Home > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections > ACRS > Schedules and Agendas > 2001
> Thermo-Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee Meeting
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. |
|