ML20151Y301
| ML20151Y301 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/08/1998 |
| From: | Birmingham J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Mcphatter C FRAMATOME COGEMA FUELS (FORMERLY B&W FUEL CO.) |
| References | |
| TAC-M99904, NUDOCS 9809180189 | |
| Download: ML20151Y301 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:m. e September 8, 1998 Mr. C. F. McPhatter, Manager ~ Framatome Cogema Fuels 3315 Old Forest Road P.O. Box 10935 Lynchburg, VA 24506-0935
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR TOPICAL BAW-10229P, " Mark-B11 Fuel Assembly Design,"(TAC NO. M99904)
Dear Mr. McPhatter:
By letter dated Eeptember 30,1997, Framatome Cogema Fuels submitted topical BAW-10229P, " Mark-B11 Fuel Assembly Design" for NRC review. The staff has reviewed the report and determined a need for additional information. The enclosure to this letter identifies the information requested. Please address your response to the NRC Document Control Desk. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact me by phone (301) 415-2829, or by emailjlb4@nrc. gov. Sincerely, Original Signed By] Jcseph L. Birmingham, Project Manager Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Office of Nucisar Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Questions on topical BAW-10229P cc: Mr. M. Shoppman, Manager Rockville Licensing Operations Framatome Technologies, Inc. 1 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 Rockville, MD 20852-1631 DISTRIBUTION PUBUC .TEssig TCollins SWu PGEB R/F OGC ACRS JBirmingham DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\JLB\\TR_10229.RAI [ OFFICE PM:PGEB MS SC:PGEkg -{h-C fl NAlWE JBirmingham:sw FAkstul'Mcz ~e 2 DATE 09/ f /98 09/ (/98 OFFICIAL OFFICE COPY J\\{
- tpA f
9809180189 980908 I %C I I PDR TOPRP EMVB o kA ?
.~ e e rf* 8 1 UNITED STATES f j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2006&4001 %..../ September 8. 1998 Mr. C. F. McPhatter, Manager Framatome Cogema Fuels 3315 Old Forest Road P.O. Box 10936 Lynchburg, VA 24506-0935
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR TOPICAL BAW-10229P, " Mark-B11 Fuel Assembly Design,"(TAC NO. M99904)
Dear Mr. McPhatter:
By letter dated September 30,1997, Framatome Cogema Fuels submitted topical BAW-10229P, " Mark-B11 Fuel Assembly Design" for NRC review. The staff has reviewed the report and determined a need for additionalinformation. The enclosure to this letter identifies the information requested. Please address your response to the NRC Document Control Desk. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact me by phone (301) 415-2829, or by email jlb4@nrc. gov. Sincerely, N9dkh seph L. Birmingham, Project a ager Generic issues and Envirenmental Projects Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Questions on topical BAW-10229P cc: Mr. M. Shoppman, Manager Rockville Licensing Operations Framatome Technologies, Inc. 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 Rockville, MD 20852-1631
Request for Additional Information for BAW-10229P, Mark-B11 Fuel Assembly Design Report 1. Please provide a history of the evolution of the Mark B fuel designs in the last 10 years defining the new features introduced with each design. 2. On page 4-10, the report provides the departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) design limit for Mark-Bil fuel, and references Appendix E of BAW-10199P-A (which documents the form of the BWU-Z correlation applicable to Mark-Bil fuel). Appendix E of BAW-10199P-A has not been approved by the NRC, and is currently under review as Addendum 1 to BAW-10199P-A (which consists of Appendix E and Appendix F of BAW-10199P-A). Therefore, the Mark-Bil fuel assembly design topical report (BAW-10229P) does not contain an approved critical heat flux (CHF) correlation for this fuel design. a) If the approved form of the BWU-Z correlation is different from that originally submitted, how will these changes be incorporated into BAW-10229P to avoid confusion over the proper design limit to use with Mark-Bil fuel assemblies in operating plants? b) What are the range of conditions that the approved BWU-Z correlation will be applied to, e.g., flow rate, pressure, temperature, etc.,for Mark-Bil fuel assemblies? How are these ranges validated? 3. Please provide more detail describing the results of the laser doppler velocimeter (LDV) testing conducted at the Lynchburg manufacturing facility (LMF) to investigate subchannel flow distribution within the Mark-Bil fuel assembly. Specifically: a) What ranges of operating conditions (e.g., flow rate, pressure, temperature) were tested? b) Provide plots of measured versus predicted pressure drop in the various subchannels, for the full range of flows and pressures tested. c) Provide a discussion of the comparison between the analytical model predictions and the measured data. 4. Please provide more detail describing the pressure drop testing of the full scale prototype B-11 assembly (see Section 4.3.1). Specifically, a) What ranges of conditions were tested in the transportable flow test rig (TFTR) and control and rod drive line (CRDL) testing? How were the pressure drop measurements obtained? Where were the measurements obtained? How were the form losses determined from the measured data? Enclosure
l 1 b) What were the corresponding form losses in the Mark-B10 fuel assembly design? How were the Mark-B10 pressure drop measurements used as a " benchmark" for the Mark-Bil measurements? l 5. In Section 7.1, it is shown that in a mixed core with Mark-B11 and Mark-BIO fuel assemblies, the differences in local pressure drop at the grid spacer locations result in flow being diverted from the Mark-B11 assembly to the Mark-B10 assembly. Conversely, the lower bare-rod friction pressure drop in the Mark-B11 assembly results in a somewhat lesser flow diversion the other way, back into the Mark-Bil assembly from the Mark-B10 assembly. This flow behavior raises concerns regarding the applicability of the departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) correlation for Mark-Bil fuel to mixed core configurations, because the DNB correlation is based on data that implicitly assume an essentially homogenous core. For the limiting case of one Mark-Bil assembly (which contains the hot channel) in a Mark-BIO core: a) What is the effect of this flow redistribution on the hot channel flow rate, in percent change in flow rate at the location of DNB, (compared to the hot channel flow rate at the same location in a full Mark-Bil core, for the same i conditions of hot assembly radial peaking, system pressure, inlet temperature, total core flow, and total core power)? l b) What is the corresponding percent change in enthalpy at the location of DNB for this configuration compared to a full Mark-Bil core? c) How does the effect of this limiting mixed core configuration on flow and enthalpy distribution vary over the full operating range of flow rate, pressure, and inlet temperature? Is it uniform over the full range of operating conditions? If it is not uniform, what are the conditions that show the largest change in hot channel flow rate, when comparing a full Mark-Bil core to a mixed core with one Mark-Bil assembly as the hot assembly? 6. Do the bafDe cross flow conditions at the core periphery bound the cross flow conditions between mixed cores of Mark-B11 assemblies and other assembly designs? 7. How many Mark-BZ assemblies have been irradiated to date and what is the burnup distribution of these assemblies and the post-irradiation examination results to date? 8. Have the cruciform leaf holddown springs in the upper end fittings been visually examined for cracking and other distortions? If so, what were the examination results along with fast fluence or burnup levels of the assemblies examined? 2
l l 9. The discussion of the design of the spacer sleeves in relation to the grid spacers is not clear. a) Please provide a schematic of the spacer sleeves around the guide tubes and l their relation to the spacer grids along with a better explanation of how this system works to prevent grid movement. b) The last paragraph of Section 3.1.2.3 is not clear. Please provide a further explanation on how the Mark-B11 design lowers the loads in the restraint sleeves of the upper intermediate grids (with mixing vane grids) and what design changes were made to strengthen the grid-to-sleeve interface of the Mark-B11 design. Also Section 4.2.4 states that there are positive margins in grid-to-sleeve interface loads under normal operation and faulted conditions. Please provide these margins. 10. Please provide the current results from post-irradiation examinations of the Mark-Bil lead test assemblies (LTA). I 1. Please provide the axial rod and assembly growth data that have been applied to the Mark-Bil design evaluations and identify the designs from which this data were taken. Also, provide justification of why these data are applicable to the Mark-B11 design. What is the margin for gap closure between the fuel rod-to-upper-end-fitting at a rod-average burnup of 62 GWd/MTU (Section 6.6)? Similarly, what is the margin to prevent the compression of the holddown spring to a solid height at a rod-average burnup of 62 GWd/MTU (Sections 5.1 and 5.2)? l 12. What are the stress margins for assembly components (Sections 5.3.1 and 5.4.1.1) and buckling margins for the guide tubes (Sections 5.3.2 and 5.4.2.2) for normal operation, anticipated operational occurrences, and faulted conditions? 13. Please provide crushing load comparisons of the spacer grids from previous designs to those in the Mark-Bil design. Provide mixed core seismic-LOCA loading analyses for both previous Mark B designs and for the B-11 design for the most limiting plant conditions. l l l i 3 l
- }}