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

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

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)

ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Docket #: 05000247 l 05000286 Exhibit #:

Identified:

Admitted:

Withdrawn:

Rejected:

Stricken:

Other:

ENT000532-00-BD01 10/15/2012 10/15/2012 A03 T-141O T-1420 T-142l T-1422 T-1423 T-1424 T-1425 T-1430 T-1440 T-l44l T-1442 T-1443 T-1450 T-145l T-1452 T-1460 T-1470 T-147l T-1472 T-1480 T-1490 Tables T-1472.1 T-1472.l ARTICLE 14 Scope......................................................................

261.2 General Requirements.......................................................

261.2 The Qualification Process....................................................

261.2 Technical Justification.......................................................

261.2 Performance Demonstration..................................................

261.2 Levels of Rigor.............................................................

261.3 Planning a Qualification Demonstration........................................

261.3 Equipment..................................................................

261.3 Application Requirements....................................................

261.3 Technical Justification Report................................................

261.3 Performance Demonstration..................................................

261.5 Examination System Re-qualification..........................................

261.5 Conduct of Qualification Demonstration.......................................

261.5 Protocol Document..........................................................

261.5 Individual Qualification......................................................

261.6 Calibration.................................................................

261.6 Examination.................... "..........................................

261.6 Intermediate Rigor Detection Test............................................

261.6 High Rigor Detection Tests..................................................

261.6 Evaluation..................................................................

261.9 Documentation and Records..................................................

261.9 Total Number of Samples for a Given Number of Misses at a Specified Confidence Level and POD................................................

Required Number of First Stage Examiners vs. Target Pass Rate................

261.7 261.8 Mandatory Appendix

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

ARTICLE 14 EXAMINATION SYSTEM QUALIFICATION T-1410 SCOPE The provisions of this Article for qualifying nonde-structive examination (NDE) systems are mandatory when specifically invoked by the referencing Code Section. The Manufacturer, examination organization, owner, or other user of this Article is responsible for qualifying the examination technique, equipment, and written procedure in conformance with this Article.

The referencing Code Section shall be consulted for the following specific detailed requirements:

(a) personnel certification requirements or prerequi-sites for qualification under the requirements of this Article (b) examination planning, including the extent of examination

( c) acceptance criteria for evaluating flaws identified during examination (d) level of rigor required for qualification (e) examination sensitivity, such as probability of detection and sizing accuracy if) records, and record retention requirements T-1420 T-1421 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS The Qualification Proc~

The qualification process, as set forth in this Article, involves the evaluation of general, technical, and per-formance-based evidence presented within the docu-mented technical justification, and when required, a blind demonstration.

T*1422 Technical

( b) field experience (c) test hierarchy ranking (d) anticipated degradation mechanism (e) NDE response by morphology andlor product form T-1423 Performance Demonstration The performance demonstration establishes the ability of a specific examination system to achieve a satisfactory probability of detection (POD), by application of the examination system on flawed test specimens. The demonstration test results are used to plot the POD curve and determine the false call probability (FCP) for establishing confidence limitations.

(a) The test specimens shall replicate the object to be examined to the greatest extent practical. Simplified test specimens representative of an actual field situation may be used. The use of specimens with known, identified flaws is preferred, and may be essential for 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 more challenging degradation mechanisms may satisfy qualification requirements for less challenging mecha-nisms).

(b) When they sufficiently replicate the object to be tested, performance demonstrations of a limited scope may be used to minimize the costs involved, and facilitate specimen availability. The technical justifica-tion must any limitations the scope of pelrtolrm;an(:e demonstrations.

Personnel shall be based upon blind the demonstration may vary from a on a few to an extensive of flaws. The level

T -1423 2001 SECTION V T-1441.1 (1) improved pass-fail rates for personnel; (2) reduced scope for blind personnel qualification testing; (3) better understanding of the correlation between the procedure and the damage mechanisms of interest; (4) more reliable written procedures.

T-1424 Levels of Rigor Qualification is performed at one of three levels of rigor. The referencing Code Section shall invoke the required level of rigor, to verify the examination system capability to detect and size typical flaws for the damage mechanisms of interest, depending upon their locations and characteristics. When not otherwise specified, the level of rigor shall be set by agreement between the interested parties. The three levels of rigor are:

(a) Low Rigor (Technical Justification only): The requirement for this level of rigor is a satisfactory technical justification report. No performance demon-strations are required for qualification of the examination system.

(b) Intermediate Rigor, (Limited Peiformance Dem-onstration): The requirements for this level of rigor are a satisfactory technical justification report, and the successful performance of a demonstration test (blind 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 specified, the qualification criteria shall be set by agreement between the interested parties.

(c) High Rigor, (Full Peiformance Demonstration):

The requirements for this level of rigor are a satisfactory technical justification report, and the successful perform-ance of blind demonstration tests. The referencing Code Section shall establish the scope of demonstration re-quirements, and sets acceptable POD and FCP scores for qualification. When not otherwise specified, the qualification criteria shall be set by agreement between the interested A sufficient number of test mens shall be evaluated to estimate IUIJtUU",,_ and determine an accurate POD mechanisms or flaw types and sizes.

demonstration is T*1425 Demonstration (a) Assemble all necessary input information con-cerning the component, defect types, damage mechanism of interest, and objectives for the examination and qualification of the examination system.

(b) Review the written procedure to verify its suitabil-ity for the intended application.

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

(d) Determine the required level of rigor for the performance demonstration.

(e) Develop performance demonstration criteria using the applicable references.

(j) Conduct the performance demonstration.

(g) Conduct the personnel qualifications.

(h) Compile, document, and evaluate the results.

(i) Determine qualification status, based upon a final evaluation.

T-1430 EQUIPMENT The equipment used for the performance demonstra-tion of an examination system shall be as specified in the written procedure and the technical justification.

After qualification of the examination system, the use of different examination equipment may require requali-fication (see T-1443).

T-1440 T-1441 APPLICA TION REQUIREMENTS Technical Justification Report Prior to qualification of any examination system, regardless of the level of rigor, a technical justification report shall be prepared and receive approval by a Level III certified for the specific method to be applied.

The technical justification report shall be reviewed and accepted by the owner of the object of interest and, where applicable, to the Jurisdiction, Authorized Inspec-tion Agency (AlA), independent third party, examination or other involved of this the involved UUJlHH.ULJlVU of Examined. The

T-1441.1 ARTICLE 14 -

EXAMINATION SYSTEM QUALIFICATION T-1441.5 scope of the written procedure shall define the limits for application of the procedure (e.g., materials, thickness, diameter, product form, accessibility, examination limi-tations, etc.).

(a) The flaws of interest to be detected; their expected locations, threshold detection size, critical flaw size, orientation, and shape shall be determined, serving as a guideline for development of the written procedure.

Critical flaw sizes (calculated from fracture mechanics analysis) and crack growth rates are important considera-tions for determining flaw recording and evaluation criteria. The minimum recordable flaw size must be smaller than the critical flaw size, and include consider-ation of the estimated or observed crack growth rates and the observed quality of workmanship during fabrication.

Flaw evaluation must be based upon precluding the formation of critically sized flaws prior to the next inspection, or for the estimated remaining life of the object during normal operations.

(b) Object or technique geometry, environmental con-ditions, examination limitations, and metallurgical con-ditions may limit the accessibility for evaluating the object. Examination procedure or equipment modifica-tions may be required to gain access to the area of interest to be examined.

(c) The acceptance criteria for the demonstration shall be provided.

(d) Additional issues to consider for inclusion in the technical justification may include:

( 1) historical effectiveness of procedure; (2) documentation for prior demonstrations; (3) extent of prior round robin tests; (4) observed flaw detection rates, probability of detection, and false call rates; (5) acceptable rejection/acceptance rates; and (6) sizing accuracy.

T-1441.2 Overview of Examination System. A gen-eral description of the examination system, with suffi-cient detail to distinguish it from other systems, shall be included within the technical justification The shall used for intl'""rpt'n Parameters.

The influence of inspection parameters on the examina-shall be ~V"'"lU

param~

eter selections shall be based upon the flaws of interest,

.4 and include an explanation of why the selected parame-ters will be effective for the particular examination and expected flaws.

(a) Procedure requirements, including essential vari-ables to be addressed, may be found in the Mandatory Appendix associated with the examination method, or in the referencing Code Section.

(b) Personnel certification requirements, in addition to method specific Level II or III certification, may be advisable under some conditions. When using estab-lished techniques for a low rigor application (e.g., for examination of more readily detected damage mecha-nisms, or where less critical components are involved) a method specific Level II or III certification is adequate.

When an intermediate or high rigor application is required, additional personnel requirements shall be considered and, if required, so specified. This may include quantitative risk based criteria for the selection of components to be examined, or completion of a blind performance demonstration. For examination techniques performed by a team of examiners, the specific qualifi-cation requirements for each team member shall be addressed.

T-1441.4 Description of Examination Techniques.

A justification for the effectiveness of the selected examination technique used in the written procedure for detecting flaws of interest shall be included. The sensitivity settings for recording flaws, flaw orientation, critical flaw size; anticipated degradation mechanism (for in-service applications), and the influence of metal-lurgical and geometric affects shall be addressed in the justification. A description of the method for distinguish-ing between relevant and non-relevant indications, justi-fication for sensitivity settings, and the criteria for characterizing and sizing flaws shall be included.

T-1441.S Optional Topics for Technical Justifica-tion. The following topics may be addressed within the technical justification to improve the understanding of the techniques to be applied.

not otherwise specified, the modeling validation criteria shall be set between the interested to demonstrate the annClpaltea when parameters

T-1441.5 2001 SECTION V T-14S1 size, and access limitations are changed. The written procedure may be qualified or requalified using a mini-mum number of mockups with adequate justification.

(b) Description of Procedure Experience. Prior expe-rience with a written procedure may be included in the technical justification, and used to support revisions to the procedure. Documentation of similar demonstra-tions relevant to the proposed examination may be included. Experimental evidence to show the effect of applicable variables may also be cited and considered when developing the written procedure.

T-1442 Performance Demonstration Examination systems requiring qualification at inter-mediate or high levels of rigor shall also pass a performance demonstration. The specimen test set and pass/fail criteria to be used in the performance demon-stration shall be determined by the owner of the object; and, where applicable, shall be acceptable to the Juris-diction, Authorized Inspection Agency, independent third party, examination vendor, inspection agency, or other involved party.

(a) The procedure shall be demonstrated by per-forming an examination of an object or mockup. The examiner conducting the demonstration shall not have been involved in developing the procedure. The com-pleted report forms provide documentation of the dem-onstration. Qualification of the procedure is only valid when applying the same essential variables recorded during the demonstration. Changes to essential variables require requalification of the procedure. Editorial changes to the procedure, or changes to nonessential variables, do not require requalification of the procedure.

(b) The demonstration of the written procedure may use blind or non-blind certified personnel. Blind per-formance demonstrations qualify the complete examina-tion system (i.e., the equipment, the written procedure, and the examiner). Non-blind demonstrations only qual-the and the All recordable indications shall be sized and l\\1\\-",,;;lL1. The detection whether indications ate located cor-and blind demonstration using a few demonstration mandated by the referencing Code Section, reiterative blind a combination of small SpeClnlen or demonstration based 1 "'.. ""cu. one-sided \\,.V'U._

based

.5 onstration methodologies shall be described in the tech-nical justification for that procedure.

(d) An individual or organization shall be designated as the administrator of the demonstration process. The roles of the administrator include:

( 1) reviewing the technical justification; (2) reviewing the procedure and its scope of appli-cability; (3) ensuring that all essential variables are included in the procedure and demonstration; (4) assembling the test specimens; (5) grading the demonstrations; (6) developing the protocol; (7) maintaining security of the samples; and (8) maintaining the demonstration records.

For straightforward applications, the administrator may be a department within the owner's organization.

For complex demonstrations, or when Code or user requirements dictate, it may be appropriate to use a disinterested third party.

T-1443 Examination System Re-qualification The original qualification applies only to the system and essential variables described in the technical justifi-cation report and the written procedure. If essential variables are changed, requalification is required. Re-qualification may be accomplished by one of the follow-ing means:

(a) The characteristics of the new equipment can be compared to the qualified equipment. If they are essen-tially identical, the new equipment can be substituted, except when the referencing construction Code invokes more stringent requirements for substituting equipment.

(b) New equipment may be requalified by conducting another complete examination qualification. A hierarchi-cal approach should be used to qualify the new equip-ment by conducting the demonstration on the most difficult test specimens. Then there is no need to requalify the equipment on the entire set of test spec-imens.

OF VUJ1.LJ.UC*

DEMONSTRA nON T-1451 Protocol Document cation. The OrotoC'OI

(

T-1451 ARTICLE 14 -

EXAMINATION SYSTEM QUALIFICATION T-1472 party oversight, and sets the essential variables to be qualified, ensuring portability of the qualification. The protocol document commonly takes the form of a written procedure and associated checklist, documenting the process followed during qualification. This document is developed collectively with the involvement of all the affected parties (i.e., the owner, and, when applica-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 be applied is an "achieved level of performance criteria".

For this criteria, an examiner demonstrates the tech-nique, including sizing capabilities, and the qualification is based on the detection range the examiner achieves during the demonstration. Examiners qualified under these criteria are permitted to conduct examinations within their qualified capabilities.

T-1452 Individual Qualification The performance demonstration requirements found in T-I440 qualify the examination system (i.e. equip-ment, written procedure, and personnel) as a unit. As an alternative, a two-stage qualification process may also be applied. The first stage of this process involves a performance demonstration to qualify the system procedure/equipment. The procedure/equipment quali-fication requires several qualified examiners to evaluate the specimen set, with the results meeting predetermined requirements more stringent than personnel pass/fail requirements. After the procedure/equipment has been qualified, individual examiners using the qualified proce-dure/equipment combination need only to perform a limited performance 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 shall take blind tests. This process also pre-cludes the examiner att,~mIJtirul demonstration test with or T-1460 CALIBRA nON shaH be in accordance with the written of()cedm:e demonstration.

conduct the T*1470 EXAMINATION The performance demonstration shall be conducted in accordance with the written procedure, using the techniques and equipment described in the technical justification. Supplemental information for conducting various modes of performance demonstrations is pro*

vided in the following paragraphs T*1471 Intermediate Rigor Detection Test The objective of an intermediate rigor performance demonstration test is to reveal inadequate procedures and examiners. Following are typical options for flaws in specimen test sets used for intermediate rigor perform-ance demonstrations:

(a) Specimens should accurately represent the compo-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.

(b) Less than 10 flaws or grading units are used, but they shall be 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. Eighty percent of the flaws are required to be detected. The false call rate should be less than 20%.

(e) Between 5 and 15 flaws or grading units are used with at least the same number of unflawed grading units. A POD of 80% with a false call rate less than 20% is required for acceptable performance.

(d) Sample set size shall be sufficient to ensure that most examiners with an unacceptable POD will have difficulty passing the demonstration, while most examin-ers with an acceptable POD will be able to pass the demonstration.

T*1472 High Rigor Detection Tests nprTnnn<>Of' p demonstration 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 The minimum POD that should achieve critical flaws.

this The maximum false call OH)b2lbilit that the should

T-1472 2001 SECTION V T-1472.1 (e) The level of confidence that the test is supposed to provide. (The most widely applied level of confidence being 95%).

T-1472.1 Standard Binomial Detection Test. The examiner is subjected to a blind demonstration. The flawed grading units contain critical flaws (i.e., flaws near the critical flaw size) so that a POD calculated from this data estimates the POD for critical flaws.

After the examination, the POD and PCP scores are calculated by comparing the number of detections classi-fied as flaws to the number of flawed or blank grading units examined. In other words:

OD

1. of flawed grading units as flaws (I)

P Score -T tal # ffl d

di

. d o

0 awe gra ng uruts exanune CP S

_ # of blank grading units classified as flaws (2)

F core -

Total # of blank grading units examined The POD and PCP are supported by tolerance bands called "a bounds" to describe the statistical uncertainty in the test. (In the case of POD a lower a bound is used, while for PCP, an upper a bound is used). The examiner's score is acceptable if the lower bound on POD score is above PODmin, and the upper bound on PCP score is below PCP max' The a bounds are calculated using standard binomial formulas, shown below.

Where:

D = Number of detections recorded N = Number of grading units that contain flaws (for POD calculations) or that are blank (for PCP calculations)

P upper = upper a bound Plower = lower a bound a = fJ(Plower; D, N - D + 1)

(3) a :::: 1 - (3(.P upper; D + 1, N - D)

(4) tiOD test must be. If 10 flaws are in the test, then on the basis 2 misses, there IS a 90% confidence that the than If 1.7 TABLE T-1472.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR A GIVEN NUMBER OF MISSES AT A SPECIFIED CONFIDENCE LEVEL AND POD Number Probability of Detection Level of of Confidence Misses 90%

95%

99%

90%

0 22 45 230 1

38 77 388 2

52 105 531 3

65 132 667 4

78 158 798 5

91 184 926 10 152 306 1,000+

20 267 538 1,000+

95%

0 29 59 299 1

46 93 473 2

61 124 628 3

76 153 773 4

89 181 913 5

103 208 1,000+

10 167 336 1,000+

20 286 577 1,000+

99%

0 44 89 458 1

64 130 662 2

81 165 838 3

97 198 1,000+

4 113 229 1,000+

5 127 259 1,000+

10 197 398 1,000+

20 325 656 1,000+

detected, then the POD would be 79%. To obtain a 90% POD at a 95% confidence level requires a minimum of 29 flaws out of 29 flaws to be detected.

Table T-1472.1 shows the relationship between small-est number of flaws, confidence level, probability of detection, and misses by calculating the formula above for various scenarios. It can be used to develop the 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, spt~Cllnens, and the cost If the user chooses test.

if an abbreviated test confidence bounds will be and even a examiner will fail a test In with a binomial test such as smallest size that can used.

T-1472.1 ARTICLE 14 -

EXAMINATION SYSTEM QUALIFICATION T-1472.2 size smaller than the smallest sample size is used, it is impossible to ever pass the test, because the confidence bounds are so wide. With the smallest sample size, the examiner has to obtain a perfect score (Le., POD =

1, or FCP = 0 ) to pass. The smallest sample size depends upon the detection threshold and the confidence level chosen for the test. For example, as the minimum acceptable POD is set closer to unity, the minimum sample size becomes larger. Table T-1472.1 presents the minimal sample size for various confidence levels, and PODIFCP thresholds.

As one can see from this table, quite a large sample set is required if high detection thresholds are required for the inspection. If exceptionally high detection thresh-olds are required, the standard binomial test described in this appendix may not be the most efficient testing strategy.

As a general rule, the test should include as many blank as flawed location, but this proportion may be altered depending upon which threshold (POD or FCP) is more stringent.

As developed in this section, the standard binomial test examines POD for one flaw size only, the critical flaw size. It is possible to include more flaw sizes in the test. Each included flaw size would contain the minimum number of flaws required by Table T-1472.1.

For example, a 90% detection rate at a 90% confidence 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.

T-1472.2 Two-Stage Detection Test. The basic com-ponent of the two-stage demonstration test is the Stan-dard Binomial Detection Test described in T-1472.1.

The two-stage test applies the standard binomial test to personnel qualification, but applies a more stringent test for procedure qualification. The two-stage test is intended to eliminate inadequate procedures from the qualification process, preserving resources. The motiva-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 order to construct a two~ stage detection test, same information that must assembled for the stan~

dard binomial test the addition of a 26 1.8 target pass rate, Rpass' for personnel. The target pass-rate is the pass-rate that the user considers acceptable.

The procedure qualification (lSI stage) portion of the test requires that M procedure-trained examiners each pass a standard binomial detection test. The standard binomial detection test, constructed in accordance with T-1472.I, will be used for personnel qualification. The key difference is that more that one examiner is used for procedure qualification. It is important that the procedure test be conducted with examiners that are representative of the field population (and not experts).

A "procedure-trained" examiner should be one that has received the standard training required for the procedure.

After the procedure has passed its test, then individual examiners are allowed to be qualified in the second stage, using the same standard binomial test. The bino-mial test is constructed so that critical flaws are detected with a POD of at least PODmin and false calls are no more than FCP max with a level of confidence of Ct.

The number of examiners (M) used in the first stage is chosen to assure the desired pass-rate at 80% confi-dence (i.e. the user can be 80% sure that the actual pass-rate will be above the target value). The formula for determining the proper Mis:

M = log(l - 0.80) log(Rpass)

(5)

The table below provides the M associated with various target pass rates.

The user is completely free to choose the number of examiners (M) employed in the first stage of qualifica-tion. As one can see from the above table, the larger that M is made, the more stringent the procedure portion of the test becomes, but the higher the pass-rate becomes on the second stage of the test. In fact, for high M, the user might eliminate the second stage of the test entirely.

T-1472.2 STAGE EXAMINERS Target Pass 60 70 90 N MBER OF FIRST TARGET PASS RATE Number of First Stage Examiners (M) 3 4

15

T-1472.3 2001 SECTION V T*1490 T*1472.3 Iterative Detection Test. This detection test is useful when the test specimens are extremely costly or limited. It is constructed in the same manner as the standard binomial test from T-1472.I, however the test presents the applicant with the same set of 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 desired sample size and corresponding confidence level is reached. The specimens must be indistinguishable from each other so that each examination is independent and the test team cannot recognize the specimen or the flaws. The number of unflawed grading units must at least equal or exceed the number of flawed grading units. Table T-1472.1 may be used to determine the flaw sample size, misses, and POD for a given confi-dence level.

T-1480 EVALUATION The owner, and, when applicable, the Jurisdiction, AlA, independent third party, examination vendor, or 261 other user shall evaluate the technical justification report, and the results of the performance demonstration submit-ted by the administrator, to determine the acceptability of the system. The evaluation shall be based upon the criteria established within the protocol document.

T*1490 DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS Documentation of the performance demonstration shall include the following:

(a) The technical justification document (b) NDE procedures, including the essential variables applied (e) Description of the equipment used, including the calibration records (d) Description of the specimens used to perform the demonstration (e) Certification of acceptable completion of the per-formance demonstration. The certification may be issued separately for the equipment/procedure and the indi-vidual.

(

ARTICLE 14 MANDATORY APPENDIX I 1-1410 APPENDIX I -

GLOSSARY OF TERMS FOR EXAMINATION SYSTEM QUALIFICATION SCOPE This Mandatory Appendix is used for the purpose of establishing standard terms and definition of terms, which appear in Article 14, Examination System Quali-fication.

1-1420 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (a) Paragraph I-1430 provides a list of terms and definitions, which are used in conjunction with Article 14, Examination System Qualification, and are Code specific.

(b) Terms and definitions associated with specific examination techniques and systems are addressed in the Mandatory Appendix applicable to those examination methods. Other terms and definitions used within the referencing Code of Construction are specific to that Code application.

1-1430 REQUIREMENTS The following Code terms are used in conjunction with this Article:

Blind Demonstration. A perforrnance demonstra-where the examiner with both flawed Essential Variables. A system, which will affect the in (d) Examination System. The personnel, procedures, and equipment collectively applied by a given examina-tion technique to evaluate the flaw characteristics of an object of interest.

(e) False Call. When a specimen or grading unit is incorrectly interpreted as being flawed or unflawed.

(j) False Call Probability (FCP). The percentage resulting from dividing the number of false calls by 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 perforrnance of an examination system through demon-stration.

(h) Level of Rigor. The level of confidence to which a given examination system must be demonstrated, based upon factors such as user needs, damage mechanism, and level of risk. There are three levels of rigor: low, interrnediate, and high (see T-1424).

(i) Non-Blind Demonstration. A performance demon-stration where the examiner is presented with test pieces containing clearly identifiable flaw locations of known sizes, with the objective of proving the capability of an examination system to correctly detect and size flaw locations.

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

(k) Performance Demonstration. A demonstration of the capabilities of an examination system to accurately evaluate a specimen with known flaw characteristics

~AUHUW'5 field conditions.

documentation of an to demonstrate established the level of Article.