ML17289A396

Annual Rept for Wpps 2 for FY89.

ML17289A396
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	06/30/1989
From:	Gire S WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To:
Shared Package
ML17289A392	List: ML17289A391 ML17289A393 ML17289A394 ML17289A395 ML17289A396
References
NUDOCS 9203240349
Download: ML17289A396 (134)

Text

Form Apped

. U.S,. Qqparirgent of Energy Annual Report of Oeis Ho. 1PCS.01IS Energlc Information Administration S>>pirece 1S Form EIA412 (6/89)

• Public Electric Utilities eo.e bourn 31'urden:

%@@8~54~'4QFXeVM~>>@%~~identification". Section'FNpgg@@%'~~44+)~~$ ~~,~jC~~~;~~

The information requested in this Resubmission), item 10 (Date of Report),

t of the form must be accurate. Item and item 2 (Financial Reporting Year End-ie (Exact Legal Name of Respondent) is ing). Please insure that the entries in repeated at the top of each page of the these data fields are correct.

form, along with item 9 (Original or 01 Exact Legal Name of Respondent 5300020160 02 Financial Reporting Year Ending (Month, Day, Year)

Washington Public Power Supply Sysfcspt 06r30r1989 03 Previous Name and Date of Change (If name changed during year),

04 Current Address of Principal Business Office (Street, City, State, Zip Code) 3000 George Wash i ngf on Wa Richland WA 99352-0968 05 Name of Contact Person 06 Title of Contact Person S B Gi re IfanagerrCorporafe Accounf ing 07 Address of Contact Person (Street, City, State, Zip Code)

Af;in: S B Gire 3000 George Washingfon Wa Richland WA 99352 08 Telephone of Contact Person 09 This Report is 10 Date of Report (1) ix) An Original (Month, Day, Year)

C5092 372-5rp80 (2) Q A Resubmission 04/30/90 11 Classes of Utility and Other Services Furnished by Respondent During the Year K3 Electric Natural Gas C3 Water and Sewage Sanitation Irrigation Other (Specify):

+gÃci4@P+YWAWC4>+z~~444~~+ggom~4'49>>o'CeI'tiflCatiOIl $ eC'tIOn'F~r>> cjjroocg@>>~g55@@40+'g~~

The undersigned cortifias that he/sha hss e>>canined the acconpanying report) that to the best of his/her knowledge>> infornatione and belief e all ststeioants of fact contained in tho sccoropsnying rcport are true snd the accompanying report is a correct ststainant of the business and affairs of tho above named rospond-ent in respect to asch and avery natter set forth therein during the calendar or other established fiscal year stated above. '

01 Name 02 Signature S. B. Gire 03 Title 04 Date Signed (Month, Dav Year) anager, Corporate Accounting 4/30/95 Title 18>> U.S.C. 1001>> inskos it a crirrre for any parson knowingly and willingly to nake to any Agency or Dapsrtnant of tho United States any false>> fictitious or fraudulent statements as to sny natter within its jurisdiction. This report is nsndstory under Public Lsw 93-275. Failure to respond nsy re ult in

.criminal fines>> civil penalties>> snd other sanctions as provided by lsw. Data reported on Forn EZA-ce12 sro not considered confidrrnti~l.

9203240349 920304 PDR ADOCK 050003'V7 Fi PDR

Form / perored Page.2, Annual Report of OMG Ho. 1M.0139 frpiree't'31'9t Form EIA412 (6/89) Public Electric Utilities Burden: 33.t hours Namo 'of Rospondent ~ $ 300020l 60 This report is: Date of'cport Report Yoar Day, Year) (Honthr Daye Year)

Ending'Honth, (1) GQ Original hington Publ I c Po)der Supply (2) ~ec'rlc An A Resubmission (I'y' 04/30/90 0( i30rl Sag pipP~g'r4vXFe J~gP$ 'Ac)v(krAKrd"Q)A4. 4+i c e ue .,~ n . z~'/4.~..4-@+PA,A~ -.F..@,,~4

l. Some of the accounts listed below are detined in the General Instructions

2. Refer to the Uniform System of Accounts Prescribed for Public Utilities of this form. and Licensees for all other accounts.

Linc Assets and Other Debits Anount Line Liabilities and Other Credits Arsount No. (a) (b) Ho. (a) (b)

ELECTRIC UTILITY PLANT INVESTHEHT OF NNICIPALITY I SURPLUS 1 TOTAL Electric Utility Plant Invcstmcnt of Hunicipality (zoz-i06,114) 9 3,577,978,478. Constn. tive Su lus or Deficit 2 (Less) Electric Utility Plant 28 Retained Earninos (215r215.1r216)

Depr Anort Depl (108ellle115) (646 863,801) 29, TOTAL Investment K Surplus 3 Hct Electric Utility Plant (Lines 26 thru 28)

(Line 1 less 2) 2,931,114 677 LONG-TERH DEBT OTHER PROPERTY I INVESTHENTS 30 Bonds (221) 2,205 115.000 Nonutilitv Pro'er.t (121) 131 Advances from Hunicicalitv 5 (Less) Accum Provision for Depre- Other Lone-Tens Debt I 224) ciation and Amortization (122) Unamort Prem on Lo-Tn Debt (225) 755.097 Advances to Hunici alit (Less) Unamortization Discount on nvcst 2 Special Funds (124-128) 159,757,249 Long-Tera Debt (226 ) (60.089.239 TOTAL, Other Property & Invest 35 TOTAL Long-Term Debt

( Lines 4e 6e 7 less 5) '59,757,249 (Lines 30 thru 33 less 34) 2.145.78) 858 CURRENT AHD ACCRUED ASSETS OTHER NOHCURREHT LIABILITIES 9 Cash 6 Norkin Fund" (131-135) 1,664,482 10 Tcmcorarv Cash Investments (136) 13,428,621 37 Access Prov for In 8 Daa (228.2) ll Notes K.Accounts Receivable

( 141-143 ) 34 377 877 38 Accum Prov Accum Prov for Pensions (228.3) for Hisc Doer (228.4) 3.343.000 12 (Less) Accua Provision for 40 TOTAL Other Noncurrent Liabilitie Uncollected Accounts (144) (Lines 36 thru 39) 3.343.000 13 Receivables from Hunicioalit CURRENT A)(D ACCRUED 14 Hatcrials a S olios (151-156) 31,186.452 LIABILITIES 15 Pre avmcnts (165) '1,783,010 41 Notes Pavable I 231) 16 Hiscellaneous Current and Accounts Pavable I 232) 67 831 334 Accrued Assets (174) Pavables to Hunicioalitv 17 TOTAL Current and Accrued Assets Customer Deoost ts (235)

( Lines 9-11913-16 less 12 ) 82.440.442 Taxes Accrued I 236) 917 018 DEFERRED DEBITS Intere t Accrued I 237) 299 736 Hisc Curr a Accrd Liab (239r242) 37.647 506 18 Unamortized Debt Expenses ( 181) 2.977.483 TOTAL Curr a Accrd Liabilitios 19 Extraordinarv Proc Losses I 182.1) (Lines 41 thru 47) 106.695.594 20 Hisccllaneous Deferred Debt (186) 2.822,819 DEFERRED CREDITS 21 Research. Dev S Demo Exo (188) 22 Unamor t Loss on Reac r Debt (189) Customer Advances for Const (252)

Other (Specify): 50 Other Deferred Credits (253) 922.280.211 51 Unamort Gain on Reacor Debt l257) 1 013 007 TOTAL Deferred Debits TOTAL Deferred Credits (Lines 18 thru 23) 5,800,302 (Lines 49 thru 51) 923.293.218 25 TOTAL Assets 2 Other Debits 53 TOTAL Liabilities X Other Credits

( Lines 3r 8r 17e and 24 ) 3,179.112,670 (Lines 29e 35> 40r 48> and 52) 3.179.112.670

Form Approrod page 3 ~

Annual Report of 0MB No. 1S05412S Frpiroo: 12rSMS2 Form EIA<12 (6/89) Public Electric Utilities Burdrn: 22.2 houro Name of Respondent 5300020160 This report is: Date of Report Report Year Ending l1) QQ An Original lNonth, Dayp Year) lllonth> Dayp Year )

hing%on Public Popler Supply l 2) ~ it'y" A Resubmission 04/30/90 06/30/'1989

,ggCF>Aha>. 45@NSchedl) le,II!%E!ectric Util Income. Statement";fo'r1 the'Year~~~~Q@p~+Vq~>egg

2. Refer to the Uniform System of and Licensees for accounts listed below.

Accounts Prescribed for Public Utilities Line Item Amount No. la) lb) 1 Electr'ic Utility,operating Revenues l4100) 6 458 038 930 2 Operating Expenses l401) 109 597.029 maintenance Expenses l402) 42,075,293 Depreciation and Amortization 2 403&05) 108,655,619 5 Taxes and Tax Equivalents lSee Schedule IV) l408.1p409.1) 2,288,086 6 Net Contributions and Services lSeo Schedule IV) 0 TOTAL Electric Utility Operating Expenses lLines 2 thru 6) 262,616,027 Not Electric Utility-Operating Income lLine 1 loss'ine 7)

"195,422,903 Income from Electric Plant Leased to Othors l4121413) 10 Electric Utility Operating Income lLines 8 thru 9) 195,422,903 11 Other Income Net lExplain significant amounts in a footnote) l 415 p416 p 418 p 419) see footnote ~" 20.091,071 12 Allcurance for Othor Funds Used During Construction l419.1) 13 Electric Utility Income l Lines 10 thru 12) 215,513,974 14 Income Deductions fran Interest on Long-Term Debt l427) 210,822,731 15 Other Income Deductions lExplain significant amounts in a footnote) l428-432) see footnote 4,691,243 16 TOTAL Income Deductions 2 Lines 14 and 15) 215,513,974 17 Income Before Extraordinary Items l Lines 13 less line 16) 0 18 Extraordinary Income lSee definition) l434) 19 Extraordinary Deductions l See definition) l 435) 20 Net Income l Lines 17 plus line 18 loss line 19) 0

Form Approved

. Par)e 4 ~

Annual Report of OMB No. 1L44129 E~ires:

Form EIAC12 (6/89) Public Electric Utilities 12r91.'92 Burden: 99.2 leurs Nemo of Respondent 5300020160 This report is: Data of Report Report Year Ending

"(1) [X3 An Original . Months Days Year) (Honth> Day> Year )

ington Public Power Supply (2) C3 A Resubmission 04/30/90

. 06/30/1989 v

Ã~e~PV;..:v~Img~M~&~~ Sche du e; .g ec r)c.. .ANx@M@@N:.NK...>..

tricl. Report the original cost of elec-plant in service according, to the

2. Enclose in parenthesis credit ad" justments of. plant accounts to indicate prescribed accounts. the negative effect of such accounts.

Roti rc-Balance Additions ments ~

Transfers Balance Beginning During During I Adjust- End Line Ztam of Year Year Year ments . of Year No (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Electric Plant xn Service:

Intangible Plant (301-303)

Production Plant:

Steass Production (310-316)

Nuclear Production . (320-325) see footm)te Hydraulic Production (330-336)

Other Production (3de0-3re6 )

t Specify) 9 QR fOOtnOte TOTAL Production Plant

'(Lines 2 thru-5) 3 470 358 056 harv 2 43 877 Transmission Plant (350-359)

Distribution Plant ( 360-373 )

General Plant (389-399)

SEe fOOtnOte 10 TOTAL Electric Plant in Service (Lines le 6 thru 9) 41 ll Electric Plant Leased to Others (10de)

Constr.Hark in Progress-Electric ~vs*r<yauu< ~ ar sr<vm<v 12 (107) 5 731 604 rd~~~on~ >> \ )vvr~p 4-': 'i'0-= -':~~~>~' 56 5 13 Elec. Plant Hold for Future Usa (105) ) ~9 s'>A.'.< v'4".

Electric Plant Acquisition Adjustments

( Seo daf init ion ) (102)

TOTAL Electric Plant

[Lines 10 thru lde) 3,559,668,091 34 433.364 (17 688 357 '$265.921) 3 577.978.478

Form Approved Page 5 Annual Report of OMB r/o. 19Lr-0129 Expires: 12/21/S2 Form (AP(2 (6/89) Public Electric Utilities Burden: $ 22 hours2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> Wane of Respondent 5300020160 This report .is: Date of Report Report, Year Ending (1) CX3 An Orxgxnal (Honthr Days Year) (Honthx Day> Year) h i ngf on Public Power Supply (2) ~ A Resubmission

.AFZ4~@;". Schedule'V:hTaxes",4TaxvEquiva1ents~hContributions,"'and 04/30/90 06/30/1989 Se'rvice's'During.Year<~~%M@%+~,.

1. Report below the information called for spondent ' financial statements .. For those on contributions and services to the munici- amounts not included in respondent's financial pality or other government units by the statements r explain'he reason for their electric utility ands conversely> by those omission in a footnote.

bodies to the electric utility. Do not in- 3. Report as "Taxes" the amounts due on tho cluder (a ) loans and advances which are operations of the electric utility department.

subject to repayment or which, bear interest> Exclude gasoline and other sales taxes which (b) paynent in retirement of loans or advances are included in the cost of transportation and previously mades (c) contributions by the mu- materials.

nicipality of funds or property which are of Report as "Tax Equivalents" the amounts the natura of investment in the electric which are understood to consist of payments utility department. equivalent to or in lieu of amounts which

2. Enter in column (c) the total contri-butions made or received. Show in column (d) would be paid if the electric utility depart-ment ware subject to local tax levies.

amounts included in column (c) which have been 5. Report as "To General Funds of the Hu-accounted for in the r espondent's financial nicipality" the amounts considered as retained statementsr i.e.s balance sheets incone ac- earnings that are transferred from the counts earned surplus> operating revenuesr electric utility area.

'perating expensesr etc. Show in colum (e) 6. Report as "Other" the amounts which are anounts which are unaccounted for in re- nonperiodic transfers to the rrunicipality.

Amount of Contribution/Value of Service Included in Not Included Financial in Line Item HWh Total Statements Financial'tatements Wo. (al (bl (cl (dl (el Subject Payments By Electric Utility to Hunicipality or Other Government Units:

Taxes Ci( "~>>4X~~W~ 5 Tax Eouivalents Taxes t, Tax Ecuivalents (Lines 1 (( 2) 2.288.086 2.288.086 To General Funds of the Hunici alitv Other (S eci l f 1 ;W~F/t~~~~ )X'~

TOTAL Contributions (Lines 4 and 5) Ct~i~JVI! a". VOJ.'~ .

Street and Hiohwav Liohtino Hunicioal Pumoina Other Hunicioal Lioht and Power 10 Other Electric Service Nonelectric Service (Specify):

12 TOT'L Service" (Lines 7 thru 11) 13 TOTAL Contributions C Services By Electric Utility (Lines 6 and 12) 0 0 Subject Payments By Hunicipality or Other '4~+~~!,",Ji+i% n.

Government Units to Electric Utility:

For Ooerations and Prooert Haintenance i>"~ "'1~ 1'!! r'-~.'sr~a"l 15 Other (Specify)1 16 TOTAL Contributions (Lines 14 thru 15) 17 Office S ace 18 Water 19 Enoineerino Service 20 Local Service 21 Other Service (Specify)r TOTAL Servsces (Lsnes 17 thru 21)

TOTAL Contributions and Services By Husicipality (Lines 16 and 22) 0 0 Het Contributions and Services By Electric Utility to Hunicipality or Other Govern-ment Units (Line 13 less line 23) 0 0

form Ap provod age 6 Annual Report of OMB No. 1$ 54i29 Expiroo 1531/S2

,I'rm El'(2 6/89) Public Electric Utilities Bvrdoo. SI 2 hovro Hame.of Respondent, 53000201 80 This report is: Date of Report Report Year Ending (1) CQ Original (Hontho Day> Year) (Hontho Dayr Year) shing%on Public Popder Supply (2) ~ An A Resubmission 04/30/90 06/'30/1989

..A a s.. y  %,a@@,SQ@ah. ~@ .@@.

l. Report sales during electric utilities, municipalities, co-the year to vided (provide explanation in footnote).

3. In column (c) r if there are multiple operatives, or other public authorities for subsequent distribution and sale to delivery points 'ithin a county or city>

provide the number after the state and ultimate consumers. Provide the full name county or city (e.g. ILr Cook (3)).

that the sales were made to in column (a). In column (d), report range of volt-

2. In column (b)o following codes:

provide one of the FP=Firm Power supplied ages in kilovolts (e.g., 13-69) is delivered at more than one voltage.

if power for system requirements of the purchaser) 5. In columns (e) and (g)> report the resentt UP=Unit Power provided on condition that amounts as rendered on bills> including specific generating unit is available for production; EP=Economy Power without cap-adjustments and other charges.

megawatthours reported in column (e) rep-If the acity> interruptible, that replaced other the difference between energy re" energy available; DP=Dump or surplus pow- ceived and delivered (i.e.( net inter-er used to replace generation or other change)> provide an explan'ation in foot" purchases; HE=Haintenance or Emergency note.

power provided for scheduled or unplanned outages; OR=Operating Reserve used to 6.'n column (f), enter "NO HETER" demand is not metered.

if sa tis fy operating reserve obli ga ti ons; 7. On the last line,'rovide the grand and OT=Other capacity and/or energy pro- total for columns (e) and (g).

Sale Point of Delivery Kilovolts (kv)

~tt-hours Annual Haximmr Demand Sales Hade To: Code State (postal abbrev) at Hhich (Circle I

I t%h) ine (Enter Hame) Type A County or City Delivered Sold Cost (S)

Ho. la) lb) (c) (d) (e) (o)

Bonneville PapIer Admn. FP N Richland 540 kv 6 034 275 1.096 454 536.671 Bonn. ville Peer Admn. FP N Hxton 69 kv 71 105 N Clark P ancouver Levis Coun PUD FP N Hoss 69 kv 1.722 235 836 10 12 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 31 TOTAL (Lines 1 thru 3O)

I

th-form Approved age 8 Annual Report. of 0118 No. 1905.0129 I srprree: 12rMIS2 orm EIAQ12 (6/89) Public Electric Utilities Burden: 22.2 houro Name of Respondent $ 300020180 This report xs( Date of Report Report Year Ending (1) QD An Orxgxnal (Honthe Daye Year ) (Honth) Dayp Year) hi ng ton Publ i c Power Supply (2) C3 A Resubmission 04/30/90 08/30/1989

'~~4%.,~5e@N4~%'.4, @a~~,Sche u e.

'(rc 'ase '"e"5;~4%~%" '" ~SP '"'~%%:

l. Report sales during electric utilities, municipalities, co-the year to vided (provide explanation in footnote)

3. In column (c), if there are multiple

~

operatives, or other public authorities delivery points within a county or city.

for subsequent distribution and sale to provide the number after the state and

'ultimate consumers. Provide the full name. county or city (e.g. IL, Cook (3)).

of purchased "from in column (a). In column (d)> report range of volt-2..In column (b)> provide one of the following codes: FP=Firm Power supplied ages in kilovolts (e.g., 13-69) is delivered at more than one voltage.

if power for system requirements of the purchaser; 5. In columns (e) and (g) > report the UP=Unit Power provided on condition that amounts as rendered on billse including specific generating unit is available for production; EP=Economy Power without cap-adjustments and other charges.

megawatthours reported in column (e) rep" If the acity> interruptible, that replaced other resent the difference between energy re-energy available; DP=Dump or surplus pow- ceived, and delivered (i.e.l net inter-

'er used to replace'eneration or other change) > provide an explanation in foot-purchases) HE=Maintenance or Emergency -'note.

power provided for scheduled or unplanned outages) OR=Operating Reserve used to 6.. In column (f), enter "HO HETER" demand is not mete( ed.

if satisfy - operating reserve obligations; 7. On the last line, provide the grand and OT=Other capacity and/or energy pro- total for columns (e) a'nd ('g).

Annual Pur- Kilovolts Bogart Haximum chas Point of Receipt (KV) ourss Derrrand Purchased From Code State (postal abbrev) at Hhich ( tSh) l Circle Line (Enter Hame) Type A County or City Received Purchased N/HVa) Cost (6)

Ho. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (o)

NA 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 26 30 31 TOTAL (Lines 1 thru 30) 54cu.Q QSV a'~ <<Q~.~DALl~

Sc.~LE O'X.

Pags9 . Annual Report of Form Apptowd OMB No. 1905.0QS I~

Environ: tte1rSZ Form EIA<12 (6/89) Public Electric Utilities Bordom S3.2 noors Hams of Respondent 5300020160'his rcport is: Date of Report Report Year Ending (1) CC] An Original (Honth> Dayr Year) (Honthr Dayr Year) hington Public Power Supply (2) ~ 4 Res~miss 04/30/90 A' v 06/30/'1 989 Y'V I

g,;~>~pe.'<~'.$ .,@g~+g . >%RMai:%~Schedu e< .~; ec rtc n "rgy each

.r:..@44~4@,,A

~vQ+ga( 2 gq . s%

1. 'Report bel'ow the information called 2. The Total Sources of Energy on line for concerning the disposition of electric 16 must equal the Total Disposition of energy generated, purchased, and inter- Energy on line 26.

changed during the fiscal year.

Linc Item )toga+at t-Hours Ho. ta) (b) 4N&a&r "W~h....::0()d&e~&WMMS&4WPw4%'<r56cWw.aKo 53~4&4 r~x'-'-

(Excludin Station Use): ""'eneration Steam " Fossil Huclear Hydro - Conventional Hydro - Pumped Storage Other (Soecif ):

tLess) Ener for Purnoi Het Generation (Lines 1 thru 6) 6 125 120 Purchases - Utilit Purchases - Non-Utilit Intcrchanoes:

10 In (cross)

Out toross) nt s xnes Transmission for/bv Others (Wheelina):

13 Received Delivered 15 Het Transmission t Lines 13 - 14) 16 TOTAL Sources of Ener (Lines 7r8r9r12r15) 6.125.120 r'.r'nr (de" rar...:.'." -:k'+." ".': Zk .a" w~.4".'ales 17 to Ultirnatc Consumers (Includina Interde ar.tmental Sales) 18 Sales for Resale 6'116 717 19 Ener Furnished Without Chorea Enercv Used b the Company (Excludino Station Use):

20 Electric Deoartment Onl Enercv Losses:

21 Transmission and Conversion Losses 22 Distribution Losses Unaccounted for Losses TOTAL Ener Losses 8.403 25 Encrcv Losses as a Percent of Total on Linc 16 .1372%

26 TOTAL Disoo" ition of Encrov (Lines 17,18,19>20 and 24) 6 125.120

Form Appro)red Page 10 Annual Report of OMB No. 1999-0129 Bepiree: 12 9!t92 Form E)AQ12 (6/89 Public Electric Utilities Burden; 99.2 t)ourn Hate'e of Respondent 5300020160 This report is: Date of Repo'rt Report Year Ending (1) QQ Original t)1onthp Daye Year ) 2)1onthe Daye Year) shing%on Public Popder Supply (2) ~ An A Resubtnission 04/30/90 06/30/2989

,r~."F>>Tr>>>>j$

':,::g4g

'g+>>'>> 99)$+f.i)e'"(i(Or: -trire'tiuc~tlonsQ<g~g>> ) !:~ij<<iN

'. ~$ )~~@@~gj<2L>>!

gem>>" "'jgrepe+~~A'drr>>>>,. '>>e>>'er>>)r~pgi//>>g>>OO;" $ g.,)@+>>I)rpeu~,.'. '@

Fg+.;. g y;,Schedule'.lX!>Steam'-.'Ele'cntric",Gerie'r'atirig'Plant.Statlsticst {L'argee Plants)>. ~Qdp@%gg kH

1. Large plants are plants of 25,000 or more of maximum generator nameplate

7. If gas is used and purchased therm basis, give Btu content of the gas on a capacity operated by the utility. Include and the quantity of fuel burned converted operated gas-turbine and internal com- to Mcf (lrp.73 psi e) 60 degrees, F) ~

bustion plants of 1'0,000 kH and more on this page. Also include operated nuclear 8. Data on line 16 (Fuel) must be con-plants. sistent with lines 32 (Quantity of Fuel Burned), 33 (Average Heat Content of Fuel

2. If any plant is equipped with combi- Burned)> 35 (Average - Cost of Fuel >>per nations of steam> hydro, internal com- Unit Burned) and 36 (Average Cost of bustion, or gas"turbine equipment, report Fuel Burned per Million Btu).

each as a separate plant. If, however, a gas-turbine functions in a combined cycle operation with a conventional steam unit, 9, If more than one fuel is burned in a plant, report the composite heat rate include gas-turbine with the steam plant. for all fuels burned.

3. Operator s of jointly owned plants 10. The items under Cost of Plant repre-must report for 100 percent of the plant; sent accounts or combinations of accounts owners need not report. If total cost of prescribed by the Uniform System of Ac-plant (lines 9-12) is not available> re- ~

counts. Under Production Expenses ex-port the available data and footnote the clude Purchased Power> System Control, costs not given. Load Dispatch, and Other Expenses classi-fied "Other Power Supply Expenses."

If net peak demand for is unavailable, report available 60 minutes data and ll. For gas-turbine and internal com-ootnote the period provided. bustion plants, report Operating Expenses (account numbers 5r98 and 5rp9) on line 21 (Electric Expenses), and Maintenance (ac-

5. Report the average number of em- count numbers 553 and 55rt) on " line . 27 ployees on the payroll whose costs are (Maintenance of Electric Plant). Indicate included in the production, expense ac- plants designed for peak load service.

counts (500"935), including part time and Designate with an asterisk the automati" temporary employees. If assigned to more than one generating employee(s) are cally operated plants.

plant, include the number of employees assignable based on prorated expenses.

12. If the respondent operates a nucle-ar power generating plant> attachp (a) a If contractor costs are charged to any of the production expense accounts, footnote brief explanation accounting for the cost of power generated> including any as-both the labor cost and the estimate of signment of excess costs to research and the number of contractors assignable to development expensesr (b) a brief expla-cost>> nation of the fuel accounting, specifying the accounting methods and types of cost units used with respect to the various

6. If you report rents due to a sale-leaseback arrangement, footnote the ca-components of the fuel costs> and (c) ad-ditional information as may be informa-pacity (megawatts) sold and the asset tive concerning the type of plant, kind (dollars) value removed from the plant of fuel used> and other physical and accounts. operating qualities of the'lant.

~ ~

0

Page %1 Annual Report of Form EIAX12 (6/89) Public Electric Utilities Name'of Respondent 5300020260 This report is- Date of Report Report Year Ending t1) QQ An Orxgxnal tHonth>> Day>> Year) tHonth>> Day>> Year)

Weshington Public Power Supply

':IX t2) ~ A Resubmission 04 30 90 (La'r'g'e'Plarits 06/30/1989 Y~~AY".~ ."%S h d l '"LSteam'-'Flectric'ene'ra<<ting".Plant-'Statistics" g44g~Q~~Q~4

1. Refer to page 10 for instructions 2. Refer to the Uniform System of Ac-concerning this schedule. counts Prescribed for Public Utilities and Licensees for accounts listed below.

Hanford Nuclear Generating Plant No. 2 Project Line Iten Plant Name Plant Name:

No. ta) tb) . tc)

Kind of. Plant tStean>> Internal Combustion>>

Gas-Turbine>> or Nuclear) Nuclear Nuclear Year Ori inall Constructed Year Last Unit Nas Installed Total Haximum Generator Nane late Canaci Net Peak Demand on Plant tkW for 60 Hinutes) in kN 1972 1 200 I 1 096.000 1966 0

Plant Hours Connected to Load I

6437.83 0 Averaoe Number of Em lo ees Net Generation>> Exclusive of Plant Use - kNh 6 034 275 0 Cost of Plant: ~5",~A~c~~~~~av~+W= M~X~M>>

Land and Land Richts t310>> 320) 9 975 Structures and Imnrovements t311 321 ) 1 095.230 044 11 7 502 Eauinnent Costs: t312-316>> 322-325) 2 130 425 564 48 158.605 12 Total Cost 3 225.655.608 60.116.082 Cost/kH of Namenlate Ca acit t line 4) 70 Gross Annual Canital Exnenditures 36.254.705 Production E enses: k(~~4 ~c+:"-'Vr~KrP<,:l>i'~'<<

Oneration S crvision and Enaineerina t500>> 517) '2.676.272 16 Fuel t501 518) 31.283 224 17 Coolants and Hater tNuclear Plants Onlv) t519) 2 725.918 7.198 18 Stean Exnenses t502>> 520) 13 134.383 19 Stean Fron Other Sources t503 521) 20 Stean Transferred tCredit) t504>> 522) 21 Electric Exnenses t505i 523) 22 Hisc. Steam tNuclear') Power Exnenses t506>> 524) 1 ,246,176 (152 100) 23 Rents t507>> 525)

Haint. Sunervi" ion and Enaineerina t510 528) 8,573,870 278 732 25 Haintenance of Structur es t511 529) 73,820 Haintenance of Boiler t Reactor) Plant t512>> 530) 8,642,425 27 Haintenance of Electric Plant t513>> 531) 1,816 28 Haint. of Hisc. Stean tNuclear) Plant t514>> 532) ,662 29 TOTAL Production Exnenses 115,397,223 133 830 30 Exnense er Net kWh tHills -- 2 Places)

Fuel: t Kind) . Coal Gas ": 'Oil Coal <<'Gas "Oil Unit: tCoal - Tons of 2>>000 Lb. ) tGas - '1

- Barrels of 42 Gals.) tNuclear - Grams)

Hcf)'oil lear NA NA I'Nu Guantitv tunits) of Fuel Burned Avera e Heat Content of Fuel Burned tBtu/Lb of Coal>> per CuFt of Gas>> or pcr Gal of Oil)

Average Cost of Fuel per Unit>> as Delivered F.O.B. Plant Dur ing Year

. Averaae Cost of Fuel er Unit Burned 36 Averaae Cost of Fuel Burned or Hillion Btu Ava Cost of Fuel Burned'r kNh Net Generation el buL 1 << 1n Q9'7

j C J 0

Pagq 12 Annual Report of Form EIA<12 (6/89) Public Electric Utilities Na'me'bf Respondent 5300020 I SO This report is: Date of Report'eport Year Ending (I) CQ Original [Month> Day> Year) (Month> Day> Year )

hing%on Public Power Supply h 6 $ w ~

(2)

~

~ r An A Resubmission 04/30/90 Statistics ; ( Larg e'Plants 08/30/1989

.'ont'd -...'PN'N"~X 4%'~4.'iSchedule',IX:%Steam-.Electnc.Generating'Plant ( )A".s. ~

1. Refer to page 10 for instructions 2.. Refer to the Uniform System of Ac-.

counts Prescribed for Public Utilities concerning this schedule.

and Licensees for accounts listed below.

Plant Name: Plant Hamo: Plant Name: Iten Line (d) (e) tf) (g) Ho.

Kind of Plant (Steamp Int Cmb~ Gas-Trbr Nuc)

Year Constructed Year Last Unit Name late Caoacit (kH)

Hat Peak Denand Plant Hours Humbar of Emolo eds Hat Generation - kNh Cost of Plantr Land and Land Riohts ruc ra 10 Eauioment Costs:

TOTAL Cost 12 Cost er kW Gross Exoenditures

<¹cA~~~M:p.e~~.'~~~.'fS.~'r <<~r'~Fr>A'.C<r~r~S~"~=.;".t.d~c-~e Production Exoenses:

aration Suacrvision 15 Fuel 16 Coolants (Nuc. Onlv) 17 Steam Exoensas Stean Other Sources 19 Stean Trans forred 20 Electric Ex enses Hisc. Stcam Exoensas 23 Haint. Suaervision 24 Haint. Structures 25 Haint. Boiler Plant Maint. Electric Plant Haint. of Misc. Stean 28 TOTAL Prod. Exoenses 29 Coal Gas Oil Coal '.Gas " ~

Oil Coal 'as Oil .

Exaensas/Wct kHh Fuel r Kind)

Unit: <Tonsr Hcf, 30 31, Barrels> Grans)

Guantitv (Units) Fuel 32 Average Heat Content 33 of Fuel Burned Average Cost of Fuel per Unitr F ~ O.B.

Avaraaa Cost Burned 35 Averaaa Cost Btu 36 Avaraae Co t kHh 37

>I P age%3 Annual Report of Form Approved OMB No. 1S0$ 4$ 2$

~" F 0 rm EIAP12 (6/89) Public Electric Utilities E>>plre>: u/31'S2 Burden: 33 2 houro

>> NarrA> of Respondent 5300020180 This rcport. is: Data of Rcport Report Year Ending (1) QD An Original (Honth> Dsy> Year) (Honth> Dsy> Year )

Washingfon Public Power Supply (2) ~ A Resubmission 04/30/90 g&j"g'i%)N~%Sched((le"X:!(>Hydroele'ct'ric',Geneniatiiig)Plant Statistics 'a'rge'Plants)7@4@@@6%~@)p';

0(> J'30/'l 989

1. Large plants ara hydroolactric plants of 10>000 kH or more of maximum generator nameplate For line 5> if nct peak demand for 60 minutes is not available> give that which is capacity operated by the utility. svsilsbla> specifying period.

2. Indicate by an asterisk snd explain in a Report tha average number of cmployces on footnote if any plant operated under a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. If tha psyro)l whose costs sra included in tha pro-duction expense, accounts (500-935) including part time and temporary employees. If employeets) a licensed- project> give project number. Oper-ators of jointly owned plants must report 100% of src assigned to morc than onc generating plant>

thc plant) owners should not report. If the total include the number of employees assignsbla basdd" cost of tha plants (lines 9 - 13) is not on the prorated expenses. If contractor cost" ara tha operator should rcport tha cost that is avail-'ble>

charged to any of tha production expense accounts>

available and indicate in a footnote what costs footnote both tha labor cost snd the estimate of ara not included. number of contractors assignable to this cost.

FERC Licensed Project No. FERC Licensed Project No.

and Plant Nsma: snd Plant Name:

Linc Item Packed Lake Hydroelectri No. (a) Pro ect (b) (c)

Kind of Plant (Run-of-River or Storsacl Year Oricinall Constructed Year Last Unit wss Installed TOTAL Haximum Generator Nameplate Capacity in kilowatts (kH) 26.125 Net Peak Demand on Plant (kH for 60 ninutc ) 31 500 Plant Mours Connected to Load 6 675 Average Number of Emolovces Net Generation Exclusive of Plant Use - kwh Cost of Plant:

Land and Land Richts (330 ) 54 776 10 Structures snd Improvements (331) 479 3 Reservoirs Dsms snd Wstcrws s (332)

Ecui ment Costs (333-335) 1 906 370 13 Roads, Railroads>> snd Bridges (336) 41 TOTAL Cost (Lines 9 thru 13) 1 2 15 Cost/kH of Nsmcolate Cscscitv (Line 4) 16 Gross Annual Csaitsl Exccndituras 3.7GO Pr oduction E enscs:

17 Ooerstion Suoarvision and Encinecrin (535) for Power (536) 20'ater 19 Hydraulic Exoenses (537)

Electric'x cnsas (538)

Hisc. Hydraulic Power- Generation Exo. (539) 22 Rents (540 )

Haintananca Suocrvision 6 En inaerinc (541) 24 Haintenance of Structures (542 )

Haint. of Reservoirs>> Dans>> (( Hate s (543) 26 Haintensnca of Electric Plant (544)

Haintenanca of Hisc. Hvdrsulic Plant (545) 4 7 28 TOTAL Production Exocnsas (Lines 17 thru 27) 29 Exoenses er Nat kwh (Hills 2 Places)

form Approved age 14 Annual RePort of ~ OS18 No. 1SS5.0122 fxpiree; 12ar/S2 orm EIA<12 (6/89) Public Electric Utilities Burden, SS.2 rrouro Name of Respondent -

5300020160 This report is: Date of Report Report Year Ending Il) CQ Original IHonthr Dayr Year) IHonthr Dayr Year)

~ An E

ashington, Public Power Supply I2) A Resubmission 04/30/90 06/30/1989

&~,>2 .Schedule'X pr Hy'dro'electr'IcrGeneratI 'g Pl" t St t t "'(L g .Pl

~ t').(C ' 2j)'.,~,,z>4~~9

5. If you report rents due to a sale-leaseback Power> Systen Control> Load Dispatching> or Other classified as "Other Power Supply Ex-arrangementr footnote the capacity Inegawatts) Expenses sold and the asset (dollars) value removed.- from penses."

the plant accounts. 7. If any plant is equipped with combinations

6. The items under Cost of Plant represent ac- of steamr hydro> internal combustion enginer or counts or combinations of accounts prescribed by gas turbine equipmentr report each as a separate the Uniform System of Accounts. The items under plant.

Production Expenses do not include Purchased FERC Licensed Project No. FERC Licensed Project No. FERC Licensed Project Ho.

and Plant Hame: and Plant Name: and Plant Hame:

N , N Item Line Id) Ie) If) Ig) Ho.

Kind of Plant Year Constructed Year Last Unit TOTAL Hameplato Capacity in kW Net Peak Demand Plant Hours Humber of E. lovees Net Generation - kkh AN~-~4+('X.W 7 kR8; ~~rM%+Np.W@ '~i~WA-'5:-';~~+<<~rVP+ Cost of Plant:

Land B Land Richts Structures 10 Reservoirs E i ment 12 Roadsr etc TOTAL Cost Cost/kW Gross Exoenditures 16 g~g)r S~evy>,.~<p~~Ii1rpuerrrr -, Production Exoensesd Doer . Suoervision 17 Water for Power 18 Hvdraulic Exoenses 19 Electric Ex enses 20 Hisc. Exoenses 21 Rents Haint. S ervision 23 Haint. Structures 24 Haint. Reservoirs 25 Haint. Elec. Plant 26 Haint. Hvdrl. Plant 27

TOTAL Prod. Exo. 28 Exoenses/Net khh 29

'age,15 Annual Report of Form EIA412 (6/Bg) Public Electric Utilities Name of Respondent 5300020l60 This report is: Date of Report (I) QQ An Original tHonth> Day> Year )

shington Publ fc Power Supply (2) ~ A R ub O4/3O/gp

~".~".~."'<~%~>,'~~::.',.",@Schedule'XI:%Transiii)ss)oii';L)ne'Stat)st)c's",.z~<gw~~g~g~p>gw~~~g.

1. Report below information requested concerning 4 Indicate in colmm (g)~ whether thc material is each transmission line owned. If mora space is re- aluminum conductor steel reinforced t ACCR) > aluminum (A)~ copper (C)~ or other lO) and thc cross-sectional quired~ use supplemental page using the colunn head-ings shown on this page. ares pcr phaso in thousands of circular mils (HCH).

2. For column (c)~ if the voltage used is differ- 5. Designate any transmission line or portion ent from operating~ report the difference in a ftn. thereof for which tha respondent is not thc sole own-

3. Indicate in column (d) whether thc typo of er. If such property is leased from another> give supporting structure is: (I) single pole~ wood~ or name of lessor in a footnote.

steel) t2) H-framer wood> or steel poles) (3) tower> 6. Designate in a footnote any transmission line or (4) underground construction. leased to another and give name of lessee.

Designation LENSTH (Pole Hilcs)

( Name of Ternina1 Station )

Operating Type of On On Hatcrial Number Voltage Supporting Structures Structures and of Line From To (kva) Structure of Linc of Another Size of lrcuIts No. Designated Linc Conductor (a) (b) tc) (d) (e) (g) (h)

BPA Hanford Substa- Vantage Substation 593 kv Steel 23.85 mi 1780 KN 2 Con-tion E ASCR chu- ductors kar a Total of 6 lines on tructure. Bonneville Peer Admi istration ( A) tM)s 5 and NPPSS es 1 as tailed-2 Packwood Lake Lewis County 69 kv Moodpole 2.2 NA A/0 ASCR 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 40 41 42

Page (S a Annual Report of  %%dnn Approvod OMB No. 1999 01t9 Bpirou: 1trt 1i'St Form E(AD(2 (6189) Public Electric Utilities H 8urdon: 99 t houru Sama'f Respondent 5300020180 This report is: Date of Rcport Rcport Year Ending (1) CQ Original (Honth> Day> Year) (Honth> Dayo Year) ashing4on Public Po9der Supply (2) ~ An A Resubmission 04/30/90 1"P~i~W'%'+~~%- e'@'94'g~P/Schedule.'Xll 5Footriote" Data Y5NjY@%4'4@5%%~'Qp~~jp~i~~g?

0&'30/'1989-Page Part Line Column Conuncnts Humber Humber Humber Hurnber (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Other Inca(a includes:

Invest)t) nt inccm. $ 19,164,342 Revaluation of investnents 741,773 Accretion of deferred gain on redenption of reverue bends 133,342 Gain on redenption of revenue bonds 51,614

$ 20,091,071 15 Other Incane Deductions include:

Aportization of Debt Nscount 8 Expense $ 2,745,832 Loss on Redeaption of Reve(he Bonds 26,752 Other 1,918,659

$ 4,691,243 The projects have no equity and, therefore, no retained earnings.

Pear sales and net+illing agreat) nts Yrith the project participants aller for ccnplete recovery of project costs including debt ser'vice.

The participants are billed for project costs ivith an adjustment to actual't yond.

lance Be nning of ear Adju ts (Reclassification frcm prior ending balances):

III 3 b Nuclear Production (320-325) $ 3,379,863;138 Steam Production (310-316) should be Nuclear Production (320-325) 60,113,560 Reflect CHIP (107) as a separate line iten (4,585,283)

Revised Balance Beginning of Year $ 3-,435,391,415 Other Production (186) $ 16,684,124 Reflect U.S. Gov't Lned Facilities gross of anortization 6,238,100 Revised Balance Beginning of Year. $ 22,922,224 b General Plant (389-399) 61 6c5 2K Reflect ChIP (107) as a separate line item (1,146,321)

Reflect Agency Clearing Accounts allocation, gross of depreciation 10,'696,165 Revised Balance Beginning of Year $ 71,205,112 Vi 38.16 b,c,d Benefits accrued reclassified fran operation and maintenanc categories to administrative and general.

10 IX 12 of e Nuclear Plant No, 2 ins tions

a. The cost of, peer is eqt)al to total expenses divided by the net geriration:

Total E)~nses (pg. 3, line 1) $ 454,536,671 Nav Generation (pg. 11, line 8) 6,034,275,m Net Cost of Parer 75.92 Mills/lOI

Fmm approved Page 16b I

Annual Report of ooB lio. 1~1 9

~

Bppdcs: 1W1:PZ FOrm'EIAX12 r61ag) Public Electric Utilities Burdpm $ 1.2 ptovrs

'ame o'f Respondent 53000201SO This report is: Date of Report Report Year Ending rl) [X3 An Original rHonthp Dayp Year) (Honthp Dayp Year) ington Publ fc Power SupplcI r E) ~ A Resubmission 04 30/90 OS/30/'1989

'd@

,~+M;5+5 ~C~@3@$ 9'4>>~ggp%psch'edu le'XII,"Footnote Data@ggQQ4e ~~A~a%g@KCF44+Pc~v, Page Part Line Column Comments Humber %nber Humber Humbor ra) rb) rc) rd) le) 10 IX 12 o the b. The Fuel Accounting System uses cost principles of the pLblic ills ctions utility industry as given under ti;e Fe'deral Energy Regulatory (Con 'nued) Ccmmssion (FERC) Chart of Uniform Accounts. This includes record ing of the acquisition ard rranufacturing cost of fuel and anortization of the capitalized fuel cost based on heat production.

In addition to M arrortization of fuel burnup, the current peri nuclear fuel operating expense includes a charge for future spen nuclear fuel stor age and disposal to be provided by tl e Departnen of Energy. This charge is based on a'one mill per killaett hour o energy generated.

IX The Hanford Generating Project, an 860 Nte plant vhich utilize by-product steam frcm the Department of Energy's dual~se Ye Production Reactor (HPR), vas ccrrpleted in 1966 and vas in ror1ral operation through 1986. In January 1987, the HPR v)as shut doe safety irrprovar) nts.'n Febriary 1988, the Depart)rent of Energy plac the HPR on standby status for an urxhtermired length of tire eliminating the Hanford Generating Project's present energy,source.

The Supply System has ccripleted a study of alternative potm sourc to be used for continued energy generation, and further studies being conducted.

Pachaod Lake Hydroelectric Project is located in Levris County llashington and in part occupies goverrrrent lards in the Giffo Pinchot Hational Forest in the Goat Rock section of the Cascad tkmntains. llle plant is operated under a license frcm the Federal Energy Regulatory Ccrmtission (Project No. P-2244).

II

/

RESPONSE TO THE SECOND ROUND OF QUESTIONS ON TOPICAL REPORT WPPSS-FTS-129 QUESTION Provide a summary of the sensitivity analysis performed on core noding for the limiting transients.

RESPONSE

The dynamic response of the core in a limiting transient such as load rejection without bypass has a significant effect on the safety limits in the thermal margin calculations. In particular, the interactions between the core thermal-'hydraulic control volumes, the heat conductors and the neutronic regions are known to influence the magnitude in power transients. The WPPSS best-estimate model contains 12 nodes for the active core region (Reference 1 Figure 2. 2) . To study the sensitivity of the core noding scheme, the number of the active core regions is increased from 12 to 24 (Figure 1) . The change involves dividing each thermal-hydraulic volume and heat conduction region into two equal sized volumes and regions except the top active volume and region.

In the base model, the top active volume and region (Volume 62 and Heat Conductor 12) interact with three neutronic regions (Numbers 24, 25 and 26) . In the sensitivity case, Volume 62 and Conductor 12 are divided into two regions, one (Volume 73 and Conductor 23 )

interacts with Neutronic Region 24 and the other (Volume 74 and Conductor 24) interacts with Neutronic Regions 25 and 26. Thus the top active region in the sensitivity case is twice as large as the other regions .

The sensitivity case was run and the results are given in Figures 2 through 7 . Since Power Ascension Test (PAT) 027 simulates the load rejection which is limiting in the licensing basis model, was selected as the case for this sensitivity study. Figure 2 gives it the power versus time. Four different data points were plotted in the figure. Plant data is from the measured APRN signal in percent power. Case 001 data is the RETRAN results based on a transient initiated from the rated condition (same results as presented in Reference 1) . Case 002 is the RETRAN results based on a transient initiated from the actual plant steady-state condition at the initiation of the test(see Reference 2) . It should be noted that in Reference 2, Table 1 . 7-1, the system pressure for PAT 027 was mistakenly quoted as 1014 . 7 psia. It should be 999 . 7 psia. The corrected value is given in Table 1 . Case 002 presented in this document reflects this correction. Case 003 is the same as Case 002 except that the number of core nodes is increased from 12 to 24 . As seen in Figure 2, the 24-node case yields essentially the same

~ 92p31 1p371

0 results as the 12-node case. This leads to the conclusion that the 12-node core model is sufficient in yielding accurate results.

Since the measured power was given in percentage, the plot is based on fraction of power rather than their absolute values.

Figure 3 gives the flow for recirculation loop A. As seen from the plot, Cases 002 and 003 starts the transient at the Case same recirculation flow as the measured data as expected. However, 001 starts at the rated flow rate which is higher. Again, the 24-node case (003) yields essentially identical results as the 12-node case (002). The measured flow stayed higher initially and then converged to the calculated flow rates. As stated in Reference 2, the shape of the curves for the computed coast down flow is concave with a sharp "knee" at the time the pump is tripped while the data show a less pronounced "knee" with a more convex shape. The recirculation loop flows during pump coastdown are strong functions of the pump inertia and system characteristics. From review and comparison with analysis done by other organizations and the data for PAT Test 030A, the shape of the calculated loop flow is more consistent with other results than are the data from PAT 027. As stated in Reference 2, the plant operations indicated that the signal was "filtered" before not recoverable. This could it was recorded. However, this data is account for part, if not most, of the discrepancy. The plant data and the computed results converge after about four seconds into the transient. This is because the flow is not as sensitive to the pump inertia at the later stage of the coastdown as at the beginning. Xnstead it is mostly determined by the system hydrodynamics. The pump inertia uncertainty has'een included in the licensing basis model (Reference 1) through the use of a bounding (upper limit) value for the pump inertia to ensure a conservative result.

Figure 4 gives the flow for recirculation loop B. The RETRAN calculated flow is identical to that in Figure 3 because of the symmetry of the two loops.

The larger difference between the RETRAN calculated flow and the measured flow when compared to loop A flow is partly due to the fact that the measured flows for both loops started at about the same flow rate (see Table 1) at the initiation of the transient, but gradually deviated from each other as the transient progressed.

One of the possible causes for the asymmetrical results in the

.measured flows is the instrument discrepancies between the two loops due to calibration differences and drifts. The data was taken in 1984 and it is difficult to analyze the exact cause of the asymmetrical behavior in an otherwise symmetrical test. As mentioned previously, it is>attributed to measurement and test data inaccuracies. The RETRAN simulation of the PAT 027 was based on the two recirculation loops being symmetrical because the geometries, the operating conditions and the tripping of the pumps were all the same in the test. Again, the 24-node and 12-node models yield no differences.

Figure 5 gives the total core flow (active and bypass). The RETRAN model using the measured initial conditions simulates is the Recirculation Pump Trip (RPT) reasonably well. Again, there no difference between Cases 002 and 003.

Figure 6 gives the dome pressure versus time. The RETRAN results using the measured initial conditions trace the plant data closely throughout the transient. The difference between Case 001 (rated initial condition) and Case 002 (measured initial condition) in the pressure behavior is due to the difference in the initial pressure and its effect on the rest of the transient. In Case 001, higher initial pressure results in higher peak pressure exceeding the 1 safety and relief valves pressure setpoint (1091 psia) for Group (SRVs) causing the dome pressure to turn around faster than the case without Group 1 SRV opening as in Cases 002 and 003. As stated in the Topical Report, there was an indication that one SRV cycled repeatedly. This sensitivity study indicates that the peak pressure is very close to the pressure setpoint for the SRV opening, supporting the observation in the actual test. The 24-node case yield the same results as the 12-node case.

Figure 7 shows the steam flow behavior. As indicated, the change between the three sensitivity cases are small.

It should be noted that the RETRAN version used here is the MOD5UEM version written for UNIX-based workstations. This version (MOD5UEM) went through the Supply System's "Program Validation and Verification" process according to the NRC-approved QC procedure as documented in Chapter 17 of the WNP-2 FSAR. Appendix A gives a summary of the validation and verification performed on Version MOD5UEM.

In summary, the sensitivity study on the core noding found that the 12-node core model yields essentially the same results as those from a 24-node model, supporting the use of the current 12-node model as the base model for transient analysis.

QUESTION 2:

Provide justification for using a single nodalization scheme for all of the transients instead of different nodalization schemes for different transients.

RESPONSE

There are five basic types of transient analysis to consider: (a) decrease in reactor coolant temperature, (b) increase in reactor pressure, (c) decrease in reactor coolant flow rate, (d) increase in reactor coolant inventory, and (e) increase in reactor coolant flow.

(a) decrease in reactor coolant temperature Events that directly decrease the reactor coolant temperature are those that either increase the flow of cold water or reduce the temperature of water being delivered to the reactor vessel.

Reducing the reactor coolant temperature increases core reactivity, which in turn increases core power. The resulting negative moderator void reactivity shifts power towards the bottom of the core. These changes will lead to a new steady-state power level.

Sufficiently high levels of thermal power or neutron flux will cause a scram. Events in this category include: (1) loss of feedwater heating, (2) inadvertent high pressure core spray startup and (3) inadvertent residual heat removal shutdown cooling operation. Even though for a typical reload design for WNP-2, these transients are not limiting in setting the operating thermal limits, the neutronics and fluid transport models and the feedwater control systems must be modeled correctly.

The core noding scheme in the base model (12-node model as described in Reference 1) is adequate for this type of transients.

An important phenomenon in a thermally limited transient is the power increase due to void collapse. From the responses to Questions 1 and 9, one finds that the 12-node model gives either a converged or a slightly conservative result in the void prediction and the feedback calculation for core power for the most limiting transient (load rejection) when compared to the 24-node model. For the type of transients where there is a decrease in coolant temperature, the phenomenon of power increase is similar to load rejection but not as severe. Therefore, the 12-node model is also adequate for this type of transients.

With regard to the steam line noding, Reference 2 provides a detailed discussion on its sensitivity to the system behavior. The number of nodes were increased from 7 to 10 and then to 13 for the limiting transient of load rejection. The results indicate that the base model of 7 steam line nodes gives a slightly conservative result in terms of the thermal limit in hCPR (see Table 2).

Transients with decreases in reactor coolant temperature typically result in less severe pressurization in the steam lines. Therefore the 7-node model is adequate for these transients as well.

Further analysis performed supports the use of the base model in this type of transients. A transient analysis performed for the topical report (Reference 1) is the feedwater controller failure transient. Even though this transient is not one of the three listed above, it is investigated here because it is to a degree similar to a transient with reduction in coolant temperature and it has a potential of becoming the limiting transient in determining the thermal limits. The sudden increase in the feedwater flow rate causes the core inlet temperature to drop. Figure 8 shows the RETRAN calculated axial power shift towards the bottom as the colder water enters the core consistent with the description of the behavior in this category of transients. Other results were presented in Section 4.3 in Reference 1. Even though this calculation is based on the licensing basis model, the noding scheme is identical to the best-estimate model. The power shift would be more profound if there is an actual temperature reduction in addition to the flow rate increase. Nevertheless, it provides additional evidence that the neutronic and thermal-hydraulic modeling and their interactions are correctly modeled. ln the same analysis, the results as presented in Reference 1 (which is for Cycle 4 core) showed that the transient behaved in a similar way as documented in WNP-2 FSAR, which is for the initial core, providing support that other systems, such as high water level trip logic, scram control system, recirculation pump trip, SRV opening and closing are modeled correctly.

ln addition, from the power ascension test for water level setpoint change (PAT 23A) as given in Reference 1, the feedwater control system is verified through comparison with the plant data.

(b) increase in reactor pressure Events that increase reactor pressure significantly are usually initiated by a sudden reduction in steam flow. The increased pressure collapses the voids in the core, which increases core reactivity. This causes an increase in the core power level, which further increases core pressure. A scram will terminate this event.

Safety analysis events in this category include: (1) digital-electric-hydraulic (DEH) pressure regulator failure in the closed position, (2) generator load rejection, (3) turbine trip, (4) closure of the main-steam-line isolation valve, and (5) loss of the condenser vacuum.

Among the above events, the generator load rejection is typically most limiting in determining the thermal limits. RETRAN simulation of the load rejection test, (PAT 027) as given in Reference 1 and in response to Question 1 in this document and the sensitivity

V I

analyses on the steam line noding and core noding (see Reference 2 and Question 1) on this transient indicate that the RETRAN model can adequately simulate this category of transients. Particularly significant is the fact that. the PAT 027 simulation yields a pressure history which matches the plant data closely (see Figure 6). This is significant because the pressure behavior is important in predicting the power increases in this kind of transients.

The capability of the model in predicting the scram worth correctly is verified through the close match of the RETRAN calculated power with the measured data after scram in PAT 027 (see Figure 2).

(c) decrease in reactor coolant flow rate Events that reduce recirculation flow also reduce the reactor coolant flow rate, 'which increases core voids and decreases core reactivity. The decrease in reactor coolant flow increases the water level because of the swelling of moderator voids. The increase in core voids decreases the power level. Events in this category include: (1) recirculation pump trip (RPT), (2) recirculation flow control failure in the decreasing flow position.

Because of the nature of this types of transients that limits the increase of power, they are not limiting in setting the operating limit minimum critical power ratios (OLMCPR). The base model is adequate for this type of transient because the 12-node core model =

has been demonstrated to be adequate or conservative for a transient with a larger void feedback and power increase (see Question 1) and the 7-node steam line model has been demonstrated to be adequate or conservative for a transient with a larger pressurization (cf. Table 2 and Reference 2 Questions 1.1).

The RETRAN base model has been further verified to, correctly calculate this type of transients as a part of a PAT 027 simulation, i.e., the RPT sequence. In the load rejection test, the turbine control valve closure initiates the recirculation pump trip which contributes to the power decrease. Figures 3 and 4 show the plant data comparison with the RETRAN simulation. As discussed in Response to Question 1 and in References 1 and 2, the capability of the model in predicting the recirculation loop flow was verified.

More importantly, the capability in predicting the core flow as a consequence of the RPT is verified by comparing the calculated core flow with the plant data as shown in Figure 5. Core flow is the one of the key parameters in determining the core power.

(d) increase in reactor coolant inventory Events that lead to a feedwater flow rate higher than the steam production rate increase the amount of water (coolant inventory) in the reactor vessel, and may initiate a turbine and feedwater trip

ti on high water level. A turbine trip will, in turn, result in increased core pressure, with a concomitant void collapse and reactivity increase. The resulting increase in power level will be terminated by the reactor scram initiated by the turbine trip. The one event in this category is the feedwater controller failure.

In the early stages of the feedwater controller failure transient, the system behavior is relatively mild. The rate of power increase due to the reduction of the void is slow. The sensitivity on the core and steam line noding is small. Thus, the base model with 12-node core and 7-node steam line is adequate. As the water level increases to the trip setpoint, the turbine trip will set off a series of responses that follow closely a load rejection pressurization event. Since the pressurization. is not expected to be as severe as the load rejection (see Reference 1 Section 4), the sensitivity study performed on the core and steam line noding for load rejection is valid for the feedwater controller failure also.

Therefore, the base model with 12-node core and 7-node steam line is adequate.

Even though no Power Ascension Test data were available for this type of transients, a simulation of the feedwater controller failure transient using the licensing basis model was presented in Reference 1 (Section 4.3 of Reference 1). The transient sequence of events does follow the scenario described above. Particularly, the sequence of the events after the turbine trip on high water level follows essentially those for the load rejection which have been verified separately through the PAT 027 simulation as discussed above.

In addition to the qualitative statement based on the feedwater controller failure simulation, quantitative comparisons can be made in regard to the key parameters in this type of transient. One of the parameters is the water level. PAT 23A (Water Level Setpoint Change) data comparison as presented in Section 3.1.1 in Reference 1 leads to the conclusion that the base model can predict, the water level with reasonable accuracy. When the setpoint was changed to 6 inches higher, the model responded to that amount when the new water level was established (Figure 3.1.2 of Reference 1). Other calculations show that the RETRAN model generally yields conservative water level calculations (see Response to Question 6).

(e) increase in reactor coolant flow Events that increase recirculation flow also increase the reactor coolant flow rate, which decreases coolant temperature and voids.

These changes cause an increase in core reactivity and power level.

A slow increase in coolant flow may lead to a new steady-state operating condition, which can be terminated by operator action. A

rapid increase will initiate a scram on high neutron flux. Events in this category include: (1) recirculation flow control failure in the increasing flow position, (2) startup of an idle recirculation pump.

This type of transients are typically milder than a pressurization transients such as load rejection, but the determining phenomenon is the same, i.e., a power increase due to a decrease in void (see below for a detailed case analysis). Therefore, the sensitivity performed on core and steam line noding for the load rejection case (see Table 2 and References 1 and 2) applies to this types of transient and the base model with 12 core nodes and 7 steam line nodes is adequate.

I Even though these types of transients are typically nonlimiting, a RETRAN simulation of the recirculation pump control failure in the increasing flow position was performed to verify the capability of the WNP-2 RETRAN model. Because plant data are not readily available for this transient, no attempt was made to compare the RETRAN results with measured data. This simulation is performed to show the reasonableness of the model.

Because of the mild nature of the transient, the simulation is based on the best-estimate model using point kinetics. At the rated condition, the valve stem openings for the recirculation flow control valves are at 84% of full opening position for both loops.

Using the maximum valve stroke rate of 114 per second (Reference 3 Section 15.4.5), the valves are simulated to reach full open position in 1.455 seconds.

Figures 9 and 10 show the recirculation flows for loops A and B. As in Response to Question 1, the RETRAN code simulated a symmetrical behavior for both loops as expected. Figure 11 gives the total core flow which follows the recirculation pump flow closely. As the core flow increases, the void fraction decreases. This is shown in Figures 12 and 13. The void collapsing leads to a power increase as shown in Figure 14. This increased power tends to increase the void fractions, which will in turn slow the increase in core power. As the recirculation flow stabilizes at a new level, the core power and the void fractions will reach a new steady state as shown by the plotted results.

The simulation of the recirculation flow control failure transient indicates that the. WNP-2 RETRAN model has the capability of analyzing the transients with increasing core flow rates.

QUESTION 3 Redo RETRAN simulation for PAT Tests 30A and 027 using the actual plant initial conditions instead of the rated conditions and discuss the impact of the changes. The RETRAN code used should have the correction on recirculation pump flow symmetry. In addition, the results should be compared to, the plant data in a non-normalized form.

RESPONSE

PAT 30A and 027 were recalculated using the plant initial conditions instead of the rated conditions as reported in the Topical Report (Reference 1). As stated in the response to Question 1, the IBM RISC6000 version of the RETRAN code was used in these analyses.

The results for PAT 027 have been presented in the response to Question 1 when the core noding sensitivity issue was addressed.

Test PAT 30A was initiated by tripping one recirculation pump. The RETRAN simulation was initiated by introducing a recirculation pump trip in Recirculation Loop A at. time zero. The point-kinetics base model as given in the RETRAN topical report (Reference 1) was used except that the initial conditions were changed to the measured conditions as given in Table 1. Figures 15 through 20 give the results of the simulation. All plots are done in a non-normalized fashion except the power and heat flux. The measured data for these two parameters were given in fractions of rated values. Both the results for the rated conditions (designated Case 001 in the plots) and the actual plant conditions (designated Case 002) are given in the plots. Figure 15 shows the recirculation drive flow for the tripped loop (Loop A). The effect of using the actual plant condition on the flow coastdown is not significant. Figure 16 shows the recirculation drive flow for the unaffected loop (Loop B). As seen, the revised calculation follows the measured plant data more closely than that at rated conditions.

Figures 17 and 18 show the jet pump flows (sum of driving and suction flows) for Loops A and B respectively. The behaviors are very similar to the recirculation. flow comparisons. The revised calculation for the unaffected loop gives,a closer comparison with the plant data. The coast down rates for the tripped loop for Cases 001 and 002 (Figure 17) are slightly different. Case 002 gives a slower coast down rate than Case 001. The difference is mainly caused by the differences in the driving flows as shown in Figure

15. If the two RETRAN curves in Figure 15 are normalized so that they start at the same value, the Case 002 curve will show a slower coast down, rate than Case 001. As the driving flow increases or decreases, the suction flow will also increase or decrease. Thus,

the total flow through the jet pump will follow the driving flow closely. The difference in the driving flows is caused by the lower initial driving flow in Case 002. From Table 1, the measured driving flows (i.e., recirculation pump flows) for Loops A and B are 4430.0 and 4335.0 lb/sec, respectively: They are lower than the rated flow of 4527.78 lb/sec. Therefore, as one loop trips, the lower initial flow (for Case 002) i,n the unaffected loop will result in a slightly less resistance'n the affected loop than the case where the unaffected loop has higher flow (Case 001). This will cause the rate of decrease of the affected loop flow in Case 002 to be lower (i.e., slower coast down) as evidenced in Figure

15. As explained above, the suction flow in the jet pump varies directly with the driving flow. Therefore the jet pump flow, which is the sum of the driving and suction flows, for Case 002 also indicates a slower coast down in Figure 17.

Figure 19 indicates that the effect of changing the initial conditions is small on the core power calculations. This is also true for the core average heat flux as evidenced in Figure 20.

In summary, using the measured plant data at the initiation of the transient for PAT 30A generally gives a better comparison with the plant data throughout the transient. The effects on key parameters such as power and heat flux are small. The same conclusion is also true for PAT 027 (see Question 1).

QUESTION 4 Zn support of using the non-equilibrium model in the upper downcomer, perform a Peach Bottom turbine trip analysis using the equilibrium model and compare the power history with both the non-equilibrium model and the measured data.

RESPONSE

Two simulations of the Peach Bottom turbine trip test TT1 were performed. A full description of the model is provided in Reference

1. In one simulation, thermodynamic equilibrium between phases was assumed for the upper downcomer control volume, while the other simulation used a non-equilibrium model for the upper downcomer control volume. The predictions for steam dome pressure and core neutron power, along with the measured data, are shown in Figures 21 and 22. As discussed in Reference 2, the non-equilibrium model allows the existence of superheated steam in the upper downcomer region, producing higher dome and vessel pressures than the equilibrium model, leading to a larger void collapse -and higher core power. In Figure 21, the non-equilibrium model gives the dome pressure which is in better agreement with the measured data than the equilibrium model for the time period when the pressure reaches its maximum value. Matching the peak pressure is important in a potentially limiting transient such as turbine trip .because determines the total amount of reactivity increase that will be it introduced into the core due to void decrease. The non-equilibrium model slightly overpredicts the measured peak pressure. The pressure behavior is largely reflected in the neutron power comparisons as shown in Figure 22. Due to the higher pressure, the non-equilibrium model results in a slightly higher peak power.

However, it follows the measured data more closely than the equilibrium model. The slight overprediction in neutron power provides a conservative hCPR.

QUESTION 5 In RETRAN steady-state initialization, what are the key parameters that influence the transient results and how do they match the plant data? If the plant data is not consistent (within instrument accuracy), which parameters are keyed upon for model steady-state initialization and why?

RESPONSE

The key parameters in RETRAN steady-state initialization that will influence the transient results are the initial power level, the system pressure, the steam and feedwater flow rates, the total core flow, the water level and the recirculation flow. Table 1 gives a list of key parameters and their values for the four Power Ascension Tests analyzed in Reference 1. Another important parameter that is not measured directly is the core inlet enthaply.

This parameter is obtained through a standard loop heat balance calculation using other key parameters such as those listed above and input to RETRAN.

It is apparent that the RETRAN calculated results from the initialization process will not match every data that are printed out by the Plant Process Computer. However, as explained above, the important parameters affecting the thermal limits are the ones given in Table 1. Therefore, the RETRAN initialization process is keyed to these parameters. For the Power Ascension Test Cases, the input to RETRAN all resulted in an initialization that matched these parameters to within the instrument accuracy. If we look at Table 1, the measured flow rates for the feedwater and steam are different. By definition, these flow rates should be equal if a true steady state exits. The difference in measured flow could be due to the differences in instruments, calibration, drift or due to fluctuations from the true steady state. The RETRAN initialization will force the equalization by taking the average of the two measured flow as the initial conditions. The same is true for the recirculation pump flows for Loops A and B. It should be noted that the initialization process is not sensitive to the initial water level input to the RETRAN. This means that RETRAN can match the measured water level at the start of the transient without upsetting other parameters.

The question of the consistency of measured plant data used in the RETRAN initialization may also be addressed by looking at the comparisons of the RETRAN results with the plant data and with the initialization performed at the rated conditions. In response to Question 1, comparisons were made between the RETRAN results using the rated initial conditions and the measured initial conditions.

From Figure 7, the rated initial steam flow is larger than the measured steam flow. This higher initial flow causes slightly larger increase in dome pressure as seen in Figure 6. In addition,

Figure 6 indicates that the SRV operation depends on the initial pressure as discussed in Response to Question 1. This observation is consistent with what one would expect if the plant were running at the rated condition at the time of PAT 027 initiation.

Through the comparison of measured data and RETRAN calculations as presented in Responses to Questions 1 and 3 for PAT 027 and 30A, is realized that by using the measured conditions as the basis for it steady-state initialization (i.e., data in Table 1), the RETRAN calculations reached true steady state with converged loop heat and mass balance and the subsequent transient behavior matched the plant data closely, similar to the cases where the calculations were based on an initialization at the rated conditions, which by definition are within a consistent set. of parameters. This gives an indication that the key parameters as measured at the initiation of the PAT tests for Tests 027 and 30A (see Table 1) have the same degree of consistency as those at the rated conditions and the RETRAN initialization process is properly set up.

0 QUESTION 6 Discuss the impact of the discrepancies in water level predictions such as given in response to Question 1.6 in Reference 2 on transient results.

RESPONSE

Based on the Supply System reload methodology applied to Cycle 4, the limiting transient is the load rejection without bypass (Reference 4). This transient trips on the loss of generator load, not on the water level. Therefore, there is no impact in determining the operating limit MCPR.

Another less limiting transient which could potentially become limiting is the feedwater controller failure, which initiates a main turbine trip based on water level and a subsequent control rod scram.

To verify that RETRAN model yields reasonable results in water level, a comparison of the RETRAN calculation for the feedwater controller failure transient with the reload vendor's calculation is made. The licensing basis model as discussed in Reference 1 was used for the RETRAN analysis because that was the model basis used by the reload vendor (Reference 5), even though a different code (COTRANSA2) was used. In addition, since the vendor's results for water level for cycle 4 were not available, COTRANSA2 analysis for Cycle 7 was used in the comparison. The impact of different cycles is small because the fuel designs are essentially identical (i.e.,

they are identical with regard to the key parameters used in the RETRAN simulation) and both licensing models use the same bounding conditions. Figure 23 shows the plot of the water levels calculated by RETRAN and by Siemens Nuclear Power Corp. (Reference 5). From the figure, it is seen that the WNP-2 RETRAN model predicts a water level lower than that predicted by the vendor. This is conservative because lower water level would delay the main turbine trip on high water level leading to the initiation of the vessel pressurization at a higher power level. It will also delay the time to scram, resulting in further conservatism. To confirm the conservatism of the delayed turbine trip, a sensitivity case with an earlier trip of the main turbine was performed. In this study, the turbine and feedwater pumps are forced to trip at the time when the water level as predicted by the vendor reached Level 8. From Figure 23, the time when the vendor-calculated water level reaches Level 8 is about 17.5 seconds. Using this time instead of the 23.4 seconds in the original RETRAN calculation for the turbine and feedwater trips, the transient was recalculated. The peak power and the peak core average heat flux are compared below.

Peak Power Peak Heat Flux (4NBR) ( +oNBR)

Trips at 17.5 seconds 239.9 120. 2 Trips at 23.4 seconds 242.2 121. 4 From the above comparison, the case with delayed trips will result in a more limiting condition in terms of thermal limits because of the higher core peak heat flux.

Xt should be noted that the result of the RETRAN calculation is different from that given in Figure 4.3.3 in Reference 1. This is because in Reference 1, the feedwater flow rate was assumed to have a "step" change from 1004 NBR to 146% NBR (Figure 4.3.1 of Reference 1) which is the most limiting condition. Xn the analysis performed here, a slightly slower flow ramp rate used by the vendor is incorporated to allow a meaningful comparison. Xn addition, the vendor results in Reference 5 had to be shifted because they were presented as the level above the separator skirt whereas the RETRAN model gives the level above the "instrument zero".

QUESTION 7 Explain the feedwater flow behavior at 24 seconds into the transient for PAT 023 (i.e, cross-over of the measured data and calculated results, see Figure 3.1.1 of Reference 1) given the water level trend in Figure 3.1.2.

RESPONSE

A study of Figure 3.1.1 and Figure 3.1.2 indicates that the RETRAN results in feedwater flow and water level changes are more consistent than the measured data. The feedwater flow as calculated by RETRAN starts to level off at about the time when the water level approaches a new steady state. The measured feedwater flow, however, continues to decrease after the water level has already reached a steady state at about 24 seconds. This flow decrease causes a cross over between measured and calculated feedwater flow.

The cause for the inconsistency between the measured feedwater flow and the measured water level can be several. Events such as the initiation of the high pressure injection system or reactor core isolation cooling system would lead to a situation of continuing feedwater decrease while keeping water level constant. The exact cause of the inconsistency is difficult to identify because the test was performed in 1984 and not all of the data are available.

QUESTION 8 Xn response to Question 1.1(ii) in Reference 1, the algebraic slip model was verified using steady state data, justify the model for transient applications.

RESPONSE

For transient applications, it is important to correctly account for the reactivity effects due to changes in void fraction. As reported in section 3.2 of Reference 1, the calculated power and reactivity for Peach Bottom turbine trip tests agree well with the measured data. The calculated results are slightly on the conservative side in terms of the peak and integrated power (Table 3.2.4 through 3.2.7 in Reference 1). This indicates that the algebraic slip model in the subcooled void modelling is adequate for predicting void fraction changes for transient applications.

QUESTION 9 What areas of RETRAN sensitivity studies are covered in the Applications Topical that are related to the RETRAN Topical Report (WPPSS-FTS-129)?

RESPONSE

The Applications Topical (Reference 4) covers the entire spectrum of the reload analysis methodology beginning with the reference core design, including the selection and the safety analysis of the limiting events. These analyses provide the bases for any changes in core operating limits or technical specifications. The Applications Topical Report was submitted to the NRC in October 1991 for approval in licensing applications.

As part of the safety analysis methodology, the WNP-2 RETRAN model as described in WPPSS-FTS-129 was used to analyze certain limiting transients that involve system functions, such as load rejection without bypass and feedwater controller failure. As presented in the Applications Topical, the load rejection without bypass transient (LRNB) was selected for detailed sensitivity analysis because it was the most limiting transient for the reference core (Cycle 4) analyzed for WNP-2. A total of 28 cases were studied. The results in terms of the change in RCPR (ratio of h,CPR to initial CPR) are presented in Section 5 of the Topical. The same table is reproduced here (Table 2) with the percent changes in peak core power, peak core average heat flux, and peak dome pressure added to give an indication of the range of sensitivity parameters covered in the study. It should be pointed out that the studies performed for the Applications Topical both provide a sensitivity of the effects of different parameters on the model, and the contributing values of hRCPR from each parameter used to calculate the combined uncertainties in hCPR as part of the Statistical Combination of Uncertainties Methodology in determining the final OLMCPR for a given cycle.

It should be noted that the case on core noding (last case in Table

2) shows a change of -10.54 in peak power when the number of core nodes is changed from 12 to 24 during the LRNB. This is significantly more sensitive than that for PAT 027 (Response to Question 1). This is due to the severity of the transients simulated. In the LRNB transient, conservative operating parameters were deliberately selected to cause the plant to become supercritical for a short period of time (about 0.5 sec) due to an increase in reactivity. The magnitude of the reactivity increase is highly sensitive to the change in void fractions. Thus, a small change in void will lead to a large change in reactivity, thus in core power. This phenomenon is not nearly as profound for the case of PAT 027 where the reactivity never became positive.

The above observation is supported by the void fraction comparisons for the LRNB transient as given below. The void fractions are taken at 1.0 second into the transient which is close to the time of peak power (0.9 second). It is seen that the sensitivity on void fraction per se is significantly lower than that on the core power.

Comparison of the Void Fractions for 12- and 24-Node Models for LRNB Transient 12-Node 24-Node 0 Difference .

Mid-Core 0.455 0. 463** 1.8 Core Exit 0. 682+ 0. 685" 0.4

• Void fraction for,Vol. 57 (See Reference 1)

• • Volume averaged void fraction for Vol. 63 and 64 (see Figure 1)

+ Void fraction for Vol. 62 (see Reference 1)

++ Volume averaged void fraction for Vol. 73 and 74 (see Figure 1)

It is further supported by the sensitivity results in the heat flux

(-1.894) and the dome pressure (-0.074) as presented in Table 2, which have a secondary effect as a result of the slight change in voids. Even with higher power sensitivity for the LRNB transient, the 12-node model yielded a- conservative result in terms of peak power and hRCPR.

Some of the parametric studies were performed to quantify the CPRs under a new condition which is independent of the base model, and thus were not considered, as part of the sensitivity study to quantify the RETRAN model uncertainty. These are: (1) initial core flow at 1064 NBR, (2) no RPT, and the combination of (1) and (2).

Since the main purpose of the RETRAN sensitivity analysis in the Applications Topical Report, is to establish the model uncertainties for the licensing basis model, bounding values were used for the uncertainties of the parameters leading to conservative results in terms of hRCPR.

REFERENCES Y.Y. Yung et al, "BWR Transient Analysis Model", WPPSS-FTS-129, Rev.l, Washington Public Power Supply System, Sept. 1990.

2. Letter, G.C. Sorensen (WPPSS) to U.S. NRC "Nuclear Plant No.2, Operating License NPF-21 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Topical Report WPPSS-FTS-129, "BWR Transient Analysis Model" (TAC No. 77048)", G02-91-134, Washington Public Power Supply System, July 15, 1991.

3 ~ Washington Public Power Supply System FSAR, Amendment 43, 1991 4 ~ S.H. Bian el al, "Applications Topical Report for BWR Design and Analysis", WPPSS-FTS-131, Washington Public Power Supply System, Sept. 1991

5. M.E. Garrett et al, "WNP-2 Cycle 7 Plant Transient Analysis",

ANF-91-01, Rev.l, Siemens Nuclear Power Corp., April 1991

6. C.E. Peterson et al, "RETRAN02 A Program for Transient Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Complex Fluid Flow Systems, Volume 3: User's Manual (Revision 4)", NP-1850-CCM-A, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, November 1988.

7. C.E. Peterson et al., "RETRAN02 A Program for Transient Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Complex Fluid Flow Systems, Volume 4: Applications", NP-1850-CCM, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, January 1983.

TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF RETRAN INITIAL CONDITIONS TO WNP-2 POWER ASCENSION TEST'NITIAL CONDITIONS RETRAN-02 Initial PAT Test PAT Test PAT Test PAT Test Parameter Conditions 023A 022 030A 027 System Pressure 1,015.00 1,010.0 1,004.2 1,003.6 999.7 (psia)

Total Feedwater 3,970.97 3,638.9 3,710.6 3,694.4 3,788.8 Flow (lb/sec)

Total Steam 3,970.97 3,666.7 3,737.5 N/A 3,811.1 Flow (lb/sec)

Recirc. Pump A 4,527.78 4,444.4 4, 104.7 4,430.0 4,169.08 Flow (lb/sec)

Recirc. Pump B 4,527.78 4,444.4 4,000.1 4,335.0 4,208.7 Flow (lb/sec)

Normalized 1.0 0.951 .975 0.962 0. 975 Power Water Level 36. 05 37. 0 36.20 32.78 36.49 (in)

Total Core 30, 138.8 29,166.7 28,903.2 30, 166. 7 28,744.4 Flow (lb/sec)

TABLE 2 Results of Generator Load Rejection Without Bypass Sensitivity Studies Percent Change Peak Peak Peak Core Heat Dome Power Flux Press. hRCPR Nuclear Model Parameters Void Coefficient (+134) +4. 1 +2.3 +0.018 Doppler (-104) +3. 5 +0.77 +0.005 Prompt Moderator Heating (-25%) +8. 9 +2.6 +0.13 +0.013 Scram Reactivity (-10%) -0. 19 +0.68 +0.09 +0.004 I Scram Speed (normal scram time) -14. 4 -5.6 -0.47 -0.045 Core Thermal Hydraulics Parameters Code Correlation (kappal+0.20) +1.6 -0.23 -0.09 +0.001 Code Correlation (CGL+30~) +2.0 +0.37 +0.03 +0.003 Code Correlation (CDB+20%) +0.83 +0.23 +0.02 +0.001 Code Correlation (CHN+20%) +0.44 +0.08 +0.0 +0.001 Initial Core Flow at 106% +7.80 +1.51 -0.02 +0.014 Initial Core Flow at 1060, no RPT +48.5 +9.46 +0.39 +0.056 Core Pressure Loss Coefficients (-20%) -0.88 -0.08 +0.0 -0.002 Initial Core Bypass Flow (-20%) +0.19 +0.08 +0.0 +0.003 Fuel Pin Radial Nodes (+50>) +1.78 -0.23 +0.03 +0.004 Core Power (+44) +3.51 +4.77 +0.60 +0.003 Recirculation System Parameters Recirculation Loop Inertia (+100%) +5.26 +l. 14 +0.06 +0.007 Recirculation Pump Head (-10%) +2. 17 +0.45 +0.03 +0.003 Jet Pump Inertia (+100%) +6.43 +1.29 +0.07 +0.008

TABLE 2 Cont.

Separator Liquid Outlet Inertia (+100~) +1. 32 +0.23 +0.03 +0.001 Separator Inlet Inertia (-30%) +14. 9 +0.98 +0.04 +0.003 Jet Pump Loss Coefficient (-20%) +4. 29 +0. 68 +0.03 +0.004 No RPT +36. 0 +8. 10 +0.46 +0.040 Steam Line Model Parameters Steam Line Inertia (+7%) +l. 85 +0.76 +0.08 +0.007 Pressure Loss Coefficient (-20O) +3. 14 +0.91 +0.20 +0.007 Vessel and Loop Geometry Parameters Vessel Dome Volume (-5%) +3.46 +0.83 +0. 14 +0.005 Steam Line Volume (-5:) +0.73 -0.15 +0.08 -0.002 Steam Line Noding (7 ~ 13) +0.41 -0.38 +0.02 -0.003 Active Core Noding (12 ~ 24) -10.5 -1.89 -0.07 -0.011

MNP-2 RETRAH MODEL ACTIVE CORE REGION Core outlet (2% NODES) I 2$ I ]8 I I I I 5 I 23I 73 73 22 72 XX I ] I I I 71 71 22 Volume Number I

I 28II 78 78 2]

gg Junction Number I]9I I I 69 69

]S 69 I I 1 7 67 lS I I I Hest Conductor Number I I 16 I 66 I I I I 17 I I 65 16

]'] I nn Neutron]cs Region Number I I I I I 1 I 63 63 12 'I 62 62 I

ll i I

61 12 18 I 68 I I I 9 59 59 I I S 59 ss I I 9 57 6 I 56 56 7 I I I 5 I 55 55 I I 5W 5~

I I I 3 I 53 53 I

I 2 I I 52 2 I I 51 Core Inlet 0

Figure 1 POHER PAT TEST 027

+ PLAHE OATA CASE 001 X

CISE 002 0 CASE 003 K

UJ 3:

0 Q.

0 Oj N

W Z

QO z

O 0

'IME, SEC Figure 2

RRC FLOW A (JUN 20$ )

PAT TEST 027 O

O n

PLAHL OLLA

+

CASE 00L X

CASE 002 p CASE 00S O

LIL M

Z IO JO X

0 LL.

O O

0 0

TIME, SEC Figure 3

RRC FLOW 8 (JUN 208) PAT TEST 027 PLANT OITA X CISE OOI CISE 003 D CISE 003 U

TLT TT)

X IO JO 0

b.

0 O

O T ITIVE, SEC Figure 4

TOTAL CORE FLOW (JUN 3 6 20) PAT 027 PLANK OAT A CASE 001 X

CASE 002 p CASE 003 O

O O

O CO U

lU M

Z (D

I I Oo Uo

<c O

O O

O 0

I T HE. SEC Figure 5

OOME PRESSURE (VOL.i6) PAT TEST 027

+ PJ.ANY OAJA

)( CASE 00J CASE 002 p CASE 003 T I HE. SEC Figure 6

STEAM FLOIS (JUN. 330J PAT TEST 027 O

O O

n PLANT OAZA CASE 00)

CASE 002 p CASE 003 O

lU Ul Z

~O JO 0

b.

O O

O 0

TIME, SEC Figure 7

WNP-2 FEEDWATER CONTROLLER FAILURE AXIALPOWER SHAPE 0.06 0 SEC 0.05 15 SEC I

0.04 I I

I I

0 CI

~0.03

~

K 0

0.02 0.01 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 AXIALDISTANCE (INCHES FROM BOTTOM)

Figure 8

P RECIRC FLON LOOP A RFCF U

lU Vl Z

z Oo JO 4.~

O aA r 0 8 TIME (SEC)

Figure 9

REC IRC FLOtd LOOP 8 RFCF RECIRC LOOP 8 U

UJ M

E 6) aO A

0 l6 T IHE (SEC)

Figure 10

TOTAL CORE FLOW RFCF O

Ill M

X 03 X

0 U.

O O

O O

A6 TIME (SEC)

Figure 11

t VOIO FRACTION (MIO-COREj RFCF VOIO FAAC VtN..56 Z

0M I-0

+o Q:e

<o 0

0 TIME (SEC)

Figure 12

'lJ'OIO FRACTION (CORE EXIT) RFCF ValO CRAG VOL.62 Z

O I-O

<o O

W 0

0 0 8 $6 T IHE (SEC)

Figure 13

RFCF CORE POWER POWER I-z X

O IIJ 3

0 Q.

O O

O Pl 0 B T IHE tSEC)

Figure 14

RECIRC FLOW PUMP A PAT TEST 030A

+ PLANT OATA CASE 001 X

CASE 002 O

W OT F

z Qo Joo ll.tV TINE. SEC Figure 15

RECIRC FLOW PUMP 8 PAT TEST 030A PLINTOIfI

)( CISE 00$

CISE 002 Vl E

DO JO 3:

0 O

0 $ 2 24 TIME. SEC Figure 16

JET PUMP A FLOW (JUN.i) PAT TEST 030A PLANt OAtA g CASK 00t g CASE 002 O

ltt 0)

E ID Qo

-tooo h.a o

o o

CU 0 t2 24 TINE, SFC Figure 17

JET PUMP 8 FLOW (JUN.2) PAT TEST 030A

+ PLANT OATA

)( CASE'01 CASE'02 T2 24 TIME. SEC Figure 18

POHER PAT TEST 030A PLANT OA'TA

)( CASE 00T CASE 002 0

lU N'

E KIO OO 2

O 0

!2 2A TIME. SEC Figure 19

CORE I-IEAT FLUX PAT TEST 030A PLAMf OATA CASE 001 CASE 002 TIME. SEC Figure 20

~ .

~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ k 1 0

~ ~ ~ r 0

~ ~ ~

~ ~

I I ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

N

LIGUIO LEVEL WNP-2 FWCF LBM CASE 002 O

llJ

+n 0

M G

H O

to

()

TINE (SEC)

Figure 23

APPENDIX A VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF IBM RISC6000 VERSION OF RETRAN (RETRAN02 MOD5UEM)

Version MOD5UEM is basically an adaptation of RETRAN02 MOD005.0, which has received NRC approval, to UNIX-based workstations. In the RETRAN-02 MOD005.0 code, the source code is written in FORTRAN 77 and the routines in the environmental library are written in FORTRAN and assembly or machine language code. The integer variables in the FTB arrays are single precision vectors that are set equivalent to real variabl'es in the FTB files. This code compiles directly on CDC computers that have a 60-bit word structure. On IBM mainframe computers, the RETRAN coding is treated as a double precision code to overcome the limitations of inaccuracy due to arithmetic round-off associated with single precision, 32-bit words. This double precision version is obtained by invoking the "autodbl" option of the IBM FORTRAN 77 compiler.

This feature elevates data constants to double precision, selects the double precision form for intrinsic functions, and provides automatic padding of the integer variables in the FTB arrays so that word alignment problems are not encountered.

The RETRAN-03 computer program was under development in 1989 and that code was written totally in FORTRAN 77. This feature was a design objective of the overall development program and was undertaken to provide single source code that could be installed on a variety of computers with minimum changes. Mainframe computers, workstation computers, and IBM compatible microcomputers were all considered to be potential computers on which RETRAN-03 would be used. The requirements that were placed on the operating systems were that they comply with ANSI Standard FORTRAN 77 and that they support either 60-bit or 64-bit word structure.

The progress of this aspect of the RETRAN-03 development effort was demonstrated to be successful by the various users in the prerelease checkout activities and in late 1989, EPRI began the process to provide a similar version of RETRAN-02 for the RETRAN Maintenance Group. It relied mainly on the experiences of the RETRAN-03 work. The version of RETRAN-02 that was sent to the Supply System from EPRI (designated MOD5UEM) had been developed as an interim version in the process of moving from RETRAN-02 MOD005.0 to a version of MOD005.0 that was completely compliant with FORTRAN 77 and that could be readily installed on a variety of computers.

The changes made to the MOD005.0 code that. were in the version sent to the Supply System are of two types:

Those associated with providing an environmental library written

in FORTRAN 7.7 Those associated with providing a general source code for 32 bit computers The changes associated with the library were made to library routines and to some routines in the RETRAN source code that interact with the library routines'uring input and output processing. The functionality of the library routines was not changed. The changes in the source code associated with the integer padding and the intrinsic functions were made in a general manner that would permit the code to be installed on various 32-bit computers provided that double precision features were implemented.

Other modifications of this nature included changes to format statements and the method of handling hollerith characters.

The ten sample problems in the standard RETRAN distribution package (Reference A-1) were run on the IBM RISC6000 workstation using the MOD5UEM version. The combination of these ten cases covers all of the important modeling features in the RETRAN02 code (cf. Reference A-1) .

Key parameters as recommended by the RETRAN developer (Ref. A-2) were selected to ensure that the comparisons would adequately reflect the accuracy of the entire simulation in each sample case The values calculated by Version MOD5UEM were compared to the values given in Ref. A-1 which were based. on the NRC-approved RETRAN02 MOD005.0. The comparison results are given below.

For Standard Problem One, six parameters were selected. They are given in Table A-1. Parameter "Time" is not a comparison parameter.

The last time step is used for all sample problem comparisons. It would reflect the largest error between the two versions because of the cumulative effects. It should be noted that Ref. A-2 listed void fractions instead of the average densities for Volumes 2, 5, and 8. Since void fractions from the MOD005.0 run in Ref. A-1 are not listed, the related parameter of average density is used.

For the Eight Volume Sample Problem, six parameters were selected.

The comparison is given in Table A-2. Again, due to unavailability of the temperature for heat conductor 20 node 3 in the RETRAN MOD005.0 manual (Ref. A-1), the surface temperature is compared.

For Standard Problem Five, five parameters were selected. They are given in Table A-3. For the Standard Problem Four, seven parameters were selected (see Table A-4). For Turbine Trip without Bypass with Point Kinetics, 12 parameters were selected (see Table A-5). For Uncontrolled Rod Withdrawal, 10 parameters were selected (see Table A-6). For Two-Dimensional Flow Field, 6 parameters were selected (see Table A-7). For Secondary System Sample Problem, 5 parameters were selected (see Table A-8). For Turbine Trip without Bypass with Space-Time Kinetics, 8 parameters were selected (see Table A-9).

A-2

For PWR ATWS Sample Problem, 12 parameters were selected (see Table A-10). The control block outputs (COUT 1, -2 and -1) and the liquid region mass and temperature and vapor region temperature for Volume 1 are not compared because these edits are not available in the RETRAN MOD005.0 manual (Ref. A-1).

Table A-1 Standard Problem One Comparison Parameter MOD5UEM MOD005.0 Diff. (%)

Time (sec) 0 ..465 0.465 Number of time steps 223 223 Vol.4 pressure (psia) 2.18507E1 2.18507E1 0.0 Jct.4 Flow (lb/sec) 2.13352 2.13352 0.0 Vol. 2 Avg Density (lb/ ft~) 2. 46875E-1 2.46875E-1 0.0 Vol.5 Avg Density(lb/ft~) 2.73454E-1 2.73454E-1 0.0 Vol.8 Avg Density(lb/ft~) 2.81773E-1 2.81773E-1 0.0 Table A-2 Eight Volume Sample Problem Comparison Parameter MOD5UEM MOD005.0 Diff. (0)

Time (sec) 0 ' 0.4 Number of time steps 997 997 Heat conductor ¹20 surface temperature (F) 4.52738E2 4.52738E2 0.0 Vol. 201 temperature (F) 5.31412E2 5. 314 12E2 0.0 Vol. 131 pressure (psia) 2.23015E2 2.23015E2 0.0 Jct. 9 flow (lb/sec) -1.05506E3 -1.05506E3 0.0 Jct. 999 flow (lb/sec) 7.74393E3 7.74393E3 0.0 A-3

Table A-3 Standard Problem Five Comparison Parameter MOD5UEM MOD005.0 Diff. (w)

Time (sec) 5.02 5.02 Number of time steps 486 486 Vol. 6 pressure (psia) 9. 60029E2 9. 60029E2 0.0 Vol.6 Avg Density(lb/ft~) 2.32948E1 2.32948E1 0.0 Jct. 8 flow (lb/sec) 9.59106 9. 59106 0.0 Jct. 9 flow (lb/sec) 4.90702 4.90702 0.0 Table A-4 Standard Problem Four Comparison Parameter MOD5UEM MOD005.0 Diff. (%)

Time (sec) 1.0 1.0 Number of time steps 422 422 Vol. 1 pressure (psia) 1-01149E3 1.01149E3 0.0 Vol. 11 temperature (F) 5.43824E2 5.43824E2 0.0 Jct.l flow (lb/sec) 3.14727E1 3.14727El 0.0 Jct. 21 flow (lb/sec) 2.57385E1 2.57385E1 0.0 Jct. 28 flow (lb/sec) 9.07339 9.07339 0.0 Jct. 32 flow (lb/sec) 9.65325 9.65325 0.0 A-4

Table A-5 Turbine Trip Without Bypass With Point Kinetics Parameter MOD5UEM MOD005.0 Diff. (4)

Time (sec) 2.01 2.01 Number of time steps 224 224 Vol. 10 pressure (psia) 1. 17724E3 l. 17724E3 0.0 Vol. 9 mixture level (ft) 4.28014 4.28015 -2.3E-4 Normalized core power 0.4739057 0.4739058 -2.1E-5 Jct. 1 flow (lb/sec) 2.05946E4 2.05946E4 0.0 Jct. 15 flow (lb/sec) 9.52889E3 9.52889E3 0.0 Jct. 16 flow (lb/sec) 2.19671E4 2.19671E4 0.0 Jct. 17 flow (lb/sec) 3.03026E3 3.03026E3 0.0 Total reactivity ($ ) -1. 52936 . -1.52936 0.0 Void reactivity ($ ) 1.01524 1.01524 0.0 Doppler reactivity ($ ) -0.132250 -0.132250 0.0 Control reactivity (9) -2.41234 -2.41234 0.0 A-5

Table A-6 Uncontrolled Rod Withdrawal Comparison Parameter MOD5UEM MOD005.0 Diff. (0)

Time (sec) 3.05 3.05 Number of time steps 71 71 0.0 Vol. 1 pressure (psia) 2.26351E3 2. 26351E3 0.0 Vol. 18 pressure (psia) 2.24268E3 2.24268E3 0.0 Vol. 20 pressure (psia) 8.71323E2 8.71323E2 0.0 Normalized core power 0.8291161 0.8291161 0.0 Vol. 2 temperature (F) 6.07335 6.07335 0.0 Vol. 10 temperature (F) 5.50436E2 5.50436E2 0.0 Jct. 13 flow (lb/sec) 2.73438E4 2.73438E4 0.0 Jct. 19 flow (lb/sec) -1.41591E-2 -1.41591E-2 0.0 Jct. 21 flow, (lb/sec) 1.41461E2 1.41460E2 7.1E-4 Table A-7 Two-Dimensional Flow Field Comparison Parameter MOD5UEM MOD005.0 Diff. (0)

Time (sec) 0.1 0.1 Number of time steps 663 663 0.0 Vol. 4 pressure (psia) 4.96934E2 4.96934E2 0.0 Vol. 6 pressure (psia) 4.96934E2 4.96934E2 0.0 Jct. 6 flow (lb/sec) 1.58139E1 1. 58139E1 0.0 Jct. 7 flow (lb/sec) 1.58139E1 1.58139E1 0.0 Jct. 8 flow (lb/sec) 6.49958E1 6.49958E1 0.0 A-6

Table A-8 Secondary System Sample Problem Comparison Parameter MOD5UEM MOD005.0 Diff. (0)

Time (sec) 0.5 0.5 Number of time steps 745 745 0.0 Vol. 12 pressure (psia) 0.997917 0.997917 0.0 Vol. 16 pressure (psia) 9 ~ 518 19E1 9. 51819E1 0.0 Jct. 20 flow (lb/sec) 3.82086E3 3.82086E3 0.0 Jct. 29 flow (lb/sec) 2.24888E2 2.24888E2 0.0 Table A-9 Turbine Trip without Bypass with Space-Time Kinetics Comparison Parameter MOD5UEM MOD005.0 Diff.

(-)

Time (sec) 1.0 1.005 Number of time steps 222 223 Normalized core power 0.6033136 0.6005210 4.6E-1 Vol. 10 pressure (psia) 1. 10459E3 1. 10516E3 -'5.2E-2 Jct. 17 flow (lb/sec) 1.68626E3 1.68807E3 -1.1E-1 Jct. 24 flow (lb/sec) 2.59335E3 2.58640E3 2.7E-1 Vol. 9 mixture level (ft) 4.69237 4.69237 0.0 Total reactivity -7.377669E-3 -7.480861E-3 -1.4 Rod reactivity -1.126763E-2 -1.127351E-2 -5.2E-2

Table A-10 PWR ATWS Sample Problem Comparison Parameter MOD5UEM MOD005.0 Diff. (%)

Time (sec) 150.3309 150.3309 Number of time steps 1211 1217 Vol. 34 pressure (psia) 2.31009E3 2. 31441E3 -1.9E-1 Vol.34 mixture level (ft) 3.29200El 3.29200E1 0.0 Jct. 51 flow (lb/sec) 1.33831E4 1.33855E4 -1.8E-2 Vol.51 mixture level (ft) 1.31993E-2 1.30159E-2 1.4E-2 Vol. 51 pressure (psia) 6.82093E2 6.82288E2 -2.9E-2 Vol. 51 liquid mass (lb) 4.31636E1 4.25627El 1.4 Vol. 25 temperature (F) 6.51378E2 6.51430E2 -8.0E-3 Vol. 30 temperature (F) 6.55266E2 6.55338E2 -1.1E-2 Jct. 82 flow (lb/sec) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Jct. 89 flow (lb/sec) -2.04578E2 -2.06070E2 -7.2E-1 Jct. 90 flow (lb/sec) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Comparison of the outputs of the sample problems between MOD005.0 and MOD5UEM indicates that they yield identical results (at least to six significant, figures) for the first 8 sample problems. For Sample Problem 9 (Turbine Trip without Bypass with Space-Time Kinetics), the maximum difference is in the total reactivity

(-1.4%). Since the absolute value of the total reactivity is a very small number, it the code or platform is usually more sensitive to the changes made to it is run on. For Sample Problem 10 (PWR ATWS Sample Problem), the comparison yields a maximum difference in Volume 51 liquid mass (1.4%) at the end of the 150-second simulation. This difference is apparently caused by the accumulated deviation of the calculations using different processors and operating systems. The comparisons on pressure, temperature and flow for Sample Problem 10 give much smaller differences as seen in Table A-10.

To further verify the MOD5UEM version, the most limiting transient identified in the Transient Topical Report (Ref. A-4) was run on both the MOD5UEM and MOD004 versions. The selected transient is the WNP-2 Licensing Basis Model Load Rejection Without Bypass (LRNB)

A-8

which yields the highest peak power and smallest thermal margins.

The MOD004 run was made on a CDC NOS/BE operating system at Power Computing. The comparisons are given in Table A-11 and A-12.

Table A-11 Comparison of Key Parameters for WNP-2 Load Rejection Without Bypass Parameter MOD5UEM MOD004 Diff.(4)

Time 2.0 2.0 Number of time steps 973 973 Normalized core power 0.4046764 0.4035891 2.7E-1 Vol. 4 pressure (psia) 1.21450E3 1.21460E3 -8.2E-3 Vol. 11 pressure (psia) 1 '0776E3 1. 20784E3 -6.6E-3 Jct. 4 flow (lb/sec) 2. 26415E4 2.26509E4 -4.1E-2 Vol. 4 temperature (F) 5.34560E2 5.34561E2 -1.9E-4 Vol. 11 temperature (F) 5.67760E2 5.67768E2 -1.4E-3 Jct. 310 flow (lb/sec) 3.71439E3 3.71639E3 -5.4E-2 Jct. 201 flow (lb/sec) 3.52832E3 3.53126E3 -8.3E-2 Control block -88 2.53116E1 2.53317E1 -7.9E-2 Total reactivity -9.59095E-3 -9.640133E-3 -5 'E-1 Vol. 4 density (lb/ft~) 4.73151E1 4.73151E1 0.0 Vol.11 density (lb/ft~) 1.39558E1 1.39484E1 5. 3E-2

Table A-12 Power History for WNP-2 Load Rejection Without Bypass Time into Normalized Core Power Transient (sec) MODSUEM MOD004 Diff. (0) 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.930005 0.930065 -6. 5E-3 0.6 1.03888 1.03923 -3. 4E-2 0.7 1.61492 1. 61697 -1. 3E-1 0.8 2.27940 2 '8641 -3.1E-l 0.9 2.94521 2.96032 -5.1E-1 1.0 3.89955 3.91851 -USE-1 2.50341 2.50561 -8 SE-2

~

1.2 1.04774 1.04983 -2 'E-1 1.3 0 '54647 0.655916 9E-1 1.5 0.479288 0.479418 -2.7E-2 2.0 0.4046764 0.4035891 2.7E-l The locations for the parameters given in Table A-11 may by identified using the noding diagram in the Transient Topical Report (Ref. A-4). The Control Block -88 output is the water level in feet. The maximum deviation of 0.27% occurs in the normalized core power.

For the licensing basis model LRNB, the most important parameter for determining the thermal margins is the core power. Therefore its values as a function of time are compared. The results are given in Table A-12. The peak power occurs at about 1.0 second into the transient. From Table A-12, it is seen that the maximum deviation is about 0.48%. Even though Version MOD5UEM under estimates the peak power, the difference is small and will not result in any significant deviations in the hCPR calculations. Part, of the differences between MOD5UEM and MOD004 is caused by the RETRAN revision from MOD004 and MOD005.0. As stated earlier, MOD5UEM is derived from MOD005.0. WNP-2 transient analysis performed in the Topical Report (Ref. A-4) are all based on MOD004.

From the above comparisons, it is concluded that the differences are mainly caused by the differences in computer hardware and the operating systems. These differences are orders-of-magnitude smaller than the error bands of the comparisons between the predicted and the actual measured data given in the RETRAN02 qualification report (Reference A-3). From these case comparisons, it was concluded that RETRAN02 Version MOD5UEM was correctly modified and installed on the Supply System's IBM RISC6000 Workstation.

REFERENCES A-1. C.E. Peterson et al, "RETRAN02 A Program for Transient Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Complex Fluid Flow Systems, Volume 3: User's Manual (Revision 4)", NP-1850-CCM-A, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, November 1988.

A-2. Letter, J.H. McFadden (CSA, Inc) to S.H. Bian (WPPSS), CSA-095-92, Computer Simulation and Analysis, Inc, February 17, 1992.

A-3. C.E. Peterson et al., "RETRAN02 A Program for Transient Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Complex Fluid Flow Systems, Volume 4: Applications", NP-1850-CCM, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, January 1983.

A-4. Y.Y. Yung et al, "BWR Transient Analysis Model", WPPSS-FTS-129, Rev.1, Washington Public Power Supply System, Sept. 1990.

A-12

APPENDIX B BWR TRANSIENT ANALYSIS MODEL LICENSING BASIS TRANSIENT ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pacae

1.0 INTRODUCTION

~ ~ B-1 2.0 MODEL INPUTS B-1 3.0 RESULTS B-3

4.0 CONCLUSION

S B-6

5.0 REFERENCES

B-23

LIST OF TABLES Table Pacae 2.1 LICENSING BASIS TRANSIENT INITIAL CONDITIONS B-7 2.2 LICENSING BASIS TRANSIENT S/R VALVE AND SCRAM BANK CHARACTERISTICS B-8 2.3 LICENSING BASIS TRANSIENT DELAYED NEUTRON DATA B-9 LIST OF FXGURES Ficiure Pacae 3.1 LBT INITIAL AXIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION B-11 3.2 LBT INITIAL HEAT FLUX DISTRIBUTION B-12 3.3 LBT INITIAL VOID DISTRIBUTION B-13 3.4 LBT INITIAL FUEL TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION B-14 3.5 LBT CORE AVERAGE VOXD DISTRIBUTION B-15 3.6 LBT CORE MIDPLANE PRESSURE B-16 3.7 LBT TOTAL CORE FLOW B-17 3.8 LBT CORE POWER B-18 3.9 LBT CORE HEAT FLUX B-19 3.10 LBT CORE AVERAGE FUEL TEMPERATURE B-20 3.11 LBT HEAT FLUX DXSTRIBUTION AT 0.8 SEC B-21 3.12 LBT HEAT FLUX DISTRIBUTION AT 1.2 SEC B-22 3.13 LBT TOTAL CORE REACTIVITY ~ ~ B-23

1.0 INTRODUCTION

At the request of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Washington Public Power, Supply System (the Supply System) performed an analysis of a test problem with the RETRAN-02 ("RETRAN") code The test problem, referred as the Licensing Basis Transient (LBT),

is a hypothetical turbine trip without steam bypass for Peach Bottom Unit 2. It is a limiting operational transient that is important in the safety analysis of a. boiling water reactor (BWR).

The analysis results provide a basis for comparison with audit calculations performed by other organizations using different methodologies.

A description of the RETRAN model inputs is given in Section 2.

Comparisons of the calculated results with General Electric (GE) and Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) results ~ ~

are presented in Section 3. Section 4 contains the conclusions and section 5 the References.

2.0 MODEL INPUTS Reference B-2 provides the basic description of the LBT. Additional information (e.g., scram insertion times, steam line length) was obtained from References B-3 and B-4.

The SIMULATE-E and SIMTRAN-E8 codes were used to generate the RETRAN one-dimensional (1-D) kinetics data at the initial conditions. First, a stepwise depletion of cycle 1 and a Haling depletion of cycle 2 were used to determine the core power distribution and nodal cross sections at the end-of-cycle 2 (fuel B-1

e xposure used for LBT), all rods out state point. The 3-D to 1-D collapsing and the adjustment to account for the differences in the SIMULATE-E and RETRAN calculated moderator densities were then performed. The Supply System's process to generate the 1-D kinetics data is fully described in Section 2.6 of Reference B-7.

The RETRAN model used for the LBT analysis was nearly identical to that used in Reference B-7 for the Peach Bottom turbine trip benchmark analysis. The following modifications were made to conform to the licensing inputs specified in the BNL and GE analyses of the LBT (References B-2 and B-3). The transient was initiated from 104.54 of rated power and 100% of rated flow. The fuel rod gap conductance was held at a constant value of 1000 Btu/(hr-ft~-'F). The steam separator inlet loss coefficient was

~

adjusted to produce the initial pressure distribution consistent

~ ~

with the BNL's data reported in Reference B-2. Table 2.1 summarizes the initial conditions for the LBT. Note that the core inlet enthalpy was determined by heat balance calculation and the active core flow was calculated by SIMULATE-E. The recirculation pump trip to mitigate the transient was inactivated. The reactor scram was assumed functional and activated by the turbine trip scram setpoint with a 0.27 second delay. The scram bank insertion velocity was specified by the standard "67B" scram scheme. Safety/Relief (S/R) valve characteristics (setpoints, delays and stroke times) were changed to those defined in Reference B-2-. Table 2.2 lists the S/R valve and scram bank characteristics used for the LBT analysis. The stroke time for the turbine stop valve was assumed to be 0.1 B-2

second. The steam line length was reduced to 400 ft to be consistent with the value used by other organizations '(Reference 4). The length and volume of the steam line have a significant effect on the timing and magnitude of the pressure wave. The delayed neutron yield fractions (Si/6) and decay constants were taken from Reference B-2 and are listed in Table 2.3.

3.0 RESULTS The important transient results obtained with the RETRAN model are compared to those obtained by GE and BNL. They are presented in the following sections.

3.1

~ Initial Conditions

~ ~ ~

The initial axial power

~ ~

and axial heat flux distributions are presented in Figures 3.1 and 3.2. As shown, they are in reasonable agreement with the distributions reported by GE and BNL. Steady state comparisons for the initial void fraction and fuel temperature are shown in Figures 3.3 and 3.4. The RETRAN calculated initial axial fuel temperature profile agrees well with the GE, values. The initial fuel temperatures are highly dependent on the fuel-to-clad gap conductance and the fuel pin model. RETRAN predicted higher void fraction in the top half of the core, most likely due to the differences in the void models. The large difference in the lower pqrtion of the core between T/H void and neutron void is due to the fact that neutron void includes the subcooled boiling effects. It should be noted that the void B-3

reactivity in RETRAN is determined by the neutron void which matches well with both GE and BNL results.

3.2 Thermal-Hydraulic Response The core average void fraction during the transient is plotted in Figure 3.5. The variation on void fraction is similar for all the calculations. The RETRAN results show a slightly higher initial void fraction and a larger reduction than the GE and BNL data. The variation in core average void fraction is closely related to I

variations in core pressure, inlet flow and differences in void models. The larger drop in void fraction is due to the more rapid pressure rise and the earlier leveling off in pressure causes the earlier turnaround of void fraction.

~ ~ ~

The comparisons of transient core midplane pressures and core inlet

~ ~ ~

flow are presented in Figures 3.6 and 3.7. The RETRAN core midplane

~

~ ~ ~

pressure rises more rapidly. than the BNL and GE calculations.

Differences in vessel modeling (e.g., separator inlet inertia, separator inlet and exit loss coefficients) could significantly affect the pressure wave transmission through the vessel to the core. The information available in References B-2 and B-3 does not allow complete resolution of these differences. The levelin'g off of the pressure near 1.0 seconds is caused by the rapid, successive opening of the second and third safety/relief valve groups. The GE and BNL calculated pressures continue to increase, though at a slower rate possibly due to a slower decrease in core power and heat flux as shown in Figures 3.8 and 3.9. The RETRAN core inlet B-4

flow is similar to the GE calculation with RETRAN predicting higher flow at the first peak and less flow at the second peak. The first pressure wave calculated by RETRAN apparently reaches the lower plenum sooner than that calculated by GE. The oscillation frequency is very similar to both GE an BNL results as indicated by Figure 3.7.

3.3 Neutronic Response The transient core power is presented in Figure 3.8. Comparing to GE results, the RETRAN calculation shows that the maximum power occurs slightly earlier and the power increase peak is narrower and higher. These differences reflect the change of the core power response to the variations in the core average void fraction presented in Figure 3.5. The BNL transient core power is similar in magnitude but differs from the GE and RETRAN calculations in timing. This shifting of the power peak is mainly 'due to the reduction of pressure rise between 0.6 sec and 0.7 sec (Figure 3.6) .

Of primary interest from a safety viewpoint is the clad surface heat flux in the core as the surface heat flux dominates the critical power ratio (CPR) during the transient. As shown in Figure 3.9, the transient heat flux calculated by RETRAN is similar to the GE results. The higher heat flux peak predicted by RETRAN increases the change in CPR and consequently, yields a more conservative thermal limit. The BNL transient heat flux is significantly different from both the RETRAN and GE calculations. This may be B-5

attributed to differences in fuel pin modeling as indicated by the large differences in the transient, core average fuel temperature shown in Figure 3.10 (GE data not available for comparison).

Comparisons of the axial heat flux profiles at 0.8 and 1.2 seconds are shown in Figures 3.11 and 3.12. Note that the BNL heat flux profiles were obtained from calculation using GE pressure and flow curves. Both the magnitude and axial shape change of the heat flux from the initial values are in reasonable agreement for all the three calculations.

The RETRAN transient. total core reactivity (Figure 3.13) is similar to the BNL calculation (GE calculation not available) in trend and magnitude. The peak reactivity occurs earlier and is consistent with the differences shown in the transient core average void fraction (Figure 3.5) and the transient core power (Figure 3.8).

4.0 CONCLUSION

S The results of the LBT analysis performed by the Supply System are in reasonable agreement with the GE and BNL results. Although not presented here, the Supply System's results are quite similar to that reported by Tennessee Valley Authority and Philadelphia Electric Company , both of whom used the RETRAN code. The differences between the calculations shown here have been attributed to different modeling assumptions and computer code variations. It is concluded that the Supply System's methodology in performing the licensing calculations is consistent with the NRC approved methodologies used by other organizations.

B-6

TABLE 2.1 LICENSING BASIS TRANSIENT 3;NITIAL CONDITIONS Parameter Initial Value Core Thermal Power (MWth) 3440.0 Turbine Steam Flow (ibm/sec) 3900'.0 Total Core Flow (Mlbm/hr) 102.5 Active Core Flow (Mlbm/hr) 95.34 Core Inlet Enthalpy (Btu/ibm) 522.7 Steam Dome Pressure (psia) 1034.0 Core Exit Pressure (psia) 1044.9 Core Inlet Pressure (psia) 1069.7 Recirculation Flow (Mlbm/hr) 34.2 Core Average Gap Conductance (Btu/hr-ft -'F) 1000.0 B-7

TABLE 2.2 LICENSING BASIS TRANSIENT S/R VALVE AND SCRAM BANK CHARACTERISTICS Relief Valve Setpoints 4 Valves: 1090.8 psia open; 1070.8 psia close; 872 ibm/sec capacity 4 Valves: 1100.9 psia open; 1080.9 psia close; 872 ibm/sec capacity 3 Valves: 1111.0 psia open; 1091.0 psia close; 654 ibm/sec capacity Safety valve Setpoints 2 Valves: 1242. psia open; 1222. psia close; 518.5 ibm/sec capacity Scram Bank Insertion Specifications 4 Control Rod Bank Inserted Time after initial motion sec 0.000 0.175 10 0.350 20 0.700 30 1.067 40 1.433 50 1.800 60 2.175 70 2.550 80 2.925 90 3.300 100 3.775 B-8

TABLE 2.3 LICENSING BASIS TRANSIENT DELAYED NEUTRON DATA Dela ed Grou Yield Fraction Deca Constant sec ~

0.000207 0. 0127 0.001163 0.0317 0.001027 0.1150 0.002222 0.3110 0.000699 1.4000 0.000142 3.8700 Total: 0.005460 B-9

5.0 REFERENCES

B-1. J.H. McFadden, et al., "RETRAN-02 A Program for Transient Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Complex Fluid Flow Systems,"

EPRI NP-1850-CCM-A, Revision 4, Volumes I-III, Electric Power Research Institute, November 1988.

B-2. M.S. Lu, et al., "Analysis of Licensing Basis Transient for a BWR/4," BNL-NUREG-26684, September 1979.

B-3. NRC Safety Evaluation for the General Electric Topical Report, Qualification of the One-Dimensional Core Transient Model for Boiling Water Reactors, NEDO-24154 and NEDO-24154-P, Volumes I, II, and III, June 1980.

B-4. S. L. Forkner, et al., "BWR Transient Analysis Model Utilizing the RETRAN Program", TVA-TR81-01, Tennessee Valley Authority, December 1981.

B-5. D.M. Ver Planck, W.R. Cobb, R.S. Borland, B.L. Darnell, and P.L. Versteegen, "SIMULATE-E (Mod. 3) Computer Code Manual,"

EPRI NP-4574-CCM, Part II, Electric Power Research Institute, September 1987.

B-6.~ J.A. McClure et

~ ~ al., "SIMTRAN-E A SIMULATE-E to RETRAN-02 Data Link," EPRI NP-5509-CCM, Electric Power Research

~

Institute, December 1987.

~

B-7. Y.Y. Yung, S.H. Bian and D.E. Bush, "BWR Transient Analysis Model," WPPSS-FTS-129, Rev. 1, September 1990.

B-8. A.M. Olson, "Methods for Performing BWR Systems Transient Analysis," PECO-FMS-0004-A, November 1988.

B-10

FIGURE 3.1 LBT INITIALAXIALPOWER DISTRIBUTION 1.5 1.25 I

~ I I

t I

0 Q

I 0.75 6$

0)

CC 0.5 0.25 BNL GE RETRAN 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0,8 Fraction of Core Height

S S 0 P I ~

~ ~ ~ ~

FIGURE 3.3 LBT INITIALVOID DISTRIBUTION 0.8

~ W

~ M

~ H~ W 0.6 M

~ A

//' //

~

~

~

0 O

6$

U

U o 0.4 0)

U)

Cd L

Q) 0.2 /J

/ /

/ /

/ /

/,/ BNL GE T/H VOID NEUT VOID

/ ~

"r /

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Fraction of Core Height

FIGURE 3.4 LBT INITIALFUEL TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION 1,400 1,300

~ 1,200

+ 1,100

\

0 1,000 1 900 800 700 BNL GE RETRAN

'00 0 0;2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Fraction of Core Height

FIGURE 3.5 LBT CORE AVERAGE VOID FRACTION

~O C

0 40 U

U 0

O wee <<

BNL GE RETRAN 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Time (sec)

FIGURE 3.6 LBT CORE MIDPLANE PRESSURE 1, l 70 1,160 BNL 1,150 rr GE J

1,140 I RETRAN /

l,130 r V

(5 n 1120 I 1,110 r I 1,100 Pn CL

~o 1,090 1,080 1,070 1,060 1,050 0 Or2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Time (sec}

FIGURE 3.7 LBT TOTAL CORE FLOW BNL 120 r

I I

RETRAN I r

I

\

\

I \

I m 110 I \

I \

I I

I r I

I I

I l r l o 100 O

90 0 n.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Time (sec)

FIGURE 3.8 LBT CORE POWER 800 BNL 700 600 RETRAN

~ 500 e 400 I J

I I

I0 300 CL I

"rI I

I I

O I I

I 200

/

100 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Time {sec}

FIGURE 3.9 LBT CORE HEAT FLUX 140 BNL 130 RETRAN CC

~~ <20 I wO I

I I

/

IJL I J

e 110 100 90 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Time (sec)

1 FIGURE 3.10 LBT CORE AVERAGE FUEL TEMPERATURE 1,600 BNL RETRAN 1,500 0) l

~ 1,400 E

0)

(D U

1,300 1,200 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Time (sec)

FIGURE 3.11 LBT ll-IEAT FLUX DISTRIBUTION AT 0.8 SEC 8

7.2 6.4 I

I I

l I

g 5.6 I

bJ g 4.8 X

U 4 65 0) 3.2 2.4 BNL GE RETRAN 1.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Fraction of Core Height

FIGURE 3.12 LBT HEAT FLUX DISTRIBUTION AT 3.2 SEC 8.8

~W 7.2 rr

~

J g 64 I I

I l.

I I

5.6 I

I

>< 4.8 I I

cg 4 3.2 2.4 BNL GE RETRAN 1.6 0 0.2 04 0.6 0.8 Fraction of Core Height

FIGURE 3.13 LBT TOTAL CORE REACTIVITY 0.01 0.005 0

6$

0)

D -0.005 06$

-0.01

-0.015 BNL REt RAN

-0.02 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Time (sec}