TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page I. NDT WORKING GROUP CHARTER 1
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
III. PRESENTATIONS 6
IV. BREAKOUT SESSIONS 15
V. OPEN NDT WORKING GROUP ACTION 30 ITEMS
VI. COMPLETED NDT WORKING GROUP 35 ACTION ITEMS
VII. NDT WORKING GROUP MEETING 37 ATTENDEES
i
The 2018 NAVSEA NDT Working Group meeting hosted by Surface Warfare Officers School Unit – Great Lakes
ii
I. NDT WORKING GROUP CHARTER
1. Foreword. Nondestructive Testing (NDT) is integral to quality assurance in procurement, construction, overhaul, and maintenance of ships of the United States Navy. The Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) recognizes the value of an NDT Working Group dedicated to improving NDT processes as they apply to Naval ships’ systems and components, and the Working Group is essential to the following NAVSEA Commander’s Mission Priorities:
Mission Priority #1 - On-Time Delivery of Ships and Submarines Mission Priority #2 - Culture of Affordability Mission Priority #3 - Cybersecurity
2. Vision. The NDT Working Group will drive innovation to be the instrument for improving NDT processes specified in NAVSEA Technical Publications, Standards or Specifications associated with NDT.
3. Purpose.
a. The group will address and recommend resolution to the proper technical authority those NDT issues associated with constructing, maintaining and operating Naval ships.
b. The group will work as a team sharing ideas, information, successes, best practices, and failures.
c. The group will pursue improvements, effectively integrating all stakeholders.
d. The group will receive guidance, approval, support, and/or limitations from NAVSEA 04X6.
d. The group will determine applicable action items from inputs received from stakeholders and/or NAVSEA 04X6.
e. The group will address improvement of NDT processes from an industry-wide perspective, soliciting participation by all stakeholders.
4. Membership.
a. NDT Working Group Chairperson: NAVSEA NDT & Welding Programs Manager (SEA 04X6NDT)
b. NAVSEA NDT Technical Representative: NAVSEA NDT&E Technical Warrant Holder (SEA 05P2)
c. NDT Working Group Host: Rotational among stakeholders
1
d. Members/Stakeholders:
1) NAVSEA
2) Naval Shipyards
3) Regional Maintenance Centers (RMC)
4) Supervisors of Shipbuilding (SUPSHIP)
5) Contractors who apply NAVSEA-specified NDT
6) Type Commanders (TYCOM) / Fleet activities
7) Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)
5. Coordination.
a. NDT Working Group members, through cooperation and support of their respective activities, are responsible for maintaining working group continuity.
b. The Chairperson is responsible for identification, execution and tracking status of current action items to ensure their timely completion through communications with break-out session teams.
c. The NDT Working Group will strive to arrive at decisions by consensus of its members.
d. The NDT Working Group will convene annually.
e. This charter may be modified by NAVSEA 04X6.
6. Objectives.
a. Identify and implement, or recommend to proper authority the implementation of improvements in NDT processes.
(MP#1: On-Time Delivery of Ships and Submarines - Technical Excellence)
b. Improve quality and reduce costs of NDT.
(MP#2: Culture of Affordability – Cost of Processes)
c. Remove institutional barriers that obstruct the sharing of information and knowledge.
(High Velocity Learning)
2
d. Promote NDT education and development.
(MP#1: On-Time Delivery of Ships and Submarines – People)
e. Pursue NDT innovation and new technologies with cybersecurity in mind.
(MP#3: Cybersecurity – Affordably integrate cybersecurity)
7. Focus.
a. NDT Qualification process (i.e., formal classroom training, work-time-experience and examination [written & practical exams]) to obtain certification.
b. NDT Oversight and Technical Performance Evaluations.
c. State-of-the-art NDT Processes and Equipment.
d. Standardization of NDT processes.
e. Lessons Learned.
f. NDT Technical Issues.
g. Action Items as assigned by NAVSEA 04X6.
8. Timetable.
a. This charter will be updated as necessary.
b. The NDT Working Group Chairperson will update NDT Working Group action items.
c. Membership will determine agenda items including break-out sessions.
d. All action items will be subject to milestones/completion as designated by the NDT Working Group.
e. The NDT Working Group will be disbanded upon consensus of the Working Group by NAVSEA 04X6.
f. The Chairperson will determine location and date of the next NDT Working Group meeting and announce the location during the last day of the meeting.
3
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Surface Warfare Officers School Unit-Great Lakes (SWOSU-GL) hosted the 16th NAVSEA NDT Working Group meeting during the period 22 - 24 May 2018 on Naval Station Great Lakes in North Chicago, Illinois. Hull Maintenance Technician Senior Chief (Surface Warfare) Sean Huston (SWOSU-GL NDT ‘C’ School Director) hosted the meeting, and Mr. Jason Hence (NAVSEA NDT & Welding Programs Manager; SEA 04X6NDT) chaired the meeting.
HTCS(SW) Huston opened the Working Group meeting. He detailed the SWOSU mission and briefed the attendees on the NDT school classes offered and the NAVSEA NDT Level III certification program at SWOSU-GL.
Commander (CDR) Terrance Patterson (SWOSU-GL Commanding Officer) welcomed the Working Group attendees. CDR Patterson emphasized the importance of NDT in the Fleet and the vital role that SWOSU-GL plays, but he conveyed that the Fleet has not identified any problems associated with the decreasing numbers of active duty NDT personnel. There have been no negative consequences resulting from the declining active duty NDT population. CDR Patterson also posed some potential topics of discussion to address active duty NDT personnel numbers in the Fleet, including how to get experience in the Fleet, possibly restructuring NDT billet assignments, and a “grooming list” for potential Examiner candidates (i.e., similar to a mentorship plan). In addition, he encouraged maximum utilization of the SWOSU-GL NDT school by civilians as a training alternative.
Mr. Hence welcomed the group and noted the increased attendance at this year’s meeting following the recent years’ trend. He also noted the significance that SWOSU-GL has had in the careers of many attendees in that they either graduated from the Great Lakes NDT school or they graduated from the school when it was located in San Diego but subsequently took Level III examinations in Great Lakes. In addition, Mr. Hence noted that the commonality amongst all the attendees, whether civilian or active duty, public or private, is the underlying duty to ensure that the men and women who serve aboard our Navy ships make it back home safely to their families. Mr. Hence then invited each attendee to introduce themselves, state what activity they represented, and whether they attended NDT school at SWOSU-GL or certified NDT Level III there.
Mr. Paul Colahan (NAVSEA Director of Oversight and Assessment; SEA 04X6) reiterated the sentiments of the previous speakers and stated that this meeting is a good example of how the NAVSEA NDT community incorporates High Velocity Learning (HVL) principles into improvement and problem solving. Mr. Colahan also noted the need to update the NAVSEA NDT Working Group charter to explicitly incorporate the term “High Velocity Learning” along with the NAVSEA Commander’s Mission Priorities.
Dr. Pranaam Haldipur then presented the “State of NAVSEA NDT” to the group. Mr. Hence presented an update on the 2017 NAVSEA NDT Working Group action items. Mr. Todd Kinter (NDT Program Manager, Ship Repair Facility – Japan Regional Maintenance Center) presented the NDT Examiner development tool to the group and how to use it. Finally, Mr. Hence presented NDT Audit Lessons Learned. Presentation details are described in Section III.
4
The Working Group addressed various subjects during each presentation and in later breakout sessions. Breakout sessions and associated action items are detailed in Section IV.
The Working Group meeting concluded with the assembly having successfully established a Plan of Actions and Milestones for each of several breakout sessions including active duty NDT staffing, Eddy Current Testing (ET) of Heat Exchanger Tubing, Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT), Regional Maintenance Center NDT Written Practice Standardization, refining the NDT Examiner development tool, Computed Radiography (CR), and using the Question Mark Perception database for NDT examinations.
Naval Surface Warfare Center – Philadelphia Division volunteered and will host the 2019 NAVSEA NDT Working Group meeting. More information on that meeting will be provided in the coming weeks and months.
Copies of presentations may be obtained by contacting Mr. Hence.
5
III. PRESENTATIONS
A. The State of NAVSEA NDT – Dr. Pranaam Haldipur (NAVSEA NDT & E Technical Warrant Holder; SEA 05P2)
1. MIL-STD-2035 Revision Status: SEA 05P routed the draft through the Standards Review Board in January 2018. Reviewers responded with a significant number of comments. Comments from the review have yet to be adjudicated. Lack of funding was stalling the adjudication of the comments. Funding has been restored. The SEA 05P intent is to adjudicate all comments, approve the document, and issue NAVSEA Technical Publication 2035 by the end of 2018.
2. Computed Radiography (CR) Status: SEA 05P issued a letter in March 2018 providing direction for a trial phase CR implementation. The trial period is intended to provide side-by- side data for equivalency comparison between CR and film radiography for various applications and to identify any shortfalls in the current requirements. Implementation of new technologies is always challenging, but this should not impede the progress in moving forward to enable the next generation of NDT technologies.
3. Eddy Current Testing (ET) in lieu of Magnetic Particle Testing (MT): There have been two round-robin studies thus far to evaluate the possibility of using ET in lieu of MT with specific focus on the ability of ET to detect tight transverse cracks. The data so far has not supported this, primarily because of the difficulty fabricating appropriate specimens with stand- alone transverse cracks. The results from the last round look promising but there is a need to provide more objective quality evidence (OQE) to support using ET in lieu of MT. SEA 05P is planning a third round-robin test to finalize the decision.
4. ET of Heat Exchanger (Hx) Tubing: In the last couple years, ET array technology has been used in conjunction with the conventional bobbin probes. The data from the array probes is qualitative and can provide information on the presence of Single Axial Indications (SAI) or Single Circumferential Indications (SCI). Since ET array provides only qualitative data, there is a need to complement these findings by means of replications. Requirements need to be developed for performing ET array inspections of Hx tubing, and NAVSEA Technical Publication 2032 needs to be updated accordingly. Some key aspects that need to be identified and included in the requirements are:
a. The need to analyze the bobbin and array data concurrently. So far the Naval Shipyards have analyzed bobbin and array data independently. This can result in unnecessary plugging of heat exchanger tubes.
b. Understanding the sensitivity and calibration settings used and the need to use them consistently to enable data trending.
c. Evaluate ET data auto-analysis capabilities. Identify the settings and thresholds used for auto-analysis.
6
5. Status of Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) for Structural Welds: In July 2017, the PAUT Examiners submitted to SEA 05P a procedure for inspecting structural welds. SEA 05P has routed to SEA 08 a letter approving the procedure. In the first week of May 2018, SEA 05P held a meeting with SEA 07U with regard to PAUT in lieu of conventional UT on Unrestricted Operations (URO) Maintenance Requirement Card (MRC) sites. The SEA 07U concerns are more with logistics and establishing the equivalency between conventional UT and PAUT data on URO MRC sites. An update to NAVSEA 0900-LP-006-3020 is being planned to incorporate PAUT. The current plan is to have a gradual transition by inspecting the URO MRC sites using both conventional UT and PAUT until there is sufficient OQE to support complete transition to PAUT. One obstacle is related to staffing. Currently only Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility, and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility have PAUT certified Examiners.
B. Previous NAVSEA NDT Working Group Action Items Update – Mr. Jason Hence (NAVSEA NDT & Welding Programs Manager; SEA 04X6NDT)
1. MIL-STD-2035 Revision: The Working Group (WG) experienced issues at last year’s meeting because it appeared that the draft under review had not taken into account the WG’s previous comments. For example, it was determined that the Magnetic Particle Testing (MT) / Liquid Penetrant Testing (PT) charts in the back of the document were to be removed, but the contractor editing the document disagreed with the WG and did not remove the charts. The WG provided technical justification for the removal of the unnecessary charts from the document, and the figures were subsequently removed. A new draft of the document resulted, but several comments still require adjudication. The process was stalled due to a lack of funding. As of the start of the WG meeting, funding had been restored. NAVSEA 05 will adjudicate all comments, and the goal is to issue the document by the end of 2018.
2. Computed Radiography (CR) Requirements Draft NAVSEA Technical Publication: The WG held a CR meeting at General Dynamics Electric Boat Corporation (GDEB) in June 2017. The result of that meeting was a draft CR requirements document that aligned nuclear and non- nuclear CR personnel and equipment requirements. The WG drafted the CR document. SEA 05P finalized the draft and routed the document for concurrence. SEA 05P issued a letter in March 2018 allowing the four Naval Shipyards, GDEB, and Huntington Ingalls Industries- Newport News Shipbuilding to use the draft CR requirements during a trial phase while SEA 05P continued routing the document through the Standards Review Board (SRB) process.
3. Eddy Current Testing (ET) of Heat Exchanger (Hx) Tubing Issues: Last year’s WG agreed to re-establish annual ET meetings with the goal of continued streamlining and standardizing the ET process application. In addition, SEA 05P issued a letter authorizing local user calibration of ET equipment with no OEM calibration required. The SEA 05P ET In-Service Engineering Agent (ISEA) explored ET data back-up solutions. The general consensus among the WG is that ET procedures will be the next standardized by the Naval Shipyard NDT Community of Practice. ET array will continue to be pursued for ET of Hx tubing.
4. ET Crack Detection in Lieu of MT. SEA 05P circulated samples for round-robin comparison of ET Crack Detection and MT results. The samples were not ideal and SEA 05P
7
discontinued the round-robin inspections. GDEB agreed to fabricate new, more representative samples for another set of round-robin inspections.
5. NDT Examiner Development Tool. Break-out session representatives used the list of NDT Examiner core competencies compiled during last year’s WG meeting to create a tool to use for developing Examiner candidates and new Examiners. The representatives prepared a presentation for this year’s meeting to explain how to use the tool.
6. NSTM Chapter 074, Volume 2 Draft Revision: Mr. Hence (NAVSEA 04X6NDT) finalized the draft revision reviewed by the NDT WG during last year’s meeting. Mr. Hence sent the finalized draft to SEA 05P for inclusion in the SRB process. Lack of funding is stalling revision of the document.
7. 2011 NDT Working Group Action – Piping Socket Weld Scribe Line: The current NAVSEA Technical Publication 278 wording has led to incorrect interpretation that a scribe line to verify weld size is required only for Class P-1 piping socket welds. SEA 05P incorporated the NDT WG’s requested change into the latest draft revision of NAVSEA Tech Pub 278. The draft document, Table 9-1, Footnote 16 now reads “For class P-2 piping, the reference mark of table 9-1 footnote 7 shall be applied to verify fillet weld size for P-13 and P-80 joints and any other fillet weld that extends to the top of the fitting, unless otherwise approved by NAVSEA.” The NDT WG will continue to track this action to completion when the NAVSEA Tech Pub 278 revision is issued.
8. 2012 NDT Working Group Action – Blue Light for Fluorescent MT: NAVSEA 05P will consider including the use of blue lights for fluorescent MT in NAVSEA Technical Publication 271, Revision 2. In the meantime, anyone wishing to use blue lights for fluorescent MT is encouraged to submit a request for approval along with supporting technical rationale to NAVSEA 05P2 (Dr. Haldipur). The NDT Working Group will continue to track this action until approval is granted (or denied) or NAVSEA Tech Pub 271 is revised, whichever occurs first.
9. 2011 NDT Working Group Action – Use of Quantitative Quality Indicators (QQI) for MT: Similar to the use of blue lights for fluorescent MT, NAVSEA 05P will evaluate including QQI requirements into NAVSEA Tech Pub 271, Revision 2. In the meantime, anyone wishing to use QQIs is encouraged to submit a request for approval along with supporting technical rationale to SEA 05P2 (Dr. Haldipur). The NDT Working Group will continue to track this action until approval is granted (or denied) or NAVSEA Tech Pub 271 is revised, whichever occurs first.
C. NDT Examiner Development Tool – Mr. Todd Kinter (NDT Program Manager; SRF – Japan RMC)
1. The NDT WG representatives who developed this iteration of the NDT Examiner Development Tool were Nate Livesey (NDT Engineer; NSWC-Carderock Division), Jeff Adams (NDT Examiner; SUPSHIP Bath), Melanie Harden (NDT Examiner; Southwest Regional Maintenance Center), and Mr. Kinter.
2. The purpose is to provide activities who perform NAVSEA NDT with a tool to assist in expediting development of new NDT Examiners or potential Examiner candidates. The tool is 8 intended to identify and capture the Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSA) expected of a seasoned NDT Examiner. It further sub-categorizes the elements of each KSA and identifies the factors within each subcategory to aid in personnel development. The tool also provides an interactive listing of references and sources where each can be obtained.
3. The group sought input for the tool development from the various NAVSEA NDT activities including Naval Shipyards, Regional Maintenance Centers, and Supervisors of Shipbuilding (SUPSHIP). Each activity type provides a different perspective of NAVSEA NDT. Naval Shipyards perform in-process NDT during maintenance and modernization of Naval ships and submarines. RMCs perform in-process NDT and provide Government oversight of contractor-performed NDT during maintenance and modernization of surface ships. SUPSHIPs provide Government oversight of contractor-performed NDT during new construction of ships and submarines.
4. The tool’s identified KSAs include the following:
• Level III certification and recertification • Surveillance conduct and certification maintenance • Certification testing and training of Level II personnel • Problem identification and resolution • Audits • Records administration • Program management • Inspection procedures
5. An example of the tool’s sub-levels using the “Audits” KSA are:
• NAVSEA audits. • Internal audits or assessments. • RMC audits of Contractor Quality Management System (QMS). • Welder/brazer program audits.
6. An example of the tool’s factors, using the “Audits” KSA and the NAVSEA sub-level are:
• Preparation o Internal audit and assessment plan o Data analysis/Self-assessment o Problem identification o Corrective actions • Participation o Being evaluated . Conduct/Defending actions o As a team member . Conduct . Requirements . Drafting findings
9
• Replies o Data analysis o Problem identification o Boxing the problem o Corrective actions
7. Three tasks remain in developing the tool including the following:
a. Finalizing the KSA’s, Sub-levels, and Factors, keeping in mind that the list will continually evolve as new items are identified.
b. Identifying an accessible storage location for the tool. Possibilities include a NAVSEA site, MIL-SUITE, etc. Suggestions from the Working Group are welcome.
c. Exploring various presentation formats other than Excel for the tool.
d. Developing a qualification card format to track individual progress.
D. NDT Audit Lessons Learned (2017 – 2018) – Mr. Jason Hence (NAVSEA NDT & Welding Programs Manager; SEA 04X6NDT)
1. This presentation is intended to be a knowledge sharing opportunity with some of the more interesting items Mr. Hence has documented over the last year during NDT audits of several activities including Naval Shipyards, Nuclear Shipbuilders, Regional Maintenance Centers, Supervisors of Shipbuilding, Trident Refit Facility-Kings Bay (TRF-KB), and Ship Repair Facility-Japan Regional Maintenance Center (SRF-JRMC).
2. This presentation should not be viewed as a tell-all about other activities. No activity is named in this presentation.
3. Program Management findings:
a. Inadequate Self-Assessment. We may think of self-assessment as something we do individually as part of our performance appraisal system, the report NAVSEA requests prior to an NDT audit, and possibly a periodic report your command requires. Each is performed for the same purpose, but the self-assessment may not be as thorough as intended for several reasons, including but not limited to lack of self-assessment experience. An effective self-assessment includes well-defined metrics by which performance in any particular area is measured. If utilized correctly, this leads to quickly determining problem areas and making appropriate changes to improve those areas. The following are two examples of inadequate self-assessment:
1) Example 1: The activity inadequately assessed the reported data. The activity experienced a pre-NDT Evaluation failure rate (30% - 83%) that greatly exceeded certification examination and Technical Performance Evaluation (TPE) failure rates (0% - 19%). Weeks in advance of the Evaluation, NAVSEA sends the activity being evaluated a practical examination kit. The activity is instructed to administer practical examinations to a sample of their certified 10
inspectors and to assess the results. This is in addition to assessing the results of certification examinations and TPE’s over the previous four years. The significant variation in failure rates indicates some difference between the two that that one would expect to be addressed in the assessment, but the activity reported the data without mentioning what the difference was, if they investigated the difference, or what they were doing to address the difference.
2) Example 2: The activity did not use the data that was available to them in the assessment. The activity assessed a program as satisfactory, but the data told a different story. The Evaluation team saw a significant difference between the surveillances that the NDT Division had performed relative to the surveillances the Examiner and the Nuclear Government Inspector (NGI) had performed. 13% of the surveillances performed by the NDT Division documented inspector deficiencies or improvement needed in certain areas. In contrast, 40% of the Examiner surveillances and 60% of the NGI surveillances documented inspector deficiencies and improvement needed. The difference suggests the quality of the NDT Division’s surveillances is lacking, and the self-assessment was a good opportunity to identify the issue along with some corrective actions, but it was not mentioned in the self-assessment. Another example of disagreeing data in the same self-assessment was high failure rates for personnel attempting initial certification. This may be an indicator that training needs to be improved. It may be an indicator of something else, but the activity did not address the high failure rates and missed the opportunity to identify the specific issue and implement corrective actions.
What is the big deal about self-assessment? If self-assessment is done properly, it is an effective tool to continually improve your program. It is much better to self-identify issues and be working on them than to have an audit team or some other outside entity identify problems for you.
b. Weld Workmanship (WS) Examination Approval. There were some instances where Weld WS examinations did not have the required Examiner approval. NAVSEA Technical Publication 248 lists one of the elements of the Weld WS program as “Examinations covering detailed workmanship and visual inspection requirements to be passed by each person with a grade of no less than 75 percent.” It then requires approval of all the items listed before by the Level III Examiner or other NAVSEA approved individual.
c. NDT Examination Questions Verbatim from ASNT. There were some instances of NDT certification examination questions taken verbatim from the American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT) supplements. ASNT thought it was important enough to prohibit this practice twice in ASNT SNT-TC-1A. It states in both places (paragraph 8.6 and the Appendix A Note), “These questions are intended as examples only and should not be used verbatim for qualification examinations.”
d. Inconsistent NDT Examination Grading Criteria.
1) Example 1: No point values specified on the answer key for point deduction if the examinee did not produce indications present on the prop. This could be a problem if more than one Examiner may be administering the examination. One Examiner may deduct 2 points; the other may deduct 5 points. This could also be a problem when the same Examiner administers
11 the examination on two different occasions, deducting a different point amount from one instance to another.
2) Example 2: A Liquid Penetrant Testing (PT) acceptance criteria examination asked “Is the weld acceptable? Why or why not?” The examinee may answer that the weld is acceptable because there are no indications present that exceed the maximum size allowed; the total area of the indications present do not exceed the maximum indication area allowed; and there are no linear indications or linearly aligned indications. The examinee could also state that the weld is acceptable because the indications present do not exceed the criteria specified in paragraphs x and y in the PT procedure. Still another answer could be that the weld is acceptable because it meets all the required acceptance criteria. The examination question is open-ended and is too difficult to grade objectively if the Examiner is looking for the answer to contain specific information.
3) Example 3: No critical attributes identified on the answer key. The Examiner administering the examination was expected to determine what performance attributes were critical for them. This is similar to Example 1, where two Examiners may grade differently or one Examiner grades differently on two separate occasions.
NDT Examinations should be challenging but fair tests of the examinee’s competency in applying the method, and the grading should be objective such that the examinee’s grade will be the same regardless which Examiner administers the examination. A good reference for examination development is ASNT’s A Guide for Developing NDT Certification Examinations, which states “Well phrased multiple choice questions can be designed to evaluate knowledge, communication skills, judgment, mathematical ability and analytical reasoning. They are objective, easy to administer and can be easily graded by mechanical or electronic means.”
e. Near Distance Visual Acuity Testing at Incorrect Distances. NAVSEA Technical Publication 271 requires the vision test to be given at a distance of not less than 12 inches but not greater than 16 inches. This is the minimum requirement; each activity’s procedure is required to describe how it does business to meet this minimum requirement. Several versions of near distance visual acuity testing cards exist, but it is not the intent of the NAVSEA Tech Pub 271 requirement to place any available card anywhere from 12 to 16 inches away and the test be acceptable. An ASNT article in the October 2009 The NDT Technician titled “Understanding Near Vision Eye Tests” explicitly details the science behind near distance visual acuity tests. One of the points in the article is that testing distance matters. Each card is designed to test visual acuity at a specific distance from the printed letters. The correct distance from the eye for the J1 level on one particular card is 15 inches. For another card the correct distance is .37 meters (approximately 14 ½”). Other card distances are specified in decimeters. Still others may be in inches but specify a different distance. The reason ASNT changed the requirement in 2006 to explicitly require vision tests to be administered between 12 and 16 inches at the distance indicated on the card was because people were miniaturizing the cards and holding them closer thinking they were getting the same results as the normal size cards at the specified distances. This particular topic may not be the most significant, but since vision tests are required, they should be administered correctly.
12
4. NDT Performance Findings:
a. The normal NDT inspector findings encountered include inspectors missing indications/conditions (e.g., not checking both legs of a fillet weld during VT), inspectors applying incorrect acceptance criteria (e.g., calculating incorrect PT maximum allowable indication area), and inspectors not achieving 100% inspection area coverage (e.g., not applying the magnetic field in two directions during MT). One example of not achieving 100% MT inspection coverage is related to the NAVSEA Technical Publication requirement which states “…the area to be inspected shall be limited to one-fourth of the prod or yoke leg spacing on either side of a line joining the prods or yoke legs.” One activity incorrectly interpreted that to mean the line joining the yoke legs was the width of the yoke legs as indicated in Figure 1 below.
Misinterpreted MT Coverage Area
Yoke Leg Placement
Figure 1.
However, high school geometry tells us a line has no width, so the correct inspection area is depicted in Figure 2 below.
Correct MT Coverage Area
Yoke Leg Placement
Figure 2.
13
5. Inadvertent Radiography. MIL-STD-2035 states that if inadvertent radiography shows indications in the base material, an engineering evaluation is required if no radiography criteria exist. What happened previously was activities would frequently not document the presence of indications like pitting in the base material. This is happening less frequently. Now film interpreters will often document the indications and request an engineering evaluation but then close the RT record. The RT record cannot be completed without the disposition of the indications. In the case of pitting, what will usually happen is the engineer will request UT thickness readings to ensure the remaining material is not below minimum allowed wall thickness and then accept the pitting as is. That resolution needs to be included on the RT report. Then the film interpreter can accept the indications based on the engineering evaluation and document it accordingly.
14
IV. BREAKOUT SESSIONS (NOTE: Each Team Leader is responsible to drive POA&M to completion or transfer lead to another activity.)
A. EDDY CURRENT TESTING (ET) ISSUES.
1. Team Leader: Larry Wedel (HII-NNS)
2. Team Members:
NAME ACTIVITY Ed Reed EB Corp. Bob Feole Feole Technologies David Jaumotte National Inspection & Consultants Tom Armstrong NAVSEA 05 Pranaam Haldipur NAVSEA 05 Jeremy Johnson NNSY Stephanie Watson NNSY Michelle Klenow NNSY Nate Livesey NSWC-Carderock Division Traci Jefferson NSWC-Philadelphia Division Robin Workman NSWC-Philadelphia Division Steve Francis NUWC-Newport Division Patric Lockhart NUWC-Newport Division Wayne Weisner Olympus Sean Killeen Olympus James Bittner Olympus Chip Andrade PHNSY&IMF Rick Sheridan PSNS&IMF Jason Lasater PSNS&IMF Nathan Kerns PSNS&IMF Matthew Moyer PSNS&IMF Evan Badertscher PSNS&IMF Nolan Ojeda PSNS&IMF Patrick O’Malia PSNS&IMF Dani Eldridge PSNS&IMF Travis Hileman PSNS&IMF Aaron DePoala SUPSHIP Groton Chris Perrine TRF-Kings Bay Scott Hower Zetec
3. Purpose/Objective: To align ET performance and data interpretation across the NAVSEA enterprise.
15
4. Breakout Synopsis:
a. ET in lieu of MT. The group discussed target flaws, NAVSEA round-robin inspections, and the current state.
b. NAVSEA Technical Publication 2032. The group reviewed the draft revision for content applicable to ET array and any technical issues with the draft.
c. Heat Exchanger (Hx) Data. The group reviewed actual aircraft carrier Hx data to compare the analyzed ET results with metallurgical reports.
d. ET Meeting. The group scheduled a meeting to review additions to the draft NAVSEA Tech Pub 2032 and to document a path forward for signal interpretation and ET normalization for trending.
5. Plan of Action & Milestones:
a. Discuss target flaw size, type, and acceptance with NAVSEA 05P2 (Materials Engineering).
ASSIGNED TO: Pranaam Haldipur SCD: 15 June 2018
b. Coordinate and schedule the ET meeting.
ASSIGNED TO: Nate Livesey SCD: COMPLETE
c. Adjudicate comments and proposed changes to NAVSEA Technical Publication 2032.
ASSIGNED TO: Larry Wedel SCD: 21 July 2018
d. Hold the ET meeting at NSWC-Carderock Division to finish ET technical discussions and review NAVSEA Tech Pub 2032.
ASSIGNED TO: Larry Wedel SCD: 6 August 2018
16
B. COMPUTED RADIOGRAPHY (CR) IMPLEMENTATION.
1. Team Leader: Kenneth Coleman (NNSY)
2. Team Members:
NAME ACTIVITY Amy Hurst Applied Technical Services Don Hurst Applied Technical Services John Webster BPMI Justin DelleDonne BPMI Charles Menken BWXT Stephen Pflanz Carestream NDT Stephen Brault EB Corp. Bob Feole Feole Technologies Joseph Pease Fincantieri Marinette Marine Nicholas DuPont Fincantieri Marinette Marine Terry Plasek Fujifilm Jim Neal Fujifilm Daniel Wysnewski GE Inspection Technologies Randall Hall HII-NNS William Stricklin Ingalls Shipbuilding Greg Mohr NNL Rob Jonas NNSY Javeus Ramsey NNSY Ashlee Floyd NSWC-Carderock Division Joey Benton NSWC-Carderock Division Jeff Timms Oceaneering Darryl Chang PHNSY&IMF Al Perdido PHNSY&IMF Bill Barner PNS Chris McWhinnie PNS Renée Hardiman PSNS&IMF Evan Badertscher PSNS&IMF Chance Styron PSNS&IMF Matthew Brodbent PSNS&IMF Jeffrey Bragg SERMC Todd Grace SUPSHIP Groton Jason Greer SUPSHIP Newport News
3. Purpose/Objective:
a. Purpose. To analyze and discuss the current state of the NAVSEA CR program and determine a realistic path forward for successful implementation.
17
b. Objectives. Carestream software/hardware updates, enterprise solution discussion, discuss CR Examiner development plan, CR data management plan.
4. Breakout Synopsis:
a. Carestream Updates. The group discussed updates to fix photomultiplier tube (PMT) linearity and recalibration of firmware to version 5.1/Windows® 10 (reduces fuzziness and enhances clarity).
5. Plan of Action & Milestones:
a. Purchase and install a DICONDE compliant database. Submit “NAVSEA Information System Cybersecurity Assessment and Authorization (A&A) Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M)” to NAVSEA 08B. Each local Shipyard MUST contact and develop a working relationship with their local IT Department (Code 109) for smooth implementation.
ASSIGNED TO: Kenneth Coleman SCD: 31 August 2018
b. Determine logistical plan of action with vendor to orchestrate and install updates based on IT Department requirements. Base access is needed to perform updates.
ASSIGNED TO: Kenneth Coleman SCD: 18 September 2018
c. Corporate Shipyards must decide and agree on corporate nomenclature for DICONDE query fields for CR program and ancillary information that will be stored. (NOTE: Other NDT methods (e.g., UT, ET) should be having similar discussions as Enterprise Solution will be an available resource for the collection and dissemination of all NDT data which is DICONDE compliant.)
ASSIGNED TO: Kenneth Coleman SCD: 31 December 2018
d. Procure ASNT certified vendor training for initial development of Level I, II, and III curriculum. Examiner development plan should be a collaborative effort with EB Corp. and HII- NNS utilizing their lessons learned.
ASSIGNED TO: Kenneth Coleman SCD: 1 April 2019
18
C. NDT EXAMINER DEVELOPMENT TOOL
1. Team Leader: Melanie Harden (SWRMC)
2. Team Members:
NAME ACTIVITY Karen Bruer Amee Bay Don Booth American Institute of NDT Matthew Junkert American Institute of NDT John Pariseau American Institute of NDT Tom Carpinello BWXT Dale Fosdyck FDRMC Chris Arnold HII-NNS Rob Hansen NNSY Richard Caylor NNSY Chris Renfrew NNSY Faith Kinnaird NNSY Stephen Bristow NNSY Dale Gray NNSY Mike McGee NSWC-Panama City Division Robin Workman NSWC-Philadelphia Division Jennie Armstrong Oceaneering Wayne Weisner Olympus Al Perdido PHNSY & IMF Bret Rife PNS Todd Weiner PNS Charles Lengel PNS Steven Hietpas PNS Nona Brown PSNS & IMF Patrick Roberts PSNS & IMF Jeffrey Bragg SERMC Todd Kinter SRF-Japan RMC Hiroki Najima SRF-Japan RMC Shintaro Ooizumi SRF-Japan RMC Tom Quinn SUPSHIP Bath Mike Kowalski SUPSHIP Bath Robert Macias SUPSHIP Bath Del Lee SUPSHIP Bath (Det Marinette) Randy Ferguson SUPSHIP Bath (Det Marinette) Will Hergott SUPSHIP Groton Aaron DePoala SUPSHIP Groton Joseph Moser SUPSHIP Newport News Theresa Lopez SWRMC Adam Faircloth TRF-Kings Bay
19
3. Purpose/Objective: To continue developing a tool to assist in the development of new NDT Examiners and future Examiners.
4. Breakout Synopsis: The group discussed a variety of topics including a standardized NDT examination database, developing a “qualification card” to track an individual’s progress, and streamlining NDT general theory examination references to eliminate outdated references.
5. Plan of Action & Milestones:
a. Send updated NDT Examiner Development Tool for review and comment to the NDT community.
ASSIGNED TO: Todd Kinter SCD: 13 July 2018
b. Explore computer-based NDT training options.
ASSIGNED TO: Melanie Harden SCD: 15 August 2018
c. Develop a qualification card to add to the NDT Examiner Development Tool.
ASSIGNED TO: Melanie Harden SCD: 15 August 2018
20
D. ACTIVE DUTY NDT STAFFING
1. Team Leader: HTCS(SW) Sean Huston (SWOSU-Great Lakes)
2. Team Members:
NAME ACTIVITY HTCM George Rape ACU-5 HTCS Cory Ervin LOGSU-3 Jim Booher MARMC HT1 Skyler Malmstrom NPTU Ballston Spa Chaz Aranita PHNSY & IMF John Ricks PHNSY & IMF HTC Kyle Timm PSNS & IMF Jason Hence NAVSEA 04 HTC Brandon Link SWOSU-Great Lakes HTC Joel Nevens SWOSU-Great Lakes HTC Rodney Ellars SWOSU-Great Lakes HT1 Derek Rody USS Frank Cable HT1 Shawn Lareau USS George Washington
3. Purpose/Objective:
a. Purpose: To discuss the status of active duty NDT staffing and the health of the community.
b. Objective: To identify training concerns, personnel management, and program administration issues.
4. Breakout Synopsis:
a. The group discussed how the active duty NDT Examiner shortage is contributing to a lack of knowledge deficiency across Navy NDT.
b. No formal mechanism is in place to feed Fleet program review findings back to certifying agencies.
c. There is a possible work package shortage in the Fleet contributing to proficiency issues.
5. Plan of Action & Milestones:
a. NEC tracking and verification to determine true community strength of active duty personnel.
ASSIGNED TO: HTCM George Rape SCD: 30 September 2018
21
b. Solicit active duty NDT Examiner participation for NDT audits.
ASSIGNED TO: Jason Hence SCD: 31 October 2018
c. Develop an NDT/Weld Workmanship program audit checklist for submission and inclusion in Fleet assessments.
ASSIGNED TO: HTCS Cory Ervin SCD: 31 October 2018
d. Determine if a post-NDT School Intermediate (I) stop at maintenance facilities is feasible.
ASSIGNED TO: HTC Kyle Timm SCD: 30 November 2018
e. Request NDT Examiner attendance at Fleet audits.
ASSIGNED TO: HTCS Sean Huston SCD: 30 November 2018
22
E. PHASED ARRAY ULTRASONIC TESTING (PAUT)
1. Team Leaders: Chance Styron (PSNS&IMF) Matthew Brodbent (PSNS&IMF)
2. Team Members:
NAME ACTIVITY Amy Hurst Applied Technical Services Don Hurst Applied Technical Services Edward Reed EB Corp Chris Arnold HII-NNS David Jaumotte National Inspection & Consultants Paul Colahan NAVSEA 04 Michelle Klenow NNSY Richard Caylor NNSY Christopher Renfrew NNSY Nate Livesey NSWC-Carderock Division Steve Francis NUWC-Newport Division Patric Lockhart NUWC-Newport Division Jeff Timms Oceaneering Sean Killeen Olympus John Ricks PHNSY & IMF Bret Rife PNS Nathan Kerns PSNS & IMF Aaron DePoala SUPSHIP Groton Chris Perrine TRF-Kings Bay
3. Purpose/Objective:
a. Purpose. To align participating activities with the current state and future goals of the PAUT program. To identify any concerns and suggestions for process improvements.
b. Objective. Discuss the current state, goals, and obstacles. Discuss the need for a general requirements revision. Answer or seek answers to any questions. Clarify inspector qualification requirements.
4. Breakout Synopsis: The group discussed a wide range of topics including the following:
a. PAUT general requirements being separate from NAVSEA Technical Publication 271. The reason for this is to allow for continuous changes.
b. Possibility of changing the definition of Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) for piping to mirror ASME codes. The current expectation has proven to be more difficult to perform Time of Flight Diffraction (ToFD) for the HAZ on as-welded piping joints.
23
c. Copper-Nickel (CuNi) piping weld joints with excessive weld widths have proven difficult to achieve 100% coverage. This is challenging for welders because flush grinding non- backing ring welds to facilitate PAUT coverage could result in violation of minimum allowed wall thickness if root concavity is present.
d. Comparison of side drilled holes vs. notches.
e. Implementing UT Characterization and Sizing using PAUT.
f. Using PAUT for special techniques (e.g., inspecting carbon steel piping welds for internal cracking).
g. How to set up and accomplish corrosion mapping and flaw identification.
h. Possibility of removing the requirement for ToFD inspection on thin-walled piping.
i. Status of the letter to allow PAUT for URO MRC inspections.
j. Waiving on a case basis the minimum 3-year wait time requirement for UT Weld inspection personnel who are seeking PAUT qualification.
5. Plan of Action & Milestones:
a. Provide quarterly status updates and needs for activities progressing PAUT certifications to Chance Styron.
ASSIGNED TO: Richard Caylor SCD: 30 September 2018 Bret Rife 31 December 2018 Aaron DePoala 31 March 2019
b. Compare side-drilled holes vs. notches for calibration.
ASSIGNED TO: Matthew Brodbent SCD: 31 May 2019 Nate Livesey
c. Further develop corrosion mapping abilities with corrosion props (HII-NNS has samples).
ASSIGNED TO: Matthew Brodbent SCD: 31 May 2019 Nate Livesey
24
d. Complete one-sided inspection development for carbon steel piping welds.
ASSIGNED TO: Matthew Brodbent (PSNS&IMF) SCD: 31 May 2019 Nate Livesey (NSWC-CD)
e. Complete revision of PAUT/ToFD GEN requirements document.
ASSIGNED TO: Chance Styron SCD: 31 May 2019 Cory Arthur Nate Livesey Pranaam Haldipur Bret Rife Eric Rohrbacher Richard Caylor
25
F. IMPLEMENTATION OF QUESTIONMARK® PERCEPTION EXAM GENERATOR SOFTWARE
1. Team Leader: Nona Brown (PSNS&IMF)
2. Team Members:
NAME ACTIVITY Faith Kinnaird NNSY Richard Caylor NNSY Rob Hansen NNSY Rob Jonas NNSY Christopher Renfrew NNSY Stephen Bristow NNSY Javeus Ramsey NNSY Todd Weiner PNS Bill Barner PNS Bret Rife PNS Renée Hardiman PSNS & IMF Patrick Roberts PSNS & IMF Robert Macias SUPSHIP Bath Randy Ferguson SUPSHIP Bath (Det Marinette) Adam Faircloth TRF-Kings Bay
3. Purpose/Objective:
a. Purpose. To implement the Questionmark® Perception software as the examination generator/database for administering all corporately approved training-related testing and NDT certification examinations.
b. Objective. To determine the actions needed to establish an agreed upon examination question structure in each question bank; the categories required for examination questions; and the process to load the question into the program and generate examinations, assessments, and other reports as needed to assess performance.
4. Breakout Synopsis: The group agreed that each activity would identify Training/Technical Support and Examiner Branch POC’s to participate in a core group to determine the process and actions needed to transition the corporately approved training and certification exam bank questions into the approved Questionmark® Perception software. PNS will complete the remaining action from the VT Community of Practice (CoP) to review and either agree or provide comments on the certification examination bank of questions.
26
5. Plan of Action & Milestones:
a. Complete the review of the VT certification examination questions and to finalize the VT certification examination banks. Completion of this action is essential in moving forward with the use of the corporate examinations banks through the Questionmark® Perception program.
ASSIGNED TO: Todd Weiner SCD: COMPLETE
b. Contact each activity to identify a primary POC to participate in the core group of Training/Technical Support and NDT Examiners that will work together to determine the process and actions needed to implement the program corporately.
ASSIGNED TO: Nona Brown SCD: COMPLETE
c. Develop a preliminary POA&M for the core group to review and agree on the actions and due dates to implement the program for use corporately. The initial effort will be focused on using the same agreed upon process established. Track completion through the POA&M. The first conference call will be scheduled for the 3rd or 4th week of June.
ASSIGNED TO: Derek Johnson SCD: COMPLETE
27
G. REGIONAL MAINTENANCE CENTER NDT WRITTEN PRACTICE STANDARDIZATION
1. Team Leader: Dale Fosdyck (FDRMC)
2. Team Members:
NAME ACTIVITY Jim Booher MARMC Kaui Aranita HRMC Jeffrey Bragg SERMC Todd Kinter SRF-Japan RMC Mike Kowalski SUPSHIP Bath Tom Quinn SUPSHIP Bath Robert Macias SUPSHIP Bath Joe Moser SUPSHIP Newport News Theresa Lopez SWRMC Melanie Harden SWRMC
3. Purpose/Objective:
a. Purpose. To allow the transfer of NDT personnel certifications between Regional Maintenance Centers (RMCs).
b. Objective. To develop a standardized NDT Written Practice (WP) for the RMCs.
4. Breakout Synopsis: The group conducted a side-by-side comparison of each RMC’s NDT WP, noting commonalities and differences. The group also discussed how to proceed coming to agreement on the differences.
5. Plan of Action & Milestones:
a. Collect electronic version of each RMC’s NDT WP. Collect NDT practical examination information related to types and numbers of each prop administered at each RMC.
ASSIGNED TO: Dale Fosdyck SCD: COMPLETE
b. Collect RMC NDT staffing numbers and distribute to all breakout session members.
ASSIGNED TO: Jeffrey Bragg SCD: COMPLETE
28
c. Collect NDT examination time limits and number of examination questions. Incorporate into draft WP and send to all breakout session members.
ASSIGNED TO: Jeffrey Bragg SCD: COMPLETE
d. Develop a corporate RMC NDT WP.
ASSIGNED TO: Jeffrey Bragg SCD: 15 May 2019
29
V. OPEN NDT WORKING GROUP ACTION ITEMS
2017-01 NDT EXAMINER DEVLOPMENT
Purpose/Objective: Team Leader: To discuss the need for a tool that activities can use to help Jason Hence (SEA 04X) develop newly certified NDT Examiners and those NDT
personnel who wish to be NDT Examiners at some point. Team Members:
NDT Working Group discussion. : Breakout Synopsis Mr. Hence briefed the group on the widening
knowledge/experience gap between “seasoned” veteran NDT 2018 UPDATE: The Working Group Examiners and those NDT Examiners that are newly certified provided feedback and suggestions to and/or inexperienced. It normally takes years of routine NDT improve the tool’s usability. program management including experiencing audits, critiques, making difficult technical decisions, etc. for an NDT Examiner to become “seasoned”. The goal is to define desired core competencies of a seasoned NDT Examiner and to develop a toolbox with a variety of tools that activities can use to bolster those core competencies. The group discussed a wide array of ideas ranging from a formal mentoring program among NDT Examiners to something similar to a Navy PQS system of core competency sign-offs.
Action: 1. Melanie Harden, Jeff Adams, and Todd Kinter, develop a first draft of the NDT Examiner development tool. ACTION COMPLETE
2. Ms. Harden, Mr. Adams, and Mr. Kinter, submit the NDT Examiner development tool for comment to the NAVSEA NDT community. ACTION COMPLETE
30
2012-03 VALIDATION OF BLUE LIGHT TECHNOLOGY AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR MERCURY VAPOR BLACK
Team Leader: LIGHTS IN FLUORESCENT MAGNETIC PARTICLE Theresa Lopez (SWRMC) TESTING
Purpose/Objective: Team Members: Ms. Lopez, SWRMC, provided an update at the 2011 NDT Roger Ehlers – InspecTesting, Inc. Working Group on what inspection attributes need to be David Kilpela – InspecTesting, Inc. standardized to improve this inspection technique. Jacob Wilkerson – InspecTesting, Inc. The current wording of T9074-AS-GIB-010/271 calls for the
use of “black lights”, providing users with a single option for
illuminating fluorescent magnetic particles. The development 2015 UPDATE: Not incorporated into of new inspection light technologies, such as blue light and TP-271 Rev 1. SWRMC to re-submit LED-A lamps, provide NDT communities with secondary change recommendation to Dr. Green for options that are safer, more versatile, and highly reliable in future TP-271 revision. comparison to traditional mercury vapor lamps. This study
looks at the feasibility of using blue lights as a suitable 2016 UPDATE: Will be evaluated for alternate light source to the currently required black lights. inclusion into NAVSEA Tech Pub 271,
Revision 2 Breakout Synopsis: This study compared the performance of a mercury vapor black light against a blue light on the same flawed test specimen. The test specimen selected for this evaluation was a flawed weld sample displaying a ½” linear indication adjacent to the toe of the weld. Basis for comparison was made solely by visual/photographic comparison.
Action: Ms. Lopez, provide recommended lighting evaluation wording to be submitted for the Draft TP-271 Revision. ACTION COMPLETE
31
2011-02 Evaluation of Quantitative Quality Indicators (QQI) An informational discussion regarding the use and
incorporation of the QQI into TP-271 to determine adequacy Team Leader: of a magnetic field (i.e., allow the use of something other than Ron Flaherty (SEA 04XQ5) the traditional field indicator [pie gage])
Team Members: : Dr. Green, NAVSEA 05P24, evaluate the use of QQIs NDT Working Group discussion. Action with the intent to incorporate into TP-271.
2016 UPDATE: Will be evaluated for inclusion into NAVSEA Tech Pub 271, Revision 2
2011-03 TP-278 Scribe Line to Determine Insertion and Weld Size
Discussion took place to determine if TP-278 footnotes that address Team Leader: the applicability of scribe lines as it applies to determining proper Ron Flaherty (SEA 04XQ5) pipe insertion and weld size. Are the requirements clear with regard
to whether or not scribe lines are required in all cases for the Team Members: evaluation of end gap and weld size (e.g., how do welders and NDT Working Group discussion. inspectors prove weld size end gap and weld size without a
benchmark?). Dr. Green suggested the Working Group solicit input
for Mr. Gene Mitchell the TP-278 TWH. 2015 UPDATE: Not incorporated.
SWRMC to re-submit change Action: Ms. Theresa Lopez (SWRMC) and Mr. Jeff Jacobs recommendation to TP278 TWH. (SUPSHIP Bath) agreed to take action to address this issue.
2016 UPDATE: SWRMC re- submitted change recommendation during Industry Review of draft NAVSEA Tech Pub 278 revision.
2017 UPDATE: Change was included in current draft. Awaiting approval and issue.
32
2011-04 Review/Comment on the April 2011 Newport News Shipbuilding Hosted Digital Radiography Workshop
Proposed Computed Radiography (CR) Documents Team Leader:
Jeffrey Warren (NSWC-CD) Actions:
1. Mr. Warren provides Team members the April 2011 Team Members: Newport News Shipbuilding Hosted Digital Radiography Joey Benton - SUPSHIP Newport News Workshop proposal CR documents by June 2011. Marc Cantara - PNS
Bob Osmond - PSNS&IMF 2. Team members review and comment. Review should be Dan Kaltenbaugh - BPMI focused with the approach that the provide document is what Russ Kok - K&A, Inc. NAVSEA plans to incorporate into TP-271. Initial focus Ron Flaherty - NAVSEA 04XQ5 should be CR requirements in the context of weld procedure Jason Hence - PHNSY&IMF and weld qualification plates (i.e., the inspection of welds in Jimmy Sands - NNSY plate and piping). Pat Shank - SUPSHIP Groton
Karen Bruer - Amee Bay 3. Comments should be provided to Mr. Warren no later than
September 2011, with the intent to begin addressing 2015 UPDATE: Final draft unresolved items in 2012. reviewed/resolved. Document ready for formatting and final 4. Mr. Warren compiles collected comments and Government/Industry Review. recommendations, and present to NAVSEA 05P24, Dr. Green,
with copies sent to Breakout Team Members. 2016 UPDATE: Draft NAVSEA Tech
Pub document in Industry Review. 5. Report results/status at the 2012 NDT Working Group.
2017 UPDATE: WG decided to align document with the nuclear requirements which are scheduled to be approved and issued NLT June 2017. WG reps will meet in June 2017 to review final draft document and submit to SEA 05P for Industry Review.
2018 UPDATE: SEA 05P issued letter to the four Naval Shipyards, HII-NNS, and EB Corp. authorizing a trial implementation period for the draft requirements. The document will continue through the SRB process during the trial period.
33
2009-02 MIL-STD 2035 CHANGE PROPOSALS: In September 2009, Mr. Bob Ossmann, PSNS&IMF, submitted to NAVSEA
05P24 a draft rewrite of MS-2035A (MS-2035), which Team Leader: represented a collective effort of various Naval and Private Bob Ossmann (PSNS&IMF) Sector NDT activities. Recommended changes and proposals
were submitted with the objective of making MS-2035 not Team Members: only easier to navigate but also to provide further detail in Barry Steamer - EBC J. Booher - MARMC areas where the NDT community felt it was needed. The T. Lopez - SWRMC proposals are documented in a Change Proposal Topic List E.L.K Switzer - Tradewind Group (CPTL) that accompanied the document. The CPTL is a Jon Stewart - NGMS running list of 102 recommendations and/or proposals that has Dale Fosdyck - PHNSY&IMF served as an ongoing discussion between the NDT activities Greg Selbe - PHNSY&IMF involved in this project. The draft rewrite reflects a majority Alan Valvo - DCMA Bill Todd - PHNSY&IMF consensus, for the most part, as to how the NDT community Pat Shank - SUPSHIP Groton would like to see these sections rewritten in the next revision Karen Bruer - Amee Bay, LLC of MS-2035.
2015 UPDATE: Final draft changes Action: Dr. Green, NAVSEA 05P24 resolved. Document ready for formatting and final Government/Industry Review.
2016 UPDATE: Draft document scheduled to be released for Industry Review NLT August 2016.
2017 UPDATE: Key NDT WG changes were omitted in the document sent for Industry Review in September 2016. WG chose representatives to submit to SEA 05P an “essential” change to the draft for removal of Figures 6-23 and Figures 31-48.
2018 UPDATE: SEA 05P removed figures. Final draft comments require adjudication. SEA 05P expects to issue document by the end of 2018.
34
VI. COMPLETED NDT WORKING GROUP ACTIONS
2016-05 – NSTM Chapter 074, Vol. 2 Revision Draft. Draft submitted to SEA 05P for Standards Revision Board process.
2016-04 – Hiring from NDT Colleges. Naval Shipyards have identified specific NDT colleges from which to hire graduates based on the quantity and quality of hands-on lab experience in the curriculum. Regular recruiting trips are occurring at each college.
2016-03 – Naval Shipyard Visual Testing (VT) Community of Practice Follow-Up. Naval Shipyards have standardized the VT method.
2015-07 – Pulsed TeraHertz (THz) Imaging. Content is business sensitive. NUWC-Newport continues to develop Pulsed THz Imaging.
2015-06 – SUPSHIP NDT Topics. SUPSHIPs have continued discussions to streamline and improve Contract Administration Quality Assurance Program (CAQAP) NDT. Suggestions are forwarded to SEA 04X6 for evaluation.
2015-05 – NDT Examiner Staffing Shortages in Forward Deployed Activities. Forward Deployed Regional Maintenance Center revised the NDT Examiner position description and actively recruits personnel to fill the rotational billet.
2015-04 – Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) / Time of Flight Diffraction (ToFD) for Structural Applications. The NAVSEA Cumbersome Work Practice (CWP) topic 397 tracks completion of this topic.
2015-03 – Corporate Alignment of Naval Shipyard Government Inspector Responsibilities. Uniform Industrial Process Instruction (UIPI) issued to align Naval Shipyard Government Inspectors.
2015-02 – Naval Shipyard Corporate NDT Standardization. The Naval Shipyard Quality Assurance Directors decided during their annual meeting to initiate the NDT Community of Practice to focus on standardization of one NDT method at a time (approximately one method per year).
2015-01 – NDT Division Alignment. NDT Division representatives aligned on a variety of topics. The NDT Division Heads continue to hold monthly conference calls to continue knowledge-sharing and alignment.
2012-05 – NDT Staffing and Recruitment. Naval Shipyards and NAVSEA explored several NDT colleges to evaluate hands-on laboratory time in their curriculum for possible reduction in Work Time Experience for graduates hired at Shipyards.
35
2012-04 – ET Tubing Inspection Evaluation of Indications. The group established a monthly conference call and agreed to meet annually at the NDT Working Group to continue indication evaluation alignment.
2012-02 – Limited Scope UT Thickness Qualifications for Submarine Structural Survey Measurements. The PMS and SEA 07 groups changed the requirement to no longer require UT certification in accordance with NAVSEA Technical Publication 271.
2012-01 – CG-47 Class Aluminum Welding Manual NDT Sequencing. The 5XXX CG-47 7 Class Welding Manual was reviewed and the comments forwarded to the manual change group.
2011-05 – CAQAP Training of Government Personnel Performing Oversight of Contractor-Performed NDT. All SUPSHIPs and SEA 04Z are aware of the PAUT qualification requirements.
2011-01 – Evaluation of Non-Linear Indications in Base Material Heat Affected Zone (HAZ). SEA 05P issued guidance for evaluating rounded indications in the HAZ.
2010-03 – Submarine Retractable Bow Plane – Guide Rail UT Inspection. The Working Group’s concern is no longer an issue. Activities have not performed the inspection in several years.
2010-01 – Technical Performance Evaluation of NDT Personnel by Inspection Shops and Codes. Approval letter distributed conditionally allowing Examiner-designated individuals to perform oversight of NDT personnel. The allowance was included in the NAVSEA Technical Publication 271 revision draft.
2005-01 – Clarification and Proposed Change to NAVSEA Tech Pub 271. NAVSEA Tech Pub 271, Rev. 1 issued.
36
VII. NDT WORKING GROUP MEETING ATTENDEES
ORG First Name Last Name e-mail Title Phone
Amee Bay, LLC Karen Bruer [email protected] NDT Examiner (757) 271-2726
American Institute of Donald Booth [email protected] CEO (218) 270-3182 Nondestructive Testing
American Institute of Matthew Junkert [email protected] NDT Instructor (218) 270-3182 Nondestructive Testing
American Institute of Director of Curriculum John Pariseau [email protected] (612) 750-2664 Nondestructive Testing Development
Applied Technical Don Hurst [email protected] Manager (904) 686-1666 Services, Inc.
Applied Technical Amy Hurst [email protected] Sr. Project Coordinator (904) 686-1666 Services, Inc.
Assault Craft Unit 5 George Rape [email protected] HTCM / NDT Examiner (619) 471-7254 (ACU-5) Bechtel Marine NDT Examiner / Propulsion Corporation Greg Mohr [email protected] (518) 395-6091 CR SME (BMPC) Bechtel Plant Jutin DelleDonne [email protected] Engineer (412) 423-2392 Machinery Inc. (BPMI)
Bechtel Plant John Webster [email protected] NDT Examiner (412) 829-8790 Machinery Inc. (BPMI)
37
ORG First Name Last Name e-mail Title Phone
BWXT Technologies Thomas Carpinello [email protected] NDT Manager (330) 515-6155
BWXT Technologies Charles Menken [email protected] NDT Examiner (330) 203-7324
Carestream NDT Stephen Pflanz [email protected] Northeast NDT Sales (585) 230-0972
Electric Boat Corp. Stephen Brault [email protected] NDT Examiner (860) 433-3923
Electric Boat Corp. Edward Reed [email protected] NDT Examiner (860) 433-3057
Feole Technolgies, Inc. Bob Feole [email protected] NDT Level III (401) 640-9579
Fincantieri Marinette (715) 735-9341 Nicholas DuPont [email protected] Welding Engineer Marine ext. 6181
Fincantieri Marinette Joseph Pease [email protected] NDT Examiner (715) 587-7438 Marine Forward Deployed Regional Maintenance Dale Fosdyck [email protected] NDT Examiner 011-39-081-568-7861 Center (FDRMC) Account Manager / Fujifilm NDT Systems James Neal [email protected] (203) 217-3159 Training Manager
National Sales Fujifilm NDT Systems Terry Plasek [email protected] (936) 441-2785 Manager
38
ORG First Name Last Name e-mail Title Phone
GE Inspection Radiography Sales Gerard Frusci [email protected] (516) 269-9708 Technologies Manager
GE Inspection Radiography Daniel Wysnewski [email protected] (267) 981-0958 Technologies Applications Engineer Hawaii Regional Maintenance Center Kaui Aranita [email protected] NDT Examiner (808) 630-7755 (HRMC) HII-Newport News Chris Arnold [email protected] NDT Examiner (757) 688-4850 Shipbuilding
HII-Newport News Randall Hall [email protected] NDT Examiner (757) 688-9459 Shipbuilding
HII-Newport News Larry Wedel [email protected] NDT Examiner (757) 688-3063 Shipbuilding
Ingalls Shipbuilding William Stricklin [email protected] NDT Examiner (228) 935-8099
Mid-Atlantic Regional Maintenance Center James Booher [email protected] NDT Examiner (757) 400-2592 (MARMC) Business Development National Inspection and David Jaumotte [email protected] Manager Technical (814) 521-5355 Consultants Sales Naval Special Warfare Unit 3 Logistics Support Cory Ervin [email protected] HTCS / NDT Examiner (804) 474-2558 Unit (LOGSU-3)
39
ORG First Name Last Name e-mail Title Phone
Director, Oversight & NAVSEA 04 Paul Colahan [email protected] (202) 781-3304 Assessment Division
NDT & Welding NAVSEA 04 Jason Hence [email protected] (360) 476-4244 Programs Manager
NDT Technical Warrant NAVSEA 05P Pranaam Haldipur [email protected] (202) 781-3856 Holder
NAVSEA 05Z Tom Armstrong [email protected] Engineering Manager (202) 781-3762
NDT Division Norfolk Naval Shipyard Stephen Bristow [email protected] Technical Support (757) 636-4936 (NNSY) Branch Head Norfolk Naval Shipyard Richard Caylor [email protected] NDT Examiner (757) 846-1076 (NNSY)
Norfolk Naval Shipyard Kenneth Coleman [email protected] NDT Engineer (757) 396-2495 (NNSY)
Norfolk Naval Shipyard Dale Gray [email protected] QA Specialist (757) 817-8958 (NNSY)
Norfolk Naval Shipyard NDT Examiner Branch Robert Hansen [email protected] (757) 817-6658 (NNSY) Head
Norfolk Naval Shipyard Jeremy Johnson [email protected] NDT Trainer (757) 372-9205 (NNSY)
Norfolk Naval Shipyard Robert Jonas [email protected] NDT Division Head (757) 646.1508 (NNSY)
40
ORG First Name Last Name e-mail Title Phone
Norfolk Naval Shipyard NDT Engineering Faith Kinnaird [email protected] (757) 396-3848 (NNSY) Technician
Norfolk Naval Shipyard Nuclear Government Michelle Klenow [email protected] (757) 708-2711 (NNSY) Inspector
Norfolk Naval Shipyard NDT Division Technical Javeus Ramsey [email protected] (757) 912-4263 (NNSY) Support
Norfolk Naval Shipyard NDT Engineering Christopher Renfrew [email protected] (757) 396-3848 (NNSY) Technician
Norfolk Naval Shipyard Stephanie Watson [email protected] NDT Examiner (757) 617-2575 (NNSY) Naval Surface Warfare Center-Carderock Joel Benton [email protected] NDT Examiner (215) 200-1238 Division (NSWC-CD) Naval Surface Warfare Center-Carderock Ashlee Floyd [email protected] NDT (301) 227-2335 Division (NSWC-CD) Naval Surface Warfare Center-Carderock Nate Livesey [email protected] NDT Engineer (301) 227-4984 Division (NSWC-CD) Naval Surface Warfare Center-Panama City Mike McGee [email protected] NDT Examiner (850) 234-4431 Division (NSWC-PCD) Naval Surface Warfare Center-Philadelphia Traci Jefferson [email protected] NDT (757) 444-4724 Division (NSWC-PD)
41
ORG First Name Last Name e-mail Title Phone
Naval Surface Warfare Center-Philadelphia Robin Workman [email protected] NDT Examiner (757) 967-4295 Division (NSWC-PD) Nuclear Power Training Unit (NPTU) Skyler Malmstrom [email protected] HT1 / NDT Examiner (518) 884-1702 Ballston Spa Naval Undersea Warfare Center- Steven Francis [email protected] Engineer (401) 832-5217 Newport Division (NUWC-ND) Naval Undersea Warfare Center- THz Imaging / Active Patric Lockhart [email protected] (401) 832-4462 Newport Division Infrared Thermography (NUWC-ND)
Oceaneering-MSD Jennie Armstrong [email protected] NDT Examiner (757) 641-3536
Oceaneering-MSD Jeff Timms [email protected] NDT Examiner (757) 985-3776
Olympus James Bittner [email protected] Sales Engineer (206) 919-0413
Olympus Sean Killeen [email protected] Representative (206) 200-6089
Olympus Wayne Weisner [email protected] Director of Sales (281) 389-5899
Pearl Harbor Naval Bernabe (808) 473-8000 Andrade [email protected] NDT Examiner Shipyard & IMF "Chip" ext. 3468
42
ORG First Name Last Name e-mail Title Phone
NDT Division Pearl Harbor Naval (808) 473-8000 Chaz Aranita [email protected] Technical Support Shipyard & IMF ext. 2620 Branch Head Pearl Harbor Naval NDT Division (808) 473-8000 Darryl Chang [email protected] Shipyard & IMF Trainer ext. 3654
Pearl Harbor Naval Nuclear Government (808) 473-8000 Al Perdido [email protected] Shipyard & IMF Inspector ext. 6329
Pearl Harbor Naval NDT Division UT (808) 473-8000 John Ricks [email protected] Shipyard & IMF General Foreman ext. 5243
Portsmouth Naval Nuclear Government William Barner [email protected] (207) 438-5643 Shipyard Inspector
Portsmouth Naval Steven Hietpas [email protected] NDT Division Trainer (207) 438-4191 Shipyard
Portsmouth Naval Nuclear Government Charles Lengel [email protected] (207) 451-3414 Shipyard Inspector
Portsmouth Naval NDT Engineering Christopher McWhinnie [email protected] (603) 581-9539 Shipyard Technician
Portsmouth Naval Monte Rife [email protected] NDT Examiner (816) 674-2999 Shipyard
Portsmouth Naval NDT Examiner Todd Weiner [email protected] (207) 438-6438 Shipyard Supervisor
Puget Sound Naval NDT Division Evan Badertscher [email protected] (360) 340-7566 Shipyard & IMF General Foreman
43
ORG First Name Last Name e-mail Title Phone
Puget Sound Naval NDT Division Matthew Brodbent [email protected] (360) 476-0002 Shipyard & IMF Trainer
Puget Sound Naval NDT Examiner Nona Brown [email protected] (360) 476-2990 Shipyard & IMF Supervisor Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Dani Eldridge [email protected] NDT Technical Support (360) 476-2890 & IMF Puget Sound Naval Nuclear Government Renée Hardiman [email protected] (360) 340-3970 Shipyard & IMF Inspector
Puget Sound Naval Travis Hileman [email protected] NDT Examiner (360) 476-2990 Shipyard & IMF
Puget Sound Naval James Kerns [email protected] Mechanical Engineer (360) 476-8334 Shipyard & IMF
Puget Sound Naval NDT Division General Jason Lasater [email protected] (360) 340-5149 Shipyard & IMF Foreman
Puget Sound Naval Matthew Moyer [email protected] NDT Division Trainer (360) 476-0002 Shipyard & IMF
Puget Sound Naval Nolan Ojeda [email protected] Mechanical Engineer (360) 476-2107 Shipyard & IMF
Puget Sound Naval Patrick O'Malia [email protected] Government Inspector (360) 476-0840 Shipyard & IMF
Puget Sound Naval NDT Technical Support Patrick Roberts [email protected] (360) 340-7550 Shipyard & IMF Branch Head
44
ORG First Name Last Name e-mail Title Phone
Welding Engineering Puget Sound Naval Rick Sheridan [email protected] and NDT Examiner (360) 340-7551 Shipyard & IMF Division Head Puget Sound Naval Jacob Styron [email protected] NDT Examiner (360) 476-2990 Shipyard & IMF "Chance" Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & IMF Kyle Timm [email protected] NDT Examiner (425) 304-5594 (Detachment Everett) Southeast Regional (904) 270-5126 Maintenance Center Jeffrey Bragg [email protected] NDT Examiner ext. 3267 (SERMC) Southwest Regional Maintenance Center Theresa Lopez [email protected] NDT Examiner (619) 556-6591 (SWRMC) Southwest Regional Maintenance Center Melanie Harden [email protected] NDT Examiner (619) 757-4449 (SWRMC) Ship Repair Facility- Japan Regional Todd Kinter [email protected] NDT Program Manager 011-81-46-816-5753 Maintenance Center (SRF-JRMC) Ship Repair Facility- Japan Regional Hiroki Nakajima [email protected] NDT Inspector 011-81-46-816-3610 Maintenance Center (SRF-JRMC) Ship Repair Facility- Japan Regional Shintaro Ooizumi [email protected] NDT Examiner 011-81-46-816-7093 Maintenance Center (SRF-JRMC)
45
ORG First Name Last Name e-mail Title Phone
SUPSHIP Bath Michael Kowalski [email protected] NDT Examiner (207) 442-4002
SUPSHIP Bath Tom Quinn [email protected] QA Manager (207) 442-2172
SUPSHIP Bath (Detachment Randy Ferguson [email protected] NDT Examiner (715) 735-9341 Marinette) SUPSHIP Bath (715) 735-9341 (Detachment James "Del" Lee [email protected] QA Manager ext. 7222 Marinette) SUPSHIP Bath (Detachment San Robert Macias [email protected] QA Specialist (619) 994-1327 Diego)
SUPSHIP Groton Aaron DePoala [email protected] NDT Examiner (860) 433-8086
SUPSHIP Groton Todd Grace [email protected] NDT Examiner (860) 961-8661
SUPSHIP Groton Will Hergott [email protected] QA Specialist (860) 433-1977
SUPSHIP Newport Jason Greer [email protected] NDT Examiner (757) 688-0066 News
SUPSHIP Newport Joseph Moser Joseph.Moser@[email protected] NDT Examiner (757) 688-9153 News
46
ORG First Name Last Name e-mail Title Phone
Surface Warfare Officers School Unit- Rodney Ellars [email protected] HTC / NDT Instructor (847) 688-2088 Great Lakes Surface Warfare HTCS / HT 'C' School Officers School Unit- Sean Huston [email protected] Director / (847) 688-2041 Great Lakes NDT Examiner Surface Warfare Officers School Unit- Brandon Link [email protected] HTC / NDT Instructor (847) 688-2088 Great Lakes Surface Warfare Officers School Unit- Joel Nevins [email protected] HTC / NDT Instructor (847) 688-2088 Great Lakes TRIDENT Refit Facility - Kings Bay Adam Faircloth [email protected] NDT Division Head (912) 573-2936 (TRF-KB) TRIDENT Refit Facility - Kings Bay Chris Perrine [email protected] NDT Examiner (912) 573-9555 (TRF-KB) USS FRANK CABLE Derek Rody [email protected] HT1 / NDT Supervisor (671) 788-6638 (AS 40) USS GEORGE WASHINGTON Shaun Lareau [email protected] HT1 / NDT Examiner (774) 289-3112 (CVN 73)
Zetec, Inc. Scott Hower [email protected] Account Executive (425) 417-0942
47