Proceedings of the ASME 2011 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division Conference

PVP2011
July 17-21, 2011, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Proceedings of the 2011 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
PVP2011
July 17-21, 2011, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

PVP2011-57069
PVP2011-57069

RCC-M: CONTENT, WORKING APPROACH

AND FUTURE EVOLUTIONS
Philippe Malouines
(Chairman of the AFCEN RCC-M Subcommittee, 2011) ,
Jean-Marie Grandemange
(Chairman of the AFCEN RCC-M Subcommittee, 2010)
Paris La Defense, France

ABSTRACT
The paper covers the general approach followed by AFCEN,
the French Society for Design, Construction and In-Service
Inspection Rules for Nuclear Island Components, in codes and
standards establishing, from the technical and organizational
points of views. The RCC-M code is the major reference code
existing since the creation of AFCEN.
The presentation highlights how the industrial experience was
integrated into the industrial codes, and how codes evolve
taking into account the evolution of regulations and European
and International standards. Processes for updates,
interpretations and inquiries are addressed.
Recent code evolutions resulting from the New French Nuclear
Pressure Equipment Regulation issued in 2005, as well as from
the project needs, are covered and the content of the addenda
2008, 2009, 2010 to the 2007 RCC-M edition are described.
Future evolutions are also addressed, giving the frame for the
objective of a new RCC-M edition in 2012.
RESUME
La communication couvre l'approche générale suivie par
l’AFCEN, Association Française pour les règles de conception,
de construction et de surveillance en exploitation des matériels
des Chaudières Electro-Nucléaire, pour l'établissement des
codes et normes, des points de vue techniques et
organisationnels. Le RCC-M est le code de référence majeur,
qui existe depuis la création de l’AFCEN.
La présentation met en évidence comment l'expérience
industrielle a été intégrée dans les codes industriels et comment
les codes évoluent en tenant compte de l'évolution des
réglementations et des normes européennes et internationales.
Les processus de mise à jour, et de réponse aux demandes
d'interprétation sont abordés.
Les évolutions récentes du code résultant de la nouvelle
règlementation française des équipements sous pression
nucléaires émise en 2005, ainsi que des besoins des projets,
sont couverts et le contenu des modificatifs 2008, 2009, 2010 à
l'édition 2007 du RCC-M sont décrits. Les évolutions futures
sont également mentionnées, donnant le cadre pour l’objectif
d’une nouvelle edition en 2012.
INTRODUCTION
The creation of AFCEN and the publication of first RCC-M in
1981, is linked with the history of the French Nuclear Industry.
In the context of AFCEN enlargement decided in February
2010, it is necessary to present the evolution of AFCEN
organization based on new status and internal regulations, and
on the new Quality System in conformance with different
requirements of IAEA GS-R- 3 Recommendation [1] . These
new rules affect the activity of the RCC-M Subcommittee and
Working Groups. This constitutes the first part of this paper.
The second objective of this paper is to highlight the main
points introduced in the 2007 edition of the RCC-M, as well as
the content of the first three addenda, issued in 2008, 2009 and
2010. Orientations will also be given on future evolutions, with
the first objective of a new RCC M Edition in 2012.
HISTORICAL REMINDERS AND CREATION OF
AFCEN

1 1 CopyrightCopyright
© 2011 by©ASME
2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 When the French government decided to launch a large nuclear
program in the context of the first petroleum shocks, the
decision was taken to follow an American licence on design
aspects and to meet French and later European practices as far
as procurement, manufacturing and examination were
concerned.
The first three loops and four loops (P4) plants were built
according to this approach, with a lot of practical adaptations
and discussions with the Safety Authority and French Utility
EDF to agree on a consistent practice. This practice was then
proposed for abroad applications, in particular in the context of
the South African Koeberg offer. It appeared that such
approach was difficult to justify in front of clients and foreign
authorities, and that the "photography" of this practice should
be integrated in a consistent set of codes for further contracts.
The leading companies to set rules were the Contractors
Framatome and Novatome (both since integrated in Areva), and
the Utility EDF. Component manufacturers were associated to
provide inputs or advices but were not involved in the decision-
making process. The RCC-M thus obtained was in 1979 the
contractual basis of the second set of four loops plants (P'4).
When all the conditions were met for a successful completion
of codes, it was decided to create specific organizations not
involved in the contractual relationships to manage code
establishing and evolution. The AFCEN was then created in
October 1980 to act in the Nuclear field.
Following the AFCEN establishing, rules developed jointly by
EDF and Framatome were issued as the 1981 RCC-M edition,
applied to the Korean Ulchin project including the june 1981
addendum. Successive editions of the RCC-M followed in
1983 (1984 addendum referred to for the N4 series contract),
1985 (edition applied to the Chinese Daya Bay 1 and 2
contract), 1988, 1993 (1994 addendum referred to for Ling Ao
1 and 2 contract), 2000 (2002 addendum applied for Finland
OL3 project), and 2007 applied to the Flamanville 3 and
Taishan 1-2 EPRTM projects.
RCC-M CONTENT AND STRUCTURE
The general structure of the RCC-M [2] is presented in Figure
1. In compiling the RCC-M, an analogy was deliberately
created between its structure and that of the ASME Code –
Section III – Division 1 and related sections, so that persons
working with either of these codes could find the
correspondence between them with minimum possible
confusion. Differences come essentially from the fact that the
RCC-M scope is reduced compared to the whole set of ASME
codes. When correspondence is given with RCC-M sections
(for materials, welding and NDE) in Figure 2, this applies only
for equipment of nuclear islands. For other components
(conventional boilers, pressure vessels and piping), these topics
are covered in the applicable non-nuclear codes and standards
(such as EN standards).
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
ENLARGEMENT OF AFCEN
Founders of AFCEN worked together in many fields of the
Code, but one needed a special agreement: the development of
EPRTM , for which specific partnership was established: with
German nuclear companies, French and German Authority for
safety assessment of the new PWR.
Meanwhile European Regulators were active, and a Pressure
Equipment Directive (PED) n° 97/23/EC [5] was launched in
1997. Due to the exclusion of nuclear pressure equipment of
the scope of PED, French Regulators complete the
transposition of PED in France [7], by a specific Order dated
December 12th, 2005 called “ESPN Order” [6]. Later, the
French Parliament voted a Law in June 2006, to create an
independent structure acting as a Nuclear Safety Agency
(ASN), and the law imposes an objective of “Transparency in
Nuclear Safety”.
In this context, it was an important stake for Afcen to
demonstrate its capabilities to address compliance with new
regulation (ESPN Order [6]) and to issue rules adaptable to any
Utilities or Suppliers, answering safety requirements in full
transparency.
Now, AFCEN has the status and internal regulation of an open
association of legal entities “Members” under French law, with
representative of members acting in various committees and
sub-committees: see organization chart and sub-committees
scopes in Figure 3.
The Training Committee defines how codes can be teach and
by whom, with a validation by Afcen.
The Editing Committee coordinates codes publication,
reviews them, and defines common action or common scopes
in codes. As an example, quality assurance and safety approach
must be covered on the same basis for each Afcen code.
The Quality manager is responsible to lead the
implementation of quality policy defined by Chairperson and
Board of Governor. This policy is presently based on ISO 9001
2008 and main requirements of IAEA GS-R-3 2006.
Sub-Committees: each sub committee is in charge of one set
of rules related to nuclear facilities, as indicated in the bottom
of Figure 3. AFCEN does not codify item or services which are
not used in nuclear facilities.
Working groups are organized per codes structures; each sub-
committee defines the functioning rules between sub committee
and working groups, in the frame of objectives indicated in
common Afcen quality manual and processes.
The status of AFECN was recorded under French Law of 1901
concerning Association in February 2010, with associated
internal regulations of the association. In February 2011, the
quality organization based under NF EN IS0 9001: 1995, has
been renewed to be based on requirements for Nuclear
Management System of IAEA GS-R-3:2006.
2 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

WORKING METHOD
The orientations retained led to working groups taking the
"photography" of actual and current practices plus anticipated
progresses with the objective to obtain rules which could be
applied without derogations. The rules should be sufficiently
precise so as to present no risks of diverging interpretations and
should permit to reach a high quality at the right cost.
Groups chaired by a contractor and a utility representative were
asked to reach a technical consensus on these grounds. In order
to solve difficulties, a "Resolution" committee was established.
After AFCEN creation on October 19, 1980, the resolution
committee became the RCC-M sub-committee and the editing
committee was established to cover the various codes issued by
AFCEN with the objective to harmonize the various codes
evolutions.
Modification requests may be issued by every user or by the
AFCEN members themselves depending on industrial needs. In
preparing the code evolutions, the AFCEN committees rely on
development results and integrate plant experience feedback,
taking advantage of the centralized organization of the French
nuclear industry [3].
Requests are first analyzed by the dedicated working group
depending on the topic (design, materials, manufacturing,
examination...). A proposal for code modification is defined by
an agreement representing the consensus of the working group;
this proposal is then approved by the RCC-M subcommittee, or
re-debated if the code organization or the technical aspects are
fully reviewed in the proposal. In case an agreement is not
reached on the working group proposal, a revised instruction
sheet is issued and analyzed again by the working group. When
an agreement is obtained in the RCC-M subcommittee, a
modification sheet to the code is prepared by the technical
secretariat of the Sub-committee on the basis of this agreement.
This Sheet is verified by the working group leaders and the
Sub-committee Chairman, then approved by the President of
the Editing committee, and issued by the General Secretary by
delegation of the AFCEN Board of Directors. Discussion by the
Board is only needed in cases of significant evolutions, for
example the issuing of a new Section.
All these activities are led according to rules described in the
AFCEN Quality Manual. Yearly, the set of issued modification
sheets are gathered in an Addendum, which is published. The
addendum lists the modification sheets which are included, as
well as the concerned chapters. There cannot be a single
modification – even on details – included in RCC-M addenda,
unless it has been subjected to the complete process of
modification request – modification sheet instruction. When a
new edition of the code is issued, it is strictly the sum of the
previous one as modified by the successive addenda (which
means by the successive modification sheets).
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
These evolutions are presented periodically to the French
Safety Authority. There are no more formal approval of codes,
which are never mandatory, and the French Fundamental Safety
Rule are not updated in the new regulatory context. Meanwhile,
the code assessment facilitates the conformity assessment of
equipments on topics covered by the code, and the French
authority has charged an independent third party to assess if the
RCC-M 2007 plus Ad08 and Ad09 requirements, define an
adequate frame for a manufacturer to comply with essential
safety requirements of French regulations.
The results of this work are expected end of 2011, and will be a
great support for any RCC-M users, as it will allow to avoid
each times the demonstration of the technical grounds of the
code in front of the new regulation.
Interpretation requests are discussed by the working groups,
which issue directly an answer transmitted to the requestor.
Instructions are periodically presented to the RCC-M
subcommittee. Interpretations were not edited, although this
will evolve according to new user needs. Equally, there were no
RCC-M "Code cases" until now; this might change in the
future do to enlargement of AFCEN.
Some modification requests may necessitate an evaluation of
their consequences. This is in particular the case when a
reference to a new standard is proposed, or for the development
of a new rule. In such case, a specific enquiry may be
addressed to potential suppliers and, where appropriate, an
AFCEN development study may be decided.
The various "instruction sheets" used during the request
analysis process are signed by two AFCEN founding members.
These signatures testify that a consensus was obtained within
the group on the chosen decision. A consensus is considered as
being reached if no participant expresses an explicit
disagreement with the proposal.
As a general rule, the process of RCC-M preparation and
updating remains consistent with the initial orientations,
although it evolves to reflect the evolution of the AFCEN status
and organization, in particular concerning the participation of
external experts and new members representatives.
On standards evolution, one has to remind that the RCC-M
refers to more than 200 standards (Table A 1300). More and
more of these standards become European or ISO standards,
and it is the policy of AFCEN to refer as far as possible to
recognized international standards. Standards concern
materials, examination methods, qualification of processes or
personnel, etc. In case of evolution, one has to evaluate the
potential consequences and to adapt the code. In some cases,
for example the new procurement standard has not the same
scope as the old one, leading to prepare self-contained
specifications in case of need of a practice no more covered by
the new standard. In case of examination method evolution,
one has to adapt the associated criteria so as to maintain an
equivalent level of quality.
3 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
 EVOLUTION OF EUROPEAN AND FRENCH
REGULATORY CONTEXT
As mentioned previously, the RCC-M was initially developed
in the 70s and 80s on the basis of actual applications. Since
1989, in the context of the French-German agreement which
did lead to the EPRTM development, common rules were
developed from the French RCC-M and German KTA, leading
to a project code “ETC-M (EPR Technical Code – Mechanical
components)” [4]. This work later led to modification requests
in order to integrate in the RCC-M practices which are
proposed for the EPRTM project. The 2007 edition did integrate
several of these proposals as well as an adaptation of the RCC-
M to the new European and French regulatory context, which
did evolve in 2005[6] in the nuclear field, as explained below.
From the regulatory point of view, discussions were conducted
in Europe during several years to harmonize regulatory
requirements with the objective to suppress trade barriers
within the European Union. It appeared necessary to avoid
trying to harmonize all detailed technical regulations in Europe
and to focus, following a "New Approach" defined from a
Resolution of May 7, 1985 of the European Council, on
"Essential requirements" formulated in general terms, on which
agreements could more easily be obtained. As a result, such an
approach did lead to two important consequences:
- A more important weight given to the standards which can
provide rules consistent with these essential requirements.
Among these standards, "harmonized standards" issued
through the European Committee for Standardization (CEN)
provide a "presumption of conformity" to the essential legal
requirements in the directives;
- An important role given to independent bodies, approved
through a common process by the National states and
"notified" to the European Commission, which assess the
conformity with the essential requirements in the directives.
In the particular case of pressure equipment, this process did
lead to the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) dated May 29,
1997 [5]. Nevertheless, being issued in a context where nuclear
safety aspects remain under the responsibility of National
states, nuclear pressure equipments were considered outside the
scope of the PED, allowing every national body to issue
specific nuclear safety regulations. Generally, PED essential
requirements remain nevertheless the minimum grounds for
nuclear safety related equipment, safety rules taking
precedence in case of conflict.
In France, the same approach was followed under the form of a
specific Order dated December 12, 2005 [6], which refers to
the December 13, 1999 Decree [7] transposing the PED in the
French regulation, and supplement this Decree on topics
covering safety aspects and potential radioactive releases.
In order to satisfy these requirements, any specific industrial
codes and standards can be applied, subject to a justification
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
demonstrating conformance with the essential requirements in
the regulation; alternatively, a reference to harmonized
standards may be chosen, completed where necessary in the
nuclear field to fulfill specific rules in the nuclear regulation.
The choice between the applicable approaches depends on the
following aspects:
- the practices which are well mastered by the manufacturers,
and the available operation experience,
- the standard character of the application,
- the amount of complementary provisions to be added on a
given standard to fulfill the needs,
- the amount of justifications needed to guarantee
conformance with essential requirements.
This leads to maintaining existing industrial codes such as
RCC-M when rules are well adapted to the applications under
consideration, and to retain a more open attitude toward using
other nuclear codes or harmonized standards appropriately
supplemented, where more standard applications are
concerned.
According to Order [6], nuclear pressure equipments are
classified in three groups, N1 to N3 depending on the
radiological consequences of a potential failure:
- N1 group includes the Main Primary and Secondary
Systems of light water reactors, except for small pipes, and
equipment the failure of which is not considered in the
safety reports. The RCC-M class 1 rules are well adapted to
these components,
- N2 group includes components the failure of which would
lead to an important activity release. Small N1 primary and
secondary piping are subjected to the same technical
requirements. RCC-M class 2 rules are well adapted to these
components, as well as the corresponding KTA and ASME
III NC provisions,
- N3 group includes nuclear equipment not classified N1 or
N2, which could lead to a significant radioactivity release.
For these equipments, the pressure risk is the most
significant and harmonized standards may be used, provided
they are supplemented to cover radioactivity prevention
aspects.
The applicable technical prescriptions are the essential
requirements of the PED supplemented by specific 2005 Order
demands, the additional requirements being significant for N1
equipment and more limited for N2 and N3 equipment.
Specific provisions cover:
- The hazards analyses, which have to be consistent with the
Safety Report,
- The design, which shall cover the various damage risks,
including irradiation effects,
4 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
 - The manufacturing, which shall meet stringent requirements
for N1 equipments, in particular part technical
qualifications, to cover consequences of heterogeneities on
required material properties,
- Surface and volumetric examinations, which shall cover
100% of surface and volume of N1 and N2 equipment,
- Material properties, which shall meet minimum (elongation
at fracture, toughness) or maximum (ultimate tensile
strength) values given for various grade families in
appendices specific to each equipment group: figure 10.
Obviously, if one intends to issue a code consistent with the
applicable regulation, the above regulatory provisions shall
lead to code updating. This was one of the important aspects of
the 2007 edition of the Code.
THE 2007 EDITION OF THE RCC-M
General: As previously mentioned, Codes continuously
evolve, taking into account technical and industrial progresses,
new needs, standards updating and regulatory evolutions. The
2007 RCC-M edition did integrate the 2000 edition plus 2002,
2005 and 2007 addenda. This edition intends in particular to
facilitate the conformity assessment process to the regulatory
demands.
The first consequence of the European PED was a clarification
of the presentation of the RCC-M structure and the suppression
of the classification rules which did lead to upgrading the RCC-
M class to class 3 or class 2 for components subjected to high
pressure, temperature, or cyclic loading conditions, even where
they were not safety classified. This could be in contradiction
with the PED and an evolution was judged appropriate taking
into account the progress made in the non-nuclear field on
these topics. As a consequence, consideration of fatigue risk is
included in the specific subsections in a technically equivalent
way.
The second consequence comes from the 2005 Order [6],
which classifies in the same N1 level the Main Primary and
Secondary Systems of PWR. The RCC-M is consequently
updated to allow constructing the Main Secondary System
according to Class 1 or to Class 2 rules, depending on the
regulatory context.
On technical aspects, an assessment of the compatibility of the
nuclear codes with the PED and 2005 Order was conducted,
which led to Code evolution or on the preparation of
justification showing that RCC-M provisions are compatible
with regulatory demands, in particular where the PED allows to
use "appropriate measures to achieve an equivalent overall
level of safety". This concerns in particular allowable stresses.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Concerning conformance with regulation, the RCC-M
integrates provisions in the main part of the code each time
such provisions can be applied whatever the regulatory context.
For provisions specific to a given country or set of countries,
non mandatory appendices are prepared:
- To give the correspondence between regulatory provisions
and code provisions,
- To provide additional requests when a given regulation has
to be applied.
This approach allows flexibility in adapting a RCC-M practice
to various regulatory contexts. It could be extended, if the need
arises, to other national contexts.
New definitions and new documents requested by the
regulation, such as the hazard analysis and the installation and
operation instructions have also been covered.
A new subsection P was also added in the code to cover
containment penetrations. In its present stage, this subsection
only provides a reference to the other applicable sections of the
code for the design and construction of the various penetration
elements.
Materials and procurement: The structure of the RCC-M
material section is given in Figure 6. Additional materials are
included in the 2007 edition, covering EPRTM project needs.
This concerns equivalent materials to existing RCC-M grades,
or new grades needed for the project. New specifications cover
in particular alternatives to 17.4PH martensitic grade for
application beyond 250°C, in view of thermal ageing
prevention, carbon steel tubes made of P235GH, P265GH and
P355NH grades for secondary system application, forged
carbon steel parts and fittings for secondary and auxiliary
applications, and forged tubes and elbows made from
controlled nitrogen content austenitic stainless steel grades for
primary and auxiliary applications.
Procurement criteria have been updated to be in conformance
with regulatory demands, in particular on mechanical
properties, especially elongation at fracture and toughness
(figure 10), and extent of examinations.
French regulatory provisions require a part qualification where
risks of heterogeneity of material properties are identified, in
order to master the consequences of potential differences
between actual part properties and measurements made on
procurement samples. This assessment is conducted according
to an approach of hazards analysis of the part. The approach
which was at the root of the so-called RCC-M M.140 Part
qualification process is adapted to the new regulatory approach.
Design and analysis:
One point to mention is the introduction of new chapters B, C
and D.6000 on overpressure protection in the 2007 addendum.
These chapters cover a scope equivalent to the one in the
5 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
 ASME III code, and are consistent with the French and
European regulations, referring where appropriate to European
standards.
In the 2007 edition, pressure test values in chapters B, C, and D
5000 are directly linked to new French regulation [6]. The
minimum pressure test value is increased (for class 1) and
decreased (for class 2 and 3) to 1.43 times the design pressure,
according to PED. The second regulatory factor to be applied is
equal to 1.25 multiplied by the ratio of the allowable stress at
test temperature over the design stress at design temperature.
This second condition may potentially lead to higher test
pressure values. In case of difficulty, where the pressure test
could govern the dimensioning of the equipment, the consensus
found in the context of the European harmonized standards is
applied, allowing reducing the test pressure at a value
consistent with the allowable stress of the material. These
mandatory values have been switched in annexes ZZ and ZY in
2008 addendum, to keep the adequacy with ASME III pressure
test value in the core part of the code.
The design complements also concern the evolution of stress
classification rules, in particular the consideration of seismic
loads, which is discussed in [11]. The approach introduced in
the RCC-M is the following. Before seismic (or other specified
reversible dynamic) loads are introduced in equation (9) of
B.3652 for class 1 and equation (10) of C.3654 for class 2
components, the primary part of the inertial part of the resulting
moments shall be identified. This primary part may be directly
taken as equal to the computed moment when the damping
ratio is higher than 10%, and a reduction factor may be applied
to the computed moment subject to justification if the damping
ratio is lower. There is consequently a balance between the
developments which may be undertaken to justify a higher
value for the damping ratio and the developments which can
justify a less severe stress classification rule. The two points of
views are linked. This applies if a linear response spectrum
analysis is used, as stress classification has only a meaning in
the context of elastic analyses. Another condition is given in
the code: such analysis shall use widely broadened spectra.
Fast fracture prevention rules cover brittle (non ductile) failure
and ductile tearing. Based on experience, criteria are given
which allow avoiding an explicit evaluation at design stages
when thresholds on materials and/or loadings are met. When an
analysis is conducted, criteria applied are consistent with a
margin of 2 on instability risks in normal and upset conditions,
1.6 in emergency conditions, 1.2 in faulted conditions. These
criteria are verified considering conventional defects with a
depth of 1/2 or 1/4 the wall thickness depending on wall
thickness, with an upper limit of 20 mm on defect depth. No
crack arrest is allowed at design stage.
Evolutions of fatigue rules concern the updating of prevention
rules in thermal mixing zones and the introduction of specific
material fatigue curves applicable in crack-like discontinuities,
such as partial penetration welds. An alternative approach
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
referring to conventional S-N curves is also permitted provided
a plastic correction and a reduction factor are applied to local
stress ranges calculated near the discontinuity
Fabrication and examination: The structures of Sections
III, IV and V of the RCC-M are given in Figures 7, 8 and 9
respectively. RCC-M fabrication and examination provisions
have evolved in parallel with the European standardization.
Some alternative possibilities can be addressed in the
specification, covering in particular ultrasonic examination
using the so-called tandem technique examination, qualification
of filler materials, or cleanliness practices.
In the particular case of welding qualifications, self-contained
RCC-M prescriptions are replaced by a reference to EN and
ISO standards, supplemented by additional prescriptions to
reach an equivalent level of guarantee. This approach was
developed in particular in [8]. Qualification provisions based
on industrial experience have been maintained in the code on
aspects not currently covered by harmonized standards, in
particular on cladding, tube to tube plate welding, canopy or
omega joints, socket welds in piping and friction welding.
In addition, a complete revision of S.8000 on hard facing was
necessary to cover Cobalt-free processes. In the first editions of
the RCC-M, this chapter was self-contained. It was later taken
as the basis for the NF M 64-100 standard to which the
following RCC-M editions did refer. The new edition is again
self-contained and integrates new Iron-based and Nickel-based
alloys grades, thus avoiding the risk of Cobalt and
consequently radioactive release during operation.
CONTENT OF THE 2008 ADDENDUM
The first addendum to the 2007 edition of the RCC-M has been
issued at the end of 2008. It incorporates the following
evolutions:
General: There are few evolutions on RCC-M structure,
except one concerning appendices, where it did appear
desirable, in order to prepare the possibility of issuing
appendices dedicated to various regulatory contexts, to group
every concern related to a given context in a single appendix.
This did lead to group Appendices ZU and ZZ, which were
separate appendices in the 2007 edition, in a single appendix
ZZ dedicated to the European PED, and to similarly group
appendices ZT and ZY in a single appendix ZY dedicated to the
French ESPN Order [6].
Each of these updated appendices ZY and ZZ, as well as others
under preparation, includes a section giving the correspondence
between code provisions and regulatory demands, in order to
facilitate the assessment of conformance with the regulation,
and a section covering the provisions to be specified in addition
to the basic RCC-M requirements.
As mentioned above, technical provisions which could be
generalized to all equipments are integrated in the basic RCC-
6 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
 M sections, whereas specific regulatory aspects are integrated
in non mandatory appendices, applicable (or not) depending on
regulatory context. In application of this approach, it was
judged necessary to split pressure test requirements between
the basic B, C and D.5000 chapters and the appendices ZY and
ZZ updated according to the recent European and French
regulations. Two main reasons justify this choice:
- First of all, some components may be ordered according to
the previous regulations, which may be in conflict with the
new ones (individual test pressure of 1.33 Pd instead of 1.43
Pd for the primary system, 1.5 Pd instead of 1.43 Pd for the
secondary system, for example in France).
- In addition, previous RCC-M B, C or D.5000 requirements
could be in conflict with practices applicable in foreign
countries, in particular where individual tests are covered by
system tests (as is the case of piping systems). System tests
conducted according to RCC-M could in this case be in
conflict with individual equipment tests performed in shop,
where such equipment is built according to another practice
and installed in the system.
In cases where there is no justification for different test
practices in different countries based on differences of quality,
AFCEN has estimated that such regulatory practices should be
shifted to in non-mandatory appendices (ZZ for PED, ZY for
ESPN Order), and that the basic test provisions in the
mandatory sections should limit themselves to be consistent
with internationally recognized practices (in this case, the 1.25
Pd test specified in the ASME III code). The basic test
provision in RCC-M 2008 is consequently consistent with
ASME Section III, and eventual supplementary provisions shall
be specified according to the regulation in force in the
concerned country. From this point of view, the RCC-M is now
in the same position as the ASME code.
Test provisions to be made in application of the PED (and the
ESPN order referring to it) have also evolved in the 2008
addendum. According to the 2007 edition, the test pressure to
be applied is the maximum value of:
- 1.43 times the design pressure,
- 1.25 multiplied by the ratio of the allowable stress at test
temperature over the design stress at design temperature.
In case several materials are used for a given pressure
equipment, the highest value of the allowable stresses had to be
taken into account. As this second condition may potentially
lead to high test pressure values, in case of difficulty, where the
pressure test could govern the dimensioning of the equipment,
the test pressure may be reduced to a value consistent with the
allowable stress of the material.
This proved to be a rather complicated process, and a
consensus was obtained at European level on a more simplified
rule, which led to a modification of EN 13445 Standard [9].
This rule consists in using the lower value of the allowable
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
stress ratio in determining the second condition governing the
test pressure determination. It has also been introduced in the
RCC-M in its new place, i.e. in Appendix ZZ.
Other provisions, such as third parties intervention,
identification of equipment, or procurement certificates, remain
unchanged.
Materials and procurement: The development of material
selection and procurement conditions constitutes a significant
part of the 2008 addendum content. These modifications may
be classified in several groups:
The first set is related to the introduction of a new 20MND5
low alloy steel grade for large primary equipment construction.
This allows procurements capable of fulfilling RCC-M and
ASME provisions, in particular where an industrial anticipation
is appropriate. This concerns in particular steam generators and
pressurizers.
Another modification source is the integration of evolutions of
standards referred to in the code. Other evolutions concern
regulatory conformance of material properties (on A%, Rm or
KV), which were identified after 2007 edition issuing, such as
in the general paragraphs of section II (M.100, M.200, M.300),
and in procurement specifications M.3317. Provisions on
ultrasonic examination of forged parts are also covered, as well
as final surface examination of class 1 parts, and inclusion
cleanliness provisions in appendix ZY to conform to the
regulation.
The other evolutions are essentially dedicated to facilitating
code use (improvement of M.3402 specification, conditions for
surge line bending in M.3321), integrating experience lessons
(suppression of toughness provisions where inappropriate in
M.3405, use of grades for valve rods above 250°C in M.5110),
or optimizing technical provisions, for example where bars are
procured according to M.2312 in an intermediate state, before
final heat treatments, or to cover the possibility of polishing
steam generators tubes using an automatic process
(specification M.4103).
Design and analysis: Code evolutions related to design
aspects concern writing improvements on weld design
provisions in subsections B, C, and related references in
sections IV and V on welding and fabrication, introduction of
flexibility on using other design examples than those described
in the code for openings, and complements on B.3500 pressure-
temperature series for valves referring to updated material
grades.
B, C and D.6000 on overpressure protection have been updated
following industry comments on these new chapters introduced
in 2007 edition. It has to be reminded that these new chapters
cover a scope equivalent to the one in the ASME III code, and
are consistent with the French and European regulations,
referring where appropriate to European standards.
7 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
 Appendix Z.II on experimental analysis has been updated to
take into account the work done in the context of French-
German code comparisons. The basic technical provisions
remain similar, but the appendix structure is improved.
In subchapters B, C and D.3100, a clearer presentation of the
relation between plant conditions and component conditions (or
between conditions and level of criteria to be applied to a given
component depending on its intended function during such
condition) has been introduced. The text makes clear that an
engineering decision has to be taken in particular for
emergency systems the "design condition" of which is to act
during a faulted plant condition, thus clarifying responsibilities:
the design of nuclear pressure equipments shall take into
account the loading conditions specified by the Utility, which is
in charge of the overall plant safety and consequently of the
Safety Report. Applicable criteria are function of the role of the
equipment in a given plant condition and shall be specified to
the manufacturer. They are input data for the RCC-M
application.
In updating this subchapter, AFCEN took the opportunity to
better describe the structure of the design sections of the code,
and to prepare the re-introduction for class 1 equipment of the
level B criteria level, leaving to the non-mandatory appendices
the responsibility to introduce limitation of use of such level if
required by the applicable regulation, following the approach
previously described in this paper for pressure tests.
Examples of load combinations as well as writing
improvements in the paragraphs on corrosion or consideration
of cladding have also been introduced.
Fabrication and examination: As explained above, one of
the most important evolutions included in the 2007 edition was
the reference to EN-ISO standards for welding qualification,
instead of the previous self-contained provisions, and the re-
integration of chapter S.8000 on hard-facing in order to cover
Cobalt-free processes.
Evolutions integrated in the 2008 addendum are more limited.
They are mainly the result of standards evolution, of evolutions
in other code sections, or consist in text improvement for a
better consistency of technical provisions. One can mention in
particular:
- updating of grouping of low-alloy steel grades,
- revision of toughness requirements for a better consistency,
- text corrections on follow-up documents,
- range of validity of welders qualifications for nozzles welds.
Some evolutions are the result of experience, in particular:
- the introduction of flexibility on Iron content for hard-
facing, subject to contractor approval,
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
- the non-mandatory character of qualifications for temporary
welds subject to the justification that all consequences of
such welds are removed,
- the possibility to keep the root passes in case a weld done
using an automatic process shall be completely repaired.
Radiographic examination conditions for high wall thicknesses
have also been updated in order to reduce the exposure time to
an acceptable value while keeping adequate quality guarantees.
CONTENT OF THE 2009 ADDENDUM
The second addendum was prepared at the end of 2009. It
introduced the following changes:
General: Some improvements have been integrated, in
particular on the status of attachments, following French-
German discussions, and the conditions for acceptability of
parts or products ordered according to previous editions.
The most important evolution is the updating of the A.5000
chapter on Quality Assurance, which takes into account the
recent revisions of ISO 9001 2008 standards as well as
important requirements of the IAEA recommandation GS-R-
3/2006. The integration of a reference to Safety culture shall be
noted. This safety culture has to be explained to all levels of
personal involved in the process of elaboration of equipment
concerned by safety. All supplier of parts are concerned. These
information must be recorded and demonstrated to external
auditors.
Another important point which can, sometimes, smooths this
quality requirement is the grading of the management system
requirements, according to:
- the significance and complexity of each product or activity;
- the hazards and the magnitude of the potential impact (risks)
associated with the safety, health, environmental, security,
quality and economic elements of each product or activity;
- the possible consequences if a product fails or an activity is
carried out incorrectly.
This grading of the application of management system
requirements shall be applied to the products and activities of
each process.
Nevertheless, one of the important scope of GS-R-3 concerning
integrated management, which covers the safety incidence of all
economical decisions of the organism through the nuclear
management system, is dealt with this addendum.
This chapter A.5000 will be updated in the next years
following AFCEN discussions in the context of the RCC-MRx
under preparation for application to Fast Breeder and
Experimental Reactors, bur also to have a common approach
with other AFCEN codes in preparation.
Materials and procurement: evolutions deal with the
introduction of new procurement specifications, in particular
RPV nozzle shell with integrated flange and Nickel-Chromium-
8 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
 Molybdenum bars. Prescriptions were also updated where
necessary following the evolution of standards.
Several evolutions concern non destructive examinations. The
first one deals with grain size specifications; flexibility has
been introduced allowing to meet inspectability objectives. In
the same field, surface finish provisions have been transferred
from the Section II of the code to section III where they were
governed by inspection objectives. Requirements for
verification of final surfaces have also been re-evaluated
following the evolution of the French regulation on Nuclear
Pressure Equipment.
Design and analysis: evolutions cover several
improvements of writing of class 3 design rules for piping and
valves, the non-mandatory status of the sizing rule for class 2
pipe bends, pressure test conditions, precisions on applicable
stress indices and flexibility factors, the extension of B.3500
valve design charts in order to integrate all materials likely to
be used for class 1 applications, and the introduction of
complements on stress criteria for supports in the various
loading conditions.
The text on the consideration of differences between actual and
nominal dimensions has also been improved, and the improved
plastic strain correction factor (Ke) used for fatigue calculation
allowing a combination of corrections adapted to thermal and
mechanical loads has been extended to Nickel base alloys.
Last but not least, the safety coefficient between material
ultimate tensile strength and allowable stress S was changed
from 4 to 3.5 in Appendix Z.III and the tables of allowable
stresses in Appendix Z.I were updated accordingly. This change
follows the trend introduced by the ASME code for the
determination of allowable stresses S. A factor of 3 was
justified by AFCEN [10] taking into account the precautions
applied in case a risk of fatigue is identified, nevertheless the
final choice was retained in order to improve code
harmonization at an international level.
Fabrication and examination: as for the other sections, the
updating of standards has been taken into account. Provisions
on welding procedure qualifications have been updated on the
effect of thermal treatments on WPQ range of approval, or
developed on electron beam welding. Consideration of
thicknesses of parts to be welded for the determination of stress
relieving heat treatment need has also been revised.
Aspects linked to regulatory conformance have also been
considered, in particular on tensile strength of filler materials.
Non-destructive examination requirements have been updated,
in particular on radiographic examination of class 3 socket
welds, examination of surfaces to be welded on buttering, Eddy
current examination apparatus, and roughness requirements for
ultrasonic examinations. Sizes of parts to be welded for the
constitution of welding production coupons have also been
revised to be consistent with the non destructive examination
needs.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
CONTENT OF THE 2010 ADDENDUM
The third addendum was prepared in 2010 and is published
now in French and English. It covers 35 modification sheets,
balanced between materials and procurement (10 sheets),
design and analysis (12 sheets) and fabrication (11 sheets). This
addendum has no impact on generals requirements, and
examination, due to the reasons detailed in following
paragraph.
General: Definitions used in A 2000 are now used on a daily
basis with different projects: EPR™, and repairs and spare
parts for installed base of nuclear equipment. These definitions
have been changed in the 2007 addendum to be compatible
with European and French new regulatory framework, without
being in contradiction with international practices, which
generally use ASME wording. Of course each national nuclear
regulation defines who is responsible of what, but it’s important
that the code doesn’t add confusion in the meaning of words.
Typically: “Constructor”, “Manufacturer”, “Component”,
“Assembly”, “Pressure system”, “Control”, “Inspection”,
“Surveillance or survey”… are concepts with various scope,
depending of the legal or standardization frames. This chapter
will probably need further improvements, when feedback of
experience and international code comparisons will be
achieved.
Equivalent considerations took place for chapter A 3000
(Documentation). For example, the scope and use of equipment
specification is not identical, as it is in other codes: design
specification, certification, design report, certification and
validation by Professional Engineer. RCC M doesn’t impose
such process, but all national regulations have requirements on
that purpose. To avoid a too large extension of the scope of
equipment specification, the definition in A3102 will be
clarified in the future. This will be part of a larger process
launched by AFCEN: RCC-M is assessed by French Authority
and third party, to determine which requirements answer to
French regulation, and which part of RCC-M needs
supplementary requirements, in code itself, or in equipment
specification, to be recognized as completely compliant with
French nuclear regulation [6].
Concerning chapter A5000 on Quality, AFCEN has established
dedicated working group to issue common rules for the
approach of Nuclear Management System for every AFCEN
Code. This working group analyses the implementation of the
requirements of IAEA Recommendation GS-R-3[1] for quality
activities. This work was not finished in 2010 to review the
existing chapter A 5000, already modified with some GS-R-3
requirements in 2009. In addition, AFCEN had to analyze the
new document NSQ100 “Nuclear safety and quality
management system-Model for quality management in design,
development, manufacturing, erection, commissioning and
related services” [12]. This quality certification document is
9 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
 compatible with NQA-1 and IAEA GS-R-3, and could satisfy A
5000 objectives.
Here again, time is necessary to define how further revision of
code could be improved with these requirements.
Materials and procurement: Different modification sheets
are issued to improve the wording of Section II: now uses
“determination” instead of “verification” for example, the
wording of paragraph M.225 is clearer, the data in appendix ZI
on material properties have been corrected: sampling
conditions have also been harmonized. New values have been
added in appendix ZI for grade NC 15 FeTNbA covered in M
4102 and M 4104. More than a clarification, M 111.2 clearly
allows an Authorized Representative of Main Manufacturer to
perform the surveillance of “RCC-M Stocks”, in the condition
already defined in the code. Concerning drop weight tests for
determination of TNDT, provisions have been harmonized for
main primary system parts. For Part Procurement Specification
of M 2000, surface examination has also been harmonized, and
magnetic examination is now generally possible as an
alternative of liquid penetrant examination. Last, tensile testing
at room temperature refers to international standard NF EN ISO
6892-1, rather than European NF EN 10002-1 (MC 1211).
Design and analysis: one important modification sheet
concerns the calculation of steam generator tubes under
external pressure. This situation may appears in certain
circumstances, and appendix ZIV refers now as an alternative,
to a new appendix ZM applicable to Ni-base alloy, with
conditions on diameter and out-of-roundness. Another
modification concerns the recommendation applicable to areas
where a rapid temperature fluctuation due to the coexistence of
fluids at significantly different temperatures generates specific
loads. In class 1 and 2, main manufacturer must perform an
analysis, and consequently considers even if an in-service
periodic examination could be required. Two modification
sheets deal with pressure test, and compatibility of RCC-M and
ASME requirements: for pressure test, criteria of level T for
class 2/3 equipment have been updated, and for pressure gauge
scale, the range of use of the pressure gauge has been restricted
to be acceptable with ASME requirements and harmonized
European standards requirements (EN 13445, 13480,…).
Concerning flanges, main modification is the introduction of
formulas already referenced in ASME and European standards
for gasket seating, in ZV.200 and ZV.120. For calculation of
welding joints, proposals for ETC-M (EPR Technical Code-
Mechanical parts) are introduced in B 3300. For pressure
accessories (valves), external loads to be taken into account
(B3500, C3553, Annex ZF) have been clarified, in particular
where actual loads transmitted by piping are considered.
Fabrication and examination: Concerning fabrication, a
small change has been included in chapter E (E 4370), for the
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
gap between the end of the male tube and the bottom of the
socket prior to the welding, which must be approximately 1,5
mm, rather than 1,5 mm minimum. Temperature for pH in F
6440 and annex F III, has been précised for a temperature of
25°C.
Many modifications concern welding techniques, in particular
the technical consequences of reference to NF EN 15614. SI
240 is deleted. S3200 is précised, for heat treatment in group 1
and 3 of materials. S 7434 is adapted taking into account heat
supply in the domain of validity of the WPS. S 3200 is
modified concerning the case of re validation of WPS when
change in the root shield (§ 8.4.14) is introduced. One
modification concerns the qualification of welders (S 4235)
related to tests to be performed for angle welds. Two
modifications are related to cladding: harmonization of
simulations of repairs requirements for cladding (S 3640- S
3740), in particular for diameter of filler material. In B 4440 e),
cladding requirements are clarified for production welds, when
the mechanical strength of the buttering is used in the design.
In the same paragraph in f) and g), as the grade 20 MND 5 has
been included in past modification, the risk due to cold
cracking during heat treatment for cladding or reheat treatment
has also to be considered. Last, consistency of non destructive
examination required by welding has been performed in S
3000 for WPS, with forwarding to S 7700 instead of S 7710.
In general for Examination, one modification took place in the
code. It concerns UT examination of butt welding with a
refraction angle of 70°, when the first angle of examination is
45° (MC 2634.1). This examination may be limited to a
maximum depth of 50 to 80 mm, this depth being analyzed on a
case by case basis, taking into account thickness and
accessibility of examination. (Other modifications on
examination are covered in paragraph “Materials and
procurement”). Some studies are presently performed (TOFD
and multi-elements technique,), but not yet proposed to be
included in the code before 2012 edition.
FUTURE EVOLUTIONS
The next modification sheets of RCC-M are in progress now.
But they will be included in a new edition to be published in
2012. Consequently, the edition 2007 of the code will be
limited to four addenda: 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012. As
indicated in the comments on AFCEN evolution, it’s possible
that new members will ask for a lot of modifications in 2011.
Presently, the RCC-M committee has not decided new technical
studies except those already mentioned above, concluding a
transitional year characterized by important organizational
changes.
CONCLUSION
10 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
 The RCC-M Code has been established as a tool for the design République Française, Numéro 290 du 15 Décembre
and construction of the French nuclear program and the abroad 1999.
projects based on this experience, also integrating German
[8] M. Lemoine, B. Lainez, P. Anastassiades,
experience used in the EPR project. It evolves continuously, in
"Rapprochement des règles relatives aux qualifications
order to integrate the evolutions of the industrial practices, the
de soudage dans les normes européennes et le RCC-M",
return of experience, as well as the needs of new projects, the
Journées ESOPE 2007, AFIAP, Paris.
numerous evolutions of the standards to which the RCC-M
refers. [9] Amendment N°10 to the harmonized European standard
EN 13445 dated November 2008.
More recently, the harmonization of the regulations in Europe
in the non-nuclear field did lead to a new regulation in the [10] JM. Grandemange "Adaptation of RCC-M design and
nuclear field in various countries. The adaptation of code construction rules to the evolution of projects needs,
provisions to the each regulation is an objective which could be regulatory evolutions and international exchanges"
facilitate with the new nuclear context. PVP2009, July 26-30, 2009, Prague, Czech Republic.
The results of international exchanges (MDEP, CORDEL…), [11] F. Le Breton, C. Petesch "Stress Analysis Criteria for
where convergence of standards is proposed, and without Piping. RCC-M 2002 Rules and Validation", SMiRT 20,
impairing the global consistency of codes, can satisfy any Division 5, Paper 1790.
standardization organization. RCC-M is well adapted to
[12] NSQ100™ “Nuclear safety and quality management
existing PWR spare parts, and new PWR Projects. Investment
system-Model for quality management in design,
to adaptation to each national regulation must lead to an
development, manufacturing, erection, commissioning
increase of safety, not to an additional administrative layer.
and related services” Ed. 2011, published by NQSA®.
Last, the involvement of external Experts and representatives
of new AFCEN Members in RCC-M working groups, give a
new impulse to the codification process, with new
improvement in technical writing and adoption of new
techniques

REFERENCES

[1] IAEA Recommandation GS-R-3, “The management

system for facilities and activities; Safety
Requirements » 2006.
[2] RCC-M Code, 2007 edition, plus 2008, 2009 and 2010
addenda, AFCEN, Paris.
[3] J. Journet, W.J. O'Donnell, "Operating nuclear plant
feedback to ASME and French codes" PVP-Vol.339,
1996.
[4] J.M. Grandemange, D. Kreckel, H.J. Frank "Design and
Construction Rules applied to the EPR project: ETC-M".
Paper 2488, ICONE 5 Conference May 26-30, 1997,
Nice, France.
[5] Directive 97/23/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 29 May 1997 on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States concerning pressure
equipment.
[6] Arrêté du 12 décembre 2005 relatif aux équipements
sous pression nucléaires. J.O. N° 19 du 22 janvier 2006.
[7] Décret n° 99-1046 du 13 décembre 1999 relatif aux
équipements sous pression; Journal Officiel de la

11 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Figure 1. General RCC-M structure compared to ASME Code

RCC-M Section Title ASME Code Sections

SECTION I NUCLEAR ISLAND COMPONENTS SECTION III
Subsection A General Subsection NCA
Subsection B Class 1 components Subsection NB
Subsection C Class 2 components Subsection NC
Subsection D Class 3 components Subsection ND
Subsection E Small components No specific correspondence
Subsection G Core support structures Subsection NG
Subsection H Supports Subsection NF
Subsection J Low pressure or atmospheric tanks ND, ND 3800-3900
Subsection P Penetrations Introduction of Subsection NE
Subsection Z Technical appendices Appendices
SECTION II MATERIALS SECTION II
SECTION III EXAMINATION METHODS SECTION V
SECTION IV WELDING SECTION IX, part QW
SECTION V FABRICATION Various chapters

Figure 2: Structure of Subsections of the RCC-M and relations between sections

1000 chapters
. Scope Subsection A
. Documentation
. Identification
2000 chapters
. Prevention of corrosion
. Applicable procurement
specification Section II Materials
3000 chapters
. Sizing Subsection Z
. Analysis
4000 chapters
. Manufacturing and Section III Examination
examination
Section IV Welding
5000 chapters
. Hydrostatic tests Section V Fabrication
6000 chapters
. Overpressure protection

The structure of Subsections A and Z (appendices) is given in Figures 4 and 5. Content and structure of Sections II, III, IV and V are
given in figures 6, 7, 8 and 9.

12 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Figure 3: AFCEN Organization Chart- 2011

PWR reactors :
¾ RCC-M Mechanical components
¾ RCC-C Nuclear Fuel
¾ RCC-E Electrical Equipment
¾ ETC-C Civil Works (2010 Edition)
¾ RSE-M In-service surveillance of mechanical components (2010 Edition)
¾ ETC-F Fire protection (2010 Edition)
FBR and experimental reactors :
¾ RCC-MR Mechanical components of FBR reactors (2007)
To be replaced by:
¾ RCC-MRx Mechanical components for Experimental Reactors (Draft available- Edition to be published by AFCEN in 2012)

13 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Figure 4: Structure of RCC-M Subsection A

Chapter Title
A 1000 Objectives and structure of the Code
A 2000 General provisions
A 3000 Documents
A 4000 Components subjected to the RCC-M and component classes
A 5000 Quality Assurance

Figure 5: Structure of RCC-M Subsection Z

Appendix Title
ZI Properties of materials to be used in design
Z II Experimental stress analysis
Z III Determination of allowable basic stress limits
Z IV Design rules for components subjected to external pressure
ZV Design of circular bolted flange connections
Z VI Design rules for linear type supports
ZA Rules for determining reinforcement of openings in Class 1 vessels
ZD Analysis of the fatigue behavior of zones with geometrical discontinuities
ZE Other rules for analyzing Class 1 piping under conditions requiring compliance with Level
A criteria
ZF Rules associated with Level D criteria
ZG Fast fracture resistance
ZH Acceptable rules for determining usage factor
ZK Definition of surveillance program of irradiation effects on RPV material properties
ZS Constructive requirements linked to in-service inspection
ZT Only in 2007 edition-Canceled with 2008 addendum
ZU Only in 2007 edition-Canceled with 2008 addendum
ZY Provisions applicable under the Order dated 12 December 2005 relating to nuclear
pressure equipment
ZZ Provisions applicable by way of Annex 1 of PED and its transposition into French law

Figure 6: Structure of RCC-M Section II "Materials"

Chapter Scope
M 000 General
M 1000 Carbon steels
M 2000 Alloy steels
M 3000 Austenitic steels
M 4000 Special alloys
M 5000 Miscellaneous
M 6000 Iron castings

14 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Figure 7: Structure of RCC-M Section III on NDE

Chapter Scope
MC 1000 Mechanical, physical and chemical tests
MC 2000 Ultrasonic examination
MC 3000 Radiographic examination
MC 4000 Liquid penetrant examination
MC 5000 Magnetic particle examination
MC 6000 Eddy current examination of tubular products
MC 7000 Other examination methods
MC 8000 Qualification and certification of NDE personnel
MC 9000 Terminology

Figure 8: Structure of RCC-M Section IV "Welding"

Chapter Scope
S 1000 General
S 2000 Acceptance of filler materials
S 3000 Welding procedure qualification
S 4000 Qualification of welders and operators
S 5000 Qualification of filler materials
S 6000 Technical qualification of production workshops
S 7000 Production welds
S 8000 Weld-deposited hardfacings on carbon, low-alloy or alloy steels

Figure 9: Structure of RCC-M Section V "Fabrication"

Chapter Scope
F 1000 Introduction
F 2000 Marking procedure
F 3000 Cutting repair without welding
F 4000 Forming and dimensional tolerances
F 5000 Surface treatment
F 6000 Cleanliness
F 7000 Mechanical joints
F 8000 Heat treatment (parts and components)

Figure 10: Main requirements applying to material properties in ESPN order [9]

N1 equipment N2 equipment N3 equipment

Minimum elongation Ferritic material: 20%
at fracture, A Austenitic material*: 35%
Martensitic material: 14%
Bolting: 12% with Z ≥ 0,45
Minimum toughness, Ferritic material: 40 J at 0°C
KV (60 J if Rm > 600 MPa)
Austenitic material*: 100 J at 20°C
Martensitic material: 40 J at 0°C
Bolting: 40 J at 0°C
Maximum Rm value 800 MPa
(PED)
Ferritic material: 14% 14%
Austenitic material: 25%
Bolting: 12% with Z ≥ 0,45
Ferritic material: 27 J at 0°C 27 J at 20°C
Austenitic material: 60 J at 20°C
Bolting: 40 J at 0°C
- -

Note *: 25% and 60 J for filler materials at procurement stage

15 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms