ML20040H251
| ML20040H251 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1982 |
| From: | Joseph Holonich Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18023A006 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202170515 | |
| Download: ML20040H251 (5) | |
Text
-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, Docket Nos. 50-445 jg[ Ak.
50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH J. HOLONICH
.Q1.
By whom are you employed, and what is the nature of the work you perform?
A1.
I am currently employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as a Nuclear Engineer Intern in the Thermal-Hydraulics Section of the Core Perfermance Branch. A statement of my educational and professional qualifications is attached. My duties include evaluating the thermal-hydraulic performance of reactor cores and the reactor coolant system needed for safe operation during normal and transient conditions.
Q2. What are the nature of your responsibilities regarding the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ("CPSES")?
A2.
I am familiar with the technical information contained in the Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSAR) for CPSES and was assigned the review responsibility for Section 4.4 of the FSAR.
I' 8202170515 820212 RDR ADOCK 05000 m
Q3. What is the subject matter addressed in your affidavit?
i A3.
I address Contention 2, which alleges:
One or more reports used in the construction of computer codes for the CPSES/FSAR have not been suitably verified and forca11y accepted; thus conclusions based on these computer codes are invalid.
In particular, I have been asked to detennine if paragraph 2 of the Appli-cants' " Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue"
(" Statement of Material Facts"), with regard to NRC Staff acceptance of, Reports 23, and paragraph 3, with respect to Staff acceptance of Applicants' analyses based on Report 6, are correct; and if the Staff supports the Applicants' position.
Q4. Have you read, and do you agree with paragraph 2 of the Applicants' Statement of Material Facts, with regard to NRC Staff acceptance of Report 23?
I A4.
I have read paragraph 2 of the Applicants' Statement of Materiai Facts, and I agree that the Staff has accepted topical report 23.
Q5. Have you raad, and do you agree with paragraph 3 of the Applicants' Statement of Material Facts, with regard to Staff acceptance of Applicants' snalyses which rely on Report 6?
AS.
I have read and agree with paragraph 3 to the following extent:
Report 6 has not been fonnally accepted, but the Staff review of Report 6 is favorable with respect to using FACTRAN in accident and transient analyses.
- 06. Describe' the subject matter of Report 6 and Report 23, and indicate whether the Staff has formally accepted each report?
A6. Report 6, WCAP-7908, "FACTRAN-A FORTRAN-IV Code for Themal Transients In a U0 Fuel Rod" (June 1972), was submitted by Westinghouse 2
ElectricCorporation(Westinghouse). The report describes and constructs the FACTRAN computer code, which calculates the transient temperature distribution in a cross section of a metal clad UO I"'I 2
~
rod, and the transient heat flux at the surface of the cladding during certain transients and accidents.
Report 6 was referenced in Section 15.2.3.2 of the CPSES FSAR.
The Staff review of Report 6 is complete, but the report has not been fomally accepted because the Staff has not yet issued a formal Safety Evaluation Report ("SER") for this topical report. However, Staff review of Report 6 has led to a favorable conclusion regarding the acceptability of utilizing FACTRAN in transient and accident analysis, contingent upon certain restrictions to be delineated in the SER. The Staff's approval is based upon a review of Report 6, the proposed Appendix to the report, and additional ir.formatic.1 submitted by Westinghouse. The use of FACTRAN will result in realistic analyses because the modeling concepts associated with the code are considered acceptable fcr analyzing thermal transients in U0 fuel rods.
2 l
l l
l Report 23, WCAP-7956, "THINC-IV, An Improved Program for Themal-1 Hydraulic Analysis of Rod Bundle Cores" (October 1973), was submitted for NRC Staff acceptance by Westinghouse. This report describes, con-structs, and presents experimental verification data for the THINC-IV
. computer code. The THINC-IV code is used for the steady-state, themal-hydraulic analysis of reactor cores. This computer code was referenced by Applicants throughout the CPSES FSAR. Report 23 was used as background information in my review of Section 4.4.
Report 23 was formally accepted by the NRC Staff. Westinghouse was l
notified of the fomal acceptance of Report 23 on April 19, 1978.
The above statements and opinions are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.
- k. Nmieb
\\
Joseph U. Holonich i
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this /J fkday of February,1982.
') lad o
' Notaryfubly
/ /7I V My Comission expires:
/
p
_mm__
3 JOSEPH J. HOLONICH CORE PERFORMANCE BRANCH DIVISION OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS I am employed as a Nuclear Engineer Intern in the Thermal-Hydraulics Section of the Core Performance Branch, Division of Systems Integration.
In May,1980. I graduate from the Pennsylvania State University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Nuclear Engineering.
I have been continuously employed
~
by the NRC since June, 1980.
My present work assignment at the NRC include the review responsibility of the reactor core thermal-hydraulic design submitted in support of reactor con-struction permits and operating licenses.
I also participate in the review of analytical models used in the evaluation of core thermal-hydraulic behavior under various operating and postulated accident transient condition.
r l
l-
_