ML092180759
| ML092180759 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/20/1998 |
| From: | Han J Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research |
| To: | Eltawila F Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research |
| References | |
| Download: ML092180759 (1) | |
Text
NOTE TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 20, 1998 Farouk Eltawila, Chief, RPSB/DST/RES James T. Han, RPSB/DST/RES WHY WE NEED TO MAINTAIN PUMA TEST FACILITY This note is in response to the recent ACRS comment on the PUMA facility. As stated on p. 43 of NUREG-1635 (entitled "Review and Evaluation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Safety Research Program," published in June 1998), "The ACRS does not see a pressing need for the NRC to maintain its support of large-scale thermal hydraulics test facilities such as PUMA and APEX." And, "These facilities........ probably will not be optimal facilities for future experimental studies." It seems that the ACRS has overlooked the following two key elements associated with the PUMA facility, and as a result it does not recognize the importance of maintaining the PUMA facility.
First, the PUMA facility is the only facility in the U.S. that produces BWR data in which the RCS thermal-hydraulic phenomena are coupled with the containment thermal-hydraulic phenomena.
The significance of this unique capability is to provide integral data that are needed to assess the computer code which couples the thermal-hydraulics of the RCS to the thermal-hydraulics of reactor containment. As stated by the ACRS in the same report (p.43), "The scope of the thermal hydraulic research program needs to be expanded. Coupling of the thermal hydraulics of the reactor coolant system to the thermal hydraulics of the reactor containment remains a difficulty....... It is probably safe to assume that it will continue to be a problem for the agency if this coupling of reactor system thermal hydraulics and containment thermal hydraulics is neglected." PUMA is well suited to address this ACRS concern, because it can produce the data that couple the RCS thermal hydraulics with the containment thermal hydraulics. (It should be pointed out that there are two other facilities in the world - namely, PANDA in Switzerland and GIRAFFE in Japan - can also produce coupled BWR data. However, the former is limited to the main steam line break accident, and the latter is tall and skinny with adverse impact from heat loss. Compared to these two foreign facilities, PUMA is more versatile than PANDA and is not susceptible to heat loss as in GIRAFFE.)
Second, PUMA is owned by the NRC and is under our total control. The advantage is that PUMA tests are highly responsive to NRC needs, and no lengthy negotiations with a third party are ever required.
cc: D. Bessette, RES