Latest revision as of 12:56, 25 February 2020

Text

ASME Section XI Inservice Inspection Program Request for Alternative REP-SI: Proposed Alternative to Requirements for Repair/Replacement Activities for Certain Safety Injection Pump Welded Attachments
	ML14202A614
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	07/21/2014
From:	Allen B; Pacific Gas & Electric Co
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	50-275-OL, 50-323-OL
	Download: ML14202A614 (75)
	v • d • e

- Pacific Gas and

~ ~ Electric Company 1

Barry S. Allen Diablo Canyon Power Plant Site Vice President Mail Code 104/6 July 21, 2014 P. 0. Box 56 Avila Beach, CA 93424 805.545.4888 PG&E Letter DCL-14-060 Internal: 691.4888 Fax: 805.545.6445 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk 10 CFR 50.55a Washington, DC 20555-0001 Docket No. 50-275, OL-DPR-80 Docket No. 50-323, OL-DPR-82 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2 ASME Section Xllnservice Inspection Program Request for Alternative REP-SI:

Proposed Alternative to Requirements for Repair/Replacement Activities for Certain Safety Injection Pump Welded Attachments

Dear Commissioners and Staff:

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) hereby requests NRC approval of lnservice Inspection Request for Alternative REP-SI for Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2.

An alternative is requested from the requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, for Repair/Replacement rules governing certain socket welded attachments to safety injection pumps. The details of the proposed request are enclosed.

This communication does not contain regulatory commitments (as defined by NEI 99-04).

PG&E requests authorization of this relief request no later than July 21, 2015.

If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact Mr. Tom Baldwin at (805) 545-4720.

Sincerely, v3dJ 5: 411---

Barry S. Allen rntU4231 /50500119 Enclosure cc: Diablo Distribution cc/enc: Peter J. Bamford, NRC Project Manager Marc L. Dapas, NRC Region IV Administrator Thomas R. Hipschman, NRC Senior Resident Inspector Gonzalo L. Perez, Branch Chief, California Department of Public Health State of California, Pressure Vessel Unit A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) Alliance Callaway

Comanche Peak

Diablo Canyon

Palo Verde

Wolf Creek

Enclosure PG&E Letter DCL-14-060 10 CFR 50.55a Request Number REP-51 Proposed Alternative In Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i)

Proposed alternative would provide an acceptable level of quality and safety.

Table of Contents

1. ASME Code Component Affected

2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda

3. Applicable Code Requirement

4. Reason for Request

5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use 5.1 Welding Procedure Qualification Tests 5.2 Stress and Fracture Mechanics Evaluation 5.3 Nondestructive Examinations 5.4 Review of Safety Injection Pumps Operating History 5.5 Conclusion

6. Duration of Proposed Alternative : Weld Procedure Specification No. 149 : PG&E ATS Report 420DC-14.20: Welding Procedure Qualification Record (PQR) 771 and Associated Documents : SIA Report No. 1301620.402: Stress and Fracture Mechanics Evaluation of Type 410 Stainless Steel Weldments in Safety Injection Pumps at Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Revision 2) 1

Enclosure PG&E Letter DCL-14-060 10 CFR 50.55a Request Number REP-51 Proposed Alternative In Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i)

-Proposed alternative would provide an acceptable level of quality and safety-

1. ASME Code Components Affected Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP), Unit 1, ASME Code Class 2, Safety Injection (SI) Pumps 1-1 and 1-2 nominal pipe size (NPS) % inch vent and drain connection socket weld attachments (four attachment welds per pump); and DCPP, Unit 2, ASME Code Class 2, Sl Pump 2-1 NPS% inch vent and drain connection socket weld attachments (four attachment welds). (Note: DCPP, Unit 2, Sl Pump 2-2 vent and drain connections were manufactured differently and are not affected).

2. Applicable Code Edition and Addenda ASME Section XI, 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda.

3. Applicable Code Requirement IWA-4000, "Repair/Replacement Activities," including IWA-4130, "Alternative Requirements," and IWA-4131, "Small Items," as corrective action for the four affected Code Class 2, NPS% inch socket welds on each pump.

4. Reason for Request Relief is requested from implementing the Section XI repair/replacement rules for nonconforming % inch nominal diameter vent valve and drain pipe fitting attachment socket welds. These welds connect to four integrally attached stub piping nipples on each of the three subject Sl Pumps. (Note: larger diameter pipe connections to these pumps were supplied with integral flanged connections and are not affected).

The Unit 1 Sl Pumps 1-1 and 1-2 and Unit 2 Sl Pump 2-1 are size 2 %,

Model Number JTCH, manufactured by Pacific Pumps. The pump casings are fabricated from martensitic stainless steel and were each supplied with four integrally attached % inch nominal diameter Type 410 martensitic stainless steel (ASME material Type P-6) pipe nipple stubs.

One integral vent stub nipple and three integral drain stub nipples were 2

Enclosure PG&E Letter DCL-14-060 supplied with each pump. The pump casings including the pipe nipples and their attachment welds to the pump casings were heat treated during pump manufacture and supplied as an integral pump assembly.

The Unit 1 Sl pumps and connected piping were installed in 1974 and the Unit 2 Sl pump 2-1 and connected piping was installed in 1975 by the original plant construction piping and equipment installation contractor.

During original installation of the pump assemblies in the plant, Type 316 austenitic stainless steel (ASME material Type P-8) isolation valves were welded to the integral vent stub nipple connections, and Type 304 austenitic stainless steel (ASME material Type P-8) pipe fittings (elbows or tees) were welded to each of the integral drain stub nipple connections supplied with each pump. The valve or fitting-to-stub nipple attachment welds were made using the pipe and equipment installation contractor's welding procedure Specification Number 149 (see Attachment 1) using Type 309 stainless steel filler metal. Procedure 149 was qualified for welding carbon steel (ASME material Type P-1) to austenitic stainless steel (ASME material Type P-8). Procedure 149 was not qualified for welding martensitic stainless steel (ASME material Type P-6) to austenitic stainless steel (ASME material Type P-8); and therefore, does not contain provision for post-weld heat treatment that would potentially be required by a P-6 to P-8 Procedure. The discrepancy in welding procedure qualification was discovered in December 2013 during material verification as part of the planning process for anticipated replacement of the Pump 1-1 vent valve due to boric acid leakage from the valve packing.

ASME Section XI would require use of IWA-4000 repair/replacement rules for correction of the four nonconforming% inch nominal diameter socket welds on each subject pump.

5. Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use PG&E proposes to accept the existing Sl Pumps 1-1, 1-2, and 2-1 vent and drain attachment socket welds as-is.

To confirm acceptability of the existing Sl pumps vent and drain socket welds, PG&E has:

conducted welding procedure qualification tests with representative 410 stainless steel and 304 stainless steel base materials using Type 309 filler metal as per the original Welding Procedure Specification 149 parameters without post-weld heat treatment (see Attachment 2);

3

Enclosure PG&E Letter DCL-14-060

performed a Stress and Fracture Mechanics Evaluation of Type 410 Stainless Steel Weldments in Sl Pumps at DCPP (see Attachment 3);

performed nondestructive examinations (NOEs) of the subject welds to determine and verify current conditions; and

performed a review of the Sl pumps operating histories including pressure test records.

Each of these actions are discussed below and detailed in the attachments.

5.1 Welding Procedure Qualification Tests Welding Procedure Qualification Test Report is presented in Attachment 2. For the weld qualification tests, Arc-Met testing to determine carbon content of the existing Sl pumps, 410 stainless steel pipe nipples were attempted but proved unsuccessful due to the small pipe size, short lengths of the drain nipples and adverse component configurations. As a result, Type 410 stainless steel material with the highest carbon content readily available (0.13 percent) was used for the qualification testing. To qualify the procedure, 3/8 inch thick Type 410 stainless steel plate was welded to 3/8 inch thick Type 304 stainless steel plate using a combination of gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) at the root with shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) for the cover passes. Ambient condition preheat of 66.5°F was used with maximum interpass temperature of 297°F recorded. No post weld heat treatment was used.

The final weld was sectioned to provide two tensile and four bend test specimens which were tested by an independent laboratory. Two of the bend specimens were subjected to root bending, 180 degrees, and two were subjected to face bending, 180 degrees, over rollers with diameter of 4 times the bend specimen thickness, with the weld and heat-affected zones centered within the convex length of bent samples per ASME Section IX, Table QW-451.1- and QW-160, 2013 Edition. The samples were subsequently examined for cracks and other defects and all were found acceptable.

The two tensile test specimens were tested in accordance with ASME Section IX, Table QW-451.1 and QW-150, 2013 Edition, with required ultimate tensile strength of 65 Kips (1 000 pounds) per square inch (ksi).

Actual ultimate tensile strengths of 75.5 ksi and 76.0 ksi respectively were recorded, with the breaks occurring in the 410 stainless steel parent metal in both instances.

4

Enclosure PG&E Letter DCL-14-060 5.2 Stress and Fracture Mechanics Evaluation Stress and Fracture Mechanics Evaluation Report prepared by Structural Integrity Associates (SIA) is presented in Attachment 3. SIA's evaluation of the % inch Type 410 stainless steel nipples welded to Type 316 valves or Type 304 fittings without post weld heat treatment on the DCPP Sl Pump vent and drain lines consisted of stress analysis, evaluation of allowable flaw size under maximum loading, and evaluation of crack propagation of postulated flaws under cyclic fatigue loading. A fracture mechanics approach analogous to the methods of ASME Code Section XI, supplemented with procedures from American Petroleum Institute Standard API-579, was used because the ASME Section XI methods do not address Type 410 martensitic stainless steels, evaluation of (postulated) flaws on piping outside diameter (OD) surfaces, or evaluation of flaws in piping of diameter 4 inches or less.

The postulated flaw extends from the socket weld toe on the Type 41 0 stainless steel nipple, which is the region where cyclic stresses are the largest, and grows from the OD toward the inside diameter (I D).

Additionally, a postulated flaw originating at the ID was evaluated due to the presence of residual tensile stresses as a result of welding.

The depths of OD and ID flaws located along the largest cyclic stress path that would cause crack instability under maximum operating loads and pressure, including seismic/abnormal loads and applicable structural factors, were evaluated. The allowable flaw depth for an OD flaw was determined to be 0.110 inch, approximately 71.6 percent of the wall thickness of 0.154 inch. The allowable flaw depth for an ID flaw was found to exceed 80 percent of the wall thickness.

For cyclic loading, postulated ID flaws are not predicted to grow as all cyclic stress intensity factors are below the fatigue threshold.

For postulated OD crack analysis, 7000 thermal transient cycles, 400 design earthquake cycles, and 20 Hosgri earthquake cycles were assumed. For the postulated OD crack to grow by fatigue under cyclic operating loads, and pressure to the allowable flaw size in the evaluated number of cycles, an initial crack of at least 0.104 inch depth is required.

This depth corresponds to a surface length of 0.832 inch for a crack aspect ratio of 4.

For nondestructive test minimum length detection limits of 1/16 inch (such as for liquid penetrant examinations), fatigue crack growth will not occur for a postulated OD flaw where surface length is equal to the detection limit, even for load cycles associated with the Hosgri earthquake.

5

Enclosure PG&E Letter DCL-14-060 For a postulated 10 percent through-wall OD flaw, no growth is predicted except for the 20 cycles assumed for the Hosgri event. For that case, the associated crack extension is 8.3 x 1o-6 inch.

For a postulated OD crack 0.026 inch deep Uust exceeding the fatigue crack growth threshold), the amount of crack extension under the evaluated cyclic loading is 0.0015 inch.

The evaluations of the postulated OD and ID flaws show that crack growth under anticipated cyclic loading is minimal.

5.3 Nondestructive Examinations During the operating history of the plant, the subject welds have been examined by qualified VT-2 visual examiners every 40 months during scheduled ASME Section XI system pressure tests. No leakage from any of the welds has ever been identified.

Liquid penetrant examinations of all subject welds were performed between December 18 and 20, 2013, with specific attention focused for crack-like indications. No linear or crack-like indications were detected.

5.4 Review of Safety Injection Pumps Operating History The cumulative number of starts is a measure of the cyclic loading experienced by the pumps, as analyzed in the stress and fracture mechanics evaluation. The Sl pumps were each started several times during testing prior to plant operation. During plant operation, the pumps normally function in a stand-by capacity and are periodically started for pump readiness testing and system pressurizations for leak testing, as well as a small number of starts in support of the Sl function.

Preoperational starts are an estimate of the number of Sl pump starts during preoperational startup testing activities and during three Plant Hot Functional Testing programs. Each pump is estimated to have had 25 preoperational starts.

The total number of operational starts for Sl Pumps 1-1, 1-2, and 2-1 through the end of 2013 was estimated using the operating data of each of these pumps to establish an annual average. This average, 11 starts per year for each pump, was extrapolated back to the commencement of plant operation.

6

Enclosure PG&E Letter DCL-14-060 Total preoperational and operational start estimates were then added together. The resulting estimated number of starts for each Sl pump during the life of the plant was multiplied by 2 as a conservative measure allowing for a higher number of starts per year at beginning of plant life plus any pressurizations of the Sl piping by means other than a pump start, such as hydro testing.

The calculation of total starts for each pump is as follows: [Number of preoperational starts plus (Average number of starts per year multiplied by number of years of plant operation)] multiplied by 2.

Total starts for Sl Pumps 1-1 and 1-2: [25 starts+ (11 starts/year X 29 years)] X 2 = 688 starts Total starts for Sl Pump 2-1: [25 starts+ (11 starts/year X 28 years)] X 2

= 666 starts.

The total number of starts to date (approximately half of plant life assuming a 20 year license renewal extension) for each of the subject Sl pumps is conservatively estimated to be less than 700 starts.

Conservatively assuming an additional 700 starts during the second half of plant life (including the assumed 20 year license extension period), the total number of Sl pump starts during all of plant lifetime is estimated to be less than 1400 starts. This is well under the 7000 thermal transient cycles assumed in the fatigue crack growth analysis.

5.5 Conclusion As discussed above and demonstrated and documented in Attachments 2 and 3, the existing Sl pumps vent and drain socket welds provide an equivalent level of quality and safety in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i), thus the existing weldments may be determined acceptable as-is for continued service.

6. Duration of Proposed Alternative The proposed alternative will apply for the remaining service life of Sl Pumps 1-1, 1-2, and 2-1, including the duration of the current operating licenses plus a contemplated license extension period of 20 years.

7

Attachment 1 PG&E Letter DCL-14-060 Weld Procedure Specification No. 149

[NOTE: Best available copy is attached.]

THE It H:. i<CLLOG!l GONPANY

1\ uivis ion or Pu11mnn IHC(Wpot*atcd Ptpirl~] f\~hric;.,tion . *

~-H ll i ~~mspor:t s; Pi\ 1770l P~.Gv ~; E~ fHc:~blo Gnnyon Project

. . .. . :**1 I'

...... **:-";ti"_:...~~~-:-~-;"'c-'"'"t.~"'li::J,....--.,. ..._.~ -*.,.. *-**' .,......a._;,.t..,.~ ** ~ ......... .-;,. ..*-~**-.-**-*=..:.*..... ~~~~*-~...... ~~t...._,..,...~-.~~.,..........,. ..... ~.,----**~~~1"'=*-*,- ~a.Y"l:'.'%~....._":>-*~"'"'::t-.*J-~'71.:.*r*..,.....,=-,.,~*~ ... ~t..:,.,....,....~-.r,.:.** ~: ..v.,.t.* * ._...i .....r"-'1":"="

Fnor.:rounE ~,prctrfC.f\Ti!~n: roR~ !\o*)teoitic HEU)ING ?ROt.f.S$~ -r:*,.:.: ~\1eltlin9 sh~dl/ bt.~

~.~'tain1~:!:-=.:; ~)tr;~_--:*i to ,~..-itbf.>n <;(Ci~l p{pin~_h.' in*.,. dow~ by rhu GT/\\-1 in:;crt n)f.'.lt aud ~;Ht\l:! .

!'J:l t v,!<.d,*Jici~lp GT/\H (ro.Jt) ~~*~cl SHIM (1.*.lf:' hJ... hli:d d out pco!':i~c;~:ie~~ us ill~; m.:mw=d eq\'l pmnntJ i n~3) ... GTf\~*l ~!t:! 1 d i n9 ~: h~i ll be do;it'! ll!~ i n~J a nnn.... I con~.U.1i~bl 1.:: td:.!ctrodn t;f E\1THm2 2.% 'rht:d****** J l*!ETtd.. ~ *rh:.:~ b<:1:>t:~ 111.;:-:*r. r.~ l :~h.=..} i i eunfor1n .I (.1<,.~;(

- -:*.., I ...I t!fh.,:.. ,.. ~ .... -*

I l.*ll,}

r~

., 1

,: per..: I {i f.::.:ti or,'; fc~r f.~!~ hEr: S:~:c Lion I X?

PI ta:.::t~;; ! ;:l1 !i c Bft5f:: hE-u~t TiHn:.Hr:~~~:;; This prncnr~urc i"

.l * ,, -

i . ( ~ '< ** * '{ *i qu(".:l ~rt8*'i .. 1J t-1! ti"JH ~*1~'t!)iil~.f (.q' m;'tt:.?J'ti"lt I tid d(lr**)~--~. he i:;,*.;r.cH ;:/iS h~t~h .:md L/::;6 1 c:<ufc.nH 1:*.::< i'<"*i*a~ f'iil(::r l'i-c:f:;.Ji ::~pec.ifi(,~>t!on:> inGhe:. 11 ltVG.r 311 O.. fl .. f.'!f'lly(' !

t

~-" . Ht:n~!:.;.:r SFfi.:.~~.;) ;-:;1d ~lFf\,*~jJ: f't;r F::.d-J}U!*

~ F!i~i~l~:\~!.i\'Jltii{ OP f.~i~s:*: tit\~rr:t~il\t.~ *r1*1!:~ (~~.1ct;_1!!

1 t

\:~*::::lc~ g}'.:tti1 T"!ir*! r.:}!r;n!t* !.:.); i-:{)i't[)f)!_-; i.l j (~\ .1 (*f tf*,c~ \\!:y 1ti dcpr):.. ~ t ~;h~;l} f.:: I! \*!i thifl '::~:~: ; lmi t~ or

/\(t 1 11y:~i~, r~itlf::l,*:*::'" r-.;t~

y..*-~:prf**.*** .... :-.r 11

- 1 rf. \I.""!\*** ~ ** i,. \ ....... * {.'ll) i . :.!*-***-**; **~-.:ij \.d i.,, .. r**,.*<-

~;~ ~ ~ i ~ ~;:;;;L~~ i ;~;;::~;,:; ~ ~ l :~i;,r.* i:~~~\*; ~ :i;, !: l ..,_~I t

{-,J 1.,*~

,.,J ~ * '*f. * *~

(.,*.:,."llll*Jtlllli Jr'--*t;:r~ ~.~~1 i_ll

t.

1

.. .,. * *~,

1;.,, .* 11,:._):\-*

1 lt;;.

4 1'< ****

f*1*

1. *. '; ..* ;, ;:: i *.. 1 r.t 1 , ( ~ .. 'j 1 / *t' *)'"***~

.. i 1' '~.,,.,

\,! .... ~j **..t,,,..., ..., t **t

v!*ll:, 1 C'.> ir .~.he:* l *<

g[\S f'~J:*z '(OP.Ci ~;;*nFI.ll~ Ui)t':dn.:ri l'.:.:,::r,:sc'~*. i~. . h ,..

-,l . r !,!

,. tlf!_,.,p

.. ,..ttt- * .. t:

1.*.

~*.**-~

i' Ci::Jt~.

,:_ <.L:*

-.. ~.. },...., .. "'c,.l ,,

t,,t*: *- <:l1 I .I.! v. i .'. 1*.... ,h

{I t.!t}l*t -~~r /\r<]()rf~ ~J:)(O*:*.:s5*i{~ i~linl:n;Jnt r~tll.. ity~ ~d:!:\Jt.ht.~d

.kctdH:;!~. 'i:l!!i~ e;l:aj l be! ch'.r.lm~..-~ r;f { I (fur C f/M pi i<t*..:~:ss)" :..:11 ~>i} t*i ff:'\:!<J!;{'l and !?!XC.*:;~;:*;iv~~ flifiOUntf, . f.

\if ~~ Ci) h~ 0I r US t . , t per ' ~

ELE'CTHlClit Cll/-\RACTE.f:1:.~TlGS~ Tht! curre,,t~

.Jst.:. r1 ~:: 11>:: t 1 IJr.~ I.I~ r.:" ,.,r.oo.,.

' * *l .* * '

n l Pti'i":" tr n 1 q.*ti* **n, <:u- t t:}~

,.. t

t

{)'j/.:.1,1,.

- * {; \11<

rl*'-*\'*:>\'{~

, , , I '*' f .J -*

" f:*o*1.

{ ~I

\~~tvl f.~

i tJ~.! r:~) f.! t ! r.-: i :n.~:.1; c.~ l t }'!J*:.. 1 1~., i:<=(~ c)fi f'<Jt;<:~ 7. .~

j.

m~.i'y' br~- u:H~d \~H.hQUi. h~_;ck****l.ip pu:*9c in 1/io$ .J(r! itr HEUJ ~ f*.~c; PltOCH.i~.:m~: Thf~. ~_:;c I d i n!:l l 31:-r~,. :H* ! /~*; i :1':.h d i an!c:t f.! I'.\) techn i qt.h~ ,1 :.; U{*.h f;~; f: 1"~c "I' f\)tle. s l ;~.e:; v nrtd volt~i0e anr~ Ctll'l'eot!~ fc~r c&.ch eh:~t*.trodu~ '

t

'-' ! t.~

,..'t *

..,:~:. 0 {~ t f '('*

"**

t .I

\>l'- *: rl i i~lr'

'** ' ...... ;:J 1.~ i' f'i (...:'..

1

..,,, d .r-,. '1 1* 'i* ':' t* I~ *){! 1 ' ~~

"\o-J' \o. ..f \) t

-i Ih::l ! b:~ ~; ub:*. tarrU a Yl y t.w ~. hi)vJn vn F*;~gt.l 2 ,.j I

/\1-'PE/~f{i\!*UT OF' HEUd i.Jb LINER~~~ "fh<~ vte 1cJ ...;.

in.~J ctwreut <:1r1d m~au:or of (!v~po~~itin::J th1..*

vw i d me.ti:lj :~ fH:! il l;H ::;t!dl thtd: tlv:: rf: ::.he":! l 1 be pn;c:!*ic:JHy no undefcuttin9 on th<:: ;

~-.ide \tJ;.JiJs ryf*th,::~ \*:(ddinq qroovc or' the: f*

... i .::1dj urn i n~J iJ;;;:-::e ,,1.::~tf;;,.. i t1l ,, * ~;Lr:.: J ol, .~.pc.(: i"" i f *~ I,, .. ,*.l-~/" ..- r*

!:1'.,\;'*\,).:'i: '.il: ,. 0

,.l_)t.'

r:

r . ;!;t,"llH!.hfl..

- .., '. t . . . ( Jl~.*:*~ ';' *J).*_=* fi.c(-r~*iol'l~~ f::.*r ~.pccific undat'c:uttinv }*

t*..ii ned by <3fJiJ 1 i {~~**:. ti on \:,f dem t ner r-d i i:~::::l l i mi tat ion!\, f

\*h.li. t.i' he b.. ;~::~::n pt.I::;!;(:S .!:i!; t:x GOC*l <:i{d:.,) i'

~

CLE/\!"H NG: !\ l J s L.;g \}t f 1ux rc~nH~ IIH ng f

i)f'I rmy be<"1d of VJr"~ 1 d i n:J !';ha 11 be J'~:r;*;ovb..i ~

~~1-V;\4 he fore. }i;1)' f i't~.j d0';\11'1 l he fHr'X t *i tJ(:C;t:f, \~ i V<-. ~

[

3/)?,H ~:-l }' 1 ~**6*~** beHd of welding.

1F3 11 =: t*!/ 6*b.' 1 1

. ~*

5/J21l ,.. :t 7jf jw* l)[f:'[f;')~c.:.L

'~ -... t v 1\**1y i,.i

('>)c'-r-

.. , C ,...J ..,..:

{*~"',*

(*;t('\*,f 1 '1"\V 't*t*lt:**~

l I ._.....

l,.,,..,

1.. tt.l *. \ .. ~

!~

3/ H)ll ~.; 311 811 +* pnt~ min ~:*ppcBr on th..::! surface nf any be{~d of \*Jt:' 1.:}*f in:] ~ ha l1 iJt: remo v(~d by (:.hi pp i nfj (H ~

1

'*=

f .... r. t r* ! ('

_,*:~:\d('q~

I rI I -

'i.i:(d nc>t. ~::.:-:.u*c;o tHo flttJClfOOtl f '

I I j'

9i"JUt .!WJ t::c~rurf; nnpi:.:.Jtin9 I. ** * ~

t.wI ne1:t ~.uc .... 11' f.

di<*l~;~~d:ers or th~*~ !n~itk~ dL.wmt::;.r t:\f t!1£~ ~F~fi cup.,

ce*~:-:~1\'t'.. l,{*:(:;ci of \*Jr;ldili0..

Tl-liS PrtOCU.HJf~E I~> i't ftE*A*JI\tl'E flF! I i

~

Cndu No . . i'*i:Jt PG/r~l -*1U .. *51*iAH~*F5-t:G

. ~---***..--~-*...:.......--...:-~.......... "" -----~*~.......,****-****--,.... ..,,.....~:.___. .,._,.~,~*..**..-****--~...*--****-*-....,.".,.,.,_....,_*.~.........:...--.~..n-*--**..-*..,. ............~.:............,. . . . . . _..........1

THE 11. \-!. KI.:Lt.OGG COhPNN 1\ ()ivi~ion of r~ullr;**~m lncorpon:ted Piping f"{d.lri!:;at ion

\nlli~*~rlspnrt, Pc>. 17/0l

~i/4u AND Ul:mER ~ f~ AND Ur.t"DF.:R I t>J.l'.J.III . TTIXCiG:TE3S HAJ./L rrHICKNE:ss I

0\'ER 'J/4tt vlAJ..t O'lER l tt t-JALL THIC1<1lESS

~HIGKNESS I *

~

1~7r

---~,--

'I'YP.

Vt.-:"AI'f'rtO.X.

, eH"ORE WLL."ING

. ll f>VT NOT t.ES~ THAl-l !t8"

l HE U* W* F f I. l 0 GC (: 0 !*: P/; i~ Y Page 3 of l}

1. ~ 1 'i n I 0 ~ ~ f r !Ill ll/d, I I! C0 R P 0 V 1 [ {) I'roe. Coclc 1119 r t f I U (; F Ar. rl I Ct\ T I 0 H HECtHi~H~:i\.!JED FOH~l {,? .. J ~1ANUFt\.CTUhEH'S HECGfUJ OF r*:ELDE--:G PHOCEIJUHB QUALlFlCAT(ON TCSTS Sp<*dficatiou No, .J~?./P_l_:I51.:J~~~?i*J.Al~:_~Q______ Df'tt* lf4-/72

\Vdriinr. Proccs~* ___G.:(~\'~--.~~~~-_§~Jf~_\*{___________ Mauual ot 1*!~('1->in~---i:f;t:(\i!aT-~----*-------~-

M:1.tcrird SN*dfkntioJ\312 T30lj wA~ l06**B oC P-~*lo, H ------;t:*t~*N;----r*-*---*-

Thid*n*~:: or ripe, di~~.('((~;:~:l~~~~~~;~~kk~~-;:)*--~-6i 1 o. u. >£'*-:*rrnn ThiC:- -*--------

Tt.ickucs:; Hr.ni:,. chis test <w<llific;. 3/16 11 th-:-;::-u***J:~it:r6w7-'3-*tY:J5~-ai-i(r o'\ier*--- --*---*-*** .. ******----

. .. -=-~--,.-----~~-*...-*------**-~- -------------------------

Filler Mcwl G~oL;p i~o. F- __ l...E:!~i_!_*:_:?___________ FLUX 01\ /,*n:n::;PHERE

\*.:dd Melill Analrd:; t\o, A* ?._____________________ Flull Trndc }\r<me ot: Compodtion None l><:sctihc !-'iller ~lervl if not inci1HI< d in Tahle Q*ll.~ Inert G:t~: Compc.*sidc'n Argon-------:-------

Traclr. N*"mc .,.,.,.,. --*-*--*r-:Iow l,a:*c~-?.OCFH --

or QN*II.2 *---------------**------**------- \ ,

J*ol ~..,xyncctyh'n<' weldinr,-SI:!te il Filler ~ktn.l is !.itr Is nackinr, Srrit> us;d?-=-N~~-_o_ *-------

in*n or ~ htminwn !-\!Jed. Preheat TcnF>e{f*l\lre HanC: 50. F. Hi n.

b ------o--;:-;*--*---

\\!ELDlt\G PHOCEOIJHE Jntctpnss Tc.npe:ratmc Range _J_2Q____!:~~~~-----

S!ngl<' or Multiple P<<ss _t1.ll J..:~j__E_le* __ Posthcat 1'r(*t.<mcnt Sinr,l<: or :.tuldj,l(: i;fl' ___§i_~g_.!c:_ _________,___ ---------*------*---*---

Positilln of Gr0ove __ 4~___ An_&!_J_!.~~ (6G ) ______ (See Pl1.rs. & Fir;s. Q-2 a Q?3, or Q}~-1 f-.! QN-3)

(F!.:t, horl:ro:lrol, vrclicit!, or .,,.t,th,~at!; i! lff'rtic&l, &lr"te \\-!H*lh'r l'f'Wnrd (H' rlr'WII\'IIIrd)

FOR H~FOP.MATION ONLY 1/16"' 3/~J2 ~ 1/8' ' ~.L32 1 1 11 F!llc*r V.'ire-D!nrnctt'r WELl1lNG TECHNIQUES Trtdc Name -~~-h~*~.r!'_enE:_!:__:___Qhrom~~-d______ Joint nirncr,~;it'!lS Acr:ord witJ; Sheet 2 of 3 .

T}'PC: of lbcking --~-~lle________________ amps __ .:_-:_ volts_:_: __ in~tcs-;r min._ShC-H?.t f of 3 F<nchand or lb.cklwnd ___ _:-_::_:_________ Curn::nt -~-*G~--*- Pol:uiq-' ~~rai~-~0or. GTAH REDllC!::I> SEC.TlON TE:*~SILE TES~ (fic;s. Q-6 and Q~H5) Reverse for SMAH

~-- ___ _.._._

Dimr*H::oioc:s

- - - - - - - .-lJTllllH!H~ --..---

Ate a Tocal Ulum~re Un.tt

. --:---r------

Specimen No.

+--~-V_id_d.,...'---;:!~~-.l:_o_t*_ss - - - - J~ond, Ib..:_ ---~tress, psI *--+--,.--:-----=

HL-72 ... J.*L~-- .753 .623 .469--+---.!.-.-.....}

36,000 76.800 base metal

-Broke in-C s HL~ 72 2:____.___;;..*-"-7~ ~ 623 , lr6_0__ 1

__ 35_..~.,'--4_0_0_..___7_-=-7, 000 base metal GUIDED DEND TESTS(l'igs. Q**t.l, Q-1.2, QN*7.J, QN-7.2, QN*7.3)

Trpc ttnd Figure No.

l l1J.,-72.,.l7colE:

R(*su 1

t Ty{lC :wd Figure l"o.

HV*72 ... J.7 ... 2 Rcsttlt 0

SB-1 Bent 180° O.K. SB.,3 Bent 180 OK SB~2 Bent 180° O.K. __ __BE"!nt _._ _ 180 0 O.K.

~/ho by \'irtUC o{ these tt:.'ilS lllCCtS owefdt*t per(oun~nC<'tCqt*it~.'tl\~lli.S.

Test Conducted by ___Bob Boyer Lf.horntor}'-Test No. Hl**.72**17*

pc*r * - - - - -

- V.'e c*crtify chr>t the stotemt"nts i.n this ccr.:~td nre cortcct and thnt th(' test VJctcls wctc p.-c:par<*d, wcld~.*d 1\nd ws~cd in accordance with the rcquirc*mcnt:; c*l Section lX of the ASME Code.

Dntc _____ lf_~+_(_7_?. __

(ikti\il o{ rccorJ o( rests tHC iillJsantivc only r.ud rriny be modiJied w con{ou.l to the 'cypc nr.d nun1br.r of tC!-i{S tC'quirC'd lor the CN!t'. Hc(.'(Jflln:Cit<.ll*~ rll[ll\ Q*l is I!Vhilr~hlc {or pun*llo~;c '" ASMEHc.<.~qil.~\([{'fS.)

t~OTE: An}' cs:a'ntinl vnri<\blcs in r,:J,1iti*~n 10 ti*C'f.'..' d*nve shall L(' rt.:cnrdcd.

PtintcJ in ti.S.A. (ll/Gti)

The M. W. Kcllozg Company ** Pnge~_ _;.*it__*--~--- Of_~ ___ JL__ ~~-~

A Dlv:i.sion of Pullrn::.w Incorporated Ueld Proc f!d urc Code No. ~Jh9___ ,_

~iping*Fabrication Spec. No* _P.Bir1.::-lO .*:J:!i.:':.S.lia*G~~.h.(i..~- ..-*-

'lvill:i.amsport:, Pcnnsylv<lnta *17701 Da te ~- Se~_lng~___J;~---=~--~*~---*

I,.

Th:i.s procedure is to be folloHed to assure th.:.1 t the oxygen content has been l:educcd to a desirad degree of inertness (1% oxygen or ]Pss). I (1) Oxygen content of backing gas purge may he cheeked by any ac.c:eptable type I:

of oxygen analyzer~ i (2) In lieu of an oxygen aualyzer thE~ folloHing char~ may be used:

I!

.* 36 34 l- __

~-~-

j__l . -- *-*-- L-r+-- ,-fEEH' t1

-t+/- ~ "+/-+/-

I r.l_,__

~

- 7. f _,_ __r_ -

- '-'-l0:1I 1

---~1 J I

l I'

32 --c---c--C'~'-- -~11l--BJ,_~--

>- - H-v/

v '

I - c_~*. iI

- ~- ' - _ .,_ - ~ / -- --- *- --

f~- t r// T-c:-

I

-30 I /v

... 28

. *.Tf te-C-- -~~'-t

'-c--e-- ,

~--~I I -

I I '

I +/- k- I

-~-l~t:/,:1

7

[._....

~- )

I'

. ' .. 26

. 2/t

.-j ;~;,-- 1 1

,.-----.:?

~/

/~

1~1

,_A;.y J L

,. c, ,. . . . . I

. f I

I l

~ *-22 - /

/

v =f-= r--

rq y I /

v I

f-- r--

u z v .. / v I I ~

-1 --*'-

H -20 1-:- -~~ I v I v ~

~,t

!/I I j I .x 1

~

H.., I A J*

Q.. 18 r::l Ill

- I I/ I

)( )7 rv I I* I

.I I

Purge times vrere derived by *testing.:.

.. j

~:;

16 full sj.ze test sp*ec.:;i.mens "tvith dams spaced H

'~ f---

~+-tiT Vl .*.AI/(! I !_j_ 12" .apart* using Arg9.n, v7i_th a 1/8" Bleed ~

~.

I I *T Hole and a Beckman' Oxygen Analyzer... Time il r{

I .% I I I1 I recorded is that required to reduce o2

- Rff l- I y y

I +-' r level belmv 0. 5% on the 02 analyzer.

I*

10.750 f-f 1j.l I U I I I * -*:

Where distance between dams -exc.eeds :11

-: - 1 *1. -~~~I --~* _J_J_: 12 , tj.mes shall be increased proportion-11 u

' 8. 62~

l I Y *I f I n- I I . at ely.. . . . . i 11j)/4H-"-'-L=tt --

\

ffi I

f--

6.625 I I :N <!) I I - I . t 1-j_l

5. 5.69 4*. 500

'I 7(~' -

t-tt f-** ~ I I -* -~+-

. J . i- 1 - - - r - - -1 -- - --- f - - f--* --- !-- -

I - 1*-

i--1

-1--

. I I 3.500

[ .___Ll TTT .

-c-0 10 20 30 40 50 . 60 70

. (

PURGE TIHE - Nll\1JTES By : E. _F *.__g_mn N --**--

.Ii.t.ls:t!-.:....J:Hi [*:c r~~*;:.; 1.::\EE!~. ----*--*--~----

Attachment 2 PG&E Letter DCL-14-060 PG&E ATS Report 420DC-14.20:

Welding Procedure Qualification Record (PQR) 771 and Associated Documents

PG&E ATS Report 420DC-14.20: Welding Procedure Qualification Record (PQR) 771 and Associated Documents Prepared by: Bronson R. Shelly Digitally signed by Bronson R. Shelly Bronson R. She II y ~~~i~~:~i'~;~o~a~i~~::~@~;~~:~~~~~d Date: 2014.07.1613:07:03 -07'00' Reviewed By: Daniel J. Tilly Dan .e I I T'llly Digitally signed by Daniel Tilly DN:cn=DanieiTilly,o=PG&E,ou=ATS, emali=djt9@pge.com, c=US Date: 2014.07.1614:16:41 -07'00' Approved By: Daniel J. Tilly Dan l'el T'llly

Digitally signed by Daniel Tilly DN:cn=Danielnlly,o=PG&E,ou=ATS, emall=djt9@pge.com, c=US Date: 2014.07.16 14:17:10 ..()7'00' (July 2014)

Report No.: 420DC-14.20 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Applied Technology Services 3400 Crow Canyon Road, San Ramon, California 94583

CONTENTS Page 1 Abstract ............................................................................................................................... .... 2 2 Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ . 2 3 Procedure Qualification Record (PQR) and Supporting Documentation ............... ........... 3-5 4 Conclusion ....................... ................ ... ......... ..................... ......... ..................................... ....... .. 5-6 5 References (If Applicable) ...................................................................................................... N/A : SAPN 50600119 Task 16 : Procedure Qualification Review Checklist : Welding Procedure Qualification Record (PQR 771) : Record of Welding Data : Base Metal Certified Material Test Reports (CMTR's) : Filler Metal Certified Material Test Reports (CMTR's) : Element Laboratory Report PAC003-03-24-71934-1 : ATS Work Traveler for PQR 771 m ATS Formal Rpt 420DC-14 .20 .docx

Welding Procedure Qualification Record (PQR) 771 and Associated Documents 1 Abstract Per SAPN 50600119 Task 16 (Attachment 1), ATS Weld Engineering was requested to evaluate and qualify a Procedure Qualification Record (PQR) to support the applicability of the contractor's WPS 149 that had been used for making socket weld connections on 12 identified locations connecting the SI-Pump Nipples to an ASME Ill, NC piping system. As part of the evaluation, ATS was tasked with determining if the parameters of contractorWPS 149, which was qualified for joining a P8 material to a P1 material, could acceptably join the type 304, (P8) components to the type 410, (P6) pipe nipples. Because obtaining the carbon content of the type 410, (P6) material was deemed impractical ATS Weld Engineering was also tasked with qualifying the PQR with the highest carbon content associated with type 410 material that could be readily procured to support contractor WPS 149.

2. Evaluation Contractor WPS 149 was evaluated by the ATS Weld Engineering Group and a PQR plan was created with the following conditions (Reference previous ATS report 420DC-13.44 ).

~ The construction and welding codes assigned for this PQR shall be:

o ASME Section 111-NC, 2001 Edition with 2003 Addenda o ASME IX 2013 Edition.

~ The base materials for the PQR shall be a worst case representation of the SI-Pump pipe nipples and associated piping system:.

o Type 304/304L (P8) o Type 410 (P6)

Note: Type 410 base material shall have the highest carbon content that the ATS Weld Engineering Group could readily procure.

~ The filler materials for the PQR shall be the same as specified in WPS 149.

o ER309/309L o E309/309L

~ This PQR shall be qualified without elevated preheat or post weld heat treatment (PWHT) m ATS Formal Rpt 420DC-14.20.docx 2

3. Procedure Qualification Record (PQR) and Supporting Documentation The PQR plan described in section 1.1 was executed and documented in PG&E PQR 771. PQR 771 and the following supporting documents are attached to this report.

~ PQR Review Check List (Reference Attachment 2) o The checklist is used to verify that all the documentation required to support a PQR is acceptable prior to finalizing the PQR package.

Note: some of the documentation shown on the checklist is not included in this report because it is not required to assess the worst case PQR comparison to contractor WPS 149. This additional documentation is available upon request.

~ Procedure Qualification Record (PQR) 771 (Reference Attachment 3) o This is the ATS official PQR that contains all the required essential and nonessential variables as required in ASME IX 2013, Edition. This document could be used to support a Welding Procedure Specification (WPS).

Note: in this case the PQR is intended to support the variable requirements of contractor WPS 149 for joining P6 to P8. Reference previous ATS formal report 420DC-13.44.

o PQR 771 Could Support a WPS with the following ranges. Reference (ASME IX 2013, Edition)

Base metals qualified (P-Numbers)

Any metal assigned to P6 to any metal assigned to P8 (Reference QW-424).

Base metal thickness (T), (Reference QW-451.1) range= 1/16" to 3/4".

Process GTAW deposited Weld metal (t) Groove Weld= 3/8" maximum o Weld filler metal F-Number 6/ A-Number 8

Process SMAW deposited Weld metal (t) Groove Weld= 3/8" maximum o Weld filler metal F-Number 5 I A-Number 8

Fillet Welds both GTAW and SMAW (Reference QW-451.4) range= All fillet weld sizes on all base metal thickness and all diameters.

m ATS Formal Rpt 420DC-14.20.docx 3

o Note that the 12 SI-Pump socket weld locations would be qualified under this section.

Preheat and Post Weld Heat Treatment

Preheat none required, 50°F minimum

Qualified Without PWHT- PWHT is not permitted

);> Record of Welding Data (Reference Attachment 4) o This is a record of data recorded during the welding process for the PQR.

Note: The essential variables of contactor WPS 149 was matched in PQR 771. Some notable variables are listed below.

PQR 771 -Preheat (none) measured at 67°F, Without PWHT o Contractor WPS 149 - Preheat none recorded 50°F Minimum, Without PWHT.

PQR 771 - GTAW 30-43.26 (KJ/in), SMAW 20-34.57 (KJ/in) o Contractor WPS 149- GTAW 12-72 (KJ/in), SMAW 16-110 (KJ/in).

PQR- 771 Filler materials GTAW ER309/309L, SMAW ER309/309L o Contractor WPS 149- Filler materials GTAW ER309, SMAWER309

);> Base Material Certified Material Test Reports (Reference Attachment 5) o This is a test report from the material vender with the certifying information for the base materials to be joined for the PQR.

o SA-240, Type 304/304L, 3/8" Plate Heat Number: (H2J8), a material chemical over check is also included in the Element Lab Report:

PAC003-03-24-71934-1.

o SA-240, Type 410, 3/8" Plate Heat Number: (950163), a material chemical over check is also included in the Element Lab Report:

PAC003-03-24-71934-1.

m ATS Formal Rpt 420DC-14.20.docx 4

Note: The SA-240, Type 410 plate has a carbon content of 0.13% where the maximum allowable is 0.15%. This was the highest carbon content type 410 that ATS Welding Engineering could acquire.

>- Filler Metal Certified Material Test Report (Reference Attachment 6) o GTAW- ER309/309L, 1/8" diameter rod, was used for PQR 771 Heat Number/Trace Number- 735032 I DT8703. Note: DCPP Supplied o SMAW- E309/309L-16, 1/8" diameter electrode, was used for PQR 771 , Heat Number/Lot Number- DF8184 I 4D14E-14A. Note: DCPP Supplied

>- Element Laboratory Report PAC003-03-24-71934-1 (Reference Attachment 7) o This is the third party laboratory report that supports PQR 771. This laboratory report includes the certified test results taken from the welded PQR test plate.

Tensile, bend, and chemical over check tests are included in this report.

>- ATS Work Traveler for PQR 771 (Reference Attachment 8) o This was the work traveler issued at ATS to conduct PQR 771.

Various quality checks, Certified Welding Inspector (CWI) inspections, Weld Engineering verifications, and Welding Technician cross checks were logged and signed off on this traveler during the process of welding PQR 771.

4. Conclusion The socket welds joining the piping system to the SI-Pumps pipe nipples were welded with a WPS qualified for P1 to P8 applications. The systems actual materials were determined to be P6 and P8. This report confirms that, the welding parameters from the contractor WPS 149 (1973 Edition) (a P1 to P8 WPS) can be used to qualify a P6 to P8 WPS.

A PQR for the socket welds was conducted in accordance with ASME Section 111-NC, 2001 Edition with 2003 Addenda and ASME IX, 2013 Edition. PQR 771 conforms to the welding parameters of contractor WPS 149 and shows that these parameters can be used to meet the ASME IX, 2013 Edition qualification requirements for a P6 material joined to a P8 material, with an ambient temperature preheat.

Since, the P6 pipe nipple material carbon content could not be verified, the ATS Weld Engineering group used a higher than expected carbon content for the type 41 0 mockup m ATS Formal Rpt 420DC-14.20.docx 5

materials as an added level of conservatism to PQR 771. PQR 771 demonstrates that with a higher carbon content of up to 0.13%, the weld met all the ASME IX, 2013 Edition qualification requirements. It is also noted, that the nominal thickness of PQR 771 (3/8"), represents a larger amount of induced residual stress in the HAZ of the PQR test plate than in the installed socket welds; the nominal thickness of the installed pipe nipples is 0.154". For the actual installed weld connections the thinner thickness if bent (similarly to the qualification requirements) would exhibit less elastic strain on the face of the weld.

It is ATS Weld Engineering's opinion that the combination of the high carbon content and 3/8" base metal thickness makes PQR 771 is a valid worst case PQR. With the additional qualification of PQR 771 it is the opinion of ATS Weld Engineering that the parameters of WPS 149 would be technically acceptable for welding the P6 pipe nipples to the P8 piping system components.

m ATS Formal Rpt 420DC-14.20.docx 6

Attachment 1: SAPN 50600119 Task 16 m ATS Formal Rpt 420DC-14.20.docx

Notification: 50600119 Type: DN Work Type: EQPR AANS

Description:

LTCA Orig. Const Weld made w/incor WPS Order:

Task # 16 Welding Procedure Development Status: TSCO Task *UII .,., ~--.::!

Code Group: DE-ENG-T Diablo Engineering Tasks Task Code: 0065 ~gh t~::t::.-ir ty Evaluation Responsible: User Responsible AEGB Alexander Gutierrez 925/866u5340 Work Ctr: TES-TEWL A TS Welding Services - Dan Tilly Created On: 23 Dec 13 By: CMN1 Christopher Neary Planned Start: 23 Dec 13 Planned Finish: 31 Mar 14 Completed On: 31 Mar 14 22:13 By: 8359 Bronson Shelly 925/866-5481 12/23/2013 10:03:13 Christopher Neary (CMN1) Phone 805/545-4018 Additional design code review has been performed in support of this issue.

If the pipe nipples identified by by the Niton analysis have a carbon content of 0.08% or less, they can likely be classified as an ASME Section IX P-7 material instead of P-6. Example material specs which would meet the P-7 classification include type 405 or 41 OS stainless steels.

The PG&E Nuclear Welding Control Manual permits welding of P-7 to P-8 without elevated preheat or PWHT. Therefore, the existing welds can possibly be qualified to the NWCM and no rework would be required. Doing so would also simplify maintenance work such as the valve replacement requested via 50041641.

The NWCM currently does not contain a WPS applicable to this application.

ATS is requested to perform the following:

1) Perform a review of existing PQRs. A valid PQR will permit welding of P-7 to P-8 material with no changes in essential variable from those in contractor WPS 149.

2) If a valid PQR is found, generate a WPS and issue to the NWCM.

3) If no valid PQR is found, proceed with performing a test weld to support creation of this PQR. NOTE: Although RegGuide 1.44 is not applicable to the SIP welds, the PQR should permit application for RegGuide 1.44 scope if possible without undue burden.

01/09/2014 14:18:19 Christopher Neary (CMN1) Phone 805/545-4018 Print Date: 17 Jun 14 14:34 PG&E Corporation DIABLO CANYON Page 6 of 7

- Notification: 50600119 Type: ON

Description:

LTCA Orig. Const Weld made w/incor WPS Order:

Work Type: EQPR AANS Carbon analysis of the existing nipples has been determined to be impractical for at least some of the locations. Therefore rework of the existing welds is not being pursued at this time and the PQR described above is not needed.

However, qualification of a PQR to demonstrate ASME Section IX acceptability of the existing welds is desired. ATS is requested to perform a PQR to ASME IX requirements which will support the parameters of contractor WPS 149 for welding P-6 materials to P-8.

The PQR should use material with the highest carbon content which can be readily obtained in order to envelope the possible maximum carbon content in the existing nipples.

03/31/2014 21:17:50 Bronson Shelly (B3S9) Phone 925/866-5481 PQR 771 for the joining of SA-240 Type 410 (P6) to SA-240 Type (P8) has been completed by ATS and has satisfactory passed testing requirements of ASME Section IX. The carbon content of the 41 0 coupon was verified to be 0.13%. The welding parameters and essential variables used during welding of the test coupon were within the same range of contractor WPS 149.

Attached to this SAPN/Task is the PQR 771 Package. This PQR package will be revised per SAPN 50600119 Task 28 to include a signed copy of the PO for the mechanical testing/chemical testing and copies of the filler wire CMTR's.

Note, the filler wire used by ATS for PQR 771 was supplied and issued by DCPP. Adding the additional data to the PQR package will not affect the PQR.

Print Date: 17 Jun 14 14:34 PG&E Corporation DIABLO CANYON Page 7 of?

Attachment 2: Procedure Qualification Review Checklist m ATS Formal Rpt 420DC-14.20.docx

QUALIFICATION AND DOCUMENTATION OF WELDING AND Attachment ~---~--!:2,___

BRAZING PROCEDURE QUALIFICATION TESTS :~~i~;~~tlon -----=-W=f....:~:............-

Page 1 of 1 7()..155 PROCEDURE QUALIFICATION REVIEW CHECKLIST PQRNumber __7_7_1____________

Complete Incomplete NIA Documentatlon Comments X Request for WPS Form {Optional) SAPN 50600119 Task 16 X Instruction In SAPNrrest Plan Doc.

Qualification Instructions X Record of Welding Data X Completed PQR PO 30501000749 Commercial X Base Metal CMTR PO 30501000749 QSL Vender X Base Metal Check X Base Metal Upgrade X Filler Metal CMTR DCPP Supplied X Filler Metal Check X Filler Metal Upgrade X PWHTRecord X Tensile Tests Element# PAC003~03-2471934-1 X Guided Bend Tests Element# PAC003-03-?471934-1

x. CharpyTest X Dropwelght Tests X Deposit Analysis X Hardness Tests X Macroetch Examination X Corrosion Te,sts X

Delta Ferrite X NDE Reports

)1$ PQR package is acceptabte to support a quality related WPS at DCPP.

0 PQR package is acceptable to support a non*quality related Prepared by __ J:i..;;.~--=:----......,.,...,,.,t!;--__,..-l--.1---......--- Date ) (/7/ lulL(

s/~;ht317' I

Attachment 3: Welding Procedure Qualification Record (PQR 771)

~ ATS Formal Rpt 420DC-14.20.docx

70"158 WELDING PROCEDURE QUALIFICATION RECORD m

{8/94)

No. 771 Date 3/31/2014 WPS No.(s} .......:.N:.:.:.IA..:..__ _ Page 1 of 2 Base Metal Specs SA-240 Tvoe 410 Plate and SA"240 Type 304/304L Plate P-No/Group No_6~/..!..1_ _ _ _ _ __ To P-No./Group No._.:::;8lw1_ _ _ _ _ __

Thickness Tested.--=3:.::.1.::::;8"_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Backing _Y..:..e.::::s~------------ Insert_ None Position__,1:..=G::..__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Progression...:.N..::ci"""'A,___ _ _ _ _ __ Backgouging_ __.!.N~/A~-------------------------

Minimum Preheat 67°F Peening None Maximum lnterpass Temperature.____...,2..,_97.:..0..!.F_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ Initial Cleaning Grinding to clean metal and acetone wipe Postweld Heat Treatment.______~N~o~n~e:::___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ lnterpass Cleaning Grinding and wire brushing 1\ At'\"'7'C"lt Weld Metal Thickness Deposited by: Process 1_ _ _ ___,u:..:.*..:.:*o::..;t'"";:}"--------- Process2 0.1875" Process 3 N/A Shielding Gas Amon {99.9%) CFH .. _ t5__ Cup Size #7 Backing Gas None_ CFH N/A AWS Classification Diameter(s) SFA-No. F-No. AwNO Polarity ER309/309L 1/8" 5.9 6 8 DCEN E309/309L 1/8" 5.4 5 8 DCEP Electrode Filler Amperage Voltage Travel Min Length Max Weave Energy Heat Input Process Filler Size Range Range Speed (ipm) Deposit Width (KJ) (KJ/in)

Coupon I.D.

Pass No.

GTAW ER309/309L 127-128 12 2.13-3.05 12" 0.562" N/A 30-43.26 Passes 1-4 1/8" Passes5-13 SMAW E309/309L :van- 125-131 25-26 5.91-9.52 12" 0.375" N/A 20-34.57 Notes:

Reference:

SAPN 50600119 Task 16.70-158 WELDING PROCEDURE QUALIFICATION RECORD i

TENSILE TESTS No. 771 Date GUIDED BEND TESTS 3/31/2014 WPS No.(s) __,N=/A'-'---- Page 2 of JOINT DESIGN 2

Sample UTS (Ksi) Fracture Type/Location Sample I Type Results

Hnng Weld Sgecimen 1 75.5 PM(410) Samgle 1 - Root Bend Pass Weld Specimen 2 76.0 PM(41Q) Samgle 2 - Root Bend Pass I I Samgle 3 - Face Bend Pass Samole 4- Face Bend Pass Groove Weld Flat Positon With Backing OTHER TESTS PERFORMED TEST REPORT REFERENCE Tensile and Bend Test oer ASM_E_S_ecJX._P6 to P8 Element Reoort PAC003-03-24-71934-1 Base Metal Chemistrv Analvsis HT#950163 Element Reoort PAC003-03-24-71934-1 Base Metal Chemistrv Analvsis HT#H2J8 Element Reoort PAC003-03-24-71934-1 We certify that the statements in this record are correct and that the test welds were prepared, welded, and tested in accordance with the requirements of ASME Section IX. 2013 Edition Welder Daniel Sanchez Prepared by Bronson Shelly Date 3/31/2014 Approved by ..,... ...,. ALexj?uti~~ ]i/ Date 3/31/2014

?2---*~

Attachment 4: Record of Welding Data

~ ATS Formal Rpt 420DC-14.20.docx

RECORD OF WELDING DATA PQR Number 771 Test Weld Number _ _,l..___ __ Page 1 of 3 Joint Design (Sketch joint to be welded. Include all dimensions, angles, and layering details.)

err

.a:7._s*:~

loll.

/

.//

l1'*,_

0.3175u 304/304L .4.10

\J/

~ .

~ l

~...

,, :1:00

.. *~J

/1 t'

Plate Thickness *0 . 3 7 5 Pipe Diameter N/A . Schedule N /A Thickness._ _.N~/A~----

Backing Composition 3 0 4 L Root Opening 0 . 2 50 " Position 1G Progression._...=F::..:L!:::!A:::..=T=-------

Thickness of Metal Deposited by First Process 0 . 18 7 5 " Second Process 0 . 18 7 5 n Third Process N/A

. NOTES___ Pre-placed Backing Bar (SA240 304/304L HT#l22911) 1/4" Thick

70-156 I

RECORD OF WELDING DATA PQR Number 771 Test Weld Number' l Page 2 of _ _3 _ __

Material Specification SA2 4 0 Type 4 ~0 Class Grade Heat Number 9 5 0~6 3 \

Material Specification SA24 0 Type 3 o 4 /3 0 4T. Class Grade Heat Number_H~2.L..!,I..1,;8~.....-_ _ __

Insert AWS Class NI A Polarity N/A Size/Style N/A Heat Number._ _ _ __

TRACE#

Filler 1 AWS Class ER 3 o 9 I 3 0 9 r~ Polarity: DCEN Diameter 0 12 s n Heat/Lot Number..,D.TS 7 0 3 Filler2AWS Class E 3 0 9 L -~~_.Polarity DCEP Diameter 0 .125 n Heat/Lot Number 4Dl4E-l4~ (WQ)

Filler 3 AWS Class N /A Polarity N /A Diameter N /A Heat/Lot Number_ __

Filler 4 AWS Class N/ A Polarity N I A Diameter N/ A Heat/Lot Number._ _ __

FillerS AWS Class N/A Polarity N/A DiameterN/A Heat/LotNumber._ _ __

Filler 6 A WS Class N /A Polarity~N'-~-/..,s..A....__ _ Diameter N /A HeatJLot Number_ __

ShieldingGas ARGON %99.9 FlowRate 15CFH Cup Size _...J#:L-7!..------

Backing Gas ...:!N::i.olwAo.-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Flow Rate ...,..,N-r-/......,A.____ 02Conmm~N~/~A~----------

Initial Cleaning WIRE BRUSH Interpass Cleaning WIRE

BRUSH Contact Tube To Work Distance ..A;.;N~/~A~----

A WS Class Nonconsumable Electrode EW'XH- 2 Diameter o o 9 3 PWHr Temperture__N.,LA. Holding Time..N,LA CALmRATED INSTRUMENTS USED Description Cal Due Date FLIJ.KE 381 TEsrfJfMC£ ATSICR-32379 03/J2/20J5 Description N/A IDNumber N/A Cal Due date N./.A TEST 11569 FLUKE 51II ATSICR-26288 11/20/2014 N/A N/A N/A N/A NLA __ N/A N/A N/A NIA Welder DANIEL SANCHEZ Date 03/13/2014 ReviewerBronson R Shelly Date 3/13/2 014

70-156 m

(11/94) RECORD OF WELDING DATA PQR Number 771 Test Weld Number 1 Page 3 of 3 Travel Speed LengthSMAW Wire Pass Weld Filler No Deposit Electrode Bead Preheat/ Speed No Process (Page 2) Current Voltage Burned Width Interpass (GMAWIFCAW)

Length I Seconds

_1__ GTAW' *t 128 1_2 1?. I 29E ______J\TlA Q * ?. t) ()TI _hh _t;o F ~7 ggg 2__ GTAW 1 ~27.4 12 12 I 23_6 NLA --0. 375'~- -~41 °F __ 30 .QE6

_3.__ GTAW - :L ____ 128 1?. 1?. I ?.40 N/:n. O_t:;OO" ?.40 0 F' ~f) 7?0

_4__ GTAW 1 128 12 ~-12 _638 NlA - ~0_._5_62._"- _2_D_1~E 43.264

_5_ _ SMAW 2 ___ __125_ 26 12 I 122 24. sn. 0.375.!' 245 oF 33.041

_6__ SMAW 2 :125 26 2 I 110 2l.S 11 0~375_"~ 240 oF ?.Q_791

_7_ _ _SMAW_ 2 131 - _____7..5__ ~--12~_(:L0._3__ - - _23_11 0.375" 195 °F 28.1.10

_a_ SMAW 2 131 25 12 I , as 22 5" a 375n 274 oF 28 656 j

...2....___ SM8ii 2 J 3J 25 J2 I 26 J 6 5" Q 325" 252 o E 2Q :Z~J

..J...Q_ SMAW . ?.____ __'13J 2.5 12 I 7A 171! 0.~7t:;tt ?7Q oF ?.1 ?.R7

..1.J__ .SMAW _ --- ?._ 1 ~1 ?.t; 1?. I 7P. 17 t;n_ () ~ 7t;lT___ ?.Rt:; oF 21 _ 2B."Z

..l2._ ~w ____ 2 ..l31 _25 1?. I 76 16 11 0 ~ 3 75_~*-- -- 297 °_F 20.741

..J..3_ SMAW **-*- 2 __l31 - -- 25 ---- J.?. I 76 15.5" 0.~71:)__!1__ 237 oF 20. 7_41

-I

-I I

70-154 REQUEST FOR JOINING PROCEDURE Requestor's Name Chris Neary Date 1/20/2014 Organization PG&E DCPP

Location ----------------DCPP Telephone# _s_o_5_-_54_5_-_4_0_1_s_________________ Date Required 3 / 31 12014 R espons1'bl eWeIdEngtneer

. Bronson R. Shelly SA-240 type 410 to SA-240 type Base Material Thickness o .375 11 Construction Code ASME III, NC, 2001-20o3 Filler Materia] ER-309/309L, E309/309L Sketches and Notes:

See SAPN 50600119 Task 16

Attachment 5: Base Metal Certified Material Test Reports (CMTR's) m ATS Formal Rpt 420DC-14.20.docx

ATI f~3PuhJiny Certificate Of Test ..........,~...-M.

Mill lnformatton

Customer Information Nu~ 0101672-00 Nmna ROLlED AllOYS INC 500 Green stroet Washington, PA 15301 ~~ 50~012~238 PO T82465 8:~ Mar-02-2012 0~ Jan-13-2012 Sold ROLLEO ALLO'VS INC Ship ROLLED ALLOYS INC.

to* PO BOX 310 to: 125 WEST STERtfS ROAD

TEMPERANCE

MI 48182 TEMPERANCE, MI 48182 Materia' Information "ATI .4:10u STAINl.ES$ STEEL' "' I PMP HoT ROLLED PLATE ANNEALED* PICKLED cor.1MERCIAL orr eo*GE TRACER#.~ . e:~~~*.\g~-dw.!"\.._~iil!il!Hiil~~

ASTM-A'-240-llA ASME.-SA-240 EO 2010 AMS 5504M UNS 541000 Piece lnfonnation WJdU1 P~ (tn) (In) (In) Hmii\t ~ 10 SootJon td loti lttm: 001 Cu.t-kl: 189032999001 Go\rt*Contract-~: Govt*DO~:

Cuat..Joh: Soh&d~t.B:

~_1t t~~irs;~r ~~:9~ ~~i~~ n~g~~ft~~P"P.l r~m~*::~::~::;:~~~il~~r~)~~~t~ ~~i~~~~:~~~~~~~::=?i;?t(~~7~.~ ~ -~-1~J~t~~;,~tf~~iJ.*~~:=i: ~: .*-

1 . 3750 75 .. 0000 232 .oooo 950163 M35297 t,.a.. ~Jf-&71'-1 408326 1916

- . :.*~~it:;~: ~;~~; *i.~~:~9::. ~.~ii.~;;e.~~~ :Jj~-Bi~1i~~~Jt*r~:~--*~*~:~~'l1!;~=~:~t~~t~~~::JJ~~~fli~ :;~~~~~~~t~!H~ 1!Hii'i~~~:.~::;; ;

1 .3750 75.0000 232.0000 950163 M35299 h"{t. ~~~i'il,.. 408326 191~-

~);, ~::~~-.t~;i ~:{~::!i~~iq~ f~li~]~~P.P:. ~'~~~f-~ t~qtt~~!~~i~=l:i ~t~fl.Xf:~~~~~;:~~~i~;f~~~~~~~; ;;f~~:~,,~,~~~:t ~1t ;~-~~!§~:~ : . .

1

3750 75.0000 232.0000 950163 M.35301 1--r<<.. ~~1CfS 408326 1916

.- . . .~:~£ .;: : :-~.~~~~*~t~qt :~~;~~r~)M~; ~~~~~ ~lq!f~~~~!L ::.~: :~~1~~h:~P.~~~r:;*t~;~r~ ~19f4:t1fi;~: I\;~:4g§.t.~:~~~~ ;:~~-~~;~~t.ey *: :._; -

l .3750 75.0000 232.0000 950163 AA35304 h-1L~~.~~ 1,;\ 408326 1916 1 .3750 75.0000 232.0000 950163 AA35306 ~~FJ.:,~ 408326 1916

=*:: .* :~;~!~;~; :~:~:;~.j;~f.llt ~~~{l~i~ig~pi ]M.f!Bt~ g~ftt~~~!~rt~~i ~)~~~tf,};*~*;iJ~~~~J~I~~~M~z:~ ;-~~~~~~[i~?~;~: :;t_.;;1.~~i;; . *: : :

1

3750 7s. oo*oo 2-32. oooo 950163 AA-35308

f.TfZ. ;,"i~~~ 408326 1916

=*: * ~~~ .r~~ i;:::~.:~~-§.~§Q:: ~~=~z~,i~~~~;~*

1 .. 3750

. Ji 75.0000 232.0000 950163

.::::~~! ~tq~W1;t;;.*~~-!~~; :M~~~~~J~:i~~r;itJ~~~i ~~~-i .-~~~~~;~~~~~it~- ~:~~:t~9.~~;~:.;.;~*;*.

AA35310 rr2.. ;;~~m 408386 1916 Chemistry Testing Requf~anta Ffnill Heat Arudyals E~t TfUANGLE ENGlNEERfNG, INC.

JAin Max 950163 loo c Q, ~* APP!!"~c_

.08 .15 .13 MI BY._ ,

DATE: H-~-l;i L Page 1 of 4

t;h,emistry Testing

-- Roqu1remerm. Final Heat Anaty&ls Elemant Min Max 9501&3 Loc

.. ~->* +;, _;;:'~~-J,.:,,.~,- .:.:;.~~99l~~'f.l ::. .':- c:* :<~*~~}~~~?(~~?;~;.~:~£;]; }jf iHE REPORT TO WHICH HilS $)"AMP JS AI-~IXED iS A COPY OS:

THE ORIGINAl Mill TEST HEPORTS WHICH !S KEF'T Of" FlU; P .040 ~024 J MI IF SEVERA!_ ITEMS ARE SHQI....VN IN Tf-US Rt:POFl'(. l'fEt\4$ pq

_;. . -_:{: ':<.~~-r:;i.;,~~i)'~ +~t~;*!q~Q.~m ;,:.~~-:.r~~~~;-~D"t~~*~-;*~ii

~ ~;-~.:

ARE PERT!NENl'TOI'fH.llSSHIP?ED~OYOU '(

~. oo

3J.

NO. ~.,3 50 I 0.t1aJ..Li,,....,.._...,....~*

s:c ./ Mr CUSTOMER PO

*i'#f:~,:-~-~~ ~i'*~~}-~~: #M~:~~~"'i'( ; -~~~~Hfr~{;~1:::~:*.~ ~i~;

NI .75 .38 ../ MI ra Vi/Of<K ORQ~R NO. Tj)/~G'f~-~-

--~-~-~g~c.!~ ?~~~::::;,;;f::;.~'ii ~t:~r;:*~i2~tn*t:< t?.~i;~_\?.'l1i-t,~;:1~~~~,j~:~~- !J~ DATE _.6_..~.5-*:l._"j_~~*SIGf-.IED --"~7/~~~

TRIANGLE ENGINEERING, INC.

MO

50 .05 ./ Ml:

.-*_-~I(/_*. :~:Y~~;~'t4.;~J :t.:~t§.g:~t,~:~. ~:f'i~~~:.~~~::.:.,:1.:1~?f<L_l~!, ~:~~

N .08 .02 ./ M:t

** ;\~;~}; __ -~ *;;~:;::;:?- *.*:** ;*J~'='~~~9M[~*;:~:~ :~:'r~t~:tk'p~;:~~i~~~~:~;;;i;~%' ~,~)_

A~1eghcny Ludlum per~orms cherndca1 ana1ys~s by the fo11o~~ng techniques;

c. s by combustion/infrared, N, o, H by 1ne~~ £us~on/th~~~ conduceiv~cy; l-tn 1 '9 1 Si., C:r:: 1 N1, Mo, CU, Cb, Co, V, by WOXR.l"'i Pb, Bi, l\g by GFAA.s B by OBS; A1 and Ti {>~0.10%) by WDXRF, otHerwise by OES-( 9501~ - Mata~:La1 was produced by EF me1ting with AOD refining.

Mechanical Testing LOT LOT LOT LOT 40$326 408326 408386 408386 Canclftlon: ANNEAl., ED AMS 5504 HT ANNElALED. AMS .5504 HT Dfntetlon: TRAI'.'SV.ERSE TRANSVERSE TRANSVERSE TfUI.MSVERSEO lemporaturo: ROOt.J TEt.tP ROOM TEMP ROOM TEMP ROOM TEf.1P Spec:

'.l"es~ L:lm:lt: '0'-A.i..t:s Itesu1t: Loc :Rosul.t:. Loc:: Re!SU1t: ::C.oc:: :Rosu1t. Leo Mechanical Testing LOT LOT LOT LOT 408326 408326 40$386 408386 Ccxtdftlon: ANNE.At..I::O AMS 5504 HT ANNEALEa AMS 5504 H'T DINr'trtlon: 'TRANSV.ERSE TRANSVERSE::. TRANSVSRSE TRANSVERSE Temperaturo: ROOM TEMP ROOM TEMP ROOM TEMP ROOM TEMP SpGC:

Teat L:f.mi.t t:f.'r:1.ita Resu1t: Z:..Oc:: Resu:Lt: 1-x.oo Re.eu1t Loc Resu1t Loc::

Lab heat treatment on test samples- 1?SOF (954C), ho1ding at heat ~s- 30 ~nutes.

r Mechanical Property Requirements Conaltlon: ANNEALED AMS .5504 HT Pk-qeiton: TRANSVERSE IRAN'SV£RS£:

Temparaturo: Rc;>oM TEMP ROOM TEMP Spec:

T~$t Llsntt UnltJI. Mi..n ~ M.in Max YIEiLD 0.2% psi 30000.

~~J~1r::,., j;-*: ** *-~ ~,§~~~ti-~i2 :~~;.;~\ ;;_~}~§.~1~-;~tt~~~.d~,~~l;~~: ,.~~;~\t¥:~f:~?.~-1;;. j*. :~~!1~;~-:t~-~~y*,-~;'

ELONGATtON % 20. .

HARDNESS 2~7. HBW * ~S. HRC 45. HRC Alletallography - General T~ ID Result Nama C<>ndftfon T.,.t R-esult Leo R~lromen~

,*:~~~$.~~~ ~i~~~~~~,~~:(~:yJz~~~,;-~:,~~ -;wi.;**--:*;~ ;~:~~~::-~~¥.!t:; ~~~~:~~~~::** ':;~*:~~~':'~~~-~;-_~::~. :_:~-~T:%i;::;::;. ~1~:,:t= ,~~~i~~~:=~~~~**_:~/*;:::~~f' 1

I..OT GRAI.N SJ:ZE ANNEALEO 9. TC 408386 He.t:a11ogra:phic n:agn:ificat.ion* l.OOX, E!t.chant; ueed HCL/.PJ:CRXC Ac:ro I

06 y L I /Iii' /J:Jc:; tf1"_;r}J--J;Jjf e

~70F.UGEnNAY42EAST cort:i£i.e11to: 85:1788 :l Ma.l.l. 'l'O:

METALLURGICAL TEST REPORT

---~--- **--*-- --Sliip--'.1'0::' ,

NORTH Al\mRICAN STAINLESS 6870 WGHWAY 4Z.EAST GHENT, KY 41045 D.~;~to: 7/.1.1/20:1.3 Page: 1

. ROLLED .n.LLO'X'S - 'XEMJ?DANClS :ROLLED .l\LLOX'S - ~~CE CUstomer: 002830 996 C03TOMER PI:CKOP CC'STOME:lt l"l:CKlJI'> Stoel: 304/304L 8 O.l. 'DlDil RAJ:l.,o :OR~ 8 O.l. ':WXN :a1t.:IL DR:I:VE

~OOKA,. rL 6044.7 . .MDlOOKA, :CL 60447 Fi.n:i.~b.; 1

'rour Order:: 'r89054 NAS order: XN' 0:1.71582 01. Co:r:ros:i.Ol:l.: ASn~ .A262/02aE;180:Sond-OK PROPUCT pSSCR&PTXON: RSMA.RKS:

S~S ~ CO%L, HRAP; UNS 30400/30403 M.a.t ,.~ in Fx:oo of Iilor<::u:cy Co:o.~tion.. No wold ::"OPU:I:"B.

AS~ A240/11b,A480/11b,A66G/.l.O;~ SA240/1.l.a.. SA480/.l.l.a,SA666/.l.l.~ ~ 10204;200~ 341; RoHS .1 ~ 2 Ccwp~i~t C'BEM om;.-,r ON FOLLOWXNG J\.S'noi:: A2'76/10,..A47.9/l.l.,.A484/11,J\3l.2/.l.l. ~to:ri~l ~a Free o£ Rnd1oactivo Contamination cm:M ONLY ON FOLt.oW:I:NG J\SME: SA312/l.l.,S.M.'19/l.l. NAS steel making :!?roc.ean*: EAF, l\.OD, ;: Cont. CAsting AMS 55.l.1BJ55133 XMRK; MZL-S059D AMD3(X CRM MEA$}; MXL-4043B l?:l:'cduct Mfg.:byo a. Quality %4.gt.Sy.r.J. in ~£. w/XSO 9001 NACE :t-SR0175/:tSO 15:155-3:2003. A, MR0103/07 ;QQS766D-A X MAG P11!EUVI '~<Mel. tad &: Ma:c.ufac::tul!'ed .in tho USA; M4t 'J. .is DFA:Ro: Comp~.iant

~IIJ\3. SOL'O"l!:CON .1\NNEAt.t 'l'l!"J4P 1900!', 'WA.mR Qm::NCimD ASHE sect. :ex, l.99S Editi.on, l99G << 1997 1Mi~

fProduet Xd Coil ft. Skid # 'l'hieknens Wi~h Weight. -------Length------ M4rk Pi.¢1CQD Commodity Codo I 01H2J8 E O.l.H2JS 11: .3750 60,.. 0000 16~250 COXL 1 1 C H E M. J: C A L A N A L Y S J: S CM(Country of Melt) . ES(Spain) .US(Unlfed Stntes) ZA(Soulj,l Aftk:O)} JP(J,apan) Chcmic4.l ~~l'DiS per AS~ l\751/08

~ CM c % CR% ca.% Ml\J*% MO% N % . N:t% p % s ,:.

~

us .0215 18.0570 .4100 1.8105 .2720 .0705 8.0255 ... o:no .OOl.O SJ: %

.2040

't.'I;)JJIII.f~tf!" .. -

rME C H A llT :I C A L P R 0 p E R T :J: E S -- --

aY: ii ---*ig'." CUSTOM~?. PO NO. "JiS TE~ \MJR~< oRoER No. T . .?Ji"bQIJ.

cz.~--

/ 4"9 tr.r DAI :4s!> - t3 DATE -~ Cf"'" SfGNEO /0::-;--

~ ~.... ~mG ~ai;J. TR!ANGl{ENGIN1=x::FlF\l~G fi'~

l 4 m Product :tdi COil J 0 c :1:' "'"""*

s:-rs

~ ...,-2'"

HArd RB U4rd ~~;:; , ** ,~..... "

O.lH2J8 E 01li2J8 E F 'l' 92.7G 56.44 51*.94 87.00 ~.1.00 HE:AT:i!: H2J8

!Ill~ ~~I I I I ~llllllll ~Ill~ 1111 TRACER* 293216 NAS hereby certifies that the analysis on this certification is correct. Based upon the.res.ults* and the accuracy of the test methods used, the material meets the speciflcations stated. These. results relate only to the items 'l'e.chnical ~~ .:::;::;:'.......-

tested and this t-eport cannot be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written approval of NAS. Dept. Mgr*------------------~~--~~~~----

F.RTr. HR~S 7/11/~01~

Attachment 6: Filler Metal Certified Material Test Reports (CMTR's) m ATS Formal Rpt 420DC-14.20.docx

ARCOS INDUSTRII;S, LLC This CMTR covers PG&E PO #

ONE ARCOS D,RIVE Mt. Carmel, PA 17851 118390; Weldstar Nuclear Shipping Ticket# N63~470-00 DATE 04/29/04 ASME CERTIFICATE NO. QSC-448 EXPIRATION DATE 10/23/05 CERTIFICATION OF TESTS SOLD TO: SHIP TO:

WELDSTAR CO. WELDSTAR CO.

P.O. BOX 1150 1750 MITCHELL ROAD AURORA, IL 60507 AURORA, IL 60504 ARCOSS.O. CCJSTOMER ORDER NO. CONSIGNEE ORDER NO. DATE SHIPPED 80202 903566 N/A 4/29/04 ITEM SIZE GRADE LOT NO./ALLOY NO. QUANTITY 1/8 X 1411 ARCOS 309.. 16 4014E-14A-HEAT #DF8184 510#

SPECIFICATION: ASME SFA 5.4 CLASS E 309 ASME SECTION II, PART C.

ASME B&PVC SECTION Ill, SUBSECTION NB2400, 1989 EDITION, NO ADDENDA. 10CFR21, 10CFR50APP. B APPLY.

FMC ..5.4, REV. 2 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS: WELD c Mn Si s p Cr Nl Mo Cb Cb+Ta 0.04 1.3 0.60 0.00 0.03 23.7 13.5 0.12 0.039 Ta Ti AI Co cu Fe v N 0.028 0.096 0.07 0.092 0.08 ADDITIONAL TEST RESUlTS TENSILE As Welded Heat Treated Ferrite~ NB2433.1-1: 9FN Yield 68,000

"'\

Magna Gage: 9FN Tensile 93,000 X-Ray: Elongation 41%

Bends: Red.ofArea 72%

Hardness:

OTHER INFORMATION: lot Classification - C1 Intensity of Testing- Schedule K CONTROL NO. UQ PREHEAT 60°F, INTERPASS 300°F THIS MATERIAL IS FREE FROM_MERCURY,RADIUM OR ALPHA PARTICLE CONTAMINATION.

We hereby affirm that the reported results on this certification are correct and aoeurate. All test and results and operations performed by Arcos or its subcontractors are In compliance \\ith the applicable materfaf/customer speelfleatlon.

ARCOS G. GRATTI QAMANAGER

. ARCPS INDUSTRIES, LLC CMTR covers Pacific Gas &

I ONE ARCOS DRIVE Electric PO# 135436; Weldstar Mt. Carmel, PA 17851 Nuclear Shipping Ticket #N787221 DATE 06/29/07 . ASME CERTIFICATE NO. QSC-448 CERTIFICATION OF TESTS EXPIRATION DATE 10/23108 SOLD TO: SHIP TO:

WELDSTARCO. WELDSTAR CO.

P.O. BOX 1150 1750 MITCHELL ROAD AURORA, It 60507 AURORA. IL 60504 ARCOSS.O. CUSTOMER ORDER NO. CONSIGNEE ORDER NO. DATE SHIPPED 92467A 904402 C/0 1 N/A 06/29/07 ITEM SIZE GRADE LOT NO.... HEAT NO. QUANTITY 11811 X 36" ARCOS 309/309L DT8703 ~ 736032 1200#

SPECIFICATION: ASME SFA 5.9 CLASS ER 309/309L.ASME SECTION II, PART C, ASME B&PVC SECTION IU, SUBSECTION NB2400, 2004 EDITION, AND ALL PARAS AND ADDENDA THRU 2006 10CFR21 AND 10CFR50 APPX. 8 APPLIES ASME NCA 3800 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS:

c Mn Si s p Cr Ni Mo Cb+Ta 0.017 2.06 0.47 <0.001 0.02 23.3 13.6 0,07 0.006 . . WlRE 0.019 1.98 0.48 0.003 0.02 ~3.4 13.8 0.07 *- *-

0.006 WELD Ti Co Cu Fe v N 0.004 0.031 0.04 BAL 0.063 0.068 WJRE 0.003 0.032 0.04 BAL 0.064 0.074 WELD ADDITIONAL TEST RESULTS TENSILE AsW&Id~d Heat Treated Ferrite NB2433.1~1:

w 9FN WIRE, 9FN WELD Yield 54,000 ~sl Magna Gage: 10FN Tensile 81,000 psi X-Ray: Elongation 53%

Bends: Red.ofArea 77%

Hardness:

OTHER INFORMATION: Lot Classification - 83 Intensity of Testing- Schedule K GTAW 100% ARGON Control No.8703 60F Preheat, 300F lnterpass THIS MATERIAL IS FREE FROM MERCURY, RADIUM OR ALPHA PARTIClE CONTAMINATION.

We hereby affirm that the reported results on this certification are correct and accurate. All test and results and opetatlons performed by Arcos or Its subcontractors are in compliance with the applfcable materiavcustomer specification.

vv~WSTAR COMPANYS

QUALITY SYSTEM CEllTIFIC\TE (MATERIALS) QSC 229 QUAll'rY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT EXPIRATION DATE JAN. 51* . Gib Gratti QA Manager

Attachment 7: Element Laboratory Report PAC003-03-24-71934-1 m ATS Formal Rpt 420DC-14.20.docx

Date: 3/26/2014 elemenf' P.O. No.: 3501 003648***

W/0 No.: PAC003-03-24-71934-1

- - CORRECTED TEST CERTIFICATE* EAR-CONTROLLED DATA- 3/31/2014***

Weld Tensile Test Test Method lASME SEC IX (2013 ed) QW-152 Ultimate Initial Initial Width Initial Area Tensile Thickness Fracture Specimen (in) (sq. in) Strength (in) location (ksi)_

Min Min Min Min Requirements N/S N/S N/S 65 WELD#1 0.754 0.3010 0.2270 75.5 P.M (410)

WELD#2 0.753 0.3150 0.2372 76.0 P.M (410)

ROOT BEND Test Method: ASME SEC. IX (2013 ED.) QW-160 ACC. PER: QW-163 Material Thickness: .300" Mandrel Diameter:. 1.2" Two samples were Root bent 180 degrees over a roller with a diameter of 4 times the bend specimen thickness with the weld and heat-affected zones centered within the convex length of the bent samples.

The samples were examined for cracks and other defects and were found to meet specification.

Results: 1) ACCEPTABLE 2) ACCEPTABLE FACE BEND Test Method: ASME SEC. IX (2013 ED.) QW-160 ACC. PER: QW-163 Material Thickness: .300" Mandrel Diameter: 1.2" Two samples were Face bent 180 degrees over a roller with a diameter of 4 times the bend specimen thickness with the weld and heat-affected zones centered within the convex length of the bent samples.

The samples were examined for cracks and other defects and were found to meet specification.

Results: 1) ACCEPTABLE 2) ACCEPTABLE Test Witnessed By: Bronson R. Shelly Date: 3/26/2014 All work was performed in accordance with Element Materials Technology QA Management System Manual Edition 2, Rev. 1, dated 04/0212012.

Quality Program meets the requirements of 10CFR50 App. B and 10CFR part21, including Right of Access, Reporting of Non Conformances, Documentation and Requirements.

. MATERIAL CONFORMS TO SPECIFICATION This document contains technical data whose export and re-export/ retransfer is subject to control by the U.S. Department of Commerce under the Export Administration Act and the Export Administration Regulations. The Department of Commerce's prior \vtltten approval may be required for the export or re-export/retransfer of such te~hnical data to any foreign person, foreign entity or foreign organization whether In the United States or abroad.

Respectfully submitted 15062 Bolsa Chlca, Huntington Beach, CA 92649

{714) 892-1961 ph * (714) 892*8159faxwww.elementcom Justl Bouavanh Qual y Administrator The Information contained in this certification represents only the material submitted and is certified only for the quanHtles tested. Reproduction except In full Is reserved pending written approval. The recording of false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or entries on the certificate may be punishable as a felony under federal law. All testing was performed In a mercwy free environment. All testing performed rn accordance with the latest edition of the applicable ASTM, or other Federal Test Method in effect at the time of test.

Page 2 of 2

Element l\l',aterlals Techno!ogy p 714 8921961 15062 Bol.sa Chlca F 714 892 8159 elemenr Huntington Beach, CA T 888 786 755S 92649*1 023 USA info.hb@elementcom element.com

Contact:

Andrew Carr ***CORRECTED TEST CERTIFICATE- EAR-PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CONTROLLED DATA- 4/1/2014***

PO BOX 56 AVILA BEACH, CA 93424 Date: 3/26/2014 Purchase Order Number; 3501 003648 Work Order Number PAC003-03-24-71934-1 Descr~~tfon: WELDED PLATE Specification: ASME SEC IX (2013 ED.)$ ASME SEC Ill, SUBSECTION NC, 2001 ED. WITH 2003 ADDENDA, PROCEDURE QUALIFICATIONS, SA-240, TYPE 410 TO SA-240, TYPE 304 NUCLEAR QUALITY RELATED WORK Mat'f. Reqn. No.: 12572411 PQR: 771 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS HT# 950163***

ASME SA240-2013 410 Element Result% Min% Max%

c = 0.13 0.08 0.15 Mn :::. 0.57 0.00 1.00 p = 0.024 0.000 0.040 s = 0.002 0.000 0.030 Si = 0.31 0.00 1.00 Cr = 12.1 11.5 13.5 Ni = 0.4 0.00 0.75 Fe = Balance Balance Balance Chemical Analysis performed by Optical Emlssron per SOP 2.02, Revision 15 Carbon and Sulfur by Combustion per SOP 7.00, Revision 10 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS HT# H2J8***

ASME SA 240-2013 304 Element Result% Min% Max~

c = 0.015 0.000 0.08 Mn = 1.81 0.00 2.00 p = 0.029 0.000 0.045 s = 0.002 0.000 0.030 Si = 0.21 0.00 0.75 Cr = 18.1 18.0 20.0 Ni = 8.0 8.0 10.5 N = 0.07 o.oo 0.10 Fe = Balance Balance Balance Chemical Analysts peliormed by Optrcal Emission per SOP 2.02, Revision 15 Carbon and Sulfur by Combustion per SOP 7.00, Revision 10 Nitrogen by Fusion per SOP 13.00, Revision 9 Respectful:Y submitted 15062 Bolsa Chica. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 (714) 892-1961 ph * (714) 892-8159 faxvMw.element.com Justi Bouavanh Qual

Administrator The Information contained In this certification represents only the material submitted and Is cer6fied only for the quantities tested. Reptoduction except In full Is reserved pending \vrillen approval. The recording or false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or entries on the certificate may be punishable as a fe!ony under !ederallal'l. All testing was petformed In a mercvry rree environment. All testing performed In accordance wllh the latest edition of the applfcabla ASTM, or other Federal Test Method In effect at the time of test.

Page 1 of 2

Attachment 8: ATS Work Traveler for PQR 771

~ ATS Formal Rpt 420DC-14.20.docx

Number Step Verification Recorded Value Welder Siguoff CWISignoff Engineer's Signoff *

'-j i C - ft t .a ~ .t:.:.. i G:, .3 .., ~~~i rt- $ ... J3-.J'f 1 Base Heat#'s and

..-:.;.~:.;;;., .../!_ ftT.tl.. r-J~7t .Jt*i.~e ~~.J p£QV.4Q

?:;; ~;.:;_-- . ? j/.7(7' Metal condition ..] ..:.J *,./ /),.;.,* '-! t_ ft I~ d / .,2:;~j i~ .r~.t-c:.:Ci:*....-;* 5- /'3- 14 ~-

2 Filler Heat#'s and r:::r!.-l.r.:.'z * : . . >t.J:i /f"j- rt ~ ~***~ --,~tUb:~

J,;.Z~*

'f/W'~

Fi c.: ,,*c. *. ! !J-G ~:-;..T..* ..*,.. "!i;:"

Metal condition

~.,.-.i *

,, *.* )\

~:..;;/JIJJ!I~/ 7~'l '6*~-'* 15

a.

-!+ . J/1_7//y 3 Equipment Cal dates and .1' ").! i;;_ f\. 3 *:; ~~ / 5C/!!... 1 1</' :- ~ *;::..:. :~

.::: 3 t, :'J / J v\**J.:.. ':J}3~:.. \~ - .[) t..~ .).2. ")I"-..

\9- I "\ ***c;:;:7- ~

/---;..:.- / 1 )/ 'l:; ~-

~ 3-:P../$'

Meters documentation :21~ 1~] *j,.£ \t *JJ ~~~7:,.:~ l S,-[~ -Ji ,..,..

_.. r.-"'

~- - / * .;

t

,.e-}--

M/19 -~

~Pf.4 4 PQR Docui:nentation \'""::>. -

pac~<age completeness t - ~--

~ 3-/'Sor /lj

--:s-t1>- J ¥

~*

/l//u ~l ~

5 Welding Set-up and Equipment condition D- ~ o-r:, ...;J(

'3 l 6 Fit-up PQR plate fit- ~-" ~

up and dimensions

~--J 3 -t1 ltf.l'd~ 6-1$-/l.f

- ~~..?.#,:M /

7 In Process Welding ~-~ ~

variables during welding ~- [:S ~ )~

=""

~:o-/JfllJ -%.-- ?@,fy i.

8 Final Fmal weld Lm-":.

~

~?//#y I IV *v ..... ,.

Inspection inspection ~ 3-13-1$1' 3- t3--Ji

~-----*

9 Final Documentation I

Package reviewed for completeness

- - ~/_7) //r

Attachment 3 PG&E Letter DCL-14-060 SIA Report No. 1301620.402 Stress and Fracture Mechanics Evaluation of Type 410 Stainless Steel Weldments in Safety Injection Pumps at Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Revision 2)

Report No. 1301620.402 Revision 2 Project No. 1301620 May 2014 Stress and Fracture Mechanics Evaluation of Type 410 Stainless Steel Weldments in Safety Injection Pumps at Diablo Canyon Power Plant Prepared for:

Pacific Gas & Electric Company San Francisco, California Contract No. 3500993337 Prepared by:

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

San Jose, California J{MM'U;u 1- l~<

Prepared by: Date: 5/9/2014 Heather F. Jackson, PhD, PE Reviewed by: ~~ Date: 5/9/2014 Clifford Lange, PhD, PE

'}{vY'cwrt - ~

J Approved by: Date: 5/9/2014 Heather F. Jackson, PhD, PE

'-J Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

REVISION CONTROL SHEET Document Number: 1301620.402

Title:

Stress and Fracture Mechanics Evaluation ofType 410 Stainless Steel Weldments in Safety Injection Pumps at Diablo Canyon Power Plant Client: Pacific Gas & Electric Company SI Project Number: 1301620 Quality Program: I:8J Nuclear D Commercial Section Pages Revision Date Comments All All 0 0 111 7/2 0 14 Initial Issue 1.0 1 1-8 1 4/22/2014 Revised to incorporate client comments 2.0 2-1-2-8 and format 3.0 3-1-3-18 4.0 4-1-4-12 5.0 5-1-5-2 6.0 6-1-6-2 1.0 1-6 2 5/9/2014 Revised to incorporate client comments 4.0 4-4,4-10 Approved by:

){u,)fz(M 1 ~~

~

Heather F. Jackson, PE Registration No.: .:...:..M~T:::..._.=;...;19:;....;7:....::5_ _ __

State: California Date: 5/9/2014 e Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Table of Contents Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Objective .................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Analytical Methodology ............................................................................. ............... 1-2 1.4 Nomenclature ............................................................................................................. 1-6 2.0 STRESS ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Objective .............................................................................. .. .................................... 2-1 2.2 Analytical Methodology ............................................................................................ 2-1 2.3 Design Inputs ............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.4 Assumptions ........................................................................... .................................... 2-2 2.5 Results ....................................................................'.................................................... 2-3 3.0 EVALUATION OF ALLOWABLE FLAW SIZE ..................................................... 3-1 3.1 Objective ............................................................................... ... .................................. 3-1 3.2 OD Flaw ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.1 Evaluation Methodology ....................................... ..... ......................... .... ............ ..... 3-1 3.2.2 Flaw Geometry......................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.3 Operating Loads ...................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.3.1 Definition of Loads .......................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.3.2 Calculation of Equivalent Axial Loads ............................................................ 3-4 3.2.4 Stress Intensity Factor versus Crack Size ................................................................ 3-5 3.2.5 Fracture Toughness Properties ........ . ................ ..... ................................................. 3-6 3.3 ID Flaw ...................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.3.1 Evaluation Methodology .......................................................................................... 3-8 3.3.2 Flaw Geometry............................................... .......................................................... 3-8

3. 3. 3 Operating Loads .................... .. ................................................................................ 3-8 3.3.4 Stress Intensity Factor versus Crack Size ................................................................ 3-9 3.3.5 Fracture Toughness Properties ............................................................................... 3-9 3.4 Results ........................................................................................................................ 3-9 3.4.1 OD Flaw ............................................................... .... ....................... .. ... .... ................ 3-9 3.4.2 ID Flaw ...... .. ................... .................................................................................. ..... 3-10 Report No. 1301620.402.R2 111 SJ Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

4.0 EVALUATION OF FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH ................................................. 4-1 4.1 Objective .................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 OD Flaw ..................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.1 Evaluation Methodology .......................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.2 Fatigue Crack Growth Properties ........................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2.1 Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Law ..................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2.2 Fatigue Threshold ............................................................................................ 4-3 4.2.3 Cyclic Loads............................................................................................................. 4-4 4.2.4 Cyclic Stress Intensity Factor versus Crack Size ..................................................... 4-5 4.3 ID Flaw ................................................................... ....... ............................................ 4-6

4. 3.1 Evaluation Methodology .......................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.2 Fatigue Crack Growth Properties ........................................................................... 4-6 4.3.2.1 Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Law ..................................................................... 4-6 4.3.2.2 Fatigue Threshold ............................................................................................ 4-6 4.3.3 Cyclic Loads............................................................................................................. 4-6 4.3.4 Cyclic Stress Intensity Factor versus Crack Size ..................................................... 4-7 4.4 Results ........................................................................................................................ 4-7

5.0 CONCLUSION

S AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 5-1

6.0 REFERENCES

............................................................................................................... 6-1 Report No. 1301620.402.R2 IV e Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

List of Tables Table 3-1. Summary of Forces and Moments on Welds [15,16] ..................................................... 3-11 Table 3-2. Equivalent Axial Loads (lbs) .......................................................................................... 3-12 Table 3-3. Stress Intensity Factors at the Deepest Point of Semi-Elliptical Circumferential Flaw on Pipe OD for Crack Aspect Ratio cia= 4 for Various Load Cases ........................................... 3-13 Table 3-4. Stress Intensity Factors at the Deepest Point of Semi-Elliptical Circumferential Flaw on Pipe OD for Crack Aspect Ratio cia= 1 for Various Load Cases ........................................... 3-14 Table 4-1. Cyclic Loads for Fatigue Crack Growth Transients .................................................. ..... 4-10 Table 4-2. Results of OD Crack Growth at Weld Toe (Stress Path 1) ............................................ 4-10 Report No. 130 1620.402.R2 v e Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

List of Figures Figure 1-1. Sketches of SI pump Type 41 0 stainless steel vent and drain line socket weld locations of interest in the present evaluation ................................................................................................ 1-8 Figure 2-1. Finite element model showing key dimensions of socket welds .................................... 2-5 Figure 2-2. Finite element model showing the weld nuggets ............................................................ 2-5 Figure 2-3. Contour plot of axial weld residual stress ....................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-4. Contour plot of axial stress due to unit axial load of 1000 lb ......................................... 2-6 Figure 2-5. Contour plot of axial stress due to internal pressure of 2,250 psi. .................................. 2-7 Figure 2-6. Axial stresses along Stress Path 1, which originates at the weld toe at the OD and goes toward the ID ............................................................................................................................. 2-8 Figure 3-1. Crack geometry for semi-elliptical, circumferential, surface flaw ............................... 3-15 Figure 3-2. Maximum stress intensity factor (Kmax) as a function of OD flaw depth for calculation of critical crack size ....................................................... .. ............................................................. 3-15 Figure 3-3. Maximum stress intensity factor (Kmax) as a function ofOD flaw depth for calculation of allowable flaw depth (Structural Factor= 1.4) ........................................................................ 3-16 Figure 3-4. Charpy V -notch impact energies of Type 410 stainless steels quenched from 1850°F and tempered 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months at indicated temperatures ............................................................................. 3-16 Figure 3-5. Izod impact energies of Type 410 stainless steel quenched from 1800°F and tempered 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months at indicated temperatures ............................................................................................... 3-17 Figure 3-6. Fracture toughness of coupons from Type 410 stainless steel valve studs ................... 3-17 Figure 3-7. Temperature dependence of fracture toughness (K1c) for Type 403 martensitic stainless steel .......................................................................................................................................... 3-18 Figure 3-8. Maximum stress intensity factor (Kmax) as a function ofiD flaw depth for calculation of allowable flaw depth ................................................................................................................ 3-18 Figure 4-1. Fatigue crack growth rate and threshold data for steels ................................................ 4-11 Figure 4-2. Cyclic stress intensity factor (I~K) as a function of flaw depth for normal cyclic operating load and pressure ...................................................................................................................... 4-12 ReportNo. 1301620.402.R2 Vl S) Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the findings of stress and fracture mechanics analyses in support of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant's (DCPP) evaluation of the Safety Injection (SI) pump vent and drain line Type 410 stainless steel welds.

The purpose of the present analyses is to assist DCPP in determining operability based on the current condition of the Type 410 stainless steel pipe nipples. The analysis consists of stress and fracture mechanics analyses to determine allowable flaw sizes and predict fatigue crack growth of hypothetical flaws.

1.1 Background DCPP is in the process of replacing a Type 316 stainless steel valve on one of the four Safety Injection pumps. These pumps were supplied by the manufacturer with 3/4" Type 410 (martensitic) stainless steel pipe nipples welded to the pump casing at the pump vent and drain lines. The Type 410 nipples are joined to %" austenitic stainless steel valves and fittings via socket welds fabricated in the field. Figure 1-1 illustrates schematically the four field weld locations of interest on each pump. Checks of various components on that pump verified that a

/4" Type 410 stainless steel nipple is welded to %" Type 316 piping. Information received 3

subsequently indicated that one location per pump, the vent valve, is Type 316, while the other three joints on each pump use Type 304 fittings. Reviews of fabrication records verified that a Type 309 stainless steel filler metal was used for the Type 41 0/Type 316 and 410/304 joints.

Further reviews of the fabrication records indicate that the 410/316 and 410/304 weld joints were made using a P1/P8 (carbon steel/austenitic stainless steel) welding procedure as opposed to the P6/P8 (martensitic/austenitic stainless steel) procedure that was specified. The P1/P8 weld procedure lacks the post-weld heat treatment potentially required by the P6/P8 procedure.

Consequently, the condition of the as-welded Type 410 base metal is likely to be affected.

Report No. 1301620.402.R2 1-1 SJ Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

The pump and valve in question appear to be from original construction. Searches of documentation by DCPP personnel suggest that of the three Safety Injection pumps of this design that are still in service at DCPP (the fourth, a Unit 2 pump, was replaced), all three appear to be identical configurations (or have this same basic design), and all appear to have been welded in the same way.

Because the socket weld joining the Type 410 pipe nipple to the Type 316 valve was welded with a P 1/P8 procedure, while the systems materials were found to be P6 and P8, this has been identified as a potential operability condition, requiring a prompt assessment of the potential impact of this fabrication issue on plant safety. Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. (SIA in the present report) was contacted to assist DCPP in providing a determination of plant operability based upon this issue.

A previous letter report [1] addressed the first phase of this activity: determination of the probable metallurgical condition of the 410/316 welds and a determination of the suitability of those welds to permit safe operation of the plant. That report concluded that these welds are considered to be conditionally acceptable, pending the results of stress and fracture mechanics analyses, the second phase of this activity and the objective of this report.

1.2 Objective The primary objectives of the stress and fracture mechanics analyses are: (1) to employ normal and abnormal loading determined from DCPP piping stress reports in order to calculate stresses via finite element modeling, (2) to apply these stresses to hypothetical flaws, assuming lower-bound toughness properties, in order to (3) evaluate the stability and growth of such hypothetical cracks under continued operation.

1.3 Analytical Methodology A fracture mechanics approach analogous to the methods of ASME Code,Section XI [2] is used to evaluate postulated flaws in the DCPP SI pump Type 410 stainless steel welds. The present Report No. 1301620 .4 02 .R2 1_2 S )structurallntegrity Associates, Inc.

case involves a material and flaw geometry not explicitly treated by these ASME Code methods.

Specifically, ASME Section XI methods do not address Type 410 martensitic stainless steels, evaluation of (postulated) flaws on piping OD surfaces, or evaluation of flaws in piping of diameter 4 inches or less.

The overall approach, detailed in the sections that follow, consists of:

(1) Identifying applicable flaw configuration and failure criterion (2) Determining stresses at the flaw location under operating loads (3) Determining stress intensity factors at the flaw location (4) Obtaining material fracture toughness and fatigue crack growth properties (5) Determining allowable flaw size under maximum loading (6) Analyzing flaw growth under cyclic fatigue loading Material properties for Type 41 0 martensitic stainless steel, particularly in the un-tempered condition assumed for the as-fabricated welds, are not provided in ASME Section XI. For such materials, ASME Section XI Articles C-8330 and C-8430 permit properties to be obtained from other sources [2]. Material properties are discussed in Sections 3.2.5 and 4.2.2 of this report.

Regarding flaw geometry, a semi-elliptical circumferential flaw is postulated on the outer surface of the pipe, extending from the root of the weld toe. This location forms a geometric stress concentration and is the region where the cyclic stresses are largest. The flaw is therefore considered to extend from the OD of the pipe toward the ID. Residual stresses are found to be small or strongly compressive near the OD but strongly tensile at the pipe ID, suggesting that an ID-surface flaw should also be considered. Residual stresses would not contribute to fatigue crack growth. However, for the evaluation of allowable flaw size, a flaw at the ID surface is also evaluated. Flaw geometry is discussed further in Section 3 .2.2.

The stress intensity factor solutions for circumferential flaws provided in ASME Section XI, Article C-7300 [2], do not address a flaw located at the OD nor for the stress concentration factor associated with the weld toe. Article C-7300 provides no stress intensity factor solution for residual stresses, which must be obtained from other sources, for instance, finite element stress Report No. 130 1620.402.R2 1-3 S}Structural Integrity Associates, Inc!'

analysis. The use of an influence function can accurately treat a general through-thickness stress gradient and is useful for estimating stress intensity factors for cracks that emanate from stress concentrations, such as a surface crack at a weld toe. An influence function for a semi-elliptical circumferential OD flaw in a pipe with finite R/t is therefore desired and is available from API-579 [3]. The stress intensity factors for the postulated flaw are therefore calculated by the influence function procedures described in API-579 [3].

Report No. 1301620.402.R2 1-4 S}Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

A comparison between the present methodology and the procedures defined in ASME Section XI is summarized below.

ASME Code, Sec. XI [2] Present Methodology Stress Intensity Factor Solution C-7300 API-579 Influence Function [3]

KI = Krm + Kib + K1,. C5 = f(x) a Kim = (SF;n )FmO"m (Jra) 0.5 J

K = f(x)O"(x)dx Kib = [(SFb)C5b + C5e]Fb(Jra)o.s 0 K 1,. = Not provided Comments

1. Specific influence function for OD crack with actual R/t available Comments

2. More realistic, less conservative

1. Applicable to surface flaws on ID

3. Accurately treats arbitrary through-

2. No K-solution provided for residual thickness stress gradients and surface stresses stress concentrations Fracture Toughness K1c, tearing, or limit load considered. Martensitic stainless steel, high strength, Toughness properties available for: low toughness, therefore K1c used.

- Austenitic steel (C-831 0)

- Ferritic, carbon steel, low alloy steel K1c obtained from literature.

(C-8320)

- C-8330 states "For other piping materials ... similar procedures may be used to establish J1c, K1c, or Kc."

Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Information provided for: Fatigue crack growth rate obtained from

- Low alloy, ferritic and carbon steels in literature, water environment used for water and air (C-8420) conservatism.

-Austenitic in air (C-841 0-1)

- Alloy 600 in air and water (C-841 0-2)

- C-8430 states "The fatigue crack growth rates for materials not covered in C-841 0 or C-8420 may be obtained from other sources".

Details of the stress analysis are provided in Section 2.0. The evaluation of crack stability and allowable crack size is discussed in Section 3.0. Section 4.0 presents the evaluation of fatigue crack growth. A summary of the findings and recommendations are provided in Section 5.0.

ReportNo. 1301620.402.R2 1-5

~Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

1.4 Nomenclature A Pipe cross-sectional area, inch2 a Depth of semi-elliptical surface flaw, inch Gallow Maximum allowable flaw depth for stability of postulated cracks, inch a1 Maximum depth to which a flaw is calculated to grow by the end of the evaluation period, inch ai Initial flaw depth at the beginning of the evaluation period, inch

~a Flaw growth during the evaluation period = a1- ai, inch c Half-length of semi-elliptical surface flaw, inch 2c Full surface length of semi-elliptical flaw, inch CJ Maximum half-length to which a flaw is calculated to grow by the end of the evaluation period, inch ci Initial flaw half-length at the beginning of the evaluation period, inch Co Material constant in flaw growth equation, inch/cycle*(ksiv'in)

CVN Charpy V -notch absorbed energy, ft-lb da!dN = Cyclic flaw growth rate, inch/cycle DE Design earthquake loads DL Deadweight or dead load DW Deadweight or dead load Fi Applied force on the pipe where i refers to x, y, and z components, lbs Feff Effective force on the pipe, evaluated as the SRSS of x, y, and z components, lbs Feq Equivalent axial tensile force that produces the same stress as the applied forces and moments, lbs Fm Parameter for circumferential flaw membrane stress intensity factor Fb Parameter for circumferential flaw bending stress intensity factor I Moment of inertia, inch4 ID Inside diameter of pipe, inch K Stress intensity factor, ksiv'in K 1c Material fracture toughness; reflects crack initiation under static, plane strain conditions, ksiv'in Kmax Maximum stress intensity factor associated with transient stress range ~K, ksiv'in Kmin Minimum stress intensity factor associated with transient stress range ~K, ksiv'in

~K Cyclic stress intensity factor; maximum range of K fluctuation during a transient, equal to Kmax minus Kmin, ksiv'in

~Kth Threshold stress intensity factor for fatigue flaw growth, ksiv'in Report No. 1301620.402.R2 1-6 SJ Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

K;c Fracture toughness parameter calculated at the initiation of crack growth under elastic-plastic conditions, ksiv'in Fracture toughness parameter calculated at the point of maximum load under elastic-plastic conditions, ksiv'in Applied moment on the pipe where i refers to x, y, and z components, inch-lbs Effective moment on the pipe, evaluated as the SRSS of x, y, and z components Material constant in flaw growth equation N Number of load cycles in flaw growth evaluation, cycles OD Outer diameter of pipe, inch R Load ratio or stress ratio = KminlKmax Ri Inside radius of a pipe, inch Ra Outside radius of a pipe, inch S(R) Scaling parameter to account for effect of R ratio on fatigue crack growth rate SF Structural factor for stress, based on service level Sf Safety injection SIA Structural Integrity Associates SRSS Square root of the sum of squares t Thickness of pipe wall, inch Applied tensile stress, ksi Report No. 1301620.402.R2 1-7 SJ Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

CA$! A-a1 t'\

%ffovrt OF CAS!

{) tSl:hAr-1ce b y't( \v'\

l .<bo" Figure 1-1. Sketches of SI pump Type 410 stainless steel vent and d rain line socket weld locations of interest in the present evaluation (red circles), provided by DCPP [4].

ReportNo. 1301620.402.R2 1-8 S:J Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

2.0 STRESS ANALYSIS 2.1 Objective A residual stress analysis, unit axial load analysis, and internal pressure analysis are performed.

The objective of these analyses is to extract the stress distributions along a specified flaw path for use in subsequent fracture mechanics and fatigue crack growth analyses.

2.2 Analytical Methodology The analytical approach uses finite element analysis using the ANSYS software package [5] to simulate the multi-pass welding processes. Details of the evaluation process and its comparison to actual test data are provided in [6]. The residual stresses due to welding are controlled by various welding parameters, thermal transients due to application of the welding process, temperature dependent material properties, and elastic-plastic stress reversals.

2.3 Design Inputs A 2-dimensional axisymmetric finite element model is constructed, including:

%" pipe nipple

Socket fitting

Socket weld The key dimensions used in the finite element model are shown in Figure 2-1, and they are summarized as follows:

3

/4" Type 410 pipe is identified as Schedule 80 [4]

OD = 1.050" [7]

ID = 0.742" [7]

Report No. 1301620.402.R2 2-1 e Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Socket weld (see Assumption #2 below)

Weld Length= 0.236" with 1:1 taper

Socket fitting dimensions OD = 1.522" (see Assumption #2 below)

Socket external ID = 1.065" [8]

Socket internal ID = 0.794" [8]

Socket Bore Depth = 9/16", typical [9]

Pipe End Gap= 1116" [10]

The following materials were used for the modeled components:

Socket Fitting Type 316 Stainless Steel (See Assumption #1 below)

Socket Weld Type 309 Stainless Steel filler material

Pipe Nipple Type 410 (martensitic) Stainless Steel Structural material properties are developed based on data in the 2001 Edition of the ASME Code with Addenda through 2003 [11,12] and, when available, material property specification publications, such as [13] for Type 410.

2.4 Assumptions Assumptions used in the finite element stress analysis are summarized as follows:

1. Per Reference [4] and as illustrated in Figure 1-1, the as-built walkdown information shows that the Type 410 pipe nipple is connected to a Type 304 tee for the discharge drain and the suction drain, and to the Type 316 valve bodies. The analyses in this calculation use the material properties of Type 316 stainless steel to represent both Type 304 and 316 socket fittings and valve bodies. Type 316 and Type 304 do not have significantly different mechanical properties, and are not expected to give significantly different stress results for the analyses.

2. With reference to the as-built walkdown information and the pictures taken of the different Type 410 pipe nipples [4], the socket weld covers from the OD of the pipe Report No. 1301620.402.R2 2-2 e Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

nipple to the tee socket OD. Although the valve body OD is 2.010", the walkdown pictures show that the socket weld does not completely cover the valve body welding face. Therefore, the socket weld length is computed as the distance between the socket OD and the pipe nipple OD, which is equal to 0.236" (see Figure 2-1).

3. Three weld nuggets are used to complete the socket weld (see Figure 2-2). The weld nuggets will be applied in the suggested sequence as shown in the figure.

4. Air backed environment on the pipe/socket fitting ID is assumed.

5. No preheat and no post weld heat treatment are assumed. This is consistent with the welding procedure used in applying the socket welds [ 10].

6. A maximum interpass temperature of 350°F between the deposition of weld nuggets is assumed for all welding processes, per the applicable welding procedure described in [10].

Three load cases are analyzed:

1. Weld residual load

2. Internal pressure of2,250 psi

3. Unit axial load of 1, 000 lbs 2.5 Results As discussed in the following sections, the postulated flaw extends from the root of the weld toe, which is the region where cyclic stresses are the largest, and grows from the OD toward the ID.

Consequently, Stress Path 1 across the pipe is defined at the weld toe OD toward the ID (see Figure 2-1 ), with axial stresses mapped along the path for residual stress, internal pressure, and unit axial load. The axial stress contour plot for residual stress is shown in Figure 2-3, while the stress contour plot for unit axial load of 1,000 lb is in Figure 2-4 and for internal pressure of 2,250 psi is in Figure 2-5. All axial stresses along Stress Path 1 are plotted in Figure 2-6a, while Report No. 130 1620.402.R2 2-3 SJ Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Figure 2-6b focuses on the axial stresses produced by unit axial load and internal pressure, which are the cyclic stresses that will tend to grow a fatigue crack.

Stresses along Stress Path 1 are used in subsequent calculations of stress intensity factors for postulated flaws. Inspection of Figure 2-3 shows that the location of maximum axial weld residual stress appears to be displaced from Stress Path 1 shown in Figure 2-1. However, Stress Path 1 is located at the location of maximum stress produced by unit axial load (Figure 2-4) and internal pressure (Figure 2-5), the cyclic stresses that would drive fatigue crack growth. The geometric discontinuity at the weld toe produces a stress concentration on the OD at Stress Path 1, and Figure 2-6b shows that stresses due to axial load and internal pressure are amplified close to the OD at the weld toe. While the weld residual stresses are strongly compressive at the OD and tensile at the ID, Figure 2-6a shows that the peak weld residual tensile stress on the crack path is 60 ksi, which is less than 50% of typical yield strengths ofun-tempered Type 410 [14].

Report No. 1301620.402.R2 2-4 e Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Weld

....,._ _c_ou_n_te_r_B_or_e_D....;ep_th_=_9_1_16_"_ _., Length = 0.236" 1 1 Socket Fitting Stress path 1 Socket Socket 10 Gap= 1/16" 00 =1.522" (Counter Bore)= 1.065" Pipe 00 = 1.05" Socket Pipe 10 = 0.742" 10 = 0.794" b ------------------~--------~---

I Figure 2-1. Finite element model showing key dimensions of socket welds.

Stress Path 1 originates at the OD weld toe going toward the ID.

Inset illustrates location of SI pump (not included in model).

Weld Nugget# 1 Weld Nugget# 3 X

lz Figure 2-2. Finite element model showing the weld nuggets.

Report No. 1301620.402.R2 2-5 e Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

1 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=54 SUB =5 TIME=143 SY (AVG)

DMX =. 007945 sr-m =-1465 84 SMX =1140 39

~ 'y*-[c-} ------------

F-------J X Stress path 1

< lz

..H

'- 14 6584 . -88667 -30751 27165 85081

-117625 -59709 -1793 56123 114039 Figure 2-3. Contour plot of axial weld residual stress.

1 .AN NODAL SOLUTION STEP=l SUB =1 TIME=1 SY (AVG) neve .. n m-IX = . 340E-03 SMN = *- 5476 SMX =7633

_..J;lli , MX

_j "W' '\

Stress path 1 X

). lz

-5476 '- 2563 350.056 '3 263 6177

-4020 -1107 1807 4720 7633 Figure 2-4. Contour plot of axial stress due to unit axial load of 1000 lb.

Report No. 1301620.402.R2 2-6 e Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

1 J\N NODAL SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB =1 TIHE=2 SY (AVG)

DMX =. 214E-03 Sl4N =-100 58 SHX =20239 Stress path 1

-10058 -3325 3407 10140 16872

-66 92 4 0 .99 8 6774 13506 20239 Figure 2-5. Contour plot of axial stress due to internal pressure of 2,250 psi.

Report No. 1301620.402.R2 2-7 S} Strocturattntegrity Associates, Inc.

(a) 30,000 I 20,000 ,- - - -

=:-

c.

~

-60,000 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 Through-wall distance from OD (inches)

(b) 14,000 . , - - - - - - - - , . - - - - - - - r - - - - - - . - - - - - , - - - - - - . , . - - - - - - - - ,

10,000 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 Through-wall distance from OD (inches)

Figure 2-6. Axial stresses along Stress Path 1, which originates at the weld toe at the OD and goes toward the ID (stresses also apply to the same path originating at the ID and going toward the OD). Positive stress denotes tensile stress and negative stress denotes compressive stress. (a) All axial stress. (b) Unit axial and pressure stresses only.

Report No. 1301620.402.R2 2-8 e Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

3.0 EVALUATION OF ALLOWABLE FLAW SIZE 3.1 Objective The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the stability of hypothetical cracks in the Type 410 stainless steel joints under anticipated maximum operating loads.

The purpose of this analysis is to determine allowable flaw sizes for two types of flaws: a flaw located on the pipe OD and a flaw located on the pipe ID.

3.2 OD Flaw 3.2.1 Evaluation Methodology The methodology for determining acceptability of postulated OD flaws for continued service of the DCPP SI pump Type 410 welds is based on linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), in accordance with the criteria of ASME Section XI, Article C-7200 [2]. The criterion used for crack stability is that the crack will become unstable if the applied value of the stress intensity factor (K) exceeds a critical value, which is called the fracture toughness (K1c). This criterion is applicable to the relatively high strength low toughness material under consideration. The stress intensity factor is a parameter that controls the stresses near the crack tip in a predominantly elastic material.

The relevant geometry for the postulated flaw is a semi-elliptical circumferential flaw originating on the OD of the pipe and growing toward the ID of the pipe. Stress intensity factor K for the postulated flaw is evaluated as a function of crack depth and compared to the material fracture toughness K1c. The flaw depth at which the applied K exceeds K1c is the critical crack size. The allowable flaw size for operability determination is obtained by multiplying the applied stress intensity factors by the appropriate structural factors.

Report No. 1301620.402.R2 3-1 S}Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

3.2.2 Flaw Geometry A semi-elliptical circumferential flaw is postulated on the outer surface of the pipe, extending from the root of the weld toe (see Figure 2-1). This location forms a geometric stress concentration and is the region where the cyclic stresses are largest. The flaw is therefore considered to grow from the outer surface of the pipe inward. This flaw geometry is illustrated in Figure 3-1 a.

The stress intensity factor solutions provided for circumferential flaws in ASME Section XI, Article C-7300 [2], do not address a flaw located on the OD nor the stress concentration factor associated with the weld toe. Article C-7300 provides no stress intensity factor solution for residual stresses, which must be obtained from other sources, such as finite element stress analysis. The use of an influence function can accurately treat a general through-thickness stress gradient with a highly nonlinear stress distribution for subsequent calculation of stress intensity factors. An influence function for an OD flaw in a pipe with finite radius-to-thickness ratio R/t is therefore desired and is available from API-579 [3]. The stress intensity factors for the evaluated flaw are therefore calculated by the influence function procedures described in API-579 [3].

The influence function approach is useful for obtaining stress intensity factors for cracks that emanate from stress concentrations, such as a surface crack at a weld toe. Stress intensity factors can be estimated using the influence function for the crack geometry, along with the stress distribution at the weld toe for the uncracked case. The present analysis uses finite element calculated stresses mapped along Stress Path 1 (Figure 2-6) for weld residual stress, unit axial load, and internal pressure. Stress intensity factors for each load case are calculated for a range of crack sizes and aspect ratios.

The influence function can be thought of as a K solution for a point force on the crack face. The value of K can be obtained by the summing of a set of point forces that match the stresses on the crack face, in the absence of a crack. The summing (linear superposition) is performed by integration, which usually must be done numerically. If O"(x) is the stress on the crack surface as Report No. 130 1620.402.R2 3-2 e Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

a function of position x, and h(x,a,R/t,a/c) is the influence function, then K is obtained from the expression:

a J

K(a,R)t ,a/c)= a(x) h(x,a,R)t ,a/c) dx (1) 0 The influence function h(x,a,R/t,a/c) for an OD crack is conveniently provided in API-579 [3]. It should be noted that that the influence function required to compute stress intensity factor for the relevant flaw geometry is restricted to axisymmetric loading [3]. Hence; bending loads cannot be directly used, but must be converted to an equivalent axial tension loading for calculation of stress intensity factors. In this report, the influence function for an OD flaw, which is available from Reference [3], is employed.

3.2.3 Operating Loads 3.2.3.1 Definition of Loads Loads considered are dead weight, internal pressure, stresses due to thermal transients and seismic events, and weld residual stresses. Table 3-1 summarizes the load and moment information obtained from [15] for six weld locations. The left hand column in Table 3-1 identifies the transient associated with the forces using the nomenclature directly from [15], with the thermal load cases described below per [16]:

Stress Analysis 9-323 (Safety Injection Pump 1-1)

Load Case:

THRMN1-100% Power & Refueling Mode@ 110°F THRMN2- Injection Mode@ 40 OF THRMA1 -Abnormal Mode@ 295 OF for Code Class 'B' and 110°F for Code Class 'E' Stress Analysis 9-53 7 (Safety Injection Pump 2-1)

Load Case:

THRMN1 - 100% Power & Refueling Mode @ 11 OOF THRMN2- Injection Mode@ 35 OF & 110°F THRMA 1 -Abnormal Mode @ 295 OF THRMA2 -Recirculation Mode @ 190°F & 11 OOF Stress Analysis 9-536 (Safety Injection Pump 2-2)

Load Case:

THRMN1 -100% Power & Refueling Mode@ 110°F THRMN2- Injection Mode@ 35 OF THRMA 1 -Abnormal Mode @ 295 OF Report No. 1301620.402.R2 3-3 SJ Structural Integrity Associates, Inc..

It should be noted that that the influence function required to compute stress intensity factor for the relevant flaw geometry (a semi-elliptical OD-connected circumferential crack at the weld toe) is restricted to axisymmetric loading [3]. Hence, the bending loads in Table 3-1 cannot be directly used, but must be converted to an equivalent axial tension loading for calculation of stress intensity factors.

3.2.3.2 Calculation of Equivalent Axial Loads The axial loads from the various transients in Table 3-1 are considered in combination. For evaluation of allowable flaw size, the maximum operating loads are combined. The Hosgri seismic event is combined with deadweight load (DL or DW) and the largest abnormal thermal load (THERMAl or THERMA2). Stress intensity factors due to internal pressure loading and residual stresses are considered separately, and the total stress intensity factors are obtained by adding these individual contributors. Calculation of stress intensity factors is discussed in Section 3.2.4.

Table 3-2 summarizes the load combinations and equivalent loads for the six weld locations. For a given load combination, the values of the force and moment components are added to provide the components of the combined load or moment:

~(combined load) = Ltoad contributors~ (2) where i refers to the x, y, and z components. The combination is performed for each component.

The effective force is then evaluated as the SRSS of the x, y, and z components. This is done for the force and the moment, thereby providing Feffand MeJJfor each location.

Report No. 1301620.402.R2 3-4 S}Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

The nominal stresses due to the force and moment are obtained by conventional means and an equivalent axial tensile force, Feq, that produces the same stress is computed. The following relation is employed:

(3) where Feff and Meff are the effective force and moment, A is the pipe cross-sectional area, Ra is the outer radius, and I is the moment of inertia.

3.2.4 Stress Intensity Factor versus Crack Size The total stress intensity factors are obtained by adding the individual K-contributors, accounting for the magnitude of the equivalent axial tensile load. Equivalent pipe loads are summarized in Table 3-2, which shows that the maximum load during seismic or abnormal events ("DL +

HOSGRI +Abnormal thermal") is bounded by a force of 5,275 lbs. This will be used as the load for analysis of crack stability. Residual stresses and internal pressure of 2,250 psi are present in addition to these forces. Stress intensity factors for an OD flaw due to pressure, residual stress and a unit axial tension load of 1,000 lbs are included in Table 3-3 and Table 3-4, for crack aspect ratios cia= 4 and 1 respectively, where crack half-length c and depth a are as illustrated in Figure 3-1 a. K solutions are not provided in Reference [3] for crack aspect ratios larger than cia= 4 or smaller than cia= 1 for the thickness-to-radius ratio t/Ri of the subject pipe nipples.

Figure 3-2 presents stress intensity factor K as a function of OD flaw depth ait for crack aspect ratio cia of 4 and 1 for maximum loads. Results are shown with and without the contribution of residual stresses. Note that the stress intensity factor solutions are valid for crack depths ait up to 0.8 [3].

The results of Figure 3-2 show that the stress intensity factors for OD flaws are either negative or very small when residual stresses are included. Consequently, postulated OD flaws would not be Report No. 1301620.402.R2 3-5 e Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

ML14202A614: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 12:56, 25 February 2020

Contents

Text

Dear Commissioners and Staff:

Description:

Description:

Reference:

Contact:

Title:

1.0 INTRODUCTION

5.0 CONCLUSION

6.0 REFERENCES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Navigation menu