ML20199E559

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re B&W Owners Group 970514 Submittal of BAW-2241P, Fluence & Uncertainty Methodologies. Response Requested by 980227

ML20199E559
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/30/1998
From:	Birmingham J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Joseph Kelly BWR OWNERS GROUP, FRAMATOME
References
PROJECT-693 TAC-M98962, NUDOCS 9802020189
Download: ML20199E559 (4)

Text

--

iu -

y w /=

g: FJansary 30.11998

~ '

Mr. JlJ. Kelly, Manager : .

B&W Owners Group Services 3 _

- Frematome Technologies, Inc. t 1 n

P.O. Box _10935 ,

Lynchburg, VA 24506-0935 * , _

SUBJECT:

' REQUEST F ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR TOPICAL BAW-2241P,-

'" FLUENCE AND UNCERTAINTY METHODOLOGIES"(TAC NO. M98962) .

- Dear Mr. Kelly; By letter dated May 14,1997, the Babcock and Wilcox Owners Group (B&WOG) su%itted :

. topical BAW 2241P for NRC review. ' The staff has raviewed the report and determined a need -

for additional information. The enclosure to this letter .1ontifies the information required. NRC -

~

requests that the B&WOG provide a response to these questions by February 27,1998.1 You should address your response to the NRC Document Control Desk and reference B&WOG

' Project No. 693.-

~ If you wish to meet 't.ith the staff to accelerate the information transfer, the staff would welcome --

1 such a meeting at a mutually convenient time. If you have any questions on this matter, I may ?

be contacted by phone, 301/415-2829, or by email, jlb4@nrc. gov.

Sincerely, Original Signed By:

Joseph L. Birmingham, Project Manager

- Generic lasues and Environmental y' Projects Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation -

~

Enclosure:

Questions on topical BAW-2241P '

. cc: . Mr. R. B. Borsum, Manager Rockville Licensing Operations Framatome Technologies, Inc.

1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525

Rockville, MD 20852-1631

_ DISTRIBUTION:

MISBCTMLE PUBLIC - TEssig - FAkstulewicz LLois

' RCaruso PGEB R/F TCollins JBirmingham OGC .~.CRS g' JRoe' DMatthews DOCUMENT NAME:

• G:\JLB\BAW-2241.RAI hb I OFFICE PM:PGEB > c j /1 SC:PGEBkj ,9 T20 I IM

^

NAME JBirmingharn:sw FAkstulewicz \

DATE. 01/1798 01/3D/98 (l (ll,l (ll,ll,l ll OFFICIAL OFFICE COPY:

9802020189 990130

~

i f 8- O/

goa Toeaecav"6 e M N Q,NE MM, war nar _

4 g

g aa at vg\ UNITED STATES

, g }

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g WASHINGTON, D.C. 30686 4001 3 .,. . + ,/ January 30, 1998 Mr. J. J. Kelly, Manager B&W Owners Group Services Framatome Technologies,Inc.

P.O. Box 10935 Lynchburg, VA 24506-0935

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL iNFORMATION FOR TOPICAL DAW-2241P,

" FLUENCE AND UNCERTAINTY METHODOLOGIES"(TAC NO. M98962)

Dear Mr. Kelly:

By letter dated May 14,1997, the Babcock and Wilcox Owners Group (B&WOG) submitted topical BAW 2241P for NRC review. The staff has reviewed the report and determined a need for additionalinformation. The enclosure to this letter identifies the infoimation required. NRC requests that the B&WOG provide a response to these questions by February 27,1998. You should address your response to the NRC Document Control Desk and reference B& WOO Project No. 693.

If you wish to meet with the staff to accelerate the information transfer, the staff would welcome such a meeting at a mutually convenient time, if you have any questions on this matter, I may be contacted by phone, 301/415-2829, or by email, jlb4@nrc. gov.

Sincerely, H f1 .- 0a /

Jdseph L. :,irmingham, Project Manager Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Questions on topical BAW-2241P cc: Mr. R. B. Borsum, Manager Rockville Licensing Operations Framatome Technologies, Inc.

1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 Rockville, MD 20852-1631

'4 l e 1 T

L k f j,

l - METHODOLOGY (BAW ADDITIONAL. INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR THE REVIEW OF >

THE FRAMATOME TECHNOLOGIE8 FLUENCE AND UNCERTAINTY 2241 P)

[ 1. The topical report states that the B&W owners will revalidate the analytical monliting of the I L .

pressure vessel by performing vessel fluence analyses and benchmark comparisons to 4~

cavity measurements. How will the results of these analyses be used and will they be -

submitted in separate topical reports? -

2. . Provule a detailed description of the dosimeter, capsule and structurel support geometry l and how the modeling of this detail was validated.

' 3. Describe how the effect of increased Pu in the high bumup fuel is included in the source

_ calculation. Does this treatment allow for the cycle specific variations?

I~

4 Do the intemals of the B&W plants include core shroud former plates and, if so, how is the

! effect of these plates included in the calculations?

5. Are there differences between the calculation and measurement methods used for Davis

.. Besse and the methods used for the other plants included in the Appendix A data base? For i example, were the methods used to determine the dosimeter corrections for the Appendix-A -

I measurements the same as used for Davis Besse?

6. Will the BAW-2241 P methodology be applied to cores'with partial length fuel assemblies and, if so, how will the (r,z) source of Section-3.1.2.2 be determined?

j- 7. The Model-C (r,z) calculation results in negative fluxes and an unacceptable solution. Can this error in the Model-C calculation affect the results of the Model-B calculstion? For example, what is the sensitivity of the Model-B calculation to the elbedo boundary i . conditions?

c_

8. Please provide Reference 21.

L

9. In view of the !srge variation in fuel bumup between assemblies and the dependence of the i number of neutrons produced per fission (v) on fuel bumup, what uncertainty is introduced l by neglecting this dependence in Equation (4.1)?

i

!. --10. The core neutron source spectrum is determined by a neutron production weighting of the individual assembly neutron spectra. What uncertainty is introduced by the Equation (4.2) i power weighting of the assembly spectra?

11. Describe iri detail how the dependence of the dosimeter response on the axial separation between the vessel support beams and the dosimeters is included. Is the method used for i= including the effect of the support beams at Davis Besse also used for ANO-17

' 12. Does the dissolution process used in the measurement of the powder fissionable dosimeters

! introduce more uncertainty than the process used to measure the wire dosimeters? Is the

!- C/M bias and standard deviation for the powder dosimeters different than for the dosimeter

wires?

, Enclosure t . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - .

f 2

13. How does the NIOBlUM prediction compare wth the analytic result of Equation (5.1) for the limiting geometry?

14. The photo-fission corrections for the U-238(n,f) and Np 237(n,f) dosimeters appear low -

compared to the results of other investigators. Have the predictions used to determine o these corrections been compared to calculations made with the BUGLE-g3 library? Also, what photo-fission cross sections were used for U-238 and Np 237 and what is the basis for these values? ,

15. What is the effect on the dosimeter response of Pu build-up, U-235 content and impurities?

Why aren't dosimeter response corrections required for these effects?

18. Do the dosimeter response measurements conform to the applicable ASTM standards? If not, justify any differences.

17. Why isn't a NIOBlUM calculation required for determining geometry and self absorption correctic.ns for ;he non fissionable dosimeters?

18. Provide Tab!a B 2.21 including the SSTR measurement results.

l a

I