Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Design 1

[R1H2]

Hello Gentlemen,

I am a Welding Inspector.
My shop has a potential client that is looking to have us weld components for
Spent fuel pool water level instrumentation.

I am concerned that we are lacking acceptance criteria.

Can anyone provide direction in regards to specs or standards dictating weld design & acceptance criteria for this application?

Any guidance with this is greatly appreciated.
Also, many thanks to all who participate in the discussions on this site. It has been the source of answers to many of my questions.

R1H2

 

[Bagman2524]

Are you welding parts of the instrument together to make a completed assembly? or welding the instruments to a support structure. Sounds like the client should be providing you their own specs. If the 2nd above, AWS D1.1 or D1.3 should suffice if no other specs are provided.

“Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase.” MLK

 

[racookpe1978]

Yes. The client seeking a service - in your case they want you to provide welded material going into a high-risk, high-potential-for-problems, very critical "wet" nuclear fuel pool - must absolutely provide you with all of the requirements that THEY need YOU to meet. THEY (not you) are the ultimate contractor responsible to the NRC and the power plant and the US at large as nearby residents, and so they need to provide you this criteria. Prior experience, prior contracts and prior "books on the shelf" of the ins and outs of this kind of regulation are what make the US nuclear industry (almost all of the time) too expense to survive long term: Those who have gained the in-depth knowledge and the in-depth company procedures to enforce that knowledge have invested billions in finding and keeping that in-depth knowledge.

That you would be expected to (required to!) research all the potential "strings" and "straightedges" is an extra expense that you need to be reimbursed for (either in your original bid, in the time and margins reasonable for the job that you include in this bid) or in a bid phase of the whole job separately paid for by them, or as a longer-term consulting and agreement contract. It is, however, to their benefit to have you suck up all of the costs in researching their needs - which they themselves may not know! - and have you do it for free. And then have somebody else do the simple job or welding the steel. Cheaper.

Be careful of your terms, conditions, proprietary data clauses, future contract assumptions, etc.

 

[Duwe6]

". . . AWS D1.1 or D1.3 should suffice if no other specs are provided. "

Almost certainly NOT. Anything that close to spent fuel requires 'Seismic Criteria'. Remember all the pipe support reinspections 'way back when', when NRC finally acknowledged that failure of supports during an earthquake would cause major safety problems? There were a BUNCH of supports and other items that were not pressure-boundary items that had to be rewelded or rebuilt. Because if that little support broke, it would smash a lot of critical equipment.

 

[R1H2]

Gentlemen,

Thx much for the input.

Racookpe1978,
My spider senses & most of the codes I use were telling me the same information. Eng.g will dictate requirments.
We politely no bid the work.
Thanks as always for the sage advice.
R1H2

 

[Bagman2524]

I don't see how welding to AWS D1.1 would eliminate the weld from being seismic. The weld needs to be sized for the sites seismic loadings in the design calcs.

“Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase.” MLK