Oak Ridge National Laboratory Technical Input for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Review of the 2017 Edition of ASME Section III, Division 5, ‘High Temperature Reactors’
To assist the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its decision making on endorsement of the American Society for Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, Division 5 (2017 Edition) for development of advanced non-light water reactors, the following Division 5 portions were reviewed: Article HBB-2000 Material; Article HCB-2000 Material; Article HGB-2000 Material; Mandatory Appendix HBB-I-14 Tables and Figures; and, Nonmandatory Appendix HBB-U Guidelines for Restricted Material Specifications to Improve Performance in Certain Service Applications. In addition to the 2017 Edition, the same parts of the 2019 Edition have also been reviewed as indicated in various sections of the report. This review was conducted by a collaboration of national laboratory and private sector participants with significant industrial experience, including some heavy lifting and deep diving from Clarus Consulting, LLC., all intended to achieve an objective, independent, and practical perspective. The report provides recommendations, descriptions of the evaluation methods, and the source references for the data used. To build confidence required for endorsement of the Code, this review was conducted as a verification and validation of the above Code contents. The objective of verification is to ensure that the Code is free of error – direct or implied; contains the information needed for its use, including proper coverage of the Code-specified materials for the intended application, and completeness and adequacy of references to other portions of the Code. The objective of validation is to authenticate that the Code tabulations and graphs represent design inputs consistent with what are determined using rules and methods specified by the Code. The authentication process used data that were assembled and/or generated independent of Code development, while the methods of analysis followed Code-specified methods where appropriate. The designated portions for this review cover the five alloys codified for high temperature reactor applications in Division 5, i.e. 316 SS, 304 SS, 800H, 2¼Cr-1Mo, and 9Cr-1Mo-V, regarding their general requirements, permitted specifications and design stress intensity values for pressure-retaining applications, deterioration in service, fatigue acceptance test, permissible weld materials, tensile and yield strength, expected minimum stress-to-rupture values (including for Alloy 718), weld stress rupture factors, permissible materials for bolting use, and restricted specifications in certain service applications. Additionally, stress intensity values for bolting materials including 316 SS, 304 SS and alloy 718 were reviewed. Analysis and discussion are also provided on contents outside of these designated Code portions where it was deemed relevant and necessary to develop a technically sound understanding of issues relating to the designated portions. Due to unavailability of sufficient test data on welds during the review period, the weld stress rupture factors in Tables HBB-I-10.14A to E, which cover a total of ten tables for the five alloys welded with twenty-eight different weld metals (some with similar properties), have been deferred to a future review effort. The review identified mainly two types of issues. The first type includes instances where the Code is found factually incomplete or incorrect, such as obsolete materials specifications listings, missing tabulation of stresses for bolting. Changes to the Code are recommended in these cases. The second type of issue includes instances where the Code tabulations and graphs are found to be less conservative than the review analysis results. In these cases, recommendations are made for further review and consideration where the difference in conservatism exceeds 10%, which is our threshold for questioning technical adequacy, meriting a risk assessment by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and/or reactor designers. It is noted that this effort has been executed using all available data and established methods of analysis, including methods and criteria specified and used by the Code. As such, the findings that are presented in quantitative detail, in a format for convenient comparison with the Code, and with identification of where further review is recommended, should provide a sound technical basis for decisions about quantifying the implications of the reduced design margins and technical adequacy/inadequacy to form a basis for conditioning specific Code tabulation values on endorsement. Recommendations for specific changes to the Code, however, entail design conservatism considerations beyond the scope of this review effort, and are not made in this report.