ML20040H290
| ML20040H290 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1982 |
| From: | Meyer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18023A006 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202180046 | |
| Download: ML20040H290 (7) | |
Text
_
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY,)
)
50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Units 1and2).
)
AFFIDAV.T OF RALPH 0. MEYER Ql.
By when are you employed, and what is the nature of the work you perform?
A1.
I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the position of Section Leader, Reactor Fuels Section, Core Performance Branch, Division of Systems Integration. A statement of my educa-tional and professional qualifications is attached to this affidavit.
Q2. What is the nature of your responsibilities you have regarding
'1e Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ("CPSES")?
A2.
I directed the reivew of a number of the computer codes used by the Applicant in the safety analysis of CPSES.
I also supervised the review of those sections of the Comanche Peak Final Safety Analysis Report "(FSAR)" involving fuel system design.
C Q3. Would you describe the scope of the subject matter addressed in your affidavit?
0202180046 820212 PDR ADOCK 05000445 9
PDR A3.
I will address Contention 2, which alleges:
1 One or more reports used in the construction of computer codes for the CPSES/FSAR have not been suitably verified and formally accepted; thus conclusions based on these computer codes are invalid.
In particular, I have been asked to determine whether the facts presented in paragraphs 2, 3 and 7 of the Applicants' " Statement of
!!aterial Facts as to Which There is no Genuine Issue Regarding Contention 2" (" Statement of ifaterial Facts") are correct; and if the Staff supports the Applicants' position.
Q4. Have you read, and do you agree with paragraph 2 of Applicants' Statement of Material Facts, with regard to NRC Staff acceptance of topical reports 8, 10, 12 and 16?
A4.
I have read paragraph 2 of Applicants' Statement of Material Facts, and I agrae with it; and add that Report 8 was not referenced in the CPSES FSAR text, and was not relied upon by the Staff in its evaluation of CPSES.
QS. Have you read, and do you agree with paragraph 3 of Applicants' Statement of Material Facts, with regard to Staff acceptance of the analyses which are based on Report 18?
A5.
I have read paragraph 3 of Applicants' Statement of Material Facts, and I agree with paragraph 3, with regard to Report 18.
Q6. Have you read, and do you agree with paragraph 6 of Applicants' Statement of Material Facts?
A6.
I have read and I agree with paragraph 6 of Applicants' Statement of Material Facts.
Q7. Describe the subject matter of the topical reports 8, 10, 12, 15, 16 and 18; state whether they have been accepted by the Staff; and whether the reports were relied on by the Staff in its review of the CPSES FSAR?
A7.
Report 8, WCAP-7950, " Fuel Assembly Safety Analysis for Combined Seismic and Loss of Coolant Accident" (July 1972), was submitted for Staff approval by Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westinghouse).
This topical report analyzes fuel assembly response to combined seismic and loss-of-coolant loads. Although the Staff has approved this topf-cal report for use in license applications, it applies to Westinghouse 15x15 fuel assemblies, which will not be used at Comanche Peak. This report is not used as a reference in Section 4.2 of the Applicants' FSAR. Rather, Report 10, which is listed below and is applicable to Comanche Peak, is cited in Section 4.2 of the FSAR.
Report 8 is also listed in the references for Section 3.7N of the Applicant's FSAR.
However, it is not cited in the text for this section and is not necessary to support the conclusions of that section.
Report 10, WCAPs-8236 (proprietary) and 8288 (non-proprietary), " Safety Analysis of the 17x17 Fuel Assembly for Combined Seismic and Loss of e
l Coolant Accident" (December 1973), was submitted by Westinghouse.
This i
topical report analyzes the fuel mechanical response of Westinghouse fuel assemblies to combined loss-of-coolant-accident (LOCA) and i
safe-shutdown-earthquake (SSE) loads. The report is cited in Section 4.2 of the Applicants' FSAR. The Staff found this methodology to be acceptable for analyzing 17x17 fuel assemblies with eight spacer grids, as will be used at CPSES. This topical report was accepted by the Staff.
Westinghouse was notified of Staff acceptance on February 6,1979.
Report 12, WCAPs-8278 (proprietary) and 8279 (non-proprietary)
" Hydraulic Flow Test of the 17x17 Fuel Assembly" (February 1974), was submitted by Westinghouse. This topical report analyzes hydraulic flow tests for fuel assembly fretting and wear in 17x17 fuel assemblies and is cited in Sections 4.2 and 4.4 of the Applicants' FSAR. The report describes the experimental results of the hydraulic flow tests, and analyzes those results. The Staff has accepted Report 12 for verifying the design of 17x17 fuel rod assemblies, with respect to fuel assembly wear and fuel rod fretting. The Staff has not accepted Report 12 as verification for the design codes referenced in Report 12, which the Staff did not rely on in reaching its safety conclusion. A letter notifying Westinghouse of Staff approval was sent on April 2, 1981. We have determined that this report, along with additional Westinghouse test results, demonstrate that fuel assembly wear and fuel rod fretting are within acceptable limits.
Report 15, WCAPs-8691 (proprietary) and 8692 (non-proprietary), " Fuel Rod Bow Evaluation" (December 1975), was submitted by Westinghouse, and analyzes fuel rod bowing for 17x17 fuel rod designs. This report is cited in Section 4.2 of the Applicants' FSAR. This report does not describe, construct, or provide information for any computer code. A
revised version of this report has been submitted to the NRC and is cur-rently under review.
In the mean time, the Staff has utilized an interim, approved method of calculating rod bowing which is applicable to CPSES.
The analysis of rod bowing effects at CPSES were performed using the interim method; therefore, the Staff has determined that the analysis is acceptable (SER 4.2.3).
Report 16, WCAPs-8720 (proprietary) and 8785 (non-proprietary),
i
" Improved Analytical tiodals Used in Westinghouse Fuel Rod Design Computations" (October 1976), was submitted by Westinghouse. Report 16 l
describes several revisions to a computer code called PAD-3.3, which is j
used by Westinghouse to analyze fuel rod thermal performance in reactors with designs similar to CPSES. The topical report is cited in Section 4.2 of the Applicants' FSAR. The Staff approved the use of PAD-3.3 with several restrictions.
In the case of CPSES, the Staff concluded that these restrictions were not significant for first-cycle operation at full power (SER 4.2.2).
The use of Report 16 in Section 4.2 of the CPSES FSAR is therefore acceptable.
Report 18, WCAPs-9179 (proprietary) and 9224 (non-proprietary),
" Properties of Fuel and Core Component Materials" (September 1977), was submitted by Westinghouse. This topical report documents material properties values and correlations used in the design of fuel assembly and core components for Westinghouse pressurized water reactors.
It does not describe, construct, or provi'e verification for any computer codes.
Rather, it presents data and correlations used in other computer codes, such as Report 16 above. This topical report is not yet approved by the Staff. Where property value correlations are required in computer codes',
we have reviewed and approved the significant correlations during the review of those codes. Where the property value correlations are not presented in other topical reports, as was the case for hafnium in Section 4.2 of the Applicants' FSAR, we have reviewed and approved the use of those specific correlations in the CPSES proceeding. Therefore, approval of Report 18 is not required for the CpSES safety evaluation.
The above statements and opinions are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.
Ralph 0. Meyer Subscribed and sworn to before me, thisp r/Way of February,1982.
l l
h4 Mw b
' Notary Tublic//
My Comission expires:
/, /9[
s l
l i
l
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 0F RALPH 0. MEYER l
'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D. C.
I an employed as the Section Leader of the Reactor Fuels Section in the Core Performance Branch.
reviews in the area of thermal, mechanical, and materials behavior ofT nuclear reactor fuel.
My general technical background is that of a reactor fuels engineer with experience in fissfor. gas release, fuel densification, steady-state and transient fuel behavior, and fuel performance modeling.
I an familiar with regulatory require'ments related to reactor fuel design and performance.
I hold a B.S. degree in physics from the University of Kentucky and a Ph.'D -
degree in physics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
I '
studied high-temperature and high-pressure effects on diffusion in metals as a Research Associate 'in physics at the University of Arizona.
From 1968 to 1973 I was employed as an Assistant Metallurgist in the reactor l
fuel development program at Argonne N&tional Laboratory.
My research included studies of gaseous fission product migration, segregation of l
fissile fuel material, and restructuring of oxide fuel pellets.
From 1973 to 1976 'I was employed as a Reactor Fuels Engineer in the Reactor Fuels Section of the Core Performance Branch.
My principal activities during that period were related to fuel densificat,fons, fission gas release and the behavior of mixed-oxide fuels for the plutonium recycle program.
Since 1975 I have been the Section Leader of the Reactor. Fuels Section.
I am a member of the American Nuclear Society and have published more than 25 technical papers and topical reports.
9 l
t i