It sickens me to see stuff like this.
SALT LAKE CITY -- A huge welding job that went wrong at a PacifiCorp power plant in Wyoming has created concerns about a similar job with the same actors at a Utah power plant.
The problem involved an unknown number of workers for a California contractor who secretly used sub-standard welding procedures. Utah's top boiler safety official says he hasn't ruled out a temporary shutdown at a power plant in Utah because of the same concern.
PacifiCorp officials say the guilty welders were quickly fired and there's no safety issue in Wyoming or Utah. But union officials are upset that PacifiCorp plans to use the same welding contractor on yet another power plant in Utah.
At Wyoming's Jim Bridger power plant, one of the four giant boilers needed an overhaul. So PacifiCorp contracted with California-based PMSI, which put dozens of welders to work. One of them triggered an investigation by alleging widespread cheating.
"There was some truth to the charge that some individual welders were taking shortcuts," said PacifiCorp spokesman Dave Eskelsen. "We think it was just a few bad actors and they were dismissed."
The Boilermakers Union is upset that a non-union company got the contract. They set up a demonstration for KSL, showing how PMSI welders should have used stainless-steel welding rods which require elaborate, time-consuming preparations.
Instead, they secretly used carbon-steel rods.
"Which is absolutely a no-no as far as national welding codes. It creates cracks over time," said Jim Cooksey with the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers.
PacifiCorp investigated and PMSI fired some welders -- it won't say how many. The union claims it was between 10 and 16. PMSI also agreed to cut out more than 500 welds, and re-weld the pipes at the company's own expense.
“It just shows me that they are rewarding deceitful behavior.”
–Jim Cooksey
"All indications are that it was not condoned by the contractor, that it was a few individuals making poor decisions," said Eskelsen.
Cooksey has another idea. "I don't know if I can say this, but I'd say that's BS because our inspector working for PMSI said basically this is a standard operating procedure," he said.
PacifiCorp spokesman Dave Eskelsen
The same welders allegedly did the same thing last spring when they refurbished the Hunter plant near Castle Dale. Utah's chief of boiler safety, Pete Hackford, hopes to avoid a shutdown of the Hunter plant. He's asked PacifiCorp for a plan by early next week.
"A plan on how they're going to remedy this and fix this and bring it back to code," Hackford said.
Meanwhile, PacifiCorp has angered the union by using PMSI again next month at the Huntington power plant.
"It just shows me that they are rewarding deceitful behavior," said Cooksey.
But PacifiCorp is defending its use of PMSI. "They do quality work and they have stepped up when notified of this error," said Eskelsen. "They have dismissed the offending welders and they have agreed to make it right."
PacifiCorp officials believe it's true that improper welding was done at the Hunter plant, but they can't test the welds without shutting down the boiler -- a very expensive proposition.
The next time it's shut down for other reasons, PMSI has agreed to replace all the welds for free. PacifCorp says it won't cost rate payers anything
I bet there is a lot more to this story!
If nothing else, it's a hopeful sign that they were caught eh?
The more exposure crap like this gets, the fewer players will be willing to risk shortcuts.
I agree there's much more to the story than being revealed. I find it difficult to believe that welders "on their own volition" decided to use carbon steel rods on stainless steel material, especially at a power plant.
QCRobert
It's obvious PSMI has lax supervision on their jobs. The spin they are putting on this is trying to close as many legal issues as they can. Who are PSMI's Inspectors? How many other jobs of theirs are failures waiting to happen that might take the lives of power plant employees?
1. Cooksey said. "I don't know if I can say this, but I'd say that's BS because our inspector working for PMSI said basically this is a standard operating procedure,"
Did that inspector blow the whistle on this or was he letting it happen?
2. PacifiCorp investigated and PMSI fired some welders -- it won't say how many. The union claims it was between 10 and 16. PMSI also agreed to cut out more than 500 welds, and re-weld the pipes at the company's own expense.
Who is going to oversee this very costly repair? How many short cuts are going to be used to save money.
3. "They have dismissed the offending welders and they have agreed to make it right."
What about the people that were supervising those welders? Those supervisors let it happen and should have been canned too.
You get what you pay for. The cheapest bid is not always the best way to go. the fact that they are using this company again is mind boggling. Was there no QC on this job? Will they be watched more closely on the next job? Something stinks about this whole story.
Why was there no weld rod control on this job? Usually you are issued a rod slip with drawing numbers on it and the appropriate rod is issued. At least that's been my experience.
Well, I know there is a little different issue here, but the mind set is the same.
For example:
Welder #1- "Man I am having a heck of a time getting rid of this porosity!! I just keep fighting it to no avail! What can I do?"
Welder #2 or Foreman- "Just cover it up with some stainless, the x-ray tech's cant tell the difference. Just don't let QC catch you. LOL"
When it is a little harder to do it the right way Mr. Will Dikum tends to show up pretty quickly.
jrw159
there is a instrument that you point it at a weld and it will tell you on a screen what the pipe or fitting is made of and if the weld metal is the same I watched a technician use it at a power plant in Connecticut, but I'm drawing a blank as to what it is called.It eliminates this kind of thing from happening either by mistake or on purpose. It was pretty much used to determine if the crome joints were welded with the proper wire.
The instrument is called the ferritoscope. It measures the percentage of ferrite contained in an alloy. If the welds should have been austenitic stainless steel and the ferritoscope shows the presence of ferrite beyond a certain tolerance that you can figure out by using the Schaffler diagram, it means that there's something wrong with the welds. Remember that carbon steel, which was used to weld stainless on the power plant we're talking about, is ferritic.
Giovanni S. Crisi
Sao Paulo - Brazil
When he said they 'point it at the weld', I believe he meant a portable x-ray diffraction PMI machine.
The ferritoscope would work in the above situation, but it requires contact with the hall sensor to work properly.
English being not my mother language, I havn't understood what you said.
What exactly mean "point it at the weld" and "requires contact with the hall sensor"?
I have used the ferritoscope. It has a probe with which you touch the metal under test and it tells you the percentage of ferrite.
Giovanni S. Crisi
Fitters Post:
"there is a instrument that you point
I was refering to Fitters post. He stated an instrument that you point at the weld. That would not be a ferritescope, it would be an x ray PMI.
The ferritescope utilizes a hall sensor/Electronic magnetic induction (not exactly correct, but its easier to explain) to pick up the ferrite.
This requires contact with the piece being examined.
Since Fitter specified an instrument that you "point at" the weld, it could not have been a ferritescope.
From what you say, I understand that "you point it at the weld" means that there's no need for the instrument to actually touch the weld, whereas "requires contact with the hall sensor" means that the instrument must touch the weld (or any other material under examination).
Is that right?
Now, the instrument shown on 99205's link is not an X ray difraction meter but an X ray fluorescent analyzer. Is that the instrument Ferrite is talking about?
Giovanni S. Crisi
From his description, I believe it is.
CWI 555 You are right. It is called a pmi,and it was used on day shift and I was on nights. so I never actually saw the tool being used. I do remember being told by a friend who worked with the tech that you do not have to touch the metal with the PMI, just point it at the metal. Sorry for the confusion, I had a brain fart on the name until I read CWI555's post.
I'm working at the Huntington, UT Unit 2 overhaul now (for a different contractor) and the Pacificorp policy/procedure states that the Company will randomly test the weld filler material and if the reject rate is 1% or higher, the contractor will be removed from the bid list.
PSMI did work at Unit 1 as well. We are fully aware and are paying for the sins of PSMI in Wy. The guilty welders and supervisors are on the "Do not call/hire list". I don't know if this was mandated by Pacificorp or if the current contractor is just not taking any chances....who could blame them?
X-Ray flourescence PMI testing is an imperfect technology. What would constitute reject?
js55,
our PMI procedure states that if the filler metal does not comply with ASME Sec. II Part C, chemical compisition, then it is rejectable. If there are standard deviations then they apply. If the filler metal does not comply, then an NCR is issued.
Jim
Jim,
You may already be well aware, but in the interest of other readers, The X-Ray flourescence machines are quite good. I use them all of the time. But there are times when they are "fooled". Depending upon reading and quantity of material I would not necessarily impose XRF PMI as the ultimate aribitur, and certainly wouldn't jump to cut out welds. They don't read sulphur, phosphorous, or carbon, and many of the older machines don't read aluminum. Certain elemental combinations can interfere with each other.
For example, I've have tested B9 materials hundreds of times and got bogus numbers when I absolutely trusted my filler metal supplier, only to run a weld button and get good numbers. I still do not know why.
I'll test qualitatively and then quantitatively, and then use my judgment. Its always best to limit it to the critical elements as well, for example for SS's its Cr and Ni and forget the rest. If its 316, 321, or 347 I might add Mo, Ti, or Cb respectively.
If your MTR is saying one thing and your XRF is saying another (which it always will to a certain extent) depending upon what it is, the manufacturer test generally utilizes a method more accurate and reliable than XRF. Whether its wet chems or whatever.
The other issue is that material manufacturers are very good at stayin just above that lower volume percent line to save money. If the XRF errors in the low direction you will have a reading less than the spec range but still be good material.
Yes there is alot of mickey mouse outfits and shady tube welders out there. Stainless tubes can be a pain to get a good purge on sometimes so to keep for sugaring I have see 90s wire used for the roots and stainless wire the rest of the weld. The same can be said about stainless used in carbon steel. I hate to say it but I have done both with no "known" problems, I have since been educated in what a bad practice that is and have stopped years ago. There are alot of those kinds of weldsout there. I have been around alot of PMSI welders over the years and it is a common practice.On those problem welds in stainless the flux coated, flux cored, or solar flux plaste can be used with good results with an approved WPS and qualified welders. Hopefully other welders will wake up like I did and stop this practice over a shot record. In some welders and maybe my own defense some of these plants don't care how you get them back online as long as it is making power and MONEY. Not that it makes it any better.
Let's also be aware that many shielded metal arc electrodes use a core wire that is AISI 1005 plain carbon steel, such as -B2, -B3 and some stainless electrodes. If you do a spot check with a PMI gun on the core wire, it will not match the as-deposited weld chemistry. The same applies to flux-cored electrodes. The PMI gun is only useful as a check on bare wire or weld deposits.
js55,
you are absolutely correct. I have had some of the same issues. There are a number of built in problems with the process and machines that I have wittnessed. Due to the fact that the XRF (PMI) equipment is fairly easy to operate, you get (untrained) folks using them incorrectly. If the technician does not have the proper training in equipment calibration, how battery life effects readings, and proper prep of specimen, (cleaning) they will get erroneous readings. Then welds get cutout and that costs money. I have had to call the machine manufacture numerous times and have them trouble shoot a machine only to have them tell me the machine is malfunctioning and please send it back to them for service. Ok? that great news. What about all the welds I checked with the same devise that you are now telling me to send back to you? It's hard to trust the equipment when it has lied to you. But when your dealing with clients that put into their specs, that 100% PMI is required of material and filler material because they went to some conference put on by some group that are trying to sell $35K machines and they get told just the opposite of what you said, "you owners can't trust the manufacture, supplier, or CMTR, then your stuck. Since you mentioned B9. The same type of issues come up with hardness values. Owners go to conferences that tell them that to confirm phase transformation to Matensitic of grade 91 material you must perform harness testing. Ok. how many? and where? what are the ranges? is 190 BHN good? or is it 195 BHN prior to PWHT? That depends on who you talk to or what client your dealing with. If you take a harness reading in a certain location and it's acceptable (again what is acceptable) What about 0.030 under your reading? Is it ok? What about on the I.D of the pipe? Is it ok? If the piping system your dealing with has been designed to MW (min. wall) and you use a Tellalbrineller and you ding a spot on the pipe that is 0.030 deep, have you now violated MW? Why is ASME silent about this if it's so important? Why would replication not be better? Sorry, I have a little passion on both of these issues because it needs to be definitive and in some cases it's not.
Thanks for letting me vent :)
Jim
Jim,
I can perhaps express my opinion of the status of ASME's silence. Predominantly for the very reasons you mention and a couple others.
1) Hardness is not the concern, martensite is. Hardness is only an indicator.
2) Making it a code requirement could mean good stuff gets rejected and bad stuff gets accepted.
3) Making it a code requirement could limit the means by which problems are resolved.
4) There is an inherent and troublesome scatter band with ALL hardness testing. Even laboratory testing has proven to be beyond acceptable limits in some cases, much less field testing.
5) Hardness testing only tests the surface.
6) Different product forms will manifest different hardness ranges
7) Once the requirement becomes carved into stone it could limit the number of players willing to risk fabrication.
8) It will drive up the supplier hardness requirements.
js55,
Thanks for your reply. I still believe there could be some ranges identified and agreed upon by ASME and Industry. If in fact performing hardness testing is a viable means in determining if PWHT was correctly performed and the manifestation is proper phase transformation.
Jim
190 is the number most often tossed around and there is considerable consensus for it. Dispositioning non compliant material is where the debate comes in and currently there is insufficient data to convince all parties as to how this should lay out. They do not want to establish a hard and fast single requirment without recourse available.
Forum
