ML20057C233

Transcript of 930920 Briefing in Rockville,Md Re Status of AP600 & Sbwr Thermal Hydraulic Testing.Pp 1-61.Supporting Documentation Encl

ML20057C233
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/20/1993
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9309280106
Download: ML20057C233 (100)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ - _ _ _ _______ __________________ _ ___ _ ____ _ _ _ MM688886%TrWWWWW6W%W$6W4WWW6& A 6WhW6ggfig' E [ Occument Control Cest. 016 Phillies (t [ AnsMIT AL. TO: I 3-IIdANCED CCPY TO: The Public Document occm 6 9 6 7 Jb } / ATE: 0 i / i FRCM: SECY Corresponcence & Recorcs Branen 3 '5 i ll Attacned are ccoies of a Commission meeting transcript and relatec meeting l( dccument(s). They are being forwarced for entry on the Daily Accession List and g placement in the Public Document Room. No other cistribution is recuested or g i recuirec.

<?f M 60-r) F$3Ud A

<!bT-Meeting

Title:

0 / he JJ n d /. M u d f Meeting Date: 9/20 /3 Open I Closeo e 6 El 3 El 3 2:: ! tem Cescriptiene Cecies $l Advanced DCS il to POR Copy [

• 8 C.

5 l)! 6 gi

1. TRANSCRIPT 1

1 ~& { l u ) M ,wL, ) i y g Eli v k 3 al 2. l E E g q? e i sc C ~$i 3. 3

31

S; 5

et ~5; ~. e y-o' 3 3[< 2 -~ 3

~*

2 3 ~ 3 5 ~ e 1 9309280106 930920 33 PDR 10CFR PDR g 36 PT9.7 s 3,t t

• POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY pacer.

l 55 ( C1R Branch files the original t6Deript, with attacnments, withcut SECY 33 pacers. 240 j%j l 1 f si un .m m m m,m mim1,m ,,,m,...... m m m m md g nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

s s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION s .br Tkt16l BRIEFING ON STATUS OF AP600 AND SBWR l THERMAL HYDRAULIC TESTING LOCatiOD: RoCKVILLE. MARYLAND Date'. SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 PageS: 61 PAGES g. o NEALR.GROSSANDCO.,INC. COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 (?]! o_.

DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear '9gulatory Commission held on September 20, 1993, in the Commission's office at One r White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was open to public attendance and observe 'on. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies. The transcript is intended solely for general informhtional purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No pleading or othac paper may be filed with [ the commission in any proceeding 'as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize. e NEAL R. GROS $ couaT me,oatnes A)@ TRAN5cRfttti 1213 kHOOt ISLAND AYWHUt. M.W. (202) 234-4433 WASM0HGTON, DL 20005 ' (202) 232 4 600 ,m

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRIEFING ON STATUS OF AP600 AND SBWR THERMAL HYDRAULIC TESTING i PUBLIC MEETING Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland Monday, September 20, 1993 The Commission met in open

session, pursuant to

notice, at 1:30 p.m.,

Ivan

Selin, Chairman, presiding.

e COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: IVAN SELIN, Chairman of the Commission KENNETH C. ROGERS, Commissioner FORREST J. REMICK, Commissioner E. GAIL de PLANQUE, Commissioner NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

~ 4 2 i STAFF SEATED AT THE' COMMISSION TABLE: WILLIAM C. PARLER, General Counsel f DR. ANDREW BATES, Chief, Operating Branch, Office of the Secretary j JAMES TAYLOR, Executive Director for Operations l e ERIC BECKJORD, Director, Office of Research [-i e THOMAS MURLEY, Director, NRR j i ASHOK THADANI t i BRIAN SHERON i LOUIS SHOTKIN l i r i i f I f i e i i l l NEA:_ R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. 5 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 .i

1 3 2 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 1:30 p.m. 3 CHAIRMAN SE* 1: Good afternoon,-ladies l 4 and gentlemen. 5 We're pleased to welcome members of the i 6 staff to brief the Commission on the certification 4 7 schedule and on the status of the AP600 and the small 8 boiling water reactor thermal hydraulic testing for j t 9 the passive designs. t 10 The advanced passive reactor designs have i 11 a number of unique features distinguishing them from - i 12 both the current generation of light water reactors j 13 and the evolutionary LWRs. The thermal hydraulic test l 14 program will provide information badly needed for code 15 assessment for evaluating passive E.ystem performance 16' independently. The test data are needed for model 17 development, improvements to existing codes and for i 18 confirmation of the validity of existing models under 19 the low-flow conditions that you get in these i 20 reactors. 21 While the development of the needed test 22 data and the validation of the thermal ~ hydraulic codes 23 are largely the responsibility of the reactor vendors, 24 some NRC tests are warranted to ensure adequacy of the l 25 vendor test data and to provide sufficient independent NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1's23 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. I?Dc; 234433 W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 m m-d "V d r tr-i -- e- -en +-

i 4 1 data to' validate the NRC sfd'. tools. And in today's 2 tight budget environment, I would say that this is a 3 major area of expenditures and a major project that we 4 have going, so it's in both our professional and our 5 fiduciary responsibilities that we're very interested a 6 in the report today. 7 Today's briefing will cover the 8 certification and the testing program schedules as 9 well as the planned schedule for code assessment. The 10 staff I understand will also discuss issues identified 11 for each of the passive designs as well as research 12 results in future plants. 13 Copies of the briefing are available. 14 Commissioners, comments? 15 Mr. Taylor, would you please proceed? 16 MR. TAYLOR: Good afternoon. 17 With me at the table are Lou Shotkin and 18 Brian Sheron and Eric Beckjord from the Office of 19 Research, Tom Murley and Ashok Thadani from NRR. 20 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Good afternoon. 21 MR. TAYLOR: This is very important 22 research with regard to the staff activities and I 23 think the Commission is aware that it not only will 24 involve the research we do but it will involve our 25 review of the work done by the vendors in their NEAL R. GROSS CoORT REPORTERS AND TRANSCAIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234 4433

5 q 1 I 1 testing as part of the overall effort to be sure that 2 we have all the thermal hydraulic information we need 3 with regard to these designs. 4 I'll now ask Eric Beckjord to continue. 5 DOCTOR BECKJORD: Thank you. l 6 Mr.

Chairman, the purpose of our e

7 presentation is -- and Commissioners, Mr. Chairman and t 8 Commissioners, our purpose is to describe the i 9 confirmatory research activity as it relates to both 10 the AP600 and the SBWR, to describe the activities 11 that are underway, where we are now and where we.'re 12 going, and also we will discuss it in the relation of 13 research to review the designs for these plants and l 14 the safety evaluation reports and finally how it 15 relates to certification. 16 Th'e AP600 and the SBWR are based" to a 17 considerable extent on established technology, but 18 there are systems and component changes, including 19 passive safety features in core cooling and 3 20 containment cooling, that are important departures. 21 The purpose of the confirmatory work on both reactor 22 types is to provide independent confirmation on the 23 proper functioning of these systems by means of tests t 24 and then to prt le thermal hydrau3 ic codes which have 25 been proven against test results for evaluating system i i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS t 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 r

6 1 performance, and we will be making those codes i 2 available to NRR and the other conclusions that we j 3 arrive to for their use. l 4 The other point I'd like to make is that 5 the AP600 tests and code development work is on 6 schedule and within budget and the work on the SBWR is 7 getting underway. The test facility for the SBWR at 1 I 8 Purdue will be ready for testing in September of 1994. 9 That completes -- 10 DOCTOR MURLEY: I think -- 11 DOCTOR BECKJORD: -- Doctor Murley. 12 CHAIRMAN SELIN: That's the briefing. The 13 rest is just details, right? l 14 MR. TAYLOR: That's the opening. Now 15 Doctor Murley has some -- 16 DOCTOR MURLEY: I would like to just I 17 describe and try to reassure the Commission that the 18 offices of NRR and Research are working very close 19 together on this program and I'll give some examples a 20 of how that's done, but we could start off for the 21 AP600 by noting that it was some scoping calculations 22 that were done at the Idaho National Engineering Lab 23 for Research that actually highlighted some questions 24 -- this was about two years ago -- caused the staff to 25 question some of the basic characteristics of the [ NEAL R. GROSS i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

7 1 safety system performance of the AP600. 2 Then as the NRR staff began to look into 3 it a little more, we found even more fundamental 4 questions that we thought early in 1992 needed j o 5 integral system testing. In fact, Jim Taylor got the 6 senior staff from both of fices together and we met and -r 7 went over what our understandings were and where the 8 deficiencies were and from that meeting then developed I 9 a users need letter from Research to -- I mean, from i 10 NRR to Research. 11 (Slide) Let's see. Roger, if we could 12 fire up the machine back there and get the first chart 13 on, the second

chart, it would illustrate 14 schematically how the design certification review 15 raises issues that have to be addressed through 16 testing.

17 Looking at the upper left-hand balloon 18 where the staff review takes place, it raises a couple 19 of sorts of questions. 20 One is there are basic phenomena questions o 21 about the plant behavior during accidents: for 22 example, the flow of emergency cooling water under 2. conditions of low pressure differentials with multiple 24 flow paths during a LOCA and with the possible 25 presence of noncondensible gases. We think there are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433 5

8 1 some basic phenomena that have to be tested to answer j 2 those kinds of questions. 3 Likewise we have questions about the i i 4 adequacy of the models that are in our current codes, 5 because when these current codes were developed they 6 were based on what we now call the evolutionary = 7 plants, but for those accidents you always had large 8 driving pressure differentials and you generally had i 9 pumps with large flow, so their models were developed 10 under quite different conditions. 11 Then as you get into code development, the 12 developers themselves frequently raise questions on ~ 13 models where you need separate effects tests to verify I 14 individual models in the codes. [ 15 And then the final product, then, of all 16 this, as Eric said, is a validated systems code that 17 both we and Research can use and the applicant, for t 18 that matter, to calculate the behavior of the plant 19 and we would do our own independent calculations. So 20 that's kind of the logic of how the review fits in 21 with the testing program. 22 (Slide) If I could have the next chart, 23 it shows the relationship of the Westinghouse a i 24 sponsored tests and the NRC sponsored tests in ROSA to 25 the design certification review schedules. Here what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANTORIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

9 I we see is that the tests are integrated into the l 2 review schedule. 3 We plan to issue the draft safety 4 evaluation report for the AP600 in next May, May of l 5 1994. As you can see, some of the tests won't be we've talked with 6 completed by then, so we'll j 7 Westinghouse. We will probably issue a supplement to 8 the DSER that covers the test.results and will cover 9 any open issues that arise as a result of these tests, 10 then Westinghouse has some time to respond to those 11 and then of course we issue our final safety f 12 evaluation. report to the Commission in late 1995. f 13 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Tom, do we have the 14 input decks for SPES, ROSA, and Oregon State yet? 15 DOCTOR MURLEY: I doubt it. i 16 Do you know? -l 17 DOCTOR SHOTKIN: We have initial versions i 18 right now. We're trying to go through again and make-19 them quality assured and make sure that the noting is f 20 consistent between all the input. decks for the 21 facilities and the input deck for the plant. f 22 COMMISSIONER REMICK: For all three test 23 facilities? 24 DOCTOR SHOTKIN: Yes, and for the plant. i 25 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Good. l l NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C 20005 (202) 234-4433 f

10 1 DOCTOR MURLEY: One fina1 point with 2 regard to the NRC sponsored tests in ROSA. Brian 3 Sheron will talk about those in more detail, but from j 4 our point of view we viewed these and always have 5 viewed these as confirmatory tests and they're = 6 confirmatory in the sense that the data from the tests l 7 are not necessary to support the Westinghouse 8 application. But we in the staff believe they're 9 necessary to give us the added assurance that our 10 safety findings are conservative, and to me that is ] 1 11 the distinction between a confirmatory test that the 12 NRC sponsors and does and the tests that an applicant 13 needs to support his safety case. 14 That concludes my remarks. 15 CHAIRMAN SELIN: The implication of your I 16

remarks, Doctor Murley, is that if any of those 17 earlier tests, not the ROSA tests but the vendor 18 tests, slip, then the whole certification process may 19 slip.

i 20 DOCTOR MURLEY: That's exactly right. In l 21 fact -- 1 22 CHAIRMAN SELIN: It's actually a fairly 23 tight schedule when you look at all these tests that 24 are going on side by side, so there are five different 25 sets of tests not so much mutually contingent, but any NEAL R. GROSS 1 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C, 20005 (202) 2344433

11. 1 one of those delays will ricochet through the 2 schedule. 3 DOCTOR MURLEY: Yes, that's correct, Mr. 4 Chairman. And in f act, for a variety of reasons, each 5 of those tests shown, the Westinghouse tests, have 6 slipped in the last year. They've slipped from six to f 7 ten months, each of them have, and that has caused us, i 8 as I mentioned, to have to split the draft SER into 9 two parts. J 10 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Already? j 11 DOCTOR MURLEY: Already, yes. If it slips 12 much more, I don't think we can hold these schedules. 13 CHAIRMAN SELIN: So the remarks that I 14 made to the Advanced Reactor Corporation last week 15 clearly are supported by this kind of a schedule? 16 DOCTOR MURLEY: Exactly right, yes. 17 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Just a comment. You 18 mentioned the scoping studies done out at INEL under 19 Research sponsorship, about two and a quarter years. a 20 I happened to be out there and saw a demonstration of 9 21 that on their work station and showing the possibility i 22 of uneven flow out of the various tanks, which made me 23 feel that it was something far more than nice that we 24 have work stations in the building to run some of 25 those codes in-house as well as having it at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 f

i i 12 1 contractors. It was quite impressive and convincing ) 2 that it was a valuable tool. 3 DOCTOR MURLEY: Yes, we agree. 4 DOCTOR THADANI: We do have that l 5 capability in-house and we can run a number of codes. 6 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I'm very pleased to e 7 see that. 8 MR. TAYLOR: Brian Sheron will continue. 9 MR. SHERON: (Slide) Next slide, please. 10 I'll talk quickly about our background and 11 objectives for this research. I won't repeat really, 12 other than what Eric said, and that is that we almost 13 without a doubt use our computer codes to validate the 14 performance of these new plant designs. 15 When we first looked into it for the 16 passive plants, there were three predicted needs that 17 we could foresee. One was the system performance of 18 AP600, system performance of the SBWR, and then in 19 addition stability of the SBWR. 20 In 1989, actually four years ago, we began 21 to receive sufficient design information from the 22 vendors on these advanced designs that we could do 23 some serious planning and start to determine how best 24 to go about setting up these codes. 25 (Slide) Next slide, please. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

i I 13 I 1 What we - did is we started'at Idaho by 1 2 first asking them to do a systematic evaluation of the j 3 RELAPS code to determine whether there were any models 4 that were missing to predict the phenomena in these 5 new designs or whether there were appropriate models l 6 that hadn't been properly validated for the specific i 7 conditions or the geometry of these designs. 8 What we concluded from that study was that 9 there were no new phenomena that were expected in l 10 these plants, but that the codes and the models in the 11 codes had not been assessed against either scaled or l 12 prototypic data from systems and components that are 13 geometrically similar to AP600, which is the plant 14 which has the most unique design features, and then 15 also under the low pressure gravity-driven flows 16 expected during the safety injection. 17 (Slide) Next slide, please. 18 What I'd like to do now is go through the 19 issues first for AP600, the issues and then the e 20 programs we have to address them, and then I will go l e 21 over and discuss the same thing for the SBWR. 22 When we took a look at the AP600, we asked 23 ourselves what really are the particular new features 24 for which further assessment was desired. If you 25 recall, basically the major difference in the AP600 to i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS - 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344 433 j }

14 1 the conventional Westinghouse plant is that they 2 replace'd-the high-pressure injection with a passive 3 system, the core make-up tanks and the ADS system, and 4 then later on there is the passive residual heat 5 removal system. r: 6 But the features that we felt we needed Y 7 further assessment on were the core make-up tank, the j 8 automatic depressurization system performance, and the 9 direct vessel injection performance. In this plant, 10 the ECC water is injected dirtstly in the vessel in + 11 the downcomer whereas in a conventional plant it's 12 injected in the cold leg. 13 And finally, as Tom said, we wanted to see 14 the integral behavior of these systems looking for 15 possible system interactions and their performance 16 under these very low flow natural circulation type 17 conditions. 18 (Slide) Next slide, please. 19 Let me run through quickly the vendor test 20 programs that are ongoing. 21 Westinghouse is running separate effects 22 tests for their core makeup tanks. These I believe 23 are not quite yet started. I think they're imminent, 24 though. These are being run at Westinghouse. 25 The passive residual heat removal system NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

15 3 1 separate effects tests, these are completed. These 2 are also run at Westinghouse. i 3 And the automatic depressurization system 4 tests are ongoing right now and they're being run at 5 Italy. 6 SPES, which I think you're familiar with, .l i r 7 is also being run in Italy in Piachenza at the CF 8 facility and those tests I believe now are expected to 9 start in mid-October. 10 And then also, Westinghouse is running a 11 smaller scale, or actually I should say a differently i 12 scaled facility. It's a lower pressure facility at 13 Oregon State and those tests are expectt; ;o start in 14 the mid-November time frame. 15 With regard to these vendor tests, both 16 Research and NRR have developed jointly a vendor 17 testing monitoring program. What this means is that 18 the staff, both NRR and Research staffs, as well as 19 our contractors, will be physically present on site e 20 when the vendors are running these tests so we can 21 better understand

them, understand how they're 22 collection data, how they're qualifying the data and 23 so forth.

This is also very useful for our code 24 developers because it's very hard to develop a code 25 and a code model when you don't actually see the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

16 1 facility and basically get hands-on, so it serves a 2 dual purpose. 3 COMMISSIONER REMICK:

Brian, I have a 4

question. It doesn't relate necessarily to the vendor 5 facility, but it's a question I asked before but I 6 don't recall that I got an answer. i 7 I had heard that the Japanese had run a 8 separate effects test on the core makeup tanks in 9 Japan. I don't know if that's true and, if it is 10 true, have we done anything of code assessment based 11 on that data? Has it been provided to us if they 12 performed the test? 13 DOCTOR SHOTKIN: Yes. On their own they 14 ran a test. They modified their facility and their 15 test results confirmed what we had previously 16 predicted, the recirculation phase of the CMT, so 17 we're not planning to do anything more than just pat 18 them on the back and say, "Thanks for the test and it t 19 confirmed what we had already seen in our codes." 20 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I see. But we do 21 have the data? 22 DOCTOR SHOTKIN: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Okay. Good. 24 MR. SHERON: Okay. Now I'll talk about 25 the NRC programs that we have for AP600. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

17 1 The first thing we did is we met with NRR f 2 and evaluate: :he vendor's testing programs and from 3 that decided what confirmatory testing was appropriate i 4 for the Office of Research to conduct. What we i 5 concluded was that the vendor-sponsored separate 6 effects tests, which I just described, were in fact-t e 7 sufficient and that there were no confirmatory 8 separate effects testing needed to be conducted by the 9 NRC staff. i 10 COMMISSIONER REMICK: That was an area 11 where I believe ACRS differed with the staff. Is that 12 anything that your code review consultants have looked 13 at to see if they agree? l 14 MR. SHERON: The code consultants have not 1 15 identified any additional areas where they thought ( i 16 testing was needed and we never really got a clear 17 indication from the ACRS on specifically what further 18 separate effects tests they thought were needed. 19 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I see. Okay. e 1 20 MR. SHERON: We did determine, as you 21 know, that for AP600, full height, full pressure 22 integral system tests were required from the vendor 23 and that's being satisfied by the SPES facility. In l 24 addition, both NRR and Research decided that also 25 confirmatory testing in a full pressure, full height NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433

i 18 1 facility was desirable. 2 Now, the reason we were so concerned about 3 having the high pressure testing and the full height t 4 was basically for three scenarios in which the passive 5 safety systems in AP600 would be expected to operate i { 6 while the system was still at high pressure. Let me s i 7 just remind you that the original facility -- the only 8 facility that Westinghouse was proposing was Oregon P 9 State, which is a low pressure facility. The question 10 was is that sufficient. When we took a look at the t 11 accidents that are normally analyzed and evaluated, j 12 there were three that occurred at high pressure. This 13 is the sma11 break LOCA, the steam generator tube 14 rupture and the steam line break. All of these will 15 occur and will produce an actuation of these passive 16 safety systems while the plant is at high pressure. 17 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Do you plan to run 18 any large break LOCA tests at all on the AP600? 19 MR. SHERON: No, because the passive f 20 safety features basically don't come into play during 21 the large break. The accumulators come on very j 22 quickly and they'll basically shut off the CMT until 23 the system is at very low pressure. 24 Westinghouse, as you know, is using the 25 SPES facility. The staff proposed to use the ROSA-V NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

1 19. 1 facility which when scaled to AP600 scales out'at 2 about 1/30th volume scale. Just for reference, LOFT, 3 which was our biggest facility previously, was 1/50th i j 4 scale. So, this is actually even larger than that. t 5 The Oregon State University facility, l i 6 which is 1/200th scale, will provide mostly data on L 7 long-term cooling. It won't do the short-term part of 8 the transients. 9 Based on, I guess, my experience and I i 10 guess others here, doing testing in three facilities i 11 like that at three different locations with three l 12 different group of testing engir:eers at three 13 different scaling rationales will provide us with t 14 probably one of the most comprehensive set.r. of thermal l 15 hydraulic data that we've ever had on a plant that i 16 we're proposing to license. As you know, we asked and 17 the Commission approved for Research to contract to go .l 18 forward with the ROSA-V facility on August lith last i 19 year. 20 Next slide, please. 21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Just o: thought on 22 that. Because there will be such a comprehensive 23 collection of data, will any of that data be made 24 available in the future for, for instance, university 25 programs to work with? If you've got such a wide l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W. j (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)2344433 f

=. 20 1 range now, it would seem to me that that would be -- l i 2 I can see a lot of Ph.D. theses in that database if 3 people could get.their hands on it. Would it be i 4 relatively easy for them to access that? l 5 MR. SHERON: The data we get from the ROSA 6 facility is publicly available. Westinghouse data, 7 I'm sure they would declare it proprietary and would 8 not be available. I 9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Oregon State, what e 10 about that? 11 MR. SHERON: The Oregon State, my guess is 12 the Westinghouse data would be proprietary. You'll 13 see later in the slides that we are looking into the 14 possibility of doing some of our testing there once { 15 Westinghouse finishes. Obviously we'll have to talk 16 with Westinghouse with regard to whether there's any 17 aspects of the facility that they consider 18 proprietary. But if we can overcome that, then that 19 data would also be made available to the public. 20 (Slide) Next slide, please. 21 The status of the ROSA-V, right now we've 22 awarded the contract to Sumitomo Heavy Industries for i 23 $6.73 million to fabricate and install the j 24 modifications to ROSA-V. There have been some minor 25 additions that are pending right now to reflect some NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. j (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

. ~.. 21 1 recent AP600 design changes and one of our thermal 2 hydraulic consultants provided us with a comment 3 regarding the structural integrity of one of the 4 baffle walls in the IRWST, which we had to put some 5 additional support in there. 6 But basically we're on our original e 7 schedule. We expect shakedown testing around January 8 of '94 and hopefully we'll obtain our first test data 9 in early spring of '94. We do have a resident NRC 10 representative. It is a gentleman from EG&G Idaho who f 11 is on-site, living there. f 12 CJMMISSIONER REMICK: What will be his 13 function while there, just to observe or will he 14 actually do any calculations or run any -- 15 MR. SHERON: Well, mostly I think it's 16 going to be to observe to provide us with status, any 17 problems. He's been observing the manufacture of the 18 components right now at Sumitomo, making sure that i 19 they're on

schedule, being delivered, installed 20 properly and so forth.

l 21 Lou, is there anything else that we would 22 expect of -- 23 DOCTOR SHOTKIN: Yes. He actually, I 24 think, is going to be doing some calculations while 25 he's there. NE A' R. GROSS COURT F as AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 h

SLAND AVENUE. N W

{ (202) 23ud33 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

22 i 1 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I see. Good. 2 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Before you leave 3 this, towards the end of your presentation here on 4 page 28 or slide 28, I don't know what it is, there 5 are some changes that you mention there for the AP600, 6 a larger valve size in the fourth stage ADS, the 7 possibility of a steam diffuser in the core makeup 8 tank. Are those relevant to the ROSA-IV? In other 9 words, would they represent some changes in ROSA-IV? 10 MR. SHERON: Well, yes. The answer is r 11 yes. The fourth stage ADS valve, this was identified 12 early on. As a matter of

fact, Doctor Murley 13 mentioned it.

These were the calculations done at 14 Idaho. What was happening was that the system 15 pressure did not have enough relieving capacity and 16 what you were winding up with was periods of time 17 during a small break in which there was no ECC 18 injection going in. When this was brought to 19 Westinghouse's attention, they acknowledged it and the l 20 next thing we knew they went from an eight inch valve 21 to a 12 inch valve. 22 So, this design change had already been 23 made and that's being incorporated in ROSA as part of i 24 the original design. \\ 25 The diffuser that they're putting in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSORIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 l

i 23 1 CMT is something recent. Okay? That is to prevent 2 some of these shock condensation loads that they were 3 afraid might occur during certain range of breaks, the 4 intermediate breaks. We are right now we have 5 asked Sumitomo to look at how much it would cost to 6 install this diffuser. I think the answer is coming 6 1 7 out to about $18,000.00 and it still keeps us under 1 8 the $10 million cap. 9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: So you think that i i 10 will probably be in there then? 11 MR. SHERON: Yes. i r 12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Good. Thank you, i 13 MR. SHERON: (Slide) The next several i 14 slides, you may get a better picture if you look at i i 15 the monitor. These are the photographs of the 16 components that are going to go into AP600. I mean 17 I'm sorry, into the ROSA facility being fabricated at l 18 Sumitomo. The first one is the pressurizer and in the a 19 background you'll see the two core makeup tanks. 20 (Slide) The next one is the -- this is 21 the pressurizer at the flanged section and in the back 22 also is the -- 23 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I think they're out 24 of phase with your slides up there. 25 MR. SHERON: Oh, I'm sorry. Let's see. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAt.D AVENUE N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202J 2344433

C 24 1 They're one up ahead. 2 (Slide) This is the pressurizer heater 3 bundle that you're looking at there. We can get 4 copies of these photographs for you. 5 (Slide) The next one is the passive RHR = 6 system tubes. This is the U-bend shape. 7 (Slide) The next slide shows the in-8 containment refueling water storage tank and this has 9 the two ports shown.for insertion of the RHR tubes. 10 So, you can see, this is not a small faci' .y that 11 we're putting together over there. 12 (Slide) The next slide is the two catch 13 tanks for collecting the flows from the fourth stage 14 ADS system. This is the one where I said they 15 increased the valve size from eight to 12 inches. 16 (Slide) The next slide now I'll go to is j 17 the talk about the status of the analytical programs 18 for the AP600. We've selected RELAPS/ MOD 3 as our 19 audit code for the small break LOCA, the steam line 20 break and the steam generator tube rupture analyses 21 for AP600. We'll do the large break LOCA analysis 22 using TRAC /PWR code. The reason is because TRAC has 23 been extensively accessed for the large break LOCA 24 and, as I said before, the passive features do not 25 affect the large break LOCA analysis for AP600 and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCHIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 2344433

.25 l 1 therefore there's no need right now to go off and j 2 assess TRAC /PRW for-the large break any further than .) i 3 it's already been assessed. l 4 Now, there's been a question raised about l 5 the intermediate size breaks and this is, for example, j 6 the 6.8 inch direct vessel injection line and the cold 7 leg pressure balance line. We will use TRAC /PRW if l 8 multidimensional processes are found to be important. i 9 For example, a cross flow in a down comer because 10 there are certain simplifying assumptions made in the l l i 11 RELAP code which may not be appropriate if the i 12 momentum terms are too large, in which case then we go t 13 to the TRAC code. If that's the case, then we may 14 have to do some limited assessment of TRAC against l 15 intermediate line break tests. i 16 The models that are in.RELAP we're j i 17 currently updating and modifying them to simulate the 18 AP600 and the SBWR geometries as well as any expected i 19 phenomena. I guess the question you had asked before, i 20 we plan to provide a quality assured plant deck to NRR 21 by October the 15th, which is in less than a month, i 22 (Slide) Next slide. l 23 Let me run through quickly now the SBWRs 24 using programs that we have in place. The new passive 25 safety features for which data for code assessment was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. J (202) 234 4433 _ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

26 1 desired are the tall chimney region above the core. i 2 This core sets a lot deeper in the vessel than a 3 conventional BWR. The gravity driven coviing system, 4 the isolation condenser system and the passive 5 containment cooling system. 6 In the SBWR we found that the containment 7 acts very closely with the vessel injection systems, t 8 beginning early in the transient and therefore the 9 data for the code assessment must cover these expectua 10 interactions over an adequate period of time. 11 COMMISSIONER REMICK: What do you mean by 12 " acts closely?" In other

words, the pressure i

13 increases? 14 MR. SHERON: There's an interaction 15 between the pressure in the containment and then the l 16 primary system performance because the containment 17 provides a back pressure. f 18 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Back pressure. l 19 Okay. 3 20 MR. SHERON: (Slide) The vendor programs l 21 that are in place to address some of issues, GIST is l 22 a GE program that was carried out out in California, j 23 I guess in Sunnyvale or San Jose, I'm sorry. That's 24 to look at the GDCS and the integral periormance and j 25 these tests have been completed. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSOR'BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 2344433 )

27 i 2 The GIRAFFE facility in Japan looks at 2 long-torm PCCS integral performance. That's a 1/400th i 3 volume scale facility and those tests are completed. 4 PANTHERS, that's a test program to look at 5 the PCCS and the isolation condensers separate effects 6 testing. That's a full

height, full pressure l

7 facility. I was f ortunate enough to see it when I was - t 8 over there. 9 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Over where? 10 MR. SHERON: That's also being done right 11 next door to where they're doing the Westinghouse SPES j 12 facility. They're in the same physical building. 13 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I see. 14 MR. SHERON: And that's expected to start 15 in calendar year '94. 16 The PANDA

facility, which is in 17 Switzerland, is also a

long-term PCCS integral r 18 perfor .a facility. It's rather large, 1/25th 19 voli A oc. Ae, and that testing is expected to start in { 20 mid-calendar year '94. l 21 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Have we received 22 data from any of these, looked at the data or not like i 23 the GIST facility? -l 6 r 24 MR. SHERON: Yes. We've got GIST data,_ 25 haven't we? You want to talk a little bit about the l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHC/DE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 I

28 1 data? 2 DOCTOR SHOTKIN:

Well, I don't know.

3 Maybe NRR should. We've looked at the data and we 4 found that there really wasn't as much there as we 5 thought there might be and NRR is getting involved in 6 that now. 7 DOCTOR MURLEY: Ashok, do you want to 8 mention that? 9 DOCTOR THADANI: Yes. We have received 10 some of the data certainly for tests that have been 11 completed and the one that Lou and Brian were 12 referring to in terms of the GIST facility. We have 13 a number of questions as to the quality of the data 14 and also some of the considerations that went into the 15 testing and how well were various controlling 16 parameters considered in the tests themselves. So, we 17 have, in fact, today a number of significant questions 18 on the data that was developed from GIST testing. We 19 intend to meet with General Electric to discuss these 20 issues. They could have very significant impact. 21 COMMISSIONER REMICK: How about the 22 GIRAFFE data, data from the GIRAFFE facility? 23 DOCTOR THADANI: We have seen some of the 24 GIRAFFE data and GIRAFFE and PANDA together basically 25 would

form, in our

view, the basis for our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

~. _._ 29 1 conclusions. GIRAFFE actually answers some questions 2 .we may hat-on some separate effects test. So, in. 3 total, GIRI.FFE would be just a piece of the total 4 picture, so to speak. 5 COMMISSIONER REMICK: But we will be 6 receiving data fron all these tests and looking at -[ a 7 them? 8 DOCTOR THADANI: Yes. We would -- what we 9 have also done is to ask that we get what we call 10 quick look raports because, as you saw, the schedule { 11 and the timing is so short. What we're asking them to r 12 do is the following. After critical tiests, tests we [ i 13 think are very important, we'd like to sec quick look 14 reports which define the objective of the test and 15 describe to what extent-those objectives were 16 satisfied. Give us all the important

data, 17 significant plots, et cetera, and also tell us what 18 conclusions they are drawing from the tests and the 19 results of the test so that we can quickly assess and l

20 get ourselves up to speed as to what's going on. 21 That's our plan. 22 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Good. How long have 23 we had the data from GIST? 24 DOCTOR THADANI: The issue developed for 25 us in spring of this year and we conducted an NEAL R. GROSS ~ COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

30 1 inspection not too long ago. It was about three weeks 2 ago, I think it was. 3 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Is that when we got 4 the data, in the spring from GE? 5 DOCTOR THADANI: I think we at NRR got.n 6 some information from actually a contractor that s i 7 Research had and we followed up on that. 8 COMMISSIONER REMICK: But in the spring, 9 is that when we got it? 10 DOCTOR THADANI: Spring is when we became 11 aware. 12 MR. SHERON: (Slide) Okay. I'11 continue 13 now and I'm on -- let's see. Next slide, which is 22. l 14 I'll talk about the NRC programs that we have for the 15 SBWR. 16 Similar to

AP600, we felt that 17 confirmatory tests from a small scale facility would 18 provide the staff with an ability to obtain 19 independent data on a range of conditions, mostly i

~ 20 beyond what we normally would ask a vendor to provide. l 21 We're not looking to duplicate in this case what the i 22 vendor is providing, but we felt that having our own 23 facility which we could run tests perhaps beyond 24 design base to look at margins and so forth would be 25 very useful. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (?O2) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

31 I 1 So, to accomplish this, we prepared a l 2 competitive proposal to design, construct and operate 3 a small scale loop that would simulate the SBWR i 4 design. This is -- our decision to do this was pretty 5 much based on our positive experience we had 6 previously at the University of Maryland in.which we 7 built a small scale loop that simulated the B&W 8 design. There was a question when we first did-that 9 as to whether the scaling would be compromised too [ r 10 much to produce useful data, but we did a fair amount 11 of comprehensive analysis on the Maryland loop and 12 convinced ourselves that the scale was acceptable and 13 one could get useful data from these small loops. i 14 (Slide) As a result of the competitive 15 contract, Purdue was selected on July 26th of this f 16 year, just about a month or so ago. The selection of [ 17 Purdue was actually made -- we had six universities 'I 18 that submitted proposals to construct this. The award 19 was for three years and the cost was $2.5 million. 20 That's fairly comparable to, I think, our experience i 21 at Maryland. [ 22 The principal investigators are Professors i 23 Ishii and Ransom, which I'm sure some of you_have 24 heard of, both well known in the thermal hydraulic 25 area. Subsequent to awarding the contract, there was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 l - - = - -,.-. +

32 1 a kickoff meeting between the staff. Both Research 2 and NRR attended at Purdue on August 17th. 3 We expect that the construction will start 4 probably in like February of this year, in about maybe 5 five to rix months. And we would expect testing 6 probabls' in about a year, year and a half's time, t 7 (Slide) The analytical programs for SBWR, 8 we. ave also selected the RELAP5/ MOD 3 code to analyze 9 the SBWR for the steam line break and the small break 10 LOCA. General Electric is using the TRACG code which 11 is basically the TRAC /BWR -- it's their version of 12 TRAC /BWR code. 13 The reason we selected RELAP rather than 14 TRAC was two reasons. One is that we felt if we used j 15 our own TRAC code we would be using almost the 16 identical code that General Electric was using and i 17 therefore we would lose some independence. So, by 18 using RELAP we were using a code that was developed j 19 separate and independently from the TRAC code.

Also, 20 because of limited staff resources in terms of our in-21 house analysis capability, we felt that having the 22 staff only use one code to analyze both AP600 and SBWR 23 was a much more efficient use of resources.

Because 24 these codes are so large and difficult to learn, we 25 felt that the staff could do a much better job if they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOCE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTOND C. 20005 (202) 2344433 l

. ~. i 33 1 -just learned on one code and focused all their 2 resources on .at. 3 For the stability analyses, we will be 4 using the RAMONA code, which is at Brookhaven. This 5 has the 3-D kinetics in it and so forth needed for the f 6 stability analysis. { r 7 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Brian, you mention I 8 in the report that the TRAC /BWR code will continue to i 9 be used. There was no mention of whether you would 10 benchmark it or validate it against the SBWR tests. [ 11 It seemed like it would be an optimum time to keep 12 that code up to date also. I can understand why you t 13 wanted to use the RAMONA to be different and so forth, f i 14 but if we truly are going to keep track of BWR, is I l 15 there any reason why we should'not benchmark it with l I 16 this data so it's kept up to date? I 17 MR. SHERON: I'm not aware of any except 18 in terms of looking at overall resources. But I think I 19 it would be worthwhile that we did at least a limited 20 benchmarking to make sure that we were convinced that' 21 it was performing well for the SBWR. f 22 Lou, do you have any -- 23 DOCTOR SHOTKIN:

Yes, that's correct.

I i 24 We're doing it in sort of an iraormal way. We're not [ 25 counting on it, but we're giving the people at Penn NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS f 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2000$ (202) 234 4433

34 1 State the data and they will be looking at things very 2 informally. 3 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Fine. 4 MR. SHERON: (Slide) Our plant deck for 5 the SBWR, at least the QA'd version we would call it, 6 is not yet complete. One of the reasons is we're s 7 awaiting design information from GE. NRR has arranged 8 a meeting with GE with us in order to obtain this 9 data. However, we will have a plant deck for NRR to 10 use to by November 30th of the SBWR. 11 (Slide) Now, our analytical programs -- 12 and let me talk about both AP600 and the SBWR before 13 I talk about the program separately. We plan to 14 assess our code or codes against both the vendor's 15 separate effects data and the integral data as they 16 become available. Keep in mind that we just -- you 17 know, the data has really not been coming forth. 18 We've only just started getting it. 19 We will assess our codes against ROSA-V 20 and the Purdue SBWR loop data when it becomes 21 available. We also plan to conduct a structured 22 uncertainty analysis of the RELAPS code using a i 23 modification of the method that was used for the large 24 break LOCA uncertainty analysis, called the code 25 scalability applicability and uncertainty method, or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVENUE. N W. (202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

i 35 1 CSAU. We had used that to suppc't the ECCS rule l 2 change in 1988. So, we will do a structured 3 evaluation of the uncertainties in the code. 4 The thermal h; lraulic consultants which 5 are now on board are reviewing this planned approach 6 and they're providing us valuable feedback on the o 7 overall program. l 8 The Commission had asked the ACRS to l 9 review the ROSA test matrix. We have a meeting 10 scheduled on October 28th to present to them the test 11 matrix and we will also go through the instrumentation I 12 and related subjects on the ROSA testing. 13 (Slide) Next slide, please. 14 As Ashok said before, both Research and 15 NRR have developed an in-house analysis capability. l 16 I'll speak to Research right now. We've been running 17 AP600 calculations in-house. You may want to ask what 1 18 are some of the things we do with these analyses. 19 One of the most important is one we've 4 20 just done to determine the impact of containment 21 pressure on primary system behavior. As you know, as i i 22 you have a break and you discharge steam and energy 23 into the containment, _nat provides a back-pressure 24 which in fact prohibits the depressurization of the 25 primary system. The question is, do we need to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. j (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 2344433 .l

36 1 simulate that in our analyses, this interaction 2 between the containment and the primary system, so one 3 of our staff members did a number of calculations 4 parametrically looking at this and from those we 5 concluded that, yes, it was something that we should 6 do. s 7 As a result of that, we've decided to 8 couple the RELAPS code, which is the systems code, 9 with our containment code, which is the CONTAIN code. 10 So as you run through the calculation in RELAP, it 11 will also in parallel calculate the containment 12 pressure in the CONTAIN code and it will feedback data 13 to each code. 14 COMMISSIONER REMICK: This is being done 15 for both SBWR and AP600? 16 MR. SHERON: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER REMICK: In both cases? 18 MR. SHERON: Yes. 19 We are currently installing four work b 20 stations. Actually, I think we have two of them 21 already installed and two are coming in, and we are 22 currently capable of running the RELAP code, MELCOR, 23 and the CONTAIN code. 24 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I wrote a the side 25 of that when I saw that, " hurray." NEAL R. GROSS j COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

37 1 MR. SHERON: Research and NRR staffs meet 2 periodically through a work stations users group and 3 what they do is basically the staff that are doing the 4 analyses sit down in an informal way and trade 5 information, experiences with the codes and just 6 information in terms of what they're doing and I think i 7 they get some benefit synergism in there. 8 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Do you know when you 9 might expect the inpt., deck for the SBWR? You 10 mentioned October for AP600. 11 MR. SHERON: Yes. We said we'll have an 12 SBWR deck available November 30th. It won't be QAed 13 to the level we would like because we don't have all 14 the data. We would expect that to come in the early 15 spring. 16 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Spring. 17 MR. SHERON: (Slide) The next slide is 18 just a -- we put this in here just to show you that we 19 actually do calculations in-house. This is one that = 20 one of our staff did. 21 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I noticed that's for 22 collapsed liquid. Do you have any for two-phase? 23 DOCTOR SHOTKIN: Yes. We thought this 24 would be easier to understand, the collapsed liquid, 25 than the -- i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (?O2)2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

38 1 COMMISSIONER REMICK: No, I was just i 2 curious if you do have them. 3 DOCTOR SHOTKIN: Yes, we have them. 4 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Okay. 5 MR. SHERON: Okay. Let me talk about the 6 results that we've had so far with the Research 7 program. Most of the findings have been for the 8 AP600. We have not really uncovered anything major i 9 for the SBWR. 10 As I said before, one of the first things I 11 we came up with was the four stage ADS valve. We 12 noted that with the eight inch valve there were 13 periods in which the ECCS was not injecting and when 14 we brought it to the attention of Westinghouse the 15 valve size was increased to 12 inches in order to 16 get -- i 17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: When did you pick 18 that up? 19 MR. SHERON: Golly. That was about 1990, 20 was it? 21 DOCTOR SHOTKIN: Yes, about two years ago. l 22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: 'About two years ago. I 23 MR. SHERON: One of the other questions 24 that everybody really had was on the CMT performance 25 and one of the things that was of concern was this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. (232) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C, 20005 (202) 234-4433

39 1 tank during normal operations sits there full of 2 basically cold water thats at the containment 3 temperature. There was a concern that when you 4 activate the system and you expose this tank full of 5 cold water to, for example, the steam from the 6 pressurizer, that you would get very rapid O j 7 condensation in there and a lot of strange type of 8 phenomena. 9 Based on our calculations, what we saw was 10 that the CMT tank when the valve is open will start to 11 inject, but it is replaced, that the water in the tank i 12 is replaced with warm water from the cold leg. And so 13 by the time you actually get the ADS system operating 14 and so forth and you get the equalization line so the i 15 CMT sees the steam, it is not full of this cold water. 16 It is full of cold leg water and you don't get or see a 17 this rapid condensation. We think that was a very 18 interesting finding, because I know some of the ACRS i 19 members had been originally concerned about that and 20 I think this -- i 21 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I believe this was 22 a concern, yes. l 23 MR. SHERON: And then also, for break 24 sizes larger than three inches, we saw the possibility 25 of large condensation pulses exist within the CMT i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

40 s 1 during the initial part of the injection phase. 2 Westinghouse is, as I think I mentioned before, 3 proposing to modify the design to include a steam 4 diffuser at the top of the CMT to help alleviate this 5 and this is something we're going to try and -- if 6 they put it in their design, we will be putting it in 7 ROSA. 8 Now how are all these test results going 9 to be used? 10

First, they help us in independently 11 reviewing the vendor test programs.

We are assisting 12 NRR in reviewing all the vendor test programs that are 13 ongoing. We're reviewing them from the standpoint of 14 the instrumentation. Is it adequate?' Is it in the 15 right locations? Is there enough of it? Looking at 16 the test matrix, are they running the right tests in 17 order to validate the phenomena of interest? Is the 18 scaling rationale for these tests appropriate? All of 19 our analyses and research that we're doing are helping 20 us in terms of this evaluation and giving this 21 information to the NRR people. 22 Independent test data to confirm the 23 applicability and scalability of vendors results. 24 When we run the tests, one of the things we're doing 25 in ROSA is we've made sure that we have in the test NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCalBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 l

41 1 matrix counterpart tests for both SPES, ROSA, and OSU, 2 so we'll be running almost the identical tests in all 3 three f acilities so we can do a type of comparison and i 4 see whether there's anything strange going on that's 5 strictly a result of scale. 6 And then finally, we have our assessed a 7 computer codes which the staff then can use to audit j 8 the vendor submittals to see if we can reach 9 independently the same conclusions that the vendors 10 did. 11 I won't go through the AP600 schedule 12 because Doctor Murley talked about that in his first ~3 slide. 14 This is the SBWR schedule. What we're f 15 most interested in is to make sure that our research 16 program is compatible with the regulatory needs and 17 provides data on the scale that they do. You will see 18 the thing they're called, NRC confirmatory testing as 19 well as the code improvement and assessment, and you [ 20 can see where those milestones fit into the overall 21 regulatory review schedule. If everything goes well, 'l t 22 we will be providing them with the tools they need in 23 advance of when they-have to make the decisions, so 24 they will have assessed

c. des in which to do audit 25 calculations prior to writing the SERs.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 2344433 WASHtNGTON, D.C. 2000$ (202) 234 4433 i ~

42 1 DOCTOR MURLEY: Brian? l 2 MR. SHERON: Yes? I 3 DOCTOR MURLEY: Could I add a bit on the 4 SBWR testing just to make sure that the Commission is 5 aware of some problems?. 6 The GIST tests that were done by GE were 7 done in 1988, so they're very old tests. They were 8 done as developmental tests. We were not involved at j 9 that time because, well, we just didn't know what 10 their plans or anything were with regard to submitting 11 an application to us. As a result of some-contacts 12 that Research and their contractors had, there arose l 13 some apparent problems in the quality of the data from 14 those tests. 15 We've sent a team inspection out this j 16 summer that had vendor inspection people, reactor j 17 systems people and thermal hydraulics experts from our 18 contractors, and our preliminary conclusions from 19 that -- I must say that we have not yet sent these to 20 GE, so in a way this is, I suppose, a little unfair _ to f 21 them. We need to talk to them and make sure they get-22 our conclusions, but I think the Commission should 23 know our preliminary conclusions are that there are 24 serious inadequacies in the technical quality of the 25 data from those tests. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433

I 43 1 Right now staf f ' believes that there's 2 going to have to be some more tests done to support 3 design certification of the SBWR. If that's the case, 4 then there may be some interactions and some schedular 5 impacts. Clearly, we're going to have to have a lot 6 of discussions with GE. The staff is not -- we don't a 7 have our heels dug in yet on this, but there's a lot 8 of information available to us that indicates there i 9 are problems here. 10 COMMISSIONER REMICK: That's why I was 11 asking when we got the data, because it was my 12 understanding that the tests were done before I became 13 a Commissioner because when I want out there shortly 14 thereafter those tests had been conducted, so that's i 15 why I was curious about when did we first get the data 16 from GE. Figured it was sometime before late '89 that ) i 17 the tests had been conducted. l 18 DOCTOR MURLEY: The tests had been done, 19 yes. But again, as I said, the NRC was not really 20 involved at that time. 21 DOCTOR SHOTKIN: They really only l 22 submitted a very -- like a short report that didn't l 23 have the data, the data that we needed for our code l 1 24 modeling. We went out I think it was last December 1 l 25 with a team of people and rummaged through their boxes NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

64 1 that they had and that's where we started to find out 2 that there wasn't as much there as we thought there 3 should be. 4 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Incidentally, I must I 5 say honestly I'm not at all meaning any blame on the 6 NRC, but it was a fact that I did go out there early 7 on as a Commissioner to Westinghouse and GE and saw t 8 the amount of work that had been done on these designs 9 and got concerned that the NRC was not being involved 10 getting information, getting feedback and so forth at 11 that stage. 12 I'm not being critical of the NRC 13 necessarily, but things were kind of being done 14 separately and led to some of my comments about 15 industry apparently have the perception you just send 16 in an application and three months later it comes back 17 stamped " approved" and in-house the idea n.s when we 18 get an application we'll review it, and I thought both 19 had lost an appreciation for the fact that both have 20 to be involved over a long period of time. There has 21 to be a lot of arms length interaction. That was the 22 basis for some of my early concerns about us not being 23 fully aware of these activities. 24 MR. SHERON: (Slide) Let me just talk i 25 about future plans now. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W, (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202)2344433

45 i 1 With our facilities, and once we start to 2 run the ROSA tests in hopefully early next year, and 3 my guess is after we run the first couple my feeling l 4 is that usually it's the first couple tests you get 5 the most information from, we will then begin to 6 examine the need to run testing beyond phase I. If a 7 you remember, phase I was going to be a first set of i 8 tests looking at some of the fundamental questions 9 that we had. 10 We will be sitting down with NRR and l 11 deciding whether we feel that there's ad-tional 12 testing we would need to run and then ne would have to 13 start negotiating with the GERI people to put that in 14 their schedule for a phase II testing. i 15 Phase II

testing, if

needed, would 16 probably run, we think, from late calendar year '94 17 into calendar year '95 and this would most likely be 18 beyond design basis type events, looking at margins 19 beyond a design basis.

20 We are also looking into the possibility i 21 of contracting with Oregon State, once Westinghouse 22 has completed their testing, to run some NRC specified { 23 tests. Again, these would be tests that were beyond 24 design base, looking at margins and so forth. As a 25 matter of fact, Doctor Shotkin is going to leave this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEC* AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE 15.. <D AVENUE, N W. 902) 2344433 WASHINGTt.d. D.C. 20005 9 02) 234 4433

t 46-1 evening to fly out there and have discussions with j 2 them. 3 COMMISSIONER REMICK: How about the Purdue 4 facility? Do you foresee that we would keep that 5 available for some period of

time, even after 6

potential certification? 7 MR. SHERON:

Yes, provided that the 8

contractors did good work on it and so forth. I would 9 very much be interested in keeping that facility 10 available. As a matter of fact, our plan would be 11 that we have a facility for most of the major reactor 12 types in the country. We will have the OSU facility, 13 which would be the AP600. The Purdue facility would 14 basically give us data on most GE designs, on a BWR l 15 design. We have the Maryland loop, which is tne B&W 16 design and there's a loop right now at North Carolina 17 State which uses freon, but it is a one-ninth linear 18 scale of the Prairie Island plant.. That would provide 19 us with at least qualitative data on Westinghouse and 20 CE designs. 21 So, in terms of a larger plan, we'd like I 22 to keep these small facilities running around the 23 country. j 24 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Good. 25 MR. SHERON: (Slide) With regard to our ) NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. j (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

47 L 1 codes, we intend to maintain development activities in 2 order to utilize data from the various advanced. 3 reactor test facilities. The thermal hydraulic j i 4 consultants have been asked to review the models and l 5 will continue to be asked to review the models that i 6 are being developed as a result of these tests and we 7 will also be asking them to give us their advice on i 8 whether any.2dditional tests or what additional tests 9 might be needed in these facilities. They're also 10 helping us on this code uncertainty assessment program 11 in terms of looking at the PERT, which is sort of a -- l l 12 it's a ranking table of the importance of certain 13 phenomena. I 14 Consistent with the Commission's 15 direction, we will be asking them to comment on the i 1 ,1 16 long-term thermal hydraulic research plans that we 17 have. l I 18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Are there any open { l 19 questions with that group on scalability, of l l 20 scalability questions on any of the -- with respect to j 21 any of the facilities that we're using? i i 1 22 MR. SHERON: None have been raised in the j 23 meetings we've had with them in terms of the 24 scalability of these facilities. But in the same 25 sense, I would say that they have not really focused, i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

i 48 1 I think in real depth, on that question. I.think 2 mostly because they felt that this is something that's ) 3 already been pretty much studied by various groups. 4 DOCTOR THADANI: Brian, if I may add to ) 5 that, Commissioner Rogers. ) 6 We do have some questions on scalability j 7 at the some of the facilities that the vendors are [ 8 using. So, there are questions particularly on PANDA, 9 for example, that we have asked and we're waiting for 10 responses to those questions. 11 MR. SHERON: I would just add too that a l 12 lot of times once you run the facility a lot of 13 scalability questions show up. For example, I know on 14 SPES there's questions about the heat loss question. 15 That remains to be seen once they run the test and if 16 they can do proper heat balances and so forth, f 17 (Slide) On summary, we think -that the l 18 -research program is closely integrated with the NRR 19 review program in terms of getting them the needed l f 20 research products on the schedule that they need them. 21 Our experimental facilities are bei.ng j 22 constructed on schedule and within the plarmed i 23 budgets. We expect to have testing commerce on 24 schedule for both ROSA-V and then an SBWR facility at j 25 Purdue. NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BER$ 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. l (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

I i 49 l 1 Our code evaluation program was started j 2 aaout as early as we could, when we first got the 1 i 3 information back in '89 and as such we think it's i 4 fairly well along. As a matter of fact, the gentleman i i 5 who told me from Westinghouse is not here, but he told 6 me at one time, he says, "You people have done more l work on it than we have." j 7 8 CHAIRMAN SELIN: I can see why he's not I 9 here. 10 MR. SHERON: But I think he was right. We j f 11 had actually done more analyses on the AP600 than 12 Westinghouse had done at a certain point in time. So, f 13 I think we were actually ahead of them. i i 14 As I said, we'll be providing assessed v 15 codes for NRR use on the schedules consistent with the 16 FDA and the certification. 17 (Slide) With regard to the thermal f 18 hydraulic consultants, they've been very useful and 19 helpful to us in our deliberations. We plan to l 20 continue using them and we will continue to report the 21 results of our meetings with them to the Commission. i 22 Our next meeting is scheduled in early November, I l 1 23 believe, with the consultants. 24 With regard to in-house analysis i 25 capability, as I said, we've greatly improved our l i NEAL R. GROSS i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS f 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. f (202) 2344433 WASHINGTOtt 0 C 20005 (202) 234-4433 i i

i 50 1 staff ability to analyze not only the advanced designs 2 but I would guess the' current designs as well and we 3 have the work stations installed and I think -- I } 4 know, Commissioner Rogers, you were talking about 5 coming over and seeing the installation. i 6 I guess I would close by saying that I i 7 know there was a concern about the thermal hydraulic 8 research program and I think that the program we have 9 in place right now is designed to maintain it on the i 10 forefront of the international community with regard l 11 to its technical excellence. I continue to be amazed 12 that we must get about two or three requests a week 13 for our codes. There's something probably on the l 14 order of -- how many domestic requests have we had for 15 RELAP and foreign? 16 DOCTOR SHOTKIN: Probably 200 or so. 17 MR. SHERON: So, it is obviously the code 18 of choice of the international community. 19 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Certainly everywhere 20 you go internationally people bring up an appreciation 21 for the fact those codes are made available to them or 22 have an interest in them. 23 MR. SHERON: So, anyway, that completes my 24 presentation. So, if there are any questions. 25 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Commissioner Rogers? NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

'r 51 1 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: No, I don't have any 2 specific questions, but I really did find this l 3 briefing very illuminating, very helpful to see the 4 entire scope of the program, how the code development t 5 or maintenance and updating fits with the research o 6 facilities, the testing facilities. So, I want to O 7 thank you all very much for an excellent presentation. 8 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Just a couple j 9 questions. I've asked about input about almost i e 10 everything except the ABWR and System 80+. Do we have 11 those yet? f 12 MR. SHERON: No, unless NRR has them. 13 DOCTOR THADANI: Currently we do not have i 14 System 80+ and ABWR DACs, but we are expecting to have 15 them in the near future. I just don't have the dates t 16 in front of me. 17 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Are the vendors 18 going to supply those? l 19 DOCTOR THADANI: I'm sorry. ) ~ p 20 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Are the vendors j 21 going to supply those or are we going to develop 22 them -- 1 23 DOCTOR THADANI: Well, we're going to 24 develop them with information from the vendors, of i 25 course. 1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (202) 2344433 d ~

52 1 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Yes. Yes. Okay. l 2 I guess one doesn't

know, but it's 3

possible that CANDU III might be the next applicant I i 4-for design certification and the Commission in an SRM l t 5 asked Research to evaluate, if that was the case, what 6 additional resources would the agency need. Certainly 7 I assume the code area to take resources, when can we 8 ' expect response on that SRM? I 9 DOCTOR SHOTKIN: We will answer that later i 1 i l 10 this fall. l 11 COMMISSIOhER REMICK: Okay. j 12 Also, last week we met with the Advanced l l 13 Reactor Corporation and several of the Commissioners l 14 asked about the possibility of having access to the 15 data that was being developed under that program and l 16 the industry expects, I guess, to get back to us and 17 answer that question. I hope that wherever 18 appropriate within the agency one will follow that and 19 if that data is going to be made available and it's 20 something that we need to utilize that we have the 21 resources to be able to access that data. 22 MR. SHERON: Is this the data that is 23 being developed by DOE? 24 COMMISSIONER REMICK: First-of-a-kind 25 engineering. It's under the first-of-a-kind i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 l

53 1 engineering effort. 2 I think, Commissioner Rogers, you might j 3 have asked those questions. 4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, I don't know l 5 how muen -- I wouldn't exactly call it data. I mean 6 data sort of implies research results, but they're 7 engineering design results that are to be provided in I 8 a kind of system neutral format so that one could i 9 access them by different computer systems so that they i 10 aren't specific to one particular proprietary system ( l 11 of some sort. I asked them if they could supply them 12 to our staff and they were going to look into that and .i 13 see to what extent that could be -- 14 DOCTOR MURLEY: We had several discussions i 15 with NUMA1C and ARC on that. I would say we're not 16 yet at an agreement. They tend to view first-of-a-17 kin engineering as merely filling in the details of 18 what's approved in the design certification and they 19 have not yet seen tha need for NRC to be involved in 20 any of that. So, we're still having discussions. 21 COMMISSIONER REMICK: No. I must admit a 22 question of whether it's something applicable to 23 design certification or if it's something beyond. But 24 in the event they do of fer it in the event that-it 25 might be useful to the staff, I would just ask that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W. j (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000S (202) 234-4433 + - J

l 54 i ) 1 you be alert to evaluate it and 'see that we have 2 access to it. 3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Excuse me. 4 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Go ahead, t 5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Just to see that we = 6 have the hardware software systems available to be 7 able to access it. 8 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Right. 9 DOCTOR MURLEY: Yes. I don't want to get 10 off on a tangent here, but I think there's a more 11 practical reason why we should follow what's going on 12 is that they could actually waste a great deal of 13 money and time using models to fill in the details 14 that we wouldn't agree with, like on seismic and 15 structural design. It would be better if they knew 16 that now than five years from now. 17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes, clearly. 18 COMMISSIONER REMICK: We just addressed 19 the fact that international cooperation in the code 20 development and so forth has been Extremely important. 21 But with the new designs we'll be validating and 22 benchmarking our codes to new data. Is there any t 23 thought about when one releases the validated code 4 24 updates to foreign entities that might have commercial 25 interest in mind? Do we ever address that when we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433

55 1 make updated validated codes for new designs available 2 on the international market? Have the vendors brought 3 this up at.all? 4 MR. SHERON: Well,-one of the vendors, at i i 5 least one individual in the vendors has sort of raised [ 6 the concern. But the intent right now is that the j e ~7 codes, even though they would be validated against the 8_ date that we're getting, would not be considered l r 9 proprietary and there would be nothing in them that l t 10 would lead somebody to have access, say, for example, l t 11 to proprietary data. All we're doing is demonstrating { 12 the ability of the models in the code to predict [ i 13 certain

features, design features and their 14 performance of these plants.

15 So, right now there's nothing that t' 16 indicates that by giving the codes to foreign entities 'i 17 that there would be some unfair advantage being l 18 provided to them. In other words, I don't know that i 19 they could go off and say, "Now we can design and i 20 build an advanced plant." 1 21 COMMISSIONER REMICK: They don't get the 22 input decks on the design. j i 23 MR. SHERON: Correct. 24 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Have we received a 25 copy of the French CTAR code? j T NEAL R. GROSS f COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE F.AND AVENUE N W. j (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433

56 i 1 DOCTOR SHOTKIN: No. 2 COMMISSIONER REMICK: No. Have we asked 3 for it? i 4 MR. SHERON: Yes. l 4 5 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Are we going to get 6 it? 7 MR. SHERON: It doesn't look like we'll 8 get it anytime soon through any official channels. We 9 might get it unofficially, but I don't think that 10 counts. We're not getting it officially. 11 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Okay. One item that 12 I think is not new to you, I have been concerned about 13 our maintenance of some of our' existing programs and 14 in the report you talk about maintaining the codes, = 15 which I think is good. Are you developing any kind of l 16 a maintenance program? I think it's referred to in i 17 there. Do you have a program for maintaining these j 18 various codes that we've talked about over a period of 19 time? 20 MR. SHERON: Yes. Actually prior to the 21 advanced designs really coming into their own here, we 22 had put together a maintenance program because we felt 23 following the ECCS rule that most of the major 24 research had been completed on the codes. We went 25 through a process, we sat down with NRR and first got NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433

57 i 1 agreement with them on what codes needed to be l 2 maintained by the agency for regulatory use. Once we i 3 established that, then we went and we talked to the 4 laboratories that were responsible for those codes to j 5 determine what was the necessary level of resources to l 6 keep a cadre of experts together to keep the codes 7 in -- not just maintaining them in the sense of having 8 them there so that somebody could run a calculation. i 9 But what we found is that if you don't have the i 10 researchers have exciting information to deal with in i 11 terms of code development and developing models, they 12 will very quickly leave to other programs. 13 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Absolutely, yes. 14 MR. SHERON: So, what we need to do for 15 maintenance is to basically keep a moderate level of ? 16 development going with the codes to keep the experts t 17 there. So, that has been our strategy right now. 18 We're fortunate in the sense that right now with the 19 advanced designs the model development and the 20 challenges are certainly keeping enough experts there 21 and, of course, there's no Star War. to lure them i 22 away. So, we've been fortunate. But then again, 23 we're looking towards beyond AP600 and SBWR when we h 24 finished the certification and how we will structure 25 our maintenance program at that time to maintain the NEAL R. GROF 9 COURT REPORTERS AND TRAf, ' ~4lBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVEN.. ed W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 f

i 58 1 expertise and the leadership of our codes. 2 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Yes. The thing I 3 was hearing about a year ago, and this was not from t 4 one source but a number of sources, that the amount of i 5 resources going into maintenance they felt were not = 6 adequate to keep up with the basically approved 7 changes that people thought should be made. I agree ( 8 with these new designs and so forth. There's a lot of 9 effort going in now to the codes. 10 Is there a written plan or one being 11 developed for maintenance? 12 MR. SHERON: Well, we are putting together 13 research plans right now in each of our subject areas, 14 for example thermal hydraulics. What was sent to you 15 was actually a condensed version of that plan. 16 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I see. 17 MR. SHERON: And we will be updatinq that 18 every year. We are -- right now, one of the things 19 we'll be looking at to our consultants to help us with 20 is that real question of where should the thermal 21 hydraulic research program go in the future. 22 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Yes. 23 MR. SHERON: What are these levels? I 24 could tell you from experience that no matter who you 25 talk to you'll get a different answer on what the i NEAL R. GROSS i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (?O2) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I

59 ') i 1 appropriate level is of maintenance. 2 COMMISSIONER REMICK: No, I'm-sure of i 3 that. Yes. But it is an important item. l 4 MR. SHERON: Yes, I agree. 5 Just last -- I really want to say I am 6 pleased with the program that you've outlined in this 7 report. As discussed today, I think we've come a long 8 way over what I perceived we were a year or two ago. 9 I think it's no surprise that I'd like to see a few 10 more of these test facilities in the United States, l 11 but I agree if we maintain some of the ones we're 12 going to have at Oregon and Purdue and Maryland and i r 13 North Carolina we're going to at least have some 14 facilities in the United States. I guess I would like 15-to see some of those full height, full pressure type 16 of facilities available also. But I really am 17 impressed with the program that you've outlined. 18 Also, I'm very pleased with staff response 19 in building up our analytical capability, both in the 20 hardware manipulating the software, and I understand 21 both in Research and NRR you've added some very 22 topnotch young analysts. I hope they're here because 23 from what I hear they're doing a very good job and l 24 making a contribution. I think that's important to 25 the long-term of the agency to have this typc of i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 =

i 60 1 talent. Although I certainly have been interested in maintain this 2 making sure that we have this 3 traditional capability in the agency, I also know that 4 there are other areas of the agency like materials and 5 instruments and instrumentation and control and 6 seismic and criticality and others that i haven't 7 mentioned that are extremely important to us too. So, 8 we can't sit back on our laurels perhaps in this area i 9 and relax in the importance of our expertise in other 10 areas. 11 But all in all,.I just want to say that 12 I'm very pleased with what you're doing in this area 13 and what you've done. I thank you very much. It's 14 been a very good presentation, Brian. 15 MR. SHERON: Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: I think 17 Commissioner Remick handled all the tough questions, 18 so I just have one item. 19 It's certainly commendable that you're on I 20 schedule and within budget on the NRC testing, 21 especially ROSA. I hate to even ask this question, 22 but considering that the schedules are so tight, if 23 they slip at all, are we assured that that facility ) l \\ 24 would be available to us under a longer time frame if l 25 needed? l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. (202) 234-4433 W ASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 i

61 l 1 DOCTOR SHOTKIN:' The ROSA facility? 2 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: Yes. r 3 DOCTOR-SHOTKIN: Yes, I believe so. 4 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE: Okay. That's e 5 it. I appreciate the briefing. 6 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Thank you very much. 7 (Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the above - l 8 entitled matter was concluded.) 9 i 10 11 12 e 13 14 r i 15 16 17 f 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 f 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W. i (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 2344433

.I CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER j This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled: TITLE OF MEETING: BRIEFING ON STATUS OF AP600 AND SBWR THERMAL HYDRAULIC TESTING PLACE OF MEETING: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND [ I DATE OF MEETING: SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 [ were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the I transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events. ] ) W

3. 7%d r

Reporter's name: Peter Lynch t i k HEAL R. GROSS cover apoerges me vaanscamms 1323 N000E ISLA8e AVEMut, N.W. (302) M WAmeN81000, DA 20005 (202) 232-6000 t

ADVANCED REACTOR THERMAL HYDRAULIC RESEARCH STATUS BRIEFING FOR THE COMMISSION Presented by B. W. Sheron Director, DSR, RES September 20,1993

NRR OVERVIEW AND CERTIFICATION AND TESTING SCHEDULES RES PRESENTATION 1. Background and Objectives 2. AP600: Issues and Programs 3. SBWR: Issues and Programs 4. NRC Analytical Program Applicable to both AP600 and SBWR 5. Research Results 6. Utilization of Results 7. Future Plans 8. Summary 2

Basic Phenomena Questions About Plant Behavior During Transients, Accidents and Beyond DBA [ Staff Review of T r Separate Effects s" I L AP-600 Design Answers on Basic and integral 1 Questions of Plant Behavior Questions About 4 h Adequacy of Code b d 0 Models for Calculating 88 8 Basic Phenomena 84 (i.e., non-condensible gases) 4M

1. g#

Q Code Development Verification / s; Final Product is Verified Systems Code for NRC Safety Analyses . -. - -. - -.. - -. -... -. =

a O AP600 CERTIFICATION AND TEST' SCHEDULE IIIliIll l 11 I I I I I I I I I l -l iIiliIIIIIi 1993 1994 1995 Staff W RAI W DSER RAls Resp. Staff DSER

Response

Staff FSER 8 4 Cntmnt Test I a CMT Tests SPES-2 8 4 Tests i I i l OSU Tests I A ADS Tests l { ROSA-5 Tests IIIIIIIIIII lI-1IIIl1III I I I I I I I I I l.1 1993 1994 1995 ) SER schedule reflects SECY-93-097 i 8 Denotes submittal of Quick Look reports = =. Denotes beginning of submittel of processed data to the NRC 4 . Shaded Areas Denote time from test completion to final report to the NRC = ~...

1. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES A major regulatory need for review of new plant designs is for assessed, thermal hydraulic system performance codes capable of independently evaluating passive system performance three major predictive needs were foreseen: system performance of AP600 system performance of SBWR stability of SBWR In 1989, staff began to receive sufficient design information on the advanced LWRs that utilized passive safety systems (AP600 and SBWR) to begin planning advanced reactor research l 5

1. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES - CONTINUED in 1989, due to availability of sufficient AP600 design a information, RES started a systematic examination of the RELAP5 code to determine its ability to predict passive system performance Conclusion was that no new phenomena were expected, but code and models in codes had not been assessed against either scaled or prototypic data from (1) systems and components geometrically similar to AP600 and (2) under the low-pressure gravity driven flows expected during safety injection. 6

2. AP600: ISSUES AND PROGRAMS Particular features of AP600 which further assessment was desired included: Core Makeup Tank (CMT) performance Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) performance Direct Vessel injection (DVI) performance Integral system behavior, including possible system interactions under natural circulation conditions 7

2. AP600 PROGRAMS A. VENDOR FACILITIES CMT separate effects tests PRHR separate effects tests ADS tests SPES testing expected to start in mid-October Oregon State University (OSU) testing expected to start in mid-November RES and NRR have developed a vendor testing monitoring program staff and/or contractors have been on site during selected tests 8

B. NRC PROGRAMS FOR AP600

Background

For AP600 as well as SBWR, RES, in conjunction with NRR, evaluated vendor's proposed testing programs and decided on what confirmatory testing should be conducted by RES vendor-sponsored separate effects tests were concluded sufficient and no confirmatory separate effects tests needed l l l '9 l

B. NRC PROGRAMS FOR AP600 - CONTINUED Staff determined that for AP600, full-height, full-pressure integral system tests were required.from the vendor. In addition, NRR and RES decided full-height, full-pressure confirmatory tests sponsored by NRC were desirable. Basis was that passive safety features would operate under three high pressure accident scenarios small break LOCA (SBLOCA) steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) steam line break (SBL) 10

Westinghouse proposed to use the SPES facility (1/400 volume scale) Staff proposed to use ROSA-V facility (1/30 volume scale) OSU facility (1/200 scale) will provide data on long-term cooling Testing in 3 facilities (ROSA-V, SPES, OSU) will provide staff with most comprehensive thermal-hydraulic systems data base of any reactor type. Commission approved contract to modify ROSA-V facility on August 11,1992. 11

g a 0 STATUS OF ROSA-V FOR AP600 TESTING Contract awarded to-Sumitomo Heavy Industries (SHI) for $6.73M to fabricate and install modifications to ROSA-V for AP600 simulation Minor additions are pending to reflect recent AP600 design changes and thermal-hydraulic consultant comment In accordance with original schedule, expect to begin shakedown testing around January 1994, and obtain first test data in early spring 1994 Resident NRC representative (from EG&G, Idaho) on site 12

l 4 i ,i a l I l 1 f 4 / 1 J h" { g a l I . i y 3 . M.r -. .7 - i 1 ( } x. e m g{,f. i 11 p +-4 e ,f p i',...., L L___ i e g.; l j y'bk t _[ , l! af i ~~ ' i sinf' g #{* d s..... ,' ~ E Cf'T 'n =gt ,,J-gg[. i la g .__u_ Pza -a... .,_ _ f ys, e' _- __ es 3 / ~ :

c a m,; n.: :.=. - z -

- w '?

..., f,= p.{',

l =ma UZ, 4 l -.v a

...~.

e' e f,, \\ g f. 9.-- 1 4 4' % 4g. ,...? 3 ,.:, O j IM e g y .. ~ I - - A.- d_' ~7 c.

• 4

-p** W. / [ M W.,,,i(W,,$ - e. l I l ECREGROUND: PRESSURIZER (PZR) i

. GROUND

TWO CORE MAKE-UP TANKS (CMTs) t l

i [ l l l l l l. f l l.

i 4 i d il J I 4 l CMT i l { .~ Q a ~ = t-- - PZR l l FOREGROUND: CLOSE-UP VIEW 0F PRESSURIZER AT A FLANGED SECTION l I BACKGROUND: CLOSE-UP VIEW 0F CORE MAKE-UP TANK (CMT) FOR THE LOWER HALF PORTION l t i 4 l l l i i

1 l l i l I i i e l I lr I l l l / l N' 1 l - p~ l i l Q I l l ',7) j %/ / i Y l i j ~. ~ ~& j l . ~ ~ _ ~_ rkanen.. _., un ~. ',m m N l 3l} ' ~ u y.. I 4'; i \\ 8 \\ 4 i { PRE 55URIZER HEAIER 1 1 i l i l d i i e l 1, d

l I s e I i l l l tr r ~ ~' l {<. -;, : :e t p l m- - + -- - O' 8 g . u,r= dI,, - s,, .p .g&# ^ ^ .E .4.++~**- ,,,ssemus pc = = W_m m i g m- .g l c- ,,w (,- ~ .f, l .e M'. , y ' '. 'I~ - 4 e. i agit. g gli ER).' l 'y "'l y===. 9 +., da 1 j .i. jN 2 m, _ i \\ = 4. q ~' 5 D.. '3.1 12! i. l s." dem ' '. h b. i i I MS5!!E RESI UAL HEAT PEM3'/;L (PRHR) I l 515TE" TUBE 5 t U ;HIPE, I i I I l 1 l l

4 J !i i f d I t 1i i i I ? 4 .I v 9 i l.o - i t A { g %;f*- _ p,/ 7 - L l q,.

• "P" l

k' - g -... -.L. s =- l l.. C ... IT. ~ ShE '- - = L:^7{- ] i 4e %e- ( i +i , t,s.w cA.

q..

j.- I g' ~ ~ n. p. u ~" es ~ i

7. p ~

~ l (,. T:L.Ls;j -Q \\ ~ l n \\ I';-C0i4TAltiMEllT REFUELitiG WATER STORAGE TANK (IRWST) WITH TWO 00RTS SHOWN FOR INSERTION OF RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL (PRHR) EiSTEM TUBES I I l l l l 1' l l -..r.---,-m,., w--.. ,,wyw ,vww-- rww-9.-w y-,e,pg-** --m--aregmyq g 7N--

i i l l y y l i '/\\ \\ M 4 i t -y_ .g s X, l k f / 4 l .y 7 I \\ N,

s. Y,~- _ _ d

.- r~\\ - ] q.4 s , c,p -- F' x-. 1,. ~ . y h, s h q,. !i [N. %-{-~~g e@ m. <a - 8 7" j[ 4 r ] M i l - m &

< _. 3 1-l A

( WW\\ .g 2 , p!j S ~ i i a .4-. g-

• b

'( i w r v G- ~' ..: *y i ( 'p ;- i l y. ~ 4 l I'a'0 CATCH TAfiKS FOR COLLECiitiG FLOWS FR0ii THE FOURTH STAGE OF THE l AUTOMATIC DEPRESSURIZATIO!1 SYSTEM (ADS) I l i i O~

_. _ ~ l. l i l ? \\. I t*N<. 'Q I K 3..). 4. 2w l

• M g

t ( } \\.,3_.- i c it.,,-. ) .; fs.. ' F, m 1 i_.i,r W t # '; I: L L._ '77~. r I(3))_ i [ "! ' h,8 E

• f"" _ 7 g

3 dgy ' u,t

.( ' s ,7 '{ )_J I. .._,a ~,-.-,~ =w i ~ 7_. .~,,2 g r 3 w.x M M { }..,,, f L .W ' C . y g ? k,* 'A " _ _ ~ ^ 6 ^ i [. .y My&{ry.m 1 e' FOREGROUND: PRESSURIZER (PZR) i EACKGROUND: TWO CORE MAKE-UP TANKS (CMTs) k l i i i i i ) ] i

J I CMT s ..~ 7

• 5 3

a ~ U E-m PZR FOREGROUND: CLOSE-UP VIEW OF PRESSURIZER AT A FLANGED SECTION BACKGROUND: CLOSE-UP VIEW 0F CORE MAKE-UP TANK (CMT) FOR THE LOWER HALF PORTION 4 J

~ l l 4 i d I i i j i e l l ft l l l y l f s' ..u / "I i i DR l T l l '-.., ) . / / 1 / ~D ~ ~ f / [ M y M N*n.. M ~ s'** w.~ f l . f. A a. i t l PRESSURIZER HEATER I l l i l i i l l i 6 f 1 i 1

l l l 1 l l o pp ja. ~ n _(.- A- ~ t,* __ s - _ _, _ _ _ g. s- - 4 ,,3,4.s., g. ~... 3 c_.. ;.. 2.

- - ~ ~ 1.... _

_ i_ P _.. P e_ = W ( G i W "m i , y e'. ,}.. ! . E 6 G.q.- ,; y. -l <p --'.'='=. ~- r: : _=- d's s. t . r. b : s w I 7

j. !j.

f i = - -,.,.. ...t-a

_T

= ;= ]... A ) =- '~ .o 's3 12: c',.,. '.',c, e r.w. 1, PASSIVE RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL (PRHR) SYSTEM TUBES ( U SHAPE) i

I e 3.Y } j s g, x- /L , ~ - i /- .. \\.. {, M, ' - +' u i==-- , t-._{~ g " . P. j na b +! , t, w. ta, i gr s :;,. m s_ r~e : ~ y '. s, m

j..

~S si e .a.- --M ) 3 ^ ~- ' 1 J-.:';j -R r j s IN-CONTAINMENT REFUELING WATER STORAGE TANK (IRWST) WITH TWO PORTS SHOWN FOR INSERTION OF RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL (PRHR) SYSTEM TUBES

l-l p /s 7 - /\\ e 0 l T -- y /f ' s j s 3 , (\\ \\ i \\ x y _., Q- ; i _ \\ < '. k~b ~ y[ l

4

.-'l. } ~ h N'. a I,. i .OYg,ge ( +- ..) i h, ] gP'M l - ~ f, 3 'g M' OMb. l- 'N!$ j t..- i 'i s - ~ j a .4 g-l ._o w l

c..

., ' ? - ,.p-I.'*j t i l .a '9 l TWO CATCH TAtiKS FOR COLLECTitiG FLOWS FROM THE FOURTH STAGE OF THE AUTOMATIC DEPRESSURIZAT10tl SYSTEM (ADS) s l l l i il.._-._-,_____________________________

o STATUS OF NRC ANALYTICAL PROGRAMS FOR AP600 Staff has selected RELAPS/ MOD 3 as audit code for SBLOCA, SLB, and SGTR analysis of AP600 Staff will perform LBLOCA audit analysis of AP600 using TRAC /PWR TRAC /PWR is extensively assessed for LBLOCA Passive features do not affect AP600 LBLOCA For intermediate size breaks in the 6.8" direct vessel injection line and cold-leg pressure balance line, TRAC-PWR will be used if multi-dimensional processes are found to be important. RELAP models are currently being updated / modified to simulate AP600 and SBWR geometry and expected phenomena AP-600 QA'd plaret deck will be provided to NRR by October 15,1993. 19

L c 3. SBWR: ISSUES AND PROGRAMS For SBWR, new passive safety features which data for i code assessment was desired include: Tall chimney region above the core 1 Gravity driven cooling system (GDCS) l Isolation condensor system 1 Passive containment cooling system l I For SBWR, the containment acts closely with the vessel injection systems beginning early in the transient. Data for code assessment must cover these i expected interactions over an adequate time period of the expected transients. I l 20

f f .W 4 SBWR VENDOR PROGRAMS

• GIST, California
• GDCS integral performance
• completed
• GIRAFFE, Japan along-term PCCS integral performance,1/400 volume scale
• completed
• PANTHERS testing
• PCCS and IC separate effects testing
• expected to start early CY94
• PANDA, Switzerland along-term PCCS integral performance,1/25 volume scale
• testing expected to start in mid-CY94 21

r B. NRC PROGRAMS FOR SBWR Confirmatory tests from a small scale facility would provide staff with ability to obtain independent data for a range of conditions beyond what is normally required of an applicant and for time periods which provide adequate overlap with applicant data. For SBWR, staff prepared competitive proposal to design, construct, and operate a small scale loop . simulating SBWR. Purdue University was selected on July 26,1993. 22

~ a l l l STATUS OF SBWR LOOP Contract awarded to Purdue University to design, build, and operate a small scale SBWR loop on July 26,1993 Purdue selected from 6 universities. Contract is for 3 years at cost of $2.5M l Principal investigators are Professors M. Ishii and V. Ransom Kickoff meeting between staff (RES & NRR) and Purdue on August 17,1993 23

s STATUS OF NRC ANALYTICAL PROGRAMS FOR SBWR Staff has also selected RELAPS/ MOD 3 to analyze SBWR, SLB, and SBLOCA GE is using TRACG to analyze SBWR. Use of = TRAC /BWR by staff would reduce independence of audit Use of one code by staff for both designs would minimize resources Staff will use RAMONA to analyze SBWR stability and ATWS 24

w + o l STATUS OF NRC ANALYTICAL PROGRAMS FOR SBWR - 1 l CONTINUED l SBWR QA'd plant deck not yet complete. Awaiting ( design information from GE. 1 Meeting with GE arranged by NRR to obtain needed data. j l l Plan to provide SBWR input deck to NRR by November 30,1993. ( 25

x s ~ u 4. NRC ANALYTICAL PROGRAMS APPLICABLE TO BOTH AP600 AND SBWR Staff plans to assess code against vendor separate effects data and integral data when it becomes available later in CY93 and early CY94 Staff will assess code against ROSA-V and Purdue SBWR loop data when it becomes available Structured uncertainty analysis of RELAPS, using modification of method used for LBLOCA uncertainty analysis (CSAU) to support ECCS rule change of 1988 (10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K), will be performed thermal hydraulic consultants are reviewing planned approach and providing valuable feedback ACRS thermal hydraulic phenomena subcommittee meeting scheduled October 28 to discuss ROSA-V test matrix 26

Both RES and NRR have developed in-house analysis capability RES staff has run AP600 calculations to determine impact of containment pressure on primary system behavior Calculations led to decision to couple RELAPS (primary system) code with CONTAIN (containment) code to do integral calculations with proper system feedback RES is currently installing four workstations. We are currently capable of running RELAPS, MELCOR, CONTAIN RES and NRR staffs meet periodically through a workstation users group to discuss in-house analyses, problems, observations, etc. 27

-.c.,.noCU wu .-3 _x : v -,.-s-i .e w\\. ..xn u r-i \\

-.cs.

_. s v r \\ x s .-3 s _x _ _ J

CCC COCO 3000 400C i ime (s) l l

i C 7!VCF- 'd ~ na

e l

1 j d i t 41.; e. 114 3 'L 4, 3 n i

\\

, i. 1

u -

I, \\;.. l;<t,. l.; :., "n . v s yr q ~ gas.>

u.

1 P d - )' = =.. - -u k -u - t gj a I u.. .j g = 'CCC 0CCC 2000 4000 _,.mo. c-- >+'% s 7 1 bl." j f C 7 *!?

• • • E

^~

• O. N.',.i I l...

.:.7

w 5. RESEARCH RESULTS ALL SIGNIFICANT RESEARCH FINDINGS TO DATE HAVE BEEN FOR AP-600; THERE ARE NONE YET FOR SBWR 1. The valve size of the 4th stage ADS was too small to j allow sufficient primary depressurization for steady l 1RWST injection. W subsequently increased the valve size by 33%. 2. An initial CMT recirculation phase exists for break sizes 1 up to 3 inches. This serves to heat up the CMT and minimize any condensation during the injection phase. i 1 29

s. 5. RESEARCH RESULTS - CONTINUED 3. For break sizes larger than 3 inches, the possibility of large condensation pulses exists within the CMT during the initial part of the injection phase. W may modify the AP600 design to include a steam diffusor at the top of the CMT. They are including this device on their SPES and OSU test facilities and recommended that NRC also include it in the ROSA facility. The staff is currently obtaining cost estimates from SHl.to add a diffusor in ROSA. 30

I w w 1 3 A 4 6. UTILIZATION OF RESULTS (AP600 and SBWR) Independent review of vendor test programs instrumentation test matrix scaling rationale Independent test data to confirm applicability and scalability of vendor's test results l Assessed computer codes for staff use in auditing vendor submittals 1 31 L--.-__--------_------

_ a 4 4 SBWR APPL IL Alli IES i ltiG: IESIlf1G Aflu IL SI EVAIUAlloff

• GIST (completed)

A

• UCB (late 1993)
• HIT (completed)
• GIRAFFE (completed) e PAffillERS (late 1994) e PAliDA (mid-1995)

C0fiSTR. TESTitiG Ifi fiRC C0fiFIRMA10RY PURDUE LOOP PURDUE 100P TESTIllG A A A RELAP5 RAM 0f1A RELAPS CODE It!PROVEMElli AfiD M003.2 (ATWSJ N003.3 ASSESSME f1T A A A DRAFT fif1AL REGULATORY REVIEW OSER FSER FSER FDA A A A A i 1 1 1993 1994 1995 1996 Figure 2 .a m. m .v m .-2

c 7. FUTURE PLANS Experimental Facilities i Following completion of first few ROSA-V tests, staff will begin examining need to run tests beyond phaseI Phase il testing, if needed, would probably run from late CY94 into CY95. It would include testing of beyond-DBA transients. Staff plans to look into possibility of contracting with OSU once W testing is completed to run NRC-specified tests (most likely beyond design basis) l 33

~ 7. FUTURE PLANS - CONTINUED Codes Staff will maintain development activities in order to utilize data from various advanced reactor test facilities Thermal hydraulic consultants will be asked to review models being developed, test facility results and need for additional tests, and code uncertainty assessment program Consultants will also be asked to comment on long term thermal hydraulic research plans, per Commission SRM. 34

w L 1 8.

SUMMARY

The research program is closely integrated with the NRR review program Staff experimental facilities are being constructed on schedu% and within planned budgets Testing is expected to commence on schedule for ROSA-V and the Purdue loop Code evaluation was started early for advanced reactors. As such, code development activities for advanced reactors are well along RES will provide assessed codes for NRR use on a schedule consistent with FDA and certification schedules 35

>./ 1 8.

SUMMARY

- CONTINUED Thermal hydraulic consultants have been very useful and helpful to the staff.

We plan to continue our association with them and will report the results of our meetings with them on a periodic basis to the Commission In-house analysis capability has improved staff ability to analyze and evaluate advanced reactor design Advanced reactor thermal-hydraulic research program is maintaining the NRC on the forefront of thermal-hydraulic research 36 .}}