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

1 Public Meeting Notice: https://www.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg?do=details&Code=20201076 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 MEMORANDUM TO:

Louise Lund, Director Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:

Meraj Rahimi, Branch Chief 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). 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 December 2, 2020 Signed by Rahimi, Meraj on 12/02/20

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:

Don Eggett, Chairman, ANS Standards Board 1.

Recap of the June 23, 2020 ANS/NEI Advanced Reactor Codes and Standards Workshop Mark Richter, NEIs POC for Advanced Reactors Codes and Standards and Senior 2.

Project Manager for Decommissioning and Used Fuel Codes and Standards for Advanced Reactors: NEI Update Will Windes, INL, Distinguished Scientist and DOE Advanced Reactor Technologies 3.

(ART) Graphite Technical Lead Licensing Consideration for Graphite Components George Flanagan, Chairman, ANS Research and Advanced Reactors Consensus 4.

Committee Progress on the ANS-20.2 Molten Salt Reactor Design Standard Wendy Reed, Metallurgist in the Corrosion and Metallurgy Branch, RES/DE 5.

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

Embark Venture Studio Project on10 CFR 50.55a Ralph Hill, Chair, ASME Standards Committee on Plant Systems Design 2.

Overview and Status: ASME's Plant Systems Design Standard Tom Roberts, Chair, ASME Section XI Subgroup on Reliability Integrity Management 3.

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

Programs for Nuclear Power Plants Tim Lupold, Senior Mechanical Engineer, NRR/DANU/UART 4.

NRC Perspectives on RIM/Plan for Endorsement Tom Scarbrough, Senior Mechanical Engineer in the Mechanical Engineering and 5.

Inservice Testing Branch, Division of Engineering and External Hazards (DEX), NRR QME-1 Material Qualification for Active Mechanical Equipment in Advanced Reactors Jordan Hoellman, Project Manager in the Advanced Reactor Policy Branch, NRR/DANU 6.

NRC Review and Endorsement of ASME BPVC Section III, Division 5 Michelle Gonzalez, Reliability and Risk Engineer in the Probabilistic Risk Assessment 7.

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:

Madhumita Sircar, Senior Structural Engineer in the Structural, Geotechnical, and 1.

Seismic Engineering Branch, RES/DE Codes and Standards for Design and Construction of Safety-Related Civil

Engineering Structures Adeola Adediran, Chair, ACI 349 Committee 2.

Updates on ACI 349 Development of Codes and Standards

Amit Varma, Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University 3.

Codes & Standards for Nuclear Structures: Future Developments and

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

4.

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

Hasan Charkas, Sam Johnson, Salvador Villalobos, Senior Technical Leaders, EPRI 5.

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:

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

Why Harmonization is Important

Prasad Kadambi, Chair, ANS Risk-informed, Performance-Based Principles and Policy 2.

Committee Outcome-Directed Harmonization of Consensus Standards

George Abatt, Vice Chair, ASCE DANS Committee and ASCE Nuclear Standards 3.

Committee Performance-Based Approach in ASCE Standards 4 and 43

Shen Wang, ACI 349 Committee Member 4.

Concrete Design Codes for Nuclear Facilities

Michael Cohen, Chair, ASME SWG High Temperature Reactors Stakeholders and Tim 5.

Adams, Vice Chair, ASME Standards Committee III ASME Perspectives on Harmonization of Codes and Standards under Unified

Risk-Informed and Performance Based Principles Daryl Harmon, Chair, IEEE Nuclear Power Engineering Committee (NPEC) 6.

NPECs Risk-Informed Standard and Harmonization with IEC Standards

Thomas Basso, Senor Director Regulatory Affairs, NEI and Steven Geier, Senior 7.

Director of the Engineering and Risk Division, NEI Codes and Standards Role in Nexus between Safety and Performance

Hasan Charkas, Principal Technical Leader, Advanced Nuclear Technology, EPRI 8.

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 David Gandy, Senior Technical Executive, Nuclear Materials, EPRI 1.

AMT Standards and Qualification AccelerationThe Potential of Advanced

Factory Fabrication Methods Mark Messner, Principal Mechanical Engineer, ANL 2.

Rapid Qualification of High Temperature Reactor Structural Materials

Kurt Terrani, Director, Transformational Challenge Reactor, ORNL 3.

Accelerating Quality Certification of Critical Components with Additive

Manufacturing Raj Iyengar, Branch Chief, Component Integrity Branch, RES/DE 4.

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:

Sheila Ray, Senior Electrical Engineer, Electrical Engineering New Reactor & License 1.

Renewal Branch, NRR/DEX Regulatory Guidance Framework for IEEE Electrical Standards

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

IEEE ICC & NPEC Nuclear Standards

Ismael Garcia, Senior Technical Advisor for Digital I&C, NRR/DEX 3.

Draft Approach for a New Regulatory Guidance Infrastructure for Digital I&C

Rufino Ayala, Chair, IEEE NPEC SC-6 4.

Perspectives on Regulatory Guidance Framework

Gabe Taylor, Senior Fire Protection Engineer in the Fire and External Hazards Analysis 5.

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:

2020 Standards Forum Agenda 1.

2020 Standards Forum List of Attendees 2.

2020 Standards Forum Questions and Answers 3.

L. Lund Enclosure 1

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

L. Lund Enclosure 1 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 9:10 - 10:30 Panel 1: Recent Developments in Codes and Standards for Advanced Reactors NRC, ANS, NEI, INL 10:30 - 12:00 Panel 2: Recent Developments in ASME Nuclear Codes and Standards NRC, ASME 12:00 - 12:45 Lunch 12:45 - 2:00 Panel 3: Codes and Standards for Design and Construction of Concrete, Steel-Plate Composite, and Steel/Metal Structures NRC, ACI, ASME, AISC, EPRI 2:00 - 3:15 Panel 4: Harmonization of Codes and Standards under Unified Risk-informed and Performance-based Principles NRC, ANS ASCE, ACI, ASME, IEEE, EPRI, NEI 3:15 - 3:45 Panel 5: Standards for Advanced Manufacturing Technologies (AMT)

NRC, EPRI, ANL, ORNL 3:45 - 4:25 Panel 6: Regulatory Guidance Framework for IEEE Standards NRC, IEEE 4:25 - 4:55 DOE Perspectives on Codes and Standards for Advanced Reactors DOE 4:55 - 5:00 Summary of key takeaways and closing remarks NRC U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

L. Lund Enclosure 2 NRC Standards Forum List of Attendees October 13, 2020 Name Affiliation Name Affiliation Steven Arndt Nuclear Regulatory 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

L. Lund Enclosure 2 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 Yuken Wong NRC Dirk Cairns-Gallimore Department of Energy (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 Bill Corwin Advanced Reactor Materials 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 Derek Winkler Amentum Frederick Brust Engineering Mechanics Corporation or Columbus Andrew Davis American Welding Society Robert Burg EPM, Inc.

Mark Messner Argonne National Laboratory (ANL)

Marc Albert Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Shayan Shahbazi ANL Hasan Charkas EPRI Sam Sham ANL Robin Dyle EPRI Pat Schroeder ANS David Gandy EPRI Allyson Byk American Society of 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.

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

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

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

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

L. Lund Enclosure 2 Ai-Shen Liu GE Hitachi Narasimha Kadambi Kadambi Engineering 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 Hongying Dai HSB Technical Consulting &

Service (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Tobin Oruch Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)

Ravi Somepalli Hydro Robert Budnitz Lawrence Berkeley National 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 Feifei Wu ISNI Keith Consani National Institute of Standards 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

L. Lund Enclosure 2 Gabriela Deleanu Ontario Power Generation Paul Edwards Stone & Webster George Flanagan Oak Ridge National Laboratory (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 Tom Roberts POMO18 Consult LLC Shuichi Orita Tokyo Elecric Power Company Holdings, Inc.

Vinod Chugh Power Generation Integrated 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 Scott Borland Scott Borland Michael Smith University of North Carolina at 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

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

Where is the Operation and Maintenance (OM)

Code considered for new reactors?

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

Does the American Nuclear Society (ANS)-20.2 standard include a frequency-consequence curve?

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

What interactions does NRC have with the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) on development of new codes and standards?

Through the participation of ASME representatives in the GIF, international perspectives are captured and considered in the ASME Code for example for Section III Division 5, High Temperature Reactors, which is currently under review by the NRC for endorsement.

Where do we stand with ANS Standard 53.1? The industry and DOE heavily supported the development of this standard over 8 years ago? Is the NRC endorsement forthcoming?

An ANS working group is being formed for the update of ANS-53.1. The NRC provides representation on several ANS consensus committees and standards working groups including the working group for ANS 53.1.

How does ANS-20.2 relate to the ANLWR PRA standard (ASME/ANS RA-S-1.4-2020)?

Several of the members in the working group for ANS-20.2 are also members of the working group for the ASME/ANS RA-S-1.4-2020. ANS 20.2 incorporates a 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:

-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 Comments from Mr. Bill Corwin.

L. Lund Enclosure 3

-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 for nuclear reactor components and systems. How are these reliability targets being agreed to?

Without this, RIPB approach is difficult to implement.

This is a challenge. The standard includes PRA concepts aimed at addressing reliability targets and enable the PRA views explicitly into the design process.

With the increasing understanding of applications of probabilistic approaches to shed light on safety and risk impact, knowing well the existence of data and model uncertainties, and paucity and long-term unavailability of data, why should the codes not fully embrace the reality and need for probabilistic approaches in the development of codes. Adding margins to account of lack of understanding may not always ensure safety and may entail unintended consequences.

Currently a number of codes and standards working groups, for example ASME's working group on Nonmetallic Design and Materials and Plant Systems Design, among others, are moving forth with a probabilistic, risk-informed, and performance-based approach. Such approaches effectively help with addressing the lack of data and experience, with some of the new materials and reactor systems.

What role is being considered for use of Artificial Intelligence technologies like Machine learning/Deep learning to extract knowledge from data to help design futuristic advanced reactors?

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 are looking into the development of digital twin technology to reduce operations and maintenance costs in the next generation of nuclear power plants.

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:

With respect to the presentation on Embark Venture Studio Project on10 CFR 50.55a, for Code publication/revision, would NRC be able to support cloud-based publication where updates would be much more frequent?

Rulemaking is a very resource-intensive process. The most frequent schedule for ASME-related rulemakings would be every 2 years, with the possibility that NRC may consider decreasing that frequency. However, there are diverse views on whether NRC should decrease the frequency of ASME rulemakings. So, the staff will be considering this question further in the future.

L. Lund Enclosure 3 When was the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) last updated? I just downloaded a copy and there is no longer any reference I can find to American Welding Society (AWS) welding standards. Used to be D1.1:2000, Structural welding code - Steel which caused problems since the code has been updated many times.

10 CFR 50.55a was updated on March 16, 2020 and May 4, 2020 to (1) incorporate by reference the latest revisions of three regulatory guides approving new, revised, and reaffirmed Code Cases published by ASME and (2) incorporate by reference the 2015 and 2017 Editions of the ASME BPV Code and the 2015 and 2017 Editions of the ASME O&M Code, respectively.

Is there any timeline for the Embark recommendations being evaluated or accepted by the NRC?

The NRC staff have drafted a paper to the Commission requesting permission for rulemaking to address the Embark recommendations. We will know a better 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 and OM and used the most recent version of those documents as adopted by 10 CFR 50.55a?

See answer to question above.

ASME Section III works on two-year cycles. To be of use to advanced reactors a rapid approval of new editions is needed. Once every six years for Section III is not going to be effective. What is the proposed review period for new editions of Section III?

No decisions have been made with respect how often any sections of the Code will or will not be endorsed. It is expected that those determinations will be made during a future rulemaking process.

How will the Plant Systems Design (PSD) standard integrate with other codes and standards or will this be a standalone standard encompassing design, construction, testing and inspection?

The PSD standard embraces a Systems Engineering approach as practiced in aerospace and defense industries where life-cycle design approach integrates design, construction, operation, testing and inspection needs into the design process. The actual scope of the standard is from conceptual design through final/detailed design with support of field changes from construction, startup and commissioning.

Question for NRC on Reliability Integrity Management (RIM): Current 10 CFR 50.69 low safety significant (LSS) implementing practice is based on evaluating existing final/detailed design.

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 18-04 and Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.233 are for licensing.

How would LSS be applied to a new design? Also, how do you design a system with active and passive components with RIM that is only for passive components?

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 so that there can be iterative effects in the design based on inspections. Inclusion of LSS components in RIM will depend on how the RIM expert panel evaluates the scope of LSS. If they are included in the program, then the Monitoring and Nondestructive Examination (MANDE) expert panel will develop the appropriate monitoring and nondestructive examination (NDE) to be applied to these components. Within active components, for example a pump or a valve, 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 consider type of MANDE as well as frequency of examinations to maintain RIM objectives.

Comment from Mr. Ned Finney.

L. Lund Enclosure 3 Question for ASME on RIM: Why was RIM added to Section XI? It's significantly different than the rest of Section XI and includes design. It seems to me like it should have its own code book.

RIM is not a design standard but could be considered during design.

Is there any consideration of endorsing Section III Division 1 in a regulatory guide as opposed to the current rule making process? This has been discussed in the past.

Discussions on alternatives for the endorsement of Section III Division 1 and related determinations are expected to take place in future rulemaking updates for 10 CFR 50.55a.

Related to the presentation on QME1, what about passive components? What about the classification of the ASME Class and Risk?

With respect to inservice testing (IST) for Advanced Reactors, it would be helpful to have a separate Advanced Reactor IST Code from the Light Water Reactor (LWR) OM Code so that all current issues can be resolved at the outset of NRC endorsement of IST for Advanced Reactors.

With respect to the NRC plans for endorsement of the ASME/ANS ANLWR PRA Standard, why has the NRC limited the applicability of the endorsement RG to Standard Design Certification (DC) and Combined License (COL) applications?

Due to upcoming applications, and timing issues, we had to limit the scope to DC and COL, but that doesn't mean we will not look at other applications in the future. These others will be addressed in separate RGs.

The NRC relies heavily on recommendations from Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in drafting the RG and the NUREG regarding the endorsement of ASME Section III Division 5. Since they are the same people who are Division 5 developers, what is the mechanism to prevent conflict of interest in this process?

ANL and INL were not NRC contractors for developing recommendations. The contractors for the review and endorsement effort for Section III Division 5 were the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and NUMARK.

The ANL and INL contracts were set up to resolve any technical comments during Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) review and to help resolve public comments.

Panel 3 Questions:

Putting a lot of pressure on new and existing nuclear to be successful in the current environment. How is NRC playing its role in making the regulation leaner and agile? Is the efficiency and effectiveness of NRC being monitored for continuous improvements?

The NRC continuously assesses the effectiveness of their regulations and processes. As an example, the NRC is using risk insights to decide and guide the quality and level of effort appropriate for a given activity. As another example, The NRC is focusing rulemaking for a wide variety of advanced nuclear reactors on risk-informed functional requirements, building on existing NRC requirements, Commission policy statements, and lessons-learned from recent activities.

In considering extreme loading conditions now required under the Design Extension Conditions recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), aiming for elastic behavior may not be feasible so plastic failures also need to be considered.

Aiming at elastic behavior is currently expected for design basis loading conditions with a few exceptions such as structural design to resist impactive and impulsive loads. For design extension conditions the plant level performance is analyzed in a manner that can consider structural response beyond elastic behavior.

To keep in line with the growing need and trend, are there any plans to include probabilistic design methods for reinforced concrete structures in American Concrete Institute (ACI)-349?

Currently, ACI-349 does not explicitly address probabilistic design methods. However, the code committee is open to recommendations for incorporating probabilistic design methods in ACI-349.

The standards keep growing more and more complicated. Are there any examples where simplification has been made?

Standards committees are open to recommendations for incorporating simplifications while still addressing changes in materials and construction technologies as

L. Lund Enclosure 3 well as in methods of analysis and performance requirements.

Panel 4 Questions:

Is a hierarchy of codes of standards desirable or feasible to achieve a Risk-Informed Performance-Based (RIPB) approach?

A hierarchy of codes of standards is essential. ANS and ASME, among other Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) are working towards establishing such hierarchy.

Is a graded approach needed so that the complexity is concomitant with the consequences of failures?

The proposed approach is designed to be graded and consequence driven. Significant flexibility was provided, which is reflected via using the frequency-consequence target for the design.

What is an appropriate manner to approach risk informing the process of quality assurance? Has PRA been applied to the classic deterministic process for Quality Assurance (QA) and then apply 50.69 categorization to determine how to grade the various elements of that process?

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 standard provides the scope and quality of the PRA applications and the peer review is an important component of the PRA process which is used to establish the contributions of each Structure, System, and Component (SSC) to the risk target. The 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:

What would be the highest priority item(s) that collectively that the SDO and the Regulator should engage to enable the progress and acceleration of codes and standards for advanced reactors?

Items of highest priority include, developing probabilistic design methods for high temperature; looking at developing a standard in both ASTM and ASME around 508 materials; qualification of new materials and development of more cost-effective ways 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 Instrumentation and Control (I&C) work? That is, merging Cyber Security countermeasures into the design phase of I&C technologies?

There are two different frameworks. 10 CFR 73.54 and the guidance in RG 5.71 address cyber security and are separate from the I&C framework.

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.

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