ACRS Thermo-Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee Meeting - August 22-23, 2001
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
THERMAL-HYDRAULIC PHENOMENA SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING:
GE NUCLEAR ENERGY TRACG CODE APPLICATION TO AOO's,
EPRI REPORT- RESOLUTION OF GL96-06 WATERHAMMER ISSUES
AUGUST 22-23, 2001
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
Contact: P. Boehnert (301-415-8065 "pab2@nrc.gov")
PRESENTATION SCHEDULE
August 22, 2001
| | TOPIC | SPEAKER | TIME |
| I. | Reconvene/Opening Remarks | T. Kress,
Acting Chairman | 8:30 a.m. |
| II. | GE Nuclear Energy TRACG Code for Anticipated Operational Occurrences | | |
| | A. NRC Staff Presentation (Open) | R. Landry, NRR | 8:45 a.m. |
| | | 1. Introduction and Background |
| | | 2. Safety Evaluation Report |
| | | | - Review Scope |
| | | | - Methodology |
| | | | - Lessons Learned from Exercise Of GE TRACG Code |
| | | | - Review of Uncertainty Evaluation |
| | | | - Results and Conditions (if any) |
| | | | - Conclusions |
| | | 3. Concluding Remarks
|
| | B. GE Nuclear Energy Presentation (Open/Closed?) | | 12:30 p.m. |
| | | 1. Introduction | J. Andersen, GNF,et al. | |
| | | 2. Response to Subcommittee | | |
| | | | Comments (11/13-14/00 Mtg.)
Regarding the TRACG Code
Correlations & Models (see list - below) | | |
| | | 3. Comment on NRC TRACG SBWR Review |
| | | 4. Concluding Remarks |
| III. | Subcommittee Caucus (Open) | | 4:00 p.m. |
| | | 1. Comments on Meeting Presentations | | |
| | | 2. Follow-on Actions | | |
| | | 3. Decision to Bring Review to ACRS
| | |
| IV. | Recess | | 4:30 p.m. |
|
Comments on TRACG Code Models/Correlations -
November 13-14, 2000 ACRS T/H Phenomena Subcommittee Meeting |
| | - The momentum equations do not appear to properly account for Reynolds stress.
- The origin of the equations are not clearly specified pursuant to the regulatory position in the draft regulatory guide on code submittals.
- Partition of wall shear stress in not treated consistently in the documentation
- The modeling of Tee components is not clearly explained and its adequacy is not apparent.
- There is no definitive modeling of flow regime transition, and the logic of this modeling is not clear.
- Regarding the interfacial shear model, key terms in the equations are not explained, in particular the relationship between the "ci" and "c0" terms needs to be clarified.
- GE has an inconsistent treatment for modeling of interfacial area and the heat transfer coefficients.
|
August 23, 2001
| V. | Reconvene/Opening Remarks | T. Kress,
Acting Chairman | 8:30 a.m. |
| VI. | Resolution of GL 96-06 Waterhammer Issues (Open /Closed) | | |
| | A. | NRC/Industry Resolution Approach (ePRI Study)- Summary | J. Tatum NRR/DSSA/SPLB | 8:45 a.m. |
| | B. | Revised EPRI Report - Evaluation of GL 96-06 Waterhammer Issues and Resolution of Comments From 1.16-17/01 Subcommittee Meeting | V. Wagoner (CP&L)
A. Singh (EPRI)
T. Esselman (Altran) | 9:00 a.m. |
| | C. | NRC Review of EPRI Report - Results, Open Issues, Resolution Approach and Conclusions | J. Tatum | 11:30 p.m. |
| | D. | Concluding Remarks | EPRI/NRC | 12:30 p.m. |
| VII. | Subcommittee Caucus (Open) | | 12:45 p.m. |
| | | 1. Comments on Meeting Presentations | | |
| | | 2. Follow-on Actions | | |
| | | 3. Decision to Bring Review to ACRS | | |
| VIII. | Recess | | 1:00 p.m. |
Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 03, 2017