ASME OM Meeting Notes - July 2006

United States Nuclear Power

Federal Regulations, Codes, & Standards

Users Group ©

ASME OM Code Meeting Notes – July 2006

Site Updates

Introduction

Prepared By: Ron Lippy

Company: True North Consulting

Meeting Dates: July 19 – 21, 2006

Meeting Location: Washington, DC

Meeting Notes

Symposium Feedback

ASME Symposium Feedback

Ø The two-year interval seems to be appropriate.

Ø It is a positive event for the industry and a good medium to interface with industry

Ø personnel.

Ø It was somewhat harder to collect papers this year. All papers are welcome, especially those regarding operating experiences/innovation. The more papers, the better.

Ø Need more marketing for papers, and sooner on the timeline.

Ø The OM should submit more papers, as it is our Symposium.

Ø Scheduling two parallel breakout sessions instead of three was better.

Ø The technical aspects of the papers were better than in past years.

Ø White papers for Code changes could be presented as Symposium papers.

Ø User-group updates were appreciated.

Ø Q&A Session was lacking. Need panel members to better prepare.

Ø Need to stick to the session agendas/paper orders.

Ø Presentation-only submittals would be accepted.

Publication Schedules - Joanna Berger - See Below.

Ø Discussion on the publication of OM S/G:

Ø It was suggested to bundle/sell the OM S/G with the OM Code.

Ø It was suggested to index/refer to the OM S/G in the OM Code in order to increase awareness for the document.

Ø It was suggested to turn the standards and guides into nonmandatory appendixes.

Ø Comment: From a business perspective, the OM S/G is not a profitable document. However, we must serve our customers in the best way possible.

Publication Schedule

OM Code
Edition/Addenda	2006 OMb Addenda	2007 Edition	2008 OMa Addenda	2009 OMb Addenda
Standards Committee Approval	2/2006	2/2007	2/2008	2/2009
BNCS Procedural Review	3/2006	3/2007	3/2008	3/2009
Manuscript provided to ASME Editors/BSR-8 Issued	4/2006	4/2007	4/2008	4/2009
Public Review Period Ends: BSR-9 Issued	7/2006	7/2007	7/2008	7/2009
ANSI Approval	8/2006	8/2007	8/2008	8/2009
Issue Date	10/2006	9/2007	9/2008	9/2009

Publication Schedule

OM-S/G
Edition/Addenda	2006 Edition	2007 OMa-	2008 OMb-	2009
		S/G	S/G	Edition
		Addenda	Addenda
Standards	2/2006	2/2007	2/2008	2/2009
Committee
Approval
BNCS	3/2006	3/2007	3/2008	3/2009
Procedural
Review
Manuscript provided to	4/2006	4/2007	4/2008	4/2009
ASME	Actual:
Editors/BSR-8	6/2006
Issued
Public Review	7/2006	7/2007	7/2008	7/2009
Period Ends:
BSR-9 Issued	Actual:
	8/2006
ANSI Approval	8/2006	8/2007	8/2008	8/2009
	9/2006
Issue Date	10/2006	9/2007	9/2008	9/2009
	11/2006

OM Subcommittee

The SCOMC met on Thursday morning from 8:00 – 11:00 am

The purpose of the meeting was an open discussion by all in attendance, members and guests, on the future of the subcommittee. The SCOMC had not met since December, 2004 primarily due to the lack of major initiatives requiring discussion and the new ballot process which begins with a “world” review.

Provided below are some of the major issues discussed.

Ø The majority of current subcommittee members favored retention of the subcommittee stating that technical benefit was provided during review of code additions and changes.

Ø Several members indicated that the SCOMC was their only place to gain information on other committee’s activities.

Ø The current version of the Management and Operations Manual (MOM) places responsibility for inquiry resolution on the SCOMC.

Ø Members believe that with resurgence in nuclear plant construction that there will be a need for a significant revamping of the OM Code and that the subcommittee would provide benefit.

The meeting adjourned at 11:00 am with no decisions or recommendations finalized. The below actions were assigned for future discussion and follow-up.

Ø Develop a proposal for responding to Code Inquiries by the SCOMC

Ø Other members/guests were requested to submit proposals related to future SCOMC responsibilities prior to the December 2006 meeting.

Ø Arrange for meeting space and time for December, 2006 OM Committee Meetings.

ISTA—General Requirements

Code Cases are going to be incorporated into OM Code ASAP.
Discussion regarding “practical” and “practicable”. NRC was concerned that in many instances “practical” constitutes “minor inconvenience” such as placing a ladder to perform the activity. Ongoing discussions.
Determined that individual subgroups would be responsible for updating/standardizing Code Cases in lieu of ISTA being solely responsible for the updating/standardization of the Code Cases.
Discussion regarding typos and errata and that ISTA would look at correcting the errors identified.

ISTC—Valves

1. Discussion regarding Valve Categorization and whether or NOT Code action is needed. ISTOG is working on paper which may clarify.

Revise Categories of Valves (Cat A vs. Cat AC)—Recent regulatory inquiries regarding the determination of Cat A and AC valves. Will be evaluated prior to next OM Code meeting (Dec 2006).—V-96-03

2. Incorporation of OMN-1 into ISTC. V-97-01. OMN-1 Revision 1 should go for ballot NLT December 2006. Once Approved—then to OM Code, ISTC as an Appendix III. OMN-11 will be included in the Appendix. Probably in 2007 Edition of OM Code.

3. Appendix I and ADS valve test schemes is working.

4. OMN-8 has been revised for applicability and being incorporated into OM Code, ISTC-5100. OMN-8 has been approved by ASME in early 2006. Should be in 2006 addenda.

5. Initiated SG action to consider deleting valve position indication verification for passive valves.

6. Initiated action to consider clarification on the intent of all cold shutdown valve tests if testing is not started within 48 hours of achieving CSD.

ISTB—Pumps

1. OMN-6, Revision 1, Digital Instrument Range of 90%, approved should be approved in December 2005. Should be in 2006 Addenda of OM Code. Revision was primarily for “applicability statement”.

2. OMN-6 should be incorporated into 2006 addenda of OM Code.

3. Revision to ISTB-6200 to provide clarification for use of Alert Range Analysis Requirements. Should be approved 2006. (P00-02)

4. OMN-9, Code case for use of pump curves being revised for “applicability (and to resolve NRC concerns regarding the required measurements). Should be approved in 2006.

5. P98-06, regarding changes to Inaccessible upper motor bearing housings (Question 3.4.4 Workshop Summary). Awaiting comments from NRC. May 2006.

3.4.4* Could the fact that the upper motor bearing housing is not accessible on many vertical shaft pumps be addressed on a generic basis, so a relief request would not be necessary?

If this issue is a generic concern, the Code committees could consider revising the Code to address these pumps. As discussed previously, the staff has no plans to supplement GL 89-04 to provide generic relief. Specific relief has been granted from the Code vibration requirements where access to the upper motor bearing housing is inaccessible (e.g., Hatch Safety Evaluation dated June 13, 1994, Section 3.1.3.1).

6. P98-03, regarding instrumentation test failures (Question 3.3.1 Workshop Summary). Closed. No Code change required.

3.3.1* If a pump fails a test, and it is obvious that the failure was due to an instrument problem, can the pump be declared operable when the failed instrument is identified?