ML20247B928

Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-344/89-12 & Forwards Review of Closeout of First 10-yr Inservice Insp Interval.Concurs That Primary Reason for Individual Problems Was Lack of Insp Contractor Activities

ML20247B928
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	09/08/1989
From:	Cockfield D PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20247B932	List: ML20247B928 ML20247E533 ML20247E549
References
NUDOCS 8909130187
Download: ML20247B928 (46)

Text

, , - . -

t. t "

{

, R ,- $

+

2 K -

L- gggg v ,+

. David W. Cockfield Vice President, Nuclear -

s.

u

' . 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 Commission 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 closecut of the first Ten-Year Inservice Inspection Interval be performed. Attachment 2 documents this review.

i i

i 4

8909130187 890908

. PDR ADOCK 05000344 [8 I !

.O PDC , g 121 S W Saltron Street. Batanct Oregon 97204

Rxtland General BechicCcaignor Document Control Desh September 8, 1989 Page 2 Portland General Electric Company (PGE) concurs that the primary reason for the individual problents that were fo;.nd during your inspection was a lack of adequate oversight of inservice inspection (ISI) contractor activities.

We are now fully contre). ling the ISI Progrmn without the use of an outside administrator. We have filled several positions that were created in an essential expansion of our 1SI Croup, and many prcgram upgrades and procedural improvements are scheduled to be in place by the next refueling outage. . "GE is committed to significantly improving our ISI performance and believes that we are taking the necessary steps to do so.

Sincerely, L, y Attachment c: Mr. John B. Martin Regional Administrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. David Stewart-Smith State of Oregon Department of Energy Mr. R. C. Barr NRC Resident Inspector Trojan Nuclear Plant l

l I

U Trojen Nuclecr'Plent' _ Document Control Desk Docket-50-344- September.8. 1989 License NPF-1 -Attachment 1 Page 1 of 11 REPLY TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION VIOLATION A

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part SO (10 CFR 50),

Appendix.B. Criterion IK, requires that special processes ruch 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 Summer 1983. Site Procedure MTS-9 AM-300', Revision 1 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.

SET-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 t'o the above, the inservice inspection (ISI) contractor training, qualification, and certification of NDE personnel procedure

'(NTS-QAM-300, Revision O. 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-1A 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 ccncluded 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 genmane to the questions asked and 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

V lS *

>Trojin Naclerr Plant Document Crntrol Desk l Docket 50-344 September 8, 1989

' License NPF-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 effect 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-la (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 letter.

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-pretation 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 XI 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 CLOSED BOOK". The proposed clarification, if passed, would confirm our present testing practice.

I i

l i

i

4Trojcn Nuc1 car Plant Documint Centrol De:k Docket 50-344 September 8, 1989

'* Attachment 1

' License NPF-1:

Page 3 of 11 VIOLATION 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 XI.for ISI requirements. .ASME Section XI, 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 changen 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 Creater", Revision 1, which details the required esse ~ntial 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:

a. The ISI contractor Quality Assurance site representative.initi-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, j including the three welds identified by the Nuclear Regulatiry Commission (NRC) audit team were identified. Transducers (t, 45 and 60 degree) as well as instrument settings had been changed, and the required calibration checks were not recorded on the ,

L ultrasonic calibration data sheet as required by ASME Section KI.

j i

1983 F,dition and Addenda through Summer of 1983, and Procedure l-QAP-UT-101, Revision 1.

u

- _ _ _ . _. _ __-____ - _ a

L Trojan NucicCr Plcnt Document C!ntr31 De:k Docket 50-344 September 8,.1989 License NPF-1 Attachment 1 Page 4 of 11

b. The nine welds that were identified to be nonconforming were reexamined with no recordable indications noted. The Section II 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-formance. 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-specific 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 ASKE Eection XI, 1983 Edition and Addenda through Summer of 1983, and QAP-UT-101, Revision 1, was achieved on June 16, 1989 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.

i

_.; i

• Trojan Nucl;cr Plcnt Docum:nt Control Desk Docket 50-344 September 8, 1989 License NPF-1 Attachment 1 Page 5 of 11 VIOLATION C 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX 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 Piping Replacement for 'D' System", invokes United States of America Standard (USAS) B31.7, Pressure Piping Code, 1969 Edition with Addenda through Summer 1971.

The USAS B31.7 Code, Paragraph B-1-140, directs that for pipe wall thick-nesses up to 3/4-inch inclusive sections of welds be rejected that are 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 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 that 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 the indication was evaluated during the radiograph interpretation process as an acceptable surface condition, it was not so recorded on the examination report form 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 PGE Level III Examiners not involved with initial interpretation. The reviewers noted indications which were determined to be a weld joint mismatch condition, that had not been so recorded on the

• Trojan Nuc1ctr Plant Document Crntrol De:k Docket 50-344 September 8, 1989

^

License 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 supplemental ultrasonic examination of weld P25881R4 was performed, which confirmed the original disposition. This information 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.a and 3.b will be completed by January 31, 1990.

l

AT rojan Nuc1ccr Plant Document Control De7k Docket 50-344 September 8, 1989 License NPF-1 Attachment 1 Page 7 of 11 1

VIOLATION D 10 CFR 50.55a requires that Plant ISI Programs be perforned in accordance 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 ASME code with Addenda through the Summer of 1983, and the Trojan second Ten-Year ISI Program establishes the same code requirements. ASME Section II, Article III, Paragraph 4330 and Appendix III establish requirements to stamp the weld center line, establish zero reference starting points and identify the direction of examination for weld inspections. Also, marking requirements are set forth in Site Procedure QC-RT-1, dated January 2, 1980.

Contrary to the above Welds P-28372 and P-25893 each had two zero reference starting points indicating opposite directions of inspection.

Welds P-25894, P-25897 and P-25876 had no zero reference starting points established. Weld P-25875 had no weld identification stamp.

This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement II).

REPLY TO VIOLATION D PGE acknowledges the violation.

1. Reasons for the Violation:

a. The reason for the marking of two zero reference points for Welds 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 zero 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. Feedwater 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 curface discoloration.

c. The reason for the lack of a weld identification stamp for Weld 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

• Trojan Nuclocr Plant - Document C ntral Desk Docket 50-344 September 8, 1989 License NPF-1 Attachment 1 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 vibec l

etch and mey be difficult to locate after system operation depending on discoloration and surface conditions present.

2. Corrective Steps That Have Been Taken and the Recults Achieved:

Revision 0 of Quality Inspection Procedure QIP-17. " Radiographic Examination", was approved on April 13, 1989 and was implemented into the Plant Operating Manual. Radiographic contract personnel are now required to perform radiography at Trojan in accordance with  ;

QIP-17, which has a clearly established system for identifying a  !

zero reference location as required by ASME Section XI, 1983 Edition through Summer 1983 Addenda.

3. Corrective Steps to be Taken to Avoid Further Violationr:

i

s. The Trojan Weld Program Manual will be revised to require the application of weld identification, weld centerline marking and i 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 l 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 j was determined that this could be more effectively accomplished during routine inservice examinations.

4. Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved:

The Trojan Weld Program Manual will be revised by September 22, 1989 l to include the necessary details for weld marking. The administra- l tive controls through which compliance will be achieved during routine inservice examinations will be in place by March 21, 1990.

i I

l

_ ._ j

[?

I Trojcn Nuclese Plant Document C:ntrol De;k l Docket 50-344 September 8, 19F9 L

License NPF-1 Attachrent 1 Page 9 of 11 VIOLATION E 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX, 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 Edition and Addenda through Summer of 1983 of ASME Section XI. ASME Section II, Paragraph IWA-1400(1) and (h) require that ultrasonic' examination data and evaluation results 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 ac 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 TO VIOLATION E PGE acknowledges the violation.

1. Reasons for the Violation:

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 scmt limitations did not provide suf ficient data to calculate the actual percentage of volume scanned.

b. The reascn 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

. Trojan Nuclear p1rnt Document C!ntrol Deck

[ September 8, 1989 Docket 50-344 License WPF-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 sean distances to examine the code required volume,

c. The reason for the lack of characterization and disposition of recorded 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 (OAC) were inves-tigated as to their origin, and those whose respense was equal to or greater than 50 percent DAC were recorded as cequired 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 remarks 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:

a. When the NRC inspection team identified recordable indications which had not been evaluated or dispositioned as required by QAP-UT-101, Revision 1, the ISI cor. tractor initiated CAR-002-TNP.

b. All ultrasonic examination data sheets were audited by the .

I 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 fracture mechanics analysis.

I

c. Training was held on procedural requirements with all Level II personnel, and no further discrepancies were identified.

i l

e_-

l' Document Control De k L

' Trojan Nuclear Plant Docket 50-344 September 8, 1989 L ,

Attachment 1 License NPF-1 Pege 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 prscedures for ultrasonic testing,

c. Administrative controls will be established to ensure a PCE 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 Full Compliance Will Be Achieved:

Full compliance has been achieved. The corrective actions of 3.a through 3.d will be completed by March 21, 1990.

LGD/bsh 3508W.989

o ,

h. .1. ,L  ; 'j Daturcnt Centrol. Deck S3pte2ber 8. 1989 MEMPH!s Tasnua SERVICES. INC.

,1502 FIP.5T STREET *. BUlott.L A

• SUITE o HUMBLE TEXAS 77338 PHONE: 013) 4463344 FAX:(113) 44tL9021 1

,),

08/21/B9 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 Quite some time now, it is my sincere hope the the information contained herein will resolve the matter.

In reslewing Memphis. Testing Services' procedure, MTS-GAM-300 Rev. O. " Training, Qualification and Certification of Persennel*,

dated 05/01/09, and as author of such, I offer the following definitien regarding paragraph 8.1.3.1. which states in part:

'The examination may be administered as an ep-in book test.-

This statement is per the practices as stated in the American Society of Nondestructive Testing, SNT-TC-1A, June 190% Edition, Paragraph 8.3:

"Necessary data such as grBohs, tables, specifications, procecures, and codes may be provided.'

Copies of tne following ggerificatiens are supplied to those personnel completing the specific examinations.

Visual VT-:, a copy of MTS-VT-100, Kev. O Visual VT-2. -3, and -4, a copy of TNP-GAP-VT108 Ultrasonic, a copy of ASME Section V. Article 5 Penetrant, a copy of Article 6 of ASME Section V -

Magnetic Particle, a coor of Article 7 of ASME Section v Attached for your review are copies of the specification as described above.

._.--.--___,_---_.w

m ,

A. ,,

y It is Memphis Testing Services's' position that the specific examination ^

is adminis}ered 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 exam without the required specification would not be practical, or possible.  !

Should you reautre additional information, please f eel free to contact me.

Very tru!y yours, MEMPHIS TESTING RVICES m

y//

chn r President s

o 9

.M ENPHIS TESTING SERVICES,INC.

e VT-1 LEVEL II s

SPECIFIC I

l i

MTE-_

SCORE 1 EYAMINER LEVEL III ,

)

l l

\.........,..,,.,,,

YT-1 IIVEL II SPECIFIC -

,ME$lPHIS TESTING SERVICES p g,1

'l

1. For direct visual examination, the eye should be placed

-within of the surface A. 36 inches h

.' B. 4 feet C. 10. inches 5.'24inche's

2. The VT-3 visual examination shall be condocted to detennine the general mechanical and structural conditions of components

- and their supports.

A. True 4

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 D. 70.5 foot candles

4. Remote visual examination methods shall, if utilized, have a resolution capability at least that obtained by '

direct visual methods.

A. 2 times B. 1 1/2 times I

C. 50 percent  ;

D. equivalent to

Rht

~ VT-1 f.EVEI, II SPECIMC MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES PEge 2

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 B. False r 6. Surface preparation is not normally considered. relevant for repair velding 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 1 report of a surface visual examination 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. 4 A. True B. False i

1 1

4 MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES *1"**""*"*

P;ge 3 3.

10.rIt is up to the discretionlof-the certified examiner whether-or not slag m'ust 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 ' surf aces C. Evidence of leaking D. All'of the above

13. Briefly describe what a weld fillet, gauge is used for.

14. For direct visual examination, the angle of vision from the surface being examined should not be less than _ degrees.

l A. 90 1

B. 45 i C. *iG '

D. 30

O:

MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES 5; 7"' " " "

15. 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. equivalent to a 2T pentrameter B. at least 4r.8 lumens C. a 1/32 in. ',) lack line on a 18% 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 ist A. ultrasonio testing

3. 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 mdst be removed.

A. True 5.lv.

B. False 4

e 4-. -

,f y '. MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES n-1 tevet n specine-Pm 5 j

20. Yisual examinations are the most suitable method of NDE for

~

the determination of pipe wall. thinning.

A. True B'. False i~

t e'

& 4 9

s-0 4

4 s.

e i

e 4

4

,

w

. g3 . . MdMPHIS TESTING SERVICES, INC.

t e

n-2 sraerne amanrrm 9 LE M ,II f

e 1

SCORE -

EnM2 Net umm UI W

9 4 4 9 9 9

e f

l '

'VT-II LEVEt,II SPECIPIC

. MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES, INC. '

-1. FCR COMPONENTS WHERE LEAKAGE IS EXPBCTED, VISUAL EXAMINATION SEALL VERIFY THAT A. The leakage collection system is operative.  ;

m. Holsture is con ecting beneath the oosponent. '

l C. The floor area beneath the cogenent is free of leakege .

D. All of the above.

2. ' THE TfBT PRES 5URE GAGE USED IN A TEST SHOULD RAVE A CALIBRA21!D RANGE TIMES BUT NOT MORE THAN TIMES THE IN22NDED MAXI 1CM PRESSURE.

A. 2

8. 3 C. - 4 D. 5 "3. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING IS THE CONtECT ORDER OF SEPS IN A HYDROSTAT A. Vent Piping, ffll piping, hold time, examination.

B. Hold t.ime, vant piping, examination, pressure systam.

C. In'scall.. testing, pressurize, vent piping, insemination D. Vent Piping, pressurize, hold time, examination.

4. ~ YERTICAL JOINTS OF INSULATION NEED CNLY BE VISUALLY EXAMINED F 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.t FERRITIC CDMPONENTS EXPOSED TO BORIC ACID CAN:

L. Erode B. Be difficult to see C. Corrode D. Be ignored

6. EXAMINATION PCR LEAKAGE DURING' EC2VATED TEMPERATURE TESTS MAY BE WITH THE PRES 5URE LOWERED TO A CORRESPONDING TSNPERATURE CF 0

A. 180 F *

\

B. 2000F D. 9e

7. THE PKINCIPAL ADVANTAGE OF VISUAL EXA?lINATION FOR LEAKAGE IS -

A. It can indicate mechanical problems.

3. An entire system can be tested at one time.

C. Insulated syntams do not have to have their insulation removed.

o.11.eu.n spe.nw enn amenlata minute leakage to aid in its detection.

c.

s'.

' I MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES, INC.VT-II LayzL peq. 2 II SPECIFIC

{t

'l l

8. SEAT LEAKAGE 5 MAY BE CAUSED BY:

• A. Inproper seat interface E. Cracked sentirv2 wurfaN e Incomplete valve closure C-D. Operator error.

E. All of the above.

9. SECTIW XI ALLOWS A 8YSTEM FUNCTIONAL LEAKAGE 'EBST 20 BE PERFORMED WITH:

~

A. N3 holding time required after attaining test pressure B. No holding time required after attaining operating pressure C. 10 minutes holding time required after attaining test pressure.

D. 10 minutes holding time required after attaining operating pressure.

10. ACTIVEVALVESREQUIRELEAKTESTINGPdRCAT930RY: ,

A. A (seat leakage is limited N perform properly.)

5. B(closed or open function.)

C. C(pressure relief or flow direction check.)-

, D. D(rupture disc valves.)

11. LEAKAGE EXAMINATION REQUIRES TRAT MINIMUM PRESSURE BE MAINTAINED FM F0(R HOURS:

A. On both insulated and uninsulated systems.

B. To allow adequate time to pass _ to allow any leaks to seep to the outside of the insulation for detection.

C. To check functional adequacy of the pumps.

D.- To allow examiners to prepara for the test.

12. WHAT SHOULD YOU DO IF EXJ NOTICE SLIGHT IEAKAGE F140M THE STEM PACKING O

- VALVE WHILE PERFORMING A YT-2 EXAMINATION 7 A. Record it. ..

B. Accept it '

C. Ignore it D. Reject it

13. tELESS SPECIFIED BY 2EE OWNER, LEAKACE RATES FOR CATEGORY A VALVES SHALL NOT, l EXCEED: .

A. 10 D al/hr.

. B. 20 D al/hr. -

C. 30 D ml/hr. l D. 40 D ml/hr. -

l l

^

j

h AUG 2289 11:51 PAGE.25 e .

VT-II EEVEL II SPECITIC MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES,INC.Page 3 ,

14. NEERE 15 LEAlWE POST OF2Di POUND IN BOLTED ODNtECTIONS?

. A. Bolta

5. Gaskets-C. Walds '

D. None of the above

15. AN IMPORTANI TQQL IN LEAK DFawnCN ISI A. An 18% neutral gray card.

B. A flashlight. -

C. A steel rule D. A Cambridge gege.

16 ICRING HYDROSTATIC TESTING OF 7EE PIPING SYSTEM: .

A. Travel stops are removed from constant supports .

8. Travel stops are rem wed from variable springs C. Variable springs act as rigid hangers. .

D. All of the above .

s

17. LEAKAGE IN IMINSULATED (DMPONENTS IS DETERMINED BY EXAMINItiG:

.A. Surrounding areas.

, B. Floor areas.

C. 1 Equipment surfaces D. All of the aberm

18. WHICH OF THE Pott 4 MING IS LEAST IMPORTANr CONCERNI!G PRESSURE GAGES?

A. Calibration B. Location C. Manufacturer D. ~ Range

, 19. LEAL.GE FROM A YALVE MAY BE OF LESS COtCERN IF IT IS COMING FROM THE:

A. Stem

3. Bonnet bolta C. Packing gland j D., Yalve bo@f . I

20. IKM OF'EN SP4L*LD GAGES USED IN PRES $URE TESTS BE CALIBRAED?

~

A. Prior to each use B. Every 3 weeks -

C. At a maximum of 30 days j D. Never <

. I i

)_______________ _ _ _ . . . _ _

, .. .. w---; y ----,---7:

.7

f. i '* .d. 3

.m .. .

.i. 4 3

+.--Y., ,

4

'.i.

~

(,)' . g 4

. a J ._ ; -

_]

1 l:- ..,. 4 l

k LEVEt, II:

m3 .

SPECIFIC m,

T A

I DATE o

l EXAMINER i,

f -

I I

i

1. The two types of visual examination applied to component supports are:

A. operational and static.

B.- YT-3 and VT-4.

C. hot and cold.

D. preservice and inservice.

2. A VT- -

examination in a check for operability, and verifies that a component support is functional.

A. 1 B. 2 C. 3 D. 4-

3. A YT- examination verifies that a component support is built as it was designed.

A. 1 ,

.B. 2 C. 3 D. 4 -

4. A VT-4 examination involves checking for support for corrosion, loose parts, physical damage and debris.

A. True B. False .

5. The significant areas of examination and accept /re, Ject criteria for examinations of supports are specified in a component support examination procedure.

A. True B. False ,

6. Visual examination of component supports includes f.xamination of the attachments to the building structure. .

A. True B. Fal se -

l l

l L _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - _ - - - - _

., Specific YT 3 Test 1 Revision I Page 2-7.. A snubber is used solely in nuclear plants for restraining seismic loads.

I A. True L B. False

8. Low fluid level in a mechanical snubber is a sign of a potential problem.

A. True B. False

9. What aids in causing the internals of the mechanical snubber to rotate?

A. YC re B. O np i-' C. Baii screw shaft D. Torque transfer drum .

10. What is another term for release rate?

A. Bleed rate B. Flow rate C. Cooling rate D. Motion rate

, 11. A snubber sh'ould be installed as late in the construction stage as possible.

A. True B. Faise -

12. The mechanical snubber would not activate without the spring.

A. valve B.. -shaft C. poppet .

D. capstan

13. If a visual exam reveals that the snubber may be inoperable, a functional test should be perfonned to verify that conclusion.

A. True' B. False -

1.4. A restraint is used to prevent pipe whipping as a result of a pipe break.

A. True B. False

__..______._________._______a

.o.

L o -

~

. Specific YT-3. Test 1 Revision I Page 3  !

.,_ 15.. The results of visual examinations on hangers should be reported on a i

.recerd, form.

A. True -

B. False i

.16. Component supports are designed to transmit: i A. water.

8. Ioads.  ;

C. steam.

D, coal. l

17. Component supports that carry the weight of components from above with l the primary member usually in tension are called:

A. hangers.

B. snubbers.

C. -supports.

D.. restraint.

1

18. Component supports that carry the weight of components from below with the primary member usually in compression are called: i A. hangers. i B. snubbers.

C.. supports.

D. restraint.

19. Component ' supports that dampen motion by either hydraulic or mechanical actions are called: .

A. hangers.

B. snubbers.

C. supports.

D. restraint.

20. Snubbers allow slow movements of the components during normal plant operatiran.

A. Tr ,le . .

B. False 3019a

( g------_--

f ..,,.

'4 L,',

MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES, INC.

'l LEVilL II VT-4 ,

SPBCIFIC 4

1 MTE 8 CME MN -

4 e

e

7-~ n,f  :

, . Page 1-r ....

?, 1 ? The visual examination.YT-4:

h A. : addresses the use of binoculars and borescopes.

B. is, conducted to locate leakage.

C. is used to determine the operability of component supports.

e D. relates to the general condition of corqponents, such as corrosion and water.

A

2. Functional testing must be performed on:-

A. hangers. -l B.. restraints.

C. supports.

D.- anubbers.

E. all of the'above.

3. Pressure gages are graduated in:

A.- cubic feet per day.

B. pounds per foot.

C. feet of water.

D. pounds per square inch.

4. Altitude gages are graduated in:

A. cubic feet par 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 perform its exercise stroking:

-A. it must immediately be declared inoperable.

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 />.

4 B.

' O. it must' be corrected within one month.

D. corrective action must be initiated imediately.

E. all of the above.

6. Excessive purp Vibration can be caused by:

A. . rotating element unbalance.

'B. ' worn or loose parts.

C. misalignment.

D. all of the above.

7. During valve exercising, problems may occur if ther A. Beats are Worn. '

B. packing is too tight.

C. leak rate is in excese of specification.

D. packing is leaking.

g.

$*  %;> 1: .

i

(" Ef*2 8.- 'anubbers selected!for o particular functional text:

uY)) ., 'A. . are molected based on service and environment.

E .. .B.- would have been tested the last time.

)Hm *

, L C. should be replaced if they fail. 1 4 1 D. all of the above.,

r 9.- How often nust snubbers be functionally tested? - -

-i c .

P A. All snubbers tested at least once every 10 years j B. 10% of.the' snubbers tested at least.once every 5 years C.110% of the snubbers tested'at least once every inspection period i D.o120% of the~ snubbers tested at least once every inspection period i

10. Who may perform functional testing of snubbers?

1 A. The : manufacturer B.. The owner

' C. .An independent test facility D. All of the above' '

E. .only A and C above-e ,

111. . According to Section XI, how many size ranges are there for the ISI of snubbers?

A. 2 B. 3 .

C. 4 D. - 5

\

12. The snubber label is important because:

.A. it serves as a dust cover.

'B. it_ gives the temperature ranges for. proper performance. .

~

C. ~it indicates the maximum 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. Activation Rate

'B. Bleed Rate.

C. Motion' Rate D. Breakaway Force

14. ' While the purnp testing is being conducted, what additional observations should be made?

A. Signs of noise, cavitation or vibration.

B. Excessive heating or relays, packing and instruments.

C. Determining 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.

1

_ _ . _ _ . _ __._m_ _ _ _ _.-----_--

i .<.

Page 3

, }-

, 18. What is the me.ximum rehT.&r.ded decibel rating' for prqp noise?

A. ' 85 dB

. B. 105 dB C. 90 dB

0. 120 dB E. 65 dB -

16. . Pump sound level testing is described in:

A. ASME Section-XI.

B. ASME Section III.

C. Hydraulic Institute Standards.

D. ANSI N45.2.6

17. What three measurements are made in pump vibration testing?

A. Volts, amperes, power factor. 3 s

B. K.W., volts, amperes. l C. NPSH-A, NPSH-R, decibels.  !

D. Water horsepower, brake horsepower, K.W.

I' E. Displacement, velocity, acceleration.

18. NPSH-R is the: l A. suction power of the punp.

B. . net positive suction head available at the auction flange.

- C. net positive suction head required by the pump to operate properly.

D. atmospheric pressure. <

E. water surface pressure.

19. The pacpose of a station system curve is to: .

A. establish pump 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 pump efficiency plotted against G.P.M.

E. be the basis for energy saving.

20. What four pieces of data are used to plot typical punp performance cury;.s?

A. K.W., water horsepower, brake horsepower, volts.

B. K.W., anperes, volts, power factor.

C. Head, G.P.M. volts, anperes.

D. Pump efficiency, motor efficiency, volts, K.W.

E. G.P.M., head, efficiency, brake horsepocor.

m, > .g ,; .. .,

g$.; p%

g t. .

. p.;3-> . g. . , m..

1.-

'; , b; .

.ijcy.' ? 'a'i -- ,.

..,:_.t a : o , '.>...; ;y

.. . I

% , ,f m, y..

' ) ,) q V A.e * *  :,

z. c - ..ca , t, l 1, .g . v.

i-a.1 y;: a!. ,

.s a

{p. [ 5, p -* ,

4 m c

. 'w;- .

8 ,

• pi 1 ,

I,f , .I , s F,+ L 4-

. . 4 ;-gy7 .

0 ULTRASONIC' SPECIFIC EXAMINATION v

(.

~ LEVEL'II

s. . ,

f 9 .

1 k.

'r'.

.(..

4 NAME

.a-

=

.c L,;' ..

. ." DATE

.1 SCORE a

i. EXAMINER 9

) ).

\c i.-; a . ,

- - -_ - _ _-_b

4 :.

c. 7, .

.di ..

'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 .trf the l 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 frequencies of from to MHz unless otherwise specified.

s 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. Metar, 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

1. +h. n msn 1 fr.qu.ney far c+r 4oh+ hamm tranadorers?

m ;:i- -

3

^

~ .

11. A DAC curve is required for all pipe welds.

TRUE.

FALSE

12. What shall be done if forgings and bars cannot be I effectively examined from both ends'using a straight beam technique?

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. 1/4 T ,

D. None of the above

15. What is the minimum hole depth? -

16. What is the hole diameter in question "14".

A. 3/32 B. 5/16 C. 3/16 D. 3/8 1

17. The beam angle in the procuction material shall be in the range of to degrees. j

.18. The nominal frequency shall be MHz when performing f ultrasonic examination of welds.

I A. 10 MHz .

f B. 15 MHz a.ms Mw, I c.

m___ __ __ -_ . . . - __

,.a- .

1.  : 'g

>g

. .~

19.1Thel gain' control response'is set so the Y.response from the pf full. screen:on first: point .on the curve is the cathode ray tub e . . .

'A. 80% + or.-5%

.B.. .90Y..+ or ~5Y.

C. 100% + or -5%

20..All indications'which produce a response greater that-

%'of. reference level.shall be investigated.

A. 50%

3. 10%

C. 100%

D .^ 20%

T m

_ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -D

4.

O

~

MEMPHIS TESTING SERVICES, INC.

l LIQUID PRETRANT TESTING SPECIFIC EXAM s

DATE SCbRE-LEVEL III t

e

-]

page 2- .

m g . ,

1. Pentrant may be used with any part in the as-welded,'as-rolled,

- as-cast, or as-forged condition? .j i

'A. ~True B. False .

2. What'can be done if the part'is warmer than 125 F7 i

l

3. What is mininun time for observing the bleed out? q

4. What'is maximum time for observing the bleed out?.-

5. How can penetrant be applied?

'6. . How often should black light intensity be measured?

s 7.- What would indicate excessive cleaning?

8. Can a black light with a spectrum range centered on 350 iMN) be used.

a. froe B. ' False

9. Excess water washable penetrant may be removed by a water spray with a pressure of:

A. Minimum of 50 pei and maxinum t ature of 110 F.

B. Maximum of 345 kpa and minimum 4 c.

C. Maximum of 50 psi and maximum 100 F.

D. 'None'of the above.

10. Can paper towels be used to wipe excess solvent removeable penetrant?

3 reue j B. False j l

1

..4 Page 3' ,

ep[ , . . M ..j.

4

,; \ '..'s -

'o '

' 11'. Does the type of penetrant have to be identified in the WM ore?

. o A. True B. ' False ,

12. " When nust a procedure be revismi?

4; 13. -In general article 6,.ie in conformance with?

l p. -

14. - What is che maximum cloride content of all penetrant material?

A. .00005g / 100g

.B. Less than 1% by weight

c. I.ess than .005g / 100g D. None of the above

15. Cleaning solvent shall neec what requirements?

16. What type ef developer may be used with fluorescent pe.netrants?

17.. What la the mininum penetration time for a bronze casting with cracks?

18. - can one use a fluorescent, solvent removeable technigae?

^

'19 How may dry developer be applied?

20. Can a color contrast exam follow a fluorescent exam?

g -yy y-,, -

e' ,

y .-

l' -

> ~

W l

MAGNETIC PARTICLE EXAMINATION LEVEL II SPECIFIC s

NAME DATE SCORE EXAMINER LEVEL III

..__.._-_a______

n.

$ e p .' #

L i

c^

..y MAGNETIC PARTICLE SPECIFIC EXAMINATION LEVEL !! ~

l

.o L ,

1. When specified by the referencing code'section, magnetic particle shall be performed.- Typical types of j

dist:entinuities that can be detected by this method are:

1 I

0 A.

.l.4.___.__

B' _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _

l :-

C. . _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _

D. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , , , ,

2.- Magnetic partir:le ' examination shall be done by the

.centinuous method.

A. Trn?

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. l l

A. 3" B. 6 *'

1 C. 1" ,

i 4 Name the three cleaning methods that may be used.

A. __________- j B. _____,._____

C. ___________ ,

1

5. When must demagnetization be performed if required?

6. At least two examinations shall be performed on each area.

A. True B. False ,

l

'I

. 1

~

7. When residual magnetism in the part could interfere with subsequent processing or usage, the part shall be demagnetization.

A. True B. False

8. Using the prod technique the current shall be __________

minimum to ______________ maximum amperes / inch of prod spacing for sections 3/4 inch thick or greater.

A. 125 +c 250 amps. i B. ECO to 350 amps. ]

C. 100 to 125 amos. ]

D. 750 to 1000 amps. i

9. Prod spacing shall not exceedt A. 6"

9. B" C. 12" D. B"

10. Short prod spacing may be used to accomodate the geometric limitations of the a'Sa being examined, but j prod 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 using the circular magnetization technique the required current for a part with coter diarneters over 5" up to 10" shall bet A. 300 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 inspucted.

A. True B. False k

=* 2:

f! -

1 t , .

Calibration' of magnetic particle equiment shall be 13.

at least ______________ a year.

A. 3 times B. 2 times C. once

. D.- every 90 days

14. The magnetizing force _of the yoke shall be calibra'ted by,_______________________.

s 4. -An amp meter B. A pie gage C. Determining their lifting power

25. .Each direct current or permanent megnetic yoke shall have a lifting power of at least:

A. 10 lbs.

B. 60 lbs.

-C. .40 lbs.

D. 50 lbs.

. 16 The accumulation of particles at a site on the part surface, collected at and held to the site by the magnetic leakage field, is called.

A. A discontinuity

.B. A defect C. An indication D.. Magnetic writing 4

17. Half wave rectified AC (HWDC) is used for detection of:

A. Surface' defects only B. Subsurface defects only C. Surface and subsurface defects D. none of the above

( '~. ,

. 7- .,.,

,:4. ' , .- >

[ik ['

[

3 x

t .. c Vlp. ;'. ;

18. Which one of.the.following is not_a discontinuity common.

-to forged products?

A. Laps, ,

j

2. = Shrinkage-2,m i

C. LBursts' D. Flakes

19. Which of1the 'ollowing.is f m' defect commonly associated e ,-. .with the. welding ~ process?

A., Lack of' penetration

^

B. Flakes.

C; -S7ams 1- D'. Laminations a.

20. Which of'these cracks may appear as,an irregular,1 checked,: or.-seattered pattern of fine lines usually

' ~

caused by.localfoverheating?~

A. Fatigue cracks B. .;Grirding eracks C. Cratur cracks D '. HAZ cracks I

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _