ML20207E141
| ML20207E141 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1986 |
| From: | Beck J TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207E095 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8701020072 | |
| Download: ML20207E141 (57) | |
Text
. _ _.
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM RESULTS REPORT ISAP:
V.a
Title:
Inspection for Certain Types of Skewed Welds in Supports REVISION 1
=
0 dM, fom We Issue Coordinator Date
o 1]A/
n In/rs Keviedi Team Lei (eYV
~
Date
% W.i'L L.
to/z 2./ru J6hn W. Beck, Chairman CPRT-SRT Date I
O c
k DO A
Revision:
1 Page 1 of 57 RESULTS REPORT ISAP V.a Inspection for Certain Typea of Skewed Welds in NF Supports
1.0 DESCRIPTION
OF ISSUE IDENTIFIED BY NRC The NRC Staff's position on this issue along with their evaluation is presented in Supplements 10 and 13 to the Safety Evaluation Report (SSER 10 and SSER 13) for the CPSES (References 9.1 and 9.2).
The following excerpts from pages N-327 and N-328 of SSER-10 describe this technical issue:
"The TRT investigated inspection procedures of Brown & Root (B&R) for welds in pipe supports designed to ASME III Code, Subsection NF.
The TRT found that no fillet weld inspection criteria existed for certain types of skewed welds. By definition, skewed welds are those welds joining (1) two non-perpendicular or non-colinear structural members, or (2) two members with curved surfaces or curved cross sections, such as a pipe stanchion (a section of pipe used as a structural member) welded to another pipe stanchion or to a curved pipe pad. Notice that for type-2, the effect of curvature at the weld connection induces skewed G
considerations, even though the two joining members are physically perpendicular. The B&R weld inspection procedures 9
CP-QAP-12.1 and QI-QAP-11.1-28 for NF supports have addressed type (1) skewed welds; however, the TRT found that
)
QI-QAP-11.1-28 did not include weld inspection criteria for g
type-2 skewed welds. Although the TRT was told by Brown 6 j.
Root personnel that procedure QI-QAP-11.1-26 for piping weld L
inspection was used, since such veld connections were similar in configuration to a pressure boundary stanchion attachment weld, no evidence documenting the use of this inspection procedure was provided to the TRT. According to records reviewed by the TRT, these welds were actually categorized as "all other welds" rather than " skewed welds" on the required QC checklist. Instead of using fillet wald gauges for measuring the size of nonskewed welds, welders were supposed to use a straight edge and a steel scale for measurement of a type-2 skewed weld, as described in QI-QAP-11.1-28.
In addition, due to the variable profile along its curved weld connection, the veld size should have been measured at several different locations. The lack of inspection criteria and lack of verification of proper inspection procedures being conducted for type-2 skewed welds are a violation of ASME Code for NF supports committed to by TUEC in FSAR Section 5.2.1 and a violation of Criterion XVII in Appendix B of 10CFR50.
O i
E Revision:
1 Page 2 of 57 3
-d RESULTS REPORT j
ISAP V.a (Cont'd) i
1.0 DESCRIPTION
OF ISSUE IDENTIFIED BY NRC (Cont'd)
~
The TRT reviewed weld inspection procedures, weld data cards, and visually inspected several type (2) skewed welds in h
randomly sampled NF supports where pipe stanchions were used.
Although the small sample of welds inspected by the TRT are
)
acceptable, due to deficiencies in inspection records and the g
apparent lack of inspection criteria, the TRT is not certain whether other type (2) skewed wclds were inspected properly.
This is a generic issue involving many NF supports in various safety-related systems. The lack of documented inspections and criteria for type (2) skewed welds in NF supports represents a cafety concern regarding the possible existence.
of under-sized welds in supports which are required to resist various design loads."
2.0 ACTION IDENTIFIED BY NRC The NRC (Reference 9.1) identified that the following action should O
d ta*
== tsi 1 "Accordingly, TUEC shall (1) Revise Brown & Root weld inspection procedures b
CP-QAP-21.1 [ sic]* and QI-QAP-11.1-28 to properly 3
address type (2) skewed welds of stanchion to stanchion
=
and stanchion to pipe pad; and
$4 (2) provide evidence to verify that previous inspections of Q
these types of skewed welds were performed to the
]
appropriate procedures."
g 4
3.0 BACKGROUND
}
SSER-10 focuses the issue on the inspection methodology and
)
determination of weld size for type-2 skewed welds only. The 4
procedures used for the measurement of type-2 skewed walds, the 3
measurement techniques and methods for documenting the results of these measurements have changed during the construction of the 6
CPSES. The history of these changes and their significance are g
discussed in Section 5.1 of this report. A summary of those g
aspects most pertinent to the formulation of this action plan is Q
provided below within this section.
O NRC letter incorrectly cited CP-QAP-12.1 as CP-QAP-21.1.
$g 4
1 f
i Revision:
1 Page 3 of 57 RESULTS REPORT 7
ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
3.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd) i 3.1 Inspection of Type-2 Skewed Fillet Welds On September 3, 1982, Revision 12 of inspection procedure QI-QAP-11.1-28 " Fabrication and Installation Inspection of Safety Class Component Supports" was issued. This eatablished inspection methodology which addressed measurement of type-2 i
skewed fillet welds.
Inspection precedures in place prior to i
this time did not include specific instructions for g
measurements of these welds.
i t
on March 18, 1983, Revision 5 of inspection procedure CP-QAP-12.1, "ASME Section III Inceallation Verification and N-5 Certification", was issued. A program was initiated to p
reinspect all accessible NF welds using a checklist created in the revision. The documentation for the reinspection was not specific to individual welds, instead it covered all the welds for the support. The CP-QAP-12.1 checklist had two entries for the welds; one for skewed welds, another for all other O
weids. on the CPSzS Pre 3ect. tvPe-2 sueved we1ds were termed
" stanchion welds"; therefore, supports with stanchion velds and no other skewed welds had no entry or "N/A" under the checklist item for skewed welds. Although the project
[
intended that the reinspection program would ensure proper measurement of all the type-2 skewed fillet velds, the records i
in themselves cannot provide conclusive evidence of this. The source of the ambiguity was in the terminclogy used in
[
inspection procedures and documentation for skewed welds.
L
[
Given the acthods of measurement for type-2 skewed fillet i
welds prior to September 3, 1982 and the nature of the N5 E
reinspection docunientation, review of the documentation by
[
itself could not be used to verify the size of the welds
[
initially inspected prior to September 3, 1982.
L T
Initial inspections performed after September 3, 1982 were l
controlled by the procedures which included updated inspection methods. Additionally, documentation of inspections underwent j
significant upgrade. The documentation of skewed fillet welds I
which are also pressure boundary welds is weld specific using Weld Data Cards. On December 15, 1982, weld mapping was instituted for non-pressure boundary fillet welds thereby providing veld specific documentation.
E i
O 2
F E
'[
', j, / + ',[
[ t',
N.
e[
'n
'[
[
r c Revision:
1 Page 4 of 57 m()
RESULTS REPORT ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
3.0 BACKGROUND
(Cont'd)
In addition to the procedures discussed above, inspection procedure QI-QAP-11.1-26. "ASME Pipe Fabrication and Installation Inspections" was used directly or by reference to
~ define inspection methods for type-2 skewed fillet walds, and is reviewed in Section 5.2 herein.
3.2 Inspection'of Full or Partial Penetration Reinforcement The inspection attribute which is the technical focus of this ISAP is the' geometric and dimensional characteristics of the fillet weld in locations where simple fillet gauge measurement is not possible.
In general, a similar inspection attribute does not exist for full or partial penetration welds.
However, if full or partial penetration welds call for reinforcement, the inspection of the dimensional aspects of the reinforcement is similar to a fillet weld inspection.
(~/.
T Such reinforcement is not commonly used for skewed welds but s-where they are used, the action plan has included them.
4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN The objective of this action plan was to provide reasonable assurance that the as-built type-2 skewed welds en NF pipe supports meet the dimensions specified by the design requirements.
A review of inspection procedures and documentation methods indicated a need for a program to assess the documentation methods and verify on a random sampling basis, that type-2 skewed welds meet the design requirements.
Some of the post-September 1982 records do provide sufficient documentation to attest to the adequacy of the dimensions of individual type-2 skewed welds.
However, due to the time phased implementation of the procedure revisions described in Section 3.1, sample reinspection of the entire population of type-2 skewed welds was considered to be more effective than a document review combined with sample reinspection of the part of the population that has ambiguous inspection records.
O
.-v-
.y v
-w-y
Revision:
1 Page 5 of 57
[,~/).
RESULTS REPORT ISAP V a (Cont'd)
' 4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd)
- s, 4.1' Scope and Methodology 4.1'.1 L The chronology of measurement techniques and documentation methods used for the inspection of type-2 skewed welds was prepared (Reference 9.3).
This chronology was used in the evaluation of the results of the sample reinspections, and to identify the procedures used for type-2 skewed weld inspections that have not.been superseded by subsequent inspections.
4.1.2' Inspection procedures QI-QAP-11.1-26, QI-QAP-11.1-28 and CP-QAP-12.1 were reviewed to determine if the method of inspection that was included for type-2 skewed weld inspections was adequate to address the unique aspects of sk=ved weld dimensional configurations. Procedure QI-QAP-11.1-28 was revised (Revision 30) to directly include the measurement rg
- techniques for type-2 skewed welds and to eliminate the
-(_)-
need for referencing other procedures for this measurement; the other procedures did not require
- revision.
1 4.1.3 To assess the adequacy of inspection procedure implementation and to verify that design size requirements were met, a random sample of type-2 skewed welds was selected. This random sample excluded the pressure boundary welds, which are not at issue. These l
semples were selected from Unit 1, Unit 2 and common for reinspection and review of inspection documentation. The samples were reinspected to inspection procedures which include specific measurement criteria for type-2 skewed welds. A sampling evaluation was appropriate since the objective was to determine if the procedural inadequacy related to the measurement of type-2 skewed welds actually resulted in the existence of undersized welds.
The sample plan was designed in accordance with Appendix D of the CPRT Program Plan, using a sample size of 60, with a detection number of zero (i.e., the critical region was one or more deficiency found in the,
sample). In this case a deficiency was defined as a weld in which the ASME Code allouable stress levels j ' ( ])
were exceeded.
1 e
-gem,, - - - - -,
w
-,-e,,~
,r-e-n-e w--g----r,
.ew,,-,m--.,-wm,w-e.,e.-
-,.-rwwwwwa---
e,,
s-wo
---,w--.
wow-,-,
. m -w e r,e,
ww e - n e w-w
-~
y
~ " ' ' ' _,
-Ravision:
1 j(
Page 6 of 57
~
RESULTS REPORT ISAP V.a (Cont'd) 4.0 :CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd)
The action plan also included provisions for sample
- expansion in accordance with Appendix D if a deficiency had been found, the evaluation of trends of deviations, and the assessment of root cause and generic implications se required by Appendix E of the CPRT Program Plan.
4_,,
'e 4.2 Participants Roles and Responsibilities e
The organizations and personnel that participated in this effort are listed below with their respective scopes of work.
4.2.1 Comanche Peak Project Engineering 4.2.1.1 Scope a
Prepared inspection chronology
( )'
Reviewed procedures Revised procedures Assisted in evaluation of inspection results 4.2.1.2 Personnel Mr. C. Moehlman Project Mechanical Engineer 4.2.2 Third-Party Overview 4.2.2.1 Scope Assessed procedural adequacy Verified sample selection Reviewed reinspection instructions Reinspected welds (QA/QC Review Team) i
--..-.,-..-_.-,-,-_m.-.-_....
. -, - _ - -. - - - _ -, -. ~,. _ _,. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _, - - - -. - _ _, -. -. - -.. -... _, -.... _. -
s Ravision:
1 Page 7 of 57
.<*w,{
(,)
RESULTS REPORT ISAP V.a (Cont'd) 4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd)
Evaluated weld reinspection results Evaluated safety significance of deviations Evaluated trends in the results of the measurements and documents reviewed Prepared Results Report 4.2.2.2 Personnel Mr. H. A. Levin TERA - CPRT Mechanical Review Team Leader Dr. J. R. Honekamp TERA - CPRT TRT Technical Manager Mr. J. C. Miller TERA - CPRT TRT Issues Manager Mr. C. Spinks QA/QC Review Team (ERC) -
Inspection Supervisor Dr. F. A. Webster Jack Benjamin &
Associates (JBA), - CPRT Statistics Advisor Mr. R. L. Shipp TERA - Senior Meterials and Welding Engineer Mr. R. Sanan TERA - Senior Structural Engineer, Issue Coordinator
?
O l
r Revision:
1 Page 8 of.57
/'"C RESULTS REPORT Q) '
ISAP V.a
. (Cent'd) g 4.0 CPRT' ACTION PLAN (Cont'd).
4.3 Personnel Qualification Requirement l
Third-party participants in the implementation of this Action Plan met the personnel qualification and objectivity
. requirements of the CPRT Program Plan and its implementing procedures. ~ Third-party inspectors were certified to the requirements of the third-party employer's Quality Assurance Program, and. trained to ERC procedure QI-006 (Reference 9.8).
Other participants were qualified to the requirements of the CPSES Quality Assurance Program or to the specific requirements of the CPRT Program Plau. Activities performed by.other than third-party personnel were governed by the applicable principles of Section III.K, " Assurance of CPRT
-Program Quality", of the CPRT Program Plan.
4.4 Procedures
.(sc)
ERC developed procedure QI-006 for the reinspection of skewed
~
welds. This procedure was used by the QA/QC Review Team in this ISAP.
4.5 Standards / Acceptance Criteria The criteria for evaluating the acceptability of any weld determined to be less than specified size are the same as those defined in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III.
4.6 Decision Criteria The results and conclusions of th'e physical reinspection of randomly selected type-2 skewed welds provided the basis for any modifications required to meat the design requirements.
No modifications were found necessary to meet design requirements.
l '
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS The implementation of this action plan involved:
the development of a chronology of the procedures, inspection techniques and documentation methods used for the measurement of structural type-2 skewed welds; the review of scribe line and profile inspection techniques; and, a reinspection of type-2 skewed welds.
The 4
results of these investigations are summarized in the following
... -.. ~..,,, - -.
.n,
-,-,,.,e
,n-.,-,,-
,_---.-,.m
+
x!i '
Revision:
1
?4, Page 9 of 57 RESULTS REPORT r =V ISAP V.a
.(Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) sections of this report. Additional sections are included to discuss safety significance, trend analysis, out of scope findings, and address the direct concern of the NRC related to the root cause and generic implications of this issue.
5.1 Chronology of the Inspection of Type-2 Skewed Welds A chronology of the procedures, inspection techniques and documentation methods used for the measurement of the type-2 skewed. welds.was prepared by the Project (Reference 9.3) and reviewed by the third-party. The results of this review are described in this section.
Figure 1 shows the geometry of a typical type-2 skewed weld that results when two curved support members are joined using a fillet weld. As indicated in Figure 1, the size of the
. fillet weld leg on one side of the weld can be measured with a
.j,
. fillet weld gauge or a straight edge ruler since the reference
.(
~
point for,this measurement is a flat surface. However, this technique is difficult to use when measuring the size of the other leg since the reference point is a curved surface. For this measurement, two techniques were provided in CPSES procedures. The first, referred to as the scribe line technique, utilizes a reference mark placed on the support member prior to welding as shown in Figure 1.
The second, referred to as the profile technique, utilizes a contour gauge as shown in Figure 2.
Only the profile technique can be used for reinspections of completed welds if the scribe lines were not placed prior to welding.
In addition, where scribe lines were used for the original inspection they are generally not visible during reinspection if the support has been painted.
The inspection techniques used and the methods of documenting the inspections of type-2 skewed welds changed with time and involved the following procedures:
QI-QAP-11.1-26: which addressed the fabrication, installation and inspection of ASME pipe and attachments welded to the pipe.
QI-QAP-11.1-28: which addressed the fabrication, installation and inspection of ASME pipe supports
, {}
except for attachments welded to the pipe.
.,w_,,, _.,
e-.
4-
+
+.
....~...m.-..
_,.._-.,_,,y
L-Ravision:
1 Page 10 of 57 R
_-()
RESULTS REPORT
+
ISAP V.a (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
CP-QAP-12.1: which addressed the final verification of ASME pipe supports prior to certification (preparation of the ASME N-5 form).
1 l
Table l'provides a chronology of the key events.related to the measurement of type-2 skewed welds. As indicated in Table 1, specific criteria for the measurement of skewed fillet welds were provided for the first time in September 1982 by Revisions 12 and 13 of QI-QAP-11.1-28. The scribe line 6
technique was the only inspection method included in the procedure at that time.
Three months later (December 15, 1982) the type-2 skewed weld inspection methodology was moved from the pipe support procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-28, Revision 16) to the piping procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-26, Revision 9) on the basis that most of the type-2 skewed welds were attachment welds to the pipe
[}
and thus fell within the scope of the piping procedure.
The pipe support procedure referred to the piping procedure for all welds which attached support members to the pipe but said nothing about the type-2 skewed welds that were not pipe attachment (pressure boundary) welds. This question was addressed by a Brown & Root instruction to inspectors QCWI-1 (Reference 9.4) which stated that skewed fillet welds attaching pipe stanchions to pipe saddles (i.e., welds that were'not attachments to the pipe itself) were to be inspected in accordance with the skewed weld inspection instructions in QI-QAP-11.1-26 for piping attachment welds. While this instruction provided clear direction for the inspection of the type-2 skewed welds of concern to the TRT, this instruction
.was not reincorporated in the pipe support procedure until about two years later (January 25, 1985).
The third-party reviewed training records associated with QCWI-1 and discussed its use with QC personnel who worked in the ASME inspection group at the time it was issued (Reference 9.5).
Training records indicate that 21 inspectors were indoctrinated with respect to QCWI-1 the day after it was issued. However, based on discussions with QC personnel it appears that no further training specific to QCWI-1 was performed on the basis that QCWI-1 was not a procedure and that the information contained in QCWI-1 was intended to be
()
included in the training associated with the piping and support procedures themselves. Since QCWI-1 was only one sentence in length, such training is considered adequate.
f h
,,._,~-.,,_.m__-_,_.-,.,.-r,
,_y-...
..,,.._,,,.,m_,
x
d
^
Revision:
1 I' age 11 of 57
~
RESULTS REPORT ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
- 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) s In early,1983 a reinspection of all accessible structural welds on ASME supports was initiated to implement a commitment
, to NRC. Region IV for a reinspection of type-1 nkewed welds and to resolve a concern'related to excessive grinding of welds.
This reinspection was conducted as part of a broader inspection and document review related to ASME N-5 certification.
N-5 is the data report signed and furnished by
~~
the NA. stamp certificate holder for the fabrication and installation of the piping. As a result, weld reinspections were conducted and documented under procedure CP-QAP-12.1 which referenced the pipe support procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-28) for the inspection of skewed welds. The method of
' documentation.of this reinspection was a check list which I
contained two entries (skewed welds and all other welds) to include all the welds on the support. At that time the term
" skewed weld" was 'used by the Project to describe what is
-referred to by the TRT as a type-1 skewed weld and the tera 3
" stanchion weld" was used to describe the type-2 skewed weld.
[
In this 1983 reinspection the " skewed weld" checklist entry was intended to document the reinspection of type-1 skewed welds in compliance with the commitment to NRC Region IV.
In August 1983, the piping procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-26) was revised (Revision 13) to add the profile technique for measurement of type-2 skewed welds. From thi's point on the piping procedure included both the scribe lin,e and profile techniques for measurement of type-2 skewed welds.
In January 1985, the scribe line measurement technique was re-incorporated in the. pipe support procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-28, Revision 29). Three months later the profile technique was added to this procedure under Revision 30.
The method of documenting the results of type-2 skewed weld measurements depended on the measurement technique used and i
the procedure under which the inspection / reinspection was performed. For example, since December 1982 the pipe support procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-28, Revision 16) provided documentation of weld size measurements on an individual weld basis.
2 However, the reinspections performed in 1983 under CP-QAP-12.1 utilized a checklist with two entries (skewed welds and all other welds) to cover all the structural welds on a support.
- O rl
~ -
.~
i Revision:
1 Page 12 of 57
- /~ s
'( F RESULTS REPORT-ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
~
' 5.0 IIMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF'RESULTS (Cont'd)
Six different methods of documenting the results of type-2 skewed weld inspections were permitted by procedure at various times.- These methods were:
- 1. -HIR Hanger Inspection Report 2.
CSC' Component Support Checklist
- 3..MWDC Multiple Weld Data Card 4.'
WICL Weld Inspection Checklist 5.
CSF&SWIR Component Support Fillet and Skewed Weld Inspection Report 6.
COT Construction Operation Traveler 1~
All but one of these methods were encountered in the records
~ k_
for the 60 supports selected for reinspection under this action plan. However, the most common record was the CSC checklist used for the reinspection performed under CP-QAP-12.1.
5.2 Procedure Review
'ks discussed in Section 5.1, two techniques for the measurement of type-2 skewed welds were provided in the Brown
& Root procedures. The third-party has reviewed both techniques and concluded that they are adequate to address the j
unique dimensional aspects of the type-2 skewed weld configuration. However, for a two year period (December 15, 1982 to January 25, 1985) the pipe support inspection procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-28) did not include either technique except by reference to the piping inspection procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-26). This discrepancy, which is the original concern identified by the TRT, was documented on DIR-E-1061 and submitted to the QA/QC Program Adequacy review team for classification under that program.
The Project's intent that the inspection techniques for skewed welds in the piping procedure be used for inspection of skewed welds on pipe supports was clearly indicated by the Brown &
Root meno (QCWI-1) issued in February, 1983 (Reference 9.4).
f)
However, training records specific to this instruction were not maintained.
In addition, work sheets or other records documenting the inspection of type-2 skewed welds using the e e --
m
-,,,,,,m,g,m_--,,g.,-,-.,,_,..,_,--.-n,w
.n,,,
._,,,--v,,,
=
c:
~
Revision:
1 Page 13 of 57 l
RESULTS REPORT
,k)
ISAP V.a' (Cont'd) l 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION'0F ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) techniques referenced in the piping inspection procedure were not required'to be maintained for the reinspections performed under QI-QAP-12.1.
Thus, for these reinspections, the inspection records do not indicate the inspection technique used.
A review of the history of the applicable procedures indicated L g's ; ~ U*-
that at the start of the reinspection under CP-QAP-12.1 3
(Revision 5 issued March 18, 1983) the piping inspection
. procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-26 Revision 10) contained only the scribe line inspection technique which is not applicable for reinspections. The profile technique was added in Revision 13 of QI-QAP-11.1-26 (issued August 4, 1983). This revision of QI-QAP-11.1-26 corresponds in time to Revision 8 of QI-QAP-12.1. The re'sults of the document review performed under this action plan (Section 5.3) indicate that most of the reinspections were performed to revisions later than Revision 7s
.8 and when the profile technique was available. A summary of
(_) -
the revision number and effective dates for procedure CP-QAP-12.1 and corresponding revisions of procedures QI-QAP-11.1-28 and QI-QAP-11.1-26 is provided as Table 2.
In response to the concern raised by the TRT, the Project revised the pipe support inspection procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-28) to include both techniques for inspection of type-2 skewed welds thus eliminating the need to refer to the piping crocedure for this inspection.
In addition, the Project
- dentified and corrected an error in the scribe line measurement technique in both QI-QAP-11.1-26 and QI-QAR-11.1-28. This error involved the omission of a factor that la necessary te correct the measured leg size (dimension C in Figure 1) for the skewed angle in order to determine the skewed weld leg size (dimension S** in Figure 1).
This error did not affect the reinspections performed under this action plan or the conclusions drawn from these data since these measurements were made using the profile technique.
The Project also concluded that revision of QI-QAP-12.1 to incorporate skewed weld inspection criteria was not required, since the weld reinspections under this procedure were complete.
Future inspections or reinspections of skewed welds would be performed under QI-QAP-11.1-28.
The third-party has reviewed the actions taken by the Project to revise the inspection procedures related to type-2 skewed welds and 1
concurs that the changes made are adequate.
i 4
3 x _,
-d-1 Revision:
1 Page 14 of 57
. ],..
(
RESULTS REPORT ISAP.V.a (Cont'd)
. 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) j
.The third-party also evaluated the potential impact of the error in the scribe line technique and the Project's corrective action as defined in TDDR No. PS-86-1973. The impact of the error on the weld stress level is directly
. proportional to the reduction in the effective throat size of the weld. The effective throat size (ETS) is the minimum distance from the root of the veld to its face and it is
. calculated from the weld size (dimensions S* and S** in a
Figure 1).
1 L
The reduction in ETS due to the error depends on the relative diameters of the two support members being welded and the angle at which these members intersect. If the diameter of the smaller member is less than or equal to 1/3 the
' diameter of the-larger membe{ defines the weld size as equal no correction to the ETS is required because the Ccde to dimension "C" in. Figure 1.
Where the diameter ratio is greater than 1/3, the maximum reduction in ETS at a single A
point along the weld due to the error is 17%. While this could result in regions of some welds that do not meet the ASME weld size inspection criteria, the reduction in ETS for the weld as a whole is much less.
The results of the third-party evaluation (Reference 9.18) indicate that for 90' or "T" joints the reduction in ETS for the veld as a whole ranges from 0 to 6% depending on the relative diameters of the members.
For oblique or "Y" joints the reduction in ETS for the weld as a whole ranges from 0 to 12% depending on the diameter ratio and the angle at which the two members intersect.
Thus, while the error may have led to some weld regions which are undersize and require evaluation on a case-by-case basis, the increase in weld stress levels is expected to be small (0 to 12% depending on the joint design).
The supports affected by the error are those with type-2 skewed welds that were measured by the scribe line technique anj were excluded from the population sampled for reinspection under this action plan. The type-2 skewed welds excluded from the population sc.mpled were those which attach to the pressure boundary and those that were accepted by QC after the sample war drawu in September 1985. Supports included in the 1
Code in this case refers to AWS D1.1.
It is recognized that the l
controlling code for pipe support is ASME. However, the ASME code does not address skewed fillet weld joints for pipe supports. As a result the standard industry practice is to utilize the definitions in AWS D1.1 for skewed fillet veld joint details. The supports however are designed, constructed and inspected in accordance with the ASME code requirements.
.-,m
)
Rsvision:
1 Page 15 of 57 l
4,)
RESULTS REPORT 1
ISAP V.a (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) population sampled for reinspection are not of concern since i
undersize weld regions caused by this error would be detected by the profile measurement technique used for the reinspection. The third-party has reviewed the recommended corrective action for TDDR No. PS-86-1973 and provided comments to the Project (Reference 9.18).
The Project is developing a corrective action plan which will be overviewed by the third-party in accordance with Appendix H of the CPRT Program Plan.
5.3 Reinspection and Records Review of the Sample of Type-2 Skewed Welds i
5.3.1 Population Determination and Sample Selection The population of supports with type-2 skewed welds was 1
established as described in Reference 9.6.
The
{
f(
basis was a list of all large bore pipe supports obtained from the Hanger Information Tracking System (HITS). All the drawings listed on the HITS printout
'were reviewed to identify the supports that contained one or more type-2 skewed welds. The accuracy of the HITS data base was verified by the third-party (Reference 9.7).
A total of three hundred fifty-nine (359) supports containing type-2 skewed welds were identified and a random sample of supports was selected in accordance with Appendix D of the CPRT Program Plan.
The initial sample selection process was performed without any screening. As a result nine (9) supports fabricated by Nuclear Power Services Inc. (NPSI) and one (1) support fabricated by ITT-Grinnell (ITT) were inadvertently included in the sample for reinspection l
(NPSI and ITT are pipe support fabrication firas).
Since these supports were fabricated and inspected under the NPSI/ITT QA programs using NPSI/ITT procedures and personnel they were removed from the sample and additional supports were drawn at random from the population of 359 total supports until 60 supports fabricated by Brown & Root were obtained. The total number cf supports fabricated by NPSI and ITT that contain type-2 skewed welds is 32, or about 9% of the total population of 359.
a ww,ww,n,w,.-.,,,,.
2.
.s e
Revision:
1 Page 16 of 57 e
IY RESULTS REPORT w/
-ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
- 5.0' IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
'The screening criteria used in establishing the final sample were:
1)
Exclude supports not fabricated by Brown &
Root.
2)
Exclude supports-where the type-2 skewed weld was not complete (not yet fabricated).
3)
Exclude supports where the type-2 skewed weld had not been final inspected / accepted by Brown & Root QC at the time the sample of sixty (60) supports was selected for reinspection under this action plan.
4)
Exclude supports where there were no structural type-2 skewed welds.
- G k/
5)
Exclude supports where more than 50% of the length of the type-2 skewed welds were inaccessible for measurement using the profile technique.
As described in Section 1.0, the TRT concern related to the procedures used by Brown & Root QC for the inspection of type-2 skewed welds. Thus, the first three screening criteria were intended to focus the sample on supports inspected by Brown & Root QC. The fourth criterion deleted those welds which have a skewed configuration but, because of their angle being greater than 135' (see Figure 2), are not considered in the support design analysis as a structural weld and thus are not required to be measured.
The last criterion was for the determination of accessibility.
An accessibility criterion was necessary to avoid biasing the sample with a number of supports in which only a small portion of the weld was measured.
Inaccessible welds were those where permanent plant equipment blocked the use of the contour gage at the skewed weld. The need to remove insulation or erect scaffolding was not considered a basis for a weld being inaccessible. The skewed welds 1 ()
in approximately 23% of the supports selected at random 4
were determined to be inaccessible.
I
-- ~
Ravision:
1 Page 17 of 57
,)
RESULTS' REPORT ISAP V.a (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) 5.3.2 Results of Reinspections The sample of sixty (60) Brown & Root supports contained one hundred-two (102) type-2 skewed welds with a total length of 2475 inches. Each type-2 skewed weld in the sample was reinspected by the QA/QC Review Team, a third-party organization, using ERC procedure
.QI-006 (Reference 9.8).
Th.is procedure utilized the profile technique as described in Figure 2.
The acceptance criteria applied for the weld size measurement were as specified in ASME Section III subsection ND-4427 (W82). This section of the ASME code allows welds to be undersized by up to 1/16-inch for 2-inches or 10% of the length of the weld, whichever is less.
Twelve (12) of the sixty (60) supports were found to
(~l contain undersize weld regions that were in excess of 5
\\-
the ASME criteria. The total length of the undersize regions was 79-1/2 inches or 3.2% of the total weld length. Table 3 lists the supports found by the third-party inspectors to have undersized welds and the resultant NCRs issued by Brown & Root QC to document these non-conforming conditions. As discussed in Section 5.3.4, evaluation of these undersize welds by both the Project and the third-party concluded that in all casas the undersize welds were well within ASME allowable stress levels. The results of these inspection have been submitted to the QA/QC Review Team for trending of construction deviations in their Quality of Construction program (Reference 9.17).
5.3.3 Results of Records Reviews The records of the original inspections for the sample of 60 Brown & Root supports were reviewed to determine which procedures were used to inspect the type-2 skewed welds and if there were relationships which correlated with the undersize welds observed in the reinspections performed under this action plan. The results of this review are listed in Table 4 and summarized in this section.
I f
e
,,n.,
,,-,,-._m--_..
,-n-,,,_
Revision:
1-pags '18 of 57
~ V, y -
RESULTS REPORT ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
- l -
.5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
All the supports in the sample have inspection records corresponding to. procedures QI-QAP-11.1-28 or CP-QAP-12.1.. The most common record (67%) was the Quality Control Component Support Checklist from CP-QAP-12.1.
This is the checklist that contains two entries, skewed welds and other welds, to document the inspection of all welds on the support. This record does not indicate which measurement technique was used to inspect the type-2 skewed welds.
Fourteen (14) supports had a record documenting a QC t
i:
inspection at fit up of the type-2 skewed weld. Since a fit up inspection was not required for these welds l
prior to (January 25, 1985) unless the scribe line technique was.used to measure the size of the skewed weld, it is considered probable that these skewed weld were inspected using the scribe line technique.
A review of the relationship between the undersize
-welds found in the reinspection under this action plan
-and the Brown & Root inspectors who performed the original inspections indicated no correlation. The twelve supports with undersize welds were inspected by thirteen Brown & Root inspectors with several supports l
being inspected by more than one inspector. Eleven of these inspectors each had inspected only one of the supports found to contain undersize welds. The remaining two inspectors each had inspected two of the supports found to contain undersize welds.
4 A correlation is apparent if the sample is examined on the basis of those supports for which the records indicate that the scribe line technique was probably used. This group of 14 supports contained no undersize welds compared to a 4.1% occurrence for the remaining 46 supports in the sample or the 3.2% average rate for j:
the sample as a whole.
l I
l A correlation can also be seen if the sample is 4
4 -
examined on the basis of whether the supports were inspected before or after the profile measurement technique was added to the piping inspection procedure I
(QI-QAP-11.1-26. Revision 13) on August 4, 1983. Table I
p 4 indicates that of the 60 supports in the sample, 14 j
were inspected before August 4, 1983, 43 supports were inspected after August 4, 1983 and 3 were inspected l
)
Revision:
1 9
Page 19 of 57 d
.h RESULT 3 REPORT ISAP V.a g
(Cont'd)
J 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) both before and after August 4, 1983.
Ignoring the 3 supports that were inspected both before and after August 4, 1983, the percentage of undersize welds for the supports inspected before August 4, 1983 was 3.3%
compared to 1.4% for those inspected after August 4,
=
c, 1983 when the profile technique was available.
If the j
14 supports that were probably inspected by the scribe i
e line technique are eliminated from this comparison, the j
trend persists, although not as strong (i.e., the S
percentage of undersize welds for supports inspected
-h before August 4, 1983 becomes 3.3% compared to 2.1% for J
those inspected after August 4, 1983).
h2 These correlations between the probable use of the d
scribe line technique or the introduction of the d
profile technique and a reduction in the rate of I
undersize welds support the TUGC0 contention that Brown j
O
& Root QC inspectors were aware of the inspection g
methodology in the piping inspection procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-26) and the intent that this methodology should be used for measurement of type-2 skewed welds that were not attachment welds to the pipe.
y
_._;a 5.3.4 Safety Significance j
i Each of the NCRs listed in Table 3 was evaluated by the 5
Project pipe support engineering organization to i
determine the effect of the undersize condition. The k
Project calculations were also reviewed by the t=
third-party (Reference 9.9) to determine if the 4
observed deviations were safety-significant in accordance with the CPRT Program criteria. The results
(
of both the Project and the third-party reviews
=
concluded that all the undersize welds were well within h
the ASME allowable stress levels and thus the a
deviations were not safety-significant. The NCRs were j
dispositioned appropriately, use-as-is.
J r
In the course of this review the third-party issued two 4
(2) Discrepancy / Issue Resolution Reports (DIRs:
D-0130, D-0133) to document discrepancies in the Y
Project calculations related to the evaluation of the NCR conditions. These DIRs were classified as O
es ervatien eince the ce c1 ie re caea 87 the Project based on these calculations were correct, the e
errors were not programmatic in nature and the errors, a
if undetected, would have had no effect.
2
- Revision:
1
- g Page 20 of 57 i
{( );
RESULTS REPORT ISAP V.a (Cont'd) l 5.0 : IMPLEMENTATION OF. ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) 5.3.5. Trend Analysis-While none of the undersize welds was found to be safety-significant, the occurrence of undersize welds
)
.on twelve-(12) supports in a sample of sixty (60) i supports required evaluation in accordance with Appendix E of the CPRT Program Plan to determine if these constituted an adverse trend. A trend is defined by the Program Plan as adverse if it.is determined that the identified pattern or commonality is likely to have resulted in the occurrence of an undetected deficiency in the affected area, population or stratum.
Figure 3 shows the distribution of the veld size i
measurements for the one hundred-two (102) type-2 skewed welds in the sample of sixty (60) Brown & Root supports that were reinspected. In accordance with the i
j (p inspection procedure, each weld was measured at 2 to 3
(./
inch intervals along its length..The data in Figure 3 were obtained by averaging the individual measurements
'for each leg of each weld, dividing by the design size of the fillet weld leg and selecting the leg that was I
the smallest fraction of the design size for that weld.
As can be seen from Figure 3 the average size of the one hundred-two (102) type-2 skewed welds in the sample was 30% larger than required by the design.
Figure 3 also shows that about 10% of the welds were
, smaller than required by the design by amounts up to 25%. Since it was already known that none of these undersize welds exceeded the ASME allowable stress limits there was reason to believe that the design weld sizes contained significant margin. Therefore a statistical evaluation (Reference 9.10) of the margin in the as-measured weld sizes was performed ta assess the probability of type-2 skewed welds in the population exceeding the ASME allowable stress levels.
Using the average measured size for each weld, the maximum stress was recalculated for each of the one hundred-two (102) welds in the sample (References 9.11 and 9.15).
The resulting stress levels were compared to each of the applicable ASME stress limits. Figure 4 shows the distribution of the limiting type-2 skewed S
4 w-.
.w_.
w
-.n~,,,.,
-r._w--,--
,--e----
LQ w
Ravision:
1 7
4' Page 21 of 57
.a
() J RESULTS REPORT g$
ISAP V.a gjyff (Cont'J; 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) g weld for each support in the sample as a percent of the controlling ASME limit for that weld. The most
= limiting weld stress in the sample of sixty (60) supports was at 82.7% of the ASME allowable stress.
The average limiting weld stress in the sample was 37.8% of the ASME allowable stress.
To assess the likelihood of a type-2 skewed weld exceeding the ASME allowable stress levels, the fraction of the population above the ASME limits was calculated (Reference 9.10) at the 50% confidence level and at the 95% confidence level using a one-sided tolerance limit approach. For this calculation a normal distribution was assumed. This assumption was tested and accepted at the 5% level of significance using the Chi-square and Wilks-W tests.
O The results of these analyses indicate that the best estimate (50% confidence) of the fraction of the population above the ASME limits is 0.001. The 95%
' confidence estimate of the fraction above the ASME limits is 0.006.
These statistical inferences are derived from the measurements and analyses of the 60 Brown & Root supports in the sample and hence represent the population from which they were drawn. Since screening criteria were used in selecting the sample, it is necessary to consider the engineering significance of these criteria to determine the extent to which these inferences apply to the part of the population that was excluded from the sampling. The first four criteria excluded supports that were fabricated by NPSI, supports that were either not complete or not inspected and accepted, and supports for which the type-2 skewed welds were not required to be measured (see Section 5.3.1).
The NPSI supports were fabricated and inspected under a different program and hence have been analyzed as a separate group, not as part of this population (see Section 5.4).
The supports that were not complete or were not final inspected and accepted at the time of the reinspection under this action plan are subject to inspection under the revised procedures O
whica 1 c1 ae Pecific 1 er cete fer e7Pe-2
- e e4 welds. Thus, these supports may not be representative of the work performed under the earlier procedures and
s Revision:
1 Page-22 of 57
- s
{f j.
RESULTS REPORT ISAP.V.a (Cont'd)
- 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) l have:not been included in this population. Supports with skewed welds that were not required to be measured were not included since they have no significance from either a structural or inspection view point. These "I
four criteria resulted in the exclusion of 43.2% of the supports drawn at random from the total population of 359.
As discussed in Section 5.3.1 the accessibility criterion was applied to avoid biasing the results by including a number of supports in which less than half of the skewed weld length was available for measurement at this time. However, good access for inspection was available during the original inspection of these supports at the time the skewed welds were made. Thus it is reasonable to extend the results of statistical evaluation of the supports reinspected under this
. r~'t action plan to include the inaccessible portion of the 1 b J =-
population. On this basis, the population size to be considered (accessible plus inaccessible) is estimated
' to be 204 supports. Using this population size the best estimate is that there are no supports that exceed the ASME limits. The 95% confidence estimate is that the number of supports exceeding the ASME allowable stress limits is one or less.
T
- While this analysis clearly indicates that it is unlikely that any of the Brown & Root supports with type-2 skewed welds exceeding the ASME stress limits, an additional analysis (Reference 9.10) was performed to assess the likelihood of a type-2 skewed weld exceeding the allowable stress level by a significant amount (i.e., yield). For this avaluation the ASME Level B stress values for the limiting type-2 skewed weld in each support were compared to the yield stress.
At the 95% confidence level the fraction of the population above yield was negligibly small (10-0).
Based on these evaluations it was concluded that the observed undersize type-2 skewed welds do not constitute an adverse trend.
tO
,,,*...--,.-...-.-..-..-,-,=.m
,,.~_
m_-,
.__wm-,
---.,.,,,--,----,.-.----,,-w-
.._,y.
-_s.---,
e
,2
?
w Revision:
1 Page 23 of 57
(
)
RESULTS REPORT ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
'5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
.C F
. 5.4 ~Ouc.of Scope Findings As. discussed in Section 5.3.1 prefabricated NPSI and ITT supports were inadvertently included in the sample for reinspection. A total of nine (9) NPSI supports containing
. thirteen (13). type-2 skewed welds were reinspected. One of
~'
these NPSI supports (see Table 3) was found to contain an undersize weld. This non-conforming condition was evaluated by both the Project pipe support engineering group and the third-party and found to be well within ASME allowable stress levels. Thus, the deviation was not safety-significant and no corrective action was required.
~
'To evaluate the significance of this out of scope finding, a
' margin analysis, similar to that prepared for the Brown & Root supports was performed (Reference 9.10).
Figure 5 shows the distribution of the average weld size for the smaller of the
("
l_]/
two (2)~ fillet weld legs. As can be seen from Figure 5, the mean:of the distribution is 134% of the design size and, on s
the basis of.the average weld size, none of the welds were less than the design site.
~
The one weld that did not meet the weld size inspection criteria was undersize by 1/16 inch for a length of 3-1/2 inches.
Figure 6 shows the distribution of the limiting type-2 skewed weld in the NPSI supports reinspected as a percent of the controlling ASME limit for these welds. These results were obtained in the same manner as described in Section 5.3.2 for the Brown & Root supports (Reference 9.13).
The most limiting type-2 skewed weld was at 70.3% of the controlling ASME allowable stress. The average of the type-2 skewed welds in the NPSI supports reinspected was 26.5% of the controlling ASME allowable stress.
To assess the likelihood of a type-2 skeved weld on a NPSI support exceeding ASME allowable stress levels a statistical evaluation (Reference 9.10) of the results shown in Figure 6 was performed. Because of the small size of the population of NPSI supports with type-2 skewed welds a different approach was used for this evaluation than was used for the evaluation of the Brown & Root supports. The evaluation of the NPSI supports involved the determination of that fraction of the total type-2 skewed welds in the complete NPSI support
'( )
population that may exceed the most limiting stress condition (i.e., greater than 70.3%) found for the type-2 skewed welds on the nine (9) NPSI supports that were reinspected.
Based on
y; '
Revision:
1 Page 24 of 57
- ()
RESULTS REPORT ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
~ 5.0- IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) this evaluation it is expected at the 50% confidence level that 92% of the type-2 skewed welds in NPSI supports will be at.or below 70.3% of the controlling ASME limit. At the 95%
n confidence level, 76% of the NPSI type-2 skewed welds will be at or below 70.3% of the controlling ASME limit.
Since only one (1) of the thirteen (13) NPSI type-2 skewed welds reingpected was undersize, that weld was still well within the ASME allowable stress limits, and the NPSI type-2 skewed welds have_ considerable margin for minor weld size deviations, no further investigation of this out-of-scope finding was considered necessary.
5.5 Evaluation of Hypothesized Root Cause and Generic Implications 4
The investigations performed under this action plan did not identify any deficiencies or adverse trends thus an evaluation
.g-)g of root cause and generic implications is not required by the
(_
CPRT Program Plan. However, the TRT (References 9.1 and 9.2) considered the root cause and generic implications aspects of
. this issue to be important since the question of adequate measurement techniques for skewed welds had been addressed by a previous (1982) Project corrective action. The TRT investigation concluded (Reference 9.1) that the 1982 corrective action appropriately addressed measurement of all skewed welds on non-ASME supports and type-1 skewed welds on ASME supports. However, the IRT did not find evidence in the inspection procedures or records that type-2 skewed welds on ASME supports had been correctly measured thus suggesting potential generic implications related to the effective completion of other Project corrective actions at that time.
The investigations performed under this action plan indicate that the 1982 corrective action did include measurement of the type-2 skewed welds on ASME supports using appropriate techniques. This conclusion is based on:
Brown & Root memo QCWI-1 which clearly indicates that type-2 skewed welds on ASME supports were intended to be measured using the techniques provided in the piping inspection procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-26).
The results of the inspections and records reviews
()
which indicate that 23% of the supports in the sample were probably inspected using the scribe line measurement technique contained in procedure QI-QAP-11.1-26.
1
- U--
e
.---.n.
,... _,,,.,,, - - - ~ _,
f Ravision:
1 Page 25 of 57 f (,) -
RESULTS REPORT ISAP V.a fr (Cont'd) 5.0.-IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
The results of the inspections and records reviews which indicate that adding the profile measurement technique to procedure QI-QAP-11.1-26 reduced the rate
-of occurrence of undersize welds in the sample of
. supports reinspected.
Thus, while the procedures and inspection records for the 1982 corrective action do not provide objective evidence that 3
type-2 skewed welds on ASME supports were measured using the techniques in procedure QI-QAP-11.1-26, the results of this action plan support the position that these techniques were used.
Investigation of the possibility that other Project
~
corrective actions may not have been complete is included in ISAP VII.a.2, "Nonconformance and Corrective Actions System."
The existence of a group of welds that did not meet the weld size inspection criteria indicates'that the 1982 corrective
- f~)v
-action was not fully effective. However, as discussed in s-
'Section 5.3.5 the average size of the type-2 skewed welds was larger than required by design and the extent of the weld undersize regions was small and not significant when compared to the large margins provided in the design of these welds.
Thus further investigation of the population of type-2 skewed i
welds is not necessary. The results of this ISAP investigation have been submitted for Collective Evaluation to address the impact of all instances where CPRT investigations j
have found that Project corrective actions were not fully l
effective (Reference 9.14).
In addition, DIR-E-1061 has been submitted to the QA/QC Review Team for evaluation and classification
.under the QA/QC Program Adequacy program.
6.0 CONCLUSION
S The investigations performed under this action plan confirmed that the procedures of record (CP-QAP-12.1 and QI-QAP-11.1-28) for the inspection of Brown & Root pipe supports did not contain inspection criteria for type-2 skewed welds. However, acceptance criteria for type-2 skewed welds were contained in the piping inspection procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-26). This procedure also provided two measurement techniques for type-2 skewed welds during the period when most type-2 skewed welds were inspected.
(
1 9
._....__,..._m
Revision:
1 Page 26 of 57 jf _
~
D(_)l RESULTS REPORT F
ISAP V.a (Cont'd) 0
6.0 CONCLUSION
S (Cont'd)
. Project correspondence indicates that it was intended that the inspection criteria and techniques in the piping procedure be used for inspection of type-2 skewed welds on pipe supports.
In addition. trends observed in the results of the reinspections performed under_this action plan support the position that the inspection criteria and techniques in the piping inspection procedure were used for the inspection of type-2 skewed welds on pipe supports. ~The pipe support inspection procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-28) has been revised (Revision 30) to contain acceptance criteria and techniques for the measurement of type-2 skewed welds thus eliminating the need to refer to the piping inspection procedure for this inspection.
The reinspection performed under this action plan provided reasonable assurance that the type-2 skewed welds on Brown & Root pipe supports are within the ASME allowable stress levels.
Although twelve (12) supports were found to contain undersize
-(~'
welds, none of these welds exceeded ASME stress limits. An evaluation of margin based on the measured weld size indicates that it is not likely that any of the type-2 skewed welds in the plant exceed ASME' limits.
A type-2 skewed weld on a vendor (NPSI) fabricated pipe support was found to be undersize. This undersize weld was also within the
. ASME stress limit. An evaluation of the margin in type-2 skewed 4
welds fabricated by NPSI indicated that these supports have considerable margin for minor weld size deviations hence no further investigation was necessary.
7.0 ONGOING ACTIVITIES i
The third-party will overview the corrective action for TDDR No.
PS-86-1973 in accordance with the requirements of Appendix H of the CPRT Program Plan.
8.0 ACTION TO PRECLUDE OCCURRENCE IN THE FUTURE
. Brown & Root procedure QI-QAP-11.1-28 has been revised (Revision
- 30) to include acceptance criteria and measurement techniques for the inspection of type-2 skewed welds. Therefore, it is no longer i
necessary to refer to the piping inspection procedure g
(QI-QAP-11.1-26) for this information. This should preclude future occurrence of this problem.
r,
,,.--.-._-m-__.-.~~-----__,
Ravision:
1 Page 27 of 57 s
-l RESULTS REPORT V
ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
9.0 REFERENCES
l 9.1 NUREG-0797, Supplement No. 10, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric
-Station, Units 1 and 2", Concern / Allegation Number AQW-73, April 1985.
9.2 NUREG-0797, Supplement No. 13, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operations of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2", Appendix B, page 2, May 1986.
9.3 TUGC0 Memo #CPP-18,148 from C. K. Moehlman to Doug Witt, "TRT Issue V.a and V.e Skewed Weld Inspection, Main Steam Line Installation", April 8, 1985.
9.4 Brown & Root Memo fQCWI-1 from W. T. Sims, " Skewed Welds on
' Stanchions (NF)", February 21, 1983.
9.5 TERA meno from J. Honekamp and R. Sanan to V.a File, " Summary q
of Meeting with J. T..Blixt, Brown & Root Quality Engineering V
Supervisor", CPRT #477, June 5, 1986.
9.6 TUGC0 Memo #56078 from C. Moehlman revising CPPA #46,663, June 10, 1986.
9.7 ERC h mo #QA/QC-RT-200 " Population Items List: Large Bore Pipe Supports, Rigid", July 3, 1985.
9.8 ERC Procedure QI-006.
9.9 TERA b oo from R. Sanan to V.a File documenting the review by Rich Rotblatt of NCRs, June 19, 1986.
9.10 CPRT Calculation #JBA243-010 " Margins on the Maximum Stressed Skewed Welds", Revision 1 September 3, 1986.
9.11 TUGCO h ao #CPPA-48,771 from J. J. Ryan to Claude Moehlman,
" Skewed Weld Study", February 3, 1986.
9.12 TERA h oo from R. Sanan to V.a File, July 2, 1986.
9.13 TUGC0 Memo #CPPA 49,046 from J. Ryan to Claude Moelhman "CPSES Skewed Weld Study", February 5, 1986.
9.14 TERA Memo from J. Miller to J. Hansel regarding Collective Evaluation, September 5, 1986.
N
Revision:
1 Page 28 of 57
( )'
RESULTS REPORT ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
9.0 REFERENCES
9.15 Memo from R. Sanan to V.a File September 11, 1986 documenting the review of References 9.11 and 9.13.
9.16 QAP/DAP Document Interface Transmittal Form # S-1055, September 18, 1986.
I!:
9.17 TERA Memo from J. R. Honekamp to J. Hansel, Trending Information on Undersize Type-2 Skewed Welds, September 17, 1986.
9.18 TERA Memo #ISAP L-003 from J. Honekamp to M. Chamberlain
^
" Comments on the Proposed Corrective Action Plan for the Error in the Scribe Line Measurement Technique", October 9,1986.
4::>
.=
=
Revision:
1 Page 29'of 57 RESULTS REPORT i
ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
Figure 1 Measurement of Typical Type-2 Skewed Weld Using the Scribe Line Technique
- To moomsre this weld leg size STANCHI
- ""mol weld goces.
S*d I
/
l TYPE-2 SKEWED WE1.D--
N
\\ '
O f
/####Zp9 l N PIPE P
]
s N
'e 7
- To moosure this weld leg size establish scribe merk "A" 3 in, from intersection of ports of fitup on etochment. At final Inspectir., measure %" dimension and s@ttext 1" from 'A" to get "C"(A.8 C). Scribe mark may have to be shortened or lengthened to asit field conditions (if this is neccesary the OCl will annotate the 84 occordi ly to reflect te scribe merk locot
. Locate scrit>
/
marks et 4 in. or 450 oround the PPE
'""***'**"''h**)-
l V
//p///s O
O
C' Revision:
1 Page 30 of 57
[ "o -
f fD RESULTS REPORT ISAP V,a (Cont'd)
Figure 2 Measurement of Typical Type-2 Skewed Wald Using the Profile Technique TwE.: SEED utD T
CC V!h l,N t
O
/
\\
2.Tll.",seen gg N,'.i:::l".*."d."!:L":::.s e
on asis.em u, sen n.
- l: "'-" *M*". C".r::1T esamen.
I TRAP 8FER TE WELD PROFLE FR004 TE CONTOWL CAUGE TO A WORK SEET N )g LEING A PROTRACTOR EASUPE ANGLE S N
F GREATER TPEN 135' WELD SIZE I
EASUPEENT 5 NOT fEQUIND l
I FOR EACN LOCATION PEQUIRING WELD SIZE EASUPEENT ESTABLISH TAMENT
.sh LIPE5 ON T4 WELD PROFLES TRAP 6 N g FERf60 TO T4 WORK SEET AND w \\g EASURE WELD SIZE V N
N
=
0
[i,g I
ih
~
?
4 Rsvision:,
1 Page 31 of 57
-s F]
)
.(f RESULTS REPORT ISAP V.a
(,
_(Cont'd)
(
y sFigure 3 i
Distribution of the Measured Size of._
Type-2 Skewed Welds'in Sample Reinspection of Brown & Root Supports I
1 l
IN" b'
asAN = lau l.
,I 5
l l
l 840 a i
m.
4 v
40
\\b 8'O 150 150 ik gM
' l$0 b
' 250 1
AVERAGE SIZE OF SanAl.LER LEG PO4 GNT OF DESIGN SIZE)
N 1
O L
t 4
(
.-4
i i
l Revision:
1 Page 32 of 57 f3 V
RESULTS REPORT ISAP V.a
- (Cont'd)
Figure 4 Distribution of Margin to Controlling ASME Limit For Type-2 Skewed Welds in Brown & Root Supports l
l IW, EAM e 37J l
I l
tN E
N*
Y W
!EX
^
sg, a-20 1
0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 M
100 PER NT OF CONTROLLING A5hE LIMIT FOR LIMITING TYPE.2 WELD ON SUPPORT O
e
-,.,-w,.,.--..w,-
w,-,
-w--
-,--ww
.,ww,--.,,.--w,,
..wv,w-ww
--,.=---w-o--------w------w-,r-w---w-w--==www-m=ww--*-
Revision:
1 s.
Page 33 of 57 b)
%,._ s RESULTS REPORT ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
Figure 5 Distribution of the Measured Size of Type-2 Skewed Welds In the Sample of NPSI Supports Reinspected let-O 5e a.
5 E
if
.0 I
20-40
$0 8'O 150 120 150 150 150 2hD AVERAG SIZE OF SMALLER LEG PER GNT OF DE5G4 SIE) o
Revision:.
1 Page 34 of 57
<gs.
A/
RESULTS REPORT ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
Figure 6 3
Distribution of Margin to Controlling ASME Limit for Type-2 Skewed Welds in the Sample of NPSI Supports n
m.
~
4.
m 20 o
io 4
A 4
4 e
e ik PERENT OF CONTROLLING A$8E LIMIT FOR LIMITING TYPE.2 WELD ON ?MT i
l O
G
n,
,.----.--,-.-.,.---,,----..---.--y
.,,,.--,--,m-.-w-y,,,--,-e.
--,,w-e.,,
~
Ravision:
1 l
Page 35 of 57 W'"
4
/
i -
'RESULTS REPORT Q
ISAP V.a
~
(Cont'd)
Table.1 Key Events Related to the Measurement of
-Type-2 Skewed Welds Aunust 1982
+
' NRC Region IV questions the measurement methodology and acceptance criteria for inspection of type-1 skewed welds. Brown & Root QC questions the methodology and acceptance criteria for the measurement of lt>ye-2 skewed welds (stanchion welds) because of their similarity to type-1 skewed welds.
September 1982
- Inspection-methodology and acceptance criteria for measurement of both
- type-1 and type-2 skewed welds are added to the pipe support procedure (QI-QA?-11.1-28, Revision 12 and Revision 13). At this time (9/1982) the only measurement technique specific to type-2 skewed welds iscluded 1(~w{
in the procedure was the scribe line method.
.v-December 15, 1982 The measurement methodology and acceptance criteria for type-2 skewed welds were moved from the pipe support procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-28 Revision 16) to the piping procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-26, Revision 9).
February 21, 1983 Brown & Root instruction QCWI-1 was issued to inform inspectors to use the inspection methodology and accentance criteria in the piping procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-26) when measuring type-2 skewed welds on pipe supports which are not attachment welds to the piping.
February / March 1983 Revisions 4 and 5 of procedure CP-QAP-12.1 were issued to initiate reinspection of all accessible structural welds on ASME supports. These reinspections were documented in accordance with the checklist in CP-QAP-12.1 which contained two entries (skewed welds and all other welds) to cover measurement of all the structural welds on the support.
Aunust 4, 1983 The profile technique for measuring the size of type-2 skewed welds was
(}
added to the piping procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-26, Revision 13).
Inspection records indicate that most (72%) of the supports with type-2 skewed welds were inspected after this date.
_--,_~.mm_,.
-. _ m,
,m
g,.,.
Revision:
1 Page 36 of 57
' ' I-s.'E RESULTS REPORT a
j
~3=
ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
D4 Table 1 (Cont'd)
January 25, 1985 The scribe line technique for measurement of type-2 skewed welds was re-incorporated in the support procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-28, Revision 29).
l April 25, 1985 The profile technique for measurement of type-2 skewed welds was added to the support procedure (QI-QAP-11.1-28, Revision 30).
From this point en both piping and support inspection procedures contained both the
-scribe line and profile techniques for measurement of type-2 skewed welds.
4 s
O-a
c,
~
Rtvision:
1 Page 37 of 57
'i
~
~
RESULTS REPORT ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
Table 2 Summaary of Procedures CP-QAP-12.1 QI-QAP-11.1-28, and QI-QAP-11.1-26 CP-QAP-12.1-Rev. No. and Corresponding Revision Corresponding Revision Effective Dates of QI-QAP-11.1-28 of QI-QAP-11.1-26 Did Not Exist.
Rev. 0 (09/08/80)
Rev. 0 (01/03/80)
Rev. 1 (09/11/80)
Rev. 1 (02/06/80) 4 Rev. 2 (09/15/80)
Rev. 2 (06/26/80)
Rev. 3 (10/03/80)
Rev. 3 (07/22/80)
(^')
x>
Rev. 4 (12/08/80)
Rev. 4 (08/28/80)
Rev. 5 (01/17/81)
Rev. 5 (04/29/81)
Rev. 6 (02/18/81)
Rev. 6 (01/15/82 thru 02/21/82)
Rev. 7 (05/28/81)
Rev. 8 (01/15/82 thru 02/21/82)
Rev. 0 (02/22/82 Rev. 8 (02/22/82 Rev. 6 (02/22/82 thru 03/09/82) thru 03/09/82) thru 03/09/82)
Rev. 1 (03/10/82 Rev. 8 (03/10/82 One Day)
Rev. 6 (03/10/82 thru 05/10/82) thru 03/11/82)
Rev. 9 (03/11/82 Rev. 7 (03/12/82 thru (05/10/82) thru 04/14/82)
Rev. 8 (04/15/82 thru 05/10/82)
()
<r
, ~;:a :
Rsvision:
1 Page 38 of 57
.~
,~A-RESULTS REPORT v.s
.ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
Table 2 (Cont'd) 9-CP-QAP-12.1 Rev. No. and Corresponding Revision Corresponding Revision Effective Dates of QI-QAP-11.1-28 of QI-QAP-11.1-26 Rev. 2-(05/11/82 Rev. 9 (05/11/82 Rev. 8 (05/11/82 thru 05/19/82) thru 05/19/82) thru 05/19/82)
Rev. 3 (05/20/82 Rev. 9 (05/20/82 Rev. 8 (05/02/82 thru 02/01/83 thru 06/11/82) thru 12/15/82)
Rev. 10 (06/12/82 Rev. 9 (12/16/82 thru 07/20/82) thru 02/01/83)
'I' Rev. 11 (07/21/82 thru 09/02/82)
Rev. 12 (09/03/82 thru 09/20/82)
Rev. 13 (09/21/82 thru 09/28/82)
Rev. 14 (09/29/82 thru 10/28/82)
Rev. 15 (10/29/82 thru 12/14/82)
Rev. 16 (12/15/83 thru (02/01/83)
Rev. 4 (02/02/83 Rev. 17 (02/02/83 Rev. 10 (02/02/83 thru 03/17/83) thru 03/17/83) thru 03/17/83)
Rev. 5 (03/18/83 Rev. 18 (03/18/83 Rev. 11 (03/18/83 enru 04/11/83) thru 04/11/83 thru 04/11/83)
Rsvision:
1 Page 39 of 57 w
tr3 RESULTS REPORT
' (,1l ISAP V.a
+
j
-(Cent'd)
Table 2 (Cont'd)
CF-QAP-12.1 Rev. No. and-Corresponding Revision Corresponding Revision Effactive Dates of QI-QAP-11.1-28 of QI-QAP-11.1-26 Rev. 6 (04/12/83 Rev. 19 (04/12/83 Rev. 12 (04/12/83
-thru 06/28/83) thru 05/15/83) thru 06/28/86)
Rev. 20 (05/16/83 thru 06/28/83) o Rev. 7 ~ '(06/29/83 Rev. 21 (06/29/83 Rev. 12 (06/29/83 thru 08/02/83) thru 08/02/83) thru 08/02/82)
D.
Q/
Rev. 8 (08/03/83 Rev. 21 (08/03/83 Rev. 12 (08/03/83
]
thru 08/18/83)
One Day only)
One Day Only)
Rev. 22 (08/04/83 Rev. 13 (08/04/83 thru 08/18/83) thru 08/18/83)
Rev. 9 (08/19/83 Rev. 22 (08/19/83 Rev. 13 (08/19/83 thru 12/27/83) thru 10/23/83) thru 09/12/83) l Rev. 23 (10/24/83 Rev. 14 (09/13/83 thru 12/27/83) thru 12/27/83)
Rev.'10 (12/28/83 Rev. 23 (12/28/83 Rev. 14 (12/28/83 thru 06/10/84) thru 04/17/84 thru 04/17/84)
Rev. 24 (04/18/84 Rev. 15 (04/18/84 thru 06/10/84) thru 06/10/84)
O
r, w
-Rovision:
1
^ -
Page 40 of 57 RESULTS REPORT v
ISAP V.e (Cont'd)
Table 2 (Cont'd) n g
CP-QAP-12.1 Rev. No. and-
. Corresponding Revision Corresponding Revision Rffective Datee of QI-QAP-11.1-28 of QI-QAP-11.1-26 Rev. 11 (06/11/84 Rev. 25 (06/11/84 Rev. 16 (06/11/84 thru 10/14/84) thru 10/14/84) thru 10/14/84)
Rev. 12 (10/15/84 Rev. 26 (10/15/84 Rev. 17 (10/15/84 thru 05/19/85) thru 11/14/84) thru 05/19/85)
Rev. 27 (11/15/84 f,x '.
thru 12/05/84)
U Rev. 28 (12/06/84 thru 01/24/85)
Rev. 29 (01/25/85 thru 04/14/85)
Rev. 30 (04/15/85 thru 05/19/85)
Rev. 13 (05/20/85 Rev. 30 (05/20/85 Rev. 17 (05/20/85 thru 08/16/85) thru 06/29/85) thru 08/16/85)
Rev. 31 (06/30/85 thru 08/16/85) 1 Rev. 14 (08/17/85 Rev. 32 (08/17/85 Rev. 17 (08/17/85 thru 11/19/85) thru 08/28/85) thru 11/19/85)
Rev. 33 (08/29/85 Rev. 18 (11/20/85 thru 11/19/85)
(Completion of third-party
(
review)
l Rovision:
1 Page 41 of 57 il
)
RESULTS REPORT ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
Table 2 (Cont'd)
CP-QAP-12.1 Rev. No. and
- Correspondinh Revision Corresponding Revision Rffective Dates of QI-QAP-11.1-28 of QI-QAP-11.1-26 Rev. 15 (11/20/85 Rev. 34 (11/20/85 thru 02/17/86)
(Completion of third-party review)
Rev. 16 (02/18/86 thru 04/03/86)
. (%,
\\m)
Rev. 17 (04/04/86 (Completion of third-party review) e O
..-..-n,,..-w-r,,-
,----n-,--~,,
-,.n-,,,,, m n,...-,n- ~,-
m_,.w-,-,,--w-,-,,v...
Rsvision:
1 Page 42 of 57
~*l RESULTS REFORT m-ISAP V.a
~
I (Cont'd)
Table 3 Summary of Supports with Undersize Welds No Random #
NCR Support Number 1
7 M-17291 CT-2-005-403-S22K 2
8 XI-6/85-0183 CC-X-022-001-F43A 3
- 24 II-10/85-0186 CT-1-049-415-C92A 4
43 XI-3/85-0180 MS-1-004-009-C62K 5
92 XI-4/85-0181 MS-1-002-006-C72K 6
129 XI-5/85-0182 BR-X-001-720-A53A 7
132 XI-7/85-0184 CC-1-087-004-A33A 8
151 XI-8/85-0185 CT-1-042-401-C82A 9
184 XI-11/85-0187 CT-1-033-414-C92A 10 186 XI-12/85-0202 CC-1-019-003-A33R
~
11 221 XI-859 CC-1-065-002-533R 12 204 XI-21/85-0203 CC-1-173-012-S$3A' NPSI Support XI-2 SI-1-181-005-C41R O
v O
-y w. w Revistem.
1' Page 43 of 57.
l l
ESSULTS MMET l
ISAP V.a l
(Cont'd) l i
Table 4 l
QC Document Package Reviam for h Melds l
RanSer/ Support No.
Unit Skewed BER Inspect 34R Rev.
Inspector Checklist Comments No.
Weld Inspection Dste Procedure No.
Type Description No.
SI-2-071-405-532E 2
1/4" Fillet Stewed Helds 12-14-84 QI-QAP-11.1-28 28 Rey
.QC-MIR TS 6"z6"x3/8" leSC to 3/4" Saddle CC-1-202-001-S534 1
6"a6" x 1/2" TS Skewed Welds 11-16-83 CP-QAP-12.1 9
F. Coleman QC-CSC to IGSC 3/8" saddle 5/16" Fillet CI-2-005-403-S22K 2
6"z6" x 3/8" TS O M Welds 9-14-84 QI-QAP-11.1-28 25 Clan Mathews QC-HIR Note 1 to 1/2" saddle WICL 5/16" F111et 6-23-82 Q1-QAP-11.1-26 8
W.T. Jim ISSC CC-1-022-001-F43A P-10" Sch 80 Skewed Welds 04-13-83 QI-QAP-11.1-28 19 R. A11strom QC-CSC Note 1 Pipe to 3/4" IGiDC T saddle 1/2* fillet Mte 1: hCR condition in reinspection under ISAP V.a kte 2: Fitup holdpoint for skewed weld checked on ISSC
ww g
7y
(-
'q )
L..;'
'Revistem I~
~
Page 44 of 57 RESIL7 MpW T ISAP Y.a (Cont'd)
Table 4 (Cont'd)
I h
Hanser/ Support No.
Unit Shewed BER Inspect B&R Rev.
laspector Checklist P - nts
]
No.
Weld Inspectica Date Procedure llo.
Type Description No.
AF-2-101-431-533A 1
3"Sch. 80 Skewed Welds 04-19-84 QI-Q&P-11.1-28 24 R.E. Ondracek QC-HIR Note 2 to 1/2" saddle 5/16" stoove +
WICL
~
1/8" x 1/4" seeC fillet CC-2-158-408-A4X 2
6"z6"al/2" TS Skewed Welds 11-17-83' CP-QAP-12.1 9'
S. Sanders qc-CSC to ledDC 3/4" saddle 1/4" fillet CC-1-009-016-A43A 1
8" Sch. 40 Skewed Welds 01-24-84 CP-QAP-12.1 10 S. Sanders QC-CSC to 1/2" saddle leeC 1/4" groove +
1/2" fillet RH-1-001-010-C41K 1
6"a6"x1/2" TS Skewed Welds 08-26-83 CP-q&P-12.1 9
M. Ivey QC-CSC to 1/2" saddle leiDC 1/4" fillet
.,9 - :W;-, :
[
l t
)
l
~.J j
Revision:
'1
'Pate 45 of 57-RESULTS BEFORT ISAP Y.a (Cont'd)
Table 4 (Cont'd)
Ranger / Support No.
Unit Skewed BER Inspect B6R Rev.
Inspector Checklist Comments No.
Weld Inspectice Date Procedure No.
Type Description No.
l l
l l
RC-1-146-003-C81K 1
2" Sch. 160 Skewed Welds 03-15-84 CP-QAP-12.1 10 W.C.
QC-CSC
(
to 1/2" saddle IGSC 1/4" fillet 09-08-83 CP-QAP-12.1 9
Anthony QC-CSC Linny NWDC CT-1-049-415-C92A 1
6" x 4" x 1/2"TS Skewed Welds 06/14/83 CP-Q4P-12.1 6
J. Stanford QC-CSC Note 1 l
to 1/2" Saddle PeeC 7/16" fillet i
l l
CC-2-116-006-F43A 2
12" Sch 40 Skewed Welds 4-20-83 CP-QAP-12.1 6
F. Evans QC-CSC l
to 14" Sch 80 IGEC l
pipe stanchion Q1-QAP-11.1-28 19 PedDC l
5/6 fillet 12" SCH 40 to 6" SCH 40 1/4" fillet AF-2-006-412-S33A 2
6" Sch 80 Skewed Welds 02-29-84 QI-QAP-11.1-28 23 A. Linzy QC-HIR Note 2 to 1/2" plate C.S.
3/8" grove +
Fillet 3/8" fillet and skewed weld I.R.
PGEC
.m.
- p
.m
(/
a
, Bevisiens?
1' Page M of 57 '
i l
_RES8LTS REPe r ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
Table 4 (Cont'd) i 1
J Ranger / Support No.
Unit Skewed 36R Inspect B&R Rev.
Inspector Checklist Comments No.
lield Inspection Date Procedure No.
Type Description No.
l l
RM-2-064-406-S22R 2
3"x3" x 1/4" TS Stewed lields 08-31-84 Q1-QAP-11.1-28 25 R. hancan QC-HIR
]
to MBC
]
1/2" saddle 3/16" Fillet 1
4 RC-1-135-004-C51K 1
8"x8" x 1/2" TS Skewed Idelds 02-14-83 CP-QAP-12.1.
4 M. Kaplan QC-CSC l
~
and MIDC to 1/2" saddle ti. Chadwick IGEC i
5/16" fillet 08-16-83 8
CS-2-597-403-C42A 2
1/4" groove +
Skewed lields 03-27-85 QI-QAP-11.1-28 29 A. Linzy MIDC Note 2 3/16x1/4" fillet saddle to trunnion CT-1-013-421-C82R 1
6" Sch 40 Skewed lields 06-18-83 CP-qAP-12.1 6
J.Massey QC-CSC to ledDC j
3/4" saddle b
i 1/4" fillet 4
d I
1 Revistem -
l' Page 47 of-57 ^
agSULTS MFST ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
Table 4 (Cont'd)
Ranger / Support No.
Unit Skewed 36R Inspect B4R Rev.
Inspector Checklist : Comments No.
Weld Inspectfon Date Procedure No.
- Type Description No.
MS-1-004-009-C62K 1
16" Sch 60 Skewed Welds 08-23-83 CP-QAP-12.1 9
R. Deigle.
QC-CSC Note 1 pipe to Mlec 1-1/2" T saddle 5/8" fillet 07-11-83 QI-QAP-11.1-28 21 J.R. Parker PASC BR-X-106-059-S43A ra==an 4" Sch Skewed Welds 08-13-83 CP-QAP-12.1 8
J. Messey QC-CSC 80 to 3/8" ss, ISSC pl. 3/16" fiiP E WICL Ad Sch 80 to QI-QAP-11.1-28 22 MimC 6",9 Sch 120 Stanchion i
1/4" fillet AF-2-004-405-S33A 2
4"m6"x3/8" TS Skewed Welds 02-16-84 QI-QAP-11.1-28 23 Vmaghn Frost WICL Note 2 to 1/2" T WDC saddle 3/8" groove + 3/16" x 3/8" fillet
. _d A
()
Q V
-)
L m
Revi tot.:
~ 1-1 Page" 48 of' 57 RESULTS REP (RT ISAP V a (Cont'd)
Table 4 (Cont'd) j 4
Hanger / Support No.
Unit Skewed BER Inspect 34A Rev.
Inspector Checklist Comments
}
No.
Weld Inspection Date Procedure No.
-Type Description ilo.
I CT-2-039-404-C42A 2
3" Sch 80 Skewed Welds 05-19-85 QI-Q&P-11.1-28 30 C. Saengerhausen QC-HIR to 3/8" MEC j
i Saddle i
1/4" fillet j,
(%:-1-035-018-A33A 1
5" Sch 40 Skewed Welds 10-21-83 CP-QAP-12.1 9
Eugene Ray QC-CSC I
to 3/8" MEC saddle 5/16" fillet l
l DO-1-038-003-S63K 1
24" Sch 100 Skewed Welds G7-13-83 CP-QAP-12.1 7
M.C. Welch QC-CSC to 1/2" Saddle NGC I'
1/4" fillet I
CT-2-018-404-C52A 2
4" x 2"x 1/4" TS Skewed Welds 03-22-84 QI-QAP-11.1-28 23 Jackie Barrett WICL l
to 1/2" saddle QC-HIR 1/4" fillet MOC 4
k l
[
.; M4J w
%J
~%
y Revision:
I,-~
Page 49 of 57;_,
K:-
agS:;1.TS REP W T ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
Table 4 (Cont'd) l l
i Hanger / Support No.
Unit Skewed 36R Inspect BM Rev.
Inspector Checklist Comments-No.
Weld Inspection Date Procedure No.
Type Descrfption No.
I MS-1-03-005-C72K 1
18" Sch 80 Skewed Welds 07-10-83 CP-QAP-12.1 7
A.R. Bagley QC-CSC l
to 1" saddle MlOC 3/8" fillet SI-2-038-409-S22A 2
1/4" groove +
Skewed Welds 08-23-84 QI-QAP-11.1-28 25 C. Swindell QC-MIR Note 2 1
1/4" fillet.
WDC l
TS 4"x4"x1/2" to saddle RH-2-016-401-S22K 2
5/16 groove +
Skewed Welds 12/20/84 QI-QAP-11.1-28 28 M. Osterday QC-HIR Note 2 3/16 x 5/16 WDC fillet 4"6 Trunnion to 3/4" saddle.
AF-1-002-033-Y33K 1
4"x4"x1/2" TS Skewed Welds 09-07-83 CP-QAP-12.1 9
F. L. Harper QC-CSC to 3/4" MdDC saddle 5/16" fillet
~,-m y'i m
'.j Q.,)
\\
Revision:
1 Page'. 50 o2 57 RESULTS REP (RT ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
Table 4 (Cont'd)
Banger / Support No.
Unit Skewed R6R Inspect R&R Rev.
Inspector Checklist Comuments No.
Weld Inspection Date Procedure No.
Type Description No.
SW-2-035-703-J03R 2
8"z8"x3/8" TS to Skewed Welds 06-29-83 CP-Q&P-12.1 7
J. Staus QC-HIR 24" Sch 20 saddle Q1-QAP-11.1-28 21 ISOC 3/16" fillet E-I-079@6-A43A em 18" Sch 40 Skewed Welds 09-26-83 CP-QAP-12.1 9
S. Duncan QC-CSC to 3/4" 14fDC saddle 3/8" fillet MS-1-002-008-C72K 1
16" Sch 60 pipe Skewed Welds 02-10-84 CP-QaP-12.1 10 R. Daigle QC-CSC Note 1 to 1-1/4" T ISOC saddle 1/2" fillet CT-1-053-404-C62A 1
3" Sch 80 Skewed Welds 07-05-83 CP-QAP-12.1 7
M. Saldi QC-CSC to IGlDC 4" Sch 60 saddle 1/4" fillet
- _w y,
r
(\\
C,
.J
.a
' Revision:
- 1:
7 Page 51 of 57 arenvS asystT ISAP V.s (Cont'd)
Table 4 (Cont'd)
Banger / Support No.
Unit Skewed BMt Inspect B&R Rev.
Inspector Checklist ^ Coeusents '
No.
Weld Inspection Date Procedure No.
Type Descriptica No.
SI-1-037-005-S32A 1
6" Sch 80 Skewed Welds 10-03-83 CP-q4P-12.1 9
F. Coleman QC-CSC to 3/4" T teEC saddle 1/2" fillet DD-1-012-033-Y33A 1
4" Sch 90 Skewed Etids 9-15-83 CP-q&P-12.1 9
Vaughn Frost
- QC-CSC Note 2 to leJDC 3/8" saddle 1/4" fillet CS-1-597-006-CE2A 1
3" Sch 160 Skewed Welds 11-21-83 CP-q&P-12.1 9
D. Sanford QC-CSC to 4" Sch 160 14fDC saddle 1/4" fillet I
VA-I-05-716-A73K Com 8" Sch 40 Skewed Welds 06-07-83 CP-Q&P-12.1 6
P. Atkins QC-CSC-to temC 5/8" saddle 1/4" fillet l
+.
w 5,w e]
- r~ ';.
i
~
- , r ~
%)
LJ
' Revision:~
'1:
Page :52'of 57--
j l
l
.m RESEN.25 N ISAP V.a (Cont'd) l 1
Table 4 (Cont'd)
Hanger / Support No.
Unit Skewed 36R Inspect 56R Rev.
Inspector Checklist Comments No.
tield Inspection Date Procedure No.
Type Description llo.
AF-2-084-401-S33A 2
6" Sch xxS Skewed nields 6-8-85 Q1-QAP-11.1-28 30 CG CS Fillet Note 2' to 1/2" Saddle and skewed 7/8" groove and weld Insp.
7/16" x 7/8" Report iillet MIDC BR-I-OO1-720-A53A Common 3" Sch 160 Skewed Welds 7-25-83 CP-QAP-12.1 7
Nisich QC-CSC Note 1 to ISEC 1/2" T saddle 3/8" fillet CC-1-08 7-004-A33A 1
8"x8"x5/8" TS Skewed nields 5-17-44 Ql-QAP-11.1-28 24 C. Daugherty QC-HIR Note 1 to saddle 18mc 3/8" groove +
3/8" fillet RC-1-135-008-C41K 1
6"x6"x5/8" TS Skewed helds 10-5-83 CP-QAP-12.1 9
R. Sontand QC-CSC to 3/4" saddle IWDC 1/4" fillet
4
~
J-s 8.
~
Revistens-1J
' Paga 0 53 of 57 '-
4 armsn mEPORT ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
Table 4 I
(Cont'd) j i
1 Hanger / Support No.
Unit Skewed
. R&R Inspect R&R Rev.
Inspector Checklist Comments No.
Weld Inspectica Date Procedure No.
Type 4
Descriptica No.
i i
CC-1-235-006-C53R 1
2" Sch 80 Skewed Helds 06-08-83 CP-Q&P-12.1 6
Howard M18 sins QC-CSC-j to 3/8" MupC
{
saddle 1/4" j
fillet i
i l
AF-2-009-413-S33A 2
4"Sch 160 to 3/4" Skewed Welds 7-11-84 QI-QAP-11.1-28 25 T. Coleman QC-HIR Note 2 I
saddle 5/16" ItiDC I
groove + 3/16x5/16" fillet CT-1-039-423-C42A 1
3" Sch 80 Skewed Welds 9-28-83 CP-Q&P-12.1 9
J. Massey QC-CSC j
to 1/2" plate itec j
1/4" fillet CT-1-054-431-C42A 1
3" Sch 80 Skewed Welds 9-9-83 CP-QAP-12.1 9
J.M. Rodgers QC-CSC j
to 5" Sch IGJDC
)
120 saddle 1/4" fillet
)
i
'y 4
- n
,. =;
Revision:
'l~
-Page
- 54 of $7.-
R8SULTS REMET ISAP V.a (Cont'd)
Table 4 (Cont'd)
Banger / Support No.
Unit Skewed BER Inspect B&R
.Rev.
Inspector _
Checklist Comeents No.
Weld Inspection Date Procedure 10 0.
Type Description 10 0.
CT-1-042-401-C82A 1
6"x6"x1/2" TS to Skewed Welds
.12-8-83 CP-QAP-12.1 9
J. Lloyd QC-CSC Note'1 1/2" saddle MBC-7/16" fillet CT-2-127-403-C72A 2
6" Sch 40 Skewed Welds 6-7-85 Q1-QAP-11.1-28 30 R. Boykin CSF &
Note 2 to 1/2" saddle skewed 1/4" groove +
weld IR 1/8"x1/4" fillet Mlec CI-1-127-403-C72A 1
6" Sch 80 Skewed Welds 7-10-83 CP-QAP-12.1 7
A.R. Bagley QC-CSC to 1/2" saddle PWDC 5/16" fillet MS-1-002-012-C725 1
10"x6"x1/2" TS Skewed Welds 10-24-83 CP-QAP-12.1 9
Phil Brown QC-CSC To 1/2" saddle PWDC 1/4" Fillet
,.5,.
ny.j.f.
f
';;: g{
.v-U g
Revistems.
-1L
'Page;55 of 57.
~
aggE.TS Mf4EE ISer V.a (Cont'd)
Table 4 (Cent'd)
Ranger / Support No.
Unit Shamed BER Inspect BAR Rev.
Inspector Checklist Comments iso.
Wald Imerection Date Precedure No.
. Type Description No.
CC-1-065-003-533It 1
6" Sch to Skewed Wales 12-06-83 CP-qsP-12.1 9
F. Coleman qc-CSC (Stanchion)
MSC to 3/4" plate 3/8" fillet DD-1-012-724-A33A 1
3" pipe Skaued Welds 09-09-83 CP-q&P-12.1 9
Scott th-ema qc-CSC to 5'W Sch 120 MBC saddle 3/16" fillet MS-1-003-009-C72K 1
3/4" fillet for Shmued Wales 12-02-83 CP-q&P-12.1 9
M. Cannon qc-CSC 10" Sch 140 ISEC to 20" Sch 80 J. Massey CT-1-033-414-C92A 1
4"z4"al/2" Is Skewed Welds 7-2-83 CP-qsP-12.1 7
J. Lloyd QC-CSC Note 1 to 1/2" saddle NEC 5/16" fillet CC-1-019-003-A33R 1
16" Sch 40 to Skewed Welds 08-30-83 CP-q&P-12.1 9
Brian Coffin qC-CSC Note 1 3/4" saddle NGC 3/8" fillet
~.
ll ll i
1 75 fo n6 o5 Oie i
s s
t 2
1 2
n v g e
e e
e e a m
t RP m
o o
o t
t o
N N
N C
R.
t d
s R
C C
nd I i
I S
S a e l e L
H C
CC CC wd C k p C
D
- D
- D F el D c y I
C J
C J C W S k el eT W
Q M
QM QM C S wt e hC l
n l
a h
r e
k.
nc n
o d
al i
m-t n
u l e k
c i
D pW y
e w
a o
p S
K.
B s
C.
. C.
n I
C A
MM R
.v.
e o 6
0 RN 2
9 7
3 8
8
'2 2
e 1
1 1
1 r
1 2
2 1
u 1
1 1
1 tJ d.
4 eo P
P P
P T
B cN A
A A
A t
o Q
Q Q
Q G
r E
- a. )d 4)
P I
F P
I P
O d
Q C
C Q
R V
't e
't l
S P n b n T
A o a o L
S C TC t
4 3
U I (
(
c 8
8 3
5 S
ee 8
8 E
pt 4
1 R
s a 2
0 2
5 nD 2
2 I
0 2
1 1
7 6
s s
s s
d d
d d
n l
l l
l o
e e
e e
i W
W W
W t
t c
d d
d d
ue e
e e
e B p w
w w
w s
e e
e e
n k
k k
k I
S S
S S
x e
4 t
v
/
6 e
o 3
1
+ l e
o
/
o l
l S
rt n
o" 5 t t ei d
o T
ge o
t 6 e
e vf d t t et l
i 1 d l 0l o a e l
e 8 l d
t 0/ nl 4 d r "4 0 sl 0d l 8
/i o
ed p 4 5 ai d
4 l
8 d l
/
3 f wl i f h a g/
h 2"
x "4 e" i
ai 3
e er h ee c s 1
f h sf k W c cl o
"6 v
S 6" x c/
c
" / l 8 S
s S d "4
6 S 1 "
S " "
6 3 d/
e d o1 "
1 1 8
2 2 d 3
//
"x o a D
8" a r/4///
- o/
"4 s g3 1 3 7 7 8 t 3 1 1 6 t s +
t i o nN 2
1 1
2 U
.o R
A A
R N
3 3
3 3
3 4
4 t
5 A
S S
G r
o 4
5 2
5 p
1 0
1 0
p 4
0 0
4 u
S 8
9 3
6
/
2 0
7 1
r 0
1 1
4 e
2 1
1 2
C C
E S
n C
C
(
M
l 1 7 5
f o
n7 o5 Oie i
s s
t 1
2' 2
v g ne e
e e
e a m
t t
t R P m
o o
o o
N N
C N
ts C
C R
i S
S I
l e CC L
C CC C
H C k p
- O C
O
- D D
0 c y C
I L
CJ W
C eT QM W
M QM M
QP6 h
C n
s r
a w
r o
m e
e t
e h
d s
s c
l t
i s
s e
o a
r a
a p
C M
C M
M sn I
F C
K K
K v.
e o 9
8 9
RN 9
2 9
2 2
3 8
2 2
1 1
1 1
er 2
1 2
1 u
1 1
1 1
Rd.
& e o P
P P
P T
B cN A
A A
A R
o Q
Q Q
Q O
r PE
- a. )d 4)
P P
I P
I O
d C
Q C
Q R
V 't e
't l
S P n b n T.
A o a o I
SC TC t
3 3
5 5
U I (
(
c 8
5 8
8 8
S e e 8
E pt 5
1 1
7 R
s a 1
8 1
2 0
nD 2
I 2
1 1
2 1
3 1
0 0
s s
s s
d d
d d
n l
l l
l o
e e
e e
i W
W W
W t
R c d
d d
d
& e e
e e
e R p w
w w
w s
e e
e e
n k
k k
k I
S S
S S
e o"
e l
e n
t t d
l 8 t t
o a e d
d t e a e i
el l a d 6 d e l
- l d
t t pl 0 s n1 0 al o8 l ed p a
i 4
a/
8 sl d mi wl i p "4 5
f l
h2 e "x t h
2" a 2" i
n f
ee r f
k W c
/"
c/
+
c/
/ "
S s
"4 3 6 S 1 w3 1 "4 "4
2 1 S
1 6 e
1 l
1 D
/o/
" os/i
" o/
/S/
3 t 5 8 t C5f 6 t 3 3 T5 t
i o nN 1
2 1
2 U
o R
R A
K N
3 3
1 3
3 3
3 3
t S
S 5
5 O
r o
2 5
3 1
p 0
0 1
1 p
0 4
0 4
u S
5 8
6 8
/
6 6
G 2
r 0
0 O
0 e
g 1
2 1
2 n
a C
C F
E H
C C
A C