lower test sensitivity due toreduced visibility of indications.

Classification by Dye Type

The liquid pentrant testingprocess relies on liquid penetrantentering a discontinuity andsubsequently being drawn backout where it is made easily visibleon the surface of the part. If thediscontinuity is to be detected,the very small amount of liquidpenetrant entrapped in thediscontinuity must be madevisible with highly colored dyes.Based on the dye used, liquidpenetrants are generally classifiedinto three types.Fluorescent. When exposed tonear ultraviolet radiation (320 to400 nm), the fluorescent dye influorescent liquid penetrantsemits a yellowish-green light.Visible. Visible dye or colorcontrast liquid penetrants containdye visible under natural or whitelight. Application of a whitedeveloper further enhances

visibility by providing a highcontrast background for thecolored liquid penetrant.Dual Mode. Dual mode (visibleand fluorescent) liquid penetrantscontain dyes that are coloredunder white light and fluorescentunder ultraviolet radiation.

Classification by RemovalMethod

A liquid penetrant is furtherclassified by the technique used

T

theNDT Technician

The American Society for Nondestructive Testingwww.asnt.org

The underlying principles of liquidpenetrant testing (Fig. 1) haven’tchanged since the late 1800s when oiland whiting were first used to examineiron and steel components. The liquidpenetrant testing process, however, hasevolved to include six steps.1. Preclean and dry test surfaces of object to

be inspected.2. Apply liquid penetrant to test surfaces

and permit it to dwell.3. Remove excess liquid penetrant from test

surfaces.4. Apply a developer.5. Visually examine surfaces for liquid

penetrant indications; interpret andevaluate indications.

6. Postclean the part.These basic steps are followedregardless of the type of visible coloror fluorescent dye used to form theliquid penetrant indications. Step four,application of a developer, issometimes omitted when testing newlymanufactured parts with fluorescentliquid penetrants but at the cost of

FOCUS

Removing Liquid PenetrantNoel A.Tracy*

FOCUS continued on page 2.

TNT · July 2009 · 1Vol. 8, No. 3

* Noel A. Tracy, 3517 Ruby Dr., New Carlisle, OH45344-9504. 937-845-1393, ntracy@woh.rr.com.

Figure 1. Basic principles of liquidpenetrant testing: (a) apply liquidpenetrant; (b) remove excess;(c) apply developer.

Liquidpenetrant

Developer

Indication

Liquid penetrant

(a)

(b)

(c)

to remove it from the surface of a part.Liquid penetrants are formulated forspecific removal techniques designed tominimize removal of the liquid penetrantthat has seeped into a discontinuity. Eachtechnique has advantages anddisadvantages.Water Washable. Most liquid penetrantscontain an oil base that is insoluble inand immiscible with water; meaning thatexcess liquid penetrant on a part cannotbe removed with water. However, someliquid penetrants are carefullycompounded mixtures of an oil base andan emulsifier, while others have water ora surfactant as a base rather than oil.These alternative formulations areprovided as ready-to-use liquidpenetrants that can be removed withwater immediately after the liquidpenetrant dwell. Depending upon therequirements imposed by the applicableprocess specifications, removal may be

accomplished by wiping the part surfacewith a wet lint-free cloth (after firstwiping with dry lint-free cloth), bydirecting a controlled spray onto the partor by dipping and agitating the part inwater.Postemulsifiable. Liquid penetrants usedin the postemulsification process can beformulated for higher sensitivity byoptimizing their penetrating and visibilitycharacteristics. Postemulsifiable liquidpenetrants do not contain anyemulsifying agent and are less likely to beremoved from the discontinuity whenthe surface liquid penetrant is beingremoved with water. Removal from asurface is accomplished by applying anemulsifier in a separate process step,normally by dipping the part into a tankof the emulsifier or spraying theemulsifier onto the part. Depending onthe type of emulsifier used, theemulsifier either converts the excesssurface liquid penetrant into a mixturethat forms an emulsion with the addition

of water (lipophilic) or acts directly withthe liquid penetrant to form an emulsionsubsequently removed with water(hydrophilic).

A postemulsifiable liquid penetrantusually can be used with any emulsifier.However, qualifying or approvingagencies may choose to qualify a liquidpenetrant-emulsifier combination fromthe same manufacturer. Themanufacturer may offer the same liquidpenetrant for use with differentemulsifiers. A user could use any liquidpenetrant-emulsifier combinationapproved by the customer.Lipophilic Emulsifiers. Lipophilicemulsifiers are composed of liquidblends that combine with oil based liquidpenetrants to form a mixture that can beremoved with a water spray (Fig. 2).Their mode of action is based primarilyon diffusion and solubility into an oilbase liquid penetrant. Parts are generallydipped into tanks of lipophilic emulsifier,withdrawn and placed at a drain stationfor a specified time. The diffusion rate(emulsification time) will vary dependingon the viscosity of the emulsifier and thephysical action of drainoff. Therefore, itis important to control the emulsificationtime to prevent emulsification of theliquid penetrant in the discontinuity.Hydrophilic Emulsifiers. Often referred toas removers, hydrophilic emulsifiers arecomposed of emulsifying agentsdissolved in water (Fig. 3). They aresupplied in a concentrate form that isdiluted with water at concentrations of 5to 30 percent and used as an immersiondip with mild air or mechanical agitationor as a forced water spray rinse atdilution ratios up to a maximum of5 percent. Pre-rinse with a water spraynormally precedes the application ofhydrophilic emulsifiers, so liquidpenetrant contamination of theemulsifier is reduced.

Hydrophilic emulsifiers functionthrough their detergent or scrubbing(kinetic) action. Diffusion does not takeplace in this mechanism of action. The

OOur July “Focus” article is adapted from Chapter 2 of ASNT’s NondestructiveTesting Handbook on Liquid Penetrant Testing. In his preface for the volume,Technical Editor Noel Tracy begins by stating “What could be simpler thandirectly viewing a part with a suitable light to see an indication of a discontinuityproduced by dipping the part in a colored liquid, washing excess liquid off with

a water hose and drying the part?” Of course, thestatement is tongue-in-cheek because he goes on to saythat as one gains experience with liquid penetrant testing,the more appropriate question is “... how can a simpletechnique be so complex?”. “Removing Liquid Penetrant”describes the underlying principles along with best usepractices and the pros and cons of each removal method.

Ron Nisbet has provided us with another column on thesignificance of professional ethics in an increasingly complex

world and the far-reaching effects of the decision process when it goes wrong.

Hollis Humphries, TNT EditorPO Box 28518, Columbus, Ohio 43228; (800) 222-2768 X206;

fax (614) 274-6899; e-mail <hhumphries@asnt.org>

2 · Vol. 8, No. 3

FOCUS continued from page 1.

FROM THE EDITOR

surface active agent in the remover helpsdisplace liquid penetrant from thesurface and prevents redeposition.Removal of excess surface liquidpenetrant with hydrophilic emulsifiers inan immersion or dip mode begins as theremover detaches the liquid penetrantfrom the surface. Mild agitation removesthe displaced liquid penetrant from thepart so that it cannot redeposit. When aspray is used, the impinging waterdroplets have the same effect as agitationin a tank. Hydrophilic emulsifier contacttime is directly related to itsconcentration. This applies to bothimmersion and spray applications. Thebiggest advantage of the hydrophilicemulsification technique may beimproved control of liquid penetrantprocess waste materials. Residual liquid

penetrant removed in the pre-rinse is notwater soluble. Less dense than the rinsewater, it floats to the surface where it canbe skimmed off, preventing discharge ofoily waste into sewers and streams. Insome cases, the materials collected in thismanner can be reused.Solvent Removable Liquid Penetrants.The term solvent removable is often used asif it applied to a discrete class of liquidpenetrants. In fact, all liquid penetrantscan be removed with solvents. In mostapplications, the liquid penetrants used inthe solvent removable process arepostemulsifiable; however, waterwashable liquid penetrants can also beused. For some applications amanufacturer may choose to offer aliquid penetrant qualified for the solventremovable process only.

The solvent removable technique islabor intensive and normally used onlywhen necessary to inspect a localizedarea of a part or a part at its in-servicesite rather than in the production

environment. Properly applied, it can bethe most sensitive of liquid penetranttechniques.Solvent Removers. Solvent removers havetraditionally been petroleum base orchlorinated solvents. However, becausethe former is flammable and productionof the latter ceased in December 1995,use of detergent cleaners or water basesolvents has increased. Water itself canbe used as a solvent for water washableliquid penetrants. Often an emulsifiercontains enough solvency to function asa hand wipe remover also.

Removal Processes

Because the processes for fluorescentliquid penetrant and visible dye liquidpenetrant are similar, the processesdepicted in the flow chart shown inFig. 4 can be applied to both. Processingvariables — including liquid penetrantdwell time, emulsification time, rinsewater temperature and pressure, dryingtemperature and time, and intensity ofultraviolet or visible radiation (visiblelight) — are established by customerdesignated processing specifications.Adherence to the established parametersis important for controlling test quality.Water Washable Liquid PenetrantProcess. To ensure that testing isreliable, reproducible and sufficientlysensitive for intended purposes, thewater washable liquid penetrant testprocedure includes these operationalsteps (Fig. 4).1. Preclean and dry the surfaces

(including crack surfaces) to beinspected. Contaminated surfaces donot provide reliable liquid penetrantindications. Surfaces subjected to anymechanical operation such asmachining, grinding or mediablasting, must be etched to removesmeared metal covering entrapmentareas.

2. Apply liquid penetrant to the dry partsurfaces and allow sufficient dwell

TNT · July 2009 · 3

Figure 2. Action of lipophilicemulsifiers: (a) liquid penetration;(b) add emulsifier; (c) solution anddiffusion begins; (d) diffusionproceeds; (e) rinsing; (f) clean surface.

Liquid penetrant

Emulsifier

Diffusion of emulsifierinto liquid penetrant

starts here

Careful timing limitsemulsifier reaction zone to

part surface

Entrapped liquid penetrant isnot emulsified

Nonemulsified liquid penetrantwithin entrapment is not removable

Room temperature water directed atangle of 45° removes only emulsified

liquid penetrant on surface

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

FOCUS continued on page 5.

Liquid penetrant

Pre-rinse withwater spray

Emulsifier andliquid penetrantemulsion

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 3. Action of hydrophilicemulsifiers: (a) liquid penetration;(b) prerinsing; (c) detergent scrubbingbegins; (d) agitation and emulsification;(e) rinsing; (f) clean surface.

time for the surface liquid penetrantto enter the discontinuities and formliquid penetrant entrapments. Liquidpenetrant should wet the entire testsurface area with a uniform liquidfilm. If the liquid penetrant pullsaway leaving bare areas, the partsurface is not clean enough.

3. Following a suitable dwell time,remove the excess surface liquidpenetrant by room temperature waterrinsing with a coarse spray applied atan angle as shown in Fig. 3e. Rinsingshould continue until no traces ofresidual liquid penetrant are visible ontest surfaces when viewed undersuitable illumination. If wet aqueousdeveloper is to be used, it should beapplied to the wet part surfacesfollowing water rinsing.

4. If dry or nonaqueous developers willbe used later, dry the test partsthoroughly following removal ofexcess surface liquid penetrant. If wetaqueous developer was used, dry thetest parts as soon as the excessdeveloper coating has drained off the

test parts. Oven drying may bedesirable to reduce drying time. It isnecessary to guard against excessiveexposure to high oven temperature asthis can degrade fluorescent dyes andreduce test sensitivity.

5. If aqueous developer has notpreviously been applied to the wetparts, apply dry or nonaqueousdeveloper to the dry test parts. Liquidpenetrant is drawn out ofdiscontinuity entrapments to the partsurface during the developer dwell time.As the liquid penetrant spreads intothe developer coating, enhancedindications are formed.

6. Observe and interpret the liquidpenetrant indications of surfacediscontinuities under suitableillumination. Evaluate each indicationfor rejection, rework, disposal orother action.

7. Perform postcleaning and treatmentof test parts to remove liquidpenetrant processing residue andprovide corrosion protection.

Lipophilic Postemulsifiable LiquidPenetrant Process. Procedure steps usedwith the lipophilic postemulsification

liquid penetrant technique areshown in Fig. 4. The initialsteps of precleaning, drying,applying liquid penetrant andallowing liquid penetrant todrain for an adequate dwelltime are identical to thoseused with water washableliquid penetrants. Because theliquid penetrant does notcontain an emulsifier, anadditional step of applyingemulsifier must be taken. Acarefully controlled emulsifierdwell time must also beprovided to make the excesssurface liquid penetrantremovable by water spraywashing. Following washing toremove surface liquidpenetrant, test parts are driedand developer is applied.

Aqueous developers are applied beforedrying. Parts are inspected for liquidpenetrant indications in the same way asin other liquid penetrant processes.Hydrophilic Postemulsification LiquidPenetrant Process. The initial steps ofprecleaning, applying liquid penetrantand allowing for a liquid penetrant dwelland drain period are the same for thehydrophilic postemulsification liquidpenetrant process as for all the liquidpenetrant testing processes (Fig. 4). Aswith the lipophilic process, anemulsification/removal step is required.However, an additional pre-rinse isadded immediately following the liquidpenetrant dwell time. After this firstwash, usually only a thin film of liquidpenetrant held by molecular attractionremains on part surfaces. Through themechanical action of a water spray, muchof the excess surface liquid penetrant isremoved. Application of theemulsifier/remover is accomplished bydipping the part in a hydrophilicemulsifier solution or spraying a muchmore diluted solution onto the part for acontrolled amount of time. Subsequentprocessing steps are identical to thewater washable and lipophilicpostemulsification process.

Because the prior water rinse removesthe bulk of the surface liquid penetrant,emulsifier contamination is minimized.Emulsifier diluted with three parts ofwater leaves only a thin surface film,reducing emulsifier dragout. Theprewash hydrophilic emulsifier techniquedecreases emulsifier consumption thuslowering emulsifier cost.Solvent Technique for Hand WipeLiquid Penetrant Removal. Proceduresfor removing liquid penetrant by handwiping or solvent removal are shown inFig. 4. Materials used to remove excesssurface liquid penetrant are referred to asremovers or cleaners. However, the termremover is more appropriate to describethe solvents used for removal of excess

TNT · July 2009 · 5

Clean

LegendWater washablePostemulsifiable lipophilicPostemulsifiable hydrophilicSolvent removable

Apply liquid penetrant

Dwell

Lipophilic emulsifier

Hydrophilic emulsifier

Initial dry wipe

Solvent wipe

Final dry wipe

Postclean

Inspect

Dwell

Dry

Dry developer Dry Nonaqueous developer

DryAqueous developer

Dwell

Dwell

Pre-rinse

Water wash

Figure 4. Liquid penetrant processes classified byremoval method. FOCUS continued on page 6.

FOCUS continued from page 3.

surface liquid penetrant duringprocessing of test parts in liquidpenetrant testing, while the term cleaningrefers to preparation of the surfacebefore testing. In the solvent removalprocess, the available removers are oftenused also for precleaning and forpostcleaning of test objects to removeliquid penetrant processing residues.However, their primary purpose isremoval of excess liquid penetrant

before application of developer.Removers are normally petroleum

base solvents but may be any solventcombination. Often an emulsifiercontains enough solvency to function asa remover. Alternatively, a product maybe formulated to function as either aremover or an emulsifier. Removers aresubject to the same precautions in use asthose described for use of liquidpenetrants and emulsifiers.Solvent Removal Procedure. Liquidpenetrant removers are used to remove

excess surface liquid penetrant followingliquid penetrant application. Becauseremovers function by solvent action,over-removal may be a problem if usedto excess. The recommended hand wiperemoval procedure includes:• Initial dry wipe. Wipe excess liquid

penetrant from test object surfaceswith a dry wiping instrument such as aclean, dry, lint-free rag or softabsorbent paper.

• Solvent wipe. Remove remaining liquidpenetrant residues with a wipinginstrument such as a clean clothslightly moistened with solvent.

• Final dry wipe. Wipe again with dry ragor absorbent paper to removeremaining solvent film on surfaces.

When fine, shallow discontinuities areunder examination on smooth surfacessuch as test panels with cracked chromeplating, dry wiping is sufficient. Use ofany remover results in over-removal ofliquid penetrant residues with resultantloss in sensitivity. The hand wipetechnique is also difficult to use on testparts with rough surfaces or threadsbecause wiping to the bottom of small,sharp recesses or cleaning deep groovesis impracticable. Additionally, thecleaning cloth or paper should only belightly moistened with solvent for finalremoval of surface liquid penetrantresidues. Never immerse the cloth insolvent nor saturate it with spray solventwhen removing excess surface liquidpenetrant from test parts. Excesssolvent would then diffuse into liquidpenetrant entrapments withindiscontinuities and tend to remove partor all of the liquid penetrant needed toform discontinuity indications.

Text and figures for “Removing LiquidPenetrant” adapted from theNondestructive Testing Handbook, thirdedition: Vol. 2, Liquid PenetrantTesting. Columbus, OH: AmericanSociety for Nondestructive Testing(1999): pp 34, 36-38, 42-45.

FOCUS continued from page 5.

6 · Vol. 8, No. 3

TNT · July 2009 · 7

3. This happens at ends of magnetized parts.4. SI unit of electric current.5. Temperature at which a phase transformation causes ferromagnetic

materials to lose their magnetic properties.8. Old magnetic flux unit replaced by the weber.9. Highest point in active induction.

14. Largest point in residual induction.15. Obsolete centimeter, gram

and second (CGS)measurement unit ofmagnetizing force; one isequal to 79.57747 A· m–1.

17. Ampere-per-meter, SIderived unit for magneticfield _________.

18. One-directional MFL probewhose resistance changeswith field intensity.

20. Old CGS unit for magneticflux density.

25. Reduces magnetic surfacenoise.

28. Pole at which magnetic fieldleaves a part.

31. One _____ per square meteris equal to 10,000 gauss.

Across6. Ampere-turn, unit expressing ___________ force.7. Smallest flux leakage sensor, magnetic ________.

10. More than one MFL sensor.11. B-H curve region.12. Subterranean animal used in magnetic flux leakage tests of pipeline.13. Convenient concept for visualizing the vector field of magnetic

induction that comprises amagnetic field.

16. Elongated steel productinspected by magnetic fluxleakage testing.

19. Unit for magnetic fluxdensity.

21. Downhole drilling materialinspected by MFL.

22. This element measures Bx, Byor Bz.

23. Unit for magnetic fluxdensity.

24. Magnetic particle testing is a_________ of flux leakagetesting.

26. Early investigator ofmagnetic metal properties.

27. Generation of a signal in asearch coil by MFL.

29. Distance from inspected surface to sensor.30. Flux lines form closed loops that do not _____.32. Pole at which magnetic field enters a part.33. Magnetic flux leakage sensor with ferrite core.34. Phenomenon exhibited by a magnetic system wherein its state is

influenced by its previous history.35. Air in a crack has a ___________ of one.

Down1. Increases magnetic flux leakage signal.2. Small, fully magnetized region of a part.

Across

6.magnetomotive7.particle

10.array11.rayleigh12.pig13.flux16.wirerope19.weber

21.pipe22.hall23.tesla24.technique26.forster27.induction29.liftoff30.cross32.south33.ferroprobe

34.hysteresis35.permeability

Down

1.amplifier2.domain3.demagnetization4.ampere5.curie8.maxwell

9.saturation14.remanence15.oersted17.intensity18.magnetodiode20.gauss25.filter28.north31.weber

Answers

Crossword ChallengeMagnetic Flux LeakageMagnetic Flux LeakageRoderic K. Stanley*

Crossword Challenge

1

4

7

17

24

18 19

15

20

26

29

31

35

33

25

22 23

27 28

30

32

34

21

16

13

8 9 10

14

1211

5 6

2 3

* NDE Information Consultants, 5218 Sanford Rd., Houston, TX. 77035; (713) 728-3548;e-mail rkstanley@ndeic.com.

EEthical violations that escape detection at an earlystage can cause critical failures over time. In theexamples that follow, defects were detected andconscious decisions were made to not report thedamage. The continued operation of the plantsinvolved was considered more important than thepotential for their failure. As you read throughthese examples, consider the influences that mayhave played a part in the misrepresentation orsuppression of accurate and timely reporting.

Unreported Cracks In Reactor Head

On August 3, 2001, FirstEnergy Corporation,owner of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Stationlocated near Oak Harbor, Ohio received abulletin from the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC). Primary water stresscorrosion cracking had been detected in severalplants with pressurized water reactors (PWR) likethe one at Davis-Besse. The NRC bulletinrequired all PWR licensees to provideinformation on their programs for inspectingvessel head penetration. The NRC wanted toknow how susceptible each of the plants was tocracking, what steps had already been taken todetect cracking, and what plans had beenformulated for addressing the cracking problemin the future.1

Inspection Documentation. In the monthsfollowing issuance of the bulletin, as the NRCcontemplated whether to impose the firstsafety-related shutdown order for a nuclear plantsince 1987, FirstEnergy Corporation submitteddocumentation for successful prior inspectionsconducted at the Davis-Besse plant. Based on thedocumentation and oral information fromAndrew Siemaszko, reactor coolant system

engineer for the facility, the NRC allowed FirstEnergy to delay shutdownof Davis-Besse until a scheduled refueling in February 2002. A jury wouldlater learn the documentation was based in part on false information fromSiemaszko regarding his own inspections of the reactor vessel head andvideo inspections made by others as well.2

Cavity Revealed. Inspections conducted during the refueling shutdowndetermined that five of the 69 control rod drive mechanism (CRDM)nozzles had developed axial cracking. Three were leaking borated waterfrom the reactor coolant system. Nozzle repairs were performed remotelyfrom underneath the head. At the completion of repairs, as a machiningapparatus was being removed, the number three nozzle “tipped in thedownhill direction until it rested against an adjacent CRDM.”3 Removal ofthe number three nozzle and boric acid deposits from the top of thereactor pressure vessel (RPV) head revealed a football-sized cavity on thedownhill side of the nozzle. The only structure that remained in thewastage area was the 9.5 mm (0.375 in.) stainless steel cladding of theRPV head. If the Davis-Besse reactor head had been allowed to continueoperating, the NRC estimated that it would have failed within two to11 months and would have resulted in a serious loss of coolant accident.“A crisis was barely averted when the plant was shut down on February16, 2002, six weeks later than what the NRC had originally proposed.”4

As a result of the incident, FirstEnergy was fined $5.45 million dollars, thelargest single fine imposed by the NRC. They would eventually pay$33.5 million in fines. Repairs and upgrades to the aging reactor wouldreach $600 million and two years would pass before they were completeand the plant could be returned to service. Andrew Siemaszko and DavidGeisen (Siemaszko’s supervisor and co-defendant) were fired byFirstEnergy Coporation after the cavity in the RPV head was discovered.They would be the only two convicted of deception charges. Geisenwould be sentenced to three years of probation with 200 hours ofcommunity service and a fine of $7,500. Siemaszko would eventuallyreceive three years of probation and a fine of $4,500. Both could havebeen fined $250,000 and sentenced to five-year prison sentences for eachof the three felony deception charges they were convicted of.5

Crisis in Confidence

In a 2004 keynote speech in Seoul, South Korea, Shinzo Saito, president ofthe Atomic Energy Society of Japan and vice chair of the Atomic EnergyCommission of Japan detailed a reduction in the average annual capacity

Falsifying and Failure to Report by Ronald T. Nisbet *

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

8 · Vol. 8, No. 3

* Ronald T. Nisbet, International Energy Services Company,(530) 269-1245, fax (530) 269-1240, e-mail rtnisbet@earchlink.net.

of Japan’s nuclear reactors that was broughtabout by a shutdown of all Tokyo Electric PowerCompany (TEPCO) power plants that began inAugust of 2002.6

Initial Growth Slows. In the mid 1990s, Japan’snuclear power industry was flourishing. Japanesenuclear power plants were operating at 80 percentcapacity. In 1998, capacity would exceed87 percent. Ten years later, however, the JapaneseNuclear Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) wouldreport that the average annual capacity waslanguishing at 60 percent, the result of thesuspended nuclear plant operations.7

Series of Incidents. Lacking sufficient domesticnatural resources, Japan must import more thanthree-quarters of its energy requirements. Duringthe oil crisis of the early 1970s, nuclear energy, asa means to energy independence, became anational priority. The effort was fully supportedby a majority of the Japanese people until themid-1990s when a series of incidents began toerode public confidence. The first of these was amajor liquid sodium leak at the experimentalMonju fast breeder reactor in December of 1995.This was followed in 1997 by an explosion at abitumen solidification plant in Tokai-mura and, in1999, two workers died from radiation exposure,the result of an illegal mixing operation at a fuelfabrication facility in Tokai-mura. In August of2004, five workers died as the result of a steampipe rupture in Mihama.8,9

Questions Emerge. In May of 2002, questionsbegan to emerge regarding inspections made bythe Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). InAugust, NISA announced that TEPCO hadfalsified voluntary inspection reports andconcealed their actions for many years.11 Thefalsified inspection records were an attempt tohide cracks in reactor vessel shrouds in 13 of the17 nuclear power plants owned by TEPCO. Inall, 29 cases of falsification related to damage inmany reactor pressure vessel parts wouldeventually be uncovered. These would include anattempt to hide repair work by editing inspectionvideotape and the injection of compressed airinto a containment vessel to pass a leak rateinspection.4

Replacement Power. By May of 2003, all 17TEPCO reactors had been shut down. Sevenwould be returned to service by the end of the

year but replacement power during the interim would prove expensive —50 percent more than nuclear generation. Total expenditures would exceed200 billion yen (US $1.9 billion).2 The TEPCO scandal would widen toinclude numerous cover-ups at other nuclear utilities. Ensuinginvestigations would reveal a serious lack in systematic inspections ofJapanese nuclear plants and would result in revisions to inspection relatedlaws.

Conclusion

Stop for a moment and ask yourself the following questions:• What influences to misrepresent or suppress accurate inspection results

are present in your NDT working environment?• How do you address them personally?• How are they addressed by your employer?• What would you do if you knew that a coworker or supervisor had

falsified or misrepresented inspection results?Consider the possibilities of a failure due to nonreporting ormisrepresentation. Could someone’s life or livelihood be jeopardized byyour actions or inactions? Nondestructive testing plays an important rolein equipment safety, reliability and longevity. Your professional ethics areas important as your knowledge and skills.

References

1. Circumferential Cracking of Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles.NRC Bulletin 2001-01, Washington, DC: United States NuclearRegulatory Commission (Aug. 2001)

2. “Ohio Nuclear Engineer convicted of Lying About Cracks in Reactor.”Environment News Service. Seattle, WA: Environment News Service(Aug. 26, 2008).

3. Davis-Besse Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Degradation: Overview, Lessons Learned,and NRC Actions Based on Lessons Learned. NUREG/BR-0353, Rev. 1.Washington, DC: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission(Aug. 2008).

4. Henry, T. “Engineer Receives Probation for Role In Besse Cover-Up.”The Blade, Toledo, OH: Block Communications (Feb. 7, 2009) Sec. B, p 1.

5. Henry, T. “Jail Sought for Ex-Engineer.” The Blade, Toledo, OH: BlockCommunications (Feb. 5, 2009) Sec. B, p 2.

6. Saito, S. “Current Status and Prospective of Nuclear Industry IncludingNuclear Technologies in Japan.” Proceedings of the 19th Korea AtomicIndustrial Forum (KAIF)/ Korean Nuclear Society (KNS) AnnualConference, Seoul, South Korea (Apr. 26, 2004): p 3.

7. “Nuclear Power Usage.” The Asahi Shimbun. Tokyo Japan: InternationalHerald Tribune/The Asahi Shimbun (May 8, 2009).

8. “Nuclear Power in Japan.” [information paper] World NuclearAssociation. London, UK (May 2009).

9. “Reactor in ’04 Deadly Steam Accident Is Restarted.” The Japan TimesOnline. Tokyo, Japan: The Japan Times, Ltd. (Jan. 11, 2007).

10. “Revelation of Endless N-Damage Cover-Ups.” Nuke Info Tokyo. No. 92.Tokyo, Japan: Citizens Nuclear Information Center (Nov./Dec. 2002):p 1-3).

TNT · July 2009 · 9

PRACTITIONER PROFILE

10 · Vol. 8, No. 3

RRandy Jurgens wanted to be a welder but, while attending a communitycollege open house, he discovered the display of NDT processes andequipment. He spent the rest of the day talking with the instructors andstudents enrolled in the program. Before the day was over, he knew hiscareer would be in NDT. Randy is now employed by Herzog Services andis the chief operator of a rail inspection vehicle. He has tested rail inlocations as diverse as Mexico, the Northwest Territories of Canada,Nova Scotia and 40 of the lower 48 states.

Q: What NDT training is needed to operate a rail inspection vehicle?

A: Each operator must complete a 40-hour training programbefore becoming a Level II. The Level II is SNT-TC-1Acompliant but limited to rail testing. After completing theprogram, it usually takes about a year to complete enoughon-the-job training to become a chief operator, depending onthe background and experience of the individual.

Q: Would you describe a rail inspection vehicle for us?

A: We have two types of trucks, a smaller pickup truck and alarger box type truck. Both have the same test equipment. The

larger truck is really a mobile office. The trucks have standardroad tires but attached to the truck about 12 in. (30 cm) in theair, are the high-rail wheels. The high-rail wheels and guidewheels are set down on the track hydraulically. There’s also ahydraulic test carriage. When you get to the test location, itcomes down and adjusting gear motors align the RSUs (rollersearch units) onto the gage side of the track. An air cylinderprovides outward pressure to keep the wheels tight against thereference gage corner and the hydraulic system providesdownward pressure. The hydraulic high-rail system is operatedfrom inside the truck and guides the truck down the track. Thetruck’s rear wheels remain in contact with the rail surface andprovide the propulsion for the vehicle while it’s on the track.

Q: What NDT method do you use to inspect rail?

A: Ultrasonic testing. There are thousands of miles of railroadtrack that require a continuous search for internal defects. UTlends itself to high speed continuous testing with real-timeinterpretation.

Q: How is the transducer configured? Does it contact the rail?

A: It does not. It’s immersed in liquid inside the rubber RSU — akind of squishy wheel. Water supplied from tanks carried onthe back of the truck is sprayed on the rail and the outside ofthe tire as couplant. So, the signal goes through the liquid in thewheel, the rubber tire, the water coupling and into the rail.

Q: What indications do you look for?

A: Positive and negative response indications. The top of the railis the head, the base is the bottom and the web connects them.As the roller search unit rolls along the head of the rail at, say,10 mph, you see the base of the rail. You watch the bottom ofthe rail the entire time. If there’s a defect in there, you won’tsee the bottom of the rail because the sound will either hit thedefect and come back — a positive response — or hit thedefect and bounce off to a different portion of the rail — anegative response. In continuous-weld track construction,where the rails are welded together for miles without any joints,a common indication is the detail fracture. It’s a progressivefracture originating near the surface of the rail that progressestransversely across the head. In conventional trackconstruction, rails are approximately 30 ft (9 m) long and arebolted together with joint bars. A common indication in thistype of construction is the bolt-hole break — a linear fracturethat originates at a bolt-hole when the joint isn’t properlysupported from below.

Q: What happens when you find an indication?

A: When the truck moves forward, the test scrolls forward. Whenthe truck moves backward the test scrolls backward. Data forthe entire test is recorded in real-time and can be replayed anddisplayed just as the test was conducted. An indication will stayon the screen for several seconds when traveling at 10 mph.When an indication is detected, the operator directs the driverto stop and back the vehicle up to the indication. You then getout of the truck with a hand scope and manually inspect thetrack with the appropriate transducer. If there’s a defect, youdo the client required taping of the rail, paintings and writings.

Randy Jurgens

“To put it in simple terms,our job is to find rail breaksbefore they break. We can dothat sometimes as much as ayear in advance.”

TNT · July 2009 · 11

You return to the truck, icon it on the test, report it and thencontinue on. We have two linked computers that are usedsimultaneously. The first computer, the truck computer,receives the inspection data, controls test settings and allowsthe operator to label the track information onto the test. Theoperator enters the defect information and label indicationsinto the truck computer. The truck computer sends the reportinformation in real-time to a laptop computer that is used togenerate reports, emails and client upload information.Sometimes there’s a railroad section truck behind us carryingrail and safety bars. If we find a bad defect, they may need tofix it right away before another train goes over it. Anothercorrective action might be to slow the track speed down butthat’s a logistical nightmare on some high-traffic lines and theclient will send a repair truck behind the inspection vehicle tofix stuff as we go. To put it in simple terms, our job is find railbreaks before they break. We can do that sometimes as muchas a year in advance. We can find really small defects that willlast sometimes well over a year before they break.

Q: What’s the biggest source of damage to rail?

A: Surface conditions. A loaded coal car can weigh 100 thousandpounds and coal trains can get to be a 125 cars long. That’s12.5 million lbs of train, not including the engine, moving at60 mph on top of 7 in. (18 cm) of steel. Over time, the surfaceof the track becomes cold-worked — harder than the

subsurface. This causes a lamination effect where very smallfractures can start. The surface starts to develop irregularities.The most common is shelling — kind of like a pothole. Theforce of the train wheel passing over the rough surface causesrail fractures that can progress very rapidly. With proper trackmaintenance however, rail is very durable and can last years.I’ve tested track rolled in 1906 that’s still in service and I’veseen track from the late 1890s that’s still being used.

Q: What are the safety issues for rail inspection?

A: Each crew has to have safety classes before being allowed onrailroad property. These are through our company but mustmeet client requirements. In some cases, the client providesthem. Safety is a major concern, particularly in situations suchas when testing a multiple track configuration. The test truckmay be testing the center track of a triple main trackconfiguration. A passenger train moving at 80 mph can pass sixfeet to one side of the test truck and a freight train moving at60 mph can pass six feet away on the other side. We have to beaware of our surroundings.

Q: How much track is normally inspected in a day?

A: That depends. On high traffic lines, we may have to wait twohours to get the track for 30 minutes, a process that may be

PROFILE continued on page 12.

the NDT Technician

Volume 8, Number 3 July 2009

Publisher : Wayne Holliday

Publications Manager : Tim Jones

Editor : Hollis Humphries

Technical Editor: Ricky L. Morgan

Review Board: W illiam W. Briody, Bruce G. Crouse,Anthony J. Gatti Sr., Edward E. Hall, James W. Houf, JocelynLanglois, Raymond G. Morasse, Ronald T. Nisbet, AngelaSwedlund

The NDT Technician: A Quarterly Publication for the NDT Practitioner(ISSN 1537-5919) is published quarterly by the American Society forNondestructive Testing, Inc. The TNT mission is to provide informationvaluable to NDT practitioners and a platform for discussion of issuesrelevant to their profession. ASNT exists to create a safer world by promoting the profession andtechnologies of nondestructive testing.

Copyright© 2009 by the American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc. ASNT isnot responsible for the authenticity or accuracy of information herein. Publishedopinions and statements do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ASNT. Products orservices that are advertised or mentioned do not carry the endorsement orrecommendation of ASNT.

IRRSP, Materials Evaluation, NDT Handbook, Nondestructive Testing Handbook,The NDT Technician and www.asnt.org are trademarks of The American Society forNondestructive Testing, Inc. ACCP, ASNT, Level III Study Guide, Research inNondestructive Evaluation and RNDE are registered trademarks of the AmericanSociety for Nondestructive Testing, Inc.

the NDT TechnicianPO Box 28518 Columbus, Ohio 43228-0518

NONPROFIT

US POSTAGE

PAID

ST JOSEPH, MI

PERMIT NO. 84The American Society for Nondestructive Testingwww.asnt.org

repeated over and over. On low traffic lines, we may get the track all day, every day until the testis complete. Continuous mainline testing means we start in one location and test in one directionall day on the same track. That’s ideal for obtaining the most miles of test. Yard track testing istesting one small segment of track and then relocating to another. It’s necessary work but notimpressive for total miles tested in a day. Highly maintained, continuous-weld rail with excellentsurface conditions can be tested at sustained speeds of 15-20 mph. Poor surface conditions suchas excess shelling and grease on the rail surface can slow the test to a crawl. The client may alsorequire additional manual inspections for portions of the track, such as switching components.Testing through a busy city with many industries or testing in high volume train yards can alsorequire frequent stops.

Q: What are the best and worst parts of your work?

A: Testing up the east coast of Florida only a few miles from the beach every day and testingthrough Alaska stand out pretty strong as career highs for me. The worst part of my work iswinter. We conduct inspections in temperatures well below zero. Things break down more oftenin the winter, hydraulics get stiff, air seals shrink and leak, snow drifts over the rail, crossingsfreeze over with ice. Verifying indications often requires shoveling and chiseling ice from the rail.

Q: How would you advise someone considering a career in NDT?

A: I strongly encourage anyone interested in NDT to go to an accredited school that offers a degreein NDT. I have an associate of applied science degree in nondestructive testing technology fromSoutheast Community College Nebraska and a bachelor of technology degree from Peru StateCollege in Peru, Nebraska. After graduation in 1996, I was Level II equivalent in VT, LT, PT, MTRT, ET and UT. Demand for qualified inspectors was so high that I had signed to a job twomonths before graduating and employers were still coming to me.

You can reach Randy at (816) 262-5685; e-mail <rjurgens@herzogcompanies.com>.

PROFILE continued from page 11.