Roadmap To Develop Asme Code Rules For The Construction of High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors (HTGRS)

STP-NU-045
ROADMAP TO DEVELOP ASME CODE RULES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS COOLED REACTORS (HTGRS)
STP-NU-045
ROADMAP TO DEVELOP ASME CODE RULES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS COOLED REACTORS (HTGRS)
Prepared by: Robert Sims Becht Engineering
Date of Issuance: June 18, 2010 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by US NRC and the ASME Standards Technology, LLC (ASME ST-LLC). Neither ASME, ASME ST-LLC, the [authors, contractor], nor others involved in the preparation or review of this report, nor any of their respective employees, members or persons acting on their behalf, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe upon privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favoring by ASME ST-LLC or others involved in the preparation or review of this report, or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of the authors, contributors and reviewers of the report expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of ASME ST-LLC or others involved in the preparation or review of this report, or any agency thereof. ASME ST-LLC does not take any position with respect to the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any items mentioned in this document, and does not undertake to insure anyone utilizing a publication against liability for infringement of any applicable Letters Patent, nor assumes any such liability. Users of a publication are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, is entirely their own responsibility. Participation by federal agency representative(s) or person(s) affiliated with industry is not to be interpreted as government or industry endorsement of this publication. ASME is the registered trademark of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
No part of this document may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. ASME Standards Technology, LLC Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990 ISBN No. 978-0-7918-3334-6
Copyright 2010 by ASME Standards Technology, LLC All Rights Reserved
Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules
STP-NU-045
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword ............................................................................................................................................... iv 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 VISION STATEMENT ................................................................................................................... 5 OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................. 6 STAKEHOLDERS: ......................................................................................................................... 8 INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION: ................................................................................. 9 PHASE I, PART A ACTIVITIES: ................................................................................................ 12 ASSUMPTIONS USED IN DEVELOPING THE ROADMAP FOR PHASE I, PART B:.......... 13 REACTOR DESIGNS AND INFORMATION REQUIRED: ...................................................... 15 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TASKS ............................................................................. 16 RECOMMENDED GLOBALADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL TASKS FOR PHASE I, PART A and PHASE I, Part B:..................................................................................... 22
10 RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC CODE RULE DEVELOPMENT TASKS FOR PHASE I, PART B: ........................................................................................................................................ 27 11 OVERALL INDUSTRY APPROACH AND ORGANIZATION: ............................................... 37 References ............................................................................................................................................ 38 APPENDIX 1 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................... 39 APPENDIX 2 PRACTICES THAT HAVE BEEN USED IN OTHER CODES FOR CONSIDERATION ....................................................................................................................... 41 APPENDIX 3 BRIEF SUMMARY OF PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE IN ELEVATED TEMPERATURE APPLICATIONS ....................................................................... 42 APPENDIX 4 RECOMMENDED OVERALL ASME APPROACH AND ORGANIZATION: ...... 45 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................. 51
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Petrochemical Experience Pressure Vessels ....................................................................... 43 Table 2: Petrochemical Experience Furnace Tubes .......................................................................... 44
iii
STP-NU-045
FOREWORD
The Roadmap has been developed as a guide to the R&D and Code development tasks that could be considered in developing rules for High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors (HTGR). The primary focus of the Roadmap is on the development of a complete set of rules for the design and operating conditions that are being proposed for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) demonstration unit. This activity is considered to be a Phase I, Part B or intermediate-term activity for the purpose of the Roadmap. However, the Roadmap also mentions a Phase I, Part A activity to revise the existing elevated temperature design rules and to provide a Code Case for graphite and ceramic composite core support structures for interim use for HTGRs. There are some additional tasks that have been identified as a part of the Phase I, Part A effort as noted in this Roadmap. In addition, a Phase II activity is envisioned to develop rules for future generations of HTGRs that are expected to operate at higher temperatures, and for other advanced reactors, such as Liquid Metal (e.g. sodium) Cooled (LMR) designs. Phase II activities are not included in this Roadmap. Phase II activities are not included in this Roadmap. Established in 1880, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) is a professional notfor-profit organization with more than 127,000 members promoting the art, science and practice of mechanical and multidisciplinary engineering and allied sciences. ASME develops codes and standards that enhance public safety, and provides lifelong learning and technical exchange opportunities benefiting the engineering and technology community. Visit www.asme.org for more information. The ASME Standards Technology, LLC (ASME ST-LLC) is a not-for-profit Limited Liability Company, with ASME as the sole member, formed in 2004 to carry out work related to newly commercialized technology. The ASME ST-LLC mission includes meeting the needs of industry and government by providing new standards-related products and services, which advance the application of emerging and newly commercialized science and technology and providing the research and technology development needed to establish and maintain the technical relevance of codes and standards. Visit www.stllc.asme.org for more information.
iv
STP-NU-045
VISION STATEMENT
1.1. Current ASME Code rules do not adequately cover the construction of High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors (HTGRs). Although the current rules could be revised to meet the need, it has been recommended that a complete set of rules be developed specifically for HTGRs and other advanced reactor designs to cover new construction and in-service inspection. It is anticipated that operation and maintenance requirements for HTGRs will be covered by a new set of rules or by modifications to existing ASME OM Code. These are not covered in detail in the Roadmap. 1.2. The rules will contain the best available methods and technology, which have been validated using the consensus process in each area. 1.3. It is anticipated that the general scope of coverage of the rules will remain the same as the current scope of the Section III and Section XI rules (e.g. the focus will be primarily on the integrity of the pressure boundary and core support structures). 1.4. In order to efficiently develop the new rules, a roadmap is desirable to act as a checklist to be sure that all components of the rules are being developed in a timely manner and that the rules being developed by various project teams are coordinated to ensure consistency. 1.5. It will be necessary to reach a broad consensus at each step of the Code rule development process and on each of the R&D projects. It is acknowledged that these consensus decisions could deviate from the recommendations in the roadmap in many cases. As this process evolves, provisions should be made for periodic updates to the roadmap to consider the effect of each decision on all aspects of the Code rule development activities.
STP-NU-045
OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1. The Roadmap has been developed as a guide to the R&D and Code development tasks that could be considered in developing rules for High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors (HTGR). The primary focus of the Roadmap is on the development of a complete set of rules for the design and operating conditions that are being proposed for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) demonstration unit. This activity is considered to be a Phase I, Part B or intermediate-term activity for the purpose of the Roadmap. However, the Roadmap also mentions a Phase I, Part A activity to revise the existing elevated temperature design rules and to provide a Code Case for graphite and ceramic composite core support structures for interim use for HTGRs. There are some additional tasks that have been identified as a part of the Phase I, Part A effort as noted in this Roadmap. In addition, a Phase II activity is envisioned to develop rules for future generations of HTGRs that are expected to operate at higher temperatures, and for other advanced reactors, such as Liquid Metal (e.g. sodium) Cooled (LMR) designs. Phase II activities are not included in this Roadmap. Phase II activities are not included in this Roadmap. 2.1.1. The short-term Phase I, Part A activity mentioned above has been identified to support HTGR stakeholders prior to the completion of the published complete set of rules. 2.1.2. As the ASME Code project teams, task groups, and committees deliberate, it is anticipated that some of these tasks will be revised or eliminated from consideration and others will be added. The tasks proposed here consist of a compilation of suggestions from individuals interviewed and from the author. 2.2. Appendix 1 provides a list of acronyms used in the Roadmap. 2.3. The roadmap also includes a suggested organization for the ASME Code committees, subgroups and project teams to complete the tasks and to produce the necessary code rules (see Appendix4). This suggested organization applies only to the Phase I, Part B activities. It has been assumed that the Phase I, Part A activities will be completed by the existing organization. It is anticipated that the Phase I, Part B organization will change as a result of the BNCS and the BPV III review of the needs and resource availability. 2.4. The philosophy used to generate the tasks and organization was to: 2.4.1. Designate dedicated project teams to draft proposals for each portion of the rules. 2.4.2. Require and ensure that each project team determine the best available technology for each portion of the rules, incorporating, as appropriate, recent work in other codes and standards as well as the technical literature. It is recognized that this process is well underway in many areas (e.g. ETD). 2.4.3. Ensure that close liaison is maintained and coordinated among all project teams and activities to ensure that the new construction and post construction (in-service) rules are complimentary and consistent. Examples include: 2.4.3.1. Ensure that new construction NDE provides the proper baseline for post construction NDE (e.g. UT vs. RT) 2.4.3.2. Ensure that fabrication and examination rules are consistent with design rules. 2.4.4. The Roadmap focuses primarily on those tasks that are needed to develop code rules. Tasks that may be needed to demonstrate performance or for specific designs are outside of the scope.
STP-NU-045
2.5. The Roadmap does not address resource issues. However, it is anticipated that projects developed by ASME Standards Technology LLC may be needed to sponsor individuals and groups to draft Code rules. 2.6. The Roadmap was developed using the assumption that the objective was to produce a complete set of Code rules for the HTGR that could be endorsed by regulators and incorporated in regulatory rules (e.g. the U.S. NRC).
STP-NU-045
STAKEHOLDERS:
The following stakeholders were considered in the development of this Roadmap. Although the interests of these stakeholders were considered by the author to the extent practicable, only a selected subset of these stakeholders was consulted during the course of preparation of the roadmap: 3.1. Regulatory Community 3.1.1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S. NRC) 3.1.2. Other worldwide regulatory bodies 3.2. Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs) 3.3. Designers and Constructors of HTGR facilities. For example: 3.3.1. Areva, Inc. 3.3.2. General Atomics 3.3.3. Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (Pty) Limited (PBMR) 3.3.4. Westinghouse Electric Co., LLC. 3.3.5. Others 3.4. DOE and DOE National Laboratories. For example: 3.4.1. Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) 3.4.2. Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 3.4.3. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) 3.5. Consultants 3.6. Materials suppliers 3.7. Equipment suppliers 3.8. Service providers. For example: 3.9. Monitoring 3.9.1. NDE 3.9.2. General Public
STP-NU-045
INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION:
4.1. This document proposes processes and timelines for the development of ASME Code rules for the construction of components for high temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGRs) in three phases: 4.1.1. Phase I, Part A - Activities related to revising and updating the elevated temperature rules and material data in Section II, Section III, Subsection NH (III-NH) and the elevated temperature code cases (e.g. Code Cases N-499 and N-201) for the design conditions identified by stakeholders for immediate application. This includes adding new materials and extending the temperature and exposure time limits for existing materials in Subsection NH as needed. Activities related to providing rules for graphite and ceramic composite core support structures are also included in Phase I, Part A. There are also some Phase I, Part B activities that have been identified as potentially important for licensing of the HTGR. These are identified individually as also applying to Phase I, Part A in the Roadmap. 4.1.2. Phase I Part B includes activities related to developing rules to be incorporated into the new Section III, Division 5 (III-5) and Section XI, Division 2 (XI-2) books to meet the needs identified by stakeholders worldwide for HTGR facilities that will be designed within the next decade. It has been assumed in the development of the Roadmap that these needs are limited to the current design conditions for the NGNP. 4.1.3. Phase II Activities related to developing rules to be incorporated into the new III-5 and XI-2 books to meet the needs identified by stakeholders worldwide for facilities that will be designed more than a decade from now. It has been assumed in the development of the Roadmap that these needs include significantly higher component temperatures than will be considered in Phase I, Part B. Therefore, additional time will be needed for conducting R&D to provide technical data and information for establishing bases for Code rules. 4.2. The Phase 1, Part A activities are considered to be the minimum required for developing rules for the HTGR. However, it is expected that Phase 1, Part A and Phase 1, Part B activities will be done in parallel. Although this will place extensive demands on the available resources, it is important to avoid delays in developing and publishing a complete set of Code rules for HTGRs. 4.3. The processes and timelines in the Roadmap are based on assumptions about the technical alternatives that the Standards Committees will consider. These alternatives should be considered, but are provided only for process and timeline development. The Roadmap should be considered a living document, and updated as committees reach a consensus on each technical and organizational alternative. 4.4. The proposed organization, process and timeline for Phase I, Part B are based on assumptions about the format of the rules (e.g. new clean sheet Section III, Division 5 book). If the Standards Committees decide to change the format, this roadmap should be updated, reflecting that decision. 4.5. The remainder of this Roadmap is organized as follows. Paragraph numbers and headings shown in bold blue type indicate hyperlinks. Click on the number or heading to jump to that location (depending on options selected in your program, it may be necessary to hold down the Ctrl key when clicking on the item): 4.5.1. Paragraph 5 describes recommended Phase I, Part A activities.
STP-NU-045
4.5.2. Paragraph 6 describes the assumptions used in developing the Roadmap for Phase I, Part B. As the Code development activity progresses, it is anticipated that some of these assumptions will change. The Roadmap should then be updated, to reflect those changes. 4.5.3. Paragraph 7 describes the reactor designs covered and the information about those designs that is needed to develop Code rules in a timely manner. 4.5.4. Paragraph 8 describes recommended research and development (R&D) tasks to address issues that were identified during development of this Roadmap. 4.5.5. Paragraph 9 describes global administrative and technical tasks that are recommended to establish the overall framework for the Code development activities and to provide direction to the cognizant Subcommittees, Subgroups, Working Groups, Project Teams and Task Groups. 4.5.6. Paragraph 10 describes specific tasks recommended for completion of the Code rules. Paragraph 10 also describes some recommended technical approaches to expedite the development of Code rules that utilize the best available technology. 4.5.7. Paragraph 11 describes a recommended overall industry approach and organization to provide a framework for coordination with other SDOs. 4.5.8. It is recognized that there is a lot of redundancy among the R&D tasks in paragraph 8, the Code rule development tasks in paragraph 10 and the recommended organization in below. However, this was done to make each section self contained. 4.5.9. Appendix 1 provides a list of acronyms used in the Roadmap. 4.5.10. Appendix 2 provides a list of some of the practices that have been used in other codes for consideration by the groups developing the rules. 4.5.11. Appendix 3 provides a brief summary of petrochemical industry experience in elevated temperature applications. The petrochemical industry has extensive experience with pressure vessels made from materials that are being considered for HTGRs and that operate at temperatures in the ranges being considered. This practical real world experience should be considered in developing elevated temperature design rules for HTGRs, as appropriate. 4.5.12. Appendix4 describes a recommended organizational structure for the ASME Code development effort. 4.5.13. A project schedule and timeline are provided in a separate document. 4.6. The following abbreviations for Codes and Standards are used in this document. 4.6.1. BPV III-5 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 5, Part 1 (in preparation). Tentative Title: Rules for the Construction of High Temperature GasCooled Nuclear Reactors. 4.6.2. BPV XI-2 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Division 2 (in preparation). Tentative areas of coverage will include inspection, evaluation, and repair/replacement activities for next generation high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (NGNP). 4.6.3. BPV III-NH ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Subsection NH, Class 1 Components in Elevated Temperature Service. 4.6.4. BPV VIII-2 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 2, Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels Division 2-Alternative Rules
10
STP-NU-045
4.6.5. BPV VIII-3 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 3, Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels Division 3-Alternative Rules High Pressure Vessels. 4.6.6. QME ASME Qualification of Active Mechanical Equipment used in Nuclear Power Plants.
11
STP-NU-045
PHASE I, PART A ACTIVITIES:
5.1. Update III-NH and the Associated Elevated Temperature Code Cases. In order to expedite the development of rules that can be used to design HTGRs in the short term, it is recommended that the existing Code framework and organizational structure be used to update existing rules in Subsection NH and Code Cases N-499, N-201 (see report on Task 4, Updating of ASME Nuclear Code Case N-201 to Accommodate the Needs of Metallic Core Support Structures for High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors Currently in Development) and possibly N-253. The following Task Forces have been established under SG ETD to accomplish the updates: 5.1.1. Allowable Stress Criteria Task Force 5.1.2. Creep-Fatigue Task Force 5.1.3. Negligible Creep Criteria Task Force 5.1.4. Strain Limits and Ratcheting Task Force 5.2. Develop a Code Case with rules for graphite core support structures. This Code Case should be written in the format of a Code Section or Subsection so that it can be incorporated into III-5 at the appropriate time. The Code Case should be based on the assumption that the materials data needed for design, including end-of-life properties, will be provided by the user in the Users Design Specification (UDS). Irradiation effects can significantly change graphite material properties and dimensions, but some stakeholders believe that at the operating conditions for the NGNP, it takes some time (e.g. 4 to 6 years of accumulated fast neutron fluence) before these changes become significant. Therefore, the long-term testing described below may not be needed for the initial issuance of design rules. This should be validated through the consensus process. 5.2.1. Long-term testing is needed to define physical, chemical, thermal, and mechanical property and dimensional changes that occur in the graphite materials that are proposed for core components due to load, thermal and radiation exposure. The extent of the changes is interactive with the phenomena that are occurring as irradiation proceeds. This testing is expected to take many years and should be conducted in parallel with the construction and commissioning of operating reactors. The tests could be based on accelerating the damage by using more severe levels of load, temperature and radiation so that the results can be used to provide an early warning of potential problems in operating units. Alternatively, the tests can be started well in advance of commissioning (see paragraph 8.3.12). 5.3. A Code rule or Code Case should be considered to require that the design of critical components be done considering the need for in-service inspection, online and offline testing and monitoring. In addition, consideration should be given to providing for component repair and replacement. This task should be assigned as shown in paragraph 4.1.4.5.9.
12
STP-NU-045
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN DEVELOPING THE ROADMAP FOR PHASE I, PART B:
6.1. Close coordination will be needed among the committees developing BPV III-5, BPV XI-2, and the OM Code revisions to ensure that the new construction rules complement the in-service rules, particularly considering interaction among the new construction rules, in-service examination, and testing requirements. A Subgroup should be formed for this purpose (see Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.1). Examples of areas where coordination is needed are: 6.1.1. Uncertainties in the design life that may result from a lack of detailed knowledge of longterm materials behavior at elevated temperatures in an HTGR environment can be addressed by imposing very conservative design margins based on available data and/or by imposing rigorous in-service NDE and/or surveillance coupon testing. The adequacy of this approach depends on ensuring that the NDE and/or surveillance coupon testing will be able to detect the expected degradation. Using this approach implies that damage may be detected prior to the desired 60 year life that would require repair or replacement. 6.1.1.1. It should be possible to install surveillance coupons during construction that can be removed periodically to test for time-dependent material damage. Alternatively, coupons could be installed at an on-site or off-site laboratory facility. 6.1.2. Establishing requirements for in-service examination, monitoring and testing of graphite, ceramic and composite core support structures are important considerations. Some of these activities could be handled either in BPV XI-2 or in the OM Codes. This should be coordinated (see Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.1). 6.1.3. It is desirable to obtain baseline NDE results for primary pressure boundary structures and components during the construction phase. Therefore, the NDE methods used during new construction should be consistent with those used in service. This should be coordinated between BPV III-5 and BPV XI-2 (see Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.1). 6.2. Currently available technology and materials data, or data that can be obtained with relatively short-term R&D programs (e.g. 2 years or less), will be used to develop the Phase I, Part B Code rules for elevated temperature metallic components. This is based on the assumption that materials of construction that are selected (see paragraph 7.1.2.3) are those with adequate available data. Short-term development work is needed in some areas. Assumptions about operating conditions used in developing this roadmap are: 6.2.1. The Phase I, Part B high temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGR), will have a normal operating reactor outlet temperature limited to 750 800oC (1380 1470oF). It is recognized that short-term temperatures (transients) may be higher. The range of values to be considered should be confirmed with all stakeholders (see paragraph 7.1.2). Stakeholders should be asked to agree that these temperature and coincident pressure conditions will apply for developing the first set of Code rules that will cover reactors worldwide that are designed within the next 10 years or so. 6.2.2. Construction techniques that provide thermal barriers to avoid direct contact between hot process fluid and the primary pressure boundary will be used for the reactor pressure vessel and the hot gas piping to limit primary pressure boundary temperature to no higher than 370oC (700oF), with short-term excursions limited to 538oC (1000oF). These values should be confirmed with all stakeholders (see paragraph 7.1.2). 6.2.3. Metallic reactor core support structures will be exposed to temperatures of 500oC (930oF) to 520oC (970oF) in normal operation, with short-term excursions to 670oC (1240oF). These values should be confirmed with all stakeholders (see paragraph 7.1.2).
13
STP-NU-045
6.2.4. Other components, such as liners for hot gas ducts, will see normal operating temperatures in local areas up to 850oC (1560oF), with short-term excursions to 900oC (1650oF). These values should be confirmed with all stakeholders (see paragraph 7.1.2). 6.2.5. It is anticipated that future very high temperature gas cooled reactors (VHTR) will have core outlet temperatures that are 100 200oC (210 390oF) higher than the NGNP (Phase I, Part B design basis). Code rules for these and for other reactor types (e.g. sodium cooled) will be developed in Phase II. Phase II activities are not included in this Roadmap. 6.3. Rules for new construction of HTGRs will be contained in BPV III-5. BPV III-5 will reference existing material in other divisions and subsections as appropriate. However, BPV III-5 will be a self-contained book or books, so it may be appropriate in some cases to incorporate material from other books rather than reference it. This is particularly true if changes are needed to the material that is incorporated to meet the needs of HTGRs. This is a case-by-case decision that should be made by the groups that develop the rules. 6.4. Rules for in-service inspection and repair of HTGRs will be contained in BPV XI-2, which is in preparation. BPV XI-2 will reference existing material in other divisions and subsections as appropriate. However, BPV XI-2 will be a self-contained book, so it may be appropriate in some cases to incorporate material from other books rather than make a reference. This is particularly true if changes are needed to the material that is incorporated to meet the needs of HTGRs. 6.5. Rules and Guidelines for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants including preservice and in-service testing will be contained within the existing OM Code and OM-S/G. 6.6. Rules for Probabilistic Risk Assessment will be contained in the new Standard for Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Advanced Non-LWR Nuclear Power Plant Applications. 6.7. If rules are needed for the qualification of active mechanical equipment, they should be contained within the existing QME Code, Qualification of Active Mechanical Equipment used in Nuclear Power Plants. 6.8. This timeline was developed with the objective of producing final Phase I, Part B Code rules for publication in July, 2013. This date should be confirmed by the stakeholders. However, preliminary assessments of the time required to develop methodology and materials data in some of the areas (see separate schedule) would push publication out to about the end of 2015 or later. The author recommends that the Nuclear Codes and Standards Leaders work with the ETD folks to try to shorten this timeline.
14
STP-NU-045
REACTOR DESIGNS AND INFORMATION REQUIRED:
7.1. The Roadmap covers primarily the prismatic and pebble bed HTGR designs. One task that should be completed as soon as possible is to identify the design conditions (pressure temperature histograms, operating environment, etc.) for these designs because the Code rule development process, particularly in the elevated temperature design and analysis area, depends on a detailed understanding of those conditions. This task is described below: 7.1.1. Define types of components that will be needed. For example: 7.1.1.1. Types of construction for elevated temperature heat exchangers. 7.1.1.2. Will elevated temperature bellows type expansion joints be required? 7.1.2. Define Elevated Temperature Requirements for components that will be operating in the creep regime that will be used as a basis for developing R&D projects and Code rules for the HTGRs that are designed to meet the design and operating conditions for the NGNP as follows (see Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.6.1). Consider the data and conclusions in the DOE/ASME Gen IV Material Projects, Tasks 112. If requirements are established that are outside of the limits of current databases or the limits of data that are readily obtainable in the short term, it may delay the development of Code rules significantly. 7.1.2.1. Time/Temperature/Load envelope for each primary loop component including, but not limited to, the reactor pressure vessel, IHX, steam generator, reactor core supports and internal components. 7.1.2.1.1. If equipment can be de-pressurized to reduce stress if metal temperatures exceed defined limits during upset events, this should be defined as a part of the envelope. 7.1.2.1.2. The envelope should include all expected startup, shutdown and upset conditions. 7.1.2.1.3. Local variations in temperature due to non-homogeneous distribution of coolant flow should be considered. 7.1.2.2. Fluid environment for each component, particularly potential contaminants. 7.1.2.3. Materials to be considered for each component (spec. and grade). 7.1.2.4. Elevated temperature requirements should be determined considering the views and experience of all stakeholders, including the elevated temperature experts who will be primarily responsible for developing the Code rules.
15
STP-NU-045
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TASKS

8.1.1. Tests to develop material properties and information about the long-term performance of materials. 8.1.2. Development and validation of new design and analysis methods. 8.1.3. Development of new methods for fabrication and examination. 8.1.4. Development of drafts of Code rules based on existing methods and data, and the validation of those rules, are not considered to be R&D. However, if a consensus cannot be reached on certain aspects of the rules, it may be necessary to initiate R&D projects to obtain more data or to develop modified or alternative methods. Also, it should be recognized that it may be necessary to initiate funded projects to develop Code rules in some areas. The project teams responsible for each portion of the rules should make recommendations for consideration by the appropriate groups within the ASME organizational structure.
8.1. The term R&D as used in the Roadmap is intended to include the following categories of tasks:
8.2. Phase I, Part A R&D tasks. No additional tasks are anticipated other than those already underway, although the project teams assigned to develop the rules may identify R&D tasks as their work progresses. In particular, R&D that may be needed to incorporate the materials and temperature ranges identified by the stakeholders for short-term application (see paragraph 7.1) should be identified and completed. 8.3. Phase I, Part B R&D tasks. In order to provide comprehensive rules for the Phase I, Part B HTGRs, it is anticipated that some R&D will be needed. The R&D tasks that are recommended are described below. A benefit-cost analysis should be performed to evaluate each R&D program prior to authorizing funding: 8.3.1. Develop Improved Elevated Temperature Design Methodology. The methodology should be based on the current state of knowledge in this field to the extent practicable, but additional R&D should be conducted to confirm existing technical bases and address the gaps specific to HTGR related service. See the material in Task 9: Update and Improve Subsection NH - Simplified Elastic and Inelastic Design Analysis Methods, and Task 10: Update and Improve Subsection NH Alternative Simplified Creep-Fatigue Design Methods. Also see the discussion of probabilistic (LRFD) methods in paragraph 8.3.9. The Code rule development task is described in paragraph 10.1.6. The following specific R&D tasks are recommended: 8.3.2. Develop Improved Negligible Creep criteria (threshold of concern) for considering time dependent properties in design for each material to be used at elevated temperatures in a HTGR. It will first be necessary to define negligible creep. Current negligible creep criteria in BPV III-NH are restricted to an evaluation of strain limits based on elastic analysis. The author recommends that negligible creep be defined as described in paragraph 8.3.2 below. The Code rule development task is described in paragraph 10.1.6.1. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.6.1. 8.3.2.1. A recommended definition of negligible creep is: The time/temperature/stress envelope below which the following time dependent failure modes are not considered to be a significant concern. The envelope should consider stress re-distribution due to creep strain.Creep rupture due to long-term loadings. Note that failure due to exceeding the short-term yield strength is considered to be a time independent failure mode.
16
STP-NU-045
8.3.2.1.1. Gross distortion due to time dependent creep buckling or creep ratcheting. 8.3.2.1.2. Loss of function due to excessive creep deformation. 8.3.2.1.3. Creep-fatigue failure 8.3.2.2. Current assumptions are that the threshold for negligible creep is 370oC (700oF) for carbon and low alloy steels and 425oC (800oF) for austenitic materials at the design stress levels permitted by Section III. However, some of the experts in the field now believe that actual thresholds may be well below these values for the ~500,000 hour (60 years at 95% capability factor) expected life of the HTGRs. The current thinking among the ETD experts is that a threshold comparable to light water reactor operating temperatures can be justified for carbon steel based on LWR experience. Increasing this threshold may require many years of testing. However, the author recommends that the extensive experience in other industries, such as fossil power and petrochemicals, be considered before deciding that long-term testing is needed. 8.3.2.2.1. The threshold may shift if the design margins are changed. 8.3.3. Develop methodology for exemption from a formal fatigue or creepfatigue damage evaluation for use at elevated temperatures. This methodology would be in addition to current rules for creep-fatigue analysis. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.6.2. 8.3.3.1. Consider shakedown to elastic conditions. If shakedown to elastic conditions can be achieved as demonstrated by an elastic-plastic analysis that includes creep relaxation, and if the number of full load design cycles is low (e.g. less than 125 for welded components or less than 1,000 for non-welded components), it should be possible to qualify the component for service without additional analysis. The associated Code rule development task is described in paragraph 10.1.6.2. Refer to paper Extend Fatigue Exemption Rules for Low Cr Alloys Slightly into the TimeDependent Range for Section VIII, Div 2 Construction, ASME ST-LLC STP-NU-FRPASMEST-07-03, and to Subsection NH, Appendix T. 8.3.3.2. Compile existing creep relaxation data or develop new data as needed for the materials identified in paragraph 7.1.2.3 to support the exemption from creep-fatigue rules (also see paragraph 8.3.4) and current deformation controlled limits in BPV IIINH. It is important to separate relaxation due to exceeding the short-term yield strength from time dependent creep relaxation. Overall, this is a very long-term exercise. 8.3.4. Develop initial loading and cyclic stress-strain curves for all materials to be used for BPV III-5 construction for the complete temperature range of interest if these data are needed for the analysis methods selected. For elevated temperatures, include creep relaxation curves and perform tests at a range of strain rates. Development of the RFP for this work and oversight should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.6.3. 8.3.5. Develop Improved Design Methodology for Creep-Fatigue Evaluation by Analysis. This approach should take full advantage of modern analysis tools, such as elastic-plastic finite element analysis with creep strain capability. Note that R&D is recommended to develop the necessary material models (see paragraph 8.3.5.5) as well as cyclic stressstrain and creep relaxation curves (see paragraph 8.3.4). Also see reports on Task 9: Update and Improve Subsection NH - Simplified Elastic and Inelastic Design Analysis
17
STP-NU-045
Methods. In addition, see report on Task 10: Update and Improve Subsection NH Alternative Simplified Creep-Fatigue Design Methods. Elastic follow-up should be addressed as a part of the analysis procedure. The associated Code rule development task is described in paragraph 10.1.6.3. This task, and the subtasks (approaches) listed below, should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.6.3. The following approaches are among those that should be considered: 8.3.5.1. API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 8.3.5.2. R5 8.3.5.3. RCC-MR 8.3.5.4. BPV III-NH Appendix T 8.3.5.5. Develop the necessary materials models for creep-fatigue evaluation by elasticplastic creep analysis considering the interaction of time dependent creep strain and time independent plastic strain on the material. This could be a very long-term effort. Therefore, consideration should be given to using the existing work in this area to develop conservative (bounding) models. This project should also use statistical analysis to address the issue of whether to use minimum or average properties in the analysis. 8.3.5.6. Validation Testing of Design Methodology for Creep-Fatigue Evaluation by Analysis. Proposed rules should be validated by round robin analyses and extensive peer review. Development of the RFP for this work and oversight should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.6.3. 8.3.6. Develop Methodology for Load Controlled Stress Limits that Do Not Require Stress Classification. Stress classification, as currently required, is difficult and subjective for complex geometries and loading conditions. Methods based on reference stress and stationary creep concepts should be considered. See Task 9: Update and Improve Subsection NH - Simplified Elastic and Inelastic Design Analysis Methods. Development of the RFP for this work and oversight should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.6.3 8.3.7. Develop Improved Methodology for Strain Limits and Ratcheting based on the results of elastic or simplified inelastic analysis and taking full advantage of modern analysis tools. Current methods have geometry and loading restraints that limit their applicability and can result in either unnecessary redesign or application of significantly more complex evaluation methods based on the results of inelastic (elastic-plastic creep) analysis. See Task 9: Update and Improve Subsection NH - Simplified Elastic and Inelastic Design Analysis Methods. Development of the RFP for this work and oversight should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.6.3 8.3.8. Develop Rules for Design and InService Evaluation Using Fracture Mechanics. This approach can be used for new construction where the fabrication and examination methods cannot ensure that small flaws do not exist in the structure. It is particularly important for post construction (in-service) applications to evaluate flaws that are located and sized by NDE. The methodology that is described in API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Parts 9 and 10 could be used to handle creep-fatigue interaction. However, R&D will be needed to validate this methodology. See also the material in DOE/ASME Gen IV Task 8 Creep and Creep-Fatigue Crack Growth at Structural Discontinuities and Welds. The associated Code rule development task is described in paragraph 10.1.6.4. This task and the subtask below should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.6.4.
18
STP-NU-045
8.3.8.1. Develop Rules for leak-before-break performance for Helium Pressure Boundary (HPB) materials. It may be difficult to demonstrate leak-before-break for thick wall components, but example calculations (R&D) could be performed using the fracture mechanics rules to determine if it is practicable. 8.3.8.2. Develop Additional Materials Data and other Analysis needs as recommended in DOE/ASME Gen IV Material Projects, Tasks 111. This includes da/dN and da/dt data to support the fracture mechanics methods. Development of the RFP for this work and oversight should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.7. This program is complementary to, and should be developed in conjunction with, the program described in paragraph 8.4.3. 8.3.9. Consider Probabilistic methods. Probabilistic methods, including LoadResistance Factor Design (LRFD) methods, are particularly valuable when there is a lot of scatter in the data. It is anticipated that Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) results will be available to provide guidance for acceptance criteria. However, it is recommended that probabilistic methods be considered for Phase I, Part B only if they can be implemented without extending the time required to complete and publish the rules. The associated Code rule development task is described in paragraph 10.1.7. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.5.3 However, due to the large number of variables involved, it will probably not be possible to develop this methodology within the time frame covered by the Phase I, Part B effort. 8.3.10. Develop and Validate Remote UT methods for detecting cracks in components without physical contact (e.g. laser methods). Development of the RFP for this work and oversight should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.9.1. The Code rule development task is described in paragraph 10.1.8. Consider additional R&D recommendations in this area, if any, in the Task 12 report. 8.3.11. Develop methodology for continuous AE monitoring of critical components during operation. ASME ST-LLC Gen IV / NGNP Materials Project - Task 12 Non-Destructive Examination and In-Service Inspection Technology for High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors should provide some guidance in this area. The R&D should be developed and guided by a Task Group with members from Section V and Section XI as well as from Section III (see paragraph 4.1.4.5.9.2). Problems of signal to noise ratio and the threshold for damage detection (e.g. void/cavity formation or finite crack) should be addressed. The associated Code rule development task is described in paragraph 10.1.14.4. 8.3.12. Develop / Continue programs to support the carbon, graphite, ceramic and composite rules (e.g. for core support structures). Development of the RFP for this work and oversight should be assigned as shown in paragraph 4.1.4.5.11. See ASME ST-LLC STP-NU-009 Graphite for High Temperature Gas-Cooled Nuclear Reactors and NUREG/CR-6944, Vol. 5; ORNL/TM-2007/147, Vol. 5 Next Generation Nuclear Plant Phenomena Identification and Ranking Tables (PIRTS), Volume 5: Graphite PIRTS. 8.3.12.1. Long-term testing is needed to define the property and dimensional changes that occur in the graphite and composite materials that are proposed for core components due to load, thermal and radiation exposure. This testing is expected to take many years and should be done in parallel with the construction and commissioning of operating reactors. The tests should be based on accelerating the damage by using more severe levels of load, temperature and radiation so that the results can be used to provide an early warning of potential problems in operating units. Alternatively, the tests can be started well in advance of commissioning.
19
STP-NU-045
8.3.13. Establish a NDE Database by means of an ongoing Joint Industry Project (JIP) to: 8.3.13.1. Document current capabilities as demonstrated by equipment manufacturers, NDE service firms, users and research facilities. Capabilities would be subject to peer review. 8.3.13.2. Document current R&D activities and identify gaps that could be closed by additional research projects. 8.3.13.3. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.9. 8.3.13.4. The database should include NDE for metallic and non-metallic materials. 8.3.14. Investigate Structural Brazes and other High Temperature Bonding Methods. Structural joining using brazing, diffusion bonding or other joining methods are needed for components such as intermediate heat exchangers. A program to document long-term performance of these methods for the components and at the temperatures identified by the work described in paragraph 7 is needed. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.8.1. The associated Code rule development task is described in paragraph 10.1.12. 8.3.14.1. Long-term testing is needed to define the behavior of structural components joined by brazing under load and thermal exposure. This testing is expected to take many years and should be done in parallel with the construction and commissioning of operating reactors. The tests should be based on accelerating the damage by using more severe levels of load and temperature so that the results can be used to provide an early warning of potential problems in operating units. Alternatively, the tests can be started well in advance of commissioning. 8.3.15. Develop environmental factors for HTGR environments for the Structural Stress Method for welded structures from BPV VIII-2 and BPV VIII-3 only if the Standards Committee decides to adopt that method. However, note that conservative factors are currently available, so the R&D results would be used primarily to reduce conservatism in the analysis. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.5.4. 8.3.16. Develop environmental factors for HTGR environments for the traditional S-N fatigue analysis methods for non-welded portions of components. However, note that conservative factors are currently available, so the R&D results would be used only to reduce conservatism in the analysis. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.5.4. 8.3.17. Develop environmental factors for HTGR environments for fracture mechanics analysis. However, note that conservative factors are currently available, so the R&D results would be used only to reduce conservatism in the analysis. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.5.5. 8.3.18. Additional R&D programs as defined by the Project Teams working in each area. 8.4. Additional Phase I, Part B R&D tasks The following additional R&D tasks should be considered. They should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.4. These tasks may not be needed for the development of the Code rules themselves, depending on the philosophy adopted by BPV III and the BNCS. However, they should be considered for longterm integrity assurance. 8.4.1. R&D (testing) should be considered to determine the corrosion/erosion allowance to be applied to materials in high temperature impure helium service. It is anticipated that the Code rules will require the corrosion/erosion allowance to be specified in the UDS, so this
20
STP-NU-045
R&D may not be necessary for the development of the Code rules themselves. The need for Code rules with requirements for the testing should also be considered. 8.4.2. R&D (testing) should be considered to determine the allowance for metal loss due to wear at heat exchanger tube supports and core supports where sliding movement can occur. It is anticipated that the Code rules will require the wear allowance to be specified in the UDS, so this R&D may not be necessary for the development of the Code rules themselves. The need for Code rules with requirements for the testing should also be considered. 8.4.3. R&D (testing) is needed to obtain data on end-of-life strength and toughness properties for metallic and non-metallic materials that are expected to degrade due to thermal aging, radiation, and interaction with the environment. This program is complementary to, and should be developed in conjunction with, the program described in paragraph 8.3.8.2. It is anticipated that the Code rules will require the end-of-life properties to be specified in the UDS, so this R&D may not be necessary for the development of the Code rules themselves. Note that this does not include elevated temperature creep / creep rupture properties. The need for Code rules with requirements for the testing should also be considered. 8.4.4. R&D (testing) is needed to obtain data on beginning-of-life and end-of-life emissivity for components. It is anticipated that the Code rules will require the end-of-life emissivity to be specified in the UDS, so this R&D may not be necessary for the development of the Code rules themselves. The need for Code rules with requirements for the testing should also be considered. 8.4.5. R&D (testing) is needed to obtain data on the magnitude of dimensional changes during the lifetime of the plant in carbon, graphite and composite materials due to irradiation, creep and corrosion / oxidation. This program is complementary to, and should be developed in conjunction with, the program described in paragraph 8.3.12. It is anticipated that the Code rules will require the dimensional changes to be specified in the UDS, so this R&D may not necessary for the development of the Code rules themselves. The need for Code rules with requirements for the testing should also be considered. 8.5. Phase II R&D Tasks. The Phase II tasks are similar to the Phase I, Part B tasks, but should be directed toward the higher temperatures that will be needed for the Phase I, Part B systems.
21
STP-NU-045
RECOMMENDED GLOBAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL TASKS FOR PHASE I, PART A AND PHASE I, PART B:
9.1. This section of the document describes tasks that should be completed as soon as possible to be able to provide appropriate direction to the project teams that will draft the individual parts of the Code rules. It is important that a broad consensus be reached on the recommendations that result from each of these global tasks (e.g. at the BPV III level and, in some cases, at the BNCS level) prior to expending a lot of effort on detailed development of Code rules. Some of these tasks are needed for the Phase I, Part A effort, as indicated below. If no indication is given, the task applies to Phase I, Part B only. 9.2. It is recognized that many, if not most, of the tasks that are recommended in this Roadmap are either already underway or are in the planning stage. They have been included to provide as complete a picture as possible of the overall process. 9.3. The following global or general tasks are recommended to establish the basis and framework for code rules to address the issues that have been considered in developing this document. A recommended organizational structure and process to accomplish these tasks are provided in paragraph 11 and Appendix4. In some cases, it has been assumed that ASME Code rules will not be developed to address an issue, but that other SDOs or regulatory bodies will provide rules or guidance. 9.3.1. Establish an Administrative structure to oversee the Phase I, Part A Tasks. It has been recommended that the Code rule deliverables resulting from the Phase I, Part A tasks be published as Code Cases to permit early implementation. These Code Cases should then be incorporated into III-5 when that book is first published. An oversight group should be appointed to monitor the progress of the Phase I, Part A activities. This group is not included in Appendix 4, because Appendix 4 is limited to Phase I, Part B tasks, as well as tasks that are common to both Phase I, Part A and Phase I, Part B. 9.3.2. Establish physical boundaries of scope (Phase I, Part A and Phase I, Part B). The physical boundaries of the scope of coverage of BPV III-5 and BPV XI-2 should be established considering the currently proposed design cycles (e.g. Brayton cycle). It is recommended that the scope be limited to components that are in or directly support the operation of the primary coolant loop. In some cases it may be necessary to include an intermediate loop as well. Downstream facilities should be constructed and maintained using existing non-nuclear codes and standards. This task should be accomplished as described in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.3. Examples of downstream facilities are: 9.3.2.1. Steam turbines for electrical power generation that receive steam from a heat exchanger (steam generator) that is in the primary power loop or from some other source that is not in the primary power loop. 9.3.2.2. Processing facilities for producing hydrogen. 9.3.3. Define Code needs for Confinement Building (Phase I, Part A and Phase I, Part B) Determine whether the confinement building will be built to BPV Section III, Division 2, a new ASME Code, or a general purpose building code (see paragraph 11.1.1.3.1). This decision should be made in close collaboration with the regulator. If it is decided that ASME Code rules are needed, the task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.2. 9.3.4. Scope of BPV III-5, BPV XI-2,OM Modifications and QME (Phase I, Part A and Phase I, Part B) Define the scope of coverage of these documents and get BPV III, BPV XI, OM Committee and BNCS endorsement. Also define the role of the PRA
22
STP-NU-045
standard that has been developed. The basic assumption should be that the scope of coverage will be the same as for the existing BPV III, BPV XI,OM codes and QME, with the potential additions and deletions listed below. In particular, provide clear scope statements for BPV XI-2, the OM modifications and QME to avoid overlap, duplication and gaps. Recommend assigning this task to the Project Team on Scope and Organization of III-5 and XI-2 (Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.3). 9.3.4.1. Define the boundary between new construction (BPV III-5) and post construction or in-service (BPV XI-2) rules. One possibility is to define the transition as the moment that the ASME Code Symbol Stamp is applied to the vessel. 9.3.4.2. Both BPV III-5 and BPV XI-2 (or OM) should provide rules for surveillance coupons to measure aging effects on actual materials of construction and weldments in real time. 9.3.5. Develop a Component Classification System (Phase I, Part A and Phase I, Part B). Develop an appropriate system for classification of components and supports. If the decision is to retain a classification system, consideration should be given to placing pressure boundary components into one of three categories based on the results of a PRA. This task should be accomplished as described in paragraph 11.1.1.2. 1 Also see footnote 2 . 9.3.6. BNCS, BPV III and BPV XI Direction In order to avoid misunderstandings and possible rework, the following decisions should be made by BNCS in consultation with BPV III, BPV XI, the O&M Committee and the Regulators. Specific proposals for presentation to BNCS and the Standards Committees should be developed by the Project Team on Overall Guidance and Coordination (see Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.1). All decisions should be documented: 9.3.6.1. Reach a consensus of BPV III, BPV XI and BNCS that the new BPV III- 5 and BPV XI-2 books will be clean sheet rewrites that will incorporate or reference applicable material from existing BPV Code books, including non-nuclear books such as Section VIII, as appropriate. Also decide whether to incorporate the necessary modifications and additions to the OM Code under the O&M Committee on Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants into the existing books or into a new book. Similarly, the roles of the following Committees should be defined with regard to the HTGR: 9.3.6.1.1. Standards Committee on Nuclear Risk Management (CNRM) 9.3.6.1.2. Standards Committee on Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) 9.3.6.1.3. Standards Committee on Qualification of Mechanical Equipment Used in Nuclear Facilities (QME). 9.3.6.1.4. Standards Committee on Nuclear Air and Gas Treatment Equipment
The design rules could be the same for all component classes, but fabrication and examination requirements could be more stringent for some classes. This is similar to the approach in Section I and VIII-1 (e.g. for lethal service). ANS 53.1, Nuclear Safety Criteria and Safety Design Process for Modular Helium-Cooled Reactor Plants, is in the final review and approval stage. This document classifies systems, structures and components (SSC) into the following categories: Safety-related; Non-safety related; Non-safety related with special treatment.
23
STP-NU-045
9.3.6.2. Provide direction to all of the groups that are drafting parts of the code to ensure that new construction rules consider the post construction activities that are needed in order to provide: 9.3.6.2.1. Access for inspection/examination. 9.3.6.2.2. Baseline NDE data on new components taken with the same methods and at the same locations as will be used in post construction to the applicable extent. 9.3.6.2.3. Appropriate surveillance coupons, test frequency, their location and test methods. 9.3.6.3. Phase I, Part A and Phase I, Part B Obtain BPV III and BNCS concurrence with individual decisions that are made during code development in consultation with the Regulators. Examples include: 9.3.6.3.1. Component classification system. 9.3.6.3.2. Overall philosophy of elevated temperature design rules. For example, determine whether elevated temperature rules should be based on a 60 year life, with periodic surveillance coupon testing to justify life extension. Number of cycles should also be considered and the testing interval should be defined. 9.3.6.4. Determine whether metallic and non-metallic core supports should be covered in a separate publication, or should be covered within the BPV III-5 framework. Many of the requirements in BPV Section III, Division 1, Subsection NG are redundant to BPV Section III, Division 1, Subsections NB, NC and ND. If modern design analysis methods are accepted for the primary pressure components boundary in BPV III-5, it may be more efficient to eliminate this redundancy. 9.3.6.5. Determine whether the existing BPV Section III, Division 1, Subsection NF on supports should be modified for the HTGR. It may be better to review and update this subsection rather than writing a new book or incorporating the requirements into BPV III-5. 9.3.7. Establish Technical Framework. The clean sheet rewrite approach that has been proposed for BPV III-5 (Phase II rules) provides the opportunity to re-examine many of the technical and organizational approaches in the existing BPV Section III Codes. ASME BPV Section VIII, Division 2 was completely rewritten for the 2007 Edition. The activity involved thousands of hours of work by contractors and volunteers to examine design, fabrication, examination and testing methods being used throughout the world, and to select the best of those for inclusion in the book. In many cases, alternatives are provided for flexibility. This guidance should be developed by the Project Team on Overall Guidance (see Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.1). 9.3.7.1. Based on the widespread acceptance of the new BPV Section VIII, Div. 2, it is recommended that the BPV III-5 activity could save a significant amount of time, and could develop a more coherent and up to date set of rules by starting with BPV Section VIII, Division 2 (BPV VIII-2). It should be recognized that BPV VIII-2 does not include rules for detailed analysis of components operating in the creep regime, but the level of effort needed to add elevated temperature design rules to the BPV VIII-2 framework is probably about the same as incorporating those rules into BPV Section III.
24
STP-NU-045
9.3.7.2. Starting with BPV VIII-2 provides the BPV III-5 project teams with the ability to examine each provision on a case-by-case basis, and to select those that are applicable to HTGRs and other designs to be covered (e.g. molten metal cooled reactors). A summary of some of the improvements in BPV VIII-2 is as follows: 9.3.7.2.1. The overall organization and structure are more user friendly than before. 9.3.7.2.2. The Design-by-Rule portion (Part 4) contains many improvements for component design that have been incorporated into industry computer codes. These rules are applicable to elevated temperatures on a basis similar to that in BPV Section VIII, Division 1 and BPV Section I. 9.3.7.2.3. The design-by-analysis portion (Part 5) contains three methods for static analysis: 9.3.7.2.3.1. Linear-elastic analysis with improved guidance on stress linearization. Stress categorization rules are essentially unchanged, but better guidance is provided for load combinations. 9.3.7.2.3.2. Limit load analysis. This is similar to prior provisions. 9.3.7.2.3.3. Elastic-Plastic analysis considering local strain limit damage. This is a major improvement that provides the most accurate and robust technique for static analysis because stress linearization and categorization are not required, so interpretation of the results is straightforward and unambiguous. Issues such as elastic follow up can be handled directly within the model. The method as incorporated in BPV VIII-2 is not intended for use in the creep regime, but could be extended as material data become available. 9.3.7.2.4. The design-by-analysis portion (Part 5) of BPV VIII-2 contains screening criteria for fatigue, as well as three methods for fatigue analysis below the creep regime (i.e. the rules do not consider creep-fatigue interaction): 9.3.7.2.4.1. Elastic Stress Analysis and Equivalent Stress, which is similar to the traditional S-N methodology, but with improved guidance on fatigue strength reduction factors and fatigue penalty factors for simplified elasticplastic analysis. 9.3.7.2.4.2. Elastic-Plastic Analysis and Equivalent Strains. This method uses cyclic stress-strain curves for the material, which account for cyclic strain softening or hardening as appropriate. 9.3.7.2.4.3. Elastic Analysis and Structural Stress. This is a relatively new method for welded structures that was developed by Battelle Memorial Institute based on extensive testing of welded joints. It can be used with results from a relatively coarse mesh FEA because it eliminates the need to determine peak stresses and fatigue strength reduction factors since they are incorporated into the welded joint fatigue curve. 9.3.7.2.5. The fabrication and examination rules have been updated considering current worldwide experience. 9.3.8. Organization of BPV III-5 and BPV XI-2 The organization of sections, paragraphs, appendices, etc. should be established for III-5 and XI-2. For III-5, the organization, format, etc. in VIII-2 is recommended. Templates should be developed for each book to facilitate draft development. The objective should be to maintain a parallel structure so that rules that apply to both new and post construction activities can more easily be jointly
25
STP-NU-045
developed and maintained. It is recognized that XI-2 is already very far along with their code development, and that they have developed a document organization scheme that parallels the organization in the current Section XI document. However, there is an opportunity to develop a new structure for the III-5 book, since it is probably not necessary to have separate books for Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 construction as in the current Division 1. In addition, this is a good opportunity to incorporate mandatory appendices into the body of the book. If the decision is made to incorporate many of the rules in VIII-2, consideration should be given to using the VIII-2 paragraph numbering scheme as well. Recommend assigning this task to the Project Team on Scope and Organization of III-5 and XI-2 (Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.3). 9.3.9. Develop Common Terminology and Units of Measure A common set of terminology, acronyms, abbreviations and units of measure should be developed for use in all HTGR Code rules. It is suggested that the SI system be the primary units, but provisions for the use of alternative units should be made. Recommend assigning this task to the Project Team on Scope and Organization of III-5 and XI-2 (Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.3). 9.3.10. Develop Overall Guidance for III-5. In order to provide guidance for developing design rules, particularly for fatigue and elevated temperature, it is desirable to consider developing general guidelines for Code rules. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.1. Examples of general guidance and rules that could be considered are: 9.3.10.1. Decide whether rules for leak-before-break criteria should be included in the Code. 9.3.10.2. Phase I, Part A and Phase I, Part B Develop HTGR specific loading classes that may be different from the Service Level A, B, C, and D in the current Section III, Division 1 rules, considering the potential for short-term temperature excursions and short-term loadings, such as seismic. The results of the preliminary PRA (paragraph 10.1.1.1) may be useful in that regard. For example: 9.3.10.2.1. Service Level A could include all loadings anticipated during normal operation. 9.3.10.2.2. Service Level B could include loadings due to loss of normal heat removal functions (e.g. during passive cooling due to loss of circulation. 9.3.10.2.3. Service Level C could include Level B loadings combined with seismic loadings or other applicable short-term loadings. 9.3.10.3. Use of the structural stress method for fatigue analysis of welded components. 9.3.10.4. Use of fracture mechanics in design analysis. The minimum flaw size from the NDE methods to be used could be defined and used in the design analysis of welds and heat affected zones. See DOE/ASME Gen IV Task 8, Creep and Creep-Fatigue Crack Growth at Structural Discontinuities and Welds for more information. Probabilistic (risk-informed) approaches may be appropriate here.
26
STP-NU-045
10
RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC CODE RULE DEVELOPMENT TASKS FOR PHASE I, PART B:
10.1. The following specific tasks are recommended to develop code rules to address the issues that have been considered in developing this roadmap. A recommended organizational structure and process to accomplish these tasks are provided in Appendix4. In some cases, it has been assumed that ASME Code rules will not be developed to address an issue, but that other SDOs will provide rules or guidance. Alternatively, some issues can be resolved between the Owner and the regulator. It is recognized that there is a lot of redundancy among the R&D tasks in paragraph 8, the Code rule development tasks in paragraph 10 and the recommended organization in Appendix4. However, this was done to make each section self-contained. The incorporation of new materials and extension of the temperature range for existing materials is not included as a part of the Phase I, Part B rules because it is intended that this work would be done as a part of Phase I, Part A. This work should be done in the normal course of committee work, following established procedures. 10.1.1. Complete Development of PRA Standard. The Standard for Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Advanced Non-LWR Nuclear Power Plant Applications should be available as soon as possible so that it can be used in the development of other code rules. See task assignment in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.1. 10.1.1.1. Perform Preliminary PRAs on all candidate systems to identify critical areas for code rule development. This should be done by each of the Owner organizations. The results should be fed back to the CNRM for distribution to the appropriate committees and subgroups (see paragraph 9.3.10.2). This information may also be useful in deciding whether a component classification system is needed. See task assignment in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.1.1. 10.1.2. Develop General Requirements portion of III-5. based on Section III, Subsection NCA and needs identified by stakeholders. Consider whether the Design Specification provided by the Owner should identify items such as anticipated degradation mechanisms and online monitoring or other NDE techniques to detect each type of degradation mechanism in a timely manner for significance assessment and disposition. Also determine whether it should include the following additional information. This information is only a partial list of the information that would be included in the Owners Design Specification. Also, some of this information may not be relevant it is provided as a checklist of considerations for HTGRs. See task assignments in Appendix 4, paragraphs 4.1.4.5.4 and 4.1.4.5.5.1. 10.1.2.1. Time/Temperature/Load envelope for each primary loop component including the IHX and reactor pressure vessel internals. 10.1.2.1.1. State whether equipment can be de-pressured when metal temperatures exceed defined limits to reduce stress at high temperatures. 10.1.2.2. Corrosion/erosion allowances. 10.1.2.2.1. Consider requiring that the Owner document the basis for the corrosion/erosion allowance (see suggested R&D in paragraph 8.4.1). Consider the need for Code rules with requirements for the testing. 10.1.2.3. Change in material properties due to carburization/decarburization. 10.1.2.4. Allowance for metal loss due to wear at heat exchanger tube supports and core supports where sliding can occur.
27
STP-NU-045
10.1.2.4.1. Consider requiring the Owner to document the basis for the allowance for metal loss (see suggested R&D in paragraph 8.4.2). The need for Code rules with requirements for the testing should also be considered. 10.1.2.5. End-of-life strength and toughness properties for metallic and non-metallic materials that are expected to degrade due to thermal aging, radiation, and interaction with the environment. Such properties may be in a range rather than a single set of values because of the operation of several types of degradation mechanisms. 10.1.2.5.1. Consider requiring the Owner to document the basis for the end-of-life properties (see suggested R&D in paragraph 8.4.3). The need for Code rules with requirements for the testing should also be considered. 10.1.2.6. Beginning-of-life and end-of-life emissivity for components. 10.1.2.6.1. Consider requiring the Owner to document the basis for the end-of-life emissivity (see suggested R&D in paragraph 8.4.4). The need for Code rules with requirements for the testing should also be considered. 10.1.2.7. Magnitude and direction of dimensional changes during the lifetime of the plant for carbon, graphite and composite materials due to irradiation, creep and corrosion / oxidation. Alternatively, the Owner could require that the Manufacturer provide this information. 10.1.2.7.1. Consider requiring the Owner to document the basis for the dimensional changes (see suggested R&D in paragraph 8.4.5). The need for Code rules with requirements for the testing should also be considered. 10.1.2.8. Define fluid environment including contaminants. Nominally expected compositions as well as worst case conditions should be provided. 10.1.2.9. Describe fission products that may contact and thus interact with pressure boundary materials. 10.1.2.9.1. Include metals that could cause liquid metal embrittlement of the pressure boundary materials. 10.1.2.9.1.1. Identify those pressure boundary materials that may be subjected to liquid metal embrittlement and describe the effect of this on component integrity. 10.1.3. Develop Design-by-Rule Requirements. In many cases, components can be designed using closed form solutions rather than design-by-analysis for the full range of applicable temperatures. In this task, design rules should be developed for application at temperatures above and below the negligible creep threshold, where practicable, for all components for the HTGR. However, regulatory acceptance should be considered. The rules in VIII-2, Part 4 should be used to the extent that they are applicable. Rules for metallic core supports and other internals should be developed as appropriate. This task and the following subtasks should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.5.2. Examples of new rules that are needed: 10.1.3.1. Rules for elevated temperature heat exchangers. There are several subtasks in this task as follows: 10.1.3.1.1. Develop a list of the types of candidate heat exchangers. 10.1.3.1.2. Decide whether to use a design-by-rule or a design-by-analysis approach or some combination.
28
STP-NU-045
10.1.3.1.3. Draft rules for each exchanger type to be considered using the selected design approach. 10.1.3.1.4. See DOE/ASME Gen IV Project, Task 7, Review of Current Experience on Intermediate Heat Exchanger (IHX) for more information. 10.1.3.2. Rules to address bolted and clamp type joint leakage in helium service. Current Code rules address structural integrity of non-welded joints, but do not directly address leakage due to thermal transients, gasket creep, etc. It is anticipated that helium leak detectors will be used to detect leakage as a result of cracks or other flaws in the primary pressure boundary as a part of structural integrity assurance. Small leaks from joint seals could saturate the leak detectors and mask leakage from other sources. 10.1.4. Design-by-Analysis Methodology. Draft Code requirements describing a design-byanalysis methodology using elastic-plastic material properties (i.e. including strain hardening) and large displacement theory as an alternative to traditional linear-elastic analysis. Consider the approach in VIII-2, including the local damage (strain limits) criteria. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.5.3. 10.1.4.1. Determine if it is necessary to retain any of the legacy design-by-analysis approaches in the current Section III and VIII-2 rules (e.g. linear elastic analysis with stress linearization and categorization) for use below the creep regime. The need for these has been reduced by the introduction of modern inelastic FEA methods that eliminate the need for stress linearization and categorization. 10.1.4.2. Consider rules in other international standards, both nuclear and non-nuclear (e.g. French, European and Japanese). The results of the ASME ST-LLC ASME Code Comparison Project for MDEP, which is in the draft development stage at this writing, may be useful in this regard. Also, a comparison project in the non-nuclear pressure vessel area may be of interest: ASME-ST-LLC STP-PT-007, COMPARISON OF PRESSURE VESSEL CODES ASME SECTION VIII AND EN13445 Technical, Commercial, and Usage Comparison Design Fatigue Life Comparison. 10.1.4.3. Establish appropriate design margins considering the LRFD based margins in VIII-2. 10.1.5. Fatigue Design Rules below the Creep Regime Draft Code rules describing fatigue screening procedures and rules for a detailed fatigue analysis for components with a maximum design temperature of 370oC (700oF) for carbon, low-alloy, and high tensile steels and 425oC (800oF) for austenitic steels, Ni-Cr-Fe alloys, Ni-Fe-Cr alloys, Ni-Cu alloys and Ni-Cr-Mo-Fe alloys or revised negligible creep criteria that may be developed under the task described in paragraph 8.3.2. Consider the following rules from other Code Sections. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.5.4. 10.1.5.1. Fatigue screening rules in VIII-2. 10.1.5.2. Structural Stress Method for welded structures in VIII-2 and VIII-3. 10.1.5.2.1. Additional R&D is recommended to establish environmental factors for HTGR environments (see paragraph 8.3.15). 10.1.5.3. Traditional S-N fatigue analysis rules from VIII-2 for welded and/or non-welded portions of components. 10.1.5.3.1. Analysis should be based on the accurate calculation of peak strains from an elastic-plastic analysis. Alternatively, for some common geometries,
29
STP-NU-045
membrane and bending stresses can be calculated using traditional linearelastic analysis methods and a stress intensification factor (SIF) can be applied. If this approach is taken, the required SIF values should be provided in III-5. 10.1.5.3.2. Design fatigue curves should incorporate the latest data for annealed austenitic materials. 10.1.5.3.3. Additional R&D is recommended to establish environmental factors for HTGR environments (see paragraph 8.3.16). 10.1.5.4. Fracture mechanics based fatigue analysis method in Section VIII, Division 3 and API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Part 9 for welded and non-welded structures and in Section XI. The methodology in ASME Section XI, Appendix G should also be considered. These methods are particularly useful for components that may contain un-detected flaws, since an initial flaw size is assumed in the analysis. This method can be used for new construction where the fabrication and examination methods cannot ensure that small flaws do not exist in the structure. It is particularly important for post construction (in-service) applications to evaluate flaws that are located and sized by NDE. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.5.5. 10.1.5.4.1. Additional R&D is recommended to establish environmental factors for HTGR environments (see paragraph 8.3.17). 10.1.6. Develop Improved Elevated Temperature Design Rules including seismic loadings. The rules should be based on the current state of knowledge in this field to the extent practicable, but additional R&D (see paragraph 8.3) should be conducted to determine the extent of conservatism in current approaches. Appendix 3 provides some background on experience in the petrochemical industry that should be considered. Probabilistic (LRFD) methods should be considered. LRFD methods are particularly valuable when there is a lot of scatter in the data. It is anticipated that PRA results will be available to assist in developing design margins for use with the LRFD method. However, it is recommended that LRFD methods be considered only if they can be implemented without extending the time required to complete and publish the rules. In addition, surveillance coupon testing can be used to validate the results. See also the material in Task 9: Update and Improve Subsection NH - Simplified Elastic and Inelastic Design Analysis Methods and Task 10: Update and Improve Subsection NH Alternative Simplified Creep-Fatigue Design Methods. The following sets of rules are recommended: 10.1.6.1. Develop Improved Negligible Creep rules (threshold of concern) for considering time dependent properties in design for each material to be used at elevated temperatures in the HTGR. R&D to support this task is described in paragraph 8.3.2. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.6.1. 10.1.6.1.1. Current assumptions are 370oC (700oF) for carbon and low alloy steels and 425oC (800oF) for austenitic materials at the design stress levels permitted by Section III. However, some of the experts in the field now believe that actual thresholds may be well below these values for the ~500,000 hour expected life of the HTGRs. 10.1.6.1.1.1. The threshold may shift if the basic design margins are changed. 10.1.6.1.2. Consideration should be given to expanding the threshold using material specific time-temperature limits similar in concept to Code Case N-201-5, Part A, Appendix XIX.
30
STP-NU-045
10.1.6.1.3. In addition, the Use-Fraction approach in Section III, Subsection NH, paragraphs NH-3223 and NH-3224, Levels A, B and C Service Limits, should be evaluated. This should be considered to be an expansion of the approach described in paragraph 10.1.6.1.2 above to include stress level in addition to time and temperature. See also the approach in API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Fitness-For-Service, Part 10. 10.1.6.2. Develop Code rules for exemption from a formal fatigue or creepfatigue damage evaluation for use at elevated temperatures. R&D to support this task is described in paragraph 8.3.3. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.6.2. Note also that R&D is recommended to develop creep relaxation data (see paragraph 8.3.3.2). Refer to paper Extend Fatigue Exemption Rules for Low Cr Alloys Slightly into the Time-Dependent Range for Section VIII, Div 2 Construction, FRP-ASMEST-07-03, and to Subsection NH, Appendix T. 10.1.6.3. Develop Improved Design Rules for Creep-Fatigue Evaluation by Analysis. This approach should take full advantage of modern analysis tools, such as elasticplastic finite element analysis with creep strain capability. R&D to support this task is described in paragraph 8.3.5. Note that R&D is also recommended to develop the necessary material models (see paragraph 8.3.5.5) as well as cyclic stress-strain and creep relaxation curves (see paragraph 8.3.3.2). Also see reports on Task 9: Update and Improve Subsection NH - Simplified Elastic and Inelastic Design Analysis Methods, Gen IV / NGNP Materials Project. In addition, see report on Task 10: Update and Improve Subsection NH Alternative Simplified Creep-Fatigue Design Methods. Elastic follow-up should be addressed as a part of the analysis procedure. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.6.3. The following approaches should be considered: 10.1.6.3.1. API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 10.1.6.3.2. R5 10.1.6.3.3. RCC-MR 10.1.6.3.4. Section III, Subsection NH, Appendix T 10.1.6.4. Develop Rules for Design and InService Evaluation Using Fracture Mechanics for Elevated Temperature. This approach can be used for new construction where the fabrication and examination methods cannot ensure that small flaws do not exist in the structure. It is particularly important for post construction (inservice) applications to evaluate flaws that are located and sized by NDE. The methodology that is described in API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Parts 9 and 10 can be used to handle creepfatigue interaction (also see ASME Section XI, Appendices G and H). However, R&D will be needed to validate these methods (see paragraph 8.3.8). See also the material in Task 8 Creep and Creep-Fatigue Crack Growth at Structural Discontinuities and Welds. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.6.4. 10.1.6.4.1. Consider whether to require leak-before-break performance for HPB materials. It may be difficult to demonstrate leak-before-break for thick wall components, but example calculations (R&D) could be performed to determine if it is practicable (see paragraph 8.3.8.1). 10.1.7. Consider / Develop Rules for Probabilistic (LRFD) methods. Probabilistic methods are particularly valuable when there is a lot of scatter in the data. It is anticipated that preliminary PRA results will be available to assist in developing design margins for use
31
STP-NU-045
with the LRFD method. However, it is recommended that probabilistic methods be considered for Phase I, Part B only if they can be implemented without extending the time required to complete and publish the rules (see paragraph 8.3.9). This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.5. 10.1.8. Develop Rules for the Application of Remote UT Methods. When the methodology described in paragraph 8.3.10 has been developed, code rules for the application should be written. This task should be assigned as described in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.9.1. 10.1.9. Develop Design Rules for Bellows at Elevated Temperatures It currently appears that there will be a need for bellows type expansion joints for very high temperatures for internal piping / ducting. While good rules exist for the design of bellows below the creep regime, it is necessary to review existing rules (See Code Case N-290-1) and possibly to develop improved rules for the creep regime. Recommend assigning this task to the Task Group on Elevated Temperature Bellows Type Expansion Joints (see Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.6.5). 10.1.10. Update rules for controlled chemistry and processing. For materials to be used at temperatures above the threshold of concern (see paragraph 10.1.6.1), develop restrictions on chemistry and processing requirements, such as normalizing and tempering in addition to those in the materials specifications and current code rules (e.g. see API RP 934-A and Subsection NH, Section NH-4000). This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.7. 10.1.11. Update rules for welding and post weld heat treatment (PWHT). For materials to be used at temperatures above the negligible creep threshold (see paragraphs 10.1.6.1 and 7.1.2.3), consider the need for restrictions on welding and PWHT in addition to those in current ASME Codes (e.g. see API RP 934-A). This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.8 Some examples of areas where modified rules may be needed: 10.1.11.1. Evaluate the need to further restrict the range of temperatures permitted during PWHT. 10.1.11.2. Evaluate whether metal temperatures should be measured and recorded during PWHT to ensure that the limits are not exceeded. 10.1.11.3. Diffusion bonding rules for some IHX design concepts. 10.1.11.4. Evaluate the need for rules for field fabrication and testing. 10.1.12. Develop / update rules for structural brazing, diffusion bonding or other high temperature joining techniques. If structural brazing, diffusion bonding or other high temperature joining techniques are identified as necessary for the IHX or other components, the rules in Section IX should be reviewed and updated as necessary. The associated R&D task is described in paragraph 8.3.14. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.8.1. 10.1.13. Develop Rules for Surveillance Coupons. Consider the need for rules covering the design and application of surveillance coupons for weldments and materials to be used at temperatures above the negligible creep threshold (see paragraph 10.1.6.1). The rules should consider the type of damage of concern, including, but not limited to, creep, thermal aging and irradiation. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.6.6.
32
STP-NU-045
10.1.13.1. Surveillance coupons representing weldments should be fabricated during production of components to be used at temperatures above the threshold of concern using procedures similar to those for production weld test coupons. 10.1.13.2. Surveillance coupons representing base metal should be provided from each heat of steel used in a component, and should be subjected to the same heat treatment conditions. 10.1.13.3. Surveillance coupons should be notched as necessary to simulate local discontinuities in the component. 10.1.13.4. Surveillance coupons should be subjected to the same time/temperature/loading/fluid environment conditions as the worst case location in the component. As a practical matter, this should probably be done in a dedicated facility under controlled conditions of temperature and loading, including cyclic loading. If the component is subjected to a thermal or load transient, the same transient would be applied to the laboratory surveillance coupon. This may require that the laboratory surveillance coupons be exposed for the life of the reactor (e.g. 60 years), with periodic examination to ascertain the relevance and efficacy of inservice inspection protocols. 10.1.13.5. An increment of temperature and loadi should be used for the surveillance coupons to provide an adequate margin above the operating loads. The magnitude of the increment should be sufficient to provide an early warning of potential problems in service. 10.1.13.6. Surveillance coupons can be used to address material aging effects as well as creepfatigue damage. 10.1.14. Develop rules for NDE for new and post construction. See Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.9 for assignment of responsibility. NDE rules should be developed for new and post construction in parallel. The rules should be similar to those in the current Section III and Section XI (Appendix VIII) Codes, except that the following potential requirements should be considered: 10.1.14.1. For new construction, consider 100% wet fluorescent magnetic particle (WFMT) for pressure boundary welds in carbon and low alloy steel materials and 100% PT for welds in austenitic materials. It may be necessary to grind and prepare the welds to be able to detect small flaws (see Appendix 2, paragraph 2-4). 10.1.14.2. For new construction consider requiring UT as the primary volumetric examination technique, with performance demonstration requirements to ensure that small flaws can be detected and categorized. 10.1.14.2.1. Adopt the same UT methodology and performance demonstration requirements for post construction. 10.1.14.3. If there are areas where UT cannot be demonstrated to find small flaws, consider RT. However, consider how this method can be used for post construction applications. If that is impractical, consider requiring a re-design of the component. 10.1.14.4. Consider AE for new and post construction. Additional R&D is needed to develop methods for continuous AE monitoring of critical components during operation (see paragraph 8.3.11). ASME/DOE Task 12 should provide some guidance in this area. The R&D should be developed and guided by a Task Group with members from Section V and Section XI as well as from Section III (see Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.9.2).
33
STP-NU-045
10.1.15. Consider the need for Reliability and Integrity Management (RIM) (Section XI, Division 2) rules in the following areas. This task should be assigned as noted in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.4. 10.1.15.1. Use of the principals of Reliability and Integrity Management (RIM) methodology to supplement the PRA for determining specific locations, extent, methodology and frequency of nondestructive examination. 10.1.15.2. Continuous or periodic AE monitoring (see paragraph 10.1.14.4). 10.1.15.3. Use of TOFD UT to detect decarburization during shutdown. This is particularly important for thin wall components. 10.1.16. Consider the need for temperature and leak monitoring rules in the following areas. These tasks should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.10. 10.1.16.1. Continuous monitoring of external surface temperatures on components that may be exposed to temperatures above the elevated temperature threshold of concern (see paragraph 10.1.6.1). Objectives are to: 10.1.16.1.1. Identify failures in the internal thermal barriers that limit the primary pressure boundary temperature (see paragraph 6.2.2). 10.1.16.1.2. Detect thermal striping. 10.1.16.1.3. Locate hot spots before significant damage occurs. 10.1.16.1.4. Provide the opportunity to depressurize components that are above preset temperature limits to avoid creep damage. 10.1.16.2. Continuous monitoring for helium leakage. 10.1.16.2.1. Providing requirements for maintenance and calibration of leak detectors should be considered. 10.1.16.3. Continuous monitoring for moist vapor in the primary (helium) coolant loop. Objective is to be able to correct the problem before damage to carbon, graphite, composite or other materials becomes significant. 10.1.16.4. Continuous monitoring of helium composition to maintain the carbon activity/O 2 partial pressure relationship within the appropriate range to minimize carburization/decarburization of pressure boundary materials and internals (see report on Task 5 of the DOE/ASME Materials Project, Collect Available Creep-Fatigue Data and Study Existing Creep-Fatigue Evaluation Procedures for Grade 91 and Hastelloy XR, paragraph 2.1.4 and Fig. 2.1.4.) In addition, O 2 should be controlled to optimize oxidation. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.12. 10.1.16.5. Periodic or continuous surveys of piping vibration. Non-contact laser Doppler vibrometers could be used. Consider modifying OM Part 3 for the higher temperatures of HTGRs. 10.1.17. Consider need to update air and gas treatment rules. The following areas should be considered. This task should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.12. 10.1.17.1. Purify helium to the required level. 10.1.17.2. Control the air environment within and outside of the building. 10.1.18. Consider the need for new construction rules for performance testing of valves and systems. It is anticipated that several important valves will operate in a very high
34
STP-NU-045
temperature (e.g. greater than 650oC, 1,200oF) environment. If the ability of a specific valve to block flow is important to the integrity of the plant, it may be desirable to demonstrate the performance of valves in that service by testing prior to installation. If so, this should be covered in the new construction rules. New construction qualification requirements should be covered in the QME rules. Inservice testing should be covered in the OM Code rules (see paragraph 10.1.20.2). These tasks should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraphs 4.1.4.5.10 and 4.1.4.1 10.1.19. Consider the need for new construction rules for rotating machinery. It is anticipated that several important items of rotating machinery, such as helium blowers, circulators and compressors, and turbines will operate in a very high temperature environment. If the proper functioning of a particular machine is important to the integrity of the plant, it may be desirable to demonstrate the performance of a prototype machine in that service prior to installation. If so, new construction qualification requirements should be covered in the QME rules. Inservice testing should be covered in the OM rules (see paragraph 10.1.20.3). Consider modifying OM 14 to address components in helium service. These tasks should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.10 and 4.1.4.1. 10.1.20. Develop rules for pressure/temperature limits and inservice testing. The following tasks should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.10. 10.1.20.1. Preheat prior to pressurization for pressure boundary components that can be subject to embrittlement due to thermal aging (e.g. temper embrittlement and/or radiation embrittlement). 10.1.20.2. Testing of valves. The requirements will probably differ from the requirements in the OM Code for LWRs because of the higher operating temperatures. 10.1.20.3. Inservice testing of circulators (compressors). Existing vibration analysis methods for pumps should be modified. Experience in the petrochemical industry with machinery monitoring should be considered. 10.1.21. Develop design and construction rules covering carbon, graphite, ceramic and composite core support structures. It is anticipated that a Code Case for these rules will be prepared as a Phase I, Part A activity (see paragraph 5.2). This task is intended to cover expansion of those rules and incorporation into BPV III-5 as decided by the Standards Committee. See ASME ST-LLC STP-NU-009 Graphite for High Temperature Gas-Cooled Nuclear Reactors and NUREG/CR-6944, Vol. 5; ORNL/TM-2007/147, Vol. 5 Next Generation Nuclear Plant Phenomena Identification and Ranking Tables (PIRTS), Volume 5: Graphite PIRTS. The following tasks should be assigned as shown in Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.11. 10.1.21.1. Rules should include batch testing requirements for QA (see requirements in nonnuclear Code Case 2579-1). 10.1.21.2. Rules should include requirements for considering dimensional changes due to irradiation, creep and corrosion/oxidation. 10.1.21.3. Consider probabilistic (risk-informed) methods to the extent practicable. However, it is recognized that some of the Code rules in the first issuance will be based on deterministic approaches. 10.1.21.4. Consider the need for transient thermal analyses. 10.1.22. Verify Applicability of Nuclear QA Requirements The current QA requirements are probably applicable in most cases, but a paragraph by paragraph review should be
35
STP-NU-045
conducted to verify this, and to determine which requirements to bring into the new III-5 and XI-2. Recommend assigning this task to the Project Team on Nuclear QA (see Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.2). 10.1.23. If the BNCS decides to develop ASME Code rules for confinement buildings (see paragraph 9.3.3), develop rules including: 10.1.23.1. Design rules for internal pressure loadings from helium releases (if any). 10.1.23.2. Design rules for withstanding projectiles from failed components (if any). 10.1.23.3. Design rules for filters. 10.1.23.4. Design rules for aircraft impact. 10.1.24. Determine whether additional rules are needed for qualification of active mechanical equipment for new construction and, if so, develop those rules. Recommend assigning this task to the QME Task Group on Equipment for HTGRs (see Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.13).
36
STP-NU-045
11
OVERALL INDUSTRY APPROACH AND ORGANIZATION:
11.1. The following industry wide tasks and activities have been identified as important to the timely development of rules for HTGRs. These tasks and activities should be completed prior to or in parallel with the development of the overall ASME approach and organization (Appendix4). 11.1.1. Establish a Task Force with representatives from all affected SDOs and the Regulators to reach a consensus on responsibility for requirements in all areas where standards are needed. The Nuclear Energy Standards Coordination Collaborative panel that is currently underway may be the appropriate forum. Some examples include: 11.1.1.1. Define process for reaching a consensus on high level safety criteria and requirements. 11.1.1.1.1. Develop high level safety criteria and requirements and obtain approval from the Regulators. 11.1.1.2. Reach agreement on a process for developing component classification rules (see paragraph 9.3.5). 11.1.1.2.1. Develop component classification rules and obtain approval from the Regulators. ASME input to be provided by a Project Team (see Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.2). 11.1.1.3. Define responsibility for civil / structural engineering standards. 11.1.1.3.1. Confinement buildings (see paragraph 9.3.3). This task should include development of a consensus among all stakeholders on a functional specification for the confinement building that would define: 11.1.1.3.1.1. Required internal pressure loadings (if any). 11.1.1.3.1.2. Ability to withstand projectiles from failed components (if any). 11.1.1.3.1.3. Maximum flowrate of helium release expected. 11.1.1.3.1.4. Particle size requirements for filters. 11.1.1.3.2. Foundations 11.1.1.4. Define responsibility for rules for the fuel handling system. 11.1.1.5. Define responsibility for rules for fire protection. 11.1.1.6. Define responsibility for rules for rotating equipment design, other than pressure boundary integrity (e.g. turbine bearings, rotor dynamics). 11.1.1.6.1. Consider rules in API standards and those from other organizations. 11.1.1.7. Define responsibility for instrumentation and control standards. 11.1.1.8. Define responsibility for development of heat transfer calculation standards, if needed. 11.1.1.9. Define responsibility for operator training and qualification standards. 11.1.1.10. Define responsibility for standards for measurement of and effects of diffusion of fission products into the coolant stream, if needed.
37
STP-NU-045
REFERENCES
[1] Task 7, Review of Current Experience on Intermediate Heat Exchanger (IHX) for more information. [2] Task 4, Updating of ASME Nuclear Code Case N-201 to Accommodate the Needs of Metallic Core Support Structures for High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors Currently in Development [3] Task 5 of the DOE/ASME Materials Project, Collect Available Creep-Fatigue Data and Study Existing Creep-Fatigue Evaluation Procedures for Grade 91 and Hastelloy XR (10.1.16.4) [4] Task 7, Review of Current Experience on Intermediate Heat Exchanger (IHX) (10.1..3.1.) [5] Task 8 Creep and Creep-Fatigue Crack Growth at Structural Discontinuities and Welds (8.3.8) [6] Task 9: Update and Improve Subsection NH - Simplified Elastic and Inelastic Design Analysis Methods [7] Task 10: Update and Improve Subsection NH Alternative Simplified Creep-Fatigue Design Methods [8] Task 12 Non-Destructive Examination and In-Service Inspection Technology for High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (8.3.11) [9] Extend Fatigue Exemption Rules for Low Cr Alloys Slightly into the Time-Dependent Range for Section VIII, Div 2 Construction, ASME ST-LLC STP-NU-FRP-ASMEST-07-03 (8.3.3.1) [10] ASME ST-LLC STP-NU-009 Graphite for High Temperature Gas-Cooled Nuclear Reactors (8.3.12) [11] NUREG/CR-6944, Vol. 5; ORNL/TM-2007/147, Vol. 5 Next Generation Nuclear Plant Phenomena Identification and Ranking Tables (PIRTS), Volume 5: Graphite PIRTS. (8.3.12) [12] ASME-ST-LLC STP-PT-007, COMPARISON OF PRESSURE VESSEL CODES ASME SECTION VIII AND EN13445 Technical, Commercial, and Usage Comparison Design Fatigue Life Comparison. (10.1.4.1.2)
38
STP-NU-045
Appendix 1 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AE API ASME ASMEST BNCS BPV CNRM DOE ETD FEA FFS Gen. HPB HTGR IHX ISI LRFD LWR NDE NGNP O&M PRA PT PWHT QA QME R&D RFP RIM RP RT SC Acoustic Emission (flaw detection technique) American Petroleum Institute American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME Standards Technology Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee on Nuclear Risk Management Department of Energy Elevated Temperature Design Finite Element Analysis Fitness-For-Service Generation Helium Pressure Boundary High Temperature Gas (Cooled) Reactor Intermediate Heat Exchanger In-service Inspection Load-Resistance Factor Design Light Water Reactor Nondestructive Examination Next Generation Nuclear Plant Operation and Maintenance Probabilistic Risk Assessment Penetrant Testing (dye penetrant) Post Weld Heat Treatment Quality Assurance Qualification of Mechanical Equipment Research and Development Request for Proposal Reliability and Integrity Management Recommended Practice Radiographic Testing Subcommittee
39
STP-NU-045
SCD SDO SI SIF S-N SWG TOFD UDS UT VHTR WFMT WG
Subcommittee Design Standards Developing Organization International System of Units (from the French Le Systme International d'Units) Stress Intensification Factor Stress (range) vs. Number (of cycles) Special Working Group Time of Flight Diffraction (ultrasonic examination technique) Users Design Specification Ultrasonic Testing Very High Temperature Gas (Cooled) Reactor Wet Fluorescent Magnetic Particle Testing (examination) Working Group
40
STP-NU-045
Appendix 2 PRACTICES THAT HAVE BEEN USED IN OTHER CODES FOR CONSIDERATION
2-1. 2-2. 2-3. 2-4. 2-5. 2-6. All primary pressure boundary welds should be full penetration. Exceptions could be made for minor attachments. Fillet welds, and therefore pad reinforced nozzles, should not be used for components operating in the creep regime. Welds should be ground smooth to the extent that they are accessible. This will reduce stress intensification and facilitate NDE. Welds that are not accessible for grinding should be analyzed using elastic-plastic FEA considering the worst case weld misalignment and profile. It is recognized that some of the suggestions regarding welds are already included in Subsection NH, but they are included here as a checklist for completeness and for consideration for components operating below the creep regime. Residual stresses should be considered in creep, fatigue and fracture analyses.
2-7.
41
STP-NU-045
Appendix 3 BRIEF SUMMARY OF PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE IN ELEVATED TEMPERATURE APPLICATIONS

3.1. Most projected HTGR primary pressure boundary conditions are within the experience base for large, thick wall vessels in petrochemical services: 3.1.1. Maximum normal operating temperature < 500C (930F). 3.1.2. Upset temperature (e.g. cooling under depressurized loss of circulation) (1050F). 3.1.3. Many vessels have operated for over 50 years. 3.2. Projected conditions for some internals are within the experience base for furnace tubes in petrochemicals service (e.g. steam crackers). 3.2.1. Normal operating temperature 950C 1150C (1750F 2100F). 3.2.2. Typical life at these temperatures is 5 to 10 years. 3.3. Projected conditions for other internals (e.g. heat exchangers) may require ceramics or significant extension of metallic databases (e.g. for Alloy 617). < 565C
42
Table 1: Petrochemical Experience Pressure Vessels

Key Refinery Vessels Approximate Years of Experience/ Number in Service 60 years/ 800 to 1000 vessels 60 years/ 500 to 800 vessels Approximate Thickness Range 100-180 mm (4-7 in) 50-100 mm (2-4 in) Metallurgy Approximate Temperature Range 400 455oC (750 850oF) 480 565oC (900 1050oF) Typical Pressure Service Damage Mechanisms (Mechanical)
Hydrofiner Reactors Catalytic Reformer Reactors (Hot Wall and cold wall)
1 & 1 Cr / Mo (SS clad) CS 1 & 1 Cr / Mo
7 14 MPa (1000 2000 psi) 0.7 2 MPa (100 300 psi)
H 2 + HC
Loss of toughness, H 2 attack Brittle fracture, creep embrittlement thermal fatigue, strain age embrittlement
H 2 +HC
Coke Drums 43 FCC Reactors (Hot Wall and cold wall) Hydrocracker Reactors and Ammonia Converters
50 years/ 200 to 300 vessels 70 years/ 500 to 800 vessels 50 years/ 400 to 500 vessels
20-50 mm ( 2 in) 20-40 mm ( - 1 in) 125-250 mm (5 10 in)
CS 1 & 1 Cr / Mo 2 Cr / 1Mo CS 1 Cr / Mo 3 & 2 Cr / 1Mo 2 Cr / 1Mo V mod. (SS clad)
455 525oC (850 975oF) 425 480oC (800 900oF) 400 480oC (750 900oF)
0.15 1.4 MPa (25-200 psi) 0.15 0.3 MPa (25-50 psi) 10 20 MPa (1500 3000 psi)
HC
Thermal fatigue, creep, loss of toughness Creep, creep embrittlement, erosion Brittle fracture, temper embrittlement, H 2 embrittlement, sigma phase embrittlement in Type 347
HC + H 2 O
H 2 + HC
STP-NU-045
STP-NU-045
Table 2: Petrochemical Experience Furnace Tubes

Furnace Type Metallurgy Approximate Temperature Range (TMT) 425 540oC (800 1000oF) 650 760oC (1200 1400oF) Approximate Pressure Service Damage Mechanisms
Crude Heater Tubes Coker Heater Tubes
5-9Cr / Mo Type 304 stainless 9Cr (6-12 year life) Type 347 stainless
0.3 MPa 50 psi 0.3 MPa 50 psi
HC
Creep, sulfidation, naphthenic acid corrosion Creep, carburization, brittle phases
HC
Hydrogen Heater Tubes (>1,000 Furnaces) Steam Cracker Heater Tubes
HK-40, HP (6-8 year life)
870 1010oC (1600 1850oF)
1.7 2.8 MPa 250 400 psi
HC/steam
Creep, oxidation
44
HK-40, HP (4-10 year life)
955 1150oC (1750 2100oF)
0.2 0.3 MPa 30 40 psi
HC/steam
Carburization, erosion
STP-NU-045
Appendix4 RECOMMENDED OVERALL ASME APPROACH AND ORGANIZATION:

4.1. The following organizational structure is recommended for the timely development of ASME Code rules. This structure is intended to support the tasks and activities that should be completed prior to or in parallel with the development of the Code rules. The proposed organizational structure involves a large number of project teams that are each responsible for a portion of the Code rules. However, it is important that these teams not work in isolation. It is therefore important that each team present a detailed summary of their current drafts and concerns to the higher level group or committee that they report to at each ASME Code Week meeting. Some of the project teams have been designated as ad-hoc teams, to indicate that they are not expected to be a permanent part of the Code Committee structure, but would exist only until the task that they have been assigned is complete. 4.1.1. No change is recommended to the organization of the current Standards Committee on Nuclear Risk Management (CNRM). Their task to develop a PRA standard (see paragraph 10.1.1) that will cover the HTGRs is underway. 4.1.1.1. After completion of the PRA standard, it is recommended that the CNRM New Non-Light Water Reactors Plants Working Group (New Non-LWR WG) become the focal point to receive the results of PRAs conducted by Owners on proposed designs. The Non-LWR WG should distribute the pertinent results to the appropriate Committees, Subgroups and Project Teams that are responsible for the HTGR code rules (see paragraph 10.1.1.1). 4.1.2. Establish a Project Team under the BNCS (e.g. Project Team on Standards Coordination) to provide ASME input to the Nuclear Energy Standards Coordination Collaborative Panel (see paragraph 11.1.1) on the question of whether to retain, modify or eliminate the current system for classification of components and supports in Subsection NCA (see paragraph 9.3.5). This Project Team should work together with other SDOs, such as ANS, and the Regulators to reach a broad consensus on this issue. 4.1.3. Establish an ad-hoc Project Team on Physical Boundaries under BPV III-5 to establish the physical scope boundaries for code coverage (see paragraph 9.3.2 for examples). 4.1.4. Establish an ASME Code organizational structure to address each of the individual tasks that are described in this document that are expected to result in rules in BPV III-5, BPV XI-2, the OM Code or QME. The following approach is recommended: 4.1.4.1. Consider the need to establish a Task Group or Special Working Group on OM Codes for HTGRs under the O&M Subcommittee on OM Codes of the Committee on Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants to modify existing Codes for the HTGR. Considerations for specific tasks are described in paragraphs 10.1.18, 10.1.19, and 10.1.20. Alternatively, these rules could be developed under the current committee structure. 4.1.4.2. Consider the need to establish a Project Team on Confinement Building Rules. This Project Team would be established only if the decision is made that rules are needed (see paragraph 9.3.3). 4.1.4.3. Make the current Project Team on Section III, Division 5 a standing Subcommittee (or Subgroup) under the BPV Committee on Construction of Nuclear Facility Components (III) with responsibility for developing and maintaining the entire Division 5 book. Specific tasks to be carried out by SC III-5 are described in
45
STP-NU-045
subsequent paragraphs that cover the subgroups and project teams that will report to this group. Note that BPV III would still be the consensus Standards Committee. Consideration should also be given to establishing subcommittees for Divisions 1 4. 4.1.4.4. Make the current SWG High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors (BPV XI) a standing Subcommittee (or Subgroup) (SC XI-2) under the BPV Committee on Nuclear Inservice Inspection (XI) with responsibility for developing and maintaining the entire Division 2 book. Specific tasks to be carried out by SC XI-2 are described in subsequent paragraphs that cover the subgroups and project teams that will report to the Subcommittee. Note that BPV XI would still be the consensus Standards Committee. 4.1.4.5. Establish the following Project Teams and Subgroups under SC III-5; SC XI-2; CNRM; O&M and/or QME as Appropriate: 4.1.4.5.1. Ad hoc BPV III-5, BPV XI-2 and O&M Project Team on Overall Guidance and Coordination. This Project Team should develop and maintain a document for distribution to all of the other project teams and subgroups working on HTGR rules to provide overall guidance on issues that affect more than one area. This guidance should include decisions made by the BNCS, BPV III, BPV XI, CNRM and the O&M Committee on Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (see paragraph 9). In addition, the Project Team should develop guidance in areas described in paragraphs 9.3.3, 9.3.6 and 9.3.10. This guidance should be approved by BNCS, BPV III, BPV XI, CNRM and the O&M Committee on Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants as applicable. This ad hoc Project Team should also be responsible for coordinating the activities of the various groups to avoid overlap or having tasks fall into a crack. 4.1.4.5.2. Project Team on Nuclear QA. This Project Team should develop recommendations for modifications to the existing QA requirements for HTGR applications (see paragraph 10.1.22). 4.1.4.5.3. Ad hoc Project Team on Scope and Organization of BPV III-5, BPV XI-2, O&M and QME. This Project Team should report jointly to SC III-5 and SC XI-2 or to the BNCS with liaison to the O&M Committee on Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants and the Standards Committee on Qualification of Mechanical Equipment Used in Nuclear Facilities (QME) to develop the scope, organization and layout for the III-5, XI-2, OM Code and QME books, including paragraph numbering schemes (see paragraphs 9.3.8 and 9.3.9). Another possibility is to assign the responsibility to the existing Task Group on New Reactors and Globalization. 4.1.4.5.4. Ad hoc Project Team on General Requirements of III-5 It is anticipated that most of the general requirements in Subsection NCA will apply to Division 5, so this portion of Division 5 can be drafted by an ad hoc project team. The Project Teams draft should be reviewed, approved and subsequently maintained by the existing, Subgroup on General Requirements (SGGR-III). See paragraph 10.1.2. 4.1.4.5.4.1. Specific requirements for the paragraphs on Provisions of Design Specifications, currently NCA-3250 and its subparagraphs, should be provided by the Project Team on Design Specifications under the Subgroup on Design (see paragraph 4.1.4.5.5).
46
STP-NU-045
4.1.4.5.5. Subgroup on Design (SGD-III-5) This should be a new subgroup, with members drawn from a broad cross section of the design activities throughout the BPV organization as well as from outside of the current organization. There is discussion of potentially combining some of the many existing BPV design activities, but the rapid development of rules for the HTGRs will require a focused effort that can be most efficiently achieved by a subgroup dedicated to that task. SGD-III-5 should have responsibility for metallic reactor core support structures and internals. 4.1.4.5.5.1. Ad hoc Project Team on Design Specifications This ad hoc Project Team should include a representative from other design Project Teams that will use the information in the Design Specification as well as other key stakeholders. The requirements assembled by the ad hoc Project Team on Design Specifications should be given to the Project Team on General Requirements of Division 5 for incorporation (see paragraph 10.1.2). 4.1.4.5.5.2. Project Team on Design-by-Rule. This Project Team should develop rules with closed form solutions for common components. The Team should include individuals who are experienced with the rules in VIII-2 as well as individuals experienced in elevated temperature design. See paragraphs 10.1.3, 10.1.3.1, and 10.1.3.2 for examples of rules needed. It may be desirable to appoint several additional project teams to develop rules for specific applications (e.g. high temperature heat exchangers and flange joint leakage). 4.1.4.5.5.3. Project Team on Design-by-Analysis. This Project Team should include a broad cross section of individuals from existing BPV Code committees as well as experienced individuals from other organizations. After the rules have been approved, a permanent organization should be established for continued development and maintenance. This could be SGD-III-5 or a subgroup that handles design for the BPV organization as a whole, since design-by-analysis rules should be common to several of the BPV Codes (see paragraph 10.1.4). This Project Team should also consider probabilistic (LRFD) methods to the extent that the overall guidance provided by BNCS indicates (see Appendix 4, paragraph 4.1.4.5.1). 4.1.4.5.5.4. Project Team on Fatigue Strength. This Project Team should include some of the members of the current Subgroup on Fatigue Strength that previously reported to SCD, but should be expanded to include other individuals experienced in current fatigue analysis methods. After the rules have been approved, a permanent organization should be established for continued development and maintenance. This could be a dedicated Task Group under BPV III-5 or BPV III of the BPV organization as a whole, since fatigue issues are common to most of the BPV Codes (see paragraph 10.1.5). 4.1.4.5.5.5. Project Team on Fracture Mechanics. This Project Team should include some of the individuals who were involved in drafting the fracture mechanics rules in VIII-3 and in API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 in addition to Section XI (see paragraph 10.1.5.4). 4.1.4.5.6. Joint III-5 / XI-2 Task Group on Elevated Temperature Design (TG-ETDIII-2-5) This Task Group should include some of the members of the current ETD Subgroup that previously reported to SCD, but membership should be
47
STP-NU-045
expanded to include other individuals experienced in elevated temperature design such as those from the petrochemical and fossil fuel power industries. Section XI should also be represented. Since parallel groups do not currently exist in other areas of the BPV Code, this Task Group should be considered to be permanent. This Task Group should maintain a very close liaison with SGM-III-5 (see paragraph 4.1.4.5.7). After completion of the ETD Rules for Division 5, this Task Group could be transferred to another part of the BPV organization to assume responsibility for ETD rules in other books (e.g. Section VIII, Division 1) in addition to Division 5 (see paragraphs 7.1.2and 10.1.6). Project Teams should be formed for each of the following subtasks: 4.1.4.5.6.1. Project Team on Requirements and Negligible Creep rules. See paragraphs 7 and 10.1.6.1 for task descriptions. 4.1.4.5.6.2. Project Team on Exemption from CreepFatigue Damage Evaluation. See paragraph 10.1.6.2 for task description. 4.1.4.5.6.3. Project Team on Creep-Fatigue Evaluation by Analysis. paragraphs 10.1.6.3, 8.3.5 and 8.3.8.2 for task descriptions. See
4.1.4.5.6.4. Project Team on Creep-Fatigue Crack Growth. See paragraph 10.1.6.4 for task description. 4.1.4.5.6.5. Project Team on Elevated Temperature Bellows Type Expansion Joints. See paragraph 10.1.9 for task description. 4.1.4.5.6.6. Project Team on Surveillance Coupons. This Project Team should develop requirements for the design, fabrication, inservice exposure conditions and inservice testing of base material and weldment Surveillance coupons to determine the remaining life of equipment exposed to elevated temperatures. See paragraph 10.1.13 for task description. 4.1.4.5.7. Subgroup on Materials. This should be a new subgroup, with members drawn from a broad cross section of the materials activities throughout the BPV organization as well as from outside of the current organization. There is discussion of potentially combining some of the many existing BPV design activities, but the rapid development of rules for the HTGR will require a focused effort that can be most efficiently achieved with a subgroup dedicated to that task. The SGM-III-5 should be responsible for incorporating materials Code Cases as well as new materials identified into Section II (see paragraph 8.3.8.2). This Task Group should maintain a very close liaison with TG-ETD-III-2-5 (see paragraph 4.1.4.5.6). 4.1.4.5.8. Subgroup on Fabrication. This should be a new subgroup, with members drawn from a broad cross section of the fabrication activities throughout the BPV organization as well as from outside of the current organization. There is discussion of potentially combining some of the many existing BPV design activities, but the rapid development of rules for the HTGR will require a focused effort that can be most efficiently achieved with a subgroup dedicated to that task. The SGF III-5 should incorporate most of the rules from the existing books, but consider the need for new rules to address elevated temperature concerns (see paragraph 10.1.11). 4.1.4.5.8.1. Project Team on Structural Brazing, Diffusion Bonding and Other High Temperature Joining Techniques. This subgroup should develop
48
STP-NU-045
rules that could be incorporated into either III-5 or Section IX (see paragraphs 10.1.12, and 8.3.14). 4.1.4.5.9. Joint III-5 / XI-2 / Section V Task Group on NDE. This Task Group should develop compatible NDE requirements for new and post construction. The rules in existing books should be adopted and Section V should be referenced to the extent practicable. However, the Task Group should ensure that the measurements and evaluations made during new construction provide an appropriate baseline for the measurements that will be made in service (see paragraphs 10.1.14, 10.1.14.4 and 10.1.15). 4.1.4.5.9.1. Joint III-5 / XI-2 / Section V Task Group on Remote UT. This Task Group should develop proposals for R&D and Code rules based on the results of the R&D for remote UT monitoring of critical primary pressure boundary components in service. See paragraph 10.1.8. 4.1.4.5.9.2. Joint III-5 / XI-2 / Section V Task Group on AE. This Task Group should develop proposals for R&D and Code rules for continuous acoustic emission monitoring of critical primary pressure boundary components in service. See paragraph 8.3.11. 4.1.4.5.10. Joint III-5 / O&M Task Group on Inservice Monitoring. This Task Group should develop requirements for new construction testing as well as designs that permit monitoring of equipment in service. This Task Group should first develop a plan for the development of the rules and for the form of publication. It may be necessary to form project teams for specific tasks. Requirements for the inservice monitoring should be provided as well (see paragraphs 10.1.16, 10.1.18, 10.1.19, and 10.1.20). Active liaison with the new and post construction Project teams responsible for NDE should be maintained (see paragraph 4.1.4.5.9). 4.1.4.5.11. Subgroup on Graphite Core Components (existing subgroup transfer reporting to SC III-5). See paragraphs 10.1.21 and 8.3.12 for tasks. 4.1.4.5.12. Subgroup on Gas Treatment. This Task Group should develop requirements for monitoring coolant gas composition, including contaminants, in service, and for adjusting gas composition to minimize degradation of components. See paragraph 10.1.17. The Task Group should be organized under, or have active liaison with, the Standards Committee on Nuclear Air and Gas Treatment Equipment. 4.1.4.5.13. QME Task Group on Equipment for HTGRs. This Task Group should be established only if the BNCS decides that ASME Code rules are needed in this area (see paragraphs 10.1.18 and 10.1.24) 4.1.5. Section III, Division 2 Task Group on Confinement Building. This Task Group should be established only if the BNCS decides that ASME Code rules are needed in this area (see paragraphs 9.3.3 and 11.1.1.3.1). 4.1.6. Establish active liaison at the BNCS level with other standards developing organizations (SDOs) and the regulators to ensure that the standards being developed cover all important areas and meet the needs of the regulators. 4.1.6.1. The Nuclear Energy Standards Coordination Collaborative that is currently being established appears to be the appropriate forum for this activity. The ASME
49
STP-NU-045
representatives on this panel should ensure that the scopes of each SDOs activities are documented in detail and that there are no gaps or overlaps in coverage.
50
STP-NU-045
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author acknowledges, with deep appreciation, the numerous individuals for their technical and editorial peer review of this document
51

Roadmap To Develop Asme Code Rules For The Construction of High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors (HTGRS)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roadmap To Develop Asme Code Rules For The Construction of High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors (HTGRS)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STP-NU-045

Copyright 2010 by ASME Standards Technology, LLC All Rights Reserved

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION:

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

PHASE I, PART A ACTIVITIES:

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

ASSUMPTIONS USED IN DEVELOPING THE ROADMAP FOR PHASE I, PART B:

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

REACTOR DESIGNS AND INFORMATION REQUIRED:

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TASKS

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC CODE RULE DEVELOPMENT TASKS FOR PHASE I, PART B:

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

OVERALL INDUSTRY APPROACH AND ORGANIZATION:

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Appendix 1 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

SCD SDO SI SIF S-N SWG TOFD UDS UT VHTR WFMT WG

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Appendix 3 BRIEF SUMMARY OF PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE IN ELEVATED TEMPERATURE APPLICATIONS

Roadmap for ASME HTGR Code Rules

Table 1: Petrochemical Experience Pressure Vessels

1 & 1 Cr / Mo (SS clad) CS 1 & 1 Cr / Mo

7 14 MPa (1000 2000 psi) 0.7 2 MPa (100 300 psi)

20-50 mm ( 2 in) 20-40 mm ( - 1 in) 125-250 mm (5 10 in)

CS 1 & 1 Cr / Mo 2 Cr / 1Mo CS 1 Cr / Mo 3 & 2 Cr / 1Mo 2 Cr / 1Mo V mod. (SS clad)

Table 2: Petrochemical Experience Furnace Tubes

Crude Heater Tubes Coker Heater Tubes

0.3 MPa 50 psi 0.3 MPa 50 psi

Creep, sulfidation, naphthenic acid corrosion Creep, carburization, brittle phases