ML20137G240
| ML20137G240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/22/1985 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1470, NUDOCS 8512020157 | |
| Download: ML20137G240 (383) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-- - - - _ -_ _
' 7#
ORIG NAL-UNITED STATES U 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i IN TIIE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEMS SUBCOMMITTEE ID LJ LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D. C. PAGES: 1- 259 DATE: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1985 kObb0[fl0EbbbY Jo Not lemove from ACRS Jffice . ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. O'/ OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 g31po;,o137 ;jni122 (202)347-3700 I' U" k'I2$a $ NATIONWIDE COVERACE
PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS t FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1985 The contents of this stenographic transcript.of the s proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards -
. . (ACRS), as reported herein, is an uncorrected record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
No member of the ACRS Staff and no participant at O , this meeting accepts any responsibility for errors or inaccuracies of statement or data contained in this transcript. l
~
i
- l ,
i O a
CR25150.0 SIMONS & 1 DAV/sjg j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/~T
- 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4 EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEMS SUBCOMMITTEE 5
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1046 0 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D. C.- 7 8 Friday, November 22, 1985 9 The subcommittee met in open session at 10:03 a.m., 10 Mr. David A. Ward, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. 11 ACRS MEMBERS PRESENT: 12 MR. DAVID A. WARD (-} x- 13 MR. JESSE C. EBERSOLE MR. CARLYLE MICHELSON 15 ACRS CONSULTANTS PRESENT: 16 C-L. TIEN 17 T. THEOFANOUS 18 V. SCHROCK 19 H. SULLIVAN
~
20 I. CATTON , PAUL BOEHNERT, Designated ACRS Staff Member 22 23 I) s.. 24 Am-FWwd Rgewes, lmL i 25 i I :
500 01 01 1 pntvasselo 1 PROCEEDINGS 4 2 MR. WARD: I have asked Lou to go back to his 3 chart on the Technical Integration Center, and we might 4 want to talk a little bit more about the ten-year j 5 management plan before we go to the next speaker. 6 MR. SHOTKIN: We are now in open session, and 7 there were a lot of good comments on the Technical 8 Integration Center in the closed session, and I hope most 9 of them will get repeated in the open session. 10 First, a definition of a Technical Integration 11 Center. It maintains cognizance of all thermal hydraulic () 12 research and related safety issues. If I could answer 13 Mr. Michelson's question, which is something we think 1 14 about also, his question was, "Doesn't the staff itself 15 do a lot of this integration?" And the answer is, "Yes, 16 that the staff's job is to make sure that all of the 17 research gets integrated into the regulatory process 18 Khare the results actually get used." , 19 To some extent, I think we have expertise of 20 the broad research that gets done. But as far as the 21 details and knowing everything that goes wrong and 22 interpreting everything, I do have to say that we do rely 23 on our contractors, and without any large increase in the 1 () 24 amount of staff that we have, we will have to continue 25 relying on our contractors and on the Technical ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
. . _ . _ - . . ~ _. . . . _ . _ _ _ - _ _ - .
1500 01 01 2 PctVasselo 1 Integration Center to follow the details of the research i O 2 and make sure that the research in different facilities i 3 on issues is put together. But the staff will still have 4 to have the responsibility for integrating that into the l f-5 regulatory process. l 1
- 6 MR. MICHELSON
- Well, really, I thought the i
7 important -- one of the important -- functions of the J 8 staff is to examine the experimental results as they come 9 in. And obviously they don't have all the detailed 10 understanding, but from a larger, from a big-picture 11 viewpoint, they are best qualified to look at the 12 information and to go back to the source and assure that () 13 the holes are filled, you know, and the gaps are filled 14 and that if there is a question of how does this fit with 15 that, you go back to the contractor and ask him to take a 4 16 look at it and tidy it up. ._ . 17 That kind of integration is extremely; _ 18 important, and I assume the staff is the only one well 19 qualified to do that. 20 MR. SHOTKIN: We will continue to do that. 21 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, I would hope so.. . .3 . 22 This question, though, of the quality of the 23 documentation, it's also, I thought, the staff's- ;; , , , , , 24 responsibility to review the quality of the documentation
- (]) 25 and assure that it's in such shape that other people i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverag: 800-33(H5646
1500 01 01 3 I PetVasselo 1 could pick it up later for other uses and whatever,eand 2 if there were gaps again to be filled to improve the-:3 ; 3 quality, that you could go back to tell the contractor to 4 fix it, because it's probably not big money as opposed to 4 5 other things you do but if you don't tell him, it 6 probably doesn't get done or may not get done. So again, l r : 7 if it's not being done, then the staff is remiss if they 8 don't see to it that it gets done unless there is some - 9 really big money involved. 10 MR. THEOFANOUS: I can say something to that 11 because I have seen the staffing operation, I guess, from 12 many angles. I think that they do a lot of that. They {} 13 review documents, and they try to make sure that - 14 everything is done correctly and well documented. 15 I think, going back to our earlier discussion 16 on integration, the main difficulty is not so much in the 17 quality of a particular document, but it is on the title, 18 what is the thrust that pushes that document forward?- 19 In other words, what I am saying is, for what 20 the documents are supposed to be doing, most of the time 21 they are doing it. But we are lacking many times the 22 appropriate documents, and this is because it goes back 23 to the efforts, the technical effort that has.gone into 24 it. - .- ~~ (} 25 As an example, you want -- one is interested or ACE-FEDERAL F.EPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwid: Coverage 800 336 6646
1500 01 01 4 PatVasselo 1 NRC is interested to know what is the temperature in the O 2 downcomer given a set of overcooling transients. Well, 3 the answer to -- or the classical approach, to us, is to 4 go to Los Alamos and say, "Run this calculation for me." 5 And then what they do is they just grind out TRAC and 6 they put the results there. And they document it well, 7 and then the staff reviews it, and it it well documented. 8 Now, on the other hand, though, that whole 9 process hasn't really answered the question in broad 10 enough generalities to deal with the kind of thing, the 11 kind of integration and use that we are talking about 12 here. 13 So the fault is not so much in the quality of a (} 14 particular document as is specified by its title and by 15 the scope of the research that led to it, but by really 16 going back to the original scope of the research and what 17 people did with that, the people who actually -- the 18 people who worked with it over there. Did they intend 19 for that to be in the narrow sense or the broader sense? 20 MR. MICHELSON: That wasn't the way I 21 understood your problem earlier, but maybe I did not 22 understand it that well. 23 In the case of your TRAC example, what more did 24 you expect to have been done .n the NRC7 Apparently you () 25 think we're falling short somewhere. What more would you ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. - 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
J , 1500 01 01 5 PatVasselo 1 want to have seen done in a case like that where they...
- p v 2 were run a calculation and they did it, they docume.qted 3 it properly? What more could you expect?
- 4 MR. THEOFANOUS: All right. Well, first.of.
j 5 all, the staff in this case could not really have done j 6 much more. I think that the contractor are the people j 7 that ought to look at the question, not as a specific, i
- 8 prescribed, well-defined calculation that is to be run, 9 but as an issue; like, a small-break situation, what is 10 the range of temperatures you can expect under what 11 conditions?
12 MR. MICHELSON: But that simply is not in the 13 scope of the work prescribed. You're saying that they. 14 should think beyond the scope of the work prescribed? i 15 MR. THEOFANOUS: Well, it's kind of a dual - 16 thing. Sometimes the contractor has to go beyond the ,. 17 scope prescribed and maybe the whole matter goes to 4 18 that. The way that the NRC -- . 4 19 MR. MICHELSON: Generally, you know, you kind 20 of have to work --
^
21 MR. THEOFANOUS: I can clarify it for you., I 22 can clarify it. The way that NRC operates is this: They 23 want to make sure that when they put out a contract -- . 24 and I think rightly so -- that it is so well defined that {} 25 the contractor actually delivers what they are supposed _ ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M5646
1500 01 01 6 PatVasselo 1 to deliver. And then the contractor, of course, wants to j 2 be sure that everything is well specified and they can do 3 what they are specified to do and again get good marks if 4 they've actually done it. 5 Now, that is contrary to the whole research i l 6 idea. Research is you actually do research about 7 something that you have some vague idea about how things 8 are going to go, but you got to allow yourself in the 9 process of shifting gears, refocusing, and going after a 10 goal. 11 And I think our difficulty here is exactly 12 because it's -- it's either a set of X number of computer {} 13 calculations or X number, Y number of experimental 14 points. 15 MR. MICHELSON: I think it's boiling down to 16 whether or not the research effort is directed by 17 Research or directed by the contractors. 18 MR. THEOFANOUS: Oh, I know. 19 MR. MICHELSON: I thought the research effort 20 was directed by Research and they decided what areas 21 needed to be looked at and so forth and they were the 22 ones that were doing the overall integrated planning of 23 this operation. Now, the contractor certainly ought to 24 suggest if they see other areas that might be worthwhile 25 (]) looking into, but they're not responsible, nor shjuld t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 3" "*" * *** "3
t 1560 01 01
- 7 PatVasselo 1 they be spending their effort doing things that they 2 weren't asked to do. .
3 MR. THEOPANOUS: But you see -- let's -- again, 4 let's suppose you take an issue. Suppose you -- let's 5 take pressurized -- something I am familiar with from 6 years and years. Now, when you sit back in your office 7 here in Washington and you are a research staff, you have 8 a certain global perspective of the issue and the 9 problems, and then you sit down with some job and through 10 such meetings as this, and you formulate a plan. 11 Then, you go to your contractor and you say, "I 12 want to do this, this, this, and that." Now, what is {) 13 going to be the result of this ef fort will depend very 14 much upon how straightjacketed you put the contractor to 15 do this work. If you straightjacket too much, what I am 16 saying, it may be expeditious, maybe it's very convenient 17 for putting budgets out and say, "I am going to spend 18 exactly that much money next year," but in the process 19 the integration is missing at the end because if you do, 20 you know, the well-defined pieces here and there -- and I 21 think there are lots of examples of that -- but there is 22 no flexibility to address the issue. 23 And I don't really accuse the Research staff 24 for that, because I think that the matter is that unless 25 you specify things very well, most of the time things (]}- y - ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1500 01 01 8 PatVasselo 1 won't get done. But, truly, let's not prevent us from O 2 recognizing the fact thar. just because -- this e 3 integration stuff is not done. That's all I am saying. 4 And I don't think that you can -- , 5 MR. MICHELSON: It's very important to do it. 6 I was just, I guess -- I am assuming, and I would like to 7 hear Research say that they are doing that. 8 MR. THEOFANOUS: And it is not feasible -- by 9 the way, it is not feasible really, and the kind of thing 10 I am talking about is very infeasible for Lou or for Bill . 11 Beckner or any of these people to do it from where they 12 stind.
. (} 13 MR. CATTON: I would like to make a comment on 14 this. I think one of the things that happens is that the
! 15 calculation is done and you get back a report that has 16 one page, and then it's just a whole raft of curves. 4 17 MR. THEOFANOUS: Right. 4 18 MR. CATTON: What you really want to have is ! 19 some discussion of those results, because when you're l 20 through looking at it, you want to get a feeling of how i . 21 good are they, how bad are they, what impact would 22 certain weaknesses of the codes have, how well can you l 23 depend on it? And you never get that. 24 MR. WARD: You mean the NRC does get that from + () 25 its contractors. ; i i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
I 1500 01 01 9 ! atVasselo 1 MR. CATTON: Right. That's right. - = f r :, 2 MR. MICHELSON: It's just they can tell the 3 contractor to do it if that's what they want. And I g 4 don't disagree, that is what you want. Right. 5 MR. CATTON: You want to know or you want to 6 get some feeling of the worth of what you're getting, and 7 you don't get that. You don't get in the experimental 8 programs, and you don't get it in the running of the 9 codes, at least not in the reports that I see passing by 10 me. 11 MR. WARD: Maybe Lou ought to -- 12 MR. MICHELSON: And that's not enough. {} 13 MR. WARD: Since, Lou, you really get the 14 reports back, is that a fair characterization of the' 15 reports? 16 MR. SHOTKIN: No, I don't think it is. I think 17 that -- I don't know which reports you're referring to. 18 I think there may be some reports where the contractor 19 may not do as good a job as you would like. In those 20 cases, we usually send it back to the contractor and ask 21 for a better job. And I could give you some examples, 22 but maybe out in the hallway I could rather than on the 23 record. 24 But I would commend to your use some of the - () , 25 newer 2D/3D reports coming out of Los Alamos. The TRR ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33 & 6646
1500 01 01 10 PatVasselo 1 reports that are coming out from the SEMISCALE project. l
.() 2 And I think you will see in these newer reports that are 3 coming out, there is a conscious effort by both NRC and 4 the contractor to address what we've learned from these 5 tests and how does it relate to the regulatory issues
, 6 that focused our attention in the first place. i 7 MR. EBERSOLE: In our last full committee i 8 meeting we had a letter going out, but we didn't finish 9 it. But I want to highlight it here. 10 It was a finding made of -- and I forget the 11 plant that experienced a severe 100-degree transient, 12 cooldown transient, because of a relatively minor
- 13 feedwater heater relief valve stuck open.
(} 14 The thing that came.out of this, to me, was the 15 shocking realization that this particular plant, and 16 perhaps quite a few others, had no way to shut off steam 17 flow to the turbine and the bypass system into the i 18 condenser in the event the bypass stuck open. 19 You know, the turbine stop valve always 20 closes. In this particular case, it was a little bitty 21 heater valve that stuck open. But a bypass is 25 to 40, 22 maybe 50, percent. And it appeared that in these designs i 23 there was an inviting opportunity to have a severe 24 blowdown, line-thru blowdown to the condenser, with no () 25 way to.stop 't. i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. t 202 Nationwide Coverage 8043364646
. . _ _ . -. . . .- - -. _ - . . _ , _ . ._ ... -347-3700_ _ . _ _ -
4
-1500 01 01 11 PatVasselo 1 What bothered me was the response of the 2 7-2 operators to this event. I would have intuitively 2 judged
, 3 that one way to slow down this transient would be to trip 4 the main coolant pumps. 5 I don't know where you all stand in looking at 3 6 transients which are right in front of us at all times 4 7 like this, but at the moment, I am pretty dry as to what 8 the designs are in the field in this context and how you 7 9 all were looking at them about how do you forestall a 10 blowdown transient when you don't have any valves? 11 MR. WARD: Do you see this Technical - 12 Integration Center playing some role in that? 13 MR. EBERSOLE: That's what I am saying. Will (]} 14 it do this? What happens now? 15 MR. SHOTKIN: Okay. First, there are several 16 comments. Let me give one response to the several 17 comments about the. role of the NRC staff. We don't
- 18 visualize that the NRC staff will give up any of its I 19 responsibilities with the new Technical Integration 20 Center. We see that our responsibilities will stay the i
21 same, but we will be able to carry out our , 22 responsiblities in a better fashion with the help of a I 23 Technical Integration Center. - :, I 24 MR. WARD: So you see the TIC as being your-() 25 agent to help you do the integration function, is that + ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
1500 01 01 12
~~^
,-.s PatVasselo 1 it? U 2 MR. SHOTKIN: That's correct. =-; l;*C 3 MR. MICHELSON: What is the reason you need - 4 this agent? Is it because you don't have adequate 5 staffing or competence or what? 6 MR. SHOTKIN: Over the years, the expertise in 7 certain areas has developed in certain institutions. For 8 example, Idaho, the Idaho National Engineering Lab, has 9 performed the LOFT experiments, SEMISCALE, PBF. They 10 have developed computer codes. They've performed s 11 calculations with computer codes for both Research and 12 NRR. () 13 This expertise is an institutional expertise 14 that exists at INEL and exists with the people at INEL. 15 There are other centers of expertise, and of course there 16 is some expertise at NRC, as there has to be to integrate 17 these issues into the licensing process. 18 MR. MICHELSON: Do you envision more than one 19 Technical Integration Center? 20 MR. SHOTKIN: I didn't hear the question. 21 MR. MICHELSON: Do you envision more than one 22 Technical Integration Center? 23 MR. SHOTKIN: Oh, yes. Right. l 24 MR. WARD: Well, not for thermal hydraulics. o) (, 25 There is one for thermal hydraulics. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3366646
. _ ~ - - . _ . _ - - _ _ . . . __ _ .
i 1500 01 01 13 PatVasselo 1 MR. SHOTKIN: Yes. One for thermal hydraulics. 2 MR. WARD: Others in the -- yes, that's what 3 you said. 4 MR. MICHELSON: So you begin to get to the next 5 question of how are you going to integrate your 6 integration centers since each is dealing with its own, \ i 7 you know, kind of narrow subject. Thermal hydraulics is 8 pretty narrow compared with the whole question of route 9 responses and controlled feedbacks and all the other 10 things that enter into this. 11 I would think, if you really believed in this 12 concept, you would have a single center in which you did 13 truly integrate nuclear plant design in an operation. (~} 14 MR. SHOTKIN: I think we always follow -- it's 15 like a small perturbation approach. We see where we are 16 today, and we see what can we ?c to improve where we are 17 today, and we certainly can impmrove where we are today 18 by developing Technical Integration Centers. Whether 19 this is the ultimate improvement or the best possible, I 20 can't answer that. 21 But certainly, part of the job of defiring the 22 Technical Integration Centers will be to define them in a 23 way where they're effective, where we've integrated under 24 one roof enough expertise that they can help us. () 25 MR. MICHELSON: I would envision, though, that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1500 01 01 14 7 sPatVasselo 1 if you're going to have a number of these, and wit'h'the O 2 limited resources that you have, that each of'thdm'fd; 3 going to be a subcritical mass and it will be relatively 4 ineffective except in its own narrow range of expertise. 5 MR. SHOTKIN: Well, that's one of the reasons 6 for going to the TIC concept, is that we were getting' 7 below critical masses in certain areas -- let's say, 8 thermal hydraulics areas -- where we were spreading it 9 over several laboratories. And that's one of the 10 motivating reasons for going to the TIC. . 11 MR. .TIEN: Lou, I am still not clear. Looking 12 at this particular transparency here, what's the () 13 difference between this definition and also, say, the 14 responsibilities of NRC Research staff? I maintain 15 perhaps in integration, perhaps NRC Research staff 16 perhaps can do the best job. 17 Maybe if you are short of staffing and so on, 18 if this is a way to get some more staffing, you cannot 19 put into your organization, give it to somebody else, 20 that's a different matter. But I fear, if you assign to 21 a particular center, you will probably later on come 22 back, you will have to integrate some differences or
~~
23 centers of expertise, to integrate again. , I 24 I am a little bit confused. Could you tell me () 25 just slightly what's the difference from your
~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646 j
1500 01 01 15 PatVasselo l responsibility, the NRC Research staff from this TIC?_.It O -2 appears to me very close. . _ _
,3 3 MR. SHOTKIN: Okay. It is close. It better be 4 close. We are both doing the same job, except they're 5 helping us do our job. Now, our job is to make sure that 6 the research results get into the regulatory process.
7 Many times -- let's look at it as not leisure time but 8 the ability to spend a certain amount of time focused on 9 a certain problem. We believe that the contractors are 10 better set up to do that. , 11 For example, if we give them --well, let's 12 bring pressurized thermal shock -- and we say, "Make 12 {} 13 analyses for pressurized thermal shock." A program like 14 that would take a few people working for a few years. J 15 It's awfully hard for NRC to dedicate 4 16 particular staff to spend that amount of focused time in 4 17 that one area for that long period of time. The way 18 we're set up now is that we pay contractors to do that. 19 Now, we follow the work that they do. We direct it. We 20 have to understand it, and we have to make sure that it 21 gets the right results. ._, 22 , Now, if you're asking us to do that, that's a
- 23 new concept. I think it's been tried before, and I don't 24 think it's worked. I think there are always other things !
25 (]) to do at NRC. i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3366646
1 1500 01 01 16 PatVasselo 1 MR. WARD: Well, clearly, you wouldn't exp5ct:- (~)
\~'
2 the NRC people to run experimental facilities, would 3 you? Or maybe you would. 4 4 MR. TIEN: No, no. I think there you are 5 putting this into a slightly different context. You are 6 mentioning specific projects. I think you can still, you 7 know, contract or subcontract to other people to do that, 8 to integrate that part. I see the need of technical 9 integration sort of really like a -- in the beginning 10 somebody mentioned readiness center, so that you can 11 really maintain a perhaps certain kind of integrated 12 expertise to handle some short-term problems and so on. () 13 But in your definition transparency here, I-14 don't see that described. And I am afraid once you set 15 up this, you have an overlap description of 16 responsibilities. Then you really need an integration 17 between NRC research staff and also TIC research staff. 18 And I think we had better have very clear-cut . 19 descriptions of the duties before we really go to, you - 20 know, set up a center. - 21 MR. WARD: You know, what I think the problem 22 might be, it seems to me the duties are described, but 23 it's the name, and of course that gets reflected in the - 24 concept. But really the NRC is going to and should () 25 retain the real integration function, but what you've got l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
~
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1500 01 01 17 PatVasselo 1 here is an integrated technical center, not a technical 2 integration center. I mean, it's -- 3 MR. SHOTKIN: Okay. 4 MR. WARD: You see what I mean? 5 MR. SHOTKIN: Yes. 6 MR. WARD: It's an integrated center of 7 expertise in this area. 8 MR. MICHELSON: Except he said he wasn't going 9 to integrate it, though, it was going to be each center 10 of expertise in its own special area. 11 MR. WARD: Well, it's going to be integrated in 12 thermal hydraulics. = 13 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, in a sub sense. 14 MR. EBERSOLE: It should be so qualified. 15 MR. WARD: Right. 16 MR. SHOTKIN: What? 17 MR. EBERSOLE: It should be so qualified, then, 18 in thermal hydraulics. 19 MR. MICHELSON: But there's a lot more to it. 20 Thermal hydraulics has a lot more involved, like control 21 theory and so forth. 22 MR. SHOTKIN: Oh, yes, but I mean, you know -- 23 MR. MICHELSON: If you don't integrate the two, 24 you have nothing. (} 25 MR. WARD: We have to break things up into l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433666M l
1500 01 01 18 PctVasselo 1 arbitrary divisions to manage them, I think. -- 2:- O 2 MR. EBERSOLE: It has to have half a page of 3 description. 4 MR. WARD: Theo has been trying to say 5 something. 6 MR. THEOFANOUF: I think that integration could 7 mean, and it does mean, very different things to 8 different people, and I think what we are suffering here 9 is some of that. If I can bring you a small analogy, at 10 the university a prafessor is a director of.a thesis 11 topic. Now, he kr ws the ins and outs, and he sees 'the 12 overall picture, but ideally it is the job of the student (} 13 to actually integrate everything into something that 14 makes sense, takes a question and brings it all the way 15 to some conclusion, and he does that in a well-documented 16 fashion. And that is called a thesis. 17 Now, I think what I have been arguing about'in 18 terms of my analysis I am making, what we are getting out 19 of the contractors most of the time look like masters' 20 theses and they should be looking more like Ph.D. theses . 21 in the sense that the master's thesis has a rather narrow 22 scope, takes a question, does a particular experiment or . 23 a calculation, and here is the result. - 24 A Ph.D. thesis goes beyond that and actually () 25 looks at the problem in a much more global sense and does ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
1500 01 01 19 PatVasselo 1 provide all the necessary documentation to convince 2 somebody that the answer is that and nothing else
- 2 3 I think, in terms of this analogy, you will 4 understand better.
5 And, Dave, I said earlier that you were putting 6 us on the defensive, and what I meant is that the - 7 discussion I think comes to a different direction. We 8 are saying that this integration has'not been done 9 enough, and then we will push the button to prove why it 10 was not done enough. And of course, if there is nothing 11 else, you can't pinpoint something that is not there. 12 So I wanted to turn it around and say let's be (} 13 specific, because we can talk for three days here in 14 generalities, but let's be specific. Those people that 15 feel that this integration step has been done well in 16 certain cases, let's bring those cases forth and then 17 let's look at those' cases and have a future meeting and 18 let's go over and see is there anything missing or maybe 19 everything is great. Let's take three maybe for now, 20 pick three areas in which you feel that there is a 21 document or a set of documents, but I don't want to see 22 something like 30 documents and tell me those 30 4 23 documents integrate a problem, but I want to see two or 24 three documents or one document ideally that integrate () 25 certain areas that all of us are familiar with, put them - ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1500 01 01. 20 PatVasselo 1 forth, send us copies, have a future meeting, then'again 2 discuss them and all of us will know better whatievery 3 other person is talking about. 4 This is a challenge to you. , d 5 [ Laughter.] l 6 MR. SHOTKIN: I get enough assignments from our l 7 people. I reject the assignment. 8 [ Laughter.] 9 MR. MICHELSON: Let me ask a question.
, 10 MR. SHOTKIN: The pressurized thermal shock 11 area is one area.
12 MR. EBERSOLE: That's what I want to see. 13 MR. BECKNER: (]) I will challenge Ivan and show 14 him the integration we've done for the GE blowdown heat 15 transfer, since he brought that up. 16 MR. CATTON: I would be delighted to see it. 17 MR. THEOFANOUS: Let me see it. -.- 18 MR. MICHELSON: Well, at any rate, let me ask'a 19 question. It's not clear how this item fits into the 20 budget, since it never appears as a line item or 21 whatever. Why are we into this discussion at this. time?
- 22 MR. SHOTKIN
- Okay.
, 23 MR. MICHELSON: Is a proposal being made,.and 24 is it, you know, a large amount of money? Is it 100K or () 25 what is it? - ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1500 01 01 21 atVasselo 1 MR. SHOTKIN: Okay. Let me -- - - - - 2 MR. MICHELSON: You know, I can't appreciate 3 what you're proposing all this -- you know, this came on 4 a little bit suddenly. I mean, I can't appreciate what i 5 you're after. 6 MR. SHOTKIN: Okay. Really, it's part of the__ 7 budget process, but I think the best way to look at it is 8 independent of the budget process.
, 9 MR. WARD: Why don't you put the management j l
10 plan, the ten-year managment plan back up and see if I 11 can't -- I think Carl's got a good point. This doesn't -- 12 this'doesn't figure directly. You aren't funding 4 13 anything specifically for this program in '85, but if you (]) 14 look at this overall management plan, this is -- and it i 15 seems to me that, you know, this maybe is the most , 16 important slide we're going to consider today and --- 17 MR. MICHELSON: It's kind of new, at least. ' 18 MR. WARD: Yes, it is. And you know, a lead i
- 19 item here is the one we've just been talking about. What i 20 Lou is saying is that this is the approach tha the 21 Research Office plans to take in the long term. And.I,.
22 don't think we can understand the '85 through the '87 23 budget from his standpoint unless we understand this.long-24 term approach. - () 25 MR. MICHELSON: And apparently, it's in terms 5 4 l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433H646
~
1500 01 01 22 PatVasselo 1 of not just thermal hydraulics but in a number of other 2 areas. It is a rather broad subject, and we hit it piece-3 meal from, you know, in one corner. 4 MR. WARD: Yes. I expect, when we get to that 5 other, the other technical areas, other subcommittees are
- 6 going to be looking at similar proposals. I hope that --
! 7 MR. SHOTKIN: Let me give you my understanding 8 of where it stands now. It's the office directors and -- ( 9 I am not sure -- the EDO have recommended certain pilot i 10 areas. There are four areas for pilot Technical t 11 Integration Centers. They're going to choose onr or two 12 of them. One of the candidates is thermal hydraulics. {} 13 So thermal hydraulics -- and we may know within the next 14 week or two -- may officially become the lead guinea pig
- 15 for defining the Technical Integration Center. And we i
16 are starting to work on that now, and I am glad that I am j 17 getting all of your comments today. It will help us. l 18 MR. MICHELSON: I think that our comments are
- 19 kind of, you know -- I haven't heard a real presentation 20 of a proposal even, so our comments are piece-meal also.
21 And I don't think we could interpret either support or i 22 lack of support on the basis of'our discussion today. 23 I for one am quite confused as to what is all 24 going to be involved in terms of the overall agency, not i () 25 just this. I understand this one subject reasonably f ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
1500 01 01 23 PctVasselo 1 well, but how you're doing this as a total, I have-a l =r 2 number of reservations on. And so it's nice for -- .- :J:- 3 information, but I certainly wouldn't want to be put on 4 the record as saying that I support or do not support 5 it. I just don't know. e 6 MR. WARD: Well, yes, maybe not as of 10:30; - 7 you know, on November 22, but I mean I think by February 8 this is something very important for'the director for the 9 Research Office. 10 MR. MICHELSON: Yeah. And who or what 11 subcommittee is going to search -- I think we really 12 ought to search into it and ought to comment on it, you () 13 know, as a group. 14 MR. WARD: Yes. 15 MR. MICHELSON: As a committee. Well, this is 16 just on one piece of it. I don't know what the rest of 17 this research center program looks like. I would have a 18 lot of reservations if they're going to have 15 different 19 centers of excellence. 20 MR. WARD: Okay. But he says this is sort of a 21 pilot program and thermal hydraulics has been selected. 22 And I think we ought to learn -- 23 MR. SCHROCK: Can you do it in isolation, -- 24 though? I mean, those define the collection of centers' () 25 and the way in which the information will flow between ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1500 01 01 24 PetVasselo 1 them and the staff in order to make it effective., = 0 2 MR. WARD: Yes. I still think the central 3 problem with it -- I didn't really mean to be -- I mean, i 4 the thing Carl brought up is the overall integration: 5 function has to remain with the staff, and that includes 6 not only integration within a subject area but 7 integration among the subject areas. That's got to be 8 with the Research staff, and it always has been and 9 always will be. And we've argued a little bit about how f 10 well it's been done. 11 But what you're talking about here is a center 12 of expertise, and not really a center to do that staff , 13 function even in this particular area, it seems to me. [} 14 But it's just that after years of spreading work around, 15 you're finding that it's difficult -- it's maybe not 16 efficient, and it's perhaps difficult to do your i i 17 integrating job, and so you want to concentrate.the 18 resources and the expertise in given spots around the. . i 19 country. And it seems like a reasonable approach to me. l 20 MR. MICHELSON: There's a little more confusion ! ;21 in that NRR does a lot of things that are what I think i . ! 22 are research although they don't call it quite that, and 23 yet it's very important that those functions also-be 24 integrated somehow into an agency overall operation, -and
~
25 f]) you can't do that. You can only do part of it, and that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ - - - - . _ _ . , . _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ ~ _ . .
1500 01 01 25 PatVasselo 1 bothers me, and that's why I would really like to see 2 what the plan of the agency is in this regard evenithough 3 only one or two samples are going to be pulleld out. 'I 4 would not want to support this at all without more 5 information. , 6 MR. SHOTKIN: Okay. Let me just say that we 7 are just starting to work on our plan. We have received 8 a proposal, solicited proposal back the early part of the f 9 year from Idaho on being a thermal hydraulic Technical < 10 Integration Center. We responded to that. We are now ] 11 starting to think very seriously about how to implement - 12 the TIC. And as I mentioned in the closed session, our () 13 schedule is to come up with a plan for implementing the 14 '86 part of it in January and a longer-term plan in 15 February or March. 16 MR. MICHELSON: Well, how are you folding in 17 NRR's activities in the thermal hydraulic area under 18 their program support? 19 MR. SHOTKIN: Right. The TIC would also have 20 integration responsibility for the NRR work as well. ~ 21 MR. MICHELSON: Well, I thought you had the 22 integration responsibility. 23 MR. SHOTKIN: Yes. We have -- -- :e 24 MR. MICHELSON: And the TIC is just helping () 25 you.
~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
f 1500 01 01 26 PatVasselo 1 MR. SHOTKIN: Right. 2 MR. MICHELSON: Okay. I just wanted to keep 3 the words straight. 4 MR. SHOTKIN: Okay. 4 5 MR. WARD: You mean it would also serve as a 1 6 center of expertise for NRR? l 7 MR. SHOTKIN: It would be for NRC. 2 ~ 8 MR. WARD: Yes. 9 MR. SHOTKIN: This would be for NRC. 10 MR. TIEN: I really think we should come back l 11 on this. If this is a management plan for the next ten 12 years, that's really extremely important, and this is.the 13 first item of business. There is a lot of confusion,
}
14 insufficient information perhaps at this particular +
- 15 stage, you know, overall components in terms of i
- 16 integration and so on. I think we need more information 17 before we really discuss the detail and express more
- 18 definite opinions.
19 MR. SULLIVAN: Dave, could I -- J 20 MR. WARD: Could I -- what sort of information? 21 MR. TIEN: Well, first is about the overall 1 22 NRC; for l'nstance, what kind of integration center they 23 are planning to do. So that's overall. If they try to 24 do two, three, four, what areas? (} 25 Second is how NRC and Research in NRR are going T ! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ' 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364646
i 1500 01 01 27 PctVasselo 1 to coordinate? C) 2 Third is getting down to different levels. i I 3 Third, I think, is really again NRC Research staff's 4 integration role versus the TIC's integration role. I 5 think if we are not clear about this, perhaps you will 6 make NRC Research staff in a perhaps worse situation 7 later on because a lot of expertise, integrating 8 integration _ expertise will go to the TICS. That would be 9 very bad for the agency, too. 10 MR. WARD: Well, maybe, can you respond to 11 those three points, Lou? You might have the answers 12 right now, I don't know. 13 MR. SHOTKIN: Oh. I was going to give a good [} 14 bureaucratic response and say that we really weren't 15 prepared to go into great detail on the TIC today. We 16 would just give you -- this is part of our overall plan, 17 and really what we were talking about today was our '87 18 budget. We'd be glad to come again before the ACRS after 19 we have had more time to go into more detail of what you 20 would like to hear. 21 However, in order to respond -- I am willing to 22 respond to your specific questions, if that's what you 23 want, but I don't want to say that we wouldn't want to 24 come back again with some more detailed presentation 25 (]) which we are really not prepared to do today. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. . 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
1500 01 01 , 28 PatVasselo 1 MR. WARD: Okay. Well, you know, I think it's O 2 an area we're interested in, and whether the committee 3 wil be commenting on this in its report on the '87 budget 4 or not, I guess I can't say. But it might. - 5 MR. SHOTKIN: Okay. 6 MR. WARD: You know, this is probably something 7 more important for the committee to comment on than -- 8 MR. SHOTKIN: All right. 9 MR. WARD: -- shifting $250,000 from pot A to 10 pot B. 11 MR. MICHELSON: Dave, you didn't really tell us I 12 yet how much money is even involved. 13 MR. WARD: Yeah, he did. []) Zip, in '87. 14 MR. MICHELSON: Well, he said he's implementing 15 a plats 't cust cost something. 16 MR. WARD: Okay. I am sorry. Wait a minute. 17 Now, he's already got several questions to answer. He's 18 got Carl's and he's got three from him. - 19 MR. MICHELSON: I wanted to add'one more item. I 20 The fourth item is, how do you integrate the integration I
. I 21 centers while you're doing all this integration?- -
22 MR. WARD: Okay. Why don't you talk for a l 23 while now? . : :- 24 MR. SHOTKIN: Okay. Would somebody write down () 25 the questions? I will try to give them as best I can, l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ! 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1500 01 01 29 PatVasselo 1 and realize that what I am saying has not been scrubbed = 2 through the Research Office and I am giving you~my :e* 3 impression of what I have heard or what I think is going 4 to happen. 5 MR. WARD: Okay. 6 MR. SHOTKIN: The first point to make is that 7 the staff, the NRC staff, does not visualize or cannot 8 legally give up any of its obligations. We have certain 9 obligations to protect public health and safety, which as 10 part of this Technical Integration Center we don't intend 11 to give that up. We can't. 12 All that we're trying to do is to improve where () 13 we are today. Where we are today is we have work spread 14 out in several areas of several different laboratories, 15 many of them going below critical masses. 16 As we look into the future, into the next ten 17 years, we're saying, "What's the best way that we can-18 keep a level, a base level of expertise in thermal 19 hydraulic research?" And this is one of the areas where 20 at least I think NRC, all levels of NRC, agree that'for 21 operating reactors this is one area where NRC typically 22 has to interact with the industry in problems and that we 23 want to keep this expertise up. 24 The expertise will still be within the staff, () 25 but we.would like to have the expertise start focusing in ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1500 01 01 30 PatVasselo 1 in one location, and with one group of people that have O 2 clearly defined tasks, and where that information doesn't 3 get lost. 4 The second point -- and I may not be getting 5 them all in the order that they were given -- the second 6 point of what is the funding. We can go through the . 7 funding exercise, as you may have been reading, if you, 8 let's say you read "Inside NRC," and you saw that we took 9 a cut in '87 and then money was restored, with the 10 objective of forming Technical Integration Centers; there 11 was a clear number that was put in by Congress. 12 And that's what we're responding to, is the (]) 13 congressional mandate that the money that they put back 14 in '86 in the '86 budget, a certain amount of money was 15 spelled out to form Technical Integration Centers. And 16 what we're trying to do is now define how many, what 17 kind, and how they operate. 18 So far, there have been four areas that have 19 been chosen as potentials for Technical Integration 20 Centers, one of them being thermal hydraulics, and 21 thermal hydraulics may be one of them that serves as the 22 pilot program. 23 MR. CATTON: What are the others? 24 MR. SHOTKIN: Well, I hope I remember () 25 correctly. I think one of them is plant aging. One of f ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
1500 01 01 31 i PatVasselo 1 them was -- . .- . . . . , 2 MR. TIEN: Seismic. .
,.g.,<_
3 MR. SHOTKIN: Yes, seismic and risk come to 4 mind. I hope those are correct. I could get you the 5 right answers. 6 MR. MICHELSON: Is Research the lead office for l 7 the agency?.
-8 MR. SROTKINt That's right. Right. Right.
9 MR. MICHELSON: So if we had a subcommittee 10 meeting, who would come down and explain to us the l 11 overall program of the agency? Would that still be you? 12 MR. SHOTKIN: No. Oh, no. It would be -- you 13 .would want someone from the Director's office, either 14 Minogue or -- 15 MR. MICHELSOF: Yes. I think in terms of. 16 commenting on the budgot, we would want to hear about 17 this program if it's'this far along. I don't read .
- 18 "Inside NRC" enough, I guess, so I wasn't aware of it.
19 So it took me a little by surprise. . I 1 20 But I think it's something that would be far i 21 more useful for us to comment on, as you say, than a ., 22 couple of hundred K here or there. I 23 MR. WARD: Yes. Well, you know, we need to 24 talk to Dr. Siess, but I think when he has his Research ,
- 1 25 Subcommittee meeting --
(} 7 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33Mi646
1500 01 01 32 PatVasselo 1 MR. MICHELSON: This would be one place it 2 could be done. 3 MR. WARD: Yes. 4 MR. MICHELSON: And it would probably take, I 5 would say, an hour and a half to cover it, depending on 6 just how many questions. We've got an awful lot of 7 questions here today. 8 MR. WARD: Yes. Although, strictly speaking, I 9 guess, the subject of the report we're required to put 10 out in February is the '87 research budget. 11 MR. MICHELSON: Well, that's where the money 12 is. i 13 MR. WARD: Yes. But I think to comment on ( < 14 that, you have to have some understanding of what the 15 longer-range plan is, you know. 16 MR. MICHELSON: This money is in '87 as well as 17 a little bit in '86, as I understand it. 18 MR. WARD: Yes. I didn't quite get -- 19 MR. SHOTKIN: I didn',t answer that yet. Let me 20 give you -- l t 21 MR. WARD: Yes, you didn't answer that i 22 question. l 23 MR. SHOTKIN: -- answer on the budget. 24 MR. WARD: Yes. Right. 25 MR. SHOTKIN: One way we could approach it
/]}
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
I 1500 01 01 33
,PatVasselo 1 would be to say, "Well, there's $11 million. -How are we 2 going to portion that out in '867 And let's think up j 3 work to do." The tack we've taken, though, is just 4 forget the budget, you know, forget money; let's say, 5 "This is a job we have to do, here's an opportunity.
l 6 What's the best way to define what a Technical - 7 Integration Center is and how can it best help NRC," and 8 then let's put down what we think it would cost. 9 And we have broken it down to some detail, and 10 we have put some cost estimates. But it's nothing that I 11 would want to talk to you today about. We haven't gone 12 that far. 13 MR. EBERSOLE: Well, there is in being at this (}- . 14 time a division in NRC called the Division of System-15 Integration. Years ago I used to come up here and be 16 forced to deal with compartmentalized specialties to 17 resolve interconnected problems, and I was pleased to see 18 some degree of integration come about, but it's been very
' ~^
19 fuzzy to me just what that subunit does and why'it 20 shouldn't have some sort of an active role in this
~
21 overall integrative problem area. Will it? 22 MR. SHOTKIN: The concept of the TIC is being 23 discussed at the level of the executive director of 24 operations -- () 25 MR. EBERSOLE: Above that division?
~ ~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80(L3366646
1500 01 01 34 PotVasselo 1 MR. SHOTKIN: -- of all office directors
; 2 discussing it. What you're hearing is a very low-level 3 presentationon TIC.
4 [ Laughter.] 5 MR. EBERSOLE: So I see this then as an element i 6 of a larger matrix, and it's just one part of it. 7 MR. SHOTKIN: Absolutely. Right. 8 MR. EBERSOLE: And we need the whole picture 9 with about two pages of description as to what each piece 10 does. 11 MR. SHOTKIN: I can't give that to you. 12 MR. WARD: We probably better nove on, but one 13 more question. Is there any discussion of whether these , 14 technical centers could or should be joint NRC/ industry i 15 centers? 16 MR. SHOTKIN: I am not aware of discussions in 17 that regard. But certainly, we are always receptive to 18 have industry come in with us and support us in our 19 research. That's always open for them. But I don't 20 think that the concept is going to -- as depending on 21 industry support. 22 That's an interesting idea. You should bring 23 it up in this general meeting, why not have EPRI come in, 24 for example. 25 MR. WARD: Yes. Okay. (]) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage M33H646
1500 01 01 35 g PotVasselo 1 MR. SULLIVAN: Dave, there was an article in yr 2 "Inside NRC," and I just happen to have it with me, so I 3 will try to get it distributed to the rest of the people. 4 But it is, if you believe "Inside NRC," and we 5 found that -- one of the things is an error in the 6 article in that it says that they are going to get a 7 number of these together from the different offices and 8 particularly from NRR and Research and go to Dircks. So 9 the integrating point looks it is at Dircks's level. 10 MR. WARD: Not the Research Office? 4 11 MR. SULLIVAN: Not the Research Office. So it 12 looks like the -- and with a meeting with NRR, they've () 13 had recently, we noticed that they're trying to integrate 14 their effort, too. So it looks like at least those two 15 offices are trying to integrate maybe independently but 16 at least Dircks is trying to get them to integrate it 17 ltogether. So it looks like that process is well 18 underway. The article says -- 19 MR. SHOTKIN: Well, I would hate to use -- I I 20 quoted "Inside NRC" just to give some budgets. I didn't 21 want to give any budget numbers. I would hate to have 22 "Inside NRC" become an authority for ACRS. 23 MR. WARD: No. 24 MR. SHOTKIN: I said ACRS can get the proper () 25 information of who's coordinating this by just calling up ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8043364646
1500 01 01 36 PatVasstlo 1 Dircks's office on the phone and find out. -- 2 - O 2 MR. WARD: A good comment for the record, so - 3 Okay. Let's go on to the next topic then, 4 Lou. Thank you very much.- 5 MR. SHOTKIN: Okay. . 6 MR. BECKNER: I am Bill Beckner. I think the 7 next topic was very well integrated. I think the 8 subcommittee will agree. This is the MIST program. , 9 I would like to start out by thanking the 10 subcommittee. We had originally scheduled a meeting in 11 December 10 to go over the MIST prcgram in detail, and 12 due to problems we had both with the staff and with () 13 contracting support, why, the subcommittee agreed to 14 postpone the meeting until, I think, now sometime in late 15 January. 16 MR. WARD: Yes. As a matter of fact, for the 17 subcommittee's information, I think we're zeroed in on -- 18 what are the dates? 19 MR. BECKNER: I think it's the week of January 20 20. 21 MR. WARD: Yes, but specific -- 22 MR. BOEH!!ERT: 23-24. I think you had a PMG 23 meeting on the 20th to the 22nd. 24 MR. BECKNER: Right. And we should have a very () . 25 good complement of contractor support out there to answer ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
._ 202
.__,347 3700_ . _ . __ Nationwide Coverage M336-6646
1500 01 01 37 PotVasselo 1 any questions you have because this will be held in 2 conjuration with our PMG meeting also. 3 MR. TIEN: I hate to interrupt, Dave. Did you 4 mention you would like to have some views about water 5 hammer? 6 MR. WARD: Yes. Why don't we pick that up 7 under the integral facilities programs? I would very 8 much like them, though. 9 MR. BECKNER: Okay. What I am going to do 10 today is, since we did postpone the scheduled ACRS 11 subcommittee meeting, why, I am going to try to give you 12 a brief update of the status of the MIST program and 13 particularly what has happened since the last meeting, 14 which was held in Alliance back in June, I believe. 15 okay. I have a relatively short presentation, 16 but we did schedule almost 45 minutes so that the 17 subcommittee members and consultants can have time to ask 18 any questions, and we will try to address them the best 19 we can. , 20 First of all, concerning the status of the MIST 21 facility itself, I think you recall when we were up in 22 Alliance, why, the IST facility appeared to be closing 23 down on construction, completion of construction, but 24 there were a couple of key items that were very important {} 25 that looked good but weren't finished yet. ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33H646
1500 01 01 38 PatVasselo 1 I am happy to say that we did complete' fdcility 2 construction on time. The facility officially went into 3 what they call a " debug testing" -- tis is like a 4 shakedown testing -- in the first quarter of fiscal '86. ts 5 It started, I believe, September 30. And they will be 6 doing shakedown testing for the entire first quarter of 7 fiscal '86. 8 Then it will be continued the second quarter of 9 fiscal '86. They will go into what they call their 10 characterization tests. These are simply looking at 11 calibrations of instruments, calibrations of facility 12 volumes, resistances, and so forth. () 13 The actual testing, we'll schedule to start I 14 guess in the third and fourth quarter of '86. 15 Okay. So we are on schedule. Here is a list 16 of just the typical things that get done during a
~
17 shakedown test. I won't go into any of these details. I 18 do want to highlight two items at the bottom. These were 19 items that were sort of pending at the last meeting up in , 20 Alliance. i 21 You'll recall that they were welding the heater 22 rods into the vessel at that point in time. There had 23 been some problems in the past with these heater rods. 24 We have successfully got all 45 heater rods in the core. () 25 There is some conservatism in that number, and in fact we ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
1500 01 01 39 PatVasselo 1 could have failures in the core and still reach full A k/ 2 power if we wanted to. And also, we have at least seven 3 spare heaters outside the core that haven't been put in 4 yet. And so as far as the core itself, we had a little 5 bit of a sca're there, but we did successfully recover, 6 and the core seems to be in good shape. 7 The other problem we had was with the coolant 4 8 pumps. We went through a planned detailed acceptance 9 testing of one pump, and it didn't pass. The vendor 10 corrected the pump, but we were concerned that just 11 testing one pump was not sufficient, based on the history 12 of the failure. 13 The PMG got very tough on this, and i 14 particularly, B&W did also. After some discussions, why, 15 we did get all four pumps totally accepted testing. 16 These were runs in air and extended runs in air and ikn 17 water to insure tnat we wouldn't see these failures. 18 So I think, in summary, as far as the facility, 19 we got through some rough times, but we came out pretty 20 lucky and right on schedule so far. 21 MR. EBERSOLE: May I ask a question? What did 22 you find when you forced them to test all the pumps? l 23 That there were discrepancies pump to pump? 24 MR. BECKNER: Well, these were testing , j (} 25 basically in terms of their durability in failure. The
\
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3364646 .
l 1500 01 01 40 PatVasselo 1 first pump had some bearing problems, and the fix was not I 2 a straightforward fix. It was basically finetuning-the 3 clearances and so forth. And since there wasn't a 4 straightforward fix, we wanted to check every one. And 5 indeed, they all did pass. 6 MR. EBERSOLE: Okay. 7 MR. SCHROCK: Bill, could you comment about 8 this 35 versus 80 versus 45 rod in a little more -- 9 MR. BECKNER: Okay. I am sorry. The core has 10 45 rods. 11 MR. SCHROCK: Yes, I understand that. 12 MR. BECKNER: Ok.ay. 13 MR. SCHROCK: But what I don't understand is (]} 14 how it could be envisioned that the tests could be 15 successfully performed with 35 rods providing the power 75 that would in a reactor be provided by 45 rods and expect
~
17 that there wouldn't be a modification somehow in the 18 thermal hydraulics of that. 19 MR. BECKNER: Okay. The 35 means that we could I 1 20 put the power into the fluid with only 35 rods if we had 21 some rod failures. Now, certainly, if you went into a 22 test where you're uncovering the core and you're looking 23 at heat transfer, that wouldn't be a desirable 24 situation. But you also recall that the majority of our () - 25 tests are not to that degree. J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80633H646 )
1500 01 01 41
)
PatVasselo 1 MR. SCHROCK: That's that I was afraid you were l (~~'1 2 thinking. It does seem to me that the natural-3 circulation characteristics of the system being heated 4 with the same total power by 35 rods is very much likely 5 to be different than the same power delivered from 45 6 rods. 7 MR. BECKNER: I don't -- 8 MR. SCHROCK: The distribution in the bundle
. 9 will be very different. And the natural circulation is 10 likely to be affected by that, isn't it?
11 MR. BECKNER: Well, first of all, Virgil, it's 12 only, I guess, an indication of conservatism in the core {} 13 design. We don't -- you know, all 45 rods are working 14 now. Okay. I am not sure I would agree with you. This 15 is a one-dimensional pipe, this vessel. 16 MR. SCHROCK: Well, that's the assumption that 17 it is. But my point is that I doubt very much that it 18 will remain a one-dimensional pipe if you shift the power 19 so that it's concentrated in 80 percent of the rods as 20 opposed to all of the rods. Then maybe it's no longer 21 really a one-dimensional system. 22 MR. SECKNER: Possibly, Virgil. I don't expect 23 we'd need to do this, but if we did, I think we'd 24 probably do some analysis if we ever got to this point. 25 MR. CATTON: That would depend pretty strongly (]) ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8043364646
1500 01 01 42 PatVasselo 1 on how the failures are distributed. . . +r3 O 2 MR. SCHROCK: Right. Exactly. - 3 MR. CATTON: If they're all in one corner, it 4 might be a bit of a problem. 5 MR. BECKNER: I don't know. Maybe we generated 6 more discussion than necessary by putting that in. 7 [ Laughter.] 8 MR. BECKNER: Remember, we're talking about 9 putting decay heat levels in rods that are designed for 10 full power. So we don't expect failures. Okay. This is 11 just a point as far as we had trouble with rods and we do 12 have a lot of spare rods available if that continues. (} 13 Okay. Any other questions on the facility per 14 se? This is all I was going to say on the status of the 15 MIST facility. 16 [No response.] 17 MR. BECKNER: Okay. The next is on some of~-the 18 TRAC analyses. This is information that was reported up 19 at PMG Number 10, which was held, I think, in September. 20 And these are the TRAC studios. This is just a reporting 21 of what has happened since the last ACRS committee 22 meeting. 23 And basically, there were two sensitivity 24 studies performed by LANL using TRAC. The first one was () 25 an attempt to just look at the what the MIST downcomer i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
1500 01 01 43 PatVasselo 1 would do, is that downcomer one-dimensional or is it O V 2 three-dimensional? And so what LANL did is they repeated 3 basically the nominal MIST transient case using the 4 vessel model to model the MIST downcomer, in other words, 5 to make it look three-dimensionally as the actual 6 downcomer and MIST looks. 7 Basically, what they found is they found little 8 or no difference when they modeled the downcomer in gory 9 detail like this. And I think what the conclusion is is 10 that basically the MIST downcomer is probably one-11 dimensional, as I think many people have stated in the 12 last week. We spent a lot of time looking at the MIST () 13 downcomer, trying to make it look three-dimensional, but ( 14 it's a very small device, and it will probably look one-15 dimensional. Okay. I don't think there's a big surprise 16 there. 17 MR. CATTON: Doesn't that kind of eliminate a 18 part of the reason for MIST or one of the reasons for 19 MIST? 20 MR. BECKNER: We've discussed this many times 21 in the past, trying to make MIST look three-dimensional. 22 MR. CATTON: That's what I understand. 23 MR. BECKNER: And I don't think it's possible 24 to do. And we have -- that's why we've put in support () 25 programs like Maryland and SRI. I don't think it ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33H646
1500 01 01 44
,f.
PatVasselo 1 precludes things necessarily like loop-to-loop
~ ~
V 2 oscillations, depending on what they're being driven *byt ' 3 But it does preclude phenomena that may occur in a 4 downcomer that would give you asymmetries. 5 MR. CATTON: The only reason I mentioned this 6 is that if indeed you are convinced now that it's one-7 dimensional, you may want to take another look at your 8 test matrix, because if some of those tests would have 9 been to look at certain kinds of loop-to-loop phenomena 10 that depended on it being multidimensional, you ought to 11 replace them with something else. And maybe you can 12 shorten up the test period and take a little away from () 13 the future years. 14 MR. BECKNER: No, I don't think I agree with - 15 that, Ivan. 16 MR. CATTON: I am just suggesting you look. 17 MR. BECKNER: We have tests in there designed - 18 to drive asymmetries. And that does not necessarily 19 depend on a downcomer being multidimensional to keep 20 those asymmetries occurring. At least, that's an - 4 21 opinion, where the tests will tell the truth. -- 22 MR. CATTON: Okay. We are just suggesting you 23 look -- .* Yeah. MR. BECKNER: 24 () 25 MR. CATTON: -- and you can promise you will ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase M 3 4 6646
1500 01 01 45 P ook. l OatVasselo1 2 MR. BECKNER: Well, I guess I don't want to 3 commit to do that, because as I am going to say later, we 4 have been working in detail on the tech specs and we are 5 almost finished. So I don't want to commit to go back 6 and change tests at this point. Okay. 7 MR. CATTON: Even if it's appropriate, even if 8 it's -- 9 MR. BECKNER: Certainly, if there is a major 10 perturbation, but I don't see this as anything new. 11 MR. CATTON: Okay. You say the test matrix has 12 been really developed with the assumption that the () 13 downcomer is one-dimensional? 14 MR. BECKNER: That's my assumption, yes. This 15 is just another piece of supporting evidence from TRAC 16 that it's one-dimensional. And ceratinly, I don't think 17 that would preclude us from doing a test even if we 18 thought the downcomer was important, because we may want 19 to compare that test with the University of Maryland. 20 MR. CATTON: I am just suggseting that there 21 might be another test that would be more fruitful. 22 MR. BECKNER: Okay. Let me deal with that in a 23 second when I get to the test matrix. 24 The next sensitivity study is something that is () 25 near and dear to everyone's heart, and that is noding. ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
1500 01 01 46 OPatVasselo 1 Basically, LANL did a sensitivity study with the .noding 2 in the upper area of the vssel. Now, this is an area 3 where there is a lot of flowpaths. There is an area 4 where your vent valves are. And a lot of the flow 5 patterns in your upper head and upper plenum area will, 6 of course, depend upon how you resolve levels versus 7 these different flowpaths. 8 Now, the initial MIST model was rather coarse 9 as far as the noding in this upper head area. And I 10 think it was recognized that there may be a problem 11 because you simply could not resolve these different 12 flowpaths and the geometry up t'here with the coarse (]} 13 noding. 14 The reason the coarse noding was gone with 15 originally was the fact that it would have been very 16 expensive to make these calculations if you finally noded 17 the upper area in order to resolve all these leakage 18 paths in the vent valves. 19 okay. What we did -- or what LANL did is they 20 went ahead and did do a model with finer noding up in the 21 upper plenum. There were two results. The first result 22 is there were significant changes in the behavior and 23 also the -- () 24 MR. THEOFANOUS: Bill, can you please be 25 specific, what was the coarse noding and what was the ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 H7 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3 4 4646
i 1500 01 01 47 PatVasselo 1 fine noding? - O 2 MR. BECKNER: I don't have a noding.diagrama; 3 with me, Theo. 4 MR. THEOFANOUS: Can you give us some idea? 5 MR. BECKNER: Basically -- 6 MR. THEOFANOUS: How many nodes were in the 7 upper plenum of the core and how many -- 8 MR. BECKNER: Basically, the nodes were large 9 enough so that you would see multiple leakage paths 10 within a single node, so that you couldn't resolve levels 11 between different leakage paths in vent valves. 12 MR. THEOFANOUS: But you can't tell me anything () 13 about the size of the nodes or the total number of nodes 14 in the upper plenum? 15 MR. BECKNER: There were maybe two or three. 16 Richard, is that on the right magnitude? 17 MR. LEE: 'Yes. - 18 MR. THEOFANOUS: There were two or three 19 before, and how many were later in order to get the 20 things right? 21 MR. LEE: I think now it's down to the size 22 where it is almost like physically -- 23 MR. THEOFANOUS: How many are there? - 24 MR. LEE: Theo, I don't remember. () 25 MR. THEOFANOUS: Oh, you don't.
. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3M4646
4 1500 01 01 48 I PatVasselo 1 MR. LEE: It increased the configuration, the O 2 computer time by only about 25 percent. 3 MR. THEOFANOUS: Do you know if you went any 4 finer, would the results change -- 5 MR. LEE: If you go finer, you will run into 6 the current limits on all these. But right now we have 7 not run into that yet. 8 MR. BECKNER: I think you are sort of not 9 letting me finish here. But the bottom line is'that we 10 had hoped to get away with a coarser noding in order to 11 save money because when you get small nodes, that's 12 significantly increases the running time. (} 13 But the bottom line is that if you have levels 14 which aro going -- you have to resolve relative to the 15 vent valves and relative to these leakage patterns, if 16 you don't node fine enough to resolve that geometry, to 17 resolve these leakago paths, you're not going to get the 18 right results. 19 And I don't know if this is -- I don't think 20 this is a problem that the smaller the nodes get, you 21 know, you get differences. I think this is more of a 22 problem that we simply were not resolving the geometry 23 correctly. 24 MR. MICHELSON: Question. When you're () 25 referring to leakage paths, did that include the path ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nailonwide Coverage 80033HM6
1500 01 01 49 gsPatVasselo 1 between the core barrel and the discharge pipe sleev6?* Okay. 2 MR. BECKNER: It's my assumption that
~
3 that would. But I don't know that -- 4 MR. MICHELSON: I have asked this from time to 5 time in the past, and I get mixed answers as to whether 6 that's even in the code or not, because that gap can be 7 quite substantial on some plants. It's quite plant-8 specific as to how the internals finally matched up to
. 9 that sleeve. It could be a gap of an eighth of an inch 10 on a 54-inch circumference or diameter, for instance, it 11 could be a very large bypass leakage in some plants. But 12 was that included; is the effect of that bypass leakage 1
() 13 included? It's not in the MIST, of course, because it -- 14 MR. BECKNER: Right. 15 MR. MICHELSON: -- it's tight there. 16 MR. LEE: We are talking about MIST now. 17 MR. MICHELSON: I beg your pardon? 18 MR. LEE: We are talking about the MIST 19 calculations. 20 MR. MICHELSON: Well, yes, but I am thinking in 21 terms of its reality to, you know, its use in a real 22 plant where the bypass leakage now could be quite 23 different, because this bypass, I know -- it's my 24 recollection, at least -- was not modeled in MIST. The () 25 sleeve to core barrel bypass was not even in -- ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationalde Coverese 800 3 4 4646
1500 01 01 50 PctVasselo 1 MR. BECKNER: No. 2 MR. MICHELSON: There's no way to model it. 3 MR. WARD: Your question is when they do a TRAC 4 calculation of a real plant, do they model it? 5 MR. MICHELSON: Is it in the TRAC modelt in 6 other words, is that bypass leakage already in there? 7 MR. BECKNER: Okay. I cannot specifically 8 answer that. I know that there are leakage paths 9 modeled, but we'll have to get either LANL to give you an 10 answer beforehand or else wait until the January 11 meeting. I do not have an answer right now. 12 MR. MICHELSON: The January meeting will be 13 fine. (]) 14 MR. BECKNER: Okay. 15 MR. MICHELSON: Put it on your list, because I 16 am also interested in it because when the pumps are 17 running, it's a quite a bit different situation than when 18 the pumps aren't running. 19 MR. BECKNER: Okay. So these are just 20 basically what we've done since the last meeting, a 21 series of sensitivity studies, and I think the last one 22 says that we have to spend the extra money to resolve the 23 geometry. 24 MR. WARD: I thought there was going to be -- () 25 maybe I have lost track here -- I thought there was going i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 H7 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 3 4 6646
'1500 01 01 51 PatVasselo 1 to be a sensitivity study of the aux feed distribution in 2 the steam generator.
3 MR. BECKNER: Okay, I will address that if you 4 want me to. 5 MR. WARD: Yes. 6 MR. BECKNER: I don't have anything presented. 7 The last ACRS meeting, that was a question, and 8 I believe our answer to that was that a sensitivyt study 9 was the appropriate thing to do. We didn't want to go s 10 out and do a very fine calculation like was suggested or 11 run experiments at this point in time. 12 MR. WARD: Right. 13 MR. BECKNER: We did feel that a sensitivity 14 study was the appropriate thing on the aux feed. Okay. 15 We have not done that yet. Okay. We're still planning 16 to do that, but we have not done it.
. 17 We have also toyed with maybe the idea of doing
) 18 it inhouse. We're not sure. So really, there is really 1 19 no change in that area from the last time we gave the j 20 answer. ! 21 MR. WARD: Okay. Is there -- there is a ! 22 commitment to do it, though? l 1 23 MR. BECKNER: We have said that's appropriate. i l 24 Now, we have not had specific plans in place. Right now, 25 LANL is going off -- and I will show you what we're doing l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 302 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 336 4646
'1500 01 01 52
~
right now. 1 - 4 ;' -
'PatVasselo 1 O 2 MR. WARD: Okay.
3 MR. BECKNER: Okay. But we don't have'any 4 specific plans in place right now. 5 , MR. WARD: All right. 6 MR. CATTON: In January are we going to discuss 7 this noding a little bit more?
. 8 MR. LEE: Yes.
9 MR. BECKNER: Yes. 10 MR. LEE: We will present the two noding 11 studies in detail. 12 MR. CATTON: Because if you nodalize it too 13 fine,-your answers change for other reasons. (]) 14 MR. BECKNER: That's correct. 15 MR. CATTON: Because you basically are dealing
~
16 with an ill-posed set of equations. I would really like
~
17 to find out how you figure out where you ought to be. 18 MR. BECKNER: I think sensitivity studies.
. 19 MR. CATTON: Well, a sensitivity study is' fine,
! 20 but you don't know what you're comparing with. \ . 21 MR. BECKNER: Well, I think -- 22 MR. CATTON: We don't have any answers. 23 MR. BECKNER: I think code assessment'is/part' 24 of it. I know that we went under the same program with 25 (]) BWR TRAC and FIST is that we found we had to learn -- you l I I ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202.M7 3700 Nationwide Coverser 800 _ _ ., _ _ --. _ __--_ .-- - .-~ . __3364M6 .- -
4
-1500 01.01 53 had to node appropriately to resolve things where a '()PatVasselo1 2 certain action was going on, and you had levels and/or 3 leakage paths you had to node fine enough to resolve
- 4 them, and I think this lesson is being retaught us again 5 with MIST, and that's over and above your problem, what 6 you're stating, is that basically even just the problem 7 is noding-sensitive.
, 8 MR. CATTON: So you might get caught between a 9 rock and a hard place if the nodalization that you need 10 is of a fineness that leads you into -- you don't know i 11 where you're at.
12 MR. BECKNER: That's a possibility. 13 MR. CATTON: (]) And the real question gets down to 14 being sure that you don't get caught. 15 MR. BECKNER: Right. 16 Okay. Again, the next item I want to talk i 17 about is a little bit more about analysis and 18 coordination. There was an issue that we talked about, 19 again, in Alliance. This is the fact that the MIST code 20 in its steady state for the -- I am sorry, the TRAC code 21 in its steady state for the MIST nominal case and also 22 the RELAP-5 code that has been run by B&W had ditferent 23 steady states, basically, different initial natural 24 circulation flow rates. And this led to, of course, () 25 different temperatures throughout the system and, 4 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- - , . -. , - .- - -. - .3700. - _ _ , . _ , _ Nationwide 202 347 . _ _ . _Coverage
, _ , - _ _ , - - 8043 4 4646
1500 01 01 54 PatVasselo 1 therefore, different pressure when the thing started to i 2 depressurize. This is a discrepancy'that was disturbing, t 3 and it still is, in fact. 4 Now, what we feel the problem is due to is the 5 fact that the two codes, RELAP and TRAC, are modeling the 6 steam generator heat transfer a little bit different. Ofe i 7 course, this is a lower-loop plant, and a small 8 difference in where that actual thermal center in the
, 9 steam generator is will give you a different natural 10 circulation flow rate.
l 11 And so our feeling at this point in time is 12 that the difference between how the codes calculate steam 13 generator heat transfer. 14 We want to make sure of that, though, so we are 15 going through a review process just to make sure that 16 it's not caused by input discrepancies. So basically, 17 LANL and B&W are getting together and taking a detailed
; 18 look at each other's both input and their initial steady-19 state output.
t 20 And so that effort really is continuing. I 21 hope we will have some type of report on that in January I 22 when we have our PMG meeting.
! 23 Okay. The next topic again under 24 " Coordination" is some reports that have been coming 25 out. I won't say that this is the total answer to
(]} ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 4646
i 1500 01 01 55
.PatVasselo 1 coordination, but this is where we stand today.
( 2 First of all, a report that has been awaited 3 'for quite some time, this is a report that Mike Young and 4 John Pierre Sursock put together. This report has come 5 out. It's in a draft form. And I believe we have sent 6 that to the committee for review. 7 Okay. Again, I don't think this will be the 8 end product of coordination, but it's our sttrt anyway, 9 and it will be a continuing process. 10 Likewise, EPRI has provided us with a report -- 11 again, I believe it's in draft form -- for some of the 12 SAI work. This is some of the work done as far as flow 4 13 regimes and hot legs. Again, the subcommittee has a copy 14 of this report. 15 MR. WARD: May I make a comment there to the i 16 subcommittee? i 17 Let's see, do we have both of those, Paul? 18 MR. BOEHNERT: They have the first one, and l 19 they have a draft report on the scaling. They don't have ! 20 the two-page flow regime. I ! 21 MR. BECKNER: Yes, you should have this one l 22 also. You should have these first two. 23 MR. BOEHNERT: Yes, I do have them. We have I. - 24 them,"but the subcommittee hasn't got them. I l 25 MR. BECKNER: Okay. I am sorry. ' [} l
/4CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 336 4646 - --.. ..- ,. ~. ..-. _ , - . - - . . . . . -
1500 01 01 56 sPctVasselo 1 MR. WARD: Okay. Well, I guess you will have d 2 those then. And I guess the best way to approach them 3 would be to -- we will have time on the agenda at the 4 January meeting to discuss this, so comments you have and 5 questions about those reports, we can bring up at that 6 time. 7 MR. BECKNER: Okay. The next report up here is 8 a set of the draft MIST technical specifications. Now, 9 what this is, as I said before, we spent most of PMG , 10 Number 10 going over the detailed test specifications for 11 all*the tests. This document is about probably three or 12 four inches thick. () 13 The PMG gave preliminary approval to the test 14 specifications, subject to two things, I think; first of 15 all, subject to the comments an the changes that were 16 directed at the meeting; and those changes should be in 17 that document, although we haven't re-reviewed it to make 18 sure, and approved it. But again, we've provided that to 1 19 Paul Boehnert. 20 The other thing I think is missing still is a 21 list of critical instruments. We're still working on 22 that. One thing that was done -- and again let me 23 respond to, I think, a question or comment, or at least a 24 point that Paul raised in his letter to you on the () 25 meeting -- as far as critical instruments,.that will be ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
1500 01 01 57 7 sPctVasselo 1 part of the test specifications. There are instruments V 2 that must work or a given test is not completed. There 3 are instruments that do not necessarily have to work. 4 One thing that the PMG has done is we have 5 instituted a third category of instrumentation, and that l 6 is, this instrument must work for at least one of the l 7 tests or at least for a specific test. And particularly, 8 we're looking at stuff like the NRC provide gamma 9 densitometers. We are not saying that they are critical 10 in that they have to be there for every test or we don't 11 test, but we're saying that they better be there for 12 certain tests or we won't test. () 13 MR. MICHELSON: Are you still using 14 electronically controlled vent' valves to simulate the 15 real plant vent valves? 16 MR. BECKNER: That's right. They're driven by 17 delta-Ps. 18 MR. MICHELSON: Have your done or are you going 19 to do any response-time type measurements to know how 20 those valves respond to their controls so you know what 21 kind of time delays, consistency of operation, et cetera, 22 you might be expecting in the experiment? 23 MR. BECKNER: Okay. I believe -- and I will-24 have to confirm -- but I believe that type of thing 1 () 25 should be done during the facility characterization test. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
. _ m 1500 01 01 58 PatVasselo 1 MR. MICHELSON: Okay. - - - - - -
O 2 MR. CATTON: The're basically on/off., ,3 :3 3 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, but it takes time to get 4 them on and it takes time to open and it takes time to 5 close, and they may not be consistent times, and there 6 will be time delays. I don't know if we're talking about 7 milliseconds or what. 8 MR. CATTON: There was a paper presented at the 9 ASME meeting a couple of days ago. 10 MR. MICHELSON: On those valves? 11 MR. CATTON: Yes, on the valves. 12 MR. MICHELSON: Maybe Paul could get us a copy () 13 of that. 14 MR. CATTON: I might have a set of the 15 viewgraphs here. 16 MR. BECKNER: Actually, we have already done 17 some calibs ation of those valves because you're right, 18 they're not valves, they're piping, and we've actually - 19 calibrated them in flow external to vessel. That's 20 already been done. 21 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. I was looking for the 22 time response. 23 MR. BECKNER: Right. . ,_,
^
24 MR. MICHELSON: And you said that can be done () 25 later. .- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4336 6646 l
1500 01 01 59 PatVasselo 1 MR. SCHROCK: I think the problem is partly one 2 of how to operate the on/off valve so as to simulate 3 partially open valves. 4 MR. MICHELSON: I want to know how consistent 5 they operate. Once they get into the system and give 6 them the real environment, are we going to see 7 consistently consistent operation or do the delay times 8 vary from cycle to cycle even? 9 MR. BECKNER: Carl, I think you're right. They 10 are on/off valves, but if they were really on/off valves, 11 they would chatter continuously. So they do have some 12 response characteristics. () 13 , So that concludes. Again, you have the MIST 14 test specifications. We will be probably looking at them 15 and giving final approval and also looking at critical 16 instruments in January at our taeeting. 17 The next one is the INEL interfacility scaling 18 report. Again, this program is really closely related to 19 the CEC scaling effort, and Don Solbeg will be here this 20 afternoon talking about a lot of the results that have 21 come in from the scaling program of CEC. This 22 information is relevant to comparisons between MIST and 23 University of Maryland. 24 You have a paper, I believe, that was present'ed
)
() 25 at the information meeting on this subject, and we hope l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 _ Nationwide CW 800-336 6646 I
1500 01 01 60, PctVasselo 1 'to have a draft report next month on this subject. O 2 That concludes what I am going to say 3 specifically on the MIST program. 4 Let me move on to some of the support programs 5 very quickly, and then if there are any more questions, I 6 can address them. 7 First of all, as far as the University of 8 Maryland facility, basically the facility is put together 9 and starting to go through something that might be akin 10 to either a late shakedown or an early characterization 11 test, really, is what Y-Y is doing now. 12 I believe he has shown some preliminary data. 13 It's not really data in the sense that you're going to {} 14 use it for code assessment or anything, but he has run 15 some natural circulation, he has run a depressurization, 16 and so he's really going through a facility checkout and 17 characterization at.this point in time. He will be 18 testing throughout fiscal '86 and into fiscal '87 at 19 least.
- 20 I think for those of you who were at the 21 scaling meeting with the CEC where Y-Y showed some data 22 and, in effect, confirmed many of the things that we're
- 23 talking about as far as scaling.
24 MR. WARD: Bill, I think we can go through 5 () 25 these pretty rapidly because -- , ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 646
l 1500 01 01 61
-PatVasselo 1 MR. BECKNER: Right. Let me just move on l 2 through.
3 MR. WARD: -- we're going to talk about this in 4 January. 5 MR. BECKNER: As far as SRI-2, again this is 6 based on what John Pierre told us at the PMG meeting. 7 Basically, they are in a slowdown mode, I believe, and 8 they will be speeding back up and starting to test at the
. 9 beginning of the EPRI fiscal year, which is calendar year 10 '86.
11 As far as Argonne work, again Ishii presented a 12 lot of very useful information at our research meeting 13 out in Gaithersburg. In fact, I wish we had had more (]} g 14 time because he had an infinite number of movies we would 9 l 15 have liked to watch. But basically, he has been working 16 on us with the scaling study. We see that continuing. i ~ 17 He is looking at his hot leg flow interruption 18 experiments, and I think some very interesting 19 conclusions are starting to come out of this work. And I ) 20 think you may have heard this before. But basically, j 21 what is driving is a heat balance between what's going in 4 22 and what's going out and what the void location is and 23 where the various thermal centers are. These are the 24 phenomena that drive interruption of natural circulation () 25 rather than necessarily some type of flow regime 4 4 a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
1500 01 01 62 PatVasselo 1 separation phenomena at the top of the hot leg.2 -- O> \- 2 What I think this means is that as far as the 3 typicality of the MIST hot leg, we are a lot less worried 4 than we might have been when we first got into this 5 program, that there are different processes that really 6 are responsible for breaking of two-phase natural 7 circulation. 8 Again, what Ishii has done is he has conducted 9 studies in basically a two-inch and a four-inch pipe, and 10 he is now working on a freon model that will be able to 11 look at the effect of at least flashing and possibly 12 condensation, although that may be a problem with freon. 13 MR. THEOFANOUS: Bill, what is this last one? 14 Is it again for the same U-tube or -- 15 MR. BECKNER: Right. Again, this will be 16 basically -- I believe it's a two-inch pipe for 17 comparison with the model up here, and again it's to.be 18 able to see if there is any effect of flashing, 19 basically. 20 MR. LEE: The others are air / water. So if you 21 want to see condensation and flashing as you go up when 22 the delta-P is decreasing. 23 MR. WARD: Okay. Thanks, Bill. _ , 1 24 Let's go to our next speaker, on the. code . ) {} 25 assessment. - l
, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
. ,1500'02~02 63 atvasselo 1 MR. ODAR: I am Fuat Odar. I would like to 2 present an ove'rview of the code assessment development 3 and plant analyzer programs. This overview sort of
) t 4 integrates all the work. 5 First I would like to go over shortly the 6 future thermal hydraulic issues because our cedes are 7 tied to it. The first issue is analysis of tranaients in 8 operating reactors; for example, type of transient.that
- 9 occurred in the Davis-Besse plant. And also, based on 10 this type of transients there may be impacts on plants of i
11 similar design. So we tried to address the issue of (} 12 transient analysis in the outyears. 13 The next issue is small-break LOCAs in B&W 14 reactors, particularly the issues of auxiliary feedwater 15 spray, candycane effect on natural circulation, and also r c 16 vent valve effects. , 4 17 The third issue is the secondary system i 18 transient on breaks. Those are steam line and feedline i 19 breaks and failure of balance-of-plant components. 1
- 20 Another issue that we see is upper plenum i-'
21 injection plants on large-break LOCAs, and this is 22 addressed in 2D/3D. Of course, the codes are going to 23 address that issue, too. () 24 Another important point is quantification of 25 core uncertainty which comes from the assessment ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
.- . - - . . ~ - - - - - - - ,
1500 01 01 64 program. And three codes are involved: TRAC PWRs, TRAC OsPatVasselo1 2 BWRs, and RELAP5/ MOD 2. And this will be addressed in the 3 ICAP program. . 4 Another important issue is cost-effective 5 ' transient calculations, which is addressed in NPA/NPDB 6 program, and that involves input deck generation and 7 renodalization capability, colorgraphics for quick 8 interpretation, and fast calculations using parallel
-9 processors and standalone hardware.
10 Also, we have to address the advanced reactors 11 and the backfits as the issues arise. 12 MR. MICHELSON: I have a question on the -() 13 steamline breaks. Jesse Ebersole brought up a little bit 14 earlier today the fact that at least one B&W plant 15 doesn't have main steam isolation valves perhaps at least 16 one. 17 How is the absence of a main steam isolation 18 valve factored into all these various studies and 19 calculations and whatever? 20 MR. ODAR: We haven't really factored in that 21 particular scenario that you have mentioned. 'But we do 22 have programs. Particularly the four I think is going to 23 be helpful. We will identify and make comments on'the 24 test matrix, and certainly this is one issue that we can () 25 look into it. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
1500 01 01 65
. PctVasselo 1 We have had lots of feedback from NRR about the 2 test matrix, and we work very closely with the Japanese 3 in order to get the test matrix which is beneficial for 4 both parties. And certainly we can do that.
5 MR. CATTON: I found your newspaper from the 6 ICAP program very interesting. As a matter of fact, we 7 probably learn more from it than anywhere else about 8 what's going on in the code program. d 9 But just out of curiosity, what are you going 10 to do about the problem that was described for RELAPS -- , 11 I think it was RELAP5/ MOD 2 -- calculated a continually 12 decreasing pressure in a containment when it was () 13 adiabatic and sealed? Is that loss of energy or loss of 14 mass? 15 MR. ODAR: It is an error. And we are 16 committed to correct it. 17 MR. CATTON: Well, it certainly is an error. 18 [ Laughter.), 19 MR. ODAR: And we are committed to correct 1 20 errors. 1 21 MR. CATTON: You found the error that committed , I 22 that?
- i 23 MR. ODAR: Well, I don't know whether we have !
l 24 found the error, but certainly we are committed to find () 25 and correct the errror. f ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1500 01 01 66 PatVasselo 1 MR. CATTON: Very early, I guess, a couple of O 2 years ago, as a result of what Brookhaven was doing, we 3 heard all about mass disappearing an,d ene'egy disappearing 4 in some of these codes. And I am wondering is we are not 5 being revisited by the same problem. 6 MR. ODAR: No. Because I do believe that that 7 tyep of error has been corrected in RELAP5. I am 8 familiar -- I think Sandia found similar errors, too. 9 That's due to numerical oscillations, if I recall 10 correctly. 11 MR. CATTON: I didn't hear that. It's caused 12 by what? {} 13 MR. ODAR: It was due to numerical oscillations 14 between the -- between the nodes. 15 MR. CATTON: The loss of -- the pressure -- 16 MR. ODAR: No, the present numerical error. 17 MR. CATTON: I just don't know how to react to 18 that, so I won't. 19 [ Laughter.] 20 MR. ODAR: During the last meeting, I had 21 covered very extensively code maintenance and improvement 9 22 program. I just want to repeat the type of codes that we 23 are maintaining. These are: TRAC PWR, TRAC BWR, and
- 24 RELAPS/ MOD 2, COBRA-TF, and RAMONA-IIIB.
25 MR. CATTON: On the RELAPS/ MOD 2, which version (]) , ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33Mi646
'1500 01 01 67 PctVasselo 1 are you maintaining?
O 2 MR. ODAR: Version 36. 3 MR. CATTON: 36? 4 MR. ODAR: 36.
- 5 MR..CATTON: I thought you were only at version 6 32.
7 MR. ODAR: No. We have 36, which is a frozen 8 version using the assessment program. 9 MR. CATTON: Okay. 10 MR. ODAR: And maintenance really means making 11 the code operational in the computer environment, correct 12 the errors, improve user convenience items like input and 13 output, and give some user support as needed. (]} 14 But on the TRAC PWR and TRAC BWR codes will be 15 improved when deficiencies are discovered. And there is t 16 some limited improvement for RELAPS on the ICAP program. , 17 MR- THEOFANOUS: Fuat, can I ask a question 18 about these changes. I also looked at the newsletters 19 that I found interesting, and what strikes me is that a
- 20 little bit of distance for not allowing improvements to 21 be made in the codes during the ICAP effort was that if 22 you do partway and then you change something, then you 23 don't know where you are because you don't know how the
- 24 previous comparisons would have been.
() 25 But now, in a sense, I think I find that an ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
l 1500 01 01 68 l PctVasselo 1 appealing idea. But when I look at the changes that were O 2 already made and the changes that are being made in the 3 process, those that you characterize as errors are 4 sometimes -- some of those errors seem to be of a nature 5 that would be affecting the calculations. 6 Therefore, it is not going to bring the same 7 result. What I am saying is if you go that far with ! 8 that, you might have to do all kinds of changes to be 9 made because I think a few modifications from now you
. 10 won't know where you are with respect to previous 11 comparisons because the calculations will have changed i
12 'it. 13 MR. ODAR: Well, by " errors," we mean the major (]) 4 14 error really, like the code doesn't run or the results 15 are -- 16 MR. THEOFANOUS: Well, no, but what I have seen 17 in this newsletter, all of the changes that were made 18 were of a type that were not of this type and they were 19 still implying significant change, that the result would 20 have been changed in.another calculation, I think. 21 MR. ODAR: Yes. I think that we will have to 22 look at specifically -- 23 MR. THEOFANOUS: How is that decided? Who 24 dacides whether a change is to be made? After a need for () 25 a change has been identified, no matter what, who l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8043 4 6646
i 1500 01 01 69 decides? (1sPatVasselo
)
2 1 MR. ODAR: It is NRC and the contractors. We l 3 have to bring all the errors and the needed improvements 4 and also user conveniences and together with the funding l 5 and also -- 6 MR. THEOFANOUS: But convenience is not -- 7 there is no problem with conveniences. 8 MR. ODAR: Yes. And they would prioritize 9 everything. 10 MR. THEOFANOUS: For those changes? 11 MR. ODAR: Yes. But we have to prioritize all 12 these inputs. 13 MR. THEOFANOUS: They have to take your i ({}) 4 14 approval then before they make any change? 15 MR. ODAR: It all depends the amount of the -- 16 the size of the error. If it takes very little time, 17 about, let's say, less than three days, then it's not 18 necessary to have NRC's approval, because we don't want 19 to be in the loop for each little correction. But if it 20 takes more than three days or so -- 21 MR. WARD: But Theo is worried more about the 22 impacts of the changes than the costs. You ought to be 23 controlling changes that might impact the results also. 24 MR. THEOFANOUS: Right. () 25 MR. SHOTKIN: I am not sure what you were 4 i ACE-FEDERAL REPO'iTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Cov rase 800
. _ _ _ -.. . 336_6646 _-.
u- i } i l 1500 01 01 70 PatVasselo 1 looking at, Theo. There was a list of problem areas that
- .O y 2 will be addressed for the next frozen version. Is that j
a 3 'the' list you're referring to? s . ! 4 MR. THEOFANOUS: I was referring to this I ' 5 newsletter that Paul sent out. And I went through all of 6 them, and in each one of those newsletters I saw all l 7 kinds of changes, and not all of them are very 8 significant, but some of them were significant. 1 9 MR. SHOTKIN: But these are proposed changes, ) i 10 and these would be for the next frozen version. There l 11 are actually very few changes that are being made in the 12 frozen version. We are now up to, in the frozen version, ; j l(]) 13 in the TRAC at least, error correction 3, and these are 1 14 primarily error corrections that were needed because the ! 15 code either bombed out on a problem or some severe 16 deficiency was found that made it just unacceptable to ' ! 17 continue using the code. 18 MR. THEOFANOUS: But in any case, are you i 19 responsible for approving such a change? 20 MR. SHOTKIN: Yes. t 21 MR. THEOFANOUS: That's wh'at I want to know. 22 MR. SHOTKIN: Yes. 23 MR. THEOFANOUS: Okay. Fine. 24 MR. SHOTKIN: There's a chart that we could () 25 show you -- we didn't bring it -- of hwo these changes t l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. . 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4M6
1500 01 01 71 PatVasselo 1 get made and the decision process. O 2 MR. THEOFANOUS: Okay. 3 MR. CATTON: Some of these changes look to me 4 to be for mechanical reasons, but they contain physics in 5 them. Is there some rationalization somewhere that's 6 available that describes why you did these things? I 7 can't think of one in particular now. I read that whole 8 list, too, and there are just a hell'of a lot of them. 9 but some sounded not very physical, just you were going 10 to go in and turn this knob, do this, do that, and then i 11 it would work. I think some had to do with the steam 12 generator. 13 Who develops the rationale and assesses the (])' 14 impact, or is it just to make the code run? I couldn't 15 really follow the rationalization. 16 MR. ODAR: Well, in some cases, there is the 17 intended FORTRAN coding, and that particular coding is in 4 18 error. And what the code developer does is goes back to i I 19 this FORTRAN coding and just corrects the error and let ! 1 20 it function the way it's supposed to. l 21 MR. CATTON: Oh, I understand when it's a 22 correction of an error, when an "o" gets made into a zero 23 or a zero into an "o" or something. But more -- it's 24 more of a -- 1 guess what I should do is write this down () 25 when I write my report. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 816 3364646
n 1500 01 01 72 esPatVasselo 1 MR. ODAR: We appreciate it very much. U 2 MR. CATTON: And then I can cite the cases in a 3 letter that will raise a little bit of concern. I just 4 can't remember them. 5 MR. WARD: Who are the users of COBRA and 6 RAMONA? 7 MR. ODAR: RAMONA is a 3D Neutronics' code. 8 That's the only 3D Neutronics code -- 9 MR. WARD: I know what they are but -- 10 MR. ODAR: -- and it is basically NRC. 11 MR. WARD: -- I want to know who uses them for 12 what. () 13 MR. ODAR: They're basically NRC. And it has 14 been used by NRR earlier. It l's really used at a pretty 15 low level, and therefore the support is quite low-leel. 16 We are talking about very low-level support there, just 17 to make the code operational. 18 MR. WARD: So that is sort of your priority. 19 MR. ODAR: Right. 20 MR. WARD: I mean, you've got os manyresources 21 to put maintenance, and if you put them all on the first 22 two ur three, the others won't get maintained at all, I 23 guess? ; l 24 MR. ODAR: That's correct. l 1 () 25 MR. WARD: Okay. 1 l l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l m 347-37ao s.tionwidecover e soo 33u6es j
1500 01 01 73
,, PatVasselo 1 MR. ODAR: It's maybe one-tenth of the 2 maintenance of any of the first codes. I don't -- I hate 3 to pinpoint any numbers but --
4 MR. WARD: Okay. 5 MR. ODAR: -- on the order of magnitude. 6 MR. WARD: I understand. 7 MR. CATTON: Let me give you this. I found the 8 example I was thinking about, and I will just -- it says, 9 "The short-term solution was to reduce the interfacial 10 drag by a factor of 10 ano the void fraction limit was 11 set to .94." 12 How can you just go in and reduce drag by a (} 13 factor of 10? I don't understand. 14 [ Pause.] 15 MR. CATTON: Oh, Harold explained it to me. 16 You just divide by 10. 17 [ Laughter.-] l 18 MR. CATTON: You know, these codes have been 19 around for some time, and these going in for a particular i 20 problem -- this one dealt with the Model 36.02. There is i 21 also 36.01, and I don't understand that either. It said 22 that RELAP5/ MOD 2 CYCLE 36.02 did not predict the heatup 23 that was present in the test, then a little bit about the , I 24 cause of the problem and the short-term solution is to l () 25 reduce interfacial drag by a factor of 10. I don't -- l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
1500 01 01 74 PatVasselo 1 understand. O 2 MR. ODAR: Well, I have to look at the specific 3 problem, really. 4 MR. SHOTKIN: We wouldn't understand either. 5 What we're glad now for is that all this is coming out 6 into the open and professional scrutiny will force our 7 code developers to sto p aking fixes like that. 8 MR. THEOFANOUS: That's the good part. I think 9 the other part is, what is the impact on all the other { 10 comparisons and calculations in understanding the i 11 capability of the code? How can that be? 12 MR. CATTON: I think this newspaper is 13 excellent. (]) 14 MR. WARD: We've got a volunteer comment here. 15 MR. MARTINELL: John Martinell from the INEL. f 16 I might address Ivan's comment. It could have been 17 misworded the way it was written. That study was a
- 18 result, I believe, of a SEMISCALE experiment in i 19 calculation in which we did sensitivity studies to 20 determine the influence of changes in drag and the void 21 fraction limit for CHF behavior. So we did not propose 22 to modify the code, only study the influence of those
- 23 parameters. It may be misworded the way it's written.
{ 24 MR. CATTON: Well, it does say SEMISCALE, and ; () 25 it does say nonphysical results and it does say the L . l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
1500 01 01 75 7 ,PatVasselo 1 correction is a reduction in friction factor by a factor b 2 of 10. But right above it is another one. 3 MR. WARD: Yes, Ivan, but he's not saying they 4 corrected the frozen version of the code. He's just 5 offering that up as some data for future developments. 6 Isn't that a fair statement? 7 MR. CATTON: This is version 36.02 now, not 36. 8 MR. WARD: Yes, but you're' raising this as a 9 problem and that maybe it's something that's sabotaging , 10 the validity of the codes. And from what I understood, j 11 it isn't, it's just some research going on into -- 12 MR. SULLIVAN: But I think what Ivan is saying 13 (]) is they did correct the code because they made a now 14 version out of it, and therefore that correction or 15 whatever they did to it is being carried forth in the new 16 code. As I understand the -- 17 MR. WARD: Well, may I -- 18 MR. MARTINELL: Again, be careful not to 19 misintepret the information. I believe what we did is we 20 worked with version 36.02. The numbers do represent the 21 updates. 36.02 version of the code had updates prior to 22 our sensitivity calculations. We did not make a 23 correction to the code that'took it from 36.01 to 36.02. 24 That version of the code was used to do the sensitivity () 25 studies. So again, I believe it's -- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1500 01 01 76 PatVasselo 1 MR. MICHELSON: How do you know that there 2 isn't now a 36.03 with this correction in it? 3 MR. MARTINELL: What we would proppse to do 4 with the documentation you have there is to say, "These 5 areas appear to be sensitive in terms of predicting that 6 particular response, and as such should be studied in 7 terms of further code development." We would not put a 8 change in to the code of that type without NRC's 9 approval. 10 MR. MICHELSON: I see. 11 MR. CATTON: Unless something is being done 12 different now than in the past, typically when these kind (} 13 of things are doine to a code, they stay in it forever. 14 And one of the problems that we've had is that the s i 15 documentation has not been complete enough to track all 16 this stuff, and people are continually finding things i 17 that are in what documentation does exist that are i 18 different than are in the codes as a result of this. t . 19 I think this idea is a good one, but it t [ 20 shouldn't be called CYCLE 36.02, and maybe if it's 4 21 something they're doing in their own shop, it ought not i 22 be a part of this at all until it's ready to be a change 23 in the code. 24 MR. ODAR: Yes. With this type of method we () 25 like to really reduce this constant fiddling with the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
1500 01 01 77 PatVasselo 1 code, really. In other words, we would be one of the 2 decision makers for the next version of what type of 3 improvements or corrections ought to be included. If you 4 look at this chart, for example, we're talking about -- 5 MR. WARD: Let me ask you a question, Fuat. If 6 you were -- let's say you got a problem somewhere and NRR 7 asked you to -- we've had a serious transient somewhere 8 in some plant, and NRR asked you to make an analysis of 9 it. You want it to be a good analysis. What version of 10 the code -- would you use the version of the code, the 11 36.02 or something, or would you use -- would you ! 12 instruct your contractor to use -- I don't know, what was 13 the other -- 36.017 14 MR. ODAR: We would use the one with the error l 15 corrections, and that will be 36 -- 16 MR. WARD: Yes, but we're talking about this 17 change of the interfacial drag constant or whatever it ! 18 was. Which one would you use, where that's been
- 19 arbitrarily adjusted by a factor of 10 or before it was 20 arbitrarily adjusted?
l 21 MR. SHOTKIN: I think we have to give Ivan his
- 22 point. He's correct that something like that is
( 23 unacceptable and that we wouldn't want to use it unless 24 we found out more about it. (} 25 MR. WARD: Okay. But I -- ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
1500 01 01 78 PatVasselo 1 MR. SHOTKIN: There's no argument. ~ " i O 2 MR. WARD: Yes, but the gentleman from INEL 3 said that that code wouldn't -- what I interpreted him as 4 saying is that he said the version of the code in which 5 they adjusted this coefficient would not be used. And I
- 6 am asking if that's right or not.
1
, 7 MR. ODAD: We would make a correction of the i
I 8 particular number. Let's say the number, first of all, 9 we would look at it, why it needed to be corrected. 10 Definitely in the original model there was something 11 wrong. Now, it may not be a factor of 10, it may be 12 something else. () 13 MR. WARD: Yes, but you don't really know any 14 more. You don't know whether this code was wrong in that 15 respect, you've just got it to match one piece of data a 16 little better by making a change. 17 MR. ODAR: -I woeuldn't use a code version which 18 had been arbitrarily corrected unless that correction has ' 19 a physical basis behind it. Now, it may turn out to be a l 20 36.02 or 36.01 but certainly I would like to use the 21 best code available when a certain transient occurs and I 22 need to make an analysis. 23 MR. WARD: But an arbitrary change of a 24 friction factor, a factor of 10, interfacial drag of a () 25 factor of 10 in order to match a SEMISCALE test, what ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 4646
syi-r---ummewa-- l l t 1500 01 01 79 does that tell us about the full-scale plant? O.PatVasselo 2 1 MR. ODAR: That probably doesn't tell much. 3 MR. WARD: That's right. 4 MR. ODAR: I agree with you. 5 MR. WARD: That really is where we're coming l 6 fromm. 7 MR. ODAR: Right. 8 MR. THEOFANOUS: Fuat, I think it is not a 9 question of intention. We are sure you are going to use 10 what you think is the best. I think what we are asking 11 is, will you know at the time that you need to quickly 12 come up with a decision what code to use, will you know ; l 13 (]) which code is best? l 14 I think, from what I gather from the 15 discussion, you are going to be hard-pressed. There is 16 not only one thing. Here those things keep changing and 17 changing and changing. 18 MR. CHEN: Let me have some input here, some 19 comment here about Dave's question about which code if 20 NRR asked. I think my answer would be 36.02 because 1 . l 21 36.02 incorporates all the error corrections. About this 22 new study on the interfacial drag, this code, 36.02, was 23 unable to calculate particular phenomena like the peak 24 clad temperature and so then small-break LOCAs. And the
,( ) 25 reason we still don't know yet why this code cannot take ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1500 01 01 80 PctVasselo 1 that peak clad temperature. 2 And here, Idaho SEMISCALE people, the .;; , 3 experimentalists, are trying to see, to study, 4 investigate, what kind of deficiency that the code 5 exists. And one of the reasons they don't know yet, but 6 they did these two sensitivity studies and found that if 7 you change the interfacial drag, it seems to be able to 8 match that. 9 But it is very tentative and just temporary 10 things. These investigations shall go on to see if any 11 other more coupling parameters or anything like that to t 12 affect these calculation results. The question raised by
~
(} 13 Ivan will not be incorporated until we have a final 14 resolution of what is the deficiency and its impact on 15 these peak clad temperature calculations. Okay. 16 MR. CATTON: You see, I can think of lots of 17 other reasons your peak clad temperature is wrong other 18 than interfacial drag. 19 MR. CHEN: That's right. 20 MR. CATTON: That's why when I see division by I 21 a factor of 10 -- 22 MR. CHEN: That's why if they asked me what 23 code version do you want to use, I would say 36.02. .And 24 these ongoing studies feed into the result, this final-25 (]) conclusion has to be reached. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433/>6646
[ 1500 01 01 81
, PatVasselo 1 MR. WARD: Well, I don't know if we're k- l 2 communicating, but I thought 36.02 was the onesthat had ;
3 the arbitrary adjustment in it. 4 MR. CHEN: No. No. No. 5 MR. WARD: Oh. 6 MR. CHEN: No. No.
~
7 MR. WARD: Oh, okay. That was just another one , 8 sitting over on the side. , . 9 MR. CHEN: That's right. 10 MR. WARD: Okay. 4 11 MR. CHEN: You have two groups. You have 12 SEMISCALE. You have to remember that code developers and () 13 experimentalists, these people are experimentalists, find 14 that thing. And the code developers have to, you know, 15 get a final approval through U.S. NRC to see what kind of
; 16 errors have to be incorporated. And the thing they are 17 doing is their own group there.
18 MR. WARD: Okay. 19 MR. CATTON: What's 36.01. 20 MR. THEOFANOUS: The question is, supposing you 21 did this change, suppose you decided now you want to 22 implement the change and you came up with 36.03 and you 23 divided by a factor of 10. Now, where does that leave - l l 24 you with respect to your perception of the ability of the j () 25 code to calculate other situations? Or are you going to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
s. 1500 01 01 82
-PatVasselo 1 be using that only for -- or you are going'to have a 2 different set of factors for different~ situations?
3 MR. CHEN: No. For this case, the factor of 4 10, I think we need to stu'dy more because that sounds 5 kind of arbitrary to me. 6 MR. THEOFANOUS: But it's a question 7 procedurally to look, maybe, a little procedurally. 8 Suppose you did find that the change'has to be made. 9 Now, if you made the change, how are you going to convey 10 the impact of this change with respect to what-you know, 11 what you compare that with that point? 12 MR. SHOTKIN: That's why, when we're making () 13 model changes and model improvements, we like to keep a 14 whole set of those until the ne'rt ' frozen version of the~ 15 code. Then we take maybe ten or fifteen of these model 16 changes together, release them in that vegsion of the t 17 code for the next pe'riod of assessmenb', which we try to 18 keep as long as possible, like 2-1/2 years. 19 MR. THEOFANOUS: Okay. Well, we're getting 20 back to the same thing, that it's'not only model changes , 21 that affect the answers. And[I guess what you were 22 getting to is that the othyr' things, you seem to have an 23 idea that only model chan'ges affecting the answers, but 24 in the other things that you are doing may affect the () 25 answer, what the impact of that is going to be.
~
ACE-FEDERAL REPOkThiRS, INC. 202-347 3700 b!ationwide Coverage 800-33H646
1500101 01 83 PatVasselo'l MR. SHOTKIN: Well, again, we try to keep.these
.O '
2 changes down to a minimum during the frozen period of the 3 code. l 4 MR. THEOFANOUS: All you did was one change, 5 and you've got to change all your answers.
'6 MR. SHOTKIN: Okay. So suppose -- well, let's 7 -- again, the philosophical discussion. Suppose we say, 8- "We are not going to make any changes at all, we're going i
9 to keep it frozen for 2-1/2 years. Well, we get kicking 10 and screaming from people using the code, "How can you do , 11 that to us? It's okay if you do it for everyone else, 12 but you certainly mean you're going to do it on our (} 13 program, because.we know these two errors affect the 14 results on our program." Well, so we have to -- 15 MR. THEOFANOUS: I understand the question. 16 MR. SHOTKIN: So some things that are broken, 17 we have to fix. , 18 MR. ODAR: Yes. Maybe I should mention -- I 19 mean, if I were given the problem right now, okay, I
- 20 would classify this first of all as the model
{ 21 improvement. We are talking about changing of._; 22 interfacials here. So it really is not an error 23 correction unless the original number, that factor, was ! 24 coded wrong. - l () 25 MR. THEOFANOUS: So you wouldn't do it then? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 336-6646
- . - . _ _ . , . _ _ _ . _ _ . - _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - , _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ - - _ . - _ . . _ . . . . - _ - - . -
'1500 01 01 84
_ ,- PctVasselo 1 You wouldn' t do it? - (_/ 2 MR. ODAR: I wouldn' t do it until mid '87, like 3 this indicates, like this chart indicates. 4 MR. SCHROCK: Now, interfacial shear is used in 5 other codes, too, and when a question like this arises, j 6 do you go and look at the relationship between the 7 package and this code and other codes? Is it physically 8 justified to say that we'll do this in this code but 9 we'll leave it the same in another code where those 10 problems have not arisen? 11 We're dealing with the modeling of physics , 12 here, and the end result in the assessment process should () 13 be to demonstrate that the modeling of the physics is 14 coming around to the point where you can really believe 15 that's what it's doing. Where is that link provided? 16 MR. ODAR: Well, this is provided during these 17 2-1/2 years, really. If you look at the program now, 18 there are several codes that we are making improvements 19 on. 20 MR. MICHELSO!1: Let me get a clarification. In 21 modifying the code, do you necessarily modify only 22 certain -- like, for instance, only certain -- if the 23 break size is within a certain range, then you make the 24 following code modification; if it's in another range, () 25 that modification is included? You don' t get that fine ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4336 6646
~ ._
3 1500 01 01 85 in your structure?
.(}PetVasselo1 ~
~-
2 MR. SHOTKIN: No. No. . 3 MR. MICHELSON: It's either the change is in 4 for' all break sizes or it's not? 5 MR. ODAR: That's coreret. In other words, 6 when we correct an error -- 7 MR. MICHELSON: That's a real problem on trying 8 to diddle the end points. either very large or very small
, 9 breaks. to fit experiments because --
10 MR. WARD: Well, you know, they don' t to do 11 it. They're claiming these are mechanistic codes. 12 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. But the code never 13 looked at the input data first to decide what part of the 14 model to use then, I mean, in terms of break size, for 15 instance? 16 MR. ODAR: No. The user prepares the input'
~
17 deck and af ter the user controls those parameters, to 18 make it -- to summarize it, really, we are correcting the 19 errors or we are intending to correct the errors, but by 20 error what I mean is that the coding is wrong, for it is 21 not the intended coding itself, and we simply correct 22 that kind of an error. And other parts, like this 23 interfacial shear change would fall into really model 24 improvement. I don' t know whether it is a factor of 10
-Q 25 or a factor of 5, which will really bring up the model ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646 .
1500 01 01 86 PatVasselo 1 improvement issue which could be decided during the next A kl 2 2-1/2 years, because there may be other issues, too, not 3 only interfacial shear. I am sure there are going to be 4 other problems coming up in the same way. 5 MR. TIEN: But in addition to updating your 6 code, ckay, you can have frozen versions and you see 7 someplace where you need improvements, but you still have 8 the problem of -- I think Dave raised it -- suppose you 9 have a hypothetical situation, you need to use a code to 10 assess a situation and there is a real need. You are 11 going to use the frozen code. 12 But then you see the problems of that code r'g 13 already in some predictions, like peak cladding (_/ 14 temperatures. And are you going to do some sensitivity 15 studies when you apply the code? I think that's a very 16 relevant question because otherwise how do you have the 17 confidence about the frozen version of that particular 18 code?
- 19 MR. ODAR: Okay. It is really the frozen 20 version plus the error correction. Those are the major 21 error corrections. And the codes are mature enough, we 22 believe, that they give relatively accurate answers.
23 MR. SCHROCK: I am reading something here 24 called an " International Thermal Hydraulic Code (} 25 Assessment and Applications Program RELAPS Newsletter."
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
n
~
1500 01 01 87 P And it says here, " Synopsis of the updates which create! O tVasselo21 CYCLE 36.02 are given in Appendir A," and this is the one 3 where this factor of 10 supposedly appeared. And then it 4 says, "The updates were completed by the RELAP5 code
~
5 developmental group during August. Distribution to 6 authorized users was completed in September 1985." 7 This sure as hell sounds to me like you're 8 making these changes on interfacial drag, dividing it by 9 10, then distributing it -- as a matter of fact, 10 distributed it a month or two ago. 11 Where are you at? I think you should separate 12 your newsletter then into two parts, one associated with 13 (]) the ICAP and the other associated with changes you're 14 making in your developmental model, so we can keep it 15 straight. Right now, I frankly don't know where you're 16 at. 17 MR. ODAR: I think that's a good suggestion.
~
18 VOICE: There is only one, let's say, official 19 frozen version of the code at any one time. And'the 20 newsletter contains more than one subject area. One of 21 the subject areas is errors discovered and errors
- l
\
22 corrected. ! 23 Another subject area is problems discovered in 24 the code or a code limitations which are not -- can't be () 25 defined as errors or things where you need model
~
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS,1NC. l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646 l
1500 01 01 , 88 !
' " * ~ ^
PatVasselo 1 development or model improvement. 2 But these things are put into the newslett&r'sb 3 that users can be beware that the code may be deficient 4 in these areas. And this particular SEMISCALE case is a 5 case where it's a code deficiency, and it's put into 6 there to warn users that there may be a problem in this 7 area. 8 But that business about changing interfacial 9 shear, that's not in the f rozen code, that's something 10 that we're looking at in terms of the sensitivity. But 11 that's never -- that hasn' t been put into the frozen 12 code, it hasn' t been distributed to code users. () 13 MR. WARD: Yes. Okay. But it's a warning to 14 thoughtful users is what you're saying. Okay. 15 MR. CATTON: Well, are the authorized users the 16 ICAP members? 17 VOICE: Yes, but that sensitivity study is not 18 something that's been put into the coding. That hasn' t 19 been distributed. It's just been a sensiti'vity study. 20 MR. CATTON: Well, this says that through 36.02 21 was distributed. 22 VOICE: But the 36.02 doesn' t include that 1
~
23 change in interfacial shear. ~ l 24 MR. THEOPANOUS: Well, can you read it? 25 MR. CATTON: Well, the problem or what I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4336 4646
I l 1500 01 01 89 mentioned is that the title of the report is "ICAP," and ()PatVasselo1 2 then it says, " Synopsis of updates are given in Appendix 3 A." And by the way, the 36.02 update isn' t in there. 4 And it says that these were then distributed to the users 5 in December 1985. And I can' t tell, reading this 6 newsletter, whether or not 36.02 has or doesn' t have the 7 f actor of 10 division. It reads like it does, but I hear 8 words to say it doesn' t. ~ 9 MR. ODAR: Ivan, our international bilateral 10 agreements require that all updates be sent. So while I 11 think that there is some fuzziness there, whether 36.02 12 really includes that part of model improvement, but the 13 intent of the ICAP is to make the calculations using 14 frozen versions plus the certain error corrections, not 15 model improvements. And this definitely falls, I think, 16 under model improvements. 17 MR. WARD: Wait a minute. We were told, you 18 know, 15 minutes ago that 36.02 did not include this 19 model change. I don' t know whether it's an improvement 20 or not. Did not include it. But now we can't seem to 21 get that answer again. Did it or didn' t it? 22 MR. MARTINELL: I would like to mention that I 23 do not believe that the version 36.02 contains an update 24 to reduce the interf acial drag or shear by a f actor of O 25 10. To my knowledge, it was done as a sensitivity study ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.__ _ 202-347-3700 _
Nationwide Coverage _, 800 336 4646 ,
1500 01 01 90 ,
- PatVasselo 1 to study the impact of a change in interfacial drag on
. _o 4' 2 the capability to predict subsequent system response in i 3 the SEMISCALE test. 4 MR. WARD: Okay. I 5 MR. MARTINELL: It did not result in a change 6 to the code. I would be glad to provide information to 7 NRC to help clarify the situation if that would be 8 helpful. 9 MR. CATTON: Well, the intent has always been l i 10 documentation, and I think this is a good example where 11 clearer documentation would havo been very helpful. 12 MR. ODAR: I agree with your suggestion, but 13 the intent is the improvement from the international code i 14 assessment program will be made during tho next 2-1/2 15 years to the next frozen version of RELAP5. 16 MR. MICHELSON: This question of what's frozen 17 in the example being cited, is revision 36 the frozen i 18 document and .01 and .02 and .03 are not a part of it, 19 are not frozen? Is that the way this works? Now, what's
- , 20 frozen? How do I know? '
i 21 MR. ODAR: 36 is the frozen version. 22 MR. MICHELSON: Okay. 36.01 is not frozen? 23 MR. ODAR: 36.01 means that there are certain 24 error corrections made to that frozen version, and the i 25 reason being, for example, the code simply doesn't run. . ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800-336 6646
1500 01 01 91 PatVasselo 1 So the user indicated that when he used the code in O 2 certain way, it soon bombed out. 3 MR. MICHELSON: That might have been the case, 4 yes. 5 MR. ODAR: So those are the type of errors we 6 intend to correct. 7 MR. MICHELSON: So 36.02 is a frozen version 8 then? 9 MR. ODAR: That is a frozen version. 10 MR. MICHELSON: Okay. Thank you. 11 MR. CATTON: I just read through the appendix. 12 The appendix doesn't say anything about interfacial drag, (} 13 so I guess it's not in 36.02. However, the description 14 of the problem, it does sound like it is. 15 MR. ODAR: Well, we are supposed to give all 16 the updates that we make, like I said, to the users as 17 part of our bilateral agreement. 18 MR. WARD: I think there's been a red-herring 19 here. Why don't we -- we better keep on and kind of roll 20 through this. How about five more minutes on this? 21 MR. ODAR: All right. Basically what we are 22 having is the frozen version for all these codes and for 23 the next 2-1/2 years we will include the improvements 24 from different programs, the international code 25 (]) assessment program, MIST program, MB2, SEMISCALE, ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
1500 01 01 92 PatVasselo 1 domestic assessment. Those are for 2D/3D. 2 And of course, the error corrections made to 3 this this version. And we will produce another version , 4 effective the middle of '87. 5 The same thing with RELAP5 except that like 6 earlier as I indicated, the improvements for RELAPS comes 7 only from the international code assessment program, and ' 8 of course, error corrections and maybe some users 9 convenience issues. 10 so the majority of the improvements are made on 11 the TRAC code. 12 MR. SULLIVAN: Fuat, I think it would be a. () 13 helpful if you would clarify something at least for us. 14 Between, say, RELAP/ MOD 2 and these RELAP/ MOD 3, in that 15 period of time between those two versions, you're saying
- 16 that only MOD 2, the frozen version with no error 17 corrections, is going to be used on the ICAP program, or 18 does it have the error corrections in it as they are i 19 produced?
[ 20 MR. ODAR: The ICAP program uses the frozen , 1 21 vesion plus the error corrections. It does not use the 22 improvements that is required. And by improvements, for 23 example, like changing interfacial shear, unless thd' 24 intended number, the factor, had been wrong to begin 25 with. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33Mi646
1500 01 01 , 93 PatVasselo 1 MR. SULLIVAN: Then I think Ivan's question is 2 kind of valid. It is, how do y 2 tell a user of the code 3 that he should put that in or take it out or not put it 4 in, and what version of the code do you use?
, 5 MR. ODAR: We identify as such. The error 6 corrections are added, and like version 36.02 is created, 7 and that is just sent the updates, and chances are that 8 it should not be used.
9 I wouldn' t use those updates the way they are 10 presented, simply because during this 2-1/2 years there 11 will be other improvements needed and a small development 12 assessment may have to be done here in order to produce 13 the next frozen version, because each time an improvement 14 is made, that doesn' t mean that it's going to solve the 15 problems. So there are several improvements that will be 16 coming in probably. 17 MR. WARD: Okay. We better keep going here. 18 , MR. CATTON: Fuat, you show a whole series of 19 RELAP5 frozen versions, MOD 2, MOD 3, and MOD 4. Yet on the 20 previous page you said only TRAC PWR and TRAC BWR codes , 21 will be improved in future years. 22 MR. ODAR: Right. 23 MR. CATTON: Does that mean that the RELAPS 24 string is corrections of errors only? 25 MR. ODAR: And plus the improvements from the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 8043364646
1500 01 01 94 gggPotVasselo1 international code assessment program, just the feedback 2 will be from ICAP. While in this string the feedback;is-3 going to be from other programs, all the programs that we 4 have. That's the dif ference. 5 MR. CATTON: But what we' re reading about in 6 the letters from SEMISCALE? 7 MR. WARD: Onward. 8 MR. ODAR: TRAC-B, right now we do have TRAC 9 BD1 MOD 1 frozen version. The next version, which comes 10 out sometime in '86, middle to the end of '86, will be 11 TRAC-BF1 f rozen version. It will have f ast-running 12 numerics in one of the components and one in kinetics. () 13 And this would be used -- both codes will be used in the 14 ICAP program and improvements f rom the code assessment, i 15 f rom the international code assessment program, and plus 16 error corrections combined, and we'll have another 17 version at the end of '87. And the same thing goes on 18 for '89. 19 In other codes at very low levels, like COBRA-20 TRAC, COBRA-TF and RAMONA-IIIB, we do have the frozen 21 version, and we only include the error corrections and 22 user support as required. 23 This is our overall plan for the NPA NPDB,'the 24 first time here is BNL NPA, which is completed for 25 BWR4s. It has cpability to analyze all kind of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
-1500 01 01 95 PatVasselo 1 transients except large-break LOCA, and we intend to get
.2 it capable for small-break LOCA at the end of '86. And 3 the model BWR6 and BWR3 plants, ' 87 a nd '88.
4 It is running. I think that you have seen a
, 5 demonstration several times. It is available for use. j
-6 MARK-I, RELAP5, NPA and MARK-I HYDRO NPA --
7 there is a typo here -- these are the NPA codes where the 8 driver, the driving code is in the mainstream computer 9 and the user has a terminal either in the NRC offices or 10 contractor's office, and using the code. 11 But.with RELAP5, it is operational right now at 12 INEL and NRC. A limited amount of assessment will be () 13 done and will be accompanied by six. Then we will have 14 only the user support on that particular version of NPA. l l 15 The next version of NPA, it will be driven by 16 the TRAC code or HYDRO NPA, and that would be 17 operational, according to our plans, sometime by mid '86 18 at Los Alamos and NRC. It will have complete 3D two-step 19 numerics in the vessel component. And it will be 20 assessed within a one-year period. And that will be a 21 completed product by the middle of '87. 22 The next version of NPA is for the BWRs using 23 TRAC-B. We have completed a test case. That means that 24 we have graphics lined up and will be able to use the 25 system, the NPA executive. The demonstration on using ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3364N6
~
1500 01 01 96 ~~ OtVasselo 1 the TRAC BWR4 will be done at INEL at the end of '87, and V 2 this would also include the improved version of TRAC-B, 3 which has the 3D two-step numerics for BWRs. And the 4 asseusment will be completed at the end of'88. 5 So these are the MARK-I versions where the 6 driving computer codes resides in the mainf rame computer, 7 and we have the terminals out' side. 8 In the MARK-II version we expect minicomputers 9 where the codes are parallelized and put in the 10 standalone computers. It can be located right in the NRC 11 offices or contractor offices. It won't be in the 12 mainframe computer. And we expect a gain in speed in 13 calculations substantially. Charlie is going to cover s 14 that area. 15 In '85 and '86 we would be developing 16 algorithms for parallel computers, and sometime in '87 we 17 will make a decision whether or not we should go ahead 18 with this type of system.
~
19 That will be based on the amount of analysis 20 required, the cost-effectiveness of the parallelization, 21 and also availability of the computers, minicomputers, at 22 that time., And if the decision is yes, then we would be 23 going ahead and implementing parallelized algorithms and 24 come up with the MARK-II version of NPA at the end of () 25 '88. If the decision is negative, then we would be ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
1500 01 01 97 feeding all this information to the MARK-I version of the gggPotVasselo1 2 NPA where we can use with the mainframe computers all the 3 parallized versions. 4 TRAC-B NPA MARK-II version would be following
. 5 then the PWR version in the outyears around '88 and '89.
6 In parallel with this, we have a data bank project which 7 is transferred from TDC to Los Alamos for correction of 8 the errors. And that would, according to our plans, be 9 operational at Los Alamos in the middle of '87, and i't 10 will be extended to Westinghouse and B&W type of plants 11 in the middle of '88. And later on it will be extended 12 to BWR versions at INEL. 13 This slide also shows -- actually sort of it 14 assumes that TIC concept is being applied and it goes to 15 INEL here. 16 I think the other slide with the codes assumed 17 the same thing about 1990 of the codes would be handled 18 by the TIC. 19 MR. WARD: Okay. 1 20 MR. ODAR: I think this is it. 21 MR. WARD: All right. Thank you, Fuat. 22 Our next speaker is Dave Bessette. 23 Dave, I think we will want to try to condense 24 the next couple of talks as much as we can. J O 25 MR. BESSETTE: I expected you to say that. 1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 4 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4646
1500 01 01 95 ()PatVasselo1 MR. WARD: All right. 2 MR. BESSETTE: I am going to talk about the l'* 3 international code assessment and applications program. 4 The purpose is to assess themajor thormal hydraulic 5 codes , TRAC-PWR, RELAP, and TRAC-BWR. 6 One of the purposes is that to broaden the 7 input of user experience and provide peer review, and 8 that is something I think that has been limited in the 9 past, particularly with TRAC. Most of the user 10 experience is just residing within LANL. And to quantify 11 the code uncertainty, and to discover and correct errors 12 in the code, that's errors in logic and just strictly ! 13 errors in transcribing into the coding. i 14 It has always been theintent to correct errors 15 to the frozen code, such that you don' t want to get into 16 the situation where you have an error and you have to 17 wait two years and do assessment results with a code that 18 you know is wrong. 19 And to establish and improve user guidelines. 20 This is particularly in nodalization guidelines, how to 21 node for dif ferent breaks. 22 We've had initial user guidelines published
~
23 this fall for all three codes. 24 Along with clarifying the code uncertainty, we () 25 will use that information to determine what are the most ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646 !
l 1500 01 01 99 atVasselo 1 important code improvement needs. And as we go along, we 2 will work on improving user conveniences. 3 The last item is separate but related -- that 4 ICAP serves as a general method whereby the U.S. can 5 cooperate with different countries in the area of thermal 6 hydraulics. 7 I have one slide entitled " Integration." One 8 of the purposes of ICAP is to integrate the results of 9 all domestic and foreign use of the code, and that 10 includes results from 2D/3D and ROSA-4 and MIST, 11 SEMISCALE, and domestic idependent assessment. 12 Typically, each program looks at its own () 13 results, but it doesn't interrelate its results to other 14 programs. 15 MR. SULLIVAN: Is 2D/3D part of the ICAP
~16 program now?
17 MR. BESSETTE: The results -- well, there is 18 one -- it's not part of ICAP, but there is one code 19 assessment of which 2D/3D results are a part. So, you 20 know, 2D/3D feeds into the assessment of TRAC. And any 21 results from 2D/3D get f actored into determining how good 22 TRAC is and what needs to be improved. But the results 23 per se are not given out past the 2D/3D members. 24 MR. MICHELSON: Do the foreign governments use () 25 the frozen versions in their calculations? ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646 t
1500 01 01 l'00
~
MR. BESSETTE: Yes. - b(NPatVasselo 1 . 2 MR. MICHELSON: Well, let's postulate for a 3 moment that they see a problem that they think ought to 4 be fixed, and let's say for one reason or another you 5 decide not to change the frozen version. Are their 6 results thereafter still using the frozen version, or are 7 they using what they think is the right way to correct 8 it? 9 MR. BESSETTE: Well, what we ask them to do in 10 that case is to perform the initial calculation with the 11 frozen version, and if they wish to do so, they can also 12 perform sensitivity studies where they do play with the () 13 modeling. And that type of thing is helpful in terms of 14 producing, let's say, the next code versions when we get 15 that information. So they in that case would perform 16 more than one calculation, and we would use the frozen 17 calculations. 18 MR. MICHELSON: Who is the official custodian 19 of this frozen status? Who decides what the frozen
- 20 version is and when to change it?
21 MR. BESSETTE: It's decided between the U.S., - 22 the NRC and the responsible laboratory at LANL or INEL. 23 MR. MICHELSON: Okay. And then presumably, 24 whenever a new frozen version comes out, then that's the () 25 one all the foreign countries are to use -- ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Nb347 3700 Nationwideh 8043364646 l
1500 01 01 101 O PatVasselo 1 MR. BESSETTE: Yes.
%)
-- that are members of fthis
~
2 MR. MICHELSON: 3 particular operation? 4 MR. BESSETTE: Yes. We -- all the users have 5 the frozen code version, and we issue error correction 6 sets, and we're trying to do that on a quarterly basis. 7 So, for example, with RELAP CYCLE 36.01, the .01 8 represents an error correction set, and a mixed error 9 correction set is issued three months later, and that's 10 .02. And the same thing is done with TRAC. 11 MR. WARD: Let's see. Ivan, you had expressed 12 concern as to whether the UPTF results were going to be () 13 used in code assessment. And '.his says -- I think what 14 this says is they are going to be used to assess TRAC but 15 not RELAP. Is that right? What do you think of that? 16 MR. CATTON: Well, they say that they're 17 essentially it's going to be put to the side, so that 18 they're going to use it in the assessment of TRAC-PWR. 19 And I think that's reasonable. 20 MR. WARD: Okay. 21 MR. BESSETTE: This is an indication as to 22 which countries are using which codes. 23 MR. WARD: Yes. We can read it okay. 24 MR. BESSETTE: Yes. 25 MR. WARD: Unless there's a particular comment, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
1500 01 01 102 PetVasselo 1 why don't you -- 2 MR. BESSETTE: Like, for example, France and l 3 the U.K. also have RELAP, but they are primarily TRAC 4 users. 5 MR. SULLIVAN: Excuse me. I believe one of 6 Paul's comments in one of his letters that he sent to us 7 asked about COBRA. And evidently, it is not part of the 8 work now? 9 MR. BESSETTE: Well, basically, the answer is, 10 "Yes." And it's mainly due to the level of interest in 11 COBRA. thus far not many countries have expressed ; 12 specific interest in using COBRA, although there is some 13 use. 14 MR. SULLIVAN: So will we eventually get the ; 15 assessment of COBRA, or is it just not going to be 16 assessed or what? Do you know? 17 MR. BESSETTE: There is not going to be much 18 assessment done under ICAP. i t 19 MR. SULLIVAN: Period? Assessment, period? ! 20 MR. BESSETTE: Period. - i 21 MR. SULLIVAN: What does Sweden do for BWRs if 22 they don' t use TRAC-BWR7 23 MR. BESSETTE: They use -- in part, they use
. 24 RELAP, and they also have their own code. But some of 25 these countries do have BWRs. They are using RELAP..
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3100 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
- - , - - - . . . . , - - . . , _ . - - - . , ~ . . - . _ . . . . . , , - , - . . - - - . - - . - - - . -
s l . 1500 01 01 103
, 7"%PatVasselo 1 Also it's in the Netherlands, Italy, and Austria. So, ,
i NJ 2 you know, RELAP is not considered to be a BWR^ code,2 b'ut 3 it is flexible enough that it can be used for BWRs. J 4 But as far as NRC is concerned, we're looking 5 at PWR assessment of RELAP. 6 MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. 7 MR. BESSETTE: This is the status. We expect 8 basically all countries with nuclear programs are 9 participating. And we held an initial organizational 10 meeting in April, and we had our first of ficial program I 11 group meeting just for one day in October. And we plan i 12 to hold specialists meeting of code users twice per year (O _/ 13 to -- as a method of exchanging information. This would 14 be a meeting where they'd present their assessment 15 results. 16 MR. SCHROCK: Excuse me. When I was in Japan 17 last year, I talked with Hitachi people. They told me 18 they were doing assessment on BWR TRAC. Is that outside 19 this program? 20 MR. BESSETTE: Well, I guess I didn' t list it 21 because we don' t have an official agreement with them 22 yet, but we are talking with MITI, and that would include 23 Hitachi. - ' 24 Maybe Fuat wants to say something else. 25 MR. ODAR: Yes. This is -- that's an old
. \
1
\
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l M2 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646 l
1500 01 01 104 fs P tVasselo 1 version of TRAC-BWR code. That's version 12. And we 2 don't have any formal agreement with Hitachi for newer , _ 3 versions of the TRAC-BWR code. So what they are using is 4 the old version. 5 MR. BESSETTE: And typecally, those agreements 6 that we've concluded with the different countries are for 7 five years. So we expect that this program will be about 8 a five-year program. 9 After about a two-year organizational period, 10 the program is now starting to produce results, and the 11 main benefit so far has been in discovering and 12 correcting errors. (} 13 MR. CATTON: If an error is found, is there 14 some description of its impact given? I recollect the 15 English fellow doing a very good job of that at the 16 Research meeting. 17 MR. BESSETTE: Yes. That's something that 18 should be in the newsletters, and I -- 19 MR. CATTON: I think so. 20 MR. BESSETTE: -- have asked the labs to put i 21 that sort of writeup in the newsletters in the fut'tre. 22 It hasn't been in the first one or two newsletters. 23 MR. CATTON: Good.' 24 MR. BESSETTE: So, TRAC-PWR and RELAP are in () 25 wide use internationally. They're basically l
.-.n.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
1500 01 01 105 i PatVasselo 1 international worldwide codes. They're being assessed O 2 against essentially all major thermal hydraulic 3 facilities in the world. And the assessment is including 4 a large number of plant calculations using mainly startup 5 test data, but in addition, there are some plant 6 transients that have occurred. 7 And one of the purposes of ICAP is that these 8 different countries have experimental facilities and 9 plant data, and they're the ones that are most familiar l 10 with the facility descriptions and design and data, and 11 so they're in the best position to do code calculations. 12 MR. WARD: You say a large number of plant 13 calculations, so are all these plant decks going to get 14 over here into the data bank somehow? I 15 MR. BESSETTE: Well, it's not a prime objective i 16 of ours because its -- each plant design is somewhat l l 17 different, so, you know, for example, we could get a 18 French plant data deck, but it's likely to be somewhat 19 different than an American plant. 1 20 MR. CATTON: Not much. 21 MR. BESSETTE: We can in some cases get that 22 information if we want, so if we feel a need for it, we 23 can get it.
, 24 MR. MICHELSON: There is a slight side issue.
i O 25 You say, you know, a11 the ma3or nuc1 ear po.er ,rograms ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3364646
1500-01 01 106 in the world are represented and so forth. And I noticed fatVasselo1 2 a remarkable absence of certain Third World developing 3 countries that already have reactors and a certain 4 presence of Western European countries which have very 5 small programs. 6 Would you care to clarify your statement as to 7 what you meant? This appears to be OECD kind of 8 countries with one or two exceptions that you have on i 9 your list. But there are a lot of other power reactors 10 in the Third Word now, and how do they come into play? 11 MR. BESSETTE: Well, yes, it is primarily OECD 12 countries we have here. We are -- . () 13 MR. MICHELSON: It appears to be an OECD club, 14 or was it intended to be at least non-Eastern Bloc 15 countries? 16 MR. BESSETTC It's not necessarily an OECD 17 club. It's probably a non-Eastern Bloc club. [ 18 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, it's clearly that, of 19 course. 20 MR. WARD: You mean Reagan didn' t discuss this , 21 with Gorbachev? 22 [ Laughter.] 23 MR. MICHELSON: I don' t think so. i. 24 MR. WARD: Okay. ( 25 MR. BESSETTE: I asked him to raise this issue, l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3100 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
1500 01 01 107 (~'PatVasselo 1 but I don' t know if he did or not. V 2 MR. MICHELSON: No. There is no prevent 3 against anybody -- you know, if the Phillipines, for 4 instance,.if they wished to come in with their reactor, 5 can they get into this operation? 6 MR. BESSETTE: They can. We do have a separate 7 agreement with the Philippines, but it's with -- it's 8 with the IRT code, which I guess is a simple thermal 9 hydraulic code. 10 We have some other agreements underway with 11 Brazil and Mexico. 12 MR. MICHELSON: Yes, because those are fairly 13 large. You know, Moxico has got two reactors. 14 MR. BESSETTE: Yes. I didn' t list those 15 because we haven' t got those agreements worked out yet. l 16 MR. MICHELSON: Now, is this just -- does this 17 cost a country money? You know, like if Mexico wants to
^
18 join, is there money involved or what? 19 MR. BESSETTE: In all our agreements thus far, 20 we typically haven' t asked for money in exchange for , 21 tehecodes . What we've been asking for is assessment 22 results or user experience with the codes. 23 We've got quite a bit of assessment results 24 planned to come in now, and we don' t feel that more would 25 be beneficial. So any future agreements we have, we may ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
1500 01 01 108 f wPOtVasselo 1 look at alternatives in terms of money instead of data.
~
2 But it depends on the ability of the country to pay or 3 what we can exchange with them. 4 - As I said, one of the main benefits thus far 5 has been in discovering and correcting errors. And this 6 provides a few examples of what we've done with TRAC, and 7 similar examples could be given for RELAP. 8 I just listed a few examples of errors that 9 have been discovered in logic and coding. And I think 10 you can read them. 11 MR. CATTON: Most of them look like model 12 improvements as contrasted with errors. Maybe it's how () 13 you define error. 14 MR. BESSETTE: Well, for example, if there was 15 something in a code that prohibited wall condensation in 16 a pipe, I think that's clearly an error in logic. Now, 17 if a form loss is ever predicted for a smooth area 18 reduction, that could be a model improvement. That's 19 something that -- the form loss is not something that has l 20 been put into the frozen code. 21 MR. CATTON: What ,about suppression of wall-22 condensation in horizontal pipes? 23 MR. BESSETTE: Well, a number of these things
~
24 are arguable. Of problems that are discovered in the (O _j 25 code, probably one-third are clearly errors. And there's ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800-336-6646
^
l 1500 01 01 109 one-third that you can that clearly if you do something llhPctVasselo1 2 there, that's an error, and that's a model improvement. 3 But the last third flow into a gray area, and one person 4 might call it an error and another person might call it a 5 model improveme~nt. 6 MR. WARD: All right. What examples have you 7- given us? How about telling us which third the first one 8 is? 9 MR. BESSETTE: Well, I'd say this, for example, 10 is clearly an error. 11 MR. WARD: All right. So there shouldn' t be 12 any model improvements up there. These should have O 13 clearly errors or gray -- 14 MR. BESSETTE: Yes, that's right. These are 15 all clearly errors or gray areas. 16 MR. WARD: A lot of them look gray, it looks 17 like. 18 (Laughter.] 19 MR. BESSETTE: Yes. Shades of gray. 20 MR. WARD: It looks like more than half of them . 21 are gray. I mean, did you pick out the dif ficult ones to 22 list the examples or -- 23 MR. BESSETTE: I'd say this is definitely an 24 error [ indicating]. O~ 25 MR. WARD: Okay. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I _ __ _202 347 3700 _ __ -Nationwide Coverage __ 800 336 4646 _ _
s
\
1500 01 01 ' 110 g PatVasselo 1 MR. BESSETTE: I'd say that's an error b 2 [ indicating]. >
~
3 Typically, a lot of the way errors -- 4 oftentimes the way errors are discovered are when you see 5 discontinuitiesorunphysicaloscillationsinthh. code. 6 Oftentimes, you see oscillations which are just 7 unphysical, and of tentin.es this is due to discont,inuity 8 in extrapolating from one regime to another. 9 MR. WARD: Okay. 10 MR. BESSETTE: I'd say this is an error in 11 logic [ indicating]. This is a gray area. 12 MR. CATTON: Those are really -- when you O 13 change the logic within'the model, that's a model change, 14 that's a model improvement because, you know, there was 15 some thought given to how the things ,was structured and 16 the logic. It's not an error in coding. 17 MR. BESSETTE: Well, I think, you know, whoever 18 was working on this, Iamsdrehedidn'tmeantosayyou 19 can't -- ' 20 MR. WARD: There may be errors in coding, but
]
21 if there is an error in the model,cthat's still an error 22 because it's straightforward. Right? 23 MR. BESSETTE: Well -- 24 MR. CATTON: That's true'. O 25 MR. WARD: Oxay. I t h i n k: ehae.s a good
~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33Mi646
1500 01 01 lil llgPatVasselo1 picture. Why don' t we go on to the next one. ' ^
,2 MR. BESSETTE: In one of these cases, what was 3 in the code was inconsistent with what was in the manual, 4 too. The manual said what was supposed to be in the 5 code, and what was in the code was actually different
- 6 from what was supposed to be there.
7 MR. WARD: Okay. We're convinced. 8 [ Laughter.]
-9 MR. BESSETTE: This is how the information will 10 be disseminated. Assessment cases will have. assessment 11 reports done, and we plan to publish these as NUREG 12 reports, the nonproprietary results.
13 We have a quarterly newsletter for each code, 14 the things that the newsletter includes are summaries of 15 assessment results, errors, and discussion of their 16 significance and how they're corrected, user guidelines 17 for nodalization. And the first newsletters have been 18 issued already. 19 MR. MICHELSON: What can be proprietary in 20 terms of results if you're using a public code? How does . 21 the -- can you work from the result backward and figure 22 out the little key parameters people are using or 23 something? 24 MR. BESSETTE: Well, it's basically proprietary 25 data. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. e _ , 202 347-3700 __ Nationwide Coverase_ __800 336-6646 __
~
l 1500 01 01 112 MR. MICHELSON: Wait a minute. Which is -- do
-({}PatVasselo1 2 you mean the input to the code -- 2: . ;
3 MR. BESSETTE: Yes. 4 MR. MICHELSON: -- is proprietary data, but in l 5 terms of results, can you tell what the input was from'- ! 6 the results? Can you work it backwards? 7 MR. BESSETTE: Well, typically, in an 8 assessment report, you know, you show a'large number of l 9 figures with the code calculation and the data on it. 10 And I can do a problem -- 11 MR.-MICHELSON: You' re saying the input data is 12 a part of the report? ( 13 MR. BESSETTE: Yes. 14 MR. MICHELSON: And it's proprietary, but 15 certainly the results aren' t proprietary, are they, from 16 the public code? 17 MR. BESSETTE: The code results are 18 nonproprietary. ' 19 MR. MICHELSON: The data clearly could be 20 proprietary, and if you include the data in the report, 21 then it would be proprietary. 22 MR. BESSETTE: That's right. 23 MR. MICHELSON: But the answers wouldn' t be, 24 using a public code,- I would think -- O. 25 MR. ODAR: The measured data would be code. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
1500 01 01 113 PctVasselo 1 MR. MICHELSON: That would be proprietary. O 2 MR. BESSETTE: When you're using a proprietary 3 assessment data base, it's essentially impossible to show 4 results in an assessment report -- 5 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. 6 MR. PTE: -- without disclosing the data. 7 MR. WARD. . ,f . Thank you. 8 MR. MICHELSON: Well, let me ask, if it's 9 proprietary, is the U.S. the only one that can look at 10 all these foreign results then and decide how to change 11 the code, because the countries can't see each other's 12 results? {} 13 MR. BESSETTE: Yes, that's right. For 14 proprietary results, it's just the U.S. Only the U.S. 15 can look at all results. 16 MR. MICHELSON: Okay. s 17 MR. BESSETTE: Nonproprietary results will be 18 given out to all the participants. 19 MR. MICHELSON: Thank you. 20 MR. BESSETTE: So this is the status. It took 21 about two years to organize, and that's not unusual when 22 you have this type of international program. We expect 23 the feedback from the different users will be very 24 valuable in improving the codes. 25 I think one of the important parts of this (]) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
1500 01 01 114 PatVasselo 1 program is to try to maintain an official code version, a O 2 frozen code version. Particularly in the past-there;have i 3 been situations where there has been for a hundred 4 different users, there were a hundred different code 5 versions, and none of tne results could be related to i ! 6 each other. And that's caused a lot of problems.
, 7 Here, we are trying to manage code changes in a 8 rational way. And we plan to provide periodic summary 9 reports or overviews of the code, the uncertainty, and 10 how that uncertainty has been established, what is the 11 data base.
12 MR. MICHELSON: May I ask you a general () 13 question? I noticed that you have Austria on the list 14 of participants. They have a power reactor, but it's 15 never run and may never run. Are they doing a bunch of 16 code calculations anyway, or, you know, how -- why are 17 they a member of this operation? 18 MR. WARD: I thought they were selling it. 19 MR. MICHELSON: Yeah. You know, it isn't clear 20 to me just what role they would have as -- they almost 21 have no nuclear program. 22 MR. BESSETTE: Well, they -- 23 MR. WARD: They hope, following their next 24 election. () 25 MR. BESSETTE: They have a -- operate a reactor ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433G6646
1500 01 01 115 l I'hPatVasselo 1 . that's not operating. But they maintr.L' their nuclear V 2 organization. 3 MR. MICHELSON: But are they doing something? 4 Are they using RELAP and feeding you back results and so 5 forth.even though they're not operating the reactor? 6 MR. BESSETTE: Yes. For example, they 7 participated in the OECD LOFT project and have 8 participated in other international nuclear programs, and 9 this is how they keep their foot in the door. And this 10 is why they are interested in ICAP, is thet they depend 11 extremely heavily on international cooperation in terms 12 of maintaining domestic expertise in the nuclear area.
) 13 So while they don' t have an operating plant 14 right now, you know, these things can change with the 15 next election. So they,. throughout their troubles over 16 the past years, they have maintained their nuclear 17 research establishment.
18 MR. CATTON: Dave, I tried to sort through this 19 stuff at the tail end very quickly. Under UPTF, I 20 noticed that it's all large-break. 21 MR. BESSETTE: Yes. 22 MR. CATTON: I was under the impression earlier 23 that there were some small-breaks that was to be used in 24 the assessment. O
, 25 MR. BESSETTE: Those are those tables you' re !
l \ ! l l l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
e e 1500 01 01 116 j (')PatVasselo 1 referring to? l l (/ f 2 MR. CATTON: Yes. Is the table changed? i 3 MR. BESSETfE: Well, on the first page at the 4 top I put " Draft.." That's because I had just prepared 5 that table recently and I haven' t had time to really go 6 through and check it fully for logic and consistency. 7 MR. CATTON: Well, there are some small-break 8 LOCA tests, aren' t there, in UPTF? 9 MR. BESSETTE: Yes. But, you know, I 10 arbitrarily put large-break there because UPTF is 11 principally a large-break facility but in addition it 12 will give some phenomenological information that is () ' 13 important to small breaks. 14 MR. CATTON: I would certainly think that you 15 would want to include the small-break LOCAs -- i 16 MR. BESSETTE: Yes. 17 MR. CATTON: -- in the assessments to complete 18 the assessment -- 19 MR. BESSETTE: All UPTF results will be 20 calculated. Every UPTF result will be calculated using 21 TRAC. And they all will be in the data base. 22 MR. CATTON: I hear you saying that, but it 23 seems to me that it would be a lot better if it were l 24 clearly stated right in this document that it is. 25 MR. SHOTKIN: Could I explain that as part of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M5646 ,
1500 01 01 117 llgPatVasselo1 the renegotiated 2D/3D agreements, the Germans -- 2 actually, KWN-GRS, will be calculating using TRAC certain 3 UPTF tests under the ICAP program administratively. The 4 rest of the tests will be calculated by Los Alamos using 5 the same code. 6 And I think what David has listed here are just 7 those specific UPTF tests that are calculated 8 administratively as far as the ICAP program. 9 MR. BESSETTE: Yes. On that table there should 10 be UPTF showing up under Germany and the U.S. 11 MR. CATTON: Oh. Okay. 12 MR. BESSETTE: And between the two', every 13 experiment should be listed. 14 MR. TIEN: I have one general question about 15' code calculations but not related to code assessment and 16 development. But I think it could have some real impact 17 about code calculations. . 18 There have been exciting new developments in 19 supercomputing machines. And if -- it requires some 20 special development in terms of code and machine , 21 interface, and this is the N-cube, 64 processors, 22 parallel processors. And for very large-scale special l 23 calculations, people find this can drastically reduce the 24 computation costs and time. O 25 However, it requires some development in terms ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
l' l l 1500 01 01 118 ( ';PatVasselo 1 of code and machine interface. I don' t know whether NRC 2 has thought about this, because it could really have 3 tremendous impact in terms of computation of costs and 4 also real time. You know, the coputation of time in 5 teans of following an actual event. 6 MR. BESSETTE: Yes. ,I think the next 7 presentation will touch on this. 8 MR. SHOTKIN: Thank you for the introd uc tion. 9 MR. BESSETTE: And that is a problem because 10 especially with trying to do 3D calculations with TRAC, 11 they're almost -- many users find them to be i 12 prohibitively expensive. And they just can' t run TRAC-( 13 3D. It just eats up their entire budget. 14 MR. WARD: If they think they're expensive now, 15 wait till they buy the new machine. 16 MR. BESSETTE: Well, hopefully, computing costs 17 are going down. 18 MR. TIEN: It's very inexpensive. We can start 19 with $200,000. 20 MR. WARD: Really. . 21 MR. TIEN: The question is you have to develop 22 the software for the machine-code interface. 23 For special large-scale calculations, this is 24 very, very good. 25 MR. WARD: Okay. Thanks, Dave. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
1500 01 01 119 PatVasselo 1 Let's break for lunch now and come back at 2 1:30. 3 [Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the meeting was , 4 recessed for lunch, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., the same 5 day.]
. 6 7
8 i 9 10 j 11 12 2 !O 14 j 15 16 17 18 19 20
~
21 22 23 24
] 25 i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
l 1200 01 01 120 l 2 DAvbw 1 AFTERNOON SESSION (1:30 p.m.) 2 MR. WARD: We plan to adjust the agenda a little 3 bit, and our aim is, we'll drop at least one item and put 4 the others in somewhat dif ferent order. 5 The aim is to give high priority to the material 6 which the committee is going to need for the Research Report 7 in January, and some of the other stuff we can pick up 8 'later. 9 So the first topic, we'll go ahead with 10 Mr. Troutman on the Data Bank.
) 11 Then we'll go to Item D, as in Dog, the separate 12 effects program, but then we'll skip down to Item E-3, the 13 CEC program.
14 Then to F, the NRR comments. 15 Then we'll ask some comments from our consultants 16 on what they've heard and what they think should be in the 17 ACRS Report. 18 Then we'll pick up the rest of Item E, the 19 integral facilities, 2-D, 3-D and ROSA IV. 20 We'll drop Item III until the meeting in 21 January. 22 So Charlie, if you'd go ahead, please. 23 (Slide.) 24 MR. TROUTMAN: To get you started on this, on 25 the Plan Analyzer a@EDERAL ACE-r KEPORTERS, INC. Plant M ta Bank presentation, I'll 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1200 01 02 121 DAVbw 1 leave that introductory slide and try to relate this to what -{ } 2 has been said earlier today. :: 3 First of all, the purpose of the plan analyzer, 4 for anyone who is new to it, is to provide a rapid analysis 5 tool, providing low cost for the users of the NRC analysis 6 codes. 7 We're going to have interactive control of the 8 simulation. That will speed up everything. We want to have 9 code and computer independence, so that you go from using 10 one code to another. You have the same colors, the same 11 graphic symbols. We want to have color graphics for fast 12 and easy interpretation, and this will all speed up, O(../ 13 hopefully, any analysis that needs to be made for rapid 14 response by NRR or for day-by-day analysis. 15 So it's going to cut costs. We're going to speed 16 things up whether we get the wrong results, going to errors 17 or correct results. Remember Edison's remark. He found 18 10,000 kinds of filaments that wouldn' t work in the light
. 19 bulb.
20 So we're trying to get them faster. , 21 Now for the NPA, integration is mostly 22 unification. That is to say, the unified party of the 23 graphics to the different codes for common input and t' 24 output. We' re trying avoid duplication of effort. U 25 Everybody with every code has his own idea of what input ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Comase 800 336-6646
1200 01 03 122 (~~'T DAVbw 1 and output graphics should be. We don' t want that V 2 duplication doing the same thing or word, doing an 3 incompatible work. 4 We did have a prototype period, where we were 5 working at both LANL and Idaho, but now we standardized on 6 it all. And the gains from the standardization will be in 7 the controls, the graphic dictionary symbols and 8 colors. Standardization and portability, a fixed point of 9 responsibility for bugs and reduce maintenance costs. I 10 should point out, with respect to this integration 11 unification that Idaho is really putting their money where 12 their mouth is, but outside of this project with their own () 13 money or overhead, if you like, they're taking the NPA 14 sof tware and moving it to Kirtland Air Force Base, which as 15 a lot of excess computer time now that they're willing to
- 1. 6 sell to Idaho. The computer runs faster down there too.
17 MR. WARD: Where is Kirtland? 18 MR. TROUTMAN: Kirtland Air Force Base in 19 Albuquerque. It's right there off the runway -- I mean the 20 computer is. You can see it, if you can see through the 21 wall. 22 (Slide.) 23 The NPA current users -- I'm sorry. The title is 24 a little incorrect. It has various users. () 25 We've had NRR working on a response to i 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
1200 01 04 123 ("h s_/ DAVbw 1 Davis-Besse, using RELAP 5 on the Idaho computer with the j 2 NPA. I 3 We have research staff performing in-house work. 4 And you may be familiar that in the operations 5 center, training drills involving commissioners and other 6 high-level staf f was driven by an NPA simulation. In such a 7 case, the plan analyzer was remote. The operations center 8 people called it up on the telephone and the NPA operators 9 would.say, "Oh, yes, the pressure at such-and-such a point 10 is this, the temperature is this. We've lost water here or 11 there." 12 By just looking at the NPA work station, the 13 DOE contractor staff at Idaho an LANL are using the NPA, 14 performing reactor analyses, as well as analyzing tests, and 15 then separately in NRR, human factors and others, evaluating 16 operator guidelines, actually running a code on the NP work 17 stations they have. 18 The NPA development is essentially compl( te. 19 That is to say, it's a usable product. 20 (Slide.) 21 And on the next slide -- on this next slide you 22 see the capabilities that we will have as the years go by. 23 In 1986, we expect to have all these decks - - ~* ' 24 running with masks drivers fully usable by people at all the 25 different places -- oconee, Robinson, and so on. These are ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33Mdi46
1
.1200 01 05 124 DAVbw 1 finely noted decks, not the smallest one, where you're first
{} 2 approaching the problem, but sometime after that. 3 In addition, as you see, we will generate some 4 coarse-noded decks for Robinson and Bellefonte, 'and 5 similarly for TRAC, both the boiler and for PF-1. 6 In '87, for RELAP 5, you see NO 2 and Oconee, but 7 we'll also be creating. By the end of '87, we will oconee, 8 Combustion Engineering and Westinghouse examples running. 9 They ought to work. They also ought to work for the 10 NPA-Hydro. They will have the same physics as TRACT-PF1, but 11 improved numerics and speed up. 12 The bottom, the Brookhaven HIPA, BWR/4 in '86 and. 13 BWR/3 in '88. 14 I'll try to go rapidly. If you want, you can 15 interrupt me at any time, of course. 16 (Slide. ) 17 On the next slide, we have the separation of 18 tasks at Idaho and LANL for both '86 and '87. More plants 19 masks at Idaho, interactive X-Y plots, I think, is pretty 20 self-explanatory. ,
! 21 Then at LANL -- perhaps it's a little confusing.
22 The bullets haven' t been drawn over properly, no matter how 23 many times you ask for it. 24 This Mark-I NPA is a bullet here with this stuff, 25 and then the Mark-2 NPA. The Mark-1 NPA is TRAC-PFl j i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. . 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 3364646 l
1200 01 06 125 DAVbw 1 physics, with 3D, 2 step numerics, improved vectorization (} 2 and just general code speed up. 3 I should include that also during '86, they're 4 going to work on the self-initialization problem to complet 5 that. 6 They will do an assessment of this NPA-Hydro Part 7 1 code, using previous results of analysis on L2-6, 8 MIST /OTIS and H. B. Robinson. 9 Starting in '86, they're doing some work on 10 Mark-II. That is to sya, the parallelized codes. They have 11 to modify the data base to spread it over the memory or 12 memories of the multiple processors. They have to get
- ) 13 bigger outer do loops, which are the generic 1D components, 14 then actually make these changes on the code and demonstrate
! 15 on the Cray XMP, so that they can run it, hopefully, 10 16 times faster than TRAC-PFl does now. i 17 In '87, they'll forward with this Mark-II, 18 including the physics improvements of TRACT-PF1 Mod 2. 19 That's CCFL, steam / water, and so on. i
- 20 At Idaho, they'll start working on TRACT BWR for
- 21 the the NPA in '86 and complete that in '87, as you see, 22 with the improved numerics, same as in the PF1, and they'll 23 keep on producing more decks and masks for the users.
24 In '88, they'll finish that work on BWR and put 25 the NPA on the parallel processor for TRAC BWR, just as ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coversse 800-336 4646
____.,,m _ 1200 01 07 12s (]) DAVbw 1 LANL will have done in the previous year for the pressurized 2 water code. NPA-Hydro Mark II. 3 MR. WARD: Charlie, what skill and training does 4 the NPA, the user, have to have? What sort of level are we 5 talking about? 6 MR. TROUTMAN: He does not need to know anything 7 about computers. That's the first thing. The less he 8 knows, the better. He gets his manual. We' ve provided you 9 five copies, and hopefully, you can read as a reactor expert 10 and start using the NPA, maybe with a few phone calls. 11 It's not expected that the ordinary user will be 12 a nodalizing expert. He will have a bullet-proof 13 deck. These are all anticipated to be bullet-proof decks, l'4 the ones that I gave on Ehe list on the first slide. 15 MR. WARD: What do you mean by " bullet-proof 16 decks"? 17 MR. TROUTMAN: You can perform any of those 18 functions without having to do details about the 19 nodalization limitations of the model, and so on. f 20 MR. EBERSOLE: May I ask a question. 21 In the particular case of the Davis-Besse -- 22 incident, which began and ended in about 14 minutes, I 23 think, what sort of utility would this have had? 24 MR. TROUTMAN: At the time, it would have not O 25 have had the greatest utility, as I say, 3:00 o' clock in ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. _ EBDT-W 3-- 9ttstbh CMEX"3
1200 01 08 127 1 the morning on Sunday. They couldn' t get to a work station ( ) DAVbw 2 to do something. 3 But in the immediate aftermath, there were 4 questions raised at all the similar reactors as to what S restrictions, perhaps, should be placed on them, and these 6 decisions, he would like to reach in the shortest possible 7 time. 8 I know that in this first case of trying to do a 9 transient analysis after an event, that they were, within 10 two weeks, able to run up to two hours of simulated 11 transient and thereby answer some questions. 12 MR. EBERSOLE: There was another transient that c 13 occurred recently that I mentioned earlier. It was a 14 secondary blowdown transient that resulted in a somewhat 15 severe thermal transient on a vessel. It happened to be in ; 16 a plant that had no main steam isolation valves. 17 Would it then be useful to find the other plants 18 that don' t have those things and see what would happen, 19 maybe if you had a whole bypass lockout? 20 MR. TROUTMAN: You're asking a computer jock. 21 Sorry. 22 MR. WARD: You tell him.- 23 MR. EBERSOLE: I suspect it would be. That's 24 what you're saying. It would be useful to quickly scan what O 25 happened to the other plants.
.~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. . . . . 2 3 2 9-3~i D N @ m E ~3 ENECIS
)
1 1200 01 09 128 1 MR. TROUTMAN: That's what people have told me, ( ) DAVbw 1 2 yes. They would like to many transients, and what if the 3 operator does this, what if the operator does that at these 4 different plants? 5 MR. EBERSOLE: You can do it very quickly with 6 this thing. 7 MR. TROUTMAN: Well, very quickly, not doing it 8 in 14 minutes. 9 MR. EBERSOLE: Oh, no. The next day, I mean. 10 MR. TROUTMAN: Quickly, and not just back of the 11 envelope. 12 DR. TIEN: You say a parallel processor here. Do (~ 13 you mean 2 or 4? 14 MR. 'ntOUTMAN: Excuse me? 15 DR. TIEN: On this slide, you have an implement 16 marked 2 on a parallel processor. 17 (Slide.) 18 MR. TROUTMAN: Yes. The demonstration this year 19 would be on the Cray XMP, which is four processors, but LANL 20 has already done this work, as you see on this slide here . 21 that I have up on the screen. 22 Do you see this one? " Benefit / Costs for Improved 23 NPA" continued. - 24 They actually have done experiments on a O 25 multiprocessor at LANL. This could be a number of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646 _ 202-_347-3700
i 1 1200 01 10 129
<~
( )s DAVbw 1 processors, or they call it processees, but they ran it. 2 One processor ran at a certain speed; okay? It
\
3 took a speed of 1 for one processor, and if you ran 15 4 processors, you reached an ultimate speed-up of 8. There 5 is a knee in the curve here around 7 or 8 processors. 6 They're able to split their code up into 8 outer do loops 7 without interaction and run through. 8 So that was only with a kernel, just sort of 9 sample calculation. This was not the true TRAC code. This 10 year they're trying to do it with TRAC itself. 11 So this is what they believe is their or less 12 ultimate goal. 13 DR. CATTON: But that's based on a particular 14 kind of thinking about how it should be done, if you'd back 15 up to your previous slide, the one that says the parallel 16 processor based on ten 68020 procressors, the one that says 17 benefit / cash costs for NPA-Hydro Mark-II, or something. 18 (Slide.) 19 MR. TROUTMAN: I didn' t know that I brought -this 20 up. - 21 DR. CATTON: But I will. 22 Your second line there says "A parallel line 23 based on ten 68020 processors would be 1/2 the speed of a _ 24 CDC 7600 in running TRAC." O 25 Do you know that the Intel 386 is going to run ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. E 347-3700 P&fmr+M Coverage Nih336 6646
1200 01 11 130
~
DAVbw 1 at 16 megahertz, and is probably three or four times faster 2 than that 68020? 3 MR. TROUTMAN: I could have tried to make an 4 update survey. This is just a for instance. This is an 5 old-fashioned example from July. 6 DR. CATTON: I just want to emphasize what you're 7 trying to say, that it probably could run even faster than 8 the CDC 7600. You could do it on a multi-bus too, and it 9 could sit on your desk, and the cost would be less than 10 100,000. 11 MR. TROUTMAN: Thank you. I believe this is 12 conservative also. 13 DR. CATTON: A student developed a method of-14 simulating these kind of processors on the mainframe. 15 He based his calculations on the 68,000. It 16 turns out that he does about as well as you show here for 17 the 68020. 18 MR. TROUTMAN: We have to be extremely 19 conservative in the regulatory agency. 20 DR. CATTON: That's true, but if you're too 21 conservative on something like this,, you cease to be 22 imaginative. 23 MR. TROUTMAN: We claim that even'with most 24 conservative, we would still reach break even in the first 25 year of using such equipment. If we said that we could i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Nationwide Coverage 800 33MI646
. - - - _ - - - - - _202. -347-3700
1200 01 12 131 DAVbw 1 run 10 times this, like your student says, we might reach 2 break even in one month. 3 MR. WARD: In the first 14 minutes. 4 (Laughter.) 5 DR. CATTON: Actually, he claims that it ran 100 6 times faster than the 3300. I don' t really believe that, 7 but there's certainly a lot of room for error in what he 8 did, and you're still way ahead. 9 ine use of the parallel processors, particularly i 10 if you balance how you use them, I think has immense 11 potential. 12 DR. TIEN: The algorithm for that is so new, you () 13 have tremendous room for improvement. 14 So I think the curve you just showed, yo've got 1 15 an asymptotic limit of 16. I think that's for a particular 16 kind of algorithm and a particular kind of problem. 17 MR. TROUTMAN: That's the way they have the 18 problem set up now. 19 DR. TIEN: If you can improve that, you can 20 really improve tremendously. There's a lot of room for 21 improvement. 22 MR. TROUTMAN: Yes. My own experience has been 23 going the other way. You can remember when the computer 24 manufacturers wanted to sell as many processors as possible, 25 so they would put exactly one process on one machine. And i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1200 01 13 132 DAVbw 1 my experience was, the UT200, if you wanted a printer, you 2 wanted a UT200. You hooked up a line and ran a printer.
\
3 If you wanted to run a plotter, you bought 4 another UT200, hooked up another liner on the plotter. My 5 job, because we were poor and little space, was to try to 6 get both those processors running on a serial machine. 7 (Slide . ) 8 I think maybe I've gone through now all the 9 slides in dif ferent order, but I don' t think there's 10 anything left, except the questions, if you have any. 11 So. I'll be glad to entertain -- oh, the plant 12 data bank. O 13 ( Sude . ) 14 We did have the completed plant data bank, 15 created by TDC in California. We transferred the software 16 to the engineering modelers at Los Alamos, where TDC has 17 brought up the software on the Cray computer; however, many 18 errors were found on data entry in the sof tware and the 19 model creation. In addition, TDC had taken too grand a 20 view, too detailed a view and too much data, basically, data 21 which we were never able to collect. 22 So we've asked LANL to simply and give us minimum 23 data set requirements, changing the modeling to a less 24 restrictive view of the modeling of the plant in 25 thermal hydraulics. r ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
-__J .-~E = a -
_m . - _ _ _ _ -a-4 a mm. A _ _maa 2.m. 1200 01 14 133 DAVbw 1 So in '86, the errors are going to be corrected 2 by LANL, changing the data entry and the minimum data set, !
/ 3 fix the bugs and documentation, interface the software to 4 TRAC, and by ' 87, they'll be demonstrating this modified and 5 corrected data bank decreations and renodalizations.
~
j 6, TDC did not supply us with a data entry method, 7 but they have developed one under their own steam for 8 private industry, so we're going to have to do the same 9 thing,. and we have a contract with Scientech to do that. 10 It's a small business innovative research program. 11 Af ter that, we'll be extending the plant data 12 bank to a Westinghouse 2-loop, B&W and Combustion i 13 Engineering. 14 15 16 17 18 I 19 20 21 22 23 24 O 25 . ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336-6646
1200 02 01 134 DAVbur 1 MR. WARD: With the simplified data set, is that 2 giving up anything -- accuracy of results? s 3 MR. TROUTMAN: No, it is going to be the minimum 4 data set that is needed for thermal hydraulics, but they had 5 the minimum data set with many things that are not used by 6 thermal hydraulics because they hope to sell it to other 7 organizations. 8 MR. WARD: I see. So this is complete as far as 9 the thermal hydraulics characteristics? 10 MR. TROUTMAN: Yes, that we are interested in. 11 MR. WARD: Let's see, where is the focus of the 12 activity now? Is it at INEL or LANL? 13 MR. TROUTMAN: On plant data bank the focus is at 14 Los Alamos. The plant data bank. I 15 MR. WARD: And on the analyzer? 16 MR. TROUTMAN: The focus -- the integration is at 17 Idaho. 18 MR. WARD: That is what I thought you said. But 19 when you describe the work that is going on, it looks like i 20 there is as much work at LANL as there is at Idaho. , 21 MR. TROUTMAN: But if you will notice, the work 22 at LANL is technical work within the code. If you look at 23 that ' 86, '87, all this work is details within the code, 24 just peculiar to the TRAC, Mark I, Mark II evolution. It is 25 not with the user interface, the input / output of the reactor ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. [ _ _ _ 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
1200 02 02 135 DAVbur 1 controls. (~'} 2 MR. WARD: I understand. Thank you. t 3 MR. EBERSOLE: May I ask just a general question, 4 which is, I think, within your scope, about this system? 5 All the plants have certain critical functions, 6 like DC power, AC power, service water cooling, whatever.
/ Let's say 20 such critical services.
8 The old hypothesis used to be that, just as there 9 is usually two of these, one or the other would always work, 1 10 but sometimes they both quit. 11 When that happens, a succession of events occurs 12 in a certain chronological order, depending on the condition. () 13 of the plant at that point in time. It is important that 14 the operator know how long he has got before the first event 15 happens, the second, the third, and then the first 16 irreversible one. 17 Are these codes set up to tell him that? 18 MR. TROUTMAN: I think you are into transient 19 identification, I believe. 20 MR. EBERSOLE: Well, it is the consequences of , 21 certain critical transients and how long he has got and what 22 action he must take before a certain time elapses. 23 MR. TROUTMAN: I am afraid that the intricacies 24 of the code and the physics is not something I happen to 25 watch. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- - - - - - _ _ _ - - - - _2ey7-37M NadonWe Cmage 8533MW
1200 02 03 136 DAVbur -1 MR. WARD: Thank you, Charlie. 2 Let's go to Bill Beckner and the separate effects s 3 test program. 4 (Slide.) 5 MR. BECKNER: Again, just my introductory slide. 6 I am talking about the separate effects decision unit. 7 (Slide. ) 8 This is just a summary slide so you can see the i 9 elements in one place. I am going to talk about each one of 10 these items very briefly, but this is so you can see them 11 all together. 12 I think, as Ken pointed out, there are a couple O 13 of items thae 1 geess he mighe noe consider separate 14 effects. The Maryland loop is included in this decision 15 unit. Also, the data bank. 16 This is the experimental data bank we are talking 17 here, not the plant data bank. 18 (Slide. ) I 19 Again, I am going to go through each one of these l 20 separately. I am going through them fairly fast. So stop, 21 me if you have a particular question on one item. 22 Again, Ivan, I think this was the data bank you i'
! 23 were talking about earlier. This is the experimental data
~
24 bank where we have for, I guess,' a number of years attempted l 25 to collect data in a form that is readily obtainable by i 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1 (. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433MI646 j
1;00 02 04 137 () DAVbur 1 someone with an interactive computer or terminal at Idaho 2 for it to bo -hipped back and forth to dif ferent facilities 3 by tape. 4 We see '86 as a rather large year. We will be l 5 getting data from ROSA, MIST, 2D/3D.' We also want to put 6 some PTS data in there. 7 We think that this heavy load of data archiving b 8 will probably continue into '87 because we do see that '86 9 will be a big year and there will be a backlog. 10 The next program is what we call iodine 11 partitioning. This is a program that has been going on at 12 Oak Ridge now. It started in late '84. 13 This is to measure iodine partitioning l 14 coefficients between steam and water. This is for input to l 15 analyses of iodine release to the environment during steam 16 generator tube ruptures. 17 Again, it is an experimental program looking at 18 this partition coefficient as a function of different plant 19 variables. 20 In addition, we would like to go to plants - 21 possibly and see what real plants actually look like. I 22 think there have been some measurements made, and it has 23 been observed that the iodine and the coolant can be very 24 high during times, particularly shortly af ter shutdown. O 25 The next program here is the University of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ suraxrn ww m
1 1200 02 05 138 DAVbur 1 Maryland program. That is included in the separate decision (]} 2 unit. i 3 Again, as I indicated earlier, Y.Y. has just 4 gotten the facilities started to run now, and he will be 5 doing testing at least for the next two years. 6 ( Slid e . ) 7 This next program is what we call fluid mixing. 8 This is a new program with VO. There are really two 9 dif ferent tests under this fluid mixing program, but we 10 included them in the same contracts because the physical 11 processes are very similar. 12 The two tasks are, of course, thermal mixing with 13 regard to PTS and also boron mixing with regard to BWR ~ 14 ATWS. The phenomena here are very, very similar. 15 As far as the specific things that we plan to do, 16 we will be doing analysis and prediction for some of the 17 overseas PTS work from HGR and IVO. We will be getting a 18 summary report on the PTS program. Hopefully, this will be 19 something to contribute to the integration of the PTS work. 20 The second part of it is looking at both modeling 21 and experiments for boron mixing for the ATWS problem. 22 As far as our scope and schedule for this 23 program, we will be getting a preliminary look at the boron 24 work in fiscal '86 and the PTS report. Then this program O 25 will have an option to continue for two more years then if ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ' 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverq3e 800-336-6646
t 1200 02 06 139 () DAVbur 1 we decide to go, based on the preliminary results.
, 2 The next program area that I have here is r
i 3 scaling. Here is what I have sort of spread out from a 4 given program. 5 First of all, part of the scaling work has come
- j. 6 from Ishi at Argonne. Ishi has provided input to both the i
j 7 MIST scaling work and the continuing experimental capability- ! 8 work. We expect him te continue providing that input. ! 9 In addition, we are thinking about possible new i i 10 scaling work. This will be done under new programs, 11 possibly under what we set aside for visual loops and 12 analysis centers.
, 13 Again, the last item on this slide is two-phased
-14 modeling work. I already talked briefly about Ishi's work.
i 15 He is doing inverted anr.olar flow regime studies that should 16 be completed this year, and his work as far as hot-leg 17 U-bend will continue into '87. 18 (Slide.)
\ ; 19 The next program area is steam explosion, and 20 actually there are two FINS under this area. .
21 The first one is some work that will be completed-22 this year. This is really a study. of industry experience
- 23 with regard to steam explosions in the paper industry. This l 24 information was reported at the Gaithersburg information
' O 25 meeting. 3 ! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Com 800 336 4646
+
1200 02 07 140 DAVbur- 1 The goal of this is to try to get an idea of 2 thermal efficiencies that have occurred,during some of these
-3 large steam explosions that have occurred in the paper 4 industry in these, smelt boilers. '
5 That work is nearing completion. There is a 6 second FIN that is just starting up. Basically, the first J 7 area is large scale. To get the counterpart we are trying 8 to look at some small scale work with the same material to 9 try to get an idea of the scaling and applicability of this 10 smelt as opposed to steam explosions in a reactor. 11 DR. CATTON: Who is doing this work? 12 MR. BECKNER: This new work? It is going on at () 13
~
Argonne, I believe. It is actually being done in 14 coordination with Curtis' people. 15 If you want to get into' details of the steam 16 explosion, you are going to have to grab either Hopenfeld 17 and/or Teller. They are collaborating on this. 18 DR. THEOFANOUS: I would like to make a comment. l-l 19 I think there is a problem with this effort in the sense I 20 that you can extract some conversion efficiencies from . 21 commercial reactors. 22 But the trouble is you can' t relate them to 23 anything because you don' t know what the masses are -there. 24 You don' t know how much material participated. I find them 25 to be of very little use for drawing any conclusions of any ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8043364646
r 1200 02 08 141 DAVbur (]) 1 significance whatsoever because all you know is -- and I 2 listened to the presentation and information -- is a bunch i 3 of melt there and sometime 20 minutes ago a tube ruptured 4 and you don' t know how much water went into the top and you 4 5 don' t know how much participated. 6 But I think none of the people that are actually 7 having anything to do with this business will at this point 8 agree on the conversion issue. 9 So what do you do with this stuff? 10 MR. BECKNER: Theo, I agree. This is a very 11 controversial subject. There has been criticism. This is 12 one of the uncertainties we had. But at the same time we 13 felt that it was a very inexpensive and cost ef fective 14 program. 15 DR. THEOFANOUS: How much money are you spending? 16 If you do that for 10 K, I will say it is worth it. For 200 17 K? 18 MR. WARD: It might be inexpensive, but it is l 19 hard to say it is cost effective. 20 DR. THEOFANOUS: I know. But if it is something l l 21 like 10, it is in the noise level. But if you spend, ' 22 something like that, over 100 K, I think you ought to think 23 twice because you can' t make any use of those results. c 24 MR. BECKNER: We reviewed this internally when O 25 this was proposed, and we recognized that this was a l l 1 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 ,_, Nationwide Cog _ 80 4336 4646 _ __
, . - . - ~ .
1200 02 09 142 () DAVbur 1 controversial area. We also recognized that people had been 2 proposing to do this for many years. I 3 DR. THEOFANOUS: Bill, there is nothing wrong 4 with work in this area, but the problem I am having is with 5 the particular task of looking at paper and those accidents 6 and trying to extract something from them. I think you can 7 extract zero of any use to anybody. 8 MR. BECKNER: Again, we heard these arguments 9 when we reviewed the program. We carefully looked at it, 10 and the consensus after we looked at it internally was that 11 there was potentially some information available and it was 12 a relatively inexpensive program to do this. O 13 DR. THEOFANOUS: Can you tell us how expensive is 14 the program?. - 15 MR. BECKNER: I am thinking. We did it in two 16 stages. I think we did an initial 50 K feasibility study, 17 and based on looking at one boiler at 50 K, it appeared like 18 that the information . hey were able to get out was useful. 19 So I think -- 20 DR. THEOPANOUS: Let me stop you there. Useful. 21 in what sense? 22 MR. BECKNER: That the uncertainties were not 23 outrageous. 24 DR. THEOFANOUS: What is the usefulness for? O 25 What is that something? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. MB 907-DE3 Nationwide Com _80 4 336-6646
1200 02 10 , 143 DAvbur 1 MR. BECKNER: That you could interpret to some 2 degree of uncertainty the amount of available energy and 3 that you could interpret to some degree of acceptable l 4 uncertainty the amount of damage done or the physical energy ; 5 released, however you want to put it. 6 DR. THEOFANOUS: First of all, the uncertainties 7 are very, very high. Secondly, even if what you said was 8 true and indeed the uncertainties were low, I would say so 9 what. What are you going to do with these numbers? 10 MR. BECKNER: The idea is to try to get an idea 11 of the thermal ef ficiencies that occurred in these large 12 scale steam explosions. () 13 DR. THEOFANOUS: So what are you going to do with 14 these numbers? 15 Suppose-you had a single, perfectly known 16 number. 17 MR. BECKNER: Theo, I think if you would let me 18 go through I might try to tell you. 19 DR. THEOFANOUS: But you are going around. Just 20 tell me what you do with the number. , 21 MR. BECKNER: You haven' t given me five seconds 22 without jumping in. l 23 The idea is to take a look at a smelt system and s-24 see if we can see how a smelt system scales with regard to ( 25 steam explosions. That was the objective. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
1200 02 11 144 DAVbur {} 1 Now, you may argue that smelt is not uranium and 2 water, but I also look at all the data we have, that we are
, 3 inferring steam explosions are not uranium and water. We 4 are using LNG, we are using many, many different types of 5 material.
6 This is another data point which has an advantage 7 in that it is large scale; it has a disadvantage in that it 8 has high uncertainties. 9 DR. THEOFANOUS: Are you finished? 10 MR. BECKNER: I think so. 11 DR. THEOFANOUS: So you are finished. Now, I 12 want to tell you that the number that you are getting out of-G( / 13 this, even if you had zero uncertainty, is of zero value 14 because the question of scale doesn' t even enter here. 15 Here you have the melt sitting on the bottom of 16 this damn thing and you put water in the top. The core 17 question is: how much mixing do you have there? The 18 conversion relates to the mixing. That is the opposite 19 situation from what you have in the reactor. You can make 20 zero use of that. , 21 Even if you -- suppose you had so many tons of 22 melt, so many tons of water. First of all, you don' t know 23 how much water you have got from those accidents. But even 1 24 if you knew the water, the water is sitting on top of the 25 melt. You don' t know how much of the melt is molten, in ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
m . _ . _ 1200 02 12 145
,m q,) DAVbur 1 fact, in those circumstances.
2 Suppose even if you knew that. The geom 5try 15
- i 3 such that you can draw no conclusion at all about scaling.
4 I don' t have any problem, in other words, with 5 the properties of the material. I have a problem with how 6 you take this number from an accident in a paper furnace and 7 apply that to the reactor. You just can' t do it. 8 MR. EBERSOLE: Theo, I want to ask you a 9 question. I have been trying to pursue this severe accident 10 program, and I find to my consternation that there is no 11 sequence of events at all that would lay it out as to 12 whether the melt goes on the floor into the water first or (_) 13 whether it sits there a while and then the water comes in on 14 top of it, and there's no mechanistic orders of events 15 currently identified to look at the whole question. And I 16 don' t understand that. 17 DR. THEOFANOUS: Well, I think that is a little 18 different topic. But some of us feel that the only 19 situation that is of potential concern is whether the actual 20 melt f alls into the water, and only if it did would thiu 21 exhibit significant coherence. So at any one given moment i 22 you can have something like on the order of 10 or 20 tons or 23 30 tons of melt basically being in the process of being 7, 24 relocated from the core region towards the bottom melt. s.;
)
25 That is the only situation we can actually run into a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I ?n? W .17An N2tmnmide riu.ermoe RAfLitA KAAA
1200 02 13 146 1 possibility of a large scale energetic explosion, such that . [ J' D A V b u r 2 we have some possible effect on the containment.
, 3 MR. EBERSOLE: My present picture of it is that 4 it will fall into a dry area someplace most of the time.
5 Then the operator will desperately never quit trying to pour 6 water on it. l 7 DR. THEOFANOUS: Of course. No problem with l 8 that. The only concern is within the vessel when there is 9 water.in the lower plenum.
~
10 MR. WARD: I think we have gotten a good point. 11 We had better go ahead. 12 13 14 . 1 15 16 17 18 - 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33(H5646
)
1200 03 01 147 /~1- DAVbw 1 MR. BECKNER: Suffice it to say, this is a V 2 controversial area. 3 MR. WARD: Go on to the next area. 4 MR. BECKNER: The next area is one that we don't
.5 have a specific program in place. We recognize there are 6 code deficiencies already, in terms of post-CHF heat' 7 transfer and rewet. We are looking at potential work in 8 this area. We don' t know whether it will be heat transfer 9 work, thermal hydraulics or what it is.
10 But this is a code deficiency. 11 MR. SHOTKIN: Bill, can I make a comment. We do 12 have a different part of the program under ICAP. We have () 13 some work going on in Switzerland. 14 DR. CATTON: I would argue that here it's more 15 coding deficiency or code implementation than it is lack of 16 understanding of the physics. 17 MR. BECKNER: It could be, Ivan. 18 DR. THEOFANOUS: Who is doing this work here? 19 MR. BECKNER: There's no program in place. This 20 is an area that identified we need work. The last item 21 shown here is steam generator modeling. Of course, this is 22 the,wo that has been going on at MIT. Basically, we're 23 looking at entrainment and carryover in the U-tube steam 24 generator. 25 DR. THEOPANOUS: Just as a comment here. Are i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
]
1200 03 02 148 (~T g) DAVbw 1 you familiar with the work that Professor Rosenau has been 2 doing in this area the last couple years. 3 MR. BECKNER. In entrainment? 4 DR. THEOFANOUS: In post-CHF heat transfer. 5 MR. BECKNER: I'm not sure, Theo. 5 DR. THEOFANOUS: You should talk to him, because 7 you'll see a lot of very interesting comparisons that he 8 did, especially with these problems of heat transfer. 9 MR. BECKNER: There's also some stuff coming 10 under ICAP that may help in this area also. 11 The last one is the steam generator modeling, 12 looking at entrainment and carryover. This is directed () 13 again towards iodine release during steam generator tube 14 ruptures and also looking simply at carryover to the steam 15 itr.e which affects the overall transient. This work should 16 be completed in 1986, and I think as we indicated before to 17 you, while we would like to continue this work, looking at 18 once-through steam generators, again, they don' t have 19 separators. There is a potential for more iodine released, 20 and so forth. So we'd like to just extend that work 'in 21 '87. - 22 (Slide.) 23 Again, visual loops and analysis centers.' This 24 is an area we had wanted to do in '86. The budget was 25 reduced. Again, we placed it in this decision unit again. i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ) 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4336-6646
]
1200 03 03 149 DAVbw This would include things like Lou shotkin was talking g-} 1 \s 2 about, trying to get universities to run the computer codes 3 for us now that they have potentially access to large 4 computers. This would also include experiments in visual 5 f acilities, either separate effects, component-type studied, 6 or there has been again suggestions of integral-type 7 experiments. But this is the type of thing that I think has 8 been bandied around a little bit. Some of our scaling study 9 readings. 10 The last one I want to talk about is the SBIR 11 program. This is included in our decision unit, but one 12 thing I want to point out is, that we don' t have complete () 13 control over this. It's more like a tax. We may get more 14 than what we get taxed, or we may have a program less. It 15 depend s . It's like a pot of money, that the proposals come 16 in. They' re evaluated, and I believe they' re awarded on an 17 of fice-wide basis. 18 So again, just because we have a certain amount 19 budgeted for it, we may or may not have a program. Some 20 other division may have a program instead of us. 21 This just gives you an idea of what our current 22 programs are. 23 Again, '87 awards. We don' t know what we will be 24 doing in '87, but we do have a Phase 1 start going on now, a O (_/ 25 priori, which is looking at condensation. .This is not an ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4646
l 11 I t, 1200 03 04 150 l o ('1
,w l DAVbw 1 experiment. This is basically looking at traffic and l 2 looking at existing work, trying to see if we can improve 3 the condensation.
l 4 We're also completing a Phase 2, Saul Levy with 5 his PC analyzer, using an IBM XT as a plan analyzer. There l 6 is a plant data bank effort that Troutman talked about. We l 7 have a program, Stan Fabek. Again, it's a Phase 2, looking l 8 at using, in effect, data to update the boundary conditions I l 9 of a plant analyzer calculation. This is just an idea of l 10 what we have in place this year, and we won' t know until the l 11 awards are made next year. 12 That's all I wanted to say about separate j 13 effects. ll 14 Any questions? 15 MR. MICHELSON: What does "SBIR" stand for? I 16 MR. BECKNER: Small business innovative research, 17 congressionally mandated to include a certain percentage of 18 our budget. ' l l 19 DR. CATTON: It's a 10th of a percent, isn' t it? f 20 MR. BECKNER: It's a fixed percentage, small 21 percent. 22 DR. CATTON: Typically, the Phase 1 is 50K. 23 MR. BECKNER: The Phase 1 is limited to 50K. 24 MR. MICHELSON: Phase 2 can be up to half a ( 25 million. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3366646
l 1 1200 03 05 151 1 MR. BECKNER: I don' t know. It can be big; yes. l { } DAVbw 2 MR. WARD: One of the things, this would be as 3 good a time as any to talk about, is the water heat-up. The 4 committee, the full committee recommended in the last 5 research report that the NRC needs to improve its 6 understanding of water hammer and the effects it might have 7 on reactor transients and accident sequences. As Lou's 8 first presentation, you've responded that you know enough 9 about it, and I'm not sure. One of the possibilities that 10 had been mentioned earlier in a discussion of whether the 11 big codes, TRAC, for example, could have or should have the 12 capability of predicting, you know, analyzing water hammer, ( 13 that clearly they don't. 14 For some reason, you don' t think they need to, 15 and for some reason, you don' t think any research needs to 16 go on in this area. 17 Maybe you can talk a little about that. 18 MR. BECKNER: Lou's pointing the mike forward, so 19 if he is looking for a shot, I'll let him have it. l 20 MR. SHOTKIN: As far as the codes and being able 21 to calculate a slug of water moving rapidly through a pipe, 22 we can -- in fact, many times they calculate it. 23 MR. WARD: I think you said two dif ferent things 24 there. O-s 25 MR. SHOTKIN: I'm learning to express myself l I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
. _ . _ _. - _ __ _ -_ -347 3700 ---. _ _-. . . . _ .__ , _
l i i 1200 03 06 152 l DAVbw 1 well. As far as looking at the water hammer itself, there 2 was an unresolved safety issue, a generic safety issue, that 3 was officially laid to rest as a safety issue, based on s 4 looking at data, not research data, but data based on plant 5 operations, how well the operators could learn to avoid this 6 in the J-tubes and other things. As a result, there is no 7 official NRC need to look at water hammer as a safety 8 issue.
~
9 MR. MICHELSON: I guess that's the problem of 10 deciding something and not to get any experience af ter 11 you've decided. 12 Last year, operating events indicated numerous () 13 water hammers, including some fairly serious ones. That 14 issue, I think, was settled about 'a year or 18 months ago, 15 and ever since it was settled, there began to come in quite 16 an interesting accumulation. Is there some process by which 17 they decide occasionally to go back and recheck their
~
18 judgments or are these judgments final? 19 MR. WARD: ACRS can always write a letter. i 20 MR. SHOTKIN: I'll tell you. We could go back 21 and relook at it, call up the relevant people at NRR and see i 22 if we can revisit this issue. l 23 MR. MICHELSON: Isn' t there a general little 24 process by which you kind of don' t completely forget that () 25 you've decided on a generic issue? Isn' t there some kind l l I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
_ , , . . . . _ ~ . . 1200 03 07 ld3 DAVbw 1 of review of the decisionmaking? 2 MR. SHOTKIN: Just the process that you'diid. " 3 The decision is based on operating experience and the number s 4 of events going down in one year. They go up again, we'll i 5 have to relook at it. 6 MR. MICHELSON: And somebody, AEOD or somebody 7 tells you, you ought to go back and relook, or do you just 8 understand that as part of your built-in operations? 9 MR. SHOTKIN: It wouldn' t be AEOD; it would be 10 NRR. - 11 MR. WARD: But I think the question, you know, ; 12 why this was brought up in discussion of research was, there 13 seems to me to be a dif ference. 14 MR. BOEHNERT: Dave, I think I can shed some 15 light'on this. The committee concern at the time was, the 16 Staff had looked at the issue from, what if you have a water 17 hammer that initiates an event. I believe Dave Okrent 18 raised a concern about what if you hava an event, say, a 19 transient and then you get a water hammer during the 20 transient. Have you looked at that? I believe the answer 21 was that they had not. 22 That's what started the concern. I think it
'# ~#
23
~ -
worked its way into the report. 24 MR. EBERSOLE: I recall this subcommittee 25 meetin'g, and one of the most spectacular findings that was ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
1200 03 08 154 DAVbw 1 made tentatively was that the main steam isolation valves 2 could be displaced as much as about 18 inches from the 3 energy of a water hammer impacting on the structure. s 4 DR. CATTON: And that would rip all their 5 controls loose, like it did at TMI. 6 MR. MICHELSON: Worse yet, it ripped the 7 ancillary piping off, the auxiliary steam pipe to the 8 auxiliary feed water turbine. 9 DR. CATTON: As a matter of fact, the one that 10 happened at TMI, they didn' t even consider in their 11 assessment when they decided they were going to work on the 12 problem. That kind of event wasn' t considered. The piping () 13 moves and causes the controls. They did not consider it. 14 MR. WARD: But I think Paul hit on it. As I 15 remember the issue, it's not so much what have the plants 16 experienced. That's more what A-1 addressed, but it's 17 rather, how sure are we that in some of these extreme and 18 eevere thermal hydraulic transients, for which we don' t have 19 any experience and we're counting on experiments and l 20 analyses to tell us the plants will be able to survive, to, l 21 what extent, how sure are we that there won' t be phenomena 22 other than are now accounted for in our experiments on TRAC 23 and RELAP, and water hammer was an exampic. 24 Is that understandable? 25
- I understand what I said. Because we don' t have ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 336 4646
1200 03 09 155 DAVbw 1 experience, we can' t say there hasn' t been a problem. We
~ ~ ~ - -
2 haven' t had a large-break LOCA. 'ti 3 DR. CATTON: On the small-break LOCA, P:eter 4 Griffith, where he looked at the cold leg ejection, he came 5 to the conclusion that you could have one hell of an event. 6 That's one example of what you're saying, one hell of a 7 water hammer. 1 8 The other example is that the accident at TMI had 9 one hell of a water hammer. They sat there with the hot 10 well filled, while they tried to get the damn thing to work 11 again. 12 So at least the TMI incident put people in an 13 awkward position because of a water hammer. There have been 14 predictions of water hammer occurring for a small-break LOCA l 15 that could lead to a problem. Also, if you read all the 16 paper that came with the decision that it was no. longer an i 17 unresolved safety issue, a couple of the consultants said l j 18 that they shouldn' t make that decision. That was their own 19 consultants. 4 f 20 I think there's lots of reasons to open it up., 21 MR. WARD: Any others? 22 I mean, is it feasible to even think about 23 incorporating or looking to a code like TRAC to tell you 24 whether water hammer is going to be a problem? 25 DR. CATTON: I don' t think you can, because you ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 3c.37oo
- - - - - - - - - N.$ionwe c== m 33 m m
1200 03 10 156 r'1 DAVbw 1 can' t separate out this water cracking problem from a real V 2 water hammer, and they don' t understand the condensation 3 process well enough. 4 I think what you want to do is try to figure out 5 if you can bound with various circumstances, where you have 6 an idea of what you're dealing with. 7 I don' t think we know that. The limit of what you 8 can get from a particular circumstances is too high to 9 tolerate. We don' t know where we're at. , 10 MR. THEOFANOUS: Let me just put it -- maybe a 11 slight qualification on everything. 12 I think, if one wants to do a TRAC calculation O(_/ 13 and look very carefully at the results that got produced, 14 and if one knew the physics, if one knew, for example, the 15 modeling or analysis that could be given, one ought to be 16 able to at least pinpoint situations in this scenario, this 17 particular accident given by the calculation that might be 18 more profitable to look at. 19 In fact, I believe that in the present 20 configuration of TRAC, you cannot do a good job in 21 predicting water hammer, but I don' t think it is something 22 that is going to be that far away not to be considered as a 23 possibility, but you have to put some criteria, some checks 24 within the calculatioin. It won' t make the calculation 25 any more difficult or expensive, and at least it will flag ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
1200 03 11 157 ^ (~ DAVbw 1 us for situations. L 2 MR. WARD: Flag the onset of boundary 3 cond itions . , 4 MR. THEOFANOUS: That at least you might want to 5 take another look at. 6 I think that's perfectly within the realm of 7 possibility, and I think that needs to be done. I agree 8 that the issue ought to be opened. 9 MR. WARD: Well, I guess a companion question is, 10 you know, are there other phenomena, thermal hydraulic 11 phenomena, which we have considered and don' t have any way 12 of getting a handle on, but we might run into a plant () 13 someday and would just as soon not find out. 14 MR. THEOFANOUS: Before we leave that one also, l 15 the water hammer issue ought to be looked at in conjunction 16 with the possible severity of the water hammer in the safety 17 questions, which means not only whether I have a water l 18 hammer in a given situation or not, but what are the l 19 structures nearby and what would be the effect on the 20 structures, because I think if you sit down and go around 21 the system trying to figure out every little water hammer i 22 that could happen everywhere, that could also be going to l 23 the other extreme. I 24 So I think we need to understand a little bit I () 25 better the fluid structure interaction, the potential i , l i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4646 l
i l l ! 1200 03 12 158 () DAVbw 1 damages that can result as a function of how big the water 2 hammer is, and then look into scenarios with this 3 background, having that perspective, so that we can look 4 into the areas that actually merit attention. 5 MR. EBERSOLE: I've noticed in quite a few 6 documents here recently, having been at Palo Verde, that 7 there are some considerable claims being made on primary 8 depressurization by secondary depressurization. We learned 9 at Palo Verde , that's a very inefficient and a very slow l 10 process, indeed, because that hot bag full of water up there 11 is simply not going to shake anything lose. It sits there 12 for hours and hours and hours. You cannot depressurize 13 sufficiently on the second side to cool down the primary l 14 circulating loop. 15 The hot water is still off on that leg. 16 MR. WARD: If you don' t have the circulation. 17 MR. EBERSOLE: Sure. So the thesis that you can' 18 do that is ill-founded, indeed. 19 Another thing we've been looking at, there's 20 virtually no organized approach, except the name of the 21 unresolved issues to the steam generator overfill problem. 22 What happens to that? There are no requirements on the 23 plants, and a plant as late as -- what was it -- No. 2 Unit i i 24 of Beaver Valley. O 25 They don' t know what happens. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ __ _ 2347 3% . _ _ . Naionwide Cowrgp ,_,
2 336 4646 _ _ _ _ _
1200 04 01 159 qgg DAVbur 1 MR. MICHELSON: The same problem is equally true 2 on the after vessel overfill. When cold water enters the 3 main steam lines, it will condense the steam in there. It 4 creates a hydraulic disturbanco that opens the- relief 5 valves, and the damage, I suspect, could begin to get 6 serious. You have compounded your dif ficulties. 7 DR. CATTON: There is now a plant, which is a 8 two-loop Westinghouse plant, that actually a water hammer 9 in a steam line, and as a result it did damage. 10 MR. MICHELSON: They are looking at -- let's see, 11 which plant was that now? Was that Los Alamos that is doing 12 the water hammer calculation? Do you recall? 13 DR. CATTON: They really can' t do it. They are 14 doing it with TRAC, and you really can' t because the process 15 in the top of the steam generator isn' t handled correctly. 16 MR. MICHELSON: They were looking at the steam 17 condensation in the steam line. 18 DR. CATTON: It is very difficult to calculate 19 what the temperature of the water is going to be when it 20 enters the steam line. 21 MR. MICHELSON: It is very heavily dependent on 22 it, and they did a parametric study in there. Obviously, 23 the core -- well. But they did it. - 24 MR. BECKNER: Recognize, however, that we are O 25 going do an overfill in MIST. You can argue about how ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
1200 04 02 160 g DAVbur 1 typical the data will be, but we are going to do an overfill 2 in MIST. 3 DR. CATTON: MIST is a once-through steam 4 generator, which is a bit dif ferent. Its problem I think g 5 occurs when you have the aux feed. You have to figure out 6 how well the aux feed mixes, and yet if your diameter is too 7 small -- 8 MR. BECKNER: That is right. You have to " 9 digest. 10 MR. EBERSOLE: Are you going to do any vessel 11 chilling experiments with this? 12 MR. BECKNER: I hope not, not intentionally. 13 MR. WARD: Okay. Any other comments on the 14 separate effects program? 15 (No response.) 16 MR. WARD: Chang, you think it is really 17 underfunded? 18 DR. TIEN: Thac is my general feeling that I 19 mentioned this morning. If se look at we spend so much 20 money to put support into the cold calculation development. 21 and then we still have problems, such as, you know, the 22 interfaces by the factor of 10, and then you have the 23 integral test program, all this really means we need a 24 better understanding of the physics, the diffused heat 25 phenomenon. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1200 04 03 161 DAVbur 1 I think the separate effects probably have 2 identified them. The level of funding I think is quite 3 small compared to the amount of support provided for the 4 code development as well as the integral test programs. 5 So I think that should be increased. 6 MR. WARD: Thank you, Bill. 7 I think some of you weren' t here yet when we 8 talked about the change in the agenda. We are trying to 9 concentrate for the rest of the day on covering the items 10 that we need to support the committee's letter on the 11 research program which has to be written in January, So 12 some of the things we are going t'o postpone or shift () 13 around. 14 One of the things we are going to postpone until 15 our January meeting is III, which is something we want to 16 discuss. Then we are going to change the order. We are 17 going to go next to Item -- the CEC description, then af ter 18 that to NRR comments. Then following that, we will give the 1 19 consultants each a chance to tell us what they would like to 20 see, and then the ACRS research report. 21 So as I figure it, if we take 45 minutes for the 22 next two items, you can split this up with Brian Sheron, any 23 way you like. Then from 3:15 to 3:45 or 4:00, we will hear t 24 from the consultants. Then af ter that we will come back and () 25 hear the remainder of the report on t,he integral facilities, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
1200 04 04 162 DAVbur 1 2D/3D and ROSA-IV. 2 (Slide. ) 3 MR. SOLBERG: Very well. Good af ternoon. My 4 name is Don Solberg. 5 I will be talking about the continuing integral 6 thermal hydraulic experimental capability study that we have 7 going on. 8 I would like to stress that we are talking 9 integral systems here. Bill has just spoken to you about 10 separate effects experiments. They are an important part of 11 our program. , 12 However, the scaling studies and the cost () 13 information that I present to you this af ternoon will deal 14 only with continuing integral thermal hydraulic facilities. 15 The reason for this is that, as you are aware, U.S. integral 16 f acilities are in a shutdown mode. I will show you a little 17 more about that soon.
~
18 But the problem is that building an integral. 19 f acility is a very costly and time-consuming af fair. 20 Therefore, we need to think twice before we close everything ; 21 down because it is going to take us quite a while to build 22 another facility or, if we are not careful, to reopen an 23 existing facility that was walked away from. 24 What I am going to present to you today is () 25 information that exists at the present time. The Research l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
1200 04 05 - 163 i DAVbur 1 Staff has made no decisions at this point. We are in an 2 information collecting phase. 3 So I will show you the information that we have 4 basically at the present time. 5 I want to outline the things that I will be 6 talking about. i 7 (Slide.) 8 First of all, I am going to repeat a bit of what 9 I presented to you earlier this year, in May I believe it 10 was. So I am going to go back and talk about the facility 11 names and the alternatives. 12 We have conducted a scaling study, so I am going 13 to show you the criteria and the approach we are using on 14 that study. I will give you the results that each study has l 15 come up with, particularly at that point in time at which we 16 held the workshop, which is the next item. 17 So we had the meeting of experts to advise us on 18 what we had accomplished as of that time, which was early 19 October. 20 Then I will give you some cost estimates of the, 21 f acilities as they have been develcped by EG&G, discuss 22 future plans, and then, if appropriate, I can also discuss 23 the comments that Professor Catton had concerning the CEC. 24 (Slide. ) 25 Going to the needs, then, the first need I have ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3100 Nationwide Coverase 800 3 4 4646
1200 04 06 164 l DAVbur 1 indicated is to provide integral test data to respond
}
2 rapidly to new designs developed by vendors and/or to safety 3 issues as they arise, as, for example, from operating plants j 4 as they undergo transients that raise safety issues. 5 If these investigations seriously affect -- I 6 need to back up. If, in investigating these events or these 7 design changes, we ask the codes to go into parameter ranges 8 over which they have not been previously verified, then we 9 will need experimental data to improve our confidence in 10 those codes' capabilities. 11 So this is one of the reasons why we need the 12 integral test facilities. 13 second of all, I think we have also told you 14 before about our dual analytical / experimental approach. We 15 have used many examples of how we have done that in the 16 past. Three Mile Island, a whole host of these issues have 17 come up, and we use both the experiments and the analyses. 18 It would also provide the NRC -- the third 19 bullet -- with a continuing expertise, as we need, for 20 consultation, for advice, for experts' testimony, and this 21 sort of thing. 22 And the last bullet is to provide integral test 23 data to assess the need for the best estimate code 24 improvements and to quantify the uncertainties of those 25 codes. ' ' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase-.. _ _ _ _ .800
, 3364646_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .
1200 04 07 165 DAVbur 1 MR. MICHELSON: Excuse me. Do you intend to have 2 separate facilities for boiling and pressurized water? What ( 3 are your thoughts? 4 MR. SOLBERG: Absolutely. We see no way that one 5 facility could address the issues, j 6 MR. MICHELSON: Do you have in mind two 7 facilities? 8 MR. SOLBERG: We have in mind multiple ; 9 facilities. I think, in truth, perhaps the minimum is 10 three -- a B&W type with a once-through steam generator and 11 all that paraphernalia, a Westinghouse or a CE type, and l l 12 then a BWR. I k 13 (Slide.) 1 14 This you have seen before, also, a schedule of l 15 the . integral f acilities throughout the world and what their 16 schedule is for testing. 17 Semiscale will shut down in February of 1986. 18 MIST will shut down either in '87 or '88, 19 depending upon whether it goes to an extended test program. 20 FIST is already closed down. 21 ROSA is testing at the present time and is 22 scheduled to close in 1988, and so on. 23 You can tead these as well as I can. 24 The whole idea of the continuing experimental 25 capability is to give us a testing capability as basically 3 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-4646
1200 04 08 166 jgg DAVbur 1 all the other facilities are closing, and therefore by late 2 1988 we would propose to have our first facility available 3 for testing. s 4 MR. WARD: Don, on the schedule that you have 5 shown there you don't have the once-through steam generator 6 facility ever showing up through 1991. , 7 MR. SOLBERG: I beg your pardon. 8 MR. WARD: You said that you might in effect -- 9 CEC might eventually meet three different test facilities, a 10 once-through PWR steam generator. 11 MR. SOLBERG: A B&W type. 12 MR. WARD: As I look at your schedule that is 13 right up there, I don' t see the once-through steam generator 14 facility ever showing up. 15 MR. SOLBERG: I can' t do everything at once. 16 What I have assumed is that we will answer those kinds of 17 questions here. 18 Since 1984 we have been without a BWR facility. 19 So I am assuming that the first fac'lity we would go with 20 would be a BWR. 21 MR. WARD: So your answer is it would show up 22 after '91; is that the idea? 23 MR. SOLBERG: Yes, presuming that the need 24 existed and the money was there, or it could mean -- s 25 MR. SHOTKIN: MIST is still there through '88. l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1200 04 09 167 DAVbur 1 MR. WARD: Okay. But there is still a gap. ~ {} I 2 just wondered if we were going to forget about it again. 3 You know, we forgot it once. . ~ 4 MR. SHOTKIN: If Maryland works out, we may be } 5 able to continue it at Maryland. 6 (Slide.)
- 7 MR. SOLBERG
- We looked at the alternatives that 4
3,c 8 were presented to us. 9 y\ . First of all, of course, we could leave the 10 facilities where they are and test there.
' I hope that I do not have an error. Would you s 11 ! -s
] , 12 check the handouts that I gave you? C t 13 ' Does it show 10 million for FIST as the original s . s 14 cost? It should be 1.0 million. I forgot to dot that.
- 15 The basic point is that FIST has been shut down L.N 16 for a'while. It does need a new core. It would need some t
17 refurbishing if we were to start it up. 18 The point here, though, is that the annual costs 19 are relatively high, 10- to $15 million a year. We are i 20 supporting three dif ferent staff s. [ ( 21 It certainly has some advantages and some
, 's ,
l ' 22 disadvantages. It gives us the most expert operating staff s 23 who have obviously been working on the facilities for a long 24 t ir,a'e' . -
~
25 i It has disadvantages because it has high s
, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
5 0 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1200 04 10 168 DAVbur 1 operating costs, and the facilities are relatively 2 inflexible. , 3 The second item is that we could move the s 4 facilities to INEL. We could move them anywhere, 5 consolidate them anywhere. 6 I have chosen INEL because, as you are aware, the 7 Research Office is looking to have INEL act as our technical 8 integration center in thermal hydraulics. Therefore, it is 9 the logical place to move them. 10 We have got an estimate on moving FIST to INEL, 11 $5.7 million. Most of that cost, it turns out to be power 12 upgrading at the site. FIST operates at a much higher power () 13 level than Semiscale, so we would have to add power. 14 I don' t have the figures for MIST. However, it 15 has the advantage that we have of reduced or minimal annual 16 operating costs, and we do have a consolidating staff 17 which, in my opinion, gives us the most expert staff because 18 they work with all the facility types. 19 DR. CATTON: Shouldn' t that power supply cost be 20 sort of generic to whatever facility you put in place? 21 MR. SOLBERG: Once I pay for it, it'is available 22 to all other facilities that I would move in, that is 23 right. So if I upgrade it for FIST, I don' t have to do it 24 again for MIST.
) 25 DR. CATTON: That is right. That is incentive to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364646
1200 04 11 169 DAVbur b'/T 1 bring everything in one place. 2 You have one power source? 3 MR. SOLBERG: That is right. s 4 MR. BECKNER: I think, Ivan, FIST does drive the j 5 power. FIST and Semiscale have adequate power offsite of 6 those facilities. FIST would drive the power. So I think - 7 it is appropriate to assign it to FIST. 8 DR. CATTON: Even if you would upgrade the power 9 supply for MIST so that it could run at full power? 1 10 MR. BECKNER: I don' t think MIST needs that much I 11 full power. It only needs two megawatts. FIST needs at I 12 least six. 13 DR. CATTON: Then you would have extra capability 14 to do other things. 15 (Slide.) 16 MR. SOLBERG: I think we are also talking about 17 running them one at a time. So we wouldn' t have the need 18 for multiple powers at a single time. 19 I forgot to mention that these approaches are not 20 necessarily mutually exclusive, as perhaps was indicated by' 21 the nart item, which is the visual loops. We thought about 22 establishing visual loops at Idaho. They would be a good 23 supplement to other kinds of loops, but perflaps as a - 24 stand-alone facility in which it was the only integral 25 facility that we had, it would probably not be very good ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1200 04 12 170
/ DAVbur 1 because it has limited applicability. There is only so much 2 information we can get on an additional system.
3 Then to the new continuing experimental system 4 capability, basically the scaling study that we are 5 undertaking at the present time, our current cost estimates 6 range from 4- to 24 million. Again, a consolidated staff, 7 so we estimated 3- to $5 million per year. 8 I show that it is the best scaling approach. I 9 would rather say that it gives us the chance to provide the 10 most cost effective scaling approach. We may not be able to 11 af ford the best. We are talking about multiple facilities, 12 if they are relatively low cost, and of course it does I 13 provide, as I ind ica ted , this expert staff. 14 A new item here is that the B&W people came in 15 and told us that they were interested in constructing 16 additional integral facilities at their Alliance, Ohio 17 site. So I have included here an estimate for one 18 additional facility which, depending on whether or not it is 19 decay heat power, would range between 10- and $15 million. 20 We have a consolidated staff, but at the same 21 time we have some conflict of interest problems, as they 22 build facilities representative of Westinghouse or General 23 Electric Companies. 24 So there's problems there. We would probably k 25 also have to maintain a separate staff to monitor what they i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6M6
7_____ 1200 04 13 171 DAVbur 1 are doing, as we do with all our cooperative research 2 programs. So that would be somewhat inefficient. 3 s 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 bh 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 , 21 22 23 L 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1200 05 01 172
-s I TDAVbw 1 (S lide . )
N.s 2 Proceeding then to the scaling study and to the 3 criteria that we established for EG&G to follow developing 4 the scaling study, the facility must be capable of testing a 5 wide range of Chapter 15 dominant risk events and 6 operational events that have occurred in operating 7 reactors. This hopefully would cover the range of incidents 8 that would occur in operating reactors in the future that 9 would raise safety issues and would requires us then to use 10 an integral facility for assessment of our code 11 capabilities. 12 The second bullet, it must be capable of testing p., (s_) 13 a wide variation of system geometries. It must provide 14 suf ficiently credible results for code assessments in our C 15 staff use and to maintain staf f expertise. It must be 16 adequately instrumented and have an adequate data 17 acquisition system to meet our needs. We would like to have 18 it automa ted , so that we could reduce the operating staf f 19 that we've used on Semiscale, for example. And it also mus 20 be canable of using the multiple facilities, assuming that 21 we have more than one site. 22 We want to document it on a defendable scaling 23 base. We want it to provide not only lopped thermal 24 hydraulics, but we also want to study the effects of (^Ns. \x,) 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
7- _ 1200 05 02 173
/~\DAVbw operator interaction on the transients.
- i. (Q 1 2 Finally, we've asked to have a low acquisition 3 cost, in the neighborhood of $5 million and low annual 4 operating costs.
5 (Slide.) 6 The approach used on the scaling study. We 7 originally selected four scaling methods for evaluation. 8 We've since selected a fifth since our experts meeting, so 9 I've shown the five. One of them has to be a full height, 10 full pressure system, because that is the system we have in 11 existence at the present time. We want to compare 12 alternative facilities with what we have. r)
\s 13 At the same time, we would derive important 14 scaling relationships.
15 The next step was to define event controlling 16 parameters in the risk-dominant accident sequences, past 17 reactor transients, the transients that are important to 18 safety and the standard review plan. And those are 19 important to code assessment. 20 The next step was to obtain best estimate l 21 analysis for representative plants for each of the four l 22 vendors, where those analyses were available for the 23 important transients that are defined in the bullet above. 24 The next step is to define or develop f acility (3 design concepts for each scaling approach and assess, using
\ s,) 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1200 05 03 174 1 hand calculations in effect for component responses of those ( )DAVbw 2 designs. 3 MR. WARD: I didn' t understand the last thing you 4 said. , 5 MR. SOLBERG: We wanted to determine, based on 6 first principles, how the important components in the plant 7 would respond to various transients like a small break, loss 8 of coolant accident, before we went to a computer code and 9 said, how does the whole thing react together? We would 10 say, natural circulation, for example , is important in a 11 small break loss-of-coolant accident. 12 How well do the various models scaling approaches O model natural circulation, as an example. (__/ 13 14 (Slide.) 15 The next step was to obtain the expert advice. 16 This was a meeting that was held in early October. We're 17 anticipating that perhaps we would ask the group to 18 reconvene, perhaps in January, when we have the draf t 19 results available from the complete study. 20 The meeting in October only looked at the results 21 for small break loss-of-coolant and accident on the . 22 Westinghouse and B&W plants. 23 Next we would assist the concept response, using 24 our best estimate codes, and we would limit that two or ON As,/ 25 three transients on our first assessment. Next provide cost ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 e
1200 05 04 175 estimates and finally provide a report with recommendations ( )DAVbw 1 2 to the NRC. 3 MR. WARD: A question, Don. 4 The second item there " assess the response." Is 5 that of the concept that's selected, or would you use that 6 to help you select the concept? 7 MR. SOLBERG: We would do that on the third 8 concept. So -- or the opposite, to make sure that we don' t 9 have any terrible problems, but we'll put it together. So 10 we would say, one scaling approach for a B&W plant, one for 11 a Westinghouse plant and run two or three transient and 12 compare it against the large reactor.
,~.
( 13 ( S lid e . ) 14 When we look at the reactor transients that are 15 important, using risk assessment, events that occurred, EG&G
- j. 16 grouped the transients into four dif ferent categories, a 17 decrease in the reactor coolant inventory represented by a 18 small break loss-of-coolant and large break loss-of-coolant 19 accident, ATWS, loss of feedwater with failure to scram, the 20 decrease in heat removal by the secondary system, as 21 represented by a station blackout and an increase in heat 22 removal by the secondary system.
23 For example, a steam line break. 24 MR. WARD: When you picked ATWS as the loss of , fN-N_) 25 feedwater, what drove you to that rather than some other i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 [
l i l 1200 05 05 176 1 transient? l (~Nx._.)DAVbw 2 MR. SOLBERG: I don' t have a good answer for 3 that. 4 Do you know, John? It may have come out as one 5 of the main contributors in risk. So ATWS appears on the 6 list, I believe, mostly because it's a high risk 7 contributors. So this may be one of the high contributors 8 to ATWS. 9 MR. WARD: I guess it's the los s-of- feedwa te r 10 ATWS that is the biggest contributor. 11 MR. BECKNER: I think that may be considered 12 the most severe ATWS.
~ .( s) s, 13 MR. WARD: Thank you.
14 (Slide.) 15 MR. SOLBERG: I mentioned that we would evaluate 16 the parametric ratios for the various plants. Here I've 17 expressed a length ratio, L sub O R, which is a reference 18 leng th , as , for example, core length would be most 19 appropriate. This parameter, then, would be the ratio of 20 _the length in the test facility to that in the operating 21 plant. 22 So if we have a 12-foot long core in our test 23 facility, L sub O R would be one, as in the case of 24 Semiscale.
/% 's ) 25 Diame te r , the same basic definition. These would ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1200 05 06 177 1 be defined parameters for each of the plant designs. Volume .(])DAVbw 2 then is an obvious outcome. l 3 We'd also then define the core delta T as being 4 some function of flow rate and core power level. 5 Then the next thing that I'd like to point out to 6 you is that the time in the facility, the time ratio is a 7 function of length of the core length, specifically, the 8 square root of the length. 9 So if we're talking about a three-foot core, l 10 which is one quarter length, then we'd be talking about 11 one-half times scale. One second in the facility is equal 12 to two seconds in the plant. D) (__ 13 The more important here is in the core power. As 14 you see, in both the first circulation, one-phase 15 circulation and in the two-phase circulation -- these, 16 incidentally, are supposed to be densities. We see that 17 these parameters in two-phased natural circulation become
-18 . complex functions of the fluid parameters, the fluid 19 characteristics. This creates serious problems then when we 20 go to a low pressure water system, and we ask 300 psi water 21 system, as for example, the University of Maryland, to model _j 22 a transient reactor that starts at 2250 psi. This ratio, 23 then, does not remain constant or one throughout the 1 24 transient. And it creates great dif ficulties in the model.
) 25 This problem would disappear, for example, if we 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8J0-336-6646
s 1200 05 07 178 ( 1 asked a low-pressure facility to only model the low pressure
)DAVbw 2 portion of the reactor transient. Then the fluid parameters 3 would be unity.
4 ( Slid e . ) < 5 This is a very complex slide. I don' t want to do 6 much with it, except to point out that down here, we've 7 iden tified the basic accident types tha t we' ve talked about, 8 the transient types. 9 Here we have shown the important parameters, so 10 by performing a matrix, we'd define whether break flow is 11 important to each one of these types of transients, as, for 12 example, our steam line break. The importance -- H would () 13 ind ica te it's of high importance. 14 So we go through the break flow, one and l l 15 two-phase natural circulation recent flux condensation, 16 phase separation in various components, flow limitation in 17 various components, heat transfer in various components, and l l 18 so on. 1 19 In this way, we've tried to define the parameters
- 20 in the model facility, the test facility that are important 21 to represent in the plant, if we wish to model the transient 22 accurately.
23 (Slide.) ' l 24' This was done for both Westinghouse and then for h 25 the Babcock & Wilcox designs.
- l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6616
1200 05 08 179 l ( 1 What we will do then is to determine how well
) DAVbw 2 each facility concept does in selected ones of these
! 3 phenomena that we've shown, are highly important or 4 moderately important. 5 (Slide.) 6 Then I would like to show you the basic design 7 parameters that came up from the design study performed by 8 EG&G Idaho. 9 Let me explain. We start with the full height 10 and full pressure water system, Semiscale. The next one, 11 reduced height, reduced pressure water. 12 This would then be similar to the University of A) (__ 13 Maryland facility. The reduced height full water system, 14 then in the right column is the reduced height, full 15 pressure freon. The length ratio was established to provide 16 respresentative pressure drops and to give natural 17 circulation, flushing, transpositions that are 18 characteristic of a large reaction, when we combine it with 19 a diameter ratio. 20 The diameter ratio was estalished to represent 21 the flooding transition within vertical sections of pipe. 22 This was determined to be equivalent to a bond number, which 23 is a complex function of about 40. 24 That then provided the diameter ratios A (,_) 25 ind ica ted . As you can see, the facilities are still largely ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1200 05 09 180 (~~NDAVbw 1 tall and skinny. They' re not as tall and skinny as I 21 Semiscale, but the length ratio is much bigger than the 3 diameter ratio. 4 Also appropriate to notice, is that the volume 1 5 ratio is smaller for these facilities than for Semiscale. 6 Therefore, the facilities are larger than Semiscale. 7 i DR. TIEN: You used the bond number 40, on what 8 basis, similar for your diameter ratio? 9 MR. SOLBERG: That again has to do with the 10 plug-in correlation. Let me see if I can find it. 11 DR. TIEN: Does that correspond to the actual 12 case?
/~'N
(_,/ 13 MR. SOLBERG: At bond numbers less than 40, 14 flooding velocity is a function diameter. If the number is 15 greatly than that, it's constant, so it's a bending, if you 16 will, of that curve. 17 DR. TIEN: You've got a bond number greater than 18 40. It's independent of velocity. It's only a funmetion, 19 it's a function of diameter. 20 MR. SOLBERG: It's a function of diameter for 21 less than 40. If pressure reductions are shown, we' re 22 talking S400-and-some-od psi fro the lowe presssure system. 23 (Slide.) 24 The comparable information then for the B&W A () 25 system is shown here. The same basic comments apply. The ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
i 1200 05 10 181 1 lengths are in the same range. They're still relatively ()DAVbw 2 long and skinny. They're larger than MIST in volume. Time 3I is reduced in all three of them and the pressures that we've 4 reduced are approximately the same. 5 Incidentally, I did forget to mention, this is 6 full pressure in freon. If we take the ratio of 22050 for 7- water and the critical pressure of water and then 432-1/2 o 8! the ratio of 4832-1/2 to the critical pressure for freon as l I l 9l equal. So they're operating at the same fraction of 10 critical pressure. That's how it was selected. 11 (Slide.) 12 When EG&G finished, they went back to their () 13, 1 matrix. They've identified the importance of these 14I parameters. 15 Now we're only talking about a small break 16 loss-of-coolant accident. In this case, in a Westinghouse 17 PWR. They said, how do the various scaling approaches work 18 out. As you can see, their evaluation was full height, full 19 presssure facilities, score best. 1 is good; 4 is bad. 20 Reduced height, reduced presssure water was quite clear. 21 reduced height, full pressure water and freon were 22 immediate. 23 I thought I had the results for B&W, but I don' t 24- see it here. I think it's in your package. It's not in my O 25 s lid e s . I take it back. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-66*6
1200 05 11 182 (d
' N DAVbw- 1 (Slide.)
2 You can tell by my color scheme that we've got 3 the Christmas spirit. 4 I would like then to go through some general 5 comments that came out of the workshop for the experts 6 group. We think, in effect, that the basic scaling approach 7 to evaluate the scaling alternatives were not basically 8 questioned. The approach was current; however, there was 9 significant criticism of thu scope that we had used. 10 Therefore, that needs to be expanded. I'll cover that 11 again in a minute. 12 The systems design would reduce pressure water (_) 13 and provide results that'may be difficult to interpret, in 14 terms of commercial plant response and may require trial and 15 error parameter operation of the facilities to adequately 16 simulate the commercial plant transients or to com'are 17 between experimental facilities. 18 This is an important point, because we have always 19 wanted to compare the results between MIST, the University 20 of Maryland, and SRI, two operating at low pressure and one 21 at full pressure. 22 So if they're looking at the full pressure LWR 23 transients, we have a dif ficult time making that 24 comparison. <s I k)m 25l Freon systems provide many advantages, such as ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4 1200 05 12 183 [')DAVbw- 1 low pressure and low facility cost or, alternatively, larger s-- 2 facilities at the same cost. 3 But they also have certain disadvantages. For 4 example, they cannot directly validate code applicability to 5 commercial plants, because we have different riuid property 6 tables, and you can have different correlation internal to 7 the code. There are certain problems, such as 8 condensation. 9 DR. CATTON: I thought we gave up a long time ago 10 trying to have one-to-one correlation between these integral 11 facilities and the plant. That's always led to trouble in 12 tne past.
) 13 MR. SOLBERG: We've always tried to get the test 14l f acilities to evaluate certain kinds of reactor transients.
15 Therefore, we try to get the facility to produce phenomena 16 that are similar to the reactor. 17 DR. CATTON: Sure, but too much stress on trying 18 to make the facility look like the plant, I think, is a 19 mistake, because you're not going to get there, no matter 1 20 what you do. 21 You can' t -- when you back off, when you back 22 of f, you have to use the codes to bridge the gap and then 23 getting one-to-one relationships is much less important. 24 MR. SOLBERG: This is one of the comments I was n (g,) . 25 going to address in your comments on the CEC study. We've I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646'
- 1200 05 13 184 T~TDAVbw 1 never advocated that we do anything but use the codes tomake V
2 the transition between the test facility and the operating 3 plan. 4 I'm simply suggesting that our validation of that 5 code is better, improves, as the phenomena that occur. in the 6 test facility are more representative of the plant or 7 conversely, the more diverse those phenomena are, the 8 greater question I think we have as to whether ornot we've 9 really validated the code under the right conditions. 10 11 12
. m - () 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 i
20 21 22 1 23 24 l n(j 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1200 06 01 185 1 (Slide.) (}DAVbur 2 Perhaps the greatest single -- this should be 9 3 more comments rather than conclusions. We haven' t concluded 4 anything yet. That is a misstype -- perhaps the greatest t
+
5 single remaining uncertainty in our ability to predict 6 commercial plant behavior is in the multi-dimensional 7 effects during complex transients. Perhaps this is one of 8 the reasons. 9 One of the things that an integral facility 10 should stress is the ability to have three= dimensional 11 behavior coupled with integral facility response. 12 New future f acilities should be a dif ferent h 13 design approach than past designs in order to improve our 14 understanding of transients. That is, unexpected phenomena 15 may occur in a dif ferent facility design that we would not 16 have gotten if all the facilities were the same design. 17 It also provides the best test for the cod,e 18 capabi ities. We are always in danger of tuning our codes 19 to a particular facility concept, totally different 20 concept. That would certainly improve our independent test 21 of that code capability. 22 And finally, input from code assessment work is I 23 important to establish future facility requirements and 24 should receive more emphasis than we had given it. h 25 (Slide.) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1200 06 02 186 [^lDAVbur 1 What did we do with the study as a result of the \__) 2 workshop? 3 We directed EG&G -- they basically agreed -- to 4 investigate a fifth option, which is linear scale. We 5 selected it to be approximately one-tenth scale. We asked 6 for it full pressure, full power, full number of operating 7 loops and prototypical fuel and steam generator tube 8 diameters. We have had to back off that. 9 We also asked them to come in with an estimate 10 that was in the SS million range. You noticed everything 11 else was much higher than 5 million. 12 So in the study that they have done they have h 13 compromised the full power. This will then be a decay 14 power. It will not have prototypical fuel or steam 15 generator. Compromises are made there, too. They come into 16 the cost that we have asked for. 17 This will involve a complete analysis, includ ing 18 the capabilities of the facility and the costs. 19 Finally, they will perform a cost estimate for 20 a small visual facility operating with Freon. 21 DR. SULLIVAN: Don, why did you specify that the 22 cost of the facility was 5 million when your operating costs 23, are like 3 to 5 million? 24 It looks like you would put more upfront if you i <r'% l \ ,) 25 are going to spend that much money to operate. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
i 1200 06 03 187 DAVbur 1 MR. SOLBERG: Frankly, that is what we felt we v 2 could get away with. 3 People have looked at the need and said if it 4 costs more than 5- or $10 million, we don' t think it is 5 worth it, and that is where we are coming from. 6 Our idea here would be that we could compromise these in the beginning and then later on upgrade them if we 7l 1 8l needed to. 9 DR. SULLIVAN: By the time you try to cover or 10 try to analyze your way out of some of the problems that you 11 can get into by not including enough funding in it up front, 12 it is really cuestionable to me that you don' t make it up llh 13 quickly in trying to do analysis, understand the behavior, 14 and answer questions about the facility's scaling, et 15 cetera, et cetera, and, you know, to spend like that much 16 money on a facility and then run it for several years at an 17 operating cost of between 3- and 5 million, I guess I don' t 18 really see it. 19 MR. SHOTKIN: We did have a little experience 20 with the Maryl'and f acility, which was built for well under 21 $1 million. It was a short, fat, low pressure facility. Wa 22 then went into these scaling studies in the hope that with 23j scaling studies we would come up with much better l 24 justifications for going to the similar type facility in h 25 other geometries. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1200 06 04 188 We have got the 5 million. We say, well, let's llgDAVbur 1 2 take Maryland and multiply it by 5. 3 That was a fairly arbitrary estimate, but it was 4 based on whatever good experience we had in Maryland. 5 DR. SULLIVAN: Now, you are saying it is going to 6 be full pressure and the costs don' t go up. They go up more 7 as 6/ magnitude -- as you go to higher and higher 8 pressdres. 9 MR. SOLBERGt We don't agree with that. 10 MR. SHOTKIN: I don' t believe that is true. The 11 costs go up for other reasons. It is not just production. 12 MR. SOLBERG: We would suggest that costs go up h 13 by 10 or 20 percent as you increase the pressure 14 significantly. 15 I think a point here, too, is this was an 16 original requirement we had on the study. We wanted INEL to 17 come in with one concept at least that met the initial 18 recuirement. That is the SS million. 19 This doesn' t mean we have made any kind of 20 decision. We haven' t decided that this is the facility of 21 choice because it is $5 million. We just felt that the NRC 22 should have the option to look at one facility that was in 23 that cost range because we had asked for it. - l l 24 MR. WARD: Le t's see , you said they have j h 25 developed a proposal? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1 l 1200 06 05 189 1 MR. SOLBERG: I am going to present to you cost llllDAVbur 2 information. I 3 (Slide.) 4 The information on this one is just hot off the 5 press. The fellows from Idaho just gave it to me 6 ye s te rd ay . 7 It is in the neighborhood of SS million. But let 8 me proceed here for a moment. 9 I am now going to present the cost information, 10 again reviewing the plants. This should have been one 11 slide. It has been broken up into two. There is repeat 12 information. h 13 These are going to have a great number of loops. 14 It is going to be a two hot-leg, four cold-leg on a B&W, and l 15 it is going to be four loops on a Westinghouse plant. 16 The height scale you have seen before, the 17 pressure. This information is significant in determining 18 costs. 19 The power level down at the bottom is important, 20 also, in determining costs. The power on the reduced 21 height, full pressure water is 6.37 gegawatts. 22 (Slide.) 23 The costs then for the basic loop design and 24 construction range from 9.4 million for the reduced height, 25 ' cull pressure Freon to 16.8 million for the reduced height, l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1200 06 06 190 1 low pressure water Westinghouse. ggg)DAVbur 2 When we add f acility mod ifications , again power 3 upgrading our control system, data acquisition system, each 4 of these only have to basically be done once. If we go 5 immediately to the maximum power, then we would end up with 6 a new range, which for the first facility would be between 7 12.8- and $24 million. 8 Idaho also looked at reducing the capability, at i 9 least somewhat, by having a nonrepresentative core, such 10 that the core would put into power but would not have 11 representative fuel rods, and the same thing on the steam 12 generator. They arrived then at the reduced options, which h 13 were 2- or $3 million cheaper. 14 I could have added the linear scale 15 Westinghouse. Now, the comparable number is 3.9 million, 16 and if we add some additional stuf f it is about 5.1 million 17 for the total facility upgrade and test system costs. 18 These, incidentally, are rather preliminary. We 19 have not gone through EG&G's management group, and so on. 20 MR. MICHELSON: These costs don' t include a 21 structure, a building, an existing building that they could 22 use? 23 MR. SOLBERG: Yes. They would be put in the same 24 building as the Semiscale system, and it does include h 25 whatever expansion of that building is required to house the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 , Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1 1 1200 06 07 191 1 facility. It also includes the power upgrade. llllDAVbur 2 MR. MICHELSON: This assumes that they tear out 3 the Semiscale entirely? 4 MR. SOLBERG: No. Semiscale would stay there. 5 We are recommending for Semiscale that it be put on a test 6 ready s tandby cond itior.. 7I MR. MICHELSON: As I recall, there were two pits l 8j in that building and that this is going in one of those two? , 9 MR. SOLBERG: It is going in the other pit. 10 MR. MICHELSON: Thank you. 11 MR. SOLBERG: Obviously, we can only do that 12 once. h 13l DR. SULLIVAN: Don, there is a significant cost 14i to getting whatever was in that pit out, righ t -- the other i 15' pit? 16 MR. SOLBERG: It depends upon the concept we are 17 l talking about. For the linear scale, relatively little 18 cost. For the others, yes, more cost. 19 That is broken out separately on cost estimates 20 that we have received. I don' t have it. It is in there, 21i though. 22 MR. MICHELSON: Now, we are dealing with two 23t possible apparatae here, a B&W and a Westinghouse. You are 24 l: going to put them both in the same pit? h 25 MR. SOLBERG: Both in the same building. i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6686 (
/
1200 06 08 192 MR. MICHELSON: If you build one, where are you gDAVbur 1 2 going to put the other one? 3 MR. SOLBERG: Semiscale only occupies half of the 4 pit in the building in which it is currently housed. There 5 is another part which has got all sorts of trash in it. 6 MR. MICHELSON: You said, also, our falling water 7 reactor? 8 MR. SOLBERG: We ran out of building for the 9 second facility. The third facility would then recuire more 10 or we tear Semiscale out and replace it with something 11 else. 12 VOICE: There are three pits available in that h 13 building, one of which is used for Semiscale now. Two could 14 be available for other loops. 15 MR. SOLBERG: They keep their pits well covered 16 up. 17 (Slide.) 18 What do we have to do with the scaling study? 19 We have to complete the evaluations of all five 20 scaling approaches for all the major transient categories 21 for the Westinghouse and B&W reactors and provide cost 22 estimates. 23 This would come up then as one iten. There would 24 be one NUREG report and one letter report, but the costs 25 will come out in the letter report. Then basically do the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6 9 6
1200 06 09 193 1 same thing for the BWR. llllDAVbur 2 At the moment we don' t see any reason why we have j 3 to go through this detailed study for a Combustion 4 Engine.ering reactor. We think at the moment that looks l l 5 sufficiently like the others that that would not be an 6 effective use of our funds or talent. 7 That completes the remarks I wanted to make on 8 the scaling study. 9 I had mentioned to you that we were looking at 10 relocation. 11 (Slile.) 12 Here's the cost estimates on relocating FIST to t 13 Idaho. l 14 MR. WARD: Don, I don' t think you have to go over l 15 that. We can take a look at that. 16 MR. SOLBERG: Very well. I am almost done. 17 (Slide.) 18 The 1986 milestones. We would like to establish 19 advisory groups. I have also indicated we would like to 20 perhaps get the experts back together. 21 We will review our plans with DOE, EPRI, and 22 ind us t ry . We will make a decision on which design to go 23 for, the conceptual design, which is the next step, publish 24 the scaling study results. We would initiate and complete h 25 the conceptual design. We would initiate the preliminary ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. _} _ _
s 1200 06 10 194 design. g DAVbur 1 2 This all goes sequentially. 3 ( S lid e . ) 4 - We would complete the preliminary design, the 5 final design in 1987-1988, complete the construction and 6 site modification, complete the tecility checkout and begin 7 testing and initiate the design effort in 1988 on the second facility design. x 8 1 3 9 Obviously, this d'epends upon the approach we 10 choose. I assume we are going to build the new facility. 11 If we move the facility to Idaho, then this would be s, , , 12 different. s ,.. 13 That completes my remarks. _ 14 MR. WARD: Okay. , ' 15 MR. MICHELSON: . hat is the likelihood that tihese
,- s 16 cost estimates. are going to be reasonably close to the final
,p s,
- m ,
17 number? N \i s 18 . MR' . SOLBERG: The ones that I showed yoi before?
^
\
19 in them.
",They do have contingencies 20 MR. MICHELSON: Has your experience been that the 21 laboratories build these facilities at the original cost 22 estimates?
MR. SOLBERG: I personally c an' t answer that. 23l l
- 24 MR. WARD: How did MIST go?
25 MR. SOLBERG: That is not fair, though, because ACE-FEDERAL REPORT,ERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwida ra":: age 800-336-6646
1200 06 11 195 1 that was bui'it by B&W. He asked specifically for gDAVbur J laboratories. 3 MR. BECKNER: MIST was an audited cost estimate. 4 , MR. MICHELSON: It is a lot of money, really. 5 MR. SOLBERG: At each one of the design levels we
, 6 would have a reanalysis of cost and have a chance to say yea 7 or nay then.
, 8 MR. WARD: Okay, Don. Thank you very much.
9 I guecr. we are going to be losing our i 10 consultants. So what we would like to do is take half an 11 hour and get comments on the research program from the
, "12 consultants, although I would like to get written reports lh 13 from you, too. It would be very helpful for the committee, 14 '
for all the committee members to have to go through those x 15s. written reports. 16 Then we will go to Brian. 17 Ivan, let's start with you. I 18 As I said, I would particularly like to have your 19 recommendations for what you think the ACRS should be 20 telling. 21 DR. CATTON: I think I can address your specific 22 iter.s probably better in the report than I can orally. Let 23 me just tell you what I have here. 24 First, I would like to see the ACRS report echo h 25 Chang Tien's comment about the low level of funding for ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage
- 800-336-6646 t
1200 06 12 196 1 separate effects. I think he is right. It is really around gggDAVbur 2 one million. 3 However, things like the experimental data bank 4 at Idaho, although it is not separate effe..ts, I think it 5 should be emphasized -- more than just ;..ghasized. There 6 should also be some statement about complete documentation. 7 If we are going to have experimental programs, we 8 should get a document as well, so that the data can be used 9 in some stage in the future. 10 The technical integration center I think is a 11 good idea. But I think it should have a clearly defined 12 capability to address the kinds of safety problems we have h 13 seen during the past few years; namely, things like valves, 14 pumps, pump seals, essentially elements of the system. That 15 means you need a large flow of high pressure water and some 16 kind of a nice hydraulic f acility, which we don' t have. 17 The emphasis on an integral test facility, in my 18 view, is not appropriate. 19 I will come back in a moment and address the 20 facilities separately. 21 I am not sure offhand what to say about the code 22 development and assessment. I do feel we are training 23 foreign users, if not our own, and it is my perception that 24 we are giving away the store. 25 I would like to see the U.S. involvement in the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1200 06 13 197 ggggDAVbur 1 program be stronger. - 2 Further, I would like te see the small break LOCA 3 UBTF test more clearly defined as ? art of the program. We 4 can' t lose sight of the fact that with all these tall, 5 skinny facilities we still have a factor of 10 to the 6 scaling. 7 I think the effort to develop an NPA should be 8 intensified. In particular, more research into the use of 9 today's or tomorrow's state-of-the-art micro chipping should 10 o
'e pursued, based on projected capabilities.
11 For example, Intel now has a 32-bit CPU called 12 the 386 that runs at 16 megahertz, and that put on a h 13 multi-bus 2 makes one hell of a powerful tool. You could 14 load in 20 or 30 slaves to handle the components to do your 15 parallel processing. 16 I would favor the EPRI MMS approach over the 17 attempt to adopt the advanced codes. When you try to adopt 18 a code that was written for one purpose to another, I think 19 you lose. You really ought to back up and adapt the proper 20 kind of code. 21 EPRI did start out with this modular approach, 22 which I think would fit quite well. 23 Under the water hammer -- 24 MR. WARD: I guess I really haven' t heard much h 25 about that, about the MMS approach. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1200 06 14 198 1 DR. CATTON: I am familiar with it only because I gggDAVbur 2 occasionally get the EPRI reports. But what they did is 3 they have a model of a steam generator and a model of 4 another one, and then they built these. They are all 5 written in Fortran 77, according to the standard, so that 6 you can decide on what it is, whether it is loss of fuel or 7 nuclear power. You hook the components together. ] 8 This is a natural for a multiple CPU system. It E will give each one of the CPUs one of the modules to take 9 10 care of. You would hook up with the data bus to pass 11 information back and forth. ] lk 12 Preliminary calculations I have seen show that h 13 this is an extremely promising approach. 14 MR. WARD: Do you lose all the validation work? 15 DR. CATTON: What you would use your large 16 advanced codes for -- to me tha t is what they should be used 17 for. This speed-up process I think ycu may lose. You want 18 to make some runs with fine levelization, short time steps 19 to use to validate the others. 20 Under water hammer, I think the ACRS should 21 reemphasize water hammer. We have a hand, Peter Griffith's 22 NUREG, that shows that water hammer can occur for the small 23 break LOCA. The original look missed the TMI-2 event. The 24 NRR consultants thought they were important to the USI, 25 stated so, and one of them stated that he felt it was ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1200 06 15 199 ggglDAVbur 1 probably the significant issue. 2 A further example is the Besnau incident, where 3 the water got into the steam line. There was a water 4 hammer. It did damage as a result of ov.erfill. This is a 5 new Westinghouse plant. 6 Some comments on the planned integral facility. 7 I am just going to read a couple of coinments from the report 8! that I have already submitted, just for the record. l 9 I think the efforts to identify thermal hydraulic 10 phenomena that are important to safety do not appear to be 11 worthwhile. The reason is a large number of plant 12 calculations have been done with both TRAC and RELAP 5. h 13 The code assessment program has been underway for 14 a number of years. I think what should cri're a facility is 15 where do we perceive weaknesses. We shouldn' t go back 16 through all this business of looking for transients. We 17 have already done that. 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 h 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPOP,TERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
1200 07 01 200 1 I think a new facility that will give us the same ggllDAV/bc 2 or similar data to that, which we already have, serves 3 little purpose. The focus should be on all the dif ficulties 4 which yield new data. This leads me to conclude that the 5 new facility should maintain geometric similitude as much as 6 possible. 7 The arguments given for a full pressure system do 8 not appear to be strong enough to justify the expense. 9 Further, high pressure usually means heavy pressure vessels, 10 compromises in instrumentation that are too severe to 11 justify the gains. 12 The use of freon allows one to simulate many of h 13 the characteristics of water at five times the system 14 pressure. There were some arguments given against the use 15 of freon, but I think we should realize that it's not large 16 break LOCA anymore, it's small break LOCA. Small break LOCA 17 is driven by hydraulics rather than thermal dynamics, and 18 freon is an excellent hydraulic simulant for water. 19 MR. WARD: Is there any experience with freon 20 faciliites? Are we talking about something with 500 psig 21 here? I know there's a lot of experience with freon. 22 DR. CATTON: Yes, Kappell has a freon simulated 23 boiling water reactor. Dick Leahy did some work at RPI 24 using freon as a simulant. h 25 MR. WARD: But we're talking about freon as a ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1 1200 07 02 201 1 low pressure simulant here. This is 500 psig. ggggDAV/bc 2 DR. CATTON: You get a factor of 5 on it. So if 3 you've gone 100 psi, you've got 5 on it. If you run 500, 4 you've got 25. So you' re talking at most a system of 5 400-500 psi, but I don' t even think you need that. I think 6 we're more interested in the hydraulics, where the levels 7 are in the plenums, how does the annular region behave, what 8i does the stratified flow on the hot leg and the cold leg 9 look like? l 10 How does the loop seal act? What is 11 stratification doing to you? The question that Jessie 12 raised about the pressurizer staying hot. These kinds of h 13 things freon is an excellent stimulant. It won't handle 14, condensation problems, but it certainly does a lot of the 15 other things much better and much cheaper. 16 MR. MICHELSON: The question that Jessie raised 17i though is a condensation question. I 18 DR. CATTON: I'll wait now. Jessie said that 19 you'll lose the ability to reduce the pressure because it's 20 stratified. I 21l MR. MICHELSON: But you have to be able to track l 22l how the pressure is coming down all through the analysis. l 23[ DR. CATTON: Yes. But, you see, my pressurizer 24 is full of hot water. I can have the res t o f it cold and h 25 the stratification is not going to allow the condensation to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 ??00 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1200 07 03 202 1 take place. llhDAV/bc 2 Now, freon -- 3 MR. MICHELSON: Heat loss. 4 DR. CATTON: Well, heat loss is a slow leak. 5 MR. MICHELSON: That's how they modeled finally 6 bringing the pressure down, was through heat loss. That's 7 what they claim. So what I wondered about is to what extent 8 the oscillation of the pressure, and so forth, will kind of 9 pump the cold water up, the surge line. 10 DR. CATTON: Where you run into dif ficulty with 11 the freon would be condensation. If it's condensing on the 12 surface of the inside of the pressurizer, it's not going to h 13 be a hell of a lot dif ferent. You can certainly handle 14 that. 15 MR. EBERSOLE: You will say you will depressurize 16 with the secondary system? 17 DR. CATTON: It's going to survive because of 18 stratification. 19 MR. WARD: Not if the sprays work. 20 DR. CATTON: With sprays, that's dif ferent. 21 MR. MICHELSON: The pumps aren' t running and we 22 don' t have auxilliary spray. Some have auxilliary spray and 23 some don' t. 24 DR. CATTON: But there are a lot of high pressure 25 systems around the world. I would think that what we would ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
1200 07 04 203 1 want to do is get the data we need to fix the code, and do lll)DAV/bc 2 whatever we have to do to do that. That should be the 3 driving force. 4 MR. EBERSOLE: I've been with these systems with 5 freon, looking into the matter of the boiler. I'm talking 6 about the depressurization and the level of lowering the 7 process to reduce radioactivity. 8 MR. WARD: Can you give a quick answer because 9 we've got to move on? 10 DR. CATTON: I can' t give a quick answer. These 11 questions are always too complex. 12 MR. WARD: Write him another letter. 13 (Laughter.) 14 MR. WARD: Are you finished, Ivan? 15 DR. CATTON: Yes. 16 MR. WARD: Do you have to leave at the same time, 17 Virgil. . 18 DR. SCHROCK: I have to go, too. j 19 MR. WARD: Okay. 20 DR. SCHROCK: I guess I agree with a lot of what 21 Ivan said. Most of it, the TIC concept, is one that I think 22 has a lot of attractiveness. But, clearly, from the 23 discussion here, it needs a lot more definition and 24 additional revicw. We discussed the idea of the synthesis l 25 of information f rom research programs and whether se have a ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 e
1200 07 05 204 gDAV/bc 1 good record of that, whether it should be done better than 2 it has been done. 3 I thought for a long time that it needs to be 4 done a heck of a lot better than it has been done. I think 5 this is one of the weakest points in the NRC research 6 program, has been that there's always been such a rush to 7 move on to the new, current, hot issue and set aside 8 mountains of experimental data that never really get 9 critically examined. 10 I think there is a real need here and that a lot 11 of good information will be lost if we don' t ^. that kind of 12 thing. I think that, having the underr'.anding of the llll 13 physical phenomena and our ability to model the physical 14 phenomena at a level where we really have confidence in 15 that, is what we really have to have. We' re not going to 16 get that if we approach it, as you put it, Dave, that you 17 have to provide a linkage to a safety issue -- unless you i 18' can cite a safety issue that says, yes, you need that, from 19 the information, you don' t really have justification for 20 it. 21 I don' t think that's the way it should be 22, viewed. I think it has to be viewed that the fundamental 23 thermal hydraulics phenomena have got to be understood well 24 enough and we have to have the capability of modeling them h 25 so that we can do these codes in a realistic way, so that i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-MA6
1200 07 06 205 1 we really know that they are first principle calculations. llllDAV/bc 2 When we look at the relationship between the separate 3 effects list of items and the things that were discussed in 4 connection with code assessment, we see a very clear example 5 of this. 6 Code assessers, developers have no hesitation in 7 making a suggestion -- we ought to change an interfacial 8 drag by a f actor 10. That's nonscience pure and simple. 9 And there's a lot of that kind of nonscience in our codes 10 today. 11 So the only way that we can approach this 12 rationally is to insist that what we put our money into is h 13 going to improve our understanding of the physical phenomena 14 and our ability to deal with those physical phenomena on the 15 applicable issues. 16 So I haven' t felt that strongly for a long time, 17 and I was glad to hear Ivan bring that one up this morning. 18 As far as the TIC is concerned, there clearly are dif ferent 19 levels of ideas involved here. The idea of the TIC as being 20 an organization that is aiding the NRC in doing the 21 integration function, I use the word " synthesis" 22 intentionally because I think it's more a matter of 23 synthesizing information and bringing it to bear on the 24 application that you have for that information, the way h 25 that is going to get done in terms of several dif ferent ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
1200 07 07 206 lllgDAV/bc 1 TIC's interacting with each other and with different 2 components on the NRC staff that I think is critical in 3 determining whether the TIC is going to be a good 4 functioning approach for NRC's next 10 years of regulatory 5 research. 6 We had some discussion about some cases that 7 could be examined to see if the kinds of documentation of 8 past NRC researches is not being adequately done. 9 I would suggest that maybe the LOFT summary is a 10 good one. I'm not criticizing the LOFT summary. I think, 11 given the resources that were put into it, it's a good 12 summary, h 13 But I don' t think it's anything like the task-14 deserved in terms of the magnitude of that program and the 15 wealth of information that remains buried in the 16 experimental data that LOFT contained. 17 So I guess, in this, I have said I support also 18 the need for mvre emphasis on separate effects tests. s 19 That's clear if we' re going to understand the physics 20 better. 21 And I've made related comments on code 22 assessment. I also have the opinion that water hammer 23 ef fects and accider.t sequences have really not been looked 24 at in suf ficient detail to have the ACRS sey that they agree h 25 that the water hammer issues are set to rest and there ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
y qt + . X,. j ?;; .. 4s,
. fn ' ' :v. ; , ._, # 9, , = :i' ;.,.r
- '+ %9
., y .: py
^
~ *' g_1.N l (" lo $'*
o . +. ,, , , ~
~~
^ - -
, . . s v
? ~}
4 i .'
'N 94 Y :
,-~,-a; '!$
y,
'in.<.
f jj rm i I. m 1l [h", A , 2 e d
\l v a 's
^
l;_ 4
' {f l, .
9 4 T a 5
1200'07'08 207 , f~'bDAV/bc 1 should not be further work done in that area. I think there V 2 should be. 3 So that's I guess all I have to offer. 4 MR. WARD: Thank's , Virgil . Theo? 5 DR. THEOPANOUS: I agree with most of what has 6 been said.- I'll be very brief. I find that the overall 7 plans are reasonable. The outstanding item I want to 8 emphasize is the need for synthesis or integration, or 9 whatever you call it. 10 I think synthesis better describes the kind of 11 thing that you're trying to say here is needed. We are 12 lacking and have been lacking in the past in the direction h 13 of properly closing down issues and topics. Like Virgil 14 said before, we also seem to be finishing something new and
.15 forgetting about what was f ashionable yesterday.
16 And that is a shame, because many times, what has 17 .been done both in terms of accomplishments as well as some 18 of the limitations can be very, very useful for future 1-19 problems we're going to be facing maybe a few years from 20 .now, three years from now. 21 So I think, out of everything that I hear today, 22 'I would like to see the ACRS make a very big effort to 23 emphasize tha importance and need for synthesis. Whether i 24 TIC is going to do that, I don' t know. That will depend
) 25 very much on how it is conceptualized, how the staff ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
1200 07 09 208 glgDAV/bc 1 monitors it. But, in general, I think efforts like that, if 2 you focus them too much to one organization or one group of 3 ind ivid uals , they tend to be not as productive or not as 4 worthwhile as if you kind of allow for some 5 competitiveness--one group running against another. 6 And I know that the resources are limited, but, 7' still, I think the difference between one or two or three is 8 not that great. 9 Another word that I think we want to add on need 10 for synthesis and integration is authoritative integration 11 and synthesis, in the sense that af ter this step is done, 12 certain review groups take a look at it and they comment on h 13 it so that we have an archive, so to speak, of opinion that 14 is not only the author's opinion but it is the people that 15 reviewed opinions, attached to it. 16 And then future groups can have the benefit of 17 all this information. Especially that's become very, very 18 glaring when you look at the code calculations. Again, you 19 see all these kinds of experiments that purport to address 20 an issue, and then you see they tell you all the good 21 things. None of the limitations are showing up in there. 22 And then you have to wait until some other 23 application is tried, and some other point comes along. 24 Then, you find there is this problem, that problem that you h 25 missed before. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-33MM6
i 1200 07 10 209 -( 1 Now I think I share the comments made on water
)DAV/bc 2 hammer. On the facilities at this point, I think the points ,
i 3 are rather nebulous and probably rightly so, because right i 4 at the beginning, because of other, obligations, I could not ! S go to the meeting, but I think there will be much more than i 6 this that needs to be done in here before the optimum would l 7 be found out. l 8 I don' t think it will be an easy job because 9 you're basically looking at something that is out there, but j 10 you don' t know exactly what you' re looking for. 11 on the other hand, I think it's really j 12 worthwhile, the idea that I see coming from RES, that this I k 13 facility will be helpful in maintaining people. I think we 14 ought to be concerned about that above all, even if it i 15 solves no problem at all. If that's going to be helpful in 16 maintaining people and expertise, it's going to be good. 17 MR. WARD: It is an integral facility. Ivan 18 seemed to think the integral facility does not need it. The 19 center of expertise maybe is needed. But you need the big, 20 expensive integral facility to maintain it. 21 DR. THEOPANOUS: I think we are agreed there. I 22 think Ivan seems to be a little bit more categorical on this 23 point than I want to be, because I think it needs much more 24 debate before we actually decide what we need. O
\s_) 25 So I don' t want to say at this point that I know ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1200 07 11 210 1 what we need. I think it needs to be thought out.very (}DAV/bc 2 carefully. 3 DR. CATTON: Dave, I didn' t mean to imply that 4 you don' t need an integral f acility, but I would like to 5 strongly say that you don' t need one at the expense of these 6 other things. 7 DR. THEOFANOUS: That's all my comments. 8 MR. WARD: Thank's, Theo. Chang? 9 DR. TIEN: Two general remarks about the 10 particular items. It really consists of Sree basic 11 programs -- integral facilities, code development and 12 separate facts. () 13 I have two comments. The first is the funf.ing 14 for a separate effects probably should be increased; that 15 can be easily done because that only is a very small item 16 compared to the other two. Perhaps some adjustment should 17 be made. 18 The other comment I have, to speak very frankly, 19 there's nothing new. It's really a little bit boring; it's 20 old stuff. Let me comment on that. 21 The integral facilities, CEC and, say, new 22 project, new developments, not new concepts, I agree with 23 Ivan. I think it should be looked at very carefully. If 24 we' re doing the same old tasks on a lot of other transients
) 25 which have been done before, I think that's not really worth ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-MA6
1200 07 12 211 1 support. But I do feel perhaps slightly dif ferently f rom (J')DAV/bc 2 Ivan. I think you do need a CEC to continue, but you need 3 more forecasts on some of the crucial phenomena instead of 4 creating the same kind of transient people did study 5 before. 6 And also have some code calculations. So, 7 integral facilities, I think as a new project, nothing new, 8 and I .think it should be looked at carefully. 9 Code development again I find is old stuff. It's 10 just simply a lot of money into things. Some of them, we 11 still cannot justify in terms of physical first principles, 12 and so on. I'd like to see actually some money put into 13 this parallel processing. I think this is an area that 14 really has tremendous potential and also major impact. 15 It's very exciting and particularly suitable for 16 .large-scale reactors, special calculations. And I think, 17 once you develop a machine code interf ace algorithm, I think 18 this should really cut down the computation of cost 19 drastically, as well as time. 20 It has tremendous room for development and I 21 think it should not just be like an add-on project to Los 22 Alamos right now because Los Alamos have their own 23 interests. I think it should be just like a developing 24 prc:,ect. It should be given to a few centers, two or
} 25 three. Let them compete, find some kind of new algorithm ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
1200 07 13 212 nf) DAV/bc 1 .that has tremendous impact on cutting the cost of 2 computation and time. Thit is a very new and exciting 3 development. l 4 MR. WARD: I agree, but should we be getting and l 5 development of parallel processing through taxpayers paying i ( , 6 the NRC for thermal hydraulics? Is it unique enough? 7 DR. TIEN: I think it's very uniquely suitable 8 and applicable to this case. Not only tha t, it will have 9 tremend ous impact in terms of the ACRS or NRC functions, 10 because that will give you much faster response in actual 11 events and also will cut down on a lot of computation. 12 Right now, I think NRC just spends too much time h 13 in computation. This will cut down tremendously. And I 14 think it's a very unique thing. However, I feel it's not 15 the same kind of parallel processing I just heard today. I 16 feel that's just a baginning. 17 I think a lot of this, there's tremendous 18 potential for use, that's something really new and very 19 unique in reactor analyt.s. 20 21 22 23 24
) 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
=1200 08 01 213 3 DAVbur- 1 I think the TIC, the Technical Integration ;O 3 2 Center, is a good idea. However, I am surprised to hear 3 that it is put on as the number one item in terms of a 4 10-year management plan.
5 I think without an adequate definition or 6 characterization of a center it can really perhaps have even 7 negative effects on the NRC Research as well as other branch 8 functions. 9 So I think it is a good idea, but it needs I 10 careful, perhaps, conside ratic n , the Tachnical Integration 11 Center part. 12 MR. WARD: Thank you, Chang. ( 13 Let's go with Mr. Sheron.
}
14 (Slide.) 15 MR. SHERON: My name is Brian Sheron. I am with 16 the Division of Systems Integration at NRR up until 5:00 17 ' o' clock today. Monday is the new organization. 18 I will be talking to you on the NRR comments on i 19 the RES Thermal / Hydraulic Research Program. 20 (Slide.) 21 First off, let me just refresh your memory that 22 since,about 1981, NRR, particularly DSI, has sent to the 23 Office of Research approximately a dozen -- I added them up 24 the other day -- either user need letters or research 25 request letters. (} ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
.1200 08 02 214 L DAVbur 1 And I differentiate because the user need letter 2 goes from Mr. Denton to Mr. Minogue, and there are numerous 3 letters that are provided, either requests or guidance, at 4 lower levels, say either to Mr. Manero, Mr. Harris, or 5 myself.
6 And when we write letters, though, if it is not 7 Mr. Denton, we are writing from the standpoint of an 8 existing program. So we are not asking for new things. We 9 are saying here is guidance regarding an existing funded 10 program. 11 - of all these letters we have written, I think the 12 overall assessment is that Research has been resjonsive to O 13 our requests. I tried to jot down some of the examples that wJ 14 came to mind. 15 one was the extended Semiscale program to 16 complete our needed testing. Even though there was a lot of 17 desire about a year or two ago to shut the facility down, we 18 had requested that they freeze a version of their codes so 19 that we had a production version that we could work with, 20 that we knew what we had and we weren't always dealing with 21 ,a new version that had not only our corrections but some new 22 improved features that we really didn't know what it meant 23 or how the assessment was on it. 24 So we now have a frozen version that we can now
.( 25 run and basically know what we are getting out.
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
i 1200 08 03 215 As DAVbur 1 We had asked for a follow-on program for MIST. v 2 My understanding is the funding has been identified for '87 3 for such a follow-on program. 4 They provided us needed information on the 5 pressurized thermal shock, coolant mixing in the downcomer. 6 We had asked on numerous occasions for 7 information regarding feed and bleed experiments, analytical 8 capability, which we did receive. 9 MR. WARD: Brian, on the fluid mixing and thermal 10 shock, there seem to be some continuing peripheral questions 11 about that. 12 Is NRR involved? f) %d 13 MR. SHERON: NRR is involved. DSI is not. This 14 is right now ongoing with the Division of Safety and 15 Technology. On Monday I will be able to speak fluently on 16 the subject, but today I can't. 17 (Laughter.) 18 I am being facetious, but I am not well-versed in 19 exactly what was going on. 20 We had asked for some revisions to the codes 21 based on our experience and our use of the codes, 22 particularly with the ATWS work up at BNL. They did make 23 some additions; for example, boron addition, boron 24 tracking. 25 And the 2D/3D program, we had asked to see if (~} 's-l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 ' Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
T 1200 08 04 216 fL DAVbur 1 they could obtain some data which was relevant to the UPI, b 2 which they did go off with the Germans and negotiate and did 3 that. 4 (Slide.) 5 Again, our most recent user need letter was dated 6 August 12, and it was initiated as the result of both the 7 Davis-Besse event and a letter from Westinghouse which 8 identified the potential problem of seismic interaction at 9 the seal table and instrument tube failures, which I think 10 we discussed with you once before. 11 The thrust of the letter was: Research, could 12 you please tell us, are your codes good enough to believe () 13 the analyses we are doing of the Davis-Besse event. We are running RELAP-5. We are We are using 14 running your codes. 15 your nuclear plant analyzer. We may be drawing conclusions 16 from that. What is your opinion? Are they good enough? Do 17 you need to go nore data or what? 18 We said, gee, Davis-Besse was sort of a real need 19 event from the standpoint of can we go out and simulate it 20 and really understand with our facilities. 21 I think the genesis of this request was sort of 22 twofold. One was, goe, let's get some more data on the 23 event so we can better understand perhaps what happened. 24 But I think in the back of my mind, gee, here is a real 25 operating reactor event. We have some pretty good data on (} ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-66M
1200 08 05 217 /SDAVbur 1 it. Let's see how some of these facilities might be able to V 2 simulate it. 3 And I had particularly in mind the University of 4 Maryland facility, the reason being it is low pressure, it 5 is small, and one of the questions we had is, how can this 6 adequately simulate prototype plants? Is this a way to go 7 in the future? 8 This looked like a very good event to ask the 1 9 University of Maryland to try and simulate, and should we do 10 that?' Was there a correlation? Can we depend on these 11 types of facilities? 12 MR. EBERSOLE: Brian, may I ask you a question? () 13 14 The Davis-Besse event was no more nor less than the loss of feedwater? 15 MR. SHERON: That is right. 16 MR. EBERSOLE: Are you telling me that has not 17 been previously looked at in the sense of looking at the 18 consequences? 19 MR. SHERON: Oh, it has been. There were some 20 unique features of it that we discovered as part of our 21 analysis. 22 MR. EBERSOLE: I mean years ago wasn't it looked 23 at? They had a lousy feedwater system. 24 MR. SHERON: This was loss of all feedwater now. 25 MR. EBERSOLE: I know. That is what I mean. (} ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M4
1200 08 06 218 1 If you have that kind of a critical accident, you have to ,/~s)DAVbur G know what the general consequence is -- loss of all 2 3 feedwater. 4 Hadn't it been looked at way back in history? 5 MR. SHERON: No. 6 MR. EBERSOLE: Maybe we had better look at lots 7 of plants. 8 MR. SHERON: It is beyond the design basis. 9 MR. EBERSOLE: Well, I know. But in order to 10 assess what you should do, if anything -- 11- MR. SHERON: Well, loss of all feedwater -- 12 MR. EBERSOLE: What about loss of service water? () 13 14 What about loss of component cooling? this, that, and the other? What about loss of Aren't these done? 15 MR. SHERON: No, they are not. You can look at 16 the event and ask yourself what the consequences are. You 17 can track through the logic. 18 Like, for example, loss of component cooling 19 water. Right now I believe they have administrative 20 instructions that you trip the reactor coolant pumps if you 21 don't restore it within 10 minutes. 22 Do the reactor coolant pump seals fail? I don't 23 know. That is Generic Issue 23. That is a question. That 24 issue is trying to resolve. 25 MR. EBERSOLE: So we have got zillions of events (} ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-66M
(l 1200 08 07 219 f AfDAVbur 1 to study that were in totality of function. ('~') 2 MR. SHERON: You have to answer the question. In 3 order to answer the question, you have to do a full-blown 4 thermal hydraulic analysis. 5 Is it necessary in order to study the loss of 6 component cooling water to run a pump seal failure analysis 7 with a hole at the pump seal, and what flow rate do I use? 8 And the analysis would surely show that the ECC 9 comes on. 10 MP. EBERSOLE: All I am saying, in order to 11 understand reliability under these systems you have to have 12 soms measure of the consequence of loss of service, and you () 13 14 don't have to have it full-blown, just enough to say I had better make this system good. 15 MR. SHERON: Presumably, when one goes through 16 the PRAs one identifies what the risk dominant sequences are 17 that deserve a harder look, and if the sequences appear to 18 be the need for thermal hydraulics, then we go forward and 19 do the analysis. 20 Now, the one area we have been concentrating on 11 in the past has been the loss of all feedwater. 22 You mentioned before the efficacy of the 23 secondary type of blowdown. We had looked at that back in 24 1981 or '82, if I remember. EG&G has a report for Zion. {h%) 25 We looked at the efficacy of secondary blowdown to get down ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1200 08 08 220 DAVbur 1 to the low pressure systems, and we looked at the efficacy 2 of opening the PORV. We looked at the efficacy of both 3 opening the PORV and blowing down the secondary as a means 4 of getting down to a low pressure system. 5 In any event, if you have loss of all feedwater 6 with no high pressure injection, what we learned was that 7 for the Zion plant you could indeed do it. This was 8 factored in to the PRA type of thinking. 9 So when we can identify a scenario, be it loss of 10 component cooling, be it loss of service water, be it loss 11 of all feedwater, anything in which the outcome appears to 12 be dependent or significantly affected by the thermal ggg 13 hydraulics, then I think it is a fair statement that we do 14 go and we do look. 15 And I think you will see that one of the areas we 16 were concerned about was the multiple failure of instrument 17 tubes in the seal table. We are a little like this on 18 that. We don't know how many "' can really tolerate. 19 You know, the last time we said, gee, if you do a 20 simple analysis, the answer comes out one way, but, boy, I 21 got this 30, 40, 50 feet of this tiny tube and I got 22 critical flow coming out one end. 23 So one of the things we want to know is how does 24 that affect those previous results we had. lllg 25 The last one we had asked, obviously, of Research l ACE-FEDERAL P.EPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
^
l l 1200 08 09 221
/~gDAVbur 1 is: how good are the codes? Can we believe them for
. Q i 2 analyses of the instrument tube failures, as we just i 3 mentioned? 4 (Slide.) 5 I am going to specifically hit on some of the 6 items that I had seen in Paul's proposed agenda that was 7 sent around. 8j One was our comments on the continuing 9 experimental capability. NRR did provide rather extensive 10 input. I think this was about a 15-page user need letter 11 dated September 12, 1984 from Mr. Denton -- I am sorry. 12 This is to Mr. Dircks. This is to Mr. Minogue. I think (]) 13 that is a typo -- entitled "NRR Thermal Hydraulic Research 14 Needs." 15 I hope you have all seen a copy of that. 16 our position is still the same; that is, that we 17 certainly endorse the need for continued experimental j 18 capability within the NRC. ,
- 19 The problem we have is that we can't sit down and 20 say we need this capability, and, oh, by the way, we need 21 the following tests run. We don't have a list of tests. We 22 -have run all the specific tests that we feel were needed in 23 Semiscale. That is why there is the extended program, to i
24 make sure that we have got all the testing we wanted on 25 Semiscale before it was shut down. (}
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
1200 08 10 222 3 DAVbur 1 This is not to say that tomorrow we are not going '( - 2 to come up with something that we really need. It is just 3 that right now we don't have any specific phenomenon where 4 we can say we don't have any experimental data, we need it. 5 The other thing is that in the past, if you 6 recall, NRR has taken a rather active role in justifying the 7 experimental facilities and justifying the need for the 8 experimental data. 9 Many times I found that a position I really 10 didn't want to be in because we were just not that closely 11 tied to the whole process. We did not have the resources to 12 get in and look at these facilities in the depths that are
~'t 13 needed to do the studies and make judgments on scaling size (G
14 and the like that really need to be made. 15 So we got up here sometimes, we would make our 16 recommendations and it would be very difficult for us to 17 really defend them in the technical depth that I think would 18 be needed. And when you really sit back and take a look and 19 you ask, what does NRR as the customer of the research 20 products need, what we need are verified codes. 21 When events happen like Davis-Besse, like a 22 question comes up on instrument tubes, we need to be able to e, 23 turn to an analytical code, and we need to be able to do the 24 calculations, get answers, and provide them to our senior 25 management i.i a fairly short time, and we need to give (} ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
r '- l 1200 08 11 223 A 7S DAVbur 1 results that we can believe and have confidence in.
\_) 2 So we look to Research to provide that. So if 3 you go back and look at our user need letter, you find out 4 that what we really identified to Research was: what are 5 the events that we want these codes to be able to calculate?
6 As you heard before, we put them in three 7 categories. 8 One was the standard Chapter 15, standard design 9 basis events. 10 We also wanted the severe accident, the front-end 11 of the dominant sequences that have been coming out of 12 severe accident studies. f~') 13 Lastly, we said, gee, for the events that have v 14 occurred already that have been significant from the thermal 15 hydraulic aspect, we would certainly like the codes to be 16 able to demonstrate that they can calculate those. 17 These have primarily been, for example, temporary 18 loss of all feedwater, overfilling of generators, vessels or 19 the like, pushing the water out of safety valves. 20 So as you can see, what we would like is codes 21 that could calculate the type of events we are going to have 22 to calculate in the future as well as now. 23 With respect to what experimental data are needed 24 to provide codes that we have this confidence in, we leave (~j'l 25 that judgment up to the research organization. Okay? It is ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1200 08 12' 224 1 really their job to say what experimental data is needed to
/-)DAVbur
.\_/ :
t 2 address the following deficiencies in the codes? What are 3 the deficiencies in the codes? 4 They need to tell us what the deficiencies are, 5 then identify the experimental program they need that 6 eliminates those deficiencies. 7 And we said that as long as they are doing that 8 process and doing it responsibly we would certainly endorse 9 them in terms of we would abide by their decision. What 10 they feel is best to do is fine with us. 11 The next thing I will comment on is their 12 international code assessment program. This is basically, (]) 13 as I understand, going to be the workhorse o the assessment 14 effort for the next couple of years, right now, based on our 15 perception of how well the codes have been assessed and what 'O 16 further needs to be assessed. 17 On the face of it, one can say, gee, this program 18 is probably a little more extensive than what is really 19 needed in order to be able to stand up and say the codes are 20 assessed. What you have to do is you have to go behind just i 21 the face value of it and ask what does this program really 22 accomplish. 1 23 As we soo it, it accomplishes a couple of things, l 1 24 one which I didn't put down here. I should have. And that () 25 is that wo do have access to a lot of foreign data through
)
i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-fM6
1200 08 13 225 ,/~3 DAVbur 1 the ICAP program which we may not normally have, but we may (_/ 2 have to pay out of the nose for. 3 The second thing it does is it keeps the U.S. in 4 the forefront of the international thermal hydraulic code 5 efforts. 6 I can speak from experience. I just came back 7l from the CSNI Principle Working Group II meeting in Paris 8l i just last month. My observations at that meeting were that . 9 the international community basically looks to the U.S. with 10 regard to expertise on the codes. They do not appear to be 11 very interested in obtaining the French codes, like CATAR. 12 They are not excited about getting the German codes. What () 13 is it, DRUFAN? 14 l They are very much interested in TRAC, RELAP-5, 15 and basically it gives the U.S. a lot of leverage in the 1 16 international community in terms of the technical 17 expertise. They tend to listen to us. 18 Jesse? 19 MR. EBERSOLE: Yes, Brian. Have these foreign 20 organizations put the large LOCA in its more nearly proper 21 perspective, or do they still hold it up as the holy thing? 22 MR. SHERON: Some have, and some haven't. I 23, would characterize it as about five years behind, in the 24 sense that they are still trying to get over the large break () 25 LOCA syndrome. ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347.nm Nationwide cmcrage sub336 tM6
1 l 1200 08 14 226 ,7 DAVbur 1 MR. EBERSOLE: I was wondering about that. 'u 2 What does the U.S. say to them in this context, 3 anything? 4 MR. SHERON: Not really. One doesn't want to go 5 in and tell them that they are looking at the wrong 6 accident. 7 (Laughter.) 8 9 10 11 12 O a 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ON, 25 \v ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 02 347 3:ini s iion.ia co,crase soix3mu6
i
- 1 4
1200 09 01 227
- DAV/bc 1 MR. SHERON: We've certainly made it know through 2 the CSNI, if you look at the international standard 3 problems, a lot of those now tend towards small breaks and
, 4 perhaps transients. There aren't so many large breaks in 5 the international standard problems. 6 The other thing the ICAP program does do, it 7 provides a cadre of expert codo users at the laboratories. 8 As long as we have a program that can keep this cadre of 1 9 exports available, then we will have this response 10 capability for the staff. f 11 Keep in mind that if somebody says, We're not i 12 going to improve codes any more, we're not going to develop 13 them, we're just going to keep them there, then the experts, ( ]) 14 the people that are motivated by this, are certainly not 15 going to stay around at the labs and do that. They're going 16 to go off to other programs that offer them a challenge.
- 17 And what sill happen is, if you do get an event t
r 18 and we do have to go to a laboratory for a calculation, what 19 you may find out is you're not going to got what you want. 20 So with this program, with the involvement of the 21 national labs, it koops this cadro of exports in the field. 22 They're at the forefront of the field. They're dealing with l 23 the internantional community. They're providing 24 improvemonts in the code. () 1 25 And I think the dollars that woro spent on i I - ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 50ik336 6M6
1200 09 02 228 7^.DAV/bc s 1 analytical work in the research budget was about SS (~] Granted, it's a value judgment. One has to say: 2 million. 3 Is that a reasonable price to pay to keep this capability 4 alive in the U.S.? 5 And I think our feeling is that, based on the 6 present levels of the RES budget, that's not too bad a price 7 to pay. 8 So, again, you have to look at this program from 9 a more global picturo in terms of getting its true worth to 10 the NRC. 11 (Slide.) 12 MR. EBERSOLE: Did the foreign sector take our lead regarding feedwater as a commercial grado and system of (]) 13 14 no particular caliber in the safety context? Have they 15 built the secondary side, and are they interested in it now 16 to the extent we are? 17 MR. SHERON: Yes. I think some plants in Europe 18 have taken oven more of an initiative. Mr. Denton came back 19 from the Dueil plant, I boliovo, in belgium, and was 20 impressed that they had dodicated decay heat removal systems 21 over there at the plant. 22 MR. EBERSOLE: I was speaking of the foodwater 23 system por so. 24 MR. SHERON: I don' t know oxactly for sure. 25 MR. WARD: That isn't a bunkorod omorgoney [v'l ACE FEDERAL llEPORTERS, INC. 202 347.)ho Nationwide Coserage 80th)3MM6
I 1200 09' 03 229
?~ DAV/bc 1 foedwater system. It's bunkored, I should say, the Dueil ,
k_ 2 plant, it's bunkered against airplane crashes, not against 3 sabateurs. There's a difference. The Germans and the Swiss 4 bunker against both. 5 MR. SHERON: That's right, you were over there. 6 MR. WARD: Oh, I'm an expert, yeah. 7 f1R. SHERON: I'll talk quickly now on the nuclear 8 plant analyzer. I should have put data bank up therer I 9 didn't. I guess the best way to characterize this program 10 with respect to NRR is we're in a wait and soo attitudo. 11 I'm not trying to be derogatory but the program I think was 12 initiated something like about four years ago, when Dr. Tong 13 was here in 1981. (~')T 14 Wo really still haven't soon a useful product. I 15 take that back. No do have the RELAP-5 analyzer. However, 16 its usefulness after the Davis-Bosso event is a little 17 questionable. 18 I can expand upon that. 19 MR. EBERSOLE: Would that be utoful in looking 20 at, for instanco, the finding that wo just had on -- oh, 21 what plant was it? -- Rancho Soco -- that thoro's no stoam ; 22 isolation valvos and, thorofore, a blowdown in the secondary 23 is invited by such a thing as a stuck bypass? And, you 24 know, they had a rocont transient whoro they chilled the 1 4 25 vossol. ACE. FEDERAL. REPonTuns, INC, I :02 347.)*00 Nationwide Coverage It(xx))uM4
I l l 1200 09 04 230 l DAV/bc 1 MR. SHERON: This type of capability in the 2 analyzer could be fairly quickly done. It depends a ! 3 though...wo say quickly done. When we did Davis-Besse, it ; a - 4 quickly went.from about a couple of weeks to a couple of l 5 months. l
; 6 MR. EBERSOLE: I was astounded that finding a 7 plant that they had no main steam isolation valve.
8 MR. SilERON: Oconeo doesn't. I 9 MR. EDERSOLE: Whatever they are, you're staring i { 10 at a blowdown. 1 ; 11 MR. SHERON: We just went through the scenario l 12 with the SEP program on the Palisados plants because they ; 13 woro not single failure proof. And if they had a failure of j ( ]) '1 14 the main steam isolation valve to isolate and a rupture of l l 15 the other lino, they would blow down both generators. l 1 ; l F i 16 MR. EBERSOLE: I was struck by the fact that the l 17 operators didn't trip the main coolant pumps to diminish ', { 18 thin energy. Prosumably, that would have boon an ; 1 j 19 instinctive thing to do. ! i , ! 20 MR. SilERON: I would expect that their proceduros
- l 21 would have told them to. The BMW plants aro nupposed to
^
i
; 22 trip on loan of subcoolant. ;
2 23 MR. EBERSOLE: Thoy didn't trip the pumps to l { l 24 dimininh the rato of cooldown. ! )() 25 MR. SilERON: That may be a mattor for I&E but tho I , t
, ace. FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC. -
l l 202.)47 3701 Nauonokle Conetage $10.))MM4 I
1200 09 05 231 Jm DAV/bc 1 BMil type procedures right now require a reactor coolant pump L) 2 trip on loss of subcooling margin, which I believe is 20 3 degrees. 4 So had they lost that margin, thoso pumps should 5 have boon tripped. 6 MR. EBERSOLE: I didn't know that they lost the 7 subcooling margin. All they'd boon doing was experiencing a 8 savoro cooling transient in tho vossol. 9 MR. SilERON: But if it was so savoro, they should 10 havo lost subcoolant. 11 MR. MICllELSON: Not if the pressurizer romains 12 hot enough. 13 MR. BOEllNERT: I don't think they lost (] 14 nubcoolant. 15 MR. SilERON: It's the temperaturo in the uppor 16 hoad that will dominato. 17 MR. MICilELSON: It's the prossure in the 18 prennurizor that was dominating. 19 MR. SilERON: But if the uppor head tamporaturo, 20 which I holiovo in around 610 dogroos. 21 MR. MICllELSON: That'n not an hot as the 22 pronnurizor. And the pronnurizar would just romain isolated 23 and in control. It kept the pronnuro up ovon though the 24 loop coolod down. 25 MR. EllERSOLE: The tripping of the pumpa, you Act!.17t!DERAI, Rl!PORTl!RS, INC. 202-)U.) W Nmonoide Cmerge M D&tM4
1200 09 06 232 1 know, you would presume it would decouple the cooling
/] DAV/bc U
2 transient and diminish the rato of cooldown of the vossol. 3 You'd just instinctively say that. But they didn't do it. 4 MR. SilERON: Well, I'm going to have to defer, 5 because I'm not that familiar with the event. One of the 6 things with this program, and it's I think very important to 7 us, and that is putting together a plant data bank which you 8 can ontor data into is one thing. It's liko building a 9 swimming pool and than saying, Now, you fill it full of 10 water. 11 Tho question is wo don't have the resources or 12 the peoplo nocessary to fill it with water. As you heard 13 beforo, what was it, the TDC Corporation, which originally 14 had a data bank -- their data book was about yon thick. And 15 if you showod it to a utility, they'd probably laugh and 16 than faint if you told them they had to fill it out, becauno t 17 it was about a staff year's worth of work to put in the data 18 they woro looking for. 19 And it would scaro pooplo off. It scarod mo l l 20 off. I didn't want any part of it. One of tho thinon 1 21 rosoarch in doing now, which you hoard, is they'ro trying to l 22 cut that down to a minimum data not that's noodod to run a 23 codo. 24 Ono of tho thingn wo nood though in wo nood to l O 25 neve 91 "' ae'e '" 9"' t# '"i" a=' ne"k- aton' "e*' t'
- 1 Acu FEDIUtAl, RUPOR TUl(S INC,
- on u m mnm a,cmem, mm uu
l 1200 09 07 233 DAV/bc 1 tends to a designor standard that could be a very longthy 2 and expensive process. 3 And from the standpoint of what NRR noods the 4 codos for, obviously, if we have an event that is of such 5 importance -- and I would tako as an example Davis-Bosso -- 6 if the plant shut down and they wanted to start up, one of 7 the basos for their startup in to provido the staff with 8 data so that we can do an analysis. 1 9 I can guarantoo you they would probably havo the 10 data horo within a day. BMW already had a dock sot up 11 beforo Davis-Bosso for the RELAP-5 plant. We most likely 12 would havo gotton that from BMW if push came to shovo. Wo 13 woro fortunato. Wo had an Oconoo dock. Wo woro ablo to 14 modify tho Oconoo dock in a wook to got it to look liko 15 Davis-Donno. 16 So, from tho standpoint of that, doon NRR really 17 nood thin? To ronpond quickly, tho annwor in yes, wo would 10 cortainly like to havo it. But if wo didn't have it, wo 19 would probably runort to a littlo mbro drastic and forceful 20 moanuron, but wo would still be ablo to got tho data if wo 21 had to. But it would bo on a crinin banin and the liko. 22 MR. MICllCLSON: It still taken uomo timo to got i 23 it, an I undorntand it, although I'm not nuro a day in quito 24 tho right ontimato. It takon two or throo wookn to pull 25 togothor all tho information that was originally ankod for ACt!.Fl!Dl!RAI, Rl!PORTl!RS, INC, moz.9717m Nmon.We coverne sm)w m
1200 09 08 234 DAV/bc 1 as to what the minimum set would look like. 2 l But, compiling that dock is not a small 3 operation. l l 4 MR. SilERON: I know it's not. You have to check i 5 it out. Self-initialization is another critical olomont. 6 MR. MICl!ELSON: So, if they're in an urgont 7 situation, it's not really practical to then start to try to ' 8 compilo the dock. 9I P1R. SIIERON: Not to produce something in a short
)
10 poriod, liko a couple of wooks. You would find out I think 11 that overy vendor has a dock set up in their shop that they 12 could run on a codo liko oither RELAP-5 or TRAC, or perhaps I 13 one of their trannient codon. If wo woro donporato for 14 analynin with paramotrica, the utility would probably pay 15 ' that vendor to do the calculations that wo nooded -- if that 16 wan noconaary to got the plant rontarted. 17 MR. MICllELSON: If you'ro willing not to have a 10 plant-npocitic dock, bocauno tho vondor won't havo a plant-19 npocitic dock, it may bo a littlo bottor for ono typo than 20 for anothor. 21 f1R. Sill:RON: They'll havo a plant-opecific dock. 22 MR. MIClit:LSON: Not for oach plant. ttR. Sill:RON : But it han to be applienblo bocauno 23 l 24 thuy had ono for tho FSAR. C'; 25 f1R. MIC!81:LSON: For tho nimplicity of an FSAR, it ACl!.171!Dl!!t Al. l(lil'Oltl't!!tS, INC. J :o2.n m o Noon.ornnerm no m <a4
I 1200 09 09 235 sDAV/bc 1 is probably adequate. 2 MR. SHERON: True, it may not be a best estimato. 3 MR. MICHELSON: But if you're trying to match 4 observations of the plant against calculations, it's 5 probably not the thing to use. FSAR makes a lot of 6 simplifying, conservativo assumptions, which you're not 7 supposed to do, in trying to match experimontal results. 8 MR. SHERON: Another question wo always ask 9' though is how accurato do you havo to bo in simulating an 10 ovent. Wo had a lot of trouble in Davis-Dosso that wo 11 didn't have a lot of secondary sito paramotors, not points 12 and control systems represented. (J
~T 13 Tho question you have to ask ist 14 How far do you chano trying to got a match 15 botwoon your analynis and tho data? And whon do you say 16 ntop bocause I'm clono onought any more calculations isn't 17 going to chango my porcoption or conclusionn that I draw 18 from tho ovont?
19 Thono aro nomo of tho quantions wo havo to ank 20 ournoivos, in how accurato in accurato onough? Aro wo closo 21 onough that wo don't ron11y nood to do any moro rofinod 22 analynon? 23 HR. MICIIELSON: You'ro working on tho annumption 24 that your codo in good. I would conorally want to approach 25 it with tho annu:nption that thoro may bo nomothing to bo ACi!.Fi!alta AI. Ri!!'olti't!Rs, INC,
- 02 m.nm N an*We h een u natM6
1200 09 10 236
, DAV/bc 1 learned from the event that would show the code wasn't as 2 good as you thought it was.
3 To do that, you've got to put the best input l 4 information that you havo and do a good calculation on best 5 estimato, and then soo if it matches what you've actually 6 observod in the plant. If it didn't, it might bo a lonson 7 to be learned. 8 MR. SilERON: I agroo 100 porcent. With l 9 Davia-Bosso, that's what wo did. What wo found out to wo l 10 can reprosont the initial doprosaurization and tho 11 repressurization until wo got to the PORV sotpoint. Thon wo 12 had como troublo becauno wo woron't suro what the operator And wo started to got tho i (]) 13 did with the aux spray. 14 divorgonco. ; 15 Dut tho quantion in, do wo fool that the codo did l a good onough job that wo undoratand tho ovont, and wo 16 17 undoentand the phonomonon? And the conclusion wan yon. 10 Wo undorntood why it divorta at a cortain point, 19 and wo undorntood it wan bocauno tho oporetorn did 20 nomothing; wo junt didn't havo tho data availablo so wo 21 could do an accurato comparinon. 22 So, anyway, I quonn all wo'ro saying with this in l 23 thin would cortainly bo a unoful tool if and whon it bocomos 24 avallanlo. Wo would cortainly uno it onco conoarch comon l 25 over and totta un that it workn and it's availablo. And wo ( ]) ACl!171!Dl!RAl. Rl!!'ORTl!RS, INC. 202.)47-)ho Neon *kle unerave Ae HMM4
l 1200 09 11 237 DAV/bc 1 would like a demonstration of it. 2 (Slido.) . i 3 Beforo I go on to this, that's really about all i 4 the comments I had on the research program. I think the key ' 5 point I tried to emphasize is that I think now, and even in 6 the futuro, our emphasis is going to be on wo would liko 7 verified codos that research and their contractors will 8 stand up and say: , I 9 Thoso codos aro good enough to do the L 10 calculations you nood to do in NRR, and you can be confident 11 in drawing conclusions from them. I 12 Wo would cortainly interact with thom with rogard 13 to tho typo of ovonto that wo want to croato, and wo would 14 trust their judgmont rogarding what they fool in noconaary 15 in rogard to experimontal data they fool would be noodod or 16 further annonsmont work in ordor to stand behind what 17 they've dono. I 10 MR. MICllHLSON: Did you discuns earlier thin 19 concopt of tuchnical contorn of oxportino? 20 MR. SilCRON: No, I didn't. 21 HR. MICllELSON: You ropronont NRR horo, I quo 9n, 22 today. Could you toll us, you know, you aro I am nuro 23 familiar with tho concopt. Could you toll un your viown or i 24 NRR'n viown on tho concopt? The problomn you foronou? The ! 25 good points or tho bad points, or whatovor? I Act!.171!!)i!nAI. Riii'onttins, INC, i :oun.>nii 84 n ,i.xi, rmer.I, mtnuuia q
i 1200 09 12 238 DAV/bc 1 MR. S!!ERON: I think the good points -- there's V 2 good points and bad points. I don't really want to say that 3 I've thought about it enough to be able to pass judgment on 4 it. I would just point out, tho good points are, as wo 5 said, it puts the exportiso in ono location. If you put the , 6 oxperimontal facilitios in one location, you havo tho 7 bonofits of, for examplo, as you saw, tho ono powor supply 8 can provido power to throo facilitios. 9 , So you have cost savings th,ro. If you havo the 10 technical exports with the codos that do the calculations 11 right thoro, they'ro very familiar with tho experimont. Wo 12 found out that the semi-scale analysts did fairly good jobs i i 13 bocauso they woro very, very familiar with the facility. l 14 So you havo tho bonofit of having all tho i j 15 tochnical oxports which can interact and provido their i 16 oxportiso. It's just tho fact of boing around ono another 17 and not having thom spread out all over the country. ; ! 10 MR. MICllCLSON: Will you onvision thoso technical 1 19 contors to bo reprosonting tho agoney and not just roscarch? i i 20 or, do you look at it difCorontly? Roscarch is the ono that ; r 21 prononted tho idon to us, but ono of tho concerns was, woll, 22 aro thono ron11y tuchnical contorn for rosoarch? Or, aro 23 thoso for tho agoney? I 24 In othor words, how would you utilizo thom? Or, O 25 we"to v " eve" ce""taer "'tti=t u en > ^"a n wa"to ve" ACl!l?l!Dl!RAl. Rlil'ORTl!RS, INC. 20 9Mu Nenekle Cerige m@tMA ,
1200 09 13 239 DAV/bc 1 integrato newer rosearch programs? You do have some which 2 are ossentially research, ovon though it's in NRR. 3 Ilow would you integrate them into this tochaical 4 contor concept? 5 MR. SilERON: Wo would cortainly look at the 6 expertiso and the capabilitios at those tochnical . 7 intogration contors. And if the exportino was available to 8 us -- and what I maan by "exportiso", I mean tho top quality i 9 analysts, not the now hiros, et cotera. Wo would cortainly 10 utilizo them. 11 MR. MICllELSON: But do you look at thono pooplo < 12 in terms of integrating the total agency program, liko in () 13 thormal hydraulics? integrating? Or, do you want to do your own l 14 15 MR. SilERON: I would not really fool comfortablo 16 anoworing that right now becauno I really don't think, for 17 oxamplo, NRR han mado any docinion. I havon't boon provided i la any guidanco that nayn. . . in tho f uturo, thormal hydraulic 19 contracting will bo dono at laboratory X and nowhoro olno. i 20 An I naid, thoro's bonofitn and dotrimento to l 21 having all tho oxportino in ono aron. If you rocall, in 22 1976, which ! think wan whon I firnt como to NitC, thoro wan 23 a movo at that timo to divorgo to difforont laboratorion. 24 And tho banin wan that, whon you havo tho namo exportn all l 25 in ono placo, you'ro kind of at thoir morcy. Whatovor thoy ACl! l?!!Dl! rat. Rl!PonTlins, INC. !
- o:w.Pm N o n.hl,cm n m m))A wo
1200 10 01 240
, DAVbw 1 MR. EBERSOLE: In that context, Brian --
2 MR. WARD: I want to remind the members that we 3 have another topic. 4 MR. EBERSOLE: Oh, glory, let's move. 5 MR. SHERON: The next two slidos, I really don't 6 nood to dwoll on thoso, unloss you have any questions. 7 What I was going to proposo, just to toll you, is that with 8 the now organization, wo aro in a process of developing 9 proceduros within NRR on how DSRO is going to carry out the 10 overnight function, how wo intend to try to havo technical i 11 consistoney in the implomontation of our rogulations.
- 12 For examplo, I don't want to soo an Dr.W vondor 4
13 divinion disapprovo an ECCS typo corrolation and have a i 14 Wantinghouno division turn around and approvo it, find it 15 acceptable. 16 What aro wo going to do to mako suro that doonn't 17 happon? ; 18 Thono two slidon moroly point out the procoduron 19 which wo'vo dovolopod, which wu'ro going to try and 20 fino-tuno, then hopo[ ally, wo'd liko to innuo thom as an NRR i 21 offico lottor, which would bo tho ntandard from which all 22 tho technical rovioworn and projuct managorn would abido 23 by in tho tochnical roviow proconn. 24 MR. MIClit:Ls0N: It's cloar from thin, you do havn an intogration problon within NHR, bocauno you'ro going to
] 25 1
ACiblil!Dl!RAL Rlil'OR'itius, INC. 20: Samus NwonsMe emotm w))w.ss i
1200 10 02 241 DAVbw 1 divido up the pie among several different organizations. 2 MR. S!!E:RON: But I'll be quito honest. I'd have i 3 to ask Mr. Denton to como down to explain the logic behind 4 that. I think he's dono that. !!o has boon down hero 5 beforo, and I think anyone that can look at the organization 6! and say that thoro's good and bad points about either I 7l organization that oxisted, I think, on balanco, he's 0l concluded that the project type organization will bent 9i norvo the agoney, in the long run, at least right, with tha l I 10 ' l omphanic on, an he calin it, the caro and fooding of the 11 oporating roactorn. 12 Ono of tho thinon I thought -- I don't know if I
) 13 put it down horo or not, but wo would probably como down on 14 a poriodic baain, maybo onco a quartor or nomiannually and givo tho ACRS, bo it the nubcommittoo or full committeo, a 15 l 16 ; report on how thin ovornight consintoney proconn in going.
17 What aro wo loarning? Ilocauno wo aro going to bo la doing nomo auditrn. Wo'ro going to bo chocking and tho i 19 liko, and wo'ro going to ho hopofully writing, porhapn, 20 , quartorly ruportti to Mr. Donton, documonting our 21 obnorvationn on tho connintoney of tho proconn, if thoro'n 22l any problomn that wo Coronoo. 23, And wo would cortainly coio down and pronont t 24 thono findingn to oithor tho nubcommittoo or tho full
/ ', 2 ', , committoo, and you know, wo'rit cortainly -- hocauno it'9 a a
ACl! l#1!Dlil(Al, Ill'.I'Olt i t!!(S. INC.
) :o: 10 nei N n,m te rmum m tir ,un
~
1200 10 03 242 1 now organization and we're still on a learning curve, any
~}DAVbw
'~' 2 comments or suggestions will be very much appreciated. 3 So unless thoro's any other questions on NRR's 4 comments into the research program, that's all I havo to 5 prosent. 6 MR. WARD: Thank you very much, Brian. 7 Good luck in the now job. 8 Mr. Rhoo. 9 (Slido.) 10 MR. RilEE: Becauno of timo, my namo in Gone Rhuo 11 from the Ronoarch Offico, and I'd like to movo a littlo 12 fastor than usual. () 13 14 This in a briof status of tho 2D/3D program. Ennontially, the 2D/3D agroomont has boon 15 oxtonded through September 30, 1988. All the other facility 16 tonting in complotod and the romaining two tost norion will 17 bo Japanono alab core tant facility, coro 3 and uppor plonum , l: la tont facility in Gormany. 19 Thono two aro boing noarly comnplotod to start 20 tho Tont 1 cano in Pobruary and tho other cano, May 1906. 21 (Sildo.) 22 Thin will bo our work neapo for tho balanco of i 23 tho program. Essontially, wo havo to provido two fact 11 tion 24 for on-nito nupport for ununual problomo, than wo havo to [ O 25 ae e ta^c ##etv e cer the te== nien we've co"dootea-i Actbli nititAI. t! R111'onI!!its, INC. !
- 02 in.no Non.de emerm aio ))m.m i
l i 1200 10 04 243 DAVbw 1 Those number of tests, the number of analyses, a 2 total of 38, then wo would have to completo data analyses j i 3 for each test series. Then that will be completed in '86 4' and then '87, '88, and then the last one is '89. And then, 5 another activity we're doing is some of the TRAC model 6 improvemonta under this program. Wo identified the throo I 7 aroan next year -- wo will perform next year. Thoro are t 8l other doficiencion in TitAC modola, but some of thono I i 9' deficiencion will be corrected undor a difforont program. ; 10 Thon porhapn lator in '87, wo might choono somo 11 of thoao doficiencion. l 12 (Slido.) (~' 13 - Key ronulta. Wo obtained from the Japanono niab 14 coro, cyclindrical coro ono. The major pointn aro horo. 15 ' Somo of tho back-up data aro attachod to your handoutn. 16 Ono of tbo itomn I'd liko to point out in the 17 nignificant liquid fraction of up to 10 porcont in fairly ; 18 h quickly ontablinhod in tho coro. Throughout tho coro, 19 nhortly aftor MCC wator ontorn tho coro inlot, that coola 20 the coro vory quickly and all thn clad temperaturon turn 21 around moro or lon about 30 nocondn or no. 22 1 60 wo thought that would bo a nirjnificant 23 . ronult about tho coro coolin';.
- l i 24 ' (Mlldo.) ,
25 I ( ; Thon tho noxt. itom I would liko to point out in : ACiblil!!)l l(Al. l(lil'Oltil:l(S lNC. l M uti m N m.,n. w ,m , o n n,, ,w.
1200 10 05 244 DAVbw 1 1/21 scalo core behaves more or loss one-dimensionally, and 2 then local power differences in in radial and azimuthal 3 directions are offectively mitigated through interaction of 4l the neighboring bundles. 5 Thon the next item is the uppermost coro, about 6, 10 porcont from the top of the coro quenchos fastor than the 1 I 7 middle region because of the doentrained water at the 8 coro/ upper plenum interfaco, and it cools down from the 1 1 9, top. i 10 I MR. WARD: Gono, woro any of those throo itoms 11 major suprison or, in gonoral, in that what was expected? 12 I MR. RilEE: The firnt itom was quito a surprino to I 13 ! un. j 14 MR. WARD: The turnaround in temporaturo? 15 ' MR. RilCC: Thin itom. Tho liquid ontablished 16 ! very quickly in the coro, about 10 porcont, banod on our i 17 ' prior knowlodgo, thin would bo liko 1 porcont or tonn. But 18 i banod on Japanono tont runultn, thin moro or loan 10 porcont 1 19 coolti tho coro quito offoetivoly. 20 80 that in a vory significant point. 21 Tho noxt Ltom, of courno, in thin top pnet, 22 quonchon fairly quickly in tho LOCA analynin. 23 Traditionally, wo annumod that tho topmont rogion in, nhill 24 ' I nay, tho notit dangoroun rogion, bocauno it may uncovor j 2 ", ftrnt and than roflood it lant. AnI honco, may bo ACl! lflil)l!!(Al lli:l'Olt!!il(N INC.
- o; ;o no w n n.uw n n.,, o n in u.m
i 1200 10 06 245 q DAVbw 1 overheated, most likely, but based on our test, that b 2 uppermost region is not that dangerous a zone. 3 MR. MIC!!ELSON: It's still the most dangerous 4 one, isn't it? Just not as dangorous as you thought. 5 Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying 6 thoro's a more serious concern in cooling down the coro? 7 MR. RilEE: Based on our current knowledge, based 8 on those tosts, I would say the topmost region, at least 10 9 percont, is not the most dangorous region. 10 MR. MICllELSON: Whoro is the most dangorous 11 region? 12 MR. RilEE: Below that. Noar the contor of the O 13 coro. U 14 MR. MICllELSON: Wo don't want to tako the time 15 today to find out, but I find that a littlo hard to boliovo, 16 intuitively, but i'm nuro thoro's a good explanation. 17 MR. RilEC: An I said, this quonchos fantor, and 18 also the powur lovel usually in tho topmost region in lower 19 than the contor ragion, no the power density is low. lionco 20 it cooln fantor. 21 MR. MICllCLSON: Thin in flooding only? 22 MR. RllCC: Thin in reflood. 23 (811do.) 24 Thu noxt itom I'd liko to briofly montion in, wo l 25 found thoro in a vory high pronnuuro drop across tho brokon ACibl?!!Dl!RAI, Rl!!'ORTl!RS, INC. M W.Hm Nen.6de emerne u m, u.m
1200 10 07 246 DAVbw 1 loop nozzle. That promotes the reflood rate, and hence the 2 core is reflooded faster. 3 Then another item is, the entire core quenches 4 when collapsed liquid level reaches that midplain of the 5 core. In other words, it may have -- liquid will exist l 6 throughout the core in the form of the two-phased mixture, 7 but when you actually measure that liquid, that will be . 8 equivalent to the midplane of the core. And we are using 9 all of this data for documenting the technical basis for i 10 changing Appendix K rulos. ' 11 MR. MICilELSON: Are you just saying that the 12 frothing is more extensive than you just though? 13 MR. Ri!EE: That's right. Traditionally, in the 14 licensing arena, they wouldn't consider the coro as 15 complotoly quenched until the collapse of the liquid reachos 16 all the way to the top, but that's not the caso in the real 17 world. 10 (Slido.) 19 Noxt I'd liko to go over slab coro test results. 20 The number ono itom is 60 porcont of the coro 21 flow blockaqo doonn't havo that much offect on overall coro 22 cooling. 23 Thin noxt itom is nomo of tho divforencon in I 24 t powor in radial diroctions woro not nignificant, bocauna [ ') 25 thoro in a fairly officiont intorchango botwoon tho bundlos ACi! l?til)lillAl. Illil'Olt l'lil(S. INC, I :o:u m o mnon.nte rm nue m umaa
1 1200 10 08 247 DAVbw I and hence, the core in cooled well, whether there's a high ! 2 power zone or a low power zone, and we have some evidence of 3 lateral interchange, based on our drag body and differential , 4 pressure measurements in horizontal directions. 5 (Slide.) , ) 6 The other facility I would like to discuss is the ! 7 cylindrical Core II test results. 8 One of the items we emphasized from this facility 4 9 were the upper plenum injection tests requested by NRR. i 10 Those test results show that the hydrodynamics in the core 11 are completely dif ferent. 12 Number one, the net flow in the core is l ( () 13 14 downward. The second item we noticed was that the core i 15 cross sectional area is divided into two regions, downflow 16 and upflow, about 50-50 percent split. 17 The downflow region, the top quenching is much j l 18 more significant than the cold leg injection case. l 1 !
- 19 (Slido.)
l 20 The second item I'd like to point out from that 21 tost serios is that whon we run best ostimate tests, which I
- 22 means that the lower temparaturo and lower power, we have a i
23 hugo amount of margin in PCT, but because of the excoss , 24 amount of ECC, wo have significant oscillations causod by r 1 j (]) 25 stoam binding effects, and thoro aro other implications of l l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-)47.)?G) Nationwide Cmerage F43366M6
1200 10 09 248
/m DAVbw 1 using too much ECC. It wouldn't be desirable.
( 2 MR. MICHELSON: Is that less severe in the UHI 3 case or the upper plenum injection case? 4 MR. RHEE: No. In this best estimate case, we 5 ran the cold leg injection, and we saw significant 6 oscillations in the core and upper plenum and downcomer. 7 Everything oscillates. There's a significant condensation, 8 and so on. So the Japanese had to reduce ECC by half, in 9 order to terminate the oscillations. 10 MR. MICHELSON: Does that have some meaning for 11 U.S. reactors then? 12 MR. RHEE: I think so. This is still [~) C/ 13 preliminary. We are looking at the more definite analysis, 14 but it would be that the ECC designed flow may be just too 15 much. 16 MR. MICHELSON: liere's a case now, we always 17 thought, I guess, the more the better. Now you're saying, 18 maybe there's a limit on that. 19 MR. RHEE: That's right; yes. 20 MR. MICl!ELSON: But it's too early to say what 21 this all means. 22 What's the next step in trying to firm up what 23 this means? 24 t4 R . RilEE: We're analyzing data, and we will c) (~D 25 issue an analysis report. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 03 347 3700 Naison.ide coserage sos))ua6
1200 10 10 249 DAVbw 1 MR. MICHELSON: How long do you think this will 2 be? 3 MR. RHEE: This will be the end of '86. 4 MR. MICHELSON: In other words, you're not 5 worried about this phenomenon, or you'd be moving faster 6 than that, I would think. 7 MR. RHEE: I don't think it would require 8 immediate attention, because, number one, this is a large ; 9 break LOCA and the probability of having 200 percent LOCA is 10 not very large. 11 MR. EBERSOLE: But the question is, whether the 12 consequences of this problem, if you do experience a large [~ 13 break, so what? v). 14 MR. RHEE: Then you can cut down some of the 15 valves to reduce ECC flow. So reducing ECC flow -- 16 MR. WARD: You mean what would happen in the 17 plant, if you got these oscillations? 18 MR. RHEE: Then you will see severe shaking of 19 the facility, and then it will endanger some of the 20 structural integrity. 21 MR. MICHELSON: This is what I would suspect you 22 were going to tell me. 23 In other words, although the probability of the 24 event is lower, as the break sizes get larger, the
) 25 consequences may be much mor severe than originally
( ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. . 202-347 3700 Nationside Coverage 80t) 33f-%46 :
1200 10 11 250 DAVbw 1 anticipated, in which case, it's not. clear to me. You 2 haven't made me any more comfortable, that you shouldn't be 3 looking at it quicker. Waiting another year to figure this 4 out seems like a long time, but this is the first I even 5 realized that you've got such results. 6 MR. RHEE: Right. We're not totally sure. 7 There's some conflicting data also, so we're not totally 8 sure ECC alone will cause this type of oscillation. 9 So it's a little premature. 10 MR. MICHELSON: The fact that you're getting them 11 at all is a little bit surprising. 12 Are these related to steam condensation 13 phenomena? 14 In other words, these are multitude of water 15 hammers, is what it is. 16 MR. RHEE: That's right. 17 MR. MICHELSON: Although there have been 18 suspicions that this can occur in the past, this is the 19 first time I've seen it verified . 20 MR. WARD: Has this ever been seen or predicted? 21 MR. RHEE: No. This is the only type of 22 experiment we had, so to my knowledge, it's never been 23 observed anywhere. 24 2s Cl) r ) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33 6 6646
1 1200 11 01 251 E DAVbur 1 MR. MICHELSON: I am sure we would like to hear 2 more about it later. After they get enough, then they can
- 3 talk about it with some degree of certainty. I would hope 4 we would not have to wait a year.
5 VOICE: They are modified tests, of course. All 6 those tests have shown oscillations in the downcomer before
- 7 you get the plenum injection with water sloshing.
j- 8 MR. MICHELSON: This sounds a little more -- !' 9 VOICE: I don't think there were any major 10 impacts, though, 11 MR. WARD: Structural? I 12 MR. MICHELSON: I am not sure it is the same 13 thing. I 14 MR. CHEN: You have two types of oscillations. 15 One is U-tube oscillations. That is three to five$ seconds. 16 But this one, it is a periodic oscillation, about 50 17 seconds. 18 MR. MICHELSON: It doesn't sound like it is water 19 hammer induced then. 20 MR. WARD: I also question whether it could cause 4 21 structural loads. 22 VOICE: Dave, I might mention that there are some 23 of these types of oscillations seen in the results of 24 Semiscale tests in the past. So there may be some data that 4 () 25 would be useful to look at. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
. _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ - ~ _. __ _ _ _
1200 11'02 252 DAVbur 1 MR. WARD: Was anything called out about those? 2 VOICE: Yes. We attributed the problem to 3 excessive heat transfer in the downcomer to the fluid that 4 could not overcome that because of the scaling of the 5 system. 6 MR. WARD: So you think it was an experimental 7 phenomenon? . 8 VOICE: It was an experimentally induced 9 phenomenon by the facility. 10 MR. WARD: Of course, yours are bigger. 11 (Slide.) 12 MR. RHEE: The next item I would like to mention 13 is we identified some of the code deficiencies through this 14 program, and here are some of them. 15 As I said earlier, we are working on some of them 16 this year and then others through other programs in later 17 years. ; 18 (Slide.) 19 Areas requiring some special attention. I listed 20 two. 21 One of them is UPTF test schedule delay. We 22 experienced about eight months delay so far, and we were 23 trying to minimize additional delay by working closely with 24 the Germans. 25 And the next item is plenum test facility and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1200 11 03 253 ['3 DAVbur 1 slab core test facility coupling issues. t i 2 One of the key parameters is mass flows at the 3 core / upper plenum interface to couple these two facilities. 4 In order to do that, we need to compare TRAC calculation 5 results with experimental measurements. There are two or 6 three experimental measurements in each TRAC's computational 7 cell. 8 So the Germans are working on the method of how 9 to develop representative values of each computational cell 10 to compare it with the TRAC results, and we will review that 11 result and determine what is the best method available. 12 So that is all I have prepared for presentation. n
/ ) 13 MR. WARD: Thank you very much, Gene.
(/ 14 MR. MICHELSON: Just one question. I noticed on 15 one of the slides you skipped it said that one of your 16 deficiencies in TRAC was the condensation modeling is 17 causing excessive numerical oscillations. 18 Is it possible that those are real, not a 19 deficiency of the code? 20 MR. RHEE: Certainly, there will be real 21 oscillations, but at the moment the TRAC produces what we 22 view as unrealistic oscillations. In other words, there 23 will be some oscillations but not to the degree that TRAC 24 computes. [V ) 25 MR. WARD: Last but not least. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
1200 11 04 254 l DAVbur 1 (Slide.) l 2 MR. CHEN: I will briefly mention the status of 3 the ROSA-IV program. 4 (Slide.) 5 The outline. 6 I will cover the status of this testing program 7 in the large scale test facility. Then I will cover the 8 test matrix in FY '86, then the status of the analysis work 9 at LANL and INEL. 10 Next, I will talk about the test data in the 11 TPTF. Then I will cover our loan -- U.S. NRC's loan 12 instruments, the instruments we supplied, and then I will () 13 briefly mention the FY '87 work scope. 14 (Slide.) 15 Since the commissioning of the facility in May 16 1985, about five tests have been completed. One of the 17 tests is similar to the Semiscale S-UT-8 test. 18 This is a 5 percent cold-leg break LOCA, with 1.8 19 percent bypass flow from upper head to upper downcomer. 20 This is a very important test because we have safety issues 21 involved in this. The key results of this test are: 22 The liquid level in the core was depressed due to 23 liquid holdup in the steam generator U-tubes, and then the 24 core heatup due to the core level depression. However, the () 25 core was quenched just after the loop seal clearing. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336-6646
~ . _ _ _ -
1200 11 05 255 DAVbur 1 These small break LOCA tests. These small break 2 LOCA test results were presented at the research information 3 meeting this year. 4 (Slide.) 5 On the next slide you have more. Here I would 6 just'want to mention this. We have asked for six or eight 7 data tapes so we can do the core assessment work. 8 The remaining tests in FY '85 will have two . 9 natural. circulation tests, also two heat transfer tests in 10 the steam generator, also two more Semiscale S-UT-8 type 11' related tests. 12 I mentioned that three of five failed to predict 13 _() the peak clad temperature on the S-UT-8 type test. 14 (Slide.) 15 The test matrix proposed for FY '86 by JAERI will 16 cover the break location effect, the break area effect, and 17 also operational transients such as loss of feedwater and. 18 loss of load. 19 MR. EBERSOLE: Is that complete loss of i 20 feedwater? 21 MR. CHEN; Yes. You have more detail in your 22 handout there. But currently we are reviewing this test 23 matrix and will provide comments to JAERI. 24 So all the comments I have heard today, such as I () 25 the steam line break or the stuck valve, the bypass valve, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33 l
1200 11 06 256 [N.DAVbur 1 and the steam line isolation valve, we can consider that. \ ] 2 Also, the instrument tube rupture in that table there. We 3 sent a whole package of documents to JAERI already, asking 4 them to consider that kind of test. 5 (Slide.) 6 The next slide will cover the analysis work at 7 LANL and JAERI and INEL. 8 Idaho and LANL personnel jointly set up this TRAC 9 model, and they finished, and they have had a steady run up 10 to 1000 seconds, and the results so far are good in the 11 temperature, the flow rate, but the data we need more is the 12 data peak. We need more data from Japan, and also the () 13 14 liquid volume versus the liquid level inside the core. need all this information to check our deck. We That is the 15 information we need now. 16 This work -- we have this work in Idaho and LANL 17 using TRAC. We also have completed the deck and sent it to 18 Japan. 19 As for the FY '86 scope, we hope we can complete 20 the test analysis, the post-test analysis of eight to ten 21 tests, and if JAERI requests our support for their 22 experimental program, we will create TRAC or RELAP-5 23 reference PWR deck and send it to them. We will also 24 perform data analysis on these TPTF tests. I will cover () 25 -that later on. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
i 1200 11 07 257 J'sDAVbur 1 We will also provide recommendations on the test U 2 matrix to ensure that our licensing and safety issues are 3 addressed in the testing program. 4 (Slide.) 5 We will talk about our instruments now. All our 6 instruments are functional. We have spare parts for 7 repairs. JAERI specifically asked us to train their 8 personnel, engineers, to operate our instruments. So we did 9 that. 10 The final documents for those instruments will be . 11 sent shortly after eight tests. Most of our instruments 1 12 performed quite well, and they were pleased. 13 (Slide.) 14 This '86, we will continue to provide one 15 resident engineer at JAERI and provide spare parts and also 16 refurbishment of the instruments as needed and also provide 17 training. 18 (Slide.) 19 The testing program in TPTF, that small test 20 facility, to date, so far we have received three packages of 21 data. 22 One is the post-CHF heat transfer package at 3 23 megapascal. Another one is at 12 megapascal. The other one 24 is the stratified flow data in the eight-inch test section. () 25 I did have the paper with me, but JAERI engineers ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 j
1200 11 08 258 DAVbur 1 did the analysis with the test data and have found out that 2 the correlations called out in Appendix K for the post-CHF 3 heat transfer formula, the trend volume heat transfer, is 50 4 percent more for the heat transfer coefficient, 50 percent 5 more than the data they got. In other words, it is not that 6 simple to use. 7 So LANL is looking at these things, and JAERI is 8 going to start doing some analysis of this, and the TRAC use 9 the calculus flow regime. We found out from JAEhI's data 10 from 3 to 6 megapascal. The transition from certified flow 11 to a stratified flow regime is different from the 12 calculation low pressure, small pipe. This is a big pipe, 13 eight-inch pipe system. So we are going to look into the 14 criteria, the flow regime criteria.
, 15 (Slide.)
16 The work scope in '87 will continue to perform 17 the data analysis for at least eight to ten test cases. We 18 will continue to provide the technical and field support to 19 this testing program, this large scale testing program. 20 We will make recommendations every year on the 21 test matrix and perform the TPTF data analysis, and we will 22 also provide this resolution on these S-UT-8 type issues. 23 We will continue to provide spare parts and 24 refurbishments of the instruments and provide instrument
) 25 training to JAERI's engineers.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1200 11 09 259 1 This concludes.
"')DAVbur J
2 MR. WARD: Are you using TRAC or RELAP where you 3 show the status of the analysis work for '86? 4 You said create a TRAC or RELAP-5 reference PWR 5 deck to support the LSTF. It says TRAC or RELAP. It hasn't 6 been decided? 7 MR. CHEN: It hasn't been decided yet because 8 TRAC is the beauty queen, and if we have to use TRAC, okay, 9 to justify -- but the problem with TRAC is we don't have 10 that much on the difference. We have a lot on the PWR deck 11 to give to JAERI. 12 So it is an option there. l () 13 14 expensive? MR. WARD: TRAC might be better, but it is more 15 MR. CHEN: That is right. 16 MR. WARD: Okay. Thank you very much, and thank 17 you. 18 (Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the subcommittee 19 meeting was adjourned.) 20 21 22 23 24
/~T 25 V
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: NAME OF PROCEEDING: ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEMS DOCKET NO.: PLACE: WASHINGTON, D. C. DATE: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1985 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (sigt) m (TYPED $ DAVIS L. I!OFFMAN Official Reporter R hr h Af O
k CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O This is to certify that the attached proceedings before ; the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the j matter of: ! NAME OF PROCEEDING: ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY CORE COOLING I SYSTEMS i i i DOCKET NO.: PLACE: WASHINGTON, D. C. ! DATE: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1985 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original ! transcript thereof for'the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. i (sigt) (TYPED) ! j MARY SIMONS f Official Reporter l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS Reporter's Af filiation, INC. I i O
O
^
\
~.
INTERNATIONAL CODE ASSESSMENT AND APPLICATION PROGRAM DAVID E. BESSETTE ACRS SUBCOMITTEE NEETING WASHINGTON, D. C. NOVEMBER 22, 1985 O e - O G
i l PURPOSE
, ASSESS: TRAC-PF1/ MODI RELAP5/ MOD 2 l TRAC-BD1/ MODI : TRAC-BF1 BROADEN THE INPUT OF USER EXPERIENCE AND PROVIDE PEER REVIEW.
. QUANTIFY THE CODE UNCERTAINTY.
. CORRECT ERRORS.
. ESTABLISH AND IMPROVE USER GUIDELINES.
.. USER GUIDELINES PUBLISHED THIS FALL FOR ALL TilREE CODES.
. DETERMIriE CODE IMPROVEMENT (IEEDS. .
. IMPROVE INPUT /0UTPUT AND USER CONVENIENCES.
. MEANS OF GENERAL C00PEPATION AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE WITH DIFFERENT COUNTRIES IN THE AREA 0F THERMAL HYDRAULICS.
INTEGRATION
. ICAP INTEGRATES THE RESULTS OF ALL DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN USE OF THE CODES.
. TRAC-PWR: 2D/3D, ROSA-IV, MIST, SEMISCALE, SANDIA INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT, DOMESTIC USERS, AND FOREIGN USERS.
. RELAP5: SEMISCALE, MB-2, DOMESTIC USERS AND FOREIGN USERS.
. TRAC-BWR: BROOKHAVEN IllDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT, INEL INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT, l DOMESTIC USERS, AND FOREIGN USERS.
*% &g.
we e G G
~-w.
e F
. FOREIGN USERS TRAC-PWR RELAP5 TRAC-BWR FRANCE AllSTRIA F.R. GEPMANY F.R. GERMANY BELGIUM SWITZERLAND JAPAN FINLAND SWEDEN -
F.R. GERMANY UNITED KINGDOM ITALY JAPAN KOREA NETHERLANDS SWEDEN SWITZERLAND TAIWAN J.R.C. ISPRA e - O O
ICAP STATUS
. BASICALLY ALL COUNTRIES WITH NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMS ARE EXPECTED TO PARTICIPATE.
INFORMATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING HELD IN APRIL 1985.
. FIRST PROGRAM GROUP MEETING llELD OCTOBER 21, 1985.
SPECIALIST MEETINGS OF CODE USERS TO BE HELD TWICE PER YEAR. FIRST SPECIALIST MEETING OF CODE USERS SCHEDULE FOR MAY-JUNE 1986 TIME FRAME. FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM TO CONTINUE FROM 1985-1990. PROGRAM IS CURRENTLY PRODUCING BENEFITS IN TERMS OF DISCOVERING AND CORRECTING ERRORS IN THE CODES. u. e G G
.e
e 6 0 ICAP STATUS (CONTINUED) TRAC AND RELAP ARE IN WIDE USE INTERNATIONALLY. THE CODES ARE BEING ASSESSED AGAINST ALL MAJOR THERMAL HYDRAULIC EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES. A LARGE NUMBER OF PLANT CALCULATIONS USING START-UP TESTS AND TRANSIENTS APE ALSO INCLUDED. USERS FAMILIAR WITH THEIR FACILITIES AND DATA PERFORM ASSESSMENTS AND PROVIDE RESULTS. O O . O O
e e O O EXAMPLES OF ERROR CORRECTIONS IN TRAC
. TWO-PHASE PIPE FLOWS
.. SLUG FLOW INTERFACIAL HEAT TRANSFER IS CALCULATED DURING CONDITIONS OF STRATIFIED FLOW.
.. DISCONTINUITY IN INTERFACIAL HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT DURING CONDITIONS OF STRATIFIED FLOW.
.. SUPPRESSI0fl 0F WALL C0flDENSATION Ill PORIZONTAL PIPES.
.. F0PM LOSSES OVERPREDICTED FOR SMOOTH AREA REDilCTIONS.
. CORE HEAT TRANSFER
.. DETEPMINATION OF INVERTED ANNULAR FLOW MADF BASED ON SATURATION TEMPERATURE INSTEAD OF CRITICAL llEAT FLUX TEMPERATURE.
.. CODIllG ERROR CAUSED EXCESSIVE HEAT TRANSFER FROM VAPOR TO DROPLETS AT HIGli V0ID FRACTIONS.
.. INTERFACIAL SHEAR PACKAGE INCONSISTENT WITH ENTRAINMENT CORRELATION.
T SOMETIMES GREATER THAN T MIN FOR CONDITIONS WITH HIGH QUALITY. CHF e G G
a TRANSFER OF INFORMATION
. QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER FOR EACH CODE
.. SilMMARIES OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS
.. ERRORS AND ERROR CORRECTIONS
.. USER GUIDELINES
.. FIRST NEWSLETTERS ALREADY ISSUED ERROR CORRECTION SETS ISSUED 00ARTERLY TO CODE USERS.
NUREGS ISSUED FOR NONPROPRIETARY ASSESSMENT RESULTS.
. USER GUIDELINES.
e . O - O
SUMMARY
, THE ORGANIZATIONAL PERIOD IS OVER AND ICAP IS BEGINNING TO PRODUCE RESULTS.
. THE FEEDBACK OF EXTENSIVE USER EXPERIENCE IS EXPECTED TO BE VEPY VALUABLE IN REFINING THE CODES.
. THE UNCERTAINTIES OF THE CODES WILL BE ESTABLISHED, AND UPDATED PERIODICALLY.
O _ O - O
..- - ._ - . - - . - - . . _ _ . . -- --- - - - - . -- -----_.------_--_.--.--s.-- - - .----__..n_s..- .- . _ _ _ _ -
e 4 O I t o 4 l l l l f i Z L1J 3C I: U
=C 4
.c J
t g I O G Gr I {
ACRS ECCS SUBCOMMITTEE tiEETiflG. OVERVIEW OF CODE DEVELOPMEf1T, ASSESSMENT, AND NUCLEAR PLANT ANALY7ER PROGRAMS
~
FUAT ODAR NOVEMBER 22, 1985 _ ~ O O O
OVERVIEW 0F FUTURE THERMAL AND HYDRAULIC ISSUES ANALYSIS OF TRANSIENTS IN OPERATING REACTORS (E.G., THE PECENT DAVIS-EESSE EVENT) TO PROVIDE A BROAD TECHNICAL BASIS FOR LICENSING DECISIONS - THEIR IMPACT ON PLANTS OF SIMILAR DESIGN.
. SMALL-BREAK LOCAS IN B&W REACTORS - AUXILIARY FEED SPRAY, CANDY-CANE, VENT VALVE EFFECTS.
. SECONDARY SYSTEM TRANSIENT AND BREAKS - STEAM LINE AND FEED LINE .
BREAKS - FAILURE OF BALANCE OF PLANT COMPONENTS.
. UPPER PLENUM INJECTION PLANTS - LARGE BREAK LOCAS.
QUANTIFICATION OF CODE UNCERTAINTY - TRAC-PWR, TRAC-BWR, AND RELAP5/M0D2.
. COST-EFFECTIVE TRANSIENT CALCllLATIONS - NPA/NPDB
.. INPUT DECK GENERATION - REN0DALIZATION,
.. COLORGRAPHICS - QUICK INTERPRETATION.
.. FAST CALCULATIONS - PARALLEL PROCESSORS - STAND ALONE HARDWARE.
. ADVANCED REACTORS - BACKFITS.
O O O O O
4 OVERVIEW 0F FUTURE THERMAL AND HYDRAULIC ISSUES (CONTINUED)
. MAINTENANCE OF THE CODES.
. . TRAC-PWR
, . TRAC-BWR
. . RELAP5/ MOD 2
. . COBRA-TRAC
. . COBRA-TF
. . RAMONA-IIIB
. MAINTENANCE MEANS PERFORMING THE FOLLOWING TASKS:
- 1. OPERATIONAL SOFTWARE IN THE COMPUTER ENVIRONMENT,
- 2. ERROR CORRECTIONS,
- 3. IMPROVE USER CONVENIENCE ITEMS, AND
- 4. USER SUPPORT.
. ONLY TRAC-PWR AND TRAC-BWR CODES. WILL BE IMPROVED IN FUTURE YEARS (VERY LIMITED ~ IMPROVEMENT OF RELAP5 UNDER ICAP).
e - O O \
- -a
~
FY 1985 FY 1986_ FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990 TRAC-PWR Improvements from: ImprEyennts . from - Int.lCode Assessment A Int. Code Assessment
" 9*
mestic Code Assessment 3 TRAC-PNI/ MODI MB-2 Program TRAC-PFl/M002 Advanced Test Facility TF AC-PFl/M003 Frozen Semiscale Frozen ROSA-IV Domes. tic Assessment 2D/3D F)'ozen ROSA-IV Error Corrections 20/'1q UserSupdort I rror Corrections Advanced Design Needs I User Support RELAPS Userl Suppol l 4 Improgements from: a Improvements from: a for ' RELAP5/ MOD 2 Int.QodeAssessment RELAPS/ MOD 3 Int. Code Assessment' R(LAP 5/M004 RELA Frozed Errorforrections Frozen Error Corrections Ffozen and User Support User Support TRAC , PWR l User l TRAC-BWR , Suppor a fast 4 / a for l TRAC-BDl/ MODI Running 'ltAC-BF1 Improveme1ts from: TRAC-E F1/M001 Improvements from: T C-BFl/ TRAC-B Frozen humerics Frozen Int. Code Assessment Frozer. Int. Code Assessment 2 in 1-D Error Corrections Error Corrections Fmzen Comp. ;ser Suppbrt User Support l-D Neutron Domestic 1: ode Assessment Domestic l Code Assessment Kiaetics Advanced Design Needs Other Codes COBRA-TRAC i Error Corre i.t ions and COBRA-TF 4 / user 3upporr As Required j Froren RAMONA$B O O o
{ _ .- NPA-NPDB INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT FY 1985 ~~FY"Y986 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990-1995 A I l l ' BNL-NPA Comple-:ed BWR/4 SBLOCA BWR/6 BWR/3 MARK-! RELAPS NPA 0peratih al at Asses ment User Su pport INEL and NRC of MARK-I A A MARK-! HYDRO-NPZ O perational at Assessmer t Us er Support LANL and NRC of MARK-I Compl ete 3D Two-Step Numerics JL JL JL MARK-I TRAC-B NPA Ass assment User Support Test Case Demo on DWR 4 at fliARK-I Compl eted INEL an d NRC Complete 30 Two-Step Numerics for BWRs JL . n A A MARK-II HYDRO-NPA Develop Al gorithms Demo on Decision on [mplement on User Support for Par allel CRA"-XMP MARK-II , Parallel Compu ters Selection of M icroprocessor Hardware Ak ^ MARK-II-TRAC-B-NPA User Support tai't Imp lement on F arellel Hicr oprocessor i NPDB A o Transfer Project Opera tional Exten d to WE Extend to BWR to L \NL for WE 4-Loop 2, 3 Loops, B&W-Transfer to h h to IN EL l l
1 i' O MULTI-LOOP INTEGRAL SYSTEM TEST PROGRAM PRESENTED TO ACRS ECCS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 1985 J i
- BY ;
< 0 W,-BECKNER $ FTS 427-4311 REACTOR SYSTEMS RESEARCH BRANCH DIVISION OF ACCIDENT EVALUATION l OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH I l I I
"* 6 e , - . - - - - - . - - - - - . . , . - . - - - - - . . - -
O j lilST FACILITY STATUS
- DEBUG TESTING IS IN PROGRESS (DURATION FROM OCTOBER TO DECEMBER 1985) 0 TESTS TO BE PERFORMED DURING DEBUG:
- VALVE AND INSTRUMENT CONTINUITY CHECKS
!
- FACILITY ALARM AND INTERLOCK i
- COLD FUNCTIONAL CHECKS . ;
!
- HOT FUNCTIONAL CHECKS l
- REACTOR COOLANT PUMP CHECKS )
\
- SOFTWARE CHECKS
'O - CORE HEATERS
- ALL 45 HEATERS llEEDED TO ASSEMBLE THE FULL CORE AREAVAILABLE (l;EEDS ONLY 35 TO GIVE THE
, SCALED FULL POWER)
- AT LEAST 7 SFARE HEATERS AVAILABLE
- REACTOR COOLANT PUMPS
- ACCEPTANCE TESTING OF ALL 4 COOLANT PUMPS WERE COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY
- DELIVERED TO ALLIANCE RESEARCH CENTER AND READY FOR INSTALLATION O
4 9
. 1 l
l TEST MATRIX
- PROGRAM MANAGEMEllT GROUP (Prig) MEETING N0, 16 AT LYNCHBURG FOCUSED MAlf1LY Ofi THE REVIEW OF TEST SPECIFICATIONS
SUMMARY
OF HIST TEST MATRIX TEST GROUP IYli NUtiBER OF TESTS 30 MAPPING 5 (ECUIVALENT) l . 31 B00kDARY SYSTEM 7 32 LEAK-HPI CONFIGURATION 6 l 33 FEED & BLEED 3 ' 34 STEAM GEilERATOR TUBE O' RUPTURE 5 35 NON-CONLENSABLE & 5 L VENTING 36 REACTOR COOLANT FUMP 6 OPERATICH UhSPECIFIED _a TOTAL 41 A PRIORITY LIST OF TESTS WILL BE DEVELOPED AT THE NEXT PMG MEETING FOR THE 4 UNSPECIFIED TESTS LIST OF CRITICAL IliSTRUMEliTS iiEEDED FOR EACH TEST WILL LL PROVIDED BY E8W AT THE NEXT FMG MEETING (JAN. 1986)
=*em g 1
~
TABLE 1.2 GROUP 31 TEST MATRIX, BOUNDARY SYSTEMS (RVVV, GUARD HEATER, SG AND AT0G EFFECTS) ( ' VARIABLE: 1 2 3 4 RVVV Guard SG Level ATOG Control Heaters and AFW Implementation (App, C) (App. A) SETTING 1 Nominal Adiabatic Constant Nominal (auto) Level 2 Closed Off Band Level Plant-trained operator 3 Open ' Throttled - AFW* IEST NUMBER
~ '
0 310Q00 (1) (1) (1) (1)' 1 310101 2 3 310201 3 3 310102 2 , 4 310R03 2 5 310103 3 -
. 6 310E99 , 2 i
NOTES , All: 10 cm2 CLD, Full HPI, RCPs off, no NCG, RVUHV unused. RVVV: " Nominal" RVVV do control: 0.125/0.04 psi to open/close, independent (vs. ganged) operation. SG Level: 'Const." SG Level refilled to 31.6 ft at full-flow AFW.
" Band" control from 30 to 33 ft.
'" Throttled" AFW during SG refill, then cooldown SGs independently, at 50 and 100F/h.
TABLE 1.3 GROUP 32 TEST MATRIX, l LEAK-HPI CONFIGURATION l j . VARIABLE:- 1 2 3
' 4 Break Break Break Size (cm2 ) Location Isolation ECCS Capacity (App. E) (App. B)
SETTING 1 10 B1-CLD ) None Full 2 5 B1-CLS At Stall EM 3 50 PORY - - h li L IESI S NUMBER 1 320101 2 (1) (1) 1 or 2" 2 320201 '3 1 or 2* 320102 2 3209.02 3 5 320103 - 2 6 320E04 2 L NOTES i j All:. Nom. RVVV, Const. SG level, 'RCPs off, no NCG, RVUHV unused. Break Size: Model. Break Size is 1/S x those shown, S = 817 (1 cm2 s 3 0.001 ftz). f, Break Location: "CLD" = Cold Leg Discharge, "CLS" = Cold Leg Suction. ECCS Capacity: "EM" = Evaluation Model.
'Use ECCS (capacity) Setting 1-Full or 2-EM based on the results of Tests 3100.00 and 320E04. -
c e O 4 e t e
TABLE 1.4 GROUP 33, FEED AND BLEED TEST MATRIX VARIABLE: 1 2 (3) ECCS ECCS RCP Capacity Delay (App. B) SETTING 1 Full PORV Lift Off 2 EM 20 Minutes On IESI NUMBER 1 330100 (1) (1) (1) 2 330201 2 3 330102 2
*(360499 2)*
d~ NOTES All: LOFW, nom. RVVV, no leak or NCG, RVUHV unused. ECCS Capacity: "EM" = Evaluation Model, cf. Appendix B.
*Tesc 360499 uses pumps with Feed and Bleed, and is listed here only.for comparison. - -
l i 8 .
TABLE 1.5 GROUP 34, STEAM GENERATOR TUBE RUPTURE TEST MATRIX O( VARIABLE: , 1 2 3 4 (5) No. Tubes Rupture SG Steam Ruptured /SG RCP Location Isolation Line (App. E) SETTING .1 10 Top None Intact Off 2 1 Bottom Isolate Broken On f _TESI NUMBER 1 340100 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 2 340101 2 3 340102 2 4 340h03 l 2 . 9 340104
~.
2 O~ -
-(380s99 2)-
NOTES All: Nom. RVVV, Full ECCS, ANS power, no NCG, RVUH/ i unused. Break Size: The flow area of 1 tube is 1.54 cm2; tne 10-tuDe rupture is to simulate a double-flowpath break, cf. App. E).
' ccmparison.
Test 360514 employs the pumps with SGTR, and is shown here only for i. O
TABLE 1.6 GROUP 35, NCG AND VENTING TEST MATRIX VARIABLE: 1 (. - Vents 2 NCG SETTING 1 Unused None 2 HLHPVs Threshold 3 RVUHV - 4 Asymmetric HLHPVs IESI NUMBER [ 1 350101 2 (1) 2 350202 ! 2 i. 3 350112 2 2 . 4 350R12 3 2 5 O, --- 350101 ---------4--(DELETED)-------- 6 350E02 2-I ! NOTES: i NCG: ) The " threshold" ncg concentration will be determined I in the BCM, in Test 2 (350102). The subsequent i transient tests tiith ncg will use an injection rate > based on this threshold amount. f All except 350102: 10 cm2 CLD Break (unisolated), Full HPI, j Nom. RVVV, Const. Level SG. m - l l
~ TABLE 1.7 GROUP 36, RCP OPERATION TEST fiATRIX
=
VARIABLE: 1 2 3 4 Q( ' RCP SG ECCS Delay Break j - Level Config. (App. C) (App. E) SETTING 'l 0ff 31.6 ft None 10 cm2 B1-CLD 2 Bump 3 ft .PORV None (AT0G) Lift 3 On ' None - SGTR 4 Worst - Stop IEET NUMBER 3 0 *360Q00 (1) (1) (1) (1) . 1 360199 2
~
2 360112 3 O- 3 360112 2 4 2/1-4 "360h99 3 3 2, 2 5 ",*360199 3 2 3 NOTES All: Unisolated break! Full HPI, Nominal RVW. RCP: Test 1 (360100) is to be controlled by a operator using ATOG (with RCPs available) plant-trained
" Worst Stop" based on minimum total primary fluid mass, using the results of the preceding test, 360101.
' Test 360Q00 is a repeat of the Nominal Conditions (310Q00) after the Cold Legs have been modified for pump testing.
"Tesi 360499 is the pumps-on variation of the Feed and Bleed i Tests (LUFW, ECCS delayed until PORV lift), cf. Test Group 33.
*" Test 360199 is the pumps-on variation of the SGTR tests (10-tubes ruptured at the tcp location), cf. Test Group 34.
{' ANALYSIS O l SENSITIVITY STUDIES USING TRAC-PF1/ MOD 1 l (1) DETAIL 3-D N0 DING OF THE NIST D0Kf1 COMER {
- 3-D VESSEL COMPONENT WAS USED TO MODEL UFFER REGION OF THE D0h'NCOMER
- CALCULATIONAL RESULT: THERf'AL HYDRAULIC BEHAVIOR .
OF THE MIST DOWNCOMER IS ONE DIMENSIONAL
- 1-D DOWNCOMERMODEL IS ADECUATE FOR FUTURE MIST '!
CALCULATIONS J (2) O DETAIL N0 DING OF MIST UFPER REACTOR VESSEL REGION i
- DETAIL N0 DING OF THE MIST UPPER PLENUM REGION TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENT FLOW PATHS
- CALCULATIONAL RESULT: DETAIL N0 DING GIVES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN LOOP AND VESSEL THERMAL HYDRAULIC BEHAVIOR
- DETAIL N0 DING WILL BE USED FOR FUTURE MIST CALCULATION
. l O ~
i MIST PRE-TEST CALCULATIONS i TEST N0./ TYPE RELAPS/ TRAC-PF1/ RETRAN02/ MOD 2 V-3.0B MOD 1 MOD 3 310000 SBLOCA C0fiPLETED COMFLETED X 310503 SBLOCA (ASY. SG. X 320201 SBLOCA YOMPLETED 360101 SBLOCA/ PUMP BUMP X '! 330201 FEED 8 BLEED X -
)
f 330302 FEED 8 BLEED X 1 (] 340100 SGTR X 340403 SGTR X , f 340504 SGTR/SLB X 5 5 1 l - PLANT CALCULATIONS USING TRAC-PF1/i10D1
- L0k LCOP PLANT (vS. MIST 310503)
- RAISED LOOP PLAliT (vS. OTIS 2201000, SCALED 10CM BREAK IN PUMP SUCTION PIPING) e
O TESTS FOR PRE-TEST CALCULATIONS 1 SBLOCA SERIES 4 CASES 2' 310000 - N0t11NAL CASE 10 cM , BE ECCS 310503 - NOMINAL CASE WITH THROTTLED AFW DURING SG REFILL, THE:1 C00LDOWN SG's IllDEPENDENTLY 320201 - 50 cM2 , BE OR Ef1 ECCS BASED ON RESULTS OF NOMINAL i TEST i 360101 - REPEAT NOMINAL CASE WITH PUMP BUMP O FEED AND BLEED SERIES 2 CASES . 330201 - REPEAT NOMINAL WITH Ell ECCS 330302 - REPEAT NOMINAL WITH 20-MINUTE DELAY ON HPI STEAM GENERATOR TUBE RUPTURE SERIES 340100 - 10 TUBES BROKEN AT TOP, SG LEVEL NOMINAL 340403 - 10 TUBES BROKEN AT TOP, SG FULL AND ISOLATED 340504 - 10 TUBES BROKEN AT TOP WITH SLB O 9
m , , IST AND RELATED PROGRAM C0 ORDINATION ANALYSIS
- STEADY STATE CONDITIONS FOR MIST NOMINAL CASE 310 CALCULATED BY TRAC-PF1/N0D1 AND RELAP5/f0D2 STILL~
SHOWED DISCREPEiiCIES IN TERMS OF PRIMARY PRESSU FLOW RATE
- POSSIBLY DUE TO THE DIFFERENCES IN N0DELING 0F THE STEAM GENERATORS EETWEEN THE TWO CODES
- LAllL REVIEWING TEE DETAILS OF THE RELAP5/ MOD 2 INPUT
, AND STEADY STATE EDIT OF Tile CALCULATION AND WILL PROVIDE DETAIL ASSESSEMEllT. B&W WILL PERFORM SIMILAR j O REVIEW 0F TRAC-PF1/f;001. )
REPORTS i
- RECENT REPORTS PROVIDED TO ACRS:
" COORDINATION OF SUPPORT PROJECTS FOR THE B&W IST .
PROGRAtt" EDITED BY J-P. SURSOCK & M. YOUNG.
"TWO-PHASE FLOW REGIMES AND CARRYOVER IN A LARGE .
DIAMETER MODEL OF A PWR HOT LEG," EPRI/SAIC REPORT
" MIST TEST SPECIFICATIONS" .
- REPORT THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE NEXT FEW iiONTHS
- IllEL REPORT ON INTER-FACILITIES SCALING FOR Tile IST PROGRAM: DRAFT FOR REVIEW - MID DECEfEER 1985 l FINAL REPORT - JANUARY 1986
]. .
O UMCP 2xll LOOP TASKS COMPLETED:
- LOOP ASSEMBLY AND INSULATION
- FILL AND PRESSURE TEST
- COLD HYDRO AND HOT FUNCTION TESTS -
- LOOP RESISTANCE TEST :
k
- INSTRUMENTATION CHECK O .
CHARACTERIZATION TESTS ARE ON G0ING, PRELIMINARY TESTINGS
! CONDUCTED ARE: NATURAL CIRCULATION
- SB-LOCAINITIALDEPRESSURIZATIONPHASE 4
l {- O 9 4
r O I EPRI/ SRI-2 STATUS BASE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY J-P SURSOCK/EPRI AT PliG MTG, 10. THE FOLL0tilNG REFLECTS DIFFERENT TASKS PERFORMED BY SRI:
- MODEL ASSEMBLY AND INSTRUMENTATION (EXCEPT PART OF DAS AND BREAK FLOW HEASUREMENT DEVICE)
- PRIMARY SYSTEM LEAK TEST
- FILTERING SYSTEM FOR PRIMARY COOLANT WATER !
- FILLliiG AND DRAINING 0F THE LOOP I
- PRIMARY SYSTEM VOLUME 11EASUREMENT
($)
- LOOP RESISTANCE TEST
- IN-SITU LEVEL GAUGE CALIERATION
- PRESSURilER HEATER TESTING DEBUG WILL CONTINUE ON T0.END OF 1985 AND TESTING COMMENCES IN 1986 9
1 O
L, , . L O ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY
- PERFORMED REVIEW 0F SCALING STUDY
- HOT LEG U-BEND STUDY U-EEND FLOW INTERRUPTION
- i
- MAINLY DUE TO HEAD BALANCE BETWEEN SIMULATED HOT LEG AND SECONDARY SIDE
- FLOW SEPERATION AT U-EEND DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE IliPORTANT
!j - VOID DISTRIBUTION IN SIMULATED HOT LEG AND THE LOCATION. , OF THE THERMAL CENTER Ill SECONDARY SIDE ARE IMPORTANT l l ' g . FLOW REGIMFR U STUDIES PERFORMED USING: l
- 5.1 cM AND 10.2 cM ID HOT LEGS
- WITH AND WITHOUT HORii.0NTAL SECTION OF HOT LEG
- RESULTS PRESENTED AT THE URSR MEETING NO. 13 ,
i FREON-113 LOOP
- UNDER CONSTRUCTION TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OF FLASHING AND CONDENSATION e
o
,, 1.
... .. ... . . . . . . . .a. . {) p , <)c> ,,lt;s? -, . ..
...... . . ., . =. a r..l.z.l
. . . .. ., :..... .. . s........:....f. .........
.4t*.
1.. . . .. .,......4. .. . .. -
. .. 6 .
.a, .. ; ..
. ... .... . 1 . ..- ... ......,...4... ... .. tu. ..
r' ; ;; *:.* *
- i; l'.
. ... ..... 1..
.I . . .
+.4.. . . 1 .
. Il.3..'. . .. .
. l..
. . . 3 .. ..
. .s .4. 3.. ...!
t *.. *....
.l..,.. ....
.3 ,... . .
..n* a.
.. .. 1..
.< L. . i..
.. .. .....,.I....6..!.......
1,.g.t.. I 1 . 4...
.. .I; . . .t1. .. ,. 31
- . .. I. . . . . 4..
?
..P.& .. . : . 53.. . . 1. .l. .l .I.. 1 . 1....
p.. . i: ..t ...A~. 411... ... ,. , . .. . 23 .
.*..,s.
l.. ...
..s.
=.a f . ,i
.s
,.l.
. . ..: 2. t . .I . 4 p . . ,.
. t.:.... .. .m. . 3.
3.dif ...31. 2 .,. . .. . 11.
.t.
- 4. .i . .; .* *..v.,.. 3.-
.a .n +4 s.
- , 2.: .,..,v.. . .. t 2 .......I
.l....
t
. .. *.2........
. 3 5....1
...)...
.e I .i , . . . .e.. 4 *.
. 8 l.3. ...t.
- t.i ,.... 3 t.l 1.
t I 2 . .. . . .. 4 w .I II.I....t f .. 1 II;{i.2
*2 'Itl*1;'#"
- .4...,. . . t .
I ... 1.,...I.. . . . 1.. er .** *... 1 2 3;tI..
- e;
. ..a. . .. .
,1....s. .
n.
?...!.. . . . .. :=... :. :. . . . .....t i::. ...
u.. .2
- n. ......l
. .. ..)
r .. ..1...s.
. .. ..a l a.
- . .c l. . . . .
.e . . . . - . .
..4. *..l
* . 41.-.. .i . .
. .. . . .tl
. s .2
.!!r . . . , .
. . ..e* .. ..-. .
u..
. . ,. .3
==
... .:t
.. . ..4 .... ..... ...
**... .. .L.. ..
.v . . .,.e.1.,
. ... ....IL
..f* ...- .... . . ..!.. ...* ..s......; , ...Ar.t s.dla ....
. . . 1., .. ...-*
-=* ..
e .s. r.
- ...i 1.
. ..r-
. ;r.
f. 2 i
., . 3 .
.... . .. .... .I ., . ... .;... .. .. .I I .- ... ..I
- 4. .
. .. fl.... .... ... 1.. ". N
. . .. s .6,16..
... .. ... ..t e
..i .2 )., & ..... .-.s- i
. 1 . ., .. .... . 2.l..
. . .. 3 .......y...4.1 2.a. . . . . . . . . . .
t.:.aylf34./ .. p n.
.6.
**: :.&**. ..ia i.. .,21s .... ... ... .. . e. a. ,.
* . . t y, . . l.
s go =.. . . 4 . , t . 4 .et......
... . 5.,....
<, . t4 .1 ,. *. . e .t.+.,. .
. 11+r. n .,.
6 , a. .=..s.
,' I,.lo.y. . .
. . 2,. 3.i e s.*
.. .. 4.. ..i....
4
. . . . . .a...o II,
, 6. . ....- ... .
.....l........8....
3
. . t ., .1 . . . s..- . *..I.,..,
. .e. . t I.t..;..
....l
..i4 ...o
..v..a.2 .~1.)
. :r. .......,.J.,
i *.
.. 2 i.1....l.
a . . .o .?.o. ...C. 1
. .i . ! . ... . ., 1.
;..*i..:Ip.& . ..
- . 4 7, s..l. . c :. e1
- a
? . : . .i. & r. .. .. ,. e, ", ..d . g. * '. :.-*. *
......l.4.. . . . ; .g.g.g.., ..l.. g .....
.a.... 4
. . . t. . 14,. , , e.
.. I.. ..
.. g.gg. - ... ...
- . ; . t. 2, . 4. . r y.:
. . .. .. .1-4 3. ,.i .
; .ne..t1,.1.i,
- 4 ., : 5.: e.d.3
.1 3 .4 . 1 ...l.
I.4.2 1..l.
.**. ! t. ., a
. ?.?.? v
.f tt.,.1- .
. .I . . .t.I....l. .
'. . l . y ::
- e
...I.,.11.
.. 4 8 3 . . ..I.1..I.
.. ..? :?.
. . :. . .. .t v . 4 *. a
- t. .1 o . t .. .. L.. ... .
- e
- 1.i m.
8 .ft.l ...t
..! ) e.::.:. '..
. 4..&.
- 4. 1.
.3 t4.C .. o.
2 s::
..a.
- i a
..*t., ..3.. .1....t.
I. .
. 8 . . E. .
**41..; p ::::
. .. . . . , 4., =.
.. I ).
1::. 2 ?.
. . .. ..i 9
.t .1+6 e. . e.e.t t.u.5..&
. I ,..,,1. 9
..I,y :*:- .* t;f86
- L,1 . 8 I44 2 .
i
... ?. ?. . . : .:t.v. .l
- . 6
. ...,1.1 0as.E . . . I .t I1I... .... ....t
. .t. t .:?u :1 .
- v. + .i , .,
t - s I . .,. ..-: .::.i
. ...,4 E..
.6 : .* 8 f L.3.484
. .i ls
.4.+.,. ...
- .::u .. ;f,.1 1 I 4 4
. I. .
- a. +.. 3 .4l ..
t 1 .,.
.. c. r..e t. ... .: u. .:...1. 1.43 &8.4 Et
- s. I . I 1...l.
. .... . 2. l f . .. .
M11y '.2F T lits;fal *2-1
. . l .e .,
s e: . t. .:ss
..,&..:i ..
i .fas*ea.tsf
.. .. 3, .. 51*.... . 43 .t.g
. L,.a:r e- .fet . ..
..,6..
. . . ,i 1.e
*. I.i.fta i.t.a .
.....I...
v.. . l . ./ . . , .
.. f ..
*.l,.
.. ... ...I. ...i 4.
1,...:.4 . 11.., a...
.. . IIA
.. .:....I.l..
.e . . ., . 6 :11a .. &...
.4
* .2,.f
... .... . ., .Id.. v.,a.11. .. ..!.
1.. ,t.2. .... . s ... t. o d
.v 1.1.: .
6.?- . e
...I..l. ,.
.... .. ..a .... .:2., .. 3&.. ... . i.1..,. .. ..........., ... 4......l
. ; 4
=.
. s. . . . . I1..1.I.. ...
1 ..
. 1. ...I1
. 1 . 2......)
.6 . . . .
- 9. . .. .<, v.
. 8 1
l.1..
.t.1,.
..E..
I3..1....sw .....
*. .1, r. .
I f ..m... 2....t d
- 1.)
a !...
. 2
. ..4.y . 2.
3.. . . .I.l.
< C.1 3
N
- - . .cq
. ,. d, * ....gy.,,..
....m.....,....-, ., . .,
. . . . ' . - . .* s 1lt ;
.i t..
i..
- r. I...! . .. 18...,.....
n....I. a.4
- 9.=. .:-. . ....., A.
1 = =
.I
. .I.2..
2
-. . .I....
..4. , . . ..
. 3 .... ..... .... ..
. J 1 .1... 1 .
==..-.. .
.. ...... .. . ... a.
..,. .: ... 3. 4. 1 .1 4.
1.. .... s.
... =
. ! 1 ..
... ..-~*
. ..).,I. , =. 2 . .!..
. .. . .I.
u ..s.'. *....e
... =
. .. ..1
.. =:..-
.. . .4,...,2.
. 4 .. .1... 4 3., . .
. . n
...t.... .
. .I1...
. o .. . 4
.... 4
.t. L.... . .* .* . a. 2. , . . i r4.. .
.. -II. :
.1. . . . . . . 1. ,... - t...II . . .' ah.t3.
. . r. - ::.4 . .
,. . 11.. 42
.. 48.,4
. . .. . ...I
.1,. ... .. ir;*
.....- :.. . w..
*:= . . . . . . 1. ,. .r l a s.. .4. ..
.L .... ..
..r
,a ,.
...a - ....:
. . . . . 2 ,. . r . i .
. . . . s
- z. . 12. .4 3....I
.g .. ...
i! .. 1.
. ... ;l . . d
.1 .. ..
. .Iv4.. ..... ..o .... 1,. .. ..IIs. .. . ...L.I...
.,....4 .. 4 .... .. .t C 3 .
eg ? v .. e ... sa . ,g
..Il
. 3. . . ... .
....l.
. . 11 . : o.= 4, . . .. ... . .... . . ..
1..
. ! . r.. ,.1.t
..I.. ?. I t.:
w.,3.,
.. = ~.6 .
,., . II M- :..a3. ,.i .. .
. 11 .. II.. ..t. 1.. ..:... ....t,
..a
*.. e
.. 1 s.a. l . ..!. .
... ...li. .
. .4 . . ; t i . .>&.
= a ,. a. ..
...4 ...f..a
,1 11 4
..I. . .. . ..!>
- - .1. . . .- .
r.1 . .....,II.t.3
. .- . . . .. ?.l .. ..g..!.. itE .g .
.. ... . .1..k . . .
....I.1 . . . .,1.
71.!(4
- l. .. 2 i
,if ... ..! I;;1..!
. .. .. . ... ..- .11.... .II. . .. 1 ...? 1 1 a.l....
...t).. .
....I..
. . . .I
.4 .
. 4 .1. , . ..... 4.
..In a
+. .2.t ..44.I
. . . 1.... . 1
.2
..3.... .
.. 1
..I
.......l.
4.. . . . .
.1 .
,.. Is. -
2, ,.4.1.3... ..!2 4 6
. . . 2.,1.
.J. t .II. 3 ..
3 4 8,
. . .. o. i .. . . ... ,1.
- s. 18.1 1 ..a..
u.a.i......
. . f . .4. 4..w.. 4 ..
1 1.s.8 s 1.i . .
. . i. 3
.1.... . . . :..a. f. . . L. .
......... .,L.t t.t
.4 l.......1. ....4 . . 1.
*IP l* i"*1 f<. 4... .... ** h. :I1 *2ttrti':If.
t l.2. . h
.. ..i G..,4 : l.1 .t
. .4 4.
.I .l I... . 82
.1 . .
- 6. . . , t. l .I
. . I 2 2. .... .I .
.6.4l.....
..1 3 .
..2. .2, . 1..I *. 1 s :. 1,..
. a. 1.
.. .... ... . s.I. .
. . . 1. .. 5 ,
l.1...4 .4 .
. . 1. &.
.. . I....d. ..-
. . . 1..4... .1 . .
.. . 2v.A ...
. .Ii .2 .
.....ls 4.s...-.
..t .
.4 a..I. . 2....1 *.
. I ........... . 2 . I . . . . .. . .
.I..).
... . 3..I .. .
. .6 .s . t.. .. 1....t.. . . . .
- 3. .. ..
. .... . . . .*. :- .. 6. ...s.
..... ,15. n ..
.. .:- .s. i.i . t .4 :88 315
. a. ..
- t. s. 5 .43 3.... . . . . .
i t .1. f' *.6
.5. a.t.1 ... .I..
..4
.,11.1 *.
- .11m
.. =.. 3I eE i.
. ..t.T lf.4 4 4.
I
- .,m. ,a . .
. .~.. .,
.. . 2 !.. ...;
.I
. I I..e 3 .
*. .I .1.l .1.
4
- ..4..: .1 .. .. If7.4 ... 8
. . I .
E., t.4 . Ia .. t .
. ..1.s . . .
3 3.f
. . ... ...I hta *: ts :sternt.td hain ': ta 4ttar:irfd t
4
.e4 1.1 . . .i
. :a. .Lre..v. a...,1
. a . .. ff ..I .
. t4 .. 11 f .n
?. t}g. I.g.g.* g g8 grf gf.j.g f e.......,12.s..
%*') *i. f.% 6..., ..>g{..
.e t. I .. ,., .
.. y.
. ( . . . . .. . . . . 4 . g6 f. ....... . (( a
- e. 4 5. 4 . .e..t.
- ,. 1- .. ... . . . e.
... . . . .. . 1. . . . ...s f 8 .,111 .,t
- 11 s. t , p ,. v. ... .
9..1. .. 4.
- . b. l.
e.....
..4
.1
.. 1,.. 1.
*.a.
2.... 1.e,1 . t h.
- .5 .
. . L, e.me ..
1.,I.- .
. . . e. 4..........a......
... . I., .,IIs. .....
.a
. .l 5 ;;
...s
.41
- .. .a. .....
. .,.s
. .1 .. .
.. Le . . . . .
... .. . .. 1 .
.... :w
- 1.t l
...I
.; ...... . t
.:. n. ...
.......I.. .I a...
.....l
. . . . . l..
u 8 a.1
. . .- 4
'.1 . t.1 4..f ! I'tt .. .. :... .......1.... . ... 4 . 1..t ...I,
.,1
.I 1
l l l
. . l l
.,. . ...w.
* * * ? r.r v...* * *..: !?..::=.?v.'.
. v.a
. .**. *.I- 9.1. s* ta.;,
l *...... * ;.
. . . . . r 8 r...t t a...
. e. 3 w,..I.4
. . . . 8... .?... . ..a .1,I.6 .!! . . . .......
- .. . . I f
- 1 a
.. 1.: . I;;. ..! *. 3
. . 1.. ..?.?. *rw
.. .d.. ..
g...- i . . i
... .i.
2.!!...
... 8...a..... .. .
I.g... r s..I.. t ' . . . . . . .I
. t.)....
. .3 .
I.*
..s .s. *.
- i. .3 ..I t ...l.
i 6
\,_,l 1... . . .4 .
,. .I . ..3
. .. .. 4
- :s 2
. 2r;t.:!*.l1P.:
. . =. .
.I ..3:1
.n. I. ..;rt:
. . .ls .
...1
;. '... ..t..! .... 1..i...
- . *.. .3 1:1 .
. u..
ya ...... l......I
' ,.,e. ,
- .: ..r; :riaa .,,a,*.;:,.,,*
.e.,.::a*;at:
..g.. .. .e-
,3 t s;* 1,.
... ..g. .::. . 2:
. 1..' y ..i
. :t.,sva:
fra: atst.,.,
* ** Pi.. ; ,I . ,,3 . .4
**3*...
3 ., ..' ',21,.. .;. .;. ..... ... a.a ..' ,..s.,. ...&
.. 7. ;.a. 2.*.* I.,a: :::: *.*.*.3 c
- '*.**ar.t
.... l .4. . ..
.. . . . , . . ..... . ......t.
., .. . 3.......1 3.... .... '*=
*t;;;r t '.'P F:str :!ai: *: *a tats * !rs:
*st.a 82 5 ::.ar !!ait ? ?: s :starstra:
i *4 acts 2%' :$te :!I*t *
! *: ta :sttttti.t:
'a..&* 8WE i:.a* :!I.it ': :1 :sttr:tst:
?I :. ;r f** *:aar :!ar.:
*: it :stara; a:
it;at. PXR S:nts :'ar.: ? 7: ts is:ar: tat: . l !!!nts F: P. 5:str::aat ? 7: :: :::grtir.t: i ? : a.i F41 ::str ;! sit *
? ': :s ::ar:ttt:
*liin? S:str :!& * ** :s $3* art;rt:
E%R ! '6;.aN '9P. *:hlr :!! t
- I: 'I 2ts*tira
! *tu t'.
- L? ':c,.t * ?; s..* g: *
?: :I i
...... s. ;
r..... .t ,.t.:2 .!.:st: t
.t
,1 at. e .".
,.e ,. . ....1.. - .2 5. ..a ..
are s d!.
,.t,. *1
... 1..
=
.4 t I
.4.C.
...J..
;s. .....
*.2..i.....
..2 . 3 1g....4.. ...l 1
. . .. t. : r.g*:a s,, ?
;3.....6.5 a::.l . .
ei. g..e. a
. t;3* ;:!::Is
.'.r . .!. : :::a*1:2 2 !I:: 8 - fill;*!*f*
l . * ;;;: it:::s ':* :::1ratasi's:t
- 8 rsa.rt:ar 3** !):1*a:2 2!!r:t
. ::: !!st:s ? ?rtitur;: *
. :::: it&tzs *! Ei::rtta affs:t !!?i+: !! n::wn L*.:2: i:st:t i:stri: :i;r la: trait sf 8t :t S!:w::an l .rits:itstas 2! !a:trata effs:t I?
I'*'*:135ts:ss *LI:H* IIA!!! !a:hrate affs:: :1!04 itstas Oht:ttianstr Et: rits efft:t vitt tri.sfar l i-* it: itatII 304 11:113 t":2 !!:st;ttaffs:t itit tri: tier i j .t..a.ag *g..g **
..et . ;t... s., g. ... g .
*....g .4,$.g.. . 4. gs . .
. . .::rt L.5;6 .r:::rl. . ,: :: : start:res
!?;:::*t L:! : :t;*s: ; *: tt :: Ire::::
... *t .:r:
s '. :! *t::ra. s s ,...., ! . . .t .,,. s. e 7..:
.. .e :s.2.tari.ttri
.:.1.. . . . ..t .
.:. .si ;..t ra L:!!
lr.ts;rt! t
*: 't :sts*:its
!!: ! :ra i
i
-..a,3r3 i- li.tt;ra; t.
7 *: tt interstit e e
; '.: :.e e . . , .,..r g; '.s .*t*. s'*.1.* .
.:. .s:*: ..:. .. t;ta. 3 t: :s ! ster its:
- .8. '; .ja:ra L:31 !sts;r:1 ;0 7: : :::arr!r. :
s;ra L:!I !its;ra! :: *: is :sttrair.s:
- ;iC!s:rt L:3! fita;ral :: *: :s : star:tre
, !?: *t;ra '. *!! lr.ts;ra! :* ?: is :starsir. :
** *s:rt L:!! ::ts;ra! !! *: it inters! a i
i T.* lt:ra '.*!! ::ts;ral !! ?: 11 datar::.:: f l r I i i l i . 3
.\*E *. *t:*.t i.
. .e.". ,1..t.:.::.s.t.e;f
. w : r..t *.
~
.. 1 33 g
l l ... i
.....p ..... * *
.1:3.... .: **t.) r.
. . . 1,. >4..
. r.tr..!...II........
i
.. ..I.
,** ". a 1 .1..
.1
.4
.I v......
*n..l
.I 1.;l .
....I 1.t1. .
41......I.....
*.l..t.3....1. ...
. ... 1. ; . . .., ..!!! 3. .... ;.....)
. .. . a , . n ! . 3.
. e : . . > , n. .a
,:...=
** ** = .,... .
~..
1.:l... :ss ... . .
;... ... . .II.. . . 3. .... , , . ,:..a
, . . .. 3 t
. ..... .,..it .I .. 1 .t.
i g: : 4. .. ,;. g.4.
. .I. 1 .f... 1
.1 1.... 5. 1. .t..t... ... ....
i j . ..I 3,.A. . . . .. ..
,..t... ..14 i
. 4 I. 1 .
I y t. .I # . .1. .*. *.*-t .i.41 g 1.. .". ..<
..o3.go..l';.t......
,...i.3
. . . . .. .... e .*e ...
.. .,III...... 1 g
l r.
. .. 3
; ;tt .a t i. " e :yg.g 8 t g g4[4
- . r g o . -
.. -e" t o. .. .,..I... ..
..... :. ..... . . .n.
. .:. .. . :... : : "a 4 * - 3: 8 de " m.
. .oo. t. 3t . ". I g e. l..
* .113) .- p."..
..,s....
;t.
. . .. .. .: 1. pi. 3. . : . .; . ,. ... 3, . 2 ,.I...
.~.2 ..
- l. . . t .... .1.1 i .
.a-; -
;.!. . 1 . * : . . *
- a. - .1. ... g .i42. .
.t ! .., .I. . . 1 . . .. . . .. 1. .
. l .. ;...- . . . . .. r ....t. ..t..
.., ..... . t.
- **: .*** .8 J: 1 :
l
=.1 7, . ..
e:s
. 2
.g
.r.e .. e .m. ..
i.5I* ':a:N:D
.e 3
- g invits 1p.1 p.g st ut 334.
8
. e a.. 2s.g .. . .. . . . -
+ .
.g . .
.g n. . .3 . :.t.
- :r-
'. 3
...g...sg. . .
1.!***1, m : 1. *. . v? e.. .. .
.. .. ., . 7., m...m..g, .4 .,t..,t..t.
- 3. .a 3 l
.l 1 3.I I II....
a
=
- h.u:. a..*;. 6:::3 , :.r ,;s.t
..:1. . nn.! ..t:a.1.
... . . f.34:
e..,e. r.: v . s's .* e . " + t , t... . I . .. . t
. . 4. ... 48 ....ofI....e.. . . ....I, ... .4..t..,. , . .
- r.n t htP Mif :::, inarnt a38nt i 21 :n. stna :r;t:n; 23.. !.:"'? . :*t: Mr.;, ....?3:n;s. :!' car,I..
7'* , :::: l c ; :::;s. : cr;; art l'.:E' ;;: ?;i'.:::M in.en.s e.3.1,4 8 a4 Ig:f :: '. s ::u.:. . t.II , nns :rn.in'. 43. nt
'ar tr1 ..n.3 t . ..:r t...,a
.. .v. s s...
s .a". ., . . .. . ..v..e.. .., w
.., t...,
. 3, f.4.3r.,tr.
.. . : .1 ..a.. **ve... =. =, e : - . . . .... . . .. . I , l .. 4.
*,2
. .. ?; i.a:
. .v . . . . . r.r 1
. e . l .., . .I.3
. f .. I.. 3
. . . . 1. ;..
.. 4t.
, II.
;,.n. I
.. ;e.; .e.... *"a ? L.1. 5 4.c4 .
.f .. .! s.f:1 .1
.l. .. . ..
- u. . l.n. ... ,. . ..,
. , ....i
..1.3 . ... .. .... . .. . : 1. ., ...I, l ..li 3!..
. . ..d.a...l . .
i t i
- r. L...II e.g.n i . ?. .- .~ r
- p ,
- 3.
- ;;r"
.m. e... . 1,1.s h 1 tta s ys:t
. I.;3..
4
..!..I..I........f...
.t f.... . .. ;, .. t .E. ..I..a .. .. ....,. .. . ..I,
.. t ...e 3.;I .
hn:i-nna :Pr.in; '3ws :.!:*!!. ::::. r:s r.:nle 14 r ear :J*T. 7*:M::t !! j
.:.. .... n.a n y, m. . .e..g h:ri.tts!dnt
.: y. y. g .a .ittu..r
.. ... . . .:nn....:n.un'.ila
. . . . g. v. . e
!.;'*a. 0.*; . . c:rt r:::!s j
1...
... ... aM .w... . e.2,.... 1.4, Efs.laps.. .
. 4 1. fl...
". . t u 1
.1.. 1 *L:a.r. e.s *t.
.a,...1 1 3at4 .t
. . .1.t..n.f
..41 ,.. .n .. . v..ee....
- . e.
i
* . a
.1. a m,a .
r
.s :....: 1 ... . .? .
*. *-.*. ?e 1 1 8 8jf'l ...
. " . . . . . . . ..., ...... 1. ... . . , . ..e. 1. ..... ....
. . . f.41.
. L...I 1 .2 .-
= . -..u 3 It:(..
t....... . .. .. w c.. . &
..**p. .... . 1. . v..y.. . .
- v.big* *1.tt.*'
i g ae .. ..
*..I.,.1 g.. .
, . . . . . . . . . . . - ."ptu .^n.. r.. .. .
?..1 4. g . ' t s'. ..,.!
- g '.p*g gil.* . . .
4 h. q .1....."g* 1.- . 9t .m* f . *
. av n * .'.*:. 4....r. t1!1.'.
.. , I . .." '. .
"...**".".1.?*.
- .s. ... . .. . . . ;..
.. ... !. ' ;g'..,..,. . . s.
- f .3 # t::.1 3, , , ; a y,. ,, 3.. ...
t o
. .. e . . ..
- 3
. =.
s=, s .. 1 1. 3
... ...I3 .l .
- ..; ...I .. .. ..A..
1.. 1. .. ..*.. , . . .
- ,............1..,...
- a. ..... . . 1 e . .a et. .a....a..a...-
o , .4... 3 . . i.
. :I 1..4.3 4.t;8.
. .. .=* . ...... . .. ...I ..
fer: f *:* *'. ::'.3 3:nsnt af's". *1 13 ::.r. : .nn 'hw
'r e.n 3:!'.! 3: rata 34t:: 3 !.r ;s t.:s s!;::t fut t'ars/r-stuty stant i ?.
r:s : CME isnrtis afts:t F hr:;;'s L.:t rtil::t *.an traf tf
- Ituty stats
*e:r .t* N inarnts effs:t 1 a t.:t ri h:1 int tresfir stu:v stats d
i t CU!'E !:ntne IHs:: '::his !?$;ainses!;:::*11: ite tres'ar ttntis-t
- /w*:: DC:';I intra.n tHs.. :: *M hr.;;;a t.;.n.. raia.:.: rett .:rnstar trusint
\.# t
< 1
..~..w- a r.y. .g.g gq .. v. . t .: .s . . , g . .. . q v. . . . . . g y. ..y. g q y .. .y.. y. y.
i rr1y.n.I
- R*4 e .a..r.
hn-na sHnt *::
- h ..:.s t.:: *tih:: .9nt treif fr trestant
.**'s
...".. e .*
.t . .... .
i ....# . t..v e t. a. .t r.
. . .a &.a r. P2 s I:..4 1:Ie.'.'. s. t.1.
* ..,. . I.
'...*a
.'. t. "..2
. .*. *. *. ' *. .* n '.
. . * . d . . 1. ...&.., *..".
o.....la1f.
. so . .l .' .-1 1.... I. r ". .1.' .' f '. s r.1. 4 +.e.e.
. . * ..e. e4 I 1 44.f.
.l . .i ... ... .. . .
.. e . .. u.
e.3...3 *.rt:.ot.e.
. .. . e. 1. .1 1;.gl
. .- t. .: ., .p-. ...
I . !. .. ...... .&.. .n.1 . . . ...4. .& .. 3 ;..2.! ..: . 8.1.,. s. . u.nt
- "N.'::
hr:,3 t.n t.: n. *sn ret *r na.* :rsu p .
*r en 2:en: a* n *?
rrn : !!: *.2* inens affnt D h h* r;3
- : .:Mane : h.::L *intsn irrsier in!! :rnt l
Tr r
.e.a.. n re*D.-
nuns ai;nt t tuir-: s'!'tutun er
."s Q . . .!T.T.!
- y.y. .g p;p..
.~. .
.. . ..m. e .:
. : .. .. s.-... .. ..
' -n ...* .V.. . .
r.1....s: ..s..:. . g.. y. y. .::2 o . .
~. 6 . . ..u. ..,. .... . .n' n'. *'*
- ts s! Y i r.' r4.s.' ~, s .*. .* n. r.. < ..s . ...
*:' g::.
?*t n !D ; :: In: Z! . inens shut * *: *:: :31::e in: res!sHar;s trui rTu Intene su ng g: i en : ;.n,r gen tragtigy; :ent Da a :?!!A-?:0iD*'.! inues aHnt 3 3 n :a.nc in: "Ut/st !uat truk rents **! D :*: !.? t : !nens aH :t :: 3 rn :a:.n.9 un treif ar tub trnk
?*1r t D*!C-t!! intent aHs:t :T he
- r.n I:!!* '.'!! iu rits n;ft:t ;fu h u;11 ;s t.n t.n raft::t r:33= ' 'nt nt trtrus'IM:. asfer-h 4 f::a i hw re res s nu I'i-*-E!! inrats tHut P!! htSt t.n f t!M:: han tra?sf ar-tr*.rutists lhu rats
' T :s D i!* *;*E ienetts au t:t M!*
hr;3 h t.:s rFh t nt ter:fst ntstra: ins fhw alts
- r.:*
It.!! *'.II Ita?sts 1 'ut 3
- h*: :.n fl hn han relf tr i nt* nun '3w Mia r t vn I*III *si! Isn'ns tHa:t *!!i I ;.I :'.n *s'hn 'an Muir*:"stranats Un rats * .
!*!I: *.'il inensaf't:t re:a El Dr.ilt t.n ri .n: rnt tresist ti;?. fue rats d
l Tren
!*!!:-U: I'.EI !:rau aHut :!:* h :: *s;D:: an trusfer h4 fha rate i *nn ! snrna shut !!* % rn ar'au *n: trauf sMr.tsrtifies lhu nts
! ren *!!!!: . !!:4*: G l'.'.*0.El't .E incita si's:t :C; M P:: *t 23.'ut tretist ar.taru ute M:4 rite 8 j Trn:2 .i:II.:.-E" !C+*' .e I !anrna shut :C.!. : lhwrats
.te. . . . ;.". 4.u..e.
. .e8 L. . .. I I H l.. ."e .a.* % rn. raia.n. .n.&
* .... 3g... . ..
. . trrsit* .o.6,o
.rt.1j1 .
in..tressins.a
. g.t .e rl.
- r. ...I ..I .?
ft..... .r .. ;
.3 .1 4
. .. 1 83 3.t.3 1;.;t ... e. ... .i 63..... ..l II 4...o .
l .....
.. ..?.** f 8 9. .
- S .a r., . 13 .
- r. t. ;. . ". .
.3..1 1.3 Ittt....
.e. ..
g f..2 ..'. . . . ... a
..a..II.1
... .... n.r.....g .
** r 2:" ".-h! h*
- h..in. *? n
- r., . ".
!- .? c" ". . .n - . t. .n. .l: i.rn.!..n.) iy 3Hu.t f.. .
. ?. . .;.2 *l.* n..*.r
......... ... *.** n.I...
. . . . 1 s.3d.. I. .l *. nt 1 1:1 t.r.u.f f er n C*::: I'!:
iu.r:ta IHt:t !. ** n: ir:rn? *1 " *, n u I n !*E s'r .
/'s ,wt
.t...."....
v ... 4.. t. .L... . 3:. 1..
. .. .t..l. . . . ...l.....
.. 4 1. '
31..
.. .I .1 . . 1. ......... . . .l . . 1.sf..
r
,2. .. .r" . .m.
. . 1... , . -.r.. -
. t. .re. :y
.; 2.
- +i.ty .#... .
.. ..II ..
e.-age.y
* .. s ., . . . .
. L...3 . . . . a .1.s.. E..
- I 1
. dit : '.. " ......... ......L..
...e
.....ye u. . .. ,.
.. *,41*.3
? l....
. 3 * . 6. . i... t ..l
.. i.3 1.* .. .- !..,.f.6
. . 41 P p. . . . ..
. ..I.
..., ... ..n............................................................... .
......h. .. .. .. . .. ".. .. .. ... .. . 1. . . i t . ... . .
- t ...t.
.......&... ..?
.. I...a 1.:l1... * =
. .. . . . ..I . .... . .f,. .
... l ....
&. .e...r o. . ...,.1.l . I a 1. 8..
([.s.3.1s. . J. . 1.a 4.. ..
....2. .
. . . . . . ... ,.. .. . 3,.
. . . . .. ...,. .... , . . .f . 11. ..It .... ... .{
'. . . e;t f
- LT ,
. I. ,.* ,-
.L ...s...! 3 1
.2:4*t*3 3 ##f ::
. ,3...! .. . ..
a.*4
.... ..'..I; .
- t . .. t s., .. e1...s.s.
* - .....a..,.....
.: ::': ;a: : *?11-. . v..... . : *i .
.i 1 ...
... . . . . .. . . . s ., .. ..t. .
i
.?** 3 :.: .. ! * . . . . . . .
..t.t.r:.s........
e
- . :. , . trl:s.
u.: s'8 1 .
- 1. s;: ::.:: a.: . ::::::.
.. 1 .
.~. . . . . . .
.:..I..f.. a .
- .J !... I..I i:2... .a. o. = .. ...
. .. . .I,.
.. . . . . . .. 11.
.. ......f. .. 11. s... .....
7 *.*4 :18, .'?" *t: rt:1 si!a:: : L ?:: ;t :*esi 4::r. ::r:;rs: ;?;a::::
! %*. ::'t ;;; s :*::r. ..tr ::::t*t:
L
* . E istrara '.P *
- it:tattafit:t
*:. 31*:41, '. ? 'T !a:a*1:eaffs:t ! *::*. :::: ::: tr2tk at:3 !!'. *:"!!P.;1::1:.
~; 1.*tts ; F;FLi"I!$ !a:t'st :: ::.sttr:;rrs*: I :. 4: .::tr t:a ;!sta r,y,;3,tg ; .g ",g!- ; ;43275:,eafie:t geft::
- t. * .1 .s t ?.y
.I t r. - '. .
- 1,*
- l '.
t.'.'
- '. ::;1:a'.:*.*rert
** *
- 6
.... .. '.I, i;c.,*4: .::Ir ::e &*4.:s
- f *h *. ****
3.:...
, .I..a9 .... .... ... .. ..rti ..i*i .h .. b.. . .. .t *.1.,
. .. .1.4...,.!
.4. . .a .1. * ' . .
e.
** e . 3 . . ..
- 1. ,. . 4 .* J..*.:.2 :' ..... ... ..I.th-8 t:
. . . .J ,! .4.t
. . !*!!s, IT. !1* tir *.' *: :I 44:3'3!*t:
r,t.intan3y *Lt l'
- r. .a. t r ,. . .., ... p;t. ;;s3. 1&r7:sse. .
;'gt. )'.21 : 'r....rat.8
!: . .g. ... ...'o 6 ... ,
2,2.t :s 1r Sit ?:ws ... '3! 'r:: :! : ::: :...
. i . 3 p .1.. .f 1* hr K.g g...ge.
.t!st.:
a *;*g f.....
......f...
. ." ..g ......,:.6.J..!;dfart.5:
2r' ;!:. st: : is: stat:r
*t
; .. int try
. S i.gt ':.t* :141: ".:* **:: : 3:'. ::::&it :.::t
. .... . 1 3_ 1 i . d. .o.!...
. t '. ..
t? .t't.... ... ...*1. .e...
. ... ...?
.1;I. t**r .
t.... *
...I I .1.
9
. ., )
*..I3.... I 3.3 .. ...
..I. a.
.. 4
. . I .1....t.
4.13 l : sir *: :s :a:It::rt: I:lir.
*: s t
3 t r.1. ~ . .... t.a . star i.ra: I wt a.ta..
. a . a ... . ......s.
l i-ja *: : : ster:ter*
?: :: :sta sir.r:
i Es, sir
*:1;r. *: :s fata'stia*
1:s;: *: in :sterstrat l
*:ti: *: :s 't:tri:nt:
I t
'; :1 : :t cina*
r
- e. :1.
. r.sez. t..s. ..a .
. . . . . . . . .i,... . ..t.... . . .2 . - 1.. . . ......t
...... . . 1...
...31
- . ... .......t p 3 . 1.,
...a. 3. .....,et..$..
.. .66g.
.. . l2 . ; . ..
- y. .e..
...t. .
. . . , .4 .
*I.,1.i
.e .t ..
.t .J ."... flak .**
e
..n. ..i 3 :. ..n. d ....
.. ..e ;s
. . t.ar! =.
... .. .**2'. 8. *. *.4* d .'. ' .* .* l a r. .. 1 n.'66.~.6 '.8': **
.. .. i.ggd. t s.'38.4
..... .. ,.o.
....t.
. 1. ; ..,. 86 +;.
. ....t ..,..
. .e.
f.,.
- l. .t., t.i
, . 3.
i e
.
- g .. = * . 3 *=. . g d * ., .
. . . . . . i .a.
3;ts: Kit;;:: L lrts;*s; Li :
.ir:1 :rtak L::4 :: ! 'y r.
tit:::re:::: f :: f;yistals
'r:::: 517;::: L*?* 'rt .: .st;2 *r:11 .. :A at 8dP4: :.1tr61 sit:t
<...t v....... ae... .e.rr .la s.t;'alI.. t:..
ti. , . ,
+.
......t. ,,n.... .c.r. t 2..i.t
.... ts.
A..s
. ... ... .- ,. . .. e...t
. !t s: <!s;,....
e* we n..s. . .I,.ral . c.4 3 .. L.aa s. neA w..
- t tr. :1sts !P:: "'!" !: 111 st:ttt t: tt :sttr:tasd
,.4. ;;s.. v ....!: fir;::: *t.r. :sta.t g... !*:s 1:3 :: ::2:st.::.t.t.!
.. .....I..
.:;tt:K!.t;::2
*.... 11.1 .
- :21tt r,*::
. **A.
*; .t % =
8*:;'.,; 3 1.:.1::::*.. .,3. .. .. .l.l.,..rt.
..-*. 132tITEta; :: : :::ar:1.it: .
.r.itta V1.i *er. :11ts fr:: ~?!*-?
- 12 11h:s?.t t: :s 23:stsi e: '
'.t;ta$Xir;;2:4 its *se :llas 'r:4 i:2:*::: 1: stas:ss; t: :s :sttrair.pd
.'*: tad i!:; :: *st :sses fr:: A:*F:: 1211:2;ri; t: :s sterstr.si
.?;tl* Tir ::3
'.r:ts: rir.;;::a *IP :2121 ft:2 *7A -F:: 125t!I:t : :: :s iltar: tiff S
*in :1 :: !*:: **:; ':: tz:st:rt : :: :: :sttr :ta:
'.'.P t ::: 3i.i;::: ..r....
- r :sts: ft:: "Fi: *: atlas: :: :s : 2:2*: .ts:
. . . . s... 1. .tIII .. ...... .'. 1 3 4 i. ..
l 4 .
=,.. -_ . ,-_..-,--.-- -- , -. ,- ..- - --- --- --- -- --- - - - - ~ ~ * - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - ~ ' - " ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ' ' ' ~ ~
... *?e*.. .?.'w .e. . a .t*. .? .t .t .. * =....em.,
.. * ? .* v. .s .p.9 1, ** i
. (
- e. . . . .
...p., ?1. . I..g.
e.; *... t . 1 ..... . .y..g..
. . . . .* .n. .......
. ..........4..................
.. ... s s... . . - , . . ,
- 4:n1.: .......
. . . .I*
....-.. .8.. : ...
- M; i : UHM *3 Pl* '
( 7.. M. . '. t *i '. r* M: s t** *Iv...)..P.!*ll
,r.u: hnts
. 1.. 11 ::....a... t .a ,. t
!**h:*.*
- g. . ..t1.. . 3. .
- tn t; E%.
. r.;>
. t I: . . 1 r t s,.
- u rsnnt vn;
.. .u.;
t ?I:::.! ! 8: h n: ,: e n r :.n .:r.1
. . . j.u..u.1
....g.o.
*re :=*,- r : tt:n.7
=...
.1 M: .utu
. nl: intu
- .; :: . 7..:
IP *!:t'."
- ~M .rt.
lrn; t;
*." " . . . .::: :f ::*r i i .9 Dai; : nv . :: .;t b:..: :;:.; . nus ;nen:r i .nu: unn .t:!* !rts;*si !NE fut nu ut.n; n*:;;st:r i . .a: Unit ':!? hu;t; h:: : ?n;u: fu, :: es nin ;nen:r
.mn hnn 3? :.1ts;* t; M;C :n.:n ';:, :: til tuu ;nen:t l . !n; Unit 4:!* hu; 1; *" :l 'an su : :n
; t. u t. u.. n.it
- tz;rs' **;* ?st: : :!n
.. ...I. . 1.11 ?.!. ..:. !!. ....l..l.
. e.4 3 ..
- e. 4.,,r. 13,. ..!..
;nn j]j 't *;;i ja n u n e n .n.a! : r:.! nun
. un ltutt
.* n: . . . :. fr.it;n}
.u; a. . . . . h. stin nstr.r :nn:n un:
in! r;nt:nnt uf t :f ut.ra; :Irn;n::.1
; .us hitti *!:M
. 3:!n '
* *!!. ht.s; t! A: N..:'
u.it.t:...
.en: knts . !:
- 3. t.t.n tt.atta ...
.c I..s.
Ina;,r:;
. . . . . .. ;t.tr
.: .... y.!,n ... C.) 4
- H
' nu: htut !*u M * :n :' 'n:. ate
. .:n j. tut '.j,** ":
- in:;r:1: Tai '; !
. '. r;I Ut1< '.:*4
.nn: 4tn t ... .n t:rs. .. :
. 'N
. u.n. :.u.tu
. '.s..0 " :'..i n.
t .. ,.* 1.;
.a. ... . .....t.
. . 5 1.st 3... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i i
.i n. n. :.t....
- u. n.t
- r. .
. 3;y;
, . . ..... . . .. . 1,...-
...:.i.
l l . .. .n: .:. ;u
. un n: P,t u.
,:..,*::u.r :r: n.: ,;; .. .t-
. . . . n. ee~
n.r;
. ..i t...1.It !;
t 3 .. .I. I In 3.t
- I'.**'-4**I' * * * ' * * * * *
..e.
****
- t *"* .I. ..,I*...** 3
. un j'nat J ~~ 2tu *' n *t tid's n
.v. n states ."'
':** !surn.s s"nt . h :t ;:stn r: :.n:ur !!ntir.:.n 'a n."rntrut 8hs
( .n t t l tant . !!nnu t!'nt !* '.:,tr c;r.: c: n.nnt? 3;nne n ', ::uttr:;rrut !!u
.nu: hun '. : inantsiin: 8 *:;.t* ::ca c: ::en:e !;un ;;.'n i n.nr:.ftnt flu
.utt! itu tt Jir !!nntt tHn; '
sn e' nh ;t-; 'h, :nttr* i 1: hstu J . harna eHut :* ::T'. n n;tr ut ;3u e: n:1 funtu .t .:ur : stn 2 inus 3 77 hn ussi8at ; l k'M*t: Jr.it finit huts '$ *' h uratt if'8:t fu ratt au t:t i M
.nn!!!!!!
':iF
. isn?nt 64 n ;*
.g I . .u: Inut
. T* !sunti1 Hut ~
.rnn 't *F**
. Itur't: shin i . ttu !.un cn ';' " :n t su II 't:t 3 l ..u: Hun .?*T :ntnu IUnt !! ,
.ntu hun '7
. *.* itnrnt IHt:t u l '. its: H itat * 'T 3:en,t IHn: !!
'. u n h u n e tenn H :: g7
.r.us haut C'** inent EUan !:
.nts: itun *!!* inrnt IHut
!i
- ;n ts
- !!stn C 'F juarntafft:t ?}
.nts: Mun : :tunu IHut ?!
.utes hun ; tr ingrin ing:: :
l . .n: iten ::" . ! tant IHt:t 75
.1tti: *utat ;;tr "mnu aHt:t '4
.titt!!ntat llI' incatt IHt:t 77
, .rtta!itatts
!!*?* Intnts3"su '3
. ts: itnit
;;**T h:ent if'In
.4 3: Hutt .
inanu IHt:t IO eritu iutat ;*!r i n e tte eH t:t g:9
- 3.ius 4tattt $0*T !annta aHs
- t 604 f .nts: htun
(**T *entate IHut 10:
~ n'at htatas
. !"T Inants aff at: 10!
.1 a: L!atst i:*T Ita n a tHt:t i;f i
. nut hatn !*!T hunti sHa" i:1
.ntu itaus !"' itnnts "n: s!*
. tu! Itain !"* !nenu 14nt :: *
. na inut I" is:cau Hut 117
.utu Hutt :!T'!!:*!*
. Un n>sda". %!!! hi h:: ' ut t*:n fv
. inn Mt:n * !: * !!l !*
. h::nts :Hin M*3 *t'h :: st n int:'u m: h:Ut 2.i**i".:!!* jurut:NI:: I !s: : 1 n *n r n n *:.*in :t
- hnn hi "h netu Dan *! .:n :' ' stun" (M:. hun H :*!!
2 nanu l'in
.ut :' fin stu?
- . ;n
- itutt
* :!*W.!
!sarnt t"t:. d! **stilen:e
.nus. utn hn:.n inent IUnt 3.r.ur:."t" 'h. ;httnin
- t.is :
ur"..ntri inuns IHut C hr.Muan n
..nt:: ar: f.ica uur ':rthsttet inviu a'in: :P hurinin
. at: haus setb tf u~ in ran l'it:t *'*
h*a. nun
.nua Ittin W:%ntin :nen IHut "
hr:ent:e.
l [ t..a
*ias pr.....
.. . .. a&;&&4
....... (. .. .A.
,e....]
.t.*..* ..
.a t1... .' 6. *
. . ... ....., .I f.....
.. . .. M . t
.e 1......
. . . . . 31 4..
l
. . ..1.
. .*6.1:43
.l: 1...! s. 1::1 .6
*. ..!.. ..I.. ...J ........................................... i
. . <....33..
.. *. .. . .. . 3....
.. ..... 4..I ...' ..I r; : '
j .. t !.4.:.:.r:1 l36 :: ?t.* .*-
*:32:
?.. .
.**s. .b *; art:;*
S..I.j.#.:.r.s*}***
- . 1:28
. ::? t '.
e9
.:4*.e
..t.."
- 1.!
- := !;
.f
- a. . . .* ...a 1
- h '.:.:a.7 t
*.. 2.* '. L.- *e....
. .e s. l.43 .+ . l
..a
.'. ' .g*
?6
. . t',g
*gg . *!:;..I" !!t
...t,
- . .* g . . g l
*f.* .e r.....1..
, -.. **s
- .g ! *.gg * :T' g.ygg .g.g.g... . .-. , 6.t....
.. . . - ...,.C... . 1 * !. *.
?
.. .. .. ...=, .
a ,.
? **** 6* ?.***
** ***11 ., ::: * :,*.
"1 i.
. .. . .. . . . ... :. ... .*!. **
- 1: :
- 1 ' * * * ** * ** 4' ' * *" '
,. ...aJ..:: ..
- i. ...,. . ..
.. - s..+ . . . .
!J :
.. . 1,*
It t'.Il **3A**7 gae. l- **. .*- );* &.* !I*i*j-9. r.. .. . ts. . ..P.6 e. .
.a r. .aae j : 3 4.* ;. I.* I.* !.* ;'.f i1.*.;?
. .,-. . .. . ea ll I
a I I i I l i i l 4 b i 4 till> ! t u I L i i
'e i
I l t f
. s i
i I t W I ( , i l R l e - t
- r 4
9 8
- I g ,
f i h , i I ! l . i i i till> l . s I 1 i ( . .
- l. - -
- dy.g *.
*..a,.e. ,... ..
r.9.p9.9,. . 7 g..g.,,
'.. ... .t. . P. 4 .,*,g3*,,
,g i
....... ? .*..f 3 .... *.g,, ?.. . g .. : ,3... r ..3 . ,11.. . . . . . .31......... . . . . . . .<
......I..
t.- .......................................................
. . ..gl. 1. ,.
. g,.; ? .. t . . . k . .
3 ", : :...3...........3.... sji . .- . g ., ,-, r . . . .
..g. . . .. ....
<j.,...... .4.. ..-
.2.
.s..
. . . . I
....l.......
. .! . t.
.. .. .vet:- i.x
.* t *: s' : 11.t li: a .a
..=..i. 8. .s t.t. ..
. + r e. *......4 l.:.51:1* ti.t:sr g . . ... :*:: g... .. g. .? .g.. . .. .s..gg
..I.....
. t .. . t
,., g o. 1 a. g, s
- 3. ,... .
..a bt a sc, g ,t J1 ...1.. .
...... , ... ... ,...... g .... .......
,. .J 1.. .
.I. p.1. . . e ,. .3,.1.
t.6 . 1.t 1. .. !
.....t.,1
- *. s. 3 t .. .. ... .4 .
. . 1 . ...:.. t . 8. ....... .
!ait:st!!.9' - ** 13 :stltstra:
* :t:st;g 3 a *: . giggesteg:
b*
.at:stl,ar:
.* .. .:I.a.stir.?tra.:.
.. i.. .t.. ..... . .
.la.. . ar , a. . 3
. .t:I,'4..
.s,i.
. I*i. .. at:
.e -
- :: :::arstia:
.I
. t.l.
. . .1 .t
!. t:3+:13: 1 *: :I :a:fratar: -
!,tt.:.lt!s
. ... ,i . 1..
*. .I .st.tr::te:
.e .
. .. . .4.3 2 .I . ..
!*l tll* li*.* .'* 'J tl III*81*l:
.i... * . . .
* * * *
- o* *.
- g g '. t*?* .. ;;va. . ** ! * . . . . g . . ... g 3 +* **;*..*ist
*3 .. .*. .g t. .* , 9 = ....) ......... .**..
t .
.... 1. 5 .t:t. ..
... *** -I .,II.A....*
r.t, c.et.
. . 3 !... .. ..}&L
.I.. 1.e .... 1.s.a.
r*?
..a . . 1,. , . I. .
2 .1.
..,.I .
.4. . e.s
... I....3 ... 11 r*** *.
- i
'...I ,1,.
71..e . ..e .= =. .!.g~......,..< ..... 2e.. *.; d .. .. ;
.t.a?.
... 3. t.2 3.t
.. ? * ?.* c ,. * . . . . . . . . . . .
... .. 1...... ..
?v....
.?-
.1..!.. ... 1,. 2.i
.,J.11 . .. ......
........ .... . .l .
. .. . 1....... .31.. .,. . ......
....I....... .l 3. .1,,1.
g-. ..,.4.
- g. . ,. gt, ; . :p .,.. . . i .Il. . . . .7.,.
. . .31. . ..l.13
. . J . . . . !. ! ., . .. 1.. . .. ..
s.. . t...1 11 st== ..sII,1. 2,.. I'* =
.. .. **I.... ** .
IO.* **f*
=.
....l
.. .l c. I.!! 2. * '
.t .. . .. . '
r1 lyri.l
. I..I.***
e . 3 ..."**.,.
. ..*..I' .. .
1.. l.6 2t.if4.&.4
.?
.. +.+r
-.I.e .. g.. .ts tFeJ. . i' ... . .ev.1t . 1. ..........L.. ... 3 (t j;i:gtt:11 F:7. *. I:.L.t.ftiq'll alts .
*:2r:Itil:2][iittriti att:It 1:!*-{.!! It.ti;r!! 7 ar t.; :st!L '. ...
.itz:Ot.t:st 91EV:F.El . ?.): Ara 2*f .
':*t.. ,. 31 5 e.r . t #6. .te.1.. ict i .e. 11 . .
.c.. L.
.... t......g.. t. ... .a
, .. g. .e
. .l .f .* ~.- .. . . .
8.*'. a r *p.' 1*. . '. *
.. . 6 8 * * ** .; *.13 '. I l
I I l l l i h l I~ I l i a l \
\.J i .
t e e 0
a . Ob NUCLEAR PLAN ANALYZER AND PLANT DATA BAFK FY 1987 BUDGET DISCUSSION CHARLES R. TROUTMAN ACRS ECCS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING WASHINGTON, D. C. NOVEMBER 22, 1985
....L.,
9 O O
o CURRENT USERS
. NRR GAIN TECHNICAL BASIS FOR RAPID LICENSING RESPONSE TO EVENTS SUCH AS DAVIS-BESSE.
. RES STAFF PERFORMING IN-HOUSE WORK (MIST).
. 18E OPERATIONS CENTER TRAINING DRILLS.
. DOE CONTRACTOR STAFF PERFORMING LWR ANALYSES FOR NRC.
. DOE CONTRACTOR STAFF ANALYZING TEST DATA AND PERFORMING CODE ASSESSMENT FOR
~
NRC.
. HUMAN FACTORS, AND OTHER EXPERTS, EVALUATING OPERATOR GUIDELINES.
I L
.. . .u 1
-7 .- _-
NUCLEAR PLANT ANALYZER DECKS / MASKS MODELS 1986 1987 1988 FINE N0DED, RELAP5 OCONEE-1 (B8W 177) (150) ROBINSON (W, 3-LOOP) DAVID-BESSE (B&W 177, RAISED LOOP ! BELLEFONTE (B&W 205) BROWNS FERRY (BWR/4) (BATCH) ANO-2 (CE) , RESAR-414 (W, 4-L, 14' CORE) l l C0 ARSE N0DED, RELAPS ROBINSON K 30) BELLEFONTE ANO-2 OCONEE FINE N0DED, TRAC-BFI BROWNS FERRY (150) GRANDGULF[ DRESDEN-3 FINE N0DED, TRAC-PFI OCONFE (150) CE, WE, EX'S NPA-HYDR 0 ,, , l,
~
BNL/HIPA BWR/4 BWR/6 BWR/3 e - s - O
~
O
, ?< .
r NPA INEL LANL FY 1986 . 3 MORE PLANTS' MASKS . DEMO 0F MARK-I NPA.
. INTERACTIVE X-Y PLOTS . NPA-HYDR 0 ASSESS.
. TRAC-BWR SELF-INITIALIZE L2-6, MIST /0 TIS, HBR
. COMPLETE SECONDARY . NPA-HYDR 0 MARK-Il
+ CONTROL SYSTEMS MASKS . DATA BASE MOD
. GENERIC 1-D COMPONENT
. . PARALLELIZATION
. DEMO ON CRAY XMP-48
. 10 X FASTER FY 1987 . BWR/4 MASK - 1 NPA-BWR DECK . IMPLEMENT MARK-II ON A PARALLEL
. TWO-STEP NUMERICS ON 3-D PROCESSOR COMP 0NENTS OF TRAC-BWR~ . IMPROVE CCFL, STEAM /H O SEPARATOR, 2
. CONSULTATION TO USERS POST-CHF 0F MOD 2
. 3 MORE INTERACTIVE DECKS AND . CONSULTATION TO USERS MASKS
.. . . L..
O O O
NPA (CONTINUED) INEL LANL FY 1988 , COMPLETE TRAC-BWR TWO-STEP , MAINTENANCE + CONSULTATION NUMERICS
. IMPLEMENT NPA EXECUTIVE AND TRAC-BWF ON PARALLEL PROCESSOR
, CONSULTATION
.. . . n...
O O O _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ +____us - _ t- a y-g* g, e+ - yog pg+* yy gw_.ag = g, , . gg ,
o BENEFIT / COSTS FOR IMPROVED NPA-HYDR 0 MARK-II l . AN 8 PARALLEL PROCESSOR (HEP) RAN TRAC-P 6 TIMES AS FAST AS A SINGLE-PROCESSOR (HEP),
. A PARALLEL PROCESSOR BASED ON TEN 68020 PROCESSORS WOULD BE 1/2 SPEED OF A CDC 7600 IN RUNNING TRAC, AND WOULD COST ABOUT $100K.
. PRESENT COMPUTER COSTS FOR NRC PROJECTS - CODE DEVELOPMENT EXCLUDED:
.. FY 1985 LANL - > $1.M
.. FY 1985 INEL - $0.75M l EXCLUDING SEMISCALE AND ROSA AT INEL. ,
, BREAK EVEN POINT AFTER ABOUT 2000 HOURS ON THE IMPROVED NPA COSTING $700K DEVELOPMENT AND $100K HARDWARE.
~ ,
....i..,
j v e -- G G
NPA OPERATIONAL INTERFACE FY 1985 4115B TEKTRONIX WORKSTATIONS TRAINING (WIRED TO MAINFRAME H0ST) INEL LANL TO NRR/DSI LANL INEL TO RES, NRR/DHFR, DSI ' A.R. REVISED USER MANUAL S.S. PHILLIPS FY 1986 +2 AT NRR AS NEEDED
+1 AT I.R.C.
FY 1987 NONE AS NEEDED FY 1988 NONE AS NEEDED
.. . .t..
v
NUCLEAR PLANT DATA BANK
. FY 1985
.. COMPLETED WORK AT PROFESSIONAL SOFTWARE (TDC).
.. TRANSFER SOFTWARE TO ENGINEERING MODELER (LANL).
.. INDEPENDENT DATA ENTRY CONTRACTORS IDENTIFY ERRORS IN SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION.
. FY 1986
.. ERRORS TO BE CORRECTED AT/BY LANL.
... DATA ENTRY AND MINIMUM SET OF DATA.
... DOCUMENTATION. h
... INTERFACE SOFTWARE TO TRAC, E.G., BYPASS.
. FY 1987
.. DEMONSTRATION BY LANL OF WE-4L DATA ENTRY AND DECK CREATIONS AND REN0DALIZATIONS.
.. USER-FRIENDLY DATA ENTRY (SCIENTECH, SBIR).
.. EXTEND NPDB TO WE-2L, B8W, CE. ,
....t..
O O O
sD.3r(3Z.9 =E.M.' J %b 4" . P n '6 VW yy " & N=.oo N A M. .' Z .-
.." . . . .i4.
@f2A msh W ]W u.Wh5Pa-6cQUdC a
t .: i
. -. -:.* ~ e-
. . m %. . . .. c.. ; , . -
e 4 f. '4 s . s* . , c.3,; a.
- v
. y a . .. ... g 6 ,, , p ag;
,~
. M, wr .. .
c; , = . v , .'; ' . ,.,.*t-- ., n- . .~.c. . =, , . *,
- R.% , ,
5 - e
. ..;'* .* ,, s
. ; , . J *
' *$1
' j ' ;y,..) ... ,
l' . '[. k y*h N i $ ,. ) , .L " Y. . y
.'s'
.( ; *2+ -Q:
,* - - -.. .. ( e e 4
#*~. ..f-[ %*. 4
- y 5..Q Q..,.s - Q, ',* y ,., ; l.'-~
e Jhp 63 ,'
. s
.-..- .g
- s. ,
, .e .
. - u . .., * .
* ' . . ;. . ~ # .' e I . [s
[*' \ f .-.,e .
- f. * . . .
.'," J.
*- '. ke j .*' '
, f.' &'
- b ** [ . * * . e - y; . - -
*., T , . % * . a [ h Y , *./ - . . -*.D ' < h* j . .
"{ ,.
... ~. s. m . H. w m b.::a... ^. , .r .% . . *w - .u.u
- e. * .i.s.
. A. . ,,7 4 S'g.,s t h.*j s
f4' ( h , * 4.-[ c .4 #.J: * . .' *
- f - .r% '. } ,. ' M..w 0. .Y
p s.b i
#f 4* .'4- %*. 9. l*
t**w$ i'.'* .
. c -.....< ,
* ~, V. "y . ," , '*d .. -J ' ' 4 v '- u
; y @ **; .s * *, s 6.! " ^r#
- 6.. *E
- 7 * $ a . .*
Q
, e .f
. + h. .
, .- a * ",
- l '
, , .,'a n*
- g , lQ s
.' ~.? *
.% f' .' %' '!'- Y ..
Q r f. .'lc.,s.( , ;.-.gn* .y'..R .
^ - r 4'
-9, L . ., , ~. ;
'.n.' > : " Y. . ' . m. s
. W G];3,&. . 9M.
+ .yL MW.M..
..* . , . . 2.
b :-
.. , . *g- ')..,.* *';*,,. ..g, N
. h. ..S...ev .
oa..
, ..
- n, .f
'..*t ,7 < g . >s
. i
- ,'*- .4,,,..s. m
.~ 4
., y a
"A ..,,.t s . .
- J,..,. .
.(,
,y.
,- * . , . ... .3 3s - ~- .
.*- g.. ..-
. ., . . :1 . . - . .' .
... ;l) .% ...- ,
!. * * ~
*s p W, . s 2
- s *
.'*-.-;;
- s ,
. , n , e, . :.%
..,s.J , .: ';\- ,;.: -rb~.... ..s...
. . n s s. . .s . a . . F ~a ,* s
-e ..
;; .T. ..- , m..e .. ; . . . ' . w f.r. .%: .-
. .., . . . , ~,.
p.*......,.,...4 . . , 4 -. s. .n, .A. .r..
., .v. , c. . ; ,.. , - .~ of. n,, ,.. .. .e. -n..n ( * . .,q % v e p W, .g.3,M.s.=*v.......>, w s. 5 .
, ;.. * . 4.. :^ _c-c..--s_..~*.
+ .
, . s g, y 9 . * ;. ,
'e'y**.
f '
,,?.. , '.* q - t.'.~e ,
, ',k;..,'*..-
~
'l
-f. .5 ' 1 * ) ; s& ' ?
^
.s...
= * * , * . .;
s .,- s.,.-.~f., .
% , ,s . - +
..~:*
. w' 3 - , . ,. 4.. -.s..
m
,,,-,. ch it .. .,~ .4, . . . . .-. p..m"m. .
ya. % . c . .. %..-.u..- 3
.* e
.,.y
. ;~ . . ~ . . -
W .
, ... .., g.',,
, u ., .- # .
. , . - p :. . q m w
,; . . c J., ,
Q. - .. . . , *
<3-.
c
..4 e .-* .,
.~W y
.. :, , J .: .
- .,. - + .- .
. c .+ - , . . . .:
, , - ~ , . . ., r i : .
,.a,.... .. .n , j1
'.. c
- se . s. . w.v, i .1.4; .,,.
. ,.: - . ~.
m .
- o. ,:, ,. ,. , s
~
s
... . ~. .a . > .v .r,,.
a..... . ,., - w x e ,
< ._...a.~,...
... .. .ng s.
s f. ,. 4 . a. .
. - .s s m*....- .-, , . . - ..
. m, s. t"~., .
. , . ++ . i- .. ;;. . -l,, ,
t 4 - . - .
- ..: v.. .2 ..
.- . y,.
4 . . c c , -
- . ~
e-. 4, u. . ' u . <y :. ,
..,.u. -
w ..
~. ,
.-re..
s
. v . . .
- ..gb.
-u . . w . 6, , l =_ ; ..
act - - o ;,- -
.~ n .r., - -
. E .
- g )'
u' l _ 9.p * ,
, . .a b;t u o p % - :- W, - .e I S.
. . . - 1 .. , _ ., m. . 4
, . . ., g ,
.. C3 , , . s > .,
g ,
} .. g .
. i
.; so no "'
l
'E m
.,. 9 1
- r. - ..
s+
~
., E * , <
4 s o u.
- s. . .
3 .. u . - :. - e e .- . .., u ,
"o -
v.3 y-e ,
. , . ,. m . e ;_., .
** 3 .
' ;p; ,
- n Q '
4
~ ~ . , ,
..~. .
.3 .
y .w . p._3
..a..
. ;.. m.3
.w.. o_
.u. _ , ; , ....-
- s. .~ . .. .
)- - o .. . 3
- %: . -- ' g,, e a 5 5 5
~ . - e.,:
., . , , a w.
e o y, e e m o en m o - -
.w....<. o
., . . .c .,... .
~ -v . .
.u.
, s
- + -
.n.. -.:. : - .
t r N. _ . . . p. . e..w @ . v.
.f
,. g . ,. ~
n..... y . g, ,.
. . q ,
s
,4,
. . I #' '
f,.* f 5WV ,.'(' a g= w*e
' f '
- d.*s- ** [. '.-
,..w ,5
..~ - ,*. ..
s. s I,
* . *~' s . .s.... .
. . . . . s..- . J.
. e
-l '*- ;' , ~__~~.* * '
% * '~; , 5%
- f , "' . '.
J'. g~ ;. y ..
- g
' 4 .a g ,
F
}. .
,rc J.". s .
r p i, - *
.g,-g. . ',; - .
*i f.
. . e* } . W e '
- g ,
wp p 4 ". sYh . h
..'-9
. g . g-p g4 g ,b, y e- .bD J 4 .%e '%.w'-
F . ?..p...* a
,.g .
. . c ,-#
w . . e '
. -g- 3 D.
2 4 9 - .
.a.' y'
. =
g . t e
. , +
s
. - -(
e o .
- r e -#*
.[ : '
..a . . *. . # If , : y -*
, , n. mMadad.s mA h'. h. . l b m 14_h ham.M.mem - No
A 4_ SEPARATE EFFECTS PROGRAM WILLIAM D. BECKNER, NRC ACRS ECCS SURCOMMITTEE MEETING WASHINGTON, D. C. NOVEMBER 27, 1985 i.
.Jl ;
- J..,
9 9 e
*9 SEPARATE EFFECTS PROGRAM EXPERIMENTS
. DATA Bt.NK IODINE PARTITIONING UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND 2 X 4 LOOP FLUID MIXING MODEL DEVELOPMENT SCALING STUDIES TWO-PHASE MODELING STEAM EXPLOSION POST-CHF HEAT TRANSFER STEAM GENERATOR MODELING VISUAL LOOPS / ANALYSIS CENTERS ,
SBIR x.s. e . O 9
O SEPARATE EFFECTS PROGRAM
~
. EXPERIMENTAL DATA BANK AT INEL
,. LARGE DATA BASE TO BE ENTERED IN FY 1986 AS DATA FROM PTS PROGRAM, ROSA-IV, MIST, AND 2D/3D BECOME AVAILABLE. DATA ENTRY WILL REMAIN HEAVY TilROUGH FY 1987 TO CLEAR BACKLOG FROM FY 1986.
. 10 DINE PARTITION COEFFICIENT
.. MEASURE IODINE PARTITION COEFFICIENT AS A FUNCTION OF PH, BORIC ACID CONCENTRATION, AND OTHER VARIABLES FOR llSE IN ANALYZING 10 DINE RELEASE DURING STEAM GENERATOR TUBE RUPTilRES. MAKE PLANT MEASUREMENTS DURING VARYING CONDITIONS,
,. WORK IS IN PROGRESS AND WILL BE COMPLETED IN FY 1987.
, lINIVERSITY OF MARYLAND 2 X 4 LOOP
.. TESTS OF NATURAL CIRCULATION, FEED AND BLEED, SBLOCA, MIST SCALING COMPARISONS, ETC.
.. TESTING STARTING IN FY 1986 AND CONTINUING AT LEAST THROUGH FY 1987. ,
.z: . . s .
e 9 9
6 SEPARATE EFFECTS PROGRAM (CONTINUED) l . FLUID MIXING
,. HDR AND IVO PTS DATA EVALUATION / PREDICTIONS.
.. FINAL PTS REPORT.
.. BORON MIXING EXPERIMENTS AND MODELING FOR BWR ATWS EVALUATIONS.
.. PTS REPORT / PRELIMINARY BORON WORK FY 1986. FINAL WORK COMPLETED FY 1988.
. SCALING STUDIES
.. CONTINUED SCALING SUPPORT FROM ANL FOR MIST AND CEC.
.. POSSIBLE NEW SCALING ANALYSIS / EXPERIMENTS (SEE VISUAL LOOPS / ANALYSIS CENTERS).
. TWO-PHASE MODELING
,. INVERTED ANNULAR FLOW STUDIES COMPLETED FY 1986.
.. HOT-LEG U-BEND WORK COMPLETED FY 1987, 2: .. s-e .
G G
.g g 4
s 4 SEPARATE EFFECTS PROGRAM (CONTINUED)
. STEAM EXPLOSi'ON
.. ANALYSIS OF LARGE-SCALE STEAM EXPLOSIONS IN PAPER INDUSTRY COMPLETED FY 1986
.. SMALL-SCALE WORK TO LOOK AT' SCALING AND APPLICABILITY OF PAPER INDUSTRY DATA STARTING IN FY 1986.
. POST-CHF HEAT TRANSFER /REWET
,. CURRENTLY PLANNING ADDITIONAL WORK TO CORRECT CODE DEFICIENCIES IN THIS AREA.
. STEAM GENERATOR MODELING
,. ENTRAINMENT/ CARRY 0VER IN U-TUBE STEAM GENERATOR WORK COMPl.ETED IN FY 1986.
.. EXTENSION TO OTSG IN FY 1987.
Z: . J~.. e . 9 - G
b o SEPARATF EFFECTS PROGRAM (CONTINUED)
. VISUAL LOOPS / ANALYSIS CENTERS
.. UNIVERSITY WORK TO EXPERIMENTALLY INVESTIGATE SCALING 0F INTEGRAL FACILITIES AND SEPARATE EFFECT STUDIES OF COMPONENTS.
.. USE OF COMPUTER CODES.
.. COMPLEMENT CEC PROGRAM.
. SBIR PROGRAM
.. CONDENSATION (PHASE-I START IN FY 1986).
.. PC ANALYZER (COMPLETE PHASE-II IN FY 1986).
.. PLANT DATA BANK (PHASE-II START IU FY 1986).
.. PLANT ANALYZER BOUNDARY CONDITION CONTROLLER (PHASE-II START IN FY 1986).
.. FY 1987 AWARDS NOT YET DETERMINED. .
0
.2 . ,
- J..,
9 O O
O CONTINilING INTEGRAL TliERMAL HYDRAULIC EXPERIMENTAL CAPABILITY DONALD E. SOLBERG ll.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING WASHINGTON, D. C. NOVEMBER 22, 1985 e O G
OUTLINE
. INTEGRAL FACILITY NEEDS AND ALTERNATIVES.
SCALING STUDY CRITERIA AND APPROACH,
. EG8G RESULTS PRESENTED AT WORKSl10P.
. WORKSliOP COMMENTS AND PROGRAM REVISIONS.
. COST ESTIMATES.
. FUTURE PLANS.
e e 9 t t e e e '
0
- NEEDS PROVIDE INTEGRAL TEST DATA TO RAPIDLY RESPOND TO NEW DESIGNS AND SAFETY ISSUES (C.F. NRR USER REQUESTS).
CONTINUE DUAL ANALYTICAL-EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH USED IN THE PAST.
. PROVIDE CONTINUING TEAM OF TECllNICAL EXPERTS.
PROVIDE INTEGRAL TEST DATA TO ASSESS NEED FOR BEST-ESTIMATE CODE IMPROVEMENT AND T0 QUANTIFY UNCERTAINTY. 6 P e * * .
- _. - x? . -
THERMAL HYDRAULIC TRANSIENTS: MAJOR TEST FACILITIES FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 199q FY 1991 F/5 Test Series 5BLOCA w/o HPI Sealscale Liquid Holdup Tests facility Shutdown .Closecut Analyses MIST Tests: i ' H!st Tests: Full-Power MIST /0 TIS*(B&WJ MIST Construction Characterization. Mode SGTR. Feed and Bleed. Testing Closeout Analyses Transition. SBLOCA Full-Power M005 FIST (GE) Phase-II Analyses a'ndClosecut Analyses Reporting
- TPTF S.G. H.T. Liquid Holdup H.T. in S.G.
ROSA-IV '(Japan) LSTF Testing THI, SDLOCA. Alternate ECC hantN atural Circulation ' Recovery Technfques Primary Loop CoolingClosecut Analyses Facility Shakedown Anticipated Transient'
. Mechanism Tests:
HB-2 (E) , ggg SGTR CCTF-II*(Japan) Best Estimate Tests SCTF-II (Japan) Forced Feed Tests SCTF-III (Japan) Shakedown Tests Comb ned injection Closecut Analyses h',Id-Leg
, Injection Construction separate Effects Integral Ef fects UPTF(Germany) . Compl eted. Closecut Analyses Tests Shakedown Testing Crntinuing Experimental Start Construction Start Testing-PWR PWR Testing Capablitty ^ Scaling Study Design Testing BWR/PWR Testing BWR/PWR (WJCE) Design BWR BWR Construction l
l
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES COST $M - ALTERNATIVE INITIAL ANNUAL PR0 CON
- 1. EXISTING FACILITIES AT PRESENT LOCATION.
SEMISCALE 0] CONTINUE KNOWN TECHNOLOGY, MAXIMUM OPERATIllG COST. MIST FULL CAPABILITY FROM EACH 0p10-15 RELATIVELY INFELXIBLE. FACILITY. FIST 10) MOST EXPERT OPERATING STAFF.
- 2. ONE OR MORE EXISTING FACILITIES AT INEL.
SEMISCALE 0 MINIMUM OPERATIflG EXPENSES. NEED FOR GE, BF.W, AND EPRI CONCURRENCE. MIST PPOVIDES MOST EXPERT UNKf~3-5 SOME LOSS OF TEST CAPABILITY CONTRACT 0P STAFF. POSSIBLE. FIST 5.7) ' UNKMOUN COST TO MOVE, INSTALL, AND CHECK 0UT MIST. RELATIVELY INFLEXIBLE.
~
e . O 9 b,'.
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES (CONTINUED) COST $M ALTERNATIVE INITIAL ANNilAL PR0 CON
- 3. VISUAL LOOP (+ SEPARATE <C 1 <C1 RAPID RESPONSE. LIMITED APPLICABILITY TO EFFECTS TESTING AS SELECTIVELY IMPPOVES UNDER- STATED NEEDS.
NEEDED). STANDING.
- 4. NEW CEC 4-24 !!3-5 BEST SCALING APPROACH. INITIALLY LIMITED TO ONE MULTIPLE FACILITIES AT LOW VENDOR DESIGN.
COST. PROVIDES MOST EXPERT CONTRACTOR STAFF.
- 5. CONSTRUCTION OF MIST- 10-15 <<3-5 MINIMUM OPERATING EXPENSE. POTENTIAL OPERATOR CONFLICT OF TYPE' FACILITY AT B8W CONTINUE KNOWN TECHNOLOGY, INTEREST.
ALLIANCE, OHIO. REQUIRES EXPERT CONSULTANTS TO NRC, S0 DIVIDED EXPERTISE AND INCREASE ANNUAL COST. l s INFLEXIBILITY. G ,
# 8 .
STUDY CRITERIA
. CAPABLE OF TESTING A WIDE RANGE OF CHAPTER 15, DOMINANT RISK EVENTS AND OPERATIONAL EVENTS THAT HAVE OCCURRED.
. CAPABLE OF TESTING A WIDE VARIATION OF SYSTEM GEOMETRIES.
. PROVIDE SUFFICIENTLY CREDIBLE RESULTS FOR CODE ASSESSMENT, NRC STAFF, AND MAINTENANCE OF STAFF EXPERTISE.
ADEQUATE INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA ACQUISITION FOR INTENDED USES. AUTOMATED CONTROL AS FEASIBLE TO MINIMIZE OPERATING STAFF AND FOR USE WITH MULTIPLE TEST FACILITIES.
. PPOVIDE A DOCUMENTED DEFENDABLE SCALING BASIS.
CAPABLE OF PROVIDING BOTH LOOP THERMAL HYDRAULIC DATA AND OPERATOR INTERACTION RESULTS.
. QUICK TURNAROUND TIME (211 WEEKS).
LOW ACQUISITION COST (LESS THEN $5 MILLION PER FACILITY TYPE) AND LOW OPERATING COSTS (3-5 MILLION/ YEAR FOR MULTIPLE FACILITY COMPLEX). O -
e SCALING STUDY APPROACH
, SELECT FIVE SCALING METHODS FOR EVALUATION,
,, ONE IS FULL-HEIGHT, FULL PRESSURE WATER FOR COMPARISON,
,, DERIV IMPORTANT SCALING RELATIONSHIP.
ESTABLISH EVENT CONTROLLING PARAMETERS.
,, RISK - DOMINANT ACCIDENT SEQUENCES,
,, PAST REACTOR TRANSIENTS,
,, STANDARD REVIEW PLAN,
,, FUTURE CODE ASSESSMENT, OBTAIN BEST-ESTIMATE ANALYSES FOR:
,, REPRESENTATIVE PLANTS FOR EACH VENDOR, AND
,. IMPORTANT ACCIDENT TYPES,
, DEVELOP FACILITY DESIGN CONCEPTS,
,, FOR EACH SCALING APPROACH, ASSESS COMPONENT RESPONSES FOR IMPORTANT ACCIDENT TYPES.
O O
- e b d
__ SCALING STUDY APPROACH (CONTINUED)
. OBTAIN EXPERT ADVICE ON STUDY APPR0ACl1 AND RESULTS.
. ASSESS CONCEPT RESPONSE USING BEST-ESTIMATE CODES.
. PROVIDE COST-ESTIMATES FOR EACH CONCEPT.
. REPORT RESULTS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.
A s
4 4 4 SIGNIFICANT THERMAL HYDRAULIC TRANSIENTS TRANSIENT CATEGORY TRANSIENT DECREASE IN REACTOR C.00LANT INVENTORY. SBLOCA LBLOCA ANTICIPATED TRANSIENT WITHOUT SCRAM (ATWS) LOSS-0F-FEEDWATER WITil FAILURE TO SCRAM. DECREASE IN HEAT REMOVAL BY THE SECONDARY STATION BLACK 0UT. SYSTEM (TOTAL LOSS OF HEAT SINK). INCREASE IN HEAT REMOVAL BY Tile SECONDARY STEAM LINE BREAK. SYSTEM. n .
scr :x -
+ic W.;';
PARAMETER RATIOS FOR ONE-PHASE FORCED AND I
- l TWO-PHASE NATURAL CIRCULATION i
PARAMETER PATIOS , ONE-PHASE FORCED CIRCULATION 'TWO-PHASE NATURAL CIRCULATION PARAMETER . SYMBOL !. LENGTH b.g IA. DEFINED k DEFINED DIAMETER DS }dEMD 3dEM@ 2.
, l m.
b, 3 og 3 9a ; AREA g VOLUME Yom $ La = kg Log 4]L % = Aogeg L CORE AT 6Tog 6To, DEFINED (kk)gh)g ks k l l TIME bR sbg NR. 1 CORE POWER r,( A0gk Nog 0OP g g )[l0R(SSfS b )RR $ A, I
~
1 0 O O i - .
= _ = ___
"~
- F f jF;: F ".:: 2 R:i; %' ' T E
;f,!! = = :: : -:: ::: e ag -- R R "E.* s E ng E' r_~ _ ;_ ~
- g. -j 4" * - 5* 2" l 3 4, = -r *g E* $[Q kk' 5 ~
15 % E' *E' s j 1 2. 2* c, e'
$* *}
2: * * *
"k ), Z 2 =
Break flow g.pnes, gg
,T l 2* l*3 3
2-Phase NC e O *E 3- .. __ . Reflus E1 , Phase separation /sito
* * * . . _ . % .I 12 Core .
5- 2- - - Downconer i
- 2 * - - _ _= Upper plenum i
]* 2
- _ . . l_. Upper head g
*=
SG tubes m TE .. _ Loon seals C4 A Z. ,.
.a.
Horizontal pipes d ,
,, SG seconcertes j 2
' -~ . .. Tee o ; verticalhotlegg, y j CCFL I c l
- . . _ _ . _ . ._ Downcomer cn 1
> 1 _.,
Uoper plenue A ; i 3*. tubes y SG support plates x
= Hot leg (vert. 2=
'l
._.2
. _ _ _ _ , & horizontal)
Surge Lire
- t i _. . . .
m i . Heat Transfer ;
' E 3 _ _ 7.. T- Covered core Z !
.. 32
~>
2 . _ Uncovered core CHF c
- l
- 2 2_...._ _ . .
_ Aewet Reflood y l
, _, z
- 3 2
- . =_._.- SG primary o 8 1 =_ = . SG seconcery 3 ;
, ) ., P'.ultidimensional effects A ;
; i g
- \, 3 _; Assynetric loop 2= '
response i
- Downconer 2 l
- * = 1 Core &
+ .. . _ SG Tubes x
~
! AFW i 3- m I ECC mining and con- X ! i
. densation l 2 Upper head mining i and condensation
- 3 Noncondensible gas ,
i effects .j s 2 Structural heat and j heat loss 8 T Cort bypass I Vent valve behavior! , , 2 Valve behavior / leakage
.= 5eparator behavior I a ressurizer thermo-
*- hydraul t es '
3 Surge line hydraulics
. 3 Pumo behavior
=" = I 2. Decay heat -
O -
=
2 1 heutronics Soren transport Control system rek .-e 2 2 gg i Balance of plant Instrumentation effects z r_ Accuimilator byeraulics l
~ ~
*
- W ? CW i'T
- 30::: : $0 aI
~
I - - 20
- 2
- I
= = s: :
a a :s 1 tx
-: ss-(x 7 SS E -
7" l 4 E ~4 sf
- j - {e, 2: s :- _-
2 - E F* rA "' j 3 a w Ae o A . - E : ' i l ; :: ; ; s = = sreak flow g ; 2 x I :: 1-Phase NC g *2 r 2. Phase NC
, s Boiler condenser
*}.
E 1 ' , , . Phase separation /sity _1s _ = r. = Core 1 2 Downconer 3 . I 2 : Upper plenum 3 tzs
. 2 _ , , _ . , , .. I Upper head O
; 3 3 g
=
- ~
~
r SG tubes Loop seals @ n
~ s Horizontal ofpes S- ' ' ~
. . _ . _ 3 _,.
z 3G secondaries Tee y ey
- Vertical het leg
.. CCFL 'C s
3 Downcomer Upper plenum p _ n
~
- ~ ' SG tubes O i = SG support plates X z Hot leg (vertical ano q
. , . horizontal) o I -> Surge line
'4est Transfer g
i s 2 .I Covered core m
~
r E 3 % Uncovered core m
- 2 X . _. 3 CHF
! r. y" Remet z
~ %
Re flood "U
#7' ' ' ' ~s : ' = fG primary ,
z 2 = -: z SG attaa ry ',.i ;*.*o 4.: ~ ' 2 2 2 _ 2_ Multicimensional (M2- '3 o Aspeetric loop response 3 I 3 DownComer 1
- 3 T Core >
. - 3G tubes I 3 = AFW 3
, _ , =_,,_ z 3
ECC mixing and condensation Upper head mixing anc
- D
. _ . . . . . . condensation ""-
} 1 Montendensible gas effects . 2 StN etural heat and heat loss-4 r Cort bypass .
- I t 3
- 3 Vent valve behavior
- * ~ 2 Valve behavior /leatage Separator behavior 2 2 Pressurizer thermohydraulics
.r Surge line hyorav11cs r Pinup behavior
= z = = Decay heat
= 5 heutronics
= z Saron transport -
Con UH1}rolsystemresponse *
;j O
' ~ 8alance of plant *
'4 Instrumentation effes
- _ . _ _
- 1 Accumulator hydraulics i
- l. .
m
CONCEPTUAL MODEL PARAMETERS BASED ON WESTINGil00SE LPWR FHFPW PARAMETER SEABROOK SEMISCALE RHRPW RHFPN RHFPF LENGTH RATIO 1 1 .375 .375 .375 DIAMETER RATIO 1 1/41.3 1/11.81 1/13.89 1/16.87 AREA PATIO 1 1/1705 1/139,4 1/193 1/284.6 VOLilME RATIO 1 1/1705 1/371.8 1/514.7 1/758.8 TIME RATIO 1 1 .6124 .6124 .6124 PRIMARY PRESSURE PSIA 2250 2250.. , 435 2250 448.5 f s b o 1
CONCE'PTUAL'PiODEL ' PARAMETERS BASED ON BABdOCk 'AND TliLd0X 'LPWR - FHFPW PARAMETER OCONEE MIST IDEAL RHRPW RHFPW RHFPF LENGTH RATIO 1 1 .375 .342 .375 DIAMETER RATIO 1 1/28,6 1/10 1/15.35 1/20 AREA RATIO 1 1/818 1/100 1/235,65 1/400 VOLUME RATIO 1 1/818 1/266,67 1/689,04 1/1066,7 . TIME RATIO 1 1 .6124 .5848 .6124 PRIMARY PRESSURE PSIA 2170 2170 435 2170 432,5 O '
h .
.h' 4
2 m
- IT
= .e F F F e = e _=
T R C 22 22 22 Er
; E a :" ""
- " g*
= =
cw ew ew ,e
" * ~"
L - w - 2*e 2*e 2* e .
= - w w ny a u gn ga %
i - r =n .e
, .. . = - m i
SgI E o
$2 52 $2 1% *O *e "
I3 O C
, 3 . O 2
- g
$ E s 2 2 0
2 e 3 " H R ~
- o e 3
* *
- M - 4 -
Break flow @ 3 w - A - 1-Phase NC 3 >
@- p s - 2-Phase NC 3 rn g g p a - Reflux 3 g ,
t Phase Separation / Slip ::o z f E
, p p .A -
Core z E g udder Dienum 3 Q *g-* g T* N A - SG tubes : o l g LOoD seals % 3 h 0, N - A N Horizontal Dioes- 3 , y
- Go - b N Tee 3 z I
p p .A - Vertical hot leo z w M CCFL --I E = -l z p Upper plenum 3 g .-. m E G N A - 56 tuces = m
, g $ $
l ', y Ga - .h F Hot leg (vert & hor)'. . g g, g > 39 Surce line z < - c m z r Heat transfer *Q 3~ E A W C) - Covered core 3 e $
'\
s Q . N W W A
^ -
Uncovered core CHF z I" 2 N C 3 m r-- ' Rewet 3 w - b N b - SG orimary 2 S SG seconaarY f *U t z L Multidimensional = rn l effects - SG tubes 8 I ECC mixino and conden. z g Noncondensible gas 2 3 effects c,3 p Structural heat and g heat loss ' a Core bypass 3 , Decay heat 2 UHI 1
, instrumentation effects 3
Accumulation hydraulics e
+
. ,i- -
, s .
P SOME
GENERAL COMMENT
S FROM THE STUDY RESULTS AND WORKSHOP
. THE BASIC APPROACH TO EVALUATE TiiE SCALING ALTERNATIVES WERE NOT QUESTIONED, BUT Tile SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION SfiOULD BE EXPANDED.
SYSTEMS DESIGNED WITH REDUCED PRESSURE WATER PROVIDE RESULTS THAT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO INTERPRET IN TERMS OF COMMERCIAL PLANTS AND MAY REQUIRE TRIAL AND ERROR PARAMETRIC OPERATION OF THE FACILITY TO ADEQUATELY SIMULATE COMMERCIAL PLANT TRANSIENTS OR TO COMPARE BETWFEN FACILITIES.
. FREON SYSTEMS PROVIDE MANY ADVANTAGES, E.G., LOW PRESSURE AND LOWER FACILITY COSTS; THEY ALSO llAVE DISADVANTAGES, E.G., CANNOT DIRECTLY VALIDATE CODE APPLICABILITY TO COMMERCIAL PLANTS AND CONDENSATION PliEN0MENA ARE NOT WELL MODELED.
h ,
SOMEGENERALCONCLUSIONSFh0MTHESTUDYRESULTSANDWORKSHOP(CONTINUED)
. PERHAPS THE SINGLE GREATEST REMAINING UNCERTAINTY IN PREDICTIONS OF COMMERCIAL PLANT BEHAVIOR IS MilLTIDIMENSIONAL EFFECTS IN COMPLEX TRANSIENTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN WELL SIMULATED IN INTEGRAL FACILITIES.
NEW FUTURE FACILITIES SHOULD BE OF DIFFERENT DESIGil APPROACH THAN PAST DESIGNS T0:
.. IMPROVE UNDERSTANDING 0F TRANSIENT RESPONSE, AND
.. PROVIDE BEST TESTS OF CODE CAPABILITIES.
INPUT FROM CODE ASSESSMENT WORK IS IMPORTANT TO ESTABLISH FUTURE FACILITY CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS. d
O O S e REVISED SCOPE BASED ON WORKSHOP
. INVESTIGATE CAPABILITIES FOR BEST LINEAR SCALED FACILITY AND ESTIMATE FACILITY COSTS.
l
.. LINEAR SCALE APPROXIMATELY 0.1 I
.. FULL PRESSURE
.. FULL POWER
,. FULL NUMBER OF OPERATING LOOPS
.. PROTOTYPICAL FUEL R0D AND STEAM GENERATOR TURE DIAMETERS
. PERFORM COST ESTIMATE FOR SMALL VISUAL FACILITY OPERATING WITH FREON.
I i G e _.- G G. '--
FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES AND COSTS B8W WESTINGHOUSE FEATURES RHFPF RHRPW RilFPW RHFPF RHRPW RHFPW TYPE OF LOOP 2X4 2Xil 2X4 liX4 4X4 4X4 WORKING FLUID FREON 11 WATER WATER FREON 11 WATER WATER PRESSURE, PSIA 432 435 2170 449 435 2250 flEIGHT SCALE .375 .375 .342 .375 .375 .375
!!0T-LEG I .D. , IN. 1.8 3.6 2 . 11 1.7 2.5 2.1 NO. RODS IN CORE 100 400 169 196 400 289 NO. TUBES IN S.G. 39 155 66 20 40 29 N0. PUMPS ,
4 4 4 4 4 11 CORE POWER, MWT 1.17 4.8 2.18 4.82 10.82 e - e e .
FACILITY DESIGN FEATURES AND COSTS (CONTINUED) B&W WESTINGHOUSE COSTS, $10 3 RHFPF RHRPW RHFPW RHFPF RHRPW RHFPW LOOP DESIGN 8 CONST. 9400 12,500 12,600 12,400 14,600 16,800 BASE FACILITY MODS 1200 3700 4200 1200 3700 4600 CONTROL SYSTEM 1940 1940 1940 1940 1940 1940 DATA ACQUISITI0fl 235 235 235 235 235 235 UPGRADE BASE TOTAL 12,800 18,400 19,000 15,800 20,500 23,600 REDUCED OPTION TOTAL 10,600 14,900 16,700 13,500 17,300 20,800 N e e 8 .
=.
REMAINING SCOPE IN SCALING STilDIES l . COMPLETE EVALUATION OF RELATIVE CAPABILITIES OF ALL FIVE SCALING APPROACllES l l FOR ALL MAJOR TRANSIENT CATEGORIES FOR WESTINGHOUSE AND B8W REACTORS AND ESTIMATE FACILITY COSTS.
. PERFORM SCALING STUDY EVALUATION FOR FIVE SCALING APPROACHES FOR ALL MAJOR TRANSIENT CATEGORIES FOR TliE MOST COMMON BWR DESIGN AND ESTIMATE FACILITY COSTS, 1
l' o e e .
- , = = -
o . FIST RELOCATION 9
. BASIS: DISASSEMBLE LOOP AT SAN JOSE AND SHIP TO INEL.
.. INCLUDES: INTEGRAL LOOP SUBSYSTEMS (SUCH AS FEED TANK, ETC.)
DATAAC00lSITIONSYSTEM CONSTRUCT SUPPORT STRUCTURE IN TAN-646 INSTALL FIST LOOP. BASE FACILITY N0DIFICATION: BUILDING EXPANSION INCREASE AVAILABLE ELECT, POWER. PURCilASE NEW CORE.
. COSTS: FIST RELOCATION $ 800K BASE FACILITY MODIFICATIONS $ fl365K NEW CORE $ 500K TOTAL $ 5656K r^^
O O- O . .
4 e 9
~
4 FY 1986 MILESTONES
. ESTABLISH ADVISORY GROUP,
. REVIEW PLANS WIT.H DOE, EPRI, AND INDUSTRY.
. NRC DECISION ON FACILITY FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY.
. PUBLISH SCALING STUDY RESULTS.
. COMPLETE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN.
. INITIATE PRELIMINARY DESIGN.
b
~
o . FY 1987-1988 MILESTONES
. COMPLETE PRELIMINARY DESIGN,
. COMPLETE FINAL DESIGN.
. COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION AND SITE MODIFICATION.
. COMPLETE FACILITY CilECK00T.
. BEGIN TESTING.
. INITIATE DESIGN OF SECOND FACILITY.
G
/
O O * .
T9 l NRR STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE o ACRS
SUBJECT:
NRR COMMENTS ON RES THERmllHYDRAULIC RESEARCH PROGRAM DATE: NOVEMBER 22, D 85 PRESENTER: BRIAN W. SHERON {o-PRESENTER'S TITLE / BRANCH /DIV: CHIEF, REACTOR SYSTEf6 BRANCH
, DIVISION OF SYSTEt6 INTEERATION N
PRESENTER'S NRC TEL. NO.: 492- 7460 2 i I
. SUBCOMMITTEE: ECCS l
O i
O . NRR USER NEEDS
- SINCE 1981, DSI/NRR HAS ORIGINATED APPROXIMATELY ONE D0 ZEN USER NEED OR RESEARCH REQUEST LETTERS TO RES IN THE AREA 0F THERMAL-HYDRAULIC RESEARCH (BOTH EXPERIMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL)
IN GENERAL, WE.BELIEVE RES HAS BEEN RESPONSIVE TO OUR REQUESTS.
-EXTENDED SEMISCALE PROGRAM TO COMPLETE NEEDED TESTING
-FR0ZE VERSIONS OF CODES FOR PRODUCTION USE 4
(])
-I I IN T ATED MIST FOLLOW-0N PROGRAct
's -PROVIDED NEEDED INFORMATION ON PTS l
-PROVIDED NEEDED INFORMATION ON FEED AND BLEED
-MADE REVISIONS TO CODES AS REQUESTED 2
-MODIFIED 2D/3D PROGRAM TO GET UPI DATA I
c., .-...,c- - . . . . . . -
. , . - , _ _ - . . + - . . - _ _ - _ . . _ , - - - - . _ - - _ - . - . .
O . MOST RECENT USER NEED LETTER MEMO, DENTON TO MIN 0GUE, " POTENTIAL NEED FOR ADDITIONAL i EXPERIMENTAL DATA", DATED AUGUST 12, 1985 ARE CODES GOOD EN0 UGH TO BELIEVE ANALYSES OF DAVIS-BESSE EVENT? REQUEST DAVIS-BESSE EVENT BE SIMULATED IN EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY ($)
- ARE CODES GOOD EN0 UGH TO BELIEVE ANALYSES i 0F INSTRUMENT TUBE FAILURES?
4 f',
,..r_ , - - , ,,-___,y-*,,.m.,, , - -----,.-,v._ . - - - --. . - , ,-,.,.e-
O ' SOME SPECIFIC COMMENTS CONTINUING EXPERIMENTAL CAPABILITY NRR INPUT PROVIDED IN SEPT 12, 1984 MEMO FROM DENTON TO DIRCKS ("NRR THERMAL / HYDRAULIC RESEARCH NEEDS")
-POSITION IS THE SAME
- NRR ENDORSES CONTINUED EXPERIMENTAL CAPABILITY
- NO SPECIFIC ANALYTICAL DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED BY NRR WHICH WARRANT NEED FOR SPECIFIC TESTS
- NRR PRIMARILY RELIES ON RES TO PROVIDE VERIFIED CODES.
..ICAP
- PROGRAM MAY BE MORE EXTENSIVE THAN NECESSARY FOR PROVIDING VERIFIED CODES
- PROGRAM KEEPS U.S. IN FOREFRONT OF INTERNATIONAL T/H CODE EFFORTS
- PROGRAM IS PART OF EFFORT WHICH MAINTAINS A CADRE OF EXPERIMENTAL CODE USERS AT LABS. THIS CADRE OF EXPERTS O IS NECESSARY FOR STAFF TO HAVE RAPID RESPONSE CAPABILITY.
O . NUCLEAR PLANT ANALYZER
- NRR IS TAKING A " WAIT AND SEE" ATTITUDE ON THIS PROGRAM.
- IN PAST 4 YEARS, NO USEFUL PRODUCT PRODUCED.
- NRR WILL USE IT PROVIDED A PROGRAM TO OBTAIN AND INPUT PLANT DATA IS ESTABLISHED. WE UNDERSTAND RES HAS SUCH A PROGRAM.
O 3 l i r r. O e l
.j
=
. O ' FUTURE INTERACTIONS WITH ECCS SUBCOMMITTEE
- NRR PLANS TO REORGANIZE ON NOVEMBER 25, 1985 f -
- EACH VENDOR DIVISION WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR:
i
- REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CODES, MODELS, ETC,,
l 4 ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR VENDOR'S PLANTS E
- IDENTIFYING ANY RESEARCH NEEDS RELATED T0 j
ECCS PERFORMANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR il Q VENDOR'S PLANTS
- DSR0 WILL HAVE AN OVERSIGHT FUNCTION FOR ECCS ' DSR0 WILL MAINTAIN LEAD FOR CERTAIN GENERIC ASPECTS OF ECCS l ')
V
- NPDB DEVELOPMENT 4
I
- NPA DEVELOPMENT U
- ECCS RULE C0 ORDINATION
- RESEARCH COORDINATION
- DSR0 IS DEVELOPING PROCEDURES TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY IN REGULATORY APPLICATIONS. THESE PROCEDURES WILL BE l O APPLICABLE TO ECCS RELATED ACTIVITIES.
PROCEDURES
- ALL TECHNICAL REVIEWERS AND PROJECT MANAGERS BE INSTRUCTED IN NEED FOR CONSISTENCY
! - REVIEWERS INTERACT WITH THEIR COUNTERPARTS IN OTHER DIVISIONS
- INTERDIVISIONAL CONCURRENCES ON SERs NOT RECOMMENDED
- BC'S AND AD'S IN VENDOR DIVISION OVERSEE AND ENSURE REGULAR INTERACTION WITH OTHER DIVISIONS.
O - ReGutAa MEETINGS AT BC tevet
- DSR0 WILL PERIODICALLY AUDIT PROCESS ( ARE REVIEWERS -
COORDINATING ACTIONS WITH OTHER DIVISIONS?) D
- DSR0 WILL SET UP TECHNICAL COMMITTEES IN VARIOUS TECHNICAL DISCIPLINES. MEET 2-3 TIMES A YEAR, DISCUSS ITEMS OF GENERIC, MUTUAL INTEREST. FLUSH OUT ISSUES.
- DSR0 ACTS AS MEDIATOR IN CASES OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OR AMONG DIVISIONS.
O - DSR0 WILL PROVIDE RES COORDINATION FUNCTION FOR NRR l l
9 k . k. STATllS OF 2D/3D PROGRAM GENE S. RilEE U.S. NilCl, EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ACRS ECCS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETitJG WASillNGTON, D. C. NOVEMBER 22, 1985 e 1 i
'ms e e -
e
V k 4
~
4 PRESENTATION OUTLINE
- 1. STATUS
- 2. 2D/3D U.S. WORKSCOPE
- 3. KEY RESULTS -
A. DATA ANALYSIS . B. TRAC MODEL DEFICIENCIES 11 . AREAS REQUIRING ATTENTION A. UPTF TEST SCllEDULE DELAY B. UPTF/SCTF COUPLING
. e .
- u .
- 1. STATUS A. 2D/3D AGREEMENT EXTENDED TilR00Gli SEPTEMBER 30, 1988.
B. JAERI CYLINDRICAL CORE TEST FACILITY (CCTF) CORE-II TEST SERIES COMPLETED IN MARCH 1985. C. JAERI SLAB CORE TEST FACILITY (SCTF) CORE-II TEST SERIES COMPLETED IN JULY 1985. D. JAERI SCTF CORE-III MODIFICATION NEARLY COMPLETED. ALL U.S. INSTRUMENTS INSTALLED AND CllECKED OUT. MAIN TESTS TO START IN FEBRUARY 1986. E. GERMAN UPPER PLENUM TEST FACILITY (UPTF) UNDER COMMISSIONING TESTS; COMMISSIONING TEST COMPLETION DELAYED BY 8 MONTHS BECAUSE OF EXTENSIVE MODIFICATIONS NEEDED TO AVOID A P0TENTIAL WATER llAMMER PROBLEM. MAIN TESTS TO START IN MAY 1986. e
, e . e
2D/3D U.S. WORKSCOPE
~
?
FISCAL YEAR: 1986 1987 1988 1989 A. INSTRUMENTATION ON-SITE SUPPORT FOR UiluSilAL PROBLEMS I l . B. TRAC ANALYSES (N0 0F ANALYSES) TOTAL CCTF 2 0 0 0 2 SCTF 7 3 1 0 11 11PTF 2 8 8 2 20 i PilR 2 2 1 , 0 5 TOTAL 12 13 11 2 38 C. DATA ANALYSES AND RILS CCTF-I y UPI ~ A SCTF-I __ a CC.TF-Il . SCTF-Il _ _ _ _ ! SCTF-III a llPTF _ _ . . D. TRAC MODEL IMPROVEMENTS TIE PLATE CCFL n STFAli/ WATER SEPARATOR
/A 11ULTI-SOURCE CONNECTION CAPABILITY a
e O * .
b i
~
t
- 2. KEY RESULTS A. DATA ANALYSIS CCTF CORE-I TEST SERIES DATA ANALYSIS NEARLY COMPLETED. MPR ANALYSIS SilMMARY REPORT BEING DISTRIBilTED. LANL ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
REPORT BEING PREPARED. Rll TO BE ISSUED WilEN ANALYSIS IS COMPLETED IN FEBRUARY 1986, llIGilLIGitTS: SIGNIFICANT LIQUID FRACTION (ADOUT 10 PERCENT) ESTABLISilED TilROUGil00T Tile CORE Sil0RTLY AFTER (ABOUT 20 SEC.) HATER ENTERS Tile CORE INLET. CLAD TEMPERATURES TURNAR0llND VERY ~ QUICKLY BECAUSE OF Tills LIQUID (t10ST LIKELY IN Tile FORM 0F SLUGS BASED ON ilARWELL'S VISllAL STilDY OF SINGLE TUBE OllENCllING EXPERIMENT).
e e o
?. KEY RESULTS (CONTINllE)
A. DATA ANALYSIS (CONTINUED) 1/21 VOL, SCALE CORE BEHAVES ONE DIMENSIONALLY. LOCAL POWER DENSITY DIFFERENCES IN RADIAL AND AZIMilTilAL DIRECTIONS MITIGATED EFFECTIVELY TilROUGil INTERACTION OF NEIGilB0 RING BUNDLES TO PRODUCE A UNIFORM OUENCll MOVEMENT ALONG Tile AXIAL DIRECTION. UPPERMOST CORE REGION (TOP 10 PERCEllT) OllENCilES FASTER TilAN Tile MIDDLE REGION BECAUSE OF DEENTRAINED LIQUID AT Tile CORE / UPPER PLENUM INTERFACE. O e g 9 9
k
)
?. KEY RESULTS (C0?lTINUED)
_ A. DATA ANALYSIS (CONTINUED) 1
)
IIIGH BROKEN LOOP PRESSURE DROP IMPROVES FLOODING RATE. EtlTIRE CORE QUENCllES WHEN COLLAPSED LIQUID LEVEL IN CORE l REACllES ABOUT MID-PLANE OF Tile CORE, l TRAC AllALYSES COMPLETED FOR 9 TESTS, j DATA USED FOR DOClJMENTING TECilNICAL BASIS FOR CilANGING APPENDIX K RULES. g 9 8
9
*w W
d
- 2. KEY RESULTS (CONTINllED)
A. DATA ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
. SCTF CORE-I TEST SERIES RESULTS 60 PERCENT C0 PLANAR FLOW BLOCKAGE IN 2 OllT OF 8 BUNDLES IIAS N0 SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON CORE COOLING.
RADI AL POWER VARI ATIONS EFFECTIVELY MITIGATED TilR0llGH LATERAL INTERCHANGE AS INDICATED BY DRAG BODY AND DIFFERENTIAL PRESSllRE NEASUREMENTS IN ll0RIZONTAl. DIRECTIONS.
. t
V
- 2. KEY RESULTS (CONTINUED)
A. DATA ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
. CCTF CORE-II TEST SERIES RESULTS UPPER PLENUM INJECTION (UPI) TESTS SHOW TilAT CORE COOLING AND QUENCilING ARE NEARLY AS EFFECTIVE AS IN COLD-LEG INJECTION (CLI) TESTS EVEN Til00GH llYDR0 DYNAMICS ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT:
MAJOR DIFFERENCES OF UPI: NET Fl.0W IN CORE DOWNWARD. CORE CROSSSECTIONAL AREA DIVIDED INTO 2 REGIONS (DOWilFLOW AND llPFLOW), AB0llT 50-50 SPLIT. TOP OUENCllING fl0RE S11BSTAflTI AL IN DOWilFLOW REGION: TOP 1/2 IN UPI VERSilS TOP 1/10 IN CLI. g O . .
- 2. KEY RESULTS (CONTINilED)
A. DATA ANALYSIS (CONTINUED) BEST ESTIMATE TESTS S110W A WIDE MARGIN OF PCT (380*C VERSiJS 1204*C IN APPENDIX K). Il0 WEVER, AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF ECC 3 3 (70 M /IIR. VERSUS 40 M /ilR NORNAI. CASE) TRIGGERS WIDE . OSCILLATIONS IN CORE AND UPPER PLENilM LIQUID INVEllTORIES Af>D IN CORE, UPPER PLENilM AND LOOP FLOWS. OSCILLATIONS 3 DISAPPEARED WilEN ECC RED!lCED TO 35 M /llR. TilESE WERE SLOW OSCILLATIONS WITil A PERIOD OF S0-100 SEC CA11 SED BY STEAM BINDING EFFECT. e e .
'9
- 2. KEY RESULTS (CONTINilED)
B. TRAC CALCULATIONS OF 2D/3D TESTS REVEALED THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCIES IN TRAC MODELING.
.. ENTRAINMENT AND DEENTRAINMENT OF LIQUID !N CORE, UPPER PLENUM, AND IN It0T LEG.
.. VOID FRACTION DISTRIDUTION IN CORE.
CONDENSATION MODELING CAUSING EXCESSIVE NUMERICAL OSCILLATIONS. COUNTERCURRENT FLOW LIMIT PilEN0MENA AT CORE / UPPER PLENUM INTERFACE.
.. STEAM / WATER SEPARATION N0DELING.
G G G
- 3. AREAS REQUIRING ATTENTION A. UPTF TEST SCHEDULE DELAY CAllSING COST INCREASE IN LATER YEARS.
B. UPTF/SCTF COUPLING MASS FLOWS AT CORE / UPPER PLENUM INTERFACE. METil0D OF COMPARING TRAC CALCULATION RESllLTS WITH EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS. FRG WORKING ON HOW TO DEVELOP REPRESENTATIVE VALUES OF EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS IN EACH COMPilTATIONAL CELL TO COMPARE WITil TRAC RESULTS. II.S. AND JAPAN TO REVIEW FRG METil0D AND DETERMINE Tile BEST METil0D JOINTLY WITil FRG. 6 g 9 .
'O .
. - . . - - - . . _ - . . .-=. = - - _ -
._ . ./ -,
1 O v p 4 Steam Pressure generator rerulallon va ve Pressure vessel Exhaust line ECC i port >
,_ 11 il li _j v I '
q i ['
~
( f Pump
, h simulator W
Containment c
!ank-2 j
If j U ' V Containment lank-1 A V Fig. 2.1 Brid's-eye view of CCTF e G . #
.. _ _ - -- .. -- - = - = - = - - : .:- : ~ :
-ar"--~~<
JAERI mems 59-416 i s . . l
- g. ,
U g g 8 ;' e w
& % 2 s i 8
\= --
.E W
i -
$ - 8*
\
/ W m m
\
R2" E l# G ! u o I
- E
- 5 2E m .ca O s T s l m ce 5 m o* N
- a f "t"3
- -2} ' l j ,
O o OO c. O y I " e .cna l l- %w u a i a
~
l ef s k
- g .s t i 30 SE-e a c. if i
1 i - 8g g i
=
. hE ae D f e
.5 0 g
8, , - $" m o ,E I l s g
- O u 2
o E. Z #* k
~~ .
O ?
" O O O OO O O s O O O OO O O OO O O O OT
_ ~ o m-8 O r.- O o CO m- O cn O
~
O o m O fa i r
. ()() a2nloJadura} po19 .
.o.,
.=
s: . a gi t 3 .9-
,2 1 c ;
- o. (
qua d. ea2 o o
.e wu a 4
o= .5. m
.- . - g.
.s o. e c c u -.
1 u. , 1 ~ o o a- E.' o 3 a
=
o
=a E
f.o to O U i. e
~
f g o =o , 3g OoO6 wnwa 2 .0i o s b
. i .
a .s ao e.
=n
@ ~
u u G' Q ut V
'k \
> 7 ~ x e= i s, 4 z
=
O s' 4's\\ s s s' 3-o- 53
- g. ~
a-a, ~ t- N . ' % 'xw' - b -o a. m
= s h cm = 3.
0
. .d
\_
- 0 4 g5 o .
i 4 i ! ..J
$ o o -
o
=
5 o- \ =% - i J v Ec o s5 oo -
~
c3 o* C E* o - = .e b - g ei -a ;- e Ce
-a o
3 u. J K Oe
- 3-4 o e b
Tabte 2.4 Comparison of test conditions of C2-12, C2-4 and C2-6 C2-12 (Run 71) C2-4 (Run 62) C2-6 (Run 64) Test Type Best estimate Base case Low and flat power Initial Power 7.12 MWt 9.37 Mwt 7.12 Mwt Power Decay ANS X l .0 ANS X 1.2 ANS X l.0
+ Actinides 4 Actinides + Actinides Radial Power Distribution s
1.0/1.0/l.0 1.37/1.19/0.76 1.0/1.0/1.0 g (flat) (flat) , Containment Pressure 0.3 Mpa 0.2 Mpa 0.2 Mpa ! ECC Water injection Rates i a to C.L .. ACC 324 m3 /hr 324 m3/hr 324 m3/hr
- LPCI 70 m3/hr 40 m3/hr 40 m3 /hr (reduced at-160sec) after B0CREC ,
PCT at B0CREC 580K 1060K ll83K e :
',, .g g , ,',, y ' '~1$"C ' ' I ~ I'i-I '" b ETN '~ b 'C '
" ' ~ /'
s JAERI-memo 59 - 326 ' O--OPCORER(711 X--OPUPR 1711 A--OPLOOP! (711 +--OPLOOP4 (71) Intact Broken 00s0 , , ,, , , , , bE rc-*r
} : ,
~
0 045 e - i i L - E . r 0.030 ^ ' 2 un us
/ .
)
y -
- i ~
- t a; - ;
o 0.015 % _.
\) J . b 0 ' ' ' ' ' '
O 50 100 ISO 200 250 , TIME (S) ' Fig. 3.5 Differential pressures of core, loops and upper plenu:s (C2-12 / Run 71) gf ' O-- OPCOREA ( 621 X--OPUPR (62) A-- OPLOOP1 (62) +--OPLOOP4 (62) ! Intact 0 050 '
.:,g L /',,;
~
0 046 . .
.hb - b[ ~
l e'"* - Q. - E -
~
tu ~ m 0.030 ' 3 M
=
m E n.
~
w~ -
+ ,
0.015 _fggwe-acm= ' eve 01'" ' ' ' ' " ' ' ' ' ' " 0 10*8 200 300 400 500 TIME (S) Fig. 3.6 Differential pressures of core, loops and upper plenu: 2 - (C2-6 / Run 62 - 3ase case) l l
r 1
- i
-1 4
CCF RUN71 h o.ow CORC UPPER HALT DELTA-P, THETA 2 . W aon- - I j
. camu a0,0
. nosu t ;
e000- )hTA- q.i; y
'l 1)
- f
a000-l y: .i
! i h.h4 4
.t E s00 . .d', l f.
;, i '.
L,] .d 7 : Deyout
- < .! ./ /.a
!i! '!: t lI s 002 ; :- } l ? '. .
l '..Y . 1,- N ) gD00 .:_
\ % .-- .
-0.002 0 3 50 75 10 0 13 00 14 200 nm.(s) LOS ALAMOS .
l cCw RuN7, conc towtn HAtr CD.TA-#, NETA 2 e' \ 0.0200 f 3
" Sos & .- ,
Onas-g, ,.~ 1
. camt 4/:*
- m. p '
s ROS. a0m. .- \ - 6
- i k.
&. l}
- l : :'.:i 4,, 0.0100 - :;
\ J :$ ' -
\
. i, :
!' i:!
(wros -. g
}. a00n- -< -
l j i t i o i 0.00$0- i -
.002. .
} -
a0000 l l .
-&002s 0 :S SO 75 10 0 's to 14 200 ras) LOS ALAMOS g
l t 6
*1 t.
. :)
l i.n v1 1
, C o '
2 3 4 < S S e t 5 a
< 3 I $ $ 3 a E E E E E z z a a n <
r e W e w g W W E = E g C O a a E 8 Y.) A ,
'9 < >
ij) 8 - i, 'e 8
.e i-s.
/ .'s '.
we s s ? .9 .a :
-g m f f
'/
'z =,
gyo 'F e f.* i% 7 a" g 3D A .J e 2
<l- s. <
n* 8 o -
\. . I ko k.
u M' . i.- g .
. t I
- u~
a g ,o y i.:
.E "t l1
. J t.l E n fi s .,'s..,
!.' a i.
.-, ..N,. . .
4 ;, x . s . l .
..~ . ,.
- m. =
.r_
N s
.'m-a[,':
- . j,:g,
'~, ,
I I I ! ! ! ! ! I I I I I 5 5 1 (>-eaa) sunivumn ocu (>-em) aruvuwn oom N 8l 2 O 2 W 5 < l .3A .g* * ,3 g K l < d m e e g g
.a
= E E = =
#4 .E .E .E .E g . . . . .
g a.
- a 5 k I
~
' t. ' s - !
j G h WNNj! 73 x A
% 8 .
4 a c$ a t y.. 3 d Hd { a 5).1 3 u ji T x o s _
~<
e l r' / 4 cj
.~ s{ !! .%I, u 9 <*-
*h, s;; _). l g _ ..- t.
4 9* ,."
- I s .
s, - 4 f .: 4 n k'[ , , I I I I I 3 I 1 ! I 1. I 3 5 5 ! c -ez - zu (>-ex) suuvuwn eev $ . e
i JAERI memo 59 - 326
/~l , ' P h vsj . s
.' 7 TZ [ "~~
ps s~~ e
.'w-s#'
d.'
-"Cf
~
i t *., f RUN NO.071 0 797 TE29713 to.380M i a 795 TE29715 ft.015M i JAN. 26.1984 + 513 YE297 7 ti.e30n i
** X 514 TE29T19 (2.440M i 6 799 TE297tR 13 050M i
[700 taJ E
- 3 !
- e C 800 E '
?
.4' tu i
k W {.'- t
/ , -
- 500 -d
W u - C 8 L i g K : --4 . ' _ - - t u3 V u O ' C E Q 100 200 300 400 500 TIME (S) ; F10. C-11 i NEATER ROD SURFACE TEMPERATURE BUNOLE 29 Y1-R00:0VERALL ' RUN NO.071 o 5:s TE29737 ft.a30M i O: i A SI6 TE29738 (2.035M . JAN. 25.1984 + S17 TE29739 (2.440M 3 i '
"" X 800 TE2973R (3.050M I t
- O 801 TE2ST3C (3 560M I
,700 W
- E ,
23 C 600 b E
- W L
Z: E00 W u C
> t- :r- :-
O O 00 b 100 200 300 400 500 TIME (S) TIG.
- C-12 HEATER R00 SURFACE TEMPERATURE
- BUNOLE 29:Y3-R00:UPPERHALF
me,u nm.m .
' /g -MUN.
Ie R REGION ^ 8 REGION + C REGION 4 ....,.,,,
'" "IYI ip ** + location of -
~
4 grid spacers ~~ l
.g 3 .-
3 N a / # - f
<el\ / - 1 <
~ ' / Run 64
- g N, / mm / / -
cys s
/(average)
*/
/
/
O2 2 4& s' '
/ -
. . seim c= =y / ,
I. ,, / / / - g .d ,/M ,
,- Base case test -
w ./ / -. Run 62 (average) - wt.f a e ,f,'
/
/ ~
. // -
/, ' ==
ti 0 <y''''''''''' ' ,,,!, ,,,- 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 QUENCH TIME (S) Fig. 3.9 Quench envelope RUN 71e R REGION
- B REGION +
4 C REGION
...g . . . . g . . . . g . . . .
G -
<r e 's '
.- s 's s
~
~ -
s ~~, 3 "- ""' ' ' 's s u e+ s s s
- . s s E g s -
~
. *M
\ ,\ -
z2 "" \ Run 62 (max)it - O I I - am. 1 I H .
/ /
CC / - e ' w - , j s s' -
- _a '
wI _ e, /, -
. e / - -
s e ,s/,,- # t t i e f f ! t t t I ! 400 600 800 t 1 e 1
. 1000 '1200 TURNAROUND TEMPERATURE IK)
Fig. 3.10 Turnaround camperature . o .
i JAERI memo 59 - 326 9
"uN NO.0,t gt;g;n;;; ;gggg:ggg;n;;;gg JAN. 26.1984 ggjgjggg; jg;sgg;g;gggn;;gge;gj; etrasmesv s.asa-a.isan.4schi t.2,
_ t.0. , 1 z 0.a n7 f ' {0.s,' cr E 0.4 A A 3 0 [\
*" : . + . M '
o.o w J\ - li m_ J._.1 \ s_%'il -
'8 2 .~
0 too zoo 3co 400 saa j TIME (Si i FIG. 0-8 VOIO FRACTION IN 00WNCOMER - IAZINUTHAL ORIENTATION 51
""" " 't iti!!"!!!
""". 2s.isa4 li:ia:!:li"::: 8 8
;g;g;ggg; ;g;;;;;;;gn;;g gglg ;i
. t.t.
_ t.C b [^ 5 q\
>- 0.s
) fk la 04 g- -
S -
\ l tu%lW 00
, y _7 s ,_ --
-0.( Loc 200 300 400 soo TIME (S)
FIG. 0-9 YOIC FRACTION IN CORE AND t.0WER Pt.ENUM (AZINUTHAL ORIENTAT[0N 51 4 h (.
O
*N
)lffb)b lN- fbbbth /h(BN.elh-N E. flu,m R L7T- $ 6 6 0/p.u 7 6 F .
(, L WERUro4T4L }MD1; ) R. NO. s0)
; g g gi;;; RuN NO. 507 OArt, MV. 22.1981 (Wilf mv. 22.1988 e
g olglljj - g' jg g'ogj 3 + sw crosos 7 g g \l0 ( I'Znsb4L A PSvgeswt7 - E, E, _Mll u, w
'. - c. 1 %W6 5
0, u $ m E' j E" ~ W k F14{U
, .2.4 1Id.llE wIddL(3 fE I
{e g ;.,, n,r i ,r - ir
'P' re r g ge . . . , _ _ , , . ._ -
g* - t b B 5
~
~
'o im 2. m .. # sm 2 ^ ~
~
^
o im 2m ~ 3m .= ' s= - ~.= Ill1E I SEC I Tit 1E ISECl flG. C-265 OlfffRENilAL PHESSuRf ACROS$ [NO 80x IIE PL AIC flG. :-267 18uNOLE I .2.3.4 8 Olff fRfNIl AL PRESSURE .110Rl20NI AL .8UNDLE 5-8 '8 04-BELO.e SPACER 4. 05-OfLOH SPAC[R 6. 06-8 FLOW [ND 80x1 N e B RuN NO. 302 g g g g;; RuN . s0, B o OAff m v. 22.1988
+ gglgjejj DRif mv. N.1981 g gjg gjgg2, g 3 + 833 0106082 4 e
E E t e
- 2
- 6. # - ,
ua a S
?c' YJ lE' ,(
a w=- y
~ ,
%p . .u$ .
$,,a,_ , y,
,3,,
e %.m.. Nh, ,
- f S i O
Q
,g ,- 2m
^
m
^
em N ~ ' ~~ E ' ^
^
m
~
~
O
~
m
^
M em W m ilt1E I SEC 1 Tit 1E ISEC1 flG. C-266 OlffERfN11RL PRESSURE ACROSS (NO 004 IIC PL AIE B00NOLE 6.6.7.81 flG. C-268 OlfffRENilAL PRESSLRE. HORil0NIAL.8UNDLE l-8104-ofLOW SPACER 4. 05-OfLOH SPacg8 6. 06-8f10H ENO 80 4 ,,,, y b
, g $
r -. o .
. ~ [ff ,1 Il..' - .Obl!! J :. t ' u .) JiJ (r - . .. .,
l if79hL)A [3 tovD Lk5 SCTF RUN 507 (10/28/ 81) - LIQUID MASS FLOW ' 4 4 4 4 e e e 4 s _ e LIQUID WASS FLOW TIME KFERENCE VECTOR a 180.00 s l \ N '- 5.d0 kg/s 't R = 1 TO 8 / { - e Z = 4 TO 7 '
\ i
\\ssxx-TH = 1 LOS ALAMOS e . _ .
0
.q STATtlS OF ROSA-IV PROGRAM YI-SiluNS CilEN U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ACRS ECCS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING WASilINGTON, D. C.
NOVEMBER 22, 1985 e e
6 ( OllTI.INE l STATUS OF Tile TESTING PROGRAM IN THE LARGE-SCALE TEST FACILITY (LSTF).
. LSTF TEST MATRIX IN FY 1986 STATUS OF ANALYSIS WORK AT LANL AND INEL.
STATUS OF Tile TESTING PROGRAM IN Tile TWO-PilASE FLOW TEST FACILITY (TPTF). STATUS OF USNRC LOAN INSTRUMENTS.
. FY 1987 WORKSCOPE.
e '"
,,.,,4 9 --w M9 -
STATUS OF THE TESTING PROGPAM IN LSTF
. SINCE THE COMMISS10illNG 0F TliE FACILITY IN MAY 1985, FIVE (5) TESTS HA'VE BEEN COMPLETED IN LSTF.
ONE OF Tile TESTS IS SIMILAR TO Tile SEMISCALE S-UT-8 TEST WHICll IS A 5 PERCENT COLD-l.EG BREAK LOCA TEST WITH 1.8 PERCENT BYPASS FLOW FROM UPPER llEAT TO UPPER DOWNCOMER.
. Tile KEY RESULTS OF Tills TEST ARE:
LIQUID LEVEL IN CORE WAS DEPRESSED DUE TO LIOl1ID fl0LDUP IN THE STEAM GENERATOR IJ-TUBES.
.. CORE IIEATUP DUE T0. CORE LEVEL DEPRESSION WAS OBSERVED.
.. Wil0LE CORE WAS QUENCllED JUST AFTER LOOP SEAL. CLEARING IN B0Til LOOPS.
THE SBLOCA TEST RESULTS WERE PRESENTED AT Tile 13Til WATER REACTOR SAFETY RESEARCll INFORMATION MEETING ON OCTOBER 21-25, 1985. g O -
STATUS OF TifE TESTING PROGRAM IN LSTF (CONTINUED)
. FOR CODE ASSESSMENT EFFORT, ABOUT 6 TO 8 DATA TAPES PER YEAR WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO Tile USNRC (I.E., LANL ANJ EG8G).
. Tile REMAINING TESTS IN FY 1985 ARE:
ST-HC-01 Hatural circulation cooling Core power 4.28 HW, SC pressure 7.63 Hra, 11/a/85 SC temperature 564.9 K. Primary system mass inventory changed stepwise. ST-HC-02 Natural circulation cooling Core power 0.71 HW, SC pressure 7.63 HPa. SC temperature 564.9 K. Primary system 11/*/85 mass inventory changed stepulse ST-SG-01 liest transfer an SC Core power 4.28 HW. SC water level changed stepwise. 12/*/85 ST-SC-02 lleat transfer In SC Core power 0.71 HW. SC water level changed stepwise. 12/*/85 SB-CL-06 Semiscale S-UT-8 related test 5% cold leg side-break (Semiscale counterpart test) 2/*/86 0.3% DC-Ull, 0.6% DC-IIL bypass flow } SB-CL-07 Semiscale S-UT-8 related test 5% cold leg side-b'reak. 0.3% DC-Ull, 0.2% DC-IIL bypass flow. 3/*/86 Internal vent valves open. ,
STATUS OF LSTF TEST NATRIX IN FY 1986 l l
!. JAERI HAS PROPOSED Tile FOLLOWING TEST MATRIX.
)
i Identification Objective Description Date SB-COL-01 Break location effect 5% crossover leg side-break l 4/*/86 ' TR-LF-01 Operational transient Complete loss of feedwater. 5/*/86 Recovery with PORV latched open and IIPI. TR-LL-01 Operational transient Loss of load. 6/*/86 Progressing to hot standby conditon SB-SC-01 Break location effect SC/U-tube rupture after main steam 6/*/86 line break S8-PV-01 Break location effect PV lower plenum break 7/*/86
.. . l . . . 1
-_- _ _ _ . I_.....__ 'l I
. 4 0 -
l
STATUS OF LSTF TEST MATRIX IN FY 1986 (CONTINUED) Identification Objective Description Date S B-u.-09 Break area effect 10% cold leg side-break 9/*/86 0.3% DC-Ull, 0.2% DC-ILL bypass flow SB-CL-10 Break area effect 2.5% cold leg side-break 10/*/86 0.3% DC-UII, 0.2% DC-IIL bypass flow SB-CL-11 Break area effect 0.1% cold le8 side-break !!/*/86 0.3% DC-Ull, 0.2% DC-IIL bypass flow SS-IIL-02 Break location / area effect 5% hot leg side-break 12/*/86 S B-IIL-01 Break location / area effect 10% hot leg side-break 1/*/87 SB-IIL-03 Break location / area effect 2.5% lot leg side-break 2/*/87 l SB-IIL-04 Break location / area effect 0.1% hot leg side-break 3/*/87 II. llSHRC IS REVIEWING AND PREPARING COMMENTS ON JAERI'S PROPOSED TEST MATRIX,
... 4 e ..
N .
O STATilS OF ANALYSIS WORK AT l.ANL AND INEL
, STATUS
.. GE0 METRY INPUT OF TRAC LSTF MODEL COMPLETE.
.. STEADY-STATE RUN TO 1000 SECONDS.
.. NEED MORE STEADY-STATE DATA T0 VALIDATE Tile RESULTS.
. FY 1986 WORKSCOPE COMPLETE POST-TEST ANALYSIS OF 8 TO 10 LSTF TESTS. .
CREATE TRAC OR RELAP5 REFERENCE PWR INPUT DECK TO SUPPORT THE LSTF EXPERINENTAL PROGRAM. PERFORM DATA ANALYSIS FOR Tile ROSA-IV TPTF SEPARATE EFFECTS TESTS. PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON TEST MATRIX TO ENSilRE TilAT CURRENT SAFETY AND LICENSING ISSllES ARE ADDRESSED.
. s---- -_ .
9
=
N.L.
STATUS OF USNRC LOAN INSTRllMENTS
. STATUS
.. ALL INSTRllMENTS FUNCTIONAL OR llAVE flECESSARY REPAIR / SPARE PARTS AVAILABl.E.
.. TRAINING AT JAERI AND INEL COMPLETE.
.. FINAL DOCUMENTATION ON Tile U.S.-SUPPLIED INSTRUMENTS WILL S00N P.E DELIVERED.
.. AFTER 8 TESTS (3 SilAKEDOWN TEST, 5 F0PMAL TESTS), INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE IS EXCELLENT.
g e .
. 4 ..
.= _ .
STATUS OF USNRC LOAN INSTRUMENTS (CONTINUED)
. FY 1986 WORKSCOPE CONTINUE TO PROVIDE ONE RESIDENT ENGINEER TO JAERI FCR TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND FIELD SUPPORT.
.. PROVIDE SPARE PARTS AtlD REFURBISilMENT OF Tile INSTRUMENTS, AS -
NEEDED. PROVIDE INSTRUMENT TRAINING SERVICE TO Tile JAERI ENGINEERS.
++ *
- . . i . .. - -
STATUS OF THE TESTING PROGRAM IN TPTF n.
. TPTF DATA RECEIVED:
.. TO DATE, TilREE PACKAGES OF DATA IIAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND TRANSFERRED TO LANL AND INEL FOR CODE ASSESSMENT.
- 1. PRE AND POST-CllF DRYOUT llEAT TRANSFER EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED AT 3.0 MPA.
- 2. PRE AND POST-CllF DRYOUT llEAT TRANSFER EXPERIMENTS CONDilCTED AT 12.0 MPA. .
- 3. STRATIFIED FLOW DATA OBTAltlED IN 8 INCH TEST SECTI0tl.
JAERI IIAS PROMISFD TO RELEASE PORTIONS OF Tile SLUG TO ANNllLAR FLOW TRANSITION DATA TO Tile USNRC BY Tile FilD OF DECEMBER.
. ON-G0ING TESTS
.. REFLOOD TESTS AND STRATIFIED FLOW TESTS (USIflG A 4 INCil TEST SECTION IN Tile Il0RIZONTAL LEG) ARE BEING CONDlJCTED.
4 g **
S I WORKSCOPE OF Tile ROSA-IV PROGRAM IN FY 1987 CONTINUE TO PERFORM TiiE DATA ANALYSIS. CONTINUE TO PROVIDE TECilNICAL AND FIELD SUPPORT TO Tile LSTF TESTING PROGRAM INCLUDl;lG RECOMMENDATIONS ON TEST MATRIX AND TEST PROCEDURES.
. PERFORM Tile TPTF DATA AllALYSIS, AS NEEDED.
PROVIDE RESOLUTION ON SAFETY AND LICENSING ISSUES FOR CERTAlti TYPE OF SBLOCAS. CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SPARE PARTS AND REFURBISilMENT OF Tile U.S.-SUPPLIED IllSTRUMENTS TO JAERI. PROVIDE INSTRUMENT TRAINIflG SERVICE TO Tile JAERI ENGillEERS.
.. 6 * '
.}}