ML19309H924

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 800310 Meeting W/Nrc in Bethesda,Md Re Reload Licensing for Cycle IX
ML19309H924
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date: 05/15/1980
From:
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19309H911 List:
References
MIN-800310, NUDOCS 8005200661
Download: ML19309H924 (65)
v • d • e


Text

_ - _ . - - - _ _ .

800s200(4/

/0

O Minutes of 3/10/80 Meeting with the NRC Concerning Vermont Yankee Reload Licensing for Cycle IX Summary The purpose of this meeting was to allow YAEC to present the methods it intends to use in licensing Vermont Yankee for Cycle IX operation, along with proposed schedules for completion of this effort to the NRC. The intent was to enable the NRC to quantify their manpower requirements for the necessary regulatory review of these methods. Additionally, it was hoped that some agreement could be reached concerning what innovative approaches could be used to streamline the review process. During the course of the meeting, Yankee presented descriptions of the methods it is developing and responded to NRC questions on that material. A detailed account of the presentation and the related questions and responses is provided in the attachments to these minutes. Briefly, the NRC encouraged YAEC to proceed with the work, even though the NRC was unable to provide YAEC with specific guarantees on resource commitments or schedules until YAEC makes a formal application for review. The NRC did identify key staff personnel in four major review areas: John Vogelwede (Fuels Behavior), Dan Fieno (Physics),

Norm Lauben (LOCA) and Fuat Odar (Transient Analysis). The NRC also said that it would probably take a year to review the methods in the LOCA and Transient Analysis areas, and six months for Static Physics and Fuel Behavior methods, after the methods are formally submitted. Adding these review schedules to YAEC's un schedule results in a program completion date beyond the point in time necessary to support Cycle IX. However, the NRC continued to encourage YAEC by suggesting that YAEC may be able to support Cycle IX if YAEC continues to work very closely with the NRC staff. YAEC intends to continue its efforts in this area, working informally with the key staff personnel identified.

A

~.

6 Detailed Minutes of 3/10/80 Meeting YAEC began by going over the agenda / background and stated that this meeting should allow NRC to quantify its manpower requirements. YAEC also restressed the NRC advocacy of the use of innovative approaches to streamline the review process. The NRC said that they were sympathetic to YAEC's goals and the program ground rules YAEC had presented, but that there were caveats that they would have added:

1) It is not possible to decouple the Vermont Yankee specific submittal from generic concerns; the NRC d es not have a different set of rules for review of Vermont Yankee.
2) There is not much manpower available within the NRC for Vermont Yankee specific review work.

YAEC responded to these statements as follows:

1) The intent of this meeting is to establish schedules for both YAEC and the NRC to work to; if a problem develops on either side, it is the intent of the program that early communication be established to renegotiate the schedule.
2) The work being done has generic implications; this effort could be described as the leading edge of the industry because the methods adopted by YAEC (SIMULATE, CASMO, RETRAN) will probably be used by EPRI and made available to others in the industry for their in-house licensing efforts.
3) As stated before, the intent of this program is to help make the review process proceed as smoothly as possible via technical working meetings, telecons, and other timely communication at

! the working level.

l YAEC stressed the fact that December of 1980 was a key decision date for the Cycle IX reload: at this time a decision would have to be made to continue this effort or to proceed with a GE analysis.

The rest of the meeting was divided into five separate areas of discussion:

1) Fuel Behavior Modeling (Steve Schultz)
2) LOCA Methods (Tom Fernandez) l 3) Reactor Physics Methods (Ed Pilat)
4) Transient Analysis Methods (Bruce Slifer)
5) Final NRC Discussion on the program.

S. Schultz - Steady-State Fuel Behavior Modeling (FEH)

Presentation Summary

  • o Models are designed to provide input to:
l. LOCA and Safety Analyses: stored energy, gap conductance, gas pressure,
2. Steady-State Physics Analyses: Fuel temperatures.
  • o YAEC experience in this area includes about 5 years of involvement in PWR application. Current activities include safety applications, operations analysis, and vendor bid and design-change analysis and includes code development and verification work with EPRI and other utilities on the EPRI COMETHE-IIIK and SPEAR code packages.
  • o Program goals for VY include applying improved methods to incorporate recent advances in FBM.

o Basic code structure follows that of GAPCON-THERMAL-2 (with added modularization and modified iteration and conversion procedures).

o Development work effort has included subtasks:

- Code statement / documentation verification [ transmitted to PNL]

- Code changes - model modifications

- Data base development

~

I

- Verification l

- Sensitivity Studies (VY input data variance; computational var.)

- Comparison to other code results (e.g., FRAP-53; COMETHE-IIIK).

  • YAEC presented a prioritized list of major model improvements to be l

l incorporated in the VY program. Code verification will include 1 l comparisons to experimental results from GAPON-THERMAL-2 and -3, GAPEX l (non proprietary), and from EPRI programs (RP-397; COMETHE-IllK l qualification).

  • Proposed schedule o Documentation of overall modeling effort inc~uding code description, user's manual, and code qualification would be supplied to NRC by 6/30/80.

o VY-specific code input / sensitivity studies could be completed by 8/15/80.

Que stions/Re sponses ERC: Given many code choices, why a GAPCON-THERMAL-2 code structure?

Response: YAEC has several reasons for choosing this code:

1) YAEC experience base,
2) Relatively straightforward modification and verification capability,
3) Emphasis on thermal models,
4) The COMETHE-IIIK qualification program at EPRI is still underway; this did not match our development time frame.

NRC: Is the YAEC code version static / fixed?

Response: Yes, except for development / verification of fission gas release and clad creepdown models still in progress.

NRC: Is any extension planned for this code to transient fuel response?

Response: Code usage will be to supply input to transient analysis and LOCA codes. (Other development work in transient fuel behavior is concurrently underway at YAEC).

1 NRC: When could data base documentation be made available:

Response: If desirable, a draf t version of this information could

, be transmitted in 6-7 weeks.

NRC: Regarding the code name, it should not be referenced as GAPCON-THERMAL-2 Response: YAEC will devise a new code name.

l l

NRC: What has been the work effort (man years) associated with l development?

Response: Over the last 2.5 years, about 3-4 person-years have been  ;

expended in this effort. This includes building experience, l model development, and documentation - not only model changes.

1

NRC: Subsequent to model approval, what are YAEC plans?

Re sponse: PWR application of this code version is envisioned; improvements here can be employed for PWR's as well. It ,

is anticipated that this code version will remain static for 2-4 years.

-' \

NkC: Will GE design analysis be used for mechanical properties? i (e.g., what about interactive models - cladding creep collapse?) 1 Response: Mechanical analysis is generally performed by vendor. I Sensitivity studies may be a way to address this issue.  ;

This is a good question for further YAEC study. To be l sure it is properly addressed, a follow-up meeting may I be proposed later. I Comment (YAEC): If it is desirable, some draf t documentation could be transmitted starting about May 1, 1980.

Comment (NRC): In future reference to other plants:

The reload approach may be faster, but it may be subjected to re-review. The topical report approach may be more efficient over the long-term.

NRC: How much of the BWR development in fuel behavior model is related to PWR's?

Re sponse : Approximately 90%.

T. Fernandez - BWR LOCA Analysis Development (See attached copy of presentation slides for presentation content.)

Questions / Responses '

NRC: NRC wants to see results of a Small Break LOCA (TLTA) test, possibly without HPCI, in ont qualification. All BWR fuel vendors are being asked for this so Yankee would have to j provide it also.  !

l Response: This can be done but it will push the date for submittal  ;

of documentation on qualification to 4/81. I NRC: RELAP 5 is set up as a Best Estimate code, this will require a lot of NRC review time to identify the conservatisms in the model. Also, LOCA analysis will require a lot of work which really is not necessary at this time if the same type of fuel is going to be used in Cycle IX. Why doesn't YAEC just buy the GE LOCA analysis for Cycle IX?

Response: The use of an in-house LOCA model would allow Yankee to provide more comprehensive operator training support, enable uc to use alternate fuel vendors if it was deemed necessary or desirable, and would also place us in a much better position to respond to any future NRC requests for information or analysis arising from questions on the Vermont Yankee LOCA model.

NRC: Is Yankee planning to take credit for RCICS in the DBA analysis for Vermont?

Response: No.

l l l D

I l

l 1

f

Ed Pilat - Reactor Physics Methods (See attached copy of presentation slides for presentation content.)

Que stions/Re sponse s RC: Do Yankee's Methods use point or one-dimensional neutron kinetics?

Response : Yankee basically uses SIMULATE to obtain reactivities to input into the RETRAN point kinetics code. A RETRAN one-dimensional kinetics code could possibly be used, but the schedule for developing that code may not be consistent with the overall project schedule. In addition, Yankee can also use the QUANDRY code for partial benchmarking of three-dimensional effects vs. point or one-dimensional kinetics.

(It was agreed that further discussion in this area should take place in the future between the NRC and Yankee.)

NRC: Will Vermont Yankee startup test data be used for physics verification? What about Peach Bottom tests?

Re sponse : Vermont Yankee startup test data will be used. Yankee will consider modeling the Peach Bottom tests.

NRC: What will be used for CPR correlation? What will be used to define the safety limit?

Re sponse: Yankee may have to negotiate with GE for use of their CPR correlation. In addition, EPRI has a contract with Sol Levy, Inc., to develop a CPR correlation as a safety limit; this information would then become available to Yankee.  ;

i Comment (NRC): The uncertainties in the determination of the Fuel Cladding  ;

gr Integrity Safety Limit (FC1SL) are primarily: ,

I l

i

1) CPR Correlation - should remain the same,

! 2) Plant parameters (pressure, flow, thermo-hydraulics) - 1 should remain the same,  !

1

3) Bundle power - this uncertainty may be the only major problem in establishing uncertainties for determining the FC1SL. This area requires careful scrutiny to ensure that the new method is not less conservative than the one in use.

The schedule proposed by Yankee for sabmittal of BWR Physics Methods was:

~

1) Steady State Methods Documentation - 10/80
2) Transient Methods Documentation - 12/80 In both cases, Yankee will supply preliminary information to the NRC as jit is developed.

The NRC will be looking for a complete description of all the algorithms used in the code, verification of the code, and documentation of cross-sections used in the code. In addition, the NRC wants a description of all the usages of the code, and a description of Yankee's Quality Assurance procedures regarding those usages.

The NRC said that they would provide Yankee with a description of their review procedure for codes to help us in our submittal.

, ,m. .. , ,._, --r-.-e*.--e w-- ---= "

B.C. Slifer - Transient Analysis Methods (See attached copy of presentation slides for presentation content.)

Que stions/ Responses JKRC: Will Yankee check to see if bundle data were included in determining the drift flux parameters for FIBWh?

Response: Yankee will check to verify whether correlations such Dix for the values of Co or V j include bundle data or just g

round tube data.

NRC: How will Yankee ultimately verify FIBWR? It seems that this would depend on how good the physics code (SIMULATE) is.

Res ponse : Yankee will compare the output of FIBWR and SIMULATE to check for consistency, compare SIMULATE physics results to TIP and gamma-scan data, and compare FIBWR to other available test data.

i Comment (NRC): NRC has a problem with the generic submittal of transients.

Yankee should do more than reference EPRI reports on Peach Bottom transients; the NRC review of the method is also partly a test of YAEC abilities with the code and its application.

NRC: If the NRC has a question on RETRAN, who do they go to for resolution, Yar.kee or EPRI? NRC has many questions on RETRAN. For example, what is the overall conservatism of the method with regard to Vermont Yankee? What are the conservatisms for various transients? For other codes used? How are these concervatisms achieved? Yankee may have to produce a separate document on these conservatisms and their applications to all the parts of the overall method (e.g., physics, system thermal hydraulics, hot channel codes, safety limit).

Response: The questions of the accuracy of the methods used and the appropriateness of the conservatisms applied to those methods should be addressed separately but in parallel:

1) The methods and how appropriate they are.
2) The application of the methods in the licensing area (conservatisms).

We want to qualify the pieces of the overall method as i they are developed, then discuss licensing the entire l method.

l l

~

NRC: Is RETRAN a best estimate calculation?

. Response: Yes.

NRC: Is YAEC committing to a multi-channel method? (MAYUO4) itesponse : No, this is a single channel code.

NRC: What is the source for the core stability analysis? NEC is still discussing the acceptance criteria with GE.

Response: We will probably be using results from GE and/or EPRI.

P

, - - -, , e , , - -

--s -+,me y wr

Afternoon Session - NRC Summation and Comments The NRC presented the review schedule below based on the following assumptions:

~

,.1 ) This review is given a high priority by the NRC,

2) The NRC has adequate manpower resources to complete this review,
3) A lot of informal dialogue takes place between NRC/YAEC before the final submittals are made.

Schedule of Review Time Required For NRC Review Submittal Af ter Final Submittal Transient Analysis Methods 1 year LOCA Methods 1 year Physics Methods 6 months Fuel Behavior Methods 6 months These are optimistic schedules, but they are reasonable provided that the high priority status holds up. It should also be made clear that the NkC i personnel present at this meeting have no authority to commit resources to this task. If it came to a choice between doing standard reload reviews for several plants or doing a very detailed non-standard review for Vermont Yankee, the majority of plants would take precedence.

The following personnel are assigned as having the NRC technical lead for reviewing the designated portiuns of the program: ,

1 Norman Lauben - LOCA Methods Fuat Odar - Transient Methods Dan Fieno - Physics Methods John Vogelwede - Fuel Behavior Methods The point was made by the NRC that they can meet with Yankee as necessary to discuss problem areas, but that commitment of personnel for review of informal submittals could not be made.

John Vogelwede: The schedule for the fuel portion of this effort seems i to be the least constraining; the NRC uses GAPCON code j versions in-house and guidance for such submittals is '

already supplied in Section 4.2 of the Standard Review Plan. The NRC would not begin a review until the total fuel methods package was received; piecemeal submittals

. would not help to speed review.

Dan Fieno: We (NRC) don't see any serious problems with the static l

I physics methods, BNL uses SIMULATE and CASMO. NRC expects to see lots of verification on the methods used and will also be very interested in the qualifications of the people  !

who will be using the codes in Yankee. It would be helpful ,

to the NRC to see draf t reports so they could comment on '

them before they are finalized.

YAEC: We will provide draf t reports as soon as they are available.

Fuat Odar: YAEC must define the overall conservatism to the safety limit in their methods. The codes used are best estimate codes which cpntain uncertainties and the overall margin to the safety limit must be defined. The following should be addressed:

1) Point kinetics - may have to use different coef ficients for different transients.
2) Vermont Yankee parameters will be used, therefore all VY specific parameters must be identified and conservatisms assigned to each one. This may be less conservative than using generic bounding parameters.

YAEC: Yankee will be performing a sensitivity analysis and comparing it to CE results. We will get together with the NRC on this issue in the near future.

NRC: YAEC can consult with the NRC as necessary, however, the NRC does not want to open long term negotiations; YAEC should review the SRP's and then ask questions. .

YAEC: What one portion of this program will take the most time -

to review?

NRC: o The point kinetics methods will require definition of appropriate margin (CEIAB equivalent), this will require the most review time.

/

uf o The LOCA portion of this program looks like a big job; the ACRS will probably want to see it in light of recent TLTA experiments. The selection of RELAP 5 is interesting.

The NRC has experienced difficulty with the WRAP-BWK code.

o Even after Yankee's methods are reviewed, the review of the reload submittal will take an additional 3-6 months.

These reviews could be done in parallel, but YAEC will run the risk that the reviews will not be done in time for Cycle IX.

Yhe NRC summed up their position by stating that the objectives of YAEC  ;

to internalize our safety analysis were unassailable, and that they hoped I i

any comments by the staff would not limit this effort (i.e., YAEC should not cease its efforts towards improvement just because the NRC is satisfied with what YAEC has). It was suggested that YAEC attempt only part of the reload analysis effort for Cycle IX, and try for the entire analysis for Cycle X. YAEC asked when it could get a firm commitment from the NRC regarding their review, and the NRC said that YAEC had not given them any firm commitments regarding submittal dates. YAEC then made the following

~ commitments concerning submittal dates:

Physics & Transient Models - 12/80 Fuel Behavior Models - 12/80 LOCA Models - 4/81 The NRC then made the statement that, although they fully endorse YAEC's idea, it would be imprudent to plan on doing our reload analysis in-house for Cycle IX.

44 0

4

. nf 4

~

Vern Rooney NRC/ ORB-3

^

Mary Mendonca NRC/RSB Dean Houston NRC/CPB

~

Stuart* Rubin NRC/RSB Frank Coffman NRC/RSB Robert L. Smith YAEC Stephen P. Schultz YAEC i Bruce C. Slifer YAEC l

Richard T. (Tom) Fernandez YAEC  !

Ausaf Husain YAEC

~

Edward E. Pilat YAEC Richard J. Cacciapouti YAEC Bill Mills NRC/IE

7. Odar NRC/AB L. Kopp NRC/CPB Daniel Fieno NRC/CPB Ray Sullivan NUS/NSAC Karl Kniel NRC/CPB Walter L. Brooks NRC/CPB Howard Richings NRC/CPB Wayne Hodges NRC/AB -

P. Check NRC R. Riggs NRC R. Meyers NRC J. Vogelwede NRC

AGENDA 0830 BCS INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 0900 SPS FUEL BEHAVIOR MODELING 0930 All/RTF LOCA METHODS 1030 EEP REACTOR PHYSICS METHODS 1130 BCS TRANSIENT ANALYSIS METHODS 1230 -

1330 ALL DISCUSSION 1600 ALL SUMMATION .

O BCS t Rfzt/on

SUMMARY

OF FEBRUARY 14 MEETING W/NRC MANAGEf1ENT e PROGRAM OBJECTIVES " UNASSAILABLE" 9 WORKING MEETING REQUIRED TO DETERMINE EFFORT SCOPE e SUCCESS DEPENDS ON USE OF INNOVATIVE APPROACHES 9 C1ENERAL AGREEMENT ON GROUND RULES i

BCS l 3/5/80 i

1 I

PROGRAM GROL'NDRilLES

~

\

1. EACH PARTY SHALL IMMEDIATELY INFORfi THE OTHER OF ANY IMPENDING CHANGE IN SCHEDULE.
2. ' METHODS SHOULD BE REVIEWED FROM VIEWPOINT OF SPECIFIC APPLICATION TO VERMONT YANKEE CORE RELOAD LICENSING AND NOT AS GENERIC EER EE
3. TECHNICAL PROBLEMS SHOULD BE RESOLVED AT THE WORKING GROUP LEVEL 4

I BCS 3/5/80

. _m__ _ _ . . .. _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ - _ _ _

~.

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW NRC/YAEC MEETING, VY RELOAD LICENSING METHODS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PROGRAM OVERVIEW e GOAL IS TO DO RELOAD ANALYSIS FOR' CYCLE 9 (STARTUP NOVEMBER 1, 1981) e SCHEDULES ARE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH PAST EFFORTS ON PWRS e KEY INTERMEDIATE DATE IS DECEMBER 1980 I

l 1

af 1

BCS 3/5/80

l i l, ll 1ll

_ jo}a j D Jii.J fi p]

P U

T R

A 9 N T;  :

. ' l L

t C t

T u ~

0 l

P 5

. l - *

, A .

J I

R N J 9

- ;. 5O 1 1 1

ST M

. YA L T

, A h

  • NE A i'. ,C s AN U

1 ( r .

NO I

,E D T M l  ;

A l ,. E ND n. ,3 R A0 Ri l r

n F F. i < #

m r r i

. t : T C M O J D

.!. 1!: l y

l71! - ,

l 1

- ~!- O

'.f.

1O 0I ; - .

S d r

X O

M

. N M

d 1 A d*i- . 7 ': '

) ,1 R G i 0

.(. '..i . (s O T i P

R I

C N

5 0 1 ,I.

, LE C

i S I R R S .

.i

- - G Y L

C t l T O D N l

N l I

N R' A A F R E A 9 N L D v F R A f c*,.- -

I M D S l m A A 1 T A N iL k t f

)? y' t. 3 E i

T A A c t N i s' W T N M R A i T L C J

- ', -. ' ' C O F E R D R D F. N I

L L

F T'

y I

fU F

l T

1 T

1 h

R

< - as I F 1, F

7 a J 0 . -

.;.;l y - D E L

y A R E W D . R A p T b f

' -q>r?;;' .t..

I I

9

. O I

)

O 0 o U ' ,w .! .

ib , ';

,- L E C t%.FFsb M I E H -

i R C -

r E

- L f R A l E E E)

.i' .

i1l( .j.' i.. K T S O C 1sf l)"

M M

,p,i A N M  ?:, l'

( . A

. * - . H N Y T. v 7 t  ;' . i T  : E J 0

D P'

M J. 1.. , ,i. 3'{

2 N W F .

h.L'/ O . [

}. 0 O C  :;'

1

.I l l f

.( R M

! gy

.[N ,

E ,

e F J T ,O

. V l l -

6y U:]q f l l l

, I 7 ,.

. . N 1 E D O D j ) [ra,$ ;. .

.f : f 4a T-l I

i j o -

j; P A

.l.'

x M C N .-

h-:.  :. ,

0 N

. .;-eP.'i

- : r

. l ht A f Ha i

A tA W f N:i;. 0 tp'r,.

l h n h R E l

f l.

r 0

-. l s Y V M i ;

'f E E4a.#;t.h' 4 9

4o h T

t U

h, e

D w A I

H A

H f4 E

R 5

D P

O I

E V

5 A

- :f M T P 0 E i,

L po ' Jy . be k S 4,. a i H

f 1 T

1'

'- i g i,i[

r D T S E 2 J e.*

. t C M L

-cC. '. . _ 4t l

k.. Le h.

T A

k T

F.

A C

M R

L 9 y

f>I ![Q,;

' ,; n e __i h T N I

A I

E I

J 9 i.t , .

m W T

I d

Y E. .

- M I

D T W

m ,

A N O C

a T P A c s _ <k S A

C

_ A M

-s L.

. : i Q F g =

a J

>  ? ,.y e~:,[ u

_ . 1' .'

'
. .>f ..*i . .

.I

! :l i ,; ,j: 1

S 9

e OBJECTIVES OF BWR PHYSICS AT YAEC

1. PROVIDE RELOAD LICENSE SUBMITTAI S THAT ADDRESS ALL ISSUES REQUIRED BY NRC.

s

2. USE METHODS SATISFACTORY TO NRC. ,

3 USE METHODS SATISFACTORY TO YAEC.

s s

y *W *@ N g SP e

0 0

9 DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES FOR BWR PHYSICS

1. BUILD ON EXISTING METHODS

- YANKEE PWR LICENSING

- YANKEE BWR IOLLOW -

- EPRI

- OTHERS 2.

MODEL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AS DIRECTLY AS POSSIBLE

- 3 QUANTIFY UNCERTAINTIES EXPLICITLY

4. VERIFY ADEQUACY BY CALCULATING BENCHMARKS AND OPERATING PLANTS 1

l l

l l l

l

PWR PHYSICS EXPERIENCE e YANKEE R0WE O CORE 8 - CORE 15 o PROTOTYPE ZIRC ASSEMBLIES o TRANSITION FROM SS TO ZIRC CLAD 0 TRANSITION FROM CANNED TO OPEN LATTICE o MODERNIZED INCORE SYSTEM O CHANGED CONTROLLING GROUP FROM A TO C ,

0 TRANSITION FROM SS TO ZIRC STRUCTURE O SPENT FUEL POOL EXPANSION e COUNECTICUT YANKEE O CYCLE 3 - CYCLE 7 0 INCREASED ENRICHMENT FOR LONGER LIFETIME -

o REDUCED NUMBER OF RODS IN CONTROLLING GROUP l

e MAINE YANKEE O CYCLE 3 - CYCLE 5 'l o SHIM AND CONTROL ROD MODELS  !

O DEVELOPED RPS SETPOINT METHODOLOGY 0 DEVELOPED INCA COEFFICIENT METHODOLOGY l

o RE-ANALYZED CYCLE 3 DUE TO SHIM FAILURE o RE-ANALYZED CYCLE 4 DUE TO GUIDE TUBE WEAR o CEA PIN PEAKING o DOPPLER FEEDBACK FOR ROD DROP o FOUR LEVEL INCA COEFFICIENTS 0 EXPERIMENTAL CORRELATION FOR RH BURNUP o ACCOMMODATE CHANGE IN CYCLE 5 LENGTH l o SPENT FUEL POOL EXPANSION

BWR PHYSICS PERSONNEL AT YAEC EXPERIENCE PREVIOUS YAEC EXP2RIENCE OTHER BWR NAME (YRS) PWR BWR EXPERIENCE

~

CACCIAPOUTI 16 X X HEBERT 2 HOLZER 6 X KAPITZ 11 X X KMETZ 4 X X PILAT 20 X X X VerPLANCK 13 X X X WOEHLKE 12 X X

~

CONSULTANTS M. EDENIUS (STUDSVIK)

D. R. HARRIS (RPI)

. - , .-- - . ,7-

~

PREVIOUS BWR PHYSICS WORK AT YANKEE EPRI CONTRACT WORK FOR BWR CODE DEVELOPMENT. -

CONSULTING WORK FOR BOSTON EDISON, LILCO, SOUTHERN

.' SERVICES

- SPONSORSHIP OF MIT/RPI THESES VEMONT YANKEE CORE FOLLOW (STARTUP THRU CICLE 7) o TIP "CALIERATIONS" o TIP " PERTURBATIONS" (ROD MOVEMENT) o HALING DEPLETIONS o RODDED DEPLETIONS o COLD SHUTDOWN MARGIN o COLD IN-SEQUENCE CRITICALS o XENON TRANSIENTS o SCRAM REACTIVITY CALCULATIONS 3 ..'

4" RETROFIT FUEL" o VOIDCOEFFICIENTCALCULATIONSj o FUEL MANAGEMENT STUDIES o ANALYSIS OF MEASURED TIP ASYMMETRIES f o VERIFICATION OF PROCESS COMPUTER CONSTANTS o CONTROL CELL CORE STUDY l

I d

(~ .

BWR PHYSICS METHODS TOPIC METHOD IMPLEMENTATION VERIFICATION LATTICE PHYSICS 2-D INTEGRAL TRANSPORT CASMO - ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL EXPTS (RODS & BUNDLES)

- YANKEE ROWE IS0 TOPICS

- COMPARISONS WITH MONTE CARLO

- PREVIOUS CASMO USAGE CORE PHYSICS:

STEADY STATE NODAL (COARSE-MESH SIMUL,"TE - ANALYSIS OF QUAD CITIES DIFFUSION) (CYCLES 1 & 2)

- ANALYSIS OF VY (CYCLES 1-7) t

'l CORE PHYSICS:

TRANSIENT & - POINT KINETICS SIMULATEj / } VY STARTUP TESTS ACCIDENT (QUASI-STATIC / l ADIABATIC)

D KINETICS SIMULATE /

RETRAN (1-D),

i

~

a  :

HISTORY OF SIMulATF i

e YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC C0llPANY - 1971 l

e USED S0 FAR ON:

EEACTOR CYCLES YANKEE R0WE PWR 10. - 15

' VERMONT YANKEE BWR 1 .

MAINE YANKEE PWR 1-5 CONNECTICUT YANKEE PWR 1-7 PILGRIM BWR 2 , 3 , (10 e MANY CODE DEVELOPMENTS ALONG THE WAY e 1976-80 EPRI CONTRACT RPI MASTER'S AND PHD THESES.

G S

.n .:

USES OF SINULATE AT YANKEE ATOMIC i

e BWR OR PWR ,

l 1

e IN-CORE FUEL MANAGEMENT  !

c l

LOADING PATTERN  :

. CYCLE LENGTH POWER PEAKING - RADIAL AND AXIAL  ;

~

e REACTOR OPERATION BORON LETDOWN CURVE DIFFERENTIAL R0D WORTH CURVES .

~

REACTIVITY PARAMETERS XENON TRANSIENTS PRECONDITIONING

_ LOAD FOLLOWING e CHOOSE CASES FOR DETAILED PHYSICS ANALYSES STUCK CONTROL R0D .

LOADING PATTERN e INPUT TO SAFETY ANALYSES DROPPED AND EJECTED CONTROL RODS FLYSPECK ANALYSIS e SPECIAL PROBLEMS ST LUCIE POISON PIN FAILURE t'

CASMO HISTORY

- USED BY ALL SWEDISH UTILITIES SINCE 1975

.- USED IN SWEDEN FOR DESIGN / FOLLOW OFj> 20 BWR CYCLES, 5 PWR CYCLES

- BENCHMARKED 1971-75 ON KRITZ FACILITY:

o 20 - 245*C o PWR, BWR LATTICES o RODS GD 023+BC 4 o 1-4 W/0 V-235 -

o 1.5-3 W/0 PUO 2

- COMPARISONS OF o K-EFF o LOCAL FISSION RATE DISTRIBUTIONS o COLD SHUTDOWN MARGIN o GAD DEPLETION

- DISTRIBUTED BY EPRI (1979) e

-m ,- -

..e -,- --, r- -- -- ----

p .

PRINCIPAL BWR PHYSICS CODES BUNDLE PHYSICS - CASMO CORE PHYSICS - SIMULATE AUXILIARY PDQ - FEW GROUP DIFFUSION THEORY-STATIC  !

QUANDRY - TWO GROUP N0DAL-3D-STATIC / KINETIC l

KENO - MONTE CARLO '

CITATION - MULTI GROUP DIFFUSION THEORY WITH  !

UP AND DOWN SCATTERING l 1

l l

1 i

l l

l

QUANDRY EXAMPLE DELAYED CRITICAL

. ANL BENCHMARK 6-A2 POWER VS. TIME SPATIAL MESH 2.0 2.0 10.0 '40.0 REF TIME MESH 0.001 0.10 0.001 0.01 1

TIME 0.0 1.0 1.0 *C 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.204 1.204 1.204 1.200 1.206 1.0 1.739 1.739 1.738 1.727 1.740 2.0 - 2.160 2.162 2.160 2.166 l 30 -

2.598 2.599 2.597 2.606 4.0 -

3 099 2 098 3 097 3 108 J

(:

3-D IAEA STATIC PWR BENCHMARK PROBLEf1 QUANDRY PDO-7 VENTURE

  1. SPATIAL MESH POINTS 1600 350,000 1,200,000 K gyp 1.02902 1.02933 1.02903 MAXIMUM ERROR IN NODAL POWER 1.6% ---

- 4%

MAXIMUM ERROR IN

(

ASSEMBLY POWER 0.7% ---

- 2%

EXECUTION TIME (IBM 370/168) 0.5 MIN 400 MIN 900 MIN -

L

_ - _ _ . _ = _ .. . .-.

.r .

r- , .

CORE AVERAGE AXIAL TIP TRACES 79/10/15.

p OUA0 CITIES 1. CYCLE 1. DATA SET 11. NOV. 1.1973. 8 SEQUENCE. CPRI NP

~ '

t E

-. i

+m E #

.. 5. '

- f 3

~

.e o

9 E 3 E

  • f s h nl.

8 d-  :(

s .

S

- /,-

. O.

%.00 0'.25 0'.50 0'.75 l'.00 l'.25 l'.50 l'. 75  ?'. 00 2'.25 2'.50

. 00TTOM OF CORE L FRAME 005

. . . .- . . - - _ =_ . . - . . . - . . _ ._ .

n ._

m

? 9 79/iO/29 '

CORE RVERAGE RX1RL TIP TRACES

00AD CITIES 1 CYCLE 2. DATA SET 28. OLCEMBER 19. 1975. ARO. COAST DOWN r o  %
r. A' u *%

r o O 4

( G'  %

r o R

'l

, C- i m n 'O o ,( 5 O o e

- b 3 Y ,

g o <  %

  • 1 e & u  : R
c r R S

r N' , R 3,

S t' 4- e q 9

E

~

ba.00 0'.25 0'.50 0'.75 l'.00 1',25 l'.50 l'.75 2'.00 2'.25 2'.50 , 9 00TTOM OF CORE 9

- _i_. FRAME 002 ,

9

.]

3 6

UNNORMALIZE0 TIP TRACES 79/10/15. 'i -

817 825 833 841 849 y l

l

\

"- =- .

y i 1609 1617 1625 1633 1641 1649 f

1 I r I I L 2409 2417 2425 2433 2441 2449 2457

(

.r I 4. x xN [ *o 3209 ?217 . 3225 3233 3241 3249 '

3257 4

4009 M 4017 I x

.A

  1. 4025 Ex 4033 y

4041 .

4049 4057 5

i i ~'

. 1 T $

! l I 1 I <# / ,

4809 4817 ,

4825 4833 4841 4849 .

l 1

i f f N t<_ . _ _ _

5625 5633 5641 ** AVE t

~

l<

e s - m e.x .

QURD CITIES 1. CYCLE 1. DATA SET 11. NOV. 1.1973. O SEQUENCE . EPRI NI'  :

.: PRELIMINARY s

QUAD CITIES 1 END OF CYCLE 2 GAMMA SCANS I l

COREWIDE AVERAGE I MEAS I l I MC I I % Diff I  ;

. I 51 I 50 I I I 39 I a4 .=9 I .as i a z .37 T I =e.5 1 3.3 I I I .4.2 Il a .oI T-;7 I I .sc I Tse 1; 2I 71 I I .70 I I 60 I .se It I .3.0 I I .t.0 I I 7 I . 5 3 II

...........................................T ..................

'I 87 I I 87 I .Sa I 1 I 58 I 49 I I 3I 86 I I 86 I .se I I I 55 I 47 I I' s el.a i I .i.e I .41 I I .5;d 175!2T Tg

.....................................................................J I 9s t 9e I I I 93 I .e6 I 1 .70 I 60 Il I' I eI 45 I 97 I I I 95 I 8s I I .71 I 60 I I I'..l.0 I =1.3 I  ! I 2.2 I 22I I 1.3 1 =.0 I I, 4 3701 1 ! 06 I 1.32 I IT65 TI.26 1799 I I- ;85 !- 777 I 63 I i48 I-5 II 1.027 II 1.05 I 1.30 I 1.04 I 1.27 1 1.02 I I 87 I .78 I 6a I .s5 I

..a ! .2.0 I .2 I 6 I 2.7 I I 2.3 I 1.6 I 1.0 I .6.2 I I 1.05 I I 1.12 I I 1.11 I I 1.04 I I I 79 I I 6 I 1.05 I I 1.12 I I 1.10 I I 1.06 I I I 80 I I A 2 I I 7 I 171;6-'I I 1 ~. e- l I I IWI l' ,

.............................................................................. t I 1.06 1 1.09 I 1.34 I 1.09 I 1.10 1 1 1.34 I 1.06 1 1.22 I I I 7 4 a.os a 1.10 I a.36 I 1 12 I 1.11 I I 3.35 1 3.cs I 4.z3 I I 1:

I 2.5 I 7I 1.3 1 2.8 I 9 I I 81 2.5 I 7 I I 1 I a.os T T~In I i.12 I 17tT T~lTif-*I tTI4-I t ITIT f I I  !*

4 1I 1.04 I 1.10 1 1.13 I 1.12 I 1.11 I 1.14 I i 1.11 I I I I

..e I .l.1 1 1.0 I 8 I .A I .3 I I 1.3 I I I I I 1.09 I 1.10 I 1.32 I I 1.19 I 1.17 I 1.32 T I I I I 9 I 1.08 I 1.11 I 1.31 1  ! 1.12 I 1.15 I 1.35 I I I I  !

a .. I 17e I .ITI I I 5;5 I7 1;4 I- 2.6 1 1 I I I I 1.07 I I 1.10 I 1.30 I I 1.la I t I I I I 39 4 a.pn I I 1.It 3 3 31 I I 1.as I g g I i I 8 I I 9 I 7I I .3 I I I I I I a ITU) I  : a.0s I 1724 1 I 'I I a I' 11 I 1.0a I I 1.09 I I 1.30 I J I I I I af I 1.1 I I 5I I t.3 I I I I I I I

I I 1.05 I 1.07 I I 1.07 I I I I I 1.07 I I I 12 3 1.05 1 1.07 I I 1.09 I I I I I 1.12 I I I a .r t - . 4 a a 1;7"I I I T I-4.31 I I I 1.07 I 1.0a I 1.27 I I I I I *I I I I an a a.v? a.v6 m T76 a a a a a a a I I' I ..t I 6 I .5I I I I I I I I I 1 1;11 1 1;08 1 T 3- I 1 -1 I- I t - -- I '

la ! I.to I 1.08 I I I I I 1 I I I I I .6 I .a I I I I I I I I I I I 1.35 1 I I I I I I I t  ! I 15 1 1.32 I I I I I I I I I I I a .2;n 1 a- - I- I - I--- I -*! I -" - I - ! - -"- I 16 17 18 to 20 21 22 23 28 25 26 l

l

. .. 5- . . .

=

i 00AD CITIES 1 END OF CYCLE GAMMA SCAN 79/10/30.- ,

COREWIDE AVERAGE c, 0= MEASURED 9 '

A: CALCULATED

."c

~

12 POINTS m

O .

et u * ,

3 4

8

  • c.

c.

( ,

j r

t2 A

  • g . Z aLJ 8"-

z- .

q S

E ' '

r q t

t 9

9 a

n 9

%.00 0'.20 0'.40 0'.60 0'.80 l'.00 l'.20 l l'.40 l'. G O l'.00 2'.00 NORMALIZED CORRECTED LA INTENSITY ,

.... A 9

L "9AME 001 .

a

  • . S

a m. I.

.\

UNNORMALIZE0 TIP TRACES 79/10/29. f -

817 825 \ 833 841  % 849 f . . 4

. Y . . $ .N a $

1609 1617 1625 1633 1641 1649

> . .. 5 . . > .s l

) )24,, 3 2.,7 22, 24., 24 9 2.,7

) j 32.e9

)s

. E.

3209

.> 3217

)1.

.x 3225

. 1.'

3233

. i 3241

.Vs 3249 3257 j

s L .

k  %

4009 4017 7 4025 4033 4041 4049 4057

. l. 4809

. a.

4817

. a

  1. 925

.a 4833 4841 4849 i

v l'

~

.x .4 . .- .J 5625 5633 5641 "VE

  • } g

]& s c i . I MF x2..,_......,_., . x ". 3._^.$ ._ i OUA0 CITIES 1 CYCLE 2. DATA SLT 20. UL(:l~t10lR 19. 1975. ARO. COAST DOWN l$ .

e

s-pggg --

e.o = *

% CO ."J eue J or

. N

o CD
ca b,-
  • F t n . .J C4 e-E o C. .

O.

bO "r4 w

~

' 01 c'e -

? ."

u-C tC -

I- C si i 4

+-- 2 ~~ W CC

' O C U

, ~X =

~

.n rJa o- - -O w= r oC o c- 6-cc s. *-

aT 'o

:.: . d. ca

~

C C.

' ~ . ,

, tJ :

CC

  • 1 cc, ,

. m  :

P=

{

,.o 6-

//

/l.

<l  ;

4 C w / .*? l

- O i

4 &

u /

e f l s.- -* - 1 l g !4 i

._ -o

'.c 4

'u .i

,a  !

_r , - r. .-- -

l G =: c;* : cs ::  ::c. i. g ac, f: ac ,- n e e, . g

_ . .o so u

. t I

k

  • llNNORM9LIZED Tir TRACES nG/01/10

\g g 009 X

151 7 . 82fi 833 *

% t-5 . #

>y. .--  %

f r*

/ -

) 1.

N 1609 1617 N 1G25

'" 1633 ^

1"4'

?.x l

}  % .

,. # p y l w

, 2409 xx 2417 2425 2433 4

%  %  % m

% 'k $

- l t

, f x* M  !))

' *x __

1.

, W'_.

1

/ x;  !  :

,Y . . . . . - _ . . _ _ . . .

3209 *,, 3217 3225 3233 I

^%g* %g\ l i

x-^ [ {x.

t i

. i

? -

$.l  !

1. F

&t W ;+ ..

  • " d-
  • %g I 4017 402h l

'h,,

. .,5

%'( -

s.

A  ?

} <

['/

i^ \

./.-_ :

-.__.4 - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _

..?

Vf.RI'Off T Cyrlf 2, Tir C Al lRR AT inh 4 $ , 45 R . 2'. 1974, ! 2i;'; talli '

r1!.'s

0 BWR LOCA ANALYSIS DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATION .

1. OBJECTIVES
2. ANALYSIS APPROACH
3. ANALYSIS QUALIFICATION
4. SCHEDULE RTF:

. 3/5/80

, i

. i BWR LOCA ANALYSIS ,

'0BJECTIVE DEVELOP BWR LOCA ANALYSIS CAPABILITY AT YAEC BY 1981 TO SUPPORT VERMONT YANKEE

- BREAK SIZE AND LOCATION SPECTRA

- BEST ESTIMATE (BE) AND EVALUATION MODELS (EM)

MOTIVATION EM BE SUPPORT V. Y. RELOAD LICENSING X ADDRESS NEW SAFETY / LICENSING ISSUES X X ANTICIPATE POTENTIAL CHANGES TO APP. K X X QUANTIFY SAFETY MARGINS X X

/ SUPPORT OPERATOR TRAINING X CRITIQUE PLANT EMERGENCY PROCEDURES X CRITIQUE PLANT SAFEGUARD SYSTEMS X RTF:

3/5/80

UNIQUE FEATURES FOR BWR LOCA ANALYSES BLOWDOWN - REFILL - REFLOOD JET PUMP BEHAVIOR - BROKEN LOOP PARALLEL FLOW PATHS - CORE REGION DISTINCT 20 MIXTURE LEVELS PHASE SEPARATICN IN DC, LP, CORE, UP SATURATED CCFL - LTP, UPP, TOCB EEC/ UPPER PLENUM FLUID MIXING SUBC00 LED CCFL BREAKDOWN RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER - FUEL ASSEMBLIES QUENCll FRONTS - TOP DOWN, BOTTOM UP RTF:

3/5/80

ANALYSIS APPROACH PRINCIPAL CODE REVIEW AND SELECTION CRITERIA li CLASS OF PROBLEMS BREAK SIZE AND LOCATION SPECTRA POTENTIAL BE AND EN ANALYSES CONSISTEilT INTEGRAL ANALYSIS OF ACCIDENTS

2. PHENOMENA HEAT SOURCES

- REACTOR KINETICS AND DECAY HEAT

- STRUCTURAL HEAT RELEASE

- ZIRCALOY/ WATER REACTION i

i HYDRAULICS

- CRITICAL FLOW

- PARALLEL FLOW PATHS IN VESSEL

- 20 MASS AND ENERGY TRANSFER ,

- 20 MOMENTUM TRANSFER l

HEAT TRANSFER

- CONDUCTION IN SOLIDS

- RADIATION IN FUEL ASSEMBLIES

- 10 AND 20 CORRELATIONS RTF:

3/5/83

PRINCIPAL CODE REVIEW AND SELECTION CRITERIA (CONT)

~

3. COMPONENT AND SYSTEM BEHAVIOR CORE l PLENA .

SEPARATORS AND DRYERS PUMPS l l

VALVES AND PIPES l ECCS AND ADS CERTAIN OPERATOR ACTIONS

4. CODE STRUCTURE AND PROGRAMMING COMPATIBILITY W/CYBER 175 ACCURACY AND SPEED USER FEATURES

~

MODULAR STRUCTURE / UPDATE

5. PROGRAMMATIC CONSIDERATIONS CODE AVAILABILITY, DOCUMENTATION COMPATIBILITY W/ EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMS EXTERNAL DEVEL., QUALIF., EXPER.  !

RTF:

3/5/80

LOCA ANALYSIS QUALIFICATION SEPARATE EFFECTS (YAEC) e JET PUMP INEL 1/6 SCALE JET PUMP FULL SCALE JET PUMP o CCFL/ VAPOR GENERATION GE SINGLE HEATED BUNDLE TESTS INTEGRAL SYSTEMS EFFECTS (YAEC) o LARGE RECIRC LINE BREAK TLTA TESTS WITH ECC WITHOUT ECC REFERENCE OTHER RELAP 5 COMPARISONS o MARVIKEN, MOBY DICK EXPERIMENTS LOFT TESTS DOCUMENTATION SUBMITBY12/30/80 RTF:

3/5/80 I

  • q e e

LOCA ANALYSIS APPLICATION EM ANALYSIS FOR VERMONT YANKEE DBA LARGE RECIRC LINE BREAK ON PUMP DISCHARGE LPCI VALVE FAILURE ON INTACT LOOP 2 LPCS, HPCl e MODEL SEtlSITIVITY STUDIES N0DALIZATION TIME STEPS BREAK DISCHARGE RATE POWER DISTRIBUTION DOCUMENTATION SUBMIT BY 4/81 RTF:

3/5/30. . _. _

ANALYSIS APPROACH ,

STRATEGY RELAP 5 -

SYSTEM RESPONSE DURING BLOWDOWN, REFILL, REFLOOD HUXY -

HOT ASSEMBLY / FUEL R0D RESPONSE HAJOR RELAP 5 FEATURES MEETS MOST OF CRITERIA AB0VE ADVANCED 20 THERMAL-HYDRAULICS SEPARATE LIQUID / STEAM VELOCITIES THERMAL NON-EQUILIBRIUM IMPROVED COMPONENT / SYSTEM MODELING -

CURRENT USER APPLICATIONS ENC 0URAGING ADDITIONAL RELAP 5 FEATURES NEEDED

/

POINT REACTOR KINETICS METAL-WATER REACTION COMPLIANCE WITH APP. K.

DOCUMENTATION 9/80 RTF:

l i 3/5/80

RetAP 5 Monst Veamour %ae 0

, A .

t- - 1 3 4-a -. . , .

(

r f .

... -t j .

y a '. a r

3 y ,

_+

_y_

=v v

.. -r_ _+_

~

Y .

.M$ -

FID ,

4 i

,y MsWE g,p C 3 3'Y i. ** * -

. . LPcs - 35 .. y

-j- - -

-%]7 -

4 9[. r . . . . . . --

4

~

- _ . . . . _ . . . i . . . . . _ . . . . . ..

9

+*

h p *

, . __ . . .. i A  !

  • k'

. ~

.'f '4 h;.

.r a, , a!. .

-Q L~

m p

r v - -

r. ,

. 4. . . . _ . _

m- r a- -

e

[:.  ! -- _= jh - . . . . . .

. m

'lg r . . _ .

. 'g

- lLPCI) -_

f - -. . . ...

4LPCIl d .-

g ae [ , j .we e

m

, , ,L*f ) L -e#J l

LOCA ANALYSIS SCHEDULE 1975 1980 1981 TASK S0Nb, J FMAM3 7 A SO ND 7 FM A

1. LOCA METHODS PREPARATION

^

A. REVIEW, SELECT, MOUNT B. EN COMPLIANCE l

Q C. DOCUMENTATION P b

2. LOCA METHODS QUALIFICATION A. JET PUMPS b -I B. CCFL/ VAPORIZATION -- -
C. TLTA (w/0- ECC; w-ECC)
O D. DOCUMENTATION y
3. VERMONT YANKEE DUA ANAL.

A. MODEL SETUP / CHECKOUT l B. REFERENCE EN ANALYSIS ---

O C. SENSITIVITY STUDIES D. DOCUMENTATION l ,RTF-

! 3/5/80

TRANSIENT ANALYSIS METHODS

1) STEADY-STATE CORE THERMAL-HYDRAULICS (FIBWR)
2) SYSTEM TRANSIENT ANALYSIS CODE (RETRAN)
3) HOT CHANNEL TRANSIENT I-H CODE (MAYUO4)
4) CORE STABILITY MODEL BCS 3/5/80 l l

=-? ' ---- - -

- , ne ,. . _. , , , , , ,

BWR STEADY-STATE CORE THERMAL-HYDRAULICS MODEL PURPOSE

1) INTERFACE WITH 3D CORE SIMULATOR TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE FLOW AND POWER DISTRIBUTION
2) INTERFACE WITH REACTOR MODEL TO DETERMINE

" HOT CHANNEL" FLOW DURING TRANSIENTS

3) BENCHMARK 3D CORE SIMULATOR AND REACTOR MODELS APPROACH FOR GIVEN TOTAL CORE FLOW, POWER DISTRIBUTION, AND INLET ENTHALPY, ITERATE ON CHANNEL FLOW UNTIL CALCULATED CORE FLOW EQUALS SPECIFIED CORE FLOW.

i ,

I :

i

)

I BCS i 3/5/80 l

l l \

BWR STEADY-STATE CORE THERMAL-HYDRAULICS MODEL CORE PRESSURE DROP CALCULATI'ES APT = APFRICTION LOCAL ACCEL ELEVATION FRICTION W* 2 AProc =. ?L 2 q

k Oc Da '

i F = BLAUSIUS FRICTION FACTOR 2

= TWO-PHASE FRICTION MULTIPLIER Q

= F(X,P,...)

= BAROCZY* (INCLUDES FLOW EFFECTS) ,

1 l

l l

l l

BCS l l 3/5/8'1

O BWR STEADY-STATE CORE THERMAL-HYDRAULICS

. MODEL CORE PRESSURE DROP CALCULATIONS (CONT.)

LOCAL f >"' = ^' ,,K_, I g 20t

~

= l 1

= USER INPUT FOR SPACER GRIDS, EXPANSIONS, CONTRACTIONS, ETC.

L h = LOCAL LOSS TWO-PHASE MULTIPLIER

= MODIFIED JANSSEN (HUSAIN AND WEISMAN) s ACCELERATION DUE TO DENSITY CHANGE _

AP = A I

- I

'l a.

%m P

- a (I- X), 1 7

SM gg Q (.l - 4)

DUE TO AREA CHANGE s

1 dfuce' =. ( l - 6 L A;4(2.gj SINGLE PHASE Abc = ( I - 60(, f[kfd)-2-eaASE u

DUE To AREA CHANGE (CONT.)

~

6N = Mg '

FINAL FLOW AREA INITIAL FLOW AREA

. Ai

= X x) 4 (l

, HOMOGENEOUS DENSITY I it i

= X + (, I- X)3 ,

KINETIC ENERGY DENSITY xe fg Q* ( I --4)

-d = .

VOID FRACTION AT A2 K = STEAM QUALITY AT A2 D

l l

l l

l BCS

.. E'P2.

BWR STEADY-STATE CORE

' THERMAL-HYDRAULICS

~

MODEL VOID MODELS SuBco0 LED: LEVY (PROFILE-FIT METHOD)

(X) BUBBLE DEPARTURE =SAHA-2UBER" BULK BOILING: ZUBER-IINDLAY M =

c o l's x + %/e3-u-xi s

+. % Wi a

dix CORRELATION:

b-C. =

f i+(8/p - 0

_ I/,

=29 i f e.- f3 ) atto sia e Vf

_ _ ;., fd -

p =. k%

p=

x +XRg fggUM SIN e = 1.0 FOR VEP.TICAL CHANNELS BCS l

_ __ . -. _ - . . - - . R5M9 - _ -

'=

NO1E. PERIPHERAL FUEL EUPPORTS ARE

  • WE LDED INTO THE CORE SUPPORT PLATE FOR THESE BUNDLES.

g

-r PATH NUMBER $ 1.2.5 AND 7 00 ,

NOT EXIST.

. CHANNEL

. ,,, . 3 . . . ,, . , . . y.,.p yt.pg. . .

.. . g

~ ~ m ... w m e . n ? ..*.

.. t c e.wi . ,

id T..,te 2.'ser 4 s- 4 4.W.U

<.. u N.:..: F l.:'.

.:. .. . . .:. ..u~ . v .-.

l . .. .. .

j- . . , . .. . . . .

u l

LOWER TIE PLATE _

8 6 CORE SUPPORT PLATE I '

FUE L SUPPORT

. */ -s L

to 3 4 i

[ 1 l

l r

, s -.

% 'N CORE

~

GUIDE TUBE l I

/

~

g - SHROUD Ib _ CONTROL ROD W

GulDE TUBE

'~

O j

- 1 CONTROL ROD GUIDE TUBE. FUEL SUPPORT PIECE

2. CONTROL ROD GUIDE TUBf CORE SUPPORT PLATE 3 CORE SUPPORT PLATE-INCORE GulOE TUBE
4. CORE SUPPORT PLATE SHROUD l 5 CONTROL ROD GUIDE TUBE DRIVE HOUSING 6 FUEL SUPPORT PIECE-LOWER TIE LATE 7 . 7. CONTROL ROD DRIVE COOLING '+; TER jf 8 CHANNEL. LOWER TIE PLATE s( /,V 9 LOWER TIE PLATE HOLES l

1 5 CONTROL ROD DRIVE HOUSING I

l

+ - ~

W L 1 2 A#+C3 M

.) , .' . .

o .-

c.. .....; - .

BCS l

3/5/80

a .

FIBWR 0!!ALIFICATION

. 1. VY CYCLES 1-7 OPERATING DATA 0 TIP rRACES (FIBWR-SIMULATE INTERFACE)

O C0dE FLOW AND tLP MEASUREMENTS 0 FISSION TIP vS.ITIP (PLANNED)

2. OTHER REACTORS PUBLISHED DATA .

O QUAD CITIES (FIBWR-SIMULATE INTERFACE)

O HATCH (FISSIONTIPvS.YTIP)

3. COMPARISONS TO OTHER EXPERIMENTAL DATA (E.G. MARVIKEN) .
4. COMPARISONS TO OTHER CODES
(E.G. COBRA 3C AND MAYUO4)
5. COMPARISONS TO GE EXPERIMENTAL DATA (DEPENDS ON SUCCESS OF EPRI NEGOTIATIONS)

/ .

BCS 3/5/80

l l

l i

l

'. RETRAN 0 GENERAL THERMAL-HYDRAULIC TRAflSIENT ANALYSIS CODE l 0 PROVIDES "BEST ESTIMATE" SOLUTION .

O DOES SAME JOB AS VENDOR CODES, SUCH A REDY/0DYN 0 BASED ON RELAP TECHNOLOGY BCS i

3/5/80 8

l VERMONT Y NKEE

, RETRAN MODEL .

ihithee8HtN.

9 Li e L M' FtED%mit STt a.,

Bau Tweg 2._ e + .e -

[e h %s- -

u s.

[ bYO ew n i

....emar.e..s.ec v .t.. - }

Mg j

.se.s o

./ _ .. .

z - ~

t 1; v,/

act.cr x 6ves N. g,/ -5

m mana

= =- -

o

,.t

.3 7,  :.

e

<..c O

~

9 i1

'l l

RETRAN VERIFICATION /0UALIFICATION 9

"6ENERIC" - EPRI CCM-5 VOLUME 4 0 SEPARATE EFFECTS ANALYSES (PRESSURE DROP, CRITICAL FLOW, HEAT TRANSFER, ETC.)

O SYSTEM EFFECTS ANALYSES, (TLTA, ACCUMULATOR BLOWDOWN, SUBCOMPARTMENT ANALYSIS, ETC.')

O BWR TRANSIENT ANALYSES (PB-2 TURBINE TRIP, GENERATOR LOAD REJECTIONS, FEEDWATER TRANSIENTS, RECIRCULATION PUMP TRIPS, ETC.)

l I

BCS 3/5/80

d RETRAN VERIFICATION /0l!ALIFICATInN t VERMONT YANKEE SPECIFl[

COMPARISON TO IEST DATA e GENERATOR LOAD REJECTION YAEC-1191 e SINGLE RECIRC. PUMP TRIP llNPUBLISHED e TWO RECIRC. PUMP TRIP .IN PROGRESS COMPARISON TO OTHER CALCULATIONS e STUCK-OPEN RELIEF VALVE WVY 75-83 e TURBINE TRIP W.O BYPASS YAEC-1176

~

e LOSS OF FW HEATER YAEC-1170 BCS 3/5/80

,. l BWR HOT CHANNEL CODE t ,

i PURPOSE l EVALUATE TRANSIENT THERMAL HYDRAULIC -

CONDITIONS IN ROD BUNDLES (DDE

~

MAYUO4 (EPRI)

APPROACH INPUT TIME DEPENDENT PRESSURE, POWER, INLET FLOW AND ENTHALPY TO DETERMINE LOCAL FLUID AND -

ROD SURFACE CONDITIONS ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE CHANNEL S

l BCS l 3/5/80

BWR HOT CHANNEL CODE THERMAL-HYDRAULIC ASSUMPTIONS O IHERM0 DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM o SUBCOOLE'D BOILING NEGLECTED O I TIC AND POTENTIAL TERMS NEGLECTED IN CALCULATING MIXTURE ENERGY 0

o ONE-DIMENSIONAL FLUID FLOW 0 AXIAL VARIATIONS IN PRESSURE ARE SMALL WITH RESPECT TO REFERENCE PRESSURE J .

BCS 3/5/80 l

. w. .- .. . e ,_,, - -e , , , .

. Table 1,1 ****

SUMMARY

OF MAYUO4 CORRELATIONS

  • e, CO-CURRENT FLOW COUNTER-CURRENT FLOW CORRELATION CISE(5) [ cL k.g h WALKUSH(6) (M.I.T.)

THERMAL LIMITS .

C'~ w 1 F kNlla HEAT TRANSFER o SINGLE-PHASE LIQUID DITTUS-BOELTER I) NOT APPLICABLE JENS-LOTTES(8) SAME AS CURRENT FLOW o TWO-PHASE NUCLEATE DOUGALL-ROHSENOW(10) BROMLEY(11) WITH o TWO-PHASE FILM TAYLOR INSTABILITY WAVE LENGTH DITTUS-BOELTER( ) NOT APPLICABLE o 3 INGLE-PHASE VAPOR o USER INPUT C g AND Vg ) SAME AS CO-CURRENT FLOW DRIFT FLUX PARAMETERS o RAMD (see Figure 3.3.1)

PRESSURE DROP o CONSTANT = 0.015 SAME AS CO-CURRENT FLOW, o SINGLE-PHASE LIQUID FRACTION EXCEPT USING R FACTOR o MOODY CURVES o CONSTANT = 1.0 1.0 o TWO-PHASE FRICTION MULTIPLIER o JONES (13) FIT TO MARTINELLI-NELSON o UNSER INPUT CONSTANT SAME AS CO-CURRENT FLOW o SINGLE-PHASE LOCAL LOSS COEFFICIENT o CONSTANT = 1.0 1.0 o TWO-PHASE LOCAL LOSS MULTIPLIER o HOMOGENEOUS MULTIPLIER o NOT APPLICABLE o ZERO FLOW FROM TOP COUNTER-CURRENT FLOW LIMIT (CCFL) o WALLIS(3) o KUTALELAZE(4) o USER INPUT WALL SUPERHEAT o SAME AS CO-CURRENT REWETTING FLOW

' ~

BCS n tr GOn

.e$>

4 %$3

'" Q 'fp

%\p77// V ig) sq((/ ,j ,# ,

'V(+,,,,+q,,,, /4,,,4;e NNY IMAGE EVALUATION N TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1 1.0 2 "M Ha

I!!ll12_

3, l.g bm m

l}2.0 I I.8 1.25 1.4 .

i.6 l

  • 6" >

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART

<$'%4 4?l#ll*ef if>///// ;y Azz

'Sephe a <ty  ;

-.---.i--.-.....~..~1s a

- *d

- *L ~

CORE STABILITY M0IlEL e ANALYSIS METn0D HAS NOT BEZN SELECTED e NEGOTIATIONS IN PROGRESS ON STABILITY 1 TESTS AT VY 1 e A NUMBER OF SOURCES UNDER CONSIDERATION e

l e

f

'l -

BCS 3/5/80 l

~

_. _._m._._- __m,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19309H924&oldid=2497507"