As a 653 Inspector, I would not interpret 12.1.2 to require RT. It is not a full-penn weld, unless the welder 'blows a hole' through the shell while making the pad weld. Additionally, any Lack-of-Fusion would be parallel to the RT film, thus undetctable [RT a phone book, it looks like a perfect wood beam] You might want to call for a UT-thickness scan to determine proper thickness, if a full build-up is not very evident visually.
Thank you sir, pardon my ignorance to this media and providing so little info.
We are repairing pitting, primarily in the weld and HAZ area of a 650 tank, the pitting per the metallurgical folk is not preferential to the welds, but build up has been attracted to the welds and the mechanism is being considered under deposit.
We have ( pre- coating application) pt inspected the excavated areas and re-welded with a final PT, prior to flat topping the welding for a lap patches (engineering exempt from 653).
This corrosion has been repaired on approximately 600 linear feet of weld, in a tank with 3000 linear feet of shell welds.
We have one faction interpreting, 653 latest edition, section 9.6, that weld corrosion / repair, is a weld defect and the requirements of 12.1.3, leading to 100% radiography apply.
The other are arguing that only, weld induced flaws , per 9.6.1 require 100 % RT inspection per 12.1.3.
We are currently inspecting the final welds per section 12.2 ( C- repaired weld joints.) RT inspecting a representative sample of each welder.
Corrosion-induced pitting is not a "Welding" flaw of the weld. It is service-related degradation. If the pitting was pre-existing, meaning pitted the day the tank was built, then that would be a flaw repair. The 653 clause refers to weld defects caused during the welding process, not environmental & process corrosion.
100% RT would be rediculous; the original weld was acceptable and without flaws. Additionally, the 100% requirement only applies to full-thickness welds. Your welds are still without internal flaws, just surface pitting. A 100% examination should be concentrated on the surface, as you performed surface welding only. The only methods that make sense are the mandatory 100% Visual Examination, and possibly Magnetic Particle - MT - testing.
Your customer may have his 100% RT, if HE pays for it.
Your contract was for a valid 653 repair. Two 653 Inspectors have deemed your repair valid. You have fulfilled your obligation. Please don't let yourself be bullied.
