ML19331B888
| ML19331B888 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1980 |
| From: | Meyer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331B836 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8008130487 | |
| Download: ML19331B888 (22) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-466 1
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
[)
Station, Unit 1) t AFFIDAVIT OF RALPH 0. MEYER CONCERNING DOHERTY CONTENTION 45 My name is Ralph 0. Meyer.. I am employed in the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-s sion as Section Leader of the Reactor Fuels Section in the Core Perfomance Branch. My professional qualifications are attached as Enclosure 1 to this affidavit. This affidavit was prepared under my control and supervision.
The purpose of this affidavit is to address Doherty Contention 45 which reads as follows:
4 Intervenor contends that lateral support of the ACNGS reactor core is not sufficient to withstand the lateral force applied to the 1
core due to flashing which occurs near the end of the subcooled blowdown portion of the LOCA transient. Further, that such a 4
lateral force has not been considered in Applicant's NSSS vendor's analysis and may result in a 10 - 15% change in maximum calculated impact load for a given spacer grid, and a 30% increase in impact
+
load is likely if two fuel assemblies interact at the periphery of the core.
Following the recommendation of NUREG/CR-1018 " Review of LWR Fuel System Mechanical Response with Recomendations for Component Acceptance Criteria". Applicant's fuel assembly support l
against lateral LOCA forces should be increased by:
i 4
,80 0 s i s o 'iS7
L..
..... -........ -.. 1.
additional lateral support equal to 30% of the support against the Safe Shutdown Earthquake, or 2.
a factor for a LOCA or Safe Shutdown Earthquake - LOCA analysis of 1.3.
This contention evidences a concern that the lateral support of the ACNGS reactor core is not sufficient to withstand lateral blowdown forces because it has not considered flashing loads which occur during a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). Particularly, the Intervenor alleges that an additional load from steam flashing in the core might increase the fuel loads by 30%
under some circumstances.
It is clear from the contention that the concern is based on a proposed revision to the Standard Review Plan / and is described in " Review of LWR Fuel System Mechanical Response with Recommendations for Acceptance Criteria,"
P NUREG/CR-1018, published in September 1979.
I However, the 30% increase in LOCA fuel loads only affects PWR fuel assembly analyses and, therefore, is not applicable to ACNGS which is a' BWR.
There are two reasons why this load applies only to PWRs.
First, a PWR operates below the boiling point (subcooled) whereas a BWR operates at the boiling point of the water coolant. As stated in Conten-tion 45, the lateral (fuel) force is due to " flashing which occurs near the I 1/
Proposed Revision to the Standard Review Plan, Notice of Availability, 45 Fed. RS.19939 (February 27, 1980).
l l
]
O end of the subcooled blowdown portion of the LOCA transient." Since the BWR
~
does not operate in the subcooled regime like the PWR analy7ed, it is not
[
possible to have these flashing loads in a BWR.
Second, the lateral flashing loads in a PWR result from cross core flows.
The PWR fuel bundles in the core are open to allow a mixing of flows between bundles. The BWR fuel bundles are encased in channel boxes to prevent cross flow. Since the cross core flow is limited in the BWR, the flashing loads (if they could occur) would be lower than in a PWR, For these reasons, flashing loads do not apply to a BWR LOCA. Thus, the contention shculd be dismissed on the basis that the loads in question are not present at ACNGS. ACNGS has complied with all requirements related to the ability of the core to withstand lateral seismic forces combined with lateral blowdown forces.
I I
4 Ralph 0. Meyer Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 1980.
Notary Public My Commission expires:
!r p,
a
S
- 1. air:, D. I'. ys r r
Frrf e r ri ena! Due!' firet f en?
Ig In 1960 I received a 2.5. in physics from the University of Kentucky and was made a mesber.or Phi Beta Kappa.
In 1966 I re-ceived a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill) with a thesis subject in the fle3d of solid state physics.
~
Follo ing graduation, diffusion studies related to the thesis topic were continued while I was a Research Associate in physics at the University of Ari:ena. In 1968 I was employed as n'n Assistant Metallurgist in the reactor development program of the Materials
, Science Division at Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois. At Argonne diffusion techniques were applied to study the properties
~
of nuclear reactor fuels. Tnis research included studies of gaseous fission product migration, segregation of fissile fuel material, and restructuring of oxide fuel elecents.
More than 20 technical journal
)
papers and topical reports were published on this fundar. ental and applied research.
In 1973, I joined USNRC as a Reactor Engineer in the Reactor Fuels Section of the Core Performance Branch. In addition to other duties related to the performance of nuclear fuel I was the principal
~
reviewer of fuel densificatic, analyses. Since 1976, I have been the Section leader of the Reactor Fuels Section and have a continuing responsibility for the review of fuel densification, fission gas release and overall fuel performance.
o,.
e 4
1 Sour conter. tion on core latersi support, sbich 1 2
believe you have numbered as #5.
3 Fr..
PirrLE:
Cff the reccrd.
r g-5 (hPEREU}CN, there was a Ciocussion f
held off the recor?.)
7 T
C.
(Ey Fr. Eiddle)
In your supporting o
statement filed with this contention, you stated 10 that quote the sole sot r ec of infornation on 11 latersi lords of this severity being intrcduced c a r. i t a l L-O-C-1.
is i
17 in the event of LCCA 12 N L F f:C - C 1. - I r I A close c; u o t e.
Je Is thet statenent still true?
.l 15
- t..
I don't intend to lioit myself to that J
g 1.T.
single document for evidence.
I have located b?s j
17 since that time surmary of licensee event rerorts L-hl I'c sorry.
That's not it.
IF which lists It C.
You still bove in =ind the question I B
7C is s k e d ?
l*
21 A.
Ycur cuestion sas whether -- a r e there 1
22 any cther documents at this time, I believe.
In 22 that what you're trying to reach on tha t?
2 r.
C.
nen you filed this contention, you said 25 the sole source of your infor ation sas this I *:7 f.R :: AT I c x A L CtUnT r. r e c p T E R S, IFC.
het0;CN, OEXAC (712) 552-S!11 9
h-9.
5-
J
.s t r i. C.
2 F.
Yes.
2 C.
tnd r.y question is:
Is that statencnt still true of your scle so'urce of infornation for S
this contention the reference to that NUnfC7 0
A.
bole source of i n f o r r.a t i o n ?
7 C.
Ye s.
Tha t's your language.
f A.
Fo.
bot the sole source of i r. f o r r a t i o n.
E-It was at tnat tine.
10, C.
khat sources of inforestion heve you 11 ad:cd since you filed this?
i 1."
7.
I have added four d o e ur.e n t s here which I
!?
.< i l l attenpt to use to Trove ny case.
le
(,
And what infornation I. a v e they added to d
15 the discussion in the original NUREC whicn bears
- (
3G on the contention?
Can you sur.marize the 17 information that is not in the NL* REC 7
-e t
If A.
The lateral force safety factor for a JE PbR is being set up as a criterian.
And it's 20 connection to a E'e P is not clear at this t i r,e.
21 C.
All right.
So you have sone infornation 22 on a r. articular Pb' E lateral force capacity?
i 22 A.
Ye s.
22 C.
to you have any other infornation 25 available which is not refIceted in tbc NUROC7 I'47ERNATIO!AL C C L:F 7 PEPCPiFHF, I :C.
liC U S T C N, 7 E X.'. C (712) F50-5911
.?
1 A.
There ic additionel infor.otion under I
acceptance criteris in the Standard Review Plan 3
section 42.
C Q.
kould you give us the tit 5e?
that is the title that usualip 5
A.
It8s coes under, Fr.
F.iddle A
7 c.
roes it have a nane or any other Indicator, or what S t a r.d a r d Deviek Flen it 1;
arplies to?
I r,
- a..
r!o.
22 c.
It has no rene or number?
1:
A.
No.
I sant to go a little further to 11 help cicrify it.
It In the pro r osed revision n u.e. b e r two of li the Etandard P.e v i e w rian, there is a s t a t ec.e n t 16 for E h P..
i 17 C.
he're having difficult in connunicating.
12 There are a nunber of Standard Feview Plans Ic involving nultiple issues across the board?
20
- t..
Yes.
21 C.
And se need to indentify which
??
tarticular Ctandard Pcview Plan you have 21 re f e rence to.
There's no single S t a n d _e r d Feview 24 Plan.
There are r.any of then.
25 A.
It is a proposed revision to the II.Ti hN/ T IC AA L C C C i. ~i i E F C. k *f t F S, I t'C.
!! O L'S T C if, TEXAC (712) 657-Se13 p
i
J L t a c.. r c.eview
/rI EC 75-007
)
C.
Ckay.
I'm with you.
co ahead.
2 A.
All riebt.
L'n d e r acce;tance criteria listed for Standard Review rien a.2 revision two 5
draft one, page t. 2 A - r., acceptance criteria for 4
F e '. h sets out conditions which were not set out in 7
4UFEC 0 N Ulf EC 1015.
C C.
Is it your understanding that t i. e I11 ens
~t t
Cteck ueuign does not comply with the criteria In listed in that Frorosed amendeent to t.k e I
'I alflicable Etandard Ecview Plan?
D 1
1.~
A.
It's not my understanding that 1 does i
li not.
1/
C.
To you know whether AC!JC S d o e s or does 15 not conply with that le
- o.
'l 17 C.
So right now that is an unconnected fact?
l 12 A.
Yes.
It's not connected.
19 C.
Al l right.
Is there any other items of 2C Infornation independent of the reference NURFC in 21 your possession now?
22 A.
The staff has reviewed NECE 21175 P and 22 actually states that they have not ecmpleted the o
24 general d e s i gn. a c c e 'p t a.. c a criteria for the design 25 l i r. i t s for s'e Ps.- i c and b l o. f. o w n loads.
I ' T El: t4 O I C N A L CC'RT F i rr P.; E R E, I S' C.
J
!:C US TC M, T F Fl.S
('!?) 452-5C11 P
1 C.
he:': :?o titic cf that t'at you hcve 2
reference te yet so se can
- t. u t these facts 3
tecether?
a 4
A.
She title?
5 C.
Yes, sir.
6 A.
[4 T.
6, field asser bly eveluation of 7
co=hined ESE and L-C-C-A loadintjs.
T C.
If the !?nc co.pletes its review an(
?
accepts the analysis set out in that
E I T, ic l e.
that sa ti sfactory for your concerns in this l
11
.c o n t en t i o n?
17 Yes.
I think it will he.
i
~
12 r.
Tc o r.c e t !.e staff Fss r e v i e wer: that Cr i-1/
to1ical cnd saricfics itself as to the a
15 combination of ESE ono L C C t.
lateral blowdown i
l 16 loads, then your concerns are alleviated in this 17 contention?
t II IE A.
No.
19 C.
khat remains?
20 A.
To have a commitment that the PCMCF 21 meets those conditions.
22 C.
All right.
Very well.
If Allens creek 22 is built to the desion thet it's apTroyed by the 24 SRC as reflected in the n a r. e d NETE, then your I.
25 concern in this contention is re.oved?
J tc t. i:.. / i l '..'. A L Ltuhi ;il r G F 7 tiir, I :c.
F C t.'S T C !2, TLFAS (712) (52-5911 s
L 1
3..
1 r,
to.
- c t.. ::.1 2
c.
bhat rencins?
3 A.
The cafety rehlew rien which I suoted r
fron eerifer.
]
5 O.
Fell, let's take this house that Jack 6
buil t one s t e l.
furthct.,
!! the !."* C aptreves that 7
and b i l e re s r?r e e k is d.' r i s,,r.v d to tne to r.i c a l in i,
3 the Stbrderd r e v i c '+ [1en, oes tVet rol1 eve 5
A.
Yes.
)
I C.
Q.
All right.
f-A v e %e now exhausted jour i
Il cources of i ri f u r.m a t i o n i n c' e r e n d e n t of t.5 e S U.S. C C ?
6 17 A.
Yes.
j.
II C.
In t i.a t a c:;.y of ti e :.tFEC in frent of I
it yo u?
IS A.
It oprears to Le s -- essentially, a J r.
copy of it,
>cs.
17 0
i<ould you po in t out for me where in tha t
/
10 NUREC document you extracted the infornation g
If which supports your cor.tention t!aa t 7 C rtC S or any 20 F'e r i s inadecua tely designed for lateral loads?
21 A.
I believe there is no reference to I:vn's 2*
in this.
~
22 c.
There's no reference to E k R ' s,.
Can you 24 explain to me hou then it serves as a factual 25 tauls for this contention when obviously Aller.c I t.7 t E N A T J O t A L C C L,; 'i F ;4 F C IM FI.':, J r.C.
I! C L'5 7 C ts, T E.v A t (71?) 4FI-5r11
?..
1 Creek to o r *c li ?
2 A.
The Eoard r ul ed that t i.e contention ses 3
a cce i s s i bl e.
4 c.
cid the toard rule that it :.a d escrit or 5
just that it was adni s s i bl e ?
C t.
As for as I knou, it was adnitted only 7
or adnissible only to shot the FkE side of the r
Troblen.
That, er I un c! e r s t o ne, sas their n
reasons for adnitting it.
10, C.
fine.
Let's se t a side the ed-issions 11 Irecess focusing only on t.' e nerits.
- ! e n you co 17 to trial on this irsue, is there any infernation 12 on t t. a t "UREC that you will file er rely on er 1/
cvidence in your position?
A.
I'n not cer tain.
It's a long V U n i.C.
It I?
coesn't look as if there will be, however.
17 c.
You have not identified any portion of 18 that document that you will rely on as evid=nce; 19 is that a fair s ta temen t?
2C A.
Yes.
71 C.
If the day after discovery ends on these 20 contentions, if you indentify a portion of that 23 docunent fortuitously that you are g e lt.g to rely 24 on for infornation, is it your u n d e r s t a n d i.'.c that 75 you have no continuing oh11gation to indentify IN1;r.hATIONAL CCUFO Er.rCEir8L, I t' C.
It0 0S T Ct.',
TEAAS (713) 4t2-??ll 0
1
5 1
that to us Lecause the discovery ;cri-d r :? :d ?
2 A.
fron oy statenent to you a minute cge, I
~
3 believe I w!!! have an ob2igation to inforn you.
4 c.
Tell ne what's different about that
~
5 obl ig a t ion and the obl iga t ion we discussed at the r
very beginning of the derosition where se e s t. c c1 j
you a sir.fler ty}e of question in the d e:.c s i t io n E
and you suFFlice us with an I-den't-know-yct j
9 answer?
I 10, A.
The difference between I don't knot t nsa 11 I knou.
f 12 C.
I think that toFs the charts on
'p r o f o u n d i
1 enswers, Fr.
Coherty.
I 14 A.
Thank you.
15 C.
kould you explain it to those of us who 14 are less mentally endowed?
2 don't understand j
17 what you're saying?
IS A.
Your etearly well nentally endowed.
I IT believe that the cuestion pesed earlier was not 70 nateria[ and not relevant to the contentions to 21 which discovery is now open.
I do not believe II you have the right to ask questions about the i
22 previous contentions at this derosition.
1 24 C.
Fe're talking about 25 A.
You do have the r i.; b t to ask about these I *.* T a l..N A T I C.v A L C C u n i P L T L i:1 E F.S, I 's C.
!! C U S T C N, TEXAS (713) #f7-5f11 a
I contentions.
l
- e're talking about centinuing C.
r.
2 obligations.
You said you have no c o n t i n u i r.g
~
e obligation to inform us as to the answers of questions previously asked during a period of r
c* i n e n v e r y which has elarued.
7 A.
That's right.
C.
t-b e n your 1.revious ans-cr bad indicated
.f, 9
an u r.c e r t a i n r e s t:o n s e and unresolved r e s t.o n s e.
10,
.a.
I believe you do not !.a v e the right to 13 trine ra e bere under threct of subpoena and ask ne 1r quertions of that nature.
I have the obligation
.e n I nake up ny
- r. i n d.
tut you 1.-
to inforn you
).'
con't have t r. e right to ask ne and expect an 15 cnswer.
1E C.
til right.
- shere does that put us then 17 in regards to your last answer concerning this s
i IE NUREC, or I believe you indicated that you did 19 not now know whether or not any portion of that 2C document will be used as evidence, but that you 21 eay at sone future time, perhaps, within or 22 perhaps without the discovery period find such a 23 reference?
7d A.
I believe that when I find a reference 25 to a Exp in this tatir. E C which is related and which I W 7 t h.N A % I O N A L LCUF1 F L T C ie 7 1 0 5, 3 iC.
HOUSTON, TEXAS (712) 652-5911 I '.
~
u-
f 8
1 I wish to bring u!. to the Scard's attention as l
2 evidence, then I will, at that time, have an 3
oblig a t ion to notify.
4 0
Eut the a p t.l i c e n t s have no right to ask i
5 you about that obligation once the discovery f.
period has elapsed; is that your position?
7 A.
That's true.
F O.
Co be nust stand by cute cnc rely on your c o n t i n u i ng obl iga tiona ; is chat correct?
i 1(',
A.
Yes.
Tha t 's khat you've he doing..
' ha t we've been doing is Il C.
- ro, it's r.o t.
12 t r y i n.J to discover tnose things we have a right 12 to i;iscover, and you've been refusing to cnuwer.
14 A.
1' r. Eiddle, we're ocine around in 15 circles.
I'm not going to put ur with it.
15 C.
I con't believe we're going around in 17 circles.
I believe I was clarifying the dispute 6
18 as to whether or not you have a continuing obikgation to provide us with information we have 19 20 a r i g t. t to know.
21 A.
You have my answer previously.
You have 22 your renedies.
22 C.
Fhat laterab support is Irovi,ded for t is e 2t ACNCC core?
25 A.
Its provided lateral support is a netal I N T E R N AT I C!!A L COURT hEFCR7ERC, 3FC.
HCUSTCN, TEXAC (712) A52-5911
't lk f*
.1
I riece called a crecer orld which ul tina tel y 2
attaches to the vessel wall itself.
2 C.
Do you understand tha t's the only t
lateral support provided?
E A.
Yes.
At the nonent.
r-c.
Fhet d e s i g n_
loads are those corronents 7
d e c i g r. e d to withstond?
0 A.
I believe safe snutdesn carthquake.
e j
f C.
That's the only load ti.ey are designed 10.
to withstand?
11 A.
I believe so.
12 C.
They are not desicned to withstand a f
13 continatfor. of sa f e chutfoun c e r t t. c u a t e one 1r lateral fo rces fron a LOCr blewdown?
1 vy u nd e r s t a r.d i ng of the contention is 15 LCCA j r.
that the fl e sh at the end of LOCA j
17 injection has been found to be greater than j
r le anticipated, therefore, the loading is 7recter.
19 I think you're correct in saying that it is clso 20 designed for taking any lo& ding that would occur excuse ne ECCC injection.
21 from LCCA 1
2.2 C.
All right.
Is it correct that al tho ug h 22 ACNCE in a corbination FES EC C F-that tJ.e 24 nagnitude of the LCCA blowdown load at the end of l
25 the injection when this flech occerc is underestimatef!
t l
l I N r Li. h A T I C N A L CCLrT PFFCR7FRT, J ': C.
l, prrq?pv. Trxte tai tt cE7 te11 l? -
s'
1 A.
Yes.
I C.
l.o w does flash a;-ply a load to thesc 2
suFt. orts?
Explain the phenonena, pl e a s e.
i 4
A.
ry understanding of it is that at the E
end when it shuts off, there is e change fron F
liquid there to e atean 3hase.
l 7
C.
All right.
K 0
I..
?pparently, t!. re 1: no additional licuid to soncho. nedify or lessen this effect.
j r.
It's the Toint of ternination that has been f
Il raised as causing a b i g !.c r anount of loading.
1:
C.
I've nissed st.e r e the I c a ti is generated, i
1.a s
- 4. c c u the fact tnat t !.o
.a te r c!.enges state 1 /.
generate c lood, and now does that 15
- 1..
/s~1ong as there's water continuing to IG go in, the sudden chance from liquid to stvan 17 while in part
'when the ECCS injection is 18 turned off, there is no additional wa te r ' to 19 danpen the load on the reactor -- the core's 70 lateral support.
21 0
to you have an understanding of the 22 r.agnitude of this flash?
i l
22 A.
t;o, unfortunately.
1 24 c.
to you knew the direction that this load 25 is applied?
I N T t. R N A T I C.N A L COLXi 1;1 P O H 1 E R E,
34C.
iiC UC T C N, TEXAU (713) KF2-$f11 e
g r '.'
I 1
A.
Fo.
7 p.
The basis of your understanding is 3
e r. t r a c t ed solely fr.o.e the previously referenced NUlt F C docur.ent?
5 A.
It seens to ne there's further tacts in G
t !.c ether tocurents that I mentlened.
7 C.
Ve r y 5:e l l.
T.u t,none outside of those?
E A.
This is ell I have on this.
0 C.
On what do you base your conclusion 14 applicants N triple S venders analysis does not 32 consider such a 1ctoral force?
this issue 1;
/.
Fainly because the force I?
sas juct discovered.
It Las a late-filed le centention.
15 c.
You r.can to imply by that sta toren t not 14 t r.a t they haven't accounted for lateral force, 1
17 but they have not accounted for the the negnitude IS of this injection flash load; is that correct?
Is A.
That's correct.
20 c.
It's Just that one particular conponent l
21 that you have reference to and not lateral forces l
22 in general?
23 A.
No.
Tha t 's correct.
2e c.
Kould you explain to ::e what is a 25 naxinun calculated in pa c t load?
I N T F. R N1.T I C N A L C O U F. T R t..c C R T T R T, I f. C.
I NOUSTCN, TTYAS (71?) 452-5?ll j
~
- p..
t 3
/..
. ell 2
c.
to you understand the cuestion?
2 A.
I'm s u r g. r l s e d,
That's an invi ta t ion to 2
speak very broadly.
The docunent spoke of that 5
as being required.
I believe that was literally
(
t-lifted out of the docunent.
7 c.
Was the docurent making reference to EVE h
f r
loads m$ king reference to FFF's.
9 A.
I think it wa s 14 C.
Is it your understanding that tbc TFP 11 and the EVR are indentically designed in the 12 paraneters of concern in celculating thase loads?
12 A.
It's not ny understandin? tnat t !,e y ere, 1.*
no.
f 25 O.
Then of what relevance is this statencnt la extracted from the document which bas, if I 37 understand your statement correctly, relevance V.
18 only to PhR's?
i j
19 A.
The manufacturers of these reactors both 20 would have to provide the sene safety nergin for 21 sa fe shutdown earthouake and LCCA because 22 reactors are situated randomly.
22 C.
Is it your understanding that a PVD and 24 a r* R will experience the sene sort of LCCI, 25 generating the same sorts of loads, the same IV.1MAAI1 OVAL C C Ui. T 5: E F C r; T E F li, 2 !' L.
~
i:C CSi CN, 17:.v A C (712) 152-5911
g...
4
=... -
1 sorts of u r.v i : c
- c. !
P
[
2 A.
Yes.
The L o r. e sorce of Icads.
2 C.
They will nenerate the ra.e sorts of r
1 4
load?
5 A.
If they loose reactor water.
C.
Ehat's the basis of your conclusion that e
7 the Pb R LCCA and a~LbF LCCA will be identical
~
?
when the d e n i g r. s are radically different?
E-A.
They are not that radically different.
p-,
l e.
C.
v.h a t is the s a r.t e ?
II A.
hhc sa: e would be the sane fuel.
17 C.
Fis E and F '. R have the same mechanical 12 fuel design?
9
(
le A.
No.
incre's a difference there.
f 15 C.
khat do you mean they have the same fuel?
j.
14 A.
They have the sane fuel.
0 17 C.
Kell, that's what I'm trying to 18 understand.
19 A.
Tha t does not nean desion.
Fy " fuel," I 20 nean the fuels.
21 C.
You mean they both use u r a n i u e.
oxide?
22 A.
Yes.
22 C.
Ito w in that pertinent to bl o wd o wn loads?
24 A.
That would be pertinent to the power of 25 those caterials to convert voter to staan.
INTEP.NATICVAL CCUPT FEFORTFEF, IMC.
li C U S T C N,
ryAF (713) 652-5ctj e
n.
... _ _ _. =
l 2
...1 I
O.
to you understand the question?
2 A.
I'm surgrised.
That's an invitation to e
speak very broadly.
The document spoke of that 5
as being required.
I believe that was literally r-lifted out of the docunent.
7 c.
has the docurent making reference to E V T.
r loads --
9 n.
I think it wa s naking reference to F1F's.
I c, C.
Is it your understanding that tbc TFF 11 and the EVR are indentically designed in the 10 paraneters of concern in c e l c u l a t i r.g these load:?
!?
A.
It's not ny understanding tnat t !i e y ere, 1.*
no.
e 15 Q.
Then of what relevance is this statenent 15 extracted from the document which has, if I
~
17 understand your statement correctly, relevance 18 only to PhR's?
i 19 A.
The manufacturers of these reactors both 20 would have to provide the sane sa fety nergin for 21 safe shutdown earthquake and LCCA because 22 r e a c't o r s are si tua ted randonly.
2?
O.
Is it yo u r understanding that e Evn and 24 a rFR will experience the sane sort of L C C t.
generating the sane sorts of loads, the sane i h ', t H A A f i t: F A l.
C C L'i. T R F l-C, T U *i, J !'L.
~
i:C cS S CN, G F.v A r (712) 152-5911
- O
_._.e.
1 C.
to Pbp's and I*I'.
..c t !.c s a r.e poter l
2 densities, sane calacities tc.enerate steam?
2 A.
I'm unclear about that.
It s e c.s to me 4
that PhE's have a lower density.
5
- 0.,
All right.
Is it f a ir to say that >our G
enly basis for extracting this state.ent from the I
7
- t'n c c i s your b e l l e.f that r+E's and F.h n ' s are F
substantially slaller as fo r as generation of 9
LCCA loads are concerned?
10, A.
Yas.
Il C.
111 right.
1.-
A.
That is it.
12 C.
/11 right.
l'o v co fuel ausenblies inter-
~
1.*
act 15 A.
Fy understanding is they actually would 15 begin to interfere with each other in the sense
{
17 of achieving a good deal of closeness or distance.
]-
18 C.
This s ta tement is also cade from the IS NUREC docunent in reference to PhF fuel 20 A.
Yes.
l
(
21 c.
Is it your understanding that FER and i
27 EWR assemblies are identical l
73 A.
tro, but they are sinilar in the distance l
l 72 between fuel rods.
25 c.
Is that the only pareceter cf eencern I b T i!M.A T It.* A L C U L* F 2 F t F C 6. T h f !,
INC.
!; C E S T C N, IM AS (712) 4 5 2 - 5 '. 1 1
1 with reference to the inttraction u.
...a asse=blies is how close or far aiart they are?
3 A.
No, sir.
4 C.
Well, uhat are the other ra r ac o te r s?
5 A.
Cther paraneters would be t l. e rigidity F.
in thich they are held.
that would be cf 7
significance also.
C C.
Is it your understancing that F 'r r. ' s end t
f-
&bn's are identical as to this p a r e r:w t c r as well?
[
10, A.
?:o t identical.
~
[
11 C.
kha t's the differences?
Is it s l i g t. t sr l
12 substantial?
?
12 A.
It's slight.
1<
C.
hhat's the basis of that :enclusien that 15 there's only slight differences?
JK A.
Th a t the bolders 1.a v e to perfore the 17 same function against apparently the worst design I
i 13 base situation by design base e c c i d e ri t.
19 C.
So you're getting back to your
?c supresition that since'the LOCA Icado are ;oinq 21 to be the same, they nest have the core support 22 that is closely the s a n e :'
23 A.
'le s.
24 C.
I,a v e you reviewed applicant's analysis 25 on the conbination of seistic and LCCt b l o s.d o s. n ?
INTERNATICNAL CCtFT le r.r O E T E R E, INC.
II C U S T C N, TEXAS (713) f.5 2 - 5 9 1 1 f.*
n..