ML20236U764
| ML20236U764 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/28/1998 |
| From: | Wen P NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Sepp H WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9807300424 | |
| Download: ML20236U764 (4) | |
Text
_ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
July 28, 1998 j
Mr. Hank Sepp, Manager
]
Regulatory and Licensing Engineenng Westinghouse Electric Corporation Mail Stop ECE 4-07A P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15320-0355 i
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR WESTINGHOUSE TOPICAL REPORT WCAP-14882, REVISION 0, "RETRAN-02 MODELING AND
~ QUALIFICATION FOR WESTINGHOUSE PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR NON-LOCA SAFETY ANALYSIS"
Dear Mr. Sepp:
By letter dated June 6,1997, Westinghouse submitted topical report WCAP-14882, Revision 0, l
L for NRC staff review. The staff has reviewed the report, and sent you the first set of request for l
additionalinformation (RAI) on June 1,1998. The staff is sending you another set of RAI
{
pertaining to the review of WCAP-14482, Rev. O, Section 5.2.14, "Steamline Break l
Mass / Energy Release." The attachment to this letter identifies the information required. Please address your response to the NRC Document Control Desk.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 301/415-2832 (email, pxw@nrc. gov) or l
Edward Throm at 301/415-3153 (email, edt1@nrc. gov).
Sincerely, I
Original Signed By:
i Peter C. Wen, Project Manager, Generic lasues and Environmental Projects Branch i
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
Enclosure:
Questions on Topical WCAP-14882, Rev 0 i
= DISTRIBUIlON:
PUBLIC -
TEssig FAkstulewicz CHBerlinger EDThrom PGEB R/F '
WLJensen PWen OGC ACRS JRoe DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\pxw\\w14882s.ral
/
(
OFFICE PM;PGEB SCSB SC:PGEg g j
f NAME PWen:sw 9cy)
EThrom M FAk M
I DATE 07/stg / 98 07AY/98 0[/g/98
- t OFFICIAL OFFICE COPY E (2 d~
l p 9. [ _ t Wes @&
E7YoS M r
, l i f C S T S C O P i
. (y }
C ppR m
.l
,y i
._...J
l l
k UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 30006 4 001 July 28, 1998' l
l
' Mr. Hank Sepp, Manager Regulatory and Licensing Engineering Westinghouse Electric Corporation l
Mail Stop ECE 4-07A
)
L P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15320-0355
/
I
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR WESTINGHOUSE TOPICAL REPORT WCAP-14882, REVISION 0,."RETRAN-02 MODELING AND QUALIFICATION FOR WESTINGHOUSE PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR NON-LOCA SAFETY ANALYSIS"
Dear Mr. Sepp:
By letter dated June 6,1997, Westinghouse submitted topical report WCAP-14882, Revision 0, t
for NRC staff review. The staff has reviewed the report, and sent you the first set of request for additional information (RAl) on June 1,1998. The staff is sending you another set of RAI pertaining to the review of WCAP-14482, Rev. O, Section 5.2.14, "Steamline Break l
Mass / Energy Release." The attachment to this letter identifies the information required. Please j
address your response to the NRC Document Control Desk.
i' l
if you have any questions, please contact me at 301/415-2832 (email, pxw@nrc. gov) or i
Edward Throm at 301/415-3153 (email, edt1@nrc. gov).
i Sincerely, i
k l. W Peter C. Wen, Project Manager Generic lasues and Environmental
. Projects Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Questions on Topical WCAP-14882, Rev 0
8 i
l.-
s Request for AdditionalInformation WCAP-14882 Rev. O, Section 5.2.14, "Steamline Break Mass / Energy Release" RETRAN-02 Modeling and Qualification for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor i
Non-LOCA Safety Analysis l
l 1.
The text, on page 221, is unclear with respect to the use of an entrainment model for the l
discharged effluent. For the two cases discussed, it is implied that RETRAN does not predict entrainment. Please clarify the text as to whether an entrainment model is used or not used (for example, not modeled for RETRAN steamline breaks) for licensing analyses.
If an entrainment model is used, please provide the reference for the experimental data and RETRAN analyses which support the entrainment model.
2.
The text, on page 221, is unclear with respect to the safety injection boron discussion.
Please clarify the text as to whether RETRAN more realistically models the boron injection leading to the greater amount entering the reactor core or if this difference is due to user input (for example, an input table). If the latter, please provide the reference to the methodology used to develop the data.
3.
To support the conclusion, in Section 6.0 on page 228, that the RETRAN analyses can be considered as identical for the purposes of performing non-LOCA safety analyses, please provided comparison graphs (RETRAN versus LOFTRAN) of the integrated mass and the integrated energy releases for the two cases discussed in Section 5.2.14, namely the double-ended rupture and the split break. Indicate, on each graph, the approximate time and value of the peak containment presswe resulting from the RETRAN and from the LOFTRAN calculated mass and energy releases for each case.
l Enclosure u
\\.
cc:
Mr. Nicholas Liparulo, Manager Equipment Design and Regulatory Engineering Westinghouse Electric Corporation Mail Stop ECE 4-15 P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0355 Mr. Jack Bastin, Director Regulatory Affairs Westinghouse Electric Corporation 11921 Rockville Pike Suite 107 -
Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. David Huegel l
Transient Analysis Westinghouse Electric Corporation Mail Stop ECE 4-12 P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0355 6
l I
i L
1
-(
_______________ __-_ _.