ML20211B441

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests That Proprietary Version of Matl Presented at 970313 Notrump Meeting Be Withheld from Public Disclosure. Matl,Encl
ML20211B441
Person / Time
Site: 05200003
Issue date: 09/22/1997
From: Mcintyre B
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To: Quay T
NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20046D810 List:
References
AW-97-1098, NUDOCS 9709250223
Download: ML20211B441 (123)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_.. \\ 0 y I o Energy _ Systems; -y,yp 3 p AW 97-1098 September 22,1997 - -Document Control Desk .U.S. Nuclear Regniatory Commission - Washington, DC 20555 ATFLHTION: MR. T. R. QUAY APPLICATION FOR WITHilOLDING PROPRIETARY INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

SUBJECT:

PRESENTATION MATERIAL FROM MARCil 13,1997 NOTRUMP MEETING

Dear Mr. Qnay:

The application for withholding is submitted by Westinghouse Electric Corporation (" Westinghouse") - pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, it contains commercial strategic information proprietary to Westinghouse and customarily held in - confidence. The proprietary material for which withholding is being requested is identified in the proprietary version of the subject report, in conformance with 10CFR Section 2.790, Aflidavit AW-97-1098 accompanies this application for withholding setting forth the basis on which the identified proprietary information may be withheld from public disclosure. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the subject information which is proprietary to _ Westinghouse be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations. Correspondence with respect to this application for withholding or the accompanying affidavit should reference AW 97-1098 and should be addressed to the undersigned. . Very truly yours, .Drian A. McIntyre, Manager

Advanced Plant Safety and Licensing Jmi-cc: ' Kevin ilohrer =

NRC OWFh t.lS 12E20 9709250223 97 PDR' ADOCK O 3 -A-p =.

AW-97-1098 ' AFFIDAVIT n COMMONWEALTil OF PENNSYLVANIA: ss COUNTY OF ALLEGilENY: 1 liefore r ie, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Brian A. McIntyre, who, being by me duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is authorized to execute this Affidavit on behalf of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (" Westinghouse") and that the averments of fact set forth in this Affidavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief: / A 8 / Brian A. McIntyre, Manager Advanced Plant Safety and Licensing Sworn to and subscribed before m thisffd ay of 1 ff ,I997 f / Notanal Sad j Janot A. Schwab. Natary pen-- pry $a"y[{f3% Y n o f f Aq , Pmnsytvane Aucanon of Notanei Notary Publ.ic i t 1/.

l AW-97-1098 (1) I am Manager, Advanced PI.:n Safety And Licensing, in the Nuclear Projects Division, of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation and as such, I have been specifically delegated the function of reviewing the proprietary information sought to be withheld from public disclosure in connection with nuclear power plant licensing and rulemaking proceedings, and am authorized to apply for its withholding on behalf of the Westinghouse Energy Systems Business Unit. (2) I am making this AfGdavit in conformance with the provisions of 10CFR Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations and in conjunction with the Westinghouse application for withholding accompanying this Affidavit. (3) I have personal knowledge of the criteria and procedures utilized by the Westinghouse Energy Systems Business Unit in designating information as a trade secret, privileged or as e confidential commercial or financial infonnation. (4) Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of Section 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, the following is furnished for consideration by the Con, mission in determining whether the information sought to be withheld from public disclosure should be withheld. (i) The information sought to be withheld from public disclosure is owned and has been held in confidence by Westinghcuse. (ii) The information is of a type customarily held in confidence by Westinghouse and not customarily disclosed to the public. Westinghouse has a rational basis for determmmg the types of information customarily held in confidence by it and, in that connection, utiliics a system to determine when and whether to hold certain types of information in confidence. The application of that system and the substance of that system constitutes Westinghouse policy and provides the rational basis required. Under that system, information is held in confidence if it falls in one or more of several types, the telease of which might result in the loss of an existing or potential competitive advantage, as follows: lla ?A

AW-971098 (n) The information reveals the distinguishing aspects of a process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.) where prevention of its use by any of Westinghouse's competitors without license from Westinghouse constitutes a competitive economic advantage over other companies. (b) It' consists of supporting data, including test data, relative to a process (or component, structure, tool, method, etc.), the application of which data secures a competitive economic advantage, e.g., by optimization or improved marketability. (c) Its use by a competitor would reduce his expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation,_ assurance of quality, or licensing a similar p % ' (d) It reveals cost or price information, production capacities, budget levels, or commercial strategies of Westinghouse, its customers or suppliers. (e) It reveals aspects of past, present, or future Westinghouse or customer funded development plans and programs of potential commercial value to Westinghouse. (f) It contains patentable ideas, for which patent protection may be desirable. There are sound policy reasons behind the Westinghouse system which include the following: (a) The use of such information by Westinghouse gives Westinghouse a l competitive advantage over its competitors. It is, therefore, withheld from l-disclosure to protect the Westinghouse competitive position. (b) It is information which is marketable in many ways. The extent to which such l information is available to competitors diminishes the Westinghouse ability to 1 sell products and services involving the use of the information. IM74

AW 97-1098 (c) Use by our competitor would put Westinghouse at a competitive disadvantage-by reducing his expenditure of resources at our expense.' (d).. .Each component of proprietary information pertinent to a particular -- competitive advantage is potentially as valuable as the total competitive cdvantage. If competitors acquire components of proprietary information, any one component may be the key to the entire puzzle, thereby depriving : Westinghouse of a competitive advantage. F-(e) Unrestricted disclosure would jeopardize the position of prominence of Westinghouse in the world market, and thereby give a market advantage to the competition of those countries. (f) The Westinghouse capacity to invest corporate assets in research and-development depends upon the success in obtaining and maintaining a competitive advantage. 4 (iii) The information is being transmitted to the Commission in confidence and, under the provisions of 10CFR Section 2.790, it is to be received in conGdence by the Commission. (iv) The information sought to be protected is not available in public sources or available information has not been previously employed in the same original manner or method to the best of our knowledge and belief. 4 (v)- Enclosed is Letter DCP/NRC0824 (NSD-NRC-97-5080), September 22,1997, being transmitted by Westinghouse Electric Corporathn (W) letter and Application for - Withholding Proprietary Information from Public Disclosure, Brian A. McIntyre (W),. to Mr. T. R.' Quay, Orlice of NRR. The proprietary information as submitted for use by Westinghouse Electric Corporation is in response to questions concerning the AP600 plant and the associated design certification application and is expected to be applicable in other licensee submittals in response to certain NRC requirements for justification of licensing advanced nuclear pcwer plant designs. c jL wr l l -

AW-97-1098 a This information is part of that which will enable Westinghouse to: (a) Demonstrate the design and safety of the AP600 Passive Safety Systems. j (b) Establish applicable verification testing methods. (c) Design Advanced Nuclear Power Plants that n.eet NRC requirements. (d) Establish technical and licensing approaches for the AP600 that will ultimately result in a certified design. i (c) Assist customers in obtaining NRC approval for future plants. Further this information has substantial commercial value as follows: (a) Westinghouse plans to sell the use of similar information to its customers for purposes of meeting NRC requirements for advanced plant licenses. (b) Westinghouse can sell support and defense of the technology to its customers in the licensing process. i Public disclosure of this proprietary information is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of Westinghouse because it would enhance the ability of l competitors to provide similar advanced nuclear power designs and licensing defense services for commercial power reactors withot: commensurate expenses. Also, public disclosure of the information would enable others to use the information to meet NRC requirements for licensing documentation without purchasing the right to use the infonnation, i i 1 i II67A

0 AW-97-1098 The development of the technology described in part by the information is the result of applying the results of many years of experience in an intensive Westinghouse effort and the expenditure of a considerable sum of money. In order for competitors of Westinghouse to duplicate this information, similar technical programs vpuld have to be performed and a significant manpower elkrt, having the requisite talent and experience, would hase to be expended for developing analytical methods and receiving NRC approval for those methods. Further the deponent sayerir, not. l I mu l

e v Y ENCLOSURE 2 TO DCP/NRC0824 i l 1 i f 1 i. l 1 i i [ I I l l l I '. L 1 ( De?A l I.

O WESIGNGHOUSE ELECTQlcCOQPOGATION 3-4 -. -=..- Analysis Of The SPES Facility With The Westinghouse NOTRUMP Code Prepared By: A. F. Gagnon Advanced & VVER Plant Safety Analysis Westinghouse Electric Corporation 1 Presented At: Westinghouse OHice l Rockville, Maryland l March 13,1997 i l f y 1 womme snsu Meade 93.1991 \\ i

r i. i O wEstlpGHOUSE ELECIQtC CCQPOQ At ton O l l L Overview Review Of Test Matrix l NOTRUMP Noding Diagram l Pressurizer Mixture Level Correction Review Of 2 Inch Cold Leg Break Results (Test S00303) l Discussion Of Revised 2 Inch Cold Leg Balance Line Break Results (Test S01007) l - Resides Presented in Report Did Not Model Correct Break Location l Discussion Of SPES Validation Report Summary Section (Section 7.4) l ) I I I g7 I a tecitamP SPLS 64em Meeca 13. 9997

4 ,m s--n-A. a m., s ,a-ga as ,, A b A A me--A e,4 a raes M .'1 ~ J = E .5 ? 3 d sx T = a TS m-9 5 3 3 u 3I o-e .M. .2 O Qg aan .c a ..G v 3 = = ~ s u 2 y 1 6 IdU...............i...................... y 5 = o .g N 4 Ima ,C ] C.; W< c ~ d= = W l Q Qa 3 A = w .a E, 4 i i u o ..s. 4 O y v b 3.................................. y o u d. G. .M d e g .b i O M w = Z m? m \\ u Ja =g a 85 w b-O w N. } a M m G mW

o ad i

W w S = M i d U i l. .0 v . am. ~ 2 M 3 L. o io J 5= 2 d u = b 'A = g i G .3 3 \\ . s. Z = a-g h W-g ..N. Z w i { ad

== S l 5 A 6 k C 3 *% \\ T n = o y = d3 Q l 6 3 iJ E / i. m 'A .= s o J - umme w. som N M b d'u"' 4 3 Q '.I i. .u x 6m.=.

==..s

=

I Z> cJE I L

E W E S ilN G H O U S E E L E C T RIC CORPORATION E' Pressurizer Mixture Level Correction (Example) ( S U O 3 0 3 )) SPES-2 2 inch Cold Leq Break Relatl.ve to F(igure-3 Pressurizer-Level Bottom Top lest Data N h l IU U ) (l u .s r .6 MOIRUMP (Non I-Model Vession) 25 3 0 - 20 L g$ 1 W Nw..-- = G / [ l E* f 3 4 rm \\ ~^ i o ^ 1-l 3 = - ~- l 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 i Time (s) I ~ - ~ ' ~ ~ '~ gy a Pe0154uheP SPLS 84 ewes Monti%3 8997

O w E S ilQ G H O U S E E L E C T QIC COQPOQAISODQ + 2 Inch Cold Leg Break (S00303) RcSultS Summary NOTRUMP Predicts Delayed ADS Actuation Relative To'liest Data - Test ADS Tiene = 896 Seconds - S00303 Simulation = 1223 Seconds . - Delays Related To Delay In SG Downside %be Drain And Subuquent Level Formation In RCS Cold Legs - Results In Delayed Cold Leg Balance Line Vapor Formation And Subsequent CMT Draining 4 No Core Coverage Concerns Exhibited By NOTRUMP Or Test - NOTRUMP Predicts Lower System Mass At IRWST Injectiere Time Compared To Test ..~ _. __ _ _ _ _ e ""' C 2 7 on,ea ~

. ~.... - t TABL E 7.3.1 1 500303 SEQt;ENCE OF EVENTS l - SPES 2 NOTRllMP Event Definition (seconds) 'secondst Steak Ocent 0 l ("- S l Reactor Tno Ri P = 1300 psi - l 59 MSLIV R 2 sec. 64 S Signal P = !?00 ps 68 1 1 MFW.IV Close S 2 sec. 69 CMT.TV Open S 2 sec. 69 } RCPs Tnp 5 16.2 sec. 34 CMT.A Swis to Draan CMT level stans to drop -840 CMT.B Starts to Draan CMT level starts to drop -810 ADS.I CMT level 67% 1223 30 see Accumulators Start Flow h 0 1258 ADS.2 CMT level 1318 67% + 125 sec. ADS.3 CMT level 1438 67% + 245 sec. Accumulators Empty Sharp Mow Decrease -1876 .that follows Level = -0 l.'0 8-4 Laser of CMT level 2375 20% + 60 sec. - 2510 IRWST injecuen A b m wnom:ssiussi.131.pt t> i2tm 7.3.19 Rev.O

f ele 4 &F4 G p- -awed +6 s44A- _A ..JMJ J.Je y a 4_.. g.,34 de 4LMAJ_az43 w A.m.4hm-J.Ah&J.__h_J- &a:6 n..w sg.e ag _AJa4u_..4 4.. -9 u 9 - A e S eme - 'W e 4 -- eum ~ 4 'l l 4 l a 9 i 1 4 4 1 4 , Se 1 ( 4 I 4 0 4 L t b' i s a 4 . M essi i g r

Rev.3

^ + m ..n-'c e e - --- --=-- - 4 ar

4 .m-J . ~- A a M... O af .a.ans mA =.J._ A O g. 9 4 3 :' - Eltus e = 0 4 a 4 6

i..

d h e 8 a 4 4 4 Se t I e e 4 e Rev 0 m-

E WESilNGHOUSE E L E C T RIC CORPORATION 3 2 Inch Cold Leg Balance Line (S01007) ReSultS Summary Results Reported Does Not Accurately Reflect Test Break Location - Break Modeled in Upper Fluid Nmle (FN-163) Instead Of Lower Fluid Nmle (FN-164)- . Modified Break Location ~Results in An Additional Delay in Achieving ADS Actuation Compared To Test Facility f - Test ADS Time = 1972 Seconds ,- Original S01007 Simulation = 1321 Secemds - Revised S01007 Simulation = 1533 Seconds . Results Essentially identical For First 750 Seconds Of'IYansient Simulation t - Differences Observed In Behavior Of CMT-B - CMT-A Mixture Level Observed To Hang-up Just Prior To ADS Scipoint i . No Significant impact On Safety (Core Coverage) Observed - NOTRUMP Predicts Lower System Mass Than Observed in Test At IRWST Injection Time I ~ f 6 ot i NOIHUMP SiX$ now i Wacht2.ISSF

e 'S P E:S - 2 2-Inch Cold Leg 8 o I o n c.e Line IMfN 163 0 0 - U' BLU mix l i Mi> .a _ -- - - - I y F. N - 163 0 0-U. B L U M l.X L l't! M i> Ce 600' n W. r - - ~~ 500 v \\ s 400 M D I l 3 I i -300 l 0-I 200-D I Q-t ' ~~ .E 100 _s g F-i i i e i 0 500 1000 1500 2000' (sj 3

1...ime n

i t / i

)!; i! i I, u 0 0 0 i i eM M 2 n1 1 1 1 + i X x L t i MM s e BB s c 0 nI 0 I .MM ~ 5 aCC 1 ~ l 1 1 a B ~ ) S g / ~ 00 e ( f 0 L 0 0 ' V i e 1 d 00 m I l i o I C 6 6 h 6 6 c 0 n 0 5 i 2 N N 2 f f MM I I S E 0 P 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 4 3 2 1 L Av eu"~ ' mCEe-l

l SPES-2 2-inch Cold L.e g B.o l e n c e Line L i LMIXSfN 56 0 0 ~ CMIA MIX. I I l' V

LMIXSFN-56 0

0 CMIA MIX 1IlV i G-l YVALUE 1 0 0 COLUMN 00002 A i .g 46.5 ~ 46 l s m s 45 5 s ~ 45 s s s - - ~ ~ '____'_s o> 44.-S _ _ _ _ _\\- _7_ _ _ _ _ _ a 44 a> c 43.5 2 43-x s 42 5 s 100.0 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 f i i. ime i s >l l t l 1

O -SPES-2 2-inch Cold Leg B'o l o n c e Line: -EMIXSfN 56 0 0 CMIA M I XL i i l.V: ~ e, C

EMIXSfN 66

'O O CMIB M I X L t 1 V- ---EMIXSfN 56 0 0 CMIA MIX L i i V ~1 /,.... EWlXSfN 66 0 0 .CMIB MIX - L L t. V. a - G-A 55 ~ .Se== s x 50 ~ x N \\ 'N m-45 ~ s e ~ N 40 - w 35 2 x

s 30 0

500 1000 1500 2000 f 1 Iime ts; 1 I w

1 i 1 . SPES-2 2 - 1.n c h CoId Leg;BoIonce-Line LMiXSIN 66 0 0 CMlB mix l11y Lu

LMIXSfN 66 0

0 CMIH Mix tiiv us 52 m 50 v N \\ \\ _ 48-e- s. N e 46 -s S 44 u D ~ 42 X 40 0 500 1000 1500.. 2000 IIme (s) 4 9

b t t P. y 3 t 0 0 WW 0 eO0 2 nt 1 ~l 1 i I 1 L 0 0. 1 I e I I cN N 0 nI I 0 5 oA A 1 CC p l OO oL L BE E DD ) S g i 0 0 e ( 0 L 0 0 e d 1 0 0 m l o i C I 0 0 h 88 c 0 n g 0 5 I 2 I I 2 L L F F WW S E P 0 S l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 6 4 2 _E"- ,O_m m=o1 m. o o. C-b

l E WESflNGHOUSE ELECT 8IC CORPORATBOM 3 l 1 Validation Report Summary Section Timing Related issues - NOTRUMP Consistently Predicts Delayed ADS Actuation And IRWST lujection ' Relative To Test 1 inch Cold Leg Break Is An Exception l-Flow Related Issues i - NOTRUMP Reasonably Represents Break, ADS 1-3, ADS 4, CMT Recirculation, Accumulator, and IRWST injection Flows l l NOTRUMP Consistently Under-predicts PRilR lleat Transfer - Only Impacts Small Break Simulations (Less Than 2 Inches In Diameter) NOTRUMP Consistently Predicts Conservative System Inventory Relative To Test At IRWST lajection Tiane 1 i - ~ ~. a teOliamse SPL S flewees Mastfi 83.1997

SPES COMPARISONS Balance Line Sustained Draining Salance Une. A 4,000 soo303 S00401 e soosos . 3,000 g g. s*!* e ] 2,000 sos 904 w S01007 g 02 1,000 o 0-0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Predicted (sec) 9

~ SPES COMPARISONS Balance Line Sustained Draining Balance Line B 3,000 soo3o3 S00401 e 5"5o5 Q ~/ 1000 S0070s w 4 T5 S00908 C w S01007 a 3 ,000 W1 O3 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Predicted (sec)

SPES COMPARISONS ADS 1 5,000 soo303 e ~ S00401 4,000 soo e s O S0070s 'd w 3,000 S01007 g 2,000 E 1,000 3 e g 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Predicted (sec) 4 _x_-_---

SPES COMPARISONS ADS-4 6,000 soo3o3 500401 5,000 e s00605 g 4,000 s00{0s w 50090s ~ 3,000 w s01007 3 G3 ~- 2,000 1,000 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Predicted (sec) u : r sm. 40s v.... .... 3o0

. i.i..

4

l SPES COMPARISONS IRWST Injection un. 4 l 6,000 socaos S00401 5,000 S00605 4,000 soo os v .4 3 SMM4 ~ g 3,000 l soIoo7 g 2,000 O r 1,000 0 i 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 0 1,000 l Predicted (sec) l Note: Test So0401 AOS Vaw was Wied apprommatey 300 sec. late. l l .v.-

_ - ~ f SPES COMPARISONS lRWST injoction Lme. B 6,000 too3o3 S00401 5,000 e S00605 m. sooIce 4,000 4 w } 3,000 Soe90s w3 501007 m g 2,000 n0 1,000 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Predicted (sec) Note: Test $00401. AOS VaNo was Wied appresamewy 300 sec. mio. 6 A - + - - -

V r j SPES COMPARISONS Average CMT Recirc Flow CMT.A O.2 S00303 S00401 g g 500 sos 0.15 O S00706 ~ .4 S00908 ,g 0.1 g 501007 n. m m e

  1. 0 3

05 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 Predicted (Ibm /sec)

SPES COMPARISONS Average CMT Recirc Flow CMT.B 0.2 500303 S00401 ~ 50060s 0.15 / 500706 SdO908 w ~ 0.1 S01007 }

s mm 0.05 O

O 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 Predicted (Ibm /sec) 5 e

SPES COMPARISONS Average Break Flow 18 scosca 1.6

4 s00401

^ 1.4 soosos 1.2 soo70s scosos 1 30.8 53Ioo7 w a $0.6 e 30.4 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Predicted (Ibm /sec) Note: Test $00004 Data represents orvy the Lower Salarce Une region Note: Test $00706. Data represents orvy the vessel Sede of the Dreat 4 ---,----...,,--,----,,-,-,r--,.--.m-. --mm-- m--m-m ---w e-- - -

SPES COMPARISONS Average ADS 13 Flow I 500303 ~ S00401 ~ ^

  • S00605 8

j ~ s0070. g .6 0 50 007 $,0.4 III e 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Predicted (Ibm /sec)

l l l l SPES COMPARISONS Average ADS 4 Flow 1.2 soo3o3 S00401 i 1 e ^ 500605 0.8 scores M i / G seceos 0 ] O.6 o sm oor i., i 3 .$0.4 ~ 3 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1 1.2 Predicted (Ibm /sec) 4 6 ., * ~ - - - - -w.,- e 4-

SPES COMPARISONS Average IRWST Flow on.. A 0.5 soo3o3 ~ S00401 ?' - ^ 0.4 O 500605 j g S00706 g 0.3 4 c so[90s y W S01007 g0.2 wa 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Predicted (Ibm /sec) Note: 500706. IRWST now not tuify oeveloped M 9 6 e ---,.---_-,m- -,n - ~ -

I SPES COMPARISONS IRWST inlection System Mass M 5o03o3 soo4ot 600 Soo605 , s00 o E Y 4 Soo7o6 4 w# ~ 13 scopos @w e' 501007 "3 300 200 100 0 ~ 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Predicted (Ibm) ,--.__ ~ __

WESilt!GHCSI *ROPRIETARV OLA55 2 ~ SPES COMPARISONS Average IRWST Flow une.s soo303 0.5 Soodoi e O ^ 0.4 soosos ~ Q ~ ~ Soo7o6 4 $ 0.3 soo90s Soloo7 6 ll3 0.2 aN W3 0.1 0 O 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Predicted (Ibm /sec) Note: S00704. IRWST now not tuey deveeoped A e

I t [ i l D l TABLE 7.2 3 l g SFt6-2 TEST MATRIX y f Tema pescripseen f. (Areet Trenniens h Esassesy-AreGG Single Fedure + 1 Tese No. Tese Type -l rdmeed sy% W e ec e i 2 l N (SulNet) SaeellBecd I-se. caid leg becak CVCS, NRHIt and One of two kansh-saage h6anissouc CM I^ he.asus. sinue l LOCA (Maec 2). baseman of SFWS eK. N uperasur valves on lung B em ADS meneasson luup B (Neee 1) acasons (OA4 [ 2 SammII Bre A I-in. cold leg hmak. CVCS, NRHR OK; One of two fuersk-> sage 'Es scw dcicsed due so Alatico LOCA bessuanofleap B SFWS en (Nuee 3). valves on lump B desage stianges i W OAs. l 1 3 Smaall-Becak 2 in. cued les beesk. CVCS, F4RHIt and One of two leurth-asage Reicseme und leg lac.A l (S00303) LOCA 6sa-et leap B SFWS eK. E OAs. valves en luty B j } _y i if (Nuee 4) i U 4 Samall-Beca 2-in. cued leg bred. CVCS, MItHIt, and One of two faussh sease Nuesa6cey sclased/pawe=c j IDCA buseuen ofloop B SFWS se (Nuee 3). valves an luur B syseene asserasmes j i 5 SamaII Secak 2-in. DVI becak CVCS, NItHIt and One of two founli-sease Asyneanctose CMT i (S006B5) LOCA SFWS eK. W OAs. valves en leap B perkmaname. l i i 6 Samall Bseek DeiG hred of DVI CVCS, NRHR. and One of two sense I and Ccempeces. kes of asse ut swo (50En06) tDCA-SFWS oft & OAs. seage 3 valves salesteue llow seasles J l 7 Senall Beed 2 se becak in cold CVCS, NItHR. and One of two foursen-ssage finassees casts um CMT h.um-l (stigu?) LOCA legKMT-3 hatence lose SFWS elf valves== luup B down 1 3 Senait-Beed DEiG bred of a ceN CVCS, NItHR. and One of two saage I and N dehvery lauen t.sedecJ [ (Sougug) LOCA kgCMT.B balance line SFWS off. N OAs. stage 3 ADS valves CM I. I i l 2 I t I

t, 1*8 8 SG 83 y

),

ce se= PRI gy o Caneeneer Y E p,, nester ':f A n P= --y, _ "R " E a A;gAfn ^ .0 p.s 9 o r 3 { ~ ~ ~' "'] 1, Weser menerver b P m m < p a = l Assunnssaar -r r Assunsasser l C 097 ' T Y Power channei 4 Flynes 7.11 SPES 1 Test FacWey = wasi..?,,e.is.izitw 7,224

a. I I t i H .L ~ Figure 7.3 2 NOTRUMP Neding Diagram (Fhed Nedes) for SPES 2 TacWey a m i= 7 M.i w 1i m 7.2 25 e ., ~

1 i I i Analysis of the OSU Facility With the Westinghouse NOTRUMP Code Bob Osterrieder Westinghouse Electric 1 March 13,1997 1 1 .. - _ ~ ... ~. I ~..,.,

i Overview-i o Review of Test Matrix o NOTRUMP Noding Diagram o Review of 2 inch Cold Leg Break Results (Test SB18) l o Discussion of OSU Validation Report Summary Section (Section 8.4) 0 W e 9 l' l h i l .4 7 ~.n v. .,, -. _,m., c-y,---..,. a,,,

5.2.3 Selected Oregon State Unisersity Tests for Anal.ssis A total of sesen OSU tests isa small break LOCA tests and an inadsenent ADS a:tuation testi acre seie:ted for analysis with the NOTRUMP code. The selected tests coser the range of break loc.itiers c.d sizes that were tested in the OSU facili All tests analyzed use only the passise emergency ::re aaling sutems to mitigate the transient and to maintain : ore :ooling. De tests include: SB18 2.in. cold leg break in the bottom of cold leg 3. His is a repeat of the reference test f:t the OSU test matnx and simulates a typical small break LOCA case. SB23: 0 $.m. cold lag bteak in the bottom of :old leg 3. This test is the smallest break performed for the facility and presides a break size companson to the reference case. SGl3: 2.in. break in DV! line 1. This test provides a different break location for the same size break as the reference case. SB12; double. ended DVIline break of DVI line 1. One half of the safety injection is lost to the contamment. His break, along with test 5813. gives a break size sensitivity for the same break location. 5B09: 2.in. cold leg balance line break is also a different break location for the same size break as the reference test. SBIO: double. ended balance line break. This test, along with test 5809 gnes another break size sensittvity at a different break location. SBl t: inadvenent ADS actuation, his test provides the system response to the no break LOCA esent. l l ne combmations of the selected OSU tests exercise the NOTRUMP code over a wide range of break sizes and locations, which allows examination of different performance aspects of the AP60(; passive emergency core cooling systems so that the code is adequately validated. l L l m woeoosesi..a.pt in-o:oset 3.2 17 Rev.1 l \\

e \\ i Feed who 's

separano, at e

t h U 50

  • Aos4 5W**

k ,) a { 2 em L s='s \\ W pcc s1 1 (# # k W 5 '" k is O Oj j \\ a 3 ^ \\ \\ w l ACCs2 1 e seas _= (W h W wrne C941'D 3 } 4 ,m $ 1 j 4 '4 E 111tuttill wast A, - m 4

9

( t \\ t s. Ovts2 Ig i g ? ,mW l i i

6 I es I 9 l l. i l -l l E Figure 8.2 2 NOTRUMP Noding Diagram (Fluid Nodes) for Oregon State University Facility I i-Rev.I ' w eom2641..a.,ti> c o3'1 8.2 21 = u

OSU 2 inch Cold Leg Break (SB18) Results Summary i o NOTRUMP Predicts Delayed ADS Actuation Relative to Test Data Test ADS Time = 390 seconds SB18 Simulation = 548 seconds Delays Related to Delay in Fluid in Top of CMTs Reaching Saturation o Results in Delay in Start of CMT Draindown Phase No Core Coverage Concerns Exhibited by NOTRUMP or Test o NOTRUMP Fredicts Lower System Mass During Most of Transients O r S 5 .g F.. ne a m m-- - ---p 7= -e

) 1 T ABLE 5.3.1 1 5818 SEQUESCE OF EVENTS f OSU NOTRt.%lP Esent Definition . seconds isecondse 3ren 're*s l ? 1 R Signal l l -) l 1 s Signai l l 33 l 3 i $1FW lsolation Vahe Closes )6 l 3. l 6I l !e CNIT isolation Vabes Open 9 l 6 ( RCPs Tno l CS!T.I Stans Draindown Phase ChtT 'esel.iroppmg and top 160 355 of tank saturated l Chti.: Stans Draindown Phase CSIT :esel dropping and top )$3 4:0 Of tank saturated ADS l C5tT lesel Jim. 390 548 . l$ see Accumulators Start 400 I ADS: ADS l - 47 sec. 438 f95 ADS 3 ADS.I - 107 sec. 498 655 } Accumulators Empty 665 '"O I ADS 4 950 ll14 l f IRWST Injection 1226 1310 } l I i Rev.I we.om:ssi...pt tw:cin S.3.18 i

f a.b.c) l l ] r a t m I D I i i Y f-r 6 f 1 1 I I I-I L.- Rev i es W +- w -u-w 9-e- .-ra4 + --e,,e r yrmr,'=w-t e4 y m '-sw+-ny-Y h

d .A eE--*.- 4 -eweJ a. ca--, eA_u .d-, L-__,_ ,ha_h,. = ~M_-r4&-AM a Ar.w.-s3J,.jsa,JJ*, a%--4 m..M,i. JL +4-4 N'

  • .. g (8,b,C) t M

4 a 4

  • 4

. I 4 , } I' f h I r 8 s 1 9 I s 4 1 - 4. u 4 i I s l 4 I 1 i l l J l I 1 -e l l t Y susu '.W Rev I y mw .>n.+ e + +v -,+

A --a4aa OA u a. MA=e44k-AM+--- ae=M4A awee& A. +.A4++ - + M a e-a4-re-w>4_4-.E3.. ,14 LM44J _pJ m s I f 8 k 1 J (a.b.cl r N ? k r i I b r l l 6 t I i il I I i 5 I i ? I I O I E I -- i l i i- ,e I Q* M M Rev-i t-S' r I. e,- -- -,.<.[,m <-.ee-

x 4 Hns<x e.d L - .rsa .--n .s sw e - s 4 r s ..~s> = 4 r {' -...4 ,.s. I i G I (a.b.c) - g i i A 9 k + I d I 1 6 J ? t t b e j 1 t ,i - I ' h t e si i l t + 1 l s-l- 1 e t g' ) i 6 i Ig t b + t 1 I i 1 - + - m enut i

  • 9 Rev i k

i N :._ b T 44-- 4,. .. e I w-e w ..,r, w w wi y,.-- g-t+'- -+ g-

Validation Report Summary Section for OSU o Timing Related issues NOTRUMP Consistently Predicts Delayed ADS Actuation Relative to Test o Flow Related issues NOTRUMP Consistently Underpredicts the Mass Through ADS 13 Valves NOTRUMP Consistently Overpradicts Break Flow by the Same or Greater Amounts than the Underprediction of ADS 13 Flows o NOTRUMP Consistently Under predicts PRHR Heat Transfer Only impacts Small Break Sizes (Less than 2 inches in Olamster) o NOTRUMP Consistently Predicts Conservative System inventory Relative to" Test e 0 0 e g ,-w, .-wy- .y---, ~.

1 l OSU COMPARISONS CMT Drain Down Phase CMT 1 1,000 sais 5B13 800 SB12 7 5809 8 soo t ,,5814 + lll3W 400 n302 200 ~ O 's + 0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 Predicted (sec)

OSU COMPARISONS CMT Drain Down Phase CMT.2 500 , sets 5813 400 SB12 o SB10 b 300 V SB09 g 3 i 5B14 g200 2 100 ~ s+ 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Predicted (sec)

.-...-a _.a.- +- .-..+.-~..--r-a, o -- - OSU COMPARISONS l ADS-1 Actuatk n Time 800 sBis 700 SB13 600 j* h saio W 500 g .5809 2 400 3 S814 NA CU 300 + W l 2 ~ l 200 100 i 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Predicted (sec)

OSU COMPARISONS ADS-4 Actuation Time l 1,400 5818 813 1,200 SB12 y 1,000 5810 gW w 800 y + geos 0 0 sei4 600 mm GE 400 l 200 - I o O 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Predicted (sec) l l

OSU COMPARISONS IRWST injection Time Un. 1 1,600 seie 1,400 SB13 5B12 1,200 -o SB10 $ 1,000 ]. SB09 800 Z w3 5814 05 + m 600 G2 400 200 0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Predicted (sec) 6 e -____-.____________.____________.m____-

OSU COMPARISONS IRWST Injection Time Lme 2 1,400 5B18 sB13 1,200 ss12 3 1,000 + ~ g s810 m w 800 y seos y seta 3 600 W + m W2 400 200 0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Predicted (sec)

b OSU COMPARISONS Average CMT Recirc Flow CMT.1 1.6 sais s813 1.4 m Q 1.2 seio NA 1 seos a 0.8 ss14 + 3 0.6 m g @0 34 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Predicted (Ibm /sec) SB12. Not included (flows exceeded test measurement range) n I e-

d OSU COMPARISONS Average CMT Recirc Flow CMT 2 0.6 sSta SS13 0.5 e +~ SB10 U ~ 0.4 ssog ~ .Q 5814 C + 0.3 g G w W 0.2 a tD lE 0.1 j 1 0 O 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Predicted (Ibm /sec) l S812. Not inctuoed (flows onceeded test measuremerW range) l L

OSU COMPARISONS Average Break Flow 18 sets 16 seta G 14 ss12 g e s o 12 S 10 .4 sB09 j

sei, i

b NA 3 6 ae 34 O 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Predicted (Ibm /sec) em 5 6

~ OSU COMPARISONS Average ADS 13 Flow 6 5818 4 5813 5 y SB12 e M4 SB10 E SB09 3 ~~ 5814 v 3 $2 @2 1 .4 o 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Predicted (Ibm /sec) A wwr' a m

1. i OSU COMPARISONS Average ADS-4 Flow 2 seie 1.8 seu y '0 SB12 l e M* ~ ~ SB10 E .2 1 g 4 S809 3 814 + $0.8 fn 8 0.6 A G E O.4 o 0.2 0 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Predicted (Ibm /sec) a

OSU COMPARISONS Average IRWST Flow un.., 1.6 seis SB13 1.4-5822 g 1.2 SB10 c 1 .O C S809 ] 0.8 o sei4 + 3 0.6 e a @0 24 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Predicted (Ibm /sec) 5813, S809, S814. Flows not fuWy devmoced yet 9 <

4 OSU COMPARISONS Average IRWST Flow Line.2 1.8 seis 1.6 seis .e g1.4 SB12 m 1.2 sato .c c1 seos y @ 0.8 O + 38 s + @ 0.6 e e 3 0.4 0.2 l 1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Predicted (Ibm /sec) i S813, 5800. S814 Flows not fufy devemped yet ~ l e ~ .a

O (a b.C) N O 1 l i i si i 4 E I i I. I k I I I, t l I i I l I emme 1 46 ?.e v 1

b NRC/ WESTINGHOUSE MEETING NOTRUMP VALIDATION MARCH 13,1997 M.Y. YOUNG i l t t I l 1 4 I i i ~ k t ? ~ h t I 4 t I [

~ NOTRUMP

SUMMARY

REPORT PURPOSE: To bring together the PIRT, descriptions of important NOTRUMP models, and results from the FVO (Fine! Validation Report) in a form suitable for discussion with the ACRS subcommittee REPORT WILL EMPHASIZE AREAS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST TO ACRS: - relationship of PIRT to key models - assumptions and range of application - deficiencies and assessment of impact REPORT WILL ALSO ADDRESS ISSUES RAISED IN NRC REVIEW OF FVR REPORT OUTLINE: KEY MODELS IDENTIFIED BY THE PIRT 1. KEY MODEL

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTIONS i 3 11. MODEL VALIDATION

SUMMARY

(SINGLE EFFECTS TESTS) / C lit. l INTEGRAL TEST VALIDATION SUMMAR1 ! CONCLUSIONS IV. AP600 APPENDIX K APPLICATION V. L

i REPORT CONTENT REPORT WILL FOCUS ON (AND ALL RECENT CODE CHANGES WILL BE RELATED TO ) THE FOLLOWING KEY MODELS IDENTIFIED BY THE PIRT: - drift flux model (vertical and horizontal) - mixture level tracking model - hydraulic resistance model j ( - condensation heat transfer models for RCS l - heat transfer model for PRHR - critical flow model - thermal stratification model FOR EACH MODEL: - describe in summary form (reference NOTRUMP sections for numerical or coding details) - identify assumptions used in the model - identify range of applicability, and demonstrate that calculations of AP600 and integral tests are within range most of the time - discuss separate effects validation results, what they indicate about potential compensating effects in integral tests - discuss identified deficiencies, expected impact on results, and why code is sti!I applicable i l

REPORT CONTENT INTEGRAL EFFECTS TESTS: - evaluate code mis-predictions in terms of identified model deficiencies - conclude that system mass prediction is conservative, and compensating effects are known and understood AP600 APPENDIX K CALCULATION: ~ - discuss additional r anservative assumptions + l e i

EXAMPLE MODEL

SUMMARY

E MIXTURE LEVEL TRACKING MODEL: i DESCRIPTION: - includes bubbio rise, fluid node stacking, mixture level overshoot, reflux flowlinks, contact coefficients code mods. - focus on calculation of vapor flow from two phase mixture to vapor bubble, not coding logic to make model work ASSUMPTIONS: - stratified conditions are assumed to always exist - no entrainment of liquid from lower mixture to vapor phase i RANGE OF APPLICABILITY: - pool entrainment data will quantify importance of entrainment above the mixture. level - stratified break flow tests will quantify importance of entrainment to tees i - confirm that calculated conditions are within range most of the time t f

1 l l_ Il )W I u l lit il I i l'lIl<AIN MI l'1I .Ii<Al l'.II li 111 l 11 'J g II ts.n l IllGII EN IMAINMENT: NOTMUMI* MODEI. M AY NOT BE Al*l*l.lCAul.E j Q-U.6 g) O. 'a U. 's / .a:: Q p' U.4 q l ~{ ,/ t U.3 ,11 I.OW ENTHAINMENT: NOTMUMI* MODER. tS Al*l'I.lCAHl.l; j tw f' / U.2 ~ / / p / U.i / f s I i i i i t i i i i i g ,3 is u.I U?

11. 3 11 4 18. *;

is.b U./ II.M 88 'l l i I I ( lIi...... u ala) Non-dimensional height above the luixture Ictei

l PROPOSED ACRS AGENDA FIRST DAY: 4-1. INTRODUCTION l brief overview of AP600 design and small break LOCA scenario I II. NOTRUMP CODE OVERVIEW development and licensing history ~ overall code structure i til. KEY MODELS IDENTIFIED BY THE PIRT relationship of PIRT to phenomena, models used to simulate phenomena l IV. KEY MODEL DESCRIPTION / SEPARATE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT model summary assumptions 1 range of applicability validation i l i 1 i l

PROPOSED ACRS AGENDA l . SECOND DAY: V. INTEGRAt' TEST ASSESSMENT present SPES, OSU comparisons VI. CONCLUSIONS i NOTRUMP is applicable for use in AP600 small break LOCA 3 Vll. AP600 APPENDIX K APPtlCATION 1 list Appendix K requiremeats which will be applied identify additional conserva'tive assumptions to be made identify conservative features idesdified by code assessment l i l t

DOCUMENTATION CLOSURE Bob Osterrieder Westinghouse Electric e 4 i

2.: 1 I l t i i n g w, 1,2 1 NOTRUMP Noe:ag Scheme for the AP600 Plant m eistessi-i or t>t:lN 1.24

l ~ ) 9 1,0' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8-9 10 11 lllI 12'

!hJ hid-gj}--(i}--@-g[1--p 3-3.g.g..g

&?j lb l u 0.0 -Interior Ruid Node 2 - Boundary Ruid Node p - Row Unk [_ Figure 3J 14 NOTRUMP Model for Demonstradon Probles Rev.0 m e est k.,cibi21 toe

DISCUSSION OF USE OF QUENCH MODEL Bob Osterneder Westinghouse Electric E O e e t-t 4

USE OF QUENCH MODEL l o Quench model developed for cases with core nodes that uncover then have some recovery o Quenen model onginally used for all reported G2 runs o Quench model originally used for all reported ACHILLES runs Code changes during project along with test cases indicated no need for use of o quench modelin final calculations therefore, quench model description not included in report in closing out documentation, repeated calculations with final code version. final o options (quench model off, birthing off) o Repeat of base ACHILLES calculations with quench model off showed no difference in results Repeat of ACHILLES noding study Section 4.3.4 (4,12,24 & 48 nodes) o ~ showed no difference in results except for 4 node case only (mixture level spikes 4 node case uses quench model to eliminate spikes) Section 4.3.4 concludes that we will use approximately 1 foot axial noding for NOTRUMP simulations of heated bundles or cores. Therefore,4 node case not used to justify bigger nodes and not important to support f;nal model, o Quench model NOT USED for any reported OSU or SPES 2 runs Repeat of all G2 calculations indicated need for quench model for a few cases o

-.-.._ -. ~. _. _..... ... - -. -. _.... -. ~.. TABLE 4.4 3 G2 LOOP CORE L*NCO\\TRY TEST PAR.OfETERS Inidal Bundle Pressure Bundle Power Water Level Tests Analped. Run Number (psis) Of%T (in.) with NOTRDiP !

  • l5 779 0.603 114

/ l 716 775 0.252 138 /. l 717 796 0.905 102 l 718 799 1.258 90 l 719 394 0.267 138 / l 720 395 0.615 114 /- -l 721 394 0.914 102 722 395 1.264 84 723 395 0.614 !!d 724 96 0.252 126 / 725 96 0.599 96 / 726 0.857 84 727 97 1.247 78 728 50 0.596 84 / 729 50 0.250 114 -/ 730 50 0.894 66 731 50 1.254 54 732 15.1 0.254 102 / 733 15.8 0.600 72 / 734 16.1 0.900 60 735 16.7 1.249 54 736 15.3 0.253 102 i- !J - m uesom:: i.ac.,t.twittw 4,4.g 9 Rev.0 'n .. a--- m- . -+ r. u m

TEST 715 Pressure = 779 psia, po.er 0 603 uwt

  • sit 01:3 Isse :sse degn ieseo;s

's 's. 'eono;e 16 14 -Is ' ~ .i \\g. ~ 12 ., ' \\< a s' '* w 1 a i 4 l 3g a e h A. ' - F y s 0%: 'M %

D

's g s n', e'.'%'h' \\ ~

s

^ i.

  • :. F...s 6

) t T-4,; 4 0 200 400 600 800 1000 I!ME (sec) Figure 4.4 24 NOTRUMP Comparisons to G2 Test 715 Mixture Height with Uncertainties = m asi. 4.,eikitioes Rev. 0

?!ST 720 Pres:ure 395 osis. Power 0 515 uwt = = Iett 3313 Isst 03st j9 t3e31t M.

  • Ma Las aess3;t
t * *

'6 14 I 5,* ., is. .i as 'g 12 J 'g J '4' 'k y j ,s u 0 r y = M s, c a 8 M.' - c x e te, T 7 - 2 4 L * *d % l M., t.- 4 0 200 400 600 800 1000 TIME (sec) Figure 4.4 26 NOTRUMP Comparbons to G2 Test 720 Mixture He!sht with L*ncertainties Ro. 0 m wssi..in + twi2tm

L fEST 728 Pressure = 50 psia. Power o.596 uwt '911 )0!$ Sost Cote '4Sedg4 4 ** 9egi ' 38 Ltgaggt 's 16 , i,. .L. l t A 14 it m g .!, i a ~# w se i t. 3,, -l'. iN N-a d y .J .N. ex: J 'H. ,L,', o

  • .m g

x.* * "S N %'.-N . y'.,,. *

=

6 '6 Q' s,."~, ~. t 4 0 200 400 600 800 1000 TIME (sec) Figure 4.4 7.9 NOTRM(P Comparisons to G2 Test 728.NHature Height with Uncertainties m w est. 4. # ik.i2ioes-Rev.O

.a . ~. - - - _ - 50 osio. Power = 0 250. Wat TEST 729 Pressure = fest-Dots --!sse Case

  • ign Lesunge j

u.. .s. Lesuoge 16 14 1 ^ tu( 12 3 L,* g h w 1"?, 't. 'r M', ' L. e O 10 h "I b Q,, b. O K % g w*u9 t g g

  • M. m ).,

L. [%. 4 - 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Time (s) Figure 4.4-30 NOTRUMP Comparisons to G2 Test 729 Mbrture Height with Uncertainties Rev. 0 a m oi.4.gi>tticos , ----- _ v c-.- - -.--- - -----,~,.-.-._. -,-n ..-n.a, -e--m- -r

0 2$4 wwt 15 1 psie. Power = TC57 732 Pressure =

  • tli 03t3 Isse 03se

' 1 h *fSeagt

  • 4

'd .3e .0043Q0 16 .i . Jp,k. .: t ... w

  1. T.4 3
4

%&ft< ] t. "[14 g ~l2 ,,e 9,,*.,s s, w {f N,' '. \\ c o 10 'q 's, g 'i L P g M 't ,g 6 g 'k,N{.m .g

  • w 6
  • '..'m 6

y t t, 9 4 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Time ($) Figure 4.4 31 NOTRUMP Comparisons to G2 Test 732 Misture Neight with Uncertainties Rev. O = w esi..a.,t.twinow ... ~

i TC$f 733 Pressure = 15 8 psie. Power = 0.$00 uwt

  • tSt *3t3 5sie *:se "e34318
    • 1M d * *

'fausge .3e 't 16 ) 44,L.J . q e.. i, .' i I e l 'i .s .n f f )) l I i c -i .i o 10 N .I ,1 e i e 'l }i "I '. w ',1,$.,,, u 8 k 'M',*',, N w a lw - w 3 H. N t s a .t, 6 .g,.w. s,, e t,. t.b 4 U00 0 200 400 600 800 Iime ($) Figure 4,4 32 NOTRUMP Comparisons to G2 Test 733 Mirture Height with Uncertainties Rev. 0 m e ssi=4.g.iwittow

a. +a _,A_ a .._.r... .a* 0 0 v, ._ i sj ~ ,. i i n .tt ytu ?? 9 - u E T = 9 = 2 V 3 p= _$ $;= me

  • ?g"

-Q E ma ., t. -_= n.u u y u ~ U enum U ~E 5 *$ .0 '~* $ 3 5 2 3 t.- 9 5 $ *5 '= 3 -i U $ ~ :! E" d !!. 3 @ arm

p235 2: 4 O#

Oi5 4 -j Mh 3 I t 888 I anush

  • 1 ed I

C .h aW ama a / I .3 \\ x a >Y I T l 3 1 Mk. ~ A ce uz S p i s e 3 u 2 a z T = 2 9 -Z C.s ~ l 1 i y .. ~... ~ _-__

l

SUMMARY

OF G2 CASES WITH FINAL CODE VERSGN AND OPTIONS (Ouenen Model Off) NSD = No significant difference Case Base High Leakage Low Leakage 715 NSD NSD NSD 716 NSD NSD NSD 719 NSD NSD NSD 720 NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD NSD 724 725 NSD NSD NSD 728 NSD NSD mixture level i ~ spike 729 mixture level NSD NSD spikes 732 mixture level mixture level mixture level spike spikes spike 733 run aborted run aborted some early - 200 sec - 220 sec differences, level spikes e e e S 4 --e -m

t L i 32 '4-C04C N00C WOOCL (4U4 NVW8CA Pts) wefw garrgg LCAWACC AND SW8C00t4 5; ,,4.. - 5 1 l i t 6 I i i f 4 l A' I. v l l 'O J \\ = v U 3 = x l 2 o 4 3 200 4d0 - 600 800 ~~ Iime-(s) l - I e S 4 -.--..,,..,,-.-r- . - ~, ,r ~,. -. -.<...,--r,. --.,,--._.,,,,.w.,

s.: 4.::st =oot woort :=um =uveta ?2o) witw earrte tracist 4=o sus: ct *: ,,*: ;,e ;- i i 6 l 1 l 1 I i i i l - k. t i v ~ 2 ~ o l I. s s y 3 r 2 2 x =E I \\ 4 2 200 4 0 600 300 '30 T.ime 5

e f 32 '4 00tt 400( WOOCL (RUN quwltt 728) est* IArrt[ LtAsACC AND SUBC00L**C l l 1 l l j 1 i A i - s i, l I i i I' v i 8 s e u ~f a

  • 3

\\ I l l o 1 I l l I = m t 3 [ E s 1 o 4 '0C 1 200 400 600 800 Iime (S) ~

-l 1 P } c.:..::it 3oot wooct (nun # 72 ) nirw tow iArrtc '.tAttACC ANo $UBC00t NO ~.. :.< i t , ). l d i i -,.d I" i , g -I j\\. i i H H ( 2 i V Wo U.. 'r 10,, o j r .i c) F-N 3 a 'j ,y = r l\\ x 5' p 2-1 4 ~ 2 3 200 4 0 600 30 t' Iime (5)- 9 - i L ,*2 ._...,---_,;-,--y_

.. _ _ - __. _ _ - = = =. - -.. _ 0-2 to-CORE N00C wo0tL (RUN NUW8(R 729) WITH IAFFLC L(AKAGC AND $U$C00 LING

  • *a

- No )sta: ~6

e..
  • ]

N ,ga. t

  • 4

{ 6 i = D. ^ in %emen am L \\ 10 o C) = A O g 2 L N M 2 S a W ED 4 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 300 Time (S) 1 y y y_._, ,7 ......_.m..___%. .m., y

i

.2

.A.: sic soot wop (L (RUN l 729) diid '0W SAFILC L(AKAOC ANQ $g8CQQL NO l i s. i e, i i I l ~ '2 1 i j i v '0 e I t as - a i l\\ l o 3 I z i x l 2 i N 0 L 1' 0 500 1000 1500 20'00 25'00-3: 4 Time (S) m -e a -,,, -..._s,- --,-,,,re. -v--*- n,,, ,re,-,. w ~ -s-en

- -.... -.. - ~ ~.. - - -.. -. ~. - - - _ -. - \\ 4 03 to-C04C 900C WOO (L (RUN l 729) WITH HICH IAffLE L(AWAQ( AND SUIC00L'NC e, , :,e :- 13 i u } I -[ . 2 h(. L J - i - - --.i t e p i v h l IL-g p k i r a) + I ca i ._4 9-3 I n t i p t, \\ 2 u 7 t. . t. + 1 o.

500 10'00-15'00 2000 2500 331

~ Iime (S) e 6 J I e -e c. e .w -.,.-g,n ,y -,-,,.g- ~,ep ,m-,-eng,-m.~. r-,- ,,+n w e-w.m e

1 l ..: i4. cent woot woott- (nuw wuusta 732) eitw carrt Leaxact ano suecoctivo .3 -4 u +4 i: V 12 m. o [ ~ o N v,0 l-i ![ = e as S 4 v t ( hus -bs .l3 ) x E i r 4 o L t l-2 (. ) 500 1000 1500 2000-2500 30 ~ Time (s) e T i-is I.

-2 1A-C0tt N00t WCDEL (RVN l 732) *lfN LOW BaFrtt LCAEACE AND SV8C00L NC 'S i i L I 1 [,, 1 v 12 a g i. e 10 3 1 a

u l

p i e I 3 x l [

E

\\ I N r i, 0 50 1000 1500 20'00 25'00 30' Iime (S) L -m-.-

I 32 14-C04C 400C WCDEL (nur l 732)

  • lfH ri'CH 8'fft! LEA"'CE ANO IV8000"O

.. y:

.e-:-

,e-:- e.- u P* u ,G ' --t es L i n 14 v 12 a g o I O \\ m 5 ;L N x i-fA w 6 m. t i l 0 500 1000 1500 20'00 2500 3; Time (S) 4 4.- e~- r- .. - -.. + e a .,,.-n. ,.--nw -.--.,-..r,-

3-2 14-C:tt SODE WODCL (RUN NuwstR 733) esta 60s garrtt granACC AND $yll00; %; .3 . o. ,f" ' f, 4 I L l t d 1g l l i n e r r v 1 '2 I L : 1 o __, ' O, o t I f.: L U f : b .= 3 i x 1 L,:, i s s i o I i N O 200 4d0 680 80 '00 ~ Iime -(S) 4

.-_-._.___m-_ 32

  • 4 004C 900E WOctt (4UN NUWIta 128) wifH LOW SAFFLE ttAEAGE AND SUIC004290

.t's

. *i..-s.

.3 'l (..-. < + s : :...-

<s...

s 'S 1 Q S l 4 i ,'i s .h I 4 i i i r

g, t

v '3 e L 1 L, e 4 5 U.. e V = 3 x 1 I 2 r i I, i 1 i. u o 0 200 4d0 600 Sd0 15 ~ I i m e-(S)

_.. ~. _ _ _. _ - - _ _ _ ~ _ -. - _. _ _ _ __~ ? 32 4 004( N00C W0 DEL (RVN NyW9(R 729) WITH B A F F I, ( ([AKAGC AND SUSC00 LING .t s :-

,I'.:-=:
t v <.s!

.I,t. se s

.ts
-=-

2 .e t 2-

ts:-=

A

v

.I,I. 's I .i J, 2 a 1

==

v L ~ ,o i e 1 It i. e r-t L. t o 3 = A 3E 3,_ i t 3 500 10'00 15'00 20'00 25'00 30C ~ Iima (S) 4 -w ~ ,.----..s-m

3-2 4-:att N00C WCDEL '4VM MvW8(4 732)

  • fd Barr(( ((AKACC AND SUSC00.'NC

,.3 A t i I i i l 1 .i il l I I I n i. v i-W I o kL I v I i i 2 g 4 x ,/

s

.i J i l i I i } i I I ? '3 5d0 1000 15'00 20'00 25'00 330: Time (S) 9

3-2 '4-: 4! %CCC WODEL (4VN NVW8E4 732) etfd tow Barrtt ttamaGC a=0 sv8c; *.'w . - r. ,.1 ,.3 s 1 i I i Le l f i i ^ j\\ t x, I 2 f I I i r i l .o 7 s; i g I = i = 3 l x i I s LlN i

s 1I l

i i ii a I 0 500 10'00 15'00 20'00 2500

20

..I i rh e S t l t

  • -2

'a *:st 40DC wo0tL (nyu gyugte 732) sifw **CM BarrLE Ltagact aug sygcoct .- a 5 u A 2 i l I t I i l i s l I '2 I l a ) ht u i e a i 1 j 1 ~ O 3 i t I ~ e a 1 x ~ hiA A A A f I. F-- i e4 i i i N J 3 l ~% i i I 3 500 10'00 15'00 20'00 25'00 330: 4 Time (5) W e m. +

32 14.:: RC NODE WCDEL (RUN NUW8tR 733) #8fH'9AFFLC LCAKACC AND $U8C00L*40 ..i

g gt_. emA

,e <n 1 -l['[h r, ,l i ') I*) X q s L i i i 12 ' L ! 10, u o h k ~ h; \\ the ll C x o. I i 1 i A r 2 O 20 400 600 800 1: IIme S l i l 4 ~ w.-..-,

.J 'A.* cat 900t wo0tt (tun quWIC4 733) *Ita ai0d SaffLC L(AWA0E AND $WICCOL **' <= : : ,.3 ,. 2 .t . t. \\ v' e ,W,' tK I i 1 l l l ^ I l l,: I' s t i l l i. a s i, j j = 6 l O 2 9 r x s l N 0 A .i 0 2d0 4 0 60 80 '30 Time (S)

.2

..::u soot woott 9 9=

  • vusta t m *ita s oa s'"t t ' t'"CE '*o 598 C

3s

.I':-=:

t, . :t t, .3

.I
-=

4,1

.I':-=

A ?YTf% l ' il .i o .,qq., i 4 L q I, 1 m. i I ; i _.2 J ~ i ) L e 'O o .,i I L.} o I i frA' ,J i = I

  • y km i

x l l s i e. U I i i 2 ; 200 4 0 600 800 '20 -.Iime S 1 I l 1

R$5ULTS OF USE OF OUENCH MODEL FOR G2 CALCULATIONS o Most cases con t'need quenen model -o Quench model eliminates mixture level spr

  • o Mixture levels trends similar with or without spikes 4

O g 4 4 e n 4 A P .'4 q.. N ' v-~ <,,..... _+ -.

CONCLUSIONS lx o Demonstration of code prediction of level swell based on GE. ACHILLES, and G2 p-o Aeport already indicates that G2 calculations have much uncertainty o, 'Not planning to use quench model for plant design basic calculations since no uncovery in analyzed cases o Plan to 1) Indicate in G2 section of report that quench model exists and which cases use it 2) include new plots for cases with quench modelincluded in G2 section of, 1 report 3) include reference to T/H Uncertainty report for description of quench model e .e

O 5 DISCUSSION OF ROADMAP E 4 O 1

SOSER Confirmatory Desenpton of item Reference Where Answered item e DSER CN 21.5.2.4 1 The applicaton of SIMARC dnft flux is The NOTRUMP FVR (WCAP-acceptac e pending confirmation o' the 14807. Revision 1) has been model through benchmark and submitted. essessment of code to be provideo in NOTRUMP Final Validation Report (FVR), l DSER CN 21.6.2.4 2 The modifications made to the The NOTRUMP FVR (WCAP. NOTRUMP dnft flux correlations are 14807, Revision 1) has been r { acceptaDie pending confirmation of the submitted. [ model through benchmark and l assessment of code to be provided in l NOTRUMP FVR, ) DSER CN 21.6.2.4 3 Westinghouse needs to vanfy that the l l NOTRUMP code does not use the j Bjornard and Gntfith modification. i DSER CN 21.6.2.4 4 Westinghouse needs to venty that heat link methodology for transition boiling is not used in AP600 NOTRUMP calculations. OSER CN 21.6.2.5 1 The acceptability of the PRHR model used in NOTRUMP is contingent on a finding that the PRHR data are applicable, f DSER CN 21.6.2.7 1 Compansons of the NOTRUMP code The NOTRUMP FVR (WCAP-simulations to the OSU and SPES 2 test 14807, Revision 1) has been i l 1 data in the NOTRUMP FVR should submitted. confirm the applicability or insensitivity of the NOTRUMP flow regime models to the key system response parameters, t l l l 1 1

50 SEA Coen. tem e-- DCsenots:n of item ] Reference Where Answerec 05ER O'l 21,6.2.21' ' Westingnouse needs to identify which - This table centifies wnere RAI ~- ' information from tne NOTRUMP related information is caotured and - RAI responses will be incorporated into - closes the 01. -Note that the NOTRUMP related oocumentation. NOTRUMP FVR is intenoed to oe the only NOTRUMP related documentation summanzing the NOTRUMP code for use on AP600 plant calculations; DSEROI 21.6.2.2 2 Westinghouse needs to suomit the The NOTRUMP FVR (WCAP-NOTRUMP FVR. 14807, Revision 1) has been submitted. ] DSEROI 21.6.2.4 1 Westinghouse needs to explain j provisions to ensure that volumetric- [ based momentum equations will be used for all AP600 calculations. .! DSEROI 21.6.2.4 2 Westinghouse needs to submit the The NOT_ RUMP FVR (WCAP. l j assessment cases oemonstrating 14807. Revision 1) has been - l acceptability of casting equations in not submitted. Section 3.5 contains volumetric form. the assessment cases, i DSEROl 21.6.2.4 3 Westinghouse needs to submit the After the preliminary calculations, assessment cases for the Horizontal this model was no longer u4d. Stratified Flow Model. The preliminary calculations were redone without this model, and therefore the model description is not included in WCAP 14807. As a result, the assesments are not needed and not performed. i l DSEROI 21.6.2.4 4 Westinghouse needs to explain l provisions to ensure that options to ovomde the default flow partitioning will be used for all AP600 calculations. l DSEROI 21.6.2.4 5 Final acceptance of Mixture Overshoot The NOTRUMP FVR (WCAP-l ~ Logic must await completion of 14807 Revision 1) has been i benchmark and assessment calculations submitted. l j to be included in NOTRUMP FVR { e-, I DSEROl 21.6.2.4-6 Determination of additional (to G 2 tests) Section 4 of WCAP 14807. l separate effects level swell tests Revision 1 contains GE and i necessary for code qualification. ACHILLES seoarate effect level swell test simul?i. ions in addition to G 2. DSEROI 21.6.2.4-7 Acceptance of modified pump model Benchmark submitted in Section must await submittal of benchmark 3.7 of WCAP 14807, Revision 1 calculations. f DSER Ol 21.6.2.4 8 Acceptance of implic t treatment of - Ber.chmark submitted in Section I gravitational he3d await staff review of. 3.4 of WCAP 14807. Revision 1 the benchmark calculations. ~

OSER Of 2' 6 2 4 9 Accootance of tne nonzontal Cow 'Senenmarx suemineo 4n - Secten levelizing mcool must await submittal 3.3 of WCAP.14807, Revision 1 and stiff review of benchmark calculations. 4 OSEROl 21.6.2.4 10 The staff cannot determine the adecuacy After tne preliminary calculations, ; of the binhing logic until benchmark is this model was no longer used. submitted and reviewed. The preliminary calculations were i redone without this model for l inclusion in WCAP 14807 i Revision 1. As a result, no j l benchmark was pedormed and I i the staff does not need to review f the birthing logic. OSER Ol 21.6.2.4 11 Acceptance of the Zuber endcal heat flux The NOTRUMP FVR (WCAP. l correlation for AP600 SBLOCA analysis 14807, Revision 1) has been will be determined after review of the submitted. 5W% ~ A. e 5" NOTRUMP FVR. T1 K v'J % -dH Mr.WA DSEROI 21.6.2.4 12 Acceptance of the smoothing logic The NOTRUMP FVR (WCAP-i between choked and unchoked flow must 14807 Revision 1) has been await submittel and review of the Final submns3. NOTRUMP Validation Report. OSER Ol 21.6.2.4 13 Acceptance of the logic schemes for The NOTRUMP FVR (WCAP-application of fluid node stacking, mixture 14807, Revision 1) has been level overshoot. and bubble rise changes submitted. must await the submittal of the assessment cases in the NOTRUMP

FVR, DSER Ol 21.6.2.5 1 The NOTRUMP code tended to--

The NOTRUMP FVA includes the overpredict the ADS flow rates in the OSU and SPES 2 simulations preliminary OSU and SPES 2 which were redone after the compansons. The models affecting the preliminary calculations. - included fluid entenng the ADS piping, particularly in the report are comparisons for the hot legs and pressurizer, need to (test data to simulation).of ADS be reviewed in the NOTRUMP FVR. flows. l DSER Ol 21.6.2.5 2 CM'T thermal stratification was not Section 6 of the NOTRUMP FVR captured in the CMT tests, contains the CMT test simulations Westinghouse will further investigato which were redone after the inability to property characterize CMT preliminary calculations, thermal stratification and these assessments will be provkled in the l NOTRUMP FVR. DSER OI 21.6.2.5 3-The staff must receive and evaluate the Sections 5 and 6 of the CMT and ADS test simulations that were NOTRUMP FVR contain these j identified in Table 21.7 of the SDSER, test simulations.- q l l i

_._~._ SGetion 3 cf the NOTRUMP VA OSED-Os 2' 5 2.5

  • The staff must receive ano evalua.te tre

- conenmark calculations that were contains tnese osnenmarks etn identified in Table 21.8 of the SOSER. the excepton of tne Binning Logic + and Honzental Stratified Flow ones which were not performed because the coding was not used in the NOTRUMP FVR - calculations and will not be used 3 in AP600 plant calculations. DSER OI 21.6.2.6 2 The staff must receive, review, and Section 4 of the NOTRUMP FVR evaluate the adecuacy of the separate. contains the level swell related effects testing relative to level swell and test simulations. void fraction distnbution. l DSER Ol 21.6.2.6 3 The staff must receive and evaluate the Sections 7 ano 8 of the t integral test simulations that were NOTRUMP FVR contain the l identified in Table 21.10 of the SDSER. integral test simulations, i OSEROl 21.6.2.7 1 Westinghouse needs to address PRHR The compansons for SPES 2 are ; ~ pnmary side heat transfer compansons contained in Section 7 of the between NOTRUMP and OSU/SPES 2 NOTRUMP FVR. OSU - I J I date in the NOTRUMP FVR. compensons were not included because comparable test data l was not available. I DSEROI 21.6.2.7 2 Effects of non condensible gases on PRHR heat transfer should be addressed in NOTRUMP FVR. I DSER OI 21.6.2,7 3 Clanfy the use of the COSI condensation modelin the AP600 code. e O -.-..-----.---. ---a a-

i, mal o - Desenecen of > tem i Roference Where Ar'swerec 8tAl u 0.325- -Questions on NOTRUMP CAD (WCAP-Westingnouss Letter 14206) related to PIRT. NOTRUMP NTD NRC 95-4594: l modeling of noncondensible gases, and WCAP 14807, Revision 1 NOTRUMP 10 model. Section 1.3 contains final SSLOCA PIRT.

  • RAI 440.326 Should include an AP600 plant Westinghouse Letter nodalization and reference to SAR NTD NRC 95-4587; i

calculations. WCAP 14807 Revision 1 i _ l Section 1.2 contains AP600 plant j } noding diagram. i ! RAI 440.327 Provide a matnx of tests that will be used Westinghouse Letter for assessing each of the PIRT items. NTD NRC 95 4610; Also, identity the models that are to be WCAP 14807, Revision 1 validated for each test. Section 1.4 contains table of tests and parameters selected for validation of NOTRUMP for highly ranked PIRT items. RAI 440.328 Explain what analyses were performed to Westinghouse L'etter determine the limiting failure. NTD NRC 95 4587 RAI 440.329 Desenbe the low flow correlations. Westinghouse Letter applicable to the prediction of the single NTD NRC 95 4610 and two-phase friction factors in NOTRUMP for AP600 and identify the test data that will be used for the assessment. RAI 440.330 Desenbe the enhancements made to the Westinghouse Letter NOTRUMP code for AP600. NTD NCC 95-4587; WCAP 14807 Revision 1, Section 2 contains the L NOTRUMP code changes for AP600 calculations. RAI 440.331 Provide the specific inputs for the code Westinghouse Letter extemals used to perform the analyses in NTO NRC 96-4600 the SSAR calculations done in Januay 1994 RAI 440.332 Provide a document desenbing the Westinghouse Letter methods and models compnsing the long NSD NRC 96 4780 term cooling code and desenbe how the code is initialized from the NOTRUMP code. l RAI 440.333 Justify the use of a fixed containment Westinghouse Letter pressure boundary condition since the NSD NRC 96-4780 - response of the safety systems depend on containment pressure, i. 4 ,,,-c-- -n .n.- + a .e,-

- I = A, u: 3:4- - *fovio2 a test matn* sno*m9 :ne Westrgnouse.et'.er sectrate effects and integral tests to ::e - NTD.NRC 95 46to: 1 used in tha vahdation of NOTRUMP for WCAP 14807.~ Revision 1 i-AP600. Section 1,4 contains tacle of tests b, and parameters selected !ct l' validation of NOTRUMP.- t R AI 440.335 Justfication for using constant friction f actors, particularly at low flow,- flow I pressure conoitions are needed. RAI MO.336 Desenbe if momentum flux is included in AP600 analyses and justify its omission if at is not used. j RAI 440.337 Demonstrate that the Macesth correlaton I is adequate for the low flow and pressure I conoitions expected for AP600, i R AI 440.338 ' Demonstrate that the NOTRUMP pump -l model can predict the AP600 pump coastdown. Desenbe and justify the use - i of the two phase pump degradation curves for AP600 analyses. 4-RAI 440.339 - Provide time step and nodalization studies to justfy the AP600 nodalization. 1 RAI 440.340 Discuss the potential for bonc acid buiki-Westinghouse Letter up and precipitation during long _ NSO NRC 96 4780 f transients for AP600. - RAI 440.341 Desenbe in detail the IRWST model Westinghouse Letter including how the soarger and plumes NTD NRC 95 4587 are handled as well as their influence on IRWST injection and PRHR heat removal. l RAI 440.342 Provide documentaton for a) NOTRUMP coding changes along with model benchmarks, b) a description of the I containment modeling approach with l calculations jusefying model, c) a r i j desenption of the "Long Term Cooling i Code *, d) a section presenting calculative methods including sensitivity studies and the full break spectrum analysis, and e) a test matnx listing the pertinent separate and integral tests used to benchmark the AP600 small break LOCA code packa0s. RAI 440.432 Identfy where choking occurs in the ADS Westinghouse Letter tests and discuss why the asymetric NTO NRC 95 4610 effects can be ignored in modeling the three ADS valves as a single flow path. w- --n--- -,w a+,+w se-,--- .~ +--m., ,.g

. = - - - -- l

,1 AAIa.to 433 Splain trie effect of_ not moceling air in
  • Westingneuse Lener
the ADS lin s on the ADS system -

NTD NRC.95 4610 ) ~ i l Cressure, flow and Quality responses, 'RAI 440.434 ' Demonstrate tne acility of the NOTRUMP i code to accomodate single Anase steam l cntical flow since the ADS system is expected to transition to high ~ quality I steam flow disenarge. '. RAI 440.435 Questions related to ADS modeling Westinghouse Letter including explain how NOTRUMP treats NTD NRC 95 4594 the void distnbution and release of steam from the two phase regions in the ADS I lines. j RAl 440.436 Explain how NOTRUMP uses equation Westinghouse Letter 41 of RCS GSR 003 in computations of NTD NRC 95 4598 l fluid quality. I RAI 440.437 Questions on ADS test simulation Westinghouse Letter depressunzation rates and length of test NTD NRC 95-4594 simulations. RAI 440.438 Explain the inconsistency in the Westinghouse Letter I I discussion of the effect of tank pressure NTD NRC 95-4587 on quality in the ADS Preliminary Validation Report. I RAI 440.439 Has the NOTRUMP code been assessed Westinghouse Letter f against single phase and two phase NTD NRC 95-4610 i I pressure drop test data in piping systems with expansions and contractions present? RAI 440.440 Provide the results of a noding study Westinghouse Letter used to justify tne CMT noding in the NTD NRC 96-4622 CMT Preliminary Validation Report. Also, provide the plots of the fluid driving heads calculated by NOTRUMP for each side of the loop. ! RAI 440.441 Were wall temperatures measured in the ~ facility in the CMT and piping? If so, provide compansons with the NOTRUMP code and discuss the results. l RAI 440.442 Were wall heat structures modeled in the i piping and reservoir? If not, justfy the omission;if so desence the model. RAI 440.443 Justify the reservoir nodalization and explain the effects of thermal stratfication and mixing, or lack thereof, in the S/W reservoir on the NOTRUMP results. 1 g

Ai M D u

. Was a time step study cedermec for tno yy

11 CMT tests? Discuss and snow that tne -

time steos used do not contribute to the 1 error _in the NOTRUMP precictions Are El i I the. time steps consistent with.those used - l in the plant model? RAI 440.445 The early CMT flow rates appear to os Westingnouse Letter overcredicted even thougn the time NTD NRC 96 4626 averaged flows show good compansons. Discuss the NOTRUMP behavior given ' that the early overprediction of flow may affect the RCS loop temperatures and system behavior later in the event. RAI 440.446 Explain why the CMT inlet flow - uncertainty is higher than the outlet flow uncertainty measurement for the test. i ~ j Explain this uncertainty in lignt of the NOTRUMP inlet flow rate predictions,. _ Justify use of single node for SG Westinghouse Letter { RAI 440.463 secondary side. NTO NRC 95 4987-i RAI 440.464 Perform two phase level swell WCAP 14807, Revision 1 simulations to justify core noding, Section 4 for level swell, Sections 4.2.5 and 4.3.4 for noding RAI 440.465 Justify omission of wall heat transfer Westinghouse Letter from loop piping and secondary NTD NRC 95 4594 I components. RAI 440.466 ' For SIMARC dnft flux model... Please - WCAP 14807, Revision 1 desenbe how the void fraction is Section 2.2 l I computed for countercurrent flow l conditions. l RAI 440.467 Two dnft flux models were added to Westingnouse Letter NOTRUMP. Which modelis to be used NTD NRC 95 4587 for AP800 cales? Explain models, WCAP 14807, Revision 1 Section 2.3 i i RAI 440.468 Provide benchmark calca for level swell WCAP 14807. Revision 1 I and counter current flow data to evaluate Section 4 for level swell, i

flooding, Sections 3.2 & 3.3 for flooding i

! R AI 440.469 Provide volumetric flow based WCAP 14807, Revision 1 l momentum equations and code-Section 2.4 for equations, benchmarks for this model enange. Section 3.5 for benenmark RAI 440.4701 . Questions on Honzontal Stratified Flow After the preliminary calculations, Model in preliminary NOTRUMP report this model was no longer used. LTCT GSR 001 The preliminary calculations were redone witncut this model, and therefore the model description is not included in WCAP 14807. As a result, the RAI no longer j applies. w. -.w.

_m. _. _. _ _.- _ _ _ _ _ = A r 44 471 'nsesss tne us3 of carttoning mocols forj Wes6cgnouse *.etter-AF600 calcuttions and show that there NTD NRC 95 4598 i use W3uld ntt adverstly affect the le<ct i swell results. ] j RAI M 0.472 Please explain the liquid reflux flow links - Westinghouse Letter and how their use affects level swell, NTD NRC 95 4594 . bubble rise, steam production, and fuel cooling. RAI 440.473 Please explain how tne mixture level - Westingnouse Letter - overshoot logic coes not introduce errors NTD NRC 95 4587: into the NOTRUMP solution that could WCAP 14807. Revision 1 change the'results or conclusions of an Section 2.S AP600 analysis. ! RAI 440.474 Provide the denvations and the ' WCAP 14807, Revision 1 i expressions for the equations compnsing Section 2.9 for equations. the implicit bubble rise model. Provide Section 3.6 for benchmark. i level swell calculations vantying this Section 4 for level swell j model. j RAI 440.475 Provide a mathematical description of WCAP 14807, Revision 1 modified pump model and companson Section 2.10 for equations, of the old to new model. Section 3.7 for comparison RAI 440.476 ' Desenbe mathematically the imolicit WCAP 14807, Revision 1 treatment of gravitational head and Section 2.11 for equations., 1 provide venfication analysis. Section 3.4 for verification benchmark RAI 44,0.477 Provide new levelizing drift velocity WCAP 14807 Revision I correlation and provide a benchmark for Section 2.12 for correlation, model. Section 3.31or benchmark ! RAI 440.478 Provide a sample calculation showing After the preliminary calculations, how the cirthing region works. this model was no longer used. The preliminary calculations were redone without this model, and - i therefore the model descnotion is not included in WCAP 14807. As a result, the RAI no longer applies. ! RAI 440.479 Provide a companson of the NOTRUMP Westinghouse Letter I Shah condensation model prediction to NTD NRC 96 4626 condensation test data demonstrating l applicability of the model to the range of conditnons expected in AP600. RAI 440.480 - Provide a companson of the results of Westinghouse Letter the as implemented Zuber entical heat NTD NRC 96-4426 flux correlation to test data over the range of conditions expected for AP600 small break LOCAs. e m m

84.A C 4at 8 ovice :cmcar: sons of the New , Westirgrcwse e er NOT:lVMP two onase inction multicher NTD NAC 93 4998; to separate effects and/or integral test WCAP 14807. Revision ' cata oelow 250 osia to lustify the new Section 2.16 L models extraoolaton formulation. l flow model versus entical flow tests to Provide oenchmark of the new entical Westingnouse Letter i RAI 440.482 NTD NRC 96 4630: ! venty the mooel. Describe now the WCAP 14807. Revision 1 i model treats the transition from choked Section 2.13 desenbes tne ! to unchoked conditions. transition from choked to unchoked conditions. RAI 440.483 Provide results of a sample fill and drain WCAP 14807. Revision 1 7 calculation to demonstrate the Fluid Section 2.18 for descnotion. Node Stacking L'ogic and provide a Section 3.8 for demonstration mathematical desenption of the logic. RAI 440.484 Show the effect of the changes to the Westinghouse Letter tran:ition boiling correlation on peak clad NTD NRC 95 4594 temperature. RAI 440.485 Desence the coding and model changes Westinghouse Letter-included in the preliminary ADS test NTD NRC 96 4630: simulations and CMT test simulations These simulations were redone and included in WCAP 14807 Revision 1 RAI 440.486 Explain why in the oroliminary OSU Westinghouse Letter simulatons the upper head drains NTD NRC 95 4598: prematurely in the tests. These simulations were redone and included in WCAP 14807. Revision 1 1 ! RAI 440.487 For the analyses in the OSU Preliminary l Validaticn Report (PVR), provide i compansons of the NOTRUMP liquid levels in the core and upper plenum versus test data. I RAI 440.488 Discuss the NOTRUMP overprediction of I the integrated break flow for the OSU } PVR calculation. RAI 440,489 l Explain why the NOTRUMP code underpredicts the PRHR heat transfer in the OSU PVR and justify how this model l results in conservative AP600 SBLOCA ECCS performance predictions. RAI 440.490 Explain why the NOTRUMP code overpredicts the downcomer liquid level dunng this OSU PVR calculation and justify the model result for AP600 plant calculations.

, A A I.:.10,4 91. Provioe :ne :cre inlet anc : ore cypass mass flow rate predictions for the 1 NOTRUMP :oce. RAI 440.492 Previos the core inlet and bypass mass flow rate predictions for the cltnd two' l inch cnid leg balance line break in the OSU PVR. Also provide tne liquid level plots for the upper plenum and core region and the void distnbution in the i core region. l RAI 440.493 Discuss the NOTRUMP fast depressurization rate for OSU PVR calculations including the break flow discharge coefficient And the steam generator heat transfer. RAI 440.494 Discuss the impact of the delayed CMT 2 drainage on the core / upper plenum level response for the OSU PVR calculation. + RAI 440.495 Provide the upper plenum and core liquid level plots for this test along with the void distnbution in the core. RAI 440.496 For this'OSU PVR calculation explain yhy the code overpredicts the liquid j inventory in the downcomer and justify I !l. that this will not lead to non conservative l predictions of the liquid levelin the vessel for AP600 plant calculations. P I RAI 440.497 Explain the statement that the NOTRUMP code allows a "short spurt of flow at the break' in reference to Figure 5.3 22 of the OSU PVR. ,RAI 440.498 For this OSU PVR case. explain the reasors for the highly oscillatory behavior in the PRHR inlet flow calculated by NOTRUMP and why the code predicts a much higher PRHR flow rate. I RAI 440.499 Can the NOTRUMP code model nitrogen entenng the RCS? If not, justW the omission of nitrogen effects on AP600 response following sraall break t OCAs. ~ rat 440.500 RAI 440.501 RAl 440.502 ' RAI 440.503 RAI 440.504 4 e-- .m.

=A,::15:9- -i r iAAluo.506-l - RAI M0.507' l I l-RAI MO.508 - 1 i - RA'l MO.509 l l ^ AAl MO.510 l J RAI MO.511 RAI M0.512 l l ! RAI 440.513 ,j RAI 440.514 f RAI M0:515 RAl.440.516 RAI 440.517 RAI 440.518 - ~ i-RAI M0.519 RAI M0.520 RAI 440.541 RAl 440.542 j-RAI 440.543 RAI 440.544 -{ RAI 440.545 ' j RAI 440.546 i 'RAl'M O.547 { RAI 440.548 - -l AAl 440.549 ' R Al 440.550 I RAI 440.551 l - AAl 440.552 RAI 440.553 - -}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20211B441&oldid=4012307"