technical information exchange · – 3 code actions related to appendix viii supplements – 1...

© 2017 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

NRC offices

Washington DC

January 2017

4th Industry/NRC NDE Technical Information

Exchange


Kevin HackerDominion

NDE Integration Committee ChairGreg Selby

Senior Technical Executive

Industry/NRCNDE Technical Information Exchange

January 2017

Action item review

3© 2017 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Action items

Action number Topic Action

owner Action Date opened Date due Status today

2014-01-07 Examiner population Industry

Discuss false call rate data

availability at next quarterly call

1/9/2014 1/17/2017

Open;false call stats

won’t be available until 2Q2017 call

2016-10-01January

2017 agenda

Both

Prepare draft agenda for January 2017 Industry-NRC

NDE Technical Information

Exchange Meeting

10/13/2016 10/31/2016Completed

11/17/2016


Greg SelbySenior Technical Executive


January 2017

EPRI Advisory Structure:

Nuclear Power


EPRI advisory structure – Nuclear


Nuclear Power Council

Action Plan Committee

Integration Committee

Technical Advisory

Committee

Nuclear Power Council

Executive Committee

NDE APCChair: Leo Martin, Duke Energy

EPRI lead: Steve Swilley

NDE ICChair: Kevin Hacker, Dominion

EPRI lead: Greg Selby

Reliability TACChair: Al Brooks, DTEEPRI lead: Phil Ashwin

Technology TACChair: Damon Priestley, TVA

EPRI lead: Nathan Muthu

Concrete Research

Chair: Tom Nushaj, OPGEPRI lead: John Lindberg

NDE advisory structure


NDE Program provides NDE support to several Action Plan Committees (APCs)


EPRI advisory structure - Materials

This is welding and repair


Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity


Gary LofthusSouthern Nuclear

NDE Integration Committee Vice Chair

Jack SpannerPrincipal Technical Leader


January 2017

NDE-Related ASME Code Activities


Overview of 2016 NDE Related Code Activities

The EPRI NDE Program often has projects that require Code interactionThis presentation also includes Code activities related to

MRPCode action overview

– Several Code actions were identified, which will bring Code and PDI program into alignment

– 3 Code actions related to Appendix VIII supplements– 1 Code Case action related to Appendix VIII– 1 Non-intent inquiry related to Appendix VII– 5 Code actions related to Alloy 600/690– No Errata submitted


NDE Related Code RevisionsRevisions to paragraphs IWA-2312, IWA-2315 and Article VII to

address the eddy current training and qualification requirements, remove Steam Generator preservice requirements and acceptance standards from IWB, and update Table IWB-2500-1, Category B-Q to refer to Technical Specifications only (Record No. 10-129) Code Case, N-853, provides the rules for design, implementation,

and examination for Alloy 600 branch connection repairs in PWR primary piping (Record No. 15-360)Revision to Appendix R, Table R-2500-1, Item No. R1.11,

Elements Subject to Thermal Fatigue, that changes the reference to Note 8 to a new Note 10 (Record No. 07-486) – Change reflects the requirement for a volumetric examination of socket

welds subject to thermal fatigue

– A change to R-2500 was also made to clarify the associated examination qualifications


NDE Related Code Revisions

Code revisions and an accompanying Code Case that clarify the requirements for practical examinations conducted to the requirements of CP-189 as referenced by IWA-2300 (Record No. 08-1139)– The actions clarify the specific techniques that must be used in the

administration of practical examinations for NDE personnel qualification examinations

New Code Case, not yet numbered, which allows the use of Third Party (i.e., central certification) programs based on ISO 9712:2012 for certification of NDE personnel as an alternative to employer-based certifications at plant sites outside of the U.S. (Record No. 10-231)


NDE Related Code RevisionsNew Code Case, N-847, that provides rules for repairing

dissimilar metal welds by excavation and weld repair (EWR) methods (Record No. 10-1845)– A companion action to Code Case N-847, the Excavate and Weld

Repair (EWR) Case, that revises Code Case N-770-4 (i.e., N-770-5), Alternative Examination Requirements and Acceptance Standards for Class 1 PWR Piping and Vessel Nozzle Butt Welds Fabricated With UNS N06082 or UNS W86182 Weld Filler Material With or Without Application of Listed Mitigation Activities, to establish PSI and ISI requirements for EWR mitigation/repair and replacement activities (Record No. 14-2233)

Approved a new Code Case, N-831, Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of Radiography for Welds in Ferritic Pipe (Record No. 12-2244)– This code case was heavily supported by the EPRI and USNRC staffs


NDE Related Code Revisions

Code change to Appendix IV that incorporates Code Case N-733, Alternative Qualification Criteria for Eddy Current Examinations of Piping Inside Surfaces (Record No. 13-107)Revised multiple locations of the Code (e.g., IWA-2200, -

2330, IWB-3200(a), IWC-3200(a), IV-2200, VII-4330, and more) to clarify the use of “evaluation” consistent with the definition of “NDE evaluation” that was recently approved (refer to Record 15-206) and added to IWA-9000 (Record No. 15-205)Revision to Appendix IV, Eddy Current Examination,

Supplement 2, Section 1.0 that specifies the different eddy current qualification specimen requirements (i.e., qualification specimen flaw/indication sizes) for nickel alloys, austenitic stainless, and ferritic material (Record No. 16-35)


NDE Related Code RevisionsRevision to Appendix VIII, Performance Demonstration for

Ultrasonic Examination Systems, that better describes the roles and responsibilities of the performance demonstration administrator (PDA) within the context of Section XI (Record 16-255)Revision to Supplement 8, Qualification Requirements for Bolts

and Studs, of Appendix VIII, Performance Demonstration for Ultrasonic Examination Systems, that makes the supplement consistent with recently approved Code Case N-845-1 (Record No. 16-1071)Revisions to IWB and IWC-2200, Preservice Examination, which

clarify the NDE personnel qualification and certification requirements for personnel performing Magnetic Particle or Liquid Penetrant preservice examinations (Record No. 16-1195)– The clarification incorporates intent interpretation 16-881 (shown later)


NDE Related Intent Inquiries Accompanying Code Revision Intent interpretation (Record No. 14-243) for Code Case N-

729-5, Alternative Examination Requirements for PWR Reactor Vessel Upper Heads With Nozzles Having Pressure-Retaining Partial-Penetration Welds, and accompanying implementing change to the Case (N-729-6) that clarify that eddy current surface examinations need to meet Article 14 of Section V and not Appendix IV of Section XI (Record No. 15-2558) Intent interpretation (Record No. 16-272) for Mandatory

Appendix VIII, Performance Demonstration for Ultrasonic Examination Systems, Article VIII-1000, Scope, and accompanying implementing Code change (Record 16-256) to clarify that a procedure may be qualified for flaw detection, length sizing, depth sizing, or a combination of these purposes


NDE Related Intent Inquiries Accompanying Code Revision Intent interpretation (Record No. 16-267) for Code Case N-

845, Qualification Requirements for Bolts and Studs, and accompanying implementing Case revision (N-845-1, Record 16-258) to clarify that demonstration notches shall be wholly contained within the examination volumeRevision to Code Case N-711 (i.e., N-711-1), Alternate

Examination Coverage Requirements for Examination Category B-F, B-J, C-F-1, C-F-2, and R-A Piping Welds – Clarifies that N-711 may be used on all items classified as

Examination Category R-A; e.g., items classified R-A in accordance with Case N-716 (Record No. 15-1919)

– The clarification incorporates intent interpretation 15-1796


NDE Related Intent Inquiries Accompanying Code RevisionBVP Record No. 16-2479 Section XI, Division 1, IWB-3142,

Acceptance, and IWB/C/D-3144, Review by Authorities, 1998 Edition through the 2015 Edition

Code changes made under 15-208:– Question 1:Is it the intent of IWB-3142.4 that discoloration or

accumulated residues on surfaces of components, insulation, or floor areas that may be evidence of borated water leakage, may be resolved by evaluation?

Reply 1: Yes

– Question 2:Is it the intent of IWB-3144(b), IWC-3134(b), and IWD-3134(b) that only analytical evaluations be submitted to the regulatory authority having jurisdiction at the plant site?

Reply 2: Yes


NDE Related Intent Inquiries Accompanying Code Revision16-244 (Intent Inquiry – Code Change already made)

Section XI, Division 1, IWA-2210, Visual Examination, 1998 Edition with the 2000 Addenda through the 2001 Edition– Question: Is it the intent of IWA-2210, which stated, “Visual

Examinations shall be conducted in accordance with Section V, Article 9, Table IWA-2210-1, and the following …” that the angle of view requirements of Article 9 of Section V apply to VT-3 examination?

– Reply: No, the extent to which application of Section V was intended was clarified in the 2002 Addenda, which changed IWA-2210 to read, “Visual examinations shall be conducted in accordance with Section V, Article 9, T-941 for Written Procedures, and T-990 for Report of Examination Results


NDE Related Non-intent Inquiries

15-2475 (Non-Intent Inquiry) Section XI, Division 1, VII-4240, Annual Practice, 1999 Addenda through the 2015 Edition– Question: Is it a requirement of VII-4240 that the Annual Practice of

“at least 8 hr,” be conducted within a year of the previous Annual Practice?

– Reply: Yes


discussion



NDE Integration Committee Chair



January 2017

RPV Threads in Flange Update


Introduction

Due to personnel safety and radiation dose concerns, and critical path impact associated with performing the volumetric examination of the reactor vessel threads in flange, industry evaluated optimization options to minimize or eliminate these concerns


Current Examination Requirements

Examinations required per ASME Section XI– Examination Category B-G-1– Volumetric examination each

intervalOther Codes/Countries have similar requirements


StatusConducted an industry survey to collect data on the results of the

RPV flange examinations as well as to gather insight into the negative aspects of having to conduct these examinations

An EPRI report (3002007626) was prepared capturing the survey information and providing the basis and recommendation for the elimination of the RPV Threads in Flange examination requirement

Several utilities have submitted alternative requests to eliminate these examinations using the basis documented in the EPRI report– Two sets of RAIs were received and responses submitted by the first utility

Code Case N-846 has been developed to eliminate these examinations– Has been approved at the working group and subgroup levels

– Received three negatives at Standards Committee, focusing on the NRC RAIs to alternative requests


Remaining ActionsThe first set of RAIs were formally issued on 9-15-16 and

responded to on 10-24-16A second set of follow-up RAIs were formally issued on 11-16-16

and responded to on 11-23-16 The RAIs/responses have been added to the ASME ballot

response Pending NRC acceptance of the responses, will be moving this

forward at the next Code meeting (Feb 2017) for second considerationAt this point, we have not identified any needed changes to the

Code Case, but we need to see the SE before we know for sureProcess a code change that reflects the code caseUpdate the EPRI report, as needed


discussion





Industry/NRC NDETechnical Information Exchange

January 2017

UT in lieu of RT Update


BackgroundRadiography is usually performed when repair/replacement

activity or construction volumetric examinations are required It would be extremely beneficial to utilities if

repair/replacement welds could be examined with UT– Eliminate the safety risk associated with performing RT, which

includes planned exposure and the potential for accidental exposure– Minimizes the impact of other outage activities normally involved with

performing RT

The ASME Code does not provide the necessary detailed requirements to allow utilities to easily substitute one volumetric method for anotherCode Case N-831, “Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of

Radiography for Welds in Ferritic Pipe” has been developed to allow the use of UT for the examination


N-831 Highlights Limited to ferritic pipe welds made as part of a repair/replacement activity

Ultrasonic examination shall be performed using equipment, procedures, and personnel qualified by performance demonstration (detection, length and depth sizing)

– The demonstration specimens shall contain a weld representative of the joint to be ultrasonically examined, including the same welding processes

– The demonstration specimen scanning and weld surfaces shall be representative of the surfaces to be examined

– The demonstration specimens shall include both planar and volumetric fabrication flaws distributed throughout the examination volume

– The demonstration specimen set shall include geometric conditions that require discrimination from flaws and limited scanning surface conditions for single-side access, when applicable


N-831 HighlightsThe examination volume shall include 100% of the weld

volume and the weld-to-base-metal interface

– Angle beam examination of the complete examination volume for fabrication flaws oriented parallel to the weld joint shall be performed

– Angle beam examination for fabrication flaws oriented transverse to the weld joint shall be performed to the extent practical


N-831 Highlights

All detected flaws shall be considered planar flaws and shall be compared to the preservice acceptance standards for volumetric examinationAnalytical evaluation for acceptance of flaws is permitted for

flaws that exceed the applicable acceptance standards and are confirmed by surface or volumetric examination to be non-surface-connectedThe ultrasonic examination shall be performed using

encoded ultrasonic examination technology– Where component configuration does not allow for effective

examination for transverse flaws (e.g., pipe-to-valve, tapered weld transition, weld shrinkage), use of non-encoded ultrasonic examination technology may be used for transverse flaws


Status

N-831 has been Board approved in October 2016Several utilities have submitted alternative requests to

perform UT in lieu of RT based on N-831The alternative request process may take 12 to 18 months Is there a more efficient way for the fleet to implement N-

831?


Continuing Work – Austenitic Piping

Fabricated 13 mockups ranging from 4 to 24 inches in diameter and 0.237 to 2.3 inches thickMockups contain representative fabrication flawsEach mockup was examined with single sided access and

encoded UT techniquesData analyzed

– Preliminary results indicate 100% detection with single side UT– Length and depth sizing also looks promising

Technical basis document will be developed to support code caseExpecting draft Code action during May 2017 meeting


discussion


PDI Program Status

David AnthonyExelon

PDI Focus Group Chair

Carl LatiolaisSenior Program Manager, NDE Reliability


January 2017


Piping Program Personnel Qualification Activities November 2015 to November 2016 (1 of 3)

Personnel Qualifications (General Statistics)– 171 Manual (Non-Encoded)

Test Type Detection Length TWSAustenitic w/ IGSCC 1 0 0Austenitic w/o IGSCC 5 0 0Ferritic Only 3 4 4Supp 12 w/ IGSCC 2 3 13Supp 12 w/o IGSCC 19 21 0Weld Overlay (WOL) 1 1 1Dissimilar Metal Welds 5 3 2IGSCC Requal 39 28 10WOL Requal 2 2 2



Personnel Qualifications (General Statistics)– 63 Encoded

Test Type Detection Length TWSAustenitic w/ IGSCC 11 6 0Austenitic w/o IGSCC 0 0 0Ferritic Only 0 0 0Supp 12 w/ IGSCC 7 6 6Supp 12 w/o IGSCC 0 0 0Weld Overlay (WOL) 0 0 0Dissimilar Metal Welds 8 8 5IGSCC Requal 0 0 6WOL Requal 0 0 0



Personnel Qualifications (General Statistics)– 31% (73/234) of piping personnel qualifications used phased arrayNon-Encoded qualifications = 22% (37/171)Encoded qualifications = 57% (36/63)


RPV and Bolting Personnel Qualifications Activities November 2015 to November 2016Personnel Qualifications

– Non-Encoded

8 Candidates, Supplement 8 (Bolting)

3 Candidates, Supplement 5 (RPV Nozzles from the OD)

9 Candidates, Supplement 4 & 6 (RPV Welds from the OD)

– Encoded

9 Candidates, Supplement 7 (RPV Nozzles from the ID)

17 Candidates, Supplement 4 & 6 (RPV Welds from the ID)


Procedure Qualifications - Piping & RPVNovember 2015 to November 2016

RPV– Encoded Supplement 7 from the Bore

– Encoded Supplement 4 & 6 from the ID

Piping– Encoded Supplement 3 (Ferritic) piping (from the ID)

– Encoded Supplement 14 (DM) piping (from the ID)

– Added new configurations

Encoded Supplement 11 (WOL)

Encoded Supplement 10 (DM)


Current and Future PD Program Appendix VIII Activities

Awaiting upcoming revision to 10CFR50.55a– PD Program will review compliance with 2013 Edition of Section XI

Continue ASME Section XI Code developmentMultiple projects ongoing to respond to unique qualification

challenges– DM branch connections (sample fabrication, encoded and non-encoded

procedure qualifications)– Steam generator weld procedure add-on (sample fabrication for unique

tapered configuration)– Continuing to work with NSSS vendors on new plant configurations not

currently covered by PDI sample inventory (AP1000 configurations)

Update PDI generic UT procedures to optimize field implementation– Incorporate lessons learned– Standardize format


Current and Future PD Program Appendix VIII ActivitiesPDI generic procedures revised in 2016

– NEI 03-08 “Needed Element” requires the latest qualified revision, within one year of the procedure approval date, to be used to perform examinations at the licensee’s facility

Procedure Title Rev ApprovalDate

PDI-UT-1 PDI Generic Procedure for the Ultrasonic Examination of Ferritic Pipe Welds PDI-UT-1 F 7/20/2016

PDI-UT-2 PDI Generic Procedure for the Ultrasonic Examination of Austenitic Pipe Welds PDI-UT-2 G 7/20/2016

PDI-UT-4 PDI Generic Procedure for the Ultrasonic Examination of Bolts and Studs from the Bore PDI-UT-4 E 7/20/2016

PDI-UT-5 PDI Generic Procedure for the Straight Beam Ultrasonic Examination of Bolts and Studs PDI-UT-5 F 7/20/2016

PDI-UT-8 PDI Generic Procedure for the Ultrasonic Examination of Weld Overlaid Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welds PDI-UT-8 H 7/20/2016

PDI-UT-10 PDI Generic Procedure for the Ultrasonic Examination of Dissimilar Metal Welds PDI-UT-10 F 7/20/2016


Current and Future PD Program Appendix VIII Activities

Working on revisions of additional generic procedures to be issued early 2017

Procedure Title Rev ApprovalDate

PDI-UT-3 PDI Generic Procedure for the Ultrasonic Through-Wall Sizing of Planar Flaws in Similar Metal Piping Welds PDI-UT-3 G TBD

PDI-UT-6 PDI Generic Procedure for the Ultrasonic Examination of Reactor Pressure Vessel Welds PDI-UT-6 I TBD

PDI-UT-7PDI Generic Procedure for the Ultrasonic Through-Wall and Length Sizing of Planar Flaws in Reactor Pressure Vessel Welds PDI-UT-7

H TBD

PDI-UT-11PDI Generic Procedure for the Ultrasonic Examination of Reactor Pressure Vessel Nozzle-to-Shell Welds and the Nozzle Inner Corner Radius PDI-UT-11

D TBD


discussion


David AnthonyExelon

PDI Focus Group Chair

Carl LatiolaisSenior Program Manager, NDE Reliability


January 2017

PDI Qualification Statistics Update


Contents

Piping Pass Rates - Overall

RPV Pass Rates - Overall

Summary


The following are a best estimate of the current pass rates for a limited period of time. These were tabulated manually and have not been independently verified.


Piping Pass Rates 2011 to Present (11/15/2016)Initial (Non-Encoded)

# Candid. # Passed # Candid. # Passed # Candid. # Passed %Pass rate %Pass rate %Pass rate Yield %NON-ENCODED 1st attm. 1st attm. 2nd attm. 2nd attm. 3rd attm. 3rd attm. 1st attm. 2nd attm. 3rd attm.

AUST. DETECTION (NO) IGSCC 82 42 28 19 8 7 51.2 67.9 87.5 83%LENGTH SIZING (NO) IGSCC 80 40 31 17 8 8 50.0 54.8 100.0 81%AUST. DETECTION / W IGSCC 72 45 19 11 3 2 62.5 57.9 66.7 81%LENGTH SIZING / W IGSCC 69 38 25 16 3 2 55.1 64.0 66.7 81%SUPPLEMENT 12 FERRITIC DET. 145 74 49 34 11 11 51.0 69.4 100.0 82%SUPPLEMENT 12 FERRITIC LENGTH 145 71 53 35 12 12 49.0 66.0 100.0 81%FERRITIC DETECTION 9 7 3 2 1 0 77.8 66.7 0.0 100%LENGTH SIZING FERRITIC 5 2 3 1 1 0 40.0 33.3 0.0 60%DEPTH SIZING (NO) IGSCC 12 5 7 5 0 0 41.7 71.4 83%DEPTH SIZING / W IGSCC 25 15 11 9 2 2 60.0 81.8 100.0 104%WOR - SUPPLEMENT 11 56 42 10 7 0 0 75.0 70.0 88%DISSIMILAR METAL WELDS - DET 28 20 4 4 0 0 71.4 100.0 86%DISSIMILAR METAL WELDS - LENGTH 26 20 4 4 0 0 76.9 100.0 92%DISSIMILAR METAL WELDS - TWS 19 3 11 7 3 1 15.8 63.6 33.3 58%


Piping Pass Rates 2011 to Present (11/15/2016)Initial (Encoded)

# Candid. # Passed # Candid. # Passed # Candid. # Passed % Pass rate %Pass rate %Pass rate Yield %ENCODED 1st attm. 1st attm. 2nd attm. 2nd attm. 3rd attm. 3rd attm. 1st attm. 2nd attm. 3rd attm.

AUST. DETECTION (NO) IGSCC 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0%LENGTH SIZING (NO) IGSCC 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0%AUST. DETECTION / W IGSCC 25 19 6 4 2 1 76.0 66.7 50.0 96%LENGTH SIZING / W IGSCC 25 19 4 3 1 1 76.0 75.0 100.0 92%SUPPLEMENT 12 FERRITIC DET. 15 11 0 0 0 0 73.3 73%SUPPLEMENT 12 FERRITIC LENGTH 14 9 1 1 0 0 64.3 100.0 71%FERRITIC DETECTION 19 19 0 0 0 0 100.0 100%LENGTH SIZING FERRITIC 19 18 0 0 0 0 94.7 95%DEPTH SIZING (NO) IGSCC 19 9 9 3 3 0 47.4 33.3 0.0 63%DEPTH SIZING / W IGSCC 14 8 6 6 0 0 57.1 100.0 100%WOR - SUPPLEMENT 11 14 12 1 1 0 0 85.7 100.0 93%DISSIMILAR METAL WELDS - DET 31 22 6 5 0 0 71.0 83.3 87%DISSIMILAR METAL WELDS - LENGTH 31 15 13 11 0 0 48.4 84.6 84%DISSIMILAR METAL WELDS - TWS 28 7 16 4 3 1 25.0 25.0 33.3 43%


Piping Pass Rates 2011 to Present (11/15/2016)Requalification

# Candid. # Passed # Candid. # Passed # Candid. # Passed %Pass rate %Pass rate %Pass rate Yield %NON-ENCODED 1st attm. 1st attm. 2nd attm. 2nd attm. 3rd attm. 3rd attm. 1st attm. 2nd attm. 3rd attm.

AUST. DETECTION / W IGSCC 146 91 50 24 14 11 62.3 48.0 78.6 86%LENGTH SIZING / W IGSCC 146 84 54 25 14 12 57.5 46.3 85.7 83%DEPTH SIZING / W IGSCC 42 30 10 6 2 1 71.4 60.0 50.0 88%WOR - SUPPLEMENT 11 23 19 2 2 0 0 82.6 100.0 91%

# Candid. # Passed # Candid. # Passed # Candid. # Passed % Pass rate %Pass rate %Pass rate Yield %ENCODED 1st attm. 1st attm. 2nd attm. 2nd attm. 3rd attm. 3rd attm. 1st attm. 2nd attm. 3rd attm.

AUST. DETECTION / W IGSCC 28 15 9 8 0 0 53.6 88.9 82%LENGTH SIZING / W IGSCC 27 12 13 11 1 1 44.4 84.6 100.0 89%DEPTH SIZING / W IGSCC 18 12 7 5 2 2 66.7 71.4 100.0 106%WOR - SUPPLEMENT 11 2 2 0 0 0 0 100.0 100%


RPV Pass Rates Since the Start of the Program(Non-Encoded)


RPV Pass Rates Since the Start of the Program(Encoded)


Bolting Pass Rates


Summary

PDI continues to monitor pass ratesNo significant changes in trends have been observed since

last update




Ronnie SwainProgram Manager,

Performance Demonstration Operations


January 2017

IGSCC Requalification Project Update


Background

Discovery of IGSCC is not as common as it used to be– Effective mitigation techniques resulting in less IGSCC

The industry has greatly improved the examination process since the early days of IGSCC– Over the last several years, many of the NDE IC work plan projects have

focused on improving NDE reliability

– Proven initial qualification process through the PDI Program

– Continued recertification process of Appendix VII

– Enhanced examination procedures incorporating the many years of lessons learned

– Rigorous periodic hands-on practice using crack specimens for continued examiner proficiency

63


Industry view

The value of requalification always has been seen as ensuring the maintenance of examiner proficiency

The industry no longer sees the IGSCC requalification process as an efficient means of accomplishing proficiency maintenance

Maintaining examiner proficiency is important and is accomplished through the implementation of the Appendix VII recertification process and industry’s hands-on practice Guideline

64


Current EPRI project addressing the issue

Determine if there are Code or Regulatory requirements or commitments to perform the 3-year IGSCC requalificationEvaluate the benefits of performing the requalificationEvaluate the effectiveness of the industry processes for

maintaining examiner proficiencyDevelop a change management plan to transition the

implementation of the project conclusions

65


Current Appendix VIII Qualification PracticesASME Section XI, Appendix VIII specifies a one-time

qualification for piping, vessels (RPV), bolts and studs– Includes flaw detection, length sizing, and depth sizing, as applicable

In addition, examiners perform a requalification every three years for examinations of BWR IGSCC susceptible welds (austenitic piping and weld overlays; austenitic requalification also addresses dissimilar metal welds)– Requalification is performed for the technique applied (detection and/or

sizing and encoded and/or non-encoded) and the applicable UT procedure

– Some examiners include as many as ten procedures

66


Current Appendix VIII Qualification Practices

Qualified Appendix VIII examiners perform 8 hours of annual hands-on training on specimens that contain cracks, no earlier than 6 months prior to performing UT examinations, per 10CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xiv) requirement–Performed in accordance with PDI Hands-on

Practice guidance–Intended to maintain examiner proficiency

67


Project Status A literature search of the following documents has been performed to

determine the current requirements for IGSCC requalification:– ASME Appendix VII

– ASME Appendix VIII

– 10CFR50

– NUREG 0313

– NRC Generic Letter 88-01

– BWRVIP-75A

– NRC correspondence dating back to mid 1990’s

There are no Code or Regulatory requirements to perform periodic IGSCC requalification NRC research shows that examiner performance in requalification is

the same as performance in initial qualification (ML14014A344)

68


Industry Planned Actions

As of January 2018, there will no longer be an industry expectation for 3-year IGSCC requalification– The IGSCC requalification program will continue to be available for

those who wish to apply the requalification processThe IGSCC qualification program will continue to be

implemented for initial qualifications in accordance with Appendix VIII qualification requirementA change management plan will be developed and in 2017

will be used to transition the PDI Program and procedures to reflect these changesThis information will be captured in an EPRI technical report

for future reference

69


discussion



January 2017

Proposed Rulemaking on Class 1 DM Welds


discussion






January 2017

Status of Industry’s NDE Reliability

Activities


Improving NDE Reliability

Improving NDE Reliability is a significant attribute of the industry NDE ProgramSeveral of the key 2016 products related to NDE reliability improvements will be presented:– Industry Best Practices for Performing Reliable NDE – Hands-On Demonstration Mentoring Tool for Appendix

VIII, Supplement 2– Non-encoded Phased Array UT Procedure Optimization– UT Operator Training for Weld Overlay Examination – UT Operator Training for SCC– Virtual UT Simulator Technology


Industry Best Practices for Performing Reliable NDEImplementation Guide – 3002007329, April 2016 (public) The purpose of this document is to provide a reference guide containing

industry best practices, to assist nuclear power plant NDE personnel in planning and executing examinations in a manner that will be highly reliable and will minimize the occurrence of significant human performance errors

This guidance provides high level points, intended to guide the user through key aspects necessary to properly plan and execute efficient, reliable, and meaningful NDE

This guidance is intended to be a collection of “industry best practices” and is not issued under NEI 03-08

Not every examination will require the same level of effort

– Each utility will determine the best way to implement into their NDE program

– The level of effort will be dependent upon the examination to be performed and the complexity of the examination


Industry Best Practices for Performing Reliable NDEGuidance TopicsGuidance summarized under eleven topics for areas of potential

NDE reliability improvements– Pre-Examination Preparation

– Scheduling Examinations

– NDE Staffing

– NDE Staff Indoctrination

– Examiner Preparation, Training, and Practice

– NDE Focused Pre-Job Briefing

– Use of Team Scanning

– Oversight of NDE

– Post-Job Debriefing

– NDE Data Review

– Examination / Outage Close-out


Hands-On Demonstration Mentoring Tool for Appendix VIII, Supplement 2 – 3002007785, December 2016

Objective: To provide tools that promote the transfer of skills and knowledge from a mentor to a trainee when interpreting ultrasonic signals relative to weld roots, pipe counterbore, and stress corrosion cracking (SCC) in austenitic stainless steel pipe weldsFocus on indication discrimination and decision making

process– Designed to address specific ultrasonic signal characteristics that are

essential in evaluating an indication’s origin

– Emphasis is placed on signal attributes that are unique to geometric reflectors (root and counterbore) versus those of flaws

– Includes lab exercises to demonstrate effective decision making


Non-Encoded Phased Array UT Procedure Optimization

EPRI non-encoded phased array UT procedures have been identified as complex, bulky and difficult for field implementationThese procedures have been selected for optimization to

make them more concise and user friendly


Non-Encoded Phased Array UT Procedure Optimization

Manual phased array guidance– Technical basis documents Nondestructive Evaluation: Procedure for Manual Phased Array Ultrasonic

Examination of Austenitic and Ferritic Pipe Welds-Technical Basis Document -report 3002008328 16-Dec-16 Nondestructive Evaluation: Procedure for Manual Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing

of Dissimilar Metal Welds-Technical Basis Document - report 3002008325 9-Sep-16 Nondestructive Evaluation: Procedure for Manual Phased Array UT of Weld

Overlays: Technical Basis Document – report 3002008328 9 Jun 2016– Procedures (public) Nondestructive Evaluation: Procedure for Manual Phased Array Ultrasonic

Examination of Austenitic and Ferritic Pipe Welds Procedure: EPRI-PIPE-MPA-1 Revision 1 - report 3002008334 18-Dec-16 Nondestructive Evaluation: Procedure for Manual Phased Array Ultrasonic Through-

Wall Sizing in Pipe Welds Procedure: EPRI-PIPE-TWS-MPA-1 Revision 1 – report 3002008335 18-Dec-16 Nondestructive Evaluation: Procedure for Manual Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing

of Dissimilar Metal Welds—Procedure: EPRI-DMW-PA-1 Revision 6 - report 3002008333 9-Sep-16 Nondestructive Evaluation: Procedure for Manual Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing

of Weld Overlays - Procedure: EPRI-WOL-PA-1 – report 3002008330 9 Jun 2016 EPRI-RPV-PA-1 (Scheduled for 2017)


UT Operator Training for Weld Overlay Examination

Developed as a result of the 2013 WOL OE Implemented as CBTSet up to be implemented for new and inexperienced

examiners or experienced examiners Includes an overview of WOL NDE events and lessons

learned (1997 – 2016)Can be used to train and prepare examiners prior to

qualification and examinations at the plant


Weld Overlay Training Modules

Background and application of weld overlays– WOL history and background

– Planning for WOL application and examination

– How WOLs are applied

– In-process NDE

– Final condition of WOL after welding

Typical indications– Base metal cracking issues

– Laminar flaws

– Planar flaws

– Solidification flaws

NDE examinations– WOL examination goals

– UT examination technique

– WOL examination codes and standards

– The flaw evaluation process

Industry experience– Events and Lessons Learned

– Enhanced exam techniques


UT Operator Training for SCC

Develop and revise UT training course materials that address the current and emerging technologies Includes modules addressing:

– Ultrasonic examination of austenitic pipe welds using shear and refracted longitudinal waves

– The history of cracking associated with austenitic pipe welds

– Decision-making strategy

Currently formatted as classroom instruction with hands-on lab practiceMaterials available in an electronic format Integrates virtual NDE simulator into training materialsHeld two training sessions in 2016 with draft materialsScheduled for completion in 2017


Virtual UT Simulator Technology Virtual ultrasonic tool to provide the NDE workforce with a cost-effective

opportunity to hone and maintain their ultrasonic manual examination skills Potential benefits:

– Improved reliability obtained in having a workforce that has the opportunity to train and practice continuously

– Reduces the need of costs associated with manufacturing mockups for practice

– Sharing of operational experience

– Provide training for specific configuration needs

– Support pre-job planning, to familiarize the examiner with the specific application to be examined

Status– Version 1 of the software delivered in 2015 (computer only)

– Working on development of the “Simulated Hardware Version,” where the user interacts with the software using a simulated transducer on a physical mockup, to increase the simulated hand-eye coordination experience – Beta version 2017

– Production version 2018


discussion






January 2017

Low Value Examinations With High Outage Impact


Background

There are many NDE examinations being performed that are considered to have low value due to the history of few or no relevant indications being identifiedMany of these examinations also have a high outage impact

due to personnel safety and radiation dose concerns, and outage schedule associated with preparation (scaffolding, insulation removal, weld surface preparation, insulation reinstallation, and scaffold removal) and performing the examinations In support of Delivering the Nuclear Promise, these low

value and high outage impact examinations will be identified and evaluated for optimization options to minimize or eliminate the requirements for these examinations


Project ObjectivesThe objectives of this project are:

– Identify examinations that provide low value, while also incurring significant costs in terms of outage impact

– Provide the industry with the tools (i.e., documented, citable technical justification) to reduce the frequency, decrease the scope, or eliminate the examinations

– Change the Code requirements


Actions Taken

An industry survey identified and prioritized NDE examinations that should be evaluated for “low value” with “high outage impact” The results of the survey identified more than 25 items for

considerationThe examinations identified were evaluated and prioritized

into a list of five examination areas that may meet both the “low value” and “high outage impact” criteriaThe goals for addressing each examination were identifiedThe prioritized list is currently being evaluated to determine

which items can begin work in 2017 based on available resources and funding


Prioritized List of Low Value and High Outage Impact Examinations, and the goal for each

1) Class 2, Non‐Reactor Vessel Nozzle Inside Radius Sections, Volumetric Examination

– Eliminate requirement2) Examination Category B‐N‐1, Interior of Reactor Vessel,

Vessel Interior, Visual Examination– Extend current requirement to once per interval3a) Class 1 and 2, Non‐Reactor Vessel Nozzle‐to‐Vessel Welds,

Volumetric Examination3b) Class 1 and 2, Non‐Reactor Vessel Welds, Volumetric

Examination– Includes PWR Pressurizer, Steam Generator, and PWR/BWR Heat

Exchangers and all other class 1 or 2 pressure vessels– Extend current requirement to once per 20-years4) Class 1 and 2, Pressure Retaining Bolting Greater than 2" in

Diameter, Volumetric Examination– Eliminate requirement


Summary

The results of this project have the potential for reducing outage impact in support of Delivering the Nuclear Promise

Technical basis for changing the examination requirements will be developed and used to change the Code

Regulatory interface during the course of developing the technical basis and code cases is essential to minimize delays with Code acceptance and implementation


discussion


Chris McKeanExelon

BWRVIP Inspection Focus Group Chair

Jeff LandrumPrincipal Technical Leader

Industry/NRC NDE Technical Information Exchange

January 2017

BWRVIP NDE Update


Content

Summary of 2016 inspection vendor demonstrationsField implementation of new NDE techniques

– FOAK techniques implemented in 2016

BWRVIP NDE Development activities– NDE mock-ups fabricated in 2016– 2016 NDE technique development activities

Planned NDE Development activities


Summary of Inspection Vendor Demonstrations

Update of 2016 activities


Completed inspection vendor technique demonstrations

10 inspection vendor demonstrations to support Spring 2016 outage season

(4) Core shroud UT– Includes “off-axis” core shroud UT

technique utilized at two US BWR/4’s

(1) shroud support (H7) (1) Core plate bolt UT (1) BWR Instrument nozzle

penetration (N11) UT– Detection and sizing of flaws

contained within the J-groove weld (3) in-vessel recirculation weld UT

– Includes RS8 and RS9 riser brace weld technique deployed at a US BWR/5

6 inspection vendor demonstrations to support Fall 2016 outage season

(3) Core shroud– H1, H2, & H3 for US BWR/4

(3) Core shroud & shroud support (H7)– H1 through H7 for US BWR/4


Inspection vendor demonstrations in progress “Off-axis” core shroud demonstrations

– Two additional inspection vendors – Supporting January (BWR/4), February (BWR/4),

and March (BWR/4) examinations within the USA Instrument penetration demonstration

– Technique enhancements in response to NDE and subsequent repair at a BWR located outside the USA

Eddy current array and UT demonstrations for assessment of clad pitting– In response to saltwater intrusion event at an ABWR

located outside the USA– Research institute contracted to develop

examination techniques– EPRI/BWRVIP asked to independently review

demonstration of techniques abilities using established BWRVIP-03 protocol


Field Implementation of New NDE Techniques



Field implementation of new NDE techniques First “off-axis” core shroud UT performed in

accordance with the new BWRVIP protocol (i.e. “interim guidance”)– Simultaneous scanning performed with axial and

circumferential probe orientations– Measures length and depth of each individual flaw

segment, per requirements of “interim guidance”– Used at two sites in the USA One in spring 2016 (BWR/4) and one in fall 2016

(BWR/4) BWRVIP review of a second inspection vendor’s

demonstration is in progress– Supports a January 2017 examination at a US

BWR/4 A third inspection vendor is preparing for a

demonstration– Supports February 2017 (US BWR/4) and March

2017 (US BWR/4) examinations


Field implementation of new NDE techniques

Manual phased array examination of N11B J-groove weld performed at US BWR/3– Scanning performed from outside surface of RPV

– Interrogates the J-groove weld material and surrounding low-alloy RPV material

– Suspected planar flaw identified

Contained entirely within the alloy 82/182 J-groove weld material

Located along the J-groove weld-to-Alloy 600 instrument penetration tube interface

Initiates from inside surface (weld “face”), and extends in depth until the flaw tip terminates at the “triple-point” location (weld root)

Location and size explains leakage identified during system pressure test and prior to application of ASME Code repair

Ultrasonic response exhibited characteristics that are consistent with SCC

No indications were identified within the low-alloy RPV material


Field implementation of new NDE techniques RS-8 / RS-9 riser brace weld examinations

– Encoded phased array examination of riser brace weld locations performed at one US BWR/5 in 2016

– Multi-probe module design allows for one scan to be performed, per weld, with beam orientations (electronic skews) ranging from -180° to +180°

– Technique capable of flaw detection and flaw length sizing Applicable to flaws that are oriented

parallel, perpendicular, or oblique to the weld axis

– UT confirmed previously evaluated VT indications are relevant indications Excellent correlation between UT and

previous VT results


BWRVIP NDE Development Activities



New top-guide support ring mock-ups (H3 core shroud welds)

Three H3 top-guide support ring mock-ups (H3 welds) fabricated in 2016Expanded mock-up inventory to

contain multiple configurations– ~2.5-inch and ~3-inch thick TGSR’s– 1.5-inch and 2-inch thick cylinder

thickness– Forged ring and welded plate product

forms

Weld process and weld variables based on site supplied fabrication records Include welded attachments and

machined reflectors used for top-guide installation


New core spray mock-up Core spray piping mock-up fabricated Contains weld fabrication flaws and cracks

– Incomplete penetration, lack-of-fusion, “drop-thru”, internal undercut, external undercut, weld inclusions

Will be used to validate flaw manufacturers’ ability to manufacture realistic weld fabrication flaws Inspection vendors are participating in NDE Destructive examinations planned for 2017

– DE results will be shared with participating inspection vendors

Ultimate goal is to increase ability to reliably characterize UT indications at these thin-wall weld configurations– Fabrication flaw versus service induced degradation– Results will be presented to BWRVIP members to determine if capabilities

warrant adding fabrication flaws to core spray mock-up inventory


Clad pitting mock-up

Fabrication nearing completionSupports restart of a non-US ABWR~4mm to 4.5mm (0.16” to 0.18”) layer of 309L “strip”

cladding applied to ASTM A508 Grade 3 Class 1 ferritic forging– Cladding applied using the electroslag process

Eddy Current testing and ASME Section III UT confirmed integrity of clad Copper-tungsten rods being used to EDM simulated pits

into clad surface – Ø0.51mm to Ø3.2mm (0.020” to 0.125”)– 0.44mm to 6.16mm (0.02” to 0.24”) depth 10%-t to 140%-t (“t” = clad thickness)


UT Development for Rapid Interrogation of Base Material

BWRVIP investigated techniques that would allow for a rapid interrogation of large volumes of core shroud base material 3.5 inch wide (90mm) scan width collected at 1

inch (25mm) per second– 14-inch by 32.5-inch (355mm by 825mm) mockup

examined in ~ 3 minutes for single probe direction

Electronic raster scanning along “width” (secondary axis) of the probe allows large mechanical index increments Electronic beam skewing added to increase

detection of oblique flaw segments Simple 45° shear wave technique

– All flaws oriented essentially parallel to the beam were detected

– Requires two scans to detect flaws of all orientations


BWRVIP NDE Development Activities

Planned 2017 activities


Planned activities for 2017 Core spray piping weld UT enhancements

– Improve ability to characterize indications– Initial assessment indicates improvements can be realized Will likely require alterations to existing probe designs

Ultrasonic examination capability assessment for ICMH locations– Design and fabricate mock-ups– Assess ability of ultrasonic examination techniques to reliably characterize flaws in

small diameter and thin ICMH flange locations– Develop enhanced ultrasonic examination techniques Improvements for full-volume examinations, limited examiner and search unit

access, thin materials, and ability to characterize identified flaws

Develop site oversight guidelines for “off-axis” core shroud UT– Off-axis UT requires first-of-a-kind use of certain examination variables and scan

sequence orientations– BWRVIP Inspection Focus Group recommended EPRI prepare oversight

guidelines to assist utility oversight personnel during these first-of-a-kind examinations


discussion


Dan NowakowskiNextEra



January 2017

Materials Reliability Program

NDE Projects


2016 Inspection TAC Project Highlights Reactor Internals Inspection

– Conducted first two MRP-228 IVI courses for NRC, July 11-15, 2016Courses planned for next 3 years

– Support Baffle-Former Bolt Focus Group Revising bolting protocolVendor improved UT procedure

Alloy 600/690 Inspection– Provided review of pre- and post-peened UT data from MRP head

penetration mockup to prove no effect on UT– Maintain the RPV upper head nozzle qualification programA vendor qualified five candidates to their blade probe and open

housing procedures in May of 2016Seven vendors have qualified their RPVUH procedures and

personnel


Inspection TAC Projects (cont’d)

Reliability of Pressure Boundary Components with Thermally Aged Cast Duplex Stainless Steels– Developing technical basis for demonstration and qualification of

CASS piping inspections – Coordinated with MOU-CASS research

Thermal Fatigue – MockupsMembers can borrow the MRP thermal fatigue mockups

– 16 were available in 2016 – 1.5 inch to 14 inch diameter with craze cracking

Mockups for technique development and just-in-time practiceMockups used to support UT procedure revisionsSome utilities have fabricated their own mockups for their specific

configurations and requirements– Maintain UT procedure, technical basis, and computer based training


Future Inspection TAC Projects and Milestones

Upcoming 10CFR50.55a revision is expected to accept N-729-4

– Upon release of revision, the EPRI will have to review and reconcile the Upper Head Penetration Qualification Program with the latest approved revision of the Case

ET Surface Examination Demonstration Program Technical Basis

–Develop a technical basis document that can be used to support a revision Section XI, Appendix IV, Supplement 2 (surface examinations)

–Will address 1/16 inch PT relative flaw size


Future Inspection TAC Projects and Milestones

Excavate & Weld Repair– Fabricating mockup to support

N-847

– Determine the inspection reliability of ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII qualified UT procedures when examining components that have been mitigated or repaired with the EWR techniques and the acceptance UT exams to be performed on the newly deposited weld material

– Scheduled June 2017


discussion



NDE Integration Committee ChairGreg Selby

Senior Technical Executive


January 2017

NDE Program projects of regulatory interest


list of all 2017 projects,organized by Research Focus Area


Improving NDE ReliabilityTitle Start

yearEnd year

Industry Encoded Procedures for Similar and Dissimilar Metal Piping Welds 2015 2017Develop User-Friendly Versions of PDI and EPRI Procedures 2015 2017Image-Based Analysis for Encoded RPV Head Penetration UT Data 2015 2017Technology Training for Team Scanning 2015 2017Automated Analysis of Remote Visual Data 2015 20173D Data Visualization for Improved Evaluation and Reporting 2015 2017Technical Basis for Ultrasonic Modeling and Simulation Tool 2016 2020Human Factors in NDE 2016 2019Advancing Remote VT Examinations 2017 2018Field Application of Remote Visual Examination (VT) Automated Data Analysis Technology 2017 2019

Best Practices for Acquiring Component As-built Information 2017 2018

More detailed discussion elsewhere in the agenda


Workforce ProficiencyTitle Start

yearEnd year

Training Materials: UT of Austenitic Stainless Steel Pipe Welds for Cracking 2015 2017

2016 Virtual Ultrasonic NDE for Human Performance Enhancement 2016 2018

Guideline for Compliance of Inservice Inspection Requirement 2016 2017

Expansion and Refinement of Virtual Mockup Capabilities 2016 2018

IGSCC Requalification Testing Study 2016 2018

NDE Site Level III and ISI Coordinator Succession Plan Resources 2016 2017

NDE Data Analysis Workshop 2017 2019

Balance-of-Plant (BOP) Electromagnetic NDE Guide for Engineers 2017 2018

Containment Inspection Program Guide Update 2017 2017

Modeling and Simulation Workshop for Ultrasonic NDE Inspection of Welds 2017 2020

CBT - Ultrasonic Phased Array Technology with Nuclear Focus 2017 2018


Past project: “NDE Workforce Availability for the Nuclear Power Industry”Report 3002009184, December 2016, public


Materials Degradation and CharacterizationTitle Start

yearEnd year

Assess and Evaluate Methods for Measuring Residual Stress and Strain 2015 2017

Assess Thermoelectric NDE Technologies for Material Characterization 2014 2017

Application of Nonlinear Ultrasonic Technologies 2017 2019

RPV -- NDE Capability for Large Numbers of Small Flaws 2017 2020

Hyperspectral Imaging Evaluation 2017 2020

Procedures for Selective Leaching 2017 2018

Damage Susceptibility Assessment in Aging Primary Loop Components 2017 2018

Field Application of GelSight Elastomeric 3-D Imaging and Measurement Technology

2017 2019

Assessment of Advanced EM Sensors for Tube Sleeve Inspection 2017 2018

Handbook on Depth Sizing using Electromagnetic Methods 2017 2019

3002007789 “Nondestructive Evaluation: Technique Development to Evaluate the Joint Strength of High-Density Polyethylene Butt Fused Pipe Joints Revision 1” 16-Dec-16


Cast Stainless Steel

Title Start year

End year

Training for the Ultrasonic Examination of Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel Welds 2015 2017

Guided Wave for CASS & DCSS 2015 2017Capability Study for Examination of Complex CASS components 2014 2017

Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel PD Program Development - Phase 1 2017 2018

Ultrasonic Characterization and Acoustical Equivalency of CASS for improved UT inspection 2017 2019

Single Source CASS Research Summary Document 2017 2017



Performance DemonstrationTitle Start

yearEnd year

Applying 3D Printing Technology to NDE Mockup Fabrication 2016 2017

Reconcile the EPRI Performance Demonstration Program with the Revised 10CFR50.55a Federal Requirements 2017 2018

Design and Fabricate Austenitic Specimens to Support Code Case N711-1 Applications 2017 2017

Support for the Development of a Technical Basis for the Use of Simulated SCC for the Japanese PD Program 2017 2017

3002008334 “Nondestructive Evaluation: Procedure for Manual Phased Array Ultrasonic Examination of Austenitic and Ferritic Pipe Welds Procedure: EPRI-PIPE-MPA-1 Revision 1” 18-Dec-16

3002008335 “Nondestructive Evaluation: Procedure for Manual Phased Array Ultrasonic Through-Wall Sizing in Pipe Welds Procedure: EPRI-PIPE-TWS-MPA-1 Revision 1” 18-Dec-16

3002008328 “Nondestructive Evaluation: Procedure for Manual Phased Array Ultrasonic Examination of Austenitic and Ferritic Pipe Welds-Technical Basis Document” 16-Dec-16

3002008325 “Nondestructive Evaluation: Procedure for Manual Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing of Dissimilar Metal Welds-Technical Basis Document” 9-Sep-16

3002008333 “Nondestructive Evaluation: Procedure for Manual Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing of Dissimilar Metal Welds—Procedure: EPRI-DMW-PA-1 Revision 6” 9-Sep-16


NDE EfficiencyTitle Start

yearEnd year

RI-ISI Support 2014 2018Demonstrating Increased Coverage Using Skewed Angles 2015 2017Technical Basis Supporting UT in Lieu of RT 2015 2017Basis for Eliminating Limited Exam Coverage Relief Requests 2014 2017Risk Informed for Bolting Examination Requirements 2015 2017Comprehensive Risk-Informed Methodology for Pressure Boundary Components 2016 2018Investigation of Encoded NDE Technologies without Robotics 2016 2019Identification and Assessment of Low-Value Examinations with High Outage Impacts 2016 2017Best Practices for Examination Volume Coverage for Ultrasonic Applications 2017 2019Evaluation of Adaptive Coupling Methods for Improved Ultrasonic Inspection 2017 2019Expansion of Qualified Manual Phased Array UT Piping Procedures – Continuation 2017 2019Align Certain Encoded UT Procedures with Non-encoded Counterparts for Limited Exam Pickup Areas

2017 2018

Examination Coverage Capture, N 711, Process and Tool 2017 2020Evaluation of Imaging Hardware for Ultrasonic Inspections 2017 2019


3002007780 “Single-Side Ultrasonic Examinations for Stainless Steel Piping - Summary of Recent Results” 18-Dec-16

3002007823 “Nondestructive Evaluation: Detection Capability Assessment of Planar Flaws Located Under Laminar Flaws in Structural Weld Overlay Repairs” 27-May-16


Strategic Long-TermTitle Start year End

year

SMART Sensors Project and University Collaborations 2015 2019Structural Health Monitoring Technologies 2016 2017Common UT Data File Format 2016 2017High Temperature NDE Development and Application 2016 2018Flexible and Paint-On Sensors for Ultrasonics 2017 2018

NDE for Evaluating Hidden Thermal Sleeve Welds 2017 2019

Assessment of Flexible Ultrasonic Phased Array Technology 2017 2019FMC standards and code development interface 2017 2019Assessment of Chirp Technique to Improve Signal Noise Ratios 2017 2019


Underground Piping and Tanks

Title Start year End year

Assessment and Development of Buried Pipe NDE Technology 2014 2017Extending Credit for Guided Wave Inspections in Pipe Beyond Elbows 2015 2017Underground Pipe and Tank Inspection Industry Support (NEI 09-14) 2015 2017NDE Assessments and Industry Support for Tanks and Containment 2016 2018Assessment/Application of Remote Wireless Ultrasonic Sensor Technology 2017 2019

Identify and Assess Alternate Wall Thickness Technologies 2017 2018


Concrete

Title Start year

End year

Use of Models as a Complement to Mock-ups for NDE of Concrete 2015 2017

Concrete NDE Field Guides 2016 2017Aging Management of Concrete Structures - Corrosion 2016 2017Aging Management of Concrete Structures - ASR Mitigation 2016 2017Remote Visual Inspection Technologies for Containments 2016 2018Benchmarking Structural Models for Evaluating Inspection Data to Determine the Integrity of Concrete Structures 2015 2017

Develop Capability Demonstration Program for Concrete 2017 2019Ultrasonic Shear Wave for Detection of Edge of Delamination 2017 2018Aging Management of Corrosion – Modeling and Mitigation Strategies 2017 2018


Fuels and Dry Storage

Title Start year

End year

NDE for Control Rod and Control Blade Inspection 2015 2018Dry Canister Storage Inspection and Evaluation 2016 2019Concrete NDE for Dry Cask Storage Systems 2017 2018Acoustic Emissions for Dry Fuel Storage Applications 2017 2019Spent Fuel Pool Liner - Investigation of NDE Technologies 2017 2020


Projects completed 2016NDE Workforce Availability for the Nuclear Power Industry

– Report 3002009184, December 2016, publicNondestructive Evaluation: Detection Capability Assessment

of Planar Flaws Located Under Laminar Flaws in Structural Weld Overlay Repairs– Report 3002007823 27-May-16

Single-Side Ultrasonic Examinations for Stainless Steel Piping - Summary of Recent Results– Report 3002007780 18-Dec-16

Nondestructive Evaluation: Technique Development to Evaluate the Joint Strength of High-Density Polyethylene Butt Fused Pipe Joints Revision 1– Report 3002007789 16-Dec-16


2016 NDE Workforce Availability Study - Background

NDE work force continues to age, with many nearing retirement; there is concern that there will be a future gap– At the current rate of decline, there may not be sufficient numbers of

NDE personnel, which could make compliance difficult and drive up costs

This report follows: – 2003 study that projected the availability of qualified NDE personnel from

2004 to 2014– 2009 study that assessed the demand of the NDE work force for 2010 thru

2019

This study addresses 2017-2027, to provide industry members a better understanding of the current trends in NDE personnel and thus a better basis for personnel planning


2016 Study - Results

Slight decline in the number of NDE personnel being supplied to this industry over each of the last two years – Vendors are delivering with fewer

resources

Large majority have more than 20 years of industry experience– A majority of the work is being done

with a high level of experience– There will be an experience gap when

the 20+ workforce retires

Almost a quarter in 2016 are over 55; almost half are over 45

691

667

649

620630640650660670680690700

2014 2015 2016 (at time ofsurvey)

NDE personnel supplied

4% 6%14%

8% 11% 12%

45%

0%10%20%30%40%50%

0 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 8 9 to 10 11 to15

16 to20

20 plus

Years of experience

10%

23%20%

24% 23%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%

18 to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55 55 plus

Age


2016 NDE Workforce Availability Study – Conclusions

Typical NDE employee has:– >20 years of experience– Level II certification in multiple NDE techniques– Associate’s degree or less of formal education

Due to the declining number of units and seasonal nature of the work, some NDE personnel seek opportunities outside the nuclear industry; slight decline in total personnel expected to continue Potentially half of today’s workforce will be gone over the next 10 to 20

years; transfer of NDE knowledge and nuclear plant experience is a serious concern The 6% of the current NDE work force who are trainees and/or Level I

will be insufficient to fill the needs for future Level II and III positions Essential that the nuclear industry collaborate to recruit and hire new

personnel for careers in NDE Report is public to facilitate future discussions between NDE supply

vendors and utilities


WOL Planar flaws under Laminar FlawsNondestructive Evaluation: Detection Capability Assessment of Planar Flaws Located Under Laminar Flaws in Structural Weld Overlay Repairs - Report 3002007823 27-May-16

Reliable detection was possible for small diameter configurations (e.g. PZR upper head) when using the existing qualified manual phased array equipment– Examination process is summarized in the “conclusions” section of the report

Enhancements to probe designs were identified that can significantly reduce the volume of uninspectable regions in larger diameter configurations– Enhanced probe designs are not currently qualified

Mock-ups and technical assistance are now available for vendor use– The “conclusions” section of the published report contains summarized

information that inspection vendors could use when qualifying new overlay examination procedures When implemented, the possibility that a postulated planar flaw would

necessitate that a repair be performed can be significantly reduced– An NDE services vendor assisted with the research, helping to evaluate EPRI’s

results and to provide guidance that enhances the ability to implement the results in power plant environments


Procedure Demonstration for Single-Sided Ultrasonic Examinations for Stainless Steel PipingSingle-Side Ultrasonic Examinations for Stainless Steel Piping - Summary of Recent Results - report 3002007780 18-Dec-16

There is currently no qualified UT procedure for when access is limited to scanning austenitic stainless steel piping welds from only one side of the weldThis project completed a study which includes improvements

to single-sided flaw detection using manual phased array UT:– Manually and electronically applied beam skewing on top of the weld

for axial flaws– Use of geometric sketches on sector scan display for indication

positioning– Use of mechanical scanning guides to maintain a fixed probe position


Single-Sided UT for Stainless Steel Piping Summary of Results:

– Testing was performed on several piping specimens in the as-welded condition, with two examiners

– IGSCC and non-IGSCC from 12.75 - 36.0 in. (324 – 914 mm) in diameter and 0.688 – 2.625 in. (17.5 – 66.7 mm) in thickness

– Detection results very promising with a low number of false calls– Further enhancements remain necessary to improve manual ultrasonic

phased array inspection technology to an unlimited Appendix VIII qualification status and a field-ready product for single-side austenitic weld examinations

Category

Number of CircFlaws

Missed Circ

Circ Detection

Number of Axial Flaws

Missed Axial

Axial Detection

Overall Detection

Overall False Calls

All flaws 36 1 97% 5 2 60% 93% 3

Non-IGSCC 20 0 100% 3 1 67% 96% 2

IGSCC 16 1 94% 2 1 50% 89% 1


HDPE Butt Joint StrengthNondestructive Evaluation: Technique Development to Evaluate the Joint Strength of High-Density Polyethylene Butt Fused Pipe Joints, Revision 1 – report 3002007789 12/2016

Standing torsional stress wave(STSW) methodDoes not detect flaws

– Measures torsional or shear modulusacross the joint and base material

– Joint strength is then inferred throughcomparison with a reference standard

Performance– In a blind round-robin study, 20 4”

diameter HDPE joints were evaluated– 18 were dispositioned correctly;

one false call; one contaminated joint was missedProcedure was developed, included in the reportFurther investigation recommended on the effects of

geometry and temperature


discussion


Dan NowakowskiNextEra



January 2017

Thermal Fatigue UT Examination Guidance


Topics Update on implementation of MRP-146 and MRP-192 EPRI interim guidance MRP 2015-019 regarding thermal fatigue examinations- Included in MRP-146 Rev 2 Addressing limited coverage


Implementation of MRP-146 and MRP-192

Under NEI 03-08 MRP implements thermal fatigue guidelines:– Good Practice: Materials Reliability Program: Assessment of

Residual Heat Removal Mixing Tee Thermal Fatigue in PWR Plants (MRP-192, Revision 2) – Report 1024994, August 2012

– Needed: Materials Reliability Program: Management of Thermal Fatigue in Normally Stagnant Non-Isolable Reactor Coolant System Branch Lines (MRP-146, Revision 2) – Report 3002007853, September 2016

– These guidelines reference MRP-23 and MRP-36 (CBT) for NDE requirements

Thermal fatigue damage mechanism can also be addressed in ASME Section XI Risk Informed programsUtilities coordinate the thermal fatigue examinations


Thermal Fatigue Working GroupSince 2013 there have been 12 events which had Thermal

Fatigue as primary damage mechanism; occurred in lines from 1.5” to 8” diameterTo address the issues arising from these events, MRP

formed the Thermal Fatigue Working Group in 2014 Inspection TAC supported TF-WG as participants

Approximate leak location


MRP-146 Rev 2 – Added NDE Needed GuidanceMRP-2015-019 prepared by TF-FG as interim guidance

– MRP-146 Rev 2 updated to include this interim guidance

– Guidance included 8 new Needed and 2 Good Practice elements

Three NDE process requirements were added as Needed– Examination volume sketches shall be developed and provided to

examiner

– The examiner shall document the actual coverage obtained and calculate the % volume examined for the weld and base volumes separately

Results provided to responsible engineer

– Essentially 100% of the examination volumes shall be examined

If the requirement is not met, a Corrective Action Program item shall be generated

Note: Increased engagement between engineering staff and examiners in the examination process should improve NDE performance


Recent OE Inspection Challenges

Newly Identified Cracking Morphologies– RCS High Pressure Injection Nozzle cracking (3 inch)Axial cracks on the nozzle side without craze cracking Examination from the nozzle side may be difficult due to geometry

– NDE Challenge: single-side examination for axial crack detection– RCS Drain cracking (2 inch)Weld cracks initiating in the heat-affected zone then propagating into

the weld– NDE challenge: difficult to detect the crack tip inside the weld– NDE challenge: weld complexity may trigger false calls

Elbow skewed cracks – NDE challenge: cracks with complex skewed paths difficult to

detect


Inspection TAC Deliverables

To respond to the OE, Inspection TAC plans include:– Revise the thermal fatigue examination procedureDevelop thermal fatigue UT guidance to use with PDI UT-2 Revise the generic thermal fatigue examination procedure

– Revise MRP 23, MRP 36 (CBT)– Fabricate 7 additional mockups– Add thermal fatigue mockups to Virtual UT System

Deliverables scheduled for December 2017


New Thermal Fatigue Mockups

Reactor Coolant Loop Safety Injection Nozzles with axial and circumferential thermal fatigue flaws in the weld:– 1.5” diameter – Schedule 160, 304 SS

– 2.0” diameter – Schedule 160, 304 SS



RCS Up-Horizontal High Pressure Injection Nozzles (4 mockups)RCS Drain Elbow mockups (2 mockups)

– Weld cracking– Elbow craze indications

Mixing Tee mockup (14 inch) RCS Drain Line Mockup


UT Examination Coverage Issue for MRP Examinations

Until recently craze cracking was the damage mechanism

Typical examination volume was 1/2 inch band at bottom of pipe for 5 diameters down the length of the pipe from the MRP-146 susceptible weld– Essentially 100% coverage not necessary to

detect craze cracking

– Therefore no need to calculate coverage

Isolated thermal fatigue cracking without crazing resulted in adding Needed requirements related to beam plotting and coverage

Circumferential crack on far side of weld


discussion


Tony OliveriPSEG Nuclear

Remote VT Round Robin Ad-Hoc Chair

John LindbergProgram Manager – NDE Innovation


January 2017

Remote VT Round Robin


Remote VT Round Robin Study - Topics

BackgroundThree phase approach Phase 3 resultsRecommendations


Background NRR requested RES to evaluate the capabilities of remote

visual testing (RVT) for flaw detection– ASME Code visual testing (VT-1) Being used in lieu of UT for RPV nozzle inner radius examinations

– Augmented enhanced visual testing (EVT-1) Relied upon by industry programs for management of reactor vessel

internals

Per NRC/EPRI MOU EPRI agreed to assist NRC and their contractor PNNL in the design, implementation, and documentation of a remote visual round robin study ISI vendors volunteered to support the study


Joint Research Program, NRC and Industry: Three-phase approach Phase 1 Completed in August 2010

– Provided data to support design of Phase 2 testing Phase 2 Testing completed in Feb. 2013, analysis completed in

2014

– Assessed capabilities of current field practice – five ISI vendors (voluntary)

– Results suggest that improvements in performance are achievable

Phase 3 Testing completed in Jan. 2016, analysis completed, EPRI report complete

– Assess technology and process improvements – five ISI vendors (voluntary)


Phase 1 - Objective

Aid in the development of a testing protocol– Not focused on procedures or techniques– Open to vendors and camera manufacturers

Input into sample design Evaluation of flaw making technology Results were not published and only used as input


Phase 2 - Objective and Protocol

Objective– Evaluate procedures,

equipment and personnel currently used for testing in United States in a controlled manner

Protocol– Blind testing at EPRI facilities– Vendors to use existing

equipment and techniques (e.g., no enhanced lighting or techniques)

– Examiners worked independently using live data

– Independent review of recorded data by second analyst not allowed

– Controlled delivery of cameras in specialized tank with fixed manipulator to control camera position

– EPRI and PNNL evaluated overall results


Phase 2 Round Robin – General Observations

Equipment Performance– All camera systems performed well

– Many flaws missed by analysts were visible in the recorded data

Examination Procedures– Do not include much guidance on flaw discrimination

– During testing, teams may not have fully exercised all aspects of their procedures for evaluating indications; e.g. supplementary lighting, additional cameras

Examination Times– Correlation between longer inspection times and improved

detection performance was noted


Phase 3 Objectives

The Phase 2 evaluation indicated opportunities for improvements

– Procedures – need additional guidance in discriminating flaws

– Personnel – need for additional practice (and more practice specimens were needed)

– Technology – improvements may be possible

Phase 3 Objectives– Include more field practices and implement lessons learned

in Phase 2 – Determine the effectiveness of improved procedure guidance– Incorporate improved sample and flaw making processes


Phase 3 – Revised Protocol and Enhancements

Phase 3 Test Protocol Improved training sample set provided Test samples contained only cracks (no laser notches) Secondary review of examination data allowed Allowance for limited number of re-looks (max 20 areas) Use of supplemental guidance provided by EPRI/PNNL

– Use of external lighting, if desired

Additional testing to quantify level of any image degradation in recorded data– Supplementary resolution standard

Test protocol changes were agreed on by all parties


Phase 3 – Enhancements – Test specimensEPRI Weld Toe Crack Fabrication Process New specimens fabricated and fingerprinted for use in Phase 3Final test matrix – Combination of EPRI and PNNL specimens

(No ceramic plates used)Crack end

pointsDeviates from weld

toe

Deviates from weld toe

Follows weld toe


Status of Phase 3

All Phase 3 testing, data review, analysis and discussions on results are complete

EPRI report #3002007793, “Remote Visual Testing Round Robin Study” was published on December 2, 2016

Report was published as “free-release” to public, and is available on www.epri.com

http://www.epri.com/


Phase 3 Results for All Teams

TeamsPrimary

Flaws DetectedFinal

Flaws DetectedPrimary

Flaws MissedFinal

Flaws MissedPrimary

False CallsFinal

False Calls RelooksARLW 69% 68% 31% 32% 7 3 7TUQZ 76% 77% 24% 23% 12 8 10DCSI 67% 68% 33% 32% 26 13 13YPJH 75% 75% 25% 25% 10 6 6NBIE 84% 83% 16% 17% 10 8 7

AVERAGE 74% 74% 26% 26% 13 8 9


Examination Duration versus Detection

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

16

27

17

25

30

23

Avg Time Per Plate (min)


COD vs Detection4%

28%

34%15%

19%

COD Range 1-10 µm

11-20 µm

21-30 µm

31-40 µm

41+ µm


Detection Results for Cracks with COD ≥ 25 microns


Flaw Length vs Detection

15%

33%13%

39%

Length6-10 mm

11-15 mm

16-20 mm

21+ mm


Non-Relevant Conditions vs Detection

Non-relevant

conditions


Missed Detections In Areas of Non-relevant conditions


Conclusions All aspects of crack detection and

characterization performance improved in Phase 3 as compared to Phase 2; contributing factors:

– Improved practice specimens and training,

– Supplemental guidance,

– Auxiliary lighting

The average detection rate was increased from 56% to 74%

The use of a secondary analyst reduced the number of false calls recorded by the primary analyst

Detection rates averaged better than 85% for all teams when the crack COD was ≥ 25 microns

COD affected detection more than length

The presence of surface features (grind marks, scratches) resulted in a reduction in detection when compared to an area where no surface features were present

Cracks located at the weld toe had the most effect on reducing detection rates compared to non-relevant feature


discussion




Doug KullSenior Technical Leader

Myles DunlapEngineer/Scientist III


January 2017

Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel (CASS) Update

Round Robin Study and Demonstration Technical Basis

Development


Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel Round Robin Study


Round Robin Study Summary

Four organizations have attempted the CASS RRSThree organizations have produced

resultsOne additional organization has

committed to participate in Q1 2017Participant from inside and outside of

the United StatesMixture of Inspection Vendors,

Equipment Manufacturers, and Research Laboratories


Round Robin Study Format

Testing is conducted in a secure (Blind) fashion similar to PDIData is collected and analyzed IAW a procedure developed by the participating organizationAnalysis is performed one side at a time to assess single sided performance Participants are asked to provide 2 or more sets of independent resultsTotal process takes approximately 2 weeks


Round Robin Study Test Specimens

20 samples– Qty. 6 – 12” OD (360° segments)– Qty. 4 – 28” OD (90° segments)– Qty. 10 – 36” OD (60° segments)

89% of the material sourced from vintage material (canceled plants) Test Specimens contain both

Circumferential and Axial FlawsUtilized a combination of grown and

implanted flaws Flaw Heights range between

approx.10% and 85%


Round Robin Study Data

Test specimens and flaw truth will be made available for technique development Participating organizations will be given the

data collected once the results are evaluated and it is determined that the specimens are no longer required to be kept confidential A report summarizing the results will be

published RRS results will be used to direct future R&D


Results and General Observations

General– It has been difficult to get organizations (especially inspection

vendors) to participate– All attempts have been encoded phased array– Techniques fall into 2 categories: Typical DMW or Low Frequency

Detection– All participants missed flaws and made false calls (various depth

ranges)– Most have had a difficult time distinguishing between geometry

(counterbore & root) and flaws– Scan access has a significant impact on far-side detection (high

angles less effective); weld condition affected detection capability Sizing

– Length sizing inconsistent – both under- and over-sizing, with errors from 0.1” – 2”

– Depth generally undersized; common to detect the flaw base with good SNR but receive very little from upper portions of the flaw

The information is provided as

general observations.

The fourth participating

organization is still analyzing

data and results from previous

participants are still being

processed.

The final report expected in the first half of 2017 will contain the results along with a more

complete set of observations

and conclusions.


Preliminary Conclusions

ID geometry can produce signals greater than those of the intended flawsOD geometry, which impedes scan access, affects

detection resultsWorking to identify a correlation between sizing errors

and sample or flaw conditions The data processed up to this point indicates that no

organization would achieve length sizing or depth sizing RMS error value less than 0.75” and 0.125” respectively


Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel Performance Demonstration Technical Basis


CASS Performance Demonstration Technical Basis

Objectives– To develop the technical basis for the performance demonstration and

qualification of CASS piping ultrasonic examinations – To provide a draft for Appendix VIII, Supplement 9

Work Plan– Follows methodology similar to the one used for IGSCC -

NUREG/CR-4464– Recognizes challenges may arise because of data sufficiency and

other differencesWill investigate various statistical models that may differ from those

used in the IGSCC case– A third party independent review will be conducted


CASS PD Technical Basis Methodology

Test Design(Task 2)

Estimate Current Examiner Performance

(Task 1)

Assess Performance of Current Examiners on Postulated Tests

(Task 3)

Report: Technical Basis Document

(Task 4)

CASS Round Robin

Power Curves

Critical Flaw Size


CASS PD Technical Basis Work Scope

Task 1: Develop a statistical model to estimate current examiner performance in CASS (In progress)– Use CASS Round Robin data as it becomes available

Task 2: Test Design (In progress)– Follows NUREG/CR-4464 for “Power Curves” and “Critical Flaw Size” from

MRP-362Task 3: Assess Performance of Current Examiners (1Q2017)

– Estimate population of passed and failed examiners and impact on industry– Identify geometries with favorable and unfavorable PODs If result trends warrant it, revisit Task 2

Task 4: Report– Draft Technical Basis for MRP Inspection TAC comments (2Q2017)– Final Technical Basis report (4Q2017)


CASS PD Technical Basis Test Design Status (In Progress)

Detection–Basis revised from Supplement 2 or 10Uses MRP-362 as input

– “Technical Basis for ASME Section XI Code Case N-838 - Flaw Tolerance Evaluation of Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel (CASS) Piping Components”

Modifies flaw grading units distributionFollows acceptance criteria tables, but requires that all “deep” flaws be detected


CASS PD Technical Basis Test Design Status (In Progress)

Sizing – Length RMSE Value basis from WOG samples and Round Robin demonstrations

– Depth RMSEValue basis from existing austenitic steel ID examinationsValue basis alternatives

– RMSE based on engineering study to be performed, including Flaw geometry aspect ratio justification Maximum flaw depth logic justification that accounts for “mid-wall blind”

volume

Alternative selection depends on how the depth RMSE test compares with the round robin results


discussion






January 2017

HDPE Research Update


TopicsNDE Round Robin & Mechanical TestingSummary of Recent EPRI Reports


NDE Round Robin & Round Robin Mechanical Testing

Issue - Cold Fusion – Joint defect – partial fusion, poor molecular chain

penetration– Difficult to detect with NDE or mechanical testing

Objectives– Identify candidate NDE techniques– Demonstrate effectiveness– Enable ASME Code to develop language to detect cold

fusion with NDE


HDPE NDE & Round Robin Mechanical Testing

Material– HDPE pipe fabricated from PE4710 Bi-Modal resin that conforms to

ASME Section III Appendix nn

– One diameter size will be used: 14” DR7

– Pipe will include a certificate of conformance that it was manufactured to ASTM F714

Joints– Total of 12 mock-ups of butt-fusion HDPE joints

– 4 good joints, 4 joints with cold fusion, 4 joints with voids/contamination

– Joints fabricated per the Standard Fusing Procedure Specification of ASME Section IX, Part QF and ASME Section III Appendix nn(Plastic Pipe Industry TR-33)


HDPE NDE & Round Robin Mechanical Testing - Status

NDE Round Robin– Three organizations examined the mockups

– Another is scheduled to examine mockups this month

– EPRI examined joints using Torsional Standing Stress Wave that measures change in shear modulus

– Most of the flaws were detected

Destructive Tests– High Speed Tensile Impact Test per ASTM F2634-07

– Guided Side Bend Test per ASTM E190*

– Waisted Tensile Test per BS EN 12814-7

– All three test methods are to be performed on each sample joint.

Final report scheduled for publishing in March 2017


Evaluating HDPE Joint Strength

Nondestructive Evaluation: Technique Development to Evaluate the Joint Strength of High-Density Polyethylene Butt Fused Pipe Joints, Revision 1 2016 3002007789– Mechanically produce standing

torsional waves in pipe– Measure the resulting surface

accelerations with 4 accelerometers

– Calculate the ratio of the base material to the joint’s shear modulus

– Technique can rank joint strength integrity

– Could be used to replace mechanical testing

Good Joint

Indicates Low Strength Joint


Summary of Recent EPRI Reports Advanced Nuclear Technology (ANT): Literature Review of Mechanical

Testing Methods to Evaluate the Integrity of HDPE Butt-Fusion Joints –Report 3002005434, September 2016

– High-speed tensile impact test ASTM F2634 and waisted tensile test EN 12814-7 were found to be adequate tests

– It was found that ASTM F2620 Reverse bend test is not recommended

ANT High-Density Polyethylene Flaw Development, Sample Fabrication, and Performance Demonstration – Report 3002008761, December 2016

– Focused on developing flaw implantation techniques that would allow for control of the flaw size and location after fusion

– Flaws-lack of fusion and particulate contamination

– Vendor detected 100% of flaws during blind 30 flaw test set with no false calls in 14 and 16 inch diameter mockups with PAUT procedure


Summary of Recent EPRI ReportsUT is effective detecting contamination and lack of fusion type

flawsCold fusion is difficult to fabricate or duplicate and detectCurrently developing a report with acceptance criteria for

HDPE flaws to incorporate into ASME Code (scheduled 2018)


discussion



NDE Integration Committee ChairMark Dennis

Program Manager, NDE Modeling & Simulation


January 2017

Ultrasonic Modeling and Simulation

Research Update


Memorandum of Understanding

An Ultrasonic Modeling and Simulation Attachment has been added to the MOU between EPRI and NRC RES– EPRI and RES are collaborating

closely on a multi-year plan to reach agreement on model usage


Four collaborative research Tasks

Benchmarking and validating models’ regimes of validity– Task 1: Beamforming

– Task 2: Wave modes

Bulk shear and longitudinal waves

Surface waves

Quasi-shear and quasi-longitudinal waves (anisotropic media)

– Task 3: Flaw response

Specular, for detection

Diffractive, for sizing

Mutually acceptable ways to use models– Task 4: Modeling best practices

Procedures for modeling that will produce results accepted by all parties


Containing the problem – there are many variables to select and prioritize

Models to useModel functionalitiesProbe typesComponents to modelPractical tasks

How to Determine if Simulation Results are Acceptable?



How accurate do the inputs need to be?– Parametric studies with statistical analysis can be conducted to

determine the influence of the sensor, geometry, materials, and defect orientation, etc.

Introduction of structural noise– Some simulation software allow modeling of anisotropic weld materials.

Which output results do we need to measure and compare?– Time of flight– AmplitudeAbsoluteSignal-to-NoiseComparison with a Reference Reflector

– Frequency



What are the right acceptance criteria?– Review of codes and standards– Review of inspection procedures– Review of equipment certification and equivalency

documents

Ultimately Depends on Application


How to Determine if Simulation Results are Acceptable? - ExampleUltrasonic beam simulations are often used in sensor design and

coverage calculationsThese beam simulations provide relative measures of ultrasonic

energy and cannot directly determine flaw detectabilityThe development of an approach, supported by a technical basis,

to transfer these ultrasonic beam simulations to flaw detectability would be beneficial


Schedule Multi-year initiative

Task 1 – Beamforming– Simple to execute

– May be difficult to directly relate to probability of flaw detection

– EPRI plans to have an approach for consideration in 2017

Task 2 – Wave modes– Both shear and longitudinal wave modes are being considered. EPRI

also plans to do more work with anisotropic welds in 2017-2018.

Task 3 – Flaw Response– Configurations need to be agreed upon.

– Most of the work has been completed using simple geometries and notches. Flaw response using anisotropic weld models will be the focus in 2017-2018.


Schedule (con’t) Multi-year initiative

Task 4 – Modeling Best Practices– Will be developed and published throughout, as agreement is reached on each piece of

the puzzle– Most likely will be 2019 before stakeholder consensus is achieved– EPRI has published two reports which include ultrasonic simulation results: Benchmarking of Ultrasonic Simulation Software. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2015.

3002004439– 1.5MHz, 3.5MHz, and 5.0MHz conventional ultrasonic 45° and 60° shear wave

transducers were used to scan a stainless steel plate with ten notches. Overall the simulated notch base amplitude results were better than the simulated notch tip amplitude results. Lower frequency simulated results were generally more accurate.

Program on Technology Innovation: Comparison of NDE Simulation Software Results with Experiments. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2016. 3002008271

– Case studies were performed on welded austenitic stainless steel piping samples and flat plate specimens

– The anisotropic weld model produced material noise in the simulated results– Report includes some criteria to evaluate accuracy of simulation results


Schedule (con’t) Multi-year initiative

EPRI to Hold: Modeling and Simulation Workshop for Ultrasonic NDE Inspection of Welds– Schedule to be determined


Summary

Modeling and simulation have played a key role in NDE for decades:– Facilitate development of new techniques and qualification programs

in a cost-effective and timely manner

– Improve NDE reliability for better plant condition assessment and asset management

– Enable faster and cheaper problem solving

The challenge with ultrasonic modeling and simulation tools is the development of acceptance criteria for a given applicationEPRI and RES are developing the framework under which

modeling can be performed in a controlled and validated manner


discussion




Myles DunlapEngineer/Scientist II


January 2017

Human Factors in NDEResearch Overview: Literature and OE

Review, On-site Observations


Project ObjectiveCharacterize differences in human factors for the

implementation of non-encoded ultrasonic examinations between controlled laboratory and field environments

Laboratory - PD Field


Human Factors Considerations IncludeThe examiner

– Physical characteristics such as body movements/positioning– Psychological factors such as decision making

Scenarios and tasks– What is the person trying to accomplish?– What training and procedures are available?

Equipment and tools (procedures, briefs, etc.)– Human-system interface– Tool design

Environment of use– Physical environment– Management and organizational factors– Regulatory considerations


Scope and Task Review Task 1 - Systematically evaluate the human performance issues facing

examiners

– Reviewed NDE-related human performance research and OE, and sampled other relevant fields as well (complete)

– Performed on-site NDE observations (ongoing)

Task 2 - Identify the key differences between human performance during qualification versus field examinations

– Detailed observation of UT examination as it is performed in training, practice and qualification environments, and as it is performed during field implementation.

Task 3 - Prioritize the findings from Tasks 1 and 2

Task 4 – If applicable, develop examination practices that will improve NDE reliability in the field

Task 5 - Outline the potential applicability of the research results to other NDE methods


Framing the Challenge and Opportunities

Human Factors Design Considerations, Lab vs. Field Differences,

Literature and Operating Experience


Lab versus Field Differences


Literature ReviewThe highest quality NDE research articles were selected for

review.– Over 100 total articles were reviewed and approximately 40 were

selected as being relevant enough for manual UT in the nuclear industry

– 79 Performance Shaping Factors (PSF) were studied in literature

PSF – are human performance variables thought to have causal influence on NDE reliability (e.g., heat, noise, training, etc.)

Operating experience of over a dozen real events that have occurred in the past ten years were included in the reviewHuman Factors Engineering (HFE) experts reviewed and

summarized their observations


On-Site VisitsTwo on-site observations of non-encoded UT examinations were

performed in 2016Observed first hand what occurs during field examinations

– Determine if important system and human performance variables are considered, even when they receive limited attention from literature

Interviewed examiners and other pertinent personnel to understand challenges and opportunities to ensure performance is optimized for safety and efficiencyConfirmed expectations about the stress and cognitive load on

examiners during NDEValidated consistency of practices across more than one locationDeveloped examiner personas and scenarios

– First-hand examiner experiences are not often considered or measured in literature

HF experts were impressed with what they saw!


Observations from Literature and OE ReviewNuclear NDE HF literature is relatively sparse, qualitative and

lacks empirical validation of causal factors for NDE reliability

Empirical work is repeatedly published by a small set of researchers, which results in the appearance of more empirical study than actually has been completed

Examiner experiences or perceptions are rarely considered or measured; regarded as ‘black boxes’ rather than people

Emphasis has been placed on individual and organizational factors as primary performance shaping factors and insufficient attention to equipment/environment usability and training design

Research cannot reasonably create realistic environments for study; as a result, methods for quantifying Probability of Detection (POD) for field environments are unclear


Preliminary Gap Analysis and Considerations Pre-job briefing with drawings, photos, video, and/or simulation can help

prepare individuals or teams for the mental workload and stresses of the task. Debriefing can help as well. Instruments currently have diverse and complex user interfaces and tools Training opportunities may be limited due to time or other resource

constraints High risk for human error with predominantly manual input for paperwork

cross referencing several documents Ergonomics are not optimal for field examinationsMultiple distractions Longer term:

– Simulators may complement training and pre-job briefing– Equipment simplification, or help/training aids to familiarize operators

with instruments, may reduce cognitive loads– Procedure simplification can aid in this effort as well




John LindbergProgram Manager – NDE Innovation


January 2017

Design for Inspectability


Regulatory Requirements

10 CFR 50.55a(g)(3)(i) and (ii) provides the inservice inspection (ISI) program design and accessibility requirements for Class 1, 2, and 3 components and supports:– Components (including supports) that are classified as

ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 must be designed and be provided with access to enable the performance of inservice examination of these components and must meet the preservice examination requirements set forth in the applicable editions and addenda of Section III or Section XI of the ASME BPV Code


Problem Statements

Due to geometry and configurations some ASME Section XI components are limited from obtaining complete coverage of the required examination volumeWhile operating plants have been granted relief from

obtaining full examination coverage on these configurations; the new plants, with construction operating licenses(COLs) are required to be designed for inspectability, and the NRC does not want to entertain the option for requests for reliefNDE, alone, cannot solve the issue


Task Group on Inspectability

ASME Task Group formed to address the design for inspectability issue– Subject matter experts from ASME Section III – Design,

and ASME Section XI – Inservice Inspection– Other industry stakeholders include the NRC, Nuclear

Steam Supply System (NSSS) suppliers, and the Performance Demonstration Initiative


Task Group on Inspectability – MembershipFirst meeting was Tuesday, November 8, 2016

John Lindberg – Chairman Gary Lofthus

Carl Latiolais Daniel Lieb

Warren Bamford Janis Ossmann

Rick Rishel Augi Cardillo

Danny Cordes Jim Tucker

Steve Sabo Mark Ferlisi - Secretary

Eric Henry Justin Howard

Pat O’Regan Doug Henry

John Honcharik Ross Klein

Corey Thomas Dale Matthews

Paul Sullivan


Task Group on Inspectability – Charter

“The Task Group shall have responsibility for developing and proposing Code revisions and Code Cases concerning the examination of items that do not allow the Code required examination coverage, based on either material type or configuration. The initial focus shall be on new plant construction.” “Those configurations being addressed shall include but not

limited to 1) pipe-to-valve, 2) pipe-to-pump, and 3) pipe-to-fitting. The material to be addressed is austenitic material, either cast or forged, that currently does not allow full Code required examination coverage with single sided access. Another issue is cast stainless steel, where no Appendix VIII examination qualification exists at present.” “The Task Group shall refer potential Code actions to the

appropriate Subgroups as needed. This Task Group shall report directly to the BPV XI Executive Committee.”


discussion






January 2017

Reactor Vessel Upper Head Bare Metal

Visual Examination


Purpose

Visual examinations (VE) of reactor vessel upper head (RVUH) surfaces are performed in accordance with the requirements of Code Case N-729-1, “Alternative Examination Requirements for PWR Reactor Vessel Upper Heads With Nozzles Having Pressure-Retaining Partial-Penetration Welds Section XI, Division 1”

This presentation provides a review of N-729-1 VE requirements to facilitate a discussion of addressing relevant conditions identified during bare metal VE


Table 1, Notes

(1) The VE shall consist of the following:(a) A direct examination of the bare-metal surface of the entire outer

surface of the head, including essentially 100% of the intersection of each nozzle with the head. If welded or bolted obstructions are present (i.e., mirror insulation, insulation support feet, shroud support ring/lug), the examination shall include ≥95% of the area in the region of the nozzles as defined in Fig. 1 and the head surface uphill and downhill of any such obstructions. The examination may be performed with insulation in place using remote equipment that provides resolution of the component metal surface equivalent to a bare-metal direct examination.

(b) The examination may be performed with the system depressurized.

(c) The examination shall be performed with an illumination level and a sufficient distance to allow resolution of lower case characters not greater than 0.105 in. (2.7 mm) in height.


Table 1, Notes

(2) Personnel performing the VE shall be qualified as a VT-2 visual examiner and shall have completed at least four (4) hr of additional training in detection of borated water leakage from UNS N06600, UNS N06082 or UNS W86182 components and the resulting boric acid corrosion of adjacent ferritic steel components.

(3) Examination may be performed with the system depressurized.


Figure 1


-3140 INSERVICE VISUAL EXAMINATIONS (VE)

-3141 General(a) The VE required by -2500 and performed in accordance

with IWA-2200 and the additional requirements of this Case shall be evaluated by comparing the examination results with the acceptance standards specified in -3142.1.

(b) Acceptance of components for continued service shall be in accordance with -3142.

(c) Relevant conditions for the purposes of the VE shall include areas of corrosion, boric acid deposits, discoloration, and other evidence of nozzle leakage.


-3142 Acceptance

-3142.1 Acceptance by VE(a) A component whose VE confirms the absence of

relevant conditions shall be acceptable for continued service.

(b) A component whose VE detects a relevant condition shall be unacceptable for continued service until the requirements of -3142.1(b)(1), (b)(2), and (c) below are met.(1) Components with relevant conditions require

further evaluation. This evaluation shall include determination of the source of the leakage and correction of the source of leakage in accordance with -3142.3.


-3142 Acceptance (continued)

(2) All relevant conditions shall be evaluated to determine the extent, if any, of degradation. The boric acid crystals and residue shall be removed to the extent necessary to allow adequate examinations and evaluation of degradation, and a subsequent VE of the previously obscured surfaces shall be performed, prior to return to service, and again in the subsequent refueling outage. Any degradation detected shall be evaluated to determine if any corrosion has impacted the structural integrity of the component. Corrosion that has reduced component wall thickness below design limits shall be resolved through repair /replacement activity in accordance with IWA-4000.

(c) A nozzle whose VE indicates relevant conditions indicative of possible nozzle leakage shall be unacceptable for continued service unless it meets the requirements of -3142.2 or -3142.3.



-3142.2 Acceptance by Supplemental Examination.A nozzle with relevant conditions indicative of possible nozzle leakage shall be acceptable for continued service if the results of supplemental examinations [-3200(b)] meet the requirements of -3130.



-3142.3 Acceptance by Corrective Measures or Repair/Replacement Activity(a) A component with relevant conditions not indicative

of possible nozzle leakage is acceptable for continued service if the source of the relevant condition is corrected by a repair /replacement activity or by corrective measures necessary to preclude degradation.

(b) A component with relevant conditions indicative of possible nozzle leakage shall be acceptable for continued service if a repair/replacement activity corrects the defect in accordance with IWA-4000.


discussion

technical information exchange · – 3 code actions related to appendix viii supplements – 1...

Documents