subcommittee on inspection meetings/agenda inspe… · resume. a vote will be taken. dr. marshall...

Date Distributed: June 16, 2014

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSPECTION

AGENDA

Meeting of July 16, 2014 Columbus, OH

The National Board of Boiler & Pressure Vessel Inspectors 1055 Crupper Avenue

Columbus, Ohio 43229-1183 Phone: (614)888-8320 FAX: (614)847-1828

of 8

1. Call to Order – 8:00 a.m. 2. Announcements

The Executive committee will be discussing the consolidation of the Subgroups Inspection General and Specific. If this decision is made a new Chair and Vice Chair will need to be nominated for vote at the NBIC Committee meeting. Nominations should be discussed at this time.

3. Adoption of the Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes of January 14, 2014 5. Review of the Roster (Attachment 1) Mr. David Ford would like to become a member of the SG on Inspection specific. Please view his attached

resume. A vote will be taken. Dr. Marshall Clark would like to become a member of the SG on Inspection General. Please see his

attached resume. A vote will be taken.

Mr. Greg McRae is eligible for reappointment to the SG on Inspection General. A vote will be taken. Mr. Mark Mooney is eligible for reappointment to the SG in Inspection Specific. A vote will be taken.

Dr. Neel Sirosh would like to become a member of the SG on FRP. Please view his attached resume. A vote will be taken.

Mr. Aaron Viet is eligible for reappointment to the SG on Graphite. A vote will be taken. 6. Inquiries

There were no interpretations assigned to this subcommittee.

7. Action Items NB07-0910 - Part 2 S6 SG Inspection Specific- Review DOT supplement. A task group of S. Staniszewski (Chair), G. McRae and J. Riley has been assigned. This specific supplement should be reviewed by TG for completeness and accuracy. (No attachment)

July 2007

A progress report was given. Changes to the DOT glossary were approved previously due to approved public review comments.

January 2008

A progress report was given. The task group has met twice to discuss the public review comments received from the 2007 edition and in the process 11 more issues were identified.

July 2008

A progress report was given.

January 2009

A progress report was given. An advanced notice of proposed rulemaking by the D.O.T. under

of 8

Docket # PHMSA 2005-21351 is scheduled to be released by June 30, 2009.

July 2009

A progress report was given. Mr. Staniszewski reported that the docket did not make its release date. January 2010 A progress report was given. July 2010 Mr. Staniszewski gave a progress report. The document is currently under review from the legal department. At the end of the year there will be an advance notice of rulemaking. January 2011 A progress report was given. July 2011 Mr. Cook presented a progress report that was sent by Stan Staniszewski. The DOT has the rule making package in process right now of being approved and Stan is limited to what he can legally discuss. Stan will keep us abreast to any developments. January 2012 A progress report was given by Mr. Staniszewski. July 2012 A progress report was given by Mr. Cook. January 2013 A progress report was given by Mr. Staniszewski. July 2013 A progress report was given by Mr. Staniszewski. January 2014 A progress report was given by Mr. Staniszewski. July 2014 Mr. Staniszewski is expected to report.

NB11-0204 - Part 2 & 3, S2 SG on Historical Boilers - Review NDE requirements of stayed areas. A task group of M. Wahl (PM), J. Larson and F. Johnson has been assigned. (No attachment) July 2010 A task group of M. Wahl (Chair), J. Larson and F. Johnson was assigned.

January 2011 A progress report was given. July 2011 No progress. January 2012 A progress report was given by Mr. Reetz and Mr. Cook. July 2012

of 8

A progress report was given by Mr. Reetz. January 2013 A progress report was given by Mr. Reetz. July 2013 A report was given by Mr. Reetz. January 2014 A report was given by Mr. Reetz.. July 2014 Mr. Reetz is expected to report.

NB12-1801 - Part 2, 5.5.2 - 5.5.3 SG Inspection Specific - Replacement of stamping during inservice inspection. (Attachment 2, pp. 7-15) July 2012 A Task Group consisting of M. Mooney (Chair), R. Dobbins, T. Barker, D. Canonico, and Daren Daily was assigned.

January 2013 A Task Group consisting of M. Mooney (Chair), R. Dobbins, T. Barker, D. Canonico, and Daren Daily was assigned. A report was given by Mr. Mooney. After much discussion, the response language to IN12-0201 & IN12-0202 was completed. July 2013 A report was given by Mr. Mooney. A document is being letter balloted by the Subgroup-Specific. The letter ballot passed through the subgroup on Inspection Specific but there are negative comments that need to be addressed. January 2014 A report was given by Mr. Mooney. A motion was made to accept the items presented. The motion passed( 9) approved, (2 ) Disapproved, (1 )Abstain. July 2014 This item was sent out for letter ballot to the NBIC Committee for comment only. There are still negative comments from this item that need to be resolved at the SC level from Mr. McRae, Mr. Welch and the abstention from Dr. Canonico. Mr. Mooney is expected to report. NB13-0701 - Part 2 4.4.7 j) 1) SG Inspection General - Revise wording to clarify the rule in this section. (Attachment 2, p. 16) January 2013 A Task Group will be assigned. No progress. July 2013 A Task Group consisting of J. Riley (Lead), M. Schwartzwalder, & M. Clark was assigned by the Subgroup. January 2014 A progress report was given by Mr. Mooney.

of 8

July 2014 Mr. Riley is expected to report.

NB13-0902 - Part 2, S2, SG on Historical Boilers - Review alternate methods of Tube Sheet repair. A Task Group consisting of F. Johnson, T. Dillon and M. Wahl was assigned. (No attachment) July 2013 A progress report was given by Mr. Reetz. January 2014 A progress report was given by Mr. Reetz. July 2014 Mr. Reetz is expected to report. NB13-0903 – Part 2, S2.14 SG on Historical Boilers – Add language to address the safety concerns when using liquid or gaseous fuels to fire a historical boiler. (Attachment 2, pp. 17-18) July 2013 A Task Group consisting of R. Reetz (Lead), T. Dillon, R. Bryce, and J. Larson was assigned. January 2014 A progress report was given by Mr. Reetz. The chairman of the SG will inquire of the action item originator for clarification and direction for the Task Group. July 2014 Mr. Reetz is expected to report. NB13-1002 - Part 2, SG Insp. Spec. – Review inspection requirements for B31.1 Power Piping. A Task Group consisting of Mike Schwartzwalder (Lead), Joe Frey, Venus Newton, Mark Mooney, Domenic Canonico, John Richardson, Mark Horbaczewski and Robbie Dobbins was assigned. (No attachment) July 2013 A report was given by Mr. Schwartzwalder. A document is being sent to the subcommittee for review and comment. Mr. M. Clark was added to the Task Group. January 2014 A progress report was given by Mr. Schwartzwalder. July 2014 Mr. Schwartzwalder is expected to report. NB13-1301 - Part 2, SG Inspection General - Review methods of Finite Element Analysis as they pertain to inspection. A Task Group consisting of J. Riley (PM), Stan Staniszewski, M. Schwartzwalder, M. Mooney and R. Pate was assigned. (Attachment 2, pp. 19-20) July 2013 A report was given by Mr. Riley. January 2014 A progress report was given by Mr. Mooney.

of 8

July 2014 Mr. Riley is expected to report. NB13-1302 Part 2 SG Inspection General - Review cryogenic vessel inspection requirements. A Task Group consisting of J. Riley (PM), A. Renaldo, R. Dobbins, R. Bartley and R. Pate was assigned. (No attachment) (No attachment) July 2013 A report was given by Mr. Riley. January 2014 A progress report was given Mr. Mooney. July 2014 Mr. Mooney is expected to report. NB13-1303 - Part 2 SG Inspection General - Review Inspection requirements for Biomass Fueled Boilers. A Task Group consisting of M. Mooney (PM), M. Horbaczewski, D. Canonico, and J. Safarz was assigned. (No attachment) July 2013 A report was given by Mr. Mooney. January 2014 A progress report was given Mr. Mooney. July 2014 Mr. Mooney is expected to report. NB13-1404B - Part 2, SG on LB – Fillet welded staybolts. (Attachment 2, p. 21) July 2013 A report was given by Mr. Reetz. January 2014 A progress report was given by Mr. Reetz.. July 2014 Mr. Reetz is expected to report NB13-1409 – Part 2, SG on LB – Method for analyzing bulges created by overheating in stayed boiler surfaces. (Attachment 2, pp. 22-36) July 2013 A report was given by Mr. Reetz. January 2014 A progress report was given. July 2014 Mr. Reetz is expected to report. NB13-1701 - Part 2, 2.3.6.6 SG Inspection Spec. – Inspection requirements of wire wound pressure vessels. (Attachment 2, pp. 37-39)

of 8

July 2013 A Task Group consisting of R. Dobbins (PM), M. Mooney, J. Riley, V. Scarcella and G. Galanes was assigned. January 2014 No action to report at this meeting. July 2014 Mr. Dobbins is expected to report. NB14-0501 Part 2 Update index to Part 2. A Task Group consisting of D. Canonico and M. Mooney was assigned. (No attachment) January 2014 A progress report was given by Mr. Mooney. No action at this time. July 2014 Mr. Mooney is expected to report. NB14-0502 - Part 2, 2.6.7, SG Inspection General - Revise the wording in this section to state that PVHOs should be constructed to ASME PVHO-1 and shall use ASME PVHO-2 as a guide for inspection. (No attachment) July 2014 Mr. Mooney is expected to report. NB14-0901 – Part 2, SG Inspection Specific – Inspection of High Pressure Vessels (Attachment 2 pp. 37-40) January 2014

After review of the inquiry, it was determined that the Jurisdictional Authority has final precedence concerning activity within their jurisdiction. A motion was made to close the item with no action taken. The motion was unanimously approved. At the NBIC Committee meeting it was decided to keep this item open and Mr. Mooney would contact Mr. Brown for additional information.

July 2014 Mr. Mooney is expected to report. NB14-1001 –Part 2, 5.2.1 SG Insp. Spec. - The NBIC does not address replacement of duplicate nameplates where the original nameplate is intact and attached to an inner vessel and may or may not be visible. (Attachment 2, p. 41) January 2014 A report was given by Mr. Mooney. A motion was made to accept the proposed text. The motion was unanimously approved. At the NBIC Committee meeting it was decided that this item needs more work. July 2014 Mr. Mooney is expected to report. NB14-1701 - Part 2, SG on Insp. Spec. - Add diagrams for Local Thin Areas (LTA) for LP Gas and propane tanks. (No attachment)

of 8

July 2014 Mr. Mooney is expected to report.

NB14-1905 - Part 2 S10.6 SC on Inspection - In Part 2, Section S10.6 the last sentence of the first paragraph currently reads "The warning signs shall be as follows" .The proposal would change the above sentence to read "The required warning sign shall be as shown in Figure S10.6". (Attachment 2, pp. 42-43) July 2014 Mr. Mooney is expected to report. NB14-1906 - Part 2, 6.1 SC on Inspection-Paragraph 6.1 is a scope for the supplement section. This is the only part that has this and it is not consistent with our formatting and is a repeat of what is covered in the Introduction under Supplements in all three parts. (No attachment) July 2014 Mr. Mooney is expected to report.

9. New Business

Web-Ex Training

Editorial Changes 10. Future Meetings January 19-22, 2015, Orlando, Florida July 21-24, 2015, Columbus, Ohio 11. Adjournment Respectfully Submitted, Bill Smith Secretary :rh H:\ROBIN-Active Documents\NBIC Secretarial Documents\Committees\SC on Inspection\SC on Inspection\Agendas\Agenda Inspection 0714.doc

SC on InspectionMember Title ExpirDate Interest Category

Barker, Timothy 1/31/2015 Auth Inpection Agencies

Canonico, Dr. Domenic A. 8/31/2015 General Interest

Getter, Jim 8/31/2015 Manufacturer

Horbaczewski, Mark 8/31/2015 Users

McRae, Greg 8/31/2015 Manufacturer

Mooney, Mark 8/31/2015 Auth Inpection AgenciesChair

Newton, Venus 9/18/2016 Auth Inpection Agencies

Pate, Ralph 2/28/2017 Jurisdictional Authorities

Reetz, Robert 9/18/2016 Jurisdictional Authorities

Riley, Jim 8/31/2015 Users

Safarz, Jason 7/21/2016 General Interest

Schwartzwalder, Mike 8/31/2015 NB Certificate Holders

Smith, Bill Secretary

Staniszewski, Jr., Stanley 8/31/2015 Regulatory AuthoritiesVice Chair

Vandini, Tom 1/31/2017 Manufacturer

Welch, Paul 1/31/2016 Auth Inpection Agencies

Total Members:Total Members: 15

Tuesday, June 17, 2014 Page 1 of 1

Page 1 of 46

RHeilman

Text Box

ATTACHMENT 1

DAVID W. FORD

200 Hardy Ivy Way Holly Springs, NC 27540

919 886 1297 (cell) [email protected]

Experience USDOT/Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration November 2009 to Hazardous Materials Program Manager, Southern Service Center Present Manager hazardous materials enforcement program for the 11 states in

the Southeastern United States. March 2008 to State Program Manager, Michigan Division November 2009 Manage grants given to the State of Michigan related to commercial

vehicle enforcement. Michigan State Police Motor Carrier Division January 2004 to M.C. Lieutenant 14 March 2008 Commander of Special Programs Section. Responsible for numerous state

wide programs, including: Investigation Unit, Hazardous Materials Unit, Safety Audit Unit, Bus Inspection Unit, Recruiting Unit, and Data Processing Unit. Also act as Division training coordinator, Division Public Information Officer, and Division Legislative Liaison and manage all Division state and federal grants.

June, 2000 to M.C. Lieutenant 14 January 2004 Commander of Field Support Section. March, 1993 to M.C. Investigator Sergeant June, 2000 Commander of Hazardous Materials Unit. April, 1992 to Sergeant, Grass Lake Scales March, 1993 Direct supervision of Grass Lake and Cambridge personnel. Oct., 1992 to Acting Commander of Fourth District Dec., 1992 Second Line supervisor of three weigh stations and 20 officers. 1985-1992 Motor Carrier Officer, Road patrol and Scales, Battle Creek and

Jackson Posts.

Page 2 of 46

DAVID W. FORD

2

Education June, 1998 Leadership and Management Program - Central Michigan University

Leadership, Strategic Planning, Decision Analysis, Financial Management, Project Management

May, 1984 Bachelor of Science Degree - Lake Superior State University Conservation Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice Cum Laude, 3.55/4.0 President, Criminal Justice Association, 1982-83, 1983-84 Member, Alpha Phi Sigma, National Criminal Justice Honor Society,

LSSU Chapter May, 1982 Associate Degree- Lake Superior State University Natural Resources Technology

Additional Training State Certified Michigan Professional Emergency Manager (PEM, 1997-2000). Numerous Management courses, including: Team Building, Supervisory and Management, Presentations, and Media Relations Numerous Hazardous Materials Response and Transportation Regulations courses,

including: OSHA/Operations Level Emergency Responder Awareness/Operations Instructor Incident Command System

CVSA General Hazardous Materials Course CVSA Bulk Package/Cargo Tank Courses CVSA Enhanced Inspection of Radioactive Materials Course Instructor, Cargo Tank Facility Review Course Instructor, NTTC Cargo Tank Workshops

Association Affiliations Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) 1996-2000, Chair, Hazardous Materials Committee 1995-1996, Vice-Chair, Hazardous Materials Committee 1993-1995, Member, Hazardous Materials Committee

Awards 2002 Michigan State Police Professional Excellence Award 2000 CVSA Presidents Award 1996 First Annual Motor Carrier Division Leadership Award 1991 Michigan State Police Meritorious Service Award

Page 3 of 46

10813 South River Front Pkwy Phone: (801) 676-0216 Suite 135 Fax: (801) 676-0227 South Jordan, UT 84095 structint.com

MARSHAL D. CLARK, Ph.D., P.E. Associate

Dr. Clark has over 29 years of technical experien ce in welding, metallurgy, materials selection and testing, corrosion, failure analysis, and selection of protective coatings for the oil field, process, and electric power generation industries. He is able to de velop and lead major inspection and condition assessment programs of electric power genera tion and process industries equipm ent and components including boilers, turbines, steam lines, fuel storage tanks, oi l and gas production and refinery equipment. Dr. Clark has extensive experi ence in the design of weldm ents and selection of welding processes. Dr. Clark is ab le to pe rform in-depth f ailure analysis of metallic components using light optical and scanning electron m icroscopy, mechanical and chem ical testing, and fractography and fractu re mechanics. Dr. Clark has provided services as an exp ert witness on metallurgical failures associated with power generation, oil and gas production, and the aviation industry. Dr. Clark is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Metallurgical Engineering for the University of Utah where he teaches a graduate course in Metallurgical Failure Analysis. He is also a collaborator on a DOE sponsored research program , through the Un iversity of Utah, on Novel Nanocrystalline Intermetallic Coatings for Metal Alloys in Coal-Fired Environments.

EDUCATION/PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS/REGISTRATIONS

Ph.D. - Metallurgical & Materials Engineering Colorado School of Mines, 2001 B.S. - Metallurgical Engineering Colorado School of Mines, 1979

Other Technical Education:

University of Alaska, “Cold Regions Engineering,” 1989 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, “ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code: Section III,” 1988 University of Kansas, “Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures,” 1988 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, “Remaining Life Evaluation,” 1987 National Association of Corrosion Engineers, “Basic Corrosion Course,” 1983 University of Tennessee, “Welding, Metallurgy, Quality, Inspection, Codes and Processes,” 1983 American Society for Metals, “Fractography,” 1979 Registrations: Registered Professional Engineer in Colorado (23217), Utah (6659883-2202) and Wyoming (11320) Member: American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) ASM International (American Society for Metals) NACE International (National Association of Corrosion Engineers) American Welding Society (AWS)

Page 4 of 46

Marshal D. Clark, Ph.D., P.E. Page 2 January 2009

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2006 to Present Associate, Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. 2003 to 2006 Principal Engineer, PacifiCorp Energy 2002 to 2003 Senior Consultant, Engineering Systems, Inc. 1994 to 2001 President, Investigative Engineering Corporation 1981 to 1994 Materials Engineering Group Coordinator, Stone & Webster Engineering

Corporation 1979 to 1981 Manager of Metallurgical Engineering, Otis Engineering Corporation

PRESENTATIONS

Fan, P., Riddle, E., Fang, Z.Z., Sohn, H.Y. and Clark, M.D., "Iron Aluminide Coating Produced by Plasma Transferred Arc Process," presented at 8th International Conference on Trends in Welding Research, June 2008, Pine Mt., GA. Clark, M. and Porter, A., "The Use of Linear Phased Array Ultrasonics for the Inspection of Boiler Tube Welds In Lieu of Radiography," EPRI Boiler Reliability Work Group Meeting, Dallas, TX, November 2006. Clark, M., "The Use of Linear Phased Array Ultrasonics for the Inspection of Boiler Tube Welds In Lieu of Radiography," presented at Electric Power Materials Committee Meeting, June 2006, Sawgrass, FL. Clark, M.D. and Edwards, G.R., “Microstructural Characterization of Low Alloy Steel Weldments Containing Yttrium,” presented at the 82nd Annual AWS Convention, Cleveland, OH 6-10, 2001. Clark, M.D. and Edwards, G.R., “Microstructural and Fractographic Characterization of SMAW Filler Metal for HSLA 100 Steel,” presented at the 79th Annual AWS Convention, Detroit, MI, 26-29 April 1998. PUBLICATIONS Co-author of "Fossil Plant High Energy Piping Damage: Theory and Practice," Electric Power Research Institute, Volume 1(Product ID 1012201): June 2007, Volume 2 (Product ID 1015505): November 2007, Volume 3 (Product ID 1016212): March 2008 Clark, M., Huntsman, L., Healy, Q., Arnold, J., "PacifiCorp Energy's Experience with Circumferential Weld Repairs in High Energy Piping Systems," presented at EPRI International Conference on Advances in Condition and Remaining Life Assessment for Fossil Power Plants, October 2006, Louisville, KY. Clark, M., Metzler, C., Arnold, J., Elkins, C., "The Use of Linear Phased Array Ultrasonics for the Inspection of Boiler Tube Welds In Lieu of Radiography," presented at EPRI International Conference on Advances in Condition and Remaining Life Assessment for Fossil Power Plants, October 2006, Louisville, KY.

Page 5 of 46

Marshal D. Clark, Ph.D., P.E. Page 3 January 2009

Clark, M., Huntsman, L., Healy, Q., Arnold, J., "PacifiCorp Energy's Experience with Circumferential Weld Repairs in High Energy Piping Systems," presented at EPRI Welding and Repair Technology for Power Plants, June 2006, Sawgrass, FL. Clark, M., Healy, Q., and Bisbee, L., “Evaluation of Creep Damage in Girth Welds in a Hot Reheat Piping System,” presented at Materials and Corrosion Experience for Fossil Power Plants, Isle of the Palms, SC, November 18-21, 2003, EPRI. Clark, M.D. and Edwards, G.R., “Inclusion Growth in Yttrium Containing Low Alloy Steel Welds through Liquid Phase Sintering,” presented at Trends in Welding Research 6th International Conference, Pine Mountain, GA, April 15-19, 2002, AWS/ASM. Clark, M.D. and Edwards, G.R., “Characterization of Weld Metal Oxides in Low Alloy Steel Welds Containing Yttrium,” presented at the Materials solutions Conference and Exposition, St. Louis, MO, October 9-12, 2000. Clark, M.D., “Inspecting Welds with Time-of-Flight Diffraction,” The Fabricator, June 1999, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 38-41. Bisbee, L., Clark, M., Nottingham, L., and Queen, H., “Ultrasonic Detection and Characterization of Incipient Creep Damage in High Energy Piping Seam Welds,” EPRI Fossil Plant Inspection Workshop, San Antonio, Texas, 25 June 1999. Clark, M.D. and Olson, D.L., “The Role of Welding Parameters in Hydrogen Management,” presented at CANMET’s Hydrogen Workshop, Ottawa, Ontario, 5-9 October 1998. Clark, M.D., Edwards, G.R., and Landau, A., “Metallographic Techniques for Microstructural Characterization of SMAW Filler Metal for HSLA 100 Steel,” presented at Trends in Welding Research 1998, Pine Mountain, GA, 1-5 June 1998. Clark, M.D., Sehkar, N., Shattuck, D., and Wedig, C., “Corrosion Problems Associated with Pollution Control,” National Association of Corrosion Engineers’ South Central Region Conference, 1992. Clark, M.D. and Galpin, D.S., “Critical Piping Inspection,” Association of Rural Electric Generating Cooperatives Annual Meeting, 15-17 June 1987. Clark, M.D., Hall, F.S., Keys, R.L., and Stasis, R.P., “Critical Piping Inspection Program at Utah Power & Light Company,” EPRI Fossil Plant Inspection Workshop, 9-11 September 1986. Clark, M., Potter, D. and Spence, N., “Critical Piping Assessment,” Rocky Mountain Electric League, Spring Conference, May 1986. Cavallo, J.R. and Clark, M.D., “New Advances in Corrosion Mitigation in the Geysers KGRA,” National Association of Corrosion Engineers/Corrosion 84, April 1984.

Page 6 of 46

CURRENT WORDING – NBIC Part 2, SECTION 5 5.2 – 5.3.1 5.2 REPLACEMENT OF STAMPING DURING INSERVICE INSPECTION

5.2.1 AUTHORIZATION

a) When the stamping on a pressure‐retaining item becomes indistinct or the nameplate is lost, illegible, or detached, but traceability to the original pressure‐retaining item is still possible, the Inspector shall instruct the owner or user to have the stamped data replaced. All re‐stamping shall be done in accordance with the original code of construction, except as modified herein. Requests for permission to re‐stamp or replace nameplates shall be made to the Jurisdiction in which the pressure‐retaining item is installed. Application must be made on the Replacement of Stamped Data Form, NB‐136 (see 5.3.2). Proof of the original stamping and other such data, as is available shall be furnished with the request. Permission from the Jurisdiction is not required for the reattachment of nameplates that are partially attached. When traceability cannot be established, the Jurisdiction shall be contacted.

b) When there is no Jurisdiction, the replacement of stamped data shall be authorized and

witnessed by a National Board Commissioned Inspector and the completed Form NB‐136 (see 5.3.2) shall be submitted to the National Board.

5.2.2 REPLACEMENT OF STAMPED DATA a) The re‐stamping or replacement of data shall be witnessed by a National Board Commissioned

Inspector and shall be identical to the original stamping.

b) The Re‐stamping or replacement of a code symbol stamp shall be performed only as permitted by the governing code of construction.

c) Replacement nameplates shall be clearly marked “replacement”.

5.2.3 REPORTING Form NB‐136 shall be filed with The National Board by the “R” Stamp holder, bearing a facsimile of

the replacement stamping or nameplate, as applied, and shall also bear the signatures of the Authorizing Jurisdiction, the National Board Commissioned Inspector who witnessed the replacement, and the “R” Stamp holder that performed the replacement. Form NB‐136 shall filed with their Local Jurisdiction (if required) by the owner or user.

5.3 NATIONAL BOARD INSPECTION FORMS

5.3.1 SCOPE

The following forms may be used for documenting specific requirements as indicated on the top of

each form.

Note: Jurisdictions may have adopted other forms and may not accept these forms.

Page 7 of 46

RHeilman

Typewritten Text

1/9

RHeilman

Typewritten Text

NB12-1801

PROPOSED CHANGES – NBIC Part 2, SECTION 5 5.2 – 5.3.1 5.2 REPLACEMENT OF STAMPING OR NAMEPLATE DURING INSERVICE INSPECTION

5.2.1 AUTHORIZATION a) When the stamping on a pressure‐retaining item becomes indistinct or the nameplate is lost,

illegible, or detached, but traceability to the original pressure‐retaining item is still possible, the Inspector shall instruct the owner or user to have the nameplate or stamped data replaced. All re‐stamping shall be done in accordance with the original code of construction, except as modified herein. Requests for permission to re‐stamp or replace nameplates shall be made to the Jurisdiction in which the pressure‐retaining item is installed. nameplate or stamping is re‐applied. Application must be made on the Replacement of Stamped Data Form, NB‐136 (see 5.3.2). Proof of traceability to the original nameplate or stamping, and other such data, as is available, shall be furnished with the request. Permission from the Jurisdiction is not required for the reattachment of nameplates that are partially attached. When traceability cannot be established, the Jurisdiction shall be contacted. The completed Form NB‐136 (see 5.3.2) shall be submitted to the National Board.

b) When there is no Jurisdiction, the traceability shall be accepted and the replacement of the

nameplate or stamped data shall be authorized and witnessed by a National Board Commissioned Inspector. and tThe completed Form NB‐136 (see 5.3.2) shall be submitted to the National Board.

5.2.2 REPLACEMENT OF NAMEPLATE OR STAMPED DATA a) The re‐stamping or replacement of data shall be witnessed by a National Board Commissioned

Inspector. and shall be identical to the original stamping.

b) The Re‐stamping or replacement of a code symbol stamp shall be performed only as permitted by the governing code of construction.

c) Replacement nameplates shall be clearly marked “replacement”.

5.2.3 REPORTING Form NB‐136 shall be filed with the Jurisdiction by the owner or user (if required) or and tThe

National Board by the “R” Stamp Holder owner or user together with bearing a facsimile of the replacement stamping or nameplate, as applied, and shall also bear the signature of the “R” Stamp holder that performed the replacement and the National Board Commissioned Inspector who authorized and witnessed the replacement.


5.3.1 SCOPE

The following forms (5.3.2 through 5.3.7.1) may be used for documenting specific requirements as

indicated on the top of each form.


Page 8 of 46

RHeilman

Typewritten Text

2/9

PROPOSED WORDING – NBIC Part 2, SECTION 5 5.2 – 5.3.1 5.2 REPLACEMENT OF STAMPING OR NAMEPLATE 5.2.1 AUTHORIZATION

a) When the stamping on a pressure‐retaining item becomes indistinct or the nameplate is lost, illegible, or detached, but traceability to the original pressure‐retaining item is still possible, the Inspector shall instruct the owner or user to have the nameplate or stamped data replaced. All re‐stamping shall be done in accordance with the original code of construction, except as modified herein. Requests for permission to re‐stamp or replace nameplates shall be made to the Jurisdiction in which the nameplate or stamping is re‐applied. Application must be made on the Replacement of Stamped Data Form, NB‐136 (see 5.3.2). Proof of traceability to the original nameplate or stamping, and other such data as is available, shall be furnished with the request. Permission from the Jurisdiction is not required for the reattachment of nameplates that are partially attached. When traceability cannot be established, the Jurisdiction shall be contacted. The completed Form NB‐136 (see 5.3.2) shall be submitted to the National Board.

b) When there is no Jurisdiction, the traceability shall be accepted and the replacement of the

nameplate or stamped data shall be authorized and witnessed by a National Board Commissioned Inspector. The completed Form NB‐136 (see 5.3.2) shall be submitted to the National Board.

5.2.2 REPLACEMENT OF NAMEPLATE OR STAMPED DATA a) The re‐stamping or replacement of data shall be witnessed by a National Board Commissioned

Inspector. b) The Re‐stamping or replacement of a code symbol stamp shall be performed only as permitted

by the governing code of construction. c) Replacement nameplates shall be clearly marked “replacement”.

5.2.3 REPORTING Form NB‐136 shall be filed with the Jurisdiction by the owner or user (if required) and the National

Board by the “R” Certificate Holder bearing a facsimile of the replacement stamping or nameplate, as applied, and shall also bear the signature of the “R” Stamp holder that performed the replacement and the National Board Commissioned Inspector who authorized and witnessed the replacement.


5.3.1 SCOPE

The following forms (5.3.2 through 5.3.7.1) may be used for documenting specific requirements as

indicated on the top of each form.


Page 9 of 46

RHeilman

Typewritten Text

3/9

The following is a true facsimile of the legible portion of the item’s nameplate. Please print. Where possible, also attach a rubbing of the nameplate.

(Back)

I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements in this report are correct, and that the replacement information, data, and identification numbers are correct and in accordance with provisions of the National Board Inspection Code. Attached is a facsimile or rubbing of the stamping or nameplate. Name of Owner or User _______________________________________________________________

Signature _______________________________________________ Date ______________________ (Authorized representative)

Witnessed by ____________________________________________ Employer __________________ (Name of inspector)

Signature _________________________________ Date ________ NB Commission ____________ (Name of inspector)

Page 10 of 46

RHeilman

Typewritten Text

5/9

PROPOSED CHANGES TO FORM NB-136 REPLACEMENT OF STAMPED DATA FORM, NB-136

in accordance with provisions of the National Board Inspection Code Submitted to: Submitted by;

_____________________________________ _____________________________________ (name of jurisdiction) (name of owner, user, or certificate holder)

_____________________________________ _____________________________________ (address) (address)

_____________________________________ _____________________________________

_____________________________________ _____________________________________ (telephone no.) (telephone no.)

1. Manufactured by _________________________________________________________________ (name and address)

2. Manufactured for _________________________________________________________________ (name and address)

3. Location of Installation ____________________________________________________________ (address) 4. Date Installed ___________________________________________________________________

5. Previously installed at _____________________________________________________________

6. Manufacturer’s Data Report Attached No Yes

7. Item registered with National Board No Yes, NB Number _____________________

8. Item identification Year built _________________

Type ____________________________________ Dimensions ________________

Mfg. Serial no. ____________________________ Jurisdiction no. _____________

MAWP _________________ psi Safety relief valve set at _________________psi

9. Complete the reverse side of this report with a true facsimile of the legible portion of the nameplate or:

10. If nameplate is lost or illegible, traceability documentation, verified by the Inspector, shall be attached to this report. identifying the object. to the Manufacturer’s Data referenced on this form.

11. I request authorization to replace the stamped data and/or nameplate on the above described pressure-retaining item in accordance with the rules of the National Board Inspection Code (NBIC).

Owner or User’s Organization Name “R” Certificate Holder’s Name: Number ___________________

Signature _____________________________________________ Date ____________________

Title ___________________________________________________________________________ Verification of Traceability _________________ ________ NB Commission ____________ (Name of inspector)

12. Authorization is granted to replace the stamped data or to replace the nameplate of the above described pressure-retaining item.

Signature _____________________________________________ Date ____________________ (chief inspector or authorized representative)

Jurisdiction (if available) or NB Commission number ____________________________________ Page 11 of 46

RHeilman

Typewritten Text

6/9

CURRENT FORM NB-136 REPLACEMENT OF STAMPED DATA FORM

in accordance with provisions of the National Board Inspection Code Submitted to Submitted by

_____________________________________ _____________________________________ (name of jurisdiction) (name of owner)

_____________________________________ _____________________________________ (address) (address)

_____________________________________ _____________________________________









Type ____________________________________ Dimensions ________________



9. Complete the reverse side of this report with a true facsimile of the legible portion of the nameplate

10. If nameplate is lost or illegible, documentation shall be attached identifying the object to the Manufacturer’s Data Report referenced on this form.


Owner or User’s name

Signature _____________________________________________ Date ____________________

Title ___________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________



Jurisdiction _____________________________________________________________________

Page 12 of 46

RHeilman

Typewritten Text

4/9

The following is a true facsimile of the legible portion of the item’s original nameplate, (if available). Please print. Where possible, also attach a rubbing or picture of the nameplate. The following is a true facsimile of the item’s replacement stamping or nameplate

(Back)

I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements in this report are correct, and that the replacement information, data, and identification numbers are correct and in accordance with provisions of the National Board Inspection code. Attached is a facsimile or rubbing of the stamping or nameplate. Name of Owner or User “R” Certificate Holder __________________________________________ Number


Witnessed by ____________________________________________ Employer __________________ (Name of inspector)

Signature _________________________________ Date ________ NB Commission ____________ (Name of inspector)

ADDED

Page 13 of 46

RHeilman

Typewritten Text

7/9

PROPOSED FORM NB-136 REPLACEMENT OF STAMPED DATA FORM, NB-136

in accordance with provisions of the National Board Inspection Code Submitted to: Submitted by

_____________________________________ _____________________________________ (name of jurisdiction) (name of owner, user, or certificate holder)

_____________________________________ _____________________________________ (address) (address)

_____________________________________ _____________________________________









Type ____________________________________ Dimensions ________________



9. Complete the reverse side of this report with a true facsimile of the legible portion of the nameplate or:

10. If nameplate is lost or illegible, traceability documentation, verified by the Inspector, shall be attached to this report.


“R” Certificate Holder: Number _________________

Signature _____________________________________________ Date ____________________

Title ___________________________________________________________________________ Verification of Traceability _________________ ________ NB Commission ____________ (Name of inspector)



Jurisdiction (if available) or NB Commission number ____________________________________

Page 14 of 46

RHeilman

Typewritten Text

8/9

The following is a true facsimile of the legible portion of the item’s original nameplate, (if available). Please print. Where possible, also attach a rubbing or picture of the nameplate. The following is a true facsimile of the item’s replacement stamping or nameplate

(Back)

I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements in this report are correct, and that the replacement information, data, and identification numbers are correct and in accordance with provisions of the National Board Inspection code. “R” Certificate Holder ______________________________ Number


Witnessed by ____________________________________________ Employer __________________ (Name of Inspector)

Signature _________________________________ Date ________ NB Commission ____________ (Name of Inspector)

Page 15 of 46

RHeilman

Typewritten Text

9/9

of 46

rheilman

Text Box

RHeilman

Cross-Out

RHeilman

Text Box

RHeilman

Text Box

Action Item Request Form

8.3 CODE REVISIONS OR ADDITIONS

Request for Code revisions or additions shall provide the following:

a) Proposed Revisions or Additions

For revisions, identify the rules of the Code that require revision and submit a copy of the appropriate

rules as they appear in the Code, marked up with the proposed revision. For additions, provide the

recommended wording referenced to the existing Code rules.

Existing Text:

b) Statement of Need

Provide a brief explanation of the need for the revision or addition.

Part 2 Supplement 2 Historical Boilers S2.14 Safety Procedures

Add language to address the safety concerns when using liquid or gaseous fuels to fire a historical boiler.

Examples of safety concerns would be: What to do in a low water condition? How is the boiler lit off?

How to prevent a flareback? Where should the operator be positioned when lighting off the boiler?

NB13‐0903

Page 17 of 46

c) Background Information

Provide background information to support the revision or addition, including any data or changes in

technology that form the basis for the request that will allow the Committee to adequately evaluate the

proposed revision or addition. Sketches, tables, figures, and graphs should be submitted as appropriate.

When applicable, identify any pertinent paragraph in the Code that would be affected by the revision or

addition and identify paragraphs in the Code that reference the paragraphs that are to be revised or

added.

Current NBIC code does not address the use of liquid and gaseous fuels to fire historical boilers. A number of

boilers use diesel, propane, compressed natural gas as the heat source for the boilers and these fuels behave

differently than the typical solid fuels (coal, wood, etc) used to fire the boilers. There are potential safety

concerns that could affect the safe operation of these historical boilers.

Page 18 of 46

of 46

RHeilman

Text Box

NB13-1301

Subgroup Locomotives National Board Item No. NB13-1404 Current Level: Subgroup NBIC Part 2 & 3 Paragraph(s): To Be Determined Title: Fillet welded staybolts Date Opened: April 2011 Background:

Fillet welded staybolts A Task group consisting of Griner, Moedinger, Janssen, and Rimmasch Committee thoughts Part 2 – leakage, look at heads, welds Part 3 – Method + NDE, do not allow threaded to be changed to fillet welded.

Proposed Action: Subgroup voted Date:

Page 21 of 46

Subgroup Locomotives National Board Item No. NB13-1409 Current Level: Subgroup New Business NBIC Part 2 Paragraph(s): To be determined Title: Method for Analyzing Bulges Created by Overheating In Stayed Boiler Surfaces Date Opened: April 16,2013 This item is submitted by Richard Stone As you know, my "Calculation Method For Analyzing Bulges In Stayed Firebox Sheets" has been used by the historic boiler and locomotive boiler groups to set limits for the allowable bulge depth on the stayed firebox sheets of their particular boiler types. I suggest the National Board incorporate my method's principle calculations into the "Inspection Section" of the NBIC as a way to assist National board inspectors and repair firms with the evaluation of bulges caused by the overheating of the stayed boiler surfaces of other boiler types. My method would be useful for analyzing bulges caused by overheating on the stayed surfaces of boilers made by manufacturers that are now out of business since the engineering resources of these firms would not be available for consultation. The benefits of my method and calculations for analyzing bulges caused by overheating on the stayed surfaces are : 1) It provides a simple way to determine the normal deflection (bulge depth) of the stayed surface during normal operation in order to compare it to the as-found bulged condition. 2) It provides a simple and fast way to determine the extent of the weakening that occurred to produce the as -found bulged condition. 3) It provides a simple and fast method to determine the temperature that the overheated stayed surface was heated to as the bulge formed. This in turn will serve to aid boiler owners and operators to understand the seriousness of the bulging event. I've included additional information about how a National Board inspector would perform their inspection and use my calculations within my report. It is listed in the Section "Recommended Use Of This Inspection Method By The NBIC Inspector. I've attached a copy of my report, the illustrations and the reference documents at the bottom of this e-mail.

Page 22 of 46

Background: Bulging of the firebox sheet between the staybolt rows while the staybolts and staybolt heads remain in satisfactory condition is a serious condition. If the bulging action continues, it can result either in the firebox sheet rupturing or pulling completely off of numerous staybolts. Bulging usually is caused by the firebox sheet becoming overheated as result of the inability of the sheet to transfer the combustion heat rapidly into the water. The common causes for the loss of heat transfer and overheating are:

Scale buildup on sheet waterside.

Poor heat transfer caused by problems with water chemistry.

Excessive heat on the sheet fireside caused by over-firing.

Loss of water circulation on sheet waterside. This can result from conditions such as foaming of the boiler water or an obstruction on the waterside that reduces the rate of water circulation over the sheet.

Operation with insufficient water to cover the waterside surface of the sheet.

The bulging stops when the firebox sheet becomes cool after water circulation resumes over it. The resumption of the water circulation and cooling likely are the result of the following:

The obstruction or scale breaks off the firebox sheet waterside.

The foam bubbles become dissipated by the change in the water circulation pattern that the firebox sheet bulge creates.

The firing rate is reduced.

Page 23 of 46

Proposed Action: RECOMMENDED USE OF THIS INSPECTION METHOD BY THE NBIC INSPECTOR 1. National Board inspectors can use my two formulas when inspecting and evaluating bulges

on stayed firebox sheets of historic and locomotive boilers. The formulas and terms are explained in detail in the section “Analysis Method. The calculations for results listed in Table #1 are in the section “Calculations for Table #1”. In addition, see Figures #1 & #2.

2. The primary formula is:

def = maximum bulging (deflection) of firebox sheet = 5 x W x p3 384 x E x I

(Ref: Machinery’s Handbook, 20th edition, 1978, Industrial Press, Page 412) This is the formula for calculating the deflection of a simply supported beam under uniform load. The deflection is calculated at the center of the beam and is the maximum value. The beam formula equates the bulge (the deflection of the firebox sheet) to the reduction to the modulus of elasticity of the firebox sheet material that the overheating causes. The modulus of elasticity, which is the ratio between unit stress to unit strain within the proportional limit of the firebox steel, is dependent on the firebox sheet temperature and becomes lower as the firebox sheet temperature increases. Therefore, by using the reduction of the modulus of elasticity as the primary variable for the calculation, the temperature that the firebox sheet was overheated to during the bulging event can be estimated. In addition, this method does not require the staybolt diameter be included in the calculations. Although for some configuration including the staybolt diameter would shorten the beam length and strengthen the beam, the staybolts are ignored to be both conservative and to simplify the work.

The terms and symbols used in the formula are:

I = calculated moment of inertia of the beam for deflection at its outermost face. For the

bulged firebox plate the beam width (b) represents a 1 in. (25 mm) wide section of the bulged firebox section. The beam thickness (d) equals the firebox plate thickness (t). The beam length (b) equals the staybolt pitch (p).

For reference the beam cross sectional area equals the 1 in. (25 mm) beam width (b) times the firebox plate thickness (t).

Page 24 of 46

The beam moment of inertia “I” is calculated by the following formula: I = b x d3 = b x t3

3 3 (Ref: Machinery’s Handbook, 20th edition, 1978, Industrial Press, Page 379)

b = 1 in. (25 mm) width of the firebox sheet at the bulged section. This represents the beam width.

t = thickness of bulged firebox sheet. This represents the beam depth “d”.

p = longitudinal or vertical pitch of staybolts at the bulged firebox section MAWP = maximum allowable boiler pressure

W = total load on the 1 in. (25 mm) wide pitch length of the firebox sheet = MAWP x p x 1

in.

E = modulus of elasticity of the firebox steel at ambient temperature and normal operating temperature = 29,000,000 psi (199950 MPa). (Ref: Machinery’s Handbook, 20th edition, 1978, Industrial Press, Page 452 – see the value for common structural carbon steel)

Ex/x” = the reduced value of the modulus of elasticity of the firebox steel needed to obtain the

bulge depth found on the firebox sheet. Bulge Depth = the bulge depth found on the firebox sheet.

3. The inspection method I recommend the NBIC inspector use when evaluating a bulged

condition on a stay bolted firebox sheet is:

A. First determine the normal bulge depth (deflection) of the firebox sheet during its normal operating condition at MAWP and normal operating temperature. For this method the normal (standard) value of the modulus of elasticity of the firebox steel is used.

B. Then determine the reduction of the modulus of elasticity of the standard firebox steel that would be required to obtain the as-found bulged condition on the firebox sheet.

For this second calculation the following terms are used:

Ex/x” = the reduced value of the modulus of elasticity of the firebox steel needed to obtain

the bulge depth found on the firebox sheet.

Bulge Depth = the bulge depth found on the firebox sheet.

Page 25 of 46

The first formula then is re-written to solve for the Ex/x” : Ex/x” = 5 x W x p3 .

384 x Bulge Depth x I NOTE:

Should it be necessary to determine bulge depth (deflection) of the firebox sheet at the first transition temperature of the firebox steel [approximately 1100° F (593°C)], a lower value of the modulus of elasticity of the standard firebox steel (E1) must be used in the first formula. The strength reduction to the modulus of elasticity of the firebox steel at the first transition temperature is 28% of the standard E value. (Ref: Machinery’s Handbook, 20th edition, 1978, Industrial Press, Page 454 “Table For Influence Of Temperature On The Strength Of Metals”). Therefore E1 = 28% x 29,000,000 = 8,120,000 psi (55985 MPa)

ANALYSIS METHOD Reference: Machinery’s Handbook, 20th edition, 1978, Industrial Press, Pages 358, 379, 412, 452 & 454 1. The bulged section of the firebox sheet is analyzed as a simply supported beam that is

uniformly loaded by the boiler pressure. Each end of the beam is assumed to be supported by the staybolt located at each end of it.

2. The beam width (b) is taken as a 1 in. (25 mm) wide section of the firebox sheet. The beam length (p) is the horizontal or vertical pitch distance of the staybolt pattern (the centerline distance of the two staybolts at the bulge location on the firebox sheet). The choice between the use of the horizontal or vertical pitch distance is dependent on the orientation of the bulge.

For reference the beam cross sectional area is a rectangle and equals the 1” beam width (b) times the firebox plate thickness (t).

3. The bending load on the beam (the bulged plate section) equals the staybolt pitch length (p)

times the boiler pressure (MWAP). To obtain the maximum bending stress for this analysis the concentrated bending load is assumed to be positioned at the beam centerline. This places it in the center (middle) of the staybolt pitch length.

Page 26 of 46

4. The deflection of the beam (the bulged plate section) is calculated at its fireside surface. Therefore the reference location for the extreme fiber section of the beam is taken at the firebox plate’s fireside surface.

5. The staybolt diameter is not needed for this analysis method. Although including the staybolts would shorten the beam length and strengthen the beam, to be conservative the staybolts are ignored.

6. The variable for the beam calculation is the modulus of elasticity of the firebox steel. The modulus of elasticity, which is the ratio between unit stress to unit strain within the proportional limit of the firebox steel, is dependent on the firebox sheet temperature and becomes lower as the sheet temperature increases. This enables the bulging and weakening of the firebox steel by the overheating to be calculated by using the reduction of the modulus of elasticity as the primary variable for the calculation.

7. The primary formula is:

def = maximum bulging (deflection) of firebox sheet = 5 x W x p3 384 x E x I

This is the formula for calculating the deflection of a simply supported beam under uniform load. The deflection is calculated at the center of the beam and is the maximum value.

The beam moment of inertia “I” for deflection at its outer face is calculated by the following formula:

I = b x d3 = b x t3

3 3

b = 1 in. (25 mm) width of the firebox sheet at the bulged section. This represents the beam width.

t = thickness of bulged firebox sheet. This represents the beam depth “d” p = longitudinal or vertical pitch of staybolts at the bulged firebox section MAWP = maximum allowable boiler pressure W = total load on the pitch length of the firebox sheet = MAWP x p x 1 in. (25 mm) width

E = modulus of elasticity of the firebox steel at ambient temperature and normal operating

temperature = 29,000,000 psi (199950 MPa). (Ref: Machinery’s Handbook, 20th edition, 1978, Industrial Press, Page 452 -see the value for common structural carbon steel)

E1 = modulus of elasticity of the firebox steel at the first transition temperature

[approximately 1100° F (593°C)] and is 28% of the standard E value. (Ref: Machinery’s

Page 27 of 46

Handbook, 20th edition, 1978, Industrial Press, Page 454 “Table For Influence Of Temperature On The Strength Of Metals”).

Therefore E1 = 28% x 29,000,000 = 8,120,000 psi (55985 MPa)

Ex/x” = the reduced value of the modulus of elasticity of the firebox steel needed to obtain the

deflection (bulge depth) listed in the example.

EXAMPLE:CALCULATIONSFORTABLE#1 Analysisofa3/8in.(10mm)thicksteelfireboxsheetwitha4in.(100mm)stayboltpitchoperatingat200psi(1.5MPa).b=1in.(25mm)widthofthefireboxsheetatthebulgedsection.Thisrepresentsthebeamwidth.t=thicknessofbulgedfireboxsheet.Thisrepresentsthebeamdepth“d”=3/8=.375in.(10mm)p=longitudinalpitchofstayboltsatthebulgedfireboxsection=4in.(100mm)MAWP=maximumallowableboilerpressure=200psi(1.5MPa)W=totalloadonthepitchlengthofthefireboxsheet=MAWPxpx1=200x4x1”=800lb(362kg)

E=modulusofelasticityofthefireboxsteelatambienttemperatureandnormal

operatingtemperature=29,000,000psi(199950 MPa)E1=modulusofelasticityofthefireboxsteelatthefirsttransitiontemperature

(approximately1100°F)=28%x29,000,000=8,120,000psi.(55985MPa)E2=modulusofelasticityofthefireboxsteelatthesecondtransitiontemperature

(approximately1500°F)=10%x29,000,000=2,900,000psi.(19995MPa)Ex/x”=thereducedvalueofthemodulusofelasticityneededtoobtainthebulge

deflectionvaluelistedintheexample.I=momentofinertiaofthe1 in. (25 mm) widefireboxplatesectionthatrepresentsthebeam=bxd3=bxt3=1x(.375)3=.0176in4(7316mm^4)

3 3 3

Page 28 of 46

def=maximumdeflectionatcenterofbulge=5xWxp3 384xExIDeflectionAtMAWP&NormalOperatingTemperatureE=29,000,000psi(199950 MPa)=5xWxp3384xExI

5x800lbx(4)3=.001306in.(1.30mm)384x29,000,000x.0176

DeflectionAt1stTransitionTemperatureE1=.28xE=.28x29,000,000=8,120,000psi(55985MPa)5xWxp3384xE1xI

5x800x(4)3=.00466in.(0.118mm)384x8,120,000x.0176

DeflectionAt2ndTransitionTemperatureE2=.10xE=.10x29,000,000=2,900,000psi(19995MPa)5xWxp3384xE2xI

5x800x(4)3=.013in.(0.33mm)384x2,900,000x.0176

Page 29 of 46

ModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain1/16in.(1.5mm)Deflectiondef=1/16=.0625in.(1.5mm)E1/16”=5xWxp3384xdefxI

5x800x(4)3=606,060psi(164718MPa)384x.0625x.0176ModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain1/8in.(3mm)Deflectiondef=1/8=.125in.(3mm)E1/8”=5xWxp3384xdefxI

5x800x(4)3=303,030psi(82360MPa)384x.125x.0176ModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain¼in.(6mm)Deflectiondef=1/4=.250in.(6mm)E1/4”=5xWxp3384xdefxI

5x800x(4)3=151,515psi(1046MPa)384x.250x.0176

Page 30 of 46

ModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain3/8in.(10mm)Deflectiondef=3/8=.375in.(10mm)E3/8”=5xWxp3384xdefxI

5x800x(4)3=101,010psi(697MPa)384x.375x.0176PercentageReductionofModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain.00466in.(0.113mm)DeflectionofFireboxSheetAt1stTransitionTemperature29,000,000‐8,120,000x100=72%

29,000,000PercentageReductionofModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain.013in.0.33mm)(DeflectionofFireboxSheetAt2ndTransitionTemperature29,000,000‐2,900,000x100=90%

29,000,000PercentageReductionofModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain1/16in.(1.5mm)DeflectionofFireboxSheet29,000,000‐606 ,x100=97.9%

29,000,000PercentageReductionofModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain1/8in.(3mm)DeflectionofFireboxSheet29,000,000‐303,030x100=98.95%

29,000,000PercentageReductionofModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain¼in.(6mm)DeflectionofFireboxSheet29,000,000‐151,515x100=99.47%

29,000,000

Page 31 of 46

PercentageReductionofModulusofElasticityRequiredToObtain3/8in.(10mm)DeflectionofFireboxSheet29,000,000‐101,010x100=99.7%

29,000,000

Page 32 of 46

Subgroupvoted Date:Note:UseASMESectionIIPartDTableTM‐1todetermineModuliofElasticityattemperature.Tablesfollow:

Page 34 of 46

NBIC Item NB13-1701

PROPOSED ALL NEW TEXT and NEW ADDITION to PART 2

2.3.6.6 INSPECTION OF WIRE WOUND PRESSURE VESSELS (a) This section describes guidelines for inspection of wire wound pressure vessels.

Typically, wire wound pressure vessels are designed to allow for internal pressure to reach 80,000 psig with newer vessels having been designed and fabricated to ASME Section VIII, Div. 3. However, there are other wire wound pressure vessels which have been fabricated prior to the publication of ASME Section VIII, Div. 3 that have been installed as state specials. The scope of inspection should include components affected by repeated opening and closing, such as the frame, yolk and cylinder inner diameter surface, or alignment of the yolk with the cylinder, lack of maintenance and a check for inoperable or bypassed safety and warning devices.

(b) Wire wound pressure vessels are a unique design where the containment or

enclosure for handling internal pressure is a thin walled, high strength steel cylinder or stainless steel cylinder that is externally wrapped with multiple layers of high strength steel wire. The purpose for this design is to minimize weight of the containment cylinder using thinner wall materials and using external wound wire to induce a compressive preload. This design also provides increased resistance to damage from fatigue loading. These vessels have been used in various industrial applications, the most frequent of these being isostatic pressing and hydrostatic extrusion. Isostatic pressing can be performed either cold temperatures, at room temperature, with liquid as the pressure medium, or hot, at temperatures of 2000 to 3300°Fwith gas as the pressure medium. In hot isostatic presses, the vessel wall is separated from the hot space by insulation, which keeps the vessel wall operating at a low temperature of approximately 120 to 180°F. Cold pressing is used for regular production at pressures up to 87,000 psi, hot pressing at pressures up to 29,000 psi. Hydrostatic extrusion is generally performed either cold, at room temperature, or warm, at temperatures up to 1110°F, in both cases with liquid as the pressure medium. Hydrostatic extrusion is used for regular production at pressures up to 200,000 psi.

(c) Record keeping

(1) The history of the vessel’s cycles should be established. For vessels that are in service, records should be available that will provide a number or reasonable estimate of the cycles of past operations (design cycles). If such a record is not available, a fracture mechanics evaluation with a fatigue analysis test must be performed in order to determine the remaining life and number of cycles available to the vessel as well as the MAWP. The user must maintain these records going forward.

Page 37 of 46

(2) Operating data should be recorded and include the following whenever the vessel is operating:

a. Number of cycles b. Pressure c. Temperature d. Any unusual conditions

(d) Due to the cyclic nature of operation of this type of vessel, in-service inspections should be occurring on the vessel parts based on the number of cycles these parts are subjected to. This can be determined by application of fatigue analysis techniques. The fatigue analysis study would be carried out prior to installing and using the isostatic press or vessel and cover all components that will carry stress. Following is an example of what the results of such a study would reveal as allowable cycles for a particular press: Columns 105 Cycles Wires of frames 105 Cycles Cylinder 80 X 103 cycles Wires of Cylinder 60 X 103 cycles Closure 40 X 103 cycles Press Plate 60 X 103 cycles Yokes 106 Cycles

The endurance of the above press is thus limited by the closure. The permissible number of cycles for this press may be set at 40,000. An acceptable factor of safety for the inspection interval varies between 0.25 and 0.5. The inspection interval for the above press would therefore be every 10,000 to 20,000 cycles, but not later than after five years of service. If, during one of the regular inspections, a crack or flaw is detected, an immediate study for the evaluation of the crack growth per cycle of operation would need to be conducted by means of fracture mechanics methods. The number of cycles would be calculated for the crack to reach critical dimensions leading to rapid catastrophic failure. With the application of safety factor 0.25, the number of cycles of operation until the next inspection could be established. The vessel would now have an established inspection cycle criteria that would need to be reviewed and verified. Other components of the vessel that should be regularly inspected include the following:

(1) Review of the materials of construction to determine if the cylinder and heads are stainless steel or high strength steel for purposes of deciding on an appropriate surface examination method using either liquid penetrant or wet fluorescent magnetic particle test methods.

(2) Review of original manufacturer inspection recommendations for the frame,

yolk, cylinder and heads, if available. Inspection frequency is based on either number of operating cycles or time (2 year or 5 year intervals) with specific inspection locations.

Page 38 of 46

Because the high strength wire is not accessible, gage marks for elongation values based on a re-established wire tension from wire wrapping is provided. Some manufacturers use punch marks with calibrated gages to compare changes in elongation. Measurement of the cylinder inner diameter is obtained using a template or micrometer.

(3) Conduct annual visual and dimensional vessel inspections with liquid penetrant examination of maximum stressed areas to ensure that the surfaces are free of defects. Conduct ultrasonic examination of the vessel after every 25% of the design cycle life or every five years, whichever comes first, to detect subsurface cracks. Special attention Should be given to the roots of threads and closures using threaded head retention construction. Other geometric discontinuities that are inherent in the design or irregularities resulting from localized corrosion, erosion, or mechanical damage should be carefully examined. This is particularly important for units of monoblock construction.

(4) The closure mechanism of the vessel end-closure is opened and closed frequently during operation. It should be closely inspected for freedom of movement and proper contact with its locking elements. Wire wound vessels must have yoke-type closures so the yoke frame will need to be closely inspected on a regular basis.

(5) Should pitting, cracks, corrosion, or other defects be found during scheduled inspection, verify that an evaluation using fracture mechanics techniques is performed. This is to determine MAWP, cyclic life and extent of NDE frequency based on crack growth rate.

(e) Gages, Safety Devices, and Controls

(1) Verify that the vessel is provided control and monitoring of the pressure, temperature, electrical system, fluid flow, liquid levels, and all variables that are essential for the safe operation of the system. If the vessel is automatically controlled, manual override should be available. Also, safety interlocks should be provided on the vessel closure to prevent vessel pressurization if the vessel closure is not complete and locked.

(2) Verify that all safety device isolation valves are locked open if used.

(3) Verify appropriate pressure relief device is installed with relief setpoint at as low a pressure

as possible, consistent with the normal operating pressure but in no case higher than the design operating pressure of the vessel. Rupture discs are normally considered more suitable for these types of applications since pressure relief devices operating at pressures above 14500 psi may tend to leak by their seat.

(4) Verify that pressure and temperature of the vessel coolant and vessel wall is controlled

and monitored. Interlock devices associated with these monitoring devices that will deenergize or depressurize the vessel are strongly recommended due to the potential significant damage that can be caused by release of energy in the event of overpressurization due to excess pressure or temperature in the vessel.

(5) Verify audible and visual alarms are installed to indicate unsafe conditions.

Page 39 of 46

of 46

Administrator

Typewritten Text

Page 1 of 4

of 46

Administrator

Typewritten Text

Page 2 of 4

of 46

Administrator

Typewritten Text

Page 3 of 4

of 46

Administrator

Typewritten Text

Page 4 of 4

of 43

RHeilman

Text Box

NB14-1001

334

NATIONAL BOARD INSPECTION CODE

PART 2 — INSPECTION SECTION 8

2015

SEC

TIO

N 8

4) Are provided with a pathway that provides a smooth rolling surface to the outdoor, unenclosed fi ll area. There shall not be any stairs or other than minimal inclines in the pathway.

S10.4 FILLBOX LOCATION / SAFETY RELIEF/VENT VALVE CIRCUIT TERMINATION

The Inspector shall verify that fi ll boxes and/or vent valve terminations are installed above grade, outdoors in an unenclosed, free airfl ow area, and that the fi ll connection is located so not to impede means of egress or the operation of sidewalk cellar entrance doors, including during the delivery process and that they are:

1) At least three (3) feet (915 mm) from any door or operable windows;*

2) At least three (3) feet (915 mm) above grade;*

3) Not located within ten (10) feet (3050 mm) from side to side at the same level or below, from any air intakes;*

4) Not located within ten (10) feet (3050 mm) from stair wells that go below grade.*

* Note: Many systems installed prior to 1/1/2014 do not meet the above requirements and the local Jurisdiction should be consulted for guidance.

S10.5 GAS DETECTION SYSTEMS

Rooms or areas where carbon dioxide storage vessel(s) are located indoors or in enclosed or below grade outdoor locations shall be provided with a gas detection and alarm system for general area monitoring that is capable of detecting and notifying building occupants of a CO2 gas release. Alarms will be designed to activate a low level pre-alarm at 1.5% concentration of CO

2 and a full high alarm at 3% concentration of CO2 which

is the NIOSH & ACGIH 15 minute Short Term Exposure Limit for CO2. These systems are not designed for

employee personal exposure monitoring. Gas detection systems shall be installed and tested in accordance with manufactures installation instructions and the following requirements:

a) The Inspector shall verify that the gas detection system and audible alarm is operational and tested in accordance with manufactures guidelines.

b) The Inspector shall verify that audible alarms are placed at the entrance(s) to the room or area where the carbon dioxide storage vessel and/ or fi ll box is located to notify anyone who might try to enter the area of a potential problem.

S10.6 SIGNAGE

The Inspector shall verify that warning signs are posted at the entrance to the building, room, enclosure, or enclosed area where the container is located. The warning sign shall be at least 8 in (200mm) wide and 6 in. (150mm) high. The wording shall be concise and easy to read and the upper portion of the sign must be orange as shown in fi gure NBIC Part 2, Figure S10.6. The size of the lettering must be as large as possible for the intended viewing distance and in accordance with jurisdictional requirements. When no jurisdictional requirements exist, the minimum letter height shall be in accordance with NEMA American National Standard for Environmental and Facility Safety Signs (ANSI Z535.2). The warning signs shall state the following:

15

Page 42 of 43

RHeilman

Text Box

NB14-1905

335

NATIONAL BOARD INSPECTION CODE

PART 2 — INSPECTION SECTION 8

2015

SEC

TIO

N 8

Additional instructional signage shall be posted outside of the area where the container is located andsuch signage shall contain at minimum the following information:

a) Carbon Dioxide Monitors for general area monitoring (not employee personal exposure monitoring) are provided in this area. These monitors are set to alarm at 5,000 ppm(1.5% concentration) for the low level alarm and at 30,000 ppm (3% concentration) for high level alarm.

b) Low Level Alarm (5,000ppm) – Provide appropriate cross ventilation to the area. Personnel may enter area for short periods of time (not to exceed 15 minutes at a time) in order to identify and repair potential leaks.

c) High Level Alarm (30,000ppm) – Personnel should evacuate the area and nobody should enter the af-fected area without proper self-contained breathing apparatus until the area is adequately ventilated and the concentration of CO

2 is reduced below the high alarm limit.

S10.7 VALVES, PIPING, TUBING AND FITTINGS

a) Materials – The Inspector shall verify that the materials selected for valves, piping, tubing, hoses andfi ttings used in the LCDSV system meet following requirements:

1) Components shall be rated for the operational temperatures and pressures encountered in the ap-plicable circuit of the system.

2) All valves and fi ttings used on the LCDSV shall be rated for the maximum allowable working pressure stamped on the tank.

3) All piping, hoses and tubing used in the LCDSV system shall be rated for the working pressureof the applicable circuit in the system and have a burst pressure rating of at least four times the maximum

15 Figure S10.6 CO2 Warning Sign

Page 43 of 43