Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Design

Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Design

Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Design

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.


RE: Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Design

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

RE: Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Design

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.

RE: Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Design

". . . 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.

RE: Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Design


Thx much for the input.

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.

RE: Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Design

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

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close