ML17032A343: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 02/02/2017
| issue date = 02/02/2017
| title = NEI-EPRI Slides. DG-1327 NRC Meeting
| title = NEI-EPRI Slides. DG-1327 NRC Meeting
| author name = Eichenberg T W
| author name = Eichenberg T
| author affiliation = Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
| author affiliation = Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:DG-1327 ClarificationReactivity Initiated Accident GuidanceT. W. EichenbergEPRI Fuel Reliability Program, Reg
{{#Wiki_filter:DG-1327 Clarification Reactivity Initiated Accident Guidance T. W. Eichenberg EPRI Fuel Reliability Program, Reg-TAC Chair Sr. Specialist Reactor Safety Analysis, TVA January 25, 2017
-TAC ChairSr. Specialist Reactor Safety Analysis, TVAJanuary 25, 2017 *White Flint, Rockville MD 1
* White Flint, Rockville MD 1
Overview*Categories for Discussion
 
-Methods & Assumptions
Overview
-Failure Thresholds
* Categories for Discussion
-Release Fractions
  - Methods & Assumptions
-Miscellaneous 2
  - Failure Thresholds
PWR vsBWRPerspectiv e*While Rod Eject / Blade Drop are Reactivity Initiated Accidents-
  - Release Fractions
-These different events don't share an identical topology
  - Miscellaneous 2
*Analytical space is different
 
-Every assumption isn't automatically meaningful to both PWR's and BWR's-Example from item 2.2.5
PWR vs BWR Perspective
*(a) is PWR speak
* While Rod Eject / Blade Drop are Reactivity Initiated Accidents
*(b) is BWR speak-Example item 2.2.10
  - These different events dont share an identical topology
*Muddy regarding BWR 3
* Analytical space is different
  - Every assumption isnt automatically meaningful to both PWRs and BWRs
  - Example from item 2.2.5
      * (a) is PWR speak
      * (b) is BWR speak
  - Example item 2.2.10
* Muddy regarding BWR 3
 
Methods & Assumptions
* Approved Models
  - What does account for calculational uncertainties mean?
  - Realistic / Risk Informed methods to be allowed?
  - Expecting a full RG 1.203 process?
4
 
Methods & Assumptions
* 5% power DNB/CPR threshold?
  - Value is below TS monitoring power level.
* Correlation range of applicability may not extend that low
  - DNB/CPR may not be appropriate metric relative to very fast transient condition 5
 
Methods & Assumptions
* Misc. Assumptions
  - Are sensitivity studies going to be plant and cycle specific?
  - What is NOT a major reactivity feedback?
* Direct Moderator Heating Non-Eq. T-H
  - What is meant by manufacturing tolerances?
* Plant , fuel type, and/or cycle specific.
As-built vs bounding tolerance
  - Accounting for something vs.
sensitivity/parametric evaluation.
6
 
Methods & Assumptions
Methods & Assumptions
*Approved Models
* Misc. Assumptions
-What does "account for calculational uncertainties mean"?
  - What is meant by wider operating conditions?
-Realistic / Risk Informed methods to be allowed?-Expecting a full RG 1.203 process?
  - Effectively, youre saying the determination of limiting conditions is non-linear.
4 Methods & Assumptions
* When does the search stop? To survey a larger population implies a realistic assessment.
*5% power DNB/CPR threshold?
  - What is sufficient parametric study?
-Value is below TS monitoring power level.
7
*Correlation range of applicability may not extend that low
 
-DNB/CPR may not be appropriate metric relative to very fast transient condition 5
Methods & Assumptions
Methods & Assumptions
*Misc. Assumptions
* Misc. Assumptions
-Are "sensitivity" studies going to be plant and cycle specific?
  - Why do advanced methods need to implement artificial conservatism to compare against failure criteria?
-What is NOT a "major reactivity feedback?"
  - Extensive focus on bounding assumptions
*Direct Moderator HeatingNon-Eq. T-H-What is meant by  "manufacturing tolerances?"
* Seems incompatible with implications of 2.2.4 (limiting scenario tied to non-linear effects, not artificial conservatisms) 8
*Plant , fuel type, and/or cycle specific.As-built vs bounding tolerance
 
-Accounting for something vs. sensitivity/parametric evaluation.
Methods & Assumptions
6 Methods & Assumptions
* Misc. Assumptions
*Misc. Assumptions
  - Approved hydrogen pickup model is explicit
-What is meant by "wider operating conditions"?
  - Need for an approved hydride orientation model is not as obvious. Need to validate the failure curve utilized.
-Effectively, you're saying the determination of limiting conditions is non
  - Is the use of RG 1.224 account for hydride orientation issue?
-linear.*When does the search stop?  To "survey a larger population" implies a realistic assessment. 
9
-What is "sufficient parametric study"?
 
7 Methods & Assumptions
Failure Thresholds
*Misc. Assumptions
* EPRI Test Program
-Why do advanced methods need to implement artificial conservatism to compare against failure criteria?
  - Why Revision 1
-Extensive focus on bounding assumptions
* MBT Data / NSRR corrections
*Seems incompatible with implications of 2.2.4 (limiting scenario tied to non
  - Temperature Effects
-linear effects, not artificial conservatisms) 8 Methods & Assumptions
  - Pulse Effects
*Misc. Assumptions
  - Power History Effects
-Approved hydrogen pickup model is explicit
  - Hydrogen > 300ppm
-Need for an approved hydride orientation model is not as obvious. Need to validate the failure curve utilized.-Is the use of RG 1.224 account for hydride orientation issue?
  - Elongation
9 Failure Thresholds
  - Failure Limits http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000003002005540 10
*EPRI Test Program
 
-Why Revision 1
Failure Thresholds
*MBT Data / NSRR corrections
* Best Estimate?
-Temperature Effects
  - Yes, in the sense that curve fits are relative to nominal data.
-Pulse Effects
  - No, in the sense that the shape of curve fits displays negative impact in areas without failures
-Power History Effects
* Low Hydrogen region
-Hydrogen > 300ppm
  - No, in the sense that correlation coefficients are in some cases substantially less than 1 11
-Elongation
 
-FailureLimit s 10http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000003002005540 Failure Thresholds
Release Fractions
*Best Estimate?
* Appropriate Location
-Yes, in the sense that curve fits are relative to nominal data.
  - Keep information in one place; remove from DG-1327
-No, in the sense that the shape of curve fits displays negative impact in areas without failures*Low Hydrogen region
  - Locate to 1.183, 1.195, etc. (sign of a bigger problem)
-No, in the sense that correlation coefficients are in some casessubstantiallylessthan 1 11 Release Fractions
* Example: Changing dose method constitutes an AST/TID backfit?
*Appropriate Location
12
-Keep information in one place; remove from DG
 
-1327-Locate to 1.183, 1.195, etc. (sign of a bigger problem)*Example: Changing dose method constitutes an AST/TID backfit?
Release Fractions
12 Release Fractions
* Transient Fission Gas Release
*Transient Fission Gas Release-Database doesn't represent low burnup 13 Miscellaneous
  - Database doesnt represent low burnup 13
*Logistical Issue
 
-Approved Analytical Methods must Exist
Miscellaneous
*Method reviews in a timely manner?
* Logistical Issue
*Potential New Method Elements
  - Approved Analytical Methods must Exist
-Transient Fission Gas Release / Mechanical aspect
* Method reviews in a timely manner?
-Corrosion/Hydrogen Uptake/Crud
* Potential New Method Elements
-Hydride Characterization
  - Transient Fission Gas Release / Mechanical aspect
-FCI Impact if Centerline Melt Allowed
  - Corrosion/Hydrogen Uptake/Crud
-Contribution of Fission Gas Release to Pressure Surge 14 Questions?? / Discussion 15}}
  - Hydride Characterization
  - FCI Impact if Centerline Melt Allowed
  - Contribution of Fission Gas Release to Pressure Surge 14
 
Questions?? / Discussion 15}}

Latest revision as of 09:58, 30 October 2019

NEI-EPRI Slides. DG-1327 NRC Meeting
ML17032A343
Person / Time
Site: Nuclear Energy Institute
Issue date: 02/02/2017
From: Eichenberg T
Nuclear Energy Institute
To:
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Shared Package
ML17032A338 List:
References
Download: ML17032A343 (15)
v • d • e


Text

DG-1327 Clarification Reactivity Initiated Accident Guidance T. W. Eichenberg EPRI Fuel Reliability Program, Reg-TAC Chair Sr. Specialist Reactor Safety Analysis, TVA January 25, 2017

  • White Flint, Rockville MD 1

Overview

  • Categories for Discussion

- Methods & Assumptions

- Failure Thresholds

- Release Fractions

- Miscellaneous 2

PWR vs BWR Perspective

  • While Rod Eject / Blade Drop are Reactivity Initiated Accidents

- These different events dont share an identical topology

  • Analytical space is different

- Every assumption isnt automatically meaningful to both PWRs and BWRs

- Example from item 2.2.5

  • (a) is PWR speak
  • (b) is BWR speak

- Example item 2.2.10

  • Muddy regarding BWR 3

Methods & Assumptions

  • Approved Models

- What does account for calculational uncertainties mean?

- Realistic / Risk Informed methods to be allowed?

- Expecting a full RG 1.203 process?

4

Methods & Assumptions

  • 5% power DNB/CPR threshold?

- Value is below TS monitoring power level.

  • Correlation range of applicability may not extend that low

- DNB/CPR may not be appropriate metric relative to very fast transient condition 5

Methods & Assumptions

  • Misc. Assumptions

- Are sensitivity studies going to be plant and cycle specific?

- What is NOT a major reactivity feedback?

  • Direct Moderator Heating Non-Eq. T-H

- What is meant by manufacturing tolerances?

  • Plant , fuel type, and/or cycle specific.

As-built vs bounding tolerance

- Accounting for something vs.

sensitivity/parametric evaluation.

6

Methods & Assumptions

  • Misc. Assumptions

- What is meant by wider operating conditions?

- Effectively, youre saying the determination of limiting conditions is non-linear.

  • When does the search stop? To survey a larger population implies a realistic assessment.

- What is sufficient parametric study?

7

Methods & Assumptions

  • Misc. Assumptions

- Why do advanced methods need to implement artificial conservatism to compare against failure criteria?

- Extensive focus on bounding assumptions

  • Seems incompatible with implications of 2.2.4 (limiting scenario tied to non-linear effects, not artificial conservatisms) 8

Methods & Assumptions

  • Misc. Assumptions

- Approved hydrogen pickup model is explicit

- Need for an approved hydride orientation model is not as obvious. Need to validate the failure curve utilized.

- Is the use of RG 1.224 account for hydride orientation issue?

9

Failure Thresholds

- Why Revision 1

  • MBT Data / NSRR corrections

- Temperature Effects

- Pulse Effects

- Power History Effects

- Hydrogen > 300ppm

- Elongation

- Failure Limits http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000003002005540 10

Failure Thresholds

  • Best Estimate?

- Yes, in the sense that curve fits are relative to nominal data.

- No, in the sense that the shape of curve fits displays negative impact in areas without failures

- No, in the sense that correlation coefficients are in some cases substantially less than 1 11

Release Fractions

  • Appropriate Location

- Keep information in one place; remove from DG-1327

- Locate to 1.183, 1.195, etc. (sign of a bigger problem)

  • Example: Changing dose method constitutes an AST/TID backfit?

12

Release Fractions

- Database doesnt represent low burnup 13

Miscellaneous

  • Logistical Issue

- Approved Analytical Methods must Exist

  • Method reviews in a timely manner?
  • Potential New Method Elements

- Transient Fission Gas Release / Mechanical aspect

- Corrosion/Hydrogen Uptake/Crud

- Hydride Characterization

- FCI Impact if Centerline Melt Allowed

- Contribution of Fission Gas Release to Pressure Surge 14

Questions?? / Discussion 15

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17032A343&oldid=2013392"