Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Date Distributed: June 14, 2013
NATIONAL BOARD INSPECTION CODE
COMMITTEE
AGENDA
Meeting of July 18, 2013 Columbus, OH
The National Board of Boiler & Pressure Vessel Inspectors 1055 Crupper Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43229-1183 Phone: (614)888-8320 FAX: (614)847-1828
Page 2 of 24
1. Call to Order - 8:00 a.m. 2. Introduction of Members/Visitors 3. Announcements a. Mr. David Douin, National Board Executive Director b. Executive Committee Report 4. Adoption of the Agenda
5. Approval of the Minutes of January 2013 Meeting 6. Review of Rosters/Resignations/Nominations/Reappointments (Attachment 1)
a) Changes to rosters 1) Resignations
There were no resignations since the last NBIC Meeting.
2) Nominations and reappointments for NBIC Committee members and subgroups that
serve all four subcommittees.
Messrs. Domenic Canonico, General Interest, George Galanes, User, Frank Hart, VR Stamp Holder, Craig Hopkins, NB Certificate Holder, Jim Pillow, General Interest, Ron Pulliam, Manufacturer, Bob Reetz, Jurisdictional Authority, Ray Snyder, Authorized Insurance Agency and Bob Wielgoszinski, Authorized Insurance Agency are all eligible for reappointment to the NBIC Committee. A vote will be taken.
Mr. Ray Miletti, Manufacturer, would like to be a member of the SC on Repair and
Alteration. Please view his attached resume. A vote will be taken. (Attachment 1, pp. 2-3)
Mr. Adam Renaldo, User, would like to become a member of the SC on PRD. Please
view his attached resume. A vote will be taken. (Attachment 1, pp. 4-5)
The following committee members are eligible for reappointment to their respective subcommittees or subgroups: Messrs. Venus Newton, Bob Reetz and Jason Safarz are all eligible for reappointment
to the SC on Inspection.
Messrs. Ed Ortman and Jim Pillow are eligible for reappointment to the SC on Repairs and Alterations.
Mr. Kevin Simmons is eligible for reappointment to the SC on PRD. Mr. Keith Cummins is eligible for reappointment to the SG on Graphite.
Dr. Robert Bryce is eligible for reappointment to the SG on Historical Boilers.
Page 3 of 24
7. Report of Subcommittees
a. SC on Repairs and Alterations (Attachment 2) Charge: Responsible for developing new rules, revising, interpreting and maintaining existing rules which address administrative and technical requirements for repairing or altering pressure retaining items. This subcommittee also directs, supports, reviews, and approves any items forwarded by each subgroup functioning under this subcommittee. Membership: George Galanes (Chair), Brian Boseo, Chad Bryan, Paul Edwards, Wayne Jones, Jim Larson, , Lawrence McManoman Ed Ortman, Jim Pillow, Bryan Schulte, Jim Sekely, William Vallance, Mike Webb and Jim McGimpsey (Secretary). G. Galanes is expected to report on the following: 1) Inquiries IN13-0301 - SC on Repair and Alteration, Part 3, 3.2.2 c) - Question 1: Does Part 3, 3.2.2 c) prevent an "R" Certificate Holder with the capabilities within his shop from rolling and welding a shell or other such items as headers, nozzles,(flange to pipe) for replacement in a vessel or boiler has is repairing or altering? Answer 1: No Question 2: If the answer is No to the above question, if the same Certificate Holder could not fabricate the replacement items within his capabilities and received these parts from an outside source then these items would have to be fabricated by an organization holding the appropriate Code Certificate of Authorization. Answer 2: Yes. (Attachment 2, pp. 6-7) January 2013 Mr. Galanes reported that the subcommittee had prepared a question and reply to present but the information was lost electronically. Mr. Wielgoszinski will regenerate the text and the SC on R/A will revisit it. July 2013 Mr. Wielgoszinski is expected to report. IN13-0401 - Part 3, 3.2.5, SC Repair and Alteration - Question 1: Is it the intent of the requirements in paragraph 3.2.5 that calculations be both completed and also made available to the Inspector for review prior to the start of any physical work? Answer 1: Yes Question 2: Does the requirement in paragraph 3.2.5 that calculations be completed and also mean that the calculations as required by paragraph 3.2.5 be an "R" Certificate Holder? Answer 2: No. However the R-Certificate holder responsible for executing the "Design Certification" portion of the R-2 Form, must assure himself that the design complies with the NBIC and by signing the Design Certification accepts responsibility for the design. Alternate Proposed Reply Question 2: Yes; "the organization" in paragraph 3.2.5 refers to the "R" Certificate holder responsible for preparing and executing "Design Certification" portion of the R-2 Form. This does not preclude the "R" Certificate Holder from having the calculations prepared or otherwise obtaining the calculations from others, but the "R" Certificate older must assure himself that the design complies with the NBIC and by signing the Design Certification accepts responsibility for the design.
Page 4 of 24
Question 3: If an alteration involves the Installation of a replacement part (as defined in Paragraph 3.2.2 c) that has been designed, fabricated, inspected and stamped in accordance with the original code of construction and for which the part fabricator has documented on the partial data report that they have certified the design of the part for a specific set of design conditions (MAWP,MAWT,MDMT, corrosion allowance, etc.), must the "R" Certificate Holder responsible for executing the Design Certification on the R-2 Form obtain the calculations from the part fabricator and make available for review by the Inspector? Answer 3: No, however the "R" Certificate holder responsible for executing the Design Certification must assure that the design conditions certified for the new part are consistent with the original vessel design conditions. Additionally the R Certificate holder would be responsible for assessing whether the installation of the new part impacted in any manner the existing components in the overall vessel design and for completing any calculations that might be required to address such impact. (Attachment 3, pp. 9-15) January 2013 Mr. Randy Cauthon reported that these questions need to go back to the inquirer for clarification on why he is asking the questions so the SC can better understand how to answer the inquiry. July 2013 Mr. Cauthon is expected to report. IN13-0501 - Part 3, 3.3.3 and 3.4.2 SC Repairs and Alterations - Question: May a R and U Certificate Holder make either a repair or an alteration to a pressure vessel by installing an new expansion joint, either over, or in place of an existing expansion joint that may have failed, or is damaged and may be expected to fail; by fabricating a new expansion joint as a U stamped Part in complete accordance with Section VIII Div 1 Appendix 26,, then cutting this new Part into two pieces longitudinally so that it may be installed by field welding two new longitudinal welds without disassembly of the pressure vessel if: a) the two new longitudinal welds are typed 1 per table UW-12. b) the installation does not permit radiographic examination, c) the backside of the weld is not accessible for either visual or penetrant examination, d) design calculations of these welds at .6 WJE are adequate to the existing design and, e) the vessel is satisfactorily hydrostatic tested at 1.3 times MAWP? Condition 1: A new expansion joint of a larger diameter will be installed over the existing joint. Condition 2: The old joint is removed and one of the same diameter will be installed in its place. Reply: Yes if acceptable to the Inspector and when required the Jurisdiction. Condition 1 being an alteration and Condition 2 being a repair. (Attachment 2, pp.16- 17) July 2013 Mr. Galanes is expected to report. 3) Action Items NB08-0322 - Part 3 3.2 SG R/A General - Add a new paragraph to 3.2 General Requirements for Repairs and Alterations to address change of service for a pressure vessel. These requirements should caution inspectors, owners, repair organizations and jurisdictional authorities of the inherent dangers involved when changing service. A new supplement should be added to address the specific requirements for repairs and alterations of pressure vessels that have been converted
Page 5 of 24
from one service to another. A task group representing all three parts of the NBIC has been formed under the leadership of Bob Wielgoszinski. Task group members from R & A are P. Edwards and B. Schulte. (Attachment 2, pp. 18 - 28) July 2008 A task group was assigned. January 2009 A progress report was given. July 2009 Mr. Bryan Schulte gave a progress reports on items NB08-0320, NB08-0321 and NB08-0322 in the absence of Mr. Bob Wielgoszinski. The task group will continue to work on these items simultaneously. January 2010 Mr. Wielgoszinski gave a progress report. July 2010 Mr. Wielgoszinski reported on items NB08-0320, NB08-0321 and NB08-0322 at this time as they are all related. A progress report was given. The task group would like to letter ballot this item before the next meeting. January 2011 Mr. Edwards gave a progress report on NB08-0320, NB08-0321 and NB08-0322. July 2011 Mr. Wielgoszinski reported on the three action items, NB08-0320, NB08-0321, and NB08-0322, regarding change of service. The task group is getting closer to a proposal. Mr. Wielgoszinski plans on having a document to send to task group members for comment or correction. The task group will have something to present at the January meeting.
January 2012 Mr. Wielgoszinski reported on items NB08-0320, NB08-0321 and NB08-0322. He stated that he hopes to letter ballot the subcommittees for guidance purposes before the next meeting. There was a motion to letter ballot the subcommittees for information only. The motion was unanimously approved. July 2012 Mr. Wielgoszinski gave a progress report. These items span all three parts of the NBIC. The task group met on Monday and developed a proposal. The proposal indicates a supplement for Part 2 Inspection that each part will make reference to for guidance in change of service for a pressure retaining item. The list of guidelines for change of service include: Factors to consider when making the change, materials, operating environment, design, operating history. These guidelines will drive the user go to their Jurisdiction for approval before usage.
Mr. Wielgoszinski plans to update the proposal and send it out as a comment letter ballot to the SC and appropriate SGs for comment.
January 2013 Mr. Wielgoszinski reported that he is developing a Revision 6 of wording. He will take all of the comments that he has received thus far and create a new document. He plans on sending this out for letter ballot for comment only to all subgroups, subcommittees and the Main Committee
Page 6 of 24
simultaneously before the next meeting. July 2013 Mr. Wielgoszinski is expected to report. NB10-0110 - Part 3 S6.19.1 TG on DOT - Combine and clarify requirements within S6.15 for TR- Forms, S6.18 Preparation of TR-Forms and S6.19 for Reports of Repairs, Alterations and Modifications. (Attachment 2, pp. 29 - 34) January 2010 A progress report was given. July 2010 Mr. Staniszewski gave a progress report. The task group is reviewing inconsistencies within the forms in Part 3. January 2011 Mr. Staniszewski was not present at the January meeting so no report was presented. July 2011 Mr. Galanes reported that he had nothing to report on this item. January 2012 Mr. Staniszewski provided a progress report. He said that he hope to have something to present to the Committee in July. July 2012 Mr. Staniszewski was not present at the meeting so it was not discussed at the SC or MC levels. January 2013 Mr. Staniszewski provided an update of the D.O.T. progress on this item. He would like to letter ballot the subgroups and subcommittee on Repair and Alteration for comment only. July 2013 Mr. Staniszewski is expected to report.
NB11-0701 - Part 3, S3.5.4 SG on Graphite - Address graphite tube replacement. (No attachment) January 2011
Mr. Galanes presented a progress report. This item was letter balloted and received several negative comments. Francis Brown is taking a look at the comments and reworking the item to have a proposal for the July 2011 meeting.
July 2011
Mr. Galanes stated that he had spoken with Mr. Francis Brown regarding this item. The subgroup is continuing to work on this item and will hopefully have something ready for the January meeting.
January 2012 Mr. Chuck Withers reported that he had spoken with Francis Brown regarding this action item. The subgroup plans to letter ballot the subcommittee in the next few months.
Page 7 of 24
July 2012 Mr. Galanes stated that this item was currently being letter balloted at the subgroup level and would progress to the Main Committee if approved by both the subgroup and subcommittee. January 2013 Mr. Galanes had no progress to report at this time. July 2013 Mr. Galanes is expected to report.
NB11-1001 - Part 3, 3.3.4.9, SG on R/A Specific - Tube plugging for fire tube boilers. (Attachment 2, pp. 35-37)
January 2011 Mr. Pillow presented a progress report. Ms. Linda Williamson was assigned as lead on this item. Ms. Williamson has since left her position and Angelo Bramucci is the new lead. There have been discussions on whether to address plugging of fire tubes in the NBIC. The committee is in agreement that we should give some guidance. More work regarding proposed
guidance will be completed for the July 2011 meeting. July 2011
A progress report was given. It was stated that work was done by the task group and that they had received comments and feedback from many sources. They will be presenting new information at the next meeting. January 2012
Mr. Pillow gave a progress report. He stated that the task group of Angelo Bramucci, Wayne Jones, and Ray Milletti will continue to work on it by consulting other experts for their feedback. July 2012 A progress report was given. Mr. Pillow stated that this item has turned out to be more difficult then they expected. January 2013 Mr. Pillow gave a progress report. He reported that the subgroup cannot agree if plugs should be used or not in this repair. July 2013 Mr. Bramucci is expected to report. NB11-1201 - Part 3, 1.8, SG on R/A General- Revise Part 3, 1.8 “NR” Accreditation requirements to include repairs to ASME Section III stamped components. 56) (Attachment 2, pp. 38 - 40) January 2011 A task group has been assigned of C. Withers, P. Edwards, B. Schaefer, P. Nightengale, and B. Wielgoszinski (or another designated HSBCT Representative) to take a look at the NR Program. July 2011 Mr. Chuck Withers gave a progress report. Right now the NR program is written around Section XI requirements and they want to allow repairs under Section III requirements. The task group
Page 8 of 24
met and they discussed this item but Mr. Withers feels that it will be at least a year before they have something to present to the Committee.
January 2012 Mr. Edwards gave a progress report. The task group of himself (Chair), Chuck Withers, Pat Nightengale, Ben Schaefer, Clay Smith, Rick Swayne and Bob Wielgoszinski will continue to work on it with hopes of completion by the 2015 edition of the NBIC.
July 2012 A progress report was given. Mr. Edwards reported that this is an opportunity for enhancement to the NR program. January 2013 Mr. Galanes reported that because the TG on NR did not meet there was nothing to report at this time. July 2013 Mr. Edwards is expected to report. NB12-0403 - Part 3 R/A Specific - CSEF Weld Repair Options using temper bead welding. (No attachment) July 2012 Mr. George Galanes gave a presentation on NB12-0403 to the Subcommittee. This item was taken as a progress report. January 2013 Mr. Galanes gave a progress report. He reported that a presentation was given to the SC on Repairs
and Alterations and that a copy of this presentation would become a part of the NBIC Committee minutes.
July 2013 Mr. Galanes is expected to report.
NB12-0801 - Part 3, SG R/A General -Repair and Alteration of Gasketed PHE’s in the field. (Attachment 2, pp. 41-42)
January 2012 Mr. Edwards reported that a task group of Mr. Ortman (Chair), Mr. Galanes and Mr. Wielgoszinski has been assigned.
July 2012
A progress report was given. The TG gave a brief presentation. January 2013 Mr. Ortman gave a progress report. He stated that discussions continue and that the task group hopes to have a proposal before the next meeting. July 2013 Mr. Ortman is expected to report.
Page 9 of 24
NB13-0502- Part 3, 2.5.3 e), SG R/A Specific - Clarify the wording in this section to state, “After the finished weld has reached ambient temperature and when required by the specific welding method, the surface temper bead reinforcement layer has been removed substantially flush with the surface of the base metal, the weld shall be examined again by either of the above methods to determine that no defects exist using acceptance standards acceptable to the Inspector or original code of construction. (Attachment 2, pp. 43-44)
July 2013 Mr. Galanes is expected to report. NB13-0503 - Part 3, 5.7.2 c) and 5.7.3 SG R/A General - Add wording in these sections to address
attaching nameplates. (Attachment 2, pp. 45- 57) July 2013 Mr. Miletti is expected to report. NB13-1401 - Part 3, S.9.2, SG LB - Add wording in this section regarding boiler tube welding.
(Attachment 2, p. 58) July 2013 Mr. Reetz is expected to report. NB13-0403 - Part 3, S1.9.2 SG LB - Installation of Boiler and Arch Tubes. (Attachment 2, pp. 59-
60) July 2013 Mr. Reetz is expected to report. NB13-1404-A - Part 3 S1, SG LB - Fillet welded staybolts. (Attachment 2, p. 61) July 2013 Mr. Reetz is expected to report. NB13-1405 - Part 3, S1.2.9 SG LB - Throttle pipes, dry pipes, superheater headers and front end
steam pipes. (Attachment 2, pp.62-63) July 2013 Mr. Reetz is expected to report. NB13-1406 - Part 3, S1, SG LB - Superheater units. (Attachment 2, p. 64) July 2013 Mr. Reetz is expected to report. NB13-1407 - Part 3, S1 SG LB Bolts, nuts and studs. (Attachment 2, p. 65) July 2013 Mr. Reetz is expected to report.
Page 10 of 24
NB13-1408 - Part 3, S1 SG LB- Threaded boiler studs-Taper thread and straight thread types. (Attachment 2, p. 66) July 2013 Mr. Reetz is expected to report. NB13-1501 - Part 3, 1.2 f) SG R/A General Add wording to this section regarding transport tanks. (Attachment 2, p. 67) July 2013) A report is expected. b. Subcommittee on PRD (Attachment 3) Charge: To develop new rules, revise, interpret and maintain existing rules which address administrative and technical requirements for installation, inspection and repairs of pressure relief devices. Membership: Frank Hart (Chair), Marianne Brodeur, Sid Cammeresi, Alton Cox, Denis DeMichael, Robert Dobbins, Robert Donalson, Thakor Patel, Raymond McCaffrey, Brandon Nutter, Kevin Simmons and Tom Beirne (Secretary). Mr. Hart is expected to report on the following: 2) Inquiries There were no inquiries assigned to the subcommittee.
3) Action Items NB11-0401 - Part 4, SC PRD - The development of a possible fourth part of the NBIC to cover pressure relief topics. (No attachment) January 2011 Mr. Hart presented a progress report. Three SC-PRD task groups worked on identifying pressure relief valve paragraphs that are in NBIC Parts 1, 2, and 3 to be moved to a proposed NBIC Part 4. From this work, a final draft is now being completed. A Part 4 draft will be distributed by letter ballot to the SC-PRD following this meeting. Once that is in agreement the part 4 will be forwarded to the other Subcommittees for their review. Once that is in agreement it will then be presented to the main committee. July 2011
Mr. Hart reported that there is a draft of Part 4 developed. They plan to letter ballot the subcommittee on PRD and then a letter ballot to each subcommittee for their respective parts. Each part will only be voting on their individual part for comment only. The SC hopes to have this all completed before the next meeting.
January 2012 Mr. Hart reported that the Subcommittee plans on letter balloting each of the other subcommittees’ on their respective parts for comment only. After all the comments are received the Subcommittee on PRD will letter ballot the NBIC Committee on the completed Part 4. The Subcommittee hopes to have this completed before the publication of the 2013 Edition of the NBIC.
Page 11 of 24
July 2012
A progress report was given. In the Executive Committee meeting it was decided to send out a survey to stake holders regarding developing a part 4. January 2013 Mr. Hart gave a progress report. He stated that the SC has come up with a five- question survey to be sent to stakeholders regarding the development of a Part 4 of the NBIC. July 2013 Mr. Hart is expected to report. NB12-0901 – Part 3, SC on PRD - Prepare a guide for repair of tank vents. (No attachment) January 2012 Mr. Hart gave a progress report. A task group was assigned. July 2012 A progress report was given. Mr. DeMichael reported that shops are eliminating their maintenance programs and are going to VR shops for repairs. These devices are not made ready to install so we would like to develop something for guidance for the repair of these vents. January 2013 Mr. Hart gave a progress report. July 2013 Mr. Hart is expected to report. NB13-1801 - Part 1, 4.5.45f) SC on PRD - Proposed change in verbiage to address catalogue type data that the manufacturer of a piece of equipment can provide regarding required flow. (Attachment 3, p. 68) July 2013 Mr. Hart is expected to report. NB13-1901 – SC on PRD - Add a provision to the NBIC to allow for the partial disassembly and cleaning of an ASME Section XII valve without changing the set pressure adjustments and without having to do a complete VR. (Attachment 3, pp. 69-70) July 2013 Mr. Hart is expected to report. e. Subcommittee on Installation (Attachment 5) Charge: Responsible for developing new rules, revising, interpreting and maintaining existing rules which address administrative and technical requirements for installing pressure retaining items. This subcommittee also directs, supports, reviews and approves any items forwarded by each subgroup functioning under this subcommittee. Membership: Michael Richards (Chair), Paul Bourgeois, Geoff Halley, Stan Konopacki, Brian Moore, Don Patten, Paul Schuelke, Gary Scribner, Raymond Snyder, Harold Tyndall, Melissa Wadkinson and Jeanne Bock (Secretary).
Page 12 of 24
Mr. Richards is expected to report on the following: 1) Inquiries There were no inquiries assigned to this subcommittee.
2) Action Items
NB08-2101 – Part1, SG on Boilers - CSD-1 does not address solid fuel firing and it would be appropriate for the NBIC to look into it. A task group of G. Halley (Chair), M. Richards, G. Scribner and B. Moore has been assigned. (Attachment 4, pp. 71 - 78) July 2008 A progress report was given. Mr. Geoff Halley presented a handout. January 2009 A progress report was given. July 2009 A progress report was given. January 2010 Mr. Halley gave a progress report. He stated that he is seeking guidance from other companies and he hopes that by the July 2010 meeting he will have a proposal ready. July 2010 Mr. Halley presented a handout and asked the NBIC Committee members to review it and comment on it for the next meeting. January 2011 Mr. Richards presented a progress report and draft. The group has been asked to look into exactly where fuel shutoff should be with respect to solid fuel (wood/biomass) firing boilers, and what to do with circulating fluidized bed boilers, bubbling bed boilers, etc. Mr. Richards expressed that the committee’s input on this item would be appreciated July 2011 Mr. Richards reported and presented a new document associated with solid fuel firing. This document will be used from this point forward to work with and build upon.
January 2012 Mr. Richards gave a progress report and handouts were provided for the Committee to read and comment on after the meeting.
July 2012
Mr. Richards presented a handout prepared by Mr. Halley and explained that the item is broken down into four parts: Definitions, functional description, installation requirements and inspection requirements. It was unanimously approved to move the proposed definitions to the glossary of all three parts if approved. A letter ballot was sent to approve the new definitions. The ballot was unanimously approved. The definitions became a part of the 2013 edition.
Page 13 of 24
January 2013 Mr. Richards gave a progress report. Mr. Halley has produced a new handout for review and has added Mr. Mark Mooney to the task group for assistance with wording. July 2013 Mr. Richards is expected to report. NB10-0201 - Part 1 S3 - Expand the section on installation of thermal fluid heaters. This action item is a result of splitting NB09-0601into two parts. A task group of G. Halley and P. Bourgeois has been assigned. (No attachment) January 2010 Mr. Scribner gave a progress report. July 2010 A progress report was given. January 2011 Mr. Richards presented a progress report. This item folds back into item NB07-1208, where a definition has been finalized and is being sent out for letter ballot. Once a result has been received back from the letter ballot we will be able to pursue further with this item. July 2011 Mr. Richards gave a progress report. He stated that now that there is an approved definition of thermal fluid heaters, the task group can begin work on this item.
January 2012 Mr. Richards reported that there was no progress on this item.
July 2012 A progress report was given. January 2013 Mr. Patten gave a progress report. He stated that the task group has wording to review and hopes to have something for the subgroup by the next meeting. July 2013 Mr. Patten is expected to report.
NB10-1201 - Part 1 SC Installation - Request for a format change to NBIC Part 1 Code Rules. A task group of G. Scribner, S. Konopacki and D. Patten has been assigned.(No attachment) July 2010 Mr. Scribner gave a progress report. January 2011 Mr. Richards presented a progress report. The goal is to consolidate all the general requirements for Boilers, Pressure Vessels, etc.
Page 14 of 24
July 2011 Mr. Richards reported with a handout created to compare power boilers and steam heating boilers. It was found that power boilers are lacking in the book so the task group is looking to expand wording on power boilers.
January 2012 Mr. Richards gave a progress report.
July 2012 A progress report was given. Mr. Scribner presented a presentation to the SC on Installation and he would like to present it to the other committees as well.
January 2013 Mr. Scribner gave a progress report. He stated that the language is not consistent and needs to be addressed.
July 2013 Mr. Scribner is expected to report.
NB11-0802 - Part 1, 1.4.5 SG Boilers - Boiler Installation Report review. A task group of G. Scribner (Chair), B. Moore and M. Richards has been assigned. (Attachment 4, p. 79 ) July 2010 A task group was assigned. January 2011 Mr. Richards presented a progress report. A review of the I-1 form continues in order to make sure it adequately addresses the needs of jurisdictional requirements. What is needed to ensure it is in accordance with what the current law mandates.
July 2011 Mr. Richards reported that they have looked at the current form and there may be a need to make an
additional form for the installation of pressure vessels.
January 2012 Mr. Richards gave a progress report. He said this item was an ongoing effort.
July 2012 A progress report of no progress was given.
January 2013 Mr. Patten gave a progress report.
July 2013 Mr. Patten is expected to report.
NB11-1901 - Part 1, SG Fiber Reinforced Plastic - Installation of High Pressure Composite Pressure Vessels. The FRP Subgroup initiated this proposal to provide guidance for a safe installation of high pressure vessels operating in close proximity to the public. (No attachment) January 2012 A handout of this proposal was distributed to the SC from the FRP SG. There was a motion to letter
Page 15 of 24
ballot this item with a 1 month time frame. The motion was unanimously approved. The letter ballot passed and now needs approval from the NBIC Committee. The letter ballot failed at the Main Committee level and was sent back to the SG on FRP for more work.
July 2012 A progress report was given. The SG on FRP is continuing to work on this item.
January 2013 Mr. Richards gave a progress report. He stated that he had spoken with Francis Brown and that the SG on FRP has resolved the negative comments that they had received from the SC Installation. The item is currently out for letter ballot within the SG.
July 2013 Mr. Richards is expected to report.
NB11-2001 - Part 1, 2.9.4 SG Pressure Vessels and Piping - Address the safe venting of isolatable economizers where the outlet is below the inlet of other communicable chambers (headers, drums, etc.) (Attachment 4, p. 80)
July 2011 Mr. Richards reported that they asked the commenter, who was present at the subcommittee meeting to resubmit his question in the proper format. The subgroup will evaluate this item at that time.
January 2012 Mr. Richards reported that he hoped to letter ballot the NBIC Committee before the next meeting. The Committee was letter balloted but the project manager, Don Patten, decided to pull the ballot in response to the several negatives that were received. He felt the Subcommittee on Installation needed to re-work some of the wording.
July 2012 Mr. Patten presented the negative votes that he received to the SC on Installation and they decided not to alter the proposed wording. There was a motion to approve letter balloting the NBIC Committee again w/o making any changes. The motion was approved. Mr. Patten decided to send an inquiry request to ASME to resolve the questions that the committee had. He would like to get the response back from ASME before letter balloting this again.
January 2013 Mr. Patten gave a progress report. He reported that they have sent a formal inquiry to ASME regarding this question and that they are still waiting for a response.
July 2013 Mr. Richards is expected to report. NB12-0302 - Part 1, SG Pressure Vessels and Piping - Define installation requirements for PVHO (hyperbaric chambers). (No attachment)
January 2012 Mr. Richards gave a progress report. July 2012
A progress report was given. The SC will continue to try to define the requirements for installation of these vessels depending on if these are single or multi chambered devices.
Page 16 of 24
January 2013 Mr. Scribner gave a progress report. He stated that he has been in contact with the chair of PVHO and they are working on wording for the different types of PVHO vessels. July 2013 Mr. Richards is expected to report. NB12-1401 - Part 1, SG on Boilers - Reference item NB09-0204. Address the installation of Potable Water Heaters. A task group of G. Scribner, P. Bourgeois, B. Moore, and H. Tyndall was assigned. (No attachment) July 2012 A progress report was given. January 2013 Mr. Scribner gave a progress report. He stated that the task group is developing general language within this section and finding common terminology for use in different kinds of potable water heaters. July 2013 Mr. Richards is expected to report. NB13-1101 - Part 1, SG Boilers - Addition of installation requirements for condensing hot water boilers. (Attachment 4, pp. 81- 84) July 2013 Mr. Richards is expected to report. a. SC on Inspection (Attachment 4) Charge: Responsible for developing new rules, revising, interpreting and maintaining existing rules
which address administrative and technical requirements for inspection of pressure retaining items. This subcommittee also directs, supports, reviews and approves any items forwarded by each subgroup functioning under this subcommittee.
Membership: Mark Mooney (Chair), Tim Barker, Domenic Canonico, Mark Horbaczewski, Jim Getter, Greg McRae, Venus Newton, Ralph Pate, Bob Reetz , John Richardson, Jim Riley, Jason Safarz, Mike Sch Mr. Mooney is expected to report on the following: 1) Inquiries There were no inquiries assigned to this subcommittee.
2) Action Items NB07-0910 - Part 2 S6 SG Inspection Specific - Review DOT supplement. A task group of S. Staniszewski (Chair), G. McRae and J. Riley has been assigned. This specific Supplement should be reviewed by the task group for completeness and accuracy. (No attachment)
Page 17 of 24
July 2007
A progress report was given. Changes to the DOT Glossary were approved previously due to approved public review comments.
January 2008
A progress report was given. The task group has met twice to discuss the public review comments received from the 2007 edition and in the process 11 more issues were identified.
July 2008
A progress report was given.
January 2009 This item was taken as a progress report. Mr. Staniszewski reported that the Federal Government is planning to release a standard on rule making under docket # PHMSA 2005-21351 in June of 2009.
July 2009 A progress report was given. Mr. Staniszewski reported that the docket did not make its release date and that he would keep the Committee updated on the publication of the standard.
January 2010
A progress report was given.
July 2010 Mr. Staniszewski gave a progress report. The document is currently under review from the legal -department. At the end of the year there will be an advance notice of rulemaking.
January 2011 Mr. Cook presented a progress report. The Federal Government has put out for public review comment the addition of the NBIC and ASME Section XII. The question presented was: Would it be a good thing for various members of the committee to respond positively to the incorporation of these two standards to the Federal Government as part of their public review comment? Mr. Terry Parks answered that this would be very appropriate. Terry stated that we would find out how to go about doing this and send an email out with instructions. Mr. Paul Edwards stated that the email states that the review time closes March 23rd. It was also questioned whether this was going to be done on an individual basis or as a committee. Terry stated that we can take this up with Mr. David Douin to see if we want to endorse it as a company or an individual. The majority of the committee felt that this should be done on an individual basis. July 2011 Mr. Cook presented a progress report that was sent by Stan Staniszewski. The DOT has the rule making package in process right now of being approved and Stan is limited to what he can legally discuss. Stan will keep us abreast to any developments.
January 2012 Mr. Staniszewski gave a progress report. He said that the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking process has concluded and the DOT is evaluating the public review comments.
Page 18 of 24
July 2012 A progress report was given. No action was taken on this item as Stan was not present. Mr. Cook reported that there have been discussions with the National Board and ASME. DOT is stating that in order for them to adopt the NBIC it must be available to users for free. There is a conflict between giving the information away for free and protecting copyright laws as well as the issue of cost to produce the information. This is more of an issue with ASME.
January 2013 Mr. Staniszewski gave a progress report and a handout for Committee Members. There was no action to vote on at this time. July 2013 Mr. Staniszewski is expected to report.
NB08-0701 - Part 2 S7 SG on Inspection Specific - Add a requirement for change of service from above ground to below ground installation of LPG tanks. We also need requirements for how to inspect these tanks. A task group of V. Mullins (Chair), G. Galanes, J. Getter, G. McRae, J. Richardson and V. Newton has been assigned. (Attachment 4, pp. 85)
January 2008 A progress report was given and a task group was assigned. July 2008 A progress report was given. January 2009 A progress report was given. This item will be discussed in conjunction with NB08-
0321. July 2009 This item was taken as a progress report. This action item will be worked on simultaneously
with the task group assigned to NB08-0320, NB08-0321 and NB08-0322. January 2010 No progress. July 2010 A progress report was given.
January 2011 Mr. Cook presented a progress report. At the end of the SG meeting on Tuesday a working
group came up with new language such as for a Header - How do you change from an above ground to below ground service for an LPG Tank and a list of items that an inspector would be concerned with to verify that it would be a suitable change of service. A proposal will be presented at the July 2011 meeting.
July 2011 Mr. Cook stated there was no progress.
January 2012 Mr. Staniszewski gave a progress report. He said that the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking process has concluded and the DOT is evaluating the public review comments.
Page 19 of 24
July 2012 This action item was unanimously approved to go out for letter ballot. The ballot failed. January 2013
Mr. Staniszewski gave a progress report. He stated that Mr. Virgil Mullins has become the project manager of this item.
July 2013 Mr. Mullins is expected to report.
NB10-0601 - Part 2, SC S6, SG on Fiber Reinforced Plastic- Inspection of high pressure
composite vessels. (Attachment 2, pp. 31- 57)
July 2011 A letter ballot was sent to the SC in May but it was repealed by the subgroup before its closure.
There were a lot of comments by SC members that they were unfamiliar with these types of vessels.
January 2012 Mr. Cook gave a progress report and stated that this item was related to the presentation that Mr.
Eisberg had made earlier in the meeting. This item was letter balloted to the Main Committee again but was pulled for more work by the subgroup.
July 2012 A progress report was given. January 2013 Mr. Staniszewski reported that the SC Inspection will letter ballot this item to the SC Inspection.
The letter ballot passed in the SC on Inspection but failed at the NBIC Committee. July 2013 Mr. Mooney is expected to report. NB11-0204 - Parts 2 & 3, S2 SG Historical Boilers - Review NDE requirements of stayed areas.
A TG of M. Wahl (Chair), J. Larson and F. Johnson has been assigned. (No attachment)
January 2011 Mr. Cook presented a progress report.. The task group assigned on the Historical Boiler SG is
addressing this item. July 2011 A task group has been assigned. No report at this time. January 2012 Mr. Cook gave a progress report and suggested that this item be moved from Inspection to Repair
and Alteration. July 2012 A progress report was given. Mr. Cook stated that there is no way to get a picture of stayed areas.
You have to radiograph the crack before you can repair it. The SG is still working on this issue.
Page 20 of 24
January 2013 Mr. Reetz gave a progress report. He stated that the task group is finding inconsistencies within the language and that they are continuing to work on this item. July 2013 Mr. Reetz is expected to report.
NB11-1101 - Part 2, S2.6.2 b), SG on Historical Boilers - This section should be revised to provide more guidelines for evaluating local pitting corrosion versus general corrosion. (No attachment)
January 2011 Mr. Cook presented a progress report. July 2011 No progress at this time. January 2012 Mr. Cook gave a progress report. The task group is struggling with calculating MAWP using the lowest pit versus general thinning. They will continue to work on this issue. July 2012 A progress report was given. The SG is still working on this issue. January 2013 Mr. Reetz gave a progress report. July 2013 Mr. Reetz is expected to report. NB12-1501 - Part 2, SG Inspection General - Review inspection requirements so as to align with installation requirements in Part 1. (No attachment) January 2012 A Task group of V. Newton, M. Horbaczewski, J. Daiber and J. Safarz was assigned. July 2012 A progress report was given. The SG is looking at the foreword of the NBIC to be in sync with the other books. January 2013 Mr. Staniszewski gave a progress report. He stated that the task group has identified two new items that pertained to this action item. Action item, NB13-1302 to examine cryogenic tanks and action item NB13-1303 to examine biomass boilers were opened as a result of this item. July 2013 Mr. Newton is expected to report.
NB12-1801 - Part 2, 5.5.2-5.5.3, SG Inspection Specific - Replacement of stamping during inservice inspection. (Attachment 5, pp. 86-94) July 2012
Page 21 of 24
A progress report was given. The SC is linking this item to the inquiries received for the same people. A TG of Buddy Dobbins, Domenic Canonico, Timothy Barker, Mark Mooney and Daren Daily has been assigned. January 2013 A progress report was given. This action item is linked to interpretations IN12-0201 and IN12- 0202. The Subcommittee hopes to have something prepared for the next meeting. July 2013 Mr. Mooney is expected to report. NB13-0701 - Part 2 4.4.7 j) 1) SG Inspection General - Revise wording to clarify the rule in this section. (Attachment 5, p. 95) January 2013 Mr. Staniszewski gave a progress report of no progress. A Task Group will be assigned. July 2013 Mr. Staniszewski is expected to report.
NB13-0801 - Part 2, SG on Insp. Spec. – Review inspection requirements for CO2 Tanks. A task group will be assigned. (No attachment)
July 2013 Mr. Mooney is expected to report.
NB13-0901 – Part 2, S2 SG on Historical Boilers - Review requirements for safety valve discharge piping. A Task Group consisting of F. Johnson and T. Dillon was assigned. (No attachment) July 2013 Mr. Reetz is expected to report. NB13-0902 - Part 2, S2, SG on Historical Boilers - Review alternate methods of Tube Sheet repair. A Task Group consisting of F. Johnson, T. Dillon and M. Wahl was assigned. (No attachment) July 2013 Mr. Reetz is expected to report. NB13-0903 – Part 2, S2.14 SG on Historical Boilers – Add language to address the safety concerns when using liquid or gaseous fuels to fire a historical boiler. (Attachment 5, pp. 96-97) July 2013 Mr. Reetz is expected to report. NB13-1001 - Part 2, 2.3.6.6 SG on Insp. Spec. – Consider adding new paragraph concerning DOT Transport Tanks. (Attachment 5, p. 98) January 2013 Mr. Staniszewski presented a proposed new paragraph.
Page 22 of 24
July 2013 Mr. Staniszewski is expected to report. NB13-1201 – Part 2, 2.2.10.6, SG Inspection Gen. - This action item is a result of PRC PR13-0209 from Francis Brown. His comment stated, " The NBIC is supposed to be a safety Code so why is a "good practice" only a "good practice" if required by a Jurisdiction. For example 2.2.10 6a) is or is not that paragraph a "good practice" mandatory, but without the Jurisdictional requirement a good practice is optional with the owner/user. This section should be revised to indicate "good practices" should be complied with but are mandatory when required by the Jurisdiction. (Attachment 5, p. 99) July 2013 Mr. Mooney is expected to report. NB13-1202 - Part 2, 2.10.6 h) SG on Insp. Gen. - This action item is a result of PRC PR13-0210 from Francis Brown. The comment stated, "Revise h). On forced circulation boilers the flow sensing device shall be tested to verify the boiler shuts down on loss of flow. (Attachment 5, p. 100) July 2013 Mr. Mooney is expected to report. NB13-1203 -Part 2, 2.3.6.7, SG on Insp. Gen. This item is a result of PRC PR13-0213. The comment from Francis Brown states, "Change "must" and "should" to "shall". (Attachment 5, p. 101) July 2013 Mr. Mooney is expected to report. NB13-1301 - Part 2, SG Inspection General - Review methods of Finite Element Analysis as they pertain to inspection. A Task Group consisting of J. Riley (Chair), S. Staniszewski, M. Schwartzwalder, M. Mooney and R. Pate was assigned. (Attachment 5, pp. 102-103) July 2013 Mr. Mooney is expected to report. NB13-1302 - Part 2, SG Inspection General - Review Cryogenic vessel inspection requirements. A Task Group consisting of J. Riley (Chair), A. Renaldo, R. Dobbins, R. Bartley and R. Pate was assigned. (No attachment) July 2013 Mr. Mooney is expected to report. NB13-1303 - Part 2, SG Inspection General Review Inspection requirements for Biomass Fueled Boilers. A Task Group consisting of M. Mooney(Chair), M. Horbaczewski, D. Canonico, and J. Safarz was assigned. (No attachment) July 2013 Mr. Mooney is expected to report.
Page 23 of 24
NB13-1402 – Part 2, S1.4.2.8.1 SG on LB – Bulged stayed firebox sheets. (Attachment 5, p. 102) July 2013 Mr. Reetz is expected to report. NB13-1404B - Part 2, SG on LB – Fillet welded staybolts. (Attachment 5, p. 103) July 2013 Mr. Reetz is expected to report. NB13-1409 – Part 2, SG on LB – Method for analyzing bulges created by overheating in stayed boiler surfaces. (Attachment 5, pp. 104-120) July 2013 Mr. Reetz is expected to report. NB13-1701 Part 2, 2.3.6.6 SG Insp. Spec. – Inspection requirements of wire wound pressure vessels. (Attachment 5, p. 121) July 2013 Mr. Galanes is expected to report. NB13-2001 - Part 2, SG on Insp. Spec. – Review inspection requirements for B31.1 Power Piping. A Task Group consisting of M. Schwartzwalder (Chair), J. Frey, V. Newton, M. Mooney, D. Canonico, J. Richardson, M. Horbaczewski and B. Dobbins was assigned. July 2013 Mr. Mooney is expected to report.
8. Liaison Activities
a. ASME- Paul Edwards b. AWS- Jim Sekely c. API- Jim Riley d. I.C.C.-Chuck Withers e. PCC- Terry Parks f. Others
Page 24 of 24
9. New Business 10. Future Meetings The following meetings have been scheduled: January 13-16, 2014, San Antonio, Texas July 14-17, 2014, Columbus, Ohio 11. Adjournment Respectfully submitted, Robin Hough Secretary, NBIC Committee H:\ROBIN-Active Documents\NBIC Secretarial Documents\Committees\NBIC\Agendas\July 2013\Agenda NBIC 0713.doc
Committee on National Board Inspection Code
Member Title Expiration Date Interest Category
Hough, Robin Secretary
Wielgoszinski, Robert V. Vice Chair 08/31/2013 Auth Inpection Agencies
Galanes, PE, George W. 08/31/2013 Users
Pillow, James T. 08/31/2013 General Interest
Richardson, John 08/31/2013 Manufacturer
Canonico, Dr. Domenic A. 08/31/2013 General Interest
Hopkins, Craig 08/31/2013 NB Certificate Holders
Snyder, Raymond 08/31/2013 Auth Inpection Agencies
Hart, Frank 08/31/2013 NB Certificate Holders
Reetz, Robert 08/31/2013 Jurisdictional Authorities
Pulliam, Ron 08/31/2013 Manufacturer
Schulte, Bryan 02/28/2014 Users
Sekely, James 07/31/2014 General Interest
Scribner, Gary 07/31/2014 Jurisdictional Authorities
Bourgeois, Paul 07/31/2014 Auth Inpection Agencies
Anthony, Benjamin 07/31/2014 Jurisdictional Authorities
Riley, Jim 07/31/2014 Users
Pate, Ralph 07/31/2014 Jurisdictional Authorities
Richards, H. Michael 01/31/2015 Users
Webb, Michael 01/31/2015 Users
McManamon, Larry 01/31/2015 Organized Labor
Edwards, Paul D. 08/31/2015 NB Certificate Holders
Cook, Don Chair 08/31/2015 Jurisdictional Authorities
Mooney, Mark 08/31/2015 Auth Inpection Agencies
Staniszewski, Jr., Stanley 08/31/2015 Regulatory Authorities
Total Members: 24
Monday, June 17, 2013 Page 1
NBIC Committee
Page 1 of 121
RAYMOND L. MILETTI 1776 Bent Bow
Akron, Ohio 44313 330 - 801 - 6996
OBJECTIVE NBIC Repair & Alterations Committee assignment CAREER SUMMARY Twenty Eight (29) years of experience working in various arenas of the Power Generation industry, serving in a management role for 19 years. Working knowledge of ISO, ASNT, API, AWS, ASME and NBIC quality programs / requirements.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE MANAGER, QUALITY OPERATIONS – 07/10 – PRESENT BABCOCK & WILCOX CONSTRUCTION COMPANY – BARBERTON, OHIO Responsible for the planning and development of programs and processes that ensure company and customer quality requirements are met for BWCC business units. Manage and support projects from proposal stage through project completion, assuming responsibility for all quality related issues during project execution. Manage the supplier base from evaluation through order execution. Responsible for Quality program development and maintenance to assure compliance with ISO, ASME and NBIC, in addition to internal procedures and practices. Responsible for the management of renewal activities and provide clarification of Code requirements. Directs in the defining and implementation of training programs of field personnel in areas such as welding, heat treatment and NDE. MANAGER, QUALITY OPERATIONS & SUPPLIER CONTROL – 01/08 – 07/10 BABCOCK & WILCOX - BARBERTON, OHIO
Manage the daily activities of 10 people that include Quality contract engineers and inspectors. In addition to the job assignments shown directly below, I have the added responsibility of the Supplier Control function for the company. Those duties include supplier evaluation/selection, inspection planning and quality cost evaluation.
QUALITY OPERATIONS MANAGER 01/00 ---- 01/08 BABCOCK & WILCOX - BARBERTON, OHIO
Manage Quality Assurance engineers of various disciplines, responsible for the product quality across all product lines (traditional and non-traditional). Responsible for assuring the highest level of quality, using preventative, cost-effective measures. The position includes interface with both, customer and supplier quality organizations, in addition to auditing efforts in B&W manufacturing facilities. Scope of contract support includes the following: Support of proposal management with bid specification reviews, participation in proposal
meetings and development of quality proposal documents for submittal. Project execution support which includes quality (contract specific) plan development and
assuring satisfactory implementation. This may also include interface with erector. Support of vendor control with preproduction meetings, surveillance and review/maintenance of
QC documentation. Additional work scope:
Maintenance of Quality Operations Manuals. Lead support for the off-shore suppliers. Support ISO-9001 program with internal auditing and assistance in certification surveillance
audits.
Page 2 of 121
QUALITY CONTROL MANAGER - B&W SERVICE COMPANY 11/93 – 01/00 BABCOCK & WILCOX BARBERTON, OHIO Directly responsible for establishing cost-effective quality requirements for all products of the division, and ensure their effectiveness. Responsibilities included the following: Quality Manual coordinator responsible for maintaining accurate and current quality procedures support of B&W Foundry activity support of B&W warehouse (receipt inspection activity) supported Supply Management and Manufacturing in casting sublet effort (domestic and off-
shore) support of Supplier Control with surveillance activity and review of QC document submittals supported the off-shore machining effort in Korea and Taiwan support of Proposal Management with bid specification reviews and participation in proposal
meetings project support serving as QA Engineer for major projects which includes quality plan
development and implementation Also, served as lead auditor in performing internal ISO-9001 audits and assist during certification and surveillance ISO audits. QUALITY ASSURANCE ENGINEER 4/89 - 11/93 BABCOCK & WILCOX BARBERTON, OHIO Contract Quality Program Management, including interface with internal / external customers. Audit suitability/compliance with various control systems within B&W and sublet suppliers. Inspection of vendor supplied material and equipment. Proposal support - review bid specifications and preparation of preliminary fabrication / inspection plans. PROJECTS ENGINEER 1/85 – 4/89 SHARON MANUFACTURING SHARON CTR., OHIO Served as Project Engineer for structural steel fabricator. Responsibilities ranged from planning through completion of manufacturing. Interfacing with customers and vendors. Significant projects included the manufacturing of large steel molds used for manufacturing rubber sonar domes for the United States Navy (second tier supplier to the Navy).
EDUCATION BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING 1984 THE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON AKRON, OHIO
PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Earned Certified Welding Inspector (CWI) certification from the American Welding Society (August, 1993)
Member of the American Welding Society since 1993.
Page 3 of 121
Adam M. Renaldo, PE, PMP Address:
19 Radcliffe Dr., Getzville, NY 14068
(716) 834-9565 [email protected]
Page 1 of 2
Education: University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, BS Mechanical Engineering
Credentials: Professional Engineer (PE) registered in NY, Project Management Professional (PMP)
Work
Experience: Praxair, Inc.
P.T.C.,175 East Park Drive, Tonawanda, NY, May 2001 - present
2008 – Present: Manager of Technology for Customer Service (CS)
- Manage 6 databases.
- Approve, compose, and edit CS standards, procedures, manuals, and drawings.
- Design tests & perform tests of equipment and systems.
- Contribute to Root Cause Analyses.
- Manage 1 direct-report technician and supervise 1 engineer.
- Active member of Compressed Gas Association (CGA) Bulk Equipment Committee.
- Head of CGA S-1.2 and S-1.3 task forces for pressure relief device (PRD) standards.
- Participate in European Industrial Gases Association (EIGA).
- Propose and oversee new installations and system upgrade projects.
- Train engineers in flexibility analysis, O2 compatibility analysis, piping system simulation
- Perform, and train other engineers to perform, equipment checkout & troubleshooting.
- Design and oversee implementation of high pressure cryogenic pumping systems.
2006 – 2008: Technology Engineer for Customer Service
- Compose and edit standards and drawings under supervision of Technology Manager.
- Perform flexibility analysis, O2 compatibility analysis, piping system simulation
- Perform laboratory and field tests, of equipment, along with technician.
- Performed tests to develop PRD sizing criteria for vaporizers and piping.
- Created software programs for designing distribution systems and cost estimation.
- Participation in CGA Bulk Equipment Committee and PRD task forces.
2002 - 2006: Distribution Systems Engineer
- Calculations, drawings, and tech support for Cryogenic and high pressure systems.
- Participation in Six Sigma projects.
- Audit vendors for adherence to oxygen cleaning standards.
- Standard equipment drawings & specifications.
- Evaluation of valve PRD designs, materials compatibility, and performance.
- Participation in CGA Bulk Equipment Committee.
2001 - 2002: Distribution Systems Engineering Intern
- Basic engineering calculations & drawings under direct supervision.
- PRD sizing and pressure drop calculations per CGA, API, and ASME standards. PRDS
included relief valves, rupture disks, and buckling pin devices.
Page 4 of 121
Adam M. Renaldo, PE, PMP Address:
19 Radcliffe Dr., Getzville, NY 14068
(716) 834-9565 [email protected]
Page 2 of 2
American Axle & Manufacturing
Tonawanda Forge, 2390 Kenmore Ave., Tonawanda, NY, May 2000-2001.
2000 - 2001: Engineering Intern
- Generate & update 3-D computer models and drawings per ISO 9001
- Design valves and tools under direct supervision
- Designed automated inspection machine to reduce number of QA personnel
Computer
Skills: - Drafting: AutoCAD, Mechanical Desktop, UNIGRAPHICS, Microstation,
- System Modeling: Crane Companion, DFS DesignNet, CAESAR II
- Other: Excel, Word, Powerpoint, Lotus Notes, Maple, Matlab, C++, BASIC & VBA,
REFROP 7, GASPAK
Page 5 of 121
PROPOSED INTERPRETATION
Inquiry No.
IN13-0301
Source
William Tillman
Subject Part 3, 3.2.2 c)
Edition
2011 Edition
Question
1: Does Part 3, 3.2.2 c) prevent an "R" Certificate Holder with the capabilities within his shop from rolling and welding a shell or other such items as headers, nozzles,(flange to pipe) for replacement in a vessel or boiler he is repairing or altering? Q2: If the answer is No to the above question, if the same Certificate Holder could not fabricate the replacement items within his capabilities and received these parts from an outside source then these items would have to be fabricated by an organization holding the appropriate Code Certificate of Authorization.
Reply
A1: No
A2: Yes
Committee’s Question
Committee’s Reply
Rationale
SC Vote
Unanimous No. Affirmative No. Negative No. Abstain No. Not Voting
NBIC Vote
Unanimous No. Affirmative No. Negative No. Abstain No. Not Voting
Negative Vote
Comments
Page 6 of 121
Background Interpretation 98-28 states that replacement parts requiring inspection by an AI must be fabricated by an organization holding the appropriate Code Certificate of Authorization. Since a repair organization can replace a shell by making circumferential seams, it would seem logical that they can roll and weld a longitudinal seam in a shell if they have the capability.
Page 7 of 121
To: Secretary NBIC Committee The National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors 1055 Crupper Avenue Columbus, OH 43229 Background Interpretation 98-28 states that replacement parts requiring inspection by an AI must be fabricated by an organization holding the appropriate Code Certificate of Authorization. Since a repair organization can replace a shell by making circumferential seams, it would seem logical that they can roll and weld a longitudinal seam in a shell if they have the capability. Question 1 Does Part 3, Section 3, Paragraph 3.2.2(c) prevent an “R” Certificate Holder with the capabilities within his shop from rolling and welding a shell or other such items as headers, nozzles (flange to pipe) for replacement in a vessel or boiler he is repairing or altering? Proposed answer: No Question 2 If the answer is No to the above question, if the same Certificate Holder could not fabricate the replacement items within his capabilities and received these parts from an outside source then these items would have to be fabricated by an organization holding the appropriate Code Certificate of Authorization. Proposed answer: Yes Patrick J. Hennessey Senior Director OneCIS Insurance Company A Bureau Veritas Company 390 Benmar Drive, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77060 Phone: (281) 986-1364 [email protected]
Page 8 of 121
Page 1 of 2
PROPOSED INTERPRETATION
Inquiry No.
IN13-0401
Source
Jeremy Napier
Subject Part 3, 3.2.5
Edition
2011 Edition
Question
Q1: Is it the intent of the requirements in paragraph 3.2.5 that calculations be both completed and also made available to the Inspector for review prior to the start of any physical work? Q2: Does the requirement in paragraph 3.2.5 that calculations be completed and also mean that the calculations as required by paragraph 3.2.5 be an "R" Certificate Holder? Q3: If an alteration involves the installation of a replacement part (as defined in Paragraph 3.2.2 c) that has been designed, fabricated, inspected and stamped in accordance with the original code of construction and for which the part fabricator has documented on the partial data report that they have certified the design of the part for a specific set of design conditions (MAWP,MAWT, MDMT, corrosion allowance, etc.), must the "R" Certificate Holder responsible for executing the Design Certification on the R-2 Form obtain the calculations from the part fabricator and make available for review by the Inspector?
Reply
A1: Yes
A2: No: However the R-Certificate holder responsible for executing the "Design Certification" portion of the R-2 Form, must assure himself that the design complies with the NBIC and by signing the Design Certification accepts responsibility for the design.
Alternate Proposed Reply Q2: Yes; "the organization" in paragraph 3.2.5 refers to the "R" Certificate holder responsible for preparing and executing "Design Certification" portion of the R-2 Form. This does not preclude the "R" Certificate Holder from having the calculations prepared or otherwise obtaining the calculations from others, but the "R" Certificate holder must assure himself that the design complies with the NBIC and by signing the Design Certification accepts responsibility for the design.
A3: No, however the "R" Certificate holder responsible for executing the Design Certification must assure that the design conditions certified for the
Page 9 of 121
Page 2 of 2
new part are consistent with the original vessel design conditions. Additionally the R Certificate holder would be responsible for assessing whether the installation of the new part impacted in any manner the existing components in the overall vessel design and for completing any calculations that might be required to address such impact.
Committee’s Question
Committee’s Reply
Rationale
SC Vote
Unanimous No. Affirmative No. Negative No. Abstain No. Not Voting
NBIC Vote
Unanimous No. Affirmative No. Negative No. Abstain No. Not Voting
Negative Vote
Comments
Page 10 of 121
Page 11 of 121
Page 12 of 121
Page 13 of 121
Page 14 of 121
Page 15 of 121
PROPOSED INTERPRETATION
Inquiry No.
IN13-0501
Source
Bob Pastre
Subject Part 3, 3.3.3 and 3.4.2
Edition
2011 Edition
Question
Question: May a R and U Certificate Holder make either a repair or an alteration to a pressure vessel by installing an new expansion joint, either over, or in place of an existing expansion joint that may have failed, or is damaged and may be expected to fail; by fabricating a new expansion joint as a U stamped Part in complete accordance with Section VIII Div 1 Appendix 26,, then cutting this new Part into two pieces longitudinally so that it may be installed by field welding two new longitudinal welds without disassembly of the pressure vessel if: a) the two new longitudinal welds are typed 1 per table UW-12. b) the installation does not permit radiographic examination, c) the backside of the weld is not accessible for either visual or penetrant examination, d) design calculations of these welds at .6 WJE are adequate to the existing design and, e) the vessel is satisfactorily hydrostatic tested at 1.3 times MAWP? Condition 1: A new expansion joint of a larger diameter will be installed over the existing joint. Condition 2: The old joint is removed and one of the same diameters will be installed in its place.
Reply
Yes if acceptable to the Inspector and when required the Jurisdiction. Condition 1 being an alteration and Condition 2 being a repair.
Committee’s Question
Committee’s Reply
Rationale
SC Vote
Unanimous No. Affirmative No. Negative No. Abstain No. Not Voting
NBIC Vote
Unanimous No. Affirmative No. Negative No. Abstain No. Not Voting
Page 16 of 121
Background Expansion Joint manufacturers are often requested to perform in situ replacement of expansion joints on heat exchangers where leaks have occurred. These replacements must be done without disassembling the vessel and removing the tube bundle.
Page 17 of 121
NBIC Committee Action Block
Subject Change of Service
File Number NB 08‐0321 (Inspec) NB 08‐0320 (Install) NB 08‐0322 (R & A)
Prop. on Pg.
Proposal Part 2: Add a new Supplement 9, Requirements for Change of Service, and add a new paragraph 1.6 that includes a reference to Supplement 9 Part 1: Add a new paragraph 1.5 that makes reference to Part 2, Supplement 9 Part 3: Add a new paragraph 3.2.7 that makes reference to Part 2, Supplement 9.
Explanation
Various segments of business and industry that utilize boilers and pressure vessels face issues where the functional aspects or purpose of the equipment have changed. Sometimes due to economics existing vessels are subject to new environments, usage, or different commodities. There are several standards in place that may have specific rules for specific change conditions to vessels. And some may even prohibit the operation of vessels with certain commodities. For example, NFPA 58 prohibits the use of anhydrous ammonia in vessels that have continually operated with propane, or 49 CFR prohibits using DOT railway cars in stationary service after they have served their usefulness. These may be severe or extreme cases. But there are many other situations that could cause peril that are not so obvious. And further, there is no single document that would provide advice to users of the risks associated with changing the service environment without making a thorough review or evaluation of the effects on the equipment. So, this addition to the NBIC is intended to provide that needed guidance to boiler and pressure vessel users. This supplement includes general advice, some of the criteria to be evaluated, and a few examples of what would be considered a change of service condition. June 14, 2013: The proposal was letter balloted for comment‐purposes‐only to all Subcommittees. There were 3 technical comments submitted. The comments and responses are as follows:
Comment Response
Great document, I would support it. Only one comment. Maybe I missed something in the details, but it seems there should be a clear requirement for cleaning and/or decontamination of the vessel as appropriate for any change in lading fluids. Richardson,John
Thanks for the comment. I’ll add the comment to S9.3.3.
Page 18 of 121
S9.1, second paragraph ‐ Either delete the phrase "when applicable" or move it to the next sentence. S9.3.6.e ‐ correct typo changing "of" to "or". Sekely,Jim
S9.1. To avoid any controversy in the field of when it would be applicable or not, I’ll just delete the phrase. S9.3.6.e. Good catch. I’ll make the change.
I reviewed the proposed change of service supplement and agree with the intent and proposed location. I have attached suggested editorial revisions for your consideration. Galanes PE,George ‐ S9.3.2.c add ”or both effects
combined”. ‐ S9.3.6.e correct typo. “of” to “or”. ‐ S9.4, 2nd sentence. Add “of the PRI”.
Agreed to all changes. Thanks for the suggestions.
All changes have been made and are incorporated into revision 7 of the proposal.
Project Manager
Robert Wielgoszinski
Task Group Negatives
TG Meeting Date
Page 19 of 121
Change of Service
Rev 7 June 14, 2013
RVW
Supplement 9 Requirements for Change of Service
S9.1 Scope:
This Supplement provides requirements and guidelines to be followed when a change of service or
service type is made to a pressure retaining item.
Whenever there is a change of service, the local jurisdiction where the pressure retaining item is to be
operated shall be notified for acceptance. Any specific jurisdictional requirements shall be met.
S9.2 Classification of Service Changes
S9.2.1 Service Contents
A change in service contents is considered to be any modification to the commodity or contents
that the pressure retaining item was originally intended to contain when the pressure retaining
item was constructed.
For example, a change:
a) From LP gas service to ammonia service.
b) From lethal to non lethal service.
S9.2.2 Service Type or Change of Usage
A change in service type is considered to be a change of how the pressure retaining item is being
used.
For example, a change:
a) From above ground service to underground service for LP gas tanks.
b) From mobile or transport use to stationary use
S9.3 Factors to Consider
Before a change of service is to be made, the owner or user shall consider and evaluate the effects of
the new operating conditions or environment on the existing condition and suitability for service of the
pressure retaining item. Various factors will have an impact on the reliability of the pressure retaining
Page 20 of 121
Change of Service
Rev 7 June 14, 2013
RVW
item in its new service environment. Changes can be successfully adopted providing there is an
understanding of the effect on the pressure retaining item. However, there are some cases where
changes are detrimental to the existing pressure retaining item. The owner or user should seek
technical guidance of experienced personnel in appropriate areas affected by the change of service (e.g.
design, metallurgy, or operations of the pressure retaining item).
The following is a listing of criteria that should be evaluated as appropriate. The criterion is not limited
to that listed herein. Other factors may be considered as necessary;
1) Design Consideration:
a) Thickness of existing vessel material
b) Vessel or system flow rate or pressure
c) Weight of vessel with new contents
d) Existing or additional loads imposed on nozzles and highly stressed areas
e) Change in pressure or temperature cycling
f) Compliance to product or industry standards, such as ANSI K61, API 579, or NFPA 58
2) Material Consideration:
a) Chemical and mechanical properties of existing material or any new material to be added or
replaced to assure it has the required strength and toughness to withstand the pressure and
temperature effects of the new environment.
b) Effects of erosion or corrosion
c) Time dependent effects on service life ‐ creep or fatigue, or both effects combined.
3) Environment
a) Physical condition of the pressure retaining item
b) Overpressure protection needs
c) Regulatory environment ‐ Verification of compliance to new or existing jurisdictional rules or
regulations.
d) Vessel cleanliness – When changing lading fluids or contents consideration should be given
to cleaning or decontaminating the vessel as appropriate.
4) Operational History
a) A review of current and past operational logs or records should be made to assure that no
conditions existed where any further use would render the pressure retaining item
hazardous or otherwise unsafe.
b) Records to be obtained and reviewed would include Data Reports, Repair and Alteration
Forms, Inspection reports.
Page 21 of 121
Change of Service
Rev 7 June 14, 2013
RVW
5) Repairs and Alterations Made:
a) A review of any repairs, alterations, reratings, or reconfigurations that have been performed
on the pressure retaining item, so as to assure that they will not have a detrimental impact
on the intended use.
6) Proposed rework
a) Any physical work to be performed to restore the material to the existing or intended state
or to meet any requirements for the new operating conditions.
b) Repairs and alterations shall be performed in accordance with NBIC, Part 3.
c) The effects of heat applied as a result of welding or heat treatment on the material or
shaped parts.
d) The method and extent of any physical or non destructive examination should be
considered.
e) Any physical testing or pressure testing to be performed to determine or verify leak
tightness or structural integrity of the pressure retaining item.
f) The pressure retaining item shall meet the Code requirements for the new environment at
the time of change.
7) Documentation
a) Review existing records that are required to satisfy customer, user, or legal requirements.
b) Review the need for any marking, stamping, or labeling required for the intended service.
c) Review the need for developing or revising an inspection plan to ensure safe operation.
Refer to Part 2, Section 1.5.2.1 Inspection Plan.
S9.4 Some Examples for Change of Service
The following is a typical list of examples of what constitutes a change in service and some factors to
consider. Note: This list is not all inclusive. There may other service changes not mentioned.
Also, the listing of “Factors to Consider” is also not all inclusive. There may be other elements that can
influence the safe and reliable operation of the pressure retaining item.
The Owner shall check with the Jurisdiction where the pressure retaining item is to operate in the new
environment, and review local building Codes, laws, and regulations for additional requirements or
prohibitions against a change of service.
Some examples of Change of Service conditions
Change Some Factors to Consider
LP gas to ammonia PWHT of vessel during construction
Page 22 of 121
Change of Service
Rev 7 June 14, 2013
RVW
Some examples of Change of Service conditions
Change Some Factors to Consider
Wet‐fluorescent magnetic particle testing (WFMT) on all internal surfaces
Internal access of vessel is necessary. May need to install manhole.
Ammonia to LP gas NFPA‐58, paragraph 5.2.1.5 should be consulted. i.e. restriction on maximum volume
Wet‐fluorescent magnetic particle testing (WFMT) on all internal surfaces
Internal access of vessel is necessary. May need to install manhole.
Also see, NBIC Part 2, 2.3.6.4
LP gas service: from above ground to underground
Requires alterations (additional nozzles).
Corrosion protection
See NFPA 58
LP gas to air receiver Assurance of vessel cleanliness. i.e. removal of mercaptan.
Appropriateness and number of inspection and drain openings.
Corrosion allowance
Boiler service: Steam to Hot Water
May require replacement of smaller steam outlet nozzle with larger nozzle to accommodate condensate carryover
Change of Pressure Relief Device
Boiler Service: High Pressure to Low Pressure
Additional controls required by the LP boiler Code
Safety valve change
Need for larger opening for safety relief valves
Sulfur dioxide service. Sweet to sour gas service.
Concern over hydrogen cracking
Inert to Oxidizing atmosphere
Inspection for damage mechanisms that may be present from previous service life that is detrimental to the vessel in the new environment.
Cleanliness of hydrocarbons
Lethal service to non‐lethal
Design conditions and suitability for service
Page 23 of 121
Change of Service
Rev 7 June 14, 2013
RVW
Some examples of Change of Service conditions
Change Some Factors to Consider
DOT railcars or ICC transport tanks to stationary service
Prohibited by DOT regulations (49 CFR 180) for permanent service.
Temporary stationary service permitted as per NFPA 58
Inspection for damage mechanisms that may be present from previous service life that is detrimental to the vessel in the new environment.
S9.5 Documentation of Change of Service
Any records, forms, or reports required documenting the change of service event that may be required
by contract or the jurisdiction where the pressure retaining item operates shall be completed as
specified. Such documentation should be retained by the owner or user for future reference or use as
needed.
Page 24 of 121
Page 25 of 121
Page 26 of 121
Page 27 of 121
Page 28 of 121
Page 29 of 121
Page 30 of 121
Page 31 of 121
Page 32 of 121
Page 33 of 121
Page 34 of 121
Page 35 of 121
1) If Original Code of Construction does not call for PWHT & ONLY requires Visual examination : Does a pluggingof a Carbon Steel Heat Exchanger Tube of size NPS 5 and smaller by Mechanical Repair method will fall under Routine Repair? 2) If Original Code of Construction does not call for PWHT & ONLY requires Visual examination : Does a plugging of a Carbon Steel Heat Exchanger Tube of size NPS 5 and smaller by Mechanical Repair method will fall under Repair? 3) If Original Code of Construction does not call for PWHT & ONLY requires Visual examination : Does a pluggingof a Carbon Steel Heat Exchanger Tube of size NPS 5 and smaller by Mechanical Repair method will fall under Alteration?
Answers:
1)No
2)No
3)Yes
Background :
Carbon Steel Air cooled Heat Exchanger in service is having leakage thru tubes. (Tube size = 25.4 mm O.D.) In original construction, the Tube to Tubeplate joints are by Expansion only. End User is planning to Plug the leaking Tubes. The plugging will be done by inserting expandable plugs so as no welding will be required for plugging the tubes. Reference points from NBIC 2011: 1)Glossary of Terms : " Mechanical Assembly" & "Mechanical Repair Method" -- (Included since Addenda 08.) 2)Form R-1 - Line 7 : Repair type : Welded, Graphite Pressure Equipment, FRP Pressure Equipment. 3)3.3.2 - Routine Repairs 4)3.3.3 - Example of repairs 5)3.4.3 -Example of alterations 6)Section 6- Repairs and Alterations - Supplements 1 to 7 After referring thru sections as mentioned above in 1 to 6 - I was unable to decide on the answers of the referred questions.
Except reference in Glossary of Terms - The term "Mechanism assembly" and "Mechanical repair method" are not referred anywhere else in Part 3.
The R1 Form does not refer to "Mechanical Repair" i.e. Form R-1 - Line 7 only reads repair types as : Welded, Graphite Pressure Equipment, FRP Pressure Equipment.
And other above mentioned sections does not cover the situation explained at the beginning of this background.
Hope that I have put the query in correct manner.
Request your kind action.
Thanks and regards
Page 36 of 121
Shrinivas Sohani
Velosi LLC
Oman
+968 95607334
Page 37 of 121
Page 38 of 121
Page 39 of 121
Page 40 of 121
Page 41 of 121
Page 42 of 121
Page 43 of 121
Page 44 of 121
Page 45 of 121
Page 46 of 121
Page 47 of 121
Page 48 of 121
Page 49 of 121
Page 50 of 121
Page 51 of 121
Page 52 of 121
Page 53 of 121
Page 54 of 121
Page 55 of 121
Page 56 of 121
Page 57 of 121
Subgroup Locomotives National Board Item No. NB13-1401 Current Level: Subgroup discussion NBIC Part 3 Paragraph(s): S1.2.9 Title: Boiler Tube Seal Welding Date: Opened: Nov. 2007 Background: Committee generated. Proposed Action:
1. Each Flue shall be expanded either partially or completely into the flue sheet hole prior to seal welding. Upon completion of seal welding the flue shall be expanded to the final setting or re-expanded lightly to confirm the seal welding has not loosened it. 2. Changing the method by which flues are installed from prossering and beading to expanding straight and seal welding shall be considered a repair. 3. Changing the method by which flues are expanded from the prosser method to the roller expander method shall be considered a repair. 4. When flues are installed by expanding straight and seal welding, the outer tube edge shall be even with the outer seal weld edge. All sharp edges of the flue and seal weld shall be smoothed and rounded by filing, sanding, or grinding. Care shall be used to prevent tearing or overheating the tube. 5. Flues that show cracks upon completion of the installation process shall be replaced. Repair is prohibited. 6. When flues are beaded, the bead edge shall contact the flue sheet around the entire flue circumference. Repair of a defective or incorrectly formed bead by welding is prohibited.
Voted by Subgroup: Date: Current Statius: Open at Subgroup
Page 58 of 121
Subgroup Locomotives National Board Item No. NB13-1403 Current Level: Subgroup NBIC Part 3 Paragraph(s): At or near S1.2.9.2 Title: Installation of Boiler Tubes & Arch Tubes Date Opened: April 2011 Background: 1. This subject is based on the experiences of Mike Tillger with a boiler repair firm that cut the boiler tubes too short for installation into a locomotive. The boiler repair firm personnel tried to heat the boiler tubes during the installation process in order to lengthen them sufficiently to engage the tube sheet. When Mike questioned them about it they replied, "we do this all the time". Mike forbid it and sent them back to their shop to obtain the correct length tubes. This same problem also occurs in the power boiler industry for firetube and water tube boilers on which the boiler tubes and/or tube panels have been formed incorrectly (wrong the shape) or are cut too short. 2. I encountered a locomotive boiler on which the firebox tube ends were machined to a smaller diameter in order to obtain the required swedge size. The wall thickness reduction of the boiler tube this created was considerable and made the tubes unfit for use. Proposed Action:
1. Boiler tubes and arch tubes shall be cut to or made to the correct length required for installation with all parts at ambient temperature. The use of heating or stretching the tube at installation to obtain the required length is prohibited. Tubes that are cut too short shall be rejected.
2. The ends of boiler tubes and arch tubes may be swedged to the diameter required to fit the tube sheet holes. The swedging shall create smooth surfaces, smooth curves, and a uniform diameter reduction across the entire swedged length. The creation of sharp corners, sharp edges or a partial collapse of tube interior within the swedged section is prohibited. Tubes that are swedged incorrectly shall be rejected.
Swedging shall be performed using dies whenever possible. Machining the tube end to obtain the required swedge diameter is prohibited.
3. Bends in boiler tubes and arch tubes shall be formed to correct shape and curvature required for installation with all parts at ambient temperature. The bending work shall be performed to create smooth surfaces over the entire bend. The creation of sharp corners, sharp edges, or a partial collapse of tube interior within the bend is prohibited.
Page 59 of 121
The use of heating or stretching the tube at installation to obtain the correct bend shape is prohibited. Tubes that are formed to the wrong shape or curvature shall be rejected.
Subgroup voted Date:
Page 60 of 121
Subgroup Locomotives National Board Item No. NB13-1404 Current Level: Subgroup NBIC Part 2 & 3 Paragraph(s): To Be Determined Title: Fillet welded staybolts Date Opened: April 2011 Background:
Fillet welded staybolts A Task group consisting of Griner, Moedinger, Janssen, and Rimmasch Committee thoughts Part 2 – leakage, look at heads, welds Part 3 – Method + NDE, do not allow threaded to be changed to fillet welded.
Proposed Action: Subgroup voted Date:
Page 61 of 121
Subgroup Locomotives National Board Item No. NB13-1405 Current Level: Subgroup NBIC Part 3 Paragraph(s): S1.2.9 Title: Throttle Pipes, Dry Pipes, Superheater Headers & Front End Steam Pipes Date Opened: April 2013 Background: None Provided Proposed Action:
Throttle Pipes, Dry Pipes, Superheater Headers & Front End Steam Pipes 1) Throttle pipes, dry pipes, superheater headers, and front end steam pipes made from cast iron or wrought iron that are cracked or corroded to less than the minimum allowable thickness shall be removed from service. Repair is prohibited. 2) Throttle pipes dry pipes, superheater headers, and front end steam pipes made from steel that are cracked may be repaired. 3) Weld build-up may be used if the corroded section does not exceed 10 square inches in area and the depth of corrosion is less than 50% of the original wall thickness. If the corrosion depth or area exceeds one or both of these values, either the corroded section shall be replaced or the entire component. All welded repairs shall be done in accordance with ASME Section I Part PW. 4) When cracks are repaired or new sections installed the welds shall be the full penetration-type and be radiographically examined. 5) Throttle pipes, dry pipes, superheater headers, and front end steam pipes shall be supported by hangers or other structural means to prevent placing bending loads on the adjacent mating parts and attachment studs. All pins, bolts and nuts used to attach these parts shall be equipped with a mechanical retainer such as a cotter pin or be fitted with double nuts, to prevent loosening.
Page 62 of 121
Subgroup voted Date:
Page 63 of 121
Subgroup Locomotives National Board Item No. NB13-1406 Current Level: Subgroup NBIC Part 3 Paragraph(s): To be determined Title: Superheater Units Date Opened: April 2013 Background: None Provided Proposed Action: 1) Superheater units that are worn to less than the minimum allowable wall thickness shall be removed from service and either repaired or replaced. 2) When cracks are repaired or new sections installed the welds shall be the full penetration-type. 3) Weld build-up may be used if the corroded section does not exceed 10 square inches in area and the corrosion depth does not exceed 50% of the original wall thickness. If the corrosion depth or area exceeds one or both of these values, the corroded section shall be replaced. 4) Superheater units shall align with and attach to the superheater header without having to be forced. 5) Cinder shields and tube supports, and tube bands may be attached to superheater units by welding. These welds do not require inspection. The use of fillet welds to attach these items is acceptable. Subgroup voted Date:
Page 64 of 121
Subgroup Locomotives National Board Item No. NB13-1407 Current Level: Subgroup discussion NBIC Part 3 Paragraph(s): To be determined Title: Bolts, Nuts & Studs Date Opened: April 2013 Background: None provided None Provided Proposed Action: 1) Bolts and studs that are cracked, have damaged threads that cannot be returned to the original dimensions by re-threading, or have corrosion or mechanical damage that has reduced the thickness of any section to less than the thread minor diameter shall be replaced. 2) Nuts that are cracked, have damaged threads that cannot be returned to the original dimensions by rethreading, or have corrosion or mechanical damage that has reduced the body thickness of any section greater than 5% shall be replaced. Subgroup voted Date:
Page 65 of 121
Subgroup Locomotives National Board Item No. NB13-1408 Current Level: Subgroup NBIC Part 3 Paragraph(s): To be Determined
Title: Threaded Boiler Studs - Taper Thread & Straight Thread Types Date Opened: April 2013 Background: None provided None Provided Proposed Action: When threaded boiler studs of the taper and straight thread types are installed into through holes on the boiler, the stud threads shall extend the entire thickness of the plate but not extend more than 1/8" beyond the plate water side surface unless required by the design. Threaded boiler studs of the taper and straight thread types shall create a tight and leak free joint at completion of assembly. Seal welding shall not be used unless this is specified by the original design. Threaded boiler studs of the taper and straight thread types that leak during service shall be repaired by tightening or be replaced. If seal welding is to be performed it is an alteration. Prior to the seal welding taking place the leaking parts shall be inspected to identify the cause of the leak and the condition of the parts. Replacing a taper thread boiler stud with a straight thread boiler stud, or making the opposite replacement, is an alternation. Installing a taper thread or straight thread boiler stud of a larger diameter into the boiler is an alteration if the larger hole diameter reduces the plate hole efficiency to a lower value than the efficiency of the boiler rivet seam. The boiler rivet seam efficiency used for the comparison is the rivet seam having the same orientation (longitudinal or circumferential) as the stud holes. Subgroup voted Date:
Page 66 of 121
PART 3 — REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS 2011 PART 3, SECTION 1 REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS – GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 1.1 SCOPE
***** 1.2 CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR PRESSURE-RETAINING ITEMS
***** Add new paragraph as follows f) For Transport Tanks, the Competent Authority (DOT) shall be consulted for any requirements which it has established since they take precedence for repairs,
1) Transport tanks manufactured prior to the adoption of ASME Section XII by the Competent Authority (DOT) were constructed in accordance with ASME Section VIII. Certain transport tanks manufactured to thehis Code were required to be stamped with the “U” Code Symbol Stamp in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, if the design pressure of the transport tank was 241 kPa (35 psi) (depending on material being transported) and greater. If the design pressure was less than 241 kPa (35 psi) (depending on material being transported), the transport tank was manufactured in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, but not stamped with the “U” Code Symbol Stamp.
2) “U” stamped transport tanks are subject to the requirements of this Part, for
continued inservice repairs, alterations, or modifications, unless exempted by the DOT.
NB13-1501
Page 67 of 121
201 1 1 NATIONAL BOARD INSPECTION CODE
4.5.3 LOCATION
a) The pressure relief device shall be installed directly on the pressure vessel, unless the source of pressure is external to the vessel and is under such positive control that the pressure cannot exceed the maximum overpressure permitted by the original code of construction and the pressure relief device cannot be isolated from the vessel, except as permitted by NBIC Part 1, 4.5.6 e) 2).
b) Pressure relief devices intended for use in compressible fluid service shall be connected to the vessel in the vapor space above any contained liquid or in the piping system connected to the vapor space.
c) Pressure relief devices intended for use in liquid service shall be connected below the normal liquid line.
4.5.4 CAPACITY
a) The pressure relief device(s) shall have sufficient capacity to ensure that the pressure vessel is not exposed to pressure greater than that specified in the original code of construction.
b) If an additional hazard can be created by exposure of a pressure vessel to fire or other unexpected source of external heat, supplemental pressure relief devices shall be installed to provide any additional capacity that should be required.
c) Vessels connected together by a system of piping not containing valves that can isolate any pressure vessel should be considered as one unit when determining capacity requirements.
d) Heat exchangers and similar vessels shall be protected with a pressure relief device of sufficient capacity to avoid overpressure in case of internal failure.
e) When a non-reclosing device is installed between a pressure relief valve and the pressure vessel, the reduction in capacity due to installation of the non-reclosing device shall be determined in accordance with the code of construction by use of a National Board certified Combination Capacity Factor (CCF). For rupture disks, if a certified combination capacity factor is not available, the capacity of the pressure relief valve shall be multiplied by 0.9 and this value used as the capacity of the combination installation.
f) The owner shall document the basis for selection of the pressure relief devices used, including capacity, and have such calculations available for review by the Jurisdiction.
4.5.5 SET PRESSURE
a) When a single pressure relief device is used, the set pressure marked on the device shall not exceed the maximum allowable working pressure.
b) When more than one pressure relief device is provided to obtain the required capacity, only one pressure relief device set pressure needs to be at the maximum allowable working pressure. The set pressures of the additional pressure relief devices shall be such that the pressure cannot exceed the overpressure permitted by the code of construction.
'/2 1 SECTION 4 1 PART 1 - 1I'15TALl..ATI DN
Page 68 of 121
November 4, 2011 To: Jim McGimpsey From: J. F. Ball, Director Pressure Relief Department Subject: Comments on Section XIII “Cleanable Pressure Relief Valves” Proposal In review of the proposal concerning cleanable pressure relief valve I have the following comments.
1. In the “statement of problem” it was commented that the repair of pressure relief valves was being witnessed by an AI. Where this type of work is done for other types of pressure relief valves, there is no AI involvement (since there is no AI involvement in the new construction of the valve). There may be in‐service inspection and testing witnessed by the Inspector as part of their inspections for continuing service, but if the AI is witnessing valve repair it seems that they may be going beyond the activities done for other Code work.
2. A Code change mandating a particular type of construction (the valve with a “limited range of adjustment) is in my opinion, working backwards. Normally manufacturers will offer a solution for industry problems, and then appropriate Code rules would be formulated codifying those proposed solutions.
3. Code changes should not be being written to work around potential regulatory issues. The authority in charge of the vessel should ultimately determine the appropriate levels of certification required for any activity. It appears the main purpose of this proposal is to limit any third party involvement.
4. The appropriate level of third party involvement may be the requirement that organizations performing this work have a National Board VR Certificate of Authorization. This is a program that already exists for certifying pressure relief valve repair companies, which is based in a widely used standard for in‐service work (NBIC as opposed to ASME Code which is primarily for new construction).
5. Mandating that a valve manufacturer “provide detailed instructions to those organizations who repair and maintain CPRV’s” goes beyond the scope of new construction activities (for the valve manufacturer) and is unenforceable.
6. One possible alternative would be to limit this cleaning activity to valves where NO adjustment is possible. There are current PRV manufacturers primarily for sanitary service that have designs where the spring chamber is sealed from the valve seat by a flexible diaphragm. The valves are arranged such that the upper portion of the valve can be removed without disturbing the spring setting, and thus not breaking the valve set pressure seal. The remainder of the valve can then be serviced. I would not have a problem supporting cleaning activities where the valve adjustments are not affected.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this action. File:cleanable prv item comments11‐4‐11.docx
NB13‐1901
Page 69 of 121
S12cleanableprv1of 8/3/11
SECTION XII, CLEANABLE PRESSURE RELIEF VALVES 2011 Statement of Problem: Many 400 series tanks haul materials that clog the pressure relief devices (PRV;s) so they are inoperable after sometimes only one trip. As a result, specially designed minimally adjustable valves are made and installed that are not tagged or inspected by an AI every time they are disassembled for cleaning and reinstalled. The repair facility usually removes the valve, cleans it, installs new parts as needed, resets and tests the valve to verify its function, and reinstalls it. Customarily on other ASME Code tanks, this work is witnessed by an AI and the valve is tagged and certified. For tanks requiring almost continuous cleaning , the AI cost and delay makes the inspection and certification very impractical. Eliminating the cleaning exposes the public to unacceptable danger while outside inspection of the continual cleaning raises the cost of compliance beyond reason. This proposal is an attempt to address the problem in a practical way to achieve safe compliance with safety rules at reasonable cost. Proposed Solution: Create a special category of PRV that is minimally and easily adjustable, in which the manufacturer devises a maintenance procedure that logs in the latest cleaning and maintenance episode and which has been certified by the organization performing the work. The PRV requirements will be in the PRV section and every modal appendix will contain specific limitations on which tanks can have such valves. ASME has dealt with special quick closures, locking devices, etc. by requiring manufacturers to define what is allowed in operating and maintaining their devices and providing instructions as needed. Specific Provisions: Add the following to Section XII, Article TR-210.5: TR-210.5 Requirements for Routinely Cleanable Pressure Relief Valves Certain cargo tanks haul products that foul the operation of PRV devices and must be disassembled and cleaned often. Such valves are referred to as CPRV’s and the provisions of this article apply to them. The following unique provisions apply to CPRV;s:
a) A CPRV shall be a unit , mechanically connected to the cargo tank so it can be tested and set off tank. Its range of adjustment shall be limited to between 75% of maximum range and maximum range.
b) The manufacturer shall provide detailed instructions to those organizations who repair and maintain CPRV’s and requireauthorization of a responsible person or persons to certify the CPRV as functional. The most current certification shall be included in the paperwork accompanying the tank.
c) The general provisions of Part TR apply to CPRV’s. Add the following provisions after Section XII, Modal Appendix 1, Article 1-1.8(a)(4): (5) Cleanable pressure relief valves (CPRV’s) as described in Part TR can be specified where necessary or useful.
NB13-1901 ASME
Page 70 of 121
Page 71 of 121
Page 72 of 121
Page 73 of 121
Page 74 of 121
Page 75 of 121
Page 76 of 121
Page 77 of 121
Page 78 of 121
Jurisdiction Responder Email1. Do you use the I‐1 Form?
2. Do you require the I‐1
Form?
3. Do you use an Alternate Form?
4. If this form was revised would you use it instead?
5. Do you think the I‐1 Form is
more appropriate for the end‐user?
6. Do you think there is
information lacking in the
form?
Comments.
Arkansas Dennis Hannon [email protected] No No Yes No Yes No
New Inspection Report
Illinois Clayton Novak [email protected] No No No No No No
Virginia Edward Hilton [email protected] No No No No Yes No
Delaware John Esch [email protected] No No Yes Comment No
4. Need to see form.
New Hampshire Darrell Mallory [email protected] No
NBIC not accepted yet!
North Dakota Bob Reetz [email protected] No No Yes No No No
Simplify form! Too much info now!
British Columbia Ed Hurd [email protected] No No Yes No
Georgia Ben Crawford [email protected] No No CSD‐1 Yes
City of Los Angeles Cirilo Reyes [email protected] No
NBIC not required! State of CA
NBIC Form I ‐ 1 ‐ Jurisdiction Query NB11‐0802 Part 1, 1.4.5 SG on Boilers
Page 79 of 121
August 21, 2012 Mr. Umberto D’Urso ASME Three Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Subject: NB11‐2001 Economizers – ASME Request for Interpretation Mr. D’Urso,
I am on the NBIC Sub‐Group for Pressure Vessels & Piping and Sub‐Committee for Installations. We have a request for change of current language in Part 1, 2.9.4 – Economizers. See attached copy of current language and proposed language. In order to be consistent and compliant with ASME it was brought to our attention that this might conflict with ASME. So I have the following requests for interpretation. Question: Does PG71.2 apply to the mounting of a safety relief valve for an economizer? Answer: No Question: Does Figure 58.3.1(b) dictate that the safety relief valve for an economizer be located
at its outlet? Answer: No Your prompt reply will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the above interpretation please contact me at (510) 670‐7422 or by email at [email protected]. Sincerely yours,
Donald Patten Donald Patten Director of Project Management and Technical Support
Page 80 of 121
Page 81 of 121
Page 82 of 121
Page 83 of 121
Page 84 of 121
R�Sept�6,�2012�
NB08�0701�
S7.9�REQUIREMENTS�FOR�CHANGE�OF�SERVICE�FROM�ABOVEGROUND�TO�UNDERGROUND�SERVICE���
ASME�LPG�storage�vessels�may�be�altered�from�aboveground�(AG)�service�to�underground�(UG)�service�subject�to�the�following�conditions.�
1. Vessels�that�have�been�previously�used�in�anhydrous�ammonia�service�are�not�permitted�to�be���������converted�to�LPG�service.�
2.�The�outside�surface�of�the�vessel�shall�be�cleaned�to�bare�metal�for�an�external�inspection�of�the�vessel��������under�the�guidelines�of�this�Supplement.�Prior�to�placing�underground,�the�outside�surface�of�the�vessel��������shall�be�prepared�consistent�with�the�paint�manufactures�specification�and�coated�with�a�coating�suitable���������for�UG�service.��Any�touch�up�coating�shall�the�same�coating�material.�All�corrosion�shall�be�repaired�in��������accordance�with�the�NBIC.���3.���Verify�that�here�is�no�internal�corrosion�due�to�valves�having�been�removed�while�the�container�was�out��
��������������of�service.���������4.����Any�unused�connections�located�on�the�vessel�shall�be�closed�by�seal�welding�around�a�forged����������������plug�or�moved�using�a�flush�patch.�If�a�flush�patch�is�used�the�material�shall�be�the�same�material�thickness������������������and�material�grade�as�the�original�code�of�construction.�������������5.����All�connections�on�top�of�the�vessel,�except�for�the�liquid�withdrawal�opening,�shall�be�replaced�with�a����������������riser�pipe�with�multi�valve�suitable�for�UG�LPG�service.�The�valve�shall�be�enclosed�in�a�����������������protective�housing�and�placed�underground�in�accordance�with�jurisdictional�requirements.���������6.���The�liquid�withdrawal�opening�shall�be�located�within�the�protective�housing.���������7.��The�liquid�level�tube�in�the�multivalve�shall�be�the�length�required�according�to�jurisdictional�requirements.���������8.���The�NBIC�nameplate�shall�be�made�of�stainless�steel�and�continuous�welded�to�the�vessel�wall.�����������������The�nameplate�shall�also�have�the�information�from�the�original�nameplate.�This�shall�include�the�����������������manufactures�name,�container�serial�number,�National�Board�number,�if�registered�with�the�NBIC,�MAWP,����������������year�built,�head�and�shell�thickness�be�stamped�for�“UG�service”,�the�“liquid�level�tube�length=�____����������������inches”�and�the�National�Board�“R”�stamp.�The�original�manufactures�nameplate�shall�remain�attached�to�������������������the�vessel.�See�Part�2�5.2,�Part�3�5.7�for�additional�stamping�requirements.����������������9.���The�support�legs�and�lifting�lugs�may�remain�in�place�and�shall�be�welded�around�the�entire�periphery�to����������������prevent�crevices��that�create�a�potential�area�for�corrosion.�Unused�attachments�shall�be�removed�and���������������welds�ground�flush.��������������10.��A�connection�shall�be�added�for�the�attachment�of�an�anode�for�cathodic�protection.��������11.�All�welding�shall�be�performed�by�a�qualified�”R”�stamp�holder�using�a�qualified�welding�procedure.����������������
Page 85 of 121
Page 86 of 121
Page 87 of 121
Page 88 of 121
Page 89 of 121
Page 90 of 121
Page 91 of 121
Page 92 of 121
Page 93 of 121
Page 94 of 121
Page 95 of 121
Action Item Request Form
8.3 CODE REVISIONS OR ADDITIONS
Request for Code revisions or additions shall provide the following:
a) Proposed Revisions or Additions
For revisions, identify the rules of the Code that require revision and submit a copy of the appropriate rules as they appear in the Code, marked up with the proposed revision. For additions, provide the recommended wording referenced to the existing Code rules.
Existing Text:
b) Statement of Need
Provide a brief explanation of the need for the revision or addition.
Part 2 Supplement 2 Historical Boilers S2.14 Safety Procedures
Add language to address the safety concerns when using liquid or gaseous fuels to fire a historical boiler.
Examples of safety concerns would be: What to do in a low water condition? How is the boiler lit off? How to prevent a flareback? Where should the operator be positioned when lighting off the boiler?
NB13‐0903
Page 96 of 121
c) Background Information
Provide background information to support the revision or addition, including any data or changes in technology that form the basis for the request that will allow the Committee to adequately evaluate the proposed revision or addition. Sketches, tables, figures, and graphs should be submitted as appropriate.
When applicable, identify any pertinent paragraph in the Code that would be affected by the revision or addition and identify paragraphs in the Code that reference the paragraphs that are to be revised or added.
Current NBIC code does not address the use of liquid and gaseous fuels to fire historical boilers. A number of boilers use diesel, propane, compressed natural gas as the heat source for the boilers and these fuels behave differently than the typical solid fuels (coal, wood, etc) used to fire the boilers. There are potential safety concerns that could affect the safe operation of these historical boilers.
Page 97 of 121
PART 2 — INSPECTION 2011 PART 2, SECTION 2 INSPECTION – DETAILED REQUIREMENTS FOR INSERVICE INSPECTION OF PRESSURE-RETAINING ITEMS 2.3 PRESSURE VESSELS
2.3.1 SCOPE
***** 2.3.6 DESCRIPTION AND CONCERNS OF SPECIFIC TYPES OF PRESSURE
VESSELS
***** Add new paragraph as follows 2.3.6.6 For Transport Tanks, the Competent Authority (DOT) shall be consulted for any requirements which it has established since they take precedence. a) Transport tanks manufactured prior to the adoption of ASME Section XII by the
Competent Authority (DOT) were constructed in accordance with ASME Section VIII, Division 1. Certain transport tanks manufactured to thehis Code were required to be stamped with the “U” Code Symbol Stamp in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, if the design pressure of the transport tank was 241 kPa (35 psi) (depending on material being transported) and greater. If the design pressure was less than 241 kPa (35 psi) (depending on material being transported), the transport tank was manufactured in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1, but not stamped with the “U” Code Symbol Stamp.
b) “U” stamped transport tanks are subject to the requirements of this Part, for
continued inservice inspection of repairs, alterations, or modifications, unless exempted by the DOT.
Page 98 of 121
National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors
National Board Inspection Code
Submission of Public Review Comment 2013 Draft Edition
Comments Must be Received No Later Than: December 17, 2012 Instructions: If unable to submit electronically, please print this form and fax or mail. Print or type clearly. Date: Commenter Name: Commenter Address: Commenter Phone: Commenter Fax: Commenter Email: Section/Subsection Referenced:
Comment/Recommendation: Proposed Solution: □ New Text □ Revise Text □ Delete Text
Source: □ Own Experience/Idea □ Other Source/Article/Code/Standard Submit Form To: Robin Hough, Secretary, NBIC Committee, The National Board of Boiler & Pressure Vessel Inspectors, 1055 Crupper Avenue, Columbus, OH 43229, fax 614-847-1828, email, [email protected]
PLEASE SUBMIT ONLY ONE COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION PER PAGE Make additional copies as needed
NB Use Only
Commenter No. Issued: Committee Referred To:
Comment No. Issued:
Page 99 of 121
National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors
National Board Inspection Code
Submission of Public Review Comment 2013 Draft Edition
Comments Must be Received No Later Than: December 17, 2012 Instructions: If unable to submit electronically, please print this form and fax or mail. Print or type clearly. Date: Commenter Name: Commenter Address: Commenter Phone: Commenter Fax: Commenter Email: Section/Subsection Referenced:
Comment/Recommendation: Proposed Solution: □ New Text □ Revise Text □ Delete Text
Source: □ Own Experience/Idea □ Other Source/Article/Code/Standard Submit Form To: Robin Hough, Secretary, NBIC Committee, The National Board of Boiler & Pressure Vessel Inspectors, 1055 Crupper Avenue, Columbus, OH 43229, fax 614-847-1828, email, [email protected]
PLEASE SUBMIT ONLY ONE COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION PER PAGE Make additional copies as needed
NB Use Only
Commenter No. Issued: Committee Referred To:
Comment No. Issued:
Page 100 of 121
National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors
National Board Inspection Code
Submission of Public Review Comment 2013 Draft Edition
Comments Must be Received No Later Than: December 17, 2012 Instructions: If unable to submit electronically, please print this form and fax or mail. Print or type clearly. Date: Commenter Name: Commenter Address: Commenter Phone: Commenter Fax: Commenter Email: Section/Subsection Referenced:
Comment/Recommendation: Proposed Solution: □ New Text □ Revise Text □ Delete Text
Source: □ Own Experience/Idea □ Other Source/Article/Code/Standard Submit Form To: Robin Hough, Secretary, NBIC Committee, The National Board of Boiler & Pressure Vessel Inspectors, 1055 Crupper Avenue, Columbus, OH 43229, fax 614-847-1828, email, [email protected]
PLEASE SUBMIT ONLY ONE COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION PER PAGE Make additional copies as needed
NB Use Only
Commenter No. Issued: Committee Referred To:
Comment No. Issued:
Page 101 of 121
Page 102 of 121
Page 103 of 121
Subgroup Locomotives National Board Item No. NB13-1402 Current Level: Transmit to Sub-committee NBIC Part 2 Paragraph(s): S1.4.2.8.i Title: Bulged Stayed Firebox Sheets Date Opened: April 2011 Background: The purpose of these rules/limits are to provide guidance to the locomotive owners/operators and the National Board Inspectors. A task group with Stone and Reetz were assigned to this item. Proposed Action: S1.4.2.8.1 Bulged Stayed Sheets
a) The maximum depth of the bulged section of the firebox sheet shall not exceed the firebox sheet thickness. The bulged section depth is defined as the protrusion of the firebox sheet beyond its original position. Where sheets are bulged more than ¼” within one staybolt pitch, the thickness of the plate shall be verified. If the thickness is less than required the sheet shall be replaced. If the thickness of the sheet is adequate for the pressure, it shall be ensured that there is complete thread engagement between the staybolts and the sheet in the bulged area. If any deficiency is found in the thread engagement that impedes the holding power of the staybolt to a level below what is required for the operating pressure, the defective area shall be repaired or replaced. b) If the maximum depth of the bulge exceeds the firebox sheet thickness, the bulged section of the firebox sheet shall be replaced. All staybolts within and/or contacting the bulged firebox sheet section shall be replaced. The adjacent sections of the firebox sheet shall be inspected to determine the cause of the bulge such as scale or mud accumulation prior to completing the repair. c) If the bulged firebox sheet will remain in service, the conditions that caused the bulge shall be identified and corrected prior to placing the boiler back into operation. d) If the bulged firebox sheet will remain in service the bulged sheet section and the sheet sections adjacent to the bulge shall be inspected for cracking and thinning (wastage) by use of NDE in order to confirm their suitability for service prior to placing the boiler back into operation.
Subgroup voted to accept the proposed text Date: 3 April 2013
Page 104 of 121
Subgroup Locomotives National Board Item No. NB13-1404 Current Level: Subgroup NBIC Part 2 & 3 Paragraph(s): To Be Determined Title: Fillet welded staybolts Date Opened: April 2011 Background:
Fillet welded staybolts A Task group consisting of Griner, Moedinger, Janssen, and Rimmasch Committee thoughts Part 2 – leakage, look at heads, welds Part 3 – Method + NDE, do not allow threaded to be changed to fillet welded.
Proposed Action: Subgroup voted Date:
Page 105 of 121
Subgroup Locomotives National Board Item No. NB13-1409 Current Level: Subgroup New Business NBIC Part 2 Paragraph(s): To be determined Title: Method for Analyzing Bulges Created by Overheating In Stayed Boiler Surfaces Date Opened: April 16,2013 This item is submitted by Richard Stone As you know, my "Calculation Method For Analyzing Bulges In Stayed Firebox Sheets" has been used by the historic boiler and locomotive boiler groups to set limits for the allowable bulge depth on the stayed firebox sheets of their particular boiler types. I suggest the National Board incorporate my method's principle calculations into the "Inspection Section" of the NBIC as a way to assist National board inspectors and repair firms with the evaluation of bulges caused by the overheating of the stayed boiler surfaces of other boiler types. My method would be useful for analyzing bulges caused by overheating on the stayed surfaces of boilers made by manufacturers that are now out of business since the engineering resources of these firms would not be available for consultation. The benefits of my method and calculations for analyzing bulges caused by overheating on the stayed surfaces are : 1) It provides a simple way to determine the normal deflection (bulge depth) of the stayed surface during normal operation in order to compare it to the as-found bulged condition. 2) It provides a simple and fast way to determine the extent of the weakening that occurred to produce the as -found bulged condition. 3) It provides a simple and fast method to determine the temperature that the overheated stayed surface was heated to as the bulge formed. This in turn will serve to aid boiler owners and operators to understand the seriousness of the bulging event. I've included additional information about how a National Board inspector would perform their inspection and use my calculations within my report. It is listed in the Section "Recommended Use Of This Inspection Method By The NBIC Inspector. I've attached a copy of my report, the illustrations and the reference documents at the bottom of this e-mail.
Page 106 of 121
Background: Bulging of the firebox sheet between the staybolt rows while the staybolts and staybolt heads remain in satisfactory condition is a serious condition. If the bulging action continues, it can result either in the firebox sheet rupturing or pulling completely off of numerous staybolts. Bulging usually is caused by the firebox sheet becoming overheated as result of the inability of the sheet to transfer the combustion heat rapidly into the water. The common causes for the loss of heat transfer and overheating are:
Scale buildup on sheet waterside.
Poor heat transfer caused by problems with water chemistry.
Excessive heat on the sheet fireside caused by over-firing.
Loss of water circulation on sheet waterside. This can result from conditions such as foaming of the boiler water or an obstruction on the waterside that reduces the rate of water circulation over the sheet.
Operation with insufficient water to cover the waterside surface of the sheet.
The bulging stops when the firebox sheet becomes cool after water circulation resumes over it. The resumption of the water circulation and cooling likely are the result of the following:
The obstruction or scale breaks off the firebox sheet waterside.
The foam bubbles become dissipated by the change in the water circulation pattern that the firebox sheet bulge creates.
The firing rate is reduced.
Page 107 of 121
Proposed Action: RECOMMENDED USE OF THIS INSPECTION METHOD BY THE NBIC INSPECTOR 1. National Board inspectors can use my two formulas when inspecting and evaluating bulges
on stayed firebox sheets of historic and locomotive boilers. The formulas and terms are explained in detail in the section “Analysis Method. The calculations for results listed in Table #1 are in the section “Calculations for Table #1”. In addition, see Figures #1 & #2.
2. The primary formula is:
def = maximum bulging (deflection) of firebox sheet = 5 x W x p3 384 x E x I
(Ref: Machinery’s Handbook, 20th edition, 1978, Industrial Press, Page 412) This is the formula for calculating the deflection of a simply supported beam under uniform load. The deflection is calculated at the center of the beam and is the maximum value. The beam formula equates the bulge (the deflection of the firebox sheet) to the reduction to the modulus of elasticity of the firebox sheet material that the overheating causes. The modulus of elasticity, which is the ratio between unit stress to unit strain within the proportional limit of the firebox steel, is dependent on the firebox sheet temperature and becomes lower as the firebox sheet temperature increases. Therefore, by using the reduction of the modulus of elasticity as the primary variable for the calculation, the temperature that the firebox sheet was overheated to during the bulging event can be estimated. In addition, this method does not require the staybolt diameter be included in the calculations. Although for some configuration including the staybolt diameter would shorten the beam length and strengthen the beam, the staybolts are ignored to be both conservative and to simplify the work.
The terms and symbols used in the formula are:
I = calculated moment of inertia of the beam for deflection at its outermost face. For the
bulged firebox plate the beam width (b) represents a 1 in. (25 mm) wide section of the bulged firebox section. The beam thickness (d) equals the firebox plate thickness (t). The beam length (b) equals the staybolt pitch (p).
For reference the beam cross sectional area equals the 1 in. (25 mm) beam width (b) times the firebox plate thickness (t).
Page 108 of 121
The beam moment of inertia “I” is calculated by the following formula: I = b x d3 = b x t3
3 3 (Ref: Machinery’s Handbook, 20th edition, 1978, Industrial Press, Page 379)
b = 1 in. (25 mm) width of the firebox sheet at the bulged section. This represents the beam width.
t = thickness of bulged firebox sheet. This represents the beam depth “d”.
p = longitudinal or vertical pitch of staybolts at the bulged firebox section MAWP = maximum allowable boiler pressure
W = total load on the 1 in. (25 mm) wide pitch length of the firebox sheet = MAWP x p x 1
in.
E = modulus of elasticity of the firebox steel at ambient temperature and normal operating temperature = 29,000,000 psi (199950 MPa). (Ref: Machinery’s Handbook, 20th edition, 1978, Industrial Press, Page 452 – see the value for common structural carbon steel)
Ex/x” = the reduced value of the modulus of elasticity of the firebox steel needed to obtain the
bulge depth found on the firebox sheet. Bulge Depth = the bulge depth found on the firebox sheet.
3. The inspection method I recommend the NBIC inspector use when evaluating a bulged
condition on a stay bolted firebox sheet is:
A. First determine the normal bulge depth (deflection) of the firebox sheet during its normal operating condition at MAWP and normal operating temperature. For this method the normal (standard) value of the modulus of elasticity of the firebox steel is used.
B. Then determine the reduction of the modulus of elasticity of the standard firebox steel that would be required to obtain the as-found bulged condition on the firebox sheet.
For this second calculation the following terms are used:
Ex/x” = the reduced value of the modulus of elasticity of the firebox steel needed to obtain
the bulge depth found on the firebox sheet.
Bulge Depth = the bulge depth found on the firebox sheet.
Page 109 of 121
The first formula then is re-written to solve for the Ex/x” : Ex/x” = 5 x W x p3 .
384 x Bulge Depth x I NOTE:
Should it be necessary to determine bulge depth (deflection) of the firebox sheet at the first transition temperature of the firebox steel [approximately 1100° F (593°C)], a lower value of the modulus of elasticity of the standard firebox steel (E1) must be used in the first formula. The strength reduction to the modulus of elasticity of the firebox steel at the first transition temperature is 28% of the standard E value. (Ref: Machinery’s Handbook, 20th edition, 1978, Industrial Press, Page 454 “Table For Influence Of Temperature On The Strength Of Metals”). Therefore E1 = 28% x 29,000,000 = 8,120,000 psi (55985 MPa)
ANALYSIS METHOD Reference: Machinery’s Handbook, 20th edition, 1978, Industrial Press, Pages 358, 379, 412, 452 & 454 1. The bulged section of the firebox sheet is analyzed as a simply supported beam that is
uniformly loaded by the boiler pressure. Each end of the beam is assumed to be supported by the staybolt located at each end of it.
2. The beam width (b) is taken as a 1 in. (25 mm) wide section of the firebox sheet. The beam length (p) is the horizontal or vertical pitch distance of the staybolt pattern (the centerline distance of the two staybolts at the bulge location on the firebox sheet). The choice between the use of the horizontal or vertical pitch distance is dependent on the orientation of the bulge.
For reference the beam cross sectional area is a rectangle and equals the 1” beam width (b) times the firebox plate thickness (t).
3. The bending load on the beam (the bulged plate section) equals the staybolt pitch length (p)
times the boiler pressure (MWAP). To obtain the maximum bending stress for this analysis the concentrated bending load is assumed to be positioned at the beam centerline. This places it in the center (middle) of the staybolt pitch length.
Page 110 of 121
4. The deflection of the beam (the bulged plate section) is calculated at its fireside surface. Therefore the reference location for the extreme fiber section of the beam is taken at the firebox plate’s fireside surface.
5. The staybolt diameter is not needed for this analysis method. Although including the staybolts would shorten the beam length and strengthen the beam, to be conservative the staybolts are ignored.
6. The variable for the beam calculation is the modulus of elasticity of the firebox steel. The modulus of elasticity, which is the ratio between unit stress to unit strain within the proportional limit of the firebox steel, is dependent on the firebox sheet temperature and becomes lower as the sheet temperature increases. This enables the bulging and weakening of the firebox steel by the overheating to be calculated by using the reduction of the modulus of elasticity as the primary variable for the calculation.
7. The primary formula is:
def = maximum bulging (deflection) of firebox sheet = 5 x W x p3 384 x E x I
This is the formula for calculating the deflection of a simply supported beam under uniform load. The deflection is calculated at the center of the beam and is the maximum value.
The beam moment of inertia “I” for deflection at its outer face is calculated by the following formula:
I = b x d3 = b x t3
3 3
b = 1 in. (25 mm) width of the firebox sheet at the bulged section. This represents the beam width.
t = thickness of bulged firebox sheet. This represents the beam depth “d” p = longitudinal or vertical pitch of staybolts at the bulged firebox section MAWP = maximum allowable boiler pressure W = total load on the pitch length of the firebox sheet = MAWP x p x 1 in. (25 mm) width
E = modulus of elasticity of the firebox steel at ambient temperature and normal operating
temperature = 29,000,000 psi (199950 MPa). (Ref: Machinery’s Handbook, 20th edition, 1978, Industrial Press, Page 452 -see the value for common structural carbon steel)
E1 = modulus of elasticity of the firebox steel at the first transition temperature
[approximately 1100° F (593°C)] and is 28% of the standard E value. (Ref: Machinery’s
Page 111 of 121
Handbook, 20th edition, 1978, Industrial Press, Page 454 “Table For Influence Of Temperature On The Strength Of Metals”).
Therefore E1 = 28% x 29,000,000 = 8,120,000 psi (55985 MPa)
Ex/x” = the reduced value of the modulus of elasticity of the firebox steel needed to obtain the
deflection (bulge depth) listed in the example.
EXAMPLE:CALCULATIONSFORTABLE#1 Analysisofa3/8in.(10mm)thicksteelfireboxsheetwitha4in.(100mm)stayboltpitchoperatingat200psi(1.5MPa).b=1in.(25mm)widthofthefireboxsheetatthebulgedsection.Thisrepresentsthebeamwidth.t=thicknessofbulgedfireboxsheet.Thisrepresentsthebeamdepth“d”=3/8=.375in.(10mm)p=longitudinalpitchofstayboltsatthebulgedfireboxsection=4in.(100mm)MAWP=maximumallowableboilerpressure=200psi(1.5MPa)W=totalloadonthepitchlengthofthefireboxsheet=MAWPxpx1=200x4x1”=800lb(362kg)
E=modulusofelasticityofthefireboxsteelatambienttemperatureandnormal
operatingtemperature=29,000,000psi(199950 MPa)E1=modulusofelasticityofthefireboxsteelatthefirsttransitiontemperature
(approximately1100°F)=28%x29,000,000=8,120,000psi.(55985MPa)E2=modulusofelasticityofthefireboxsteelatthesecondtransitiontemperature
(approximately1500°F)=10%x29,000,000=2,900,000psi.(19995MPa)Ex/x”=thereducedvalueofthemodulusofelasticityneededtoobtainthebulge
deflectionvaluelistedintheexample.I=momentofinertiaofthe1 in. (25 mm) widefireboxplatesectionthatrepresentsthebeam=bxd3=bxt3=1x(.375)3=.0176in4(7316mm^4)
3 3 3
Page 112 of 121
def=maximumdeflectionatcenterofbulge=5xWxp3 384xExIDeflectionAtMAWP&NormalOperatingTemperatureE=29,000,000psi(199950 MPa)=5xWxp3384xExI
5x800lbx(4)3=.001306in.(1.30mm)384x29,000,000x.0176
DeflectionAt1stTransitionTemperatureE1=.28xE=.28x29,000,000=8,120,000psi(55985MPa)5xWxp3384xE1xI
5x800x(4)3=.00466in.(0.118mm)384x8,120,000x.0176
DeflectionAt2ndTransitionTemperatureE2=.10xE=.10x29,000,000=2,900,000psi(19995MPa)5xWxp3384xE2xI
5x800x(4)3=.013in.(0.33mm)384x2,900,000x.0176
Page 113 of 121
ModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain1/16in.(1.5mm)Deflectiondef=1/16=.0625in.(1.5mm)E1/16”=5xWxp3384xdefxI
5x800x(4)3=606,060psi(164718MPa)384x.0625x.0176ModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain1/8in.(3mm)Deflectiondef=1/8=.125in.(3mm)E1/8”=5xWxp3384xdefxI
5x800x(4)3=303,030psi(82360MPa)384x.125x.0176ModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain¼in.(6mm)Deflectiondef=1/4=.250in.(6mm)E1/4”=5xWxp3384xdefxI
5x800x(4)3=151,515psi(1046MPa)384x.250x.0176
Page 114 of 121
ModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain3/8in.(10mm)Deflectiondef=3/8=.375in.(10mm)E3/8”=5xWxp3384xdefxI
5x800x(4)3=101,010psi(697MPa)384x.375x.0176PercentageReductionofModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain.00466in.(0.113mm)DeflectionofFireboxSheetAt1stTransitionTemperature29,000,000‐8,120,000x100=72%
29,000,000PercentageReductionofModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain.013in.0.33mm)(DeflectionofFireboxSheetAt2ndTransitionTemperature29,000,000‐2,900,000x100=90%
29,000,000PercentageReductionofModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain1/16in.(1.5mm)DeflectionofFireboxSheet29,000,000‐606 ,x100=97.9%
29,000,000PercentageReductionofModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain1/8in.(3mm)DeflectionofFireboxSheet29,000,000‐303,030x100=98.95%
29,000,000PercentageReductionofModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain¼in.(6mm)DeflectionofFireboxSheet29,000,000‐151,515x100=99.47%
29,000,000
Page 115 of 121
PercentageReductionofModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain3/8in.(10mm)DeflectionofFireboxSheet29,000,000‐101,010x100=99.7%
29,000,000
Page 116 of 121
Page 117 of 121
Subgroupvoted Date:Note:UseASMESectionIIPartDTableTM‐1todetermineModuliofElasticityattemperature.Tablesfollow:
Page 118 of 121
Page 119 of 121
Page 120 of 121
NBIC Item NB13-1701
PROPOSED ALL NEW TEXT and NEW ADDITION to PART 2 2.3.6.6 INSPECTION OF WIRE WOUND PRESSURE VESSELS (a) This section describes guidelines for inspection of wire wound pressure vessels. Typically, wire wound pressure vessels are designed to allow for internal pressure to reach 80,000 psig with newer vessels having been
designed and fabricated to ASME Section VIII, Div 3. However, there are other wire wound pressure vessels which have been fabricated prior to ASME Section VIII, Div 3 publication and have been installed as state specials. The scope of inspection should include components affected by repeated opening and closing, such as the frame, yolk and cylinder inner diameter surface, or alignment of the yolk with the cylinder, lack of maintenance and a check for inoperable or bypassed safety and warning devices.
(b) Wire wound pressure vessels are a unique design where the containment or enclosure for handling internal pressure is a thin walled, high strength steel cylinder or stainless steel cylinder that is externally wrapped with multiple layers of high strength steel wire. The purpose for this design is to minimize weight of the containment cylinder using thinner wall materials and using external wound wire to induce a compressive preload. This design also provides increased resistance to damage from fatigue loading. (c) Inspection of the wire wound vessels shall consist of the following; (1) Review of the materials of construction to determine if the cylinder and
heads are stainless steel or high strength steel for purposes of deciding on an appropriate surface examination method using either liquid penetrant or wet fluorescent magnetic particle test methods.
(2) Review of past operating history to compare current operating cycles with number of design cycles regarding fatigue life. (3) Review of original manufacturer inspection recommendations for the frame, yolk, cylinder and heads. Inspection frequency is
based on either number of operating cycles or time (2 year or 5 year intervals) with specific inspection locations. Because the high strength wire is not accessible, gage marks for elongation values based on a pre-established wire tension from wire wrapping is provided. Some manufacturers use punch marks with calibrated gages to compare changes in elongation. Measurement of the cylinder inner diameter is obtained using a template or micrometer.
Page 121 of 121
