ML20116F503
| ML20116F503 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200003 |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1996 |
| From: | Mcintyre B WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | Quay T NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19311C169 | List: |
| References | |
| AW-96-997, NUDOCS 9608070046 | |
| Download: ML20116F503 (17) | |
Text
'
Westinghouse Energy Systems Box 355 Electric Corporation Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 15230 0355 AW-96-997 August 5,1996 pocument Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTENTION:
T.R. QUAY l
APPLICATION FOR WITHHOLDING PROPRIETARY INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
SUBJECT:
WESTINGHOUSE RESPONSES TO NRC REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE AP600
Dear Mr. Quay:
l The application for withholding is submitted by Westinghouse Electric Corporation ("Westinghause")
pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations. It contains commercial strategic information proprietary to Westinghouse and customarily held in confidence.
The proprietary material for which withholding is being requested is identified in the proprietary version of the subject report. In conformance with 10CFR Section 2.790, Affidavit AW-96-997 accompanies this application for withholding setting forth the basis on which the identified proprietary l
information may be withheld from public disclosure.
Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the subject information which is proprietary to Westinghouse be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations.
Correspondence with respect to this application for withholding or the accompanying affidavit should reference AW-96-907 and should be addressed to the undersigned.
Very truly yours, hA Brian A. McIntyre, Manager Advanced Plant Safety and Licensing
/nja l
~
Kevin Bohrer NRC 12H5
~
cc:
9608070046 960805 PDR ADOCK 05200003 A
AW-96-997 l
COhr 4DNWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
l ss COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY:
l Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Brian A. McIntyre, who, being by me duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is authorized to execute this Affidavit on l
behalf of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (" Westinghouse") and that the averments of fact set forth in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief:
%Y
-si Brian A. McIntyre, Manager Advanced Plant Safety and Licensing Sworn to and subscribed before me this I
day bd 1996 of h<
w
/
Notary Public f
fttad Seal
(
Rose FA1fo Rrro,ibtary PutEc i
Monrad i'c..Ec;heny County
[
My CommuieGepres Nov.4,1996 l
2875^
Mmber,Penrt.ylvarna Aam ot tennes
~
AW-96-997 (1)
I am Manager, Advanced Plant Safety And Licensing, in the Advanced Technology Business Area, of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation and as such, I have been specifically delegated the function of reviewing the proprietary information sought to be withheld from public disclosure in connection with nuclear power plant licensing and rulemaking proceedings, and am authorized to apply for its withholding on behalf of the Westinghouse Energy Systems Business Unit.
(2)
I am making this Affidavit in conformance with the provisions of 10CFR Section 2.790 of the Conunission's regulations and in conjunction with the Westinghouse application for withholding accompanying this Affidavit.
(3)
I have personal knowledge of the criteria and procedures utilized by the Westinghouse Energy Systems Business Unit in designating information as a trade secret, privileged or as confidential commercial or fm' ancial information.
(4)
Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, the following is furnished for consideration by the Commission in determining whether the information sought to be withheld from public disclosure should be withheld.
(i)
The information sought to be withheld from public disclosure is owned and has been held in confidence by Westinghouse.
(ii)
The information is of a type customarily held in confidence by Westinghouse and not customarily disclosed to the public. Westinghouse has a rational basis for determining the types of information customarily held in confidence by it and, in that connection, utilizes a system to determine when and whether to hold certain types of information in confidence. The application of that system and the substance of that system constitutes Westinghouse policy and provides the rational basis required.
Under that system, information is held in confidence if it falls in one or more of several types, the release of which might result in the loss of an existing or potential competitive advantage, as follows:
l l
um i
l l'
AW-96-997 i
i (a)
The information reveals the distinguishing aspects of a process (or component, j
structure, tool, method, etc.) where prevention of its use by any of Westinghouse's competitors without license from Westinghouse constitutes a j
competitive economic advantage over other companies.
J (b)
It consists of supporting data, including test data, relative to a process (or
)
component, structure, tool, method, etc.), the application of which data secures a competitive economic advantage, e.g., by optimization or improved -
l marketability.
-1 (c)
Its use by a competitor would reduce his expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing a similar product.
(d)
It reveals cost or price information, production capacities, budget levels, or commercial strategies of Westinghouse, its customers or suppliers.
(e)
It reveals aspects of past, present, or future Westinghouse or customer funded development plans and programs of potential commercial value to Westinghouse.
l (f)
It contains patentable ideas, for which patent protection may be desirable.
f I
l There are sound policy reasons behind the Westinghouse system which include the following:
(a)
The use of such information by Westinghouse gives Westinghouse a competitive advantage over its competitors. It is, therefore, withheld from disclosure to protect the Westinghouse competitive position, t
(b)
It is information which is marketable in many ways. The extent to which such information is available to competitors diminishes the Westinghouse ability to sell products and services involving the use of the information.
2875A l
i 4
,,..c
~
., i
AW-96-997 (c)
Use by our competitor would put Westinghouse at a competitive disadvantage by reducing his expenditure of resources at our expense.
t l
(d)
Each component of proprietary information pertinent to a particular competitive advantage is potentially as valuable as the total competitive advantage. If competitors acquire components of proprietary information, any one component may be the key to the entire puzzle, thereby depriving Westinghouse of a competitive advantage.
(e)
Unrestricted disclosure would jeopardize the position of prominence of Westinghouse in the world market, and thereby give a market advantage to the competition of those countries.
l (f)
The Westinghouse capacity to invest corporate assets in research and development depends upon the success in obtaining and maintaining a 1
l competitive advantage.
(iii)
The information is being transmitted to the Commission in confidence and, under the provisions of 10CFR Section 2.790, it is to be received in confidence by the Commission.
t (ii)
The information sought to be protected is not available in public sources or available information has not been previously employed in the same original manner or method to the best of our knowledge and belief.
l l
(v)
Enclosed is Letter NSD-NRC-96-4788. August 5,1996 being transmitted by Westinghouse Electric Corporation (W) letter and Application for Withholding Proprietary Information from Public Disclosure, Brian A. McIntyre (E), to Mr. T. R. Quay, Office of NRR. The proprietary information as submitted for use by Westinghouse Electric Corporation is in response to questions concerning the AP600 plant and the associated design certification application and is expected to be applicable in other licensee submittals in response to certain NRC requirements for justification of licensing advanced nuclear power plant designs, 2875A
-J
AW-96-997 This information is part of that which will enable Westinghouse to:
(a)
Demonstrate the design and safety of the AP600 Passive Safety Systems.
f (b)
Establish applicable verification testing methods.
(c)
Design Advanced Nuclear Power Plants that meet NRC requirements.
j l
(d)
Establish technical and licensing approaches for the AP600 that will ultimately result in a certified design.
(e)
Assist customers in obtaining NRC approval fet future plants.
j l
Further this information has substantial ccmmercial value as follows-(a)
Westinghouse plans to sell the use of similar information to its customers for purposes of meeting NRC requirements for advanced plant licenses.
1 (b)
Westinghouse can sell support and defense of the technology to its customers in the licensing process.
Public disclosure of this proprietary information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of Westinghouse because it would enhance the ability of competitors to provide similar advanced nuclear power designs and licensing defense services for commercial power reactors without conunensurate expenses. Also, public disclosure of the information would enable others to use the information to meet NRC requirements for licensing documentation without purchasing the right to use the information.
l i
I 2875A
i AW-96-997 l
The development of the technology described in part by the information is the result of applying the results of many years of experience in an intensive Westinghouse effort and the expenditure of a considerable sum of money.
In order for competitors of Westinghouse to duplicate this information, similar technical programs would have to be performed and a significant manpower effort, having the requisite talent and experience, would have to be expended for developing analytical methods and receiving NRC approval for those methods.
Further the deponent sayeth not.
]
)
i i
~l 4
3 e
1 4
2875A n--
d w
m
--n
l t l
l 9 1
l l
l l
ENCLOSURE 2
%TSTINGIIOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 NSD-NRC-96-4788 e
9 0
4 0
8 l
l 2874A
o.
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION u-_=
Question 440.434 Re: NOTRUMP ADS PVR (RCS-GSR-003)
On page 3 2, the 100-series tests are not modeled because the tests were with single phase steam. Please demonstrate the ability of the NOTRUMP code to accommodate single phase steam critical flow since the ADS system is expected to transition to high quality steam flow discharge.
Response
NOTRUMP can accommodate single phase steam critical flow. he 100-series tests were not analyzed in RCS-GSR-003 because these single-phase steam tests did not address the highly ranked PIRT ADS phenomenon of two-phase pressure drop. Single-phase pressure drop is ranked low or not applicable and single-phase steam critical flow modeling capability is an integral part of the NOTRUMP critical flow models. He ability of the code to accommodate single-phase steam critical flow will be demonstrated by describing the model and by referencing applications where the model has already been exercised.
The specific NOTRUMP critical flow model used for and verified by the 200- and 300-Series ADS Tests is the model that uses the Henry-Fauske/ HEM critical flow correlation. It is described in Section 2.2 of RCS-GSR-003 and in Section 4.17 of LTCT-GSR-001 and PXS-GSR-002. His model uses the Henry-Fauske correlation for the subcooled and low quality calculations, then transitions into the homogeneous equilibrium model above qualities of 10 percent, including superheated steam. (Please note that on page 2-2, line 8 of RCS-GSR-003 the word "below" should be replaced by "above.")
ne single-phase steam critical flow capability of the Henry-Fauske/ HEM correlation used to model ADS valves is demonstrated by the analyses of the OSU and SPES-2 integral tests reported in LTCT-GSR-001 and PXS-GSR-002, respectively. Dough it can only' be inferred from the plots in these reports, it has been verified by examining the full code output that the ADS valves experience single-phase steam critical flow at one time or another.,Ris is reasonable since when ADS-1 first opens,it flows steam from the upper region of the pressurizer and the pressurizer pressure is still high enough to give critical flow. Other instances of single-phase steam critical flow were seen later in transients for ADS 13 when the pressurizer had emptied and the pressurizer pressure was still sufficiently high.
The ADS 4 valves were seen to experience single-phase steam flow but it was not always critical flow; in many cases the pressure was low enough that the flow was unchoked. In any case, it was seen that the single-phase steam critical flow capability was definitely exercised in the OSU and SPES-2 analyses.
SSAR Revision: NONE 440.434-1
1 g
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION u==+
Question 480.280 Re: (WGOTHIC MODELS AND PHENOMENA) ADEQUACY OF Tile MIXED C What is the explanation for the large difference between the calculated and measured velocities in te 222.l?
Response
The test comparisons under discussion address the lumped parameter model only and show that overpredicted and steam concentration above the operating deck is underpredicted in the lum (Reference 480.280-1).
The large differences between calculated and measured velocities, as well as the differences b and measured steam concentrations, are due to the formulation inherent to the lumped parameter cod in which the transient fluid velocities are coarsely represented resulting in overentrainment into plumes Velocity and steam concentration are two dominant parameters in the mass transfer correlation effects in the lumped parameter model. The lumped parameter model overmixes noncondensibles steam jet / plume, and the noncondensibles above the operating deck lead to underpredicted Dese are.
The overpredicted velocities enhance the PCS heat removal.
which penalize PCS heat removal.
Sufficient compensating errors of about the same magnitude in the lumped parameter code calculation.
instmmentation has been used in the LST to quantify these competing effects (Reference response He use of Rese results have been factored into the lumped parameter evaluation model (Reference 480.280-1).
free convection in the lumped parameter evaluation model climinates the effects of calculated velo in a conservatively well-mixed containment at 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
Reference:
480.280-1 WCAP-14382,"WGOTHIC Code Description and Validation" May 1995.
l I
l 480.280-1 I
1 NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION k
Question 480.347 Re: (PCS-GSR-00l)
If the acknowledged model changes climinate excess conservatisms in the Version 1.0 results, why does Version 1.2 give somewhat higher pressures than Version 1.0 for three of the four experiments?
Response
Version 1.2 predictions are higher than Version 1.0 predictions because of the method used to account for subcooling in Version 1.0. Version 1.2 mechanistically accounts for subcooling of the exterior cooling water. Version 1.0 does not have such capabilities, so subcooling was simulated by user input. The method used to simulate subcooling in Version 1.0 was not conservative snd is the reason Version 1.0 predicted a lower vessel pressure than Version 1.2.
Please see additional discussion of the comparison between Versions 1.0 and 1.2 in the response to RAI 480.346.
SSAR Revision: NONE 480.347-1 3 Wes%@00S8
e 1
i I
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION Question 480.348 l ? What In test R9, why are the calculated pressures somewhat lower than i ?
is the significance of this result in connection with claims of unconditional co Re: 480.348 l
b a se preliminary test data j
Response
The calculated pressures (Reference 480.348-1) are lower than the experim d
were used for the boundary conditions. He preliminary con ensa the final condensate flow rate h
001 is not the steam inlet flow boundary condition,is significantly lower t anC i
intended to support code validation. He purpose of the comparison shown nifican RAI 480.346).
i code versions 1.0 (Reference 480.348-2) and 1.2. Herefore no s gn for test R9 (PCS-GSR-001, Table 2) in relation to code conservatism.
d written to fulfill He report, PCS-GSR-001 (Reference 480.348-1), was documentati It is not part of the current WGOTHIC verification and validation.
1.0 predictions and the an NRC request.
He LST comparisons documented in WCAP-13246 between WGOTHf h fi experimental data were based on preliminary measured data because t e na l
that time,the data has been finalized. However,in PC -
identical to those used in version 1.0. His way there to version 1.2 so that the initial and boundary conditions were differences between the d
was no doubt that a change in the predicted results was ue to to differences between initial and boundary conditions.
the predicted results b
De IST comparisons shown in PCS-GSR-001 w i
asured data. At i
480.348-3). WCAP-14382 the time PCS-GSR-001 was written, validation of vers on3 f
supersedes WCAP-13246.
t rs to perform a conservative AP600 PCS DBA is performed with an evaluation model which biases p 480.348-4).
pressurization calculation (Reference understanding code biases.
References d Margin Assessment Report", June dl PCS-GSR-001-RO,"AP600 PCCS Design Basis Analysis Mo e s an 480.348-1 30,1994, letter NTD-NRC-94-4174.
Analyses of Bermal Hydraulic Transients Cdf 480.348 2WCAP 13246, Westinghouse GOTHIC: AComputer o e or For Nuclear Plant Containments and Auxiliary Buildings, July 1992.
i " May 1995.
480.348-3 WCAP 14382, "WGOTHIC Code Description and Validat on.
480.348-1 Y
e NRC REQUEST FOR ADDmONAL INFORMATION E-1 480.3484 NTD-NRC-95-4545,"AP600 PCS Design Basis Accident Road Maps", August 31,1995.
SSAR Revision: NONE I
e 4
e h
l 1
480.348-2 T WeQW
l l
l NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Question 480.349 Re: (PCS-GSR-001)
In test R9, why is the calculated WGOTHIC temperture highest at the lowest elevation?
Response
The calculated WGOTHIC temperature is highest at the lowest elevation (Reference 480.3491) because the lumped parameter model is predicting unrealistic high velocities below the operating deck.
For the results shown in PCS-GSR-001-RO, the mixed convection correlation which includes a forced convection component was used above and below the operating deck. The code was predicting a significant velocity below the deck which was used to calculate the forced convection component in the mixed convection correlation. This increased the heat transfer coefficient between the inside vessel wall and the fluid which resulted in a small temperature difference between the wall and the fluid, and hence a high internal wall temperature as shown in Figure 5 of PCS-GSR-001.
This is in comparison to the results shown in WCAP-13246. When modeling the wet LST with Version 1.0 the forced convection correlation was chosen (by the user) to determine the heat and mass transfer on the inside of the vessel above the operating deck (Reference 480.349-2). The free convection correlation was chosen for below the deck because the velocities were expected to be such that free convection would dominate the heat transfer. By choosing the free convection correlation below the operating deck, velocities predicted by the code had no impact on the heat or mass transfer. The code calculated a low heat transfer coefficient between the inside vessel wall and the containment fluid. 'Iherefore the vessel wall was much cooler than the containment fluid and a relatively low internal vessel wall temperature was predicted as shown in WCAP-13246, Figure 44.
The report, PCS-GSR-001, was documentation of work in progress and was written to fulfill an NRC request. It is not part of the WGOTHIC verification and validation.
Validation of Version 1.2 is documented in WCAP-14382 (Reference 480.349-3). WCAP 14382 supersedes WCAP-13246. The lumped parameter evaluation model is a conservative approach in which only the free convection correlation is used along the inner containment wall.
Please see response to RAI 480.282 for discussion of the use of free convection in the lumped parameter evaluation model and the resulting conservatism.
References 480.349-1 PCS-GSR-001-RO, "AP600 PCCS Design Basis Analysis Models and Margin Assessment Report". June 30,1994, letter NTD-NRC-94-4174.
480.349-2 WCAP-13246. Westinghouse-GOTHIC: A Computer Code for Analyses of Thermal Hydraulic Transients For Nuclear Plant Containments and Auxiliary Buildings, July 1992.
i i
480.349-1 Q
s i
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDmONAL INFORMATION i
i.i= :!.
su, o o 480.349-3 WCAP-14382, "WGOTHIC Code Description and Validation", May 1995.
SSAR Revision: NONE J
4 4
i i
i e
k 1
3 1
1 j
l i
a i
1 480.349-2 y
l
1 J
i f
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
\\
Question 480.350 h f RI1 (28.1 psig) and Why are the experimental pressures in test R9 (8.7 psig) so much low R12 (29.0 psig), since test conditions don't seem to explain such a large Re: 480.350
Response
2 were interchanged between Table 2 (Reference 480.3501) has an error. The steam flo Table below:
tests Ril, R12, and R9. They should be listed as in the Test inlet Steam Mass Flow Rate Rua Number (Ibm /hr) 3610
~
RI1 3976 R12 1304 R9
Reference:
Report" June PCS-GSR-001-RO,"AP600 PCCS Design Basis Analysis Mod 480.348-1 30,1994, Letter NTD-NRC-94-4174.
SSAR Revision: NONE I
I I
480.350-
~
Y WO f
1
)
e NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION n-a n
Question 480.351 i
Re: What standard of " goodness" is being used to decide what constitutes a " good agreement" between measured and calculated temperatures?
Response
'The report, PCS GSR-001 (Reference 480.351-1), was documentation of work in progress and was written I
an NRC request. The purpose of the LST comparisons shown in PCS-GSR-001 was to illustrate the differences between the predicted results from versions 1.0 (Reference 480.351-2) and 1.2. The report (Reference 480.35 provided a status and updated support for the validation documented in WCAP 13246. The purpose of the not to validate version 1.2 by comparison to measured experimental data.
PCS-GSR-001 is not part of the WGOTHIC verification and validaSn. Version 1.2 is validated in WCAP-14382 (Reference 480.351-3). - WCAP-!4382 supersedes WCAP-13246.
For the results shown in reference 480.351-1, the standard of " goodness" for the wet test temperature comparison for Version 1.2 was made relative to the temperatures predicted by Version 1.0. As e plained in the response to R J
480.346, Version 1J ad not have the capability to model subcooling (see Figure 480.351-1, Reference 480.3512)
In this case, the effect and the subcooling was simulated by user input (see Figure 480.351-2. Reference 480.351-2).
2 of subcooling was forced by user input for the predicted wet wall temperatures above a vessel area of 770 ft.
wall temperatures shown in l'igure 480.351-2 that were predicted by Version 1.0 using the mechanistic cor i.e. all the dry temperatures and the wet temperatures at a vessel area less than 770 ft*, are similar to the temper predicted by Version 1.2 (see Figure 480.3513, Reference 480.351 1), illustrating that the method subcooling in WCAP-13246 did not significantly affect the remaining wall temperature predictions. There 480.346, although not simulating subcooling in version 1.0 using the method described in the response to RAI desirable, was adequate to validate the wall heat and mass transfer mechanistic correlatiens as presented in W 13246.
I Reference 480.351 1 PCS-GSR-001-RO,"AP600 PCCS' Design Basis Analysis Models and Margin Assessnx ! Report", Ju 30,1994, Letter NTD-NRC-94-4174.
480.351-2 WCAP-13246, Westinghouse-GOTHIC: A Computer Code for Analyses of Thermal Hydraulic Transients For Nuclear Pknt Containments and Auxiliary Buildings, July 1992.
WCAP-14382, "WGCdlC Code Description and Validation", May 1995.
480.351 3 SSAR Revision: NONE l
W.351-1 l
N k IOuse l
!