ML19309F979
| ML19309F979 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/20/1979 |
| From: | Levine S NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-79-279, NUDOCS 8005020086 | |
| Download: ML19309F979 (7) | |
Text
,
.7,
N VC SECY-79-279 April 20,1979 UNITED STA)ES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 80050 0 M 96 -
,[,
2 INFORMATION REPORT For:
The Comissioners From:
Saul Levine, Director i
Office of Nuclea'r Regulatory Research i
Thru:
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
SELECTION OF ADVANCED CODE FOR LICENSING APPLICATIONS
Purpose:
To inform the Comission that TRAC has been selected as the advanced code to be developed for future licensing W
applications.
~
'2',
Background:
In a May 30, 1978 memo, Mr. Edson Case informed Comissioner Gilinsky that the staff planned to make a
?
selection of an advanced code for future licensing use.
NRR staff defined their need in tems of two main cate-5 gories:
LOCA and non-LOCA' codes.
The latter category has many specific applications; e.g., LWR transients and pipe breaks not associated with the primary coolant system.
NRR wishes to have a capability to independently analyze and audit applicant's calculations of these events
,l belonging to each of these two main categories (a) in a very detailed manner (e.g., multidimensionally), and (b) in a simplified manner (e.g., for repetitive calculations in sensitivity studies).
l' It was agreed from the outset that TRAC, the best estimate code currently under development at the Los Alamos Scientific
'2' Laboratory, will meet the requirements for the detailed 7, ",
analysis in both the LWR LOCA and non-LOCA categories.
It was also agreed that, to satisfy the urgent near-tem re-
't quirements in the area of simplified analyses for both i
LOCA and non-LOCA accidents and transients, NRC will make g
use of existing domestic and/or imported codes, with suitable modifications.
Examples are RELAP-4 and other y
'l codes.
- r..
S' Therefore, the primary issue addressed in the code selection
'lc centered primarily on a code for future simplified analyses.
Such analyses would have to be compatible with existing
]f regulations such as Appendix K.
Candidate codes for this j
a.E selection were THOR, RELAP-5, and simplified TRAC.
c.
Contact:
S. Fabic, RES d'-
427-4275 y.
n
?!'
The Comissioners.
Discussion:
A team, made up of RES and NRR staff and directed by Dr. Stan Fabic, evaluated the candidate computer codes.
The team was assisted by expert consultants.
The three code developers, Brookhaven National Laboratory (THOR),
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (RELAP-5), Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (TRAC), submitted calculations for three standard problems.
I Based on an evaluation of the codes' perfomance, on the advice of the consultants, and on the individual team c.
members judgments, the team recomended that TRAC be I
chosen as the code for future simplified LOCA analysis, in addition to its use for detailed LOCA and non-LOCA applications. The team also recomended that all three
!ix' laboratories (LASL, BNL and INEL) have a role in the re-
. }.-
maining TRAC work, particularly in the area of its in-i dependent assessment.
These recomendations were discussed ii with the code development managers at LASL, INEL and BNL as well as with the ACRS.
The contractors have expressed their willingness to follow these recomendations.
4 Much work yet remains to be done on the development of TRAC version, etc.)ieactor transient vers' ion. 'simpiified fast runnin (BWR~ version,
~
~~
~
, and on the testing of TRAC against experi-
.a 2
mental data. Actions are undenvay to teminate work on
,l TH0R and RELAP-5.
In accordance with the comission policy of shifting emphasis to non-LOCA research, the development of TRAC (for application to LWR LOCA and non-LOCA transients)
- w..
i '. '
is estimatcd to cost $2.5M/ year in FY 80, and FY 81, with l.
minor (code maintenance) expenditures beyond FY 81.
The independent assessment of TP.AC will increase from $3.0M 2.F in FY 80 to $4.7M in FY 81 and stay at that level through FY 84.
The details of the work distribution are shown in the Enclosure.
p NRR concurs in the findin concludes that the propose $s of this '1Ner Coordination:
pmgram w meet NRR
'r -
needs and that the technical approach is reasonable.
. c. -
9' NRR has stated that since responsibility for program 3
direction, administration, monitoring, and perform-ance rests with RES, NRR has not reviewed those aspects.
- j,
.e S
A
?
j
.E.
v,~
'N aul Levine, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Jg y.
Q
Enclosure:
as stated
!,' 7
se
-3 r.....
DISTRIBUTION:
O Comissioners Comission Staff Offices Exec. Dir. for Opers.
,t.
Secretariat
+9 9
e-e h
'. K
-t e8
{..
oh t.*
e L
a F
( **
-0,.:
b e.
g j
..l*
m
- n.
s'
-4.*
U'
".a',
F.,
s2l
-k..
.E.,.
3 s'*
h*
'%'i Yk*
\\')'
s*h
~ ' ~ - '
- f ENCLOSURE Details of the remaining work distribution between BNL, INEL, and m
LASL are as follows:
BNLI (1) Document THOR code as is, without further improvements.
(2) Install the Norwegian code RAMONA-III, introduce modifications 1
specified by NRC (on a high priority basis) and perfom analyses specified by NRR.
<2
'.i The RAMONA-III code was recently selected by NRC as a suitable existing code that could be used for analyses of BWR transients and non-LOCA accidents. This code couples thermal / hydraulic c.
( C' feedback from multiple parallel core bundles with a three-L dimensional reactor kinetics analysis.
I,.
(3) Perfom NRC specified tasks in the area of independent assess-examination of the basic (phasis, at BNL, is to be placed o ment of TRAC code. The em
/,-
,a comparisons with test data obtained from a variety of domestic
.]
and foreign " basic tests" in the area of themal hydraulics.
This work will also involve testing other correlations /models for the basic processes and the appropriate sensitivity studies.
j NRC is preparing an overall plan for TRAC assessment which will involve BNL, LASL and INEL.
(f E-The above outlined work is consistent with the current funding level t.
j at BNL.
INEL: (1) Complete and document RELAP-4/ MOD 7 (scheduled for completion 1
~- :
end of FY 79).
4-(2) Install TRAC-P1A code (obtained from LASL) and adapt it to analyses of BWR LOCA.
3'.
(3) Perfom analyses, with the BWR version of TRAC, in support b-of the joint NRC/EPRI/GE program on BWR ECC experiments.
(4) Perfom comparisons of TRAC-P1A code results with measurements obtained from certain Semiscale/ MOD 1 Semiscale/M00 5, and J
LOFT test, as specified by NRC, as part of overall independent assessment of the TRAC code. Such assessment is performed only 5
4' with the " frozen " publicly released versions of TRAC.
.p-I$ '
As soon as the first version of BWR TRAC is released to the i
public, its assessment will proceed.
" 1,.
^...
.T;fi d
I 4-
((1
P.
(5)
Perfom audit of the WRAP code package produced at the Savannah River Laboratory. That code package is intended for LWR LOCA audit applications by NRR.
(6) Document RELAP-5 as is (without further modifications).
LASL:
(1) Develop the TRAC-P2 and P3 versions as per current plans.
The P2 version differs from the PlA version primarily due i
to introduction of a separate droplets field, to allow for i-;
.?
analys.
' the 2D/3D experiments perfomed under a joint US/FRG/ Japan agreement.
The P3 version will also feature a 3-D reactor kinetics j
?
capability needed for detailed studies of transients /
I accidents which call for strong neutronics feedback.
M (2) Perform analyses in support of the 2D/3D test program.
(3) Perfom assessment of the publicly released versions of i
TRAC, per NRC master plan. The latter apportions work to BNL, INEL, LASL and Sandia, for optimum utilization of S-the manpower and computer resources.
s.
3 (4) Develop a very fast running version of TRAC for LWR LOCA
?.
analysis. Due to (mainly geometric) simplifications, that code will not represent the true Best Estimate (BE) capability.
For this reason we call it an IM (Intemediate Model), in contrast to BE and EM (Evaluation Model) codes. The IM version will be used by NRR for various repetitive analyses.
~
In FY 1982 an advanced LOCA-EM version will be obtained by introducing the Appendix K criteria into the IM version.
1 The WRAP package is intended for the LOCA audit calculations in the interim period.
i:.'s'
.r
': t
~.$
-f Y-
- ,y'
.g.
.:d-
.i..f
.h
- m 3
=
l}'
i..*
SUMMARY
OF NRR CODE NEEDS AND HOW THEY ARE BEING COVERED
- 4. ^.0(
d' Codes For
-i Detailed (3-D) analyses Simplified, fast Need running analyses
' I.
WRAP-PWR for EM cales,
,} -
PWR LOCA TRAC through FY 82 PlA March, 1979 TRAC-10 (EM after FY 82,
]
P2 December, 1979 IM after FY 80)
]
- 'F BWR LOCA TRAC WRAP-BWR for EM cales B1 June 1980 through FY 82 82 Sept., 1981 TRAC-10 (EM after FY 82
- g..
IM after FY 80) g, V:.:.
PWR transients TRAC-P3 IRT (through FY 81.
(non-LOCA)
Possibly TRAC-lD after
'-];
Dec. 1981 FY 81 if IRT not satis-f.;
factory).
.;i BWR transients TRAC-B3 Dec. 1981 RAMONA-III (through FY 81
- f (non-LOCA)
Possibly TRAC-1D, after f
'?
FY 81, if RAMONA-III not satisfactory).
l *,
,.n.
<m T'
PWR and BWR subchannel analyses, complementary COBRA-TF Sept. 1980 and' consistent with TRAC systems analyses.
~ ;W-Notes:
(1) TRAC-PlA, P2,t and TRAC-lD (PWR and BWR) developed at LASL.
ni-i~
(2) TRAC-Bl 82 and B3 developed at INEL, based on LASL's TRAC-P Ti versions.
.:1
},
(3) WRAP (PWR & BWR) developed at SRL.
. i.'.".
(4)
IRT developed at BNL under NRR sponsorship.
r.
(5) RAMONA-III (Norwegian code) work perfonned at BNL (6) COBRA-TF developed at Pacific Northwest Lab.
-s
$g
. q.
ff
' :e
- J.* t 'I'ar. TM*M **t' / f.Y. 5 'I J f*"*.*b'sn 4%"%.V.A.MW1. T *%.;$ e -%' *
~8 r [4j'?.h "P.*e.- T
,/1t** 7.4 "' - %F,J'..5mE ',9*.2.**
,' %.%.%.4 ',**.
3 SMOM
'-4 e'.,
'I e
.s.
LATE OF DOCUMENT.
=0 i
8-DATE RECElvt0 SECY-7 9--2 7 9 7.N ' t. i.. A f -;. L
?~ '
l J'.
'?. ' '
a/70/79
- 4/27/79
'RES
.i
. t'
~ ~ '
'1940
./.. ' -
t e.-
-."-. -,' s.=
LYp MEMO c-STAFF. PAPER REPORT OTHER LEVINE
..e
.i r.,.--
s.
, om".
~
o='s
.. : w c7 y-
- so
.. j....; ;.3...
a:u g,-
I
.....w
' ^4 4
.i,. : CY
. ~. -
~~
~.
Yi-acte = a<cassaai -
Q-coacuaaaaca;
. O -
- ^','.'"""'.*.b..
THE COMMISSIONERS
=o acviO =E'CEssam q '
co..E=r
, J '.
O POST OF F 6CE FILE CODE
+
.'9
- Classia.
8*
- . } *.c.*
- s e,-
.,,,d *y "..T -
- -a
- w. *-
g
%.,f
- e,y. -e le,M.
- 2 y
, s; 4 ECEsvfD By la..,
DATE OE sC a t*1 IO= IMwsi te umnois.hedt
, : REFERRED TO DATE s
' SELECTION OF ADVANCED CODE n,(.-
g,.,
3 -
'g "' 'W,^f,
..FOR LICENSING APPLICATIONS. '. ".
-LEVINE 4/27
- 6. ;.,..(.<~~
r n c, % :...*3. xg..
%. e.-) -.
e.
i
,y eactosumEs
- u.....-.b
.; -('
sp y.._..
.,,g..-
.r-
. v.1.. ;-,. _
s.;
.. s.
/," * '
' m.:
... ~.. - s.
^, 2 i
DETAILS OF THE REMAINING WORK
. ' DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN.BNL,.IN,EL, w',
'e-
- .E.t.s<
.b. J ".
~ -
.- - c.
a AND LASL.
i 3
. a,. :.
~.,
7'2 CY: BUDNITZ
^'
# Y E -E ' E*'
C +n.
.SCROGGINS..
s.. :
.a p
SPANO o~
a
~
MURLEY
-. TONG
., 7 xy
. v.,e.
.2 w "
e
..FABIC(w/ orig.
& cor c. cy) i A
r
'McGRATH
~
~
s.:
'c s.
g f
' o " " " C * ' 8 ' '
u s muCLE Am mEGutatoav commissio=
*788 MAIL CONTROL FORM.
Q Q
3.
)
D M a u.l ",{ m, ~.
gd.: pe.,- ) g.,." T/. **.NE N'-
- 4 [IP N.
- '.T.*% 8 N8*3t M') pad **',*.M.j,W. g hp A = Q4;q,7;A uQ,$'g/ggg(,
. _ _ _. - - w s.py,'_ _ f f.__
4 8
o e
E
.h
- J e.
s 8
i.-
.4 6
- t 4
?
,.9 d
.O e
E s.
?....
sji 98 ** s!,$e.._K'*. b.% $_o %
K f. A } ) Wk,**.;kf,M.b$ CE.e.h,ikt%.Y ke ;{s'.U* *;.f.,4K' d?',.,'.2%W.M' &,,la.k..M.%8,al.l*sL'18.*N').<,e:. 4M.W$.*% ** '
pg p.q.
_=_~m-
^n
.