ML19269D047
| ML19269D047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/02/1979 |
| From: | Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902260624 | |
| Download: ML19269D047 (2) | |
Text
%,
UNITED STATES
,j 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 S
8 February 2,1979
%,*****/
MEMORANDUM FOR: John Davis, Acting Director, IE FROM:
Robert B. Minogue, Director, SD
SUBJECT:
ASME SECTION III CODE INTERPRETATION NRR and SD personnel have evaluated the " Code Statements" enclosed in your memorandum of February 1,1979, on the subject of "ASME Section III Code Interpretation".
Because the specific Code language is ambiguous, our conclusions are based on our understanding of the intent of the Code, supported by phone con #erences with Code representatives, including persons who originally wrote these Code paragraphs.
We agree with some of the proposed " Code Statement?" as written; and have modified others to express our opinion more clearly or more completely.
These specific comments were jointly developed by NRR and SD staff and are included in the enclosure.
They represent staff opinion and should not be considered an official Code interpretation.
A formal request for a Code Case which will establish an official Code interpretation of these paragraphs will be submitted promptly to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Connittee.
l QDw,/ f u.3 Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Standards Development CONTACT:
. Taboada 443-5997 cc:
R ASLB H. Denton 790226o6Af
4 Eosition on Code Statements attached to Memorandum from John G. Davis to H. R. Denton and R. B. Minogue dated February 1,1979.
1.
We concur with this statement 2.
We concur with this statement 3.
We concur with this statement 4.
For reasons of clarification we believe the staterent should read as follows:
"Anindicationofheavyoxidation"(sugaring)onaradiograph is not a cause for rejection by itself unless that condition results in a density change on the film that causes it to be rejected under NB4424(a) and (e) or unless the heavy oxidation encroaches on the required section thickness o/ violates the requirements for reinforcement in NE4426.2."
5.
We believe this statement should read as follows:
"In NB4424(e), 'such conditions' in the second sentence refer to the ' internal root weld conditions' in the first sentence. 'Such conditions' refer to the physical root weld conditions that cause the changes in density in the radiograph which r1.ust be assessed in the interpretation of a film."
6.
We concur in the statement.
However, elongated indications may also be accepted or rejected based on paragraph NE532~'
a