ML20062J196
| ML20062J196 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200003, 05200004 |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1993 |
| From: | Thadani A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062J189 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9302220327 | |
| Download: ML20062J196 (31) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _
h j* +y p"% j
?, UNITED STATES l l 1
i
[.}
7
)". , i E
NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHING T ON. D. C. 20555 i
l' %. . .. l I h,,',,,
February 17, 1993
{
MEMORANDUM FOR: Dennis M. Crutthfield, Associate Director for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal FROM: Ashok C. Thadani, Director Division of Systems Safety and Analysis t
l
SUBJECT:
REVISED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE REVIEW 0F VENDOR TESTING I PROGRAMS FOR THE AP600 AND SBWR l
I l
Enclosed is a revision of the detailed review plan for the vendors' testing programs supporting the AP600 and SBWR designs, the original version of which l was transmitted to you by memorandum dated October 21, 1992. This revision j
does not affect any resource estimates or review commitments. The revisions to the plan relate to two items.
- 1. The review schedules for the AP600 and SBWR have been extended by several months, to account for the time required for the vendors l
to complete their design certification applications. In addition,
' some of the vendors' testing programs, most notably Westinghouse's core makeup tank, automatic depressurization system, and reduced-scale integral systems tests, have been delayed substantially beyond their original completion dates. The schedules for review and for input to the DSERs and FSERs have thus been revised to reflect the extension of the review schedules, and also to be consistent with the current projected schedules for vendor testing, analysis, and issuance of test reports.
- 2. In recent meetings between NRR and RES management and the ACRS, the staff committed to work with the ACRS to assure that the j Committee has the opportunity to participate fully in the review l of the vendors' test facility designs, test matrices, and test results. The review schedule for each separate test program has l
therefore been amended to include projected interaction points between the staff and the ACRS. The ACRS meetings shown for early 1993 have been tentatively scheduled. The meeting dates shown in 1994 are estimates, and are subject to change depending on future alterations in the vendors' or the staff's schedules.
1 I
l s '
(
hD1 nclosur
a
.. Dennis M. Crutchfield February 17, 1993 Questions on this plan should to be directed to M. Rubin (SRXB) for the AP600 and R. Lobel (SCSS) for the SSWR.
Ontc tlA1. StGtiED BY A. C. THADA*il Ashok C. Thadar.i, Director l Division of Systems Safety and Analysis l
Enclosure:
l As stated l
cc: J. Taylor R. Pierson C. Tinkler J. Sniezek J. florberg D. Bessette E. Beckjord L. Shotkin F. Hasselberg T. Speis T. Eltawila T. Hiltz B. Sheron J. Strosnider J. Thompson T. fturley J. Murphy 1. Catton F. Miraglia R. Caruso R. Fraley W. Russell J. Kudrick P. Boehnert M. Taylor fl. Lauben l D157ETEUiiO'1 Central fties SRXB R/F A7hadani l RJones RBarrett P. Rubin Alevin Alevin R/F Doc. flare: G : \f'EWT E S . PL fl (4, SRXS:DSSA SRXB:DSSA SRXB:DSSA 14 t s\ 1 ) f) ,
SC5B:055A D:055A Atevin: Bah
- ftRubin' RJones* RBarrett' ATh;dani 1/ /93 1/ /93 1/ /93 1/ /93 p/ /93
- SEE PREVIOUS C0tlCURREriCE PAGE l
REVIEW PLAN FOR AP600 AND SBWR
. TESTING PROGRAMS INTRODUCTION To support certification of the AP600 and the Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (SBWR) passive reactor designs, both Westinghouse L and General Electric have developed testing and analysis l programs. It is the responsibility of the Office of Nuclear >
Reactor Regulation (NRR) to evaluate the applicants' testing and analysis programs to ensure that the requirements of 10 CFR
- 52. 4 7 (b) (2 ) are met. Assistance from the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) was previously requested to support this effort.
In SECY-91-273, NRC described its approach for review of the ,
design certification testing programs. Reference 1 describes URC's program to evaluate, monitor ind approve the vendor's testing program consistent with SECi'-91-273. Both NRR and RES personnel will be needed to perform this evaluation. Reference 2 l provides the overall coordination plan for implementing this
! program. However, both these' references provide only a general '
outline; the specific work efforts, and estimated resources, were ,
not defined.
This implementation plan describes in detail the activities planned to reach a conclusion on the adequacy of the vendor's ;
testing and analytical programs. This plan assigns responsibility for each activity, the estimated resources, i
schedule, and the products which are to be produced. Further, a i general outline is provided for the DSER and FSER inputs to !
assure that the plan elements can be integrated into a focused assessmen..
OVEILALL RESPCetSII31LrrY !
The purpose of this implementation plan is to describe in detail l 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. l These inputs are to meet the dates established by ADAR (currently '
i 12/93 for AP600 DSER, 3/94 for SBWR DSER, 12/94 for AP600 FSER and 2/95 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 programs will. not have been completed, the DSER should use tnis outline to explain that will be documented in the FSER.
i l
l l
l 1
- l Many of the activities described below are expected to produce detailed technical reports. As these reports are produced, copics 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 assig.1ed 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 copics of input shall be provided on floppy discs to SRXB or SCSB, as appropriate, one month prior to the DSER and FSER input dates.
i SRXB or SCSB, as appropriate, shall provide the combined DSER and FSER inputs to ADAR.
Resources:
SEXB B psw SCSB 8 psw Schedule:
SRXB DSER input for AP600 to ADAR 12/93 FSER input for AP600 to ADAR 12/94 SCSB DSER input for SBWR to ADAR 3/94 FSER input for SBWR to ADAR 2/95 l
OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES 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 the testing programs planned by the vendor. Thus, this table I 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 tabic. As noted on the table, there are l several activities wherein no action is planned. This is consistent with the " sampling" approach discussed in Reference 1.
In addition, within a given activity, some sampling will also occur as listed in the more 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 estimated schedule for the review, based on the current vendor testing schedules. Delayn in the vender cet edules wi}1 result in modification of the schedule and may alco impact resource estimates. Estimated resources for each activity ere also l
l l i
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, l
provide confirmation on the adequacy of the level instrumentation i used in the CMT to initiate ADS, and provide data on specific thermal-hydraulic behavior in the CMT, such as condensation behavior and thermal stratification. These tests will be used by i Westinghouse to verify their computer codes.
Currently, the test configuration has been esthblished and detailed test facility design is underway. Facil*ity construction is to be completed by January 1993; shakedown tests are to be completed February 1993; testing is to be completed by May 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 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 l approximately 5 test plans will be performed to ensure that the testing is properly conducted, and some of these tests will be l witnessed to confirm the tests are conducted consistent with the l test plans.
l
! 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 l predicted the observed phenomena. Tests will be selected for i 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 itr assessment. RPSB will have primary reuiew of the sca] ira analysis and J r.strumentation review and will forward its assessment to SRXD. SRXB will assess the data to ensure its l
l
b l
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 censidered in assessing the results of audit analyses performed for the AP600 design. SRXB will compile DSER/TSER input for transmittal to ADAR, Resources:
SRXB 52 psw/$40k j
RPSB. 20 psw/S600k h_ -
M#
l l Schedule: V l
! SRXB Evaluation of test program and matrix 2/93 Audit of testing plans 2/93 View Test 2/93-5/93 DSER input 12/93 Evaluation of test data 8/94 Evaluation of code verification 12/94 TSER input to ADAR 12/94 RPSB ,,2f?#I)
Corrents on test program and natrix 2/93 to SRXB Comments on test plans to SRXB 2/93 i Evaluation cf scaling and 3/93 i instrunentation DSER input t SRXB 10/93 Post test analyses with RELAPS 10/93-12/93 TSER input to SRXB 10/94 ACRS Interaction Points Review of facility design and J /'/ 93 test matrix Review of test results 2/94 and analyses
e Aute=atic Depressurization System (ADS) Tests A critical component in the AP600 design is the ADS. These ,
valves depressurize the reactor coolant system to allow gravity l 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 I Casaccia, Italy. The Phase A tests are underway, to examine the l 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 July 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 dr cided not to test this valve as part of the Phase B ADS program, out will test the f ourth stage valves separately at a later date. Estimated completion date for these tests is December 1994.
SRXB will have overall lead responsibility for review of these l tests. SRXB will review the test program, test matrix, and audit l selected test plans to ensure that the testing program adequately
! characterizes ADS valve performance. SRXB also plans to visit l
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 cbserved behavior. EMEB will assist SRXB through review of the test program and data to assess ADS valve performance and reliability.
SCSB will perform a similar review to that planned by SRXB except its efforts will focus on the sparger behavior. SCSB shall provide results of its review to SRXB for inclusion in the DSER and FSER inputs. ,
1 Resources:
SRXB 8 psw/S20k SCSB 8 psv/S20k EMEB 2 psw/S0k l
r Schedule: I SRXB l !
! Evaluation of test program and matrix 3/93 ;
3/93 Audit of testing plans- ;
View Test 10/93 - 12/93 l DSER input to ADAR 12/93 !
Evaluation of test data 4/94 i Evaluation of code verification 12/94 i TSER input to ADAR 12/94 .
SCSB Evaluation of test program and matrix, 3/93 j Audit of testing plans 3/93 !
DSER input to SRXB 10/93 j Evaluation of test data 4/94 1 Evaluation of code verification 10/94 i TSER input to SRXB 10/94 l l
EMEB j DSER input to SRXB 10/93 4 TSER input to SRXB 10/94 ;
ACRS Interaction Points '
Review of facility design and 5/93 i test matrix !
Review of test results and 7/94 l analyses ,
Passive Residual Heat.Recoval (PRHR) Tests l PEHR system testing has been completed by Westinghouse. The perpose 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 PRHR system. RPSB will evaluate the specifics of the test facility design and forward its evaluation to SRXB.
ihe test data, and the associated modeling of tna. PRHR by }j, vill be evoluated by SRXB to ensure that the PRHR system has been appropriately reflected in the AP600 safety analyses. RPSB wi}l l
l -
l l
0 assess the capability of the RELAPS/ 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:
SRXS 6 psw/S20k RPSB 5 psw/5275h Schedule:
SRXB Evaluation of test program and matrix 2/93 Evaluation of test data 5/93 DSER input 12/93 Evaluation of code verification 12/94 TSER input 12/94
, RPSB Evaluation of scaling and 2/93 l
instrumentation DSER input to SRXB 10/93 i Post test analyses with RELAP5 2/94 l FSER input to SRXB 10/94 l ACRS Interaction Points Review of test program 5/93 Wind Tunnel Tests The AP600 contairment is cooled by natural circulation around the outside of the containment shell. Westinghouse has perforred a l series of wind tunnel tests to examine the effect of wind l
' direction and speed on the operation of the containment cooling air inlet design. The first two phases of this program have been completed; the third and fourth phases are scheduled to be completed by September 1993.
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 will perform a detailed review of the test scaling and instrumentation and forward these results to SCSB. SCSB shall provide DSER and TSER inpu*. to SRXB for inclusion in the overall evaluation to be sut':.itted to ADAR.
l
i 1
l
> 1 l'
I Resources: l SCSB B psw/$20k AEB 3 psw/550k SRXB 1 psw/S0k i l
l l
Schedule:
SCSB Evaluation of test program and matrix 8/93 Evaluation of test results 12/93 DSER input to SRXB 10/93 FSER input to SRXB 10/94 AEB l
Evaluation of scaling and 8/93 instrumentation to SCSB DSER input to SCSB 10/93 SRXB l
DSER input to ADAR 12/93 l FSER input to ADAR 12/94 l ACRS Interaction Points Review of test program 2/94 l 1
Passive Contain=ent Cooling System (PCCS) Tests i i
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 l transfer on the containment exterior, and water distribution on I 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 i containment shell will also be conducted to study water distribution on the containment exterior. These tests are to be l completed by June 1993.
Overall review of the PCCS tests belongs to SCSD, however, i significant assistance is needed fram AEB. She effort will !
Include a review of tne testing program, and testing matrix to ensure that the objectives will fully eve.luate the performance of the PCCS and ensure that an appropriate range of conditions are
_9_
' examined. ~rurther, 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 predict ed by the AP600 safety analyses. The vendor code verification afforts 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. E SCSB will have lead responsibility for.the rgview of the test program, matrices, and test plan reviews. AE8 yill have primary review of the scaling analysis and instrumentatibn 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. l t
Input for t"c.DSER and FSER will be provided to SRXB for ;
inclusion .n the overall safety evaluation of the vendor's testing program.
Resources:
SCSB 26 psw/580k AEB 50 psw/5800k SRXB 1 psw/S0k ,
Schedule:
SCSB Evaluation of test program and matrix 4/93 Audit of testing plans 4/93 View Test 4/93 - 6/93 ,
DSEP input to SRXB 12/93 Evalu: tion of test data 10/93 Evaluation of code verification 10/94 TSER input to SRXB 10/94
9 AEB Evaluation of scaling and 4/93 instrumentation DSER input to SCSB 10/93 Pre-test analyses with CONTAIN 6/93 Post-test analyses with CONTAIN 6/94 i FSER input to SCSB 10/94 SRXB DSER input to ADAR 12/93 FSER input to ADAR 12/94 ACRS Interaction Points Review of test program 5/93 and test matrix Review of test data and 7/94 analyses 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 coolant conditions could afftet the behavior of the valves.
Preliminary hydraulic testing of the valves has been completed, but these tests were not performed on the " biased open" valves now planned for the AP600. Qualification testing of the valves is planned for completion by June 1994. ,
The Mechanical Engineering Branch (EMEB) is responsible for the -
review of these tests. A technical assistance contract is in place for the review of the testing program. EMEB will review the test program, testing matrix, and testing plans, to ensure 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 an appropriate range of conditions is included to adequately 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 should discuss the adequacy of the testing plans and program; ,
FSEP 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.
)
. . . . - . , . , , -,...m., 4
l l
l Resources:
EMEB 4 psw/$50k l SRXB 2 psw/S0k EMCB 2 psw/Sok i
Schedule:
EMEB )
l DSER input to SRXB 10/93 FSER input to SRXB 10/94 EMCB DSER input to SRXB 10/93 FSER input to SRXB 10/94 SRXB DSER input 12/93 FSER input 12/94 ACRS Interaction Points Review of in-situ program 5/93 Review of in-situ test data 7/94 Oregon State University (OSU) Tests Westinghouse is performing low-pressure, reduced-height integral system testing at OSU. The purpose of these tests is to de.onstrate that gravity driven injection and natural convection provided adequate Jong-term cooling for the AP600 design. The data will be used to verify the computer codes used in the AP600 safety analysis. Facility construction is to be completed in April 1993, shakedown testing in June 1993, and matrix testing in l October 1993. Westinghouse's post-test analysis effort is
( scheduled to be completed in February 1994, but the details of that effort have not yet been provided.
Overall review of the OSU tests belongs to SRXB, however, I
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 long-term cooling of the AP600 design and ensure that an appropriate range of conditions are examined. Further, a detailed revieV of the scaling cht sen for the tests, and the instrumentatich to be used will be performed co ensure that sufficient data is provided for code assessment. An audit of approxirately 5 test plans will be performed te ensure that the l
- 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. f 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 ist 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 t l assessment to SRXB. SRXB will assess the data to ensure its I 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 i both SASG and RPSB. RPSB and SASG shall inform SRXB of the tests ;
i selected for analysin. Results of the verification analysis l shall be provided to SRXD to allow conclusions on co'edadequacy
( to be considered in assessing the results of audit analyses j
~
performed for the AP600 design, i
Resources: :
SRXB 26 psw/S60k l SASG 20 psw/50k j RPSB 35 psw/S1265k j Schedule: l SRXB (
Evaluation of test program and matrix 2/93 l Audit of testing plans 4/93 View Test 6/93 - 10/93 DSER input 12/93 ;
Evaluation of test data 4/94 !
Evaluation of code verification 12/94 {
FSER input 12/94 j i
i t
I
RPSB Comments on test program and matrix 1/93 to SRXB Comments on test plans to SRXB 3/93 Evaluation of scaling and 3/93 instrumentation to SRXB Pre-test analyses to SRXB 7/93 DSER input to SRXB 10/93 Post-test analyses to SRXB 6/94 FSER input to SRXB 10/94 SASG Pre-test analyses to SRXB 7/93 DSER input to SRXB 10/93 Post-test analyses to SRXB 6/94 TSER input to SRXB 10/94 ACRS Interaction Points Review of test program 5/93 Review of test data and 8/94 analyses SPES-2 Tests l
l Full-height, high-pressure integral systems testing of the AP600 design is planned to be performed at the SPES-2 facility in 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 January 1993, shakedown testing by May 1993, and matrix testing by December 1993. All post-test analyses are scheduled to be completed by February 1994, but details of the analysis plan have j not been provided by Westinghouse at this time.
i SRXB has lead responsibility for evaluation of the SPES-2 tests and preparation of DSER/TSER inputs. This review will be performed in the same manner as that described above for the OSU tests.
Resources:
SRXB 40 psw/$100k S ASc, 20 psw/50k RPSB 35 pss/51260k l
i 1
l l
)
Schedule: l 1
SRXB ,
l Evaluation of test program and matrix 2/93 2/93 Audit of testing plans View Test 4/93 - 12/93 DSER input 12/93 )
Evaluation of test data 2/94 i Evaluation of code verification 12/94 l FSER input 12/94 i EPSB l Comments on test program and matrix 1/93 to SRXB Comnents on test plans to SRXB 2/93 Evaluation of scaling and 2/93 instrumentation to SRXB DSER input to SRXB 10/93 Pre-test analyses to SRXB 6/93 Post-test analyses to SRXB 5/94 FSER input to SRXB 10/94 SASG Pre-test analyses to SRXB 6/93 Post-test analyses to SRXB 4/94 FSER input to SRXB 10/9*
ACRS Interaction Points Review of test program 5/93 Review of test data and 8/94 analyses ROSA-V Tests l
The staff will perform confirmatory full-height, high-pressure integral systems testing of the AP600 design in the ROSA-V l facility in Japan. Negotiations are underway with the Japanese :
I for this testing. The tentative schedule is to complete facility modifications by October 1993, initiate testing in December l 1993, and complete testing by December 1994. An option is expected to allow for an additional year of testing at the facility.
l Although these tests are confirmatory, and therefore not required to certify the AP60n design, the resulto of these tests will be used to verify the staff's RELAPS/ MOD 3 computer code. Tne staff will utilize this code to perform audit calculations of the AP600 !
design. DSER input is not required for this testing. l l
l l l
h i !
f.
t l
RPSB has the lead responsibility for these tests. RPSB-will !
i perform the scaling analyses, and develop the test plans and matrices. RPSB shall keep SRXB informed of its plans and will l 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 l staff's safety evaluatien of the design. j Pre-test and post-test predictions will be perfdrmed by RPSB and SASG using.the RELAPS/ MOD 3 code. These Branches.shell coordinate ;
their efforts to minimize duplication of effort. .SRXB shall be ;
kept informed of the results to allow conclusions on code. i adequacy to be' considered-in assessing audit results performed j for the AF600 design. ;
Resources:
RPSB 54 psw/S1955k SASG- 16 psw/50k SRXB 20 psw/S0k
}
Schedule: l Because this testing is confirmatory, no schedule is required for !'
- using these test results.
SinVR Review Plan ;
i University of California at Berkeley / Massachusetts Institute of l l
Technology (UCD/MIT) Correlations -
i The SBWR design utilizes isolation condensers for decay heat removal from the reactor coolant system and passive beat removal i from the containment. A series of prototypical, sirgle tube tests have been completed at UCB and MIT to evaluate the effect of non-condensible gases on tube-side heat transfer. The data ;
were utilized to develop a heat transfer correlation which has l been incorporated into tne TP.ACG code.
l l SCSB has the lead for reviesing these tests. It will review the ;
L test conduct and instrumentation to ensure that an adequate range l of initial conditions have been tested to cover possible SBWR l
- _ . . _ _ . , - _ . _ _ _ , . , . ..._,__-._,,m _ ,,..,,,_c.
hu-9 i:
c;.
- N.
~
f
,v .
- i. t
?
. conditions. SRXB will review the specific implementation of the correlation in the TRACG code. RPSB will also review the data to ,
incorporate and test an appropriate correlation for use in the RELAPS/ MOD 3 code. Both SRXB and RPSB will provide summary DSER and FSER inputs to-SCSB for incorporation into the safety-evaluation.
Resources: I SCSB 4 psw/S10k .
SRXB 4 psw/S10k '
RPSB 5 psw/S100k Schedule:
SCSB ;
P s/ Evaluate test program, test matrix and 3/93 s- results sOSER input to ADAR 3/94
-FSER input to ADAR 2/95 >
5 SRXB
/ Evaluate correlation implementation in 1/94 TRACG
- DSER input to SCSB 2/94 7, FSER input to SCSB 1/95 I RFSB
' Incorporate correlation in RELAPS 6/93 l / Provide comments on correlation to SRXB 8/93 L VDSER input to SCSB 2/94
/FSER input to SCSB 1/95 ACRS Interaction Points
/ Review of test program 4/93
!- dR eview of test data and 1/94 i analyses l-c GIRAFFE
/. 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 b used for the SBWR safety analysis. These tests utilized a l simulation or the SBWR containment to examine the overall PCCS h performance, particularly the performance of the isolation l~
g- .t.
l
- , =
- , . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ . , - . ~ _ , _ , . , , . . _ , - , , . . . , _ . - . . . . _ , . _ , . . . . . _ . , , . . _ _ _ _ . . .. _
W 1.Y Es .
H.
i- _17_
condenser to purge non-condensible gases. While these tests have 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.
v
/, 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.
Data review will be performed by SCSB to assess the overall ,
- portormance of the PCCS. SRXB will evaluate the vendor's !
l predictions with the TRACG code as part of its overall evaluation ,
- of the code.
i Pre- and post-test analyses of those 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 l assessing audit analyses performed for the SBWR. !
! Resources:
l SCSB 26 psw/S80k
, SRXB 6 psw/$40k l
SASG 12 psw/S0k
[ RPSB/AEB 25 psw/S400K i
b Schedule:
o
! SCSB
Evaluation of test program and matrix 4/93
-Audit of testing plans 4/93
-View Test 3/93 - 12/93 L, DSER input 2/94 f -Evaluation of test data 4/94 y TSER input 2/95
- f. SRXB f
[. , /DSER input to SCSB 2/94 P. v Evaluation of TRACG code verification 9/94 L 4stu input to SCSB 1/95 P.
O
- 9*
9"
+ - -
t l
RPSB/AEB i
+
l / Comments on test program and matrix 4/93 to SCSB I- I Comments on test plans to SCSB 4/93 f Ivaluation of scaling and 4/03 2 instrumentation to SCSB /
} vfSERinput to SCSB C/33 -7/T4 i / Pre-test analyses to SCSB 10/93
- _ -Pest-test analyses to SCSB 6/94 y TSER input to SCSB 1/95 2
SASG
{ Post-test analyses to SCSB 6/94 J ,FSER input to SCSB 1/95 k.
ACRS Interaction Points S / Review of previous data and 4/93
- ^ ' plans for additional tests jReview of test data and analyses 11/94 M PANTHERS h
C. Tull-scale testing of the isolation condensers is planned as part 3 of the PANTHERS testing program at Piacenza, Italy. This testing S will provide final confirmation of the performance of the
? isolation condenser including heat transfer and structural 6 behavior. Testing is to be completed in March, 1994 for the PCCS
_% and July, 1994 for the isolation condenser.
W SCSB has the lead review for this effort, concentrating on the h full scale performance of the PCCS. SRXB will assist SCSB by
-N evaluating the isolation condenser tests. Both SCSB and SRXB
- % will evaluate the test programs and testing matrix for the PCCS
't and isolation condenser, respectively. Audits of the testing
- , plans will be performed and the tests will be viewed to ensure
'j testing is conducted in accordance with the test plans.
.M
'm RPSB will review the scaling and instrumentation used in these j tests to ensure that adequate data is obtained. The results of 1
its review shall be forwarded to SCSB for inclusion in the safety jg evaluation.
ff SRXB shall review GE's code predictions for these tests. This
[J "
will be performed as part of the overall evaluation of the TRACG code.
- l) A summary of the review shall be provided to SCSB.
L' F '
wt p
h)d -
l$
n n r 1 w rw - . -- - i n e_ rm v r .T > L' - ?!m ,- - m _ , ,a== 2 g gm y yn n g.g gvvp a gy g ,a a, g - - , 7 ai4 c..i y n p y a , {'
.n;
't.
".e'
~
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 for the SBWR. ,
l Resources:
SCSD 8 psw/520k ,;
SRXB 4 psw/$20k SASG 8 psw/$0k RPSB 15 psw/S275k l Schedule:
SCSD
' Evaluation of test program and matrix 2/93
-Au d it of testing plans 3/93
<DSER input to ADAR 3/94 ;
VView test 3/93 -
2/94 sEvaluation of test data 5/94 sFSER input to ADAR 2/95 l
SRXB Comments on test program and matrix 4/93 to SCSB
< Audit of testing plans 8/93 jDSER input to SCSB 1/94
' Evaluation of TRACG code verification 12/94 1
, FSER input to SCSB 1/95 RPSB
/ Comments on test program and matrix 4/93 to SCSB f Connents on test plans to SCSB 7/93
/ Evaluation of scaling and 6/93 instrumentation to SCSB
,<DSER input to SCSB 2/94 i
-Pre-test analyses to SCSB 12/93 1
-Post-test analyses to SCSB 11/94 TSER input to SCSB 1/95 SASG
/ Pre-test analyses to SCSB 12/93 Post-test analyses to SCSB 11/94
-TSER input to SCSB 1/93 i.
-s I kI43 m'IO 3 M N.
^
M hemelE* 4e =M U .e i.eIs* E mh [h k g' T k ed .b[ b4 lib b,M g .Yn Fd.T.',D' 87- ' b 6E#b [e
ACRS Interaction Points
- /R eview of test program 4/93
' Review of test data and analyses 11/94 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 these tests are necessary to support design certification. This test will include simulation of the major SBWR components, including the wetwell, drywell, isolation condenser, GDCS and the l PCCS. Tre 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.
Overall coordination of this review shall be performed by SCSB.
SCSB wi}l review the test program and matrix 1.o ensure that the tests fully examine the SBWR containment performance. .AEB will evaluate the scaling rationale ind instrumentation planned for the facility. The evaluation of the PANDA facility will be g
provided to SCSB for inclusion in the safety analysis. Audit of approximately 5 test plans will be performed by SCSB, and tests will be viewed to ensure that test conduct is consistent with the
( test plans.
. SCSB will review the vendor's code predictions for the PANDA facility to ensure that the code cdequately predicts SBWR containment behavior.
i Pre- and post-test analysis will be performed by SASG, and AEB. '
? SCSB will coordinated these analysis efforts to minimize
- Y duplication of effort. SCSB will be informed of the tests T selected for analysis. Results of the predictions shall be forwarded to SCSB for review to allow consideration of the l I
results in assessing the staff's audit analyses of the SBWR.
a JI Resources:
i SCSB 40 psw/$100k SASG 20 psw/Sok hf, AEB 25 psw/S350k g
si RPSB 15 psw/$300k W<
v l
o1 p.
,,g.,m,, _m . ,,
Schedule:
1
- SCSB
/ Evaluation of test program and matrix 2 mo. after submittal
/ Audit of testing plans 2 mo. after submittal
<#DSER input to ADAR 3/94 View Tests 10/94 -
3/95 h /TSER input to ADAR 2/95 h / Evaluation of test data 2 mo. after submittal
/TSER supplement to ADAR 10/95 AEB/RPSB 4
-Evaluation of scaling and 12/93 instrumentation to SCSB DSER input to SCSB 2/94 Tre-test analyses to SCSB 12/94
- SER input to SCSB 1/95 l / Post-test analyses to SCSB 4 mo. after data receipt
- [TSER supplement 9/95 SASG
-Pre-test analyses to SCSB 10/94
'TSER input to SCSB 1/95 l
Post-test analyses to SCSB 4 mo. after data receipt TSER supplement 9/95 ACRS Interaction Points 3 mo. after suSmittal l.<Reviewoftestprogramand test matrix
-Review of test data and analyses 6 mo. after data receipt Gravity-Driven Coo 3ing System (GDCS) Integrated System Test (GIST) l Testing of the CDCS was completed at the GIST facility. This i testing was an integrated test simulating major components of the j
{ SBWR, although based on an earlier configuration of the design. i
$ The purpose of the test was to provide thermal-hydraulic data for l l F verification of the TRACG code. '
SRXB has lead responsibility for evaluating these tests. SRXB
! shall review the test program and on.trix to ensure that an adequate range et conditions were tested. RPSB shall review the F scaling and instrumentation used iri the tect tu determine whether
[ the tests were adequate to provide data for code assessment of 5 ,
E I
N^ WNNYbEbbb.N$W_M5.IDY.k, NN. ,Nk,b 'Mh N[kN l _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _
g the CDCS 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 adequate for the current SBWR configuration. The results of this 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 code.
Post test analyses are planned by SASG and RPSB. SRXB shall be inforced of the tests selected for analysis. Results of these analyses shall be forwarded to SRXB to assess the adequacy of audit calculations performed for the SBWR.
SRXB shall forward its evaluation of the GIST tests to SCSB for
! incorporation in the coordinated SER input to ADAR. l 1
1 Resources:
l SRXB 6 psw/S40k l l RPSB 15 psw/SSD5k l SASG 6 psw/Sok l Schedule:
l SRXB l Evaluation of test program and matrix 3/93 l .<DSER input to SCSB 7/93 l Evaluation of TRACG verification 2/94
<TSER input to SCSB 7/94 l
l RPSB Evaluation of facility scaling and 3/93 and instrumentation DSER input to SRXB 6/93 Post-test analyses to SRXB 9/93 FSER input to SRXB 6/94 SASG l
l Post-test analyses to SRXB 9/93 l F3ER input to SRXB 6/94 1
ACRS Interaction Points Review of test program, data, and 4/93 vencor analyses Review of staff analyses 1/94 girsig n a n e rm. m in g g g g g;g.pzn ggpyg g;g g.g m y.m g m
- .. . . - .. - ~ . .
i I
Squib Valve Testing The squib valves are important components in the SBWR, and are !
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 ;
staff of any additional testing planned. (
The Mechanical Engineering Branch (EMEB) is responsible for the review of these tests.- A technical assistance contract is in 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. EMED will assist SRXB in assuring .
that the test results confirm the modeling 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 l discuss the adequacy of the testing plans and program; FSER input .
should discuss the results of the testing and conclusions i relative to valve performance.
Resources: ;
EMEB 4 psw/S50K )
SRXB 2 psw/SOK !
SCSB 1 psv/50k EMCB 1 psw/S0k l Schedule:
EMEB DSER input to.SCSB 7/93 ;
FSER input to SCSB 7/94 l SRXB DSER input to SCSB 7/93 FSER input to SCSB 7/94 EMCB DSER input to SCSB 7/93 FSER input to SCSB 7/94 SCSB i I
sOSER input to P.DAR 8/93
./fSER input to ADAR 8/94 I l
l l
L. . _. __
?
- - . - - - --.,-n,. -c.,n-,n-
pruarp _#_1_dgmarmqEzlMmrfswm +me_werw===mascw_a u aame ;
i l
(
ACRS Interaction Points Review of test program and data 4/93 ,
SBWR Small Scale Loop The staff is planning confirmatory, small scale integral systems J testing of the SBWR. A request for proposal has been issued, and testing is expected to begin in FY94.
Although these tests are confirmatory, and therefore not required to certify the SBWR design, the results of these ter:s will be used to verify the stafi'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.
i 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.
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 results to be considered in the staff's safety evaluation of the design.
1 Pre-test and post-test predictions will be performed by RPSB and SASG using the RELAP5/ MOD 3 code. These Branches shall coordinate their efforts to minimize duplication of effort. SRXB shall be i kept informed of the resu?.ts to allow conclusions on code I adequacy to be considered in assessing audit results performed
'or the AP600 design.
k' Resources:
3 RPSB 25 psw/S555K l SASG 16 psw/SOK
! SRXB 16 psw/SOK Schedule:
5 P Because this testing is confirmatory, no schedule is required for
$ using these test results.
W l
i e
1
b 9
REFERENCES i
- 1. Memorandum, T. E. Murley and E. S. Beckjord to J. M. Taylor,
SUBJECT:
Program for the Review of Vendor's Test Programs to Support Design Certification of Advanced Reactors, April 6, 1992. ,
- 2. Memorandum, T. E. Murley to E. S. Beckjord,
SUBJECT:
Coordination Plan for Passive Reactor Testing and Analysis, I
June 53, 1992.
i e
f r
t l
- e. .
. . - - - - - - - - - - - - - . ,, - ,m _ ,. , , _ _..._ , _ m , .m.,,,,,,%,_,., ._ , _ _ , . .
,3 .. '
. TAllLE 2 Summary of Resources for Testing Reviews Dranch FTE Tech Assist (Sk)
SRXB* 3.0 350 SCSB 2.5 330 SASG 2.3 0 EMEB 0.2 100 RPSB** 5.5 7370 AEB** 1.7 1400 EMCB 0.1 0 l ADAR 0.6 0 I
Additional 0.5 FTE/S200K allocated for code review and verification i Where resources / technical assistance were shown combined l for these b: nches, the total has been split approximate _, equally for inclusion in this table r I
l l
l i
l I
I s
6 r.,
g 3 W W' g V f "' N,T "Y O e g gh, g p g t
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 krist, 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 va{idated computer codes are needed to predict the safety periprmance 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.
L 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 Le provided. This should highlight those issues 'nich 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 ts -t nrocram basis, the vendors testing program. The purpose of the tests should be described here. These should be directly related to the issues of concern.
- 4. Overview of NRC Activities (responsible Branch)
On a test procran basis, a description of the NRC activ2 ties 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.
f 5. Evaluation of Vender Testing Programs (responsible Branch) i 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 3
, satistled by the testing, and the c';aluation of the Lev.
l facility (e.g. results of scaling review if performed).
l l
l I
4 M ' ' W ALGM L'XCif4MUGIJ.%'G $7G617,7fA. .W.W/Q'. Ce.V ' c. C ' . 5y3 - 7.
t ,
- 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 adoquacy. The basis for concluding that the code is aduquate for supporting certification should be provided.
- 7. Compliance with 10 CFR 52.47 (b) (2) (SRXB for AP600 cr SCSB j for SBWR).
1 Each element of 10 CFR 52.47 (b) (2) should be discussed
' separately. It is expected that this section will simply be i a summary of the document and its conclusions.
i
}
'i:
1
-1 I
'I l.
I L1f 2 k,
i a
2
,, 5 "
- r -
Y f'
h' u
r, I
n, .
1 o
em -- - . - . ~ _ . _. _y ,_ , _ m. .,,,,,, . , , y,,,,,
O 3 3 3 e 5 u
- C " 0
- * ?> <
- ;s' ,s c, . e. e. c. .
< <= < . .
. . . . . *
- Y
.*
- f
- u e
- 9
.f 5
- *
- 5
-6 . v .
- v. e- e.
e
. o, e
o . +.< c. . . . . .#. 3 .
a .o 1 . c. . . , . . . .
W-
. - 1 y a g p 3 $
) p i 7
o 8
F F
) k 5
% 5 5 ~ 3* *y I
.y- . . . .e . .- . - . . . . o 5 s : : =
- r i 5 5 M i 5 5 i . *
- E E -3 I 3
.-- e 8.
se.- a'J 6
-u
.e . .
e 5
v e e 3 3 ;
v v e
o o 3 3 yog 5 5 ? 5 % a i 1 Nb o o o .
k, o
a a o o ao a kb o a
oa o a o ao o I *
- L l' s a a Z < .
a f
e - .e a.
- c. ,.,
. . + +- -+ .
. s e Z .., . .e ., .- . . .v . . . <
o o
. o e. e.. v e
' o .
+ - a o 2
- V e
- 3 5 .- t + 2 3 e + .
O_
i W i <
- w .s s o a e i
Z ,.
1.
+ +
. . e.
e.
o <
w r.
t
+ + v e V a
- c.
- e a W
y .--
t o e o e oa : '
6 .
s 4
- o ; I a W att a s a m t l
. .f a i. .I . a : a to
< '.C.-
H 2
- u. !
, o .:
2-u e-p . . . .
3 e o e o o o : ; o o $e o o o e 5
w at "I m a a a m z < + a a s C
e a a z
. l f
/. . 1 emn a w
1 1
O < <
. - > . .= .-y ,- I i - .e I
? E i
. .e ., . .t . ., ., . . .
. .t I i ., ., 3 r,
< - - <o< o .. .- + , .. - - e. .
. m .
i c.. . . . . ,
l l l
L r
.e 3
= . . . . . . 4 0
g t
- e
. -u i
e u e>e <
v e
. < i 1
v b, d .I y
o .
o, 2
g o
/ .
3 e
V E.
E -
- e . .
- v . . . f. . . .
I r
v y
.r . .< I + + +
5 . ,
y-i . . . 3- .
<. .> .a .s .t# 3 2v .
e ., . . - .,
, 5< .
v o . v v v >
. 1 g.. v. e e e - e e . e e e e e em
-e ..h 5 ? *
- r
-. . ;, a - g o a e.,,. > - .
o*
y ; - * * .
- T-
- s
. o e . I o a 3 g 3 - -v3 .e .-A s e f
g v 1
-y a
- T f,
o .,
(
. v o. . v.
. v o e .o . 3 0 J e v
[" I 'MNW NGh! 5Nkg,5 5,s.4
- hh y h e , . .=, * , . *
- f