ML20042A785
| ML20042A785 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1982 |
| From: | Phillips L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042A778 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203240053 | |
| Download: ML20042A785 (3) | |
Text
er Y
7-s.
02/01/82 UNITED STATES OF AfiERICA NUCLEAR REGULATdhY C0lil11SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the flatter of
)
)~
PUBLIC SERVICE C0t!PANY OF OKLAHOMA ~
)
Docket Hos. STN 50-556 ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
STN 50-557 AND
)
WESTERN FART 1ERS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,
)
INC.
)
)
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF LAURENCE E. PHILLIPS ON CORE SPRAY DISTRIBllTION I, Laurence E. Phillips, being duly sworn, state as follows:
1.
I am currently employed by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission (NRC) as the Section Leader of the Thermal Hydraulics Section of the Core Performance Branch.
A copy of my statement of educational and professional qualifications is attached.
2.
tiy duties include supervising thel review of the distribution of l
the core spray for General Electric boiling water reactors.
I provided to Mr. Tedesco, and am familiar with, the technical information contained in the memorandum from R. L. Tedesco to the Licensing ' Board in the Shore' ham proceeding, with its attachment, entitled " Board flotification -
Japanese Core Spray Distribution Tests on a Simulator BWR/5 Configuration (BN-81-49),". dated December 11, 1981. This notification discusses certain Japanese test results with respect to the core spray distribution for a simulated RWR/5 configuration.
F203240053 820309 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
- ,;&?f
. ~.
f*
</-
~ '
3.
The flRC Staff currently possess only preliminary data from these Japanese tests. He are-attenpting to obtain complete data on an s
expedited basis.
q 7
4.
The test data now ahailable from Japan indicate that' the central bundles of the reactor c' ore model for a BWR/5 received lof core spray flow in a steam environment for a' 60' sector test.
5.
We have been told, although we do not yet possess any data, that a 360' test by the Japanese for a,RUR/5 configuration, with 5 out of every 6 spray nozzle:, blocked,' gave similar results to the 60 sector test with respect to low core spray flow for the central bundles.
6.
Because a BWR/4 has a similar spray nozzle design to a BWR/5, the Japanese results showing low core spray flow +
central bundles for a BWR/5 may also apply to a BWR/4.
7.
A BUR /6 has a different spray nozzle design frcn a BPR/4 or a 8WR/5.
8.
.Previously the flRC, Staff had assumed, based on 360';RPR/6 core i
spray tests conducted in the U.S., that the core spray flow distribution j
to the central bundles observed in those tests would be similar to that predicted ~ for a BWR/4 and a BWR/5. Those 360' tests'in an air' environnen't for a BUR /6 configuration indicated that the core sp' ray overlaps the central bundles, causing high spray flow rates over the center of the core. The new data from the Japanese tests raise the possibility that the BUR /6 360 results may not be use1ul Lto predict core spray rates for the central bundles of a BWR/4 or'BWR/5.
~
9.
This concern with BUR /4 and BWR/5 flow rates to the central bundle was the reason for the December 11, 1931 notification to the
/
y a
s '
Licensing Board in the Shorchan proceeding. The references in that notification to a BWR/6 were not intende1f to question the core spray distribution flow in a BWR/6 but rather to question the applicability of the BWR/6 core spray data to BWR/4's and 5's.
In particular the statementcontainedonp.2oftheAttachmentconcerningthe'$60' tests for a BWR/6 configuration is unintentionally ambiguous.
It would be more precise if it had stated that "there is some possibility that the new data contradict the conclusion that the 360* air tests in the U.S. for a BUR /6 configuration are also valid for BWR/4 and BWR/5 configurations."
10.
The information regarding the Japanese test results provide no basis for changing the Staff's conclusion that the core spray distribution flow in a BWR/6 is not less than the minimum flow required for core spray heat transfer.
f,
. Jmm Ww taurence E. Phillips
' /
/
Subscribed and sworn to before me this /:,1 day of February,1982
' (N E A 777. 60A Notary Public c) tiy commission expires:SA /. /950-J 0 t
9 0
4 4
8 e
_ _