Print This Page


2015 Interpretations

Print Date: 12/13/2017 1:27:22 AM

INTERPRETATION 15-15

Subject: Installation Pressure Test

Edition: 2015

Question: If a pressure test has been performed and documented on the applicable Manufacturer’s Data Report for a boiler, pressure vessel or piping and the Jurisdiction does not require additional pressure tests, is an additional pressure test required prior to initial operation?

Reply: No.

INTERPRETATION 15-14

Subject: Continuity Records Retention

Edition: 2015

Question: In Table 1.5.1c), does the phrase “the continuity records are subject to review during each National Board triennial certificate review” mean that the continuity records developed since the last review are to be retained and made available for review during the next review?

Reply: Yes.

INTERPRETATION 15-13

Subject: Routine Repair Stamping Requirements

Edition: 2015

Question 1: Are nameplates and stamping required for routine repairs?

Reply 1: No, subject to acceptance of Jurisdiction and the concurrence of the inspector.

Question 2: Are nameplates or stamping required for repairs other than of a routine nature?

Reply 2: Yes.

INTERPRETATION 15-12

Subject: Surface Repair of Corrugating Rolls

Edition: 2015

Question: Is an “R” stamp required to be applied to a corrugating roll after a surface repair by welding, such as restoration of broken flutes, steam cut trunnion flanges, or a worn surface of a trunnion journal?

Reply: Yes, unless the repair meets the conditions for a routine repair in Part 3, paragraph 3.3.2.

INTERPRETATION 15-11

Subject: Repair/Replacement of Bolting Material

Edition: 2015

Question 1: Is a mechanical repair consisting of the replacement of bolting material, with like material (see Part 3, paragraph 3.3.3 s), as listed on the Manufacturer’s Data Report considered a repair that needs to be documented on an R-1 form?

Reply 1: No.

Question 2: Is the replacement of bolting material with a different allowable stress, nominal composition (see Part 3, paragraph 3.4.3 g) or configuration other than that listed on the Manufacturer’s Data Report considered an alteration?

Reply 2: Yes.

INTERPRETATION 15-10

Subject: Application of Term "Practicable

Edition: 2015

Question: May the desire to save time and/or expense be used solely in determining if a repair and/or alteration activity is practicable?

Reply: No. The determination of “practicable” shall be based on technical consideration of the nature and scope of repair and/or alteration activities.

INTERPRETATION 15-09

Subject: Part 3, Section 3

Edition: 2015

Question 1: May installation of a flush patch in a pressure retaining part be classified as a “Repair” if any of its attachment welds are made using a backing strip along with the welds receiving the same degree of volumetric examinations as original construction when the original vessel design and construction of the pressure retaining part did not use backing strips in its design and construction?

Reply 1: No.  If backing strips were not considered and used in the original design and construction, and are used on the flush patch installation, the work must be classified as an Alteration.

Question 2: May installation of a flush patch in a pressure retaining part be classified as a “Repair” if any of its attachment welds are made using a backing strip along with the welds receiving a lesser or higher degree of volumetric examination such that the applicable flush patch butt weld design joint efficiency is lower or higher than original construction when the original vessel design and construction of the pressure retaining part did not use backing strips in its design and construction?

Answer 2: No.  If backing strips were not considered and used in the original design and construction, and are used on the flush patch installation, and if the applicable joint efficiency of the weld made using a backing strip is lower or higher than that of the joint efficiency used on the original design, there would be a change in the joint efficiency applicable to design of the part which would mandate that the work be classified as an Alteration.

Question 3: If a flush patch plate in a pressure retaining item (PRI) is installed with attachment welds using backing strips and the attachment welds receive the same or higher degree of volumetric examination required by the original code of construction with no reduction in joint efficiency as original construction is this considered a repair?

Answer 3: Yes

Back to Index


 
INTERPRETATION 15-08

Subject: Part 3, 5.7

Edition: 2015

Question: If an alteration is performed only on one pressure chamber (e.g. shell side or tube side) of a heat exchanger, is it permitted to only stamp the MAWP for the altered side on the alteration nameplate?

Reply: No, the MAWP of both chambers shall be listed on the nameplate.

Rationale: NBIC Part 3, Sections 5.7.3, 5.7.5, Fig. 5.7.5-b; The alteration nameplate represents the current stamped ratings of the altered vessel.  Having to decipher the current stamped ratings of the altered vessel from the alteration nameplate(s) and the original manufactured nameplate leads to confusion.

Back to Index


 

INTERPRETATION 15-07

Subject: Part 3, 3.4.3

Edition: 2015

Question: Is an increase in external loading on a bracket that increases local stress in a pressure retaining item (PRI) which does not require redesign of the PRI or bracket attachment considered an alteration?

Reply: No

Back to Index


 

INTERPRETATION 15-06

Subject: Part 3, 3.4.3

Edition: 2015

Question: When the total heat input into a boiler (for example a Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG)) is changed (e.g. increased firing rate, adjustment, or modification to the primary or an auxiliary heat source), resulting in the steaming capacity exceeding the original Manufacturer’s Minimum Required Relieving Capacity (MRRC), does this departure from the original Manufacturer’s design represent an alteration? 

Reply: Yes

Back to Index


 

INTERPRETATION 15-05

Subject: Part 3, 1.3.2 c)

Edition: 2015

Question: Is owner's method of verification of the installation of the Repair Nameplate acceptable per NBIC Part 3, 1.3.2 c) considering it as repair not routine repair as PWHT is involved in the repair?

Reply: Yes (with the authorization and knowledge of the Inspector)

Back to Index


 

INTERPRETATION 15-04

Subject: Part 3, Section 3

Edition: 2015

Question: Is explosion welding of plugs into leaking heat exchanger tubes considered a repair per the NBIC Part 3?

Reply: Yes.

Back to Index


 

INTERPRETATION 15-03

Subject: Part 3, 3.2.6

Edition: 2015

Question: Are fillet welded patches permitted by the NBIC for repairs or alterations to pressure retaining items?

Reply: Fillet welded patches are not addressed by the NBIC.

Back to Index


 

INTERPRETATION 15-02

Subject: Part 3, 5.12.2

Edition: 2015

Question: When a pressure relief valve is repaired, are field labels for type/model number, capacity, CDTP, and/or BP required on the repair nameplate if the values are not changed from the original manufacturer’s nameplate or stamping?

Reply: No.

Back to Index


 

INTERPRETATION 15-01

Subject: Part 1, 3.3.4

Edition: 2015

Question: Is it permissible to install boilers less than the minimum 36” clearance if recommended by the manufacturer and approved by the Jurisdiction?

Reply: Yes, in accordance with Part 1, Section 3.3.4 a).

Back to Index