ML17289A396

Annual Rept for Wpps 2 for FY89.

ML17289A396
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	06/30/1989
From:	GIRE S B WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To:
Shared Package
ML17289A392	List: ML17289A391 ML17289A393 ML17289A394 ML17289A395 ML17289A396
References
NUDOCS 9203240349
Download: ML17289A396 (134)

Text

.U.S,.Qqparirgent of Energy Energlc Information Administration Form EIA412 (6/89)*Annual Report of Public Electric Utilities Form Apped Oeis Ho.1PCS.01IS S>>pirece 1S 31'urden: eo.e bourn%@@8~54~'4QFXeVM~>>@%~~identification".

Section'FNpgg@@%'~~44+)~~$

~~,~jC~~~;~~

The information requested in this t of the form must be accurate.Item ie (Exact Legal Name of Respondent) is repeated at the top of each page of the form, along with item 9 (Original or Resubmission), item 10 (Date of Report), and item 2 (Financial Reporting Year End-ing).Please insure that the entries in these data fields are correct.01 Exact Legal Name of Respondent 5300020160 Washington Public Power Supply Sysfcspt 03 Previous Name and Date of Change (If name changed during year), 02 Financial Reporting Year Ending (Month, Day, Year)06r30r1989 04 Current Address of Principal Business Office (Street, City, State, Zip Code)3000 George Wash i ngf on Wa Richland WA 99352-0968 05 Name of Contact Person S B Gi re 07 Address of Contact Person (Street, City, State, Zip Code)06 Title of Contact Person IfanagerrCorporafe Accounf ing Af;in: S B Gire 08 Telephone of Contact Person C5092 372-5rp80 3000 George Washingfon Wa Richland 09 This Report is (1)ix)An Original (2)Q A Resubmission WA 99352 10 Date of Report (Month, Day, Year)04/30/90 11 Classes of Utility and Other Services Furnished by Respondent During the Year K3 Electric Natural Gas C3 Water and Sewage Sanitation Irrigation Other (Specify):

+gÃci4@P+YWAWC4>+z~~444~~+ggom~4'49>>o'CeI'tiflCatiOIl

$eC'tIOn'F~r>>

cjjroocg@>>~g55@@40+'g~~

The undersigned cortifias that he/sha hss e>>canined the acconpanying report)that to the best of his/her knowledge>>

infornatione and belief e all ststeioants of fact contained in tho sccoropsnying rcport are true snd the accompanying report is a correct ststainant of the business and affairs of tho above named rospond-ent in respect to asch and avery natter set forth therein during the calendar or other established fiscal year stated above.'01 Name S.B.Gire 03 Title anager, Corporate Accounting 02 Signature 04 Date Signed (Month, Dav Year)4/30/95 Title 18>>U.S.C.1001>>inskos it a crirrre for any parson knowingly and willingly to nake to any Agency or Dapsrtnant of tho United States any false>>fictitious or fraudulent statements as to sny natter within its jurisdiction.

This report is nsndstory under Public Lsw 93-275.Failure to respond nsy re ult in.criminal fines>>civil penalties>>

snd other sanctions as provided by lsw.Data reported on Forn EZA-ce12 sro not considered confidrrnti~l.

9203240349 920304 PDR ADOCK 050003'V7 Fi PDR

Page.2, Form EIA412 (6/89)Namo'of Rospondent

~$300020l 60 hington Publ I c Po)der Supply Annual Report of Public Electric Utilities This report is: (1)GQ An Original (2)~A Resubmission Form/perored OMG Ho.1M.0139 frpiree't'31'9t Burden: 33.t hours Date of'cport Report Yoar Ending'Honth, Day, Year)(Honthr Daye Year)04/30/90 0(i30rl Sag pipP~g'r4vXFe J~gP$'Ac)v(krAKrd"Q)A4.

4+i c e ue.,~ec'rlc (I'y'n.z~'/4.~..4-@+PA,A~

-.F..@,,~4 l.Some of the accounts listed below are detined in the General Instructions of this form.2.Refer to the Uniform System of Accounts Prescribed for Public Utilities and Licensees for all other accounts.Linc No.Assets and Other Debits (a)ELECTRIC UTILITY PLANT Anount (b)Line Ho.Liabilities and Other Credits (a)INVESTHEHT OF NNICIPALITY I SURPLUS Arsount (b)2 (Less)Electric Utility Plant Depr Anort Depl (108ellle115) 3 Hct Electric Utility Plant (Line 1 less 2)(646 863,801)2,931,114 677 1 TOTAL Electric Utility Plant (zoz-i06,114) 9 3,577,978,478.

28 29, Invcstmcnt of Hunicipality Constn.tive Su lus or Deficit Retained Earninos (215r215.1r216)

TOTAL Investment K Surplus (Lines 26 thru 28)LONG-TERH DEBT OTHER PROPERTY I INVESTHENTS Nonutilitv Pro'er.t (121)30 131 Bonds Advances from Hunicicalitv (221)2,205 115.000 5 (Less)Accum Provision for Depre-ciation and Amortization (122)Advances to Hunici alit nvcst 2 Special Funds (124-128)TOTAL, Other Property&Invest (Lines 4e 6e 7 less 5)CURRENT AHD ACCRUED ASSETS 159,757,249

'59,757,249 35 Other Lone-Tens Debt I 224)Unamort Prem on Lo-Tn Debt (225)(Less)Unamortization Discount on Long-Tera Debt (226)TOTAL Long-Term Debt (Lines 30 thru 33 less 34)OTHER NOHCURREHT LIABILITIES 755.097 (60.089.239 2.145.78)858 9 Cash 6 Norkin Fund" (131-135)10 Tcmcorarv Cash Investments (136)ll Notes K.Accounts Receivable (141-143)12 (Less)Accua Provision for Uncollected Accounts (144)1,664,482 13,428,621 34 377 877 37 38 40 Access Prov for In 8 Daa (228.2)Accum Prov for Pensions (228.3)Accum Prov for Hisc Doer (228.4)TOTAL Other Noncurrent Liabilitie (Lines 36 thru 39)3.343.000 3.343.000 15 Pre avmcnts (165)16 Hiscellaneous Current and Accrued Assets (174)13 Receivables from Hunicioalit 14 Hatcrials a S olios (151-156)31,186.452

'1,783,010 41 CURRENT A)(D ACCRUED LIABILITIES Notes Pavable Accounts Pavable Pavables to Hunicioalitv I 231)I 232)67 831 334 17 TOTAL Current and Accrued Assets (Lines 9-11913-16 less 12)82.440.442 Taxes Accrued I 236)Customer Deoost ts (235)917 018 DEFERRED DEBITS Intere t Accrued I 237)299 736 18 Unamortized Debt Expenses (181)19 Extraordinarv Proc Losses I 182.1)20 Hisccllaneous Deferred Debt (186)21 Research.Dev S Demo Exo (188)22 Unamor t Loss on Reac r Debt (189)Other (Specify):

TOTAL Deferred Debits (Lines 18 thru 23)25 TOTAL Assets 2 Other Debits (Lines 3r 8r 17e and 24)2.977.483 2.822,819 5,800,302 3,179.112,670 50 51 53 Hisc Curr a Accrd Liab (239r242)TOTAL Curr a Accrd Liabilitios (Lines 41 thru 47)DEFERRED CREDITS Customer Advances for Const (252)Other Deferred Credits (253)Unamort Gain on Reacor Debt l257)TOTAL Deferred Credits (Lines 49 thru 51)TOTAL Liabilities X Other Credits (Lines 29e 35>40r 48>and 52)37.647 506 106.695.594 922.280.211 1 013 007 923.293.218 3.179.112.670 page 3~Form EIA<12 (6/89)Name of Respondent 5300020160 hing%on Public Popler Supply Annual Report of Public Electric Utilities This report is: l1)QQ An Original l 2)~A Resubmission Date of Report lNonth, Dayp Year)04/30/90 Form Approrod 0MB No.1S05412S Frpiroo: 12rSMS2 Burdrn: 22.2 houro Report Year Ending lllonth>Dayp Year)06/30/'1989 ,ggCF>Aha>.

45@NSchedl) le,II!%E!ectric Util it'y" Income.Statement";fo'r1 the'Year~~~~Q@p~+Vq~>egg 2.Refer to the Uniform System of Accounts Prescribed for Public Utilities and Licensees for accounts listed below.Line No.1 Electr'ic Utility, operating Revenues 2 Operating Expenses maintenance Expenses Depreciation and Amortization Item la)l4100)6 l401)l402)2 403&05)Amount lb)458 038 930 109 597.029 42,075,293 5 Taxes and Tax Equivalents lSee Schedule IV)6 Net Contributions and Services lSeo Schedule IV)TOTAL Electric Utility Operating Expenses lLines 2 thru 6)Not Electric Utility-Operating Income lLine 1 loss'ine 7)Income from Electric Plant Leased to Othors l408.1p409.1) l4121413)108,655,619 2,288,086 0 262,616,027 "195,422,903 10 Electric Utility Operating Income lLines 8 thru 9)11 Other Income Net lExplain significant amounts in a footnote)see footnote 12 Allcurance for Othor Funds Used During Construction l 415 p416 p 418 p 419)l419.1)195,422,903

~" 20.091,071 13 Electric Utility Income l Lines 10 thru 12)14 Income Deductions fran Interest on Long-Term Debt 16 TOTAL Income Deductions 2 Lines 14 and 15)17 Income Before Extraordinary Items l Lines 13 less line 16)18 Extraordinary Income lSee definition) 15 Other Income Deductions lExplain significant amounts in a footnote)see footnote l427)l428-432)l434)215,513,974 210,822,731 4,691,243 215,513,974 0 19 Extraordinary Deductions l See definition) l 435)20 Net Income l Lines 17 plus line 18 loss line 19)0

.Par)e 4~Form EIAC12 (6/89)Annual Report of Public Electric Utilities Form Approved OMB No.1L44129 E~ires: 12r91.'92 Burden: 99.2 leurs This report is: "(1)[X3 An Original.(2)C3 A Resubmission

Ã~e~PV;..:v~Img~M~&~~

.Sche du e;.g ec r)c.Nemo of Respondent 5300020160 ington Public Power Supply Data of Report Report Year Ending Months Days Year)(Honth>Day>Year)04/30/90'.06/30/1989 v.ANx@M@@N:.NK...>..

l.Report the original cost of elec-tric plant in service according, to the prescribed accounts.2.Enclose in parenthesis credit ad" justments of.plant accounts to indicate the negative effect of such accounts.Line No Ztam (a)Electric Plant xn Service: Balance Beginning of Year (b)Additions During Year (c)Roti rc-ments~During Year (d)Transfers I Adjust-ments.(e)Balance End of Year (f)Intangible Plant (301-303)Production Plant: Steass Production (310-316)Nuclear Production

.(320-325)see footm)te Hydraulic Production (330-336)Other Production (3de0-3re6

)t Specify)9 QR fOOtnOte TOTAL Production Plant'(Lines 2 thru-5)3 470 358 056 2 43 877 Transmission Plant (350-359)Distribution Plant (360-373)10 General Plant (389-399)SEe fOOtnOte TOTAL Electric Plant in Service (Lines le 6 thru 9)41 ll Electric Plant Leased to Others (10de)12 Constr.Hark in Progress-Electric (107)13 Elec.Plant Hold for Future Usa (105)5 731 604 rd~~~on~>>\)vvr~p)~9 s'>A.'.<v'4".~vs*r<yauu<

~ar sr<vm<v harv 4-': 'i'0-=-':~~~>~'56 5 Electric Plant Acquisition Adjustments (Seo daf ini t ion)(102)TOTAL Electric Plant[Lines 10 thru lde)3,559,668,091 34 433.364 (17 688 357'$265.921) 3 577.978.478

Page 5 Form (AP(2 (6/89)Wane of Respondent 5300020160 h i ngf on Public Power Supply Annual Report of Public Electric Utilities This report.is: (1)CX3 An Orxgxnal (2)~A Resubmission Date of Report (Honthr Days Year)04/30/90 Form Approved OMB r/o.19Lr-0129 Expires: 12/21/S2 Burden:$22 hours Report, Year Ending (Honthx Day>Year)06/30/1989.AFZ4~@;".

Schedule'V:hTaxes",4TaxvEquiva1ents~hContributions,"'and Se'rvice's'During.Year<~~%M@%+~,.

1.Report below the information called for on contributions and services to the munici-pality or other government units by the electric utility ands conversely>

by those bodies to the electric utility.Do not in-cluder (a)loans and advances which are subject to repayment or which, bear interest>(b)paynent in retirement of loans or advances previously mades (c)contributions by the mu-nicipality of funds or property which are of the natura of investment in the electric utility department.

2.Enter in column (c)the total contri-butions made or received.Show in column (d)amounts included in column (c)which have been accounted for in the r espondent's financial statementsr i.e.s balance sheets incone ac-counts earned surplus>operating revenuesr'perating expensesr etc.Show in colum (e)anounts which are unaccounted for in re-spondent'f inancial statements

..For those amounts not included in respondent's financial statements r explain'he reason for their omission in a footnote.3.Report as"Taxes" the amounts due on tho operations of the electric utility department.

Exclude gasoline and other sales taxes which are included in the cost of transportation and materials.

Report as"Tax Equivalents" the amounts which are understood to consist of payments equivalent to or in lieu of amounts which would be paid if the electric utility depart-ment ware subject to local tax levies.5.Report as"To General Funds of the Hu-nicipality" the amounts considered as retained earnings that are transferred from the electric utility area.6.Report as"Other" the amounts which are nonperiodic transfers to the rrunicipality.

Amount of Contribution/Value of Service Line Wo.10 Item (al Subject Payments By Electric Utility to Hunicipality or Other Government Units: Taxes Tax Eouivalents Taxes t, Tax Ecuivalents (Lines 1 ((2)To General Funds of the Hunici alitv Other (S eci f l 1 TOTAL Contributions (Lines 4 and 5)Street and Hiohwav Liohtino Hunicioal Pumoina Other Hunicioal Lioht and Power Other Electric Service Nonelectric Service (Specify):

HWh (bl Ci("~>>4X~~W~5;W~F/t~~~~)X'~Ct~i~JVI!a".VOJ.'~.Total (cl 2.288.086 Included in Financial Statements (dl 2.288.086 Not Included in Financial'tatements (el 12 13 15 TOT'L Service" (Lines 7 thru 11)TOTAL Contributions C Services By Electric Utility (Lines 6 and 12)Subject Payments By Hunicipality or Other Government Units to Electric Utility: For Ooerations and Prooert Haintenance Other (Specify)1 i>"~"'1~1'!!r'-~.'sr~a"l 0 0'4~+~~!,",Ji+i%

n.16 17 18 19 20 21 TOTAL Contributions (Lines 14 thru 15)Office S ace Water Enoineerino Service Local Service Other Service (Specify)r TOTAL Servsces (Lsnes 17 thru 21)TOTAL Contributions and Services By Husicipality (Lines 16 and 22)Het Contributions and Services By Electric Utility to Hunicipality or Other Govern-ment Units (Line 13 less line 23)0 0 0 0 age 6 ,I'rm El'(2 6/89)Hame.of Respondent, 53000201 80 shing%on Public Popder Supply Annual Report of Public Electric Utilities This report is: (1)CQ An Original (2)~A Resubmission Date of Report (Hontho Day>Year)04/30/90 form Ap provod OMB No.1$54i29 Expiroo 1531/S2 Bvrdoo.SI 2 hovro Report Year Ending (Hontho Dayr Year)06/'30/1989

..A a s..y%,a@@,SQ@ah.

~@.@@.l.Report sales during the year to electric utilities, municipalities, co-operatives, or other public authorities for subsequent distribution and sale to ultimate consumers.

Provide the full name that the sales were made to in column (a).2.In column (b)o provide one of the following codes: FP=Firm Power supplied for system requirements of the purchaser)

UP=Unit Power provided on condition that specific generating unit is available for production; EP=Economy Power without cap-acity>interruptible, that replaced other energy available; DP=Dump or surplus pow-er used to replace generation or other purchases; HE=Haintenance or Emergency power provided for scheduled or unplanned outages;OR=Operating Reserve used to sa tis f y operating reserve obli ga ti ons;and OT=Other capacity and/or energy pro-vided (provide explanation in footnote).

3.In column (c)r if there are multiple delivery points'ithin a county or city>provide the number after the state and county or city (e.g.ILr Cook (3)).In column (d), report range of volt-ages in kilovolts (e.g., 13-69)if power is delivered at more than one voltage.5.In columns (e)and (g)>report the amounts as rendered on bills>including adjustments and other charges.If the megawatthours reported in column (e)rep-resentt the difference between energy re" ceived and delivered (i.e.(net inter-change)>provide an explan'ation in foot" note.6.'n column (f), enter"NO HETER" if demand is not metered.7.On the last line,'rovide the grand total for columns (e)and (g).ine Ho.Sales Hade To: (Enter Hame)la)Sale Code Type lb)Point of Delivery State (postal abbrev)A County or City (c)Kilovolts (kv)at Hhich Delivered (d)~tt-hours I t%h)Sold (e)Annual Haximmr Demand (Circle Cost (S)(o)Bonneville PapIer Admn.FP N Richland Bonn.ville Peer Admn.FP N Hxton 69 kv 71 105 N 540 kv 6 034 275 1.096 I 454 536.671 Clark P Levis Coun PUD ancouver FP N Hoss 69 kv 1.722 235 836 10 12 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 31 TOTAL (Lines 1 thru 3O)

I

age 8 I orm EIAQ12 (6/89)Annual Report.of Public Electric Utilities form Approved 0118 No.1905.0129 srprree: 12rMIS2 Burden: 22.2 houro Name of Respondent

$300020180 hi ng ton Publ i c Power Supply This report xs((1)QD An Orxgxnal (2)C3 A Resubmission

"'(rc'ase'~~4%.,~5e@N4~%'.4,@a~~,Sche u e.Date of Report Report Year Ending (Honthe Daye Year)(Honth)Dayp Year)04/30/90 08/30/1989

'"e"5;~4%~%"'"~SP'"'~%%: l.Report sales during the year to electric utilities, municipalities, co-operatives, or other public authorities for subsequent distribution and sale to'ultimate consumers.

Provide the full name.of purchased"from in column (a).2..In column (b)>provide one of the following codes: FP=Firm Power supplied for system requirements of the purchaser; UP=Unit Power provided on condition that specific generating unit is available for production; EP=Economy Power without cap-acity>interruptible, that replaced other energy available; DP=Dump or surplus pow-'er used to replace'eneration or other purchases)

HE=Maintenance or Emergency power provided for scheduled or unplanned outages)OR=Operating Reserve used to satisfy-operating reserve obligations; and OT=Other capacity and/or energy pro-vided (provide explanation in footnote)~3.In column (c), if there are multiple delivery points within a county or city.provide the number after the state and county or city (e.g.IL, Cook (3)).In column (d)>report range of volt-ages in kilovolts (e.g., 13-69)if power is delivered at more than one voltage.5.In columns (e)and (g)>report the amounts as rendered on billse including adjustments and other charges.If the megawatthours reported in column (e)rep" resent the difference between energy re-ceived, and delivered (i.e.l net inter-change)>provide an explanation in foot--'note.6..In column (f), enter"HO HETER" if demand is not mete(ed.7.On the last line, provide the grand total for columns (e)a'nd ('g).Line Ho.Purchased From (Enter Hame)(a)Pur-chas Code Type (b)Point of Receipt State (postal abbrev)A County or City (c)NA Kilovolts (KV)at Hhich Received (d)Bogart th-ourss (tSh)Purchased (e)Annual Haximum Derrrand l Circle N/HVa)(f)Cost (6)(o)10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 26 30 31 TOTAL (Lines 1 thru 30)54cu.Q QSV a'~Sc.~LE O'X.<<Q~.~DALl~

Pags9.I~Form EIA<12 (6/89)Annual Report of Public Electric Utilities Form Apptowd OMB No.1905.0QS Environ: tte1rSZ Bordom S3.2 noors g,;~>~pe.'<~'.$

.,@g~+g.>%RMai:%~Schedu e<.~;ec rtc n"rgy Hams of Respondent 5300020160'his rcport is: (1)CC]An Original.hington Public Power Supply (2)~4 Res~miss I Date of Report (Honth>Dayr Year)04/30/90 Report Year Ending (Honthr Dayr Year)06/30/'1 989.r:..@44~4@,,A

.A'each~vQ+ga(2 gq.s%v Y'V 1.'Report bel'ow for concerning the energy generated, changed during the the information called disposition of electric purchased, and inter-fiscal year.2.The Total Sources of Energy on line 16 must equal the Total Disposition of Energy on line 26.Linc Ho.Item ta))toga+at t-Hours (b)4N&a&r"W~h....::0()d&e~&WMMS&4WPw4%'<r56cWw.

aKo 53~4&4 r~x'-'-""'eneration (Excludin Station Use): Steam" Fossil Huclear Hydro-Conventional Hydro-Pumped Storage Other (Soecif): tLess)Ener for Purnoi 10 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 26 Het Generation (Lines 1 thru 6)Purchases-Utilit Purchases-Non-Utilit Intcrchanoes:

In (cross)Out toross)nt s xnes Transmission for/bv Others (Wheelina):

Received Delivered Het Transmission t Lines 13-14)TOTAL Sources of Ener (Lines 7r8r9r12r15) r'.r'nr (de" rar...:.'."-:k'+."".': Zk.a" w~.4".'ales to Ultirnatc Consumers (Includina Interde ar.tmental Sales)Sales for Resale Ener Furnished Without Chorea Enercv Used b the Company (Excludino Station Use): Electric Deoartment Onl Enercv Losses: Transmission and Conversion Losses Distribution Losses Unaccounted for Losses TOTAL Ener Losses Encrcv Losses as a Percent of Total on Linc 16 TOTAL Disoo" ition of Encrov (Lines 17,18,19>20 and 24)6 125 120 6.125.120 6'116 717 8.403.1372%6 125.120 Page 10 Form E)AQ12 (6/89 Hate'e of Respondent 5300020160 shing%on Public Popder Supply Annual Report of Public Electric Utilities This report is: (1)QQ An Original (2)~A Resubtnission Date of Repo'rt t)1onthp Daye Year)04/30/90 Form Appro)red OMB No.1999-0129 Bepiree: 12 9!t92 Burden;99.2 t)ourn Report Year Ending 2)1onthe Daye Year)06/30/2989 ,r~."F>>Tr>>>>j$

'g+>>'>>99)$+f.i)e'"(i(Or:

-trire'tiuc~tlonsQ<g~g>>

)!:~ij<<iN'.~$)~~@@~gj<2L>>!

gem>>"':,::g4g"'jgrepe+~~A'drr>>>>,.

'>>e>>'er>>)r~pgi//>>g>>OO;"$g.,)@+>>I)rpeu~,.'.

'@Fg+.;.g y;,Schedule'.lX!>Steam'-.'Ele'cntric",Gerie'r'atirig'Plant.Statlsticst

{L'argee Plants)>.~Qdp@%gg 1.Large plants are plants of 25,000 kH or more of maximum generator nameplate capacity operated by the utility.Include operated gas-turbine and internal com-bustion plants of 1'0,000 kH and more on this page.Also include operated nuclear plants.2.If any plant is equipped with combi-nations of steam>hydro, internal com-bustion, or gas"turbine equipment, report each as a separate plant.If, however, a gas-turbine functions in a combined cycle operation with a conventional steam unit, include gas-turbine with the steam plant.3.Operator s of jointly owned plants must report for 100 percent of the plant;owners need not report.If total cost of plant (lines 9-12)is not available>

~re-port the available data and footnote the costs not given.If net peak demand for 60 minutes is unavailable, report available data and ootnote the period provided.5.Report the average number of em-ployees on the payroll whose costs are included in the production, expense ac-counts (500"935), including part time and temporary employees.

If employee(s) are assigned to more than one generating plant, include the number of employees assignable based on prorated expenses.If contractor costs are charged to any of the production expense accounts, footnote both the labor cost and the estimate of the number of contractors assignable to cost>>6.If you report rents due to a sale-leaseback arrangement, footnote the ca-pacity (megawatts) sold and the asset (dollars)value removed from the plant accounts.7.If gas is used and purchased on a therm basis, give Btu content of the gas and the quantity of fuel burned converted to Mcf (lrp.73 psi e)60 degrees, F)~8.Data on line 16 (Fuel)must be con-sistent with lines 32 (Quantity of Fuel Burned), 33 (Average Heat Content of Fuel Burned)>35 (Average-Cost of Fuel>>per Unit Burned)>and 36 (Average Cost of Fuel Burned per Million Btu).9, If more than one fuel is burned in a plant, report the composite heat rate for all fuels burned.10.The items under Cost of Plant repre-sent accounts or combinations of accounts prescribed by the Uniform System of Ac-counts.Under Production Expenses ex-clude Purchased Power>System Control, Load Dispatch, and Other Expenses classi-fied"Other Power Supply Expenses." ll.For gas-turbine and internal com-bustion plants, report Operating Expenses (account numbers 5r98 and 5rp9)on line 21 (Electric Expenses), and Maintenance (ac-count numbers 553 and 55rt)on" line.27 (Maintenance of Electric Plant).Indicate plants designed for peak load service.Designate with an asterisk the automati" cally operated plants.12.If the respondent operates a nucle-ar power generating plant>attachp (a)a brief explanation accounting for the cost of power generated>

including any as-signment of excess costs to research and development expensesr (b)a brief expla-nation of the fuel accounting, specifying the accounting methods and types of cost units used with respect to the various components of the fuel costs>and (c)ad-ditional information as may be informa-tive concerning the type of plant, kind of fuel used>and other physical and operating qualities of the'lant.

~~0 Page%1 Form EIAX12 (6/89)Name'of Respondent 5300020260 Weshington Public Power Supply Annual Report of Public Electric Utilities This report is-t1)QQ An Orxgxnal t2)~A Resubmission Date of Report tHonth>>Day>>Year)04 30 90 Report Year Ending tHonth>>Day>>Year)06/30/1989 Y~~AY".~."%S h d l':IX'"LSteam'-'Flectric'ene'ra<<ting".Plant-'Statistics" (La'r'g'e'Plarits g44g~Q~~Q~4 1.Refer to page 10 for instructions concerning this schedule.2.Refer to the Uniform System of Ac-counts Prescribed for Public Utilities and Licensees for accounts listed below.Nuclear Plant No.2 Hanford Generating Project Line No.Iten ta)Kind of.Plant tStean>>Internal Combustion>>

Gas-Turbine>>

or Nuclear)Year Ori inall Constructed Plant Name tb).Nuclear 1972 Plant Name: tc)Nuclear Year Last Unit Nas Installed Total Haximum Generator Nane late Canaci in kN Net Peak Demand on Plant tkW for 60 Hinutes)Plant Hours Connected to Load 1 200 I 1 096.000" 6437.83 1966 0 0 Averaoe Number of Em lo ees Net Generation>>

Exclusive of Plant Use-kNh Cost of Plant: 6 034 275 I~5",~A~c~~~~~av~+W=

M~X~M>>0 Land and Land Richts t310>>320)9 975 12 Eauinnent Costs: t312-316>>322-325)Total Cost Cost/kH of Namenlate Ca acit t line 4)2 130 425 564 3 225.655.608 Structures and Imnrovements t311 321)1 095.230 044 11 7 502 48 158.605 60.116.082 70 16 17 18 Fuel t501 518)Coolants and Hater tNuclear Plants Onlv)t519)Stean Exnenses t502>>520)Gross Annual Canital Exnenditures Production E enses: Oneration S crvision and Enaineerina t500>>517)36.254.705

'2.676.272 31.283 224 2 725.918 13 134.383 k(~~4~c+:"-'Vr~KrP<,:l>i'~'<<

7.198 19 20 21 Stean Fron Other Sources Stean Transferred tCredit)Electric Exnenses t503 521)t504>>522)t505i 523)22 Hisc.Steam tNuclear')

Power Exnenses t506>>524)1 ,246,176 (152 100)23 Rents t507>>525)25 27 28 29 30 Haint.Sunervi" ion and Enaineerina t510 528)Haintenance of Structur es t511 529)Haintenance of Electric Plant t513>>531)Haint.of Hisc.Stean tNuclear)Plant t514>>532)TOTAL Production Exnenses Exnense er Net kWh tHills--2 Places)Haintenance of Boiler t Reactor)Plant t512>>530)8,573,870 73,820 8,642,425 1,816 ,662 115,397,223 278 732 133 830 Fuel: t Kind).Coal Gas": 'Oil Coal<<'Gas"Oil'1 36 Unit: tCoal-Tons of 2>>000 Lb.)tGas-Hcf)'oil-Barrels of 42 Gals.)tNuclear-Grams)Guantitv tunits)of Fuel Burned Avera e Heat Content of Fuel Burned tBtu/Lb of Coal>>per CuFt of Gas>>or pcr Gal of Oil)Average Cost of Fuel per Unit>>as Delivered F.O.B.Plant Dur ing Year.Averaae Cost of Fuel er Unit Burned Averaae Cost of Fuel Burned or Hillion Btu Ava Cost of Fuel Burned'r kNh Net Generation el buL u 1<<I'Nu lear 1n Q9'7 NA NA j C J 0 Pagq 12 Form EIA<12 (6/89)Annual Report of Public Electric Utilities Date of Report'eport Year Ending[Month>Day>Year)(Month>Day>Year)04/30/90 08/30/1989

Lar e'Plants.'ont'd-...'PN'N"~X Na'me'bf Respondent 5300020 I SO hing%on Public Power Supply This report is

(I)CQ An Original (2)~A Resubmission h 6$w~~r 4%'~4.'iSchedule',IX:%Steam-.Electnc.Generating'Plant Statistics (g ()A".s.~1.Refer to page 10 for instructions concerning this schedule.2..Refer to the Uniform System of Ac-.counts Prescribed for Public Utilities and Licensees for accounts listed below.Plant Name: (d)Plant Hamo: (e)Plant Name: tf)Iten (g)Kind of Plant (Steamp Int Cmb~Gas-Trbr Nuc)Year Constructed Year Last Unit Name late Caoacit (kH)Hat Peak Denand Plant Hours Humbar of Emolo eds Hat Generation

-kNh Cost of Plantr Land and Land Riohts ruc ra Eauioment Costs: TOTAL Cost Cost er kW Line Ho.10 12<¹cA~~~M:p.e~~.'~~~.'fS.~'r

<<~r'~Fr>A'.C<r~r~S~"~=.;".t.d~c-~e Gross Exoenditures Production Exoenses: aration Suacrvision Fuel Coolants (Nuc.Onlv)Steam Exoensas Stean Other Sources Stean Trans f orred Electric Ex enses Hisc.Stcam Exoensas Haint.Suaervision Haint.Structures Haint.Boiler Plant Maint.Electric Plant Haint.of Misc.Stean TOTAL Prod.Exoenses Exaensas/Wct kHh 15 16 17 19 20 23 24 25 28 29 30 Coal Gas Oil Coal'.Gas"~Oil Coal'as Oil.Fuel r Kind)Unit:<Tonsr Hcf, Barrels>Grans)Guantitv (Units)Fuel Average Heat Content of Fuel Burned Average Cost of Fuel per Unitr F~O.B.Avaraaa Cost Burned Averaaa Cost Btu Avaraae Co t kHh 31, 32 33 35 36 37

>I age%3 0 P~" F rm EIAP12 (6/89)>>NarrA>of Respondent 5300020180 Washingfon Public Power Supply Annual Report of Public Electric Utilities This rcport.is: (1)QD An Original (2)~A Resubmission Data of Rcport (Honth>Dsy>Year)04/30/90 Form Approved OMB No.1S0$4$2$E>>plre>: u/31'S2 Burden: 33 2 houro Report Year Ending (Honth>Dsy>Year)0(>J'30/'l 989 g&j"g'i%)N~%Sched((le"X:!(>Hydroele'ct'ric',Geneniatiiig)Plant Statistics

'a'rge'Plants)7@4@@@6%~@)p';

1.Large plants ara hydroolactric plants of 10>000 kH or more of maximum generator nameplate capacity operated by the utility.2.Indicate by an asterisk snd explain in a footnote if any plant operated under a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

If a licensed-project>give project number.Oper-ators of jointly owned plants must report 100%of thc plant)owners should not report.If the total cost of tha plants (lines 9-13)is not avail-'ble>

tha operator should rcport tha cost that is available and indicate in a footnote what costs ara not included.For line 5>if nct peak demand for 60 minutes is not available>

give that which is svsilsbla>

specifying period.Report tha average number of cmployces on tha psyro)l whose costs sra included in tha pro-duction expense, accounts (500-935)>including part time and temporary employees.

If employeets) src assigned to morc than onc generating plant>include the number of employees assignsbla basdd" on the prorated expenses.If contractor cost" ara charged to any of tha production expense accounts>footnote both tha labor cost snd the estimate of number of contractors assignable to this cost.Linc No.Item (a)Kind of Plant (Run-of-River or Storsacl Year Oricinall Constructed Year Last Unit wss Installed TOTAL Haximum Generator Nameplate Capacity in kilowatts (kH)Net Peak Demand on Plant (kH for 60 ninutc)Plant Mours Connected to Load Average Number of Emolovces Net Generation Exclusive of Plant Use-kwh Cost of Plant: FERC Licensed Project No.and Plant Nsma: Packed Lake Hydroelectri Pro ect (b)26.125 31 500 6 675 FERC Licensed Project No.snd Plant Name: (c)10 13 Land and Land Richts Structures snd Improvements Reservoirs Dsms snd Wstcrws s Ecui ment Costs Roads, Railroads>>

snd Bridges TOTAL Cost (Lines 9 thru 13)(330)(331)(332)(333-335)(336)54 776 479 3 1 906 370 41 1 2 15 16 17 Cost/kH of Nsmcolate Cscscitv (Line 4)Gross Annual Csaitsl Exccndituras Pr oduction E enscs: Ooerstion Suoarvision and Encinecrin (535)3.7GO 19 20'ater for Power Hydraulic Exoenses Electric'x cnsas (536)(537)(538)Hisc.Hydraulic Power-Generation Exo.(539)22 Rents (540)Haintananca Suocrvision 6 En inaerinc (541)24 Haintenance of Structures (542)Haint.of Reservoirs>>

Dans>>((Hate s (543)26 Haintensnca of Electric Plant (544)28 29 Haintenanca of Hisc.Hvdrsulic Plant (545)TOTAL Production Exocnsas (Lines 17 thru 27)Exoenses er Nat kwh (Hills-2 Places)4 7 age 14 orm EIA<12 (6/89)Name of Respondent

-5300020160 E ashington, Public Power Supply Annual RePort of Public Electric Utilities This report is: Il)CQ An Original I2)~A Resubmission Date of Report IHonthr Dayr Year)04/30/90 form Approved~OS18 No.1SS5.0122 fxpiree;12ar/S2 Burden, SS.2 rrouro Report Year Ending IHonthr Dayr Year)06/30/1989

&~,>2.Schedule'X Hy'dro'electr'IcrGeneratI

'g Pl" t St t t"'(L g.Pl t').(C'2j)'.,~,,z>4~~9

~pr 5.If you report rents due to a sale-leaseback arrangementr footnote the capacity Inegawatts) sold and the asset (dollars)value removed.-from the plant accounts.6.The items under Cost of Plant represent ac-counts or combinations of accounts prescribed by the Uniform System of Accounts.The items under Production Expenses do not include Purchased Power>Systen Control>Load Dispatching>

or Other Expenses classified as"Other Power Supply Ex-penses." 7.If any plant is equipped with combinations of steamr hydro>internal combustion enginer or gas turbine equipmentr report each as a separate plant.FERC Licensed Project No.and Plant Hame: N Id)FERC Licensed Project No.and Plant Name: Ie)FERC Licensed Project Ho.and Plant Hame: , N If)Item Ig)Kind of Plant Year Constructed Year Last Unit TOTAL Hameplato Capacity in kW Net Peak Demand Plant Hours Humber of E.lovees Net Generation

-kkh Line Ho.AN~-~4+('X.W 7 kR8;~~rM%+Np.W@

g~g)r S~evy>,.~<p~~Ii1rpuerrrr

-,'~i~WA-'5:-';~~+<<~rVP+

Cost of Plant: Land B Land Richts Structures Reservoirs E i ment Roadsr etc TOTAL Cost Cost/kW Gross Exoenditures Production Exoensesd Doer.Suoervision Water for Power Hvdraulic Exoenses Electric Ex enses Hisc.Exoenses Rents Haint.S ervision Haint.Structures Haint.Reservoirs Haint.Elec.Plant Haint.Hvdrl.PlantTOTAL Prod.Exo.Exoenses/Net khh 10 12 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

'age,15 Annual Report of Form EIA412 (6/Bg)Public Electric Utilities Name of Respondent Date of Report tHonth>Day>Year)4 Indicate in colmm (g)~whether thc material is aluminum conductor steel reinforced t ACCR)>aluminum (A)~copper (C)~or other lO)and thc cross-sectional ares pcr phaso in thousands of circular mils (HCH).5.Designate any transmission line or portion thereof for which tha respondent is not thc sole own-er.If such property is leased from another>give name of lessor in a footnote.6.Designate in a footnote any transmission line leased to another and give name of lessee.1.Report below information requested concerning each transmission line owned.If mora space is re-quired~use supplemental page using the colunn head-ings shown on this page.2.For column (c)~if the voltage used is differ-ent from operating~

report the difference in a ftn.3.Indicate in column (d)whether thc typo of supporting structure is: (I)single pole~wood~or steel)t2)H-framer wood>or steel poles)(3)tower>or (4)underground construction.

5300020l60 This report is: (I)QQ An Original shington Publ fc Power Supply (2)~A R ub O4/3O/gp~".~".~."'<~%~>,'~~::.',.",@Schedule'XI:%Transiii)ss)oii';L)ne'Stat)st)c's",.z~<gw~~g~g~p>gw~~~g.

Line No.From To Designation (Name of Ternina1 Station)Operating Voltage (kva)Type of Supporting Structure LENSTH (Pole Hilcs)On Structures of Linc Designated On Hatcrial Structures and of Another Size of Linc Conductor Number of lrcuIts (a)(b)tc)(d)(e)(g)(h)BPA Hanford Substa-tion E Vantage Substation 593 kv Steel 23.85 mi 1780 KN 2 Con-ASCR chu-ductors kar a Total of 6 lines on tructure.Bonneville Peer Admi istration (A)tM)s 5 and NPPSS es 1 as tailed-2 Packwood Lake Lewis County 69 kv Moodpole 2.2 NA A/0 ASCR 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 40 41 42 Page (S a Form E(AD(2 (6189)Sama'f Respondent 5300020180 ashing4on Public Po9der Supply Annual Report of Public Electric Utilities This report is: (1)CQ An Original (2)~A Resubmission Rcport Year Ending (Honth>Dayo Year)0&'30/'1989-Date of Rcport (Honth>Day>Year)04/30/90%%dnn Approvod OMB No.1999 01t9 H Bpirou: 1trt 1i'St 8urdon: 99 t houru 1"P~i~W'%'+~~%-

e'@'94'g~P/Schedule.'Xll 5Footriote" Data Y5NjY@%4'4@5%%~'Qp~~jp~i~~g?

Page Humber (a)Part Humber (b)Line Humber (c)Column Hurnber (d)Other Inca(a includes: Conuncnts (e)15 Invest)t)nt inccm.Revaluation of investnents Accretion of deferred gain on redenption of reverue bends Gain on redenption of revenue bonds Other Incane Deductions include: Aportization of Debt Nscount 8 Expense Loss on Redeaption of Reve(he Bonds Other$19,164,342 741,773 133,342 51,614$20,091,071

$2,745,832 26,752 1,918,659$4,691,243 lance Be nning of III 3 ear Adju b 60,113,560 (4,585,283)

$3-,435,391,415 The projects have no equity and, therefore, no retained earnings.Pear sales and net+illing agreat)nts Yrith the project participants aller for ccnplete recovery of project costs including debt ser'vice.The participants are billed for project costs ivith an adjustment to actual't yond.ts (Reclassification frcm prior ending balances):

Nuclear Production (320-325)$3,379,863;138 Steam Production (310-316)should be Nuclear Production (320-325)Reflect CHIP (107)as a separate line iten Revised Balance Beginning of Year b Other Production (186)Reflect U.S.Gov't Lned Facilities gross of anortization Revised Balance Beginning of Year.General Plant (389-399)Reflect ChIP (107)as a separate line item Reflect Agency Clearing Accounts allocation, gross of depreciation Revised Balance Beginning of Year$16,684,124 6,238,100$22,922,224 61 6c5 2K (1,146,321) 10,'696,165

$71,205,112 Vi 38.16 b,c,d Benefits accrued reclassified fran operation and maintenanc categories to administrative and general.10 IX 12 of ins e tions Nuclear Plant No, 2 a.The cost of, peer is eqt)al to total geriration:

Total E)~nses (pg.3, line 1)Nav Generation (pg.11, line 8)Net Cost of Parer expenses divided by the net$454,536,671 6,034,275,m 75.92 Mills/lOI Page 16b~I FOrm'EIAX12 r61ag)'ame o'f Respondent 53000201SO ington Publ fc Power SupplcI Annual Report of Public Electric Utilities This report is: rl)[X3 An Original r E)~A Resubmission Date of Report rHonthp Dayp Year)04 30/90 Fmm approved ooB lio.1~1 9 Bppdcs: 1W1:PZ Burdpm$1.2 ptovrs Report Year Ending (Honthp Dayp Year)OS/30/'1989

,~+M;5+5~C~@3@$9'4>>~ggp%psch'edu le'XI I,"Footnote Data@ggQQ4e

~~A~a%g@KCF44+Pc~v,'d@Page Humber ra)10 Part%nber rb)IX Line Humber rc)12 o ills (Con Column Humbor rd)the ctions'nued)Comments le)b.The Fuel Accounting System uses cost principles of the pLblic utility industry as given under ti;e Fe'deral Energy Regulatory Ccmmssion (FERC)Chart of Uniform Accounts.This includes record ing of the acquisition ard rranufacturing cost of fuel and anortization of the capitalized fuel cost based on heat production.

In addition to M arrortization of fuel burnup, the current peri nuclear fuel operating expense includes a charge for future spen nuclear fuel stor age and disposal to be provided by tl e Departnen of Energy.This charge is based on a'one mill per killaett hour o energy generated.

IX The Hanford Generating Project, an 860 Nte plant vhich utilize by-product steam frcm the Department of Energy's dual~se Ye Production Reactor (HPR), vas ccrrpleted in 1966 and vas in ror1ral operation through 1986.In January 1987, the HPR v)as shut doe safety irrprovar) nts.'n Febriary 1988, the Depart)rent of Energy plac the HPR on standby status for an urxhtermired length of tire eliminating the Hanford Generating Project's present energy,source.

The Supply System has ccripleted a study of alternative potm sourc to be used for continued energy generation, and further studies being conducted.

Pachaod Lake Hydroelectric Project is located in Levris County llashington and in part occupies goverrrrent lards in the Giffo Pinchot Hational Forest in the Goat Rock section of the Cascad tkmntains.

llle plant is operated under a license frcm the Federal Energy Regulatory Ccrmtission (Project No.P-2244).II

/RESPONSE TO THE SECOND ROUND OF QUESTIONS ON TOPICAL REPORT WPPSS-FTS-129 QUESTION Provide a summary of the sensitivity analysis performed on core noding for the limiting transients.

RESPONSE The dynamic response of the core in a limiting transient such as load rejection without bypass has a significant effect on the safety limits in the thermal margin calculations.

In particular, the interactions between the core thermal-'hydraulic control volumes, the heat conductors and the neutronic regions are known to influence the magnitude in power transients.

The WPPSS best-estimate model contains 12 nodes for the active core region (Reference 1 Figure 2.2).To study the sensitivity of the core noding scheme, the number of the active core regions is increased from 12 to 24 (Figure 1).The change involves dividing each thermal-hydraulic volume and heat conduction region into two equal sized volumes and regions except the top active volume and region.In the base model, the top active volume and region (Volume 62 and Heat Conductor 12)interact with three neutronic regions (Numbers 24, 25 and 26).In the sensitivity case, Volume 62 and Conductor 12 are divided into two regions, one (Volume 73 and Conductor 23)interacts with Neutronic Region 24 and the other (Volume 74 and Conductor 24)interacts with Neutronic Regions 25 and 26.Thus the top active region in the sensitivity case is twice as large as the other regions.The sensitivity case was run and the results are given in Figures 2 through 7.Since Power Ascension Test (PAT)027 simulates the load rejection which is limiting in the licensing basis model, it was selected as the case for this sensitivity study.Figure 2 gives the power versus time.Four different data points were plotted in the figure.Plant data is from the measured APRN signal in percent power.Case 001 data is the RETRAN results based on a transient initiated f rom the rated condition (same results as presented in Reference 1).Case 002 is the RETRAN results based on a transient initiated from the actual plant steady-state condition at the initiation of the test(see Reference 2).It should be noted that in Reference 2, Table 1.7-1, the system pressure for PAT 027 was mistakenly quoted as 1014.7 psia.It should be 999.7 psia.The corrected value is given in Table 1.Case 002 presented in this document reflects this correction.

Case 003 is the same as Case 002 except that the number of core nodes is increased from 12 to 24.As seen in Figure 2, the 24-node case yields essentially the same~92p31 1p371 0

results as the 12-node case.This leads to the conclusion that the 12-node core model is sufficient in yielding accurate results.Since the measured power was given in percentage, the plot is based on fraction of power rather than their absolute values.Figure 3 gives the flow for recirculation loop A.As seen from the plot, Cases 002 and 003 starts the transient at the same recirculation flow as the measured data as expected.However, Case 001 starts at the rated flow rate which is higher.Again, the 24-node case (003)yields essentially identical results as the 12-node case (002).The measured flow stayed higher initially and then converged to the calculated flow rates.As stated in Reference 2, the shape of the curves for the computed coast down flow is concave with a sharp"knee" at the time the pump is tripped while the data show a less pronounced"knee" with a more convex shape.The recirculation loop flows during pump coastdown are strong functions of the pump inertia and system characteristics.

From review and comparison with analysis done by other organizations and the data for PAT Test 030A, the shape of the calculated loop flow is more consistent with other results than are the data from PAT 027.As stated in Reference 2, the plant operations indicated that the signal was"filtered" before it was recorded.However, this data is not recoverable.

This could account for part, if not most, of the discrepancy.

The plant data and the computed results converge after about four seconds into the transient.

This is because the flow is not as sensitive to the pump inertia at the later stage of the coastdown as at the beginning.

Xnstead it is mostly determined by the system hydrodynamics.

The pump inertia uncertainty has'een included in the licensing basis model (Reference 1)through the use of a bounding (upper limit)value for the pump inertia to ensure a conservative result.Figure 4 gives the flow for recirculation loop B.The RETRAN calculated flow is identical to that in Figure 3 because of the symmetry of the two loops.The larger difference between the RETRAN calculated flow and the measured flow when compared to loop A flow is partly due to the fact that the measured flows for both loops started at about the same flow rate (see Table 1)at the initiation of the transient, but gradually deviated from each other as the transient progressed.

One of the possible causes for the asymmetrical results in the.measured flows is the instrument discrepancies between the two loops due to calibration differences and drifts.The data was taken in 1984 and it is difficult to analyze the exact cause of the asymmetrical behavior in an otherwise symmetrical test.As mentioned previously, it is>attributed to measurement and test data inaccuracies.

The RETRAN simulation of the PAT 027 was based on the two recirculation loops being symmetrical because the geometries, the operating conditions and the tripping of the pumps were all the same in the test.Again, the 24-node and 12-node models yield no differences.

Figure 5 gives the total core flow (active and bypass).The RETRAN model using the measured initial conditions simulates the Recirculation Pump Trip (RPT)reasonably well.Again, there is no difference between Cases 002 and 003.Figure 6 gives the dome pressure versus time.The RETRAN results using the measured initial conditions trace the plant data closely throughout the transient.

The difference between Case 001 (rated initial condition) and Case 002 (measured initial condition) in the pressure behavior is due to the difference in the initial pressure and its effect on the rest of the transient.

In Case 001, higher initial pressure results in higher peak pressure exceeding the pressure setpoint (1091 psia)for Group 1 safety and relief valves (SRVs)causing the dome pressure to turn around faster than the case without Group 1 SRV opening as in Cases 002 and 003.As stated in the Topical Report, there was an indication that one SRV cycled repeatedly.

This sensitivity study indicates that the peak pressure is very close to the pressure setpoint for the SRV opening, supporting the observation in the actual test.The 24-node case yield the same results as the 12-node case.Figure 7 shows the steam flow behavior.As indicated, the change between the three sensitivity cases are small.It should be noted that the RETRAN version used here is the MOD5UEM version written for UNIX-based workstations.

This version (MOD5UEM)went through the Supply System's"Program Validation and Verification" process according to the NRC-approved QC procedure as documented in Chapter 17 of the WNP-2 FSAR.Appendix A gives a summary of the validation and verification performed on Version MOD5UEM.In summary, the sensitivity study on the core noding found that the 12-node core model yields essentially the same results as those from a 24-node model, supporting the use of the current 12-node model as the base model for transient analysis.

QUESTION 2: Provide justification for using a single nodalization scheme for all of the transients instead of different nodalization schemes for different transients.

RESPONSE: There are five basic types of transient analysis to consider: (a)decrease in reactor coolant temperature, (b)increase in reactor pressure, (c)decrease in reactor coolant flow rate, (d)increase in reactor coolant inventory, and (e)increase in reactor coolant flow.(a)decrease in reactor coolant temperature Events that directly decrease the reactor coolant temperature are those that either increase the flow of cold water or reduce the temperature of water being delivered to the reactor vessel.Reducing the reactor coolant temperature increases core reactivity, which in turn increases core power.The resulting negative moderator void reactivity shifts power towards the bottom of the core.These changes will lead to a new steady-state power level.Sufficiently high levels of thermal power or neutron flux will cause a scram.Events in this category include: (1)loss of feedwater heating, (2)inadvertent high pressure core spray startup and (3)inadvertent residual heat removal shutdown cooling operation.

Even though for a typical reload design for WNP-2, these transients are not limiting in setting the operating thermal limits, the neutronics and fluid transport models and the feedwater control systems must be modeled correctly.

The core noding scheme in the base model (12-node model as described in Reference 1)is adequate for this type of transients.

An important phenomenon in a thermally limited transient is the power increase due to void collapse.From the responses to Questions 1 and 9, one finds that the 12-node model gives either a converged or a slightly conservative result in the void prediction and the feedback calculation for core power for the most limiting transient (load rejection) when compared to the 24-node model.For the type of transients where there is a decrease in coolant temperature, the phenomenon of power increase is similar to load rejection but not as severe.Therefore, the 12-node model is also adequate for this type of transients.

With regard to the steam line noding, Reference 2 provides a detailed discussion on its sensitivity to the system behavior.The number of nodes were increased from 7 to 10 and then to 13 for the limiting transient of load rejection.

The results indicate that the base model of 7 steam line nodes gives a slightly conservative result in terms of the thermal limit in hCPR (see Table 2).

Transients with decreases in reactor coolant temperature typically result in less severe pressurization in the steam lines.Therefore the 7-node model is adequate for these transients as well.Further analysis performed supports the use of the base model in this type of transients.

A transient analysis performed for the topical report (Reference 1)is the feedwater controller failure transient.

Even though this transient is not one of the three listed above, it is investigated here because it is to a degree similar to a transient with reduction in coolant temperature and it has a potential of becoming the limiting transient in determining the thermal limits.The sudden increase in the feedwater flow rate causes the core inlet temperature to drop.Figure 8 shows the RETRAN calculated axial power shift towards the bottom as the colder water enters the core consistent with the description of the behavior in this category of transients.

Other results were presented in Section 4.3 in Reference 1.Even though this calculation is based on the licensing basis model, the noding scheme is identical to the best-estimate model.The power shift would be more profound if there is an actual temperature reduction in addition to the flow rate increase.Nevertheless, it provides additional evidence that the neutronic and thermal-hydraulic modeling and their interactions are correctly modeled.ln the same analysis, the results as presented in Reference 1 (which is for Cycle 4 core)showed that the transient behaved in a similar way as documented in WNP-2 FSAR, which is for the initial core, providing support that other systems, such as high water level trip logic, scram control system, recirculation pump trip, SRV opening and closing are modeled correctly.

ln addition, from the power ascension test for water level setpoint change (PAT 23A)as given in Reference 1, the feedwater control system is verified through comparison with the plant data.(b)increase in reactor pressure Events that increase reactor pressure significantly are usually initiated by a sudden reduction in steam flow.The increased pressure collapses the voids in the core, which increases core reactivity.

This causes an increase in the core power level, which further increases core pressure.A scram will terminate this event.Safety analysis events in this category include: (1)digital-electric-hydraulic (DEH)pressure regulator failure in the closed position, (2)generator load rejection, (3)turbine trip, (4)closure of the main-steam-line isolation valve, and (5)loss of the condenser vacuum.Among the above events, the generator load rejection is typically most limiting in determining the thermal limits.RETRAN simulation of the load rejection test, (PAT 027)as given in Reference 1 and in response to Question 1 in this document and the sensitivity V I analyses on the steam line noding and core noding (see Reference 2 and Question 1)on this transient indicate that the RETRAN model can adequately simulate this category of transients.

Particularly significant is the fact that.the PAT 027 simulation yields a pressure history which matches the plant data closely (see Figure 6).This is significant because the pressure behavior is important in predicting the power increases in this kind of transients.

The capability of the model in predicting the scram worth correctly is verified through the close match of the RETRAN calculated power with the measured data after scram in PAT 027 (see Figure 2).(c)decrease in reactor coolant flow rate Events that reduce recirculation flow also reduce the reactor coolant flow rate,'which increases core voids and decreases core reactivity.

The decrease in reactor coolant flow increases the water level because of the swelling of moderator voids.The increase in core voids decreases the power level.Events in this category include: (1)recirculation pump trip (RPT), (2)recirculation flow control failure in the decreasing flow position.Because of the nature of this types of transients that limits the increase of power, they are not limiting in setting the operating limit minimum critical power ratios (OLMCPR).The base model is adequate for this type of transient because the 12-node core model=has been demonstrated to be adequate or conservative for a transient with a larger void feedback and power increase (see Question 1)and the 7-node steam line model has been demonstrated to be adequate or conservative for a transient with a larger pressurization (cf.Table 2 and Reference 2 Questions 1.1).The RETRAN base model has been further verified to, correctly calculate this type of transients as a part of a PAT 027 simulation, i.e., the RPT sequence.In the load rejection test, the turbine control valve closure initiates the recirculation pump trip which contributes to the power decrease.Figures 3 and 4 show the plant data comparison with the RETRAN simulation.

As discussed in Response to Question 1 and in References 1 and 2, the capability of the model in predicting the recirculation loop flow was verified.More importantly, the capability in predicting the core flow as a consequence of the RPT is verified by comparing the calculated core flow with the plant data as shown in Figure 5.Core flow is the one of the key parameters in determining the core power.(d)increase in reactor coolant inventory Events that lead to a feedwater flow rate higher than the steam production rate increase the amount of water (coolant inventory) in the reactor vessel, and may initiate a turbine and feedwater trip ti on high water level.A turbine trip will, in turn, result in increased core pressure, with a concomitant void collapse and reactivity increase.The resulting increase in power level will be terminated by the reactor scram initiated by the turbine trip.The one event in this category is the feedwater controller failure.In the early stages of the feedwater controller failure transient, the system behavior is relatively mild.The rate of power increase due to the reduction of the void is slow.The sensitivity on the core and steam line noding is small.Thus, the base model with 12-node core and 7-node steam line is adequate.As the water level increases to the trip setpoint, the turbine trip will set off a series of responses that follow closely a load rejection pressurization event.Since the pressurization.

is not expected to be as severe as the load rejection (see Reference 1 Section 4), the sensitivity study performed on the core and steam line noding for load rejection is valid for the feedwater controller failure also.Therefore, the base model with 12-node core and 7-node steam line is adequate.Even though no Power Ascension Test data were available for this type of transients, a simulation of the feedwater controller failure transient using the licensing basis model was presented in Reference 1 (Section 4.3 of Reference 1).The transient sequence of events does follow the scenario described above.Particularly, the sequence of the events after the turbine trip on high water level follows essentially those for the load rejection which have been verified separately through the PAT 027 simulation as discussed above.In addition to the qualitative statement based on the feedwater controller failure simulation, quantitative comparisons can be made in regard to the key parameters in this type of transient.

One of the parameters is the water level.PAT 23A (Water Level Setpoint Change)data comparison as presented in Section 3.1.1 in Reference 1 leads to the conclusion that the base model can predict, the water level with reasonable accuracy.When the setpoint was changed to 6 inches higher, the model responded to that amount when the new water level was established (Figure 3.1.2 of Reference 1).Other calculations show that the RETRAN model generally yields conservative water level calculations (see Response to Question 6).(e)increase in reactor coolant flow Events that increase recirculation flow also increase the reactor coolant flow rate, which decreases coolant temperature and voids.These changes cause an increase in core reactivity and power level.A slow increase in coolant flow may lead to a new steady-state operating condition, which can be terminated by operator action.A rapid increase will initiate a scram on high neutron flux.Events in this category include: (1)recirculation flow control failure in the increasing flow position, (2)startup of an idle recirculation pump.This type of transients are typically milder than a pressurization transients such as load rejection, but the determining phenomenon is the same, i.e., a power increase due to a decrease in void (see below for a detailed case analysis).

Therefore, the sensitivity performed on core and steam line noding for the load rejection case (see Table 2 and References 1 and 2)applies to this types of transient and the base model with 12 core nodes and 7 steam line nodes is adequate.I Even though these types of transients are typically nonlimiting, a RETRAN simulation of the recirculation pump control failure in the increasing flow position was performed to verify the capability of the WNP-2 RETRAN model.Because plant data are not readily available for this transient, no attempt was made to compare the RETRAN results with measured data.This simulation is performed to show the reasonableness of the model.Because of the mild nature of the transient, the simulation is based on the best-estimate model using point kinetics.At the rated condition, the valve stem openings for the recirculation flow control valves are at 84%of full opening position for both loops.Using the maximum valve stroke rate of 114 per second (Reference 3 Section 15.4.5), the valves are simulated to reach full open position in 1.455 seconds.Figures 9 and 10 show the recirculation flows for loops A and B.As in Response to Question 1, the RETRAN code simulated a symmetrical behavior for both loops as expected.Figure 11 gives the total core flow which follows the recirculation pump flow closely.As the core flow increases, the void fraction decreases.

This is shown in Figures 12 and 13.The void collapsing leads to a power increase as shown in Figure 14.This increased power tends to increase the void fractions, which will in turn slow the increase in core power.As the recirculation flow stabilizes at a new level, the core power and the void fractions will reach a new steady state as shown by the plotted results.The simulation of the recirculation flow control failure transient indicates that the.WNP-2 RETRAN model has the capability of analyzing the transients with increasing core flow rates.

QUESTION 3 Redo RETRAN simulation for PAT Tests 30A and 027 using the actual plant initial conditions instead of the rated conditions and discuss the impact of the changes.The RETRAN code used should have the correction on recirculation pump flow symmetry.In addition, the results should be compared to, the plant data in a non-normalized form.RESPONSE PAT 30A and 027 were recalculated using the plant initial conditions instead of the rated conditions as reported in the Topical Report (Reference 1).As stated in the response to Question 1, the IBM RISC6000 version of the RETRAN code was used in these analyses.The results for PAT 027 have been presented in the response to Question 1 when the core noding sensitivity issue was addressed.

Test PAT 30A was initiated by tripping one recirculation pump.The RETRAN simulation was initiated by introducing a recirculation pump trip in Recirculation Loop A at.time zero.The point-kinetics base model as given in the RETRAN topical report (Reference 1)was used except that the initial conditions were changed to the measured conditions as given in Table 1.Figures 15 through 20 give the results of the simulation.

All plots are done in a non-normalized fashion except the power and heat flux.The measured data for these two parameters were given in fractions of rated values.Both the results for the rated conditions (designated Case 001 in the plots)and the actual plant conditions (designated Case 002)are given in the plots.Figure 15 shows the recirculation drive flow for the tripped loop (Loop A).The effect of using the actual plant condition on the flow coastdown is not significant.

Figure 16 shows the recirculation drive flow for the unaffected loop (Loop B).As seen, the revised calculation follows the measured plant data more closely than that at rated conditions.

Figures 17 and 18 show the jet pump flows (sum of driving and suction flows)for Loops A and B respectively.

The behaviors are very similar to the recirculation.

flow comparisons.

The revised calculation for the unaffected loop gives,a closer comparison with the plant data.The coast down rates for the tripped loop for Cases 001 and 002 (Figure 17)are slightly different.

Case 002 gives a slower coast down rate than Case 001.The difference is mainly caused by the differences in the driving flows as shown in Figure 15.If the two RETRAN curves in Figure 15 are normalized so that they start at the same value, the Case 002 curve will show a slower coast down, rate than Case 001.As the driving flow increases or decreases, the suction flow will also increase or decrease.Thus, the total flow through the jet pump will follow the driving flow closely.The difference in the driving flows is caused by the lower initial driving flow in Case 002.From Table 1, the measured driving flows (i.e., recirculation pump flows)for Loops A and B are 4430.0 and 4335.0 lb/sec, respectively:

They are lower than the rated flow of 4527.78 lb/sec.Therefore, as one loop trips, the lower initial flow (for Case 002)i,n the unaffected loop will result in a slightly less resistance'n the affected loop than the case where the unaffected loop has higher flow (Case 001).This will cause the rate of decrease of the affected loop flow in Case 002 to be lower (i.e., slower coast down)as evidenced in Figure 15.As explained above, the suction flow in the jet pump varies directly with the driving flow.Therefore the jet pump flow, which is the sum of the driving and suction flows, for Case 002 also indicates a slower coast down in Figure 17.Figure 19 indicates that the effect of changing the initial conditions is small on the core power calculations.

This is also true for the core average heat flux as evidenced in Figure 20.In summary, using the measured plant data at the initiation of the transient for PAT 30A generally gives a better comparison with the plant data throughout the transient.

The effects on key parameters such as power and heat flux are small.The same conclusion is also true for PAT 027 (see Question 1).

QUESTION 4 Zn support of using the non-equilibrium model in the upper downcomer, perform a Peach Bottom turbine trip analysis using the equilibrium model and compare the power history with both the non-equilibrium model and the measured data.RESPONSE Two simulations of the Peach Bottom turbine trip test TT1 were performed.

A full description of the model is provided in Reference 1.In one simulation, thermodynamic equilibrium between phases was assumed for the upper downcomer control volume, while the other simulation used a non-equilibrium model for the upper downcomer control volume.The predictions for steam dome pressure and core neutron power, along with the measured data, are shown in Figures 21 and 22.As discussed in Reference 2, the non-equilibrium model allows the existence of superheated steam in the upper downcomer region, producing higher dome and vessel pressures than the equilibrium model, leading to a larger void collapse-and higher core power.In Figure 21, the non-equilibrium model gives the dome pressure which is in better agreement with the measured data than the equilibrium model for the time period when the pressure reaches its maximum value.Matching the peak pressure is important in a potentially limiting transient such as turbine trip.because it determines the total amount of reactivity increase that will be introduced into the core due to void decrease.The non-equilibrium model slightly overpredicts the measured peak pressure.The pressure behavior is largely reflected in the neutron power comparisons as shown in Figure 22.Due to the higher pressure, the non-equilibrium model results in a slightly higher peak power.However, it follows the measured data more closely than the equilibrium model.The slight overprediction in neutron power provides a conservative hCPR.

QUESTION 5 In RETRAN steady-state initialization, what are the key parameters that influence the transient results and how do they match the plant data?If the plant data is not consistent (within instrument accuracy), which parameters are keyed upon for model steady-state initialization and why?RESPONSE The key parameters in RETRAN steady-state initialization that will influence the transient results are the initial power level, the system pressure, the steam and feedwater flow rates, the total core flow, the water level and the recirculation flow.Table 1 gives a list of key parameters and their values for the four Power Ascension Tests analyzed in Reference 1.Another important parameter that is not measured directly is the core inlet enthaply.This parameter is obtained through a standard loop heat balance calculation using other key parameters such as those listed above and input to RETRAN.It is apparent that the RETRAN calculated results from the initialization process will not match every data that are printed out by the Plant Process Computer.However, as explained above, the important parameters affecting the thermal limits are the ones given in Table 1.Therefore, the RETRAN initialization process is keyed to these parameters.

For the Power Ascension Test Cases, the input to RETRAN all resulted in an initialization that matched these parameters to within the instrument accuracy.If we look at Table 1, the measured flow rates for the feedwater and steam are different.

By definition, these flow rates should be equal if a true steady state exits.The difference in measured flow could be due to the differences in instruments, calibration, drift or due to fluctuations from the true steady state.The RETRAN initialization will force the equalization by taking the average of the two measured flow as the initial conditions.

The same is true for the recirculation pump flows for Loops A and B.It should be noted that the initialization process is not sensitive to the initial water level input to the RETRAN.This means that RETRAN can match the measured water level at the start of the transient without upsetting other parameters.

The question of the consistency of measured plant data used in the RETRAN initialization may also be addressed by looking at the comparisons of the RETRAN results with the plant data and with the initialization performed at the rated conditions.

In response to Question 1, comparisons were made between the RETRAN results using the rated initial conditions and the measured initial conditions.

From Figure 7, the rated initial steam flow is larger than the measured steam flow.This higher initial flow causes slightly larger increase in dome pressure as seen in Figure 6.In addition,

Figure 6 indicates that the SRV operation depends on the initial pressure as discussed in Response to Question 1.This observation is consistent with what one would expect if the plant were running at the rated condition at the time of PAT 027 initiation.

Through the comparison of measured data and RETRAN calculations as presented in Responses to Questions 1 and 3 for PAT 027 and 30A, it is realized that by using the measured conditions as the basis for steady-state initialization (i.e., data in Table 1), the RETRAN calculations reached true steady state with converged loop heat and mass balance and the subsequent transient behavior matched the plant data closely, similar to the cases where the calculations were based on an initialization at the rated conditions, which by definition are within a consistent set.of parameters.

This gives an indication that the key parameters as measured at the initiation of the PAT tests for Tests 027 and 30A (see Table 1)have the same degree of consistency as those at the rated conditions and the RETRAN initialization process is properly set up.

0 QUESTION 6 Discuss the impact of the discrepancies in water level predictions such as given in response to Question 1.6 in Reference 2 on transient results.RESPONSE Based on the Supply System reload methodology applied to Cycle 4, the limiting transient is the load rejection without bypass (Reference 4).This transient trips on the loss of generator load, not on the water level.Therefore, there is no impact in determining the operating limit MCPR.Another less limiting transient which could potentially become limiting is the feedwater controller failure, which initiates a main turbine trip based on water level and a subsequent control rod scram.To verify that RETRAN model yields reasonable results in water level, a comparison of the RETRAN calculation for the feedwater controller failure transient with the reload vendor's calculation is made.The licensing basis model as discussed in Reference 1 was used for the RETRAN analysis because that was the model basis used by the reload vendor (Reference 5), even though a different code (COTRANSA2) was used.In addition, since the vendor's results for water level for cycle 4 were not available, COTRANSA2 analysis for Cycle 7 was used in the comparison.

The impact of different cycles is small because the fuel designs are essentially identical (i.e., they are identical with regard to the key parameters used in the RETRAN simulation) and both licensing models use the same bounding conditions.

Figure 23 shows the plot of the water levels calculated by RETRAN and by Siemens Nuclear Power Corp.(Reference 5).From the figure, it is seen that the WNP-2 RETRAN model predicts a water level lower than that predicted by the vendor.This is conservative because lower water level would delay the main turbine trip on high water level leading to the initiation of the vessel pressurization at a higher power level.It will also delay the time to scram, resulting in further conservatism.

To confirm the conservatism of the delayed turbine trip, a sensitivity case with an earlier trip of the main turbine was performed.

In this study, the turbine and feedwater pumps are forced to trip at the time when the water level as predicted by the vendor reached Level 8.From Figure 23, the time when the vendor-calculated water level reaches Level 8 is about 17.5 seconds.Using this time instead of the 23.4 seconds in the original RETRAN calculation for the turbine and feedwater trips, the transient was recalculated.

The peak power and the peak core average heat flux are compared below.

Peak Power (4NBR)Peak Heat Flux (+oNBR)Trips at 17.5 seconds Trips at 23.4 seconds 239.9 242.2 120.2 121.4 From the above comparison, the case with delayed trips will result in a more limiting condition in terms of thermal limits because of the higher core peak heat flux.Xt should be noted that the result of the RETRAN calculation is different from that given in Figure 4.3.3 in Reference 1.This is because in Reference 1, the feedwater flow rate was assumed to have a"step" change from 1004 NBR to 146%NBR (Figure 4.3.1 of Reference 1)which is the most limiting condition.

Xn the analysis performed here, a slightly slower flow ramp rate used by the vendor is incorporated to allow a meaningful comparison.

Xn addition, the vendor results in Reference 5 had to be shifted because they were presented as the level above the separator skirt whereas the RETRAN model gives the level above the"instrument zero".

QUESTION 7 Explain the feedwater flow behavior at 24 seconds into the transient for PAT 023 (i.e, cross-over of the measured data and calculated results, see Figure 3.1.1 of Reference 1)given the water level trend in Figure 3.1.2.RESPONSE A study of Figure 3.1.1 and Figure 3.1.2 indicates that the RETRAN results in feedwater flow and water level changes are more consistent than the measured data.The feedwater flow as calculated by RETRAN starts to level off at about the time when the water level approaches a new steady state.The measured feedwater flow, however, continues to decrease after the water level has already reached a steady state at about 24 seconds.This flow decrease causes a cross over between measured and calculated feedwater flow.The cause for the inconsistency between the measured feedwater flow and the measured water level can be several.Events such as the initiation of the high pressure injection system or reactor core isolation cooling system would lead to a situation of continuing feedwater decrease while keeping water level constant.The exact cause of the inconsistency is difficult to identify because the test was performed in 1984 and not all of the data are available.

QUESTION 8 Xn response to Question 1.1(ii)in Reference 1, the algebraic slip model was verified using steady state data, justify the model for transient applications.

RESPONSE For transient applications, it is important to correctly account for the reactivity effects due to changes in void fraction.As reported in section 3.2 of Reference 1, the calculated power and reactivity for Peach Bottom turbine trip tests agree well with the measured data.The calculated results are slightly on the conservative side in terms of the peak and integrated power (Table 3.2.4 through 3.2.7 in Reference 1).This indicates that the algebraic slip model in the subcooled void modelling is adequate for predicting void fraction changes for transient applications.

QUESTION 9 What areas of RETRAN sensitivity studies are covered in the Applications Topical that are related to the RETRAN Topical Report (WPPSS-FTS-129)?

RESPONSE The Applications Topical (Reference 4)covers the entire spectrum of the reload analysis methodology beginning with the reference core design, including the selection and the safety analysis of the limiting events.These analyses provide the bases for any changes in core operating limits or technical specifications.

The Applications Topical Report was submitted to the NRC in October 1991 for approval in licensing applications.

As part of the safety analysis methodology, the WNP-2 RETRAN model as described in WPPSS-FTS-129 was used to analyze certain limiting transients that involve system functions, such as load rejection without bypass and feedwater controller failure.As presented in the Applications Topical, the load rejection without bypass transient (LRNB)was selected for detailed sensitivity analysis because it was the most limiting transient for the reference core (Cycle 4)analyzed for WNP-2.A total of 28 cases were studied.The results in terms of the change in RCPR (ratio of h,CPR to initial CPR)are presented in Section 5 of the Topical.The same table is reproduced here (Table 2)with the percent changes in peak core power, peak core average heat flux, and peak dome pressure added to give an indication of the range of sensitivity parameters covered in the study.It should be pointed out that the studies performed for the Applications Topical both provide a sensitivity of the effects of different parameters on the model, and the contributing values of hRCPR from each parameter used to calculate the combined uncertainties in hCPR as part of the Statistical Combination of Uncertainties Methodology in determining the final OLMCPR for a given cycle.It should be noted that the case on core noding (last case in Table 2)shows a change of-10.54 in peak power when the number of core nodes is changed from 12 to 24 during the LRNB.This is significantly more sensitive than that for PAT 027 (Response to Question 1).This is due to the severity of the transients simulated.

In the LRNB transient, conservative operating parameters were deliberately selected to cause the plant to become supercritical for a short period of time (about 0.5 sec)due to an increase in reactivity.

The magnitude of the reactivity increase is highly sensitive to the change in void fractions.

Thus, a small change in void will lead to a large change in reactivity, thus in core power.This phenomenon is not nearly as profound for the case of PAT 027 where the reactivity never became positive.

The above observation is supported by the void fraction comparisons for the LRNB transient as given below.The void fractions are taken at 1.0 second into the transient which is close to the time of peak power (0.9 second).It is seen that the sensitivity on void fraction per se is significantly lower than that on the core power.Comparison of the Void Fractions for 12-and 24-Node Models for LRNB Transient 12-Node 24-Node 0 Difference

.Mid-Core Core Exit 0.455 0.682+0.463**0.685" 1.8 0.4*Void fraction for,Vol.57 (See Reference 1)**Volume averaged void fraction for Vol.63 and 64 (see Figure 1)+Void fraction for Vol.62 (see Reference 1)++Volume averaged void fraction for Vol.73 and 74 (see Figure 1)It is further supported by the sensitivity results in the heat flux (-1.894)and the dome pressure (-0.074)as presented in Table 2, which have a secondary effect as a result of the slight change in voids.Even with higher power sensitivity for the LRNB transient, the 12-node model yielded a-conservative result in terms of peak power and hRCPR.Some of the parametric studies were performed to quantify the CPRs under a new condition which is independent of the base model, and thus were not considered, as part of the sensitivity study to quantify the RETRAN model uncertainty.

These are: (1)initial core flow at 1064 NBR, (2)no RPT, and the combination of (1)and (2).Since the main purpose of the RETRAN sensitivity analysis in the Applications Topical Report, is to establish the model uncertainties for the licensing basis model, bounding values were used for the uncertainties of the parameters leading to conservative results in terms of hRCPR.

REFERENCES 2.3~4~5.6.Y.Y.Yung et al,"BWR Transient Analysis Model", WPPSS-FTS-129, Rev.l, Washington Public Power Supply System, Sept.1990.Letter, G.C.Sorensen (WPPSS)to U.S.NRC"Nuclear Plant No.2, Operating License NPF-21 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Topical Report WPPSS-FTS-129,"BWR Transient Analysis Model" (TAC No.77048)", G02-91-134, Washington Public Power Supply System, July 15, 1991.Washington Public Power Supply System FSAR, Amendment 43, 1991 S.H.Bian el al,"Applications Topical Report for BWR Design and Analysis", WPPSS-FTS-131, Washington Public Power Supply System, Sept.1991 M.E.Garrett et al,"WNP-2 Cycle 7 Plant Transient Analysis", ANF-91-01, Rev.l, Siemens Nuclear Power Corp., April 1991 C.E.Peterson et al,"RETRAN02-A Program for Transient Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Complex Fluid Flow Systems, Volume 3: User's Manual (Revision 4)", NP-1850-CCM-A, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, November 1988.7.C.E.Peterson et al.,"RETRAN02-A Program for Transient Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Complex Fluid Flow Systems, Volume 4: Applications", NP-1850-CCM, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, January 1983.

TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF RETRAN INITIAL CONDITIONS TO WNP-2 POWER ASCENSION TEST'NITIAL CONDITIONS Parameter System Pressure (psia)Total Feedwater Flow (lb/sec)Total Steam Flow (lb/sec)Recirc.Pump A Flow (lb/sec)Recirc.Pump B Flow (lb/sec)Normalized Power RETRAN-02 Initial Conditions 1,015.00 3,970.97 3,970.97 4,527.78 4,527.78 1.0 PAT Test 023A 1,010.0 3,638.9 3,666.7 4,444.4 4,444.4 0.951 PAT Test 022 1,004.2 3,710.6 3,737.5 4, 104.7 4,000.1.975 PAT Test 030A 1,003.6 3,694.4 N/A 4,430.0 4,335.0 0.962 PAT Test 027 999.7 3,788.8 3,811.1 4,169.08 4,208.7 0.975 Water Level (in)Total Core Flow (lb/sec)36.05 30, 138.8 37.0 29,166.7 36.20 28,903.2 32.78 30, 166.7 36.49 28,744.4 TABLE 2 Results of Generator Load Rejection Without Bypass Sensitivity Studies Percent Change Peak Core Power Peak Heat Flux Peak Dome Press.hRCPR Nuclear Model Parameters Void Coefficient

(+134)Doppler (-104)Prompt Moderator Heating (-25%)Scram Reactivity

(-10%)I Scram Speed (normal scram time)Core Thermal Hydraulics Parameters Code Correlation (kappal+0.20)

Code Correlation (CGL+30~)Code Correlation (CDB+20%)Code Correlation (CHN+20%)Initial Core Flow at 106%Initial Core Flow at 1060, no RPT Core Pressure Loss Coefficients

(-20%)Initial Core Bypass Flow (-20%)Fuel Pin Radial Nodes (+50>)Core Power (+44)Recirculation System Parameters Recirculation Loop Inertia (+100%)Recirculation Pump Head (-10%)Jet Pump Inertia (+100%)+4.1+3.5+8.9-0.19-14.4+1.6+2.0+0.83+0.44+7.80+48.5-0.88+0.19+1.78+3.51+5.26+2.17+6.43+2.3+0.77+2.6+0.68-5.6-0.23+0.37+0.23+0.08+1.51+9.46-0.08+0.08-0.23+4.77+l.14+0.45+1.29+0.13+0.09-0.47-0.09+0.03+0.02+0.0-0.02+0.39+0.0+0.0+0.03+0.60+0.06+0.03+0.07+0.018+0.005+0.013+0.004-0.045+0.001+0.003+0.001+0.001+0.014+0.056-0.002+0.003+0.004+0.003+0.007+0.003+0.008 TABLE 2 Cont.Separator Liquid Outlet Inertia (+100~)Separator Inlet Inertia (-30%)Jet Pump Loss Coefficient

(-20%)No RPT+1.32+14.9+4.29+36.0+0.23+0.98+0.68+8.10+0.03+0.04+0.03+0.46+0.001+0.003+0.004+0.040 Steam Line Model Parameters Steam Line Inertia (+7%)Pressure Loss Coefficient

(-20O)Vessel and Loop Geometry Parameters Vessel Dome Volume (-5%)Steam Line Volume (-5:)Steam Line Noding (7~13)Active Core Noding (12~24)+l.85+3.14+3.46+0.73+0.41-10.5+0.76+0.91+0.83-0.15-0.38-1.89+0.08+0.20+0.14+0.08+0.02-0.07+0.007+0.007+0.005-0.002-0.003-0.011 MNP-2 RETRAH MODEL ACTIVE CORE REGION (2%NODES)Core outlet I 2$I I I I I I 23I]8 5 73 73 XX Volume Number 22 I]I I I I 28I I I 72 71 71 22 78 78 2]gg Junction Number I I I I I I I I I Hest Conductor Number nn Neutron]cs Region Number I]9I I I]S 1 7 16 I I I I I]']I I I I 1 I I I 12'I 66 65 17 16 63 63 62 62 69 69 69 67 lS ll i I I 61 12 18 I I I I 9 I S I I I 6 I I I I 5 I I I I 3 I I I I 2 I I I I I Core Inlet 68 59 59 59 ss 9 57 56 56 7 55 55 5W 5~53 53 52 2 51 0 Figure 1 POHER-PAT TEST 027+PLAHE OATA X CASE 001 CISE 002 0 CASE 003 K UJ 3: 0 Q.0 Oj N W Z QO z O 0'IME, SEC Figure 2 O O n RRC FLOW A (JUN 20$)-PAT TEST 027+PLAHL OLLA X CASE 00L CASE 002 p CASE 00S O LIL M Z IO JO X 0 LL.O O 0 0 TIME, SEC Figure 3 RRC FLOW 8 (JUN 208)-PAT TEST 027 PLANT OITA X CISE OOI CISE 003 D CISE 003 U TLT TT)X IO JO 0 b.0 O O T ITIVE, SEC Figure 4

TOTAL CORE FLOW (JUN 3 6 20)-PAT 027 PLANK OAT A X CASE 001 CASE 002 p CASE 003 O O O O CO U lU M Z (D I I Oo Uo<c O O O O 0 T I HE.SEC Figure 5 OOME PRESSURE (VOL.i6)-PAT TEST 027+PJ.ANY OAJA)(CASE 00J CASE 002 p CASE 003 T I HE.SEC Figure 6 O O O n STEAM FLOIS (JUN.330J-PAT TEST 027 PLANT OAZA CASE 00)CASE 002 p CASE 003 O lU Ul Z~O JO 0 b.O O O 0 TIME, SEC Figure 7 0.06 WNP-2 FEEDWATER CONTROLLER FAILURE AXIAL POWER SHAPE 0 SEC 0.05 15 SEC 0.04 0 CI~~0.03 K 0 0.02 I I I I I 0.01 20 40 60 80 100 120 AXIAL DISTANCE (INCHES FROM BOTTOM)Figure 8 140 160 P

RECIRC FLON LOOP A-RFCF U lU Vl Z z Oo JO 4.~O a A r 0 8 TIME (SEC)Figure 9

REC IRC FLOtd LOOP 8-RFCF RECIRC LOOP 8 U UJ M E 6)a O A 0 T IHE (SEC)l6 Figure 10 TOTAL CORE FLOW-RFCF O Ill M X 03 X 0 U.O O O O A 6 TIME (SEC)Figure 11 t

VOIO FRACTION (MIO-COREj

-RFCF VOIO FAAC VtN..56 Z 0 M I-0+o Q:e<o 0 0 TIME (SEC)Figure 12

'lJ'OIO FRACTION (CORE EXIT)-RFCF ValO CRAG VOL.62 Z O I-O<o O W 0 0 0 8 T IHE (SEC)$6 Figure 13 RFCF CORE POWER POWER I-z X O IIJ 3 0 Q.O O O Pl 0 B T IHE tSEC)Figure 14 RECIRC FLOW PUMP A-PAT TEST 030A+PLANT OATA X CASE 001 CASE 002 O W OT F z Qo Joo ll.tV TINE.SEC Figure 15 RECIRC FLOW PUMP 8-PAT TEST 030A PLINTOIfI)(CISE 00$CISE 002$$$Vl E$DO JO 3: 0$$.O 0$2 TIME.SEC 24 Figure 16 JET PUMP A FLOW (JUN.i)-PAT TEST 030A PLANt OAtA g CASK 00t g CASE 002 O ltt 0)E ID Qo-tooo h.a o o o CU 0 t2 TINE, SFC 24 Figure 17 JET PUMP 8 FLOW (JUN.2)-PAT TEST 030A+PLANT OATA)(CASE'01 CASE'02 T2 TIME.SEC 24 Figure 18

POHER-PAT TEST 030A PLANT OA'TA)(CASE 00T CASE 002 0 lU N'KIO E OO 2 O 0!2 TIME.SEC 2A Figure 19 CORE I-IEAT FLUX-PAT TEST 030A PLAMf OATA CASE 001 CASE 002 TIME.SEC Figure 20

~.~~~~~~~k 1 0~~r 0

~~~~~I I~~~~~~N O LIGUIO LEVEL-WNP-2 FWCF LBM CASE 002 llJ+n 0 M G H O to ()TINE (SEC)Figure 23 APPENDIX A VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF IBM RISC6000 VERSION OF RETRAN (RETRAN02 MOD5UEM)Version MOD5UEM is basically an adaptation of RETRAN02 MOD005.0, which has received NRC approval, to UNIX-based workstations.

In the RETRAN-02 MOD005.0 code, the source code is written in FORTRAN 77 and the routines in the environmental library are written in FORTRAN and assembly or machine language code.The integer variables in the FTB arrays are single precision vectors that are set equivalent to real variabl'es in the FTB files.This code compiles directly on CDC computers that have a 60-bit word structure.

On IBM mainframe computers, the RETRAN coding is treated as a double precision code to overcome the limitations of inaccuracy due to arithmetic round-off associated with single precision, 32-bit words.This double precision version is obtained by invoking the"autodbl" option of the IBM FORTRAN 77 compiler.This feature elevates data constants to double precision, selects the double precision form for intrinsic functions, and provides automatic padding of the integer variables in the FTB arrays so that word alignment problems are not encountered.

The RETRAN-03 computer program was under development in 1989 and that code was written totally in FORTRAN 77.This feature was a design objective of the overall development program and was undertaken to provide single source code that could be installed on a variety of computers with minimum changes.Mainframe computers, workstation computers, and IBM compatible microcomputers were all considered to be potential computers on which RETRAN-03 would be used.The requirements that were placed on the operating systems were that they comply with ANSI Standard FORTRAN 77 and that they support either 60-bit or 64-bit word structure.

The progress of this aspect of the RETRAN-03 development effort was demonstrated to be successful by the various users in the prerelease checkout activities and in late 1989, EPRI began the process to provide a similar version of RETRAN-02 for the RETRAN Maintenance Group.It relied mainly on the experiences of the RETRAN-03 work.The version of RETRAN-02 that was sent to the Supply System from EPRI (designated MOD5UEM)had been developed as an interim version in the process of moving from RETRAN-02 MOD005.0 to a version of MOD005.0 that was completely compliant with FORTRAN 77 and that could be readily installed on a variety of computers.

The changes made to the MOD005.0 code that.were in the version sent to the Supply System are of two types: Those associated with providing an environmental library written

in FORTRAN 7.7 Those associated with providing a general source code for 32 bit computers The changes associated with the library were made to library routines and to some routines in the RETRAN source code that interact with the library routines'uring input and output processing.

The functionality of the library routines was not changed.The changes in the source code associated with the integer padding and the intrinsic functions were made in a general manner that would permit the code to be installed on various 32-bit computers provided that double precision features were implemented.

Other modifications of this nature included changes to format statements and the method of handling hollerith characters.

The ten sample problems in the standard RETRAN distribution package (Reference A-1)were run on the IBM RISC6000 workstation using the MOD5UEM version.The combination of these ten cases covers all of the important modeling features in the RETRAN02 code (cf.Reference A-1).Key parameters as recommended by the RETRAN developer (Ref.A-2)were selected to ensure that the comparisons would adequately reflect the accuracy of the entire simulation in each sample case The values calculated by Version MOD5UEM were compared to the values given in Ref.A-1 which were based.on the NRC-approved RETRAN02 MOD005.0.The comparison results are given below.For Standard Problem One, six parameters were selected.They are given in Table A-1.Parameter"Time" is not a comparison parameter.

The last time step is used for all sample problem comparisons.

It would reflect the largest error between the two versions because of the cumulative effects.It should be noted that Ref.A-2 listed void fractions instead of the average densities for Volumes 2, 5, and 8.Since void fractions from the MOD005.0 run in Ref.A-1 are not listed, the related parameter of average density is used.For the Eight Volume Sample Problem, six parameters were selected.The comparison is given in Table A-2.Again, due to unavailability of the temperature for heat conductor 20 node 3 in the RETRAN MOD005.0 manual (Ref.A-1), the surface temperature is compared.For Standard Problem Five, five parameters were selected.They are given in Table A-3.For the Standard Problem Four, seven parameters were selected (see Table A-4).For Turbine Trip without Bypass with Point Kinetics, 12 parameters were selected (see Table A-5).For Uncontrolled Rod Withdrawal, 10 parameters were selected (see Table A-6).For Two-Dimensional Flow Field, 6 parameters were selected (see Table A-7).For Secondary System Sample Problem, 5 parameters were selected (see Table A-8).For Turbine Trip without Bypass with Space-Time Kinetics, 8 parameters were selected (see Table A-9).A-2

For PWR ATWS Sample Problem, 12 parameters were selected (see Table A-10).The control block outputs (COUT 1,-2 and-1)and the liquid region mass and temperature and vapor region temperature for Volume 1 are not compared because these edits are not available in the RETRAN MOD005.0 manual (Ref.A-1).Table A-1 Standard Problem One Comparison Parameter Time (sec)Number of time steps Vol.4 pressure (psia)Jct.4 Flow (lb/sec)MOD5UEM 0..465 223 2.18507E1 2.13352 MOD005.0 0.465 223 2.18507E1 2.13352 Diff.(%)0.0 0.0 Vol.2 Avg Density (lb/f t~)2.46875E-1 Vol.5 Avg Density(lb/ft~)

2.73454E-1 Vol.8 Avg Density(lb/ft~)

2.81773E-1 2.46875E-1 0.0 2.73454E-1 0.0 2.81773E-1 0.0 Table A-2 Eight Volume Sample Problem Comparison Parameter Time (sec)Number of time steps Heat conductor¹20 surface temperature (F)MOD5UEM 0'997 4.52738E2 MOD005.0 0.4 997 4.52738E2 Diff.(0)0.0 Vol.201 temperature (F)5.31412E2 Vol.131 pressure (psia)2.23015E2 5.314 12E2 2.23015E2 0.0 0.0 Jct.9 flow (lb/sec)-1.05506E3

-1.05506E3 0.0 Jct.999 flow (lb/sec)7.74393E3 7.74393E3 0.0 A-3 Table A-3 Standard Problem Five Comparison Parameter Time (sec)Number of time steps MOD5UEM 5.02 486 MOD005.0 5.02 486 Diff.(w)Vol.6 pressure (psia)Vol.6 Avg Density(lb/ft~)

Jct.8 flow (lb/sec)9.59106 9.59106 9.60029E2 9.60029E2 2.32948E1 2.32948E1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Jct.9 flow (lb/sec)4.90702 4.90702 0.0 Table A-4 Standard Problem Four Comparison Parameter Time (sec)Number of time steps MOD5UEM 1.0 422 MOD005.0 1.0 422 Diff.(%)Vol.1 pressure (psia)Vol.11 temperature (F)Jct.l flow (lb/sec)Jct.21 flow (lb/sec)1-01149E3 1.01149E3 5.43824E2 5.43824E2 3.14727E1 3.14727El 2.57385E1 2.57385E1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Jct.28 flow (lb/sec)Jct.32 flow (lb/sec)9.07339 9.65325 9.07339 9.65325 0.0 0.0 A-4

Table A-5 Turbine Trip Without Bypass With Point Kinetics Parameter Time (sec)Number of time steps Vol.10 pressure (psia)MOD5UEM 2.01 224 1.17724E3 MOD005.0 2.01 224 l.17724E3 Diff.(4)0.0 Normalized core power 0.4739057 Vol.9 mixture level (ft)4.28014 4.28015 0.4739058-2.3E-4-2.1E-5 Jct.1 flow (lb/sec)Jct.15 flow (lb/sec)Jct.16 flow (lb/sec)Jct.17 flow (lb/sec)Total reactivity

($)Void reactivity

($)Doppler reactivity

($)Control reactivity (9)2.05946E4 9.52889E3 2.19671E4 3.03026E3-1.52936.1.01524-0.132250-2.41234 2.05946E4 9.52889E3 2.19671E4 3.03026E3-1.52936 1.01524-0.132250-2.41234 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A-5 Table A-6 Uncontrolled Rod Withdrawal Comparison Parameter Time (sec)Number of time steps Vol.1 pressure (psia)MOD5UEM 3.05 71 2.26351E3 MOD005.0 3.05 71 2.26351E3 Diff.(0)0.0 0.0 Normalized core power Vol.2 temperature (F)0.8291161 6.07335 Vol.10 temperature (F)5.50436E2 Vol.18 pressure (psia)2.24268E3 Vol.20 pressure (psia)8.71323E2 2.24268E3 8.71323E2 0.8291161 6.07335 5.50436E2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Jct.13 flow (lb/sec)Jct.19 flow (lb/sec)Jct.21 flow, (lb/sec)2.73438E4-1.41591E-2 1.41461E2 2.73438E4 0.0 1.41460E2 7.1E-4-1.41591E-2 0.0 Table A-7 Two-Dimensional Flow Field Comparison Parameter Time (sec)Number of time steps Vol.4 pressure (psia)Vol.6 pressure (psia)Jct.6 flow (lb/sec)Jct.7 flow (lb/sec)Jct.8 flow (lb/sec)MOD5UEM 0.1 663 4.96934E2 4.96934E2 1.58139E1 1.58139E1 6.49958E1 MOD005.0 0.1 663 4.96934E2 4.96934E2 1.58139E1 1.58139E1 6.49958E1 Diff.(0)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A-6 Table A-8 Secondary System Sample Problem Comparison Parameter Time (sec)Number of time steps Vol.12 pressure (psia)Vol.16 pressure (psia)Jct.20 flow (lb/sec)Jct.29 flow (lb/sec)MOD5UEM 0.5 745 0.997917 9~518 19E1 3.82086E3 2.24888E2 MOD005.0 0.5 745 0.997917 9.51819E1 3.82086E3 2.24888E2 Diff.(0)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table A-9 Turbine Trip without Bypass with Space-Time Kinetics Comparison Parameter Time (sec)Number of time steps Normalized core power Vol.10 pressure (psia)Jct.17 flow (lb/sec)Jct.24 flow (lb/sec)MOD5UEM 1.0 222 0.6033136 1.10459E3 1.68626E3 2.59335E3 MOD005.0 1.005 223 0.6005210 1.10516E3 1.68807E3 2.58640E3 Diff.(-)4.6E-1-'5.2E-2-1.1E-1 2.7E-1 Vol.9 mixture level (ft)Total reactivity Rod reactivity 4.69237 4.69237-7.377669E-3

-7.480861E-3

-1.126763E-2

-1.127351E-2 0.0-1.4-5.2E-2 Table A-10 PWR ATWS Sample Problem Comparison Parameter Time (sec)Number of time steps MOD5UEM 150.3309 1211 MOD005.0 150.3309 1217 Diff.(%)Vol.34 pressure (psia)2.31009E3 Vol.34 mixture level (ft)3.29200El 2.31441E3 3.29200E1-1.9E-1 0.0 Jct.51 flow (lb/sec)1.33831E4 1.33855E4-1.8E-2 Vol.51 mixture level (ft)1.31993E-2 1.30159E-2 1.4E-2 Vol.51 pressure (psia)6.82093E2 6.82288E2-2.9E-2 Vol.51 liquid mass (lb)4.31636E1 4.25627El 1.4 Vol.25 temperature (F)Vol.30 temperature (F)Jct.82 flow (lb/sec)6.51378E2 6.55266E2 0.0 6.51430E2 6.55338E2 0.0-8.0E-3-1.1E-2 0.0 Jct.89 flow (lb/sec)-2.04578E2

-2.06070E2

-7.2E-1 Jct.90 flow (lb/sec)0.0 0.0 0.0 Comparison of the outputs of the sample problems between MOD005.0 and MOD5UEM indicates that they yield identical results (at least to six significant, figures)for the first 8 sample problems.For Sample Problem 9 (Turbine Trip without Bypass with Space-Time Kinetics), the maximum difference is in the total reactivity

(-1.4%).Since the absolute value of the total reactivity is a very small number, it is usually more sensitive to the changes made to the code or platform it is run on.For Sample Problem 10 (PWR ATWS Sample Problem), the comparison yields a maximum difference in Volume 51 liquid mass (1.4%)at the end of the 150-second simulation.

This difference is apparently caused by the accumulated deviation of the calculations using different processors and operating systems.The comparisons on pressure, temperature and flow for Sample Problem 10 give much smaller differences as seen in Table A-10.To further verify the MOD5UEM version, the most limiting transient identified in the Transient Topical Report (Ref.A-4)was run on both the MOD5UEM and MOD004 versions.The selected transient is the WNP-2 Licensing Basis Model Load Rejection Without Bypass (LRNB)A-8

which yields the highest peak power and smallest thermal margins.The MOD004 run was made on a CDC NOS/BE operating system at Power Computing.

The comparisons are given in Table A-11 and A-12.Table A-11 Comparison of Key Parameters for WNP-2 Load Rejection Without Bypass Parameter Time Number of time steps Normalized core power Vol.4 pressure (psia)Vol.11 pressure (psia)Jct.4 flow (lb/sec)Vol.4 temperature (F)Vol.11 temperature (F)Jct.310 flow (lb/sec)MOD5UEM 2.0 973 0.4046764 1.21450E3 1'0776E3 2.26415E4 5.34560E2 5.67760E2 3.71439E3 MOD004 2.0 973 0.4035891 1.21460E3 1.20784E3 2.26509E4 5.34561E2 5.67768E2 3.71639E3 Diff.(4)2.7E-1-8.2E-3-6.6E-3-4.1E-2-1.9E-4-1.4E-3-5.4E-2 Jct.201 flow (lb/sec)Control block-88 Total reactivity Vol.4 density (lb/ft~)3.52832E3 2.53116E1-9.59095E-3 4.73151E1 3.53126E3 2.53317E1-8.3E-2-7.9E-2 4.73151E1 0.0-9.640133E-3

-5'E-1 Vol.11 density (lb/ft~)1.39558E1 1.39484E1 5.3E-2 Table A-12 Power History for WNP-2 Load Rejection Without Bypass Time into Transient (sec)MODSUEM MOD004 Diff.(0)Normalized Core Power 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 2.0 1.0 0.930005 1.03888 1.61492 2.27940 2.94521 3.89955 2.50341 1.04774 0'54647 0.479288 0.4046764 1.0 0.930065 1.03923 1.61697 2'8641 2.96032 3.91851 2.50561 1.04983 0.655916 0.479418 0.4035891 0.0-6.5E-3-3.4E-2-1.3E-1-3.1E-l-5.1E-1-USE-1-8~SE-2-2'E-1-1-9E-1-2.7E-2 2.7E-l The locations for the parameters given in Table A-11 may by identified using the noding diagram in the Transient Topical Report (Ref.A-4).The Control Block-88 output is the water level in feet.The maximum deviation of 0.27%occurs in the normalized core power.For the licensing basis model LRNB, the most important parameter for determining the thermal margins is the core power.Therefore its values as a function of time are compared.The results are given in Table A-12.The peak power occurs at about 1.0 second into the transient.

From Table A-12, it is seen that the maximum deviation is about 0.48%.Even though Version MOD5UEM under estimates the peak power, the difference is small and will not result in any significant deviations in the hCPR calculations.

Part, of the differences between MOD5UEM and MOD004 is caused by the RETRAN revision from MOD004 and MOD005.0.As stated earlier, MOD5UEM is derived from MOD005.0.WNP-2 transient analysis performed in the Topical Report (Ref.A-4)are all based on MOD004.

From the above comparisons, it is concluded that the differences are mainly caused by the differences in computer hardware and the operating systems.These differences are orders-of-magnitude smaller than the error bands of the comparisons between the predicted and the actual measured data given in the RETRAN02 qualification report (Reference A-3).From these case comparisons, it was concluded that RETRAN02 Version MOD5UEM was correctly modified and installed on the Supply System's IBM RISC6000 Workstation.

REFERENCES A-1.C.E.Peterson et al,"RETRAN02-A Program for Transient Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Complex Fluid Flow Systems, Volume 3: User's Manual (Revision 4)", NP-1850-CCM-A, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, November 1988.A-2.Letter, J.H.McFadden (CSA, Inc)to S.H.Bian (WPPSS), CSA-095-92, Computer Simulation and Analysis, Inc, February 17, 1992.A-3.C.E.Peterson et al.,"RETRAN02-A Program for Transient Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Complex Fluid Flow Systems, Volume 4: Applications", NP-1850-CCM, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, January 1983.A-4.Y.Y.Yung et al,"BWR Transient Analysis Model", WPPSS-FTS-129, Rev.1, Washington Public Power Supply System, Sept.1990.A-12 APPENDIX B BWR TRANSIENT ANALYSIS MODEL LICENSING BASIS TRANSIENT ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Section

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 MODEL INPUTS~~Pacae B-1 B-1 3.0 RESULTS B-3

4.0 CONCLUSION

S

5.0 REFERENCES

B-6 B-23 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 LICENSING BASIS TRANSIENT INITIAL CONDITIONS Pacae B-7 2.2 LICENSING BASIS TRANSIENT S/R VALVE AND SCRAM BANK CHARACTERISTICS 2.3 LICENSING BASIS TRANSIENT DELAYED NEUTRON DATA B-8 B-9 LIST OF FXGURES Ficiure 3.1 LBT INITIAL AXIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION 3.2 LBT INITIAL HEAT FLUX DISTRIBUTION 3.3 LBT INITIAL VOID DISTRIBUTION 3.4 LBT INITIAL FUEL TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION 3.5 LBT CORE AVERAGE VOXD DISTRIBUTION 3.6 LBT CORE MIDPLANE PRESSURE 3.7 3.8 LBT TOTAL CORE FLOW LBT CORE POWER 3.9 LBT CORE HEAT FLUX 3.10 LBT CORE AVERAGE FUEL TEMPERATURE 3.13 LBT TOTAL CORE REACTIVITY

~~3.11 LBT HEAT FLUX DXSTRIBUTION AT 0.8 SEC 3.12 LBT HEAT FLUX DISTRIBUTION AT 1.2 SEC Pacae B-11 B-12 B-13 B-14 B-15 B-16 B-17 B-18 B-19 B-20 B-21 B-22 B-23

1.0 INTRODUCTION

At the request of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Washington Public Power, Supply System (the Supply System)performed an analysis of a test problem with the RETRAN-02 ("RETRAN")

code The test problem, referred as the Licensing Basis Transient (LBT), is a hypothetical turbine trip without steam bypass for Peach Bottom Unit 2.It is a limiting operational transient that is important in the safety analysis of a.boiling water reactor (BWR).The analysis results provide a basis for comparison with audit calculations performed by other organizations using different methodologies.

A description of the RETRAN model inputs is given in Section 2.Comparisons of the calculated results with General Electric (GE)and Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL)results~~are presented in Section 3.Section 4 contains the conclusions and section 5 the References.

2.0 MODEL INPUTS Reference B-2 provides the basic description of the LBT.Additional information (e.g., scram insertion times, steam line length)was obtained from References B-3 and B-4.The SIMULATE-E and SIMTRAN-E8 codes were used to generate the RETRAN one-dimensional (1-D)kinetics data at the initial conditions.

First, a stepwise depletion of cycle 1 and a Haling depletion of cycle 2were used to determine the core power distribution and nodal cross sections at the end-of-cycle 2 (fuel B-1 e xposure used for LBT), all rods out state point.The 3-D to 1-D collapsing and the adjustment to account for the differences in the SIMULATE-E and RETRAN calculated moderator densities were then performed.

The Supply System's process to generate the 1-D kinetics data is fully described in Section 2.6 of Reference B-7.The RETRAN model used for the LBT analysis was nearly identical to that used in Reference B-7 for the Peach Bottom turbine trip benchmark analysis.The following modifications were made to conform to the licensing inputs specified in the BNL and GE analyses of the LBT (References B-2 and B-3).The transient was initiated from 104.54 of rated power and 100%of rated flow.The fuel rod gap conductance was held at a constant value of 1000 Btu/(hr-ft~-'F).

The steam separator inlet loss coefficient was~~~adjusted to produce the initial pressure distribution consistent with the BNL's data reported in Reference B-2.Table 2.1 summarizes the initial conditions for the LBT.Note that the core inlet enthalpy was determined by heat balance calculation and the active core flow was calculated by SIMULATE-E.

The recirculation pump trip to mitigate the transient was inactivated.

The reactor scram was assumed functional and activated by the turbine trip scram setpoint with a 0.27 second delay.The scram bank insertion velocity was specified by the standard"67B" scram scheme.Safety/Relief (S/R)valve characteristics (setpoints, delays and stroke times)were changed to those defined in Reference B-2-.Table 2.2 lists the S/R valve and scram bank characteristics used for the LBT analysis.The stroke time for the turbine stop valve was assumed to be 0.1 B-2

second.The steam line length was reduced to 400 ft to be consistent with the value used by other organizations

'(Reference 4).The length and volume of the steam line have a significant effect on the timing and magnitude of the pressure wave.The delayed neutron yield fractions (Si/6)and decay constants were taken from Reference B-2 and are listed in Table 2.3.3.0 RESULTS The important transient results obtained with the RETRAN model are compared to those obtained by GE and BNL.They are presented in the following sections.~~~~~~3.1 Initial Conditions The initial axial power and axial heat flux distributions are presented in Figures 3.1 and 3.2.As shown, they are in reasonable agreement with the distributions reported by GE and BNL.Steady state comparisons for the initial void fraction and fuel temperature are shown in Figures 3.3 and 3.4.The RETRAN calculated initial axial fuel temperature profile agrees well with the GE, values.The initial fuel temperatures are highly dependent on the fuel-to-clad gap conductance and the fuel pin model.RETRAN predicted higher void fraction in the top half of the core, most likely due to the differences in the void models.The large difference in the lower pqrtion of the core between T/H void and neutron void is due to the fact that neutron void includes the subcooled boiling effects.It should be noted that the void B-3 reactivity in RETRAN is determined by the neutron void which matches well with both GE and BNL results.3.2 Thermal-Hydraulic Response The core average void fraction during the transient is plotted in Figure 3.5.The variation on void fraction is similar for all the calculations.

The RETRAN results show a slightly higher initial void fraction and a larger reduction than the GE and BNL data.The variation in core average void fraction is closely related to I variations in core pressure, inlet flow and differences in void models.The larger drop in void fraction is due to the more rapid pressure rise and the earlier leveling off in pressure causes the earlier turnaround of void fraction.~~~~~~~~~~The comparisons of transient core midplane pressures and core inlet flow are presented in Figures 3.6 and 3.7.The RETRAN core midplane pressure rises more rapidly.than the BNL and GE calculations.

Differences in vessel modeling (e.g., separator inlet inertia, separator inlet and exit loss coefficients) could significantly affect the pressure wave transmission through the vessel to the core.The information available in References B-2 and B-3 does not allow complete resolution of these differences.

The levelin'g off of the pressure near 1.0 seconds is caused by the rapid, successive opening of the second and third safety/relief valve groups.The GE and BNL calculated pressures continue to increase, though at a slower rate possibly due to a slower decrease in core power and heat flux as shown in Figures 3.8 and 3.9.The RETRAN core inlet B-4 flow is similar to the GE calculation with RETRAN predicting higher flow at the first peak and less flow at the second peak.The first pressure wave calculated by RETRAN apparently reaches the lower plenum sooner than that calculated by GE.The oscillation frequency is very similar to both GE an BNL results as indicated by Figure 3.7.3.3 Neutronic Response The transient core power is presented in Figure 3.8.Comparing to GE results, the RETRAN calculation shows that the maximum power occurs slightly earlier and the power increase peak is narrower and higher.These differences reflect the change of the core power response to the variations in the core average void fraction presented in Figure 3.5.The BNL transient core power is similar in magnitude but differs from the GE and RETRAN calculations in timing.This shifting of the power peak is mainly'due to the reduction of pressure rise between 0.6 sec and 0.7 sec (Figure 3.6).Of primary interest from a safety viewpoint is the clad surface heat flux in the core as the surface heat flux dominates the critical power ratio (CPR)during the transient.

As shown in Figure 3.9, the transient heat flux calculated by RETRAN is similar to the GE results.The higher heat flux peak predicted by RETRAN increases the change in CPR and consequently, yields a more conservative thermal limit.The BNL transient heat flux is significantly different from both the RETRAN and GE calculations.

This may be B-5 attributed to differences in fuel pin modeling as indicated by the large differences in the transient, core average fuel temperature shown in Figure 3.10 (GE data not available for comparison).

Comparisons of the axial heat flux profiles at 0.8 and 1.2 seconds are shown in Figures 3.11 and 3.12.Note that the BNL heat flux profiles were obtained from calculation using GE pressure and flow curves.Both the magnitude and axial shape change of the heat flux from the initial values are in reasonable agreement for all the three calculations.

The RETRAN transient.

total core reactivity (Figure 3.13)is similar to the BNL calculation (GE calculation not available) in trend and magnitude.

The peak reactivity occurs earlier and is consistent with the differences shown in the transient core average void fraction (Figure 3.5)and the transient core power (Figure 3.8).

4.0 CONCLUSION

S The results of the LBT analysis performed by the Supply System are in reasonable agreement with the GE and BNL results.Although not presented here, the Supply System's results are quite similar to that reported by Tennessee Valley Authority and Philadelphia Electric Company , both of whom used the RETRAN code.The differences between the calculations shown here have been attributed to different modeling assumptions and computer code variations.

It is concluded that the Supply System's methodology in performing the licensing calculations is consistent with the NRC approved methodologies used by other organizations.

B-6

TABLE 2.1 LICENSING BASIS TRANSIENT 3;NITIAL CONDITIONS Parameter Core Thermal Power (MWth)Turbine Steam Flow (ibm/sec)Total Core Flow (Mlbm/hr)Active Core Flow (Mlbm/hr)Core Inlet Enthalpy (Btu/ibm)Steam Dome Pressure (psia)Core Exit Pressure (psia)Core Inlet Pressure (psia)Recirculation Flow (Mlbm/hr)Core Average Gap Conductance (Btu/hr-ft

-'F)Initial Value 3440.0 3900'.0 102.5 95.34 522.7 1034.0 1044.9 1069.7 34.2 1000.0 B-7 TABLE 2.2 LICENSING BASIS TRANSIENT S/R VALVE AND SCRAM BANK CHARACTERISTICS Relief Valve Setpoints 4 Valves: 1090.8 psia open;1070.8 psia close;872 ibm/sec capacity 4 Valves: 1100.9 psia open;1080.9 psia close;872 ibm/sec capacity 3 Valves: 1111.0 psia open;1091.0 psia close;654 ibm/sec capacity Safety valve Setpoints 2 Valves: 1242.psia open;1222.psia close;518.5 ibm/sec capacity Scram Bank Insertion Specifications 4 Control Rod Bank Inserted 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Time after initial motion sec 0.000 0.175 0.350 0.700 1.067 1.433 1.800 2.175 2.550 2.925 3.300 3.775 B-8 TABLE 2.3 LICENSING BASIS TRANSIENT DELAYED NEUTRON DATA Dela ed Grou Yield Fraction 0.000207 0.001163 0.001027 0.002222 0.000699 0.000142 Total: 0.005460 Deca Constant sec~0.0127 0.0317 0.1150 0.3110 1.4000 3.8700 B-9

5.0 REFERENCES

B-1.J.H.McFadden, et al.,"RETRAN-02

-A Program for Transient Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Complex Fluid Flow Systems," EPRI NP-1850-CCM-A, Revision 4, Volumes I-III, Electric Power Research Institute, November 1988.B-2.M.S.Lu, et al.,"Analysis of Licensing Basis Transient for a BWR/4," BNL-NUREG-26684, September 1979.B-3.B-4.NRC Safety Evaluation for the General Electric Topical Report, Qualification of the One-Dimensional Core Transient Model for Boiling Water Reactors, NEDO-24154 and NEDO-24154-P, Volumes I, II, and III, June 1980.S.L.Forkner, et al.,"BWR Transient Analysis Model Utilizing the RETRAN Program", TVA-TR81-01, Tennessee Valley Authority, December 1981.B-5.D.M.Ver Planck, P.L.Versteegen, EPRI NP-4574-CCM, September 1987.W.R.Cobb, R.S.Borland, B.L.Darnell, and"SIMULATE-E (Mod.3)Computer Code Manual," Part II, Electric Power Research Institute, B-6.J.A.McClure et al.,"SIMTRAN-E

-A SIMULATE-E to RETRAN-02~~~~~Data Link," EPRI NP-5509-CCM, Electric Power Research Institute, December 1987.B-7.B-8.Y.Y.Yung, S.H.Bian and D.E.Bush,"BWR Transient Analysis Model," WPPSS-FTS-129, Rev.1, September 1990.A.M.Olson,"Methods for Performing BWR Systems Transient Analysis," PECO-FMS-0004-A, November 1988.B-10 1.5 FIGURE 3.1 LBT INITIAL AXIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION 1.25 0 Q I 0.75 6$0)CC 0.5 I~I I t I 0.25 BNL GE RETRAN 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Fraction of Core Height 0,8 S S 0 P I~~~~~

0.8 0.6 0 O 6$U:U o 0.4 0)U)Cd L Q)0.2 0 0 FIGURE 3.3 LBT INITIAL VOID DISTRIBUTION

~W~M~W~H~A~M~//~//'J//////,/~/"r///GE T/H VOID NEUT VOID BNL 0.4 0.6 Fraction of Core Height 0.2 0.8 FIGURE 3.4 LBT INITIAL FUEL TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION 1,400 1,300~1,200+1,100 1,000 900 800\0 1 700 BNL GE RETRAN'00 0 0;2 0.4 0.6 Fraction of Core Height 0.8

FIGURE 3.5 LBT CORE AVERAGE VOID FRACTION~O C 0 40 U:U 0 O wee<<BNL GE RETRAN 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Time (sec)0.8 1, l 70 FIGURE 3.6 LBT CORE MIDPLANE PRESSURE 1,160 1,150 1,140 l,130 (5 n 1120 1,110 Pn I 1,100 CL 1,090 1,080 1,070 1,060 1,050 0 BNL GE RETRAN Or2 0.4 r~o 0.6 Time (sec}r r J I/V r I 0.8

FIGURE 3.7 LBT TOTAL CORE FLOW 120 BNL m 110 o 100 O RETRAN I I I I I I I I I r r I I r I I I I\\\\r\l l 90 0 n.2 0.4 0.6 Time (sec)0.8 800 700 BNL FIGURE 3.8 LBT CORE POWER 600~500 e 400 CL I 300 0 O 200 100 RETRAN I J I I I I"r I I I I I I/0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Time{sec}0.8 140 BNL FIGURE 3.9 LBT CORE HEAT FLUX 130 CC~~<20 wO IJL e 110 RETRAN I I I I/I J 100 90 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Time (sec) 1 1,600 FIGURE 3.10 LBT CORE AVERAGE FUEL TEMPERATURE BNL 1,500 RETRAN 0)l~1,400 E 0)(D U 1,300 1,200 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Time (sec)0.8

8 FIGURE 3.11 LBT ll-IEAT FLUX DISTRIBUTION AT 0.8 SEC 7.2 6.4 g 5.6 bJ I g 4.8 X U 4 65 0)3.2 I I I l I 2.4 BNL GE RETRAN 1.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Fraction of Core Height 0.8 8.8 FIGURE 3.12 LBT HEAT FLUX DISTRIBUTION AT 3.2 SEC 7.2 g 64 5.6><4.8 cg 4 I I I I J l.I I I I I~'r r~W 3.2 2.4 BNL GE RETRAN 1.6 0 0.2 04 0.6 Fraction of Core Height 0.8 0.01 FIGURE 3.13 LBT TOTAL CORE REACTIVITY 0.005 0 6$0)-0.005 D 0 6$-0.01-0.015 BNL REt RAN-0.02 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Time (sec}