ML20007E278
| ML20007E278 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/03/1997 |
| From: | Martin T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Sohinki S ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| PROJECT-697 NUDOCS 9701080005 | |
| Download: ML20007E278 (6) | |
Text
3 January 3, 1997 Stephen M. Sohinki, Director Office of Commercial Light Water Reactor Production Defense Programs Department of Energy
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING TOPICAL REPORT ON THE i
TRITIUM-PRODUCING BURNABLE ABSORBER R0D LEAD TEST ASSEMBLY Dear Mr. Sohinki-t The staff is reviewing your topical report PNNL-ll419, " Report on the Evaluation of the Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber Rod Lead Test Assembly,"
submitted by letter dated December 4,1996 and has concluded that additional i
information is needed before it can complete its review. As the review proceeds, additional questions, if needed, will be foiwarded to you promptly.
i You are requested to provide a response to the attached request for additional j
infonnation within 30 days of the date of this letter.
i If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact the project manager, J. H. Wilson, at (301) 415-1108.
Sincerely, i
David B. Matthrews/for Thomas T. Martin, Director Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 697
Attachment:
as stated DISTRIBUTION:
Central File PGEB R/F VMcCree, 0-17 G21 HThompson, 0-17 G21 FMiraglia, 0-12 G18 EMerschoff, R II AThadani, 0-12 G18 RZimmerman, 0-12 G18 DMatthews RArchitzel JMitchell, 0-17 G21 RMartin 0-14 B21 DOCUMENT NAME:
P:\\ TRIT-TR.RAI
- see arevious concurrence OFFICE PM:PGEB:DRPM 6 SQPGEB
/
C:PGEB D:DRPM NAME JHWilson:sw RArc}J14(sl DMatthews*
TMartin*
DATE 1/J /97 W 4/ /9 b 1/ /97 1/ /97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY j lS I l esoy MRC RLE CEdTER COPY R JI *o'
~)
~
9701000005 970103 CF SUBJ PROJ-697 CF
4..
Q Cl2 f
0*
UNITED STATES j
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20615c001 January 3, 1997 4
Stephen M. Sohinki, Director Office of Commercial Light Water Reactor Production Defense Programs Department of Energy
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING TOPICAL REPORT ON TH 4
TRITIUM-PRODUCING BURNABLE ABSORBER ROD LEAD TEST ASSEMBLY
Dear Mr. Schinki:
The staff is reviewing your topical report PNNL-Il419, " Report on the Evaluation of the Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber Rod Lead Test Assembly,"
submitted by letter dated December 4, 1996 and has concluded that additional information is needed before it can complete its review. As the review proceeds, additional questions, if needed, will be forwarded to you promptly.
You are requested to prov _,. a response to the attached request for additional information within 30 days of the date of this letter.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact the project manager, J. H. Wilson, at (301) 415-1108.
Sincerely,,
Thomas T. Martin, Director
[t Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 697
Attachment:
as stated
0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING
" REPORT ON THE EVALUATION OF THE TRITIUM PRODUCING BURNABLE ABSORBER R0D LEAD TEST ASSEMBLY" PROJECT NO. 697 Reactor Systems 1)
Table 2 What Li cnrichment was used to calculate the axial power?
Many power and burnup-related parameters are well beyond the conditions sustained in prior tests. Viewed in this way, the TPBAR appears to be a large jump beyond prior experience.
2)
Section 3.1.1 - Are WIMS-E and McNP codes qualified for NRC use? Are auditchle calculation files available for review of inputs, assumptions, and other details of the calculations?
2)
Section 3.1.1 - Provide an explanation for why the reactivity difference between McNP and WIM-E of 0.5% appears high.
4)
Section 3.4 - Will the differences between PHOENIX-L and PHOENIX-P be documented in a topical report?
5)
Section 4.1.2 - Is the VIPRE code NRC-qualified? Are auditable calculation files available for review of inputs, assumptions, and other details of the calculations?
6)
Section 4.1.2 - The last paragraph suggests that the results in Figure 4-1 are preliminary and are more conservative than Westinghouse's normal method. Will a final T-H analysis be submitted or is the decision to be based on the results given? What assumptions are more conservative than normal?
7)
Section 6.1 - Provide the value of the total off-site exposure and the regulatory limits, rather than stating that the increase due to TPBARs is small.
8)
Section 6.1 - Why is the release rate modeled as a constant? As pressure in the TPBAR increases, would the release rate not also increase? If a constant release rate is used as an approximation, it should be a conservative end-of-life number.
9)
Section 6.2.2 - Does the plant loading and handling procedure account for the actual weight of BPRA? In particular, is there a load limit to prevent damage to the fuel assembly from withdrawing a stuck rod assembly? If so, does the procedure need to be modified to account for the lighter weight of the TPBAR?
a-
~
, 2 Materials aad Chemical Enoineerina 1)
SEction 1 - The design life for the assembly is 550 EFPD. What were the fir 6. e levels used to establish the design life? Also, does the design take into account possible power uprate or extended cycles?
2)
Section 1.1 "The TPEAR design has been developed to demonstrate...
tritium leakage consistent with a TPBAR design goal of <6.7 Ci pe: rod per yerr.... " This appears to imply that for full operation, the reference plant will be leaking thousa ds of curies of tritium per year of operat1)n.
3)
Secti ms 2.2.1 & 5.3.1 - Why was 315 SS with 20% CW selected as the material for cladding and end plugs? Were higher stru.1th, corrosion resistant alloys (e.g., Alloy 690, Inconel 718, Zircalej-4) considered?
4)
Section 2.2.4 - What is the basis for selecting 302 SS for the t,lenum spring material?
5)
Section 2.4 - Provide additicrial details regarding the nondestructive testing. What techniques are used for each component? What are the applicable standards?
Vendor InSDection The stafi has participated in two ascist visits to PNNL in support d hh?
target demor.stration project at:d has not developed additional que.tions related to vendor activities.
Quality Assurance The staff met with DOE and its contractor, P34L, on December 10, 1996, and provided the following quest.ons on the LTA tgical report in the area of quality assurance:
1.
Provide a description of the components in the tritium-producing burnable absorber rod (TPBAR) lead test assemblies (LTAs) that are considered safety-related and a delineation of the pcrtions of the TPBAR that receive Pf;NL's " Safety Class" QA program treatment.
2.
Provide oescription of how tiie relative safety-significance of components in the TPBAR is determined.
3.
Provide a consolidat;d description of the OA program controls that will govern design, fabrication, tes+ing and installation of the LTAs.
Specifically, this QA program c1scription should contain a matrix that identiftes coniformance to each of the 18 Criteria of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, as well as establishing the correlation with ASME NQA-I 1989.
- l. 4.
Define the contractual relationship among the participants identified in Figure 7-1 of PNNL-11419, including a detailed description of the programmatic controls and responsibilities related to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, and 10 CFR Part 21.
5.
Information contained in non-mandatory guidance sections (Appendices 2A-1, 2A-2, 2A-3, 3A-1, 4A-1, 7A-1, 17A-1, and 18A-1) of NQA-1, 1989, specify information that is typically found necessary by the staff to ir.plement the programmatic requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
Provide a copy of tha current PNNL QA program tha.t implements NQA-1 and describe how the PNNL quality assurance program implements those provisicos.
6.
Describe the PNNL Regulatory Compliance and QA program to provide i
audit / oversight of component and service suppliers utilized by PNNL Design and PNNL Fcbrication.
1 7.
Describe what qualii.y provisions from the PNNL QA program are passed on to component and service suppliers utilized by PNNL Design and PNNL Fabrication. Also describe how PNNL determines the acceptability of the i
suppliers.
L.
If PNNL receives c>mmercial grade items that are not manufactured in 3
accordance witt 7.ppendix B QA requirements or the PNNL QA program for l
use in the TPBARS, describe the process employed Lf PNNL to determine j
the acceptability of those items (i.e. commercial grade item dedication).
1 i
9.
Describe the management assessments and QA audits performed by DNNL Ragulatory Compliance and 9A to verify the effectiveness of thr. PNNL QA program implementation.
10.
Provide a description of the PNNL verification processes that will be 4
employed to assure that TPBARs contorm to design specification requirements.
11.
Describe how design information will be controlled and transmitted across the interfaces between PNNL, Westinghouse, hoe. utility organizations, and design services suppliers.
12.
Describe the methods that will be used b host utilities to provide QA oversight of PNNL, Westinghouse, and sub-suppliers. Will Appendix B audits, surveillances, inspections be conducted by the host utility?
13.
A limited number of licensees have committed to NQA-1. Describe how host utility quality requirements (typically conform to NRC Re9ailtory i
Guides and endorsed ANSI N45.2 series standards) were transmitted to Westinghouse and PNNL and the method whereby the PNNL quality program was fou1d acceptable by the host licensees.
4 j
a
. 14.
Identify the Westinghouse quality program (such as the NRC-approved Quality Management System) that will be applied to activities associated with the LTAs.
l 15.
Describe which organization is responsible for the LTA/TPBAR design.
Discuss how design reviews and design verification will oe carried out by this organization.
16.
Discuss how nonconforming conditions will be reported by supplier organizations to client organizations. Discuss how the client organizations will evaluate +Sose nonconforming conditions.
17.
Describe the process whereby Westinghouse qualified PNNL as an approved supplier for LTA design and fabrication.
18.
Describe the pro:ess employed by Westinghouse to provide QA oversight of PNNL and sub-suppliers. Will Appendix B audits and inspections be utilized?
19.
Describe the processes that will be utilized by Westinghouse (eg.
receipt inspection, dimensional and configuration verification, and 3
material verification) to verify TPBARs conform to Westingnouse technical requirements prior to assembly in LTAs.
i 20.
Describe the processes that will be utilized by host facilities (eg.
receipt inspection, dimensional and configuration verification, and material verification) to confirm that LTAs are suitable for installation in the core.
- 21. Describe whether Westinghouse special processes (ag. welding) have been re-qualified as necessary to account for differences in TPBAR material from that typically used in LTA assemblies.
Security 1)
Section 8.3 - As indicated ir the staff's letter dated November 1, 1996, the staff agrees that additianal individual access authorization by NRC is not needed. However, the staff is still considering the issue of DOE conducting and granting security facility approvals at NRC licensee sites.
__