ML20237K616
Text
_
ARAITO
- o.
UNITED STATES
,P 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
REGION i S
[
631 PARK AVENUE j
%, +!
,8 KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 j
i February 3, 1984 j
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Dennis F. Kirsch, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch #2, j
Division of Resident, Reactor Project and Engineering Programs, Region V i
THRU:
Stewart D. Ebneter, Chief, Engineering Programs Branch, 9 h i
Division of Engineering and Technical Programs, Region I'
)
Jacque P. Durr, Chief, Materials and Processes Section, W EPB, DETP, Region I I
FROM:
Samuel D. Reynolds, Jr., Lead Reactor Engineer, M&PS, EPB, DETP, Region I
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON SPECIAL INSPECTION - 11/30 THROUGH 12/9/84 (LICENSEE SUBMITTALS)
Attached you will find a copy of significant licensee transmittals associated with Allegation MEl (Hudson Allegation) obtained during the inspection.
N
,Q, d.I L
'ss*
'--s s.
Samuel D. Reynolds, Jr.
Lead Reactor Engineer 8708190336 870814 PDR FOIA DEVINEB4-743 PDR i
G3.
~
\\
.._.7 l
. k
- i. o s
C f
j 1
- !.._ NI?b-0ObL.....AA/S h ~I~ '..
m..
J
_,22' 6% M
/N5 l
.A L o
~
_.D w# N-Pam, MW e
Aw
&J 2~C A J nd
. FALL w
Y L.___. J n/
1
._- /dSZC 8
- 20. 4_/.h A A A/ 3 9 /, / - _..
. _.22 _ _...M - _.
M
.. q.. n,W_ 4.
4//
J GJ4 f 2.
L ~ i"Q x l l ) ~_ ~
~
Jr$
w 4,
.s2.
7v%-~
og4o n e
i I
hh M d ov k N j
T e
)
Q 4.o..%. q.e et-A+
ghcicer e w %
una
~
January 16, 1984
{
DER Welding Engineering has reviewed Pullman Power Products Procedures 15/16, 128, and 140.
In a few instances, these procedures have been interchanged for the welding of attachments to stainless steel containment spray piping.
In every case the procedure used was acceptable or compatible with the procedure specified on the process sheet.
For these weldments any of the three welding procedures could have been used to achieve acceptable welds.
2.r.G W &
R. D. Kerr Pacific Gas & Electric Corporate Welding Engineer J
l J
I
{
L
4 Response to NRC Questions POR INFORMATION i
Regarding Allegations Dated 11/14/83 ONLY L
i 1.
Charpy test requirements for heat affected zones:
Paragraph.3-6, Section 2 of Specification 8833XR, Revision 15 specifies that
" Included in the procedures shall be provisions for testing the l
beat affected zone of welds for notch impact strength in conformity with provisions of Paragraph 2-1" Revision 9 of the Specification added a statement at the end of this paragraph to read "If required o'n the drawing." This statement is valid for all subsequent revisions including the current revision.
For rupture restraints inside containment, design drawings never specified requirements for.Charpy testing.
For rupture restraints i
outside containment, drawing number 504950 note #16 specifies that "Charpy notch test for heat affected zones of welds is not required."
l I
2.
Welding of tubular steel section with a 3/16" round bar backing strip:
L Restraints number 21/9810RR included a detail weld where a round bar backing strip was used.
In 1974, when NSC (presently Quadrex) revised the rupture restraints design for DCPP, it was decided that these rupture restraints are inactive and were identified as abandoned
-j restraints. DCPP verification program verified this conclusion and issued a DCN #DC-0-EC-5485 transmittal #5 to abandon these restraints.
l In addition, an engineering avaluation was performed and proved that even if the restraint is an active restraint, the weld as is will be able to transmit the loads used in the 1972 design file.
j l
/-//-fY l
FOR INFORMATiON ONLY
[ MISC 9026)
4, 4
FOR INFORMATION ONLY aanuary 14, 1984 Response to NRC questions resulting from H. Hudson allegations.
1.
Welding code requirements.for pipe supports?
A.
Design'of pipe supports is by Engineering Department using Design Criteria Memo M-9.
AISC (and therefore AWS) is referenced as a basis for design.
8.
Welding procedures and welder performance qualifications for pipe supports are in accordance with PG&E specification 8711 section 3, paragraph 4.12 (i.e. ASME Section IX).
2.
Fit up of flare bevel welds? Open butt welds?
A.
Flare bevel welds are not used in design as full penetrant welds.
B.
Where tube steel of the same size is welded using "T" joints or corner joints the possibility of root gaps exists and therefore fit up inspection is _ required and is a hold point on the process sheet.
Ref. ESD 223 paragraph 6.8.2.6.E. 1 C.
Tube steel which is welded across another tube or against a plate forming a flare bevel weld creates a " natural" weld joint. These joints are easily prepared and as with fillet welds no fit up inspection is required.
If, however, a gap should form between the faying surfaces more weld than required would be deposited.
It is understood that the first pass would be similar to an open root butt weld and is not considered in design. The remaining weld would exceed drawing requirements.
In addition, excessive misalignment and gaps is part of the criteria during inspection, ESD-223 paragraph 6.8.2.4. A. 2 Also, asbuilting is required, ESD-223 paragraph 6.8.2.6.H. 3 3.
Frequency of ultrasonic re-examination and procedure change?
A.
The frequency of ultrasonic re-examination was reduced from two tests per weld to one test because the number of tests originally planned for each weld was not achieving the purpose of the re-examination program (spec. 8833XR-001), to identify the cause of NCR DCl-83-RM-N001 and DC2-82-RM-N002.
However the scope of the re-examination program was not decreased.
The explanation for the reduction in tests is contained in Bechtel M&QS Report 00H-013-01. 4 B.
The ultrasonic procedure for re-examining the welds in the sample was changed. Originally each weld in the sample was to be tested twice, once using Pullman's ES0-234 and once using PG&E procedure 3523. After a portion of the sample had been re-examined it was determined that Pullman's procedure could not reliably be repeated and that PG&E's procedure exceeded the requirements of AWS D1.0-69.
Therefore the re-examination FOR INFORMATIOri l
ONLY I
l
(
j
.c.
FOR INFORMATION 4
- 3. B continued:
ONLY procedure was modified as a control to determine which welds were acceptable per minimum AWS acceptance criteria. See Bechtel Memorandum DOH-ll2-03. 5 C.
Once the cause of NCR DC1-83-RM-N001 was identified the entire program became moot since the problem had been previously identified on NCR DC1-79-RM-010 and corrective action taken three years earlier.
\\
4.
Welding Technique Specification AWS 1-1 not referenced on Rupture Restraint process sheets?
A.
AWS 1-1 is not specified on restraint process sheets and is not required. According to Pullman's ESD-243 all welding on restraints is per AWS.
Process sheets for restraints are only used for welding restraints per Pullman's ESD-264.
ESD-243 is called out on process sheets for welding parameters except weld complete and ESD-243 specifies the Welding Technique Specification AWS 1-1 parameters in greater detail than AWS.1-1.
These requirements are often in excess of AWS 1-1 and AWS Dl.l.
POR INFORMATiON ONLY i
(2)
.e e
DiabloCanyonProject PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION l
January 19, 1984 I
i Dennis Kirsch - N.R.C.
Diablo Canyon Inspection Team i
Region V Walnut Creek, CA Attention: Sam Reynolds (N.R.C.)
Per your request, attached is a general description of the Diablo Canyon weld design program.
It includes five packages of related documents as attachments.
M. E. Leppke Onsite Project Engineer Diablo Canyon l C' (.L 7 I 0 f V"
(
$P' P.O. BOX 3965
- SAN FRANCISCO, CAllFORNIA 94119
E r
WELD DESIGN PROGRAM I
l Ttis report has been prepared to-summarise the weld design and installation program _at Diablo Canyon.
It has been written with a viev
- towards clarifying how each piece of the program compliments-the other.
Problems are identified and corrected by a process.of multiple reviews.
It must be recognised - that no single element of the program by itself can be considered self sufficient.
The issues which arise must, therefore, be used as feed back in future efforts to train personnel and improve the process.
The Diablo Canyon program is no exception and there is a firm commitment by the Project to improving the communication of weld design and the general understanding of each participant in the program..
l The weld symbols used at Diablo Canyon have basically been consistent with I
standard AWS 2.4 Some configurations are difficult to symbolize and it is understandable that construction personnel alght question them.
This' is particularly true when modifying an As-built plant such as Diablo Canyon.- In view of this concern, welding symbols were viewed as only a part of the means of conveying weld requirements.
Any discussion of welding at Diablo Canyon must, therefore, recognize weld symbols within the context of other programs..
i To date.no case has come to our attention in which the weld symbols used have resulted in the installation of unacceptable welds.
l The Diablo Canyon Weld Design Program includes several elements:
1.
Regular communication occurs on weld design other than weld symbols provided without comment.
2.
Ambiguous welds were discounted in design calculations.
3.
Weld design provides for substantial reserve margins.
4 Training classes have resulted in a steadily improving clarity.
Early work on the reverification program consisted of reviewing all available As-built information.
Additional information was obtained by plant walkdowns where reviews indicate insufficient or inaccurate information.
Welding was included in all reviews.
Major areas address (but not limited to) were:
1.
Pipe supports; designers using As-built drawings performed conservative calculations which eliminated any uncertainties in welds by taking no credit where doubts exist (1.
e.,
square groove velds, seal
- velds, partical penetration welds on lug attachments)
(Attachment No. 1).
This was done to improve engineering efficiency and allow designers to spend time on more critical elements.
Requests were made of the Onsite Engineering Feasibility Group to provide additional information where calculations indicated that these assumptions effect the acceptability of the installation in meeting revised loading (Attachment No. 2).
This information was supplied by weld symbols supplemented by sketches of affected areas.
Pipe support welds were found in general to not be highly stressed and seldom control acceptance.
Page 01-19-84 0065r/
rc d-
- 2.. Conduit supports:
De' signers were provided with As-built drawings.
'I obtained by field walkdowns.
Welds are simple 3/16" fillet welds e
with designers never. taking credit for veld throat produced by the small radil of struts.
These welds are not highly stressed and almost never control acceptance.
I 3.
HVAC Supports:
Drawings by field walkdowns.
The velding s in this area is unique to the~ project in that the fraction shown on' partial penetration welds was always the effective throat.. This' compares to the remainder of the project which provided depth of preparation.
l The welds, in these supports are generally not highly ' stressed and
- seldom. control acceptance.
l l
4 Structural Steel:
Designers reviewed' Aa-built drawings. and field conditions.
Structural steel welds are generally ( very simple and
.i seldom provoked questions as to.'the desired weldy. ' ' Very little
]
verification of welds was required.
5.
Equipment Mounting:
Designers' reviewed installation As builts.'
I Additional field information was obtained by walkdowns whe're doubt ofl?
L qualification arose.
Few weld issue came.from this area.
l/
(
f 6,
Rupture Restraint: ' A sample of_ weldo were field verified by NDE and
?I checked by calculation for adequacy.
~
)
i-Engineering and Construction has conducted tIaining classes 'and is committed to future Engineering training classes,in order to improve the communication' of weld symbol use and weld design (Attachment No. 3).
These classes are. applicable to Design Engineers, Field Engineers, Inspectors,'and j
~
Contractor personnel.
The design information provided. by engineering lto construction was supplemented by significant amounts of other communication.
Memos, letters and discrepancy reports are transmitted between. construction, and engineering I
on a regular basis (Attachment No. 4).
This informa tio'n is used by both design engineering and construction to revise existing procedures and instructions; where necessary, to standardize ' and clarify requirements and intent.
This ongoing process serves to insure that the design intent is communicated to construction and that construction practices are communicate to engineering.
Design engineering, has also placed engineers in the field to respond to any questions which arise (Attachment No., 5).
They are present at all time that construction work is in progress.
Thic assures that the designer's intenet is provided to construction. ab well as aiding in the resolution of installation difficulties.
The process involved in communicating and implementing the designer's intent has lead to many discusions.
They are all' identified and handled in the same general manner.
Identification of' most points requiring.
interpretation occur during pre-field construction reviews, preparation c.f erection drawings, assembly of work traveler packages, and during construction but prior to.QC acceptance.
Such items are resolved by:
1.
Refering them to the Onsite Tolerance Clarification Group.
2.
Refering to Onsite Engineering Group for design change or red lining.
f
.\\
Page 01-19-84
\\
-0065r/
a
._...J
i 3..
Ret'urning to SFHO Engineering for interpretation and' clarification.
-)
During QC review or af ter final acceptance the process identified above may be supplemented by:
1.
Issue of a discrepancy report with engineering input for disposition.
2.
Issue of a discrepancy report with the PTGC welding engineer input for disposition.
Weld symbols uses which require clarification on a re-occuring bases are refered to engineering for generic clarification.
These are generally nrovided in formal letters issued by the Project Engineer.
The following section illustrates a number of symbols used which are typical of those requiring clarification.
1.
Typical single flare bevel symbol:
No specified T noted on e
drawing implies T by design to be per AWS Dl.1 with maximum e
T
=5/16R.
Any greater T required by design will be stated e
e explicity.
2.
Flare Bevel (See comment 1.).
3.
Typical staggered fillet veld.
Arrow side symbol to be same size as noted for other side symbol.
Design intent is that both side symbol to be dimensioned per AWS.
}
4 Single bevel groove weld.
Bevel and included angle the same.
Angle i
to be as per either pre qualified or specially qualified procedure.
Any deviation outside of code essential variables if so noted to be reviewed by engineer.
No included angle required to be noted unless specific requirement of design engineer.
5.
Typical square groove butt weld.
Future design use will specify both T
required and root, opening if weld has structural value.
This q
e symbol will be used in the future to dencte a " seal weld" if weld is not structural and will te noted in the tail as such.
l 6.
(See comment 5.).
7 Fillet weld on two sides both fillet veld sizes assumed same.
Field I
to verify.
Future per AWS both sides to be sized.
8.
Single bevel groove welr: with fillet cap.
Interpretation and assumption requires desiga engineer clarification or construction l
As-builting, i
9.
Fillet weld on two sides.
Intent is for fillet weld on right and left sides of shape.
Future design will arrow both sides requiring weld deposit plus length of required weld.
Also, wrap around requirement will be stated (See Attachment 2-1).
Page,
01-19-84 3065r/
{
r i
.s
\\
l 10.
Tillet ' weld for size onsise tubist steel.
Size on size tublar steel one weld symbol as shown not sufficient.
Requires a fillet veld for 2 sides and a flare groove type weld for other two sides.
11.
Fillet weld on 3 sides (See comment 1.).
12.
Fillet weld on 3 sides.
Symbol accepted as shown.
No need to specify "3 sides."
13.
Site engineer directive DCC 10263 and SFHo DCC 8039 Chron. 037390
'(See Attachment No. 4) specifi_ed wrapping of corner when possible and in all cases the weld sir.e and leregth to be noted on As-built drawing.
14.
Fillet veld on 3 sides. Future only arrow side to be shown and only 3 sides to be welded (See comment 12.).
- 15. For SFHO engineer directive see DCC 7688 and DCC 7524 for explanation j
of joint design requirements, measurement and weld symbol.
dc@ W I
Page 01-19-84 0065r/
D.
4
/
t 4
s<
\\s
\\
_,/
x-X x
/ x-2 7
)x
'N
,3/
I l
\\
]
r_
m r
X
\\*!
/
~,.
l 1 J
w 1
}
TubG S TIEEL VErtTICML To PLRTE i
I I
i i
N i
I f
p l
X l
l I
t 1
i 1
go den C________.__
)
i i
i es e
,6 t
1
{
\\
1
\\
A X
eum 9
9
n
.J 9
9 4'
A p.o 4
5 4. T u b sE O
i
- CCfTioM y
x y
f J
\\
l i
)
f l
V 1
6 i
j
i POR INFORMATION January 18, 1984 ONLY Response to NRC questions resulting from H. Hudson allegations.
1.
What was basis for omitting U.T. of full penetration welds <9/16" on rupture restraints?
]
A.
Prior to 1979 full penetration welds 5/16" and larger in rupture restraints were ultrasonically examined.
Evaluations of Pullman's U.T. procedures for rupture restraints revealed problems with certain aspects of the procedures.
In order to overcome the limited scanning capabilities of Pullman's procedure and to provide a more accurate means of defining defect size and location Engineering directed Department of Engineering Research (DER)
{
to develop a new procedure based on AWS D1.1-79. This procedure was 3523 " Manual Ultrasonic Examination of Welds in Plate and Pipe Rupture Restraints Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 1".
B.
Procedure 3523 does not in all aspects meet the requirements of l
AWS 01.1-79.
In particular 3523 does not require examination of l
welds in material 5/16" to 9/16". This departure was based on technical limitations encountered during procedure development and qualification.
C.
Engineering was aware of the procedure limitations and applications, j
In addition Engineering had imposed a requirement for magnetic particle testing of all full penetration welds.
D.
It was Engineering's intent that procedure 3523 or an equivalent procedure be used for future rupture restraint work. This intent is repeated in Engineering Report 411-80.93 part 6.0.
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
\\
FOR INFORMATION ONLY CLARIFICATION OF WELDING PROCEDURE SPECIFICATIONS FOR RUPTURE RESTRAINTS PG&E specification 8833XR required that the fabrication and installation of Pipe Rupture Restraints be done in accordance AWS D1.0-69 or Dl.1-72.
Subsequently, PG&E determined that Pullman Power Products used ASME qualified procedures, such as 7/8. This procedure did not meet in all respects the preheat requirements of AWS D1.0-69/D1.1-72.
Insufficient preheat may have caused welding related defects that were documented in NCRs DCl-78-RM-008, DC1-79-RM-006, DC1-79-RM-007, and DC1-79-RM-010.
The restraints were evaluated and defective weldments were repaired.
All repair welding and new installation work from that point on were welded with PG&E approved written procedures to ensure adequate preheat.
These procedures either meet AWS Dl.1-79 or were approved for use under the requirements of AWS D1.1-79 paragraph 5.2.
R.S. N :~-As R. D. Kerr Pacific Gas & Electric Corporate Welding Engineer 1
POR INFORMATION ONLY 1
l 1
l l
V'
\\
I pglpM INFORMATION January 12, 1984
)
ONLY 1
SUBJEC,T:
DISCONTINUANCE OF WELDING PROCEDURE 88/89 AND WELDING TECHNIQUE SPECIFICATION AWS 1-3 USED FOR WELDING PIPE RUPTURE RESTRAINTS.
In early 1982 I challenged Pullman Power Products use of Welding Procedure 88/89,on the basis that it was not qualified in strict accordance with AWS. At that time I was not aware of welding technique specification no. AWS 1-1.
For some reason our office did not have a copy.
In February 1982 we received a letter from Pullman addressing the applicability of Welding Procedure 88/89 with AWS 1-1.
From a production point of view it was my opinion that Welding Procedure 88/89 was of very limited usefulness on Rupture Restraints. After a discussion with my supervision it was decided to discontinue the use of Welding Procedure 88/89 with AWS 1-3 on Rupture Restraints.
I added the statement about a review to placate the Contractor, no review was ever intended.
R. D. Kerr, P.G.&E. Corporate We'iding Engineer,has reviewed the procedure and found it acceptable as approved for use on Rupture Restraints.
l Ye Robert Torstrom f
4 FOR INFORMATION ONLY l
I
January 16, 1984 i
FOR INPORMAn0N ONLY Pullman Power Products Procedure 88/89 was reviewed previously by PG&E and ' approved for use in' limited cases for Rupture Restraint weld repairs.
The Rupture Restraint weld repair work was completed in accordance with NCR-DC-1-79-RM-010 which required the use of AWS D1.1-79.
Paragraph 1.3.4 of AWS D1.1-79 allows the use of other welding processes providing they have been properly qualified and documented.
In addition, as stated in paragraph 5.2, the Engineer at his discretion may accept evidence of previous qualification of the joint welding procedures to be employed.
PG&E used the ASME Procedure qualification test for Procedure 88/89 as a basis for acceptance..
Es. esh- &
R. D. Kerr Pacific Gas & Electric Corporate Welding Engineer FOR INFORMA'110N ONLY l
k
________._._____J
!5'7EROFf/CE MEMORANDUM
$s..7,.Q
- Diablo Canyon Project 4"6; PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION w
R.D. Etzler Dete November 23, 1983 r,zm G.Y. Cranston/G.H. Moore rae No.
146.20 j
i of Project Engineering - Units 3 & 2 subreci Governing Code for Qualification of Welders and Welding Procedure At 4 5/10/ C29 Enens,on 8-2963 i
Attention:
D. A. Rockwell The subject of the governing code for qualifying welders and welding procedures, was raised by J. Miller and others of General Construction.
Project Engineering representatives met with Fred Breismeister of M&QS and Dixon Kerr of Dept. of Eng. Research.
Based on Fred's and Dixon's recommendations, we suggest that the following statement be incorporated into ESD-223:
- For welding on pipe hangers, supports, and rupture restraints, welders and welding procedures shall be qualified to ASME Sec tion IX a nd/or AWS Dl. l.
Please inform Pullman Product Co. that the acceptance criteria and documentation requirements as established in the existing Project Specifications and other documents shall not be altered by this statement.
k G.H. Moore RlJ
< G.V. Cranston SSC/T0uan/NT/mi g
t
/g i
cc:
M.R. Tresler Q
^
N D R[C g Y
P. kn hos D}*l
/
S.S. Chitnis 3
V.P. Mercado D
'Q 1993 h I
\\
D.J. Curtis(site)
'9 I
F. Breismeister I
D. Kerr(PG&E )
'/
1.
M. 1.E ppl e( s i te )
l
/
J. Miller (G.C.)
J. Mccall DCC B4E2 c c.'. % % % C -S n
- x. m a n-s.
s 11431/0001T-1
+%
h T2 =M%
INT'EROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE om November 30, 1982 To H. W. Karner FROM C. M. Neary suenct A307 and A108 Materials Per your request, I have evaluated A307 and A108 materials to deter-mine if they may be considered as P-1 materials as specified in Section IX of the ASME Code.
Materials are assigned into P-Number groupings on the basis of com-parable base metal characteristics such as composition, weldability, and mechanical properties (see OW-421).
On this basis, materials not listed under a P-Number grouping may be considered as having a P-Number grouping by determining that the :.ioterial in question is equivalent to a material with a P-Number listing.
This justifica-tion was used in the evaluation of the A307 and A108 materials.
The A307 material on site is in the form of nonheaded anchor bolts (studs).
Paragraph 1.3 of ASTM A307-80 requires that such studs meet the requirements of A36 steel. A36 steel is covered by the P-1 grouping.
Theerfore, A307 may also be considered a P-1 material.
l The A108 material on site is in the form of Nelson studs. ASTM A108 has no tensile strength requirements.
Nelson specifies the chemistry meets the following requirements, i
l Carbon.
.23^; max.
i Manganese.....
.905 max.
Phosphorus.....
.04% max.
.05% max.
These chemica' requirements f all within those for A36 steel.
The lack of a ten' strength requirement allows us to consider these studs as A36 >
As A36 is a P-1 material, the studs are also a P-1 material.
d.
/?f-K C. M. Neary C:m/1 a:,
ZOR IN 2ORMAEON ONLY
\\
4 g
s Pf-N me.
t phyuhevd U \\ d1.
.4 INTEROFFl~E MEMORANDUM CJ Diablo CanyonProject PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION l'
M.E. Irppke Da
January 6, 1984 F'on D.J. Curtis
% No 925 Onsite Project Engineering Group subject Effective Throat of Flare Groove n-Welds e
Jobsite Extension 3064 s
AWS D1.1 Section 2.3.1.4 allows the use of an effective throat of 5/16R (where R = Radius of Round Bar) for Single Flare Groove Welds without performing a weld procedure qualification. It is ac pted as being a con-servative effective throat that can be increased if additional verifica-tions are made in accordance with Section 2.3.1.4 (2) of AWS D1.1 Verifications have been made which substantiate the effective throat assump-tion of 5/16R as being conservative. One verification was done at the Diablo Canyon Jobsite by Pullman Power Products and a second verification was conducted by Pullman Power Products and United Engineers and Constructors at Seabrook Station.
I Tests at the Seabrook Station were ccMucted using standard P-1 Pullman Power Products Welding Procedures. The Technical Report describing the
{
verification is attached as Attachment #1. The purpose of this verification was "To verify, as a minimum, that the effective throat thickness for a flare-bevel-groove weld when filled to the solid section of the bar will be equal 5/16R, where R is equal to the radius of the bar." Ibur sizes of structural Tube Steel were welded using 3/32" and 1/8" diameter E7018 elec-trodes in the flat, vertical, and overhead welding positions.
The results frcm the Seabrook Station verification showed that the actual penetrations exceeded 5/16R by as much as a factor of 1.0 to 2.4 with a average factor of 1.7.
The least amount of penetration occured when 3" x 3" x tube steel was welded using a 3/32" electrode in the flat position. In that case, i
the penetration equalled 5/16R.
Tests at the Diablo Canyon Jobsite were conducted using Pullman Power Products Diablo welding procedures. A brief suntnary is attached as Attachwnt #2. The tests were pu.fvuoi to verify that the actual pErcE& Lions met or exmu%d the effective throat of 5/16R for the worst case identified by the verification done at the Seabrook Station. Six tests ~were conducted to determine tre typical penetrations which would be achieved for flare bevel joints when welding 3 x 3 x h tube steel using 3/32" and 1/8" E7018 electrcxies in the flat position..
a I
All tests indicated that amount of piu-Lation exceeds 5/16R by a factor of 1.4 to 1.7.
The code' acceptance of an effective throat of 5/16R without qualification
)
.is conservative. Furthernere, tests made at the Diablo Canyon Plant and i
the aahrook Station confim this point. It is therefore appropriate for e
the designer to assume an effective throat of 5/16R for single flare grocwe welds.
If you have any questions or caments on this subject please do not hesi-tate to contact me.
'Ihank you, i
Dan Curtis D. Curtis/jb l
i Reply Requested: No Attachments: Yes oct S. Chitnis J. Icngworth L. Mangoba V. Juneja D. Tateosian ses -
1 I
i i
$77At%S0WV7~ #/
/
3
~'
Sr. :
'!*SA t
La:e: hay 20, 1953 i
Tile 5::
1;.E.1 UN!!IJ E~~NEERS & CONSTF.UCTOP.S INC.
TICEN* C A*_
F.I?OF.T Ls:e:
May 20, 19E3
- 1
- -urpese cf
?
Rep:r:
Qualification and Verif t:ation of Tiare-Level Groove kalds - Square Tube Distribution:
M. P. McKenna UIC591 W. J. Duffy UIC569 D. C. Turnquis:
UE0569 W. C. Leithead UEC294 S. J. Pattisen UIC262 A. Bandopadhyay UEC589 R. W. Gregory UEC589 M. B. Lasota UIC589 K. E. Berg UIC196 P. K. Jathavedas UIC787 S. C. Sethi UIC286 B. Easu UEC589 V. M. Alsan UEC196
- 5. C. Madaraz UIC569 S. N. Caruso UIC290 C. W. Mourar UIC392
- J. P. Whoriskey UEC296 R. A. Mills UIC292 J. R. Slotterbach 11UO B. J. Huselton UEC569 D. E. Rhoads 07U4 O. P. Kalani 0904 E. M. Hayes UE,C143 J. M. Benenati 0909 l
l R. H. Bryans UEC262 S. K. Guha UEC262 M. A. Edgar UIC184 J. R. Julian UEC262 I
R. C. Savoney UEC786,
M. J. Kenopha 07U8 G. A. Gallant UIC262 DCC Tield UIC185 P. A. Leone UEC591 DCC - PA 06U1 G. T. Rigamenti
~07U4 SM File UEC184 B. G. Levine UIC262 J. P. Cannon 14U3 H. J. Kaplan 17U4
/
Report Prepared By:
./
_/
s T. R. Trolo Report Approved By:
\\1AMb hM
~
- 7. P. Vassallo. Jr.
j
,6*
- -DMi
.3 i. 6, *,.$ 'h s..? f Q " *.; b.",*. f'?,
l
- ,a
.g i
]
l 1
1 l
\\
SE;
!-A CA:t: hr;. 21. 195) 711e Nc:
ll.E.!
QUA1.1T:~.!:CS A'C VI?. TICA!!OS OT J
7"MI EIVE1 GR00VI
- .~2,DS
~
\\
Purpose - !c verify, es a
-d-d
' at the effective throat fer a flare-bevel-groeve velf wher. filled :c the sclid thickness of the bar vill be equal 5/16 7., where 7, is equal to th se::1:n of the bar.
e radius
{
i haterials
~ubular steel sizes 3" x 3" x k",
x h" and 8" x 8" x h" 4" x 4" x 3/8",
6" x 6" ASW. A500 was used.
Kelding process The shielded metal are valding pro lizing $7A 5.1 E7018 electrodes with multiple passes cess was used, uti-Prehest and Interpass - The minimum preheat and interp was in accordance with ash *I/Ak'S D1.1. Table' 4.2 ass temperature Procedures for Shielded Metal Arc - The velding was done i electrodes in each position. overhead and flat planes utilizing 3/32" and follows:
The velding parameters were as 3/32" - DCRP,70-120 amps', 20-27 volts, 2 ips min. travel 1/8" -DCRP.115-165 amps, 21-27 volts, 2 ips min travel.
Qun11fication - The samples were sectioned for visual examination between adjacent layers-of veld metal and the base g
usion The velds, in general, vare visually acceptable s.
Conclusion - In general, 3/32" O electrodes showed g ceeding the e.ini=un throat ood pene: ration ex-thickness by approximately 50%
except there vere some problems vi:h the 3" x 3" x h" tubes The small radius did not permit the depth of penetrati The 1/6" @ electrodes shoved excellcat penetratten fo on.
the e% %_m throm It is recommended thatthickness for the flare-bevel-groove veldsr exceeding 1/8" @ electrodes for the first pass to insure adequatethe Contrac tration.
pene-
- , p 2;,..
, ' jl
.n.
7
.] a ?O '.g :o. '. -
. *r
~.',~ e ^.&.... ? ..
)
agg g.
o mu uien swarr e f ?. f>.i;.
. m..
LDitSd SRginSSTS.
wm '* ***
3,
.-:r,co-.
s.c.~:....................
c m ici a rie e x~c \\'cr.oei:ariea
- u ~.............o
..:ue :.. 6.c...<.c.:....G.o't.,.....&..c.e.9.':.*:..t:!.a.c.!.:.2.*.v.~..f e
o, e.........
n z..?~e..<.E.. c= -. = r.............
.. = : e, "T~u 4 E t I r e o
- 4.
9To e e Mr W.
I
- Y~
A e no a t.
l
.S a 3 a' fo 2 o eo e as ' C. s so n ArGu oase
- ~5 /.5 2. ~
'/8 ~
keCout ' Wit,. R D'u. era.or Es ee it.oor i
i Cx S' 1 ra r-200'.5/25
'h* (n s D '%'(. t e n')l l
'1 I
X L
i
- 500' ' YOt 7 5l.flb ' *th(. b250)~is~(. 62SC')
i wa 1 osmasxo l 1
- h(.42So)
% ^ (.7.T0')
/
L'xV fc oe r I.ooo 512.C 'li(A37s') '%i(.nss) x
.so o" v' n r 5/ss" /dl94ts) *%l(.ts42)
LJ A LL csseurno
'/s4. [. 4377) #%2( 7/86)l 4 'x 4' Ft. a r
,750
,234 L"(.437 ) 3$4n:)
x s
.J.7s
vre r T/647 s/g'(.3 7se5 2/i(A37s) au ovmrao
'%'L.At88) %(.Au2)
- N 3'x 3' Ft n T
,500,/M/h %'(./542) %'(./ s7r')
x
,2 50' V'et. T
- h....'MISW) MDSS) s 2
w,. a 1
oaer.aru
%'(.1sn) V(.z.cs) 1r~
m I
1
+
i l
i.
l.
I.
(,
~
'1 R
'y ' sj,,'
,. y...
r
,arrxww"'r *2
& kducO n
e.O. Pullman Power Products Corporation Diablo Canyon Nuclear Pro!ect Post Office Bor 367 Avila Bea:n. California 9342a DATE:
DECEMBER 9, 19 3 T,i, pen, nos, sn.2256
- 3
, -TO:
D. ROCKWILL, PG&E FROM:
S. KARNER, GA/QC
SUBJECT:
NPS BEAM ATTACHMENT BBD-18 AND FLARE BEVEL WELDS l
J E _ TM -
The NPS beam attachment BBD-18, which was in the possession of the NRC, has been examined by M.T. and U.T.
Please find
.1.;~ -'1 copies of the results of these examinations attached.
me::' '
The NRC discussed with Pullman Power Products weld penetration
'~~
n.
92Y for flare bevel welds on tube steel as used at Diablo Canyon.
g.W7_..M.
An investigation had previously been conducted by Pullman J,.f"O Power Products and United Engineers and Constructors, Inc.,
~ ~ hi 3 g at Seabrook, Station on this subject. This information was
_.? _qgapti presented to the NRC at Diablo Canyon for their review.
_ my:wi.,a Their review revealed that the minimum required throat was
.~,
m., s - "q 7 2
most difficult to obtain on small size tube steel (3" x 3")
l
- hi
" % A j. %
when using 3/32" electrode in the flat position.
-l
-. ~ -" '5#N:4 As a result of this detennination and discussions with WW9C Mr. Sam Reynolds of the NRC, Pullman Power Products prepared
- m. A ME@g several sample welds at Diablo Canyon using 3" x 3" tube steel
__.mf's in the flat position with 3/32" electrode. Measurements were taken in the presence of Mr. Reynolds. The formal results of these samp's welds are attached.
1 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call, 6
. ex -
Harold Karner Q E C; QA/QC Manager
%3. a tK: sam 4 4. '.
}ftactments (originals) i
+
i*
_. L;N5df:
A. A. Eck'w/ attachments sw
- p. Stieger N"-
% ( ;.
. a;,m NQ j 3DM
..f?
--. x.
t
.E W
w w,
v.
W l
,si n
9 Pullman Pow d'
pp ' ',, e
- r %
?.
p w.
j....
4
-4.... ~!. / 7i M
%.-Q... y ;
Y h{.; ?f f.$5$h.:$*l S * *f "a
lj.
' ~
~
i=
- -. ?
T4AsfFMh9A ev.
'h
' ~
vs#s~d% g? h E-r.'1.-
.~
NW
. -, -. S ~p j
+ s
% k 6 Q w ym.,,f.=T* w" W...c. p @ # Enet b,y.ga., f..
W w
g m m.C e/m.',.<l.,e,i,s.amA.JaafM"'t7,..
-n
..,- ~, %%!$,rr4s4
., - i. v..
- W
,, % 4. ;
%., y.FW -.( *'t.
yu".
s eg.,
.qs? m.. ~
j.,
%%. TJg 3,, Q NNhIik$fh+';h{.
es*
r r;
sp g K ato,d'h h k.p53;.{
M,p N.
- ~hy,/w yy;p RESULTS OF FLARE 33V33r P@*;d,.
'.; ;..,2p T.'
7
.w.,. g y..
A
.2.w_w-4@ g QWM;,a;%Ji.
Jarec _,-
p.,,..,.
n7
~ fdg ~
m m %
e., +
-.. -, r.., p k e
{
+
-.y g,
i Ql On December 8, 1983, Pullman,pgiIgr determine the typical penetration % [ u %
bevel joints. The material used;was73%
.*Ti 3/32" and 1/8" E7018 electrodesk.d,einedk ^
thick plate. All welding was peg.
N.,r
^
.,R.~osa, lts"a_rek" at.
.c d'
g.,
-... - (
~
.a dM,.. ~f_B%gdqf$.4,,,g%,..g.
rW g
.g n,,
- ~ ;,
g 4 s g..g q"
... ~
a..-..-
Minimum Required 1
..Astes45% tee 6 N Mi%_1.d ' i@
~ "'
Throat (5/16 R)
DHERT"E. -
{qU..
.Te w
. ne
.u as..
.rn p"q; c = +jQ@p -
1 7/33*
,g'.
~
. ~f"2733'
~
5/32" 515/64", 17/64*
- i 15/.4.4.~85.
n_.;@h. M.!F a, t n W. 6 M~
7/329
,-w
< t..n.w.
m,..J..a.'r :. =.
a-w f.M # % c' %"_ af*,
%a qM
'.. :;., ; - ~.q
<m.
, my r 7,. :.,.m,,,
.m e. d,
,m u -
,m9
.. -,-g+,;;, 5,s-u.s y'
u u
.+
- yy w,.'
.x. ~
e
-.*n
.),y
~
H.' Karner cc:
C.M. Nea File
~
95G:Weldiag Engineerc.w w.,
m
,. s: m n,,,
p.;
s.gg+
w.:
a._ [
gy+3.f fg^..
- i;r t
- ~
. ;..;;.**+r -
- A.-
g 1.ageh x"
.,,.?
t
<.,.. y [,,5 - LeZ * [5,Mi5 E*Nyd-
_f iq,,
a.m.,c u.:. s.e, %- + e, h. - -
3
.......,I.,...s,..'
e e m A. Pe.* fa%qst, o r.
a',..
+
(
.f t i 4
FM;,.*,/,*
{*
.c,.e........ y s.
.s e
y e:4.
..s. t i p
- . e.
9 n..;h '
- e%.c - #
+
. - a '. %[*r ' '
k'c' i ; ' /h,, f,@ M-s;..":
>,e. a..'V pjy19,+T
'k
,.M,* ** ^# M~J 'I
+ * ' +,,.
'" N #4
' i il"? s *
/! t
.gf 1'
+
ds:,
t.
,-,g I
.. *> +y.4g,'
.,.. p '.?4*,'* h,).IhI IY.
~ ;.o y u, y;', *~n ~.. ~. _
l 1
uwe,q..- ' ',
M.a.A.,,,
4
}
~'.....
.J w,,
<. ~., ' -.._ +.L{ t.'.9 w
.,..'.,,.ew'""#**m wj' C_^;l. i O 1
.,4.'
,, i
. a.
- n..-
iv u
4
[
~.
b g.',g-M
? M*N h" f t G,.nigN. ;;$ 4 yr ~.o-r?%w.f.f',4 },k* 4,&.,n; x a v g 'I'* T '=.,
- t*J *-
A l
t 3/iygff.C} $jfif w@d AAQ g.
- ,;y ?
x-Aw2i%
,