U.S.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION March 2001

REGULATORY
GUIDE
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH

REGULATORY GUIDE 1.190

(Previous drafts were DG-1053 and DG-1025)

CALCULATIONAL AND DOSIMETRY METHODS

FOR DETERMINING
PRESSURE VESSEL NEUTRON FLUENCE

Regulatory guides are issued to describe and make available to the public such information as methods acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts
of the NRC’s regulations, techniques used by the staff in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data needed by the NRC staff in its review of
applications for permits and licenses. Regulatory guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with them is not required. Methods and solutions different
from those set out in the guides will be acceptable if they provide a basis for the findings requisite to the issuance or continuance of a permit or license by the
Commission.

This guide was issued after consideration of comments received from the public. Comments and suggestions for improvements in these guides are encouraged
at all times, and guides will be revised, as appropriate, to accommodate comments and to reflect new information or experience. Written comments may be submitted
to the Rules and Directives Branch, ADM, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

Regulatory guides are issued in ten broad divisions: 1, Power Reactors; 2, Research and Test Reactors; 3, Fuels and Materials Facilities; 4, Environmental and Siting;
5, Materials and Plant Protection; 6, Products; 7, Transportation; 8, Occupational Health; 9, Antitrust and Financial Review; and 10, General.

Single copies of regulatory guides (which may be reproduced) may be obtained free of charge by writing the Distribution Services Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by fax to (301)415-2289, or by email to [email protected]. Electronic copies of this guide are available
on the internet at NRC’s home page at <WWW.NRC.GOV> in the Reference Library under Regulatory Guides. This guide is also in the Electronic Reading Room
at NRC’s home page, along with other recently issued guides, Accession Number ML010890301.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

A. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

B. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

C. REGULATORY POSITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1. NEUTRON FLUENCE CALCULATIONAL METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.1 Input Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Core Neutron Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Fluence Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4 Methodology Qualification and Uncertainty Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2. NEUTRON FLUENCE MEASUREMENT METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.1 Measurement Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2 Validation in Standard and Reference Neutron Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3 Fluence Determination from Detector Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.4 Ex-vessel Dosimetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3. REPORTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.1 Fluence Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2 Multigroup Fluences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.3 Integral Fluences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.4 Comparisons of Calculation and Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.5 Specific Activities and Average Reaction Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

D. IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

LIST OF TABLES

1. Summary of Regulatory Positions on Calculation and Dosimetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2. Threshold Detectors Recommended for Pressure Vessel Dosimetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Discrete Ordinates Calculation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2. Monte Carlo Calculation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3. Calculation Methodology Qualification Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4. Fluence Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5 Measurement Qualification Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

iii
 A. INTRODUCTION

This regulatory guide has been developed to provide state-of-the-art calculations and
measurement procedures that are acceptable to the NRC staff for determining pressure vessel
fluence.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has promulgated regulations that ensure
the structural integrity of the reactor pressure vessel for light-water-cooled power reactors.
Chapter 15, “Accident Analysis,” of the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800, “Standard Review
Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants”) assumes the pressure
vessel does not fail. Specific fracture toughness requirements for normal operation and for
anticipated operational occurrences for power reactors are set forth in Appendix G, "Fracture
Toughness Requirements," of 10 CFR Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization
Facilities." The requirements of Appendix G are imposed by 10 CFR 50.60. Additionally, in
response to concerns over potential pressurized thermal shock (PTS) events in pressurized water
reactors (PWRs), the NRC issued 10 CFR 50.61, "Fracture Toughness Requirements for
Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events."

To satisfy the requirements of both Appendix G and 10 CFR 50.61, methods for
determining the fast neutron fluence (E > 1 MeV) are necessary to estimate the fracture toughness
of the pressure vessel materials. Appendix H, "Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program
Requirements," to 10 CFR Part 50 requires the installation of surveillance capsules, including
material test specimens and flux dosimeters, to provide data for material damage correlations as a
function of fluence.

The fracture toughness of pressure vessel materials is related to a parameter called the
material's "reference temperature for nil-ductility transition," or simply reference temperature, and
is denoted as RTNDT. The RTNDT is defined in Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.99, "Radiation
Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials," by a correlation of the fluence (E > 1 MeV), material
chemistry (concentrations of Cu and Ni), initial reference temperature, and margin to account for
uncertainties in the correlation and input values. In 10 CFR 50.61, evaluation of the reference
temperature based on the best estimate of the fast neutron fluence at the end of the license period
is required, and the corresponding reference temperature is termed RTPTS.

This guide is intended to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the fluence determination
required by General Design Criteria (GDC) 14, 30, and 31 of Appendix A, “General Design
Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,” to 10 CFR Part 50. The guide describes methods and
assumptions acceptable to the NRC staff for determining the pressure vessel neutron fluence.
These methods are directly applicable to the determination of RTNDT and RTPTS. The licensee
may propose alternative methods. Alternative methods will be considered on a plant-specific
basis, especially in cases involving unusual plant characteristics or factors that require different
methods and assumptions. It is recognized that, when the embrittlement of a reactor vessel
material is not significant and there is a large margin to the RTNDT limits, more approximate
methods for determining the fluence may be appropriate (Reference 1).

1
 Compliance with this guide is not a regulatory requirement of the USNRC. However, if a
licensee elects to use this guide to determine pressure vessel neutron fluence, implementation of
the guide would not be satisfied unless the licensee complies with certain specific provisions
identified in the Regulatory Position of the guide. The use of the following terms is explained to
clarify compliance with these regulatory positions.

Must - Necessary provisions if implementation is to be satisfied.

Should - Provisions that are expected to be complied with unless it is not possible
because of specific circumstances (for example, data needed to meet the
position are not available).
May - Provisions that are acceptable and recommended, but are to be applied at the
option of the licensee.

The information collections contained in this regulatory guide are covered by the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, which were approved by the Office of Management and Budget,
approval number 3150-0011. If a means used to impose an information collection does not
display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, the information collection.

B. DISCUSSION

The methods and assumptions described in this guide are for the calculation and
measurement of vessel fluence for core and vessel geometrical and material configurations that are
typical of current PWR and boiling water reactor (BWR) designs. This guide does not address the
determination of surveillance specimen material properties or the correlation between material
properties and neutron fluence. The methodology presented is intended as a best estimate, rather
than a bounding or conservative fluence determination. For example, in the RTPTS correlation
called for in 10 CFR 50.61, the best-estimate fluence is used to calculate the shift in RTPTS.
Uncertainty in the shift prediction (e.g., from uncertainty in the fluence, chemistry factor, or shift
correlation) has been included separately in an explicit margin term. While the E > 1 MeV
fluence has been selected as the exposure parameter for the RTNDT and RTPTS correlations, the
procedures described in this guide determine the damage fluence spectrum (from 0.1 to 15 MeV)
and are applicable to other exposure units, such as iron displacements per atom - dpa (Ref. 2).

The determination of the pressure vessel fluence is based on both calculations and
measurements; the fluence prediction is made with a calculation, and the measurements are used
to qualify the calculational methodology. Because of the importance and the difficulty of these
calculations, the methods must be qualified by comparison to measurements to ensure a reliable
and accurate vessel fluence determination. In this qualification, measurement-to-calculation
comparisons are used to identify biases (i.e., systematic errors) in the calculations and to provide
reliable estimates of the fluence uncertainties.1 When the measurement data are of sufficient
quality and quantity that they allow a reliable estimate of the calculational bias (i.e., they represent
a statistically significant measurement data base), the comparisons to measurement may be used to
1
For a discussion of the terms bias and uncertainty as used in this guide, see Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of Reference 3.

2
(1) determine the effect of the various modeling approximations and any calculational bias and, if
appropriate, (2) modify the calculations by applying a correction to account for bias or by model
adjustment or both. Typically, plant-specific data alone are not sufficient to determine a
calculational bias for an individual plant. As an additional qualification, the sensitivity of the
calculation to the important input and modeling parameters must be determined and combined
with the uncertainties of the input and modeling parameters to provide an independent estimate of
the overall calculational uncertainty.

The prediction of the vessel fluence must be made by an "absolute" fluence calculation in
which the transport of the neutron flux is calculated from the core out to the vessel and cavity,
rather than a simple spatial extrapolation of the fluence measurements.

The calculations of the pressure vessel fluence consist of the following steps: (1)
determination of the geometrical and material input data, (2) determination of the core neutron
source, (3) propagation of the neutron fluence from the core to the vessel and into the cavity, and
(4) qualification of the calculational procedure. These steps are discussed in detail in Regulatory
Positions 1.1 through 1.4. In Regulatory Position 2, the use of surveillance dosimetry as an in situ
verification for the calculations is described. Reporting is discussed in Regulatory Position 3.
The major regulatory positions are summarized in Table 1, “Summary of Regulatory Positions on
Calculation and Dosimetry.”

As an indication of current practice, selected codes and cross-section libraries are listed in
the references; however, it is the responsibility of the licensee to demonstrate their acceptability in
a specific application.

C. REGULATORY POSITION

1. NEUTRON FLUENCE CALCULATIONAL METHODS

This guide describes the application and qualification of a methodology acceptable to the
NRC staff for determining the best-estimate neutron fluence experienced by materials in the
beltline region of light water reactor (LWR) pressure vessels, as well as for determining the
overall uncertainty associated with those best-estimate values. Both the deterministic discrete
ordinates method and the statistical Monte Carlo transport method are considered acceptable for
vessel fluence determination and are described in Regulatory Position 1.3.

Appendix B, "Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing
Plants," to 10 CFR Part 50 requires that this methodology be properly qualified. Qualification
includes determination of the uncertainty in the reactor vessel fluence as described in Regulatory
Position 1.4. The uncertainty of the fluence must be 20% (1 σ) or less when the fluence is used to
determine RTPTS and RTNDT for complying with 10 CFR 50.61 and Revision 2 of Regulatory
Guide 1.99, "Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials," respectively. It should be
recognized that this 20% uncertainty value has been included in the margin term for the RTPTS.
Uncertainty of fluence for other applications should be determined using Regulatory Position 1.4
and included as an uncertainty allowance in the fluence estimate, as appropriate for the specific

3
application. For example, when performing probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) evaluations such
as those described in Regulatory Guide 1.154, "Format and Content of Plant-Specific Pressurized
Thermal Shock Safety Analysis Reports for Pressurized Water Reactors," an explicit uncertainty
term is required in addition to the best-estimate fluence values. In this case, it is acceptable to use
the fluence uncertainty determined per the Regulatory Position 1.4 of this guide.

An overview of the calculational methods described in Regulatory Positions 1.1 through

1.3 is provided in Figures 1 and 2. The procedures for qualifying these methods and determining
the pressure vessel fluence are summarized in Figures 3 and 4.

1.1 Input Data

1.1.1 Materials and Geometry

Detailed material and geometrical input data should be used to define the physical
characteristics that determine the attenuation of the neutron flux from the core to the locations of
interest on the pressure vessel. These data include material compositions, regional temperatures,
and geometry of the pressure vessel, core, and internals. The geometrical input data include the
dimensions and locations of the fuel assemblies, reactor internals (baffle, shroud, former plates,
core support barrel, thermal shield, and neutron pads), the pressure vessel (including identification
and location of all welds and plates) and cladding, and surveillance capsules. For cavity
dosimetry, input data should also include the width of the reactor cavity and the material
compositions of the support structure and concrete (biological) shielding, including water content,
rebar, and steel. The data should, to the extent possible, be based on documented and verified as-
built dimensions and plant-specific materials. The isotopic compositions of important constituent
nuclides within each region should be based on as-built materials data. In the absence of plant-
specific information, nominal compositions and design dimensions may be used; however, in this
case conservative estimates of the variations in the compositions and dimensions should be made
and accounted for in the determination of the fluence uncertainty (Regulatory Position 1.4.1). The
determination of the concentrations of the major isotopes responsible for the fluence attenuation
(e.g., iron and water) should be emphasized. The water number densities should be based on plant
full-power operating temperatures and pressures, as well as standard steam tables. The data
should account for axial and radial variations in water density caused by temperature differences
in the core and inside the core barrel, as well as the presence of in-channel and downcomer voids
in the case of BWRs. The in-channel and bypass water and fuel channel may be combined to
determine a homogenized material region. This approximation has been evaluated in Reference 4
and results in less than a ~3% additional uncertainty in the vessel fluence.

1.1.2 Cross-Sections
The calculational method to estimate vessel fluence should use the neutron cross-sections
over the energy range from ~0.1 MeV to ~15 MeV and should apply the latest version of the
Evaluated Nuclear Data File (currently ENDF/B-VI). These data have been thoroughly reviewed
and tested relative to experimental benchmarks.2 Cross-section sets based on earlier or equivalent

2
It should be noted that in many applications the ENDF/B-IV and the first three MODs of the ENDF/B-V iron cross-sections
result in as much as ~20% underprediction of the vessel inner-wall fluence and ~35% underprediction of the cavity fluence (Refs.
5-7). Updated ENDF/B-VI iron cross-section data (Ref. 8) have been demonstrated to provide a more accurate determination of
the flux attenuation through iron (Refs. 5, 6) and are strongly recommended. These new iron data are included in ENDF/B-VI.

4
nuclear-data sets that have been thoroughly benchmarked for a specific application may be used
for that specific application.3 However, when the evaluated cross-section data change, the effect
of these changes on the licensee-specific methodology must be evaluated and the fluence
estimates updated when the effects are significant (see reporting requirements in Regulatory
Position 3).

1.1.2.1 Multigroup Libraries. Transport theory codes that are used to determine the
neutron fluence, which employ a multigroup approximation, require cross-section libraries in
which the basic data contained within the ENDF files has been preprocessed into a multigroup
structure. The development of a multigroup library should consider the adequacy of the group
structure, the energy dependence of the flux used to average the cross-sections over the individual
groups, and the order of the Legendre expansion of the scattering cross-section. Sufficient details
of the energy and angular dependence of the differential cross-sections (e.g., the minima in the
iron total cross-section) should be included to preserve the accuracy in attenuation characteristics.

1.1.2.2 Constructing a Multigroup Library. The construction of the multigroup library

involves the selection of a problem-independent, fine-multigroup, master library containing data
for all required isotopes. This master library should include a sufficiently large number of groups
(/100) that differences between the shape of the assumed flux spectrum and the true flux have a
negligible effect on the multigroup data. This library typically includes ~50-100 energy groups
above ~0.1 MeV. In addition, a minimum of a P-3 Legendre expansion of the scattering cross-
section must be used for typical LWR configurations (Ref. 10). Several libraries satisfying these
provisions are available from RSICC, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Radiation Safety
Information Computational Center (Refs. 11-13).

The number of groups may be reduced, with little loss in accuracy, by collapsing the data
in the master library over spectra that more closely approximate the true spectra. The vessel
fluence calculations should be performed with a job library that has been determined by collapsing
the master library. This reduction may be accomplished with a one-dimensional calculation that
includes the discrete regions of the core, vessel internals, by-pass and downcomer water, pressure
vessel, reactor cavity, shield, and support structures. The resulting job library should consist of
multigroup cross-sections based on the region-specific isotopic compositions. This job library
should include ~20 energy groups above ~0.1 MeV. The adequacy of the job library must be
demonstrated by comparing calculations for a representative configuration performed with both
the master and job libraries. In these comparisons, the threshold-detector cross-sections and
reaction rates obtained with the fine-group structure should be preserved in the multigroup
calculations. In addition to the validation of the collapsing of the master library, additional
qualification of the job library is provided by the benchmarking comparisons of Regulatory
Position 1.4.2.

There are several ~50-group libraries available from RSICC that were generated using
light-water reactor (LWR) spectra for the group collapsing from master libraries (Refs. 14-16) and
may be used for LWR application. These libraries contain microscopic cross-sections as well as
some premixed macroscopic cross-sections for relevant mixtures. Because these prepackaged

3
The ASTM E1018 standard (Ref. 9) provides additional guidance on the selection of dosimeter reaction rate cross-sections.

5
libraries were designed specifically for LWR pressure vessel fluence calculations, their
applicability in any atypical application (for example, when an accurate thermal flux is required)
should be verified prior to use.

1.2 Core Neutron Source

The determination of the neutron source for the pressure vessel fluence calculations should
include the temporal, spatial, and energy dependence together with the absolute source
normalization.

The spatial dependence of the source should be based on depletion calculations that
simulate core operation or measured data. The depletion calculations can be performed in either
two or three dimensions. Three-dimensional calculations will provide the source in both the radial
and axial directions. If two-dimensional calculations are used, the axial effects should be based
on measured data.

The core neutron source should be determined by the power distribution (which varies
significantly with fuel burnup), the power level, and the fuel management scheme. The detailed
state-point dependence should be accounted for (Refs. 17, 18); however, if this is not feasible,
averaging over the operating power distribution is acceptable and may be obtained by either (1)
averaging representative power distributions within the cycle or (2) assuming the cycle-average
assembly power distribution is well approximated by the accumulated-exposure distribution at the
end of the cycle.

A best-estimate power distribution may be used for reactor vessel neutron fluence
calculations. However, this best-estimate power distribution must be updated if changes in core
loadings, surveillance measurements, or other information indicate a significant change in
projected fluence values. This updating may be avoided by using a conservative generic average
power distribution, provided no measured distribution yields higher power levels for the important
peripheral assemblies.

The peripheral assemblies, which contribute the most to the vessel fluence, have strong
radial power gradients, and these gradients should not be neglected (Ref. 19). In the case of
PWRs, the fuel pins closest to the core periphery tend to have reduced relative power while for
BWRs the peripheral fuel pins may have increased relative power. The pin-wise source
distribution should be used for best-estimate calculations and the peripheral-assembly pin-wise
source data should be obtained from core depletion calculations. The pin-wise source distribution
should represent the absolute source distribution in the assembly.

The local source should be determined as the product of the fission rate and the neutron
yield. The energy dependence of the source (i.e., the spectrum) and the normalization of the
source to the number of neutrons per megawatt must account for the fact that changes in the
isotopic fission fractions with fuel exposure (caused by Pu build-up) result in variations in the
fission spectra, the number of neutrons produced per fission, and the energy released per fission.
These effects tend to increase the fast neutron source per megawatt of power for high-burnup
assemblies. The variations in these physics parameters with fuel exposure may be obtained from

6
standard lattice physics depletion calculations (Refs. 20, 21). This effect is particularly important
for plants that have adopted the PWR low-leakage refueling schemes (vs. out-in-in three-batch
fuel management) in which once-, twice-, or thrice-burned fuel is located in the high-importance
peripheral locations (Refs. 22-25). The harder spectrum in the BWR fuel regions having a high
void fraction will have a similar effect on the isotopic fission fractions and on the neutron-source
normalization and spectrum.

A planar-octant representation is generally acceptable for the octant-symmetric fuel-

loading patterns typically employed in LWRs. However, in the case of BWRs in which the jet-
pump positioning is quadrant-symmetric, a quadrant-symmetric model may be required. For
determining the peak fluence, fuel-loading patterns that are not octant symmetric (e.g., as in
certain low-leakage patterns) may be represented in octant geometry using the octant having the
highest fluence. For evaluating dosimetry, the octant in which the dosimetry is located may be
used.

When the actual planar core rectangular geometry cannot be modeled (e.g., in the case of
(r,θ) discrete ordinates calculations), the core geometry may be described using an (r,θ) planar
representation. To accurately represent the important peripheral assembly geometry, a θ-mesh of
at least 40 angular intervals over an octant must be applied. The (r,θ) representation should
reproduce the true physical assembly area to within ~0.5% and the pin-wise source gradients to
within ~10%. The assignment of the (x,y) pin-wise powers to the individual (r,θ) mesh intervals
should be made on a fractional area or equivalent basis (Ref. 26). Reference 26 is particularly
useful if the radial mesh is a function of (θ). The overall source normalization should be
performed with respect to the (r,θ) source so that differences between the core area in the (r,θ)
representation and the true core area do not bias the fluence predictions. A discussion of the
uncertainties in determining the core neutron source is provided in Reference 27.

Determination of the three-dimensional (3-D) fluence at the vessel using (r,z)- and (r)-
geometry calculations may also be appropriate (see Regulatory Position 1.3.4). If these
calculations are used to provide an axial correction factor, since the (r,z)- and the (r)- dependent
fluences enter as a ratio (see Equation 4), the source specification may be less stringent if
consistent sources are used in both the (r,z) and (r) calculations.

1.3 Fluence Calculation

1.3.1 Discrete Ordinates Transport Calculation

The transport of neutrons from the core to locations of interest in the pressure vessel may
be determined with a two-dimensional discrete ordinates transport program (Refs. 28-30) in (r,θ)
and, when appropriate, in (r,z)- and (r)- geometries.4,5 When calculating a horizontal plane of the
core/vessel geometry in which the rectangular (x,y) geometry of the core boundary and the

4
Additional information concerning the application of transport methods to reactor vessel surveillance is provided in ASTM
Standard E 482-89 (Ref. 31)
5
If DOT (Ref. 29) is used, the "θ-weighted" option (MODE-5 in DOT 4.3) is considered to be more accurate than the "weighted"
option (MODE-3 in DOT 3.5 or 4.3) for flux extrapolation and is recommended. Also, a value of θ = 0.3 is generally adequate
(Refs. 4, 32, 33). Reference 34 includes a description of the directional θ-weighted scheme which may also be used.

7
cylindrical (r) geometry of the vessel are mixed, a more accurate description is provided by the
variable (r,θ) mesh option (Ref. 29) and may be applied.

An azimuthal (θ) mesh using at least 40 intervals over an octant in (r,θ) geometry in the
horizontal plane should provide an accurate representation of the spatial distribution of the
material compositions and source described in Regulatory Position 1.2. The radial mesh in the
core region should be ~2 intervals per inch for peripheral assemblies and may be much more
coarse for assemblies more than approximately two assembly pitches removed from the core-
reflector interface. In excore regions, a spatial mesh that ensures the flux in any group changes by
less than a factor of ~2 between adjacent intervals should be applied, and a radial mesh of at least
~3 intervals per inch in water and ~1.5 intervals per inch in steel should be used. Because of the
relatively weak axial variation of the fluence, a coarse axial mesh of ~0.5 interval per inch may be
used except near material and source interfaces, where flux gradients can be large. An S8 fully
symmetric angular quadrature must be used as a minimum for determining the fluence at the
vessel. However, in reactor cavity fluence calculations a higher order quadrature may be needed,
depending on the width of the cavity and the axial location at which the fluence is being
calculated.

Where computer-storage limitations prevent the implementation of these mesh densities in

a single-model representation, the calculation should be performed in two or more "bootstrap"
steps rather than compromising the spatial mesh or quadrature (the number of groups used usually
does not affect the storage limitations, only the execution time). In this approach, the problem
volume is divided into overlapping regions. In a two-step bootstrap calculation, for example, a
transport calculation is performed for the cylinder defined by 0 < r < RN with a fictitious vacuum-
boundary condition applied at RN. From this initial calculation a boundary source is determined at
the radius RO = RN - ∆ and is subsequently applied as the internal-boundary condition for a second
transport calculation from RO to R (the true outer boundary of the problem). The adequacy of the
overlap region must be tested (e.g., by decreasing the inner radius of the outer region) to ensure
that the use of the fictitious boundary condition at RN has not unduly affected the boundary source
at RO or the results at the vessel.

A point-wise flux convergence criterion of .0.001 should be used, and a sufficient number
of iterations should be allowed within each group to ensure convergence. To avoid negative
fluxes and improve convergence, a weighted-difference model should be used.5 The adequacy of
the spatial mesh and angular quadrature, as well as the convergence criterion, must be
demonstrated by tightening the numerics until the resulting changes are negligible (Ref. 32). In
discrete ordinates codes, the spatial mesh and the angular quadrature should be refined
simultaneously. In some cases, these evaluations can be adequately performed with a one-
dimensional model.

The application of the discrete ordinates methods described in this section is illustrated in
detail in Reference 4.

1.3.2 Monte Carlo Transport Calculation

The transport of neutrons from the core to locations of interest in the pressure vessel may
be determined by using Monte Carlo Transport (Refs. 4 and 35-46). The Monte Carlo method has

8
the advantage of allowing an exact representation of the problem geometry (Refs. 43-44); i.e., the
rectangular fuel assemblies, the barrel, thermal shield and vessel cylindrical regions, and the axial
geometry including upper and lower core reflectors, axial dosimeter locations, and vessel
circumferential weld locations. In addition, the Monte Carlo method allows a continuous (as well
as a multigroup) energy description of the nuclear cross-sections and flux solution. It is
noteworthy, however, that in order to obtain comparable accuracy this method typically requires
substantially longer computing times than the discrete ordinates method.

The cross-section data used in the Monte Carlo calculations should satisfy the
requirements of Regulatory Position 1.1.2. However, if a continuous energy cross-section library
is used, the requirements concerning the Legendre expansion of the scattering cross-sections and
the number of energy groups are not applicable. In addition, to ensure an accurate integration
over the dosimeter cross-section, the energy bin structure used to determine dosimeter response
scoring should satisfy the requirements of Regulatory Position 1.1.2 concerning the selection of
the multigroup library group structure.

While the Monte Carlo programs allow a great deal of flexibility in defining problem
geometry, the input is generally relatively complex, requiring the definition of a large number of
surfaces and cells, and is a potential source of error. Consequently, the geometry input should be
checked thoroughly (using plots, volume checks, etc.) against the model design data to validate
the definition of the geometry.

In pressure vessel evaluations, the flux is required at specific dosimeter and vessel surface
and internal locations. The calculated flux is edited in area and volume tally regions at these
locations. Typically, the size of these tally regions is increased to increase the number of particle
histories and reduce the statistical error in the flux estimate. The sensitivity of the flux estimate to
the volume or area of the tally region should be determined to ensure that the spatial dependence
of the flux does not introduce a bias in the flux estimate. If the size of the tally region introduces
a bias into the flux estimate, the calculation should be rerun with a smaller tally region and an
increased number of particle histories or the Monte Carlo prediction should be adjusted to
eliminate the calculational bias. This adjustment may be made, for example, using a correction
based on a deterministic calculation.

In addition to the area and volume tally regions, point detectors may be used to estimate
the flux at the locations of interest. However, the use of point detectors is complicated and the
following cautions should be observed. To minimize the variance in point detector edits, Monte
Carlo codes may define an average-flux region surrounding the detector within which the collision
estimation is determined. The neutron flux in this region is assumed to be uniform. In order to
ensure that the point estimate is not biased, the flux estimate should be shown to be insensitive to
the selection of the average-flux region. If the size of the average-flux region introduces a bias
into the flux estimate, the calculation should be rerun with a smaller average-flux region and an
increased number of particle histories. No material boundaries should be included in the average-
flux region surrounding the point detector. Since the next-event particle tracking used in point
detectors does not account for reflecting, periodic, or white boundary conditions, the point
detector flux estimate is underpredicted when particles from these boundaries can contribute to
the flux estimate. Therefore, point detectors should not be located where particles from these

9
boundaries can contribute to the flux estimate. In order to ensure that a sufficient number of
particle histories are included and that the region close to the detector is adequately sampled, the
statistical edits should be reviewed thoroughly, especially if the relative error is greater than 5%.

In the Monte Carlo analysis, a calculational uncertainty is introduced as a result of the

finite number N of particle histories sampled. The Monte Carlo analysis provides estimates of the
mean flux, relative error (standard deviation/mean) and terms related to the higher moments, such
as the variance of the variance (VOV), based on the calculated particle histories. In order to
ensure that the calculation has converged and the estimated (mean) flux is valid, a reliable
estimate of the sampling uncertainty is required. However, because of the finite sampling of the
physical phase space, important paths in the geometry and peaks in the cross-sections may not be
adequately sampled, resulting in significant errors in the estimated mean and standard deviation.

Monte Carlo programs include statistical criteria to provide assurance that the calculations
have converged and that the estimated mean and relative error are valid. When performing Monte
Carlo pressure vessel fluence calculations, all statistical tests provided by the Monte Carlo code
should be satisfied or justification for accepting the results should be reported. The Monte Carlo
code should provide sufficient statistical testing (in addition to the usual tally standard deviation)
to ensure that the scoring phase space has been adequately sampled. Representative statistical
tests that are used to ensure tally convergence include (e.g., Reference 43):

(1) The flux mean should not have a significant monotonic dependence (either increasing or
decreasing) on N for the last half of the problem,
(2) The percent relative error of the mean flux should be less than ~10%, except for point
detectors for which it should be less than ~5%,
(3) The relative error should have a ~ 1/ N dependence for the last half of the problem,
(4) The figure of merit defined as

1
FOM ' (Equation 1)
R 2T

where R is the relative error and T is the problem computing time, should not have a
significant monotonic dependence on N for the last half of the problem, and
(5) The VOV should be less than ~0.10 for all tallies and decrease as ~1/N for the last half of
the problem.

As a result of the strong flux attenuation between the core and the pressure vessel, very
few neutrons (~less than one in a thousand) actually reach the vessel. Since the relative error (and
variance) in the Monte Carlo calculation only decreases as 1/ N , the number of neutrons tracked
and resulting computer times required to obtain acceptable accuracy are very large. In practice,
the computing time may be reduced by using variance reduction techniques that increase the
number of neutrons reaching the locations of interest (such as the dosimetry capsules and vessel
inner-wall) or improve the particle tracking efficiency, or both. Typically, the number of particles
that contribute to the tally is increased by increasing the number of particles in the regions of the
particle phase space that are judged (based on prior knowledge) to contribute significantly to the

10
calculation. However, if this judgment is incorrect and the neutrons believed to be unimportant
make a significant contribution to the tally, the Monte Carlo estimated fluence and relative error
(and variance) will be erroneous. Consequently, the variance reduction methods used in
performing pressure vessel fluence analyses should be qualified by comparing the Monte Carlo
variance reduction predictions with estimates made without the application of the variance
reduction technique. Since the calculation without variance reduction will typically involve a
large number of particle histories and long computing times, this comparison can be made using a
simpler representative configuration (e.g., one-dimensional geometry).

The following Monte Carlo variance reduction methods may be used in performing
pressure vessel fluence analyses: (1) neutron energy cutoff, (2) source biasing, (3) geometry
splitting with Russian Roulette, and (4) weight windows. Specific concerns associated with the
application of these methods are described in the following.

In the application of the neutron energy cutoff technique, neutron tracking efficiency is
improved by terminating tracking when the particle weight falls below a selected input energy.
This method assumes that particles with energy below the cutoff do not contribute to the tally and,
consequently, may underestimate or bias the tally edit. While a cutoff energy of 1-MeV can be
used to calculate the E > 1-Mev fluence without introducing any error, the cutoff energy for the
dosimeter response calculation depends on the specific dosimeter reaction cross-section and
should be selected low enough to ensure that the calculation provides acceptable accuracy. If this
method is employed, the bias introduced by the energy cutoff should be estimated by comparison
with an unbiased calculation and the Monte Carlo calculation adjusted to account for the bias.

The source biasing method increases the number of source particles in the regions of phase
space that are believed (based on prior knowledge) to provide the most significant contribution to
the Monte Carlo tally. For example, the neutrons born in the peripheral fuel assemblies contribute
most to the vessel fluence and the number of these particles can be increased (and their weight
decreased proportionally) to improve the particle tracking efficiency. The space- and energy-
dependent importance of the core neutrons to a specific location on the vessel can be estimated
using a precalculated adjoint flux and used to determine the source biasing (e.g., Refs. 41, 42, and
44). To ensure that the biased sampling of the source is producing reliable Monte Carlo estimates,
the source biasing method should be qualified by comparison with an unbiased calculation for a
representative problem.

Geometrical splitting with Russian Roulette reduces the variance of the tally edit by
increasing the number of neutrons that reach the vessel. This is accomplished by assigning
numerical importance values to each spatial cell such that the cell importance values increase as
the neutrons approach the vessel (Ref. 46). When a neutron travels toward the vessel passing
from a region of lower importance I to a region of higher importance IN, it is split into IN/I
neutrons. Conversely, when a neutron travels away from the vessel passing from a region of
higher importance I to a region of lower importance IN, it undergoes Russian Roulette with a
survival probability of IN/I. The reliability of this technique depends on the selection of the cell
importances I. It is recommended that the importance in adjacent cells should not change by more
than a factor of ~3, and the cell radial optical thickness should be less than ~2 mean free paths
(Ref. 43). To ensure that the selection of the cell importance distribution provides reliable Monte

11
Carlo estimates, the geometrical splitting with Russian Roulette method should be qualified by
comparison with an unbiased calculation for a representative problem.

The weight windows method may also be used to improve the efficiency of the neutron
tracking in Monte Carlo pressure vessel analyses (e.g., Refs. 41, 42, and 45). In the weight
windows method, the neutron weight in each space-energy cell is limited to a specific range or
“weight window” by splitting and Russian Roulette. The window is defined so that the neutron
weight is inversely proportional to the importance of the space-energy cell so that the scoring
variance is minimized (Ref. 43). In practice, the specification of the weight windows is difficult
and requires a detailed knowledge of the space-energy-dependent cell importance. Consequently,
in order to ensure that the definition of the weight windows is providing reliable Monte Carlo
estimates, it is important that the weight windows method be qualified by comparison with a
calculation performed without variance reduction.

The application of Monte Carlo methods described in this section is illustrated in detail in
Reference 4.

1.3.3 Fluence Determination

The transport calculations (both discrete ordinate and Monte Carlo) may be performed in
either the forward or adjoint modes. When several transport calculations are needed for a specific
geometry, assembly importance factors may be precalculated by either performing forward
calculations with a unit source (with the desired pin-wise source distribution) specified in the fuel
assembly of interest or by performing adjoint calculations. The adjoint fluxes are used to
determine the fluence at a specific (field) location, while the forward fluxes from the unit-source
calculations determine the fluence at all locations in the problem. Once calculated, these factors
contain the required information from the transport solution, and by weighting the assembly
importance factors with the source distribution of interest, the vessel (or capsule) fluence may be
determined without additional transport calculations, assuming the in-vessel geometry, material,
and source distribution within the assembly remain the same.

In performing calculations of surveillance capsule fluence (Regulatory Position 1.4), it

should be noted that the capsule fluence is extremely sensitive to the representation of the capsule
geometry and internal water region (if present), and the adequacy of the capsule representation
and mesh must be demonstrated using sensitivity calculations (as described in Regulatory Position
1.4.1). The capsule fluence and spectra are sensitive to the radial location of the capsule and its
proximity to material interfaces (e.g., at the vessel, thermal shield, and concrete shield in the
cavity), and these should be represented accurately. The core shroud and baffle former plates can
result in a 5-10% reduction in the surveillance capsule dosimeter response and should be included
in the model.

When fluence reduction schemes have introduced strong axial or azimuthal heterogeneities
into the source (e.g., an axially zoned replacement of fuel with stainless steel for fluence
reduction), these should be modeled in detail. When the transport calculation is performed using
the discrete ordinates method, a finer spatial mesh and tighter convergence criteria may be
appropriate to ensure an accurate solution. These schemes may also entail a 3-D flux calculation.

12
 To account for the neutron spectrum dependence of RTNDT when the E > 1 -MeV fluence is
extrapolated from the inside of the pressure vessel to the T/4- and 3T/4-vessel locations, a spectral
lead factor (which accounts for the change in neutron spectrum between downcomer and vessel
internal locations) must be applied to the fluence for the calculation of ∆RTNDT (Ref. 47). This
spectral lead factor has been included in the Equation 3 attenuation formula of Revision 2 of
Regulatory Guide 1.99, and therefore is not required when this formula is used. However, when
this formula is not used, the spectral lead factor must be applied to the fluence at the vessel
internal locations. Displacements per atom is used as the extrapolation parameter in Regulatory
Guide 1.99 and is an acceptable parameter for extrapolating the E > 1-MeV fluence to vessel
internal locations and determining this lead factor.

1.3.4 Synthesis of the 3-D Fluence

When 3-D effects are important and three-dimensional transport calculations are not
practical, a 3-D fluence representation may be constructed by synthesizing calculations of lower
dimensions using the expression
Ng(r,2,z) = Ng(r,2)(Lg(r,z) (Equation 2)

where φg(r,θ) is the group-g transport solution in (r,θ) geometry for a representative plane and
Lg(r,z) is a group-dependent axial shape factor. Two simple methods available for determining
Lg(r,z) are defined by the expressions
Lg(r,z) ' P(z) (Equation 3)

where P(z) is the peripheral-assembly axial power distribution, and

L g(r,z) = Ng(r,z)/Ng(r) (Equation 4)

where φg(r) and φg(r,z) are one- and two-dimensional group-g flux solutions, respectively, for a
cylindrical representation of the geometry that preserves the important axial source and
attenuation characteristics (Refs. 4 and 48). The (r,z) plane should correspond to the azimuthal
location of interest (e.g., peak vessel fluence or dosimetry locations) or a conservatively θ-
averaged (r,z) plane. The source per unit height for both the (r,θ)- and (r)- models should be
identical, and the true axial source density should be used in the (r,z) model.
Equation 3 is only applicable when (1) the axial source distribution for all important
peripheral assemblies is approximately the same or is bounded by a conservative axial power
shape and (2) the attenuation characteristics do not vary axially over the region of interest. In
addition, since the axial flux distribution tends to flatten as it propagates from the core to the
pressure vessel, for typical axial power shapes, use of Equation 3 will tend to overpredict axial
flux maxima and underpredict minima. This underprediction is nonconservative and can be large
near the top and bottom reflectors, as well as when minima are strongly localized as occurs in
some fluence-reduction schemes. Because of the neglect of the former plates, this method may
result in an additional 5-10% underprediction of the fluence.

13
 Equation 4 is applicable when the axial source distribution and attenuation characteristics
vary radially but do not vary significantly in the azimuthal (θ) direction within a given annulus.
For example, this approximation is not appropriate when strong axial fuel-enrichment variations
are present only in selected peripheral assemblies.

In summary, an (r,θ)-geometry fluence calculation and a knowledge of the peripheral

assembly axial power distribution are needed when using Equation 3. Use of this equation may
result in fluence overpredictions near the midplane at relatively large distances from the core, e.g.,
in the cavity, and underpredictions at axial locations beyond the beltline at relatively large radial
distances from the core. Conservatism may be included in the latter case by using the peak axial
power for all elevations.

Both radial and axial fluence calculations are needed when using Equation 4; thus, it is
generally more accurate in preserving the integral properties of the three-dimensional fluence.
Both Equation 3 and Equation 4 assume separability between the axial and azimuthal fluence
calculations, which is only approximately true.

When these simple synthesis techniques are not applicable, multichannel synthesis
methods may be used. In the multichannel synthesis calculation, the fluence is represented as the
sum
N
Ng(r,2,z) = j aiNgi(r,2)Ngi(r,z)/Ngi(r) (Equation 5)
i'1

where the φgi are basis flux solutions, typically representing specific regions of the core and vessel
geometries, and the weighting coefficients ai are determined to provide an optimum prediction of
the vessel fluence. It should be emphasized, however, that the accuracy of this method is sensitive
to the selection of the basis functions, especially at region interfaces, and three-dimensional
calculations should be considered where strong axial or azimuthal heterogeneities exist. This
synthesis technique has been applied to a calculational benchmark in Reference 28 and to an
experimental benchmark in Reference 49.

1.3.5 Cavity Fluence Calculations

Accurate cavity fluence calculations are relied on to analyze dosimeters located in the
reactor cavity (Ref. 50). The calculation of the neutron transport in the cavity is made difficult by
(a) the strong attenuation of the E > 1 MeV fluence through the (5.5- to 10.0-inch thick) vessel
and the resulting increased sensitivity to the iron inelastic-scattering cross-section and (b) the
possibility of neutron streaming (i.e., strong directionally dependent) effects in the low-density
materials (air and vessel insulation) in the cavity. Because of the increased sensitivity to the iron
cross-sections, ENDF/B-VI cross-section data should be used for cavity fluence calculations.2 As
indicated in Regulatory Position 1.1.2, properly benchmarked alternative cross-sections may also
be used. However, for cavity applications, the benchmarking must include comparisons for
operating reactor cavities or simulated cavity environments.

14
 Typically, the width of the cavity together with the close-to-midplane locations of the
dosimetry capsules result in minimal cavity streaming effects. Consequently, in discrete ordinates
calculations, an S8 angular quadrature is acceptable. However, when off-midplane locations are
analyzed, the adequacy of the S8 quadrature to determine the streaming component must be
demonstrated with higher-order Sn calculations. In addition, since the radial mesh in the (r,z)
calculation is generally finer than the z-mesh in the cavity resulting in narrow spatial-mesh
intervals, a θ-weighted difference model should be used.5

The cavity fluence is sensitive to both the material compositions (Regulatory Position
1.1.1) and the local geometry (e.g., the presence of detector wells) of the concrete shield, and
these should be represented as accurately as possible. Benchmark measurements involving
simulated reactor cavities that are recommended for methods evaluation are given in Regulatory
Position 1.4.2.2. The measured energy spectrum for a typical PWR cavity is described in
Reference 51. When both in-vessel and cavity dosimetry measurements are available, an
additional verification of the measurements and calculations may be made by comparing the
vessel inner-wall fluence determined from (1) the absolute fluence calculation, (2) the
extrapolation of the in-vessel measurements, and (3) the extrapolation of the cavity measurements.
Measurements performed in reactor cavities and the associated calculations are described in
References 5 and 6.

1.4 Methodology Qualification and Uncertainty Estimates

The neutron transport calculational methodology must be qualified, and flux uncertainty
estimates must be determined. The neutron flux undergoes several decades of attenuation before
reaching the vessel, and the calculation is sensitive to the material and geometrical representation
of the core and vessel internals, the neutron source, the nuclear cross-section data, and the
numerical schemes used in its determination. The uncertainty estimates are used to determine the
appropriate uncertainty allowance to be included in the application of the fluence estimate. While
adherence to the guidelines described here will generally result in accurate fluence estimates, the
overall methodology must be qualified in order to quantify uncertainties, identify any potential
biases in the calculations, and provide confidence in the fluence calculations. In addition, while
the methodology, including computer codes and data libraries used in the calculations, may have
been found to be acceptable in previous applications, the qualification ensures that the licensee's
implementation of the methodology is valid.

The methods qualification consists of three parts: (1) the analytic uncertainty analysis
(Regulatory Position 1.4.1), (2) the comparison with benchmarks and operating reactor
measurements (Regulatory Position 1.4.2), and (3) the estimate of uncertainty in the calculated
fluence (Regulatory Position 1.4.3). These three steps in the overall qualification procedure are
discussed below and are outlined in Figure 3.

1.4.1 Analytic Uncertainty Analysis

To demonstrate the accuracy of the methodology, an analytic uncertainty analysis must be
performed. This analysis includes identification of the important sources of uncertainty. For
typical fluence calculations, these sources include:

15
C Nuclear data (transport and dosimeter reaction cross-sections and fission spectra),
C Geometry (location of internals and deviations from the nominal dimensions),
C Isotopic composition of material (density and composition of coolant water, core, core
barrel, former plates, thermal shield, pressure vessel with cladding, and concrete shield),
C Neutron sources (space and energy distribution, burnup dependence),
C Methods error (mesh density, angular expansion, convergence criteria, macroscopic group
cross-sections, fluence perturbation by surveillance capsules, spatial synthesis, and cavity
streaming).

This list of uncertainty components is not necessarily exhaustive, and other uncertainties
that are specific to a particular reactor or a particular calculational method should be considered.
In typical applications, the fluence calculational uncertainty is dominated by a few easily
identified uncertainty components, such as the geometry and core neutron source, which results in
a substantial simplification of the uncertainty analysis.

The sensitivity of the flux to the significant component uncertainties should be determined
by a series of transport sensitivity calculations in which the calculational model input data and
modeling assumptions are varied and the effect on the calculated flux is determined. (A typical
sensitivity would be -10-15% decrease in vessel E > 1 MeV fluence per centimeter increase in
vessel inside radius.) Estimates of the expected uncertainties in these input parameters must be
made and combined with the corresponding fluence sensitivities to determine the total analytically
determined calculation uncertainty σca (i.e., standard deviation) as indicated in Figure 3. The
uncertainties should be combined in a statistical (root-sum-of-the-squares) fashion to determine
the total fluence uncertainty, accounting for the correlation between uncertainties when necessary
(see, e.g., Section 5.2 of Ref. 3). The known systematic errors (or biases) should be combined
algebraically, recognizing the sign of each contribution, to determine the overall calculational bias
Bca (Ref. 52).6 The component uncertainties should be based on measurement or on the acceptable
deviations included in the design specifications. The sensitivity calculations may be performed in
one dimension when the model sensitivity does not require a two-dimensional representation.

If the sensitivities are determined using Monte Carlo transport calculations, the magnitude
of the model variations and the number of particle histories may have to be increased to provide
reliable estimates of the calculation sensitivities. If the increased model variations are large,
several calculations may be required to determine the non-linear dependence of the sensitivity.
Perturbation calculations using correlated sampling may also be used to determine the sensitivity
to model geometry, material compositions, and cross-sections. Adjoint Monte Carlo calculations
may be used to determine the sensitivity to input such as fission spectra. Alternatively, if the
sensitivities can be determined with sufficient accuracy in one-dimensional geometry, the
sensitivities can be determined using a one-dimensional model.

6
The systematic errors affect the fluence prediction in a specific direction (i.e., increase or decrease the estimate). Consequently,
when these errors (or biases) are applied, the signs (or directions) must be recognized and they must be combined algebraically.
The independent random uncertainties have no specific direction (i.e., an increase or decrease) associated with them, and they are
combined without recognizing the sign of the error.

16
 A sensitivity analysis, in which the influence of each of these uncertainties on the
calculated group fluences has been considered, is included in References 5 and 6. Since the
uncertainties used in these analyses are common to many pressurized water reactors, the
sensitivities (including correlations) may be used to determine initial uncertainty estimates. These
variance estimates should be modified as the methods and cross-section data change or if the
reactor of interest differs substantially from the reactors analyzed in these references. The
referenced sensitivity analysis provides guidance for such modifications.

1.4.2 Comparisons with Benchmark Measurements and Calculations

Calculational methods must be validated by comparison with measurement and
calculational benchmarks. The fluence calculation methods must be validated against (1)
operating reactor measurements that provide in-vessel surveillance capsule dosimetry or ex-vessel
cavity measurements or both, (2) a pressure vessel simulator benchmark that provides
measurements at the inner surface and at the T/4 and 3T/4 positions within the vessel (see
Regulatory Position 1.4.2.2 for a discussion of such benchmarks), and (3) the fluence calculation
benchmark. The results of the validation should include comparisons of reaction rates, fluences,
and group fluxes for the locations of interest (Refs. 53, 54).

The methods used to determine the plant-specific data and calculate the benchmarks must
be consistent (to the extent possible) with those used to calculate the vessel fluence. That is, the
same cross-sections, transport techniques, and transport code parameters that are to be used in the
reactor licensing application must be employed in the calculation of the benchmark measurements
and calculations.

Differences between measurements and calculations should be consistent with the

combined uncertainty estimates for the measurements and calculations. (Note that the
uncertainties in both the calculations and measurements will contribute to the observed
measurement-to-calculation differences.) The calculated reaction rates (using the methods
described in Regulatory Positions 1.1 through 1.3) typically agree with the measurements to
within about 20% for in-vessel surveillance capsules and 30% for cavity dosimetry. Deviations
greater than these values must be investigated and, when the cause of the deviation is determined
to be an error in the calculation, the calculations must be modified.

If the calculation is modified using a least-squares statistical approach (Refs. 55-62), the
measurement-to-calculation (M/C) ratios should be reviewed, prior to adjustment, in order to
identify any systematic trends in the M/C data. Specific examples include systematic
overprediction (or underprediction) of the dosimeter response for (1) dosimeters with low-energy
thresholds, (2) dosimeters in the cavity (versus inner-wall and accelerated capsule locations), (3)
dosimeters with long half-life reaction products, and (4) dosimeters monitoring specific cycles. If
systematic trends, interdependence, or correlations appear in the M/C data, these should be
explained and removed (prior to adjustment) or accounted for in the statistical adjustment

17
procedure.7 Also, since the fluence adjustment is sensitive to the input uncertainties, realistic
uncertainty values should be used and documented. The dosimeter measurement uncertainty
should include the response uncertainty caused by dosimeter mislocation. Additional guidance on
least-squares adjustment methods is provided in Ref. 63. It should be noted, however, that the
available least-squares statistical adjustment codes differ substantially in their approach and their
capabilities. Consequently, the selection of the least-squares code and the details of the analysis
are highly application-specific and are outside the scope of this guide.

The simulator benchmarks provide accurate measurements but typically do not provide an
accurate representation of the actual plant configuration. The operating reactor measurements, on
the other hand, represent the actual as-built plant configuration but, typically, include substantial
measurement uncertainties. The simulator benchmarks together with the operating reactor
measurements generally provide an acceptable measurement data base. The comparisons of the
calculations to the measurement benchmarks should be used to estimate the calculational bias Bcb
and uncertainty σcb. If the bias estimate is considered reliable, a correction equal to the bias may be
applied to the calculation to determine a best-estimate fluence.8 If the calculations or
measurements are adjusted to improve the M/C agreement, using either a least-squares approach
or a direct multiplicative bias, the adjustment and basis must be reported.

1.4.2.1 Operating Reactor Measurements. Well documented fluence dosimetry

measurements for operating power reactors may be used for methods and data qualification.9
Descriptions of these configurations include three-dimensional geometry, reactor operating
conditions and, in some cases, both in-vessel and ex-vessel measurement data.

Comparisons of measurements and calculations must be performed for the specific reactor
being analyzed or for reactors of similar design. Plant-specific measurements have the advantage
of including the as-built materials and geometry and the actual reactor operating conditions. An
especially accurate determination of the fluence can be obtained when both in-vessel and cavity
dosimetry are available.

These measurements should not be used to bias or adjust the fluence calculations unless a
statistically significant number of measurements is available, the various dosimeter measurements
are self-consistent, and a reliable estimate of the calculational bias can be determined.8,9
Similarly, plant-specific biases should not be used unless sufficient reliable measurement data are
available. As capsule and cavity measurements become available, they should be incorporated

7
For example, if the M/C data for the Np-237 dosimeters tends to be high, indicating a systematically low calculation or high
measurement, the errors in the Np-237 calculated or measured responses are correlated. If this error is not removed prior to the
adjustment, the important sources of correlated error should be identified (e.g., the Np-237 dosimeter reaction cross-section,
reaction product half-life and Np-237 photo-fission correction) and included in the adjustment procedure to allow the proper
treatment of this error.
8
The adequacy of the measurement data base for determining a bias in the calculations depends on the magnitude of the bias and
is therefore problem dependent. For example, if the bias is small an accurate estimate of the bias will require either (1) a large
number of reasonably accurate measurements or (2) a small number of very accurate measurements. Specifically, the uncertainty
in the bias should be substantially less than the bias itself. For example, if the calculated fluence is to be increased by 10% , the
uncertainty in this increase should be substantially less than 10%.
9
Additional guidance on benchmark testing is provided in the ASTM standard E2005-99 (Ref. 64) and examples of operating
reactor benchmark measurements are provided in Reference 65.

18
into the operating reactor measurements data base, and the calculational biases and uncertainties
should be updated as necessary.

1.4.2.2 Pressure Vessel Simulator Measurements. Several pressure vessel simulator

benchmarks are available (Refs. 7, 49, 65-82) and may be used for methods qualification. These
benchmark experiments were carried out by several laboratories, and dosimetry measurements
using different techniques were compared to provide experimental results with well known and
documented uncertainties. Three configurations were used in these experiments.

C Pressure Vessel Simulator Experiments. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
Pool Critical Assembly (PCA) is a full-scale-section mockup of a pressure vessel with
dosimetry measurements at the inner surface of the vessel and at the T/4, T/2 and 3T/4
locations within the vessel wall (Refs. 72-75). The PCA benchmark experiment includes a
simulated surveillance capsule that allows the determination of the effect of the capsule on
the dosimetry measurements. This benchmark is characterized by a relatively simple
geometry with generally less uncertainty in region compositions, temperatures, and source
distributions than in operating power reactor benchmarks.

C Experiments Simulating Operating Reactor Conditions. The CEN/SK Laboratory

VENUS benchmark experiment (Refs. 49, 76-79) and the ORNL Pool Side Facility (PSF)
benchmark experiment (Refs. 80-82) simulate the operating reactor: (1) pin-wise power
distributions in peripheral fuel assemblies, (2) three-dimensional effects caused by partial-
length shield assemblies, and (3) heterogeneities caused by neutron pads attached to the
core barrel.

C Pressure Vessel Cavity Measurements. The H.B. Robinson-2 cavity measurement

(Refs. 65-67) and the NESDIP cavity simulator experiment (Refs. 7, 68-71) may be used
as benchmarks to qualify cavity fluence calculational methods. Calculations of dosimetry
measurements performed in an operating reactor cavity are described in References 5
and 6.

1.4.2.3 Calculational Benchmark. The vessel fluence benchmark problems provided by

the NRC in NUREG/CR-6115 (Ref. 4) should be used for methods qualification. This report
provides the detailed information defining the problems and corresponding numerical solutions
for a set of PWR and BWR pressure vessel fluence benchmark problems. The geometry,
materials, and space- and energy-dependent source are fixed by the problem specification. PWR
benchmark problems have been specified for (1) a standard core loading pattern, (2) a low-leakage
core loading pattern, and (3) a partial-length shield assembly core design. Since BWR fuel
loading patterns are presently not being designed for vessel fluence reduction, only a single BWR
problem is specified. In addition, MCNP Monte Carlo calculations have been performed for both
the BWR problem and the PWR problems for the standard core and partial-length shield assembly
core loadings. Comparisons of the vessel fluence determined by using both the MCNP and
DORT computer codes are included.

The calculation of the benchmark problems allows a detailed assessment and verification
of the numerical procedures, code implementation, and the various modeling approximations

19
relative to state-of-the-art solutions for representative operating configurations.10 If the
differences between the benchmark problem calculation and the reference solution are
substantially larger than what would be expected based on the differences in the methods
approximations and nuclear data used in the two calculations, the agreement is considered
unacceptable. In this case, the calculation should be reviewed and the differences between the
two solutions explained. (Note that NUREG/CR-6115 includes sensitivity calculations and
comparisons with Monte Carlo predictions which provide an indication of the accuracy of the
methods approximations used in the NUREG/CR-6115 reference calculations.) When the cause
of the deviation is determined to be an error in the calculation, the calculational method must be
revised.

1.4.3 Estimate of Fluence Calculational Bias and Uncertainty

The overall fluence calculation bias Bc and uncertainty σc must be determined by an
appropriate combination of (1) the analytic uncertainty analysis results of Regulatory Position
1.4.1 (Bca and σca) and (2) the results of the uncertainty analysis based on the comparisons to the
operating reactor and simulator benchmark measurements of Regulatory Position 1.4.2 (Bcb and σcb).
This combination may be a weighted average that accounts for the reliability of the individual
estimates.11 The bias Bc may be applied as a multiplicative correction to the calculated fluence to
determine the best-estimate value, and σc should be used (when required) as the (1-sigma)
uncertainty in the calculated best-estimate fluence.

The fluence accuracy requirements are generally application specific; however, a vessel
fluence uncertainty of 20% (1 sigma) is acceptable for RTPTS and RTNDT determination. In the
determination of RTNDT and RTPTS, if the overall calculation uncertainty σc is greater than 20%, the
calculational model must be adjusted or a correction must be applied to reduce the difference
between the fluence prediction and the upper 1-sigma limit to within 20%. For example, if σc is
greater than 20% but less than 30%, the fluence φ should be determined from the calculated
fluence φc by the relation
N  6 1  B c  [Fc(%)  20]/100 > Nc (Equation 6)

If σc is greater than 30%, the methodology of this regulatory guide is not applicable and the
application will be reviewed on an individual basis. The procedure used to determine the fluence
is illustrated in Figure 4.

10
The calculation being used as the benchmark must be the NUREG/CR-6115 original referenced benchmark calculation, and
not just a second independent calculation of the benchmark.
11
Because the weighting of the analytic and benchmark uncertainty estimates depends on the details of the specific application
that can vary widely, it is not possible to specify a practical and generically valid prescription for determining the weights.
However, the following example illustrates factors that should be considered. When as-built measurements of the vessel
diameter are available and reasonable estimates of the core neutron source and other input uncertainties can be determined, the
analytic uncertainty estimate should be reliable and have an uncertainty of -15% (1 sigma). Assume that there are a statistically
significant number of accurate (σ <~ 5%) operating reactor measurements and the uncertainty estimate based on this data has an
uncertainty of -20%. The uncertainty estimate based on the vessel simulator measurements is assumed to be less certain and has
an uncertainty of -25%. Using a weighted mean in which the weight is inversely proportional to the square of the standard
deviation of the estimate (i.e., σ-2), the weights are wA = 0.5, wo = 0.3 and wS = 0.2.

20
 The fluence calculation methods of this section are summarized in Table 1, “Summary of
Regulatory Positions on Calculation and Dosimetry.”

2. NEUTRON FLUENCE MEASUREMENT METHODS

Dosimetry measurements provide independent estimates of specific activities and isotopic

production rates that are used for validating the neutron transport calculations. Fluence is
obtained from the response of passive integral detectors placed in surveillance capsules and, more
recently, in the ex-vessel cavity. Procedures for performing the measurements and assessing
uncertainty, including the validation of measurement methods and detector response in standard
neutron fields, is described in this section.

The fluence measurement methods of this section are summarized in Table 1, “Summary
of Regulatory Positions on Calculation and Dosimetry.” The procedure used to qualify the
measurement methods is presented in Figure 5. The guidance provided in this Regulatory
Position is intended for new dosimetry and, to the extent practical, for existing dosimetry.

2.1 Measurement Procedures

Power reactor dosimetry measurement methods use passive integral detectors, which are
typically activation detectors and solid-state track recorders. Most of the detectors respond to
neutrons with energies above a characteristic reaction threshold. These detectors should be
selected with substantial nonoverlapping energy regions (i.e., with well-separated thresholds) to
provide coarse spectrum information as well as an estimate of the neutron fluence.

2.1.1 Specification and Application of Dosimeters

Neutron dosimetry for pressure vessel surveillance may consist of as-built packages of
threshold dosimeters placed in surveillance capsules during reactor construction. The selected
dosimeter set should provide adequate spectrum coverage. A common set of fast neutron integral
detectors that may be employed in these packages is listed in Table 2. These neutron detectors are
discussed in References 83 through 89. The 54Fe(n,p)54Mn and 58Ni(n,p)58Co activation reactions
are useful for monitoring neutrons with energies above ~2 MeV. The 46Ti(n,p)46Sc reaction is
useful for monitoring neutrons with energies above approximately 4 MeV, and the 63Cu(n,α)60Co
reaction is useful for measuring neutrons with energies above approximately 5 MeV. Fission
monitors are important since they typically have reaction thresholds below 1 MeV. Activities
determined by assaying one or more fission products from the 238U(n,f)FP fast-neutron fission
reaction are useful for monitoring neutrons with energies from approximately 1.5 to 7 MeV.
Activities determined by assaying fission products from the 237Np(n,f)FP reaction are useful for
measuring neutrons with energies from approximately 0.7 to 6 MeV; however, there is a
significant gamma-ray background associated with neptunium dosimetry that is due to the large
quantity of naturally occurring 233Pa existing in secular equilibrium with 237Np. Compton
scattering of the protactinium decay photons generates a large background continuum, which
reduces the effective signal-to-noise ratio and lowers the accuracy of the radioassay. The
93
Nb(n,n’)93mNb activation reaction is useful for monitoring neutrons with energies above
approximately 1 MeV, but involves the counting of a very soft photon, which can complicate the

21
corrections made to the measured activity to compensate for photon attenuation within the
dosimeter.

In addition to the fast-neutron threshold monitors, a thermal monitor such as 59Co should
be included among the selected dosimeters to allow the determination of the thermal neutron
fluence. The thermal fluence is needed to assess the effects of interfering activities in threshold
monitors produced by low-energy activation of impurity elements. In instances where the thermal
flux is relatively high, it can also be used for assessing the effects of burnout of the activated
species.

Taken together with a low-energy detector such as cobalt (to estimate the thermal neutron
fluence for determining interference from low-energy activations), the Table 2 dosimeter set
provides satisfactory neutron energy spectrum coverage for pressure vessel dosimetry. Alternative
detector sets that are used should provide equivalent spectrum coverage. Detector selection
criteria and related recommendations in ASTM E 844 (Ref. 90) and E 1005 (Ref. 91) should be
followed (see Table 2).

The application of the dosimeter should be evaluated relative to the expected neutron flux
and the total irradiation time in order to assess the effects of dosimeter burnout, and the burnout
and burn-in of reaction products. For example, when using 58Ni monitors in the presence of a
high thermal flux, the burnout of the nickel dosimeter as well as the 58Co and 58mCo reaction
products should be considered. The resonant absorption of epithermal neutrons in 238U and the
breeding of 239Pu, which can undergo thermal fission and contribute to the fission product activity,
should also be considered.

Application of activation detectors involves aspects of the measurement process that must
be carefully controlled and documented to obtain accurate results and establish reasonable
uncertainty estimates. Where applicable, procedures in ASTM Standards E 181 (Ref. 92), E 844
(Ref. 90) and E 1005 (Ref. 91) and methods devoted to individual radiometric sensors must be
used as indicated in Table 2. Specific regulatory positions associated with the dosimetry
measurements are indicated in the following.

2.1.1.1 Dosimeter Nuclear and Material Proprieties. The dosimeter nuclear and
material properties are important considerations in the selection and composition of the
surveillance dosimetry package. The physiochemical properties of the dosimeter materials should
be compatible with the prevailing service conditions. Dosimeter melting, for example, can result
in the loss of monitor activity and unreliable measurements. Consequently, the melting point of
the dosimeters and any associated materials should be carefully considered relative to the service
environment ambient temperature and the radiation heating within the dosimeter. Although the
melting point of typical radiometric monitors is sufficiently high to preclude melting, even mild
heating can be problematical for certain dosimeters. For instance, diffusion losses of 54Mn
activity from iron dosimeters can occur when heated to temperatures greater than 700-C. In
addition, the dosimeter should be chemically stable and corrosion resistant. Fissionable materials
are especially prone to oxidation and, consequently, fission monitors should be hermetically
sealed to prevent oxidation and subsequent loss of material.

22
 The nuclear properties to be considered in dosimeter selection include the reaction cross-
section, decay half-life, gamma-ray yield, and the fission yield when employing fission
dosimeters. The reaction cross-section should be of sufficient magnitude to allow the dosimeter
to be used as a fluence monitor, consistent with other requirements on the dosimeter mass and
geometry, as discussed in following sections.

The photon yield associated with the nuclear decay should be large enough to allow an
accurate radio assay, and the energy of the particular photons counted should minimize
interference from neighboring spectral lines. For example, the 24Na reaction product, created from
the 27Al(n,α) reaction, emits photons with energies of 1.369 and 2.754 MeV. Since there is less
interference from the contaminant gamma rays associated with the higher-energy photon, it is
preferable to count the high-energy line during the radioassay. In the case of fission product
radioassay involving the 95Zr-95Nb fission product, three dominant spectral lines are observed at
724, 756, and 765 keV. However, the two high-energy lines are in close proximity and
complicate the determination of the background subtraction. Consequently, counting the 724 keV
line provides the more accurate result.

The half-life of the activated species should be long enough, relative to the elapsed time
from the end of the irradiation to the time at which the dosimeters are actually counted, to permit
nuclear counting to proceed with reasonable counting statistics. This time interval is often a
significant consideration. The half-life should also be long enough to provide an accurate
indication of the fluence during the irradiation period.

The fission product yields associated with fission dosimeters should be of sufficient
magnitude to permit an accurate radioassay. The yields (and decay constants) of the fission
products 99Mo and 140Ba-140La are known with greater accuracy than most fission products;
however, their half-life is generally too short for these isotopes to be useful as neutron fluence
monitors in power reactor applications. Useful fission products include 95Zr-95Nb, 103Ru, 144Ce,
and especially 137Cs-137mBa, because of its 30-year half-life.

2.1.1.2 Material Composition. The dosimeter materials should be pure enough to

ensure there is no significant error in the response of the dosimeter from extraneous activities.
Cursory specifications of materials regarding impurities are often unreliable. Specifically, fissile
residuals in 237Np and 238U and minute amounts of cobalt in copper and nickel dosimeters
(fractional parts per million) should be determined by mass spectrography or radioactivation
analysis. Tracking the principal decay half-life is also a useful technique for determining the
presence of extraneous activities from impurity elements.

Dosimetric materials should be handled with care to prevent cross contamination of the
dosimeters and, when necessary, the dosimeters should be cleaned of surface contaminants. For
example, the handling of aluminum monitors can introduce sodium (24Na) as an external surface
contaminant. Neutron activation of the sodium will produce 24Na activity that will interfere with
the radioassay of the 24Na activity produced from the desired dosimetric reaction.

Post-irradiation quality assurance may be accomplished at the National Institute for

Standards and Technology (NIST) for dosimeters already in surveillance capsules by additional

23
irradiation in a thermal neutron field or a standard fission spectrum. These additional exposures
and analyses can provide data on the dosimeter masses and impurities (for example, the original
cobalt-59 impurity content in copper used for the copper-63 (n, α) reaction).

2.1.1.3 Encapsulation. The detector capsule design must take into account possible
activation interference and neutron spectrum perturbation. Thermal neutron shields that eliminate
interference from thermal neutron reactions in some detectors must be designed to accommodate
radiation heating and should be placed apart from low-energy detectors (see ASTM Standard E
844, Ref. 90). The thickness of the thermal shield should be selected based on the expected
thermal flux and duty cycle. (Note that the effective cadmium cutoff energy is a function of shield
thickness.) The design of the shields and their placement relative to other dosimeters should be
carefully considered in order to minimize their impact on neighboring foils. For example, the use
of a cadmium shield will generate a local gamma field that could affect adjacent fission foils by
producing a photofission component in the measured activity.

2.1.1.4. Isotopic Mass. The mass of the dosimeters should be selected to permit the
production of sufficient activity to allow an accurate radioassay. However, a dosimeter mass that
is too large can lead to high activities that result in excessive dead-time losses during nuclear
counting and should be avoided. Metal alloys can be used for diluting materials that have high
nuclear cross-sections (e.g., dilution of cobalt in an aluminum alloy). However, stoichiometry and
isotopic analysis should be well documented for dosimeters that are not of pure natural elements.

2.1.1.5. Geometry and Location. The geometric configuration of the dosimeters can
have a significant effect on the dosimeter response. Most radiometric monitors are in the shape of
thin circular activation foils, although other shapes are available. Dosimeters should be small
enough to allow placement at the desired location and large enough to provide sufficient activity
to allow an accurate measurement. The dosimeter thickness can have a significant effect on the
dosimeter self-shielding (of the neutron flux) and the dosimeter response for strongly absorbing
foils. In addition, increased dosimeter thickness increases the effects of scattering and photon
attenuation within the dosimeter and can lead to large response corrections. When selecting
fissionable dosimeters, it should be recognized that reduced foil thickness increases fission
product loss from nuclear recoil out of the foil, which reduces the measured dosimeter activity.

The placement of the dosimeters can also have a significant effect on the dosimeter
measurement. The surroundings of a dosimeter (e.g., adjacent dosimeters or material interface)
can influence detector response. Strongly and weakly absorbing foils that respond over the same
energy range should be sufficiently separated within the dosimetry package to minimize
interference effects. The arrangement of the dosimeters within the package should minimize
scattering effects (viz., thick dosimeters should not be stacked so that large scattering corrections
are required for adjacent foils).

The location of individual dosimeters must be determined accurately and recorded,

because fluence gradients in out-of-core positions are generally severe. In the pressure vessel
cavity, establishing azimuthal position can be as important as the radial location. Specially
designed mounting arrangements that ensure accurate radial, azimuthal, and vertical positions

24
should be used for cavity dosimetry. Vertical wires may be used. Comprehensive and accurate
detector location information should be maintained.

2.1.1.6 Solid-State Track Recorders. Solid state track recorders (SSTRs) are integral
detectors that employ fission reactions. These sensors directly record the tracks of fission
fragments from a thin fissionable deposit (Refs. 93 and 94). The principal advantages of these
detectors are wide sensitivity ranges and a permanent measurement record. Because the
application of SSTRs employs fissionable deposits in the nanogram to picogram range, details of
the measurements should be well documented, and standard neutron field calibration should be
performed prior to the application. ASTM Standard E 854 (Ref. 95) provides additional
information concerning the use of SSTRs.

2.1.1.7 Helium Accumulation Fluence Monitors. The helium accumulation fluence

monitor (HAFM) is another type of stable-product neutron monitor. These monitors rely on the
generation of helium gas via (n,α) reactions that occur in a variety of materials when exposed to a
neutron field. The amount of helium generated in a specific material is a function of the neutron
fluence and is determined by vaporizing the sample and measuring the helium content by mass
spectrometry. HAFMs are routinely used in conjunction with radiometric monitors and, in fact,
several commonly used radiometric monitors also undergo (n,α) reactions and can be analyzed for
helium accumulation as well as for radiometric activity. ASTM Standard E910 (Ref. 96) provides
additional guidance on the use of HAFMs.

2.1.2 Detector Response Measurements

A measured response must be provided to allow comparison of the calculations and
measurements. Typical measured responses include the specific activity at end-of-irradiation
(given in disintegrations per second per nucleus), the measured isotopic production (for example,
helium atoms per initial atom of material), and the total reactions (for example, fissions per initial
atom of material). When comparing calculations with measurements, corrections should be
included for detector response perturbations, interfering reactions, and, when applicable, burnup
and photofission. In the calculation of end of irradiation activities (or in the conversion of end of
irradiation activities into reaction rates), the power-history and the half-life of the dosimeter
activation products must be included (Ref. 91). Photofission corrections can vary considerably
(from 2-15%) depending upon the location of the dosimetry and the type of reactor. Fission yields
should be those specified in the relevant ASTM Standards, the ENDF library, or the validated job
library. In situ neutron field perturbations (e.g., by the surveillance capsule and detector
encapsulation) must be accounted for if they are not an integral part of the neutron transport
calculation.

When reporting measurements, these corrections should be described and quantified along
with any other effects that have a significant impact on the measurements. This is especially
important because pressure vessel surveillance dosimetry often involves comparison of
measurements carried out by different organizations and over long periods of time.

2.1.3 Measurement Uncertainties

Regulatory Position 1.4 states that the calculations must be validated by comparison with
measured benchmarks. In order to perform this validation, the uncertainty associated with the

25
measured response must be determined for each dosimeter type. The uncertainty must be
included in the documentation of the measured results.

The important uncertainties must be quantified and included in an uncertainty table that
summarizes the specific components of uncertainty contributing to each detector response.
Typical sources of uncertainty include (1) background counting, counting efficiency, counting
statistics, and fraction of the sample counted, (2) decay constant and fission yield uncertainty, (3)
uncertainty in detector weight, geometry, composition and isotopic purity, (4) power history and
time of irradiation, (5) dosimeter location uncertainty, and (6) cross-section uncertainty when the
fluence is determined. Additional sources are identified in Regulatory Positions 2.1.1 and 2.1.2
and in the dosimeter-specific ASTM Standards of Table 2. The entries in the table should be
identified as standard deviations, upper bounds, or appropriate fractions of the correction. Each
entry should be described, along with the method used to combine the entries and determine the
total response uncertainty. The evaluation of the measurement uncertainty for each dosimeter is
important for ensuring a meaningful comparison with the calculations.

2.2 Validation in Standard and Reference Neutron Fields

The dosimeter measurements used to benchmark the calculations must meet the
requirements in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 for a quality assurance program (for surveillance
measurements). To ensure long-term measurement consistency and confirm measurement
uncertainties, dosimetry measurements must be performed every few years12 in well characterized
neutron fields. If there are changes in dosimeter evaluation procedures, equipment, or personnel
that could have a significant effect on the dosimetry, the validation must be updated. This
validation may be performed using the Materials Dosimetry Reference Facility (MDRF) or using
reference fission neutron sources (Refs. 97, 98). Neutron field referencing may be used as a
detector response calibration (Ref. 99).

The validation is accomplished by exposing each type of detector to a certified neutron

fluence in the reference neutron field and by determining the fluence using the measurement
method to be validated. A calculated spectrum-averaged cross-section, generally specified along
with the certified neutron fluence, must be used to derive the measurement value. If measured
and certified neutron fluence agree (to within the combined uncertainty of the measured and
certified fluence), the detector measurement method, including the detector cross-section, is
validated. If the fluences disagree, this calculation-to-experiment (C/E) ratio represents a bias
associated with the detector response measurement or the detector cross-section or both. In this
case, the detector measurement methods and input parameters should be re-examined in order to
eliminate the bias. If after re-examination the bias is still present, the bias may be used directly as
a detector response calibration factor.

The results of the neutron field validation procedure should be reported in terms of C/E
ratios for the individual detectors and should include an uncertainty table. The standard neutron
field validation may be used, as appropriate, to simplify the uncertainty table called for in

12
This measurement validation procedure does not require transport calculations.

26
Regulatory Position 2.1.3 by reducing or eliminating many uncertainties in the activity
measurement, nuclear decay parameters, and detector cross-sections.

Aside from validating the measurement method, standard and reference neutron fields may
be used for quality assurance of critical features of the detector response. Examples are activation
interference by impurities, proper determination of fission product activities, and mass assay of
fissionable deposits for track recorders.

Interlaboratory comparisons, such as those carried out under the NRC-sponsored LWR
Surveillance Dosimetry Improvement Program (Refs. 7, 49, 72, 80, 81), have been useful in
validating the quality assurance programs of various laboratories. These interlaboratory
comparisons have been used to identify problems in the measurement procedures and establish
consistency between the various participating laboratories.

2.3 Fluence Determination from Detector Measurements

As stated in Regulatory Position 1.4, the calculated fast-neutron fluence values must be
validated by comparison with measurement benchmarks. These comparisons validate the
calculational methodology by determining the bias and uncertainty in the calculated fluences, E >
1 MeV. A fast-neutron fluence, E > 1 MeV, must be obtained for each detector as the quotient of
the measured reaction probability and the effective E > 1-MeV spectrum averaged cross-section
(Ref. 100) based on a neutron transport calculation. These fluences and a suitably weighted
average fluence must be reported together with the associated measurement uncertainty
determined using the methods of Regulatory Positions 2.1.3 and 2.2 and accounting for the cross-
section uncertainty. An alternative to deriving a neutron fluence from the detector responses is to
directly compare specific end-of-irradiation activities, measured reaction probabilities, isotopic
production, total reactions, average reaction, or measured reaction rates with results from the
neutron transport calculation. The response selected should provide a reliable indication of the
uncertainty and bias in the E > 1 MeV fluence calculation.

The measurement biases and uncertainties must be documented for the selected detector
response. Based on the measurement-to-calculation (M/C) comparisons, an average M/C ratio
should be determined as a suitably weighted average of the individual M/C values. In determining
the weighting for this average, as a minimum the measurement and spectral average cross-section
uncertainties should be considered. An estimate of the uncertainty in the neutron spectrum may
be included as an additional contributor to the dosimeter weighting.

When justification can be provided, an individual detector may be declared suspect and
given reduced weight or discarded. However, in this case the justification and procedure used
must be documented.

2.4 Ex-vessel Dosimetry

As-built in-vessel surveillance capsule dosimetry cannot easily be updated. Furthermore,

the dosimetry irradiated with metallurgical specimens is only available at infrequent intervals.
However, additional and upgraded dosimetry is important for understanding and following vessel

27
exposures, especially for low-leakage core modifications. The ex-vessel cavity may be used as an
alternative site for installing additional improved dosimetry. Recent pressure vessel benchmark
experiments (Refs. 7, 67, 94) have demonstrated that the ex-vessel dosimetry can provide useful
exposure information within the pressure vessel wall (Refs. 72, 81). When placed at appropriate
circumferential locations, this dosimetry is a good monitor of the effectiveness of low-leakage
core strategies.

3. REPORTING

When fluence determinations are required by the regulations, the licensee's documentation
describing the determination of pressure vessel fluence must provide a complete description of the
methods used to calculate and measure the neutron fluences. In applying the methodology of this
guide, the details of the application and the results should be reported as described in this section.
A topical report providing the details of the fluence methodology, as outlined in Regulatory
Positions 1 and 2, should be satisfactory for compliance with this guide. Plant-specific
measurements and data should be reported in the pressure vessel surveillance reports.

The specific regulatory positions on reporting are given in this section and are summarized
in Table 1, “Summary of Regulatory Positions on Calculation and Dosimetry.”

3.1 Fluence Methods

The methods used to calculate the integral and multigroup fluences and fluence rates and
associated methods qualification should be reported. The calculational uncertainty analysis,
benchmark comparisons, and the determination of the overall fluence uncertainty should be
described in detail. If the calculated fluence is adjusted, the fluence adjustment and associated
uncertainty together with justification must be reported. A discussion of any deviations from the
procedures provided in this regulatory guide should be included. The source of the cross-section
data, the numerical methods (e.g., quadrature, mesh, and convergence criteria), and the treatment
of special effects (e.g., fuel burnup, axial effects, and pin-power distributions) should be described
in detail.

3.2 Multigroup Fluences

The calculated absolute multigroup neutron fluences and fluence rates at the peak wall (or
other limiting) location, surveillance locations, and T/4 and 3T/4 positions within the pressure
vessel should be reported. The multigroup energy boundaries should be included.

3.3 Integral Fluences

The calculated E > 1 MeV integral fluences and fluence rates at the vessel inner wall
locations (determined as described in Regulatory Position 1.4.3), together with the uncertainties,
should be reported.

28
3.4 Comparisons of Calculation and Measurement

If the qualification of the calculation methods is performed using fluence comparisons, the
measured and calculated E > 1 MeV integral neutron fluences should be reported. If the methods
qualification is performed using reaction rate comparisons (or other responses as described in
Regulatory Position 2.3), the calculated and measured reaction rates (or reaction probabilities)
should be reported. The spectrum-averaged reaction cross-section used to relate the fluence and
reaction rate and the method for its determination should also be provided. In either case, the
M/C ratios and the measurement uncertainty should be reported for the average fluence and for
each detector at each measurement location. If these measurements are used to adjust the
calculation, the adjustment should be described and the M/C ratios before and after adjustment
should be reported.

3.5 Specific Activities and Average Reaction Rates

The specific activities at the end of irradiation and the measured average reaction rates
should be reported, together with the associated uncertainty tables and the power-time history.
For each dosimeter, provide the reaction type, dosimeter material and form (wire, foil, etc.),
weight-percent and isotopic-percent of the target material, fission yields, and half-lives. The
corrections for the detector response perturbations, interfering reactions, and photofission should
also be described. The results of the measurement validation should also be described. If
thermal-neutron fluence rate measurements have been performed, these should be reported
together with the uncertainty and the dosimeter thermal-neutron shield material.

D. IMPLEMENTATION

The purpose of this section is to provide information to applicants and licensees regarding
the NRC staff’s plans for using this regulatory guide.

Except in those cases in which an applicant or licensee proposes an acceptable alternative

method for complying with the specified portions of the NRC’s regulations, the methods
described in this guide will be used in the evaluation of applications for new licenses and for
evaluating compliance with 10 CFR 50.61 and Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50, which is imposed
by 10 CFR 50.60.

29
 TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF REGULATORY POSITIONS ON
CALCULATION AND DOSIMETRY

FLUENCE CALCULATION METHODS Regulatory

Position

Fluence Determination. Absolute fluence calculations, rather than extrapolated 1.3

fluence measurements, must be used for the fluence determination.

Modeling Data. The calculation modeling (geometry, materials, etc.) should be 1.1.1
based on documented and verified plant-specific data.

Nuclear Data. The latest version of the Evaluated Nuclear Data File (ENDF/B) 1.1.2
should be used for determining nuclear cross-sections. Cross-section sets based on
earlier or equivalent nuclear-data sets that have been thoroughly benchmarked are
also acceptable. When the recommended cross-section data change, the effect of
these changes on the licensee-specific methodology must be evaluated and the
fluence estimates updated when the effects are significant.

Cross-Section Angular Representation. In discrete ordinates transport 1.1.2

calculations, a P3 angular decomposition of the scattering cross-sections (at a
minimum) must be employed.

Cross-Section Group Collapsing. The adequacy of the collapsed job library must 1.1.2
be demonstrated by comparing calculations for a representative configuration
performed with both the master library and the job library.

Neutron Source. The core neutron source should account for local fuel isotopics 1.2
and, where appropriate, the effects of moderator density. The neutron source
normalization and energy dependence must account for the fuel exposure
dependence of the fission spectra, the number of neutrons produced per fission, and
the energy released per fission.

End-of-Life Predictions. Predictions of the vessel end-of-life fluence should be 1.2

made with a best-estimate or conservative generic power distribution. If a best
estimate is used, the power distribution must be updated if changes in core loadings,
surveillance measurements, or other information indicate a significant change in
projected fluence values.

Spatial Representation. Discrete ordinates neutron transport calculations should 1.3.1

incorporate a detailed radial- and azimuthal-spatial mesh of ~2 intervals per inch
radially. The discrete ordinates calculations must employ (at a minimum) an S8
quadrature and (at least) 40 intervals per octant.

30
 Regulatory
Position

Multiple Transport Calculations. If the calculation is performed using two or 1.3.1

more "bootstrap" calculations, the adequacy of the overlap regions must be
demonstrated.

Point Estimates. If the dimensions of the tally region or the definition of the 1.3.2
average-flux region introduce a bias in the tally edit, the Monte Carlo prediction
should be adjusted to eliminate the calculational bias. The average-flux region
surrounding the point location should not include material boundaries or be located
near reflecting, periodic, or white boundaries.

Statistical Tests. The Monte Carlo estimated mean and relative error should be 1.3.2
tested and satisfy all statistical criteria.

Variance Reduction. All variance reduction methods should be qualified by 1.3.2

comparison with calculations performed without variance reduction.

Capsule Modeling. The capsule fluence is extremely sensitive to the geometrical 1.3.3
representation of the capsule geometry and internal water region, and the adequacy
of the capsule representation and mesh must be demonstrated.

Spectral Effects on RTNDT. In order to account for the neutron spectrum 1.3.3
dependence of RTNDT, when it is extrapolated from the inside surface of the pressure
vessel to the T/4 and 3T/4 vessel locations using the E > 1-MeV fluence, a spectral
lead factor must be applied to the fluence for the calculation of ∆RTNDT.

Cavity Calculations. In discrete ordinates transport calculations, the adequacy of 1.3.5

the S8 angular quadrature used in cavity transport calculations must be
demonstrated.

Methods Qualification. The calculational methodology must be qualified by both 1.4.1,

(1) comparisons to measurement and calculational benchmarks and (2) an analytic 1.4.2,
uncertainty analysis. The methods used to calculate the benchmarks must be 1.4.3
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.

Fluence Calculational Uncertainty. The vessel fluence (1 sigma) calculational 1,

uncertainty must be demonstrated to be #20% for RTPTS and RTNDT determination. 1.4.3
In these applications, if the benchmark comparisons indicate differences greater
than 20%, the calculational model must be adjusted or a correction must be applied
to reduce the difference between the fluence prediction and the upper 1-sigma limit
to within 20%. For other applications, the accuracy should be determined using the
approach described in Regulatory Position 1.4, and an uncertainty allowance should
be included in the fluence estimate as appropriate in the specific application.

31
 Regulatory
Position

FLUENCE MEASUREMENT METHODS

Spectrum Coverage. The set of dosimeters should provide adequate spectrum 2.1.1
coverage.

Dosimeter Nuclear and Material Properties. Use of dosimeter materials should 2.1.1
address melting, oxidation, material purity, total and isotopic mass assay,
perturbations by encapsulations and thermal shields, and accurate dosimeter
positioning. Dosimeter half-life and photon yield and interference should also be
evaluated.

Corrections. Dosimeter-response measurements should account for fluence rate 2.1.2

variations, isotopic burnup effects, detector perturbations, self shielding, reaction
interferences, and photofission.

Response Uncertainty. An uncertainty analysis must be performed for the 2.1.3

response of each dosimeter.

Validation. Detector-response calibrations must be carried out periodically in a 2.2

standard neutron field.

Fast-Neutron Fluence. The E > 1 MeV fast-neutron fluence for each 2.3
measurement location must be determined using calculated spectrum-averaged
cross-sections and individual detector measurements. As an alternative, the
detector responses may be used to determine reaction probabilities or average
reaction rates.

Measurement-to-Calculation Ratios. The M/C ratios, the standard deviation and 2.3
bias between calculation and measurement, must be determined.

REPORTING PROVISIONS

Neutron Fluence and Uncertainties

Details of the absolute fluence calculations, associated methods qualification and 3.1
fluence adjustments (if any) should be reported. Justification and a description of
any deviations from the provisions of this guide should be provided.

Calculated multigroup neutron fluences and fluence rates should be reported. 3.2

The value and basis of any bias or model adjustment made to improve the 3.2
measurement-to-calculation agreement must be reported.

32
 Regulatory
Position

Calculated integral fluences and fluence rates for E > 1 MeV and their uncertainties 3.3
should be reported.

Measured and calculated integral E > 1 MeV fluences or reaction rates and 3.4
uncertainties for each measurement location should be reported. The M/C ratios
and the spectrum averaged cross-section should also be reported.

The results of the standard field validation of the measurement method should be 3.5
reported.

Specific Activities and Average Reaction Rates

The specific activities at the end of irradiation and measured average reaction rates 3.5
with uncertainties should be reported.

All corrections and adjustments to the measured quantities and their justification 3.5
should be reported.

33
 TABLE 2. THRESHOLD DETECTORS RECOMMENDED FOR
PRESSURE VESSEL DOSIMETRY

Nominal Applicable
Threshold (MeV) ASTM Standards
237
Np(n,f)FP* 0.69 E 705 (Ref. 83)
93
Nb(n,n’)93mNb 0.97 E 1297 (Ref. 84)
238
U(n,f)FP 1.45 E 704 (Ref. 85)
58
Ni(n,p)58Co 2.05 E 264 (Ref. 86)
54
Fe(n,p)54Mn 2.32 E 263 (Ref. 87)
46
Ti(n,p)46Sc 3.76 E 526 (Ref. 88)
63
Cu(n,α)60Co 4.65 E 523 (Ref. 89)

* FP indicates fission product.

34
35
 Cycle-Dependent
Assembly/Pin Multi-Group
Powers & Library
Exposures (Optional)

(1.1.1) (1.1.2.2)
(1.2)†
Isotopic Component Macroscopic Continuous
Fission MCNP* Material Cross- Energy
Spectra Source Compositions Sections Library

(1.1.1)
(1.3.2)
Core/Internals/
Vessel MCNP
Geometry Fluence

†
3-D Vessel Relevant Regulatory Positions are indicated.
Fluence
Estimate * The MCNP code is used as an example.

Figure 2. Monte Carlo Calculation Methodology

36
 (1.4)*
Fluence Calculation Calculation
Methods Methods Revision
(When Necessary)

Benchmark
Analytic Uncertainty
Uncertainty Analysis (1.4.2)
Analysis

(1.4.1)

(1.4.2.1) (1.4.2.2) (1.4.2.3)

Sensitivity Calculation of Calculation
Plant Plant Calculational Calculation
Analysis Operating Simulator of Simulator
Model Input Model Benchmark of Benchmark
(MΦ/MX) Reactor Model Input Benchmarks
Input Model Input Problem
Measurements

Estimated Capsule/ Comparison

Calculation Uncertainty Cavity Simulator Comparison Comparison
of Results Benchmark
Uncertainties Determination Measurement Measurement of Results of Results
Solution
& Biases (MΦ/MX)•∆X Data Data
(∆X)

Combine Agreement Resolution of

σCa , BCa Benchmark Acceptable Differences
Uncertainty/
Bias
Estimates

(1.4.3) σCb, BCb

Combine * Relevant Regulatory Positions are indicated.
Analytic &
Benchmark
Estimates Calculational Uncertainty Based on
σCa (σCb)  Analytic (Benchmark) Uncertainty
Analysis

BCa (BCb)  Calculation Bias Based on Analytic

(Benchmark) Uncertainty Analysis
σ C, B C
σC (BC)  Estimated Calculation Uncertainty (Bias)

Figure 3. Calculation Methodology Qualification Procedure

 *Relevant Regulatory Positions are indicated.
Φ = Φ [Equation (6)]

Figure 4. Uncertainty-Dependent Fluence Determination

38
 Fluence
Measurement
Methods

(2.1.3)* (2.2)

Dosimeter Dosimeter Periodic Validation Certified Fluence &

Measurement Uncertainty in Standard and/or Spectrum-Averaged
Uncertainties Analysis Reference Fields Cross-Section
& Biases

σMa , BMa σvM , BMv

Combine
Uncertainty &
Bias Estimates

Measurement Uncertainty
Based on Analytic (Validation)
M M
M
σ , (σ )
a
M
v - Uncertainty Analysis
σ ,B
Measurement Bias Based on
M
B , (B )
a
M
v - Analytic (Validation) Uncertainty
Analysis
* Relevant Regulatory Positions are indicated.
Estimated Measurement
σM, (BM ) - Uncertainty (Bias)

Figure 5. Measurement Qualification Procedure

 REFERENCES

1. J.F. Carew et al., "Application of Neutron Transport Green's Functions to the Calculation of
Pressure Vessel Fluence," Nuclear Science and Engineering, Vol. 91, p. 279, 1985.

2. “Standard Guide for Characterizing Neutron Exposures in Iron and Low Alloy Steels in
Terms of Displacements per Atom (DPA),” ASTM E693, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, 1994.1

3. Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, International Organization for

Standardization, ISBN 92-67-10188-9, Genéve, 1993. [ISO, Care Postal 56, CH-1211
Genéve 20, Switzerland].

4. J.F. Carew et al., "Pressure Vessel Fluence Calculation Benchmark Problems and
Solutions," Draft NUREG/CR-6115 (BNL NUREG-52395), USNRC, September 1999.2

5. R.E. Maerker et al., "Applications of the LEPRICON Unfolding Procedures to the Arkansas
Nuclear One-Unit 1 Reactor," Nuclear Science and Engineering, Vol. 93(2), pp. 137-170,
June 1986.

6. R.E. Maerker, "LEPRICON Analysis of Pressure Vessel Surveillance Dosimetry Inserted

into H.B. Robinson-2 During Cycle 9," Nuclear Science and Engineering, Vol. 96(4), pp.
263-289, August 1987.

7. R.E. Maerker, "Analysis of the NESDIP2 and NESDIP3 Radial Shield and Cavity
Experiments," NUREG/CR-4886 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-10389),
USNRC, May 1987.3

8. C.Y. Fu and D.M. Hetrick, "Update of ENDF/B-V Mod-3 Iron: Neutron-Producing

Reaction Cross-Sections and Energy Angle Correlations," ORNL/TM-9964, ENDF-341,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, July 1986.4

9. “Standard Guide for Application of ASTM Evaluated Cross Section Data File, Matrix E
706 (IIB),” ASTM E1018-95, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1995.1

1
Available from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-1187.
2
Copies are available for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room at 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD; the PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555; telephone (301)415-4737; fax (301)415-
3548.
3
Copies may be purchased at current rates from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082, Washington, DC
20013-7082 (telephone (202)512-2249 or (202)512-2171); or from the National Technical Information Service by writing NTIS
at 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Copies are available for inspection or copying for a fee from the
NRC Public Document Room at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD; the PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR,
Washington, DC 20555; telephone (301)415-4737; fax (301)415-3548.
4
Available from the Radiation Safety Information Computational Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Post Office Box 2008,
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6362.

40
 10. B. Petrovic, H.L. Hanshaw, and A. Haghighat, “Evaluation of Anisotropy Effects in
Pressure Vessel Fluence Calculations Using the BUGLE-93 Library,” Transactions of the
ANS, Vol. 71, 1994.5

11. R.W. Roussin et al., "VITAMIN-C: The CTR Processed Multigroup Cross-Section Library
for Neutronics Studies,” ORNL/RSIC-37 (ENDF-296), Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
July 1980.4

12. R.W. Roussin et al., "VITAMIN-E: 174 Neutron, 38 Gamma-Ray Multigroup Cross-
Section Library for Deriving Application-Dependent Working Libraries for Radiation
Transport Calculations," DLC-113, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, November 1987.4

13. W.E. Ford, III, et al., "Modification Number One to the 100n - 21g Cross Section Library,"
ORNL/TM-5249 (Available as DLC-37D/EPR from RSIC), Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, March 1976.4

14. "SAILOR: Coupled, Self-Shielded, 47-Neutron, 20-Gamma Ray, P3, Cross Section Library
for Light Water Reactors," DLC-76-SAILOR, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, July 1987.4
(Available at <http://epicws.epm.ornl.gov/rsic.html> .)

15. M.L. Williams et al., "The ELXSIR Cross-Section Library for LWR Pressure Vessel
Irradiation Studies: Part of the LEPRICON Computer Code System," NP-3654, Electric
Power Research Institute, September 1984.6

16. D.T. Ingersoll et al., “Production and Testing of the VITAMIN-B6 Fine-Group and the
BUGLE-93 Broad-Group Neutron/Photon Cross-Section Libraries Derived from ENDF/B-
VI Nuclear Data,” ORNL-6795, NUREG/CR-6214, January 1995; and J.E. White et al.,
“BUGLE-96: A Revised Multigroup Cross-Section Library for LWR Applications Based on
ENDF/B-VI Release 3,” presented at the American Nuclear Society Radiation & Shielding
Topical Meeting, April 21-25, 1996, Falmouth, MA, April 1996.3

17. R.E. Maerker, M.L. Williams, and B.L. Broadhead, "Accounting for Changing Source
Distributions in Light Water Reactor Surveillance Dosimetry Analysis," Nuclear Science
and Engineering, Vol. 94, pp. 291-308, 1986.

18. R.E. Maerker, M.L. Williams, and B.L. Broadhead, "TIMEPATCH: A Module in the
LEPRICON Computer Code System for Evaluating Effects of Time-Dependent Source
Distributions in PWR Surveillance Dosimetry," EPRI Interim Report, December 1985.
(Available from the Radiation Safety Information Computational Center, ORNL, as part of
PSR-277/LEPRICON, or at <http://epicws.epm.ornl.gov/rsic.html> .)3

5
Available from the American Nuclear Society, 555 N. Kensington Avenue, La Grange Park, Illinois 60525.
6
Available from EPRI Research Reports Center, P.O. Box 50490, Palo Alto, CA 94303.

41
19. M. Todosow and J.F. Carew, "Evaluation of Selected Approximations Used in Pressure
Vessel Fluence Calculations," Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 46, p.
658, June 1984.5

20. W.J. Eich, "Advanced Recycle Methodology Program," Part II, Chapter 5, Research Project
118-1, Electric Power Research Institute, 1976.7

21 A. Ahlin et al., "CASMO - A Fuel Assembly Burnup Program," AE-RF-76-4158 (Rev.

Ed.), Studsvik Energiteknik AB, 1978. (Available from Studsvik of America Inc., 1087
Beacon St., Newton, MA 02159).

22. A.L. Aronson et al., "Evaluation of Methods for Reducing Pressure Vessel Fluence," BNL-
NUREG-32876, Brookhaven National Laboratory, March 1983.2

23. G.P. Cavanaugh et al., "Reduction in Reactor Vessel Irradiation Through Fuel
Management," Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 45, p. 98, October
1983.5

24. M. Todosow et al., "Pressure Vessel Fluence Reduction Through Selective Fuel Assembly
Replacement," Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 45, p. 595, October
1983.5

25. D. Cokinos et al., "Pressure Vessel Damage Fluence Reduction by Low-Leakage Fuel
Management," Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 45, p. 594, October
1983.5

26. M.L. Williams, "DOTSOR: A Module in the LEPRICON Computer Code System for
Representing the Neutron Source Distribution in LWR Cores," EPRI Interim Report,
December 1985. (Available from the Radiation Safety Information Computational Center,
ORNL, as part of PSR-277/LEPRICON, or at <http://epicws.epm.ornl.gov/rsic.html> .)3

27. A. Haghighat, M. Mahgerefteh, and B. Petrovic, “Evaluation of the Uncertainties in the

Source Distribution for Pressure Vessel Neutron Fluence Calculations,” Nuclear
Technology, Vol. 109, 54-75, January 1995.

28. "DOT 3.5 - A Two-Dimensional Discrete Ordinate Transport Code," CCC-276, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, 1978.4 In “RSICC Computer Code Collection,” CCC-650, Doors3.2,
ORNL, July 1998. (Available at <http://epicws.epm.ornl.gov/rsic.html> .)

29. W.A. Rhoades and R.L. Childs, "An Updated Version of the DOT 4 One-and-Two-
Dimensional Neutron/Photon Transport Code," ORNL-5851, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, July 1982.4 In “RSICC Computer Code Collection,” CCC-650, Doors3.2,
ORNL, July 1998. (Available at <http://epicws.epm.ornl.gov/rsic.html> .)

7
Copies are available from the National Technical Information Service by writing NTIS at 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
VA 22161; telephone (703)487-4650; <http://www.ntis.gov/ordernow>.

42
30. F.B. Kam et al., "Pressure Vessel Fluence Analysis and Neutron Dosimetry,"
NUREG/CR-5049 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-10651), December 1987.3

31. "Standard Guide for Application of Neutron Transport Methods for Reactor Vessel
Surveillance, E 706 (IID)," ASTM E482-89, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1989.1

32. B.G. Petrovic and A. Haghighat, “Effects of SN Method Numerics on Pressure Vessel
Neutron Fluence Calculations,” Nuclear Science and Engineering, 122, 167-193, February
1996.

33. B.G. Petrovic and Haghighat, “Analysis of Inherent Oscillations in Multidimensional SN

Solutions of the Neutron Transport Equation,” Nuclear Science and Engineering, 124, 31-
37, September 1996.

34. B.G. Petrovic and A.Haghighat, “New Directional Theta-Weighted (DTW) Differencing
Scheme and Reduction of Estimated Pressure Vessel Fluence Uncertainty,” Proceedings of
the Ninth International Symposium on Reactor Dosimetry, H. Ait Abderrahim, P. D’hondt
and B. Osmera, Eds., World Scientific Publ. Co., 1998.

35. P. G. Laky and N. Tsoulfanidis, “Neutron Fluence at the Pressure Vessel of a Pressurized
Water Reactor Determined by the MCNP Code,” Nuclear Science & Engineering, 121, 433,
1995.

36. J. C. Wagner, A. Haghighat, and B. G. Petrovic, “Monte Carlo Transport Calculations and
Analysis for Reactor Pressure Vessel Neutron Fluence,” Nuclear Technology, 114, No. 3,
373, 1996.

37. J. C. Wagner, A. Haghighat, and B. G. Petrovic, “Investigation of Pressure Vessel Fluence

Calculation with Monte Carlo,” Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, 68, Part A,
446, June 1993.

38. W. T. Urban et al., “PCA Benchmark Solutions Using MCNP and THREEDANT,” LA-
UR-93-31-21, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1993. In ASTM STP 1228, pp. 376-383,
1994.

39. A. Avery et al., “Calculations of Pressure Vessel Fluence in PWRs Using ENDF/B-VI
Data,” Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Radiation Shielding, Arlington,
Texas, April 24-28, 1994, Vol. 2, p. 677, American Nuclear Society, 1994.5

40. S. Power, “An Analysis of the HB Robinson Unit 2 PWR Using the Monte Carlo Code
MCBEND,” Proc. of the 7th ASTM-Euratom Symposium on Reactor Dosimetry, Strasbourg
ASTM, 1990.1

43
41. J.C. Wagner and A. Haghighat, “Automated Variance Reduction of Monte Carlo Using
Discrete Ordinates Adjoint Functions,” Nuclear Science & Engineering, Vol. 128, 186-208,
1998.

42. A. Haghighat et al., “Performance of the Automated Adjoint Accelerated

MCNP(A3MCNPTM1) for Simulation of a BWR Core Shroud Problem,” Proceedings of the
M&C ‘99 Meeting, Madrid, Spain, Vol. 2, 1381-1392, Senda Editorial, S.A., Madrid, Spain,
September 27, 1999.

43. J. F. Breismeister (Ed.), “MCNP – A General Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code,
Version 4C,” LA-12625, Los Alamos National Laboratory, March 1997.3

44. G. A. Wright et al., “MCBEND - A Fluence Tool from AEA Technology,” Reactor
Dosimetry, ASTM STP 1398, J. G. Williams et al., Eds., ASTM, West Conshohoken, PA.
2000.1

45. T. E. Booth, “A Sample Problem in Variance Reduction in MCNP,” LA-10363-MS, Los

Alamos National Laboratory, 1985.

46. L. L. Carter and E.D. Cashwell, “Particle Transport Simulation with the Monte Carlo
Method,” ERDA Critical Review Series, TID-26607, 1975.7

47. J.F. Carew, D.K. Min, and A.L. Aronson, "Spectral Effects in the Extrapolation of Pressure
Vessel Surveillance Capsule Measurements," Nuclear Technology, Vol. 55, No. 3, p. 565,
December 1981.

48. M.L. Williams, P. Chowdhury, and B.L. Broadhead, DOTSYN: A Module for Synthesizing
Three-Dimensional Fluxes in the LEPRICON Computer Code System, EPRI Interim Report,
December 1985. (Available from the Radiation Safety Information Computational Center,
ORNL, as part of PSR-277/LEPRICON, or at <http://epicws.epm.ornl.gov/rsic.html> .)3

49. R.E. Maerker, "Analysis of the VENUS-3 Experiments," NUREG/CR-5338 (Prepared for the
NRC by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-11106), USNRC, August 1989.2

50. L. Lois and T. Collins, "Reactor Cavity Dosimetry - A Regulatory Perspective," Transactions
of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 63, p. 431, June 1991.4

51. N. Tsoulfanidis, "Neutron Energy Spectra in the Core and Cavity of the ANO-2 PWR," NP-
4238, Electric Power Research Institute, September 1985.5

52. B.N. Taylor and C.E. Kuyatt, "Guidelines For Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of
NIST Measurement Results," NIST Technical Note-1297, National Institute For Standards and
Technology, January 1993.1

53. J.F. Carew et al., "Pressure Vessel Fluence Benchmark Calculations," BNL-NUREG-34715,
Brookhaven National Laboratory, February 1984.3

44
54. D.M. Cokinos et al., "Benchmarking of Pressure Vessel Fluence Calculations," Transactions
of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 46, p. 636, June 1984.4

55. B.L. Broadhead et al., "LEPRICON Adjustment Module: A Generalized Linear Least Squares
Data Analysis Program with Application to PWR Surveillance Dosimetry," EPRI Interim
Report, March 1985. (Available from the Radiation Safety Information Computational Center,
ORNL, as part of PSR-277/LEPRICON, or at <http://epicws.epm.ornl.gov/rsic.html> .)3
.
56. R.E. Maerker, B.L. Broadhead, and J.J. Wagschal, "Theory of a New Unfolding Procedure in
Pressurized Water Reactor Pressure Vessel Dosimetry and Development of an Associated
Benchmark Data Base," Nuclear Science and Engineering, Vol. 91(4), pp. 369-392, December
1985.

57. W.N. McElroy et al., "A Computer-Automated Iterative Method for Neutron Flux Spectral
Determination by Foil Activation," AFL-TR-67-41, Vol. I (available as RSIC Program No.
CCC-112/SAND II), 1967.3

58. C.A. Oster et al., "A Modified Monte Carlo Program for SAND-II with Solution Weighing and
Error Analysis," Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, HEDL-TME 76-60, 1976.2

59. C.R. Green, J.A. Halbleib, and J.V. Walker, "A Technique for Unfolding Neutron Spectra
from Activation Measurements," Sandia Corporation, SC-RR-67-746, 1967. (Available as
RSIC Program No. CCC-108/SPECTRA.)4

60. F.G. Perey, "Least-Squares Dosimetry Unfolding: The Program STAY'SL," ORNL/TM-6062,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1977. (Available as RSIC Program No. PSR-113.)4

61. F. Schmittroth, "FERRET Data Analysis Code," HEDL-TME 79-40, Hanford Engineering
Development Laboratory, 1979. (Available as RSIC Program No. PSR-145.)4

62. F.W. Stallmann, "LSL-M2: A Computer Program for Least-Squares Logarithmic Adjustment
of Neutron Spectra," NUREG/CR-4349 (Prepared for NRC by Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
ORNL/TM-9933), March 1986. (Available as RSIC Program No. PSR-233.)3,4

63. "Standard Guide for Application of Neutron Spectrum Adjustment Methods in Reactor
Surveillance (IIA),” ASTM E944-96, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1996.1

64. "Standard Guide for Benchmark Testing of Reactor Dosimetry in Standard and Reference
Neutron Fields,” ASTM E2005-99, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1999.1

65. I. Remec and F.B. Kam, "H. B. Robinson-2 Pressure Vessel Benchmark," NUREG/CR-6453
(Prepared for NRC by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-13204), February 1998.2

45
 66. M.L. Williams and M. Asgari, “Impact of ENDF/B-VI Cross-Section Data on H.B. Robinson
Cycle 9 Dosimetry Calculations,” NUREG/CR-6071, October 1993.3

67. E.P. Lippincott et al., "Evaluation of Surveillance Capsule and Reactor Cavity Dosimetry from
H.B. Robinson Unit-2, Cycle 9," NUREG/CR-4576 (WCAP-11104), USNRC, February 1987.2

68. M. Austin, “Sense of Direction: An Observation of Trends in Materials Dosimetry in the United
Kingdom,” Proceedings of the Fourth ASTM Euratom Symposium on Reactor Dosimetry,
Gaithersburg, MD, March 22-26, 1982, NUREG/CP-0029, USNRC, Vol 1, August 1982.1

69. J. Butler et al., “The PCA Replica Experiment Part I: Winfrith Measurements and Calibrations,”
AEEW-R 1736, Part I, UKAEA, Winfrith, United Kingdom, January 1984.7

70. M. D. Carter and I. J. Curl, “NESTOR Shielding and Dosimetry Improvement Programme,”
AEEW-M 2329, 1986.

71. J. Butler et al., “Review of the NESTOR Shielding and Dosimetry Improvement Programme
(NESDIP),” Reactor Dosimetry: Methods, Applications and Standardization, Sixth ASTM
Euratom Symposium on Reactor Dosimetry, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, May 31- June 6, 1987,
STP 1001, ASTM, May 1989.1

72. W.N. McElroy, "LWR Pressure Vessel Surveillance Dosimetry Improvement Program: PCA
Experiments and Blind Test," NUREG/CR-1861 (Prepared for NRC by Hanford Engineering
Development Laboratory, HEDL-TME 80-87), July 1981.2

73. I. Remec and F.B. Kam, "Pool Critical Assembly Pressure Vessel Facility Benchmark,"
NUREG/CR-6454 (Prepared for NRC by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-13205),
July 1997.2

74. F.W. Stallman et al., “Reactor Calculation `Benchmark’ PCA Blind Test Results,”
ORNL/NUREG/TM-428, March 1981.2

75. D. K. Min, A. L. Aronson, and J. F. Carew, “Analysis of the ORNL Pool Critical Assembly
Pressure Vessel Dosimetry Benchmark Experiment,” BNL-NUREG-29047, Brookhaven
National Laboratory, February 1981.3

76. P. D'hondt et al., "Contributions of the Venus-Engineering Mock-Up Experiments to the LWR-
PV Surveillance," Proceedings of the 7th ASTM-Euratom Symposium on Reactor Dosimetry,
Strasbourg, France, ASTM, August 1990.1

77. L. Leenders, “LWR-PVS Benchmark Experiment VENUS-3 with Partial Length Shield
Assemblies, SCK-CN, MOL, Belgium, FCP/VEN/01, September 1998. (See also “Protection of
Neutron Embrittlement in the Reactor Pressure Vessel: Venus-1 and Venus-3 Benchmarks,”
Nuclear Energy Agency, 2000. (Available at WWW.NEA.FR))

46
78. G. Hehn and B.C. Na, “New NEA Benchmarks Reveal Decisive Improvements in Calculating
Fast Neutron Fluence for Predictions of Embrittlement in Reactor Pressure Vessels,” Reactor
Dosimetry, ASTM STP 1398 (J.G. Williams et al., Eds.), ASTM, West Conshohoken, PA.
2000.1

79. A. Haghighat, H. Ait Abderrahim, and G.E. Sjoden, “Accuracy and Performance of
PENTRANTM Using the VENUS-3 Benchmark Experiment,” Reactor Dosimetry, ASTM STP
1398 (J.G. Williams et al., Eds.), ASTM, West Conshohoken, PA. 2000.1

80. R.E. Maerker and B.A. Worley, "Activity and Fluence Calculations for the Startup and Two-
Year Irradiation Experiments Performed at the Poolside Facility," NUREG/CR-3886 (Prepared
for NRC by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-4265), October 1984.2

81. W.N. McElroy, "LWR Pressure Vessel Surveillance Dosimetry Improvement Program. PSF
Experiments Summary and Blind Test Results," NUREG/CR-3320, Vols. 1-4 USNRC,
(Prepared for the NRC by Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory), July 1986 through
July 1992.2

82. G. L. Guthrie, E. P. Lippincott, E. D. McGarry, ”Light Water Reactor Pressure Vessel

Surveillance Dosimetry Improvement Program: PSF Blind Test Workshop Minutes,”
Westinghouse Hanford Company, April 1994.1

83. "Standard Test Method for Measuring Reaction Rates by Radioactivation of Neptunium-237,"
ASTM E 705-90, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1991.1

84. "Standard Test Method for Measuring Fast-Neutron Reaction Rates by Radioactivation of
Niobium," ASTM E1297-89, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1989.1

85. "Standard Test Method for Measuring Reaction Rates by Radioactivation of Uranium-238,"
ASTM E 704-90, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1991.1

86. "Standard Test Method for Measuring Fast-Neutron Reaction Rates by Radioactivation of
Nickel," ASTM E 264-87, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1987.1

87. "Standard Test Method for Measuring Fast-Neutron Reaction Rates by Radioactivation of Iron,"
ASTM E 263-88, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1988.1

88. "Standard Test Method for Measuring Fast-Neutron Reaction Rates by Radioactivation of
Titanium," ASTM E 526-87, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1987.1

89. "Standard Test Method for Measuring Fast-Neutron Reaction Rates by Radioactivation of
Copper," ASTM E 523-87, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1987.1

90. "Standard Guide for Sensor Design and Irradiation for Reactor Surveillance, E 706 (IIC),"
ASTM E 844-86, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1986.1

47
91. "Standard Test Method for Application and Analysis of Radiometric Monitors for Reactor
Vessel Surveillance, E 706 (IIIA)," ASTM E 1005-84, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1984.1

92. "Standard General Methods for Detector Calibration and Analysis of Radionuclides," ASTM E
181-82, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1983.1

93. R. Gold et al., "Neutron Dosimetry with Solid-State Track Recorders in the Three-Mile Island
Unit-2 Reactor Cavity," Nuclear Tracks, Vol. 103, p. 447, 1985.

94. F.H. Ruddy et al., "Solid-State Track Recorder Neutron Dosimetry in Light-Water Reactor
Pressure Vessel Surveillance Mockups in Reactor Dosimetry,"Proceedings of the 5th ASTM-
EURATOM Symposium on Reactor Dosimetry, Geesthacht, Federal Republic of Germany, Sept.
24-28, 1984, EUR 9869, Commission of the European Communities, D. Reidel Publishing Co.,
1985.1

95. "Standard Test Method for Application and Analysis of Solid State Track Recorder (SSTR)
Monitors for Reactor Surveillance, E 706 (IIIB)," ASTM E 854-90, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1990.1

96. "Standard Test Method for Application and Analysis of Helium Accumulation Fluence Monitors
for Reactor Vessel Surveillance, E 706(IIIC)," ASTM E 910 95, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1995.1

97. J.A. Grundl and C.M. Eisenhauer, Compendium of Benchmark Neutron Fields for Reactor
Dosimetry, NBSIR 85-3151, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, January 1986.8

98. A. Hawari et al., "Materials Dosimetry Reference Facility," Proceedings of the Eighth ASTM-
Euratom Symposium on Reactor Dosimetry, Vail, Colorado, August 1993.1
99. "Standard Guide for Benchmark Testing of Light Water Reactor Caalculations,” ASTM E2006-
99, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1999.1

100. "Standard Practice for Determining Neutron Fluence, Fluence Rate and Spectra by
Radioactivation Techniques,” ASTM E261-98, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1998.1

8
Available from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Publication Productions, Room A635, Gaithersburg,
MD 20899.

48
 REGULATORY ANALYSIS

1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has promulgated regulations to ensure the
structural integrity of the reactor pressure vessel for light water power reactors. Specific fracture
toughness requirements for normal operation and for anticipated operational occurrences for power
reactors are set forth in Appendix G, "Fracture Toughness Requirements," to 10 CFR Part 50,
"Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities." These requirements are imposed
through 10 CFR 50.60. Additionally, in response to concerns over potential pressurized thermal
shock (PTS) events in pressurized water reactors (PWRs), the NRC issued 10 CFR 50.61,
"Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events."

To satisfy the requirements of Appendix G; 10 CFR 50.61; Criterion 14, “Reactor Coolant
Pressure Boundary,” Criterion 30, “Quality of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,” and Criterion
31, “Fracture Prevention of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,” of Apppendix A, “General
Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,” to 10 CFR Part 50, methods for determining the fast
neutron fluence (E > MeV) are necessary to estimate the fracture toughness of the pressure vessel
materials. Appendix H, "Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program Requirements," to 10 CFR
Part 50 requires the installation of surveillance capsules, including material test specimens and flux
dosimeters, to provide data on material damage correlations as a function of fluence.

The neutron fluence is attenuated by several decades between the core and vessel. This
attenuation results in a strong sensitivity of the calculated vessel fluence to the physical description
of the core and vessel internals and the numerical calculation of the neutron transport, and it makes
an accurate determination of the pressure vessel fluence difficult. As a result, a wide range of
methods of varying reliability and accuracy have been used to determine the reactor vessel fluence.
Consequently, comparisons of measured and calculated fluences have shown varying degrees of
agreement, and in some cases conservatisms have been required in licensing analyses to
accommodate the observed measurement-to-calculation differences.

Over the past decade, substantial improvements have been made in both the calculation and
measurement of the pressure vessel fluence. These improvements have stemmed from both NRC
and industry programs. These include the development and improvement of computer codes,
calculational models, measurement techniques and basic cross-section data, and the systematic
qualification of the fluence methods by comparison to NRC-sponsored benchmark experiments.

These calculation and measurement improvements provide increased accuracy in the fluence
determinations that are an essential part of meeting the requirements of Appendices G to 10 CFR
Part 50 and 10 CFR 50.61. This is especially important for plants seeking to renew their operating
licenses.

The wide variation in fluence calculation methods has resulted in lengthy plant-specific
reviews and made it difficult to confirm, during the review process, that the actual fluence is
adequately bounded by the various calculational methods used. This calculation and dosimetry

49
guide would provide standardized methods and procedures that would allow these reviews to be
greatly simplified, and would improve confidence in the calculated fluence values.

2. OBJECTIVE

The objective of this guide is to provide state-of-the-art calculation and measurement

procedures that are acceptable to the NRC staff for determining pressure vessel fluence. These
procedures would yield a more accurate and reliable vessel fluence determination than the
procedures that have been used in the past. The improved accuracy and realistic assessment of the
uncertainty in the calculation would provide assurance that the fluence value is appropriate for use
in evaluating compliance with the regulations.

3. ALTERNATIVES

The alternatives to issuing the vessel fluence calculation and dosimetry regulatory guide are
as follows:

3.1 Branch Technical Position

The pressure vessel fluence methods provided by the regulatory guide could be included in a
branch technical position. However, this is not considered an acceptable alternative since the
branch position does not provide the same high level of input and participation, especially public,
industry, and the ACRS input, that the vessel fluence analysis requires.

3.2 NUREG-Series Report

The vessel fluence procedures could be published in a NUREG-series report. However,

these reports also do not receive the required input and participation from the public, industry, and
the ACRS and they are not appropriate for providing regulatory guidance.

3.3 Discussions with Licensees

The detailed fluence calculational and measurement methods that are considered acceptable
to the NRC staff could be provided to the licensees through individual reviews and discussions on
a case-by-case basis. This alternative is basically the same as the current practice and is equivalent
to taking no action. Individual licensee discussions are extremely time-consuming for both the
NRC staff and the licensee, they lead to highly individual analyses and reviews, and they do not
result in an established standard.

4. COSTS AND BENEFITS

4.1 Benefits

The methods described in this guide may be used for all fluence determinations used in
vessel fracture toughness evaluations, including the determination of the fluence used in
calculating the pressure vessel material values of RTNDT specified in Appendix G to 10 CFR Part
50 imposed by 10 CFR 50.60, and the values of RTPTS specified in 10 CFR 50.61. The regulatory

50
guide would improve the accuracy and reliability of these evaluations and provide consistent and
reliable uncertainty estimates by incorporating state-of-the-art methods and procedures for
determining the fluence and the fluence uncertainty. The guide would also ensure the
completeness of licensee vessel fluence submittals and improve the efficiency of staff reviews.

The improved fluence determination will provide fluence and uncertainty estimates that are
more reliable and understandable. Thus, it will provide more reliable and accurate information for
the PTS screening criteria of 10 CFR 50.61 and improve application of this rule. In this regard it is
noted that, for a pressure vessel near the PTS screening criteria of 10 CFR 50.61, a 25% reduction
in calculated end-of-license fluence, which is typical of existing uncertainties, will reduce the
calculated vessel failure frequency by approximately a factor of three.

4.2 NRC Costs

The NRC costs for reviewing fluence-related submittals would be reduced substantially by
the issuance of this guide. For estimating the costs, it is assumed that of the ~60 PWRs, half have
a RTPTS within ~40-F of the PTS screening criterion (or other temperature limit) at the end of
license and will require a detailed review. Assuming each submittal requires a staff week and only
half of the PWR owners submit revised fluence analyses, the total NRC cost is approximately 15
staff weeks. If the licensees used the methods given in the guide, this cost could be reduced to
approximately 2 staff weeks.

4.3 Licensee Costs

Increased costs to the licensee would result from changes in the fluence calculation and
measurement procedures. The calculational costs would be one-time costs and have been
estimated in Table RA-1. The licensee costs resulting from the changes in the measurement
procedures have been estimated in Table RA-2.

5. DECISION RATIONALE

It is recommended that the proposed regulatory guide be issued because (1) a high level of
participation of the NRC, ACRS, industry, and the public is reflected in the guide, (2) a
methodology standard would be established, and (3) inefficient use of NRC staff and licensee
resources during the review process would be eliminated.

The alternatives identified above for providing acceptable fluence methods to the licensees
do not provide the advantages listed above associated with issuance of this regulatory guide. In
particular, while these alternative approaches may result in the same or slightly increased cost to
licensees, they result in a highly inefficient use of the NRC staff resources. The alternatives to a
regulatory guide are therefore judged to be unacceptable.

51
 TABLE RA-1. ADDITIONAL LICENSEE CALCULATION COSTS

Calculation Tasks Staff Weeks

(a) Modifications to calculational models +2
(b) Additional calculation benchmarking and +8
qualification
(c) Calculation uncertainty analysis +3
(d) Calculation documentation and reporting +2
(e) Reduced Licensing Activities* -4
Total Additional Licensee Cost +11 staff weeks

TABLE RA-2. ADDITIONAL LICENSEE MEASUREMENT COSTS

Measurement Task Staff Weeks

(a) Additional Quality Control +1
(b) Dosimeter Response Corrections +1
(c) Periodic Detector Calibration +2
(d) Response Uncertainty Analysis +2
(e) Additional Measurement +1
Documentation and Reporting
Total Additional Licensee Cost + 7 staff weeks

* This estimate reflects the reduced licensee costs from not attending meetings with the NRC staff and responding to questions as
a result of following the procedures in the regulatory guide.

52
 BACKFIT ANALYSIS

The regulatory guide does not require a backfit analysis as described in 10 CFR 50.109(c)
because it does not impose a new or amended provision in the Commission rules or a regulatory
staff position interpreting the Commission rules that is either new or different from a previous
applicable staff position. In addition, this regulatory guide does not require the modification or
addition to systems, structures, components, or design of a facility or the procedures or
organization required to design, construct, or operate a facility. Rather a licensee or applicant can
select a preferred method for achieving compliance with license or the rules or the orders of the
Commission as described in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(7). The regulatory guide provides the opportunity
to use the methods described in the guide for all fluence determinations used in vessel fracture
toughness evaluations, including the determination of the fluence used in calculating the pressure
vessel materials' values of RTNDT for use in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G (imposed by 10 CFR
50.60), and the values of RTPTS in accordance with 10 CFR 50.61.