ML20237L118
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
i s p
1 8*
'o UNITED STATES l
4
' ~ ',,
!)'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 og
/
4,,,,,
August 13, 1984 i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
R. H. Vollmer, Director Civision of Engineering Of ice of uc, ar Reactor Regulation Y#'
FROM:
J. C. McKirl
, Chief Project Review Branch #1
SUBJECT:
REVISED
SUMMARY
OF ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING TO REVIEW THE DRAFT REPORT 0F THE DIABLO CANYON PEER REVIEW GROUP, JULY 11, 1984 Attached for your information is a copy of the revised summary of the subject meeting. This revision considers the comments received from the NRC Staff (R. J. Bosnak, M. Hartzman, and E. J. Still'<ar,'.
l
Attachment:
As stated cc:
R. J. Bosnak M. Hartzman E. J. Sullivan I. T. Yin, Region III l
i 8708200087 8709id
~
PDR FDIA DEVINE84-743 PDR I37 rq \\Y e
CN 1
i
- a j
4 REVISED: August 13,1984
' MEETING
SUMMARY
ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIABLO CANYON REVIEW OF THE DRAFT REPORT OF THE DIABLO CANYON PEER REVIEW GROUP 1
WASHINGTON, D.C.
JULY 11, 1984 When a low power license was issued to Diablo Canyon, certain conditions pertaining to piping and pipe supports were imposed. The Diablo Canyon Peer Review Group was charged with determining if the licensing Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) portions of the conditions were met. The Group also examined that related to piping and supports.
In addition, licensee actions to rectify deficiencies in onsite design controls (programmatic issues) were reviewed.
The purpose of the subject ACRS Subcommittee meeting was to review the July 6th, Draft Report by the Peer Review Group. That report provided the findings of the Group on the issues discussed above.
Presentations were made by members of the Group and by NRC inspector I. T. Yin.
Principal Attendees:
ACRS C. P. Siess, Subcommittee Chairman J. C. Ebersole, Member 4
H. Etherington, Member Emeritus I
H. W. Lewis, Member C. Michelson, Member M. Bender, Consultant E. D. Mysinger, Consultant J. C. McKinley, DFE (part-time)
E. G. Igne, DFE (part-time) 1 C. A. McClain, Staff NRC Staff and Consultants Others R. H. Vollmer, NRR/DE L. E. Shipley, Bechtel R. J. Bosnak, NRR/DE M. R. Tresler, PG&E J. P. Knight, NRR/DE J. B. Hoch, PG&E I. T. Yin, Reg. III R. L. Cloud, Cloud Assoc./IDVP K. A. Manoly, Reg.1/DETP B. F. Saffell, Battelle Columbus E. J.-Sullivan, NRR/DE M. Hartzman, NRR/MEB
Sumary/Diablo Canyon Mtg 2
July 11, 1984 i
0 Meeting Highlights 1.
Richard H. Vollmer, NRR, made a brief introduction in which he noted that the Diablo Canyon Peer Review Group was initially formed to address concerns raised by Isa T. Yin, Region III inspectoi.
Subsequently the Group recommended that the low power license for Diablo be conditioned on the licensee addressing seven issues related to the adequacy of piping and pipe supports.
The Group has now produced a report in which they document their evaluation of the actions taken by
)
PG&E to meet the license conditions, and they provide the results of a j
review of the IDVP and programmatic issues in response to additional j
concerns raised by Mr. Yin.
The bottom line of the report was that the
?
Group found nothing that should prevent the issuance of a full-power license to Diablo.
i 2.
Due to the fact that the Group employed considerable engineering judgement in its reviews, Dr. Siess requested that the qualifications of each member be put in the record.
3.
Mr. Ebersole asked whether the issues being examined were peculiar to Diablo or whether they were generic in nature.
He wondered if other plants could withstand the scrutiny being given to Diablo.
4.
Mr. Michelson and Robert Bosnak discussed the type of pipe break analysis used for designing Diablo. The leak-before-break concept was not used there, and has not yet been approved for use on any plant.
5.
The Staff or one of its consultants gave a presentation on each of the seven license conditions.
After each presentation, Mr. Yin was allowed to state any remaining concerns he had about the licensee's f
actions or how the Group's review was performed.
In addition, he was allowed to question the Staff and licensee.
A brief summary of each j
presentation is below.
6.
License Condition 2.C(11) Item 1, Review of Small Bore Computer Calculatiori. - Kamal Manoly, Region I, presented the Group's findings on this issue.
Deficiencies due to lack of proper documentation and related to some calculational errors were found to have insignificant effects on the adequacy of the small bore piping (2 in. or less in diameter) supports. All small bore, computer analyzed supports were reanalyzed by the licensee.
Three out of 357 failed to meet the licens-ing criteria because the length / thickness ratio for angle sections were exceeded.
In those cases the supports were modified.
Finally, the licensee's consideration of self weight excitation caused by seism'c 1
loading acting locally on a support is to be completed by October 1, 1984 The licensee and Peer Review Group then addressed Mr. Yin's remaining concerns regarding this license condition.
PG&E explained that if a support was initially analyzeo as being overstressed, a closer look was taken at the assumptions made in the computer model. A more realistic model was developed and the support was subsequeritly qualified.
It was i
noted that the as-built dimensions, as opposed to design dimensions, l
were used in the reanalysis of all 357 of the supports.
I i
Summary /Diablo Canyon Mtg 3
July 11, 1984 Mr. Manoly said that only a small percentage of the engineering judgements used in designing the supports were undocumented, and that those judgements had little effect on the adequacy of support design.
The practice that allowed any judgement calls to go undocumented was remedied by the licensee prior to the reanalysis required by the license condition. Lastly, Mr. Manoly stated that no support inadequacies resulted from erroneous computer inputs of material properties or support geometries.
7.
License Conditions 2.C (11) Items 2 and 3, Load Sharing by Closely Spaced Supports and Snubbers Located in Close Proximity to Rigid Sup-ports and Anchors - Bernard Saffell, Battelle Columbus, presented the findings on these two items.
Because the seismic design basis for Diablo was changed after discovery of the Hosgri fault, rigid supports and snubbers were in some cases placed in close proximity (less than 100 for an anchor, 50 for other supports) to other rigid supports, anchors, or equipment nozzles.
If the gaps between piping and support were significantly different for close proximity supports, the result could be overloading of the support with the smaller gap before the adjacent support took up its share of the load.
Design basis for the gaps was 1/16" on each side of the pipe, with a combined tolerance of +1/16".
This would result in, at most, a 3/16" clearance on one side with zero clearance on the other side.
If the gap between piping and a support, adjacent to a snubber, did not allow enough movement for the snubber to lock-up, i.e, function as a rigid support, the snubber would not support its share of the load.
The licensee was required to inspect the gaps between piping and supports and add shims where necessary or reanalyze the loadings to ensure no supports or snubbers would be overstressed.
The Group concluded that the licensee's program adequately addressed these concerns.
Regarding Mr. Yin's concerns, the Staff and licensee appeared to ade-quately address them.
ACRS consultants, Mr. Mysinger and Mr. Bender, both noted that the ductility of piping and supports should be adequate to prevent any problems from arising.
James Knight, NRR, pointed out that the decision to shim rather than reanalyze the loadings was one of expediency on the part of the licensee.
I 8.
License Condition 2.C (11) Items 4 and 5, Thermal Gaps and Piping 1
System Hot Walkdowns - Edmund J. Sullivan, NRR, discussed the Group's findig,'s on these two issues.
Regarding Item 4, the license condition required the licensee to monitor the gaps that were specifically included in the piping thermal analyses. There were 37 of these cases, all involving piping that was 2" or smaller.
The licensee initially proposed to monitor the gaps in the cold condition; however, this was unacceptable to the Staff. A final licensee proposal, accepted by the Staff, involves reanalysis of the piping assuming no gaps. Any piping, supports, or nozzles will then be requalified if necessary.
This is to be completed by the end of the first refueling outage.
Mr. Yin expressed no concerns with this resolution.
Item 5 required the licensee to conduct walkdowns of the ma'n steam piping with NRC participation and to document the results in a report to the NRC.
The Group reviewed the licensee's procedures for the walkdowns k
l
l 1
Sumary/Diablo Canyon Mtg 4
.C July 11, 1984 and did its own walkdowns of the RHR and main steam systems.
No discrepancies were found on the RHR system.
On the main steam system, two deflections were greater than the licensee's acceptance criterion.
The licensee reanalyzed the loadings using the as-measured deflections and found no overstresses. One unintended restraint was discovered that was analyzed and found to be no problem.. The licensee plans to remove this unintended restraint and monitor this area in the course of the power ascention testing.
Mr. Yin was concerned that the clearances available would not be adequate for seismic and thermal movements since only the thermal clearances were the focus of this activity.
Licensee representatives and Mr. Sullivan argued that the seismic movements, on the order of 3/16", on the average, would not significantly affect the available clearances. Mr. Yin also suggested that " stress" walkdowns, done with piping systems in a cold condition, had overlooked potential interferences.
He referred the Subcommittee to his draft inspection report of March 29, 1984, in which he enumerated instances of this, that he felt he had uncovered during his own walkdowns. The licensee argued that they had properly accounted for these situations through the combination of the " stress walkdowns" and the " hot piping walkdowns".
9.
License Condition 2.C. (11) Item 6, Quick Fix Program - Robert l
Bosnak, NRR, presented the Group's findings on this item.
This item addresses two onsite programs, the Pipe Support Design-Tolerance Clarification (TC or PSDTC) Program and th.e Diablo Problem (DP) System, l
that provided the means for resolving problems encountered during l
construction.
The licensee was required to identify:
support changes that deviated from the defined scope of the TC program; significant deviations between as-built and design configurations that stemmed from TC or DP activities; and unresolved matters identified by the DP system.
l The Group concluded that, because the TC program initially used a guide rather than approved procedures, problems arose that Mr. Yin initially identified.
Some activities did not comply with the intent of the program; however, no significant deviations exist between as-built structures and current approved design configurations. The program was terminated in June 1984 and replaced by a field change system.
It was concluded with regard to the DP system that, although design information was transmitted to a degree greater than intended, the information was included in QA controlled as-builts and design calculations.
Additionally, no unresolved DPs were discovered.
Mr. Yin had concerns only with the TC review. He thought the TC program had caused a breakdown in the QA program; however, he admitted that the design changes were eventually reviewed by the right people to ensure quality. He was concerned that some changes were not included in the as-built packages; but, the licensee representatives at the meeting insisted that they had been.
In response to Mr. Yin's concern regarding the qualifications of the Group members who performed the review of support installations, Mr. Bosnak said that the four members had extensive engineering experience, including hands-on in various types of facilities.
1
e g
Summary /Diablo Canyon M2g 5
i July 11, 1984 l
10.
License Condition 2.C (11) Item 7, Small Bore and Large Bore i
Technical Issues - These were discussed by Mark Hartzman, NRR.
The t
licensee was required to show that'several technical issues had been adequately addressed in the design of piping supports.
These issues I
related to the inclusion of warping normal and shear stresses; consideration of lateral and torsional buckling; consideration of load eccentricities; correct use of Rayleigh's method to calculate fundamental frequencies; resolution of differences between the AISC code 4
and Bechtel criteria for unbraced lengths of angle; and consideration of effective weld throat thickness on structural steel tubing.
All but l
three small bore supports and one large bore support were found to meet i
licensing criteria.
The licensee has modified the four unqualified l
l
- supports, i
11.
Mr. Bosnak discussed the review of the IDVP.
Because of several allegations regarding the portion of the IDVP that addressed piping and supports, the NRC established a special task force that reviewed the work done by R. L. Cloud Associates.
The concerns dealt with the distribution of samples selected from the firms doing piping and support work, qualification of 15,000 feet of span rule analyzed piping by the use of a smaller sample of computer analyzed piping, and the large number of " deficiencies" identified in interim technical reports (ITRs) that did not result in expansion of the scope of the IOVP. The task force determined that the sample size distribution and the small bore piping acceptance were indeed adequate.
Review of the backup review packages confirmed the fact that the " deficiencies" reported were not significant and that someone reading only the interim report would get the wrong impression of the severity of the problems.
l Mr. Yin stated that his attempts to review the IDVP and the QA program was hampered by NRC management.
He said that he has resigned from further involvement in the Diablo Canyon licensing activities.
I
- 12. A brief executive session followed the presentations.
It was determined that the Subcommittee members agreed with the Staff's finding a
that the license conditions have been met.
It was decided that an attempt should be made to have Mr. Yin present when the ACRS considers the Group's report.
Mr. Mysinger stated that it was reassuring that the NRC had the time to thoroughly investigate the concerns raised by Mr.
Yin.
He added that he thought he understood all the concerns but felt there was no substance in them.
l l
l i
i A
ec...,
q _z w %.% yw em ec* 9 e January 16, 1984 GQh
\\
=
l 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.
j in every case the procedure used was acceptable or compatible with the l
procedure specified on the process sheet.
For these weldments any of the three welding procedures could have been used to achieve acceptable welds.
Rr.8 W &
R. D. Kerr Pacific Gas & Electric Corporate Welding Engineer i
l 3st i.
Response to NRC Questions FOR INFORMATION Regarding Allegations Dated 11/14/83 ONLY 1.
Charpy test requirements for heat affected zones:
Paragraph 3-6, s
Section 2 cf Specification 8833XR. Revision 15 specifies that
" Included in the procedures shall be provisions for testing the M eat affected zone of welds for notch impact strength in conformity with provisions of Paragraph 2-L"> Revision 9 of the Specification added a statement at the end of"this paragraph to read "If required c
//
on the drawing." This statement is valid for all subsequent revisions o3 including the current revision.
For rupture restraints inside containment, design drawings never specified requirements for Charpy testing.
For rupture restraints outside containment, drawing number 504950 note #16 specifies that l
"Charpy notch test for heat affected zones of welds is not required."
l 2.
Welding of tubular steel section with a 3/16" round bar backing strip:
Restraints number 21/9&l0RR included a detail weld where a round i
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 restraints, DCPP verification program verified this conclusion l
and issued a DCN #DC-0-EC-5485 transmittal #5 to abandon these restraints, i
In addition, an engineering avaluation was performd 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.
I NYro s kw
~. M '.O.
hk {
b
\\
n s
Qk-
}
l /f-87 l
&A Q sc#) 5 7 g o 6 l
FOR INFORMATiON ONL Y 56%
[ MISC 9026]
j
7 i
FOR INFORMATION ONLY J8""*rY I4' 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 usirig Design Criteria Memo M-9.
AISC (and therefore AWS) is referenced as a basis for design.
B.
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. I 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 DC2-83-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 DOH-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 ESD-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 Dl.0-69.
Therefore the re-examination FOR INFORMATION ONLY l
l
1 p
POR INFORMAllud
- 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-112-03. 5 C.
Once the cause of NCR DC1-83-RM-N001 was identified the entire progra:n became moot since the problem had been previously
'1 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 D1.1.
i FOR INFORMATiON ONLY
{
l I
)
(2)
1
)
n 1
'I EgPullman Power Products Corporation V
l Diablo Canyon Nucient Pto:e:t Post Office Bos 367 Avile Beach Cahtornia 934N Telephone 18051 555 2356
\\
December 8, 1963 RESULTS OF FL;JtE BEVEL PENETRATION TEST On December 8, 1983, Pullman Power Products conducted tests to determine the typical penetrations which will be achieved for flare bevel joints. The material used was 3" square tube steel to 1/4" thick plate. All welding was performed in the flat position with 3/32" and 1/8" E7018 electrodes.
Results are as follows:
Minimum Required Actual Throat Throat (5/16 R) 3/32" Electrode 1/8" Electrode
~
3732" 7/32" 5/32" 15/64", 17/64" 15/64" 7/32" f g & -;
ec:
B. Karner C.M. Near File QEG Welding Engineer e
o t = -
e s
- e e
m
- . '. ;,:..;rx ?,
.. 'g. C* - i, ^
,h e
e, A
a 3
).
. 4;. (h',+)..f,ri.f.e 3 - _,
- P.
'... o f s:
.c e
,e
' e,
'h--~-
l 1
UNii t o ST e.1 tt
,,*'S.,,,
fJ UC L E A R R E G U L AT O R Y CO','.f.'.i:SIOf.'
j'
.. " +.
i 1.I,7; L j-}
wAssiNciort. o. c mis
[b'N[/ /
U.AR i 5 19?.i y
l i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Thomas M. liovak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing R. Wayne Houston, Assistent Director for Reactor Safety FROM:
i
' :5. 1: :-
- i
- t :
C!. ABLO C AliYON NUCLE AR PO'a'ER PLANT,, UtilTS 1 AND 2 -
SU3 JECT:
STAFF ATFIDAVITS IN RESPON3E TO THE AFFICAVIT OF JOHN H. COOPER DATED 1/19/S4 AND TO ALLEGAT10N NO.177 l
l An af fidavit and a response to Allegation No.177 prepared by C. Y. Liang, j
These j
anc' another af fidavit prepared by F. Rosa, of my staff are enclosed.
documents have been prepared in response to the subject affidavit and alle-gation; they are intended to provide input to the staf f response to the l
Joint Intervenor's Motion to Augrent or Reopen The Record dated February 14, r.
i 198',
1 By copy of this memorandum, the originals of the enclosures are being t'rans-mitted to v. Rutberg (0 ELD).
' 8,'
- *- ^
\\
. ,l
- c. -(.JN'%%4.LL s
,v.
R. Wayne Houston, Assistant Director for f.eactor Safety Division of Systems Integration
Enclosures:
As stated
'C q{ /mn.l Y cc:
R. Mattson e
D. Eisenhut T. Speis G. Knighton K. Kniel R. Capra J. Rutberg (DELD)
L. Chandler (DELD)
H. Schierling j
RSB Section Leaders
~
A. Marchese
- 0. Parr V. Bencroya W. Jenson R. Kendall ICSB Section Leader,
Contact:
0 9' A '2 h f
74 ti O n
aa
\\'.
. _ -. - _. _. _ ~ _. - _ _ _ - _ _ -
![#[, 'q,,
g UNITED STATES
'3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
j REGION I o
a 631 PARK AVENUE q
,o#
KING OF PRUS$1A, PENNSYLVANIA A 19406 9
c....
4 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Dennis F. Kirsch, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch #2, Division of Resident, Reactor Project and Engineering Programs, Region V THRU:
Stewart D. Ebneter, Chief, Er.gineering Programs Branch, < <
Division of Engineering and Technical Programs, Region I j
Jacque P. Durr, Chief, Materials and Processes Section,1 C EPB, DETP, Region 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 4
(LICENSEE SUBMITTALS) 1 Attached you will find a copy of significant licensee transmittals associated wit Allegation M (Hudson Allegation) obtained during the inspection.
I
) D)
EU Samuel D. Reynolds, Jr.
Lead Reactor Engineer c
' g.h
/,.
h s'
'r3 2b
'tr
'i
'277 g-k['
,[
[ [i T M
L
~g
y s
.h Diablo CanyonProject PACIFIC GAS AND ELEC.TRIC COMPANY BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION January 19, 1984 Dennis Kirsch - N.R.C.
Diablo. Canyon Inspection Team 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.
A'l W M. E. Leppke Onsite Project Engineer Diablo Canyon i
b
-f' o
3Y y i'f Y' <f P.O. BOX 3965
- SAN FRANCISCO, CAllFORNIA 94119 m
WELD DES 2GN PROGRAM This report has been prepared to summarize the weld design and installation program at Diablo Canyon.
It has been written with a view towards clarifying show each piece of the program compliments the other.
Problems are identified and corrected by a process of multiple reviews.
It must be recognized 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.
I 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.
The veld symbols used at Diablo Canyon have basically been consistent with standard AWS 2.4 Some configurations are difficult to symbolize and it is understandable that construction personnel might 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 veld requirements.
Any discussion of welding at Diablo Canyon must, therefore, recognize weld symbols within the context of other programs.
To date no case has come to our attention in which the weld symbols used have resulted in the installation of unacceptable welds.
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.
l 4
Training classes have resulted in a steadily improving clarity.
4 l
Early work on the reverification program consisted of reviewing all available As-built information.
Additional inf ormation 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 velds by taking no credit where doubts exist (1.
e.,
square groove velds, seal
- welds, 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/
F 4
2.
' Conduit cupports:
Dasigners were provided with As-built ' drawings obtained by field valkdowns.
Welds are simple '. 3/16" fillet welds with designers' never taking ' credit for weld throat produced by the small radii of struts.
These. welds are not highly stressed and almost never control acceptance.
3.
EVAC Supports:
Drawings by field walkdowns.
The welding 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.
4 Structural Steel:
Designers reviewed As-built drawings and field conditions.
Structural steel welds are generally very simple and seldom. provoked questions as to the desired welds.
Very little verification of welds was required.
5.
Equipment Mounting:
Designers reviewed installation As-builts.
Additional field information was obtained by walkdowns where doubt of qualification arose. Few weld issue came from this area.
6.
Rupture Restraint':
A sample of welds were field verified by NDE and checked by calculation for adequacy.
Engineering and Construction has conducted training 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 Deeign Engineers, Field Engineers, inspectors, and j
Contractor personnel.
The design information provided by engineering to construction was supplemented; by significant amounts of other communication.
Memos, letters j
and discrepancy reports are transmitted between construction and engineering 1
on a regular basis (Attachment No. 4).
This. information is used by both
{
' design engineering and construction to-revise existing procedures and instructions, where necessary, to standardize and clarify requirements and l
intent.
This ongoing process serves to insure. that the design intent is
)
communicated to construction and that construction practices are communicated 1
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.
This assures that the designer's intenet is provided to construction as well as aiding in the i
resolution of installation difficulties.
i 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 of 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.
Page >
01-19-84 0065r/
3.
Raturning to SFHO Engineering for interpretation and clarification.
During QC review -or _ af ter final acceptance the process identified above any be supplemented by:
']
f 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
^
1 provided in. formal letters issued by the. Project Engineer.
The following 1
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 D1.1 with maximum T.
=5/16R.
Any greater T required by design will be stated e
explicity.
2.
Flare Bevel (See comment 1.).
3.
Typical staggered fillet veld.
Arrow side symbol to be same size as '
j noted for other side symbol.
Design intent is that both' side symbol to be dimensioned per AWS, 4
)
4 Single beval groove veld.. Bevel and included angle the same.. Angle 1
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.
g 1
5.
Typical square groove but't weld.
Future design use will specify both T
required and root opening if weld has structural value.
This e
symbol will be used in the future to denote a " seal weld ** if weld is j
not structural and will be noted in the tail as such.
6.
(See comment 5.).
7.
Fillet weld on two sides both fillet weld sizes assumed same.
Field to verify.
Future per AWS both sides to be sized.
8.
Single bevel groove weld with fillet cap.
Interpretation and assunption requires design engineer clarification or construction As-builting.
9.
Fillet veld 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 0065r/
l
p.
]
10.
Fillet. weld for~ size'onsize tublar steel.
Size on size tublar steel 7'
one weld symbol as shown not sufficient.
Requires a fillet weld for 2 sides and a flare groove type weld for other two sides.
11.
Fillet veld on 3 sides (See comment 1.).
i l
12.
Fillet ' weld - on 3 sides.
Symbol -accepted as shown.
'No need to j
specify "3 sides."
j 7
- 13. ' Site ' engineer directive DCC' 10263 and SFHo DCC 8039 Chron. 037390 (See Attachment No. 4) speciff.ed wrapping of corner when possible and in all cases the veld size and length to be noted on As-built drawing.
14 Fillet veld on 3 sides. Future only arrow side to be shown and only
- 1 3 sides to be welded (See comment 12.).
15.
For GFHO engineer directive see DCC 7688 and DCC 7524 for explanation of joint.
design requirements, measurement and weld symbol.
He
&c W s
i 1
{
l
)
Page 01-19-84 0065r/
4 e
6
~
/
/
O
@/
/
O el ?/~
el n_
? /
@/
~
th N
s /
3
- to JT l 3
_ y, xi,.;-.
a
(;
- <-+
d.
p
.s
\\
l x
r
\\ x[
.6 6
Q j
s,c
' " " Tube IT1~EL VEttTICAL T o ~PLf;T E p
u O
i I
i i
N I
q 4
i
/
x i
i i
i i
)
1 e
==
===w
==
1 V
SQ V
F, DF EQuqL $1ZE
_._.m_.___.
.,j__
1 t
J l
l X
s
. 6 99 G
j
' bq a
eb O
s n-X I
l
{
)
l
. I I
I es k
4m
~~"
-"'---x-
1 i
.o -
I o
i-
/O 8
[x,X?
l 3
Sct. Tubs t
c u.%u M
/
)
J
\\
M 0
A) l l
ni..o ar.....i...-
ii,_,.___..
FOR 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 rettraints 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 AWS D1.1-79.
In particular 3523 does not require examination of 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.
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 PG8E specification 8833XR required that the fabrication and installation of Pipe Rupture Restraints be done in accordance AWS Dl.0-69 or D1.1-72.
i 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/Dl.1-72.
Insufficient preheat may have caused welding related defects that were documented in NCRs DCl-78-RM-008, DCl-79-RM-006, DCl-79-RM-007, and DCl-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 Dl.1-79 paragraph 5.2.
N. S. N ^ -- 4 R. D. Kerr Pacific Gas & Electric Corporate Welding Engineer-POR INFORMATION GNLY i
i 1
1
POh INFORMATION January 12, 1984 ONLY
SUBJECT:
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 Welding Engineer,has reviewed the procedure and found it acceptable as approved for use on Rupture Restraints.
l l
c$
Robert Torstrom
~
e FOR INFORMATION ONLY l
1 I
January 16, 1984 pgnlNPORMAn0N 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.
R.S. B M - A <
R. D. Kerr Pacific Gas & Electric Corporate Weldir.g Engineer FOR INFORMATION ONLY
i niROinCE MEMORANDUM
?k " l Diablo Canyon Project
%dl.RymJ l
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION lo R.D. Etzler Deu November 23, 1983 s,om G.V. Cranston/G.H. Moore
~
rele No.
146.20 Project Engineering - Units 16 2 sut>rm Governing Code for Qualification of
~
of Welders and Welding Procedure u
45/3 0/ C29 tmns,on 8-2963 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:
' Tor welding on pipe hangers, supports, and rupture restraints, welders and welding procedures shall be qualified to ASME Sec tion IX and/or AWS Dl.l.
- Please inforrt Pullman Product Co. that the acceptance criteria and documentation requirements es established in the existing Project Specifications and other documents shall not be alter:.d by this statement.
l i.
b' G.H. Moore
/
i
$/ b,?(4'lW Y
< G.V. Cranston SSC/TQuan/NT/ml g
/g cc:
M. R. Tresler Q
^
4 L. E. Sh i pl ey 4g ggE/V[g 3
P. Antiochos I, I
.N {
7 g[k
)g )
S.5. Chitnis 2
1883 V. P. Me rc a do i
h g(y ' i D.J. Curtis(site) y F. Breismeister
.s i
D. Kerr(PG&E )
- /
M. Le pple(site)
, '1 J. Miller (G.C.)
J. Mccall c cy, % h5 C -8 DCC B 4 2 2-u
- s. m a n-s s,
114 3i/0001 T-l
__2-_--___-------_----
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ - - - - - -
~
~
$Vd (,_.
. ', j M(h INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE Dm November 30, 1982 to H. W. Karner FROM C. M. Neary j
A307 and A108 Materials suancT 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 0W-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 material 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.
The A108 material on site is in the form of Nelson studs.
ASTM A308 has no tensile strength requirements. Nelson specifies the
~
chemistry meets the following requirements.
.23; max.
Manganese.....
.90i max.
Phosphorus.....
.04L max.
.05L max.
These chemical requirements f all within those for A36 steel.
The lack of a tensile strength requirement allows us to consider these studs as A36 steel.
As A36 is a P-1 material, the studs are also a P-1 material.
- d. )??-
M_
C. M. f4eary C:'::!1a:.
OR N O R MA~~ ;0 N O LY
^
k
.4.
b I
2.,.
&hya
.: us t
v..
I k
-- a,
INTEROFfl.~E MEMORANDUM
+
DiaEo CanyonProject J
\\
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION l
M.E. Icp;;ke D*
January 6, 1984 l
' + " D.J. Curtis F*
- 925 l
onsite Pr-ject Engineering Group sibec Effective Throat of Flare Grcove Welds
- s. -
Jobsite Estenvor 3064 1
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 cpulification. It is accepted as beino 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 Pom Products and a second v2rification was l
conducted by Pulhnan Power Products and United Engineers and Constructors at Seabrook Station.
Tests at the Seabrook Station were conducted using standard P-1 PP 1 man 1
Power Products Welding Procedures. The Technical Report describing the verification is attached as Attachment fl. The purpose of this verification was "To verify, as a minimtzn, that the effective throat thickness for a flare-bevel-groove weld when filled to the solid section of the br r will be equal 5/16R, where R is equal to the radius of the bar."
Four sizes of structural Tube Steel were welded using 3/32" and 1/8" diameter E7018 elec-trodes in the flat, vertical, and overhead weld 2ng positions.
)
{
The results frun the Seabrook Station verification showed that the actual i
penetrations exewa=15/16R by as much as a factor of 1.0 to 2.4 with a average factor of 1.7.
'Ihe least amount of penetration occured when 3" x 3" x " tube I
steel was welded using a 3/32" ela.hude in the flat position.
In that case, the penetration equalled 5/16R.
l l
l Tests at the Diablo Canyon Jobsite were conducted using Pullman Pcur Products l
Diablo welding procedures. A brief strmary is attached as Attachv_nt 12. Tne
]
tests were pr.uluws:d to verify that the actual penetrations met or exerwhi j
the effective throat of 5/16R for the worst case idenHfia4 by the verification J
done at the Seabrook Station. Six tests ~were conducted to detemine the typical penetrations which would be achieved for flare bevel joints when welding 3 x 3 x b tube stel using 3/32" ard 1/8" E7018 electrodes in the flat position.
.y l
i I
l l
l l
l l
All tests indicated that amount of penetration exceeds 5/16R by a factor of 1.4 to 1.7.
The code acceptance of an effective throat of 5/16R without qualification Jis conservative. Furthermore, tests made at the Diablo Canyon Plant and the coahrook Station confim this point.
It is therefore appropriate for
'the designer to assme an effective throat of 5/16R for sincle flare grocrve welds.
If you have any questions or cuttnents on this subject please do not hesi-tate to contact me.
Thank you,
[
Dan Curtis D. Curtis/jb Reply Regmsted: No Attachments: Yes cc: S. Chitnis J. Iongworth L. Mangob's V. Juneja D. Tateosian 1
SPE -
1 1
l l
I l
l 1
(
T 1
Arawacyr */
g
.O b. '
'.f***
r W.: t :
}. a '. 20, 195*
TCt N::
...E.!
tH:!D ENCINEEP.! & CON!"F.L'C707.5 INC.
30D*1C/* F.EFO?!
Sc: :
May 20, 9!2
- -ur :ss :!
heper:
Qua*.ifics: ten and Verifi:s ion cf Tiare-Leve; Groove Welds - Scuarc Tube Dis:ribution:
M. P. McKenna U'..C5 91 V. J. Duffy UIC589 D. C. Turneuis:
LECSE9 W. C. Leithead UEC294 S. J. Pat:isen UEC262 A. Bandopadhyay UEC589 R. W. Gregory UECS89 M. B. Lasota UEC589 K. E. Berg UEC196 P. K. Jathavedan UIC767 S. C. Sethi UEC286 B. Easu UEC589
- v. M. Alsan UEC196 S. C. Madaras UEC559 l
S. N. Caruso UEC290 C. W. Mourar UIC392 l
.J. P. Vnoriskey UEC296 R. A. Mills UEC292 J. R. Sle:terback 11UO B. J. Huselton UECSS9 D. E. Rhoads 07U4
- 0. P. Kalani 09U4 E. M. Hayes UE,C143 J. M. Benenati 09U9 I
R. E. Bryans UEC262 S. K. Guha UEC262 M. A. Edga:
UEC184 J. R. Julian CIC262 R. C. Sevoury UEC786,
M. J. Kenopha 07U8 G. A. Gallant UEC262 DCC Tield UEC185 i
P. A. Leone UEC591 DCC - PA 06U1 G. T. Eigasonti 0704 SM Tile UEC184 E. G. Levine UEC262 J. P. Cannon 14U3 E. J. Kaplan 17U4
/
Report Prepared By:
./,%_/
e T. R. Frelo Report Approved Sy:
\\ l/N@b M
~
T. P. Tassallo, Jr.
.y.
li l n. r % % ~ = Q ',yjQ'-y-
.,,...j;.,
r~
-R 3
1 l
j
.c
____________o
ob a
j
- .a n.
h::. 2;, 2 51;.
Tile he:
!!.E.!
0*JA*.~T1~.A!10: /JC VIF.~ TIC /.710!; OT Ti>J.I II~G". GROM *,"I" DE Purpest - Tc verify, as a sir.1=u:, tha: the effective threa: thi:hnese j
fe: a flare-bevel-; seve veld wher. fi~ led t: the sclid se;;ie:.
ef the bar vill be equal $/;f
?., where 7. is equal to the radius cf the bar.
l ha:erials - Tubular steel si:es 3" x 3" x h".
4" x 4" x 3/8",
6" x 6" x h" and 2" x 2" x b" AS y. A500 was used.
Welding process - The shielded me:a1 arc welding process was used, u:1-lizing STA 5.1. I7018 electrodes with multiple passes.
1 1
Preheat and Interpass - The ninimu:: preheat and interpass te=perature l
vas in accerdance vi:h I.SN1/AWS DI.1, Table'4.2.
1 Procedures for Shielded Metal Arc - The velding was done in the vertical, overhead and flat planes utilizing 3/32" and 1/8" diameter electrodes in each position.
The velding parameters were as follows:
1 3/32" - DCPJ, *io-120 a=ps, 20-27 vola, 2 ipe ein. travel, 1/8" -D3.p 115-165 amps, 21-27 volts. 2 ipe r.in. travel.
Qualification - The sampics were sectioned for visual exa=ination.
I The velds were free from cracks and there was thorough fusion
{
between adjacent layers of weld me:a1 and the base metals.
]
The velds, in general, vere visually acceptable.
Conclusion - In general, 3/32" G electrodes showed good penetration ex-ceedxng the mini =a= throat thickness by approximately 50%
except there vere some problens with the 3" x 3" x k" tubes.
The s.111 radius did not per=it the depth of penetration.
I The 1/8" 9 elec:roces snowed excellent
{
penetration for exceeding the e 4 - 4* -- throa: thickness for the flare-bevel-groove velds.
It is re:o== ended that the Contractors be directed to utilize 1/8" O electrodes fer the first pass to insure adequate pene-tra:1cn.
2.
',-.,4
_ -). % s l*..
,i e '3W.
. -- ~
O 1.
* ~~
- --~
v-.
0.'.';..e.... 5.d i *
....c,.
.. i ;,
p
/3
- t tntted eng.ineers..-_
il,'s.
. ten 3;.
v
- ,c.
/
.c a :......................
w: ee c:,*"*
..................................................................... s n ~:...,,,,,,:,,,,,,
C., x a i ri: a r. c e A r. t \\ 'i~. o c i :.c ri c d c p-s. u r :....{.4.6. 4 E......?-5.!.S.'!.%.....-}. 4.G.'.'.~..#'. /.G.!'.i...E.C.."..^ 2..b..( f.... c e a.".ose x
sv Tu4r w e t o ~ t.
T'Ts C e Mo *'.
l
- Y
AeruaL l
3 ar fe 2 e ra e a C. <-, n Arc oen
'3 / 3 2. ~
- / B ~
, h c.. u,
nu. it
- i. a.,
. i. neamc l CxS*l m r l 2 0::.5!25 'h'inuD '%~L. ws')l I
s l
l x
r l ~' llb...., $o E SC')
~/b, bEbC~
.[DD N, bM T
'"/E \\.
y i
wu i ov.wa-e l
%C.42so) %'(.7sd)
I I
I C x(; I fur I. coa 312C %~(. A376 '%](.SnD x
. so e' v%tr 5/n,"
S644es) 2%;(.(,r42) um L'(. 437s) 23;(,7,g g) osu ur o 4 'X 4 '
Fcar
, 75 o
,234 Mil.433) k64370) x
.3.75
- Ve 4. r 8564' 3/g'(.3 75e) Yil.437s)
LJALL Ovteneno
]d{.4488) 'Idz(. A ot,2 )
' tis (.ls7s') l 1
3'x S',
Ft. a 7 500
,154 3
%E(.15?2) x J
. 2 50' V'en.r
.32 IS4T./S?f.) 32(2/SB) wmu o a n.
%'(./s:s) W(.z.rs)
J
't 9
(*
~.
i
/ 9 5
.I j
b I
._.s 1
I, I,
R njg sjap'
,. y.,
.A
___.______.______._._____.m__
(
w
/
- . cn h
4
- q33p, Ei: Pullman Power Products Corporation I
Diablo Canyon Nselear Project Post Othee Bos 367 DATE:
DECEMBEP, 9, 1903
$,""$gsssiN" ea torn 2
TC:
D. F,0CKa' ELL, FG&I FF. Cit:
H. K'RNER, (*/QC
SUBJECT:
f;PS BEAM ATTACHMENT BED-18 AfiD FLARE BEVEL WELDS 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 copies of the results of these examinations attached.
The NRC df scussed with Pullman Power Products weld penetration for flare bevel welds on tube steel as used at Diablo Canyon.
An investigation had previously been conducted by Pullman Power Products and United Engineers and Constructors. Inc.,
at Seabrook, Station on this subject. This information was presented to the NRC at Diablo Canyon for their review.
Their review revealed that the minimum required throat was most difficult to obtain on small size tube steel (3" x 3")
when using 3/32" electrode in the flat position.
As a result of this determination and discussions with Mr. Sam Reynolds of the NRC, Pullman Power Products prepa' red several sample welds at Diablo Canyon using 3" x 3" tube steel in the flat position with 3/32" electrode. Measurements were taken in the presence of Mr. Reynolds. The formal results of these sample welds are attached.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
r Harold Karner QA/QC Manager HK : s a:t -
Attach cnts' (originals) cc:
A. A. Eck w/ attachments i-
~W' P. Stieger-File i
~
n.
.}
._..____.____________.___i
k UNITED STATES
/!
,[*
- 4 g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI Dy$
I REatoN y COWID lbL 5 7 v.7 '.
f 1sso N. cAtircantA souLevAno s
YE5
- I'4'4 (
+p su Ts 202. WALNUT CREEK PLAZA (t/VT f
go-rNo O oge.
n ALNuy case x, cAttronNiA sasse 7
SUINARY OF Vf'ip_At: MP. -RELATED INFORMATION
%D ChtN00 JATE
.TlhE INITIATED l TIME COMPLETED b5 Os>%% Cac44r
/ //1/WI
/:1os I
44:Wp g
IJ
- b.
h5d I{
I g
- PARTICIPANTS 1
N w8 W m m.ou sits ZTING -
@ A drMer 6 /e.O N
U
~
HTERVIEW
( g,g f
% /y f '),
i LEPHONE CAli.
/
@LLECT ( )YES ( )!!O WER LOCATION Afi4/. Oosy a
>#.4 CALLED NO.
CALLliiG NO.
~
I W:&*t #.,.
kCE 400>00. M 2 YOU MV/~ch 0Cs \\ M f R0920. M 4* JAG 6MCNT' PPE51Utn w o oacnso: To 'c,Ur ced.wec.s* (i. e. ucvMc e :sefeN % weet scherMes,ek) 2. '
$s y Iv ' ' -
- r. Se_I (Al ram ls bn,/b I /b /lea h 3 's2
- .)
C : % e c< y.
c
'Yo l < ~ * /E' k< ' b6e-cltelo V<
be Vejre ls er,r n o r, e o, eesy e
a u :.nc.y. i c+.fr.,s R d w n 6 w,% n ud m l r e rn er e l b b e in r}%fb el
{om CttsV crt. ic ch k I
% I M ;- : - w
/
h( hb hcf SbscII N llCNr b e. ~/e* sa v e v.e, j ~% es s
. Ys p r
-faernede k L,m c wcu+ ved d 5,< u r$..
fa cAf 8k 3 3 XM o>,J 4,d/Av fc 5%2 r+
c Gu bl 1., : '.
m
- pbs,, $ c o% <. s key J)ep t p ?aY n S Q . 3 Co krac.
& 22 Yks f
\\
s O GrL a des a e d o( uv. %.c
~ W,vr is m nu w a
& s ye,1< 3,$ e.e ext' o G Ndwen elofr6 ( a / wCu, -
' u
- c.
9 i. <
l
- p. ~.
b t Q-. W G (/
Q#
E-G)'
- l
's 2
l-dh /f D (4l/
l'c A lk$ Y4*4 0 h f s
r
?
. c7 rtGibt e h a %We
$6l C a\\.f b 2. f u t Y b &Lc s bJ % bd e&
YS 4L
' laY o)"
V0V i
s
>,f
~ -
+% b & l 'e o b./ OC /4,
l MHk 5 0 c. ' d N av e.
J k
~l n a iohe.'f<k-c Y iree4fpfeel at h f Co c{iW2 % tr 7, s EN
/
vW DATE PAGE OF
~$oN%h
/// Wad I
....e__.
- s..
- - -- - ; ;..;... u,,..-,;...,. - -
i....
,.L.
. f,.
REGION V F0?p,: 113
I
. R & :..
T~
,V W\\Sttei % BF j
(qfgy AMo b okuul i
46,f
,,,14 IW_ h, bV'
- c. -
cm,i.,
[ /,,,
Nm.
a.,hM _._c. U.4 (l M
>ca.rwo M...%
i
+...
i 9(,,)
l
$,d..:cd.2"i-
- 4. 2 st99 -03+ N ':_l..r.
~
.ium s.es.
.mp e.
g
.e w.
RI i.egoug>
& o b...wn....w-. essava. n gA.h w %
w 6 s a k g o.s. M 1
fcM l
m
.e b
h3kM N
%.51.d
__kAb L LY I
y.
.-7..
RMi 4
p.
.a.
4~--
vuiJkia p.
~
L.
)
_N W & _. N.q4eeA.3rM
' &, O _.
As b....._.. e w' W %6.
--.... A & M. A-q w,--. * $
,.~
~
'NS
__ f.D 'S &
O _. h._ M L X. S.b
. i..
L Y
fY TZM f.ALEd5 '
MA% b-e
_1.
d Sh
.._b
(
. GW356 %..O.W.@'d..
4 eeW eN 3eM CM_.A % w in 4 era a 4 b'
G lO 4 32., 4.
T Eh V 2N[L GL.hde '). %tb4 A.S W _
AciA s
Dh wear.6
.sbo q v.mavan f
I
'e he
. ? l..';. ' '
, 'I,ji,f.."
i f.
es# gr
.,::s
- ' k,,
J G.
- d. "I C M L US.
_?.._._paoA M con io-cya_ h' peo
>6"JGdiac_ h..3 64,_
~
314 S(2.co M;%:k - >>a %
serJcaS,Ws b..h.d_N k
V;-
~
Crw u-d &%LCt4a ado &kj. ~
~ir 3^ 6z.._ W4.
hadC Zts W %... a J > %...
A..
9 W wL%
cu di % >._tk..t. M
- ecix,
~-
yh.
..y-('h.
I h.d b..*
h
-dh3eues%L i~
p&.
sarn A,
.A
.e.
M 9%
W 6 6 e.
W
~~
Nti.C Aesis....g d M h h %
D9M tb_.b.W A
~
- 8.go ww,
,Y L..
g - y..--.
M.4 D L k
,\\
6
.a
- m.,..
1
~
...g Ig*.ga' w="-..-.
,, 4 b.,, ----- -
M 9 't'
- 3. m., g. p..-. y,
99,4.#
. % -. \\
j - ??,. t lo.,Zl,,p e
,% ' $2
s '....
v.
4:.v:
M p.s.v.-
((($.
I k.,5.h 18 p5h U5Lo 44$bMtk
[
(.
b
_% __h Q, WN
- -0 W k IM
$/4
- 1. N. M.-, e j-aA_ t$e_4 A M
.4
.?'M b
Y N I N
- t. P L W $ O f b S AA h
N:..
bbv o,
9 v hM w
__ % W M.._.N._ b. __ _t o.. a -
bW
~ M_.._ V..o_...G...A h_... ?. od b N \\. l C.A4-4_4.a T y_.5_8N!h.Lk's _. &. y^ U2RA
^
-.. - - - -.. - =
. W
& N. N. R.,,,,
1 i N.h..~-.b60t}k...-.. D.hK,. &%
0 24 0 b.
k
._& bOS T &. _._C 4 a0 A., o..r.. :.4_ h.......
ev'JA io %%o2.dk3o2 p.
< W/
.\\ $
{w lsjgsNI & du &)
(
M.. _.... h....o M
iw c.ers S iMHh t
0[
_. __ f...
N}
-[
b.
W
/
p e,.:\\.W id Q
7,.
\\
~
l h
a se e age,w gp+
e.e.
- '-8.
- h 1
e og e e h4 e.-
.ei.
>-e
THE HOWARD P. TOLEY COMPANY
,@ orig nal
. ((h NUMBER: 8802-/S.50 i
e
.<4 INSPECTION REPORT Page-_1 of L PREPARED SY:
G. Herrmann/R.D. Risinger ATTACICiESTS -
DATE: 8-15-83 S. ~ -*-
YESO800 ITEMS INSPECTED: QCP-5 App. I 8-08-83 UNIT I X
UNIT II X
3,
..,.p LOCATION:
+
y,,i0us INSPECTION CRITERIA
-Onarwtxo:
SPEctricATzon:
GPaoiEoUaE:
I DOCUMENT TITLE AND NLMBER:
qp.$
Aprem r RESULTS OF INSPECTION:
cl. PCN 7 deleted performance qualification *;, M.10 from QCP-5 App. I. (V," 5.S. socket-vald qualification.) Consequently there are no WP's in.the procedure books to verify qualifications.
q
'2.
.i QW-303.5 fillet welds r,equire that." welders who make fill' t welds on pipe or tube -
e leen than 2 7/8 in. O.D. must pass the pipe. fillet test per QW-452. 4.....
Currently there are no welders qualified to weld on pipe or tubing less than 2 7/8-in. 0.D.
SSUE FILE 8y "
[//5h3 MAKE INTO NCF OTHER INITIATED BY: b M64AMMd DATE:
s DISPOSITION:
'y Q.+
l QUALITY CONTROL SUPERVISOR REVIE*4:
[,,
ACCEPT t./
REJECT BYs e DATE:
SIGNATUREO
^^
DATE:
/8/d e
i&CSE OUT COMMENTS: T( R \\ 7.
"i' E - t M T' " d's M - 1 o [g ru< r..g. cura - 9/24/4 t) g l,
l.C. INSPE Q.C. SUPERVISOR FINAL:
@ CEPT y
V 1
HOLD TAGI/
[
I
///
REMOVAL
'/
/
// //
J 3GNATURE m ////
BY SIGNATURE
/
//.'1 64 g
)
&TE
/)
"R DATE DATE
/[
3
(
1 f
(
}
r TF/IR 6-28 83 O!ase to File (date) -- Y; O D
[* O'..'
INSPECT 50N RE. PORT - CONTINUATION SHEET F.
~
~
0302-1330 p
CONTINUATI0hh0F:
RESULTS OF INSPECTION O
PAGE o 0F o N.. -
PROPOSED DISPOSITION S
CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN [3 DATE y'
6/16/r3
[sa hik With the deletion of WPS M-10 from Appendix 1 of QCP-5, two weld
. Procedure Specifications, remain which are acceptable *for Ucider Performance
-Quellfic(tions.
Specifically, in QCP-5D, WPS 21-01 and M-0 3 quali f y a 7wslder t$ make 1/4" Q tubing and larger socket velds.
Additionally,
'MPS !!-10 will be included in the n xt PCN to QCP-5D.
q-0 1 2.
QW-303.5 no longer exists.
(See Winter '82 addenda to AS.NE Sec. IX).
welders who pass the required tests for
- QW-303.1 states, in part, S groove welds shall also,be qualified to make fillet welds in all thicknew.es b cad pipe diameter s o f any size within the limits of the welding variables p
of.QW-350."
Included in QW-350 " Welding Variables for Welders", under FGTAW Essential Variables, QW-403.16 requires con ormance to QW-452.
i f
l O r pQ ' r o/6+j ene ove Weld Tests" qualifies PlQW-452.6 " Fillet Qualification By Plate f111st welds of all sizes, material thicknesses and diameters.
\\
t f.
Y" b
.s.
O.
g i '*
A.
k'
)
t A
O j
- .i 1
.~'--
p pzz,,.-y--
.p r.s
+-v am-
/**
g QW 482 SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR WELDING PROCEDURE SPECIFICATION (WPS)
(See QW.201.1,Section IX, ASME Boiler and Pre:Sure Vessel Codel
[
The H.P. Foley Co:npany en ) N E// ' /J u
{'u Weiding Procedure Specaficeuon No.
11-10 oeie 4-18-83 Supporting PCR No.(s) M-1 OR p s!'?
Revision No.
I Date e(
Y WWding Procese(eel GTAW (Stainless to Stainless)rypeis, Manua.l_
$4.- u sw-.
s JOINTS (OW.dC2T""
Details "3
- " n,<.
" gen, o,,,,n Socket Weld ff'-
i
,gacung gy 3
_ gua3 xx
.002 to.008 gap
.jj,[, -
' SecMng Material (Typel M/h
- h. '.; 7,E
She:-hee. Producdon Drewings. Wald Symbole or Wrriten Oe.
I M' '.
scripdon should show the genered errengement of the parte to 7
y'
'be_ m.a 2ha_ root. specmg -and the dese.a.
J
_ q
.u.-
u of we&d groove mey be spec = Red.
3 1/16y gap i 8; k.' -
(As the opdon of the Mtor., eAntchee may t,e arteched to inuetrete d
joint design, iseid toyers and bead secuence..e.g/ for netch Ig 4% '* 1 toughnees procedures for munipie procese proe.dures, etc.)
1/4" tubing
??;.A,*4,, - -
- .y s
'SASE METALS (QW-403) u-0 P No.
Group No. " g O
I
- k. '.',.'...
- to P No.
Group No.
on j'2
Specific. econ type and grede ASIM A213 TP316 to Specificadon type and grade ASMN3 S F,.. -
on gg'e "
- ="
chem. Ana#ysie and Mech. Prop, N/A e n -?'. p.,
. to Chem. Anotysis and Mech. Prop.
N/A
- N/A' kdN 1/4"'to Un11mited hr
'4
-*M g
g Fiuot lP* #.
c' w ygggag p*.
-pipe ois. Rang'f ' tw -
N/A 1/4" to% n' limited
(*"""g' i., :(
,' Other Fi.1.Te eIds Ref, ASMf5ec. IX Table 452.p2. net
!,, g, -
g
' =' n M. -
'HLLER METALS (QW.do4)
- - - ' - ~
F.No, n
Other N_/A h}7;A other N/A Awo.
8
.1 Spec. No. (SFA) 4A D.J AWS No. (Close) m 16 jR f, Slae of fluer made.on" t n
.1 M" M. *.
f.:...
ism. cow w.re, swa w ar.s V;J. '
EJactrode Am (Claeol N/A
~
@?*. '
?
Flux Trade Name N/A consumet,Le sneert N/A l %",.
s Z,E
- sma 6e====memw mee -
= masn.me n,,.
- g. y :,.
p.: -
(,
i T t.
JUORV A70 N O L.Y.
_p
~~......
P "f?' h p..
..y.)
f,,*
,,4 (8/30/79) yni, v.,m g e ooooe, m a y o. oog,5f,.a e,om in, o,.,
o.,,,, 43,,, g, 3 5 g,,, s g,, 3,y,, g,y, 3 e o 3 y g
..j.
.. - * = =.. - - -
,.,-__-m
" i g
O e
f py
..rgs ma..W.h
.t n
- 'e eh$.e
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - ^ - ^
- ~ ~ ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
- 5 i, '
dh _ f_1 A 1737 M. (
y l9-NOo
- A '" ~ I W \\
.[f N. ],@* ' *.
remw DATg i 1
~2. t - S J.,
3< I m -
PACE \\
OF I T)"
.g IT S INSPECTED:
ri a H e m -il
[ :.
.r m.m s i
dteq t,oEl[S
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ^ '
ATTACHMENTS:
YES g
f; INSPECTION REPORT b0 i
UNIT.g LOCATION g g;
,g f
heA>cs i
l sw A,
INSPECTION CRITERIA DRAWINC C SPECIFICATION O PROCEDURE @
l T
w
'y DOCUMNET TITLE AND NUMBER: g g g.,{
w% g.oj k (. (O Y
k QAghg g g & G-SULTS OF INSPECTION L0~
-Q, (J$h(E I
' O a % t.0 $ D &< ON skicless SkEe~[ face y*WebwosT-oseo scjsh. Ceyw s,6->Q,/%o ca/4 A b G:
NOl~
tt?Al AJ e Q w p 5, br % =. Q.genwk L-%. 6-20 l
% uk he OcPM-l dr B 45) M lo CC4C 13 ISSUE C ldu FILE O
Y t2-2J-T3
_f0
/ L -H-d.3 g
DATs q soa asvizw
.uu uAu.o aY DATc y
.D SPOSITION:
(+g g-
?vk w*s l?F i;i INFORMATION ONLY es DISPOSITION BY DATE QUALITY REVIEW DATE i,
,2
}.C'., INSPECTOR lg,, ACCEPT
- REJECT HOLD TAG #
QC SUPERVISOR FINAL:
p SICNATURE REMOVAL BY SIGNATURE jgd P.-
1, DATE DATE DATE
).,?
l 4
HPF/IR 11-1-83
3..
w-.
. (,,
. ; g'..
'7
-f.
.* r *. ~
l g;..,,; *,,.
d C,.
.b m
d...
....i Y..W A O
$f f F t w, w. _. m l
, m t,9
.Y... h.....Y.
e.;
- 2. >u Mp ;.s;ma6-Msieu~lm._1...
s Nf5@ek.a:_L' W_......* " b'.. [& dl N_ _.LJu k m,,,.c..
3,
N.
l l V.. a s - p '
. s.-.
a.k V c ~
g
<rv Qew?.s
_b o (
. q u ub-<J DEL @ %
W s u k D ole W swc w aWJ p.w w
\\---
-C\\- k D
I/*%
e11 4
b ( N, wy
. Q&:. i; f.
p
^ ^ ^ ^ '
6
. =....
4.,_-.,..
.. _..b _.._19 0 4 48.8 A 4o wa.b wA.Ao n
[ 1/d- )
V 1.
neR o
f k..___._
. 3.h_
N'T .
W
- / o p wb4 uM9 L..
ed t
n Q.$$ th' %
s%6 '
_._.e, $
%. w. 3. e + 9 " - W-b ~' M aa~--a e oAA b a. ck 4).
Beh s.,; ;
g b Y ' d ',. ' %
. _ F_ Y.. M A
& C-MC
.._.A.h. '
6 V
y,g..
i._
4 lM)
._..b.
M', -a ~
q4..,.
&..6 vm.
d.t
\\
. N f_,*
~~J r
.~......n, M
/,
g gg
..r
_.. _ ~
.____._____-__a
+.
?' '
f *fM., : ';..
't '..
..a'-
Nw.'d.l D.
M354_....
4 oS. t 6 sqsu Wh 3' b [M lw li8k 5 c.lK
.kkN6"B;.I.L..
I og y 6;94 a %.P I.~
6 l
w y 4
,.,....... a...-. w g g g g Q....
t UJ Y k L 0 k. f @WL R@ f a %' f +e Q. _ 4,.
f A Esud wwLa w d,
e.w j
m.
.an. w..
..e Ye
)
M t~.~
. ~ _
W l
-~-
{'.
@m o
44A h.C% --
W m fy )ta.o kg p..
bb o
M MC 4
W ~:
jAh'&
.e.vt. w % M ct)
? C..
i Y J..-... -...
gyp r.,,.,
s.,
g G.
+
? I gg \\'
l_
.y K.
^* N W i
LLO.x...
~ Mctu-p'~
N
.2 ' h< v s,gt ymy apyw
ppp, 771.9 V)lior71r &
//is / v4' 9raca.nr>
r* Io:Su a m.
- \\
h' d /?)st/aL is JA% sci.~4 7$Whp)*sr=c}
E
. M 6 J,r,! Ac--.
yRAby u=st'4 4.:<<a A aak a m 's...rao)
.I RMS A
+ wJ ent ~ deptt% pd h 49
% &W
&Awp%,
rh wA $
a vote a ano n a
- n n & wG Ae1 AB aLaqkw skJ.
mfdu, w6 A ty wd upv a.A Art nu); wtc co es -J M tiu 4 9 %/ rh ba& e:a,At J e
R&y esmykk % wede>NA)) & & WW. ts4 6sry4 we. & ps d5 ab,< m A & m FT nunJik $ Ak-n 2A W. R.. w +s 6 A w Yf7?ff?
& th s w ype % 6t c~
(V6 a%4n.
AumcAs,aj t//ta 4 Q )#MfLdA w
- Y L A h 7tV$E the @W yl dw y A k
k,yy
// 9 F. M -l w as -
-. shd%p -talt MJ @h,
.: a upaa q F4 er n eJ.
k & % L &,$6duf.
(z) &lx4 pr+dA &Mc ap%ia:/h 9~'
mut Cn FG4A
~
akut V4 6 5 4
- d4 (JA ?>.).
JG
-> @ :.TYrds bs >#Mf '
W e-w/ as,M $s'G y W i
Q>Q hh~ UnMM.:
7 -_-- -
~a
agf' y
p-
&ldD wua-lkts& m&lWh gy Q rgs Tp 6 aaoc & & M hkL I
)e a J % %4/#& 40
\\
sst
% %Q $ -
Y&
d
$*};,a w.,6 &
ggpk~&PU" A'"
s pq sbzh &
)
p h,J 4 $ddL bf5 3,uS j
,f f
a
, qQ w em ax- #~ &
anwn ajw 3g g
n - =-
b fst-&ia
- M.
y $ WN>d A*"&1 NQ~y9,8 nvo s
a w.e. n ~
c N
Y g $gfg.t /
!a=+'df a wr m.m_
._.--__________m-________._m.-.___---
pf e
}
hetDIT A C$iU)7755,
b f& $ A Au d a Af
~
6,
- n. p,~ w k c @ vo s m + J e> s n & %, &
anda rk u4 m. s m m J
(h/ M 1414b
- 4. M be>
44 waa Wet Fdy W bu uM~% J
- Apuylk n u May M if u
a u=sse e,d ik buua Kdaj uapa<D n
+p nam a4snm
[Uls h
s k
g
,h i
i\\
5 i
\\
/
t m.o
I f
hp ' ' -
~
x
~-
,I I
%. !Ml inbaoSW
&L'td+
d@ M s pla&
I/: Cn ra 4 s wamm W
s 4Aw phas,sa& una%fdsadA &
/
p Jul n
I L>
d u H's y & A e l a. n A
4
[
e M n w& M s w A
7~d M n a
w&
' 7 And l
s g ~6 A QQ u, s n)s +ma a
A uu cs~ n n 1%rL~1)rh&
a mpkm waka Chaa lk adaLw Wsat TuML) n s&-
a
),%A* T
- l Gla d4y, g as W i
r<
l l
l i
'~
i 1
m..................................s Copyrighted Document-Addressed Under FOIA 1
1 For hard copy, i
refer to PDR Folder:FOIA
..a u...,
..., n o5 susnap r-a
///-
p,,,, ;
Accession Nu.b.r:
l l
l l
l Copyrighted Document Addressed Under FOIA 1
l For hard copy, refer to PDR Folder:FOIA-
)
FOIA Name & Number:
O 97d N I
Pages:
]
Accession Number:
i
.1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5E E E E, Copyrighted Document Addressed Ender FOIA l
For hard copy, refer to PDR Folder:FOIA E55555555555555555555555555555555555 l
b# & NNhIdb3 FOIA Name & Number:
Pages:
Accession Number:
)
i