ML11307A138

2010/10/28 Seabrook Lr - FW: ME4028 - RAI for Seabrook LRA Section 4.2.1 - Neutron Fluence

ML11307A138
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/28/2010
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
Download: ML11307A138 (3)

Text

1 SeabrookNPEm Resource From:Plasse, Richard Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 9:22 AM To: Cliche, Richard

Subject:

FW: ME4028 - RAI for Seabrook LRA Section 4.2.1 - Neutron Fluence Attachments:

Seabrook LRA RAI.docxRick, More Draft RAIs.

Rick

Hearing Identifier: Seabrook_License_Renewal_NonPublic Email Number: 2225 Mail Envelope Properties (Richard.Plasse@nrc.gov20101028092100)

Subject:

FW: ME4028 - RAI for Seabrook LRA Section 4.2.1 - Neutron Fluence Sent Date: 10/28/2010 9:21:43 AM Received Date: 10/28/2010 9:21:00 AM From: Plasse, Richard Created By: Richard.Plasse@nrc.gov Recipients: "Cliche, Richard" <Richard.Cliche@fpl.com>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 40 10/28/2010 9:21:00 AM Seabrook LRA RAI.docx 23691 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received:

Request for Additional Information Seabrook Station License Renewal Application Section 4.2.1 - Neutron Fluence Evaluation.

Background:

The Seabrook license renewal application (LRA) states that fluence values were calculated using the RAMA methodology, which, as noted in the LRA, has not been approved by the NRC for generic use at pressurized water reactors. The LRA states, "This prior work has been extended in the Seabrook Station analysis to additional PWR benchmarks and plant-specific dosimetry comparisons, further validating the use of RAMA for all light water reactor designs."

Regulatory Basis:

RG 1.190, RP 1.3.3: The capsule fluence is extremely sensitive to the geometrical representation of the capsule geometry and internal water region, and the adequacy of the capsule representation must be demonstrated.

RG 1.190, RP 1.4: The calculational methodology must be qualified by both (1) comparisons to measurement and calculational benchmarks and (2) an analytic uncertainty analysis. The methods used to calculate the benchmarks must be consistent (to the extent possible) with the methods used to calculate the vessel fluence. The overall calculational bias and uncertainty must be determined by an appropriate combination of the analytic uncertainty analysis and the uncertainty analysis based on the comparisons to the benchmarks.

RAI:

Please provide documentation of the referenced additional PWR benchmarks and plant-specific dosimetry comparisons to demonstrate adherence to the regulatory positions described above.