1、ASME OM INTERPRETATIONSASME OM INTERPRETATIONS(FOR DIVISION 1)Replies to Technical InquiriesJune 7, 2011 Through April 18, 2012FOREWORDThis publication includes all of the written replies issued between the indicated dates bythe Secretary, speaking for the ASME Committee on Operation and Maintenance
2、, to inquiriesconcerning interpretations of technical aspects of ASME OM Code.These replies are taken verbatim from the original letters, except for a few typographicalcorrections and some minor editorial corrections made for the purpose of improved clarity.These interpretations were prepared in acc
3、ordance with the accredited ASME procedures.ASME procedures provide for reconsideration of these interpretations when or if additionalinformation is available which the inquirer believes might affect the interpretation. Further,persons aggrieved by this interpretation may appeal to the cognizant ASM
4、E Committee orSubcommittee. ASME does not “approve,” “certify,” “rate,” or “endorse” any item, construction,proprietary device, or activity.An interpretation applies to the edition or addenda stated in the interpretation itself, or, ifnone is stated, to the latest published edition and addenda at th
5、e time it is issued. Subsequentrevisions to the rules may have superseded the reply.For detailed instructions on the preparation of technical inquiries, refer to Preparation ofTechnical Inquiries to the Committee on Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants(p. v of ASME OM-2012).I-1INTENTION
6、ALLY LEFT BLANKI-2ASME OM INTERPRETATIONSInterpretation: 12-01Subject: ISTC-4.1 (ISTC-3700) and ISTC-4.2.3 (ISTC-3530), Obtrurator PositionDate Issued: June 7, 2011File: OMI 11-913Question (1): If it is practicable, is it arequirement of ISTC-4.1 (ISTC-3700) that local observationof valve operation
7、be supplemented by other indications to verify obturator position?Reply (1): No.Question (2): If remote indicating lights provide confirmation of changes in obturator position,is it a requirement of ISTC-4.2.3 (ISTC-3530) to also observe other evidence, such as changes insystem pressure, flow rate,
8、level, or temperature, that reflects change of obturator position?Reply (2): No.lnterpretation: 12-02Subject: ISTA-9220(b), Coversheet RequirementDate Issued: November 7, 2011File: OMI 09-1312Question: Is it a requirement of ISTA-9220(b) to have a coversheet attached to every singledocumented test r
9、ecord?Reply (1): No.Interpretation: 12-03Subject: Mandatory Appendix I, I-1320(b)(2)Date Issued: December 22, 2011File: OMI 10-1096Question:WhenafullcomplementofreliefvalvesisreplacedusingtheprovisionsofI-1320(b)(2),does this satisfy the testing requirements of I-1320(a) with respect to the minimum
10、required testinterval of 20% within a 24-mo period?Reply: Yes.Interpretation: 12-04Subject: Mandatory Appendix I, Main Steam Relief ValveDate Issued: December 22, 2011File: OMI 10-1980Question: If a main steam relief valve is operated/controlled by a pilot valve and that pilotvalve, in addition to r
11、esponding to manual inputs that results in the opening of the MSRV,functions to automatically open the MSRV upon reaching the valves setpoint, can that pilot valvebe defined as an auxiliary actuating device?Reply: No.I-3ASME OM INTERPRETATIONSInterpretation: 12-05Subject: ISTC-5100, Valve Stroke Tes
12、t PerformanceDate Issued: April 18, 2012File: OMI 10-1094Question: Is it a requirement of the 1998 Edition and addenda, paras. ISTC-5115, ISTC-5123,ISTC-5133, ISTC-5143, and ISTC-5153, that a valve with abnormal or erratic operation observedduring valve stroke testing performed per paras. ISTC-5113(
13、a), ISTC-5121(a), ISTC-5131(a),ISTC-5141(a), and ISTC-5151(a) be declared inoperable if the measured value of stroke time iswithin limits and the obturator travels to the required position per ISTC-3521(a)?Reply: No.I-4ASME OM INTERPRETATIONSASME OM INTERPRETATIONS(FOR DIVISION 1)Replies to Technica
14、l InquiriesJune 20, 2007 Through July 25, 2008FOREWORDThis publication includes all of the written replies issued between the indicated dates bythe Secretary, speaking for the ASME Committee on Operation and Maintenance, to inquiriesconcerning interpretations of technical aspects of ASME OM Code.The
15、se replies are taken verbatim from the original letters, except for a few typographicalcorrections and some minor editorial corrections made for the purpose of improved clarity.These interpretations were prepared in accordance with the accredited ASME procedures.ASME procedures provide for reconside
16、ration of these interpretations when or if additionalinformation is available which the inquirer believes might affect the interpretation. Further,persons aggrieved by this interpretation may appeal to the cognizant ASME Committee orSubcommittee. ASME does not “approve,” “certify,” “rate,” or “endor
17、se” any item, construction,proprietary device, or activity.An interpretation applies to the edition or addenda stated in the interpretation itself, or, ifnone is stated, to the latest published edition and addenda at the time it is issued. Subsequentrevisions to the rules may have superseded the rep
18、ly.For detailed instructions on the preparation of technical inquiries, refer to Preparation ofTechnical Inquiries to the Committee on Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants(p. v of ASME OM-2009).I-1INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKI-2ASME OM INTERPRETATIONSInterpretation: 09-01Subject: Subsection
19、 ISTD (ASME OM Code: 1998 Edition through 2005 Addenda)Date Issued: June 20, 2007File: OMI 07-118Question (1): Does Subsection ISTD allow for the substitution of a snubber being removed formaintenance activities not affecting the snubber, in place of a snubber randomly selected fortesting, if the sn
20、ubber is within the same DTPG?Reply (1): No; paras. ISTD-5311 and ISTD-5411 do not allow this type of substitution.Question(2):IfthesnubberbeingsubstitutedisNOTwithinthesameDTPG,butitssubstitutiondoes not make either DTPG fall below the minimum testing requirements (10% or 37 Plan)?Reply (2): No; pa
21、ras. ISTD-5311 and ISTD-5411 have specific sample selection criteria for eachDTPG and do not allow substitution of snubbers between different DTPGs.Question(3):IfthesnubberbeingsubstitutedisNOTwithinthesameDTPG,anditssubstitutionwould result in the DTPG falling below minimal testing requirements (10
22、% or 37 Plan)?Reply (3): No; paras. ISTD-5311 and ISTD-5411 have specific sample selection criteria for eachDTPG and do not allow substitution of snubbers between different DTPGs.lnterpretation: 09-02Subject: ASME Code Case OMN-1Date Issued: August 28, 2007File: OMI 07-501Question (1): Is it a requi
23、rement of Code Case OMN-1, subpara. 3.3(a), that a portion of thevalves in a group be tested more frequently?Reply (1): No.Question (2): Is it a requirement of Code Case OMN-1, subpara. 3.3(a), for MOVs that aretested early, the due dates would still be maintained on the original due dates, as long
24、as thevalve(s) tested at the original date have sufficient margin when inservice tested?Reply (2): No.Question (3): Is it a requirement of Code Case OMN-1, subpara. 3.3(a) and subparas. 3.5(a)and (b), that if sufficient margin does not exist, the entire MOV group would be required to betested at a m
25、ore frequent test interval?Reply (3): Yes.Question (4): Is it a requirement of Code Case OMN-1, subpara. 3.3(a) and subparas. 3.5(a)and (b), that if sufficient margin exists, the entire MOV group could have its inservice test intervalextended, up to the 10-yr limit?Reply (4): Yes.Question (5): Is it
26、 a requirement of Code Case OMN-1, subpara. 3.3(a) and subparas. 3.5(a)and (b), that there is a minimum number of MOVs from a group, which must be tested at thenormal test frequency to validate the operability of the entire group?Reply (5): No.I-3ASME OM INTERPRETATIONSInterpretation: 09-03Subject:
27、ASME Code Case OMN-1Date Issued: January 4, 2008File: OMI 07-1777Question: Is it a requirement of the OM Code 1990 Edition and all subsequent editions andaddenda, that stop watches used for measuring the stroke time of power operated valves beincluded in the Owners calibration program?Reply: Yes.Int
28、erpretation: 09-04Subject: Paragraph ISTD-3220: Test Correction Factors (ASME OM Code: 1998 Edition Through2004 Edition up to and Including ASME OMb Code-2006)Date Issued: July 25, 2008File: OMI 08-262Question: Are the requirements of para. ISTD-3220 applicable to hydraulic snubbers only?Reply: No,
29、they are applicable to all snubbers.I-4ASME OMa CODE-1999 INTERPRETATIONS Replies to Technical Inquiries December 1,1997 through December 31, 1998 FOREWORD This publication includes all of the written replies issued between the indicated dates by the Secretary, speaking for the ASME Committee on Ope
30、ration and Maintenance, to inquiries concern- ing interpretations of technical aspects of ASME OM Code-1998, Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants. These replies are taken verbatim from the original letters, except for a few typographical correc- tions and some minor editorial c
31、orrections made for the purpose of improved clarity. These interpretations were prepared in accordance with the accredited ASME procedures. ASME procedures provide for reconsideration of these interpretations when or if additional information is available which the inquirer believes might affect the
32、 interpretation. Further, persons aggrieved by this interpretation may appeal to the cognizant ASME Committee or Subcommittee. ASME does not ”approve,” “certify,” “rate,” or “endorse” any item, construction, proprietary device, or activity. An interpretation applies to the edition or addenda stated
33、in the interpretation itself, or, if none is stated, to the latest published edition and addenda at the time it is issued. Subsequent revisions to the rules may have superceded the reply. For detailed instructions on the preparation of technical inquiries, refer to the Preparation of Technical Inqui
34、ries to the Committee on Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plant Components (p. vi of ASME OM Code-1998). 1-1 ASME OMa CODE-1 999 Interpretations 99-1 -99-4 Interpretation: 99-1 Subject: ASMVANSI OM-1987, Part 1 , para. 1.4.1.2 or ASME OMa Code-1996, Appendix I, para. 1.4 Date Issued: March
35、 18, 1998 File: OMI-98-01 Question: Is it the intent of OM-1987, Part, 1 , para. 1.4.1.2 or OMa Code-I 996, Appendix I, para. 1.4, that the test acceptance criteria must be determined by adjusting the Code specified tolerance limits e.g., +3% of stamped setpoint (for 1987), +3% (for 1996)l to accoun
36、t for instrument inac- curacies? Reply: No. Interpretation: 99-2 Subject: ASMUANSI OMa-1988, Part 6, para. 4.4 Date Issued: March 18, 1998 File: OMl-98-02 Question: Is it the intent of OM-1987 through the 1988 Addenda, Part 6, para. 4.4 to require an inservice test at the previous reference values w
37、henever new reference values will be established due to system modification other than pump replacement, repair, or maintenance? Reply: No. Interpretation: 99-3 Subject: ASMUANSI OMa-1988, Part 1 O and equivalent subsequent editions and addenda Date Issued: October 6, 1998 File: OMI-98-17 Question:
38、Does OMa-1988, Part 1 O prohibit an Owner from classifying a valve as having both a passive and active function? Reply: No. Interpretation: 99-4 Subject: ASMUANSI OMa-1988, Part 6, para. 5.2(c) Date Issued: October 6, 1998 File: OMI-97-11 Question: Is it the intent of OMa-1988, Part 6 that if it is
39、not practical to vary system resistance, the test procedure method of para. 5.2(c) be used? Reply: Yes. 1-7 STDOASME ON CODE INTERPRETATIONS-ENGL W 0757b70 ObL2b77 317 M 99-5-99-7 ASME OMa CODE-1 999 Interpretations Interpretation: 99-5 Subject: ASMUANSI OMa-I 988, Part 1 O, para. 4.1 and equivalent
40、 subsequent editions and addenda Date Issued: October 8, 1998 File: OMl-98-09 Question: If it is not practicable, it is a requirement of OMa-1988, Part 10, para. 4.1 that local observation of stem movement be supplemented by other indications to verify obturator position? Reply: No. Interpretation:
41、99-6 Subject: ASME/ANSI OM-1 987 through ASME/ANSI OMa-1988, Part 1 O Date Issued: October 21 , 1998 File: OMl-98-07 Question: Is it a requirement of the Code that when a valve has a safety function, as determined by para. 1.1 , to both the open and closed positions in accordance with para. 4.2.1 ,
42、the valves stroke time has to be measured in each direction? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: 99-7 Subject: ASME/ANSI OMa-1988, Part 10, para. 3.4 and equivalent subsequent editions and addenda Date Issued: November 17, 1998 File: OMl-98-06 Question: If post maintenance test values are not identical to t
43、he reference values, but the differ- ences between the test values and the reference value are identified, analyzed, and the reference value is found to still be representative of valve performance, is it the requirement of the Code to determine a new reference value? Reply: No. 1-8 ASME OMa CODE-1
44、999 Interpretations 99-8, 99-9 Interpretation: 99-8 Subject: ASMEfANSl OMa-1988, Part 1 o, para. 4.1 and equivalent subsequent editions and addenda Date Issued: December 23, 1998 File: OMI-98-11 Question: After demonstrating design-basis capability using direct stem measurement and estab- lishing a
45、correlation between Motor-Operated Valve (MOVI motor torque and direct stem parame- ters, is it permissible, under the requirements of OMN-1 , para. 6.4, Determination of MOV Functional Margin, to demonstrate margin for an inservice test using MOV motor torque with appropriate ap- plication of stati
46、c and dynamic actuator efficiency and stem factor, test measurement accuracy, the proper repeatability terms, and all other requirements of paras. 6.1 through 6.5, in lieu of measured stem torque or thrust? Reply: Yes. Interpretation: 99-9 Subject: ASME/ANSI OMa-1988, Part 1 O, para. 4.1 and equival
47、ent subsequent editions and addenda Date Issued: December 23, 1998 File: OMI-98-20 Question: If it is practicable, is it a requirement of OMa-1988, Part 10, para. 4.1 that local ob- servation of stem movement be supplemented by other indications to verify obturator position? Reply: No. 1-9 ASME OM C
48、ODE-1998 INTERPRETATIONS Replies to Technical Inquiries September 1, 1995 through November 30,1997 FOREWORD This publication includes all of the written replies issued between the indicated dates by the Secretary, speaking for the ASME Committee on Operation and Maintenance, to inquiries concern- in
49、g interpretations of technical aspects of ASME OM Code-1998, Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants. These replies are taken verbatim from the original letters, except for a few typographical correc- tions and some minor editorial corrections made for the purpose of improved clarity. These interpretations were prepared in accordance with the accredited ASME procedures. ASME procedures provide for reconsideration of these interpretations when or if additional information is available which the inquirer believes might affect the interpretation. Further, persons a
