Sie sind auf Seite 1von 37


qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 323


Owen Hedden

26.1 INTRODUCTION systems of nuclear power plants would be needed. The regulatory
division of the AEC began to develop criteria to address this con-
This chapter provides a chronological overview of the develop- cern, and in late 1967 a joint AECindustry Code development
ment of Section XI, The Rules for Inservice Inspection of program began under the auspices of the American National
Nuclear Power Plant Components, from its 1968 inception to the Standards Institute (ANSI) N-45 Committee. A draft Code was
1998 edition. It traces the development, edition-by-edition, of published by the ASME in October 1968, the joint committee was
important Code elements including the philosophy behind many accepted in 1971 as a Subgroup of the Subcommittee on Nuclear
of the revisions. Emphasis is placed on the 1989 through 1998 Power (Section III) of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
editions because they apply to a majority of nuclear plants in the Committee, and Section XI of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
United States and in other countries. Through an extensive tabula- was published in 1970.
tion of Code Interpretations, this chapter also attempts to give the Section XI, comprising only 24 pages in 1970, is now over 700
Code user some insights into clarification of many Section XI pages long. While it originally covered only lightwater reactor
requirements. Further insight into the philosophy and technical Class 1 components and piping, it now includes Class 2 and Class 3
basis behind Section XI may be gained from review of papers systems, metal and concrete containment, and liquid metalcooled
cited in the Bibliography of this chapter. reactor plants. Rules have also been developed for gas-cooled and
Subsequent chapters of this book address the major areas of low-pressure heavy-water reactor plants, but work on them has
Section XI, including inservice inspection (ISI) examination and test been suspended since Code users are no longer interested in these
programs, repairs and replacements, acceptance and evaluation crite- types of plants.
ria, containment programs, and fatigue crack growth. Nondestructive
examination is addressed in this chapter as its requirements evolve. 26.1.2 Inservice Inspection Philosophy
The Second Edition introduces changes and updates in several The following paragraph, which appears in the Foreword to the
sections, and adds new material in: Review and Comment editions of Divisions 2 and 3, 1978, pre-
sents a more general view than that given in 1970 for Division 1.
26.2.7 1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda only
26.2.8 2001 Edition through its 2003 Addenda The object of inservice inspection of components in nuclear
26.2.9 Current Developments power plants is to provide a continuing assurance that they are
26.3 Carryover Issues safe. To provide this assurance for those components that are
26.5.6 Acceptance Standards for Steam Generator Tubing subject to the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure
26.9 Appendix A: Code Cases Vessel Code, a set of rules has been formulated to provide assur-
26.10 Appendix B: Interpretations ance that the functional requirements of the components are
available when required. The rules have been arranged to pro-
26.1.1 Origin vide appropriate levels of assurance according to the importance
The original concept used by nuclear power plant designers of the component in its relationship to plant safety. The classifi-
was that the higher standards adopted for design and fabrication cations that are established during design and manufacturing
would allow the passive components (i.e., vessels, heat exchang- have been adopted to provide the levels of importance for the
ers, and piping) to operate for their intended design life without components. The types of components typically found in the
inordinate attention. While it was recognized that the maintenance various classifications have then been identified and rules for-
or replacement of active components (i.e., pumps, valves, control mulated for each type. For each type of component in each clas-
rod drives, and heaters) would be necessary, little attention was sification, the functions have been considered and methods of
given to provisions for inspection access, and the need for inser- inspecting, testing, or monitoring each component is specified.
vice inspection was not considered. However, by 1966 the Atomic These rules include methods of determining the limits of accep-
Energy Commission (the AEC; now called the Nuclear Regulatory tance of the results. Should it be necessary to take corrective
Commission, or NRC) recognized that a planned program of peri- action to repair various components, rules have been provided
odic inspections of the pressure-containing components and piping to establish acceptable methods of repair or replacement.
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 324

324 Chapter 26

The basis on which the rules were developed is the assumption of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, as well as references to
that a component, as constructed, is acceptable; however, to estab- other standards and specifications.
lish a record of its condition for later comparison, a preopera- Each division also contains Mandatory and Nonmandatory
tional (baseline) examination is required. Subsequent examina- Appendices. Each Mandatory Appendix contains requirements
tions are compared to this preoperational examination to and is designated by a Roman numeral, whereas a Nonmandatory
determine if there has been a change. Appendix provides information or guidance for the use of Section XI
The philosophy includes the consideration that similar compo- and is designated by a capital letter.
nents, which are subjected to essentially identical service condi-
tions, will behave in a similar manner. For this reason, representa- 26.1.4 Terminology
tive sampling, which is rotated through the similar components, is One of the keys to understanding the ASME Code is to
used to ensure that all components are safe. The percentage of understand that many common terms have specific defined
similar components or portions of components examined and the meanings unique to the Code. The engineer attempting to use
frequency of examination are adjusted in accordance with the the Code for the first time must learn a new language. Section XI
classification established by the Owner. lists many such terms in its Glossary, Article IWA-9000. For
The purpose of the rules is to provide a uniform standard to instance:
which all nuclear power plants are subjected. By providing such a
standard, important areas are not overlooked and unimportant Ownerthe organization legally responsible for the opera-
areas are not given unnecessary attention. tion, maintenance, safety, and power generation of a nuclear
power plant.
26.1.3 Layout of Section XI
Even though the arrangement of each Section of the ASME This was revised in the 1995 Addenda:
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code uses the same nomenclature,
such as in the terms Division and Article, the organization of each Ownerthe organization legally responsible for the construc-
Section is unique. To use a Section efficiently, it helps for one to tion and/or operation of a nuclear facility including but not
know its arrangement. The reader is urged to review ORGANI- limited to one who has applied for, or who has been granted,
ZATION OF SECTION XI, in the Section XI front matter. It a construction permit or operating license by the regulatory
includes, in addition to the layout shown below, useful informa- authority having lawful jurisdiction.
tion regarding other documents referenced in the Code, such as
American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT) SNT-TC- Others:
1A, and the Code of Federal Regulations. Section XI follows the
format of Section III, with the content of Subsections and Authorized Nuclear Inservice Inspectora person who is
Articles following Section III as closely as was practical. While employed and has been qualified by an Authorized Inspection
Section XI has Divisions 1, 2, and 3 for light-watercooled, gas- Agency to verify that examinations, tests, and repair/replace-
cooled, and liquid metalcooled reactor systems, only Division 1, ment activities (that do not include welding or brazing) are
which comprises the following subsections, is now in general use. performed in accordance with the rules and requirements of
this Section.
IWA, General Requirements Inspectoran Authorized Nuclear Inservice Inspector, except
IWB, Class 1 Components for those instances where so designated as an Authorized
IWC, Class 2 Components Nuclear Inspector.
IWD, Class 3 Components Inspectionverification of the performance of examinations
IWE, Class MC and CC Components and tests by an Inspector.
IWF, Class 1, 2, 3, and MC Component Supports
IWG, Core Internal Structures Enforcement authority and regulatory authority are also defined
IWL, Class CC Concrete Components terms. In brief, enforcement refers to State and regulatory refers
IWP, Pumps to Federal.
IWV, Valves Three terms that relate to components are:
Each of these subsections is divided into the following articles, itema material, part, appurtenance, piping subassembly,
all of which are numbered in units of 1000: component, or component support.
1000, Scope and Responsibility componentan item in a nuclear power plant such as a ves-
2000, Examination and Inspection sel, pump, valve, or piping system.
3000, Acceptance Standards constructionan all-inclusive term comprising materials,
4000, Repair Procedures design, fabrication, examination, testing, inspection, and certi-
5000, System Pressure Tests fication required in the manufacture and installation of items.
6000, Records and Reports
7000, Replacements (Note: This title is now part of 4000.) Nondestructive examination (NDE) brings in the largest set of
terms that may be confusing at first. All have specific meanings
Articles are further divided into subarticles, numbered in in the context of ASMEs NDE requirements. Examination is
units of 100; subsubarticles, numbered in units of 10; and para- generally the activity to determine nondestructively the condition/
graphs. The numbering system is described in greater detail in integrity of the pressure-retaining boundary. Testing is the activity
Section XIs front matter, Organization of Section XI. It also to determine by application of internal pressure the condition/
describes the convention used for references to other sections integrity of the pressure-retaining boundary.
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 325


Other NDE-related terms in the Glossary are: 26.2 DEVELOPMENT OF SCOPE AND
imperfectiona condition of being imperfect; a departure of
a quality characteristic from its intended condition. 26.2.1 1970 Edition and Addenda: Inservice
discontinuitya lack of continuity or cohesion; an inter- Inspection of Nuclear Reactor Coolant
ruption in the normal physical structure of material or a Systems
component. Since its beginning, Section XI has called for inspections of
indicationthe response or evidence from the application of weld areas of vessels and other pressure-containing nuclear sys-
a nondestructive examination. tem components. Selection was directed toward areas known to
flawan imperfection or unintentional discontinuity that is have high service factors, and also toward other areas, to provide
detectable by a nondestructive examination. a representative sampling for general overall condition. While
defecta flaw (imperfection or unintentional discontinuity) weld areas were specified, it was recognized that the volumetric
of such size, shape, orientation, location, or properties as to examination of the weld and its adjacent base material would
be rejectable. entail a significant amount of base metal examination.
The plant systems subject to examination were the following:
These last definitions have been provided with unofficially
circulated explanations: (a) the reactor coolant system;
(b) portions of the associated auxiliary systems connected to
Imperfection: No inherent or implied association with lack of the reactor coolant system; and
conformance with specification requirements or with lack of (c) portions of emergency corecooling systems connected to
fitness for purpose, i.e., imperfection may or may not be the reactor coolant system.
Discontinuity: No inherent or implied association with lack Excluded from the examination were those components and
of conformance with specification requirements or with lack piping within the aforementioned boundaries of which failure was
of fitness for purpose, i.e., discontinuities may or may not within the capability of normal makeup systems.
be rejectable. An unintentional discontinuity is also an A 10 yr. inspection cycle (the interval) was chosen based on
imperfection. Cracks, inclusions, and porosity are examples historical failure rate data for nonnuclear steam power and petro-
of unintentional discontinuities which are also imperfec- chemical plant systems. Evaluation of inspection results and result-
tions. Intentional discontinuities may be present in some ing repairs were in accordance with component Construction Codes.
material or products because of intentional changes in con- Construction Code rules, which had been directed toward the
figuration; these are not imperfections and are not expected activities of the manufacturers of Code items, were soon found to
to be so evaluated. be not always appropriate for installed components. (See Table 26.1
Indication: When the nature or magnitude of the indication for additional differences between Sections III and XI.) The fact
suggests that the cause is an imperfection or discontinuity, that the utility or plant Owner is seldom an ASME Certificate
evaluation is required. Holder (also called a Code Stampholder) is confusing to anybody
Flaw: No inherent or implied association with lack of confor- accustomed to using the Code, because the state enforcement
mance with specification requirements or lack of fitness for authority and the Nuclear Inspector are not quite in their usual
purpose, i.e., a flaw may or may not be rejectable. Defect: roles. Some of the usual Code rules do not apply; in fact, Section XI
Always rejectable, either for: itself does not state when compliance to an edition or addenda
becomes mandatory. This date is instead established by the NRC
(a) lack of conformance to specification requirements in the provisions of Part 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations:
(b) potential lack of fitness for purpose, or 10CFR50.55a. Another related anomaly is that the Owner is
(c) both not required to conduct repairs using a Quality Assurance (QA)
A defect (a rejectable flaw) is by definition a condition that
must be removed or corrected.
Additional insight into Code terminology can be gained from
review of usage in ORGANIZATION OF SECTION XI, in the
Code front matter.
The Glossary in Code Section V is another source of defini-
tions of terms useful to users of Section XI. Quoting from a list of
Code terms:
The following is a list of nondestructive examination methods
and respective abbreviations used within the scope of Section V:
RT Radiography
UT Ultrasonics
MT Magnetic Particle
PT Liquid Penetrant
VT Visual
LT Leak Testing
ET Electromagnetic (Eddy Current)
AE Acoustic Emission
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 326

326 Chapter 26

program accepted by the ASME. The Owner, however, is always initial plan to provide inservice inspection of all Section III com-
required to have a QA program accepted by the NRC. ponents. However, the approach to examination of Class 2 systems
One of the initial problems was that despite the urgent need for was complicated by several considerations. For example, Class 2
access to radioactive areas of the plant to perform examinations, systems were not considered as important as Class 1 systems and
remotely operated NDE equipment had not yet been developed. therefore did not warrant as thorough an examination program.
The plant operator was permitted to defer examination of such However, there appeared to be a large range in relative importance
areas until the end of the 10 yr. interval. The philosophy behind of Class 2 systems. The integrity of emergency core cooling and
this deferral was that techniques could be developed or the Code shutdown systems was obviously more important in Class 2 sys-
could be changed at that time, but this task did not prove easy. tems than in other systems, but there was a high degree of system
Essentially all the plants that exist today had been ordered and redundancy and all systems could be isolated from the primary
designed by 1977, and access for subsequent examinations had coolant system. Several classes of exemptions were developed; for
not been provided. (In many plants, areas still exist where there is instance, everything of size NPS 4 and smaller was exempted and,
insufficient space around component examination areas and except for the emergency corecooling and critical heat removal
where operation of remotely operated equipment is impractical.) systems, those operating at a pressure of 275 psig or less, and at a
The plant operators must obtain relief from those Code require- temperature of 200F or less, were also exempted. Also exempted
ments from the NRC. A related problem was that the Construction were statically pressurized passive safety injection systems. While
Code method of volumetric examination was radiography. It was all of these systems were exempted from examination program,
evident that the more practical method for inservice examination they were not exempted from the pressure test program, which
was ultrasonic testing (UT), which could be conducted where meant that they were all regularly subjected to examination for
there was only access to one surface and which would not be leakage while under pressure.
affected by radioactivity from the component. However, UT was The Class 3 systems function primarily to transport cooling
not generally used as a Code examination method, and improved water to and from the Class 1 and 2 systems. The systems are
techniques needed to be developed. generally designed to provide redundancy, permitting mainte-
nance without interrupting the system function. The program con-
26.2.2 1974 Edition and Addenda sists of visual examinations for evidence of leakage, structural
By 1974, the Section XI Subcommittee (Subcommittee on distress, or corrosion. Visual examinations are conducted during
Nuclear Inservice Inspection) had been separated from the pressure tests after shutdown three times per 10 yr. inspection
Section III Subcommittee. The title of the book was changed from interval.
Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Reactor Coolant Systems to Inservice
Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components. Initial feedback Functional Testing of Pumps, Valves, and Snubbers
from the plants indicated problems with the application of While the primary concern of all sections of the ASME Boiler and
Construction Code requirements. The Subcommittee responded to Pressure Vessel Code is integrity of the pressure-retaining bound-
the power plant Owners or operators needs by providing new ary, it was recognized that the proper functioning of pumps,
requirements appropriate for operating plants. Among the require- valves, and pipe snubbers in nuclear power plant systems was
ments were NDE methods, acceptance standards appropriate for essential for safety and therefore should be included in the inspec-
ultrasonic examination, analytical evaluation techniques for tion of operating plants. The Subcommittee assumed responsibility
acceptance of flaws, and repair methods that had not been consid- for the development of requirements for functional testing of
ered appropriate for new construction. pumps, valves, and snubbers. Valve tests included periodic exer-
Additions and revisions comprise the following elements, each cising and leak-rate measurements. Pump testing emphasized
of which will be described in the forthcoming paragraphs: detection of changes in hydraulic and mechanical characteristics.
Test measurements included speed, differential pressure, and
(1) examination of Section III Class 2 and 3 systems; vibration amplitude; criteria were established for acceptable
(2) functional testing of pumps, valves, and snubbers; ranges, alert ranges, and action-required ranges for each of the
(3) need for ultrasonic examination; measurements.
(4) acceptancerejection levels; In 1989, the rules for functional testing of pumps, valves,
(5) development of acceptance standards for cracklike flaws; and snubbers became the responsibility of the Operation and
(6) analytical evaluation of flaws; Maintenance Committee, a new ASME Nuclear Codes and
(7) documentation: records and reports; Standards Committee independent of the Boiler and Pressure
(8) repair procedures; and Vessel Committee. Inservice testing rules are now published in
(9) component replacement. two documents: ASME O&M Code, Code for Operation and
Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants; and ASME O&M S/G
Except for item (1), the listed elements are unique to Section XI
Standards and Guides for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear
and replace Construction Code requirements with requirements
Power Plants. The O&M Code is published in one section titled
appropriate for operating plants. Another consideration in the
IST, Rules for Inservice Testing of Light-Water Reactor Power
examination program was the avoidance of inconsistency with
Plants, and includes the following:
Construction Code/Section III on the type of weld examination by
not imposing an examination method more severe than the (1) inservice testing of pumps;
Construction Code/Section IIIthat is, a volumetric examination (2) inservice testing of valves;
where Section III imposed a surface examination. (3) preservice and inservice examination and testing of dynamic
restraints (snubbers); Examination of Section III Class 2 and 3 Systems (4) inservice testing of pressure-relief devices; and
Examination of Section III Class 2 and 3 systems was part of the (5) checking of the valve condition monitoring program.
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 327


The O&M S/G comprises the following Standards: There are a number of other factors that made evaluation of
ultrasonic reflectors difficult for UT operators. The beam directiv-
(1) requirements for performance testing of closed-cooling ity pattern (beam spread) is generally greater than the operator
water systems; assumes, one result of which is that a point reflector is plotted as a
(2) requirements for preoperational and initial start-up vibra- linear reflector as it is traversed by the beam. Metallurgical dis-
tion testing of piping systems; continuities, such as cladding, cause unanticipated beam diver-
(3) testing of electric motor operators on valves; gence that creates difficulty with pitch-catch techniques and
(4) loose part monitoring; accounts for the difficulty in detecting underclad cracking. An
(5) requirements for periodic performance testing and monitor- additional factor is the difference in ultrasonic reflectivity
ing of power-operated relief valve assemblies; between real flaws and the artificial calibration reflectors often
(6) inservice testing and maintenance of diesel drives; and used for flaw sizing. A contemporary report documented differ-
(7) inservice performance testing of heat exchangers. ences often 20 dB (or 10 times) less from real reflectors versus
The O&M S/G also comprises the following Guides: similarly sized machined disk reflectors.
The new problem that inservice inspection added to the UT opera-
(1) inservice monitoring of core-barrel axial preload in pressur- tors woes was reproducibility. Each successive examination depended
ized water reactors; largely on detection of differences from previous examinations.
(2) requirements for thermal expansion testing of piping sys- These examinations, performed over the 3060 yr. life of the plant,
tems; would be performed by different operators who often were from dif-
(3) vibration testing and assessment of heat exchangers; and ferent organizations that used different equipment. One of the con-
(4) vibration monitoring of rotating equipment. clusions of the round-robin tests was that the ASME Code UT
requirements referenced in Section III were too dependent on the Need for Ultrasonic (UT) Examination A major experience and judgment of the individual test operator for determin-
design emphasis of Section III was protection from fatigue failure. ing the nature and size of the reflectors. Other contemporary round-
It follows that the Subcommittee was concerned primarily with robin tests on test blocks containing intentionally flawed welds
detection of fatigue cracks that initiated during plant operation. showed surprisingly broad variations between different expert
The Subcommittee selected ultrasonics (UT) as the method of non- teams in such factors as detection, false calls, and reflectors missed.
destructive examination for critical regions of the plant. This The sum of these problems made Subcommittee members aware
method was inconsistent with Section III requirement for radiog- of the problems of UT examination accuracy and reproducibility
raphy (RT) of all critical welds in new construction, but the and led to the development of Appendix I. The approach taken was
Subcommittee knew UT to be superior to RT for detection of to limit the responsibility of operator by rigidly defining the para-
fatigue cracks and to be more appropriate for use in the radiation meters of the UT procedure. In addition, the operator was no
environment in operating plants. In addition, access to both sur- longer asked to characterize the reflector (i.e., slag and lack of
faces is necessary for RT, and Section III design requirements (and fusion); instead, he or she needed only to define the reflectors
designers) did not provide that access for installed components. dimensions and location within the weld thickness.
UT, however, can be performed from one surface. The steps taken in the approach were as follows:
Coincident with the recognition of the need for UT was the
recognition of the inadequacy of the Section III UT requirements. (1) Limiting the scope of the rules to butt welds in ferritic ves-
Inadequacy of the method was demonstrated first in the Pressure sels 22 12 in. thick, which indicated the limit that the mem-
Vessel Research Council programs on NDE sensitivity and repro- bers felt could be supported by verified data.
ducibility, using round-robin tests on flawed weld specimens (2) Limiting scanning to straight-beam and half-node tech-
[1][6]. The generic Code methodology was shown to be unreli- niques. Adjacent base material was included in the exami-
able for both detecting and sizing many types of service-induced nation volume, giving a substantial sample of base material
flaws. Therefore, the Subcommittee began incorporating tech- examination.
niques for improved UT reliability, starting with Appendix I, in (3) Requiring multiple scans. Examine by straight beam and by
1973, for vessels; Appendix III, in 1975, for piping; and culminat- 45 deg. and 60 deg. angle beams normal to the weld from
ing with Appendices VII and VIII in 1989. both sides (from one surface) and parallel to the weld in both
The Subcommittee members recognized that new requirements directions. Doing so results in nine scans for a typical vessel
were needed that would possess sensitivity sufficient to detect all main seam and five scans for the adjacent base material.
flaws above the minimum acceptable sizes and that would also (4) Defining calibration blocks to duplicate vessel materials
accurately define their dimensions. Defining true location and ori- and construction. The blocks were significantly larger than
entation would also be necessary. Most important, the technique the standard Code blocks to reduce the effect of sidewall
needed to allow accurate measurements of changes in reflectors reflections and to provide full-beam paths. They also had to
over extended periods of time and with different UT personnel be retained on the vessel site.
and equipment. These needs were also consistent with the fracture (5) Requiring exacting calibration. This requirement was a major
mechanicsbased acceptance standards being developed concur- concern. Instrument calibration included each item in the sys-
rently within the Subcommittee. temcables and allwith calibration upon any change and
The first problem encountered in inservice inspection is the cor- with calibration checks every 4 hr. of operation. Calibration
relation of UT results from preservice examination with the radi- measurements on the block were also more extensive than had
ographic results of the Construction Code. For the planar (crack- been usual, and the transfer of attenuation corrections was
like) flaws of primary concern, correlation is poor. Radiography is prohibited. The members could not find any evidence of
most effective for volumetric (i.e., slag and porosity) flaws, but is experimental verification of any of the recommended transfer
ineffective for cracks not oriented parallel to the X-ray beam. techniques.
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 328

328 Chapter 26

(6) Defining reflector sizing technique. This technique remained It is important to note that, in the event of a conditionally
controversial, for a contemporary authority had reviewed the accepted flaw, the examination must be extended to other areas
three most common techniques then in use and found signif- subject to similar degradation conditions.
icant shortcomings in each. The members selected a variation One of the primary concerns in developing new standards was
on the 6 dB drop technique that used 50% of the distance- to avoid conflicts with Section III requirements. It did not make
amplitude correction (DAC). It was determined that this cri- sense in most cases to reject a flaw that was acceptable for new
terion should accept everything accepted by Section III and construction. However, when a flaw found by a Section XI exami-
easily reveal any significant flaw. nation is determined to have been present in original construction
(7) Providing a uniform system for identification of weld loca- and is of the size and type that exceeds the acceptance standard of
tion. Because no two NDE service organizations identified the original Construction Code, but is acceptable under the accep-
welds the same way, a uniform system was prescribed that tance standards of Section XI, the flaw is not required to be
enabled successive examinations to have a chance of using removed or repaired.
the same reference points. The ISI examination report
requirements were also intended to provide a complete record Development of Acceptance Standards for Crack-
of calibrations, welds examined, and location of recorded like Flaws Section III NDE acceptance standards do not permit
indications for comparison with subsequent examinations. cracklike flaws. Section XI dependence on UT rather than RT for
examinations led to a quandary when UT revealed the presence of
With the establishment of the new procedure, additional ques- cracklike flaws originating with construction that had not been
tions arose, such as the meaning and use of the term equivalence. detected by Section III RT. In addition, Section XI was primarily
For preservice examinations, Section XI states that shop and field concerned with identification of fatigue cracks. Therefore, the
examinations may be acceptable if they are equivalent to those to Subcommittee chose to develop rules for acceptance of planar
be employed for inservice examinations. A manual UT examination indications. This development was unique for the Boiler and
is considered equivalent in technique and equipment to an UT Pressure Vessel Code because Sections I, III, and VIII required
examination performed with mechanical equipment if both exam- that indications of cracklike flaws, lack of fusion, or incomplete
inations covered the same examination surface (i.e., inside or out- penetration needed to be removed before a component could leave
side); used search units of the same angles and frequencies; and the shop or be accepted for service. Section XI permitted them to
used the basic calibration blocks. Manual UT techniques and UT remain in place if they met the specified size criteria of IWB-3410.
techniques using mechanical equipment may be determined as The Section XI planar flaw criterion provided a simplification
equivalent by means of correlation derived by comparing the from the Construction Code criteria, since it was also applied to
response of actual component indications. slag inclusions and porosity. Flaw characterization was based on
Subsequent experience resulted in many minor adjustments. an ellipse or circle that contained the flaw indication (semiellipse
The next real advance came in 1989 with Appendix VIII, which is or semicircle for a surface flaw). Surface proximity of a buried
discussed later in this chapter. flaw was also considered; separation from the surface less than
One aspect not reconsidered was the industry process for quali- half the flaw depth caused it to be considered a surface flaw.
fication of UT operators. It was felt to be adequate in view of the Additional criteria were developed to address multiple flaws in
restrictions in the preceding list regarding the way the examina- various configurations.
tion was conducted. This was subsequently reconsidered, result- The Subcommittee expanded its rules to provide a series of UT
ing in the adoption of Appendix VII and also improved American acceptance standards (IWB-3500) appropriate for a variety of appli-
Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT) personnel qualifica- cations and materials. The primary basis was the provision for pro-
tion processes. tection against nonductile failure given in Appendix G of Section III,
which established a reference flaw having a depth of 4 thickness
1 AcceptanceRejection Levels In developing accep- and a length 12 times thickness for ferritic steel components. A fac-
tance criteria, the Subcommittee recognized that the Section III tor of 10 on reference flaw dimensions was selected as a measure of
new construction standards did not have to be the basis for evalu- conservatism for Section XIs basic allowable surface flaw. In a
ating the structural integrity at different stages of service lifetime. typical vessel section, the acceptable flaw depth relates closely to
It was also recognized that a few considered acceptable for new the 2% radiographic acceptability criterion of Section III.
construction could conceivably grow during service without
affecting component service life. The following four levels of Analytical Evaluation of Flaws As noted previously,
acceptance were developed: flaws that exceed the sizes specified in the tables may be condition-
ally acceptable. IWB-3600 contains provisions for acceptance of
(a) Acceptablecomponents without flaws or with flaws meet- such flaws by reference to a series of Appendices that provide
ing the acceptance standards. advanced analytical evaluation methods covering both plant operat-
(b) Conditionally acceptable components with flaws exceed- ing conditions and flaws in components, starting with Appendix A,
ing the acceptable standards, but demonstrated by analysis Analysis of Flaws. Appendix A applies linear-elastic fracture
to have a safety margin adequate for continued service. mechanics to a given flaw using flaw and material parameters and
Also, components having flaws that can be removed with stress fields at the flaw location, including (where appropriate)
out repair by welding. adjustments for water and radiation environment. Through a cumula-
(c) Repair components with flaws that cannot be qualified as tive fatigue crack growth study, the maximum size to which the flaw
conditionally acceptable and for which repair is feasible. is calculated to grow until the end of the components service life, or
(d) Replacement components with flaws that cannot be qual- until the next inspection, is determined. The acceptance criteria of
ified as conditionally acceptable and for which replacement IWB-3600 include a factor of 10 on minimum critical flaw size under
appears to be more feasible than repair. normal operating conditions and a factor of 2 on minimum critical
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 329


flaw size for initiation of nonar-resting growth under postulated total of 218 nuclear power plants in the United States in operation,
emergency and faulted conditions. under construction, or on order. Of those under construction or on
order, 108 were completed. The new units were all cancelled, and Documentation: Records and Reports Along with because many of the existing units lack sufficient access for any-
the expanding and more explicit requirements for each aspect of thing like 100% coverage, they have been left with an ongoing
Section XI came the need for more explicit documentation. problemto meet the essentially 100% criterion, each failure
Obviously, all the examination and testing must be based on com- must be documented and justified every time that weld arises in the
plete plans, schedules, and reports. Article IWA-6000 provides a ISI program, which is contrary to Section XIs fundamental exam-
summary of the report and record requirements, a format for these ination philosophy.
records, and filing requirements. The objective of Section XIs requirements for extent of exami-
nations is to provide an assessment of general overall condition. Repair Procedures By 1974, the Subcommittee deter- There is no inherent need to examine 100% of a specified weld
mined that Section III repair rules needed to be supplemented with and adjacent base material to accomplish an assessment of gen-
special procedures that recognized the restrictions imposed by eral overall condition nor to assess structural integrity and leak-
operating plant conditions. Again, these were procedures that tightness. Twenty-five years of operating experience with these
would not be acceptable for new construction but would be appro- requirements has substantiated that objective.
priate for components in service, considering that plant conditions There are three related topics that need to be considered:
severely restrict the methods and procedures that must be used.
These procedures first appeared in the Summer 1973 Addenda; (a) access to the component for examination;
they included metal/flaw removal without weld repair, reduction of (b) selection of areas to be examined; and
flaws to an acceptable size (IWB-4300), and weld repair to ferritic (c) ultrasonic scanning limitations and recording requirements.
material without postweld heat treatment by using temper-bead (a) Access. From its inception, the developers of Section XI
techniques (IWB-4420 and IWB-4430). Subsequently, there have have been concerned with the need for access for nondestructive
been several additions related to steam generator tubing failures, examinationsa need that has not been recognized in the criteria
covering tube plugging and tube sleeving. used by the nuclear power plant designers.
In addition to statements in the Foreword to Section XI, the sub- Component Replacement The Section XI rules facili- ject of design and access provisions for inspection and testing was
tate installation of a new (Section III-stamped) component by included in 10CFR50, Appendix A, titled General Design Criteria
permitting welding and weld examination in accordance with for Nuclear Power Plants. It addressed this subject early in 1971
Section XI. Application of the ASME NA-Symbol Stamp in several Design Criteria, each of which state The systems shall
(Section III assembly) is optionalthat is, neither required nor be designed to permit periodic inspection and testing of important
prohibited, which recognizes the right of the Owner to perform areas and features to assess their structural and leaktight integrity.
the work without needing to obtain the services of an ASME While Section XI was being developed with this concern
Certificate/ Code Stampholder. regarding the need for access for examination, one should remem-
ber that almost all of the nuclear power plants constructed in the
26.2.3 1977 Edition and Addenda United States were designed before the development and imposi-
In contrast to the totally new concepts introduced in the 1974 tion of accessibility requirements. The examination provisions of
edition, the changes in this edition are more in the nature of Section XI could not be retroactively applied to plants that were
refinements. These additions and revisions include the following: not designed with the access necessary for performance of these
examinations without an allowance for reduction of the examina-
(1) increase of examination of reactor vessel welds from 5%
tion volumes due to limited accessibility. Actually, all of the
or 10% of length to 100%;
plants presently in service had already been ordered, and 105 had
(2) Appendix III for examination of welds in ferritic piping;
already been issued construction permits, by February 7, 1978,
(3) repetitive piping examinations instead of random nonre-
when the Section III Addenda adding the requirement for design
peating piping examinations;
for inspection access was adopted in the Federal Regulation.
(4) concentration of piping examinations to high-duty areas;
It should also be noted that only 47 nuclear plants have piping
(5) acceptance standards for piping;
systems designed using Section III, and 48 plants have reactor
(6) examination of steam-generator tubing;
coolant piping systems designed to either ASME B31.1 or B31.7
(7) development of examples of Appendix A analysis;
instead of Section III, Class 1. Thirteen more have a mix that
(8) analytical evaluation;
includes some systems designed to Section III. The numbers for
(9) replacement items; and
Class 2 and 3 systems are similar. The ASME B31 piping Codes
(10) documentation.
did not address access for subsequent inspections.
Each of the aforementioned additions and revisions is described (b) Areas selected. In the initial publications of Section XI (1970
in the following paragraphs. and 1971), the Foreword included the following explanation: Increase of Examination of Reactor Vessel Welds Areas Selected for Examination
from 5% or 10% of Length to 100% This change, included The areas most predominantly selected for examinations are
because of NRC insistence, had an unanticipated effect on the those associated with welds in pressure-containing compo-
Owners. The Subcommittee leadership felt the increase to 100% nents. Although the impression might be created that undue
could be easily accomplished in new units by automated equipment attention is placed on the examination of welded joints, it
and design with inspection access provided. However, those new must be pointed out that such an examination of the welded
units were never built. In August 1974, Nuclear News reported a joint calls for a volumetric examination. The volumetric
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/22/09 2:44 PM Page 330

330 Chapter 26

examination area includes a reasonable amount of adjacent base the component are such that scanning from both sides is not
material, including the weld heat-affected zone. Therefore, practicable, this fact shall be included in the report of the
the most convenient locations to satisfy the requirements of examination. . . .
examining both base metal and welded joints are locations at I-5122 Scanning for Reflectors Oriented Parallel to the Weld
the welded joints and these are singled out. . . . (a) The adjacent base metal in the examination volume must
be completely scanned by two angle beams, but need not be
Representative Sampling completely scanned by both beams from both directions.
Two basic philosophies were involved in the selection of (Any combination of two angle beams will satisfy the
areas for the examinations: requirement.)
(1) The highest service factor related to operating conditions,
I-5213 Extent of Scanning
(2) Representative sampling selected to provide an assess-
Wherever possible the entire examination volume shall be
ment of the general overall condition.
scanned. Where component configuration precludes or limits
In the case of the second category, that of representative sam- scanning, this fact shall be included in the report of the
pling, an attempt was made to provide sufficient examinations examination.
to assess the general overall condition. Examples in this cate-
Appendix I clearly recognizes that 100% coverage is not
gory are representative longitudinal and circumferential weld
always possible and also that incomplete coverage is acceptable
seams on the reactor vessel, internal vessel supports, weld
but must be included in the examination report. Appendix I (1989
seams in piping, pumps, and valves, and bolting in the pres-
Edition) references Article 4 of Section V (1977 Edition), which
sure-containing boundary.
contains similar wording in T-441.4.4, T-441.5, T-441.5.1, and
A similar situation exists for piping weld examination. Where T-441.5.2.
specific conditions, such as intergranular stresscorrosion cracking Appendix III, for piping, contains similar requirements in
(IGSCC) and flow-assisted corrosionerosion (FAC), have devel- III-4430 and III-4450. Recording examination data in accordance
oped, specific examinations have been developed to address them. with III-4520(e) and III-4520(g)(3) provides a record of examina-
The need for an assessment of general overall condition remains, tion coverage.
but it is not dependent on examining 100% of the length of 25% of At the time that Section XI NDE requirements were being
the Class 1 circumferential welds. This fact was shown in the 1994 developed, it was recognized that a record of the examination, as
Section XI White Paper titled Evaluation of Inservice Inspection good as that provided by the (new construction) radiograph,
Requirements for Class 1, Category B-J Pressure-Retaining Welds would be essential. It was also recognized by the Subcommittee
in Piping, supporting Code Case N-560. Based on the determina- members that inservice conditions for examination of the plants
tion of failure mechanisms by operating experience, and the appli- that had been constructed up to that time were far from ideal from
cation of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) to rank the critical the standpoints of access, obstructions, and surface contour. The
locations, a sample of 10% of the welds can be chosen to replace points were addressed in the requirements by terms such as feasi-
the assessment of the current 25% required. When a reduction ble and as far as practicable, and also by emphasis on recording
from examination of 25% to 10% of the welds can be accom- what had been scanned and what had been found. The objective
plished without increase in risk, there is a very large tolerance was to obtain a record that could be compared with subsequent
inherent in the requirement to examine 100% of the length of the examinations.
required 25% of the Class 1 Category B-J piping welds.
For piping welds in Class 2 systems, the notes to Table Appendix III for Examination of Welds in Piping
IWC2500-1, Categories C-F-1 and C-F-2, clearly exemplify the
Appendix III of Section XI, developed for UT examination of piping
intent to provide a sampling of all component systems and sizes.
welds, first appeared in the Winter 1975 Addenda. When Appendix I
The sampling percentage7.5%was chosen arbitrarily to be
was issued, its application was limited to ferritic vessels 2.5 in. and
significantly less than the Class 1 requirement of 25%. Subsequent
greater in thickness. Appendix III was developed for application
operating experience and the development of risk-informed tech-
to welds in both ferritic and austenitic piping systems, for a wall-
nology, as noted previously, indicated that these examinations
thickness range of 0.26 in. Although automated examination
could be focused much more effectively, but they did not indicate
appeared to be one of the ways to take operator judgment out of
examination of 100% of the length of the selected welds was
Appendix I vessel examinations, it was felt that Appendix III piping
essential to assess general overall condition.
examinations would almost always have to be performed manually.
(c) Scanning Limitations. Recognition of the realities of on-site
One of its objectives was simplicity, since it needed to cover a greater
(inservice) volumetric examination is contained in the detailed
ratio range of wall-thicknesses. The first step was to require a single-
examination requirements that implemented Table IWB-2500-1
beam angle of 45 deg., with other angles optional as needed to char-
and Table IWC-2500-1 for vessel and piping examinations.
acterize reflectors. With attention concentrated on pipe surfaces, it
Appendix I, in the Summer 1975 Addenda, represents the first
was felt that a surface notch would most closely and practically sim-
set of comprehensive requirements for UT examination of nuclear
ulate the reflector of interest; consequently, a much simpler calibra-
vessels and includes the following:
tion block than the one required for Appendix I was created.
I-5120 EXTENT OF SCANNING The development of new requirements for piping welds required
I-5121 General consideration of several conditions that were not encountered in
Wherever feasible the scanning of the examination volume vessel welds, one of which was geometric reflectors. In piping fab-
(IWB-3500) shall be carried out from both sides of the weld rication, there is usually no inner surface access, but there is allow-
on the same surface. Where configuration or adjacent parts of able mismatch, offset, undercut, inner surface concavity, and outer
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 331


surface reinforcement; these are all UT reflectors. In an NPS 4 other components, with specified limits from loads imposed by
Schedule 80 pipe, the acceptable depth and height of each exceeds seismic events and operational conditions; and all dissimilar metal
the height of the acceptable surface flaw in the acceptance stan- welds. A fourth category comprised additional welds so that the
dards. For an NPS 12 Schedule 140 pipe, offset and reinforcements total equaled 25% of the circumferential welds in the reactor
all exceed the allowable flaw. Appendix III, paragraph III4512, per- coolant piping system. For Class 2 (Examination Category C-F),
mits UT indications to be classified as either of geometric or of the criteria initially included terminal ends, dissimilar metal joints,
metallurgical origin; however, proving this origin is problematic for specified loading from normal and upset plant conditions, and sep-
the UT operator. arate criteria for boiling water reactor (BWR) and pressurized
Counterbore is a more misleading geometric reflector. A typical water reactor (PWR) plants based on piping system function and
14 deg. counterbore will cause a mode conversion of a 45 deg. UT size. The Class 2 criteria proved to be cumbersome; consequently,
shear wave. The reflection of this compression wave from the in 1983, they were revised to a sample of 7.5% of the circumfer-
weld crown will appear to be from the weld midthickness. ential welds, with greatly simplified selection criteria.
Grinding welds flush is a solution to the outer surface condi-
tions, but not to the inner surface conditions unless there is Acceptance Standards for Piping The initial accep-
access. One of the objectives of the piping examination require- tance standards for piping welds (Summer 1974 Addenda) referred
ments was to eliminate the need for grinding; another was to to the vessel weld standard except for a 5% wall-thickness limit on
eliminate scanning for transverse weld flaws. Neither, however, flaws in austenitic welds. The new standards comprise separate
could be justified. Grinding is necessary to flatten weld reinforce- tables for welds in both ferritic and austenitic piping material and
ment sufficient to permit a circumferential scan along the center include standards for both volumetric and surface examination
of the weld for transverse flaws. methods. Although they impose standards for preservice examina-
Another condition requiring consideration is access to the outer tions more rigorous than those for inservice, they also provide
surface on both sides of a joint. Approximately 10% of the welds in relief for UT reflectors of geometric and metallurgical origin.
a typical piping system are of the pipe-to-pipe variety; the rest are With the recognition that the consequences of failure in piping
pipe-to-fitting (elbow, tee, or reducer) or pipe-to-vessel, -pump, or - are not as serious as they are in a component, and the recognition
valve. In most cases, the weld will be examined 100% from the that the failure mode of austenitic piping is quite different from
pipe side but only partially, if at all, from the other side. The surface ferritic piping, new bases for the standards were developed. The
contours permitted by the applicable component and fitting Codes standard for ferritic piping was still based on Appendix G and
are not usually appropriate for effective UT of the weld joint, which fracture toughness considerations; for austenitic stainless steel
is not a particular problem for ferritic piping since the ultrasound material, reduction in net section thickness was the criterion such
can pass through the weld. However, for austenitic stainless steel that the combined stress intensities would not exceed the Section III
piping, ultrasound does not always pass through the weld. limits for protection from ductile failure.
There are no simple solutions to these problems. The most suc- These criteria, as well as those developed for the other accep-
cessful approach to these problems has been intensive specialized tance standards, were subsequently published by The Electric
training and qualification for the piping UT operator. Power Research Institute (EPRI) [7]. Repetitive Piping Examinations instead of Random Examination of Steam Generator Tubing Need for
Nonrepeating Early feedback from the field, and the desire to examination of pressurized water reactor (PWR) steam generator
monitor growth of acceptable pipe weld flaws, led to revision of tubing had not been anticipated. A tubing material, nickel-chromium
the pipe weld examination sequence. Initial rules required a ran- iron Alloy 600, had been chosen following US Navy nuclear steam
dom sampling of 25% of the Class 1 welds in each recirculation generator practice; at this time, around 1970, they had many more
loop during each 10 yr. inspection interval. The revised rules called units in operation than the commercial nuclear power industry.
for repeating the examinations in one piping run among a group of Leakage of a few tubes during service was not considered to have
similar runs. Going back to the same welds each interval meant any major safety implications, and leakage detection systems
that those with the least access limitations could be chosen. Welds would provide timely detection. However, service experience had
in severe radiation fields could be avoided, and those with minor shown that under certain conditions of secondary water treatment, an
recorded imperfections could be reviewed to determine if flaw unanticipated degree of tube corrosion and cracking had occurred.
growth had occurred. These revisions were all beneficial to the Examination Category B-Q, Steam Generator Tubing, was added to
plant operator. Table IWB-2500-1, and IWB-3521.1 Allowable flaws for U-Tube
In addition, the volume of circumferential welds to be exam- Steam Generators, was added to Acceptance Standards. See 26.5.6
ined in piping of nominal pipe size 4 in. and greater was reduced for related discussion.
to the inner one-third of the pipe wall thickness. Development of Examples of Appendix A Analysis In Concentration of Piping Examinations to High- Appendix A, linear-elastic fracture mechanics is applied to assess
Duty Areas Analysis of the occasional field failures indicated that the effect of flaws on the integrity of nuclear components. One of
the failures did not occur randomly, contrary to the original the responsibilities of the Section XI Subgroup responsible for flaw
assumption. Analysis showed that the failures could have been evaluation standards has been to show how to apply the flaw evalu-
predicted. Having decided that repetitive examinations on selected ation procedures contained in Appendix A. Three sample problems
joints was appropriate, the Subcommittees next logical step was to have been developed and solutions have been prepared by each of
select for examination those welds upon which the greatest loads the four U.S. reactor vendors; these are presented in Reference [12].
or strains were imposed. For Class 1 (Examination Category B-J), The three sample problems are (1) an embedded crack in a reactor
the following three sets of welds were designated: terminal ends of beltline weld, (2) a crack in a nozzle corner, and (3) a crack in a
piping connected to vessels; terminal ends of piping connected to reactor vessel or closure head-flange weld. The report includes
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 332

332 Chapter 26

background and information supplemental to Appendix A, as well Analytical Evaluation In the Summer 1978 Addenda,
as evaluation of actual flaws discovered in operating reactors. A a second acceptance basis was added to IWB-3600. IWB-3612 con-
very brief summary of the sample problems is presented in the fol- tains alternative criteria based on applied stress intensity factors.
lowing paragraphs. The reader should note that four different reac-
tor designs are being evaluated, and while the three PWR configu- Replacement Items The definition of replacement
rations are similar, those for BWR are quite different. has now been expanded to include spare or renewal components,
Sample problem 1 assumes a 1 * 3 flaw that is embedded appurtenances, subassemblies, and parts of a component or system
20% below the inner surface of a vertical seam in the reactor ves- (but not the addition of complete systems). While the Code edition
sel beltline and that is found after 75% of the end-of-licensed life or addenda applicable to the original item may be acceptable,
fluence. In each calculation the flaw growth to end of life was upgrading the edition or addenda may be advantageous. This intro-
minimal, the most severe prediction being 1.0043 * 3.013 ; the duces the concept of reconciliation, in which the Owner or oper-
plant can continue in operation without repair. In one case, there ator must perform a documented review to show that the design
was the need for the plant cooldown limit curve to be modified. changes due to later Codes do not violate the form, fit, or function
Sample problem 2 assumes a 34 deep * 2 long surface flaw in and safety requirements of the item being replaced.
an inlet nozzle inner corner at 75% of licensed life. For a BWR,
the flaw was calculated to grow to a depth of 2.82 in. within a Documentation Article IWA-6000 now recognizes the
wall-thickness of 9.2 in.; repair would be required, for the depth need to add repair/replacement activities to the things for which
failed the criterion of 0.1 critical flaw size. The two PWR vendors records must be prepared. These requirements also include an
that responded determined that no repair was required. In one case, Owners Data ReportFormNIS-1for inservice inspection
the flaw was calculated to grow in depth to 0.845 in. within a 12.5 reports. The NIS-1 form becomes part of the documentation that
in. wall; in the other case, the flaw was calculated to grow to 1.36 the plant must submit to the enforcement and regulatory authorities
in. within a 14.3 in. wall. having jurisdiction at the plant site within 90 days of the comple-
Sample problem 3 assumes a near-surface embedded flaw in tion of an outage for which inservice inspections were conducted.
reactor vessel or head-flange weld, with residual stresses 25% of
yield, found early in service. For a BWR, the vessel flange loca- 26.2.4 1980 Edition and Addenda
tion is especially critical. In each case, it was determined that the Additions and revisions include the following:
flaw should be evaluated as a surface flaw having a maximum
depth of 12.5% and length 40% of shell- or head-thickness. For (1) Division 2 for gas-cooled nuclear power plants;
the BWR, the initial flaw 0.81 deep * 2.6 long was deter- (2) Division 3 for liquid metalcooled reactors;
mined to grow to 0.87 * 2.78 , with a critical flaw depth of 1.3 (3) Subsection IWE for metal containment and metal liners for
in. Repair would be required, for the depth failed the criterion of concrete containment; and
0.1 critical flaw size. If the minimum leak-test temperature could (4) documentation.
be increased from 100F to 192F, the toughness and critical flaw
size would increase so that repair would not be required. For two Division 2 for Gas-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants
of the PWR designs, the initial flaw of 0.95 * 3.04 was deter- These rules, published for review and comment in 1978, addressed
mined to grow to 0.96 * 3.07 . Repair would be required, for only a single concept of a gas-cooled nuclear power plant, the one
the depth failed the criterion of 0.1 critical flaw size. One designer commonly known as the high-temperature gas-cooled reactor
determined that the residual stress requirement was unrealistic. (HTGR). Several of these plants were expected to be built and
By omitting the residual stress, repair would not be required if the operated in the United States and Canada within the next 510 yr.
boltup temperature was increased to 165F and the minimum Other concepts, however, were not expected to reach such early
hydrotest temperature was 210F. For the remaining PWR design, development.
flaw sizes were similar, repair would be required, and boltup was Only a single plant, Fort St. Vrain, near Greeley, Colorado, was
the most severe normal loading condition. operated in this country as a HTGR, although there were several
During a 1974 inservice inspection of a reactor pressure vessel, other innovative gas-cooled nuclear plant designs developed and
flaw indications exceeding the IWB-3500 acceptance standard offered. Division 2 was developed and appeared in the 1981
tables were found in two locations: in a feedwater nozzle-to-shell Addenda of Section XI. With the shutdown of Fort St. Vrain in
weld and in a recirculation nozzle-to-shell weld. The indications 1989, and with no new orders, there was no reason to continue
were characterized as a surface flaw 0.9 in. deep and 1.8 in. long in Division 2, so it was withdrawn and last appeared in the 1993
the feedwater nozzle weld and a subsurface flaw 0.55 in. high and Addenda.
5.95 in. long in the recirculation nozzle weld. Evaluation in accor-
dance with Appendix A showed growth of the feedwater nozzle Division 3 for Liquid MetalCooled Reactors These
weld flaw from 0.9 in. to 1.0 in. depth, with 2.4 in. permissible, and rules address both the loop- and pool-type concepts of liquid
negligible growth for the recirculation nozzle weld flaw with 3.0 in. metalcooled fast-breeder nuclear power plants (LMFBR). The
permissible. The NRC subsequently accepted this conclusion; the loop-type concept is exemplified by the Clinch River Breeder
plant was permitted to continue its operation without repair. Reactor Plant, for which a Preliminary Safety Analysis Report
A general observation that may be drawn from these evalua- (PSAR) had been submitted to the NRC. The purpose of Clinch
tions is that embedded flaws not characterized as surface flaws are River, located near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, was to demonstrate the
likely to be acceptable. We know they preexist from fabrication feasibility of the commercial application of sodium-cooled fast-
because there is no known degradation mechanisms that can gen- breeder nuclear power plants. Effort to develop the ASME Code
erate subsurface flaws in service, and they were either acceptable for systems and components to contain sodium was part of the
or undetected during Construction Code NDE. A size that escapes LMFBR program. Clinch River was one of the few nuclear power
detection is very unlikely to exceed the IWB-3600 criteria. plants to consider inservice inspection in its basic design; thus,
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 333


Division 3 was essentially written around the Clinch River (8) Appendix C, Evaluation of Flaws in Austenitic Piping.
LMFBR concept. (9) Appendix D, Conditioning of Class 1 and 2 Welds that
Liquid metalcooled plants have several characteristics that Require Examination.
result in significant changes in approach from those used in devel- (10) Documentation.
oping rules for inservice inspection of light-water reactors. The
sodium coolant freezes at 208F; the practice is to provide heaters Expanded Acceptance Standards for Specific
and insulation to maintain the sodium temperature at 400F when Applications The Subcommittee recognized that flaws preexisting
the reactor is not in operation, a provision that also includes stor- from new construction and acceptable to the Construction
age vessels and transfer lines used during standby and shutdown. Code/Section III should also be acceptable to Section XI. In a few
Sodium reacts with oxygen in air and in water, so it must be pro- isolated instances, the Section XI standards could reject a condition
tected by an inert cover gas. Another factor is the ability of liquid acceptable to Section III standards. For volumetric examination of
sodium to transport elements by dissolution in one part of the sys- vessel weld thicknesses between 212 and 512 in., Section XI standards
tem and by deposition in another part. The effect on the steam gen- could reject an indication acceptable to Section III. A similar situ-
erators is the loss of carbon from ferritic steel and its pickup by ation also existed for subsurface indications in piping weld thick-
austenitic stainless steel elsewhere in the sodium system. Primary nesses 0.3120.625 in. thick. New standards were needed for linear
system components are located in cells or vaults containing an flaws detected by a method in which the flaw height dimension was
inert gas atmosphere to minimize coolant reaction caused by leak. indeterminate. Tables were added to the Class 1 and Class 2 accep-
Sodium systems can operate efficiently at relatively low pressures, tance standards: Tables IWB-3510-3 and IWC-3510-3 for vessel
so stored energy is minimal compared with water-cooled systems. welds, Table IWC-3511-2 for Class 2 nozzles in vessels, and Table
For these reasons, emphasis is placed on leak detection and visual IWB-3514-4 for Class 1 and Class 2 welds in piping.
inspection as the main inservice inspection methods. Class 1 vessel standards for volumetric examinations have a
Since cancellation of the Clinch River project, Division 3 has lower limit on wall-thickness of 212 in., which is not suitable for
been used primarily in support of the Fast Flux Test Facility Class 2 construction because the wall-thickness is frequently smaller.
(FFTF) at Hanford, Washington. Tables IWC-3510-1 and IWC-3511-1 were added for Class 2 ves-
sels down to 0.5 in. wall-thickness, with the acceptance basis the Subsection IWE for Metal Containment and Metal same as for Class 1 for thickness 212 in. and greater. Additional
Liners for Concrete Containment One of the objectives of Class 2 tables were added that corresponded to the Class 1 tables
Section XI is to provide rules for inservice inspection of all Section III for those examination categories as well as for bolting.
components. Subsection IWE provides rules for inservice examina- With the further development of analytical procedures for eval-
tion of Section III Class MC pressure-retaining components and for uation of piping flaws, such as those in Appendix C, a series of
steel portions of Class CC pressure-retaining components not six tables of acceptable criteria were developed. These tables,
backed up by concrete. While these rules first appeared in the IWB-3641-1 through IWB-3641-6 for austenitic piping (subject
Winter 1981 Addenda, their implementation was delayed because to a number of conditions, including analysis by a procedure such
the NRC did not incorporate these additions in the regulation. In as one found in Appendix C), provide allowable end-of-evaluation
1996, the NRC proposed an amendment to the regulation that period flaw depth-to-thickness ratios for circumferential and axial
accepts the 1992 Addenda, but the amendments implementation flaws under different operating conditions. These include tables
has been delayed by other complications. dependent on the welding process: One table covers circumferen-
tial flaws in shielded metal arc (SMAW) and submerged arc Documentation: Records and Reports Article IWA- (SAW) welds, whereas another covers the same flaw in base mate-
6000 has been gradually expanding to include more precise rial and also covers gas metal arc (GMAW) and gas tungsten arc
requirements. Now, rather than implying just keep everything, it (GTAW) welds.
is attempting to focus on a minimum of requirements that are nec- Not all the changes resulted in additional tables, however. The
essary. These requirements include checklist forms so that IWB-3511 tables for welds in vessels other than the reactor were
essential elements are included. Along with the expanding and dropped and the IWB-3510 tables were applied to all vessels. The
more explicit requirements for each aspect of Section XI came the IWB-3516 tables for support attachment welds for piping, pumps,
need for more exact documentation. All of the examination, test- and valves were dropped when it was determined that the stan-
ing, and repairs obviously must be based on complete plans, dards for the pressure-retaining welds of the component being
schedules, and reports. IWA-6000 now provides a summary of the supported were appropriate for the support attachment welds.
report and record requirements, a format for these records, and fil-
ing and storage requirements. Specific Methods for Weld-Plugging Steam
Generator Tubes While tube plugging or, more often, tubesheet
26.2.5 1983 Edition through 1989 Edition borehole plugging, were occasionally part of the original con-
The following are some of the additions and revisions included struction process, qualification procedures for such welds had not
in these editions: been provided in the Construction Code/Section III or Section IX.
Article IWB-4000 added requirements for qualification of explo-
(1) Expanded acceptance standards for specific applications. sive welding, of fusion welding (manual or machine), and of manual
(2) Specific methods for weld-plugging steam generator tubes. welding.
(3) Augmenting Appendix I UT with a 70 deg. angle beam.
(4) Analytical evaluation of plant operating events (IWB-3700). Augmenting Appendix I UT with a 70 Deg. Angle
(5) Appendix E, Evaluation of Unanticipated Operating Events. Beam As the European Community program on NDE progressed, a
(6) Appendix VII, Qualification of UT Personnel. strong conclusion emerged regarding the effectiveness of a 70 deg.
(7) Subsection IWL for concrete containment. angle-beam examination for the detection of flaw indications near
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 334

334 Chapter 26

and at the surface of a component. This examination was promptly methodology is based on a limit load evaluation or on elastic-plastic
added to the Section XI UT scanning requirements. fracture mechanics evaluations, depending on flaw location. Flaws
are evaluated by comparing the maximum flaw dimensions deter- Analytical Evaluation of Plant Operating Events mined by flaw growth analysis with the maximum allowable flaw
(IWB-3700) The Subcommittee has continuedin IWB-3600, dimensions at the end of a selected evaluation period. Chapter 29
IWB-3700, and subsequent Appendicesto develop rules for con- provides more detailed information regarding this subject.
ditions revealed by plant operation that the Subcommittee on
Nuclear Power (responsible for Section III) either did not address Appendix D, Conditioning of Class 1 and 2 Piping
or did not anticipate. Welds that Require Examination Piping welds that satisfy the
IWB-3700 is departure from other Section XI activities, which surface condition requirements of their Construction Codes,
are all linked by the inservice inspection and the consequences of Section III, ASME B31.1, and ASME B31.7, are often not suitable
flaw detection. Two topics, both relating to the maintenance of the for inservice inspection, particularly when the inservice examina-
reactor coolant systems structural integrity, are addressed. The tion method is UT. Weld crowns interfere with the proper position-
first topic requires an engineering evaluation when an operating ing of the ultrasonic transducer, and ID counterbore adjacent to the
event causes an excursion outside the normal operating pressure weld root can produce misleading ultrasonic signals. Additionally,
and temperature limits. Appendix E provides procedures and cri- weld crowns are encountered with edges that may trap liquid pen-
teria that may be used to evaluate the integrity of the reactor ves- etrant, which can mask unacceptable indications. This Appendix
sel beltline. The second topic requires that load and temperature provides explicit guidance regarding pipe weld surface contours
conditions during reactor operation be maintained to provide pro- acceptable for Section XI NDE. Vessel welds generally receive
tection against failure due to the presence of postulated flaws in such contouring as part of their fabrication process. Because it is
the ferritic portions of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. not part of the piping assembly fabrication process, such contour-
Appendix G provides procedures for defining the load and tem- ing or conditioning becomes part of the field preparation for inser-
perature conditions, with the postulated flaw generally being a vice inspection. The application of Appendix D is recommended
sharp surface flaw having a depth 14 of the section thickness and a for repairs and replacements.
length 112 times the section thickness. These procedures generally
define the limits on a reactor startup and shutdown pressure- Documentation While there have been no fundamen-
temperature curve. Recently, in 1999, the Subcommittee devel- tal changes, there have been useful clarifications. The Winter 1982
oped revisions to Appendix G that may result in slightly less Addenda includes the Owners Report for Repairs and
restrictive curves. ReplacementsForm NIS-2. The need for retention of original
construction records is also recognized. The records that need to Appendix E, Evaluation of Unanticipated Operating be retained are itemized in the following lists.
Events This new Appendix provides acceptance criteria for per- Construction records:
forming an engineering evaluation of the effects of an out-of-limit
condition on the structural integrity of the reactor vessel beltline (a) Certified Design Specifications;
region. A choice of two methods to verify the structural integrity (b) Certified Design Report;
of the reactor vessel beltline region is given. (c) Overpressure Protection Report;
(d) Manufacturers Data Report; Appendix VII, Qualification of UT Personnel This (e) Material Certifications; and
new Appendix modifies the requirements of IWA-2300 specifically (f) Replacement Evaluation Report.
for the training and qualification of UT personnel of all levels. It Inservice inspection records:
requires knowledge of the general fundamentals of ultrasound the-
ory as well as practical knowledge of the established UT techniques (a) index to record file;
and equipment. This is prerequisite for training and qualifica- (b) inservice inspection plans and schedules;
tion for use of the specialized techniques needed for inservice (c) inservice inspection reports;
examinations. (d) repair records and reports;
(e) replacement records and reports; Subsection IWL for Concrete Containment One of (f) nondestructive examination procedures;
the objectives of Section XI is to provide rules for inservice (g) nondestructive examination records, including radiographs
inspection of all Section III components. Subsection IWL provides and review forms;
rules for inservice inspection and repair of the reinforced concrete (h) pump records and reports;
and the posttensioning systems of Section III Class CC compo- (i) valve records and reports;
nents. These rules first appeared in the 1988 addenda, but imple- (j) pressure test procedure; and
mentation was delayed because the NRC did not incorporate these (k) pressure test records.
additions in the regulation. In 1996, the NRC proposed an amend-
ment to the regulation that accepts the 1992 Addenda; however, 26.2.6 1989 Edition, 1989 Addenda through the 1998
implementation of the amendment has been delayed by other com- Edition, 1999 Addenda
plications. In these Editions and Addenda, changes to the Code were intro-
duced mostly through Code Cases. The following revisions and Appendix C, Evaluation of Flaws in Austenitic Piping additions result from incorporation of Cases:
This Appendix provides a method for determining the accept ability
for continued service of austenitic piping containing flaws that (1) repair of heat exchanger tubing by sleeving;
exceed the allowable flaw standards of IWB-3514.3. The evaluation (2) visual examination of vessel closure nuts;
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 335


(3) adoption of ASNT Standard CP-189; penetrating containment is virtually impossible because of design
(4) leakage test in lieu of 10 yr. hydrostatic; configuration of the penetrations. Operating experience with these
(5) exemption of piping welds in containment penetrations; penetrations has shown that periodic leakage tests are sufficient to
(6) performance demonstration for ET; demonstrate structural integrity; consequently, the requirements for
(7) ET as a surface examination; examination of Class 1 and 2 piping welds and attachments to the
(8) MT of coated materials; piping at containment penetrations have been dropped. This as alle-
(9) rotation of snubbers and relief valves; viated the need for relief requests.
(10) Appendix IX, Mechanical Clamping Devices for Class 2
and 3 Piping Pressure Boundary; and Performance Demonstration for ET Appendix IV
(11) Appendix VI, Qualification of Personnel for Visual has been completely revised with the addition of new requirements
Examination. for performance demonstration for qualification of eddy current
examination systems and personnel. This revision necessitated the
In addition to alternatives to the rules introduced in Code relocation of requirements for qualification of personnel for analy-
Cases, the following additions and revisions were introduced: sis of steam-generator tubingeddy current examination data to
(1) Appendix VIII, Performance Demonstration for Ultrasonic IWA-2315. The advantage of performance demonstration over the
Examination Systems; previous prescriptive requirements is that user is not restricted to
(2) Appendix H, Evaluation of Flaws in Ferritic Piping; the application of the eddy current examination to a single appli-
(3) Appendix J, Guide to Plant Maintenance Activities and cation, volumetric examination of steam-generator tubing, by
Section XI; using a specified choice of techniques. The problem in steam-
(4) Appendix K, Assessment of Reactor Vessels with Low generator tubing examination has been that, with the accumulation
Upper-Shelf Charpy Impact Energy Levels; of operating experience with different designs and materials, addi-
(5) Appendix L, Operating Plant Fatigue Assessment; tional degradation mechanisms have been revealed, necessitating
(6) Appendix M, Applying Mathematical Modeling to the development of specific techniques for the proper characteriza-
Ultrasonic Examination of Pressure-Retaining Components; tion of the mechanisms. With the revision of Appendix IV, the user
(7) documentation; and is now free to qualify specific techniques for specific applications
(8) use of non-ASTM material. and is not limited to steam-generator applications.

The topics in the preceding lists are only those considered ET as a Surface Examination These changes resulted
especially important by the author. Those and other topics related from the incorporation of a Code Case for use of the eddy current
to ISI programs, flaw evaluation, and repair/replacement activities method for surface examination of coated ferritic material. Eddy
are discussed in detail in Chapters 2731. current examination is now referenced in the surface examination
provisions. Application to coated ferritic material must be accom- Repair of Heat Exchanger Tubing by Sleeving This plished through performance demonstration in accordance with
revision is an alternative to plugging as a method for repair of steam Appendix IV. The advantage is that the removal of and subsequent
generator tubing when eddy current testing shows an unacceptable replacement of paint or other coating is no longer necessary as part
deterioration. Sleeving is a process of inserting and fastening a sec- of a surface examination procedure.
tion of smaller diameter tubing inside a straight section of heat
exchange tubing, a process that allows the tube to remain in service. MT of Coated Materials Incorporation of a Code
Case for use of the yoke method of magnetic-particle examination Visual Examination of Vessel Closure Nuts This revi- on coated ferritic materials was accomplished indirectly by means
sion replaces the requirement for surface examination of the nuts of the existing reference to the MT requirements of Section V, to
on reactor vessel closure studs. Operating experience indicated which the provisions of the Code were added. The advantage is
that the surface examination was not necessary to verify the struc- that the removal of and subsequent replacement of paint or other
tural integrity of these nuts; instead, the VT-1 visual examination coating is no longer necessary as part of a surface examination pro-
was considered sufficient. cedure. Adoption of ASNT CP-189 This revision replaces the Rotation of Snubbers and Relief Valves This addition
reference to ASNT SNT-TC-1A, a recommended practice, with (IWA-4132) clarifies the situation in which snubbers and relief
the new ASNT CP-189, Standard for Qualification and valves are removed from service for program-required operability
Certification of Nondestructive Testing Personnel. testing and do not require repair. They may be later reinstalled and
subject only to the required preservice inspection and pressure test Leakage Test in lieu of 10 Yr. Hydrostatic Test This without being subject to a formal Repair/Replacement Plan and
important revision recognizes that the requirement for a test at an NIS-2 Form. See 27.3.2 of Chapter 27 for more information
elevated pressure once each 10 yr. inspection interval can be regarding this subject.
replaced by a leakage test at normal operating pressure. One ben-
efit is the elimination of one of the design cycle requirements Appendix IX, Mechanical Clamping Devices for
imposed on all reactor systems; another is a significant simpifica- Class 2 and 3 Piping Pressure Boundary Appendix IX provides
tion in the preparation and performance of the test, including uniform requirements for addressing a situation that occasionally
pressure-temperature limitation considerations. occurs in operating plants: a small leak that is detected during
operation. A clamping device may be installed to safely eliminate Exemption of Piping Welds in Containment or control the leak until the next refueling outage, which avoids a
Penetrations Volumetric or surface examination of welds in piping forced outage of the plant. While the requirements contain many
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 336

336 Chapter 26

limitations and exclude the application to Class 1 piping but configurations. Appendix VIII does not prescribe how to perform
include many design and monitoring requirements, they do pro- an examination; instead, it contains rules for qualification or
vide the user with a set of conditions known to be acceptable to the demonstration that a technique is acceptable for field use. It
NRC, thereby avoiding the need to establish such requirements on requires a statistically based qualification, which also provides
a case-by-case basis. See 27.3.4 of Chapter 27 for more informa- quantified performance information regarding both the detection
tion regarding this subject. of and sizing of flaws. This reduces the uncertainty associated
with conventional UT. A benefit is that, because the uncertainties Appendix VI, Qualification of Personnel for Visual of NDE are part of the established design factors, implementation
Examination Appendix VI adds and consolidates requirements of these performance demonstration rules will eventually provide
for qualification of personnel performing VT-1, VT-2, and VT-3 a basis for reduction of the established design factors.
visual examinations. Reference to ASNT Standard CP-189 has Appendix VIII (1989 Addenda) applies to:
also been updated to the 1995 edition. (a) Reactor vessel shell and head welds (excluding flange
welds, nozzle-to-vessel welds, nozzle-inside-radius areas, Appendix VIII, Performance Demonstration for and clad-to-base metal interface regions).
Ultrasonic Examination Systems Appendix VIII provides for (b) Welds in piping.
qualification of UT procedures, equipment, and personnel by (c) Bolts and studs.
demonstration using realistic flawed specimens. The concept of Performance demonstration requirements apply to UT exami-
performance demonstration for qualification of ultrasonic exami- nation procedures, equipment, and personnel used to detect and
nation techniques was recognized in the early 1970s by Section XI size flaws, but not to personnel who mount scanning equipment or
members developing UT procedure requirements. An approach function in a non-NDE role. Any procedure qualified in accor-
was needed that accounted for the following: dance with Appendix VIII is acceptable. Performance demonstra-
(a) damage mechanism of interest; tion also provides the flexibility to adapt to different damage
(b) UT technique appropriate for the damage mechanism; mechanisms; qualification may be limited to technique demon-
(c) UT equipment compatibility with the component design or stration on a specific flaw of interest.
piping configuration; and One conclusion of the European Communitys Programme for
(d) human factors. Inspection of Steel Components (PISC) project and other interna-
tional UT round-robin test programs was that a technique suitable
Such an approach could not possibly be addressed in a typical for detecting flaws was not necessarily effective for sizing those
ASME Code minimum generic requirement. However, this flaws. Appendix VIII recognizes the need to make a distinction
approach was already in use in the Code, in Section IX, to qualify between flaw detection and flaw sizing functions by permitting
welding procedures and welders. Work began in 1975 but pro- different procedures or techniques for either function, unlike the
gressed slowly as the efforts of members were directed toward conventional Code generic methodology. Of course, a user can
further development of Appendices I and III. Technical justifica- always perform an Appendix VIII UT system qualification by
tion of the need for Appendix VIII began with the recognition that using a procedure based on the generic Code methodology.
major challenges existed for the effective use of UT for detection The performance demonstration in Appendix VIII is a statisti-
of service-induced damage mechanisms. The UT technique per- cally based screening approach for qualifying a UT operator,
formance evaluations at individual nuclear plants, industry UT equipment, and procedure. Sets of blocks containing the flaw of
personnel and technique qualification programs, and international interest for the procedure to be qualified are examined. If the
round-robin programs all indicated the inadequacy of conventional operator identifies 90% of the flaws in the specimen test set and
UT programs deployed by the industry. One common concern does not exceed a false call rate of 10%, the probability of the
was the disparity in ultrasonic response between machined cali- operator passing the qualification is 90%. However, if the operator
bration reflectors and real flaws. There was also a growing con- identifies only 50% of the flaws and has a false call rate of 30%,
cern that the UT personnel training, which had been appropriate the passing probability is only 1%.
for material examination and component construction, did not Performance demonstration of flaw-sizing techniques also
meet the needs of the more limited and specialized area of inser- resolves technical issues created by the Code in its failure to
vice inspection. effectively address flaw sizing. Before Section XI came into exis-
Conventionally, Section XI has required that the UT operator tence, UT operators were content to detect material discontinu-
be certified as a UT Level 2 or UT Level 3 based on the require- ities and possibly estimate their length. Initially, Code UT experts
ments of ASNT SNT TC-1A. This certification shows that the thought they could accomplish the measurements of flaw indica-
operator has knowledge of the principles of UT, can operate the tion length, height, and through-thickness location by using the
equipment, and has the general capability of performing examina- existing Code methods. The approach used by the Code, and most
tions; however, it does not verify capability of one to detect spe- UT experts worldwide, was to record indications based on signal
cific types of flaws or discontinuities. Performance demonstration amplitude response comparison to a reference reflector response.
qualifications have shown that many operators need training in This approach, however, was shown to be unreliable in the inter-
techniques specific to the procedure and flaw of interest. national programs mentioned in Several of the teams
Appendix VIII addresses the many issues and problems of participating in the international programs showed that accurate
Code-prescribed UT methodology. The advantages of the flaw- sizing could be accomplished by using UT techniques developed
detection performance demonstration are that it eliminates the specifically to perform sizing. In addition, much has been learned
Code-prescribed procedure, which has been demonstrated as inef- by means of sizing techniques developed in individual U.S.
fective, and also the burden on the Code to describe a universal nuclear plants to address specific materials damage mechanisms,
methodology to reliably detect all damage mechanisms in all such as IGSCC and flow-assisted corrosion.
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 337


Even though the cost to the nuclear utility industry to develop models used to predict equivalence in examination coverage and
and implement UT performance demonstration programs exceeds orientation parameters. Use of these models is expected to extend
$10 million dollars, present estimates are that savings for U.S. performance demonstration qualifications to similar geometries
nuclear plants over the 10 yr. inspection cycle will be more than and reduce the number of test samples needed. In particular, the
double that amount because of more efficient, reliable, and accu- use of the models is expected to make a significant reduction in the
rate examinations. Much of this savings will come through the complexity of nozzle weld examination qualifications.
implementation of risk-informed inspection programs. See 26.3
for additional information. Documentation It had been observed that there existed
major differences in the extent of the inservice inspection reports Appendix H, Evaluation of Flaws in Ferritic Piping submitted to the NRC by different utilities. Efforts were directed
This Appendix provides evaluation methodology for determining toward determining the information essential to characterize inser-
acceptability for continued service of ferritic piping containing vice inspection and repair/replacement activities. The distinction
flaws that exceed the acceptance standards of IWB-3514.2. The has been clarified between records the Owner will retain and the
analytic procedure includes use of actual pipe material properties. summary reports the Owner will submit to the regulatory and
See Chapter 29 of this book for more information. enforcement authorities. To implement this clarification, checklists
of the required information were incorporated in Article IWA- Appendix J, Guide to Plant Maintenance Activities 6000. In addition, guides for completing the NIS-1 Form (inser-
and Section XI Repair/Replacement Activities This Appendix vice inspection report) and NIS-2 Form (repair/replacement activ-
was developed to reduce the overapplication of Section XI ity report) were added to Appendix II.
repair/replacement activity requirements. A flow chart is provided IWA-6340 previously required only inservice inspection plans
with criteria to assist in separating plant maintenance activities and reports, repair/replacement activity reports and records, non-
from tasks that must be performed under the administrative and destructive examination procedures and records, and pressure test
technical requirements of Section XI. See 27.2.4 of Chapter 27 for procedures and records. Now, it also requires the records of flaw
more information. acceptance by analytical evaluation and a collection of records
associated with containment post-tensioning systems. Appendix K, Assessment of Reactor Vessels with
Low Upper-Shelf Charpy Impact Energy Levels For reactor Use of Non-ASTM Material Provisions added to the
vessels with material upper-shelf Charpy impact energy levels less Foreword of the Code state that materials specifications published
than 50 ft. lb., IWB-3730(b) provides for evaluation using actual by national and international organizations (aside from the ASTM)
geometry and material properties to ensure protection against duc- may be included in Section II of the Code. This inclusion permits
tile failure. Appendix K provides procedures to demonstrate such the Code-sanctioned use of materials produced to DIN, CEN, JIS,
protection. Flaws are postulated in the regions of low-impact energy; and other standards.
procedures using elasticplastic fracture mechanics are used to
determine the applied J-integral for these flaws. The flaws are 26.2.7 1998 Edition, 2000 Addenda only
compared to the J-integral fracture resistance of the material, con- There are very few substantive revisions in this Addenda (blue
sidering all specified design transients. WRC Bulletin 413 [8], pages). Most changes consist of editorial clean-up or errata.
which was prepared by the SC XI Working Group on Flaw The following revisions and additions result from incorporation of
Evaluation, provides the technical basis. Part 1, Development of Code Cases.
Criteria and Analysis Methods, responds to a request from the
NRC to address reactor vessels with low upper-shelf fracture (1) monitoring flaw growth by acoustic emission;
toughness. The Bulletins recommendations include acceptance (2) visual examination in lieu of UT for pump casing welds.
criteria subsequently implemented in the Code as Appendix K and
The following changes were also noted.
Case N-512. Part 2, Implementation of Evaluation Procedures in
ASME Code Section XI, contains the basis for the simplified eval- (3) deletion of references to pump and valve testing;
uation procedures for Service Level A and B conditions contained (4) belated inclusion of repair by mitigation
in Appendix K and Case N-512. (5) elimination of redundant repair pressure testing rules Appendix L, Operating Plant Fatigue Assessment

This Appendix was developed as a result of concerns expressed by Monitoring Flaw Growth by Acoustic Emission This
the NRC that the ASME Section III fatigue design curve was non- addition to volumetric examination methods permits monitoring
conservative and that severe multipliers would need to be applied growth of flaws previously sized by UT, in lieu of successive
to Section III fatigue usage factor calculations. Appendix L pro- inspections of both Class 1 and Class 2 systems. Section V Article
vides for recalculation of usage factor based on plant-specific load- 13 is referenced for the acoustic emission methodology, including
ing cycles or plant operating data, and also provides (for use in lieu calculation of flaw growth at two month intervals.
of fatigue usage factor calculation) a flaw tolerance evaluation
based on postulated flaws. Evaluation procedures and acceptance Visual Examination in lieu of UT for Pump Casing
criteria are provided for ferritic steel components and for both fer- Welds By incorporation of Case N-481, VT-1 examination of
ritic and austenitic steel piping. pump casing welds is permitted in lieu of volumetric examination.
This action includes an unresolved conflict, reflected in flaw Appendix M, Applying Mathematical Modeling to acceptance standards still based on volumetric examination. The
Ultrasonic Examination of Pressure-Retaining Components major issue is the inability to develop Appendix VIII qualification
Appendix M provides criteria for the validation of mathematical criteria for a reliable UT examination method for welds in cast
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 338

338 Chapter 26

austenitic pump casing material. The Case includes provisions for have the advantage of better capability than liquid penetrant for
a fitness-for-service evaluation based on pump material toughness. remote/mechanized operation, and for areas where application and
cleanup of penetrant materials is difficult and may leave deleteri- Deletion of References to Pump and Valve Testing ous residue.
Requirements for and references to testing pumps and valves have
been removed from Section XI. This includes Subsection IWP and Leakage Test in Lieu of Hydrostatic Test Revisions
IWV, which simply referred to OM Part 6 and OM Part 10. These to the Examination and Inspection tables for Class 1 and 2 systems
requirements are now located in the ASME Code for Operation had previously been revised to specify only a system leakage test
and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants. at operating conditions. In a catch-up action, this has now been
extended to the Class 3 Table IWD-2500-1. In addition, require- Belated Inclusion of Repair by Mitigation IWA- ments for pressure testing after repair/replacement activities have
4340, Mitigation of Defects by Modification, provides criteria been clarified. A hydrostatic test would be mandatory only if
for modification of an item without removal of a defect. Through required by the Construction Code for a replacement component or
a publishing error, these provisions were omitted from the 1999 appurtenance.
Addenda. Insulation Removal for Examination for Leakage
For bolted connections having bolting of corrosion resistant mate- Elimination of Redundant Repair Pressure Testing
rial with a chromium content of at least 10%, visual examination
Rules IWA-5400, Pressure Testing of Class 1, 2 and 3 Items, was
may be performed without removal of insulation. Also note related
deleted. Through a publishing error, it appeared in the 1999
action in below.
Addenda. The same information appeared in IWA-4540. Appendix C and Appendix H, Evaluation
26.2.8 2001 Edition through its 2003 Addenda Procedures for Flaws in Austenitic and Ferritic Class 1, 2, and
The 2001 Edition was published with the 2001 Addenda 3 Piping; revised in their entirety Appendix C had been for
already incorporated; however, SUMMARY OF CHANGES analysis of flaws in austenitic pipe. It is now a general method, not
pages were included so that the revisions can be identified with specific to austenitic material, for evaluation of flaws in pipe that
either 2001 Edition or 2001 Addenda. 2002 Addenda (pink pages) exceed the allowable flaw standards of IWB-3514 or IWC-3514.
and 2003 Addenda (blue pages) were issued separately. Appendix H, similarly, is no longer limited to ferritic materials. It
The following revisions and additions result for incorporation now is based on a failure assessment diagram approach. There are
of Code Cases. separate diagrams for ferritic and austenitic pipe. Both Appendices
(1) addition of eddy current and ultrasonic methods to surface are discussed in depth in Chapter 29.
(2) leakage test in lieu of hydrostatic test; Appendix VIII Supplements 2, 4, 6, and 11 Updating
(3) insulation removal for examination for leakage; of these supplements to incorporate implementing Code Cases is
(4) Appendix C and Appendix H, evaluation procedures for part of the ongoing evolution of Appendix VIII based on field
flaws in austenitic and ferritic Class 1, 2, and 3 piping; experience and resolution of NRC concerns.
revised in their entirety; (a) Supplement 2 addresses qualification requirements for
(5) Appendix VIII Supplements 2, 4, 6, and 11. wrought austenitic piping welds;
The following changes were also noted. Many other changes (b) Supplement 4 addresses qualification requirements for the
have been to consolidate requirements, and add clarity, to make clad/base metal interface of reactor vessel;
the Code more user friendly, and to recognize industry practice. (c) Supplement 6 addresses qualification requirements for
reactor vessel welds other than clad/base metal interface;
(6) ultrasonic examination coverage; (d) Supplement 11 addresses qualification requirements for full
(7) use of automatic UT scanners; structural overlaid wrought austenitic piping welds.
(8) visual examination requirements, particularly regarding
illumination levels and personnel vision; Also note the Code Cases implementing these and further
(9) augmented examination of containment surfaces; changes in the Supplements to Appendix VIII, in the listing in
(10) repair documentation; 26.9, Appendix A, A.3, NDE.
(11) design reconciliation for repair/replacement activities; Ultrasonic Examination Coverage A new Article
(12) qualification of NDE personnel for repair/replacement
I-3000 Examination Coverage has been added to Appendix I
Ultrasonic Examination. Specific examination coverage require-
(13) mechanical plugs for heat exchanger tubes;
ments are now provided for four examination categories:
(14) digitization of records.
(a) piping;
The topics in the preceding lists are only those considered
(b) reactor pressure vessel shell welds;
especially important by the author. Those and other topics related
(c) reactor pressure vessel nozzle-to-shell welds;
to ISI programs, flaw evaluation, and repair/replacement activi-
(d) bolts and studs.
ties, are discussed in detail in Chapters 2731. Addition of Eddy Current and Ultrasonic Methods Use of Automatic UT Scanners Provisions have
to Surface Examination Surface Examination methods have been been added to Appendix III for examination coverage using
supplemented by eddy current and ultrasonic examination. Both mechanized scanners. Appendix III provides requirements for
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 339


ultrasonic examination when specified by Appendix I, such as for NDE Method and Personnel Qualification IWA-
vessels no thicker than 2 inches (not covered by Appendix VIII). 2210 Visual Examination has been substantially revised, simplify-
ing the visual examination requirements and incorporating Code Visual Examination Requirements, particularly Case N-686.
regarding Illumination Levels and Personnel Vision IWA-2221 Magnetic Particle Examination and IWA-2222 Liquid
Requirements for VT-1, VT-2, and VT-3 visual examination have Penetrant Examination now include lighting level requirements.
been restated for clarity. General and remote examination require- NDE personnel qualification and certification requirements of
ments have been transferred to the VT-1 and VT-3 descriptions. IWA-2312 and IWA-2314 have been revised in recognition of
VT-2 examination provisions have been limited to criteria neces- ANSI/ASNT CP-189 and ACCP.
sary for detection of evidence of leakage, without specific illumi- In response to NRC concerns, visual examination personnel
nation and character resolution requirements. qualification requirements of IWA-2316 are revised to limit its
use to personnel performing system leakage or hydrostatic tests Augmented Examination of Containment Surfaces and IWA-2317 is revised to require written tests for initial qualifi-
New requirements have been developed for containment surface cation and every 3 years thereafter.
areas subject to accelerated corrosion and aging. Where grid areas
are designated, rather than measuring wall thickness at grid inter- Deletion of Snubber Inspection and Testing By
sections, measurements are conducted on the entire grid area, with changing Table IWA-1600-1, IWA-2213, IWA-4120, IWA-4131,
grids selected on a statistical basis. IWA-4132, IWA-4530, IWF-1220, IWF-1300, Fig. IWF-1300-1,
IWF-2100, and the deletion of IWF-5000, snubber inspection and Repair Documentation For user convenience, the testing requirements in Section XI are removed. This eliminates
repair documentation requirements have been relocated from duplication with the OM Code Subsection ISTD requirements for
IWA-4180 to IWA-4311(e), IWA-6210(e), and IWA-6350. snubber inspections. Design Reconciliation for Repair/Replacement Welding, Brazing, Fabrication and Installation
Activities Explicit requirements have been in place for all aspects IWA-4411 is revised and Non-Mandatory Appendix Q is added to
reconciliation needed for repair/replacement activities except incorporate Code Case N-504-2 for weld overlay repair of
design; now requirements for design reconciliation have been austenitic piping.
introduced in IWA-4226. A change removes the words the Construction Code or from
IWA-2240 and removes IWA-4520(c), to address NRC limitations. Qualification of NDE Personnel for Repair/ IWA-4660, Underwater Welding, is revised to address NRC
Replacement Activities Specific requirements for qualification of restrictions in 10CFR50.55a. It restricts application of underwater
NDE personnel for repair/replacement activities have been added welding, using established industry data to set limits for welding
in IWA-4511. on irradiated material. Mechanical Plugs for Heat Exchanger Tubes IWB-2500 Examination Requirement Changes
Provisions for mechanical plugs for heat exchanger tubes have IWB-2500(c) has been added to reference the alternative use of
been added to repair/replacement activity requirements in IWA- Appendix R, Risk Informed Inspection Requirements for Piping.
4713. Examination Category B-O (Table IWB-2500-1) and Fig. IWB-
2500-18 are revised. Requirements have been added for examina- Digitization of Records Requirements now permit tion of PWR control rod drive and in-core instrumentation hous-
maintaining records in an electronic (i.e. digital) format using ing welds greater than NPS 2. These respond to instances of stress
magnetic, optical, or equivalent storage media. corrosion cracking found in the field. Also, this restores inspec-
tion of in-core instrumentation housings that was removed in the
26.2.9 2004 Edition through 2006 Addenda 1974 Edition. The words and instrument nozzle have added to
The 2004 Edition, 2005 Addenda (pink pages) and 2006 appropriate locations in the text referring to CRD housings. The
Addenda (blue pages) were each published with SUMMARY action included Code Case N-697 for early implementation.
OF CHANGES pages so that revisions can be easily identified. Figures IWB-2500-7(a), (b), (c), and (d) are revised to exclude
While many of the changes noted on these ten pages are trivial, the cladding from the examination volume associated with the
editorial, or errata, there are also a number of substantive revi- nozzle inside corner region (M-N-O-P). Specifically, move points
sions and additions. There are even a few requirements deleted. M and N from the ID surface of the clad to the clad base metal
Note that these selected changes are generally listed in the interface. This makes them consistent with Appendix VIII,
order in which they appear in the book, not in the order of Supplement 5, which provides the qualification requirements for
importance. the nozzle inside corner region.
Figure IWB-2500-8c, similar and dissimilar metal welds in Standard Units IWA-1700, Mandatory Appendix X components, nozzles, and piping is revised to include the butter-
(ten) and Nonmandatory Appendix P have been added in accor- ing in the examination volume. A General Note has been added to
dance with ASME Codes and Standards policy. Section XI now the figure to provide needed clarification.
provides both U.S. Customary and S.I. units. Appendix X pro-
vides standard units for use in equations. Appendix P provides IWB-3000 Acceptance Standards Changes IWB-
guidance for use of U.S. Customary and S.I. units and permits use 3430, IWB-3500, IWB-3514, Tables IWB-3514-1 and 2 and Table
of alternate systems of units for design and documentation of IWB-2500-1 are revised to exclude the use of Acceptance
components. Standards for planar flaws caused by stress corrosion cracking.
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 340

340 Chapter 26

This issue pertains to UNS N06600, N06082 or W86182, and the Construction Code and the Owner`s Requirements prior to and
stainless steel in both PWRs and BWRs wherein IGSCC, PWSCC during the performance of the repair/replacement activity.
and TGSCC have occurred. Crack growth rates for Stress
Corrosion Cracking are not codified and can be of such high mag- Mandatory Appendix Requirement Changes
nitudes as to render use of the Acceptance Standards as unconser- Appendix I Ultrasonic Examination is revised to: Address cover-
vative. A potential safety problem may result. age requirements for dissimilar and overlaid piping welds and noz-
IWB-3611, IWB-3612, IWB-3613 and A-5300 Flaw Acceptance zle inside corner regions; expand the allowable applicability of
Criteria for Ferritic Components 4 inches and Greater in Thickness Appendix VIII; and change T to t when used to indicate thick-
are revised to permit the use of KIc instead of KIa in the calculations of ness of pressure retaining boundary. Table I-2000-1 Supplement 12
allowable flaw size for fracture initiation The structural factors for is revised and relocated, I-2600 and I-3200(c) and (d) are added,
acceptance remain unchanged. This action is the same one taken to and 1-3310, I-3320, and I-3400 are substantially revised.
revise Appendix G flaw evaluation criterion and will make the pro- Appendix VI Qualification of Personnel for Visual
cedures consistent for both evaluation methods. Examination paragraph VI-1000 is revised and VI-4310, VI-
IWB-3660 Evaluation Procedure and Acceptance Criteria for 4320, VI-4330. VI-4400 and VI-5000 are deleted. These adminis-
PWR Reactor Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles provides for eval- trative requirements are addressed by CP-189. VII-4350 is revised
uation of PWR reactor vessel upper and lower head penetration for consistency with CP-189.
nozzles containing flaws. Note that the acceptance standards of Appendix VII Qualification of Nondestructive Examination
IWB-3500 shall not be used to accept indications in this region. Personnel for Ultrasonic Examination paragraphs VII-4121, 4122,
Appendix O may be used to evaluate such flaws. and 4123 requirements for partial experience in nuclear applications
are deleted. Subsection IWC Class 2 Component Requirement Appendix VIII Performance Demonstration for Ultrasonic
Changes IWC-1220 component examination exemption require- Examination Systems Table VIII-3110-1 is revised and Supplements
ments are revised to clarify the exemption limits. 5 and 7, - Qualification Requirements for Nozzle Examinations
IWC-2500(c) has been added to reference the alternative use of from the Outside and Insides Surfaces, are replaced to align them
Appendix R, Risk Informed Inspection Requirements for Piping. with the Performance Demonstration Initiative (PDI) Program,
To remove gross structural discontinuity as a basis for weld Code Case N-552, and 10CFR50.55a. Revisions simplify qualifi-
selection, Table IWC-2500-1, Examination Category C-A is revised cation requirements for nozzle examinations.
and Note (2) is deleted. Supplement 10 is completely revised, including addition of
Examination Categories C-B, C-F-1 and C-F-2 address exami- Table VIII-10-1.
nation of reinforcing plates with partial penetration welds. Figures Supplement 11 is substantially revised to realign it with the
IWC-2500-4 (c) and IWC-2500-13 are revised to add a note to PDI Program and the current relief requests. Revisions were made
address reinforcement pads that are fillet welded to both the noz- to simplify qualification requirements for nozzle examinations.
zle and vessel or both sections of pipe, completely encasing the Supplement 13 is deleted. Supplement 13 allows for a coordinated
branch connection welds. This action corrects a deficiency in implementation of Supplements 4 (clad base metal interface), 5 (noz-
scope of the Section XI requirements. zle inside corner region), 6 (Remaining RPV welds), and 7 (Nozzle
to vessel weld). The PDI program does not allow for this coordinated Subsection IWD Class 3 Component Requirement implementation because the examination techniques and examination
Changes IWD-1220 component examination exemption require- volumes associated with Supplements 4, 5, 6, and 7 are significantly
ments are revised to clarify the exemption limits. different and make a coordinated implementation impractical.
Supplement 14 is added. Supplement 14 provides for expansion Subsection IWE Class MC and Metallic Liners of of Supplement 10 qualifications to permit coordinated qualifica-
Class CC Components Requirement Changes IWE-1241, IWE- tion for Supplements 2 and 3, for piping weld examinations per-
2100, IWE-2200(c), IWE-2310, IWE-2320, IWE-2330, IWE- formed from the inside surface.
2420, IWE-2500, Table IWE-2500-1 Examination Category E-A, Appendix X Standard Units for Use in Equations is discussed
Table IWE-2500-1 Examination Category E-C, IWE-3122.3, in
IWE-3500, and IWE-5240, are revised, and Table IWE-2500-1
Examination Category E-G is added, clarifying Personnel Nonmandatory Appendix Requirement Changes
Qualifications and Visual Examination Requirements. NRC Be careful to use only the 2007 or subsequent Editions, since a
10CFR50.55a imposes a number of modifications and limitations number of errors have been found in formulas in the 2004 Edition
on the use of Subsection IWE, 2004 Edition. Successful incorpo- Appendices A, C, H, L and Q.
ration of these changes into IWE should permit the NRC to elimi- Appendix N Written Practice Development for Qualification
nate these modifications and limitations in future amendments to and Certification of NDE Personnel May be useful in meeting
10CFR50.55a. written practice requirements of IWA-2300.
Appendix O Evaluation of Flaws in PWR Reactor Vessel Subsection IWL Class CC Concrete Component Upper Head Penetration Nozzles Provides rules for flaw model-
Requirement Changes IWL-5210(b) provides an exemption to the ing and evaluation. Referenced in IWB-3662 (f).
pressure test requirements of IWL-5000 for minor repair/replace- Appendix P Guidance for Use of U.S. Customary and S.I.
ment activities that do not affect the structural integrity of the con- units in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code The equa-
tainment. IWL-5210 is revised to clarify that an Engineering tions in this Appendix are suitable for use with the units provided
Evaluation Report (as specified in IWL-3310) is not required. in Mandatory Appendix X.
Instead, an Owner shall evaluate the minor repair/replacement Appendix Q Weld Overlay Repair of Class 1, 2 and 3
activity to ensure that the containment satisfies the requirements of Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping Weldments Provides an
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 341


alternative to the requirements of IWA-4420, IWA-4520, IWA- Table 2500-1, Category B-P is revised to add Item No. B15.20.
4530, and IWA-4600 for repairs to and subsequent examination of This change allows the testing of the Class 1 components that are
Class 1, 2 and 3 austenitic stainless steel piping weldments with not pressurized during unit startup pressure test to be tested at
stress corrosion cracking. Referenced in IWA-4411 (h). sometime other than during reactor startup.
Appendix R Risk-Informed Inspection Requirements for IWE-5220 requirements for Containment pressure tests follow-
Piping Incorporates Code Cases N-560-2, N-577-1, and N-578-1 ing repair/replacement activities are completely revised and sup-
into Section XI. This Appendix includes lessons learned from the use plemented by providing specific leak test requirements that may
of these Code Cases within the industry. It includes requirements for be used in lieu of pneumatic leakage tests imposed by 10CFR50,
additional examinations, examination category table requirements, Appendix J.
reevaluations, glossary terms, risk calculations, change-in-risk evalu-
ation requirements, and the use of risk-informed methods in perform- IWB-3000 Acceptance Standards Changes In IWB-
ing preservice inspections. This Appendix allows a user to develop 3410.2(b) and many subsequent locations, the term Safety Factor
and update a risk-informed ISI program for piping as part of a normal is placed with Structural Factor. With the inclusion of evaluation
10-year ISI program update. equations in the code, there were frequent references to safety fac-
tors in Section XI. These were intended as design factors but the
26.2.10 2007 Edition (with no Addenda) use of the term Safety Factor is inconsistent with the rest of the
The 2007 Edition has been published with SUMMARY OF Code where the practice has been to avoid the implication of a spe-
CHANGES pages so that revisions can be easily identified. There cific safety factor or margin. Replacing the term Safety Factor in
are a few substantive revisions and additions, including incorpora- Section XI with the term Structural Factor assures consistency
tion of Code Cases N-517-1, N-566-2 and N-753. However, many with the rest of the Code. Structural factor has also been added to
of the changes noted on those six pages are inconsequential, com- IWA-9000.
prising minor clarifications and corrections, editorial cleanup, or
errata. There are even a few requirements deleted. Note that the Mandatory Appendix Requirement Changes
following selected changes are generally listed in the order in Appendix I Ultrasonic Examination Supplement 9 Scan Angles
which they appear in the book, not in the order of importance. is revised to clarify that 45 and 60 degree search units are also
required for examinations conducted from the outside surface and Record Signatures IWA-1400 (q) has been added to the inside surface of unclad components.
allow electronic certification, authorization, and approval of Appendix VIII Performance Demonstration for Ultrasonic
records. A written signature is no longer the only method. Examination Systems VIII-3120(b) is revised to clarify qualifi-
cation requirements for detection and sizing of axial flaws in NDE Method and Personnel Qualification To those piping Supplements that otherwise contain no provisions.
address an NRC concern, IWA-2316 has been revised to limit use Appendix VIII, Supplements 2, 3, 10, 11, and 14 may not have
only to qualify VT-2 personnel that observe for leakage during sys- provisions for qualification of procedures, personnel, and equip-
tem leakage and hydrostatic tests conducted in accordance with ment for length and/or depth sizing of axial flaws. This exclusion
IWA-5211(a) and (b). is reasonable since axially oriented service induced flaws are typi-
IWA-2321(b) has been added to implement Code Case N-753 cally confined by the failure mechanism, e.g., to the heat-affected
to allow use of optometrist, ophthalmologist, or other heath care zone for Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking (IGSCC) or the
professionals to administer the vision acuity examinations inde- weld for Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking (PWSCC),
pendent of other requirements. thus providing defined start and stop points that are within the
0.75 in. allowable RMS error. The change clarifies the qualifica- Deletion of Inspection Program A Inspection tion requirements for length and/or depth sizing of axial flaws in
Program A, which bunched inspections in the first 10 years of those Appendix VIII, piping Supplements that otherwise contain
plant operation, has never been used. It has been removed from no provisions. The recent discoveries of PWSCC in PWR compo-
IWA-2400 and all subsequent related subsections, with appropriate nents increases the probability that these measurements will be
editorial revisions. needed; this change is intended to provide guidance.
In Supplement 4 and 6, flaw depth distributions are redefined Owners Responsibilities IWA-4142.1 has been from uniform to representative. Supplements 4 and 6 require
added to incorporate Code Case N-517-1 as an alternative require- a uniform distribution of flaws in the test set. This provides the
ment. This change allows owners of plants constructed in accor- candidate with unintended information about the test sets.
dance with Section III to qualify Material Organizations, utilize Additionally, it is impossible to obtain a uniform flaw distribution
the provisions from Section III for unqualified source material, and when incorporating 4 different flaw depths into a test set contain-
utilize the exemptions of NB-2610 (b) and (c) etc.. These are ing 10 flaws. In Supplement 4 the minimum flaw size is revised to
responsibilities that had been limited to Manufacturers. Also, this be 50% rather than 100% of the allowable. Supplement 4 was
new paragraph made it necessary to add five new terms to IWA- renumbered and includes correction of an improper Supplement
9000, Glossary: Certificate of Authorization, Certificate Holder, 5, 3.6(b) reference.
Material Organization(Metallic), Quality System Certificate Supplement 7 is revised to require a performance demonstra-
(materials), and source material. tion for personnel. It currently requires qualification of the exami-
nation procedure and equipment and, other than qualification in Pressure Test Changes IWA-5251 has been added to accordance with Supplement 4 and 6, there are no performance
incorporate Code Case N-566-2. It allows an evaluation in lieu of demonstration requirements for personnel. Recent experience
pulling the bolts when leakage is found at bolted connections in a indicates that differences between examination of the vessel and
system borated for the purpose of controlling reactivity. examination of the nozzle are sufficient to require a performance
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 342

342 Chapter 26

demonstration for personnel. This action also resolves a discrep- did not exist at the time that these assumptions were made has now
ancy with 10CFR50.55a requirements. reached maturity and promises to provide an efficient approach to
Supplement 12 is revised to be limited to a coordinated imple- address degradation. Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) technol-
mentation of Supplement 2 and 3. This limit is consistent with the ogy is now accepted and applied in nuclear power plants and used
current PDI program which indicates that examination techniques to identify and prioritize the most risk-important systems. These
associated with Supplements 10 and 11 are significantly different systems do not always coincide with the Section III Design Class
from those of Supplement 2 and 3 and make a coordinated imple- 1, 2, or 3 order of importance.
mentation impractical. In an unrelated development, the pressure vessel industry began
to recognize that examination techniques need to be based on the Nonmandatory Appendix Requirement Changes flaw of concern (e.g., degradation mechanism and postulated fail-
Appendix Q Weld Overlay Repair of Class 1, 2 and 3 ure mode). Different industry groups have identified flaws of con-
Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping Weldments This action corrects cern consistently, which now permits the designation of appropri-
and clarifies requirements in Nonmandatory Appendix Q, first ate NDE. Table 26.2 lists the items that three groups have
published in the 2005 Addenda. Changes in Q-1000 and Q-3000 identified as piping degradation or failure mechanisms [9][11].
address the use of weld overlay repair of defects other than stress Even though they have listed and categorized the items differently,
corrosion cracking (SCC). While the majority of the applications it is obvious that the groups are all concerned with the same
of weld overlays have been to address SCC, this repair technique mechanisms. It is the degradation mechanism, rather than the
has been used to address fatigue cracks as well. The changes to Q- Section III Design Class, that should determine the acceptance
1000 and Q-3000 match the wording of Code Case N-740. The standard and the examination requirements and methods.
change in Q-4000 reiterates the requirement to perform pressure The risk-informed approach combines PRA and an examina-
testing in accordance with IWA-4540 and clarifies that weld over- tion based on degradation mechanism. It is applied to piping sys-
lay of a through wall defect is considered a welded repair that pen- tems to a limited extent in Section XI Code Case N-560 and more
etrates the pressure boundary. This is consistent with the industrys thoroughly in Cases N-577 and N-578. These Cases are being
implementation of Code Case N-504-2. verified in pilot programs at a number of power plants, with feed-
back from the programs being used to modify the Cases.
26.2.11 Current Developments Nonmandatory Appendix R incorporates the three Code Cases
Many proposals for revision to Section XI are in process in and additional lessons learned in the pilot programs. Further discus-
the Section XI committees. These range from proposals to elimi- sion of the background for these Cases is provided in Chapter 45.
nate unnecessary requirements based on experience and new The next step in this process is Code Case N-716, based on
methodology, to clarify existing requirements based on inquiries lessons learned from use of the three Code Cases. Its starting
from users, to introduce probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and point is the results of ISI on piping systems in 32 PRW units.
risk-based analysis as a technique to focus examinations more Code Case N-711 also addresses piping welds. Its objective is
efficiently, and to add requirements to address unanticipated to use risk insights to define alternative examination coverage
degradation. Most, but not all, revisions are introduced in the requirements for welds having restricted access for examination,
form of Code Cases, to make them available for early implemen- superseding the required essentially 100% of weld length
tation by users. A Code Case is an alternative and is not consid- requirements.
ered part of the Code until the content of the Case is incorporated Case N-691 provides criteria for extending the inspection inter-
into the text of the Code. What follows is a list of subjects and val for PWR reactor vessel full penetration shell and nozzle welds
descriptions, mostly referring to Code Cases. from 10 years to 20. Criteria call for application of risk-informed
insights from probabilistic fracture mechanics and risk analyses, Risk-Informed Inspection Although experience has using acceptance criteria provided by NRC.
shown that fatigue cracking has not been the problem that was ini- In addition, application of risk-informed methodology to
tially anticipated, it has shown that other degradation mechanisms repair/replacement activities has been initiated in Cases N-660
are of concern. It has also shown that degradation is not a random and N-662. Further discussion of this is provided in Chapter 27,
process, which was another initial assumption. Technology that Chapter 28 and Chapter 45.
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 343


Chapter 45 has an extensive discussion of PRA and risk-based analytical methods. NRC has recently published a document
analysis, including development of the recent ASME PRA encouraging use of Code Cases N-588, N-640, and N-641 in devel-
Standard, development of risk-informed design concepts for oping pressure-temperature operating limits in lieu of Section XI
Section III, and possible application to a Systems Code. Appendix G requirements.
Case N-615 permits UT as a surface examination method for Unanticipated Degradation Since preparation of inside surface examination of Examination Category B-F and B-J
the First Edition of this Guide, there have been a number of noz- piping welds NPS-4 and larger.
zle and piping weld leaks, and leaks/cracking in nozzle head pen- Case N-654 introduces application of partial structural (safety)
etrations, attributed to primary water stress corrosion cracking factors in acceptance criteria for flaws.
(PWSCC) associated with the use of Alloy 600 and its weld met- Use of weld overlays has been expanded. Case N-661-2
als Alloy 82/182. It has become obvious that improvements are attempts to respond to NRC concerns regarding Cases N-561-1
needed both in detection of leakage as well as flaw size measure- and N-562-1 for wall thickness restoration of Class 2 and 3 pip-
ment and repair techniques. These are being addressed by the ing. Case N-666 has been introduced for use of a weld overlay to
Task Group on Alloy 600/82/182 Issues and Task Group on Boric restore structural integrity of cracked or leaking socket welds in
Acid Corrosion. Class 1, 2, and 3, NPS 2 (DN50) and smaller piping, resulting
In response to this issue, Code Case N-697, increasing examina- from vibration fatigue. Case N-740 provides for use of a weld
tion requirements for PWR ICI and CRD nozzle housings, and Code overlay on the outside surface of Class 1, 2 and 3 piping, compo-
Case N-722, for additional examinations of PWR components to nent, or associated weld to increase the overall thickness to com-
improve detection of boric acid leakage by means of enhanced reso- pensate for the effect of a defect.
lution visual examination, have been issued. Also, Case N-729-1 In addition to the usual welded repair techniques, two recent
provides alternative examination requirements for PWR reactor ves- Cases introduce mechanical techniques. Case N-730 provides for
sel upper heads with nozzles having pressure-retaining partial- use of a mechanical roll expansion technique to eliminate leakage
penetration welds. includes related revisions to examination from Class 1 control rod drive bottom head penetrations in
programs. includes related revisions to acceptance standards. BWRs. On nozzles on which there are substantially no piping
On the other hand, Code Case N-735 reduces requirements for suc- reactions, Case N-733 provides for use of a mechanical connec-
cessive inspections of piping welds containing subsurface flaws, tion assembly to mitigate flaws in NPS 2 (DN50) and smaller
provided the welds are not in piping associated with the Alloy 600 nozzles and nozzle partial penetration welds in vessels.
or austenitic stainless steel issues. Further discussion of Alloy 600 Examination of welds in cast stainless steel is a problem that
issues is provided in Chapter 27 and Chapter 44. has been facing Section XI for many years. The Task Group on
Inspection of Cast Stainless Steel has received results from an Focused Examinations Work has continued to reduce NRC research project and is developing a UT process that can be
or eliminate examinations that operating experience and analysis qualified under Appendix VIII.
have shown to have limited value, and to focus examinations on
areas subject to degradation. Examples are: International Codes A group is developing rules for
inservice inspection of a high temperature gas-cooled reactor
Case N-647 Alternative to the Augmented Examination
(HTGR) being designed for installation in South Africa. Further
Requirements of IWE-2500;
discussion is provided in 28.44.
Case N-652-1 Alternative Requirements to Categories B-G-
1, B-G-2, and C-D Bolting Examination Acceptance Standards for Steam Generator Tubing
Methods and Selection Criteria;
In the early 1970s, an unanticipated frequency of damage to steam
Case N-663 Alternative Requirements for Classes 1 and 2
generator tubing by cracking and corrosion had been encountered.
Surface Examinations.
Steam generator tubing was added to inservice inspection require-
Code Case N-712 provides criteria for limiting examination of ments. At the same time, it also was found that a technology had
Class 1 socket welds in piping to socket welds subject to outside been developed for examination of similar (assumed to be nuclear
surface attack or thermal fatigue. navy) steam generator tubes, using the eddy current method. A phi-
The requirement for UT examination of nozzle inner radius losophy of tubing examination was established based on a small
areas originated based on catastrophic failures of boiler drums initial sampling followed by a expanded examination if tube deteri-
and other vessels. Improved practices in nuclear vessel material, oration was detected. Indications of deterioration also resulted in
design, and fabrication rules were intended to avoid such acci- more frequent reexaminations; absence of deterioration in less fre-
dents, and have been proven effective in operation. In addition, quent. When development of specific criteria for the sampling pro-
qualification of NDE procedures has proven very difficult because gram was attempted, it was found that the number of variables
so many different UT angles are needed for different nozzle con- capable of influencing tube integrity was considerable. They
figurations. Several Code Cases have resulted from these consid- included tube material chemistry and fabrication processing, steam
erations. Case N-619 eliminates examination for steam generator generator tube support design, and not only secondary-side water
and pressurizer nozzles. Cases N-648-1 and N-702 reduce to visual chemistry but also water chemistry history. It was also determined
or eliminate examinations of reactor vessel nozzles except those that different eddy current examination techniques were required
noted in those Cases. Other Cases have provided focus on BWR for effective detection of the various combinations of these condi-
vessel feedwater and control rod drive return nozzles. tions. SC XI and the Regulator were unable to agree on criteria that
would be suitable for a Section XI requirement, and each PWR Introducing New Technology or Techniques In established its criteria in its Technical Specification. Starting in
addition to the risk-based technology noted above, Section XI is 2003, progress began toward development of mutually acceptable
also adopting new inspection and repair techniques and new criteria for SC XI action.
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 344

344 Chapter 26

The SC XI committee is now (Feb. 2008) considering a proposal interests, including the Regulator. This is frequently accompanied
to update the examination of steam generator tubes to current by complaints about how long it takes to get something new accepted
industry requirements. Each PWR must establish criteria in its by the Code. However, there is understandable resistance within
Technical Specification in accordance with Nuclear Energy Code committees to innovations that have not been proven in oper-
Institute NEI 97-06, Steam Generator Program Guideline, and ation - Stood the test of time. The critics generally fail (or refuse)
EPRI PWR Steam Generator Examination Guidelines. to recognize that the committee members volunteer their time, and
that this is not a full time job for any of them. Also, it is not always
understood that ASME itself does not provide funding to support
26.3 FUTURE ISSUES the research needed to provide the technical data/basis for many of
the proposals for change; that support for research is the responsi-
This will present the writers view of present and future chal- bility of the industry. The Regulator does not get enough credit for
lenges for inservice inspection rules for nuclear power plants. the research it supports on a number of important issues.
State of- the-art is addressed in the FOREWORD to the Code
26.3.1 Challenges for Section XI in statements including The Code is not a handbook and The
One set of issues relate to the state of the industry and the grad- rules . . . are not to be interpreted as approving . . . any propri-
ual imposition of ASME Nuclear Codes to nuclear plant construc- etary or specific design.
tion. First generation plants had vessels constructed to Section I
and Section VIII requirements augmented by Code Cases. Piping
was ASME B31.1. Next generation had Section III vessels but 26.4 APPLICABILITY OF CODE EDITIONS
still B31.1 piping. Only the final generation was entirely Section III. AND ADDENDA, AND THE USE AND
Section III did not incorporate effective rules for access for ISI CONTENT OF CODE CASES AND
until all the current plants had been ordered. No one anticipated INTERPRETATIONS
that the next 100 plants would be canceled. This left two problem
areasreplacement parts and examination access. 26.4.1 Editions and Addenda
Many Section XI requirements were predicated on the assump- Knowing the Code Edition and Addenda in effect at a particular
tion that access for ISI would be provided, and reversing or revis- nuclear power plant is essential for proper application of Section XI
ing them is very difficult. Risk-informed revisions are addressing to examinations, testing, repairs, and replacement of nuclear Code
this, but obtaining and renewing accessibility waivers remains an Class 1, 2, 3, and containment components and systems. In the
unwarranted expense for utilities. United States, this is completely dependent on actions of the
Replacement parts issues stem from the gross difference in USNRC, which periodically reviews all revisions to Section XI,
expense for piping system replacement parts between those for and incorporates them by reference in the Code of Federal
B31.1 systems and identical parts that must meet nuclear Regulations, 10CFR50.55(a). This endorsement has always included
requirements. Having parts in his oldest plants that have with- both additional conditions and exceptions to some specific provi-
stood the test of time unacceptable in his newer plants is difficult sions of Section XI. Not every Edition/Addenda is incorporated; for
for the owner to understand. Revisions to change this have been instance, none were endorsed between Summer 1975 Addenda and
thwarted within ASME, at least partially due to an inability to Summer 1978 Addenda. A majority of the plants now work to the
recognize the difference in interest between a manufacturer and a 1989 Edition. An endorsement of a more recent edition had been
plant owner. The plant owner has to live with his purchases. anticipated for several years, and finally, on November 22, 1999, an
Another set of issues relate to the extension of plant life to amendment to the regulation adopting the 1996 Addenda became
40 years of operation and beyond. Nuclear plant aging manage- effective. More recently, the 2000 Addenda has been endorsed.
ment programs are getting increased attention. While risk- Application of the latest regulation to the nuclear power plants has
informed technology establishes that the number of inservice been phased in gradually by the NRC, so that the plants have time
examinations can be drastically reduced, examination programs to update their 10-year inservice inspection programs. This means
must maintain vigilance to detect unanticipated degradation that plants may be working to Section XI Editions/Addenda more
mechanisms. Primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) than 10 years old, and that on multiple unit sites each unit may be
had not been anticipated, but has had to be addressed with new working to a different Edition/Addenda. However, the endorsement
programs and requirements. What other surprises lie in store? of the 2000 Addenda also called for accelerated implementation of
Appendix VIII (1996 Addenda). Proposed rules to update
26.3.2 Challenges for all Nuclear Codes Regulation 10CFR50.55(a) to include Section XI revisions through
and Standards the 2003 Addenda were issued for comment January 7, 2004 and
These are issues that extend beyond Section XI, involving other published October 1, 2004.
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Subcommittees, the Boiler and
Pressure Vessel (Standards) Committee itself, and issues involving 26.4.2 Code Cases
the Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards, ASME Council on Code Cases are the means adopted by the Boiler and Pressure
Codes and Standards, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Vessel Committee to clarify its intent by revision of existing
Separation of Code technical requirements from administrative requirements, or, when the need is urgent, to provide rules for
requirements has been discussed, proposed, and rejected. It is a materials or construction not covered by existing Code rules.
concept whose time will come, if only to expedite international These are often presented as alternatives to the existing rules. For
application of ASME Code technical requirements by accommo- Section XI they are particularly important because during a hiatus
dating other national regulatory agencies. in NRC endorsement of Code revisions between 1989 and 1998,
Introduction of state-of-the-art technology into the Code is fre- Code Cases were the primary means of making changes accessi-
quently tempting, and is urged on committee members by various ble to the users. ASME publishes Cases four times a year.
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 345


Code Cases listed in previous Editions of this Guide have been Maintenance Committee is an ASME Nuclear Codes and
dropped if they are no longer listed in the current Code Case Standards Committee independent of the Boiler and Pressure
book. Cases are annulled when they are incorporated in the Code Vessel Committee.)
or have not been re-endorsed prior to reaching their expiration Since interpretations are not changes to the Code, the process for
date. In March 2005 the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Standards approval is less rigorous than that for Code revisions and Cases.
Committee took action to eliminate Code Case expiration dates; Interpretations that do not involve intent can be accepted by unani-
all Code Cases listed in Supplement 3 (2007 Edition) and beyond mous vote of a five-member panel, comprising the Subcommittee
will remain available for use until annulled. chairperson and vice chairperson, the chairperson and another
Like Editions/Addenda, use of Code Cases in the United States member of the Subgroup in whose jurisdiction the inquiry falls, and
is dependent on acceptance by the NRC. The list of generically the ASME-staff Subcommittee secretary. If the panel is not unani-
acceptable and conditionally acceptable Code Cases is updated mous, the interpretation may be sent to the Subcommittee itself, in
periodically by revision to Regulatory Guide 1.147. Revision 15, which case a two-thirds vote is required for acceptance.
October 2007, Regulatory Guide 1.147, covers Cases approved by
ASME up to November 2005 (up to Case N-706). It has been
accompanied by Regulatory Guide 1.193, ASME Code Cases Not 26.5 EFFORTS THAT DID NOT REACH
Approved For Use. This also has been very useful, since it pro- PUBLICATION
vides the reasons for non-acceptance, providing a basis for correc-
tive action by ASME, or advice to a utility on how the Case may A history of Section XIs evolution would not be complete
be applied. A further revision to these Regulatory Guides, for without mentioning some of the issues and efforts that did not
Code Cases issued through 2006, is well along in the process, for result in final action by the Committee. In some cases, these were
publication in 2008. requests from outside the Committee; in others, they were initiated
Brief descriptions of selected Code Cases issued since 1989 are within it.
presented in Appendix A. These include Cases that provide new
(alternative) techniques for examinations, repairs, and analytical 26.5.1 Pump Flywheels
evaluation. Almost from its inception, the SC XI was asked to develop
rules for inservice inspection of reactor coolant pump flywheels.
26.4.3 Interpretations The SC XI explained that its scope was directed toward reactor
Interpretations answer written inquiries regarding specific coolant pressure boundary and associated systems and compo-
technical requirements of the Code. They are intended to provide nents of Section III and other ASME Code Construction, and con-
clarification or explanation of the requirements, but they do not sequently declined the request.
alter the requirements themselves. Individuals, even if they are
Subcommittee members or Inspectors, are not authorized to pro- 26.5.2 Core Support Structures
vide ASME Code Interpretations. The only interpretations of With reactor internal structures, excluding fuel, being part of
significance are those that have been sent to the inquirer by the the scope of Section III (as Subsection NG), naturally one of
Subcommittee secretary (who represents the ASME professional Section XIs original objectives was to develop a corresponding
staff) and then published by the ASME. Interpretations are issued Subsection IWG. Rudimentary rules for visual examination were
twice every year as part of the Code distribution service, but they established (Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-N). A
are not considered part of the Codes per se and do not provide new Subgroup of SC XI was established to develop a complete pro-
rules. The process of addressing inquiries to the Subcommittee is gram, including evaluation standards and repair/replacement tech-
explained in Appendix V of Section XI. It is important for one to niques. After several years of work to establish generic require-
follow this process when submitting an inquiry; doing so will assist ments and, later, to separate PWR and BWR requirements, the
the Subcommittee in developing a timely reply. It should be noted, Subcommittee failed to reach consensus on its approach, and
however, that the process is occasionally misused to settle disputes because industry interest and support had diminished, the effort
between different groups within one company. This activity consti- was terminated. The power plants and the NRC now resolve prob-
tutes an unfair use of the Subcommittees time. Subcommittee lems on an individual basis. Further discussion of issues regarding
response to an inquiry sometimes includes a revision of the ques- reactor internal structures may be found in new Chapter 41, BWR
tion to better define it for general application. Interpretations have Reactor Internals and Other BWR Issues.
become increasingly important, particularly when they address the
intent of specific paragraphs, for these have been used to clarify 26.5.3 Low-Temperature Heavy-Water Reactor
requirements that have become points of controversy between the Reactor concepts other than BWR and PWR have also been
plant operator and the Authorized Nuclear Inservice Inspector or considered. Section XI, Division 2, Rules for Inspection and
the NRC staff or site inspector. Rules for intent interpretations have Testing of Components of Gas-Cooled Plants, and Division 3,
gradually become more rigorous; for example, such interpretations Rules for Inspection and Testing of Components of Liquid-Metal
must now be accompanied by a Code revision that incorporates Cooled Plants, were developed but with only very limited applica-
them and must also be voted by both the Subcommittee and the tion. There has also been extensive work to develop rules for
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee. another concept: the low-temperature heavy-water reactor
An extensive sampling of interpretations is presented in (LTHWR). In 1990 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) asked
Appendix B, where the interpretations are selected from those the ASME to develop inservice inspection rules for Savannah
that address light-water-cooled reactor systems. Interpretations River site reactors. This initiative was part of a reactor safety
that address Subsections IWP and IWV are not mentioned improvement program. In addition, the DOE was reacting to a fed-
because the Operations and Maintenance Committee now eral directive to adopt established national standards in lieu of fed-
addresses the content of those subsections. (The Operations and eral standards whenever feasible. Since the 1970s the Savannah
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 346

346 Chapter 26

River site has had a periodic inspection program in place that is 10. WRC 382, (1993). Nuclear Piping Criteria for Advanced Light Water
based on NRC publications. However, with plans for a new tritium Reactors, Volume 1 Failure Mechanisms and Corrective Actions,
production reactor to be designed and fabricated in accordance Welding Research Council, Bulletin 382, New York.
with Section III, it was logical to follow with an inservice inspec- 11 API 579 (draft), Recommended Practice for Fitness-For-Service; The
tion program based on Section XI. In 1991, an SC XI Special American Petroleum Institute.
Working Group was formed. By 1997 it had developed an essen- 12 EPRI NP-719-SR, Flaw Evaluation ProceduresASME Section XI,
tially complete draft document. When funding for the new reactor Special Report, Aug. 1978.
was cancelled and the existing reactors were shut down, however,
there was no need for the approval of and publication of the docu-
ment. The ASME was requested to place the document into the 26.8 BIBLIOGRAPHY
ASME Section XI archives for possible future use, where it was
identified as the Proposed Code Case for Low-Temperature Anderson, W. F., Bush, S. H., and Chockie, L. J. (1982). The
Heavy-Water Reactors, Draft C, Revision 3 (it was last revised on ASME Section XI Code, Past, Present, and Future, Periodic
July 15, 1997) (SGWCS #93-30). Inspection of Pressure Vessels, I. Mech. E., C133/82. The first
decades experience applying Section XI is reviewed. Changes in
philosophy based on this experience are discussed, and new
26.6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS requirements are described. The need for additional requirements
is also described. There is also an extensive explanation of adop-
Preparation of this chapter would not have been possible with- tion and enforcement by the NRC.
out the devoted effort of all the Subcommittee members as well
as its Subgroups, Working Groups, and Task Groups over the Bush, S. H., Pressure Vessel Reliability, Journal of Pressure
past 30 years. In particular, I acknowledge the efforts of the pre- Vessel Technology, The American Society of Mechanical
vious chairmen of the Subcommittee on Nuclear Inservice Engineers, Feb. 1975. The references listed in this paper include
Inspection: Wendell Johnson, Larry Chockie, and Spencer Bush. reports of vessel failures from around the world as well as a statis-
In fact, Section XI would not exist had it not been for their tical analysis of those failures. The references also include field
efforts and the efforts of their counterparts at the NRC: Ray experience and proposals for periodic inspection to maintain pres-
Maccary, Bill Anderson, and Gil Millman. sure vessel integrity. The paper reviews all of these and consoli-
dates the information with a set of statistical procedures, conclu-
sions, and recommendations.
Bush, S. H., and Maccary, R. R. (1972). Development of In-
1. WRC 252, Adamonis, D. C., and Hughes, E. T. (1979). Ultrasonic Service Inspection Safety Philosophy for U.S.A. Nuclear Power
Evaluation and Sectioning of PVRC Flat Weld Specimen 201, Plants, Periodic Inspection of Pressure Vessels, I. Mech. E.,
Welding Research Council, Bulletin 252, New York. C26/72. This is the first of a series of definitive papers describing
2. WRC 257, Buchanan, R. A., and Hedden, O. F. (1980). Analysis of the basis for development of Section XI by its primary authors.
the Ultrasonic Examinations of PVRC Weld Specimens 155, 202, and
203 by Standard and Two-Point Coincidence Methods, Welding Chockie, L. J., Bush, S. H., and Maccary, R. R. (1976). Extended
Research Council, Bulletin 257, New York. Rules of the 1974 ASME Section XI Code Inservice Inspection of
3. Bush, S. H., Reliability of Nondestructive Examination, Chapters Nuclear Power Plant Component, Periodic Inspection of Pressure
35, NUREG CR-3110, NRC, 1983. Vessels,I. Mech. E., C206/76. This, the third in the series of definitive
papers, describes the two years since the previous paper as a period of
4. PISC-II Report No. 5, Evaluation of the PISC-II Trials Results,
Programme for the Inspection of Steel Components, OECD Nuclear
limited expansion and extensive refinement.
Energy Agency, CSNI No. 121, Sept. 1986.
Deputat, J., Mazurek, J., and Pawlowski, Z. (1970). Evaluation of
5. WRC 343, (1989). Destructive Examination of PVRC Weld Flaw Size and Flaw Characteristics in Thick Welds with
Specimens 202, 203, and 251J, Welding Research Council, Bulletin
Ultrasonics, 6th International Conference on Nondestructive
343, New York.
Testing, Hanover, Report No. H 10. This report documents the dif-
6. Cowfer, C. D., and Hedden, O. F., Overview of the ASME Section XI ferences in UT amplitude between flat-disc, artificial-calibration
Code Relating to NDE and Ultrasonic Examination Performance reflectors and natural flaws. It represents the first step in reducing
Demonstration, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 113, The the dependence of flaw sizing on artificial reflectors in ultrasonic
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1991, pp. 170173.
examination calibration blocks.
7. Maccary, R. R., EPRI NP-1406-SR, Nondestructive Examination
Acceptance Standards Technical Basis and Development for ASME Hedden, O. F. (1974). On Developing New Rules for Ultrasonic
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI, Division 1, Special Examination of Welds in Nuclear Vessels, Periodic Inspection of
Report, May 1980. Pressure Vessels, I. Mech. E., C75/74. This work describes the chal-
8. WRC 413, (1996). Development of Criteria for Assessment of lenges for UT reliability and reproducibility imposed by inservice
Reactor Vessels with Low Upper-Shelf Fracture Toughness, Welding inspection and how Appendix I was intended to address those needs.
Research Council, Bulletin 413, New York.
9. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI, Division 1, Code Hedden, O. F. (1997). ASME Code Section XI Approach to
Case N-560, Alternative Examination Requirements for Class 1, Nondestructive Examination for Nuclear Vessels and Piping,
Category B-J Piping Welds; The American Society of Mechanical ASME/RAS/MINATOM Forum, Session 5, Life Assessment
Engineers, New York, 1996. Methods. This paper is a brief overview of the technical basis for
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 347


Section XI flaw detection and flaw evaluation approaches, includ- prises the following four reports which serve as Appendices to
ing the introduction of experience-based and risk-informed Bulletin 387:
Report No. 1 Review of Procedures in the U.K. for the
Hedden, O. F., and Cowfer, C. D. (1996). Progress toward Assessment of Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity. (D. A. Scarth)
Regulatory Acceptance of Risk-Informed Inspection Programs for
Nuclear Power Plants, SPIE Conference, NDE of Utilities and Report No. 2U.S. and French Approaches to Reactor
Pipelines, Proceedings Vol. 2987. This paper discusses a number of Pressure Vessel Integrity. (T. Griesbach, C. Buchalet, and W. L.
programs directed toward removing unnecessary examinations from Server)
the ISI program. The improved reliability provided by Appendix
VIII UT qualification, combined with the results of 20 years of suc- Report No. 3Background of the Factors of Safety Used in
cessful operating experience and the acceptance of probabilistic risk Division 1 of Sections III and XI of the ASME Rules for
assessment technology, has revealed a number of opportunities. Nuclear Vessels. (W. E. Cooper)

Johnson, W. P., Bush, S. H., and Maccary, R. R. (1974). Report No. 4The Russian Approach to Reactor Pressure
Augmented Scope of the 1974 ASME Section XI Code Inservice Vessel Integrity. (Y. Dragunov, G. I. Biryukov, A. N. Ivanov, Y.
Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Periodic M. Maximov, and N. S. Fil)
Inspection of Pressure Vessels, I. Mech. E., C78/74. This is the
second in the definitive series of papers on the development of WRC Bulletin 420, Interpretive Report on Nondestructive
Section XI. It discusses the many changes introduced since the Examination Techniques, Procedure for Piping and Heavy Section
1971 Edition and incorporated in the 1974 Edition. Vessels, Welding Research Council, April 1997. This Bulletin
reviews several project summary documents from the European
WRC Bulletin 370, Recommendations Proposed by the PVRC Program for the Inspection of Steel Components (PISC-II and
Committee on Review of ASME Nuclear Codes and Standards, PISC-III) relevant to UT. Although this review does not give all
Welding Research Council, Feb. 1992. This was the result of a tech- the answers, it does provide a summary of the progress reached
nical review and solicitation of needs from the industry and inter- on the various problems before the projects were terminated.
ested parties, related to Section III and Section XI, and the need for Before anyone is convinced that he or she has found the
interrelation of their requirements. It contains over 100 recommen- answerby using a particular technique, this Bulletin should
dations for action, most of which are directed at Section XI. Within be reviewed to see what techniques have already been tried and the
3 years Section XI had taken action on most of them. extent of their success when they are subjected to an objective
round-robin evaluation.
WRC Bulletin 376, Metal Fatigue in Operating Nuclear Power
Plant. Prepared by the Section XI Task Group on Fatigue in
Operating Plants, Welding Research Council, Nov. 1992. This bul-
letin reviews the ASME Code approach to fatigue design, a survey 26.9 APPENDIX A: CODE CASES
of fatigue failures, inspection methods used, and failure mitigation This collection of brief descriptions of Section XI Code Cases
measures taken. It also reviews efforts being made at the time of is far from complete. These Cases are those issued since 1989 that
its publication to improve the design and analysis process, and pro- the author feels have a definite economic impact, most often rep-
vides recommendations for consideration by Section XI. resenting savings, for the plant Owner. There may be many addi-
tional Cases of interest to the reader. Since ASME publishes
WRC Bulletin 382, Nuclear Piping Criteria for Advanced Light- Section III and Section XI Cases in the same volume, not all the
Water Reactors, Volume 1Failure Mechanisms and Corrective missing numbers represent Section XI Cases. NRCs position on
Actions, Welding Research Council, June 1993. This bulletin dis- acceptability of Cases is discussed in 26.4.2.
cusses the major failure mechanisms observed in nuclear power Code Cases listed in previous Editions of this Guide have been
plant piping during the 30 years prior to publication. It presents case dropped if they are no longer listed in the 2007 Code Case book.
histories for each of these mchanisms (see Table 26.2), including Cases are annulled when they are incorporated in the Code or
numbers and causes of failures, actions to detect the conditions, and have not been re-endorsed prior to reaching their expiration date.
extensive recommendations for mitigation and detection methods. In March 2005 the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Standards
Committee took action to eliminate Code Case expiration dates;
WRC Bulletin 387, White Paper on Reactor Vessel Integrity all Code Cases listed in Supplement 3 (2007 Edition) and beyond
Requirements for Level A and Level B Conditions. Prepared by will remain available for use until annulled.
the Section XI Task Group on Reactor Vessel Integrity The Cases are grouped into a few broad subject headings,
Requirements, Welding Research Council, Dec. 1993. This report where they are listed chronologically. Subject headings:
reviews the basis for the Code Appendix G method for brittle frac-
ture protection. It finds that the method for generating operating (1) ASME stamping and certification
pressure-temperature curves is conservative. Recommendations are (2) Examination program
made for future study. This report also includes tabulations of (3) NDE: Techniques, calibration standards, and personnel
design and operating conditions, Design Code edition, materials, qualification
and dimensions for essentially all reactor vessels. (4) Flaw evaluation
(5) Pressure tests
WRC Bulletin 386, International Views on Reactor Pressure (6) Repairs
Vessel Integrity, Welding Research Council, Nov. 1993. It com- (7) New application
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 348

348 Chapter 26

A.1. ASME Stamping and Certification N-702 Reduces method and extent of BWR Category B-D
N-517-1 Provides criteria for plant operators to qualify material examinations of nozzle inner radius and nozzle-to-shell welds to
suppliers, upgrade stock material, and purchase small products, 25%, and permits visual in lieu of volumetric examination of the
all activities reserved for ASME Code Stamp-holders, without nozzle inner radius. The Case excludes BWR feedwater nozzles
obtaining a Code stamp. and control rod drive return line nozzles. Also note Cases N-619
N-528-1 Provides criteria for plant operators to purchase, and N-648-1 regarding nozzle inner radius examinations.
exchange, or transfer Code material between plant sites, all activities N-711 Provides alternatives to examination coverage require-
reserved for ASME Code stamp-holders, without obtaining a Code ments of Table IWB-2500-1, Table IWC-2500-1, Appendix R and
stamp. (Regulatory Guide 1.147 provides conditions for acceptance) Case N-560 for piping welds that cannot be completely examined
N-573 Provides for transferring weld procedure qualifications due to interference by a permanent item or part geometry. The
between Owners, previously limited to N-Certificate holders. Case applies to Examination Categories B-F, B-J, C-F-1, C-F-2,
and R-A. Category B-J applies to implementing risk-informed
A.2. Examination Program inservice inspection programs using Case N-560 and Category R-
N-491-2 Introduces a reduced examination program for compo- A applies to implementing risk-informed inservice inspection pro-
nent supports. grams using Case N-577 and N-578. The Owner must determine
N-560-2 Permits reduction in examination of Class 1 Category the degradation mechanism associated with the weld. Tables are
B-J piping welds from 25% to 10%, provided a specified risk- provided for determination of alternative examination volumes.
importance ranking selection process is followed. This has signifi- This Case may be discussed in Chapter 45.
cant economic benefit with minimal effect on overall risk, N-712 Provides an alternative to surface examination require-
because it concentrates on the most significant examinations. (See ments for some socket welds of Examination Categories B-F and
Regulatory Guide 1.193) B-J. The examinations may be limited to areas identified by the
N-575 Provides examination volume requirements appropriate Owner as susceptible to outside surface attack or to thermal
for set-on type nozzles on reactor vessels. This was developed per fatigue. A Table is provided identifying areas susceptible to out-
request of an overseas user. (See Regulatory Guide 1.193) side surface attack.
N-577-1 and N-578-1 Provides requirements for risk-informed N-716 Provides alternatives to requirements for inservice and
inservice inspection of Class 1, 2 and 3 piping. These Code Cases some preservice inspection of piping. These requirements may
are discussed in 28.43 and, extensively, in Chapter 45. also be used as additional requirements for examination of Class
N-593-1 Addresses another alternative nozzle examination vol- 3 piping or Non-Class piping for plants issued their operating
ume requirement based on current replacement steam generator license prior to December 31, 2000. Risk-informed ISI programs
Class 1 nozzle weld configuration. (Regulatory Guide 1.147 pro- have been developed for 95% of the plants in the USA and many
vides conditions for acceptance) others around the world using combinations of industry topical
N-613-1 Reduces examination volume of Category B-D nozzle and technical reports and the methodologies contained in Code
welds in adjacent material from 1/2 shell thickness to 1/2 inch. Cases N-560, N-560-1, N-560-2, N-577, N-577-1, N-578, N- 578-1
This permits a significant reduction in qualification and scanning and those of Appendix R. Code Case N-716 has been developed
time. Estimated to be at least $200,000 /vessel/interval. Revision. to continue the implementation of operating experience that has
1 satisfied NRC concerns. been gained through these efforts. It contains a less rigorous
N-619 Eliminates nozzle inner radius UT examinations for dependence on the plant specific PRA in the development of a
steam generator and pressurizer nozzles. (Regulatory Guide 1.147 Risk-Informed ISI program and has established streamlined cri-
specifies an enhanced visual examination with 1-mil resolution in teria for pilot plant applications that have been approved by the
lieu of UT.) NRC and are expected to be brought back into the Code.
N-648-1 Permits nozzle inner radius VT-1 visual examinations Chapter 45 contains the details specific to the application of this
for reactor vessel nozzles in lieu of UT. (Regulatory Guide 1.147 Code Case.
specifies an enhanced visual examination with 1-mil resolution in N-722 Provides a table of examinations (in addition to the
lieu of UT.) The Case excludes BWR feedwater nozzles and con- requirements of Table IWB-2500-1) to be performed for PWR
trol rod drive return line nozzles. plants having partial or full penetration welds in Class 1 compo-
N-652-1 Reduces number of examinations of bolting for heat nents fabricated with alloy 600/82/182 material. This Case is dis-
exchangers, pumps and valves in Class 1 and Class 2 systems. cussed in 27.15.
N-663 Limits surface examinations of welds in Class 1 and N-729-1 Applies to examination of PWR reactor vessel upper
Class 2 piping to areas identified by the Owner as susceptible to heads with nozzles
outside surface attack.
N-691 Provides criteria for extending the inspection interval for (a) fabricated from UNS N06600 material with UNS N06082
PWR reactor vessel Category B-A and B-D welds from 10 years or UNS W86182 partial-penetration welds, or
to 20. Criteria call for application of risk-informed insights from (b) fabricated from PWSCC resistant materials, such as UNS
probabilistic fracture mechanics and risk analyses, using accep- N06690 or UNS W86152 partial-penetration welds. It pro-
tance criteria provided by NRC. This can result in substantial ben- vides alternatives to examination requirements of Table
efits for units that have had their operating license extended from IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-P (1980 Edition
40 years to 60. through 2004 edition), Examination Category B-E (1980
N-697 Provides examination requirements for welds in PWR in- Edition through 1992 edition), IWB-2200, IWB-2400, and
core instrumentation (ICI) housings and alternative requirements IWB-3000. The required examinations are given in Table 1.
Examination B-O for welds in control rod drive (CRD) housings. Analytical parameters are provided for characterization of
These add ICI welds to the program, and move the CRD weld susceptibility to crack initiation and the potential for crack
examinations from the outside to the inside surface. propagation. This Case is discussed in 27.15.
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 349


N-735 Provides alternatives to the requirements of IWB- 2420 N-643-2 Provides, as an alternative to the fatigue growth
or IWC-2420 to determine the need for successive inspections of behavior characterization in Appendix A, A-4300, a characteriza-
piping welds in which volumetric examination has found subsur- tion that may be used for ferritic material in PWR primary water
face flaws. The Case does not apply to welds in austenitic stain- environments when susceptibility of the material to environmen-
less steel in BWRs, in UNS N06600 or W86182 in either BWRs tally assisted cracking is a factor. This Case is discussed in 31.1.7.
or PWRS, or in UNS W86082 in PWRs. N-654 Provides, as an alternative to the acceptance criteria of
N-747 Provides, in lieu of the requirement of Table IWB-2500- IWB-3611 or IWB-3612, acceptance criteria based application of
1, Examination Category B-A Item No. B1.40, for volumetric and partial safety factors.
surface examinations of the reactor vessel head-to-flange weld, N-694-1 Provides criteria to justify continued operation with-
after a preservice or inservice ultrasonic examination has been out repair of flawed PWR reactor vessel upper head control rod
performed with no defect found, that only the surface examination drive nozzles. This Case is discussed in
requirements need be met. N-705 Provides alternatives to IWA-3000, IWC-3120 and
IWD-3120 for temporary acceptance of degradation, including
leakage, in moderate energy Class 2 or 3 vessels, heat exchangers,
A.3. NDE: Techniques, Calibration Standards, and and tanks. The Case provides processes for structural integrity
Personnel Qualification evaluation and degradation growth evaluation. This Case is dis-
N-460 Redefines full examination coverage to accept 90% cussed in 27.9.3 and Chapter 29.
when physical interference exists in a required examination
area/volume. A.5. Pressure Tests
N-552 Permits computational modeling for qualification of Both theses Cases provide substantial benefits to the Owner.
nozzle inner radius examination techniques, in lieu of qualifica- The setup and conduct of the test is simplified, and a severe and
tion on a multitude of configurations. (Regulatory Guide 1.147 potentially limiting design transient is eliminated.
provides conditions for acceptance) N-416-3 For repairs and replacements, permits a leakage test at
N-553-1 Permits eddy current as a surface examination method. nominal operating pressure and temperature in lieu of hydrostatic
N-615 Permits UT as a surface examination method for inside test. This Case is discussed in and 28.32.
surface examination of Examination Category B-F and B-J piping N-498-4 In lieu of the 10-year system hydrostatic pressure test for
welds NPS 4 and larger. Class 1 and 2 systems (Category B-P and Category C-H), permits a
N-653 An alternative to Appendix VIII Supplement 11. leakage test at nominal operating pressure. This Case is discussed in
N-658 An alternative to Appendix VIII Supplement 2. 28.32. (Regulatory Guide 1.147 provides conditions for acceptance)
N-664 An alternative to Appendix VIII Supplement 6 for per- N-731 Provides, in lieu of the requirements of IWB-5221(a),
formance demonstration for examination of the inner 10% of that for portions of Class 1 safety injection systems that are con-
unclad RPV welds excluding flange welds. tinuously pressurized during an operating cycle, the pressure
N-683 An alternative to Appendix VIII Supplements 4 and 6 associated with a statically-pressurized safety injection system of
for determining the maximum allowable number of false calls a PWR may be used.
when performing single-sided access performance demonstration.
N-686-1 Updates visual examination requirements VT-1, VT-2, A.6. Repairs
and VT-3. N-432-1 Permits the gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) process
N-695 An alternative to Appendix VIII Supplement 10 for dis- for repair welds using the temper bead technique.
similar metal piping welds. N-504-4 Permits use of local weld overlay for repair of defects
N-696 An alternative to Appendix VIII Supplements 2, 3, and and wall thickness restoration for austenitic piping. This Case is
10 for piping examinations conducted from the inside surface discussed in 27.14.
(Supplement 14). N-516-3 Introduces methods for underwater repair welding.
(Regulatory Guide 1.147 adds conditions for acceptance)
N-561-1 Permits local weld overlay for wall thickness restora-
A.4. Flaw Evaluation tion of Class 2 and high-energy Class 3 ferritic steel piping. (See
N-513-2 Provides criteria for temporary acceptance of leakage Regulatory Guide 1.193) Also see Case N-661. This Case is dis-
during operation from Class 3 low and moderate energy piping. cussed in 27.14.
When specific conditions are satisfied, plant operation can contin- N-562-2 Permits local weld overlay for wall thickness restora-
ue until a scheduled outage. This Case is discussed in 27.9.3 and tion of Class 3 moderate energy ferritic steel piping. This Case is
31.2. discussed in 27.14. (See Regulatory Guide 1.193)
N-597-2 Provides new criteria for analytical evaluation of pipe N-566-2 Provides alternatives to IWA-5250(a)(2) when leakage
wall thinning due to erosion/corrosion. Replaces Case N-480. is detected at bolted connections. An evaluation of both bolting
This Case is discussed in 27.9.3 and 29.4.4. and component material for joint/structural integrity is required.
(See Chapter 29 for more information.) Several conditions for the evaluation are listed.
N-629 Allows use of fracture toughness test data in lieu of N-567-1 Removes the requirement to reconcile administrative
Appendix A and Appendix G methods to establish a fracture- requirements when obtaining a replacement to an earlier Code
toughness based reference temperature. This is the Master edition; only the technical/design requirements need be recon-
Curve approach. ciled. (Regulatory Guide 1.147 requires that work be performed
N-641 Provides alternatives to Appendix G, G-2215, for calcu- under a NRC-approved Quality Assurance program meeting
lating pressure-temperature relationships and low temperature Appendix B of 10CFR Part 50.)
overpressure system effective temperatures and allowable pres- N-573 Provides conditions for transfer of welding or brazing
sures. Procedure Qualification Records (PQR) between Owners.
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 350

350 Chapter 26

N-600 Provides conditions for transfer of Welder Performance increase the overall thickness to compensate for the defect. This
Qualifications (WPQ) between Owners. Case is discussed in 27.12, 27.14, and 27.15.
N-606-1 Provides criteria for repair of BWR CRD housings or N-762 Provides for use of the requirements for procedure qual-
stub tubes using automatic or machine GTAW temper bead tech- ification of temper bead welding of QW-290 (Section IX) in lieu
nique without use of preheat or postweld heat treatment. This pro- of IWA-1600 when postweld heat treatment will not be per-
vides for repair of leaking stub tube welds without draining the formed. This Case is discussed in 27.12.
reactor vessel. (Regulatory Guide 1.147 provides conditions for
acceptance) A.7. New Application
N-638-4 Permits the general application of N-606 criteria, N-557-1 Provides criteria for in-place dry annealing of a PWR
except to SA-302 Grade B material. This Case is discussed in reactor vessel. (Regulatory Guide 1.147 provides conditions for
27.12. (Regulatory Guide 1.147 adds conditions for acceptance) acceptance)
N-660 Facilitates application of risk-informed methodology to N-618 Provides criteria for one-time use of a (decommis-
repair/replacement activities (Case N-662) by providing a supple- sioned) reactor vessel as a container for shipment of other
ment to the requirements of IWA-1320. This Case provides a (scrapped) materials to a disposal site.
process for determining Risk-Informed Safety Classification
(RISC)for pressure-retaining items and their supports. This Case
is discussed in 27.14 and in Chapter 45. (Regulatory Guide 1.147
adds conditions for acceptance) 26.10 APPENDIX B: INTERPRETATIONS
N-661-2 Provides, as an alternative to replacement or internal The ASME Section XI volumes of interpretations contain a
wall weld repair, that areas of Class 2 and 3 carbon steel raw detailed subject index and a numerical index based on Section XI
water piping experiencing internal wall thinning from localized paragraph numbers. Section XI interpretations are numbered con-
erosion, corrosion, cavitation, or pitting may have wall thick- secutively, so it is evident from the gaps in the number sequence
ness restored externally by a weld-deposited overlay on the out- that there are many other interpretations on subjects that may
side surface. Work shall be performed in accordance with the be of interest to the reader. Although the examples that follow are
specified requirements, which include initial evaluation, design, not complete, they are, in the authors opinion, informative. The
water-backed applications, installation, examination, and ISI. examples in this collection are grouped into several broad subject
Regulatory Guide 1.147 provides conditions for acceptance of headings, where they are listed chronologically. They are also
N-661. This Case does not apply to conditions involving any form paraphrased to keep them brief. (Consult the ASME volumes of
of cracking, including corrosion-assisted cracking. This Case is interpretations for the exact wording, including paragraph refer-
discussed in 27.14. ences.) Volume 1, issued in 1977, was the first formal publication;
N-662 Provides risk-informed alternatives to Section XI it was a bound publication that included interpretations from the
requirements applicable to repair/replacement activities, utilizing committees for Sections I through XI. Before that publication,
Risk-Informed Safety Classifications of Case N-660. This Case is interpretations were issued only to the inquirer and to the con-
discussed in 27.14 and in Chapter 45. (Regulatory Guide 1.147 cerned committees. Volume 11, issued in 1982, was the last
adds conditions for acceptance) bound volume, with vol. 12 and subsequent volumes issued in
N-666 Provides, in lieu of the requirements of IWA-4420, that loose-leaf form and usually issued as part of the addenda issues
structural integrity of a cracked or leaking socket weld in Class 1, for the representative books. The subject and numerical index
2, and 3, NPS 2 (DN50) and smaller piping, resulting from vibra- began with vol. 12; earlier volumes were not indexed by the
tion fatigue, may be restored by weld overlay of the outside surface. ASME, but some users Hartford Steam Boiler, for example
Work shall be performed in accordance with the specified require- prepared indexes for their own use.
ments, which include evaluation, design, (welding) procedure, final An interpretation that has been revised has an R at the end of
examination and testing. This Case is discussed in 27.14. its number, which denotes that it supersedes the interpretation of
N-730 Provides for use of a mechanical roll expansion tech- the previous issue. In the numbering, the 1 that appears after XI
nique to eliminate leakage from Class 1 control rod drive bottom indicates that the applicability is limited to Division 1 of Section XI.
head penetrations in BWRs. Work shall be performed in accor- The double digits in the middle indicate the year that the interpre-
dance with the specified requirements, which include values for tation was issued. If an interpretation contains two or more ques-
wall thinning and roll-band length, plant-specific procedure quali- tions, a number in parentheses will appear at the beginning of
fication, performance demonstration, evaluation, and ISI. each paraphrased description. This number denotes specifically
N-733 Provides for use of a mechanical connection modifica- where in sequence the question falls. (See Sections B.2B.5 for
tion to mitigate flaws in NPS 2 (DN50) and smaller nozzles and examples.)
nozzle partial penetration welds in vessels originally constructed Application of an interpretation is limited to the edition and
to Section III, Class 1 or B31.7 Class 1. Work shall be performed addenda of Section XI stated in the interpretation volume. Later
in accordance with the specified requirements, which include revisions of a requirement may nullify an interpretation for appli-
structural integrity evaluation, prototype joint performance test- cation to later editions and addenda.
ing, installation, examination and testing, PSI and ISI. Subject headings:
Mechanical connection assemblies are permitted only on nozzles
on which there are substantially no piping reactions. This Case is (1) Component Classification and Exemptions
discussed in 27.14. (2) ASME Stamping, Certification, Quality Assurance,
N-740 Provides, as an alternative to the provisions of IWA- Owners Report Forms, and Authorized Inspection Agency
4410 and IWA-4611 for reducing a defect to an acceptable size, (3) Examination Program
requirements for deposition of weld overlay on the outside sur- (4) NDE: Techniques, Calibration Standards, and Personnel
face of Class 1, 2 and 3 piping, component, or associated weld to Qualification
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 351


(5) Flaw Evaluation XI-1-86-05 Section XI Class 2 examination exemptions

(6) Pressure Tests (IWC-1220) based on size, operating pressure, and temperature
(7) Repairs do not exempt high-pressure safety injection systems. The Owner,
not Section XI, is responsible for determining which components
B.1 Component Classification and Exemptions fall within that system.
Many of the early inquiries concerned components that were XI-1-86-21R The rules of Section XI do not apply to mainte-
not part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. The Section XI nance operations such as the removal and reinstallation of bolting,
Committee explained repeatedly that its scope was limited to the the tightening of fasteners, and the replacement of gaskets, pack-
reactor coolant pressure boundary and associated Class 2 and ing, and seals where maintenance operations do not involve weld-
Class 3 systems, so consequently it did not address such items as ing or metal removal. The exception is that, following the closing
hydrogen recombiners, diesel fuel piping systems, and pump fly- of the system, a system leakage test at nominal operating pressure
wheels. Another category of exclusions that required clarification is required. Retest requirements of Subsections IWP and IWV
comprised uninspected items that were part of the pressure may also apply.
boundary. As part of the ISI sampling program development, XI-1-89-51 Class 2 vessel examination Category C-A applies
some categories were not included, such as manway pad welds, to pressure vessels only, not to storage tanks.
attachment welds of pipe whip restraints, and lifting lug welds. XI-1-92-27 Section XI does not provide rules for the classifica-
XI-78-18 Revisions to IWC-1220 in the Summer 1978 tion of specific items within components, such as replacement
Addenda removed the exemption from examination of some Class valve disks in valves that do not perform a safety function in the
2 systems. However, hydrogen recombiners are still exempted. closed position. Classification is determined by the Construction
XI-79-14 It is the intent of Section XI to exempt examination Code or Owners specification.
of supports of Class 2 piping and components that are exempt XI-1-92-45 IWB-1220(a) intends that emergency corecooling
from examination. systems to be excluded from the calculation of makeup capacity.
XI-80-02 It is not the intent of Section XI to apply the require- See 28.15 for more information.
ments of Subsection IWF, Component Supports, to pipe whip XI-1-95-25 The requirements of IWB-4000 for defect removal
restraints. and examination of the repair cavity do not apply to repair activi-
XI-80-05 At the valve that determines the boundary between ties performed in accordance with the requirements of the
two system Classes (Class 1 to Class 2, and so forth), it is the Construction Code or Section III.
intent of Section XI that the Class of the pipe determines the XI-1-95-56 For components that have been voluntarily upgraded
Class of the pipe to valve weld. to ASME Class 2 or 3, Section XI does not apply when system
XI-1-83-26R The NPS 1 exemption (IWA-7400) of replacement safety criteria permit the components to be a non-nuclear safety
piping, valves, and fittings applies to the installation of those items. class.
XI-1-83-30 Subsection IWF applies to all Class 1, 2, 3, and XI-1-98-56 IWE-1220(d) exempts piping penetrating contain-
MC component supports, including those supports that were con- ment, but states that IWB or IWC requirements apply. It is up to
structed to a Code or Standard other than Subsection NF. The the Owner to determine which, in the Owners Design
actual meaning is that Section XI rules for examination of sup- Specification.
ports apply to supports (mostly those of piping) that were con- XI-1-98-77 The NPS 4 size limitation for branch pipe connec-
structed and installed before Section III had rules for construction tion welds in Table IWB-2500-1 Examination Category B-J
of those supports. applies to the branch pipe size.
XI-1-83-52 Section XI rules do apply to replacement of instru- XI-1-01-06 The test and examination requirements of
ment tubing or piping; however, Section XI exemption rules may NB-5222(a) apply only to Class 1 components.
prevail. XI-1-04-27 Regarding Table IWB-2500-1 Examination
XI-1-83-71R Section XI does not address the induction heat Category B-N-2, Section XI does not define Core Support
stress improvement (IHSI) process. Structure. It is the responsibility of the Owner to classify items
XI-1-83-72 For piping originally constructed in accordance such as the Core Shroud.
with Section III, replacement piping subassembly must be in
accordance with Section III; only the installation welds can be
performed in accordance with Section XI. However, Code Case B.2 ASME Stamping, Certification, Quality
N-544 addresses part of this problem. Assurance, Owners Report Forms, and
XI-1-83-76 Class 1 pressure-retaining bolting in components Authorized Inspection Agency
that are not selected for examination do not need to be examined. Questions in this category usually arise because the Owner is
XI-1-83-78 Instrument tubing of 1 in. diameter and smaller is rarely an ASME Certificate Holder or Code Stampholder. Section
included in the scope of Section XI inspection, testing, and XI recognizes that the plant Owner is responsible for Code
repair/replacement activities when it is classified by the Owner as work done on the plant site.
ASME Code Class 1, 2, or 3. However, it may then be exempted XI-1-79-01 (1) It is not the intent of Section XI to require an
from specific examination and repair/replacement activities by organization to have an ASME Certificate of Authorization to
provisions of IWA-4700, IWA-7400, IWB-1220, IWC-1220, and procure replacement items. If, however, it is required by the edi-
so forth (1989 edition). tion of the Construction Code specified by the Owner, the
XI-1-83-80R This interpretation concerns the examination of replacement manufacturer, material supplier, or material manufac-
longitudinal welds in Class 2 pipe fittings, Category C-F. turer must have the appropriate ASME Certificate of
Longitudinal welds in SA-403 fittings made from autogenous Authorization or Quality System Certificate (Materials).
welded pipe (pipe welded without addition of filler metal) are out- Documentation of the item must be provided in accordance with
side the scope of Section XI examination requirements. the Owners Quality Assurance Program (which is in accordance
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 352

352 Chapter 26

with regulatory authority requirements). (2) It is the intent of XI-1-04-37 (1) IWA-7210(b) permits use of N- or NPT-
Section XI that replacement reactor vessel studs, nuts, and wash- stamped replacement items that have previously been in service at
ers be treated as materials rather than parts when they are manu- another location.
factured to material specifications permitted by Section III. The (2) IWA-1400(n) does not address specific QA program require-
requirements of the edition of the Owner-specified Construction ments such as Appendix B or NQA-1 for control of replacement
Code will determine whether the supplier of the items must hold parts/component that must be stored prior to installation.
an ASME Certificate of Authorization or Quality System (3) IWA-2110(h) does not require ANII approval of Owners
Certificate (Materials). See Chapter 27, Section 27.7.1 for addi- corrective action performed under Owners Appendix B or NQA-
tional information. 1 program for replacement parts/components.
XI-1-79-20 Section XI does not require an Owner performing a XI-1-07-06 When using Code Cases N-508 through N-508-3
repair weld on an N-stamped valve to have an ASME N-Certificate, without a IWA-4000 repair replacement activity, involving snub-
but the Owner must perform the repair in accordance with a repair bers and pressure relief valves rotated from stock for the purpose
program as required by IWA-4000. of testing, the services of an ANII are not required. Also, where
XI-1-81-11R Section XI does not require an organization per- an NIS-2 Form is not required, the services of an ANII are like-
forming repairs, installations, or replacements of Code-Stamped wise not required.
components to have an ASME NA-Certificate of Authorization or
National Board NR-Certification. However, state or local authori- B.3 Examination Program
ties may have such requirements. See Chapter 27, Section 27.4.3 XI-78-06 Section XI does not address examination of lifting
for additional information. lugs on the reactor vessel closure head or elsewhere.
XI-82-03 Services of an Authorized Inspection Agency are XI-78-07 For preservice examination, a surface examination con-
required for welded repairs to the pressure-retaining boundary ducted in the shop on the internal cast surfaces of pumps and valves
when repairs are performed in accordance with the original satisfies the Section XI requirement for a visual examination.
Construction Code, even if the Code was ANSI B31.1 and inspec- XI-78-20 (1) It is the intent of Examination Category B-G-1
tion by an Authorized Inspector was not required. for the term bolting to be a generic term that includes bolts,
XI-1-83-02 In replacement of NPT-stamped parts, it is permis- studs, nuts, bushings, washers, threads in base material, and
sible (but not required) to apply the NA-stamp to the installation flange ligaments between threaded stud holes. (2) It is the intent
work. of Examination Category B-G-1 that only visual examination is
XI-1-83-10 For repairs or modification of a component after it required for flange ligaments between threaded stud holes and
is N-stamped but before its installation is completed, the rules of threads in base material on pressurizers, heat exchangers, steam
either Section III or Section XI may be applied, as determined by generators, piping, pumps, and valves. In the case of the reactor
the Owner. When the rules of Section III are used, only organiza- vessel, volumetric examination is required for the ligaments
tions holding appropriate ASME Certificates of Authorization between threaded stud holes, but no examination is required for
may certify the work. threads in the base material.
XI-1-83-13 Services of an Authorized Inspection Agency are XI-79-05 It is the intent of Section XI that Manufacturers
required for nonwelded repairs as well as repairs by welding. Section III examination records may be used as Section XI pre-
XI-1-86-06 Section XI does not require NPT-stamping on bolt- service examination records provided the examination methods
ing ordered as spares, nor does it require such bolting to be cov- used are the same as those specified in Section XI. In the case of
ered by a Code N-2 Data Report. (Bolting is material.) vessels, the examinations must be performed following the vessel
XI-1-86-07 It is not permissible to apply the Section XI flaw hydrostatic test. In addition, the Section III examination records
acceptance standards to NPT-stamped shop-fabricated piping must be in a form consistent with the requirements of IWA-6000.
welds before the N-5 Data Report is completed. XI-79-11 Preservice examination of Class 3 supports must be
XI-1-92-07 The intent of Appendix II is that the conducted following initiation of hot functional or power ascen-
Manufacturers Data Report be attached to the NIS-2 Form only sion tests, but supported components are not required to be under
for a new replacement item, not when repairing or replacing pressure.
pieces of an existing item. XI-79-12 The intent of Section XI is that there are no require-
XI-1-98-05 Section XI does not require an Authorized Nuclear ments for examination of manway-to-vessel welds.
Inservice Inspector to have a National Board C (concrete) XI-79-16 When bushings are present in stud holes in the reactor
endorsement to perform inservice inspections of concrete contain- vessel flange, Examination Category B-G-1 still requires examina-
ments in accordance with Subsection IWL. tion of both the bushings and the ligaments between stud holes.
XI-1-98-25 While IWA-2110 requires the Inspector to verify all XI-80-03 It is not the intent of Examination Categories B-K-1
pressure testing, it does not require him to witness all tests. and C-E-1 to require examination of integrally welded attach-
XI-1-04-12 IWA-6220 does require that an abstract of pressure ments that are not used for support or restraint of Class 1 and 2
tests on Form NIS-1 be submitted as part of IWA-6230s components. However, the requirements for visual examination
Summary Report. The test method shall be listed, but individual during the pressure tests of IWB-5000 and IWC-5000 apply.
vessels, pumps, valves, or welds tested need not be listed. XI-80-11 (1) Capped control roddrive hydraulic-return noz-
XI-1-04-28 Mandatory Appendix II, Form NIS-2, requires (line zles in BWR vessels may not be exempted from the examinations
item 9) that the Owner attach Manufacturers Data Report Forms specified in Examination Category B-D. They are not considered
to the NIS-2, including information that permits traceability of the analogous to manways. (2) Similarly, it is not the intent of Section XI
item to the installation location. to exempt the nozzlesafe-end weld and safe-endcap weld (or
XI-1-04-35 The Manufacturers Data Report must be attached nozzlecap weld) associated with capped control roddrive
to a Form NIS-2 covering subsequent installations of items that hydraulic-return nozzles in BWR vessels from the examinations
have been installed previously. specified in Examination Categories B-F or B-J.
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 353


XI-81-02 Section III radiographic examination results may be of Table IWB-2500-1, Category B-J, are limited to the remaining
used to satisfy the Section XI requirements for preservice exami- dissimilar metal welds not selected by Category B-F.
nation for transverse reflectors in austenitic piping welds. XI-1-92-20 Tension-type supports, such as variable and con-
XI-82-01 When performing nozzle examinations per stant springs and rods that carry the weight of the component, fall
Examination Category B-D, examining 50% of the required vol- within the requirements of IWA-1300(e) in such a way that insu-
ume of two nozzles instead of 100% of the volume of one nozzle lation removal is not required under the ISI program. (See also
is not acceptable. Interpretations XI-1-92-22 and XI-1-92-29.)
XI-1-83-04 For inservice volumetric examination of Class 2 XI-1-92-22 The examination boundary of a nonintegral support
systems, the requirements of IWC-2430 for additional examina- may extend from the surface of the insulation provided the support
tions apply regardless of whether the flaw is considered fabrica- either carries the weight of the component or serves as a structural
tion or service induced. restraint in compression, even though the support may also be
XI-1-83-11 Examination of manways in Class 1 and 2 compo- designed to control thermal loads, seismic loads, or transient loads.
nents consists of specified examinations of bolting; examination XI-1-92-29 IWF-1300(e) intent is that the mechanical connec-
of manway installation welds is not required. tion for a pipe clamp includes the bolting or pins and their inter-
XI-1-83-12R2 Component supports are selected for examina- face with the clamp; the pipe-to-clamp interface is excluded.
tion based on the components selected for examination; one usu- XI-1-92-33 The acceptance standard for containment examina-
ally does not need to examine supports of components that are tion Category E-Q, IWE-3519.3, permits 10% reduction in nomi-
exempt or not selected in the program. (But see Interpretation nal wall-thickness. It does not limit the location or extent of the
XI1-86-17, to follow.) affected area.
XI-1-83-39 A weld between a P-No. 1 and P-No. 3 material is XI-1-92-40 While IWB-1220(a) exempts some Class 1 compo-
not a dissimilar metal weld. nents from volumetric and surface examination, it is not intended
XI-1-86-08 For Class 1 nozzles, Examination Category B-D, to exempt them from the visual examination of the Category B-P
the nozzle inner radius examination applies even for integrally (during the pressure test).
cast nozzles. But see Code Case N-619. XI-1-92-43 Class 1, Examination Category B-O, Item B14.10
XI-1-86-17 When corrective measures are required following for peripheral control roddrive housing welds includes pressure-
support examinations, the additional examinations of IWF-2430 retaining welds that are above and below the flange surface that
of adjacent component supports are required even if the adjacent supports the control roddrive mechanism.
components are exempt. XI-1-92-46 Core support structure examination Category B-N-
XI-1-86-20 It is not the intent of IWB-2200 to require disas- 2 does not require disassembly of portions of the reactor vessel
sembly of pump castings and valve bodies for preservice VT-3 internals of a BWR just to provide access for examinations below
visual examinations of internal surfaces. Such examination would the reactor core.
be satisfied by the Section III fabrication requirements. XI-1-95-05 IWA-2610 weld reference system requirements
XI-1-86-30R When an inservice examination of a component were not intended to require the physical marking of piping with
support reveals an unacceptable condition described in IWF-3410(a), reference points at intervals along the weld length. (Definitive
but analysis substantiates its integrity for continued service, the record systems may be acceptable.)
requirements of IWF-2430 for additional examinations are not XI-1-95-27 VT-3 examinations for spaces within the reactor
intended to apply. vessel imposed by Category B-N-1, Note (1), includes examina-
XI-1-86-43R Unlike the Class 1 size exemption, the Class 2 tion for loose or missing parts and debris as required by
size exemption of IWC-1221(a) for NPS 4 and smaller does not IWA2213. However, in-vessel items other than core support struc-
exempt components connected by exempt piping, unless the com- tures are not included.
ponent itself is NPS 4 or smaller. XI-1-95-28 VT-3 examinations for spaces below the reactor core
XI-1-86-67 Section XI does not require examination of Class 3 imposed by Categories B-N-1 Note (1), and B-N-2, are not required
piping systems that operate at a pressure greater than 275 psig and for spaces below the core that were made accessible by the removal
a temperature greater than 200F, unless they are included in the of components not normally removed during refueling outages.
examination and test categories of Table IWD-2500-1. XI-1-98-12 Starting with the 1986 Edition, the intent of
XI-1-89-02 When Section V is used for inservice examina- IWC1200 and IWD-1200 is to exempt Class 2 and Class 3 ves-
tions, the intent is that the same edition and addenda of Section V sels, pumps, and valves and their connections provided neither the
be used as is used for Section XI. cumulative inlet nor outlet pipe cross-sectional area exceeds the
XI-1-89-63 IWB-2200 does not require the preservice volumet- nominal cross-sectional area of the designated NPS size.
ric examination of steam generator tubing to be performed after XI-1-98-22 For Class 1 pumps and valves not disassembled for
the Section III hydrostatic test. maintenance, repair, or volumetric examination during an interval,
XI-1-92-05 (1) The intent of Class 3 examination Categories Table IWB-2500-1 Category B-G-1 and B-G-2 examinations are
D-A, D-B, and D-C is to address only integrally welded attach- not required. See 28.28 for more information.
ments. (2) Class 1 Categories B-H and B-K-1, and Class 2 XI-1-98-32 Insulation must be removed for VT-3 examinations
Category C-C, require examination of only integrally welded of integral attachments to the pressure boundary of Class 3 sup-
attachments that meet the size requirements, not of the cast or port Article IWF examinations.
forged integral attachments. XI-1-98-42 Preservice examination of a repaired Class 2 weld
XI-1-92-13 (1) Examination of Class 1 piping safe-end welds is not required, if the weld has not been selected for inservice
under Category B-F item B5.50 is limited to nozzle safe-end dis- inspection.
similar metal welds. (Note that in Interpretation XI-1-83-39, a XI-1-98-50 Preservice examination of a Class 2 vessel can be
weld between a P-No. 1 and P-No.3 material is not a dissimilar conducted only after completion of the Section III hydrostatic test
metal weld.) (2) The dissimilar metal weld selected by Note 1(c) [IWC-2200(b)(1)].
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 354

354 Chapter 26

XI-1-98-58 (1) IWF-2500 and Code Case N-491 require the XI-1-04-43 Section XI does not address an examination category
examination of component support clearances only when examin- or examination requirements of a weld connecting a steam genera-
ing guides and stops, and the examination of component support tor primary nozzle directly to a reactor coolant pump housing.
settings only when examining spring and constant load supports. XI-1-07-09 Table IWB-2500-1 Examination Category B-M-2,
(2) IWF-2500 and Code Case N-491 do not require measure- item B12.50, Note (2), does not require examination of internal
ment of component support as-built dimensions such as fillet pressure-retaining parts that are not part of the valve body.
weld leg sizes, base-plate anchor-to-wall gap tolerances, and other
installation tolerances. B.4 NDE: Techniques, Calibration Standards,
XI-1-98-60 Insulation must be removed for VT-3 examinations and Personnel Qualification
of nonintegral (mechanical) attachments to the pressure boundary, XI-77-03 In the application of Appendix I, it is necessary to
for Class 3 support IWF-1300(e) examinations, other than sup- clad the ultrasonic calibration block even when examination is
ports carrying the weight of the component or serving as a struc- performed from the unclad surface. (When the component materi-
tural restraint in compression. al is clad, the calibration block material shall also be clad.) The
XI-1-98-67 Starting with the 1986 Edition, it was the intent to effect of cladding is too significant and variable among materials
include (1) Class 2 vessel nozzle to nozzle extension welds in and ultrasonic techniques to permit the use of calibration block
Examination Category C-H system pressure tests with VT-2 visual design alternatives such as deletion of cladding.
examination, and (2) include such full-penetration vessel nozzle XI-77-16 Level 1 NDE personnel shall not independently eval-
to nozzle extension welds in Examination Category C-B surface uate or accept the results of a nondestructive examination, as stat-
examinations. ed in IWA-2300(f).
XI-1-98-70 (1) Table IWB-2500-1 Examination Category B-J, XI-78-15 Section XI does not specify machining tolerances on
Footnote (1) requires that 25 % of the total non-exempt piping weld perpendicularity of notches in ultrasonic calibration blocks.
population be examined during each inspection interval; however, it XI-78-21 IWA-1400(m) does not require Owners to retain
does not require 25% of each item number in the Table. steam-generator tubing eddy current calibration standards. (The
(2) The intent of Table IWB-2500-1 Examination Category eddy current test service organization can carry the standards
B-J, Footnote (2) was to require reexamination of the same welds from job to job.)
each inspection interval only to the extent practical. XI-79-13 A data recording system that records ultrasonic data
XI-1-98-75 Examination Category B-G-1 item B6.30 does not at discrete intervals with the required minimum overlap satisfies
require removal of reactor vessel closure studs for volumetric and the Appendix I (Summer 1975 Addenda) I-6310(a) requirement
surface examination; examination is required only when a stud is for recording all ultrasonic reflectors that produce a response
removed for some other reason, and then only once per inspection equal to or greater than 50% of DAC.
interval. XI-1-89-05 In Appendix III, III-3310, the term period of
XI-1-01-12 Examination Category B-M-2 item B12.50 does extended use refers to a plant outage.
not require disassembly of Class 1 valve internal parts for VT-3 XI-1-89-11 (3) Appendix III, III-3230(d) rules for side-drilled
examination of internal surfaces; examination is required only holes in piping UT calibration blocks apply to calibration blocks
when a valve is disassembled for some other purpose, and then for 12 V-path examinations.
only to the extent made practicable by that other purpose. XI-1-89-12 Appendix III rules, including III-3400 rules for
XI-1-01-38 In the 1989 Edition, IWC-3511, which is the piping UT calibration blocks, apply to calibration blocks for UT
acceptance standard for Examination Category C-B, addresses examination of welds 2 in. thick or less in valve bodies and pump
ferritic steel but does not address austenitic steel. However, the casings.
2002 Addenda provides acceptance criteria for austenitic steels. XI-1-89-13 For piping UT, the search unit scan overlap and
XI-1-04-18 Table IWB-2500-1 Examination Category B-G-1 technique requirements of Appendix III apply, not those of
item B6.50 does not require that reactor vessel bushings be exam- Appendix I.
ined when the head-to-flange connection is disassembled and the XI-1-92-09 Appendix VIII, VIII-3100 does not require qualifi-
studs remain in place. cation by performance demonstration for ultrasonic examination
XI-1-04-21 (1) IWB-2200(a) does require that preservice exami- of integrally welded reactor vessel attachments.
nations extend to include essentially 100% of Class 1 piping welds XI-1-92-49 While Appendix VIII requires the use of thermal
except for those welds exempted by IWB-1220(a), (b) or (c). fatigue cracks for performance demonstration test specimens, it
(2) Table IWB-2500-1 Examination Category B-J does require does not specify methods for producing the specimens.
that the number of circumferential butt, branch, or socket welds in XI-1-92-52 IWA-5244 provides alternatives to VT-2 visual
reactor coolant system Class 1 piping subject to examination equal examination for detection of leakage from buried pipes during
25% of the total number of circumferential butt, branch, or socket pressure tests. Section XI did not intend to require those test per-
welds in reactor coolant system Class 1 piping except those exempted sonnel to have VT-2 examination qualification; in fact, Section XI
by IWB-1220. Also, the welds in item B9.22 may be exempted. lacks requirements for qualification of those test personnel.
(3) Table IWC-2500-1 Examination Categories C-F-1 and C-F- XI-1-95-35 (1) There is no requirement stating that the exami-
2 require only those welds selected for inservice inspection to be nation technique must be capable of detecting and sizing the
included in preservice inspection. smallest acceptable flaws for the piping thickness indicated in
(4) IWA-1400(b) requires that all piping welds be designed and Table IWB-3514-1.
arranged to allow access to meet the examination requirements of XI-1-95-38 For personnel qualification, IWA-2300 VT-1, VT-2,
Section XI. and VT-3 visual examinations are not considered to be separate
XI-1-04-29 In Figure IWB-2500-12 dimension DS defines the NDE methods.
diameter of the stud, to determine whether Table IWB-2500-1 XI-1-95-40 A classroom setting is not required for Appendix
Examination Category B-G-1 or B-G-2 applies. VII, VII-4240 annual supplemental training.
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 355


XI-1-95-41 (1) IWA-5243 does not require certified Level II examination. However, when a relevant condition is not observed,
VT-2 personnel to verify the operability of a leakage collection the presence or absence of a gap between a component and its sup-
system. (2) The Owner is responsible for determining the criteria port need not be recorded. Also, dimensional measurements are not
for verifying operability of the leakage collection system. required to verify parameters such as clearances, settings, and phys-
XI-1-95-61 Personnel who obtain recorded images of vessel ical displacements.
internal components, but who are not responsible for the evalua- XI-1-04-22 IWA-2310 and IWA-2314 do not limit the amount
tion of the images, are not considered NDE personnel and do not of presentation time that an NDE Instructor, for methods other
need to be qualified according to IWA-2300. than ultrasonic, may delegate to individuals having specific sub-
XI-1-98-04 Neither IWA-1400 nor IWA-6340 require that eddy ject matter expertise for specialized training during a course of
current data storage units be maintained as an Owners record. instruction.
XI-1-98-18 Appendix III Supplement 4 par. (b)(1) does not XI-1-04-31 IWA-2310 does not require that personnel involved
require both shear wave and longitudinal wave examinations. It in operation of automated data acquisition or remote examination
allows either. equipment per instructions from a qualified NDE examiner be
XI-1-98-64 Code Case N-416-1 permits a system leakage test qualified and certified as NDE examiners when their job function
in lieu of a Section XI hydrostatic test following installation of a requires no knowledge of the NDE method involved.
NPT-stamped Class 1 replacement part by welding. The NDE XI-1-04-34 Appendix I Supplement 9 does require that two UT
specified in NB-5410 may be performed prior to the leakage test. angle beams having nominal angles of 45 deg. and 60 deg. be
See for more information. used when conducting vessel examinations from the outside
XI-1-01-07, XI-1-01-33 Illumination levels cited in IWA-2210 for diameter of from the inside diameter on unclad surfaces.
visual examinations have given rise to several inquiries. IWA-2210 XI-1-07-02 It is the intent of Appendix I, I-2400 that ultrasonic
does not require measurement of illumination levels with a light examination of threads in flange (item B6.40) be performed per
meter. It requires a combination of lighting, access, and viewing Section V.
angle sufficient for personnel to resolve the lower case characters XI-1-07-12 IWA-4520 does not require personnel performing
specified in Table IWA-2210-1. Construction Code nondestructive examinations as part of a
XI-1-01-34 The requirement in Appendix VII, VII-4120, that Section XI repair/replacement program to be qualified per IWA-
experience be in nuclear applications does not imply that it is 2300. However, starting in the 2003 Addenda, IWA-4511 pro-
restricted to Section XI applications. vides an option to use IWA-2300.
XI-1-01-39 Appendix VIII performance demonstration is XI-1-07-14 IWA-2213 does not require measurement of installa-
required for examination of welds in austenitic piping containing tion tolerances at a bolted connection as part of a VT-3 examination.
structural weld inlay, but no requirements are provided. Intent is
that examinations be performed in accordance with Appendix III B.5 Flaw Evaluation
until requirements are provided in Appendix VIII. XI-78-02 The intent of IWB-3514 is to characterize multiple
XI-1-01-51 Lighting sufficient to resolve a 1 mil (0.001 in.) or linear surface flaws detected by surface examinations the same as
smaller wire satisfies the lighting requirement of IWA-2211(b). if they were detected ultrasonically. Because their depth is not
Note: Ability to resolve a 1 mil wire has been imposed by NRC as known, one should assume that they have the maximum aspect
a supplement to some Section XI requirements for visual exami- ratio listed.
nation. XI-1-83-32 Depth of surface flaws excludes cladding thickness.
XI-1-01-52 IWA-2216 requirements remote visual examination XI-1-89-11 (1) When Table IWB-2500-1, Categories B-H and
do not require use of color camera; provided relevant conditions B-K-1, state that volumetric or surface examinations (as applica-
can be detected. ble) are required, they mean one or the othernot both. (2)
XI-1-04-01 Under IWA-2323, an NDE Level III initially certi- Appendix III, III-4430, rules for piping UT angle-beam, 12 V-path
fied per IWA-2300 1989 Edition, and who met the Basic examina- technique for reflectors transverse to the weld seams, applies to
tion requirements of ASNT SNT-TC-1A 1984 Edition, may be those welds for which Table IWB-2500-1 requires examination,
recertified without retaking the Basic examination. not to all piping weld seams.
XI-1-04-05 (1) The intent of IWA-2310 is that additional train- XI-1-89-16 Section XI acceptance standards apply to indica-
ing or experience prior to certification or recertification is not tions detected during a Section XI examination, even when the
required for personnel certified to SNT-TC-1A who are being cer- indications are outside the Section XI examination volumes or
tified to the same level by a new employer or recertified by the surfaces. If acceptance standards are not specified in Section XI,
same employer to ANSI/ASNT CP-189. those in the items Construction Code or Section III shall be eval-
(2) IWA-2310 does require that a candidate meet all training, uated to determine disposition of the indication.
testing, and experience requirements of the level of certification XI-1-95-35 (2) Section XI does not permit alternative flaw accep-
being sought prior to initial certification or certification to a higher tance standards based on the use of plant-specific considerations.
level, in accordance with requirements of an Edition and Addenda XI-1-83-29 For a flaw indication found to exceed the accep-
of Section XI that references ANSI/ASNT CP-189. In any case, tance limits of IWB-3500, an analytical evaluation for acceptance
the requirements of the governing Edition and Addenda of must be in accordance with IWB-3600, not the Construction Code.
Section XI apply. XI-1-95-01 IWA-4130 and IWA-4150 require that a repair or
(3) Moreover, it is not the intent of IWA-2310 that a candidate replacement be evaluated to determine if Construction Code
meet all the ANSI/ASNT CP-189 initial training and experience design requirements are satisfied. If the Owner determines that
requirements when recertification to the same level is being the current loadings for the evaluated item are more severe than
sought under a later edition of ANSI/ASNT CP-189. what was documented originally in the Design Specifications or
XI-1-04-13 IWF-2500 requires that relevant conditions be deter- the Stress Report, the evaluation must consider the new or
mined and recorded in the inspection report of a VT-3 (IWA-2213) revised loadings. However, if the current (more severe) loadings
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 356

356 Chapter 26

are discovered in the course of a routine design review that is not since the component is part of a Class 2 system, it must receive
associated with a Section XI activity, Section XI does not require the same pressure tests as all other portions of that system.
design reevaluation. XI-78-01 Per IWB-5210, system leak-tests are required before
XI-1-95-49 (1) When evaluating austenitic stainless steel pip- plant start-up following each reactor refueling outage. System
ing in accordance with Appendix C, one is not allowed to use hydrostatic tests are required at or near the end of a 10 yr. inspec-
actual material properties for yield strength and ultimate strength tion interval during a coincident refueling outage.
for the definition of Sm. (2) When evaluating ferritic piping in XI-1-83-25 For pressure tests of Class 1 systems, reactor
accordance with Appendix H, one is allowed to use the actual coolant is the required pressurizing medium, but if the system
material properties for yield strength and ultimate strength for the fluid is steam, steam may be used. For pressure tests of Class 2
definition of Sm. systems, either water or air may be used in steam systems.
XI-1-98-11 This addresses a series of questions regarding the XI-1-83-58 For a repair or installation weld connecting NPS 1
requirements of IWA-3300 for determining dimensions of flaws. piping and associated valves to larger piping or components, the
IWA-4400(b) pressure test exemption applies.
(1) For flaws detected in steam generator tubing, IWA-3300(d) XI-1-83-63R The system pressure test requirements of
defines r as the mean radius of the tube. IWA-5214(e) apply only to disassembly and reassembly of
(2) Note (4) to Table IWC-3510-1 specifies that Y S/a. To mechanical joints occurring in the course of a Section XI repair or
determine if the flaw is classified as a surface flaw, use 2a replacement.
as the a dimension, per Figure IWA-3330-1. XI-1-83-66 The Construction Code hydrostatic test is not
(3) In Figure IWA-3360-1, there is no S dimension defined required for repairs or replacement installations performed under
between Flaw Plane #1 and Flaw Plane #2, or between Flaw Section XI. See Section of Chapter 27 for more infor-
Plane #2 and Flaw Plane #3. This is intentional. mation.
(4) In Figure IWA-3350-1, Flaw #1 and Flaw #2 do not overlap. XI-1-86-32 Hydrostatic test pressurization factors do not have
The separation can be defined as the greater of 2d1 and 2d2. range tolerances; they are minimum pressurization pressures.
XI-01-01 (1) It is a weakness of Section XI that inspection pro- XI-1-86-35 A cover welded over an NPS 1 or smaller opening
cedures and acceptance standards are not better integrated. is considered to meet the IWA-4400(b) size exemption for pres-
Section XI does not require inspection techniques capable of sure testing of repairs.
detecting and sizing the smallest acceptable piping flaws indicat- XI-1-86-53 It was asked if IWA-5211 required a reactor to be
ed in Table IWB-3514-1. This is more a reflection of the conser- in a noncritical state when pressure tests are performed. Core crit-
vatism of the acceptance standard tables than on the capability of icality during pressure testing is not addressed by Section XI.
NDE systems to find flaws that affect system safety. XI-1-89-08 Section XI (IWA-5214) does not require a pressure
(2) Use of alternative acceptance standards based on plant- test following replacement of nuts, bolts, or studs on components.
specific considerations is not acceptable. However, flaws exceed- This is essentially a reiteration of Interpretation XI-83-63R and
ing the sizes indicated in Table IWB-3514-1 may be evaluated in others. The key is that the test is required only when the replace-
accordance with IWB-3600. ment results from a Section XI program requirement.
XI-1-04-02 IWB-3112(b), IWB-3131(b), IWC-3112(b), and XI-1-89-31 The intent of Section XI is that a hydrostatic pressure
IWC-3121(b) apply to components with flaws observed on test need not be performed for a weld repair across the entire width
digitally-enhanced original construction radiographs, provided the of a seating surface of a raised-face flange. That condition should
digitally-enhanced radiographs satisfy the examination require- not be considered a penetration of the pressure-retaining boundary.
ments of the original Construction Code. XI-1-89-66 Regarding static head consideration during a
XI-1-04-03 The criteria of IWB-3613(a) may be applied to hydrostatic pressure test, the intent is that the pressure at the low-
structural discontinuities at the intersection of nozzles and pres- est point in the system not exceed 106% of the required test pres-
sure vessel shells when the pressurization does not exceed 20% of sure (IWA-5265), even though the specified test pressure
the Design Pressure. (IWC-5222 or IWD-5223) may not be achieved in upper eleva-
XI-1-04-44 For preservice inspection, if a weld radiograph tions of the system.
documents indications that are acceptable per NB-2500/NB-5300, XI-1-92-04 The intent of IWA-5211 is to permit a system
the indications are acceptable even if they do not meet the accep- pneumatic test for Class 2 and 3 components in lieu of a system
tance standards of IWB-3000. This is permitted by IWB-3112(b). leakage test, system functional test, or system inservice test. (But
see Interpretation XI-1-92-18, which follows.)
B.6 Pressure Tests XI-1-92-18 IWA-5211(e) is a test description, not a require-
Many inquiries concern hydrostatic pressure testing following ment. Also, it is not an alternative to the requirements of
repair/replacement activities. The reader should be aware that IWC-5210(b) or IWD-5210(b).
Code Case N-416 essentially permits a leak-test at operating pres- XI-1-92-19 Corrective measures required by IWA-5250(a) do
sure in lieu of hydrostatic pressure tests. Also, there are many not apply to leakage identified during normal plant operation
exceptions to leak-tests after repair/replacement activities. The only to leakage discovered during a Section XI pressure test. See
reader should also review the interpretations on repairs (see 28.4.1 and 28.28 for more information.
Section B.7 of this Appendix). Chapter 27 of this book contains a XI-1-92-31 When through-wall leakage is found during a sys-
very extensive and useful discussion in Section 27.11.3. tem pressure test, the following corrective action process is
XI-77-07 The pressure test exemption for open-ended portions acceptable under IWA-5250:
of non-closed Class 3 systems includes exemption from the visual
examination requirements. (a) removal of the flaw;
XI-77-18 Class 1 system pressure test requirements are not (b) installation of a closure device (e.g., a branch connection or wel-
applicable to a Class 1 component installed in a Class 2 system, dolet) as according to Section XI and the Construction Code; and
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 357


(c) evaluation that considers the extent of the original flaw and XI-1-98-52R When a portion of a system is subjected to a
demonstrates that the structural integrity provisions of repair/replacement activity, a VT-2 examination as required by
Section III and the Construction Code are met with the clo- IWA-4700 and IWA-5120 is required only on that portion of the
sure device installed. See 28.28 for more information. system, even if that portion of the system cannot be isolated.
XI-98.73 This addresses several aspects of requirements for
XI-1-95-34 A leakage test in accordance with IWE-5221 is the pressure testing NPT-stamped replacement parts and their welds.
only Section XI pressure test requirement following repairs or mod- See for more information.
ifications to the containment pressure boundary (e.g., after reweld- XI-1-01-04 Test personnel performing a flow test in lieu of sys-
ing of the primary reactor containment following steam-generator tem hydrostatic test on open-ended portions of discharge lines
replacement). need not be qualified to perform VT-2 visual examinations.
XI-1-95-47 IWA-7530 does not require that the preservice XI-01-19 Table IWB-2500-1 Category B-P does not require a
examination follow completion of the Section III hydrostatic test. pressure test when a reactor vessel is opened and reclosed during
Section XI does not address this issue. a midcycle outage not a refueling outage.
XI-1-95-48R The following are examples of maintenance oper- XI-1-01-37 IWA-5214(e) does not require pressurization of
ations that do not elicit Section XI pressure test requirements of Class 2 replacement items installed by mechanical means if the
either IWA-5214(e) or IWA-4710(c). items were not subject to pressurization during a system functional
or inservice test. See for more information.
(1) When replacing a valve disk that requires the disassembly XI-1-04-07 When there is evidence of boric acid residue on a
and reassembly of the valve but no replacement of bolted bolted connection, IWA-5250(a)(2) requires that bolting be
pressure boundary items. removed and examined for evidence of degradation even if the
(2) When replacing any pressure-retaining part of a valve that residue does not come into contact with any of the bolts.
is internal to the valve body or bonnet. However, Code Case N-566-2 provides an alternative.
(3) When replacing a valve bonnet or body that is installed by XI-1-04-16 The test required by Code Cases N-498 through
mechanical joints. N-498-4 at the end of ten-year testing of Class 1 extended bound-
aries need not follow a refueling outage; it may be performed at
See Section of Chapter 27 for more information.
any time prior to startup at or near the end of the interval.
XI-1-95-52 While the IWA-5214(e) pressure test is required
XI-1-04-17 IWA-5250(a)(2) does require VT-3 examination
when a valve bonnet or body attached by mechanical connections
and evaluation of bolting that is being discarded.
is replaced, it is not required when only the bolting is replaced.
XI-1-04-19 The intent of IWB-5220 is that, when conducting a
See Section 27.11.3 of Chapter 27 for more information.
system leakage test at or near the end of an interval, all Class 1
XI-1-95-54 The test pressure for a system leakage test may be
piping, including portions isolated during normal operation, be
determined by the Owner.
pressurized to reactor coolant system nominal operating pressure.
XI-1-98-03 (1) This addresses the gray area of jurisdiction
XI-1-07-15 Section XI does not address pressure testing of
between Section III and Section XI. The rules of either Section III
Class 2 and 3 components that are submerged during normal
or Section XI, as determined by the Owner, may be used for
repair/replacement of an N or NV-stamped Section III component
prior to its installation.
B.7 Repairs
(2) IWA-5213(e) does not require pressure testing after replace-
One of the basic inquiry subjects is determining where the
ment of bolting on a Code Class 1, 2, or 3 mechanical connection,
Section XI repair/replacement activity rules apply. When they
either with or without disassembly of the connection. See 28.4.2
were first developed, the rules clearly stated that they applied to
for more information.
conditions revealed by examinations and tests required by a
XI-1-98-06 For VT-2 visual examination for leakage during a
plants ISI program. Over time, however, the plants have found
pressure test,
the Section XI repair/replacement activity rules convenient for a
(1) IWA-2210(c) clearly permits remote examination as an alter- broad application. The plants have also recognized that the rules
native to direct visual. may be applied during all modes of plant operation.
(2) IWA-5241(b) and IWA-5242(a) provide additional alterna- XI-78-13 A repair weld within Section XI jurisdiction is per-
tives when external surfaces are inaccessible for direct visu- formed using the rules of Section III. May Section XI UT be sub-
al examination. stituted for the NDE required by Section III? The Section XI
(3) When examination of surrounding area (including floor areas Subcommittee cannot revise the requirements specified in another
or equipment surfaces)is permitted by IWA-5241(b) and Code Section. However, when a repair is made, an alternate
IWA-5242(a), the requirements of Table IWA-2210-1 apply examination may be employed if it is documented in the Owners
to the surrounding area rather than to the actual component. Repair Program and that program is filed with the enforcement
and regulatory authorities at the plant site. See Section 27.11.1 of
XI-1-98-16 Table IWB-2500-1, Examination Category B-G-1, Chapter 27 for more information.
Note (5) (through 1994 Addenda) intended to require a VT-3 XI-79-17 Modification of a Section III Class MC containment
examination per IWA-5250(a)(2), not VT-1. vessel by installation of additional penetrations may be conducted
XI-1-98-38 Code Cases N-498, N-498-1 and N-498-2 were under the rules of Section XI for Class 1 vessels, except as modi-
intended to include Table IWB-2500-1 Category B-E, Pressure fied by the provisions of Case N-236. Repairs must be subjected
Retaining Partial Penetration Welds in Vessels. to a pneumatic leakage test in accordance with Appendix J of
XI-1-98-51R When items are installed that do not involve any 10CFR50, in lieu of the Section XI pressure test requirements.
replacement pressure-retaining items, no IWA-4540(c) pressure XI-1-83-28R Removal and rewelding of a seal weld is consid-
test is required. ered a Section XI repair (even when it is part of a valve servicing
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 358

358 Chapter 26

or maintenance activity). See Section of Chapter 27 for XI-1-89-40 When a through-wall leakat other than a
more information. mechanical connectionis detected in an ASME Class 1, 2, or 3
XI-1-83-57 Section XI rules for repairs to Classes 1, 2, and 3 component during a scheduled system pressure test, a repair or
systems and components apply to temporary as well as permanent replacement in accordance with IWA-4000 or IWA-7000 is
repairs. See Section 27.3.1 of Chapter 27 for more information. required before the systems return to service. However, Code
XI-1-86-36 IWA-4000 rules may be used for welding non Case N-513 addresses this issue for flaws in Class 3 low- and
pressure-retaining replacement parts to weld overlay cladding of moderate-energy piping. It provides criteria for the temporary
Class 1 components. acceptance of leakage during operation from Class 3 low- and
XI-1-86-47 For repairs by brazing, the original Construction moderate-energy piping. When specific conditions are satisfied,
Code rules apply. Section XI does not have any special rules for plant operation can continue until a scheduled outage.
brazing. See Section 27.10 of Chapter 27 for more information. XI-1-89-44 The intent of IWF-2200 preservice examination is
XI-1-86-59 Section XI replacement rules would not provide for that repaired or replaced supports shall be examined before the
an Owner to procure a replacement valve body, clad and machine systems return to service. IWA-2200(b) only applies to the pre-
that body, and install that body as a replacement for an N-stamped service examination. See Section 27.11.2 of Chapter 27 for more
valve. However, Code Case N-544 has addressed part of this information.
problem; it provides criteria for plant operators to perform activi- XI-1-89-56 When metal removal from a piping weld crown is
ties associated with repair and replacement of piping, valves, and necessary to achieve a surface suitable for the required NDE, such
fittings NPS 1 and smalleractivities usually reserved for the surface preparation is not considered a repair (IWA-4000) or a
ASME Code Stampholderswithout obtaining a Code Stamp. replacement (IWA-7000) as long as it does not encroach on the
XI-1-86-58 When a spool piece fabricated to the Construction required wall-thickness. See Section 27.3.1 of Chapter 27 for
Code is to be installed under Section XI rules as a replacement, it more information.
is still required to meet the Construction Code hydrostatic pres- XI-1-89-68 A component that was originally constructed to
sure test before its installation. Section III shall not be replaced with a component that was
XI-1-86-62 Section XI does not address the repair of reactor designed and manufactured by an organization not holding an
vessel control roddrive and instrumentation penetrations by roll appropriate ASME Certificate of Authorization. However, Code
expansion to minimize leakage. Case N-544 partially addresses this situation. It provides criteria
XI-1-89-04 The question keeps arising regarding IWB-7400(d) for plant operators to perform activities associated with repair and
exemption for NPS 1-and-smaller piping, pumps, and valves. This replacement of piping, valves, and fittings NPS 1 and smaller
interpretation lists exemptions from the following activities: activities usually reserved for ASME Code Stampholders
without obtaining a Code Stamp. See Section 27.8.1 of Chapter
(a) Procurement from material manufacturers or material sup-
27 for more information.
XI-1-89-73 Section XI does not address the application of con-
(b) Obtaining a Material Certification or Certificate of
trolled shot-peening as part of a repair process.
XI-1-92-08 IWA-4300 allows several repair organizations to
(c) Obtaining third party inspection.
simultaneously supervise the welding of a single procedure quali-
(d) Procurement from a Certificate Holder.
fication test coupon and each use the resulting procedure qualifi-
(e) Performing Section XI pressure testing.
cation record to generate their own welding procedure specifica-
See Section of Chapter 27 for more information. tion. See Section 27.10.5 of Chapter 27 for more information.
XI-1-89-19 Section XI IWA-4000 repair rules do apply to the XI-1-92-32 Before the 1989 addenda, Section XI did not address
preventive maintenance operation of welding a larger redundant mechanical sleeving of heat exchanger tubing. Consequently, the
canopy seal over an existing nonleaking canopy seal on a Class 1 NPS 1 exemptions of IWA-7400(d) applied to mechanical sleeving
component. of a heat-exchanger tube meeting the size exemption, except that
XI-1-89-24 While an Owner not possessing an NA-symbol materials and primary stress levels must be consistent with the
stamp is allowed to install material used for replacement, that applicable Construction Code. However, IWA-4120 was revised in
Owner is not permitted to qualify material manufacturers and sup- the 1991 addenda to indicate that the NPS 1 exemption did not
pliers that furnish the material being installed if the original apply to heat-exchanger tube sleeves. See Sections and
Construction Code invoked Section III, NCA-3800. However, Code 27.13 of Chapter 27 for more information.
Case N-517 has partially addressed this problem; it provides crite- XI-1-92-44 The NPS 1 exemptions of IWA-7400(d) apply to
ria for plant operators to qualify material suppliers, upgrade stock mechanical plugging of a heat-exchanger tube meeting the size
material, and purchase small productsactivities usually reserved exemption, except that materials and primary stress levels must be
for ASME Code Stampholderswithout obtaining a Code Stamp. consistent with the applicable Construction Code. See also
See Section 27.8.2 of Chapter 27 for more information. Interpretation XI-1-92-32 for mechanical sleeving, and also see
XI-1-89-28 IWF-4000 and IWA-4000 are intended to be used Sections and 27.13 of Chapter 27 for more information.
when a component support is repaired regardless of how the non- XI-1-92-56 For Class 1 piping, Examination Category B-J, the
conformance was identified. This interpretation illustrates an number of welds in the Note (1) categories may total more than
apparent trend by Owners to apply Section XI rules to repairs the 25% of the sample required. However, the intent is that the
beyond those associated with Section XI examinations and tests. requirement be not more than 25% of the sample; the selection
See 28.4.1 for more information. process should stop when that percentage is reached.
XI-1-89-34 Although IWA-7210(b)(2) requires that replace- XI-1-92-59 Within the acceptance standards and repair welding
ments meet original design requirements, Section XI does not rules of Section XI, internal wall-thinning can be repaired by exter-
require documentation of those requirements, such as a Design nal weld overlay without defect removal. See Section 27.10.3 of
Report. Chapter 27 for more information. See 28.38 for more information.
ASME_Ch26_p323-360.qxd 5/20/09 8:52 AM Page 359


XI-1-92-68 Repairs made on items NPS 1 and smaller are not XI-1-98-62 Owner is permitted to subcontract repair/replace-
exempt from IWA-4000 requirements; however, IWA-4400 may ment activities when all activities are controlled in accordance
exempt such repairs from examination or test. See Section with the Owner-approved Quality Assurance Program of the sub- of Chapter 27 for more information. contractor (Repair/Replacement Organization) , including Data
XI-1-95-26 Sealants have been proposed as repairs to stop leak- Report and ANII services. See 27.5.2 for more information.
age in flanged joints, valve stuffing boxes, engineered structural XI-1-01-03 Design-only changes that involve no physical work
clamps, and other pressure-retaining encapsulations constructed in are not considered repair/replacement activities subject to the
accordance with the Construction Code. The sealant functions like requirements of IWA-4000, IWA-7000, or Appendix J. See 27.3.4
a gasket or packing and is not required for structural integrity, as for more information.
determined by a Section XI evaluation. The use of sealants is nei- XI-1-01-21 A Repair/Replacement Organization, when the
ther required nor prohibited by Section XI; indeed, the use of Construction Code is Section III and NA-3700 or NCA-3800 is
sealants is not addressed. See 28.38 for more information. applicable, may transfer and use materials from one site to anoth-
XI-1-98-08 Machining a components sealing surface to er, provided both sites are covered by the Repair/Replacement
remove pitting or other surface irregularity as part of normal Organizations quality assurance program. See 27.8.2 for more
maintenance is not considered an IWA-4100 repair/replacement information.
activity unless the irregularity is considered a defect. See 27.3.1 XI-1-04-04 IWA-4513.1(b) does not require baking of elec-
and 27.10.3 for more information. trodes for temper-bead repair welding when the electrode manu-
XI-98-20R When a flaw meeting the acceptance criteria of facturer permits use of such electrodes taken directly from a
IWA-3000 (not a defect) is corrected by mechanical metal freshly-opened hermetically-sealed container.
removal only, the work need not be considered an IWA-4100 XI-1-04-10 IWA-4340, when used for mitigation of defects by
repair/replacement activity. However, if the work affects a previ- modification, does not require that the defect be removed or
ous examination record, a new preservice examination is required. reduced to an acceptable size, as long as it is shown that the
See 27.3.1 and 27.10.3 for more information. Construction Code requirements for structural integrity are met.
XI-1-98-29R When a defect is removed from a section of See 27.9.3 for more information.
pressure-retaining material, even if that section does not perform XI-1-04-39 For determining applicability under IWA-4132
a pressure-retaining or component support function, the work is (Items Rotated from Stock), Owner-required inspection is not
still considered an IWA-4100 repair/replacement activity. considered testing.
IWA-1-98-54 (1) The intent of IWA-4300 (through 1987 XI-1-04-41 (1) for a modification that changes the design of an
Addenda) for repair welding to components and their supports item being replaced, IWA-4150(c)(2)(a) does require identifica-
was that the welding requirements of the original construction tion of the Construction Code used for the modification.
code be used, even though the requirements for welders and weld- (2) Furthermore, if a repair/replacement activity is implement-
ing procedure qualifications were not Section IX with heat treat- ing a modification that changes the design of the item being
ing and impact tests per IWB-4000. replaced, IWA-4150(c)(2)(b) does require identification of the
(2) The intent of IWA-7320 (through 1990 Addenda) for Construction Code of the item being modified.
replacement welding to components and their supports was that
the welding requirements of the original construction code be
used, even though the requirements for welders and welding pro- PRECAUTIONARY NOTE
cedure qualifications were not Section IX with heat treating and
impact tests per IWB-4000. See 27.10.5 for more information. This Appendix is only a guide to the interpretations: It is pre-
IWA-1-98-61 The Section XI defined term installation sented to the reader for convenience to assist in locating interpre-
includes the joining of items by the Owner or Repair/ Replacement tations that may be relevant to particular situations. The reader is
Organization into a piping subassembly at a location other than its cautioned, however, to review an actual interpretation and its
final location in the piping system. applicability before using it as the basis for a decision.