Table of Contents Attachment Page 1 July 2017 SC 3 Attachments SC 3 Roster July 2017.pdf 2 IN16-0401 Disapproved 3-27-17 3 IN16-0401 Letter Ballot Comments 3-27-17 5 17-135 Petersen 5-2-17 6 17-141 Chaine 6-13-17 8 17-142 Hoh 6-12-17 9 17-143 Bornhorst 6-13-17 16 17-146 Scribner 6-19-17 17 NB13-1405 Failed SG Letter Ballot Comments 6-27-17 18 NB13-1407 Failed SG Letter Ballot Comments 6-27-17 19 NB15-2210 SG Graphite Approved 6-27-17 20 NB16-0810 Withdrawn LB 6-27-17 21 NB16-0810 Withdrawn LB Comments 6-27-17 22 NB16-1302 SG Graphite Approved 7-20-16 23 NB16-1303 SG Graphite Approved 7-20-16 24 NB16-2001 Review and Comment 5-10-17 25 NB16-2504 Failed SG Letter Ballot Comments 6-27-17 26 17-114 Ell 3-24-17 27 17-139 Action Item Request Form Pillow 6-7-17 28 Attachment Page 1
SC 3 Roster July 2017.pdf Attachment Page 2 Attachment Page 2
IN16-0401 Disapproved 3-27-17 Attachment Page 3 IN16 0401 Corporate Ownership Rev 4 01 11 17 IN16 0401 Interpretation Response Subject; Part 3, 1.6.1 Background: Two companies, each holding an R Certificate of Authorization, have merged and now operate under a common corporate umbrella. Each prior independent company is now a wholly owned subsidiary of a parent company. Question 1; Is it permissible for subsidiary companies, under a common corporate ownership, to possess and maintain separate R certificates of Authorization? Reply 1: Yes Question 2: May the subsidiary companies under common corporate ownership exchange and use quality related documents and procedures? Reply 2: The NBIC does not address the sharing and use of quality documents and procedures between subsidiaries. Question 3: Must subsidiary companies now under a common corporate owner combine the Quality System Programs of each subsidiary into a single program that is applicable to all subsidiaries? Attachment Page 3
IN16-0401 Disapproved 3-27-17 Attachment Page 4 IN16 0401 Corporate Ownership Rev 4 01 11 17 Reply 3: No. They may continue to operate independently and hold separate R Certificates of Authorization. Attachment Page 4
IN16-0401 Letter Ballot Comments 3-27-17 Attachment Page 5 Attachment Page 5
17-135 Petersen 5-2-17 Attachment Page 6 Attachment Page 6
17-135 Petersen 5-2-17 Attachment Page 7 Attachment Page 7
17-141 Chaine 6-13-17 Attachment Page 8 Item 17 142 6 13 17 S.Chaîné Team Lead Inspection, Commission Inspector #15166 Produits Suncor Énergie S.E.N.C schaine@suncor.com 11701 Shebrooke east. Montral H1B 1C3 Question to the committee: Is my interpretation right, that, for a repair as per NB 23 part 3 article 5.7.2b), the requirement of adding a repair nameplate can be waived in some consideration depending the extent and the type of the repair? Yes or No Rationale for the answer: As an Owner user of pressure retaining items it is our understanding that repair nameplates on "routine repair" and some "repair" do not provide any additional security. Article 5.7.2 b) mentions that the requirement for a repair nameplate may be waived depending of the type and extent of the repair. As per our recent experience, different inspectors have different interpretation of that statement as "the type and extent of the repairs" is left to the inspector's judgement. For my understanding of article 5.7.2 b) is addresses both "routine repair" and "repair" separately: o Routine repair Subject to the acceptance of the Jurisdiction and the concurrence of the Inspector, nameplates and stamping may not be required for routine repairs (see NBIC Part 3, 3.3.2) o Repair In all cases, the type and extent of repairs necessary shall be considered prior to waiving the requirement. At the refinery, some pressure retaining equipment have more than 60 years of service, have been repaired many times without the systematic installation of routine repair nameplate of repair nameplate. Nameplates were always installed depending of the type and extent of the repairs. Although this was prior to 2014, when we got under NBIC as an Owner User, the systematic installation of nameplate would mean that more than 10 repair nameplates would be installed on some equipment. All the documentation pertaining routine repairs and repairs need to be maintained properly in the equipment file of pressure retaining item for the life of the equipment and be available and used in preparation of the in service inspection. Attachment Page 8
17-142 Hoh 6-12-17 Attachment Page 9 Attachment Page 9
17-142 Hoh 6-12-17 Attachment Page 10 Attachment Page 10
17-142 Hoh 6-12-17 Attachment Page 11 Attachment Page 11
17-142 Hoh 6-12-17 Attachment Page 12 Attachment Page 12
17-142 Hoh 6-12-17 Attachment Page 13 Attachment Page 13
17-142 Hoh 6-12-17 Attachment Page 14 Attachment Page 14
17-142 Hoh 6-12-17 Attachment Page 15 Attachment Page 15
17-143 Bornhorst 6-13-17 Attachment Page 16 Item 17 143 6 13 17 Allan Bornhorst QC SUPERVISOR allan@geotechindustries.com (250) 246 4312 GEO TECH INDUSTRIES INC is a R stamp holder (R 5577) and also a U stamp holder (27,481) which we have maintained for the past 20 years. We are looking to repair a 1920 Shay locomotive using the R stamp designation. The current boiler on the Shay locomotive is of riveted construction and we are wanting to perform the repair with welded construction. We have planned on reusing 2 pressure retaining backing plate in the boiler shell which supported the 1 pipe nipples that were threaded externally through the shell and backing plate plus riveted. Since originally these plate were riveted onto the interior of boiler shell, we would now attached the 2 backing plate parts as a welded connection. We were needing a code interpretation for the following. Question: According to NBIC Part 3 Section 3: 3.2.2 Replacement Parts Can the R stamp repair shop performing the necessary repairs of a boiler use a sub assembly part, which is of the pressure boundary, that is welded in house; i.e. (shell of boiler)? The question arises because I was informed by the Safety Authority that according to BPV Code Section 1, any welded part used for repair of a boiler shall be manufactured by a S stamp certified shop. Attachment Page 16
17-146 Scribner 6-19-17 Attachment Page 17 Request for Code Interpretation Background; Table 1.6.1 was added to the NBIC to provide minimum retention times for record retention to be available for review at each triennial Joint Review. The purpose of this was to ensure the Team would be able to verify the applicant has been following their Quality System since their last triennial review. For Table 1.6.1 c) it is my memory that the Committee intended to make sure the review team only looked back at records to the time of the last review. The current wording was brought much discussion with some feeling that they can establish the time frame they not only retain the records but what they are required to provide at the time of the Joint Review. Some AIS s are having their clients word their quality manual in such a way that only 6 months of continuity records are maintained and presented at the time of the review. Question: Is it the intent of NBIC, Part 3 Table 1.6.1 c), that at the time of the Joint Review the Certificate holder must provide all welder, welding operator, bonder, or cementing technician continuity records from the time period since the last triennial certificate review. Answer: Yes Gary L. Scribner Manager of Technical Service The National Board Attachment Page 17
NB13-1405 Failed SG Letter Ballot Comments 6-27-17 Attachment Page 18 NB13 1405 Failed SG Letter Ballot Comments 6 27 17 Attachment Page 18
NB13-1407 Failed SG Letter Ballot Comments 6-27-17 Attachment Page 19 NB13 1407 Failed SG Letter Ballot Comments 6 27 17 Attachment Page 19
NB15-2210 SG Graphite Approved 6-27-17 NB15-2210 SG Graphite 3-28-17 To be added to S3.5.5 Plugging of leaking or damaged tubes: Attachment Page 20 f) As an alternative to e) any R Certificate Holder, with the concurrence of the Inspector, may install graphite tube plugs utilizing a tube plugging kit provided by an ASME Certificate Holder authorized to use the G designator. The kit shall include the following items: 1. Certified graphite plugs and certified cement ingredients, both accompanied by the appropriate documentation (Partial Data Report). 2. The qualified cementing procedure of the ASME Certificate Holder authorized to use the G designator, and a step-by-step procedural checklist that shall be followed explicitly. The procedure shall address the entire tube plugging process including plug configuration, tube hole cleaning and preparation, mixing and applying of the cement, application of the plugs, securing the plugs during the curing process, controlling the curing process, and leak testing, thereby meeting S3.3. 3. To qualify the cement technician performing the repair, additional materials shall be provided and used to prepare a demonstration plug joint prior to performing the repair. This demonstration plug joint shall be tested for integrity by a hand twist test. A successful twist test, in conjunction with the procedural checklist, shall serve as a valid cement technician certification for a single repair operation. The R Certificate Holder shall review the material certifications including verification that the shelf life of the cement has not been exceeded, and assure that the certified cement technician has completed the qualification demonstration, and has access to the procedure and checklist. The Inspector shall review and verify that the procedure and the other elements of the certified kit, as provided by the authorized G- designated ASME Certificate Holder, have been administered and completed prior to his acceptance. The R-certificate Holder shall note on Line 8 of the R-1 Form the installation of cemented graphite tube plugs in accordance with this section. The R Certificate Holder shall identify and document the location of the plugged tubes on the R Form. Attachment Page 20
NB16-0810 Withdrawn LB 6-27-17 NB16 0810, increase of heat input into a HRSG, exceeding MRRC NBIC Part 3, 3.4.3 Attachment Page 21 EXAMPLES OF ALTERATIONS a) An increase in the maximum allowable working pressure (internal or external) or temperature of a pressure retaining item regardless of whether or not a physical change was made to the pressureretaining item; b) A decrease in the minimum temperature; c) The addition of new nozzles or openings in a boiler or pressure vessel except those classified as repairs; d) A change in the dimensions or contour of a pressure retaining item; e) In a boiler, an increase in the heating surface or steaming capacity as described on the original Manufacturer s Data Report; f) The addition of a pressurized jacket to a pressure vessel; g) Except as permitted in NBIC Part 3, 3.3.3 s); replacement of a pressure retaining part in a pressure retaining item with a material of different allowable stress or nominal composition from that used in the original design; h) The addition of a bracket or an increase in loading on an existing bracket that affects the design of the pressure retaining item to which it is attached; i) The replacement of a pressure relieving device (PRD) as a result of work completed on a pressureretaining item (PRI) that changes the resultant capacity to exceed the minimum required relieving capacity (MRRC) required by the original code of construction as described on the original Manufacturer s Data Report. j) An increase in the total heat input (e.g. increased firing rate, adjustment, or modification to the primary or auxiliary heat source) into a boiler, Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG), or PRI resulting in the steaming capacity exceeding the original Manufacturer s Minimum Required Relieving Capacity (MRRC) as described on the nameplate and or Manufacturer s Data Report. Background: In a combined cycle plant, combustion turbine exhaust (waste heat) is the principal source of heat to an HRSG. When upgrades are performed to the combustion turbine, it can result in increased heat input to the HRSG. For the committee: Within the Power Generating industry, Combustion Turbines (CT s), not un like other generations of power producing equipment, may seek ways to refine CT efficiency thereby reducing operating cost. When the CT equipment is used in conjunction with a Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG), original HRSG design understandings may be inadvertently sidestepped as a very relevant component of understanding the combined operating system. At risk is, there may be instances where an improvement in efficiency is sought at the CT, without looking at the HRSG as a recipient of the waste heat, and the effects of steaming, potentially exceeding the steam relieving requirements of ASME Section I, PG 67. While an increase in total combustion mass flow may initially represent the providence of increased steaming capacity and some perception of reward by the Owner, the increase in firing weighs heavily environmentally and is routinely monitored and reported. The consequences of exceeding the Statedependent emission permit may limit practical opportunity without besetting a New Source Review, environmental impact study; a very costly venture, but the prerogative of the Owner. As presented, the example does not question operating prerogatives of the Owner; within or outside of the recommended operating guidance of the OEM. To add, routine CT tuning required to stay within environmental limits, and routine maintenance activities representing component replacements are outside of this example as there is not an upset in MRRC. Attachment Page 21
NB16-0810 Withdrawn LB Comments 6-27-17 Attachment Page 22 NB16 0810 Withdrawn LB Comments 6 27 17 Attachment Page 22
NB16-1302 SG Graphite Approved 7-20-16 Attachment Page 23 Item Number: NB16-1302 NBIC Location: Part 3, S3.2 p) p) Completed repairs shall be subjected to a pressure test. The test pressure shall not be less than the maximum allowable working pressure or twice the operating pressure, whichever is loweroperating pressure or more than maximum allowable working pressure. The test pressure shall be maintained for 30 minutes minimum. Justification: Present pressure range requirements are excessive and cause unnecessary hardship. This action brings them more in line with the general requirements in Part 3. Attachment Page 23
NB16-1303 SG Graphite Approved 7-20-16 Attachment Page 24 Item Number: NB16-1303 NBIC Location: Part 3, S3.5.1f) f) All damage should shall be examined and should be evaluated to determine the cause. Identification and elimination of the cause is essential in helping to prevent a recurrence Attachment Page 24
NB16-2001 Review and Comment 5-10-17 Attachment Page 25 Attachment Page 25
NB16-2504 Failed SG Letter Ballot Comments 6-27-17 Attachment Page 26 NB16 2504 Failed SG Letter Ballot Comments 6 27 17 Attachment Page 26
17-114 Ell 3-24-17 Attachment Page 27 January 24, 2017 Secretary, NBIC Committee The National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors 1055 Crupper Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43229 RE: Inquiry Request for Interpretation Submittal, NBIC, NB-23, Part 3, Section 2, Clause 2.5.3.6 Dear Committee: Inquiry: Does NB-23, Part 3 contain a definition, explanation or reference thereto towards other Code(s) for defining the term, controlled fill technique? Reply: No. Background Information: Given the issues surrounding P-No 15E, Group1, Grade 91 it is believed that making reference to use of a controlled fill technique begets offering an actual definition or reference thereto of the Code, Standard that offers clear direction, instruction for controlled fill technique. Inquiry: Is the intent of the term controlled fill technique within Welding Method 6 as stated within NB-23, Part 3, Section 2, Clause 2.5.3.6 to be interpreted as meeting the definition of temper bead welding with ASME Section IX? Reply: No. Background Information: Given the issues surrounding P-No 15E, Group1, Grade 91 it is believed that making reference to use of a controlled fill technique begets offering an actual definition or reference thereto of the Code, Standard that offers clear direction, instruction for controlled fill technique. Further, and contrary to Weld Method 6, ASME Section IX, QW-290.2 does not allow for manual and semiautomatic GTAW, except for root pass,. Additionally, ASME Section IX, QW- 290.6 (d) does allow use of manual but it requires temper bead PQRs. Regards, Mike Ell 159 Lake Bonavista Drive SE Calgary, Alberta T2J 3M3 Canada Email: ellmike@shaw.ca Phone: 403-255-2604 Attachment Page 27
17-139 Action Item Request Form Pillow 6-7-17 Action Item Request Form Attachment Page 28 17 139 Rev 2 6/17/2017 Proposed Revisions or Additions Revise NBIC Part 3, Section 2, 2.2.3 Existing Text: 2.2.3 PERFORMANCE QUALIFICATION Welders and welding operators shall be qualified for the welding processes that are used. Such qualification shall be in accordance with the requirements of the original code of construction, the construction standard, code selected or ASME Section IX. Use of a Standard Welding Procedure Specification shown in NBIC Part 3, 2.3 is permitted for performance qualification testing. Add the following to the existing text of 2.2.3. 1. For welder performance qualifications in accordance with ASME Section IX, organizations with a valid National Board R Certificate of Authorization ( R Stamp Holder) may participate in an association to share welder qualification information and to facilitate the acceptance of the qualification record of a welder who has been tested by an independent qualifier or by a qualifier employed by an AWS Accredited Welder Test Facility (ATF) meeting the requirements of AWS QC47, Specification for AWS Certification of Welders and Accreditation of test Facilities. As used in this paragraph the word Qualifier refers to both the independent qualifier and the qualifier employed by the ATF. 2. An R Stamp Holder may accept the qualification record of a welder who has been tested under the supervision and control of a Qualifier and employ that welder to make welds governed by this Code without further testing under the following conditions. a. The Qualifier must be certified in accordance with AWS QC1, Specification for the Certification of Welding Inspectors, as either a Certified Welding Inspector (CWI) or Senior Certified Welding Inspector (SCWI) with at least one of the following AWS endorsements: the ASME Pressure Piping B31.1 and B31.3 Endorsement, or the ASME Pressure Vessel Section VIII, Div. 1 Endorsement. As an alternative, the Qualifier may be certified in accordance with AWS QC13, Specification for the Certification of Welding Supervisors, as a Certified Welding Supervisor (CWS). 1 Attachment Page 28
17-139 Action Item Request Form Pillow 6-7-17 Action Item Request Form Attachment Page 29 17 139 Rev 2 6/17/2017 1) The Qualifier shall positively identify the person being tested and shall assure the markings on the test coupon correspond to the person s identification. 2) The Qualifier shall not administer or witness any portion of the test if the Qualifier was involved in the training of the welder on the welding process to be tested within six (6) months of the test. b. The examination of the test coupon shall be in accordance with ASME Section IX. The information recorded on the performance qualification test record (WPQ) shall be in accordance with ASME Section IX including listing the welding procedure specification (WPS) followed during the test. A copy of the WPS followed during the test shall be made available to the R Stamp Holder. The R Stamp Holder must have one or more procedure qualification records (PQR) supporting the WPS, or has accepted responsibility for using a Standard Welding Procedure Specification (SWPS) shown in Part 3, Table 2.3, having acceptable ranges of variables consistent with those followed during the test. c. The R Stamp Holder accepting the WPQ shall have an employee or a contracted individual assigned responsible for production welding oversight. 1) The person responsible for production welding oversight shall be a graduate welding engineer, a current AWS CWI or AWS SCWI with an ASME endorsement described in (a), above, or is qualified in accordance with either AWS B5.16, Specification for Qualification of Welding Engineers, or AWS QC13, Specification for the Certification of Welding Supervisors. 2) The person s qualifications shall also include: a) knowledge of the R Stamp Holder s procedures; b) training commensurate with the scope, complexity, or nature of the activities to which oversight is provided; c) a record, maintained and certified by the R Stamp Holder, containing objective evidence of the person s training and qualifications. 3) The person responsible for production welding oversight shall review the WPQ for completeness and compliance with the requirements of ASME 2 Attachment Page 29
17-139 Action Item Request Form Pillow 6-7-17 Action Item Request Form Attachment Page 30 17 139 Rev 2 6/17/2017 Section IX. That person shall document and certify the review and acceptance of the WPQ by dated signature or other means as described in the R Stamp Holder s quality program. 4) The person responsible for production welding oversight shall verify that the welder s qualification continuity for the welding process has been maintained. Evidence of activities supporting performance qualification continuity may be obtained from other R Stamp Holders participating in the association or from the ATF that tested the welder. d. If the welder s qualification has been revoked for specific reasons, all the other participating R Stamp Holders shall be notified. e. When a welder s qualification has lapsed, the qualification may be renewed by a Qualifier in accordance with these rules. 3. The R Stamp Holder shall be responsible for welding performed by the welders qualified under these rules. The R Stamp Holder shall include a description for implementing these rules in their quality program. b) Statement of Need The economics and, perhaps, safety, of boiler and pressure vessel manufacture, repair, and alteration have been compromised by a shortage of both skilled welding craft personnel and knowledgeable welding supervisors. This proposal will help in both areas of concern by: 1) Providing rules allowing the interchange of welders without the need of multiple R Stamp Holder qualifications, thus making available to each stamp holder a larger pool of qualified craft personnel. By requiring the qualifier to have specific qualifications, the rules will also help assure a more uniform and less biased performance qualification process. 2) Allowing the R Stamp Holder to take advantage of the increased availability of skilled craft personnel provided the R Stamp Holder employs more competent welding supervision. The specified qualifications for the welding supervisors help satisfy this need. 3 Attachment Page 30
17-139 Action Item Request Form Pillow 6-7-17 c) Background Information Action Item Request Form Attachment Page 31 17 139 Rev 2 6/17/2017 The ASME Code, Section IX, requires each organization to qualification its own welders and prohibits delegating that responsibility to others. Section IX also states that the referencing Code (e.g., the National Board Inspection Code) may modify the rules of Section IX. This is not an uncommon practice. The proposed rules modifying the requirements of Section IX will be a benefit to the industry governed by the NBIC and may encourage other Codes to do likewise. 4 Attachment Page 31