2012 TECHNICAL REPORT

Electric Power Research Institute

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
Nondestructive Evaluation: Indication
Characterization, Evaluation, and
Disposition Guideline

EPRI Project Manager
H. Stephens



3420 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1338
USA

PO Box 10412
Palo Alto, CA 94303-0813
USA

800.313.3774
650.855.2121
askepri@epri.com 1025225
www.epri.com Final Report, October 2012
Nondestructive Evaluation:
Indication Characterization,
Evaluation, and Disposition
Guideline






This document does NOT meet the requirements of
10CFR50 Appendix B, 10CFR Part 21, ANSI
N45.2-1977 and/or the intent of ISO-9001 (1994)




DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE
TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT
OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS
DOCUMENT.
REFERENCE HEREIN TO ANY SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, PROCESS, OR SERVICE BY ITS TRADE
NAME, TRADEMARK, MANUFACTURER, OR OTHERWISE, DOES NOT NECESSARILY CONSTITUTE OR
IMPLY ITS ENDORSEMENT, RECOMMENDATION, OR FAVORING BY EPRI.
THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATION PREPARED THIS REPORT:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

THE TECHNICAL CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT WERE NOT PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
EPRI NUCLEAR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM MANUAL THAT FULFILLS THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR
50, APPENDIX B AND 10 CFR PART 21, ANSI N45.2-1977 AND/OR THE INTENT OF ISO-9001 (1994).
USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT IN NUCLEAR SAFETY OR NUCLEAR QUALITY
APPLICATIONS REQUIRES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS BY USER PURSUANT TO THEIR INTERNAL PROCEDURES.





NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail askepri@epri.com.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHERSHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are
registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2012 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

This publication is a corporate
document that should be cited in the
literature in the following manner:
Nondestructive Evaluation: Indication
Characterization, Evaluation, and
Disposition Guideline.
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2012.
1025225.
iii
Acknowledgments
The following organization prepared this report:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
1300 West W.T. Harris Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28262
Principal Investigator
H. Stephens
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
EPRI thanks Philip Ashwin, Michael Blanchard, Leif Esp, Bret
Flesner, Douglas Kull, Carl Latiolais, Greg Selby, and Ronald Swain
for their contributions to this report.
Contributors to this research include the following:
M. Brooks Detroit Edison Company
R. Linden PPL Susquehanna, LLC
A. Reed Constellation Energy Group
L. Spiess South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company


v
Abstract
Operating experience of in-service inspections (ISIs) of nuclear
power plants includes cases in which human error or inadequate
implementation of examination plans resulted in issues with the
application of qualified nondestructive evaluation (NDE) procedures.
These issues can result in degraded NDE performance. The
operating experience for the basis of the initial report centered
principally on ultrasonic testing (UT) examination of dissimilar metal
welds (DMWs) in reactor piping systems. The more recent
operational experience continues to be based on improper
interpretation of UT welds in reactor piping systems, although one
instance centered on not detecting the discontinuities, rather than
improper interpretation. This report is being expanded to address
NDE methods in addition to ultrasonics. These methods are liquid
penetrant, magnetic particle, and radiographic examination.
This report provides guidance for nuclear power plant owners in
planning and executing NDE so that the process for identification,
characterization, evaluation, and disposition of detected indications by
various NDE methods is addressed in a systematic manner. Based on a
review of nuclear power plant approaches to NDE information
processing, there are two different philosophical approaches typically
used: bottom-up and top-down. Both approaches have advantages for
the initial detection of indications. After an indication is detected and
confirmed to be a true indication, the accurate determination of whether
it is a relevant or a nonrelevant indication can require significant effort
and time. A comprehensive understanding by all involved of the
systematic process required to make an accurate determination is
essential. This understanding of the process and the time necessary to
accomplish it will minimize the occurrence of significant human errors
while maximizing the probability of a smoothly executed outage with
completion of the planned scope. Because the principal purpose of ISI is
the detection of service-related flaws, the development of a
comprehensive outage contingency plan is essential to minimizing the
impact when relevant indications are detected. This report does not
address any recommendations in accordance with the Nuclear Energy
Institute 03-08, Revision 1, Guideline for the Management of
Materials Issues.
Keywords
Indication evaluation Nondestructive evaluation (NDE)
Liquid penetrant examination Radiographic examination
Magnetic particle examination Ultrasonic testing (UT)

vii
Table of Contents

Section 1: Introduction ............................................. 1-1
Background ..................................................................... 1-1
Glossary ......................................................................... 1-6
Section 2: General Considerations for Evaluation
of NDE Indications ................................... 2-1
Interpretation, Characterization, and Evaluation .................. 2-1
Section 3: Process for Interpretation of Manual
Ultrasonic Indications ............................... 3-1
UT Oversight ................................................................. 3-15
NDE Data from Prior Examinations ................................... 3-15
Supplemental NDE ......................................................... 3-17
Service History ............................................................... 3-17
Contingency Plans .......................................................... 3-23
Section 4: General Consideration for
Interpretation and Evaluation of
Radiographic, Magnetic Particle, and
Liquid Penetrant Indications ..................... 4-1
Section 5: Process for Interpretation of
Radiographic Indications ......................... 5-1
Introduction ..................................................................... 5-1
Background ..................................................................... 5-1
Analog Images ................................................................ 5-2
Image Quality ............................................................ 5-2
Radiographic Density ....................................................... 5-3
Density Limitations ...................................................... 5-3
Image Quality Indicators ............................................. 5-4
Digital Images ............................................................ 5-8
Evaluation of Digitized Film ImagesASME Section
V, Article 2, Mandatory Appendix VI ............................ 5-9
Evaluation of Phosphor Imaging Plate Images
Article 2, Mandatory Appendix VIII ............................ 5-11
Digital Image Processing ........................................... 5-13

viii
Discontinuity Indications .................................................. 5-15
ASME Section XI Acceptance Criteria ............................... 5-15
Section 6: Process for Interpretation of Magnetic
Particle Indications .................................. 6-1
Section 7: Process for Interpretation of Liquid
Penetrant Indications ............................... 7-1
Section 8: Conclusions ............................................. 8-1
Section 9: References ............................................... 9-1
In-Text Citations ............................................................... 9-1
Bibliography .................................................................... 9-2
Appendix A: Example PDI Generic Procedure
Evaluation Guidance ................................ A-1
Appendix B: Example Utility ISI Indication
Decision Trees .......................................... B-1
Appendix C: Example Utility Contingency Plans ..... C-1



ix
List of Figures

Figure 2-1 Fundamental NDE evaluation process ...................... 2-2
Figure 3-1 The ultrasonic characteristics of fabrication flaws
and cracks ...................................................................... 3-1
Figure 3-2 The initial, qualified UT examination detects the
cracks and also fabrication defects that look like cracks ....... 3-2
Figure 3-3 Detailed analysis eliminates most of the false
calls, while retaining the correct crack detections ................. 3-3
Figure 3-4 Decision tree for manual ultrasonic weld
examination indication resolution ....................................... 3-4
Figure 3-5 Ultrasonic beam redirection .................................... 3-8
Figure 3-6 Example fabrication flaw UT data .......................... 3-10
Figure 3-7 Logic path for the evaluation of fabrication-
related flaws detected during an in-service volumetric
examination .................................................................. 3-20
Figure 4-1 ASME Section XI, single flaws ................................. 4-5
Figure 4-2 ASME Section XI, aligned linear flaws
1
>
2
(
1

is greater than or equal to
2
) ............................................ 4-5
Figure 4-3 ASME Section XI, nonaligned parallel flaws
1

>
2
, s is less than or equal to
1
......................................... 4-6
Figure 4-4 ASME Section XI, overlapping parallel flaws ............. 4-6
Figure 4-5 ASME Section XI, overlapping flaws ........................ 4-6
Figure 4-6 ASME Section XI, non-overlapping flaws
1
>
2
...... 4-6
Figure 4-7 ASME Section XI, multiple parallel flaws ................... 4-7
Figure 4-8 Summary of ASME Section XI, linear flaw
proximity requirements ...................................................... 4-7
Figure 4-9 ASME Section XI, Table IWB-3510-3 ....................... 4-8
Figure 4-10 ASME Section XI, Table IWB-3518-2 ..................... 4-9

x
Figure 4-11 ASME Section XI, Table IWB-3510-2 ................... 4-10
Figure 5-1 ASME Section V, Article 2, Table T-283 ................... 5-4
Figure 6-1 Fundamental NDE evaluation process ....................... 6-3
Figure A-1 Indication evaluation flow chart .............................. A-6



1-1

Section 1: Introduction
Background
Thousands of nondestructive evaluations (NDEs) are performed every day
around the world. The results of these examinations significantly contribute to a
safer world. Additionally, these examinations help to reduce costs in the
production, maintenance, and operation of components and structures.
Hundreds of NDEs are successfully conducted every year at operating nuclear
power plants, but recent industry operating experiences have identified several
instances in which improper flaw characterizations led to the initial
misinterpretation of ultrasonic data containing fabrication-related discontinuities.
A number of factors have been identified that contributed to the initial
misinterpretation of these indications, including improved examination detection
sensitivity, the use of more performance-based qualified systems (personnel,
equipment, and procedures), and the focus on surface-connected service-induced
discontinuities. The most recent reported operating experience continues to be
based on ultrasonic testing (UT) of dissimilar metal welds (DMWs) in reactor
piping systems; however, this issue centered on not detecting the discontinuities
rather than improper interpretation. Efforts are underway to address this issue
based on the root cause analysis of the missed detection. In addition to
ultrasonics, other NDE methods are required to examine nuclear power plant
components. This report is being updated and expanded to address NDE
methods in addition to ultrasonics. These other methods are liquid penetrant,
magnetic particle, and radiographic examination.
This report provides the steps and decision trees for processing manual UT, liquid
penetrant, magnetic particle testing, and radiographic NDE data to effectively
characterize, evaluate, and disposition indications detected in nuclear power plant
piping, including DMWs. There are certain fundamental steps that apply to all
NDE method indications. These fundamental steps will be detailed, in addition to
the specific steps unique to the manual UT, liquid penetrant, magnetic particle
testing, and radiographic NDE methods for fabrication and in-service indications
in nuclear power plant components. The steps detailed herein are based on
licensees who are required to comply with the American Society for Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Rules for
Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, as conditioned by the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Title 10 Code of Federal
Regulations (10CFR), Part 50.55(a). Other licensees will find the report useful but
might need to adapt it to their specific code(s) and regulatory requirements.

1-2
A number of prior guidelines have been developed to assist in the detection of
service-induced discontinuities. The industry has recognized the need for an
additional guide to assist utility and service provider NDE personnel, plant
management, regulators, and other stakeholders in the process of indication
evaluation. This updated report includes generic indication evaluation
information for the UT, radiographic, magnetic particle, and liquid penetrant
examination methods. For ultrasonic indications, the focus is on discrimination
of surface-connected in-service discontinuities from embedded fabrication
discontinuities. In addition to this report, the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI) has produced samples containing embedded fabrication flaws, and may
develop additional samples, to better prepare UT examiners to distinguish
between fabrication discontinuities and surface-connected service-related
discontinuities. The proper interpretation of any NDE indication includes the
review of more data than those provided by the initial examination that detects
the indication. If this process is not properly followed, an inefficient response to
the initial indication can ensue. It should be noted that this report does not
invoke any Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 03-08, Revision 1, Guideline for the
Management of Materials Issues, requirements at this time.
Utilities can significantly improve the indication interpretation process by
proactive advance planning prior to performing any NDEs. Preparations should
be made in advance as to how relevant indications will be addressed if detected.
Based on a review of a number of utilities in-service inspection (ISI) programs,
some develop detailed pre-examination ISI packages that contain all of the
recommended information and make this available to the examiners, while others
do not. This difference in approach is, in some cases, a philosophical issue.
The bottom-up information-processing approach addressed in cognitive theory is
to have examiners conduct and report results based only on the NDE indications
detected with no prior knowledge of previously reported discontinuities. In
bottom-up processing, data are considered on their own merits without
preconceptions or expectations. The top-down information-processing approach
is to have examiners armed with more information about the item to be
examined prior to performing the examination so that, if they detect indications,
they can make a more informed interpretation of detected indications at that
point in the process. There are advantages to both approaches. In either
approach, interpretation of detected indications should not be made prematurely.
As addressed in the EPRI report Cognitive Correlates of Ultrasonic Inspection
Performance (NP-6675), one of the most important elements of inspection
success is avoidance of reaching conclusions early in the inspection process,
before all available information has been obtained and considered [1].
During the fabrication and construction of nuclear power plants components,
discontinuities result as an integral part of the material fabrication and construction
processes. The applicable codes and specifications provide requirements for the
type, number, size, and location of allowable discontinuities; they do not require
that the materials are discontinuity-free. These codes and specifications specify
certain NDE methods to be used to detect discontinuities. These codes and
specifications do not require that all of the detected discontinuities be removed.

1-3
Fabrication flaws not detected or removed in accordance with ASME Section III,
Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components, or other applicable codes
or specifications are routinely detected by preservice or in-service NDE methods.
As examination sensitivity has increased, detection of fabrication-related defects
has also increased. Examiners should be trained to recognize and properly
characterize these fabrication flaws, as well as in-service ones.
The characterization, interpretation, and evaluation of NDE indications are complex.
They can be compared with the systematic differential diagnosis process used by
physicians, which begins by considering the most likely diagnosis first. Examiners
collect and assemble the evidence and, based on knowledge and experience, eliminate
all of the discontinuity types that could not produce the indication(s) and converge to
the one with the highest probability of causing the indication(s).
Two specific operating experiences have highlighted the importance of following
the entire evaluation process to its conclusion. Each was a UT examination of a
DMW by a Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI)-qualified examiner
using a PDI-qualified procedure and equipment. Section XI of the ASME Code
contains the rules for ISIs of nuclear plant components. The general
requirements for qualification of NDE personnel contained in Section XI, IWA-
2300, are amended by Section XI, Appendix VIII. Appendix VIII describes the
additional requirements for performance demonstration of UT examination
systems that integrate personnel, equipment, and procedures into a single entity.
ASME Code Section XI, Appendix VIII, also includes 14 supplements that
contain specific instructions for the conduct of performance demonstrations,
including specimen requirements, conduct of performance demonstration, and
acceptance criteria. A more recent operating experience, detailed in the following,
reemphasizes the critical nature of initial detection of discontinuities:
During a manual examination of a nozzle weld in the St. Lucie Nuclear Power
Plants retired pressurizer in February 2008, extensive indications were detected
with an initial interpretation of possible cracking. Because the examination was
conducted as a research activity on a component not in service, no urgency was
attached to completing the detailed analysis required by the examination
procedure. The regulator determined that the indications raised significant
safety concerns to the extent that consideration was given to shutting down
eight similar operating plants for expedited examination. Subsequent
completion of the procedures indication interpretation process showed that the
indications were a result of structurally benign fabrication defects.
An indication was reported in a pressurizer safety relief nozzle-to-safe-end
DMW during the March 2010 refueling outage at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear
Power Plant. The initial interpretation was that the indication showed the
presence of cracking; this raised great industry and regulatory interest because
the weld had previously been mitigated using a stress improvement process,
and cracking should have been impossible. Large efforts and expenditures
were incurred in preparation for removal and repair of the weld, while the
completion of the indication interpretation process proceeded in parallel.
Ultimately, the indication was interpreted to be the result of structurally
benign fabrication defects.

1-4
On March 24, 2012, at 1855 hours, with Unit 1 in Mode 6, refueling, two
through-wall cracks were identified after machining the Unit 1 B steam
generator (SG) hot leg nozzle. The defects were identified after machining
approximately 0.71.1 in. (17.7827.94 mm) of material from the nozzle-to-
safe-end weld in preparation of full structural weld overlays. Machining of
the nozzle was necessary in order to eliminate the taper, which would
interfere with the final volumetric UT examinations. The material thickness
of the DMW after final machining was approximately 4.1 in. (104.14 mm).
Because the leakage from the DMW was not noticed until completion of the
machining process (because of masking effects of the machining oils and
lubricants), the exact through-wall lengths of the cracks are unknown.
However, based on visual and surface examinations, the two through-wall
cracks were axially oriented and fully contained within the Alloy 82/182
DMW. Also, it was concluded that the cracks did not propagate through the
entire weld based on the as-found condition of the pipe (for example, no
boric acid). Further investigation, using conventional manual UT
examination methods, located the two through-wall cracks, as well as three
additional indications with varying degrees of propagation. No unacceptable
indications were identified in the A or C hot leg nozzle DMWs (post-
machining) using conventional UT methods [2].
During manual UT examination conducted in September 2012 of 12-in.
[304.8-mm] diameter, schedule 80 (t =0.687 in. [17.45 mm]) ferritic welds in
N4 feedwater nozzles at an international members plant, several indications
were interpreted to be cracking. Prior to beginning commercial operation, all
four N4 feedwater nozzles were field modified to incorporate a new thermal
sleeve design. This field modification included the replacement of the
original stainless steel safe end with carbon steel components. After the
modifications were complete, in addition to radiographic examinations, fully
automated UT examinations were performed. Root geometry was recorded
during the UT examination of all four safe-end-to-pipe similar metal ferritic
welds. During the 2012 manual UT in-service examinations performed,
crack-like linear indications were reported in all four feedwater safe-end-to-
pipe similar metal ferritic welds. The unexpected reporting of significant
crack-like indications in ferritic welds, which have no known damage
mechanism, prompted the utility to perform radiographic examinations of all
four welds. The results of these radiographic examinations were reviewed by
the utility and their vendor and compared with the construction radiographs
from the 1990s. The indications were again determined to be acceptable slag
and heavy root convexity. The radiographs also showed that the ultrasonic
indications were in the same areas as the radiographic indications.

The radiographs were sent to EPRI for digitization and an independent
review, which again confirmed that the indications were embedded slag
inclusions and heavy root reinforcement. The inspection vendor then
performed an encoded automated UT examination on the four welds that
more precisely identified the indication locations as root geometry and
interpass slag. EPRI personnel reviewed this new encoded data in Charlotte,
North Carolina, and on-site personnel performed a manual examination of

1-5
the indication locations. EPRIs evaluation of the 2012 encoded examination
data confirmed the presence of the indications identified during the manual
UT examinations; however, the increased characterization capabilities of the
encoded examination technique indicated that the most likely origin of the
reported indications was several embedded fabrication flaws contained within
the weld that were accompanied by an unusual inside surface condition. The
inside surface condition yields significant responses that, in most instances,
are readily identifiable from only one side of the ferritic weld. These inside
surface responses are not consistent with service-induced planar flaws because
these responses are not readily identifiable from both beam directions. The
responses significant amplitude and favorability for detection from only one
beam direction indicate that a significant asymmetric ultrasonic reflector near
the weld root is the most likely origin of the observed responses. Weld
mismatch, which can be difficult to identify using radiographic techniques,
and a nonconsumed insert are examples of asymmetric reflectors that can
produce responses similar to those identified during the 2012 UT
examinations.
These occurrences reemphasize one of the most important elements of inspection
success, as mentioned previously: avoidance of reaching conclusions early in the
inspection process, before all available information has been obtained and
considered [1]. All personnel involved in, or potentially impacted by, the
interpretation of detected indications should understand that it takes time and
diligence to arrive at the proper results. During this time, licensees often find it
prudent to initiate parallel activities in case further engineering analysis, repairs,
replacement, or other appropriate remedies are required. Some utilities have
contingency plans in place prior to performing examinations to address these
potential occurrences.
EPRIs 2009 Nondestructive Evaluation: Guideline for Conducting Ultrasonic
Examinations of Dissimilar Metal Welds (1018181) was developed in response to
industry issues regarding the performance of DMW examinations [3]. The
report identifies many best practices for licensees and NDE service vendors in
preparing for successful examinations of DMWs. The report provides one
Needed requirement and six Good Practice recommendations in accordance
with NEI 03-08, Revision 2, Guideline for the Management of Materials Issues
[4]. The Needed requirement is to develop and implement a surface condition
assessment and improvement process for DMWs.


1-6
Glossary
The following terms are based on industry codes and standards. In some
instances, the same term is defined slightly differently in these reference
documents. In such instances, the ASME Section XI or Section V term is listed.
acceptable quality level. The maximum percent defective or the maximum
number of units defective per hundred units that, for the purpose of sampling
test, can be considered satisfactory as a process average [5].
calibration. The comparison of an instrument with, or the adjustment of an
instrument to, a known reference(s) often traceable to the National Institute of
Standards and Technology [5].
crack tip. The extremity of the flaw; the boundary between the flaw and the
adjacent material at the intersection of the two flaw faces [6].
critical flaw size. The flaw size that will cause failure under a specified load
calculated using fracture mechanics. The minimum critical flaw size for normal
or upset conditions (Service Level A and B) is a
c
; the minimum critical initiation
flaw size for emergency and faulted conditions is a
i
[6].
defect. A flaw (imperfection or unintentional discontinuity) of such size, shape,
orientation, location, or properties as to be rejectable [6].
discontinuity. A lack of continuity or cohesion; an interruption in the normal
physical structure of material or a product [6].
dissimilar metal weld. A weld between (a) carbon or low alloy steels to high
alloy steels, (b) carbon or low alloy steels to high nickel alloys, or (c) high alloy
steels to high nickel alloys [6].
evaluation. A review, following interpretation of the indications noted, to
determine whether they meet specified acceptance criteria [7].
examination. A procedure for determining a property (or properties) or other
conditions or characteristics of a material or component by direct or indirect
means [5].
false indication. A nondestructive testing indication that is interpreted to be
caused by a condition other than a discontinuity or imperfection [5].
flaw. An imperfection or unintentional discontinuity that is detectable by
nondestructive examination [6].
flaw characterization. The process of quantifying the size, shape, orientation,
location, growth, or other properties of a flaw based on NDE response [7].
imperfection. A condition of being imperfect; a departure of a quality
characteristic from its intended condition [6].

1-7
indication. The response or evidence from a nondestructive examination. An
indication is determined by interpretation to be relevant, nonrelevant, or false [6].
in-service examination. The process of visual, surface, or volumetric
examination performed in accordance with the rules and requirements of this
Division [6].
in-service inspection (ISI). Methods and actions for assuring the structural and
pressure-retaining integrity of safety-related nuclear power plant components in
accordance with the rules of this Section [6].
inspection. A procedure for viewing or observing visual characteristics of a
material or component in a careful, critical manner [5].
interpretation. The determination of whether indications are relevant,
nonrelevant, or false [7].
laminar flaw. Planar flaws that are oriented within 10 of a plane parallel to the
surface of the component (See Fig. IWA-3360-1) [6].
linear flaw. A flaw having finite length and narrow uniform width and depth
(See Fig. IWA-3400-1) [6].
method. One of the disciplines of NDE; for example, ultrasonic testing, within
which various test techniques may exist [8].
nondestructive examination (NDE). An examination by the visual, surface, or
volumetric method [6].
nondestructive examination. See nondestructive testing [5].
nondestructive evaluation. See nondestructive testing [5].
nondestructive inspection. See nondestructive testing [5].
nondestructive testing (NDT). The development and application of technical
methods to examine materials or components in ways that do not impair future
usefulness and serviceability in order to detect, locate, measure, and evaluate
flaws; to assess integrity, properties, and composition; and to measure
geometrical characteristics [5].
nonplanar flaw. A flaw oriented in more than one plane. It can be curvilinear or
a combination of two or more inclined planes (See Fig. IWA-3340-1) [6].
nonrelevant indication. An NDT indication that is caused by a condition or
type of discontinuity that is not rejectable. False indications are nonrelevant [7].
planar flaw. A flat two-dimensional flaw oriented in a plane other than parallel
to the surface of the component (See Fig. IWA-3310-1) [6].

1-8
relevant condition. A condition observed during a visual examination that
requires supplemental examination, corrective measure, correction by
repair/replacement (R/R) activities, or analytical evaluation [6].
relevant indication. An NDT indication that is caused by a condition or type of
discontinuity that requires evaluation [7].
test. A procedure for determining a property or characteristic of a material or a
component by direct measurement. Examples include mechanical tests to
determine strength, hardness, or other property; determination of leakage (a leak
test); or checking the performance (function) of a piece of equipment [5].
test technique. A category within an NDT methodfor example, immersion
ultrasonic testing [8].
true indication. An NDT indication that is caused by a discontinuity. True
indications can be either relevant or nonrelevant.




2-1

Section 2: General Considerations for
Evaluation of NDE Indications
Interpretation, Characterization, and Evaluation
All involved should understand and use the proper terminology. The American
Society for Testing and Materials, ASME, American Society for Nondestructive
Testing, and others have developed and published definitions for terms used in
NDE. Some of these terms are included in the glossary in Section 1. The
glossary is extensive; selected key definitions are repeated here. It might be
instructive to review the following while considering Figure 2-1:
A discontinuity is a lack of continuity or cohesion, an intentional or
unintentional interruption in the physical structure or configuration of a
material or component [6].
The evidence of a discontinuity by an NDE method is called an indication
[6]. The indication has to be interpreted to determine whether it is a
relevant, nonrelevant, or false indication.
A false indication is an NDE indication that is interpreted to be caused by
a condition other than a discontinuity or imperfection [5]. A signal on a
UT instrument screen caused by electromagnetic interference from a
motor would be an example of a false indication.
A UT signal from a counterbore bevel in a piping butt joint with a full
penetration groove weld would be an example of a nonrelevant indication.
Because the weld joint is designed to include a counterbore (a
counterbore is a discontinuity), this condition would not considered
rejectable even if it exceeded the established acceptance criteria.
Indications from metallurgical interfaces, such as weld fusion zones, also
are nonrelevant indications.
Relevant indications are responses from flaws. A UT signal from a slag
inclusion (another discontinuity) in a shielded metal arc weld is an
example of a relevant indication. Signals from service-induced cracking
also are relevant indications.
A flaw is an imperfection that might be detectable by nondestructive testing
and is not necessarily rejectable [6].
Relevant indications require characterization and evaluation.

2-2
Flaw characterization is the process of quantifying the size, shape,
orientation, location, growth, or other properties of a flaw based on its NDE
response [7].
Evaluation is a review, following interpretation and characterization of the
indication, to determine whether the discontinuity meets specified
acceptance criteria [7].

Figure 2-1
Fundamental NDE evaluation process
In order for an NDE examiner to make the proper interpretation as to whether
an indication is false, nonrelevant, or relevant requires considerable knowledge,
skill, and experience. This knowledge includes not only the NDE method that is
applied but also detailed information on the component and its potential
associated discontinuities. In the example of the nonrelevant indication resulting
from counterbore, if the examiner had not been aware of the detailed weld
procedure, the UT indication could have been misinterpreted as a relevant
indication resulting from a lack of penetration in the weld root.

2-3
After an indication is interpreted as relevant, it must be characterized.
Determining the flaw characteristics from the NDE data and knowledge of the
material and processes that caused it is essential to proper evaluation. Evaluation
determines whether the flaw is acceptable in accordance with the applicable Code
or specification acceptance criteria. For example, in most construction codes
applicable to welds, cracks, lack of fusion, and lack of penetration are
unacceptable regardless of other characteristics, such as size, shape, orientation,
and location. Other relevant indications, such as porosity, slag, and tungsten
inclusions, could be acceptable based on their characteristics. Appendix B
provides examples of how two utilities address detected indications.
In addition to parameters of the method and technique used to reveal the
indication, knowledge and experience of the material and process and their
related discontinuities are essential in making a correct interpretation and
characterization of the discontinuity. As stated in When Are Weld Defects
Rejectable?:
Because increasingly more sensitive inspection tools and techniques are
revealing more defect indications, it must also be strongly emphasized in the
training of inspectors that perfect materials do not exist. Therefore, a sound
training program should include consideration of common defects and their
relation to service performance of the component involved. Very little has
been published on this.
A training program should also cover the detectability of defects. Just
because a component has passed inspection by radiography or ultrasonics
does not mean that it does not contain defects that will lead to failure.
There are too few inspectors who have a knowledge of metallurgy or
understand the specific melting, forming, shaping, welding and heat treating
operations involved in the production of the component being inspected. [9]



3-1

Section 3: Process for Interpretation of
Manual Ultrasonic Indications
The interpretation of NDE indications in DMWs requires careful and
methodical application of a process to ensure a high probability of achieving the
correct results. It is a two-stage process designed to, first, minimize failures to
detect cracking and, second, to minimize false calls (incorrectly interpreting
fabrication defects as being cracks).
The ultrasonic characteristics of fabrication defects and of cracks usually are
distinct, but there is some overlap; some fabrication defects, or networks of
fabrication defects, can appear cracklike, as illustrated conceptually in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1
The ultrasonic characteristics of fabrication flaws and cracks
The first step in the two-stage process is examination of the weld by a qualified
examiner using a qualified procedure. The qualification process, conducted in
accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII, as conditioned by
regulation, focuses on ensuring that the procedure, equipment, and examiner do
not miss cracks; it does not focus on fabrication defects. Therefore, the effect of
the initial, qualified examination is shown in Figure 3-2: cracking is detected,

3-2
along with fabrication defects that have crack-like ultrasonic characteristics. (As
shown in Figure 3-2, manual and encoded examinations are effective for crack
detection, but encoded examinations provide images that make it easier to
discriminate fabrication flaws.) If a crack-like indication is detected, the second
step is executed.

Figure 3-2
The initial, qualified UT examination detects the cracks and also fabrication defects
that look like cracks
The second step of the two-stage process is a highly detailed analysis focused on
making the final discrimination as to whether the indication represents cracking
or fabrication defects that have ultrasonic responses similar to cracking. It
includes consideration of the welds fabrication, service, and inspection history;
independent analysis of the UT data; and consideration of opportunities to
obtain additional NDE data to support the analysis. The effect of this detailed
analysis is shown in Figure 3-3: most of the potential false calls are eliminated,
while retaining correct interpretations of actual cracking.

3-3

Figure 3-3
Detailed analysis eliminates most of the false calls, while retaining the correct
crack detections
Figure 3-4 illustrates this process. Figure 3-4 might be useful to all stakeholders
who are involved in or affected by the examination, such as the utilitys outage
control center, interested industry groups such as the Materials Initiative, and the
NRC. Stakeholders should understand the following key points:
The successful use of this process requires knowledge of the material; the
weld configuration and process; weld fabrication records including
radiographs and repair records, service history, results of prior UT
examinations, and other NDE method results; and any other pertinent
information. In most cases, only the licensee can provide this information.
Each of the process and decision boxes represents a significant amount of
information that must be properly assessed to proceed to the next point. It
takes time. Short-circuiting or abbreviating the process or failing to provide
all available information reduces reliability.
After the initial examination by the qualified examiner, the process is a team
effort. Additional NDE service vendor personnel, utility NDE and
supporting personnel, and, at the utilitys discretion, outside industry
expertise all might be engaged.
This section provides guidance on how to ensure that the information needed to
make the best decision at each point is available, reviewed, and properly analyzed
to achieve a correct result.

3-4

Figure 3-4
Decision tree for manual ultrasonic weld examination indication resolution


3-5

Prior to conducting a manual UT examination of a weld, a significant amount of
information should be collected. Some of this information is essential to
performing a proper examination, and some information is not essential initially;
however, it might be required if a true indication is detected. Even more
information might be required to make the proper evaluation if it is determined
that a relevant indication has been detected. The utilitys examination
information processing philosophy, bottom-up or top-down, will determine
when all of this information will be provided to the UT examiner.
For ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII, examinations, the utility must review the
procedures and the individual examiners Performance Demonstration
Qualification Summary (PDQS) must be performed to ensure that the examiner,
equipment, and procedure are qualified to perform the assigned examination. If
using a PDI generic qualified procedure, additional detailed guidance is included
in Appendix A.
As a minimum, for a top-down information processing approach, the ultrasonic
examiner should be provided the following:
Plant and component drawings, sufficient to allow the examiner to properly
find and identify the component to be examined
The approved UT procedure to be used to perform the examination of the
specific component
The component material, dimensionsthat is, diameter and thicknessand
profile data
The procedure for reference points and scan patterns (if not provided in the
UT procedure)
The procedure for documentation of calibration and data recording (if not
provided in the UT procedure)
If ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII, is applicable, the following are required:
An approved Appendix VIII procedure applicable to the material type,
diameter, and thickness ranges specified
The qualification limitations listed on the PDI PDQS
Information on qualified search units and instruments and the qualified
essential variablesthat is, instrument settings to be used during the
examination (usually provided in a PDI procedure Table 1 and Table 2
format)

3-6
Many utilities conduct a prejob briefing prior to conducting each examination,
often using a detailed prejob checklist. The briefing package typically includes a
system isometric drawing with the component to be examined highlighted and, if
applicable, a detailed component drawing. Some plants provide photographs of
the general area; the component and access provisions and limitations, if
applicable; radiation protection requirements and general and contact radiation
levels; and any other relevant information needed to perform the examination.
The following additional information should be accumulated prior to performing
an examination to avoid delays in making a proper interpretation and evaluation
of indications. (Step 5, UT Level III Review, includes a detailed discussion of
each item. In some cases not all of the desired information is available, complete,
or of useful quality.)
Fabrication records
Current NDE UT data results
UT oversight
Prior UT examination data (including raw encoded ultrasonic data, if
available)
Radiographs
Supplemental NDE results
Service history information
EPRIs Nondestructive Evaluation: Guideline for Conducting Ultrasonic
Examinations of Dissimilar Metal Welds (1018181) [3] provides extensive
guidance for utilities and NDE service vendors in preparing to perform UT of
DMWs. The purpose is to minimize the occurrence of significant human errors
while maximizing the probability of a smoothly executed outage with completion
of the planned scope. The nuclear power plant owner is responsible for
compliance with one Needed requirement and for evaluation of six Good
Practice recommendations in accordance with NEI 03-08, Revision 2 [4]. The
Needed requirement is to develop and implement a surface condition
assessment and improvement process for DMWs. The guideline specifically
targets DMWs, but its recommendations are largely applicable for other
components that require an Appendix VIII-qualified examination.
It is recommended that the detection of in-service indications be factored into
the outage schedule. The ISI program manager and/or the NDE Level III
personnel should provide this input to the outage management team. The
potential to detect flaws has increased because of increased examination
sensitivity, use of performance-based qualified procedures, and other measures.
Prudent provisions in outage scheduling, including the potential to impact
critical path, are desirable.


3-7

The weld must be examined in accordance with a procedure, by an examiner who
is qualified to use it. The examination procedure includes instructions for
conducting the initial examination represented by this box in the flow chart and
also contains instructions for subsequent interpretation and evaluation of
detected indications. For DMWs in the primary cooling system piping, the
qualification requirements are defined in ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII.
The qualification addresses only the aspects of the procedure that will be
executed by the examiner acting alone; it does not address the team effort of
analyzing the mass of data involved in interpreting and evaluating indications.

All suspected flaw indications, regardless of amplitude, should be investigated to
the extent necessary to provide accurate characterization, identity, and location.
Additional scanning (relooks) with qualified equipment is acceptable.
All suspected flaw indications should be plotted on a cross-sectional drawing of
the weld. It is a common practice to collect thickness measurements and replicate
the weld contour at four locations approximately 90 apart around the pipe
circumference and use these data to develop cross-sectional profiles; these data
might already be available from the preservice inspection or prior ISI
examinations. These profiles might not be representative of the cross-sectional
profile at the azimuthal location where an indication is located. The profile data
should also be verified to represent the current as-built condition. Weld repairs
and surface conditioning of the weld and adjacent base metal might have been
performed after the thickness and contours data were initially taken. Therefore, it
is a good practice to take thickness measurements and weld contour data at the
indication location to ensure that they are correct.
The accurate location of the reflector is one of the major considerations in the
correct identification of an indication. The location of the reflector should be
determined by plotting. The accuracy of the plot reflects the accuracy of the
ultrasonic data and the weld configuration data. Variations within the material,
such as acoustic velocity and prevalent grain orientation, also can affect the
accuracy of the indication plot. Figure 3-5 illustrates the error that can result
from plotting beams as straight lines.

3-8

Figure 3-5
Ultrasonic beam redirection
All indications produced by reflectors within the volume to be examined that can
be attributed to the geometry of the weld configuration should be considered as
nonrelevant indications. Nonrelevant indications can be verified by the use of
radiographs, as-built drawings, fabrication records, prior UT examination data,
and supplemental NDE results. For example, the construction radiographic
report could reveal the weld root in the same location that the indication plots.
Additionally, the preservice UT report and previous in-service UT examination
data could document an acceptable reflector in the same location.
Guidance in PDI-UT-10 (see Appendix A) is typical of that found in qualified
procedures.
All suspected nonrelevant indications should be investigated and evaluated,
taking into account the following indication characteristics, which should not be
considered as mandatory criteria for classifying indications as nonrelevant but are
listed as significant points of interest for the examiner to consider during
evaluation of suspect areas:
The indication appears at or near the centerline of the weld or other
documented geometrical condition and can be seen continuously or
intermittently along the length of the weld at consistent amplitude and time
base positions. This characteristic can be supported by obtaining localized
thickness and surface contour recordings at the location of the indication(s).
The indication provides additional responses, which occur from the same
scan position but at different time base positions (multiples) along the length
of the weld. This could be a sign of mode-converted shear-wave signals from
counterbore or similar geometric reflectors. This characteristic can require an
increase in time base size in order to observe these responses.
The indication can be seen across the entire length of the scan, either
continuously or intermittently, at consistent amplitude and time base
positions. This characteristic can be supported by scanning along the
indication length laterally.

3-9
The indication provides minimal echo-dynamic travel (walk). This
characteristic can be supported by observing other areas along the length of
sample and through the use of an adequate reference reflector (an inside
surface notch or equivalent).
The signal responses are consistent from each side of the weld for axial scans
or from each direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) for circumferential
scans.
All indications produced by reflectors within the volume to be examined,
regardless of amplitude, that cannot be clearly attributed to the geometrical or
metallurgical properties of the weld configuration should be considered as
relevant (flaw) indications.

If all of these data or the large majority of the data supports the indication being
nonrelevant, there is a high probability that this is the correct interpretation.

If none or only a portion of the evidence supports a conclusion that the
indication is nonrelevant, it is a potential relevant indication. It is a good practice
for a second individual to review the data, a certified UT Level III professional
with current knowledge and experience and, ideally, qualified to the same
procedure. Some of the interpretation of the current UT data as detailed below
might include evaluation of relatively subtle features of the ultrasonic signals and
their response to the reflector. The 2010 EPRI report Appendix VIII, Supplement
10 and 12 Training (1021236) includes detailed examples of how the subtle
indication features are presented and can be interpreted [10]. The 2010 EPRI
report Advanced Nuclear Technology: Reduction of American Society of Mechanical
Engineers III Weld Fabrication RepairsFitness for Purpose (1021181) includes a
number of detailed examples of ultrasonic indications of ISI and fabrication flaws
and their UT responses [11]; one example is shown in Figure 3-6. These
references might aid the examiner in interpreting the indication.

3-10

Figure 3-6
Example fabrication flaw UT data
Guidance in PDI-UT-10 (see Appendix A) is typical of that found in qualified
procedures.
All suspected flaw indications should be investigated and evaluated taking into
account the following indication characteristics, which should not be considered
as mandatory criteria for classifying indications as flaws but are listed as
significant points of interest for the examiner to consider during evaluation of
suspect areas.
The indication has a good signal-to-noise ratio with defined start and
endpoints. This characteristic can be supported by observing signal-to-noise
ratio variation along the length of the component.
The indication plots to a location susceptible to cracking. This characteristic
can be supported by obtaining localized thickness and surface contour
recordings at the location of the indication(s).
The indication provides substantial and unique echo-dynamic travel (walk).
This characteristic can be supported by observing other areas along the weld
length and through the use of an adequate reference reflector (an inside
surface notch or equivalent).
Several areas of unique amplitude peaks are observed throughout the
indication length. This characteristic can be supported by observing other
areas along the weld length and by scanning along the indication length
laterally.

3-11
Inconsistent time base positions are observed throughout the indication
length. This characteristic can be supported by scanning along the indication
length laterally.
The indication shows evidence of flaw tip signals.
Circumferential indications provide axial components while performing
tangential scans.
The indication(s) can be confirmed from the opposite direction. This
characteristic is dependent upon flaw orientation and configuration and
might not always be available.
The indication(s) can be confirmed with an additional examination angle.
This characteristic is dependent upon flaw orientation and configuration and
might not always be available.
For components where access is limited to a single side of the component,
the following additional information should be considered: as a result of the
uncertainties associated with sound propagation through austenitic weld
material and buttering, actual flaw positioning, and the true thickness of the
component, an accurate inside diameter (ID) connection on the far side of
the weld might be unobtainable. For suspect far side flaw indications, several
search unit parameters (for example, lower frequencies, different angles, and
different focal depths) should be evaluated to optimize response.
If all of these data or the large majority of the data supports an indication as
being relevant, there is a high probability that this is the correct interpretation:
the indication is from a flaw.

If all of these data or the large majority of the data supports the indication being
nonrelevant, there is a high probability that this is the correct interpretation.
Potential Relevant Indication

If a review of the UT and other data does support the interpretation of a
potential relevant indication, the process should be followed as shown in Step 8.
If this information was collected prior to the examination in the Prepare step (1),
the review of it by knowledgeable and experienced certified Level III personnel
can be initiated immediately. If the information was not collected during the
Prepare step, additional time might be required. Because the collection and
review of the data takes time, depending on the availability and quality, this
process might require approximately two to seven days, as shown in Figure 3-4.
It is understood that this could impact the outage critical path and that
contingency plans should be implemented in parallel with the analysis process in
the event an in-service flaw is confirmed.

3-12
It should be clearly communicated to all stakeholdersthat is, outage control
center personnel, nuclear power plant management, interested industry groups,
and the NRCthat firm conclusions about the potential relevant indication
would be premature at this point in the process. Additional steps, as detailed
below, are essential to reach a fully informed decision about the indication.

This part of the processthe detailed interpretation of the indicationoften
takes place in an atmosphere of high management interest because of the
potential high cost and impact to outage scheduling. This high level of
management attention has a number of effects on the interpretation process, not
all of them positive from the NDE teams perspective. They are as follows:
The examiner gets help. Additional technical resources from both the NDE
service company and the utility are made available, both to collect
information and to participate in interpretation. The utility might seek
technical input from outside agencies, often from EPRI. The interpretation
and evaluation process is now a team effort. This is a positive effect; the
expertise of the individual qualified examiner identified a potential defect,
but the final determination will be made with the benefit of the expertise of
many.
The utility can begin aggressive contingency preparations for a possible repair
or replacement. This necessary step might increase the pressure on the NDE
team, because the utility and the repair vendor seek information on the
potential flaw that will affect the repair design.
On occasion, a utility has considered its outage schedule and made the
economic decision to forgo the detailed interpretation process for a potential
relevant indication, opting to assume that the indication was due to cracking
and to repair the weld immediately.
The utility might notify the NRC and industry groups of the potential
existence of service-induced cracking. If the presence of cracking would have
potential generic implications, regulatory and industry interest would be
immediate and high, with multiple conference calls per day and perhaps with
industry technical groups preparing contingencies. The utility provides
frequent updates for these groups, again creating pressure for the NDE team
to provide conclusions.

3-13
The interpretation evaluation process will move most efficiently if the NDE team
is allowed to work with minimal interruption. All stakeholders should clearly
understand that the initial inspection result is not the final answerit is a
preliminary reading. Stakeholders outside the utility also should understand that
the fleet contains many more fabrication flaws than cracks and that mobilization
of emergent industry activities might be premature at this point.
During this step, all current inspection information is reviewed in detail, along
with all available supporting information detailed below. The purpose of the
review is to validate the current NDE results and to determine the appropriate
and optimum additional NDE data that should be obtained.
To minimize delays, it is strongly recommended that all the available information
be accumulated prior to performing an examination. Information needed for each
weld to be examined in addition to that for the top-down information processing
includes the following:
Fabrication records
Current NDE UT data results
UT oversight
Prior UT examination data (including raw encoded ultrasonic data, if
available)
Radiographs
Supplemental NDE results
Service history information
In some cases, not all of the desired information is recoverable, and some of it
may not be of useful quality. However, every reasonable attempt should be made
to assemble as much of the information as practical.
Fabrication Records
Fabrication information can indicate where nonrelevant indications might be
expected and locations that might be more susceptible to in-service cracking. The
information should include the following:
Detailed weld procedures
Materials
Weld joint preparation
Welding process or processes
Field weld or shop weld
ID grinding


3-14
Configuration
Current configuration as determined by visual examination and profile
data
As-built drawings
Original surface preparation
Additional surface preparation since fabrication
Weld repairs
Made during fabrication, construction, preservice, or in-service
If weld repairs were not documented, a determination as to whether it is
apparent from visual examination that weld repairs were performed
Replacement of the original fabrication or construction weld, if
applicable
Stress mitigation techniques performed on this weld
Current NDE UT Data Results
The following should be considered when evaluating the quality of the current
NDE UT results and reports:
Clarity and conciseness
Quality of the current automated UT data (if applicable), particularly
evidence of good probe contact
Thickness measurements and surface contours taken at the azimuth of the
indication
Plotting accurate based on the recorded data
Surface preparation appropriate for the examination
Weld crown width, transition of the weld to base metal, diametric shrinkage,
and so forth allow proper search unit coupling and required coverage
Qualified procedure was fully implemented
UT examiner qualified for this examination using this procedure
UT procedure appropriate for this examination
Component or configuration does not violate any qualification limitations or
other special conditions to the procedure
Optimum qualified equipment was used for the examination
Actual examination coverage achieved
If 100% coverage was not achieved, coverage limitations documented in
detail
The process by which the indication was determined to be ID-connected

3-15
UT Oversight
The following should be considered when evaluating the UT oversight:
Manual reexamination by a different UT certified examiner
Encoded UT data reexamination
Full review of the indication data report by other qualified people or a Level
III professional
Flowchart, checklist, or other similar process has been followed in the
indication evaluation to ensure that all steps have been thoroughly addressed
Encoded UT data (if any) have been reviewed by additional qualified
examiners
NDE Data from Prior Examinations
The following should be considered when evaluating the NDE data from prior
examinations:
ASME Section XI preservice inspection UT and other NDE data
ASME Section XI, ISI UT data from prior outages
Inspection written reports at minimum
Surface profile at the time and its effect on coverage and examination
effectiveness
For encoded examinations, reanalyze raw data
o Ensure that hardware is available to read the archival data media and
that software is available to analyze it
o Quality of the data (probe contact, scan limitations)
Identify whether preservice inspection and/or prior ISI UT techniques
were qualified and/or capable of detecting the indication now being
evaluated
Same indication was present in the previous reports or raw encoded data
o Review validity of the interpretation formed during the prior
examination
o Changes in size, amplitude, and so forth that are not attributable to
technique changes
o Stress mitigations applied since the prior examination


3-16
Radiographs
The following should be considered when evaluating radiographs:
Recover the fabrication and/or construction radiographs
Condition of the radiographs
Deterioration of quality during storage
Film quality
Radiographic testing technique sheet and reader sheet
Adequate documentation to understand how the weld was examined
Reader sheet identifies indications that could have the same source as the
potential flaws identified by the UT examination
Radiographic testing location stamps
If they are still on the component, verify correlation with the UT
reference points.
If they do not correlate, reconcile the two sets of reference marks.
Existing weld crown provides clues to validate the correlated and
reconciled location reference markers.
Transparent overlays (skins) available to validate the locations.
Validated correct location and weld.
Review the radiographs
Determine the degree to which the radiographic testing is applicable in
assisting the current interpretation
Level II or Level III certified radiographer available to read the
radiographic testing film
Radiographer verifies sufficient information is available to make a valid
interpretation
Assess the need for digitizing the film
Determine presence of indications on the film in the area where the UT
indication was reported
o Was it reported on the original reader sheet?
o Was it identified as acceptable or unacceptable?
o If unacceptable, was it repaired, and, if so, are the repair radiographs
available (R-1, R-2 films)?
Identify any weld rework (repairs, replacements, additional surface
preparation, or stress mitigation) since the radiographic testing film was
made

3-17
Supplemental NDE
The following should be considered when evaluating the options and benefits of
performing supplemental NDE to inform the interpretation.
Practicality of inside surface examinations (visual testing, eddy current
testing, and liquid penetrant testing)
Zero-degree UT examination in the area of the indication
Reflector detected within the wall of the component indicating an
embedded flaw
No zero-degree indication in the area of the suspect indication but with a
reduction in the back-wall signal potentially indicating that a flaw is
present
Manual UT reexamination by additional UT certified personnel
Result using the original calibration and equipment
Result using a new calibration and/or equipment
o Different UT search units, beam angles, instruments, and procedure
o Encoded UT using a qualified system (procedure, equipment, and
personnel)
If the original examination was encoded, reexamination using the following:
Slower scan speeds and finer increments
Additional angles
Manual examination to verify the auto data, using the same probe
Service History
The following should be considered when evaluating the service history:
Age of the component
Operating experience indicating susceptibility to a certain flaw type
Documented plant-specific operating experience that could indicate certain
service-related damage mechanisms
Chemical intrusion from leaking condenser tubes or SG tubes
Mitigation methods that might not have been controlled as planned


3-18

After a comprehensive analysis of all the relevant data derived previously, reach
an informed final interpretation as to the nature of the indication.

The evaluation process and result supporting the nonrelevant indication decision
should be comprehensively recorded so that it is available to support subsequent
examinations.

During fabrication and construction of nuclear components designed and built to
the built to the requirements of ASME Section III or other applicable codes and
specifications, the results of the specified NDE is required to be documented.
The applicable codes and specifications acceptance criteria might allow some
discontinuities of certain sizes to remain in components. The fabrication and
construction NDE documentation should include this information and might be
useful as the evaluation basis for the detected indications. The following should
be noted, however:
These records might be not be available.
If the records are available, they could have the indications not documented
or not accurately documented.
Weld repairs might have been performed but not documented.
The NDE methods and techniques used in fabrication and construction
might not have been as sensitive as those currently used.

Assuming that fabrication and/or construction NDE records are available and
that they document the detection and acceptance by the applicable Code or
specifications, document the current interpretation process and results. Reference
the records of the ASME Section III or other applicable specifications NDE

3-19
that originally detected and accepted the flaws. This documentation should also
include the ASME Section XI preservice inspection and ISI UT examination
records. These records will serve as the basis for future ISI NDE monitoring of
the reflector.

Fabrication defects confirmed and documented as acceptable in fabrication
and/or construction NDE records and detected and documented in preservice
inspection and/or ISI examination records will complete this step in the
evaluation process.

ASME Section XI, Subarticle IWB-3500, Acceptance Standards, defines the
allowable flaws in the various components required to be examined according to
Subarticle IWB-2500specifically, Paragraph IWB-3514, Standards for
Examination Category B-F, Pressure Retaining Dissimilar Metal Welds in
Vessel Nozzles, and Examination Category B-J, Pressure Retaining Welds in
Piping, reference Table IWB-3514-1, Allowable Planar Flaws, for the maximum
aspect ratio (a/l) for DMWs. Figure 3-7 provides a detailed example of the
process for evaluation of a detected fabrication flaw.



3-20

Figure 3-7
Logic path for the evaluation of fabrication-related flaws detected during an in-service volumetric examination

3-21
If a fabrication flaw is determined to meet the applicable IWB-3500 acceptance
standards, no additional action is required except to document the results in the
ISI program. However, if a fabrication flaw is determined not to be acceptable to
the applicable IWB-3500 acceptance standard, Section XI provides two options
as defined in ASME Section XI, subparagraph IWB-3131(c), for final
disposition of a flaw. These options are correction by a repair/replacement (R/R)
activity or acceptance by analytical evaluation. The analytical evaluation will be
addressed in more detailed below (see Step 16, Figure 3-4).

Document the results of the IWB-3500 evaluation in the ISI program records.

If a fabrication defect has been confirmed, was not documented in the fabrication
and/or construction records, and does not meet the IWB-3500 acceptance
standards, apply IWB-3600, Analytical Evaluation of Flaws, using the analytical
procedures described in ASME Section XI, Nonmandatory Appendix A,
Analysis of Flaws, to calculate its growth until the next inspection or the end of
the service lifetime of the component. This option typically requires an
engineering organization to be contracted to conduct the evaluation, and the area
containing the flaw requires subsequent reexamination during the next three
inspection periods. Also, the analytical evaluation could negatively impact the
outage schedule, and, although rare, the analytical evaluation results could
potentially be determined not to support continued operation without an R/R
activity. If the results support continued operation, additional examinations are
required for the next three inspection periods. Results supporting continued
operation could also provide additional time to review R/R options versus the
required reexaminations. The analytical evaluation and the R/R activities are
subject to review by the authorized inspection agency and the applicable NRC
branch. The development of contingency plans for contracting engineering
analytical evaluations, organizations to perform R/R activities, and decision
tree tools for making these decisions can greatly aid the nuclear power plant in
the situations.


3-22

Depending on the IWB-3600 Analytical Evaluation of Flaws results, the
component may be acceptable for continued operation. As addressed in Step 16,
if it is acceptable for continued service, reexamination is required over the next
three subsequent inspection periods to ensure that the flaw is not growing. The
analytical evaluation is required to be documented and is subject to regulatory
review.

R/R activities require a detailed plan that is subject to regulatory review. A
service provider with qualified repair procedure and personnel is required to
perform these activities. Contingency planning can greatly assist in minimizing
impact to the outage schedule if an R/R activity is required.

At this point in the indication evaluation process, contingency plans for relevant
ISI defects should be implemented. Also, the utility should communicate to the
NRC and to interested industry groups the confirmed detection of an in-service
defect.

See Steps 14 and 16 for the details for the IWB-3500 evaluation that is required.
Note that if the defect is determined to be stress corrosion cracking, IWB-3500
analysis is not allowed for those implementing the ASME Section XI 2007 and
later editions; IWB-3600 analysis is required by the ASME Section XI 2007 and
later editions.


3-23

See Step 18 in Figure 3-4 for the details for the R/R activity. In certain cases,
industry-accepted mitigation methods have been developed and implemented as
an alternative to R/R activity. These include weld overlay repair, inlaying or
onlaying corrosion-resistant clad, mechanical stress improvement process, and
induction-heating stress improvement. Each of these has advantages and
limitations and has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Additionally,
provisions for subsequent NDE have to be considered in the selection of the
R/R activity or the mitigation method. Ideally, these would have been included
in the contingency planning so that the technical information and availability
of resources would be understood without delay. The R/R activity or mitigation
approaches typically restore the component to the original design basis condition
so that the item is returned to the regular ASME Section XI examination
schedule.

If an ASME Section XI, IWB-3600, evaluation is used as detailed in Step 16 of
Figure 3-4, the component is required to be reexamined on an expedited
schedule for the next three periods to ensure that there is no flaw growth. If there
is no change in the flaw size, the component can return to the regular
examination schedule frequency.

After completion of Step 21 or Step 22 of Figure 3-4, the indication evaluation
process is complete. Document the process and results in detail in the ISI
program.
Contingency Plans
The INPO 06-008 Guidelines for the Conduct of Outages at Nuclear Power
Plants, Revision 1, defines contingency plan as an approved plan of
compensatory actions to minimize the impact of work activity issues that could
affect shutdown risk, schedule, budget, or production. Contingencies are
developed to mitigate reductions in shutdown safety or impacts to the outage
plan commensurate with the level of risk the activity poses [12].

3-24
This report provides detailed information on how to develop and implement
outage contingency plans. Although the report does not specifically address
NDE issues, it addresses elements such as preparation, execution, and improving
performance that should be used by ISI and NDE personnel to prepare and
implement an effective plan. Some utilities have developed and are implementing
contingency plans for addressing the detection of ISI indications. Appendix C
includes examples of these contingency plans.


4-1

Section 4: General Consideration for
Interpretation and Evaluation of
Radiographic, Magnetic Particle,
and Liquid Penetrant Indications
All NDE methods produce indirect indications of discontinuities. However, the
indications do not directly reveal what the discontinuities are. The indications
must be correctly interpreted before they provide the information as to the actual
condition of the material. For example, a radiographic film displaying dark lines,
spots, or density variations is meaningless until a knowledgeable, experienced
radiographer interprets the indications.
Magnetic particle and liquid penetrant examination methods produce indications
on the surface of materials that are rather clearly related to the size and shape of
the discontinuity causing the indication. In fact, in some cases, when the
discontinuity is at the surface, it can be directly seen after it is detected by the
magnetic particle or liquid penetrant methods. Regardless, the indicaton still has
to be interpreted to determine which type of discontinuity it is and characterized
to assess its impact on the component usefullness.
In general, interpretation of an NDE indication means to make a decision as to
what is the cause of the indication. As addressed in the glossary in Section 1 of
this report, ASME Section XI defines interpretation as the determination of
whether indications are relevant or nonrelevant. ASME Section XI, unlike many
other codes and specifications, does not require the examiner to determine the
type of discontinuity detectedthat is, it does not require the distinction
between crack, lack of fusion, cold shut, and so forth to evaluate the flaw to the
acceptance criteria. For plant modifications and Repair/Replacement (R/R)
activities, however, the construction Code requirements apply. As shown below
from ASME Section III, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Plant Facilities,
Division 1, Subsection NB, Class 1 Components, the examiner does have to
characterize discontinuity indications to evaluate them to the acceptance
standards. For example, for radiographic testing, any indication characterized as
a crack or zone of incomplete fusion or penetration; for UT, the operator can
determine the shape, identity, and location of all such imperfections and evaluate
them; and for magnetic particle and liquid penetrant testing, any cracks and
linear indications. Based on these requirements, the examiner must have the

4-2
knowledge and experience to characterize indications resulting from base material
product form discontinuitiesthat is, castings, forgings, rolled products,
extrusions, drawn products, welds made with various welding processes, and in-
service discontinuities.
ASME Section III
NB-5300 ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS
NB-5320 RADIOGRAPHIC ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS
Indications shown on the radiographs of welds and characterized as
imperfections are unacceptable under the following conditions:
(a) any indication characterized as a crack or zone of incomplete fusion or
penetration;
(b) any other elongated indication which has a length greater than:
(1) 1/4 in. (6 mm) for t up to 3/4 in. (19 mm), inclusive
(2) 1/3 t for t from 3/4 in. (19 mm) to 2 1/4 in. (57 mm), inclusive
(3) 3/4 in. (19 mm) for t over 2 1/4 in. (57 mm)
where t is the thickness of the thinner portion of the weld;
(c) internal root weld conditions are acceptable when the density change or image
brightness difference as indicated in the radiograph is not abrupt; elongated
indications on the radiograph at either edge of such conditions should be
unacceptable, as provided in (b) above;
(d) any group of aligned indications having an aggregate length greater than t in
a length of 12t, unless the minimum distance between successive indications
exceeds 6L, in which case the aggregate length is unlimited, L being the length of
the largest indication;
(e) rounded indications in excess of that shown as acceptable in Appendix VI.
NB-5330 ULTRASONIC ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS
NB-5331 Fabrication
All imperfections which produce a response greater than 20% of the reference
level should be investigated to the extent that the operator can determine the
shape, identity, and location of all such imperfections and evaluate them in terms
of the acceptance standards given in (a) and (b) below.


4-3
(a) Imperfections are unacceptable if the indications exceed the reference level
amplitude and have lengths exceeding:
(1) 1/4 in. (6 mm) for t up to 3/4 in. (19 mm), inclusive
(2) 1/3 t for t from 3/4 in. (19 mm) to 2 1/4 in. (57 mm), inclusive
(3) 3/4 in. (19 mm) for t over 2 1/4 in. (57 mm)
where t is the thickness of the weld being examined; if a weld joins two
members having different thicknesses at the weld, t is the thinner of these
two thicknesses.
(b) Indications characterized as cracks, lack of fusion, or incomplete penetration
are unacceptable regardless of length.
NB-5340 MAGNETIC PARTICLE ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS
a) Mechanical discontinuities at the surface are revealed by the retention of the
examination medium. All indications are not necessarily defects, however, since
certain metallurgical discontinuities and magnetic permeability variations may
produce similar indications which are not relevant.
(b) Any indication that is believed to be nonrelevant should be reexamined by the
same or other NDE methods to verify whether or not actual defects are present.
Surface conditioning may precede the reexamination. After an indication has
been verified to be nonrelevant, it is not necessary to reinvestigate repetitive
nonrelevant indications of the same type. Nonrelevant indications that would
mask defects are unacceptable.
(c) Relevant indications are indications which result from imperfections. Linear
indications are indications in which the length is more than three times the
width. Rounded indications are indications which are circular or elliptical with
the length equal to or less than three times the width.
NB-5341 Evaluation of Indications
NB-5342 Acceptance Standards
(a) Only imperfections producing indications with major dimensions greater than
1/16 in. (1.5 mm) should be considered relevant imperfections.
(b) Imperfections producing the following indications are unacceptable:
(1) any cracks and linear indications
(2) rounded indications with dimensions greater than 3/16 in. (5 mm)
(3) four or more rounded indications in a line separated by 1/16 in. (1.5 mm)
or less edge to edge

4-4
(4) 10 or more rounded indications in any 6 in.
2
(4 000 mm
2
) of surface with
the major dimension of this area not to exceed 6 in. (150 mm) with the area
taken in the most unfavorable location relative to the indications being
evaluated
NB-5350 LIQUID PENETRANT ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS
NB-5351 Evaluation of Indications
(a) Mechanical discontinuities at the surface are revealed by bleeding out of the
penetrant; however, localized surface discontinuities, such as may occur from
machining marks, surface conditions, or an incomplete bond between base metal
and cladding, may produce similar indications which are nonrelevant.
(b) Any indication which is believed to be nonrelevant should be reexamined to
verify whether or not actual defects are present. Surface conditioning may
precede the reexamination. Nonrelevant indications and broad areas of
pigmentation which would mask defects are unacceptable.
(c) Relevant indications are indications which result from imperfections. Linear
indications are indications in which the length is more than three times the
width. Rounded indications are indications which are circular or elliptical with
the length equal to or less than three times the width.
NB-5352 Acceptance Standards
(a) Only imperfections producing indications with major dimensions greater than
1/16 in. (1.5 mm) should be considered relevant imperfections.
(b) Imperfections producing the following indications are unacceptable:
(1) any cracks or linear indications;
(2) rounded indications with dimensions greater than 3/16 in. (5 mm)
(3) four or more rounded indications in a line separated by 1/16 in. (1.5 mm)
or less edge to edge
(4) ten or more rounded indications in any 6 in.
2
(4000 mm
2
) of surface with
the major dimension of this area not to exceed 6 in. (150 mm) with the area
taken in the most unfavorable location relative to the indications being
evaluated
ASME Section XI, IWA-2200 (a), states, A surface examination indicates the
presence of surface discontinuities. It may be conducted using a magnetic
particle, liquid penetrant, eddy current, or ultrasonic method. Additionally,
ASME Section XI, IWA-9000, defines a surface flaw: a flaw that either
penetrates the surface or is less than a given distance from the surface. Further,
Section XI, IWA-2300, Volumetric Examination, states, A volumetric
examination indicates the presence of discontinuities throughout the volume of
material and may be conducted from either the inside or outside surface of a
component. The radiographic examination is considered a volumetric method.

4-5
According to ASME Section XI, when a flaw is detected by the magnetic
particle, liquid penetrant, or radiographic examination method, it is evaluated as
a linear flaw. This is done regardless of the shape of the indication. According to
IWA-9000, linear flaw is defined as a flaw having finite length and narrow
uniform width and depth with examples illustrated in Fig. IWA-3400-1, Linear
Surface Flaws. According to Code Interpretation XI-1-86-52, these indications
are assumed to be linear regardless of the surface length-to-width ratiofor
example 3:1. For example, a rounded indication detected during a liquid
penetrant examination would be evaluated as a linear indication by applying its
largest or most detrimental dimension to the acceptance criteria. This is different
from how ASME Section III defines a linear indication, which states, Linear
indications are indications in which the length is more than three times the
width. Rounded indications are indications which are circular or elliptical with
the length equal to or less than three times the width.
ASME Section XI, IWA-2200 (a), states, A surface examination indicates the
presence of surface discontinuities. It may be conducted using a magnetic
particle, liquid penetrant, eddy current, or ultrasonic method. Additionally,
ASME Section XI, IWA-9000, defines a surface flaw: a flaw that either
penetrates the surface or is less than a given distance from the surface. Further,
Section XI, IWA-2300, Volumetric Examination, states, A volumetric
examination indicates the presence of discontinuities throughout the volume of
material and may be conducted from either the inside or outside surface of a
component. The radiographic examination is considered a volumetric method.
According to Section XI, for a single flaw, the acceptance criteria is based solely
on the length () of the flaw. There are two types of defined single flaws, linear
and curvilinear, as illustrated in Figure 4-1.

Figure 4-1
ASME Section XI, single flaws
When multiple flaws are detected, their proximity to each other (S) and their
relative orientation become additional factors. There are six types of multiple
linear flaws: aligned linear, nonaligned parallel, overlapping parallel, overlapping,
non-overlapping, and multiple parallel, as illustrated in Figures 4-2 through 4-7.

Figure 4-2
ASME Section XI, aligned linear flaws
1
>
2
(
1
is greater than or equal to
2
)

4-6

Figure 4-3
ASME Section XI, nonaligned parallel flaws
1
>
2
, s is less than or equal to
1


Figure 4-4
ASME Section XI, overlapping parallel flaws


Figure 4-5
ASME Section XI, overlapping flaws


Figure 4-6
ASME Section XI, non-overlapping flaws
1
>
2


4-7

Figure 4-7
ASME Section XI, multiple parallel flaws
Although these criteria may appear complicated, they can be generalized. Figure
4-8 summarizes the proximity requirements (S) for a flaw to be classified as a
single linear flaw.

Figure 4-8
Summary of ASME Section XI, linear flaw proximity requirements

If a shorter adjacent flaw comes within this proximity, it must be included in the
overall length measurement, as previously illustrated. If it is outside this
boundary, as illustrated previously, it does not need to be included as a multiple
flaw. For this reason, the rules of proximity should always be applied first and the
evaluation process should always start with the largest flaw ().
The acceptance criteria for linear surface flaws detected by liquid penetrant
testing, magnetic particle testing, or radiographic testing is based on length
expressed as either a finite value or as a percentage of wall thickness. Two typical
ASME Section XI, Subsection IWB, allowable linear flaw tables for ferritic and
austenitic stainless steel, Table IWB-3510-3 and Table IWB-3518-2, are shown
in Figures 4-9 and 4-10, respectively.

4-8

Figure 4-9
ASME Section XI, Table IWB-3510-3



4-9

Figure 4-10
ASME Section XI, Table IWB-3518-2

4-10
The acceptance criteria for laminar flaws is based on area. Figure 4-11 shows a
typical table.

Figure 4-11
ASME Section XI, Table IWB-3510-2



5-1

Section 5: Process for Interpretation of
Radiographic Indications
Introduction
The art and science of the interpretation and analysis of radiographic images is a
complex task that requires a thorough understanding of the principles of
industrial radiography, including the basic geometry of image formation,
standard radiographic techniques, isotopic and electronic radiographic sources,
material product forms and properties, potential discontinuity types and
characteristics, analog and digital recording media, and applicable codes and
standards.
The interpretation of radiographic images is not a precise science. Qualified
interpreters with many years of experience will often disagree on the nature of
discontinuities and their disposition. The information contained in this section
will assist the interpreter with the task of evaluating radiographic images of
critical safety-related nuclear components.
Background
Radiographic interpretation is considered to be a three-step process that consists
of detection, interpretation, and evaluation of images. Central to this process is
the interpreters visual acuity and the conditions under which the radiographic
images are viewed [13]. The images for analog and digital recording media
should be viewed under subdued background lighting of an intensity that will not
cause reflections, shadows, or glare on the image mediathat is, radiographic
film or digital monitor display. Equipment used to view radiographic images for
interpretation should provide a light source or monitor intensity sufficient for the
penetrameter and the essential penetrameter hole to be visible for the specified
density or pixel value. The viewing conditions should be so that light from
around the outer edges of the radiographic image or coming through low density
or lighter portions of the image does not interfere with interpretation [14]. The
brightness of the surrounding room should be about the same as the brightness of
the area of interest in the image [13]. A short period, approximately 510
minutes or that specified in an applicable code, specification, or procedure, of
dark adaption for the interpreter is recommended prior to beginning the process
of interpretation to allow the eyes to adjust to the subdued lighting.


5-2
Analog Images
Image Quality
The radiographic interpreter must first accept the quality of the image by
evaluating the film for handling and processing effects that can lead to artifacts,
or false indications.
All radiographs should be free from mechanical, chemical, or other blemishes to
the extent that they do not mask or be confused with the image of any
discontinuity in the area of interest in the radiograph [5].Typical film artifacts
that lead to unsatisfactory images are detailed below.
There any many causes for unsatisfactory radiographic film images; these can
usually be traced to poor film handling and housekeeping, as well as improper
development. The most effective and simplest way to identify and eliminate most
film artifacts is the use of the double film technique, which allows comparison of
the two films loaded and exposed together in a cassette. Film artifacts can occur
before, during, or after processing. Film artifacts occurring during processing can
be further classified as being a result of manual or automated processing.
Conditions that may lead to film artifacts before processing include the
following:
Film scratches
Pressure marks
Crimp marks
Static charge marks
Screen marks and blemishes
Fog
Light exposure
Fingerprints
False indications from defective intensifying screens
Conditions that may lead to film artifacts during processing include the
following:
Underdevelopment/overdevelopment
Chemical streaks (manual)
Spotting (manual)
Yellow stains
Reticulation
Frilling
Air bells or bubbles

5-3
Dirt/dust
Pi lines (automated)
Pressure marks (automated)
Kissing (manual)
Delay streaks (automated)
Conditions that may lead to film artifacts after processing include the following:
Scratches
Fingerprints
Yellowing resulting from aging and improper washing/fixing during
processing
Adhesive transfer and acid from storage envelopes [13]
Radiographic Density
Density Limitations
The transmitted film density through the radiographic image of the body of the
appropriate hole image quality indicator (IQI) or adjacent to the designated wire
of a wire IQI and the area of interest should be 1.8 minimum for single film
viewing for radiographs made with an X-ray source and 2.0 minimum for
radiographs made with a gamma ray source. For composite viewing of multiple
film exposuresthat is, the double film techniqueeach film of the composite
set should have a minimum density of 1.3. The maximum density should be 4.0
for either single or composite viewing. A tolerance of 0.05 in density is allowed
for variations between densitometer readings.
Density Variation
General
If the density of the radiograph anywhere through the area of interest varies by
more than minus 15% or plus 30% from the density through the body of the hole
penetrameter or adjacent to the designated wire of a wire IQI, within the
minimum/maximum allowable density ranges, an additional IQI should be used
for each exceptional area or areas and the radiograph retaken. When calculating
the allowable variation in density, the calculation can be rounded to the nearest
0.01 within the minus 15% to plus 30% range. When shims are used with hole-
type IQIs, the plus 30% restriction can be exceeded and the minimum density
requirements do not apply for the IQI, provided that the required sensitivity is
met.

5-4
Image Quality Indicators
Required Sensitivity
Radiography should be performed with a technique of sufficient sensitivity to
display the designated hole IQI image and the essential hole or the essential wire
of a wire IQI. The radiographs should also display the IQI identifying numbers
and letters. If the designated hole IQI image and essential hole, or essential wire,
do not show on any film in a multiple film technique but do show in composite
film viewing, interpretation should be permitted only by composite film viewing.
Equivalent Hole-Type Sensitivity
A thinner or thicker hole-type IQI than the required IQI may be substituted,
provided that an equivalent or better IQI sensitivity, as listed in ASME Section
V, Article 2, Table T-283 (see Figure 5-1), is achieved and all other requirements
for radiography are met. Equivalent IQI sensitivity is shown in any row of Table
T-283 that contains the required IQI and hole. Better IQI sensitivity is shown in
any row of Table T-283 that is above the equivalent sensitivity row. If the
required IQI and hole are not represented in the table, the next thinner IQI row
from Table T-283 can be used to establish equivalent IQI sensitivity.

Figure 5-1
ASME Section V, Article 2, Table T-283


5-5
Excessive Backscatter
ASME Section V, Article 2, requires control of backscattered radiation from
floors or other surrounding objects that might degrade the radiographic image
quality. It requires the placing of a lead letter B on the back of the radiographic
film cassette. If a light image of the B appears on a darker background of the
radiograph, protection from backscatter is insufficient and the radiograph should
be considered unacceptable. A dark image of the B on a lighter background is not
cause for rejection.
ASME Radiographic Evaluation
Prior to being presented to the authorized nuclear in-service inspector (ANII),
the images should be examined and evaluated by the manufacturer as complying
with ASME Section V, Article 2, and ASME Section XI. The radiographic
images should be accompanied by a completed radiograph review form, including
the radiographic technique information and indication dispositions, when
presented to the ANII for acceptance.
The manufacturer should be responsible for the review, interpretation, evaluation,
and acceptance of the completed radiographs to ensure compliance with the
requirements of ASME Section V, Article 2, and the referencing Code section. As
an aid to the review and evaluation, the radiographic technique documentation
required by ASME Section V, Article 2, paragraph T-291, should be completed
prior to the evaluation. The radiograph review form required by ASME Section V,
Article 2, paragraph T-292, should also be completed during the evaluation. The
radiographic technique details and the radiograph review form should accompany
the radiographs. Acceptance should be completed prior to the presentation of the
radiographs and accompanying documentation to the ANII.
Documentation
Radiographic Technique
After determining that the image quality, density, and sensitivity are acceptable,
the radiographic interpreter should begin the detection process with a review of
the radiography technique documentation provided by the radiographer with the
film or digital images. This reader sheet should provide the interpreter with
detailed accurate information of the radiographic technique used for an image or
series of images prior to beginning the interpretation process. This will allow the
interpreter to verify and judge the adequacy and applicability of the radiographic
technique required by the controlling Code or specification.


5-6
As a minimum, ASME Section V, Article 2, requires documentation of the
following:
Manufacturers name and permanent identification on the image traceable to
the part or component (T-224)
Dimensional map of marker placement (if used in place of location markers
[T-275.3])
Number of images or exposures
X-ray voltage or isotope used
Source size (F in T-274.1)
Base material/weld type and thickness, including reinforcement thickness, if
applicable
Source-to-object thickness (D in T-274.1)
Distance from source side of object to recording medium (d in T.274.1)
Film/type/designation
Number of films in each cassette
Single- or double-wall exposure
Single- or double-wall viewing
In addition to the minimum Code requirements, other items are typically
included in the radiographic technique documentation. They are as follows:
Type of intensifying screens used, if any
Governing Code or specification and acceptance criteria
X-ray milliampere or source curie strength
Procedure and revision number
IQI type, size, location (source or film side), required sensitivity, and shim
thickness, if used
Sketch of the radiographic setup
Radiation beam filters, if used
Backscatter protection/masking or blocking
Geometric unsharpness
Exposure time
Film processing information (manual or automated)
Image plate (computed radiography) processing information


5-7
The radiographic technique documentation is required to be included on the
radiographic review form that is completed by the interpreter during the
evaluation process. As a minimum, the radiographic review form should include
the following:
Radiographic technique documentation
Listing of each exposure image location
Evaluation and disposition of the materials or welds examined
Name of interpreter
Date of the evaluation
Radiograph Review Form
The radiographic technique documentation is required to be included on the
radiograph review form that is completed by the interpreter during the evaluation
process. As a minimum, the radiograph review form should include the
following:
Listing of each exposure image location
Radiographic technique documentation (T-291)
Evaluation and disposition of the materials or welds examined
Name of the manufacturers representative who performed the final
acceptance of the radiographs
Date of manufacturers evaluation
The radiograph review form should also include other information, as follows,
that may be important for secondary evaluations and subsequent engineering
evaluation and disposition of any unacceptable discontinuities:
Examination limitations/coverage
Certification level of the interpreter
Comments by the interpreter
Precise flaw measurements (lengths and endpoints) and distance from
permanent location markers
Indication numbering to maintain traceability, if multiple indications are in
the area of interest
Artifacts/processing defects
Repairs, if any (typically denoted by an R preceding the exposure number)
[5]


5-8
Film Interpretation Considerations
Experience is the key to successful film interpretation. The experienced film
interpreter will develop a personal step-by-step process to assess radiographic
technique variations that can affect interpretation and evaluation. One of the
most important things an interpreter can do to detect technique errors is to
obtain a detailed scale drawing of the component or weld. Knowledge of the weld
joint design, material types and thicknesses, and welding process(es) and their
associated discontinuities is essential to making an accurate interpretation of the
radiographic images.
The film interpreter should also have the necessary equipment and tools within
reach. A partial list of desirable equipment includes the following:
High-intensity, variable-intensity illuminator, with foot pedal control; spare
bulbs and sufficient illuminator viewing masks
Calibrated densitometer, with aperture set
Magnifier, 510x
Comparator, with etched glass scale [13]
Clear ruler, with standard and metric scales
Grease pencils
Clear plastic overlays
Film storage leaves and jackets
Cotton gloves
Report forms
Digital Images
For a number of years, computer digitization of radiographic film has become a
recognized practice for the enhancement of images and/or storage of the images.
As improvements in computer digitization technology have increased,
digitization of radiographs has become a more common practice and requires
appropriate process controls to ensure that the Code requirements are
maintained. Additionally, newer technology allows the direct capture of
radiographic images on digital media. These digital media include phosphor
plates or digital detectors. As with all technology, there are advantages and
limitations to these radiographic imaging techniques. The industry codes and
specifications are being developed to ensure that the necessary requirements are
being addressed [13].


5-9
Evaluation of Digitized Film ImagesASME Section V,
Article 2, Mandatory Appendix VI
General Requirements
Digital Image Viewing Considerations
The digital image should be judged by visual comparison to be equivalent to the
image quality of the original image at the time of digitization.
Evaluation
Process Evaluation
The radiographic Level II or Level III examiner described in VI-223(a) should
be responsible for determining that the digital imaging process is capable of
reproducing the original analog image. This digital image should then be
transferred to the write-once-read-many (WORM) optical disc. The examiner
must use the digitized representation of the reference targets (reference film) to
assess system performance as described in VI-240 and VI-250. The reference
film should be used to conduct performance demonstrations and evaluation of
the digitizing system to verify the operating characteristics before radiographs are
digitized (VI-A-210).
Interpretation
When interpretation of the radiograph is used for acceptance, the requirements
of Article 2, Mandatory Appendix IV, and the referencing Code section should
apply. If analog radiographs must be viewed in composite for acceptance, both
radiographs should be digitized. The digital image of the analog radiographs
should be viewed singularly.
Appendix IV contains the evaluation requirements for interpretation in Section
IV-280.
Factors Affecting System Performance
The quality of system performance is determined by the combined performance
of the components specified in IV-258. These are as follows:
Digital image acquisition system
Display system
Image processing system
Image storage system
System-Induced Artifacts
The digital system should be free of system-induced artifacts in the area of
interest that could mask or be confused with the image of any discontinuity.

5-10
Digital Imaging Technique Information
To aid in proper interpretation of the digital examination data, details of the
technique used should accompany the data. As a minimum, the information
should include items specified in T-291 and II-221, III-221, IV-221, IV-222,
and the following:
Operator identification
System performance test data
Calibration test data
Evaluation by Manufacturer
Prior to being presented to the inspector for acceptance, the digital examination
data from a radiographic or radioscopic image should have been interpreted by
the manufacturer as complying with the referencing Code section. The digitized
examination data that have previously been accepted by the inspector are not
required to be submitted to the inspector for acceptance.
Baseline
Digital images of previously accepted radiographs can be used as a baseline for
subsequent ISIs.
Documentation
Reporting Requirements
The following should be documented in a final report:
Spatial resolution (VI-241)
Contrast sensitivity (VI-242)
Frequency for system verification
Dynamic range (VI-243)
Traceability technique from original component to radiograph to displayed
digital image, including original radiographic reports (The original
radiographic reader sheet may be digitized to fulfill this requirement.)
Condition of original radiographs (VI-281)
Procedure demonstration (VI-261)
Spatial linearity (VI-244)
System performance parameters (VI-241)
Personnel performing the digital imaging process (VI-223)


5-11
Archiving
When the final report and digitized information are used to replace the analog
radiograph as the permanent record as required by the referencing Code section,
all information pertaining to the original radiography should be documented in
the final report and processed as part of the digital record. A duplicate copy of
the WORM storage media is required if the radiographs are to be destroyed.
Evaluation of Phosphor Imaging Plate ImagesArticle 2,
Mandatory Appendix VIII
General Considerations
Facilities for Viewing of Radiographs
Viewing facilities should provide subdued background lighting of an intensity
that will not cause reflections, shadows, or glare on the monitor that interferes
with the interpretation process.
Evaluation
System Induced Artifacts
The digital image should be free of system-induced artifacts in the area of
interest that could mask or be confused with the image of any discontinuity.
Image Brightness
The image brightness through the body of the hole-type IQI or adjacent to the
designated wire of the wire-type IQI, should be judged to be equal to or greater
than the image brightness in the area of interest for a negative image format.
This image brightness requirement is reversed for a positive image format.
Additionally, the requirements of T-282 are not applicable to phosphor imaging
plate radiography.
Required IQI Sensitivity
Radiography should be performed with a technique of sufficient sensitivity to
display the designated hole-type image and the essential hole, or the essential
wire of a wire-type IQI. The radiograph should also display the IQI identifying
numbers and letters. Multiple film technique is not applicable to phosphor
imaging plate radiography.
Sensitivity Range
The contrast and brightness range that demonstrates the required sensitivity
should be considered valid contrast and brightness values for interpretation.
When multiple IQIs are used to cover different thickness ranges, the contrast and
brightness range that demonstrates the required IQI image of each IQI should be
determined. Intervening thicknesses can be interpreted using the overlapping
portions of the determined contrast and brightness ranges. When there is no
overlap, an additional IQI(s) should be used.

5-12
Measuring Scale
The measuring scale that is used for interpretation should be capable of providing
dimensions of the projected image. The measurement scale tool should be based
upon a known dimensional comparator that is placed on the cassette.
Interpretation
Final radiographic interpretation of the area of interest should be performed with
the identified IQI image contrast and brightness or, if multiple IQIs are used, the
overlapping portions of the identified contrast and brightness values for the
intervening thickness ranges as determined according to VII-283.3. The IQI and
the area of interest should be of the same image format (positive or negative).
Additionally, where applicable, visual comparators, such as film strips and gray-
scale cards, can be used to aid in judging displayed image brightness. When
comparators are used to judge areas within the image, they need not be
calibrated, the digital image can be viewed and evaluated in a positive or negative
image format, and independent areas of interest of the same image can be
displayed and evaluated in differing image formats, provided that the IQI and the
area of interest are viewed and evaluated in the same image format.
Documentation
Digital Imaging Technique Documentation Details
The manufacturer should prepare and document the radiographic technique
details. As a minimum, the following information should be provided:
Identification as required by T-224
The dimensional map of marker placement (if used in place of location
markers) in accordance with T-275.3
Number of exposures
X-ray voltage or isotope used
Source size (F in T-274.1)
Base material/weld type and thickness, including reinforcement thickness, if
applicable
Source-to-object thickness (D in T-274.1)
Distance from source side of object to recording medium (d in T.274.1)
Storage phosphor manufacturer and designation
Image acquisition (digitizing) equipment manufacturer, model, and serial
number
Single- or double-wall exposure
Single- or double-wall viewing


5-13
Procedure identification and revision level
Imaging software version and revision
Numerical values of the final imaging processing parametersthat is, filters,
window (contrast), and level (brightness) for each view.
The technique details can be embedded in the data file. ASTM E- 1475 can be
used as a guide for establishing data fields and information content [5].
Digital Image Processing
Introduction
Most of the raw digital images acquired by the preceding techniques are gray-
scale images that are not very useful without some sort of image processing.
Digital processing can be defined as any digital operation performed on a digital
image for the purpose of enhancing or improving the visibility of desired image
features. Digital image processing can have a profound effect on the end results
of image interpretation, so a good understanding of the fundamental concepts of
digital processing is essential to the evaluation of digitized images. The
commercial hardware and software that are available with these systems typically
perform the same signal processing operations, but the processing operations may
have different names and software protocols. The digital image interpreter should
not only be familiar with the basic fundamentals of image processing but also be
aware of manufacturer variations in software [15]. Digital enhancement is
accomplished through the use of computer algorithms that make changes to the
original gray-scale matrix. The computer software knows the gray-scale value of
each pixel on the display monitor. Any number of instructions can be generated
by the computer to reassign any number or combination of gray-scale values.
There are often limits to the amount of processing that can be done before the
results degrade the image rather than enhance it. In some instances of
overdriving, a feature can be processed beyond the capability of the electronic
display to accurately display the image. These practices can lead to image
distortion, such as aliasing or blooming [16].
Contrast and Brightness
Contrast (window) and brightness (level) are the most commonly used image
processing tools. All systems offer the ability to adjust the window/level. Window
is the common term for the relationship of the light and dark areas in the image,
and level determines how light or dark the overall image appears. These
adjustments are accomplished through the use of look-up tables where the pixel
values are reassigned from a reference table to lighter or darker values. Many
systems allow adjustments of these values simultaneously. The interpreter must
be careful not to adjust these values past the minimum pixel value from the
original image where the image deteriorates and information may be lost.
Window and leveling processing can also allow image reversal to positive for
enhanced interpretation. Knowledge and experience with the individual software
is essential to their effective use [17].

5-14
Histogram Analysis
A histogram is a compilation of all pixel values within the total image categorized
by each pixels gray-scale value. The main idea of a histogram is to allow the
interpreter to identify areas within the image that might not be needed for
evaluation of the image or to change pixel contrast/brightness (window/level) in
selected areas of the histogram. This process allows other processing techniques
to be more easily applied to selected areas of interest. Histogram equalization is
most useful for images without a wide range of contrast, such as when a part or
component with low subject contrast entirely covers the detector. The histogram
is useful in determining proper exposure. A 12-bit full digital image pixel
histogram has pixel values from 0 to 4096 on the horizontal axis of the
histogram. Acceptable images can be achieved when the primary image data are
located within 1/4 (1024) to 3/4 (3072) of the horizontal scale. If the histogram
is too far to the left, the image is underexposed. If the histogram is too far to the
right, the image is overexposed.
Filters
Digital filters apply algorithms that selectively reassign original pixel values to
enhance the visibility of a selected feature and suppress noise from surrounding
pixels. Pixels can be divided into three categories: resident pixels (darkest),
neighboring pixels (lighter), and neighborhood pixels (lightest). Resident pixels
are completely within the boundaries of the selected feature, neighboring pixels
are adjacent to the feature, but not completely within or outside of the feature,
and neighborhood pixels are the other lighter pixels around the feature that
provide enough contrast for the feature to be seen. Most filtering operations
involve the neighboring pixels [16].
Filtering does not always enhance a selected feature (such as the essential hole or
wire of an IQI) and it can be overapplied to the point where the image is
distorted. Noise reduction filters are linear filters that add, subtract, multiply,
divide, or average the individual pixel values in a 3 x 3 pixel group and replace the
center pixel with the result. These include smoothing and median filters. High-
pass filters serve to sharpen features in the image by increasing the target feature
(center) pixel value and greatly lowering (subtracting) the surrounding pixel
values to a negative value; overall image quality must be maintained by lowering
the surrounding pixels by the same value. Low-pass filters blur the image by
increasing the target feature pixel value and slightly lowering the surrounding
pixel values. Edge enhancement filters accentuate linear patterns in the image by
greatly lowering the target feature pixel value to a negative number and
increasing the surrounding pixel values to a positive number. Embossing filters
offer a unique presentation of the image where any significant thickness change is
highlighted by providing a relief of the image [15].


5-15
Magnification
Image enlargement can be a valuable tool for the interpreter. The image is
digitally enlarged on the display monitor. Enlargement more than four times the
original pixel size can cause distorted images. The original pixel density must be
preserved in the magnified image. Magnification is also limited by the capability
of the monitor to display the enlargement [17].
Digital Image Interpretation
Dimensional Measurements
Dimensional measurement software requires calibration of the measurement tool
by including a part of known dimensions in the radiograph (round sphere, step
wedge, or IQI) and displaying this image on the monitor. Care should be taken
not to enlarge the feature to be measured. Measurement of a feature directly on
the monitor with a ruler is not recommended [16].
Discontinuity Indications
After determining the acceptability of the film/phosphor imaging plate/digital
detector technique and the image quality, the radiographic interpreter must
determine the type and the disposition of any indications noted in the area of
interest and record these on the radiographic report. The radiographic report
should contain a list of potential discontinuities found in the material under
examination and detectable by the radiographic method for the interpreter to
reference [14]. Article 1, Nonmandatory Appendix A, Table A-110 contains a
summary of service-induced imperfections, welding imperfections, and product
form imperfections that are considered to be detectable by radiographic
examination [5]. Many radiographic publications contain excellent radiographic
reproductions of typical discontinuities combined with photomicrographs of the
discontinuity that can be used as a reference for radiographic interpretation [12].
ASME Section XI Acceptance Criteria
After an indication is detected by radiographic testing and determined to be a
flaw, the length (size) must be measured at the greatest dimension of the flaw,
including any enlargement due to radiographic technique, and rounded in
accordance with IWA-3200. ASME Section XI defines flaws found with
radiographic testing as linear surface flaws. The flaw size is then compared with
Section XI requirements for that particular component found in the appropriate
subsection (IWB, Class I; IWC, Class 2, and so forth), article (3000, Acceptance
Standards), and examination category (B-A, B-G-1, and so forth). The
acceptance criteria for linear surface flaws are based on flaw length and part
thickness, as well as proximity to other flaws. See Section 4 of this report for
additional details [18].


6-1

Section 6: Process for Interpretation of
Magnetic Particle Indications
There are three fundamental elements in any NDE method. These elements are
the following:
Production of an indication (In the magnetic particle method, this is an
indication on the surface of the part.)
Interpretation of the indication as to what condition(s) of the part caused it
Evaluation of the condition(s) as to the effect and extent that it will affect the
part usability
Production of meaningful magnetic particle indications is dependent on the
proper technique selection for the part to be examined, as well as the proper
application of the technique. Knowledgeable and experienced magnetic particle
Level III personnel should select the technique(s) required to provide the best
possible capability for the detection of relevant discontinuities. The technique(s)
selected should obviously meet the minimum required Code or specification
requirements for the part. Additionally, the magnetic particle Level III personnel
should ensure that a qualified procedure has been developed and demonstrated to
ensure that the technique(s) to be used is capable of detecting the required
discontinuities.
ASME Section XI references ASME Section V, Nondestructive Examination,
for the requirements to perform NDE examinations. ASME Section V,
Appendix IGlossary of Terms for Nondestructive Examination, defines
procedure demonstration: when a written procedure is demonstrated, to the
satisfaction of the inspector, by applying the examination method using the
employers written NDE procedure to display compliance with the requirements
of this section, under normal examination conditions according to T-150(a) or
special conditions as described in T-150(b) Additionally, it defines procedure
qualification: when a written NDE procedure is qualified in accordance with the
detailed requirements of the referencing Code Section [5],
Parts on which no indication appears can be presumed free of discontinuities and
can be considered acceptable for use. Parts on which indications appear require
further consideration to determine their condition.

6-2
The next element is the interpretation of the indication. The indication of the
presence of a discontinuity by a magnetic particle examination is, literally, just
that. It is an indicator that something in the part is not normal. However, it does
not, by itself, reveal exactly what the discontinuity is that produced it. In
magnetic particle examination, every indication pattern is produced by a
magnetic disturbance that results in a leakage field. Additional knowledge and
information are required to determine whether the indication pattern and the
magnetic disturbance are truly significant. This requires a knowledgeable and
experienced magnetic particle examiner to interpret the indication based on the
cause.
To reiterate the concepts addressed in Section 3 of this report, Figure 6-1
illustrates the process for the determination as to whether the indication is false,
relevant, or nonrelevant. It might be instructive to review the following while
considering Figure 6-1:
A false indication is an NDE indication that is interpreted to be caused by a
condition other than a discontinuity or imperfection [5]. False indications
that result when performing magnetic particle examination are indications
that result from some condition other than a magnetic flux field, such as
where dry magnetic particles are held mechanically or by gravity in surface
irregularities. Improper cleaning or material getting on a surface after
cleaning, such as grease or oil, can also result in false indications. For wet
magnetic particles, false indications can result from drainage lines on the part
surface.
A relevant or nonrelevant magnetic particle indication is one that results
from a magnetic flux field from a discontinuity in the part. Nonrelevant
magnetic particle indications are the result of magnetic or metallic
discontinuities that are present by design or by conditions that have no effect
on the strength or service usefulness of the part. Some examples of
discontinuities producing nonrelevant magnetic particle indications are a
press- or shrink-fit between two parts of a component; a weld joint between
two ferromagnetic materials with different magnetic permeabilities or a weld
joint between a ferromagnetic and nonferromagnetic material; and
segregation of base metal constituents.
Another example of a nonrelevant magnetic particle indication is called
magnetic writing. These indications can result during part handling where a
magnetized part comes in contact with a nonmagnetized one. This contact
can produce localized magnetized areas that will attract and hold magnetic
particles. The appearance of these indications is not distinct, such as those
typically from surface flawsfor example, cracks and bursts. The magnetic
particle examiner is cautioned against misconstruing such indications as
being caused by subsurface discontinuities. Whether an indication is caused
by magnetic writing or by a subsurface discontinuity can be determined by
demagnetizing and reprocessing the part. Demagnetizing will remove the
magnetic writing. If the indication returns after demagnetizing and
reprocessing, it is an indication of a discontinuity at or near the surface.

6-3
Relevant magnetic particle indications occur when a magnetic flux field
occurs in response to a flaw. Magnetic particle indications from a crack
in a weld, a burst in a forging, or a seam or lamination in a rolled plate
are examples of relevant indications. An indication from a service-
induced mechanical fatigue crack is also a relevant indication. Note: The
term flaw is defined as an imperfection that may be detectable by
nondestructive testing and is not necessarily rejectable [5].
Relevant indications require characterization and evaluation.
Flaw characterization is the process of quantifying the size, shape,
orientation, location, growth, or other properties, of a flaw based on its
NDE response [7].
Evaluation is a review, following interpretation and characterization of
the indication, to determine whether the discontinuity meets specified
acceptance criteria [7].

Figure 6-1
Fundamental NDE evaluation process

6-4
For an NDE examiner to make the proper interpretation as to whether an
indication is false, nonrelevant, or relevant requires considerable knowledge, skill,
and experience. This knowledge includes not only the NDE method that is
applied but also detailed information on the component and its potential
associated discontinuities. In nearly all instances, an experienced magnetic
particle Level II or III examiner can accurately determine from the location and
appearance of a magnetic particle indication what has caused the formation of the
indication. This can only be done accurately by the examiner knowing the parts
history, including its chemical composition, method of productionthat is,
wrought, cast, and so forthand primary and secondary processing.
There are two broad categories of relevant magnetic particle indications. These
are indications from surface and subsurface discontinuities. Surface discontinuity
indications present as sharp, distinct magnetic particle accumulations, usually
tightly held to the parts surface. Discontinuities, such as surface cracks, rolling,
and forging laps, are examples of these tight surface conditions that can be
difficult to see with the unaided eye and are typically the more critical type.
Subsurface discontinuity indications, on the other hand, typically present as
broader, fuzzier magnetic particle accumulation, as compared with those formed
by surface discontinuities. The farther below the surface, the broader and less
distinct the indications present. It is usually relatively easy for an experienced
examiner to determine whether the discontinuity is surface or subsurface, based
on the indication appearance. Additionally, by removing the magnetic particle
accumulation, the examiner can visually examine the surface directly and often
can directly see the discontinuity. A magnifier (35x) might be needed to aid in
this examination. In the event that there is no surface indication when visually
examined, the indication is most likely from a completely subsurface
discontinuity. Additional information can also be gained by removing the
magnetic particle indication and reapplying the magnetic particles to determine
whether the indication reappears. Depending on the materials magnetic
properties and the discontinuity characteristics, the residual magnetism can result
in the indication reformation. Obviously, this will be less sensitive than the
continuous method; however, it can provide the magnetic particle examiner
additional information about the nature of the discontinuity.
After an indication is interpreted and determined to be a relevant indication, it
must be characterized. Determining the flaw characteristics from the NDE data
and knowledge of the material and processes that caused it is essential to proper
evaluation. Evaluation determines whether the flaw is acceptable in accordance
with the applicable Code or specification acceptance criteria. For example, in
most construction codes applicable to welds, cracks, lack of fusion, and lack of
penetration are unacceptable regardless of other characteristics, such as size,
shape, orientation, and location. Other relevant indications, such as porosity,
slag, and tungsten inclusions, can be acceptable, based on their characteristics.
Appendix B provides examples of how two utilities address detected indications.

6-5
All NDE methods produce indirect indications of discontinuities. However, the
indications do not directly reveal what the discontinuities are. The indications
must be correctly interpreted before they provide the information as to the actual
condition of the material. For example, a broad fuzzy linear magnetic particle
indication at the toe of a vee-groove weld is meaningless until a knowledgeable,
experienced magnetic particle examiner interprets the indication.
Magnetic particle examination produces indications on the surface of materials
that are rather clearly related to the size and shape of the discontinuity causing
the indication. In fact, in some cases when the discontinuity is at the surface, it
can be directly seen after it is detected by the magnetic particle. Of course,
subsurface discontinuities cannot be visually detected, but they can provide
valuable information as to the nature of the discontinuity. Regardless, the
indicaton still has to be interpreted to determine what type of discontinuity it is
and characterized to assess its impact on the component usefullness.
In general, interpretation of an NDE indication means to make a decision as to
what is the cause of the indication. As addressed in the glossary in Section 1,
ASME Section XI defines interpretation as the determination of whether
indications are relevant or nonrelevant. ASME Section XI, unlike many other
codes and specifications, does not require the examiner to determine the type of
discontinuity detected, that is, it does not require the distinction between
crack, lack of fusion, cold shut, and so forth to evaluate the flaw to the acceptance
criteria. For plant modifications and R/R activities, however, the construction
Code requirements apply. As shown below, from ASME Section III, Rules for
Construction of Nuclear Plant Facilities, Division 1, Subsection NB, Class 1
Components, the examiner does have to characterize discontinuity indications to
evaluate them to the acceptance standards. Are, for example, magnetic particle
and liquid penetrant indications, according to ASME Section III, any cracks
and linear indications? Based on these requirements, the examiner must have the
knowledge and experience to characterize indications resulting from base material
product form discontinuitiesthat is, castings, forgings, rolled products,
extrusions, drawn products, welds made with various welding processes, and in-
service discontinuities.
ASME Section V, Nondestructive Examination, paragraph T-777,
Interpretation, which is referenced by ASME Section XI, states, The
interpretation should identify if an indication as false, nonrelevant, or relevant.
False and nonrelevant indications should be proven as false or nonrelevant.
Interpretation should be carried out to identify the locations of indications and
the character of the indication. ASME Section V, paragraph T-780 Evaluation,
further requires the following:
(a) All indications should be evaluated in terms of the acceptance standards
of the referencing Code Section.
(b) Discontinuities on or near the surface are indicated by retention of the
examination medium. However, localized surface irregularities due to
machining marks or other surface conditions may produce false indications.

6-6
(c) Broad areas of particle accumulation, which might mask indications from
discontinuities, are prohibited, and such areas should be cleaned and
reexamined. [5]
Section 4 of this report details the ASME Section XI Code requirements for the
evaluation of magnetic particle indications. Refer to it for additional guidance.



7-1

Section 7: Process for Interpretation of
Liquid Penetrant Indications
All NDE methods produce indirect indications of discontinuities. However, the
indications do not directly reveal what the discontinuities are. The indications
must be correctly interpreted before they provide the information as to the actual
condition of the material. For example, a radiographic film displaying dark lines,
spots, or density variations is meaningless until a knowledgeable, experienced
radiographer interprets the indications.
Liquid penetrant examinations methods produce indications on the surface of
materials that are rather clearly related to the size and shape of the discontinuity
that is open to the surface causing the indication. In fact, in some cases, when the
discontinuity is open to the surface, it can be directly seen by visual examination
after it is detected by the liquid penetrant method. Regardless, the indicaton still
has to be interpreted to determine which type of discontinuity it is and
characterized to assess its impact on the component usefullness. Even though the
acutal discontinutity can be seen visually, it is the actual penetrant indications
length and/or width that is measured for evaluation.
As previously addressed, interpretation of an NDE indication means to make a
decision as to what is the cause for the indication. As addressed in the glossary in
Section 1 of this report, ASME Section XI defines interpretation as the
determination of whether indications are relevant or nonrelevant. ASME Section
XI, unlike many other codes and specifications, does not require the examiner to
determine the type of discontinuity detectedthat is, it does not require the
distinction between crack, lack of fusion, cold shut, and so forth, to evaluate the
flaw to the acceptance criteria. For plant modifications and R/R activities
however, the construction Code requirements apply. As addressed in Section 4 of
this report, ASME Section III, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Plant
Facilities, Division 1, Subsection NB, Class 1 Components, the examiner does
have to characterize discontinuity indications to evaluate them to the acceptance
standards. For example, for liquid penetrant testing, any cracks and linear
indications have to be interpreted. Based on these requirements, the examiner
must have the knowledge and experience to characterize indications resulting
from base material product form discontinuitiesthat is, castings, forgings,
rolled products, extrusions, drawn products, welds made with various welding
processes, and in-service discontinuities.

7-2
The experience needed for correct interpretation of liquid penetrant indications
requires knowledge of the liquid penetrant method and the specific liquid
penetrant technique used to procedure the indications. The examiner must know
and be experienced to identify conditions that reveal whether the examination
process has been conducted properly. For example, in applying the solvent-
removal, visible-dye technique using solvent-based wet developer, there are not
false or nonrelevant indications present resulting from improper cleaning.
Additionally, the developer has not been applied in too heavy of a thickness as to
mask potential indications. In the case of fluorescent water washable penetrant
technique, the examiner must be certain that the water wash to remove the excess
penetrant has been thorough, so that the indication(s) resulting are true
indications of relevant discontinuities. The examiner must also be able to derive
all possible significant information from the appearance of the indication(s).
In addition to knowledge and experience of the liquid penetrant processing
technique used, the task of interpretation becomes easier and more authoritative
if the examiner has intimate knowledge of the part being examined. The
examiner should know the parts material, the process by which it is made, and
the various subsequent processes though which it has been though to reach the
final configuration. Additionally, the examiner should know the kinds of flaws
characteristic of the material and should be aware of what type processing flaws
may be introduced. Also, if the part has been in service, the examiner should be
very familiar with the types of damage mechanisms that may result from the
service conditions and how to recognize them. In other words, the examiner
should have enough background knowledge and experiences regarding the given
part to know in advance which types of flaws are likely to be present, where they
are most likely to occur, and what the appearance of these discontinuity
indications will be.
The interpretation of liquid penetrant indications is relatively simple as compared
with some other NDE methodsfor example, UT or eddy current testing.
Because a major limitation of liquid penetrant is that can only detect
discontinuities that are open to the surface, any true indication can only result
from one of two causes: an actual discontinuity in the material that is open to the
surface or penetrant remaining on the surface from a nonrelevant condition, such
as poor washing or contamination from some external sourcefor example, lint.
Liquid penetrant nonrelevant indications are usually relatively easy to recognize
because they can be directly related to features of the partfor example, the
transition area from the base metal of a pipe to the toe of the circumferential
weld in a pipe-to-pipe butt-joint. Depending on the specific configuration, it is
often difficult to remove the excess penetrant to clean all the excess penetrant at
this transition. These and other surface conditions are a common source of
nonrelevant indications. Another common example is where cast materials are
used. Sometimes cast materials have rough as-cast surfaces. These hold penetrant
that will produce indications upon examination. Like the indication on the base
metal-to-weld transition, these indications are not a result of inadequate washing
during processing but the inability to produce a clean-washed surface.
Nevertheless, the indications can interfere with proper interpretation of the part.

7-3
True liquid penetrant indications typically present in one of two forms: linear
indications, which are the result of cracks or other crack-like discontinuitiesfor
example, weld lack of fusion or lack of penetration or forging lapsor regular or
spotty indications that are caused by porosity.
Each of these crack-like or porosity-type discontinuities, can vary greatly in
actual appearance based on size, shape, and extent.
In addition to the significance of the size, shape, intensity (density and volume of
the indication), and amount and speed that it spreads can all provide useful
information to the examiner as to the actual nature of the discontinuity.
Typically, very fine cracks and very small pores produce a more faint indication
than indications from larger ones. The wider and/or deeper the crack or the
larger the porosity cavity, the greater the volume of penetrant available to bleed
out and to form a larger, brighter, and more rapidly forming indication.
The intensity and the speed at which an indication forms provide some
qualitative information as to the size and severity of the subsurface portion of the
discontinuitythat is, depth of a crack-like discontinuity or the volume of the
pore. In a similar way, the speed with which the indication forms provides
qualitative information as to the volume of the discontinuity. Relatively large
discontinuities form indications immediately and in some instances may not even
require application of the developer to see them. On the other hand, very small,
tight or fine discontinuities may require high sensitivity penetrant materials, very
long penetrant dwell times, and long developer dwell times to even be detected.
In some instances, intergranular stress corrosion cracking or primary water stress
corrosion cracking may require these longer times.
One of the most effective ways to gain quality training and experience for the
proper interpretation of liquid penetrant indications is to acquire a set of parts
containing an array of discontinuities representative of those the examiner will
encounter. These can be referred to for training as well as serve as reference
standards for on-going comparison when performing examinations. Depending
on the liquid penetrant technique(s) being employed and the flaw types, it may
be possible to reprocess parts to reproduce indications. Another option is to take
photographs of the indications of processed parts and develop a reference library
of indications.


8-1

Section 8: Conclusions
In recent years, there has been a significant improvement in the ability of UT
techniques to detect fabrication and service-induced defects, as a result of
technology improvement, stringent qualification, and incorporation of industry
operating experiences. Discontinuities not previously detected in preservice
inspection or ISI are now being detected and utilities are challenged to
disposition them accurately.
The process for fully informed interpretation and evaluation of NDE indications
requires knowledgeable and experienced qualified personnel using qualified
systems. It also requires extensive knowledge of the weld configuration, materials,
fabrication history, inspection history, service history, and many other factors.
Industry stakeholders should understand that this process requires time to reach
the correct results and that efficient execution of the process requires substantial
forethought and advance preparation. This report is intended to help all
stakeholders to better understand the systematic steps needed to achieve accurate
results. This understanding and proactive detailed contingency planning prior to
each outage can facilitate this process and can promote effective communications
to stakeholders throughout the evaluation.
The goal of this report is to document the indication interpretation and
evaluation process that has evolved through several years of industry experience in
examination of DMWs. The industrys practice of continuous improvement will
lead to further refinements of the process. EPRI has several current and future
activities to refine and reinforce this information and welcomes industry input.
This report contains no guidance with implementation categories defined in NEI
03-08, Revision 2, Guideline for the Management of Materials Issues. Such
recommendations will be considered for future revisions.


9-1

Section 9: References
In-Text Citations
1. Cognitive Correlates of Ultrasonic Inspection Performance. EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 1990. NP-6675.
2. INPO Degraded Reactor Coolant System Piping due to Primary Water
Stress Corrosion Cracking (LER 338-12-001 update to OE35634).
3. Nondestructive Evaluation: Guideline for Conducting Ultrasonic Examinations of
Dissimilar Metal Welds. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1018181.
4. NEI 03-08, Revision 2, Guideline for the Management of Materials Issues.
5. 2010 Edition, ASME Section V, Nondestructive Examination.
6. 2010 Edition, ASME Section XI, IWA-900 0 Glossary, also has definitions
of applicable terms, and some of these definitions vary slightly from those of
ASME Section V. Additionally, 2010 ASME Section XI has some
additional relevant terms.
7. ASTM E 131696 Standard Terminology for Nondestructive
Examinations.
8. ANSI CP-189. ASNT Standard for Qualification and Certification of
Nondestructive Testing Personnel (ANSI/ASNT CP-189-1995).
9. H. Thielsch, When Are Weld Defects Rejectable? Paper presented at the
Second Conference on Significance of Defects, London, England (May 29
30, 1968).
10. Appendix VIII, Supplement 10 and 12 Training. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2010.
1021236.
11. Advanced Nuclear Technology: Reduction of American Society of Mechanical
Engineers III Weld Fabrication RepairsFitness for Purpose. EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 2010. 1021181.
12. INPO 06-008, Guidelines for the Conduct of Outages at Nuclear Power
Plants, Revision 1, February 2011.
13. Nondestructive Testing Handbook: Radiography and Radiation Testing, Vol. 3:
American Society of Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH. 1985.
14. Radiography in Modern Industry, Fourth Edition: Eastman Kodak Company,
Rochester, NY. 1980.

9-2
15. Digital Imaging Course for Industrial Radiography Using Computed
Radiography: Virtual Media Integration Ltd., Pensacola, FL.
16. Annual Book of ASTM Standards: Standard Guide for Computed Radiography,
E-200710: American Society of Testing and Materials, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA. 2010.
17. Digital X-Ray Training, Level III, Modules IVI, 021-022-588, Revision 1:
GE Inspection Technologies, Lewistown, PA. 2005.
18. NDE for Engineers, EPRI TM921 921: Radiographic Testing. EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA. 2004.
Bibliography
Betz, Carl E. Principles of Magnetic Particle Testing, First Edition: Magnaflux
Corporation, Chicago, IL. 1967.
BWR Vessel and Internals Project, Technical Basis for Revisions to Generic
Letter 88-01 Inspection Schedules. Boiling Water Reactor Vessel Internals
Project (BWRVIP) document BWRIP-75.
BWRVIP information letter 2007-051. Request for Information on Dissimilar
Metal Weld Examinations, January 23, 2007.
BWRVIP information letter 2007-139. Request for Information on Dissimilar
Metal Weld Examinations, 2nd Request, May 24, 2007.
BWRVIP information letter 2007-154. Dissimilar Metal Weld Contours. June
7, 2007.
BWRVIP information letter 2007-367. Recommendations Regarding Dissimilar
Metal Weld Examinations (including Needed Requirements according to NEI
03-08).
BWRVIP letter 2007-321, Recent Operating Experience (OE) Regarding
Dissimilar Metal Weld Examinations.
BWRVIP-222: BWR Vessel and Internals Project, Accelerated Inspection Program for
BWRVIP-75-A Category C Dissimilar Metal Welds Containing Alloy 182. EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1019055.
Czajkowski, C.J. Evaluation of the Pilgrim Inconel 182 Cracking. Technical
report, A-3763, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, May 1985.
11973.
Czajkowski, C. J. Metallurgical Evaluation of a Feedwater Nozzle to Safe-End
Weld from River Bend Station Unit 1. Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Upton, NY, August 1995.

9-3
Consumers Power letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket
50-255, License DPR-20, Palisades Plant, Pressurizer Safe End Crack,
Engineering and Root Cause Evaluation. October 7, 1993.
Dissimilar Metal Piping Weld ExaminationGuidance and Technical Basis for
Qualification. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2003. 1008007.
Dissimilar Metal Piping Weld Examination Guidance, Volume 2. EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 2004. 1009590.
Dissimilar Metal Piping Weld Examination Guidance Volume 3. EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 2005. 1009961.
Enkvist, J., Edland, A., and Svenson, O. Operator Performance in Non-
Destructive Testing: A Study of Operator Performance in a Performance Test.
Swedish Nuclear Inspectorate, 2000. SKI Report 00:26. ISNN 1 1104-1374,
ISNRSKIR-00/26-se.
Effect of Decision Making on Ultrasonic Examination Performance. EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA: 1992. TR-100412.
INPO 01-002, Guidelines for the Conduct of Operations at Nuclear Power
Stations, May 2001.
Jenssen et al., Metallographic Examination of Cracks in Nozzle to Safe-End
Weld of Alloy 182 in Ringhals 4. Studsvik Nuclear AB, Studsvik/N (H)-00/99,
Sweden: December 2000.
Materials Reliability Program: Development of Probability of Detection Curves for
Ultrasonic Examination of Dissimilar Metal Welds (MRP-262, Revision 1). EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1020451.
Materials Reliability Program: Primary System Piping Butt Weld Inspection and
Evaluation Guidelines (MRP-139). EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005. 1010087.
McMaster, Robert C., Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Volume II: The
American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc. 1959.
MRP letter 2007-040, Lessons Learned from Ultrasonic Examinations of
Dissimilar Metal Welds.
Nondestructive Evaluation: Dissimilar Metal Piping Weld Examination Guidance:
Volume 4. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2006. 1013540.
Nondestructive Evaluation: Dissimilar Metal Piping Weld Examination Guidance,
Volume 5. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2007. 1015136.
Nondestructive Evaluation: Dissimilar Metal Piping Weld Examination Guidance,
Volume 6. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2008. 1016648.

9-4
Nondestructive Evaluation: Dissimilar Metal Weld (DMW) Configuration Database.
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2006. 1014504.
Nondestructive Evaluation: Guideline for Conducting Ultrasonic Examinations of
Dissimilar Metal Welds. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2008. 1018181.
Nondestructive Evaluation: Inspection & Mitigation of Alloy 82/182 Butt Welds.
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2008. 1016658.
Nondestructive Evaluation: Proposed Code Case Criteria for Technical Basis of Weld
Overlay Indication Evaluation and Disposition Based on Advanced Technology
Assessments. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1019118.
PDI Generic Procedure for the Ultrasonic Examination of Dissimilar Metal Welds,
PDI-UT-10: Revision C. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2006.
PDI Generic Procedure for the Ultrasonic Examination of Overlaid Similar and
Dissimilar Metal Welds, PDI-UT-8: Revision F. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.
PDI Site-Specific Demonstrations: Dissimilar Metal Welds Mockup Criteria, Revision
A. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004. 1009590.
Qualification Requirements for Appendix VIII Piping Examinations Conducted
from the Inside Surface, Section XI, Division 1, Code Case N-696. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 2003.
Qualification Requirements for Dissimilar Metal Piping Welds, Section XI,
Division 1, Appendix VIII, Code Case N-695. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York, 2003.
Rao. G., et al., Metallurgical Investigation of Cracking in the Reactor Vessel
Alpha Loop Hot Leg Nozzle to Pipe W at the VC Summer Nuclear Generating
Station. Westinghouse Electric Company, Westinghouse Non-Proprietary
Class 3, WCAP-15616, Pittsburgh, PA (January 2001).
South Carolina Gas and Electric, VC Summer Hot Leg Cracking. Addendum
to Presentation by South Carolina Gas and Electric, Orlando, FL (December
2000).
Walker, S., Workshop on Recent Industry Experience with Inspection of
Dissimilar Metal Welds. EPRI Proceedings, San Antonio, TX: March 1998.
GC-110310.



A-1

Appendix A: Example PDI Generic
Procedure Evaluation Guidance
PDI Generic Procedure for the Ultrasonic Examination of Dissimilar Metal
Welds, PDI-UT-10, Revision E, 2/24/2010, Section 9.0
9.0 INDICATION EVALUATION
General Information
All suspected flaw indications, regardless of amplitude, should be investigated to
the extent necessary to provide accurate characterization, identity, and location.
Re-evaluations (re-looks) with qualified equipment are acceptable. All suspected
flaw indications should be plotted on a cross sectional drawing of the weld.
Indication plots should accurately identify the specific origin of the reflector.
Note: When using RL search units it is vital that the examiner be aware of all
ultrasonic responses inherent to longitudinal wave search units. Ultrasonic
responses from both the direct shear wave and/or mode-converted wave modes
may provide a more substantial amplitude response than from the direct
longitudinal wave response.
Figure A-1 identifies a typical flow path for evaluation of indications.
Indication Classification
Flaw Indications
All indications produced by reflectors within the volume to be examined, regardless
of amplitude, that cannot be clearly attributed to the geometrical or metallurgical
properties of the weld configuration should be considered as flaw indications.
Non-relevant indications (Geometric/Metallurgical)
All indications produced by reflectors within the volume to be examined that can
be attributed to the geometry of the weld configuration should be considered as
non-relevant indications.
Geometric indications may be verified by the use of radiographs, as-built
drawings, or any other means available to accurately identify the reflector.

A-2
Indication Discrimination
Flaw Indications
All suspected flaw indications should be investigated and evaluated taking into
account the following indication characteristics. These characteristics should not
be considered as mandatory criteria for classifying indications as flaws, but are
listed as significant points of interest for the examiner to consider during
evaluation of suspect areas.
The indication has a good signal-to-noise ratio with defined start and end points.
This characteristic can be supported by observing signal-to-noise ratio variation
along the length of the component.
The indication plots to a location susceptible to cracking. This characteristic can
be supported by obtaining localized thickness and surface contour recordings at
the location of the indication(s).
The indication provides substantial and unique echo-dynamic travel (walk). This
characteristic can be supported by observing other areas along the weld length
and through the use of an adequate reference reflector (Inside surface notch or
equivalent).
Several areas of unique amplitude peaks are observed throughout the indication
length. This characteristic can be supported by observing other areas along the
weld length and by scanning along the indication length laterally.
Inconsistent time base positions are observed throughout the indication length.
This characteristic can be supported by scanning along the indication length
laterally.
The indication shows evidence of flaw tip signals.
Circumferential indications provide axial components while performing
tangential scans.
The indication(s) can be confirmed from the opposite direction. This
characteristic is dependent upon flaw orientation and configuration and may not
always be available.
The indication(s) can be confirmed with an additional examination angle. This
characteristic is dependent upon flaw orientation and configuration and may not
always be available.
For components where access is limited to a single side of the component, the
following additional information should be considered:

A-3
As a result of the uncertainties associated with sound propagation through
austenitic weld material and buttering, actual flaw positioning, and the true
thickness of the component, an accurate ID connection on the far side of the
weld may be unobtainable.
For suspect far side flaw indications several search unit parameters (e.g., lower
frequencies, different angles, different focal depths, etc.) should be evaluated to
optimize response.
Non Relevant Indications
All suspected non-relevant indications should be investigated and evaluated
taking into account the following indication characteristics. These characteristics
should not be considered as mandatory criteria for classifying indications as non-
relevant, but are listed as significant points of interest for the examiner to
consider during evaluation of suspect areas.
The indication appears at or near the centerline of the weld or other documented
geometrical condition and can be seen continuously or intermittently along the
length of the weld at consistent amplitude and time base positions. This
characteristic can be supported by obtaining localized thickness and surface
contour recordings at the location of the indication(s).
The indication provides additional responses, which occur from the same scan
position, but at different time base positions (multiples) along the length of the
weld. This may be a sign of mode-converted shear-wave signals from
counterbore or similar geometric reflectors. This characteristic may require an
increase in time base size in order to observe these responses.
The indication can be seen across the entire length of the scan, either
continuously or intermittently, at consistent amplitude and time base positions.
This characteristic can be supported by scanning along the indication length
laterally.
The indication provides minimal echo-dynamic travel (walk). This characteristic
can be supported by observing other areas along the length of sample and
through the use of an adequate reference reflector (inside surface notch or
equivalent).
The signal responses are consistent from each side of the weld for axial scans, or
from each direction (cw or ccw) for circumferential scans.
Indication Positioning
Due to geometrical configuration (tapers, radius, etc.) and inherent uncertainties
associated with sound travel in austenitic materials, indication positioning may
require detailed evaluation. The following information is provided to assist in
proper indication positioning.

A-4
Perform detailed thickness and surface contour recordings at the location of the
indication(s). Attempt to identify any position offset of the weld root in
relationship to the weld centerline.
As access allows, evaluate the flaw signal amplitude responses from each side of
the weld. Observe if the signal response appears reduced due to weld volume
sound attenuation from one side or another.
Evaluate the ultrasonic responses from each side of the weld in both flawed and
unflawed regions. Attempt to identify standard benchmark responses (e.g., weld
root, weld noise, etc.) and flaw indication responses. Take notice of the ultrasonic
and surface distance dimensions from these responses.
Coordinate and plot this information on a cross sectional drawing of the weld.
Note: If indications are observed using RL search units, the examiner must be
aware of all ultrasonic responses inherent to longitudinal wave search units.
Ultrasonic responses from both the direct shear wave and/or mode-converted
wave modes may provide a more substantial amplitude response than from the
direct longitudinal wave response, however, time base position (typically further
in time than expected inside surface response) from these collateral responses will
not provide proper flaw positioning.
Length Sizing
Length sizing should be performed utilizing information obtained on the same or
nearest side of the weld as the indications. If component geometry provides
limitations (e.g., geometric obstructions, welded attachments, etc.) or the flaw
orientation provides improved and satisfactory UT responses, then length sizing
data from opposite or far side examinations may be used to provide additional
information.
If the indication is detectable with multiple search unit angles, the lower search
unit angle should generally be utilized for final length determination. If
geometric conditions or examination limitations prohibit adequate length sizing
data with the lower search unit angle, additional angles should be utilized. If
multiple angles are evaluated, the angle that provides the most conservative
dimension (greatest length) should be utilized. If an extreme length discrepancy
exists between search unit angles, the examiner should attempt to identify the
cause of discrepancy (e.g., scan limitation, surface condition, beam spread,
geometrical effects, etc.) and may utilize the length sizing measurement of a less
conservative search unit.
Length sizing should be performed in a manner similar to the technique
identified below. Multiple search unit angles should be evaluated in order to
properly discriminate flaw responses from surrounding metallurgical and
geometrical conditions.
Optimize the signal response from the flaw indication.

A-5
Scan the indication area with specific focus on the flaw signal responses, (e.g.,
signal shape, walk, orientation, effect of skew, etc). Adjust the system gain as
needed to optimize flaw responses.
Scan an adjacent unflawed area in close proximity to the flaw area with specific
focus on the surrounding geometrical responses (weld material noise, root,
counterbore, etc.).
Maximize the signal response from the flaw indication. Adjust the system gain
until this response is ~ 80 % FSH.
For flaws located on the far side of a weld opposite the search unit the end points
should be determined by scanning along the length of the flaw in each direction
until the signal response has diminished into the general background noise (full
amplitude drop).
For flaws located at the centerline of the weld or on the side of the weld closest
to the search unit the flaw the end points should be determined by scanning
along the length of the flaw in each direction until the signal response has
diminished to 20% FSH (12dB drop).
The length sizing techniques identified above provide an outside diameter length
dimension which is longer than the actual inside diameter length dimension due
to curvature of the piping material. To calculate the actual flaw length at the
inside surface, the following formula should be used:
(ID/OD) x OD flaw length = ID flaw length.

A-6

Figure A-1
Indication evaluation flow chart


B-1

Appendix B: Example Utility ISI Indication
Decision Trees


B-2

Revision Summary

New section.


Preparer: Marc A. Brooks Date
:



Reviewer: Date
:

Supervisor Performance Engineering

Approved: Date
:

Manager - Performance Engineering






B-3
Information and Procedures
DSN
PEP0X
Revision
0
DTC
TMPEP
File #
1719
IP Code
I
Released By

Date

Recipient




B-4
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SCOPE
2.REFERENCES
3.PERSONNEL
4.FLAW EVALUATION PROCESS
5.REPORTS
6.ACTIONS



B-5
Procedure for Evaluation of Flaws Identified by Nondestructive Examinations

1.0 SCOPE

1.1 This Appendix defines the steps required to review indications classified as
flaws during nondestructive examinations.

1.2 This procedure is to be used along with NDE procedures to determine the
acceptability of recorded indications determined to be flaws by the
responsible examination personnel. This procedure used in conjunction with
the indication evaluation methods established in the NDE method
procedures and/or flaw sizing procedures satisfies the intent of ANSI
N18.7/ANS 3.2 for operational phase special process procedures to address
acceptance of items based on test results.

1.3 Flaws requiring evaluations should be documented on CARDS and will be
performed in accordance with the 2001 Edition and 2003 Addenda of ASME
Section XI.

1.4 This procedure does not apply to indication classified as geometric,
metallurgical, or non-relevant indications.


2.0 REFERENCES
2.1 Applicable Nondestructive Examination Procedure
2.2 Applicable Nondestructive Flaw Sizing Procedure
2.3 ASME Section XI
2.4 ASME Section III
2.5 ASME Section II
2.6 Material Specification
2.7 Regulatory Guide 1.150, Rev 1, Alternate Method
2.8 ANSI N18.7

3.0 PERSONNEL
Personnel performing flaw evaluation for acceptance need not be certified but should be
an individual who is knowledgeable of NDE and analytical flaw evaluation.


4.0 FLAW EVALUATION

4.1 All indications determined to be flaws should be reported to the Owner within
24 hours of identification for entry into the corrective action system.

4.2 The responsible NDE Level III should perform the evaluation or designate an
individual knowledgeable of flaw sizing methods and application of ASME
Section XI rules for flaw classification and acceptance criteria.

B-6
4.3 Acceptance Criteria will be as specified in Table 1

4.4 Indication resolution flow paths are provided in Figures 1 and 2 for surface
and sub-surface indications.

4.5 Using the flaw size and location reported in the nondestructive examination
results perform the following:

Note: Computer programs may be used to aid in calculation of flaw acceptance
but must be manually verified of treated as critical software.

A. Characterize the flaw in accordance with IWA-3000 as linear, planar,
laminar, etc.
B. If multiple flaws are present determine if they are combined
C. Determine if the flaw(s) are surface or subsurface by application of rules
for separation from the nearest surface.
D. Determine the "a" dimension of the flaw based on its through wall
dimension and location (surface or sub-surface)
E. Calculate the a/t % based on flaw dimension and component thickness
F. Determine the appropriate ASME Section XI Acceptance Criteria Table
based on the component ASME classification, Category, material type,
etc.
G. Determine the aspect ratio of the flaw (a/l)
H. based on the aspect ratio if applicable determine the allowable length for
surface flaws or depth (a/t%) for subsurface flaws. Linear extrapolation of
criteria should be performed as permitted by ASME Section XI.
I. Compare the actual flaw size to the allowed flaw size and determine
accept/reject status of the flaw.
J. If no ASME Section XI acceptance criteria exists for the item or weld rules
of the construction code or original design documents may be used.

4.6 For flaws exceeding the acceptance criteria of ASME Section XI in welds or
components having alternative criteria defined in a flaw handbook, the rules
of the flaw handbook may be used as directed by the Owner.

4.7 For flaw exceeding the acceptance criteria of ASME Section XI where there
is no flaw handbook, the Rules of IWX-3600 (Analytical Evaluation of Flaws)
may be used or the component/weld may be repaired in accordance with
Owner procedures.
4.8 Analytical Evaluation per IWX-3600 must be documented in an approved
engineering evaluation and accepted by the Owner and is subject to review
by regulatory and enforcement authorities.

4.9 Using the indication flow path on Figures 2, 3and the rules of ASME Section
XI or other applicable Augmented rules, determine whether additional
examinations are required for scope expansion.

B-7
5.0 Definitions
following is a list of common ISI terms, additional terms and definitions may be found in
ASME Section XI, IWA-9000.
Abrasion wearing away of a surface by rubbing and friction
ASME Section XI the eleventh section of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
including its referenced Codes and Standards
ASME Section XI Drawings include piping and instrument diagrams (P&IDs),
isometrics, and component drawings that delineate the specific boundaries, areas, or
items requiring NDE and augmented NDE
Assess to determine by evaluation of data compared with previously obtained data
such as operating data or design specifications
Augmented Requirements those NDE required by documents other than ASME
Section XI, such as: Regulatory Guides, NUREGs, NRC Generic Letters, I. E.
Bulletins/Notices, FSAR, Technical Specifications, manufacturers recommendations,
and Internal Commitments
Authorized Inspection Agency (AIA) an organization that is empowered by an
enforcement authority to provide inspection personnel and services as required by
ASME Section XI
Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) an employee of an authorized inspection agency
who has been qualified in accordance with NCA-5000 of Section III of the ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code
Authorized Nuclear Inservice Inspector (ANII) a person who is employed and has
been qualified by an authorized inspection agency to verify that examinations, tests, and
repair/replacement activities (that do not include welding or brazing) are performed in
accordance with the requirements of ASME Section XI
Calibration Block Standards Drawings the drawings that detail the specific
configuration of individual standards used for calibrating ultrasonic test equipment
Cavitation pitting of concrete caused by implosion
Code ASME Section XI, "Rules for Inervice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant
Components," and Addenda
Code Class - ASME Section XI Classifications of 1, 2, or 3 based on the components
quality group designation assigned by the owner using criteria of Regulatory Guide
1.26.
Component an item in a nuclear power plant such as a vessel, pump, valve, or piping
system

B-8
Component Support a metal support designed to transmit loads from a component to
the load-carrying building or foundation structureComponent supports include piping
supports encompass those structural elements relied on to either support the weight or
provide structural stability to components.
Containment- Structures and systems designed to function as a barrier that ensures
leakage of radioactive materials to the environment does not exceed the acceptable
upper limit defined in 10CFR100, even if a loss of coolant accident were to occur.
Corrective Action Program - The Fermi Program that provides for evaluation and
correction of conditions adverse to quality and promotes continuous improvement of
plant programs, processes, and procedures, etc.
Defect a flaw (imperfection or unintentional discontinuity) of such size, shape,
orientation, location, or properties as to be rejectable
Deviation Disposition - A deviation disposition is the formal mechanism by which a
deviation from a mandatory or needed element specified in an industry issues program
(IP) is documented, justified, and approved.
Discontinuity a lack of continuity or cohesion: an interruption in the normal physical
structure of material or a product
Enforcement Authority a regional or local governing body, such as a state or
municipality of the United States empowered to enact and enforce Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code legislation (for example, State of Michigan)
Engineering Evaluation an evaluation of indications that exceed allowable acceptance
standards to determine if the margins required by the design specifications and
construction codes are maintained
Erosion progressive disintegration of a solid by the abrasive or cavitation action of
gases, fluids, or solids in motion
Evaluation the process of determining the significance of examination or test results,
including the comparison of examination or test results with applicable acceptance
criteria or previous results
Examination the performance of visual observations and nondestructive examinations
(NDE) such as radiography, magnetic particle, liquid penetrant, eddy current, and
ultrasonic methods
Examination Category a grouping of items to be examined or tested
Examination Plan a document that provides detailed instructions for all aspects of the
examination
Flaw an imperfection or unintentional discontinuity that is detectable by nondestructive
examination

B-9
General Corrosion an approximately uniform wastage of a surface of a component,
through chemical or electrochemical action, free of deep pits or cracks
Imperfection a condition of being imperfect, a departure of a quality characteristic from
its intended condition
Indication the response or evidence from the application of a nondestructive
examination
Inservice Examination the process of visual, surface, or volumetric examination
performed in accordance with the rules and requirements of ASME Section XI
ISI Evaluation - the process that is used to evaluate ASME rules for application at Fermi
as specified in MES23 (Form MES23001)
Inservice Inspection methods and actions for ensuring the structural and pressure-
retaining integrity of safety-related nuclear power plant components in accordance with
the rules of ASME Section XI
Inspection verification of the performance of examinations and tests by an Authorized
Inservice inspector
Inspection Interval as defined by regulations, a 10-year time interval during which the
ISI Program is applicable using specific and Addenda of ASME Section XIThe first
10-year inspection interval commences on the date of commercial operation, with the
successive intervals beginning on the date the previous interval ends. Each of the
inspection intervals may be increased or decreased by as much as one year.
Additionally, the interval may be extended for a period equivalent to an outage, which
extends continuously for six months or more. Adjustments should not cause successive
intervals to be altered by more than one year from the original pattern of intervals.
Inspection Period duration of time within an inspection interval, (for example, first
period, 0-3 years; second period, 4-7 years; third period, 8-10 years) The time frame
is approximately equivalent to one-third of an interval. Refer to Table IWX-2412-1 and
provisions of IWX-2412 for specific requirements and limitations. It is used for
apportioning the implementation of ISI Program examinations and tests during the
interval.
Inspection Program the plan and schedule for performing examination and tests
Item a material, part, appurtenance, piping subassembly, component, or component
support
Instrument Root Valve the first valve, in an instrument line, off of the main process line
In-Vessel-Visual-Inspection (IVVI) Program a portion of the ISI Program that identifies
the internal attachments, surfaces, welds, and components within the reactor pressure
vessel boundary that require NDE during the 10-year interval.

B-10
Nominal Operating Pressure for Class 1 systems, the range of pressures that may
normally be expected when the system is known to be operating at 100% reactor power
Nondestructive Examination an examination by the visual, surface, or volumetric
method
Open Ended a condition of piping or lines that permits free discharge to atmospheric
or containment atmosphere
Owner the organization legally responsible for the construction and/or operation of a
nuclear facility, including but not limited to one who has applied for or who has been
granted a construction permit or operating license by the regulatory authority having
lawful jurisdiction, i.e. Detroit Edison Co.
Preservice Inspection (PSI) those nondestructive examinations (NDEs), including
visual examinations, performed on certain ASME Class 1, 2, 3 and MC components and
their supports once, prior to initial plant operations as part of the Preservice Inspection
Program, or following a component repair, replacement, or modificationThe results of
these examinations provide a baseline for comparison to subsequent ISI examinations.
Pressure Test Program a portion of the overall ISI Program that identifies the
components and portions of piping in ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 systems that are subject
to various pressure tests during the 10-year intervalThese tests include the
pneumatic, leakage, functional, or inservice types (see PEP18).
Regulatory Authority a federal government agency empowered to issue and enforce
regulations affecting the design, construction, and operation of nuclear power plants (for
example, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission)
Regulatory Issue Summaries Document NRC endorsement of the resolution of issues
addressed by industry-sponsored initiatives, solicit voluntary licensee participation in
staff-sponsored pilot programs, inform licensee of opportunities for regulatory relief,
announce staff technical or policy positions not previously communicated to industry or
not broadly understood, and address matters previously reserved for administrative
letters.
Relief Request a written request submitted to the regulatory authority that identifies
specific components that cannot be examined or tested in accordance with ASME
Section XI or regulatory augmented requirementsIt includes the reason these
requirements cannot be met and technical justification for performing an alternative to
the requirements.
Relevant Condition a condition observed during a visual examination that requires
supplement examination, corrective measure, and correction by repair/replacement
activities, or analytical evaluation
Repair the process of restoring a nonconforming item by welding, brazing, or metal
removal such that existing design requirements are met

B-11
Safety Evaluation /Safety Evaluation Report (SER) NRC safety evaluations (SEs)
provide the regulatory bases for NRC decisions in licensing actions such as
amendments, exemptions and relief requests. Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs) are
generally used for more significant licensing actions such as initial licenses and
renewed operating licenses. The distinction between an SE and SER is that the SER is
issued as a NUREG series report. The SEs and SERs are valuable in that they provide
the bases for the staff's decisions.
Source Document any document containing requirements to which the utility is
committed or that apply to the utility by virtue of law, such as federal, state and local
laws and regulations.
Structural Discontinuity Welds include circumferential weld joints at pipe-to-vessel
nozzle, pipe-to-valve body, pipe-to-pump casing, pipe-to-fittings, and pipe-to-pipe of
different schedule wall thickness
Structural Integrity Test the initial or subsequent pressure test of a containment
structure to demonstrate the ability to withstand prescribed loads
Technical Position an ISI Program record that documents the details of positions
taken by the utility with respect to generalized Code requirements and that do not
conflict with Code requirements. These records amplify the Code requirements and
provide consistent guidance for the implementation of the requirement.
Terminal Ends the extremities of piping runs that connect structures, components or
pipe anchors, each of which acts as a rigid restraint or provides at least 2 degrees of
restraint to piping due to piping thermal expansion
Test a procedure to obtain information, through measurement or observation, to
determine the operational readiness of a component or system while under controlled
conditions
Verify to determine that a particular action has been performed in accordance with the
rules and requirements of Section XI, either by witnessing the action or by reviewing
records



B-12
Table 1
Examination Category Item Acceptance Standard
B-A, B-B Vessel Welds, Class 1 IWB-3510
B-D Vessel Nozzle Welds IWB-3512
R-A Dissimilar and Similar Metal Piping Welds IWB-3514
B-G-1 Bolting Greater than 2" diameter IWB-3515 & 3517
B-G-2 Bolting 2" and less IWB-3517
B-K-1 Integral Attachment Welds, Piping, Pump,
and Valves IWB-3516
B-L-1, B-M-1 Welds in Pumps and Valves IWB-3518
B-L-2, B-M-2 Pump Casings and Valve Bodies IWB-3519
B-N-1, B-N-2, B-N-3 Interior Surfaces and Internal
Components of Reactor Vessel IWB-3520
B-O Control Rod Drive Housing Welds IWB-3523
B-P Pressure Retaining Boundary IWB-3522
C-A Vessels Welds, Class 2 IWC-3510
C-B Vessel Nozzle Welds IWC-3511
C-C Integral Attachments for Vessels
Piping, Pumps & Valves IWC-3512
C-D Bolting IWC-3513
C-F-1, C-F-2 Welds in Piping IWC-3514
C-G Welds in Pumps & Valves IWC-3515
C-H Pressure Retaining Components IWC-3516


5.0 REPORTS

5.1 An Indication Evaluation Summary Report should be completed for each
weld or item requiring evaluation. The following information is required

A. Plant and Unit Number
B. Code of Record Edition and Addenda
C. Code Category
D. Selected ASME Section XI Acceptance Criteria Table
E. Applicable data from the NDE results reporting the flaw.
F. Flaw sizing results and procedure identification
G. Geometric Plots of Recorded Indication(s)
H. Calculations supporting the evaluation
I. Statement indicating accept or reject status


B-13

Figure 1
Surface Exam Resolution Flow Path

B-14

Figure 2
Volumetric Exam Resolution Flow Path

B-15
STP 2RE14 REACTOR VESSEL 10 YR ISI DECISION TREE





C-1

Appendix C: Example Utility Contingency
Plans


C-2

Revision Summary

New section.


Preparer: Marc A. Brooks Date
:



Reviewer: Date
:

Supervisor Performance Engineering

Approved: Date
:

Manager - Performance Engineering



C-3
Information and Procedures
DSN
PEP0X
Revision
0
DTC
TMPEP
File #
1719
IP Code
I
Released By

Date

Recipient




C-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE
2. DEFINITIONS
3. SCOPE
4. PROCEDURE
5. NON-OUTAGE PROCESS
6. OUTAGE PROCESS
7. INSTRUCTIONS
8. ACTIONS

ENCLOSURE 1- FERMI CONTINGENCY DETERMINATION GUIDE
ATTACHMENT 1 - FERMI CONTINGENCY DETERMINATION FORM
ATTACHMENT 2 - SAMPLE RECOVERY PLAN









C-5
CONTINGENCY PLANNING PROCESS
1.PURPOSE
The purpose of this instruction is to provide a consistent method for evaluating the need
for and extent of contingency planning. The objective of this procedure is to develop the
actions necessary to ensure that preparations are made for emergent events with
significant consequences that could reasonably be anticipated to take place during work
implementation. Consequences to be considered could be related to schedule, cost,
dose, safety, or other site goals.
2.DEFINITIONS
Contingency any action(s) taken to prevent or alleviate negative consequences of
degraded plant conditions, events, or work scope change.
Contingency Plan a plan with committed resources, equipment, parts, ready for
implementation.
Recovery Plan a plan to recover from or minimize undesirable impacts of credible
events that may require development of contracts, designs, work order(s) and
associated parts, or other necessary resources.
Risk Rank A relative ranking of the product of probability of an event or condition
occurring and the undesirable consequences of occurrence.
3.SCOPE
This procedure applies to the determination and development of contingency plans for
both non-outage and outage work activities that are identified as requiring a contingency
review.
4.PROCEDURE
The criteria listed below should be considered in determining the need for contingency
plans.
Outage Coordinators, Project Managers, System/Component Engineers, Work Week
Managers, Supervisors, and other individuals that may be responsible for the
performance of work may also require contingency plans.
First time performance
Previous failure history of the same or like component.
Previous situations that caused outage delays
Operating Experience of others with the same or like components
Previous near miss safety or radiological events
Low design margin or loss of robustness
Previous emergent work or scope expansions

MWC15 should be consulted for on-line risk management when considering actions to
be taken to manage equipment safety, personnel safety, or radiological safety.


C-6
5.NON-OUTAGE PROCESS
If during the work planning process, and activity is identified to have a substantial
potential for undesirable outcomes, this procedure will be implemented by the
responsible work leader to determine the need and extent of contingency planning.

6.OUTAGE PROCESS
Contingency identification and planning milestone dates are specified per the outage
milestone schedule.

Team Leaders will review their work in accordance with this procedure for possible
contingency plans.

The plans will be presented in a challenge meeting and should be approved by the
Outage Manager.

7.INSTRUCTIONS
Enclosure 1 is the Contingency Determination Guide and describes the information to
be provided. The Contingency Determination Form (Attachment 1) should be
completed as required for inspections, tests, or other activities that have a significant
risk of undesirable outcomes.


1) Complete the Contingency Determination Form (Attachment 1) as follows:

2) Identify the item or category of component to be evaluated.

3) Identify the scope of the work.

4) Evaluate events, conditions, and impacts using the guidance provided in Enclosure A.

a) Provide a brief description of events or conditions that are applicable to the activity
being evaluated.
b) Mark N/A if item is not applicable.
c) Provide a relative risk ranking score for each of the credible events or conditions
described.
i) Not applicable - 0
ii) Low - 1
iii) Medium - 2
iv) High - 3



C-7
5) Determine the sum of the largest risk ranking for an event or condition and the largest risk
ranking of the impacts listed.

a) If the sum equals 2 or 3 no contingencies are required.
b) If the sum equals 4 contingencies should be evaluated and reviewed in group challenge
meetings. Lead time for contingency plan implementation should be less than 50% of
the schedule float time for the activity and should be able to be completed within 100%
of the allowable float time. The contingency plan should include committed equipment,
parts, and resources necessary for implementation.
c) If the sum equals 5 or 6 contingencies should be evaluated and a contingency or
recovery plan should be ready for immediate implementation.

Note: If the contingency or recovery plan would result in significant schedule delays, or
significantly increased cost or dose increases, the plan and associated contingencies should
be reported to and reviewed by Nuclear Engineering Management.


8.ACTIONS
1) Develop a Contingency Plan including schedule layout, work orders, designs, parts,
contracts, etc. to identify and commit the needed resources for designated activities.

a) Plan a work package.
b) Consider use of USA .
c) Establish contracts for specialty work.

2) Develop Recovery Plan to address lower risk activities.

a) Identify a recovery team leader.
b) Have draft EFA or ISI Evaluation written and reviewed, or ready for approval.
c) Have a written and approved Recovery Plan using the attached form with supplemental
pages as necessary.
d) Identify key resources and contractors and establish a contact.
e) Discuss schedule considerations.
f) Schedule activities to identify risk early in the outage.
g) For complex Recovery Plans, provide a details schedule including decision points.




C-8
ENCLOSURE 1
FERMI CONTINGENCY DETERMINATION GUIDE

Item: Describe work activity
Scope: Describe work scope or duration
EVENT OR
CONDITION
Known Issues at
Fermi
Change in
Technique
New Industry
Experience
First Time
Inspection / Test
More Stringent
Acceptance
Criteria
Condition Cannot
Be Accepted by
Evaluation
Mitigating
Factors
Description: Are there known
issues or concerns
with the history of
test or examination
results, especially
those issues or
concerns that
indicates problems
may be
encountered?
Is there a change in
the method used to
perform the exam
or test which could
significantly and
adversely change
the expected
results?
Are there new
industry
experiences
applicable to
degradation or
failure of a
components
scheduled for
examination or
testing?
Is this the first time
a test or
examination of
components is
being performed,
particularly on
components that
have been in
service for a period
of time?
Have the
acceptance criteria
or standards been
made more
restrictive, thereby
increasing the
potential of more
test failures?
Is there a potential
that test results
cannot be accepted
by Engineering
Evaluation, and the
failed condition
must be corrected
by repair or
replacement prior
to return of the
component to
service?
Are there
conditions that
mitigate events or
conditions that
make Fermi
conditions different
than those
experienced at
other plants?
Risk Ranking:
Low =1, Med = 2,
High = 3
# # # # # #
IMPACT Outage Schedule
Delay
Significant Cost
Increase
Significant Dose
Increase
Reduction of
Regulatory
Margin
Reduction in
Plant Safety
Reduction in
Personnel Safety
Other
Description: Assuming the
worst case result of
credible failure(s),
is there a potential
to impact pre-
outage or outage
schedule?
Assuming the
worst case result of
credible failure(s),
is there a potential
to impact station
budget or outage
costs?
Assuming the
worst case result of
credible failure(s),
is there a potential
to impact group or
station radiation
exposure goals?
Assuming the
worst case result of
credible failure(s),
is there a potential
to impact
regulatory margin?
Assuming the
worst case result of
credible failure(s),
is there a potential
to impact plant
safety margins or
defense in depth?
Assuming the
worst case result of
credible failure(s),
what other
personnel safety
measures should be
considered?
Assuming the
worst case result of
credible failure(s),
what other impacts
should be
considered?
Risk Ranking:
Low =1, Med = 2,
High = 3
# # # # # #
Risk Sum:
High Event +
High Impact
High Event
#
High Impact
#
Sum
Total



C-9
CONTINGENY

Schedule Recovery Plan Work order Parts Design Contracts Other
Risk Sum 4-6
Contingency or
Recovery
required

Risk Sum 2-3
Contingency not
required
Are there
scheduling
considerations that
should be made to
prevent or reduce
adverse
consequences.
What actions are
proposed but do
not have work
orders planned or
resources and parts
committed?
What work order,
Section XI
Programs, SOEs,
EFAs or other
work documents
need to be prepared
to implement a
contingency plan?
What parts that are
not stock items
need to be obtained
to implement the
contingency or
recovery plan?
What design or
calculations need to
be completed to
implement the
contingency or
recovery plan?
What contracts
need to be initiated
to implement the
contingency or
recovery plan?
What Licensing
Support,
Procedures,
Regulatory
approvals, or other
actions need to be
taken to allow the
contingency plan or
recovery plan to be
implemented.



C-10
ATTACHMENT 1
FERMI CONTINGENCY DETERMINATION FORM

Item: Describe work activity
Scope: Describe work scope or duration
EVENT OR
CONDITION
Known Issues at
Fermi
Change in
Technique
New Industry
Experience
First Time
Inspection / Test
More Stringent
Acceptance
Criteria
Condition Cannot
Be Accepted by
Evaluation
Mitigating
Factors
Description:
Risk Ranking:
Low =1, Med = 2,
High = 3
# # # # # #
IMPACT Outage Schedule
Delay
Significant Cost
Increase
Significant Dose
Increase
Reduction of
Regulatory
Margin
Reduction in
Plant Safety
Reduction in
Personnel Safety
Other
Description:
Risk Ranking:
Low =1, Med = 2,
High = 3
# # # # # #
Risk Sum:
High Event + High
Impact
High Event
#
High Impact
#
Sum
Total

CONTINGENY Schedule Recovery Plan Work order Parts Design Contracts Other
Risk Sum 4-6
Contingency or
Recovery required

Risk Sum 2-3
Contingency not
required


C-11
ATTACHMENT 2
Sample Recovery Plan

Recovery Plan Team Leader: _____________________________________

Alternate Team Leader: _____________________________________


A. Reason for development of the Recovery Plan.


B. Brief description of the Recovery Plan:


C. List support services needed (contacts, phone numbers, and contract numbers):


D. List any testing requirements (PMT, IPTE, or SOE):


E. List any licensing support (License amendments and exempts):

F. Attach any preplanned analysis or evaluations (EFAs, ISI Evaluation):


G. Attach any agreements to share resources (USA, Vendor Contracts):


H. Discuss schedule considerations. For complex Recovery Plans, attach a detailed schedule and
decision tree as appropriate.





Prepared by: _____________________________________

Approved by: _____________________________________



C-12
Example Contingency Table

Electric Power Research Institute
3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
Electric Power Research Institute
3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
The Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI, www.epri.com)
conducts research and development relating to the generation, delivery
and use of electricity for the benefit of the public. An independent,
nonprofit organization, EPRI brings together its scientists and engineers
as well as experts from academia and industry to help address
challenges in electricity, including reliability, efficiency, health, safety and
the environment. EPRI also provides technology, policy and economic
analyses to drive long-range research and development planning, and
supports research in emerging technologies. EPRIs members represent
approximately 90 percent of the electricity generated and delivered in
the United States, and international participation extends to more than
30 countries. EPRIs principal offices and laboratories are located in
Palo Alto, Calif.; Charlotte, N.C.; Knoxville, Tenn.; and Lenox, Mass.
Together...Shaping the Future of Electricity
2012 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power
Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER...SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are
registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Program:
Nondestructive Evaluation
1025225