ML20198P351
| ML20198P351 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/12/1997 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-3020, NUDOCS 9801220085 | |
| Download: ML20198P351 (148) | |
Text
m Sm._wogpstoca,somosw$e xd m
, em c
- gt A.agggggggggggggg+qwg pg %g g g 4.g@rt ge C4 mqf%ed e n~ m e e~%we w
g ~ ske w
n Wm xe mqv M wg naf
?
d k
ff 7
h g ;'
g(Q YCOND41SSIONWM9QR$
~
gggg gggggggg i g pjgg$gggggON!ggggg'SAFEGUAR AE naniE REACTOR ggg l4 %,,,% g gp M q g g g g g g +g yggg,ryg,
4 g%,
a( [m g ${ g g %y g y,
4 y9 ngnop oyfN%gMg?%um g%gg y
gy gp f-gg by[ mwy g,
' yg p
pm m
s Mf, m
g' a
sg Q+w y%
m mw,g# amp m
g g-g 51 0 % tN @ %' % 8 l ( h Y$h k$$ $ h y%.;
h hg M M MMM M M &s p j w-
- j%gg g usMn.
Mg CANDF
.L. %a ggs f[
kb s
Q_+,a _p&g wgg_ ppg 4; gggs og asruxs ca:01 sit 10 sawarre y;7f gggp y
y a a u g g g %y q
z,
MA,gg (4
igg yg M/s T-2s26 j
i
'pc e
4 1
2 wa us-mo w
4n4 y+
g MW THANKS!
gYN$q$dLPgNB90 Np $ggpeggypp,gg 3 ja MQ ii kL ggJggy a
'$!nfi k, j &ge:n,q $N d t' RMhhd$pg g fd pd 3
m &g j ; w&
c g
g g
gp gg pM r
?
mg.
- e m mp,;un n ;pa s kwad e netw g#n un Lyng 7g y
gy 4'Iff ',._
og~) g,-
N
,g.#ngr,gp t
o n
A g Mw $y ~ w#
- f eg e
9801220085 97I212~
- f kkgA ph W
p,y gh MMfjhp N
$ydiFfp@b$rf(
il.
- +-
PDR ACRS qrHAgi gghg ggg.susskV gp jg
-.f T-302o PDR J -
e VJ
}%j alq!.qqq
$49#BMpM a s o c w r.s a,
- n W $ %r %
..Mu i
.l-g assess 4(mw@yspqfwg&pi gbgggh d
dMGd d
- 7 Mg m,mqqh v gb 3
'iy m gg pQ
\\
mw grm ngwu f
f 2
@%j y i
(" M [ _ f; +J Q-@s ul}]lba,> gn#,d,~y q
3.. -. e
-~ _ a@
$a k,
+ x n,
MGNA_ N N 02'#
l FFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS O
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS OPEN SESSION h-
Title:
TIIERMAL-IlYDRAULIC AND SEVERE-ACCIDENT PIIENOMENA Q
Docket No.:
,g
- - Em s :; : ::sA.
sm:s t
7,s 7 :s;-
Work Order No.:
ASB-300-75
'q,. 7 s LOCATION:
R9ckville, Mar 31and
,f y'
[/
DATE:
Friday, December 12,1997 PAGES:371 - 398
- $ 2j y "1212 556 - 622 1-3a20 eon cl>sedsessiop:pp39955 v v.. O ANN RILEY & ASSO "IATES, LTD.
O, 1250 I Street, NW, Salte 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 ADRS OfW'E Retain fo :heDeche Corrr%
O DISCLAIMER UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS DECEMBER 12, 1997 The contents of this transcript of the proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, taken on December 12, 1997, as reported herein, is a record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
This transcript had not been reviewed, corrected and edited and it may contain inaccuracies.
O l
I
371 1
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 3
4 THERMAL-HYDRAULIC AND SEVERE-ACCIDEITT 5
PHENOMENA 6
7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8
Two White Flint North 9
11545 Rockville Pike 10 Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 11 12 Friday, December 12, 3997 13 14 The Committee met pursuant to notice at 8:00 a.m.
15 16 MEMBERS PRESENT:
17 THOMAS S. KRESS, Chairman, ACRS 18 ROBERT L.
SEALE, Mcmber, ACRS 19 MARIO H.
FONTANA, Member, ACRS 20 21 22 23 24 25 i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
372 1
PROCEDINGS
()
2 (8:00 a.m.]
3 CRAIRMAN KRESS:
It's time to come to order.
4 This is, of course, the second day of the second 5
consecutive meeting of the Thermal-Hydraulic Subcommittee.
6 I don't think I have to reread all this, because it's 7
already in the record, but I did want to tell everyone what 8
my plans were for today.
9 We are starting half an hour early, and I 10 calculate if we can keep things going on time and if we cut 11 our lunch hour to a half an hour, that means we could get 12 out of here by 2:30, which is the " drop dead" time for about 13 three of us.
So if it is all right with everybody, that is 14 my ple.n.
Sorry to only give you a half an hour of lunch,
)
15 but that is what I am aiming for, the tarJet, so without 16 further ado I would like to get things rolling and turn it 17 over to Westinghouse -- and what's on first, the water 18 coverage?
19 MR. McINTYRE:
Actually, this morning the ic#amous 20 Mr. Brown, famous Mr. Brown I guess that we have been 21 waiting for on Wednesday is here and is going to spend some 22 addressing some of the questions and discussion --
23 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Oh, good.
24 MR. McINTYRE:
-- that had come up during the PSX 25 PIRT scaling.
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\\--
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
.J
373 1
Unfortunately, Mr. Piplica, who is now back in i
/~N 4 ( )
2 Pittsburgh, has the overheads --
3
[Le.ughter. )
4 MR. McINTYRE:
Which -- Mr. Brown is going to do j
5 the best he can.
It 's going to more of a dialogue than it 6
is a presentation in this case.
j l
7 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
That's good.
That's good.
Thank 8
you.
9 MR. McINTYRE:
Question-answer session.
10 MR. THROM:
Mr. Chairman?
Ed Throm from the 11 Staff.
12 I would just like to ask a question, whether or 13 not you would like us to get a hold of tu-a Reactor Systems 14 people.
I don't think anyone was aware that -- we are not 15 familiar with what the issues were from that particular 16 meeting but there's --
17 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
It would probably be a good idea.
18 DR. SEALE:
May I make a suggestion?
Do you have 29 some overheads?
I mean do you have some slides or any 20 viewgraphs that you were going to talk from?
21 MR. BROWN:
It's in this package here.
22 DR. SEALE:
Oh,-okay.
23 MR. McINTYRE:
The other blue book.
24-DR. SEALE:
Oh, the other blue book.
Okay.
25 MR. BROWN:
The first blue book, I guess you would
' l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
d Court Reporters 1250'I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
374 1
call it.
()
2 DR. SEALE:
All right.
3 DR. CATTON:
Are you talking about blue book 1:
4 MR. BROWN:
Well -- talking about this blue book, 5
December 9th on the bottom.
6 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
There is somebody coming over --
7 so maybe if we could just hold off maybe a minute to see if 8
he gets here.
9 MR. BROWN:
It should say December 9th on the 10 bottom and then if you go towards the back, maybe half the 11 way back, you'll hit the passive core cooling scaling.
12 It i; L'ter all the foldouts.
13 It's the foldouts where the summary of the tables 14 upfront O(,,/
15 DR. SEALE:
PXS Multiloop --
16 MR. BROWN:
Yes.
17
[ Discussion off the record.)
18 MR. SCHROCK:
What is the "X" in the PXS?
19 DR. SEALE:
It marks the spot.
20 MR. BROWN:
I didn't decide that.
21 MR. SCHROCK:
I just asked what is the "X"
in the 22 PXS designation?
23 MR. BROWN:
It may have had something to do with 24 maybe PCS got a hold of the "C"
first before we did, so 25 maybe passive containment got it, so we didn't get it for
(
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
_ _ _ _ _... _ _. _ _ _ _. ~.. _ _. _
l 375 f
~ -core c'ooling.-
I; don't know.
s- /
2-CHAIRMAN KRESS:- It's-to differentiate it from the 3:
-passive --
1 4
MR. BROWN:
Yes, they were trying to differentiate 5
it from the PCS, Passive Containment System, I guess.
It's
.6:
'a project-level decision.
7-DR. ZUBER:
Let me ask ycu,.are you going to I
8 discuss those nine handouts you were going to give us, or i
l_
9-are-you--going to discuss the old scaling report?
10 MR. BROWN:
Nine handouts?
That was the pressure
-11 equation you're talking about for containment?
i:
12 DR. ZUBER:
Yes.
4 13 MR. BROWN:
That is in containment.
14 DR. ZUBER:
I see --
g_
15 MR. BROWN:
That was for containment, Dr. Zuber.
.16 DR. ZUBER:
Okay, okay, okay, okay -- I see.
17 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
My understanding, Dr. Zuber, it 18 they are going to give us those --
19-DR. ZUBER:
Right.
20 CHAIRMAN KRESS:- -- and they'11 not discuss-them-o 21'-
at this time.
L 22=
MR. SCHROCK:
Are you going to give them to us as 1
l23-we walk out the-door?
24 CHAIRMAN KRESS:- I don't know what the plans are 25" today.
' Brian,.do.you?-
'f~%
Ss)
' ANN RILEY'& ASSOCIATES,.LTD.
- l Court Reporters.
'1250 I Streeti. N.W.,
Suite 300 l
1 Washington,.D'.C. 20005 (202).-842-0034 4
.me,=-r e-w---
- - + '
-~
_ _ _.. ~.
376
.1 MR. McINTYRE:
You have got-the-nine page that you.
()
2
= mentioned when you were. talking: yesterday -- the RPC
-3 equation -- what are the plans for that?
Wnen Jim Gresha:n 4'
gets_here, we'll decide what to do with that.
- S CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Okay.
G In case people are wondering, we are waiting for i
7 Al Levin to show up.
8 (Pause.]
4 9
CHAIRMAN KRESS:
I have a suggestion.
Why don't 10
..we-go ahead and start and ue can fill'Al in on what he 11 missed..
i-
-12 MR.: BROWN:
Okay.
4 13 MR BOERNERT:
Here he comes.
14 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Okay.
()
15 MR. BROWN:
Do you have comments on what I did on 16 the blowdown?
Talk about that first?
17 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Al, we decided to answer some of 18.
your questions-from the meeting we had earlier, 19 DR. CATTON:
You ar probably going to have to, 20 for me, make some inttoductory statements.
I am having 21=
trouble remembering what happened two days ago.
22 MR. SCHROCK:
_Could you put it'in context by 23 relating it to a WCAP that we have studied?-
24 MR. BROWN:
Yes.
That should be WCAP 14 -- what 25:
is'the name.of;that one?_-
WCAP 14.727.
~
s t
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005-(202) 842-0034-
377 1 --
lDR. CATTON:
One problem we had was the lack of a.
)
2-multiloop evaluation during the. phase when ADS is.ending and 4
3 IRWST is starting.-
4 4
MR. BROWN:
Yes.
' DR. CATTON:
And we were told that you are going
'6 to do that.
7-MR. BROWN:
That is what I understand, yes.
8 DR. CATTON:
So you really wouldn't'have'anything 9
to say about that now?.
10-MR. McINTYRE:
He is not done with it yet.
11 DR. CATTON:
Oh, you mean even though he worked 12 all night, you didn't get it done?
13 MR. BROWN:
No.
(
-14 MR. McINTYRE:
He's still recovering from it.
15 MR. BROWN:
Actually, I had the start of it back 16
--in the IRWST section.
17 That was the intent when I started to do that.
I-18 Then I had the core part built from the long-term sump 19-injection and I was going to put them together, and I just V
20 never-got that far yet, between here and containment and 21 things like that.
22' DR. CATTON:- Well, it turned out it's a key issue.
23 MR. BROWN:
Yes --
F 24-DR. CATTON:
Because you are going to set the 25 level.
i
-: g
< ;( ],
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
D' Court Reporters 1250-I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
378 1
MR. BROWN:
There is no question looking at the
()
2 tests that the biggest challenge to core uncovery is the 3
transition between ADS 4 and IRWST injection.
4 There is no question about that.
4 5
DR. ZUBER:
Mr. Chairman --
6 MR. BROWN:
But I guess my question is -- while I 7
certainly agree that it's important, what do you learn from 8
.that, from the standpoint as far as if you are interested in 9
just for example obviously predicting core uncovery and 10 looking at that type of thing, that doesn't do anything for 11 you.
12 I mean if-you are really trying to obviously check 13 to see how level and so it is with regard to the prototype 14 and so on, you can do that.
That was what was started in k
15 the ADS blowdown as well.
16 DR. CATION:
I'll tell you and then you can tell 17 us.
18 MR. BROWN:
I was just curious what you are 19 specifically looking for.
20 DR. CATTON:
Well, first, the -- I just got yelled you have to somehow come up with the basis for what 21 at 22 you are going to do to the level in the IRWST because you 23
_are going to go in and artificially do something.
24 MR. BROWN:
You are saying because of the 25 NOTRUMP --
(A' ANN RILEY A ASSOCIATES, LTD.
~
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
)
...__..____.__._____m.__
379
.1 DR. CATTON:
Whatever the reason, you are going-to d) 2 do'that-.
.3 MR. BROWN:
Yes.
4'
.IMR. CATTON:
Now if you are going to do that, you i
5 have to have a basie.
6 MR. BROWN:
Okay 7
.DR.
CATTON:
So okay, let's take a look at the 8
experiments.
What have you got?
You've got SPES?
- Well, 9
SPES you really can't do it -- because you couldn't get that i
10 far --
-11' MR. BROWN:
No,.we do go that far in SPES.
j.
12 DR. CATTON:
Well, then maybe you are going to 13 have to do a multiloop for SPES as well.
14 MR. BROWN:
We go through IRWST.
We don't go 15 through sump.
l --
16 DR. CATTON:
Okay, so if you do the scaling for 17 both of them, now you can make some arguments about the 18_
va)idity of your experimental data.
19 MR. BROWN:
Okay.
20' DR. CATTON:
Your code can't handle it.
You have-21 to get the information somewhere.
22 MR. BROWN:
Right.
23-DR. CATTON:
And this just helps you put the 24 problems together.
25 MR. BROdN:.Okay.
TheLreason.-- your concern is ll ANN'RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters I
. 1250'I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
-Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 L
r
--- -~
,,m r
.-m
- * - + * "
-m
.,_-m--m w
m-
--or..
w,-
]
-380
- 1-
_ coming out_ofLthe fact-that therelwas some difficulty r
2 obviouslyfin-handling this phenomenon ~in NOTRUMP.
3
.DR.JCATTON:
Well,: the most crucial period is~the-4 period that-you can model least well, anE so you have to do 1
- S
'something.-
6-HMR. BROWN:
Yes, I-understand.
7 DR. CATTON:
That is where it is coming from, and 81 it will most likely-have to be a combination.of the code and SL
-the experiment, so you've got to show that the experiment'is 10
_ properly scaled.
11 MR. BROWN:
Okay.
E12 :
DR. CATTON:' And I-think even if you are not able 13
.to'do that, if you have the multiloop simple equations in 14 front of you, you can begin-to play-games and you could say, L /s 15-well, gee, if the flow resistance is' doubled'in this line, 16-what is it going to do, if it's halved what is it going to 17 do?
You_can begin to put the problem together.
18 As it is, you can't run NOTRUMP enough to put it-19
.together_ properly.
That is a guess.
20 MR. BROWN:
I understand.
- 21 DR. CATTON:
Maybe~you can run it.
AnywLy, that's 22 where that is coming-from.
. 231 DR'.
ZUBER:
I was going-to say the same thing and
- 24 I?said it-yesterday.
- 25 What you-are= lacking:in your-presentation, scaling n
1 L
ANN'RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
?'~
CourtLReporters
,1250~I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington,.D.C.'20005'
.(202) 842-0034-
,...w e
a 381 l
1 and the containment, is the-essential critical period.
[(
)
2 MR. BROWN:
Yes.
3 DR. ZUBER:
I think that' period for the reactor is 4
the-one Ivan discussed.
The other one is t..e containment.
1:
5-MR. BROWN:
Right..
It is the same issue ---
6 DR. ZUBER:
It is the same issue.
I mean when you j
7 do scale, address where the danger is, where our concern.is, 8
and scale it and see what you get.
9 MR. BROWN:
Yes.
I concur.
10 The approach I guess on the ADS blowdown, that is L
11 a similar approach I would be taking at the moment with l
12 IRWST.
Were there any problems or any comments on it?
13 DR. CATTON:
This is the first one you see in the
()
15 package.
This is-early ADS blowdown, which I have already 16 done, in the multiloop and I was focusing on again the core 17-mass inventory and, as a matter of fact, my time constant 18 was associated with that.
19 I was looking at the change in core mass inventory
'20 divided by-the net mass into the vessel through all the-21 different sources, to then be able to try to track or 22 address how the core mass was changing, and during the 23-beginning of= critical phase --
24 DR. CATTON:
Is this this compensating error 25 business?
]^(
ANN:RILEY.=&' ASSOCIATES, LTD.
2 Court Reporters
~1250 I Street, N.W.,-Suite 300-
-Washington, D.C. 20005-(202) 842-0034
382 1
MR. BROWN:
No.
No, this is scaling here.
I am
()
2 not sure what you mean by --
3 DR. CATTON:
Well, but the reason I am interested 4
it the reason one is interested in the scaling is to 5
answer a question about the reactor.
6 MR. BROWN:
Yes.
7 DR. CATTON:
And there were problems with ADS flow 8
and breakflow.
9 I am not sure --
10 MR. BROWN:
Keep talking.
I am --
11 DR. CATTON:
Well, I'm lost --
12 MR. BROWN:
Because I am not sure where you are 13 going with that.
14 DR. CATTON:
I think we're both lost.
15 MR. BROWN:
Okay.
16 MR, SCHROCK:
I have a problem still about that 17 equation 6-33 in the scaling report -- 3-63, excuse me.
18 MR. BROWN:
3-63.
19 MR. SCHROCK:
That is the one that was in error 20 and led to the pi 13.
21 MR. BROWN:
Oh, I wouldn't say it was an error.
22 I disagree with you about an error.
What I did --
23 MR. SCHROCK:
Oh, come on now.
I mean let's not 24 reopen that.
25 MR. BROWN:
Oh, well, why not?
I mean --
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 3250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 J
J 383
~1 MR. SCHROCK:
Well, because --
l
-2 MR. BROWN:
-- I'want to tell you what I did do.
3-MR. SCHROCK:
Let me say why not.
The why not.
4 that Mr. Piplica stood here on Tuesday and said we 5
acknowledge that it was wrong but we only learned about it 6
about six weeks ago and so we haven't had a chance to 1
respond to it.
8 MR. BROWN:
I don't think it is completely wrong, 9
MR. SCHROCK:
It is absolutely completely 10 meaningless, 11
'MR. BROWN:
No way.
No way -- no way.
[
12-What I am telling you, what we did was -- what I 13-agree with is that when I went into it I grabbed the 14 equation out of Wallace.
No question about that, okay?
And
}
15 I know that you know that from your comment that I had seen.
F 16 What I had done is there were three components to 17
-that -- one; which I agree which we neglected and we need to 18 go back to check to see whether or not it is a problem.or 19
- not is the flashing and how severe that is.
20-The other two -- one was very, very amall for very 21 small qualities which we did not have.
The third term, I
'22 which I did retain, which was-significant remained in there, 23 so it is a matter of did Westinghouse seriously consider or 24 Lprove that the other two terms within the homogeneous 25 critical flow model, are they appropriate o neglect or o
f ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Streat, N.W, Suite 300 Washington,-D.C. 20005
-(202) 842-0034 e-ywa y
+-
s, S,
p
+p----
384 should theylbe included?.
I agree-that we should go back to-I
[21 check that.
3 MR, SCHROCK~
I.would like to have the transcript 4
checked for Mr. Piplica's testimony --
i 5
=MR. BROWN:
I don't know what Mr. Piplica said.
6 MR. SCHROCK:
-- in which he has acknowledged that i
7 the' thing was wrong.
8 MR. BROWN Well, it's not wrong..
9 MR. SCHROCK:
It is wrong.
10 DR. ZUBER:
Let me say, Mr. Brown, there were 11 presentations, several presentations made the last three 12 --
days by_ Westinghouse.
The one I appreciated the most was 13 Mr. Young.
He talked as an engineer to engineers in a i
14 candid way, acknowledging the shortcomings, putting the best
/
15
~ foot or the good aspects.
. hat I appreciate in meetings like this is to be 16-W 17 candid.
All of us make mistakes.
I did mine in my life, 18 and there is nothing wrong with mistakes.
The importance is c
19 to realize I made aEmistake, acknowledge, and move f.om 20-there.
21 MR. BROWN:
A mistake, if there is a mistake to be 22
-made, is that we need_to check to'make sure that the 23-simplification that un made using that critical flow model 24 by Wallace_is appropriate.
That is all I am saying.
25 I don't believe that you can claim that it's f
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W,, Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 942-0034 1
385 l'
lincdrrect.
2{
MR. SCHROCK:
Ask Wallace.- He'would not tell.you-
.3-that-youfhav.efused-the correct equation for your
'4 application.-
5 I_ pointed out in my report you started-with the
.6 wrong equation from his book.
1
-7 You want Equation 2-55, not 2-44.
8 MR. BROWN:
I agree it's a more general equation,
_9_
no question about that, and I need to go back to check to
- 10 -
make sure to see whether or not we can use the:more 111-simplified equation.
f
~
p 12 MR.,SCHROCK:
Well, then how can you argue it is 13-
_not; wrong when you_ haven't_ checked?
It's incorrect.
-14 MR. BROWN:
Well, how can you. argue it's not 015 wrona -- have you checked.
~ I mean --
.16 MR. SCHROCK:
I did.
I did.
I wrote it.
It's in
- 17--
the' record.
-It is in my report.
18 MR. BROWN:
No, no, I am saying for the-range,
)
1-19 because there's quality in-it and are we in fact within the 20 quality range in which it does not simplify to the previous-
-21 equation?
That's all my point is.
22 I am saying it may-not be wrong.
I mean it may 23 not be incorrect.
That's all.
24 DR. ZUBERs Let me repeat -.
25-M'R. BROWN:. We;will-check --
. p.
f{d(_
ANN RILEY ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Ccs.,Peporters' -
1250.I Street, N.W.,
Suite'300.
Washington, D.C. 20005"
-(202)'842-0034.-
k
386 1
DR. ZUBER:
Mr. Brown, Mr. Brown --
[ )h 2
MR. BROWN:
I agree it should be checked, as far as I am concerned, I like a 3
DR. ZUBER:
4 straight answer and to be candid.
I don't like arm-waving 5
and trying to justify past mistakes or errors or whatever it 6
is.
7 MR. BROWN:
This was not arm-waving, Dr. Zuber.
I 8
am telling you very honestly what I did and I am telling you 9
that, yes, I agree.
10 I need to go back and check to make sure that the 11 other terms that I neglected because, one, I thought was due 12 to incompressible DV liquid DP was small and therefore I 13 neglected it.
That may be an error.
Maybe that was bad 14 judgment on my part, and I am saying I will go back and I'll b
s_,/
15 revisit that.
Maybe I was wrong in doing that.
16 DR. SUBEL:
Okay, good, then let's --
17 MR. BROWN:
That is all I am saying.
18 DR. ZUBER:
Okay, okay.
19 MR. SCHROCK:
Well, that isn't adequate because, 20 you see, it was raised at a previous meeting.
It was given 21 to you in writing some time ago.
22 It hasn't been time enough for a response and yet 23 we were told by Mr. Piplica that we would have a response.
24 MR. BROWN:
We will have had it.
Absolutely.
I 25 agree.
We will look at it -- but I am not going to say
(
)
ANN RILE 1* & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
^- /
Court Reporters 1250 I Street.
N.W.,
Suite 300 Washingtor,,
D. C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
4 387 i
1 right now.
I-don't know that it_is' incorrect,'myself, my-f
(
2-personel opinion.
1 3
I am not sure that it is incorrect until I look-at 4-4 it.
1 5
MR..SCHROCK:
You can't deal with the-scaling-6 arguments for us today if you tell us we.have to accept your 7
erroneous evaluation of that pi group --
8 MR. BROWN:
No, I am not Baying that I am-not i
9 saying that --
10 HMR. SCHROCK:
from the previous report.
t
-11 MR. BROWN:
I am not saying that it is correct.
12 What I am saying is I don't know that it is incorrect.
That 13
.is all I am saying.
14 Can we go on to the next issue?
15 MR. SCHROCK:
1 am not satisfied with that, Mr.
16
- Chairman, 17 I don't see how it can be done.
Frar.kly, it's 18 been known to them for six weeks as a minimum.
I think it's 19 longer than that.
20 It was acknowledged and I would like the record 21 checked on-that to'show you that Mr. Piplica said that.
.22 Now we are hearing the opposite.
The person.who p
c23=
'has done the work is-saying he does not agree that it is in 24 error.
How can you make progress under these-circumstances?
- 25 How can we review the topic'in which this is an I)
ANN _RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
4 Court Reporters 1250-I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005-(202) 842-0034
=
i
- 388 1
Learly:scarting point of the scaling analysis if we have a
()
2-disagreementJon'tnis--kind about the basis of the scaling-3,
-analysis?
I don't think it can be done.
4 MR. McINTYRE:
This is Brian.McIntyre from 5'
6
-I believe Mr. Piplica~also introduced his-7 presentation as "Please bear with me -- I'm not the guy who 8
did the work."
9
- MR BROWN
Fight.
.10 MR.'McINTYRE:
And if'you feel that we can't go on 11 with th'is, Dr. Schrock, because we are not conceding yea,
- 12 verily, we're wrong and that we're only agreeing to go back 13'-
and look at it, then Mr. Brown can sit back down and we can 14 get the next speaker up and move along.
.O 3s /
15 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
What I would like to say is we 16 have apparently not necessarily a disagreement but --
17' MR. BROWN:
Right.
18' CHAIRMAN KRESS:
-- but a commitment to go back 19 and check --
20 MR. BROWN:
Right.
21 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
-- and if he, is this apparent
.22 disagreement, which may not necessarily be, still holds up 23 after the check, then we'would like to see the basis-for why
- 24 '
-we think-'-
why'you_think this_ equation is appropriate to i.
25 tuse --
1.1 p
-;;p
- jgj
- ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
-1250;I Street, N.W.,' Suite 300
_ Washington, D.C. 20005
- (202)- 842-0034 r
389 1-
-MR.sBROWN:
Right.
L2 -
CHAIRMAN KRESS:
-- and we'can further discuss 3
it --
4-MR.:McINTYRE:
Well, certainly.
It is-an issue on 5
the table that will be in_the transcript _and I'm sure.it's 6
going to be_in Dr. Schrock's report.
-7 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Right.
It is an: issue on the 8
table and we'll have to resolve it at some point.
9 MR. BROWN:
When Dr. Hochreiter was still working
-10 with us, that's who approved me to use the equation and so 11-initially I'went off and did that.
12 Now I recognize in retrospect, I concur that there; 13 are some terms which you point out which may be significant, t
14 and I need to go back to check to make sure that in fact I
}
15 haver.'t used a too simplified form of the equation and 16 haven't neglected an important part of the phenomenon in L
17 critical flow.
18 I' recognize that and I agree with you on that, but 4
l 19 all I am saying to you is I don't know yet right now, 20 sitting-.here today, to say and admit, oh, yes, you're right,
{
21 it is incorrect, you're absolutely right.
' 2 2_
I don't-know that that is the case.
I need to go 23 back and check.- I need the opportunity to go back and do-
--- 2 4 -
that and ILam acknowledging that.
25 It was a gooc comment that you made.
I'think it Lt JANN RILEY'&' ASSOCIATES, LTD.
' Court-Reporters 1250 I. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,'D.C. 20005-(202) 842-0034 w.
i 390 1
was a very appropriate comment but I don't know that it is
()
2 necessarily automatically incorrect.
I am not willing to 3
admit or concede that yet is all I am saying, and I am not 4
sure that it is.
I need to go back and check it.
5-I don't think there's anything unprofessional 6
about that.
I think that it is the right thing to do -- for 7
you to bring it up and for me to go back and check.
8 MR. SCHROCK:
The responses here were to be to 9
things from previous meetings and it is unprofessional to 10 come and say that you have disagreement with this comment at 11 this stage if you have not evaluated it.
Now you have told 12 us you have not evaluated it, but you do disagree.
13 MR. BROWN:
Well, we are getting into a war of 14 words and there is no point in continuing that.
)
15 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Well, obviously, this is the way 16 it is, but were there other issues that you wanted to talk 17 about?
18 DR. CATTON:
I am sure there probably are, Tom, 19 but I am having a little trouble reconstructing Mr.
20 Piplica's presentation.
21 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
I am too.
22 DR. CATTCN:
Because I didn't anticipate this 23 happening this morning.
4 24 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Yes.
25 DR. CATTON:
So what I will do is in my report --
4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
d' Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
-~-
-.. - - ~. - _ -
-391 1
HCHAIRMAN KRESS: -You-can reconstruct and then we 2J can --
- 3' DR. CATTON:
You'll have to wait.
4_
If we would have been warned-yesterday that-you 5
- were going to do this, then I could have looked through my
[
6-notes.- I tried-now but they are kind of --
7:
CHAIRMAN KRESS:
They are like mine.
I tried too.
8 DR. CATTON:
I mean I write in the margins and C
9 upside down and everywhere else.
I can't straighten it out I
10 quick enough.
l 11 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
So why don't we close this part 2
12 of it and-then ge on to the water coverage.
13 DR. CATTON:
We'll apologize to Alan for dragging
-14 him down.
O V
-15 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Alan --
4 16
- MR. LEVIN:
That's all right.
17 DR. CATTON:
Bye, Alan, 18 (Discussion off the record.]
19 MR. LEVIN:
Just to put on the record -- this is 20 Alan ~ Levin from the Staff -- as I-told you in my 21 presencation on Tuesday, we would.be modifying the FSER on
~
il testing program to-reflect additional open items based on
'23 '
the. comments that the subcommittee had,. consultants had.
~24 That-has~already been.done.
It's in process --
-25 nd reflects specifically the-issues of' data analysis from
'ANd RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 12501I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 200051 (202) 842-0034 e
r
.-a*
w..
w vre ww v
--v1~
r 4 wr-,
r U v -e va v
e v
-- ~
-v-~-
e--
w-w-
392 1
ADS tests and the items on the -- the critical items on the
)
2 PIRT scaling report.
3 I would like add here, hecause of the contention 4
between Dr. Schrock and Mr. Brown on this critical flow 5
modelling that from my perspective whether it is right or --
6 whether what has got is right or what he has is wrong, or 7
whether it is just a matter of not adequately justifying the 8
assumptions that were made, I think what is important is 9
that Westinghouse also go back and look at what critical 10 aspects of the scaling analysis are dependent upon that 11 dimensional's parameter and if an error in the evaluation of 12 that pi group makes a significant difference in the scaling 13 That is really the issue that I see.
14 MR. SCHROCK:
I think I asked Piplica to tell us (O
s,/
15 about what the impact of the pi group would be.
16 MR. LEVIN:
Yes.
17 MR. SCHROCK:
I agree with you --
18 MR. LEVIN:
In Bill's defense, he wasn't here; he 19 didn't hear Gene's presentation and Gene wasn't the guy who 20 did the work.
23 MR. SCHROCK:
Yes.
22 MR. LEVIN:
So his saying that an error was made 23 may or may not be an accurate representation of what 24 Westinghouse did.
25 I think the guy who did the work needs to go back
()
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
393 1
and revisit.the issue and see whether he made a mistake or
\\
/
(
i 2
whether he can justify what he did adequately to your j
3 satisfaction.
4 DR. ZUBER: - May I_make a comment?
I am very 5
pleased, I mean, with your reaction.
I think this is very 6
gratifying and encouraging.
7 I would like just to make a comment cn1 the 8
scaling.
9 My great disappointment was during the 10 presentation when I asked, I was presented I think with 87 11 pi groups ar.d asked what is the important things?
What did 12 you learn?
13 And the answer it is there is on the graphs.
14 There are tables assembled and very narrow -- I didn't get 15 any benefit from that work with the 87 pi groups.
16 To be very candid, my conclusion was this work was 17 done because somebody asked -- here it is, do whatever you la want -- I have done my job.
I think this is incomplete as 19 far as I am concerned, i
20 You do e scaling, you define what is important and 21 you look at it, not to present 87 groups, and this is not 22 the first time that Westinghouse is doing it.
23 This was done, the same thing, in the containment.
24 A good engineer differentiates between important things and 25 non-important and focuses on the important things.
[
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
-.~. -
394 1
MR. BROWN:
And we have --
(-
--2' DR.'-ZUBER:
And you did not -- let me' finish and
- 3-
.then you canDtalk.=
4 You did not-. address.tha important periods on
- 5L scaling, eitherLfor the-containment or for the plant, and 6
this was brought at this. meeting and only now, today, after 7
7 five years you want to address them.
Now you can te.lk.
i 8
DR CATTON:
Well, let me say.something first.
9 Then he can-talk.
10 1 think an example of this is, and I don't 11 remember'what equation is was,.but it was pi 11 and pi 12.
12 We suffered through the derivation of the pi groups and then 13 they were dropped because PIRT said-that those things were 14
- unimportant.
4 15.
That is not the-purpose of the scaling.
The 16
-purpose of the scaling is'to confirm the PIRT.
Ta confirm i
17-it, you have to evaluate the parameters, thece pi groups.
18 It wasn't done.
19' MR. BROWN:
I believe it-was.
L 20 DR. ZUBER:
Now look -- that's your religion.
121
.That's not-mine.
22-MR. BROWN:
That's not religion.
I believe 23 everyone very stron: fly was evaluated.
24 DR. CATTON: -Well, then your management is in 25 disagreement with you --
ANN RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters; 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
-Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l
'395
.1 MF.. BROWN:
That may be-true.
'(
2.
.DR. CATTON:
-- and I suggest that you and your 3
management get together and come back.
4 DR..ZUBER:
The second -- let me just finish --
[
5 MR. BROWN - I didn't get to talk to talk yet, Dr.
6 Zuber, on the previous point.
7 When I did the ADS blowdown, the one reason why I 8
did that was when I did that a few years ago you guys were 9
not_very happy because I treated it as a single control E10 volume with a hole in it, critical flow being the most t
11 important.
12.
I went back to generate the 87 pi groups or 13 whatever I got out of that because I included the rest-of 14 the momentum throughout the entire system -- the core makeup
)
15 tanks, the pressurizer, the accumulator, all those things, 16 if you would have remembered from the other day on this 17 presentation, it was all there, because there were questions 18' of,-oh, what about the rest of the momentum in the system --
n.
-19
_you're missing that. So I went back and painfully put all that back in 21 there to get all thste pi groups.
You know what i learned i l
22 the end?
It *as the critical flow again, and you're
-23_
absolutely right on focusing on that,_ Professor Schrock --
24 it's.the most important, and that's what I learned was that 25 the momentum and the~ inertial effects withinLthe. rest of the l
I ANN RILEY_& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters.
1250 I Street',
N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C.
20005:
(202). 42-0034-l
396 i
system were insignificant relative to what was going on 2
during ADS and out the break.
5 That is what I learned, but one of the reasons I
~
4 went through the process was because you guys were not happy 5
with the fact that I drew it as a single control volume with 6
a hole out through the critical flow.
7 Now why would I be criticii.ed for doing something 8
in response to your concern, to support that, what we did, 9
ar.d that just confirmed it.
10 DR. ZUBER:
Well, 1 asked what is important and I 11 didn't an answer.
I got 87 pi groups and point of 12 contention is that you did not address the important phase 13 in the transient.
14 MR. BROWN:
Oh, I won't disagree with that.
I 15 mean we did not address that phase.
16 DR. ZUBER:
Okay, but that is my contention is 17 after five years you didn't address the important phase 18 rither for the containment or in the reactor.
19 MR. BROWN:
I haven't been working on this for 20 five years.
21 DR. ZUBER:
I don't know.
I am sitting here for 22 five years --
23 MR. BROWN:
Well, you have.
I haven't.
24 DR. ZU3ER:
-- and listening to Westinghouse -- so 25 you represent Westinghouse and I am sitting here trying to ANN RILEY & AJSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
397 1
learn and to see whether this is satisfactory and after five
()
2 years it is still manana.
3 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
I think we need to move on to the 4
next issue and we can duly note these differences in our 5
reports.
6 MR. GRESRAM:
Larry, before you start, this is Jim 7
Gresham from Westinghouse.
8 Larry is going to make a presentation on water 9
coverage, which ia another unique feature of the AP600.
10 I wanted to mention on the rederivation of the 11 scaling equation that we mentioned yesterday, we did bring 12 the correction to the derivation with us to hand out.
13 However, in the comments that you made yesterday 14 it is apparent that we did not go far enough in this handout 15 to answer your questions, so we would like to complete that 16 and prepare something that is responsive to your questions 17 and then give it to you.
18 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Certainly.
We would rather have 19 a complete package.
20 DR. ZUBER:
That is very satisfactory.
21 May I just make a comment on that.
You have that 22 book by Moody?
He treats only one component, perfect gas.
23 You can modify it for two components.
You can evaluate the 24 "Z"
factor -- I think it is very small -- as the first 25 crack.
You can treat the mixture as perfect gas and obtain ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
398 1
this.
()
2 You obtain good terms d!viding the flows and you 3
can then obtain good dimensionals groups.
You can get good 4
expression for that compliance and then you can compare your 5
system, your transient.
6 MR. GRESHAM:
Thank you.
7 (Whereupon, at 8:30 a.m.,
the meeting was resumed 8
in closed session.)
9 10 11 12 l 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
556 1
OPEN SESSION
()
2 (12:45 p.m.]
3 MR. THROM:
My name is Edward Throm with the 4
staff.
I am going to give you a very, very brief overview 5
of basically where we are.
The intent was to try to focus 6
on today's issues and let you know what was going on with i
7 the general review.
8 One of the main concerns is the application of the 9
lump parameter model to the evaluation of the AP600.
What 10 we have heard during this --
11 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Excuse me.
We are back in open 12 session.
13 MR. THROM:
The one parameter model and the other 14 modals that are used in W Gothic have a direct
)
l 15 interrelationship.
In other words, the well mixed assumption impacts your perception of a lot of the things 16 17 Westinghouse is doing in the lump parameter context.
18 What we heard during this meeting does not seem to 19 indicate that we have the full answer to the major concern 20 about what the horizontal significance of the volume 21 condensable distributions could be.
And this is under
-22 discussion and it is an ongoing concern.
It has been 23 identified to Westinghouse.
It is not clear that we got 24 that answer at this particular meeting.
25 The other focus of the meeting, of course, was the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 I
..= - -
Tu:
t 1-PCS_ flow and the heat transfer models and the coverag<
()
2 model, coverage, as you heard, is dependent on tN' "et?ht i
3 and stripe consideration and Westinghouse ass' ' a re 4
evaporation above the second weir.
The extent c/ C u j
5
_ subcooled region may be overpredicted.
And we ugt.t'a Enct
)
a i
L 6
there is a constant 90 percent wet area assumed throughout 7
the calculations.
Unfortunately, that was not discussed, j
8 It is really important in your consideration of a
1~
9_
the long term aspects.
In other words, you have test data, i
10-for example, from three to 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> that said you she'. tid 3
11
- have 50 percent of the shell covered uniformly down the side f
12 wall.
Well, the model that they have come up with basically j
t j
13 gives you 50 percent coverage but in the top dome.
So it 14 leads to a number of concerns that have to be addressed or
)
I 15 covered to assure that the overall process is being treated 16 adequately within the context of that mode.
l 17 DR. CATTON:
If the long term is important, the 18 stratification issue becomes more important.
19 MR. THROM:
Yeah.
And actually it goes to the t
20
_ interpretation of the general design criteria 38 and what is 21 meant by rapid pressure reduction and what do you do with i
- 22 the design objective of Westinghouse as being 50 percent of 23 the peak pressure or the design pressure at 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
' 24 We're not sure whether we will be able to say that i
e 25 we can give full credit to this 2-D addition to the water l)
ANN'RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,-Suite 300-
- Washington,-D.CL 20005:
(202) 842-0034-nw~
-ev,
e nr
,mwe-+
ae~ r en,~wr-
<s.n-w w
an
+,
--,*wrr-wawa
,..-ms e,.e-,-m
~r---
+-,w
-o-.,-,,w.mw-,n+s--,
-,-w-*,
o
-,,r v-
---w
}
558 l'
coverage model.
Basically this 2-D calculation, again, 2
impacts the way the boundary condition is applied so you j
3 apply more water than you would witn the 1-D conduction to 4
get you this benefit.
Okay?
From the perspective of having 5
a licensable design and meeting GDC 38, 'we think that this 6
characteristic is acceptable in that it is not an impact on
[
l 7
siting because Westinghouse will use 45 pai leakage for the 8
entire siting calculation and we look at it as one of the 9
tradeoffs in going to the passive safety system.
p 10 Okay, so you really are looking at a 11 characteristic that is a little different from operating-12 plants with a lot of active safety systems and, remember, 13
'you're out in the one to three-day range.
It is kind of a 14 stretch on what you could do to recover.
But our 15 interpretation is that this is not a licensing concern.
The 4
[
16 only concern is whether or not we will be able to get to the point where we definitely could say they meet that design 17 la objective of wanting to be at 50 percent of peak, which is 19 not required for the siting that they do.
And when you hear 20 50 percent frota the standard review plan, operating plano 21 take credit for that reduction when they do their leakage 4
22 calculation.
-23
' And just-in closing, last week we had discussions 24 with Westinghouse and there are still some corrections
- 2 5_
ongoing._ They have identified some. problems with the Gothic
~
ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
.1250 I. Street,--N.W.,; Suite 300.
-Washington, D.C.' 20005
- (2 02_) 842-0034
't-yp-t, ww w + %
~
tewyr
-q--<-e t ev y w -* qw++-ry
.m.-g9<-%w e-M 9
y-e-%t ie991 m4w----um eety=P+-
gC-p rw F-'vwe--'t1
-W---r++Seu me- -ey-
-ire-wut-ep 5
+
559 1-code in converting from a_ mainframe to a workstation-type
()
2
. computer.
They've got to go back and fix some single-double 3
precision variables.
Not expected to be a problem.
They've 4 -
told as they've found another small error in a velocity term
[
5 in their down cover annulus.
i 4
6 We know that -- we saw some errors in the model
+
- 7 that weren't intended to be there and they are going to fix 8 -
it and one thing we noticed is during an inspection audit, 9
we couldn't confirm what they were doing with insulation l
10
- around piping and componente and they are reviewing their 11 flow path area considerations to make sure there is no 12 problem there and they have committed to do another set of 13 SSAR analysis once all of this information is fixed, 14 corrected and they are happy again with it.
15 Last time out, we mentioned this five mill gap 16 issue.
-There is an amount of jacketed steel and concrete in 17 this plant where they are using a five mill gap impacts on 18 the-heat transfer.
We haven't come to closure on how we are 19 going to certify that the design can be built with that I
20 requirement.
21 DR. CATTON:
So the five mills of air is not 22 included in the --
l 23-MR. THROM:
It's included in the calculation but 24L how do I-know when the plant is built that that's the way 25l you can build-a plant.
What_you're saying is you take these
(
1004 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
^
Washington, D.C.-20005 (202) 842-0034-
- r V
4 7
9yt+-
ev-C'rT' s
iiar-'*
---M'P'
'e%--
-4 w
rw F*1-WM*
=-
tvrir e a4 m e vuw
+cw-=we.
ar=r4--ee
'w7'M*-w N1---J-r'e-wwr' u a -Tw4-'"
PF-w r
W7
560 i
i half-inch steel forms with all of the T-bars and
()
2 cross-connects.
You pour the concrete in.
Sixty years 3
later, it hasn't moved more than five mills from the steel j.
4 jacket.
Okay?-
5 It seems like it's doable but it might be l
6 difficult.
The concrete you'd have to use might be'very i
7 specific, the curing might be a problem.
They are going 8
back and they are going to look at it.
So it's one of the 9-areas in the ITAAC that we haven't come to closure on.
10 Another thing that we are getting closure on is 11 the PCS flow rates were the only thing they were proposing I
12 to verify during ITAAC and the initial test program.
They 13 will now verify the water coverage fractions and the n
~
14 complete striping down to the upper annulus line.
And over i
()
15 the life of the plant, they will verify the characteristics 16 through the in-service test program and their plan right now 17 is what-they are looking at to use the second set of pumps, 18 these pumps for the post 72-hour thing to be able to provide 19 either 70 or 100 GPM so we can look during the life of the 20 plant, verify the striping at either the 55 or the 25 21 percent so that you have some assurance that some unknown 22 degradation in the coating is not occurring.
So that's-the 23 ITAAC process on this thing in the initial test. program.
So 24 we are pretty much closed on that.
25.
.The mixing-issue ~is still open and, as you
[
ANN RILEYe& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street,-N.W.,- Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
.w.
.. - -,. - = -. -
-. ~. - -., - - -,.
- - + -
561 1
noticed, we got some issues on the water coverage model that
()
2 we are still addressing.
Both of those have been identified l
3 to Westinghouse and we are still waiting for their 4
respenses.
And that's about all I had to say.
5 MR, SCHROCK:
Do you think that 6
DR. ZUBER:
I have a question.
Several questions.
7 MR. SCHROCK:
ITAAC at the construction and during 8
the plant life requirement for looking at that will be an 9
adequate assurance that the weirs work properly as well, I 10 presume?
11 MR. THROM:
Yes, right.
12 You know, the assumption that goes into the 13 analysis is predicated on the water delivery system.
So by 14 assuring that the coverages are there and that they are 15 getting the right flow rates, that's the assurance we have 16 that the analysis and the design of the plant are 17 maintained.
So if the weirs were to get blocked or become 18 misaligned or whatever, you would pick that up in the 19 process.
20 MR. SCHROCK:
What is the frequency of the 21 in-service testing?
22 MR. THROM:
It will be done at the first refueling 23 outage and, depending on which one you're talking about, the 24 10-year intervals.
25 MR SCHROCK:
Ten-year intervals?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
562 l
1 MR. THROM:
Yeah, for the -- for some-of J
2 the -- we're-still ironing some of that out.
]
3 DR. ZUBER:
My question is, surely, not to you.
I l
1 4
know that you are a user and you have to use the tools which 5
are provided to you.
My first question, I have really four 6
questions.
My first question is what codes re you using to 7
assess their calculations?
8 MR. THROM:
Okay, I --
9
-DR. ZUBER: -Just --
10 MR. THROM:
Yes, the staff's calculations, which
-11 you will hear about, if we have time, from Dr. Kaz Campe of f
12 our group, has been using the CONTAIN code.
It's lump 13 parameter code.
It does use multiple nodes in it.
The l
14 upper deck is distributed into a few regions.
He'll 15 probably cover that in detail.
l 16-Dr. Tills from Sandia will talk a little bit about 17 what CONTAIN is, can and cannot do.
But CONTAIN is the code 18
- right now that the staff is using to look at this design.
19 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Did they have to modify it for 20 this water coverage on the outside?
-21 MR. THROM:
.I can't~ address that.
1 2 2 '.
DR. ZUBER:
Let me say, my concern is when I wrote 23
- my memo-to Tom, my concern is that NRR is using the codes
.24 very similar, of the very similar capability as the vendor.
.25
- And we have identified and we.have questioned the vendor's P
ANN'RILEY &' ASSOCIATES,-LTD.
I Court Reporters l
1250'I-Street, N.W., Suite-300 Washington,-D.C. 20005
-(202) 842-0034 3
.+,,<>,--.n-n.,,+,-,-,4..-,,,-.in
+~
a.
~.,,, -
+
,-w-
,.,..-,n
-_ _. _. _ _. _. ~. _. _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
563 1
calculations, the validity, because they cannot address the
()
.2 important phenomena.
And my conclusion, just looking, 3
knowing the limited capability of lump parameters, I would
)
4 address the same questions to NRR.
l
~5 You are using inadequate-code to assess inadequate j
i 6
calculations.
I am making a comment not to you but to NRC.
i It is almost like a blind man leading a blind man and you 7
8 can both fall in a deep -- in a deep hole.
4 4
9 I am not faulting NRR because you are not the one l
10.
who has to produce the codes; you are the user of codes.
l l
p
~11 Somebody else gets to provide the tools you necd to address l
12 problems.
And your answer to my first question is you are 13 using a lump parameter code and I conclude it's not adequate L
14 to assess the nature of the problem.
That code has the same 15 limitation as the vendor's and therefore my same comments f
16 apply to NRR or NRC as to the vendor, f
l 17 My second question is, did NRC, I mean RES or NRR, 18 develop any additional methods to analyze this problem?
l 19 Let me say, you are the user and I am asking did g
20 anybody --
c 21 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
I think we may have a comment on i
L 22 that from research..
23 MR. KUDRICK:
I'm-not sure I'll give you a 24 satisfactory response but let me just indicate that past 25-practice in the.way that we have evidence containment has
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250;I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
.(202).842-0034
564 1
always used lump parameter codes like CONTAIN and Dr. Campe
~
2 will amplify on'that.
But it's basically I think what we 3
need to do is understand what we have done in the past and_
i a
4 what-we are doing now relative to this particular design.
5 And I would like to make sure that we have time to explain 6
that linkage with past practice.
i 7
DR. ZUBER:
Okay, I want to go on the record and j
8 believe me I am not faulting the user of codes.
You have to 9
use what's given to you and you have to use the best method 10 you can apply.
11 My comment is essentially more toward the NRC 12 organization.
If there is a group who has to provide the t
j f
13 tools, it is their duty to assess the nature of the problem,
e 14 whatever it is, see whether the present tools are adequate 15 for that problem.
If yes, sobeit and that's fine.
If not, 16 develop new tools and provide you, the regulator, with l-17' proper tools to analyze the problem.
4 18 I have to say this, that this problem, the nature 19 of this problem, was identified fiv years ago.
We 20 discussed the circulation and all these problem.
You don't 4-21 have the proper tools to assess these problem,.to assess the
{
22 vendors.
You have the same shortcomings.
23 I don't say you, NRR.
It's NRC didn't develop the
- 24 proper-tools.
You were-not -- let me ask you the third 25 question.
d I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters.
1250 I Street, N.W.,_ Suite-300 _
s Washington,- D.C. 20005.
'(202) 842-0034-
,sy-e a*
mrm--
-r-*~+w*-e'
-4w+-
- -*e<w
- e-++-
- -w,--=-se a-en e--
a'v-e e-w m 'v v
-
- r e w e e.
e orvaw--v%~-*
<-c es
j 565 1
Did you or did somebody provide you with another (g) 2 databas which would help you to analyze the problem?
The 3
answer is evidently no?
4 MR. THROM:
I am not that intimately familiar with 5
it.
6 DR. ZUBER:
Okay, fine.
Okay.
7 MR. THROM:
There are people here who can answer 8
those questions.
Where I am right now, I don't know 9
whether -
10 DR. ZUBER:
Okay, so you were not provided with 11 additional experimental information you would need to 12 address the problem.
That's my conclusion.
13 MR. THROM:
I don't know if that's a true 14 statement.
(
)
x_/
15 DR. ZUBER:
Okay.
16 My fjnal question then is were you provided by 17 anybody with any model or any additional tool, either in 18 terms of analyzing, developing a model, how to address these 19 processes which your code cannot address?
20 MR. THROM:
Not that I'm aware of.
21 DR. ZUBER:
Okay, good.
22 DR. CATTON:
It's not good.
It's just 23 MR. THROM:
Well, I 24 DR. ZUBER:
No, no, no, let me say, this -- this 25 is not directed to NRR.
I just want to put it on the record
(' ')
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
566 I
that five years ago this problem was identified.
There were 2
discussions of the shortcomings of our codes.
What the 3
vendor did, that's their own problem.
They have to be 4
responsible and defend it.
As an agency, regulatory, you 5
have to be provided the proper tools, how to analyze the 6
problem and assess the validity of the calculations.
You 4
7 were using tools which we used for the different reactors j
8 for different situations.-
I don't fault you but we 1
9 identified these shortcomings five years ago.
l i
i 10 It was the responsibility of some organization 11 within this agency to provide you with proper tools and 12-after five years you don't have the proper code, you don't i
13 have any enlarged database, you don't have any models to 14 help you analyze this thing.
And if I have to end up when 15 there are two blind men leading each other in a hole.
)
16
- Hopefully it's not that deep but it's not a good way to 17
- progress and assess the safety of a new system.
18 Tom, I shall put this in writing and it is on the 19 record.
20 DR. CATTON:
I guess I would add to that by saying i
21 that a need for this kind of a code goes back more than five 22
- years.
It goes back to the severe accidents and the 23 hydrogen distribution questions, s
24 MR. ZUBER:
We could have answered many of thesa as we were asking the vendor, we would have had had-25; quest-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
[
Court ~ Reporters 1250 I' Street,:N.W.,-Suite.300 Washington,iD.C. 20005
- (202) 842-0034
- Ve-'i w
1+*-gr
&*'w kw-vy'yv-e-t v
w W-5 yi%g
-t',w g--e,y T
v----7,--
e-r-v T
t-~y,t yw~-y-'+-rw--wV Ty-g
567 1-the answer.
In terms of experiments, we have five years
)
(
2-time to plan.
We, I mean the NRC.
3 DR. SEALE:
Could I ask a question along these 4
linen?
{
5 MR. ZUBER:
Yes.
6 DR. SEALE:
Were the special needs for evaluating l
1
-7 AP600 containment performance and the automatic 8
depressurization system performance ever addressed in a user 9
request that-research received from NRR7 10 MR. KUDRICK:
I am not sure I understand that 11
-question'.
But let me ---let me take a stab at what I
- 12 think --
13 DR. SEALE:
I can explain in more detail.
14 MR. KUDRICK:
- Okay, 15 DR. SEALE:
I understand that 80 percent of the 16 research budget is to be used to respond to user need 17 requests from NRR of AEOD or whoever, and that about 20 18 percent of the budget is presumably to be applied to things f
19 that you people feel are appropriate future capabilities 20 that need.to be developed.
21 MR. KUDRICK:
You is NRC?
22 DR. SEALEs Yeah.
Right.
Now, the question I
- 23 have is, did anyone who generates a user request ever 24 identify-this need_for research to do the job?
. 25 MR. KUDRICK:
I personally can not answer that 4
1
( f'
'-ANN:RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I-Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202)' 842-0034~
-7.
=g 4
T-r-M
+-t-e e-14
>ee+1+rw g-i w-#-
g-sy r-s e-F
+-
-*=-3'ser-greu-* yew:--
r-r--
- 'g w-r e vf *+ e w
i'-
568 4
1 question now.
But we certainly will give you a response to 2
that question _.
3 DR. SEALE:
Okay.
Then if that answer is no, 4
there is also another question and that was, was there ever 5
a research independent project, that is, the 20 percent that l
j j
6 was focused on developing these tools?
d 7
MR. KUDRICK:
I think those are two fair questions 3
1 8
and we owe you responses.
I -
i 9
DR. SEALE:
Well, we are doing some work on trying j
10 to evaluate certain aspects of the research program, too.
[
'll MR. KUDRICK:
Okay.
12 DR. SEALE:
And I think this information would be 13 very useful specifics to include in that report.
14 MR. ZUBER:
Mr. Chairman, you are ahead of the 15 ACRS.
My concern is I am uncomfortable with.2 psi and I 1,
would be very happy, very comfortable to have additional 16 17 experiments and a good code.
As a regulator.
i
~
18 DR. SEALE:
I agree.
But the problem I am also 19 directing --
20 MR. ZUBER:
No, I know the problem.
j 21 DR. SEALE:
The system hasn't worked in this case.
l 22 If your concern is a valid one, and I have no doubt that it 23 is, then the system doesn't work.
We ought to be able to 24
-makeithat point.
25-DR CATTON:
Just a comment, Bob, there'actually L
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
-(202) 842-0034--
569 l'
was such a code at Los Alamos, and for unkr.own reasons, it
()
2 disappeared.
3 DR. SEALE:
Yeah.
And it was for this kind of i
4 circumstance where you had stratification.
i 3
j 5
CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Okay.
The point has been made 6
nnd duly noted.
Do you want to --
1 7
DR. CATTON:
I have a comment to make.
l t
8 CHAIR)UW KRESS:
-- say any more about that, Jack?
l i
9 MR KUDRICK:
I was just going to say that, f
10-hopefully, we have two back-to-back presentatio.1s that will
.11 give you at least, if not a satisfying response, at least a 12 better understanding of what we have done, and why we have 13 done it.
14 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Yeah, why don't we move on.
Why 15 don't we move to those.
16 MR. ZUBER:
Let me -- let me really say, you have 17 to work with what you have.
I am not quoting the user.
If 18 you Can't have the tools, it is not your job to develop it.
6 19 MR. KUDRICK:
No, I understand your point of view.
20 But we do have something to say in those areas and we would 21 like to say it.
22 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Okay.-
23 DR. CATTON.:
I have one just -- it has nothing to 24 do with this particular, but it may be a way out of the l,
25-problem..There's 10,000_ square feet at the top of this dome 1
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 a.
. =... - - -
1 l
570 1
that is just plain ignorea as a heat transfer surface.
What
()
2 I would like to see, and maybe -- is the -- is the tradeoff f
i 3
between the effectiveness of that 10,000 square feet and the l
4 decreased steam concentration near 'he walls that they use i
5 as heat transfer surfaces now and if turns out the tradeoff
\\
6 winds up being at an extremely low value that everybody l
7 could accept would be the worst result of some kind of l
8 circulation in the containment, then I think at least you i
9 got the bottom lino that you can step forward on.
I
[
10 Because that 10,000 square feet is the most 11 effective heat transfer surface, it is a ceiling.
i 12 MR. ZUBER:
And I would like to -- after the 13 presentation, to discuss something with Westinghouse and 14 maybe with you and maybe somebody can put some numbers and 1 t\\
15 provide a more robust skeleton to our discussions and 16 questioning.
l 17 MR. KUDRICK:
I think one of the areas of 18-discussion that Dr. Campe will provide will be those type of l
i 19 sensitivity studies to allow you to get a better feel for j
20 this type of machine and how it responds to variations.
.21 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Good.
Why don't we move on to 22 that then.
23 MR. KUDRICK:
While we are waiting for 24 preparations, I would like to introduce you to our 25 consultant through Division of Research, Dr. Jack Tills, who i
()
ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters-1250 I Street, N.W.i Suite 300.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(_ 202) 842-0034'
..,.a_.
_,,,., _ -. _ _, -. _, -,. _ -., - _, -, _. ~, _,
r i
571 I
has been very involved with the evolution of the containment
()
2 code and will give you some of the information to its 3
validation, f
i 4
MR. TILLS:
My name is Jack Tilla.
Within the l
5 last year-I have become a consultant and contractor to the 6
Accident Evaluation Branch.
Before that time, however, 7
dating back to the early '80s when contained code was first 8
released, I was involved with the contained project at 9
Sandia.
And my role was not as a developer, but as a
-10 contractor, my role was more independent.
It was to --
11 MR. BOEHNERT:
Hold on a second here.
I see it j
12 says %EC proprietary informstion on this.
i 13 MR. TILLS:
Yeah, it does contain some -- if the 14 meeting is open now, I can wait until I hit those
?
()
15 viewgraphs.
16 MR. BOEHNERT:
Yeah.
All right.
17 MR. TILLS:
And then mention them.
18 MR. BOERNERT:
Mr. Chairman.
19 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Yes.
20 MR. BOEHNERTi Okay.
So let us know and then we 21 will close it.
l 22 MR. TILLS:.Anyway, I L /e been involved mostly as 23 a person to assess the code, validate the code and then 24 apply it and use it.
Over those years, I have seen the code
^
25-start out as-primarily a laboratory code within Sandia to a
- ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters Suite 300 1250 I. Street,'N.W.,
Washington, D.C.~ 20005
-(202)>842-0034
~. -
e.-.a-bha a_-et u
A m
--g
+_ -.
~ J h6-2s
---+..
4
-J.A-d
+w--an 572 1
1 code that was used without the whole laboratory system, and
()
2 also other companies in the U.L'.
It has also has extensive use, widely distributed 4
in'.ernationally.
And perhaps, Dr. Zuber, being distributed 5
internationally is maybe-because it was a cheap code, they 6
didn't have to pay a lot for it.
But it also was a code 7
that was non-proprietary, and I think that is probably a 8
very important point.
Because the code was open to scrutiny 9
by a lot of different people.
10 When we normally see the code being used, for 11 instance, for international standard problems, there isn't 12 just a Sandia representative or one laboratory, but, 13 typical 1, a number of different users that will be putting 3
14 the code through its exercise.
15 I would like to just mention a little bit about 16 the answer to Dr. Zuber's question and inference here that 17 code developers have been sort of kind of sitting back on 4
18 their seat when they knew that there was a problem with the 19 lump parameter codes.
20 You are right in mentioning that the problem over 21 overmixing and not being able to predict stratifications was 22 a problem that was well known in the lump parameter region.
23 Back about five years ago when there was a series of tests 24
-done in Germany with an HDR facility, when we began to look 25 not only.at pressure, which is not a very good adicator of
- /'T Q
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
t 573 l
1 how bad you are doing with. respect to stratification, but j
()
2 when we started looking at hydrogen distributions, we became 3
even more aware in a quantitative fashion of what the i
t 4
problem was with lump parameters.
-l i
5 Since that time, Sandia, primarily with the l
6 contained code, has been involved in a fairly extensive
[
7 effort to sdjust the problem of overmixing for a specific 8
type of stratification, i
9 DR. CATTON:
Overmixing is not a term I have 10 heard.
What done it mean?
[
11 MR. TILLS:
It means that basically the code is
-12 used --
13 DR. CATTON:
Oh, code overmixes.
14 MR. TILLS:
The code overmixes and basically gives
(
15 you a uniform mixture, even though you have a 16 stratification.
i 17 The type of stratification that I am talking about 7
18 here is a stratification that we typically can talk about in 19 terms of saying that this is a fully developed stable 20 stratification.
You should be able to predict that.
7 21 Sandia looked into that problem and beliives that
-22 it has a fix for that, and it has documented-that fix in a 23
-Sandia report.
The report is called " Development and 24 Ascessment of the Contained Hybrid Flow Solver;"
l 25 DR. CATTON:-
Well, here the problem though is a
.f~v
' i j
)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(
Court Reporters 1250 1 Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202).842-0034
+
-.,)
'my
._.,,,5,,.
- ,,c,,,_
.-__,,e,m#
3~-
y,,,
r.,,,,w,--...my.,,,,
g,,,,m'n.,9_.,-,
m3,%._.
.,.5
574 1
little different,-isn't it?
It is not one bf stable
(
2-stratification.
It is a problem of detennining the 3
distribution of two species throughout this big volume, with
\\
l 4
one of the species that is just sort of in a toroidal l
5 motion.
Where is it -- where is one relative to the other?
l 6
That is not the same as the hydrogen' stratification issue.
l 7
If you could deal with the one, you probably could 8-deal with the other.
Maybe.
Depending on how you deal with 9
it.
l 10 MR. TILLS:
Right.
11 DR. CATTON:. Do you follow me?
MR. TILLS:
Well, yeah, I mean --
~12 s
j 13 DR CATTON:
Okay.
i 14-MR TILLS:
I am -- I will be talking about, and I 15 will show you some viewgraphs of another experiment that we i
16 tried to find experiments for doing stratification, and I am 17 not sure that will answer your problems in terms of 18 circulation.
19 MR. ZUBER:
I don't know whether you sat here 20 during the last five days.
We were interested in the 21
-circulation and the distribution with a non-condensible, and 22 the effect on condensation.
23 MR. TILLS:
Yes, I mean I think that --
24' MR. ZUBER:
Well, let me say --
-25 MR. TILLS:
Yeah.
h)'
' Court Reporters-ANN'RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1250.1 Street, N.W.,
Suite'300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)'842-0034 e
,+
+,
2-,
.,e,,
,m.m v.-,c.-
.w-.
...ey....-
-,p...--
f- - - - - -
575 1
MR. ZUBER:
Don't sell something in terms of l
2 mix!ng.
You are addressing a different problem which is of 3
interest, but not germane to what we -- our concern is.
My 4
concern is the.2 psi and the mixing.
5 MR, TILLS? ' Yeah, I think I will try and address i
6 that in looking at some of the tests.
l 7
DR. CATTON:
We were kind of -- at least I was 8
kind of at fault at the beginning, because I thought in F
9 terms of' stratification.
And stratification in the sense f
10 that if it is stable, it cuts off the transfer mechanisms i
11 from the volume to the surfaces, But it didn't take very 12 long to realize that is nonsense.
That is not what the 13 problem is.
The problem really is where did the air go?
14 And it is the air is circulating and the steam is being 15 sucked out of it by the condensation process, and this is 16 the question that needs to be addressed, t
17 It is kind of like dealing with the formation of a
'18
- cloud, 19 MR. TILLS:
Yeah, I mean I think that we are on 20 the same wavelength here.
21 DR, CATTON:
If we are on the same wavelength, 22 that's fine.
23 MR. TILLS:
When I call stratification, I don't 24 mean -- I mean, basically, where ls the non-condensibles.
25
-DR. CATTON:
-I had to reword a-lot-of reports I r
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATSS, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300-Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
__~_,._.__._.._,.__m._.._....._._._._
m
l 576 1
1 wrote to Tom tu get -- because I inappropriately uued the
()
2 word stratification.
3 MR. ZUBER:
Also, let me also say -- I'm sorry.
4 DR. CATTON:
That's all right.
5 MR. ZUBER:
Monopolizing --
6 DR. CATTON:
He gets excited.
7 MR. ZUBER:
Well, an old man can.
What i
8 experimental data -- what experimental data bases you have 9
which are really germane to this problem?
You know, wo 10 assess the code, you can assess the code to predict a 11 facility very well.
It addresses different physical 12 processes in that facility and may be perfect for that 13 facility.
It doesn't mean that that same cord with the same 14 capability applies to another physical process.
And here,
)
15 this is a unique process and this is where we need good 16 experimental data to verify a code.
So if you have some 17 data germane to this problem, please address them.
18 MR. TILLS:
The presentation, I will just briefly 19 go through since we are really involved in terms of trying 20 to assess and ify the contained code for DBA type 21 licensing.
I will make a few general comments on 22 transitioning to licensing, and then give you some overview 23 of some of the code assessments that we have done in more 24 general terms, but then specifically, I will start narrowing 25 it down to AP600 and then I will give you three examples,
(~h '
i 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\\/
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 577 1
and perhaps some of the examples will help, you know,
()
2 illuminate a little bit of this issue on stratification 3
within the containment, 4
First of all, the contained code, right now the 5
version that is being -- that has been turned over that NER 6
is using is a frozen version as of December.
7' MR. ZUBER:
Let me ask you, that code was I
8 developed '?y whom?
t 9
MR. TILLS:
Sandia Laboratories,
_10 MR. ZUBER:
Okay.
So you as part -- I mean you, i
11
'NRR, as-a part of NRC, didn't get that code from the NRC I
-12 organization, it has to get it from --
13 MR. TILLS:
No, no.
It got it from the NRC.
]4 Sandia is simply the contractor --
4 15 MR. ZUBER:
Oh, this was done under contract.
16 MR. TILLS:
-- to the NRC.
17 MR. ZUBER:
Okay, okay, okay, okay, okay.
- Okay, 18 maybe I didn't phrase my question correctly.
So it was 19 funded by NRC funds?
20 MR. TILLS:
Yes.
21 MR. ZUBER:
Okay.
Thank you.
22 MR. TILLS:
The code manual has been reviewed and 23 the manuscript is at the publishers.
In '95 there was a v
24 peer review of the code that addressed a number of issues 25L like mixing problems.
- (
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250.I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 u
578 1-MR. ZUBER:
Mixing problem germane to this, to 2
this issue.
3 MR. TILLS:
- Yes, f
4 MR. ZUBER:
I am not interested in mixing problem l
)'
5 HDR.
It is a different thing.
}
6
-MR. TILLS:
And contained though has been released 7
separately on before December, and, specifically, imR
-8 received copies of it in a draft code, and so that is sort 9
of what they -- they are going to be working with and 10 applying for you.
.11 The code transitioning to licensing, really, l
r 12 there's two goals or two objectives here.
One is a 13 long-term goal which is basically to assess and qualify the l
14 code for DBA analysis, and it requires quite a bit more 15 assessment than was done in the research mode, and 16 additional assessment for how it is going to be used, in 17 t' us of more conservatism and other aspects like that.
18 However, on a short-term, and as what you will see 19 h th Dr. Campe, the code has also been used to address some 20 APC 600 issues.
On containment loans, we recently did, l-
.21 within the last couple of years, some work on long-term code 22 coolability, where RLAP was basically doing the primary 23 system and we were doing some iterative calculations for --
24 to give them boundary conditions.
25 The program for-qualification is really broken ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250-I Street,--N.W.,= Suite 300 Washington, D.C.-20005 (202) 842-0034
I 579 i
i 1
'into two aspects.
One is assessment reports, where we run j
()
f 2
integral tests with the latest version of the code, separate 3
effects tests, and then some specific _ licensing tests that 4
were done and CBTR is one that I will show you as an example f
5 of one of the general tests on mixing.
And then l
l 6
qualification reports, you know, and we go through basically 7
a whole list of the types of subjects that we are mostly 8
= interested there.
9 MR. TILLIS*
Qualification methodology bears on a t
10 little bit of our -- you know, what we're trying to do with 11 this code.for licensing, is to follow through not with a 12 rigorous CSAU type procedure, but is to use elements of that 13
-- for instance, first of all, define the PIRT, similar to 14 what Westinghouse did with their containment analysis. _ We 15 identify the phenomenology and then marry -- and try to 16 identify the models with the phenomena that you're 17 predicting in the code, come up with the ranking criteria 18 based on what it is of most interest, if it's pressure or if 19 it's hydrogen distribution for something later, then accent 20 that, and then to look at experiments and assess the models.
21 The biggest problem is to try and differentiate or 22-pull _out not just pressures and specific things that come 23 out of a code, but try and get a grasp of what the 24 phenomenology is and try and' pull out the phenomena that's 25~
going:on.,
Q'j3.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,'LTD.
- Court _ Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,.D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 4
,,e.-..
. +.
- e
~ rer i -
e.-
w t-www---
<--e&-m--e v
y rH"-
v
-w
- * * - +
p
580 1
So that's what we try and do ir. the assessment of j
()
2-models, and than compare -- if you've got a very high 4
i 3
ranking phenomena that's driving pressure, say, you would l
L 4 like to have all of your models that are associated with i
l
.that to also be high-rank models.
So that's what this 5
6 compare --
7 MR. CATTON:
So when you looked at the PIRT, did 8
you come to the conclusion that the distribution of steam in 9
the containment was the number one --
10 MR. TILLIS:
Yes.
Right.
3 11 MR. ZUBER:
What modification or what changes did 12 you make to be able to address this?
That's question nunber 13 one.
Question number two:
Suppose that you have done these 14 changes, what experiments did you have to verify your 15 calculations?
i L
16
'MR. TILLIS:
You know, I'm a little pressed for 17 time, but I'll try and give you -- I can give you --
[
18 MR. ZUBER:
Those are important questions.
i.
MR TILLIS:
Yes.
19-20 MR. ZUBER:
I said this before -- give us facts 21-and then as engineers, we have to resolve them.
22 MR. TILLIS:
What I can do is I can refer you to 23 the'Sandia report-that addressed these problems, and I 24 think,lif you read the report, you will probably come back 25 hopefully-with a-different view ofLwhat we have done in-i r.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,- LTD.
Court Reporters.
1250 I. Street, N.W., Suite 300 L
. Washington, D.C. 20005
.(202)~ 842-0034 g
1,
1 581 1
-terms of addressing the problem.
/-(yj 2
You know, the --
3 MR. CATTON:
Not even knowing what the reports 4
are.
5 MR. TILLIS:
Yes.
You know, I --
6 MR. CATTON:
I think we rely on you --
7 MR. TILLIS:
That's "ight.
And I can just give jou kind of a cursory view.
Basically, the way that we 8
9 handled the problem --
10 MR. CATTON:
Let me help with the time, if Tom is 11 willing.
12 CHAIRMkN KRESS:
Please help with the time.
13 MR. CATTON:
I would like to cut to the chase.
14 MR. TILLIS:
- Okay, 10 (s,/
15 MR. CATTON:
The question is one of the steam 16 distribution.
17 MR. TILLIS:
Yes.
18 MR. CATTON:
How can the lump-parameter code do 19 that?
20 MR. TILLIS:
If you recall some of the work that 21 Professor Peterson had done on stratification --
22 MR. CATTON:
I know what Professor Peterson has 23 done.
It has weaknesses also because --
24 MR. TILLIS:
That's right.
25 MR. CATTON:
-- he uses plume theories that come
)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
582 1
from open areas.
O(,)
2 MR. TILLIS:
Right.
3 MR. CATTON:
This is a closed area.
4 MR. TILLIS:
Right.
5 MR. CATf0N:
This has condensation on the walls, G
and what he was treating --
7 MR. TILLIS:
Right.
8 MR. CATTON:
It's different.
9 MR. TILLIS:
When we looked at what was the 10 problem with over-mixing, and that's the problem that really 11 we're associated with in terms of this situation with the la non-condensibles over-mixing in the containment and being 13 uniformly mixed, was that we looked at the gravitational 14 head, the numerical way of calculating the gravitational f
(_-
15 head for one specific type of scenario, and that scenario is 16 a fully developed, stable stratification which, incidently, 17 is the type of stratification that probably 90 percent of 18 the time you get in containments.
19 MR. CATTON:
Yes, but that's not this containment.
20 MR. TILLIS:
Well, I know.
I mean, I can --
21 MR. ZUBER:
Well, look, we are pressed for time.
22 That's --
23 MR. CATTON:
I don't want to talk about the stable 24 stratification issue.
It's distribution of constituents 25 throughout a million cubic foot volume.
gw)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 9
(202) 842-0034
583 1
MR. TILLIS:
Well, we calculate that in a stable
()
2 3
MR. CATTON:
You calculate that with the 4
lump-parameter code.
It's beyond me why you would think it 5
has a whole lot of relevance, mainly because of the iss'ues 6
that you raised.
Lump-parameter is known for this problem 7
of the false diffusion, and you've got things that cause 8
turning in the flow that you need other terms.
You need the 9
momentum flux terms and you need -- if you don't have this 10 multi-dimensional character, what are you going to do?
11 MR. TILLIS:
Well, the turning over of these 12 layers of different density gases is tied not to the 13 momentum flux in the case of a stable stratification, which 14 15 MR. ZUBER:
We are not talking about case of 16 stable stratification.
17 MR. CATTON:
See, I don't think that --
18 MR. TILLIS:
Well, this -- I mean, I can --
19 MR. ZUBER:
Let me be very -- did you sit here for 20 the last four days?
21 MR. TILLIS:
No, I have not.
22 MR. ZUBER:
Well, okay.
Then --
23 MR. CATTON:
Well, actually, the last two days.
24 MR. ZUBER:
Two days.
25 MR. TILLIS:
Well, I've sat here and --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
584 1
MR. ZUBER:
Then let me be frank.
You didn't
- (
2 understand our questions, which unfortunately we hammered 3
the vendor for two days for not being able to address some 4
of our concerns, and you really didn't realize what our 5
concerns are.
6 MR. TILLIS:
Well, I realize what your concerns 7
are, but I guess I can't really address them in a very short 8
period of time, you know, to describe exactly, you know, to 4
9 go through in detail what we've done.
I can refer you to 10 the report and let you take a look at it, and I can tell you 11 that what we have done with the stratification is to apply 12 and zero in on why lump parameters have a problem with not 13 being able to calculate non-condensible mixtures correctly 14 in the containment.
C\\
(_)
15 We have looked at the problem with a variety --
16 when you try to identify whether or not you have a solution 17 to a problem, you look at a variety of experiments, and we 18 have done that.
We looked at a variety of experiments, and 19 the most sensitive type of experiment to look at is one 20 where you have a traceable gas, and that's why the 21 experiments that were conducted with hydrogen gave us a much 22 better idea of how well we were doing on mixing or not doing 23 on mixing than-temperatures or pressures can ever do.
24 So that's why tests like HDR pointed out the 25 problems that the lump parameters were having much more
(
j-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250-I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
585 1
distinctly than anything in the past that was just looking (3
( J-2 at pressure response or temperature response.
So those 3
experiments are not experiments to be put on the side and do 4
not applyr they apply specifically to AP600.
5 There is a case, for instance, of cooling on the 6
dome and being abic to predict hydrogen in that situation, 7
which is a stratification and a changing of non-condensibles 8
9 MR. CATTON:
I'm not sure that this is the forum 10 to get into a detailed discussion, again because we've only 11 got one hour.
12 MR. TILLIS:
Right.
13 MR. CATTON:
So I'm just going to make a couple of 14 comments.
15 When you're e aling with a problem where you're 16 convecting something in this big circle, see, the lump 17 parameter, what do you do to use it in a way where you have 18 multiple volumes?
You don't have the right cross terms in 19 the momentum equation, for one thing.
20 MR. TILLIS:
That's right.
That's right.
21 MR. CATTON:
And in the kind of croblem where it's 22 buoyancy driven, you'll find that without those cross terms, 23 you can be in gross error with respect to the mixing.
24 That's where the problem is.
And from what I've been able 25 to tell, people who are trying to make lump parameter codes
)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
(
586 1
work don't address that issue because that means your code A
2 is wrong.
It's clear.
If that term is not in there, you've td 3
got a problem.
4 Now, when did this problem start?
It started when 5
Marshall Berman did the calculations on the McGuire plant 6
and they tried to use RELAP 4 in the pipe node network.
For 7
whatever reason, history shows that somehow Research and 8
even others just can't seem to give up this -- what is a 9
very simple way to make a one-dimensional code 10 multi-dimensional, but it's just flat wrong and in many 11 cases gives you results that are no good.
That's why lump 12 parameter won't work for this problem.
It has nothing to do 13 with size of the nodes or anything else.
You don't have the 14 right terms in the equations, and until you put them in
(~\\
()
15 there, it's not going to be right.
16 That's the thing that we have been hammering at 17 with Westinghouse.
They don't want to do the calculations 18 with GOTHIC.
I don't know if GOTHIC has those cross terms 19 in it or not.
20 ME. TILLIS:
In a distributed parameter sense, it 21 probably does.
22 MR. CATTON:
It does.
But they don't -- haven't 23 done the calculations.
In my view, the only way you're 24 going to get at this issue is either to be able to maybe 25 make soma conclusions by arguing about how good the ceiling f~x
)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
587 1
heat transfer is, because that will mix the flow, that will
()
2 mix up the containment, or do the problem right.
3 MR. TILLIS:
Let me just cut down to the specific 4
test and just give you -- I picked this test because this is 5
a general --
6 MR. CATTON:
What is this?
7 MR. TILLIS:
This is the CVTR containment.
This 8
is a test 9
MR. ZUBER:
The what?
10 MR. TILLIS:
CVTR.
It was a test that was run 11 back in probably about 1969, and what they had was, this was 12 a, you know, used to be an actual reactor containment.
They 13 had an operating floor.
All the steel, concrete and 14 everything was in here.
They had a stand pipe here which
\\
15 they injected steam.
16 MR. ZUBER:
Where did they inject it?
How?
17 MR. TILLIS:
With a stand pipe that was -- this is 18 a diffuse source, so it's more like a plume as opposed to a 19 jet impinging on anything.
And they injected this at this 20 elevation here, and they had all these regions down here 21 that were fairly open regions.
22 This test has been kind of a base-line test that's 23 been used by NRR and the NRC to validate and come up with 24 recommendations on heat transfer associated with lump 25 parameter type codes.
The time that this was analyzed, it
(")
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
. ~ -
588 1
wa primarily analyzed only with like a CONTEMPT code, the
()
2 single node code.
3 Recently, as part of the reassessment in CONTAIN, 4
we nodalized this code.
Now --
F, MR. CATTON:
So CVTR.
6 MR. TILLIS:
CVTR.
7 Now, let me tell you one of the reasons -- and 8
people say, well, you know, in lump parameters, there's all 9
this experience that you need.
You fiddle around with the 10 nodes.
In the case of this type of a containment where it 11 was fairly open, we applied just our general rule, and one 12 of the rules is, is that most stratifications in 13 containments are one-dimensional vertically, okay?
There is 14 very little horizontal.
And above the source, when you
\\_s/
15 inject in here, above the source, because you have a plume 16 that entrains and other things going on with the wall, you 17 typically are always fairly well mixed above.
The big 18 problem for stratification or understanding what the 19 distribution is of gases is this region here being able to 20 predict this region in here and the region below in terms of 21 where the gases are.
22 MR. CATTON:
Now, let me just offer something.
If 23 I did my subtraction right, the dome in this system is 20 24 inches of concrete.
That's essentially an idiomatic upper 25 boundary.
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
589 1
MR. TILLIS:
This is not exactly the same as -- I I
)
2 mean, this -- I can't give you an AP600.
I can just --
3 MR. CATTON:
I'm just going to offer you something 4
for you to think about.
5 MR. TILLIS:
Sure.
6 MR. CATTON:
In the other picture, it looks to me 7
like this is a thick, heavy concrete dome.
What makes the 8
problem difficult to deal with is the fact that they've got 9
high heat transfer at the boundaries.
10 MR. TILLIS:
That's right.
11 MR. CATTON:
They're taking out the constituent 12 that stratifies it when they condense the steam.
So they're 13 not the same.
Very different.
14 MR. TILLIS:
I didn't mean to imply that they were (ms) 15 the same.
16 MR. CATTON:
Okay.
17 MR. TILLIS:
I just wanted to get you tuned in.
18 As Dr. Zuber said, you try and go to experiments -- I mean, 19 if we had more experiments, I would be --
20 MR. CATTON:
I'm just arguing that -- I don't mean 21 to argue -- all I'm saying is that if you're going to use 22 this to come to some conclusions about the ability of 23 CONTAIN to address their problem, you can't because it's 24 idiomatic.
If what you want to argue is that it deals with 25 stratified flows, you don't have to argue any further; I
(.
!\\~')
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
590 1
know that.
Done properly, I agree with you.
So we can move
()
2 on.
3 MR. TILLIS:
Well, but I don't think you would 4
probably accept, though, from what I'm hearing that CONTAIN 5
can do this problem.
6 MR. CATTON:
If it's idiomatic --
7 MR. TILLIS:
Well, no, this is not idiomatic.
I 8
mean, within the time frame that I'm going to show you, it's 9
not idiomatic.
There's heat transfer that's going on.
You 10 have a lot of steel, a lot of steel up here, the short-term 11 heat sinks, and within the time frame that I'm talking 12 about, this is a transient, this is not steady state, this 13 is a transient.
14 There were --
15 MR. ZUBER:
Let me ask you, do you have any 16 calculations for that?
17 MR. TILLIS:
Yes.
I mean, I'm not presenting 18 those today, but --
19 MR. ZUBER:
Who's going to present them?
20 MR. TILLIS:
Ka Campe.
21 MR. ZUBER:
Okay.
Good.
22 MR. TILLIS:
I have done the LST analysis.
You 23 were at most of our meetings when I did all of those LST 24 analysis.
25 MR. ZUBER:
And I liked your comments in those p).
(-
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C.
20005 l
(202) 842-0034
m..
1 s
591 1_
meetings.
You were making good comments on their 2
calculations --
3" MR. TILLIS:
Right.
4-MR. ZUBER:
-- and I said this, I think, to the 5
staff.
6 MR. TILLIS:
Right.
7 MR. ZUBER:
I am disappointed today because I 8
think yuu are missing where the thrust of our questions are 9
and where our concerns are.
10 MR. TILLIS:
Well, I guess I'm trying to get to 11 some of those concerns.
4 12 This was -- we have -- located in the_ top of the dome was a thermocouple, and there were thermocouples 13 4
14 throughout this containment, and located right below,
)
15 there's thermocouples located up in here -- this was the 16 source region -- thermocouples located just below the deck, 17 down here in the near basement region and in the far 18 basement regions, thermocouples located.
19 All this was really intended to show you -- this 20 is a transient.
It took place in about -- there was a 21.
blowdown-of about 160 seconds and then a relaxation period 22 that_ occurred.
}
23 What I'm showing you here is the CONTAIN 24 calculation of temperatures throughout the containment in
. 25~
the vertical position.
With that grid, no tuning, just.the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250..I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
- Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 m
y.
592 1
calculation.
()
2 MR. TILLS:
Using the hybrid calculation allows 3
stratification.
ThL overshoot here that you see right here, 4
people were using one-dimensional or one-node codes never 5
really got a good feeling for what was going on.
6 The overshoot right here is an overshoot of 7
superheat.
This is intended to be a calculation of a main 8
steam line break so it was steam being injected.
9 The -- when you inject steam and if you have some 10 uncertainty in the entalpy, you can get fairly wild 11 variations in the actual temperature because very little 12 energy is associated with this superheat temperature type 13 deal.
14 So one of the things that we realized was that we
[(
15 had some early problems that was primarily a boundary 16 problem on the injection because there was uncertainty in 17 the entalpy from the experiment and we were using in this 18 case the nominal entalpy and not the lower one.
And I'll 19 show -- I can show you another case where we got rid of 20 that.
21 But here's the important part, is the 22 stratification that develops late in the containment, old 23 ways of doing these things would have thoroughly mixed this.
24 This stratification is developed very rapidly into a fully 25 developed, stable stratification, one dimensional.
A code r~g
(')
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 593
'll
- like CONTAIN has plenty of physics to handle that if the
()
2 numerics are-set up right.
What this hybrid flow solver 3
attempted to do was to correct the physics or correct the
-4 l numerics that was over mixing in the lump parameter. _And 5
that was that the lump parameter in Gothic, the lump 6
parameter in a variety of other codes has the wrong 7
gravitational head calculated for doing stable 8
_ stratifications.
9_
DR. ZUBER:
Can you repeat that again?
Which 10 codes have the wrong?
I --
- 11 MR TILLS:
What I am saying is most lump i -
12' parameter codes for instance calculate the gravitational 13 head based on cell-center differences and they use the 14 average density between those cell centers, If you go O(s /
15 through the numerics and look at the order of terms that you 4
16 need to retain stable stratifications, you find that you 17 have to have terms that will allow you better representation 18 of that gravitational head and that the proper -- the proper 1
19 estimation of what that gravitational head should be is that 20 you should be using, when you get in stable stratification, 21-you should be using a-donor cell, not an average.
122 DR. ZUBER:
Which codes are you referring to?
23 MR. TILLS.
Okay, and so the.ones that I.have, 24'
.there's only one that has a donor cell hybrid deal,'it goes-25
.between many. stable stratifications and stable and that's p-ANN _RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1 Court' Reporters 1250_Il Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)_842-0034 4.
~
594 1
CONTAIN.
It's a numerical aspect.
()
2 DR. ZUBER:
Can you list the other codes which 3
have that shortcoming?
4 MR. TILLS:
The other codes that still use average 5
densities, I believe, are Gothic, MELCOR, a number of other 6
codes that are outside of the United States.
7 DR. ZUBER:
Can you tell us what is the result?
8 What is the impact?
What would they predict, for example, 9
on these graphs here?
10 MR. TILLS:
They would predict over mixing here.
11 In other words, these things'would start to come together.
12 You would not see this.
13 DR. ZUBER:
Okay, okay.
Good enough.
Good 14 enough.
,O
(_)
15 Thank you.
That was a good observation.
16 DR. CATTON: -So if I were interested in the 17 hydrogen stratification --
18 MR. TILLS:
No, if you were interested in where 19 the air is, this tells you where the air -- because this --
20 DR. CATTON:
Well, it will tell me where the hot 21 air is relative to the hot steam.
It's density.
It will 22 deal with density stratification,-whatever I get.
23 MR. TILLS:
I could have shown you -- I could have 12 4 shown you steam load fractions and you would see the same 25 thing here and you would accurately calculate it.
~
/
(
)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
~~'
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
595 1
We have a few experiments that show steam load o) i 2
fractions.
HDR is one of the few ones that do it and so 3
that's what we're after.
4 DR. CATTON:
Basically what it is, however you get 5
it, it's density stratification?
6 MR. TILLS:
Yes.
Yes.
7 DR. CATTON:
Okay.
8 MR. TILLS:
But it carries with it in the mixing 9
an aspect -- all of the other aspects of it.
10 DR. CATTON:
The problem is, in this other case, 11 is that you got this --
12 MR TILLS:
That's right.
But when you have this 13
-- when you --
14 DR. ZUBER:
And this depends where the jet is.
We
(_)
15 have seen that it can be in the CMT room it has many 16 possibilities to go and this is where the mixing upstairs is 17 inferenced by.
18 DR. CATTON:
See, again, I could build a lump 19 parameter model if I knew what the cell structure looked 20 like.
People do this.
You know roughly what it looks like 21 so you can pick your lump parameters to sort of match where 22 you know the steam lines are and, again, you'll get good 23 results.
That's why it works okay through rooms.
That's 24 why it works so well with HDR because of all the stairways 25 and stuff.
,/7 i
)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
596 1
MR. TILLS:
But it never did work for this I
2 problem.
3 DR. CATTON:
Well, it depends which guise you 4
used.
RALOC did okay.
5 MR. TILLS:
No, RALOC doesn't do okay.
I mean, 6
I've gone through all of the RALOC stuff and RALOC overmixes 7
all these problems too.
8 I am not specifically saying how great CONTAIN is.
9 I am tying that a problem was identified and people tried 10 to address it.
Now, the question is evaluat ng whether or 11 not it's been addressed and in time here we can't do that.
12 I can also tell you there are still shortcomings 13 of a lump parameter code, specifically CONTAIN.
We cannot, 14 if you told me what I wanted to ask you is how fast the O(m,/
15 stratifit ion division.
I can't tell you that because I 16 don't have the momentum flux terms in there.
17 DR. ZUBER:
See, this is important to their 18 problem here because what they take, they take snapshots and 19 say, well this is stable.
My question is, how fast?
I 20 mean, how -- this is a transient.
21 MR. TILLS:
If they would have had a test like 22 this, apart from the dome deal, that's what we would have 23-needed to, you call it tune.
But really to look at to see 24 whether or not your model is approximating this.
We would 25 have seen how fast the stratification develops.
,/ 3
(-)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
597 1
We don't have that.
We have to look at other
()
2 experiments or force some additional experiments.
And 3
that's basically all I wanted to kind of get, you know, some 4
feeling on that.
5 I did want to just kind of mention just, you know, 6
so that Kaz --
7 DR. ZUBER:
My concern for this initial condition 8
is this.
They start from well mixed conditions and they 9
say, well, now everything is quiet for a time and when some 10 activity starts, you take the well mixed conditions from 11 before.
Well, if the time was long enough or within that 12 part, maybe some stratification could have been evolved.
So 13 there is a dynamic transient case which concerns me and I 14 was looking whether your code could address that.
O
(~s/
15 MR. TILLS:
I don't believe.
If there is a 16 feeling that there is a dynamic sense that the 17 stratification is not deve2 0 ped, fully developed, then you 18 need plume correlations to establish the entrainment in some 19 time fashion.
We don't have that.
20 However, we have attempted to do that and we have 21 tried doing that with some cases of HDR where we have put in 22 plume correlations and did the time dependence entrainment.
23 But that involves something more advanced than even what's 24 in here type deal and probably you would divert to a CFD 25 calculation.
/~N
( )
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
""""i"Sif"64?: 63
)
5
. ~
. ~. - -. -. - _.. - - - - -. ~.-
598' 1
Now, let me tell you, CFD is not the total
()
-2
- solution to all this~either'.-
Th'ere are tremendous problems 3
with CFD also in terms of~ lower Reynolds number flows,-the t
4 cross terms that you mentioned. 'From an academic sense, p
I 5l they are-in there but you still have to have. closure 4
6 relationships for a turbulent flow here.
And that is not 7
well known and experimentally known.
8 The heat transfer correlations, when you said, ah, 9
-you're-adiabatic but this isn't adiabatic.
CFD codes have.
10 the same problem because they are not doing boundary layer i
R11 analysis.-
12-DR. CATTON:
That's right and they have to be-13-coupled to the surroundings uith correlations.
{.
14 MR. TILLS:
That's right.
That's right.
l 15 DR.-CATTON:
Absolutely, j:
16 MR. TILLS:
Right now, we are -- I have been l
' involved with Al Notafrancesco in writing chapters for a 17 18 state-of-the-art report, international OECD report on 19 containment thermohydraulics and hydrogen distributions.
20~
And we-have the codes'like gas flow,.which is the old HMS f
21-code that you: referred to as Los Alamos.
And I tell you 22 there are problems with this because you get into.a mix 23
- convectionLregime where you don't-have correlations In the 1
1
< 24 literature, that is well-developed for turbulent mixed-
-25:
. convection on'surfoces.-
,lnr g:j
. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD..
Court Reporters 1250 I' Street,lN.W.,- Suite.300
- Washington, D.C. 20005
.(202)-842-0034 1
v-a
.E.-.
e w
.e-.
2
. m
.m,
-- -.i.- - -
599 1
And so, you know, this is a developing area, I
()
2 guess I'm saying.
It's not like we have something off the 3
shelf.
4 DR. CATTON:
Mixed convection is a problem but 5
there are enough examples that you can put it together in a 6
way that you can say, I know this is plus or minus 20 7
percent or something.
Right as we sit here, we can't say 8
that.
9 When I see the steam concentrations that they're 10 using to plug into the correlations -- by the way, I don't 11 have any problem with the correlations because they've been 12 developed over a broad enough range.
But it's the steam
'3 concentration.
14 And you move it up and down 20 percent and you (O
_/
15 wind up that the pressure bounces up and down almost a le factor of two.
Maybe I got those numbers wrong but there is 17 a strong sensitivity.
Small changes in the one make big 18 changes in the other and that's worrisome.
19 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
I think we better move on to the 20 calculations with CONTAIN at this point.
I hate to stop 21 this debate because this is very interesting and useful.
22 MR. TILLS:
Yeah.
23 MR. KUDRICK:
I'd like to say I enjoyed the 24 analytical discussions on the code and so forth but that's 25 not what regulators are into.
What regulators are into is Ig ji ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 i
(202) 842-0034
600 1
trying to look'at the various phenomena and determine is
()
2-this_a eignificant parameter-that can affect the design 3
conditions or not.
And if it is not significant, we go and
'4-spend our. time elsewhors.
5 Hopefully, you will get that type of spirit from 6
the-presentations from Dr. Campe because that's precisely _
7 what d ove NRR in this parti:ular area.
4 8
DR. ZUBER:
That's very good.
Very good.
9 DR. CATTON:
I think that what you will find is 10 that the steam concentration near the boundary is important 11
-- or air concentration near the boundary is an important 12 parameter.
13 MR. CAMPE:
My name is Kaz Campe.
I'm with NRR in
.14 tho Systems Branch'and how much -- approximately how much-(s /
15 time do I have to kind of gauge how I proceed?
16 CRAIRMAN KRESS:
Probably about 15 minutes. Can 17 you do something with that.
18-MR. KUDRICK:
Is it maybe 16?
19 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Okay, 16.
Twenty, I could 20 probably --
21 MR. CAMPE:
_Perhaps then I can kind of race 22 through the introductory slides that were meant to give you 23 ausense of the backdrop ~against which we are presenting this 24 material.
Initially, wanted to establish the fact.that we 25 are working from a baseLof-so-called established practice (d
Af=
ANN RILEY &-ASSOCIATES, LTD.
~
Court Reporters 1250:I Street, N.W.,- Suite 300 Washington, D.C.' 20005
-(202) 842-0034 m
e
(
601 I
1 with respect to conventional plants which involve active p) 2 systems and conipliance with certain criteria in a standard
(
3 review plan and notably that and traditionally if one 4
needs to do an independent assessment, CONTEMPT, which is a 5
single-note lump parameter code mentioned earlier, is the 6
code that's used for these kind of analyses.
7 And then the intent was to indicate that there are 8
some similarities and some differences as we have found in 9
the discussions through the last couple of days between the 10 conventional plants and the AP600 containment, which most 11 notably has a passive cooling system for emergency cooling 12 where the energy is dissipated to heat sinks and through the 13 PCS system.
14 For what it's worth, to some extent, the review
(_,)\\
15 procedure is still proceeding much like in the case of the 16 conventional plants but there are some noticeable 17 differences and one of them that's highlighted here is due 18 to the limitations of the CONTEMPT code, vis-a-vis the 19 unique featurec of the AP600, CONTAIN code has been used to 20 do some assessmenta.
Recognizing, of course, the various 22 limitations that have been discussed so far.
22 And I don't think I need co dwell on what those 23' limitations are.
I just wanted to mention that we are fully 24 aware of those limitations.
As you can see in the handcut, 25 I attempted to summarize some of these and I'm not going to
~s I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
602 I
waste time right now talking about it but things like Ie) 2 stratification, thermal gradients, circulation, all of that 3
that is not that the CONTAIN code is not well suited to, to 4
handle with perhaps some exceptions as noted by Dr. Tills.
5 Because of this linkage to the past practice, we 6
felt a need to do some kind of an assessment of what is the 7
relationship between the CONTEMPT single-node model and the 8
CONTAIN code.
Again, I apologize for rushing through but 9
the most important thing here that I'd like to note that is 10 inherent in the calculations we've done so far is that in 11 attempting to use CONTEMPT to do sort of a check of the code 12 and how well it stacks up, we were forced to use in 13 conjunction with that the CONTAIN code because CONTEMPT code 14 cannot handle the outside PCS film heat transfer.
So the
[\\
15 procedure was to run a CONTAIN calculation, develop the heat 16 transfer across the shell and then utilize -- take that 17 information and supply it by way of input into the CONTEMPT 18 code in order to afford the calculation with the CONTEMPT 19 code.
20 Quickly, this is just to briefly illustrate that 21 running the CONTAIN code one can obtain for the dry and wet 22 portions of the outside shell the heat transfer coefficients 23 that can be used as input in the CONTEMPT code, so that you 24 have that kind of a --
25 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
How does CONTAIN get the wet p
V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
603
(
1 coefficients?
Is it just film thickness?
()
2 MR. CAMPE:
There is a separate calculation that 3
you do outside of the code by taking the energy flow through 4
the shell and then taking into account the areas involved 5
you can calculate the --
z 6
CHAIRMAN KRESS:
The input is already cubed?
You 7
know, the cube -- the heat transfer?
8 MR. CAMPE:
With the CONTAIN code, it handles, you 9
have a direct modelling of the PSC film.
There is a film 10 tracking algorithm.
11 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Okay.
There is a film tracking 12 algorithm.
13 MR. CAMPE:
Correct -- and so by running the mass 14 and energy release into the CONTAIN ~ ode you ultimately get (3
(_)
15 the energy flowing out the shell.
16 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Did you have to add that t0 17 CONTAIN or was that already in there?
18 MR. CAMPE:
That came along in the development of 19 CONTAIN.
I don't know the details but it was not the.re 20 originally as I understand it, but it was added on sc;mewhere 21 in the history cf the development of the code.
22 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Thank you.
That answers my 23 question.
24 MR. CAMPE:
Maving done that, then we tr.sok a brief 25 look at how the two codes compared in predicting containment ji ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
f 604 l'
-pressure.and there were no --
2.
CHAIRMAN KRESS:- You used the-CONTAIN
.3 calculated coefficients-in COECEMPT?
i 4
MR.'CAMPE:
Correct.
1 5
. CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Okay.
6 MR. CAMPE:
So the differences that you see here 7'
-and'in this particular run the PCS is turned on at 660 8
seconds, so ic is obvious from chat that it is not the PCS 9
the way the two codes handle PCS necessarily that causes-10 whatever differences there may be in the calculated 11 pressure.
12 In all likelihood, these are the internal 13.
processes, how it handles the heat transfer inside the 14 containment.
15 DR. ZUBER:
Do you have similar models for heat 16 transfer for these two codes, inside?
Similar models, 17 similar configurations?
18.
MR. CAMPE:
Not identical but similar.
At the 19 very least it can be made similar by user input.
20 We then went.into, just briefly, into-a 21 confirmatory analysis calculation of the evaluation model 22 that Westinghouse had showed you earlier and what we did, 23 what we tried to do was.to make everything as identical as 24 possible in terms of initial. conditions, boundary 25~
conditions, the mass and energy curves, the conservatisms r%
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250_I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
' Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 605 1
finvolving_the PCS-heat: transfer multipliers across the-
'N 2'
shell, and having_done that the results that we got look 32
-something like this, where the-point values were just ~
4 directly_ hand-read from a report in WCAP 14.407 on the 5
evaluation model as calculated by Gothic and the solid curve 6
is what was contained using the CONTAIN code.
7 Again, this just simply says that there are no.
8 huge surprises as far as any kind of catastrophic t
9 differences between the two codes.
10-DR. ZUBER:
That is a good calculation.
i 11 MR. CAMPE:
Now'what interested us quite a bit is i
12 in full awareness of the limitations of the code, we felt 13 that varying the various performance parameters of the 14 containment system we could get a feel for how the machine 15 functions.
16 Are there any precipices, any cliffs, or what is 17 the rate of change when you vary one parameter or another?
18 Some of these in fact I think relate directly to what Dr.
19
.Zuber was saying as far as where are you in terms of
-20 margins, what would the curve look like if you were running 21-a pure adiabatic case for example.
22-We haven't quite.done'that although we could 23.
easilyfdo this, but there are some of these sensitivities 241 that point in that direction.
25' DR. ZUSERt. What you can'do then, you then change
.\\
j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street,'N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005
~
(202) 842-0034
l 606 1
the transfer area and see how much we buy.
( )j f
2 MR. CAMPE:
Correct.
v 3
DR. ZUBER:
And how below the 45 we can get.
4 MR. CAMPE:
Correct.
For example, in this case we 5
just arbitrarily took the heat sink area and decreased it by 6
50 percent across the board.
Now this is not the shell 7
area.
The shell area is separate but the internal heat 8
structure, steel and concrete, just arbitrarily reduced the 9
area by 50 percent to see what the effect is.
10 This is the resulting difference.
11 Obviously using that approach one could go to the 12 adiabatic case and get some kind of a top envelope and then 13 keep cutting back on that and see where these various things 14 are.
',m) x_;
15 DR. ZUBER:
To me, this is -- I am a little bit 16 surprised, 'aecause this really shows that you have to model 17 the internal structures.
18 MR. CAMPE:
Absolutely.
It is a vital part of the 19 engine.
20 DR. ZUBER:
Yes, right, right, right.
21 DR. CATTON:
When you model them in CONTEMPT, you 22 actually break them up into nodes and -- the heat slab --
23 MR. CAMPE:
CONTEMPT or CONTAIN?
24 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
CONTAIN --
25 DR. CATTON:
Whatever code you are using.
(9)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
7 Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
1 607 1
MR. CAMPE:
This is CONTAIN.
2 DR. CATTON:
Okay.
3 MR. CAMPE:
The structures are modelled.
What you 4
do is as you go through the design ycu group them into 5
various thickness groups -- thin steel, middle thickness 6
steel, thick steel, that sort of thing.
7 DR. ZUBER:
I have a question.
How many -- see, 8
because what yesterday, and I am not criticizing -- you did 9
it in a rough approximation.
They plumped everything in one 10 group and obtained one characteristic --
11 You have done it for several --
12 MR. CAMPE:
We have done it for several grouping.
13 The smallest amount was 20 structures.
The original 14 full-scale model involved 176 groups of structures.
15 DR. CATTON:
And then you do a 1-D conduction 16 analysis on that material, or do you just heat transfer 17 coefficient to its surface?
18 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Two sided --
19 DR. CATTON:
Or do you break it up into a 20 conduction?
21 MR. CAMPE:
I am not sure I follow.
22 You take the information from the drawings.
23 DR. CATTON:
If I have a slab of steel that is 24 four inches thick --
25 MR. CAMPE:
Correct.
rx
(
)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
~~
Court Reporters 1250 I. Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
608-I
- 1 DR.'CATTON:
-- do I break it-up into little
()
2 pieces to calculate the heat transfer _ coefficient?
3 MR. CAMPE:
Oh,-yes,.yes, yes.
4 DR. ChTTON:
That is what I wanted to know.
5 ~
MR.~CAMPE:
Any slab -- if'you had a sandwich slab 6
of-steel, paint, air gap, concrete,.every one was nodalized 7-for the conduction part', correct.
s DR. CATTON:
So you do a transient conduction-
~9~
analysis -- good.
10 MR. CAMPE:
Correct.
[
l11 MR. SCHROCK:- I have one point.
Your single node 12 lumped parameter calculation -- in AP600 you have got 4
13 compartments.
14 We have heard some things from Westinghouse about
- ~
this, but location and differences due to 15 16 compartmentalization may be a very key factor for the actual 17-AP600 also in my mind.
18 Do you think that is the right view?
1 19 MR. CAMPE:- Absolutely, and we made a comparison.
20
.Again I apologize for skipping around.
I had intended to e
.21 show this originally where we made a comparison with the 122 l CONTAIN code, the difference we got between using a single 23' cell representation and subdividing the free volume into --
24 the free volumesinto seven compartments.
25?
Again it is not surprising-I.think to see a
//~% -
- (
L ANN RILEY:& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
~
~
. Court Reporters 1250 I' Street, N.U.,-Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202)~842-0034 g.:
4
609 1
difference but -- and the difference here for example is
()
2 that you are, in the case of this seven cell model, you are 3
releasing the energy into a confined area as opposed to the 4
single cell model where you have the entire volume 5
available, but the most important thing is that we are 6
focusing on this portion hexe.
7 DR. CATTON:
What Virgil was referring to are the 8
compartments below deck.
Is that what this 7 is?
9 MR. CAMPE:
I did that for brevity.
10 The 7 cell refers to the number of cells that the 11 free volume above the operating floor was subdivided into.
12 The compartments below the floor are the 13 additional cells, each one identified with a physical entity 14 like the CMT, the reactor cavity, the steam generator 15 room -- each one of those was also a cell in addition to 16 these seven cella.
17 Another parameter -- I am just selecting a couple 18 for illustration, and then I'll summarize it in a bar chart.
19
..nother parameter was the PCS J1ow rate.
We heard 20 a lot about it.
Again, this was a very simplistic attempt 21 to do a sensitivity.
We did not get into the sophisticated 22 relationship between the film thickness and flow rate, but 23 just if you were to take the wetted surface and arbitrarily 24 keep cutting back on the mass flow rate, what is the 25 response of the --
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
610 1
DR. CATTON:
He almost got your zero.
7-~s l,
)
2 MR.-
SCHROCK:
Yes.
'Ns/
3 MR. CAMPE:
I think we can do a lot more on this, 4
but this iu just an illustration.
5 DR. ZUBER:
This gives you a feeling where you 6
have to focus and what we have to do.
7 Really, let me commend you in advance.
That's a 8
very nice analysis.
9 MR. CAMPE:
We have summarized -- what I would 10 like to do, summarize the key sensitivities that we did and 11 I hope this doesn't confuse too much.
12 What this shows is that for each one of these 13 parameters we did some sensitivities and this is the 14 resulting variation.
p)
(s,
15 Now you see here illustrated the so-called base 16 case and this is the value of the second peak pressure as it 17 relates tc the design pressure so you are talking about this 18 delta but then varying around the case case you have the 19 sensitivities.
20 What is useful in this is that you can get sort of 21 like a rule of thumb kind of thing if you want to do some --
22 look at the importance of the various parameters so that for 23 example in a heat sink are this translates to -- again, this 24 is very simple, just taking a linear fit to these two 25 values.
,r(\\)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034-
611 1
I realize there may be some curvature to that, (o) 2 This shows a negative coefficient of about.17 psi v
3 per percent change in the area around the base case.
4 DR. CATTON:
The one sensitivity that you are 5
missing is the foreign gas concentration near the surface.
6 MR. CAMPE:
True.
7 DR. CATTON:
If you had that, that might be --
8 MR. CAMPE:
No argument.
Having done that then, I 9
tried to do a -- yes?
10 DR. ZUBER:
Okay.
Let's see what it can be.
11 Sometimes we can make mistakes -- two mistakes, 12 two I mean misjudgments in combination of let's say the area 13 and the flow or something, and it doesn't have to be 10 14 percent of flow.
()
15 It can be --
16 MR. CAMPE:
Right.
17 DR. ZUBER:
20 percent or 30 percent of flow 18 and a missing 10 percent of the area and we again end up 19 above 60, 20 MR. CAMPE:
Yes.
Having dot,e thht then, in 21 summary, what I think was useful for me to look at was 22 collectively speaking broad categories of sensitivities so 23 that if you want to see where your focus should be, where 24 you should do some more work into just arbitrarily high, 25 medium, and low, so that for example what it tells me from k
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
612 1
these calculations, heat sink area and flow rate are very 2
important.
)
3 On the other extreme, we varied like source 4
temperature, the PCS water temperature, initial relative 5
humidity inside of containment were relatively minor.
6-These that fall in the middle you have to be 7_
cautious.
It depends on how far you go.
8 You can take something like the air gap and if you 9
have a rationale for postulating a much greater gap than 10 what was assumed you could easily go in this direction, but 11 the snapshot-figure right now for the ranges that we studied 12 fell more or less into these groups.
13 Basically that was the message we wanted to just i
14_
convey, what we have done so far in full view of the 15 limitations of the code, but it gave us a better feel for l
16 what the various parameters do as far as impact on the 17 containrent pressure.
I 18 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
I think that was excellent, and 19 I'm sorry we rushed you, but I think you did an excellent 20 job under the time frame of getting the message across.
21 MR. ZUBER:
Let me say it was an excellent 22 presentation, and.I really commend you.
23; MR. CAMPE:
Thank you.
24-MR. ZUBER: _And I only-wish you had better tools 25 to answer some other questions.
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-o Court Reporters 1250 I-_ Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)-:842-0034
,..r.-
w-
.v...-.
.+..e,,,v-w-
.-w.i...-+...~
...w.v.,,.-wv.
,..w...,
tw,
~w.-.
,,,..-------.-v,,,-m<-,v--w.,--,r,--m--
1 613 1
MR. CAMPE:
Maybe we will.
}
()
2 MR. ZUBER:
Hopefully you will.
3 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
At this point, there was a point 4
that was an item on the agenda where Westinghouse was going 5
to make some summary comments, and I would like to ask them I
6 now if they can do that.
7 MR. GRESHAM:
Okay.
Yes, I'll just make-a few J
8 comments.
I don't want to take too much of your time; I 4
l 9
don't want to cut into your travel much.
But just a couple 10 points that I wanted to make in summary regarding the 11 presentations that we've made over the last couple of days.
}
12 First of all, thank you all for your attention and 1
13 your input on the topics that we've presented.
14 I just wanted to reiterate our approach, that we 15 are doing a bounding calculation, we're not doing a best 16 estimate calculation, and there is margin inherent in that t
17-calculation.
In some areas, it's not -- well, it's not 18 quantified completely, but it's -- there is margin in the 19 calculation.
And by doing the calculation in a bounding
+
r 20 fashion, we are ensuring that we have a conservative
-21 prediction of the pressure.
22 Each_high and medium ranked phenomena identified 23 in the PIRT is handled-in a bounding way and, in fact, most 24 of the low ranked phenomena are as well.
25-The presentations in the last couple of days have ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,-LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I_ Street, N.W.,
Suite'300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 t
a.
614 1
focused on the -- well, specifically yesterday -- on the
()
2 mixing inside containment.
One of the results of the 3
discussions from September was that you can probably believe 4
4 the heat mass transfer correlations that we've determined 5
from the testing if you can believe that you're well mixed 6
inside containment and you understand the distribution of 7
the air and the steam, and we have tried to focus on that.
8 We have looked -- presented that look in a couple 9
different ways, one looking at the entrainment, talking 10 about the above-deck region, looking at the entrainment 11 inside the boundary layer at the wall and then looking at 12 entrainment in the plumes, looked at boundary layer profiles 13 and showed that it was near the bulk -- or the far out 14 conditions, and then the entrainment also promotes good 15
- mixing, 16 We understand that there are still some questions 17 outstanding on that and we acknowledge that.
18 I think we have shown that we do use the heat 19 sinks below the deck and looking at it in a steady state way 20 and understand that looking at it from -- factoring in the 21 transient would give you a more precise look at that.
But 22 we do believe that we have shown that you look at the -- we I
23 do use the heat sinks below the deck.
24 Regarding water coverage, it is a conservative 25 approach, especially in the peak pressure phase where it's
)
IJU1 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\\"#
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i i
i 615 i
J 1
the most important.
We could have used all the flow in the
{
f 2
model and we have been more conservative than that.
It is a i
3 key aspect of the design.
We want to make sure we're l
f 4
covering it conservatively and, in fact, we think we have 1
5 handled all of the key phenomena conservatively.
i I'
6 Again, thank you all for your attention and input, 7
and unless you have further questions for Westinghouse, I'll i
- i 8-conclude my remarks.
l t
9 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Thank you.
With that, I will -in i
10 the-remaining time, and we don't have a lot, but I'll ask 11-the consultants if they would-like to make some final i
(
12 comments at this moment, starting wich you, Ivan.
You don't
{
13 have to, but you're welcome to.
14 MR, CATTON:
Sure.
I think my written comments 15 will probably be a little bit more easily understood.
16 I think the two days has been very helpful, and --
j 17 MR. ZUBER:
Four days.
18 MR. CATTON:
Well, it has been two and two We 19 already commented on-the first two.
I'm only commenting on 20 the second two.
- 21 There are -- I'll stick strictly with what I think
- 22 the safety issues are, not the documentation and other 23
- things, because.that's a' separate issue.
24 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Yes.
25 MR. CATTON:
I'nistill a little perplexed that we t
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 4
1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
-Washington, D.C. 20005-(202) 842-0034
.,_.,-m.-
--m.,~m
,,__,_y,.
,..m>....m..r,m.
-m.,
_y..
- ~.
..,,,.m,,.
m
i 616 1
can't really tie down what that steam partial pressure is in j
- ()
2 the vicinity of the heat transfer surface, and some of the 3
information that we were shown during the meeting
{
4 demonstrates to me that it is one of the more sensitive i
i 5
parameters of the problem that we're dealing with, and I can i
f' 6-just refer you or recall for you partial pressure of steam 7
of 29 and you had a heat flux of two and a quarter BTUs per l
8 second square foot and you reduced that by 20 percent and t
9 you almost reduced the heat flux by a factor of two, not i
10 quite a factor of two but almost, which tella me there is.
i 11 really some sort of synergistic effect there.
It's a very i
j_
12 strong effect.
7 I
13 Unless we really can get something substantive l
14 that says something about the mixing, then we have a l
15 problem.
16 On the other hand, there's 10,000 square feet on 17 the top of this thing that is essentially ignored, and when I-18 you start condensing on the top of this thing, that in l
19 itself is going to enhance the mixing.
But again, I'm l
20 giving you my belief.
21-What would be helpful to me would be if the 12 2 trade-off were evaluated.
If that 10,000 square feet were-23 incorporated into the analysis, how low could that steam
- 24 concentration get before you're in trouble?
And if that t
' 25-number isLridiculously low, then I-think you could get a
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1
- Court Reporters 1250-I Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington,-D.C. 20005-(202) 842-0034
_.A"_:-
p u
^
g
- w A
w y7 y'pm-'
t-We-y
+-+th-,'-
p-P 9 Pet es" ( -
%-wtt--y+steyt+-g-g,t-y y.-g.
wye-9-w-c g---+e
.ee.g
.-+--mwN q
ga-a.y,+seyag
.--p-y-t-st vr--Etr
617 1
great deal of comfort in just accepting the fact that it's 2
mixed in spite of the fact that it has not been shown.
3 I'm uncomfortable with that approach from the 4
point of view of what you put on the table, but on the other 5
hand, from a safety point of view, I think it might be 6
adequate.
7 Anyway, I'll write you a report on the details.
8 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Thank you.
9 Novak?
10 MR. ZUBER:
I agree with all the comments he made.
11 I would like to make a suggestion concerning my comments of 12 yesterday.
I want to show you -- there is a slide -- I want 13 to show you what you did.
To addreas Ivan's concern about i
i 14 concentration and how the thing develops, it's a transient 15 process of mixing, and this was the concern I was referring i
16 yesterday.
I 17 What you did, you determined a time constant.
18 Let's call this M-Dot, the mass, the condensation, and then 19 you have heat -- this is your volume of a solid.
This is l
20 essentially how you were determining many of these 21 constants.
In a different way, but this is essentially what 22 you did, t
23 But essentially, if you go back, let me just give 24 a simple' example.
Suppose I have a solid which is cooling 25 and this is the heat transfer coefficient.
If I put it in a l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034-l
618 t
1 dimensionalist form, I obtain here in front a constant.
~
2 This is the time constant for a change of this process-here.
3 That time constant its nothing but the fractional rate of 4
change.
Your norm is the energy in the system.
It-is this 5
thing here.
This is your flux.
This is essentially an RC G
circuit in electrical engineering, i
7 What you are neglecting, you're constantly 8
neglecting the time-dependent terms, especially the 1
9 timo-dependent terms in the pressure equations.
If you 10 formulate your problem in a more presentable form, you can 11 argue from this equation what is steady state, what is not 12 steady state, and you have to address this problem here.
13 This is the pressure.
14 What you are assuming is the pressure is from a 15 steady state and then something occurs.
You have to show 16 this is the case, you have to put some numbers.
You can do 17-it, it's doable, you can probably do it in two or three 18 months.
You have done something very close to it.
You 19 evaluated this, and then what you did, this is a fractional 20 rate of change.of the norm, which is energy in your solid 21 due to,_-let's say, condensation.
22 This_is the fractional rate.
You multiplied it by
-23 characteristic time, and what you choose from your time.are 24-the period of your transient.
That's fine.
And what you 25 then defined was a fractional change, how-much the energy ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
~1250 I Street,-N.W.," Suite 300 Washir.gton, D.C. 20_005 (202) 842-0034 a-
- =.
i 619 I
4 1
has changed due to a process, and those were your numbers, j
2-
'But what you did, you.took all this processes at steady 3
state, and my comment, this is not a steady state.
That d
i i
4 mixing procese on the concentration is tied to the j
5 time-dependent phenomena, and if you proceed along these 6
lines'-- as I said, you did the first few steps, you still j
7 have a road to make, but if you proceed, you could get a
_j 8
feel for the numbers that the concentration ara within this i
9 range here, then you can address his concern and my concern.
10 It is doable.
Now, if you want to do another calculation to 11l confirm this, you will be scott free.
But it is doable.
Could we have a copy of that slide, 13
.pleasc?
14 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Novak?
'15 MR. ZUBER:
Yes.
i 16' CHAIRMAN KRESS:
If they build up the transient in 1
17 a finite difference manner where they took average values i
18 over short time periods --
[
19 MR. ZUBER:
There are many things they could do, 1 '
20 you see, i
21 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
- Yes, 22 MR. ZUBER:
I think I'm just looking for a few 23 steps to get the feel for the numbers, and then if I see 24 something_is important or they point it out, then I'll focus 25
~on'it, and if I have to refine it or-put more ingredients, t
}
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD._
Court Reporters 1250 I' Street,_-N.W.,. Suite 300-t Washington,-D.C. 20005-(202)- 842-0034 F
,, - _. -.. -. _. ~. _,,, _.. _. _, _ _ ~ _, _ -. -.. _.,,. _. _.
L 620 i
l 1
more salt, more pepper, then I have a better dish.
2-CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Okay.
I was trying to figure out 3
how they could do the transient, f
i 4
MR. CATTON:
It could be that codes like CONTAIN 4
5 or whatever pretty much already do all that.
G CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Already does this, yes.
i j
7 MR. ZUBER:
Yes, they do, but what they can do is 8
in this case --
[
i 9
MR. CATTON:
It's not quite as transparent, j
10 though.
It's much more opaque.
11 MR. ZUBER:
Well, what you really have -- you have 12 to tie the -- the plume in a transient way and see how the j
13 thing rotates and get a time constant for that, and then tie 14 it to the other processes, like condensation.
- (
)
15 What I'm trying to say, what you did is this t
l 16 simple example -- you just took and evaluated the changes 17.
and then took a characteristics time and said that sink has 4
18 changed by ten percent or 90 percent.
That's fine, but 19 that's steady state, and you have to take up -- and where 20
- you got your pressure was for -- you took it as a steady 21 state, and my comment is that's not a steady state.
But it 22 can be addressed, and the time constant will come from the 23;
_ plume and where it is and how many you have once you 24 formulate that you have enough rhythms.
25:
But-my comment to the management it's here it's 4
l j )
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
' 1250 1_ Street,.N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 r
(202) 842-0034 w
a v-- e s., h -e w
wi-H..,y-
'6.-s----,.+-y
'y-e_,,r=
=%-m w-
.,a e
nr-
-e-w.
4+ w-- re ae-e--
-seur=-e,uy9-=-y-m--
m e=e -
---y
+95
621 1
there.
I'm really sad that after five years, this is not 2
put to rest.
It can be done and I would urge Westinghouse 3
to do it so next time you come, we can say this is a perfect 2
4 thing and then we have a good view or something better than
)
i i
5 that.
i i
6 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Virgil?
l 7
MR.-SCHROCK:
I don't have very much to add.
I B
thought the Westinghouse presentations on each of the items 9
that Mr. Gresham mentioned were useful.
I would say that in 10 my view, the boundary layer analysis and the utilization of 11 heat sinks would best be classified at this point as work in 12-progress, and that I would hope that there would be some 13 additional work pursuing things that West.inghouse may have 14 learned from the interplay at this meeting and maybe from j
15 the reports that they will be reading, and that they would L
16 incorporate this into the documentation for the case that I
17 they're making for a conservative analysis for licensing.
i l
18 So that's essentially all-that I have to offer at 19 this point.
20 CHAIRMAN KRESS:
Okay.
With that, I'll ask the 21 staff if they wanted to make any parting comments before I 22 close the meeting?
23 MR. ZUBER:
I did make a comment.
I would really 24 like-to. compliment this last presentation.. That gave us a 25' good feel, and thank you.
' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300-Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034-
622 1
CHAIRMAN KRESS:
With that, okay, I'm going to f
l 2
adjourn this meeting.
t l
i 3
[Whereupon, at 2:21 p.m., the meeting was i
4 concluded.)
f l
5 6
l l
7 i
i 8-l 9
4 10 11 I
12 c
14 15 16 17 l
18 19 20
}
21 22
,23
.24 25i
't ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
--Court Reporters
. 1 2 5 0 :- I-S t r e e t,
N.W., Suite 300
' Washington, D.C. 20005
'(202) 842-0034 i
- ~. -. - - - - -,
I REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE i
This is to certify that-the attached proceedings
()
before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
I NAME OF PROCEEDING:
THERMAL-HYDRAULIC AND SEVERE-ACCIDENT PHENOMENA I
i DOCKET NUMBER:
i PLACE OF PROCEEDING:
Rockville, MD were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court
(
reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
(
'l u
w Jon Hundley Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd, t
o o
o l
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards i
l Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee t
l December 12,1997 4
1 i
Confirmatory Analysis Using the CONTAIN Code I
i Kazimieras M.
Campe h
Containment Systems and Severe Accident Branch Division of Systems Safety and Analysis j
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
1 3
4 m
m m.
m.
O O
O i
STAFF APPROACH TO AP600 CONTAINMENT DBA ANALYSIS ESTABLISHED PRACTICE FOR SAFETY REVIEW OF CONVENTIONAL CONTAINMENT f
DESIGNS i
SAFETY REVIEW OF AP600 CONTAINMENT DESIGN CONTEMPTICONTAIN COMPARISON 1
t CONFIRMATORY ANALYSIS SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS l
l
SUMMARY
l I
l s
i
.,c.
-O' O
O
.I i
?
z I
ESTABLISHED PRACTICE FOR SAFETY REVIEW OF CONVENTIONAL CONTAINMENT DESIGNS l
DESIGNS INVOLVE USE OF ACTIVE ECCS SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS (Pumps, sprays, etc.)
I l
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 6.2.1.1.A
- Use CONTEMPT (CONTEMPT LT-28) for confirmatory analysis l
- Acceptance criteria include <50% of paak calculated pressure in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> l
i i
t i
i i
i
O O
O t
i t
APPROACH FOR SAFETY REVIEW OF AP600 CONTAINMENT DESIGN f
i i
DESIGN INVOLVES PASSIVE EMERGENCY COOLING SYSTEM IN LIEU OF AN ACTIVE ECCS (Energy dissipation to heat sinks and PCS)
- Passive emergency cooling systems involve longer transients (hours) than what is typical for active systems (minutes) in conventional designs.
l t
FOLLOWS STANDARD REVIEW PLAN 6.2.1.1.A PROCEDURES (taking into account a non-standard PCS)
- Use CONTAIN code for confirmatory analysis
- Westinghouse objective is to show <50% peak calculated pressure in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />
O O
O i
VALIDATION OF CONTAIN CODE VALIDATION MODES l
-Test facilities and experiments
- Other codes
- Analytic l
PRINCIPAL AREAS OF VALIDATION
- Atmospheric thermal hydraulics and intercell flow
<=
i f
- Heat and mass transfer
<=
- Hydrogen burns
- Pressure suppression models i
- Miscellaneous models i
s F
i i
(=> Areas involved in AP600 analyses to-date) l i
..>4 r
4 1
T O
O O
CODE LIMITATIONS E
)
LUMPED PARAMETER CODES (e.g., WGOTHIC, CONTAIN, CONTEMPT) ARE LIMITED TO CELL
. AVERAGED REPRESENTATION OF THERMAL-HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS. HENCE, THEY ARE NOT WELL SUITED FOR DIRECT MODELING OF PHENOMENA SUCH AS
- Stratification
-Thermal gradients
-Velocity profiles
- Mixing flow patterns CODE MODELING AND ANALYSIS USEFUL FOR 3
- Analysis of well mixed systems
- Sensitivity evaluations
- Trending i
1 l
i i
~
O O
O CONTEMPT /CONTAIN COMPARISON i
i CONTEMPT MODEL
- Single-node
- Tagami/Uchida heat transfer correlations
- User prescribed PCS heat transfer coefficients USE CONTAIN CODE TO ADDRESS CONTEMPT LIMITATIONS
- Direct modeling of the PCS
- Use multi-node model
- Generate PCS heat transfer coefficients for use in CONTEMPT l
DEVELOPMENT OF CONTEMPT-LIKE INPUTS FOR CONTAIN r
- Single-node modeling (CONTAIN multi-node model collapsed to a single-node)
- CONTEMPT-!ike heat transfer
- Matching initial conditions, (pressure, temperature, rei. humidity, volume)
- Consistent heat structures (materials, masses, areas) i I
I RESULTS 1
i
,-m-
~,
~
O' O
O Average PCS film coefficients LT_D_B m
p-300 E
8 E
w
~
200 8
N 2
lr i
100 i
/
h.
" ^
O 1
10 100 1000 10000 100000 Time (seconds) i M7WWQD_B.HCOEF.REV3}
\\
__-__.,_._.___.__.--_.._..___i
(elsd) eJnsseJd n
m m
m m
m
+
a a
4 x
x sg g
i l-i i
i i
t l
l l
I l
,/
og
\\/e' /
I I
.O l
u
/
3 I
/
u)
I
/
V) l l
l 0
\\
~
$i
'l N
^
9i s
i o
4;
$j
\\
m C
Q-(E n'
\\
a m
E I
U hl It I
F c
3 ll E
8 C
BJ O
8,1 O
RI ol
/
l l
1
- s l
I
~
l l
l 1
I f
l a
i.
?
n u
(ed) L0000'0_x eJnsseJd
,o J
e.v-.
nar.,- - - -
r a
ns,
l
!;li!,
i
[l t
[
t e'5. ueoEg O
O 4
4 m#
4 a
4 4
4 4
4 2
n y0 7
6 3
I s
8 7
s 4
2 2
i 1
2 1
1 g0 0
~
~
~
00 1
0 00
\\
f 0
\\
1
\\
N e
\\
,\\
ru ta s
r e
00 p
f 0
ff 1
n B
)
i c
e r
D m
e T
T-r s
(
m Ot e
L c
}
n m
i e
1 T
mC F
g 0
e 0
f n
d 1
4 i
4 a
-T t
a noC 8
0 1
/ /j/
~
/-
f, 1
0 m
0 0
0 o
8 7
s 1
4 4
3 3
3 3
M-U&OEeH O
C
,ij 1
O O
O CONFIRMATORY ANALYSIS OF AP600 CONTAINMENT l
t I
WESTINGHOUSE AP600 EVALUATION MODEL (EM)
CONTAIN MODELING AND ANALYSES OF EM r
r I
I J
4
O O
O WESTINGHOUSE AP600 EVALUATION MODEL (EM)
Used for Design Basis Analyses (DBAs) with the WGOTHIC code includes assumptions of conservatism e
- Containment shell heat transfer multipliers
-Initial conditions consistent with past practice
- Material properties i
- Concrete liner air gap
- Pressure loss coefficient in external annalus l
- Dead-ended compartment heat transfer shutoff i
l WGOTHIC results, (Figure 10-1 in WCAP 14407, Rev.1) r i
~ --
~
U-s O
Os t
CONTAIN MODELING OF EM l
Includes matching assumptions (with the exception of material properties and pressure loss coefficients in external annulus) l Comparison of CONTAIN/WGOTHIC results t
I I
i, i
I l-!
^3_ E -
nuUG a-
))
t O
5 5
5 5
5 5
4 4
4 4
4 40 6
5 4
3 2
100 00 1
)le d
C o IH m TO M E
a G
(
is W
0
/
0 p
0
' 0 0
1 06
=
e
)
r le d
O o
u n
s s
E 0
(
0 N
0 e
I 1
a A
r P
T
)
N P
5 O
c B
0 C
e t
+
s n
D e
(
4 Oe e
1 1
4 m
mC
=
iT n
e r
.i u
0
.a s
O s
0 1
t e
r n
p o
ng C
is e
O-D
' 0
' 1 1
o.
0 0
0 4
3 2
1
^& v "ooOO o x au)UG a.
)
O O
~
~
,ll 1
lll
,)l
O O
O SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF AP600 CONTAINMENT PROVIDE A MEASURE OF AP600 CONTAINMENT PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE BEHAVIOR WITH RESPECT TO DESIGN PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS CONT'AIN SINGLE-NODE MODEL
- Comparison with multi-node model PRINCIPAL DESIGN PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS
- Heat sink area
- PCS flow rate
- PCS actuation time l
- PCS weMed area
- PCS source temperature
-Initial relative humidity
- Concrete liner air gap SENSITIVITY RESULTS
j1
,!t ;i t!
i! b!
.[j[;li!!
eI[b!!
I!!
)
I w
7 mS em3$m'Q O
s s.
s.
s.
5 s.
4 4
4 4
40 s
5 4
3 2
100 0
0 1
g a
N 0
i_s
\\
0 p
\\
00 O
\\
w 1
0_
\\
\\
6
\\
=_
e r
u s
s s
e 00 e
' 0 a_
1 r
P P
s_
)c B
o
/
e t
f s
n D
e
/
(
1
. Oe e
11 1
m mC
=
iT n
eg
' 0 i
0 a
s s
1 t
e n
j p
N o
e
\\
C s
N e
D_
le le l
l c
c
/
1 7
/ /
/
0
/
1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/ /
/
/
y 1
0 0
0 0
4 3
2 1
UL~
ooooi x e5wm8O O-c (C
n
- ,f f
Li! a 5
[.'t i : ;:,
f!'
,I.
i
^
u OyE8Ey o
4 4
N 4
4 4
4 g
4 4
4 4
4 7
6 4
3 2
1 S
8 7
s 4
30 2
2 2
2 2
2 1
1 1
1 100
~
00 1
00 0
0 1
\\
e
\\
\\
ru t
\\
a N
re 0
p 00
/
1 m
)
e B
ce T
D s
(
e n
m 1
le c
C i
e l
T l
le m
c
-7 00 n
1 1
i a
t n
o C
/ /
0 f
f 1
/
f
/
f
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
p t
1 0
O 0
0 0
m 0
0 0
1 8
7 5
4 3
4 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
a-
^M~@5@.o@H
~
~
(e!sd) eJnsseJd O
3 s
4 x
a 28 i
i i
l I
I I
j l
a i
I I $N i
x 1
I G-I u
.L a
{\\
m m
LI N5 i
m i
4
~ g G
I u
4 EI eE Q
iw
- a. I o
p
-I Om 4
Ti g
E-I e
C O
~C I
EI a
gI Na eI j
31 4I
- e u
e ;I a
E I ti. l
.5 I
$I oI i
0 3
m (Ed) L0000'0 x eJnsseJd V
i l
i r-
!1 i
{
I'
_ o*$3c5aEG c
O 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
7 6
5 3
1 0
9 8
7 6
4 2
2 2
2 2
2 1
1 1
1 1
~
1 1
/
e ru F
t
.g a
e d
r e
6 2
1 p
T
=
1 mA A
)
c e
S e
T H
s
(
Ot D
e e
n m
s a
a e
1 e
c iT ra e
mC is 0
s k
a n
b 0
n t
1 a
.i e
a h
t 0
n 5
o C
0 1
~
1 0
=
0 0
0 0
1 7
6 5
4 4
3 3
3 3
O M b3EgQEeF
f 1t j
L MOv @u2MMOm.O s
5 5
0 5
5 e
4 4
- ~
4 40 s
5 4
3 2
100
~
00 1
e e
m u
r b
h-r S
S C
C P
P 00 5
0 0
2 0
1 1
e ru s
r~
h s
a_
0 is _
S 0
e p __
C
' 0 r
F 1
0 m
P
)
0 _
P. S R
c u
r 6
F hM e
t C
' = _
s n
P
(
S a
C e
P e
D
%M m
m-0 i
5 T
1 n
C
.ia 00 1
t n
a o
P _
3, 5
/
C.
p 0 _
+
7, e _
y 4
p 1
3 4
= _
e 0
ru 1
s _
se p __
r i
n _
s g_
p i
5 s _
3 e_
4 D
=
P A
1 0
0 0
0 4
3 2
1 mWL "7 ooO'O X Ow MMG)'Q
)v C
I l!fl;.
ilIjf iI;I' l;i
- l!
IillIi
? ir i
['
{
iitli)l.it, (i !lli i !l l'
i, f
i
,l i :;, jI!.
I.
e s
u E
v o
RU SS 5
E
, 5 E
R R
P U
X S
A S
M E
E R
S P
A N
C G
0 E
S I
0 S
E t
i 7
s A
D p
B 1
7
=
5 P
4 A
0 l
l 0
t N
6 A'
i I
l l
I i
l
)a l
.i g
l I
.4 l
I 8 l iIl l
I i:i
! I I~
l 1 I 0
l
. 5.P
(
0 3
t 5
-1 0000
+
0
. o x
0 0
t e
4 rus
- 5. s
. 2e.
)
a 0
5 r
i 0
s 5
1 2
e P
e c p
0 s e
(
5 s
0 r
s s e 0 0
0 im im u 0 t
0 1
3 0 0 0
0 1
s 2
3 0
0 5
1 s
1 4
e rP e
0 5
1 0~t 2"
esa e
c s
e a
s c
s a
e s
b s
a 0 ;
g a
c e
0 ess 1
o 5
1;
~
0 A
A E
E E
E P
6 T
M R
A R
A I
A G im T
l)
A R
)
K %
T c
D R
)
g
)
)
I
/
N W
R e
E %
A is s
S p
O A
/s T
/
p I
L s
T i
T i R
s s
5 T
7 F
p S
p E
p E 6 A
1.
S 8
S 3
W 4
N 0 E
0 I
S 0 L 0 H
C 0
C 0
~
(
P 0
P 0
C 0
(
0 P
(
(
(
~
1
,1:
1' lll i
.i lj!!l j!lI IiI) j
)
ijj ll
!l!llllil)i i!!!i F
.g e
d 3
32
-T e'W g
0-A ER 1
A 4
R wM I
m l
2
_D SE l
l 0
0 I
l i
0 l
f l
4 --
, i l g
l I e'
l ll t I I[lg i I
i i l I
_I 0
0 52 0
. 0 39 f
04 2
)
a K
0
(
03 e
2 r
)
u F
f t
08a o e.
3r g.
0 e
0 d.
2 p
m 2
(
0% % % %
im i
T s
Ps e
e 5
0 r
2 0
0 0
0 m
0 1
u-'
1 5
2 3
6 0
e c c.
0 5
1 t
.0 e e s s 4
a 0
0 0
0 r
12 0
1 s
e-0 s
0 p.
1 f
73 me
. 0 T
00 i
2 0
09 i
0 1
I 6
e 3
s e
e a
s s
c a
a c
e c
0 i
s e
e
. 0 a
n s
8 b
e a
b b
1 053 A
E A
E R
E E
)
T M
A P
a RA %
A I
)
)
c D
A K F T
R T e E %
- G
/
)
)
N g
W
/
R s T
/
/
R im l
I o
F.
A F T
F.
A /
I O
S d'
E g
T g g
F L
T 5 F
S e W e R
e A 2 d.
g S d d
E S
3 S
N d'
e E 0 C 3 6
I C
- 1..
P 0 C
H P
0 L
0.
0 P
0 1
(
0 0
(
(
(
(
~
=
o o
o i
i
SUMMARY
AP600 containment DBA analysis performed within established review practice with some i
modifications.
A CONTEMPT /CONTAIN comparison has been made of AP600 pressure and temperi.ture response, showing reasonable agreement.
Comparison of results between CONTAIN and WGOTHIC shows good agreement.
?
Containment pressure / temperature response sensitivities i
tilgh Medium Lo_w
- Heat sink area
- Liner air gap
- PCS source temperature I
j-
- PCS flow rate
- PCS wetted area
-Initial relative humidity
- PCs actuation time r
k i
I i
- (.
l l
j Confirmatory Analysis Using the CONTAIN Code:
CONTAIN Code i
Presentation to ACRS Subcommittee on 4
Thermal liydraulic and Severe Accident Phenomena i
i i
l i
f l
t i t i
i=
i By Jack Tills, JTA Inc, Accident Evaluation Branch Division of Systems Technology December 12,1997 Rockville, Maryland 4
v
~
9 9
,. +..
y
E
. =.
L Presentation Outline 4-1 i-Status of CONTAIN Code l
e-I e
CONTAIN Code Transition to Licensing e
Overview of CONTAIN Code Assessments General ALWR-AP600 Specific n
e CONTAIN Code Assessments for General DBA Analysis and for AP600 Applications i
4 L0 P
p i
i L
I t
i 4
l-
.~
i:
...J...-A.-...
...,.... ~ -
lO Status of the CONTAIN Code-i 2
CONTAIN 2.017 ozen - 1 December 1997 r
Code Manual for CONTAIN 2.0 reviewed, manuscript at printer
-- CONTAIN Independent Peer Review, LA-12866, Jan. '95 1
o CONTAIN 2,0 has been released per special request NRR has CONTAIN 2.0 and Code Manual 4
i O 4
[}
w
k p
SAND 971735 i
Code Manual for CONTAIN 2.0:
A Computer Code for Nuclear Reactor Containment Analysis i
Manuscript Completed: June 30,1997 Date Published: xxxx 1997 Prepared by K. K. Murata, D. C. Williams, J. Tills,' R, O. Griffith, R. O. Gido, Cg E. L Tadios, F. J. Davis, G. M. Martinez, V
and K. E. Washington Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 87185
)
- J. L Tills & Associates,Inc.
Sandia Park, NM 87047 i
Prepared for Division of Systems Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 NRC FIN A1198 Title page for the CONTAIN 2,0 Code Manual
-O
a t
e
'r s
- :o-CONTAIN Code Transition to Licensing k
k i-Lang-term: Assessment and qualification for DBA analysis I
l e
Short-term: CONTAIN Code used to investigate AP600 issues i
Containment loads Long term core coolability (RELAP/CONTAIN link) 19 l.
I i
l 1
l I.
l l
' -: i' l'
~. '
L
O NRC/RES Program to Qualify CONTAIN Code to Perform DBA analysis CONTAIN Code assessment reports re-run key integral assessments with latest version of code re-run key separate effects assessments run licensing base-line experiments (CVTR, etc.)
CONTAIN Code qualification reppris_(containment type and/or analysis type) regulations / guidelines O
establish BA PIRT demonstrate code adequacy key code-to-code comparisons for bridging to past DBA efforts user guidance for perfonning DBA analyses O
4 l
d i
O Qualifying.Models for AP600 Applications 1
Method:
PIRT-Containment type and scenario Identify models with phenomena Ranking criteria Assessment of models (per ranking criteria)
Compare PIRT with model assessment e
Example:
I From " User Guidance on the CONTAIN Code for Advanced Light i
Water Reactors"
.O 4
?
4 i
J 1
4 t
,m v-y
I 3
'f
~
I l
i i
1 - -
i o.
l t
L
?
't
?
I n
l l
1 i
I i.
r 1
.g h
I.
t l
4 I~
l-I i
l 1
i; l '.
P I
,I l'.
?
i' i
a h'
iI t
I i
t d-t i-t 8_
k
- ' +
i I
+
f~
.,1 4.-~~
j i.l-~
i.
it j: - --
_______._.2._______;____.__._
n..- -... a.
4-
l '.-
I b -
y 1
i I
s I.
j
=
i.
1 i
i
}
5 i
..5
't' I
l 1
k 1
O I
i.
+
3 I
h
'~
4
,e m--m--
- . ~,-
g h
I l
?
h
- h I
O i
l t
'9 l
'1 1
- 1 1
1 i
~l
-i l
l 1
1 i
i I.
l l-1.-
r i
l 5i b
l i
e i
~-
a 1
l
.g l.
b t
l l
1
- r' I --c f
'4 i
I k
' t
' k I
i l
~
t l'
I-J.
i s_-
h 4
f-h
=
j l
1._
~-
l
~ws-w.na-e-r----,,_--_
O Ourview of CONTAIN Cotle Assessment and Analysis Reports General:
CONTAIN Code: Design Basis A::cident Validation Summary (Draft)
Assessment of CONTAIN 2.0 for DBA Analysis:
Integral Test Comparison, Part I
- AP600:
Calculations and Analyses for the Large-Scale Passive Containment Cooling System (PCS) Tests
- User Guidance on the CONTAIN Code for Advanced Light Water Reactors Evaluation of the Applicability of CONTAIN Heat and Mass Transfer Models to Asymmetrically Heated Vertical Channels
- CONTAIN Applications to AP600 Design Basis Containment Analyses SBWR:
Analysis of the GE PANTHERS Tests using the CONTAIN Coc'e Letter Report on PCCS Modeling for SBWR
- Examples:
Gas transport and stratification - CVTR Test #3 Evaporation heat transfer coefficients for LST Test # 223.1 (forced)
Condensation heat transfer coefGeients for LST Test # 202.3 (forced)
O Sherwood Number comparisons for LST Test # 214.1 (buoyancy induced)
O p-Table 1.1 Summary of the DBA Assessment Tests Facility Test ID.
ISP #
Accident References simulation type llDR V44 ISP-16 LOCA 2,3,4 IIDR T31.5 ISP-23 LOCA 5, 6 IIDR El 1.2 ISP-29 SBLOCA 7,8,9 CVTR Test #3 N/A MSLB 10 0
2
p p
p
.V V
v Assessment Example: Gas Transport and stratification - CVTR Test #3 i
l 1
i 15
- "'O l
a 14 13 14 y
~ ~ *' ~
128 II 1 I*
4 i
t e.
s 10 9
10 l
m, 8
7 8
l
- - " * ~
N n.ne" f
g
= ' - * "
68 5
8 6 a
i e
I 4 I 3
3 4 a-
""l"* "]
t t
2 I
'2 m
sW4Kvk+X-mw:wt,y i
s 1
f g
Figtze 3.10 Nodaatarson im CVTR 15.ceu CONTAIN deck l
I
_... ~ -. -. _ - - -..
i O
i 29'- 3" 1/2" Sie el Lleer i
8end U ne EL-360' i l 62'-O" OD
~;
Concrete
~
OPER ATING REGION 5 8 '- O " O O
~
t/4" Steel Liner Ground Level EL - 324' i
M L 'i"."";J'"'
F E
INTERME0 LATE REGION v
EL_,,3 SASEMENT REGION Sosement Floor EL-275' 5h$.'Y$.h,kYY$5Yb.k'.k.$hY'$Yk:k$
\\ \\
s Foundation Mot O
4 Assessment Example: Gas Transport and stratification - CVTR Test #3 l
l Elevation:
34.8 m 389 ft 4
15 4
l 25.9 360 i
i 14 l 13 l 14 22.3
l-------------------------l-----
348 e
i I
i i
12 :
11
- 12 18.6 336 i
i 10 l 9
l 10 16.6
r-330 8
7 l 8 15.2 325 6;
5 6
t l
12.8 317 i
i 19 l 18 19 10.4
7--------------
1-----
309 e
i 4l 3
l 4 7,9
p----------.------------ q-----
301 17 l 16 l 17 5.5
- ------------------------1-----
293 i
i i
i i
2l 1
l 2 e
i i
e i
i 0m 275 ft Figure 4.7 The 19-cell nodalization of CVTR.
CONTAIN Nodalization sensitivity study for the CVTR containment S
4
Assessment Example: Gas Transport and stratification - CVTR O
Test #3 se
.... +
/\\,'
- l. - u....m.
I 24 l
l n
h s0
/
I 1.
/
E e,
1.
/
1.4 1.2 10 0
100 200 300 400 500 000 w.s.c Figure 3.1i Comparison of CVTR test #3 containment pressures for the CONTAIN reference esiculation and measurement.
Os V
. e-.
Ic8 (174 m)
.+. lef (& 7 m)
-+-. Estl eta t al
-"+- N h4f[
[n )M
' I* #* *I
'"s 3 [F te m) 420
~
es
. ~. -
cet 5 (118 m) g 400
/
\\
eas is cia i mi I
- e 360 f,'
g-s.*_,...
340 i'
_, ~ ~ -. ~.
e 320 300
(
200 200 0
200 400 000 000 l'A Time, see Figure 3.12 Comparison of measured md calculated local temperatures for the CON TAIN reference (15-cell) fnput deck.
Reference Calculation [Ref: Assessment of CONTAIN 2.0 for DBA (J -
Analysis: Integral Test Comparisons, Part il t
O
--o--
tc5 (2.74 m)
--*-- tc7 (C.7 m)
-e--
tc11 (13.4 m)
--+- sissPW fc6 (2744'm) ed 1 t2.74 m) 420 cd 2 (7.92 m),
ed 5 (12.5 m)
/g
,f g
edis(almi
,oo
,s s l
x 380 l
+---------_--
o ts I 360
\\.s'
<,/!/ '
g s.'
g 3,o p
p 320 1
1
=
300 Q,
280-200 0
200 400 600 800 1000 Time, see Figure 3.12 Comparison of measured and calculated local temperatures for the CONTAIN reference (15-cell) input deck.
O
-+-- t:5 (2 74 m)
+ 'C7 6 7 *)
400
--s-tc11 (13 4 m) gs tc28 (28 95 m) 380
[ ",
$'3 t
.92 m)
/
,T cel 5 (12 8 m)
,/
N, cel 15 (281 m) g 360
/
N, cel 6 (12 8 m)
~
i dl'l l\\.
's '~
3
/
~
-a
~.'
g 340
//
~
y
}i
~~._, ~~~._
l N.
1 300 C
I f
1 1
t 200 0
200 400 600 800 1000 Time, see O
Figure 4.6 Comparison of menured and predicted temperatures in sensitivity case 4m for CVTR test # 3 Sensitivity calculation. for enthalpy reduction (2.8%) and lower containment condensate / atmosphere heat transfer O
Assessment Example: Gas Transport and str..tification - CVTR O
rest n 30
- 6
}
l rouese
'o t
t r
m
.1
/
..v.ta 10 100 100 300 600 700 000 1100 Time see Figure 4.4 Comparison of rnessured and predicted pressure for the CVTR test #3.
+ tc8 9 74 m)
-+= le? (4 7 m)
-e=
tc t t (13 4 m)
+ tali tt3 4 mt
- W
~
380 5 a0 f
....'.===.;.......
h ij 340
/
d 88Vecd 4
i w_
4 280
-200 0
200 430 600 em 1000 Time. see Figure 4.5 Comparison of measured and predicted temperature for the CVTR test #3.
Single Cell Calculation [Ref: Assesnnent of CONTAIN 2.0 for DIIA Q
Analysis: Integral Test Comparisens, l' art Il
Assessment Example: Gas Transpor. and stratification - CVTR t6
^
_e_
g,p,,,m,4 4,4.. rm.. c M.
to g
l is I
,8 14 1,
10 0
Im 200 3N Am 5m 600 700 BM M
1000 Figure 4.8 Comparison of measured and predicted pressures in the 19 cell reference case and the 19-cell forced convection case for CVTR test
- 3.
Containment pressure sensitivity to forced convection mass transfer along upper containment w all O
4 p
Assessment Example: Gas Transport and stratification - CVTR
(]
Test #3 SN
=., _....
.s y,i r
-_ gas il N 1.
,/1 (
==*== fCm MNa
-4
=
I: so j
\\,
320 i
= M =~<....
tue i
,00 9
100 Pts 300 400
$ce 600 700 000 000 1000 Tuns. ens figure 4 9 Cornparison of measured and predicted gas ternperatures in the CVTR 19< ell reference cue.
\\
di$
sts. 4 N.a
.+
i,s,,. e,e,,,
..... c,,.s t. 0 fe n,is,. s i,,.,,
te das f,,j
\\.
,cm. n n.
.- c. 's m i.
s
\\
879 ano
',,/,,.,g
\\*
se sw am Set ses see i
A e
iso sie as ao eso ao no se aos use tsee ese Figure 4.10 Compartion of measured and predicted gas temperatures in the CVTR 194 ell forced convection cue.
~
.,,s v
M ece<
w e-sw n
nw w,
m - - - -
--+wer-
,rrrareme-un-msr,--w-,--m-w-w-w*-
d 1
J 1
1 a
4 O
1 f
u l
l
?
1
\\
l 1
e i
I I
I r
k I
I I
I IO I
?
i i
I f
i s
i 5
i i
i t
I' s
I r
O f
7 0
e e
i w,+ene.-r,w.r$
eeg,*+
er
--se++w=.We,a-w4,-wn-mrem--.--mew--e+-msem e-
- ---r-s.rm-
--w. -ma------
--m
ws-
O 1
i l
l f
L l
I l
9 f
t I
e l
I :'
i 1
4
?
s I'
?
l l-E I'I:
i.-
s-i t
- f. -
,' ?
3 d
?
i
.I t
i i
T '
I i.
. j 1
t 5
j y
i i.
T, 5~
+
. +
I l
~
t
.L
I 4. = =. -
s_
.-r-1
.,I' 1
a
O q
I 1
l l
l t
I t
l I
1 Ih e
i
}
l I
t I
I I
i F-i y
1
-l l
t i
i y
I
_o i
'?
i:
l
=
g 6
i i
. I.
I i
I l
4 i
t t
?
I l.
t i
i t
I i,
\\@
n o
9
,,,o_m.-~---,-ew.~~~"*""""""'~"~
..uuumn-.i
'Li I a lu it iult
'ImJ
.s
'l
.I'ln se t
9 l
l 1
i I
l 4
7 l
1 I
i e
3 i
O 2
i li I
i i
i
?
I i
4 I
O
- \\
l 1
1
[
4 3
- , -.u J.
- d
~.
..