action item reviewsupplement 4 & 6 coordinated imp. 2 proposed changes to clarify coordinated...

© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Kevin Hacker, DominionNDE Integration Committee Chair

Greg Selby, EPRISenior Technical Executive

Industry/NRC NDE Technical Information Exchange

January 2016

Action Item Review

2© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Action items (1 of 2)

Action number Topic Action

owner Action Date opened Date due Status today

2014-01-04

PDI generic procedures Industry

Regarding NDE IC's consideration of NEI 03-08 implementation for PDI policy 13-01 on adoption of newer versions of PDI generic procedures, report status at next quarterly call

1/9/2014 1/19/2016Agenda item 4:00 today will close this action.

2014-01-07

Examiner population Industry Discuss false call rate data availability

at next quarterly call 1/9/2014 12/15/2016Defer discussion, carry the action through end 2016.

2014-07-03

Diablo Canyon

discussionIndustry

In the January 2015 Industry/NRC NDE technical meeting, include an industry presentation on the extent of condition evaluation of the Diablo Canyon missed flaw.

7/10/2014 1/19/2016Agenda item 9:45 Wednesday will close this action.

2014-10-02

IGSCC qualification

statisticsIndustry

Provide to NRC the number of people who have Supplement 10 qualification, and how many of those individuals do not have IGSCC qualification. Provide at January 2016 meeting.

1/21/2015 1/19/2016Agenda item 8:00 Wednesday will close this action.


Action items (2 of 2)

Action number Topic Action

owner Action Date opened Date due Status today

2015-01-03 Coverage reliefs Both

Discuss alternatives to the relief request process.

1/21/2015 1/19/2016 Agenda item 3:10 today.

2015-07-01

Prepare January 2016 Industry-NRC Technical Information

Exchange Meeting

BothPrepare agenda and logistics for this meeting.

7/9/2015 1/19/2016 Action is closed.




January 19-21, 2016

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: Joe Donahue, 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: Bill Noble, NextEraEPRI 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 Lofthus, Southern NuclearNDE Integration Committee Vice Chair


Jack Spanner, EPRITechnical Leader, Principal

Industry/NRC NDE Technical Information ExchangeJanuary 2016

NDE-related Code Activities


Overview of 2015 Items

This presentation provides an update of the Code interaction and activities related to the Industry’s Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Program sponsored projects and Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI) Program

No new compliance issues have been identified– Several Code actions were identified, which will bring Code and PDI

program into better alignment

– 3 Code actions related to Appendix VIII supplements

– 3 Code Case actions related to Appendix VIII

Also: No Errata or Interpretations Submitted


Summary of Current NDE Code Actions

2 NDE actions Board approved– 2 Code changes

6 PDI actions Board approved– 3 Code changes– 3 Code cases and revisions

2 NDE Actions submitted– 1 Intent Inquiry (Submitted) – 1 Code case revision (Parallel with Intent Inquiry)


List of NDE Actions

Record Description Status

14-1376Overlays Length/Depth Sizing6 proposed changes to clarify overlay Code Case N-653-1 (Overlay)

Code Case revision N-653-2Board Approved

14-1377 Supplement 2 Test Specimens3 proposed changes to clarify Supplement 2

Code changeBoard Approved

14-1379

Supplement 4 & 6 Coordinated Imp.2 proposed changes to clarify coordinated implementation of detection and sizing tests in Supplements 4 & 6


14-699

Figure IWB-2500-12, Closure Stud and Threads in Flange Stud HoleAdded 2 figures for 2 types of bolts with integral heads that were previously not covered



List of NDE Actions


14-1485

Figure IWC-2500-6, Pressure Retaining Bolting Added figures for 2 types of bolts with integral heads that were previously not covered


14-1374

Code Case N-695 (N-695-1), Qualification Requirements for Dissimilar Metal Piping Welds Provides specific details for single side qualifications of DM welds when both sides of the base material are ferritic material

Code Case changeBoard Approved

14-1375

Appendix VIII, Supplement 10, Dissimilar Metal WeldsClarify the single side qualification rules for welds with no austenitic base material



List of NDE Actions


12-1900

Code Case N-838 Alternative Flaw Tolerance Analyses for Acceptance of Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel (CASS) Components Section XI, Division 1”Provides a method for flaw tolerance evaluation and a recommended target flaw size for qualification of NDE techniques for CASS piping materials

Code CaseBoard Approved

15-2558

Inquiry 14-243

Code Case N-729-5 Revision and Intent inquiryClarifies that ET surface examinations shall be performed to requirements of Sect V, Article 14 not Sect XI, Appendix VI

Code Case change and InquirySection XI Letter Ballot


Summary of Current NDE Code Actions

Looking Forward– Continue to work the remaining NDE Program related

actions through the Code approval process– Continue to report the NDE Program Code activities

during the quarterly calls and annual information exchange meetings


Code Case N-831 (draft)Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of Radiography for Welds in Ferritic Pipe

Technical adjustments have recently been made to Code Case N-831

The next several slides present the technical requirements of the current configuration of the Code Case

To be followed by discussion



Provides an option to perform UT in lieu of RT for ferritic piping welds as part of a repair/replacement activity

Based on performance demonstration for equipment, procedures and personnel

Includes 100% of weld volume and weld-to-base-metal interface

Requires angle beam examination of the complete examination volume for fabrication flaws oriented parallel to the weld

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

Recent change


Code Case N-831 (continued)

All detected flaws shall be considered planar flaws and compared to the acceptance standards for volumetric examination in accordance with IWB-3400, IWC-3400, or IWD-3000 (as applicable)– Preservice acceptance standards shall be applied

– Aligns with later versions of other Codes (Section VIII and B31.1)

– Needed to minimize unnecessary repairs of small flaws due to the sensitivity of the UT technology

The examination shall be performed using encoded UT technology– Where component configuration does not allow for effective

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

– The basis for the non-encoded examination shall be documented



Demonstration specimens– Specimen scanning and weld surfaces shall be representative of the

surfaces to be examined

– Shall include geometric conditions that require discrimination from flaws (e.g., counterbore, weld root conditions, or weld crowns) and limited scanning surface conditions for single side access, when applicable

– Shall include both planar and volumetric fabrication flaws (e.g., lack of fusion, crack, incomplete penetration, inclusions) representative of the welding process or processes of the welds to be examined

– Flaws shall be distributed throughout the examination volume

– Unflawed grading units shall be at least 1-1⁄2 times the number of flawed grading units

– At least 30% of the flaws shall be classified as surface planar flaws

– At least 40% of the flaws shall be classified as subsurface planar flaws



– At least 50% of the flaws shall be planar type flaws, such as lack of fusion, incomplete penetration, or cracks

– At least 20% of the flaws shall be volumetric type flaws, such as slag inclusions

– Flaw through-wall heights shall be based on the applicable acceptance standards for volumetric examination in accordance with IWB-3400, IWC-3400, or IWD-3000 (as applicable)

At least 30% of the flaws shall be classified as acceptable planar flaws, with the smallest flaws being at least 50% of the maximum allowable size based on the applicable a/l aspect ratio for the flaw

– For demonstration of single-side-access capabilities, at least 30% of the flaws shall be located on the far side of the weld centerline and at least 30% of the planar flaws shall be located on the near side of the weld centerline. The remaining flaws shall be distributed on either side of the weld.



Procedure performance demonstration– May be performed as either a blind or a non-blind

– The use of the non-blind performance demonstration is used to assist in optimizing the examination procedure

– Objective evidence of a flaw’s detection, length and through-wall height sizing, in accordance with the procedure requirements, must be provided

– The procedure demonstration specimen set shall include at least 30 flaws

– All flaws in the demonstration set that are ≥ 50% of the maximum allowable size, based on the applicable a/l aspect ratio for the flaw, shall be detected

– Flaw length sizing RMS error shall not exceed 0.25” for NPS diameters of 6.0” and less, and 0.75” for diameters greater than 6.0”

– Through-wall height sizing RMS error shall not exceed 0.125”



Personnel performance demonstration– Shall be conducted in a blind fashion

– Specimen set shall contain at least 10 flaws

– Detection acceptance based on missed flaws and false calls

– Flaw length sizing RMS error shall not exceed 0.25” for NPS diameters of 6.0” and less, and 0.75” for diameters greater than 6.0”

– Through-wall height sizing RMS error shall not exceed 0.125”

Technical basis document has been prepared supporting the detailed requirements of the Code Case

Planning to submit to Subgroup NDE in February 2016



discussion




Industry/NRC NDETechnical Information Exchange

January 2016

Reactor vessel threads in flange


Introduction

Due to personnel safety and radiation dose concerns, and to critical path impact associated with performing the volumetric examination of the reactor vessel threads in flange, industry will evaluate 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 interval

Other Codes, other nations have similar requirements


Examination Approaches

The ultrasonic examination of the reactor vessel threads in flange may be performed with several different approaches– Cavity flooded with remote tooling

– Cavity drained with vessel head suspended and remote scanning

– Cavity drained with head removed using manual scanning

– etc.

Each approach has similar challenges of personnel radiation dose, personnel safety, critical path time, and foreign material exclusion controls


Industry Survey

A survey of the industry has been performed to identify the examination history and challenges

The survey included US and non-US plants

Survey summary, including > 9500 examinations:– US plants (91 units)

Zero service induced flaws reported

– Non-US plants (76 units)

Still assessing the applicability of indications for which we have anecdotal information


Examination Challenges

Depending upon the examination approach, the radiological dose to perform the examinations may reach 1.2 rem

Many PWRs perform the examination with the vessel head suspended approximately 2 feet above the flange to reduce the personnel radiation exposure, this creates a safety concern that has to be addressed when working near a suspended load

Depending upon the examination approach, the examination requires from 1 to 8 hours of critical path time to complete

Foreign material control needs to be addressed whenever working around the open vessel


Summary of Survey

Exceptional performance history of reactor vessel threads in flanges– Over 30 years of operating experience has not identified any service

induced degradation

– Following up on non-US plants’ indications

Existing requirements adversely impact critical path time, worker exposure, and personnel safety


Next Steps

Prepare a technical basis document to justify removing the reactor vessel threads in flange from the Code

If the technical basis is feasible, initiate a Code action to change the Code– The technical basis document will serve as the basis for the Code

change

Code change may take significant time to complete and get incorporated into Reg. Guide 1.147– In the interim, licensees may wish to take advantage of this work and

use the technical basis document to support a relief request to eliminate these examinations


Schedule

Technical basis document to be completed during the first quarter of 2016

Code action to be initiated upon completion of the technical basis document


David Anthony, ExelonPDI Focus Group Chair

Carl Latiolais, EPRISenior Program Manager

NDE Performance Demonstration

PDI Update


January - November 2015 PDI Piping ProgramPersonnel Qualification Activities (1 of 3) Initial

– Austenitic, no IGSCC Detection - 10 Length sizing – 10

– Austenitic with IGSCC Detection - 7 Length sizing - 8

– Supplement 12 ferritic Detection - 13 Length sizing – 14

– Ferritic Detection - 5 Length sizing - 4 Depth sizing, no IGSCC - 5 Depth sizing with IGSCC - 2

– WOR - Supplement 11 - 0– Dissimilar metal welds Detection - 2 Length - 2 Depth - 3

Requalification– Austenitic with IGSCC Detection - 18 Length sizing - 20 Depth sizing - 12

– WOR - Supplement 11 - 6

141 Manual (Non-Encoded)


January - November 2015 PDI Piping ProgramPersonnel Qualification Activities (2 of 3) Initial

– Austenitic, no IGSCC Detection – 1 Length – 1

– Austenitic with IGSCC Detection – 1 Length – 1

– Supplement 12 ferritic Detection – 1 Length – 1

– Ferritic Detection – 7 Length – 7 Depth sizing, no IGSCC – 11 Depth sizing with IGSCC – 4

– WOR - Supplement 11 – 12– Dissimilar metal welds

Detection – 8 Length – 8 Depth – 11

Requalification– Austenitic with IGSCC Detection – 5 Length – 5 Depth – 6

– WOR - Supplement 11 – 0

90 Encoded


January - November 2015 PDI Piping ProgramPersonnel Qualification Activities (3 of 3)

Personnel qualifications that used phased array– Non-Encoded qualifications = 27%

(38/141)

– Encoded qualifications = 75% (68/90)


January - November 2015 RPV Personnel Qualifications

4 candidates, bolting Supplement 8

3 candidates, non-encoded Supplement 4 & 6


Procedure Qualifications in 2015

Procedure qualification for Main Loop piping from the ID

Encoded PA Supplement 4 & 6 from the ID

Encoded PA Supplement 7 from the Bore

Performed add-on qualification to existing procedures to support examination of:– Dissimilar metal weld branch connections

– Unique Safety Injection dissimilar metal welds

– AHA nozzle (unique reactor upper head nozzle butt weld examined from ID)


Comments to 10CFR50.55a

Comments have been provided to NRC on the proposed revision to 10CFR50.55a

The requested changes include:– 18 month delayed implementation of new Code year, to allow for PDI

Program compliance review

– Allowance for licensees to update to the latest NRC approved Edition/Addenda, without staff notification

– Modification of single-sided qualification rules for dissimilar metal welds

– Modification to January 2020 qualification deadline for cast austenitic stainless steel (CASS) examinations

– Modifications to conditions on Code Case N-824 for CASS examinations

– Editorial comment on paragraph §50.55a(b)(2)(xvi)(A)


Future PD Program Work

PDI and EPRI continue to work in ASME Section XI, Appendix VIIIThe PDI generic procedure revision process is ongoingContinuing to work with NSSS vendors on new plant

configurations, not currently covered by PDI sample inventoryAssisting utilities with qualification of techniques to address

dissimilar metal weld branch connections

© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.




January 2016

Adoption of Latest Procedure Versions(Action 2014-01-04)

2© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Background

While each PDI generic procedure revision has met the requirements to be considered fully qualified to Appendix VIII, the PDI Focus Group (FG) revises these procedures from time to time for purposes of clarifying the wording, correcting editorial errors, or adding enhancements in order to make the procedure more effective or user friendly

Once a new revision is published, previous revisions are no longer considered to be the best, generically available examination procedure for that particular Appendix VIII Supplement


NEI 03-08 Guidance: NDE 20151215-001 issued December 16, 2015

“Utilities shall have a process to ensure that the latest qualified revision, within one year of the procedure approval date, of PDI generic or EPRI Appendix VIII qualified ultrasonic examination (UT) procedures are used to perform examinations at the licensee’s facility.” oThis “needed” requirement is to be implemented to

support the next refueling outage after February 1, 2016

Vendor-specific Appendix VIII qualified UT procedures are not controlled by the PDI program or the EPRI NDE IC oEach licensee has the responsibility to determine the

proper vendor procedure revision to implement at their facility


David Anthony, ExelonPDI Focus Group Chair

Carl Latiolais, EPRISenior Program Manager

NDE Performance Demonstration


January 2016

PDI qualification statistics update


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.

These statistics are provided each year at NRC request.


Piping Pass Rates 2011 to PresentInitial (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 65 31 25 16 6 5 47.7 64.0 83.3 80%LENGTH SIZING (NO) IGSCC 65 28 28 16 7 6 43.1 57.1 85.7 77%AUST. DETECTION / W IGSCC 70 44 19 11 3 2 62.9 57.9 66.7 81%LENGTH SIZING / W IGSCC 68 37 25 16 3 2 54.4 64.0 66.7 81%SUPPLEMENT 12 FERRITIC DET. 130 63 46 31 11 11 48.5 67.4 100.0 81%SUPPLEMENT 12 FERRITIC LENGTH 130 60 50 33 12 12 46.2 66.0 100.0 81%FERRITIC DETECTION 6 4 3 2 1 0 66.7 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 8 8 0 0 60.0 100.0 92%WOR - SUPPLEMENT 11 55 41 10 7 0 0 74.5 70.0 87%DISSIMILAR METAL WELDS - DET 23 17 4 4 0 0 73.9 100.0 91%DISSIMILAR METAL WELDS - LENGTH 23 17 4 4 0 0 73.9 100.0 91%DISSIMILAR METAL WELDS - TWS 18 3 10 6 3 1 16.7 60.0 33.3 56%


Piping Pass Rates 2011 to PresentInitial (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 18 15 1 0 0 0 83.3 0.0 83%LENGTH SIZING / W IGSCC 18 13 2 1 1 1 72.2 50.0 100.0 83%SUPPLEMENT 12 FERRITIC DET. 12 8 0 0 0 0 66.7 67%SUPPLEMENT 12 FERRITIC LENGTH 12 7 1 1 0 0 58.3 100.0 67%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 9 4 5 5 0 0 44.4 100.0 100%WOR - SUPPLEMENT 11 14 12 1 1 0 0 85.7 100.0 93%DISSIMILAR METAL WELDS - DET 26 18 6 5 0 0 69.2 83.3 88%DISSIMILAR METAL WELDS - LENGTH 26 11 12 10 0 0 42.3 83.3 81%DISSIMILAR METAL WELDS - TWS 25 6 14 2 3 1 24.0 14.3 33.3 36%


Piping Pass Rates 2011 to PresentRequalification

# 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 126 77 45 19 11 10 61.1 42.2 90.9 84%LENGTH SIZING / W IGSCC 126 72 49 23 11 11 57.1 46.9 100.0 84%DEPTH SIZING / W IGSCC 35 25 9 5 2 1 71.4 55.6 50.0 89%WOR - SUPPLEMENT 11 21 17 2 2 0 0 81.0 100.0 90%

# 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 16 11 6 4 2 2 68.8 66.7 100.0 106%WOR - SUPPLEMENT 11 2 2 0 0 0 0 100.0 100%


NRC Question Pertaining to Combined Qualifications

136 people have current IGSCC detection qualifications

270 people have Supplement 10 qualifications– 86 (32%) out of the 270

also have current IGSCC qualifications


RPV Pass Rates Since the Start of the Program(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.

Shell (inner 15%) OD (Detection) 147 41 88 41 37 20 27.9 46.6 54.1 69.39%Shell (inner 15%) OD (Length Sizing) 74 68 6 5 1 1 91.9 83.3 100.0 100.00%Shell (inner 15%) OD (Depth Sizing) 74 48 26 22 3 2 64.9 84.6 66.7 97.30%Shell (outher 85%) OD (Detection) 140 77 56 31 21 17 55.0 55.4 81.0 89.29%Shell (outher 85%) OD (Length Sizing) 74 62 10 7 2 2 83.8 70.0 100.0 95.95%Shell (outher 85%) OD (Depth Sizing) 74 56 14 10 2 2 75.7 71.4 100.0 91.89%Noz-to-shell and IR OD (Detection) 48 29 9 7 60.4 77.8 75.00%Noz-to-shell and IR OD (Depth Sizing) 19 12 5 3 2 2 63.2 60.0 100.0 89.47%


RPV Pass Rates Since the Start of the Program(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.

Shell (inner 15%) OD (Detection) 111 47 40 23 17 9 42.3 57.5 52.9 71.17%Shell (inner 15%) OD (Length Sizing) 70 61 9 7 2 2 87.1 77.8 100.0 100.00%Shell (inner 15%) OD (Depth Sizing) 70 40 30 11 19 14 57.1 36.7 73.7 92.86%Shell (outher 85%) OD (Detection) 111 75 23 15 6 5 67.6 65.2 83.3 85.59%Shell (outher 85%) OD (Length Sizing) 85 69 16 11 5 4 81.2 68.8 80.0 98.82%Shell (outher 85%) OD (Depth Sizing) 85 41 44 28 16 8 48.2 63.6 50.0 90.59%Shell (inner 15%) ID (Detection) 155 109 43 38 5 4 70.3 88.4 80.0 97.42%Shell (inner 15%) ID (Length Sizing) 119 110 7 5 2 1 92.4 71.4 50.0 97.48%Shell (inner 15%) ID (Depth Sizing) 119 82 37 27 8 5 68.9 73.0 62.5 95.80%Shell (outher 85%) ID (Detection) 160 91 64 38 21 14 56.9 59.4 66.7 89.38%Shell (outher 85%) ID (Length Sizing) 116 84 32 28 2 2 72.4 87.5 100.0 98.28%Shell (outher 85%) ID (Depth Sizing) 116 51 65 34 25 4 44.0 52.3 16.0 76.72%

Noz-to-shell and IR OD (Detection) 40 18 23 10 10 4 45.0 43.5 40.0 80.00%Noz-to-shell and IR OD (Depth Sizing) 31 18 7 5 58.1 71.4 74.19%

Noz-to-shell and IR ID (Detection) 49 19 26 16 16 9 38.8 61.5 56.3 89.80%Noz-to-shell and IR ID (Length Sizing) 20 16 3 3 80.0 100.0 95.00%Noz-to-shell and IR ID (Depth Sizing) 22 15 5 3 2 1 68.2 60.0 50.0 86.36%


Bolting Pass Rates

# Candid. # Passed # Candid. # Passed # Candid. # Passed %Pass rate %Pass rate %Pass rate Yield %

1st attm. 1st attm. 2nd attm. 2nd attm. 3rd attm. 3rd attm. 1st attm. 2nd attm. 3rd attm.

STRAIGHT BEAM 328 260 56 49 5 3 79.2 87.0 60.0 95.1%

BORE PROBE 86 52 20 6 4 3 62.2 29.4 66.7 70.9%

Examination Type


Summary

PDI continues to monitor pass rates

No significant changes have been observed since last update


Carl Latiolais- EPRISenior Program Manager

Performance Demonstration

NRC Technology Information ExchangeJanuary 2016

IGSCC Qualification Program


Background

Industry asked EPRI for a review of IGSCC qualification history and requirements

This presentation is the summary– Value for individuals who haven’t seen the whole history


Origin of IGSCC Qualification Requirements

October 15, 1982 l&E Bulletin 82-03 required ultrasonic inspection teams to demonstrate their ability to detect IGSCC

1984 Bulletin 84-11 was issued that required that all BWR Owners establish a augmented examination program– Coordination Plan between NRC/EPRI/BWROG (Also known as Tri-party

agreement) was formed

– Addressed detection and discrimination of lGSCC, depth sizing and later incorporated weld overlay

– Required qualification of procedures and personnel

– Required periodic requalification of personnel (3 years)


Origin of IGSCC Qualification Requirements (Continued)

June 1986 NUREG-0313 Revision 2 issued– Recommended formal performance demonstrations for ultrasonic

examiners using the processes defined under the NDE Coordination Plan

January 1988 Generic Letter 88-01 issued– Stated that procedure, equipment and examination personnel shall be

qualified by a formal program approved by the NRC such as the NDE Coordination Plan



Appendices VII and VIII present code rules for qualifying personnel, techniques, and procedures– The 1989 Edition of Section XI of the ASME Code incorporated a new

Appendix VII, "Qualification of Nondestructive Examination Personnel for Ultrasonic Examination”

– The 1989 Addenda to the 1989 Edition incorporated a new Appendix VIII, "Performance Demonstration for Ultrasonic Examination“

– The Code rules provide reasonable assurance that examinations would be performed in a reliable manner



Appendix VIII satisfies the requirements of Generic Letter 88-01 and NUREG-0313

On January 1, 1997 all qualification activities under the Coordination Plan (Three Party Agreement) were terminated

– On this date, IGSCC qualification examinations were to be offered through the PDI Program

On September 2,1998 NRC issued a letter indicating PDI was an acceptable alternative for Generic Letter 88-01

10CFR50 Required the expedited implementation of Appendix VIII Supplements

– May 22, 2000 – Supplement 2

– November 22, 2001 – Supplement 11

– November 22, 2002 – Supplement 10


Appendix VII

Appendix VII (Employer Certification)– Specifies requirements for the training of UT personnel for

certification

– Specifies requirements for the qualification of UT personnel for certification

– Contains requirements for annual training designed to assure examiners maintain proficiency

– Requires periodic recertification (IWA-2300)


Appendix VIII

Appendix VIII (Qualification)– In order to implement Appendix VIII, the industry

developed the Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI)

The qualification approach is intended to be performance based

Relies on the demonstrated ability to detect and size defects in a prescribed number of test specimens

Does not address requalification


10CFR50.55a

Requires 8 hours of annual hands on training on specimens that contain cracks

Must be completed no earlier than 6 months prior to performing ultrasonic examinations

These requirements are designed to maintain examiner proficiency


Requalification

Based on this literature search, since the end of the Three-Party Agreement no requirements for periodic IGSCC requalification remain effective:

– ASME Appendix VII

– Appendix VIII

– 10CFR50

– NUREG 0313

– NRC Generic Letter 88-01

– BWRVIP-75A

NRC research shows that examiner performance in requalification is the same as performance in initial qualification


discussion

Industry Perspective On IGSCC

3-Year Requalification Program

David Anthony,Exelon GenerationPDI Focus Group Chairman

1

Introduction Licensees are challenging themselves to review programs

and processes to determine cost optimization and process improvements

Currently significant resources are being dedicated to implement the 3-year IGSCC requalification program

The 3-year IGSCC requalification process is an area identified for program optimization

2

Industry perspectiveCompared to the 1980’s, the industry has;

• Improved examination processes and techniques

• Implemented periodic hands on practice requirements

• Utilities have implemented mitigation techniques

• Procedure, equipment, and personnel qualification by demonstration has been Codified

3

Industry perspective (cont.)

Identification of new IGSCC cracks has been uncommon in recent years

With the constant improvement the industry has made over the years and the reduced occurrences of IGSCC cracking, IGSCC requalification may no longer provide value

4

Going Forward

Industry will evaluate the need and value of continuing the current IGSCC requalification process

Maintaining examiner proficiency is primary objective and will be factored into any decisions made

5

Industry Perspective On IGSCC 3-Year Requalification Program

Discussion

6





January 2016

Status of Industry’s Broad NDE Reliability

Recommendations Document


Background

NDE OE of DMWs includes cases in which planning, execution, or data review practices resulted in degraded examination performance such as:– Incomplete examination coverage– Identification of service-induced flaws where none existed– Failure to identify service-induced flaws


Background

The NDE Improvement Focus Group (NIFG) was chartered to review the industry’s NDE practices and develop guidelines and recommendations intended to improve the ultrasonic (UT) examination of dissimilar metal welds.

Based on the NDE reliability improvements of the resulting NIFG products (EPRI Reports: 3002000091, 3002000204, and 3002002048), the NDE Action Plan Committee (APC) requested that additional NDE guidance be developed collecting industry best practices into a single document to assist Station NDE personnel with planning and executing other NDE with the same high standards of reliability


Purpose of the recommendations document

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.Provide high level points, intended to guide the user through

key aspects necessary to properly plan and execute efficient, reliable, and meaningful NDECollect “industry best practices” Not to be issued under NEI 03-08


Development of the recommendations document

To develop this guide, an industry focus group was assembled This group was made up of experienced utility and NDE

vendor Level III and ISI personnelFocus group members provided input based on their

knowledge and experienceThe input was collected and summarized under eleven

topics for areas of potential NDE reliability improvements


Guidance Topics

Pre-Examination PreparationScheduling ExaminationsNDE StaffingNDE Staff IndoctrinationExaminer Preparation, Training, and PracticeNDE Focused Pre-Job BriefingUse of Team ScanningOversight of NDEPost-Job DebriefingNDE Data ReviewExamination / Outage Close-out


Schedule

NDE APC action was assigned August 2014

Early 2015 project plan developed

May 2015 Focus Group (FG) assembled

December 2015 draft guide issued to FG for review and comments

Final document expected to be published in second quarter of 2016





January 2016

Diablo Canyon OE(Action 2014-07-03)


Extent of Condition (EOC) Evaluation

The NDE IC formed a focus group (FG) tasked with performing a detailed review of the Diablo Canyon OE and root cause evaluation to determine the extent of condition (EOC) for the industryObjectives of the industry EOC evaluation:

– Understand the Diablo Canyon OE – Determine if this event was the direct cause of inadequate procedure,

equipment, personnel qualifications or the qualification process that requires an extent of condition evaluation for other plants with existing weld overlays

– Determine the industry actions necessary to improve the NDE reliability for weld overlay UT examinations


EOC Conclusions

Based on this EOC review, the FG concluded that additional examination of existing weld overlays at other sites is not warranted– The procedurally defined techniques, if applied correctly, were

capable of detecting and sizing the flaws in the Diablo Canyon weld overlays

– Human performance was a significant contributor to the flaws being missed

– Site implementation was also a contributing factor

Actions can be taken to improve NDE reliability for weld overlay examinations


Industry Actions from EOC

Revised PDI-UT-8 to provide enhancements for the areas identified in the RCE report - Complete

Examined New weld overlay demonstration samples with both the non-encoded conventional and phased array procedures to assure that no additional procedure changes are required - Complete

Endorsed a project to develop a training module that can be used to train and prepare examiners prior to qualification and performing examinations at the plant – Scheduled to be completed Q4 2016– This training will address the OE and contain specific guidance and

recommendations highlighted by the utility root cause

PDI Program fabricated practice mockups representative of non-standard weld overlays - Complete– The NDE IC recommends the use of these mockups prior to performing

ultrasonic examinations of non-standard weld overlays on site to allow the examiner to become familiar with the intricacies of performing examinations of these configurations


Industry Actions from EOC (continued)

Modified the non-standard weld overlay practice mockups to implant fabrication flaws similar to those missed for the purpose of providing indications representative of known field conditions to assist in preparing the examiners for the examinations - CompleteEndorsed project to perform additional research in 2014 to

evaluate approaches to improve the surface contact for the zero degree examinations of small diameter (< 8” diameter) weld overlays – Complete Issued NDE Alert 2014-02 - February 10, 2014 - Complete


NDE Alert 2014-02

Informed utilities and vendors of an inspection issue identified during a recent examination of structural weld overlays (SWOLs), Conveyed industry actions,Provided NDE Integration Committee (IC) recommendations

– Perform a detailed review of the DCPP root cause and corrective actions taken, specifically the enhancements made to the examination procedures to address non-standard overlays, which includes scan speed guidance and sensitivity adjustments

– When applying non-encoded conventional UT examinations of weld overlays, implement the latest revision of the qualified examination procedure

– Prior to performing examinations of non-standard overlays, utilize the practice mockups to prepare examiners


Summary The NDE IC thoroughly evaluated the Diablo Canyon operating experience

and took proactive steps to address the lessons learned – Communicated to the industry the operating experience– Recommended that prior to performing examinations of non-standard overlays,

utilize the practice mockups to prepare examiners– Optimized the examination procedure– Augmented the demonstration sample inventory– Increase the number of practice samples– Optimized the search unit designs– Developing training models that can be used to train examiners

Based on the extend of condition evaluation, the NDE IC has concluded:– The missed fabrication flaws are related to human performance errors and less

than adequate implementation of the examination procedure guidance– The non-encoded conventional examination procedure was capable of detecting

the flaws– Additional examination of existing weld overlays at other sites is not warranted

This presentation closes Action 2014-07-03


discussion


Chris McKean, ExelonBWRVIP Inspection Focus Group Chair

Jeff Landrum, EPRISenior Project Manager


January 2016

BWRVIP NDE Projects


Contents

NDE development relating to BWR instrument nozzle UT

Update on eddy current array technology for detection of atypical core shroud indications– Assessment of conductive and non-conductive coatings

Update on new jet pump beam mockups– Potential acquisition of a new Toshiba jet pump beam

Assessment of Remote Visual Technology

Examination of H9

Related activities


BWR Instrument Nozzle NDE Development

On-going Work

Conducting UT experiments for verification of flaw extent into the low-alloy RPV material

Develop NDE for tube


Eddy Current for Atypical Core Shroud Flaws On-going Activity Initial study using probe designed to detect surface breaking

defects of multiple orientationsSuccessfully detected all flaws and identified all repair areas

& temporary attachment locations2016 work to finalize study on the effect of coatings and

Noble Metal deposits on the surface


Eddy Current for Atypical Core Shroud FlawsEarly ConclusionsConductive and nonconductive layers did not mask the ability

of the Eddy Current Array to detect flaws – Only small changes in amplitude and phase angle

The identification of the weld dilution and weld repair areas was affected to varying degrees based on the probe frequency used during the testing– Probe frequency can be optimized based on the intent of the inspection

– Multiple probe frequencies can be run simultaneously by a single probe (unlike UT)

Tests are scheduled to be repeated with original multi-row eddy current array upon receipt of replacement probe to document effect on original test results– Probe was damaged due to non-optimal mounting design during a dry

storage inspection field trial


Jet Pump Beam Update

In the process of purchasing one Toshiba jet pump beam– Modified Alloy X-718 material

– Will be used to determine inspection challenges

– Expand current jet pump beam demonstration to X-718 material

Plan to contact utilities in 2016 about purchasing Group 2 ratchet mechanisms from inventory– Can be added to existing Group 2 mockups, forming “Group 2 hybrid”

Plan to contact utilities in 2016 about purchasing Group 3 beams and Group 3 ratchet mechanisms from inventory– We know the group 3 ratchet assemblies are different from those used

on Group 2 beams


Assessment of Remote VT Technology

Support completion of the on-going round robin

Evaluate HD camera technology

Fabricate remote visual samples for industry use in training, practice, R&D, etc.

Continue work related to automated image analyses


Examination of weld H9

Investigate improved guidance for identifying flaws that may have propagated into low-alloy RPV material

Develop guidance for RPV examiners related to scanning regions of the RPV surrounding an internal attachment that has an identified flaw

Work will be needed to qualify any new probes for Supplement 4 using EPRI/PDI mockups


Other Related Items

Examination vendors planning to demonstrate and deploy BWRVIP-like techniques for examinations of jet pump welds RS-8/9 scheduled in 2016

Another inspection vendor is demonstrating a core shroud UT technique for atypical flaws

Plan underway to validate flaw manufacturers’ ability to create realistic weld fabrication flaws in thin-wall core spray pipes– Primary interest: does implanted LOF look like real LOF?


Harry Smith, ExelonInspection TAC Chairman



January 2016

Materials Reliability Program

NDE Projects


Inspection TAC Projects

3.0 Reactor Internals InspectionObjective: Provide support for the Reactor Internal inspections by providing NDE system requirements and inspection techniques for reactor internal components and other support.− Maintain the PWR Internals Inspection Standard (MRP-228) - tells

‘how’ to examine internals− Will conduct first two MRP-228 IVI courses for NRC, July 11-15,

2016− Conduct MRP-228 In-Vessel Inspection course annually for members− Participate in remote visual round robin project− Provide revisions to the PWR Internals Inspection and

Evaluation Guidelines (MRP-227) and review revisions − Support Internals Focus Group− Support INPO Material site visits as team member− Participate on PWROG/MRP Internals Core Team


Inspection TAC Projects (cont’d)

7.0 Alloy 600/690 InspectionObjective: Supports the completion of Alloy 600 tasks specifically related to NDE to address open Alloy 600 management items pertaining to inspection limitations

– Maintain the RPV upper head nozzle qualification program– Support the implementation of new mitigation and repair

techniques discussed in the Alloy 600 roadmap, i.e. peening, excavate & weld repair, friction stir welding

– Design and fabricate mockups to meet the needs of the Inspection TAC, i.e. head penetrations, thermal fatigue, etc.

– Monitor the upper head qualification demonstration tests (cost recovery)

– Evaluate technology enhancements for ID piping depth sizing and examinations (Completed)

– Support the Head Penetration Focus Group

Friction Stir Weld


Inspection TAC Projects (cont’d)

8.0 Reliability of Pressure Boundary Components with Thermally Aged Cast Duplex Stainless Steels

Objective: Establish probabilistically based critical flaw sizes to compare against existing and potential NDE (ultrasonic) inspection capabilities for flaw detection in CASS hardware

– Develop technical basis for demonstration and qualification of CASS piping inspections

11.0 FatigueObjective: The nuclear power industry faces challenges relative to the fatigue design basis for currently operating plants and for new plant design and certification.

– Revise UT recommendations and training forthermal fatigue damage in small bore piping – Develop thermal fatigue virtual mockups forcomputer based training


Kevin Hacker, DominionChair, EPRI NDE Integration Committee

Steve Swilley, EPRIDirector, NDE


January 2016

NDE Program projects of regulatory interest


Continuing projects New projects in 2016

Projects related to NDE reliability

1 of 4

More detailed discussion following these tablesMore detailed discussion elsewhere in the agenda


Continuing projects New projects in 20162 of 4




Continuing projects New projects in 20163 of 4




Continuing projects

New projects in 2016Projects related to NDE reliability in the field

4 of 4



2016 Research:Training for the Ultrasonic Examination of Cast Stainless Steel

“It is common sense today to declare that the Non-destructive Evaluation of cast austenitic stainless steel is a tough business.” ~ Ph. Dombret -1989 (AIB-Vincotte)


Training for the Ultrasonic Examination of Cast Stainless Steel

Develops training course materials that address the current and emerging technologies associated with the UT of CASS– Cast stainless steels are very difficult to examine ultrasonically due to highly

attenuative materials and complex configurations– Currently, few training materials exist– Project captures important information, theory and concepts from research

(see report 1026772, Recent Developments in the Inspection of Cast Austenitic Steel Components)

These training materials can be used by utilities to meet the requirements of Code Case N-824Project deliverables:

– Training course materials will be available 3nd Quarter 2016, modular format– Fabrication of several flawed CASS samples– Computer-based training delivered in fall 2017


Typical Mockup


Mockup Photos


Training for Ultrasonic Examination of Cast Stainless Steel

Activity Short Description Date

Material development Develop modules using existing EPRI research and reports September 2016

Design new samples Fill gaps in existing CASS sample inventory Completed

Fabricate new samples Fabricate new CASS samples with flaws February 2016

Develop CBT Convert training materials to CBT October 2017

Three new samples (360° segments) were designed – These 3 new samples will be cut down to create 8 new CASS

samples to supplement the existing 12

The above dates include delays in order to include information developed during the CASS round robin study


2016 Research:Computer-based training (CBT) for weld overlay NDE

Background– Operating experience has shown that some current Appendix VIII-

qualified examiners may benefit from construction-related NDE experience

This CBT familiarizes examiners with:– The welding processes– The different types of potential fabrication defects (including the

potential areas where these defects are likely to be found)– Guidance on performing flaw evaluations– A review of past operating experience Includes a specific module on the Diablo Canyon OE and its

lessons


Computer-based training (CBT) for weld overlay NDE

The product will be available in two formats– Stand-alone executable training module that can be downloaded or

ordered– A NANTeL-compliant format that can be adapted and added to the

licensee’s current line-up of CBT courses for worker in-processing, or can be used on an as-needed basis

Status– Beta Version will be available for testing Q2 of 2016A US licensee has agreed to perform the beta testing

– Final Version will be available late Q3 / early Q4 of 2016 Pending beta testing results and comments; will take longer if the

beta identifies major unforeseen needs


Computer-based training (CBT) for weld overlay NDE

Activity Name Short Description Date

Story Board Content Creation

Create all content required for training based on outline 8/30/2015

Interaction Creation

Create digital interactions to be embedded in the CBT to aid in information retention

Q4 2015 / Q1 2016

Worksheet and Quiz Creation

Create all worksheets and quizzes required for NANTeL and stand-alone CBT along with any other planned interactions

Q1 2016

Release Beta Version

Beta Version of CBT is released for testing by volunteers

Q1 / Q22016

Final Version Release

Final Version with all comments from Beta testing resolved is released to members

Q3 / Q42016


2016 Research:Support for Codification of ultrasonic phased array essential variables – Part B

Project objective is to identify phased array UT (PAUT) essential variables for codification under ASME Section XI– EPRI performed a study in 2013 – 2015 identifying potential PAUT

essential variables– The wide range of phased array ultrasonic systems and terminology

differences introduced challenges– Support for Codification becomes the major activity


Support for Codification of ultrasonic phased array essential variables – Part B

Codification efforts are currently underway– The topic has been opened up for discussion– NRC staff and contractors are participating through their involvement

with the ASME Code

Activity Short Description DateCommenting Period

Comments solicited from membership based on the report detailing the 2013 and 2014 work. 11/2015

Final variable testing

Completion of the variable tests for items discovered late in 2014 and early in 2015 11/2015

Publish; begin Code support Final public report issued. Q2?

2016


discussion


Tony Oliveri, PSEG NuclearChair, Industry Remote VT Ad-Hoc

Committee

John LindbergProgram Manager – NDE Innovation

Industry/NRC NDE Technical Information Exchange Meeting

January 20, 2016

Research under the MOU:Remote VT


Topics

BackgroundPhase 2 results

– Generally positive– Room for improvementPhase 3 plan and status of implementation

– All planned and on trackPotential outcomes

– Industry, regulatory, Code


Background

NRR requested RES to evaluate the capabilities of remote visual examination (RVT) for flaw detection

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

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

NRC – US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRR – NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

RES – NRC’s Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research


Background

Earlier studies suggested that flaws with crack opening dimensions (COD) of <~ 30 μm are not reliably detected by today’s remote visual examinations

There are many aspects to consider: Technique

Speed, angle, cleaning, zoom, field of view

Global experienceSwedish and Swiss utilities had to qualify remote VT procedures and personnel for stress corrosion crack detection

RelevanceThe detection-limiting aspect of the target cracking is its COD, but COD is not related to structural significance


Joint research program, NRC and Industry:Three-phase approach

Phase 1Completed in August 2010– Provided data to support design of phase 2 testing

Phase 2Testing completed in Feb. 2013, analysis completed in 2014– Assessed capabilities of current field practice – five ISI vendors– Results suggest that improvements in performance are achievable

Phase 3In process– Assess technology and process improvements


Phase 2 round robin

Equipment Performance– All camera systems performed well– The vast majority of the flaws are visible in the recorded data Many flaws that were missed by the 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


Phase 2 results – detection vs. flaw size

0%

50%

100%20% 37%

55% 57%85%

Detection vs COD

0%20%40%60%80%

0%

40%56%

72%

Detection vs Length


Phase 2 round robin

Performance on ceramic plates with notches– Detection excellent (all teams)– Low false call rate– Factors contributing to strong performance Notches only, no cracks Minimal presence of grinding and

scratches Flaw location – notches were not placed

directly on weld toe Adequate practice samples were available


Phase 2 round robin

Performance on stainless plates with cracks– Varied between teams– Primary factors Flaw size – many small flaws, both COD

and length Greater presence of grinding, scratches,

weld ripples, etc. at flaw locations Some flaws were in weld toe Only limited practice samples were

available


Phase 2 summary and conclusions

Ceramic plates– Perfect detection performance– Specimens have few ‘confusion factors’

Cracked SS plates – Performance was variable

Performance indicated opportunities for improvements– Procedures – need more extensive guidance in discriminating flaws– Personnel – need practice – Technology – opportunities less clear

The cameras performed much better than the people and the procedures;indicates a need to improve the people and procedures

before evaluating ways to optimize the equipment


Phase 3 plans - Overview

Objectives– Include some good

field practices that were not included in Phase 2 (e.g., Level III review of the recorded data)

– Determine the effectiveness of improved procedure guidance

Actions– Blind testing at EPRI facilities– Vendors are using existing equipment

and techniques, with some specific additional procedural guidance

– EPRI/PNNL will evaluate overall results independently

– Quantify any image degradation in recorded data Supplementary resolution standard

– Independent EPRI & PNNL reports will be published prior to end of 2016 Includes both Phase 2 and Phase 3

results


Phase 3 – Changes from Phase 2

Test protocolChanges agreed by all parties– Improved training sample set– Test samples containing only cracks (no

laser notches)– Allow a secondary review of examination

data– Allow a limited number of re-looks

(maximum of 20 areas/indications)– Allow external lighting if desired– Use supplemental guidance provided by

EPRI/PNNL

New Toe Crack Fabrication Process (EPRI)– Tests completed (next

slides)– Test specimens

fabricated, and completed fingerprinting

– No QA issues Final test matrix –

combination of EPRI and PNNL specimens


Deviates from

weld toeDeviates from weld toe

Follows weld toe

Weld toe crack with average COD of approximately 22 µm

New specimen fabrication process: weld toe crack


Testing Protocol

Using EPRI supplied manipulator, a camera operator will scan the camera over the inspection region as directed by the Primary AnalystMay adjust angle, lighting, zoom, etc.

– Camera distance must be maintained within the constraints established during the resolution demonstration check

Primary Analyst makes initial calls using the live video feedThe completed data sheet and recorded data for each

sample are supplied to a Secondary Analyst– A limited number of test blocks may be identified for re-examination

(a maximum of 20 specific areas)

– During re-examination the Primary & Secondary Analysts may consult

Final data sheets are completed and submitted


Execution of Phase 3 Testing

Testing Status– 5 vendors participating; 4 have completed testing

– Vendor 5 scheduled for week of Jan 25th

– Logistically, testing has gone well, no surprises

– Cannot share any observations about performance until the final participant has finished

Next steps– Analyze the results – both EPRI and PNNL independently Periodic discussions on analysis at appropriate times

– Publish reports (late 2016)


discussion





January 2016

Research under the MOU:

Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel


Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel Round Robin StudyThe NDE IC funded a project to conduct a round robin study

(RRS) to evaluate the state of the current UT techniques examination of CASS material

This project is a continuation of the Industry’s previous projects for CASS materials– Locate appropriate CASS materials for mockups

– Flaw manufacturing processes

– Technique evaluations

The study will assess crack detection, sizing, and discrimination between relevant and non relevant indications

A series of mockups were manufactured by adapting the flaw fabrication techniques developed in the previous project and applying them in mockups with challenging and realistic geometry


Typical Mockup


Mockup Photos


Protocol

A protocol document was developed to provide potential participants with the information necessary to develop a plan to participateThe protocol document contains:

– General information – objectives, scope, project organization, potential participant list, security protocol, and schedule

– Specimen information – configuration drawings, examination volume, and defect specifications

– Written procedure requirements – Testing accommodations – available equipment, scanning setup, and

invigilators– Examination setup and testing protocol – process, rules, and universal

coordinate system– How the results will be evaluated and reported to the industry


Status

Invitations sent to potential participant organizations– Many declined to participate due to financial issues– First participant completed work in August 2015; this has been the

only participant so far– Several participants who were scheduled for later 2015 windows later

canceled due to other emergent work– Extended RRS into 2016 to allow other opportunities for participation– Working on rescheduling participants that had to cancel in 2015– NRC/PNNL has agreed to participate in 2016

Results of the study will be tabulated and published in December 2016– May include fewer participating organizations than originally desired– The results will be published without identifying the organization or

individuals that collected & analyzed the data


discussion


Gary Lofthus, Southern NuclearNDE Integration Committee Vice Chair



January 2016

Research under the MOU:HDPE


Topics

NDE Round Robin & Mechanical Testing

A current HDPE Relief Request of interest

Summary 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

Objective

– Identify candidate techniques for detecting cold fusion

– Demonstrate the techniques’ effectiveness

– Inform ASME Code’s development of cold fusion detection guidance


HDPE NDE & Round Robin Mechanical Testing

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

ASME Section III Appendix nn

– One size will be used: 14” DR7 (2” thick)

– 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 or 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

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.

NDE Round Robin– Organizations will be asked to examine the mockups

– Results will be kept confidential

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


A current HDPE Relief Request of interestRelief Request from Standards

Committee (SC) XI IWA-4221(b)– Replacing SC III carbon steel with HDPE in

class 3 system– Using the requirements from

SC III Appendix nn (Similar to N-751)

Must qualify the UT procedure– Requested EPRI to provide a cost estimate

to develop the test and assist with mockup fabrication

– Cold fusion will not be included because pressure testing will address cold fusion

– USNRC has approved Relief– ANT (Advanced Nuclear Technology)

Program and the affected licensee will fund this project


NDE Qualification Program linked to the relief request

Tasks include:

– Flaw making trials, UT procedure development, mock-up fabrication and demonstration, document technical basis, vendor demonstration

Timeline

– Work began in May, 2015

– Finish Spring 2016

– Some site testing June 2016

– Installation scheduled for 2017

Anticipate this work will be valuable for future safety-related applicationsLicensee has separate Visual examination training and testing

programs per the Relief Request


Summary of findings published in recent EPRI reports

UT is effective detecting contamination and lack of fusion type flaws

Mechanical testing has been performed to provide engineering data to design an HDPE system– Seismic

– Fatigue

– Slow crack growth

Cold fusion is difficult to fabricate or duplicate and detect

Currently developing acceptance criteria for HDPE flaws to incorporate into ASME Code


Recent EPRI Reports “Repair of High Density Polyethylene Pipe,” 1019172 (2009) “Nondestructive Evaluation: Ultrasonic Examination Techniques for High Density

Polyethylene Pipes” 1022941 (2011) “Slow Crack Growth Testing of High Density Polyethylene Pipe – 2011 Update,”

1022565 (2011); available from Distribution Center ([email protected]) “Fire Testing of High Density Polyethylene Pipe,” 1023004 "Seismic Properties of High Density Polyethylene Pipe for Use in Above Ground

Applications,“ 1021095; available from Distribution Center ([email protected]) “Correlation of Sustained Pressurized Pipe Tests to Da/Dt versus KI Curves for Cell

Classification 445574C HDPE,” report number yet to be assigned

mailto:[email protected]


Recent EPRI Reports (Continued)

“Tensile Stress-Strain Properties and Elastic Modulus of PE 4710 Cell Classification 445574C High Density Polyethylene Pipe Material,” 1025254 (2012) “Development of Crack Growth Curves and Correlation to Sustained

Pressure Test Results for Cell Classification 445574C High-Density Polyethylene Pipe Material,” 1025253 (2012) “Creep and Fatigue Properties of PE 4710 Cell Classification 445574C High

Density Polyethylene Pipe Material,” 3002000592 (2013) “Nondestructive Evaluation: High-Density Polyethylene NDE Technology,”

3002000439 (2013) “An Assessment of Industry Data Related to Essential Variables for Fusing

High Density Polyethylene Pipe,” 3002000598 (2013) “Nondestructive Evaluation: Technique Development to Evaluate the Joint

Strength of High-Density Polyethylene Butt Fused Pipe Joints,” 3002003032 (2014) “Advanced Nuclear Technology: The Long-Term Oxidative Resistance of

Butt Fusion Joints in High-Density Polyethylene Piping,” 3002003120 (2014) “Advanced Nuclear Technology: Material Properties Affecting the Butt

Fusion of HDPE Pipe,” 3002003133 (2014)


Kevin Hacker, DominionChair, NDE Integration Committee



January 2016

Research under the MOU:

Modeling and simulation


Modeling and simulation (M&S) MOU Attachmentincludes four Tasks

Benchmarking and validating models’ regimes of validity– Task 1: Beamforming– Task 2: Wave modesBulk shear and longitudinal wavesSurface wavesQuasi-shear and quasi-longitudinal waves (anisotropic media)

– Task 3: Flaw responseSpecular, for detectionDiffractive, for sizing

Mutually acceptable ways to use models– Task 4: Modeling best practicesProcedures for modeling that will produce repeatable results

accepted by all parties


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

Models to use

Model functionalities

Probe types

Components to model

Practical tasks

Task Subtask Deliverable Status

Assess Simulation of Transmitted Sound Fields

Simple Geometries Exchange information, results as mutually determined

Ongoing; making framework

Similar Metal Piping Weld

Pending framework

Dissimilar Metal Piping Weld

Pending framework

Ability of Models to Address All Waveforms

Use subset of above configurations

Referenceablereport or white paper

EPRI and NRC have each started

Flaw Description, Addressing Specular and Diffracted Patterns

Simple reflectors Referenceablereport or white paper

EPRI and NRC have each started

Crack-like reflectors Not started

Modeling Best Practices, to ensure results are repeatable and mutually acceptable

To expand existing practical qualifications

Referenceablereports or white papers based on the first three tasks

This activity will occur at the end

For prediction or review of examination coverageTo increase understanding of prior examination results


Prioritization of work - models

Model Model priority

Model approach Soundfields Noise

Flaw response -specular

Flaw response -diffraction

CIVA 1Semi-

analytical; raytracing

Y Y Y Y

Wave3000 2 Finite difference Y Y Y

ABAQUS 2 Finite element Y Y Y

Ultravision 2 Soundfieldsonly Y N N N

Comsol 3 Finite element

Matlab Brute force

PZFlex Finite element

Wave2000 Finite difference


Prioritization of work - model functionalities and probe types

Functionality Order of attack Priority

Beamforming 1 1

Modes 1 1

Mode conversions 1 1

Specular 2 1

Diffraction (back) 3 3

Noise 4 2

Attenuation 4 2

Anisotropy 4 2

Diffraction (forward) 5 3

Immersion 6 4

Probe types Order of attack

Probes priority

Conv. Single 1 1

Conv. Dual 2 1

PA linear single 3 1

PA linear dual 4 1

PA matrix single 5 3

PA matrix dual 5 3

TOFD 6 2

Total Focusing Method 7 4

Full Matrix Capture 7 4

Immersion


Prioritization of components and of model usages

Component Order of addressing

Component priority

Steel 1

Stainless welds far side 2 2

DM welds 3 1

CRDM 4

CASS 5 3

BMN 6

HDPE 7

Concrete 8

Model usages Jobs order of attack Jobs priority

Probe and procedure

design1 1

Site-specific mockup process

1 1

Relief requests 2 2

Coverage 2 2

Proficiency maintenance 3 1

Qualification 3 3


Schedule

Multi-year initiative

Some of the tasks are simpler than others – the earliest completion probably will be Task 1, Beamforming

Task 4, Best Practices, will be developed and published throughout, as agreement is reached on each piece of the puzzle


Present status

PNNL and EPRI are inventorying probes, mockups and encoded data sets– Maximize the use of existing data sets– Find the right minimum subset to support benchmarking and

validation– Some probes and encoded data sets have been shared

PNNL and EPRI are drafting procedures for performing and documenting the work to be performed within the MOU– Soundfield data acquisition– Flaw response data acquisition– Modeling

PNNL suggested the creation of a data analysis metric to reduce subjectivity in data analysis/comparisons.


Present status (continued)

EPRI has completed an Ultrasonic Benchmarking Simulation Study (publicly available)

– Benchmarking of Ultrasonic Simulation Software. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2015. 3002004439.

Specimen, Experimental and Simulation Setup, and Results for 3 Study Cases:

Case Study Specimen Defects Frequency

(MHz) Wave Type

Beam Angle Simulation Software

UT0

SS Step Block

(~3-13mm thick)

None 1.5 & 5.0 L 0° CIVA V10.1, Wave3000 Plus

UT1Cast Iron

Block (~38-63mm thick)

Round bottom holes

3.5 L 0° Wave2000 Plus

UT2SS Block(~25mm thick)

Straight notches

1.5 & 3.5 & 5.0 T 45°& 60° CIVA V11.0a


Summary

Modeling and simulation have played a key role in NDE qualification for decades

Today’s better models and computing platforms will enable much more efficient design and qualification of NDE equipment and procedures

Modeling and simulation are well suited for enhancing the ability of examiners to maintain their proficiency

EPRI and RES are developing the framework under which modeling can be performed in a controlled and validated manner

action item reviewsupplement 4 & 6 coordinated imp. 2 proposed changes to clarify coordinated...

Documents