ML20099K309: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot insert |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot change |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:* | {{#Wiki_filter:* | ||
i is indeed found and removed, and (2) to attempt to minimize the number of repairs on a specific weld. After repair, the weld must undergo the same level of inspection which detected | i is indeed found and removed, and (2) to attempt to minimize the number of repairs on a specific weld. | ||
I might add that neither the AWS nor ASME Code requires | After repair, the weld must undergo the same level of inspection which detected the original defect. | ||
I know of no other welding engineers or code specialists who would advocate such inspections. | I might add that neither the AWS nor ASME Code requires in-process corrections to be inspected. | ||
A weld is not technically " defective" or cannot be said to have a " defect" until inspected and evaluated by the designated authorities (e.g., | Further, in my opinion these inspections are not necessary, warranted or justifiable to produce structurally sound welds. | ||
QC personnel) to the acceptance criteria specified by the applicable code. | I know of no other welding engineers or code specialists who would advocate such inspections. | ||
h!_? | Indeed, to my knowledge no one in the entire welding industry requires such inspections. | ||
A weld is not technically " defective" or cannot be said to have a " defect" until inspected and evaluated by the designated authorities (e.g., QC personnel) to the acceptance criteria specified by the applicable code. | |||
h!_? | |||
:Nu'L ib.d.. , | $ 74> C c /= r c t e S | ||
&c.y r y a f se. >i cm -u W.E. Baker Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of November 1984. | |||
:Nu'L ib.d.., | |||
,y | |||
<g<n' f #c<AfoS Notary Public Sy G. mni s s, c..i cxp<tts spc cv :S' Mf 8411290381 841127 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G | |||
PDR}} | |||
Latest revision as of 06:22, 13 December 2024
| ML20099K309 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1984 |
| From: | Baker W TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20099K287 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8411290381 | |
| Download: ML20099K309 (1) | |
Text
i is indeed found and removed, and (2) to attempt to minimize the number of repairs on a specific weld.
After repair, the weld must undergo the same level of inspection which detected the original defect.
I might add that neither the AWS nor ASME Code requires in-process corrections to be inspected.
Further, in my opinion these inspections are not necessary, warranted or justifiable to produce structurally sound welds.
I know of no other welding engineers or code specialists who would advocate such inspections.
Indeed, to my knowledge no one in the entire welding industry requires such inspections.
A weld is not technically " defective" or cannot be said to have a " defect" until inspected and evaluated by the designated authorities (e.g., QC personnel) to the acceptance criteria specified by the applicable code.
h!_?
$ 74> C c /= r c t e S
&c.y r y a f se. >i cm -u W.E. Baker Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of November 1984.
- Nu'L ib.d..,
,y
<g<n' f #c<AfoS Notary Public Sy G. mni s s, c..i cxp<tts spc cv :S' Mf 8411290381 841127 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G