The Technical Basis 

Supporting ASME Code, 

Section XI, Appendix VIII: 

Performance Demonstration 

for Ultrasonic Examination 

Systems

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

NUREG/CR-7165

PNNL-19014, Rev. 2
NRC Reference Material 

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly released 

records include, to name a few, NUREG-series 

publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, 

licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; 

NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins 

and information notices; inspection and investigative 

reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers 

and their attachments. 

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC 

regulations, and Title 10, “Energy,” in the Code of

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 

of these two sources. 

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office Mail Stop SSOP 

Washington, DC 20402–0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

Springfield, VA 22161–0002

www.ntis.gov

1–800–553–6847 or, locally, 703–605–6000 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Office of Administration 

Publications Branch

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION.RESOURCE@NRC.GOV

Facsimile: 301–415–2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC’s Web site address 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs 

are updated periodically and may differ from the last 

printed version. Although references to material found on 

a Web site bear the date the material was accessed, the 

material available on the date cited may subsequently be 

removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material 

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as books, 

journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, 

Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports. 

Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports 

and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings 

may be purchased from their sponsoring organization. 

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained at—

The NRC Technical Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852–2738 

These standards are available in the library for reference 

use by the public. Codes and standards are usually 

copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating 

organization or, if they are American National Standards, 

from—

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036–8002

www.ansi.org

212–642–4900 

AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated 

only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including 

technical specifications; or orders, not in NUREGseries publications. The views expressed in 

contractor-prepared publications in this series are 

not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative reports and books prepared by the 

staff (NUREG–XXXX) or agency contractors 

(NUREG/CR–XXXX), (2) proceedings of 

conferences (NUREG/CP–XXXX), (3) reports 

resulting from international agreements 

(NUREG/IA–XXXX), (4) brochures (NUREG/BR–

XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal decisions and 

orders of the Commission and Atomic and Safety 

Licensing Boards and of Directors’ decisions

under Section 2.206 of NRC’s regulations 

(NUREG–0750).

DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. 

Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any employee, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or 

assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party’s use, or the results of such use, of any information, 

apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this publication, or represents that its use by such third party would not 

infringe privately owned rights.
The Technical Basis Supporting 

ASME Code, Section XI, 

Appendix VIII: Performance 

Demonstration for Ultrasonic 

Examination 

Manuscript Completed: November 2012

Date Published: May 2013

Prepared by: 

S. R. Doctor, S. E. Cumblidge1, T. T. Taylor, M. T. Anderson

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

P.O. Box 999

Richland, WA 99352

1

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

W. E. Norris, NRC Project Manager

NRC Job Codes N6398 and V6323

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

NUREG/CR-7165

PNNL-19014, Rev. 2

iii

ABSTRACT

Ultrasonic inspection requirements specified in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME) Code, Section XI (ASME 2004) were written in a very prescriptive fashion until an 

accumulation of field experience in examinations that failed to detect defects in piping and 

pressure vessels, coupled with evidence from round-robin tests conducted by the Pressure 

Vessel Research Council, the Programme for the Inspection of Steel Components, and Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory, demonstrated that improvements in ultrasonic inspection 

reliability were needed.

At an October 1984 meeting held between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and 

industry in Rockville, Maryland, a draft qualification document was proposed and discussed as 

the basis for an NRC Regulatory Guide. This meeting resulted in the formation of an ASME 

Code Ad Hoc Task Group of industry experts charged with developing new Code rules that 

would improve the reliability of ultrasonic inspection. This Ad Hoc Task Group developed the 

initial rules that were later documented in Appendix VIII. The rules of Appendix VIII marked a

revolutionary change in the conduct of inservice ultrasonic examination requirements for piping 

and reactor pressure vessels; rather than prescriptive requirements, the Ad Hoc Task Group 

developed the concept of ultrasonic system qualification through performance demonstration.

This report addresses the technical bases that support the requirements of the performance 

demonstration specified in the 2007 Edition, 2008 and 2009 Addenda of ASME Boiler and 

Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Appendix VIII. The intent of this report is to provide the 

reader with an understanding of the technical rationale for the requirements stated in Section XI, 

Appendix VIII.

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT

This NUREG does not contain information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject 

to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

PUBLIC PROTECTION NOTIFICATION

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for 

information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a 

currently valid OMB control number.

v

FOREWORD

Research involving parametric studies and round-robin exercises conducted during the1970s 

and early 1980s revealed that ultrasonic procedures were less reliable than generally perceived. 

The failure of inservice inspections to detect leaking cracks also raised concerns regarding the 

effectiveness of ultrasonic testing being conducted at nuclear power plants and showed that 

improvements in inspection requirements were needed. In response, the NRC began 

conducting research at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to assess 

nondestructive examination (NDE) reliability. This research showed that prescriptive 

requirements could not be written to sufficiently accommodate the diversity of power plant 

materials, field conditions, and flaw degradation processes typically encountered. These 

conditions need to be considered in order to provide highly reliable NDE performance. Based 

on positive results in other industries (e.g., medical, welding, and aerospace), it was decided 

that a performance-based testing approach would be the most effective means for achieving the 

needed improvements in NDE reliability.

In November 1984, the NRC held a workshop with representatives from the industry. It was 

generally agreed by the participants that major improvements in the quality of inservice 

inspection were needed. Industry participants recommended that qualification requirements be 

developed and incorporated into Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. The ASME subsequently developed Section XI, 

Appendix VIII, “Performance Demonstration for Ultrasonic Examination Systems.” Appendix VIII 

was first published with the 1989 Addenda. Appendix VIII is a performance-based testing 

approach for the demonstration of ultrasonic examination systems (i.e., procedures, equipment, 

and personnel) used to detect and size service degradation-type flaws. Procedures and 

techniques qualified in accordance with the Appendix are acceptable for use; however, it should 

be recognized that Appendix VIII provides only a basic framework of requirements necessary to 

allow such an approach. Protocols and detailed guidance for specific application have, as yet, 

not been listed in Appendix VIII. 

Appendix VIII was developed over 20 years ago. Extensive revisions and additions to the 

requirements have resulted from their application and lessons learned during implementation. 

The purpose of this NUREG report is to provide to the extent possible the rationale for the 

current requirements in Appendix VIII. It is anticipated that further changes to Appendix VIII will

be necessary as new technologies are introduced, advances in current techniques are 

implemented, or as new lessons are learned. This report will be useful in understanding the 

basis for the current requirements and to inform decision-making, as revisions to the 

requirements are considered in the future.

vii

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................................iii

FOREWORD ..............................................................................................................................v

FIGURES...................................................................................................................................ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..........................................................................................................xiii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................xv

1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1-1

2 BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Evolution of Inservice Inspection Qualification in the United States...........................2-1

2.2 Summary of the Technical Bases for the ASME Code Performance 

Demonstration Tests .................................................................................................2-4

2.2.1 Procedure Qualification Demonstrations.......................................................2-4

2.2.2 Personnel Qualification.................................................................................2-4

2.2.3 Equipment Qualification................................................................................2-8

3 RATIONALE FOR SECTION XI, MANDATORY APPENDIX VIII REQUIREMENTS........3-1

3.1 Articles ......................................................................................................................3-2

3.1.1 ARTICLE VIII-1000 – SCOPE.......................................................................3-2

3.1.2 ARTICLE VIII-2000 – GENERAL EXAMINATION SYSTEM 

REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................3-3

3.1.3 ARTICLE VIII-3000 – QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ..........................3-5

3.1.4 ARTICLE VIII-4000 – ESSENTIAL VARIABLE TOLERANCES ....................3-9

3.1.5 ARTICLE VIII-5000 – RECORD OF QUALIFICATION................................3-12

3.2 Mandatory Appendix VIII - Supplements .................................................................3-13

3.2.1 SUPPLEMENT 1 – EVALUATING ELECTRONIC 

CHARACTERISTICS OF ULTRASONIC SYSTEMS..................................3-13

3.2.2 SUPPLEMENT 2 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 

WROUGHT AUSTENITIC PIPING WELDS................................................3-19

3.2.3 SUPPLEMENT 3 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 

FERRITIC PIPING WELDS........................................................................3-32

3.2.4 SUPPLEMENT 4 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 

CLAD/BASE METAL INTERFACE OF REACTOR VESSEL ......................3-33

3.2.5 SUPPLEMENT 5 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 

NOZZLE EXAMINATION FROM THE OUTSIDE SURFACE......................3-43

3.2.6 SUPPLEMENT 6 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 

REACTOR VESSEL WELDS OTHER THAN CLAD/BASE METAL 

INTERFACE...............................................................................................3-51
viii

3.2.7 SUPPLEMENT 7 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 

NOZZLE EXAMINATION FROM THE INSIDE SURFACE..........................3-58

3.2.8 SUPPLEMENT 8 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BOLTS 

AND STUDS ..............................................................................................3-63

3.2.9 SUPPLEMENT 9 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CAST 

AUSTENITIC PIPING WELDS ...................................................................3-65

3.2.10 SUPPLEMENT 10 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 

DISSIMILAR METAL PIPING WELDS........................................................3-66

3.2.11 SUPPLEMENT 11 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FULL 

STRUCTURAL OVERLAID WROUGHT AUSTENITIC PIPING WELDS ....3-73

3.2.12 SUPPLEMENT 12 — REQUIREMENTS FOR COORDINATED 

IMPLEMENTATION OF SELECTED ASPECTS OF SUPPLEMENTS 2 

AND 3 ........................................................................................................3-78

3.2.13 SUPPLEMENT 13 — DELETED ................................................................3-79

3.2.14 SUPPLEMENT 14 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 

COORDINATED IMPLEMENTATION OF SUPPLEMENTS 10, 2, AND 

3 FOR PIPING EXAMINATIONS PERFORMED FROM THE INSIDE 

SURFACE..................................................................................................3-79

4 DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................4-1

5 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................5-1
ix

FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Power Curves for Test Using 5 Samples...............................................................2-6

Figure 2-2 Power Curves for POD Tests Using 10 Samples...................................................2-7

Figure 4-1 Comparison of Probability of Detection from Three Round Robins and 

PDI Data between 1981 and 2001 (wrought stainless steel piping) .......................4-1

xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The performance demonstration requirements specified in the ASME Code, Section XI, 

Appendix VIII were developed because the U.S. nuclear industry and regulatory authorities 

were concerned about the reliability of ultrasonic inservice inspection being conducted at 

nuclear power plants. The problems that led to the development of performance 

demonstrations are summarized below.

• Ultrasonic inspection reliability experiments conducted by the Pressure Vessel Research 

Council (PVRC) between 1971 and 1978 provided the first data to indicate that ultrasonic 

procedures were not as reliable as “expert” opinion suggested.

• Later experiments under Programme for the Inspection of Steel Components (PISC) 

programs proved that minimum ASME procedures were not reliable.

• In 1977, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) initiated a program under 

Dr. Joseph Muscara to address nondestructive examination reliability issues. The program 

produced a technical basis for Research Information Letter (RIL) 113, “Reliability of 

Inservice Inspection of Primary Piping Systems,” dated January 29, 1981, recommending 

the need for nondestructive examination (NDE) performance demonstrations.

• Inspections failed to detect large leaking cracks in piping during field inspections; for 

example, the leaks that were discovered in the recirculation system piping at Nine Mile Point 

Nuclear Power Plant.

• Research sponsored by NRC at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) indicated 

that “reliable” ultrasonic inspection could not be written into procedures and that inspection 

procedures were not capable of describing precisely how to differentiate between geometric 

or metallurgic indications and cracks.

In response to the incidents listed above, the NRC developed a working draft of a proposed 

qualification document in October 1984. The document was discussed extensively during a 

meeting of the NRC NDE Research Review Group and other interested NRC staff in Bethesda, 

Maryland. In early November 1984, a second workshop was held with industry in Rockville, 

Maryland. This workshop attracted more than 60 U.S. and foreign attendees representing a 

broad cross section of the nuclear industry, ASME Code, and regulatory interests. 

Representatives of the industry, ASME Code, and NRC agreed that major improvements in the 

quality of inservice inspection were needed and that qualification of NDE systems might be the 

answer. However, the industry and Code representatives recommended that in lieu of the NRC 

issuing a Regulatory Guide based on the qualification document, the ASME Code Section XI

committees should review the document and develop qualification requirements on a priority 

basis. It was recommended that this action be undertaken by the ASME Code Section XI 

Subgroup on Nondestructive Examination. The efforts of the ASME Code committees resulted 

in Appendix VIII on ultrasonic testing system performance demonstrations, which was approved 

by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Standards Committee in early 1989 and approved by 

the Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards in mid-1989. This Appendix was published as part 

of the 1989 Addenda to the ASME Code, Section XI.
xii

This report reviews the requirements of the 2007 Edition of ASME Code, Section XI, 

Appendix VIII, including the 2008 and 2009 Addenda, which was the most recent version of the 

ASME Code that had been approved by the NRC and provides the rationale for requirements as 

well as technical references that the reader may use to gain a more in-depth knowledge of each 

technical topic. Information regarding the application of these requirements by U.S. utilities has 

also been included on a limited basis because as Appendix VIII was implemented there have 

been lessons learned resulting in changes and improvements in Appendix VIII requirements.
xiii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the efforts of the numerous individuals who participated 

in the Ad Hoc Task Group activity, as well as their sponsoring organizations. The names and 

companies included on the final mailing list used by the secretary of the Ad Hoc Task Group 

were as follows: This list is taken from NUREG/CR-4882 (Spanner et al. 1990).

Gary Abell, Babcock & Wilcox

Don Adamonis, Westinghouse Electric 

Corporation

F. Larry Becker, EPRI NDE Center

M. M. Behravesh, Electric Power Research 

Center

N. R. Bentley, Tennessee Valley Authority

Jerome Blake, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Region II

A. L. Bradshaw, Gilbert Associates

Gary Brinson, Georgia Power Company

Boyd W. Brown, EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Frank Carr, Florida Power & Light Company

John E. Cavender, Duke Power Company

Vladimir Cech, Middle South Services

Burt Cheezem, Duke Power Company

C. Y. Cheng, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Ronald J. Claverie, Nuclear Energy Services

William J. Collins, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Jeff Cook, EG&G Idaho, Inc.

C. D. Cowfer, Nuclear Energy Services, Inc.

Gary Dau, Electric Power Research Institute

Eric A. DeBarba, Northeast Utilities

Paul Deeds, Jr., Ebasco Services

Oscar Demiranda, Gulf State Utilities

Michael H. Deter, Washington Public Power 

Supply System

Steven R. Doctor, Battelle, Pacific Northwest 

Laboratory

Frank Dodd, Dynacon

F. T. Duba, Hartford Steam Boiler

Don Dunavant, Southwest Research Institute

Steve Ebneter, Nuclear Regulation 

Commission, Region I

T. N. Epps, Southern Company Services

Michael P. Ferrante, American Nuclear 

Insurers

Donald A. Gavin, General Electric Company

Lucio Gentili, ENEL (Italy)

Michael E. Gothard, Tennessee Valley 

Authority

Douglas B. Hansen, Arizona Public Service

F. A. Hawksley, Niagara Mohawk Power 

Corporation

Chuck Hellier, BESTCO

Doug Henry, Southern California Edison

Douglas Henry, General Electric Company

Victor Hight, Gilbert/Commonwealth

James E. Hill, Pacific Gas & Electric

Martin Hum, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Dan Kerr, Pacific Gas & Electric

William Key, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Region III

Wally Koepke, Cygna Energy Services

Greg Krause, NSP Plant Maintenance

David Kurek, Westinghouse Electric 

Company

Ted Lambert, LMT, Inc.

Jack Lance, Yankee Atomic Electric 

Company

Fred Lockwood, Contra Costa College

Melinda Malloy, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

D. G. (Don) Martin, Ontario Hydro

Martin McCrary, Tennessee Valley Authority

Michael A. Melton, Arizona Public Service

C. V. Moore, General Electric - KAPL

Joe Muscara, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Ron Newsome, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Region II

Carl R. Osman, Carolina Power & Light
xiv

Earl Pade, Westinghouse

E. J. Parent, Combustion Engineering, Inc.

T. G. Parker, Rockwell International

George Pherigo, EPRI NDE Center

John P. Porter, Reinhart & Associates

G. J. Posakony, Battelle, Pacific Northwest 

Laboratory

Earl D. Potter, Potter Technological Advisory 

Services, Inc.

Aaron F. Raatz, George Power Company

Jerry M. Ray, Arkansas Power & Light

Michael J. Saporito, Rochester Gas & Electric 

Corporation

Charles Z. Serpan, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Carl B. Shaw, Portland General Electric 

Company

M. F. Sherwin, Magnaflux Quality Services

A. L. Smith, Washington Public Power Supply 

System

W. Robert Sneed, Jr., Tennessee Valley 

Authority

Jack C. Spanner, Sr., Battelle, Pacific 

Northwest Laboratory

Jack C. Spanner, Jr., Pacific Gas & Electric

James E. Staffiera, Newport News Industrial 

Corporation

Timothy K. Steingass, Pennsylvania Power & 

Light

Gerald J. Stoll, Bechtel Group, Inc.

Robert M. Stone, EPRI NDE Center

Russ Tamminga, Commonwealth Edison

T. Thomas Taylor, Battelle, Pacific Northwest 

Laboratory

Bub Thomas, LMT, Inc.

Brychan Watkins, UKAEA-Risley Laboratory 

(United Kingdom)

George C. Wheeler, General Electric 

Company

James C. Yeh, Westinghouse Electric 

Corporation

M. A. Zaki, Duquesne Light Company

The ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix VIII is reprinted from ASME 2007 BPVC, Section XI, by 

permission of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. All rights reserved. No further 

copies can be made without written permission.

The authors would also like to acknowledge the efforts of Andrea Currie in editing this document 

and of Kay Hass for typing the seemingly endless versions and revisions of this document and 

assisting in finalizing this report for publication.

The authors would like to acknowledge the efforts of NRC program managers Joseph Muscara, 

Allen L. Hiser, Jr., Deborah A. Jackson, and Wallace E. Norris who have supported the

development and evolution of the performance demonstration process.

The authors would like to acknowledge the original PNNL team of Patrick Heasler, Fred 

Simonen, F. Larry Becker, Jack Spanner, Sr., and Greg Selby who have helped formulate some 

of the basic concepts in performance demonstration as it is practiced in the United States. Fred 

Simonen and Jack Spanner, Sr. are both retired from PNNL; F. Larry Becker and Greg Selby 

moved to the Electric Power Research Institute NDE Center.

Thank you to the EPRI NDE Center staff (Carl Latiolais, Phil Ashwin, and F. Larry Becker) for 

providing a review of the draft report and proposing updates and augmentation to the report.
xv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASNT American Society for Nondestructive Testing

BWR boiling water reactor

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CRC corrosion-resistant clad

EC eddy current

ENIQ European Network for Inspection Qualification

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

FCP false call probability

I.D. inside diameter

IEB Inspection and Enforcement Bulletin

IGSCC intergranular stress corrosion cracking

ISI in-service inspection

IVC Inspection Validation Centre

MOST (Korean) Ministry of Science and Technology

NDE nondestructive examination

NDT nondestructive testing

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

O.D. outside diameter

PA phased array

PDI Performance Demonstration Initiative

PISC Programme for the Inspection of Steel Components

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

POD probability of detection

PVRC Pressure Vessel Research Council

PWR pressurized water reactor

RI-ISI risk-informed in-service inspection

RMS root mean square

ROC relative operator characteristic

SCC stress corrosion cracking

SGNDE Subgroup on Nondestructive Examination

TOFD time-of-flight diffraction

UK United Kingdom

UT ultrasonic testing

1-1

1 INTRODUCTION

Most of the nuclear power-based electricity generation capacity in the United States was 

constructed from the mid-1960s through the early 1980s. The requirements for the 

nondestructive inspections of these reactors were developed while the reactors were being 

constructed. Preservice and inservice inspection requirements were developed, and the initial 

edition of Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and 

Pressure Vessel Code was issued in 1970 (Hedden 2000). The ultrasonic inspection 

techniques specified in this edition were adapted from manufacturing practices and were based 

on previous experience with fatigue cracking. The ultrasonic examination rules were 

prescriptive and had not been evaluated on nuclear reactor service-induced degradation 

mechanisms. The reliability of the nondestructive examinations (NDE) that were specified by 

Section XI was not quantified via testing; instead, the initial premise of Section XI was that 

reliable ultrasonic testing (UT) could be ensured through detailed rules. Consequently, early 

editions of Section XI had very detailed, prescriptive requirements for

• calibration procedures, calibration block designs, or calibration checks

• examination angles 

• scanning 

• recording and reporting criteria

• flaw sizing criteria.

The discovery of a large defect during a preservice examination of the reactor pressure vessel 

in the early 1970s at the E. I. Hatch plant (Jackson et al. 2001) began to raise questions about 

the reliability and adequacy of inspections performed to the requirements of Section XI. The 

reliability studies conducted by the Pressure Vessel Research Council (PVRC) between 1971 

and 1978 (Chockie 1980) yielded the first data to indicate that ultrasonic procedures were not as 

reliable as “expert” opinion had suggested. Negative field experience with inspections carried 

out using Section XI requirements also eroded the confidence in these requirements. 

Events that demonstrated the insufficient reliability of Section XI examinations included the 

following: 

• The discovery in 1975 of leaks caused by intergranular stress corrosion cracking in boiling 

water reactor (BWR) piping prompted the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to 

shut down all BWRs for inspection (NRC 1975).

• Thermal cracking was found in BWR feedwater nozzles up to 1978; NRC required effective 

inspection via NUREG-0619 (NRC 1980).

More recent events, which are detailed in NUREG-1823 (Grimmel 2005), include

• dissimilar metal weld cracking in BWR units

• primary water stress corrosion cracking of the reactor coolant system piping at the 

V. C. Summer and Ringhals nuclear power plants
1-2

• cracking in the control rod drive housing of vessel head penetrations of many pressurized 

water reactor (PWR) units.

As this report was being prepared, there were several events that should also be highlighted 

that illustrate that the further improvements are still needed:

• the discovery of misinterpreted inspection data at the Duane Arnold plant (Anderson 2007)

• the failure of ISI to detect stress corrosion cracking (SCC) in a dissimilar metal weld at 

North Anna with five cracks being discovered when preparing the weld for overlay 

(Anderson et al. 2012).

Round-robin experiments conducted by PNNL under NRC sponsorship concluded that 

prescriptive ultrasonic inspections of piping using Section XI had the following deficiencies 

(Heasler and Doctor 1996):

• Ultrasonic examination of austenitic (on both near side and far side) and cast austenitic 

materials had a low probability of flaw detection. 

• Flaw depth sizing was not accurate using the prescriptive techniques based on probe 

motion and amplitude threshold levels.

• Flaw detection was unreliable for amplitude-based UT because many flaws had responses 

substantially different from machined reflectors employed for calibration.

As part of the round-robin exercises conducted by PNNL in the early 1980s, teams were 

provided training on an “improved” inspection procedure developed by PNNL through extensive 

laboratory testing. These improvements included using more effective transducers, training on 

flaw UT response signatures, and evaluating all signals that exceeded the background noise. 

Subsequent blind testing showed that the improved procedure and training had little effect on 

improving ultrasonic inspection performance. 

A major international program was also being conducted before and during the aforementioned 

round-robin studies. The Plate Inspection Steering Committee (PISC I) conducted a roundrobin exercise using plates provided by PVRC on thick-section reactor pressure vessel steels 

from 1976–1979 (PISC I 1979). This work showed substantial differences in performance for 

different flaw types and for different procedures. These activities were followed up by a 

Programme for the Inspection of Steel Components (PISC II) that expanded upon PISC I to 

include special in-vessel sizing studies, parametric studies, and an expansion of ultrasonic 

testing procedures; this work was conducted from 1980 to 1985 (Nichols and Crutzen 1988). 

PISC III expanded the studies to include piping weldments, dissimilar metal welds, steam 

generator tubing, and human factors, and was performed from 1986 through 1996 (European 

Commission 1994). The PISC studies were consistent with all of the other studies cited 

because NDE is very skill-dependent and performance varied extensively based on many 

factors including the personnel, equipment, procedures, and environment.

Faced with field experiences of prescriptive Section XI techniques failing to detect defects, and 

data from round-robin experiments indicating poor UT reliability, the nuclear industry, led by the 

NRC, was willing to consider new approaches to improving inspection requirements. 
1-3

Sponsored by the NRC, PNNL developed and presented a draft performance demonstration 

document to the nuclear industry in a public meeting held at Rockville, Maryland, in November 

1984. As a result of discussions during that meeting, an ASME Code Ad Hoc Task Group was 

established in late 1984 to develop performance demonstration requirements that would 

become part of the ASME Code Section XI. Further details of the effort by PNNL to pursue the 

development of performance demonstration can be found in NUREG/CR-4882 (Spanner et al. 

1990).

The present report documents, to the best of the authors’ collective memory, the technical 

bases and rationale for the performance demonstration requirements listed in the 2007 Edition, 

2008 and 2009 Addenda of ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix VIII.

Section 2 provides the background for performance demonstration development and explains 

how performance demonstration was adopted by the ASME Code. The requirements of ASME 

Code, Section XI, Appendix VIII are juxtaposed with the rationale underlying each requirement 

in Section 3. Technical resources for more in-depth knowledge of the technical topic are also 

included. The reliability of ultrasonic inspections qualified to the requirements of Appendix VIII 

is discussed in Section 4. Full references cited in this report are listed in Section 5.

2-1

2 BACKGROUND

In this section, efforts in the early to mid-1980s to develop requirements for inservice inspection

qualification are summarized.

2.1 Evolution of Inservice Inspection Qualification in the 

United States

This section of the document is taken in most part from the Executive Summary of NUREG/CR4882 (Spanner et al. 1990).

Prior to approval of Appendices VII and VIII to ASME Code Section XI, the NDE qualification 

requirements within the nuclear industry were as follows:

• personnel – The applicable qualification criteria for NDT personnel were defined in an 

American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT) recommended practice, SNT-TC-1A 

(ASNT 2006). Since NUREG/CR-4882 was published in 1990, the editions of SNT-TC-1A 

that the NUREG/CR references are the 1975, 1980, and 1984 editions, as supplemented by 

the ASME Code (Section III or XI, as applicable). Personnel were required to be certified by 

their employers, and SNT-TC-1A implied (but did not require) application-specific training. 

The employer certification involved organized training to become familiar with the principles 

and practices of a specific test method. Written examinations (covering both general 

principles and specific applications) and a practical hands-on examination were also 

required for Level I and II personnel. Written examinations covering the Basic, Method, and 

Specific areas of knowledge were required for Level III personnel.

• equipment – Ultrasonic instruments and search units were only required to meet the ASME 

Code Section V and XI requirements for vertical display response and attenuator linearity 

and instrument calibration capability. Other critical electronic performance characteristics 

were not addressed in the ASME Code. Thus, if the UT equipment was linear and 

calibrated, it was qualified.

• procedures – Ultrasonic examination procedures were required to be based on the 

applicable edition of ASME Code Sections V and XI but could be (and often were) quite 

general with respect to several important variables. Also, such procedures rarely provided 

useful guidance on how to interpret the UT inspection data collected during preservice 

inspection (PSI) and inservice inspections (ISI).

As noted above, the controlling document for personnel requirements was SNT-TC-1A, a 

publication issued by the ASNT. The American Society for Nondestructive Testing 

Recommended Practice SNT-TC-1A provided guidelines, not requirements, and its major 

limitations were 1) the absence of requirements for periodic training to maintain and upgrade 

technical skills, 2) insufficient baseline competence criteria and no specific training requirements 

for Level III personnel, and 3) standards for qualification and certification of NDE personnel left 

to the discretion of each employer. Hence, significant variations in the minimum technical 

competence for NDE personnel existed throughout U.S. industry.
2-2

In mid-1984, the “Coordination Plan for NRC/EPRI/BWROG Training and Qualification Activities 

of NDE Personnel” was formally adopted by the NRC. This plan replaced the interim program 

established in response to Inspection and Enforcement Bulletin 83-02 (NRC 1983). The 

program in effect at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) NDE Center has undergone 

improvements since it was initially established in the 1982–1983 era; however, it originally 

addressed primarily only the problem of intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) and 

applied only to personnel because equipment and procedures were not uniquely addressed 

during the qualification process.

In October 1984, a working draft of a proposed qualification document was discussed 

extensively during a meeting of the NRC NDE Research Review Group and other interested 

NRC staff in Bethesda, Maryland. The working draft only addressed UT and it was discussed 

that after these requirements were put in place, further work would be conducted to expand this 

process to the other skill-dependent NDE methods as needed to achieve reliable performance 

levels. In early November 1984, a second workshop was held with industry in Rockville, 

Maryland. This workshop attracted more than 60 U.S. and foreign attendees representing a 

broad cross section of the nuclear industry, ASME Code, and regulatory interests. The industry, 

Code, and NRC representatives in attendance agreed that major improvements in the quality of 

ISI were needed and that qualification of NDE systems might be the answer. However, the 

industry and Code representatives recommended that in lieu of the NRC issuing a regulatory 

guide based on the qualification document, the ASME Code Section XI committees should 

review the document and develop qualification requirements on a priority basis. It was 

recommended that this action be undertaken by the ASME Code Section XI Subgroup on 

Nondestructive Examination (SGNDE). It was expected that this subgroup would utilize the 

qualification document as the basis for strengthening the existing Section XI requirements for 

qualifying the NDE personnel and procedures for performing ISI in nuclear power plants.

Following the November 1984 meeting with industry, ASME Code Section XI established the 

ASME Code Ad Hoc Task Group to address this problem. Three separate subtask groups were 

organized in early 1985 to develop proposed ASME Code rules for 1) performance 

demonstrations, 2) personnel training and qualification, and 3) ASME implementation. During 

the following 15-month period, this Ad Hoc Task Group met 7 times and its subtask groups each 

met 10 times. This active effort provided a measure of the industry’s interest in this problem, as 

well as its willingness to participate.

The output of the Ad Hoc Task Group was a proposed Mandatory Appendix VII to ASME Code 

Section XI. This document was formally approved for submission to the SGNDE in February 

1986. The SGNDE initially vacillated between proposed Code Cases and mandatory 

appendices as the mechanism for Code action. The SGNDE ultimately selected the mandatory 

appendix approach and chose to separate the requirements into Appendices VII and VIII. 

Appendix VII on personnel qualification was accepted by the ASME Code committees in 1988 

and was published in the 1988 Addenda to Section XI. Appendix VIII on UT system 

performance demonstrations was approved by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel 

Committee in early 1989 and was approved by the Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards in 

mid-1989. This appendix was published as part of the 1989 Addenda to ASME Code Section

XI. Although these proposed requirements encountered resistance at various levels of the 
2-3

ASME hierarchy, the resistance seemed to be primarily based on concerns with the mechanics 

rather than the substance of the proposed documents.

The significance of Appendices VII and VIII was to improve many aspects that influenced the 

reliability of NDE being performed during UT/ISI. It was thought that if personnel had gone 

through appropriate training, with extensive hands-on UT experience in both the field and under 

laboratory conditions, then performance demonstration testing should confirm whether the 

candidate had acquired all of the knowledge and skills needed. As a result, it was argued that a 

performance demonstration test would not need to develop a probability of detection (POD) 

curve for each candidate, but that a simpler “screening” test would suffice to verify that 

candidates had acquired the necessary skills and knowledge. This screening approach is an 

underlying assumption for both Appendix VII and VIII, and needs to be remembered as part of 

the basis for why the requirements have evolved as they have. This report only addresses the 

technical bases for Appendix VIII, but it is important to note the role that Appendix VII plays in 

the process to achieve acceptable levels of ISI performance. Changes to Appendices VII and/or 

VIII could undermine the assumptions that were originally used for development; therefore, it is 

extremely important to understand the basis for the requirements in both appendices. It is also 

very important to acknowledge that Appendix VIII remains as a screening approach, not as a 

method to assess the systematic training and experience needed for personnel to acquire 

fundamental levels of skills and knowledge in order to successfully perform NDE. Fundamental 

NDE personnel qualification requirements reside elsewhere. 

The Ad Hoc Task Group and the SGNDE failed to address issues of implementation; thus, 

duties and responsibilities of the implementation agency/organization are not defined. The 

implementer in the United States has to date been the Performance Demonstration 

Administrator (PDA), which is the EPRI NDE Center. There are currently no requirements in the 

ASME Code for the PDA.

The U.S. nuclear utilities united and funded the Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI), 

which included the development of a program to implement performance demonstration 

requirements that are defined in the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix VIII. PDI was funded as 

a utility-requested program through EPRI. The EPRI NDE Center provided technical assistance 

and administered the performance demonstration program under the directions of PDI. Later, 

PDI was absorbed into the EPRI Advisory Structure. PDI has been the principle point of contact 

with the NRC; however, this industry initiative implements the requirements of Appendix VIII, 

which remain under ASME Code jurisdiction. 

Development of the PDI program was initiated in 1991. The Steering Committee along with 

technical and material assistance from EPRI developed the operating guidelines for the 

program. The current implementation is contained in the publically available “Guideline for The 

Implementation of Appendix VIII and 10 CFR 50.55a, Summary” (EPRI 2005). 

The major reason to bring up the PDA is that as implementation progressed, there have been a 

significant number of updates and changes that were identified and adopted by ASME Code, 

Section XI, Appendix VIII.
2-4

It should also be noted that “The Coordination Plan for NRC/EPRI/BWROG Training and 

Qualification Activities for NDE Personnel” was terminated in January 1997, when those 

activities became part of the PDI program implementing Appendix VIII.

2.2 Summary of the Technical Bases for the ASME Code 

Performance Demonstration Tests

The effectiveness of examination systems are demonstrated through procedure, personnel, and 

equipment demonstrations. Each is important to the systematic effectiveness of examinations.

2.2.1 Procedure Qualification Demonstrations

Procedure qualification requires that each intended flaw or flawed grading unit, which is within 

the scope of the procedure, is detected and/or sized according to specific criteria of the 

candidate procedure. The required minimum number of flaws is specified by each Supplement 

of Appendix VIII. In practice it includes a much larger population, depending on the number of 

independent test sets that will be used for personnel qualification. This may include all of the 

available flaws that challenge the scope of the procedure, and in some cases this may result in 

numbers approaching 100 flaws. Each flaw must be correctly identified or sized. The PDA 

must verify that the procedure specifically describes the detection and sizing criteria for each 

step of the examination. 

2.2.2 Personnel Qualification

The objective of the personnel examination is to assure that examination personnel are capable 

of performing to the specified requirements of the qualified procedure and to reach the desired 

conclusions regarding detection and sizing. 

As stated in Heasler et al. (1986), the performance demonstration requirements described and 

specified in ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix VIII are based upon the assumption that an 

inspector’s capability to detect cracks can be described by two metrics:

• probability of detection and correct interpretation (usually stated as POD), which is the 

probability that a crack in a particular length of weld material will be detected and correctly 

interpreted as a crack by the inspector. 

• false call probability (FCP), which is the probability that a crack will be falsely 

detected/interpreted in a crack-free length of weld material.

Therefore, the basic objective of a demonstration test is to determine which inspectors perform 

with an acceptable POD and FCP (i.e., perform at or above a specified POD threshold and 

below the FCP threshold). Unfortunately, because any demonstration test of finite size has 

uncertainty in the estimate of an inspector’s true (POD, FCP) performance, some inspectors 

with generally unacceptable performance are bound to be passed and some of those with 

acceptable performance are failed. 
2-5

The Ad Hoc Task Group formed by Section XI recognized that there were two technically valid 

methods by which to separate Acceptable performance from Unacceptable performance. One 

method would be to employ a test that would use simple binomial statistics. This testing method 

had the advantage of defining a test set so that all inspectors who successfully completed the 

test would have a set POD and FCP with defined confidence bounds. The disadvantage of 

such a test was that the number of samples required for reasonable confidence bounds (i.e., 

90%) is very high; thus, the test set and testing would be very expensive (Singh 2000).

As an alternative, the Ad Hoc Task Group developed the performance demonstration tests 

based upon the defining POD and FCP thresholds using power curves. The power curve 

distributions are described by the following equations:

( ) −

=

  = ∑   −

 

0

0

Pwr(FCP) FCP 1 FCP

C k N k

k

N

K (1)

and

( ) −

=

  = ∑   −

1  

Pwr(POD) POD 1 POD

M k M k

k C

M

K (2)

where N = total number of blank weld units inspected

M = total number of cracked weld units inspected

C0 = threshold for FCP test

C1 = threshold for POD test.

An inspector having proficiency given by (FCP, POD) will therefore pass the total demonstration 

test with the probability of Pwr(FCP) × Pwr(POD). Figure 2-1 shows the power curves that 

represent the probabilities of passing a 0/5 false call probability test, a 1/5 false call probability 

test, 5/5 probability of detection test, and a 4/5 probability of detection test.
2-6

Figure 2-1 Power Curves for Test Using 5 Samples

The shape of the power curves for the smallest test (five weld units) is quite informative. Notice 

that both POD tests displayed in Figure 2-1 (the 4/5 and 5/5 tests) could misclassify a large 

number of inspectors. For example, an inspector with a POD proficiency of 50% would have an 

18% chance of passing a 4-out-of-5 test, quite a large chance for someone with such poor 

capabilities. The 5-out-of-5 test would screen out many of the poor performers (the inspector 

with a 50% POD has a 3% chance of passing) at the risk of needlessly eliminating some good 

performers. An inspector with 95% POD proficiency will pass the 5-out-of-5 test only 77% of the 

time (as opposed to 98% of the time for a 4/5 test).

These misclassification errors are reduced in the larger tests. And, as we would expect, the 

most dramatic reduction occurs when we go from the 5-sample tests to the 10-sample tests. If 

the 8-out-of-10 POD test is used, the chance of an inspector with 50% POD proficiency passing 

the test drops to 5%. A 9-out-of-10 test might also be considered, which allows an inspector 

with 60% POD proficiency only a 5% chance of passing. In addition, neither of these tests is 

unduly penalizing for the good inspectors; an inspector with a 95% POD has a 99% chance of 

passing the 8-out-of-10 test and a 91% chance of passing the 9-out-of-10 test. Figure 2-2

shows the power curves for 10 samples or grading units for POD tests.

Comparing Figures 2-1 and 2-2 shows that misclassification errors in testing are reduced for 

tests that use larger sample sets. For a more complete explanation of performance 

demonstration tests, the reader is directed to NUREG/CR-4464 (Heasler et al. 1986).
2-7

Figure 2-2 Power Curves for POD Tests Using 10 Samples

Using the information that is contained in NUREG/CR-4464, the Ad Hoc Task Group decided to 

construct a series of tests that used power curves. This decision was based in part upon costs 

of providing test samples (especially vessel samples) if testing were to use binomial statistics, 

and the actual time that candidate inspectors would need to complete such a test.

The power curves described above apply to one individual and one test set in isolation. In 

practice, the process includes a very large blind procedure qualification test (30 or more flaws), 

where no failures are allowed, coupled with a number of separate personnel tests using the 

same procedures and the same or similar equipment. Heasler et al. (2000) have shown that 

analysis of this two-step, procedure and personnel qualification describe a population that 

performs at a higher level than expected based on a single personnel test. Since developing 

well-defined POD curves for examiners is not practical, a single screening type performance 

demonstration test will not quantify performance accurately and will have high uncertainty when 

trying to extrapolate to the full population. In contract, the robustness of a rigorous procedure 

and equipment demonstration coupled with collapsing performance demonstration test data 

across a number of personnel tests will provide a more accurate estimate of the population 

performance and will be higher than that extrapolated from a single screening performance 

demonstration test.

The performance level of the population of qualified examiners may be inferred from the 

qualification test results from the large number of individually qualified examiners. POD 

evaluations have been performed by Becker (2001), Heasler et al. (2000), and Gosselin et al. 

(2007).
2-8

2.2.3 Equipment Qualification

At the time Appendix VIII was originally developed, most UT was conducted with manual, nonencoded methods, but has evolved over time to include computer-based UT systems and, more 

recently, phased-array systems. This evolutionary process has driven changes to Appendix VIII 

requirements, particularly for equipment. In reality, the ASME Code struggles to keep up with 

all of the advances in technology and there are a number of issues with phased-array systems 

such as modules for focal laws which are not addressed by the Code.

Qualified equipment is defined as an essential variable during the procedure qualification. 

Thus, the procedure must specify the manufacturer and model number of the equipment being 

qualified so that any changes in operability can be assessed. In recent years, many UT 

systems are computer-based and software must be addressed. The qualification includes not 

only the physical hardware, it also includes the software used for data collection and data 

analysis. The owner is required to maintain control of the software through their quality control 

system. The PDA documents the revision of the software and hardware used during the original 

qualification.

In practice, revisions to the system hardware and software have been re-qualified by 

demonstration on a smaller set of flaws or by analysis of the software revisions. The procedure 

owner is required to record and maintain a record of software revisions. The original procedure 

and documented software revision are maintained by the PDA for comparison. Equipment from 

the same manufacturer and with the same model number can be substituted without requalification. To address other types of hardware changes, the ASME Code approved Code 

Case N-780, which details alternative requirements for upgrade, substitution, or reconfiguration 

of examination equipment when using Appendix VIII-qualified ultrasonic examination systems. 

This Code Case has not as yet been approved by the NRC, which is awaiting industry 

implementation of the Code Case in order to make a regulatory assessment. 
3-1

3 RATIONALE FOR SECTION XI, MANDATORY 

APPENDIX VIII REQUIREMENTS

The technical basis underlying the requirements of the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix VIII, 

2007 Edition, including the 2008 and 2009 Addenda, is provided in this section. The 

Appendix VIII Articles are provided in Section 3.1, followed by the Supplements in Section 3.2. 

In a dual-column layout, each requirement is reproduced verbatim in the left-hand column. The 

right-hand column presents the rationale for the requirement. Technical references for more indepth knowledge of each topic also are provided in the right-hand column (see Section 3.1.3.1) 

where they are available. In the tables, grey highlighting has been used to make it easier for the 

reader to correlate the associated information in the two columns.
3-2

3.1 Articles

3.1.1 ARTICLE VIII-1000 – SCOPE

3.1.1.1 VIII-1100 General

ARTICLE VIII-1000 – SCOPE (VIII-1100 General)

Rationale for Requirement 

to Referenceable Docu

(a) This Appendix provides requirements for performance demonstration for 

ultrasonic examination procedures, equipment, and personnel used to detect 

and size flaws.

(b) Each organization (e.g., Owner or vendor) shall have a written program 

that insures compliance with this Appendix. Each organization that performs 

ultrasonic examinations shall qualify its procedures, equipment, and personnel 

in accordance with this Appendix. The organization may contract 

implementation of the program.

(c) Performance demonstration requirements apply to personnel who 

detect, record, or interpret indications or size flaws in welds or components.

(d) The performance demonstration requirements specified in this Appendix 

do not apply to personnel whose involvement is limited to mounting a scanner 

device, marking pipe, or other situations where knowledge of ultrasonics is not 

important.

(e) Any procedure qualified in accordance with this Appendix is acceptable.

(f) Instrument characterization described in Supplement 1 is optional. When 

Supplement 1 is selected, both the original and substituted equipment shall be 

characterized.

The requirements of VIII-1100 were 

ASME Code Ad Hoc Task Group that de

• The scope of ultrasonic procedures

ments that must follow the requirem

defined.

• The organizations that must comply 

of Appendix VIII must define by a w

requirements of Appendix VIII will b

ment is intended to apply to licensee

perform ultrasonic examinations for 

explains why the phrase “may contr

of the program” is included. If the lic

PDI, then the written program will re

program.

• The instrument characterization refe

allows for instances in which equipm

units or pulsers/receivers are replac

differing essential variables. The re

substitution of equipment without th

under Appendix VIII.

• Components of the same manufactu

series, are substitutable without furt

Appendix VIII-4100(g).
3-3

ARTICLE VIII-1000 – SCOPE (VIII-1100 General)

Rationale for Requirement 

to Referenceable Docu

Technical references supporting this 

Appendix VIII are

• NUREG/CR-2264 (Busse et al. 198

• ASTM Standards E-1065 (1987) an

(Table IWA-1600-1 from ASME Cod

reference edition dates and indicato

3.1.2 ARTICLE VIII-2000 – GENERAL EXAMINATION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

3.1.2.1 VIII-2100 Procedure Requirements

ARTICLE VIII-2000 – GENERAL EXAMINATION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS (VIII-2100 Procedure R

Rationale for Requirement an

to Referenceable Docum

(a) The examination procedure shall contain a statement of scope that 

specifically defines the limits of procedure applicability (e.g., materials, 

thickness, diameter, product form).

(b) The examination procedure shall specify a single value or a range of 

values for the variables listed in VIII-2100(d).

This requirement specifies the basic 

procedures that are to be qualified to Ap

requirements in VIII–2100 were develop

requirements that existed in Article III–2

Requirements” of the 1989 Edition of Se

significant differences between the requ

and Article III–2000 “General Requireme

Edition of Section XI are as follows:

(c) Any calibration method may be used provided it is described and 

complies with VIII-2100(d)(5).

Appendix VIII–2100(c) requires calib

specify how calibration must be perform

that any method of calibration that produ

formance results during the procedure q

the performance demonstration criteria w

was, and is, a significant departure from 

requirements that were the basis for ultr

to Appendix VIII. For the first time, Sect

prescribe calibration sensitivity. Instead

Level III inspector was allowed to define 

requirements to ensure proper performa
3-4

ARTICLE VIII-2000 – GENERAL EXAMINATION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS (VIII-2100 Procedure R

Rationale for Requirement an

to Referenceable Docum

technique, and procedure in order to ac

performance, as demonstrated during th

demonstration.

(d) The examination procedure shall specify the following essential 

variables:

(1) instrument or system, including manufacturer, and model or series, 

of pulser, receiver, and amplifier;

(2) search units, including manufacturer, and model or series, and the 

following:

(a) nominal frequency or, if Supplement 1 is used, the center 

frequency and either bandwidth or waveform duration as defined in VIII-4000;

(b) mode of propagation and nominal inspection angles;

(c) number, size, shape, and configuration of active elements and 

wedges or shoes;

(3) search unit cable, including the following:

(a) type;

(b) maximum length;

(c) maximum number of connectors;

(4) detection and sizing techniques, including the following:

(a) scan pattern and beam directions;

(b) maximum scan speed;

(c) minimum and maximum pulse repetition rate;

(d) minimum sampling rate (automatic recording systems);

(e) extent of scanning and action to be taken for access restrictions;

(5) methods of calibration for detection and sizing (e.g., actions required 

to insure that the sensitivity and accuracy of the signal amplitude and time 

outputs of the examination system, whether displayed, recorded, or 

automatically processed, are repeated from examination to examination);

(6) inspection and calibration data to be recorded;

(7) method of data recording;

(8) recording equipment (e.g., strip chart, analog tape, digitizing) when 

used;

(9) method and criteria for the discrimination of indications (e.g., 

geometric versus flaw indications and for length and depth sizing of flaws);

(10) surface preparation requirements.

Appendix VIII–2100(d) states which 

procedures are considered “Essential” b

prescriptive requirements for how to fulf

the input. Again, the nonprescriptive na

significant departure from previous editi

an example, under VIII, there are no spe

calibration block design, only a requirem

of calibration for detection and sizing (e

ensure that the sensitivity and accuracy 

amplitude and time outputs of the exam

whether displayed, recorded, or automa

repeated from examination to examinati

procedure. Because only general guida

essential variables, by default it has bec

of the PDA to confirm documentation of 

either in the procedure or in the qualifica

(see Records Article VIII-5000). The co

ing each detail of an ultrasonic procedur

responsibility on the individual writing th

utilities’ QA or ISI coordinator must ensu

procedure and essential variables demo

as those employed in the field. The req

the NRC must verify that the process wo

programmatic documentation including 

initial procedure qualification to the field 

supplies detailed documentation to the e

knowledgeable individual can ascertain 

applied as it was qualified. With the dev

instruments and the advancements of p

time-of-flight diffraction (TOFD) technolo

develop guidance for additional essentia

not envisioned at the time this list was d
3-5

3.1.2.2 VIII-2200 Personnel Requirements

ARTICLE VIII-2000 – GENERAL EXAMINATION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS (VIII-2100 Procedure R

Rationale for Requirement an

to Referenceable Docum

Personnel shall meet the requirements of Appendix VII and shall be 

qualified in accordance with VIII-3000.

The ASME Code Ad Hoc Task Grou

submitted Appendix VIII included this se

stating what the training requirements fo

and what specific performance demonst

personnel were required to meet.

3.1.3 ARTICLE VIII-3000 – QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

3.1.3.1 VIII-3100 Qualification Test Requirements

ARTICLE VIII-3000 – QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (VIII-3100 Qualification Test Require

Rationale for Requirement 

to Referenceable Docu

VIII-3110 Detection

(a) Qualification test specimens shall meet the requirements of the 

appropriate Supplement listed in Table VIII-3110-1.

The NRC/PNNL strategy was to firs

demonstration for the Class 1 compone

significance. Following implementation 

extension of performance demonstration 

balance-of-plant components would be 

date of this report, all supplements exce

been implemented. Not all ultrasonic ex

required to be qualified to Appendix VIII

2000 directs the reader to Appendix VIII 

reactor pressure vessel examinations:

(a) Shell and Head Welds Excludin

(b) Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds

(c) Nozzle Inside Radius Section

(d) Clad/Base Metal Interface Regi

Ultrasonic examination of reactor ve

closure head-to-flange welds, and integ

must be conducted to the requirements 
3-6

ARTICLE VIII-3000 – QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (VIII-3100 Qualification Test Require

Rationale for Requirement 

to Referenceable Docu

as supplemented by Table I-2000-1. Ot

are addressed in I-2200 and I-2300. 

Procedures qualified to the requirem

(Qualification Requirements for the Clad

of Reactor Vessel) and 6 (Qualification 

Reactor Vessel Welds Other than Clad/

are often used for the examination of ve

head-to-flange welds as well as other ve

the qualified range of the procedure as a

Section V requirements. These must be 

via proposed alternatives.

(b) The examination procedure, equipment, and personnel are qualified for 

detecting flaws upon successful completion of the performance demonstration 

specified in the appropriate Supplement listed in Table VIII-3110-1.

The rationale for the requirements in 

discussed in the next section for each s

(c) For piping welds whose requirements are in course of preparation, the 

requirements of Appendix III, as supplemented by Table 1-2000-1, shall be met.

As stated above, only the piping exa

explicit supplements require qualificatio

other piping examinations are performed 

Appendix III as supplemented by Table 

only piping examinations that do not hav

are cast stainless steel and austenitic st

(corrosion-resistant clad) welds. Proced

accordance with Supplements 2 and 3 a

examination of vessels less than 2.0 in. 

Appendix III requirements. These must 

NRC via proposed alternatives.

VIII-3120 Sizing

(a) Qualification test specimens shall meet the requirements of the 

appropriate Supplement listed in Table VIII-3110-1.

Same rationale as that listed with V

(b) The examination procedure, equipment, and personnel are qualified for 

sizing flaws upon successful completion of the performance demonstration 

specified in the appropriate Supplement listed in Table VIII-3110-1.When the 

applicable piping supplement contains no provisions for a performance 

demonstration using axially oriented flaws, examination personnel, equipment 

procedures, and the associated essential variables qualified for sizing on 

circumferentially oriented flaws shall be used.

The rationale for the requirements in 

discussed in the next section for each s
3-7

ARTICLE VIII-3000 – QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (VIII-3100 Qualification Test Require

Rationale for Requirement 

to Referenceable Docu

(c) For piping welds whose requirements are in course of preparation, the 

requirements of Appendix III, as supplemented by Table 1-2000-1, shall be met.

(d) RMS error shall be calculated as follows:

( ) =

  − ∑  =  

 

 

1/2 n 2

i i i 1

m t

RMS

n

where

mi = measured flaw size

ti = true flaw size

n = number of flaws measured

Earlier versions of the ASME Code 

requirements for performing a regressio

time, an inspector needed to meet a req

correlation coefficient, and mean of dev

undersize by more than 50% the larger 

miscall). This approach was based on i

evaluating the depth sizing performance 

under Inspection and Enforcement Bulle

1983). PNNL showed that the use of ro

error on actual PDI data provided a crite

same objective that was equivalent to th

complex set of criteria. Root mean squa

statistical measurement that was adopte

The calculation of RMS error is defined 

VIII-3130 Essential Variable Ranges

(a) Any two procedures with the same essential variables [VIII-2100(d)] are 

considered equivalent. Pulsers, search units, and receivers that vary within the 

tolerances specified in VIII-4100 are considered equivalent. When the pulsers, 

search units, and receivers vary beyond the tolerances of VIII-4100, or when 

the examination procedure allows more than one value or range for an essential 

variable, the qualification test shall be repeated at the minimum and maximum 

value for each essential variable with all other variables remaining at nominal 

values. Changing the essential variable may be accomplished during 

successive personnel performance demonstrations. Each examiner need not 

demonstrate qualification over the entire range of every essential variable.

This requirement provided a method 

equivalency of two procedures. The tole

VIII–4000 were based upon NUREG/CR

1992). The procedure shall demonstrat

any combination of essential variables s

specified with a range, and this is achiev

procedure when the minimum and maxi

selected for each of the essential variab

performance demonstration for the esse

extremes of the ranges specified in the 

requirement.

(b) When the procedure does not specify a range for essential variables and 

establishes criteria for selecting values, the criteria shall be demonstrated.

The administrator of the performanc

must challenge the criteria used for sele

ranges, to ensure that the procedure cri

performance. Again, the ranges of esse

on the procedure criteria must be fully e

process.
3-8

ARTICLE VIII-3000 – QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (VIII-3100 Qualification Test Require

Rationale for Requirement 

to Referenceable Docu

VIII-3140 Requalification

When a change in an examination procedure causes an essential variable 

to exceed a qualified range, the examination procedure shall be re-qualified for 

the revised range.

This simply states that procedure ch

demonstrated successfully before they c

inspections.

TABLE VIII-3110-1

COMPONENT QUALIFICATION SUPPLEMENTS

Component Type Applicable Supplement

Piping Welds

Wrought austenitic 2

Ferritic 3

Cast austenitic [Note (1)]

Structural weld inlay (corrosion-resistant clad) 

austenitic 

[Note (1)]

Dissimilar metal 10

Overlay 11

Coordinated implementation 12

Vessels

Clad/base metal interface region 4

Nozzle examinations from the outside surface 5

Reactor vessel welds other than clad/base 

metal interface

6

Nozzle examinations from the inside surface 7

Bolts and Studs 8

NOTE:

(1) In the course of preparation.

This is simply a listing of the supple

and the type of component that they add

Code needs to update Table VIII-3110-1 

Supplement 14 for the coordinated impl

Supplements 10, 2, and 3 for piping exa

from the inside surface. It should be no

regarding a supplement addressing stru

(corrosion-resistant clad) for austenitic m

date. No ASME Code Committee is cur

develop this supplement.(1) 

 

(1) EPRI has conducted relevant work on accessing the inspectability of inlays/onlays on qualified Supplement 10 procedu

some of this information at ASME Code meetings although the authors have not reviewed the published report. This re

by purchase from EPRI for $14,250 and is titled Nondestructive Evaluation: Ultrasonic Equivalency Testing of Weld In

Components (EPRI, Palo Alto, California, 2008; Report No. 1016655.
3-9

3.1.4 ARTICLE VIII-4000 – ESSENTIAL VARIABLE TOLERANCES

3.1.4.1 VIII-4100 Procedure Modifications

ARTICLE VIII-4000 – ESSENTIAL VARIABLE TOLERANCES (VIII-4100 Procedure Modifica

Rationale for Requirement 

to Referenceable Docu

VIII-4110 Examination System Components

Components of the same manufacturer, and model or series, are 

substitutable without further consideration. The qualified procedure may be 

modified to replace pulsers, receivers, or search units without requalification 

when the following conditions are met.

Components may be replaced in-kin

requalification. Different or modified com

VIII-4110 requirements.

NUREG/CR-5871 (Green et al. 199

all the equipment tolerances listed in VI

5871 describes work conducted at PNN

frequency domain equipment interaction

ultrasonic inspection. 

The specific tolerances specified in 

and (h) are supported by the conclusion

(a) Instruments with reject, damping, or pulse tuning controls, have discrete 

settings specified in the procedure.

(b) Pulsers and receivers shall be evaluated using ASTM E 1324, Guide for 

Measuring Some Electronic Characteristics of Ultrasonic Instruments, with the 

following exceptions:

The definitions in this section (FL, Fu

with The New IEEE Standard Dictionary 

Electronics Terms (IEEE 1992).

(1) The lower (FL) and upper (FU) limits for receivers shall be 

determined between frequencies that are 6 dB below the peak frequency.

(2) The receiver center frequency (FC) shall be determined by:

+ = 2

L U

C

F F F

(3) The receiver band width (BW) shall be determined by:

− = ×100 U L

C

F F BW

F

(c) Search units shall be evaluated using ASTM E 1065, Evaluation of the 

Characteristics of Ultrasonic Search Units.
3-10

ARTICLE VIII-4000 – ESSENTIAL VARIABLE TOLERANCES (VIII-4100 Procedure Modifica

Rationale for Requirement 

to Referenceable Docu

(d) Examination systems shall be evaluated using Supplement 1.

(e) Replacements of the instrument or the pulser section of the instrument 

system shall be within the following tolerances of the original equipment as 

measured into a 50 ohm, noninductive, noncapacitive, resistive load:

(1) pulse amplitude, ±10%;

(2) pulse rise time, ±10%;

(3) pulse duration, ±10%;

The provisions addressing the repla

malfunctioning equipment were develop

essential parameters would be maintain

qualification of the system would not be 

replacement did not adversely affect the 

(f) Replacements of the instrument or the receiver section of the instrument 

system shall be within the following tolerances of the original equipment:

(1) lower and upper frequency limits at the -6 dB point, ±0.2 MHz;

(2) center frequency for instrument receivers with bandwidths less than 

30%, ±5%;

(3) center frequency for instrument receivers with bandwidths equal to 

or greater than 30%, ±10%.

(g) Replacement search units of the same manufacturer’s model, size, and 

nominal frequency may be used without requalification.

(h) Replacement search units not of the same manufacturer’s model, size, 

and nominal frequency shall be within the following tolerances of the original 

search units:

(1) propagation mode is the same

(2) measured angle, ± 3 deg.

(3) center frequency for search units with bandwidths less than 30%, 

±5%

(4) center frequency for search units with bandwidths equal to or 

greater than 30%, ±10%

(5) waveform duration, ±1⁄2 cycle or 20%, whichever is greater 

(measured at -20 dB), or bandwidth, ±10%

(i) As an alternative to (e) through (g) above, or for substitution of other 

components of the examination system identified as essential variables, 

equipment replacement is acceptable if the examination system is within the 

following tolerances of the original system when evaluated in accordance with 

Supplement 1:

(1) system center frequency for examination systems with bandwidths 

less than 30%, ±5%

(2) system center frequency for examination systems with bandwidths 

equal to or greater than 30%, ±10%
3-11

ARTICLE VIII-4000 – ESSENTIAL VARIABLE TOLERANCES (VIII-4100 Procedure Modifica

Rationale for Requirement 

to Referenceable Docu

(3) system bandwidth, ±10%

VIII-4120 Search Unit Characterization

Characterization measurements of the search unit shall be made using 

either a sinusoidal tone burst technique or shock excitation. When using shock 

excitation, the characterization pulser and UT instrument pulser shall be the 

same within the limits of VIII-4110(e).

The requirement is support by the c

NUREG/CR-5871 (Green et al. 1992).

3.1.4.2 VIII-4200 Computerized System Algorithms

ARTICLE VIII-4000 – ESSENTIAL VARIABLE TOLERANCES (VIII-4200 Computerized System A

Rationale for Requirement 

to Referenceable Docu

When the performance demonstration uses prerecorded data, algorithms 

for automated decisions may be altered when the altered algorithms are 

demonstrated to be equivalent to those qualified. When the performance 

demonstration results meet the acceptance requirements of VIII-3000, the 

algorithm shall be considered qualified.

This specific requirement has actua

the authors’ knowledge. Software is an 

changes require requalification, and this 

address how to do this. The ASME Ad 

this included.

3.1.4.3 VIII-4300 Calibration Methods

ARTICLE VIII-4000 – ESSENTIAL VARIABLE TOLERANCES (VIII-4300 Calibration Metho

Rationale for Requirement 

to Referenceable Docu

Alternative calibration methods may be demonstrated equivalent to those 

described in the qualified procedure without requalification. This demonstration 

of equivalence shall be conducted for each beam angle and mode of 

propagation to which it applies, as follows.

The authors are unaware of this bei

Ad Hoc Task Group felt it was important 

Appendix VIII. Calibration or reference 

establish reference sensitivity from whic

can be compared. It should be noted th

qualified procedures do not establish se

calibration reflectors. These procedures 

on the NDE response noise level on the 

being examined. 
3-12

(a) Calibrate the examination system in accordance with the alternative 

methods.

(b) Compare the sensitivity of the alternative calibration method to that of 

the qualified calibration method.

(c) The alternative calibration method is acceptable when the system 

sensitivity is no more than 2 dB below that obtained by the qualified method.

3.1.5 ARTICLE VIII-5000 – RECORD OF QUALIFICATION

3.1.5.1 VIII-5100 General

ARTICLE VIII-5000 – RECORD OF QUALIFICATION (VIII-5100 General)

Rationale for Requirement 

to Referenceable Docu

The organization’s performance demonstration program shall specify the 

documentation that shall be maintained as qualification records. 

Documentation shall include identification of personnel, NDE procedures, and 

equipment and specimens used during qualification, and results of the 

performance demonstration.

Documentation was required so tha

audited and third parties could confirm t

personnel, and equipment had successf

demonstration as well as serving as a m

was being performed according to what 

documentation must be maintained and 

request.
3-13

3.2 Mandatory Appendix VIII - Supplements

3.2.1 SUPPLEMENT 1 – EVALUATING ELECTRONIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ULTRASONIC S

This supplement was created to provide a standard means for objectively evaluating the performance character

UT systems. The supplement allows substitution of essential variables, such as search units or critical equipme

damaged or lost, without having to repeat the performance demonstration process described in Appendix VIII. A

supplement was developed, no national standard existed for evaluating the electronic characteristics of ultrason

supplement was based on extensive studies, including those reported in NUREG/CR-2264 (Busse et al. 1982), 

results from round-robin studies being conducted by ASTM Committee E-7.

ASTM has developed E1324-00, “Standard Guide for Measuring Some Electronic Characteristics of Ultrasonic 

Instruments,” and E1065, “Standard Guide for Evaluating Characteristics of Ultrasonic Search Units.” These AS

evolving at the time that Appendix VIII was being written and now could simply be referenced with Supplement 

Appendix VIII. This supplement adequately addresses only conventional manual UT systems and does not add

technology such as phased arrays. To the best knowledge of the authors, this supplement has only been used 

basis. It was used to address cable and connector changes at the Duane Arnold Energy Center in 2007 (ADAM

ML070580285) and in 2007 at Quad Cities Unit 1 (ML0716203020). The ASME Code Task Group Appendix VI

Case N-780 entitled “Alternative Requirements for Upgrade, Substitution, or Reconfiguration of Examination Eq

Appendix VIII Qualified Ultrasonic Examination Systems,” to address the issue of requirements for the upgrade, 

reconfiguration of UT examination equipment. This Code Case has been approved by Section XI but not by the 

group plans to upgrade the ASME Code Section XI to include this Code Case by replacing Supplement 1 with r

apply to all UT systems, including conventional, imaging, and phased arrays.
3-14

SUPPLEMENT 1 – EVALUATING ELECTRONIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ULTRASONIC SYS

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

1.0 SYSTEM FREQUENCY CHARACTERISTICS The requirements in Suppl

with those in ASTM Standards 

referred to above.

This supplement was deve

equipment and has seen very l

recent work by EPRI (2010) on 

this supplement. To expand th

manual UT, Code Case N-780 

has not been implemented, dem

by NRC.

1.1 The frequency response, also known as the frequency spectrum, shall be 

determined by measuring of the amplitude of the pulse echo response from a target as a 

function of frequency. This response shall be used as a basis for establishing the center 

frequency and bandwidth of the ultrasonic system.

CAUTION: The required output signal test point from the ultrasonic instrument may 

require access to ultrasonic circuitry inside the instrument chassis. The use of high 

impedance test probes may also be required if the signal of interest is not buffered.

1.2 Connect the ultrasonic instrument including the search unit and, if applicable, 

the wedge, as shown in Fig. VIII-S1-1A. The output signal from the ultrasonic instrument 

that is used in data analysis for flaw detection or flaw sizing (i.e., the output signal after 

amplification, filtering, and video detection) shall be input to a device that is capable of 

measuring the frequency spectrum (e.g., a spectrum analyzer or a digitizing circuit with a 

software package that determines the frequency response of waveforms). If a digitizing 

circuit is used, the rate of digitizing shall be at least five times the nominal (labeled) 

frequency of the search unit.

(a) If the receiver or transmitter provides variable signal filtering or frequency control, 

the signal controls shall be set as specified in the examination procedure. Check all 

connections in the test setup to ensure that it is safe to turn on the ultrasonic system.

(1) Flat or nonfocused search units shall be adjusted so that the distance (Zo) 

from the face of the search unit to the target is 2 in. (50 mm) (see Fig. VIII-S1-1B). A 

smooth glass block with dimensions 2 in. × 2 in. × 1 in. (50 mm × 50 mm × 25 mm) thick 

is recommended as the target. Using a manipulator, adjust the search unit angle with 

respect to the block until the return echo is maximized indicating that the sound field is 

perpendicular to the block. Adjust the receiver section gain controls until the ultrasonic 

signal amplitude from the block is 80% of full scale without saturating the ultrasonic 

signal. Plot the frequency spectrum of the ultrasonic signal as shown in Fig. VIII-S1-2A.

A glass block is recommen

associated with trying to define 

surface. Glass blocks, easily o

optical standards and thus acce

targets.
3-15

SUPPLEMENT 1 – EVALUATING ELECTRONIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ULTRASONIC SYS

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

(2) Determination of the frequency response for focused search units shall follow 

the same procedure for flat search units, except that the distance Zo shall be adjusted to 

maximize echo from the glass target.

1.3 System Frequency Response Results The definitions in this secti

consistent with The New IEEE 

Electrical and Electronics Term

(a) Lower Frequency Limit (FL) — The lower frequency limit (MHz) at a specific 

frequency control setting is the lowest frequency on the frequency response curve that is 

6 dB below the maximum amplitude as shown in Fig. VIII-S1-2A. 

(b) Upper Frequency Limit (FU) — The upper frequency limit (MHz) at a specific 

frequency control setting is the highest frequency on the frequency response curve that 

is 6 dB below the maximum amplitude as shown in Fig. VIII-S1-2A. 

(c) Center Frequency (FC) — The center frequency (MHz) at a specific frequency 

control setting shall be calculated as follows:

+ = 2

L U

C

F F F

(d) Bandwidth (BW) — The bandwidth (%) at a specific frequency control setting 

shall be calculated as follows:

− = ×100 U L

C

F F BW

F

(e) The system frequency response results, (a) through (d) above, shall be obtained 

for the remaining receiver and transmitter control module setting combinations used in 

the performance demonstration. These values shall be recorded.
3-16

SUPPLEMENT 1 – EVALUATING ELECTRONIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ULTRASONIC SYS

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D
3-17

SUPPLEMENT 1 – EVALUATING ELECTRONIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ULTRASONIC SYS

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D
3-18

SUPPLEMENT 1 – EVALUATING ELECTRONIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ULTRASONIC SYS

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D
3-19

3.2.2 SUPPLEMENT 2 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WROUGHT AUSTENITIC PIP

This supplement was based on extensive experience as documented in NUREG/CR-4464 (Heasler et al. 1986)

(Spanner et al. 1990); round-robin tests, such as NUREG/CR-5068 (Heasler and Doctor 1996), NUREG/CR-49

1990), and NUREG/CR-5410 (Heasler et al. 1993); and the data and experience from the IEB 82-03 (NRC 1982

1983) exercises.

The assumption used in developing the detection performance demonstration requirements specified in this sup

supplements in Appendix VIII) was that an inspector’s capability to detect flaws can be quantified in the test by e

probabilities. The first is the probability of detection and correct interpretation (POD), which is the probability tha

particular length of weld material will be detected by the inspector. The second is the false call probability (FCP

probability that a crack will be falsely detected in a “blank” or crack-free length of weld material.

The Ad Hoc Task Group that initially developed Appendix VIII accepted the experience described in the docume

developed the Specimen Requirements for both Detection and Sizing Specimens, Conduct of Testing and Acce

supplements described in the rest of this document. 

The Ad Hoc Task group that developed the original requirements for austenitic stainless steel weldments thoug

should be located on both the near side and the far side of austenitic stainless steel test samples. Thus, the su

flaws located on both the same side of the weld as the inspection probe (near side) and when the flaw is located 

of the weld as the inspection probe (far side) of austenitic stainless steel weldments. In many cases, the weld c

place and preclude UT probes from being able to scan on top of the weld. After the initial publication of Append

added additional requirements into 10 CFR 50.55a stating that in order to qualify an austenitic procedure for sin

must demonstrate the capability on a test set containing all flaws on the far side of the weld. To date no proced

criterion. Demonstrations are offered for near-side access and far-side access or the opportunity to demonstrat

approach on far-side flaws that are known to be detectable. 

In lieu of a full single-side endorsement, a best-effort approach was developed. In this approach, three or more 

flaws, which are known to be detectable, are included in the test set. If a candidate misses no more than one o

and meets all other acceptance criteria, he/she is qualified for the “Best-Effort Approach.”
3-20

SUPPLEMENT 2 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WROUGHT AUSTENITIC PIPING 

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

1.0 SPECIMEN REQUIREMENTS

Qualification test specimens shall meet the requirements listed herein, unless a set 

of specimens is designed to accommodate specific limitations stated in the scope of the 

examination procedure (e.g., pipe size, access limitations). The same specimens may 

be used to demonstrate both detection and sizing qualification.

This is a general requireme

set needs to be selected to fully 

the procedure and be represen

conditions during ISI.

1.1 General. This Supplement is applicable to austenitic piping welds examined 

from either the inside (I.D.) or outside (O.D.) surface. The applicable qualification criteria 

shall be satisfied separately. This Supplement is not applicable to piping welds 

containing supplemental corrosion-resistant cladding applied to mitigate IGSCC. The 

specimen set shall conform to the following requirements.

This supplement was origin

inspections from only the O.D. 

updated to also address I.D. in

(a) Specimens shall have sufficient volume to minimize spurious reflections that may 

interfere with the interpretation process.

The specimens must reflec

conditions; if the specimens are 

will be present that will not be s

components.

(b) The specimen set shall consist of at least four specimens having different 

nominal pipe diameters and thicknesses. The set shall include pipe specimens not 

thicker than 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) more than the minimum thickness, nor thinner than 0.5 in. 

(13 mm) less than the maximum thickness for which the examination procedure is 

applicable. It shall include the minimum, within NPS 1/2, and maximum pipe diameters 

for which the examination procedure is applicable. If the procedure is applicable to pipe 

O.D. of 24 in. (600 mm) or larger, the specimen set must include at least one specimen 

24 in. O.D. (600 mm) or larger but need not include the maximum diameter.

Because inspection proced

pipe diameters and wall thickne

explains how to bracket the ran

procedure/equipment and pers

conditions covered by the proc

for the requirement that the spe

contain “at least four specimen

discussions within the Ad Hoc T

identified four basic conditions 

procedures at that time (circa 1

were

• less than 12-in. (300-mm) n

and less than 0.6-in. (15-m

thickness

• less than 12-in. (300-mm) n

and 0.6-in. (15-mm) or grea

thickness

• 12-in. (300-mm) or greater 

and less than 0.6-in. (15-m

thickness
3-21

SUPPLEMENT 2 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WROUGHT AUSTENITIC PIPING 

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

• 12-in. (300-mm) or greater 

and 0.6-in. (15-mm) or grea

thickness.

Therefore, the requirement 

four specimens. The intent is t

of pipe thicknesses and diamet

scope of the pipe inspection pr

Four specimens are consid

number of specimens to adequ

of austenitic piping conditions l

plants.

(c) Taking into consideration the accessible scanning surface, the O.D. or I.D. 

specimen set shall include applicable examples of the following fabrication conditions:

Surface conditions and geo

potential major limitations adve

inspection effectiveness; thus, 

be part of the sample set in ord

that they do not impact the insp

power plants, many welds, geo

were not selected or installed b

inspections. As a result, all of t

be included in the test samples

Since the designed versus 

not known or documented, insp

surveys have been needed to c

base to guide the selection of r

specimens.

(1) unground weld reinforcement (crowns);

(2) wide crowns, such that the total crown width is 1 1⁄2 to 2 times the nominal 

pipe wall thickness;

(3) geometric conditions that normally require discrimination from flaws (e.g., 

counterbore, weld root conditions such as excessive I.D. reinforcement for O.D. scans, 

or O.D. reinforcement for I.D. scans, as applicable);

(4) typical limited scanning surface conditions (e.g., diametrical shrink, singleside access due to safe ends or fittings, clad surfaces, or counterbore within the 

scanning area, as applicable).
3-22

SUPPLEMENT 2 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WROUGHT AUSTENITIC PIPING 

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

(d) All flaws in the specimen set shall be cracks. Early parametric studies co

parameters (NUREG/CR-1696

showed that cracks did not hav

machined reflectors. In fact, cr

lower responses. Thus, to ens

equipment, and procedures ca

accurately size service degrada

need to be included in the test 

(1) Mechanical fatigue cracks and either IGSCC or thermal fatigue cracks shall 

be used. At least 75% of the cracks shall be either IGSCC or thermal fatigue cracks.

Based on laboratory studie

listed above, IGSCC tended to 

responses and thermal fatigue 

compressive stresses tended to 

response.

(2) At least 50% of the cracks shall be coincident with fabricated conditions 

described in (c) above.

Fabrication conditions mak

challenging. IGSCC grows in t

of a weldment and, thus, is nea

metallurgical conditions, and to 

short counter bores. This requ

conditions must be included in 

1.2 Detection Specimens. The specimen set shall include detection specimens 

that meet the following requirements.

(a) Specimens shall be divided into grading units. Each grading unit shall include at 

least 3 in. (75 mm) of weld length. If a grading unit is designed to be unflawed, at least 1 

in. (25 mm) of unflawed material shall exist on either side of the grading unit. The 

segment of weld length used in one grading unit shall not be used in another grading 

unit. Grading units need not be uniformly spaced around the pipe specimen.

Grading units were selecte

process and make it objective. 

unit was a compromise. The c

on evidence documented in NU

(Heasler et al. 1990) that show

have a complicated relationship 

A grading unit of 1 in. (25.4 mm

estimate POD and FCP; a large 

8 in. (203 mm), while providing 

of POD and FCP, was determin

Group to result in a set of test s

be very expensive to fabricate. 

grading units helps ensure that 

contamination from one grading 

because of their proximity. Gra
3-23

SUPPLEMENT 2 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WROUGHT AUSTENITIC PIPING 

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

marked on the test specimen s

not know how many are in a pa

where they are located.

(b) Detection sets for personnel qualification shall be selected from Table VIII-S2-1. 

The number of unflawed grading units shall be at least twice the number of flawed 

grading units. For initial procedure qualification, detection sets shall include the 

equivalent of three personnel qualification sets. To qualify new values of essential 

variables, at least one personnel qualification set is required.

Originally the ASME Code 

inspector could pass the perfor

test, the personnel, equipment, 

acceptable. In some cases, on

pass the performance demonst

set of inspection equipment an

Appendix VIII was modified to i

that initially the procedure and 

qualified only after they have s

equivalent of three personnel q

increased the robustness of the 

procedure qualification becaus

detected by the procedure and 

et al. (2000) showed that a two

achieving improved equipment 

lead to higher personnel pass r

(c) Flawed grading units shall meet the following criteria for flaw depth, orientation, 

and type.

(1) A minimum of 1/3 of the flaws, rounded to the next higher whole number, 

shall have depths between 5% and 30% of the nominal pipe wall thickness. At least 1/3 

of the flaws, rounded to the next higher whole number, shall have depths greater than 

30% of the nominal pipe wall thickness.

Any size of service flaws m

inspection, and the demonstrat

personnel, equipment, and pro

detect and accurately size all fl

degraded component.

(2) At least one and a maximum of 10% of the flaws, rounded to the next higher 

whole number, shall be oriented axially. The remainder of the flaws shall be oriented 

circumferentially.

Service cracks occur both c

axially. As such, both condition

in the test samples.
3-24

SUPPLEMENT 2 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WROUGHT AUSTENITIC PIPING 

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

(3) Service-induced flaws shall be included when available. When the procedure 

is intended to detect IGSCC, at least four field-removed, IGSCC-flawed grading units 

shall be included in the detection test set.

This paragraph acknowledg

to use for performance demons

service flaws because this is w

during ISI. Although not explic

that if new degradation process

then consideration would be giv

simulating the NDE responses 

tion process to the test sets. B

experience, the emergence of a 

process is likely. Currently the

for how these flaws would be a

Since there are a number of wa

accomplished, it would be prud

develop guidance on how this s

1.3 Sizing Specimens. The specimen set shall contain sizing specimens that meet 

the following requirements.

(a) The minimum number of flaws shall be ten. For initial procedure qualification, 

sizing sets shall include the equivalent of three personnel qualification sets. To qualify 

new values of essential variables at least one personnel qualification set is required.

The Ad Hoc Task Group th

sizing specimen requirements c

number of 10 flaws for sizing. 

is based upon the need for rea

assess whether the sizing perfo

or not. This number of flaws is 

several factors. As a larger nu

included, the error associated w

estimating the true sizing perfo

However, as the number of flaw

for the demonstration process a

more specimens, more flaws, lo

The requirement to include 

personnel qualification sets pro

procedure and equipment qual

to a higher pass rate for person

2000).
3-25

SUPPLEMENT 2 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WROUGHT AUSTENITIC PIPING 

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

(b) Flaws in length sizing sample sets shall meet the requirements of para 1.2(c)(l), 

when given in conjunction with a detection test. When the length sizing test is 

administered independently, the flaw depth requirements do not apply.

This requirement is used to 

case in which the detection tes

length sizing demonstration wa

the personnel need to demonst

It is also intended to address ca

sizing may employ a different te

do not believe that a different te

used, but it was thought to be a 

was first considered in 1986.

(c) Flaws in the depth sizing sample set shall be distributed as follows:

Flaw Depth Minimum

(% Wall Thickness) Percentage of Flaws

5–30% 20%

31–60% 20%

61–100% 20%

The Ad Hoc Task Group th

requirements for Appendix VIII 

assumed that whoever was res

ing the sizing test would develo

distributed the flaws evenly thro

specified in the requirements. 

ensure that flaws are somewha

otherwise, the RMS error criter

method for evaluating the perfo

This range of sizes is provi

sizes are included in the test se

demonstration process blind so 

not know how many flaws in a 

are in the test set. This was int

testmanship.

The remaining flaws shall be in any of the above categories.

2.0 CONDUCT OF PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATIONS

When scanning from the O.D., the specimen inside surface and identification shall 

be concealed from the candidate. When scanning from the I.D., flaw location and 

specimen identification shall be obscured to maintain a “blind test.” All examinations 

shall be completed prior to grading the results and presenting the results to the 

candidate. Divulgence of particular specimen results or candidate viewing of unmasked 

specimens after the performance demonstration is prohibited.

This supplement provides r

the test samples blind and to e

is not a factor in the demonstra

2.1 Detection Test. Flawed and unflawed grading units shall be randomly mixed. These requirements help e

not biased and that any potenti

minimized.
3-26

SUPPLEMENT 2 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WROUGHT AUSTENITIC PIPING 

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

2.2 Length and Depth Sizing Test Guidance on how to admin

demonstration tests.

(a) Each reported flaw in the detection test shall be length sized. When only length 

sizing is being tested, the regions of each specimen containing a flaw to be sized may be 

identified to the candidate. The candidate shall determine the length of the flaw in each 

region.

Length sizing is performed 

testing and all detected flaws a

flaw location unknown to the ca

(b) The depth sizing test may be performed in conjunction with or separate from the 

detection test. When only depth sizing is being tested, the regions of each specimen 

containing a flaw to be sized may be identified to the candidate. The candidate shall 

determine the maximum depth of the flaw in each region.

Depth sizing is performed s

detection testing because the r

particular sizes are different for 

different techniques are used. 

presented in a region which is 

candidate. The candidate mus

the deepest portion of the flaw.

The Code did not specify th

depth sizing, but only circumfer

used because these flaws are 

structurally to component integ
3-27

SUPPLEMENT 2 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WROUGHT AUSTENITIC PIPING 

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

The performance demonst

described in this supplement ac

separate tests—a test that mea

bility and a test that measures 

The number of specimens 

sections for detection and sizin

binomial criterion to be specifie

with a 90% confidence level). 

criteria in the table were create

inspectors to ensure that the in

passed had the desired perform

based on round-robin data for t

of performance capability. The 

criteria that if the inherent capa

equipment, and procedure wer

a FCP less than 20%, then the

probability of passing the scree

they had a POD less than 50% 

than 20%, then they should hav

chance of passing the test. A t

a range of tests so that the insp

does not know how many flaws 

how many blank grading units. 

discussed in Section 1.2 of this 

technical details can be found i

(Heasler et al. 1986).

The Ad Hoc Task Group th

criteria had to balance factors s

performance while not penalizi

The following considerations w

criteria:
3-28

SUPPLEMENT 2 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WROUGHT AUSTENITIC PIPING 

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

• NUREG/CR–3869 (Simone

concluded that “For the PN

improvement as measured 

probability from the “good” 

team is less than that from 

“good” team. This eliminat

through training and qualifi

produce significant benefits 

NUREG/CR-3869 defines “

“advanced” teams as follow

– Poor team – This repre

performance among te

the PNNL Piping Inspe

(PIRR) test. These tea

minimum Code require

used at the time of the 

the 1977 Edition includ

of Section XI).

– Good teams – These te

better teams’ performa

round robin.

– Advanced teams – The

hypothetical performan

be achievable with imp

technology (technology 

assumes a 0.999 flaw 

a through-wall flaw and 

mately 90% for flaws w

through-wall.
3-29

SUPPLEMENT 2 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WROUGHT AUSTENITIC PIPING 

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

• The consideration of the N

coordination plan (see Sec

time.

• The consideration among m

Task Group that a test that 

impair the ability of industry 

there would be a lack of ins

3.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

3.1 Detection Acceptance Criteria

(a) Personnel demonstration shall meet the requirements of Table VIII-S2-1 for both 

detection and false calls. If the procedure is intended to detect IGSCC, failure to detect 

more than one of the IGSCC flaws is unacceptable for personnel qualification.

The test set must include v

degradation processes that ma

austenitic piping welds. This le

define the types and number of 

included as well as any constra

criterion. The PDI has develop

this. The basic piping performa

includes fatigue flaws. If an IG

sought, then the test set includ

least four of the flaws would ne

best-effort single-side endorsem

then at least four of the flaws w

of the weld with at least one of 

For an 8-out-of-10 test for IGSC

endorsement, a total of two flaw

only one of them could be IGSC

(b) Procedure qualification shall demonstrate detectability of each flaw within the 

scope of the procedure. Successful personnel demonstrations may be combined to 

satisfy the requirements for procedure qualification.

Remember that the proced

requires the equivalent of three 

tions with all the flaws being de

involves a 10-flaw test set, then 

detected in blind testing for the 

qualified. Each flaw must be d

criteria of the procedure.
3-30

SUPPLEMENT 2 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WROUGHT AUSTENITIC PIPING 

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

3.2 Sizing Acceptance Criteria. Examination procedures, equipment, and 

personnel are qualified for sizing if the results of the performance demonstration satisfy 

the following criteria:

Since candidates are going 

based on their test results, it is 

flaw dimensions and locations w

uncertainty. In some cases, th

can be controlled by physical m

the implanting processes and/o

measurements to verify locatio

(a) The RMS error of the flaw lengths estimated by ultrasonics, as compared with the 

true lengths, shall not exceed 0.75 in. (19 mm);

Originally this was a require

(25.4 mm) on the maximum ov

error that the inspector needed 

conditions, the 1 in. (25.4 mm) 

and that was the only basis for 

demonstrations indicated that t

criteria was very difficult to mee

amplitude responses and flaws 

interfering geometrical respons

asked to revise the requiremen

influence of flaw length on pipin

judgment that 0.75 in. (19 mm) 

sufficient to determine adequat

capability. The RMSE criterion 

was based upon an analysis of 

presented to the ASME Code b

published.
3-31

SUPPLEMENT 2 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR WROUGHT AUSTENITIC PIPING 

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

(b) The RMS error of the flaw depths estimated by ultrasonics, as compared with the 

true depths, shall not exceed 0.125 in. (3 mm). 

The original acceptance cr

the following parameters:

• slope of the linear regressio

• correlation coefficient had t

• mean of the deviation < 20

• no flaw undersized by 0.2 i

the pipe wall thickness.

The initial IGSCC sizing tes

criteria. After approximately 30 

test, the results were analyzed 

tools. The decision was based 

reasonable number of candidat

pass the criteria. All of the test

0.8 in. (20 mm) thick stainless s

After a significant amount o

statistician showed that the pas

same (except for the undersizin

the multiple parameters as whe

error value of 0.125 in. (3 mm). 

presented to the ASME Code g

formally documented and publi

parameter is easier to impleme

effective measure of the sizing 

a critical miss-call criterion resu

sizing bias by candidates. The 

predictor of field performance.

The 0.125 in. (3 mm) requi

to ferritic piping up to 8 in. (203 

austenitic piping up to 3 in. (76 

examining from the outside sur

is also applied to pipe wall thick

(101.6 mm) when examining au

the inside surface.
3-32

3.2.3 SUPPLEMENT 3 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FERRITIC PIPING WELDS

SUPPLEMENT 3 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FERRITIC PIPING WELDS

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

Qualification of examination procedures, equipment, and personnel for ferritic pipe 

examination shall be accomplished by satisfying the requirements of Supplement 2, 

except that the sample material shall be ferritic and 75% of the sample set defects shall 

be mechanically or thermally induced fatigue cracks. In addition, the set shall include 

pipe specimens not thicker than 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) more than the minimum thickness, nor 

thinner than 1.0 in. (25 mm) less than the maximum thickness for which the examination 

procedure is applicable.

Originally, this set of requir

the experience from the round-

NUREG/CR ( -5068, Heasler an

showed that ferritic steel is muc

austenitic stainless steel, as we

that states if one is certain that 

than another, one may demons

capability on the easier test wit

samples. This section of the su

the same inspection procedure 

piping as for austenitic piping. 

stated that if an inspector had s

performance demonstration for 

the candidate needed to detect 

ferritic specimens with no false 

Now the criterion has chan

requirements for ferritic piping w

that for the Supplement 2 auste

However, if the intent is to dem

Supplements 2 and 3, then the 

defined in Supplement 12.
3-33

3.2.4 SUPPLEMENT 4 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CLAD/BASE METAL IN

REACTOR VESSEL

SUPPLEMENT 4 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CLAD/BASE METAL INTERFACE OF R

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

1.0 SCOPE

This Supplement applies to the inner 15% of the clad ferritic reactor vessel. It may 

also be applied to the inner 15% of the unclad ferritic reactor vessel in accordance with 

Table VIII-S6-1, Note 1.

2.0 SPECIMEN REQUIREMENTS

The qualification test specimens shall provide full and unrestricted access to the 

examination volume to permit scanning in two directions parallel and two directions 

perpendicular to the weld. The same specimens may be used to demonstrate singleside access conditions.

Flaws in the inner surface v

important flaws to the structura

pressure vessel and, as a resu

with a supplement dealing spec

2.1 Detection Specimens. Detection specimens, which may be full-scale mockups, shall conform to the following requirements.

It is preferable to use full-s

materials and conditions repres

in operating nuclear power plan

cancelled nuclear power plants 

available source. Representat

required for BWR vessels and 

vessels. Vessel cladding proce

substantially during the 1960s t

representative conditions an im

must be verified during ISI to co

mockups used for performance 

(a) Specimens shall have sufficient volume to minimize spurious reflections. 

Specimen length and width shall be at least 12 in. (300 mm). There shall be at least 10 

sq ft (1 sq. m) of clad surface in the specimen set.

The specimens must be lar

signals from the specimens do 

demonstration data or analysis

(b) Specimen Thickness

(1) When the examination procedure requires the examination to be performed 

from the vessel I.D. (clad surface), the specimen minimum thickness shall be 3 in. 

(75 mm) or the maximum thickness of the vessel (whichever is less).

Specimen thickness is driv

inspection is conducted from th

I.D. inspections can be perform

because areas outside the inne

inspected and should not contr

signals.
3-34

SUPPLEMENT 4 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CLAD/BASE METAL INTERFACE OF R

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

(2) When the examination procedure requires the examination to be performed 

from the vessel O.D. surface, the specimen shall be at least 90% of the maximum 

thickness to be examined.

The inspections from the O

the thicknesses of the actual ve

thicker a vessel is, the more ch

becomes. A tolerance of 10% 

would save several million dolla

material from cancelled plants 

first a Code Case and then a C

to allow for this thickness tolera

reactor pressure vessel (RPV) 

outside surface. The 10% toler

instances in the Code, includin

thickness.

(c) The performance demonstration shall be on the same type cladding as that to be 

examined, with the following exceptions:

(1) demonstration on shielded metal arc weld (SMAW) single-wire cladding is 

transferable to multiple-wire or strip-clad processes;

SMAW is the most challeng

can adversely impact an inspec

can be performed on SMAW, th

with other cladding processes b

much smoother surfaces.

(2) demonstration of multiple-wire or strip-clad is considered equivalent but is not 

transferable to SMAW-type clad.

The technical basis for this 

requirements above comes fro

(Taylor et al. 1983).

(d) The surface condition of the test specimens shall be representative of the general 

condition of the vessel scanning surface.

Specimens must be repres

conditions of the cladding on fie

(e) The detection test matrix shall include flaws with the following description.

(1) Flaw Type. At least 70% of the flaws shall be cracks. The balance shall be 

cracks, fabrication flaws (e.g., slag, lack of fusion), or machined notches. Notches may 

be used only if the examination is performed from the clad surface. Machined notches 

shall meet the following requirements:

Cracks are the major conce

degradation, so that is the focu

set. However, the experience 

fabrication flaws entered servic

This test includes some fabrica

the procedure will be able to co

The Ad Hoc Task Group that in

supplements was conscious of 

with placing very small flaws of 

these components and with the 

cracks. Because the flaw dime
3-35

SUPPLEMENT 4 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CLAD/BASE METAL INTERFACE OF R

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

to select flaws for testing, the u

with the flaw dimensions neede

Therefore, the Ad Hoc Task Gr

machined reflectors to be used 

specific locations. This in part 

PISC II studies, which showed 

tips (called in PISC II a Type A 

responses similar to the NDE r

(Crutzen et al. 1989).

(a) Notches shall have a maximum width of 0.010 in. (0.25 mm) at the tip. 

The width at the clad-to-base-metal interface shall not exceed 0.020 in. (0.5 mm).

(b) Notches shall conform to the following:

(1) Notch depth shall not exceed 0.25 in. (6 mm)

(2) Notches shall be semi-elliptical.

The acceptability of this ma

requirement is not known. In re

parametric studies, PISC II fab

artificial flaws having tip radii u

(0.03 mm) and they provided ti

of that for a hydraulically grown 

radius less than 0.000004 in. (0

did not do was to quantify how 

change as the tip radius becom

0.0012 in. (0.03 mm). The tip r

for inspections from the inside 

flaws, the specular response is 

tip response is. Research has 

resolve this issue, and thus the 

technical basis. However, it ne

number of notches is limited to 

used if examination is from the 

must be less than 0.24 in. (6 m

elliptical in shape. 

These parameters were ch

possible to reliably implant crac

in full-scale mockups. The met

side examination, where there 

from the face of the flaw. The u

shape limits the magnitude of t

response. There is also an unc

0.04 in. (1 mm) in the implantat
3-36

SUPPLEMENT 4 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CLAD/BASE METAL INTERFACE OF R

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

process allows closer control o

smaller sizes without resorting 

The basis for acceptance by th

notches had a lower signal res

cracks and resulted in a lower d

candidates.

(2) Flaws shall be oriented either parallel or perpendicular to the clad direction 

±10 deg. For procedure qualification, at least 40% of the flaws shall be included in each 

orientation. For personnel tests, at least 20% of the flaws shall be included in each 

orientation.

Flaws may form perpendic

clad direction, so the procedure 

be shown to be effective in dete

orientations.

(3) The flaw sizes shall be uniformly distributed in through-wall depths among 

the ranges:

(a) 0.075 to 0.200 in. (1.9 mm to 5.1 mm)

(b) 0.201 to 0.350 in. (5.11 mm to.9 mm)

(c) 0.351 to 0.550 in. (8.91 mm to 14 mm)

(d) 0.551 to 0.750 in. (14 mm to 19 mm)

The flaws need to span the 

surface volume, so this range o

cover the range by the Ad Hoc 

was not thought to be more imp

the distribution is uniform.

(4) No flaw shall have an aspect ratio (depth/length) less than 0.1. Flaws 

smaller than 50% of the allowable flaw size, as defined in IWB-3500, need not be 

included as detection flaws.

This is guidance on aspect 

used for selecting the appropria

to the Code was requested as 

ment 4, 2.1(e)(3) could result in 

those included in the IWB-3514 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(xv)(B)(2), th

not needing to include flaws sm

defined in IWB-3500.

(5) The material thickness used to determine flaw acceptability shall be as 

follows:

(a) The minimum thickness specified in the scope of the procedure, for 

procedures applied from the inside surface.

(b) The thickness of the test specimen, for procedures applied from the 

outside surface.

Guidance on the thickness 

10 CFR 50.55a(b)(xv)(B)(2) fur

procedures applied from the ins

minimum thickness specified in 

procedure to calculate a/t. For 

from the outside surface, the ac

test specimen is to be used to c

prevents the elimination of the 

thick sections.

(f) The number of flaws in a personnel detection demonstration shall be selected 

from Table VIII-S4-1.
3-37

SUPPLEMENT 4 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CLAD/BASE METAL INTERFACE OF R

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

(g) For initial procedure qualification, the detection set shall include the equivalent of 

three personnel qualification sets. To qualify new value of essential variables, at least 

one personnel qualification set is required.

The equivalent of three per

sets are required to demonstra

robust and capable of detecting 

flaws. If an essential variable i

already-qualified procedure, the

qualification test set needs to b

verify the procedure is still capa

required flaws. 

In contrast to piping, the re

a high-risk component and nee

structural integrity. Thus, the re

needs to be higher than that fo

the goal is to have a high pass 

personnel, equipment, and pro

inherent POD of 95% and a FC

Unacceptable performance wa

and FCP > 20%. A table is use

administrator a combination of 

and limits testmanship because 

know the number of flaws that w

The FCP is not listed because 

more challenging to define blan

Instead, the requirement for the 

is based on the area inspected 
3-38

SUPPLEMENT 4 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CLAD/BASE METAL INTERFACE OF R

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

(h) The requirements of IWA-3000 shall be used to determine if closely-spaced flaws 

are to be treated as separate flaws.

This is intended to make th

with other areas of the Code de

evaluation.

(i) Flaw location and specimen identification shall be obscured to maintain a “blind 

test.”

The test must remain blind 

to remain valid.

2.2 Sizing Specimens

(a) The sizing test matrix shall contain a minimum of ten flaws, at least 70% of which 

shall be cracks.

The same rationale is used 

the Supplement 2 paragraph 1

(b) Procedure qualifications shall include the equivalent of three personnel 

qualification sets.

Consistent with Supplemen

(c) Sizing specimens shall conform with the requirements of 2.l(b), 2.l(c), 2.l(d), and 

2.l(e).

Sizing must be performed u

expected on components in se

2.3 Supplemental Single-Side Access Test Specimens. Supplemental test 

specimens required to demonstrate the effectiveness of single-side examination

procedures for detecting or sizing of reflectors with non-optimum sound-reflecting 

properties shall comply with the following.

(a) All flaws shall be cracks.

(b) Two or more cracks shall be included.

(c) The cracks shall exhibit non-optimum sound reflecting properties.

(1) The nominal orientation shall be 45 ±10 deg relative to the local surface 

normal.

(2) The reflecting surface shall exhibit the characteristics of a crack that could 

occur during fabrication or repair.

(d) The inner tip of the cracks shall be located no more than 2.5 in. (65 mm) and no 

less than 0.1 in. (2 mm) from the clad-to-base-metal interface.

(e) The flaws shall be oriented parallel or perpendicular to the clad direction.

Under some field condition

possible to inspect all volumes 

different directions. This set of 

what has to be demonstrated to 

can be inspected effectively wit

directions in which the volume 

ultrasound. Procedures need t

directions are available, then th

conducted by using all four of t

Mandatory Appendix I, Article I

directions are not available, the

default to a single side-access 

been demonstrated to success

requirements. These requirem

challenging and to demonstrate 

found under field conditions.

These supplemental test b

demonstrate that flaws of non-o

be detected if single-side exam
3-39

SUPPLEMENT 4 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CLAD/BASE METAL INTERFACE OF R

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

3.0 CONDUCT OF PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATIONS

3.1 Detection Test

(a) Specimen identification and flaw locations shall be obscured so as to maintain a 

“blind test.” Divulgence of particular specimen results or candidate viewing of unmasked 

specimens is prohibited.

The test must be blind for t

remain valid.

(b) If a flaw is reported within the greater of 1 in. (25 mm) or 10% of the metal path 

length to the flaw from its true location (x, y, and z) it shall be considered detected. All 

other reported flaws shall be considered false calls.

Because of ultrasonic spee

long distances traversed, incre

occur. This requirement addre

fact. 

3.2 Length and Depth Sizing Test

(a) Each reported flaw in the detection test shall be length sized.

(b) When only length sizing is being tested, the regions of each specimen containing 

a flaw to be sized shall be identified to the candidate. The candidate shall determine the 

length of the flaw in each region.

(c) For the depth sizing test, the regions of each specimen containing a flaw to be 

sized shall be identified to the candidate. The candidate shall determine the maximum 

depth of the flaw in each region.

These are the same genera

found in Supplement 2. When 

performing detection, length, a

same flaw during the demonstr

shall remain unknown. This re

examination time without affect

results.

3.3 Single-Side Access

(a) Qualification of personnel and procedures for single-side access shall be 

performed as in 3.1 and 3.2, except that access shall be restricted to one direction 

parallel and one direction perpendicular to the weld.

Defines what is meant by a 

(b) The procedure shall demonstrate that it is capable of detecting or sizing flaws 

described in 2.3. This need not be a blind demonstration.

The procedure has already 

be effective for four-direction in

demonstration is to show that t

when having only two direction

flaws acceptably.(2)

(c) The procedure shall define specific evaluation criteria for detection, such that an 

independent evaluator can make an unbiased decision.

This requires that the proce

so that an independent evaluat

interpretation.

 

(2) EPRI has studied the issue of limited scanning access and published this work, but the authors have not reviewed it, a

information was presented by EPRI staff at ASME Code meetings. The EPRI report can be purchased for $23,750, an

Implementation of ASME Section XI, Appendix VIII Performance Demonstration Requirements as Modified by 10 CFR 

Examination for Ferritic RPV Welds (EPRI NDE Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, 2000; Report No. 1001037).
3-40

SUPPLEMENT 4 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CLAD/BASE METAL INTERFACE OF R

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

4.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

4.1 Detection Acceptance Criteria

(a) Procedure qualification shall demonstrate detectability of each flaw within the 

scope of the procedure.

As in other supplements, th

qualification required one succe

qualification. This soon proved 

both automated and manual pr

possible for personnel to pass 

the procedure would be qualifie

rules, even though flaws within 

procedure were not detected. 

able situation to have flaws tha

detect so it was changed to req

detected during the procedure 

quantity of three personnel test 

included the requirement that e

used in testing candidates be d

the criteria contained in the pro

procedure cannot find a particu

procedure and/or the equipmen

or the procedure scope should 

what cannot be detected.

(b) Personnel are qualified if the results of the performance demonstration satisfy the 

acceptance criteria of Table VIII-S4-1 and no flaw greater than 0.25 in. (6 mm) depth is 

missed.

This provision increases th

requiring that no flaw greater th

depth can be missed. This is b

database where for many years 

flaw deeper than this criterion. 

decided that it should be added 

than this to be missed while no

criterion may be missed.
3-41

SUPPLEMENT 4 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CLAD/BASE METAL INTERFACE OF R

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

(c) For procedure and personnel demonstrations, the number of false calls shall not 

exceed A/10, rounded to the next whole number, where A is the total scan area of 

specimens in the test measured in square feet. The total scan area is defined as the 

area that would be scanned when scanning from all four directions.

This requirement is differen

decided that because of the lar

being inspected (particularly fro

small number of grading units w

effective in measuring FCP. Th

decided that the FCP should be 

the surface area scanned and t

of the area scanned. Vessel ex

piping in that surface geometric 

generally significantly less of a 

examinations. For I.D. examin

roughness can be an issue if th

welded condition for a single-w

4.2 Sizing Acceptance Criteria. Examination procedures, equipment, and 

personnel are qualified for sizing if the results of the performance demonstration satisfy 

the following criteria:

(a) The RMS error of the flaw lengths estimated by ultrasonics, as compared to the 

true lengths, shall not exceed 0.75 in. (19 mm)

The length sizing requirem

−1/4 in. (6.4 mm) to +1 in. (25.4 

length. The −1/4 in. (6.4 mm) w

requirement was updated to RM

is the same as that for piping in 

(b) The RMS error of the flaw depths estimated by the ultrasonics, as compared to 

the true depths, shall not exceed 0.15 in. (4 mm)

The original requirements w

• No flaw is undersized for d

0.2 in. (5.1 mm).

• Slope of the linear regressi

0.7. 

• The mean deviation of flaw 

0.25 in. (6.4 mm).

• The correlation coefficient 
3-42

SUPPLEMENT 4 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CLAD/BASE METAL INTERFACE OF R

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

This was changed to an RM

simplify the evaluation process

sizing error is larger than that fo

this is that if the inspection is fr

measurement is made through 

introduces a larger error. If the 

from the O.D. of the componen

metal path is involved, which a

measurement error.

EPRI as the administrator o

that showed that inspectors we

same criteria as for piping. 

4.3 Single-Side Acceptance Criteria

(a) Demonstrations performed according to 3.3(a) shall meet the applicable 

requirements of 3.1 for flaws located within the inner 10% of the vessel thickness.

(b) The supplemental procedure demonstration of 3.3 is acceptable when all flaws 

described in 2.3 are detected in accordance with the evaluation criteria qualified in 

3.3(c).

The basis for single-sided i

procedure has already success

formance demonstration for un

can be considered an expansio

procedure scope, which is the 

demonstration results are being 

unlimited access results or the 

Supplement 6.
3-43

3.2.5 SUPPLEMENT 5 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NOZZLE EXAMINATION FRO

SURFACE

This supplement was changed significantly in the July 2005 Addenda so that it now focuses on just the nozzle in

and inner 15% of the ferritic nozzle-to-shell weld only for when the examination is conducted from the O.D. The

same inspection procedure so they were integrated in this supplement. Other parts of the nozzle-related inspec

addressed by Supplements 4 and 6. This supplement was developed by the Task Group Appendix VIII, with the 

the EPRI NDE Center.

SUPPLEMENT 5 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NOZZLE EXAMINATION FROM THE OUT

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

1.0 SCOPE

This Supplement is applicable to examination of ferritic nozzle inside-corner regions 

and the inner 15% of ferritic nozzle-to-shell welds when scanning for flaws oriented 

perpendicular to the weld. Demonstration on clad nozzle mockups may be used for 

examination of unclad nozzles. Demonstrations performed on unclad nozzle mockups 

shall not be used for examination of clad nozzles. Supplement 4 qualification is required 

when scanning for flaws oriented parallel to ferritic nozzle-to-shell welds. Supplement 6 

qualification is required for the outer 85% of ferritic nozzle-to-shell welds.

Clarifies what volume is be

which component surface.
3-44

SUPPLEMENT 5 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NOZZLE EXAMINATION FROM THE OUT

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

This new concept was intro

conducted at the EPRI NDE Ce

work showed that O.D. inspect

geometries between the nozzle 

lead to inspection angles at the 

makes detection extremely cha

proposed and approved that ea

inspected from the O.D. require

to determine what the misorien

the flaw for the inspection angle

procedure. The performance d

conducted with this misorientat

qualified. When a nozzle in the 

inspector must show that all loc

with the flaw impingement angl

than the misorientation angle th

2.0 MODELING REQUIREMENTS

The examination procedure shall include or provide for the following. This defines the modeling p

the misorientation angles.

2.1 A computational model that calculates misorientation angles, the maximum 

metal path distance to the required examination volume, and the angle at the flaw 

(nominal inspection angle). Misorientation angle and the angle at the flaw is shown in 

Fig. VIII-S5-1. These calculations apply to the central ray of the ultrasonic beam. The 

modeling process and associated essential variables shall be identified and defined.

2.2 A statement that specifies the examination surface and the associated 

maximum acceptable misorientation angle and metal path, and the range of angles at 

the flaw for the examinations.
3-45

SUPPLEMENT 5 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NOZZLE EXAMINATION FROM THE OUT

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

2.3 Division of the surface of the required examination volume into grids of 1.0 in. 

(25 mm) or less in the nozzle axis direction and 10 deg or less of azimuth.

This systematically breaks 

surface into small enough area

inspection locations are include

2.4 The misorientation angle, metal path distance, and angle at the flaw in each grid 

cell location for each search unit or scan shall be documented. Alternatively, when 

multiple search units with different skew or incident angles are used, the search unit or 

scan that produces the minimum misorientation angle and the associated metal path and 

angle at the flaw in each grid cell location shall be documented.

This requires documenting 

that the worst-case misorientat

for each nozzle and inspection 

3.0 CONDUCT OF PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATIONS

3.1 Specimen Requirements. Demonstration specimens shall meet the following 

requirements.

This requires that realistic a

components are used for the d

(a) Two or more full-size or sections of full-size nozzle mockups shall be used. 

Specimens shall have sufficient volume to minimize spurious reflections.

Several nozzle mockups ne

that the wide range of nozzles 

represented.

(b) Nozzle mockup material and configurations shall be representative of nozzles 

installed in operating reactor vessels, but may be any thickness, diameter, or radius 

suitable for demonstration in accordance with 3.2 or 3.5.

(c) The performance demonstration shall be on the same type of cladding as that to 

be examined, with the following exceptions.

These are the same claddi

are in Supplement 4.

(1) Demonstration on shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) single-wire cladding is 

transferable to multiple-wire or strip-clad process.

(2) Demonstrations on multiple-wire or strip-clad are considered equivalent but 

are not transferable to SMAW-type clad.

(d) The surface condition of the test specimens shall be representative of the general 

condition of the vessel scanning surface.

Requires representative su

(e) The detection test matrix shall include flaws with the following description. The flaws are in the inner r

the requirements are consisten

Supplement 4.
3-46

SUPPLEMENT 5 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NOZZLE EXAMINATION FROM THE OUT

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

(1) Flaw type. At least 50% of the flaws shall be cracks. The balance shall be 

cracks, fabrication flaws (e.g., slag, lack of fusion), or machined notches. Notches shall 

have a maximum width of 0.010 in. (0.25 mm) at the tip. The width at the clad-to-basemetal interface shall not exceed 0.020 in. (0.50 mm).

The target flaws for this exa

initiated by thermal cycling and 

successive cycling of reactor st

and low temperature over-pres

events. Cracks reported in the 

NUREG-0619 (NRC 1980) wer

The techniques to be qualified 

based on the maximum misorie

beam with the flaw face. The r

the notches would require a sm

misorientations and thus a mor

There are a mixture of flaws an

response amplitudes may be c

primary objective is the demon

misorientation angles which are 

The acceptability of this ma

requirement is not known. In re

parametric studies (Crutzen et 

fabricated a number of artificial 

to 0.0012 in. (0.03 mm), and th

responses within 1 dB of that fo

fatigue crack with a tip radius le

(0.0001 mm). However, PISC 

the tip response would change 

becomes larger than 0.0012 in

without further research, there 

basis to resolve this issue.

(2) The flaw sizes shall be distributed in through-wall depths among the ranges:

(a) 0.075 to 0.200 in. (1.90 mm to 5.08 mm)

(b) 0.201 to 0.350 in. (5.09 mm to 8.89 mm)

(c) 0.351 to 0.550 in. (8.90 mm to 13.97 mm)

(d) 0.551 to 0.750 in. (13.98 mm to 19.05 mm)

(f) Flaws in the nozzle inside radius section shall be uniformly distributed in 

examination zones A and B of Fig. VIII-S5-2. At least 50% of the flaws shall be located 

within ±45 deg of nozzle azimuth angles 90 deg or 270 deg.

Because there are several 

may be located, this requireme

the flaw locations needed in the 
3-47

SUPPLEMENT 5 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NOZZLE EXAMINATION FROM THE OUT

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

(g) All flaws shall be located in the required examination volume and shall be 

oriented in the radial axial plane as shown in Fig. IWB-2500-7.

(h) Flaw location and specimen identification shall be obscured to maintain a “blind 

test.”

3.2 Procedure Qualification Demonstrations

(a) The qualification shall demonstrate the following:

(1) examination surfaces to be used, i.e., vessel plate, outer blend radius, and 

nozzle boss

(2) maximum metal path length

(3) maximum misorientation angles

(4) range of angles at the flaw

The performance demonst

the essential variables associa

geometries of nozzles. All of th

documented so that when insp

the field, the real geometries w

to be shown that all the inspect

what has been demonstrated.
3-48

SUPPLEMENT 5 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NOZZLE EXAMINATION FROM THE OUT

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

(b) The demonstration shall include at least 10 flaws for detection and sizing, in one 

or more mockups. At least one but no more than two flaws shall be located in the 

nozzle-to-vessel weld. At least 50% of the flaws in the demonstration test set must be

cracks, and the maximum misorientation shall be demonstrated with cracks. Flaws in 

nozzles with bore diameters not exceeding 4 in. (100 mm) may be notches. The 

demonstration test set shall contain a representative distribution (e.g., depths, 

examination zones, and flaw azimuth locations) of flaws.

Specification of the numbe

demonstration and other specif

location. Because of the difficu

cracks of known dimension in c

the use of up to 50% noncracks 

NRC.

(c) The initial demonstration shall be a blind test. This requires that the initia

conducted in a blind manner. I

extend the procedure, this may 

nonblind. However, if it is to be 

then the examination procedure 

to allow an independent evalua

interpretation.

3.3 Procedures Using Multiple Search Units

(a) After a successful initial demonstration, the procedure may be extended by 

nonblind demonstrations on at least one flaw using scan parameters calculated to 

provide the desired maximum path length, misorientation angle, or angle at the flaw. 

Detection shall be demonstrated to specific criteria listed in the examination procedure 

for any expansion of procedure scope.

This section defines what is 

extension of a qualified proced

(b) This demonstration shall not be performed successively or increase the 

misorientation angle or angle at the flaw by more than 9 deg or the maximum metal path 

by more than 30%.

These requirements limit th

procedure extension. Exceedin

a full blind demonstration.

(c) Qualification of other essential variables requires at least one acceptable 

personnel qualification test.

For essential variables othe

angles or path length, at least o

personnel qualification test is re

evidence that the procedure is 

flaws in the extended range.
3-49

SUPPLEMENT 5 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NOZZLE EXAMINATION FROM THE OUT

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

3.4 Procedure Qualification Documentation

(a) The examination procedure, modeling program and methods, and qualification 

results shall be documented to the extent necessary to determine that inservice 

examinations produce equivalent or smaller misorientation angles than the procedure 

demonstrated.

This section defines what m

that when inspections are cond

be determined if the componen

demonstrated. Because of the 

computer modeling programs m

coverage. The modeling devel

has been validated to correctly 

angles in the large range of noz

modeling results presented by 

are compared to the EPRI mod

any are reconciled and recorde

documents.

(b) The qualified essential variables associated with the maximum metal path, 

misorientation angles, and range of angles at the flaw shall be defined by the model 

documentation. Individual flaw validation is not required except for nonblind expansions 

of scope.

3.5 Personnel Qualification This section defines the pe

Notice that a Supplement 4 qua

prerequisite for the personnel q

of this prerequisite and the exte

the procedure, the actual perfo

is only a sampling of the condit

require the full range of essent

demonstrated by each personn

(a) Personnel shall be qualified in accordance with the requirements of Supplement 

4, for the same type of procedure (manual or automated), from the outside surface, using 

the same type of instruments and data recording and analysis equipment, and the 

following additional requirements.

(1) Successful demonstration shall include at least three additional flaws.

(2) Examinations shall be conducted from each of the scan surfaces covered by 

the procedure.

(3) The candidate shall demonstrate a selection of essential variables covered 

by the procedure, but need not demonstrate the full range.

(b) The demonstration test set shall contain a representative distribution (e.g., 

depths, examination zones, and flaw azimuth locations) of flaws. Flaws in the nozzle-tovessel weld are not required for personnel demonstration.
3-50

SUPPLEMENT 5 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NOZZLE EXAMINATION FROM THE OUT

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

3.6 Acceptance Criteria

(a) Examination procedures and equipment are qualified for detection if each flaw is 

detected and identified at the proper azimuth within the greater of ±1 in. (25 mm) or 10% 

of the metal path. The number of false calls shall not exceed D/10 (D/254) rounded up 

to the next whole number, with a maximum of 3, where D is the nominal nozzle inside 

diameter, in. (mm). If only a portion of a nozzle is examined, proportional credit for false 

calls shall be allowed. Personnel are qualified if each of the flaws presented are 

detected at the proper azimuth within the greater of ±1 in. (25 mm) or 10% of the metal 

path and identified with no false calls.

The rationale for the false c

Supplement 4, but it should be 

decided to relate this to the dia

versus the area that is scanned

are consistent with location erro

Appendix VIII supplements for 

components.

(b) Examination procedures and equipment are qualified for depth sizing if the 

results of the sizing demonstration meet the requirements of Supplement 4. Personnel 

are qualified if the results from the depth sizing test, when added to the results from 

Supplement 4, met the acceptance criteria of Supplement 4.

Because this is an extensio

Supplement 4 and only a limite

used, the pass/fail criterion is b

results from both supplements.

(c) Examination procedures and equipment are qualified for length sizing if the 

deviation between measured length and true length does not exceed 0.75 in. (19 mm). 

Length sizing is required only for flaws in the nozzle-to-shell weld. No additional 

personnel qualifications are required.

This is consistent with othe

4.0 FIELD EXAMINATIONS

4.1 To demonstrate that the proposed examination variables are within the bounds 

of the qualified demonstration, the computational model requirements defined in 2.0 shall 

be applied in conjunction with each field examination. Documentation shall be provided 

for each nozzle examination application.

This section requires that in

be shown to be within the para

and modeled.

4.2 Modeling need not be applied for repeated examination of the same or identical 

nozzles. 

4.3 As an alternative to Supplement 5, if the qualified model indicates that the 

maximum misorientation angle is 10 deg or less, examination of the nozzle-to-vessel 

weld may be performed using personnel, procedures, and equipment qualified in 

accordance with Supplement 4. The examinations shall be conducted from the vessel 

shell, and the component materials and sizes shall be within the scope of the qualified 

procedure. The Supplement 4 procedure essential variables shall be demonstrated on a 

specimen meeting the requirements of 3.1(b) that contains at least one nonblind flaw, 

oriented perpendicular to the weld, in the inner 15% of the volume. The demonstration 

shall meet the applicable requirements of 3.6(a) for detection and 3.6(b) and 3.6(c) for 

sizing. No additional personnel qualifications are required.

This is an alternative offere

which modeling shows that the 

misorientation angle is ≤ 10 de
3-51

3.2.6 SUPPLEMENT 6 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR REACTOR VESSEL WELDS 

CLAD/BASE METAL INTERFACE

This covers the remainder of the vessel wall outside the clad/base metal interface, and vessels without cladding

SUPPLEMENT 6 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR REACTOR VESSEL WELDS OTHER THAN C

INTERFACE

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

1.0 SCOPE

This Supplement applies to unclad ferritic components and the outer 85% of clad 

ferritic components.

2.0 SPECIMEN REQUIREMENTS

Qualification test specimens shall meet the requirements listed herein unless a set of 

specimens is designed to accommodate specific limitations stated in the scope of the 

examination procedure. The same specimens may be used to demonstrate both 

detection and sizing qualification.

2.1 Detection Specimens. Detection specimens, which may be full-scale mockups, shall conform to the following requirements.

(a) Specimens shall have sufficient volume to minimize spurious reflections. 

Specimen length and width shall be at least 12 in. (300 mm). There shall be at least 

10 sq ft (1 sq m) of scan surface in the specimen set.

Adequate test specimens a

that there are no problems with 

that the specimens are adequa

surface requirements for meas

(b) The specimen set shall contain at least one sample that is at least 90% of the 

maximum thickness to be examined. The specimen set shall contain one or more flaws in 

each of the locations and size ranges shown in Table VIII-S6-1.

Requires that the largest th

the test set because this is one 

essential variables.

(c) When the examination procedure requires the examination to be performed from 

the vessel I.D. (clad surface), the cladding on the mockup shall be of the same type as 

the cladding on the component to be examined, with the following exceptions:

Consistent with cladding re

Supplements 4 and 5.

(1) demonstration on shielded metal arc weld (SMAW) single-wire cladding is 

transferable to multiple-wire or strip-clad processes;

(2) demonstration on multiple-wire or strip-clad is considered equivalent but is 

not transferable to SMAW-type clad.

(d) The surface condition of the test specimens shall be representative of the general 

condition of the vessel scanning surface.

Surface conditions affect th

on the demonstration specime

tive of field conditions.
3-52

SUPPLEMENT 6 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR REACTOR VESSEL WELDS OTHER THAN C

INTERFACE

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

(e) The detection test matrix shall include flaws with the following description.

(1) Flaw Type. At least 55% of the flaws shall be cracks. The balance shall be 

cracks or fabrication flaws (e.g., slag, lack of fusion).

Requires that the flaws are 

flaws.

(2) Detection and sizing examinations shall include surface-connected flaws or 

flaws with unflawed ligaments of more than 0.2 in. (5 mm). Procedure demonstrations 

shall include examples of both.

Flaws near the component 

included in the test set.

(3) Flaws shall be oriented either parallel or perpendicular to the clad direction 

±10 deg. For procedure qualification, at least 40% of the flaws shall be included in each 

orientation. For personnel qualification, at least 20% of the flaws shall be included in 

each orientation.

Flaw orientation relative to 

important, and a range of flaws 

tions is included. The number 

not specified so that the test ca

(4) Flaws for the detection test matrix shall be selected from Table VIII-S6-1. 

The flaws selected shall provide a demonstration of the minimum and maximum metal 

path ranges to be demonstrated as well as a representative distribution of flaw sizes and 

locations.

The minimum and maximu

included in the demonstration a

through-wall depth sizes as sp

S6-1.

(5) For initial procedure qualification, the detection set shall include the 

equivalent of three personnel qualification sets. Qualification of new values of essential 

variables requires at least one personnel qualification set. Procedure qualification flaws 

shall be uniformly distributed over the ranges defined in Table VIII-S6-1. The number of 

flaws in a personnel detection demonstration shall be selected from Table VIII-S4-1.

As in other supplements th

qualification requirement requi

personnel qualification. This s

unworkable for both automated 

procedures.

The initial procedure demo

very strict standard of detecting 

equivalent of three personnel q

high standard was set to ensur

very robust and should lead to 

personnel. PNNL (Heasler et a

calculations showing how this w

pass rates and presented this 

ASME Code. Thus, this inform

the committee’s records.

(6) The requirements of IWA-3000 shall be used to determine if closely spaced 

flaws are to be treated as separate flaws.

This relates accepted flaw 

the flaws in the demonstration 

addressed.
3-53

SUPPLEMENT 6 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR REACTOR VESSEL WELDS OTHER THAN C

INTERFACE

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

2.2 Sizing Specimens

(a) Personnel qualification test sets shall include at least ten flaws. Procedure 

qualification demonstrations shall include the equivalent of three personnel qualification 

sets. At least 55% of the flaws shall be cracks and the balance shall be fabrication flaws 

(slag, lack of fusion).

This is the standard design 

be sized. Because many fabric

expected to be detected in serv

included in the sizing demonst

(b) Sizing specimens shall conform with the requirements of 2.1 (b), 2.1 (c), 2.1 (d), 

and 2.1 (e), except that the test matrix shall be selected from the sizing and detection 

test flaws included in Table VIII-S6-1

A range of flaw sizes is inc

and sizing demonstration samp

may occur anywhere in the thr

samples were designed with a 

sizes through the thickness. T

guidance on how to include a r

through-wall locations.
3-54

SUPPLEMENT 6 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR REACTOR VESSEL WELDS OTHER THAN C

INTERFACE

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

This is a definition of statis

with the sizing acceptance crite
3-55

SUPPLEMENT 6 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR REACTOR VESSEL WELDS OTHER THAN C

INTERFACE

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

3.0 CONDUCT OF PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATIONS

3.1 Detection Test

(a) Flaw locations shall be obscured so as to maintain a “blind test.” Divulgence of 

particular specimen results or candidate viewing of unmasked specimens is prohibited.

These tests are statistically 

on using blind test specimens w

no knowledge of the number, t

flaws. Testing conducted in a 

be biased and of reduced valu

(b) If a flaw is reported within the greater of 1.0 in. (25 mm) or 10% of the metal path 

length to the flaw from its true location (x, y, and z), it shall be considered detected. All 

other reported flaws shall be considered false calls.

This requirement originally 

but was found to be overly rest

what can be achieved in actua

components. There are severa

cannot be exact, such as smal

(cladding finish) that alter the in

variation of acoustic velocity th

component. This new value w

reasonable and achievable in e

addition, it was argued that this 

not generally have an impact o

3.2 Length and Depth Sizing Test

(a) Each reported flaw shall be length sized. The detected flaws are to b

10 flaws must be used in the a

length sizing performance. 

(b) For the length sizing test, the regions of each specimen containing a flaw to be 

sized shall be identified to the candidate. The candidate shall determine the length of the 

flaw in each region.

If only the length sizing is b

are less than 10 flaws in the de

additional flaws must be length 

the flaws shall be shown to the 
3-56

SUPPLEMENT 6 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR REACTOR VESSEL WELDS OTHER THAN C

INTERFACE

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

(c) When only depth sizing is being tested, the regions of each specimen containing 

a flaw to be sized shall be identified to the candidate. The candidate shall determine the 

maximum depth of the flaw in each region.

If only depth sizing is to be 

candidate shall be shown the r

flaws to be depth sized. In pra

almost always performed sepa

reason for the candidate to atte

not already passed detection a

Secondly, additional flaws are 

assure that the test set meets t

depth sizing since there are su

between the flaw test set requi

versus depth sizing.

3.3 Single-Side Access These requirements are co

approach followed in Supplem

access.

(a) Qualification of personnel and procedures for single-side access shall be 

performed as in 3.1, except that access shall be restricted to one direction parallel and 

one direction perpendicular to the weld.

4.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

4.1 Detection Acceptance Criteria

(a) Procedure qualification shall demonstrate detectability of each flaw within the 

scope of the procedure.

The procedure demonstrat

in the equivalent of three demo

(b) Personnel are qualified if the results of the performance demonstration satisfy the 

acceptance criteria of Table VIII-S4-1 and no surface-connected flaw greater than 0.25 

in. (6 mm) depth or embedded flaw (distance from nearest surface exceeds 10%t) 

greater than 0.5 in. (13 mm) was missed.

No flaws can be missed un

test set gets to 12 flaws. In ad

allowed to be missed, it also m

specified and dependent on its 

(c) For procedures and personnel demonstrations, the number of false calls shall not 

exceed A/10, rounded to the next whole number, where A is the total scan area of 

specimens in the test measured in square feet. The total scan area is defined as the 

area that would be scanned when scanning from all four directions.

This criterion is consistent 

Supplement 4.

4.2 Sizing Acceptance Criteria

(a) The RMS error of the flaw lengths estimated by ultrasonics, as compared to the 

true lengths, shall not exceed 0.75 in. (19 mm).

This criterion is consistent 

criteria in the other supplemen
3-57

SUPPLEMENT 6 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR REACTOR VESSEL WELDS OTHER THAN C

INTERFACE

Rationale for Requirem

to Referenceable D

(b) The RMS error of the flaw depths estimated by ultrasonics, as compared to the 

true depths, shall not exceed 0.25 in. (6 mm).

The need for flaw sizing ac

of the vessel is less than that f

on IWB-3500 requirements). T

increased from that used in pip

surface clad to base metal zon

because metal paths may be v

45- or 60-degree inspection on 

that is 14 in. (356 mm) thick. T

increase the errors and uncerta

estimates of the flaw through-w

(c) The slope of the linear regression line, calculated as shown in Fig. VIII-S6-1, shall 

be at least 0.7.

Based on early experience

0.25 in. (6.4 mm) RMS in (b), c

number and range of flaw size

separate good performance fro

performance, without (c). This 

originally included in the sizing 

and then has been put back in
3-58

3.2.7 SUPPLEMENT 7 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NOZZLE EXAMINATION FRO

SURFACE

Notice that this supplement addresses the inspection of nozzles from the inside surface only, whereas Supplem

inspection from the outside surface of nozzles. The original Supplement 7 covered both outside and inside insp

been changed to address inspection from the inside only.

SUPPLEMENT 7 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NOZZLE EXAMINATION FROM THE INS

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

1.0 SCOPE

This Supplement is applicable to examination of radial flaws in ferritic nozzle inside-radius 

sections. It is also applicable to examination of parallel flaws in ferritic nozzle-to-shell welds 

for examinations from the nozzle bore. Demonstrations on clad nozzle mockups may be used 

for examination of unclad nozzles. Demonstrations performed on unclad nozzle mockups 

shall not be used for examination of clad nozzles. Supplement 4 and Supplement 6 

qualifications are required when scanning the nozzle-to-vessel weld from the vessel wall.

Defines the scope cov

supplement and the prere

Supplements 4 and 6 qua

scanning nozzle-to-vesse

wall.

2.0 CONDUCT OF PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION FOR NOZZLE INSIDERADIUS SECTION

Demonstration on clad/base metal interface of reactor vessel plate specimens 

(Supplement 4) qualifies examination procedures, equipment, and personnel for nozzle insideradius section examination when the following requirements are met.

The requirements des

are consistent with those 

because essentially the s

used.

2.1 For detection and sizing, at least three additional flaws at the inside radius section in 

one or more full-scale nozzle mockups shall be added to the test set.

(a) Specimens shall have sufficient volume to minimize spurious reflections.

(b) Flaws shall be located in the radial-axial plane of the nozzle inside radius section as 

shown in Fig. IWB-2500-7. At least one mock-up shall have the minimum nozzle insidecorner radius covered by the procedure.

Specifies where the fl

and identifies that the min

corner radius covered by 

used for the demonstratio

most challenging conditio

(c) The performance demonstration shall be on the same type of cladding as that to be 

examined, with the following exceptions.

Consistent with other 

cladding.

(1) Demonstration on shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) single-wire cladding is 

transferable to multiple-wire or strip-clad process.
3-59

SUPPLEMENT 7 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NOZZLE EXAMINATION FROM THE INS

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

(2) Demonstrations on multiple-wire or strip-clad are considered equivalent but are not 

transferable to SMAW-type clad.

(d) The surface condition of the test specimens shall be representative of the general 

condition of the vessel scanning surface.

Consistent with other 

surface conditions impact 

effectiveness.

(e) The detection test matrix shall include flaws with the following description. This is the same as th

Supplement 5; the only di

inspections are being con

surface.

(1) Flaw Type. At least 50% of the flaws shall be cracks. The balance shall be 

machined notches. Notches shall have a maximum width of 0.010 in. (0.25 mm) at the tip. 

The width at the clad-to-base-metal interface shall not exceed 0.020 in. (0.5 mm).

The acceptability of th

radius/width requirement 

reviewing the PISC II para

fabricated a number of art

radii up to 0.0012 in. (0.03 

provided tip responses wi

hydraulically grown fatigu

less than 0.000004 in. (0.

not quantify how the tip re

as the tip radius becomes 

(0.03 mm). The tip respo

inspections from the insid

flaws, the specular respon

the tip response is. Thus

conducted to resolve this 

basis for the requirement 

(2) Distribution of Flaw Sizes. The flaw sizes shall be distributed in through-wall 

depths among the ranges

(a) 0.075 to 0.200 in. (1.90 mm to 5.08 mm)

(b) 0.201 to 0.350 in. (5.09 mm to 8.89 mm)

(c) 0.351 to 0.550 in. (8.90 mm to 13.97 mm)

(d) 0.551 to 0.750 in. (13.98 mm to 19.05 mm)

2.2 Each of the flaws presented for demonstration shall be correctly identified at the 

proper azimuth within the greater of ±1 in. (25 mm) or 10% of the metal path with no false 

calls.

Consistent with the ot
3-60

SUPPLEMENT 7 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NOZZLE EXAMINATION FROM THE INS

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

2.3 For depth sizing, the sizing results shall be combined with the sizing results from 

Supplement 4. The combined results shall meet the depth sizing acceptance criteria 

contained in Supplement 4.

This is the same proc

supplements where the p

thus, results can be comb

defined.

2.4 Personnel shall be qualified in accordance with the requirements of Supplement 4 

using the same type of instruments and data recording and analysis equipment. For initial 

procedure and equipment qualification, test sets shall include the equivalent of three 

personnel qualification sets. To qualify new values of essential variables, at least one 

personnel qualification set is required.

This is the same proc

supplements where the p

thus, results can be comb

defined.

3.0 CONDUCT OF PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION FOR EXAMINATION OF 

THE NOZZLE-TO-SHELL WELD FROM THE BORE

Single-side access demonstration to Supplement 6 qualifies examination personnel for 

nozzle-to-vessel weld examination when the following requirements are met.

There are requiremen

single-side access demon

Supplement 4 demonstrat

following requirements, th

equipment, and procedure

inspect the nozzle-to-vess

This is viewed like an add

reduced number of specim

consistent with the strateg

for the Supplements 12 a

3.1 For detection and sizing, a minimum of three additional flaws in one or more full-scale 

nozzle mock-ups shall be added to the test set.

This is an add-on type 

only a limited number of s

(a) Flaws shall be oriented parallel to the weld and at either the inside or outside surface, 

or subsurface. At least one subsurface flaw shall be included, and there shall be no more 

than two flaws from each category.

(b) Specimens shall have sufficient volume to minimize spurious reflections. The intent of this prov

specimens realistic and th

inspections.

(c) The performance demonstration shall be on the same type of cladding as that to be 

examined, with the following exceptions.

These requirements a

of other supplements that 

specifications.

(1) Demonstrations on shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) single-wire cladding are 

transferable to multiple-wire or strip-clad process.
3-61

SUPPLEMENT 7 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NOZZLE EXAMINATION FROM THE INS

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

(2) Demonstrations on multiple-wire or strip- clad are considered equivalent but are 

not transferable to SMAW-type clad.

(d) The surface condition of the test specimens shall be representative of the general 

condition of the vessel scanning surface.

Surface conditions m

those on components in s

(e) The detection test matrix shall include flaws with the following description.

(1) Flaw Type. At least 75% of the flaws shall be cracks. The balance shall be 

cracks, fabrication flaws (e.g., slag, lack of fusion), or machined notches.

Most flaws need to be 

concern based on service 

include fabrication flaws b

expected to be detected u

inspections.

(a) Notches shall have a maximum width of 0.010 in. (0.25 mm) at the tip. The 

width at the clad-to-base-metal interface shall not exceed 0.020 in. (0.50 mm).

The acceptability of th

width requirement is not k

PISC II parametric studies

number of artificial flaws h

0.0012 in. (0.03 mm), and 

tip responses within 1 dB 

lically grown fatigue crack 

than 0.000004 in. (0.0001 

PISC II did not quantify ho

would change as the tip ra

than 0.0012 in. (0.03 mm)

key since for inspections f

for shallow flaws, the spe

detected, only the tip resp

research is conducted to 

basis for this requirement 

it needs to be noted that t

limited to < 25%, and notc

examination is from the in

notches being less than 0

and semi-elliptical in shap

(b) Notches shall conform to the following:

(1) Notch depth shall not exceed 1/4 in. (6 mm).

(2) Notches shall be semielliptical.

(2) At least one flaw parallel to the weld shall provide a metal path distance within 

10% of the equivalent path length to the weld centerline of the thickest component to be 

examined.
3-62

SUPPLEMENT 7 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NOZZLE EXAMINATION FROM THE INS

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

(f) There shall be a representative distribution of flaw depths from Table VIII-S6-1. Because this portion o

add-on to Supplement 6, 

reference the same requir

tative distribution of flaw d

Supplement 6.

3.2 Each of the flaws presented for demonstration shall be correctly identified at the 

proper azimuth within the greater of ±1 in. (25 mm) or 10% of the metal path, with no false 

calls.

This criterion is consis

accuracy needed for defin

no false calls are permitte

3.3 For length sizing, the results shall be added to the combined results of Supplement 4 

and Supplement 6. The combined results shall meet the length sizing acceptance standards 

of Supplement 4.

Because this is an ad

is a combination of the len

Supplements 4 and 6 with 

pass/fail criterion remains 

0.75 in. (19 mm) for the c

3.4 For depth sizing, the inside surface and inner 15% results shall be combined with the 

sizing results from Supplement 4. The combined results shall meet the depth sizing 

acceptance criteria of Supplement 4. The remaining results shall be combined with the sizing 

results from Supplement 6. The combined results shall meet the depth sizing acceptance 

criteria of Supplement 6.

The depth sizing resu

within the inner 15% are t

results from Supplement 4

results for flaws in the rem

wall are to be combined w

Supplement 6. The accep

Supplement 4 are to be u

while the acceptance crite

are to be used for the latte

3.5 Personnel shall be qualified in accordance with the requirements of Supplement 6 for 

single-side access, using the same type of instruments and data recording and analysis 

equipment. For initial procedure and equipment qualification, test sets shall include the 

equivalent of three personnel qualification sets. To qualify new values of essential variables, 

at least one personnel qualification set is required.

The purpose of this p

that the single-side acces

Supplement 6 be used. N

qualifications are required
3-63

3.2.8 SUPPLEMENT 8 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BOLTS AND STUDS

SUPPLEMENT 8 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BOLTS AND STUDS

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

1.0 SPECIMEN REQUIREMENTS

Qualification test specimens shall meet the requirements listed herein, unless a set of 

specimens is designed to accommodate specific limitations stated in the scope of the 

examination procedure.

1.1 Specimens shall conform to the following requirements.

(a) The qualification process shall be performed with a full-scale section bolt or stud that 

is sufficient to contain the beam path and demonstrate the scanning technique.

The requirements for 

were developed by EPRI 

the Ad Hoc Task Group. 

Group agreed with the req

specimens.

(b) The qualification specimen shall be of similar chemical composition, tensile properties, 

and metallurgical structure as the bolt or stud to be examined. The scan surface of the 

qualification specimen shall have a configuration similar to the bolt or stud to be examined.

(c) Circumferentially oriented notches shall be located in the qualification specimen at the 

minimum and maximum qualified metal paths. Notches located within one diameter of the 

end of the bolt or stud are suitable for demonstrating the metal path distance. These notches 

are required on the outside threaded surface, with maximum depths and reflective areas as 

specified in Table VIII-S8-1.

The flaws in the bolts 

opposed to cracks. It was 

Hoc Task Group that notc

demonstration flaw becau

type of defect in bolts or s

initiates at the thread root 

in morphology. The proce

notches produced very re

(d) Additional notches may be located within the range specified in (c) above, provided 

they do not interfere with the detection of other notches.
3-64

SUPPLEMENT 8 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BOLTS AND STUDS

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

2.0 CONDUCT OF PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATIONS

Specimen identification and notch locations shall be obscured so as to maintain a “blind 

test.” A flaw shall be considered detected when the notch, as defined in 1.1, is found. The 

notch axial location correlation shall be ±1/2 in. (±13 mm) or ±5% of the bolt or stud length, 

whichever is greater.
3-65

SUPPLEMENT 8 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BOLTS AND STUDS

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

3.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

3.1 Examination procedures, equipment, and personnel are qualified for detection when 

each qualification notch (as described in 1.1) has been detected and its response equals or 

exceeds the reporting criteria specified in the procedure. The notch response shall have a 

minimum peak signal to peak noise ratio of 2:1.

The number of notche

in the requirements. Ther

notches in the sample set 

candidate. Bolt and stud 

screening test; detection o

always results in a replace

stud. Demonstration of a 

response (2:1 SNR) from 

(maximum-allowable dept

thought to be sufficient. U

that the personnel, proced

are demonstrated on an e

bolting to be examined du

field.

3.2.9 SUPPLEMENT 9 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CAST AUSTENITIC PIPING W

(In the course of preparation.)

This supplement has not been developed because reliable ultrasonic methods have been slow to be developed

phased arrays at low frequencies has shown some success (Diaz et al. 2011), and the ASME Code, Section XI 

Stainless Steel has been meeting and working on developing this supplement. Because of the research showin

inspections for piping less than 1.6 in. (40.6 mm) in wall thickness, the ASME Code, Section XI Task Group on C

is working on addressing this supplement by first developing requirements for piping less than 1.6 in. (40.6 mm) 

and then developing requirements for piping having wall thicknesses equal to or greater than 1.6 in. (40.6 mm). 

process will most likely be to rewrite Appendix III prescriptive requirements for ultrasonic examinations and imm

improvements into the Code in parallel with developing this supplement. Further, work on acceptance standard

steels is being performed through the ASME Code Flaw Evaluations Standards Group and will define the detect

performance demonstration to support development of Supplement 9.
3-66

3.2.10 SUPPLEMENT 10 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DISSIMILAR METAL PIPING 

This supplement was on the verge of being implemented when the hot leg nozzle-to-pipe weld failure at V. C. S

(Casto 2001; Grimmel 2005). The experience from V. C. Summer provided valuable guidance on the type of fla

response that would need to be contained in the demonstration set. This demonstrates that the industry (EPRI) 

collecting failure data from reported flaws and compare them to the responses from fabricated defects in an effo

technical basis of the PDI program. To date these correlations have been positive and there has not been a ne

making processes or include additional flaw types in the test sets.

SUPPLEMENT 10 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DISSIMILAR METAL PIPING W

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

1.0 SCOPE

Supplement 10 is applicable to dissimilar metal piping welds examined from either the 

inside or outside surface. Supplement 10 is not applicable to piping welds containing 

supplemental corrosion-resistant clad (CRC) applied to mitigate intergranular stress corrosion 

cracking (IGSCC).

This section defines t

of this supplement.

2.0 SPECIMEN REQUIREMENTS

Qualification test specimens shall meet the requirements listed herein, unless a set of 

specimens is designed to accommodate specific limitations stated in the scope of the 

examination procedure (e.g., pipe size, weld joint configuration, access limitations). The same 

specimens may be used to demonstrate both detection and sizing qualification.

This is a general requ

requirements must be me

2.1 General. The specimen set shall conform to the following requirements.

(a) The minimum number of flaws in a specimen set shall be ten. If the test set is to be 

detection and sizing, then 

10 flaws.

(b) Specimens shall have sufficient volume to minimize spurious reflections that may 

interfere with the interpretation process.

The purpose of this p

there are no confusing su

result from the test specim

not occur on full-sized com

(c) The specimen set shall include the minimum and maximum pipe diameters and 

thicknesses for which the examination procedure is applicable. Pipe diameters within a range 

of 1/2 in. (13 mm) of the nominal diameter shall be considered equivalent. Pipe diameters 

larger than 24 in. (600 mm) shall be considered to be flat. When a range of thicknesses is to 

be examined, a thickness tolerance of ±25% is acceptable.

The purpose of this p

that the extremes of minim

diameters and wall thickn

the demonstration proces
3-67

SUPPLEMENT 10 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DISSIMILAR METAL PIPING W

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

(d) The specimen set shall include examples of the following fabrication conditions: The purpose of this p

that the tests are realistic 

conditions that are comm

(1) geometric and material conditions that normally require discrimination from flaws 

(e.g., counterbore or weld root conditions, cladding, weld buttering, remnants of previous 

welds, adjacent welds in close proximity, weld repair areas)

(2) typical limited scanning surface conditions shall be included as follows

(a) for outside surface examinations, weld crowns, diametrical shrink, single-side 

access due to nozzle, and safe end external tapers

(b) for inside surface examinations, internal tapers, exposed weld roots, and 

cladding conditions

(e) Qualification requirements shall be satisfied separately for outside surface and inside 

surface examinations.

The inspections from 

involve different equipmen

qualification process mus

separately for each inspec

O.D.).

2.2 Flaw Location. At least 80% of the flaws shall be contained wholly in weld or 

buttering material. At least one and no more than 10% of the flaws shall be in ferritic base 

material. At least one and no more than 10% of the flaws shall be in austenitic base material.

The dominant failure 

corrosion cracking (SCC) 

Therefore, the majority of 

located in these weldmen

2.3 Flaw Type

(a) At least 60% of the flaws shall be cracks, and the remainder shall be alternative flaws. 

Specimens with IGSCC shall be used when available. Alternative flaws shall meet the 

following requirements:

Service degradation h

SCC, so the flaws for dem

large part be cracks. How

flaws can be included in t
3-68

SUPPLEMENT 10 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DISSIMILAR METAL PIPING W

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

(1) Alternative flaws, if used, shall provide crack-like reflective characteristics and 

shall only be used when implantation of cracks would produce spurious reflectors that are 

uncharacteristic of service-induced flaws.

It is not possible to im

welding without disturbing 

properties of the surround

creating spurious reflectio

amplitude of these alterna

demonstrated to be in the 

found during field examin

was provided to the ASME 

(2) Alternative flaws shall have a tip width of no more than 0.002 in. (.05 mm). These requirements a

developed in the PISC II p

simulate the tip response 

(b) At least 50% of the flaws shall be coincident with areas described in 2.1(d). This reflects where SC

service.

2.4 Flaw Depth. All flaw depths shall be greater than 10% of the nominal pipe wall 

thickness. Flaw depths shall exceed the nominal clad thickness when placed in cladding. 

Flaws in the specimen set shall be distributed as follows.

Flaw Depth Minimum

(% Wall Thickness) Percentage of Flaws

5-30% 20%

31-60% 20%

61-100% 20%

At least 75% of the flaws shall be in the range of 10 to 60% of wall thickness.

This is to provide guid

sizes to include but at the 

so that the test will remain 

2.5 Flaw Orientation Based on field experie

flaws found in service for 

oriented axially, and thus 

Both orientations have be

PWR units. Circumferent

to be more of a challenge 

function of a component a

flaws.

 

(3) Information from this EPRI work was presented to ASME Code Committees. The authors have not reviewed the EPRI 

purchased from EPRI for $142,500 and is titled Dissimilar Metal Piping Weld Examination – Guidance and Technical B

TR1008007 (2003).
3-69

SUPPLEMENT 10 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DISSIMILAR METAL PIPING W

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

(a) For other than sizing specimens, at least 30% and no more than 70% of the flaws, 

rounded to the next higher whole number, shall be oriented axially. The remainder of the 

flaws shall be oriented circumferentially.

This provision provide

number of flaws to include 

but is intentionally vague 

“blindness” is maintained.

(b) Sizing specimen sets shall meet the following requirements.

(1) Length-sizing flaws shall be oriented circumferentially. Because axial cracks 

width of the weldment and 

by the weldment width, a 

stration test using 0.75-in

the pass criterion is not m

guessing a flaw length siz

ment width would likely m

sizing requirement. Furth

tend to grow rapidly, tend 

width of weld and butterin

most important since it is 

mitigation approaches can 

Thus, the length of an axi

ful, so length sizing is per

circumferential flaws.

(2) Depth-sizing flaws shall be oriented as in 2.5(a). Need to demonstrate 

circumferential flaw is det

accurately.

3.0 PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION

Personnel and procedure performance demonstration tests shall be conducted according 

to the following requirements.

(a) For qualifications from the outside surface, the specimen inside surface and specimen 

identification shall be concealed from the candidate. When qualifications are performed from 

the inside surface, the flaw location and specimen identification shall be obscured to maintain 

a “blind test.” All examinations shall be completed prior to grading the results and presenting 

the results to the candidate. Divulgence of particular specimen results or candidate viewing of 

unmasked specimens after the performance demonstration is prohibited.

This section provides 

maintaining a blind test.

3.1 Detection Test

(a) The specimen set shall include detection specimens that meet the following 

requirements.
3-70

SUPPLEMENT 10 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DISSIMILAR METAL PIPING W

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

(1) Specimens shall be divided into grading units. Requirements similar 

Supplement 2, 1.2a, wher

recognized the complexity 

keeping the test blind, the 

test specimens, pass/fail 

testmanship, which were 

experiences with conduct

and the IEB 83-02 demon

(a) Each grading unit shall include at least 3 in. (75 mm) of weld length.

(b) The end of each flaw shall be separated from an unflawed grading unit by at 

least 1 in. (25 mm) of unflawed material. A flaw may be less than 3 in. (76 mm) in length.

(c) The segment of weld length used in one grading unit shall not be used in 

another grading unit.

(d) Grading units need not be uniformly spaced around the pipe specimen.

Table for acceptance 

supplement. Note that it i

VIII-S2-1, but there are di

available for this demonst

the number of unflawed g

reduced. As a result, this 

criterion versus that in Ta
3-71

SUPPLEMENT 10 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DISSIMILAR METAL PIPING W

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

(2) Personnel performance demonstration detection test sets shall be selected from 

Table VIII-S10-1. The number of unflawed grading units shall be at least 1-1/2 times the 

number of flawed grading units.

Note that in Suppleme

unflawed grading units wa

of flawed grading units. In 

1.5 times the number of fl

(3) Flawed and unflawed grading units shall be randomly mixed.

(b) Examination equipment and personnel are qualified for detection when personnel 

performance demonstrations satisfy the acceptance criteria of Table VIII-S10-1 for both 

detection and false calls.

Defines what qualified 

3.2 Length-Sizing Test

(a) Each reported circumferential flaw in the detection test shall be length sized. Note that this is only f

oriented flaws for the reas

(b) When the length-sizing test is conducted in conjunction with the detection test, and 

less than ten circumferential flaws are detected, additional specimens shall be provided to the 

candidate such that at least ten flaws are sized. The regions of each specimen containing a 

flaw to be sized may be identified to the candidate. The candidate shall determine the length 

of the flaw in each region.

Need to have 10 flaw

is the guidance needed to 

for computing RMS error 

acceptability.

(c) For a separate length-sizing test, the regions of each specimen containing a flaw to be 

sized may be identified to the candidate. The candidate shall determine the length of the flaw 

in each region.

(d) Examination procedures, equipment, and personnel are qualified for length-sizing 

when the RMS error of the flaw length measurements, compared to the true flaw lengths, do 

not exceed 0.75 in. (19 mm).

Pass/fail criterion is c

other supplements.

3.3 Depth-Sizing Test

(a) The depth-sizing test may be conducted separately or in conjunction with the detection 

test. For a separate depth-sizing test, the regions of each specimen containing a flaw to be 

sized may be identified to the candidate. The candidate shall determine the maximum depth 

of the flaw in each region.

Guidance on what to 

sizing test.

(b) When the depth-sizing test is conducted in conjunction with the detection test, and less 

than ten flaws are detected, additional specimens shall be provided to the candidate such that 

at least ten flaws are sized. The regions of each specimen containing a flaw to be sized may 

be identified to the candidate. The candidate shall determine the maximum depth of the flaw 

in each region.

If the detection test se

are not detected, this prov

include other flaws for dep

(c) Examination procedures, equipment, and personnel are qualified for depth-sizing when 

the RMS error of the flaw depth measurements, as compared to the true flaw depths, do not 

exceed 0.125 in. (3 mm).

Pass/fail criterion con

Supplement 2. However, 

surface-applied procedure 

satisfied this criterion.
3-72

SUPPLEMENT 10 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DISSIMILAR METAL PIPING W

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

4.0 PROCEDURE QUALIFICATION

Procedure qualification shall include the following additional requirements. This section requires 

procedure demonstration 

supplements be met alon

ments, to ensure that only 

make it through the qualif

procedure must demonstr

detected; otherwise, if a fl

and is included in a test s

now be taking an 8 out of 

of 10 test. This will reduc

because it is a limitation o

the personnel. Thus, the 

stringent and it must be im

all flaws are detectable or 

to be listed with limitations 

cannot detect.

(a) The specimen set shall include the equivalent of at least three personnel performance 

demonstration test sets. Successful personnel performance demonstrations may be 

combined to satisfy these requirements.

(b) Detectability of all flaws in the procedure qualification test set that are within the scope 

of the procedure shall be demonstrated. Length and depth sizing shall meet the requirements 

of 3.2 and 3.3.

(c) At least one successful personnel performance demonstration shall be performed.

(d) To qualify new values of essential variables, at least one personnel performance 

demonstration set is required. The acceptance test criteria of 4.0(b) shall be met.
3-73

3.2.11 SUPPLEMENT 11 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FULL STRUCTURAL OVER

AUSTENITIC PIPING WELDS

Overlaid piping has been used extensively in BWRs to mitigate IGSCC and has recently been used to mitigate S

of PWRs. However, the Inconel alloys are not covered by this supplement. Currently, this supplement is in the 

revised to address lessons learned from implementation and to include the capability to qualify procedures that 

penetrating larger examination volumes below the overlay itself. In order to use the current qualifications, licens

permission to use alternative qualification criteria, but the changes made are consistent with the overall technica

below. The scope is also being expanded to cover dissimilar metal welds susceptible to primary water stress co

(PWSCC).

SUPPLEMENT 11 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FULL STRUCTURAL OVERLAID WROUG

PIPING WELDS

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

1.0 SPECIMEN REQUIREMENTS

Qualification test specimens shall meet the requirements listed herein, unless a set of 

specimens is designed to accommodate specific limitations stated in the scope of the 

examination procedure (e.g., pipe size, weld joint configuration, access limitations). The same 

specimens may be used to demonstrate both detection and sizing qualification.

1.1 General. The specimen set shall conform to the following requirements.

(a) Specimens shall have sufficient volume to minimize spurious reflections that may 

interfere with the interpretation process.

The specimens need 

and not have spurious sig

(b) The specimen set shall consist of at least three specimens having different nominal 

pipe diameters and overlay thicknesses. They shall include the minimum and maximum 

nominal pipe diameters for which the examination procedure is applicable. Pipe diameters 

within a range of 0.9 to 1.5 times a nominal diameter shall be considered equivalent. If the 

procedure is applicable to pipe diameters of 24 in. (600 mm) or larger, the specimen set must 

include at least one specimen 24 in. (600 mm) or larger but need not include the maximum 

diameter. The specimen set shall include at least one specimen with overlay not thicker than 

0.1 in. (2.5 mm) more than the minimum thickness, and at least one specimen with over lay 

not thinner than 0.25 in. (6 mm) less than the maximum for which the examination procedure 

is applicable.

This provision provide

the number of samples an

specimen variables that n

This involves the pipe dia

thicknesses, and the thick

(c) The surface condition of at least two specimens shall approximate the roughest 

surface condition for which the examination procedure is applicable.

Surface conditions ca

effectiveness and, as suc

representative of field con
3-74

SUPPLEMENT 11 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FULL STRUCTURAL OVERLAID WROUG

PIPING WELDS

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

(d) Flaw Conditions

(1) Base metal flaws. All flaws must be in or near the butt weld heat-affected zone, 

open to the inside surface, and extending at least 75% through the base metal wall. 

Intentional overlay fabrication flaws shall not interfere with ultrasonic detection or 

characterization of the base metal flaws. At least 70% of the flaws in the detection and sizing 

tests shall be actual cracks. Specimens containing IGSCC shall be used if they are available. 

If implantation of actual cracks produces spurious reflectors that are not characteristic of 

actual flaws, alternative flaws may be used but shall comprise not more than 30% of the total 

of base material flaws. Alternative flaws, if used, shall provide crack-like reflective 

characteristics and shall be semielliptical. The tip width of the alternative flaws shall not 

exceed 0.002 in.

For IGSCC, the flaws 

zone of welds; thus, they 

in the test samples. This 

provide evidence that if a 

though-wall, it will be dete

flaws must be this size or 

the flaws need to be crack

IGSCC if they are availab

tip width is based on Type 

studies on simulating the 

(2) Overlay fabrication flaws. At least 40% of the flaws shall be noncrack fabrication 

flaws (e.g., sidewall lack of fusion or laminar lack of bond) in the overlay or the pipe-to-overlay 

interface. At least 20% of the flaws shall be cracks. The balance of the flaws shall be of 

either type.

These are the type of 

to be produced and need 

demonstration test set. G

some vagueness to ensur

blind.

(e) Detection Specimens

(1) At least 20% but less than 40% of the base metal flaws shall be oriented within 

±20 deg of the pipe axial direction. The remainder shall be oriented circumferentially. Flaws 

shall not be open to any surface to which the candidate has physical or visual access.

Guidance is given wit

ensure the testing remain

(2) Specimens shall be divided into base metal and overlay fabrication grading units. 

Each specimen shall contain one or both types of grading units. Flaws shall not interfere with 

ultrasonic detection or characterization of other flaws.

Guidance is given wit

ensure the testing remain

(a) (1) A base metal grading unit includes the overlay material and the outer 25% 

of the original overlaid weld. The base metal grading unit shall extend circumferentially for at 

least 1 in. (25 mm) and shall start at the weld centerline and be wide enough in the axial 

direction to encompass one half of the original weld crown and at least 1⁄2 in. (13 mm) of the 

adjacent base material. For axially-oriented discontinuities, the axial dimension of the base 

metal grading unit may encompass the original weld crown and at least 1⁄2 in. (13 mm) of the 

adjacent base materials.

(2) When base metal flaws penetrate into the overlay material, the base metal 

grading unit shall not be used as part of any overlay grading unit.

(3) Sufficient unflawed overlaid weld and base metal shall exist on all sides of 

the grading unit to preclude interfering reflections from adjacent flaws.
3-75

SUPPLEMENT 11 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FULL STRUCTURAL OVERLAID WROUG

PIPING WELDS

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

(b) (1) An overlay fabrication grading unit shall include the overlay material and 

the base metal-to-overlay interface for a length of at least 1 in. (25 mm).

(2) Overlay fabrication grading units designed to be unflawed shall be 

separated by unflawed overlay material and unflawed base metal-to-overlay interface for at 

least 1 in. (25 mm) at both ends. Sufficient unflawed overlaid weld and base metal shall exist 

on both sides of the overlay fabrication grading unit to preclude interfering reflections from 

adjacent flaws. The specific area used in one overlay fabrication grading unit shall not be 

used in another overlay fabrication grading unit. Overlay fabrication grading units need not be 

spaced uniformly about the specimen.

(3) Detection sets shall be selected from Table VIII S2-1. The minimum 

detection sample set is five flawed base metal grading units, ten unflawed base metal grading 

units, five flawed overlay fabrication grading units, and ten unflawed overlay fabrication 

grading units. For each type of grading unit, the set shall contain at least twice as many 

unflawed as flawed grading units. For initial procedure qualification, detection sets shall 

include the equivalent of three personnel qualification sets. To qualify new values of essential 

variables, at least one personnel qualification set is required.

(f) Sizing Specimen

(1) The minimum number of flaws shall be ten. At least 30% of the flaws shall be 

overlay fabrication flaws. At least 40% of the flaws shall be open to the inside surface. To 

assess sizing capabilities, sizing sets shall contain a representative distribution of flaw 

dimensions. For initial procedure qualification, sizing sets shall include the equivalent of three 

personnel qualification sets. To qualify new values of essential variables, at least one 

personnel qualification set is required.

This provision require

of 10 flaws and ensures r

procedure by having to m

three personnel qualificat

variables are extended by 

personnel performance qu

(2) At least 20% but less than 40% of the flaws shall be oriented axially. The 

remainder shall be oriented circumferentially. Flaws shall not be open to any surface to which 

the candidate has physical or visual access.

Guidance is given wit

ensure the testing remain

(3) Base metal flaws used for length sizing demonstrations shall be oriented 

circumferentially.

This is consistent with 

regarding flaw orientation 

because axial flaws are lim

size of the weldments.

(4) Depth sizing specimen sets shall include at least two distinct locations where a 

base metal flaw extends into the overlay material by at least 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) in the throughwall direction.

The ability to determin

has not propagated into th

important in determining t

ness of the overlay repair
3-76

SUPPLEMENT 11 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FULL STRUCTURAL OVERLAID WROUG

PIPING WELDS

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

2.0 CONDUCT OF PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATIONS

The specimen inside surface and identification shall be concealed from the candidate. All 

examinations shall be completed prior to grading the results and presenting the results to the 

candidate. Divulgence of particular specimen results or candidate viewing of unmasked 

specimens after the performance demonstration is prohibited. The overlay fabrication flaw 

test and the base metal flaw test may be performed separately.

Guidance on keeping 

blind.

2.1 Detection Test. Flawed and unflawed grading units shall be randomly mixed. 

Although the boundaries of specific grading units shall not be revealed to the candidate, the 

candidate shall be made aware of the type or types of grading units (base metal or overlay 

fabrication) that are present for each specimen.

Guidance is given wit

ensure the testing remain

2.2 Length Sizing Test Guidance on how to c

demonstration testing.

(a) The length sizing test may be conducted separately or in conjunction with the detection 

test.

(b) If the length sizing test is conducted in conjunction with the detection test and the 

detected flaws do not satisfy the requirements of 1.1 (f), additional specimens shall be 

provided to the candidate. The regions containing a flaw to be sized shall be identified to the 

candidate. The candidate shall determine the length of the flaw in each region.

(c) For a separate length sizing test, the regions of each specimen containing a flaw to be 

sized shall be identified to the candidate. The candidate shall determine the length of the flaw 

in each region.

(d) For flaws in base metal grading units, the candidate shall estimate the length of that 

part of the flaw that is in the outer 25% of the base wall thickness.

2.3 Depth Sizing Test Guidance on how to c

performance qualification 

(a) Depth sizing consists of measuring the metal thickness above the flaw (i.e., remaining 

ligament), and may be conducted separately or in conjunction with the detection test.

(b) If the depth sizing test is conducted in conjunction with the detection test and the 

detected flaws do not satisfy the requirements of 1.1 (f), additional specimens shall be 

provided to the candidate. The regions containing a flaw to be sized shall be identified to the 

candidate. The candidate shall determine the maximum depth of the flaw in each region.

(c) For a separate depth sizing test, the regions of each specimen containing a flaw to be 

sized shall be identified to the candidate. The candidate shall determine the maximum depth 

of the flaw in each region.
3-77

SUPPLEMENT 11 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FULL STRUCTURAL OVERLAID WROUG

PIPING WELDS

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

3.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

3.1 Detection Acceptance Criteria

(a) Examination procedures shall be qualified as follows: The section provides 

for the procedure. This is 

supplements.

(1) All flaws within the scope of the procedure shall be detected, and the results of the 

performance demonstration shall satisfy the acceptance criteria of Table VIII-S2-1 for false 

calls.

(2) At least one successful personnel demonstration shall be performed meeting the 

acceptance criteria defined in 3.1(b).

(b) Examination equipment and personnel shall be considered qualified for detection if the 

results of the performance demonstration satisfy the acceptance criteria of Table VIII-S2-1 for 

both detection and false calls.

(c) The criteria in 3.1 (a) and 3.1(b) shall be satisfied separately by the demonstration 

results for base metal grading units and by those for overlay fabrication grading units.

3.2 Sizing Acceptance Criteria. Examination procedures, equipment, and personnel 

are qualified for sizing when the results of the performance demonstration satisfy the following 

criteria.

(a) The RMS error of the flaw length measurements, as compared to the true flaw lengths, 

is less than or equal to 0.75 in. (19 mm). The length of a base metal flaw is measured at the 

75% through-base-metal position.

This is consistent with 

(b) The RMS error of the flaw depth measurements, as compared to the true flaw depths, 

is less than or equal to 0.125 in. (3.2 mm).

This requirement is co

Supplement 2.
3-78

3.2.12 SUPPLEMENT 12 — REQUIREMENTS FOR COORDINATED IMPLEMENTATION OF SEL

OF SUPPLEMENTS 2 AND 3

This set of requirements was based on the experience from the round-robin studies (NUREG/CR-5068, Heasler 

which showed that ferritic steel is much easier to inspect than austenitic stainless steel. Statistical theory states 

that one test is more difficult than another, one may demonstrate the equivalent capability on the easier test with 

samples. This supplement assumes that essentially the same inspection procedure will be used for ferritic pipin

piping. This supplement is specifically for inspections conducted from the outside of the piping.

SUPPLEMENT 12 — REQUIREMENTS FOR COORDINATED IMPLEMENTATION OF SELECTED A

SUPPLEMENTS 2 AND 3

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

1.0 SCOPE

This Supplement provides for expansion of Supplement 2 qualifications to permit 

coordinated qualification for Supplement 3.

2.0 DETECTION AND LENGTH SIZING

2.1 Ferritic Piping

Examination personnel, equipment, and procedure qualification requirements for detection 

and length sizing for Supplements 2 and 3 are satisfied when the following requirements are 

met.

Guidance is given for 

to include ferritic piping as 

Supplement 2 qualificatio

(a) For detection qualification, at least three additional flawed grading units and six 

additional unflawed units in ferritic piping shall be added to the test set. A grading unit shall

include at least 3 in. (75 mm) continuous weld length. All nine ferritic grading units shall be 

correctly identified.

(b) The demonstration shall meet the requirements of Supplement 2, except that for length 

sizing qualification, the minimum number of flaws shall be ten, and the specimen set shall 

include at least three, but not more than four, flaws in ferritic material.

3.0 DEPTH SIZING

Examination personnel, equipment, and procedure qualification requirements for depth 

sizing for more than one of Supplements 2 and 3 are met by the following demonstration.

(a) Specimens

(1) The minimum number of flaws shall be ten. Need to have a minim

to adequately assess sizin
3-79

SUPPLEMENT 12 — REQUIREMENTS FOR COORDINATED IMPLEMENTATION OF SELECTED A

SUPPLEMENTS 2 AND 3

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

(2) The specimen set shall include at least four but no more than five Supplement 3 

flaws.

Supplement 3 on ferr

easiest materials to inspe

limits the test set to have 

Supplement 3 flaws; the o

the requirements of Supp

(3) The overall flaw depth distribution shall meet the requirements of Supplement 2, 

1.3(b).

Guidance is given for 

sizes, but again there is s

ensure that the testing rem

(b) The demonstration shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of 

Supplement 2, 2.2(b).

(c) The examination procedure, equipment, and personnel are qualified for depth sizing 

under each of the Supplements addressed by the demonstration when the RMS error of the 

flaw depth measurements, as compared to the true flaw depths, does not exceed 0.125 in. 

(3.2 mm).

Both supplements ha

ment for depth sizing, and 

that is.

3.2.13 SUPPLEMENT 13 — DELETED

This supplement was originally designed to provide a coordinated implementation of selected aspects of Supple

However, when these four supplements were substantially modified to their present form, this supplement would 

was deleted from the Code.

3.2.14 SUPPLEMENT 14 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR COORDINATED IMPLEMEN

SUPPLEMENTS 10, 2, AND 3 FOR PIPING EXAMINATIONS PERFORMED FROM THE INS

This supplement is like Supplement 12 but is now addressing the coordination of several supplements when the 

conducted from the inside surface of the piping. The strategy followed is the same as that for Supplement 12 re

challenge for conducting an effective examination. Note that the most challenging is a Supplement 10 examina

Supplement 2 and then a Supplement 3 examination.
3-80

SUPPLEMENT 14 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR COORDINATED IMPLEMENTATION OF SU

AND 3 FOR PIPING EXAMINATIONS PERFORMED FROM THE INSIDE SURFACE

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

1.0 SCOPE

This supplement is applicable to wrought austenitic, ferritic, and dissimilar metal piping 

welds examined from the inside surface. This supplement provides for expansion of 

Supplement 10 qualifications to permit coordinated qualification for Supplements 2 and 3.

In the case of PWRs, 

dissimilar metal welds at t

vessel are conducted from 

When these welds are ins

also inspect the Supplem

end and the safe end to p

is a Supplement 2 or 3 ins

upon the design. This sco

procedure is being applie

2.0 SPECIMEN REQUIREMENTS

Qualification test specimens shall meet the requirements listed herein, unless a set of 

specimens is designed to accommodate specific limitations stated in the scope of the 

examination procedure (e.g., pipe size, access limitations). The same specimens may be 

used to demonstrate both detection and sizing qualification.

This is an integration 

from Supplements 10, 2, a

test set must represent al

conditions as well as inclu

minimum pipe diameters 

2.1 General. The specimen set shall conform to the following requirements.

(a) Specimens shall have sufficient volume to minimize spurious reflections that may 

interfere with the interpretation process.

(b) The specimen set shall include the minimum and maximum pipe diameters and 

thicknesses for which the examination procedure is applicable. Applicable tolerances are 

provided in Supplements 2, 3, and 10.

(c) The specimen set shall include examples of the following fabrication conditions:

(1) geometric and material conditions that normally require discrimination from flaws 

(e.g., counterbore or weld root conditions, cladding, weld buttering, remnants of previous 

welds, adjacent welds in close proximity, and weld repair areas)

(2) typical limited scanning surface conditions (e.g., internal tapers, exposed weld 

roots, and cladding conditions)
3-81

SUPPLEMENT 14 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR COORDINATED IMPLEMENTATION OF SU

AND 3 FOR PIPING EXAMINATIONS PERFORMED FROM THE INSIDE SURFACE

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

2.2 Supplement 2 Flaws

(a) At least 70% of the flaws shall be cracks; the remainder shall be alternative flaws. Requires that most of 

and IGSCC to be used wh

tive flaws such as an isos

can be used. Provides gu

acceptable alternative flaw 

requires the flaws to simu

the Type A PISC II param

width.

(b) Specimens with IGSCC shall be used when available.

(c) Alternative flaws, if used, shall provide crack-like reflective characteristics and shall 

comply with the following.

(1) Alternative flaws shall be used only when implantation of cracks produces 

spurious reflectors that are uncharacteristic of service-induced flaws.

(2) Alternative flaws shall have a tip width of no more than 0.002 in. (0.05 mm).

2.3 Supplement 3 Flaws. Supplement 3 flaws shall be mechanical or thermal fatigue 

cracks.

This requirement is ba

cracks are needed and th

process in ferritic steel is 

2.4 Distribution. The specimen set shall contain a representative distribution of flaws. 

Flawed and unflawed grading units shall be randomly mixed.

This requirement was 

by the ASME Code Task 

Because there are three s

range of material variable

come up with definitive gu

distribution of flaws needs 

that the implementers of t

need to assemble a range 

their locations and sizes. 

responsibility of the imple

case for how they have sa

conditions and how they a

specimen test set. The im

United States is the perfo

administrator (PDA), whic

Center. There are curren

the Code for the PDA, but 
3-82

SUPPLEMENT 14 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR COORDINATED IMPLEMENTATION OF SU

AND 3 FOR PIPING EXAMINATIONS PERFORMED FROM THE INSIDE SURFACE

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

the Task Group Appendix 

supplement to provide cla

responsibility of the PDA.

3.0 PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION

Personnel and procedure performance demonstration tests shall be conducted according 

to the following requirements.

(a) The same essential variable values, or, when appropriate, the same criteria for 

selecting values as demonstrated in Supplement 10 shall be used.

Because Supplement 

challenging, it drives the r

variables to be demonstra

(b) The flaw location and specimen identification shall be obscured to maintain a “blind 

test.”

These keep the test b

(c) All examinations shall be completed prior to grading the results and presenting the 

results to the candidate. Divulgence of particular specimen results or candidate viewing of 

unmasked specimens after the performance demonstration is prohibited.

These requirements a

demonstration process bl

3.1 Detection Test

(a) The specimen set for Supplement 2 qualification shall include at least five flawed 

grading units and ten unflawed grading units in austenitic piping. A maximum of one flaw shall 

be oriented axially.

This is considered an 

ment 10 qualification and, 

least five Supplement 2 fl

because the Supplement 

inspection and the Supple

challenging.

(b) The specimen set for Supplement 3 qualification shall include at least three flawed 

grading units and six unflawed grading units in ferritic piping. A maximum of one flaw shall be 

oriented axially.

Supplement 3 is easie

and 2. Thus, there is only 

three ferritic flaws and six 

(c) Specimens shall be divided into grading units. These are the generic 

sure that the grading units 

not have any interaction w

simplifies the scoring of th

(1) Each grading unit shall include at least 3 in. (76 mm) of weld length.

(2) The end of each flaw shall be separated from an unflawed grading unit by at least 

1 in. (25 mm) of unflawed material. A flaw may be less than 3 in. (76 mm) in length.

(3) The segment of weld length used in one grading unit shall not be used in another 

grading unit.

(4) Grading units need not be uniformly spaced around the pipe specimen.
3-83

SUPPLEMENT 14 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR COORDINATED IMPLEMENTATION OF SU

AND 3 FOR PIPING EXAMINATIONS PERFORMED FROM THE INSIDE SURFACE

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

(d) All grading units shall be correctly identified as being either flawed or unflawed. Guidance on how to i

3.2 Length-Sizing Test This provides the guid

conduct the length sizing 

adding on Supplement 2 a

(a) The coordinated implementation shall include the following requirements for personnel 

length-sizing qualification.

(b) The specimen set for Supplement 2 qualification shall include at least four flaws in 

austenitic material.

(c) The specimen set for Supplement 3 qualification shall include at least three flaws in 

ferritic material.

(d) Each reported circumferential flaw in the detection test shall be length sized. When 

only length-sizing is being tested, the regions of each specimen containing a flaw to be sized 

may be identified to the candidate. The candidate shall determine the length of the flaw in 

each region.

(e) Supplement 2 or Supplement 3 examination procedures, equipment, and personnel 

are qualified for length-sizing when the flaw lengths estimated by ultrasonics, as compared 

with the true length, do not exceed 0.75 in. (19 mm) RMS, when they are combined with a 

successful Supplement 10 qualification.

The pass/fail criterion 

from the Supplement 2 an

with the length sizing resu

to determine if the combin

criterion of ≤ 0.75 in. (19 m

3.3 Depth-Sizing Test. The coordinated implementation shall include the following 

requirements for personnel depth-sizing qualification.

This provides requirem

Supplement 2 and 3 spec

(a) The specimen set for Supplement 2 qualification shall include at least four 

circumferentially-oriented flaws in austenitic material.

(b) The specimen set for Supplement 3 qualification shall include at least three flaws in 

ferritic material.

(c) For a separate depth-sizing test, the regions of each specimen containing a flaw to be 

sized may be identified to the candidate. The candidate shall determine the depth of the flaw 

in each region.

(d) Supplement 2 or Supplement 3 examination procedures, equipment, and personnel 

are qualified for depth-sizing when the flaw depths estimated by ultrasonics, as compared with 

the true depths, do not exceed 0.125 in. (3 mm) RMS, when they are combined with a 

successful Supplement 10 qualification.

Because the Supplem

ons to a successful Suppl

the pass/fail criterion is th

[3 mm]) when the depth s

with the Supplement 10 d

surface-applied procedure 

satisfied this criterion for S
3-84

SUPPLEMENT 14 — QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR COORDINATED IMPLEMENTATION OF SU

AND 3 FOR PIPING EXAMINATIONS PERFORMED FROM THE INSIDE SURFACE

Rationale for Requir

to Referenceable 

4.0 PROCEDURE QUALIFICATION

Procedure qualification shall include the following additional requirements.

(a) The specimen set shall include the equivalent of at least three personnel performance 

demonstration test sets. Successful personnel performance demonstrations may be 

combined to satisfy these requirements.

The procedure qualifi

the stringent requirement 

least three personnel perf

test sets.

(b) Detectability of all flaws in the procedure qualification test set that are within the scope 

of the procedure shall be demonstrated. Length and depth sizing shall meet the requirements 

of 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.

This requires that all f

least one personnel demo

to have the procedure bec

detection. For depth and 

criteria already described 

(c) At least one successful personnel demonstration shall be performed.

(d) To qualify new values of essential variables, at least one personnel performance 

demonstration is required. The acceptance criteria of 4.0(b) shall be met.

For a qualified proced

an essential variable is be

procedure, then at least o

performance demonstratio

based on the fact that the 

qualified and now a chang

essential variables. It was 

ASME Code members fel

demonstration would not 

thought it was sufficient to 

procedure is still effective 

blind personnel performan
4-1

4 DISCUSSION

There is clear evidence that the performance demonstration requirements adopted by 

Section XI of the ASME Code for Boiler and Pressure Vessels has resulted in a positive impact 

on the reliability of ultrasonic examinations that are performed on piping and pressure vessels 

(Doctor 2008). Figure 4-1 shows the progress that has been made on piping welds since 

performance demonstration has been adopted.

Figure 4-1 Comparison of Probability of Detection from Three Round Robins and PDI 

Data between 1981 and 2001 (wrought stainless steel piping)

The lowest performance level is shown for the PIRR study that took place in 1981. This study 

has become a benchmark on performance in the early 1980s. The Mini Round Robin (MRR)

results in 1985 showed that smaller flaws could be detected more reliably with a moderate 

increase in performance for intermediate flaws that was attributed to the performance 

demonstration mandated at that time. The PISC-AST (Austenitic Steel Testing) results of 1990 

show a significant improvement over the PIRR and, except for very small flaws, display 

improvement over the MRR results.

Two plots shown for the PDI data represent performance up to 2001. The PDI data were 

plotted for all inspectors who successfully passed the performance demonstration requirements 
4-2

stipulated in Appendix VIII; and a second curve plots all inspectors who attempted the 

performance demonstration test (passed plus failed). It can be seen that both of these PDIbased curves show improvements over the preceding three round-robin studies, indicating that 

there has definitely been improvement in piping inspection reliability. Similar results can be 

shown for reactor pressure vessel inspection if one compares the results of the PVRC studies in 

the 1970s and PDI data for reactor pressure vessel examinations (Becker 2001). Additionally, 

recent field experience indicates that performance-demonstrated ultrasonic techniques provide 

significantly improved sensitivities and signal-to-noise ratios as compared to the prescriptive 

techniques previously applied. However, this process needs further improvement as 

exemplified by the recent failure of ISI at North Anna where SCC was not detected but was 

discovered when the dissimilar metal weld was being prepared for an overlay (Anderson et al. 

2012). There were a number of issues relating to the probe design, use of manual inspection, 

quality of the technical justification, and the site-specific mockup process that was followed. A 

number of these issues will be best resolved by creating improved requirements in ASME Code, 

Section XI, Appendix VIII.

Most U.S. operating nuclear power plants have implemented risk-informed ISI (RI-ISI) programs 

for safety-related piping welds. A fundamental assumption for all of these RI-ISI programs is 

that highly effective ISI is being performed. In order to have confidence that highly effective 

inspections are being performed, it is important to use those combinations of personnel, 

procedures, and equipment (NDE systems) that have shown objective statistical evidence 

supporting acceptable performance levels. Currently, UT systems are required to provide this 

evidence by successfully demonstrating their capabilities through blind performance 

demonstration in accordance with Appendix VIII; this concept is valid for other forms of NDE as 

well, but is yet to be required by ASME Code.

The previous discussion on austenitic piping welds clearly shows the improvement in 

performance that has been achieved for the detection of service-induced cracking in these 

components. Similar arguments could possibly be made for UT inspection on components 

addressed by other supplements in Appendix VIII through analyses of the existing PDI 

database. Unfortunately, this database is no longer being periodically analyzed to provide this 

type of objective evidence on performance achievements. When assessing the effectiveness 

and consequences of periodic inspections, it is necessary to quantify and evaluate certain 

characteristics for the population of active field inspectors. Given that we have minimal field 

data that is acceptable for such evaluation, these characteristics are best estimated from 

qualification data such as that residing in the PDI database. 

Also, if there is interest in re-evaluating the original criteria and basic assumptions to assess 

whether improvements could be made to the overall qualification process, for example, passing 

more candidates with high performance or failing more candidates with low performance, an 

analysis of the PDI data could provide information needed for this type of assessment. The 

significant point here is that the PDI database currently provides the only available information 

on examination personnel capabilities for all of the Appendix VIII supplements, and is therefore 

an important resource for assessing/improving the performance demonstration process. It is 

recommended that the PDI database be analyzed for quantifying characteristics of inspector 

populations for each supplement and developing potential improvements to the performance 

demonstration process. 
4-3

Another recommendation concerns the absence of performance-based examination 

requirements for other safety-related items. There are several component examinations that 

are listed in Mandatory Appendix I where examination qualification standards continue to refer 

to using prescriptive-based, Section V requirements. These include:

• Article I-2100 for reactor vessel-to-flange welds, closure head-to-flange welds, integral 

attachment welds, and reactor vessel control rod drive housing welds;

• Article I-2120 for other vessels greater than 2 in. (50 mm), such as the pressurizer and 

steam generator shell welds;

• Article I-2210 for vessels 2 in. (50 mm) and less, for example, heat exchangers, storage 

tanks;

• Article I-2200 for threads in the reactor pressure vessel closure flange; and

• Article I-2400 for all other welds or materials for which the requirements of I-2100, I-2200, or 

I-2300 do not apply.

These examinations should be upgraded to performance-based qualification requirements, and 

Appendix VIII should be modified through the development of new supplements to address their 

specific needs.

Appendix VIII was developed to address NDE performance issues that were of major concern in 

the 1980s, when many inservice degradation mechanisms such as IGSCC were leading to 

failures in piping systems. This approach, as one part of managing IGSCC in BWR piping 

welds, has been quite successful, but recent issues have shown that a re-examination of the 

existing requirements in Appendix VIII may be needed. For example, the presence and impact 

of fabrication flaws on effective UT performance was not addressed in Appendix VIII because 

the focus was on service degradation that normally emanates from the (inner or outer) surface 

of components. Recent events on dissimilar metal welds have highlighted the need for qualified 

examinations to provide objective evidence for UT capability to distinguish fabrication flaws from 

service-induced cracks. It is believed that in certain cases, embedded fabrication flaws have 

been incorrectly interpreted as service-induced PWSCC, which resulted in unnecessary and 

expensive repairs to components. The inability to correctly discern fabrication from serviceinduced flaws may also lead to uncharacterized (undetected) degradation, which could 

challenge the continued integrity of safety-related components. It is therefore recommended 

that new ASME Code, Appendix VIII rules be developed to address this issue.

In addition, there are currently no requirements in Appendix VIII for accurately estimating the 

remaining ligament of unflawed material adjacent to embedded flaws. This becomes an issue 

when embedded flaws are located near a surface. For fracture mechanics analyses, a flaw that 

is located within a certain proximity to the surface must be analyzed as if it were surfaceconnected. Thus, the measurement of remaining ligament can be extremely important and the 

capability to estimate this value should be demonstrated. A limited analysis of PDI RPV 

qualification data performed in 2009 indicated that when this data was collapsed across all 

candidates, the ligament sizing error would have met an RMS error value of 0.125 in. (3 mm). 

Hence, the goal should be to quantify this capability for each candidate, establish acceptable 

performance criteria, and give recognition for achieving an effective ligament sizing 
4-4

performance, thus providing more confidence for values used in flaw evaluation. It is 

recommended that ligament sizing rules should be added to the requirements of Appendix VIII.

Another area where Appendix VIII should be strengthened includes ensuring that any candidate 

for qualification must provide documented evidence for meeting all of the training and 

experience requirements before they are permitted to be tested. The basis for this comment is 

that Appendix VIII has been developed as a screening test, with limited numbers of flawed 

specimen conditions that are presented to each candidate. This limited, screening approach 

was designed to only confirm that experienced candidates have the necessary skills and 

knowledge. As a screening approach, there remains a very small statistical probability that a 

candidate with clearly inadequate skills and experience may pass the demonstration test. 

However, the screening test may pass candidates with borderline skills. This limited approach 

and realization was part of the fundamental assumptions used in the basis for Appendix VIII 

development. If the rules of Appendix VIII are used in another manner (i.e., if anyone is allowed 

to take these limited tests, regardless of their training and experience), then the basis for 

demonstration must be reanalyzed, and the test sets must be redesigned to become more 

challenging. Only in this manner can one maintain the low probability that a candidate with 

inadequate skills and experience might pass the demonstration test. This is potentially an area 

where guidance for the performance demonstration administrator could be defined in 

Appendix VIII to ensure that validated documentation of adequate qualification through training 

and experience be implemented in accordance with the fundamental assumptions that were 

used to develop Appendix VIII.

The Appendix VIII rules are a living document and are undergoing continuous review at the 

quarterly ASME Code meetings. This document, which provides the rationale basis for the 

Appendix VIII rules and supplements, may be useful when evaluating these rules and 

supplements as nondestructive testing techniques evolve, as possible new degradation 

mechanisms emerge, or as known degradation processes occur in components/materials 

thought to be immune to them.
5-1

5 REFERENCES

Anderson MT. 2007. "Lessons Learned from Review of Ultrasonic Data on Dissimilar Metal 

Welds at Duane Arnold Energy Center, Unit 1." Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 

Richland, Washington, 

Anderson MT, AA Diaz and SR Doctor. 2012. Evaluation of Manual Ultrasonic Examinations 

Applied to Detect Flaws in Primary System Dissimilar Metal Welds at North Anna Power Station. 

PNNL-21546, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML12200A216.

ASME. 2004. "Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Section XI." 

In ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code – An International Code. American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers, New York.

ASNT. 2006. Recommended Practice No. SNT-TC-1A: Personnel Qualification and 

Certification in Nondestructive Testing. American Society for Nondestructive Testing, 

Columbus, Ohio.

ASTM E1065. 1987. Standard Guide for Evaluating Characteristics of Ultrasonic Search Units. 

ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, www.astm.org.

ASTM E1324. 1990. Standard Guide for Measuring Some Electronic Characteristics of 

Ultrasonic Examination Instruments. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 

www.astm.org.

Becker FL, SR Doctor, PG Heasler, CJ Morris, SG Pitman, GP Selby and FA Simonen. 1981. 

Integration of NDE Reliability and Fracture Mechanics, Phase 1 Report. NUREG/CR-1696, 

PNL-3469 Vol. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Becker L. 2001. "Performance Demonstration - 25 Years of Progress." Electric Power 

Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, Seville, Spain

Beyer WH. 1979. Standard Mathematical Tables, 25th Ed., CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, 

Florida.

Busse LJ, FL Becker, RE Bowey, SR Doctor, RP Gribble and GJ Posakony. 1982. 

Characterization Methods for Ultrasonic Test Systems. NUREG/CR-2264, PNL-4215, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Casto C. 2001. Memorandum to Jack R. Strosnider. "V. C. Summer Hot Leg Nozzle-to-Pipe 

Weld Crack - Potential Generic Issues." April 2, 2001, Region II, U.S. Nuclear Relatory 

Commission, Atlanta, Georgia. ADAMS Accession No. ML010930432.

Chockie LJ. 1980. "PVRC Round Robin Ultrasonic Testing Program, Results and Assessment 

of Reliability." In Proceedings of Third International Conference on Nondestructive Evaluation in 

the Nuclear Industry - 1980, pp. 361-379. February 11-13, 1980, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

American Society for Metals, Metals Park, Ohio.
5-2

Crutzen S, M Certo, P Dombret and R Murgatroyd. 1989. PISC II: Parametric Studies, 

Reactor Safety Programme 1985-1987, Summary of the PISC II Parametric Studies on the 

Effect of Dfect Characteristics (EDC), Summary Report. Report No. EUR 12435 EN, 

Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Diaz AA, AD Cinson, SL Crawford, R Mathews, TL Moran, MS Prowant and MT Anderson. 

2011. An Evaluation of Ultrasonic Phased Array Testing for Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel 

Pressurizer Surge Line Piping Welds. NUREG/CR-7122, PNNL-19497, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Doctor SR. 2008. "The History and Future of NDE in the Management of Nuclear Power Plant 

Materials Degradation." In Proceedings of the ASME 2008 Pressure Vessels and Piping 

Division Conference, pp. 197-207. July 27-31, 2008, Chicago, Illinois. American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers, New York.

EPRI. 1997. Ultrasonic Examination of Nozzle Inner Radius Regions. EPRI TR-107493s, 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, California.

EPRI. 2005. Guideline for Implementation of Appendix VIII and 10CFR50.55a, Update 2005. 

Report No. 1010007, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.

EPRI. 2010. Nondestructive Evaluation: Ultrasonic Cable Equivalency - Applicable to 

Conventional Manual Ultrasonic Cable Equivalency, Final Report. Report No. 1021059, Electric 

Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, California.

European Commission. 1994. Non-Destructive Examination Practice and Results, State of the 

Art and PISC III Results, Proceedings of the Joint CEC OECD IAEA Specialists Meeting, March 

8-10, 1994, Petten, The Netherlands. eds: E Borloo and P Lemaitre. Commission of the 

European Communities, Luxembourg.

Gosselin SR, FA Simonen, PG Heasler and SR Doctor. 2007. Fatigue Crack Flaw Tolerances 

in Nuclear Power Plant Piping – A Basis for Improvements to ASME Code Section XI Appendix 

L. NUREG/CR-6934, PNNL-16192, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Green ER, SR Doctor, RL Hockey and AA Diaz. 1992. Development of Equipment Parameter 

Tolerances for the Ultrasonic Inspection of Steel Components - Application to Components Up 

to 3 Inches Thick. NUREG/CR-5871, PNL-8064, Vol. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, D.C.

Grimmel B. 2005. U.S. Plant Experience with Alloy 600 Cracking and Boric Acid Corrosion of 

Light-Water Reactor Pressure Vessel Materials. NUREG-1823, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, D.C.

Heasler PG, DJ Bates, TT Taylor and SR Doctor. 1986. Performance Demonstration Tests for 

Detection of Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking. NUREG/CR-4464, PNL-5705, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Heasler PG and SR Doctor. 1996. Piping Inspection Round Robin. NUREG/CR-5068, PNL10475, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
5-3

Heasler PG, SR Doctor and L Becker. 2000. "Use of Two-Stage Performance Demonstration 

Tests for NDE Qualification." In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on NDE in 

Relation to Structural Integrity for Nuclear and Pressurized Components, Volume 1, pp. A-115--

A-128. May 24-26, 2000, New Orleans, Louisiana. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo 

Alto, California.

Heasler PG, TT Taylor and SR Doctor. 1993. Statistically Based Reevaluation of PISC-II 

Round Robin Test Data. NUREG/CR-5410, PNL-8577, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, D.C.

Heasler PG, TT Taylor, JC Spanner, SR Doctor and JD Deffenbaugh. 1990. Ultrasonic 

Inspection Reliability for Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracks: A Round Robin Study of the 

Effects of Personnel, Procedures, Equipment and Crack Characteristics. NUREG/CR-4908, 

PNL-6179, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Hedden OF. 2000. "Evolution of Section XI of the ASME boiler and Pressure Vessel Code." 

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 122(3):234-241.

IEEE. 1992. The New IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms, Fifth 

Edition. Standards Information Network, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE 

Press, New York.

Jackson DA, SR Doctor, GJ Schuster and FA Simonen. 2001. "Developing a Generalized Flaw 

Distribution for Reactor Pressure Vessels." Nuclear Engineering and Design 208:123-131.

Nichols RW and S Crutzen, Eds. 1988. Ultrasonic Inspection of Heavy Section Steel 

Components: The PISC-II Final Report. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London and New 

York.

NRC. 1975. Investigation and Evaluation of Cracking in Austenitic Stainless Steel of Boiling

Water Reactor Plants. NUREG-75/067, Pipe Crack Study Group, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, D.C.

NRC. 1980. BWR Feedwater Nozzle and Control Rod Drive Return Line Nozzle Cracking. 

NUREG-0619, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

NRC. 1982. Stress Corrosion Cracking in Thick-Wall, Large-Diameter, Stainless Steel, 

Recirculation System Piping at BWR Plants. IE Bulletin No. 82-03, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Washington, D.C.

NRC. 1983. Stress Corrosion Cracking in Large-Diameter Stainless Steel Recirculation 

System Piping at BWR Plants. IE Bulletin No. 83-02, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Washington, D.C.

PISC I. 1979. Volumes I to VI Describing the PISC I Program. EUR 6371 En, Commission of 

the European Communities, Nuclear Science and Technology, EEC Brussels-Luxembourg.

Simonen FA and HH Woo. 1984. Analyses of the Impact of Inservice Inspection Using a Piping 

Reliability Model. NUREG/CR-3869, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
5-4

Singh R. 2000. Three Decades of NDI Reliability Assessment. Report No. Karta-3510-99-01, 

Karta Technology, Inc., San Antonio, Texas.

Spanner JC, SR Doctor, TT Taylor and J Muscara. 1990. Qualification Process for Ultrasonic 

Testing in Nuclear Inservice Inspection Applications. NUREG/CR-4882, PNL-6179, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Taylor TT, SL Crawford, SR Doctor and GJ Posakony. 1983. Detection of Small-Sized NearSurface Under-Clad Cracks For Reactor Pressure Vessels. NUREG/CR-2878, PNL-4373, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.





UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

--------------------

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
NUREG/CR-7165 The Technical Basis Supporting ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix VIII: 

Performance Demonstration for Ultrasonic Examination Systems