ML12340A715

Official Exhibit - ENT000532-00-BD01 - ASME Code, Sec. V, Art. 14 (2001)

ML12340A715
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	08/20/2012
From:	- No Known Affiliation
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 23330, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML12340A715 (10)

Text

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit ENT000532 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Submitted: August 20, 2012 In the Matter of:

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)

ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Docket #: 05000247 l 05000286 Exhibit #: ENT000532-00-BD01 Identified: 10/15/2012 Admitted: 10/15/2012 Withdrawn:

Rejected: Stricken:

Other:

A03 ARTICLE 14 T-141O Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.2 T-1420 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.2 T-142l The Qualification Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.2 T-1422 Technical Justification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.2 T-1423 Performance Demonstration. . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . 261.2 T-1424 Levels of Rigor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.3 T-1425 Planning a Qualification Demonstration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.3 T-1430 Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.3 T-1440 Application Requirements.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.3 T-l44l Technical Justification Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.3 T-1442 Performance Demonstration. .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . 261.5 T-1443 Examination System Re-qualification..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.5 T-1450 Conduct of Qualification Demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.5 T-145l Protocol Document. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.5 T-1452 Individual Qualification . . .. . . . . . .... . ................................... . . . . . 261.6 T-1460 Calibration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.6 T-1470 Examination ...... . ............. " . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . 261.6 T-147l Intermediate Rigor Detection Test.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.6 T-1472 High Rigor Detection Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.6 T-1480 Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.9 T-1490 Documentation and Records .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.9 Tables T-1472.1 Total Number of Samples for a Given Number of Misses at a Specified Confidence Level and POD ......... . .. ... .............. . . .. ......... . . . .. . 261.7 T-1 472.l Required Number of First Stage Examiners vs. Target Pass Rate .. . .. . . . . .. .. . . . 261.8 Mandatory Appendix

"' V fl'-UU!A I Terms Examination 261.10 I- 14JO 26LIO 1- General Re(~urrenlents 261.10 1430 261

ARTICLE 14 EXAMINATION SYSTEM QUALIFICATION T-1410 SCOPE ( b) field experience (c) test hierarchy ranking The provisions of this Article for qualifying nonde-(d) anticipated degradation mechanism structive examination (NDE) systems are mandatory when specifically invoked by the referencing Code (e) NDE response by morphology andlor product Section. The Manufacturer, examination organization, form owner, or other user of this Article is responsible for qualifying the examination technique, equipment, and written procedure in conformance with this Article. T-1423 Performance Demonstration The referencing Code Section shall be consulted for The performance demonstration establishes the ability the following specific detailed requirements: of a specific examination system to achieve a satisfactory (a) personnel certification requirements or prerequi- probability of detection (POD), by application of the sites for qualification under the requirements of this examination system on flawed test specimens. The Article demonstration test results are used to plot the POD (b) examination planning, including the extent of curve and determine the false call probability (FCP) examination for establishing confidence limitations.

(c) acceptance criteria for evaluating flaws identified (a) The test specimens shall replicate the object to during examination be examined to the greatest extent practical. Simplified (d) level of rigor required for qualification test specimens representative of an actual field situation (e) examination sensitivity, such as probability of may be used. The use of specimens with known, detection and sizing accuracy identified flaws is preferred, and may be essential for if) records, and record retention requirements the most rigorous qualification process. A hierarchy of test specimen flaws may be used to minimize qualifica-tions when technically justified (i.e., demonstrations on T-1420 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS more challenging degradation mechanisms may satisfy qualification requirements for less challenging mecha-T-1421 The Qualification Proc~

nisms).

The qualification process, as set forth in this Article, (b) When they sufficiently replicate the object to be involves the evaluation of general, technical, and per- tested, performance demonstrations of a limited scope formance-based evidence presented within the docu- may be used to minimize the costs involved, and mented technical justification, and when required, a facilitate specimen availability. The technical justifica-blind demonstration. tion must any limitations the scope of pelrtolrm;an(:e demonstrations.

Personnel shall be based upon blind T*1422 Technical the demonstration may vary from a on a fe w to an extensive of flaws. The level

T -1423 2001 SECTION V T-1441.1 (1) improved pass-fail rates for personnel; (a) Assemble all necessary input information con-(2) reduced scope for blind personnel qualification cerning the component, defect types, damage mechanism testing; of interest, and objectives for the examination and (3) better understanding of the correlation between qualification of the examination system.

the procedure and the damage mechanisms of interest; (b) Review the written procedure to verify its suitabil-(4) more reliable written procedures. ity for the intended application.

(c) Develop the technical justification for the exami-nation method to be used.

T-1424 Levels of Rigor (d) Determine the required level of rigor for the Qualification is performed at one of three levels of performance demonstration.

rigor. The referencing Code Section shall invoke the (e) Develop performance demonstration criteria using required level of rigor, to verify the examination system the applicable references.

capability to detect and size typical flaws for the damage (j) Conduct the performance demonstration.

mechanisms of interest, depending upon their locations (g) Conduct the personnel qualifications.

and characteristics. When not otherwise specified, the (h) Compile, document, and evaluate the results.

level of rigor shall be set by agreement between the (i) Determine qualification status, based upon a final interested parties. The three levels of rigor are: evaluation.

(a) Low Rigor (Technical Justification only): The requirement for this level of rigor is a satisfactory technical justification report. No performance demon- T-1430 EQUIPMENT strations are required for qualification of the examination system. The equipment used for the performance demonstra-tion of an examination system shall be as specified in (b) Intermediate Rigor, (Limited Peiformance Dem-the written procedure and the technical justification.

onstration): The requirements for this level of rigor After qualification of the examination system, the use are a satisfactory technical justification report, and the of different examination equipment may require requali-successful performance of a demonstration test (blind fication (see T-1443).

or non-blind) on a limited number of test specimens.

The referencing Code Section shall establish the scope of demonstration requirements, and sets acceptable POD and FCP scores for qualification. When not otherwise T-1440 APPLICA TION REQUIREMENTS specified, the qualification criteria shall be set by T-1441 Technical Justification Report agreement between the interested parties.

(c) High Rigor, (Full Peiformance Demonstration): Prior to qualification of any examination system, The requirements for this level of rigor are a satisfactory regardless of the level of rigor, a technical justification technical justification report, and the successful perform- report shall be prepared and receive approval by a ance of blind demonstration tests. The referencing Code Level III certified for the specific method to be applied.

Section shall establish the scope of demonstration re- The technical justification report shall be reviewed and quirements, and sets acceptable POD and FCP scores accepted by the owner of the object of interest and, for qualification. When not otherwise specified, the where applicable, to the Jurisdiction, Authorized Inspec-qualification criteria shall be set by agreement between tion Agency (AlA), independent third party, examination the interested A sufficient number of test or other involved of this mens shall be evaluated to estimate the involved IUIJtUU",,_ and determine an accurate POD UUJlHH.ULJlVU of mechanisms or flaw types and sizes.

demonstration is Examined. The T*1425 Demonstration

T-1441.1 ARTICLE 14 - EXAMINATION SYSTEM QUALIFICATION T-1441.5 scope of the written procedure shall define the limits for and include an explanation of why the selected parame-application of the procedure (e.g., materials, thickness, ters will be effective for the particular examination and diameter, product form, accessibility, examination limi- expected flaws.

tations, etc.). (a) Procedure requirements, including essential vari-(a) The flaws of interest to be detected; their expected ables to be addressed, may be found in the Mandatory locations, threshold detection size, critical flaw size, Appendix associated with the examination method, or orientation, and shape shall be determined, serving as in the referencing Code Section.

a guideline for development of the written procedure. (b) Personnel certification requirements, in addition Critical flaw sizes (calculated from fracture mechanics to method specific Level II or III certification, may be analysis) and crack growth rates are important considera- advisable under some conditions. When using estab-tions for determining flaw recording and evaluation lished techniques for a low rigor application (e.g., for criteria. The minimum recordable flaw size must be examination of more readily detected damage mecha-smaller than the critical flaw size, and include consider- nisms, or where less critical components are involved) ation of the estimated or observed crack growth rates and a method specific Level II or III certification is adequate.

the observed quality of workmanship during fabrication. When an intermediate or high rigor application is Flaw evaluation must be based upon precluding the required, additional personnel requirements shall be formation of critically sized flaws prior to the next considered and, if required, so specified. This may inspection, or for the estimated remaining life of the include quantitative risk based criteria for the selection object during normal operations. of components to be examined, or completion of a blind (b) Object or technique geometry, environmental con- performance demonstration. For examination techniques ditions, examination limitations, and metallurgical con- performed by a team of examiners, the specific qualifi-ditions may limit the accessibility for evaluating the cation requirements for each team member shall be object. Examination procedure or equipment modifica- addressed.

tions may be required to gain access to the area of interest to be examined. T-1441.4 Description of Examination Techniques.

(c) The acceptance criteria for the demonstration A justification for the effectiveness of the selected shall be provided. examination technique used in the written procedure (d) Additional issues to consider for inclusion in the for detecting flaws of interest shall be included. The technical justification may include: sensitivity settings for recording flaws, flaw orientation,

( 1) historical effectiveness of procedure; critical flaw size; anticipated degradation mechanism (2) documentation for prior demonstrations; (for in-service applications), and the influence of metal-lurgical and geometric affects shall be addressed in the (3) extent of prior round robin tests; justification. A description of the method for distinguish-(4) observed flaw detection rates, probability of ing between relevant and non-relevant indications, justi-detection, and false call rates; fication for sensitivity settings, and the criteria for (5) acceptable rejection/acceptance rates; and characterizing and sizing flaws shall be included.

(6) sizing accuracy.

T-1441.S Optional Topics for Technical Justifica-T-1441.2 Overview of Examination System. A gen-tion. The following topics may be addressed within eral description of the examination system, with suffi-the technical justification to improve the understanding cient detail to distinguish it from other systems, shall of the techniques to be applied.

be included within the technical justification The shall used for intl'""rpt'n Parameters.

The influence of inspection parameters on the examina- not otherwise specified, the modeling validation criteria shall be ~V"'"lU shall be set between the interested param~ to demonstrate the annClpaltea eter selections shall be based upon the flaws of interest, when parameters

.4

T-1441.5 2001 SECTION V T-14S1 size, and access limitations are changed. The written onstration methodologies shall be described in the tech-procedure may be qualified or requalified using a mini- nical justification for that procedure.

mum number of mockups with adequate justification. (d) An individual or organization shall be designated (b) Description of Procedure Experience. Prior expe- as the administrator of the demonstration process. The rience with a written procedure may be included in roles of the administrator include:

the technical justification, and used to support revisions ( 1) reviewing the technical justification; to the procedure. Documentation of similar demonstra- (2) reviewing the procedure and its scope of appli-tions relevant to the proposed examination may be cability; included. Experimental evidence to show the effect of (3) ensuring that all essential variables are included applicable variables may also be cited and considered in the procedure and demonstration; when developing the written procedure. (4) assembling the test specimens; (5) grading the demonstrations; (6) developing the protocol; (7) maintaining security of the samples; and T-1442 Performance Demonstration (8) maintaining the demonstration records.

Examination systems requiring qualification at inter- For straightforward applications, the administrator mediate or high levels of rigor shall also pass a may be a department within the owner's organization.

performance demonstration. The specimen test set and For complex demonstrations, or when Code or user pass/fail criteria to be used in the performance demon- requirements dictate, it may be appropriate to use a stration shall be determined by the owner of the object; disinterested third party.

and, where applicable, shall be acceptable to the Juris-diction, Authorized Inspection Agency, independent third party, examination vendor, inspection agency, or T-1443 Examination System Re-qualification other involved party. The original qualification applies only to the system (a) The procedure shall be demonstrated by per- and essential variables described in the technical justifi-forming an examination of an object or mockup. The cation report and the written procedure. If essential examiner conducting the demonstration shall not have variables are changed, requalification is required. Re-been involved in developing the procedure. The com- qualification may be accomplished by one of the follow-pleted report forms provide documentation of the dem- ing means:

onstration. Qualification of the procedure is only valid (a) The characteristics of the new equipment can be when applying the same essential variables recorded compared to the qualified equipment. If they are essen-during the demonstration. Changes to essential variables tially identical, the new equipment can be substituted, require requalification of the procedure. Editorial except when the referencing construction Code invokes changes to the procedure, or changes to nonessential more stringent requirements for substituting equipment.

variables, do not require requalification of the procedure. (b) New equipment may be requalified by conducting (b) The demonstration of the written procedure may another complete examination qualification. A hierarchi-use blind or non-blind certified personnel. Blind per- cal approach should be used to qualify the new equip-formance demonstrations qualify the complete examina- ment by conducting the demonstration on the most tion system (i.e., the equipment, the written procedure, difficult test specimens. Then there is no need to and the examiner). Non-blind demonstrations only qual- requalify the equipment on the entire set of test spec-the and the All recordable imens.

indications shall be sized and l\1\-",,;;lL1. The detection whether indications ate located cor-and OF VUJ1.LJ.UC*

blind demonstration using a few demonstration DEMONSTRA nON mandated by the referencing Code Section, reiterative T-1451 Protocol Document blind a combination of small SpeClnlen or based demonstration based 1"'..""cu. one-sided \,.V'U._ cation. The OrotoC'OI

.5

T-1451 ARTICLE 14 - EXAMINATION SYSTEM QUALIFICATION T-1472 party oversight, and sets the essential variables to be T*1470 EXAMINATION qualified, ensuring portability of the qualification. The The performance demonstration shall be conducted protocol document commonly takes the form of a in accordance with the written procedure, using the written procedure and associated checklist, documenting techniques and equipment described in the technical the process followed during qualification. This document justification. Supplemental information for conducting is developed collectively with the involvement of all various modes of performance demonstrations is pro*

the affected parties (i.e., the owner, and, when applica-vided in the following paragraphs ble, the Jurisdiction, AIA, independent third party, examination vendor, or other involved party).

A key element of the protocol document is the Passl Fail criteria. An altemative evaluation criteria that may T*1471 Intermediate Rigor Detection Test be applied is an "achieved level of performance criteria".

The objective of an intermediate rigor performance For this criteria, an examiner demonstrates the tech-( nique, including sizing capabilities, and the qualification demonstration test is to reveal inadequate procedures and examiners. Following are typical options for flaws is based on the detection range the examiner achieves in specimen test sets used for intermediate rigor perform-during the demonstration. Examiners qualified under ance demonstrations:

these criteria are permitted to conduct examinations (a) Specimens should accurately represent the compo-within their qualified capabilities.

nent to be examined to the greatest extent possible, with at least 10 flaws or grading units as a minimum.

A POD of 80% with a false call rate less than 20%

is required for acceptable performance.

T-1452 Individual Qualification (b) Less than 10 flaws or grading units are used, The performance demonstration requirements found but they shall be used in a blind fashion. The flaws in T-I440 qualify the examination system (i.e. equip- are reused in an iterative, blind, and random process.

ment, written procedure, and personnel) as a unit. As This is an economic way to increase the sample set an alternative, a two-stage qualification process may size. Eighty percent of the flaws are required to be also be applied. The first stage of this process involves detected. The false call rate should be less than 20%.

a performance demonstration to qualify the system (e) Between 5 and 15 flaws or grading units are procedure/equipment. The procedure/equipment quali- used with at least the same number of unflawed grading fication requires several qualified examiners to evaluate units. A POD of 80% with a false call rate less than the specimen set, with the results meeting predetermined 20% is required for acceptable performance.

requirements more stringent than personnel pass/fail (d) Sample set size shall be sufficient to ensure that requirements. After the procedure/equipment has been most examiners with an unacceptable POD will have qualified, individual examiners using the qualified proce- difficulty passing the demonstration, while most examin-dure/equipment combination need only to perform a ers with an acceptable POD will be able to pass the limited performance demonstration. demonstration.

The principal incentive for adopting this form of test is to reduce costs in personnel qualification of a widely used procedure. The procedure/equipment may be quali-fied/developed in a non-blind fashion but the personnel T* 1472 High Rigor Detection Tests shall take blind tests. This process also pre-cludes the examiner att,~mIJtirul nprTnnn<>Of' p demonstration demonstration test with or examination system In order to struct any of the detection tests mentioned in this amJcndix. the information must be assembled:

SUtlDo:sed to The size of the critical flaw for this dLlIJl1,; dlJ:VU T-1460 CALIBRA nON The minimum POD that shaH be in accordance with should achieve critical flaws. this the written of()cedm:e conduct the The maximum false call OH)b2lbilit demonstration. that the should

T-1472 2001 SECTION V T-1472.1 (e) The level of confidence that the test is supposed TABLE T-1472.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR to provide. (The most widely applied level of confidence A GIVEN NUMBER OF MISSES AT A SPECIFIED being 95%). CONFIDENCE LEVEL AND POD Number Probability of Detection T-1472.1 Standard Binomial Detection Test. The Level of of examiner is subjected to a blind demonstration. The Confidence Misses 90% 95% 99%

flawed grading units contain critical flaws (i.e., flaws near the critical flaw size) so that a POD calculated 90% 0 22 45 230 1 38 77 388 from this data estimates the POD for critical flaws. 2 52 105 531 After the examination, the POD and PCP scores are 3 65 132 667 calculated by comparing the number of detections classi- 4 78 158 798 fied as flaws to the number of flawed or blank grading 5 91 184 926 units examined. In other words: 10 152 306 1,000+

20 267 538 1,000+

_ # of flawed grading units as flaws (I) 95% 0 29 59 299 POD Score -Total # 0 ffl awed grading uruts . exanune

. d 1 46 93 473 2 61 124 628 3 76 153 773 CP S _ # of blank grading units classified as flaws (2) 4 89 181 913 F core - Total # of blank grading units examined 5 103 208 1,000+

10 167 336 1,000+

The POD and PCP are supported by tolerance bands 20 286 577 1,000+

called "a bounds" to describe the statistical uncertainty in the test. (In the case of POD a lower a bound is 99% 0 44 89 458 used, while for PCP, an upper a bound is used). The 1 64 130 662 examiner's score is acceptable if the lower bound on 2 81 165 838 3 97 198 1,000+

POD score is above PODmin , and the upper bound 4 113 229 1,000+

on PCP score is below PCPmax' 5 127 259 1,000+

The a bounds are calculated using standard binomial 10 197 398 1,000+

formulas, shown below. 20 325 656 1,000+

Where:

D = Number of detections recorded N = Number of grading units that contain flaws (for POD calculations) or that are blank (for PCP detected, then the POD would be 79%. To obtain a calculations) 90% POD at a 95% confidence level requires a minimum P upper = upper a bound of 29 flaws out of 29 flaws to be detected.

Plower = lower a bound Table T-1472.1 shows the relationship between small-est number of flaws, confidence level, probability of a = fJ(Plower; D, N - D + 1) (3) detection, and misses by calculating the formula above for various scenarios. It can be used to develop the a :::: 1 - (3(.P upper; D + 1, N - D) (4) size of the test set. The user is free to select the actual number of flawed and blank locations (i.e., the sample test The user' s choice for cOInpl;tm!g costs, s pt~Cllnens, and the c ost If the user chooses tiOD test must be. If 10 flaws are in the test, then on test. if an abbreviated test the basis 2 misses, there IS a 90% confidence that confidence bounds will be and even a the than If examiner will fail a test In with a binomial test such as smallest size that can used.

1.7

T-1472.1 ARTICLE 14 - EXAMINATION SYSTEM QUALIFICATION T-1472.2 size smaller than the smallest sample size is used, it is target pass rate, Rpass' for personnel. The target pass-impossible to ever pass the test, because the confidence rate is the pass-rate that the user considers acceptable.

bounds are so wide. With the smallest sample size, The procedure qualification (lSI stage) portion of the the examiner has to obtain a perfect score (Le., POD = test requires that M procedure-trained examiners each 1 , or FCP = 0 ) to pass. The smallest sample size pass a standard binomial detection test. The standard depends upon the detection threshold and the confidence binomial detection test, constructed in accordance with level chosen for the test. For example, as the minimum T-1472.I, will be used for personnel qualification. The acceptable POD is set closer to unity, the minimum key difference is that more that one examiner is used sample size becomes larger. Table T-1472.1 presents for procedure qualification. It is important that the the minimal sample size for various confidence levels, procedure test be conducted with examiners that are and PODIFCP thresholds. representative of the field population (and not experts).

As one can see from this table, quite a large sample A "procedure-trained" examiner should be one that has set is required if high detection thresholds are required received the standard training required for the procedure.

for the inspection. If exceptionally high detection thresh- After the procedure has passed its test, then individual olds are required, the standard binomial test described examiners are allowed to be qualified in the second in this appendix may not be the most efficient testing stage, using the same standard binomial test. The bino-strategy. mial test is constructed so that critical flaws are detected As a general rule, the test should include as many with a POD of at least PODmin and false calls are no blank as flawed location, but this proportion may be more than FCPmax with a level of confidence of Ct.

altered depending upon which threshold (POD or FCP) The number of examiners (M) used in the first stage is more stringent. is chosen to assure the desired pass-rate at 80% confi-As developed in this section, the standard binomial dence (i.e. the user can be 80% sure that the actual test examines POD for one flaw size only, the critical pass-rate will be above the target value). The formula flaw size. It is possible to include more flaw sizes in for determining the proper Mis:

the test. Each included flaw size would contain the minimum number of flaws required by Table T-1472.1. M = log(l - 0.80)

For example, a 90% detection rate at a 90% confidence (5) log(Rpass )

level for four different flaw size intervals would require 22 flaws in each size interval if no misses are allowed for a total of 88 flaws. The table below provides the M associated with various target pass rates.

T-1472.2 Two-Stage Detection Test. The basic com- The user is completely free to choose the number of ponent of the two-stage demonstration test is the Stan- examiners (M) employed in the first stage of qualifica-dard Binomial Detection Test described in T-1472.1. tion. As one can see from the above table, the larger The two-stage test applies the standard binomial test that M is made, the more stringent the procedure portion to personnel qualification, but applies a more stringent of the test becomes, but the higher the pass-rate becomes test for procedure qualification. The two-stage test is on the second stage of the test. In fact, for high M, intended to eliminate inadequate procedures from the the user might eliminate the second stage of the test qualification process, preserving resources. The motiva- entirely.

ting objective for a two-stage test is to construct the first stage to eliminate a procedure whose pass rate is low. rate is the of trained pass T-1472.2 N MBER OF FIRST STAGE EXAMINERS TARGET PASS RATE Number of First Stage Target Pass Examiners (M) 3 60 4 70 order to construct a tw o~ s tage detection test, 90 15 same information that must assembled for the stan~

dard binomial test the addition of a 26 1.8

T-1472.3 2001 SECTION V T*1490 T*1472.3 Iterative Detection Test. This detection other user shall evaluate the technical justification report, test is useful when the test specimens are extremely and the results of the performance demonstration submit-costly or limited. It is constructed in the same manner ted by the administrator, to determine the acceptability as the standard binomial test from T-1472.I, however of the system. The evaluation shall be based upon the the test presents the applicant with the same set of criteria established within the protocol document.

specimens more than once to obtain the desired sam-ple size.

Less than 10 flaws are used, but they are used in a blind fashion. The flaws are reused in an iterative, blind, and random process. This is an economic way to increase the sample set size. The flawed and unflawed grading units are examined several times until the T*1490 DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS desired sample size and corresponding confidence level Documentation of the performance demonstration is reached. The specimens must be indistinguishable shall include the following:

from each other so that each examination is independent (a) The technical justification document and the test team cannot recognize the specimen or the flaws. The number of unflawed grading units must (b) NDE procedures, including the essential variables at least equal or exceed the number of flawed grading applied units. Table T-1472.1 may be used to determine the (e) Description of the equipment used, including the flaw sample size, misses, and POD for a given confi- calibration records dence level. (d) Description of the specimens used to perform the demonstration (e) Certification of acceptable completion of the per-T-1480 EVALUATION formance demonstration. The certification may be issued The owner, and, when applicable, the Jurisdiction, separately for the equipment/procedure and the indi-AlA, independent third party, examination vendor, or vidual.

261

ARTICLE 14 MANDATORY APPENDIX I APPENDIX I - GLOSSARY OF (d) Examination System. The personnel, procedures, TERMS FOR EXAMINATION and equipment collectively applied by a given examina-( SYSTEM QUALIFICATION tion technique to evaluate the flaw characteristics of an object of interest.

1-1410 SCOPE (e) False Call. When a specimen or grading unit is This Mandatory Appendix is used for the purpose incorrectly interpreted as being flawed or unflawed.

of establishing standard terms and definition of terms, (j) False Call Probability (FCP). The percentage which appear in Article 14, Examination System Quali- resulting from dividing the number of false calls by fication. the number of specimens or grading units examined.

(g) Grading Unit. A prepared specimen, or designated interval (e.g., length) within a specimen, having known flaw characteristics, which is used to evaluate the 1-1420 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS perforrnance of an examination system through demon-(a) Paragraph I-1430 provides a list of terms and stration.

definitions, which are used in conjunction with Article (h) Level of Rigor. The level of confidence to which 14, Examination System Qualification, and are Code a given examination system must be demonstrated, based upon factors such as user needs, damage mechanism, and specific.

level of risk. There are three levels of rigor: low, (b) Terms and definitions associated with specific interrnediate, and high (see T-1424).

examination techniques and systems are addressed in the (i) Non-Blind Demonstration. A performance demon-Mandatory Appendix applicable to those examination stration where the examiner is presented with test pieces methods. Other terms and definitions used within the containing clearly identifiable flaw locations of known referencing Code of Construction are specific to that sizes, with the objective of proving the capability of Code application.

an examination system to correctly detect and size flaw locations.

(j) Nonessential Variables. A change in the examina-1-1430 REQUIREMENTS tion system, which will not affect the system's ability to perforrn in a satisfactory manner.

The following Code terms are used in conjunction (k) Performance Demonstration. A demonstration of with this Article: the capabilities of an examination system to accurately Blind Demonstration. A perforrnance demonstra- evaluate a specimen with known flaw characteristics where the examiner with both flawed ~AUHUW'5 field conditions.

documentation of an Essential Variables. A to demonstrate established system, which will affect the the level of in Article.