ML20337A122

2020 Standards Forum - Meeting Summary

ML20337A122
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/02/2020
From:	Meraj Rahimi NRC/RES/DE
To:	Louise Lund NRC/RES/DE
R. Roche-Rivera
Shared Package
ML20282A453	List: ML20337A122
References
Download: ML20337A122 (18)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 December 2, 2020 MEMORANDUM TO: Louise Lund, Director Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Signed by Rahimi, Meraj FROM: Meraj Rahimi, Branch Chief on 12/02/20 Regulatory Guidance and Generic Issues Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUMMARY

OF THE 2020 NRC STANDARDS FORUM On October 13, 2020, staff from the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) and Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) held the fourth annual NRC Standards Forum.1 The purpose of the Standards Forum is to facilitate discussions on codes and standards needs within the nuclear industry and explore how to collaborate in accelerating the development of codes and standards and the NRC's endorsement of these codes and standards in its regulations and regulatory guides. Enclosure 1 contains the Agenda for the Forum. Approximately 290 attendees joined the event, including participation from NRC staff, representatives from Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) such as ANS, ASME, ACI, ASCE, and the IEEE; NEI, EPRI, representatives from DOE and DOE national laboratories including ANL, INL, ORNL, and Academia representatives, among others (see Enclosure 2 for the full list of attendees).

Enclosure 3 includes the questions and answers discussed during the meeting. The presentations from the meeting and session recordings can be found at https://nrcweb.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/standards-dev/standards-forum.html.

Summary The Standards Forum opened with opening remarks by Louise Lund, NRC Standards Executive, covering the purpose of Standards Forum, an overview of the Agenda, and prior internal and external codes and standards activities upon which the Standards Forum built. This years event included six panel sessions and a presentation by DOE. A focus, while not the entire scope, was on codes and standards for advanced reactors. The presentations addressed needs and challenges for advanced reactors codes and standards, efforts to facilitate coordination between new reactor technology developers and SDOs to identify and develop or update high priority standards, development of technology neutral design and inspection standards for use in advanced and non-light water reactors (non-LWR), ongoing regulatory review and endorsement efforts, new materials and advanced construction techniques, benefits that could be realized from more harmonization across different SDOs, and ideas as to how to expedite materials qualifications and associated challenges, among others.

CONTACT: Robert Roche-Rivera 301-415-8113 1

Public Meeting Notice: https://www.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg?do=details&Code=20201076

L. Lund Additionally, the presentation by DOE highlighted opportunities for advancing the development and applications of standards and recommended the creation of a multi-organization working group that represents the stakeholder community and can effectively reach a consensus on priorities and develop a road map. The discussions were valuable to understanding how the stakeholder groups, including the NRC, can be more effective in developing, updating, and meeting the codes and standards needs for advanced reactors. The following is a summary of the panel sessions discussions.

Panel 1: Recent Developments in Codes and Standards for Advanced Reactors Panel session 1, Recent Developments in Codes and Standards for Advanced Reactors, started with opening remarks by Mohamed Shams, Director of the Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities (DANU) in NRR, providing highlights of NRCs advanced reactors program and NRCs readiness for the review of advanced reactor technologies as well as ongoing efforts to ensure the continuation of effective and efficient reviews of these technologies. The panel session was moderated by Michelle Hayes, Branch Chief of the Advanced Reactor Technical Branch (UART) in NRR/DANU. The session included 5 panelists and presentations including representatives from NRC, ANS, NEI, and INL as follows:

1. Don Eggett, Chairman, ANS Standards Board

• Recap of the June 23, 2020 ANS/NEI Advanced Reactor Codes and Standards Workshop

2. Mark Richter, NEIs POC for Advanced Reactors Codes and Standards and Senior Project Manager for Decommissioning and Used Fuel

• Codes and Standards for Advanced Reactors: NEI Update

3. Will Windes, INL, Distinguished Scientist and DOE Advanced Reactor Technologies (ART) Graphite Technical Lead

• Licensing Consideration for Graphite Components

4. George Flanagan, Chairman, ANS Research and Advanced Reactors Consensus Committee

• Progress on the ANS-20.2 Molten Salt Reactor Design Standard

5. Wendy Reed, Metallurgist in the Corrosion and Metallurgy Branch, RES/DE

• Molten Salt Purity The presentations and discussion addressed needs and challenges for advanced reactors codes and standards, efforts related to high-priority standards, and efforts to facilitate coordination between new reactor technology developers and SDOs to identify and develop or update high priority standards. Moreover, the presentations and discussions highlighted that theres significant activity related to advanced reactors and the NRC considers use of consensus codes and standards a key strategy to enable stable, efficient and effective licensing reviews. There are several challenges associated with communication, prioritization, and funding for the development of consensus codes and standards which ANS and NEI are developing strategies to address.

Panel 2: Recent Developments in ASME Nuclear Codes and Standards Panel session 2, Recent Developments in ASME Nuclear Codes and Standards, was moderated by David Rudland, Senior Technical Advisor for Nuclear Power Plant Materials in the Division of New and Renewed Licenses (DNRL) in NRR. The session included 7 panelists and presentations including representatives from NRC and ASME as follows:

L. Lund 1. Mike Benson, Materials Engineer in the Vessel and Internals Branch, NRR/DNRL

• Embark Venture Studio Project on10 CFR 50.55a

2. Ralph Hill, Chair, ASME Standards Committee on Plant Systems Design

• Overview and Status: ASME's Plant Systems Design Standard

3. Tom Roberts, Chair, ASME Section XI Subgroup on Reliability Integrity Management

• ASME Section XI, Division 2 Reliability and Integrity Management (RIM)

Programs for Nuclear Power Plants

4. Tim Lupold, Senior Mechanical Engineer, NRR/DANU/UART

• NRC Perspectives on RIM/Plan for Endorsement

5. Tom Scarbrough, Senior Mechanical Engineer in the Mechanical Engineering and Inservice Testing Branch, Division of Engineering and External Hazards (DEX), NRR

• QME-1 Material Qualification for Active Mechanical Equipment in Advanced Reactors

6. Jordan Hoellman, Project Manager in the Advanced Reactor Policy Branch, NRR/DANU

• NRC Review and Endorsement of ASME BPVC Section III, Division 5

7. Michelle Gonzalez, Reliability and Risk Engineer in the Probabilistic Risk Assessment Branch, Division of Risk Analysis (DRA), RES

• NRC Plans for Endorsement of the ASME/ANS Advanced Non-LWR PRA Standard The presentations and discussions focused on new and transformational ASME efforts happening for operating, new and advanced non-LWRs. ASME is moving forward with the development of technology neutral design and inspection standards for use in advanced non-LWRs. These standards leverage modern risk-informed technology with lessons learned from past standards. NRC staff is continuing to efficiently review these standards for endorsement and are currently looking into streamlining the codes and standards regulations to improve efficiency and reduce burden.

Panel 3: Codes and Standards for Design and Construction of Concrete, Steel-Plate Composite, and Steel/Metal Structures Panel session 3, Codes and Standards for Design and Construction of Concrete, Steel-Plate Composite, and Steel/Metal Structures, was moderated by Jose Pires, Senior Technical Advisor for Civil/Structural Engineering in RES/DE. The session included 7 panelists and 5 presentations including representatives from NRC, ACI, Academia, AISC, and EPRI as follows:

1. Madhumita Sircar, Senior Structural Engineer in the Structural, Geotechnical, and Seismic Engineering Branch, RES/DE Codes and Standards for Design and Construction of Safety-Related Civil Engineering Structures

2. Adeola Adediran, Chair, ACI 349 Committee Updates on ACI 349 Development of Codes and Standards

3. Amit Varma, Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University Codes & Standards for Nuclear Structures: Future Developments and Possibilities

4. Mark Holland, Chairman, AISC 370 Committee [Member of TC-11 (N690) AISC]

Specification for Structural Stainless-Steel Buildings (AISC 370: 2021)

5. Hasan Charkas, Sam Johnson, Salvador Villalobos, Senior Technical Leaders, EPRI EPRI Research on Relevant Topics

L. Lund The presentations and discussions focused on advanced construction techniques, materials, and design practices and processes for civil structures, including codes and standards updates and development and research activities that are underway or may be needed to enable more cost effective and safer technologies and processes for the design of non-LWRs. The discussions highlighted the need for improving harmonization of codes and standards provisions related to limit states and failure modes among others, in civil-structures codes and standards such as ACI 349, ASCE 43, and ASME Section III Division 2.

Panel 4: Harmonization of Codes and Standards under Unified Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Principles Panel Session 4, Harmonization of Codes and Standards under Unified Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Principles, was moderated by Jim Xu, Senior Technical Advisor for Seismic and Geotechnical Engineering RES/DE. The session included 11 panelists and 8 presentations, including representatives from NRC, ANS ASCE, ACI, ASME, IEEE, EPRI, and NEI as follows:

1. Robert Budnitz, Co-Chair, ASME/ANS Joint Committee on Nuclear Risk Management Why Harmonization is Important

2. Prasad Kadambi, Chair, ANS Risk-informed, Performance-Based Principles and Policy Committee Outcome-Directed Harmonization of Consensus Standards

3. George Abatt, Vice Chair, ASCE DANS Committee and ASCE Nuclear Standards Committee Performance-Based Approach in ASCE Standards 4 and 43

4. Shen Wang, ACI 349 Committee Member Concrete Design Codes for Nuclear Facilities

5. Michael Cohen, Chair, ASME SWG High Temperature Reactors Stakeholders and Tim Adams, Vice Chair, ASME Standards Committee III ASME Perspectives on Harmonization of Codes and Standards under Unified Risk-Informed and Performance Based Principles

6. Daryl Harmon, Chair, IEEE Nuclear Power Engineering Committee (NPEC)

NPECs Risk-Informed Standard and Harmonization with IEC Standards

7. Thomas Basso, Senor Director Regulatory Affairs, NEI and Steven Geier, Senior Director of the Engineering and Risk Division, NEI Codes and Standards Role in Nexus between Safety and Performance

8. Hasan Charkas, Principal Technical Leader, Advanced Nuclear Technology, EPRI Andrew Whittaker, Chair, ASCE Nuclear Standards Committee Sufficiency and Efficiency The presentations and discussions addressed the benefits for achieving risk-balanced design objectives from the harmonization of C&S; challenges for achieving C&S harmonization under unified RIPB principles; and approaches to coordination and collaboration to achieve harmonization of codes and standards, among others.

Panel 5: Standards for Advanced Manufacturing Technologies (AMT)

Panel session 5, Standards for Advanced Manufacturing Technologies (AMT), was moderated by Hipolito Gonzalez, Branch Chief for the Vessels and Internals Branch in NRR/DNRL. The session included 4 panelists and 3 presentations, including representatives from NRC, EPRI, ANL, and ORNL as follows:

L. Lund 1. David Gandy, Senior Technical Executive, Nuclear Materials, EPRI AMT Standards and Qualification AccelerationThe Potential of Advanced Factory Fabrication Methods

2. Mark Messner, Principal Mechanical Engineer, ANL Rapid Qualification of High Temperature Reactor Structural Materials

3. Kurt Terrani, Director, Transformational Challenge Reactor, ORNL Accelerating Quality Certification of Critical Components with Additive Manufacturing

4. Raj Iyengar, Branch Chief, Component Integrity Branch, RES/DE The presentations and discussions addressed ideas on how to accelerate the qualification and application of AMT components and related codes and standards development and acceptance.

Panel 6: Regulatory Guidance Framework for IEEE Standards Panel session 6, Regulatory Guidance Framework for IEEE Standards, was moderated by Tania Martinez Navedo, Acting Deputy Director for NRR/DEX. The panel session included 5 panelists and 5 presentations, including NRC and IEEE representatives as follows:

1. Sheila Ray, Senior Electrical Engineer, Electrical Engineering New Reactor & License Renewal Branch, NRR/DEX Regulatory Guidance Framework for IEEE Electrical Standards

2. Robert Konnik, Consultant, IEEE ICC & NPEC Standards IEEE ICC & NPEC Nuclear Standards

3. Ismael Garcia, Senior Technical Advisor for Digital I&C, NRR/DEX Draft Approach for a New Regulatory Guidance Infrastructure for Digital I&C

4. Rufino Ayala, Chair, IEEE NPEC SC-6 Perspectives on Regulatory Guidance Framework

5. Gabe Taylor, Senior Fire Protection Engineer in the Fire and External Hazards Analysis Branch, RES/DRA The presentations and discussions addressed the proposed NRC regulatory guidance framework for the review and endorsement of IEEE Insulated Conductors Committee and NPEC SC 6, Safety Related Systems, standards.

DOE Perspectives on Codes and Standards for Advanced Reactors Following the panel sessions, Mr. Dirk Cairns-Gallimore from the Office of Reactor Fleet and Advanced Reactor Deployment in DOE, presented DOE perspectives on Codes and Standards for advanced reactors. Mr. Cairn-Gallimores presentation provided an overview of the Office of Reactor Fleet and Advanced Reactor Deployment, US advanced reactor landscape, goal of the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, importance of codes and standards to advanced reactors, and DOEs role in codes and standards, among others. Mr. Garrett Smith, DOEs Director for the Office of Nuclear Safety and DOEs Standards Executive participated in this session as a panelist. The session was moderated by Meraj Rahimi, Branch Chief of the Regulatory Guidance and Generic Issues Branch in RES/DE. In summary some of the key takeaways from the presentation were:

DOE-NE provides sustained investments to support codes and standards development

L. Lund The Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program provides a unique opportunity to advance the development and application of new standards DOE-NE investments in Advanced Manufacturing increase stakeholder participation (Industry, DOE offices, Standards, NRC, National laboratories etc.)

Consensus priorities need to be established and road mapped The 2020 Standards Forum was a success in that the participants were able to engage in meaningful discussion on codes and standards needs and identified process improvements for how topics are identified and prioritized. In addition, through discussions from the SDOs, participants were made aware of the needs for more partnerships between stakeholder groups to ensure that topics are introduced in a timely manner. These discussions are expected to lead to standards with wide ranging support that are more easily utilized by the NRC and licensees.

It is anticipated that the next NRC Standards Forum will be scheduled for Fall 2021.

Enclosures:

1. 2020 Standards Forum Agenda

2. 2020 Standards Forum List of Attendees

3. 2020 Standards Forum Questions and Answers

L. Lund

SUMMARY

OF THE 2020 NRC STANDARDS FORUM DISTRIBUTION:

M. Shams, NRR M. Hayes, NRR W. Reed, RES D. Rudland, NRR M. Benson, NRR, T. Lupold, NRR T. Scarbrough, NRR J. Hoellman, NRR M. Gonzalez, RES J. Pires, RES M. Sircar. RES J. Xu, RES H. Gonzalez, NRR R. Iyengar, RES T. Martinez Navedo, NRR S. Ray, NRR I. Garcia, NRR G. Taylor, RES ADAMS Accession Package No.: ML20282A453 OFFICE RES/DE/RGGIB RES/DE/RGGIB NAME R. Roche-Rivera M. Rahimi DATE OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Enclosure 1

L. Lund U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NRC Standards Forum Agenda October 13, 2020 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Time Topic Presenter 9:00 - 9:10 Welcome, logistics, introductions, and objectives NRC Panel 1: Recent Developments in Codes and NRC, ANS, NEI, 9:10 - 10:30 Standards for Advanced Reactors INL Panel 2: Recent Developments in ASME Nuclear 10:30 - 12:00 NRC, ASME Codes and Standards 12:00 - 12:45 Lunch Panel 3: Codes and Standards for Design and NRC, ACI, ASME, 12:45 - 2:00 Construction of Concrete, Steel-Plate Composite, and AISC, EPRI Steel/Metal Structures Panel 4: Harmonization of Codes and Standards under NRC, ANS ASCE, 2:00 - 3:15 Unified Risk-informed and Performance-based ACI, ASME, Principles IEEE, EPRI, NEI 3:15 - 3:45 Panel 5: Standards for Advanced Manufacturing NRC, EPRI, ANL, Technologies (AMT) ORNL Panel 6: Regulatory Guidance Framework for IEEE 3:45 - 4:25 NRC, IEEE Standards DOE Perspectives on Codes and Standards for 4:25 - 4:55 DOE Advanced Reactors 4:55 - 5:00 Summary of key takeaways and closing remarks NRC U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Enclosure 1

L. Lund NRC Standards Forum List of Attendees October 13, 2020 Name Affiliation Name Affiliation Nuclear Regulatory Steven Arndt Commission (NRC) William Kennedy NRC Meg Audrain NRC Maryam Khan NRC Mekonen Bayssie NRC Tuan Le NRC Gurjendra Bedi NRC Bryce Lehman NRC Eric Benner NRC Yueh-li Li NRC Michael Benson NRC Bruce Lin NRC Jeremy Bowen NRC Louise Lund NRC Adrienne Brown NRC Tim Lupold NRC Angela Buford NRC Stu Magruder NRC Gregory Cranston NRC Shah Malik NRC Holly Cruz NRC Kamal Manoly NRC Amy Cubbage NRC Tania Martinez Navedo NRC Stephen Cumblidge NRC Jan Mazza NRC Robert Davis NRC Kenn Miller NRC David Desaulniers NRC John Nakoski NRC Yamir Diaz-Castillo NRC Jinsuo Nie NRC Harry Felsher NRC Carol Nove NRC Ismael Garcia NRC Hanh Phan NRC Stan Gardocki NRC Stephen Philpott NRC Anders Gilbertson NRC Jose Pires NRC Michelle Gonzalez NRC Paul Prescott NRC Hipo Gonzalez NRC Meraj Rahimi NRC Nick Hansing NRC David Rahn NRC Michelle Hayes NRC Sheila Ray NRC Ed Helvenston NRC Wendy Reed NRC Todd Hilsmeier NRC Robert Roche-Rivera NRC Allen Hiser NRC Marcos Rolon NRC Matthew Hiser NRC David Rudland NRC Jordan Hoellman NRC Nicholas Savwoir NRC Amy Hull NRC Thomas Scarbrough NRC Ata Istar NRC Mo Shams NRC Raj Iyengar NRC Madhumita Sircar NRC Joel Jenkins NRC Frederick Sock NRC Richard Jervey NRC Martin Stutzke NRC Ian Jung NRC Gabe Taylor NRC Harriet Karagiannis NRC George Thomas NRC Name Affiliation Name Affiliation Enclosure 2

L. Lund Ian Tseng NRC Ronald Janowiak Consultant Weijun Wang NRC Mervah Khan CSA Group Khadijah West NRC Jana Bergman Curtiss-Wright Donna Williams NRC Helen Mearns Dept of Homeland Security Department of Energy Yuken Wong NRC Dirk Cairns-Gallimore (DOE)

Jim Xu NRC Andrew De La Paz DOE Andrew Yeshnik NRC Christian Palay DOE Mark Yoo NRC Abhijit Sengupta DOE Kerry Sutton American Concrete Institute Garrett Smith DOE Advanced Reactor Materials Bill Corwin LLC Amanda Jenks Dominion Engineering, Inc.

Matthew Van Liew Aecom Ned Finney Duke Energy Arturo Maldonado AM Technology Group LLC Mark Pyne Duke Energy David Allan Coutts Amentum Donald Eggett Eggett Consulting LLC Anthony Thomsen Amentum Paul Donavin Engineering Management Engineering Mechanics Derek Winkler Amentum Frederick Brust Corporation or Columbus Andrew Davis American Welding Society Robert Burg EPM, Inc.

Argonne National Laboratory Electric Power Research Mark Messner (ANL) Marc Albert Institute (EPRI)

Shayan Shahbazi ANL Hasan Charkas EPRI Sam Sham ANL Robin Dyle EPRI Pat Schroeder ANS David Gandy EPRI American Society of Allyson Byk Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Sam Johnson EPRI Oliver Martinez ASME Daniel Moneghan EPRI Zenas McLucas ASME Patrick O'Regan EPRI Christian Sanna ASME John Richards EPRI Kimberly Verderber ASME Sal Villalobos EPRI Qiang Zhang ASME Asian Pacific LLC Chris Wax EPRI Darren Barborak AZZ Specialty Welding Ramon Cruz Exelon Todd Anselmi Battelle Energy Alliance - INL Maher Kassar Exelon George Abatt Becht Heather Malikowski Exelon Lisa Anderson Bechtel Joshua Sarrafian Exelon Richard Lagdon Bechtel Roy Linthicum Exelon/PWROG Brian Grimes Brian Grimes Inc. Troy Morgan Exponent, Inc.

Jorge Munoz CEA Scott Jones Fisher Controls Cecile Petesch CEA Kurt Harris Flibe Energy, Inc.

China Institute of Nuclear Niu Jingjuan Industry Strategy Nicholas DeSantis Framatome, Inc.

China Institute of Nuclear Shangyuan Liu Industry Strategy Tim Schmitt Framatome, Inc.

China Nuclear Power Qingqing Xu Engineering Farshid Shahrokhi Framatome, Inc.

Gerold Ice Consolidated Nuclear Security Tanya Kirby GE Hitachi Name Affiliation Name Affiliation Enclosure 2

L. Lund Kadambi Engineering Ai-Shen Liu GE Hitachi Narasimha Kadambi Consultants Jason Schoneweis GE Hitachi Injin Sah KAERI Jordan Supler GE Hitachi Jordan Hagaman Kairos Power Luben Todorovski GE Hitachi Irving Jang Kairos Power Matthew Ellis Hayward Tyler, Inc. Robert McReynolds Kairos Power Rob Fleming Hayward Tyler, Inc. Drew Peebles Kairos Power Benjamin Hardy Hayward Tyler, Inc. Mark Peres Kairos Power Drew Van Norman Hayward Tyler, Inc. Brian Song Kairos Power Ralph Hill Hill Eng Solutions LLC Sanghoon LEE KEPCO E&C Masaaki Hayashi Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy, Ltd Steven Xu Kinectrics Paul Coco HSB Zia Zafir Kleinfelder HSB Technical Consulting & Los Alamos National Laboratory Hongying Dai Service (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Tobin Oruch (LANL)

Lawrence Berkeley National Ravi Somepalli Hydro Robert Budnitz Laboratory Gary Park Iddeal Solutions Charles Martin Longenecker & Associates Ravi Subramaniam IEEE-SA Robert Keating MPR Associates Mayur Brijlani ING Technik Patrick Vallejos MSA Chandrakanth Bolisetti Idaho National Laboratory (INL) David Thompson MSS Michael McMurtrey INL Thomas Basso Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)

Gustavo Reyes INL Stephen Geier NEI Ryann Rupp INL Hilary Lane NEI Will Windes INL Frances Pimentel NEI Scott Kulat Inservice Engineering, LLC Mark Richter NEI National Institute of Standards Feifei Wu ISNI Keith Consani and Technology (NIST)

Nawal Prinja Jacobs Alkan Donmez NIST James Parello James Parello EQ Consulting Kevin Jurrens NIST Shin Hirasugi JANUS Paul Witherell NIST Shigeru Takaya Japan Atomic Energy Agency Randy Horst NNSA Timothy Adams Jensen Hughes Heramb Mahajan North Carolina State University Paul Amico Jensen Hughes Rishi Sahai NPCIL Kevin Dommer Jensen Hughes Charles Carpenter Nuclear AMRC Gary Hayner Jensen Hughes Li Li Nuclear AMRC Robin Lea Jensen Hughes Augi Cardillo NuScale Emily Mueller Jensen Hughes Rebecca Norris NuScale Braden Schwarz Jensen Hughes Shen Wang NuScale Jie Wen Jensen Hughes Richard Lack NWS Technologies Paul Wilson Jensen Hughes Caroline Cochran Oklo Inc.

Michael Wodarcyk Jensen Hughes AlexRenner Oklo Inc.

Jennifer Wu Jensen Hughes Larry Olson Olson Engineering, Inc.

Name Affiliation Name Affiliation Enclosure 2

L. Lund Gabriela Deleanu Ontario Power Generation Paul Edwards Stone & Webster Oak Ridge National Laboratory George Flanagan (ORNL) Brett McGlone Swagelok Company Alex Huning ORNL Marisa G Heras Tecnatom Weiju Ren ORNL Joonhyung Choi TerraPower, LLC Kurt Terrani ORNL Michael Cohen TerraPower, LLC Hong Wang ORNL Sam Miller TerraPower, LLC Yanli Wang ORNL David Maletich The New York Blower Company Mark Holland Paxton & Vierling Steel Co. Dane Wilson ThorCon USA Tokyo Elecric Power Company Tom Roberts POMO18 Consult LLC Shuichi Orita Holdings, Inc.

Power Generation Integrated Vinod Chugh Consulting Limited (PGICL) Daniel Lamond True North Consulting Amit H Varma Purdue University Ronald Lippy True North Consulting Robert Konnik RLK Mark Gowin Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

Rufino Ayala Rock Creek Innovations Brian McDermott TVA Ben Pellereau Rolls-Royce Mark Ray TVA Arthur Eberhardt Sargent & Lundy, LLC Tracy Becker University of California, Berkeley Thomas Vogan Sargent & Lundy, LLC Raluca Scarlat University of California, Berkeley Adeola Adediran Savannah River Remediation LLC Nassia Tzelepi UK National Nuclear Laboratory University of North Carolina at Scott Borland Scott Borland Michael Smith Charlotte James Blanchard Self Andrew Whittaker University at Buffalo Steven Doctor Self Boris Jeremic University of California, Davis Partha Ghosal Self Grace Burke University of Manchester Bradley Williams Senate EPW Laila El-Guebaly University of Wisconsin-Madison Gonzalo Oliveros SGS Neil Broom USNC Asa Bassam Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. John Fletcher USNC Said Bolourchi Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. Suresh Channarasappa Westinghouse Siavash Dorvash Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. Richard Paese Westinghouse Mohamed Talaat Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. Anees Udyawar Westinghouse Hao Yu SNERDI Daryl Harmon Westinghouse Electric Company Andrew Clark Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) Warren Odess-Gillett Westinghouse Electric Company Zhimin Zhong SNPSC Cherie Paugh Westinghouse Electric Company Roy Berryman Southern Nuclear Edward Pleins Westinghouse Electric Company Melanie Brown Southern Nuclear Samer Elbahey Wood Frank Schaaf Sterling Refrigeration Corp Don Williamms XCEL Engineering Inc Enclosure 2

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NRC Standards Forum Questions and Answers October 13, 2020 Question Answer1 Panel 1 Questions:

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) committees for the OM and the Qualification of Where is the Operation and Maintenance (OM) Mechanical Equipment (QME) Codes are in the Code considered for new reactors? process of looking at their existing scope to encompass advanced non-light water reactors (ANLWRs).

Not explicitly at the present time, but it is based upon the same concept. The standard, in part, provides a Does the American Nuclear Society (ANS)-20.2 design process which incorporates a simplified standard include a frequency-consequence curve? Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) model which has concepts that are very similar to the frequency-consequence curve.

Through the participation of ASME representatives in What interactions does NRC have with the the GIF, international perspectives are captured and Generation IV International Forum (GIF) on considered in the ASME Code for example for Section development of new codes and standards? III Division 5, High Temperature Reactors, which is currently under review by the NRC for endorsement.

An ANS working group is being formed for the update Where do we stand with ANS Standard 53.1? The of ANS-53.1. The NRC provides representation on industry and DOE heavily supported the several ANS consensus committees and standards development of this standard over 8 years ago? Is working groups including the working group for ANS the NRC endorsement forthcoming?

53.1.

Several of the members in the working group for ANS-20.2 are also members of the working group for the How does ANS-20.2 relate to the ANLWR PRA ASME/ANS RA-S-1.4-2020. ANS 20.2 incorporates a standard (ASME/ANS RA-S-1.4-2020)?

simplified PRA model based on the ASME/ANS standard.

I wanted to expand on the ASME perspective on Code needs for advanced reactors shown in slide 15 of Don Eggett's recap on the NEI/ANS Advance Reactor C&S Workshop. As a member of ASME's Board of Nuclear Codes & Standards, a major focus of our last few meetings has been to ensure that ASME develops and upgrades the sections of the Code that address ANLWRs. These actions include:

Comments from Mr. Bill Corwin.

-Further upgrades to ASME Section III Division 5 on construction rules for ANLWRs and Section XI Division 2 on reliability-and-integrity-management-based rules for advanced reactors

-ASME's Committee on Operations & Maintenance to ensure that its rules will encompass ANLWRs

-ASME's Committee for Qualification of Mechanical Equipment to modify its Code language to include coverage for ANLWRs

L. Lund -Development of a new ASME standard on Plant System Design to provide a framework to reduce costs and provide more efficient system designs and design margins for all new reactors

-Establishment of a task group on Nuclear Competitiveness to minimize how the significant differences of the advanced reactors could impact existing ASME rules and their effects on costs With respect to the presentation on ANS 20.2, there is a need to agree on overall reliability targets This is a challenge. The standard includes PRA for nuclear reactor components and systems. How concepts aimed at addressing reliability targets and are these reliability targets being agreed to? enable the PRA views explicitly into the design Without this, RIPB approach is difficult to process.

implement.

With the increasing understanding of applications of probabilistic approaches to shed light on safety Currently a number of codes and standards working and risk impact, knowing well the existence of data groups, for example ASME's working group on and model uncertainties, and paucity and long-term Nonmetallic Design and Materials and Plant Systems unavailability of data, why should the codes not Design, among others, are moving forth with a fully embrace the reality and need for probabilistic probabilistic, risk-informed, and performance-based approaches in the development of codes. Adding approach. Such approaches effectively help with margins to account of lack of understanding may addressing the lack of data and experience, with some not always ensure safety and may entail of the new materials and reactor systems.

unintended consequences.

An area of interest is the digital twin technology. Earlier this year the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced funding for 9 projects as part of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energys (ARPA-E) Generating Electricity Managed by Intelligent Nuclear Assets (GEMINA) program. These projects What role is being considered for use of Artificial are looking into the development of digital twin Intelligence technologies like Machine technology to reduce operations and maintenance learning/Deep learning to extract knowledge from costs in the next generation of nuclear power plants.

data to help design futuristic advanced reactors? This effort includes the use of artificial intelligence, advanced control systems, predictive maintenance, and model-based fault detections. For additional information, see the DOE announcement at the following link: https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-announces-27-million-advanced-nuclear-reactor-systems-operational-technology.

Panel 2 Questions:

Rulemaking is a very resource-intensive process. The most frequent schedule for ASME-related rulemakings With respect to the presentation on Embark would be every 2 years, with the possibility that NRC Venture Studio Project on10 CFR 50.55a, for Code may consider decreasing that frequency. However, publication/revision, would NRC be able to support there are diverse views on whether NRC should cloud-based publication where updates would be decrease the frequency of ASME rulemakings. So, the much more frequent?

staff will be considering this question further in the future.

Enclosure 3

L. Lund 10 CFR 50.55a was updated on March 16, 2020 and When was the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

May 4, 2020 to (1) incorporate by reference the latest last updated? I just downloaded a copy and there revisions of three regulatory guides approving new, is no longer any reference I can find to American revised, and reaffirmed Code Cases published by Welding Society (AWS) welding standards. Used to ASME and (2) incorporate by reference the 2015 and be D1.1:2000, Structural welding code - Steel 2017 Editions of the ASME BPV Code and the 2015 which caused problems since the code has been and 2017 Editions of the ASME O&M Code, updated many times.

respectively.

The NRC staff have drafted a paper to the Commission Is there any timeline for the Embark requesting permission for rulemaking to address the recommendations being evaluated or accepted by Embark recommendations. We will know a better the NRC? timeline after we receive direction from the Commission.

What is the timeline when licensees will be able to move away from the 10-year update for ASME XI See answer to question above.

and OM and used the most recent version of those documents as adopted by 10 CFR 50.55a?

ASME Section III works on two-year cycles. To be of use to advanced reactors a rapid approval of No decisions have been made with respect how often new editions is needed. Once every six years for any sections of the Code will or will not be endorsed. It Section III is not going to be effective. What is the is expected that those determinations will be made proposed review period for new editions of Section during a future rulemaking process.

III?

The PSD standard embraces a Systems Engineering approach as practiced in aerospace and defense How will the Plant Systems Design (PSD) standard industries where life-cycle design approach integrates integrate with other codes and standards or will this design, construction, operation, testing and inspection be a standalone standard encompassing design, needs into the design process. The actual scope of construction, testing and inspection? the standard is from conceptual design through final/detailed design with support of field changes from construction, startup and commissioning.

RIM can be applied to any design. It is not only for new designs. It can be used for existing Reactors, for example in backfit instances including performance of PRA. RIM is meant to be applied at the design stage Question for NRC on Reliability Integrity so that there can be iterative effects in the design Management (RIM): Current 10 CFR 50.69 low based on inspections. Inclusion of LSS components in safety significant (LSS) implementing practice is RIM will depend on how the RIM expert panel based on evaluating existing final/detailed design.

evaluates the scope of LSS. If they are included in the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 18-04 and program, then the Monitoring and Nondestructive Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.233 are for licensing.

Examination (MANDE) expert panel will develop the How would LSS be applied to a new design? Also, appropriate monitoring and nondestructive examination how do you design a system with active and (NDE) to be applied to these components. Within passive components with RIM that is only for active components, for example a pump or a valve, passive components?

there are passive portions that make up the active component and that is what RIM applies to.

Additionally, the OM Code is looking at risk-informed applications for the active parts of a pump or a valve.

There are efforts in process to revise ASME Section V, Article 14 to allow multiple Levels-of-Confidence and Probability-of-Detection values to Comment from Mr. Ned Finney.

consider type of MANDE as well as frequency of examinations to maintain RIM objectives.

Enclosure 3

L. Lund Question for ASME on RIM: Why was RIM added to Section XI? It's significantly different than the RIM is not a design standard but could be considered rest of Section XI and includes design. It seems to during design.

me like it should have its own code book.

Is there any consideration of endorsing Section III Discussions on alternatives for the endorsement of Division 1 in a regulatory guide as opposed to the Section III Division 1 and related determinations are current rule making process? This has been expected to take place in future rulemaking updates for discussed in the past. 10 CFR 50.55a.

With respect to inservice testing (IST) for Advanced Reactors, it would be helpful to have a separate Related to the presentation on QME1, what about Advanced Reactor IST Code from the Light Water passive components? What about the Reactor (LWR) OM Code so that all current issues can classification of the ASME Class and Risk?

be resolved at the outset of NRC endorsement of IST for Advanced Reactors.

With respect to the NRC plans for endorsement of Due to upcoming applications, and timing issues, we the ASME/ANS ANLWR PRA Standard, why has had to limit the scope to DC and COL, but that doesn't the NRC limited the applicability of the mean we will not look at other applications in the endorsement RG to Standard Design Certification future. These others will be addressed in separate (DC) and Combined License (COL) applications? RGs.

ANL and INL were not NRC contractors for developing The NRC relies heavily on recommendations from recommendations. The contractors for the review and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and Idaho endorsement effort for Section III Division 5 were the National Laboratory (INL) in drafting the RG and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Oak the NUREG regarding the endorsement of ASME Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and NUMARK.

Section III Division 5. Since they are the same The ANL and INL contracts were set up to resolve any people who are Division 5 developers, what is the technical comments during Advisory Committee on mechanism to prevent conflict of interest in this Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) review and to help process?

resolve public comments.

Panel 3 Questions:

The NRC continuously assesses the effectiveness of their regulations and processes. As an example, the Putting a lot of pressure on new and existing NRC is using risk insights to decide and guide the nuclear to be successful in the current quality and level of effort appropriate for a given environment. How is NRC playing its role in making activity. As another example, The NRC is focusing the regulation leaner and agile? Is the efficiency rulemaking for a wide variety of advanced nuclear and effectiveness of NRC being monitored for reactors on risk-informed functional requirements, continuous improvements? building on existing NRC requirements, Commission policy statements, and lessons-learned from recent activities.

Aiming at elastic behavior is currently expected for In considering extreme loading conditions now design basis loading conditions with a few exceptions required under the Design Extension Conditions such as structural design to resist impactive and recommended by the International Atomic Energy impulsive loads. For design extension conditions the Agency (IAEA), aiming for elastic behavior may not plant level performance is analyzed in a manner that be feasible so plastic failures also need to be can consider structural response beyond elastic considered.

behavior.

To keep in line with the growing need and trend, Currently, ACI-349 does not explicitly address are there any plans to include probabilistic design probabilistic design methods. However, the code methods for reinforced concrete structures in committee is open to recommendations for American Concrete Institute (ACI)-349? incorporating probabilistic design methods in ACI-349.

The standards keep growing more and more Standards committees are open to recommendations complicated. Are there any examples where for incorporating simplifications while still addressing simplification has been made? changes in materials and construction technologies as Enclosure 3

L. Lund well as in methods of analysis and performance requirements.

Panel 4 Questions:

A hierarchy of codes of standards is essential. ANS Is a hierarchy of codes of standards desirable or and ASME, among other Standards Development feasible to achieve a Risk-Informed Performance-Organizations (SDOs) are working towards Based (RIPB) approach?

establishing such hierarchy.

The proposed approach is designed to be graded and Is a graded approach needed so that the consequence driven. Significant flexibility was complexity is concomitant with the consequences provided, which is reflected via using the frequency-of failures?

consequence target for the design.

Appendix B to Part 50, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants, applies to the design process and PRA is used as a tool to quantify the risk for the design. ASME PRA What is an appropriate manner to approach risk standard provides the scope and quality of the PRA informing the process of quality assurance? Has applications and the peer review is an important PRA been applied to the classic deterministic component of the PRA process which is used to process for Quality Assurance (QA) and then apply establish the contributions of each Structure, System, 50.69 categorization to determine how to grade the and Component (SSC) to the risk target. The various elements of that process?

categorization or grading for SSCs will depend on where the final design point is located on the frequency-consequence target plot. This will be done in an iterative manner where the design is provided.

Panel 5 Questions:

Items of highest priority include, developing probabilistic design methods for high temperature; What would be the highest priority item(s) that looking at developing a standard in both ASTM and collectively that the SDO and the Regulator should ASME around 508 materials; qualification of new engage to enable the progress and acceleration of materials and development of more cost-effective ways codes and standards for advanced reactors?

to bring down the cost of nuclear manufacturing and quality certifications.

Panel 6 Questions:

Is the NRC looking into incorporating Cyber Informed Engineering principles in its There are two different frameworks. 10 CFR 73.54 and Instrumentation and Control (I&C) work? That is, the guidance in RG 5.71 address cyber security and merging Cyber Security countermeasures into the are separate from the I&C framework.

design phase of I&C technologies?

1 These answers include personal views of both NRC staff and external participants and may not necessarily reflect the views or positions from the NRC and or the external participants organizations.

Enclosure 3

ML20282A453; Memo ML20337A122 OFFICE RES/DE/CIB NMSS/DFM/MSB NAME RRoche-Rivera RR MRahimi MR DATE Dec 2, 2020 Dec 2, 2020