ML20062J186
| ML20062J186 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200003, 05200004 |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1992 |
| From: | Thadani A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sheron B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062J189 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9211130325 | |
| Download: ML20062J186 (29) | |
Text
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - -_
ne mac oq'o UNITED STATES
. g
')
t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGT ON, D. C. 20555 o, '
g..... October 21, 1992 MEMORANDUM FOR: Dennis M. Crutchfield, Associate Director for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal Office Of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Ashok C. Thadani, Director Division of Systems Safety and Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Brian W. Sheron, Director Division of Systems Research Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR TNE REVIEW OF VENDOR TESTING PROGRAMS FOR THE AP600 AND SBWR Enclosed is the detailed review plan for the vendor's testing programs supporting the AP600 and SBWR designs. This review plan implements the NRC's program to evaluate, monitor, and approve the vendor's ter, ting programs consistent with SECY-91-273, and the 1992.
coordination plan given in T. Murley's memorandum of June 8, SRXB is responsible for the review of the AP600 testing program, and SCSB for review of the SBWR testing program. These branches will monitor progress per the attached plan.
The plan has been developed based on the current vendor's testing schedules. However, further information is required from the vendors, especially detailed schedules for the code verification analysis efforts and the schedule for submitting various documents for the testing programs, such as scaling analysis, test plans and matrices, and test results. The vendors also need to keep the NRC informed of modifications to testing schedules as they occur.
ADAR is requested to obtain this information and, as necessary, the schedules given in this plan will be adjusted.
q 2i\ @ A S /tV; o
Enclosure 1
Dennis M. Crutchfield If you have any questions concerning this plan, or the status of implementation, please contact M. Rubin (SRXB) for the AP600 or J. Kudrick (SCSB) for the SBW.'t.
L h e' Ashok C. Thadani, Director Division of Systems Safety and Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation L{ wi . h" __
Brian W. Sheron, Director Division of Systems Research Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research cc: J. Taylor F. Miraglia J. Sniezek V. McCree W. Russell J. Murphy E. Beckjord M. Taylor T. Murley C. McCracken R. Pierson R. Jones T. Spies R. Hasselberg
, R. Caruso J. Norberg T. Hiltz M. Rubin J. Kudrick F. Eltawila N. Lauben L. Shotkin A. Levin C. Tinkler J. Strosnider
REVIEW PLAN FOR AP600 AND SBWR TESTING PROGRAMS INTRODUCTION
'!o support certification of the AP600 and the Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (SBWR) passive reactor designs, both Westinghouse and General Electric have developed testing and analysis programs. It is the responsibility of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatio'n (NRR) to evaluate the applicants' testing and analysis programs to ensure that the requirements of 10 CFR
- 52. 47 (b) (2) are met. Assistance from the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) has previously been requested to support this effort.
- In SECY-91-273, NRC described its approach for review of the design certification testing programs. Reference 1 describes NRC's program to evaluate, monitor and approve the vendor's testing program consistent with SECY-91-273. Both NRR and RES personnel will be needed to perform this evaalation. Reference 2 provides the overall coordination plan for implementing this program.
However, both these references provide only a genersl outline; the not defined.
specific work efforts, and estimated resources, were This implementation plan describes in detail the activities planned to reach a conclusion on the adequacy of the vendor's j testing and analytical programs. This plan assigns J responsibility for each activity, the estimated resources, schedule, and the products which are to be produced. Further, a general outline is provided for the DSER and FSER inputs to assure that the plan elements can be integrated into a focused assessment.
OVERALL RESPONSIBILITY The purpose of this implementation plan is to describe in detail all activities necessary for NRR to make its safety determination that the vendor's testing program meets the requirements of 10 CFR 52. 47 (b) (2) . Development of the DSER and FSER input is the responsibility of SRXB for the AP600, and SCSB for the SBWR.
These inputs are to meet the dates established by ADAR (currently 6/93 for AP600 DSER, 8/93 for SBWR DSER, 5/94 for AP600 FSER and 8/94 for SBWR FSER) needed to support the issuance of the FDA.
An outline for the SER inputs is provided in Enclosure 1.
Although the DSER is likely to have many open items because the testing prograps will not have been completed, the DSER should use this outline to explain what will be documented in the FSER.
l Many of the activities described below are expected to produce detailed technical reports. As these reports are produced, copies shall be provided to DAR and SRXB or SCSB, as appropriate, for information. However, it is unreasonable to expect either SRXB or SCSB to summarize each of these reports in a form appropriate for the SER. Therefore, within each activity, the assigned review branch is to provide SER inputs to SRXB or SCSB, as appropriate, consistent with the outline in Enclosure 1.
These inputs should be prepared using Wordperfect 5.1, and copies of input shall be provided on floppy discs to SRXB or SCSB, as appropriate, one ponth prior to the DSER and FSER input dates.
SRXB or SCSB, as appropriate, shall provide the combined DSER and FSER inputs to ADAR.
Resources:
I l SRXB B psw SCSB B psw Schedule:
l SRXB DSER input for AP600 to ADAR 6/93 l FSER input for AP600 to ADAR 5/94 SCSB DSER input for SBWR to ADAR 8/93 o FSER input for SBWR to ADAR 8/94 OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES l
Table 1 provides a summary of the implementation plan. Across the top of the table are the elements of the staff's review l program as outlined in Reference 1; down the side is a listing of l the testing programs planned by the vendor. Thus, this table provides a matrix of those activities to be accomplished and the Branches involved. The " lead" branch for the specific activity is listed first on the table. As noted on the table, there are several activities wherein no action is planned. This is j consistent with the " sampling" approach discussed in Reference 1.
l In addition, within a given activity, b'ce sampling will also occur ac listed in the rare detailed description of the activities given below.
Each of the vendor testing programs is separately discussed below to indicate the work which is to be performed. Included is the l estimated schedule for the review, based on the current vendor testing schedules. Delays in the vendor schedules will result in modification of the schedule and may also impact resource estimates. Estimated resources for each activity are also l
l
- . - . = - . _ . - - - - -. --
e o
ll 1-provided for each Branch; a summary of total resources is >
provided in Table 2.
AP600 Review Plan Core Makeup Tank (CMT) Tests The CMT tests are to evaluate the draining modes of the CMT, ;
provide confirmation on the adequacy of the level instrumentation !
used in the CMT to initiate ADS, and provide data on specific thermal-hydraulic' behavior in the CMT, such as condensation i behavior and thermal stratification. These tests will be uc2.. ny ;
Westinghouse to verify their computer codes.- l Currently, the test configuration has been established and I detailed test facility design is underway. ~ Facility' construction is to be completed by November, 1992; shakedown tests are to be
- completed January, 1993; testing is to be completed by March, !
1993. No schedule has been provided for either the submission of !
the test results or the associated code verification effort. !
Overall review of the CMT tests belongs to SRXB, however,.
significant assistance is needed from RPSB. The effort will include a review of the testing program, and testing matrix to !
> ensure that the objectives will. address the-NRC's concerns related to the CMT, as addressed in SECY-91-273,.and ensure that ,
i an appropriate range of conditions is examined. Further, a detailed review of.the scaling chosen for the tests, and the instrumentation to be used will be performed to ensure that sufficient data is provided for code assessment. An audit of i
approximately 5 test plans will be performed to ensure that the .;
testing is properly conducted, and some of these tests will be j witnessed test plans.
to confirm the tests'are conducted consistent with the j Test data will be reviewed to confirm that expected phenomena were tested and that results confirm the behavior predicted by the AP600 safety analyses. The vendor code verification efforts will be reviewed to ascertain whether the code adequately predicted the observed phenomena. Tests will be selected for analysis by the staff to confirm the capability of the RELAPS/ MOD 3 code for use in audit-analyses of the AP600 design.
SRXB will have lead responsibility for the review of the. test program, matrices, and test plan reviews. RPSB will assist SRXB in its efforts and will provide comments to SRXB for inclusion in its assessment. RPSB will have primary review of the scaling analysis and instrumentation review and will forward its assessment to SRXB. SRXB will assess the data to ensure its t
l
adequacy, and will specifically address the adequacy of the vendors code verification results.
Verification of the staff's computer code will be performed by RPSB. RPSB shall inform SASG and SRXB of the tests selected for analysis. Results of the verification analysis shall be provided to SASG and SRXB to allow conclusions on code adequacy to be considered in assessing the results of audit analyses performed for the AP600 design. SRXB will compile DSER/FSER input for transmittal to AD,AR.
Resources:
SRXB 12 psw/$40k RPSB 20 psw/$600k Schedule:
SRXB Evaluation of test program and matrix 2 mo. after E submittal Audit of testing plans 2 mo. after E submittal View Test Nov., 1992 - March, 1993 DSER input 6/93 Evaluation of test data 2 mo. after E submittal Evaluation of code verification 5/94 FSER input 5/94 i
RPSB i
Comments on test program and matrix 6 wk. after E submittal l
to SRXB Comments on test plans to SRXB 6 wk. after H submittal Evaluation of scaling and 2 mo. after E submittal instrumentation DSER input to SRXB 5/93 Post test analyses with RELAPS 4 to 6 mo. after data receipt ;
FSER input to SRXB 5/94 i l
Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) Tests A critical component in the AP600 design is the ADS. These valves depressurize the reactor coolant system to allow gravity injection from the In-containment Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST) to provide long-term cooling. Full-scale tests of the ADS valves and the sparger in the IRWST are being performed in
Q o
Casaccia, Italy. The Phase A tests are underway, to examine the sparger performance and IRWST loads, and are scheduled for completion in October, 1992.
Phase B tests are to evaluate full scale performance of the valves used in the first three ADS stages. Facility modifications for these tests are to be completed in April, 1993, and testing completed in December, 1993.
The staff has previously notified Westinghouse of the need to test the fourth stage ADS valve. Westinghouse has added such testing to its program, but no details on the testing to be performed is available. planning is underway and it is Westinghouse's objective to complete testing by December, 1993.
SRXB will have overall lead responsibility for review of these tests. SRXB will review the test program, test matrix, and audit selected test plans to ensure that the testing program adequately characterizes ADS valve performance. SRXB also plans to visit the facility while testing activities are in progress, to view selected tests. The data and the vendor's verification analyses will be reviewed to ensure that the code properly reflects the observed behavior. EMEB will assist SRXB through review of the test program and data to assess ADS valve performance and 6 reliability.
SCSB will perform a similar review to that planned by SRXB except its efforts will focus on the sparger behavior. SCSB shall I provide results of its review to SRXB for inclusion in the DSER l and FSER inputs.
Resources:
SRXB 8 psw/$20k SCSB 8 psw/$20k EMEB 2 psw/$0k Schedule:
1 SRXB Evaluation of test program and matrix 2 mo. after H submittal Audit of testing plans 2 mo. after E submittal View Test Apr. - Dec., 1993 DSER input 6/93 Evaluation of test data 2 mo. after H submittal Evaluation of code verification 5/94 l FSER input 5/94 l l
l i
SCSB Evaluation of test program and matrix 2 me. after H submittal Audit of testing plans 2 mo, after H submittal DSER input to SRXB 5/93 Evaluation of test data 2 mo. after H submittal Evaluation of code verification 5/94 l FSER input to SRXB 5/94 l EMEB ,'
DSER input to SRXB 5/93 FSER input to SRXB 5/94 i
Passive Residual Heat Removal (PRER) Tests i PRHR system testing has been completed by Westinghouse. The purpose of these tests was to evaluate the heat transfer behavior of the PRHR tubes, and to modify the correlations used to predict PRHR performance.
SRXB will have the lead for evaluating these tests. Since these tests have been completed, the effort will concentrate on ensuring that the test program, testing matrix and test facility
( design (scaling and instrumentation) was sufficient to characterize the behavior of the PRER system. RPSB will evaluate the specifics of the test facility design and forward its evaluation to SRXB.
The test data, and the associated modeling of the PRHR by H, will be evaluated by SRXB to ensure that the PRHR system has been appropriately reflected in the AP600 safety analyses. RPSB will assess the capability of the RELAP5/ MOD 3 code to predict the test results. The results of its evaluation shall be forwarded to SASG and SRXB to assess audit calculations performed by the ,
staff. Input to the DSER and FSER will be compiled by SRXB.
Resources:
SRXB 6 psw/$20k ;
RPSB 5 psw/$275k i l
Schedule: <
l l SRXb l
l Evaluation of test program and matrix 2/93 Evaluation of test data 5/93 DSER input 6/93 I
I
_7 ,
Evaluation of code verification 5/94 l FSER input 6/94 i i
RPSB Evaluation of scaling and 2/93 ;
instrumentation DSER input to SRXB 5/93 l Post test analyses with RELAPS 9/93 :
FSER input to SRXB 5/94 ,
Wind Tunnel Tests The AP600 containment is cooled by' natural circulation around the outside of the containment shell. Westinghouse has performed'a r series of wind tunnel tests to examine the effect of wind .
direction and speed on the operation of the containment cooling ,
air inlet design.
t SCSB has the lead for evaluating these tests. SCSB~will' evaluate the test program, test matrix, facility design, and test results to confirm.the adequacy of the air cooling inlet design. AEB i will perform a detailed review of the test scaling and a
instrumentation and forward these results to SCSB. SCSB shall provide DSER and-FSER input to SRXB for inclusion in the overall evaluation to be submitted to ADAR.
Resources:
SCSB 8 psw/$20k l'
AEB 3 psw/$50k SRXB 1 psw/S0k Schedule:
SCSB I Evaluation of test program and matrix 2/93 Evaluation of test results 5/93 DSER input to SRXB 5/93-DSER input to SRXB 5/94 AEB Evaluation of scaling and 2/93 instrumentation to SCSB DSER input to SCSB 4/93 l
8-SRXB DSER input to ADAR 5/93 FSER input to ADAR 5/94 Passive Containment Cooling System (PCCS) Tests The Westinghouse test program for the PCCS includes a series of separate effects tests at various scales to examine the heat transfer behavior on the interior of the containment, heat transfer on the containment exterior, and water distribution on the containment exterior. Simple geometry tests have been completed, and those in a more complex geometry are underway. A relatively large-scale facility, approximately 1/9 scale in height and 1/8.5 in diameter, is being constructed for tests of the entire PCCS. Tests on a full scale angular sector of the containment shell will also be conducted to study water distribution on the containment exterior. These tests are to be completed by December, 1993.
Overall review of the PCCS tests belongs to SCSB, however, significant assistance is needed from AEB. The effort will include a review of the testing program, and testing matrix to ensure that the objectives will fully evaluate the performance of the PCCS and ensure that an appropriate range of conditions are examined. Further, a detailed review of the scaling chosen for the tests, and the instrumentation to be used will be performed to ensure that sufficient data is provided for code assessment.
An audit of approximately 5 test plans will be performed to ensure that the testing is properly conducted, and some of these tests will be witnessed to confirm the tests are conducted consistent with the test plans.
Test data will be reviewed to confirm that expected phenomena were tested and that results confirm the behavior predicted by the AP600 safety analyses. The vendor code verification efforts will be reviewed to ascertain whether the code adequately predicted the observed phenomena. Tests will be selected for analysis by the staff to confirm the capability of the CONTAIN code for use in audit analyses of the AP600 design.
SCSB will have lead responsibility for the review of the test program, matrices, and test plan reviews. AEB will have primary review of the scaling analysis and instrumentation review and will forward its assessment to SCSB. SCSB will assess the data to ensure its adequacy, and will specifically address the adequacy of the vendor's code verification results.
Verification of the staff's computer code will be performed by AEB. AEB shall inform SASG and SCSB of the tests selected for analysis. Results of the verification analysis shall be provided to SASG and SCSB to allow conclusions on code adequacy to be considered in assessing the results of audit analyses performed for the AP600 design. Both pre-test and post-test analyses will be performed.
Input for the DSER and FSER will be provided to SRXB for inclusion in the overall safety evaluation of the vendor's testing program.
Resources:
SCSB 26 psw/$80k AEB 50 psw/$800k SRXB 1 psw/$0k Schedule:
SCSB Evaluation of test progran and matrix 2 mo. after H submittal l Audit of testing plans 2 mo. after E submittal F View Test Jan. - Dec., 1993
, DSER input to SRXB 5/93 l Evaluation of test data 2 mo. after E submittal l Evaluation of code verification 5/94 l FSER input to SRXB 5/94 AEB Evaluation of scaling and 2 mo. after H submittal instrumentation DSER input to SCSB 4/93 Pre-test analyses with CONTAIN 9/93
, Post-test analyses with CONTAIN 1/94 FSER input to SCSB 4/94 SRXB l
DSER input to ADAR 5/93 FSER input to ADAR 5/94 Check Valve Tests check valves are key components in the AP600 safety system designs. These valves must open, and remain open, under relatively low pressure drops. Long-term exposure to reactor l
l
1
. i l
l l
. )
i coolant conditions could affect the behavior of the valves. I l Preliminary hydraulic testing of the valves has been completed, !
but these tests were not performed on the " biased open" valves I now planned for the AP600. Qualification testing of the valves !
is planned for completion by December, 1993. 1 i
The Mechanical Engineering Branch (EMEB) is responsible for the review of these tests. A technical assistance contract is in l place for the review of the testing program. EMEB will review l the test program,. testing matrix, and testing plans, to ensure l that the testing will be adequate for establishing valve performance and long-term operability of the valves after exposure to RCS environment. EMEB will also view selected tests, and will analyze the data obtained. SRXB will work with EMEB to evaluate the adequacy of the vendor's test plans to ensure that i an appropriate range of conditions is included to adequately i assess check valve performance. For the long-term performance test, the Materials and Chemical Engineering Branch (EMCB) will assist EMEB in assessing the capability of the vendor's test program to evaluate long-term check valve performance. EMEB will assist SRXB in assuring that the test results confirm the modeling assumptions use in the safety analysis. The DSER input l
should discuss the adequacy of the testing plans and program; FSER input should discuss the results of the testing and j conclusions relative to valve performance. SRXB will compile the DSER and FSER input for transmittal to ADAR.
Resources:
EMEB 4 psw/$50k SRXB 2 psw/$0k EMCB 2 psw/$0k Schedule: i EMEB DSER input to SRXB 5/93 FSER input to SRXB 5/94 EMCB DSER input to SRXB 5/93 FSER input to SRXB 5/94 SRXB DSER input 6/93 FSER input 5/94 l
}
l l
oregon State University (OSU) Tests 1
Westinghouse is performing low-pressure,-reduced-height integral !
system testing at OSU. The purpose of these tests is to 1 demonstrate that gravity driven injection and natural convection provided adequate long-term cooling for the AP600 design. The data vill be used to verify the computer codes used in the AP600 safety analysis. Facility construction is to be completed in December, 1992, shakedown testing in April, 1993, and matrix testing in December, 1993. Schedules and details of the code verification effort has not yet been provided by Westinghouse.
Overall review of the OSU tests belongs to SRXD, however, significant assistance is needed from RPSB. The vffort will include a review of the testing program, and testing matrix to ensure that the objectives will address the NRC's concerns related to long-term cooling of the AP600 design and ensure that an appropriate range of conditions are examined. Further, a detailed review of the scaling chosen for the tests, and the instrumentation to be used will be performed to ensure that sufficient data is provided for. code assessment. An audit of approximately 5 test plans will be performed to ensure that the testing is properly conducted, and some of these tests will be
" witnessed to confirm the tests are conducted consistent with the test plans. Vendor pre-test predictions will be reviewed to confirm that overall facility behavior is representative of the expected AP600 behavior.
1 Test data will be reviewed to confirm that expected phenomena were tested and that results confirm the behavior predicted by the AP600 safety analyses. The vendor post-test code verification efforts will be reviewed to ascertain whether the code adequately predicted the observed phenomena. Tests will be selected for analysis by the staff to confirm the capability of the RELAP5/ MOD 3 for use in audit analyses of the AP600 design.
SRXB will have lead responsibility for the review of the test program, matrices, and test plan reviews. RPSB will assist SRXB in its efforts and will provide comments to SRXB for inclusion in its assessment. RPSB will have primary review of the scaling analysis and instrumentation review and will forward its assessment to SRXB. SRXB will assess the data to ensure its adequacy, and will specifically address the adequacy of the vendor's code verification results.
Verification of the staff's computer code will be performed by both SASG and RPSB. RPSB and SASG shall inform SRXB of the tests selected for analysis. Results of the verification analysis shall be provided to SRXB to allow conclusions on code adequacy to be considered in assessing the results of audit analyses
I
' j j
1 performed for the AP600 design.
Resources: -
l SRXB 26 psw/$60k ^
SASG 120 psw/$0k !
RPSB 35 psw/$1265k l
Schedule: -
SRXB [
Evaluation of test program and matrix 2 mo. after H submittal !
Audit of testing plans View Test 2 2o. after H submittal j Apr. - Dec., 1993 '
DSER input 6/93 _
Evaluation of test data 2 mo. after H submittal l Evaluation'of' code verification 5/94 i FSER' input 5/94 l RPSB Comments on test program and matrix 6 wk. after H submittal to SRXB t
P Comments on test plans to SRXB Evaluation of scaling and 6 wk. after H submittal '
2/93 instrumentation to SRXB ;
Pre-test analyses to SRXB 5/93 DSER input to SRXB 5/93 i
Post-test analyses to SRXB 4 mo. after data receipt FSER input to SRXB 5/94 ,
SASG l
Pre-test analyses to SRXB 5/93 DSER input to SRXB 5/93 Post-test analyses to SRXB 4 mo. after data receipt FSER input to SRXB 5/94 SPES-2 Tests Full-height, high-pressure integral systems testing of the AP600 design is planned to be performed at the SPES-2 facility in l Piacenza, Italy. This testing is to provide thermal-hydraulic data at high pressure to be used to verify the safety analysis computer codes. Scaling analysis for the facility is nearly complete. Facility construction is estimated to be completed by November, 1992, shakedown testing by March, 1993, and matrix testing by December, 1993. Details of the code verification program and submittal schedule has not yet been provided by i
I
t t
Westinghouse.
SRXB has lead responsibility for evaluation of the SPES-2. tests and preparation of DSER/FSER inputs. This review will'be l performed in the same manner as that described above for the OSU tests. l Resources:
SRXB 40 psw/$100k SASG 20 psw/$0k. ,
RPSB 35 psw/$1260k '
Schedule: 5 4
SRXB Evaluation of test program and matrix 2 mo. after E submittal Audit of testing plans 2 mo. after H submittal View Test March - Dec.i 1993 DSER input 6/93 <
Evaluation of test data 2 mo. after H submittal '
Evaluation of code verification 5/94 ;
FSER input 5/94 l
> I RPSB l
Comments on test program and matrix to SRXB 6 wk. after E submittal '
Comments on test plans to SRXB 6 wk. after E submittal Evaluation of scaling and 2/93 instrumentation to SRXB DSER input to SRXB 5/93 Pre-test analyses to SRXB 7/93 Post-test analyses to SRXB 5 mo. after data receipt FSER input to SRXB 5/94
! SASG Pre-test analyses to SRXB 7/93 Post-test analyses to SRXB 4 mo. after data receipt FSER input to SRXB 5/94 ROSA-V Tests The staff will perform confirmatory full-height, high-pressure integral systems testing of the AP600 design in the ROSA-V facility in Japan. Negotiations are underway with the Japanese for this testing. The tentative schedule is to complete facility modifications by October, 1993, ir:itiate testing in December i
l t
t-i ,_ . - , _ _ , , - ...,,.m. . . . - .,.~. . , , - . . _ _ .
I l
1993, and complete testing by December, 1994. An option is i expected to allow for an additional year of testing at the facility.
Although these tests are confirmatory, and therefore not required to certify the AP600 design, the results of these tests will be used to verify the staff's RELAP5/ MOD 3 computer code. The staff will utilize this code to perform audit calculations of the AP600 design. DSER input is not required for this testing.
RPSB has the lead responsibility for these tests. RPSB will perform the scaling analyses, and develop the test plans and matrices. RPSB shall keep SRXB informed of its plans and will solicit SRXB comments on the proposed test plans and matrices.
RPSB will station a resident engineer at the ROSA-V facility to provide oversight of the testing program. Data reports will be forwarded to SRXB for review. If any unusual behavior is identified during the tests, RPSB shall immediately inform SRXB and ADAR in order to allow these results to be considered in the staff's safety evaluation of the design.
Pre-test and post-test predictions will be performed by RPSB and SASG using the RELAPS/ MOD 3 code. These Branches shall coordinate their efforts to minimize duplication of effort. SRXB shall be kept informed of the results to allow conclusions on code adequacy to be considered in assessing audit results performed for the AP600 design.
Resources:
RPSB 54 psw/$1955k SASG 16 psw/$0k SRXB 20 psw/$0k Schedule:
Because this testing is confirmatory, no schedule is required for using these test results.
i SBWR Review Plan University of California at Berkeley / Massachusetts Institute of Technology (UCB/MIT) Correlations The SBWR design utilizes isolation condensers for decay heat removal from the reactor coolant system and passive heat removal from the containment. A series of prototypical, single tube tests have been completed at UCB and MIT to evaluate the effect l of non-condensible gases on tube-side heat transfer. The data l
..- - - .- _ -=
I l.
i was utilized to develop a heat transfer correlation which h'as been incorporated into the TRACG code.
SCSB has the lead for reviewing these tests... It will review the test conduct and instrumentation to ensure that an adequate range of initial conditions have been. tested to cover possible SBWR conditions. SRXB will review the specific implementation of the correlation in the TRACG code. RPSB will also review the data to i incorporate and test an appropriate correlation for use in the RELAP5/ MOD 3' code. Both SRXB and RPSB will provide summary.DSER and FSER inputs to SCSB for incorporation into the safety ;
evaluation.
Resources:
l SCSB 4 psw/$10k SRXB 4 psw/$10k '
RPSB 5 psw/$100k Schedule:
l SCSB i
Evaluate test program, test matrix and 3/93 I results DSER input 8/93 FSER input 8/94 SRXB -
l Evaluate correlation implementation in 6/93 j TRACG '
DSER input to SCSB 7/93 :
FSER input to SCSB 7/94 '
RPSB 1
1 Incorporate correlation in RELAP5 12/92 i Provide comments on correlation.to SRXB 2/93 1 DSER input to SCSB 7/93 '
FSER input to SCSB 7/94 GIRAFFE l
General Electric (GE) performed the GIRAFFE tests in Japan to confirm the performance of the Passive Containment Cooling System (PCCS) and provide data for verification of the analytical models used for the SBWR safety analysis. These tests utilized a simulation of the SBWR containment to examine the overall PCCS performance, particularly the performance of the isolation L
condenser to purge non-condensible gases. While these tests have i
l t
l \
l 1
l l
been completed, GE is planning additional testing in GIRAFFE to address staff questions. These tests are currently being planned and are anticipated to be completed by December, 1993.
Overall review of this testing belongs to SCSB. Assistance will be provided by SRXB, AEB, and RPSB. SCSB will review the test
! program, matrix and audit selected test plans to confirm the l
testing addressed staff concerns relative to the performance of the PCCS. This review should be used to identify additional testing needed from GE. AEB and RPSB shall review the scaling and instrumentation for the facility and forward a coordinated review evaluation to SCSB.
l l Data review will be performed by SCSB to assess the overall performance of the PCCS. SRXB will evaluate the vendor's ,
predictions with the TRACG code as part of its overall evaluation l of the code.
l I Pre- and post-test analyses of these tests will be performed by AEB, RPSB, and SASG. These branches shall inform SCSB of the tests selected for analysis. Results of these evaluations shall be forwarded to SCSB to allow consideration of these results in assessing audit analyses performed for the SBWR.
1
> Resources:
SCSB 26 psw/S80k SRXB 6 psw/$40k SASG 12 psw/$0k RPSB/AEB 25 psw/$400K Schedule:
SCSB Evaluation of test program and matrix 2 mo. after submittal Audit of testing plans 2 mo. after submittal View Test March - Dec., 1993 DSER input 8/93 Evaluation of test data l 2 mo. after submittal FSER input 8/94 l
l SRXB !
DSER input to SCSB 7/93 Evaluation of TRACG code verification 2/94 FSER input to SCSB 7/94
RPSB/AEB Comments on test program and matrix 6 wk. after submittal to SCSB Comments on test plans to SCSB 6 wk. after submittal Evaluation of scaling and 2/93 instrumentation to SCSB DSER input to SCSB 7/93 Pre-test analyses to SCSB 10/93 Post-test analyses to SCSB 4 mo. after data receipt FSER input to SCSB 7/94 SASG '
i..
Post-test analyses to SCSB 4 mo. after data receipt FSER input to SCSB 7/94 PANTHERS Full-scale testing of the isolation condensers is planned as part of the PANTHERS testing program at Piacenza, Italy. This testing will provide final confirmation of the performance of the isolation condenser including heat transfer and structural behavior. Testing is to be completed in March, 1994 for the PCCS and July, 1994 for the isolation condenser.
SCSB has the lead review for this effort, concentrating on the ;
full scale performance of the PCCS. SRXB will assist SCSB by i evaluatina the isolation condenser tests. Both SCSB and SRXB will evaluate the test programs and testing matrix for the PCCS and isolation condenser, respectively. Audits of the testing plans will be performed and the tests will be viewed to ensure testing is conducted in accordance with the test plans.
RPSB will review the scaling and instrumentation used in these tests to ensure that adequate data is obtained. The results of its review shall be forwarded to SCSB for inclusion in the safety evaluation.
SRXB shall review GE's code predictions for these tests. This will be performed as part of the overall evaluation of the TRACG !
code. A summary of the review shall be provided to SCSB.
Pre- and post-test analyses using the staff's computer codes are planned by SASG and RPSB. These branches shall inform SCSB of the tests selected for analysis. These results shall be provided to SCSB for assessing the adequacy of audit analyses performed t for the SBWR.
I l
l Resources:
SCSB 8 psw/$20k SRXB 4 psw/$20k SASG 8 psw/$0k RPSB 15 psw/$275k Schedule:
SCSB Evaluation of test program and matrix 2 mo. after submittal Audit of testing plans 2 mo. after submittal DSER input 8/93 View test Jan. - Mar., 1994 Evaluation of test data 2 mo. after submittal l FSER input 8/94 SRXB Comments on test program and matrix 2 mo. after submittal to SCSB l Audit of testing plans 2 mo. after submittal
) DSER input to SCSB 7/93 L Evaluation of TRACG code verification 5/94 l FSER input to SCSB 7/94 1
RPSB Comments on test program and matrix 6 wk. after submittal to SCSB Comments on test plans to SCSB 6 wk. after submittal Evaluation of scaling and 6/93 instrumentation to SCSB DSER input to SCSB 7/93 Pre-test analyses to SCSB 12/93 Post-test analyses to SCSB 4 mo. after data receipt j
l FSER input to SCSB 7/94 L
i SASG l Pre-test analyses to SCSB 12/93 Post-test analyses to SCSB 4 mo. after data receipt FSER input to SCSB 7/94 PANDA Testing at the PANDA facility at the Paul Scherer Institute in Switzerland is being performed to investigated multidimensional behavior of the SBWR containment. The staff has concluded that l
4 these tests are necessary to support design certification. This i
test will include simulation of the major SBWR components, including the wetwell, drywell, isolation condenser, GDCS and the PCCS. The facility is 1/25-scale and full-height. The current schedule is for facility construction to be completed in November, 1993, and testing initiated in October, 1994. GE has stated that it will attempt to accelerate the schedule.
4 Overall coordination of this review shall be performed by SCSB.
SCSB will review the test program and matrix to ensure that the tests fully examine the SBWR containment performance. AEB will evaluate the scaling rationale and instrumentation planned for the facility. The evaluation of the PANDA facility will be provided to SCSB for inclusion in the safety analysis. Audit of approximately 5 test plans will be performed by SOSB, and tests j will be viewed to ensure that test conduct is consistent with the test plana.
I SCSB will review the vendor's code predictions for the PANDA facility to ensure that the code adequately predicts SBWR 4
containment behavior.
Pre- and post-test analysis will be performed by SASG, and AEB.
SCSB will coordinated these analysis efforts to minimize duplication of effort. SCSB will be informed of the tests selected for analysis. Results of the predictions shall be forwarded to SCSB for review to allow consideration of the
{ results in assessing the staff's audit analyses of the SBWR.
Resources:
SCSB 40 psw/$100k SASG 20 psw/Sok AEB 25 psw/$350k RPSB 15 psw/$300k Schedule:
. SCSB Evaluation of test program and matrix 2 mo. after submittal Audit of testing plans 2 mo. after submittal DSER input 8/93 View Tests Oct., 1994 - March, 1995 FSER input 8/94 Evaluation of test data 2 mo. after submittal FSER supplement 4/95
! I l
AEB/RPSB Evaluation of scaling and 6/93 l instrumentation to SCSB DSER input to SCSB 7/93 Pre-test analyses to SCSB 6/94 FSER input to SCSB 7/94
- Post-test analyses to SCSB 4 mo. after data receipt l
FSER supplement <
3/95 l
l SASG Pre-test analyses to SCSB 6/94 FSER input to SCSB 7/94 Post-test analyses to SCSB 4 mo. after data receipt FSER supplement 3/95
! Gravity-Driven Cooling System (GDCS) Integrated System Test j (GIST)
Testing of the GDCS was completed at the GIST facility. This testing was an integrated test simulating major components of the SBWR, although based on an earlier configuration of the design.
h The purpose of the test was to provide thermal-hydraulic data for verification of the TRACG code.
SRXB has lead responsibility for evaluating these tests. SRXB shall review the test program and matrix to ensure that an adequate range of conditions were tested. RPSB shall review the scaling and instrumentation used in the test to determine whether the tests were adequate to provide data for code assessment of i the GDCS behavior. Since the SBWR design,.and specifically the GDCS, has been modified since the GIST tests were performed, the evaluation shall specifically examine whether the tests were ,
j adequate for the current SBWR configuration. The results of this j review shall be forwarded to SRXB for inclusion in the safety '
evaluation. SRXB will review the test data, and the verification !
of the TRACG code as part of its overall assessment of the TRACG I code.
Post test analyses are planned by SASG and RPSB. SRXB shall be informed of the tests selected for analysis. Results of these
' analyses shall be forwarded to SRXB to assess the adequacy of audit calculetions performed for the SBWR.
SRXB shall forward its evaluation of the GIST tests to SCSB for incorporation in the coordinated SER input to ADAR.
i
4 Resources:
SRXB 6 psw/$40k RPSB 15 psw/S585k SASG 6 psw/$0k I
Schedule:
l I
SRXB Evaluation of test program and matrix 3/93 DSER input to SCSB 7/93 Evaluation of TRACG verification 2/94 l FSER input to SCSB 7/94 RPSB Evaluation of facility scaling and 3/93 l and instrurnentation l DSER input to SRXB 6/93 l Post-test analyses to SRXB 9/93 l FSER input to SRXB 6/94 SASG Post-test analyses to SRXB 9/93
! FSER input to SRXB 6/94 i
Squib Valve Testing l The squib valves are important components in the SBWR, and are i required to depressurize the SBWR to allow draining from the l GDCS. Limited squib valve testing has been performed by GE, and )
the staff has recommended additional testing be performed to ;
ensure adequate valve reliability. GE has not yet informed the i staff of any additional testing planned.
The Mechanical Engineering Branch (EMEB) is responsible for the I review of these tests. A technical assistance contract is in l place for the review of the testing program. EMEB will review the test program, testing matrix, testing plans, and test results to ensure that the testing will be adequate for establishing reliable valve performance. EMEB will assist SRXB in assuring l that the test results confirm the nodeling assumptions use in the safety analysis. EMCB will also review the test data to assess squib valve performance from the aspect of valve degradation due to possible internal crevice corrosion. The DSER input should discuss the adequacy of the testing plans and program; FSER input should discuss the results of the testing and conclusions relative to valve performance.
i Resources:
EMEB 4 psw/$50K SRXB 2 psw/SOK ,
SCSB 1 psw/S0k EMCB 1 psw/$0k Schedule:
- t i
EMEB
- DSER input.to SCSB 7/93 FSER input to SCSB 7/94 SRXB :
i DSER input to SCSB 7/93 FSER input to SCSB 7/94 EMCB !
DSER input to SCSB "r/93 l i
FSER input to SCSB 7/94 !t SCSB DSER input to ADAR 8/93 FSER input to ADAR 8/94 ;
i SBWR Small Scale Loop h
The staff is planning confirmatory, small scale integral systems '
testing of the SBWR. A request for proposal has been issued, and testing is expected to begin in FY94.
l Although these tests are confirmatory, and therefore not required to certify the SBWR design, the results of these tests will be used to verify the staff's RELAP5/ MOD 3 computer code. The staff will utilize this code to perform audit calculations of the SBWR design. DSER input is not required for this testing.
RPSB has the lead responsibility for these tests. RPS3 will perform the scaling analyses, and develop the test plans and matrices. RPSB shall keep SRXB informed of its plans and will solicit SRXB comments on the proposed test plans and matrices.
Data reports will be forwarded to SRXB for review. If any.
unusual behavior is identified during the tests, RPSB shall {
immediately inform SRXB, SCSB and DAR in order to allow these l results to be considered in the staff's safety evaluation of the I design.
1
. . _ - , . . . , .-. - --,., ------------~------!
l
{
l l
l Pre-test and post-test predictions will be performed by RPSB and j SASG using the RELAP5/ MOD 3 code. These Branches shall coordinate l their efforts to minimize duplication of effort. SRXB shall be kept informed of the results to allow conclusions on code adequacy to be considered in assessing audit results performed for the AP600 design. '
I Resources: l RPSB 25 psw/$555K l SASG 16 psw/SOK l SRXB 16 psw/$0K Schedule: .
1 Because this testing is confirmatory, no schedule is required for ;
using these test results.
IUIFEICENCES i
- 1. Memorandum, T. E. Murley and E. S. Beckjord to J. M. Taylor, ;
SUBJECT:
Program for the Review of Vendor's Test Programs l
to Support Design Certification of Advanced Reactors, April j l 6, 1992. I b
1
- 2. Memorandum, T. E. Mi.rley to E. S. Beckjord,
SUBJECT:
Coordination Plan for Passive Reactor Testing and Analysis, June 8, 1992.
l
\
l l
l l
l i
t* f
- i l l TABLE 2 ;
Summary of Resources for Testing Reviews lo l
l .
Branch FTE Tech Assist I (Sk) ,
l SRXB' 3.0 350 SCSB 2.5 330 SASG 2.3 0- l EMEB 0.2 100 f RPS B*
- 5.5 7370 f A EB*
- 1.7 1400 l EMCB 0.1 0 ;
t ADAR 0.6 0 i Additional 0.5 FTE/$200K allocated for code review and i verification [
Where resources / technical assistance were shown combined i
> for these branches, the total has been split '
approximately equally for inclusion in this table ;
i l
l I
-__-,...,_~._.__.~....,1,.
ENCLOSURE 1 OUTLINE FOR SER INPUT Executive Summary (SRXB for AP600 or SCSB for SBWR)
- 1. Introduction (SRXB for AP600 or SCSB for SBWR)
This section should describe the general purpose of the evaluation. Specifically, it should provide a brief summary of the passive safety features used in the design, and how they are unique in comparison to currently operating plants.
It should then discuss the requirements of 10 CFR 52.47 (b) (2) . It should be noted that validated computer codes are needed to predict the safety perforbance of the design and that the vendor has developed a testing program to gather the data necessary to_ confirm code adequacy.
Finally, an outline of how the report is organized should be provided.
2.
Issues of Concerns (SRXB for AP600 or SCSB for SBWR)
In this section a summary of the important issues related to performance of the passive safety systems should be provided. This should highlight those issues which required testing and will lead into the subsequent sections of the report.
- 3. Overview of Vendor Testing Programs (responsible Branch)
This section should describe, on a test procram basis, the vendors testing program. The purpose of the tests should be described here. TLese should be directly related to the issues of concern.
- 4. Overview of NRC Activities (responsible Branch)
On a test crocram basis, a description of the NRC activities should be provided in this section. An introductory paragraph should explain the " audit" nature of the review.
This section should be very similar to the task descriptions presented in this plan.
- 5. Evaluation of Vendor Testing Programs (responsible Branch)
Within this section, on a test procram basis, the evaluation of the testing program should be provided. It should reflect an evaluation of how the issues of concerns were satisfied by the testing, and the evaluation of the test facility (e.g. results of scaling review if performed).
l r
I i
- 6. Code Validation (responsible branch)
Within this section, a summary of the vendor's code validation program should be described along with the staff's conclusion on code adequacy. The basis for concluding that the code is adequate for supporting certification should be provided.
- 7. Compliance with 10 CFR 52.47 (b) (2) (SRXB for AP600 or SCSB for SBWR) . ,
Each element of 10 CFR 52.47(b) (2) should be discussed separately. It is expected that this section will simpl:' be a summary of the document and its conclusions.
l l
l l
1 l
I j
i i
l l
l l
- _ .-. . . . . - . . - . .. . . . . ~ . .. . . _ , . _ . . _ - - . . - . . . - _ _ _ . _ _ . - . _ . - . - _ . - - - - -_ - __
r
'I f
i f
l TABLE 1 i
OVERVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN r
9 I
~ TEST SCAUNG TEST VENDOR hac MfW RfSID(NT 'VihDOR CATA NAC [
PROGAAu & ANO PLAN PRE-TEST PRE TEST TEST (NG6MitR POST TEST RtMEW POSTTtST
- uATans eNSTRumfMTAitON A& MEW PatDCTOs PREDICTION PR(DecisON 5%EDCT6DN ;
AP888 i
cut TESTS SAnadRPSS RPS8/SAAS SAA8APSS NO NO SAAS NO SARS SRASAPSS APS8/SASG/SAAS ADS TESTS SNES/SCSS NO SAAS/SCSS ho ho SAAS/SCSS NO SAAS/SCS8 SRAS/SCSS NO !
PnHR TESTS SARSAPSS RPSS/SAAS NO hO NO^ NO NO SAA8 SAAS/M*S8 I RPS8/SASGr$nAS weeO TuMNEA TESTS SCSS ALS/SCSS NO hO eso NO NO NO SCSS NO PCCS TE.9 8 SCSS AE8/SCSS SCSS NO NO SCS8/AES NO SCSS SCS8/AES AIS/SASG/SCS8 ChtCs vAug TESTS tut 4/tuCS NO su(84mCS - No no tue8 NO SAA8 twe8/tuC8 =0 OSU SAABAPSS APS8/SAAS SAA8APS8 SAKS APS8/SASG SAAS/HPSS NO SAA8 SRA8APS8 RPS8/SASG SPf' SAA8APSS APSGSAKS SAABAPSS SRA8 BPS 8/SASG SAK8APS8 NO SAA8 SRAS/RPSS RPS8/SASG i
AOSA APS8/SAAS APSS/SAAS APSS/SAAS hO HPh8/SASG APS8/SRAS RPSS NO HPS8/SRA8 APS8/SASG 88tafR UCG4NT SCSSSAA8APSS APSS HPSS .NO esO NO NO SRA8 SCS8 SRASAPS8 RPS8 G4AAfff SCSS SAA8eAES RPSS AIS RPS8/SCS8 SCSS SRAS/Att RPS8 SCSS ,+(b HPS8 SCS8 SAASAPSS NO SCSS SCSS SRAS/AES APSS Af8 RPSS/SASG i
PANTHEAS SCSS SARS APSS/SCSS SCSSSRAS hO APS84ASG SCSSSHAS NO SCSS SCSS SRA8APSS APS8/SASG PANDA SCSS Als/SCS8 APES SCSS SCSS At S/SASG SCS84A18APSS NO SCSS SCS8/At S A18/SASCAPSS GIST SRAS MPSS/SAAS NO hO NO hO NO SRA8 SAA8APS8 HPS8/SASG SQui8 VALV45 tuf8 NO IMit NO NO NO NO ho IMtSetMCS ho SSWRLOOP MPS8/bhAS hPG8/SAAS HPS8thRAS hO MP2/hAbt. WW. *A m8 hO NO hPSB,w a ts hPSB, bASG l
I o
- _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.A_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ - --- - - -