ML20237A008
| ML20237A008 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/10/1998 |
| From: | Stewart Magruder NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Rickard I ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9808130009 | |
| Download: ML20237A008 (6) | |
Text
[ 9:
August-10. 1998 Mr. Ian C. Rickard Director, Nuclear Licensing-
' Combustion Engineering, Inc.
P.O. Box 500 :
2000 Day Hill Rd.
Windsor, CT 06095-0500
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) RELATED TO THE ABB-CE TOPICAL REPORT-CENPD-389-P,"10X10 SVEA FUEL CRITICAL POWER EXPERIMENTS AND CPR CORRELATIONS: SVEA-96+"
1:
Dear Mr. Rickard:
. By letter dated June 9,1998, ABB Combustion Engineering submitted topical report CENPD-389-P for NRC staff review. The staff has reviewed the report and determined a need for l'
additional information. The attachment to this letter identifies the information required. Please address your response to the NRC Document Control Desk.-
If you have any questions, please contact me at 415-3139 (email, SLMi@NRC. GOV) or Tony Attard at 415-2876 (email, ACA@NRC. GOV).
l-Sincerely,-
Original Signed By:
Stewart L. Magruder, Project Manager Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Questions on Topical CENPD-389-P DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC JRoe TEssig FAkstulewicz TCollins PGEB R/F PWen ACAttard SMagruder OGC ACRS..
GThomas DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\pxw\\ABBCE389.ral OFFICE PM:PGEB '
SRXB SC:PGEk, NAME PWen:sw Pcd ACAttarM//[ FAkstulewicz k I
DATE-08/ 7 /98 08/'fl98 08//D/98 OFFICIAL OFFICE COPY 3(Pn ya c
I 9908130009 990810 F,
d l
PDR TOPRP EMVC-E C
PDR g
9fr-/60 gg FRF CENTER COPY i
C g
UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066.0001 o,,,,,+
August 10,1998 Mr. Ian C. Rickard Director, Nuclear Licensing Combustion Engineering, Inc.
P.O. Box 500 2000 Day Hill Rd.
Windsor, CT 06095-0500
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAl) RELATED TO THE ABB-CE TOPICAL REPORT--CENPD-389-P, "10X10 SVEA FUEL CRITICAL POWER EXPERIMENTS AND CPR CORRELATIONS: SVEA-96+"
Dear Mr. Rickard:
By letter dated June 9,1998, ABB Combustion Engineering submitted topical report CENPD-389-P for NRC staff review. The staff has reviewed the report and determined a need for additional information. The attachment to this letter identifies the information required. Please address your response to the NRC Document Control Desk.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 415-3139 (email, SLM1@NRC. GOV) or Tony Attard at 415-2876 (email, ACA@NRC. GOV).
Sincerely,
]<$C.M Stewart L. Magruder, Project Manager Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Questions on Topical CENPD-389-P l
[
I RAls for Review of ABB-CE's Toolcal Reoort: CENPD-389-P Chanters 1 throuah 5 RAls 1.
Provide description of the SVEA-96 and SVEA-96+ fuel designs (i.e., figures indicating physical differences, etc.).
{
2.
Provide description of Correlation Structure d;fferences between the SVEA-96 and the SVEA %+.
l 3.
Provide the range of peaking factors expected to be covered by this correlation.
4.
On pages 33 and 34 of the topical, the range of test parameters are provided for the sub-bundle and the full bundle critical power tests. Please provide the f
number of data points taken at each of the test points for all three parameters, (Mass flux, Pressure and inlet Subcooling).
l S.
Please provide graphical representation of CPR-vs-Mass flux for each of the
' three axial profiles: Upskew, Cosine, and Downskew, spanning the full range of I
applicability of the fuel.
l 6.
In Tables 2.1 to 2.3 on pages 11,12, and 13 there are blanks in the number of points columns. Please explain.
7.
Please provide corresponding correlation predictions for each of the test runs in Figures 3.9 through 3.16.
8.
(a) Please explain the difference between "M" rods and "S" rods on page 23.
(b) Please explain the difference between " Rod type A" and " Rod type B" on page 29.
9.
Please explain the non-conservatism in figure 5.1 at approximately 100 W/cm,
2 10.
Please explain the anomalies exhibited in figures 5.2 through 5.8.
11.
Please provide test data to accompany the predicted critical power in figure 5.11.
12.
Please provide figure displaying error (%) as a function of mass flux for the sub-assembly and full assembly test data QNLY (excluding validation and duplicate data).
13.
The last sentence of the middle paragraph on page 78, states that the mean predicted error and the standard deviation tabulated in Table 5.1 will be used for design and licensing bases application. Please provide a quantitative technical analysis (justification) pertaining to the determination of the additive constant uncertainties.
Enclosure
I i
'* N Chapter 6 RAls 14.
Was the transient data taken on the SVEA-96+ ?
j 15.
What is the difference between cold and hot rods 7 16.
What do the designations SF25N, SF24E - Uniform and Optimum mean in figure 6.2 7 17.
Please superimpose a plot of the correlation behavior onto the data provided in figure 6.2.""
18.
What does "Non-conservative Prod." mean in the last column of Tables 6.8 and 6.97
}
19.
Provide table showing comparisons of MCPR for tests and predicted. **"
20.
Provide table of tests results for time to boiling transition (BT)~vs-BT predicted by the BISON-SLAVE code. ""
1 22.
Please elaborate further on Section 6.4.3. focusing on the development of equations 6.1 and 6.2 and Figures 6.10 to 6.15.
StatisticalType RAls 22.
Provide detailed data point count According to Table 2.2,5284 points were used in the bottom-peaked profile According to Table 2.3,5284 points were used in the top-peaked profile Yet, Table 2.1, does not provide the point count used in the cosine profile 23.
Provide a table for the evaluation data set, showing, for each profile, the number of tests and the number of configurations for each test. Construct a similar table for the validation data set.
24.
Indicate whether any points (configurations) were excluded from the analysis as outlier. If so, please tabulate - by profile and by test - the number of points used and the number of points excluded.
25.
If points were excluded as outliers, provide the basis for their exclusion.
l 26.
Provide a side by side comparison of the range of the parameters of the tests to i
that of the proposed or expected range of application. Please show it separately l
for sub-bundle, full-bundle, and combined.
i 27,
. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 discuss the range of individual parameters. Please discuss the range of applications for combinations of parameters (" corner to corner" range).
1 J
l
~
i a
l 1
- 28.
Show the number of points collected on either side oL the " expected range of application" for each of the parameters mass flux, subcooling, and outlet pressure. Explain why this number is sufficient for referencing about fuel behavior in the fringe area of operations.
29.
Explain the legend in Figures 3.9 and 3.16 30.
Superimpose the correlation (predicted) values on Figures 3.9 through 3.16.
31.
Provide 95/95 tolerance limits for the various errors in Tables 5.1 and 5.2.
32.
Provide count and percent of calculated data points that exceeded the 5%
i boundaries in Figure 5.1. Present a similar count for each power profile.
33.
Interpret the behavior enomaly of a group of bottom-power profile data points in l
Figures 5.2 through 5.8.
34.
Discuss the calculations of the additive constants and the associated uncertainties. Please provide a presentation of the methodology and a walk-through of the uncertainty calculations.
l
"" The requested information for these three questions may be combined into one plot.
l 4
I I
i I
T 5
ABB-Combustion Engineering, Inc.
I cc: Mr. Chanes B. Brinkman, Director l
Washington Operations ABB-Combustion Engineering, Inc.
12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 l
Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. Ian C. Rickard, Director Nuclear Licensing ABB-Combustion F_ngineering, Inc.
Post Of0ce Box 500 2000 Day Hill Road Windsor, Connecticut 06095-0500 I
I I
l