July 2017 SG 3 AttachmentsSG 3 Roster July 2017 2IN16-0401 Disapproved 3-27-17 3IN16-0401 Letter Ballot Comments 3-27-17 517-135 Petersen 5-2-17 617-141 Chaine 6-13-17 817-142 Hoh 6-12-17 917-146 Scribner 6-19-17 16NB16-0810 Withdrawn LB 6-27-17 17NB16-0810 Withdrawn LB Comments 6-27-17 18NB16-2001 Review and Comment 5-10-17 1917-114 Ell 3-24-17 2017-139 Action Item Request Form Pillow 6-7-17 21

Attachment Page 1

Attachment Page 1

Table of Contents

Attachment Page 2

Attachment Page 2

SG 3 Roster July 2017

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

Attachment Page 3

IN16-0401 Disapproved 3-27-17

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

Attachment Page 4

IN16-0401 Disapproved 3-27-17

 

 

Attachment Page 5

Attachment Page 5

IN16-0401 Letter Ballot Comments 3-27-17

Attachment Page 6

Attachment Page 6

17-135 Petersen 5-2-17

Attachment Page 7

Attachment Page 7

17-135 Petersen 5-2-17

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

Attachment Page 8

17-141 Chaine 6-13-17

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

17-142 Hoh 6-12-17

 

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 16

Attachment Page 16

17-146 Scribner 6-19-17

NB16‐0810, increase of heat input into a HRSG, exceeding MRRC NBIC Part 3, 3.4.3 

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 pressure‐

retaining 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 pressure‐

retaining 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 State‐dependent 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 17

Attachment Page 17

NB16-0810 Withdrawn LB 6-27-17

NB16‐0810 Withdrawn LB Comments 6‐27‐17 

 

 

Attachment Page 18

Attachment Page 18

NB16-0810 Withdrawn LB Comments 6-27-17

 

Attachment Page 19

Attachment Page 19

NB16-2001 Review and Comment 5-10-17

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 20

Attachment Page 20

17-114 Ell 3-24-17

Action Item Request Form 

 17‐139 Rev 2 

6/17/2017  

1  

 

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).

Attachment Page 21

Attachment Page 21

17-139 Action Item Request Form Pillow 6-7-17

Action Item Request Form 

 17‐139 Rev 2 

6/17/2017  

2  

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

Attachment Page 22

Attachment Page 22

17-139 Action Item Request Form Pillow 6-7-17

Action Item Request Form 

 17‐139 Rev 2 

6/17/2017  

3  

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.  

 

 

Attachment Page 23

Attachment Page 23

17-139 Action Item Request Form Pillow 6-7-17

Action Item Request Form 

 17‐139 Rev 2 

6/17/2017  

4  

c) Background Information 

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. 

Attachment Page 24

Attachment Page 24

17-139 Action Item Request Form Pillow 6-7-17