ML24207A180
| ML24207A180 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 99902041 |
| Issue date: | 07/25/2024 |
| From: | Ngola Otto Licensing Processes Branch |
| To: | Framatome |
| References | |
| ANP-10350P, Rev 0 | |
| Download: ML24207A180 (1) | |
Text
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 1
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION FRAMATOME TR, ANP-10350P, REV. 0, "FRAMATOME METHODOLOGY FOR BWRS:
EVALUATION AND VALIDATION OF AP0LL02-A/ARTEMIS-B" FRAMATOME DOCKET NO. 99902041 ISSUE DATE: 07/25/2024
=
Background===
By letter dated June 30, 2022 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML22186A025), Framatome, Inc. submitted Topical Report (TR) ANP-10350P, Revision 0, Framatome Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors: Evaluation and Validation of APOLLO2-A/ARTEMIS-B (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML22186071) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for review and approval. ANP-10350P presents the generic application of the APOLLO2-A/ARTEMIS-B code system to boiling water reactor (BWR) applications. On February 21, 2024, Framatome submitted supplemental information to extend the APOLLO2-A/ARTEMIS-B code system to increased enrichment and high burnup. The supplement to ANP-10350P, Revision 0 includes Appendix A, "Appendix to ANP-10350P," and Appendix B, "Change Pages for ANP-10350P," which are referred to in the NRC staff's Requests for Additional Information (RAIs).
The NRC staff has reviewed the supplemental information provided by Framatome and has determined that the NRC staff needs the following additional information to complete its review of TR ANP-10350P, Revision 0. This is the third set of Request for Information series.
Regulatory Basis Section 1.3, Regulatory Requirements, of ANP-10350P states There are no current regulatory requirements for a generic application of a core simulator applied to steady state core simulation. In formulating this request, the NRC staff considered the regulatory requirements contained in Chapter 4, Section 4.2 of Standard Review Plan of NUREG-0800, Fuel system Design. This includes General Design Criteria (GDC) 10, Reactor Design, and GDC 35, Emergency Core Cooling, as specified in Appendix A to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50. The NRC staff also considered the requirements contained in 10 CFR 50.46, Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light-Water Nuclear Power Reactors.
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 2
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Question 1 Page A-2 of Appendix A: Appendix to ANP-10350P Revision 0 states that ((............
............................)) Describe this process. How will it verify ARTEMIS-B at Advanced Fuel Management (AFM) conditions? When will the updates be implemented in RODEX4?
Question 2 The supplement to ANP-10350, Revision 0 states that The ARTEMIS-B Fuel Rod Module (FRM) is developed to have consistent material properties with the RODEX4 code. Any relevant changes made to RODEX4 for Advanced Fuel Management (AFM) modeling will also be incorporated into the ARTEMIS-B FRM. No additional verification of the FRM is needed because ((............................................
................... (..................-.),...........
.............................................)) No further changes to this report will be needed for the ARTEMIS-B FRM to model AFM conditions. What process would be used to verify the sensitivities and how would it be determined that the results are acceptable for the ARTEMIS-B FRM?
Question 3 Section A.2, "Pin Power Verification," page A-51 of the supplement to ANP-10350P, Revision 0 states analysis performed for the coolant void variation comparisons, fuel temperature comparisons, and the moderator void comparisons are not analyzed with the Advanced Fuel Management (AFM) lattice designs. ((..................................
.....)) Describe the reasoning for the conditions chosen.
Question 4 Appendix A to ANP-10350P Revision 0 states that additional verification of the reflector cross sections is not necessary because ((.................................
........... )) However, no justification was provided for this position. Further, the NRC staff anticipates that future core designs may have highly burned fuel assemblies with increased initial enrichment placed near the reflectors, and it is, therefore, necessary to ensure proper reflector cross section treatment. Please justify that the reflector cross sections are ((...
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 3
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
.................................... )) Conversely, describe how
((..................................)) affects the reflector cross sections and how the cross sections will be treated.
Question 5 The effects of increased enrichment and higher burnup on radial power pellet profiles were not discussed in the supplement to ANP-10350P Revision 0. It is expected that radial power profiles would change as a result of increased enrichment as seen in analyses performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL/TM-2020/1833). Provide radial power profiles that show the effect of increased enrichment in boiling water reactor (BWR) fuel. Include a plot of high burnup vs. pin power.
Question 6 34 ATRIUM 11 lattice designs were used for the analyses in the supplement to ANP-10350P Revision 0. Based on the limited information regarding the parameters used in the lattices (e.g.,
uranium enrichment, gadolinium concentration, pin count, and the arrangements of pins) provided in the supplement, the NRC staff could not determine if the lattice designs used were representative of the full range of variation in ATRIUM 11 fuel heterogeneity (i.e., possible differences in ATRIUM 11 configurations, such as number, location, and concentration of gadolinium rods) anticipated for use in increased enrichment (IE) and higher burnup (HBU) core designs that the APOLLO2-A/ARTEMIS-B code system will be applied, particularly with respect to localized pin effects (e.g., faster burnout of gadolinium rods with a proximity to more moderation).
Justify that the 34 ATRIUM 11 lattice designs used in the analyses are representative of the range of ATRIUM 11 configurations anticipated for IE and HBU core designs. Demonstrate the range of enrichments and gadolinium content is sufficient to represent the array of anticipated variation in ATRIUM 11 configurations and include representative planar and axial diagrams of lattice designs.
Question 7 Only ATRIUM 11 fuel designs were analyzed in the supplement for increased enrichment and higher burnup conditions. While it was not stated that ATRIUM 10 and ATRIUM 10 XM fuels would not be used for increased enrichment and higher burnup core designs, the NRC staff anticipates Framatome intends to seek approval for their use.
Please clarify whether Framatome is seeking approval for the ATRIUM 10 and ATRIUM 10 XM fuel designs for use in increased enrichment and higher burnup core designs. If so, justify that the ATRIUM 11 results for increased enrichment and higher burnup conditions in the supplement are applicable to ATRIUM 10 and ATRIUM 10 XM for increased enrichment and higher burnup
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 4
OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION conditions. Provide an explanation of any outliers that exist in the results. Conversely, provide analyses of the ATRIUM 10 and ATRIUM 10 XM fuel designs at increased enrichment and higher burnup conditions.
Question 8 The supplement to ANP-10350P, Revision 0 does not include gamma scan information for increased enrichment and high burnup fuel. The response to RAI-9 from the June 2023 document titled Framatome Methodology for Boiling water Reactors: Evaluation and Validation of APOLLO2-A/ARTEMIS-B, Response to Request for Additional Information explains that the measured gamma scan data available can be expanded to ATRIUM 11 because ((...
........)) Explain whether the gamma scan information included in the original submittal can also be applied to increased enrichment and high burnup fuel.
Question 9 Unlike ANP-10350P Revision 0, the supplemental information provided by Framatome does not include spent fuel validation for increased enrichment and higher burnup conditions. To further support the spent fuel validation for increased enrichment and higher burnup, provide isotopic concentration comparisons between APOLLO2-A and SERPENT for major uranium, plutonium, and gadolinium isotopes at increased enrichments as a function of burnup. More specifically, please provide plots of the relative differences of these isotopes as well as isotopic densities for the ATRIUM11 fuel design at approximately ((.......-.......)) uranium-235 enrichment, approximately ((....................)) gadolinium concentrations, and 0 percent and 80 percent void histories; these conditions are expected to reasonably exercise and stress the codes predictive capabilities. If there are any major under-or over-predictions in isotopic concentrations by APOLLO2-A with respect to SERPENT, please provide a brief discussion justifying these differences (e.g., gadolinium isotopes may exhibit sensitivities).
OFFICE NRR/DSS/SFNB/BC NRR/DORL/LLPB/BC NRR/DORL/LLPB/PM NAME SKrepel GGeorge NOtto DATE 07/12/2024 07/25/2024 07/25/2024