ML20237L330

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Trip Rept of 821101-830106 Visit to Plant to Perform Reverification of Ultrasonic Exams on Pipe Rupture Restraint Welds by Pullman Power Products Corp
ML20237L330
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon  Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 01/06/1983
From: Henry D
BECHTEL GROUP, INC.
To: Weedman A
BECHTEL GROUP, INC.
Shared Package
ML20237K209 List:
References
FOIA-84-743 NUDOCS 8708200176
Download: ML20237L330 (6)
v • d • e


Text

- _ _ _ _

+ ' 'BECHTEL GROUP, INC.

/

/

Research and Engineering 1

  • -Materials:and Quality Services Letter File No. DOH.n13.o1 Date Januarv 6 los3

'To:

-Al Weedman from:

D. Hentv Location ve /1 r / c y ' Tel, n n,3,n

Subject:

TRIP REPORT oate of Trio:

Project Name Diablo Canvon From 11/1/s2

,To 1/6/s-Project No.

15320 M&QS Log No. 0181 77 i

Project Spec. No.

(PGSE) 8833 XR R.10 Destination:

Avila Beach

.C: pies to:

R. A. Manley/B. D. Hackney

\\

lh'. C. Koepke Tyoe of Trio:

G.. Thomas (Jobsite)

R. Torstrom. (Jobsite) /

O supplier (Name) j

~ J. Arnold (Jobsite)

Client

1. Michail.

pame)

DCC-0181 C Jobsite j

J 1

cue: SE OF TP. P:

'd 1

'!5QS support was requested by Project to perforn a reverification of ultrasonic exar7r.ations performed on pipe rupture restraint welds by Pu11:an Power Products f

Corporation.

I',]CTCT*CN/ DESCRIPTION OF Po0SLEM:

'Jcids ghich had been ultrasonically exanined and accepted by Pullman Power Products Cer,coratien. cie later found to have rejectable UT indications.

The reverification p ro;ran a.as perforced to resolve the nonconformance. (Ref. PG5E NCR-32-FJi-001).

l 1: NCLUS:0NS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

The ESD 234 ultrasonic exaninntion procedures used by Pullman Power Product s v re ir.nd guste to assure that the weld quality net the requirements of the technical frecification.

! SQS reco = ends that: welds found unacceptable by ultrasonic examination during the rewrification program be evaluated by Project.

':5QS further recorrends that any helds fo.und. unacceptable by Project be referred back to '!SQS fer an ultrasonic flaw site evaluation prior to final disposition.

If the welds in the sample are four,d

- to te acceptable by Project, liGQS recor.. ends against performing further examinations.

-Era;uation of individual examiner performance using PGSE ultrasonic exarinstien n, Procedure ESD 234 is still in r,rogr.ss.

o:5

~

. t a 2:,

c

=?

ATTAc.R MLDW A e e.

h2 pag 1~ -

o f s~

C[

8708200,3f 870814 1 Q PDR pay 7

.( ( -

DEVINEB4-743

)

PDR

=

  • m i

Q

, -"q-

"'BECHTELGR0t#l!XC.

, 9 34 V

RLsearcty and T.ngineering :

' Materials And.Quayry Services Letter File No. _ppo!En_1

? vir i

aq 3.

Date Januarv 6 1on To:

- Al'hyedman

,,_, From:

D.bnyv i

t-d#ubjecti TRT,9 REPORT (continued)

(

- i e

i Ptsject Name DIABLO CAxvob

~

l Pedject !b.

15320 M&QS lo9 No...n101 72 r,

l

^

i PARTICIPANTS:

- l l

'MME l

COMPANY OR'CRCJECT AFFIL'IATION-AtID TITLES i

+

7 4

s i

9

,A1.Needman g

General Superintendent - Bechtel Nick 'Ikonokov

(

Engineering Supervisor:- Be.htel 4,

Doug 'fenry

,NDE f.ngineer

'hechtel-('!SQS) l tl. !lich il jProj ect Engineering Group: Leader

'Bechtel 1

si Gi Stri.ckland 2 Engineer Bechtel:

G. Chen Engineer - 5echtel

11. Lashgari Engineer' - Bechtel R..Torstrod Rupture' Restraint Inspection Group 3

Supervisor -~PGSE 6

'D.

Dudham Field Engineer - Pullman Power Products Corp.

i f-E. A!c'ani: ara NDE' Examiner - Magnaflux

{

.O]y L. BennettJ M.'Chrrell" NDE Examiner ~- Magnaflux 3.

T, Yea'gd-t

$a.

T. Mangold-L>

s

,'j.

M. Nodini' 2

n

"~

"i D'.

Ross L. O'Shea l

N. Tulloh.

l N~ 1\\cCoy '

T.' Anderson-l 3'

L. Bishman 1

1 3

i DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION C

' M5QSlwas t.iked to provide NDE technical support to Project during the performance of an ultrisonic wid examination reverification program on pipe rupture restraints on Unit 1.

1he requircra t for ultrasonic examination of these welds originated from PGSE Technical Spe:ific:ition 5333 XR Rev.10, which required ultrasonic examination of all full j

penetration welds according to AWS-D1.0-69.

The purpose of the reverification was to resolve a nonconformance (Ref. NCR-DC1-S2-R'!-N001) i.e., welds recorded as acceptable by ultrasonic examination which contained unacceptable indications. 'The welds referred to in the nonconformance report were found during a final wall dewn examination of rupture restraints in Unit 2 (Ref. DR 460S).

The five welds

~

listed in the discrepancy report were found to have incomplete penetration when the

f *

- l' 3 "E

of i

' R 8_

E.?

.Page ' of <

N l

___________________-_____-__O

3-Al Weedman D. O. Henry DIABLO CANTON January 6, 1983 I

H5QS Log No. 0181-77 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION (Continued) backing bars were removed.

Subsequent ultrasonic examination showed all five' welds to be unacceptable using PGSE LTT Procedure 3523 (10/2/82 Rev.) and four welds were found to be unacceptable using Pullman Power Products (PPP) LTT Procedure ESD 234 (9/30/75 Rev.). The previous ultrasonic examinations were

.perforced using the ESD 234 Procedure.

Prior to Bechtel involvement, PGSE had developed a reverification program (Rev. Spec. 8833XR-001) and had begun performing L1trasonic examinations.

Initially, Pullman Power Products was performing the Level III review of ultrasonic examination results and supervising NDE subcontractor personnel.

Since Pullman perforced the original ultrasonic examinations, PGSE, requested Bechtel to assume responsibility for both review and supervision activities.

Bechtel M5QS also verified the qualifications of the NDE Subcontractor personnel.

PG5E initially selected approximately 360 rupture restraint welds in Unit 1 (10% of tf.e total weld population) as a sample for reverification.

According to the original program, each weld was to be examined twice.

The first examination was perforced to the P.P.P. ESD 234 (either 9-30-75 Rev. or 2-17-75 Rev.) procedure to which the weld was last examined to verify that the last examination was perforced' properly. The seccad examination was performed to PGSE Procedure 3523 (10-2-82 Rev.) to evaluate weld quality. The 3523 (10-2-82 Rev.) precedure is currently being used for rupture restraint weld examination.

Welds which were last examined using the 3523 procedure were to be tested only once using the 3523 Procedure for reverification and weld quality evaluation.

M5QS performed a review of all the NDE procedures used in the program (Attachment 1).

F.eview of the P.P.P. ESD 234 procedures, 2-17 'S Rev. snd 9-30-75 Rev., showed i

that these procedures were ambiguous and/or i,. consistent on critical details, i.e.,

calibration standards and soundbeam refracted angle. Through conversations with the P.P.P. Level III and the PGGE Rupture Restraint Inspection Group Superviser, M5QS learned that the details inadequately addressed in the ESD 234 Procedures were resolved verbally by the various examiners at the time the examinations were perfor:rd.

Since no formal examination reports were made, infor.ation regarding which calibration standards and soundbeen refracted angles were used was unavailable.

A change of calibration standard or soundbeam refracted angle can change the result of an ultrasonic examination.

Revisions to ESD 234 prior to 2-17-75 were unavailable so details contained in those revisions which could affect test results are unknown.

Based on those factors, MSQS concluded that ultrasonic examinations perforced to j

ESD 234 could not be accurately reverified using the same procedure.

PGSE Procedure j

3523. (10-4-S2 Rev.) contained scanning requirements which exceeded those stated in 1

AWS-D1.0-69.

M5QS concluded that the additional scanning requirements subjected wcIds to a more rigorous examination than was intended by AWS-D1.0-69.

Based on the review of the ultrasonic examination procedures and the requirements c f Technicc1 Specification SS33XR Rev.10, MSQS reco= ended that the reverification progrcm be revised to delete the use of both revisiens of the iSD 234 Procedure

)

l

u

.1

4-4 a

D. O. Henry AltKeedman January 6, 1983-j 4DIABLO CANYON

!J5QS Log No. 0181-77 DETAILS OF' INVESTIGATION (Continued) and to examine the welds using one procedure which met the requirements of AWS-D1.0-69 without exceeding them.. From the single' examination, both the adequacy of examinations performed to-the various revisions of ESD 234 and the quality of the. welds could be evaluated to the requirements of Technical l

Specification S833XR Rev.10. M5QS recommended that PGGE Procedure 3523 l

(10-4-82) be revised and -used for the ~ reverification program (Attachments 2, i

M5QS further recommended that welds which were last examined to

.3, and 4).

PG5E Procedure 3523 be deleted from the reverification program since this procedure was' properly written and met the requirements of the Technical Specification.

PGSE incorporated these recommendations into the reverifica-tion. program.(Attachment'5) and issued a revised program procedure (8833XR-001 RI.)

The results of ten The revised procedure, 3523M, became effective on 11-3-82.

examinations performed prior to 11-3-82 using Procedure 3523 were u:ed in the

' program but were noted in the records..The remainder of the welds in the

~

sample were examined,'using Procedure 3523M.

To insure that only welds last examined to ESD 234 were included in the sample, all welds last examined-after

)

5-31-79 (original issue date for Procedure 3523) were deleted from the program except where t'xamination to ESD 234 was verified.

The results of the program are shown in Table I.

With the exception of the

.GE area, all the. areas show significant numbers of welds which are unacceptable.

Since the GE area contains fewer than 1% of the total weld population, rupture restraints in all areas of Unit'l can be expected to contain significant numbers of welds which will not meet the acceptance criteria of AKS-D1.0-69.

Similarly, the joint type seems to have little influence on the incidence of unacceptable indications. ^ Although the most. highly restrained joint type, Type 4, accounted for the highest percentage of unacceptable welds, the vast majority of the indications in this group as well as others appear related to the welding operator technique and not to the effects of stress. AKS-DI.0-69 ultrasonic acceptance criteria is independent of flaw type but the majority of

{

l the unacceptable' indications appeared to be technique related, i.e., incomplete The results of examinations penetration, incomplete fusion and slag inclusions.

performed using the.9-30-75 revision of ESD 234 were considered separately Because since this revision was radically different'than previous revisions.

l 40% of the welds examined were found to have rejectabic indications, N5QS has l

concluded that examinations performed to both variations of ESD 234 were j

inadequate to assure that the weld quality met the Technical Specification j

requirements.

Flaws related to joint configuration were encountered in two cases. Incomplete fusion yas found in welds having the configurations shown in Attachments 6 and 7.

Of nine welds having the configuration shown in Attachment 6, seven were fcund The to. have rejectable indications caused from lack of fusion at the sidewall.

improperly welded Type 5 joints shown in Attachment 7, were acceptable when examined in accordance with AKS.91.0 69 due to the orientation of the sidewall.

of sidewall lack of fusion

.g M5QS was requested by PGSE to evaluate the extent This eval-on these joints outside the scope of the reverification progi:n.

untion was performed using a straight beam ultrasonic examination which revealed l

! )

i Al Weedman D. O. Henry DIABLO CANYON January 6, 1983 1

MGQS Log No. 0181-77 L

I DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION (Continued) gross lack of fusion in all the welds examined.

The configuration shown in

- was not recorded on any drawings, therefore joints of this t>Te l

can only be located by visual examination of individual restraints.

Ultrasonic examination reports of welds containing unacceptable indicatio'ns have been submitted to Project Engineering for further evaluation based on a l

" fitness for purpose approach".

The indicati ns were dimensioned ultrasonically using the conventional half-amplitude techniqu.

M5QS Research has shown that this dicensioning technique overstates the actual flaw size in most cases, but more accurate dimensioning requires special techniques which are more time l

consucing. M5QS therefore. recommends that flaws found unacceptable by l

Engineering be further evaluated by M5QS for a more accurate measurement' prior j

to final disposition of the weld.

c i

M5QS net with the responsible en;ineer and his staff on 11/10/S2 and 11/15/S2 to discuss the examinations and :o develop a form for presentation of the ultrasonic data to the Engineering group.

M5QS has maintained contact with Project Engineering as needed for support in evaluation of the ultrasenic data.

l l

M5QS was requested by PGSE to reexamine a scall sample of welds last examined using the PGSE 3523 Procedure to evaluate the performance of individual exar2ners.

A performance evaluation of individual examiners using the ESD 234 Procedure was q

not pgssible (Ref. Attachments 1 and 2).

Only three examiners have performed examinations in Unit One using the 3523 Procedure (Ref. Attachment 8).

Rejectab!c indications were found in welds examined by two of the three individuals. M5QS recommends that several more welds be exacined for additional data before a final evaluation of the performance of these technicians is made.

A report of this evaluation will be issued after the additional work is' completed.

M5QS REPRESENTATIVE:

DDH:ef 4.4/4 b

'~

/

Attachments I

._____m

__.____m_-._______

_.____m___

1

.a TABLE I i

REVERIFICATION PROGRMt RESULTS l

l l

CATEGORY RI'S NRI'S TOTAL

% RI PROCEDURE ESD 234 (before 9/30/75) 93 114 207 45 ESD 23 (9/30/75 Rev.)

50 94 144 35 JOINT TYPE 1A 18 26 44 41 2A 46 78 124 37 4

42 34 36 49 5

11 23 34 32

-(

OTHER 27 41 68 40 AREA CONTAINMENT 15 48 63 24 PIPEMCX 36 32 63 53 GE 12 12 0

GW 76 94 170 45 HELLWELL 5

8 13 3S TURBINE 10 15 25 40 TOTAL 142 209 351 40 3

)

i i

1 l

_____-___-__a

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20237L330&oldid=3920936"