1、ASME OM INTERPRETATIONSASME OM INTERPRETATIONS(FOR DIVISION 1)Replies to Technical InquiriesFebruary 12, 2013FOREWORDThis publication includes all of the written replies issued on the indicated date by the Secretary,speaking for the ASME Committee on Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants
2、, toinquiries concerning interpretations of technical aspects of the 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
3、 accordance 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 an interpretation may appeal to the cognizant A
4、SME 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 at the time it
5、is issued. Subsequent revisions to therules may have superseded the reply.For detailed instructions on the preparation of technical inquiries, refer to Preparation ofTechnical Inquiries to the Committee on Operation and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-2015).I-1INTENTIONALLY LEFT
6、BLANKI-2ASME OM INTERPRETATIONSInterpretation: 15-01Subject: ISTA-1100 and ISTC-1200 (1998 Edition Through 2009 Edition)Date Issued: February 12, 2013File: 10-1979Question (1): Is it a requirement of para. ISTA-1100 that the term “specific function” used insubpara. ISTA-1100(a) is only made in refer
7、ence to valves that have “active” function(s) as definedby para. ISTA-2000?Reply (1): No.Question (2): Is it a requirement of para. ISTC-1200 that a valve that is found to perform aspecific function in shutting down a reactor to the safe shutdown condition, in maintaining thesafe shutdown condition,
8、 or in mitigating the consequences of an accident, in a passive mannercannot be excluded from the requirements of Subsection ISTC?Reply (2): Yes.Question (3): Is it a requirement of para. ISTC-1200 that the statement, “The following areexcluded from this Subsection, provided that the valves are not
9、required to perform a specificfunction as described in para. ISTA-1100,” only applies to subparagraphs ISTC-1200(a),ISTC-1200(b), and ISTC-1200(c)?Reply (3): Yes.Question (4): Is it a requirement of paras. ISTA-1100, ISTC-1200, and ISTC-1300 that a valvethat performs a specific function in shutting
10、down a reactor to the safe shutdown condition, inmaintaining the safe shutdown condition, or in mitigating the consequences of an accident, in apassivemannerbecategorizedperpara.ISTC-1300aseither“CategoryA,passive”or“CategoryB,passive” and then be subject to the applicable inservice test requirement
11、s of Table ISTC-3500-1?Reply (4): Yes.Question (5): Is it a requirement of para. ISTC-3700 and Table ISTC-3500-1 that a valve thatperforms a specific function in shutting down a reactor to the safe shutdown condition, inmaintaining the safe shutdown condition, or in mitigating the consequences of an
12、 accident, in apassive manner, equipped with functioning/operable remote position indicators, be subject tothe requirements of para. ISTC-3700 as stipulated by Table ISTC-3500-1?Reply (5): Yes.I-3INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKI-4ASME OM INTERPRETATIONSASME OM INTERPRETATIONS(FOR DIVISION 1)Replies to Tech
13、nical 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, to inquiriesconcerning interpretations of technical aspects of ASME OM Code
14、.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 accordance with the accredited ASME procedures.ASME procedures provide for recon
15、sideration 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 “e
16、ndorse” 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
17、 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-1INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKI-2ASME OM INTERPRETATIONSInterpretation: 12-01Subject: ISTC-4
18、.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 be supplemented by other indications to verify obturator position?Reply (1):
19、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, level, or temperature, that reflects change of obturator position?Reply (2):
20、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 record?Reply (1): No.Interpretation: 12-03Subject: Mandatory Appendix I, I-132
21、0(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 required testinterval of 20% within a 24-mo period?Reply: Yes.Interpretation:
22、 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 responding to manual inputs that results in the opening of the MSRV,functions
23、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 Test PerformanceDate Issued: April 18, 2012File: OMI 10-1094Question: Is it a re
24、quirement 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(a), ISTC-5121(a), ISTC-5131(a),ISTC-5141(a), and ISTC-5151(a) be declared ino
25、perable 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 Technical InquiriesJune 20, 2007 Through July 25, 2008FOREWORDThis publication includ
26、es 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.These replies are taken verbatim from the original letters, except for a few typ
27、ographicalcorrections 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 additionalinformation is available
28、 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 “endorse” any item, construction,proprietary device, or activity.An interpretation
29、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 reply.For detailed instructions on the preparation of technical inquiries, refer
30、 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 ISTD (ASME OM Code: 1998 Edition through 2005 Addenda)Date Issued: June 20,
31、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 snubber is within the same DTPG?Reply (1): No; paras. ISTD-5311 and ISTD-5411 d
32、o 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; paras. ISTD-5311 and ISTD-5411 have specific sample selection criteria for each
33、DTPG and do not allow substitution of snubbers between different DTPGs.Question(3):IfthesnubberbeingsubstitutedisNOTwithinthesameDTPG,anditssubstitutionwould result in the DTPG falling below minimal testing requirements (10% or 37 Plan)?Reply (3): No; paras. ISTD-5311 and ISTD-5411 have specific sam
34、ple 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 requirement of Code Case OMN-1, subpara. 3.3(a), that a portion of thevalves in a
35、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 as thevalve(s) tested at the original date have sufficient margin when inserv
36、ice 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 more frequent test interval?Reply (3): Yes.Question (4): Is it a requirement o
37、f 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 a requirement of Code Case OMN-1, subpara. 3.3(a) and subparas. 3.5(a)and (b
38、), 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: ASME Code Case OMN-1Date Issued: January 4, 2008File: OMI 07-1777Question: Is
39、 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.Interpretation: 09-04Subject: Paragraph ISTD-3220: Test Correction Factors (ASME
40、 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, they are applicable to all snubbers.I-4ASME OMa CODE-1999 INTERPRETATIONS Rep
41、lies 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 Operation and Maintenance, to inquiries concern- ing interpretations of technica
42、l 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 we
43、re 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 aggrieved by this interpretation may appeal
44、 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 in the interpretation itself, or, if none is stated, to the latest published
45、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 Inquiries to the Committee on Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plant Com
46、ponents (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 18, 1998 File: OMI-98-01 Question: Is it the intent of OM-1987, Part, 1 , pa
47、ra. 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 account for instrument inac- curacies? Reply: No. Interpretation: 99-2 Subject: ASM
48、UANSI 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 whenever new reference values will be established due to system modification o
49、ther 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: 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 not practical to vary system resistance, the test procedure method of par
