E. '. :'..* . l..... ;':.'.. - l l... :..... oan arook, 21, 60521
- x.
1
- 7 Ehposure Tine Esquirements of.I,c; 1
y_,= Electrodes,,
- Rea,
- *
- per 4. 9.2, ANS Structural Welding Code, Dl.1-72,,
.},, '.'. * [. '.. - ?- i Dear Mr. Christensens ;. / i This letter is being written to you on behalf of Mr. E. F. Crick, Chairman of subcommittee 5 of the Structural Welding Ccemittee, ll:., i i,
- in' r. eply of your request to consider,the subject matter..
Aftdr considering your request, 'the subcosmittee has decided that 4 the requirements of 4.9.2 are necessary to assure 'the production of acceptable welds in all envira==matal condition encountered in, i l,. production. It is re,ce-4 sed that the moi'sture absorption of the ' t low-hydrogen covering will vary over a wide range from locality to is-dty in North America. The Code, being a general document, i must speci'fy requirements which will produce acceptable welds under ...'. all circumstances and therefore the conservative approach must be j .taken in these matters. j It is recognized,by the subcoesittee that several suppliers of 1 inlectrodes are supplying. low-hydrogen electrodes with coverings
- of apparently superior resistance to moisture absorption.
Since { these electrodes are,not covdred at the' present in the AWS Filler Metal Standards, the code must relate to the standard low-hydrogen electr' ode. l t " t should be emphasized that the requ' reec ts 'of 4.9.2 do not pre-I i clude the manuf acturer or contractor from demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Engineer, under the provisions of 5.2, that longer exposure times for low-hydrogen electrodes will not affect
r i .W
- ,...~.
..e. . 1..r }',, . 4.. ';. r. r ~ ~ .,.~. :. 7 ? ,- str. L. J..Clucistensen . *.' '. t.. : *
- December 19a 1914
. tage' 3 ~* rl: ....~..:. e. e t .<.... ~
- .u tho' aooeptability of proposed weldsents.
This would ' appear, to be
- l the approach to be taken where it is apparent that longer exposure
. times are warranted by the enviran=matal conditions f.. ...sinenzely yours,
- f..
9..:.:;..~....:r.....f... . g g... .;..c. .,~ . s... .y. /.. Moss V!. Davis, Secretary JWtS Structural Welding Commit; tee. -
- . 3. * -
. ~. .:;,.(.:,,._:.::. .. -, savDjaag:. . y*-.~*.. ~.. t'..,,.s s. A .. ces
- 1. B.' hisstars
," r ,..[.y.,, ,s.-[
- 3. T. Biskup, s,
...,7. : . : ;. *:,, j,... F. B. Ray., . E. 1. Crick.
- a. *.%
Elles D1-30.1.. e..'. s... .. J. '.i.... D1h-SC5..- / ,,..s ..s.,. s.,. .~..r,. c. s,.... a.., g '. s.n- ' e.. t* s. .a . g .s s. .g. l
APPENDIX "B" e e
1 # 2 1 ANTIFICATI(Ni POR 37018 laN NfDROGEN E12CTRODs S1DRAGE, IIPOSLRE, AIID RECYCLING IN A II410ER OflER TMrJ4 PRESCRIBgD BY ARIS til.1 i l I 988 The American Welding Society Structural Welding Code, AN5 D1.1, has evolved over more than 40 years as a usa-anadstory code (there are a few local exceptieas) which is a consensus of good practice. This is a signific utly conservative code is assy respects, such that fabricators souplying with each detail of this Code need not demonstrate the capabilities of their fabrication (welding) procedures. Specific provisions are unde, and implied for welding when not all details of D1.1 are utilised by a fabricator. These provisions essentially require qualifications to be demonstrated to the satisfaction i of the engineer. \\ } This justification desis with the technical basis and alternative j precedent for using filler metal controls alternative to those i in AIIS D1.1. l Alternative Precedent i here are sinnerous precedents for not utilistag Aus D1.1 filler estal controls. Several AuS Specifications dealing with items identical to or similar to many jobsite applications do not place any restrictions gen the control of low hydrogen, E7018 electrodes. Among these are: i ) AIIB D14.1, " Specification for Welding ladustrial and Mill Cranes." l l ANS D14.2, " Specification for Welding Metal Cutting Machine Tool Weldments." - 1 l These two Aus Specifications are mute on the subject of electrode control. He ANS thall Welding Manual, D3.5, does not provide specific control or guidance regarding low hydrogen electrodes, but does indicate controlled storage is advisable. The ARIS report, " Welding Fersous Materials for Nuclear Power Piping," D10.5, advises that unisture content be minimised by dry storage. The AME and ASIE Specification fe" Mild Steel Covered Arc Nelding Electrodes," A5.1/SFA5.1 addresses storage conditions for the various electrode classifications, but does NOT restrict, or recommend re-striction of low hydrogen electrode exposure to atmospheric conditions. The storage conditions shown as typical in AS.1 are substantially differet than those of D1.1. Suitable storage is shown as "norum1 20F and 50 percent===4== relative humidity. This room," 40F 3,dition is comparable to conditions of usage auch of the storage con year in many locations. An alternative storage condition is 50 to j 250 F above ambient temperatures. l The ASIE Code, Section III, Nuclear Power Plant Components requires that the subject of low hydrogen electrode storage, distribution 6 j and exposure be considered by the manufacturer or installer. l
__ _ _ _.. _.. _ _.~._ _ _ _ 4 ANSI 331.1 and B31.3 are also mute sa this subject leaving responsibility to the amoufactwer er installer. H us, there is ample precedent la recognised codes for alternatives to the senditions in ANB D1.1. Pursese of Low Hydrogen Electrodes h purpose behind the developoset of and current use of low hydrogen electrodes is clearly expressed in AN5/ASE gFA 5.1, the asterials j specification which goveras law hydroga carbon steel electrodes. I They were developed for welding higher strength, high-carbon, alley steels is which the electrodes other than low hydrogen electrodes produce P-= baoun as 'ader bead cracking'. Although these cracks do not occur in alid steels, they any occur j whenever a asa-low hydrogen electrode is used in high tensile steel." q Low hydrog a electrodes were developed in the late 1940's and early i 1950's in response to a phenomena called, "under bead cracking," i asperienced when using other electrode types (classifications) to } weld high carbon steels, high strength steels, and alley steels. Under bead cracking can escur in hardonable steels when hydrogen dissolved in the molten weld pool diffuses into the heat affected s, some, (MAZ), developing high internal pressures and high local stresses in non-doctile MAZ which has treasforasd to the metallurgical structure eartensite. The high internal pressures se the non-ductile material caused cracking. ne subject of eder bend cracking and control of j moisture were the subject of such research and developnett in this period } intil the industrial comunity became familiar with and developed j techniques to dost with the problems. The laboratory efforts as recorded in the published literature addressed j under bead cracking in ammy ways, but all used materials susceptible to the P , that is, high carbon ad low alloy steels thus were able to evaluate either electrode differences, storage conditions, baHas conditions or combination of these. Typical steels used among the significat investigators were: D. C. Smith, et al., used AISI j 1340; Mallet and Riepple (Battelle) used 0.45 carbon,1.2 chronia, j 0.51 solybdene and 0.20 vanadium; Franks (U. S. Navy) used NTS and j other alloyed plate. Nome of the significat studies used what is j currently called plain carbon steel. i l The essential fact which mast be kept in mind is that " plain ca:bm steels." such as, A36 A106 A53, A514, and A333, Gr 1 er 6, whach are } the findanental steels tsed in power slaat construction are not susceptib,e to aderbeas crackins. There is no necessity to use Sow Lj hydrogen electrodes for the asa-alloyed steels low tensile, low yNeld l strength steels used for compements and construction. j Mon-tow Hydrogen Electrodes Are Acceptable j ANS 01.1 permits the use of non-low hydrogen electrodes for all plain carbon steels. ANS D1.1 permits the use of g6010 electrodes for welding A36 or similar steels. I6010 electrodes are the antithesis of low hydrogen electrodes. This type (16010) is " cellulosic" and l 2-i ~~~~~n-.----- . w r-m -ww. .n
- .4 s
[ ( requires 6-104 asisture in its costing to achieve proper operettag i characteristics as campered to 0.6% is low hydrogen 37013 coatings, that is, a t a fold increase. la additica to the moisture in the easting which decomposes la the are to hydrogen and ozygen, the j cellulose is the esating breaks dous first to water vapor and CO2 i and then hydrogen plus other gases. 3 The cellulosic electrodes are widely used around the world. Cellulosic l electrodes, especially 36010 are the standard for cross-country ( pipeiime welding. h coated electrodes used on the Aleyeska pipeline were cellulosic types. The standard electrode used by Bechtel for refinery applicaties is 56010. ho-thirds of the piping in an average petro-chemical couplen has been welded with 56010 electrodes. h j results have been satisfactory. These electrodes are chose because they can achieve the required root gus11ty in an open butt joint, i without a backing ring. Backing rings are not generally permitted l in these applications for sorrosien reassas. h characteristics l ef low hydrogen electrodes essatially preclude open butt welding of l pipe. Maile 86010 electrodes (cellulosic Tynd could be used for probably 90 sorcent of the non-stainless steel sinian and structural 1 .gtg},lastalled by sechtel in a power plant. l Whr Use 570137 1 h E7013 low hydrogen electrodes are selected 1:ecause they are easier for welders to control and because backing rings are acceptable in same power plant carbon steel piping. Welders can make any joint, especially a pipe joint with backing ring l more easily with an E7013 electrode than with sa E6010 electrode in l a open butt. The 87013 are characteristic is less harsh, and the L l resultat bend e we is annother, and blends in with the base metal l l better the does the weld bead of 56010 electrodes, which are more ( yrone to adercut. Because backing rings are permitted for pipe joints and because they are easier to use, E7013 electrodes have becess the standard production electrode for power plant installation. This !S principally related to welder training and qualification, rats.er than for metallurgical reasons. Class 36010 electrodes (non-hydrogen) are metallurgically acceptable for the plain carbon steel l weldesats in a power plant. I In considering underbead cracking and electrode storage a frequently everlooked factor is preheat. Sechtel does follow AW5 D1.1 regarding I prehest for structural steel (and similar AstE recommendations for pipia) as a fhastion of material straagth and thickness, and has no reason to espect other than satisfactory results. Proper preheat in addition to minimising eder head cracking in those steels whch are susceptible i to this phonessas, also daimize porosity. ' M11shed studies _have shown that E7013 electrodes can be expospd to very hish - -idiew:====
- 30 perenne far 10 h.-s andpt Big r-iremsats of the material snecti'iestion SFA 5.1 for pornsity W r==ical p my.. Ties. " "i'4 -e11y. after initial a - aure t
these stuales show ' hat m unte cycles of restorage at 250F and re. ~ Trrdtted ad still pass snecifie=*ia= reeuir===ats. -;=.-. -7 oe he saii.we between the 250F restorage used in this study and' I storage at 200'F as referenced in WFM:-1 is insignificant as shown j by Chew. (Figure 6 in "Noisture less and Regain by some Basic Flux l l Covered Electrodes.") j
- - -. ~. ~ l 4 Porosity The D. C. Smith data show that acceptable levels of wresity asy be_stt=8-M after very lens esposures_ tn bish (sn)~ namidity._ Aassyt-able results were attained after asianay as 120 tone madred twenty) ~ ~ M. MJ., _. inn esta also indicates that the pasceptibility) to - tev an y esposure to isnt atmosphere is t t upon electrode unaufss W. A viously, Bechte 1 buy electrodes unica produce acceptable results eder the conditions of use. It should be noted that while the D. C. Smith data is not valid for carbon steel applications as regards oder bend cracking because of the difference in base metal hardensbility, this data is valid regarding weld metal porosity because weld metal porosity is independent of base metal hardensbility. References 1. Weldability of Steels W. D. Doty and R. D. Stout, Chapter 3 Welding Research Camcil, 2nd Edition,1971. 2. "Research Toward Safer Welded Construction," J. F. Lancaster, Welding Journal, March 1972, page 159 5. 3. "The Establishment of Safe Welding Procedures for Steel," M. Bailey, Weldina Journal, April 1972, page 169-5. 4. " Arc Atmosphere and Underbead Cracking," M. W. Mallet and P. J. Rieppel, Welding Journal, November 1946, page 743-5. S. " Moisture less sad Regain by some Basic Flux Covered Electrodes," l
- 3. Chow, Weldina Journal, May 1976, page 127-5.
l I 6. "Effect of histure on Cold Cracking of a Carbon-Manganese Steel " C. G. Internate et al., Weldina Journal. September 1969, page 334. 7. "Effect of Moisture in the Coatings of law Hydrogen Iron-Powder Electrodes," D. C. Smith, et al., Weldina Journal, July 1956, page 313-S. 8. "Fredictions of Weld Metal Hydrogen Levels obtained Under Test Conditions," 5. Chow, Welding Journal, September 1973, page 336. 4
e APPENDIX "C" e f I i 6 0 t
o k TEE EFFECTS OF BIGE EUMIDITT EIF05URE on E7018 ELECTRODES i RESEARCE AND ENGINEERING is&TERIALS & quaLITT SERVICES BECETEL EATIOEAL INCORPotATED 4 l l 37 F. C. Breismeister 1 I l 1 March 1, 1978 Job Ihaber 10407 I 4 1 i
TIE EFFECTS OF E1GE EUM1DITT EEPOSURE ON E7015 ELECTRODES I $bil._L ~S Y, Bis. F.' C. 'Breismeister, Engineering Superviser Materials & quality Services Departaast .I .FF307ED
- 8. D. Eseksey, Welding & Fabricaties Servises Group Manager Materists & quality servises Department J4, 4A
~ ,50,E., U. E. Smith, Sr., nameser materists & quality services Department o I 9 .g. I a ---_ __ ~ _,_s_
4 l o q o
- )
s U ABSTRACT 2 fine emerises Welding Society's Structural Welding Code, AUS D1.1, is frequently referessed as a soevesteet esses to govern str f meets for storage and issue of low bydreses welding elsstredes when used iag. to sold mild steel base unterials. 4 l This report presents a
- 2 st program and the reesitant data es the effects of high humidity, 86 and 100 pertest, during long and repeated esposures, The op to 40 hours, en the usesbility of E7014, low hydrogen j
eeund and metallurgically seseptable. fJ J the seestesiese drawn free this data indicate that the espesure seeditions I I investigated will set result la weld metal porosity or underhead cracking j Resammendations for as alternative is mild sarhem steel weldesats. electrode sentrol program to the AWS D1.1 i i k e a i I s e f i I I i t i s 5 .ti. '4 3,,.; n~ ~"Twy** T
- ' m
.,s.4 + -? ~ ~": M * %M& 1
LIST OF ILLDSTRAT10R$ Pact TABLES la Table 1 Smeary o f Espeeste Cycle s................................ Samary of Electrodes Used. Teste sad 15 Table 1 saaminations.............................................. 16 Table 3 Test and Esaminaties 3assite.............................. FIGURES ANS 51 Test Ceepos Assembly sad Progra Spesteen Il Figure 1 Les at ises................................................. Circular Patch Test Coupes and Program Specians 19 Figure 1 Locatione................................................. 20 Representative Radiographe (56 Persest Emidity).......... Figure 3 Ueret Casa Radiographe (100 Fereest tenidity). 24 Figure 4 ANS/SFA 5 1 Coupees....................................... 26 Radiographe (100 Persest Eunidity), Circular Facch Teste.. Figure 5 y Photomacrograph of Typical Weld Metal and Esat 17 Figure 6 Affected 1 ease............................................ APPENDICES 33 WFMC-1, Rev. 6. Weld Filler Metal Centrol Frecedure....... 1 Welding Procedere Specificatisse F1-A-Lh (Structural) l 40 2 and F1-h-Lh............................................... l 44 TeshSisal C M etary...................................... 3 Radiographic Procedere (RT-A$lt) and Radiographic 47 4 Esader Sheete............................................. ,l -111-t i 4 1 9 %i A ~~g% ~AM h .g ' '9 " W *;% 3 WM4.,
- M s muB5 +1
,6
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS pagg SECTION 11 Abstrast 111 List of Illustratione ( 1 GBJECTIVE8 1 1.1 Sackground.............................................. 2 1.2 Objectives.............................................. 2 CosCLUS1088 AND REcoleENDAT1055 3 2.1 Cascissions............................................. 3 1 2.2 Bacounseadations......................................... I 3 AFFBo&CE 4 3.1 unteriale............................................... i 4 3.2 Esposure Cys1ee......................................... S 3.3 Welding Procedure and Techniques........................ i 6 l 3.4 mechanical Testias......... '." " " " " " " " " " ' " ' 6 3.5 nadiographic Esasiastion................................ 7 3.6 ustallegraphie Esamination.............................. 7 3.7 Useability.............................................. 4 ACColdFLISEMENTS 8 4.1 unchanical Teste........................................ 8 4.2 Radiographic Examination................................ 9 4.3 Met a11egr aphy........................................... 9 4.4 Useability.............................................. 9 4.5 qualification of WFMC-1................................. 5 DISCUSS 1ON 10 5.1 Discussion of Resulte................................... 11 5.2 stainless steel and Nicket A11oys....................... 11 5.3 Mternate Electrode Cont.rol Program..................... i l I I is- ---,n- .,g..---,,nn ,m,--w., -,c-,-,.,w-.w,,r. m-n-_ -,-n-m-m,., ,,-c-w--- -w
,w----,r-w,-
t OsJgCTITg3 l t j 1.1 Sackground i, ANs D1.1 provides minimum rules, such that manufacturers and installers meeting all stated requirements need met quality, ser densastrate the suitability or adequacy of fabricaties and installaties precedures, j reisted techniques, practises or sentrols. AMs 91.1 askas provisions for j l alternative precedures and assigns the respessibility for asseptance of t any siternatives to N sagineer (responsible Design gagineer). Alterna-tive presedures may be assepted based spes qualificaties tests or evidence of previous qualifications. i The AMs 91.1 Code imposes senservative requirements se the storage and l issuance of E7013 electrodes ukes used to weld mild steel. These require-masts, as applied to the umiding of mild steel, are significantly more ] senservative than h oe impeeed by other Cedag er standards. ANs 91.1 requires that 37013 electrodes that are met used withis four hours after the openias of hermetissily esaled sostainers er renoval of the electrodes free a drytas er storage owes shall be redried before use. For field i applications is particular, this requirement results in the need for pert-able red warmers. portable red warmers are empensive to procure and asia-tain end result in the sens epties of seasiderable time te verify and l desument proper usage. l prior to embarking of this test program, an estessive study of historical data and literature aos saaduated. This study demonstrated that the ANS l D1.1 storage and isomesse seguiremente for E7013 electrodes for velding mild steel are senservative based es metallurgical and umiding seasider-sticas. Ristorically, the reasses for sentrollias the storage, issuance j and use of E7013 electrode, is relation to potential asisture gain free high humidity envireements, has been as stated is the ANg/sFA S.1 j electrode specificaties. that is, to avoid underbead erasking is alley, l high carbes er high strength steel base metal and to minimise peresity. l l When esisture is pisked op by electrode seatings, the esisture is reduced i by the are energy to saygen and hydregos. There has been sensers that l essessive seating asisture er preleased uscentrolled espesure to humidity might result in porosity or underhead erasking in susceptible asterials. Onderbead erssking is caused by entrapped hydroges developing high internal pressure within the seerse grained heat affected some (sAZ) of mild steel is hardesable, alleyed, high serbes or high strength steels. generally assepted as met being susceptible to underbead crasking. porosity saa be generated by suffisiestly high veld metal seeling rates that result is solidificaties before the hydrogen and enygen saa essaye to the surface. It was determined that a test program should be saaduated to provide data supporting sa alterestive electrode sostrel program for welding sild steel with 37018 electrodes to subs:aatiate the results of the literature survey. f i l : l l w- -m ._.x,.. m.. . _.a;w m.. s _,.. - ~ m
N L ij l1 1.2 Chjectives De objective of the test program was to provide dets supporting se alternate E7018 electrode eestrol program for welding sild steel. Specifically, the program was to demonstrate that for the worst antici-pated humidity conditions, that long and repeated esposures to that humidity would not cause deterioration of E7018 electrode mesability or To demonstrate diminish metallurgical acceptability of soupleted welds. that the proposed 12 hour esposure time was not deleterious and to eval- ? mate various margias, the test program esposures were specified as repe-L titiosa of 15 and 20 hours. seeditions were to be evaluated to provide worst case conditions and to provide an indication'of margias swallable when compared to proposed elec-All other aspects of the test program simuisted trode sostrol programa. relevant jobsite conditions. the test program results were also intended to justify the alternate filler metal control procedure, as applied to austenitic stsialess steel 4 The estension of the 37018 data is based upon and nicks 1 alloys. natallurgical fundanestals. b a 5 m t i i i 6 l i s' i, I l I I t e WW ~. yeesse, L_
= j l. CosCLOS1058 AND REC 000lENDATIOS$ 1 l 1.1 Ceeslusions De sesclusiese reached are hosed spes solding mild steel end are not intended for estessies to the welding of high alloy, high carbon er high strength ferritis steels. With thie premise is nied, test program data permits the following seec1ms',ess: 1. De aseability of 27018 electrodes is met dialaisked by as such as three 20 hour espesures to 86 persest humidity, not by as such as three 20 hour espesures to 100 persest humidity. l De porosity seatest of the rossitant veld estal is acceptable, af ter ~ 2. as auch as three 20 hour espesures to 86 percent humidity and after i as susch as three 20 hour espesures to 100 persest huidity. Dree repeated espesures totaling 60 hours at 86 percent and 100 i 3. percent h uidity each will not result la either moderbead cracking or l hydrogen embrittlement in mild steel meldseats. t De requirements specified in AWS D1.1 relating to esposure of E7018 4. electrodes uhen us1 ding mild steel are conservative and suitable alternate controls saa be specified.
- 5..Issoasse of E7018 is unheated containers is up to 20 hours is accept-After espesure to high humidity electrodes may be stored la able.
l evens at 200F aisimum. Espeated tspesure of up to three cycles for E7018 electrodes to high l l 6. h u idity prior to welding steel mild is justified. 2.2 Escommesdatiosa De electrode control program specified in UFNC-1, revision 6 should be m iformly required to control electrode usease la all welding applications for all nuclear power ptojects. UFMC-1/rev. 6 is included as Appendia 1. i l l \\ e l. r,, _,_w___ ,_m...- m -71,.--.Tr__- .%% % p L
AFFROACE 3.1 Materials De great majority of welding at currest power projects is limited to low strength, mild steel base metals (F1). Derefore, the program test soupons were selected from mens this class of steels. A516-Cr 70 was i selected because it is the highest strength asterial commonly used in this alass of materials. Low alley esterials were not included in the test program because the proposed alternate electrode control procedure is not intended to be applied to welding of these types of materials. De E7018 welding electrodes used in the program were representative of Cheestros, Lincola, Airco and McKay products. The E7018 dianerers tested were 3/32, 1/8, 5/32 and 3/16 inch since these are the sises used for installation. De electrode diameters used is the test program are shown la Table 1. 3.2 Esposure Cycles I I De humidity esposure cycles used are also shown la Tabla 1. De shcrt-est esposure time tested was 15 hours skich represents a 25 percent increase is esposure beyond the 12 hours proposed. Because electrodes any be issued, than returned to the electrode storage ovens and sub-l sequently reissued, a repetition of esposure was included in the test Three exposure cycles appeared to be a realistically con-program. f servative number prior to ceaseption of electrodes on jobsites and was i therefore included la the test progras. I All electrodes in the program were tested with three full esposure cycles of 15 hours each, repressati..s at least 25 percent conservatism relative to the esposure time proposed. Additional tests were coeducted with l longer esposure times (20 hours) la en effort to estimate the margins l sveilable. Each of these 20 hour esposure cycles was longer than that which is being proposed, and the total esposure time would be the I j equivalent of five exposures. De esposure cycles were conducted using the methods of ASTN E104 to 3 obtain a esastsat 44 percent heldity in enclosed cabinets. Saturated [ solutions of potassium chloride EC1, were used. Two insulated cabinets were used se there would not be unnecessary cabinet openings to accommo-date the differences in the 15 hour and 20 hour cycles. The humidity of each cabinet was confirmed by wet bulb / dry bulb thermometer readings. i i 4-i
- mmua n ---
x- -m- -a
1 1' Af ter satisfactory sempleties cif testing related to 46 percest humidity I espesures, additional testing of the four manufacturers electrodes was ha 100 persest humidity performed with 100 percest humidity esposures. suposures were seeducted la closed insulated cabinets sentaining large The peas of wara water to achieve as equilibruia saturated staosphere. . l validity of the method was checked prior to implenestation en progras he 100 percent humidity condition was asistained for two l eest cycles. he 100 percent days as confirmed by wet bulb / dry bulb thermometers. humidity was ceafirmed immediately prior to the start of the espesure The 1001 percent humidity l cycle and after the first and second hours.was additionally verified after th thereafter until completion of the sixtieth esposure hour. \\ Welding Procedure sad Techaigues 3.3 The welding procedure specification (UPS) used for all welding was P1-A-Lh-Structural, which is equivalent to WPS F1-A-Lh as used for ASME l weldias. This procedure was selected because it is the most casgoaly 71-A-Lh (Structural) and P1-A-Lh are incli,?rd in I used mild steel WPS. Appendix 2. 1 l Many different test coupon geometries could have been selected, powever. the test coupons required sufficient thickness to develop three i t dimensional residual stress to encourage wederbead cracking, to permit multiple layer welding for projection on radiographs, to have sufficient aumber of stops and starts, and to provide realistically severo restraint. The test compos specified la AWS/5FA 5.1,' specification for mi;d steet 1 The m ocedural Electrodes, met these criteria and is shown in Figure 1. instructions of AWS/8FA 5.1 were followed, especially 50 PREIELT, and no l [ additional versing or cooling of coupons watil the interpass e imperature Then a 300F +23F interpass temperature was maisgained, as t reached 300F. required by the specification. The AWS/SFA 5.1 telding techniques were Two strong backs, three modified la the following conservative maaner. i inches deep, were attached to provide restraint against transierse shrink-The asbestos pads specified by Al'S/STA 5.1 I sgo and angular distortion.were not used la order to provide for more rapid co l cation of the weld deposit, thus encouraging porosity and EAZ hardening. 1 The root gap was marrowed because all weld metal tessile specimens were l l act required (see paragraph 3.3). If anything, the marrow gap restricted The electrode speci-the welders access and made welding more difficult. l fication requires one diameter electrode per coupos, which v4 s notTherefore, te be m considered representative of jobsite welding. istic. several diameter electrodes from the same manufacturer w Electrodes from different manufacturers were to weld a single coupon. The specification requiremeatn for stringer not used la a single coupon. All pae:W had at heads, weave and split layer weaves were followed. least one stop and start, as required, and esas passsa bad more than oneThese because of the small diameter electrodes used. 15, 20, 45, with eles.troder, which had been exposed to humidity cycles of and 60 hrsrs. l. \\ e '~'^wre.,AMA- --w, ~
Circulst patch test soupons were welded to increase the degree of re-straint and therefore to provide se even more senservative test for under-bead stacking. De circular patch test coupos mes based es the U.S. Navy test as described la Chapter 9 of Waldsbility of Steels by Stout and Doty, but reedified to obtain suitable specimens for sechanical testing. The diameter of the patch was 10 inches to allow renoval of transverse tessile and side bead specimaas. De proportion of patch dimeter to everall soupos dimensies was such that yield strength residual stresses sould be echieved. The unld groeve angle and gap were also as stated la Stout and Dety. De sequence of block weldias in quadrants use also as specified. The see preheat sentrols were applied, that is, 30 PSEREAT and 300 +25F interpass toeperature. The circular patch test coupon and the specimes removal locatiosa are shows la Figure 2. 3.A unchanical Testing mechanical tests unre eoaducted to demonstrate that the test veldsents ~ met mechanical property requirements and did not result in underbead cracking. The mechanical tests of AWS/SFA 5.1 are not directly relevant to the underbead cracking is the base metal EAZ historically associated i with the use of E7018 electrodes. Therefore, mechaalcal tests which I would test both weld metal and base estal EAZ uere selected. Two trans-verse tessile speciaeas in accordance with AWS D1.1 (and ASME Section IX) ) were removed and tested la lieu of the all unid metal tensile specimen. Four transverse side bead specimens in accordance with AUS D1.1 (and ASME Section II) were tested in lieu of the unld metal Charpy Y-Botch specimens, because the loading rate of bend specimens is' more appropriate to reveal hydrogen embrittlement (both in weld metal and EAZ) whereas the Charpy specimens will not. See Appendix 3 for a discussion of why Charpy impact speciosas were not used, and the effects of mechanical test loading rates. l Ealf of the sold test compons from electrodes esposed to 86 percent h uidity vers subjected to mechanical tests. All brands were subject to mechanical tests after one er more 86 percent humidity cycles. It uns not considered necessary to subject all brands to mechanical testing after each 86 percent huidity esposure cycle, as both theory and past experience has shout that slid steel bass metal is act susceptible to underbead crack-lag. A senary of the electrodes used and the tests conducted is shown in Table 2. After esposure of the electrodes to 100 percent humidity the AWS 5.1 coupeaa cod the circular patch coupons from each electrode brand were subject to complete mechanical testing. These test results are also sumar-ised la Table 2. The mechanical test specimens were ausbered the same as the correspondlag meld coupons and radiographic film. 3.5 Radiographic Examination -Radiographic ex mination was conducted on all test veldsents to determine if the esposure to high huidity had caused porosity, and as a preliminary check for underbead cracking. Radiography is the traditional and most effective method of evaluating subsurface porosity. Sechtel Procedure II-ASME was used and the radiography performed by an approved subcontractor, 1 1 j \\ I ~ - - = - - c m - ~
.ma. -_7-- + Peabody Testing /Iray Engineering Campany. De fils quality and tae sold quality were evalasted by a Bechtel gart-1C-1A Level III esaminer. De acceptance standard used was ASME secties 111 which is aquelly or more severe than the Aps/sFA 5.1 er the AWs 91.1 criteria. i Radiography has, en occasion, revealed underbead cracking in alloy steel EAZ's. For this reason, radiography was performed at least two full days i after the start of welding. All coupons had backing rings removed and weld surfaces ground to facilitate interpretation af the film. I 3.6 metallographic Examination As a further evaluation of possible underbead cracking, all coupons were l subject to a metallographic emanisation at 101 magnificacios on a trans-i verse section. h is was dose because all coupons were not subjected to mechanical tests, and as a further check for hydrogen embrittlement l fissures. De circular patch compos estallographic specimens were removed from the fourth quadrant velded which had the greatest restrafat and the greatest probability of cracking. 3.7 Useability Electrode usability was principally evaluated by the test uniders, and also by the radiographs and side head tests la revealing defects such as l porosity. Two welders made evaluations while welding the first ten De welders changed brands os each test cycle, to obtala opinions coupons. os each brand. A third welder also evaluated the electrodes during melding coupon series 101 and 102 (eight coupons). i h i I' 6 I E I 4 r
.... _. _ ~. _ _. _ _ _ ACCONFL18EMENTS D e prograu objectives were achieved. Specific accomplishments included the assembly of data en four 17018 electrode manufacturers for five electrode humidity esposure cycles with eightees weld coupons to support and justify as alternative electrode control program to that required by ANS D1.1. De E7018 electrodes were esposed to high humidity is five types of espo-sure cycles as shown la Table 1, and then tested and esamined as shown la Table 2. De test'and esamination results are recorded in Table 3. 4.1 Mechanical Tests The.mechaalcal test results show that repeated esposures to high h u idity had so detrimental influsace on strength or ductility with no hydrogen embrittlement or underbead cracklas. Table 3 samarises the results of mechanical testing. 4.2 Radiographic Examination he radiographic results indicate that there was little or no porosity due to esposure to 86 percent huidity, nor was there any underbead crack-Lag. De radiographic reader sheets are shown la Appendix 4. Positive prints of representative film from the 86 percent huidity tests are shown la Figure 3. Galy one cluster of porosity was present in coupon A 20. The A 45 coupon (from the sese assufacturer but with 25 hours greater esposure) showed no porosity. The single cluster of porosity was attri-buted to welder technique rather than any electrode deficiency. This was the worst example of porosity found la both the 86 and 100 percent h uidity tests. In so case was there aligned or substantial porosity. same slag was found but is is as way related to humidity esposure. The greatest amount of slag was shown la the two brand M couposa. The radiographic results for the coupons welded with electro es exposed to 100 percent humidity for three 20 hour periods (cycles 101 and 102) showed essentially 30 F030SITT and little slag. The radiographic reader sheets for these tests are also included in Appendiz 4. A positive print representing the worst of the four radiographs taken of the AWS/SFA 5.1 coupons (cycle 101) is shown la Figure 4. Positive prints of all four circular patch coupons (cycle 102) radiographs are shown la Figure 5. These positives were reduced by approximately 1/3 for purposes of re-production and distribution with the report. Note the essential absence of porosity and that most of the slag indications occurred at locations where the block welded quadrants joined in the circular patch test coupons.
4.3 Insta11egraphy } lista11egraphic esasiastions at 101 revealed so evidence of underbead i cracklag. A representative photomacrograph is shown la Figure 6. 4 l 4.4 Woesbility i i Esposure to high huidity had no influence se are stability, slag skaracteristics er setting action. De characteristics and aseability of each electrode brand tested were basically unchanged after repeated esposures to high hualdity. Some desireable increase la are force was noted. 4.5 qualification of vrtsc-1 l De mechanical, radiographic, metallographic and aseability results provide the data necessary for qualifying as alternative electrode control 2 i procedure in compliance with AWS D1.1. De dets developed in this test 1 progran provides adequate support for the use of WFlac-1 in all aspects of j welding en power projects, i 1 1 1 1 Jl 4 f 4 1 t ul 1l k 1 l l + j L
DISCU3510s De test program resalts were favorable and confira prior revieu of the literature and estensive jobsite esperience with electrode control pro-sedures other than those la D1.1. t 5.1 Discussion of Essults De test program was conducted in tuo phases. A first phase based upon esposures to to percast humidity uns designed as a minimum program to justify alternate ele'ctrode control procedures. De second phase ses added la response to comments that indicated the first phase data would be insufficiently cesservative in terms of huidity and degree of coupon restraint. Da introduction of 1001 humidity represented conservative data that would provide a basis for a generic change frem AWs D1.1 electrode control requirements at all jobsites. Se 100 percent huidity esposure cycles were longer than the 12 hour nazimum esposure proposed. De total esposure time represented the equivalent of five esposure periods under the proposed UFMC-1 yrocedure. De electrode storage ovens during the test were set at the lowest temperature permitted in WFMC-1 (200F). Dese variables are all conservative in terms of the electrode exposure and storage proposed in UFMC-1. Da weldias, testing and examination were similarly rigorous. For example, so preheat was applied to the test coupons in order to encourage porosity and underbead cracking, glimination of the asbestos pads required by AWS/ SFA 5.1 sould permit more rapid cooling and encourage porosity and under-bead cracking. Se addition of strong backs provided a great deal of re-strelat and made underband cracking more likely. De AWS 5.1 test coupons remained almost flat until the stress backs were removed. After removal, the coupes distorted approximately 1/16 inch by angular rotation. bout the unld center line. B is indicated that residual stress of yielt. strength magaltade uns present. ne circular patch coupon develops even greater total shrinkage or strain than does the AWS 5.1 coupon because the transverse and longitudinal straias are additive. Although the strait is greater, the residual stress and tastraint are limited to that which the base material can sustain with-out yieldias. Because of the great straia developed in circular coupons by sold metal shrinkage during solidification and cooling, this test has been widely used to. raluate solidification related cracking or hot tearing rather than hydroges embrittlenest or porosity. Because the ratio of weld groove diameter to coupon thickness is great, this test uns not considered representative of normal jobsite conditions and is thought to be sub-sesatially more conservative. . s w . m.e,,aca.s,wwn -n---- n. --______m...w'v_m-.m,,,,w __-_m.a, m at
~= .. =. = De aircular patch test results reaffirmed that underbead cracking is not a realistic soecera, and also demosetrated that esposure to high huidity did not adversely affect the resistance of 57018 weld metal to solidifi-estion eracking or het tears although the latter two issues were not in question. Radiographic esamination showed that 45 hours esposure to 86 percest haaldity la three 15 hour cycles would not result la porosity. De only porosity found was see cluster of small pores is an area about 3/8 inch everall diameter. Bis single cluster la the 10 inch, A 20 compon was attributed to unider technique and is not representative of electrode asisture effects after 20 hours esposure. The same electrodes esposed for 45 hours showed no peroeity. Brand C electrodes were esposed for 60 hours to 86 percoat humidity and showed so porosity. Radiographic posi-tives of the single cluster of porosity la coupes A 20 and the porosity j free C 60 compos are shows la Figure 4. De coupons welded with electrodes esposed to 100 percent huidity for three 20 hose periods showed almost so porosity. Dere were few slag ) indications and most of these were in the circular patch coupons at the locations where the block welded quadrasts joined. De radiographic results clearly indicate that the proposal to issue electrodes is com-tainers for up to 12 hours is justified for all projects, even those la coastal environments. Se slag indications were not considered rele-vast to the purpose of this investigation as these were unrelated to atmospheric humidity or coating noisture. A single cluster of porosity occurred la the brand A coupon A20, after a single 20 hour esposure to 86 percent huidity. He subsequent test I soeposs A101 and A102 showed almost no porosity after three 20 hour espo-sures to 100 percent hu idity. Because the single cluster was isolated and because the subsequest coupons (A101 andA102) showed no porosity, it was concluded that the cimeter was due to welder technique and is warelated to electrode moisture contest. 5.2 stainless steel and sickal Alloys Austasitic stainless steel'and alckel alloy electrodes were not included la this test program. De metallurgical structure of these alloys is subject to neither hydrogen embrittlement nor underbead cracking. A more complete esplanation of this is provided la Appendia 3. It is also reason-able to anticipate a similar response, as regards porosity for a given manu-facturer's E7018 and sustasitic stainless steel electrodes. 5.3 Alternate Electrode control Program De proposed alternate electrode control program, WFNC-1, contains the following important elements which have been successfully demonstrated. . l i I i I
1. Electrodes are issued in identified containers which protect the electrodes from damage, dirt, hydrocarbons, direct moisture 2 and free staespheric seedessaties. The identified containers assure that caused electrodes will be returned to helding evens at the end of each shift er 12 hours (dichever is first). f 2. Bolding evens are set at 200F ainis m. While this temperature was previously justified, program test results confirm its adequacy. 3. A maximus 12 hour limit es electrode esposure provides a substantial margia for those electrodes dich have been show acceptable after three, twenty hour esposures to 100 percent huidity. A J F 1, 4
- 1 A
3 i I 4 k 1 1 i, $ ,a___- s l' hh,, p.M h"'- ~ 7' N -O 5--
-1 ....._a , L,_ ...l e ,m h e e e 1 4 i l 4 1 1 1 4 TABLES e e l 1 I l l l i 1 i i 1 i i 1 i O 13-eo
r i l Mul i Samunary of Esposure Cycles Cycle numbera 15 45 20 60 101. 102 Perseet Busidity W E E E 100 Erands Tested (1) A.C.L.E A.C.L.E A C A.C.L.E Eunidity 15 Ers. 15 Ers. 20 Ers. 20 Ers. 20 Ers. 3 200F eyes 8 Ers. 8 Ers. 8 Ers. Emidity 15 Ers. 20 Ers. 20 Ers. t 200F eyes 8 Ers. 8 Ers. 8 Res. E midity 15 Ers. 20 Ers. 20 Erg. Wald Wald Weld Wald Wald I i i simber of espesures 1 3 1 3 3 I Eours esposure 15 45 20 60 60 Test coupon AWS 5.1 AWs 5.1 - Aus 5.1 Aus 5.1 Aus 3.1, and 5 Circolar Patch i l lI l Este 1. The breeds and diameters tested were: ij A = Airco 1/8, 5/32 and 3/16 inch 4 C = Cbemetron 1/8 and 5/32 inch 1 L = Lincola 1/8 and 5/32 inch i M = mcEay 3/32, 1/8, 5/32 and 3/16 inch 3 [ Ceepoos and specimens were identified with these initials plus the esposure 1 cycle member, for example, specismos fres cycle 20 were identified as A 20. 1 la addition, cycle 101 represents AWs 5.1 compons esposed for three, 20 hour cycles and cycle 102 represents circular patch teste esposed for three 20 hour 1 eycles, all at 100 percest humidity. t! Y l I !! j -,w we ,,,,__a._,,,, _, - - - - - -_______,w-,- n
,...i _.. ,. a --.~- 2.. ~.. TAB 12 2 Samary of Electrodes Used. Espesure Cycles. Tests and Examinations Program Activity Activity Summary By Cycle saber Cycle Ember 15 45 to 60 101 102 msers Exposure 1 a 15 3 a 15 1 s 20 3 a 20 3 s 20 3 s 20 Emaidity percent 44 86 86 86 100 100 trands Walded A.C.L.E A.C.L.M A C A.C.L.M A.C.L.M Test Coupees AUS 5.1 ASW 5.1 AUS 5.1 AWS 5.1 AUS 3.1 Circular Fatch Brands subject to 'C, M A.L C A.C.L.M A.C.L.M unchanical Tests (1) Radiography A.C.L.M A.C.L.M A C A.C.L.M A.C.L.M Metallegraphy A.C.L.M A.C.L.M A C A.C.L.R A.C.L.M Ceepos, Specimes 15 45 20 60 101 102 and Fila Ee. (2) Este 1. Nachanical tests include two reduced section transverse tensile spect===a, and four transverse side bend specimens. Note 2. All coupons, specimens and film costals these numbere as a suffis, preceded by the Manufacturers initial. e 1
. ~.... n. 4 E.* TMLE3 i Test and Esamlastion Besults l Side Dead Coopes Transverse & Each e l Specimes Tsaalle Aa81e Radio-Metal-5eber (se1) (Dearees) atashy leerashy i, ~ set tested got tested Accept Be Crack i A15 l C15 80,000 180 CE accept so Crack 80,500 180 CE accept so crack 4 l l L15 set tested Not tested Accept so crack M15 79,400 180 CE Accept (1) No Crack 79,200 2 i i i A20 Bet tested 180 CE One Cleater Bo Crack peresity t I A 45 80.200 180 CE Accept so Crack ) l I 80.200 C45 set tested Not tested Accept Bo crack L45 81,400 180 OE accept No crack f 81.600 u65 set tested set tested accept (1) No crack C60 79,400 180 CE Accept No Crack 78,100 l l A101 79,500 180 CE Accept No crack j 78,000 C101 81,800 180 CE Accept No Crack I 83.000 L101 79,700 180 CE Accept No crack 80,700 i l M101 77,800 180 CE Accept so crack i 79,100 I A102 83,300 180 CE Accept No Crack l 80,000 C102 80,600 180 CE Accept No Crack j 80,,00 l L102 76,600 180 CE Accept so Crack { 74,400 ~ [ M102 77,000 180 OE Accept No Crack 77,000 Este 1. No rejectable poroeity, slag in each coupon to be disregarded for purposes of this program. q s ' ?
l l. b I 4 O f 0 1 i e s a 9 L i I.
- r.-s 4h.
.n., "+- - -r, w/ve. rp4.,,
d b newes nameno. m mmen - no // ass e== \\ \\ t, t i,
==.==s. 7 nes.ma <=.u a r, s e ex \\\\ ses see / / I / / buuo== .w am eman-S W B w \\/ \\/ I I I I <l NO peauRE 2. CanCULAR PATCH TEST GHJPON AND PROGRAM McMEN LOCATIONS... M. nAumE m M -- E_ r h m g.mhWJ1 2 ^-' w - ) .j ", ',
P i NI $.~ i 4 J see sem set seese 1 m ~1 SSEEEND i l i esos sesse I MAN l \\ t 1 TUS EmonGaACNB 8 II S UC W M AasE TEpst ayynomstaATELY AT ,j ussomas 1 r i w ROUCm TRANS.TWet T f I i IIOtulus Osterf. iesus. I j l ** ame 4 h '4 \\ l .. = -- .,9 \\ N 4 r $k I pouRsi. AwswA oTasT COUPON AND PROGRAM MCIMEN t.DCATONS..
<= s '. ! { 'd l APPENDIX "D" e I 6 h-
e* e ( r EFFECT W NIGH NUMIDITY CH 7018 EIECTRODES A REPCRT TO BEQtTEL PCNER CORPCRATION CGrTRACT PRQ7ECT 8003-5 By: T. A. Siewert L J MEDIETRQt Ct3tPGtATIGt GASES GRGIF RESEAR3 CENTER TBOBIICAL DEVEIDF9 TENT DIVISIGE P. O. BGt 517 MANGrER, PENNSYLVANIA 17331 (717) 637-8911 l w -N jp -w naem 7 w Ih T- .*Wa
~ 4 ( I. INFItG30CTION 1 1 II. TEST F5t0C2 DURE 1 III. RESULTS j A. Welder Appeal S Radiographs 3. Side tend Specimens C. Transverse Tensile Specimens D. Metallographic Examination IV. CGICIDSIQl3 V. FIGURES AND TABLES (Approm 2X) 15 Hours Figure 1 - Four Side Beines - 1 Exposure ofof 15 Hours Figure 2 - Four Side Bends - 3 Exposures of 20 Hours Figure 3 - Four Side Bends - 1 Exposure Figure 4 - Four Side Bands - 3 Exposures of 20 Hours 15 Hours Figure 5 - Two Transverse Tensiles-1 Exposure ofof 15 Hours Figure 6 - Two Transverse Tensiles-3 Exposures 20 Hours Figure 7 - Two Transverse Tensiles-1 Exposure of 20 Hours l Figure 8 - Two Transverse Tensiles-3 Exposures of l TABIE I - Electrode Certification TAB 12 II - Numidity Exposure Schedule a TAB 12 III - Tensile Properties j l mt s -.mw, Wie - mam m 4s-e 'h~=- '-h't h - ^ ~ ^ - 7 ~-- EWi# =-' "__~' -+1 e ,we, gyh 4,6$ g be g syg 4 ,,g og 4L
I. INTRODUCTIGE The AWS Structural Welding code D1.1 requirement (7010 electrodes not used within four hours of resoval from storage o ovens maintained at 250 F or from sealed containers shall be redried) \\ forces users to maintain very strict and, therefore, expensive con-trol over the use of this electrode. H e four hour limit was chosen to provide sound welds even under severe operating con-ditions. This study was instituted to determine whether the four hour limit is overly conservative for the conditions experienced l st the Palo Verde Project. II. TEST PROCEDURE i Two 50 pound sealed cans, one each of 1/8 inch 4 l and 5/32 inch diameter Chemetron E7018, were taken from tested stock. Se physical and chemical properties are included in Table I. S e electrodes were placed in open l'0 pound cans and stored in a 250*F dry rod oven until the W-4=g of the test. Four tests were run using the esme combination of 1/8 and 5/32 inch electrode in each test plate. The four tests will be identified as 1-15 (one 15 hour exposure to humidity), 3-15 (three 15 hour exposures to humidity),1-20 (one 20 hour, exposure to humidity), and 3-20 (three 20 hour exposures to humidity. The details of the hssnidity cabinet and exposure are included in Table II. l Imediately after the final exposure to humidity, test plates were welded to Bechtel Welding Procedure Specification F1-A-Eh Rev.1 and SFA 5.1. Ten inch long 3/4 inch thick test plates with a 1/4 inch root gap were made using the 1/8 inch electrodes at 140 amperes j and 22 volts for the root and one fill passt and 5/32 inch electrodes at 170-180 amperes and 24 volts for the 6 r-mining fill and cap passes. l r 4
- -r
- ase - ...+M *A - a ker~-r"... .e .. s a s - W N-w. N W
( The interpass temperature was held between 300 and 325'F. ( After holding for a 48 hour period to allow possible cold cracking to occur, the plates were radiographed and two as-welded transverse tensiles and four as-welded side bonds were The machined from each plate according to ASME section IX. radiographs were examined by our Intel II personnel and are included with this report for evaluation by the Rechtel Aswr i TC-1A Level III personnel. One side bend specimen of each plate was polished and wamined at 10X magnification for evidence of 4 underbead cracking. 4 l 1 i i I P lh m. J WF' f S6.se-e o h*.. d>h d hi'-- - - -- - -- T-' h e sw h ' hhM 1mE M .w. .. M WWN f. MJ 4 mth
, ~......... - 4 ~ i 4 l III. RESULTS t e (. A. Welder Appeal and Radiographs l he welder observed no changes in are characteristics e' The slag coverage and ease of resoval remained ex-r.?ter exposure. No evidence of cracking or porosity was noted by the i cellent. i 5 welder. J The x-rays were judged acceptable to SFA 5.1 by our Level II personnel. i I s. side Bend specimens f Photographs of the four side band tests are included } as Figures 1 to 4. All 16 side bend specimens were acceptable in [ accordance with D1.1. S ese specimens, shown at nearly 2X magnification i l It could not be detemined if ,do include see small imperfections. these were actually due to small cracks that grew and opened under the A bending stresses or cracks that formed and grew in a thin metal S ligament between the surface and en oxide inclusion in the weld t j metal near the bend surface,. t C. Transverse Tensiles I Photographs of the fracture surfaces of the 8 transverse In all cases, the tensile specimens are included as Figures 5 to 8. f bulk of the failure was in the weld metal. In many cases, there were " dimples" near the fusion line of the weld deposit which indicated i i a portion of the tensile failure was initiated at imperfections near the i [ A detailed list of the physical properties of the tensile + fusion line. f specimens is included as Table III. t 0 -,,,--.,------,n, .---n-,--,---
... =..,:a. : z. =.., . :=~.. I l-I D. Bestal1oerachic Examination i I l Examb ation of polished sections of side bend specimens t I at 10X magnification revealed no evidence of underbead cracking. i h. IV. CGICLUSIG85 Damage by high moisture content electrodes is manifested ( l in two areas, cracking and porosity. The two day delay between i welding and radiography was designed to allow hydrogen cracking i 1 No evidence of cracking was visible on the radiographs. i to occur. l Also, the side bend tests revealed the weld deposit was acceptable j 3 to AWS Code D1.1 crack standards. e Only =4ai=al porosity was evident in the radiographs indicating the moisture content of the electrodes was acceptable. These electrodes, when welded under the husidity a.M restraint conditions imposed in this test, will produce seeoptable welds after three-twenty hour exposures to 864 humidity ( a level far above the four hour===i== specified in AWS Code D1.1. I l i I t + l
p 4 L. e \\ ' ~, '4. 1 ,s ./ J . g., '1ED b W. . :~,. ~ FIG. 1 - Four Side Bends - (Approx. 2X) 1 Exposure of 15 Hours l l v N .2 ,a. 3 iw ( b . s.4 f~. [ g j.. = m Q'; _ ww m {_ < * ~. l \\.-., _m. 1.. ~- FIG. 2 - Four Side Bends - (Approx. 2x) w l 3 Exposures of 15 Hours e i ' wr - name -m..o m.=v- = n:~ 2 T - r _r__1 r e_w_r r: n _-7 -,w. wm?..~m
l' O C5N 'c ...I e ^ 1 ,= - ~' .". i' ~ l I' v +. TIG. 3 - Four Side Bends - (Approx. 2X) 1 Exposure of 20 Hours I .b ~ {,._. E.'. I F~' Y -T. f t A [ [ b
- s g
r:.... ~ 4 FIG. 4 - Four Side Bends (Approx. 2X) 3 Exposures of 20 Hours
t k .....y... .i ~ :"' f .. v a s.t.-
- .,'. J...b5
-l.$-ll5 ' ? - . - ' ? Lir,
- y. Q.
C<..' a'. ~ 3 4-4 ? s ; ( ~ - 5 w 41- '[ E +- ..p e.g. = + ~ L 1 \\ g a C I ? FIG. 5 - Two Transverse Tensiles J 1 Exposure of 15 Hours (Approx. 2X) = i s p e r q j
- v p.
r ~ r ,J ' b L ),* i: .u. ~ ,~ l =- =- I b: FIG. 6 - Two Transverse Tensiles PI 3 Exposures of 15 Hours (Approx. 2X) l =t i ~ --= m,-_,_
l } s. j t ,.i ..I5 1 I
- =,4 h
~* [ +w r U M (* r. i k( ~ '.n *. p e
- :7,,
h - g g 9 t ( w~ I N j FIG. 7 - Two Transverse Tensiles 1 Exposure of 20 Hours (Approx. 2X) I 1 4 4 I l 1 5].. -,', f.g ' \\.,' l ' ' I. :..,, <, .s'~ x ... ~ . ' -'; 1 ' ' ' - - ' (' k.... *,).' ', '.1. ' 'J-1 '... j,-, f,'. o'. .r,,, ':%.i;_. Q '.:. s.;ii?: @ 7 2.5 m.s g. , i' 'A? *',. W ' i. 2' 4 s' Ah
- i. ' '. ',
.,[... , j. j Mr. } ? $$ l' k %k. N dd? -? ' f - s i a a ~- N k. b ' "Ih % _ . $ l &U '. .~ [.e p,. ~ M_; ), !.',
- vl
~ *. f 4.~ ' ~. lf p, ; h,, u.'.': = *g, 'T. .~ ~.- % .x.. :;. e - r:.. l s. M ~.Y 4,
- .c
- v. w. sp'.
N. .w,,,,,, .., w..... J e ... ;4,: . h.... t. J.h .k. ,,,'g- ,~ s .,T ;'g.a.'.,,.. ...'s.," ' '.,.,. ,I t 3 - 'P ,f 4.,. .e.,3 P -, -. '.., ',, es, ., /w. / '~-[ 4W g '. - 4 Q{, 3 e ',, 4 A t- 'i,.. ,,c \\. ~ ' ..s - ; 4 .i " ~ ' ' ,' ;. - i, * 'S' ..,,',.i,,'.< :... + 4 l'
- {
.,,,,,? s n , M..sey ... ' N +' ' ' Y .f..,i p,,.,, 3 s. A ,,;g.,'5;*.@.*A..,.. -.fM."",'.v e l,+...***,,.. - - i
- r'..?.:... t.'r.w?.'*:*rn': i ~ n~ N ~'.skyf.g[SisG 4;W-- +W.
<.-T.~.'.y s ;- J -,.:.'. ~; r: - y .F. ~.'L', FIG. 8 - Two Transverse Tensiles I f{_ m d 3 Exposures of 20 Bours(Approx. 2X)', l i m.e. ~
Electrode certification - Chemetron .a tat!2 I r7018 z701a Type Diameter 1/3 inch 5/32 inch Neat Number 401 3 0861 412 3 3261 Ist Number 02-1-5726R 03-1-J726J Chemistry (t) C .03 .04 Mit .83 .98 Si .31 .40 .011 .014 F .021 .021 5 Cr .04 .03 Wi .03 .03 Mo .01 .01 V .02 .02 Cu .02 02 Moisture (1800*F) 18 .25 g Welded Properties 78 (ksi) 65.9 65.3 IPPS (ksi) 77.1 76.3 Elongation (t) 30 31 CVN (ft-lb. -20*F 122 124 MDT (*F) -40 -20 Stress Relieved Properties ~ YS (ksi) 60.2 61.0 UTS (kai) 75.8 74.7 Elcagation(t) 29 32 120 129 CVN (*ft-1b) -20*F utr ( F) -40 -10 l M mm J. I h ma ~~& sh - we.m e **@ %. --s w M. __ 4, M ' ^ he' ' - "^ ^ ^ @' h 6 % - ' ma ' h a al
',t TABIZ 21 - Humidity Bryosure Schedule A ( i The humidity cabinet had the saturated EcL solution over the entire bottom and a height of only 5 inches for a ratio 5 cubic inches of volume to one square inch of saturated It was nintained between 70* and 74*F during l liquid surface. The electrodes were kept in open 10 pound the period of the test. j cans when in the humidity cabinet and laid out on open racks 8 when in the holding ovens which were held between 200 and 225 F. 4 TEST 3-15 TIME TEST 1=15 f Put in humidity cabinet 4 2/8 5 PM 1 Put in 200*F oven 2/9 8 AM l Put in humidity cabinet l 2/9 4 PM Put in 200% oven 2/10 7 AM Put in humidity cabinet Put in humidity cabinet 2/10 3 PM 2/11 6 AM Weld test plate Weld test plate TEST 3-20 TEST 1-20 Put in humidity cabinet 2/13 10 AM Put in 200'F oven 2/14 6 AM Put in humidity cabinet 2/14 2 PM Put in 200*F oven 2/15 10 AM Put in humidity cabinet Put in humidity cabinet 2/15 6 PM 2/16 2 PM Weld test plate Weld test plate I i i 3 o
S SIE III - Tensile Properties \\ Specimen 1D SH9-1 5H9-2 6HO-1 6HO-2 Numidity Cycle 1-15 1-15 3-15 3-15 Yield Strength 53 ESI S3 ESI 83 ESI S4 KSI Tensile Strength 92 ESI 93 ESI 91 ESI 94 ISI Specimen ID 6H1-1 6H1-2 6H2-1 6H2-2 Numidity Cycle 1-20 1-20 3-20 3-20 Yield Strength 84 ESI S4 ESI 83'ESI S4 ESI Tensile Strength 91.ESI 90 ESI 89 ESI 90 ESI F e e.- weuhenshin d'IIMD== W =4A -hah, P%u+ < wCV7m m i Mi"-' - M 'W =* M O *tC
i. o +
- r k
4 I 7 EFFECT W HIGH HUMIDITY CN 7018 ELECTRG)ES ~ A REPGtr TO BBCHTEL POfER CCRPGLATICBI CGITRACT PROJECT 8003-5-2 i By: T. A. Slettert i L J i 1 GDETRG6 CGtPCRATIQt GASES GRQJP RESEARCH CENTER TE30EICAL DEVEI4PMENT DIVISION P. O. BOK 517 BANOVER, PENNSYLVANIA 17331 (717) 637-8911 . - ~.. ~
i f I. IWFRCDUCTI M ~* i L II. TEST ym m utz III. AESUfJr5 \\ A. Welder Appeal and Radiographs 3. Side Bend Specimens C. Transverse Tensile Specimens D. Meta 11ographic Examination i IV. CWCIDSIWS V. FIGURES AMD TABLES i i Figure 1 - Four Side Bends - 10 X 10 X 3/4 Coupon l Figure 2 - Four Side Bends - 24 X 24 X 1 Coupon Figure 3 - Two Transverse Tensiles 10 X 10 X 3/4 Coopon l Figure 4 - Two Transverse Tensiles 24 X 24 X 1 Coupon l f TABI2 I - Electrode Certification TABIE II - Humidity Exposure Schedule TABLE III - Tensile Properties I I l --n~ . ~. - -
l 2. 31rFRCDUCTiens The ANS Structural Wolding code D1.1 requirement (' (7018 electrodes not used within four hours of removal irom storage evens maintained at 250'F or from sealed contain,ers shall be redried) forces users to maintain very strict and, therefore, expensive conr. trol over the use of this electrode. The four hmar limit was chosen to provide sound welds even under severe operating con-ditions. The enclosed test is an extension of a previous test l (Contract Project 8003-5-1) performed to determine the actual ex-posure limits under realis' tic operating conditions. II. TEST PROCEDURE \\ Two 50 pound sealed cans, one each of 1/8 inch i and 5/32 inch diameter Genetron E7018, were taken froen tested stock. The physical and chemical properties are included in Table I. The electrodes were placed in open 10 pound cans and j stored in a 250*F dry red oken until the beginning of the test. These electrodes were exposed three times for a period of twenty hours each to still air at 75'r and 100% humidity. Details of the exposure are included in Table II. Immediately after the final exposure in the humidity cabinet, two test platos were welded to Bechtel Welding Procedure specification F1-A-Ih Rev.1, SFA 5.1, and notes from Bechtel Job Number 10407-002. The one was a 10 X 10 X 3/4 inch coupon usud in the previous test but now with three strongbacks to simulate a w mm m w e v wm s a muus - w eh_ --*D she-e W
- PAGE 2 - highly restrained joint. i The 3/4 inch thick test coupon with a 1/4 inch root gap was welded using the 1/8 inch electrodes et 140 amperes and 22 volts i for the root and one fill passa and 5/32 inch electrodes at 170 amperes j and 24 volts for the 5 ressining fill and cap passes. Se other coupon was 24 X 24 X 1 inch with a 10 inch diameter circular patch welded according to Bechtel' Job Number 10407-002. This coupon was block welded in the four quadrants using only 5/32 inch electrodes at 170 amperes and 24 volts for a layers. The interpass temperature was held between 300* and 225"F. After holding for a 48 hour period to allow possible cold cracking to occur, the plates were radiographed and two as-welded transverse tensiles and four as-welded side bends were [ machined from each coupon according to ASME Section IX. The l L radiographs were examined by our Level II personnel and are included with this report for evaluation by the Bechtel ASNT TC-1A Inval III personnel. l u III. RI5UItrS A. Welder Appeal and Radiographs ] The welder observed no changes in arc characteristics l ll after exposure. The slag coverage and ease of removal remained ex-cellent. No evidence of cracking or porosity was noted by the welder. ] The radiographs were initially judgod acceptable to AWS D1.1 paragraph 8.15 by our ANST1cvel II personnel, but our l 1evel III consultant hac indicated artifacts in the radiographs of the A. v.L"' _,m - ed N ,. - g_me w m nad~ " - mgm es. J NY\\ ~ -- A A. p ag _ L
PAGE 3 - g circular patch tost which preclude our certifying that radiograph as acceptable. It must be noted that the problem is due to film artifacts and not being able to assure the absence of defects under known surface defects which had not been adequately removed rather than unacceptable defects in the weld. However, the 10 X 10 X 3/4 inch coupon was easily acceptable to paragraph 8.15 of AWS D 1.1. Both radiographs are included for evaluation by Bechtel level III personnel. 3. Side Bend Specimens Photographs of the side bend specimens are included as l Figures 1 and 2. All 8 side band tests were acceptable to ANS D 1.1 standards. The few surface discontinuities present on the surface of the bend specimens were attributed to underlying inclusions in the weld metal. C. Transverse Tensile Specimens Photographs of the fracture surfaces of the transverse tensile specimens are included as Figures 3 and 4. A detailed list of i the physical yspdes of the tensile specimens is included as Table III. All the specimens were found acceptable to ANS D 1.1 standards. The tensile strengths were in the range of 74 to 81 XSI. I D. Meta 11ographic Examination A section removed from quadrant four of'the circular patch test was polished and examined for cracks or other defects. Examination at 1X,10x, and 20X failed to reveal any cracks or other defects in the weld or the heat affected zone. 9 ~ = M _?_*E_M,w
- e..M4
.: z . - der - fwe. w e C PMee m. -h ~.*N s aa e4 +w
1 I' Pacs 4 - 3 IV. CGIC WSIONS ( With the exception of the one radiograph which could not be properly int'erpreted due to poor weld plate preparation, all the other data (the other radiograph, 4 transverse tensiles, 8 side bends, and metallographic exastination of a wold section) indicated that acceptable welds could be produced by electrodes exposed to humidity These for a period of time far in excess of that allowed in AWS D 1.1. electrodes, exposed in 10 pound cans for 3-20 hour cycles to 100% humidity at 75'F sepsrated by 2-8 hour bake periods at 200*F, produced deposits free of cracks and unacceptable porosity in highly restrained joints. The conclusion is that the four hour limit specified in AWS D 1.1 is needlessly restrictive for electrodes stored and used l i t under the conditions detailed in this test. e' e P i i i i t L 'f -m_-.--x ._yy y.
TABI2 I - Electrode Certification - Chemetron I Type E7018 E7018 Diameter 1/8 inch 5/32 inch Neat Mussber 401 3 0861 412 3 3261 Ist Nunnber 02-1-8726R 03-1-J726J Chanistry (t) a C .03 .04 Mit .83 .90 si .31 .40 P .011 .014 8 .021 021 Cr .04 .03 Wi .03 03 No .01 .01 V .02 .02 cm .02 .02 Moisture (1000*F) .18 .25 As Welded Properties s YS (ksi) 65.9 65.3 IPFS (ksi) 77.1 76.3 Elongation (t) 30 31 CVN (ft-lb) -20*F 122 124 apr (*r) -40 -20 l Stress Relieved Properties YS (ksi) 60.2 61.0 IPFS (ksi) 75.8 74.7 f E1ongation (t) 29 32 CVN (ft-1b)'-20*F 120 129 upt (*F) 40 -10 l , - - ~
TABIE II - Numidity Exposure Schedule t The humidity cabinet had pans of water with sufficient 8 surface area for a ratio of 8 cubic inches of volume to one cubic inch 1 of water surface area. Wet and dry bulb recording pens confirmed that i I the electrodes were kept between 74 and 76*F and 96 to 100% humidity during the duration of the test. The electrodes were kept in open 10 pound cans when in the huidity cabinet and laid out on open racks when in the holding ovens which were held between 200 and 225'F. DM'E TIME 2/26 9 AM Put in humidity cabinet 1 8 2/27 5 AM Put in 200 F oven l 2/27 1 PM Put in humidity cabinet I ( 2/28 9 AM Put in 200*F oven i 2/28 5 PM Put in humidity cabinet 2/1 1 FM Weld test plates i e e
2... TADM III Specimen ID 7H8-1 7H8-2 7N9-1 7H9-2 Coupon 10 X 10 X 3/4" 10 X 10 X 3/4" 24 X 24 X 1" 24 X 24 X 1" Numidity Cycle 3-20 hr. 3-20 hr. 3-20 hr. 3-20 hr. Numidity 1004 100% 100% 1004 Tensile Strength 74 KSI 76 XSI 81 XSI 31 XSI f Failure Location base plate base plate weld weld e 1 1 e i j D .__._,.,m
=:: r:2- =..:. 2-. ._..------r=:==---
- a. u : - ::
l i [ 1 ~ lb'. b {* i FIG. 1 Four side bend specimens of 10 X 10 X 3/4 inch coupon (approx.1.5X) i \\
- }.
~ .) h 3-4 FTC. 2 Four side bend specimens of circular patch test. guadrants 1 to 4 are in order from the left.(Approx.1X)
t ~,,; r-y. ' " - t. ,'9 ~ f j J ' E w, ; 3. { ( 'i .~ i+9 7-N.- '.}'*.., : 'i. g.' '.: .g 5,,. ~. j -j.
- g
' w.I, [ , f.; s., ',,
- { '.,. '
4. .,' ? ,i 1. s ; o. 4
- 7.. " [.
- 'I.,.....I. ~ ..L-- .E [i, %k..s [. .{1 ...',...c 1 S. . a 9, p.,.= *.s.$~. g.. g, i c..,W ;+.., i> '_.\\r,.- Pl. R g. .},- L.
- ; ;r *
,f^~ 'g. n , h.-: , _ l l,' ...,,. y**'~ .p. _ ' ',' #y \\...'.[ g ' 9 ' ?1. t ^ .,,a .? 9..-.. .. ~ e
- s...
? s i 2- , ~ .y_-
- p s.
- L., c s._,... A, j -f y;. - ; y"
- . -
- N,. -
n.. s :.. a ..,. e.., p' y .4 2 .s
- y
":.. ? W. 7.7.,.... . 3, , :e '.. 4g. s., .4 A< 9 y l:.v e g- .,4.... : y.
- 3..[
sp, .q-> 4 . a: - '.'. y. ; '. ' q,g*,.. (, y,:.. l, -g ..v?.j f. ' :s fi y [, f.i g '), 4, s.. w.- 7, o w. 1 o.... ?. ) ..c :.. i. I 1 +. ,n +.R.
- ~
.; -)-. n ;. : %
- , f..
..d'r.A v ~. q,. ;. t.. 4 y w w- .pw ~ 5 _f. 49 y c ;,,gg,.e,. '_ p: e -... i f.-f.~..:)- J' 'N N6 ".. I, q...'.;,,,,, ,' m _v s. y.. >,, e .l v es .,...A .. m.. FIG. 3 Fracture surface of transverse tensile tests of - 10 X 10 X 3/4 inch coupon. Fracture is in base plate. (Approx. 2X) \\ I 1 . m,Fe n. ;q,.%g; : yj,.w. 3. .u../ : 2 p w.:.. < q '. e x At t e
- f..p i.,: . M ts.! y 7,,3 i.. N/ A,. q ;.;., M m,." y. y.9 _ 7 M_,
, b:,;, n, ' ', t Oc. 'c ge . Q,i [ P ..x J.v. H4 . r.. 'c. n; l l. 1. . - > $ m., s s 5-c ' a y,, y .a
- 6t,. f, gg Sp-M:.S, '%.di G % '..
. g. g, [ ?..
- ~ T ":.. 7,.x'., '-f, y ') :;.,.. 'y _;1 ).f.-W, o.
.C l .:. i; _;.7. ::.;,y: f 1
- 9 g,,;::'% '..
. :.,..y 3. v y }:,,; 9.p ;.kQ$er; 'y.w,,}. f:y.' y;f.L. G,*.' Q > gl*;.ly.,: % . w .r., +...., .,r 1
- % Lg&
o u. t,K.
- 4. _ 3.
e g.. ,; : q L. y. r t r ir S
- r..
. M a,. J:
- v
'.. :,i, - (4,yg (,3 A y < :1,'. r.w ~ n } .,N Q .[ J.'.M d^_ M,[. - ,b >l u m. %.N p y ~ Ar P 3 e g .? p w' ~? s by U, >., .m?."i ~ ? ' .@, y, % e,
- DQ v
? ~ .,2 ,e .-y g %.,7 .;.".'l, ,k ,..] i
- c '.-
.s i l l;.!? W,:, , ' W, u j pff f- .[
- 9,Q,?;
c, y:..f:0 1 . N. 3 y j/; 9 s, g f q., 0 4]3_ ,.y,, ,6 s .e 5 ? f.r. iQ:y}j Jy y ,_Q _l%tp i }* '(Qjff *&.R ! Q f
- h %2'. '
- , :4, p,;i 1.
} m "e u %g s '.. - 1 3. Q,,,. e$, e Q. L.. u.g@ ~.. f U. .. g,4 n =. r, q-f". ..t'. ..a. 'd b FIG. 4 Fracture surface of transverse tensile tests ] of circular patch test. Fracture is in the weld. ] The tensile of the Why betweed quadrants 2 and 4 is on the left (Approx. 2X) f y d _-~_-+=r* w...
l BECMTEL 0000ENYARY W g CEEMETE0tl COEPORATION REPORT EFFECT OF BIGE EUMIDITY 05 E7018 ELECTRODES By: T. A. Sietsort O e e \\ ~ i e 9 0 e. <a* hh. ..e- 'h w.. ~, e 64d end., ~
- M3
l ABSTRACT f The results of the parallel test program conducted at Cheestron are la agreement with the results obtained at techtel's Materials and quality Service Departesat (M6QS). Although the l Chemetros conclusions were cesservative and somewhat limited, the data fully supports the techtet sosclusion that the weld filler metal control program, WFMC-1/ Revision 6. should be used as se alternate low hydroges electrode control procedure. e e i 9 e N W "b =-M AMM d"?- 4A ?2.M e
i t. CCISEENTARY l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
j I Cheaetros Corporation has been the principal supplier of j E7018 electrodes used on the Pelo Verde jobsite. This being the case it was estural that Chametros was asked to generate data which would support the use of Chemetros E7018 when stored, issued and 2 controlled in sa alternative manner to that required by AUS D1.1. De Chemetros test program was to duplicate the test progran at j Bechtel's MQS Laboratory is order to provide confirmation of the M QS data. De two Chemetron reports and this commeetary deal with the results of esposure of E7018 electrodes to 86 and 100 percent humidity. The two Chametros reports are considered together in this commentary. 2.0 COWCLUSIONS OF TEE C000EENTARY 1. De weld metal and heat affacted sones of all Chemetron i test specimens were radiographically acceptable to AWS/SFA 5.1. ASME 1 section III and AWS D1.1 includies porosity, slag and freedom from i cracking. 1 j 2. The Chamstros tensile and bend specimens were acceptable to AWS D1.1 and ASME Section 11. Metallographic specimens showed no L evidence of cracking or other unacceptable defects. t.
- 3. De Chemetros conclusions based on the 86 and 100 percent humidity tests are conservative and unnecessarily limited. After 7
/ reviewing all the Chemetros data on three 2C hour esposures to 100 4 percent huidity, the corresponding conclasion that the four hour limit ) specified la AUS D1.1 is needlessly restrictive is a gross understate-More esplicit conclusions could have been stated regarding esposure ---..., ment._ith sufficient margin based upon the data. In addition, Chametros 4 time w could have estended the esposure conclusions to their stainless and alckel / alloy electrodes, but did not, apparently because these materials are not h addressed in AUS D1.1. 3.0 TEST PROCEDURE De Chametron test procedure appears to have paralleled the MQS program without significant variation. Chemetros performed metallographic examination on a side bend specimen from each compos, whereas MQS cut separate specimens for metallography. It is not clear from the report that the 10 x 10 coupon representing 100 percest hueidity received metal-k lographic esamination. Whether metallograph was done or not is not significant because the fourth quadrant of the circular patch coupon was esamined metallographically, and these electrodes were also esposed to 100 percent humidity. 1 F 9 w M-ru-= oe. -1'h h. _ O - v ,. _, _ _. hMpM. _' MC ' _ T 7 a" ". ".-l.-...'
..:.. : = - - - = ;.; __; -- -- 3_ 3 j . ~ e. l The Cheaetros radiographic procedure used was not specified is j the report, but this is met considered a serious deficiency. The quality of the radiographic film was acceptable based upon E qs review, encept for some film artifacts apparent la three of four quadrasts of j the aircular patch test radiographs. Acceptable film was obtained for 1 the 46 percent humidity compons, the 100 percent humidity AWS AS.1 soupos, and the critical fourth quadraat of the circular patch compos. J Although some film artifacts were present in the film of three quadrants, ) the weld metal and heat affected some could be evaluated. l 4.0 RESULTS i 4.1 Walder Appeal and gadioaraphy i the observations of the Cheaetron welders agreed with the )~ observations of IEqs welders in that there were seither changes in are characteristics after esposure nor evidence of cracking or porosity. l4 Cheastress level 1185T-TC-1A persommel judged all the fils representing 86 percent husidity esposures acceptable to AWS/SFA 5.1. i chenetros Invel 11 personnel judged the film representing 100 percent humidity esposures acceptable to AUS DI.1, paragraph 8.15. De Cheaetrom Invel III individust indicated that film artifacts precluded certi-fication of the circular patch tests radiographs. He report conclusions indicate that the limit os film interpretation was due to poor plata ( preparation. EQS has reviewed all of the Cheaetron film and the findings are samarised i below: f l
- 1) AMS/SFA 5.1 coupons welded with electrodes esposed to 86 l
percent humidity were acceptable to AWS/SFA 5.1. AUS D1.1 and ASam Section III. l
- 2) Se ANS/SFA 5.1 compon welded with electrodes esposed to 100 percent huidity had so cracks, porosity, or significant slag and the weld was acceptable to AUS/SFA 5.1, AWS D1.1 and l
ASIE Secties 111. l
- 3) De circalar patch test coupon welded with electrodes esposed to 100 por:est humidity indicated the following:
quadrant 1: Film artifacts or poor plate preparation at various locations was apparent. These artifacts did not seriously interfere with interpretation of weld quality. It was apparaat that no cracks or porosity was present. some of the artifact indications might have been slag j inclusions, but such inclusions were not rejectable. Slag i l inclusions are not related to electrode exposure to high huidity, and can be disregarded for purposes of the program. Dis pedrant is acceptable to AUS/SFA 5.1 AWS D1.1 and ASME Section III. 2 b 9 e = e. e ,y,---n- . - - + -, .,-,y----,--_v, _,3--rw,,, - -,, _ _,,, - ---m-----m- .-m m
t quadrant 2: Assia film artifacts er poor plate preparation was apparest, but not to the estest practeding seasingful interpretation. Dere were ao stacks, porosity, or slag ( j, inclustoms which would have required repair. D ie weld quadrant was acceptable to AWS/6FA 5.1, AWS D1.1 and ASE Secties III. gnadrant 3: Film artifacts or poor plate preparation was again apparest, but not to the eatest precluding messingful interpretation. D ere were no cracks. Assumiss that all indications were actually la the weld metal and not arti-facts one might assues same slag lines and porosity la limited areas. Ass e ing the worst possible condition, repair would not be required and the veld would have been acceptable to AWS/SFA 5.1, AWS D1.1 and ASE Section III. r quadraat 4: Die film was fully acceptable. Dere were no cracks or porosity but some small isolated slag. Repairs would not be required by AWS/SFA 5.1 AWS D1.1 or ASE Section III. De weld was fully acceptable in this the quadrant with the most severe restraint. 4.2 Side lead Specimens Chemetron's discussies of bead results in the 86 percent huidity report toads to be aisleading. The incorrect impression of some cracked bend coupons might be implied by some. De photos of the head specimens show good ductility and no evidence of embrittlement stacking. Dese bend specimens would have passed ASM Section 11 ausptance standards is g addition to having passed the AMS D1.1 acceptance standards. De small imperfections referred to in the test, are shown by Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 appear to have been very minor ~ defects in the veld metal, most probably small slag inclusions. Dere were ao imperfections in the heat affected -- -....sona., l Eqs also found similar small slag inclusions in some bend specimens representing electrodes espesed to 86 percoat humidity and La some metal-lographic specimens. Some slag lines were also shown in the te6qs radiographs. De siae, type and location of the Chomstros head specimes imperfections referenced by the Chametros test have been reviewed and tound to be insig-alficant. Slag indications of this type are related to welder technique and electrode slag characteristics and are not related to costing moisture content. De MQS bend specimens representing coupons which had been welded with electrodes esposed to 100 percent huidity for 60 hours showed no imper-factions. De Chemetron bend specimens representing electrodes esposed to _l 100 percent humidity showed some slag inclusions but no evidence of embrittlement. 3 b "MM 6 eWM M-, .Ms w_ __H__ ym, my'W O_W*_,' & m a em 2 M w n.
y 4.3 Transverse Teestle h ets All tessile specimens est the regelred minimum mechasical proper-s, ties. De specimes photographs show that the specimens had all soaked deus, enhibited shear frasture and showed varying sesmate of emp/come destile j falture. Es areas of steavage er brittle failure were meted. l De fracture fase revealed some small slag inclusions and a small amount of porosity. Dese imperfections are surrounded by lighter senered hates or flakes showing the areas se the fracture surface to which hydroges diffused while the spesimess were being tessile tested. Dese areas are relatively few is a mber, small in size and indicates relatively little hydrogen was present. De tessile specimens representative of 100 persest humidity espesure show fewer and one11er hales indicating good ductility and me embrittlement. Some hydrogen will be present is all weld metal deposited with i low hydrogen seated electrodes. De significant feature for mild steel is that the hydrogen sostest be less than the asemat which will result la weld metal porosity. One sourse of hydroges is the small amount of esisture intestiemally left by somniasturers during sentrolled baking. l Other seerses are is the seating binders and esisture ahoorbed from the j atmosphere. In the chemetres tests the total hydroges in the weld was j asseptably low as shown by the few, randem peres. 4.4 ' Esta11oaraphis.Ea mlasties m e metallographis esaminaties showed me underbead cracking is i i agreenest with amigg results. For the 86 percent humidity coupees it east e aise be inferred that there were as weld estal eraska as there was as mentima of this point. It was stated that there were me cracks er other defects in the weld or hast affested sene of the sirestar patch seepen esposed to 100 persent humidity. Se absesse of arocks la the metallegraphis esaminaties is further seppert for the evaluation of the bend specimes imperfections being related to slag inclusions. l { 4 I l l 4 e e / ? 4 i i 1 i
.t.t: i' r :,, e .[ i 4,J e ,U e s e e m. m m a e s e 8 o s i s E m t e S e e E .s s I s E s e. E es n e n. e e O n A N ~"& s ss s e e a e s p s s e e E s s s s e t e e e e 4 e s s s n e e
- a,
e s s u, o s m " s e e s t " at A e e s ut s s e e 8
- s 6
e s .T A D e .o e e .G eO '8 e e s e m r F. .e r e e s g ee u a r s s a = e s s .e e s n c e o e e e s e e r e e e s e ee s M n e e m e e R e g e m 0 T se w 'e e F s n 9 n s a ( Y r-D Y s e C F e a U 9 s m m s O m m n 4 Do Y e o a 0 t s 1m s m A e a X 0 A o s s L s s 4 e a. s D o s e a i R R n e ,;4* m a A l e .e wd i a C F A. s i n m. e s a s e s m D d s a m. a A To m m a a ss m a JN m a e e s e s s t s* es es e m a s m e e e e e m s ee e a e m e b e e es e o s s JA s e e o e e g e e a]s a a a s e. e (]f. 2 4-e a a a a a e. e L e e i
- lil.l, ji
,; i !j4 1 i1I i11 !3 j!!i.ii
2.___. _.. : ... _.. ~ _. ^ APPENDII E 1. " Eliminating the Use of Portble Rod Warners," by R. W. Straiton. Dated August 13, 1975. 2. "Purther Information on Eliminating the Use of Portable. Rod Warners," by G. R. Schmidt. Dated July 30, 1976. I, 3. Seven Literture References DD WWEA gu MtB oA Tu g-g m l h l l
~... _ _ _ 0 /. l i AFFEND12 C Summary of Alternate Electrode Control Practicas and Experiences O "D D t I t l l
i APPEND 12 C 4.. ) Summary of Alternate Electrode Control i j Practices and Experiescos i 1.1 Structural Applications i Fabricators welding mild steels in structual or related applications generally have used substantially less restrictive electrode storage and issuias procedures tsaa requried by AUS D1.1. Several asamples j ces readily be cited: 1. A large middle west freight car seaufacturer bought all low } bydrogen electrodes in aeshermetic containers and did not i haka or condition the electrodes before use. De weld quality was acceptable. It j 2. A manufacturer of eining machinery in western Pennsylvania i f abricating highly restrained structures of plate two to i four inches thich had 17018 electrodes is a woodas cabinet l warned by a light bulb. De welds produced were acceptable. I 3. la December 1976, a major fabricator in the Pittsburgh 1 area was focad to have a system of E7013 electrode storage and issue not in full compliance with AWS D1.1. Even though retrieval af ter four hours was not controlled the weld metal gus11ty was acceptable. 4. Aa Oregon construction aschinery manufacturer uses E7018 l issued for sa entira shift without difficulty. 5. A structural fabricator la centra'l Temas does not retrieve E7018 electrodes after four hours but rather issues E7018 J electrodes for the entire work day without portable warmers I with consistently acceptable weld quality. 6. A surface condesser manufacturer on the west coast issues E7018 electrodes for an estira shift without portable warmers. De resulting welds are acceptable. 7. A task, vessel and structural fabricator with two shops in the middle and deep south does not control E7018 issue or retrieval 1 i at these shops. De resulting welds are acceptable. 8. A Wisconsis fabricater of cranes, structural items and ships issued E7018 electrodes for outdoor welding for as entire shift l without portable rod warmers. D e electrodes were returned to l storase evens at shifts end. Under conditions of 100 percent i humidity. A 588 steel of 50,000 yield straagth was fabricated j without porosity or cracking. I l k .=v----v. -- m
l-/.- 2.1 Navy and Shipyard practices ? here are many applications in shipyards for mild steals yet the U.S. Navy and private shipyards follow practices significantly i different than those in AWS D1.1. Several asamples of these types of electrode controls being successfully implemented by Navy and shipyard facilities are as follows: i 1. An east coast submarina yard used an old refrigerator with a light bulb as an electrode storage facility without adversa i consequences. His practice was substantially diffarant than j the 250F ovan specified in AWS D1.1. l 2. De Mare Island Naval Shipyard in the San Francisco Bay Arts issues E7018 electrodes for an antire shift without portable warmers when welding on mild steel. The electrodes are j issued with a retrieval system and the welds are acceptable. l 3. De Ingalls shipyard at pascagoula, Mississippi, does not use portable warmers and implements a retrieval systen 1 for alactrodes. De welds are acceptable. This practice was reported in the Welding Journal in July, 1977, which is included as part of Appendia F. l 4. A comaarcial shipyard in the San Francisco Bay Area issues E7018 electrodas for an antire work shif t without portabla j warmers. The welds are acceptable. 3.1 Construction Empariesca f j It is recognised that heavy construction projects are similar to ship- ~ yards and outdoor fabrication yards. R asa similarities saka heavy l construction practicas relevant to any summary of asperiesca on electroda moisture control. Examples of Canadian and United States heavy construc-i tion saperience are indicated below. 1. Da a major Canadian project, four draglines were erected with-out the use of portable rod warmers for :;7018 walding of mild steal with acceptable results. AWS D1.1 controls were not imposed on E7018 alactrodes used to wald structural staal, i tablers, pressura piping or storage tanks. Electrodes were i gaaerally issued for an antira shift (10 hours) without rod l warmers. All electrodes were returned to storage ovens at tha l and of each shift or were scrapped. To date about 220,000 t younds of E7018 electrodas have been used, by a work forca con-l sisting of about 950 welders at peak. R is esperience indicates ( that the AWS D1.1 requirements are conservativa. n.
2 -.: --. u,. 2. At a U.S. power project approximately 4,000 pipe walds were made without the use of AWS D1.1 controls. The E7018 elect-todas were stored in ovens set at 200F minis m and issued in unheated containers for an antira shift plus overtime when re-quired. Approximately 2.400 joints have been radiographed under this type of electroda control program. The relatively few rejects observed were due principally to root defects associated with the GTAW process with some rejects due to slag. Ilo rejects were for excessive porosity or cracking and no rejects were attributable to deficiencias in the alactrode control pro-gram. This record was achieved over approximately 12 months time in a region where the humidity was frequently 100 percent and with humidities betwaan 60 and 100 parcent for six months out of the year. e.* I l l 3 .m
' l .=. a. u. u
- .::.=. :
= : :~: -. -.=:. /sw ii e d / 2 t I I i t 4 a t' 1 I APPENDIX R r8 c 1. Commentary of C. B. Robinson a 2. Commentary of A. J. Julicher f 3. Commentary of A. Lasnewich a e 4 d i, e I B 4 i l' b e I P lt ,e l' ili t f }
.___..._u._. ______n,_ !i+ i Review and Comumentary 4 on i The Bechtel Test Prograa The Effects of High Humidity f.E E7018 Electrodes F. by: C. B. Robinsob March 13, 1978 4 J e __.-..-_.,c__ _,, - ~ ~. - - _ - _. _ _ - _ -.. -
_m. ,.~ R .O
Subject:
The Effects of High Humidity Exposure on E7018 Electrodes - 86 percent Humidity - 100 percent Humidity Review of Test Program and Results. C. B. Robinson - Summary After reviewing and making a concentrated study of the conclusive reports of these severe exposure tests, and monitoring all of the mechanical, metallurgical, metallographic and radiographic examinations, I would agree the E7018 Electrodes can be effectively used out of the holding oven beyond the four hour limitation as stipulated in the AWS D1.1 Specification. I would not expect to encounter any serious or deleterious metallurgical effect when welding mild steel, i such as A516 Gr. 70, with these electrodes even after such severe l exposure at 100 percent humidity for as long as 20 hours. As a witness to the test program, I can state that the Bechtel reports l on high humidity exposure accurately reflects the work performed and l the results obtained. All of the mechanical testing reflected in Table 3 is acceptable. The bend tests were witnessed, and the bent coupons all showed good ductility. [ Radiographic examinations revealed acceptable film clarity and no evidence of underbead cracking. Radiographic examination showed that porosity was not a problem. After 100 percent humidity exposures, the porosity was within acceptable limits and would not require repairs. Only one porosity cluster was found; it was in a coupon which was welded after electrodes had been exposed to 86 percent humidity. II F Metallographic examinations did not reveal any underbead cracking, f and in particular, highly restrained circular patch coupons did not j show any cracking. } In view of the successful results of this exposure test program, j the objective--to have qualified an alternate electrode control program, seems to have been successfully demonstrated. il j '!herefore, these exposure tests results reveal to me the E7018 Electrodes, with up to a 12 hour limit out of the holding oven, can be expected to meet the various Code requirements imposed on mild steel weldsents, provided a suitable and acceptable rod container, "not a heated portable container" for distributing these electrodes on the jobsite is used. I ll 1 f c
.a..-.. - -. - - -, - z :--.,. ..... _. ~.... l. I / 2 Up to the 12 hour limits out of the rod oven, I an in full accord that the remaining electrodes should be returned to the holding supply oven, and should be reheated for at least an hour or two before reissue. Electrodes exposed for more than the 12 hour period should be discarded or reconditioned per the manufacturers' reconnendations. I would agree relative to the 12 hour out of oven limits that a mandatory control policy must be exercised to return these eletrodes within the limits of the 12 hour maximum. Having the electrodes issued in identified containers helps enforce this requirement for electrodes to be returned within 12 hours. 'therefore, my concluding remarks certainly support without question, the proposal for a specific alternate electrode control program for the welding of mild steel weldsents, as opposed to a 4 hour limit, at a jobsite. The 12 hour limit on exposure and the requirement to issue electrodes in containers to insure return to storage ovens seems to be an acceptable program, and is fully supported by test results for qualification of the alternate electrode control procedure (h7MC.1/Rev. 6) as permitted by Paragraph 5.2 of AWS D1.1. C. B. Robispon Welding Engheer i 4 I e 1 'i t i f I D 1 ge
w =.a a. -.:a=: a..- -- - -... -.a. ; J' r A. J. JULICHER a ASSOCIATES. P.A. consui.vmo suomasas WL90see aND eWatfTT CONTROL CO809ULTafgew i.... canusuta enews. pef o m ac. man?6ano..... coo seei 4....... l t COMMENTARY ON THE BECHTEL/CHEMETRON STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF HIGH HUMIDITY EXPOSURE ON E7018 ELECTRODES I have studied the data from the tests performed by Bechtel and Chemetron to determine the effects of high humidity on E 7018 electrodes and I find it to be thorough, conclusive and very enlightening. The results of the Bechtel/Chemetron teste have qualified an alternate low hydrogen electrode control procedure (WFMC-1, Revision 6). The data indicates that E7018 electrodes exposed to 100 percent humidity for up to 20 hours will result in acceptable welds in mild steel applications. The proposed low hydrogen electrode control procedure is conservative in terms of the data since only 12 hours maximum exposure is pro-posed, issue of E7018 electrodes will be'3" identified containers, retrieval of unused electrodes is provided and minimum 200F storage ovens will be utilized. 1 4 Having witnessed the deliberations of the Dl.1 Structural Welding l Code committee since 1963 and having h d a vote on the Main Com-mittee for the past dozen years, I can say that the Bechtel/ Chem-l etron remarks about the conservatism of the Committee are quite true. Paragraph 4.9 and following in the Conunentary to Dl.1 mentions this with particular reference to the restrictions placed on the j use of low hydrogen electrodes. The philosophy of the Committee i has been to take the most conservative route until a less restri-ctive route has been substantiated by both experience and tests. Until recently there has been nothing resembling tests cresented to the Committee to allow the Committee to change the Code. How-ever, various experiences of the Committee members has led to modifications of the wording related to the storage of low hy-drogen electrodes. In the 1956 Code reference was made to 75% relative humidity. In the 1963 edition the specific humidity reference was deleted but a precautionary footnote spoke of high humidity. The same wording appeared in the 1966 edition and then in the 1969 edition recogn-ition was given to the fact that higher strength low hydrogen electrodes were available and required even more stringent moisture control.
\\ l r;,,, Essentially the same wording was used in the 1972 edition of Dl.1 and it wasn't until the 1975 edition that the Committee became aware of a technicality that had been overlooked. The fourth sentence of paragraph 4.9.2 was changed from "Immediately af ter removal from...." to " Immediately after opening.......". As one can see from Table 4.1.1 in D1.1-75 low hydrogen electrodes are not requiralfor what the structural people consider to be " mild steel". However, many designers specify E70XX electrodes and fab-ricators and erectors have generally limited their range of elect-rodes to E7018 and E7.028, but they have exercised varying degrees of storage control. l Many of us have seen that the workmen consider electrode storage ovens to be excellent places for warming their soup or TV dinners. Many of us are also aware that quite a few structures have been welded with electrodes that shared the same ovens as the workers lunches. I I This sort of electrode moisture control certainly is not condoned and inspectors certainly dont wink at such practices, but the fact l is that this has been happening for a long time and we know of no failures that have been directly attributed to porosity or under-l bead cracking caused by damp low hydrogen electrodes. During the past several Dl.1 Committee meetings there has been talk of making the "out of the oven" requirements less restrictive. No test data was available and the suggestions were always tabled. During the meeting of October 1977, the committee discussed an inquiry from Chicago Bridge and Iron that was accompanied by test data re-garding exposure times for low hydrogen electrodes. The discussion l was lengthly (pages 12 through 14 of the minutes of the meeting). 'Several motions were made and modified and finally a rather compli-cated compromise was passed which allows E70XX and E80XX electrodes to be out of the oven for as long as 10 hours and higher strengths to be out of the oven for lesser times. The committee passed this motion without great enthusiasm only be-cause it knew that the existing restrictions w~ere proving to be too j harsh, but further relaxation couldn't be justified without further test data. I j The tests performed by Bechtel and Chemetron are well documented 4 and leave no doubt in my mind that the Dl.1 Code should be further i modified to reflect this work. The Dl.1 Committee will meet again i in Denver on 10 and 11 October 1978. I recommend that the Bechtel/ i Chemetron test data be officially submitted to the Dl.1 Committee { Prior to that meeting so they may act on it in October. I l- [ c
7
- v, e
3e Although Bechtel has not proposed changes in their established practice of handling low alloy, high strength electrodes, I suggest that further testing is in order to consider the effects of moisture on higher strength low hydrogen electrodes and higher strength steels. Since this work has been performed to reduce the costs of welding on nuclear energy installations and will benefit all of us tax-payers, it is reasonable to suggest that the Nuclear Regulatory commission could authorize some funding for continued research. The American Welding Society has begun discussions with the National Bureau of Standards, particularly with the Bureau people at Boulder, regarding much needed welding research. I can think of no better start of a program than the continuation of the Bechtel/Chemetron work. - w / . /, A. J; ulicher, P.E. March 21, 1978 l O he
=- '9 /AIRCD WeldinoProducts ,. c 7. 100 is0utifAl80 Avtteyt. 8etW NotteCC. DetW Jta$tY 07974 4.l,,k l' ***,'.. %; / / ~.6, TELEPeepeet ag3e.Twg 33pga.5490 7 k *%, ng,. b. ' 4 .,,,, o ~: %?. - l/ y \\.~, ' March 21, 1978 4 tu Mr. F. C. Breismeister Bechtel National, Inc. 50 Beale Street San Francisco, Calif. 94119
Dear Fred:
I've read your recent report about the effects of high humidity exposure on the quality of welds made with E7018 covered electrodes. I would agree with your conclusions that this class of low hydrogen electrodes can be exposed to j moist air for extended times without causing either porosity or delayed cracking in weldments of structural grades of carbon
- steels, t
The lack of porosity is not surprising since porosity is not a common problem with 7018 covered electrodes. Extensive exposure to moisture is necessary since porosity is not expected until moisture levels exceed 1%. Our electrodes will absorb less 'than 0.1% moisture after 24 hours exposure to the conditions which you used. And after four days the moisture level will remain below the 0.4% level allowed in MIL specifications for fresh electrodes. The moisture will be well below the 0.6% allowed by A.W.S. for low-alloy steels. { Nor would hydrogen-induced cracking be expected in the E7018 weld or heat-affected zone of structural steel joints. Such cracks require more than just hydrogen from moisture in electrode coatings. High stresses and susceptible microctructures are necessary prerequisites. Time also is important since such cracks form after a nucleation period which is inversely related to the j amount of hydrogen present and inversely related to the stress state. l 1 The ASTM A-516 steel which was tested in your laboratory is not likely to produce hydrogen-induced cracks for a number of reasons. l ? s A osvisION OF A4RCO, INC. l
.~. .= 3: i Mr. F. C. Breismeister Page 2 1 4 First, the residual stress developed in the weldments probably i l 1s under 70,000 psi. This is relatively low and not likely to induce hydrogen-related cracking. Second, this steel is not likely to produce a microstructure which is sensitive to hydrogen. With i a low carbon equivalent, the alloy is too lean to develop marten-r site even with the high cooling rates associated with welding. And third, AWS/SFA 5.1 specifies an interpass temperature of o l 300 F. Under these thermal conditions, even cellulosic elecgrodes would produce acceptable welds. As a matter of fact the 300 F i interptas temperature should be sufficient to prevent cracking in steels having high carbon equivalents. Since a combination l of all three conditions is necessary to cause cracking, and it's not likely that any of the three will occur, you should be secure. i The amount of hydrogen needed to cause cracks in the Bechtel tests of ASTM A-516 probably is equivalent to that needed to produce porosity. According to data published about the British Controlled Thermal Severity test, cracks in severely restrained l joints in this steel are not to be expected unless the moisture i levels of the efectrodes exceed 1% and the interpass temperature drops below 100 F. Since neither is likely, the combination of i events is highly unlikely. l Having reviewed the data and relating your problem to published information, I would agree that E7018 electrodes can be exposed to the humid, warm air for at least a full 12-hour working day without producing weld defects in plain carbon structural steel i such as ASTM A-516. I Sincerely, (w fU . e. :.c A. Lesnewich l Director, Filler Metals R&D AL/fs t t ( 1 . ~
G%sq %Ib 8 2 1 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV Investigation No. 50-445/81-12 50-446/81-12 Docket.Nos. 50-445; 50-446 Licensee: Texas Utilities Generating Company Facility: Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2 Investigation at: Glen Rose, Sommerve11 County, Texas Investigation conducted: August 7, October 8-24, and N1vember 23-24, 1981 Investigators: orc d X-4
- 0. D. Driskill, Investigator, Investigation and Date Enforcement Staff bC
~
- c. 4
.1 .R. K. Herr, InvestigatBY, Investigation and Date Enforcement Staff =r 4l4 8L Reviewed by: E.Mn. Johnson, Director,Investigationand H Date for ement Staff 4 / '- Approved by: Jh.E. Gag iardo, Director, Division of Resident, Date q Reactor Project and Engineering Program l ewa"* F0lA-85-59
- 4..
b
. z---~: = z.: = -.. u. =.. .... -. ~ - :--....- o 2 Summary: Investigation conducted on August 7, October 8-24, and November 23-24, 1981 (Report No. 50-445/81-12; 50-446/81-12) Areas Investigated: Individual A alleged that improper welding techniques have been utilized on some pipe supports; holes drilled in various components are illegally plugged; some hilti bolt QC inspectors do not conduct their inspections in compliance with procedures; there is a lack of control on a substance called Torque Seal (used to ensure integrity of inspected hilti bolts); and a hole in a concrete floor was not reported to QC, as required, prior to repair. This investigation involved i 48 hours by two NRC investigators and one NRC inspector. Results: Investigation of the above identified allegations disclosed no evidence support-ing the claims of Individual A. Numerous interviews of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) construction personnel, Quality Control Inspectors and Craft Supervisors were conducted, in addition to inspections of areas identified by Individual A which allegedly exemplified his claims. l i l l f e --,---m
....._....1 ^ ~. _..,.~ ~~. . Z Z _ - _;.._- , i.._ J...J ... 1 ~_. - _ 4(j IR_ s/-it 83 3 4 J INTRODUCTION Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1.and 2, are under construction in Sommerve11 County, Texas, near the town of Glen Rose, Texas. Texas Utilites Generating Companp (TUGCO) is the construction permit holder with Brown and Root, Inc. (B&R), as'the constructor and Gibbs and Hill, Inc. (G&H), as the architect / engineer. REASON FOR INVESTIGATION On July 21, 1981, Individual A telephonically contacted the NRC Region IV Duty Officer and alleged that defects existed in pipe welds within the CPSES Auxiliary Building. Individual A provided no additional information and agreed to be personally interviewed at a later date. SUMARY OF FACTS On August 7, 1981, Individual A was interviewed regarding his concerns related to construction activities at CPSES. During this interview, Individual A identified the following matters as having potential, adverse safety signifi-cance: 1. Numerous pipe supports were fabricated utilizing weave welds which are prohibited by procedure. 2. Holes are drilled in various types of pipe supports, cable tray' supports, and plates, and when~, on occasion, they are found to have been drilled in the incorrect location the holes are fillec, utilizing illegal plug welds. 3. There is a lack of control on a product called Torque Seal which is used on hilti bolts, once they have been inspected and torqued. This lack of control could lead to a questionable integrity of bolts which are marked with this substance.
- 4. / Some hilti bolt QC inspectors dd not properly ensure that bolts are I
correctly installed and torqued prior to documenting their satisfactory installation. 5. In November 1980, the removal of a hilti bolt from the floor in the l Safeguards Building resulted in a cone-shaped section of concrete being removed, which extended through the floor. A general foreman and foreman had this hole repaired without properly notifying the QC Department. 6. Welders are not keeping their rod cans plugged in during the work day. (During a subsequent interview of Individual A, he withdrew this.allega-tion, stating the problem had been corrected.)
.u.. . :.. = _ = :-.. = .=.... = a. g l... A 1. Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- R. G. Tolson, Site QA Supervisor, TUGC0
- J. T. Merritt, Manager, E&C, TUCI Other Persons Contacted Individual A tnrough.L
- Denotes those attending exit interview.
I 2. Investigation of Allegation j Allegation No. 1 Numerous pipe supports were fabricated utilizing weave welds which are prohibiteo by procedure. 1 Investigative Findings 2 On September 8, 1981, Individual A was interviewed concerning his safety-i related concerns at CPSES. Individual A stated that during his employment at CPSES he became personally aware that numerous pipe hangers were fabri-cated utilizing weave welds. He stated that according to his instructions weave welding was not to be used on any jobs at the site. He additionally stated that weave welding violates written procedures at the site, as he i knew them. Individual A stated that numerous examples of weave welds on pipe supports could be found in the South Yard Tunnel, unless the surfaces of the welds were ground off and the welos were capped. Individual A identified three welders whom he believed would corroborate this allega-I tion. Individual A went on to state that " literally thousands of weaved welds exist at various locations on the site." He stated that many of these have had the top surface of the weld ground off and the weld capped with the required stringsr bead. Individual A identified five additional welders whom he stated were aware of this practice. 1 b l l 1 i 1 1 1 S'
/
- 5 Interview of B&R Employees On September 8, 1981, Indiviudal 8, a Brown & Root Mechanica Control inspector at CPSES, was interviewed regarding the use of wea welds.
Individual B recalled one occasion when a weav inspection, but was subsequently ground out and correctly rewelded appropriate supervisors were notified. 3 On September 16, 1981, welders at CPSES, were interviewed regarding the use of agreed that weave welds were not authorized for use at CPSES. All welds, but that these were always ground out an Individuals Individuals F and G stated they had never observed weave welds use CPSES. components containing weave welds which were no Examination of South Yard Tunnel Hancer Welds On September 10, 1981, (hangers) located in the CPSES, Unit 1, South Yard Tunnela visua Mr. Robert Taylor, Resident Reactor Inspector, NRC, and reporting in , was conducted by gator. It was noted that all of the welds on these pipe supports were the approved stringer bead type welds and no evidence of griding was apparent. Some welds did exhibit evidence of grinding, but had weld characteristics which made it possible to identify the type weld used as stringer beads. that weave welds were used in the South Yard Tunnel.No evidenc 1 Allegation No. 2 i Holes are drilled in various types of pipe supports, cable tray supports and plates the incorre,ct location the holes are filled, utilizing an l { l weld. l g Jnvesticative F!ndinas h' n On September 8, 1981, Individual A was interviewed and stated that hole 9 are drilled in pipe supports and cable tray supports to facilitate 3 bolting them in place. that the hole was drilled in the incorrect location, it is filled inH j a utilizing a plug weld. 4 the proper location on the component.He stated that another hole is then drilled i impression, based on comments made by various supervisorsIndividual A s p W welding was not an accepted practice. , that plug d 3 l !3 l ',A M[ ummmax==- ~
- L.. L..L.. ^ -.L -.. = = a-- 2 d .g l Interview of B&R Welders On September 16, 1981, Individuals C, 0, and E were interviewed regarding the use of plug welds. Each stated they had repaired holes in various i components utilizing plug welds on numerous occasions in the past. Individuals F and G stated they had never been involved with plug welding, and both stated they understood that it was not an authorized practice. i Interview of B&R QC Inspectors On September 15, 1981, Individuals H, I, and J were interviewed and stated l they have observed on numerous occasions holes which were filled, utilizing"- the plug welding technique. Each stated a QC inspector is required to inspect the plug welding of holes (which is authorized by procedure) to 4 determine if it is done properly and does not violate hilti bolt spacing i requirements. i Allegation No. 3 4 l There is a lack of control on a product called Torque Seal which is used on hilti bolts once they have been torqued and inspected. This lack of j control could lead to the questionable integrity of bolts which are marked with this substance. 1 Investigative Findings t [ On September 8, 1981, Individual A stated he was concerned about the - lack of control of the product Torque Seal, which he stated was placed i on a hilti bolt after it had been torqued and verified by a QC inspector. He stated QC personnel are the only personnel onsite who are authorized to possess Torque Seal, and possession of Torque Seal by a member of craft is grounds for dismissal. He stated that he knows that Torque Seal is occasionally in the possession of craft personnel and that they use it. Individual A explained that when a hanger is installed using hilti bolts, a hilti bolt QC inspector is supposed to verify the torquing procedures. He stated this inspector will then put Torque Seal on the bolt to ensure that it is not moved. He stated that when a QC inspector does a final QC inspection, at a later date, of the hanger he/she checks to ensure that I the Torque Seal has not been broken. Individual A stated he is personally aware that anchor bolts are moved and craft personnel replace the Torque Seal, therefore, the integrity of the Torque Seal is questionable. Indi-vidual A was unable to identify any personnel at CPSES who could provide additional information concerning this allegation. i Interviews of B&R Quality Control Inspector On September 15, 1981, Individuals H, I, J, and K were interviewed regarding the misuse of Torque Seal. Individual H stated he has never observed any problem relating to the use of Torque Seal, nor has he ever observed craft
m .._...z__._ 1 i ./ 7 personnel in possession of the product. Individual I stated that there have been several occasions when he has found hilti bolts containing Torque Seal, however, no documentation existed relating to its receiving the required inspection. Individual I stated that on these occasions the hilti bolt was retorqued and sealed prior to the appropriate documentation being prepared. Individual J recalled two occasions when he was given tubes of Torque Seal by craft members. He stated he assumed that it had been dropped by a QC inspector and the craft member was turning it in. Individual J stated he had once heard an unsubstantiated rumor that craft personnel used Torque Seal, but he' had no information which would substantiate this rumor. Individual K was aware of no misuse or impro-priety concerning Torque Seal. Interviews of B&R Welders On September 16, 1981, Individuals C, D, E, F, and G were interviewed. Individuals C, E, F, and G stated they were not aware of any craft per-sonnel being in possession of Torque Seal, nor had they hecrd rumors that craft personnel had utilized the substance. Individual G stated he has, on several occasions, observed pipe fitters with Torque Seal; however, he did not know what they had done with it. ' Individual G also stated that he has, on several occasions, found empty Torque Seal tubes lying on the floor at the site. Allegation No. 4 ~ Some hilti bolt QC inspectors do not properly ensure that bolts are correctly installed and torqued prior to documenting their satisfactory installation. Investigative Findings On September 8, 1981, Individual A was interviewed and stated that some hilti bolt QC inspectors do not always perform a proper inspection of hilti bolts subsequent to their installatice. He stated that, in many cases, these inspectors just give the Torque Seal to the pipefitter to put on the bolt without their conducting the inspection, in the required manner. He stated their procadures require that they (the QC inspectors) visually inspect the torque wrench for proper calibration dates, and that they document the number of' the wrench on their inspection reports. He stated they also must watch the torquing and verify that it is done properly. He stated they are then required to aoply Torque Seal upon satisfactory completion of these steps. Interview of B&R QC Personnel On September 15, 1981, Individuals H, I, J, and L were interviewed regarding hilti bolt QC inspection practices. None of these QC personnel were aware of any improprieties concerning the inspection of hilti bolt installation. l l ~ _ _ -. ,____._._c,. -.
.--...a. ..a a =- .8 Individual I specifically stated that all the QC inspectors do l work and have no objections to climbing to difficult areas to ens hilti bolts are properly installed. Interview of B&R Craft Personnel On September 16, 1981, welders, were interviewed. Individuals C, D, E, F, and G, all B&R structur l Individuals C, D a their inspections of hilti bolt installation.the hilti bolt QC o n difficult area to conduct a closeup inspection, bu distance and accept the hilti bolt insta11er's word that the torq om a completed properly. (Each stated this happens on a very infrequent u ng was basis.) adequate inspection can be done from a dista operation, explaining that the clicking of the torque wrench can be and that the operation can be observed without the inspector " over your shoulder." Individual F stated he was not aware of any ) hilti bolt QC personnel violating the required inspection criteria Allegation No. 5 i level of the Safeguards Building resulted in a l concrete being removed, which, extended through the floor. foreman and foreman had this hole repaired without properly notif i A general QC Department. y ng the _ Investigative Findinas On September 8,1981, Individual A was interviewed and stated th .about November 1980, he had been instructed to remove a h floor on the 852 level, Safeguards Building. hilti bolt was removed He stated that when the an approximately 14-inch diameter section of concrete broke loose, a,nd was subsequently removed from the floor stated the hole was cene-shaped and that it e He the floor. happened, and that the foreman and general foreman had later ad I utilize glue and grout to fill in the hole and several other small hole m to which were in the area. grouting the hole, he had been removeo from the job, and covered with plywood in order that QC personnel would not see it Individual A stated the hole was later repaired by other personnel that the QC Department was never apprised of this incident as required. Examination of Identified Area On September 10, 1981, an examination of the alleged patch in the floor at the 852 area of the CPSES Safeguards Building was conduc concrete Mr. Robert Taylor and reporting investigator. e y As stated by Individual A e w -,.n..
=.=.:..
=.a..
=- =.
- . =. w.z..
l. j ?..*. * ' i.I g l an area on the floor, adjacent to pipe support No. cc-1-137-700-E63R, was found to be discolored and gave the appearance of having been patched. Subsequent to this examination, Mr. Taylor examined the ceiling of the area below this alleged patch and found that no discoloration or evidence j of a patch was present. l Other Investigative Aspects On September 10, 1981, Mr. Robert Berry of B&R QC instrumentation, and formerly a concrete Quality Contrcl Inspector, was contacted and agreed to research the CPSES records to determine, if possible, what documentation was on file concerning the alleged patch. Subsequently, Mr. Berry advised Mr. Taylor that no NCR or other documentation was on file which would i confirm that the identified area was a patch. Additionally, Mr. Berry advised that he had personally conducted a test on the discolored area, which consisted of putting watcr on the discolored area and removing the smooth surface of the concrete. He stated this exposed aggregate (a gravel substance found in the concrete used for the original pour) would not have existed had the floor been patched with " dry pack" (the grout-like substance normally used in patching concrete which does not 4 contain aggregate). Mr. Berry stated this finding would lead him to the conclusion that what appeared to be a patch was only an area where the original surface sheen had been "spaled off." (Investigator Note: Mr. Taylor agreed with the assumption presented by Berry based on the facts available. Further interviews regarding this matter were not possible due to the fact that all persons, identified by Individual A as having know-ledge of this matter, were found to have terminaten their employment with Brown and Root. Lastly, the safety-related si nificance of this C alleged problem was nonexistent.) I l i 2 l + 0 y c ,--_y.
.. ~ -. s C % n \\> h ? 2, a=~ \\o 5;;., .\\ L*NITED STATES OF AMERICA s .e NL' CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l e:. / 4 { ...e...... ~... y : -h:y;%v. pl:.7,W:' ~.c;s:,v.,.._.;r :.,y.r :.- . ;..- n.Q,e. + ~.. y r.. ..m...n . n, ;;. o,... 1 ~.. . :.s.. - + '. in the matter of:.,., '.- L'!!:
- s ;_.
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, e t. a L. ' ' '~,2 , ~ ~,. Docket No. 50-445 .,[,, H s 50-446 i (Comanche
- Peak Steam Electric i
Station, Units 1 and 2) i: . v l r ...~" ^
- , -.,9..
-. v..;. :. -. v .y...... . y., :., t... ,.1.2~... ~. ~.. 1 1 1 l i F l Location: Fort Worth, Texas Pages: 10.383-10.715 l l~ Date: March 19, 1984 ~ ~~ l -m,. r v. ,s i i .. u...,i. : :. l'
- v. w. '..~'
.. u. ;y..:..=.,.. w-
- a., : /e..,;. :
r .. s r... ...... -.,,. ~, a t,,., .s..,..r.,... A..s. ..., %,..r.-y.. - j ,.. : :,,.,. s : r. ,:.:.n.- ..... ~ - l ., ay,y :.<.'... ' -.i. :: .. i/.).N'i. TAYL0E ASSOCIATES l.Y r ' L c' - di,@id,?.[.l cows ite,.n.,. s; w...,..'-{;.,~; ;, re:s a sirm N w s== icoe. - =.u~kS r ( .a c 9.
- uni.
o c. :ssen e. ,,, aw ; r. -m.. "(/ W ' M V { h.' ' Vl l};' \\
i 15 10606 / I at the site? 2 A My understanding was, was that his position was 3 much the same way as my position was the first term.of d employment; and that was to go around and get the hangers t 5 that were not being bought-off by QC, get the welds' prepared 6 to where they would at least appear to be buyable; and I 7 get them bought-off. a Q Are you implying by that statement that he was buying the welds off whether they were proper welds or not? -i 10 j A Correct. il Q Ars you talking about more than one example of 12 this? l 13 A Yes. Id Q Turn now to this question of downhill welding. 15 JUDGE.BLOCH: To be clear, you said that was his 16 assignment; right? II THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 18 JUDGE BLOCH: So it wasn't that he had a l' particular interest in doing it; he was doing what you were 20 doing? T12at.'s what your testimony is? 21 THE WITNESS: (Nodding affirmatively.) 22 BY MR. HAGER: 23 Q Now, you have testified before about the 24 downhill welding. Wo'uld you clarify the\\ssue of the use.of i ( 25 the magnetic field and the arc blow in the context of rka v' i
10607 i 15-15 C s downhill welding? 2 A Yes. 3 What I referred to in my testimony relates back to ~ d two :different instances. 5 The first one being, was on the hanger that.I 6 mentioned to the I&E people, I mean, to the NRC, about the hanger that I was terminated for in the last term of employ-7 a ment. M And in that case, what had happened, was, that I0 we had constructed the hanger; I had literally welded the whole hanger out; and I got down to the last weld, which 'I 12 was a limited access weld. 33 I would have to describe the configuration of the hanger-- '5 Q Please do. A okay. II The whole problem of this limited access. Q 18 A Okay. What happened was we constructed a hanger, or 2 they had constructed a hanger that my engineers would not work in the place that it was put. so this e:ngineer, I believeb name was;M-I 22 I can't remember exactly to be positive tha%aM_name. 3 24 I believe it.is though. _ g ame down, looked at the hanger that was in 4 D _i_.,m 2 m
1 \\ L,15-1*l ]Q 10608 I \\ place. And said, "no, you'll have to cut this down. 1 2 It's, you kjnow, not correct. You'll have to reconstruct 3 something." said, "I'll try to get something worked up on it so you can do something." d I The whole time my forman was being pushed to get } this hanger bought-off by 5:30 that afternoon. We worked 7 on this hanger all day long to get it ready. f And the reason why he told me he was pushed was a that this particular line, that was the last hanger on that i l o pipeline,'that would have sold the whole line off; in other 10 l H words, he had indicated to me that if we didn't have it bought-off, we might be in trouble. ( 12 I 33 So the engineer had come up with a plan of--or a new design of a new hanger to be in place of the one that 'd 15 was currently in position. to so they instructed somebody to come along and ( cut down the old hanger. But they decided to salvage some 'I t f of the parts of the hanger that was still there. is f So, literally, they left the base olate on the I' 2 wall. Off of that base plate, came a piece of tuba stsel. 21 [ directly out from the wall. There were three pipes, it was 22 what they considered to be a " gang hanger"
- 23 I believe it was three pipe'there in place; it 24 could have been two.
i 25 But this one piece of tube that came out from the w ?
7, 10609 It-18 I wall, there was a goudge mark on the pipe. And they had 2 covered that goudge mark up. 3 So literally we didn't have any way of knowing d that it was there. 5 We went ahead and went to the fab shop, got the 6 new pieces that were to be installed, added on to that 7 piece of tube steel that was already in place. 8 When we tried to put the hanger together, the 9 pieces were too short; they wouldn't fit.
- f' 30 So that entailed that we'd have to go back to il the fab shop, get a new order, get the new material; and 12 get it back down there.
83 And they said, you know, that's going to take ENDT15 3d too long. JRB:jrb 15 ARfis 16 17 18 20 21 l 22 23 24 25 D 9
, - - - - -. _ - - - - - - - - - =. - - _ _. - - - - - - - - -, - - - 10610 816 cr1 i. 1c ~ f 1 And they said that, you.cannot take too long, L 2' we're not going to be through. You are going to have to do 3 something with 4 hat you've got. 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Who is "they"? 5 THE WITNESS: A foreman. 6 What we actually did was we used all the material 7 that we had that would fit that originally came from the a fab shop. We put all this together and we came up to a . problem to where I mentioned in my testimony, that it was a .g 9 to shim that I used. It wasn't really a shim, because it 11 went between two pipes to separate the two pipes. 12 Now a shim would be that tube steel that came 13 off the wall. If you put a piece of material, a piece of metal between that pipe and that tube steel, that would' be id 15 considered a shim. This was on the other side, going'in to between the two pipes. In other words, it was a separator 87 of the two pipes. There should have been a piece of tube la steel used, but due to the space that was available there l' in between the pipes, the three inch tubo steel would not 20 fit. 21 JUDGE DLOCH: Were you working with a design drawinethatthis, engineer,jlllll(broughttoyou? i 22 23 THE WITNESS: We had one, but we had so much trouble using it that]$gl finally came down and looked at 24 whatwasthere,andlllksaid, "Well, I don't know what to do 25 V l l
~ 10611 lcr16-2 L. ' dc I about it," you know, and me and the fitter, we told 2 we sai'd, " Hey, you know, we know what it will take to 3 get it done, you know. Why don't we just go ahead, construct d the' hanger? We'll draw an as-built condition up on it, bring a CMC; up to you with a drawing of wha $. is in place, 5 6 You can do whatever you have to to incorporate it into the 7 package." s says; "That's fine with me,"
- says, "I
9 got a headache and I'm going back to my office." T 10 So left. We constructed the hanger. We got il down to the part that was the part that I referred to as a 12 shim. Actually it is not a shim. The piece that we had 13 sent down from the fab shop wouldn't fit because of the 14 limited space in between the pipe. In other words, I'm 15 going to say it was less than the tube steel was. 16 So, in order to have us a separator in there 17 and to make the hanger work, we had a piece of just flat is bar laying on the floor -- I don't know where it came from -- 19 but, anyway, l't was laying on the floor. We measured it 2c and it was exactly the same size as we needed. So we 21 installed that in place of the tube steel. We constructed thehangerandgotit'almostall[weldedoutwhenIcame 22 23 up on thiis limited access weld.. 24 Now this tube steel that came out from the 25 plate off the wall -- and the pipes would be running up and O
+ N 10612 1 cr16-3 i 0
- r i
down with the wall -- they had another piece of tube steel 2 in between the pipe and the wall that ran behind the pipe 3 into this tube steel. 4 In other words, leaving about a two inch space 5 behind that tube steel and the plate itself to make this -- 6 I made a downhill weld in there, is w'at I did. I couldn't h I 7 make the verf.ical weld in there because you had to bend a your rod to get up in there, and every time I tried to put 9 something in there, it just wouldn't do. I just couldn't i i 10 do it, and I told them, I said, look, it's a limited acc.ess II weld. If you'll set me a test up in the WQTC like it's 12 required, I'll go and do it,and they'll come back down and 13 see if we can get it worked out. We don't have time. Id Jimmy Green kept saying that. If we don't get it bought 35 off by 5:30, we ain't have a job. And I said, well, the 16 only thing I can -- you know -- say is you'll have to get 17 somebody elset to do it. And he said, no, you can do it, is you know. He said just make a downhill weld on it and 19 grind the face of it off and he said nobody's going to know 20 that you did that except you. ] 21 came down about t at time and.I L 22 was going to get him'to do it because tha 's what he i / 23 .normally did, was all the limited access welds that the 24 rest of the welders couldn't do. Consequently he s' aid, 25 no, well I'm fixing to have to go upstairs and do something v e a-- - ~ ~ - -
10613 o,r16-4 g '[C-3 i else, you know. And he said, but you can do it and handle 2 that. And I said, well, sure, I can do that, you know. It 3 just consisted of smearing a little metal on the outside of it till you've got it built out far enough to where when.you l 4 5 grind it.back down, you would have the weld configuration, 6 although the surface and the ripples of the. bead that would 7 show it was a downhill weld would be ground off. l l 8 So that's what I did, I made a downhill weld, 9 ground the surface of it off. Then my foreman comes up and I l { io says, well, is it ready to turn over to QC and I said it's l ~ ready. All the welds except that one downhill weld were i 12 acceptable and were good welds. 13 When he crawled up -- and the foremans out at 14 Comanche Peak, they were having so much trouble with getting is these welds bought off, that's the reason why 16 was in the position he was and I was in the position that'I 17 was, to go around and get these hangers bought off, because is they were having so much trouble with the inexperienced [ 19 welders not being able to get them bought by QC, that 20 he actually -- the foremans would actually, when you got 21 through completing a hanger, they would go back and 22 reinspect your welds before they ever turned it over to 23 QC, to make sure that it would be viable. 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Sounds like QC was being pretty 25 tough at that time. i-I
a --...: :..... _.~.:.--. 2. ~ =.. = -. ...c ~' 10614 for16-5 1 THE. WITNESS: I'm not going to say that they 2 were too tough. Matter of fact, I think in most cases 3 that sometimes they were maybe a little too lenient. 4 JUDGE BLOCH: I tried to say pretty tough, I 5 didn't say too tough. 6 THE WITNESS: Okay. But'whenever he came back to do his final visual on the hanger, he saw the' gouge mark, 7 e and neither me or the fitter, either one, had ever seen that gouge mark up until the time that he called me over to the gf 9 hanger and he said -- I'm not going to say what he said. 10 In other words, he was cussing at me and asking me what is 11 12 all this, you know. And I said I don't know what you 13 talking about, you know, until you show me. And he said, well, crawl up here and look at this, he said. We're in 14 15 big trouble now. So I crawled up on the scaffold, looked at the 16 gouge mark there, and he was insinuating that I had done it, 17 is that I'm the one that done it, and I told him, hey, wait a 19 minute. And 1 jumped down off the scaffold, I grabbed up my air grinder, which is the only one that I'd had down 20 21 there. I was lucky to have it. But all it had on it was a j l pencil, a rotary pencil file on it. 22 i 23 Now the gouge mark that was in the pipe was l 24 made by a disk grinder. I'm going to say it was at least three or four inches long and it appeared to almost go all the 25 of
10615 .6-6 h6 way through the inner wall of the pipe. 1 When I looked at it, you know, that just scared -2 me to' death, because I know that is grounds for termination. 13 id They h'ad done come out the first time that I worked at Brown & Root, they'd came out and they told everybody the 5 first time you, turn a gouge mark in, we're going to warn 6 The next time you turn a gouge mark in, we're going ,7 you. i 8 to terminate you. j ..I So literally that set up an instance to where b 9 j the welders, they're not going to turn a gouge mark in, a 10 if they make one or whether they find out, for fear that 11 they'll be blamed for it. 12 i So I showed him my pencil grinder and I told him, 1 13 ( I said, you know, there's no possible way I could have done ) id which was the 15 it, and I said I can't vouch for I said I fitter that helped ne construct the hanger. 16 don't believe he did it because we never cut that piece of 17 tube steel down that was covering it, which made it, you 18 4 know, made us unable to see it in the first.' place. l' So he run around there for two or three minutes, l' 20 L you know, trying to think of what he was going to do, ~ 21 kept coming down the stairs and asking f 22 .because 23 is it through, are you through.- And he'd say, well, no, h hey're still having probl~ ems with it, engineering 24 t 25
- problems, and this and that, and stalling him, you know, 1
%h 1 ,i ~
a, 10616- "cr16-7 'I CL because he didn't want him to see the gouge mark either. i Because that would have automatically -- that gouge mark 2 in that automatically shuts that wh' ole line down. In 3 other words. And they wouldn't have been able to get the. ~ 4 whole line bought off then. 5 So' my foreman, came up and he 6 7 said, look, he said, come here. He said can't you take a 332 rod -- at the time I had 1/8th rods -- no, I believe I a 9 - did.have 332 rods. And he said can't you take one of
- j those 332 rods and make a downhill weld on it, you know?
to He said that way it won't blow through the pipe or anything 11 and you can fill it up until you get it filled out to flush I 12 and grind it back down and take a buffer, a buffing wheel 13 that they have out there and smooth it down. They've got 14 cans of the same color paint that the pipes are painted is to with and spray over it, in other words, to whsre it wouldn't be s,een, you know, by anybody. 17 And I told him, I said, look,' M ~I said, I l 1s i worked.out here before, you know, and there was a lot of l 19 20 phony stuff going on. And I said I just -- I'm not saying I 21 I won't do it.- Because I.was afraid if I told him I l i 22 wouldn't do it,, he'd fire me right then. And I said I'm not saying I won't do it, but I'd rather no.t. 23 'Well, he;just flew up in the air and said, you 24 25 know, just go over and help the fitter. So that's what I w l l .= .mc a
10617 ar16-8 '] C-did, I went to. help the. fitter on a hanger:which, by the 1 way, we had to grind the rebar down in the wall with a 2 pencil file to get a Hilti bolt to'go into it, which is 3 another thing that I told to the NRC Staff or the NRC 4 5 investigators. 6 While I was helpin onstruct this other 7 hange'r, eft. He told me, said don't worry about it, I'll go get somebody else to do it. I just -- you know, now 8 'I I'm not going to say that I knew for positive, but I just 9 10 assumed he was going to get; .and apparently 11 that's what he did. But while he was gone, I called my % on the phone and I told I said, hey, they're 12 fixing to cover a gouge mark up down here, and I said I 13 don't know what to do about it, but I said they're going 14 15 to get away with it, if something isn't done or somebody 16 doesn't come down here. SojIENkia.id,"Well,ifIcomedownthere,they're 17 it's a bad going to know you called me and then, you know, is l We don't need that time right now, you'll lose your job. 19 l 20 right now." i 21 And I said, "Well,"!I said, "is there anybody 22 else?" j AndlElIsaid',"Well,Idon'tknow." 23 I 24 And.I said, "What about knew h as a pipe QC inspector for the pipe department. 25 P %::r
~,' 10618 Ii ar16-9 I~' 7C i l 1 i And I said, "Is there any way you can get in contact with ~ f _U" 2 And she said,'"I don't know. I'll see if I can i 3 find M and if I do, I'll sen down there." 4 So, in the meantime,-there was another welder 5 there that was a heliarc welder name of and I 6 7 told him what they was fixing to do. And of course he'd a overheard everything that had happened. And I told him, I 9 said, "Look, why don't you run upstairs and see if you can find' M a~nd.get her down here?" I said, is 10 looking fo_ M and if you ge' down here and we get 11 { % down here quick enough to where I can show it to 12 t 13 before they'come back, you.know, then nothing -- they won't 14 know who did what." So evidently he left, and I don't know -- whether 15 Sot aliold of or whether got ahold of 16 f ~ or maybe, both of them did. said that M 17 but M just doesn't remember whether is tried to contac 19 got' ahold o or not. came down to, you know, f 20
- Anyway, i
look at it and g ame down and M said, "Where is this e l 21 gouge mark at down here in the pipe?" 22 t i 23 And I said, "It's up there on that hanger up i I there," I said, "but I don't want to get up there because 24 I they liable to see me showing it to you or something." 25 { Ilb r [
l* 10619 6 '10 l? ic l' I anyway." And8-says, _ "Well, maybe. I can find it, e 1 g crawled up there and went to look.., % looked all over f 2 the hanger an M couldn't even see the gouge mark in the n 3 d pipe. 'And % old meZ
- lsaid, "I can't see it.
Where g 5 is it at?" And I tried to keep telling ow to hold ll But due to it the flashlight and get around behind the pipe. 6 being so close to the wall, I don't think M could get 7 s there because of elmet -- I mean hard hat and all .,i,- 9 that, you know. 10 S said, "I just can't, you know, see what you're talking abou't." So I figured it wouldn't be any harm I 11 for me to just jump up there and just point to it right 2 f 12 quick, but at the same time I jumped up or crawled up on 13 the scaffold to show M where the gouge mark was,'h i 14 i o and' came back down the stairs. f 15 had a welding helmet in his hand, and I couldn't 16 swear for positive he was coming down to redo the weld or 17 1 18 not, the gouge mark. But I do know from the conversation that took place, that's what it was in my mind. 19 When they came down to the bottom of the stair l' 20 .and they looked up at me, you could have knocked them over l 21 1 . ith a wet noodle because they just -- they knew th'ey was ~ 12 w So .in trouble and.they knew I'd blew the whistle on them. J 23 a 24 ~ I said, " Man, they're going to fire me for j I~ told 25 this." And aid, "Well, they can't, because if they 1 f i i 5 =r i i I e! k I
l' cr16-ll 10620 t I do -- they can't fire you for turning in a defect to a QC 2 inspector." Said, "If they do, go to the NRC." 3 Consequently, that same day, I told, ~ d that I had to take off, that my doctor had seen something inmyxiraysbefore,wasapinchednerve,andIwashaving 5 l trouble,with it because of all the positions we had to get 6 7 } into in this north pump room to make some of these welds, a and I'd called him up and told him I was having trouble 9' and he said, "Well, come in Monday morning." f 30 So I'd asked my foreman if it would be all right 11 if I took off the following Monday morning. I cold him, I 12 said, "I'll probably be back in at noon, but," I said, "I ,j j 13 don't know what he's going to say about it." 14 So, consequently, I did take off that Monday 2-15 j morning and went-to the doctor -- 16 MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to interrupt 17 this testimony. It has nothing to do with the direct l' is testimony of Applicants or of this witness. We are off on l 19 l some tangent about going to the doctor. It's really l 20 irrelevant. 21 l JUDGE BLOCH: I think we have gone a bit far 22 afield. ? 23-7.d like to ask back about what youwere testifying 24 l about before, whether this was the only-time that you know 25 i of that you were making a pipe support, but couldn't use j F l
] cr16-12 10621 I the drawing. 2 THE WITNESS: No, several occasiens that we had 3 to actually construct.a hanger in the field and then draw i 4 up an as-built drawing so that the engineers up in the 5 engineering department could incorporate it into the 6 package. They just looked at what was in place and then 7 they made a judgment on it and most of the time they didn't e even come down to look at it. 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Continue. i 10 MR. HAGER: Fine. 11 BY MR. HAGER: 12 Q I may ask, just for purposes of identifying 33 this particular incident, is this the incident that you were 14 fired for? j 15 A Yes, it was. 16 Q And did you go to the NRC about it? 17 A Yes, I did. 18 Q What was the result of that? I' A The -- 20 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm sorry; what are we rebutting i 21 now? 22 MR. HAGER: I'll pass on from that. 23 l JUDGE BLOCH: We will get to that under the t 24 open issues in this case, but I don't think it's in this 25 part of the case. l l s-s l s ._ _- _ _, _ _ _.. _ _ ~ _.
1 10622 cr16-13t NC 1 MR. HAGER Fine. 2 S'Y MR. HAGER: 3 Q, Now on the weld rod control system -- 4 A Before we go any farther, when 'I first started 5 to give my explanation of this, I said there were two 6 instances. That was only one of them. 7 Q Okay, let's go ahead and hear that. 8 A Should I tell the'other instance about where I was N 9 instructed to make a downhill weld? 10 -Q Who -- you've already testified. Who was it that instructed you to make a downhill weld other than M. 11 12 13 A It was_ 14 Q Okay. Well, describe that instance to us. ~ 15 A That instance happened in the same area, the 16 north pump room. 17 JUDGE BIOCH: At that same'was he acting as a is supervisor? 19 THE WITNESS: Like I say, he was just -- I didn't f 2o even know he was a foreman until after I'd left out there. 21 JUDGE BIDCH: Well, how.come he was able to tell you what to do? f 22 23 THE WITNESS: Well, because he-was more or less 24 -- you know,: like I say,-he-was in the position that I was 25 e out there, to get in originally, the first time that I workc < ~, L e 9
s.- 10623 ~ l cr.16-14 [, b AC 1 these hangers bought off. So-consequently whatever he said, l b F you know, that it needed to be done, is what went. You f 2 3 know what I mean. There was no argument about it'. Not that q he was my foreman o'r anything, you know. It's just that 4 everybody understood that he knew what it would take to 5 6 get the hangers bought off. JUDGE BLOCH: So he had authority to tell anyone 7 a to do anything? 9 THE WITNESS: I don't know that he did have 2 to the authori.ty to tell anyone. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Whatever he told you, you were 12 willing to do? 13 .THE WITNESS: Well, see, my foreman was there i 14 also at the same instance was, and what had 15 happened was -- I think if I explain what happened, it i 16 would clarify all that. Wh,at happened was, was up in the ceiling -- keep 17 i in mind all these pipes are coming up and going along the is . ceilings and the hangers coming off the ceilings to hold 19 these pipes up made a limited space 1.n between the' pipe 20 21 and the ceiling. Due to my thickness of my chest cavity, I was unable to crawl up in there to make this orie weld, 22 23 and due to him being thinner than I'was, he 24 was. Buti they kept telling me, "Just make a downhill weld if you can't get to it, you know, and grind it off, you 25 w e f 2>
A O ,9 ) ) f L*NITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (b. l i ~ Q f. ,p:,. ..~ In the matter of: L TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, l et aL. ,I Docket No. 50-445 50-446 i-(Comanche' Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2) t 1 i ~ .g b x E l 018 Location: Fort Worth, Texas Pages: Date: Tuesday, March 20, 1984 t i s 3 M.s TAYLOE ASSOCIATES c.,
- t..
Cows Repwws 'y p?: re:s a sums w s ecos
- un..
o c. : noes i:on 2suse 'Ct. ; y ( / U AW * * " [ gffA A * ' * * *2 l "( ' ?^- 'l : ).. ~},l ~ > =, 4 %AA- ~ ~ ~ - - - ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " ' ' - '
- ^ *^
11013 1 you are saying? 2 THE WI'i' NESS: That's not correct because as I 3 was saying-- 4 JUDGE BLOCH: The time pressure's always there 5 because you got to do it before QC gets back? Yuh, I o remember that. 7 Mr. Chairman, might not this be a l a good time to break? t I 9 We have.some things we need to do in preparation -2 10 for the-- 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Can'you finish up with this 12 transcript quickly? h 13 MR. REYNOLDS: Not--well, what's "quickly"? e' id (Laughter) y I: 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Within the next five minutes o o? L 16 MR. REYNOLDS: No. 37 JUDGE BLOCH: The hearing is recess until 8:30 1 j 18 a.m. I' Just a moment, the Staff has a matter. 20 MR. MIZUNO: One matter first that we would like Ti 2'1 to have the four originals of the-- 22 MR. TREBY: No,--actually, we would like that-- 23 we were 'oin,g to put on to the. but, more importantly: g 2' record a stipulation amongst the parties with regard to ) 25 some documents. t l =
t7 11014 1 And I think that should be done before the record 2 is closed. 3 JUDGE BLOCH: If I may see the documents, I think d I can make the statement of the stipulation for the record. 5 (Pause) o JUDGE BLOCK: The document'before the Chairman ,1 7 is NDERA No. 2899, dated 7-10-81. It is signed by a It is a report of a goudge on a pipe showing i 9 that the mark measures ik inches long by k inch wide and
- Tl 30 by 1/8 inch deep.
1 Il The 1/8 is written over, so it looks like there 12 was something else before the "1" was written in. 13 But 1/8 inch deep. 3d And this is understood by all the parties to be f 15 a description of the goudge in the pip'e to which 16 has testified in this.oroceeding that led to,his termination from the plant. ) 17 18 The Board has looked at the. follow-uo documentation I' MR. REYNOLDS: We can't stipulate to that. 20 " Led to his termination"? 21 JUDGE BLOCH: It's the goudge in the pipe that 22 alleges led to his termination. 23 And the Board has examined'the back-up documentatio a 24 and see no reason to inquire further as to whether this 25~ ~ goudge was adequately handled. t
11015 t8 i It is also understood by the parties that there 3 isnodisabilh.tyonCASEforusingthesedocumentsinfurther 2 3 T25 proceedings related to intimidation.
- jrb f1s 5
6 7 8 9 y 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 t i 4 NM OMN mM Wer M4%$M A - '^N T=W
.-..-,:== - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - =.. -.. - - - - - -. - -. - - - - - - - I h ~ .IMONS 1 11016 i I We had not ruled o'n the relevance to those issues, }. 2 but there is no disability for using them. i ' .3 Is that matter completed? I d Mr. Mizuno? l 5 MR. MIZUNO: I think we also stipulated to the! 6 fact that could also use'the document if there 7 was relevance shown, I guess, as to whether the weld was g a -- the gouge was in fact correctly repaired. And we didn't 8 g 9 say whther it was proper to go ahead and do that. That's .w t j 10 something that we have to leave for the future. i il But there was no limitation that we personally had on that.' 12 JUDGE BLOCH: I understand that stipulation. 13 I'm not sure why that's an issue in the case, whether this 1 14 gouge +- 15 MR. MIZUNO: We just said that we weren't going ,i lo to limi use ttempt to use in that -- 4 lt 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay, there is no limitation on 18 that use, but again it may not be relevant to admitted 19 issues. l 20 MR. MIZUNO: That is correct. 21 MS. ELLIS: Mr. Chairman, one more thing. 22 Coul'd the Board read into the record the titles of the b i ). 23 documents themselves? I'd like for the record to show 24 particularly that there was no NCR written on this. 25 JUDGE BLOCH: The documents under which this 4 P e P.,,
2 11017 I gouge was handled appear to be the NDER, whose number I have 2 already read;- the weld filler material log, which isn't 3 really the way.in which this is handled; the quality assuranc e department 'DE radiographic report No. 2248; that's labeled 4 N 5 also RT; and repair process sheet, serial No. NDER 192899, 6 and there appears to be some mark in the upper right-hand 7 corner after that. It could be a zero or a D. 8 MR. REYNOLDS: I also ask you identify the name 9 on the first name, as a QC inspector. I'm not 10 sure whether you did,but it is requested, 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, of course, I don't know 12 whether is a OC inspector, but it does say underneath w-le 4 3. 15 Mr. Chairman -- 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes? 17 -- I believe that Mr. Taylor is indicated'that this is the same person referred to in 19 ~ estimony as Is that correct? 20 JUDGE BLOCH: That's what -- ~ 21 MR. TREBY: Staff's understanding is that 22 the formei as married and that name there 23 i 24 JUDGE'BLOCH: Or 'he reverse. t 25 MR. TREBY: It is our understanding it is one I 4 9 7 Q
.~.-.-.5-- ... = ~. - _. - - -. - - - - a. ~ ,. 5-3 11018 l l l 1 and the same person. 2 JUDGE BLOCH: Now is the matter satisfactorily 3 handled? 4 We will adjourn until 8:30 a.m. 5 i (Whereupon, at 5:55 p.m., the hearing 6 was adjourned, to reconvene at~8:30 a.m., 7 Wednesday, March 21, 1984.) i e I 9 g 10 12 13 14 e j 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 21 22 \\ 23 24 25 l ) ~ -s--
~ C a.koq lh hp T, 'i \\6 11718 O Do you recall an incident on that day involving 5 1 a gouge in a pipe? 1. 2 0 A I don't remember,whether it was that day or l 3 not, but I recall the gouge in the pipe. 4 Q Do you recall how the gouge in the pipe was 5 4 N corrected? A An FDR was put on it and it was corrected through an RM I beHeve. 8 Q Did you at any time talk to~ bout --- 9 .g JUDGE BLOCH: One second. What was written on g [ it? 11 i { 12 THE WITNESS: It was a field deficiency report [- g3 by QC. BY MR. HAGER: 14 15 Q Do you recall at any time talking t6 16 about that gouge in the pipe? 17 A No, not offhand I don't remember. 18 Q Do you know il was aware at any time 19 of the gouge in the pipe? m A I don't know whether he was or not. I don't 21 remember whether; he was in that area or not at that time. i f ~ u Q Were you in the area at that time? [showedmethegouge in the pipe. 23 A Yes. l 24 Q Who else did you see at any time that day in i 25 l the area of the pipe that had the gouge in it? FOLA-85-59 I yh SIT (
,"y 11719 e 1 A There was a pipe weldar in that area. f 2 O Do'you know who that was? 1 l p 3 A I don't remember what his name was. I5 4 Q Did you see any other people there? A There were people in and out through that area. 6 Q Did you see any inspectors there at any time? 7 A Yes, the one that came down to check the pipe. 8 Q Do you know who that was? 8 A I 10 0 Do you know who called down? s' 11 A I believe it was a pipe welder. i f 12 O Could it have beeri 13 A I don't remember him doing.it. I think it was I4 a pipe welder. He knew the pipe QC inspectors. 15 { JUDGE BLOCHi I didn't hear the last answer. 16 THE WITNESS: He knew the pipe QC inspectors. J I BY MR. HAGER: 18 Q Did you know whether ad anything to I' { do with calling down the inspector? 20 A Not to my knowledge. J G 21 JCDGE BLOCH: Is there a division of responsibility c 22 between pipe QC inspectors and support inspectors? 23 THE WITNESS: There was at that time. There were 24 people that strictly worked on pipes and then people who 25 [ worked on hangers and other. areas.
i f.- 11720 { 7 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Would it be unusual if you were 2 working on a support to notice something in a pipe and r. a ) 3 call the pipe OC inspector? 4 g THE WITNESS: Well, we were encouraged to report ,l 5 damaged permanent plant equipment and get the proper 6 authorities to look at it, QC or a pipe foreman or general 7 foreman or whatever. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you know whether someone might i 8 have felt that the company might feel that they were inter-i 10 fering if they went outside of their area and called that i 11 pipe inspector? i l 12 THE WITNESS: No, therr wgn't any problem with 13 ~ l that. I4 i BY MR. HAGER: 1 15 0 What is your basis for that last statement? I 16 A. What, the damage to permanent plant equipment? ? \\ II O Right. l f 18 A Well, we were told that in safety meetings. We l I O I 18 would have safety meetings on Monday morning and they would 1 tell us be sure and follow procedures and if we had any t t D I 21 i damage to permanent plant equipment to notify them. l 22 O Would it have been appropriate for 23 to'have notified the pipe foreman? I 24 l A There would have been no problem with that. Il 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you know of any instances where
11721 -8 1 people working on pipe supports called up the pipe QC [l 2 inspector? E c 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, there were several occasions. 4 When you were in a tight spot you might hit the pipe with 5 a grinder, you know, or something like that. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you remember specific places 7 where the pipe'QC inspector was called in by craft at thi.t 8 point? 9 THE WITNESS: I don't remember specifics, no, sir. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you remember whether or not there 11 were any words spoken to the people who made those reports l 12 subsequently? 7T l 13 THE WITNESS: No. 14 p JUDGE BLOCH: You don't remember? 15 THE WITNESS: I know of no one that was reprimanded 1 16 or fired or anything for doing something as long as they ,i 17 I reported it. 4 18 JUDGE BLOCH: Not even an angry word of a slap 18 on the hand as we have heard that language used? THE WITNESS: Well, they might tell them to be 21 more care fu i
- something like that.
22
- .3.E 3 LOCH
But what they were being told to 23 be more care:.; icout was gouging the pipe and not calling i 24 the inspector. 25 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, that is right. . pr > r,.. m m
11722 h i -9 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you ever hear of someone being f 2 b;- told that they might be fired if they gouged the pipe? j 3 THE WITNESS: No, sir, as long as it was reported 4 and you didn't try to cover it up or just walk off and 5 leave it. 6 JUDGE BLOCH: What if it resulted in junking 7 the whole line? Could that happen if it was a deep enough 8 gouge? 8 THE WITNESS: Well, it codld happen, yes, sir. I, 10 I never heard of anyone being reprimanded or fired over it. 11 BY MR. HAGER: l 12 Q Would it go on the wor.k.r.acord in any way? 13 A Not that I know of, no. ~ 14 Q Would you take it'into account when you were i 15 makino your report on your workers? 16 A, Well, it if it was a continuous happening, 17 t probably. l 18 0 Would you make a report if it was on instance I' that caused the scraping of a whole pipel ;e? i A No. ) 21 Q Have you ever reported on any individual problems 22 like that that your workers have run into? 23 A I didn't understand you. 0 Have you ever reported, for example, a situation 26 where a' pipe has to be scraped or any other single problem f L
- '~
2'
- =** R
_n = m w+-
11723 3 1 that a worker had created? 2 MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I am going to object 3 at this point. I think we are getting into a subject matter 5 4 that l is better reserved.for later hearings. 5 JUDGE BLOCH: I think there is direct conflict 6 that has to be resolved that it is still relevant to. I 7 think we are probably reaching somewhere near the limit. 8 MR. HAGER: I think that is true. I have the 8 same feeling that we are close to the limit. 10 BY MR. HAGER: 11 Q Have you ever made a report on a single instance 12 like a gouge in'a pipe or any othe1; pqoblem like that? 13 A Report to who? I4 0 Report to your general foreman? 15 A ~ I I might have mentioned it to him. I. 16 O Do you report on your workers to your general I foreman. k 18 A Yes. l I8 JUDGE BLOCH: Did you report the incident that we are talking about here about tha gouge on the pipe II to your general foreman? I l THE WITNESS: I don't remember doing it, but I 3 ) usually dia. JUDGE BLOCH: Is it possible that you made some 25 kind of a written report on it? .2-1 -~
11720 M -il 1 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't mske any writton ~ I f. 2 report, no. .e 3 BY MR. HAGER: 4 .O Do you know wheri was fired from his 5 emoloyment at Comanche Peak? 6 MR. REYNOLDS: Objecticn. We are into that area. 7 JUDGE BLOCH: It is being admitted solely for the 8 purpose of this conflict on the other testimony. 9 MR..HAGER: You can answer the question. hl 10 THE WITNESS: Repeat your question. m 11 BY MR. HAGER: k 7
- 1.
1 i 12 i Q Do you 'know whe{ as fired? l 13
== A Yes. I4 Q When was he fired? i l 15 A I don't know the exact date. It was on a Wednesday. I I 16 He was absent three days. II O Did he ask your permission to be absent? I i j A No. I' Q You are not aware that he had a doctor's excuse? A He did when he came in on Wednesday. II O Did he tell you he was going to be going to the 22 doctor's? i A No. 24 l, Q He never asked your permission to be absent? A No. i
3 11725 l' ?Cs O N2 g Did ha cvar provida you with a doctor's excusa or show it to you? 2 ( l 3 ,A He did I believe the Wednesday he came in after f he.had been terminated. 4 5 O Do ypu know the grounds for termination ? -s 6 A. His absentteism. I } 7 JUDGE BLOCH: Was there a plant requirement that 3 you explain an absence the day that you began the absence? ) i 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. Everyone was told to call 's [ t to in in the mornings and explain their absence. j 11 BY MR. HAGER: g I 12 Q How long did work under you? Approximately a month. ~ 13 A !l l-t 14 O Do you knew how many-times he was absent during that 1 month? 'f 1 16 A Three and a half days. I believe it was three A 17 and a half days'or two and a half days. l j 18 0 Were two of those days the Monday end Tuesday j r 19 before the Wednesday that he was fired? I, E 3 20 A Yes. b 21 Q Imd you did tell me you saw a doctor's excuse for l 22 those'two days? D A Yes. 24 O Did you recommend that he be fired? I i 25 A No. The general foreman told me to terminate nim. 1
1 / 11726 / l-4c g o Did you have a' discussion with the general foreman ~ 2 about terminating beside just receiving the 3 order you just mentioned? 4 A' No. 5 Q You never had a conversation with him about the, 6 subject of whether he should be fired? 7 A No. 8 MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I am going to object ,{ 9 to this further line. This is not in'this witness's 10 testimony. He did not testify abou termination, t 11 JUDGE BLOCH: I think for the purpose of { ' 12 credibility we have -probably gone as far as I I 13 we ought to on this matter. { ~ 14 MR. HAGER: Right.' I would like a few more j 15 questions on that. I don't think we quite drew that to j 16 a conclusion. r I 17 I would just make a proffer, and the next question 18 would is he aware of any other workers who have been fired I t 19 after two and a half days' absence in about a month period, who of which were excused by a doctor's excuse? JUDGE BLOCH: Well, of co'urse, that would take t ~ redirect. All right, that is the only other question you have? l MR. HAGER: Yes, I think that to draw it to f 25 l a close. I i
C c Ve.foy D @fTnHFE) 7 m e er - - - - --- o, c 4231 - OT % C 1 Q. Were there other' items identified in the " sanitized" notes that . ere not mentioned in the;I&E Report? lf w 3 A. Yes. They're shown on CASE Exhibit pages 6660-28 through 6660-34. 4 Q. Is there anything you'd like to say about them? I 5 A. Yes. They are in regards to the writing of NCR's (6660-28 through 6 6660-30), the gouge in the pipe which I believe was the reason I was fired l7 the second time (6660-30), other welding problems (6660-30), background and l8 general infonnation (666D-30 and 666D-31), counterfeit hangers (666D-31 and g 6660-32) IRN's (Interim Removal Notices)(6660-32), C8I manufactured water I j 10 tanks put in so that the floor buckled (6660-33), improper testing of the and various others.I don't understand (6660-32 11 fuel pool liner (6660-34), 12 thmugh 666D-34). f' b Q. Please go through these one at a. time and tell us what you know i i i 14 about them. First the writing of NCR's (6660-28 through 666D-30). t 15 A. I'm 'not sure how this got in the.I&E Report notes, except tha p said that's what the NRC investigators told everybody to say they were asked 16 about when the investigators interviewed the people at the plant regarding 17 our allegaticas %. know more about that.than I would. 18 1 I 19 Q. All right. - What about the next itam, the gouge in the pipe? I 1 20 A. I don't know why this. one wasn't included in the I&E Report. It k21 was in regards to what happened when I was fired the second time. I believe it was the reason I was fired and I told the investigator.that. 22
- y Q. You said when you were find the second time. You worked at Cananche Peak once before and were fired, then rehired?
l 24 A.
- Yes,
-o FC!A-85-59 /A)3/7 i
" 42. 3.: P- - so - ~ .v. P l (
- T ::.Y:
~. - t Q,- L1 d ym' ts=1L us about tKpleaset Along about the time I was first terminated, I had been confer g g. g(- with 'about things Wiich I had been told to do by my supervis , and f 3 I was findin out that some. of the things I'd been told to do wer wrong. } g Mhad bee welding longer than I had. Anyway, on a Than giving Holiday, s.. I was in an auto a cident.and was pretty shook up. On Satu y and Sunday. . - JJ~ g . ;zf. J.e =. - p g back was way out o kilter. On Monday morning I woke p having symptans .,f m or. 'He put me in the of the. flue, backache, a d so on', so I went to the do 8 '~~ g hospi tal. I was treated, en he told me to' stay He said it appeared e., 10-that damage had occurred to a old injury, that nerve was clamped off in back and that moving around coul cut that e in two. He said if I did 5, N* 'l 11. n :: 12l..... some exercises, that-time and' the e reise could help work it back into the ,, } { ... ~ 13 way it s'hould be. took a' doc r s excuse in for me on Monday morning,' and told them about what happened. '_ my foreman, said he 14-g'S. didn't need a medical excuse, and.f me to ome in whenever I was released and was better. I don't.think he' ook the exc e fro 5MHe said it-T6 ~ ':', ;.y.,a l7 wasn't necessary. On Tuesday. we thou t everything was all ght. M balled in and 18 ' talked to the secretary (I Tieve. it was On Wednesday, gg , M saw jy General Forem'an, in the hal ay and stopped to 20 Il tell him tha_gth ght I was going to be better and woul be able to return gg on Friday and tha the Doctor had said I probably could. He s id he had tenninated me y sterday (Tuesday) at 8:00 A.M. because he didn't now where ~ 23 ( I was.: told him we had called in every day and the secreta fes said !4 not to war about it, and thatghad even tried to give him an ex e from 15 h b.
4233 .I. ~ r r,. t.! i 1 Q. Brown & Root divorce? . 'Y. ~' 2, A. s,. that's what it was commonly called. For $10, after eleven 3(' years of ma riage, we got what was referred to by th ttorney as a "Br n T l 4 & Root divor We had a waiting period and s,on, then it came to ourt,
- a th'e judge gra ted a divorce to me, and the ext day I was at Brown Root's
. ~n 6 door asking tha they rehire,me. ~ . T. ; ".fyi} gfy 9 Q. And did ey rehire youk A. Yes, afte a two-w waiting period, they did. I talk to the same j ~.. D people both times at rown & Root employment. office; I beli ve. I talked ~ .10 to 11. Q.- When yo were fir the first time, what was the re son given? 9. . ?,e .N.. : A..Fai re to return. l12 f. ~
- 11 -
.Q. ere you given a copy your tennination slip ..y
- 14 '
A. No. I didn't s'ign a term nation slip and I on't have copies of ils it. The company never supplied cop 1 of it to me. I asked the secretary
- 2':
l1 for ito but they wouldn't give it to I t ....x. y S. 17 Q. Tell us about what happened when you were rehired. w . A. I spent a. week'in WQTC' (Welding Qualification Training Center).
- 18
! g' Only got practice time to get any' hand back iri what I was doing, to be nuclear j! ... :.,.., 7..~. 20 certified. You have to be recertified every time you're rehired. I have igy., rown tools. They put you in a petitioned booth to close you off so y'ou're inside-21 . ;c..
- 22 by yourself. They issue you three coupons, which you weld together.
Usually ! 2( you weld the vertical one first. They don't train you on travel speed and control of puddle..This comes from experience; they don't train you in it. . 24 25 Q. During the time you were being trained, did they ever tell you anything l 1
_ 4234. O ,( like "you have to be more camful with your work here because: this is a nuclear l power plant"? A i.- You have to read some things, but they don't emphasize that you i Pl A. No. have to be more careful because it's nuclear. f. Q. Please continue. [. They don't tell the welders what they're supposed to be doing. [ A. The procedure I described is all you have to do to get a nuclear certification. I think you have to ~ They asked how much experience you have with welding. A- ~# Most of the time if they're inexperienced, have about three years experience. If the man in charge of the welding
- test likes Io people lie on the application.
..)S1 you, he'll buy it off and let you have your certification. C f," 1 Q. Did you pass your te,st? ', 'f y 2 'A. ' Yes, the inspectors at WQTC passed me. I got my experience at Brown y G & Root in the fiekd_ as certified two years before I was. Every 4 They wouldn't 90 days if you're'not welding, you have to test and burn one rod. )5 ' le[Mertify again after about six months because of conflict between a 16 The untrained ones go to school until they being a QC inspector and a welder. 17 They hire people right off the street and take them to the. (fB8 can pass the test. school; one fellow only spoke Korean, but they sent him to the training center. l19 I showed the new on'es what to do., They couldn't ' read blueprints or welding 20 There were lots of Mexican procedures and didn't know what. they were doing. 21 we ders who could not even speak English. 22 'Q. Were these some of the people you mentioned'you had to follow around I2(- 24 ' and redo their work? follow along behind them and grind off the surface i A. Yes. We had to ' 25 O .On , / ' W'.. ~,'lh s ;.
.s iC and recap their work.has my welder's symbol. .r Q. You went along and covered up their poor work? A. Yes. I was told to do that, and if I hadn't I would have lost my ~..- 6 job. All of my foremen told me to do this. At some time or other they all had me go back and cover up something. ...,... e ~ ". ' ' d, ' L Q. Whati were their names? -/....'*,' I was even A.. Scme to get them done any way I. could get them done. told by a.. were undercut, some were. weave welds, and some had other problems. They used ~ ..]l..} p me because nty work aTways looked good to QC. Several QC people said "It's j g, .... I know 'it's gokng to be all right." They always ended up { g,, buying mine off (cr at least almost aTways).' told z. ymbol' was on. 4 who was .someof.theweldsthaN was ' inspecting 7 Would rather have someone else [, 5 6 to inspect them. idn't want it t appear at was letting me get by ~ with anything because l'waMsisusband iie t hit was all right and that-J7 ~' Mshould go ahead and inspeit k; hem.. 8 Q. Dohou thin howed you ankfavoritism or didn't inspect a 9-did"others'I your work as 'c.losely aMs' .. ~....: _. 1
- 1..._2_ _.... A. _1.' thi Mys of.en harder on me than{sh6was on others.
L t t didn't want anyone to think thalM9as being easy on me always tried b do a goed 3ob. ~ g 24 Q. Could it be that you're maybe a'little bit prejudiced? 25 A. Probably. But I believe anybody who ever worked with r 0 9. a ,pp ll
- ~/C who supervissi ork would tell you the same thing. i s How 2 .Q.. All right. So you had gone back to work at'Conanche Peak. O did your second termination come about?' my We were worked on constructing a hanger, and whe} 4 A. i foreman, did a final inspection on it, prior to calling QC for their final 5 inspection, he noticed a gouge mark in the pipe.,one of the pipes-the hanger 6 7 was holding. ~ Q. Hm many pipes does one hanger hold? 8 d I think the most I've 9 A. It may hold up several pipes at one time. i welded on myself was where there were about six pipes to one hanger. 10 11 Q. Please continue. A. The gouge mark was about 4" long and 1/4" deep and 1/8" wide (the w 12 l . My foreman came up' and whispered to me, can't you take '3 of a' grinding disc). l - one of the 332 rods.and make a downhill pass until you get it filled up, then ( 14 ~ grind the surface off and spray it with some of that can of red paint there, 15 so nobo@'d ever know it was there? I told'him, I won't say that I, won't. 16 He said don't worry about it, go hel (another but I'd rather not. 17 He left,'I assumed to'go get somebody else. " fitter), I'll get somebody else. 18 on the little intercan system and told While he was gone. I called lg what was going on andksaid that was in the hanger departznent 20 _ and could writa an NCR on the pipe, but it would be better to have somebody fr 21 Then, there was a pipe welder there by the the piping department to do it. l 22 and I sent hing upstairst he foun 3 pipe in-a1 n m:le o 24 spector, and came down there to look'at it. By then, iny. foreman had already Was with him. couldn't find the gouge 25 gone upstairs an f V i I
4g C mark on the pipe, so I crawled up on the scaffold and was showincj point-2 ing to where it was. at, when my foreman and came in through.the b doorway where we were. They saw me, didn't say a word, just turned around 4 and left. I believe it was on a Friday that this all took place. That same 5 day, I had infomed my foreman that I had to take off. Monday to go to the doctor 6 to have some treatment on my back and that I was also having sane flu-like 7 symptoms that I'd also have taken care of when I went. I told him I'd try 8 to nake it back in by noon $onday, but when I went to the doctor, apparently .4-9 there was enough wrong with me that. he decided to restrict me to home, because 7 10 some of the medication he gave me would make me drowsy and it would be dangerous 11 for me to work out in the construction plan. So I called my groupts secretary 12 and let her know that I had been temporarily incapacitated by my docto'r and that I didn't know when I would be released to go back to work but I felt like l 14 pr6bably Tuesday or Wednesday I. would be all right. She said 0.K., don'.t worry 15-about it, you called in and you've 'got a. doctor's excuse. Well, I believe, 16 Wednesday of that week, which would have been the third day that I had miss'ed. 17 I decided to go l'n and see the niedics at work. I was still sick, even when I 18 went in and was still taking that medication, but I thought it would be better 19 ' for them to see me and tell me themselves that. I ought not to be working, so 20 they wouldn't be able to teminate me like they did the first time. When I i 21 got there Wednesday I was already teminated, so I requested to talk to my 22 foreman} ~to find out why. I.was terminated under a doctor's care and talked to me
- L 24 and I told him I had a doctor's excuse and asked him why I was being terminated.
2.c He said, I don't know~ he said a three-part memo came down f u I
. 1C My general foreman, and he said that all it said was to fiM; 1 2 Then I requested to talk td took me into (.... the field'to get my tools and we ran across g gold hat (wlFo 4 was abov I asked him if there was any way they could reconsider 5 teminating me; I almost begged the man not to fire me because I needed the 6 job to pay my bills., At that time I told them about something else that made 7 it necessary for me to be off work, because I was afraid they would think I 8 was sluffing off from work. 9 Q. You mean, something besides what you've already told us about? 10 A. Yes. What I told them was true as far as it went, but there was; one, 11 other complication I hadn't wanted to mention to the secretary when I called 12 in. I told nd about the other problem. I had had some warts removed off of my privates that rendered me literally incapable of s. 14 walking, and at that time I was even having to walk around funny,to even get, 15 around at 'all. I' told him that as he could see, the only reason I had come , 16 out there t' hat day wits so that I wouldn't get tenninated for excessive absences; 17 I felt like if I got a rel' ease from the medics there onsite that they wouldn't 18 teminate me. He replied that diat's all good and well, but would 19 have to make the decision about whether I came or went. About that timek ~ 20 _came out, and motioned for him to cane over there, and he 21 said for me to tell him what I h'ad just told him, so I re-explained everything 22 They went to kicking rocks around and looking down and wouldn't look me in the face. By that time inad already walked over behind me and I was facing ani went. to saying well, if I do hire you back, we're not going to put up with this, we just can't have anybody U
q33. Then he looked up at what appeared to me 3 taking off when they get ready to. _him -- nd said something I can't say,here - " f tob{ b escort me out the gate. I was trying to [ fire him." They tol They said they ask them, why am I being fired, I've got a doctor's excuse. t ) h didn't even want to talk to me. that the secre-I found out later.from one of the secretary'shusband ~ i h tary had told him that a three-part memo had been sent down frorn It didn't say office to the gold hat over g gold hat to fire iThen one was sent from[ GeorgeN fg anything else on it, just to fire % office to ~ desk (in the same office) saying to fire 10 ~ l t'amemoti to fire fil an told me he didn't know what was going on, that I had stepped on somebody's I12 the Assistant Project Manager, and toes./Then I requested to sei f14 I went in and toli Ewhole story. He said let me check into l15 it, I'll get back with you, you come back Monday to go to work, don't worry If you've got about it I'm going t'o ch'eck it out, don't worry about it, son. i I 16 i a doctor's excuse and the medics won't let you work using that medication. < 17 Monday when I returned to work g brass wasn't waiting for they can't do that. 18 me and as far as the time office' knew,'nothing was ever mentioned to them about g ! 19 and he hiring me back. 'I tried'to get back in contact with 20 Then I requested to ~ ' didn't want to talk to me, according to his secretary. 21 Pro ect Manager.! When I went in to talk to' talk 22 him, it was like I was a piece of~ trash that was just getting kicked over to the side, and he was telling me that there were two sides to every story J '2s and that he would call me and let me know as soon as he heard the other 1 b O i ^ l
39 - C ) e ~ I waited two or three weeks and never received a phone call, so I call 2 back on the phone and told him I sure did need my job and asked if he b had found out anything about what I had told him. He got very loud and rude 4 on the phone and told me that he told me that he would call me back when he 5 found out sanething and that he would suggest that I not call him back anymore 6 because he told me that he'd call me, and he hung up on'me. I never heard 7 anything else from him. Several times I-tried to contac , the 8 to get my mcords corrected, because every time I'd go out 9 there and put my application in, everybody else signed the rehire slip except 5 10 All I was told at'the Brown & Root enployment office was that 11 wouldn't sign,it so they couldn't hire me. They wouldn't tell ~ 12 me why or anything. i So I calle or the phone and requested that he change (, 14 'his mind and wanted to know why he wouldn't rehire me and he told me that .15 the decision had been made. He also told me when I asked him who was the one 16 that made. the decision and if there was anyone else I could talk to. He said 17 "you're talking to him." I said, as you can see it's a shame for a man to be 18 teminated from his job for being in the hospital sick and that the. records 19 don't mflect the truth and I would like to have them changed so:if I went 20 someplace else to get a job, they wouldn't give, me a bad work record. He 21 said he could appreciate the fact, but that the records don'.t'. reflect and........ 22 that he wasn't going to change the records. He said if you want a job you'll l just have to go sdneplace else to get it. I told him that I had doctor's c4 excuses and hand-written letters 'fran the doctors, that I called in every day .?k and that I had telephone receipts on that, and that I'd like to get the records k h'
- 3. N.%/p{g@2MfgApV<*g,~)gQy.,,
424' 40 - o C straight so that they could make a. redecision on hiring me. He said he was i l 2 not changing the records, the decision had been made. He kept saying the decision h'as been made, ~over and over again. He said they could hire people 4 every day that had cleaner records than I do, and I told him, I thought I j 5 had a pretty good record. He said, well, as far as your work goes, you have a 6-pretty go'od nicord, but as far 1s we're concerned we're just not going to change. I l 7 the records, and he hung up on me. 8' Th'en I got all g doctor's excuses, along with surgical reports from l 9 the doctor, and a copy of the tennination from the unemployment office where 10 they were saying that the employer was saying that I was terminated the first 11 time for' a personal injury, which I sent to n a certified return l'2 ' receipt type of letter; he sent me a letter back that said something to the
- (
effect that I can appreciate what you are saying but the records don't reflect-l 14 ' at, and it's. up to the employer to decide whether or not an. absence,is ex ' th i 15 cused or not excused, and in your case we do not wish to excuse your absences. L b 16 so therefore your request.for the reconis to be changed and for you to be re- , 17 instated to your old job.are denied. . hen I was fired that 'second time, bothMiind I had the same I 18 W 4 kind of symptoms excep_thdidn't have a backache; we both had fever. We lg 5 both went to the docitor at the same time and the doctor said we had some kind 20 t 21 of flu and gave us both shots a'nd medication, and gave me a muscle relaxer l 22 for my backache which made me drowsy. I Q. DidMoo back to work at the same time you did? f A. Yes. When we got back, rass was waiting for,h but ?c mine wasn't. I was teminated butM.was not. ~ went to the medics !b h. w a. m.x. y i
_ 41 - 424 i o becausekwas still sick too. I never made it to the medics.- was 1 2 told to go on home, thai hould not take the medication and try to work. ( We called the laborboard on the phone and they said they couldn't do anything. 4 They said that was out of their jurisdiction because they could fire you for 5 anything other than being black or white; if they didn't like your looks, they l 6 could fire you for that. 7 Q. On CASE Exhibit page 666D-30, at the bottom of the page, and on ~ 8 6660.-31 at the top of the page, it refers to Is that 9 the person you spoke with at the 1. abor Board? 10 A. Yes.- 11 ,Q. V.d you ever think'the NRC investigators would make 12 name public? g A. - No, I didn' t. I wouldn't have done anything to get in trouble. 14 Q. Do you think thathight get in trouble because of this? I hope not, but I'm afraijkmight. 15 A I don't-know. 16 Q. Did you ever think the NRC investigators would make the names of the 17 witnasses to your first personal interview with the NRC investigators public? 18 A. No. I.would have thought that they would have been just as concerned 19' 'with protecting the confic entiality of those people as they would be with 20 protecting the confidentiality of the people accused of wrongdoing. I really l. 2k do'n't. understand how they inake deci.sions..about whose names to reveal and whose 22 to keep confidential. Q. You stated earlier that you believed the gouge in the pipe was the U 24 reason you were tenninated?- ) A. Yes, I believe it was. U (- S
l = 10 W MI C dqoq 3 .9 l I, Gibbs S Hill, Inc. Apecification 2323-MS-100 VRevision 5 February 26, 1979 Page 4-16 I i 4.10.4 i Parts that are to be jointed by welding may be aligned and held in alignment during the welding process by the use of
- hars,
- jacks, clamps, or, for safety related piping, attachments as l
covered in paragraph 4.7.7. Any mechanical device used to align and hold stainless steel pipe material or equipment during the welding process shall be arranged so that only stainless steel or other non-contaminating material comes in contact with the pipes material or equipment. ? 1 4.11 PIPE CEFECTS AND REPAIRS 4.11.1 J l Mechanical marks, abrasions, or other surface defects including cable marks, tcol marks, or pits may be removed by grinding and ( blending. After grinding ar.d blending, the area shall be liquid l penetrant or magnetic particle checked to assure removal of the ( defect. Surface defects no deeper than 1/16-inch need not be 1 i repaired if the defect does not encroach on the minimum wall thickness. 4.11.2 Surface defects that encrcach on the specified minimum wall thickness shall be repaired by
- welding, as limited by I
paragraph 4.11.3. Welding required in the repair work shall be done to an approved qualified welding procedure and fully documented to the satisfaction of the Cwner. After welding is t completed, the area shall be ground and blended. As a minimum, - I the entire area shall then be examined by liquid penetrant or sagnetic particle. For nuclear safety related
- piping, i
ASME ESPV Code, Section III paragraphs NB 2539, NC 2539 and ND 2539 may require additional inspection measures. For ) 'nonnoclear safety related piping, additional inspection measures may be required by the raterial specification for the given piece r ( of pipe keing repaired. 4 4.11.3 [ Repair may proceed without the approval of the owner providing i the defect does not violate minimum wall as defined by paragraph 4.11.6. The Cwner's written approval is required prior i to any repair of a defect which violates rinimum wall as defined by paragraph 4.11.6. i l F0lA-85-59nse
g l l.* l Gibbs 6 Bill, Inc. f specification 2323-MS-100 Fevision 5 1 l February 26, 1979 l Page 4-17 l \\ 4.11.4 When defects have been removed by grinding or machining, the nominal outside diameter at the point of grinding or nachining l may he reduced. Should it be impracticable to secure a direct i measurement, the wall thickness at the point of grinding may he determined by deducting the amount removed in grinding from the r rinimum measured outside diameter value at the nearest end of the pipe. The value thus obtained shall not encroach on the required f minimum wall thickness nor he less than 90 percent of the nominal'. wall thickness. All repairs encroaching on the minimur wal17 thickness shall he fully documented. 4.11.5 [ Welding of defects shall be permitted only by owner's express l prior approval when the depth of the defect exceeds 10 percent of l the nominal pipe wall thickness or the length of repair exceeds i 25 percent of the pipe nominal diameter. l l t 4 i I I t I i r e - - - -}}