ML19209B842
| ML19209B842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/14/1979 |
| From: | Rubenstein L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Taylor J BABCOCK & WILCOX, BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910110032 | |
| Download: ML19209B842 (9) | |
Text
p arag ggd b
~
(o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g
.; e wAsm NGTON, D. C. 20555
/
SEP 141979 Mr. James H. Taylor Manager, Licensing Babcock & Wilcox Company Nuclear Power Generat' ion P. O. Box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505
Dear Mr. Taylor:
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F TOPICAL REPORT BAW-10133P, REVISION 1 In order to complete our review of the subject report, we require adequate responses to the requests for additional information provided in Enclosure 1.
We also require completion of the vendor data request form provided in.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact us.
Sincerely, jS2Gb L.
S'.
ubenstein, Acting Chief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
Mr. Robert B. Borsum 7733 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Md.
20013 ON~
7910 10 1
b
\\\\'D 083
ENCLOSURE I l.
Figure 1-1 implies that no buckling analysis is performed.
Please explain.
2.
Page 4-2.
The statement "The number of fuel assemblies to be used' in the core model was determined based on a' parametric study and the core configuration." occurs in Section 4.2.
Please enclose a sumary (values) of the results of this study.
3.
Page 4-2.
What method was used to adjust the spacer grid dynamic properties to reflect.eactor operating temperatures?
4.
Page 4-3.
Please enclose damping test results.
5.
Page 4-5.
Please enclose the analytical-experimental fuel assembly damping c:mparisons.
6.
Page 5-2.
Were the effects of temperature and irradiation also included on the spacer grids?
If so how?
7.
Page 5-2.
The method of using the maximum physicr.1 deflection of t e assembly at "midspan" is conservative for the esle.ulation of h
stresses f3r c first mcde rescense.
Justify that a second, third, or higner mode deflection does not yi.ld larger stresses.
11'O 084
~
8.
Page 5-2 and 5-3.
Is gravity included in the initial applied loadings along with normal operating hydraulic forces? (Seismic Model) 9.
Page 5-3.
Same as (8) for LOCA model..
/
10.
Page 5-4 Sectibn 5.5.
Please explain in more detail how the SSE and LOCA loads were combined.
(a) What detennines the worst case LOCA?
(b)
In what c:mponent was the highest load time phased?
(c) Provide justification that due to the nonlinear nature of the core response that this is conservative.
- 11. Page 6-1.
Although it is stated that stresses are calculated in accordance with NG-3000 or Appendix F of the Pressure Vessel Code, no specific stress model or experimental verification of stress models is given in the recort.
Please supply stress models along with experimental verification and example detailed stress in-tensity calculatiens.
12.
Page 5-1.
At what velocities were the limiting grid loads deter-mined? Hcw do these velocities compare to the analytically deter-mined velocities?
13.
Page 5-1.
Please enclose F.e limiting grid defor nation calcu-lations.
- emonstrate that a coolable geccetry is maintained.
Shcw
- nat control rod insertacility is not imcaired for tne SSE transient.
11'O 085
- 14. What and conditions were used for the Lateral seismic analysis?
- 15. What end conditions were used for the Lateral LOCA analysis? Do these end conditions consider that the fuel assembly lifts off the lower support plate?
- 16. How were the cpre plate motions applied to the Horizontal and Vertical core models? Were accelerations or displacements used and were both translation and rotation accounted for in the applied time histories?
- 17. Was asymetric motion accounted for in core plate motion appli-cation? How?
18.
Does the fuel assembly exhibit hysteretic properties? If so how was this accounted for in the present analysis?
- 19. Was hydrodynamic mass used in the system model frem whicn the core plate motions were obtained?
If so how?
- 20. What is the internal pressure of the fuel rod?
21.
Please justify neglecting the torsional motion of the fuel assembly in the detailed core analysis.
- 22. 'iere both grid to baffle (in grid) and grid to grid to baffle (through grid) imcact to:n considerec in ene analysis?
If so ncw?
)1'0 00 k
a
23.
Page B-4 Which modes were selected for damping? What effective damping was present en the remaining modes?
24.
Page B-5.
Please enclose the analytical verification problems comparisons.
25.
Page B-5.
Pleas'e enclose the experimental verification results.
25.
Table C-1.
Are the EI and KAG values in this table reversed?
27.
Page C-4 Please enclose the assembly component percentages referred to in the last sentence.
28...Page C-7.
Section 4.1.
Was the deformation considered a "maximun credible" reduction or due to the analytically calculated loading?
29.
Figures and calculations should be supplied to justify the maximum credible reduction calculations or a detailed description of the logic calculations and justification should be provided if an intermediate deformation is to be defended.
Any discussien of the grid deformation should include a detailed description (including material values) of the effects of irradiation and temperature.
- 30. Was the system analyzed a no::le succor:ed system o a pecestel succertec system?
\\\\'D DS1
- 31. Provide a sample problem, as discussed in Appendix A to SRP Section 4.2, consisting of not less than a three assembly diameter core which exercises the basic analysis procedures used in the B&W detailed core model. Simplified core support plate and fuel alignment plate input functions are preferred. All structural modeling properties should be included in the transmission of results.
- 32. Provide documentation for experimental-analytical or analytical-theoretical comparison on the applicable computer codes.
- 33. The analysis presented in Appendix C of the topical report is adequate to demonstrate the methodology. However, for future plant analysis, sensitivity calculations will be required.
- 34. Provide an evaluation or discussion of steam flashing effects for the LOCA analysis.
Provide a fatigue analysis or a discussion of why such an analysis 35.
is not appropriate.
11'0 088
p..
= = " *
- ENCLOSURE II VENDOR DATA REQUEST FORM Page 1 et 3 uAwints FUEL ASSE.MBLY Dimensioned INCLUCE TCISANCES ON ANY GAPS SETWEEN 2-c RE PLATE Dimensioned CCMPCNENTS ANC INTERFACE CETAILS c:RE siRREL CR SNRCUO Dimensioned REACTCR VESSEL AND INTERNALS (General)
GENERAL puur LAycuT wrTH 7.ttcR c:MPCNENTS (GCneral) s FORCNG FUNCT;QMS m2
ANo l
TIME H:57CFIE3 i (LCCA)
P.Cis i
pu 5 vanens cm:1-3:535LFE
- a AX
- AL LOCA :CRCE3 9ME HSTO?!E3 et;;3 f
'001ORIld 11'O 089
VENDOR DATA REQUEST FORM 6ma.
th A Page 2 of 3 TEST DATA TYPE AmAL LATBAL CESIRED FCAM FCRCE-CEFLECDCN (Test)
(stat:C)
PLOTS Digitized uCCE SHAPES (Test) i PLDTS l-5 i,
(Test)
F;ECUENC:E3 & % CritiUl damping l-5 j
CRCP TEET FCRCE EME PLOTS INTERNAL 300 TO GAID P1ot (Test. Data) lMPAC* STIFFNESS & Camping TABLE l//////
fi EXTERNAL GRIO
//
IMPACTST;F NESS & Camcing
/
TAgt:(Test Data)
SE.4 M40LUMN CISCUS3tC':
RESULTS (Test)
TAELI CR PLOTS
(/
1 CISCUSSION I
TASLI 3R LOT 3 cato-;ca 3 GR;2-GUIDE
- =cs TUBE FRICTICN
. TAEtg
/
/1
[' dors t T
..,tSH a.iv..s j
STEBCT* J.'PAQ ( NCE73j 3,gg)
TABLE l
- . l Jfi;hjk 11 0 090
,e,4.hda. = mi VENDOR DATA REQUEST FORM nrauuncarmen P'S' 3
- 3 CSTE CF iTPE STiFNESS COMACNST WEGHT GRAv1TY MATDIAt.
ANo/CR PRELcAD f//////
m a aca
/'
g S,wa caio
{///
,c...,c, 7/
/g ecT cu eo cx 7
A
/
PJe AssEMS:.Y WHH///
l ~' " * '*
- l Y////////\\
scT cu c gE purt EAC*cA VES32.
W/A e-ecc ccwn sp=:.:c IGUIDE TUSE I
l ::lSTRUME.NT TUSE i
l I
l i
(Succly BCL anc ECL aere a:ciicable)
P00RBRGINAL
.