United States Nuclear Power

Federal Regulations, Codes, & Standards

Users Group ©


ASME OM Code Meeting Notes - December 2005

Site Updates


Introduction

Prepared By:  Ron Lippy

Company:  True North Consulting

Meeting Dates:  November 28 – December 1, 2005

Meeting Location:  St. Petersburg, FL

Meeting Notes

ISTA---General Requirements

 

  1. Code Cases are going to be incorporated into OM Code ASAP.
  2. Code Cases are going to have “applicability added (e.g. 1995 edition thru the 2005 addenda).  Any Code being used which is NOT listed in applicability will require relief from NRC.
  3. Discussion regarding “practical” and “practicable”.  NRC was concerned that in many instances “practical” constitutes “minor inconvenience” such as placing a ladder to perform the activity.  Ongoing discussions.
  4. Determined that individual subgroups would be responsible for updating/standardizing Code Cases in lieu of ISTA being solely responsible for the updating/standardization of the Code Cases.
  5. Determined that ISTA is NOT an “editorial” review group.  All subgroups are responsible for “content”.

 

ISTC---Valves

 

1.      Revise Categories of Valves (Cat A vs. Cat AC)—Recent regulatory inquiries regarding the determination of Cat A and AC valves.  Will be evaluated prior to next OM Code meeting (July 2006).—V-96-03

2.      Rapid Acting Valves, Stroke Testing of 2-4 second valves.  V-02-01---CLOSED.  No Action Taken.

3.      Incorporation of OMN-1 into ISTC.  V-97-01.  OMN-1 Revision 1 should go for ballot NLT January 2006.  Once Approved—then to OM Code, ISTC as an Appendix III.  Probably in 2007 Edition of OM Code.  OMN-11 has been separated from OMN-1.

4.      Appendix I and ADS valve test schemes is working.

5.      OMN-8 is being revised for applicability and being incorporated into OM Code, ISTC-5100.  OMN-8 should be approved by ASME in early 2006. Should be in 2006 addenda.

6.      Inquiry V05-01C—Inquiry on “test interval” being the frequency of testing for the CV.  For example, if the CV is forward tested in RFO, then the reverse testing must be performed during the RFO.

7.      Inquiry:

a.      Code edition: ASME/ANSI OM-1987/1988a, Part 10 through the OM Code 2001 Edition OMb 2003 Addenda.

Question:  Is it a requirement of Table ISTC-3500-1 (Table 1) and applicable sections of ISTC-3630 (para. 4.2.2.3), that Category A valves (other than CIVs), be individually leak tested?

Response:  No {Reference ISTC-3630(e), ISTC-3630(f)}.

 

ISTB---Pumps

 

1.      OMN-6, Revision 1, Digital Instrument Range of 90%, approved should be approved in December 2005.  Should be in 2006 Addenda of OM Code.  Revision was primarily for “applicability statement”.

2.      OMN-6 should be incorporated into 2006 addenda of OM Code.

3.      Revision to ISTB-6200 to provide clarification for use of Alert Range Analysis Requirements.  Should be approved 2006. (P00-02)

4.      OMN-9, Code case for use of pump curves being revised for “applicability (and to resolve NRC concerns regarding the required measurements).  Should be approved in 2006.

5.      P98-06, regarding changes to Inaccessible upper motor bearing housings (Question 3.4.4 Workshop Summary).  Awaiting comments from NRC.  May 2006.

3.4.4*  Could the fact that the upper motor bearing housing is not accessible on many vertical shaft pumps be addressed on a generic basis, so a relief request would not be necessary?

If this issue is a generic concern, the Code committees could consider revising the Code to address these pumps.  As discussed previously, the staff has no plans to supplement GL 89-04 to provide generic relief.  Specific relief has been granted from the Code vibration requirements where access to the upper motor bearing housing is inaccessible (e.g., Hatch Safety Evaluation dated June 13, 1994, Section 3.1.3.1).

6.      P98-03, regarding instrumentation test failures (Question 3.3.1 Workshop Summary).  Closed.  No Code change required.

3.3.1*  If a pump fails a test, and it is obvious that the failure was due to an instrument problem, can the pump be declared operable when the failed instrument is identified? What is the Code requirement regarding the time allowed for retest when the instruments involved are recalibrated?

The pump may be declared operable, provided that it is clear the failed instrument is the overwhelming cause of the failed test.  The failed instrument should be recalibrated, and data promptly taken with the new equipment. There is no Code requirement for the timing of the retest, beyond satisfying the pump surveillance interval.  However, the licensee should redo the test promptly to verify that the cause was indeed the instrumentation.  If the cause of anomalous data cannot clearly be attributed to the malfunctioning gauge, then it should be attributed to pump failure.  The licensee would then declare the pump inoperable and evaluate the condition of the pump in accordance with the applicable technical specification.  See NUREG-1482, Appendix A, Question Group 45 and 46.

7.      P00-04, regarding Temporary Reference Values and Repair, Replacement and Maintenance of Pumps.  In particular, can you use a Group A Pump Test in lieu of a Comprehensive Pump test, when a Group B pump has had “major maintenance” which could affect the Hydraulic Profile of the pump, return the pump to operability, in part based on the results of the “mini-flow” test, and then perform a Comprehensive Pump test as soon as practicable? - this was CLOSED without any further action being taken.

8.      Pump Design Flow Rate, being redefined as Comprehensive Pump Test Flow Rate (P03-02).  Still NOT fully acceptable.  Working.

9.      Comprehensive Pump Test Substitution, regarding the use of a Group A test in lieu of CPT, using ONLY installed instruments (provided that the instruments satisfy the IST requirements for 2% tolerance and 3 times ref value or less for Range.  The proposal is to permit the pressure instruments for CPT to continue to use the instrument tolerance of +/- 2% in lieu of the requirement to use instrument tolerance of +/- 0.5% for pressure instruments.  To change the 103% upper limit for the pump acceptance criteria from “required action” to “alert”, implement the more restrictive acceptance criteria for the lower limits (Alert and Required Action).—ROM 04-04.

 

Appendix I---Safety and Relief Valves

 

1.      Adele Dibiasio has resigned from Appendix I Subgroup.  Shawn Comstock to be Chairman of Appendix I.

2.      Frank Cherney resigned from Appendix I (NRC) to be replaced by Mr. Gary Hammer.

3.      Inquiry OMI-05-01, regarding testing 1 RV in a group every 10 years.  No.  Code requires 20% every 48 months.

4.      Code Cases OMN-2, 5, and 14 being incorporated into OM Code and will be allowed to “expire”.

5.      Extension of RV testing greater than 5/10 years for Class 1/Class 2 & 3 RVs.  Maintenance requirements will be added to Appendix I which will permit this.

 

OM-8---MOVs

 

1.      Working on issuing OMN-1 and then incorporating OMN-1 into ISTC as Appendix III.

2.      7 sites currently implementing OMN-1, Revision 0.

3.      18 sites pending for implementation of OMN-1, Revision 1.

 

OM-19---AOVs

 

1.      Code Case OMN-12 being submitted for Comments.—December 2005.

2.      Code Case to be incorporated into OM Code as Appendix IV.  2007?

 

ISTD---Snubbers

 

1.      Preparation for approval of Code Cases OMN-10, Revision 1.

2.      Discussion on “promotion” of the use of the ISTD and Code Cases for snubber testing.  NRC exhibited “favourable” position of stations using ISTD and Code Cases, in lieu of Technical Specifications.

 

ISTE---RI-IST

 

1.      Essentially ISTE will become a new subsection of the Code.  ISTE essentially will provide a “pointer” to the Code Cases (Appendices) regarding RI-IST methodology, as the sections and Code Cases are approved and endorsed by the NRC.  ISTE is being submitted for Comment. 2005?

2.      Based upon comments received will probably be incorporated into 2007 edition of the OM Code.

 

OM-22---Check Valves

 

1.      Discussions regarding disassembly and Inspection of CVs during Power Ops.  Primarily now, NRC “encourages” the use of CV Condition Monitoring for the “online D&I”.

2.      CV CMP guidance on using “historical data”.  Some confusion exists as to if and when you can use “existing” historical CV data to implement the Appendix II CV Condition Monitoring.  This would be a “clarification” of the Code.

 

Liasons---NRC

 

1.      Gene Imbro has been promoted to Deputy Chief of Engineering Component Integrity.

2.      Dr. Sam Lee has been assigned as Component Test Group Head (taking Gene’s place).

3.      Discussion on converting NUREG 1482, Revision 1 to a Regulatory Guide.  More Regulatory “footprint”.

4.      Discussion on “removing” RIS-2004-012 requirements regarding use of later Code editions/addenda.  Pending NRC evaluation of “benefit” or “value added”..

5.      SRP 3.9.6 (IST) to be revised in 2006.

6.      10 CFR 50.69 Approved.

7.      Look to approve OM Code 2004 addenda in September 2006?

8.      RG 1.193 Rev. 1 issued in October 2005.  RG 1.192 will be revised on an “as required” basis.  When Code Cases have been revised or changes to “applicability” have been made and approved by ASME…and Included in the revised ASME OM Codes.

 

Pump Performance Group

 

1.      Looking at moving pump testing to 6 months using more “comprehensive tests/exams (e.g. oil analyses, spectral analysis for vibration).

2.      Various discussions on pump performance testing which will eventually be incorporated into the Code (ISTB).

 

RISC 3 Group

 

  1. Discussions on testing/examinations required to be performed on Low Safety Significant Components/Systems.
  2. Trying to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.69 regarding test/examinations required for RISC-3 components (Low Safety Significant components).
  3. Discussion on applicability of various tests/examinations.  Expect first deliverables in 2007 edition of OM Code.

 

Miscellaneous

 

1.      Discussion on incorporating Appendix J requirements into OM Code, as a standard to the OM Code.  Discussions ensued involving ANSI reaction.

2.      Inquiry into the correctness of the formula used for OM-24 standard:

 

       "Please validate the accuracy of the following equation contained within

            ASME OMb‑S/G‑2005 Addenda to ASME OM‑S/G‑2003, 

            Part 24 "Reactor Coolant and Recirculation Pump Condition Monitoring",

            Section 9.2  "Determining 1x and 2x Vector Acceptance Regions",

            Subsection 9.2.4:  Accept = 1/2 *(max.+ min.) +/‑ 1.5 / (max.‑ min.)

 

            Accept = 1/2 *(max.+ min.) +/‑ 1.5*(max.‑ min.)

 

            Note the difference after the +/‑ signs =>  ASME divides,  the utility

            multiplies!

            Response:  The correct formula is

            Accept = 1/2 *(max.+ min.) +/‑ 1.5 * (max.‑ min.)

 

            This method has worked very well.  We have also determined that if the

            amplitude acceptance regions is close to zero, or if the phase

            acceptance region is 330 degrees or more, we will disable the phase

            monitoring.  Our process also allows us to adjust the parameters based

            on engineering judgment.  For example we may turn off the phase region

            monitoring based on an evaluation of the data, or we may decide to

            ignore certain extreme values.

3.  Discussion regarding adoption of ASME/OM Codes in the world (Japan, Spain, China, Europe, UK).

4.  Next OM Code meeting in July 2006 following Pump and Valve Symposium in Washington DC.

5.  Winter Code meeting to be in Clearwater or St. Petersberg, Fla. In December 2006.

6.  ASME NRC 9th Pump and Valve Symposium, to be held in Washington DC, July 19 - 21, 2006.  OM Code meeting to follow.


Home Page

 

Copyright Disclosure