Text

Transcript of 971210 ACRS Meeting Re Thermal-Hydraulic & Severe Accident Phenomena.Pp 324-344 & 314-663.Closed Session.Pp 345-613
	ML20198P641
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/10/1997
From:	; Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	;
References
	ACRS-T-3019, NUDOCS 9801220195
	Download: ML20198P641 (86)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:. W f?l ;C:., D C,,'9;R';.y.T*+g. g,.. k..' Y 'I. } 'f.

h.f

,,,.. '. 7. R%y. y % Q, &. _;; %., Wu. ~ a. [. 'f.,. y ' ::y:Q 4 % N.. /. '!.'4;W [ ,q., < '..% . + s., :,.: r;, n.g.v. n,: X.c p:'.Qifly " p.M4 Q '.- ) ', f.. Zy; 'Qb, Yf]Q'! - Q Q' ' d + v k a , p' > : b ,h. i: !t *d 7',.. Y../l:'...p: ;.g Q.1,.M. %.,, 'c,y% - .'..,.. J - Q.. ; .s ?. l'. ND: ,, h iM . Q :v,y* j. .s W } a .Qe .*..A , 4 ' :,\\. '. - ] s,,.s ,*A e . _... a,. 4 ' ' : f,,. ;;. f,, 't ;

e m.,,,,J p

.,d, ' y..' ,.....,...'y ,ph '. '.4.. h, z ,, v, . '.,f.y. f ",.,f [,.,. m. v., .. y,5's..j h*,; l.. ;., g(. ,y' A j \\. ..,y - " 4. 3,yf ' ' i, ! ' Q,,, 0 Q ',p" ly, [,. ;N

e[ I,p

%., b, $ 1,y,*;j &',9 9 / 7< 't.+, a'cQ l y } ( b- /; J .,.h; _., y.. } 4 ;,,. g s ' q. } * <**,:. l p;,.)_ f % y,,: ,, p. ,y ' g 'J ';;; : A 'j y; ,l f y f,

: ;,..,..,, g u,

c - gP.. .1 f - l v.,.. y :. . ~ q. y - :.~ .s M.:. [ f. ~ (,

i' '.

7, ' h './ ' J f' }, [f. \\ l:. D,,. /.q. g'.' ( j,1 *. (,',(o'l {.[ 3., 9 *!.% p.d.

D U kN' ',; ', ".

[ ' [' /, ll5./,'.'"l.,j /.'.,,, j f.,!,,. [t ( + - - !, ' J).[, ' ' (..,.' '.. '. l l *?. [ - ' , f.. ,'..,.} b.. [s.'. .?, :;- je "M ' l.f})*1h[: f. y. , e vt. 'h ~ fh: '{ l ?. ,,ty '>$f'. 9 ,'s..~ p. > s.,' .;?.h*f,..),,t,' ': f, yf.Y {,[j, W 4,k _ *','g,' ' . ; A :, %' ,e f" ..',) Y,*,(*,.h f, q.f * ?;' i l3.j g 9 gi(..,ls.~ V* ', " f ',ns .).' , j, '. * ' ' '.T.'f,;.,.'U(d fj.,'A., A, #.' ', a p A ',,.,, ;,

g 1/ ;

,, Q, ;g ', V;f.} !' (.{ f.,. 4 *_ s.;l*lp l l&.&, y g' 4' ' ' ',,,,f;.f l' W J e, -l* n i 7,,. : c, p 4;., ..y,. / f 3 1

5L V 4 g[,

H. n

i

' q...i.';,'

.,8

- 'y\\ p,gy,)' V',*...'s a..k,' /s'.d,4 ;' i fi...'T ; 9 9 'f f

.N...,.. q. a 4 t sS7 4."1 ' 4, ' y,' y,;'t

' 'p

.s,. ,k.u' .' 7; /. .j,' ' r* s ' !&p,{' [-{" ! l~,: ~ '. \\ l <? % i.

. :U.. : W'0. [,','. ".;()., ;\\ -Q.f.e". y., Y.

s R U V::hc l,s lQ' s dl p.<' ,p *.]..GS*o S (.y 's, ,Q ft \\. .j$ ,e f,. . R : '. ;- l,g#t f. C,.., o. ' g;k 'q[ 's .Q

4,+

$ % Agf*s4.f. ll. w.,(. .,! W % % H W s %[,N [ %; ['?. W S fe.c.( % g vN. W. p[4 'd.,4 '. '.[.;.'($,jf .. : N,u,' } ?f.. K M}',% Q l.yA,L W W q%, ;., ; : '.h, F g p ' '. y,, Q1~ f L {*z@'

h

,[' / 3 O Q',.i ? ll + ,4: ., '..,u,h';>:?'*!",'D":^<,by

.,.'p i.' V,f,;r,.l..,..t i.': :,. :

in n

.,... ]:L *,. ' . >.',u q y. 9 ...,, q.. g .. - ps s 'P I - y . N. r,,, n, n. i y+sk p p. '; m* o/ )?Wj.$ ak< .' v.. .5, ,3n g,4.s M, y, t tlt.~ 4 4 4, p. h, i c, g. 4., ',' %.. p&. e. M ee % *,y ?{ giy\\.,. 7. +.. 4L. q.. a. 1.) .*4..,-.;,..1.,..... y-o ." q. 3 ti-- .e<t -/ .g. . 5 .e fh l ?,Ndh6 :[.., \\,. b s,((., E, j

b

,$.h. h [$1v.[. / '[ i,b 7 ] 'N s ',e $l tfN k' .j M,;.l,'[ $ r,' ; 1 /,. k * ~. k f i N ? ' .? E', N.N $ &&h:hhMY$Y'bWW $@ &_:&& L ', t h ', M. la t { 3., h. M,4 .h

h!I

... gg.,, k,.. i.N S,.N h( 3.b '..,.,,. ; 3 :.h:, b I 'y pA/ .. a. j, -o 5 ?. g ~ n,-lQ = fj.\\i,&(c,e,>, p, ..f ,s gk:,.,gl.5 - Q.h _Y..,5. f. l. q..,h,, ?.'.f.le, , b....%;, J& A DQ.T}4,$ "Q+ &(;%. ){ -Q.4.% y'.l[P. l, l h,_ g p: %e:J f.n ..s p, "y 3. G.. s,:s. W,4 9.a . ; %y g g.*y.. g. h.,,. n '. ,f. s e 3

4. g

.:" ) f s w - ?,,,aqu%,-n r,.r: v ., d,[4. a.", j c.c., J. y A 4. %r. ..e ,:t. w-;hh 9: -, ,[ -h,,k '. ( '[p r. g-4 ' h,5 s .l. '.,k k.h. ' h I f;?[:4 5.g'sly w, e dv@..n p. A. Ag p.4f, g$@[' 3,m.6j %f. ql :-. i 1 M ih p:M Q.., '" M 7 .,S *p y 5...s v.. rg ?. g., %, 4..' I l - g q.M/ - k(%. 'if h',;'l g

., p qf. }g, qf% e..[ ( H M i

,( f h ?f" ' e Q v.- %...Q:h.. %fl ' g,f r.. g fgf i i',, Q, b, ' * -f.'$d.[;I'"".h + Y' h M/ g . h.f,h. i h E.E.l! lMU,4

4 A

^ 49;

r ui v'

' by*"y e4 ',s. ';;;pp%;Q4g ;, p t.g wz.}.&q;p %p. g. v M. squ.: ) ' N'A. C; .%1Q ' *h[ k" f ' h. J- + ~. I '4 p b., ',M M.gW )b * .l [ 3 .;WP.Agj 4

f...,h se..i

+%f g, g . 4 gf Qg r,k Y 9 ' }. k Y, (? lfN '. *h <,r. -'.' 5 f,,, 3 b Y. E.$.5?y &ly. -Y W ,a'ht.i S.t-Q~ en 't-T***'.>*d.,h ' ' o ': v =- . g; ).u. f

e. s

' '. m f.' I k ,k

- "*i WNJ % M*f ' M' < '

Ik .. F- ' 4 h* % y[h.4.6*#; 3 g i D b RDp*,W 9 y '%ep. M2 ' T. ~::3 t . 3.,.. p,Q( e

k f.&,

th M.. p- . a 4.ib. %'. v.;'. 1. m s :: W %. ',I* y? Wy'.w. :$' f .. s.s, m%. W;.,.,.:g n g. t u r %j s t.c. w.,, %e #,4c v,

s. <.

.s.. N.4.,1 %y.>.[ ; A' ) f.:N ' j v gr c c e, .o q +3 J. %y;.}ty ..o% y,

n v. hh-s 4.,

v.a [.y. j s 'OV. [ h.,: f.) 4 9 i !E h(' % Nh> QIN k,Q.M[ h '. i 5 ns m wN mm a($$dMM4MD d N@b_j'4MM50E

M 3 VA _ 4CEST-So /4 OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS ,g 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS - OPEN SESSION

Title:

TIIERMAL-IIYDRAULIC AND SEVERE-ACCIDENT PIIENOMENA /') Docket No.: $ U S !a:src u 'v pywH'7E s

y. 3

.w an Work Order.No.: ASB-300-71 \\ LOCATION: - Rockti:le, Maryland 4 DATD Wednesday, December 10,1997 PAGES: 324 - 344 t 9801,7201oS 97121o 614 - 663 F on acns . Ofowlc gsun,w346-6/3 m --e .v ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ,3 1250 I Street, NW, Suite 300 -lV Washi.ngton, D.C. 20005 [ ) O p ,.f J,;Cb203r$42M3T"uopy-aellr .'O,' ~1e u e 0"tre uor ; ae. ^ ~

. ['h ,1_/' \\ DISCLAIMER UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S-ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS DECEMBER 10, 1997 The contents of this transcript of the proceeding-of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, taken on December 10, 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. t ' ' '.) 'iu r

-- 3 24 ' -1 _ UNITED STATES NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION ~2-ADVISORY COMMITTEE-ON; REACTOR SAFEGUARDS ~

- - =

,-3" 4 . THERMAL-HYDRAULIC AND SEVERE-ACCIDENT' i 5. PHENOMENA } F - 6. /s.- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 Two White Flint North 9-11545 Rockville Pike 10 Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 ~.11 12 Wednesday, December 10, 1997 {- 13 14 The Committee met pursuant to notice at 8:30 a.m.- .15' 16 MEMBERS PRESENT: 17 . THOMAS'S. KRESS, Chairman, ACRS [ 18 ROBERT L. SEALE, Member, ACRS 19 MARIO H..FONTANA, Member, ACRS 20- ~21 22' 23-- ' 24: .25 : = ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. -V Court Reporters ~ 1250 I: Street, N.W.,--Suite'300 ~ Washington, D.C. 20005 -(202)' 842-0034- ~

325' 1' .P:R O C:E E D.-I N G S [2' [8 :30f a.m. ]' i - 3'.. CHAIRMAN KRESS:' Let's come to: order, please. t ~4 'WeLare now: reconvening the-second. day of our { 15~ Thermal Hydraulics and Severe. Accident Subcommittee meeting, G; - and we'll continue our-review of the Westinghouse test:and-7 . analysis program, and in particular today, we're going-to '8-look very closely at NOTRUMP and its validation. 9 Portions of the meeting will be closed to ciscuss 10: proprietary information, and the first on the agenda is:an Jll-introduction to NOTRUMP by Dean Novendstern, and the floor 12 is'yours, Dean. l 213-MR. NOVENDSTERN: And this will be open session. 14 CRAIRMAN KRESS: This is an open session for a 15 little while. 16 MR. NOVENDSTERN: Today we'll be talking about 17 NOTRUMP, and what we hope to focus on is the V&V of-NOTRUMP. F 18 Yesterday we had' covered _the test data, and I'm hoping today 19 we'll justitry.to stick the best we-can'to the V&V, as t ^ 20 opposed to the applicability of the test' data. 21~ I_think they are very different subjects. It's 22-not--that there aren't other issues which were discussed --23 . yesterday which caybe we_need go back and do a little more 24 . work.on. ~ '25- -DR._CATTON( They're=only separate subjects:when f [ [ANNERILEY &-ASSOCIATES,-LTD. Court Reporters o 1250-ILStreet,cN.W., Suited 300 Washington,iD.C. 20005< '(202)- 842-0034 j 1 u .- +,

-i f 326 i 1 you have laid on the table some kind of demonsttation of C) 2 completeness of the data set. Then they become separate. a 3 You didn't quite do that. So, at this point, they are not 4 separate, in my view. 5 MR. NOVENDSTERN: What we're going to be t 6 discussing today is NOTRIIMP, revision three. I want to talk 7 a little bit about completeness of the Teport. There have 8 been some comments in the last sessior., in the last meeting 9 we had back in July, on the completeness, and we'll get into 10 that. 11 We believe it's a complete, thorough report at 12 this point in time. All the technical information is there. 13 It's fairly easy to cross reference and find the 14 information. I'll point that out a little bit later. 15 The technical presentations are going to be i 16 focused mainly on the key remaining items, *he items which 37 ] were discussed and ultimately turned into an RAI in the last 18 meeting. 19 We'll also weave in and include some comments that 20 Dr. Catton had made on ADS 4 which Paul Boehnert had 21 forwarded to us before the meeting, and the other thing 22 which we'll focus on or include in the presentation are the 23 commenta ue heard yesterday in the opening session of 120 i 24 degree F super-heat and the concerns about that. They're t 25 all'related to RAI-440.721.: These are the letters >~\\ - d ) ANN RILEY &-ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250~I. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, 'D.C. 20005 6 (202) 842-0034 w e

I 327 1 associated with it. 5 () 2 There was a comment made yesterday about the 3 response in E was not at all related to the RAI. 4 DR. CATTON: It was not related to the question. 5 MR. NOVENDSTERN: The question. That is and isn't 6 true. Basically, what happened is we had an editorial r 7 problem which we caught a day later. We sent out the-8 question and the response, ar.d then, a day later, we found 9 out somehow the wrong text got inserted. It wasn't a 10 technical problem. 11 We quickly issued a revised letter within a matter 12 of days, which you probably did not see. In'the final 'l 13 report, which contains all the RAIs, if you look at E, you 11 will find, indeed, the response is related to the quest!Ln, 15 and you just somehow managed to get an early copy. 16 DR. CATTON: In any event, the response even to 17 what I perceived the question shouJd have been was 18 inadequate. 19 MR. NOVENDSTERN: We'll talk about the adequacy 20 when we go over that in more detail. 21 The others I just tried to capture the essence of 22 Dr._Catton's comments, and hopefully, I've captured them 23 correctly. 24 You'll find it mostly woven into the presentation. 25 We appreciate actually having a day to reflect and weave it -r v. i ' () ANN;RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 12501I Street, N.W., Suite-300-Washington, D.C.-20005 -(202) 842-0034 i

328 1 in. It was helpful, rather than to deal with it right on 2 the spot. 3 There is a figure of-AP600. It is included only 4 here in case we need to go back and describe certain aspects 5 of the plant. We've gone over this many times before, so I 6 won't dwell on that. 7 I think the NOTRUMP-topical reports which support 8 the NOTRUMP code reallf are -- the one we are currently 9 review today, Rev. 3, it's the third rev -- we believe it's 10 complete and thorough. 11 NOTRUMP was based on these two reports which were 12 approved in the mid '80s, about 1985. 13 When we started out with AP600 and the review of 14 NOTRUMP, we and the NRC made a decision that we were g 15 to basically look at the changes to NOTxUMP and we were not 16 going to be reopening the NOTRUMP -- the old NOTRUMP, which 17 may -- it's not clear to us whether it had or had not been 18 reviewed by the ACRS. It clearly was reviewed and approved 19 by the NRC. 20 We needed to make changes in NOTRUMP, and all 21 thoso changes are documented in Rev. 3, and I hope to try_to 22 focus -- keep the focus on that. 23 DR. SCHROCK: You know, yesterday, I pointed out 24 that it's not a stand-alone document. You don't find 25 references for equations that are put down that a.ce not t I' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters-1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)'842-0034 w-vrii w m-f++,

l 329 1 familiar equations. f() 2 Difference equations are the starting point, not 3 differential equations. That's not sound analysis. Ycu j i 4 can't tell people this is the equation u61ess you tell them l l 5 how you got that equation, and that's what you do in this t 6' document. t 7-So, for you to stand here and tell u9 that it is l 8 complete and thorough is nonsense. We just have to start j i Sr with that difference of view about wnat it is you're j 10 describing here. 11-In order to understand this document, you'd have -l -12 to go all the way back to the original FLASH code used by i -13 Westinghouse in the early '70s. 14 MR. NOVENDSTERN: That's correct. 15 DR. SCHROCK: That's correct. That is not proper 16 documentation of a code that you're using to justify the l t 17 analysis on a licensing basis for a new plant. 18 MR.'NOVENDSTERN: Well, when you take this 19 combined with these reports -- and we have a complete t 20 traceable trail. It may not be as easy as one would like. 21 -It is' clearly not in one' report. 12 We've gone_back -- and it gives you an idea of the 23; difficulty of ' addressing'some of the questions when you.just l 124'- pick:up,the report -- looked at your' comments, Dr. Schrock-1 ,-25 -- and I'll address those'inla moment, some of the specifics t f f( \\' ANN RILEYL& ASSOCIATES, LTD._ j 1%~ ..... Court Reporters

1250 ILStreet, N.W.,: Suite'300 s

. Washington, D.C. 20005 i (202)1 842-0034: i ] t n s, em e-., a- -.,-+e -r v-

a~

,-~r, .-,..nn, -,-a ,-n.m m,., w,, -, n >,,---y r.,m.-,p,

= - 330 l 1 you made yesterday. (j 2 What we're dealing with is a matter of history. 3 DR. ZUBER: Let me intercede. I completely agree 4 with Virgil. I think what my concern yesterday was -- and I j 5 thought about it last night, which I didn't sleep much -- it 6 is the interaction between this agency reviewing approach 7 and your reactions. 8 You submit to us reports -- for example, what we 9 reviewed yesterday -- with errors. You cannot even find 10 those errors. I have to make a decision, a recommendation i 11 to Tom. It's almost impossible to do it. 12 We have to really now review documents which go 13 back 20 years, and I obtain the same argument, everything is 14 fine -- we have three feet of reports -- the same answers } 15 from you, the same answers from the staff, and I think this 16 is not a good technical approach for this technology. 17 When we make a decision, we have to make a 18 decision on the final docum..:. I cannot go trace something 19 20 years back to see what it is, and this is a criticism 20 more co the staff than to you, because if the staff doesn't L 21 put quality in requirements, you surely are not going to do 22 it. 23 And what we have now, when we reviewed this thing 24 the last time, in December, we have now to make decisions 25 -which go back 20 years. O' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 . Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034

331 1 And I really appeal to you, Tom, that this should () 2 be addressed at the highest level of'this agency, otherwise 3 we are-not doing our job. 4 DR. CA? TON: And Westinghouse has given us an 5 example of how this works with the best estimate LOCA tool [ \\ 6 for existing plants. Promises were made about what you 7 would do with the documentation, and it never happened. i 8 MR. NOVENDSTERN Let me address that, and I'm 9 going to ask-Mike Young to go further to specifically 10 address that. 11 DR. CATTON: Oh, you're going to best estimate? 12 MR. NOVENDSTERN: No. Your comment about the 13 commitments to the staff and Westinghouse not meeting them it might appear to the committee that Westinghouse has 14 15 blown off and not doing anything on the commitment to put 16 forth and develop a complete document. That's not true. 17 We have probably invested six to eight man months la worth of effort. We've been in constant dialogue with the 19 staff. We have missed -- yes, we have missed schedules. 20 It is almost complete. We're expecting to get 21 --to issue it first quarter next year. We have not blown it 22 off. We haven't quite met the schedules we would have liked 23 - because of-problems which have gotten away with operating 24 plants and so on. 25 But it is not blown off, it is not forgotten, p 1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters ~1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D C. 20005 (202) 842-0034- ~,, e-, ,-,.-a-- r n-w--

332 1 We're taking it seriously. ( ) 2 DR. CATTON: I'll oelieve it when I see it. v 3 MR. NOVENDSTERN: Do you want anymore? 4 DR. CATTON: Well, I think that's fair enough. 5 When I see it, I'll believe it. 6 MR. NOVENDSTERN: Okay. 7 DR. CATTON: It's been more than two years, I 8 believe. 9 MR. YOUNG: It's been about a year. It was 10 expected te be produced at the beginning of -- 11 DR. CATTON: Well, you're a year late in producing 12 the document, but it's been two years, probably more than 13 two years since the commitment was made. 14 MR. YOUNG: But the commitment was for the end of k) 15 laat year, the beginning of this year. s-16 DR. CATTON: Yes. 17 MR. NOVENDSTERN: It will be there. 18 DR. CATTON: Good. Because you see, it goes to 19 the large break LOCA for the AP600. 20 MR. NOVENDSTERN: I know. 21 DR. CATTON: And you're using COBRATRAC and what 22 you did for the existing planta as a basis. So, I think, 23 before this group can make positive statements about even 24 the large break LOCA, that documentation problem needs to be 25 finished, completed. ( ) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 L

333 1 MR. NOVENDSTERN: I understand, and we're pushing () 2 hard to complete it, we're not aloughing it off. It would 3 appear we are, though, just because the proof is not in the 4 pudding yet. 5 DR. ZUBER: Let me just make one comment. I would 6 like very much to say what you have is real3v a good thing, 7 safe, and to say I would approve were I here at the ACRS. I 8 wish I was in that position, really. It's not criticism. 9 It is maybe frustration. I would like to see it done, and I 10 don't. 11 MR. NOVENDSTERN We hope today to add to your 12 level of confidence to be able to say that. Like I say, we 13 have made the decision. 14 DR. SCHROCK: In'my mind, you'd be more convincing ( 15 on that point if you came with an introduction that said we 16 hear your concerns and we're going to try to explain to you 17 how we think this is this way, instead of a bullish sort of 18 statement at the beginning that, in our view, :this 19 . documentation on this code is complete and rigorous. 20 MR. NOVENDSTERN: The documentation -- I was 21 referring to Rev. 3 and not going back and updating the 22 _ prior versions of the code. 23 Virgil, you had made r,ome comments yesterday, and 24 _I've got to admit, I was very concerned when I heard about 25 - them,_about the quality of -- the potential quality problems y) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ^ '. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite:300 ' Washington, D.C. 20005-2. (202) 842-0034 1 1'.

334 1 with the old NOTRUMP report, and we went back and looked at () 2 some of the specific ones. 3 You had mentioned we had three WCAP -- or five 4 WCAPs, actually, two here, two here, and one here, which all 5 appear to have the same name and no revision nun,bers.. 6 Basically, the names are close. This was done in 7

1978,

'82, and '85. 8 The first one was NOTRUMP general network and 9 steam generator code. The next one was just titled NOTRUMP 10 general network, and the third one was NOTRUMP general 11 network and SP LOCA code, which is the one which was 12 approved in 1985 that's got a P/A, which is 23 proprietary / approved. 14 Basically, what those references are are the -- () are an evolution of the NOTRUMP code into a licensing code 15 16 used for licensing calculations. 17 In these two, I believe -- and there were slightly 18-different numbers after this -- you had asked a question, 19 what is Westinghouse Proprietary Class 2 and Westinghouse 20 Proprietary Class 3? 21 Westinghouse Proprietary Class 2 is a report which 22 contains all the information. Westinghouse Proprietary 23 Class 3 ! s really our terminology -for a non-proprietary 24-report. Basically, we take the Prop. 2 report and white-out 25. the proprietary information. So, that's where the ANN RILEY &-ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1 \\- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 -Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034

335 ll differences were. () 2 We also went back and did a little checking. You -3 commented on-nomenclature and not being able to find some 4 definitions.- It-was in'the report, it wasn't necessarily S easy to find. 6 I think the thing which one needs to-put in -7 perspective is we're dealing with a report prepared 15, 20 8 yearslago. We've had technology changes-in the sense of -9 word processing. We don't have equation editors. -10 Back in:those days, it was cut-and-paste and-11 -Snowpake,Jand indeed,'you know, it's difficult to move large 12 blocks of text like we can do today. 13 The information is in the report, the specifics 14 which were on your notes, and we did find the references ) 15 included. At least from that aspect, it was complete. It 16 wouldn't be easy to find, necessarily. 17 DR. SCHROCK: Not being easy to find means that 18 it'E not in the nomenclature. Is that your point?- 19 MR. NOVENDSTERN: It was defined in the report. 20' DR. ZUBER: But not in the nomenclature. 1!1 - MR. NOVENDSTERN: Bob? 22' MR1 YOUNG: It was not in the nomenclature list - -23 DR. ZUBER: ' Let me say something. I really 24; appreciate honesty'and forthrightness. 125' Once I obtain a clue that I'm being taken for a s-(( O JANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250tI' Street, N.W.,. Suite.300 -Washington,1D.C. 20005.

(202)1842-0034 t

i ~

336 i i ride, I tend to even question things which really I should l l (,j\\ 2 not question, and you, I think, with this presentation, j i 3 after what Virgil said -- give us really the straight facts l 4 and be candid. Don't try to sell us smoke. 5 MR. NOVENDSTERN: We're not trying -- 6 DR. SUBER: Please don't, because otherwise -- 7 MR. NOVENDSTERN: We are not. 8 DR. ZUBER: It's bad for the technology apart from 9 for Westinghouse. 10 MR. NOVENDSTERN: That's why we went back and 11 checked, and I'm trying to explain a little bit i-12 DR. SCHROCK: No, you're not trying to explain. 13 What you're trying to do is say that the statements that I 14 made were incorrect and everything is really okay. That's 15 not the case, Earl, and you know that. 16 DR. ZUBER: Please be candid. 17 MR. NOVENDSTERN: From our perspective, we think 18 it is okay. It was reviewed and approved. I think we're 19 here really to focus -- what I'd like to focus on is the 20 changes which were made for AP600, which are in Rev. O, and 21 the documentation associated with that. 22 DR. SCHROCK: In order to understand those and the 23 reasons for them, one has to understand what was there 24 previously. 25 LThat's the point I made in an earlier meeting this ,/~\\ r 6 j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I. Street, N.W.... Suite 300 -Washington, D.C. 20005 (202). 842-0034 h

_ ____ _ __..._._ _ - __ _ _ _, _ _ _. _-_. _ _=.._..._..._._ _ _ _ _ _ _. ~... _. _. 337 1 - summer, that on looking at the documentation, it was'hard to I () 2 _ understand why the changes were being made and what kind of 3-difference in code performance they produced. [ o 4 You have not come forth with an answer to that i 5 question. I hope you do today. l 6 But in order to understand why you've made l 7 - changes, one needs to understand what-it is about the l 8 existing model, which-was fine for standard plant, small 9 break loss-of-coolant-accident analysis, is not fine for 4 10^ AP600. That has not come through clearly at all. ^ 11 That, I think, you need to address now, and you 12 need to show us quantitatively what the changes in the 13 models do to code perfnrmance. 14 MR. NOVENDSTERN We'll-talk about some of that 15 today. Some of that was covered at the last meeting, and i 16 like I said before, we're focusing -- we had come down -- 17 1R. SCHROCK: Some of that dealt with at the last 18-meeting is an absolutely inadequate statement. This has not 19: been clarified. It's a remaining question about what you've 20 done to the code to get where you are. 21-Furt hermore, there is a question about when the i 22 calculations were made and which of the changes in the = 23 models were-implemented at the time _those calculations were Emade. -I don't'think you have a tracer.ble record of what-

25

- you've done_with.thistcode. i r t ( ANN'RILEY &-ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,. Suite 300< s-Washington, D.C.-20005 (202) 842-0034 9'-7TT 'W d y f-y -yp1y-N4 --t$ pum1 e 9r-g .e-+m4yt'r-pp-y pr-*- .-p---<rw W N rM** vddr-*P-W-hW***'T' 'T 4 'fP M N-9-

338 1 MR. NOVENDSTERN: We believe -- () 2 DR. SCHROCK I don't think that the staff has 3 required that you do that, although they should have. 4 MR. NOVENDSTERN: We believe we have a traceable 5 record. 6 The staff has -- in the middle of November -- has 7 come and done inspection. There are some issues which were i 8 found. I would not, at least, call them major showstoppers. 9 There was nothing found about traceable records in 10-inspection. I don't know how else to address that. We take il great care from traceability and calc notes and 12 documentation of that. 13 UR. SCHROCK: You've not shown this committee 14 evidence of that fact. 15 MR. NOVENDSTERN Hopefully, today, we'll be able 16 to do that. 17 The report -- and we talked about it a little bit l 18 last time, its organization and how it was organized -- what 19 I have done on this view-graph is highlight the changes 20 which have been submitted in Rev. 3, and basically, they 21 deal with -- in response to RAIs, we had to re-do the OSU 22 double-ended DVI break, we added momentum flux, which was 23 inadvertently-left out of the prior revision of the report, 14 and that-is discussed in detail, we've changed the 25 discussion and gone into more details on level penalty, 3 :- ): ANN RILEY &. ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters lL 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 2000~ ( 2 02 )' 842-0034

339 e 1 we've added some additional words on Appendix K, and we have () 2 included the latest RAI in its total. That's 440.721, which i 3 had items A through I, or something like that. 4 A concern that we had and the staff really drove 5 home was one of -- relative to completeness and making sure 6 the report was complete, stand-alone, all the information i 7 could be found, and that's, again, relative to'Rev. 3. 8 What we have done -- and this is just an example is for Appendix A, which is the last volume, about six-9 10 inches thick, is we hav3 included the RAI, a synopsis of the 11 description, where it's answered, and it could be answered, 12 for this example, in Appendix A and in this section, also, 13. which would mean we modified this particular section. ( 14 Sometimes in the sections we'll refer also to the 15 RAIs. 16 When you go through this, you can at least pick up 17 a complete report which has every piece of correspondence 18 and how it's been used and all the correspondence in one 19 place. It's been relatively integrated into the report. 20 DR. SCHROCK: There was one of those that 21 contained a. corrected page which consisted of removallaf a 22 handwritten note, somebody's name with a question-mark after 23 it, giving an amplification on the information, and the only 24 change that was made was to delete the handwritten note, so 25 that the:information that was to be conveyed by that h (' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202): 842-0034 i 1

i 340 t i handwritten note wasn't found and then properly noted on () 2 that RAI. Does that ring a bell for you, or shall I find 3 'it? i 4 MR. NOVENDSTERN. That doesn't ring a bell for me. t 5 If you could find it, we'll address it. l 6 DR. SCHROCK: It was the last item on your list 7 that was sent out about three weeks ago. 8 MR. NOVENDSTERN: Let's see what we have, and if 9 not 10 DR. ZUBER: Just a comment. This problem with the 11 momentum flux goes back to 1974, and it's really surprising r 12 that here in 1997 we have to justify a code we are going to 13 use two decades 3ater and you say, yes, we are putting the j i 14 momentum flux, f 15 It is really unbelievable, because that's how I 16 started in the AEC. It was the mc.nentum which was missing 17 from all equation 0, and the industry was saying it's not 18 important, not impoltant, and to come back in '97 to 19 justify, yes, we are putting it, really blows my mind. 20' MR.' NOVENDSTERN: Well, I think what we're talking and I'm going to paraphrase a little bit what Gene 21 about 22 Piplica said yesterday -- we may be' talking about good, 23 better, and best. I think the question we need to ask 24 ourselves is is NOTRUMP_ good enough? 25 It could be made better. RELAP'is a better code. .( ) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034

- _ -. - ~ _ -. _ _ -. 341 1 COBRATRAC is even-a better code than RELAP, we believe. OQ 2 Clearly, there are better codes. 3 We made a decision four our five years ago to use l 4 an Appendix K approach for small break LOCA. Appendix K-has 5 its own set of inherent conservatisms. We're using a code 6 which we think is good enough. It could be made better, and 7 - it's not the best. 8 DR. SCHROCK: The code that you had in 1985 was an 9 Appendix K code for small break in standard plants. Now 30 you've taken that code and simplified it, for some reason 11 which has never been adequately explained, by deleting the 12 momentum flux terms. 13 So, what has Westinghouse saved in computational 14 costs by doing that? Do you have any notion of that? 15 MR. YOUNG: Just to correct a couple of things, 16 one, momentum flux was never applied, even for operating 17 plant small brenk LOCA analysis. 18 The second thing I'd like to correct is that Dr. 19 Schreck mentioned we have not justified changes made for 20 AP600. There is a table in section one of NOTRUMP FER that 21 does go through each change and explains why the change is 22 made. ~23 DR. SCHROCK: Would you say that again? 24 MR YOUNG: The second one? 25 DR. SCHROCK: Yes.- 4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters .a 1250 I. Street, N.W., Suite-300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034-

t 342 j 1 MR. YOUNG: There's a table -- I don't recall what ] () 2 the number is -- in section one of the final report in which 3 we list each change that was made and explain why we made 4 it, why we felt it was necessary to mr.ke it for AP600. 5 DR. SCHROCKi You don't know what the section is. I ~ 6 MR. YOUNG: I'm sorry. It's somewhere in section 7 one. 8 MR. NOVENDSTERN: We will look and let you know, 9 Dr. Schrock. 10 DR. SCHROCK: On the first point, I've already 111-indicated to you that there was difficulty in interpreting 12 the documentation which has been characterized as complete 13 and rigorous. 14 As I read the equations that I mentioned s_- 15 yesterday, equation 2-33, which is a momentum equation, 16 equation I-1, which is a romentum equation, and I read the 17 words that go with it, 'c looks to me like you're trying to 18 say that this analysis includes the momentum terms. 19 So, perhaps you can show how the statement that 20 you.just made that NOTRUMP never considered the momentum 21 terms is true. I don't get that out of my reading of'what 22 you say is adequate documentation. 23 MR. YOUNG: The WCAP you refer describes the 24 entire code. The other WCAP, 10054, explains how NOTRUMP is 25 applied to the plant calculation. That's where we find.how '-) 1004 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 q (202)-842-0034 ) U )

343 1 the code is applied, and that's where it's made clear that () 2 the momentum flux terms are not included. 3 Again, we'll perhaps go through that WCAP to see 4 if we can find Where it is. 5. DR. SCHROCK: So, it's in the description of the 6 NOTRUMP code from an older version, not 10054-P/A7 I have 7 the older version. 1 think that the equation numbers that 8 I'm referring to now are out of WCAP 10054-P/A. 9 MR. NOVEPDSTERN: The WCAP I'm talking about 10 10054. 11 DR. SCHROCK: That's the one that I'm talking 12 about. 13 MR. YOUNG: Right. That one explains how NOTRUMP 14 is used. I think we'll have to help you finc there it is. 15 DR. SCHROCK: Well, I think what you're doing is 16 unou scoring the inadequacy of the documentation for the 17 purpose to review what NOTRUMP is and what you're doing with 18 it. You need something that is more intelligible than has 19 been provided. 20 MR. NOVENDSTERN: For reference, I have included 21 the RAIs. The FAI which came it last meeting listed our 22 (a) through (j) and also here is the agenda put together in 23 a little different fashion. 24 What's included in here are c&h, which would refer 25-to -- which would mean this presentation would be addressing ) N i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 m mW-- 9r . M:- ^~a4- ,y p --w-y

I l 344 t 1 parts c&h of 721 and so on. () 2 'We found it best to try, as we're putting together 3 this presentation, to try to integrate everything together, j 4 So, that is the reason for doing that. 5 The presentations will be done in a -- I'll say a 6 team approach which will be a combination of Mike Young and I 7 Andy Gagnon standing up and discussing these items. 8 Mike will start off, generally, and Andy will talk 9 more about some of the runs which were made and'the 10 interpretation of the runs. 11-These sections, which contain noding information, 12 modeling information, and a lot of test data, are closed, i 13 The summary session is totally open. 14 DR. ZUBER: What about the super-heat? 15 MR. NOVENDSTERN: We will -- that is one of the 16 RAIs, and we will be talking about that. 17 That ends the introduction, and with that, let me 18 have Mike Young come up and start the presentations. 19 [Whereupon, at 9:05 a.m., the meeting was resumed 20 in closed session.] 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

614 1 OPEN SESSION () 2 [5:43 p.m.) 3 MR. YOUNG: The subjects we covered'and what I'll 4 de is just summarize here what we've heard and what actions 5 we think we have to take back with us. 6 On the momentum flux term discussion my 7 understanding is that we've agreed that the deficiencies in 8 the NOTRUMP calculation could be accepted if they are 9 benchmarks against additional detail calculations using the 10 actual two-phase flow equations that include the effects of 11 _ compressibility. 12 Dr. Schtock indicated that these calculations 13 could easily be done, and I agree. In fact, we have 14 something that was I mentioned partly done but not 15 completed. So we would use that to compare with NOTRUMP and 16 tissure ourselves that if nothing else, a NOTRUMP prediction 17 is a conservative one from the point of view of steam 18 venting. 19 We've also agreed that we would go back and 20 evaluate the ADS 1-3 test data analysis report, and -- 21 DR. ZUBER: Wait, wait, wait. On the momentum 22 influence you are going to consider also the condition as 23 constant entropy? 24 MR. YOUNG: Oh, that's right, yes. And look at 25 how the assumption, _the more correct assumption of constant n() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034

615 1 entropy affects the results. And then look also at the test 2 data, the ADS 1-3 test data analysis report to make sure 3 that that data reduction was performed' correctly. 4 Entrainment. Several issues came up. The comment 5 I'll make here is that this needs to be considered as part 6 of the overall scaling and level penalty development which 7 I'll talk about next. 8 For the level penalty wb 've heard is that for 9 acceptance of such an approach we n.3d-to do several things. -10 First of all perform a multiloop scaling analysis for this 11 time period in ADS 4 and IRWST draining. We need to justify 12 the basis for ADS flow, ADS 4 flow as affected by 13 entrainment of liquid and the corresponding effect on the 14 pressure loss due to two-phase flow. And we need to 15 describe that in sufficient detail so that we can make a 16 reasoned step towards the scale, the AP600 scale. 17 A similar effort needs to be undertaken for 18 describing the flooding process in the surge line, which 19 limits the draining of the pressurizer by a model again 20 which is sufficient to allow a scaling up of the process 21 -which everyone can agree on. 22 Finally with these three items then and we need to 23 integrate these with the scaling anilysis into a-more 24 complete development of this level penalty approach. 25-Did I capture everything-there? [ ANN'RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ~d Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,-. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005. (202) 842-0034

. -- - ~_.... 616 1 DR. CATTON: I think so. () 2 MR. YOUNG: For noding what we've heard is that we 3 need to provide more justification for the basis we've used 4 which differs from the accepted approach or rule on the PRHR i 5 and in the downcomer. 6 DR. ZUBER: In the core do you have the same 7 number of nodes? 8 MR. YOUNG: In the,ori 9 DR. ZUBER: Yes. I thi nk he said it was 10 different. 11 MR. YOUNG: It is different. What we do have-in 12 the analysis report is a noding study as I said that went 13 from six, 12, 24, to 48, where we do show that the effect of 14 that noding change is very small. So we have convergence in 15 that area. 16 CHAIRMAN KRESS: Was there any problem with noding 17 in the ADS that -- where they used the separate-effects test 18 to get the noding? 19 DR. CATTON: Yes, but you can hardly argue with -- 20 if they used the same nodalization on the full-scale test as 21 they do on the plant. 22 CHAIRMAN KRESS: But they did use it on the test. 23 DR. CATTON: They didn't use it on the test, and I 24 think they.should'say something about that, but part of the 25 -argument for the test was that the damn lines were just so /x I I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I'- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suice 300 Washington, D.C. 20005-(202) 842-0034'

~ -. _ i 617 1 different it didn't make much sense to do that. () 2 CHAIRMAN KRESS: Well -- 3 DR. CATTON: The fact that they have a full-scale 4 test, to me that says okay, you know, you can feel a little 5 uncomfortable maybe, even in violation of the rules, but the 6 full-scale test sort of closes it. So I'm not perplexed by 7 that. 8 MR YOUNG: That's all I had, unless there's some 9 more questions. 10 DR. CATTON: We've heard no commitments or nothing 11 in your summary about our concerns about the quality of the 12 documentation. 13 MR. NOVENSTERN: When you say -- Ivan, when you 14 say the quality of the documentation, are you referring to 15 Rev. 3 V&V report, the one -- 16 DR. CATTON: I'm referring to some of the comments 17 that Virgil made this morning about the fact reference 18 numbers and -- I mean, you just need to do a really major 19 edit. 20 MR. YOUNG: On -- 21 DR. ZUBER: On all reports. Let me say on all 22 reports. I'm really amazed, and this is the third time I'm 23 repeating and I'm doing it. I'm-amazed that a regulatory 24 agency would accept for review and passing judgment on a 25 stack of reports which go~back 20 or 10 years to '74 or b ANN RILEY &--ASSr' _ATES, LTD. \\# Court Reporters 1250 I Street,-N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 .(202)-842-0034

618 1- -something like this, expect us to review these documents and 21 pass a= judgment. 3 If you are technically responsible and as a . regulator, you take a document, this is your final thing, 4. 5 are you going to approve it, does he approve it on this 6 evidence. And what we have is something~which goes back 10 7 years. We are getting reports on scaling which is in error, 8 you could not find it except here. Ilow'can we -- in a 9 responsible way how can I pass a judgment on something which 10 is really-sloppily done. ill MR. NOVENSTERN: Yesterday I-believe we did commit 12. to redo the. scaling report. [ 13 DR. ZUBER: My advice personally, address if you 14 have something nr not, put it in a final form so when Virg d 15 -roads it he is happy, I have all the information, I can say j 16 this is a good report, or I have questions about it. At -17 least this is something I'm making my judgment on, 18 I'm not going to make a judgment something'on 1974 { 19 which was published or on flash. The same thing on scaling. 20 Should not be in error. Specially in tables. I have to 21 refer to tables-I cannot go through. I have 87 .22 ~ coefficients. I don't know what they mean. 'I ask the 23 -people'here what are these coefficients, what is the physics f '24 behind it? I.dontt.get an answer. To me you produce a' 25: busywork? to sayfI have-done it. You-didn't benefit, I .i 7 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court' Reporters -1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 ,j Washington, D.C. 20005 f(202).842-0034 =,

619 I didn't benefit, I cannot defend it if somebody aska me how () 2 could-you pass it. - This is my problem. 3 Let me say the final thing. Reports which are for 4 review, and I think this is as much for the Staff as for 5 you, this is a safety agency. You cannot pass a judgment on 6 conservative results if it's based on errors. You cannot 7 defend it. This is poor practice, poor engineering. And 8 tLis is what is harming this technology. This is sloppy 9 work. Sloppy work anu sloppy review. 10 I'm sorry, but I feel very strongly about this 11 quality, what you are putting in this technology. When I 12 get pablum like I got yesterday, everything is fine from the 13 stuff, and here we find a major problem with this flow and 14 scaling of the flooding. The thing is not close. We don't= 15 need pablum here, we need really good technical results, and 16 I'm really pleased, Mike, that you were here and I really 17 appreciate your presentations. I really appreciate your 18 candid presentation. You didn't give us pablum. 19 MR. SCHROCK: Did we have a summary of commitments 20 from yesterday? I'm a little confused here about where we 21 stand. 22 MR. NOVENSTERN: I think Mike included them. I 23 think they were -- we were going to do the multi -- we are 24 -going to do the multiloop scaling like we talked about. And 25 we will go back and.look at the ADS test data reduction and -ANN RILEY f ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034- )

620 1-make'sure that has been treated--appropriately. 2 MR.~SCHROCK: There are a couple of-other items I-1 3 .could mention that. I think-you should commit to. -one of 4 them-is t.he incorrect. equation 3-63-in the scaling.PIRT 5_ . report, which is sti11' incorrect. You pleaded that you -j 6 couldn't correct it because you only learned about it after. 7 our August. meeting. That certainly needs to be fixed in the 8 documentation, and you need to clarify why the old -- am I -9 getting through over there?- You need to-clarify why the old 10 -Pi-13, which was wrong, which had no significance in the 'll scaling context, now doesn't need to be replaced by_. 12 something that is relevant. I think the arguments were that 13 this grouping is not relevant anymore. I don't know why. 14 But that aspect of the scaling report-I think you need to 5 15-make a commitment to fix. 16 Then there's the other thing that came up 17 yesterday.concerning the misunderstanding I guess that seme _18 of us might have had that you based on words from your 19 report that the scaling is used to verify PIRT, whereas 20 instead what you did was to use the PIRT to identify what 21 you think is important, and then to discard other things 22' from scaling' consideration.- I think you need to look at all 23 of those numbers that were thrown out and see if yoc 24' discover:anything_else that maybe should_have been retained. =25' _At least if'you; don't do that, change the words and don't

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

h Court Reporters 1250:I Street,fN.W., Suite 300

Washington,_D.C..20005 (202)" 842-0034'

621 ..i say that the scaling is used to confirm the-PIRT. You've () 2 not done the thing in that sequence. 3-DR.- CATTON: That's Pi-11 and Pi-12. 4 MR. SCHROCK: There are probably some other things 5 that I can't remember, but my overall position regarding 6 your documentation is that it's woefully inadequate despite 7 .your pleas that it's adequate and complete and has been 8 blessed by the NRC staff in some way. In my opinion l'- is 9 an inadequate basis upon which this reactor could be 10 licensed. That's what I think, and that's what I have to 11-consider as my professional judgment. I have to give that 12 to the ACRS. They can use it as they will. 13 MR. NOVENSTERN: I understand. Let me clarify one 14 aspect of what I was talking about.- When I was talking 15 about the documentation, I was talking strictly abcet 16 NOTRUMP. I hear your concerns about the old reports, and 17 I've heard Novak's concerns, and we'll take those under 10 consideration. I was not talking about PIRT scaling, for 19 example, or other reports. 20 MR. SCHROCK: Yes. I think any reasonably ~ 21 competent engineer, given this set of reports, will have 22 dif ficulty having a clear understanding of what t.e contents .23 of NOTRUMP are. 24-MR. NOVENSTERN: I hear that. 25L DR. ZUBER: This is the problem: The Staff has.to E r. A.(/l' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,.LTD. A- . Court Reporters s 1250 I Street, N.W.~,' Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202).842-0034 i l

622 1 put some standards,_you see, and if the standards are not 2 tough by the Staff,-I don't think the industry will -- it's 3 not only you, but I think in general. 4 CHAIRMAN KRESS: I think this is a comment that 5 goes to the Staff as well as to -- 6 DR. ZUBER: And I think you should take it all the 7 way up. 8 DR. CATTON: Like a flag. 9 CHAIRMAN KRESS: I hear you. 10 At this time I guess we can turn it over to the -11 Staff and let them put all-of our fears to bed. 12 MR. LANDRY: I'm not sure you're going to put all 13 your fears to bed, but what I'd like to do, Mr. Chair'sn, my 14 name is Ralph Landry. I'm the staff reviewer for NRR for 15 the NO7 RUMP code. What I would like to do today is instead 16 of going through equations and specifics of the code, I'd 17 like to address the logic and the manner in which the Staff 28~ has reviewed the code. I think that we've lost the 19 perspective and this perspective has not been brought out 20 today, and what was our logic and what was our method, our 21 basis for performing this review. 22 CHAIRMAN KRESS: Feel free to address any of the '23 criticismo that you've heard, while you're at it. 24 MR LANDRY: I think if I-can get through this 25 material I will attempt to make some comments about some of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 -Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034

G23 -1 the concerns:that have been addressed _today. yT: 4); -2 If_we go back in time,_if'we look-at-10 CFR 50.46; i -34 weisee'that:there'are--two options by which an applicant _or a-14 J1icensee or a vendor can address the analysis of-a loss of s 5 Leoolant accident. The applicant can_use a best-estimate. ) 6/ code and=do an uncertainty analysis, or they can do an 7-analysis under the prescriptive requirements of Appendix K. 8L Westinghouse-has chosen to use the-9' best-estimate-analysis method for the large-break LOCA, and 10-they've chosen to use the Ippendix K. approach for the-J11 analysis of the.small-break LOCA for the AP600 design. 12 Now early in this review an agreement was made -13 between the NRC; NRR, and-Westinghouse that the material 14_ 'which would be reviewed,-since NOTRUMP was an approved code 15 for small-break LOCA analysis,-would be those-changes to the 16-code which were directly applicable only'to the AP600 -17 design, those changes required by phenomena which would 18 occur in AP600 andLhardware changes in AP600 that were not 19 indigenous to the existing _ plants and the existing code. MR. LANDRY: From last July when we were talking-20. .21 about what are the requirements under Appendix K, the 22 -question came up how does Appendix K apply to a small break 7 23-- fLOCA. 224-Atithat time I said,-well, Appendix'K_ applies to a- ~ " 255 rLOCA and-it?-doesn't specify,whether it is large break or-h, te- ~ . ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,1-LTD. 7, Court? Reporters 1250cI Street,,U.W., Suite 300 z

Washington,-D.C. 20005

_202) 842-0034 ( r v

l

624-17

, 4; answer would be' and to' determine' ;liat 'they.would providel an ~ 5;

adequate-answer.-

6 MR.' COLLINS:. Thit s is Tim CollinsLof the Staff.- 5 ~ - 7. Dr.12uber,)I would like to' concur with the: 81

frustration :that you are: expressing 'in this review.

9 A-lot of this stuff that we have done in AP600 has s10 been a chugging' process. Now we work on comething fullsbore i ll for a few months and then we don't have anything to work on-12-for aw'ile, and~we have the problem of keeping our Staff-h

13 assigned to something-then and.the reviewer that.is assigned 14-Egets:taken off and put on something else-and then something.

j =15 comes in for.us to review and we have et to reprioritize 116L .our workJ to get back to the review. 17' It has been very difficult for us to maintain a 18 -steady? review progress in this whole review, and NOTRUMP is ~ 19-probably one of-the worst examples, ,20 I don't want toutry to explain it, you know,;why _ 211 .this is happening. I am saying we are subject to the same 22-LproblemL that you are: f rustrated. by. 23: DR.'CATTON:-: L.Ours getsLa:little'more intense-J 24 -: lbecauselwe areinot full-time. + MR.;LANDRY: As Tim-said, ours gets very intense ? 25.; 1..u.. ( xANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. S- _ Coirt: Reporters

1250 I'.StreetD N.W.,~ Suite ~300-

Washington,cD.C.t?20005 l(202)f842-0034 U

a_ -,.w e ,e

= 629 1 because of trying to review this material and then etner j.~q fq; ) _2 things come up-involving operating facilities and that of 3-course takes a higher priority, and then you forget where-4 Lyou were and you have to come back and reorient your mind to 5 get back into this mode of_ review -- from reviewing an 6 ' operating facility to come back to reviewing this material 7 again. 8 MR. SCHROCK: Ralph, cc,uld I interject something 9 -here concerning your overall approach to the licensing 10-process and-what NRR's real thinking on this is. Lil We had period of evolution in the technology which 12 led to acceptance of the'best estimate modelling as a 13 preferred way of licensing plants. 14 It was recognized that it required a computer tool i \\ (s / 15 which was well-qualified, clearly-identified-and 16 well-documented in order to do the CSAU prccess. 17 The CSAU process is not a requirement but it is an 18 example to the industry of what the standards are of the 19_ agency. 20 DR. ZUBER : Should be. 21' MR. SCHkOCK: Should be, okay,-so now the decade 22 of-the '80s came to the end and we are in the '90s, pretty 23 well through them, and what we are looking at-is something 24 that we could have been confronted with 20 years ago in 25 terms'ofothe industry' concept of what :he acceptable ) ANN RILEY_& ASSOCIATES, LTD. L: Court' Reporters '1250 ILStreet, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034

l 630 1-standard is. .. e 2 What I want to understand better here-is what the 3-view of NRR is about-this option which is there pretty much 4 as a grandfather clause to protect-the existing plants and 5 why it should be-exempt from the kind of standard that you 6 expect under the best estimate option in terms of the 7 documentation of the tool that is used to analyze the plant 8 by an evaluation model. 9 I am perplexed about this apparent difference in u 10 thinking about what should be the expectation in this 11 regard. 12 MR. LANDRY: Okay. Let me go back to what I said 13 initially. 14 The Code of Federal Regulations allows an . O. i,/ 15 Applicant, and it doesn't draw any conclusion as preferred, m 16 but it allows the Applicant two options -- Appendix K and 17 best estimate, to boil it down in very simple terms. 18 Now I would have to agree with you, Virgil. 19 NOTRUMP is a very old technology. It is not the technology 20-equal to other codes today. However, as a public -- 21' MR. SCr 'OCK: I'm addressing the quality of the 22 documentation of what it is. 23 M".. LANDRY: I'm going to get there. As a public. 24 servant, I-have to review what is put in and the choice was 25 to'come in with this code, p),. T.NN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 4 '~ Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034

631 11 Now given'that this is~the choice-of-the: Applicant 2' Tfor:their license or for their-design approval, how can we L3. Edo the-best job possible of reviewing this:to-ensure that?it ~ 14 r iis acceptable today? 5-When the CAD came in we said that this was - 6 _ unacceptable. It was woefully short. Additional material 7

came in.

Through the process of interacting we have_gone. 8-from'a final V&v-report, which was a very thin single 9 -volume, to;the material it is today, 10 We have worked to get that documentation to a 11= level that it would be thorough. We insisted that the RAI L 12. responses would'not be separate responses -- they would be -13 incorporated-as part of that final V&V report and that there 14 would be a road map -- not to get in a copyright argument O (s / 15: with Rand McNally -- but there would be a way of tracking 16 through -- 17 DR. CATTON: Or Novak Zuber. 18 MR~..LANDRY: -- or Novak Zuber -- there would be a 19 method of-tracking through the RAI response and matching it 20 Jup totaLphenomenological-concern so that you would not have-121 .tx) just thumb through'page after page to find the answer you 22 wanted. .YouLwould have a method to find the answer. 23 In that-process we.have had the same frustration-- '24 .that youThave had in having.to_go back to'old documentation . 25 3 such'as410079,_ the original'WCAP pertaining to NOTRUMP to {A.f ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters: 1250 I Street,-N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C._20005 (202) :842-0034 ^ v ~ ~>

632 1 l understand some of"the equations in the code' when we~are1 () 2 freviewing the-material today,-even though that material was-3

not-under newEreview -- is not open-to-re-review.

4-The difficultytwo hadEis do we insist'that'all: 5 that material be resubmitted as part of'this document or-do 6 we accept the fact that the Staff has approved WCAP 10079 -- 7-it is on the docket. It is official material and this' 8- . material-is now a supplement to that. 19 We felt that the approach that Sn3 should take is-10. this material is a. supplement to the approved documentation 11 and you have to have the original documentation in addition 12; to this. 13 Now to go back and re-review some of the-material-14 in 10079 of course-we havefto start going back to the old 15-papers, FLASH, WFLASH documents and the same frustration. 16 that you have-alluded to. -17 DR. ZUBER: Okay. Now put yourself -- at least 18 you are in this building. -You have access in the library to 19 those reports. -;H). When we read ~some of-this stuff, in reference to 21, 'some of the. reports we don't'have'them-You cannot make~a 22 technical-judgment:on information you don't_have. -i

DF

-I mean there is-past history onTthese reports- =.2 4 - c.which are not,available.

25.

lMR.-LANDRY: Well, the WCAP 10079 must be- ? ANN RILEYL& ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters-

12501I Street, N.W.,' Suite 300

-Washington, D.C. 20005 .(202) 842-0034- 'k

633 1-available. -It.has to be-available in_the public document = 2 room because11t-is-an approved licensing document so that~ - has-to remain available. 4' DR. ZUBER: It was a different machine. You use=a 5 key to open the particular door. .6 I mean NOTRUMP is not one which the French call-7 passe-partout, a key which opens all doors for thieves and 8 it is inappropriate -- well, whatever tool it is~-- but it-9 should be documented, something, I have reviewed it this 10 is a. good code,.I approve it -- based on this document, 11-If I review only this document and I don't have y 12 the previous information I cannot make a judgment if I am 13-responsible. 14 MR. LANDRY: I know it is not a satisfying answer 15 and I am not trying -- Novak, I am not trying to give you a ~ 16: pablum answer-on this -- 17-DR. ZUBER: Yes, I know. 18-MR. LANDRY: The only answer I can give you right 19 now-is we made an agreement once upon a time that we would. 20 not review that material. As an extension of that agreement 21-we are saying you don't haveLto resubmit that as a part of-22 this-document.- H23 We have attempted to=make this document or require 24 this document to be as thorough as possible. 25 OneLof the early. disagreements that we had, and we b D-g4j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. - Court Reporters 1250LI Street, N.W., Suite 300-

Washington,.D.C. 20005

(202) 842-0034

634 1 _ went to Westinghouse and finally came to an agreement,_that / 2-the finil V&V report would be as thorough as'we could make 3 it and not requiring' people to go out into other-documents 4 to get an answer to questions that were asked. 5 The only caveat was we did not require resubmittal 6 of 20079. 7 DR. CATTON: Let me just interject for a moment. 8 We heard tode.y about the major change to the 9 method of solution of the basic equations in the.new code. 110 To me that says that NOTRUMP that is on the table 11 today is not NOTRUMP of 1985. It is different. 12 .So in the documents that were put forward we 13 - should have seen the development of the fini':e difference 14 from the basic differential equations because that is 15 different -- and we don't. 16 From what Viroil said, those finite difference 17 forms show up in the present document. Where is the stuff 18 that is new? It is not in the documentation that we have 19 and it is not in 1985 either. Where the hell is it? 20 . DR. SEALE: We are having to finesse a lot of 21 physics in analyzing this system that you never had to 22 consider. 23 DR. CATTON: Well, that's true. 24 DR. SEALE: So there are just whole phenomena, a 25 -box of phenomena there, mf\\ ANN LILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD. \\-- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034

635 1 DR. CATTON: Well, the basic difference is the ( 2 treatment of the low pressure and treatment of the low 3 -pressure required that they do something different and we 4 haven't seen the development of that something different. 5 DR. ZUEER: They did, 'They did. I mean they went 6 to the volume approach. 7 DR. CATTON: Yee. Well, that is what I am 8 referring to. 9 DR. ZUBER: Well, essentially it is a different 10 approach. 11 DR. CATTON: So in that the finite differences, 12 techniques are different, in order to do this it is not the 13 1985 code so so what if the 1985 code doesn't have to be 14 re-reviewed? Doesn't matter. The, are not the same. 15 DR. SEALE: It's really irrelevant. 16 DR. CATTON: The problems associated with 17 convergence are different. Everything is different. 18 It is a different approach to solving the problem 19 and I don't understand -- you keep referring to 1985. 20 I think it is irrelevant. 21 MR. LANDRY: Some of these things I think we and 22 Westinghouse are going to be discussing again trying to 23 determine-how this documentation should be treated. 24 DR. ZUBER: Really, as a regulator you have to 25 pass a judgment on that document and if-I review it I have + f (, ); ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 'd Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034

i -636 / 1_ to pass my judgment on it. .,m i 2 I think any lawyer would hold your feet to it, and (%-)- '3-I don't want to go into a court to say how-did'you review it-4 when you didn't have the information. That is not 5 responsible -- as a regulator -- and this sFould really go 6 .to your bosses, not one or two but all the way. 7 This is what responsible regulation is. 8 MR. LANDRY: And that is one of the things that we 9 are going to be discussing further, Novak. Let's makefsure - :UD. that the documentation that we have is thorough. 11-DR. CATTON: Very good. 12 MR. COLLINS: Dr. Zuber, as a matter of fact, the 13 Staff has been~ tasked as a result of Maine Yankee in the 14 Integrated Safety Assessment Team findings that code .O (s,/ 15 documentation was inadequate in general and has been 1G historically. 17 DR. ZUBER: I know. 18 MR. COLLINS: And we have been directed to develop 19-a Regulatory Guide specifying what is required for code 20 submittals in the future. 21' DR. CATTON: I think that is very good. 22 MR. COLLINS: So that is a job we have got now -- 23-and it doesn't help us for this one necessarily, but I mean '24 -in.the future we have to do that. 2 51 DR. CATTON: I think it should help some with this .,3 )E ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. "wf Court: Reporters-1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202).842-0034

637 1

one, r3 f

2 We have the problem that Westinghouse indicated 3 earlier that-they were going to deal with it and these were. 4 the promises on COBRATRAC as best estimate for existing 5-plants. 6 The documentation there was terrible. We had one 7 hell of a time getting through that. We were promised that 8 it was going to be straightened out and we had a commitment-9 that it would be done, that they're only one year late. 10 Well, I think it ought to be put on the table, =11 particularly in this case where they have something that is 1 12 new that they are doing, this low pressure business. 13 DR. SEALE: And you have to ask yourself, Ivan, to 14 what extent is the_ renewed interest in doing that a part of f} , (f 15 this Maine Yankee thing that says that the documentation for 16 codes that are being used has got to be up-to-date? 17-DR. CATTON: And we wrote a letter on this. 18 DR. SEALE: Yes. 19 DR. CATTON: Seven or eight years ago, that this 20 - was needed. Just thought I would mention it. 21 MR, LANDRY: No, we were aware of this and we had 22 this as part of our discussion with Westinghouse that be 23- -aware that the Committee has pointed out the inadequacy of ~24 the' documentation on other codes,-let's not get in that same -25 mode._ Let's make sure that the documentation hcre is ' [ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 'w-Court Reporters -1250~I. Street, N.W.,, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005-(202) 842-0034

638 1 thorough and adequate, y 2 That has been our effort. If we have fallen down 3 in this, we'll discuss it further with-the-Applicant, but we 1 4 .have been.trying to make the effort to be sensitive to the 5 concerns which you have expressed'and this of course is not 6 a new concern. 1 7 It has been many years-since -- way back when I -8 was in Research this was a concern that code documentation 9 was not adequate. 11 0 DR. ZUBER: This is a new machine and there's new a 11 phenomena -- a new code. You have to integrate it in the 12 package, you.see. This is the problem. 13 MR. LANDRY: Okay. In the review process, we have 14 tried to make sure that we had adequate addressing of the (O/ 15 PIRT phenomena. We have identified phenomena that we felt s-16 were not represented adequately, similar to the discussion 17. from the subcommittee. Last July, you brought up a number 18 of points that were in agreement with concerns that we had 19 expressed. We sent out another RAI with many parts to it 20 asking for further support for the submittel. 21 Today we are still reviewing that material, and 22 this is the material that was presented in the session 23 today. We are continuing our review of the material. We 24 haven't accepted it yet because it is very complex and we 25 want to be sure that the answers are adequate, fN )J a' \\~s' ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034

639 1-- 'DR.-ZUBER:. How did I get that problem yesterday? GQ 3 MR'. LANDY: I'm sorry, Novak? 3 DR..ZUBER: How did I get that problem yesterday? 4 DR. CATTON: Pablum, he doesn't quite get the 5 pronunciation. 6 MR. LANDY: No, I know what he is saying. I am 7 trying to figure out how to answer him. 8 DR. ZUBER: You are trying to phrase the answer. 9 Yeah. Okay. 10 MR. LANDRY: In looking at the acceptance of the 11 code assessment program, we have to base our acceptance on a 12 number of points. The test facility, the AP600 scale. Some l '. of the points from Alan's conclusions yesterday. We have to as the regulator accepting the code, I have to be in a 14 15 position of being able to say, okay, the Westinghouse test 16 programs have been found acceptance in terms of facility 17 design-scaling, test matrix coverage. 18 DR. CATTON: How can you say that? 19 MR. LANDRY: I am not the one'that has-to say 20 that. The staff, other -- if the staff says that, then I 21 accept it. 22 DR. CATTON: So your staff has said that? -23 MR. LANDY:- On this basis, on this brsis, I have 24 to sg) back as not being the person doing that acceptance, 25 say, is this acceptable? My assumption has to be the staff [) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ' ' ~ Court Reporters -1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005. --(202) 842-0034'

1. -640 1- ' accepts'this. The accepts this. The staff accepts this. () 2 Given those acceptances, now, can I accept that assessment 3 that was performed on the code as adequate? 4 DR. CATTON: Well, that is why I want to question 5 some of the things, as to just what is your basis for the 6 acceptance? And we can start with the first one. 7 MR. LANDRY: I am not the proper -- Ivan, I am not 8 the proper person to answer that. 9 DR. CATTON: Well, at some point, I would like to 10 hear the basis for the acceptance. Because I don't think 11 you have it. At least I haven't seen it -- 12 MR. LANDRY: I have gotten that message. 13 DR. CATTON: No, no. 14 MR. COLLINS: Excuse me, Dr. Catton. What Ralph O). (ms 15 is saying here is these are necessary conditions.for him to 36 -- for him to make a finding. 17 DR CATTON: Oh, then I misunderstood. 18 MR. LANDRY: No, that's -- 19 MR. COLLINS: Not that he is drawing these 20 conclusions. 21 MR. LANDRY: That's what I said. That's what I-22 said. 23-DR. CATTON: Sorry. i 24 MR. COLLINS: Okay. 25 -MR. LANDRY: -That's what I said. I have to -- I l -ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300-3 Washington, D.C. 20005-(202) 842-0034 i

641 1 DR. CATTON: I was getting excited for nothing. ,m ( ) 2 MR. LANDRY: I have to assume that these -- I have 3 to be assured that these conditions have been fulfilled. 4 DR. CATTON: Okay. These are conditions. 5 MR. LANDRY: For me to accept my part. 6 DR. CATTON: Good. 7 MR. LANDRY: That's why I said I am not the proper 8 person to answer to these' questions. 9 DR. CATTON: No, no, no. What I heard is that this is where you have to get, and 10 this is what you want 11 you are not there yet. 12 MR. LANDRY: Somebody else has to be there for me 13 to get to my next step. 14 DR. CATTON: Okay. You could have put a few words C) (_,/ 15 up on the tcp of that, it would nave saved a little blood 1C pressure. 17 MR. LANDRY: For me to get to my final step, these 18 have to be a given. 19 MR. BOEHNERT: He wants to keep you awake, Ivan. 20 DR. CATTON: I understand. Yes, it did. 21 MR. BOEHNERT: He wants to keep you awake. 22 DR CATTON: It was an immediate flush. 23 MR. LANDRY: I try to wake you up every now and 24 then. 25 DR. ZUBER: Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. So those [ } ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Feporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l l

642 1 are conditions. rl-2 MR. LANDRY: Those are some of the conditions to (s_/ for acceptance of_the assessment. 3 4 DR. ZUBER: Okay. Okay. Okay.- Now, let me -- 5 let me voice my concern and this is the same thing. This 6 was supposed to be the grand finale. We had a problem 7 -yesterday and through this discussion today and through 8 Ivan's insistence, we found out that quite a major gap which 9 has to be addressed. And my question is really what kind of 10 staff analysis is being performed on which one makes the 11 problem recommendation. It is not your problem, I think it 12 is something which has to be addressed. 13 MR. LANDRY: And that is within our branch and we 14 will'be discussing that within our branch, determining how- - 15 -- how do we close this item. 16 DR. ZUBER: I worried enough, I don't need 17 problem. 18 MR. LANDRY: Yeah. 19 DR. ZUBER: I need facts. 20 MR. LANDRY: And we are going to have to go back, 21 within our branch, and discuss how we get the closure. 22 DR. ZUBER: See, it is not -- it is not 23 ~ acceptable, it is not safe, it is not reasonable to expect 24 that three, four guys here, sitting reviewing few reports .25 over -- I mean a stack of reports over few days. I have the c / \\ (\\j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 ~ Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034

643

.1 ~ ability..to really: pass a good judgment, and yet wegrely on-().the staff. We listen to the staff;and-finally we find 3 really a' major: gap. This really over-importantitime period. 4 Where is the core level, two loop,-scaling? And this was !F not done. 6 Now, why should we this done at this neeting here, 7-this could have been. addressed a month ago; three months. 8 And_if you didn't address,-that is fine, then1tell us. We 9 didn't address this, this is an open, issue. -But don't give a-10 us. problem,_not you,-but somebody else. 11 MR. LANDRY: Novak, I have to agree with you, -12 because unless these are understood,'I. don't have an 13 assessment. If the data are no good, I don't have an 14 assessment. If the facility;can be scaled to the large 15 facility, then what does the assessment mean? 16 DR. CATTON: And that's right. That's right. 17 MR. LANDRY: This, as a code assessor, the view 18 has to be, I have to operate on'the basis P. hat-these are 19 givens and now, I can have a successful assessment, o 20 DR. CATTON: You go-to the next step. See, ard I 21 don't-think that it is all that. difficult-to accomplish some 22 of these steps, it just hasn't been done. .23-MR..LANDRY: I-think the branches has heard your 2 41

concerns, 25

.:DR..CATTON: Good. N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,-LTD. 'N Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 ~ Washington, D.C. 20005 '(202) 842-0034 m._.____-_m._.__-_-_..-._.m.m__ .m__ m___._

644 1: MR. SCHROCK: You say'these.are things-that are /~~x ( ) '2 required before you can do your thing. Your thing being the

3-

-preparation of the SER? 4 MR. LANDRY: No. Well, I can prepare,-I am not 5 going to 4.saue a clean SER until those things are clear. 6 Because we-can do all kinds of assessments based on data 7 prior to acceptance of the data. But to say, give the final 8 blessing to the assessment that has been done, we can't 9 we can't make that statement until we have the first 10 statement that the data are good. 11-MR. SCHROCK: Pnd you are not there on any of 12 these three items, or you are on -- 13 MR. LANDRY: I am operating under the assumption, I am operating under the assumption that those are going 14 f)i (- 15 to be acceptable. Now, the staff has to make sure that 16 those are acceptable before I can finally say, yes, the 17 -assessment is acceptable. 18 MR. COLLINS: Excuse me, Dr. Schrock, I believe 19 the secor. ' tem -- the second condition, the staff's 20 confirmatory test programs have not uncovered any new 21 phenomena of safety significance. I think that is -- we are-22 convinced th-_ that is satis-that is dor.e. 23 MR. SCHROCK: Okay. -24' MR. COLLINS: The first and the third one, I would 12 5 -say that we1have some-issuer to revisit. J!- n f l' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 3250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i

645 1 MR. SCHROCK: Good. Thank you. Okay. ) 2 DR. ZUBER: Also, on the data, determine of the 3 scaling, how the persons did -- 4 MR. LANDRY: Okay. Where -- where do we stand 5 with the SER? We are still -- we still have yet to release 6 our SER to the projects because there are a number of items 7 that are quite open. We have five open items left from the 8 supplemental draft SER. And we have the RAI 440.721 which 9 was a result of a July thermohydraulic subcommittee meeting, 10 with all of its parts, wnich is still open. 3 11 We are in the process of reviewing those parts to 12 determine if they are acceptable. And, of course, the 13 comments of the committee today will be taken into 14 consideration. The concerns which you have expressed. ( \\ _.) 15 Westinghouse has some more work they have to do before they s 16 can satisfy us that those concerns in the RAI have been 17 responded to properly, 18 Within SER, one of the questions that you 19 asked -- 20 D'.. CATTON: Have you seen the derivation of the 21 volumetric based difference equations from the momentum 22 equations? That is beyond the provisions to ensure use of. 23 Have you seen a document that gives their development? 24 MR. LANDRY: No. 25 DR. ZUBER: Is it available? t ) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I' Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 i (202) 842-0034 l

646 1 DR. CATTCN: Has it been-submitted? ) 2 MR. LANDRY: That has not been submitted yet. 3 MR. NOVENDSTERN: It has not been submitted. I 4-have it internal' documentation in outnotes and things like 5 that, but it has not been formally submitted. 6 DR. CATTON: To make the process complete, that 7 part should be on the table as well. 8 DR. ZUBER: No, let me say. The more I hear,-I 9 .mean what I heard yesterday and today, in thinking about the 10 problem which was served to us yesterday, I really wonder 11 what kind of job did out of the NRC staff do on reviewing-12 this. -13 When-this is -- you know, you change numerica. 14 You have to have a document to review. It is not in the old 4 15 documents, completely new and the-document is not even 16-available. 17 If I may be very blunt, this is not responsible 18 regulatory activity. And this concerns me because I was 19 member of this agency. 20 Ed. CATTON: My recollection is of EM code review 21 -- my recollection of EM code review of 20 years or so ago, 22 we did look at the derivations. 23 MR. LANDRY: Right. 24 DR. ZUBER: .And you, this as ncy, it doesn't even 25 have a document of this new numerics and the revision. That

{/~).

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. A'- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)- 842-0034 1

n, . - _ - - ~ ~ -. + ~ 647 11 -is notLreally; responsible._ It is not yourl fault.- I'amijust-q( j2-l2L -saying_-thisfagency..as-a' unit, that'isLnot responsibleiwayfto 3 3 "doibusiness.- And'this isLwhere we are vulnerable to ? ~ 4' icriticism from-outside us who 'really don't :like this -{ s' . industry, and this technology. .6-MR..LANDRY: The last point that I.was going;to-7 ~make cn1 thistone of the concerns that we have had,-and the- -8 subcommittee brought this concern-up too, is applicetion of 9- .the models outside of AP600, or, I believe you were talking - bout misapplication of the code,-or using the code _outside 11 0 -a 11 of"its intended function. 112 In the SER, with-every model that has been 21 3 changed,-everyLcomponent model that has been added, there11s 14- .a caveat that the approval of'the staff for this model, a 15 -change, modification or a component addition, is given only B 16-for the use of this code for the analysis of the AP600 small 17 break LOCA. 1These models are not reviewed for any (ther 18 purpose. They may not be used'for any other purpose without 19 approval.- '20 In addition, models which had been changed in.the-4 21= NOTRUMP code, which we are aware of, that have not been L22 : applied for use on AP600, are not authorized for use. We L23-specifically' stipulate certain models that can.not be used, 24: 'because we~have not. reviewed them for this purpose. We have ~ ~ 225f igone sotfarJas:to say certain transfer correlations, Zober Ox .J p FANN.RILEY & ASSOCIATES,'LTD. \\~/' Court. Reporters; -1250-ILStreet, N.W., _ Sui? c ~ 3 0 0 Washington,_:D.C.~20005 -(202)o842-0034 -z-

648 1 reorrelation, Lienhart and Dier modification,-reviewed for-e~x ( ) 2-this: code, for this code,.-for this application, may be okay. .3 Griffith and Bionjard further modifications are in the code 4 but have'not been reviewed, not okay. 5 So we have tried to be sensitive to this 1 6 . possibility of'the code being used.outside of its area of-7- review and intended application, and'put the' stipulation 8 that any approval that is granted is granted only for this I 9 specific plant, specific application. 10 DR. CATTON: "o in the case that we-have in front 11 of us, the blessing for the code would be strictly for the 12 small, break LOCA. Period. 13 MR. LANDRY: Strictly for the AP600 small break 14 LOCA. ' A), k-15 DR. CATTON: Okay. Right. Okay. s 16 MR. LANDRY: Not for any other design, not for any 17-other evaluation. 18 DR. CATTON: And your approval letter or whatever 19 goes;out would have those words-in it? 20 MR. LANDRY: I would hope the letter weuld. The 12 1 SER has those words. 22 DR. CATTON: Okay. 23 DR. ZUBER: This is -- this is the reason you need 24 a document to which to refer. The code does describe there -25 and the reference here or something, there is a document, i fE( ); ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. -Court Reporters '~ Suite 300 1250 I. Street, N.W., ~ 20005 Washington,-D.C. .(202) 842-0034 a

649 -- 1 numerics 1and-everything. It is like buying a car, you have ) ?2 a -- 3 DR. CATTON: You mean you just don't go buy it? 4 MR. LANDRY: Okay. Today we have heard-the 5 applicants response to the RAI that went out-in July. We 6-have had-those response for a couple of weeks now, and we 7 are in the proies of reviewing-that material. We are still 8 in the prccess of reviewing some open items from the 9 supplemental draft SER. That review is going to go on and -10 Westinghouse has some additional tasks, some additional 11 action items. Wo want to see those action items before we 12 accept these responses. And, in addition, 13 DR. ZUBER: They didn't even -- 14 MR. LANDRY: Let me say one more thing, Novak. (D \\m / 15 In addition, known code errors are not acceptable. 16 DR. CATTON: What do you mean by a code error? 17 MR. LANDRY: An error in an equation that is programmed into the code. 19 DR. CATTON: Okay. 20 .DR. ZUBER: Good, good, good, good, good. 21 MR. LANDRY: An error that is coded into the code. 22 DR. CATTON: And is inappropriate use of some. -23 relationship, knowing the physics, considered an error?~ 24 MR. LANDRY: Inappropriate use. I consider-that 25 an. error.,.But -- ,O ) ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.'20005 (202) _842-0034 _ __=

j' 650. 1 -DR. CATTON::10kay.. I_:just mention 1this because O 2'

that;*.akes; care of_La problem I have with some things that-g L3 they are doing.- Namely,-the treatment of the: . mass flux 4_

water;:the_ liquid and vapor into the ADS 4 line,gbecause the 5-way-they are treating is -- is not correct.

And, 6;

physically, based on physics, we:know-it;is not correct. 7-MR. LANDRY: That we-have to talk. 8 _. -DR. CATTON: Is that considered an error? 9-MR.ILANDRY: We have to discuss-that with them and C L10 determ'ine -- i l l -- DR. CATTON: You see..-- 12 MR. LANDRY: Because -- 13 <: -DR.- CATTON: -The word error has a particular --- 14 meaning. That means.-- A lb MR. LANDRY: And I am trying to use a very 16: particular meaning,' Ivan. That when we know that an 17-

equation.lis wrong, it is coded _ wrong,-that-is unacceptable.

?l8-DR.--CATTON: And this is -- 19: MR. LANDRY: ~And we have-expressed to the 20

applicant-in the past.-: 21 P'

'CATTON: Okay. ,22l MR. LANDRY:. We have pointed this out that we---can 23: (not accept known errors. 'If-you-know:that;an equation-.is:in

245 Terror,for that:it is coded' incorrectly,-you mustffix-it.

7

25' cDR. CATTON: ?And'I--am trying._tocjust;get-a measure Y['

1 ANN RILEY.&iASSOCIATES, LTD. M- _. Jourt1 Reporters- _ Street, - N.W.,...LSuite n 3 00 ~ 125051. Washington,JD.C.520005

(202) 842-0034 m

5 _....____.-_____.__.m___.a_____m.___._.._m____.________a____,_m..__.-_

651 1 of -- 2 MR. LANDRY: Now, if the physics is wrong, 3 DR, CATTON: And you know they are wrong. 4 MR. LANDRY: We have to -- we have to determine 5 what is the affect and what is going to be the path to 6 resolution. 7 DR. ZUBER: See, the trouble is, if you say the 8 affect is conservative, and then is-a tendency forget it. 9 But if the error is really flagrant, is something which a 10 sophomorn should not do, or a junior. See, there are two 11 kl.An of errors, one is in magnitude, small or large. The 12 one is in quality, trivial and -- 13 DR. CATTON: Cross. 14 DR. ZUBER: And gross. Now, the thing is maybe, 15 in magnitude is a small error. But it is a gross error if 16 somebody looks at how can you license something with such a 17 gross error. This is a bad image which leaves to the 18 outside to criticize. You see, this you open -- you turn 19 your back, it says do me in, This is -- this gross error 20 should not be in that code, should not be in any document in 21 this technology. It only does harm. 22 You know, you are not aware of the errors I am 23 talking about, but they will be known. 24 DR._CATTON: See, in the case that Virgil brought 25-up this morni..u, or_maybe it was this afternoon, about the ,-~c ( ANN.RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034'

f 652 l t 1-use of_the stagnation properties in the. critical flow f () calculations, if Mike shows that, indeed, it is relatively_ 2 . unimportant,-I would think there still should be a statement 3 -t we-didn't use stagnation properties because. 5 MR. LANDRY: Ri,ht. 6 DR. CATTON: Then it -- then, to me,-that is no .7 longer an error. Everybody knows what it is, you can read 8 it.- You can agree or disagree..You can make your own-9- calculation, whatever you wish. But if it is.just done, and 10 you know that it is done, and nothing is said, I tnink that 11 isEwrong. 12 MR. LANDRY: Your criticism is understood. 13 DR. ZUBER: My last cominent. 14 DR. CATTON: He's going to ask us to make summary \\ _)1 15 statements. Maybe we should -- s F-16. CHAIRMAN KRESS: I'm going to ask if you still '17 want to. 18: DR. ZUBER: Okay. Let me say one thing. I didn't 19 hear about th9 commitment from Westinghouse about this 20' document on the derivation of the equations and the 21 numerien, because this;is c new code. So this is something 4 . which we didn't' discuss it before, and it!s up.to you to '22 6_ 23-look into it. J 24; MR. LANDRY: Weil be_ discussing with Westinghouse ,25 - where_weire going;with that. 4 m{>As^- J' ' ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.- n ~ - Court Reporters' ' 1250'I-' Street,LN.W.,' Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 n_ (202)L 842-003C r 9 ,.1

653 1 DR. ZUBER: Yes. Because that should be in a 2 document. I mean, that's the base of the code. If we take 3 the old documents, you don't have it, who has it? 4 DR. CATTON: Are the time-stepping algorithms the 5 same in the new as the old? Going to this volume-type, 6 differencing, what did it change? Are there different ways 7 they deal with matrices or whatever? What do we have before 8 us? 9 MR. LANDRY: I understand your concern. -10 DR. CATTON: Good. 11-MR. SCHROCK: I just wanted to say something about i 12 your comment concerning the possibility that Mike may show 13 that it's relatively unimportant in his application. I 14-think it's impossible for him to show that it's relatively V 15 unimportant in his application if those words mean the L 16 analysis of AP600 in general, because the ADS 4 very clearly 17 cannot be treated that way in any acceptable sense. Even 18 for the others, 7 have a different sort of thought on it 1" than I think I understood from you, Ivan, and I just want to 20 say that I 21 DR. CATTON: Virgil, I just use it as an example. 22' MR. SCHROCK: I know, and I don't mean this as a 23 disagreement between us, but what I wanted Ralph to hear is 24 .that I,think that the regulatory standard should be such 25 that-if the code is going to be used again at some future .l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. . Court Reportern -1250 I Street, N.W.,. Sitite 300.. -Washington, D.C. 20005 .(202) 842-0034

_ _._... ~ _ _ _ _ _ 654 1 time that something like this not be allowed to remain in () 2' the code when it's a trivial fix to make it right. And that 3 is the case here. I't's not anything_other than the g 4 reprogramming effort that's needed to get that accomplished, 5 and that's not very much. In' terms of computational time 6 it's not significant if there is a difference. i 7 So I think the spirit of what I'm trying to say is-j 8 'tnat if you see that a calculation is being done in a way. 9 which is clearly incorrect, that allowing that to stand i J10 under circumotances auch as they have now, the stack of j 11 computations that have been made that would be costly to l 12 reperform with such'a small change, making a case for the 13-fact that the small change-isn't very-important in specific l 14 parts of the calculation, I wou Sn't have any difficulty O' { 15 with that. 16 But-letting it stand in the code I think is wrong, 17 and I don't think the regulatory process should permit that, f 18 So in'your statement of not permitting errors in the code to 19 stand I think your application of that concept to this t 20 specific situation should be that you expect that code to [ t 22 have the changes that are.necessary to do that calculation i H2 2 - correctly for any future calculations. .23' MR. LANDRY: That's correct, Virgil, f 24; MR. SCllROCK: Okay. 2 5. - _MR.;LANDRY: I_would agree fully. I have a basic? s ANN RILEY! & ASSOCIATES, LTD_. S' N ' Court Reporters;

1250-I Street,-N.W., Suite 300

- t . Washington, D.C. 20005 4 (202). 842-0034: ~ s 4 w r .. iNw l=, s .--+m

655 l 1 problem with %$own errors, existing errors, and things that r~x () 2 aren't quita r ght that could be eacily changed and made 3 right. 4 4 DR. CATTON: Wrong correlations. 5 MR. LANDRY: Wrong correlations. Getting the 6 right answer for the wrong reason. 7 DR. CATTON: Even in Appendi:: K. 8 CHAIRMAN KRESS: At this time I'll ask the 9 annaultants if they think they've made their points ' 10' suJficiently and would like to just reserve their comments 11 to a oct of written ones to the Committee, because you've 12 made your points several times. If you want to make 13 additional ones, it's fine. 14 DR. CATTON: I would like to at least just skim } 15 through this, because -- 16 CHAIRMAN KRESS: Okay. 17 DR. CATTON: This last discussion was kind of 18 free-wheeling, and I don't want to miss anything. 19 CFAIRMAN KRESS: Okay. We'll -- 20 DR. CATTON:

Okay, I think the first thing I'd 21 like to say is that Westinghouse did not demonstrate that 22 the data set was complete enough to accomplish NOTRUMP V&V.

~23 I mean, it may well be complete enough, but they didn't 24 demonstrate it.. In spite of all the scaling they've done, 25 they have not put it together. I believe it takes a h\\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 's/ Court Reporters 1950 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i

656 1 combination of scaling, simple analysis, common sense to do () 2 the job. Banerjee did this; Westinghouse has not. 3 And I think this was compounded by documents that 4 are poorly edited, incomplete, often a very low density and 5 quite op2que. In places the detail is at a level of detail 6 that is confusing and often meaningless. We had a 7 presentation, things were put up there, all kinds of terms 8 were looked e.t, and then when we asked about them, they say 9 they're unimportant and were dropped. I think that's a bit 10 insulting to do that to us. 11 Another example I have is the figures. Actually I 12 probably said some things on the record that I shouldn't 13 have as a result of it. When temperatures are shown for a 14 . fluid, this conventionally means the liquid phase. That's 15 why we put a little "f" down at the bottom. And when you 16 get a graph showing values of fluid temperature that's 120 17 degrees F superheat, that sets off alarm bells. We have 18 seen computations here where dense fluid sits on top of less 19 dense fluid, and this is a result of the computations that l 20 were done, and the people putting it up didn't think twice 21 about it. 22 So to react to something like this I don't think 23 is unreasonable to have happened. I was wrong in what I 24 said about-44 0. 721 (d) about the superheat returning from the 25 steam generator, but I-read tha text and looked at the i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.- V Court Reporters 1250 I. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 120005 (202) '342-0034

657 1 figure, and it said fluid temperature. I think there-should () 2 be some sort of convention that's adhered to, and normally 3 we don't let people get away with that in our universities. 4 CHAIRMAN KRESS: When you say fluid mechanics, you j 5 don't restrict it to jitst liquids, do you? 6 [ Laughter.] 7 DR. CATTON: No. I guess Ralph made.the point, I 8 was concerned about the use of NOTRUMP and limiting it, and 9 he hit on that. This uncertainty in flashing to me seems-to 10 point to some need for sensitivity-calculations. It could 11 well be a stochastic process, and you really need to know 12 what the impact is. i 13 Let'n see. We've talked about this ADS 4 14 entrainment model till hell won't have it. I'll just skip 15 this. 16 I think that I found what they had to say about 17 the noncondensable dispersion within the system seemed to me la as a reasonable approach. The thing that it can impact, you 19 shut it off so it can't impact it anymore, the impact 20 couldn't be any greater. 21 Let's see. Oh, there's this DVI line business. I 22 think we have an-interesting problem before us. If 23 depressurization is the goal, and it's what makes the AP600 24 passive process viable, what should we do with the' break 25 flow to assure ourself that a conservative prediction will ^' ') ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,-LTD. s Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034

658 1 result, becaune it's not the same as what we did for regular () 2_ plants. With a regular plant you would increase the -- you 3 would range the area all over the place.. What are you going 4 to do to assure yourself in this case that what you're-doing 5 with the break flow is conservative? 6 When ADS 1-3 flow is underpredicted-I don't think we have a 7 problem with deciding what's conservative. Might not like a what you did, but at least we can understand it. But the 9 break flow, I'm not sure how-to deal with that. 10-Now the bad predictions are a result of 1 11 multidimensional behavior in tl.e downcomer, and this -- we ~ 12 were shown that this causes the deviation -- divergence of 13-the predictions from measurements at around 400 seconds. 14 -The bad predictions help make a large break out of a small f 15: break, and this is nonconservative. I am not sure how small 16 a break will have to be to accommodate the bad predictions. 17 This is not the first time we've seen an example la~ like this from Westinghouse. We have seen two. The other 11 9 example is the treatment of the containment volume. And in 20 both cases there are tools that they have available to them 21 that could do a better job and might alleviate some of the 12 3 uncertainty associated with what we're dealing with. 23 Oh, let's see.. :: think that's about all I've got 24 to say. I've said everything else three or four times; J25 _One;more-thing. Nodalization' The arguments ff) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court. Reporters 1250 I Street,.'N.W.,.SuiteL300 Washington, D.C..--20005 (202) 842-0034' c -E

I l 659 1 1 about nodalization need more substance. The basis for some () 2 of the changes from facility to facility are weak, whereas 3 some of them are reasonnble. And I think that package needs 4 to be put together. 5 Okay, Tom. 6 DR. ZUDER: I agree with whatever -- with all the I 7 stuff that Ivan said. I have discussed quite a few things. 8 I won't repeat them. The only thing I would like to add 9 here is, which we didn't really bring it up today, is the 10 reproducibility of the data for the ADS valves. I think we 11 didn't get the answer hcw reproducible are the data, and 12 what is the_ scatter. If I perform the same tests several 13 times, what is the scatter of the data? We got some data, 14 but they were for different conditions, so you cannot draw a 15 conclusion on that. So I think in order to really have flow 16 information on the validity of the data I think we should + 17 have some feel of the reproducibility, and I think this was 18 not done, and I think Westinghouse should consider it. 19 This is I think the basic requirement in any 20 experiments you conduct, the thing one learns in sophomore 21 or junior -- actually in freshman year on physics. You 22 perform tests, you'really run the tests several times to see

23

.how reproducible tho. data are. And I didn't see it here. H24 CHAIRMAN KRESS - Virgil,'do you'want to make any 25 more? /~N

}

j-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters ~ N.W., Suite 300 1250 I. Street, Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034

660 1 MR. SCHROCK: Well, I don't think that I have any j 2 items that I haven't discussed. I would like_to point out 3 that in my report in July that I said that I thought highly l 4 of the Westinghoune experimental program and that I regarded 5 their computational and scaling offorts to be inadequate, 6 and I think that. that poaltion hasn't really been altered 7 very-much. I think we still have some exceptione regarding 4 8 the experimental program. But by and large I think 9 Westinghouse ought to be praised for having built the OSU t 10 facility. It's certainly an excellent example of a good 11 experimental facility, and a lot of good data han come from 12 that, both in their program and in the RES program, 13 But I just am really terribly disappointed in 14 Westinghouse's approach to the analysis of the system that 15 they've designed-It looks to be a good system on the face 16 of it, but it han to be demonstrated through sound analysia, 17 and that in really very seriously lacking, in my judgment. t 18 DR. ZUBER: Tom, if you want, I would like to add 19 also my compliments for the experiments they have conducted 20 at OSU. I concur completely with Virgil. 21 CHAIRMAN KRESS: Okay. I guess that I would give 22 Westinghouse some opportunity to make some last comments if 23 they:wish to at this time. 24 You don't have to. -You're welcome to. 25 DR. CATTON: You're going tc tell me the name of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. -Court Reporters .1250.I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,'D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034

661 1 that wine? l () 2 MR. PIPLICA: I don't remember it. I'm sorry. 3 First of all I want to give you my regrets that 4 Mr. Bill Brown, who is our scaling expert, couldn't be here 5 to give you a better presentatioa on our scaling analysis 6 and convince you that we have done a sufficient job in that 7 area. I do want to also tell you that I appreciate the 8 specific feedback that you've given us on the scaling 9 report, and we wi.11 go back and correct those features of 10 the report that you've indicated. We will also go back and 11 review the transcript from this meeting to pick up any areas 12 that we may have overlooked or not heard of in our summaries 13 3 here this afternoon. 14 We will also look at including the multiloop 15 scaling analysis from a rsystem-level standpoint fcr the 16 IRWST injection phase for two reasons. One that you pointed 17 out that I agree with 39 that it occurs during the time when 18 core uncovery, although unlikely, could possibly occur, and 19 also in support of the IRWST penalty that the analysis 20-people are looking at. 21 However, I want to say that I beliave that the 22 PIRT scaling report that we've submitted has been very 23 responsive to the meeting that we held with you last year, 24 December 18 and 19, and also I tried to incorporate as best 25 I could the feedback that I heard from INEL and Banerjee, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. . N' . Court Reporters -1250-I Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034-1 d

~ _ - - ) 662 j 1 Wulff,_at the meeting in California last year,_and that I i () 2 spec'ifically tailored the report to try to incorporate 3 features and comments that I got from you, particularly Dr._ i 2 4 'Catton, especially with regards-to the tables. I tried to f 1 5-put the tables in there so that it would logi ally lead you t -6 to a conclusion starting from the front to the back that we 7 had sufficiently a:aled the AP600. That:in conjunction with i 8 _the scaling reports that we've already submitted for OSU and i 9 .the CMr program, for example, I think really comprise the i 10 documentation in the scaling area that you need to look at. fil We'll also correct, you know, any of the editorial l JL 2 errors. We apologize for that. We recognize that that's l 3 13 not acceptable. We do have an ongoing program within ~ 14 Westinghouse whereby we collect, keep, monitor errors in -- ( whether they come from a technical basis or an editorial 15 16 basis -- and we will continue to provide the staff and you 17 with updated reports so that_at the end of this program that 18 we have submitted complete and. accurate reports from the '19 -testing area. So I think that's all I wanted to say. 20 CHAIRMAN.KRESS: All right. We thank you folks, 21 'and I guess tomorrow we'll start on_the second part of this 22- . meeting with WGOTHIC and the containment. So with that I'm 23~ going to call.-- is;this a recess?: It's an adjournment of ~24 ithis part;of_the meeting, and we'will reconvene a new 25_ _ meeting tomorrow. ? e '--3 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 9 'r

Court-Reporters

-i 1250LI. Street, N.W.,-Suite-300 l ' Washington, D.C..20005-. (202)J841-0034 i ,x 2 z,., -.. x. _..-_...__..u.__.._._.;a.

~ .~.= -.....--... ~. -~, -. ~ - t i t - 663 l 5 t 1 [Whereupon, at 6:58 p.m., the meeting was j 2'

concluded.)

3. i p 4 l q t

5

= ) -6 f L y i 8-1 q 9 i -- 10 1 t 13- - 4 1 12= t } 13 i i 14 - i 15 i -10~ .'1 17 18~ 19 i f 20= 'l t 'J . 21= 22 ) 23 L .24 ;. <l 251 -1 1

ANF RILEY A ASSOCIATES, LTD.-

7-Court-Reporters ?" .1250 I Street, N.W.,. Suite'i300 + ! Washington,LD.C.- 20005' 1 (202)' 842 '0034: n =. 6' ) 3 b -~-.,.....,,w...=,..m.. .. ~,,., - -. .,v,,,,,..-,- -,y

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings () before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of: NAME OF PROCEEDING: THERMAL-HYDRAULIC AND 1 SEVERE-ACCIDENT PHENOMENA DOCKET NUMBER: 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 typev 6 ming 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. Ln Avd n Hundley Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd. em -

O O O t 1 lili li!!! F 2 i i 4 l ^ l Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee t l l December 10,1997 j l NOTRUMP Validation Earl H. Novendstern Westinghouse Electric Company (412) 374-4790

1 nn ma [ Introduction i I . NOTRUMP Reports Revision 3 1 Completeness . Review of Key Remaining items RAI Resulting from July ACRS Meeting l Dr. Catton's Supplemental Comments on ADS-4 I i Page 2 I +-

i' sl..l i rtiIlIl

ii l: [

I 3 y" ega P ro iv f a g s h e n OM r '5m.,H x r e u B e tae n t F y p a t v c l e hv Nvk Fh f P a F S g e n v x i i s ec t s a a a r P D e 0 4 p 0 6 O P ( A .sv 0 rs 0 6PA l ll i ljll1!

.l O O O 1 XOTREMP Topical Reports i . Review for AP600 Application Almost Complete j NOTRUMP Final Validation Report (WCAP-14807 - Rev. 3) . NRC Approval in 1985 for Operating Plants Evaluation Modeland V&V(WCAP-10054-P-A) l - Coding Documentation (WCAP-10079-P-A) i i Page 4 I m

i yu Report Contains a3 Relevant Information W C AP-14807 R ev. 3 1. PIRT I I i i i Model Single integral Code RAls im provem ents Effects l System s i Assessment DSER Ols Validation Validation j & Overview (Appendix A) { (Ch.1) . _ _... ~ - _ _. _ .a l .. _ _ _.. _l Description Level Sweu (3) OSU j P'HT Relationship Responses j (Ch.2) (Ch. 4) (Ch.8) _ ~_ __ j Benchmarks CMT SP ES-2 i Areas of Good Agreement : Road-m ap l (Ch. 3) (C h. 6) (Ch. 7) i w ADS Defeiencies (Ch. 5) ~ ,iAppendix K Applicaten : Page5 O O O

O O O XOTREMP V&V Report 1.1:1 titii U 4! ) Rev. 3 Modifications [ L l i l l l WCAP '480T l se.. : j I i P tRT i a' l 4 M edet Segio lategmi (Ch.1) Code RAls le provem ents Ellects S ystem s A esessm ent 0SER Ces Vandaboe Vabd@ & Ovem (Appeed*a A) { f.T afeseentre %s i l 1 l Descryace L evet S was (3) OSU PIRT Roumashp 1i g,,,,,,,, j (Ch. 2) (Ch. 4) (ca. 3) NAf 44812f eely y 32.4 & S.4 - CSU DED VD Ereet l l 1 I 8esenmarts CMT Areas of Good Agnome.t l PE S-2 (Ch. 3) (Ch. 6) Roac eap (Ch Il RAI440.721 eely ADS l Deg ee., (Ch. 5) gr. ate,esPeeny I l i A,,e.... A,. a i j i i k Page 6 i l i I

assrv.c nouse reocumuny cuas ; O TABLE A 3 (Cont.) NOTRUMP RAI RESFONSES RAI# Descrigion of items Reference Where Answered RAI 440.721(c) (Issue Provide a thort, ugh explanation Appendix A raised during 7/29 regarding NOTRUMP's suisprMietion 7/30 ACRS Meeting) of mass flow out of the ADS stage 1, 2, and 3 valves in the OSU experiments (and related pressurizer refill). hnprove the justification as to why th;s deficiency is acceptable. RAI 440.721(d) (Issue ProviU an explanson fx Appendix A raised during 7/29-HOTRUMP) mispredictions when Section 8.3.4 7/30 ACRS Meeting.$ compared to the OSU test results of DVI line oreaks RAI 440.721(c) (Issue Explain the significance and justify Appendix A raised during 7/29 the bases for any diffsmoos in the 7/30 ACRS Meeting) Noonlization between the two integral l test facilities (OSU and SPES) and the l AP600 RAI 440.721(f) (Issue Provide more details on N(.mtUMP), Appendix A h raised during 7/29 misprediction of pressurizer drainage Section 1.16 7/30 ACRS Meeting) in the OSU tests.1horoughly explain Section 8.3.4 the significance of this deficiency b the code, such as non-cauervatively predicting IRWST flow, and how it will be treated in perfortning *J%00 calculanons. RAI 440.721(g) (Issue Related to (f) above, Westinghouse is Appendix A raised during 7/29-proposing to apply a penalty in Section 8.3.4 7/30 ACRS Meeting) IRWST level. Provide s detailed captanation of how the pena y is dei.vm;i.ed via scaling from the OSU test data to the AP600 Justify why this is conservative. RAI 440.721(h) (Issue Provide detailed justification for riot Appendix A raised during 7/29-including momentum flux in the Section 1.7.5 7/30 ACRS Meer ng) NOTRUMP models. RAI 440.721(i) (Issue Provide discussion nn how Appendix A raised during 7/29 NOTRUMP treats entrainment 7/30 ACRS Meeting) (waterspout) in branch lines. O "--En ,,,s., A.3,

o 4 } 11 $.1: RAI 440.721 m ~ = l 4 440.721 Eased on issues raised during the July 29-30 1997 ACRS Thermal-H'ydraulic Subecmmittee meeting with Westinghouse and the staff on V&V of the NOTRUMP computer code for AP600, the NRC staff needs the following information clarified and documented in the AP600 NUTRUMP Final Verification and Validation Report (WCAP-14807): i i (a) Provide additional explanation and significance of the consistent delay in NOTRUMP predicted commencement of CMT draining when compared to testing data. What is the significance of NOTRUMP's lack of a flashing model in failing to } accurately predict start of CMT drain-down. 2 l (b) Pro /ide additional justification why adverse ef fects fron non-condensable gases are not a concern for AP600 NOTRUMP small break LOCA calculations. Explain where the non-condensable gases end up and why assumptions made for i NOTRUMP calculations are conservative. i (c) Provide a thorough explanation regaroing NOTRUMP's misprediction of mass flow out of the ADS stage 1, 2. and 3 valves in the OSU experiments (and related pressurizer refill). I.: prove the justification as to why this deficiency is acceptable. (d) Provide an explanation for NCrrRUMP's mispredictions when corpared to the OSU test results of DVI line breaks. (e) Explain the significance and justify the bases for any differences in the Nodali2.ation between the two integral test facilities (OSU and SPES) and the AP600. 1 l (f) Provide more details on NOTRUMP's misprediction of pressurizer drainage in the OSU tests. Thoroughly explain the significance of this deficiency in the code, such as non-conservatively predicting IRWST flow, and how it will be l treated in performing AP600 calculations. (g) Related to (f) above, Westinghouse is proposing to apply a penalty in IRWST level. Provide a detailed explanation of how the penalty is determined via scaling from the OSU test data to the AP600. Justify why this is conservative. (h) Provide detailed justification for not including momentum flux in the NOTRUMP models. (i) Provide discussion on how NOTRUMP treats entrainment (waterspout) in branch lines. (j) Justify and demonstrate why use of Henry-Fauske/ HEM rather than Moody is conservative for calculating break flow through the ADS stage 1, 2, and 3 valves and why this is appropriate for an appendix K type calculation. Pages

c i Agenda (and cross-reference to RAI 440.721) J 1. Introduction to NOTRUMP (Open) II. Flow Equatiorts (Closed) A. Momentum Fiux/ Critical Flow (c.h> { B. CMT Draining fa) C. Entrainment (I) l D. Non-condensables th) i 111. NOTRUMP/OSU Predictions (Closed) 9 A. Pressurizer Refilling and Draining /c.fi B. DVI Line Breaks (4) C. IRWST L, vel Penalty fp) i IV. Plant (Closed) A. Noding fe) B. Appendix K ff) I V. Summary (Open) i Page 9 j l e

g MAPA g6 1178 N o rt. o n P &,. m l N d w a s 4 S C r C,4 loop

l181, N o 7 % o H P(r,,n l N e w er 4 ke71 lib 6 4073W9 G'8'aINd*4 45BLocA C.Je 4

4 l $ 7perN8TWf (Wu I-MbeWng O

s..

/,,, O R --w---------.--__---,-_-x

_----_-------u----._.-_-_a----------._------------.-----__--------_.--_-----------.-----A

SAI 4No,'7M ca.g { K aos sm nar -(<9 1t.v = netr M I+ c r M.,os3 (f)Prawi,s,-Desuahtam nH.i.m p. '(0 ritwsr 'Pem1/y - seda - c.. h 6.T %f o t.) E,rinl--t ,s bn.c. N - ny,, s.,

t...n

~ Net sure 'o1 h destt ~.'tk geh..,J:n lf (O L..A.f 2n di / Tum - e,. a.,e <.,. -. 4 1Wf A Lk.,,w.d.I(l.m e N.y h. /.,./.t. .4 O 9 .w-e e nere n ce m "' Wee *'-- --*N-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _}}

ML20198P641

Text

Title:

Navigation menu

Search