ML19067A049
| ML19067A049 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/19/2019 |
| From: | O'Driscoll J Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | |
| James O'DRiscoll 301-415-1325 | |
| References | |
| 83FR56156, NRC-2016-0082, RIN 3150-AJ74 | |
| Download: ML19067A049 (83) | |
Text
Public Comments on Proposed Rule:
American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference 83 FR 56156 (November 9, 2018)
NRC-2016-0082; RIN 3150-AJ74 Submission ID Commenter Name Affiliation ADAMS Accession Number 1
Jarno Makkonen Private Citizen ML18318A356 2
Ron Clow Private Citizen ML18344A191 3
J. E. OSullivan Private Citizen ML18355A760 4
Carl Latiolais Electric Power Research Institute ML19022A074 5
Glen Palmer Private Citizen ML19022A277 6
Richard Porco American Society of Mechanical Engineers ML19022A278 7
Richard Deopere Private Citizen ML19024A023 8
Edward Cavey Private Citizen ML19024A529 9
Adam Keyser Private Citizen ML19024A526 10 Gary Becker NuScale Power, LLC ML19024A527 11 Justin Wheat Southern Nuclear Operating Company ML19024A528 12 Stephen Vaughn Nuclear Energy Institute ML19028A019 13 Mark Gowin Private Citizen ML19029B164 14 David Gudger Exelon Generation Company, LLC ML19037A437
Submission ID 1 Jarno Makkonen, Private Citizen ML18318A356
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 11/14/18 8:23 AM Received: November 13, 2018 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k2-96jg-7bxj Comments Due: January 23, 2019 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2016-0082 American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015 - 2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference Comment On: NRC-2016-0082-0003 American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference Document: NRC-2016-0082-DRAFT-0004 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-24076 Submitter Information Name: Jarno Makkonen General Comment My comments are in the attached PDF as they are too long for this input field.
Attachments Comments to NRC Page 1 of 1 11/14/2018 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=09000064838d4550&format=xml&showorig=false 83FR56156 PR-50 1
Comments to NRC-2016-0082 Proposed rule (reference 83 FR 56156)
The comments provided are from the perspective of a manufacturer of components compliant with ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1, for installation in nuclear power plants under the jurisdiction of the NRC. The views expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. I have comments to 3 specific provisions in the proposed rule.
- 1. Change to 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(v)
The text of the revised rule is not actually provided in the Federal Register notice for this sub-paragraph referenced in the Discussion section of the notice. Neither the current text nor the proposed revision are consistent with the rationale given in the discussion section. The current rule prohibits the use of NCA-4134.10(a) in its entirety. That Code paragraph has three separate functions. First, it incorporates by reference all of Supplement 10S-1 of NQA-1. Second it exempts the requirement in paragraph 3.1 and finally, it also exempts the requirements for in service inspection. The rationale given in the proposed rule discussion states that only the exemption of the requirements of paragraph 3.1 is problematic. This implies that it is desired that the rest of Supplement 10S-1, except for the requirements of in service inspection, should apply. As such, the current rule needs modified to be consistent with the stated intent and below is suggested text.
(v)Section III Condition: Independence of inspection. Applicants or licensees may not apply the exception to paragraph 3.1 of Supplement 10S-1 of NQA-1 as referenced in section NCA-4134.10(a) of Section III, 1995 Edition through 2009b Addenda of the 2007 Edition.
Additionally, it should be considered that the Quality Program requirements for holders of ASME Certificates of Authorization for work within the scope of Section III, Division 1 must continually update their Quality Programs to comply with NCA-3800 and NCA-4000 within 6 months of issue of new Code Editions per NCA-1140. As such, no current Certificate Holder would be able to use the exception to paragraph 3.1 of Supplement 10S-1 of NQA-1 being prohibited by this condition since their quality programs would currently comply with the 2017 Edition. As well, no component manufactured in accordance with the old Section III rules and, as a result, without an ASME Certification of Authorization and mandatory Authorized Inspection could be delivered and installed to a nuclear power plant under the jurisdiction of the NRC per the rules of Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This condition could be eliminated without creating any risk or substantial safety hazard to the operation of the US nuclear fleet.
- 2. Addition of 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(x)(B)
In the Discussion section of the notice, the rationale given for the inclusion of this condition is that 2017 Edition paragraph NX-2582, in referencing ASTM F788 and ASTM F812 as acceptance criteria, only considers workmanship, finish, and appearance and does not consider structural integrity. The condition then stipulates the use of the acceptance criteria given in the 2015 Edition of NX-2582 be used instead. This rationale is incorrect.
ASTM F788 and ASTM F812 provide quantitative acceptance criteria for imperfections in bolts and nuts, respectively, for cracks, bursts, seams, folds, voids and tool marks and were been developed based on industry experience. The acceptance criteria given in the 2015 Edition is only qualitative and thus leaves the determination of whether a given imperfection would be detrimental to the intended service 1-1 1-2
entirely to the person performing the examination. By eliminating the need for judgement by the person performing the examination, this strengthens, rather than weakens, detection of non-compliant material that could result in failures after installation.
This condition should not be included in the revised Regulation.
- 3. Addition of 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(xii)
This new proposed condition to the use of the 2017 Edition is not correctly written. My interpretation of the intent is that the Engineer, who is certifying the documents required for the construction of components in accordance with the rules of Section III, Division 1, must be a Registered Professional Engineer in at least one state in the United States or at least one Province in Canada. This is a reasonable requirement. However, as written, the condition conflicts with the design document certification requirements in the 2017 Edition resulting in the inability to use the 2017 Edition. In order to comply with the 2017 Code and be able to construct components within its rules, the person certifying the documents must be qualified as a Certifying Engineer per the rules of Appendix XXIII. The condition should stipulate that the Certifying Engineer can only be a Registered Professional Engineer qualified in accordance with paragraph XXIII-1222 which implies that the use of alternate Engineer qualifications listed in XXIII-1223 cannot be used.
In lieu of the current text, I would propose amending the text of this sub-paragraph to read as follows:
(xii)Section III Condition: Certifying Engineer. When applying the 2017 and later editions of the ASME BPV Code Section III, the NRC does not permit applicants and licensees to use a certifying engineer who is not a Registered Professional Engineer qualified in accordance with paragraph XXIII-1222 for Code-related activities that are applicable to U.S. nuclear facilities regulated by the NRC.
Finally, I would like to note that the arrangement between the NRC and ASME to provide electronic access to relevant ASME Codes during comment period does not seem to be working as at the time of the submission of this comment.
1-3 1-4
Submission ID 2 Ron Clow, Private Citizen ML18344A191
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 12/10/18 7:56 AM Received: December 07, 2018 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k2-96z7-8cox Comments Due: January 23, 2019 Submission Type: API Docket: NRC-2016-0082 American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015 - 2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference Comment On: NRC-2016-0082-0003 American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference Document: NRC-2016-0082-DRAFT-0005 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-24076 Submitter Information Name: Ron Clow Address:
1717 Wakonade Drive East Welch, MN, 55089 Email: ronald.clow@xenuclear.com General Comment Ref. NRC-2016-0082, 10 CFR Part 50, Proposed Rule
Subject:
Comment in difference to the proposed rule.
In differences to the 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) Section XI condition: Pressure testing Class 1, 2 and 3 mechanical joints, the following comment is being submitted.
This condition takes exception to ASME Section in XI in that it mandates that a VT-2 pressure test be performed following performance of a repair/replacement activity when the mechanical connection of an item is disassembled and subsequently reassembled.
Moreover, as worded, this condition would require a VT-2 pressure test, if only fasteners, even just one, regardless of the reason the fastener is replaced when the item is disassembled.
The ASME III and XI committees have determined that there is no need to perform a pressure test following a repair/replacement activity where the mechanical connection was Page 1 of 2 12/10/2018 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648395c2f5&format=xml&showorig=false 83FR56156 PR-50 2
2-1
disassembled and reassembled as gaskets, bolts, studs, nuts, and washers are specifically exempted from Repair/Replacement and pressure testing.
For installation into a Code Class (1, 2, 3) system, plants use components that are procured as Quality Related in accordance with a QA program and require the items meet material standards, codes, etc. and are subject to additional NDE and testing before being utilized. This gives reasonable assurance that the materials are free of defects and will perform their function during operation.
In the case of valves, pumps, manufactured piping assemblies (ASME III stamped), etc.
designed and fabricated to a code or design specification provided by the owner, pressure testing is already required of these items.
Whenever maintenance is performed that requires an item to be disassembled, regardless if it includes an ASME XI repair/replacement activity, a leakage check is performed utilizing plant operators to inspect for leakage during post-maintenance testing / return to service (PMT/RTS) activities. Verifying no leakage is just one of the many observations they perform to assure the item is functioning as expected before considering it operable. Adding a requirement to include a VT-2 examiner and in some cases an ANII, does not increase the level of public safety and it does not meet ALARA in those areas of the plant where radiation is present. Additional personnel are subject to dose unnecessarily with no added safety benefit as the mechanical connection is already being inspected by an operator whose training involves the ability know how the equipment operates and to identify leakage or other abnormal conditions during their normal work duties. Additionally, the mechanical connection is disassembled and reassembled by personnel trained to perform the activity, including use of industry standard bolt torqueing guidance to assure proper integrity of the joint.
While RCS leakage is always a concern and each utility has requirements to address this leakage, this commenter is unaware of any precedence where a mechanical connection has catastrophically failed which would be cause for requiring additional visual scrutiny of the mechanical connection by a VT-2 examiner, including the need for use of an ANII. In cases where a condition of leakage has been identified during PMT/RTS activities (within or outside the ASME Section XI program boundaries), the mechanical connections had no catastrophic failure, and conditions were corrected to eliminate the cause of unacceptable leakage. The leakage can be identified without the need for the added burden of using a VT-2 examiner and an ANII.
As an additional consideration for removal of the condition, plants implementing 10 CFR 50.69 would be implementing an inspection and repair program that is in lieu of ASME XI and 10 CFR 50.55(a). Implementation of 50.69, would require pressure testing per construction code requirements and does not require a VT-2 pressure test following a repair or replacement activity, welded or mechanical. The NRC has found this approach to be acceptable when implementing this alternative regulation and should remain consistent with requirements within 50.55(a).
The NRC should remove this condition and rely on the ASME XI code as written with regards to repair/replacement activities and subsequent pressure testing.
Page 2 of 2 12/10/2018 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648395c2f5&format=xml&showorig=false
Submission ID 3 J. E. OSullivan, Private Citizen ML18355A760
Comments on Proposed 10CFR50.55a Ruling Section III, Appendix XXVI Discussion 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(xi)(A) Mandatory Appendix XXVI: First Provision The NRC proposes to add a new paragraph (b)(1)(xi)(A), which specifies the essential variables to be used in qualifying fusing procedures for butt fusion joints in polyethylene piping. This includes four (4) variables in addition to those stated in Section IX that are pertinent to the fusing verification testing of XXVI-2300. These are diameter, cross-sectional area, ambient temperature [range specified in XXVI-4412(b)], and fusing machine carriage model.
This 10CFR50.55a provision will be resolved after publication of the 2019 edition of ASME Section III, Appendix XXVI.
Comment: Previous discussions with the Regulator involving development and incorporation of Tables identifying all procedure variables applicable to testing required by Section IX and Appendix XXVI addressed only fusing procedure qualification and testing - not fusing operator performance qualification testing. The provision relating to fusing procedure variables will be resolved by publication of the 2019 edition of ASME Section III, Appendix XXVI.
Fusing operator performance qualification testing is performed in accordance with XXVI-4341 and XXVI-4342 using fusing procedures tested in accordance with XXVI-2300. Such fusing procedures define the fusing machine make and model(s) to be used in production of each joint, so the fusing operator is required to qualify on the same machines and models. However, fusing operators are qualified to use those machines over ranges of diameters and thicknesses, not on each diameter to be fused. This is the approach that was approved by the USNRC as recently as two years ago for the Plant Hatch HDPE Project (ML15337A414). To require each fusing operator to perform qualification testing on each diameter, thickness and lot of material would entail significant added expense and hardship without a commensurate improvement in quality or safety. Therefore, the proposed wording of the paragraph (see Summary, below) involving performance qualification testing and reference to XXVI-4340 should be removed from that 10CFR50.55a paragraph.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(xi)(B) Mandatory Appendix XXVI: Second Provision The NRC proposes to add a new paragraph (b)(1)(xi)(B), which will require both bend tests and high speed tensile impact testing (HSTIT) to qualify fusing procedures and to qualify fusing operators, for fusing joints in polyethylene piping. The explanation of the proposed ruling states: The NRC has performed limited confirmatory research on the ability of short-term mechanical tests to predict the in-service behavior of HDPE butt fusion joints. Based on this research as well as research results from the Welding Institute in the UK, the NRC lacks conclusive evidence that either of the two tests proposed in XXVI-4342(d) and XXVI-4342(e) is always a reliable predictor of joint quality. As a result, the NRC has determined that the combination of both test results provides increased and sufficient indication of butt fusion joint quality.
Comment:
A. Fusing Procedure Testing: Relative to joint testing for procedure qualification or XXVI-2300 fusing verification testing, the testing performed by The Welding Institute of UK indicated that the HSTI test may not detect joints fused with fine sand or talcum powder sized particles placed within the joint. As a result of that testing, Paragraph XXVI-4412(a)(1) and XXVI-4412(a)(2) of Appendix XXVI specifically require that joint surfaces coming in contact with heaters must be protected and kept free of fine particulates, as well as other deleterious material. Also, EPRI Report 3002005434 Advanced Nuclear Technology: Literature Review of Mechanical Testing Methods to Evaluate the Integrity of HDPE Butt-Fusion Joints, was developed to assist the NRC with evaluation of mechanical testing methods. This report provides the results of limited studies on the comparison of the high speed tensile impact test to the guided side bend and waisted tensile test methods. This report identifies that situations can occur with the HSTI test where the specimen ruptures outside of the fusion zone while using the HSTI test method. If this 3
83FR56156 PR-50 3-1 3-2
occurs, a recommendation is provided for nuclear applications that the cause be evaluated by assessing the amount of increased fusion interface resulting from the fusion beads, and/or presence of out-of-roundness of the joined parts.
(If there is indication of minimal or no increased fusion interface, or that mismatch exists between the parts being joined, the test should be re-performed with beads and mismatch removed.) Therefore, this provision should be revised to instead require retests for any HSTI ruptures occurring away from the fusion zone.
B. Fusing Operator Testing: Bend testing has been used extensively and successfully for decades for the qualification of fusing operators in the U.S. for joining polyethylene water and gas piping. It is endorsed by DOT for performance qualification for the fusing of interstate gas transmission pipelines as well as for local gas distribution pipelines. Government acceptance for use of only visual inspection of the test joint plus bend testing for performance qualification on volatile gas pipelines certainly supports its use for nuclear applications - where, in addition to the visual inspection and bend testing, the joint parameters are also required to be recorded and verified during preparation of the qualification test coupons as well as for each installed fusion joints. This is the approach that was approved by the USNRC as recently as two years ago for the Plant Hatch HDPE Project (ML15337A414).
In addition, all installed nuclear fusion joints receive ultrasonic volumetric examination plus a hydrostatic test at 1.5 times maximum design pressure, validating the integrity of each joint fused by each operator. The additional requirement to perform HSTI test in addition to bend testing during performance qualification imposes additional hardship and increased cost without commensurate improvement in quality or safety.
Paragraph 7.4 of EPRI Report 3002005434 provides reasons why the reverse bend test might be considered unacceptable for nuclear applications. The stated reasons are inaccurate based on the following explanations:
a.) Although ASTM F2620 lacks complete requirements for how to perform the reverse bend test including temperature range, Appendix XXVI-4342 invokesSection IX QF-143.1 which does provide explicit directions, including required temperature range.
b.) Although ASTM F2620 may lack clarity on how to perform the test,Section IX, QF-143.1 which is invoked by Appendix XXVI does provide specific instructions on how to perform the test.
c.) Although ASTM F2620 may lack clarity on test radii or coupon thickness,Section IX, QF-143.1.3 and QF-463 provide explicit direction on how to cut the specimens and perform the test. The specimen thickness, t, is the thickness of the joint per QF-463, and the bend radius is defined by the 15t dimension either side of the joint with the requirement to bend back until both 15t ends touch. This defines the ratio of thickness to bending length, which is a direct proportion regardless of what thickness is bent, and always results in a defined bending radius or arc at the apex of the tested joint of approximately 3t. A 3t arc at the apex of the bend results in at least a 15% strain, which exceeds the 10-12% yield strain of HDPE material.
d.) One test report identified by EPRI stated that Reverse Bend testing of 1.33 in. thick 12 NPS PE pipe did not identify defects that were detected by HSTI testing and Guided Side Bend testing. With the advent of the GSB test, most fusing organizations are now using guided side bend tests in lieu of reverse bend tests for qualifying fusing operators on thick sections over 1.25 in. for personnel safety reasons. We suggest that the provision be reworded to address this specific concern when using reverse bend tests for thick sections as indicated in the Summary, below.
Note: HSTI testing machines are quite scarce and expensive. For fusing procedure verification testing (XXVI-2300) the test specimens are typically sent to a laboratory or shop to have the HSTI testing performed. To require this be done for performance qualification purposes would add extra non-productive days for fusing operators, plus it would require sending quality control personnel for witnessing the off-site testing. Since the only technical issue seems to be an anomaly with one test performed on 1.33 in. thick material, a reasonable resolution would be to reword the provision to mandate use of side bend tests (i.e., prohibit use of reverse bend tests) for performance qualification on all piping thicknesses over 1.25 in.
e.) Based on the above inaccuracies, the EPRI report suggested that other tests be used in place of or in addition to the Reverse Bend Test. In actual fact, considering the scarcity and expense of using HSTI test machines, imposing the condition to require HSTI test in addition to Reverse Bend or Guided Side Bend testing for all performance qualification imposes excessive cost and additional hardship without a commensurate improvement in quality or safety.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(xi)(C) Mandatory Appendix XXVI: Third Provision The NRC is proposing to add a new paragraph (b)(1)(xi)(C), which specifies the essential variables to be used in qualifying fusing procedures for electrofusion of fusion joints in polyethylene piping that is to be installed in accordance with ASME BPV Code,Section III, Mandatory Appendix XXVI. This includes four (4) variables in addition to those stated in Section IX that are pertinent to the fusing verification testing of XXVI-2300. These are:
fitting polyethylene material, pipe wall thickness, power supply, and processor.
This 10CFR50.55a provision will be resolved for electrofusion fusing procedures after publication of the 2019 edition of ASME Section III, Appendix XXVI.
Comment: Previous discussions with the Regulator involving development and incorporation of Tables identifying all electrofusion procedure variables applicable to testing required by Section IX and Appendix XXVI addressed only fusing procedure qualification and testing - not fusing operator performance qualification testing. Fusing operator performance qualification testing is performed in accordance with XXVI-4341 and XXVI-4342 using fusing procedures tested in accordance with XXVI-2300. Such fusing procedures define the electrofusion fitting material, pipe wall thickness, power supply and processor, to be used in production of each joint, so the fusing operator is already required to qualify using the same material and equipment. Therefore, the proposed wording of the paragraph (see Summary, below) involving performance qualification testing and reference to XXVI-4340 should be removed from that 10CFR50.55a paragraph.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(xi)(D) Mandatory Appendix XXVI: Fourth Provision The NRC is proposing to add a new paragraph (b)(1)(xi)(D), which will require both crush tests and electrofusion bend tests to qualify fusing procedures for electrofusion joints in polyethylene piping. The operating experience data on electrofusion joints is extremely limited and also indicates some failures. the NRC is also proposing to add a condition that requires that both tests (crush test and electrofusion bend test) specified in in XXVI-2332(a) and XXVI-2332(b) be performed as part of performance qualification tests, instead of only one or the other.
Comment: Crush testing is designed for smaller fittings 8 NPS and less. Such tests are impractical and unsafe for sizes larger than 8 NPS due to the large hydraulic equipment that would be required. For this reason, ASTM F1055 provides the electrofusion bend test (FET) as a means of verifying fusion integrity for sizes over 8 NPS. There is no evidence that either of these tests are inadequate for their intended purpose.
Every electrofusion socket joint installed in a nuclear system also requires producing and testing an identical coupon using the same lot, size and thickness of material and fitting, the same equipment, the same power supply and the same fusing procedure under -2300 of Appendix XXVI. In addition, every electrofusion joint installed in a nuclear system requires data recording to verify the operator used the correct procedure, each joint receives full visual inspection, receives full volumetric examination of the fused joint plus hydrostatic testing at 1.5 times the design pressure. This proposed condition imposes significant cost, hardship and personnel safety issues without any improvement in quality.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(xi)(E) Mandatory Appendix XXVI: Fifth Provision The NRC is proposing to add a new paragraph (b)(1)(xi)(E), which prohibits the use of electrofusion saddle fittings and electrofusion saddle joints. some Department of Energy operational experience indicates that failures have occurred in electrofusion joints. The NRC has determined that the failure of a saddle type electrofusion joint could result in structural separation of the electrofusion saddle coupling from the HDPE pipe it is attached to, resulting in a potential loss of flow and loss of safety function in the system.
Comment: Unlike the failures identified by DOE - every electrofusion saddle joint installed in a nuclear system requires producing and testing an identical coupon using the same equipment and power supply under -2300 of Appendix XXVI. In addition, each installed saddle joint receives visual verification of fit-up gaps, alignment and out-of-roundness, plus recording and verification of the actual fusing variables, plus full volumetric examination of the fused joint, plus a hydrostatic pressure test at 1.5 times the design pressure. Without the capability of using electrofusion saddle connections, necessary modifications to or repairs of existing installations could be cost prohibitive, imposing significant hardship without any improvement in quality or safety.
3-3 3-4 3-5
Summary Proposed 10CFR50.55a Provisions ASME Section III, Appendix XXVI, 2015 and 2017 Editions (xi)Section III condition: Mandatory Appendix XXVI. When applying the 2015 and 2017 Editions of Section III, Mandatory Appendix XXVI, Rules for Construction of Class 3 Buried Polyethylene Pressure Piping, applicants or licensees must meet the following conditions:
(A) Mandatory Appendix XXVI: First provision. When performing fusing procedure qualification tests and operator performance qualification tests in accordance with XXVI-4330 and XXVI-4340 the following essential variables shall be used for the performance qualification tests of butt fusion joints:
(1) Joint Type.
Requested change: Delete proposed requirement to impose this added testing for Fusing Operator performance qualification. Revise First Provision to read: When performing fusing procedure qualification testing in accordance with XXVI-2300 and XXVI-4330 the following essential variables shall be used for the testing of butt fusion joints:
(1) Joint Type.
(This provision will be resolved for procedure testing with publication of the 2019 Edition of ASME Section III, Appendix XXVI.)
(B) Mandatory Appendix XXVI: Second provision. When performing qualification tests of butt fusion joints in accordance with XXVI-4342, both the bend test and the high speed tensile impact test shall be successfully completed.
Requested change: Second Provision. When performing procedure qualification HSTT testing of butt fusion joints in accordance with XXVI-2300 or XXVI-4330, specimen breaks away from the fusion zone shall require retesting.
When performing fusing operator qualification bend tests of butt fusion joints in accordance with XXVI-4342, guided side bend testing shall be used for all thicknesses greater than 1.25 inches.
(C) Mandatory Appendix XXVI: Third provision. When performing fusing procedure qualification tests and operator performance qualification tests in accordance with 2017 Edition of BPV Code Section III XXVI-4330 and XXVI-4340, the following essential variables shall be used for the performance qualification tests of electrofusion joints:
(1) Joint Design.
First provision will be resolved with publication of the 2019 Edition of Appendix XXVI.
Requested change: Second provision. When performing fusing procedure qualification tests in accordance with 2017 Edition of BPV Code Section III XXVI-2300 and XXVI-4330, the following essential variables shall be used for the testing of electrofusion joints:
(1) Joint Design.
(This provision will be resolved for procedure testing with publication of the 2019 Edition of Appendix XXVI.)
(D) Mandatory Appendix XXVI: Fourth provision. Performance of crush tests in accordance with 2017 BPV Code Section III XXVI-2332(a) and XXVI-2332(b) and electrofusion bend tests in accordance with 2017 BPV Code Section III XXVI-2332(b) are required to qualify fusing procedures for electrofusion joints in polyethylene piping installed in accordance with 2017 Edition of ASME BPV Code Section III, Mandatory Appendix XXVI.
Requested change: Delete this provision.
(E) Mandatory Appendix XXVI: Fifth provision. Electrofusion saddle fittings and electrofusion saddle joints are not permitted for use. Only full 360-degree seamless sleeve electrofusion couplings and full 360-degree electrofusion socket joints are permitted.
Requested change: Delete this provision.
3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10
From:
jimosul@sbcglobal.net To:
RulemakingComments Resource Cc:
Reichelt, Eric; Manoly, Kamal
Subject:
[External_Sender] NRC Proposed 50.55a Ruling Date:
Friday, December 21, 2018 9:40:31 AM Attachments:
Comments on Proposed Ruling Appendix XXVI (12-07-18).docx Attached please find a discussion, summary and suggested revisions on the proposed provisions to be imposed by the NRC on the 2015 and 2017 editions of ASME Section III, Appendix XXVI, Rules for Construction of Class III Buried Polyethylene Pressure Piping.
Contingent upon NRC agreement with these suggested revisions, the undersigned will commit to initiating and promoting changes to incorporate them into future editions of Appendix XXVI.
Please advise if you have any questions.
Thank you very much, J. E. (Jim) OSullivan, PE Procon1, LLC (314) 221-1800
3-11
Submission ID 4 Carl Latiolais, Electric Power Research Institute ML19022A074
EŽ ŽE
-DQXDU\\
2IILFHRIWKH6HFUHWDU\\
861XFOHDU5HJXODWRU\\&RPPLVVLRQ
- DVKLQJWRQ'&
$WWQ 5XOHPDNLQJVDQG$GMXGLFDWLRQV6WDII
6XEMHFW
(35,&RPPHQWVRQWKH$PHULFDQ6RFLHW\\RI0HFKDQLFDO(QJLQHHUV+/-
&RGH(GLWLRQV,QFRUSRUDWLRQE\\5HIHUHQFH3URSRVHG5XOH'RFNHW,'15&
'HDU6LURU0DGDP
7KLVOHWWHUSURYLGHVFRPPHQWVWRWKHVXEMHFWSURSRVHGUXOHPDNLQJWLWOHGAmerican Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by ReferenceRQEHKDOIRIWKH
1XFOHDU1RQGHVWUXFWLYH(YDOXDWLRQ 1'( 3URJUDPDWWKH(OHFWULF3RZHU5HVHDUFK,QVWLWXWH
(35, &RPPHQWVIRUFRQVLGHUDWLRQRQWKHSURSRVHGUXOHDUHSURYLGHGEHORZ
3DUDJUDSKVD J L DQGD J LL
15&&RQGLWLRQV
(i) Applicable ISI Code: Initial 120-month interval. In-service examination of components and system pressure tests conducted during the initial 120-month inspection interval must comply with the requirements in the latest edition and addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in paragraph (a) of this section on the date 12 months before the date of issuance of the operating license under this part, or 12 months before the date scheduled for initial loading of fuel under a combined license under part 52 of this chapter (or the optional ASME Code Cases listed in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.147, when using ASME BPV Code,Section XI, or NRC Regulatory Guide 1.192, when using the ASME OM Code, as incorporated by reference in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section, respectively), subject to the conditions listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
Licensees may, at any time in their 120-month ISI interval, elect to use the Appendix VIII in the latest edition and addenda of the ASME BPV Code incorporated by reference in paragraph (a) of this section, subject to any applicable conditions listed in paragraph (b) of this section. Licensees using this option must also use the same edition and addenda of Appendix I as Appendix VIII, including any applicable conditions listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
83FR56156 PR-50 4
NRC Office of the Secretary
1RQGHVWUXFWLYH(YDOXDWLRQ 1'(
Page 2 (ii) Applicable ISI Code: Successive 120-month intervals. In-service examination of components and system pressure tests conducted during successive 120-month inspection intervals must comply with the requirements of the latest edition and addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference in paragraph (a) of this section 12 months before the start of the 120-month inspection interval (or the optional ASME Code Cases listed in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.147, when using ASME BPV Code,Section XI, or NRC Regulatory Guide 1.192, when using the ASME OM Code, as incorporated by reference in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section), subject to the conditions listed in paragraph (b) of this section. However, a licensee whose in-service inspection interval commences during the 12 through 18-month period after August 17, 2017, may delay the update of their Appendix VIII program by up to 18 months after August 17, 2017.
Alternatively, licensees may, at any time in their 120-month ISI interval, elect to use the Appendix VIII in the latest edition and addenda of the ASME BPV Code incorporated by reference in paragraph (a) of this section, subject to any applicable conditions listed in paragraph (b) of this section. Licensees using this option must also use the same Edition and Addenda of Appendix I as Appendix VIII, including any applicable conditions listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
(35,&RPPHQW
7KHSURYLVLRQLQERWKSDUDJUDSKVWKDWDOORZVOLFHQVHHVWRXVH$SSHQGL[9,,,LQWKHODWHVW
LQFRUSRUDWHGHGLWLRQDQGDGGHQGDRIWKH$60(&RGHZDVDGGHGLQUHVSRQVHWRFRPPHQWV
SURYLGHGIRUWKHSUHYLRXVUXOHPDNLQJ7KLVDGGLWLRQLVDSSUHFLDWHGEXWWKHILQDOVHQWHQFH
LQERWKSDUDJUDSKVZKLFKUHTXLUHVWKHXVHRI$SSHQGL[,IURPWKHVDPH(GLWLRQRU
$GGHQGDSRVHVDQLVVXHZKHQLPSOHPHQWLQJWKLVRSWLRQ7KHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQLVVXHLV
UHODWHGWRWKHIDFWWKDWRWKHUSDUWVRIWKH&RGH HJ6HFWLRQ9 DUHDOVRUHIHUHQFHGLQ
$SSHQGL[,,IWKH)LQDO5XOHPDGHLWFOHDUWKDWOLFHQVHHVZHUHRQO\\UHTXLUHGWRLPSOHPHQW
WKHSDUWVRI$SSHQGL[,DSSOLFDEOHWR$SSHQGL[9,,,LWZRXOGDOORZWKHLQGXVWU\\WRPRUH
HDVLO\\XSGDWH,6,SURJUDPVWRXVHWKHPRVWXSWRGDWHSHUIRUPDQFHGHPRQVWUDWLRQ
UHTXLUHPHQWV
%DVHGRQWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSURYLGHGDERYHLWLVUHFRPPHQGHGWKDW15&FRQVLGHUXVLQJ
WKHIROORZLQJVHQWHQFHWRUHSODFHWKHILQDOVHQWHQFHLQ3DUDJUDSKV J L DQG J LL
/LFHQVHHVXVLQJWKLVRSWLRQPXVWDOVRXVHWKHSDUDJUDSKVLQ$SSHQGL[, IURPVDPH
HGLWLRQDQGDGGHQGD WKDWDUHDSSOLFDEOHWR$SSHQGL[9,,,LQFOXGLQJDQ\\DSSOLFDEOH
FRQGLWLRQVOLVWHGLQSDUDJUDSK E RIWKLVVHFWLRQ
4-1
NRC Office of the Secretary
1RQGHVWUXFWLYH(YDOXDWLRQ 1'(
Page 3
3DUDJUDSKD J LL )
15&&RQGLWLRQ
(11) Cast stainless steel. Examination of ASME BPV Code Class 1 piping and vessel nozzle butt welds involving cast stainless steel materials, will be performed with Appendix VIII, Supplement 9 qualifications, or qualifications similar to Appendix VIII, Supplement 2 or 10 using cast stainless steel mockups no later than the next scheduled weld examination after January 1, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph -2500(a) or, as an alternative, using inspections that meet the requirements of ASME Code Case N-824 as conditioned in Regulatory Guide 1.147.
(35,&RPPHQW
7KHUHDUH GLVVLPLODUPHWDOZHOGVLQWKH86IOHHWWKDWFRQWDLQFDVWDXVWHQLWLFVWDLQOHVV
VWHHO &$66 EDVHPDWHULDODVZHOODVZHOGPDWHULDO)URPWKLVSRSXODWLRQRI
DSSOLFDEOHZHOGVWKHUHDUHWKDWDFKLHYHOHVVWKDQFRYHUDJHRIWKHVXVFHSWLEOH
PDWHULDOZKHQH[DPLQLQJIRUFLUFXPIHUHQWLDOIODZVDQGWKDWDFKLHYHOHVVWKDQ
FRYHUDJHRIWKHVXVFHSWLEOHPDWHULDOZKHQH[DPLQLQJIRUD[LDOIODZV2IWKHFRQILJXUDWLRQV
ZLWKPLVVHGFRYHUDJHWKHPDMRULW\\ RIDQGRI DUH&RPEXVWLRQ(QJLQHHUV &(
GHVLJQHGUHDFWRUFRRODQWSXPS 5&3 ZHOGV7KHH[DPLQDWLRQVRIWKH&(GHVLJQ5&3
ZHOGVDYHUDJHFLUFXPIHUHQWLDODQGD[LDOIODZFRYHUDJHRIWKHVXVFHSWLEOHPDWHULDOLV
DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\\7KHFRYHUDJHOLPLWDWLRQVRIWKHVHFRPSRQHQWVDUHJHQHUDOO\\
UHODWHGWRFKDOOHQJLQJVFDQFRQGLWLRQV VKRUWVDIHHQGVZHOGDQGFRPSRQHQWWDSHUV
EUDQFKFRQQHFWLRQVDQGHWF LQWKHH[DPLQDWLRQDUHDDQGWHFKQLTXHVLGHQWLILHGLQ&RGH
&DVH1ZRXOGEHHTXDOO\\FKDOOHQJHGWRDFTXLUHDQ\\DGGLWLRQDOFRYHUDJH7KH
FRQGLWLRQDVZULWWHQZRXOGUHTXLUHWKHXVHRIDVHFRQGH[DPLQDWLRQWHFKQLTXHWR
LQWHUURJDWHDOO ZHOGVZLWK&$66EDVHPDWHULDODQGZHOGPDWHULDOUHJDUGOHVVRI
WKHIDFWDSSUR[LPDWHO\\WZRWKLUGVRIWKHZHOGVDFKLHYHFRYHUDJHRIWKHVXVFHSWLEOH
PDWHULDO0DWHULDOSUHVHQWHGWRWKH15&LQ0DUFKDQG-DQXDU\\ LOOXVWUDWHGWKH
DGGLWLRQDOFRYHUDJHFDSDEOHRIEHLQJREWDLQHGIURPWKH&$66EDVHPDWHULDOLVPLQLPDO
ZLWKQRVLJQLILFDQWLQFUHDVHWRVDIHW\\DQGWKHDGGLWLRQDOUHTXLUHPHQWRIWKLVFRQGLWLRQ
VLJQLILFDQWO\\LQFUHDVHVWKHDPRXQWRIWLPHDQGGRVHDVVRFLDWHGZLWKH[DPLQLQJWKHVH
FRPSRQHQWV
%DVHGRQWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSURYLGHGDERYHLWLVUHFRPPHQGHGWKDW15&FRQVLGHUWKH
HOLPLQDWLRQRIFRQGLWLRQ J LL ) LQLWVHQWLUHW\\
4-2
NRC Office of the Secretary
1RQGHVWUXFWLYH(YDOXDWLRQ 1'(
Page 4
3DUDJUDSKD E [Y /
15&&RQGLWLRQ
(L) Specimen set and qualification: Twelfth provision. As a condition to the requirements of Supplement 8, Subparagraph 1.1(c), to Appendix VIII, notches may be located within one diameter of each end of the bolt or stud.
(35,&RPPHQW
,QDQLQWHUQDOSURJUDPDXGLWE\\WKH(35,3HUIRUPDQFH'HPRQVWUDWLRQ 3'
3URJUDPVWDIIUHYHDOHGLQFRQVLVWHQFLHVEHWZHHQWKHEROWDQGVWXG1'(TXDOLILFDWLRQ
PHWKRGVXVHGLQWKH3'3URJUDPDQGWKRVHUHTXLUHGE\\WKH$60(&RGH7KH15&ZDV
QRWLILHGDQGVWHSVZHUHWDNHQ LHGHYHORSPHQWRI&&1 LPPHGLDWHO\\WRDOLJQWKH
3'SURFHVVDQGWKH$60(&RGH,Q-DQXDU\\WKH15&LVVXHGDQHQIRUFHPHQW
JXLGDQFHPHPRUDQGXP (*0 DQGDUHJXODWRU\\LVVXHVXPPDU\\ 5,6 RQWKHWRSLFZKLFK
DOORZHGOLFHQVHHVWRXVHWKHSURFHVVRXWOLQHGE\\WKH3'SURJUDPLQOLHXRIWKHVSHFLILF
UHTXLUHPHQWVIRXQGLQWKH$60(&RGH6HFWLRQ;,$SSHQGL[9,,,6XSSOHPHQWXQWLO
WKHUXOHPDNLQJLQFRUSRUDWHGWKHHGLWLRQRI6HFWLRQ;,RUWKH15&DSSURYDORIDQ
DSSOLFDEOH&RGH&DVH7KHFRQGLWLRQIRXQGLQSDUDJUDSK / LVLQRSSRVLWLRQRIWKH
JXLGDQFHIRXQGLQ&RGH&DVH1ZKLFKUHTXLUHVWKHQRWFKORFDWLRQVWREHZLWKLQRQH
GLDPHWHURIWKHVWDUWRUHQGRIH[DPLQDWLRQYROXPHDQGQRWWKHHQGRIWKHEROWRUVWXG
7KHUHDVRQIRUWKLVLVPDQ\\VWXGGHVLJQVLQFOXGHEXWWUHVVWKUHDGVDERYHWKHQXWWKDWDUH
QRWLQFOXGHGLQWKHH[DPLQDWLRQYROXPHRIWKHFRPSRQHQW7KHUHTXLUHPHQWRIWKHDERYH
FRQGLWLRQZRXOGFUHDWHDVLWXDWLRQZKHUHQRWFKHVLQWHVWVSHFLPHQVZRXOGEHUHTXLUHG
RXWVLGHRIWKHH[DPLQDWLRQYROXPH
%DVHGRQWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSURYLGHGDERYHLWLVUHFRPPHQGHGWKDW15&FRQVLGHUWKH
HOLPLQDWLRQRID E [Y / RUKDYHLWUHSODFHGZLWKWKHUHTXLUHPHQWWRXVHWKH
ODWHVW15&DSSURYHG&RGH&DVH && XQWLOWKHOLFHQVHHXSGDWHVWRDHGLWLRQRIWKH
&RGHZKLFKLQFOXGHVWKHUHYLVHGUHTXLUHPHQWVLQ6HFWLRQ;,$SSHQGL[9,,,6XSSOHPHQW
3DUDJUDSKD E [Y $
15&&RQGLWLRQ
(2) Where examination from both sides is not possible, full coverage credit may be claimed from a single side for ferritic welds. Where examination from both sides is not possible 4-3
NRC Office of the Secretary
1RQGHVWUXFWLYH(YDOXDWLRQ 1'(
Page 5 on austenitic welds or dissimilar metal welds, full coverage credit from a single side may be claimed only after completing a successful single-sided Appendix VIII demonstration using flaws on the opposite side of the weld. Dissimilar metal weld qualifications must be demonstrated from the austenitic side of the weld, and the qualification may be expanded for austenitic welds with no austenitic sides using a separate add-on performance demonstration. Dissimilar metal welds may be examined from either side of the weld.
(35,&RPPHQW
(35,SURYLGHGDFRPPHQWRQWKHDERYHFRQGLWLRQGXULQJWKHSUHYLRXVUXOHPDNLQJ
SURFHVVEXWWKHLVVXHZDVQRWDGGUHVVHGLQWKHVXEVHTXHQW)LQDO5XOH7KHFRPPHQWLV
DJDLQSUHVHQWHGIRUFRQVLGHUDWLRQGXULQJWKLVUXOHPDNLQJSURFHVV
7KHLQWHQWRIWKHTXDOLILFDWLRQSURFHVVLVWRDVVXUHWKDWTXDOLILFDWLRQVDUHSHUIRUPHGIURP
WKHPRVWFRQVHUYDWLYHGLUHFWLRQ7KHFRQGLWLRQDERYHGRHVQRWSURYLGHVSHFLILFGHWDLOVIRU
VLQJOHVLGHTXDOLILFDWLRQVRIGLVVLPLODUPHWDOZHOGVZKHQERWKVLGHVRIWKHEDVHPDWHULDOLV
IHUULWLFPDWHULDO6HYHUDOFRQILJXUDWLRQVLQERWKERLOLQJZDWHUUHDFWRUV %:5 DQG
SUHVVXUL]HGZDWHUUHDFWRUV 3:5 KDYHFRQILJXUDWLRQVWKDWHLWKHUGRQRWKDYHDQ
DXVWHQLWLFVLGHRURQO\\DOORZDFFHVVIURPWKHIHUULWLFVLGH7KHTXDOLILFDWLRQIRUVLQJOHVLGH
QHHGVWREHSHUIRUPHGIURPWKHVLGHRIWKHZHOGZKLFKDOORZVDFFHVV&)5VKRXOG
QRWH[FOXGHFRQILJXUDWLRQVIURPWKHTXDOLILFDWLRQWHVWWKDWDUHQHHGHGWRUHOLDEO\\GHWHFW
VL]HDQGFKDUDFWHUL]HIODZVLQUHDOLVWLFDQGFKDOOHQJLQJSODQWFRQGLWLRQV
7KHLQGXVWU\\KDVZRUNHGZLWK15&VWDIIYLDWKH$PHULFDQ6RFLHW\\RI0HFKDQLFDO
(QJLQHHUV $60( &RGHWRDGGUHVVWKHVHUHTXLUHPHQWVDQGKDYHEHHQVXFFHVVIXOLQ
LQWURGXFLQJ&RGHDFWLRQVWKDWKDYHEHHQERDUGDSSURYHG6SHFLILFDOO\\&RGHDFWLRQ%&
LQWURGXFHGZRUGVLQWR&RGH&DVH1 WRDGGUHVVWKHVHUHTXLUHPHQWV,Q
DGGLWLRQ&RGHDFWLRQ%&LQFRUSRUDWHGWKHVDPHFKDQJHVLQWRWKH(GLWLRQ
ZKLFKLVSXEOLVKHG7RUHVROYHWKHLVVXHGHVFULEHGLWLVUHFRPPHQGHGWKDWWKHZRUGVLQ
D E [Y $ WKDWDGGUHVVVLQJOHVLGHTXDOLILFDWLRQRIGLVVLPLODUPHWDOZHOGV
EHFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHFKDQJHVPDGHWRWKHDIRUHPHQWLRQHG&RGHDFWLRQV7KHVH
FRQGLWLRQVZRXOGRQO\\DSSO\\WROLFHQVHHVXVLQJHDUOLHUHGLWLRQVRIWKH&RGH
%DVHGRQWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSURYLGHGDERYHLWLVUHFRPPHQGHGWKDW15&FRQVLGHUXVLQJ
WKHIROORZLQJVWDWHPHQWWRUHSODFHWKHILQDOVHQWHQFHLQ3DUDJUDSK E [Y $
6LQJOHVLGHGLVVLPLODUPHWDOZHOGTXDOLILFDWLRQVVKDOOEHSHUIRUPHGZLWKVSHFLPHQVHWV
WKDWFRQWDLQDUDQJHRIDFFHVVUHVWULFWLRQV)RUFRPSRQHQWVWKDWKDYHVFDQDFFHVVIURP
ERWKWKHIHUULWLFDQGDXVWHQLWLFVLGHVTXDOLILFDWLRQVKDOOEHSHUIRUPHGIURPWKHDXVWHQLWLF
4-4
NRC Office of the Secretary
1RQGHVWUXFWLYH(YDOXDWLRQ 1'(
Page 6 VLGHRIWKHZHOGRQO\\)RUFRPSRQHQWVZLWKQRDXVWHQLWLFVLGHRUIRUZKLFKVFDQDFFHVVLV
OLPLWHGWRWKHIHUULWLFVLGHRQO\\TXDOLILFDWLRQPD\\EHSHUIRUPHGIURPWKHIHUULWLFVLGH
- HDSSUHFLDWHWKHRSSRUWXQLW\\WRSURYLGHFRPPHQWVWRWKLVSURSRVHGUXOHPDNLQJ6KRXOG\\RX
KDYHDQ\\TXHVWLRQVSHUWDLQLQJWRWKHFRPPHQWVSURYLGHGLQWKLVOHWWHUSOHDVHFRQWDFW&DUO
/DWLRODLVIRUFODULILFDWLRQ
6LQFHUHO\\
&DUO/DWLRODLV
6HQLRU3URJUDP0DQDJHU
1'(5HOLDELOLW\\
FODWLROD#HSULFRP
M\\E
F
+)HOGPDQ
5%RXFN
'.XOO
7&LQVRQ
Digitally signed by Carl Latiolais DN: cn=Carl Latiolais, o=EPRI, ou=NDE Reliability, email=clatiola@epri.com, c=US Date: 2019.01.21 12:40:04 -05'00'
1 RulemakingComments Resource From:
Latiolais, Carl <clatiola@epri.com>
Sent:
Monday, January 21, 2019 12:46 PM To:
RulemakingComments Resource Cc:
Feldman, Heather; Bouck, Robert; Kull, Doug; Cinson, Tony
Subject:
[External_Sender] EPRI Comments on the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference, Proposed Rule, Docket ID NRC-2016-0082 Attachments:
NDE20190117-001_10CFR50 Comments.pdf
Dear Sir or Madam:
The attached letter provides comments to the subject proposed rulemaking titled, American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference on behalf of the Nuclear Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Program at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
Regards
- This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unless otherwise expressed in this message by the sender or except as may be allowed by separate written agreement between EPRI and recipient or recipients employer, any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others of this message is prohibited and this message is not intended to be an electronic signature, instrument or anything that may form a legally binding agreement with EPRI.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and permanently delete all copies of this message. Please be advised that the message and its contents may be disclosed, accessed and reviewed by the sender's email system administrator and/or provider. ***
Submission ID 5 Glen Palmer, Private Citizen ML19022A277
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 1/22/19 11:38 AM Received: January 18, 2019 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k3-97r7-tuqf Comments Due: January 23, 2019 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2016-0082 American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015 - 2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference Comment On: NRC-2016-0082-0003 American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference Document: NRC-2016-0082-DRAFT-0007 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-24076 Submitter Information Name: Glen Palmer Address:
1906 Lake Peninsula Drive Hixson, TN, 37343 Email: glenpcha@aol.com General Comment Comments to proposed rulemaking incorporating 2015-2017 OM Code Editions (See Attached)
Attachments Palmer_Rulemaking comments_011819 Page 1 of 1 01/22/2019 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=09000064839fa90f&format=xml&showorig=false 83FR56156 PR-50 5
1 Rulemakingcommentsto20152017Edition NRC20160082 GlenPalmerCommentsJanuary18,2019 IthasbeenobservedthatthewordingintheproposedRulemakingdoesnotclearlyidentify requirementsforexaminationandtestingofdynamicrestraints,(snubbers)tobeapartofIST, 50.55a(f)(4)Inservicetestingvs.ISI,50.55a(g)Preserviceandinserviceinspectionrequirementsandwill requiresomechangesforclarity.Belowaretheproposedchangesthathavebeendiscussedatindustry meetingsandarenowsenttotheNRCforconsideration.
Background:
TheNRChasalreadyidentifiedaclearpathforsnubberstobeconsideredapartofISTalongwithpumps andvalvesinRG1.192.
In1990,theASMEpublishedtheinitialeditionoftheOMCodethatprovidesrulesforISTand inserviceexaminationofpumps,valves,anddynamicrestraints(snubbers).TheOMCodewas developedandismaintainedbytheASMECommitteeonOperationandMaintenanceof NuclearPowerPlants.TheOMCodewasdevelopedinresponsetotheASMEBoardonNuclear CodesandStandardsdirectivethattransferredresponsibilityfordevelopmentandmaintenance ofrulesfortheISTandinserviceexaminationofpumps,valves,anddynamicrestraints (snubbers)fromtheASMESectionXISubcommitteeonNuclearInserviceInspectiontothe ASMEOMCommittee.TheASMEintendedtheOMCodetoreplaceSectionXIrulesforISTand inserviceexaminationofpumps,valves,anddynamicrestraints(snubbers),andtheSectionXI rulesforISTandinserviceexaminationofthesecomponentsthathadbeenincorporatedby referenceintoNRCregulationshavebeendeletedfromSectionXI.TheNRCendorsedtheOM Codeforthefirsttimeinanamendmentto10CFR50.55apublishedonSeptember22,1999(64 FR51370).TheNRCendorsedOMCodeCasesthroughthisguideforthefirsttimeinJune2003.
ItshouldbenotedthatthetitleoftheOMCodewaschangedbeginningwiththe2009Editionto OperationandMaintenanceofNuclearPowerPlants.
Lookingat50.55a(g),thecurrentpointerto50.55a(f)isonlyforpumpsandvalves.
RequirementsforinservicetestingofClass1,Class2,andClass3pumpsandvalvesarelocated in§50.55a(f)
Itdoesnotidentifydynamicrestraints(snubbers).
Althoughthewordingisunclear,thepathfromtheISICode,SectionXIClass1,2and3,totheASMEOM Code,SectionISTisidentifiedthroughparagraph50.55a(g)(4),whichdoespointtotheASMEOMCode:
(4) Inserviceinspectionstandardsrequirementforoperatingplants.Throughouttheservicelife ofaboilingorpressurizedwatercoolednuclearpowerfacility,components(includingsupports) thatareclassifiedasASMECodeClass1,Class2,andClass3mustmeettherequirements, exceptdesignandaccessprovisionsandpreserviceexaminationrequirements,setforthin SectionXIofeditionsandaddendaoftheASMEBPVCode(orASMEOMforsnubber examinationandtesting)thatbecomeeffectivesubsequenttoeditionsspecifiedinparagraphs 5-1
2 (g)(2)and(3)ofthissectionandthatareincorporatedbyreferenceinparagraph(a)(1)(ii)or(iv) forsnubberexaminationandtestingofthissection,totheextentpracticalwithinthelimitations ofdesign,geometry,andmaterialsofconstructionofthecomponents.
ThisclearlyidentifiestheASMEOMCodefordynamicrestraints(snubbers),whichincludesISTA1100 andthescopingofnonClass1,2and3supports.Thecurrentpointerfrom50.55a(g)(4)toASMEOM CodeidentifiessnubberstobeundertheASMEOMCode.
ISTA1100Scope SectionISTestablishestherequirementsforpreserviceandinservicetestingandexaminationof certaincomponentstoassesstheiroperationalreadinessinlightwaterreactornuclearpower plants.Itidentifiesthecomponentssubjecttotestorexamination,responsibilities,methods, intervals,parameterstobemeasuredandevaluated,criteriaforevaluatingtheresults, correctiveaction,personnelqualification,andrecordkeeping.Theserequirementsapplyto (a) pumpsandvalvesthatarerequiredtoperformaspecificfunctioninshuttingdownareactor tothesafeshutdowncondition,inmaintainingthesafeshutdowncondition,orinmitigatingthe consequencesofanaccident (b) pressurereliefdevicesthatprotectsystemsorportionsofsystemsthatperformoneormore ofthethreefunctionsidentifiedinsubpara.ISTA1100(a)
(c) dynamicrestraints(snubbers)usedinsystemsthatperformoneormoreofthethree functionsidentifiedinsubpara.ISTA1100(a),ortoensuretheintegrityofthereactorcoolant pressureboundary WhentheNRCpublishesthenewRulemaking,dynamicrestraints(snubbers)shouldbeidentifiedalong withpumpsandvalvesunder50.55a(f),foraddedclarity.
BelowisasuggestedmarkuptotheproposedRulemakingtoaccomplishthischange.
50.55a(f)(4)Inservicetestingstandardsrequirementforoperatingplants.Throughoutthe servicelifeofaboilingorpressurizedwatercoolednuclearpowerfacility,pumps,valvesand dynamicrestraints(snubbers)thatarewithinthescopeoftheASMEOMCodemustmeetthe inservicetestrequirements(exceptdesignandaccessprovisions)setforthintheASMEOM Codeandaddendathatbecomeeffectivesubsequenttoeditionsandaddendaspecifiedin paragraphs(f)(2)and(3)ofthissectionandthatareincorporatedbyreferenceinparagraph (a)(1)(iv)ofthissection,totheextentpracticalwithinthelimitationsofdesign,geometry,and materialsofconstructionofthecomponents.Theinservicetestrequirementsforpumps,valves anddynamicrestraints(snubbers)thatarewithinthescopeoftheASMEOMCodebutarenot classifiedasASMEBPVCodeClass1,Class2,orClass3maybesatisfiedasanaugmentedIST programinaccordancewithparagraph(f)(6)(ii)ofthissectionwithoutrequestingreliefunder paragraph(f)(5)ofthissectionoralternativesunderparagraph(z)ofthissection.Thisuseofan augmentedISTprogrammaybeacceptableprovidedthebasisfordeviationsfromtheASME OMCode,asincorporatedbyreferenceinthissection,demonstratesanacceptablelevelof qualityandsafety,orthatimplementingtheCodeprovisionswouldresultinhardshiporunusual difficultywithoutacompensatingincreaseinthelevelofqualityandsafety,wheredocumented andavailableforNRCreview.
3 50.55a(g)Preserviceandinserviceinspectionrequirements.Systemsandcomponentsofboiling andpressurizedwatercoolednuclearpowerreactorsmustmeettherequirementsoftheASME BPVCodeasspecifiedinthisparagraph.Eachoperatinglicenseforaboilingorpressurized watercoolednuclearfacilityissubjecttothefollowingconditions.Eachcombinedlicensefora boilingorpressurizedwatercoolednuclearfacilityissubjecttothefollowingconditions,butthe conditionsinparagraphs(g)(4)through(6)ofthissectionmustbemetonlyafterthe Commissionmakesthefindingunder§52.103(g)ofthischapter.Requirementsforinservice testingofpumps,valvesanddynamicrestraints(snubbers)arelocatedinparagraph(f)ofthis section.
50.55a(g)(4)Inserviceinspectionstandardsrequirementforoperatingplants.Throughoutthe servicelifeofaboilingorpressurizedwatercoolednuclearpowerfacility,components (includingsupports)thatareclassifiedasASMECodeClass1,Class2,andClass3mustmeetthe requirements,exceptdesignandaccessprovisionsandpreserviceexaminationrequirements, setforthinSectionXIofeditionsandaddendaoftheASMEBPVCode(orASMEOMCodefor dynamicrestraint(snubber)examination,andtestingandservicelifemonitoring)thatbecome effectivesubsequenttoeditionsspecifiedinparagraphs(g)(2)and(3)ofthissectionandthat areincorporatedbyreferenceinparagraph(a)(1)(ii)or(iv)forsnubberexaminationandtesting ofthissection,totheextentpracticalwithinthelimitationsofdesign,geometry,andmaterials ofconstructionofthecomponents.ComponentsthatareclassifiedasClassMCpressure retainingcomponentsandtheirintegralattachments,andcomponentsthatareclassifiedas ClassCCpressureretainingcomponentsandtheirintegralattachments,mustmeetthe requirements,exceptdesignandaccessprovisionsandpreserviceexaminationrequirements, setforthinSectionXIoftheASMEBPVCodeandaddendathatareincorporatedbyreferencein paragraph(a)(1)(ii)ofthissection,subjecttotheconditionlistedinparagraph(b)(2)(vi)ofthis sectionandtheconditionslistedinparagraphs(b)(2)(viii)and(ix)ofthissection,totheextent practicalwithinthelimitationofdesign,geometry,andmaterialsofconstructionofthe components.
Submission ID 6 Richard Porco, American Society of Mechanical Engineers ML19022A278
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 1/22/19 11:49 AM Received: January 22, 2019 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k3-97ts-epep Comments Due: January 23, 2019 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2016-0082 American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015 - 2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference Comment On: NRC-2016-0082-0003 American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference Document: NRC-2016-0082-DRAFT-0008 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-24076 Submitter Information Name: Christian Sanna Address:
ASME Two Park Avenue New York, NY, 10016 Email: sannac@asme.org General Comment ASME is pleased to have the opportunity to provide comments and suggestions on your Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 10 CFR Part 50, RIN 3150-AJ74, Incorporation by Reference of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Codes and Code Cases, Proposed Amended Requirements, published in Reference 1.
A complete cover letter statement and comments are contained in the attached file.
Page 1 of 2 01/22/2019 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006483a00478&format=xml&showorig=false 83FR56156 PR-50 6
Attachments ASME Comments 10CFR50Rule Page 2 of 2 01/22/2019 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006483a00478&format=xml&showorig=false
Tw<J Park Av.. nut
<'W York, NY SETTING rHE STANDARD l o o 1 f, - ', 'l <J o If. <;
- A
- January 21, 2019 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff tel 1.212.r;qJ.8'.>00 f ax 1. 2 1 2. ','ll.8S01 www.asm t. org
Subject:
Comments on Incorporation by Reference of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Codes and Code Cases, 10 CFR Part 50, RIN 3150-AJ74
Reference:
- 1. Federal Register I Vol. 83, No. 218, pp. 56156-56196 / Friday, November 9, 2019 / Proposed Rule
Dear Sir or Madam:
ASME is pleased to have the opportunity to provide comments and suggestions on your Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG), 10 CFR Part 50, RIN 3150-AJ74, Incorporation by Reference of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Codes and Code Cases, Proposed Amended Requirements, published in Reference 1.
Specifically, ASME supports the NRC's endorsement of later editions, addenda, and revisions to its Nuclear Codes, Standards, and Code Cases in the Code of Federal Regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a. It is our understanding that within this proposed rulemaking, the NRG is amending this regulation to incorporate by reference the following ASME Codes, Standards, and Code Cases:
- 1.
The 2015 and 2017 Editions of Section Ill, Division 1 and Section XI, Division 1 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code, with conditions
- 2.
The 2015 and 2017 Editions of the ASME Operation and Maintenance (OM) Code, with conditions
- 3.
ASME BPV Code Cases N-729-6 and N-770-5, with conditions The ASME comments included in Enclosure 1 are intended to support the nuclear industry while protecting the health and safety of the public, without placing unnecessary burden on licensees.
Thus, Enclosure-1 is provided for the use by the NRG staff to support, reconsider, remove, or modify its proposed (and existing) conditions where comments are provided. It is hoped that upon review of these ASME comments that the NRG staff will be able to allow the necessary changes to be made or modify the conditions in the final rule to such a degree as to fully endorse the ASME Nuclear Codes and Standards contained in this proposed rulemaking.
January 21, 2019 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page2 If you have any questions concerning the contents of this letter, please direct them to Mr.
Christian Sanna, Director, ASME Nuclear Codes & Standards by telephone (212) 591-8513 or by e-mail SannaC@asme.org.
Very Truly Yours, Richard D. Porco, Chair ASME Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards richpor951@gmail.com
Enclosures:
- 1. ASME Comments on the Proposed Rule for 10 CFR 50.55a cc:
Michael Benson, USNRC (michael.benson@nrc.gov)
Officers of the ASME Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards Officers of the ASME Standards Committee on Nuclear lnservice Inspection Officers of the ASME Standards Committee on Construction of Nuclear Facility Components Officers of the ASME Standards Committee on Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.SSa Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 218, pp. 56156-56196, Friday, November 9, 2018, Docket ID NRC-2016-0082
§50.SSa Paragraph Existing §50.SSa Regulations Proposed Changes to §50.SSa Regulations ASME Comments on §50.SSa Regulations - Existing and Proposed Changes (asofll/09/2018)
(Chanees denoted by Boid Italics}
§50.55a(b)(1)(x)(A)
NIA Visual examination of bolts, studs, and nuts: First ASME believes that it is unnecessary to require personnel performing these provision. When applying the provisions of NB-examinations to be qualified in accordance with Section Ill (SNT-TC-1A). Similarly, 2582, NC-2582, ND-2582tNE-2582, NF-2582, NG-ASME believes that it is unnecessary to require visual examination procedures to 2582 in the 2017 Edition of Section Ill, the visual be qualified to Section V, Article 9. Indications detected by visual examination examinations are required to be performed In personnel during these examinations would be directly identified and measured; accordance with procedures qualified to NB-5100, unlike other NOE methods where an evaluation of the indication is performed to NC-5100, ND-5100, NE-5100, NF-5100, NG-5100 determine acceptability.
and performed by personnel qualified In ASME believes that the proposed condition is unnecessary and should be removed.
accordance with NB-5500, NC-5500, ND-5500, NE-5500 NF-5500 and NG-5500.
§50.55a(b)(1 )(x)(B)
NIA Visual examination of bolts, studs, and nuts:
The acceptance criteria in NB-2582, NC-2582, ND-2582, NE-2582, NF-2582, Second provision. When applying the provisions NG-2582 in the 2015 Edition of Section Ill are less prescriptive than those in the ofNB-2582,NC-2582,ND-2582,NE-2582,NF-2017 Edition. For example, NB-2582 (2015 Edition) allows cracks that would not be 2582, NG-2582 In the 2017 Edition of Section Ill, detrimental to the intended service to be acceptable, but it is not clear how a the acceptance criteria from NB-2582, NC-2582, Material Organization would know how to apply this criterion without knowing the ND-2582, NE-2582, NF-2582, NG-2582 in the intended service for the items.
2015 Edition of Section fl/ shall be used.
ASTM F788 "establishes allowable limits for the various types of surface discontinuities that may occur during the manufacture and process of bolts, screws and studs... " and is much more prescriptive than the requirements of NX-2582 (2015 Edition). The same is true regarding ASTM F812.
ASME believes that the proposed condition is inappropriate and should be removed. Alternatively, the condition could be revised lo require that the provisions of NB-2582, NC-2582, ND-2582, NE-2582, NF-2582, NG-2582 in the 2017 Edition of Section Ill be used when applying the acceptance criteria from NB-2582, NC-2582, ND-2582, NE-2582, NF-2582, NG-2582 in the 2015 Edition of Section Ill.
§50.55a(b)(1 )(xi)(A)
NIA 1
Mandatory Appendix XXVI: First provision. When The NRC proposes to add a new condition, (b)(1)(xi)(A), which specifies the performing fusing procedure qualification tests and essential variables to be used in qualifying fusing procedures for butt fusion joints in operator performance qualification tests in polyethylene piping. This includes four (4) variables in addition to those stated in
~
accordance with XXV/-4330 and XXV/-4340 the Section IX that are pertinent to the fusing verification testing of XXVl-2300. These following essential variables shall be used for the are diameter, cross-sectional area, ambient temperature [range specified in XXVI-performance qualification tests of butt fusion 4412(b)], and fusing machine carriage model.
joints:
Previous discussions with the Regulator involving development and incorporation of (1) Joint Type: A change in the type of joint from Tables identifying all procedure variables applicable to testing required by Section that qualified, except that a square butt joint IX and Appendix XXVI addressed only fusing procedure qualification and testing -
qualifies as a mitered Joint.
not fusing operator performance qualification testing. However, the proposed (2) Pipe Surface Alignment: A change In the pipe amendment (xi)(A) under "PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION outside diameter (0.D.) $Urface misalignment of AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES" includes applying these same essential variables more than 10 percent of the wall thickness of the to operator performance qualification.
thinner member to be fused.
Fusing operator performance qualification testing is performed in accordance with (3) PE Material: Each lot of polyethylene source XXVl-4341 and XXVl-4342 using fusing procedures tested in accordance with mater/a/ to be used in production (XXVl-2310(c)).
XXVl-2300. Such fusing procedures define the fusing machine make and model(s) to be used in production of each joint, so the fusing operator is required to qualify (4) Wall Thickness: Each thickness to be fused in on the same machines and models. However, fusina ocerators are aualified to use Page 1 of 13 6-1 6-2 6-3 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 218, pp. 56156-56196, Friday, November 9, 2018, Docket ID NRC-2016-0082
§50.SSa Paragraph Existing §50.SSa Regulations Proposed Changes to §50.SSa Regulations ASME Comments on §50.SSa Regulations - Existing and Proposed Changes (as of 11/09/2018)
(Changes denoted by Bold Italics) production (XXVl-2310(c)).
those machines over ranges of diameters and thicknesses, not on each diameter to (5) Diameter: Each diameter to be fused In be fused. This is the approach that was approved by the USN RC as recently as two production (XXVJ-2310(c)J-years ago for the Plant Hatch HDPE Project (ML15337A414). To require each fusing operator to perform qualification testing on each diameter, thickness and lot (6) Cross-sectional Area: Each combination of of material would entail significant added expense and hardship without a thickness and diameter (XXVl-2310(c)).
commensurate improvement in quality or safety.
(7) Position: Maximum machine carriage slope ASME recommends that the first paragraph of §50.55a(b}(1}(xi)(A) be revised to when greater than 20 degrees from horizontal read as follows:
(XXVl-4321(c)).
"Mandatory Appendix XXVI: First provision. When performing fusing procedure (8) Heater Surface Temperature: A change In the qualification testing in accordance with XXVl-2300 and XXVl-4330 the following heater surface temperature to a value beyond the essential variables shall be used for the testing of butt fusion joints:"
range tested (XXVl-2321).
ASME notes that these requirements for fusing procedure testing will be addressed (9) Ambient Temperature: A change In ambient further with the publication of procedure testing changes in the 2019 Edition of temperature to Jess than 50 °F (10 °C) or greater ASME Section Ill, Appendix XXVI.
than 125 °F (52 'CJ (XXVl-4412(b)).
(10) lnterfacial Pressure: A change In lnterfacial pressure to a value beyond the range tested (XXVI-2321).
(11) Decrease In Melt Bead Width: A decrease in melt bead size from that qualified.
(12) Increase in Heater Removal Time: An increase In heater* plate removal time from that qualified.
(13) Decrease In Cool-down Time: A decrease in the cooling time at pressure from that qualified.
(14) Fusing Machine Carriage Model: A change in I
the fusing machine carriage model from that tested (XXVl-2310(d)).
§50.55a(b)(1 )(xi)(B)
N/A
/
Mandatory Appendix XXVI: Second provision.
The NRC proposes to add a new paragraph (b)(1)(xi)(B), which will require both
~
When performing qualification tests of butt fusion bend tests and high speed tensile impact testing (HSTIT) to qualify fusing Joints in accordance with XXVl-4342, both t he bend procedures and to qualify fusing operators, for fusing joints in polyethylene test and the high speed tensile impact test shall be piping.... The explanation of the proposed ruling states: "The NRC has performed successfully completed.
limited confirmatory research on the ability of short-term mechanical tests to predict the in-service behavior of HDPE butt fusion joints. Based on this research as well as research results from the Welding Institute in the UK, the NRC lacks conclusive evidence that either of the two tests proposed in XXVl-4342(d) and XXVl-4342(e) is always a reliable predictor of joint quality. As a result, the NRC has determined that the combination of both test results provides increased and sufficient indication of butt fusion joint quality.... '
Comments:
- 1. Fusing Procedure Testing: Relative to joint testing for procedure qualification or XXVl-2300 fusing verification testing, the testing performed by The Welding Institute of UK indicated that the HSTI test mav not detect ioints fused with fine Page 2 of 13 6-4 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 218, pp. 56156-56196, Friday, November 9, 2018, Docket ID NRC-2016-0082
§50.SSa Paragraph Existing §50.SSa Regulations Proposed Changes to §50.SSa Regulations ASME Comments on §50.SSa Regulations - Existing and Proposed Changes (as of 11/09/2018)
(Changes denoted by Bold Italics) sand or talcum powder sized particles placed within the joint. As a result of that testing, Paragraph XXVl-4412(a)(1) and XXVl-4412(a)(2) of Appendix XXVI specifically require that joint surfaces coming in contact with heaters must be protected and kept free of fine particulates, as well as other deleterious material.
Also, EPRI Report 3002005434 "Advanced Nuclear Technology: Literature Review of Mechanical Testing Methods to Evaluate the Integrity of HOPE Butt-Fusion Joints," was developed to assist the NRC with evaluation of mechanical testing methods. This report provides the results of limited studies on the comparison of the high speed tensile impact test to the guided side bend and waisted tensile test methods. This report identifies that situations can occur with the HSTI test where the specimen ruptures outside of the fusion zone while using the HSTI test method. If this occurs, a recommendation is provided for nuclear applications that the cause be evaluated by assessing the amount of increased fusion interface resulting from the fusion beads, and/or presence of out*of-roundness of the joined parts. (If there is indication of minimal or no increased fusion interface, or that mismatch exists between the parts being joined, the test should be re-performed with beads and mismatch removed.)
Therefore, this provision should be revised to instead require retests for any HSTI ruptures occurring away from the fusion zone.
- 2. B. Fusing Operator Testing: Reverse bend testing has been used extensively and successfully for decades for the qualification of fusing operators in the U.S.
for joining polyethylene water and gas piping. Bend testing is endorsed by DOT for performance qualification for the fusing of interstate gas transmission pipelines as well as for local gas distribution pipelines (Ref. 49 CFR 192.285).
Government acceptance for use of only visual inspection of the test joint plus bend testing for performance qualification on volatile gas pipelines certainly supports its use for nuclear applications - where, in addition to the visual inspection and bend testing, the joint parameters are also required to be I
recorded and verified during preparation of the qualification test coupons as well as for each installed fusion joints. This is the approach that was approved by the USN RC as recently as two years ago for the Plant Hatch HOPE Project (ML
~
15337A414). In addition, all installed nuclear fusion joints receive volumetric examination (ultrasonic or microwave) plus a hydrostatic test at 1.5 times maximum design pressure, validating the integrity of each joint fused by each operator. The additional requirement to perform HST! test in addition to bend testing during performance qualification imposes additional hardship and increased cost without commensurate improvement in quality or safety.
Paragraph 7.4 of EPRI Report 3002005434 provides reasons why the reverse bend test might be considered unacceptable for nuclear applications. The stated reasons are inaccurate based on the following explanations:
a) Although ASTM F2620 lacks complete requirements for how to perform the reverse bend test including temperature range, Appendix XXVl-4342 invokesSection IX QF-143.1 which does provide explicit directions, including required temperature range.
b) Although ASTM F2620 may lack clarity on how to perform the test,Section IX, QF-143.1 which is invoked bv Aaaendix XXVI does provide specific Page 3of 13 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 218, pp. 56156-56196, Friday, November 9, 2018, Docket ID NRC-2016-0082
§S0.55a Paragraph Existing §50.SSa Regulations Proposed Changes to §50.SSa Regulations ASME Comments on §50.SSa Regulations. Existing and Proposed Changes (as of 11/09/2018)
(Changes denoted by Bold Italics) instructions on how to perform the test.
c) Although ASTM F2620 may lack clarity on test radii or coupon thickness,Section IX, QF-143.1.3 and QF-463 provide explicit direction on how to cut the specimens and perform the test. The specimen thickness, t, is the thickness of the joint per QF-463, and the bend radius is defined by the 151 dimension either side of the joint with the requirement to bend back until both 151 ends touch. This defines the ratio of thickness to bending length, which is a direct proportion regardless of what thickness is bent, and always results in a defined bending radius or arc at the apex of the tested joint of approximately
- 31. A 31 arc at the apex of the bend results in at least a 15% strain, which exceeds the 10-12% yield strain of HDPE material.
d) One test report identified by EPRI stated that Reverse Bend testing of 1.33 in.
thick 12 NPS PE pipe did not identify defects that were detected by HSTI testing and Guided Side Bend testing. With the advent of the GSB test, most fusing organizations are now using guided side bend tests in lieu of reverse bend tests for qualifying fusing operators on thick sections over 1.25 in. for personnel safety reasons. We suggest that the provision be reworded to address this specific concern when using reverse bend tests for thick sections as indicated in our revised wording, below.
Note: HSTI testing machines are quite scarce and expensive. For fusing procedure verification testing (XXVl-2300) the test specimens are typically sent to a laboratory or shop to have the HSTI testing performed. To require this be done for performance qualification purposes would add extra non-productive days for fusing operators, plus it would require sending quality control personnel for witnessing the off-site testing. Since the only technical issue seems to be an anomaly with one test performed on 1.33 in. thick material, a reasonable resolution would be to reword the provision to mandate use of side bend tests (i.e., prohibit use of reverse bend tests) for performance qualification on all piping thicknesses over 1.25 in.
~
e) Based on the above inaccuracies, the EPRI report suggested that other tests be used in place of or in addition to the Reverse Bend Test. Considering the scarcity and expense of using HSTI test machines, imposing the condition to require HSTI test in addition to Reverse Bend or Guided Side Bend testing for all performance qualification imposes excessive cost and additional hardship without a commensurate improvement in quality or safety.
ASME recommends that the proposed condition {§50.55a(b)(1}(xi)(B)] be revised to read as follows:
"Mandatory Appendix XXVI: Second Provision. When performing procedure qualification HSTT testing of butt fusion joints in accordance with XXVl-2300 or XXVl-4330, specimen breaks away from the fusion zone shall require retesting.
When performing fusing operator qualification bend tests of butt fusion joints in accordance with XXV/-4342, guided side bend testing shall be used for all thicknesses greater than 1. 25 inches."
Page4of 13 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.SSa Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 218, pp. 56156-56196, Friday, November 9, 2018, Docket ID NRC-2016-0082
§50.SSa Paragraph Existing §50.SSa Regulations Proposed Changes to §50.SSa Regulations ASME Comments on §50.SSa Regulations - Existing and Proposed Changes (as of 11/09/2018)
(Changes denoted by Bold Italics)
§50.55a(b)(1 )(xi){C}
N/A Mandatory Appendix XXVI: Third provision. When The NRC is proposing to add a new paragraph {b)(1 )(xi){C), which specifies the performing fusing procedure qualification tests and essential variables to be used in qualifying fusing procedures for electrofusion of operator performance quslificatlon tests in fusion joints in polyethylene piping that is to be installed in accordance with ASME accordance with 2017 Edition of BPV Code Section BPV Code, Section Ill, Mandatory Appendix XXVI. This includes four (4) variables Ill XXVl-4330 and XXVI-4340, the fol/owing in addition to those stated in Section IX that are pertinent to the fusing verification essential variables shall be used for the testing of XXVl-2300. These are: fitting polyethylene material, pipe wall thickness, performance qualification tests of electrofuslon power supply, and processor.
joints:
Previous discussions with the Regulator involving development and incorporation of (1) Joint Design: A change in the design of an Tables identifying all electrofusion procedure variables applicable to testing electrofusion Joint.
required by Section IX and Appendix XXVI addressed only fusing procedure (2) Flt-up Gap: An Increase In the maximum radial qualification and testing - not fusing operator performance qualification testing.
flt-up gap qualified.
However, the proposed amendment (xi)(C) under "PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES" includes applying (3) Pipe PE Material: A change in the PE these same essential variables to operator performance qualification.
designation or cell classification of the pipe from Fusing operator performance qualification testing is performed In accordance with that tested ()(XVI-2322(a)).
XXVl-4341 and XXVi-4342 using fusing procedures tested in accordance with (4) Fitting PE Material: A change in the XXVi-2300. Such fusing procedures define the electrofusion fitting material, pipe manufacturing facility or production lot from that wall thickness, power supply and processor, to be used in production of each joint, tested (XXVl-2322(b)).
so the fusing operator is already required to qualify using the same material and (5) Pipe Wall Thickness: Each thickness to be fused equipment. Therefore, the proposed wording of the paragraph {see Summary, In production (XXVl-2310(c)).
below) Involving performance qualification testing and reference to XXVl-4340 should be removed from that 10CFR50.55a paragraph.
(6) Fitting Manufacturer: A change in fitting ASME notes that these requirements for electrofusion procedure testing will be manufacturer.
addressed further with the publication of procedure testing changes in the 2019 (7) Pipe Diameter: Each diameter to be fused In Edition of ASME Section Ill, Appendix ><XVI.
production (XXVl-231Q(c)).
ASME recommends that the first paragraph of §50.55a(b}(1)(xi}(C) be revised to (8) Cool-down Time: A decrease in the cool time at read as follows:
pressure from that qualified.
"Mandatory Appendix ><XVI: Third provision. When performing fusing procedure (9) Fusion Voltage: A change in fusion voltage.
qualification tests in accordance with 2017 Edition of BPV Code Section Ill ><XVI-(10) Nominal Fusion Time: A change in the nominal 2300 and XXVl-4330, the following essential variables shall be used for the testing fusion time.
of electrofusion joints:"
(11) Material Temperature Range: A change in material fusing temperature beyond the range qualified.
(12) Power Supply: A change in the make or model of electrofuslon control box (XXVl-2310(f)).
(13) Power Cord: A change in power cord material, length, or diameter that reduces current at the coil to below the minimum qualified.
(14) Processor: A change in the manufacturer or model number of the processor. (XXVl-2310(f)).
(15} Saddle Clamp: A chanqe in the tvoe of saddle Page Sof 13 6-5 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.SSa Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 218, pp. 56156-56196, Friday, Novemb er 9, 2018, Docket ID NRC-2016-0082
§50.SSa Paragraph Existing §50,SSa Regulations Proposed Changes to §50.SSa Regulations ASME Comments on §50.SSa Regulations - Existing and Proposed Changes (as of 11/09/2018)
(Changes denoted by Bold Italics) clamp.
(16) Scraping Device: A change from a clean peeling scraofna tool to wny other tvoe of tool.
§50.55a(b}(1 }(xi)(D)
NIA Mandatory Appendix XXVI: Fourth provision.
Crush testing is designed for smaller fittings 8 NPS and less. Such tests are Performance of crush tests In accordance with impractical and unsafe for sizes larger than B NPS due to the large hydraulic 2017 BPV Code Section Ill XXVl-2332(a) and XXVI-equipment that would be required. For this reason, ASTM F1055 provides the 2332(b) and electrofusion bend tests in accordance electrofusion bend test (FET) as a means of verifying fusion integrity for sizes over with 2017 BPV Code Section fl{ XXVl-2332{b) are B NPS. There is no evidence that either of these tests are inadequate for their required to qualify fusing procedures for intended purpose.
e/ectrofuslon Joints In polyethylene piping installed Every electrofusion socket joint installed in a nuclear system also requires In accordance with 2017 Edition of ASME BPV CodE producing and testing an identical coupon using the same lot, size and thickness of Section Ill, Mandatory Appendix XXVI.
material and fitting, the same equipment, the same power supply and the same fusing _procedure under -2300 of Appendix X.XVI. In addition, every electrofusion joint installed in a nuclear system requires data recording to verify the operator used the correct procedure, each joint receives full visual inspection, receives full volumetric examination of the fused joint plus hydrostatic testing at 1.5 times the design pressure. This proposed condition imposes significant cost, hardship and personnel safety issues without any improvement in quality.
ASME recommends that the orooosed condition be removed in the final rule.
§50.55a(b)(1 ){xi)(E)
NIA Mandatory Appendix XXVI: Fifth provision.
The NRC is proposing to add a new paragraph (b)(1}(xi)(E), which prohibits the use Electrofusion saddle fittings and electrofusion of electrofusion saddle fittings and electrofusion saddle joints. Some Department of saddle joints are not permitted for use. Only full Energy operational experience indicates that failures have occurred in electrofusion 360-degree seamless sleeve electrofusion joints. The NRC has determined that the failure of a saddle type electrofusion joint couplings and full 360-degree electrofusion socket could result in structural separation of the electrofusion saddle coupling from the joints are permitted.
HDPE pipe it is attached to, resulting in a potential Joss of flow and toss of safety function in the system.
Unlike the failures identified by DOE, every electrofusion saddle joint installed in a nuclear system requires producing and testing an identical coupon using the same
~
equipment and power supply under -2300 of Appendix XXVI. In addition, each
~
installed saddle joint receives visual verification of fit-up gaps, alignment and out-of-roundness, recording and verification of the actual fusing variables, full volumetric examination of the fused joint, and a hydrostatic pressure test at 1.5 times the design pressure. Without the capability of using electrofusion saddle connections, necessary modifications to or repairs of existing installations could be cost prohibitive, imposing significant hardship without any improvement in quality or safety.
ASME recommends that the proposed condition be removed in the final rule.
§50.55a(b)(2)(viii)
(viii)Section XI condition: Concrete NIA This condition applies to the several older editions and addenda of Section XI that, containment examinations. Applicants or to the knowledge of ASME, are no longer in use in the United States.
licensees applying Subsection IWL, 1992 ASME recommends that the NRG consider removing applicable conditions that Edition with the 1992 Addenda, must apply apply to the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda, and any later code editions and paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(A) through (E) of this addenda that are no lonaer in use bv anv U.S. olants.
Page 6 of 13 6-6 6-7 6-8
Enclosu re 1 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 218, pp. 56156-56196, Friday, November 9, 2018, Docket ID NRC-2016-0082
§50.SSa Paragraph Existing §50.SSa Regulations Proposed Changes to §50.SSa Regulations ASME Comments on §SO.SSa Regulations. Existing and Proposed Changes (as of 11/09/2018)
(Changes denoted by Bold Italics) section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWL, 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda, must apply paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(A),
(b)(2)(viii)(D)(3), and (b)(2)(viii)(E) of this section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWL, 1998 Edition through the 2000 Addenda, must apply paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(E) and (F) of this section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWL, 2001 Edition through the 2004 Edition, up to and including the 2006 Addenda, must apply paragraphs (b)(2)(viii)(E) through (G) of this section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWL, 2007 Edition up to and including the 2008 Addenda must apply paragraph (b)(2)(viii)(E) of this section. Applicants or licensees applying Subsection JWL, 2007 Edition with the 2009 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, must apply oaraaraohs /bl/21/viiil/Hl and m of this section.
§50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(A)
(A) Concrete containment examinations: First NIA This condition applies only when using the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda and provision. Grease caps that are accessible earlier editions/addenda of Section XI.
must be visually examined to detect grease ASME recommends that the NRG consider removing this condition because there leakage or grease cap deformations. Grease should be no U.S. plants still using the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda or caps must be removed for this examination earlier editions/addenda of Section XI.
when there is evidence of grease cap deformation that indicates deterioration of anchoraae hardware.
§50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(B)
(B) Concrete containment examinations:
N/A This condition applies only when using the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of Second provision. When evaluation of Section XI.
consecutive surveillances of P.re-stressing ASME recommends that the NRG consider removing this condition because there forces for the same tendon or tendons in a group indicates a trend of pre-stress loss such should be no U.S. plants still using the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of that the tendon force(s) would be less than the Section XI.
minimum design pre-stress requirements before the next inspection interval, an evaluation must be performed and reported in the Engineering Evaluation Report as prescribed in IWL-3300.
§50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(C)
(C) Concrete containment examinations: Third N/A This condition applies only when using the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of provision. When the elongation correspond ing Section XI.
to a specific load (adjusted for effective wires or ASME recommends that the NRG consider removing this condition because there strands) during re-tensioning of tendons differs should be no U.S. plants still using the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of by more than 1 O percent from that recorded Section XI.
during the last measurement, an evaluation Page 7 of 13 6-9 6-10 6-11 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 218, pp. 56156-56196, Friday, November 9, 2018, Docket ID NRC-2016-0082
§50.55a Paragraph Existing §50.SSa Regulations Proposed Changes to §50.SSa Regulations ASME Comments on §S0.5Sa Regulations - Existing and Proposed Changes (as of 11/09/2018)
(Changes denoted by Bold Italics) must be performed to determine whether the difference is related to wire failures or slip of wires in anchorage. A difference of more than 10 percent must be identified in the ISi Summarv Reoort reauired bv IWA-6000.
§50.55a(b)(2)(viii)(D)
(D) Concrete containment examinations: Fourth NIA This condition applies only when using the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda and provision. The applicant or licensee must report earlier editions/addenda of Section XI.
the following conditions, if they occur, in the ISi ASME recommends that the NRG consider removing this condition because there Summary Report required by IWA-6000:
should be no U.S. plants still using the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda or (1) The sampled sheathing filler grease earlier editions/addenda of Section XI.
contains chemically combined water exceeding 1 O percent by weight or the presence of free water; (2) The absolute difference between the amount removed and the amount replaced exceeds 1 o percent of the tendon net duct volume; and (3) Grease leakage is detected during general visual examination of the containment surface.
§50. 55a(b)(2){ix)
(ix)Section XI condition: Metal containment (ix)Section XI condition: Metal containment This condition applies to the several older editions and addenda of Section XI that, examinations. Applicants or licensees applying examinations. Applicants or licensees applying to the knowledge of ASME, are no longer in use in the United States.
Subsection IWE, 1992 Edition with the 1992 Subsection IWE, 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda, ASME recommends that the NRG consider removing applicable conditions that Addenda, or the 1995 Edition with the 1996 or the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda, must apply to the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda, and any later code editions and Addenda, must satisfy the requirements of satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A) addenda that are no longer in use by any U.S. plants.
paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A) through (E) of this through (E) and (b)(2)(ix)(K) of this section. Applicants section. Applicants or licensees applying or licensees applying Subsection IWE, 1998 Edition Subsection IWE, 1998 Edition through the 2001 through the 2001 Edition with the 2003 Addenda, must Edition with the 2003 Addenda, must satisfy the satisfy the requirements of paragraphs {b)(2)(ix)(A) and requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A) and (B) (B) and (F) through (I) and (b)(2)(/x)(K) of this section.
and (F) through (I) of this section. Applicants or Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWE, 2004 licensees applying Subsection,IWE, 2004 Edition, up to and including the 2005 Addenda, must Edition, up to and including the 2005 Addenda, satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A} and must satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (B) and (F) through (H) and (b)(2)(ix)(K) of this section.
(b)(2)(ix)(A) and (B) and (F) through (H) of this Applicants or licensees applying Subsection IWE, 2004 section. Applicants or licensees applying Edition with the 2006 Addenda, must satisfy the Subsection IWE, 2004 Edition with the 2006 requirements of paragraphs {b){2)(ix)(A)(2) and Addenda, must satisfy the requirements of (b)(2)(ix)(B) and (b)(2)(/x)(K) of this section. Applicants paragraphs (b){2)(ix)(A)(2) and (b)(2)(ix)(B) of or licensees applying Subsection IWE, 2007 Edition this section. Applicants or licensees applying through the 2015 Edition must satisfy the Subsection IWE, 2007 Edition through the latest requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(ix)(A)(2) and edition and addenda incorporated by reference (b)(2J(lx)(B) and ( J) and (K) of this section.
in paragraph (a)(1 )(ii) of this section, must Applicants or licensees applying Subsection /WE satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 2017 Edition must satisfy the requirements of (b)(2)(ix){A)(2) and (b)(2)(ix)(B) and (J) of this paragraph (b)(2)(ix)(A)(2) and (b)(2)(ix)(B) and ll) of section.
this section.
Page 8 of 13 6-12 6-13 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.SSa Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 218, pp. 56156-56196, Friday, November 9, 2018, Docket ID NRC-2016-0082
§50.SSa Paragraph Existing §50.SSa Regulations Proposed Changes to §50.SSa Regulations ASME Comments on §S0.55a Regulations* Existing and Proposed Changes (asofll/09/2018)
(Changes denoted by Bold Italics)
§50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(C)
(C) Metal containment examinations: Third No changes proposed.
This condition applies only when using the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda and provision. The examinations specified in earlier editions/addenda of Section XI.
Examination Category E-8, Pressure Retaining ASME recommends that the NRG consider removing this condition because there Welds, and Examination Category E-F, should be no U.S. plants still using the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda or Pressure Retaining Dissimilar Metal Welds, are earlier editions/addenda of Section XI.
ootional.
§50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(D)
(D) Metal containment examinations: Fourth No changes proposed.
This condition applies only when using the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda and provision. This paragraph (b)(2)(ix)(D) may be earlier editions/addenda of Section XI.
used as an alternative to the requirements of ASME recommends that the NRG consider removing this condition because there IWE-2430. If the examinations reveal flaws or areas of degradation exceeding the acceptance should be no U.S. plants still using the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda or standards of Table IWE-3410- 1, an evaluation earlier editions/addenda of Section XI.
must be performed to determine whether additional component examinations are required. For each flaw or area of degradation identified that exceeds acceptance standards, the applicant or licensee must provide the following in the ISi Summary Report required by IWA-6000:
(1) A description of each flaw or area, including the extent of degradation, and the conditions that led to the degradation; (2) The acceptability of each flaw or area and the need for additional examinations to verify that similar degradation does not exist in similar components; (3) A description of necessary corrective actions; and (4) The number and type of ~dditional examinations to ensure detection of similar dei:iradation in similar components.
§50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(E)
(E) Metal containment examinations: Fifth No changes proposed.
This condition applies only when using the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda and provision. A general visual examination as earlier editions/addenda of Section XI.
required by Subsection IWE must be performed ASME recommends that the NRG consider removing this condition because there once each period.
should be no U.S. plants still using the 1995 Edition with the 1996 Addenda or earlier editions/addenda of Section XI.
§50.55a(b)(2)(xx)(B)
(B) System leakage tests: Second provision.
(B) System leakage tests:,Second provision. The ASME continues to believe that this condition is unnecessary for reasons The NOE provision in IWA-4540(a)(2) of the nondestructive examination method and documented in our letter dated November 30, 2015 to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 2002 Addenda of Section XI must be applied acceptance criteria of the 1992 or later of Section Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
Subject:
Comments on when performing system leakage tests after Ill shall be met when performing system leakage Incorporation by Reference of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Codes repair and replacement activities performed by test (In lieu of a hydrostatic test) in accordance and Code Cases, 10 CFR Part 50, RIN 3150-Al97.
welding or brazing on a pressure retaining with IWA-4520 after repair and replacement If the NRG retains this condition in the final rule, ASME recommends that the boundary using the 2003 Addenda through the activities performed by welding or brazing on a followina editorial chanaes be incoroorated:
Page 9 of13 6-14 6-15 6-16 6-17
§50.SSa Paragraph
§50.55a(b)(2)(xxv)
ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.SSa Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 218, pp, 56156-56196, Friday, November 9, 2018, Docket ID NRC-2016-0082 Existing §50.SSa Regulations (as of 11/09/2018) latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
(xxv)Section XI condition: Mitigation of defects by modification. The use of the provisions in IWA-4340, "Mitigation of Defects by Modification,"Section XI, 2001 Edition through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1 )(ii) of this section are prohibited.
Proposed Changes to §50.SSa Regulations (Changes denoted by Bold Italics) pressure retaining boundary using the 2003 Addenda through the latest edition and addenda of Section XI lncorporate<j by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(il) of this section. The nondestructive examination and pressure testing may be performed using procedures and personnel meeting the requirements of the licensee's/applicant's current ISi code of record, (xxv)Section XI condition: Mitigation of defects by modification. The use of the provisions in IWA-4340, shall be subject to the following conditions:
(A)
Mitigation of defects by modification: First provision. The use of the provisions for mitigation of defects by modification in IWA-4340 of Section XI 2001 Edition through the 2010 Addenda, Is prohibited.
(B)
Mitigation of defects by modification:
Second provision. The use of the provisions for mitigation of defects by modification in IWA-4340 of Section XI 2011 Edition through the 2017 Edition may be used subject to the following conditions:
(1)
The use of the provisions in IWA-4340 to mitigate crack-llke defects or those associated with flow accelerated corrosion are prohibited.
(2)
The design of a modification that mitigates a defect shall incorporate a loss of material rate either 2 times the actual measured corrosion rate In that pipe location (established based on wall thickness measurements conducted at least twice in two prior consecutive or nonconsecutive refueling outage cycles In the 10 year period prior to lnstallatlon of the modification, or 4 times the estimated maximum corrosion rate for the piping system.
The Owner shall perform a wall thickness examination In the vicinity of the modification and relevant pipe base metal during each refueling outage cycle to detect propagation of the flaw into the material credited for structural integrity of the item unless the examinations In the two refueling outage cycles subsequent to the installation of the modification are capable of val/dating the Proiected flaw arowth.
Page 10 of 13 ASME Comments on §50.SSa Regulations. Existing and Proposed Changes
- 1. Revise "1992 or later" to read "1992 Edition or later editions... "
- 2. In the last sentence, insert "program" after "ISi".
ASME would like to thank the NRG for reevaluating the changes made to IWA-4340 published in the 2011 Addenda.
ASME has no comments on the new paragraph (b)(2)(xxv)(A), which continues the prohibition of IWA-4340 in Editions and Addenda prior to 2011 Addenda.
For new paragraph (b)(2)(xxv)(B), ASME has no comments on the first and second proposed conditions.
Regarding the proposed third condition in {b)(2)(xxv){B), ASME has no comments regarding performing wall thickness examinations every refueling outage for modifications installed in accessible locations. However, for modifications installed in inaccessible locations (e.g. buried piping, piping encased in concrete, etc.),
ASME believes that requiring examinations to be performed every refueling outage is onerous. The excavation costs and the risk of damage to the piping system to perform these examinations far outweigh the small increase in safety as a result of examination at the modification. Instead, corrosion rates can be validated at accessible degraded locations, in the same piping system, to confirm the design corrosion rates for the inaccessible locations. Examinations performed to validate corrosion rates are prudent. However, ASME believes those examinations should be conducted at one half of the remaining expected life of the modification, or every ten years from the date of installation, whichever is more frequent.
ASME recommends that this condition be revised to read as follows:
"For accessible locations, the Owner shall perform wall thickness examinations in the vicinity of the modification and relevant pipe base metal to detect propagation ol the flaw info the material credited for structural integrity of the item. For inaccessible locations (e.g. buried, encased in concrete, etc.}, the Owner may validate flaw growth by performing examinations at an accessible degraded location in the same system. Examinations shall be performed every refueling outage unless /he actual flaw growth is validated by examination in two consecutive refueling outages.
For inaccessible locations, the Owner shall also perform wall thickness examinations in the vicinity of the modification and relevant pipe base metal to detect propagation of the flaw into the material credited for structural integrity of the item. These examinations shall be performed prior to exceeding one half of the expected life of the repair, or at least once every ten years, whichever occurs first. "
6-18 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 218, pp. 56156-56196, Friday, November 9, 2018, Docket 10 NRC-2016-0082
§50.SSa Paragraph Existing §S0.55a Regulations Proposed Changes to §50.SSa Regulations ASME Comments on §50.SSa Regulations - Existing and Proposed Changes (asofll/09/2018)
(Changes denoted by Bold Italics)
§50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi)
(xxvi)Section XI condition: Pressure testing (xxvl)Section XI condition: Pressure testing Class ASME continues to believe that this condition is unnecessary and offers the Class 1, 2 and 3 mechanical joints. The repair 1, 2 and 3 mechanical joints. When using the 2001 following comments regarding this condition:
and replacement activity provisions in IWA-Edition through the latest'edition and addenda
- 1. The revised system leakage test requirements in the 1999 Addenda and later 4540(c) of the 1998 Edition of Section XI for incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of editions and addenda are consistent with the construction requirements for pressure testing Class 1, 2, and 3 mechanical this section, licensees shall pressure test mechanical joint leakage in Section Ill of the ASME Code. Section Ill does not joints must be applied when using the 2001 mechanical Joints In Class 1, 2, and 3 piping and prohibit leakage at mechanical connections, and requires only that mechanical Edition through the latest edition and addenda components greater than NPS-1 which are connection leakage not mask other leakage.
incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) disassembled and reassembled during the of this section.
performance of a Section XI activity (e.g.,
Operators and system engineers periodically monitor systems for leakage and repair/replacement activity), in accordance with evaluate if corrective action is warranted when leakage is identified.
IWA-5211(a). The pressure test and examiners Post-maintenance test programs required by operating plants' current licensing shall meet the requirements of the bases specify requirements for leak testing mechanical connections following licensee's/applicant's current ISi code of record.
reassembly.Section XI does not provide any acceptance criteria for mechanical joint leakage following reassembly, and it has always been the responsibility of licensees to determine if correclive action is warranted.
ASME does agree with the NRC that there is much confusion in the industry regarding this condition, and agree that the NRC should clarify, in detail, their position on what repair/replacement activities affecting mechanical joints require pressure testing. However, ASME does not believe the proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) will accomplish that goal, and may actually cause additional confusion. The proposed amendment states in part ".. all mechanical joints... that are disassembled and reassembled during the performance of a Section XI activity... shall be pressure tested... " This statement can be read to apply to a flanged piping spool removed simply to provide access to the portion of a component subject to a repair/replacement activity, to replace gasketing, or to apply to that same flanged spool piece removed to perform a repair/replacement activity on the piping between the flanges. In the 1998 I
Edition and earlier Editions, ASME would consider the flanges in both of these scenarios to be exempt from pressure testing. It is not clear what the NRC intends for this condition to accomplish because the NRC appears to take
/
exception to some ASME interpretations, and those exceptions are not clearly identified.
In the Analysis of Public Comments for the final rule incorporating the 2013 Edition (ML16130A531), the NRC indicates it disagrees with interpretation Xl 10-20, which exempts bolting replacements from pressure testing. Other than some Informal discussions and correspondence with the ASME, that is the only place where the NRC states that position. In the same document, the NRC indicates that items rotated from stock (IWA-4132) are also subject to pressure testing. This issue is further confused because Reg. Guide 1.147 approves Case N-508-4 with no limitation regarding pressure testing (N-508-4 takes exception to all of IWA-4000, including IWA-4540, and therefore 10 CFR 5D.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) doesn't apply).
- 2. This condition takes exception to ASME Section in XI in that it mandates that a pressure test and VT-2 visual examination be performed following performance of a reoair/reolacement activitv when the mechanical connection of an item is Page llof 13 6-19 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 218, pp. 56156-56196, Friday, November 9, 2018, Docket ID NRC-2016-0082
§50.SSa Paragraph Existing §50.SSa Regulations Proposed Changes to §50.SSa Regulations ASME Comments on §50.SSa Regulations - Existing and Proposed Changes (as of 11/09/2018)
(Changes denoted by Bold Italics) disassembled and subsequently reassembled, even if the repair/replacement activity does not involve the repair or replacement of items within the mechanical joint. Moreover, as worded, this condition would require a pressure test and VT-2 visual examination if the repair/replacement activity involves only the replacement of a single fastener, regardless of the reason the fastener is replaced when the item is disassembled. ASME notes that mechanical joints that are disassembled and reassembled for a maintenance activity (e.g., gasket replacement} would not be affected by the proposed condition, provided the mechanical joint is reassembled using no replacement items.
The ASME I Ii and XI committees have determined that there is no need to perform a pressure test following a repair/replacement activity where the mechanical connection was disassembled and reassembled as bolts, studs, nuts, and washers are specifically exempted from pressure testing.
For inslallation into a Code Class (1, 2, 3) system, plants use components that are procured as Quality Related in accordance with a QA program and require the items meet material standards, codes, etc. and are subject to additional NOE and testing before being utilized. This provides reasonable assurance that the materials are free of defects and will perform their function during operation.
In the case of valves, pumps, manufactured piping assemblies (ASME Ill stamped}, etc. designed and fabricated to a code or design specification provided by the owner, and pressure testing is already required of these items.
Whenever maintenance is performed that requires an item to be disassembled, regardless if it includes an ASME XI repair/replacement activity, a leakage check is performed utilizing plant operators to inspect for leakage during post-maintenance testing / return to service (PMT/RTS) activilies. Verifying no leakage is just one of the many observations they perform to assure the item is functioning as expected before considering it operable. Adding a requirement to include a VT-2 examiner, and in some cases an ANII, does not increase the level of public safety and it does not support ALARA goals in those areas of the
~
plant where radiation is present. The proposed condition will cause expose additional personnel to unnecessary radiological dose with no added safety benefit because the mechanical connection is already being inspected by an operator whose training involves the ability to know how the equipment operates and to identify leakage or other abnormal conditions during their normal work duties. Additionally, the mechanical connection is disassembled and reassembled by personnel trained to perform the activity, including use of industry standard bolt torqueing guidance to assure proper integrity of the joint.
While Reactor Coolant System leakage is always a concern and each utility has requirements to address this leakage, ASME is unaware of any precedence where a mechanical connection has catastrophically failed which would be cause for requiring additional visual scrutiny of the mechanical connection by a VT-2 examiner, including the need for use of an ANII. In cases where a condition of leakage has been identified during PMT/RTS activities (within or outside the ASME Section XI program boundaries}, the mechanical connections had no catastrophic failure and conditions were corrected to eliminate the Page 12 of 13 ASME Comments on 10 CFR 50.55a Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 218, pp. 56156-56196, Friday, November 9, 2018, Docket ID NRC-2016*0082
§50.SSa Paragraph Existing §50.SSa Regulations Proposed Changes to §50.SSa Regulations ASME Comments on §50.SSa Regulations - Existing and Proposed Changes (as of 11/09/2018)
[Changes denoted by Bold ltallcsl cause of unacceptable leakage. The leakage can be identified without the need for the added burden of using a VT-2 examiner and an ANII.
As an additional consideration for removal of the condition, plants implementing 10 CFR 50.69 would be implementing an inspection and repair program that is in lieu of ASME XI and 10 CFR 50.55(a). Implementation of 50.69, would require pressure testing per construction code requirements and does not require a VT-2 pressure test following a welded or mechanical repair/replacement activity. The NRG has found this approach to be acceptable when implementing this alternative regulation and should remain consistent with requirements within 5D.55(a).
ASME recommends that this condition be removed from the final rule. If this recommendation is not accepted, then ASME recommends that 10 CFR
- 50. 55a(b) (2) (xxvi) be revised to specifically /isl the repair/replacement activities for which the NRG requires a pressure test following assembly or reassembly of a mechanical joint. That is, the NRG should clarify whether this condition specifically applies when only bolting is replaced, an item rotated from stock is installed in a mechanical joint, and when a mechanical joint is assembled or reassembled to perform a repair/replacement activity that does not affect pressure retaining parts of the mechanical joint (e.g. mechanically removing a valve bonnet to replace the valve disc), etc.
§50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(D)(5)
NIA (5) Peening. In lieu of inspection requirements of ASME understands that the proposed condition will require that MRP-335-3A be Table 1, Items B4.50 and 84.60, and all other followed (with the exception of NRC condition 5.4) in order for a licensee to avoid requirements in ASME BPV Code Case N-729-6 having to seek relief from the requirements ofTable 1 for a RPV upper head with pertaining to peening, In order for a RPV upper nozzles and associated J-groove welds that are mitigated by peening.
head with nozzles and associated J-groove welds, ASME recommends that the condition be clarified to specify that the Extent and mitigated by peening to obtain inspection relief Frequency of Examination for Items 84.50 and 84.60 shall comply with the from the requirements of Table 1 for unmitigated requirements of Code Case N-729-6, Table 1.
1 heads, peening must meet the performance criteria qualification and inspection requirements stated In ASME also recommends that the word "inspection" in the first sentence be changed MRP-335, Revision 3-A, with the exception that a to "examination".
plant-specific alternative request Is not required and NRC condition 5.4 of MRP-335, Revision 3-A does not aoolv.
§50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F)( 15)
NIA (15) Cracked excavate and weld repair. In lieu of In the explanation section of the proposed rule the staff indicates there is the examination requirements for cracked welds insufficient technical basis to support the difference in inspection frequency with 360 excavate and weld repairs, Inspection Item between N-1 and M-2 welds. As is noted in the Case and technical basis for the N-1 of Table 1, welds shall be examined during the EWR repair method, the N-1 repair is a full 360-degree repair with stress reversal, first or second refueling outage following EWR.
which should preclude flaw growth. Stress reversal does not occur for M-2 weld Examination volumes that show no indication of EWR. ASME believes that this key technical difference should allow the use of the crack growth or new cracking shall be examined sampling strategy as provided in the Case for N-1 EWR.
once each inspection lnteNal thereafter.
For this reason. ASME believes that the proposed condition is unnecessary and recommends that the orooosed condition be removed from the final rule.
Page 13 of 13 6-20 6-21
Submission ID 7 Richard Deopere, Private Citizen ML19024A023
1 RulemakingComments Resource From:
Deopere, Richard A. <Richard.Deopere@xenuclear.com>
Sent:
Thursday, January 24, 2019 1:10 AM To:
RulemakingComments Resource
Subject:
[External_Sender] Comments on Proposed Rulemaking applicable to 10 CFR 50.55a Attachments:
Comments on Proposed Rulemaking - FR - Vol 83 - No 218 - 56156.docx
DearSirorMadam,
IrespectfullysubmittheattachedcommentstoproposedrulemakingrelatedtoASMECodesandStandardsfor10CFR50.55a foryourconsideration.
ReferenceFederalRegister,Vol.83,No.218,pp.5615656196,Friday,November9,2018,DocketIDNRC20160082.
Respectfully, RichardDeopere BrooklynPark,MN 83FR56156 PR-50 7
10 CFR 50.55a paragraph NRC Proposed Change, Condition, and/or Provision Reviewer comments 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi)
Section XI condition: Pressure testing Class 1, 2, and 3 mechanical joints. When using the 2001 Edition through the latest edition and addenda incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, licensees shall pressure test mechanical joints in Class 1, 2, and 3 piping and components greater than NPS-1 which are disassembled and reassembled during the performance of a Section XI activity (e.g.,
repair/replacement activity), in accordance with IWA-5211(a).
The pressure test and examiners shall meet the requirements of the licensees/applicants current ISI code of record.
I respectfully recommend that the NRC delete the current and proposed condition to (xxvi) as applicable to mechanical joints for the reasons stated below.
There is no practical need to impose a requirement to perform a pressure test with a VT-2 examination on a mechanical joint to detect leakage when the equivalent outcome can be fulfilled with a leak inspection by knowledgeable personnel, such as operations, maintenance, instrument and controls, engineering staff, etc., during post-maintenance testing (PMT) and return to service (RTS) activities.
Oftentimes, these same knowledgeable personnel are already present at the component location when the system is put into the conditions required for PMT/RTS, so adding a VT-2 examiner, as well as the likelihood of an Inspector from an Authorized Inspection Agency, increases the number of personnel to meet the existing and proposed requirement in order to achieve the same desired outcome.
Industry practice during PMT/RTS activities requires that pressure retaining components that have been disassembled and reassembled are checked to verify that no leakage is present at operating conditions, with exception of those connections that are designed for a certain amount of leakage, such as some pump seals, valve packing leakoff connections, etc.; components with those specific exceptions are checked to verify the leakage is at the appropriate level to perform its function as determined by the Owner requirements.
7-1
10 CFR 50.55a paragraph NRC Proposed Change, Condition, and/or Provision Reviewer comments ASME Section XI IWA-4540(c), 2002 Addenda of the 2001 Edition and later, requires pressure testing requirements of the Construction Code to be met for a repair/replacement activity. The NRC should not impose the additional requirements stated in this condition for mechanical joints, as they are in excess of the Construction Code requirements.
The stated provision to perform a pressure test and VT-2 examination on mechanical joints, which will likely require concurrent witnessing of the examination by an Inspector from an Authorized Inspection Agency, does not provide an increased level of quality or safety, and further imposes undue burden on the licensee to provide the desired outcome to identify leakage or verify no leakage.
By imposing an unnecessary requirement to perform pressure testing and VT-2 examination to detect leakage, the stated provision unnecessarily increases the number of involved personnel needed to perform an examination. This results in an increased risk potential for personnel injury, an increase in required amount of documentation, work preparation, and record keeping; an increase to personnel radiological dose (in opposition to ALARA principles); an increased potential for Code and regulatory non-conformance /
non-compliance; and increase to the financial costs associated with implementing the stated provision.
Submission ID 8 Edward Cavey, Private Citizen ML19024A529
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 1/24/19 1:45 PM Received: January 22, 2019 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k3-97tx-llg9 Comments Due: January 23, 2019 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2016-0082 American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015 - 2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference Comment On: NRC-2016-0082-0003 American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference Document: NRC-2016-0082-DRAFT-0009 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-24076 Submitter Information Name: Edward Cavey Address:
13311 Kettler rd Needville, TX, 77461 Email: wufflek@gmail.com General Comment Comment on Proposed 10CFR50.55a Rulemaking Section C ASME OM Code 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(xi) OM Condition: Valve Position Indication The NRC proposes to amend 50.55a(b)(3)(xi) for the implementation of paragraph ISTC3700, Position Verification Testing, in the ASME OM Code to apply to the 2012 Edition through the latest edition and addenda of the ASME OM Code incorporated by reference in 50.55a(a)
(1)(iv). This will allow future rulemakings to revise 50.55a(a)(1)(iv) to incorporate the latest edition and addenda of the ASME OM Code without the need to revise 50.55a(b)(3)(xi). In addition, the NRC proposes to clarify that this condition applies to all valves with remote position indicators within the scope of Subsection ISTC, Inservice Testing of Valves in Water-Cooled Reactor Nuclear Power Plants, including MOVs within the scope of Mandatory Page 1 of 2 01/24/2019 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006483a0155c&format=xml&showorig=false 83FR56156 PR-50 8
Appendix III, Preservice and Inservice Testing Active Electric Motor-Operated Valve Assemblies in Water-Cooled Reactor Nuclear Power Plants. ISTC3700 references Mandatory Appendix III for valve position testing of MOVs. The development of Mandatory Appendix III was intended to verify valve position indication as part of the diagnostic testing performed on the intervals established by the appendix. This clarification will ensure that verification of valve position indication is understood to be important for all valves with remote position indication addressed in Subsection ISTC and all of its mandatory appendices.
Comment: The intent of this OM Condition is well understood by the industry and several plants have implemented the ASME OM Code 2012 Edition, including the Valve Position Indication requirements specified in the condition. At those plants, valves with remote position indication, other than MOVs, supplemental position verification activities are performed at a two year interval as required by ISTC-3700. Most plants have voluntarily included MOVs in the scope of supplemental position verification. For some MOVs the periodic diagnostic testing (DIAG) in accordance with Appendix III-3300 is utilized as the method for supplemental position verification. Such testing may be performed at intervals of up to 10 years. For other MOVs the Local Leak Rate Testing (LLRT) provides the appropriate conditions for supplemental position verification. LLRTs may be performed at intervals of up to 6 years. In some cases System Operating Procedures, such as for fill and vent, provide the necessary conditions for crediting MOV supplemental position verification and are performed every 2 years or less.
The wording in the proposed condition above has been discussed with industry experts and there is a lack of consensus on what the condition requires in terms of allowed MOV supplemental position verification test interval. Some individuals believe MOV supplemental position verification must be performed every 2 years per ISTC-3700 requirements and other individuals believe it can be performed at intervals up to 10 years. As described above, there is a variety of activities being performed or credited to satisfy MOV supplemental position verification, and at a variety of intervals.
Recommend the wording of the proposed rulemaking be enhanced to clearly state that, whatever method or activity is being performed or credited, MOV supplemental position verification must be performed at least once every 10 years.
Attachments E Cavey Comment on Proposed 10CFR50.55a Page 2 of 2 01/24/2019 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006483a0155c&format=xml&showorig=false 8-1
Comment on Proposed 10CFR50.55a Ruling Section C ASME OM Code Discussion 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(xi) OM Condition: Valve Position Indication The NRC proposes to amend § 50.55a(b)(3)(xi) for the implementation of paragraph ISTC-3700, Position Verification Testing, in the ASME OM Code to apply to the 2012 Edition through the latest edition and addenda of the ASME OM Code incorporated by reference in § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv). This will allow future rulemakings to revise § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv) to incorporate the latest edition and addenda of the ASME OM Code without the need to revise § 50.55a(b)(3)(xi). In addition, the NRC proposes to clarify that this condition applies to all valves with remote position indicators within the scope of Subsection ISTC, Inservice Testing of Valves in Water-Cooled Reactor Nuclear Power Plants, including MOVs within the scope of Mandatory Appendix III, Preservice and Inservice Testing Active Electric Motor-Operated Valve Assemblies in Water-Cooled Reactor Nuclear Power Plants. ISTC-3700 references Mandatory Appendix III for valve position testing of MOVs. The development of Mandatory Appendix III was intended to verify valve position indication as part of the diagnostic testing performed on the intervals established by the appendix. This clarification will ensure that verification of valve position indication is understood to be important for all valves with remote position indication addressed in Subsection ISTC and all of its mandatory appendices.
Comment: The intent of this OM Condition is well understood by the industry and several plants have implemented the ASME OM Code 2012 Edition, including the Valve Position Indication requirements specified in the condition. At those plants, valves with remote position indication, other than MOVs, supplemental position verification activities are performed at a two year interval as required by ISTC-3700. Most plants have voluntarily included MOVs in the scope of supplemental position verification. For some MOVs the periodic diagnostic testing (DIAG) in accordance with Appendix III-3300 is utilized as the method for supplemental position verification. Such testing may be performed at intervals of up to 10 years. For other MOVs the Local Leak Rate Testing (LLRT) provides the appropriate conditions for supplemental position verification. LLRTs may be performed at intervals of up to 6 years. In some cases System Operating Procedures, such as for fill and vent, provide the necessary conditions for crediting MOV supplemental position verification and are performed every 2 years or less.
The wording in the proposed condition above has been discussed with industry experts and there is a lack of consensus on what the condition requires in terms of allowed MOV supplemental position verification test interval. Some individuals believe MOV supplemental position verification must be performed every 2 years per ISTC-3700 requirements and other individuals believe it can be performed at intervals up to 10 years. As described above, there is a variety of activities being performed or credited to satisfy MOV supplemental position verification, and at a variety of intervals. Recommend the wording of the proposed rulemaking be enhanced to clearly state that, whatever method or activity is being performed or credited, MOV supplemental position verification must be performed at least once every 10 years.
8-2
Submission ID 9 Adam Keyser, Private Citizen ML19024A526
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 1/24/19 1:51 PM Received: January 23, 2019 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k3-97uh-4e89 Comments Due: January 23, 2019 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2016-0082 American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015 - 2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference Comment On: NRC-2016-0082-0003 American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference Document: NRC-2016-0082-DRAFT-0010 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-24076 Submitter Information Name: Adam Keyser General Comment Public Comments on Docket ID NRC-2016-0082 (b)(2)(xxxvii)Section XI condition: ASMEBPV Code Case N824; As written, this paragraph appears to simply provide NRC endorsement of a Code Case. If this is the intent, the Code Case and conditions should be listed in Reg. Guide 1.147 for consistency, instead of in the Rule. If the intent of this conditional paragraph is different from providing endorsement of the Code Case, the intent should be clarified in the Rule.
(b)(2)(ix)(K) Metal Containment Examinations: Eleventh provision; Table IWE 2411 1 should be Table IWE-2411-1. paragraph IWE 2430 should be paragraph IWE 2430.
(b)(2)(xxxix)(A) Defect Removal: First Provision; subparagraph IWA 4421(c)(1) should read subparagraph IWA-4421(c)(1)
(b)(2)(xxxix)(B) Defect Removal: Second Provision; subparagraph IWA 4421(c)(2) should Page 1 of 2 01/24/2019 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006483a03af6&format=xml&showorig=false 83FR56156 PR-50 9
9-1 9-2 9-3 9-4
read subparagraph IWA-4421(c)(2) 50.55a(b)(2)(xl)Section XI Condition: Prohibitions on Use of IWB-3510.4(b); The proposed Rule does not specify which Edition and Addenda of Section XI this condition applies to.
These paragraphs do not exist in some previous versions.
50.55a(b)(2)(xlii)Section XI Condition: Steam Generator Nozzle-to-Component Welds and Reactor Vessel Nozzle-to-Component Welds; of the 2011a Addenda should read of the 2011 Addenda (b)(2)(xviii)(D), (g)(4)(i), and (g)(4)(ii); The Proposed Rule provides a description of changes in Section III, Discussion, but there is no associated change for these sections under the Proposed Rule text. For consistency, the actual text of the proposed Rule needs to be published.
Page 2 of 2 01/24/2019 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006483a03af6&format=xml&showorig=false 9-5 9-6 9-7
Submission ID 10 Gary Becker, NuScale Power, LLC ML19024A527
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 1/24/19 1:58 PM Received: January 23, 2019 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k3-97um-m9n9 Comments Due: January 23, 2019 Submission Type: API Docket: NRC-2016-0082 American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015 - 2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference Comment On: NRC-2016-0082-0003 American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference Document: NRC-2016-0082-DRAFT-0012 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-24076 Submitter Information Name: Gary Becker Address:
1100 NE Circle Blvd, Suite 200 Corvallis, OR, 97330-4741 Email: gbecker@nuscalepower.com Organization: NuScale Power, LLC General Comment See attached file(s)
Attachments LO-0119-64284 Federal Registry Comments on BRVC Code Edition Signed Page 1 of 1 01/24/2019 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006483a01d2a&format=xml&showorig=false 83FR56156 PR-50 10
January 23, 2019 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff
SUBJECT:
NuScale Power, LLC Comments on the proposed rule American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference, Docket ID NRC-2016-0082.
L0-0119-64284 The attached comments are submitted in response to Federal Register Notice 2018-24076 (83 Fed.
Reg. 56,156) requesting comments on the the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposed rule American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference (Docket ID NRC-2016-0082).
If you have any questions, please contact me at 541-360-0549 or at gbecker@nuscalepower.com.
Sincerely, Gary Becker Regulatory Affairs Counsel NuScale Power, LLC
Attachment:
NuScale Power, LLC Comments on proposed rule American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference, Docket ID NRC-2016-0082 NuScale Power, LLC 1100 NE Circle Blvd, Suite 200 Corvallis, Oregon 97330 Office 541.360-0500 Fax 541.207.3928 www.nuscalepower.com
L0-0119-64284 Attachment Page 1 of 1 NuScale Power, LLC Comments on proposed rule American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference, Docket ID NRC-2016-0082 Comment:
Revise 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1 )(iii) to allow use of Editions and Addenda after the 2008 Addenda. 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1 )(iii) pertains to the allowed use of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section Ill Subarticles NB-3600, NC-3600, and ND-3600 that are acceptable for seismic design of piping. The current rule allows the use of Subarticles NB-3600, NC-3600, and ND-3600 for the seismic design of piping in the 2006 Addenda through the 2008 Addenda, subject to the conditions of paragraph (b)(1 )(iii). The rule should be revised to include Editions and Addenda after the 2008 Addenda. For example, the revised rule may read: "(iii)... Applicants or licensees may use Subarticles NB-3600, NC-3600, and ND-3600 for the seismic design of piping in the 2006 Addenda through the 2013 Edition, subject to the conditions of this paragraph corresponding to those subarticles."
Justification:
10 CFR 50.55a (b)(1 )(iii) does not allow the use of Subarticles NB-3600, NC-3600, and ND-3600 in the 1994 Addenda through the 2005 Addenda for seismic design of piping. It appears this exclusion relates to NRC's disagreement with certain provisions in the Subarticles during that time span. Beginning with the 2006 Addenda, two significant changes are apparent in what are known as the "alternative rules" for analysis of reversing dynamic (seismic) loads. First, the specification of seismic analysis methods (including analysis type, spectrum peak broadening, and damping) in NB-3656(b)(3) and NC/ND-3655(b)(3) was removed. Second, guidance on analyzing piping systems with unbalanced distributions of plastic strain was added to NB-3656(b)(5) and NC/ND-3655(b)(5). Coincident with these changes, 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1 )(iii) allows NB-3600, NC-3600, and ND-3600 in the 2006 Addenda to be used for piping seismic design, and this allowance extends through the 2008 Addenda.
However, it is not clear why the use of Subarticles NB-3600, NC-3600, and ND-3600 for piping seismic design later in subsequent Addenda and Editions of the Code is not allowed by 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(iii). For example, NB-3656 and NC/ND-3655 of the 2013 Edition have only immaterial differences from the currently-endorsed 2008 Addenda, namely textual clarifications and updates to some referenced stress indices that are not specific to seismic analysis. It appears that exclusion of the post-2008 Addenda, up to and including the 2013 Edition, may have been inadvertent. Therefore, 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1 )(iii) should be made consistent with the post-2008 Code Editions and Addenda otherwise allowed by 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(1 )(i), allowing those Editions and Addenda to be used for the seismic design of piping to the extent appropriate from a technical perspective.
NuScale Power, LLC 1100 NE Circle Blvd, Suite 200 Corvallis, Oregon 97330 Office 541.360-0500 Fax 541.207.3928 www.nuscalepower.com 10-1
Submission ID 11 Justin Wheat, Southern Nuclear Operating Company ML19024A528
83FR56156 PR-50 11 A Southern Nuclear JAN 2 3 2019 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 A TIN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
Regulatory Affairs 40 Inverness Center Parkway Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35242 205 992 5000 tel 205 992 7601 fax NL-19-0071 Southern Nuclear Operating Company Comments on the NRG Proposal to Incorporate by Reference into Regulations the 2015-2017 ASME Code Editions. Docket ID NRC-2016-0082
Dear staff:
In response to Federal Register Notice 83 FR 56156 released on November 9, 2018, Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) is hereby providing comments on the NRC's proposal to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference the 2015 and 2017 Editions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and the 2015 and 2017 Editions of the ASME Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, Division 1: OM: Section 1ST, respectively, for nuclear power plants. (Docket ID NRC-2016-0082).
SNC comments have been consolidated and included in the attachment to this letter.
This letter contains no NRG commitments. If you have any questions, please contact me at 205.992.5998.
Respectfully submitted,
~_.:k(~
Justin T. Wheat Nuclear Licensing Manager JTW/kmo/sam
Attachment:
SNC Comments on Docket ID NRC-2016-0082 cc:
Southern Nuclear Operating Company Mr. M. D. Meier, Vice President - Regulatory Affairs SNC Document Services - RType: CGA02.001
Southern Nuclear Operating Company Comments on the NRC Proposal to Incorporate by Reference into Regulations the 2015-2017 ASME Code Editions, Docket ID NRC-2016-0082 Attachment SNC Comments on Docket ID NRC-2016-0082
Attachment to NL-19-0071 SNC Comments on Docket ID NRC-2016-0082 SNC Comments on Docket ID NRC-2016-0082 Identifier Comment Proposed (Section, Page, Paragraph)
Resolution
- 1.
83 FR 56167; The industry's confusion is centered around the requirement of SNC recommends that the NRC 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) pressure testing after mechanical repair/replacement activities, specifically identify which mechanical Section XI Condition:
such as the replacement of bolting in a mechanical connection repair/replacement activities would Pressure Testing Class 1, 2, (ASME Interpretation Xl-1-10-20).
require pressure testing.
and 3 Mechanical Joints Regarding Xl-1-10-20, SNC understands that the NRC disagrees with the ASME interpretation which exempts bolting replacements from pressure testing. However, the NRC does not clearly state their position on this matter in the draft rulemaking.
- 2.
83 FR 56172; The proposed change requiring application of Appendix IV of SNC proposes the following 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(xii) OM the 2017 Edition of the OM Code, when implementing the 2015 recommendations in order of Condition: Air-Operated Edition is unnecessary and inappropriate.
desirability:
Valves (Appendix IV)
It is unnecessary because:
- Remove the proposed condition;
- Licensees establishing an initial or subsequent 120-month
- Do not approve the 2015 Edition, interval plans are required to use the most recent edition of thereby forcing Licensees that wish the OM Code, which is the 2017 Edition.
to take advantage of changes made Existing rules adequately address the use of subsequent between the 2012 and 2015 Edition to incorporate the 2017 Edition.
approved Editions of the code, so it is unclear why the NRC has chosen to bypass the applicability of these rules by mandating those implementing the 2015 Edition use Appendix IV of the 2017 Edition.
- Licensees are already required to demonstrate that components can perform their intended safety function per 1 OCFR50 Appendix A. Furthermore, plants with AOVs are required to implement and maintain an AOV test program.
Most of the industry has implemented the JOG program which is very similar to Appendix IV.
It is inappropriate because:
A-1 11-1 11-2
Attachment to NL-19-0071 SNC Comments on Docket ID NRC-2016-0082 SNC Comments on Docket ID NRC-2016-0082
- The 2015 Edition does not provide the necessary framework to properly incorporate Appendix IV.
- The NRG has not indicated to Licensees utilizing previous versions of the OM Code that they will need to expeditiously implement the provision in Appendix IV of the 2017 Edition after the final rule takes effect; therefore, it is unclear why the NRG would assert the changes in Appendix IV were significant enough to warrant Licensees implementing the 2015 Edition comply.
- The requirement to utilize Appendix IV of the 2017 Edition following the implementation of the 2015 Edition or earlier would impose a significant burden on licensees by way of a major revision to their 1ST program plan for AOVs.
- 3.
83 FR 56172; The proposed change as written would create an unnecessary SNC recommends that the NRG limit 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(7) lnservice burden on the Licensee and the NRG to process and review a the number of locations official Testing Reporting significant increase in the number of submittals which ultimately submittals are required to be sent to Requirements contain no new technical information. For example, 1ST program one (i.e., NRG Headquarters), and plan changes including test changes or deletions, editorial should limit the frequency of these changes (e.g., correction of typos), clarifications, reassignment submittals to 120-month Initial and of a check valve from the standard ASME OM Code Subsequent interval plans, and any requirements to the Check Valve Condition Monitoring program, update that requires a relief request, moving components to alternate treatment under 10 CFR 50.69, proposed alternative, or adoption of a and revisions that only incorporate augmented scope new ASM E OM Code of record or Code components provide no added value to the NRG staff.
Case.
Furthermore, submitting program plans to multiple NRG offices and/or personnel directly would undoubtedly create a serious version control problem for both entities. It is also unnecessary to require Licensees to officially submit revisions to the NRG resident, who already has access to the most recent versions of the program plans at the station.
A-2 11-3
Attachment to NL-19-0071 SNC Comments on Docket ID NRC-2016-0082 SNC Comments on Docket ID NRC-2016-0082
- 4.
Not Contained in Federal 50.55a(b)(3)(iii) states that the following condition is required for SNC recommends that the NRC either, Register; New Reactors:
- Remove this condition and refer 50.55a(b)(3)(iii)(C) Flow-
"Flow-induced vibration. Licensees shall monitor flow-Licensees to utilize the existing induced vibration induced vibration from hydrodynamic loads and acoustic requirements for piping and resonance during preservice testing or in-service testing to component vibration monitoring identify potential adverse flow effects on components within contained in the AP1000 design the scope of the 1ST program."
control documents for New Reactors, or The monitoring of flow-induced vibration during preservice or in-Revise the condition by replacing service testing would not provide a good measure of the effects on these components. In many cases, including those of "preservice testing or in-service utmost concern to the industry based on operating experience testing" with "initial plant operation".
(e.g., main steam and main feedwater valves}, the flow rate during preservice or in-service testing is reduced significantly to below normal operating conditions.
Furthermore, the AP1000 design control documents already contain a requirement in 3.9.2.1.1 for piping vibration testing and assessment. This requirement provides that Licensees assess the vibration during "initial operation".
- 5.
Not Contained in Federal When the OM Code (Parts 1,6, and 10) was being developed to SNC recommends that the NRC add a Register; encompass the requirements from Section XI, Subsections IWP statement that Pressure relief devices 50.55a(f)(4) lnservice testing and IWV of the ASME 8PV Code, the scope was intentionally requiring testing per 10 CFR standards requirement for changed to test all pumps and valves with a safety related 50.55(a)(f)(4) shall be limited to valves operating plants function (even if not Class 1, 2 or 3). This change resulted in and rupture discs installed in piping unintended consequences for relief devices and has systems designed to ASME B&PV subsequently been raised to the attention of the OM Code Codes or ASME B31 standards.
committee by the industry. However, it is imperative that the This type of statement would ensure NRC address the issue in 10 CFR 50.55a until the OM Code committee has resolved the issue.
relief devices protecting components with safety functions built to Section VIII In short, the problem stems from the varied interpretation of or 831.1 or 831.7, that are not Class 1, ISTA-11 OO(b) and the inclusion of components that the OM 2 or 3, are exempt from the condition.
Code was not intended to test. Some examples include:
A-3 11-4 11-5
Attachment to NL-19-0071 SNC Comments on Docket ID NRC-2016-0082 SNC Comments on Docket ID NRC-2016-0082
- To some a strict interpretation of ISTA-1100{b) implies relief devices that were not designed for use in or installed in piping systems are required to be tested per the OM Code.
While 1 O CFR 50.55a{f) does refer to "pumps and valves" throughout, the limitation of the scope of 1ST relief device components should be more explicit.
- Some have interpreted that ISTA-1100{b) requires OM Code testing of structural "blow-out panels" that are designed to limit the temperature, in the area of MOVs or AOVs with safety functions, to within their EQ qualification limits. While these "blow-out panels" to need to be maintained {i.e.,
through inspection or PMs) to ensure they will function as designed, the requirements do not exist in the OM Code.
- The absence of a limit in the applicability of the OM Code to piping systems, could result in further expansion in the interpretation for relief devices to include those in HVAC or electrical systems with safety functions. Relief devices in both HVAC and electrical systems with safety functions have other design and testing standards they are required to meet; therefore, the existing OM Code testing requirements would not properly test these components.
- 6.
83 FR 56171 The following statement is too vague regarding what clarity SNC recommends that the NRC include 10 CFR 50.55a{b){3){xi) OM licensees should expect to be included:
the exact wording that is intended to be Condition: Valve Position "In addition, the NRC proposes to clarify that this condition included in this amended condition.
Indication a1212lies to all valves with remote 12osition indicators within the sco12e of Subsection ISTC, "lnservice Testing of Valves in Water-Cooled Reactor Nuclear Power Plants," including MOVs within the scope of Mandatory Appendix Ill, "Preservice and lnservice Testing Active Electric Motor-Operated Valve Assemblies in Water-Cooled Reactor Nuclear Power Plants."
A-4 11-6
Attachment to NL-19-0071 SNC Comments on Docket ID NRC-2016-0082 SNC Comments on Docket ID NRC-2016-0082
- 7.
83 FR 56172 The following statement is too vague regarding information SNC recommends that the NRC include 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(xii) OM licensees should expect to be included in the new condition:
the exact wording that is intended to be Condition: Air-Operated "The NRC grogoses to include new§ 50.55a(b}(3}(xii) to included in this new condition.
Valves (Appendix IV) require the application of the provisions in Appendix IV of the 2017 Edition of the ASME OM Code, when implementing the ASME OM Code, 2015 Edition. The new Appendix IV in the 2017 Edition of the ASME OM Code provides improved PST and 1ST of active AOVs within the scope of the ASME OM Code. This condition would provide consistency in the implementation of these two new editions of the ASME OM Code."
A-5 11-7
1 RulemakingComments Resource From:
Mitchell, Susan Camille <SUMITCHE@southernco.com>
Sent:
Thursday, January 24, 2019 3:57 PM To:
RulemakingComments Resource
Subject:
[External_Sender] NRC-2016-0082 Attachments:
NL-19-0071.pdf In response to Federal Register Notice 83 FR 56156 released on November 9, 2018, Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) is hereby providing comments on the NRC's proposal to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference the 2015 and 2017 Editions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and the 2015 and 2017 Editions of the ASME Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, Division 1: OM: Section 1ST, respectively, for nuclear power plants.
(Docket ID NRC-2016-0082).
Justin Wheat Nuclear Licensing Manager Southern Nuclear Operating Company
Submission ID 12 Stephen Vaughn, Nuclear Energy Institute ML19028A019
From: VAUGHN, Stephen [1]
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 4:12 PM To: Ma, May <May.Ma@nrc.gov>
Cc: O'Driscoll, James <James.O'Driscoll@nrc.gov>; Hoffman, Keith <Keith.Hoffman@nrc.gov>
Subject:
[External_Sender] NEI Letter to NRC - Comments on FRN to incorporate new ASME codes and standards THE ATTACHMENT CONTAINS THE FULL CONTENTS OF THE LETTER January 22, 2019 Ms. May Ma Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Subject:
Industry Comments on American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference [RIN 3150-AJ74; Docket ID NRC-2016-0082]
Reference No: 689
Dear Ms. Ma:
The Nuclear Energy Institute[1] (NEI), on behalf of our members, appreciates the opportunity to comment on American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference issued in the Federal Register on November 9, 2018. Below are two comments for your consideration.
In summary, since the NRC Resident Inspector currently has access to the most recent revision of a licensees ASME OM Code program Plan and is able to distribute them to others within the NRC organization upon request, it is recommended that the additional proposed requirement to submit interim IST Plan updates be deleted.
If you or other NRC staff have any comments or questions please contact me at sjv@nei.org or 202-739-8163.
Sincerely, Stephen Vaughn Senior Project Manager, Risk and Technical Support Nuclear Energy Institute 1201 F St., NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20024 www.nei.org P: 202.739.8163 M:202.256.5393 E: sjv@nei.org
[1] TheNuclearEnergyInstitute(NEI)isresponsibleforestablishingunifiedpolicyonbehalfofitsmembersrelatingtomattersaffectingthenuclearenergyindustry,includingthe regulatoryaspectsofgenericoperationalandtechnicalissues.NEIsmembersincludeentitieslicensedtooperatecommercialnuclearpowerplantsintheUnitedStates,nuclear plantdesigners,majorarchitectandengineeringfirms,fuelcyclefacilities,nuclearmaterialslicensees,andotherorganizationsinvolvedinthenuclearenergyindustry.
83FR56156 PR-50 12 12-1
STEPHEN J. VAUGHN Senior Project Manager, Engineering and Risk 1201 F Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004 P: 202.739.8163 sjv@nei.org nei.org January 22, 2019 Ms. May Ma Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Subject:
Industry Comments on American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference [RIN 3150-AJ74; Docket ID NRC-2016-0082]
Reference No: 689
Dear Ms. Ma:
The Nuclear Energy Institute1 (NEI), on behalf of our members, appreciates the opportunity to comment on American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference issued in the Federal Register on November 9, 2018. Below are two comments for your consideration.
10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(xi) OM Condition: Valve Position Indication (page 56171)
Verification of valve position indication became effective 8/17/2018. The proposed change is applicable when implementing the 2012 or later editions of the ASME OM Code. It stipulates that licensees shall verify that valve operation is accurately indicated by supplementing valve position indicating lights with other indications, such as flow meters or other suitable instrumentation, to provide assurance of proper obturator position. The scope of the condition follows guidance under paragraph ISTC-3700 and applies to all valves with remote position indication, with the exception of active MOVs under Mandatory Appendix III. The condition could imply the obturator position is to be verified using supplemental means every 24 months.
In the proposed rulemaking, 10CFR50.55a(b)(3)(xi) is being updated to increase the scope of the OM condition to include valves covered in all of the mandatory appendices within the ASME OM Code, in addition to subsection ISTC. The basis for this change seems to imply that diagnostic testing performed on MOVs under Mandatory Appendix III can be used to verify obturator position on the diagnostic test frequency (up to every 10 years), as this particular test method provides reasonable assurance of valve condition.
1 The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is responsible for establishing unified policy on behalf of its members relating to matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEIs members include entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect and engineering firms, fuel cycle facilities, nuclear materials licensees, and other organizations involved in the nuclear energy industry.
12-2
Ms. May Ma January 22, 2019 Page 2 Establishing a requirement to verify obturator position on every valve in the IST program with remote position indication places a significant burden on the licensee to develop new test methods and procedures for valves that do not have supplemental means available, such as flow or pressure indication. In these cases, it may be necessary to purchase special equipment and deploy personnel to high radiological areas in order to verify obturator position on a frequency that may not be necessary.
The OM condition could be modified to allow other NRC-approved test methods to verify obturator position while still maintaining reasonable assurance of the valve condition. An example of such an NRC-approved test method would be the Appendix J program. The Local Leak Rate Test performed under this program provides the reasonable assurance necessary to meet the intent of this OM condition on a frequency greater than 24 months and would greatly reduce the burden on the licensee. These types of NRC approved test methods call for increased testing frequencies when the valves performance shows signs of degradation.
It is recommended that the following wording be added to the condition to provide greater flexibility in how licensees meet the intent of this OM condition: Licensees shall verify that valve operation is accurately indicated by supplementing valve position indicating lights with other indications, such as flow meters, other suitable instrumentation, or NRC approved testing programs to provide assurance of proper obturator position.
10 CFR 50.55a(f)(7), Inservice Testing Reporting Requirements As stated in the proposed rulemaking, The current ASME OM Code states in paragraph (a) of ISTA-3200, Administrative Requirements, that IST Plans shall be filed with the regulatory authorities having jurisdiction at the plant site. However, the ASME is planning to remove this provision from the ASME OM Code in a future edition because this provision is more appropriate as a regulatory requirement rather than a Code requirement. Therefore [the] proposed condition is an administrative change that would relocate the provision from the ASME OM Code to § 50.55a.
However, the proposed 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(7) would expand the existing OM Code requirement to require licensees to submit their IST Plans and interim IST Plan updates related to pumps and valves, and IST Plans and interim Plan updates related to snubber examination and testing to NRC Headquarters, the appropriate NRC Regional Office, and the appropriate NRC Resident Inspector. Submittal of interim IST Plan updates for pumps and valves and snubber examination and testing is not currently required. The new requirement to submit IST Plan updates to the NRC is considered unnecessary and overly burdensome. Currently, program plans associated with the ASME OM Code are submitted to the NRC for information prior to the beginning of each 10 year interval. These program plan submittals are deemed adequate for the NRC to perform their technical reviews of any associated alternative and relief requests.
The current revision of the ASME OM Code IST program Plans are available to onsite resident inspectors, who can provide the latest revision to interested NRC technical staff and regional inspectors upon request.
12-3
Ms. May Ma January 22, 2019 Page 3 Furthermore, NRC inspectors typically request licensees to either provide, or have available upon arrival, the latest Plan documents prior to scheduled inspections. An OM Code IST program Plan is considered a living document and could go through several revisions within a 10 year interval. The proposed requirement may result in licensees not updating their ASME OM Code program plans as often due to the extra burden of having to send revisions to NRC headquarters, the NRC Regional Office, and the NRC Resident Inspector.
In summary, since the NRC Resident Inspector currently has access to the most recent revision of a licensees ASME OM Code program Plan and is able to distribute them to others within the NRC organization upon request, it is recommended that the additional proposed requirement to submit interim IST Plan updates be deleted.
If you or other NRC staff have any comments or questions please contact me at sjv@nei.org or 202-739-8163.
Sincerely, Stephen Vaughn c:
Mr. James ODriscoll, NRC/NMSS Mr. Keith Hoffman, NRC/NRR
Submission ID 13 Mark Gowin, Private Citizen ML19029B164
! "#
!$ #
! "#
!$ #
%&'()*,,&'-),,)./
01,234,5678658,55:7;,<=
>?@?AB?C4,DEFGEHI,7JK,7;58
,LMLN14,OPFQRFSTOUVW XYM@ZA[\\,/2],5^J_8`Ga_8I`Q
- 2bb?[L1,cN?4,DEFGEHI,7JK,7;58
,NdbA11A2[,Xef?4,gPh c2@Z?L4,ijk_7;5l_;;m7
<nPHRoEF,pUoRPWI,Uq,=PorEFRoEs,tFSRFPPHV,7;5u,_,7;5`,kUQP,tQRWRUFV,vFoUHwUHEWRUF,hI,jPqPHPFoP
- 2bb?[L,.[4,ijk_7;5l_;;m7_;;;J
<nPHRoEF,pUoRPWI,Uq,=PorEFRoEs,tFSRFPPHV,7;5u_7;5`,kUQP,tQRWRUFV,vFoUHwUHEWRUF,hI,jPqPHPFoP c2@Nb?[L4,ijk_7;5l_;;m7_xj<yz_;;5J kUnnPFW,UF,yj,xUo,{,7;5m_7l;`l
,NdbALL?Y,)[32YbMLA2[
/Mb?4,=EH^,}U~RF 0CCY?114 J5u8,?RVWE,xH ksPPsEFQK,,J`J57 bMA4,nSU~RForEHWPHFPW
?[?YM,*2bb?[L pPP,EWWEorPQ,qRsP,~rRor,oUFWERFV,VwPoRqRo,oUnnPFWV,hI,wEHESHEwr,FGnhPH 0LLM@b?[L1 ijk7;5l;;m7,_,}gvi,kUnnPFWV 83FR56156 PR-50 13
Docket NRC-2016-0082 - GOWIN Comments - 2108 Draft 10 CFR 50.55a Rulemaking:
Paragraph Comment (a)(1)(ii)(C)(54)
Consider not endorsing 2015 Edition of OM Code based on complications related to new Condition that imposes Appendix IV on the 2015 Edition.
See comment below for paragraph (b)(3)(xii)
(b)(3)(x)
Recommend deleting this OM Condition. This condition is no longer required because OMN-20 is included RG 1.192, Rev 2 (b)(3)(xi)
Recommend clarifying this OM Condition with respect to its application to Mandatory Appendices. For example, clarify whether the ISTC-3700 methods and frequency OR the Mandatory Appendix methods and frequency are applicable..
(b)(3)(xii)
The 2015 Edition of OM Code does not have the necessary pointers and references to Appendix IV. Therefore, there could be considerable confusion for plants to implement this condition. For example, Appendix IV includes much of the same valve exercise, stroke time, and fail safe test requirements contained in Subsection ISTC, but Appendix IV has combined some of these items and renamed them. Implementers may not recognize that some of these tests are the same.
In reality, the only new test requirement in Appendix IV is the Performance Assessment Testing. It may be possible to clarify this new condition to only reference the specific Appendix IV paragraphs related to Performance Assessment Testing such as those listed below.
IV-1400(a)
IV-1400(b)
IV-1400(d)
IV-2000 definitions related to Performance Assessment Testing IV-3410 - Performance Assessment Testing IV-3520 Effect of AOV Replacement, Repair, Modification, or Maintenance (portions related to Performance Assessment Testng)
IV-3600 - Grouping of AOVs for Performance Assessment Testing IV-3800 - Risk-Informed AOV Inservice Testing IV-5000 - PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT TEST METHODS IV-6000 - PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT TEST ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION IV-9100 (b)
IV-9100 (c)
IV-9100 (f)
IV-9100 (g)
IV-9100 (h)
IV-9200 (c)
IV-9200 (d)
As an alternative, this rulemaking could be revised to eliminate NRC endorsement of the 2015 Edition of OM Code for use by utilities..
(f)(7)
Recommend clarifying whether this paragraph also applies to Augmented Inservice Testing Programs created to comply with (f)(4) and (f)(6)(ii). It 13-1 13-2 13-3 13-4 13-5
may be as simple as stating AIST Plan and IST Plan.
Recommend clarifying that the IST plan submittals required by this paragraph are for information only, that NRC review and approval is not required, and are not considered NRC commitments that need to be tracked separately from typical compliance with NRC regulation.
Recommend adding the 90 day time frame at the end of this paragraph for submittal of interim AIST and IST Plan updates.
(f)(7)(vi)
Please clarify the intent of this this paragraph.
ASME OM Code requirements for components that are not being satisfied by the tests or examinations; and justification for alternative tests or examinations As written, may not be clear to the implementer whether this refers to those Augmented IST program deviations from the OM code that would be Relief Requests if they were in the IST Program or something else entirely.
13-6
Submission ID 14 David Gudger, Exelon Generation Company, LLC ML19037A437
Exelon Generation February 4, 2019 Secretary ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square. PA 19348 www.exeloncorp.com
Subject:
Comments Concerning Proposed Rule 1 O CFR 50, "American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference 11 (83FR53156, dated November 9, 2018, Docket ID NRC-2016-0082)
This letter is being submitted in response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) request for comments concerning Proposed Rule 1 O CFR 50, "American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference, 11 published in the Federal Registeron November 9, 2018 (i.e., 83FR53156).
The NRG is proposing to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference seven recent editions and addenda to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) codes for nuclear power plants and a standard for quality assurance. The NRC is also proposing to incorporate by reference four ASME code cases. This action is in accordance with the NRC's policy to periodically update the regulations to incorporate by reference new editions and addenda of the ASME codes and is intended to maintain the safety of nuclear power plants and to make NRC activities more effective and efficient.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) appreciates the opportunity to comment and offers the attached comments on certain sections on this proposed rule for consideration by the NRG.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Richard Gropp at (610) 765-5557.
Respectfully, J..0-,,JT LJ~
David T. Gudger Manager, Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Exelon Generation Company, LLC Attachment 83FR56156 PR-50 14
Attachment Comments Concerning 1 O CFR 50 Proposed Rule Docket ID NRC-2016-0082 Page 1 of 2 Comments Concerning Proposed Rule 10 CFR 50, "American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2015-2017 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference" 1 O CFR 50.55a Section I Comments on Proposed Changes
§50.55a(b)(2)(xx)(8)
I Exelon suggests removing this condition. The NRG proposes to amend the condition found in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xx)(8)
§50.55a(b )(2)(xxvi)
§50.55a(b)(2)(xxxii)
§50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(D)(5)
§50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F)(15) to clarify its expectations related to the Nondestructive Examination (NOE) required when a system leakage test is performed (in lieu of a hydrostatic test). As indicated in previous rulemaking comments provided to the NRG, mandating Section Ill Construction Code NOE acceptance criteria to systems and components that were not originally designed or constructed to meet Section Ill is believed to be inappropriate. NOE alone does not ensure structural integrity.
Construction codes ensure structural integrity through a combination of many factors, including material testing, design formulas, design factors, and qualification of personnel. Adding more NOE than required by the Construction Code
{whether ASME Section Ill or 831.1) is considered unnecessary to ensure structural integrity and could be inappropriate for certain situations (e.g., volumetric NOE required of a non-volumetric quality casting).
If the condition still stands after consideration of any comments, Exelon offers the following editorial comments:
First sentence: Insert "Edition" after "1992 or later."
Last sentence: Insert "program" after "ISi."
From the 2007 through the 2017 Edition of ASME Section XI, installed items rotated from stock meeting the requirements of IWA-4132 are considered outside of the requirements of IWA-4000 (i.e., repair/replacement activities) and exempted from preservice examinations, including pressure testing under IWA-4540; therefore, Exelon believes that
§50.55a(b)(2)(xxvi) should not apply to installed items rotated from stock.
Exelon understands that Code changes are in progress to extend the submittal timeframe for reports like this to 120 days. Therefore, Exelon recommends this timing be adopted in the rule as well, since it is consistent with other industry inspection results' reporting time periods.
While it is understood that MRP-335-3A is required to be followed for peening application and inspection relief, since the NRG is allowing condition 5.4 of the topical report to not apply, could the additional clarification that the Extent and Frequency of Examination of Item 84.60 of N-729-6 be applied and added to the rule? Exelon believes that this will help validate a user trying to understand what the condition of MRP-335 not applying means in the context of the Code Case since they will still need to comply with the non-peening related portions of the Code Case.
Exelon suggests removing this condition. In the explanation section of the proposed rule, the NRG indicates there is insufficient technical basis to support the difference in inspection frequency between N-1 and M-2 welds. As noted in the Code Case and technical basis for the EWR repair method, the N-1 repair is a full 360-degree EWR with stress reversal.
Therefore, while there is a flaw with an N-1 weld, stress reversal is obtained with the EWR to preclude flaw growth while the M-2 weld EWR does not achieve stress reversal. That is a key technical difference in the two repairs and why the N-1 EWR should allow the sampling strategy as provided in the Code Case.
14-1 14-2 14-3 14-5 14-4
Attachment Comments Concerning 1 O CFR 50 Proposed Rule Docket ID NRC-2016-0082 Page 2 of 2 1 O CFR 50.55a Section I Comments on Proposed Changes
§50.55a(f)(7)
I Due to changes in ASME Section XI, snubber inspection and testing programs are no longer part of the standard site lnservice Inspection (ISi) programs and are now implemented using the ASME OM Code. The wording in the proposed rulemaking is unclear as to whether snubber programs are required to comply with the rules of site lnservice Testing (1ST) programs, which include:
Requiring sites to submit changes to their plans to the NRC Headquarters, the appropriate NRC Regional Office, and the appropriate NRC Resident Inspector within 90 days of implementation.
Submittal of preservice test period, initial inservice test interval, and successive inservice test intervals.
Submittal of interim Plan updates that involve any of the following:
o Classification of components and boundaries of system classification; o
Identification of components subject to tests and examination; o
Identification of components exempt from testing or examination; o
ASME OM Code requirements for components and the test or examination to be performed; o
ASME Code requirements for components that are not being satisfied by the tests or examinations; and justification for alternative tests or examinations; o
ASME OM Code Cases planned for use and the extent of their application; or o
Test or examination frequency or schedule for performance of tests and examinations as applicable.
The proposed requirements listed for 1ST (including site snubber programs) are believed to be an excessive burden without providing any additional level of quality. Requiring sites to submit subtle changes to their program documentation (e.g., program plan, classifications, schedules, etc.) within 90 days of implementation to NRC Headquarters, Regional Offices, and Resident Inspectors is considered an unnecessary burden without any accompanying increase in quality or safety. This documentation could be readily available at the sites, with specific items provided to the NRC on an as needed basis.
It should also be noted that the NRC no longer requires sites to provide updates to ISi programs, with the only required ISi submittals being the post outage Summary Report/ Owner Activity Report required under 1 O CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxxii).
14-6
FedEx Ship Manager - Print Your Label(s)
Ex, Shipping After printing this label*
Tracking m
-c z
en al
)>
Printing Services
"'C
- 0 0
- 0
~
0 <
m
- 0 z
ci
- t:
-t
-t C m 0 c,,
-n m
a,
- 1. Use the 'Print' button on this page to print your label to your laser or ink1et printer.
- 2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal hne.
Locations Support
- 3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned.
Waming : Use only the prin!ed cfig,nal !abe! for shipping. Using a phctor..:opy of this latoe! ft:r shipping purposes,s frallduieN and could result in additronai billing charges, along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number.
Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the current FedEx Service Guide, available on fedex.com.FedEx will not be responsible for any claim in excess of $100 per package, whether the result of loss, damage, delay, non-delivery,misdelivery,or misinformation, unless you declare a higher value. pay an additional charge, document your actual loss and file a timely da1m.Limitations found in the current FedEx Service Guide apply. Your right to recover from FedEx for any loss, including intrinsic value of the package, loss of sales, income interest, profit, attorney's fees. costs, and other forms of damage whether direct, incidental.consequential, or special is limited to the greater of $100 or the authorized declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual documented loss.Maximum for items of extraordinary value is $1,000, e.g. jewelry, precious metals, negotiable instruments and olher items listed in our SeNiceGuide. Written claims must be filed within strict time limits, see current FedEx Service Guide.
OU R COMPANY About FedEx Our Portfolio Investor Heiet1ons Careers FOLLOW FEOEX FedEx Blog Corporate Hesponsibil1ty Newsroom Comact Us MORE FROM FEDEX FedEx Compatible Developer Hesourca Center h"'.?dF. x Cross Border 0
w
- c 00 0
565J2,0E3D/23,A!J LANGUAGE Ch3nge Country Enylish
\\i,;! FedEx 1095-20~ 8 Feedback T1:.;rn;~ of Use Se~urity & Priva~y https://www.fedex.com/shipping/shipAction.handle?method=doContinue Page 1 of 2
- 1 2/4/2019