IR 05000344/1989012
| ML20248D321 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/27/1989 |
| From: | Zimmerman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Cockfield D PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248D324 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8910040197 | |
| Download: ML20248D321 (1) | |
Text
-
_-
s 7,.
I:
,
s
.
SEP 2 71999 Docket'No. 50-344
,,
Portland General Electric Company 121 S. W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Attention: Mr. David W. Cockfield Vice President, Nuclear Thank you for your letter dated September 8,1989, in response to our Notice of Violation and Inspection Report No. 50-344/89-12, dated August 4,1989, informing us of the steps you have taken to correct the items which we brought to your attention. We note that you have contested one of the violations associated with the interpretation of SNT-TC-1A requirements fo: the administration of written examinations for nondestructive testing personnel.
We will further examine this issue as well as verify your corrective actions regarding the other violations during a future inspection.
'Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
s
Sincerely, cn@ptoL at uL R. P. Itamerman, Directd Division of Reactor Safety and Projects bec w/ copy of letter dated 9/8/89:
docket file State of Oregon A. Johnson G. Cook B. Faulkenberry J. Martin Resident Inspector Project Inspector J. Zollicoffer M. Smith
REGION V
MMendonca DKi ch
9/p /89 N 9/y,f/89
!
EtNEST COPY J REQUEST YI YESI/ NO
_I YES / N
)
'
-
R ]
YES /
]
l
u&
1\\
8910040197 890927 PDR ADOCK 05000344
.[- <['//
.'
{
/
O PNU r-
-
__. - _ _ _ _ - _ _
_
_ _ _ - -.
h)
,-
-) :
r
.
,
,
l
.
. r, ;
-
,,l
,,.r.
t4 * l%
s
%-
amma.
_,_,, emme
, _,, _
. _ _
um
._.
MM D
David W. Cockfield Vice President, Nuclear
<-
..
-
s ? I4 r,Il : I 6 September 8, 1989
,
Trojan Nuclear plant Docket 50-344 License NPF-1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington DC 20555
Dear Sir:
Reply to a Notice of Violation Your letter of August 4,1989 transmitted a Notice of Violation associated with Nuclear Regulatory Consission Inspection Report 50-344/89-12.
Attachment 1 is our response to that Notice of Violation.
The letter also requested that a review of the closeout of the first Ten-Year Inservice Inspection Interval be performed. Attachment 2 documents this review.
m9ML4irt(tp43
'
121 S W Sarmon Street. Pomand. Oregon 97204 8-9-367
- - - - _ - - - - - - _ - _ - - - - _ - - - - _ - _ - - - _ _ _ - - -
J
___-. _ -. _ _ - _
-
.
.
>
a
.i.
i i
PbruendGeneralBectricOmpany
,
Document control Desk September 8, 1989 Paae 2 l
Portland General Electric Company (PCE) concurs that the primary reason for the individual problems that were found during your inspection was a lack of adequate oversight of inservice inspection (ISI) contractor activities.
We are now fully controlling the ISI Program without the use of an outside administrator. We have filled several positions that were created in an essential expansion of our ISI Group, and many program upgrades and procedural improvements are scheduled to be in place by the next refueling outage. PGE is committed to significantly improving our ISI performance and believes that we are taking the necessary steps to do so.
Sincerely,
--
l Oy Attachment
, [. John B. Martin c:
V Regional Administrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulator 7 Commission Mr. David Stewart-Smith State of Oregon Department of Energy Mr. R. C. Barr BRC Resident Inspector Trojan Euclear Plant
_ _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ - _ - - -
_
.
._-
..
__-_-
,.. ]}
t Trejan Wu:1::cr Plant Document Control Desk
,j sa Docket 50-344 September 8, 1989 License NPF-1 Attachment 1 Page 1.of 11 REPLY TO A WOTICE OF VIOLATION VIOLATION A Title 10 of the Code of Federal R*gulations, Part 50 (10 CFR 50), appendix B Criterion IX, requires that special processes such as quali-fication, certification, and training of nondestructive examination (NDE)
personnel procedures shall comply with the requirements of applicable codes and standards. The Trojan Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR),
Section 6, invokes American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code 1983 Edition and Addenda through Susmer 1983. Site Procedure NTS-9 AM-300, Revision 0, and ASME section V Paragraph T-170, " Qualification of Personnel", establish SNT-TC-1A (1980 Edition), " Recommended Practice for Nondestructive Testing Personnel Qualification and Certification", as
~
the requirement for NDE personnel qualification.
SBT-TC-1A (1980), Paragraph 8.3, requires, "The written examinations should be administered without access to reference material (closed Book)
except that necessary data, such as graphs, tables, specifications, procedures, and codes may be provided."
.
contrary to the above, the inservice inspection (ISI) contractor training, qualification, and certification of NDE personnel procedure (NTS-QAM-300, Revision 0. Paragraph 8.1.3) states " Specific examinations shall cover equipment operating procedures, test techniques, and codes that the examiners may encounter in specific assignments. The examina-tions may be administered as an Open Book Test".
The examinations given to ISI NDE contractors did not cover the required specific test areas, nor were the examinations closed book tests. Reference material was provided to examinees that contained all test answers.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement II).
REPLY TO VIOLATION A Portland General Electric Company (PGE) contests this violation.
One of our engineers was a member of the authoring task force of SNT-TC-la in 1961 through 1966, a participant in the revisions, and past chairman of the Personnel Qualification Division and the SNT-TC-1A Interpretation Panel. He is thus knowledgeable in the language and intent of SNT-TC-1A.
He reviewed the subject of this violation and concluded we are in compliance with the requirements stated in this violation.
Our understanding of the intent of SNT-TC-1A (1980), Paragraph 8.3, is that the reference material shall be germane to the questions asked atd not be general text on the subject of nondestructive testing, welding technology, physics, metallurgy, etc. Our engineer reviewed the specific examinations taken by the contractor's Level II employees and the P
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._ _ _. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _
-
__
..
_. _ _
_
(.
i
)
.
,
. Trojan uu: lect hant Document crntrol Desk
,
'#
Docket 50-344 September 8, 1989
License EpF-1 Attachment 1 page 2 of 11
)
reference material provided. He found that the Visual Test (VT)-1, VT-3, VT-4; the ultrasonic; the penetrant, and the magnetic particle examina-tions specifically cover the codes and procedures in affect at the. Trojan Nuclear plant, and that only the portions of the codes and only the procedures required by the examination questions were reproduced and issued during each examination as allowed by the exception of SNT-TC-1A (1980), paragraph 8.3.
Attachment la is a copy of a letter from the contractor which contains copies of the examinations and the reference material. The particular reference material provided for each examina-tion is identified in the cover lettsr.
We have contacted the SNT-TC-1A Interpretation panel and learned they have experienced difficulty with requests for interpretations in the past
-
on the meaning of " closed book" and that a proposed clarification of SNT-TC-1A, paragraph 8.3, is presently being circulated by the Inter-protation panel for review and balloting. It states "... that a restrictive (verbatim) interpretation would be inappropriate because SNT-TC-1A is a recommended practice which provides a guideline by which the employer is responsible for establishing his written practice (as amended by ASME Section II of course). To require / imply that a candi-date for any level of certification memorize data contained in graphs and tables, or in specifications, procedures, or codes for the purpose of taking an examination, is not the intent (now or since SNT-TC-1A's conception) of CIASED BOOK".
The proposed clarification, if passsd, would confirm our present testing practice.
.
___
_ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - -
-
- _ _ _
~
.
,
Trojan Buclear Pcant.
'
Document Contrel Deck
i'
Docket 50-344.
September 8, 1989 License NPF-1 Attachment 1~
Page 3 of 11 VI0tATION B 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II' requires that special processes such as nondestructive testing be accomplished in accordance with applicable codes. Trojan's FSAR and ultrasonic procedure QAP-UT-101, Revision 1 invoke the 1983 Edition and Addenda through Summer of 1983 of ASME Section II for ISI' requirements. ASME Section II, Article III-3210 and Site Procedure QAP-UT-101, Revision 1. Paragraph 6.5.1 establish that calibration shall include the complete ultrasonic examination system and any change in search units in the system shall be cause for calibration checks of the entire examination system.
Contrary to the above, ultrasonic search unit changes were made during
_ - -
the ISI examination of Welds 89-011630, 89-011580 and 89-011620, and the required calibration checks were not performed.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement II).
REPLY TO VIOLATION B PGE acknowledges the violation.
1.
Reason for the Violation:
'The reason for this violation was personnel error. Contractor examination personnel failed to follow instructions of ultrasonic procedure QAP-UT-101, " Manual Ultrasonic Examination of' Full Pene-tration Butt Welds Excluding Vessel Welds of 2 1/2-inches Thick and Greater", Revision 1, which details the required esseintial variables for system calibration, recalibration and calibration reference checks. In addition,' the contractor Level III review failed to identify the nonconformance.
2.
Corrective Steps Taken and Results Achieved:
The ISI contractor Quality Assurance site representative initi-a.
ated a corrective action request (CAR) to the ISI contractor site Level III and PCE. Following the issuance of CAR-003-TNP on June 1, 1989, an audit of all ultrasonic calibration data sheets for the 1989 outage was performed to identify any similar nonconformances. Upon completion of this audit and discussion with Level II examination personnel, a total of nine welds, including the three welds identified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) audit team were identified. Transducers (0, 45 and 60 degree) as well as inscrument settings had been changed, and the required calibration checks were not recorded on the ultrasonic calibration data sheet as required by ASME Section II, 1983 Edition and Addenda through Summer of 1983, and Procedure QAP-UT-101, Revision 1.
,
_ _ _.. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.. _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._
.____.s.__
_ _. - _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _.______
- '
, -
/
.
'
, _
Trojan Nus100r P..ct Document Control Deck Docket 50-344 September 8, 1989
License NPF-1 Attachment 1 Page 4 of 11
l I
b.
The nine welds that were identified to be nonconforming were reexamined with no recordable indications noted. The Section KI program component identification numbers for these welds are as follows: 89-011630, 89-011580, 89-011620, 89-011570, 89-316128,
!
89-316700, 89-302200, 89-302600 and 89-304240.
c.
All contractor Level II personnel were retrained in the use of QAP-UT-101, Revision 1, by the ISI contractor corporate Level III and instructed specifically in the areas of noncon-formence. No further occurrences of noncompliance were noted for the remaining examinations.
3.
Corrective Steps That Will be Taken to Avoid Further Violations:
...
a.
Site-specific ultrasonic examination procedures will be developed.
b.
Administrative controls will be established to ensure contract examination personnel are trained to site-specific procedures for ultrasonic testing.
c.
Administrative controls will be established to ensure vendor proficiency in use of the site-rpecific ultrasonic examination procedures is demonstrated prior to their performing ultrasonic examinations in the field.
d.
Administrative controls will be established to ensure the over-sight of contract personnel is increased to ensure compliance with examination procedures.
e.
Administrative controls will be established to ensure a PGE Level III will review examination and calibration data sheets for compliance to governing codes, standards and procedures.
4.
Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved:
Full compliance to ASME Section II, 1983 gdition and Addenda through Summer of 1983, and QAP-UT-101, Revision 1, was achieved on June 16, 19C9 when the reexamination of the nine welds was completed. The corrective steps of 3.a through 3.e will be completed by March 21, 1990.
.
.
. _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - _ _ _ -
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
':.
+
,
.
,
Trojan Musl:Cr Plant Document CIntrol Denk
..*
Docket 50-344
September 8,1989 License NPF-1-Attachment 1 Page 5 of 11 VIOLATION C 10 CFR 50. Appendix B, Criterion II requires that special processes such as nondestructive testing be accomplished in accordance with applicable codes. Trojan's FSAR and site radiographic procedures, QC-RT-1, " Radio-graphic Examination", and Maintenance Request (MR) 89-4129. "Feedwater i
Piping Replacement for
'D' system", invokes United States of America l
Standard (USAS) 831.7, Pressure Piping Code, 1969 Edition with Addenda
through Summer 1971.
The USAS 331.7 Code, Paragraph B-1-140, directs that for pipe wall thick-i nesses up to 3/4-inch inclusive sections of welds be rejected that are l
shown by radiography to have any elongated indication, with a length
.
greater than 1/4-inch.
Contrary to the above, the licensee inspected and accepted USAS B31.7 i
Class 2 Weld P25881R4 on feedwater system "D", which contained an indi-cation 3/8-inch in length, which is greater than the 1/4-inch allowable length for thickness up to 3/4.-inch inclusive. This indication should have been evaluated and dispositioned; however, at the time of the inspection, the licensee had not recorded, evaluated nor dispositioned the indication.
This is a severity Level V violation (Supplement II).
REPLY TO VIOLATION C PGE acknowledges the violation, in t. hat the indication noted was not recorded. However, the indication was evaluated on July 30, 1987 and interpreted as being an inside diameter surface condition, and dispositioned as acceptable.
'
1.
Reason for the Violation:
The reason for this violation was inadequate procedures. Although l
the indication was evaluated during the radiograph interpretation l
process as an acceptable surface condition, it was not so recorded I
on the examination report fom since Plant approved radiography procedures do not specify requirements for documenting indications other than those interpreted as welding discontinuities (e.g.,
elongated inclusions, porosity, incomplete fusion and penetration).
2.
Corrective Steps Taken and Results Achieved:
a.
1987 refueling outage radiographs and reports from feedwater pipe replacement repair welds were reviewed by PGg Level III Examiners not involved with initial interpretation. The reviewers noted indications which were detemined to be a weld joint mismatch condition, that had not been so recorded on the
,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
t
.
Trojan muslear P..nt Document C:ntrol Desk
,
Docket 50-344 September 8, 1989
.
I.icense NPF-1 Attachment 1 Page 6 of 11 examination report. The mismatch condition was confirmed by.
supplemental ultrasonic examination. No other indications that could be interpreted as welding discontinuities were identified other than those recorded during initial interpretation.
b.
A supplea. ental ultrasonic examination of wald P25881R4 was performed, which confirmed the original disposition. This inforination has been documented in the original weld inspection records.
3.
Corrective Steps That Will Be Taken to Avoid Further Violations:
,
a.
Plant procedures controlling radiography will be revised to
,..
require that all detected indications be recorded and disposi-tioned on the examination report.
b. 'The radiograph coordinator will receive instruction on the requirements for documentation of indications and examination results.
4.
Date of Full Compliance:
Full compliance has been achieved. The corrective actions of 3.s and 3.b will be completed by January 31, 1990.
)
)
,
e
....
.
..
'N
.
.,
..
)
i
.
E1 Trojan Nuclear Paant
.Dotument C ntrol Desk
,
..
!
- C Docket 50-344 September.8, 1989 l
-
License MPF-1 Attachment 1
!
,
Page 7 of 11
]
VIOLATION D 10 CFR 50.55a requires that Plant ISI Programs be perfomed in aceo' rdance.
with appropriate editions of the ASME code.
The Trojan FSAR, Section 6, states that the ISI Program shall meet the requirements of the-1983 Edition of Section II of the ASNE code with Addenda through the Summe. of 1983, and the Trojan second Ten-Year ISI Program establishes the same -code requirements. ASNE Section II, Article III.. Paragraph 4330 and Appendix III establish requirements to
,
stamp the weld center line, establish zero reference starting points ar.d identify the direction of examination for weld inspections. Also.
-s marking requirements are set forth in site, Procedure QC-RT-1, dated January 2, 1980.
Contrary to the above, Wolds P-28372 and P-25893 each had two zero reference starting points indicating opposite directions of inspection.
Wolds.P-25894, P-25897 and P-25876 had no zero reference starting points established. Wold P-25875 had no weld identification stamp.
This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement II).
REPLY TO VIOLATICE D PGE acknowledges the violation.
1.
Reasons for the Violation:
a.
The reason for the marking of two zero reference points for Wolds P-28372 and P-25893 was inadequate procedures. A clearly established system for zero reference location was not provided in QC-RT-1.
At different stages of welding progression, two separate sero reference locations were established with location markers progressing in opposite directions, b.
The reason for the lack of zero reference points for Welds P-25894, P-25897 and P-25876 was inadequate procedures, which resulted in the use of an improper tool for marking the reference points. - Peedwater replacement piping weld radio-graphic location marker positions were marked with approved permanent ink markers which have become unidentifiable due to the system operating temperature and surface discoloration.
c.
The reason for the lack of a weld identification stamp for Wald P-25875 was inadequate procedures which resulted in the use of an improper tool for marking the weld identification. The Trojan weld record form documents that the weld number and welder identification number were verified to be properly
.
__
-_.. _ _. _ _
_. _ _ _ _ _.
.. _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _. _ _... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
___
.
__
<-
i
.
}
.
.,
Trojan Nu21ccr Plant Document Crntrol Desk
]
Docket 50-3^4 September 8, 1989
'
License NPF-1 Attachment 1 I
Page 8 of 11 applied on the completed weld as required by QCP-4, " Visual Weld and Braze Inspection". The weld markings were applied by vibro etch and may be difficult to locate after system operation depending on discoloration and surface conditions present.
2.
Corrective Steps That Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved:
Revision O of Quality Inspection Procedure QIP-17. " Radiographic Examination", was approved on April 13, 1989 and was implemented into t'se Plant Operating Manual. Radiographic contract personnel are nc w required to perfonn radiography at Trojan in accordance with QIP-17, which has a clearly established system for identifying a sero reference location as required by ASME Section II, 1983 Edition
-
through Summer 1983 Addenda.
3.
Corrective Steps to be Taken to Avoid Further Violations:
a.
The Trojan Weld Program Manual will be revised to require the application of weld identification, weld centerline marking and zero reference location on all Class 1 and 2 welds and components using approved indentation-type methods (low-stress dye, blunt-nose round dot).
b.
Administrative controls will be established to ensure that weld markings will be verified and, if necessary, corrected during routine inservice examinations. Previous inservice examination reports will be corrected if deficiencies are noted. A short term program to verify weld markings was considered; however, it was determined that this could be more effectively accomplished during routine inservice examinations.
4.
Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved:
The Trojan Wald Program Manual will be revised by September 22, 1989 to include the necessary details for weld marking. The administra-tive controls through which compliance will be achieved during routine inservice examinations will be in place by March 21, 1990.
i e
I
. - _ _. _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ -
. _ _ _ - _ _. __
_ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _
___
[.,, [,
Trojan Nuclear Pa nt Document Control Desk
'
,,..'i Docket 50-344 September 8, 1989.
~'
License NPF-1 Attachment 1 Page 9 of 11
.
Y.IOLATION E 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II, requires that special processes such as nondestructive testing be accomplished in accordance with applicable codes. Trojan's FSAR and ultrasonic testing procedure QAP-UT-101, Revision 1, invoke the 1983 Bdition and Addenda through Summer of 1983 of ASME Section II.
ASME Section II, Paragraph IWA-1400(i) and (h) require that ultrasonic examination data and evaluation moults be documented.
Procedure QAP-UT-101, Revision 1 requires plotting of geometric condi-tions, such as weld root areas or defects. The volume of material examined and any restrictions or limitations of examiners also are required to be documented.
...
Contrary to the above,'ISI ultrasonic data for Systems 330010, 010030, 011570, 035030 and 301120 revealed the following:
1.
The volume of weld examined was not documented; 2.
Examination limitations were not properly documented; 3.
Ultrasonic examination records did not have sufficient plots to ensure that proper examination coverage was obtained;
~4.
Recorded indications were not characterized as defects or geometric in nature; and 5.
The ultrasonic reports did not indicate if the indications were acceptable or rejectable.
This is a severity Level V violation (Supplement II).
REPLY 70.VIOLATIDW 5 PGE acknowledges the violation.
1.
Reasons for the Violation:
l
'
a.
The reason for the undocumented volume of weld examined and undocumented examination limitations was personnel error. The requirements for recording volume and scan limitations were not accomplished as required by QAP-UT-101, Revision 1.
The method
,
used to record scan limitations did not provide sufficient data to calculate the actual percentage of volume scanned.
b.
The reason for the insufficient plots of ultrasonic examinations was inadequate procedures. Ultrasonic examination procedure QAP-UT-101, Revision 1 did not require coverage plots to ensure adequate examination coverage. The examination requirements of P
-
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ _
- fe-
.*,
- L
,
- ,*
'
Trojan uusic:r plant Document'csntesl Desk
-
Donket 50-344-September 8,1989
'
License EpF-1 Attachment 1 page 10'of 11
.QAP-UT-101, Revision'1, paragraph 7.2 defined the beam path and orientation requirements expecting the Level II to be competent in determining' the required scan distances to examine the code required volume.
c.
The reason for the lack of characterization and disposition of roccrded' indications was personnel error. While performing ultrasonic examinations in accordance with QAP-UT-01, Revision 1 indications whose response was equal to or greater
'
than 20 percent distance-amplitude correction (DAC) were inves-tigated as to their origin, and those whose response was equal to or greater than 50 percent DAC were recorded as required by paragraph 8.2.
At this point, detailed profile and. thickness
..-.
cross-sectional plots would be required, as well as observation of the. signal characteristics to identify the shape, location-and the identity of the reflector. ' Examination personnel did not always carry out this process as required by QAP-UT-101, Revision 1, paragraph 8.3.
Investigation of indications to provide documented evidence that would substantiate the.
reflector as geometric or non-geometric in nature were not always performed. Entries, such as " suspected geometry",'were written in the romerks column adjacent to the recorded reflector data. Contractor Level III review of indications was not performed in a timely or adequate manner to evaluate and
. disposition each ultrasonic reflector recorded.
2.
Corrective Steps Taken and Results Achieved:
When the NRC inspection team identified recordable indications a.
which had not been evaluated or dispositic;/ed as required by QAP-UT-101, Revision 1, the ISI contractor initiated CAR-002-TNP.
b.
All ultrasonic examination data sheets were audited by the contractor Level III and the corporate Level III to identify all examinations with recordable indications that had not been evaluated and dispositioned as required by QAP-UT-101, Revision 1.
Contours and thickness measurements were obtained, cross-sectional plots were constructed, and reflectors were reevaluated.
In each case, reflectors recorded were determined to be geometric with the exception of the reactor vessel outlet
'
nozzle-to-vessel indication, which is code acceptable, and pressurizer upper head-to shell indication, which is code acceptable per a frsetu e mechanics analysis.
,
Training was held on procedural requirements with all Level II c.
personnel, and no further discrepancies were identified.
- _ _ - - -
_
4'
)
.
,
Trojan Wuslear Plant Document C ntr:1 De3k
.* '-
Docket 50-344 September 8, 1989 License NPF-1 Attachment 1 Page 11 of 11 3.
Corrective steps That Will Be Taken to Avoid Further Violations:
a.
Site-specific procedures for documenting ultrasonic examination limitations, volume coverage plots, and indications will be developed.
b.
Administrative controls will be established to ensure contract personnel are trained on site-specific procedures for ultrasonic testing.
c.
Administrative controls will be established to ensure a PGE Level III will review and have final disposition of all record-able indications.
-
d.
Administrative controls will be established to ensure the oversight of contract personnel is increased to ensure compliance with examination procedures.
4.
Date When tull Compliance Will Be Achieved:
Full complisace has been achieved. The corrective actions of 3.a through 3.d will be completed by March 21, 1990.
LCD/bsh 3508W.929
.
l
__
.*
'.-
Docurant Ccntrol DJsk
'
-
S2ptcabar 8.
1989
,,
^
MEMPHIS TEsnNG SERVICES. INC.
Al
^
'
2 I>
>
1502 FRST STREET aurLDec A
=
SurrIo
=
HUMBt.E. TEXAS 77338
,
PHONE: (n3 443344 fax:(rta sesort
<
08/21/89
.
Pcrtland General Electric Mr. Carl Shaw
--
Staff Engineer 121 SW Salmon St.
Portland. OR 97204 Mr. Shaw:
.
In an effort to clarify what has remained a confusing situation for ouite some time now, it is my sincere hope the the information contained herein will resolve the matter.
In reviewing Memphis Testing Services' procedure. Mis-oAM-300 Rev. O, * Training, Qualification and Certification of Personnel *.
dated 05/01/89, and as author of such, I offer the following definition regarding paragraph 8.1.3.1, which states in part:
"The examination may be administered as an open book tert."
This statement is per the practices as stated in the American Society of Nondestructive Testing, SNT-TC-1A. June 19% Edition, Paragraph B.3:
- Necessary data such as graphs tables. Specifications.
procecures, and codes may be provided."
,
Ccotes of tne following specifications are supplied to those personnel
'
completing the specific examinations.
l Visual VT-:. a copy of MTS-VT-100. Rev. 0
. Visual VT-2. -3. and -4. a copy of TNp-Q4P-VT108 Ultrasonic. a copy of ASME Section V. Article 5
penetrant. a copy of Article 6 of ASME Section V Magnetic particle. a ecoy of Article 7 of ASME Section V Attached for your review are copies of the specifications as described above.
.
P
._
. - _ _ _ - - _ -. -. -.. _ -. -. _ - - _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _
a
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
___
.o
-
,
,.
o.
,
.-
It is Memphis Testing Services's position that the specific examination
'
_ is administered for the purpose of ascertaining the ability of the individual'to interpret code and procedure per the various examination methods the examiner may encounter in specific assignments. To administer the eran without the required specification would not be practical, or possible.
Should you reoutre additional information. Please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours, MEMPHIS TESTING ICES
_
,
-
hn
.Deder President
'
.
.
l
.
.
,
.
,-
1
.
__ _ _ _. -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__.
.
.-
-.
-_
-,,
,.
...
,
.
i
.
MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES,INC.
'
.
O e
.w VT-1
~
IJm L II s
o'
SPECIFIC
.
b
.
.
50:RE EXAMINER.
.
LEVIL III
__
.
P
- - - - - -. - - _.. _ _.. _ _ _ _,..
.c
- - -
.
.
-
.
MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES p$1 F " ***
'
-
.
'
.
.
.
I 1. For direct visual examination, the eye should be placed within of the surface A. 36 inches feet
- .
C. 10 inches 5'." 24 inche's
.
2. The VT-3 visual examination shall be conducted to determine the general mechanical and structural conditions of components and their supports.
-
A. True
.
B. False
.
.
3. Lighting intensity for direct visual examination should be a minimum of
.
A. 300 foot candles
,
~
B.10 foot candles C. 32.5 foot candles l
D. 70.5 foot candles 4. Remote visual examination methods shall, if utilized, hcVe a resolution capability at least that obtained by
direct visual methods.
.
A. 2 times B. 1 1/2 times
.
C. 50 percent
"
D. equivalent to
-
.
n.
-
.
..
,
.
~
..
MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES m m rr mne
'
P;ga 2
i
-
5. One can predict weld problems and relevant visual indications by observing fluctuations in the current and voltage meters on welding power supply.
.
A. True 3. False 6. Turface preparation is not nonnally considered relevant for rephAr welding inside the reactor coolant system.
~
A. True
. B. False 7. Movement in the piping system may be caused by which of the following:
A. Vibration
.
B. Seismic events C. Flow patterns
.
D. All of the above 8. Which of the following would not be noted on the examination report of a surface visual examina'. ion report.
A. Procedure used to perform examination B. Equipment used during the examination C. Examiners name and certification D. All the above would be noted on the report
'
9. Direct visual examinations performed in a high radiation area shall be conducted expeditiously using techniques developed outside the area.
I A. True l
'
B. False I
'
t
-
-. - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-_
..
.
MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES
"-2 * " " *"
.
.
Paga 3
.
.
.
10.rIt is up to the discretionlof the cert 1fied examiner whether
, or not slag must be removed from a weld prior to visual exam-ination.
'
,A. True B. False
_
11. List four types of inspection instruments that may be used
-
wheninspectingweldedgoints.
~
-
A.__
...
_
B.
_
_
C.
.
'
D.
.
12. visual examination is generally used to determine such things
,
as
.
A. The surface condition of the part
-
.
-
B. The alignment of mating surfaces l
C. Evidence of leaking D. All of the above 13. Briefly describe what a weld fillet, gauge is used for.
-
.
,
,-
-
-
,
.
-1 14. For direct visual examination, the angle of vision from the surface being examined should not be less than degrees.
A. 90 B. 45
,
C. 20
'
-
I D.
.-
E__________-------
,
_.
--
_.
..
.
.
,
'
MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES,$g-l " " " *
-
-
.
_
35. All certified NDE personnel are required to have
.
A. a valid Texas state License B. An annual eye examination C. Qualification to CFR50 D. Exposure monitoring devises 16. Visual examinations shall be conducted using a reference standard that is
--
.
A. e@ivalent to a 2T pentrameter B. at least 408 lumens C. a 1/32 in. black line on a 184 neutral grey background -
D. none of the above.
.
17. It is not necessary to remove surface oxidation prior to performing a visual examination of a weld.
A. True
-
B. False
,
18.
One of the test methods commonly used to detect surface dis-continuities in ferromagnetic material is:
'
A. ultrasoriic testing
-
.
B. visual examination C. magneti'c particle testing D. Penetrant testing
.
~
'
- t. B,C, pnd D above
.
-
.
,
,
.
,
19. Prior to' performing a direct visual examination of insulated
pipe' weld surface, the insulation mest be removed.
...
,j
...
..fp
.'
A. True
"
.
-
"-
.
.
'.
B. False
-
'
i
- .
.
-
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
....... - -
-e.o..
.
,.
,
.
VT-1 LEVEL. SPECIFIC
MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES e.g. 5
.
,n 20. Visual examinations are the most suitable method of NDE for
'
'
the determination of pipe wall thinning.
A. True j
.
B. False
.
G 9%e-e
- go g
e e
.
..
.
o
e e
e S
'
e e
e
-
-- - --__________.______ _ _ _
C
~ ~
' ~ ~ ~~
- ~~ ~
~
~
~
~
- ~ - ~ -
-
~ "R
,...
.
.
,
e
+
,
,
. '
-
MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES, INC.
,
.
.
.
'
.
..,
VT=2 SPECIFIC ECWi!ETION e
.
k
.
e se e
%
e-o e
.
.
NN
-
.
.
SCORE
-
.
LgysL In
-
.
O e
e
e e
e
,
e
.
-
..
...
.
'
w-rI revm. 2 PSCIFIC
.
' MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES, INC.' *
'
.
<
--
_
1.
FOR COMPCNDrts MIERE !PJJCAGE IS EXPECNlDe VISLEL EXAMINATIW SEAR 4 YERIFY THAT A.
The lankage collection system is operative.
3.
Moisture is collecting beneath the ocuponent.
'
C.
The floor area beneath the component is free of leakage
]
D.
All of the above.
,
i 2.
THE TEST PRES 5URE CAGE UEED IN A TEST SHOULD BAVE A CALIBRATED RANGE Cr 1.5
{
TIas sot uaT sere TnAN TI=S TsE IN=== =xInon,REssuRE.
j A.
- a. ~
D.
3.
IEIOt CF THE FOLLOWING IS THE CCERECT CRDE & STEPS IN A BYDRCSTATIC TEST 7 A.
Vent Piping, fill piping, hold time, e = % tion.
B.
Bold time, vent piping, examination, pressure system.
C.
Iniscatl.~. testing, pressurize, vent piping, bzamination D.
Vent Piping, pressurize, hold time, examination.
,
4.
VERTICAL JOINTS CF INSULATION REED CtlLY BE VISQhLLY EXAMINED FOR LEAK A.
Along the entire joint.
B.
At the lowest point.
-
C.
At the top of the joint.
D.
Along the side of the joint.
.
5.
FERRITIC c:MPCBIENTS EXPOSED 20 BCRIC ACID CAN:
A.
Erode 3.
Se difficult to see C.
Corrode D.
De ignored EXAMINATION FCR LEAKAGE DURING' ELEVATED TEMPERATURE TE
6.
WI25 2HE PRESSURE LOWERED 20 A CORRESPONDING TEMPERATURE CF:
A.
lac *r i
.
o s. 2Co r (
D.
THE PRINCIPAL ADVANTAGE OF YISUAL EXAMINATION FCR LEAKAGE IS 7.
-
It can indicate nochanical problems.
A.
An entire system can be tested at cae time.
Insulated systems do not have to have their insulation removed.
3.
-
o.11..st
.y.c.a. enn memwmslata minute leakage to aid in its detection.
C.
m.
.. -
..
..
..
)
-
.
.
" ** "
' MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES, INC.*,.[2
-
.
_
.
.
s. sear Lr.AxAGEs or SE CAosto ar:
.
A.
W W east interface S.
Cracked seating suefsees C.
Incouplete valve closure
.
D.
Operator error.
E.
All of the above.
9.
SECTICN XI ALtcWS A SYSTEM FutCTICalAL LEAKAGE TEST 20 38 PERFORMED WTH{g A.
1C hciding time required after attaining test pressure B.
No holding time required after attaining operating pressure C.
10 minutes MWM time required after ate =Mg test pressure.
~
D.
10 minutes holding time required after attaining operating pressure.
10. AcrIVE VALVES REQUIRE LEAK TESTING PdR CATEG3Y:
A.
A (seat leakage is limited to perform properly.)
3.
3(closed or open function.)
C.
C(pressure relief or flow direction check.)-
D.
D(rupture disc valves.)
.
11. LEAKAGE EXAMINATIM REQUTRES TRAT MINIMUM PRESSURE SE MANIAINED FOR # CUR BOURS:
On both insulated and uninsulated systems.
-
A.
To allow adequate time to pass to allow any leaks to seep to the outside
,
5.
'
of the insulation for detection.
C.
To check functional edequacy of the pumps.
- D.
20 allow examiners to prepare for the test.
SHOULD 200 DO IF EX7 ICTICE SLIGnT IJWas FICM THE STEM PACKING CF A 12. WHAT VALVE WHILE PERFORMING A VT-2 EXAMINAT1 3 7
.
A.
Record it.
3.
Accept it
C.
Ignore it
D.
Reject it tBELESS SPECIFIED BY THE CHtER, LEAKAGE RATES FOR N A VALVES SHALL NOT, 13.
EXCEED:
,
,
A.
10 D al/hr.
,
B.
20 D al/hr.
.
C.
30 D ml/hr.
j D.
40 D al/hr.
-
1.
I
.
-
..
....
- -
~
- - -
- -. - - _ - - - - - - _ - _
_
_ _ - _ _
i,*.,
nus'zzes
. si
,
.,.
}
,,,,,g,
..
.
.
-
.
n-rI raver. n mEczrIc MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES, INC.p.ee s
,
.
__
14. IEERE IS LEAKAGE # CST W2EN RX2tD IN SOLTED m?
A.
Bolts
.
3.
Gnakets
-
C.
Ilmlde D.
Ilone of the above
'
'
15. AN neatTANr Toot IN LEAK osTscrxes Is:
A.
An'18% neutral grey card.
,, '.
5.
A flashlight
.
-
C.
A steel rule
-
D.
A Cambridge gege.
16. IXRING BMIROSTATIC TESTING OF THE PIPING SISTEN:
.
A.
Travel stops are removed from constant supports
.
B.
Travel stops are removed from variable springs C.
Variable springs act as rigid hangers.
D.
All of the above
.
.
s 17. LEAKAGE IN ICHIN5ULATED COMPCNENTS IS DETERMINED BY EXAMINING:
A.
Sun w M areas.
3.
Floor areas.
.
C..Bquipment surfaces D.
All of the above
.
18. ImIca CF THE FOLIGNING IS LEAST IMPCRTANT CONCERNI!C PRESSORE GAGES?
A.
Calibration 3.
Location C.
Manufacturer D.
Sange 19. LEAKAGE FRON & YALVE MAY BE OF LESS CONCERN IF IT IS COMING FRCN THE!.
,
A.
stem 3.
Bonnet bolts C.
Packing gland
-
D., Yalve body
.
20. ICN CrIEN SHOULD GAGES USED IN PRESSURE TESTS BE CALIBRA2ED?
.
A.
Prior to each use 3.
Every 3 weaks C.
At a maximum of 30 days D.
Never
.
,
.
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
i e4
. e,.
, e '.' e,
'
l
-*
- .
..
t.
.-
.
.
..
.
La nL II Yr-3
.
NBCIFIC s
9.
.
..
ggrg RXRE EXAMDER
.
O
_.. _ _ _ _.._
_ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _. _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
~
1.
.-
.
- .
,.
.
,
.,
.
.
.
1.
The two types of visual examination applied to component supports are:
A.
operational and static.
B.
YT-3 and YT-4.
C.
hot and cold.
D.
preservice and inservice.
2.
A YT-examination in a check for operability, and veriffes that a component support is functional.
_
,
A.
B.
C.
D.
4-
.
3.
A YT-examination ~ verifics that a component support is built as it was designed.
A.
~
B.
C.
3.
A YT-4 examination involves checking for support for corrosion loose parts, physical damage and debris.
A.
True 8.
False
.
5.
The significant areas of examination and accept / refect criteria for examinations of supports are specified in a
component support examination procedure.
.
A.
True 8.
False
,
6.
Visual examination of component supports includes examination of the attachments to the building structure.
.
A.
True S.
False
-
.
--- _ - _ _. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
..
....
,
5pecific YT 3 Tast 1 Revision I Page 2
'
7.
A snubber is used solely in nuclear plants for restraining seismic loads.
A.
True B.
False
]
8.
Lpw fluid level in a mechanical snubber is a sign of a potential probles.
,
A.
True i
B.
False P.
What aids in causing the internals of the mechanical snubber to rotate?
'
A.
Yalve S.
C1 amp
'
C.
Ball screw shaft D.
Torque transfer drum
.
.
10.
What is another tenn for release rate?
A.
Bleed rate 8.
Flow rate C.
Coo 11ng rate D.
Motion rate 11.
A snubber sh'ould be installed as late in the construction stage as
.
possible.
,
A.
True 5.
False
-
12.
The mechanical snubber would not activate tvithout the spring.
A.
valve 8.
shaft C.
poppet
,
D.
capstan 13.
If a visual exam reveals that the snubber may be inoperable, a functional test should be performed to verify that conclusion.
A.
True'
B.
False
-
14.
A restraint is used to prevent pipe whipping as a result of a pipe break.
A.
True 5.
False
.
V
-
.
_
. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _
Specific 3 Test 1 Revision I
'
Page 3
.
.
15.
The results of visual examinations on hangers should be reported on a record form.
A.
True 8..
False 16.
Component supports are designed to transmit:
A.
water.
S.
loads.
C.
steam.
D.
coal.
17.
Component supports that carry the weight of components from above with the primary member usually in tension are called:
...
A.
hangers.
8.
C.
supports.
D.
restraint.
18.
Component supports that carry the weight of components from below with the primary member usually in compression are called:
'
A.
hangers.
B.
snukkers.
C.
supports.
D.
restraint.
19.
Component supports that dampen motion by either hydraulic or mechanical actions are called:
.
,
A.
hangers.
8.
C.
supports.
-
D.
restraint.
20.
Snubbers allow slow movements of the components during nonnal plant operation.
.
A.
True.
.
8.
False 3019a i
e e
I f
_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _.
____ _ __ _ _ _
e,.
- ...
.
.
,
. ' '..,
MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES,INC.
.
.
J
...
~
LEML II N
.
SMICIFIC *
s e
s e
.. _
%E_
sx=
.
.
ME
.
.
.
e
e
e
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. - _
___ _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _. - _ _ _. _ _
_
_
,
,
Page 1 l
,.
.
g..
i
i,
'1.
The visual czamination YT-4:
A.
addresses the use of binoculars and borescopes.
B.
is conducted to locate leakage.
C.
is used to detenmine the operability of couponent. supports.
D.
relates to the general condition of ccaponents, such as corrosion and water.
'
2.-
Functional testing must be performed on:
A.
hangers.
3.
restraint C.
%Gs.
D.
snebers.
E.
all of the above.
3.
Pressure gages are graduated in:
A.
cubic feet per day.
3.
pounds per foot.
,_
C.
feet of water.
D.
pt @ per square inch.
4.
Altitude gages are graduated in:
A.
cubic feet per day.
B.
pounds per foot.
C.
feet of water.
D.
pounds per square inch.
,
5.
If a category A or B valve fails to properly perfoon its exercise stroking:
A.
it unwt immediately be declared inoperable.
3.
it must be retested in 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />.
-
C.
it must be corrected within one month.
D.
corrective action must be initiated immediately.
E.
all of the above.
6.
Excessive puup vibration con be caused by:
.
A.
rotating element unbalance.
3.
worn or loose parts.
C.
misalignment.
D.
all of the above.
7.
During valve exercising, problems may occur if ther A.
seats are worn.
I B.
packing is too tight.
C.
Ioak rate is in excese of specification.
D.
packing is leaking.
.
V
_.. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _.. _
_ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _.
-.
-__ _-- -- _ _ _ - - _ _ -. _ --
.p----
..
'i'
S.
Snubbers sels ld for o particular functional t Jt s.
~
A.
are selected based on service and environment.
{
'
B.
would have been tested the last time.
.
C.
should be replaced if they fail.
D.
all of the above.
9.
Now often must andbers be functionally tested?
A.
All snubbers tested at least once every 10 years B.
10% of the anubbers tested at least once every 5 years C.
10% of the strabbers tested at least once every inspection period 20% of the snubbers tested at least once every inspection period D.
10. to any perform functional testing of snubbers?
A.
The manufacturer B.
The owner C.
An independent test facility D.
All of the above
..,.
E.
21y A and C above 11. According to Section XI, how many size ranges are there for the ISI of snubbers?
A.
B.
3 D.
'
12. The snubber label is inportant because:
.
l A.
it serves as a dust cover.
B.
it gives the temperature ranges for proper performance.
C.
it indicates the -4==
radiation that can be withstood by the snubber.
D.
it indicates the anubber load capacity.
13. Which of the following is not a functional parameter of snubbers?
A.
Ac'tivation Rate B.
Blood Rate
-
C.
Motion Rate
D.
Breakaway Force 14. While the pung testing is b6tng conducted, what additional observations should be ande?
j A.
Signs of noise, cavitation or vibration.
B.
Excessive heating or relays, packing and instruments.
C.
Determinig if packing is soft, pliable and true cut.
D.
Determining if the punp packing has water, is vented and is not airbound.
E.
Water horsepower, brake horsepower and K.W.
.
P
_ _ _. _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_.
. _ - _ -
_
_-
.
_
-
-
,
_
l<
-. *.
, 4 *p-e
.,
'.
15. What to the amminan recomernded decibel rating for pump noise?
'A.
85 e B.
105 dB C.
90 dB D.
120 dB E.
65 dB
-
16. Punp sound level testing is described in:
A.
'
B.
ASE Section III.
C.
Hydraulie Institute Standards.
D.
ANSI M45.2.6 17. What three measurements are made in pump vibration testing?
A.
Volts, esperes, power factor.
B. - K.W., volts, amperes.
..,
C.
MPSH-A, HPSH-R, decibels.
D.,
Water horsepower, brake horsepower, E.W.
E.
D!rhc: : t, velocity, acceleration.
18. NPSH-R is the:
.
A. ' suction power of the pap.
B.
not positive saction head available at the suction flange.
C.
not positive suction head required by the pay to operate properly.
-
D.
a W eric pressure.
E.
water surface pressure.
19. The purpose of a station systen curve is to
.
A.
establish pung shutoff.
B.
show the vertical static lift and pipe friction losses plotted against G.P.M.
C.
show a condenser circulator in operation.
D. - show puup efficiency plotted against G.P.M.
E.
be the basis foe energy saving.
20. What four pieces of data are used to plot typical pap performance curves?
A.
K.W., water horsepower, brake horsepower, volts.
B.
K.M., anperes, volts, powee factor.
C.
Head, G.P.M. Volta, anpores.
D.
Punp efficiency, motor efficiency, volts, K.W.
E.
G.P.M., head, efficiency, brake horsepower.
.
e-
_.. _. _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _.
r_u-------_-.___
_ __
____ _ _ _ _ _.
.__
_..____
_ _
_ _ _
_
.1 l=',
- y,*-
.
,
?-
,
,.
,. *.
,
...
.
.
.
.
.-
i-ULTRASONIC SPECIFIC EXAMINATION LEVEL II
,_
NAME
's DATE
.
SCORE
.
EXAMINER
.
S h
- -
-- - - - -
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
--
- _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _.
- _ _ - - _ _.
_-_
- - _ - -
-__-
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
..
..
,..,
.
?
- 4 1.
When examination of welds is required, what is the basic calibration reflector?
.
2.
The rate of manual scanning shall not exceed inches /second.
3.
Where possible, butt welds shall be examined from both sides of the weld.
TRUE FALSE
..
4.
Each pass of the search unit shall overlap a minimum of
.
5.
Examinations shall be conducted with an ultrasonic, pulse type system generating'frequenetes of from to MHz unless,otherwise specified.
.
6.
When scanning with a straight beam transducer, the scanning shall be performed at a gain setting of--------
- - - -....... - - - - - - -..... - - - - - - - - -..... - - - - - - -
-
7.
What is the welding requirements for a clad calibration block.
B.
At what curvature may one use a flat calibration block?
9.
Thickness measurements shall be indicated by:
A.
C-scan B.
B-Scan C.
Cathode Ray Tube D.
Meter, or Digital display E.
"C" and
"D" above
.
10. In accordance with Section V, Article V, when calibration
~
for base metal examination of weldments is required, what t.
+w.
n.
sa.:
<c.,w.ney far c+c tg8+
h...
tran.n..rerst
-
__
_ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -
. '..
..
.
.
,
11. A DAC curve is required for all pipe welds.
TRUE FALSE o
i 12. What shall be done if forgings and bars cannot be effectively examined from both ends using a straight beam technique?
i 13. What type of ultrasonic instrument shall be used for examinations conducted in accordance with Article 57
--
14. What is the calibration hole location for material over 2 inches thick through 4 inches thick?
A.
1/2 T B.
3/4 T C.
2/4 T
.
.
D.
None of the above 15. What in the minimum hole depth?
-
16. What is the hole diameter in q6estion
14".
A.
3/32 B.
5/16
-
C.
3/16 D.
3/8 17. The beam angle in the production material shall be in the range of to degrees.
15. "no nominal frequency shall be NHz when performing ultrasonic examination of welds.
-
A.
10 MHz B.
15 MHz c.
m.es mw, l
.
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
- -.
_ _ _, _ _ _ _,
.e
'.
.,.9_
.
,
' '.s
)
19. The gain control response is set so the response from the first point.on the curve is
% pf full screen on
]
the cathode ray tube.
,
A.
90% + cr -5%
\\
B.
90% + or -5%
-
C.
100% + or -5%
that indications which produce e response groater RO. All
% of reference level shall be investigated.
A.
50%
--
B.
10Y.
C.
100%
D.
20%
'
,
.
4 P
_
- ' - - ^ ^ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _,
_
-
_
4
- _ _ _ _ _.
t l
' ~
e
,
MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES, INC.
!
I
-
i
-
.
- 9 e LIGJID PENI52 ANT TESTING SPECIFIC EXAM s
.
e ImTE
_
__
Ex mI m
__
LEVEL III
.
a
^'Ya-
.
$
_ - - - - _. _. _ _ - -. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ -._ ----_-_ --
- _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
..
i'.-
page 2
- '
.
J 1.
Pontrant any be used with any part in the as-welded, as-rolled, as-cast, or as-forged condition?
A.
True B.
raise 2.
What can be done if the part is warmer than 125 r?
3.
What is minimum tilse for observing the bleed out?
.
4.
What is maximum time for ch. +1ng the blood out?
..,
5.
Now can penetrant be applied?
6.
How often should black light intensity be measured?
.
.
7.
What would indicate excessive cleaning?
-
8.
Can a black light with a spectrum range centered on 350 [MN) be used.
a. rr.e B.
False 9.
Excess water washable peretrant any be removnA by a water spray with a pressure of:
-
A.
Minimum of 50 poi and anxism t stute of 110' F.
B.
Maxinum of 345 kpa and minimm 43 c.
c. Maximum of 50 psi and maxinum 100 F.
D.
None of the above.
10.
Can paper towels be used to wipe excess solvent remweable penetrant?
A.
True l
B.
False
.
e d>
_ _ _. _. _ _
. _ _ _..
_._________._____________m
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
I
i
...
Page 3 1..
.,.
.
..,'
.
11.
Does the type of penetrant have to be identified in the g d xe7 A.
True l
B.
False
m en must a g h e be revised?
13.
In general article 6, is in conformance wich?
14.
What is the maximum cloride content of all penetrant material?
A.
.00005g /100g 3.
Less than 1% by weight
~ ~ '
C.
Less than.005g / 100g D.
None of the above 15.
cleaning solwet shall meet what requirements?
16.
What type of developer may be used with fluorescent penetrants?
.
17.
What is the minimum penetration tise for a beenze casting with cracks?
.
18.
Can one use a fluorescent, solvent removeable technique?
Bow may dry developer be applied?
.
20.
Can a color contrast exam follow a fluorescent exam?
.
&
e f
...
.....................
...
.J
. _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ -.
-
_
_
..'.
-
- :-..
,.:
.
.,
,
- -.
.
f- -
l.
. MAGNETIC PARTICLE EXAMINATION LEVEL I1
'~'
SPECIFIC
.,.
.
.
.NAME,_
,_,,
DATE SCOitE
-
EXAMINER LEVEL III
<
/. f.,
1
'[
't
-
I
.
L e
i'
+
___
_
_. _
. _. _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_a__._
.___________.____.___m.__________.
_ _ _ _. _ _
_
... _.
.
.
.
a
.
.
,
' .
!
!
l NAGNETIC PARTICLE SPECIFIC EXAMINATION LEVEL 11 j
1.
When specified by the referencing code section, magnetic particle shall be performea.
Typical types of discontinuities that can bw detected by this method are A-
___________
B-
___________
C.
___________
D.
,
___________
.
E.
Magnetic particle examination shall be done by the continuous method.
A.
True B.
False 3.
Prior to magnetic particle examination, the surface to be examined and adjacent areas within at least
______
inches shall be free of extraneous matter.
,
A.
3" 5.
6"
-
C.
1" 4.
.Name the three cleaning methods that may be used.
A.
___________
B.
..__________
C.
_,,_________
5.
When must demagnetization be performad if required?
6.
At least two examinations shall be performed on each area.
!
A.
True B.
False
,
e
!
l
_.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
b
.
..
...
.
,
"
.
!
7.
When residual magnetism in the part could interfere with j
subsequent processing or usage, the part shall be
'
demagnetization.
A.
True B.
False i
8.
Using the prod technique the current shall be __________
minimum-to ______________ maximum amperes / inch of prod spacing for sectione 3/4 inch thick or greater.
- A.
125 to 250 amps.
B.
200 to 350 amps.
C.
100 to 125 amps.
D.
750 to 1000 amps.
_,
9.
Prod spacing shall not exceeds A.
6" B.
S" C.
12" D.
B" 10.
Short prod spacing may be used to accomodate the geometric limitations of the area being examined, but
pred spacings of less than ____________ inches are usually not practical due to banding of the particles around the prods.
.
A.
6" B.
1" C.
3" D.
12" 11.
When usino the circular magnetization technique the required current for a part with outer diametara over 5" up to 10" shall bes A.
SCO to 500 amps.
B.
500 to 700 amps.
C.
100 to 330 amps.
12.
The yoke technique shall only be used to detect discontinuities that are open to the surface of the part being inspected.
A.
True B.
False
.
I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _._.__
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _
,..
.'
.,..
.
.
.
-
,
13.
Calibration of magnetic particle equiment shall be at least ______________ a year.
'
.
A.
3 times B.
E times C.
once D.
avary 90 days 14.
The magnetizing force of the yoke shall be calibrated by _______________________.
A.
An amp meter B.
A pie gage C.
Determining their lifting power Each direct current er permanent magnetic yoke shall
..
15.
have a lifting power of at least:
A.
10 lbs.
B.
60 lbs.
C.
40 lbs.
D.
50 lbs.
Tne accumulation of particles at a sito on the part
surf ace, collected at and held to the site by the
.
magnetic leakage field, is called.
A..
A discontinuity
.
8.
A defect C.
An indication D.
Magnetic writing 17.
Half wave rectified AC (HWDC) is used for detection of:
'
)
A.
Surface defects only B.
Subsurface defects only Surface and subsurface defect.s C.
D.
none of the above
.
9
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _
.
<
..
...
,
.
,
'.,
j 18.
Which one of the following is not a discontinuity common to forged products?
!
k
<
A.
Laps B.
Shrinkage C.
Bursts D.
Flakes 19.
Which of the following is a defect commonly associated with the welding process?
A.
Lack of penetration
,,,
B.
Flakes C.
Seems D.
Laminations 20.
Which of these cracks may appear as en irregular, checked, or scattered pattern of fine lines usually
,
caused by local overheating?
A.
Fatigue cracks B.
Grinding cracks
-
C.
Crater cracks D.
HAZ cracks
.
%
e
!
_ _ - _.
_ - _ _.. _ _ _ _.. _. - _ _ _
--
- - - - -
- --
- - _ - - - - - -
. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
- - - - - -
-
.
..
..
.
,
.
r
& tre.1 an w, 4 Mernphis Dating Services, $nc.
-
- er
.
rec 0RD OF REVISIONS
.
VISUAL EXAMINATION PROCEDURE raocroutz #
sacrIom/PARAGRAPE arvrstox
mars Arrscran PatrAran ur QA ArraovA1.
>
/
,
ces-ve-loo, os/17/s4 w/x n'
/
--
Rev.0
-
g-
.
.
&Y&#
.ng$
~
'
-
-
df.
.
b ,
-
-i.
h
.
I e
4
-
.
-
-
--
- --
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _. _.
.___m_____,_.___
W.
^
...
-
,
,
,
.
}
No.
QTS-VT-100
'
,
MempMs Testing Services, Inc.
og g
.
.
.
.
'
.
VISUAL EXAMINATION PROCEDURE 1.0 SCOPE This procedure describes the requirements for the visual examination of welded components such.as listed below:
-
..
1.1 Full penetration butt welds 1.2 Fillet welds
.,
- 1.3 Welds on welded supports
.
2.0 REFERENCES 2.1 Amerier.n Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
'
soiler and Pressure vessel Code
-
' 2.1.1 Section V, Nondestructive Examination,
'
1983 Edition
.
2.1.2 Section XI, Inservice Inspection of Nuclear-Power Plant Components, 1983 Edition 2.1.3 qts-300, Training, Qualification and Certification
.
.
.
PERSONNEL REQUIRE.W TS
.
3.0 Services Personnel certified to a Monphis Testi Inc. certification program and meeth the require-3.1 i
,ments of paragraph 3.2 below, shall be deemed l
qualified.
.
Personnel shall receive additional documented'
3.2 training on components representative of those to be inspected when required.
.
.
a
.-
,
-
-
'
)
'
m2. oTs-ve-100
...
.
MampMo 33roting Sarwicac, Inc.
of s
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
3.3 Visual examination personnel shall have an annual visual acuity examination to assure natural or corrected near vision acuity sufficient to be able to read J-I letters on standard Jaeger' test.
type charts for near vision or equivalent methods.
A far distance acui'ty examination auch as snellen test at 20 feet.
Natural or corrected far distance acuity shall be a snellen fraction of -20/30 as a minimum.
-
..
.
.., _
4.0 CLEANING
,
4.1 Visual examinations that require i: lean surfaces for valid interpretation shall be preceded by appropriate cleaning prpcasses.
4.2 Cleaning processes'are not covered under the pro-
cedure.
,
'
4.3 In general, satisfactory results may be obtained when the surface is in,the as-welded condition.
4.4 Prior to visual examination the surfaos and all adjacent areas within at least 1 inch shall be dr;; and free of dirt, grease, scale, welding flux, weld spatter,. oil or other matter that sould obscure surface examination.
\\
-
-
5.0 EXAMINATION AREAS
'
Examinationareasshouldbet5eweldunderexamination
.
and 1/2 inch of each side.
.
6.0 VISUAL EXAMINATION METHODS
s.1 Direct Visual Examination i
Direct visual examination may be W eraad when access
!
f is sufficient to place tho' eye within 24 inches of the f'
surface to be examined and at an sagie not less than 30 degrees to the surface to be examined.
Mirrors may J
be used to improve the angle of vision and aids 'such i
as magnifying lens may be used to assist the examination.l Lighting shall be sufficient *to resolve a 1/32 inch line q
vu a neutral gray enro that. proceduras an 18% reflectance l
_
_ _ - _ - _ _ - - _ _ - - _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - -
.
_ _ - _ _
-
.-
.
,.
...
,
i
.
,
No.
OTS-VT-100 Memphis firsting Services, Inc.
'
<
of s
.nse
.
.
6.1 Remota Visual Examination where access does not permit direct visual examination, remote visual examinations may be performed, pro-vided resolution capability is equivalent to that.
obtained by direct visual examination.. Visual aids
.
such as mirrors, telescopes, borescopes, fibre
-
optics or other suitable instruments may be used..
_
.
7.0 EXAMINATION The. visual examination shall be perforined to determine the general condition of the weld and adjacent areas.
5.0 RECORDS
,
8.1 A visual examination data sheet shall be prepared for all components examined.
This shall include
-
the following information as a minimum
'
A.
Examinar and level B.
Datd of examination C.
Procedura Number and Revision D.
Type of visual examination (direct / remote)
E.
Illumination used F.
Direct visual aids if used
-
G.
Remote visual equipment N.
Identification of Component I.
Examination results
-
J.
Location and size of any indications 9.0 EVALUATION 9.1 Discontinuities at the surface shall be indicated.
)
Imperfections such as may occur from machining l
marks, surface conditions, may produce similar j
indications which are nonrelevant to the direction l
of unacceptable discontinuities.
.
.
!
-
-
I
'
.
_ - - -
__
-
<
[
-
.
ND. OTS-vT-100
'
MempMs Eksting Services, Inc.
,
,,
,
-
,
.
.
.
,
9.2 Any indication which.is believed to be nonrele'
'
-
vant shall be regarded as a defect and shall be re-examined to verify whether or not actual defects are present.
9.3 1inear indications are those indications in which the length is taore than 3 times the width.
Indi-
.
cations with major dimensions greater than 1/16th
'
inch shall be considered relevant.
-
.-
"
9.4 The following relevant indications are unacceptable:
A." Any cracks or linear indications
.
3.
Rounded indications with dimen'sions greater than 3/16th inch.
C.
Four or more rounded indications in a line separated by.1/16th inch or less edge to edge.
D.. Ten or more rounded indications (such that would result from porosity on the surface of'the j
'
'
weld) in any 6 square inch of surface.
.
E.
Arc strikes and weld spatter.
.
l
,
10.0 PROCEDURE RESTRICTIONS 10.1 Examinations performed in accordance with this j
procedure will not be considered valid if combi-nations of lighting, access, and angle of vision is not adequate to resolve a fine line of 1/32 inch or less in width, or some other artificial i
flaw located on the surface or similar surface to that to be examined.
The line or artificial flaw
!
ehall be placed in the least discernable location
,
on the area examined, to prove the procedure.
.
11.0 Procedure Requalifications
11.1 Requalifications of this procedure shall be
,
required:
'
A.
For direct visual examinations at distances greater than 24 inches.
-
.
l
.
!
-
.-
_ -. - _ - _ -. -. _ - - _ - - - -
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
__
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
.__
___
.
.
-
-.
__
i-
)
t
-
.
Us.
OTS-VT-100
,
MempMr Tirsting Services, Inc.
of
.
.
-
.
.
'
3. For direct visual examinations at angles less than 30 degrees to the surface to be examined.
C. The requirements of 10.0 of this procedure are
'
not met.
.
11.1 substituting one equipment manufacturer's equipment for another, or changes in the details of test arrangement, will not require procedure requali-fication.
~
,.
,
9 e
W
'%
.
e e
.
.
e O
.
O
.
-
.
--
.._-_.-._._-___-mm__.
_ _ _ _