NSD-NRC-98-5600, Forwards Three Copies of non-proprietary W Class 3 Responses to NRC RAI Pertaining to AP600 Scaling & PIRT Closure Topic. NRC Should Review Responses & Inform W of Status to Be Designated in NRC Status Column of Oits
| ML20216B589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200003 |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1998 |
| From: | Mcintyre B WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | Quay T NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NSD-NRC-98-5600, NUDOCS 9803130124 | |
| Download: ML20216B589 (30) | |
Text
______
(m
\\
1
~
i Westinghouse Electric Company, Energy Systems Box 355 a division of CBS Corporation Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 152304355 DCP/NRC1281 NSD-NRC-98-5600 March 5,1998 Document Control Desk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I(~ ch - N Washington, D. C.
10555 ATTENTION:
MR. T. R. QUAY
SUBJECT:
AP600 RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Dear Mr. Quay:
Enclosed are three copies of the non-proprietary Westinghouse Class 3 responses to NRC requests for additionalinformation pertaining to the AP600 scaling and PIRT closure topic.
Specifically, responses are provided for RAls 440.576, Rev.1 and 440.580, Rev. O.
These responses close, from the Westinghouse perspective, the RAls, and the Westinghouse status column will be changed to " Action N." The NRC should review these responses and inform Westinghouse of the status to be designated in the "NRC Status" column of the OITS.
Please contact Gene Piplica on 412-374-5310 if you have any questions concerning this transmittal.
6./. #'
B. A. McIntyre, Manager Advanced Plant Safety and Licensing j
Enclosure f
cc:
W. C. Huffman, NRC (Enclosure 1)
N. J. Liparulo, Westinghouse (w/o Enclosure) 9803!'30124 900305
{DR
/OOCK 05200003 h!ElRRtllippy
s l' to Westinghouse Letter NSD-NRC-98-5600 March 5,1998
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 3..
~
Question 440.576 Revision 1 Re: OSU TAR (OITS 3401)
Please provide a discussion, supported by quantitative analysis, demonstrating that the uncertainty in OSU data is bounded by instrumentation uncertainties / errors, as appears to be implied by the l
instrument error analysis in the FDR; or, if this is not the case, to establish the bounds of those uncertainties. This can be looked upon as determining the " error bars" that would be placed on the quantities plotted in the FDR and TAR.
The discussion should focus particularly on derived quantities; i.e., those using the output of several instruments (e.g., adjusting level readings using density corrections derived from temperature data at discrete locations), or those in v,hich assumptions or models must be used (e.g., " filtering" or
" smoothing" of instrument readings, use of fluid temperatures to represent wall temperatures, assumption of adiabatic conditions at certain wall boundaries, use of empirical models to derive some two-phase flow parameters) to infer elements of system response. The effects of component failures and/or system interactions should also be considered, such as the impact of the failed RHR valve on flow through the nominally intact line during DVI break tests.
Revised Response:
1.
Introduction The OSU Test Analysis Report (TAR) (Reference 440.576-1) focuses on two derived quantities as a measure of the test facility instmmentation and data acquisition system's ability to pro,ide data of sufficient accuracy: overall system fluid mass and an overall system energy balance. Each test is examined in the TAR by using the data as measured by the test instrumentation and recorded by the data acquisition system to determine the fluid mass inventory r,d system-wide energy balance.
These derived quantities provide a good measure of the overall performance of the test facility instrumentation since they are computed using a majority of the nstmmentation in the test facility.
The OSU TAR used nominal data values to determine the system fhid mass inventory and overall energy balance. An uncertainty analysis focused on these derived qeantities has been performed to demonstrate that the OSU data is bounded by the instmmentation uncertainties and by the assumptions of the analysis methods used in the TAR. The maxinium and minimum uncertainties in 440.576-1 N*V* I T Westinghouse
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION y:
l l
l the fluid mass inventories and energy balance have been determinez! using OSU matrix test SB18, a 2-inch break at the bottom of the cold leg. The results of this analysis is presented in response to this RAI and demonstrates that the OSU data is bounded by the known instrumentation uncenainties and the uncertainties in the assumptions used in the TAR methodology.
2.
Uncenainty Analysis Approach The following approach is used to determine the maximum and minimum uncenainties in the derived fluid mass and energy balances for Test SB18:
- 1. Instrumentation uncertainties were determined based on the post-test instrumentation calibrations performed at OSU at the conclusion of the Westinghouse AP600 test program.
- 2. The post-test instrumentation uncertainties were used to estimate the uncertainties in individual test component fluid mass and energy inventories.
- 3. Uncenainties due to assumptions used in the methodology were determined and applied to the appropriate components of the fluid mass and energy balance.
- 4. Maximum and minimum errors were estimated for the mass and energy balance by summing the individual components in the system.
The acceptability of the uncertainty analysis results is shown by:
1 Demonstrating that the initial system fluid mass inventory is within the calculated uncertainty bounds over the test period of performance.
- 2. Demonstrating the overall system energy balance is approximately zero within the calculated uncenainty bounds over the test period of performance.
)
3.
Instrume.. ='en Uncesinties The OSU Final Data Repon (FDR) (Reference 440.576-2) documents the OSU test program results for test SB 18 in Section 5.1.2. The nominal data used in this analysis and in the OSU TAR are illustrated in Reference 440.576-1, Figures 5.1.2-3 through 5.1.2-80. The individual instrument uncertainties using pre-test instrumentation calibrations are presented in Appendix A of the FDR.
For purposes of this analysis, the post-test instrumentation calibrations were used and are presented in Appendix A. Table 440.576-Al through A9 of this RAI response.
4.
Instrumentation Uncertainties e-2 W Westinghouse Rev.1
("'
l 0
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION l
l The OSU TAR provides a detailed analysis of the OSU fluid mass and energy inventories using the nominal values of the test data as shown in Reference 440.576-2, Figures 5.2.3-2 through 5.2.3-74.
Incorporating the effect of the instrument uncertainties on the nominal test data provides an estimate of the confidence interval of theTAR results The OSU system is assumed to be a closed system and therefore the sum of the fluid masses in each test component at the beginning of the test should be equal to the sum of the fluid masses in each test component at the end c: "e test, within the uncertainty bound of the test measurements and the analytical techniques. Likewise, the change in system energy should be equal to the net sum of the energy injected into the system minus the energy leaving the system.
The net change in the fluid mass and system energy calculated during the tests should be zero.
Uncertainties in the muasured and estimated variables used to calculate these quantities can accumulate and result in a deviation from zero. This deviation m8v be a result of the instrument uncertainties and needs to be considered in the analysis test re.-
- i. This was accomplished by incorporating the instrument uncertainties into the analysis equauons used in the TAR. The effect of the uncertainties on the TAR results were estimated by taking the total derivative of the governing equations (e.g. y=f(x.z)) with respect to each variable or estimated quantity and combining the individual elements in the square root of the sum of the squares calculation.
'By S'
Ay =.
-Ax Az i 3x
+
az
(
s s
To simplify the calculations the uncertainty is expressed in terms of a fraction by dividing the total derivative by the function or:
Ay I' By Ax ' *
'By az
y (SX y/ +dzyj A
Estimates of the uneenaintic e cach of the variables (Ax, Az, etc.) are used to estimate the overall effect on mass and energy. For linear equations, the total uncenainty fraction can simply be I
l 440.576 3 Rev.I
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION N
y expressed as the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual uncertainty fractions
<x>
For nonlinear variables, the impact of the individual variables is modified by the coefficients generated from derivative with respect to the variable.
5.
Mass Balance Calculations The OSU fluid mass was calculated from the sum of the fluid masses in each of the system components plus the integrated fluid entering or leaving the system. The fluid mass within each component was calculated based on the indicated liquid level in each component, the calculated cross sectional area, and the liquid and vapor density. The vapor mass assumed tk.t the volume not occupied by the liquid was occupied by saturated water vapor. The total mass of the water vapor within the system was less than 0.01% of the total system inventory throughout the test.
The uncertainty in mass inventory for each component was based on the uncertainty in the l< vel measurement, the fluid density and the cross sectional area of the component. The uncertainty in liquid level is provided by the instrument uncertainty data of Appendix A of this R.Al response.
Uncertainties relating to the calculation of the corrected levels (accounting for density differences in the LDP sensing legs) are also included but add a very small addition to the overall uncenainty (0.03%). Uncertainty in the cross sectional areas were estimated at 0.5% based on nominal piping tolerances. The uncertainties in the densities were calculated based on the saturated fluid densities for the temperature and pressure for the particular zone of interest. The density uncertainty was then expressed as a fraction at conditions providing the largest uncertainty. The individual variable uncenainties were combined as the square root of the sum of the squares to provide an overall mass uncertainty for the liquid and vapor cleach part of the system. The uncertainties are presented in Table 440.576-1 as a percentage of the calculated value at all times during the test.
Measurement of the vapor exhaust was limited by the minimum threshold value of the facility exhaust flow meters (FVM-901 or FVM-902) which precludus flow measurement for the latter portion o' ine transient when steam vapor flow rates were extremely low. As a result, the indicated nominal flow was zero. Consideration of the sensor's threshold value would amount to a nominal undetected flow rate of approximately 0.08 lb/sec. However, since the average vapor production rate in the core is only 0.04 lb/sec during this portion of the transient. 0.04 lb/sec was used for the i
majority of the time when the flow meter output indicated zero. The higher flow rate is used during j
times when the steam generation rate is higher than 0.08 lb/sec and undetected by the exhaust flow meter (s). Figure 440.576-1 shows the indicated exhaust flow rate, the core vapor generation rate and the maximum exhaust rate used in this analysis.
W Westinghouse Rev.1
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION if y Figure 440.567-2 shows a summary of the system mass inventory with the rr.axb a and minimum calculated mass reflecting the uncertainties discussed above. The upper bound ceiculated mass shows the effect of the uncertainty in the vapor exhaust which produces an uncertainty of approximately 900 lb or 3.2% of the initial system inventory at the end of the test. Appendix B of this RAI response presents a series of plots of the mass inventory of individual components containing approximately 200 lb of fluid mass or more.
Comparison of the total mass presented in Figure 440.567-2 with the total mass presented the TAR (Reference 440.576-2, Figure 5.2.3-46) shows an increase in the syste ' mass. The increase in the mass is due to the inclusion of the exhaust vapor in Figure 440.567-2, whereas the TAR analysis includes only the mass within the OSU facility and does not include the vapor exhausted from the facility.
1 6.
Energy Balance The TAR presented a summary of the energy from the various portions of the system (Reference 440.576-2, Figure 5.2.3-50). The system was considered as a control volume with boundaries at the pressure boundaries of the primary, passive cooling and exhaust systems. The energy balance I
therefere included all the energy passing through this boundary plus the change in energy content in the system test vessels and components (fluids and metal). The energy passing through the i
boundary includes energy exhausted to the atmosphere, convective and radiation heat loss from the pressure boundary (ambient heat loss), power added to the reactor pressure vessel and the energy transferred to or from the steam generator.
Power input is provided through heater elements simulating the decay heat of the reactor core and the secondary side of the steam generator. The reactor core uncertainty is the uncenainty in the power measurement (0.7%, sum of the average of two independent power readings, or half the uncenainty of the individual readings).
The TAR presents an theoretical ambient heat loss calculated from convection and radiation considerations using the calculated surface areas. A check of the ambient heat loss was obtained from hot fu'ictional test HS-01 test which was performed at steady state conditions of 200,300 and 400 F to establish a nominal heat loss as a function of primary system temperature. Applying the resulting correlation to the hot leg temperature, downcomer temperature and the average of the two provides an experimental estimate of the maximum, minimum and nominal heat losses from the primary system. The calculated values for the non-primary system ponions (CMT's, IRWST, etc.)
of the Passive Cooling System were added to the values calculated for the primary system heat loss to obtain the total ambient heat loss for the system. Figure 440.576-3 shows the resulting 440.576-5 W Westinghouse
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A
maximum, minimum and nominal heat losses serve as the upper and lower uncertainty bounds for the purposes of this analysis and compare them with the calculated ambient heat loss from the TAR.
The secondary side of the steam generator stays hot throughout the conduct of the test and can become an energy source to the primary once the pressure on the primary side becomes lower than the secondary side. As the pressure difference increases, the saturation temperature between the secondary and the primary also increases and the primary system can absorb energy from the secondary. When the primary side drains the remaining vapor will become superheated and flow within the primary system will ceases and with it the transfer of energy becomes insignificant.
Energy analysis in TAR assumes that energy transfer between primary and secondary stops when the absolute value of the pressure difference becomes less than 5 psi. Detailed review of the level response in SB18 indicates that the steam generator tubes may actually remain thermally active to approximately 400 seconds rather than the 120 seconds calculated in the TAR. An additional offset reflecting an additional uncertainty in energy transfer of 9000 BTU from the secondary to the primary was included in the uncertainty analysis of the steam generator during this transitional phase.
The uncertainty in heat content of the metal is calculated based on the uncertainty in the metal mass and on the uncertainty in the metal temperature. The uncertainty in metal mass is estimated at 10%
and the uncenainty in the metal temperature is estimated as the nominal thermocouple uncenainty approximately 3.3%. The combined metal energy uncertainty becomes 10.5%.
The uncertainty in energy content of the fluid is calculated from the uncertainty in the liquid and vapor masses oleach component (previous section), the uncenainty in the heat capacities and the temperature uncertainty. The uncenainty in the heat capacities was determined in the same way as the uncertainties in the fluid densities. The total energy content of each component was also corrected for the latent heat of the vapor phase, since this was not included in the TAR. This correction added a negligible amount of energy to the final energy balances because of the relatively small mass of vapcr involved (maximum of 20 lb). Table 440.576-2 presents a summary of the intemal energy uncenainties for each component.
l The exhaust energy uncertainty is based on the uncertainty in the exhaust mass flow and the uncertainty in the measurement of exhaust conditions. The upper bound is influenced by the exhaust flow measurement threshold as discussed in Section 2. The upper bound of energy leaving the system is estimated by multiplying the mass flows by the enthalpy of the exhaust at the measured exhaust pressure (<l6 psia).
Figure 440.576-4 presents the overall integrated energy balance calculated for test SB18, W Westingh00S8 Rev.1
l 1
j NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION l
j=
l 1
6 =
Pdt - (q,,,,,,dt + (U,,,,w - Uo,,,) + (U,a - U.n w ) + q,dt +[q,,,,dt) n o
l l
where:
6
= Deviation (BTU)
P
= Input Power (BTU /sec) qmoi = Ambient heat loss (BTU /sec)
U,,,,w
= Internal energy of facility metal (BTU)
Unoia
= Internal energy of liquid and vapor (BTU) q,
= Heat transfer between the primary and secondary systems (BTU /sec) q,e,.i
= Heat released out of the exhaust (BTU /sec)
Ideally the deviation should be zero, indicating that all the energy exchanged within and across the control volume from the initiation of the test to the end of the test is inventoried. Figure 440.576-4 includes the upper and lower bounds of the calculated energy balance. Inclusion of the unmeasured l
exhaust flow and the increase in the ambient heat loss using experimental data results in a lower bound of the energy to a net zero after approximately 6000 seconds. This deviation could be due to the capacitance effect of system fluids and metal where the fluid and wall thermocouples only measure a selected portion of the fluid and wall temperatures used to estimate the heat content.
Appendix C of this RAI response summarizes the individual components of the larger contributors to the eriergy balance.
7.
Conclusions The results of the uncertainty analysis of the TAR fluid mass inventory and system energy balances are presented in Figures 440.576-2 and 440.576-4. These plots present the nominally derived values calculated with the test instrumentation outputs and the maximum and minimum values with uncertainties included in the calculations.
The calculated fluid mass, Figure 440.576-2, shows that the nominal calculated mass inventory increases to about 500 lbs or 2.2% of the initial inventory for the majority of the test.
The overall maximum value is about 2000 lb or approximately 7.2% due to the inclusion of the uncertainty in exhaust mass during the later portions of the transient. This represents an increase in 440.576-7 T Westinghouse
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFO 2MATION Ti the uncertainty of the Guid mass of 900lb when compared to the uncertainty in the mass that exists at the start of the test.
The minimum value of the fluid mass inventory shows a constant deviation over the test period, about 500 lb or 2.2%. The minimum value increases during the test, but does not exceed the original nominal inventory of 28,000 lbs during the majority of the transient.
Since the initial Guid mass is estimated to be within the bounds of the uncertainty analysis and the deviation in fluid mass during the later portion of the transient is accountable by the low steam flow rate lost through the exhaust, the Guid mass is shown to be within the acceptable range of uncertainties.
The calculated system energy balance, Figure 440.576-4, shows that the nominal calculated system energy balance increases to about 0.68 mBTUs or 24% of the total input heater rod energy (2.80 mBTU) over the duration of the test. This difference is attributable tc change in internal the metal and fluid energy seen to occur during the first 2000 seconds of the transient and the energy lost as a result of the very low steam er.haust flows that were not measurable during the latter portion of the transient.
The overall maximum value of 0.84 mBTUs represents an increase in the uncertainty of the nominal energy balance of about 6% when compared to the nominal energy balance difference.
At the end of the test period, the minimum value of the energy balance is a negative 0.20 mBTUs or about -7%. The minimum value approaches zero after 2000 seconds. Ti e lower bound of the energy balance is larger than the upper bound due to the uncertainty in low How steam flow rates assumed to be exhausted to the atmosphere during the latter portions of the test.
The energy balance is shown to be within the uncertainties of the instrumentation and when accounting for the uncertainty due to the minimum threshold value of the exhausted steam measurements, the energy balance is within acceptable limits.
Overall, the fluid mass inventory and system energy balance for OSU test SB18 is shown to be within the uncertainty limits of the test instrumentation. Since this analysis includes the majority of the facility test instrumentation as input to the analysis and the equations used to determine the mass and energy balances for this test embody the derived quantities given in TAR, the results demonstrate the OSU data is bounded by the instrumentation uncertainties.
Westinghouse Rev.1
r i
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION i
sr =>
i Referenc ::
440.576-1 WCAP-14252 Revision 0, Final Data Report, AP600 Low-Pressure Integral System Test at Oregon State University, May,1995 440.576-2 WCAP-14292, Revision 1, Test Analysis Report, AP600 Low-Pressure Integral System Test at Oregon State University, September,1995 SSAR Changes:
None I
440.576-9 l
1 l
I NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL.INFORMATION
!;panuit:
f1=
A Table 440.576-1 Mass Uncertainties Liquid Uncertainty Gas Uncertainty LDP Liquid Gas Unit Sensor Variable Mass Variable Mass
(%)
(%)
ACCI LDP-401 AMACCI 3.87 ACC2 LDP-402 AMACC2 3.69
~
ADSl-3 LDP-610 ADS 13M 4.37 ADS 13VM 5.41 ADS 4-1 LDP-611 ADS 41M 3.42 no output 4.68 ADS 4-2 LDP-612 ADS 42M 3.84 no output 5.76 BRK-SEP LDP-905 BRKSPLM 4.02 no output 5.81 CL-1 LDP-140 CLlWMS 1.61 CLIVMS 4.49 CL-2 LDP-140 CL2WMS 1.61 CL2VMS 4.49 CL-3 LDP-140 CL3WMS 1.61 CL3VMS 4.49 CL-4 LDP-140 CL4WMS 1.73 CL4VMS 3.60 CMT-1 LDP-507 MWCMTIB 4.37 MSCMTl 6.04 B
CMT-2 LDP-502 MWCMT2B 4.00 MSCMT2 5.78 B
CLBLI LDP-509 MWCLBL1 1.77 MSCLBL1 3.62 CLBL2 LDP-510 MWCLBL2 1.76 MSCLBL2
?.62 IRWST LDP-701 IRWST 1.36 no output 3.47 SUMPPRM LDP-901 AMPSMP 1.58 no output 3.56 SUMPSEC LDP-902 AMSSMP 1.57 no output 2.69 PRHR LDP-802 MWPRHR 1.96 MSPRHR 3.72 PRZ LDP-601 PZFM 1.66 PZGM 3.57 PRZSURG LDP-602 PLFM 2.03 PLGM 3.76 l
l l
O W Westinghouse Rev.I
1 NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
.ar J
l Table 440.576-1 Mass Uncertainties Liquid Uncertainty Gas Uncertainty LDP Liquid Gas Unit Sensor Variable Mass Variable Mass J
(%)
(%)
SGCLTI LDP-219 MSSGCTIL 1.68 MSSGCTI 3.58 V
SGCLT2 LDP_222 MSSGCT2L 1.68 MSSGCT2 3.58 4
V SGHLTl LDP-215 MSSGHTlL 1.68 MSSGHTl 4.03 V
i SGHLT2 LDP-218 MSSGHT2L 1.68 MSSGHT2 3.58 V
SGIPl LDP-209 MSSGIPIL 1.65 MSSGIPl 4.79 V
l SGIP2 LDP-214 MSSGIP2L 3.30 MSSGIP2 4.57 V
SGOPl LDP-MSSGOPIL 2.57 MSSGOPl 4.07 213/211 V
SGOP2 LDP-MSSGOP2L 2.53 MSSGOP2 4.05 210/212 V
RPV LDP-l%
WMOIRPV 3.33 VM0lRPV 4.59 LDP-108 WM02RPV 2.63 VM02RPV 4.11 LDP-138 WM03RPV '
2.20 VM03RPV 3.85 LDP-138 WM04RPV 2.20 VMG4RPV 3.85 LDP-i)8 WM05RPV 2.20 VM05RPV 3.85 LDP-138 WM06RPV 2.20 VM06RPV 3.85 LDP.138 WM07RPV 2.20 VM07RPV 3.85 LDP-138 WM08RPV 2.20 VM08RPV 3.85 LDP-138 WM09RPV 2.20 VM09RPV 3.85 LDP-139 WM10RPV 1.76 VM10RPV 3.62 LDP-139 WMi1RPV 1.76 VM11RPV 3.62 LDP-113 WM12RPV 2.89 VM12RPV 4.28 LDP-113 WM13RPV 2.89 VM13RPV 4.28 LDP-ll5 WM14RPV 2.16 VM14RPV 3.83 l
[
440.576-11 N"' I W Westinghouse
1 l
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION i
Table 440.576-1 Mass Uncertainties Liquid Uncertainty Gas Uncertainty LDP Liquid Gas Unit Sensor Variable Mass Variable Mass
(%)
(%)
LDP-115 WMI5RPV 2.16 VM15RPV 3.83 RPVDC LDP-i l6 WM01DC 1.76 VM01DC 3.62 LDP-116 WM02DC 1.76 VM02DC 3.62 LDP-i l6 WM03DC 1.76 VM03DC 3.62 HL1 LDP-207 MWHL1 2.11 MVH,L1 3.80 HL2 LDP-208 MWHL2 4.36 MVHL2 5.38 BAMS not listed 3.42
)
440.576-12 W Westinghouse ReV.1
)
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
!!=
4 1
i Table 440.576-2 j
Internal Energy Uncertainties Liquid Vapor Unit Sensor Sensor Variable Error Variable Error
(%)
(%)
ACCI UWACCI 4.52 USACCI 0.00 ACC2 UWACC2 4.36 USACC2 0.00 ADSl-3 UWADS13 4.95 USADS13 5.43 ADS 4-1 UWADS41 4.13 USADS41 4.68 ADS 4-2 UWADS42 4.49 USADS42 5.76 BRK-SEP UWBRKSP 4.64 USBRKSP 5.81 CL-1 UWCLI 2.83 USCLI 4.50 CL-2 UWCL2 2.82 USCL2 4.53 CL-3 UWCL3 2.82 USCL3 4.49 CL-4 UWCL4 2.90 USCL4 3.61 i
CMT-1 UWCMT1 4.95 USCMTl 6.07 CMT-2 UWCMT2 4.63 USCMT2 5.81 CLBL1 UWCLBL1 2.93 USCLBL1 3.68 CLBL2 UWCLBL2 2.92 USCLBL2 3.67 1RWST UWIRWST 2.69 USIRWST 3.52 SUMPPRM UWPSMP 2.80 USPSMP 3.56 SUMPSEC UWSSMP 2.80 USSSMP 2.69 PRHR UWPRHR 3.04 USPRHR 3.72 PRZ UWPZ 2.86 USPZ 3.62 PRZSURG UWPSL 3.09 USPSL 3.81 SGCLTl UWPSGCTI 2.87 USPSGCTI 3.63 SGCLT2 UWPSGCT2 2.87 USPSGCT2 3.63 SGHLTl UWPSGHTl 2.87 USPSGHTl 4.08 SGHLT2 UWPSGHT2 2.87 USPSGHT2 3.63 SGIPl UWPSGIPI 2.85 USPSGIPl 4.83 SGIP2 UWPSGIP2 4.04 USPSGIP2 4.61 440.576-13 3 Westinghouse
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Table 440.576-2 Internal Energy Uncertainties Liquid Vapor Unit Sensor Sensor Variable Error Variable Error
(%)
(%)
SGOP1 UWPSGOP1 3.46 USPSGOP1 4.12 SGOP2 UWPSGOP2 3.44 USPSGOP2 4.09 RPV UWRPV 4.06 USRPV 4.63 RPVDC UWDC 2.92 USDC 3.67 HL1 UWHL1 3.14 USHL1 3.85 HL2 UWHL2 4.94 USHL2 5.42 440.576-14 W Westinghouse Rev.I l
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION M
- r..,i Westinghouse Proprietary versions of Figures 440.576-1 through 440.576-4 are removed.
This includes pages 440.576-15 through 440.576-18.
b umu 4
440.576 RN. I
N9C REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAW --
1 Appendix A OSU FDR Instrument Error Analysis (Copy of revised Appendix D of OSU FDR) 440.576-19 T Westinghouse
t
' O e
Appendix A contains the tables of the accuracies for the total instrumentation loop, including sensor / transmitters, signal conditioners, and the DAS. These tables are divided by the type of sensor and summarized in the following:
List of Appendix A Tables Table No.
Header Page No.
440.576 Al Errors for DPs 440.576-20 440.576-A2 Errors for LDPs 440.576-21 440.576-A3 Errors for pts 440.576-23 l
l 440.576-A4 Errors for FMMs 440.576-24 l
440.576-A5 Errors for FVMs 440.576-25 440.576-A6 Errors for Thermocouples 440.576-26 l
l 440.576-A7 Errors for HFMs, HPs, and LCs 440.576-39
)
I 440.576-A8 Errors for FDPS 440.576-43 440.576-A9 kW Errors 440.576-44 The HFMs, HPs and LCs were not used evaluation of test results. These instruments were not j
independently calibrated and the errors associated with these instruments were estimated based on l
general vendor sensor data.
The column headings in the tables are explained as follows:
Accuracy: Error contribution associated with transmitter or instrument.
l Cal High: Higher value of the range of the instrument; calibrated to give (20-mA]'" output in a loop of (4 to 20 mA]'6*
Cal Null: Lower value of the range of the instrument; calibrated to give (4-mA]'* output in a loop of [4 to 20 mA)*6*.
1 Calibration Drift: E:ror associated with the accuracy of the calibration over time.
CT: Error associated with the current transformers.
DAS Error: Error contribution due to inaccuracies in the data acquisition system.
l o \\4069w.wpf.lb.030198 440.576-20 AEV. i
(
t DMM 45 or 45-01: Errer contribution due to calibration instrument error.
DP/PT Loop Check Error: Error contribution due to the allowable voltage span when performing the check. The error includes the DAS error.
Eng. Units (EEU:) Engineering units of the physical variable being measured.
Flowmeter Model No. (Transmitter Type): Manufacturer model number by which the instrument is identified. Where multiple model numbers were provided for a given tag number, all model numbers were listed.
FMM Amplifier Calibration: Error contribution due to the allowable current span when performing the calibration.
FMM DAS Calibration: Error contribution due to the allowable voltage span when performing the calibration. The error includes the DAS error.
Frequency Calibrator 1070: Error contribution due to calibration instrument error.
Frequency Counter PM6680: Error contribution due to calibration instmment error.
FVM Amplifier Calibration: Error contribution due to the allowable current span when perfcrming the calibration, n
FVM Loop Check: Error contribution due to the allowable voltage span when performing the check. The error includes the DAS error.
Linearity: Error contribution due to nonlinearity of steam flow provided in EEU.
Model No.: Manufacturer model number by which the instrument is identified.
Power Meter DAS Calibration: Error contribution due to the allowable voltage span when performing the check. The error includes the DAS error.
Power Supply Effect: Error contribution due to fluctuations in the power supply voltage.
Pressure Calibrator DP20001: Error contribution due to calibration instrument error.
Reference 1 and 6.
Pressure Module PD0120: Error contribution due to calibration instrument error.
}
Pressure Module PD1121: Error contribution due to calibration instrument error.
owsw wpr;ib-o.10198 440.576-21 fiv'. /
Pressure Module SD0312G: Error contribution due to calibration instmment error.
Pressure Module SD1412G: Error contribution due to calibration instmment error.
Pressure Module SD1612G: Error contribution due to calibration instrument error.
Pressure Module SD2113G: Error contribution due to calibration instrument error.
Pressure Transmitter Calibration Error: Error contribution due to the allowable current span when performing the calibration.
i PT: Enor associated with the voltage transformers.
Relative Humidity Effect: Error contribution due to the change in the relative humidity from when the instrument was calibrated and when it is being operated.
1 l
Repeatability: Error contribution associated with getting the same results under the same
{
conditions.
j Reproducibility: Error contribution associated with testing a flowmeter then removing and reinstalling the flowmeter and testing again.
RFI Effect: Error contribution due to EMI/RFI noise.
SC Accuracy: Error contribution due to the inaccuracies in the signal conditioner.
SC Calibration: Error contribution due to the allowable current span when performing the calibration.
SC Cold Junction Compensation Error: Temperature measurement error of the terminal.
SC DAS Calibration: Error contribution due to the allowable voltage span when performing the calibration. The error includes the DAS error.
SC Linearization Accuracy: Error contribution due to the nonlinearity of the signal conditioner.
SC Temperature Coefficient: Error due to the temperature difference between the ambient temperatures at which the signal conditioner is calibrated and used.
Serial No.: Serial number of the instrument assigned by the manufacturer. Where multiple serial l
numbers were provided for a given instrument, all serial numbers were listed.
o uo69w wpf ib-03019s 440.576-22 84V. /
s' l
Span: Calibrated span of the input sensor to give [4 to 20 mA]'** output.
Stability: Error contribution due to instability of the sensor during a specified time period.
Static Pressure ENect: Error contribution due to the static pressure difference at which it was calibrated and the static pressure at which it is being operated.
Supply Frequency Effect: Error contribution due to changes in the power supply frequency.
I Supply Voltage Effect: E: Tor contribution due to changes in the supply voltage.
Tag No.: Identification of the instrument.
Temperature Calibrator 850: Error contribution due to calibration instrument error when calibrating the signal conditioner, 1
l l
Temperature Effect: Error contribution due to the ambient temperature difference at which the l
instrument was calib: ttee and the temperature at which it is being operated.
Thermocouple Calibrator 840A: Error contribution due to calibration instmment error when l
calibrating the signal conditioner.
Thermocouple Tolerance: Error contribution associated with the thermocouple.
l Total Probable Error: Square root of the sum of the square of the errors for a given instrument.
l l
Vibration Effect: Error contribution due to vibration of the instrument.
~
owm9w.pr:itwomi9s 440.576-23 M. /
e NRC REGUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION 1
I 5'Am la b-c) l Westinghouse Proprietary versions of Tables 440.576-Al through 440.576-A9 are removed.
This includes pages 440.576-24 through 440.576-48.
i l
l 440.576
/ lev. I 1
l
l NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Appendix B Plots of Mass Uncertainty Lin#
440.576-49 Re v. I Ww
et NRC RECUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION E3 (a b e)
Westinghouse proprietary versions of Figures 440.576-B1 through 440.576-B13.
This includes pages 440.576-50 through 440.576-62.
t 440.576
/tN'/
M@
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION l
Appendix C Plots of Energy Uncertainty Li' lits 440.576-63 3 Westinghouse
e NRC REQUF.ST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION i
(
1.wn l
ntary version of Figures 440.576-C1 through 440.576-C5 are removed.
This includes pages 440.576-64 through 440.576-68.
e eluu 440.576
/ lev. I Qmm 1
a 4
.~
l' o
NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Question 440.580 Re: OSU TAR (OITS 3471)
(
i In Figure 5.4.2 33 of the OSU TAR, curve "C" shows integrated PRHR heat removal. The curve peaks at around 600-800 seconds, after which it begins to decrease. If this is an integrated curve, a decrease would seein to indicate heat transfer from the IRWST to the primary system, which does not seem to be physically plausible. Please explain what this curve shows and the reason for its shape.
Respon'se RAI 440.580 The integrated heat transfer from the PRHR presented in the TAR' was calculated indirectly by analysis of the response of the fluid in IRWST tank since a direct measurement of the heat loss from the PRHR was not available.
A heat balance on the IRWST was performed such that the energy from the PRHR was equal to the change in energy in the IRWST or:
Qrana = dU,,,n ~ 0 ^"8 "
dt and the integrated heat transfer:
Qranadt = (U - Uo ),,,,.r -
Qaosodt I
As such, the plot presented in TAR Figure 5.4.2-33 and similar figures in each of the other sections of the TAR is only valid dunng the times prior to the release of mass from the IRWST (overflow and DVI dow). Figure I shows a plot of the integrated PRHR energy along with plots of the overflow and DVI flows. It can be seen that the integrated PRHR energy starts to decrease when overflow from the IRWST starts.
The details of the PRHR operation do not have an impact on the overall energy balance of the system since the energy stays within the control volume with the exception of exhaust from the system (after ADSl3 blowdown) that may be routed to the exhaust or the separator tanks. If the energy exiting the IRWST were included in the analysis; the equation becomes:
Qrana t = (U-U )tawn - Qaosodt + [Q,,,n.,mdt+[Q dt+[Q,,,.dt d
WCAP-14292, Revision 1, AP600 Low Pressure Integral System Test at Oregon State University FinalTest Analysis Report,Septernber 1995 l
l 440.580-1 I
Rev.1 J
J s
c NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL. INFORMATION Figure 440.580-2 presents results of the above equation together with the calculational uncertainty of the measurements and calculations performed. He uncertainty in the flow measurements and matenal properties as a function of temperature were considered. De resulting curve shows that PRHR heat removal essentially ceases after 2000 seconds. The total uncertainty amounts to approximately 2.6% of the nominal value.
SSAR Revision: NONE l
l
=
U0.560-2 W Westin;[ house i
Rev.1 l
o NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION
,s bNi 1.u, Westinghouse Proprietary versions of Figures 440-580-1 and 440-580-2 are c
removed.
m 440.580-k.
gg Rev.1
_