ML20198A496

Mod 15 to Contract NRC-04-95-039

ML20198A496
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/30/1998
From:	Lacava C, Mace M NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM), Oregon State University, CORVALLIS, OR
To:
References
CON-FIN-W-6273, CON-NRC-04-95-039, CON-NRC-4-95-39 NUDOCS 9812170010
Download: ML20198A496 (11)

Text

,

m 4,

Dc0 AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION / MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

\\',$.'o"*'9[.09

'^

1 3

[

2. AMrNDMENTMoDFICAftote No.

3. EFFECTWE DATE

4. REQUlsmoN> PURCHASE REO No S. PROJECT No Of applicable >

f' M015

{W 3 0 # 98 f

REs-95 039 RES C99 329

. isuo.T

.t rAoM os m Eoav n o

..nii.m.,

,j-c,,,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Division of Contracts and Property Mgt.

m Attnt T 7 1 2 Contract Management Branch 1 l

Washington DC 20555 l

1 i

8. NAME AND ADDRESS oF CONTRACTOR INo., ate.et, county, state and ZIP Code)

(X) 9A AMENDMENT of souCITAfloN No.

l t

Oregon State University es. oATEo tsEE TEu s ti Contract Adninistration I

Attn: Mr. Clem LaCava, Asst Con Mgr I

306 K:rr Administration Building 10^. uoomCAnoN oF CONTRACTIoRDER No Corvallis OR 97331 2147 Con # NRC-04-95-039 Ioe. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

Coof lFAClufv Coof X

01 04-1995

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS C The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers i3 extended, Oi not ext <nded.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of tNs amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

ul By completing items 8 and 15, and retuming copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment of each copy of the off *r submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram wNch includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR AC-KNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of tNs amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by tjegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

11 ACCOUNTING AND APPRoPNAfloN OATA of eequired r

8 R No.: 9601510105; Job Code W6273; BOC No.: 252A; Acon. No.e 31X020QJ60; Apiount obliandL_MQ2,497.00

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS / ORDERS, IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT / ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

tX)

A. THis CHANGE ORDER is is UED PURSUANT To: (specify authonty) THE CHANGES SET FoRTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER Ho. IN ITEM toA.

i

8. THE ABoVE NUMSERED CONTRACTioRDER is MoDFIED To REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes en paymg othee, apptoonation dat.. etc) sff FoRTH IN ITEM 14. FURsuANT To THE AUTHORITY or FAR 43.103!al.

I C. THis SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT is tNTERED INTo PURSUANT To AUTHoRITv oF:

By 51utual agreement of the parties.

X

c. OTHER (specify type of modshcation and authontyl E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, x is required to sign tNs document and return 2 Copies to the issuing office.

14. DEsCNPTIoM oF AMENDMENTMo0lFICATioN forgania.4 by UCF seccon headings. mdudme sokestation/ contract subsect matter where feassble )

Please see the attached pages.

O 9812170010 981130

'I l

PDR CONTR NRC-04-95-039 PDR o-e 0 l' O "

i I

E-e., as,-o.,.,. a. ie..

.ou.

o.e cu~nt. e, M st.m sA o, ios a. he,.to,e ch.n.

..ma na -,,an.

.no m,u

,o,c. a

....ct.

tsA.MAME AND MTLE of slGNER 8

16A. NAME AND DTLE of CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or pant)

ITypeof pnnt'CLEM LaCAVA i

nary n. nace Assi Contract Administrat0f contractippofficer fj j /

[T oR/of 15C. DATE slGNED 168. UNITE 168.

F AME CA 16C. DATE IGNED f/Att E

}

N n/uu m,t,

y > ;1 1 '

er

+

. w..

.h 7

r s1 -,o,M p Ev:i p

I NRC-04-95-039 I

Modification No.15

' ~

Page 2 of 3

,a.

This modification is issued to (1) add work in accordance with the contractor's technical proposal dated 11/19/98; (2) increase the ceiling by $102,497 from $2,718,514 to

$2,821,011; (3) provide incremental funding in the amount of $102,497; and (4) extend the period of performance by 2 months from December 1,1998 through January 31, 1999. The contract is therefore modified as follows:

1.

Under Section B.3, Consideration and Obligation-Delivery Orders (JUN 1988),

paragraphs (a) and (b) are deleted in their entirety and the following paragraphs are substituted in lieu thereof:

I

"(a) The total estimated amount of this contract (ceiling) for the products / services ordered, delivered, and accepted under this contract is $2,821,011. The Contracting Officer may unilaterally increase this amount as necessary for orders to be placed with the contractor during the contract period provided such orders are within any maximum ordering limitation prescribed under this contract.

(b) The amount presently obligated with respect to this contract is $2,821,011.

The Contracting Officer may issue orders for work up to the amount presently obligated. This obligated amount may be unilaterally increased from time to time by the Contracting Officer by written modification to this contract. The obligated amount shall, at no time, exceed the contract ceiling as specified in paragraph (a) above. When and if the amount (s) paid and payable to the Contractor hereunder shall equal the obligated amount, the Contractor shall not be obligated to continue performance of the work unless and until the Contracting Officer shall increase the amount obligated with respect to this contract. Any work undertaken by the Contractor in excess of the obligated j

amount specified above is done so at the Contractor's sole risk."

2)

The attached eight (8) pages describing this new test series are hereby incorporated as part of Section C, specifically to be added at the end of subsection C.4, Additional Test Series.

{

1 l

~

i NRC-04-95-039 i

Modification No.15

~

Page 3 of 3 r.

3)

In accordance with Section F.6, Duration of Contract Period, is deleted in its entirety and substituted with the following:

1 "The ordering period for this contract shall commence on January 4,1995 and will expire on January 31,1999."

l A summary of obligations for this contract, from date of award through the'date of this action,is given below:

Total FY95 Obligations:

$ 925,577 Total FY96 Obligations:

3 685,000 Total FY97 Obligations:

$ 650,000 Total FY98 Obligations:

$ 457,937 Total FY99 Obligations:

$ 102,497 Total NRC Obligations:

$2,821,011 This modification obligates $102,497 in FY99 funds.

All other terms and conditions remain the same.

II l

NRC-04-95-039, Modification No.15 STATEslENT-OF WORK TITLE:

Scaled Integral Test Facility Backaround Systems codes used to calculate the behavior of nuclear power plants under a wide spectrum of conditions contain large numbers of models and correlations. These models and correlations are developed from basic or separate effects experiments and validated and assessed against similar experiments. When incorporated into the systems code and used in a system calculation, many models come into play in a given calculation and interact with each other. The performance of the overall code is tested through comparison with integral system test data.

1 There are three integral test facilities in the world suitable for performing integral systems tests in PWRs. One of these is the APEX facility located at Oregon State University. The other two are ROSA in Japan and BETHSY in France. The NRC has obtained data from a limited number of BETHSY tests and a larger number of ROSA tests. The NRC was able to specify a number of tests in ROSA under an agreement with JAERI related to AP600 testing. However, we need a facility under our control to conduct testing in areas not previously investigated.

Secondly, testing is needed to supplant data bases resulting from the LOFT and SEMISCALE testing program. Neither of these facilities was well scaled for small break LOCAs. LOFT was configured for large break LOCA blowdowns and had only a single active loop so multiloop phenomena could not be investigated. The loop was not well instrumented and some of the data that were recorded no longer exist. The data from the small breaks and transient tests are of only qualitative interest. SEMISCALE small break LOCA experiments were excessively distorted due to facility heat loss and in many instances the facility was not well documented. The APEX facility is, therefore, of unique importance in improving the NRC's data bank in the area of integral systems tests. The facility can also function in a quasi separate effects mode to study certain important modeling issues such as phase separation at flow junctions and countercurrent flow.

Phenomena and Processes to be Examined Experimental programs are conceived and conducted in fulfillment of a mission, namely, to obtain information on some phenomena or process or on son e integral response. The facility mission should be related to code requirements. For example, if flow regime modeling in the code is inaccurate or not well described, then an experimental program could be conducted to provide more accurate and extensive date

.._ _._ _._ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._..7 NRC 04-95-039 with which improved models could be developed. The need for data and the acquisition

~

of data are, therefore, entwined. Modelers must identify and prioritize their information needs to allow for experimentalists to obtain data specific to these needs.

Facility Confiauration Control and Characterization

. Code analysts require detailed facility documentation and characterization to construct accurate facility input models. Complete facility drawings must be available with sufficient quality assurance that the drawing set represents the actual facility and that records of facility modifications are kept. The facility must be characterized for pressure i

drop, heat loss, and characteristics of active components, primarily pumps and valves.

Correspondence Between Facility Desian and instrumentation and Code Model Structure Code models represent facilities as a set of nodes. Code output can provide considerable information on a nodal basis such as pressure, temperature, void fraction, flow rate, flow regime, etc, more so than is normally obtained from experiments.

Experimental facilities have discreet measurements of pressure, and temperature, l

where temperature can be measured with finer resolution than obtained from code output. Void fraction can be measured locally or over and interval. Flow can be measured locally or in an integrated fashion in a catch tank. The point is that the way measurement information is obtained from experiments and calculated results are obtained by codes will differ, but the correspondence can be significantly improved, t

There should be interaction between modelers and experimentalists to obtain a correspondence in how the facility is nodalized and how it is designed and i

instrumented. For example, a vessel may be modeled by 10 axial nodes; there should be 10 intervals of differential pressure measurements corresponding to these 10 nodes i

(or vice-versa).

Measurement Accuracy and Uncertainty Some attributes can be measured with good or excellent accuracy such as

. temperature, pressure, and single phase flow. Other attributes are much more difficult i

to measure such as two phase flow rate, void distribution in a pipe, or local heat transfer. Experimentalists generally become very familiar with the capabilities and limitations of their instrumentation and instrumentation in general. The determination a

and reporting of data accuracy and uncertainty is an essential part of an experimental program. The capabilities and limitations in instrumentation must be recognized and j

understood by developers.

i i

l i

NRC-04-95-039 l

\\_-

Feedback From Data Analysis to Experimentalists Data channels can produce suspect results that are only recognized during detailed data analysis. A differential pressure measurement may produce an incorrect level measurement that is not known until an analyst recognizes the data as a physical impossibility. An actual flow rate may be less than the lowest range a flow meter can measure.

in a different vein, when a facility is designed, a plan is made for types and lo' cations of measurements. When experiments are run and evaluated, it is usually the case that some instruments are examined in more detail than others it is also the case that one finds that additional instruments are needed for unanticipated phenomena. This information must be fed back so that instrumentation can be improved.

This research is consistent with the Five Year Plan for Thermal Hydraulic Research to

" maintain experimental capabilities to address phenomena relevant to nuclear safety and to provide validation data to cover plant parameter ranges of interest."

Obiective The principal objective is to provide qualified data on the behavior of reactor systems suitable for assessment of thermal hydraulic systems codes. This integral system test data will replace obsolete and missing SEMISCALE and LOFT data in the NRC data bank. The secondary objective is to determine the utility of CFD analyses for selected phenomena and issues important to reactor systems safety analysis. The data will be utilized by NRC staff and contractors.

Scope of Work Draft an annotated test matrix with test objectives, ranges of conditions, and initial and boundary conditions.

Generate data and qualify them. Deliverable will be data reports along with data recorded on CDs according to NRC data bank specified format. Additionally, a data uncertainty and qualification report will be prepared.

Analyze the data, integrating them with other relevant data sources.

Approximately 2 tests are defined as follows to take place.

j T l NRC-04-95-039

~

~.

~

Phase Separation at Junctions Phase separation at junctions plays an important role in determining primary system inventory during a small break LOCA. The break mass flow rate will depend strongly on phase separation in bubbly flow and entrainment in stratified flow. Literature review performed to date show limitations in the data base. The scaling of the stratification /entrainment offtake model that is in RELAPS and TRAC has not been determined. This is an area recommended for investigation be CSNI

[NEA/CSNI/R(96)16]

Perform a test series investigating phase separation in the bubbly flow regime. Starting with the primary system full and at saturation, conduct blowdowns from openings in the top and bottom of the hot leg over a range of areas from 1 inch to 4 inches. This will provide a range of d/D ratios where d is the diameter of the offtake and D is the diameter of the main pipe. Use smooth converging diverging nozzles of1/d = 20 for ease in calculating critical flow. End the tests when the level drops below the hot leg and the discharge becomes single phase vapor. When the break is at the top of the hot leg higher quality vapor flow will be favored while when the break is at the bottom of the hot leg low quality liquid will be favored. Run all the tests at the same constant core j

power. Provide no makeup flow during the tests.

j Perform a test series investigating the inception of entrainment from stratified flow.

Start with the level below the bottom of the hot leg. Maintain constant core power and pressure. Slowly raise the level in the core until the hot leg fills to the point where liquid l

is entrained out the discharge. Repeat the test over a range of pressures and offtake diameters.

I Reportina Reauirements An analysis report should be prepared for each test series. A suitable thesis might fulfill part of this requirement. Perform a comparative analysis using RELAP5/ MOD 3 or, when it becomes available, the consolidated TRAC code. The scope and content of code assessment reporting follows. These reports are intended to subsume the I

preliminary test analysis report and quick look reports for each experiment.

{

introduction ii l

NRC-04-95-039

~

A development assessment repo'rt must begin with a discussion the describes the philosophy and architecture of the assessment effort. It must describe the overall objectives and scope of the effort. It must equally describe the limits of the effort and what is not being assessed and why.

L The documentation of each assessment case must follow the following format and content.

J Assessment Case Studies l

Each assessment case performed should begin with a detailed discussion of the j

background, objectives, context within the whole of the assessment effort, and i

scope. The phenomena / process being studied should be described including a physical description of the phenomena. For separate effects assessment, the models to be assessed must be described, with reference to the models and correlation document. This should include a description of the two-fluid l

engineering model, the simplifying assumptions it contains and their justification, its range of applicability, and its scalability to the plant. It should also describe the model as implemented in the code. Finally, the available separate effects l

assessment of the code or model for the phenomena should be described in conjunction with a literature review of related, relevant experiments. The rationale for selection of particular experiments must be given. The data base to be used for the assessment case must be described including the rationale for selecting and not selecting tests.

l-Facility and Test Description A discussion should be provided of the experimental facility including its geometric layout, instrumentation, operation procedures, and other information, as required for understanding the code analyses. Reference must be made to the detailed facility description and test results reports.

The experiments to be calculated must be discussed including important thermal hydraulic information, initial and boundary conditions, and operational information pertinent to the calculation. Ranges of conditions in the experiments, such as heat flux, mass flow rate, void fraction, pressure, temperature, geometry, and scaling must be discussed with respect to prototypic conditions.

Measurement uncertainty must also be discussed.

Code Input Model Description l

5 1

?

NRC-04-95-039 The code input mode must be diAcussed including nodalization diagram, nodalization rationale, assumptiqns, boundary and initial conditions and i

operational conditions for the calculation. The nodalization description must be related to the full scale plant model. Discuss modifications to the input model (nodalization, boundary, initial and/or operational conditions resulting from i

sensitivity studies. The input model listing must be archived.

Results Results of the calculation that lead to major conclusions should be clearly presented and discussed. Applicable key assessment parameters must be discussed. The rationale for performing any sensitivity studies must be discussed along with the methodology used to perform them. Modifications to base case conditions and the resulting effect must be described and qualified.

The discussion should include:

A comparison between the code prediction and the experiments with o

regard to the important physical phenomena that occurred during the experiments. Identify and explain the causes of discrepancies between

^

the code and data, i.e. discuss the deficiency in the code or the inaccuracy of the experimental measurements. Assess whether the timing of events agrees with the experimental data.

Assess whether the calculated results are self consistent and present a o

cohesive set of information that is technically rational and acceptable.

Explain any unexpected or at first glance strange results calculated by the code, particularly when experimental measurements are not available to give credence to the calculated results. Determine whether calculated results are due to compensating errors. Discuss how important the code deficiency is to the overall results (parameters of interest) or explain why it may not be important for the particular scenario, o

Discuss applicable user options, the reasons for their selection, their effect on the results, their expected effect on the results, and the reasons thereof. Provide guidelines for performing similar analyses.

Conclusions Conclusions must be made concerning the assessment results with respect to adequacy of the code model(s), needs for improvements, use of user options, _.

NRC-04-95-039 and nodalization. The conclusio$s must flow from and be fully supported by the assessment results.

Data from each test shall be sent to the NRC data bank on Compact Disc in the data bank format.

Journal articles and theses prepared using these data shall be sent to the NRC.

_Dpliverables and Deliverv hedule CD containing data for each test within a month of the test date. A report should be prepared for the test series, as describe in the previous section. The due date is the end of the contract.

Meetinas and Travel Reauirements Travel required to maintain the facility should be allowed for. No meetings are planned.

Level of Effort 2100 hours0.0243 days <br />0.583 hours <br />0.00347 weeks <br />7.9905e-4 months <br /> Period of Performance Two months.

Technical Direction Technical direction is by the NRC Project Manager, David t3essette, Mai! Stop T-10 E46, Telephone No. 301-415-6763.

Publications Key results should be published in a peer reviewed journal, as warranted.

Quality Assurance g.,

NRC-04 95-039 i

8 Industry quality developed to meet Appendix B of 10CFR50 are not required.

NRC Fumished Materials None 1

l l

l l

I I

l.

,, = -,

_