Thank you folks for responding. The actual material (carbon steel) was over-cooked not the test coupons. PWHT is towards the wall thickness (>60 mm) not for corrosion sake. Our remedy was: Normalize the material again wherever possible as this was a skirt portion of the huge conical bottom atmospheric pressure hopper (doesn't necessarily follow a code); re-qualify the WPS. Though the minimum time depends on the thickness, still there seems to be infinite flexibility on the upper limit. Number of PWHT cycles also does not cover this excessive one time hold time. There was an Australian paper for different metal which seems to pin down the heat input rate as the major factor in reduction of notch toughness under such high hold time PWHT. Anyway that is not relevant here. I thought may be a note on these PWHT tables would caution the user. My lack of knowledge is what will go wrong if a limit is specified such as do not exceed the computed hold time, by say, 1 hr. I can hesitantly accept the rationale behind this omission of hold time range given by Metengr. I always struggle how many pages on the code can be eliminated based on 'common sense, engineering judgement, or due diligence'........Please remember, I've highest regards for those volunteers in code committees; my ranting is my interpretation issue. In this case of non-conforming(?) PWHT, we managed to work around by conducting combination of retesting of the samples, reinforcing, re-qualifying, EHTing and living with.