Text

NDE Report, on PSL-1 Pressurizer Nozzles, Attachment 3
	ML081050285
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	03/11/2008
From:	Spanner J; Electric Power Research Institute
To:	Selby G; - No Known Affiliation, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	MRP-2008-027
	Download: ML081050285 (143)
	v • d • e

Attachment 5 RT Report

ET Report

the criteria in WDI-ET-004 that a flaw like indication have a linear extent for 3 or more data points, in the index direction corresponds to a distance of 0.120. If the index spacing is 0.025 then a flaw like indication must extend for 4 to 5 or more data points in the index direction.

The system calibration process resulted in having the Lissajous signals from circumferential flaws displayed down to the right and axial flaws displayed up to the left.

The scanning was performed axially using the same 0 degree reference and clockwise positive orientation. The flame cut end at the 0 degree location was used as the 0 axial reference. The scanning started at 1 below this flame cut and extended approximately

4.

Figure 1: 7010/Open Housing Scanner suspended from a fork truck performing a scan of Safety Nozzle A

Indication Summary NOZZLE A Four reportable ID linear circumferential indications were detected.

Please note that the date stamp on the computer screen is incorrect (1/05/2002) and should be 3/12/2008 in all cases.

Figure 2: Eddy Current C scan showing the SS pipe (top) (to ~ -2.3), DM weld (middle)

(to ~ -3.7) and SS clad carbon steel (bottom). The indications are located at approximately -2.4 axially.

Figure 3: Circumferential, linear indication #1 at 28 degrees, -2.40 with the 400 kHz and 100 kHz Lissajous patterns of a surface indication 0.36 long. The signal amplitude is approximately 50% of the 0.040 deep EDM notch.

Figure 4: linear indication #2 at 74 degrees, -2.36 with the 400 kHz and 100 kHz Lissajous patterns of a surface flaw 0.46 long. The signal amplitude is slightly more than the 0.040 EDM notch.

Figure 5: Circumferential linear indication #3 at 157 degrees, -2.28 with the 400 kHz and 100 kHz Lissajous pattern of a surface indication 0.25 long. The signal amplitude is approximately 60% of the 0.040 EDM notch.

Figure 6: Circumferential linear indication #4 at 339 degrees, -2.36 with the 400 kHz and 100 kHz Lissajous patterns of a surface indication 0.36 long. The signal amplitude is approximately 60% of the 0.040 EDM notch.

Figure 7: Permeability indication (PV) at 214degrees, -3.04. (There are two other PV indications at approximately 100 and 150 degrees) with the 400 kHz and 100 kHz Lissajous patterns Based on the available information from drawings and pictures, it appears that the 360 degree demarcation at approximately 2.3 corresponds to the SS pipe to inconnel weld interface. This would show that the ET indications are in the inconnel weld, near the SS interface. The lower 360 indication at approximately 3.7 is the remnant of the counterbore machining in the nozzle, as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 8: Picture of Nozzle A interior. The faint circumferential line in upper portion of the mirror image appears to be the transition between the SS pipe and the alloy 182 weld. The lower circumferential line appears to be from a slight mismatch between the original counterbore machined from the PZR head side and the final post welding machining done from the nozzle flange side. Both of these lines are clearly evident in the eddy current C scan images.

Nozzle B Figure 9: Nozzle B has no recordable indications (NDD) but shows the same SS to inconnel weld transition and counterbore to SS clad transition. (ID grinding area indicated in the region of 270 degrees, -3.2.)

Nozzle C Figure 10: Nozzle C displays the normal transitions and four very short indications in the weld zone. These indications have the phase angle of circumferential flaws but a C scan image display of axial flaws and do not extend for an index distance equal to 0.120, which is probably associated with some type of surface blemishes. All four indications are essentially the same.

Figure 11: Nozzle C showing a typical short circumferential indication

Data and Calibration Sheets

Calibration Block Calibration Sheets

Instrument Certification

Comparison of all NDE techniques for nozzles A, B, and C

Comparison of Ultrasonic, Radiographic and Eddy Current Examination Results Safety Nozzles A, B and C Port St Lucie Unit 1 Pressurizer

2

Volumetric examination results summary

Encoded phased array examination PSL safety nozzle A

9 embedded fabrication flaws identified Attributed to slag, porosity and/or lack of fusion Clustered and individual flaws identified

No flaws connected to inside surface PSL safety nozzle B

5 embedded fabrication flaws identified Attributed to slag, porosity and/or lack of fusion Clustered and individual flaws identified

No flaws connected to inside surface PSL safety nozzle C

7 embedded fabrication flaws identified Attributed to slag, porosity and/or lack of fusion Clustered and individual flaws identified

No flaws connected to inside surface

Many other reflectors noted in all nozzles, but below the procedures amplitude recording threshold

3

Volumetric examination results summary Double wall exposure radiographic examination

- PSL safety nozzle A

7 embedded fabrication flaws identified

- 5 attributed to slag

- 2 attributed to porosity

No flaws connected to inside surface

- PSL safety nozzle B

5 embedded fabrication flaws identified

- All attributed to slag

No flaws connected to inside surface

- PSL safety nozzle C

5 embedded fabrication flaws identified

- 3 attributed to slag / porosity

- 2 attributed to porosity

1 linear ID surface indication

4

3/18/2008 DRAFT 4

Volumetric examination results summary

Single wall exposure radiographic examination

- Only PSL safety nozzle A was examined with single wall exposure technique

Exam limitation from 10.5 thru 12.0 as measured from the OD surface (film did not meet density requirements)

7 embedded fabrication flaws identified

6 attributed to slag

1 attributed to porosity

3 linear ID surface indications

5

3/18/2008 DRAFT 5

Surface examination results summary Encoded eddy current ID examination

- PSL safety nozzle A

4 linear, circumferential indications identified

- All indications located at or near the inside surface

- Lengths 0.25 - 0.46 inch

- PSL safety nozzle B

No indications identified

- PSL safety nozzle C

4 very small indications identified

- All indications located at or near the inside surface

- Reported probably associated with some type of surface blemishes

6

3/18/2008 DRAFT 6

Surface examination results summary

Dye penetrant ID examination

- PSL safety nozzle A

5 linear indications identified

- PSL safety nozzle B

7 linear indications identified

- PSL safety nozzle C

7 linear indications identified

7

Examination correlation

PSL safety nozzle A Volumetric examination comparison (RT vs UT)

4 locations correlate Surface examination comparison (PT vs ET)

3 locations correlate

PSL safety nozzle B Volumetric examination comparison (RT vs UT)

3 locations correlate Surface examination comparison (PT vs ET)

No locations correlate (no ET indications reported)

PSL safety nozzle C Volumetric examination comparison (RT vs UT)

2 locations correlate Surface examination comparison (PT vs ET)

2 locations correlate

8

Volumetric examination correlation summary

9

Surface examination summary ID START ID STOP LENGTH OD START OD STOP LENGTH ID START ID STOP LENGTH OD START OD STOP LENGTH 1

-10 6

16

-21 13 33 218 223 5

456 466 10 IDSURFACEINDICATION(1) 2 135 138 3

282 288 6

IDSURFACEINDICATION 3

92 102 10 192 213 21 97 103 6

203 215 13 IDSURFACEINDICATION 4

41 56 15 86 117 31 41 52 11 86 109 23 IDSURFACEINDICATION 5

17 26 9

36 54 19 14 23 9

29 48 19 IDSURFACEINDICATION 1

-6 1.7 7.7

-13 4

16 IDSURFACEINDICATION 2

221 228 7

462 477 15 IDSURFACEINDICATION 3

202 206 4

422 431 8

IDSURFACEINDICATION 4

123 127 4

257 265 8

IDSURFACEINDICATION 5

29 32 3

61 67 6

IDSURFACEINDICATION 6

23 26 3

48 54 6

IDSURFACEINDICATION 7

18 21 3

38 44 6

IDSURFACEINDICATION 1

-5 5

10

-10 10 21 IDSURFACEINDICATION 2

211 214 3

441 447 6

IDSURFACEINDICATION 3

202 205 3

422 428 6

IDSURFACEINDICATION 4

183 187 4

382 391 8

IDSURFACEINDICATION 5

132 141 9

276 295 19 133 139 6

278 291 13 IDSURFACEINDICATION (2)

(2)

(2) 141 144 3

295 301 6

IDSURFACEINDICATION 6

4 54 50 8

113 105 60 63 3

125 132 6

IDSURFACEINDICATION 7

17 20 3

36 42 6

10 13 3

21 27 6

IDSURFACEINDICATION NOTES:

(2) INDICATION # 5 CORRESPONDS TO 2 SEPARATE EDDY CURRENT INDICATIONS.

(1) SINGLE WALL EXPOSURE RADIOGRAPHIC EXAMINATION REPORTED 2 LINEAR INDICATIONS LOCATED CIRCUMFERENTIALLY AT 0 to 8 mm AND -3 to 6 mm LOCATIONS WICH CORRESPOND TO INDICATION # 1.

EXAMINATION METHODS SURFACE EXAMINATION METHOD COMPARISON PSL FIELD REMOVED PZR SAFETY NOZZLES PSL SAFETY 'B' PSL SAFETY 'C' NOZZLE IDENTIFICATION INDICATION DYE PENETRANT COMMENTS PSL SAFETY 'A' DYE PENETRANT EDDY CURRENT EDDY CURRENT

10

Nozzle A indication map UT and RT should be compared; PT and ET should be compared NDE Indications in Port St Lucie Unit 1 Safety Nozzle "A" ET3 ET3 ET4 ET4 ET5 ET5 PT1 PT1 PT2 PT2 PT3 PT3 PT4 PT4 PT5 PT5 RT10 RT2 RT2 RT3 RT4 RT5 RT9 UT1 UT1 UT2 UT2 UT3 UT3 UT4 UT4 UT5 UT5 UT6 UT6 UT7 UT7 UT8 UT8 UT9 UT9 ET1 ET1 PT1 PT1 0

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Circumferential Position (mm on outside surface)

11

Nozzle B indication map UT and RT should be compared; no ET indications reported NDE Indications in Port St Lucie Unit 1 Safety Nozzle "B" PT1 PT1 PT1 PT1 PT2 PT2 PT3 PT3 PT4 PT4 PT5 PT5 PT6 PT6 PT7 PT7 RT1 RT2 RT5 RT6 UT1 UT1 UT2 UT2 UT3 UT3 UT4 UT4 UT5 UT5 0

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Circumferential Position (mm on outside surface)

12

Nozzle C indication map UT and RT should be compared; PT and ET should be compared NDE Indications in Port St Lucie Unit 1 Safety Nozzle "C" E T6 E T6 E T5A E T5A E T5B E T5B E T7 E T7 P T1 P T1 P T1 P T1 P T2 P T2 P T3 P T3 P T4 P T4 P T5 P T5 P T6 P T6 P T7 RT1 RT10 RT2 RT8 RT8 RT9 UT1 UT1 UT2 UT2 UT3 UT3 UT4 UT4 UT5 UT5 UT6 UT6 UT7 UT7 P T7 0

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Circumferential Position (mm on outside surface)

Comparison of manual vs encoded UT

Comparison of Manual vs. Encoded Phased Array Sizing Measurements Safety Nozzle A Port St Lucie Unit 1 Pressurizer

2

Objective

Evaluate manual phased array depth sizing measurements by comparison with encoded phased array data

Determine whether any of the reported flaws are connected to inside surface

Determine the origin of tip signals reported Note: Only axial scans for circumferential flaws were evaluated

3

Approach

Make general observations from the Port St Lucie Unit 1 (PSL) nozzle data

Compare PSL nozzle responses with those obtained from a nozzle that has never been in service

- Removed from Washington Nuclear Power Unit 3 (WNP) pressurizer

Perform side by side comparison of manual and encoded data

- Optimize views

- Determine if target is present

- Measure maximum extent

- Determine whether there is evidence that the reflector is connected to the inside surface

4

Overview of Encoded Phased Array Analysis Views End view (circ vs. throughwall)

Side view (axial vs. throughwall)

5

Overview of Manual Phased Array Analysis View Angle Selection Tool Inside Surface Outside Surface Sector Scan Showing all angles 0-70 degrees A-Scan of Selected Angle Side view (axial vs. throughwall)

6

General Observations

Small fabrication flaws can be seen randomly spaced through out the entire weld for the entire circumference at varying amplitudes

- Encoded phased array vendor reported only larger flaws that had the procedurally defined amplitudes (10-15 percent average noise level)

Additional smaller flaws can be seen at lower amplitudes

All flaws reported by this technique were outside the required ASME Code examination volume with the exception of flaw 8

Data compared to data taken from canceled plant

- Similar indications noted in data

7

General Observations PSL nozzle A, encoded data, 30° beam angle Note strong non-flaw root response from 30° beam, also present in all the comparison images

8

General Observations PSL nozzle A, encoded data, 45° beam angle

9

General Observations

PSL Safety Nozzle A (note higher gain)

WNP Safety Nozzle (never in service) has similar responses

10

Comparison of Manual and Encoded data

Following slides show direct comparisons of manual and encoded phased array data from PSL nozzle A

Each slide addresses one of the 19 locations at which remaining ligaments were reported by the manual UT vendor

- Approximately one-inch increments around the circumference

- Slide titles show the circumferential position of each measurement comparison

- Encoded data image is on the left

- Manual data image is on the right

11

Location 1 Comparison at 0

12

Location 2 Comparison at 1.0CW (18.24 CCW)

13

Location 3 Comparison at 2.0CW (17.24CCW)

14

Location 4 Comparison at 3.0CW (16.24 CCW)

15

Location 5 Comparison at 4.0CW (15.24 CCW)

16

Location 6 Comparison at 5.0CW (14.24CCW)

This flaw was not detected in the manually encoded data

- Scan of this area limited due to large gouge in nozzle

17

Location 7 Comparison at 6.0 CW (13.24 CCW)

18

Location 8 Comparison at 7.0CW (12.24CCW)

19

Location 9 Comparison at 8.0 CW (11.24 CCW)

20

Location 10 Comparison at 9.0CW (10.24CCW)

21

Location 11 Comparison at 9.0 CW (9.24 CCW)

22

Location 12 Comparison at 11.0 CW (8.24 CCW)

23

Location 13 Comparison at 12.0 CW (7.24CCW)

24

Location 14 Comparison at 13.0 CW (6.24CCW)

25

Location 15 Comparison at 14.0 CW (5.24CCW)

26

Location 16 Comparison at 15.0 CW (4.24 CCW)

27

Location 17 Comparison at 16.0 CW (3.24 CCW)

Unable to resolve indication at recordable amplitude in this area

28

Location 18 Comparison at 17.0 CW (2.24 CCW)

29

Location 19 Comparison at 18.0CW (1.24 CCW)

30

Flaw Profile Evaluation

Encoded phased array flaw profile data shows only the flaws reported by examination vendor

The manual phased array vendor flaw profile was overlaid over the encoded data profile

The profiles agree

- Missing data points in the encoded-data profile are from locations where the flaw indications were below the amplitude recording threshold of the encoded procedure

Flaw depth and length dimensions were measured to noise level and are considered to be conservative

31

Encoded Phased Array Reported Flaw Profile Reported by Vendor 7 mm 12 mm 7 mm 10 mm 21 mm 12 mm 8 mm 12 mm 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

SAFETY NOZZLE 'A' DATUM '0' ID OD LOOKING INTO HEAD

32

Profile Comparison 7 mm 12 mm 7 mm 10 mm 21 mm 12 mm 8 mm 12 mm 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

SAFETY NOZZLE 'A' DATUM '0' ID OD LOOKING INTO HEAD Manual Phased Array Reprted Flaw Profile Data

33

Summary

Tip signals reported by the manual examination appear to be associated with embedded fabrication flaws randomly dispersed within the volume of the weld

None of the flaws appear to be connected to the inside surface or to each other

Flaws in nozzles B and C have same characteristics as the flaws in Nozzle A, but with lower flaw density

Comparison with similar welds from a canceled plant shows that these types of flaws are typical to the welding process used for fabrication

Personnel Certifications

Page 1 of 2 Lambert MacGill Thomas, Inc.

125 B East Main Street, Swainsboro, GA 30401 Phone (478) 237-4817 FAX (478) 237-9544 Personnel Certification Statement (ASME 1992 Edition, thru 2003 Addendum, LMT-QA-46)

A. Name of Certified Individual: Devers, Jeffery L. Social Security: On File B. Examination Method Level Limitations MT III None PT III None UT (Limited)

NA NA UT Appendix VII III None VT-1 III None VT-2 III None VT-3 III None C.

Examination Scores and Dates as Applicable for Method/Level Method General Practical Specific Method Basic Demonstration Composite Certification Date Expiration Date Level III Examiner MT 80.0 96.6 90.7 86.5 80.0 86.7 08/14/03 07/29/08 ELT/DBR PT 80.0 83.3 90.7 86.5 80.0 84.1 08/14/03 07/29/08 ELT/DBR UT(L)

NA UT 80.0*

80.0 92.3 86.5*

80.0*

86.1 09/11/05 09/11/10 DBR/KJL VT-I 80.0 97.9 97.0 86.5 98.0 91.8 07/25/06 07/25/11 JTT VT-2 80.0 97.9 97.0 86.5 97.0 91.6 07/25/06 07/25/11 JTT VT-3 80.0 97.9 97.0 86.5 95.0 91.2 07/25/06 07/25/11 JTT For Level III re-certification, original certifying scores are not applicable for composite.

D. Documented Experience and Training Hours used for initial Certification Experience *: MT PT UT VT-1 VT-2 VT-3 NDE Hours Documented: 9324 9324 8524 11025 11025 11025 >8400 Hours Required: 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 Training: MT PT UT VT-1,-2,-3 Hours Documented: 20 16 C129 / L95 40 Hours Required: 20 16 C120 / L80 20

Level III hours represent Nuclear hours in an assignment comparable to a Level II unless otherwise noted.

E.

For overview of Education, Training, Experience, and PDI Qualifications see Page 2.

F. The named individual meets the requirements of LMT Written Practice QA-46.

Authorized Signature _________________________

Date: 03/04/2008 Jeremy T. Timm Principal Level III

Page 2 of 2 Lambert MacGill Thomas, Inc.

QA-46 Personnel Certification Statement Cont.

Name: Jeffery L. Devers E. Cont.

Education 1990 GED, State of Arkansas, Education Board Training 06/90/07/92 1993 08/93 01/94 03/26/99 09/08/00 11/17/00 2006 09/18/07 Hellier & Associates, Level I UT, 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months , Level II UT, 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months EPRI NDE Center, 64 hours7.407407e-4 days 0.0178 hours 1.058201e-4 weeks 2.4352e-5 months UT LMT Inc., 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months Level II UT Quality Systems Int., 12 hrs. Level I MT; 8 hrs. Level II MT; 4 hrs. Level I PT; 8 hrs. Level II PT LMT Inc., 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months PT LMT Inc., 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months Level III UT Training (Appendix VII)

EPRI NDE Center, 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months Visual (Including Containment Inspection)

LMT Inc., 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months Level III VT Training (Appendix VI)

LMT Inc., 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months UT (Computer-Based NDE Training for Thermal Fatigue Cracking (MRP-36), Version 1.0).

Experience 09/90 - 11/90 11/90 - 12/90 03/91 - 05/91 09/92 - 10/92 10/92 - 11/92 03/91 - 12/00 12/00 - 08/03 08/03 - 07/06 07/06 - Present Southern Company Services, NDE Trainee Trans American Engineering & Testing Service, NDE Trainee MQS, Intermittent Employment, NDE Trainee Nuclear Energy Services, Level I UT Sonic Systems International, Level I UT LMT Inc., Intermittent Employment, Level II MT, PT, UT LMT Inc., Level II MT, PT, VT-1, VT-2, VT-3, Level III UT LMT Inc., Level III MT, PT, UT, Level II VT-1, VT-2, VT-3 LMT Inc., Level III MT, PT, UT, VT-1, VT-2, VT-3 Appendix VIII Performance Qualifications Current Qualifications Qualification Date Re-Qualification Due Examiner PDI-UT-1, Ferritic Piping: Detection & Length Sizing, Single & Dual Sided.

PDI-UT-2, Austenitic Piping, w/IGSCC: Detection, Single & Dual Sided; Length Sizing, Dual Sided.

PDI-UT-3, Through Wall Sizing in Pipe Welds, Ferritic & Austenitic w/IGSCC, Dual Sided.

PDI-UT-5, Straight Beam Ultrasonic Examination of Bolts & Studs.

PDI-UT-6, RPV Welds: Detection, Single Sided.

PDI-UT-7, RPV Welds: Through Wall and Length Sizing, Single Sided.

PDI-UT-8, Weld Overlaid Austenitic Piping Welds.

PDI-UT-10, Dissimilar Metal Piping Welds, Detection, Single Sided.

PDI-UT-11, RPV Nozzle to Shell Welds and Nozzle Inner Radius:

Detection and Sizing, Dual Sided.

Zetec OmniScanPA 03, Phased Array of DM Piping Welds.

12/04/00 12/04/06 12/04/06 01/12/98 07/17/04 07/17/04 02/27/06 11/13/02 08/23/04 12/04/06 NA 12/04/09 12/04/09 NA NA NA 02/27/09 NA NA 12/04/09 EPRI

Performance Demonstration* Initiative Program In Accordance with the PDI Implementation of Section XI, Appendix VIII Specific Detail of Qualifications Printed:

20-Dec-02 PDQS No:

Candidate: Jeffery L. Devers ID#: 432-55-4637 Procedure:

PDI-UT-IO; Revision: A; Addenda:

0 PDI Generic Procedure for the Ultrasonic Examination of Dissimilar Metal Piping Welds PDQS Rev:

0 Date of Issue:

20-Dec-02 Owner:

Performance Demonstration Initiative Analysis SW Type/Rev:

N/A Hardware:

N/A Operator SW TypelRev:

N/A Category:

Piping Scan Application:

Manual Exam Surface:

Outside Date:

13-Nov-02 MinDiam:

2.00 MinThick:

MaxDiam:

50.00 MaxThick:

Material:

Dissimilar Metal Examination:

Detection Access:

Single Sided Weld Cond:

Ground Flush 0.280 5.200 040SIl702

Performance Demonstration Initiative Program In Accordance with the PDI Implementation of Section Xl, Appendix VIII Specific Detail of Qualifications Printed:

20-Dec-02 PDQS No:

Candidate: Jeffery L. Devers ID#: 432-55-4637 Procedure:

PDI-UT-IO; Revision: A; Addenda:

0 PDI Generic Procedure for the Ultrasonic Examination of Dissimilar Metal Piping Welds PDQS Rev:

0 Date of Issue:

20-Dec-02 Owner:

Pert'onnance Demonstration Initi'ative Analysis SW Type/Rev:

N/ A Hardware:

N/ A Operator SW Type/Rev:

N/ A Category:

Piping Scan Application:

Manual Exam Surface:

Outside When "Length Sizing" is indicated, the 0,750 RMS acceptance criteria per the POl Program Description has been achieved.

When "Through Wall Sizing" is indicated, the 0.125 RMS acceptance criteria per the POl Program Description has been achieved, Tolerances for field applications as follows:

Diameter:

Lower:

.500" can be subracted from the minimum diameter demonstrated.

Upper:

Diameters greater than 24" need not be demonstrated.

Thickness:

Lower:

0.100" can be subtracted from the minimum thickness' demonstrated for both austenitic and ferritic Upper:

1.000" can be added to the maximum thickness demonstrated for ferritic material.

0.500" can be added to the maximum thickness demonstrated for austenitic material.

This candidate has met the practical requirements of Appendix VII:

Yes Comments:

Limitations:

1 This procedure/candidate is not qualified for through wall sizing.

2 This~proct:dure/candid~te is not qualified for examinations perfonned from the cast stainless steel side ofa component.

3 This procedure/candidate is not qualified for examinations where the ultrasonic sound beam is required to propagate through an adjacent weld prior to impinging on the dissimilar metal weld.

The POl 711 series sample is an example of this configuration.

4 Examination of safe-end replacement configurations, identified as 706 and 707 series configurations in the POl Program are qualified.

5 This procedure/candidate is qualified for examination from both single and dual sided access as applicable..

Performance Demonstration Initiative Program In Accordance with the PDI Implementation of Section XI, Appendix VIII Specific Detail of Qualifications Printed:

20-Dec-02 PDQS No:

Candidate:

Jeffery L. Devers ID#: 432-55-4637 Procedure:

PDI-UT-IO; Revision: A; Addenda:

0 PDI Generic Procedure for the U1traso~:lic Examination of Dissimilar Metal Piping Welds PDQS Rev:

0 Date of Issue:

20-Dec-02 Owner:

Performance Demonstration Initiative Analysis SW Type/Rev:

N/A Hardware:

N/A Operator SW TypelRev:

N/A Category:

Piping Sean Application:

Manual Exam Surface:

Outside requirements of The Performance Demonstration ion he American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler de, S tion XI, Appendix VIII, as stated in this do~ument.

Date:/)

tJ2-d!;UJ~

F. L. Becker Performance Demonstration Initiative Administrator Performance Demonstration Initiative Piping and Bolting Supervisor/Level III

Page 1 of 2 Lambert MacGill Thomas, Inc.

125 B East Main Street, Swainsboro, GA 30401 Phone (478) 237-4817 FAX (478) 237-9544 Personnel Certification Statement (ASME 1992 Edition, thru 2003 Addendum, LMT-QA-46)

A. Name of Certified Individual: Blechinger, Todd P. Social Security: On File B. Examination Method Level Limitations MT III None PT III None UT (Limited)

NA NA UT Appendix VII III None VT-1 III None VT-2 III None VT-3 III None C.

Examination Scores and Dates as Applicable for Method/Level Method General Practical Specific Method Basic Demonstration Composite Certification Date Expiration Date Level III Examiner MT 80.0 91.6 81.5 88.0 80.0 84.2 11/14/03 10/29/08 DAH/DBR PT 80.0 86.6 83.0 88.0 80.0 83.5 11/14/03 10/29/08 DAH/DBR UT(L)

NA UT 80.0*

93.3 92.3 88.0*

80.0*

92.8 09/12/05 09/12/10 JTT/KJL VT-I 80.0 95.8 94.1 88.0 99.0 91.3 07/25/06 07/25/11 JTT VT-2 80.0 95.8 94.1 88.0 99.0 91.3 07/25/06 07/25/11 JTT VT-3 80.0 95.8 94.1 88.0 98.0 91.1 07/25/06 07/25/11 JTT For Level III re-certification, original certifying scores are not applicable for composite.

D. Documented Experience and Training Hours used for initial Certification Experience *: MT PT UT VT-1 VT-2 VT-3 NDE Hours Documented: 10150 10150 10860 11550 11550 11550 >8400 Hours Required: 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 Training: MT PT UT VT-1,-2,-3 Hours Documented: 100 60 C139 / L165 40 Hours Required: 20 16 C120 / L80 20

Level III hours represent Nuclear hours in an assignment comparable to a Level II unless otherwise noted.

E.

For overview of Education, Training, Experience, and PDI Qualifications see Page 2.

F. The named individual meets the requirements of LMT Written Practice QA-46.

Authorized Signature _________________________

Date: 03/10/2008 Jeremy T. Timm Principal Level III

Page 2 of 2 Lambert MacGill Thomas, Inc.

QA-46 Personnel Certification Statement Cont.

Name: Todd P. Blechinger E. Cont.

Education 1989 Graduated, Little Falls High School, Little Falls, MN.

Training 1991 1992 09/08/00 11/17/00 07/13/06 09/18/07 Hutchinson Technical College, Hutchinson, MN. 100 hours0.00116 days 0.0278 hours 1.653439e-4 weeks 3.805e-5 months MT; 60 hours6.944444e-4 days 0.0167 hours 9.920635e-5 weeks 2.283e-5 months PT; 200 hours0.00231 days 0.0556 hours 3.306878e-4 weeks 7.61e-5 months UT EPRI NDE Center, 64 hours7.407407e-4 days 0.0178 hours 1.058201e-4 weeks 2.4352e-5 months UT LMT Inc., 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months Level III UT Training (Appendix VII)

EPRI NDE Center, 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months Visual (Including Containment Inspection)

LMT Inc., 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months Level III VT Training (Appendix VI)

LMT Inc., 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months UT (Computer-Based NDE Training for Thermal Fatigue Cracking (MRP-36), Version 1.0).

Experience 03/90-04/90 09/90-12/00 12/00-11/03 11/03 - 07/06 07/06 - Present Longview Inspection, Level I MT, PT, UT LMT Inc., Intermittent Employment, Level II MT, PT, UT LMT Inc., Level II MT, PT, VT-1, VT-2, VT-3, Level III UT LMT Inc., Level III MT, PT, UT, Level II VT-1, VT-2, VT-3 LMT Inc., Level III MT, PT, UT, VT-1, VT-2, VT-3 Appendix VIII Performance Qualifications Current Qualifications Qualification Date Re-Qualification Due Examiner PDI-UT-1, Ferritic Piping: Detection & Length Sizing, Single & Dual Sided.

PDI-UT-2, Austenitic Piping, w/IGSCC: Detection, Single & Dual Sided; Length Sizing, Dual Sided.

PDI-UT-3, Through Wall Sizing in Pipe Welds, Ferritic & Austenitic w/IGSCC, Dual Sided.

PDI-UT-4, Studs & Bolts from the Bore.

PDI-UT-5, Straight Beam Ultrasonic Examination of Bolts & Studs.

PDI-UT-6, RPV Welds: Detection, Single Sided.

PDI-UT-7, RPV Welds: Through Wall and Length Sizing, Single Sided.

PDI-UT-8, Weld Overlaid Austenitic Piping Welds.

PDI-UT-10, Dissimilar Metal Piping Welds, Detection and Length Sizing, Single Sided.

PDI-UT-11, RPV Nozzle to Shell Welds and Nozzle Inner Radius:

Detection and Sizing, Dual Sided.

Zetec OmniScanPA 03, Phased Array of DM Piping Welds.

06/27/94 02/27/06 12/06/06 01/12/98 01/12/98 08/23/04 08/23/04 02/27/06 11/13/02 08/23/04 12/04/06 NA 02/27/09 12/06/09 NA NA NA NA 02/27/09 NA NA 12/04/09 EPRI

0 Pictures of the Memphis Activity

ML081050285

Text

Navigation menu

Search