Print This Page


2013 Interpretations

Print Date: 12/13/2017 9:04:06 AM

INTERPRETATION 13-09

Subject: Part 3, Section 4

Edition: 2013

Question: When the Inspector and, when required, the Jurisdiction agree that penetrant examination will provide meaningful results to verify the integrity of a weld repair, may penetrant examination of the repair be performed in lieu of a hydrostatic test?

Reply: Yes.

Back to Index


 

INTERPRETATION 13-08

Subject: Part 3, 1.6.1

Edition: 2013

Question 1: In an “R” Certificate Holder’s Quality Control system, is it permissible for one individual to have dual responsibilities for management functions, such as Quality control functions and non-quality control functions, such as production?

Reply 1: Yes, provided there is no conflict in enforcement of the quality control system and the functional responsibilities and duties are clearly described in the quality control manual. 

Question 2: Is approval of revisions to the Quality Control Manual permitted to be made by someone other than the individual designated in the manual as responsible for approval of the revisions?

Reply 2: No.

Back to Index


 

INTERPRETATION 13-07

Subject: Part 3, 3.3.3 s) and 3.3.4.3 a)

Edition: 2013

Question: When performing weld metal buildup of wasted areas of pressure retaining items, is the wall thickness required to be restored to the thickness listed on the Manufacturers Data Report?

Reply: No. The minimum thickness after build-up shall be the original thickness of the pressure retaining item minus the corrosion allowance. 

Back to Index


 

INTERPRETATION 13-06

Subject: Part 3, 2.5.2

Edition: 2013

Question 1: An R-Certificate holder decides to perform post weld heat treatment (PWHT) of a vessel at the request of a client, where no PWHT was performed in the original construction. Is the performance of PWHT of the vessel considered an alteration and subject to documentation using a Form R2? 

Reply: Yes.

Question 2: For the vessel described above, must the weld procedures used for construction of the vessel be qualified with PWHT?

Reply: Yes.

Question 3: Must the PWHT described above be performed by the R-Certificate holder? 

Reply: No, the PWHT may be subcontracted; however the R certificate holder retains the responsibility for the performance of the PWHT. 

Back to Index


 

INTERPRETATION 13-05

Subject: Part 1, 3.8.2.3

Edition: 2013

Question: Is it permissible to place the operating temparture control on a storage tank located in a hot water supply system?

Reply: Yes.

Back to Index


 

INTERPRETATION 13-04

Subject: Part 3, 3.3.2 e)

Edition: 2013

Question: Is seal welding of inspection opening covers, such as handhole plates or plugs, considered a routine repair?

Reply: No.

Back to Index


 

INTERPRETATION 13-03

Subject: Part 3, 3.3.2 d) 1)

Edition: 2011

Question: Is a standard threaded fitting welded through an ASME Section VIII, Div-1 vessel considered a nozzle?

Reply: Yes.

Back to Index


 

INTERPRETATION 13-02

Subject: Part 3, 5.7.5

Edition: 2011

Question: When temperature limits are not required to be placed on the original manufacturer’s nameplate in accordance with the original code of construction, may the temperature field for Figures 5. 7. 5 b) and 5.7.5 c) be indicated as N/A?

Reply: Yes

Back to Index


 

INTERPRETATION 13-01

Subject: Part 3, 1.8.5 q)

Edition: 2013

Question: If audit personnel are qualified in accordance with the requirements of ANSI/ASME N45.2.23, Qualification of Quality Assurance Program Audit Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants, may they perform the audits specified in 1.8.5.1 q)?

Reply: No, the NBIC requires audit personnel to be qualified in accordance with NQA-1.

Back to Index