Multiple Code Application 경험사례 · 2018-01-01 · 7 Material - Stress Limits • Prior to 1999 Addenda, ASME and RCC-M used same stress limits • Beginning with 1999 Addenda,

김 석관2008.04.11두산중공업㈜

Multiple Code Application 경험사례

1

목 차

1. MDEP 개요

2. ASME의 RCC-M과 ASME 비교 검토

3. afcen의 RCC-M과 ASME 비교 검토

4. 두산중공업 Multiple Code Construction 현황

5. 공급자 시각에서 요구되는 MDEP의 바람직한 결론

2

가. MDEP 목적

● 안전규제 분야의 국제적 협력을 통해 원전 안전성 확인을 국제적으로 공동 수용하는체계를 구축함으로써, 전 세계 원전의 안전성을 증진시킬 수 있는 체계 수립

- 원전 안전성 확보의 다국간 협력 증진 및 국제 표준화된 원자로 설계 가능

- 국가별 인허가 규제 결정을 용이하도록 설계승인을 국제적으로 인정

- 국제적 근거로 안전 목표에 대한 대중 이해와 수용성 증진

1. MDEP 개요

나. MDEP 배경

● 2004년 9월 : IAEA 주관으로 개최된 Topical Issue Conference에서 미국 NRC 위원장이 최초 개념 제안

● 2005년 6월 : NEA 주관 SRF 2005회의에서 MDAP (Multinational Design Approval Program)를 공식 제안

● 2006년 9월 : NEA 주관 MDAP 2단계 정책그룹 회의에서 2단계 약정서를 채택,MDEP (Multinational Design Evaluation Program)로 명칭변환 및동 프로그램의 기본방향과 정책을 결정

3

다. WGCMO*의 역할과 목표

● 품질보증 요건, 규제감독, 검사 분야의 경험과 정보 교환

● 원자력 발전소에 사용될 장비, 제조, 부품의 제작과 관련된 규제요건 평가

● 국가별 차이점에 대한 기술검토를 통해 국제적으로 수용할 수 있는 절차와 조건 수립

1. MDEP 개요

* WGCMO : Working Group on Component Manufacturing Oversight (부품 제조 감독 관련 작업 그룹)

4

Comparison BetweenASME Section III and RCC-M Codes

for Component Construction

Rick SwayneReedy Engineering

ASME Board on Nuclear Codes & StandardsChair, Task Group on Globalization


5

• Mostly very similar

• Notable differences in approaches - ASME uses generic prequalification- RCC-M uses prototype qualification- ASME puts more responsibility on Owner,

Designer, and Fabricator


6

• Material• Design• Fabrication• Examination• Quality Assurance

Differences between ASME Section III and RCC-M


7

Material - Stress Limits

• Prior to 1999 Addenda, ASME and RCC-M used same stress limits

• Beginning with 1999 Addenda, ASME Section III, Class 2 and 3 allowable stresses are now up to 15% higher than those of the RCC-M Code, because Section III stress limits are now based on a design factor of 3.5 rather than 4.


8

Material - Impact Testing

• RCC-M requires impact testing with little regard for material composition or experience. It requires impact testing of materials that are exempted from testing by ASME Section III because of their inherent high toughness, such as austenitic stainless steel filler metal. These tests are not required by ASME Section III.


9

Design

• Reinforced Openings, Class 1 Vessels - Same design approach, but RCC-M requires full stress analysis of openings, in addition to reinforcement calculations.

• Class 1 Piping - Same design approach, but RCC-M requires full stress analysis.


10

• RCC-M requires production weld test coupons. In most cases, one coupon per component, per WPS, per welder. ASME Section III does not require such coupons.

• RCC-M welding procedure qualification for repair welds in castings must be performed using cast material. ASME Section III permits use of other product forms, such as plate. Procedure qualification product form has not been associated with any weld failure.

Fabrication – Welding Qualification


11

• RCC-M requires fabrication of a prototype part, prior to mass production, if the part has not previously been fabricated or the fabrication process has not been used. If the fabricator has previously produced identical parts, this is not required.

• RCC-M specifies additional examination for these first-of-a-kind prototypes.

• ASME Section III does not require prototype fabrication, examination, or testing.

Fabrication – Prototypes


12

• RCC-M requires the welding procedure qualification test coupon to be examined in accordance with the production weld joint NDE requirements and to meet the applicable acceptance criteria. ASME Section III does not require this examination. Examination of the production joint proves weld quality.

• RCC-M permits no undercut. ASME Section III permits 1/32 in. (1 mm). Undercut has not been associated with weld failure.

Examination – Welding Qualification


13

• The ASME standardized program for accreditation of manufacturers and fabricators provides greater uniformity of acceptance of these organizations and therefore a greater reliability on their assurance of product quality.

• RCC-M does not have a generic standardized program for accreditation of manufacturers and fabricators, but relies on regulatory oversight of fabricators and technical qualification of the production workshop.

Quality Assurance - Accreditation


14

• ASME enhances reliability through use of the Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI), which is not required by the RCC-M Code.

• RCC-M therefore does not require Code Symbol Stamping or Data Reports.

Quality Assurance – ANI & Stamping


15

• ASME Section III and RCC-M Code are similar.

• ASME Section III and RCC-M have different approaches to ensuring compliance with technical requirements

• ASME Section III and RCC-M provide equivalent safety in operation.

<Conclusions>


16

Presentation of the RCC-M codeand Comparison with the ASME Code

MDEP WG - OECD-NEA Paris

3. afcen의 RCC-M 과 ASME 비교 검토

17

• General Comparison - Criteria and safety margins similar between ASME III and RCC-M- QA process strongly different

• Differences due to Regulatory contexts - Large parts of ASME Code are introduce in US laws- French law defines mainly objectives and different ways can be used- ASME strongly linked to US licensing practices - RCCs linked to European and French regulatory practices for PWRs- Some regulatory differences should be reduced, for example:ex) Pressure test conditions, Status of Upset conditions


18

• Development principles are different- ASME more based on Engineering consensus, - RCC-M more stringent on theoretical background of modification and validity limits

in particular for design rules- large scope for ASME Code organization and long process for modifications- Limited scope for RCC-M Code organization (AREVA, EDF), CEA and periodic

check on case by case with manufacturers and short time modification are possible

•Differences on scopes- RCCs more dedicated to PWR applications, except RCC-MR needing less

complementary specifications to be integrated - More integration of Field Experience Lessons Learned in RCC-M

(like fatigue rules of valves and class 2 piping)- More considerations of ageing in RCC-M

(like Alloy 600, cladding process…)- More transfer of R&D results in RCC-M

(like plastic shakedown, seismic criteria, Ke…)


19

•Obtain similar quality level with both Codes :- YES, using different complementary specifications

•Convergence of Codes possible- "very difficult" : law, regulation, QA organization, development process,

technical background….- "nevertheless" some harmonized improvement are possible :

• References to ISO standards wherever possible• Possibility of defining high level common provisions• Technical exchanges on data and rules• Easier for class 2 than class 1;

class 3 will be replaced by no-nuclear specification


20

QAP-1울진 #5,6 (RV, SG 등 주요기기 제외)KEPIC

IAEA 50-C-QA울진 #1,2RCC-M

ASME III NCA + CSA Addendum

NQA-1

Doosan QA Program

월성 #2,3,4

진산 Phase III #1,2 (중국)CSA

영광 #1,2,3,4,5,6울진 #3,4,5,6Sequoyah #1 RSG (미국)Watts Bar #1 RSG (미국)

Projects

ASME

Codes


가. 적용 Code별 수행 프로젝트 과거 실적

21

QAP-1

신고리 #1,2,3,4

신월성 #1,2

신울진 #1,2

KEPIC

IAEA 50-C-QA

ISO 9001

진산 Phase II #3 (중국)

EDF RSG 15 기 (프랑스, 입찰 진행 중)RCC-M

ASME III NCA + CSA Addendum

NQA-1

Doosan QA Program

Point Lepreau #1 Feeder Pipe (캐나다)CSA

Indian Point #2, 3 RRVCH (미국)Palo Verde #1, 2, 3 RRVCH (미국)Sequoyah #2 RSG (미국)China AP-1000 (중국)

Projects

ASME

Codes

나. 적용 Code별 진행 프로젝트


22

다. 중국 RCC-M 적용 Project Waive Case

●프로젝트 개요

▶프로젝트 : 중국 진산 Phase II #3▶ 발주처 : NPQJVC▶ 납기 : 2008.06.30▶ 공급범위 : Reactor Pressure Vessel 1 Set 제작, 시험, 운송 및 기술지원

▶ 용량/Type : 650Mwe / CE형 PWR


● 적용 범위

▶ QA Program : IAEA-50-C-QA를 적용한 QA Manual 수립 및 운영

▶ 제작 : 기본적으로 RCC-M을 적용하고 고객과의 협의를 통하여 일부 항목에 대하여

RCC-M 대신 ASME를 적용토록 Waive 받음.- 자격부여 : 용접사 및 비파괴검사요원

- 구매 : 용접자재 및 용역공급

23

5. 공급자 시각에서 요구되는 MDEP의 바람직한 결론

● RCC-M의 부가적 요건들은 제작의 어려움과 많은 시간, 경비가 소요됨.국가적 특성에 따른 규제 요건적 조항은 Code로부터 분리되는 것이 바람직함.

● ASME/KEPIC으로 Orient된 국내원전 기술은 MDEP가 ASME를 근간으로 한

Code Harmonization될 때 유리함.

►향후 인도네시아, 베트남, 터키 시장 진출 시 KEPIC 적용을 통한 국제적

인정 기회 마련.

● 기타사항

► KEPIC이 일부 조항을 제외하고 ASME와 Identical하게 작성되었으나

NRC의 전략적 지원 아래 ASME, RCC-M, JSME와 동등한 대우를 받게 됨.

Documents

Multiple Code Application 경험사례 · 2018-01-01 · 7 Material - Stress Limits • Prior to 1999 Addenda, ASME and RCC-M used same stress limits • Beginning with 1999 Addenda,