ML20034F803

Requests Response to Encl Request for Addl Info in Order to Complete Review of June 1992 Application for Design Certification of AP600

ML20034F803
Person / Time
Site:	05200003
Issue date:	02/18/1993
From:	Kenyon T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Liparulo N WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
References
NUDOCS 9303050029
Download: ML20034F803 (4)

Text

t a

Cecdrat G U

+f

'o,,

UNITED STATES y

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5*

p WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555 k...../

February 18, 1993

{

n~ket No.52-003 Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 j

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE AP600 As a result of its review of the June 1992 application for design certifica-tion of the AP600, the staff has determined that it needs additional informa-tion in order to complete 'ts review. The additional information is needed in the area of testing (Q440.33-0440.34)." Enclosed are the staff's questions.

Please respond to this request expeditiously in order to support the staff's schedule for review of the AP600 testing programs.

You have requested that portions of the information submitted in the June 1992 application for design certification be exempt from mandatory public disclo-sure. While the staff has not completed its review of your request in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.790, that portion of the l

submitted information is being withheld from public disclosure pending the staff's final determination. The staff concludes that this request for additional information does not contain those portions of the information for which exemption is sought. However, the staff will withhold this letter from public disclosure for 30 calendar days from the date of this letter to allow Westinghouse the opportunity to verify the staff's conclusions.

If, after that time, you do not request that all or portions of the information in the enclosures be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790, this letter will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

hNb

• The numbers in parentheses designate the tracking numbers assigned to the questions.

+

9303050029 930218

)\\

\\\\@h PDR ADOCK 05200003 A

PDR sj

'v 4

i f

Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo February 18, 1993 i

This request for additional information affects nine or fewer respondents, and therefore is not subject to Office of Management and Bugdet review under i

P.L.96-511.

j If you have any questions regarding this matter, you can contact me at (301) 504-1120.

Sincerely, I

Orbbm Thomas d.p man.,,-Kenyon, Project Manager Standardization Project Directorate Associate Director for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

i As stated cc w/ enclosure:

See next page l

I DISTRIBUTION-

• Central File PDST R/F TMurley/FMiraglia DCrutchfield

• PDR WTravers RBorchardt TKenyon i

RHasselberg GGrant, EDO JMoore, 15B18 MSiemien, 15B18 i

PShea MRubin, 8E23 Alevin, 8E23 ACRS (11) w/o encl.

i 0FC:

LA:PDST:ADAR PM:PDST:ADAR PM:PDST:ADAR SC:PDSJ:ADAR PShea [

TKhfsg RBor[ardt NAME:

RHass rg 024hh3 02/k/93

[ /93 02/ /h93 O

DATE:

i 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: SRXB.RAI l

i j

i Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo Westinghouse Electric Corporation i

Docket No.52-003 AP600 I

6 i

cc:

Mr. B. A. McIntyre I

Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing I

Westinghouse Electric Corporation Energy Systems Business Unit P.O. Box 355 i

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 i

Mr. John C. Butler l

Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Westinghouse Electric Corporation Energy Systems Business Unit Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. M. D. Beaumont Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation l

One Montrose Metro

{

11921 Rockville Pike Suite 350 i

Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. Sterling Franks U. S. Department of Energy NE-42

{

Washington, D.C.

20585 r

Mr. S. M. Modro EG&G Idaho Inc.

Post Office Box 1625 Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 l

i i

1 i

r I

I 1

i i

J.

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE WESTINGHOUSE AP600 DESIGN Testing 440.33 In its January 19, 1993 response to a question on the passive RHR heat exchanger tests dated July 21, 1992, Westinghouse states that "[t]he passive residual heat removal (PRHR) tests were performed as full-scale tests. As such, a scaling analysis was not performed." While the tubes used in the test represented the full lenath of the AP600 PRHR heat exchanger (HX) design at that time, a 3-tube array was used to represent a heat exchanger composed of several hundred tubes. As such, the staff does not consider the test to be " full-scale."

In addition, since the PRHR test was conducted, the design of the PRHR HX has undergone numerous changes, including configuration, placement in the IRWST, and number of tubes. Accordingly, provide an analysis demonstrating that the results from the 3-tube tests can be applied to the current design of the PRHR HXs. The analysis should consider (but not be limited to) tube flow rates /Reynolds numbers, pressure drops, conditions (temperatures, vapor generation rates, flow distribution l

through the tube array) on the outside of the tubes, and flow distribution in the HX headers.

440.34 In its January 19, 1993 response to a question on the core makeup tank (CMT) tests dated July 21, 1992, Westinghouse states that "[t]here will be no formal scaling report for the CMT tests.

Since the CMT test is a separate effects test,...the boundary conditions for the test can be separately controlled....[thus] there'is no need for a detailed scaling report." While it is true that some conditions can be more closely controlled in a separate effects test environment than in a systems test environment, once the test starts, the conditions that evolve, such as natural convective flows and temperature distributions, are governed by the physical processes occurring during the test itself, including heat transfer to and from the CMT and l

depressurization' of the test loop (simulating ADS actuation).

If the geometry of the test article is substantially different from the prototypic component, the thermal-hydraulic behavior of the two could be different. This is the case with the CMT test.

The component in the plant has an aspect ratio (height to diameter) of about 1.7, whereas the test article has an aspect ratio of about 5.

Multi-l dimensional behavior in the actual CMT, including stratification, internal recirculation, and energy transport, may not be adequately represented in the test article, which looks much more one-i dimensional. This behavior may have a substantial impact on the response of the CMT during an accident. Therefore, provide a detailed i

c scalina analysis showing that the thermal-hydraulic phenomenology observed in the CMT test can be directly related to that expected in the plant component during the range of events where the CMT is expected to be in operation.

Enclosure i