ML20053C819
| ML20053C819 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206030001 | |
| Download: ML20053C819 (161) | |
Text
-
NCCI.IAR RIGULATORY COMMISSION
.}
g o.
[
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY,AND LICENSING BOARD In 9.A Mattar cf:
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-322-OL (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station)
O CATE:
May 28, 1982 PAGES:
2517 - 2677 i
AT:
Riverhead, New York TRa/
2 Or ALDERSOX ' *t REPORTIXG O
400 vi_T da Ave., S.W. Washing
=, D. C. 20024 Talaph==a: (202) 554-2345
,200 0 JiO O C 1 LL O S E'G
.PDP ACOCu 050003Or i
l'I'R
2517
()
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
\\
4
--x 5
In the Mstter of:
a 6
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY a
Docket No. 50-322-OL 7
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) 8
x 9
Riverhead County Complex to Center Drive 11 Riverh e ad, New York 11901 12 Friday, May 28, 1982 l
13 The hea ring in the above-entitled matter 14 reconvened, pursuant to recess, at 9:05 a.m.
t 15 BEFORE:
l 16 LAWRENCE BRENNER, Chairman 17 Administrative Law Judge 18 19 JAMES H.
CARPENTER, Member i
20 Administrative Law Judge 21 l
l 22 PETER A.
MORRIS, Member 23 Administrative Law Judge lll 25 l
0 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2518
()
1 APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of Applicant, LILCO:
3 W.
TAYLOR REVELEY, III, Esq.
4 Hunton & Williams 5
707 East Main Street 6
Richmond, Virginia 23212 7
On behalf of the NRC Regulatory Staff 8
BERNARD BORDENICK, Esq.
9 DAVID A. REPKA, Esq.
10 NQclear Regulatory Commission 11 Washington, D.C.
12 On behalf of Suffolk County 13 LAWRENCE COE LANPHER, Esq.
(
14 KARLA J. LETSCHE, Esq.
x 15 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher 16 and Phillips 17 1900 5 Street, N.W.
18 Washington, D.C.
20036 19 On behalf of General Electric Company:
20 EDWARD A. FIRESTONE, Esq.
21 General Electric Company 22 175 Curtner Avenue - M/C 823 23 San Jose, C alif o rnia 95125 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2518-A i
1
+
0 c
"I "IE 2
BOARD WITNESSES:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS EXAM.
3 O
Richard A. Hill (Resumed) 4 and 5
Summer B. Sun By Mr. Reveley 2523 6
By Mr. Repka 2526 By Mr. Lanpher 2529 7
AETERNOON SESSION.... page 2615 Richard A. Hill g
and 10 Summer B. Sun (Resumed)
By Mr. Lanpher 2616 11 By Mr. Repka 2665 By Judge Morris 2666 12 By Judge Brenner 2667 By Judge Morris 2667 13 O
tratarts 15 NUMBER IDENTIFIED IkECEIVED 16 Suffolk County No. 4 2621 2622 18 Testimony of Richard A Hill for the LILCO on l
19 Suffolk County Contention 10 - ECCS Core Spray------page 2524 1
20 NRC Staff Testimony of Summer B.
Sun on ECCS Core Spray (Suf folk County Contention 10)...........page 2527 Suffolk County Exhibit No.
4, Board Notification 22 81-49...............................................page 2623 23 24 RECESSES:
Morning - 2565 Noon - 2614 Afternoon - 2662 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,iNC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2519 OV 1
P. B. 2 C E E Q I E G E 2
(9:05 a.m.)
(~)
3 JUDGE BRENNER:
Good morning.
I have two very V
4 minor siscellaneous and then I think we can launch into 5
the testimony.
Just a reminder that we hooe the parties 6
can got that additional copy of all the testimony filed 7
today to our offices as soon as possible -- next week, 8
hopefully.
9 In addition, I had a brief off-the-record 10 discussion during one of the breaks yesterday.
I know 11 Ms. Letsche was present and Mr. Bordenick.
I do not 12 racall if a LILCO represen tative was present.
The gist 13 of the conversation was that since the staff is going to 14 request, as to certain contentions, for reasons related 15 to those contentions that thair witnesses not be part of 16 a panel with LILCO.
17 It would be useful, in th e Board 's view, for 18 the staff to make that known as far in advance as 19 possible so that the county can prepare their cross 20 examination accordingly, and so that SOC could prepare 21 its cross examination accordingly.
22 Obviously, when you know there is going to be 23 a combined panel you can take advantage of it, as I 24 believe the county did very well yesterday.
And also, 25 it would help the Board.
So I hope the parties discuss s
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2520 o(_)
1 that and that we are advised very far in advance.
2 We did slso state -- I did ststa in tha t
'T 3
off-the-record conversation that the testimony on (V
4 contentio 7B would be separated.
We were going to make 5
that request for the Board.
Mr. Bordenick informed me 6
that he would have made that same request for the 7
staff.
Our reason there, in part, is sheer logistics 8
given the length of the testimony.
9 In addition, there are some substantive 10 differences of focus which would probably lend itself 11 better to the separate panel.
There is going to be a 12 focus on what LILCO did and then a separate focus on the 13 staff's approach.
So those two panels will be separate
'/
14 and you can plan your cross examination accordingly.
15 Mr. Lanpher?
16 MR. LANPHER4 Is it f air to assume that LILCO 17 will go first on 7B among the staff and LILCO?
l 18 JUDGE BRENNER:
That is what I assume, but we 19 do not require it, if the staff and LILCO reach any 1
20 different agreement.
21 MR. LANPHER:
I am going under that l
22 assumption, and ths t again will help us to know that in l
23 preparing plans.
24 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
Is that correct?
25 MR. BORDENICKs For my purposes, -- for the i,I s_
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2521
()
1 staff's purposes, I think that is a vslid assump tion to 2
make, and if it is invalid, we will give you advanced 3
notice of it.
4 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
Give Mr. Lanpher 5
rapid notice.
O MR. LANPHERs I have no preference; I would 7
just like to know.
8 JUDGE BRENNER:
I understand.
9 MR. REVELEY:
I would like to speak to Mr.
10 Ellis before I enter into anything.
11 JUDGE BRENNER:
Let's go off the record for a 12 moment.
13 (Discussion off the record.)
14 JUDGE BRENNERs Back on the reco rd.
I believe 15 the next order of business will be to swea r in the 16 combined LILCO/ Staff panel on Suffolk County Contention 17 10, ECCS Core Spray.
Is that right?
18 MR. REVELEYa Judge, do you want to talk about 19 the solution?
I think we have a proprieta ry problem 20 before we swear the panel.
l 21 TUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
22 MR. LANPHER May we approach th e bench?
23 (Bench conference.)
24 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right, we are back on the 25 record.
Let's swear the new witness in and then we will O
~
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2522
()
1 get to the stipulation.
2 Let's 7et the stipulation on the record, and (V~)
3 then we will have counsel introduce the witnesses' 4
testimony.
5 MR. REVELEY:
Judge, I have the stipulation in 6
front of me.
It states, "For the purpose of the 7
testimony concerning SC-10, Core Spesy, no direct core 8
spray distribution to a central 54-inch diameter region 9
of the reactor core."
10 I also have with me, Judge, Edwa rd A.
11 Firestone, an sttorney for the General Electric Company 12 who is appearing for purposes of SC-10.
He has noted 13 his appearance in this proceeding.
\\-
14 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
Is there any need 15 to put in the background for the stipulation?
Well, let 16 me state what I think would help.
17 The purpose of the stipulation is so that we 18 would assume the facts stated in the stipulation as an 19 evidentiary fact, which will be the same as if it were a 1
20 proven fact in this proceeding.
The parties' joint l
21 purpose in doing it that way was to avoid any 22 questioning into the background source of such fact to l
23 protect proprietary data, which General Electric felt in 24 its interest and in the interest of others dealing with i
25 General Electric it did not wa n t to disclose.
And Mr.
/
N_)
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2523
()
1 Firestone, as mentioned, has also been participating as 2
a representativo of General Electric.
(~x 3
Mr. Reveley.
4 Whereupon, 5
RICHA RD A. HILL, 6
the witness on the stand at the time of recess, resumed 7
the stand and, havin; been previously duly sworn, was 8
examined and testifi9d further as follows:
9 SUMMER B.
SUN 10 was called as a witness by counsel for NRC Lcaff and, 11 after being first duly sworn, was examined and testified 12 as follows:
13 DIRECT EXAMINATION r~)>
14 BY MR. REVELEY:
15 Q
Mr. Hill, do you have in front of you a 16 document entitled, " Testimony of Richard A. Hill for the 17 Long Island Lighting Company on Suffolk County 18 Co n ten tion 10 -- ECCS Core Spray"?
19 A
(WITNESS HILL) Yes, I do.
20 0
Does that particular document on the first 21 page of tae testimony itself have in its upper righthand 22 corner the designation, "LILCO, May 13, 1982"?
23 A
(WITNESS HILL) Yes, it does.
24 2
Do you have any corrections or additions to 25 this testimony?
's
^
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
25 2t4
()
1 A
(WITNESS HILL) No, I do not.
2 MR. REV ELEY I should note, Judge, I have one 3
typo to cot ?ct on page 5.
The 13th question has moved V
4 right into the text.
It should move left out of the 5
text, and the copy given th e reporter will have that 6
noted on it.
7 BY MR. REVERLEY (Resuming) 8 0
Mr. Hill, is this testimony true and correct, 9
to the best of your knowledge?
10 A
-( WITNESS HILL) Yes, it is.
11 MR. REVELEY:
Judge, I ask that the testimony 12 be admitted into evidence and bound into the record as 13 if read.
13 O
14 JUDGE BRENNER:
In the absence of objection, 15 it will be so done.
16 (The Testimony of Richard A. Hill followss) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
,Ci v
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
Opd UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r'
\\
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD A. HILL FOR THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 10 -- ECCS CORE SPRAY Purpose O
This testimony establishes that Shoreham meets the re-quirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K.
The recent Japanese test data indicating that uneven, low or no core spray distri-bution may occur during a LOCA do not alter the conservative results of the ECCS analysis performed for Shoreham.
GE test results, consistent with the subsequent Japanese test results, j
demonstrate that adequate core cooling is assured at Shoreham by the multiple cooling mechanisms present in the core follow-ing a postulated LOCA.
LILCO, May 13,1982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD A. HILL FOR THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTEN2' ION 10 -- ECCS CORE SPRAY 1.
Q.
Please state your name and business address.
A.
My name is Richard A.
Hill; my business address is General Electric Company, 175 Curtner Avenue, San l
Jose, California.
2.
Q.
What is your position with the General Electric Company?
A.
I am the Manager of Systems Evaluation Programs in the I
Safety and Licensing Operation for the General I
Electric Company.
3.
Q.
? lease state your professional qualifications.
()
A.
The attached resume summarizes my professional quali-fications.
My familiarity with the core spray issue I
i l
- stems from my work in my present position.
I am responsible for resol.ution of generic technical issues
( }
regarding ECCS performance and conformance to the reg-ulations.
4.
Q.
Are you familiar with Suffolk County Contention 107 A.
Yes.
5.
Q.
What issue is presented in that contention?
A.
Suffolk County contends that recent Japanese test data described in BN-81-49 indicate that Shoreham does not meet the requirements for emergency core cooling sys-tems in 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K with regard to core spray distribution and countercurrent flow.
6.
Q.
What is the Shoreham ECCS Core Spray System?
\\-
A.
A General Electric boiling water reactor such as Shoreham has multiple safety systems that provide water to cool the core in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA).
One of these systems is called the low-pressure core spray (LPCS) system.
It consists of two fully-redundant loops, each of which feeds several thousand gallons of water per minute to the top of the core in the event of a LOCA.
The function of the LPCS system is to prevent fuel clad-ding heatup in the event the core is uncovered by a LOCA.
, The core is cooled in part by directing jets of water down into the fuel bundles from spray nozzles mounted
/3 in a sparger ring located above the reactor core.
The V
LPCS system is automatically triggered when there is a low reactor water level and/or high drywell pressure, indicating a loss of coolant to the core.
Water is supplied to the vessel from the suppression pool.
The system begins injecting water into the vessel only after the reactor vessel pressure has been signifi-cantly reduced, and continues to operate until it is manually stopped by the operator.
7.
Q.
Are there core spray distribution and countercurrent flow requirements in 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K?
b) ss A.
No.
There are no specific requirements in 10 CFR 50.46 and in Appendix K regarding core spray distribu-tion and countercurrent flow.
Section 50.46 requires that ECCS cooling performance be calculated for a num-ber of different kinds of LOCA's using an acceptable evaluation model.
Appendix K sets forth certain re-quired and acceptable features of evaluation models.
In particular, Appendix K specifies the value of the convective heat transfer coefficients that are to be used for BWR loss-of-coolant accident analyses.
See i
fs 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix K, Section I.D.6.b.
These N,s]
convective heat transfer coefficients are used to cal-culate heat removal capability from the time the spray
4-systems reach rated flow until core reflood is predicted to occur.
8.
Q.
Does the current GE LOCA evaluation model meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K?
A.
Yes.
GE's model uses the required Appendix K convec-tive heat transfer coefficients.
9.
Q.
Are you familiar with the recent Japanese test data described in BN-81-49 concerning core spray distribu-tion?
A.
Yes.
10.
Q.
What do those tests suggest?
A.
The information received thus far on the Japanese test results indicates that the central bundles may receive O
s/
uneven or low spray flow (1 gallon per minute) during a LOCA event.
Preliminary results from additional such tests indicate that the central bundles may re-ceive no core spray distribution.
This information is consistent with results obtained by GE in tests per-formed in the United States.
11.
Q.
Do the BN-81-49 and other test results indicate that l
Shoreham will not have the capability to adequately cool the core in the event of a postulated LOCA?
A.
No.
Appendix K specifies that convective heat trans-fcr shall be calculated using coefficients baced on appropriate experimental data.
The GE tests that have l
been performed show little degradation in heat
. transfer for spray flows as low as 1 gallon per minute per bundle.
Even at zero direct core spray flow to
{}
the central bundles, there is adequate coolant from-water that has accumulated above the core.
The con-vective heat transfer coefficients used in the GE ECCS evaluation model are based on the specified Appendix K values and are adequately conservative, relative to the GE test data.
12.
Q.
Are there any other phenomena that provide cooling to the core during this core spray period of LOCA?
A.
In the Shoreham BWR, heat transfer during the spray period is also provided by a multiplicity of other phenomena independent of the heat transfer due to va-pori =ation of the core spray fb id.
Three of the
?
phenomena that contribute to lower core temperatures are (1) steam cooling from the uprush of steam through the core, (2) fast core reflood from spray water mov-ing down through quenched bundles to_the-lower plenum i
and (3) the holdup of water in the bundles due to i
i countercurrent flow limiting (CCFL) at the side entry orifice.
These mechanisms together provide much grea-ter convective heat transfer than that prescribed by-Appendix K convective heat transfer coefficients, even with uneven or reduced core spray distribution.
<[
f 13. Q{Insummary, how would you describe the effect of the current Japanese test data on the adequacy of the Shoreham ECCS calculations?
~
~ A.
The Japanese test data do not alter the conservative results of the ECCS analysis performed for Shoreham, 4
q
)
GE tests have verified that the GE ECCS model, which uses the coefficients prescribed by Appendix K, is sufficiently conservative to assure adequate cooling of the core following a LOCA.
Adequate cooling is accomplished by the multiple cooling mechanisms pre-sent in the core during the spray period.
Therefore, Shoreham complies with 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K.
i O
1 t
f t
I l
i
' - ([)
l lL.
. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Richard A.
Hill Systems Evaluation Programs Manager General Electric Company My name is Richard Hill.
My business andress is 175 Curtner Avenue, San Jose, California.
I am employed by General Electric Company (GE) as Systems Evaluation Programs Manager and have held this position since September 1980.
In this capacity, I supervise technical program managers for several licensing issue topics.
I received a Bachelor of Arts in biochemistry from tne
(
University of California at Berkley in 1969, and a Master of Science in engineering management from the University of Pittsburg in 1977.
I have also completed a continuing eouca-tion course in reliability and risk analysis at George Wasnington University, and one in man-macnine interrace engi-neering at the University of Wisconsin.
Following rive years' service in the United States Navy nuclear i
power program, I joined Westinghouse Electric Corporation, where I was Senior Engineer in the Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor Systems Division (1974-1977).
In that capacity I acted as program manager and was responsible for planning, implementing, and controlling multi-divisional research programs in human factors and systems integration.
i
.. I moved to GE in 1977.
From 1977 to 1980 I was Principal Engineer acting as program manager responsible for coordination 1
and integration of programs in dynamic load analysis or equip-i ment and BWh safety analyses in response to Three Mile Islano.
1 I became Systems Evaluation Program Manager in September, 1980.
i O
i
!lO I
2525
(])
1 BY MR. REVERLEY (Resuming) 2 0
M r. Hill, would you like to summarize very 3
briefly this testimony?
4 A
(WITNESS HILL) Yes.
Suffolk County, in 5
Contention 10, claims that the Shoreham plant does not 6
meet the requirements of ECCS systems in 10 CFR 50.u6, 7
and Appendix K with regard to spray distribution and 8
counter-current flow limiting, which may be referred to 9
as CCFL.
10 As a result of the data referenced in the NRC 11 Board Notification 81-49, this notification addresses 12 low flow to the central bundles.
In fact, there are no 13 spray distribution or CCFL requirements in other 10 CFR 14-50.46 or Appendix K.
Appendix K, however, does specify 15 values of convective heat transfer to be used for the 16 BWR during the LOCA analysis.
17 Our models do use these prescribed values.
18 The preliminary test results referenced in Board 19 Notification 81-49 do not indicate that Shoreham will 20 not have the capability to adequately cool the core, 21 because even at zero direct core spray flow to the 22 central bundles, there is adequate coolant f rom wa ter 23 that has accumulated above the core.
In addition, 24 multiple cooling mechanisms present in the core during a 25 LOCA event provide much greater convective heat transfer O
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l 2526
(])
1 than that prescribed by Appendix K.
2 MR. REVELEY:
Thank you, Mr. Hill.
Judge, the 3
witness is available for cross examination.
(~})
(_
4 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right, 1s c's have the 5
staff's testimony.
6 BY MR. REPKAs 7
0 Mr. Sun, you have in front of you a document 8
entitled, "NRC Staff Testimony of Summer B. Sun on ECCS 9. Core Spray (Suff61k County Contention 10)" consisting of 10 one cover page, an outline of testimony and five pages 11 of testimeny and one page of professional qualifications.
12 A
(WITNESS SUN) Yes, I have.
13 Q
Was this document prepared by you or under
-w 14 your supervision?
15 A
(WITNESS SUN) Yes.
16 0
Do you hsve any typos you would like to 17 correct at this point?
18 A
(WITNESS SUN) Yes, I have one correction.
l 19 Page 2, line 15, " June 1978" should read as " June 1978" 20
-- no, 1968.
The "7" should be a "6".
21 2
Thank you, That correction has been noted on 22 the copy given to the reporter.
23 MR. REPKA:
At this point, Judge Brenner, I 24 move this document be placed into evidence.
25 JUDGE BRENNER:
Because of the way you had the A)
(-
l l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2527 1
witness describe what was his testimony, let's make 2
clear that the outline of testimony is not part of the N
3 testimony and may not be cited in proposed findings.
d 4
With that caveat, in the absence of objection, 5
the testimony will be admitted.
6 (The Testimony of Summer B. Sun follovss) 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 l
21 1
22 23 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMtilSSION O
BEFORE THE AT0f'fC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket Number 50-322 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
('
O NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF SUMMER B. SUN ON ECCS CORE SPRAY (Suffolk County Contention 10)
G l0 1
.~.-=-y,.
,--4---
,,-4
OUTLINE OF TESTIMONY p
LJ This testimony addresses the concerns related to adequacy of the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) as indicated in Suffolk County Contention 10.
The testimony describes the information from Japanese core spray tests which is available to the Staff and discusses its implications on performance of the Shoreham ECCS.
The testimony concludes that the information from the Japanese test does not pose a safety concern for the Shoreham plant for two reasons:
1.
The core spray distribution noted in the available Japanese date indicates a coolant flow rate sufficient to achieve the heat transfer D
coefficient required by Appendix K.
(G 2.
GE analyses demonstrate that even assuming no core spray cooling, the peak clad temperature will not exceed the 10 C.F.R. 5 50.46 clad temperature limit of 2200 F.
1 e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket Number 50-322 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF SUMMER B. SUN ON SC CONTENTION 10 Q.
Please state your name and position with the NRC.
A.
My name is Summer B. Sun.
I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear O
Regulatory Commission as a Nuclear Engineer in the Core Performance Branch of the Division of Systems Integration.
Q.
Have you prepared a statement of professional qualifications?
A.
Yes. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached.
Q.
What is the purpose of your testimony?
A.
The purpose of this testimony is to respond to Suffolk County Contention 10 which is as follows:
Suffolk County contends that LILCO and the NRC Staff has not adequately demonstrated that the l
Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) for Shoreham meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.46 and Appendix K with regard to core spray distribution and counter current flow, as shown by the recent Japanese test data described in BN-81-49.
Q.
Explain the term " core spray distribution."
i I
l
4 2
A.
" Core spray distribution" refers to the flow of water from the core spray to each fuel rod bundle. The Staff's concern is to assure 7_s
!~)
that the minimum flow of water to each bundle is consistent with the assumptions used for the core spray cooling in General Electric's (GE)
ECCS Evaluation Model.
Q.
What assumptions are used in GE's ECCS Evaluation Model for core spray cooling?
A.
The minimum heat transfer coefficient for core spray cooling as specified in 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix K, 9 0.6 is 1.5 Btu /hr-ft
- F.
2 This value is used in the GE ECCS Evaluation flodel.
GE assumed that the minimum flow to each bundle to achieve the heat transfer coefficient is on the order of 1 gallon per minute (gpm). This has been verified by GE in the FLECHT data (APED-5529, " Core Spray and
.O V
Core Flooding Heat Transfer Effectiveness in a Full-Scale Boiling Water Reactor Bundle," June 19 8, F. A. Schraub 3nd J.E. Leonard).
Q.
What is the Japanese test data on core spray distribution referred to in Suffolk County Contention 10?
A.
As presented in Board Notification BN-81-49, the NRC Staff currently possesses only preliminary data from the Japanese core spray test referred to in Contention SC 10. The full data from Japan are not available. The Staff is attempting to obtain complete data on an expedited basis.
However, the test data now available from Japan indicates that the
_~
core spray distribution was datermined for a simulated BWR/5 spray nozzle in a steam environment for a 60* sector of the core. The data indicate a lower core spray flow for the central fuel bundles.
4 3
We have also been informed, although we do not yet possess any data, that the same test has been done by the Japanese for a 360' full scale facility, for a BWR/5 configuration with 5 out of every 6 spray nozzles blocked. The 360* test gave similar results to the 60' sector test with respect to the relatively low core spray flow for the central fuel bundles.
Q.
Shorehan is a BWR/4 core.
If the Japanese test is for a simulated BWR/5 core, can the Japanese data be applied to Shoreham?
A.
Because a BWR/4 has a similar spray nozzle design to a BWR/5, the Japanese core spray distribution results may also apply to a BWR/4.
Q.
Describe the results, as far as they are available, of the 60' sector Japanese test.
A.
In the data available, the flow of water to the fuel rod bundles decrease with a decrease in distance from the center of the core, with a minimum flow on the order of 1.5 gpm at a radius of approximately 5 inches. The available data provide no information for core spray distribution to fuel bundles closer to the center of the core than the approximate 5 inch radius.
Q.
Loes the information available to the Staff from the Japanese core spray tests pose a safety concern for Shoreham?
A.
The Staff concludes that the infomation from the Japanese tests does not pose a safety concern for Shoreham.
The Japanese data available demonstrate that for fuel bundles located at radii greater than approximately 5 inches from the center of the core, the minimun core sneav flow is on the order of 1.5 gpm. This l
would remain consistent with the core spray cooling assumptions employed in the present GE ECCS Evaluation Model which meets the heat transfer
4 coefficient requirenents of Appendix K.
As stated above, GE has assumed and verified that the minimum flow to each bundle to achieve the heat transfer coefficient requirement is on the order of 1.0 gpm.
Q.
Can the curve for the core spray distribution defined by the available Japanese data be extrapolated to radii less than 5 inches from the center of the core?
A.
The Staff does not presently have enough information to know whether or not we can extrapolate the Japanese data to the center of the core. Presently we have no details on such variables as the spray nozzle arrangement or test conditions.
Q.
Assume you did extrapolate available Japanese data to the center of the core, and assume that there is no core spray in the center region. What would be the implication on safety of no core spray gU cooling?
A.
In response to our request, analyses were performed by GE for a limiting BWR/4 core to evaluate the effects of no core spray cooling on the peak clad temoerature.
Assuming that the core spray coolant flows down peripheral channels to increase the reflood rate as observed in the U.S. Lynn Test, the calculated peak clad temperature did not exceed the 10 C.F.R. 5 50.46 mk clad temperature limit of 2200 F.
This analysis indicated that even with no credit taken for core spray cooling effects, the BWR/4 would not violate the safety acceptance criteria.
Q.
What is your conclusion?
A.
The Staff concludes that spray distribution adequacy is not a safety concern for Storehan sin:e the requirements of 10 C.F.R. @ 50.46
5 and Appr. dix K are satisfied even without taking credit for core spray cooling, and, accordingly, that Suffolk County Contention 10 is without merit.
O G
/
Summer B. Sun Core Performance Branch Division of Systems Integration U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS I am employed as a nuclear engineer of the Thermal-Hydraulics Section in the Core Perfomance Branch of the Division of Systems Integration.
I received a Ph.D degree with Chemical Engineering Major from University of Missouri of Columbia, Missouri, in 1974.
I am registered Professional' Engineer, Certificate Number 11309, in the stats of Connecticut.
In my present work assignment at the NRC, I have technical responsibility O
for the review of the reactor core themal-hydraulics design submitted in BWR reactor construction pemit and operating license applications.
In addition, I participate in the review of analytical models used in licensing evaluation of the core themal-hydraulic behavior under various operating and postulated accident and transient conditions. The latter responsibility includes technical review of the instrumentation for monitoring inadequate core cooling to comply with the Commission requirements.
Prior to joining the NRC staff in August'1980, I was employed by Combustion Engineering Company, as a consulting engineer.
I was responsible for the development and application of computer codes for the analysis of transients for PWRs.
I acted as a consultant to the Safety Analysis Section of Combustion Engineering Company (CE) in the use of these codes for analysis of CE plants in the area of safety and perfomance analyses.
My tenure at CE was from 1974 through 1980.
2528
()
1 BY MR. REPKA (Resuming):
2 0
M r. Sun, at this time, would you briefly 3-summarize your testimony?
4 A
(WITNESS SUN) The purpose of this testimony is 5
to address Suffolk County Contention 10.
The contention 6
stated that Shoreham did not properly demonstrate the 7
adequacy of their ECCS with respect to the Appendix K 8
and the 10 CFR 53.46., in the presence of the Japanese 9
core spray test data, as stated in the Board to Notification letter 81-49.
11 Because of this Japanese test data available f2 to us, we re-opened the review of the core spray issue 13 for Shoreham.
Based on our evaluation, we concluded the O
(/
14 Japanese test data does not provide a basis for us to 15 change the position that GE ECCS evaluation model does 16 not violate the tr quirements in Appendix K and the 10 17 CFR 50.46, and tr.erefore, the Shoreham core spray system 18 is adequate for safe operation.
I 19 This conclusion is drawn from the core thermal 20 hydraulic design point of view, and is documented in our 21 SSER which is included in the Revision 2 of NUREG-0420.
22 The reasons for our conclusion are as follows:
- One, 23 based on the Japanese test data, we find that the core 24 spray heat transf er coefficient used in the General 25 Electric ECCS evaluation model, which is consistent with O
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2529 (V) 1 the requirements of Appendix K, can he achieved.
2 Two, GE analysis, without taking credit.for r-3 the core spray cooling effect, to calculate peak O) 4 cladding temperature is less than the 10 CFR 50.46 limit 5
of 2200 degrees Fahrenheit.
We take credit for the 6
phenomena which is also observed in the Ja panese test 7
data.
8 MR. REPKA:
Thank you, Mr. Sun.
Judge 9
Brenner, Mr. Sun is now available f or cross examina tion.
10 JUDGE BRENNER:
M r.
Lanpher.
11 CROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. LANPHER:
13 Q
I missed a word or several sentences in your 14 last sentence, Mr. Sun, if you could just re-read the 15 last sentence.
16 A
(WITNESS SUN) Let me res. the second reason 17 for our conclusion.
General Electric analysis, without 18 taking credit for the core spray cooling effect, the 19 ca lculaten peak cladding temperature is less than 10 CFR 20 50.46 limit of 2200 degrees Fahrenheit.
We have taken 1
l 21 credit for the reflood phenomena which is also observed 22 in the Japanese test data.
23 (Pause.)
l 24.
JUDGE BRENNER:
Let me ask the staff one 25 preliminary question.
In general, we asked whether the
/'
NT l
)
l 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
j 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
2530
(])
1 SER would be in evidence a t some point and you indicated 2
you were thinking about a stipuistion or bringing a rS 3
certain witness down.
There are arguably pertinent b
4 portions of the SER to some of the testimony we are 5
coing to get on this contention I believe, and I do not 6
recall it being referenced or what.
7 And remember our admonition that if you are 8
going to rely on things in the other general documents, 9
ve want it focused on when the testimony is being to presented.
How do you propose to deal v',n that?
11 MR. REPKA All we can do at this stage is ask 12 Mr. Sun to point out when he is referring to the SER or 13 the SSER to reference the sections he is relying on, and O
k/
14 the entire document will be eventually moved into 15 evidence.
16 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Brenner, I do not have a 17 pa rtic ula r problem with that in this instance, but if i
l 18 they are going to rely on portions of the SER to l
19 support, for instance, findings of fact on contentions 20 as we move along, we ought to know about it as we are 21 going along so that we can cross examine or whatever.
22 JUDGE BBENNER:
That is right.
All right, 23 let's proceed along the lines Mr. Repka suggested here, j
24 but when staff testimony is put in in the future, I want 25 th e pertinent portions of the SEB identified along with ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2531
()
1 the testimony.
2 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Brenner, could I request 3
that f or the testimony beginning next week, that we be 4
advised if there are pertinent portions th at the staff 5
intends to rely upon?
l 6
JUDGE BRENNER:
All right, but I will not l
l l
7 require them to tell you --
l 8
MR. LANPHER:
How about on Tuesday morning?
l 9
JUDGE BRENNER:
Tuesday morning.
j l
10 MR. LANPHER:
I understand that, but 11 WITNESS SUN:
Okay.
I think this --
12 JUDGE BRENNER:
I am nodding.
Not only do we 1
13 agree with your request -- in essence, we made the same N'
14 request.
The stsff will do that, and the same will go 15 for LILCO for the FSAR sections.
16 All right.
17 WITNESS SUN:
Okay.
Our evaluation with 18 respect to the core spray issue is indicated in Section 19 6.3 of Revision 2 of NUREG-0420.
6.3.
20 JUDGE BRENNER:
You do not mean Revision 2, 21 you mean Supplement 2.
22 WITNESS SUN Supplement 2.
23 JUDGE BRENNER:
It would be the last 24 supprement that came out in February 1982.
25 WITNESS SUN:
Okay, that is published in
(~V)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2532 I'
1 February 1982, page 6-1.
\\_e) 2 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right, thank you.
Mr.
3 Lanpher.
4 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming).
5 Q
Mr. Sun, Mr. Pepka asked you whether the 6
testimony which has been accepted into evidence was 7
prepared under your -
prepared by you or under your 8
supervision sni you replied affirmatively.
Which was 9
it?
Did you prepare it, or was it under your to supervision?
11 A
(WITNESS SUN) I prepared it.
12 0
M r. Sun, is it correct that you received your 13 Ph.D. in chemical engineering in 1974?
[)
k-14 A
(WITNESS SUN) Ihat is correct.
15 0
What -- when and in what did you receive any 16 other degrees, under-graduate or other post-graduate 17 degrees?
18 A
(WITNESS SUN) With respect to nuclear engineer l
19 field, I got training, Introduction to Nuclear Power, 20 for about six months in Combustion Engineering while 21 working there, and also, attend many symposia which are 22 related to nuclear power thermal hydraulic aspects.
23 0
We will get into tha t in a momen t, Mr. Sun.
I 24 would like to know from where did you receive your 25 un der-g rad uate degree.
O ALDERSON RcPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024(202) 554 2345 1
2533 1
A (WITNESS SUN) I got my ES degraa in chemical
{}
2 engineering from University of -- Taiwan University.
3 And I got my Master's degree in chemical engineering 4
from University of Missouri at Columbia.
5 0
So all of your formal degrees are in chemical 6
engineering, correct?
7 A
(WITNESS SUN) The f ormal ed ucation is in 6
chemical engineering with major in thermal hyd raulics.
9 0
I believe in an earlier answer, Mr. Sun, you 10 indicated that your first nuclear experience was with 11 Combustion Engineering, is that correct?
12 A
(WITNESS SUN) That is correct.
13 0
You do not have a degree in nuclear O
(_/
14 engineering, correct?
15 A
(WITNESS SUN) That is correct.
16 2
And is it fair to say when you state on the 17 first page of your resume that you were employed as a 18 nuclear engineer, you are using that in a generic sense; 19 you are doing nuclear engineering-related work, it is 20 not that you have a degree or that you are registered as 21 a proessional nuclear engineer.
Is that correct?
22 A
(WITNESS SUN) Nuclear engineer consists of 23 many fields, and one field is thermal hydraulics, which 24 is directly related to my formal training.
And I was 25 hired by U.S. Nuclear -- U.S. NRC because they wanted to O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2534
("'/
1 make use of my background in thermal hydra ulics to s
g 2
analyze the core thermal h ydra ulics aspects of design.
3 0
Can you describe the work you performed for 4
Combustion Engineering during the period 1974 to 1980, 5
generally, not every project but generally the kinds of 6
work you were performing.
7 A
(WITNESS SUN) I perf ormed the plant design 8
that includes steam generator, that includes the RCS 9
pump and I also performed the transient analysis which 10 is included in Chapter 15, and I also evolved the 11 computer code which is used for the transient analysis.
12 0
These analyses are related to a Combustion 13 Engineering pressurized water reactor, correct?
(~x 14 A
(WITNESS SUN) That is correct.
15 0
A pressurized water reactor does not use a 16 core spray system, is that correct?
17 A
( WITNESS SUN) That is correct.
18 0
Prior to 1974, you were purs'uing your formal 19 education, sir?
20 A
(WITNESS SUN) Yes.
21 Q
Would you please describe the work you 22 performed at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since you 23 joined them, I believe in 1980?
24 A
(WITNESS SUN) I reviewed reload analysis and 25 emphasis in the core thermal hydraulics performance, b-ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2535
()
1 that includes the MCPR calculation, includes core spray 2
performance and others.
Il 3
0 S o th e record is clear, could you explain what NN 4
MCPR stands for, please?
5 A
(WITNESS SON) Minimum critical power ratio.
6 0
Thank you.
7 (Pause.)
8 Has all your work at the Nuclear Regulatory 9
Comission been confined to work on BWRs or does it cover 10 all kinds of reactors?
11 A
(WITNESS SUN) The majority of my work is 12 related to BWRs.
Ten percent is related to PWR; 90 13 percent BWR, 10 percent PWR.
O-s-
14 JUDGE BRENNER:
Let me make a suggestion.
Why 15 don't we say boiling and pressurized, because I am 16 afraid that record is going to be prone to error, at 17 least in the context of this witness.
18 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
19 Q
Would you please, Mr. Sun, describe the work 20 that you have performed on the Shoreham nuclear project, 21 in addition to the preparation of this testimony, 22 obviously.
23 A
(WITNESS SUN) I reviewed FSAR Chapter 4.4 and 24 I prepared the evaluation SER and SSER for Shoreham, and 25 the 6.3 with respect to the core spray.
O ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2536 i
()
1 0
That is wha t I wanted to clarify, sir.
You 2
said you preparad the SSER and the SER.
Now, in that 3
regard, you were the primary author for the staff of the 4
SSER, Sup 2, Section 6.3, the portion that we were 5
referring to before.
6 A
(WITNESS SUN) Okay, for SER 7
2 First of all, the SSER, Sup 2, if we could.
8 A
(WITNESS SUN) Okay, I prepared that, that is 9
correct.
10 0
Now, what other portion or portions of either 11 the Supplement 2 or Supplement 1, or the primary SER for 12 Shorehac, did you prepare?
13 A
(WITNESS SUN) The primary SER, 4.4, and I p'/T N.
14 provided input to other branches for the core spray 15 issue, which is incorporated into the original SER, 16 Section 6.3.
17 0
Is it fair to say that you were a contributor 18 to those sectiont; of the original SSER and you were the 19 primary author of the Supplement 2, Section 6.3?
20 A
(WITNESS SUN) That is correct.
f 21 JUDGE BRENNER4 Well, now I am confused.
I l
22 thought you said that you prepared Section 4.4 of the 1
l 23 original SER, and my idea of your preparing it is that 24 you were the primary author of that section.
25 WITNESS SUN:
That is right.
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2537
( ')
1 JUDGE BRENNER:
I just got a different answer.
2 MR. LANPHER:
I am sorry.
I was conferring, I 3
apologize.
4 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
5 0
Could you repeat the answer just briefly?
6 JUDGE BRENNER:
Let me summarize what I think 7
he stated and then the witness can correct me if I am 8
vrong.
As I und erstand it, Mr. Sun, you wrote and 9
therefore are the primary author of Section 4.4 of 'che 10 original SER.
You also wrote and therefore are the 11 primary aathor of Section 6.3 of Supplement 2 of the 12 SER.
However, with respect to Section 6.3 of the 13 origins 1 SER, you were a contributor.
l 14 WITNESS SUN:
That is correct.
l l
15 (Pause.)
l 16 JUDGE BRENNER:
Let me add one thing so I am
(
17 not unfair to the witness.
When you stated what your l
18 contribution was on Section 6.3 of the original SER, I 19 believe you stated you were a contributor with respect 20 to the core flooding analysis.
Is that right?
21 WITNESS SUN Core spray.
22 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right, thank you.
23 (Pause.)
24 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
25 0
Mr. Hill, I would like to direct several
.G
\\,)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2538
()
1 questions to ynu relating to your professional 2
background.
I will attempt not to repeat things that 3
were coveted before in your previous testimony bef ore 4
this Board.
5 Mr. Hill, have you had any courses in thermal 6
hydraulics?
7 A
(WITNESS HILL) Just one course in the Navy.
8 Q
You are going to have to speak up a bit.
9 A
(WITNESS HILL) One course through the Navy, 10 similar to the type and content of the course that I 11 referenced in previous testimony that had to do with 12 fluid flow.
13 JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. Hill, you will just have l'\\ >)
14 to keep your voice up.
I think you are better off with 15 the microphone about the distance it was but speak 16 loudly.
17 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
18 Q
That would have been in the late sixties or 19 early 1970's, is that correct?
20 A
(WITNESE HILL) 1969.
21 0
Have you had any courses in heat transfer 22 other than that one course?
23 (Pause.)
24 A
(WITNESS HILL) No, I have not.
25 0
Have you had any courses in fluid flow?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2539
(')
1 A
(WITNESS HILL) Other than the one I mentioned 2
previously through the Navy, also.
3 0
Have you taken any courses in mechanical 4
engineering, sir?
5 A
(WITNESS HILL) No, I hsve not.
6 0
Your under-graduate degree was from the 7
Univerr'ty of California in biochemistry, is that 8
correct?
9 A
(WITNESS HILL) That is correct.
10 0
You received, I believe, a Master of science 11 in engineering management in 1977, correct?
12 A
(WITNESS HILL) That is correct.
13 Q
Could you describe what that degree entails,
/
's 14 engineering management?
15 A
(WITNESS HILL) It is basically a Master's of 16 business within the engineering department, meant for 17 people, professional people working in, at that time, 18 the engineering ranks who were slated for management 19 positions.
20 0
It is a non-technical -- is it fair to say it 21 is a non-technical degree for persons with backgrounds 22 such as yourself that have a technical background, so 23 that they can act as managers of a technical section in 24 an organiza tion ?
25 A
(WITNESS HILL) It is a non-technical degree O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2540
(~T 1
meant for persons of my background to prepare them for
%s) 2 msnagement, whether it be a technical section or a 3
non-technical section.
4 0
Prior to 1977 when you joined General Electric 5
Company, Mr. Hill, had you had any experience with 6
boiling wa ter reactors?
7 A
(WITNESS HILL) No, I did not.
8 Q
In your resume you state that one of the 9
aspects of your work prior to your present job which you 10 took in 1980 concerned dynamic load analysis of 11 equipment.
Can you describe what work you performed in l
12 that job, sir?
i i
13 A
(WITNESS HILL) I was a principal engineer m
k_)
14 working for General Electric.
We were involved in 15 analyzing and reporting to the customers the results of 16 analysis that had to do with the response of our nuclear 17 steam supply system equipment to thermal hydraulic loads 18 or excuse me, -- hydrodynamic loads in the i
19 suppression pool; these loads being defined through the 1
20 various Mark I, Mark II and Mark II programs.
21 0
Was this part of the larger or fairly 22 extensive GE effort to analyze the loads of the va rio us l
23 Mark containments?
24 A
(WITNESS HILL) Yes, it was.
It was separate i
25 from the containment programs.
This was a separate l
l V
l l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2541
()
1 prog ra m to analyze NSSS piping and equipment.
The 2
containment programs were more in the rasim of. defining 3
the forcinq functions on the structures and analyzing 4
the structures.
5 Q
Did this work involve analyzing issues such as 6
core spray distribution of the General Electric NSSS 7
system?
8 A
(WITNESS HILL) No, not even close to it.
I 9
did, however, at the same time or approximately the same 10 time, work in the ECCS area, as I believe my resume also 11 states.
As the result of the Three Mile Island 12 accident, my Westinghousa background got me involved in 13 translating, if you will, the types of events at Three
(~h
\\-)
14 Mile Island into a BWR-type language, and was involved 15 in the various small break analyses as a result of that.
16 Q
So the context is clear.
You said in the same 17 time period.
Maybe we did not identify that time 18 pe riod.
This is in the 1970 to 1960 time period, sir?
19 A
(WITNESS HILL) While I was a principal 20 engineer, I believe I started working on the 21 hydrodynamic loads somewhere around 1978 and continued 22 that work until approximately six months after the Three l
23 Mile Island.
At the beginning of the Three Mile Island 24 accident, I began to phase into ECCS type of work, 25 continued that work until I took my present position.
!~h L) l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 L
2542
([])
1 Q
Is it fair to state based on your earlier 2
answer, that your ECCS type of work relating to the 3
af termath of the Three Mile Island accident was to 4
prepare analyses to attempt to determine the relevance 5
of the experience at TMI to a BWR NSSS system?
6 A
(WITNESS HILL) My function was to prepare a 7
programs review analysis, conditions, and attempt to, as 8
you have put it, compare the relevancy of the Three Mile 9
Island accident to the BWR, and interpret the res'ults 10 and presentation of the results to the Nuclear 11 Regulatory Commission.
12 0
Mr. Sun earlier testified that there is no 13 core spray system in a PWR.
Did your work, then, in N
)
14 terms of -- in relation to the THI accident involve in 15 any way review of the General Electric core spray system?
16 A
(WITNESS HILL) From the aspect of its 17 function, the functional criteria of water delivery at 18 the various pressures as it would be used in analyzing 19 small break accidents.
20 0
You say in analyzing small break accidents?
21 A
(WITNESS HILL) Yes.
22 0
I -- correct me if I am wrong.
I understood 23 that the core spray system is not utilized for small 24 break accidents.
25 A
(WITNESS HILL) There are at other plants high p\\_
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COiAPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2543 1
pressure core spray systems which will operate during i
(}
2 small break accidents.
At this particular plant we have 3
two low pressure core spray systems which will operate 4
during small break accidents tollowing automatic 5
depressurization.
6 0
Is it fair to state that your primary work 7
with respect to the core spray systems in relation to 8
the TMI accident was relating to those plants with the 9
high pressure core spray system?
10 A
(WITNESS HILL) No, it is not.
Plants that 11 have high pressure core spray and also low pressure core 12 spray, the small break accident analysis we conducted 13 involved utilization of the ADS system.
When an ADS
(
14 system is actuated, pressure drops rapidly.
In a 15 boiling water reactor, the low pressure systems will 16 come on and operata.
So snalysis was done on all the 17 ECCS systems and how they function during the various 18 spectrum of small break accidents.
19 0
In the course of this work which you 20 performed, did you have occasion to calculate the rated 21 flow of GE core spray systems?
22 A
(WITNESS HILL) No, I was not involved in the 23 cslculation of flow for core spray systems.
24 Q
Were you involved in the analysis of the 25 distribution of core spray flow?
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
2544
()
1 A
(WIINESS HILL) Let me first answer your 2
question and then I want to make sure that there is not 3
a residual feeling that distribution has snything to do 4
with that particular type of analysis.
5 No, I was not involved in the analysis of 6
distribution.
But in conjunction with the question 7
previously, distribution in itself is not part of an 8
analysis for a BWR.
The codes that we use do not rely, 9
if you will, or do not calculate the specific 10
' distribution as far as its flow into the vessel.
11 0
Let me follow up on that, Mr. Hill.
It is 12 true, is it not, that the core spra y system is designed, 13 at least in its ideal, to uniformly deliver water
,%\\_)
14 throughout the top of the core.
Is tha t correct?
15 A
(WITNESS HILL') Its design goal was to 16 Uniformly deliver water throughout the top of the core.
17 In our analysis, that design goal need not be met to 18 ensure flow to the top of the core.
19 0
We will get into that analysis, I am sure, 20 pretty soon.
In your last answer you said the design 21 goal was to deliver the water uniformly.
Has that 22 design goal changed, or is that still the design coal of 23 General Electric?
)
24 A
(WITNESS HILL) Well, I used the past tense.
25 That is because the design f or the core spray system was O)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2545
()
fixed several years ago, and so we are not in the 1
2 process of redesigning the BWR4 core spray systen.
We 3
had a design goal, we designed the system.
4 0
So that is still the design goal, correct?
5 A
(WITNESS HILL) Yes.
6 0
What is your present job at General Electric?
7 A
(WITNESS HILL) P re se n tl y, Manacer of Systems 8
Evaluation Programs.
9 0
And you took over in that job in 1980 after 10 you meved on from the TMI-related work, is that correct?
11 A
(WITNESS HILL) That is correct.
12 0
And wha t are your responsibilities in your 13 presant job, sir?
14 A
(WITNESS HILL) Among others that I have 15 mentioned previously in other testimony, I am 16 responsible f or the generic licensino programs to 17 resolve ECCS issues with the NRC.
l 18 0
At page 2 of your testimony, I think it is the l
19 bottom of page 1 to the top of page 2, you do make that 20 statement with respect to generic technical issues 21 regarding ECCS performance.
Do you regard -- is the 22 core spray distribution issue a generic technical issue, 23 from GE's point of view?
24 A
(WITNESS HILL) The core spray distribution 25 issue has been a generic technical issue with the NRC.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2546
()
The issue goes back to approximately the mid-1970's.
1 2
And therefore, -- you afdressed the question to how GE 3
views it yes, we have generic technical discussions 4
going on with the NRC.
5 0
Maybe I used the term " core spray 6
distribution."
You might want to define the generic 7
technical issue in a different way.
And if I ask a 8
questio that does not match up, please correct me or say 9
you cannot answer, because I sense we might have had a 10 little problem communicating there.
11 This issue is viewed, though, by GE as a 12 generic technical issue because otherwise it would not 13 be under your responsibility, correct?
Okl 14 A
(WITNESS HILL) Yes.
15 0
You said that th.s issue goes back to the 16 mid-1970's.
Was there an event or events that commenced 17 this as a generic issue from GE's point of view?
18 A
(WITNESS HILL) When General Electric 19 originally designed the core spray system, it wa s 20 designed in air.
The distribution was designed to be 21 uniform in an air environment.
In the mid-1970's, some 22 tests were conducted overseas that showed that single 23 nozzle spraying in a steam environment did not produce
[)
24 the same type of spray pattern that the same nozzle
'd 25 would produce in an air environment.
n x-ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2547 1
This information caused discussions between 2
General Electric and the NRC and evolved into.a history
.A 3
of testing programs to define what the spray patterns I
/
V 4
wou.1d be for various nozzles, and basically commenced, 5
if you will, a ceneric program in defining not only the 6
causes of core spray pa tte rn change s, but the effects of 7
the distribution and any resultant effects, as you will, 8
on core cooling.
9 3
You said this issue first arose overseas.
Was to this in Sweden, sir?
11 A
(WITNESS HILL) Yes.
To my knowledge, that was 12 the first.
13 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
O N'
14 0
That problem arose in a Swedish boiling water 15 reactor, is that correct?
16 A
(WITNESS HILL) No.
It was a test that they 17 were conducting.
They were conducting a single nozzle 18 test.
All the details of exactly why they were doing 19 the test I do not recall.
20 0
But it was a test of a nozzle design that 21 would be applicable to a boiling water reactor, is that 22 correct?
23 A
(WITNESS HILL) The nozzle design was 24 applicable to their reactor.
I do not believe that the 25 nozzle they use has any application to the Shoreham O
V ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2548
()
1 plant.
2 2
I am trying to get an historical perspective 3
here.
This had sufficient applicability to a GE boiling 4
witer reactor, however, that it created a concern about 5
the previous tests that had been done by OE in an air 6
environment, and thus prompted GE to commence a testing 7
program.
Is that correct?
8 A
(WITNESS HILL) That is correct.
9 0
M r. Hill, have you ever designed a core spray 10 system?
11 A
(WITNESS HILL) No, I have not.
12 0
Have you ever designed any system, sir?
13 A
(WITNESS HILL) I believe I mentioned in f~%
l 14 previous testimony on the water hammer issue that I had 15 been involved in design modifications to pressurized 16 Water reactor residual heat removal systems.
I have not 17 designed a boiling wac.er reactor system.
18 0
Have you ever performed calculations to 19 de te rmine the necessary core spray flow to achieve the 20 Appendix X heat transfer coefficients, or to meet those 21 coefficients?
22 A
(WITNESS HILL) Your question puzzles me a 23 little bit.
Could you try to restate it?
24 0
Let ne break it down.
Maybe it was too long.
25 When you get into Appendix K, it gets complex.
O Al,DERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2549
()
1 Under Appendix K, GE must perform calculations 2
to demonstrate that certain heat transfer coefficients N.
3 are acisieved, correct?
4 A
(WITNESS HILL) No, that is not correct.
5 Appendix K specifies heat transfer coefficients to be 6
used in a boiling water reactor.
7 3
Do you have a copy of Appendix K up there,' sir?
8 A
(WITNESS HILL) No, I do not.
9 0
I believe in your testimony you refer to 10 Appendix K and the heat transfer coefficients.
11 (Counsel handing document to witness.)
12 It is entitled " Convective Heat Transfer 13 Coefficients for Boiling Water Reactor Fuel Rods under 14 Spray Cooiing."
That would be under 5(b).
15 A
(WITNESS HILL) I see it.
16 0
And there are some heat transfer coefficients 17 set forth therein.
Are those the heat transfer 18 coefficients that you were referring to?
19 A
(WITNESS HILL) Yes, these are the heat 20 transfer coefficients we used.
21 Q
In the introductory portion of this section it 22 says, and I quote one sentence, "For reactors with jet 23 pumps and having fuel rods in a seven by seven fuel 24 assembly array, the following convective coefficients 25 are acceptable..." and it goes on to cite the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2550
()
1 coefficients that you have relied upon.
Correct?
2 A
(WITNESS HILL) That is correct.
m 3
0 What is the -- will Shoreham have a seven by m) 4 seven fuel array?
5 A
(WITNESS HILL) No, it will not.
6 0
Will it have an eight by eight fuel array?
7 A
(WITNESS HILL) Yes.
8 0
What is the basis for usino these heat 9
transfer coefficients?
10 A
(WITNESS HILL) These heat transfer 11 coefficients are extremely conservative, and they have 12 been accepted by the NRC staff as conservative heat 13 transfer coefficients to be used for either seven by 14 seven or eight by eight.
l 15 JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. Hill, how has that staff 16 acceptance been manifested?
17 WITNESS HILL:
That might be better asked to 18 the staff.
But as far as my knowledge is concerned, 19 there has not been an explicit acceptance, but the 20 implicit acceptance as eight by eight fuel is licensed.
21 MR. LANPHER:
Could I have the last -- I did 22 not hese the last couple of words,' excuse me.
23 JUDGE BRENNER:
He said there has not been --
24 he does not believe there has been an explicit 25 acceptance but there has been, in his view, an implicit 1
i j
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2551
()
1 acceptance by the staff as reactors with eight by eight 2
fuel have been licensed.
Why don't we ask Mr. Sun?
3
(~}
WITNESS SUN:
Convective heat transfer V
4 coefficient is a function of flow condition of the 5
thermal properties, and for a given geometric we did a 6
survey -- that includes calculation using the existing 7
widely accepted industrial correlation.
We find the 1.5 8
unit is a conservative number.
And this is the law, and 9
we up to now, we do not have -- ve did not see any 10 number which was lower than this for the core spray 11 con ective heat transfer, so therefore, this is our 12 basis.
13 We still think that they are valid.
It is b
v 14
- good, 15 JUDGE BRENNER:
Is it correct, if you know, 16 Mr. Sun, that there is nothing express in Appendix K to 17 10 CFR Part 50 that sets forth the proper coefficient to 18 usa for eight by eight fuel?
19 WITNESS SUNS That is right.
20 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
21 O
Mr. Hill, I would like to read you a statement 22 from the Shoreham FSAR.
It is just two sentences.
It 23 is from page 1.5-2, under the heading " Core spra y and 24 core flooding heat transfer effectiveness."
It say, 25 "Due to incorporation of an eight by eight fuel rod O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2552
()
1 stray with an unhested ' water rod *, tests will be G'
2 conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of ECCS in
(
3 th e new geometry."
{ ]!
4 Mr. Hill, do you know whether those tests have 5
been conducted?
6 A
(WITNESS HILL) Yes, they have.
Yes, they have.
7 0
Are they documented in the FSAR, sir, to your 8
knowledge?
9 A
(WITNESS HILL) To my knowledge, they may not 10 be documented in the FSAR.
I am not certain of that.
11 Q
Can you please describe the tests that were 12 conducted?
13 A
(WITNESS HILL) Could I ask you first to 14 re-read the sentence, or show it to me?
15 MR. REVELEY:
Do you need to see the FSAR, Mr.
16 Hill?
17 WITNESS HILL:
At least what be was reading to 18 me.
19 JUDGE BRENNER:
I would like it reread anyway i
20 for my benefit.
(
21 WITNESS HILL:
Do you want me to reread it, 1
22 since I am holding the paper?
l 23 (Counsel handing document to witness.)
l 24 This is Section 1.5.2.3, "Due to inco rpo ra tio n 25 of an eight by eight fuel rod array with an unheated
]
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2553
(])
1 wa ter rod, tests will be conducted to demonstrate the 2
effectiveness of the ECCS in the new geometr.y."
(~N, 3
BY M9. LANPHER (Resuming):
(_/
4 0
If you want to read on to get the context, 5
that is fine.
6 (Witness reviewing document.)
7 JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. Lanpher, I obviously do 8
not have it in front of me and I am not asking for it 9
now.
My concern is that ECCS is a broad area, and I 10 want to stay focused on core spray.
So I hope the 11 questioning and responses with respect to these tests 12 stay as focused as practicable.
13 MR. LANPHER:
My only interest is rore spray, 14 also, J udge Brenner.
15 JUDcE BRENNER:
All right.
16 MR. LANPHER:
If this is inapplicable to core 17 spray, I hope the witness will tell me.
But it is under 18 the heading of core spray.
19 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right, that is right at 20 th e heading.
Go ahead.
21 MR. LANPHER:
The heading of the FSAR section 22 involves that.
If you would like in the f uture when we 23 use FSAR sections, we will try to have copies.
24 JUDGE BRENNER:
It is not always essential.
25 It just depends on how far you are going to get into O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2554
(])
1 it.
Go ahead.
2 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
/~
3 Q
Let me repeat the question.
b}
4 A
(WITNESS HILL) Thank you.
5 0
I wanted you to describe -- you testified you 6
believe the tests have taken place.
7 A
(WITNESS HILL) Yes.
8 0
Can you please describe those tests and the 9
results which were obtained?
10 A
(WITNESS HILL) I believe the tests being 11 referred to there were done at our two-loop test 12 apparatus, TLTA in part, and also in part done at our 13 Lynn facility; two-loop test apparatus being used to n
14 conduct some systems tests.
The Lynn facility also ws 15 being used to conduct core spray tests and some systems 16 tests.
17 Q
Can you go on and tell us the results of these 18 tests, if you know, sir?
19 A
(WITNESS HILL) There were several tests.
20 Basically, the tests were originally designed to be 21 conduted for the BWR6, and I am assuming you are l
22 referring specifically to core spray and you do not want l
23 to get involved in all the other aspects of the 24 testing.
Is that correct?
l 25 Q
That is correct, unless you believe it is O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2555 1
relevant to make your answer understandable.
()
2 A
(WITNESS HILL) No.
I just wanted to make sure 3
th at I had the proper scope for the question.
The Lynn
(^
k 4
facility was designed for the BWR6 218 core.
It was 5
modified, if you will, or also adapted to accommodate 6
the lower low pressure core spray header f or the BWRu.
7 The tests were conducted there in a steam' 8
environment to determine the distribution of core 9
spray.
The distribution was monitored by water flow 10 down through the bundles, and the data from that has 11 been reported to the NRC.
12 0
That answer you just gave was with respect to 13 the Lynn f acility, correct?
I 14 A
(WITNESS HILL) Yes.
Let me add before you ask 15 the question that the TLTA tests were not really 16 designed to measure core spray distribution, which is 17 really the question here.
What I was answering was 18 statements of adequacy of ECCS.
I brought in TLTA 19 because that is an important part of our testing proram.
20 It is not the part that pertains directly to core spray 21 distribution; that was done at the Lynn f acility.
22 Q
Does it relate to heat transfer effectiveness, 23 sir?
I want you to understand in the context of the 24 contention, my understanding is that while we are 25 talking about distribution, it is ultimately concerned ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2556
\\
/'T 1
with heat transfer.
So I do not want you to feel too O
2 constrained either, okay?
3 A
(WITNESS HILL) Okay, I understand.
I think
[~T
(
4 that the da ta could be extrapolated to discuss the 5
effectiveness of core cooling, yes.
6 0
Can you please describe what those tests were 7
and the results?
8 A
(WITNESS HILL) Well, there were many tests, 9
obviously.
10 0
The ones relevant.
11 A
(WITNESS HILL) W e did large break tests, and 12 then following the Three Mile Island accident we'did a 10 saries of small break tests.
These tests showed that O'
(m 14 there are other phenomena that take place during the e
15 LOCA, loss of coolant accident event, that provide 16 cooling to the core, other phenomena than we presently 17 have modeled in our ECCS model.
I think I have 18 mentioned a few of those in my testimony.
19 We were able to determine that the phenomena 20 exist, quantify those phenomena and, to a great extent, 21 quantify the effect that takes place on ECCS 22 calculations.
To help you quantify it, we are talking 23 about several hundred degrees' reduction in peak clad 24 temperature as a result of considering these additional 25 phenomena.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, j
400 VPGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
2557
(]}
1 2
So the record is clear, when you are talking 2
about the additional phenomena, if you turn to page 5 cf
/'T 3
your testimony, sir, those see the phenoment identified V
4 in your answer to question 12, is that correct?
5 A
(WITNESS HILL) Yes.
6 2
And each of those were tested in the TLTA 7
tests, sir?
8 A
(WITNESS HILL) Yes, I believe so.
9 JUDGE BRENNER:
I do not want to be too picky, 10 but do yoa believe or do you know?
11 WITNESS HILL:
Yes, they were tested.
12 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
13 0
Were you involved in those tests, sir, Mr.
14 Hill?
15 A
(WITNESS HILL) I was not involved in th?
16 operational tests, no.
Again, as I stated earlier, I 17 was involved in the determination of the program of what 18 would be or would not be appropriate test conditions to 19 simulate the Three Mile Island type of events, and this 20 was specifically related to the small break accidents.
21 Q
So these were the tests tha t were performed 22 not for Shoreham specifically, correct?
23 A
(WITNESS HILL) That is correct.
24 0
Were these tests parformed to respond to the 25 commitment that we quoted from the FSAR:
to perform O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINfA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2558
()
I tests to demonstrate the effectiveness of the ECCS in 2
the new eight by eight fuel array geometry with the
(~T 3
un h ea t water rod?
(
/
4 A
( WITNESS HILL) Yes, they were.
The tests were 5
designed to determine the effectiveness of our ECCS 6
systems.
I will leave it there.
7 0
When were these TLTA tests performed?
Was 8
tha t 1979 or 1980?
Is tha t the correct timeframe?
9 A
(WITNESS HILL) The tests -- again, my 10 familiarity is with the small break tests.
They also 11 conducted large break tests because that is what the 12 facility was originally set up to do.
13 The tests that I am familiar with began --
,m 14 plans for them began in 1979, the 1979-80 timeframe, but 15 have continued on up until during 1981, I believe.
16 0
You indicated that the Lynn tests were in a 17 steam environment; the TLTA tests were in what sort of 18 environment?
19 A
(WITNES3 HILL) The TLTA tests were, again, in 20 a steam environment.
Those tests were intended to 21 simulate what takes place in a BWR reactor in a loss of 22 coolant environment.
23 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
24 Q
Mr. Hill, if you know, did the ILTA tests use 25 a horizontal sprsy header in their configuration?
(")h
\\s ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2559 i
()
1 A
(WITNESS HILL) No, I do not believe so.
I am 2
not -- your question bothe rs me in tha t I think th a t
[~^g 3
possibly you are confusing a horizontal sprsy facility (J'
4 with the TLTA, which is a totally dif f erent facility.
5 Q
Can you briefly explain how it is different?
6 A
(WITNESS HILL) Okay.
The TLTA is a mockup of 7
a BWR cots, if you will, not the full core with all th e 8
systems that would operate during a loss of coolant 9
accident.
The horizontal spray facility is a single 10 spray nozzle tank, if you will, that was used to define 11 the effects of steam on spray nozzles.
12 0
You say TLTA is not a full core; it is s 13 full-length, single simula ted fuel bundle, is that nk-)
14 correct?
15 A
(WITNESS HILL) I am not sure whether it was 16 single bundle or whether it was multiple bundles.
I 17 believe it was single bundle.
18 0
You said that it simulates all the ECCS 19 systems that would be available in the event of an l
20 accident or something along those lines.
Is that 21 correct, sir?
22 A
(WITNESS HILL) Yes, yes.
23 Q
Now, in these tests when the core spray was 24 being measured, was it in conjunction with a low 25 pressure coolant injection input, also?
r~%
Y' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
2560
()
1 A
(WITNESS HILL) We did not -- we did many tests 2
with many systems, you know, considered out of 3
commission.
As you can imagine, we actually did tests 7
s.
V 4
with no systems operating, with any one system 5
operating, with various combinations of systems 6
operating.
So if you say in conjunction with low 7
pressure core injection, yes, there were some, and there 8
were some without.
There were some with low pressure 9
core injection and not the core spray.
10 In a sense, it is also designed to mockup a 11 plant that has high pressure core injection.
That was 12 also part of it.
13 Q
Thank you for the answer.
I will try to make
(~/
h
(_
14 my next questions more precise.
I should have asked --
15 there were some tests with only the core spray, ECCS 16 system operating.
17 A
(WITNESS HILL) Yes.
18 0
Thank you.
Going back to the Lynn facility l
l 19 tests, is tha t s simulated full core, sir?
l l
20 A
(WITNESS HILL) No, it is not.
21 Q
Is that a 30 degree segment?
22 A
( WITNESS HILL) Yes.
23 Q
Does it simulate the full length core rod --
24 co re bundles, fuel bundles, excuse me?
25 A
(WITNESS HILL) No, it does not simulate the l
l l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 vlRG!NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
2561
(( )
1 full length.
It is approximately five foot short of 2
full length.
3 0
I believe you stated that in the Lynn tests
/~}
k/
4 you monitored the distribution of water flow down 5
through the bundles.
Do you recall that statement, sir?
6 A
(WITNESS HILL) Yes.
7 2
In this test, is counter-current flow also 8
simulated?
9 A
(WITNESS HILL) The counter-current flow steam 10 uprush through the bundles and also through the bypass 11 regions can be simula ted, yes.
12 0
How was that simulated first, why don't you 13 define counter-current flow?
I think we will get into
/O k-)
14 that.
It might be helpful.
15 A
(WITNESS HILL) Okay.
Counter-current flow is 16 a phenomenon that is observed or calculated to occur 17 when the boiling water reactor core during a loss of 18 coolant event is flowing down steam that is generated in 19 the center p s. r t of the core.
It rushes up to the upper 20 tie plate, and at the orifices at the top -- I am having 21 a difficult time talking without my hands.
22 Unfortunately, my hands do not go on the record.
23 The orifice is at the top.
There is a steam 24 uprush through there that limits the amount of water 25 that can flow down through those orifices.
Basically, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2562
(~-)
1 it is a balanced type of phenomenon.
Depending upon the j
s.
2 smount of rteam that flows up, you have a different 3
limiting restriction for the water that can flow down.
7 w) ts-4 0
In the Lynn tests, what -- can you describa 5
wh a t the counter-current flow simulation was?
Did it 6
prohibit the down flow of water through, for instance, 7
the central bundles of the 30 degree test?
I guess it 8
is hard to explain bec'ause it is only a 30 degree 9
segment, right?
10 A
(WITNESS HILL) It is a 30 degree segment, yes.
11 0
Was the counter-current flow assumed to be 12 uniform throughout that segment?
13 A
(WITNESS HILL) I do not recall that we had any p)
(_
14 orificing for the steam to adjust for different steam 15 updrafts through the core.
I believe that we did.
I 16 would have to look specifically at the test facility.
17 It was our intent to be able to mock up as close as 18 possible the steam updraf ts you would get for each of 19 the bundlas.
So my judgment would be that we did do 20 tha t.
21 We could run the test with the steam going i
l 22 through the bundles, through the bypass with the steam 23 going through the bundles and not the bypass, or we 24 could valve out the steam entirely.
25 0
3r. Hill, can you please define steam binding?
o) l i
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2563
/~3 1
A (WITNESS HILL) Can I ask in reference to what, L,)
2 because the steam binding can mean different things for 3
different 7-tv 4
Q Certainly.
In reference to counter-current 5
flow.
How it relates to counter-current flow.
6 A
(WITNESS HILL) Steam binding is not a te rm 7
that I am familiar with --
8 0
If you cannot answer it, --
9 A
(WITNESS HILL) -- in reference t.o that, but I 10 can conjecture what you might mean by steam binding.
11 0
No, if it does not have any meaning to you, 12 that is fine.
I do not want you to speculate what I may 13 be thinking.
(~/)
1 14 A
( WITNESS HILL) All right.
s.
l 15 0
Mr. Sun, can you define steam binding?
16 A
(WITNESS SUN) I am not sure which area you are 17 talking about.
Are you talking about counter-current, 18 concurrent counter-current flow limitation?
19 Q
Yes, in conjunction with that.
20 A
(WITNESS SUM) Okay.
The steam flow up has a 21 momentum force, snd flow coming down there is two 22 forces; one is momentum force, one is gravitation l
l 23 force.
When you are talking about steam binding 1
24 phenomenon in this particular event, I assume that the l
25 force coming up from the bottom because the steam upward r's 1
L]
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, ?NC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2564
()
1 through kinetic anergy I think that is what you 2
mention -- upward force from the steam flow flowing 3
upwards.
So that is going to provida a resistant that 4
the water pulldown from top will be held at the top 5
until the stage that you have enough water at the top 6
that the gravitational force and dynamic force is 7
exerted on the steam from water.
Then the water will 8
break down and inject in to the core.
9 0
So steam binding is a phenomenon that relates 10 to barring or limiting the amount of water on top of the 11 core that can flow down into the bundles, correct?
i 12 A
(WITNESS SUN) In this particular phenomenon, I 13 think you are right.
,I \\
(_)
14 0
Mr. Hill, is it' f air to state that you are not 15 familiar with whether this phenomenon is or is not taken 16 into consideration in the GE evaluation model for core 17 spray cooling?
l 18 A
(WITNESS HILL) Maybe I wa s not listening real 19 carefully, but I think wha t Mr. Sun described is the 20 counter-current flow limiting that I attempted to 21 describe.
CCFL is taken into account in the GE ECCS 22 model.
23 0
You heard M r. Sun's answer with respect to 24 steam binding.
Is it your understandir.g that CCFL is 25 the same -- your understanding of CCFL is the same as ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. lNC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W.. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2565
]
1 what he just described as steam binding, sir?
2 A
(WITN ESS IIILL) Like I say, I might not have Q
3 been listaning extremely close, but it appears that what 4
he described was what my understanding of CCFL is.
5 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
6 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Bronner, I have completed 7
this, and I am going to go on to another line of 8
questioning I think, unless something comes up when I 9
consult.
But I would be happy to go on if you want, or 10 we could take a break now.
11 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right, we will take the 12 break at this time, a 15-minute break.
We will be back 13 at ten to 11:00.
V 14
( A short recess was taken.)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (3
'wY ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 2 % 24 (202) 554 2345
2566 o(,)
1 JUDGE BRENNER4 All right.
We can resume at 2
this point.
V]
/'
3 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 4 0
Mr. Hill, I believe that you stated earlier 5
this morning with respect to the FSAR tests that we were 6
discussing, the section of the FSAR that you read you 7
said the tests have been performed, and your 8
understanding is that it has been supplied to the NRC 9
staff, is that correct?
10 A
(WITNESS HILL)
That is correct.
11 Q
Mr. Sun, have you reviewed those data?
12 A
(WITNESS SUN)
A re you talking about the test 13 data?
Which data are you talking about?
We get many
[~)
\\/
14 datas from General Electric.
15 0
I am talking about data, the test results 16 which respond to the FSAR statement; and I would be 17 happy to show that to you again.
The statement at 1.5-2 18 of the FSAR related to core spray.
19 (Counsel handing document to witness.)
20 (Witness reviewing document.)
21 A
(WITNESS SUN)
To answer your question, my 22
'snswer is yes, with qualification.
This test has been 23 going on for many years.
During the stage of the 24 initial planning conduction of test, preparation of the 25 result, I am not involved.
Those results which related i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2567
(( )
I to the core spray specifically have been complete in a 2
year of '79 -- '79
'80.
And the report reisted to 3WR6 3
and BWR4, which has information related to core spray, g~'s b
4 yes, I do receive, that is, sbout six months ago.
And 5
one report related to BWR6 core spray has been raceived, 6
has been reviewed by another NRC reviewer, and the SER 7
also issued on that particular test report.
8 For BWR4 test result we were not asked to 9
review; therefore, we do not review it.
But I am aware 10 of what is cited in the report.
11 0
Your inst statement was that you had not been 12 asked to review the data.
Can you explain for me when 13
-- with respect to the core
'oray what data you review
("h
(_)
14 and incorporate the results of your review in the SER?
15 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Regarding to licensing which is 16 ssfety-related issue and which is different from the 17 existing information, the applicant should submit the 18 information for the staff to review.
And for that 19 particular test report we were not asked to review 20 formally.
1 i
21 0
That is because it was not part of the l
l 22 application, sir?
23 A
(WITNESS SUN)
That is correct.
24 0
Well, isn't it true that the tests -- the 25 application, the FSAR says tha t certain tests are going
(#
\\
'v ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2568 (m
I to be performed to verif y or demonstrate the
()
2 effectiveness of the ECCS in the 8 by 8 fuel rod array, 3
correct?
(3 O
4 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Io answer your question I want 5
to make the evaluation, my evaluation on the BWR test 6
result.
As indi:sted in our SER, which is the document, 7
our evaluation of BWR6 core spray distribution data, our 8
con clusion is that the main purpose for that test is to 9
confirm the separability and the multiple injection 10 effect as involving the core spray, and concluding in 11 our SER ve said they confirm those effect.
And external 12 to BWR test data I would say that the particular purpose l
1 13 also, also well served.
)
14 0
Mr. Sun, I am not sure that you answered my 15 question, and my question did not go to the narrow area 16 of spray distribution; but we have been discussing the 17 question of the proper hea t transfer coef ficient for 8 18 by 8 fuel array, and that is what these tests referenced 19 in the FSAR were meant to demonstra te.
Let me complete 20 it, please.
21 The ESAR, as I understand it -- we have read 22 that section -- says that tests would be conducted to 23 verify or demonstrate that new geometry still resulted 24 in proper ECCS performance.
Have you reviewed those 25 tests and documented the results of your review in the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
i 2569 i
()
1 SER?
2 A
(WITNESS SUN)
To directly answer your
~'3 3
qaestion ny ansvar is no.
J 4
0 Why not?
5 A
(WITNESS SUN)
That test includes many 6
things.
You are talking about heat transfer for 7
reflood, heat transfer for other phenomena.
Here I am 8
talking about core spray heat transfar coefficient.
9 That is all.
And my responsibility is restricted in 10 that area.
11 Q
Maybe you misunderstood.
To your knowledge 12 has anyone at the NRC -- and I did not mean to make this 13 personally to you, Mr. Sun -- to your knowledge has
(~h
(-)
14 anyone at the NBC reviewed those test results and 15 documented the results of the staff review in the safety 16 evaluation report?
17 A
(WITNESS SUN)
As I understand, one SER has 18 been completad to address that particular heat tra n sf e r.
19 0
SER for Shoreham?
20 A
(WITNESS SUN)
When we are talking about core 21 spray as a generic issue, we are talking about type of 22 reactor, and SER is prepared for BWR6.
23 0
Then the answer is to your knowledge the 24 Shoreham SER does not at this time contain the results 25 of the staff review of these tests, is that correct ?
(~)
(d ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2570
()
1 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Again, I would provide my 2
opinion; that is, the conclusion we obtain from FWR6 3
7 core spray tests is stated in our SER, is also applied
-b}
l 4
to BWR4's.
5 0
I understand your position, Mr. Sun.
That 6
conclusion is not documented, however, in the Shoreham 7
SER at this time, is it?
8 A
(WITNESS SUN)
The reason -- okay, that is 9
correct.
The reason for that is we think that piece of 10 information is unrelated.
11 0
What information is unrelated, Mr. Sun?
12 A
(WITNESS SUN)
That information included in 13 the test report.
As I indicated, you know, we have many s
i 14 test reports, and one of the test reports which 15 available to me which addressed the core spray is 16 unrelated, because the purpose f or this test, as 17 indicated in th e test report, is to justify the 18 separability of steam effect and multiple injection 19 effect.
From this point of view the test result well 20 served the purpose.
21 JUDGE BRENNER:
Let ne try something because 22 it is going to be important to everybody that I 23 understand this sooner rather than later and important 24 to me most particularly.
25 As I understand it, Mr. Sun, you are ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2571
(')
I testifying th a t the multiple steam injection testing and 2
the -- I forget whst the other purpose was now -- the i
3 counterflow limiting effect testing, which the FSAR
~3 d
4 stated would be Jone and which we now have hea rd has 5
been done, is not important with respect to your 6
conclusions on core spray distribution.
7 A
(WITNESS SUN)
That is correct.
8 JUDGE BRENNER.
All right.
Now, as I read the 9
testimony, you are stating that you are not worried 10 about the lack of even core spray distribution because 11 you will schieve the required heat transfer 12 coefflecients in any event; that is, even assuming 13 improper : ore spesy distribution, is that correct?
(3
()
14 WITNESS SUN That is correct for core spray 15 heat transfer point of view.
16 JUDGE BRENNER:
Can you explain to me why you 17 are -- well, let me restate that.
In ordar to know that 18 cooling will still be acceptable for reasons unrelated, 19 even assuming core spray distribution does not work, 20 doesn't that assumption depend on the validity of the 21 other factors that you are depending upon for that 22 cooling which you state will exist even in the absence 23 of proper core spray distribution?
24 WITNESP SUN That is right because there is 25 other heat transfer mode well taken care of to remove
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.r. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2572
()
1 dacay heat as a consequence of LOCA.
2 JUDGE BRENNER:
Can you explain to me why the 3
other tests that Mr. Lanpher has been talking about do gx LA 4
not relate to the validity of the assumptions of the 5
other heat transfer modes?
6 WIINE55 5UN:
Agsin, there is so many report.
I l
7 The report I have -- that is, BWR4 and BWR6 core spray 8
distribution te.st data -- the information are not 9
related to other type of heat transfer coefficients, 10 that is correct.
11 JUDGE BRENNER:
Can I get that last answer 12 read back?
l 13 (The Reporter read the record as requested.)
g i
W 14 JUDGE BRENNER:
Are you testifying then that 15 the information in these other tests is not related even 1
16 to these other hea t transf er mechanisms that you are 17 stating will adequately cool the core even in the 18 absence of proper core spray distribution?
19 WITNESS SUN:
Would you please repeat the l
20 question again?
l l
21 JUDGE BRENNER:
Let me try it in the 22 vernacular a little better, and I may be the only Board 23 member with a problem.
I do not know.
24 A loose, very loose paraphrase of your 25 testimony and also Mr. Hill's is not to worry about 1
(m l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 i
2573
()
1 problems with core spray because the heat of concern 2
will be removed throuch the other cColing mechanismc.
3 7'N In your testimony you are not depending on core soray.
O 4
Am I correct so far?
Not depending on even 5
core spray distribution.
6 WITNESS SUN:
Ihat is right.
system is important, but core spray distribution 8
phenomenon is not important to remove the decay heat, 9
that is correct.
10 JUDGE BRENNER:
Okay.
And these other tests 11 being discussed in your view are not pertinent to the 12 cooling tha t you are -- to the cooling phenomena that 13 you are relying upon during a cord spray mode in the fw
(_)
14 absence of even core spray distribution.
15 WITNESS SUN That is right.
16 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
17 MR. LANPHER:
I hate to do this, but I am 18 going to have to start over on some of this.
19 JUDGE BRENNER:
When I said all right, I 20 wanted to turn it back to you.
That does not mean all 21 right, I understand all the bases for the conclusions.
l 22 MR. LANPHER:
I have to go back to Mr. Hill 23 and ask a couple of questions.
24 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) l 25 0
I hope the record is clear and we understand l
I's k/
m l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHING TON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2574
(}
1 each other,
.M r. Hill; that you have been testifying 2
regarding certain tests that were performed, perhaps are 3
still being performed, some of them, to demonstrate that f-t
.i 4
th e 8 by 8 fuel rod array used at the Shoreham and at 5
some other BWRs manufactured by GE will result in proper 6
heat transfer coefficients with the use of core spray, 7
correct?
8 A
(WITNESS HILL)
The first part of your 9
question --
10 0
Let me start over again.
Too long.
11 A
(WITNESS HILL)
If you would make it shorter.
12 0
In the FSAR there is a commitment to perform 13 additional tests to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
(~'\\
()
14 ECCS with an 8 by 8 fuel rod array, correct?
15 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Yes.
And I believe it wa s 16 stated, and I do not have the FSAR in front of me again, 17 bu t I believe it was stated that th at those tests would 18 be done for the BWR6 and be made applicable to the 19 BWR4.
I want to make sure that that is understood.
20 0
Fine.
Thank you for that clarification.
21 Those tests to your knowledge have been conducted, 22 correct?
23 A
(WITNE35 HILL)
That is correct.
24 0
Those tests to your knowledge and from GE's 25 point of view, and I assume LILCO's -- you are here on
)
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2575 l
{}
1 LILCO's behalf -- demonstrate your opinion that proper 2
hett transf er o ?f ficients consistent with Appendix X i
3 requirements are achieved with an 8 by 8 array, correct?
U 4
A (WITNESS HILL)
Heat transfer coefficients 5
will in excess of Appendix K limits are schie' red by an 6 6
by 8 a rray.
7 0
You meet Appendix K in your opinion?
8 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Far surpass, yes.
9 Q
You submitted those test results to the NRC 10 staff.
11 A
(WITNESS HILL)
That is also correct.
12 0
Mr. Sun --
13 JUDGE BRENNER:
Wait a minute.
Let me direct 14 this.
Stay with Mr. Hill.
I'll let you do it or I will 15 do it.
I want to get Mr. Hill's views on why or why not 16 th o se tests are not pertinent to the conclusion that the 17 cooling heat transfer coefficients are adequate in the 18 absence of uniform distribution of core spray although 19 in the presence of core spray.
20 MR. LANPHER:
Go ahead and ask your question, 21 Judge.
22 JUDGE BRENNER:
Do you want me to rophrase 23 th a t, Mr. Hill?
24 WITNESS HILL:
yes, please.
25 JUDGE BRENNER:
Is your conclusion that in the l'8 k.)
1 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
4M vlRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2576
()
1 mode in which core spray is being employed, adequate 2
heat transfer coefficients will be reached dependent on 3
these other cooling phenomena which the te sts that you 4
just discussed were meant to confirm?
5 WITNESS HILL:
Let me first make -- I believe 6
the answer to your question is yes.
It is still a 7
little vague in my mind, but let me first state that the 8
distribution we are referring te is a direct 9
distribution.
W. ster leaves a nozzle and either lands, 10 you know, where this bundle would be or another bundle.
11 What happens in fact according to the te sts 12 that we have done at Lynn is that a pool of water forms 13 at the top of the core so that the distribution is like 14 spraying, if you will, a garden hose into a swimming 15 pool.
The water is there regardless of where it is 16 particularly sprayed.
That pool of water above the core 17 allows water flow down thro..qh the bundles, whicn in l
18 itself would justify the heat transfer coefficients.
19 On top of that, there are additional cooling 20 mechanisms, the ones that I mentioned in the testimony 21 here, that provide heat transfer, that would determine 22 coefficients far above those of the Appendix K limits.
23 Does that answer your question?
24 JUDGE BRENNER:
Yes.
That helps me a lot.
25 But in ligh t of your answer, Mr. Hill, do you agree with l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2577 1
Mr. Sun that it was not pertinent to look at the results
(}
2 of those tests to conclude that adequate heat transfer 3
coefficients are reached even where core spray is not
~'
4 uniformly distributed?
5 WITNESS HILLa I am a little confused by Mr.
6 Sun's answers, okay, and that is not because maybe what 7
he is saying is right or wrong.
I am just trying to 8
understand the question and the answer together.
9 The test results, both on heat transfer, which 10 come from TLTA data, and the test results of the 11 distribution, which comes from the Lynn da ta, has all 12 been submitted to the NRC.
The commitment -- and again, 13 I do not have the FSAR -- but I believe the commitment (O
,)
14 in there was a commitment to document our methodology of 15 core spray distribution for the BWR6 and make that 16 applicable.
And I believe Mr. Sun testified --
17 JUDGE BRENNER:
Make that applicable to the 18 BWR4's?
19 WITNESS HILL 4 To the BWR4 's, yes.
And I l
believe Mr. Sun -- and you can look at his testimony 20 21 but I believe he testified tha t that information has 22 been submitted and has been reviewed.
And I think we l
23 are getting confused a little bit between TLTA data, 1
24 which is different than the Lynn test data.
I do not 25 believe there is a commitment for the heat transfer O
L.)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1 2578
()
1 coefficient part of that discussion to be reviewed and 2
be made applicable to BWR4, although it certainly is.
3 JUDGE BRENNER:
M r.
Sun, maybe my rather f'N V
4 convoluted questions confused you and me.
Let me try 5
this.
8 I think in part you testified that there have 7
been a lot of tests, and you did not revie w all the te s t 8
results far the reasons you indicated, is that correct?
9 WITNESS SUN I did not review'all of the test 10 results, that is right, all, part of it which is 11 relevant to the core spray heat transfer.
12 JUDGE BRENNERs Did you, however, look at the 13 results, those results which you think are relevant to this question of adequate cooling with uneven core spray 14 1
i 15 distribution?
18 WITNESS SUNS O k t.y.
That result shows that 17 the core spray distribution is uneven.
That result also 18 shows that the steam effect and multiple injection 19 effect can be separable, and I agree with this 20 conclusion.
21 JUDGE BRENNER:
Did you have knowledge of the 22 results of those tests with respect to the phenomena 23 described by Mr. Hill of the water collecting in, as he 24 stated, the swimming pool type effect at the top and 25 then trickling down?
Ok ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, C.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2579
()
1 WITNESS SUN:
I am aware of that test data, 2
that is right.
3 JUDGE BRENNER:
And you agree tnat that 4
portion is applicable to this question of cooling with 5
nonuniforn core spray distribution?
6 WITNESS SUN:
Okay.
That is going to help to 7
remove the decay heat, and that is not relevant to the 8
Japanese test data.
Therefore, we do not address it in 9
this testimony.
10 HR. FIRESTONE:
Judge Brenner, I want to make 11 it clear at this time that at least as I assume what Mr.
12 Sun is sayino refers to the Japanese test data in BN 13 81-49, is that correct, Mr. Sun?
(3
(_)
14 WITNESS SUN:
That is correct.
I indicated in 15 my summary remarks.
16 MR. FIRESTONE:
Thank you.
17 JUDGE BRENNER:
Thank you.
18 Maybe this will help me, Mr. Sun.
Can you 19 describe what the multiple injection phenomena is in the 20 context of the tests?
21 WITNESS SUN Multiple injection means if you 22 inject the core spray using one nozzle and the flow you 23 obtain at a certain fuel bundle will be reinforced if 24 you use two injection nozzles.
That effect is called 25 th e multiple injection ef f ect.
It is going to reinforce O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2580
()
1 because of the number of injection nozzles.
2 JUDGE BRENNER:
Now, that is relevant to the 3
conclusions on t,he effects of core spray, correct?
4 WITNESS SUN That is right.
5 JUDOE BRENNER:
And you have looked at those 6
test results or you have not looked at those test 7
results.
8 WITNESS SUN I looked into that test result, 9
and the result confirms the General Electric model for 10 this effect.
11 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
12 WITNESS SUN 4 We reached tha t conclusion.
13 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
I d9 not think I O(_)
14 need to pursue anything further.
15 You are going to get into countercurrent flow, 18 correct, Mr. Lanpher?
17 MR. LANPHER:
I hope so.
18 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
Go ahead.
19 BY MR. LANPHER:
I want to preface this, if I 20 may.
I think the Board has taken my line of questioning 21 one step beyond where I was, which is fine, but I wsnt 22 to go back to my hopefully more simple question to just 23 get an answer.
24 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
25 3Y MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming)
/~T G
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2581
()
1 0
Mr. Hill, in your testimony page 3, Mr. Sun, 2
in your testimony on page 2, you both reference Appendix 3
K and the heat transfer coefficient at Section I.D.6.B 7-V 4
of Appendix K, correct?
5 A
(WITNESS HILL)
That is correct.
6 0
Mr. Sun, that is correct?
7 A
(WITNESS SUN)
That is right.
8 0
As you recall, I asked earlier the basis for 9
using that transf er coefficient in light of the f act 10 that you have an 8 by B fuel a: ray at Shoreham.
You 11 centlemen have responded to thtse questions, and I asked 12 you, Mr. Hill, relating to the FS AR statemen t about 13 verification or demonstration that the 8 by 8 array
/G()
14 leads to acceptable cooling results, correct?
15 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Yes.
16 0
You stated that the test relating to the 8 by 17 8 array, tests which have been performed at the TLTA 18 facility and at the Lynn facility, in your view 19 confirmed that the 8 by 8 array is proper, correct?
20 A
(WITNESS HILL)
That is correct.
21 0
Those test results have been submitted to the 22 NRC staf f, correct?
23 A
( WITNESS HILL)
That is also correct.
24 0
Mr. Sun, will the NRC staff -- I believe you 25 stated that those will -- let me ask the question again.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2582
()
1 Will the NRC staff review those results with 2
respect to verifying thst tha 8 by 8 stray for Shoreham 3
results in acceptable heat transfer coefficients?
-)
(O 4
A (WITNESS SUN)
I think we moved to another 5
piece of test data; that is, the two-loop test apparatus 6
test data.
And when General Electric submitted to NRC, 7
submitted for information purposes, and I went through 8
it, and I find tha t the core spray heat transfer 9
coefficient is much higher than the number which is 10 specified in Appendix K.
And the other strong point is 11 those numbers are measured in natural convection heat 12 transfer mode, and in other words, as you indicate, any 13 flow, any liquid flow is going to increase this number (3()
14 even higher.
So from this point of view I think the 15 data obtained f rom two-loop test apparatus will confirm 16 the number indicated in Appendix K.
That is number one.
17 Number two, I also did a calculation by myself 18 using the equation number 4 indicated in Chapter 9 --
19 Chapter 29 or 25 of the textbook written by Bennett and mass heat transfer.
Okay.
20 Meyer, mass momentum heat 21 In other words, somentum heat -- okay -- momentum heat 22 transfer and -- momentum heat transfer and mass transfer.
23 And the calculation results shows that for a 24 natural -- for natural convective heat transfer ther 25 number will be higher than 1.5 units.
Another piece of
)
ALUERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2583
)
1 information that was indicated by one of the staff, he 2
personally measured the na tural convective heat transfer 3
in air, moisture.
In other words, you have a rod in air 4
conditioning, and you heat it up and you measure the 5
heat transfer.
And it shows that convective heat 6
transfer is larger than 2, which is larger than the 7
Appendix K number.
8 If you change the air to the. steam because the 9
steam has better heat transfer -- heat transfer 10 capability, this number will have a tendency to become 11 even higher.
This is the reason we concluded that the 12 1.5 units would be applicable to e by 8 fuel.
13 0
Then, Mr. Sun, the NRC staff has performed a (3
()
14 review of these tests and performed in addition some 15 calculations of its own, correct?
16 A
(WITNESS SUN)
That is through many years of 17 experience.
In other words, the measure was -- one of 18 the test data messured by one of staff was performed 19 many years ago, okay, and the calculation I did by 20 myself is specific for this ef fort.
And the TLTA test 21 result is also reviewed to confirm the study I did.
22 When we are talking about review we look into 23 the relevant information and try to confirm whatever the 24 numbers specified in a code is violated or still good.
25 And our conclusion is the numbers are still good; (m
\\
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2584
()
1 therefore, we do not take any further action.
2 0
Is that conclusion documented in the Shoreham 3
Safety Evaluation Report?
-,g
.)
4 A
( WITNESS SUN)
Indirectly reflected this 5
result into tha SER for Shoreham.
We write our opinion 6
based on, you know, our knowledge through a survey of 7
all the existing data and calculation, so the result has 8
been reflected into our evaluation.
9 Q
Can you reference me to a portion of the SER 10 in which thst result is given?
11 A
(WITNESS SUN) 6.3, supplemental number 2 of 12 NUREG-0420, page 6-1.
13 3
Is it fair to state, Mr. Sun, that that (n_)
~
L 14 portion of the SER Supplement 2 -- that is, Section 6.3 15
-- was prepared to respond to the data incorporated or 10 which was provided to the NRC staff and later was sent 17 to the Licensing Board in Board Notification 81-497 j
18 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Directly, yes.
19 0
You are familiar with that Board notification, 20 are you not?
21 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Yes.
22 (Counsel for Suffolk County conf erring. )
23 2
Mr. Hill, when you were describing the TLTA 24, test facility, the core spray as it is delivered at that 25 facility, does that come from directly above the (N) i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
i o
2585 l
(])
1 simulated core bundle or bundles?
2 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Yes.
3 g-}
Q Mr. Sun, at Shoreham can you please describe V
4 the sparger ring design around which the core spray 5
nozzles are situated?
6 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Okay.
There are two spargers 7
and half circle, okay.
And each sparger you put 8
injection nozzle there, and those spargers are about six 9
inches above the fuel, and those spargers are arranged 10 very near to the vsll, the reactor vessel wall.
So in 11 other words, injection is not directly from -- the core 12 spray injection is not direct -- direct means 90 degree 13 into the -- each fuel channel.
(~h
(-)
14 0
Just to clarify, in other words, the core 15 spray is act deliver 3d from sbove; it is delivered from 16 the side.
17 A
(WITNESS SUN)
That is correct.
18 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, just to clarify for me, 19 from the side but above.
20 WITNESS SUN From the side above, six inches 21 above the center -- f rom the oct.lo t top of the fuel.
22 BY MR. LANPHER:
(der sing) 23 0
Do all boiling s it v r ractors, Mr. Sun, use a 24 design whereby the nozzles which deliver the water are 25 around the side?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2586
's 1
A (WITNESS SUN)
Not all the BWRs.
I think for (J
2 most of the BWRs, that is, the recent design --
3 0
Mr. Sun, try to use boiling water.
73 tJ 4
A (WITNESS SUN)
Boiling water, okay.
Boiling 5
water.
Most of the recent design boiling water, core 6
spray is injected from the side, and Shoreham is one of 7
them.
8 0
Are 91 familiar with any plants where the 9
water is delivt te d from above the core?
1G A
(WITN:SS SUN)
I cannot name the plant, but I 11 think there are two, okay, one or two plan ts which is a 12 BWR2 or something, which has core flow j-core injection 13 directly from the top.
14 0
Mr. Hill, would you like to comment on that 15 answer?
16 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Yes.
There are three BWR1's.
17 I believe two out of those three -- and one is now not 18 in operation, so I really do not know much about it 19 but I believe two out of those three have nozzles above 20 the core, directly above.
All the rest, to my 21 knowledge, have the sparger rings and the nozzles to the 22 side.
23 Q
Are you frmiliar with modifications that are 24 being planned for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Station?
25 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Yes, I am.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2587
([ )
1 0
Can you describe those modifica tions with 2
respect to core spray?
gy 3
A
( WITNESS HILL)
We have been working with the
(,)
4 Oyster Creek Station in developing a sparcer.
Maybe you 5
do not want to call it a sparger, but a grid netwc k to 6
go above the core to provide spray directly down on top 7
of the core, like one nozzle for every four bundles.
8 There are several reasons why that would be 9
applicable to the Oyster Creek plant.
One is that they 10 have had cracks develop in their sparger, and for a BWR2 11 of this nature where you have an external recirculation 12 system, it is subject to a postulated break in the lower 13 line of tha t recirculation system, thereby precluding
[~)/
's -
14 reflood from below.
There would be no wa7 to hold the I
15 water in the bottom of the vessel and reflood the core 16 from below.
Therefore, sp ra y is a very important 17 cooling mechanism to that core in that postulated break; i
l 18 and th e y want to ensure that they have -- or their l
19 intent was to ensure that they have full distributlon l
10 across the core.
21 We worked wi th them, developed it.
I believe 22 we even built that rig, shipped it to them, and they are 23 now questioning whether they even want to put it in.
24 They are not sure yet.
25 Q
Is it your opinion, Mr. Hill, that a delivery 1
g
]
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2588
(~)
1 technique such is that tha t you described for Oyster v
2 Creek from directly above the core would result in a 3
more even distribution of the cooling water to the tops G
4 of the core bundlas?
5 A
(WITNESS HILL)
In an environment, a testing 6
environment where there is no steam, no event taking 7
place, yes, that kind of a rig would provide more 8
distribution water flow to whatever you are spraying it 9
on top of.
10 In a realistic environment, in a reactor, one 11 that refloods from below, you actually get a pool of 12 water that fecms on top, and it does not matter whether 13 the spray comes in the center or on the side or is
(/
14 distributed evenly or is not distributed evenly.
As I x_
15 mentioned earlier, it is like spraying a swimming pool 16 with a garden hose; you are not going to get any more 17 water at one end of the pool than the other end of the l
18 pool because the poci -- you know, the pool establishes 19 that wa ter level across the top.
20 0
In the original design of the core spray 21 system, sir, was it designed to result in this swimming 22 pool effect?
If that is too hard a question --
23 Isn't it true that the cora spray was designed 24 to deliver water to the top of the core and to have that l
25 water not sit up there as a swimming pool but instead O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2589 G
1 flow down througn the bundles, isn't that correct?
(O 2
A (WITNESS HILL)
The core spray system was 3
g designed to provide cooling water to the bundles.
There V
4 were no assumptions as to a pool or not a pool.
There 5
was just an assumption or the goal th a t we were to 6
provide cooling dater to the tops of the bundles at a 7
certain minimum flow which we talked about earlier.
8 Q
It was designed to provide cooling water to 9
the tops of the bundles but not to stay on the top of 10 the bundles, was it, sir?
It was designed to flow down, 11 wasn't it?
12 A
(WITNESS HILL)
If we were operating in a 13 non-steam environment where there is not steam coming up Iv' 14 to the top of the core, it would flow down.
15 0
There is a mechanism, the countercurrent flow 16 limitation, which is holding this water up, is that 17 correct?
18 A
( WITNESS HILL)
Yes, it holds the water up, s
19 allows certain limited flow down through the bundle.
20 0
You say it allows certain limited flow down 21 through the bundles.
Does GE have a design flow rate 22 for the anount Of water that is supposed to flow down 23 through the bundles, and this is separate from the 24 amount of water that is supposed to hit the top of each 25 bundle.
But how much is supposed to flow down each O
ALDERSON REPORTING CGMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2590 f) 1 bund'. e ?
v 2
F.
(WITNESS HILL)
The design flow from the core 3
3 spray system to the bundles was designed to be I believe Y
4 3.25 gallons per minute.
5 0
That is to the top of each bundle, or is that 6
to go down each bundle per minute, or is it one and the 7
same?
8 A
(WITNESS HILL)
It was designed to be to the 9
top of the bundles.
10 0
It was not designed to flow down them?
11 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Obviously the water at the top 12 of the bundle is going to flow down through the bundle.
13 The design flow of the system to the bundle is 3.25 14 gallons per minute.
The water that reaches the top of a 15 bundle is expected to go down through the bundle.
16 I think you are trying to make a very fine 17 distinction about a design goal and wha t designers might 18 have quessed would or would not happen in a steam
[
1 l
19 environment.
Maybe if you can ask a little more 20 specific question I could be of more help.
21 Q
That design flow has not achieved, correct, of 1
22 a 3.25 gallons per minute to all the bundles?
23 A
(WITNESS HILL)
From direct core spray 24 distribution you are -- f rom direct core spray 25 distribution you are correct.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2591 fl 1
(Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
v 2
A (WITNESS HILL)
Let me hasten to add to that, 3
though, that that design goal of that many gallons per V
4 minute to the top of the bundle was intended to provide 5
vster to the bundles, which is what we were discussing a 6
little earlier, and in fact does provide water to the 7
bundles, all the bundles, because there is a pool of 8
water up above.
So in that sense the design purpose of 9
the system of providing cooling to the top of each one 10 of the bundles was met.
Maybe the dasign goal of so 11 many gallons per minute to each bundle was not met.
12 0
You said the design purpose was to deliver 13 water to the top of the bundles.
Maybe I am trying to O
k,/
14 draw too fine a distinction, but the design purpose was 15 to get to the water to the top and then daliver it down 16 into the bundles to where the heat is, down among the 17 fuel rods, particulurly those in the center, the hottest 18 region of the core.
19 A
(WITNESS HILL)
That would be the natural l
20 consequence of putting water on top of the core, yes.
l 21 Q
If the water flows down, correct?
22 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Which the water does, yes.
23 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferrinc.)
24 0
Ultimately, Mr. Hill, the water is going to 25 all flow town by some means or other to the bottom of
/^)
N/
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2592 l
()
1 the core, correct, until you get full reflood.
2 A
(WITNESS HILL)
I do not think -- maybe you 3
asked your question differently than you wanted to; but
(-]
U 4
I think the answer to your question is no, because prior 5
to getting full reflood and continuing even after 6
reflood, if the upper plenum is still in a saturated 7
condition, you are going to have both water f]owing down 8
through each of the bundles.
At a greater rate you will 9
have water' flowing down through the periphery of the 10 core.
In addition to that you have water still 11 accumulating at the top of the core and at approximately 12 a two-phase level of the sparger height, and it will sit 13 there and oscillate, that level will oscillate at 14 approximately that height.
So until the time comes when 15 you are no longer in that saturated environment for the 16 entire top of the core, you are not going to see all of 17 the pool disappearing.
18 0
So you are going to have a pool up at the top 19 of the core which is held up.
It is this frothy pool 20 that you describe.
It is held up by count er cu rren t 21 flow.
You will also have a pool of water accumulating 22 at the bottom of the core as some water flows down 23 th rough the central channels and more through the 24 peripheral channels, is that correct?
25 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Yes, that is correct.
The O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2593
(~)
1 kind of da ta we got from our Lynn tests shows that v
2 somewhere in the neighborhood of two to four gallons per
, "N 3
minute would flow down through each of the bundles.
And k-)
4 we have that with test data and also by snalysis that we 5
would get that kind of a flow down through the bundles 6
in the more central regions and on th e periphery, 7
possibly up to around 100 gallons a minute in those.
So 8
as the outer bundles quench -- that takes place very 9
quickly sfter the core spray comes on -- you have water 10 flowing down througn the periphery adding to a rapid 11 reflood, as well as the pool standing up above.
12 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
13 JUDGE BRENNERa Mr. Lanpher, while you are (O
_/
14 pausing, I think this latest exchange clarified 15 something that I was going to ask about.
I thought it 16 was an apparent inconsistency between Mr. Sun's 17 testimony and Mr. Hill's, but let me make sure I have it 18 clarified.
19 Mr. Sun, at page 4 of your testimony -- and 20 the questions and answers are not numbered, 21 unfortunately -- but in the next to the last answer on 22 th a t page, the second paragraph, you state, " Assuming 23 that the core spray coolant flows down peripheral 24 channels to increase the reflood rate as observed in the 25 U.S.
Lynn test."
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2594
()
1 I compared that to M r. Hill's testimony at the 2
top of page 5 where he states, "Even at zero direct core 3
spray flow to tha central bundles, there is adequate g-)
V 4
coolant from water that has accumulated above the core."
5 Just to make sure, my question to you, Mr.
6 Sun, is that consistent?
That is, you can have the 7
coolant flowing down the peripheral channels while at 8
the same time h ving tb accumulation phenomenon that 9
Mr. Hill is testifying to.
10 WITNESS SUN 4 That is correct.
I want to 11 clarify the statement.
In the present General Electric 12 ECCS evaluatio~n model the water accumulated at the top 13 of the plate, it has been deleted; and the data also
/~)
(_/
14 shows, in the Japanese test data shows that those water 15 will be cooled down, will be subcooled, and the flowdown 16 peripheral channels to increase the flood ra te.
And 17 here I am talking about that phenomenon.
N other 18 words, this kind of phenomenon has now been considered i
l 19 in the present ECCS, General Electric ECCS evaluation i
20 model which, if you consider, will help you and which 21 has been evidenced in the Japanese test data and the 22' Lynn test 1sta.
23 JUDGE BRENNER:
Staying with you, Mr. Sun --
24 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Brenner, I hate to 25 interrupt you.
T cauld not understand one of the last 1
(h.
l N-ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2595
()
1 parts of the answer.
If it could be read back or 2
something.
I apologize, but I was trying to hear it.
3 JUDGE BRENNER:
Which part did you not hear?
4 MR. LANPHER:
About the last two phrases or 5
two clauses.
"aybe the Reporter can read it back.
6 JUDGE BRENNER:
Maybe Mr. Sun can --
7 WITNESS SUNS Okay.
This subcooling effect 8
caused the water flowdown peripheral channel to increase 9
the reflood rate, has not been considered in the present 10 ECCS evaluation model.
And this phenomenon has been 11 observed in the Japanese core spray tests, and has been 12 observed in the Lynn tests.
13 For some of the plants General Electric 14 submits the model, including this phenomenon, and we l
l 15 have reviewed and it has been approved.
For this l
16 particular issue we will treat it case by case.
In 17 other words, for Shoreham at the present time even if l
18 they do not check for this phenomenon, they will not i
19 violate the safety limits specified in 10 CFR 50.46 in l
20 case -- later on if they want to increase the operating l
21 margin they can do it, and they can submit, and we will 22 review it.
According to the present position we would l
23 approve it.
24 JUDGE BRENNER:
I think you answered my next 25 question, but I want to make sure I understand what you pd ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2596
()
1 mean by "this phenomenon."
2 When you stated that the Shoreham ECCS 3
analysis does not take credit for this phenomenon, did 4
you mean the increased reflood ra te phenomenon or the 5
water accumulation holdup phenomenon or both?
6 WITNESS SUN Okay.
The water accumulated at 7
the top has been deleted.
Okay.
That is one pa rt of 8
the conservatism.
9 JUDGE BRENNER:
Deleted.
You are not taking 10 credit for it.
11 WITNESS SUN:
Has not been taken credit for.
12 And the water flowdown the peripheral channel has not 13 been taken credit for.
14 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
I think that also 15 answers my next question, but let me make sure.
your last answer, starting on 16 Your ultimate 17 page 4 and continuing over to page 5, is that spray 18 distribution adequacy is not a safety concern since the 19 requirements of Appendix K are satisfied even without 1
20 taking credit for core spray cooling.
You literally 21 meant that as distinguished from core spray even 22 distribution.
23 WITNESS SUNS When I am talking about core 24 spray cooling, that addressed the even core flow 25 distribution issue, and for tha t particular issue is if O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2597
()
1 you do not if you assure okay, at that stage the heat 2
transf er coef ficient is equal to zero, tha t is the 3
(-}
extreme case, and from many evidence that is what now V
4 happens.
If you have the extreme assumption, then to 5
take credit for this observed phenomenon, which., you 6
know, a ppear in the Japanese data, then you -- the 7
results still demonstrate the peak temperature is well 8
below 2200.
9 JUDGE BRENNER:
With no core spray whatsoever.
10 WITNESS SUN Core spray heat trarsfer 11 coefficient.
Tha t is important.
12 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well --
13 WITNESS SUN A different stage of heat i
14.
transfer.
And when I say that is 1.5 becomes zero.
15 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, would that only become 16 zero in the absence of core spray?
I do not understand 17 why --
18 WITNESS SUN The core spray is always there.
19 Then the next question is when you actuate the core 20 spray, the water distributed in the core will be even or 21 uneven.
Our conclusion is even or uneven flow 22 distribution is irrelevant because even if you do not 23 ha ve a flow, a flow down the channel, steam effect, 24 steam cooling will provide heat transfer coefficient 25 more than 1.5, and that is the matter related.
b)
%s 1
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 79024 (202) 554-2345 1
l l
2598 f'Jh 1
JUDGE BRENNERs So you did not mean when you s
2 said without taking credit for core spray cooling that 3
there would be no core spray.
Wha t you meant was g-]
%/
4 either/or, either the core spray would flow down evenly, 5
or it would be unevenly there.
6 WITNESS SUN:
Okay.
That is right.
Whether 7
the flow distribution is evenly or unevenly, if you 8
assume okay, that the heat transfer is zero, it would 9
not happen, okay, but still, okay, if you take credit 10 for the other phenomenon, just to show the sensitivity 11 of this core spray heat transfer to this event.
In 12 other words, here try to make the point even or uneven 13 flow distribution is not that critical from a thermal 0s 14 hydraulic point of view.
15 JUDGE BRENNER:
Is that another way of saying 16 that if I made the assumption tha t core spray 17 distribution would be uneven and that f urther you did i
18 not have this water accumulation phenomenon, that the j
1 19 required heat transfer coefficients to meet Appendix K l
l 20 would still be met?
21 WITNESS SUN:
You have to take credit for the 22 water flowdown, the peripheral channel.
23 JUDGE BRENNER Okay.
Thank you.
24 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) l 25 0
Let me follow up on Judge Brenner's questions
()
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W
"\\SHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2599
(])
1 so I make sure I understand.
2 When you say at the top of page 5 of your 3
testimony, Mr. Sun, the testimony Judge Brenner was
\\J 4
referring to, without taking credit for core spray 5
cooling, you are taking credit for the fact tha^. core 6
spray is being the water from the core spray nozzles 7
is being delivered into the core at the full rate, 8
expected rate, correct?
Forget distribution, but it is 9
on, core spray is on.
10 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Okay.
I will try to answer 11 your question this way.
The water accumulated at the 12 top of th e plate because of the steam uplif t f orce.
At 13 this time the Seneral Electric did not credit for this 14 water.
1 15 Now we asked them to assume that the flow will 16 flow down the peripheral channel and into the lower 17 plenum and start to reflood from the bottom.
That is 18 the type of phenomenon I 1m talking about.
19 0
Thank you.
That did clarify.
20 (Counsel for Suf folk County conferring.)
21 MR. L A N P H ER :
Judge Brenner, I am going to 22 start a new line.
I would just as soon do it now -- I 23 think it is going to take ten or fifteen minutes -- if 24 th a t is appropriate to continue.
25 JUDGE BRENNER:
Yes.
I will let you run your C)
% )'
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2600 (v) 1 own case.
You are doing it.
But let me suggest that 2
the witness has gone to a point where the bottom of page 3
7, item E-4 in going to be important to support his 4
cunclusion one wsy or the other.
And I ho pe that you 5
will not abandon those questions in completing your i
6 cross examination, especially the first item.
1 7
MR. LANPHER:
Judge Brenner, I am not 8
intending to abandon it.
If the Board wants to go to 9
the issue now --
10 JUDGE BRENNER:
No, not now.
You are going to 11 reach that at some point?
12 MR. LANPHER:
I think so.
13 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
It is in my mind 14 now, but you do not have to do it now.
15 MR. REVELEY:
Judge, you were talking about 16 the cross examination plan?
17 JUDGE BRENNER:
Yes.
18 2R. R EV ELEY :
I could not find page 7.
19 (Laughter.)
20 HR. LANPHER:
I was going to go to another --
21 if you'll give me a moment, maybe that is more 22 appropriate.
23 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, the witness said in open 24 testimony, so I think I can repeat it, he is going to 25 make the issumption, you know, for the sake of the O
V ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2601
()
I testimony, he is going to agree with you, Suffolk 2
County, there is no even distribution.
And he is rN 3
further stating he is not taking credit for this holdup V
4 phenomenon, although if it occurred he thinks it would 5
help, but ass'2 ming that does not occur also.
6 So the only thing lef t in his assumption is 7
you are either going to have to show that there will not 8
be any core spray at all, or that it will not flow 9
down.
.He took pains to emphasize, I thought, that tha t 10 assumption depended on the peripheral channel flow to 11 effect the reflood, right?
So I an interested in 12 finding out why he feels so good about the fact that 13 that will occur.
8 14 MR. LANPHERa I think I am going to go to 15 that.
I am not going to do it through the outline.
I 16 think I have another method.
17 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
I did not mean to 18 get in your way.
I just think sometimes it is helpful 19 to the parties to know what is in some of the Board 20 members' minds as the questioning and answering is 21 developing; and I raise it only in that context.
22 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 23 0
Mr. Sun, you have reviewed the Shoreham FSAR 24 analyses relating to the ECCS systems, is that correct?
25 A
(WITN;35 SUN)
Partly correct.
I reviewed f) w ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2602
()
1 core sprar, yes.
2 0
Fine.
There are certain accident sequences, 3
is it not true, where the low pressure coolant injection 4
system or the RFIR system o pera ting in that mode would 5
not be available for ECCS coolin7, correct?
6 A
(WITNESS SUN)
This is what we require in 7
Appendix K.
When they analyze their case th ey have to 8
assume the worst case, and when you said a failure of 9
low pressure safety injection f ailure, this would be the 10 worst single failure event.
It is an assumed event.
11 Maybe it would not occur.
Tha t is the worst one, worst 12 case.
13 Q
It may be the worst case assumed design basis i
(_)
14 accident, correct?
15 A
(WITNESS SUN)
That is right.
I tried to 16 provide a background for this, okay?
17 0
Fine.
Thank you.
18 In that worst case accident cooling would be 19 relied upon -- would be achieved through the high 20 pressure :colant injection as well as the low pressure 21 core spray, correct?
22 A
(WITNESS SUN)
In Shoreham there is no high 23 pressure core spray.
There are two low pressure core 24 sprays and two low pressure safety injection.
In a 25 single failure event criteria, assume only one event; in O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINf A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2603
()
1 other words, one safety, low pressure safety injection 2
failure.
Therefore, you still have one low pressure 3
safety injection a vailable.
(~s d
4 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
5 Q
Isn't it true that in this worst case one of 6
the low pressure coolant injection pumps could assume to 7
he inoperable for maintenance or some other reason, and 8
then a failure, a loss of coolant accident, whatever, 9
could occur in the other, thus making lo w pressure 10 coolant injection totally unavailable in an accident 11 sequence?
12 A
(WIINESS SUN)
The case I referred to in my 13 testimony is indeed the limiting case in the sense that l
14 the case is the vorst esse which is going to envelope 15 both BWR4 and BWR6, which would include Shoreham.
The 16 initial event is we assume one safety injection, low 17 pressure safety injection fails, that is right.
i l
l 18 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Brenner, I am going to l
19 hand out a portion of the FSAR.
I have copies.
I do l
1 20 not think it needs to be marked as an exhibit, but I 21 will hand it out as a convenience.
22 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
l l
23 (Counsel distributing documents to Board and 24 parties.)
25 MR. LANPHER:
For the record, it is 6.3.3-4.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIAGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2604
()
1 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 2 0
Mr. Sun, this table is entitled " Single 3
Failure Evaluation (With LPCI Modification."
ss 4
JUDGE BRENNERs Mr. Lanpher, just out of 5
caution, let's note that it is Revision 23, Cctober 6
1981, in case there are other similar tables of earlier 7
dates.
I do not know.
8 MR. LANPHER.
Thank you.
9 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 10 0
The first case there, they assume a failure of 11 the LPCI injection valve, and then they state there is a 12 suction break, systems remaining all' ADS, HPCI 2 core 13 spray, 2 LPCI (one loop).
And the final column is that 0( >4 14 discharge break systems remaining all ADS, HPCI, which 15 is high pressure coolant injection, and 2 core spray, 16 correct?
l l
l 17 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Which line are we talking about?
I 18 0
The tap line, the first assumed event, sir.
19 Have you located that event, sir?
20 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Yes.
21 Q
In that event isn't it true that core cooling 22 would depend upon the water available from the high 23 pressure coolant injection -- you are correct, there is and the two low pressure 24 no high pressure core spray 25 core spray systems?
O
\\_/
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2605
()
1 A
(WITNESS SUN)
I want to go back to my 2
testimony, and where I say that it is not necessary that 7"3 3
the limiting casa is here.
Okay.
The limiting case I O
4 said is the worst one.
So to cover the BWR4 and BWR5 5
and to consider both phenomena -- h ea t transfe-6 coefficient equals zero; another one, flowdown -- both 7
phenonema, which is the worst one.
8 2
M r. Sun --
9 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Which is different from what 10 you indicated here.
11 Q
I am not making specific reference to your 12 te stim on y.
Your testimony speaks for itself, and we 13 vill get to that.
I want you just to direct your i
\\
14 attention to the FSAR table for a moment.
This may not 15 be the worst case, okay?
But in this case that we have 16 described, core cooling would depend upon HPCI and core 17 sp ra y, correct?
l 18 (Pause.)
19 A
(WITNESS SUN)
You are talking about high 20 pressure core spray, spray?
Okay.
Core 21 spray and core injection, yes.
Core spray and core 22 injection, yes.
23 2
Mr. Sun, there is no high pressure core spray 24 at Shoreham, is there ?
25 A
(WITNESS SUN)
That is right.
That is right.
/~5 U
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 t
2606
()
1 That is right.
2 0
In fact, I think you indicated, you or Mr.
3 Hill indicated before that you used the ADS to get down 4
to the low pressure core spray, correct?
5 (WITNESS SUN)
Yes, okay.
6 0
U,nder this limiting case do you know what the 7
assumed peak cladding temperature would be?
a A
(WITNESS SUN)
I do not know.
The review of 9
the analysis is the responsibility of another branch.
10 My review, however, is in the core ther:tal hydraulic 11 aspect.
We have staff to review this in our agency, 12 other people to review it.
13 0
M r. Sun, you are concerned with whether peak
(_)
14 cladding temperature of 2200 degrees is achieved -- is 15 passed or not, aren't you?
16 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Right.
17 0
In fact, 2200 degrees or thereabouts is the 18 temperature that may not be exceeded under design basis 19 analyses, is that correct?
20 A
(WITNESS SUN)
That is what I understand.
21 MR. LANPHERs For convenience, we are handing l
1 22 from the F S A R Figu re 6.3.3-1, Revision 23, October 1981.
23 (Counsel handing document to witness and 1
24 Board.)
25 JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. Lanpher, I am trying to i
CE)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2607
()
t 1
find out where you are going wi th this, no t necessarily 2
because I think it is irrelevant, but because I want to 3
understand it.
(s 4
MR. LANPPER:
I would rather not tell you on 5
the record.
I could tell you off the record.
6 JUDGE BRENNER It is not in your plan.
7 ME. LANPHER:
I think it relates to the item 8
we referenced before.
I am coming at it a different way.
9 JUDGE BRENNER:
Okay.
Let's see where it 10 goes.
Is it going to be lengthy?
I as askip. for two 11 reasons.
We are getting close to the lunch break.
12 MR. LANPHER:
I would very much like to finish 13 this line of questioning before innch.
I think it may O
t,
/
14 be ten or fifteen more minutes, but if we could take a 15 little later --
16 JUDGE BRENNERs Okay.
Go ahead.
17 MR. LANPHER I am afraid if I had to pick it 18 ur after luncn we would have to re-establish the context 19 and that sort of stuff, which would waste time.
20 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
Continue.
21 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 22 2
Mr. Sun, if you would look on that graph which 23 or figure which is entitled " Peak Cladding Temperature 24 and Maximum Local Oxidation Versus Break Area," do you 25 see an LPCI injection valve failure in the upper ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2608 (O_)
righthand portion where the peak cladding temperature is 1
2 shown to be up close to 2200 degrees?
3 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Okay.
I think the scale is too
(~)N 4
rough.
I think to provide this information is that the 5
peak cladding temperature is less than but very close to 6
2200.
7 0
That is why I said approximately.
I'm 8
assud ng it is below.
Actually when I look at it it 9
looks as if it is above.
I assume it must be below or 10 the staff would have had some problems with this, I 11 hope.
But I think it is a little bit below.
12 A
(WITNESS " )
It is a little bit below, a 13 little bit below but close to it.
k,/
14 0
Close to it, fine.
And that is a case where 15 the cooling would have been provided by core spray, two 16 lines of : ore spray, and the high pressure coolant 17 injection, correct?
18 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Say it again.
19 0
The cooling which maintains the peak cladding l
20 tesperature just below 2200 degrees is cooling provided 21 by two core spray trains and the high pressure coolant 22 injection, correct?
In that regard you may want to 23 refer back to Table 6.3.3-4.
24 A
(WITNESS SUN)
I cannot answer your question 25 because evaluate assumptions used for the analysis would
]
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2609
()
1 be responsible for by other staff.
2 Q
Mr. Hill, maybe you can help.
Is it your 3
understanding that in that scenario the peak cladding 4
temperature was just below 2200 degrees, and tha t was 5
achieved -- it was kept below that by use of the core 6
spray and HPCI, sir?
7 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Can you define the scenario, 8
please?
9 0
Scenarios LPCI injection valve failure, 10 discharge 82.5 percent DBA.
11 JUDGE BRENNER:
I thought you were going to 12 Gse the other one which is still higher.
13 MR. LANPHER:
It is close.
O l /
14 WITNESS HILL:
I'd have to say I am not sure m
15 because I have not reviewed in real detail these pages 16 until just now.
But I believe if you will look down a 17 little bit further from there at the lower nambe7s, 18 somewhere closer to 2000 or less degrees, you will see l
19 LPCI number 4.
I believe that is failure discharge, 20 large break model.
21 Again I will say that I am not positive, but I 22 believe that is what is being referred to here at page 23 6.3.3-4, discharge break systems remaining.
You have to 24 consider that we do a large break spectrum for various 25 system complements, and I believe the ones you are l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2610
()
1 referring to are for larger breaks than would be 2
achieved with an LPCI discharge failure.
3 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming)
(']
LJ 4
0 What breaks would that be, M r. Hill?
5 A
(WITNESS HILL)
You can see down below that 6
there is the maximum suction, and tha t is where you 7
assume that a line breaks and separates, a 8
quillotine-type of break, and you get maximum 9
discharge.
You could have the same kind of break with 10 less separation of pipes and less discharge and 11 obviously a wide variety -- a wide spectrum.
12 An exact determination of where 85 percent of 13 the discharge of the DBA came from I am not certain, but k_l 1E it appears from this analysis in the break spectrum, f
/
15 whether or not there is a particular pipe in the plant 16 that would give you that break, that this break spectrum 17 shows that as the most lim itin g.
And I think it would 18 be a large assumption on a nybody's part to come up with l
19 the fact that 85 percent is equivalent to an LPCI 20 discharge pipe break.
21 0
But it is on this table, correct?
22 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Certainly.
We do a break 23 spectrum.
We do not evaluate just the breaks for line 24 sizes that are available on the plant.
That would make 25 our job much simpler.
We are required to evaluate a l
f ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2611
(])
1 large break spectrum which includes break sizes, if you 2
will, that are between actual line sizes.
And as I 3
said, you make a large assumption, which I will not O( 3 4
verify and I do act believe is correct, that that 85 5
percent of diccharge is equivalent to that discharge 6
line size.
I do not believe it is.
I believe the one I 7
pointed out down below is an accurate one that refers to 8
the same terminology on --
9 0
Is it your testimony that the three highest
~
10 values on figure 6.3.3-1 do not relate to any pipes 11 which exist at Shoreham, or you just do not know?
12 A
(WITNESS HILL)
I am not certain that they 13 relate to a specific pipe.
What I am -- because as I
/^D
(,,/
14 have said, and I will say it again, I have not seen this 15 until just now to be able to review it.
However, from l
l 16 the terminology on these two tables I believe the proper 17 reference ought to be the one I pointed out.
18 19 20 l
21 22 23 25 GV l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024.202) 554-2345 m.
2612-2613
()
1 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
2 Q
I do not think we need to stay on this.
It is 3
somewhere between 2000 and under 2200 degrees, even the V("3 4
ones you pointed out, Mr. Hill, are up around 2000 5
degrees for the limiting break; correct?
6 A
(WITNESS HILL)
I sa tryin; to do a closer 7
calcula tion, but it appears it is closer to around 1800 8
degrees if you lay a straight line across there.
9 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, this is not going to be to very productive.
You cannot tell f rom the dia gram very 11 well, and it is obvious to anyone looking at it.
So if 12 it matters', you cannot.
If it does not matter, let us 13 get more directly to where you want to go.
k/
14 WITNESS SUNa Can I add some comment?
15 JUDGE BRENNERs Wait.
What does your comment 16 relate to?
17 WITNESS SUN Related to the 2200 safety 18 limit.
19 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
20 WITNESS SUN 2200 safety limit is very low 21 temperature.
According to our test, either you can go 22 up to 2800 degrees Fahrenheit; the fuel cladding will 23 still not be damaged, and the 2200 degree Fahrenheit was 24 set there.
It is based on the knowledge we have, 25 probably ten, seven yeas ago, at the time we wrote this l
l
($)
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2614
)
I code.
t 2
BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) rw 3
0 Thst is the regulatory limit now, is it not?
b 4
A (WITNESS SUN)
That is right.
The comment I 5
made just provided the update in forma tion f or your 6
information purpose.
7 Q
In the core spray analyses made for Shoreham, 8
those analysis which are documented in the FSAR at inis 9
time. assume uniform distribution of the core spray; 10 correct?
11 A
(WITNESS HILL)
I am sorry.
If you are 12 talking to me --
13 0
I sm sorry.
I apologize.
Let me start over.
{~)
's /
14 Mr. Hill, the core spray cooling analysis for Shoreham 15 assumed uniform distribution of the core spray; 16 correct?
17 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Incorrect.
18 JUDGE BRENNERs It is a good thing there is no 19 jury here, Mr. Lanpher.
20 Let us ao off the record.
21 (Discussion off the record.)
22 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right, we will come back 23 at 1:45.
24 (Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m.,
the hearing was l
25 recessed, to reconvene at 1s45 p.m.
this same day.)
A
\\
l ALDERSON.".2 PORTING COMPANY, INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2615
(')
1 AETERNOON SESSIDE 2
(1:43 p.m.)
3 Whereupon, 4
RICARD A.
HILL 5
and 6
SUMMER 2.
- SUN, 7
the witnesses on the stand at the time of recess, 8
resumed the stand and were further examined and 9
testified as follows:
10 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right, let us proceed with 11 the cross examination.
Mr. Lanpher, how much longer 12 will you be?
13 MR. LANPHER I informed Mr. Reveley tha t we
(("}
14 vill finish today.
15 JUDGE BRENNERa I take that as a given.
I 16 want to know -- you will finish today is what your 17 statement was?
18 MR. LANPHER:
We will all finjsh today unless 19 the Board has an enormous amount of questioning.
20 JUDGE BRENNER:
Can we start the next 21 contention today also?
22 MR. LANPHER:
I doubt it.
23 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right, proceed.
24 MR. LANPHER:
Off the record.
25 (Discussion off the record.)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2616
()
1 JUDGE BRENkER:
Let us go on the record.
2 Mr. Lanpher, while we were off the record we 3
discussed how long it might take, based on the plans b(w 4
which were adjusted primarily at the County's request.
5
'Je will have to break at 4s00 because of arrangements 6
made by one of the Board cembers as well as the 7
reporter.
And you are going to have to stop 8
sufficiently in advance of 400 to allow time f or 9
questioning by the other parties and the Board.
If you 10 cannot, we will understand, but I hope the reason is 11 based on valuable questions sad answers.
12 MR. LANPHER:
May I proceed?
13 JUDGE BRENNER:
Yes.
14 CROSS EXAMINATION -- Resumed 15 BY MR. LANPHER:
16 0
Mr. Hill, before the break, I think I 17 misstated a question or you shocked me with an answer.
18 It is true that GE in its core spray calculations which 19 are included in the FSAR assume a minimum distribution 20 of core spray to particular bundles in the core to the 21 top of those bundles?
22 A
( WITNESS HILL)
No, it is not.
Possibly, I 23 can shorten this up a little bit by giving a short 24 tutorial on how the ECCS model works and t,iake a 25 distinction that this is in the realm of ECCS, not the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2617 (m)
I realm of reality that we discovered with our testing.
2 Our ECCS model accounts for water arriving at
(~T 3
the tops of the bundles and calculates the amount of V
4 water going down through the bundle as a functin of the 5
amount of steam coming up from CCFL.
This water that 6
comes down through tha bundlas is assumed to proceed 7
th ro ug h the core and add to whatever reflood water is in 8
the bottom of the core or in the lower plenum.
9 We do not mechanistically calculate a heat to transfer coefficient based upon that water running down 11 through the core because Appendix K specifies the values 12 ve should use.
And as I stated before, the number of 13 gallons per minute through the bundles as a function
(
)
(./
14 CCFL calculation is in the realm of 2 to 4 gallons per 15 minute.
16 0
In the FSAR you took credit, did you not, for 17 core spray cooling with the core spraying entering from 18 the top of the bundles?
19 A
(WITNESS HILL)
We took credit for the core 20 spray water in the reflood, and we used the heat l
21 transfer coefficients specified in Appendix K.
22 Q
So in the FSAR you were assuming that the core 23 spray contributed to reflood going down tne peripheral 24 channels?
25 A
(WITNESS HILL)
In the Appendix K calculation Oi U
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2618 e
(m)
I that we did for Shoreham, which is separate from the 2
sensitivity calculation done by -- done for the NRC that 3
Mr. Sun referred to, we took credit for the water
(~)
\\_/
4 running down each of the bundles in the realm of 2 to 4 5
gallons per minute.
6 If we had taken credit for the water going 7
down through quenched peripheral channels, we would have 8
been looking at 100 gallons per minute per quenched 9
bundle.
10 0
Okay.
I do not think we have a disagreement 11 then.
The ECCS nodel as performed for Shoreham, credit 12 was taken for core spray on the order of 2 to 4 gallons 13 per minute flowing down from the top of the bundles down 14 into the bundles; correct?
15 A
(WITNESS HILL)
That is correct.
16 0
Has it ever been demonstrated at any reactor 17 th a t if core spray does not flow through the bundles as 18 assumed or taken credit for in the Shoreham FSAR but 19 instead the core spray runs down through the peripheral
~
20 channels, that, in fact, the peak cladding temperature 21 requirement of. 200 degrees is not exceeded?
22 A
(W2tNESS HILL)
You asked the question, has it 23 been demonstrated at a reactor?
24 0
Yes.
25 A
(WITNESS HILL)
The only way in which that
)
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2619
()
1 could be demonstrated ata reactor would be to have a 2
loss-of-coolant accident.
There has been no large
('s 3
loss-of-c331snt sccident at s reactor.
V 4
Q This is not something that would be tested at 5
a reactor; correct?
6 A
(WITNESS HILL)
The only way in which you 7
could get temperatures in fuel rods in a reactor to 8
those kinds of temperatures, simulated or nonsimulated, 9
would be for the reactor to be operating.
We have not 10 tested a fuel core during a loss-of-coolan t accident.
11 It is not a very prudent test.
12 0
It would raise a safety concern in your mind; 13 correct?
,O
(_/
14 A
( WITNESS HILL)
Yes, it would raise a safety 15 concern to cause a LOCA to do a test in an operating 16 reactor.
17 0
What is the basis for your confidence, sir, 18 that if there is no delivery of waters from the tops of 19 the bundles of the core spray that notwithstanding that 20 there will be siaquate cooling through the reflood 21 mechanism?
22 A
(WITNESS HILL)
I think you stated something 23
-- the basis for my confidence for a condition that I do 24 aot believe -- maybe you would like to answer your 25 question -- ask your question a little more b) v ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2620 j
()
1 specifically.
2 0
If you cannot answer the question, fine.
r^
3 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Would you like to ask the V) 4 question a little more specifically, because what I 5
understood you to say is that if I believed that the 6
water will not run down through the bundles, what is my 7
basis f or believing the core will eventually reflood?
8 0
Is it not true in your testimony and in Mr.
9 Sun.'s that you state that even if it is assumed that 10 there is no core spray delivered to the tops of the 11 bundles, that nothwithstanding that, there will be 12 adequate heat transfer?
13 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Now I think I understand your f~T
/
/
(_/
14 question.
If we posulate that the pool of water in the 15 top of the core does not run down through the bundles 16 but does run down through the peripheral region through 17 the quenched bundles, yes, that earlier reflood that 18 would be accomplished from the higher flow rates in the 19 outer -- the peripheral bundles would produce lower core 20 temperatures.
21 The basis, I believe, of your question was, 22 the basis for my confidence is the test da ta that we 23 have from various test facilities.
24 0
Which test data are you referring to?
25 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Specifically, the Lynn test o
m-Ad]ERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2621
()
1 data.
2 0
Are those -- are those the data, test data 3
which are referred to in Board Notifcation 81-49?
4 A
(WITNESS HILL)
I believe that is the Lynn 5
test data they refer to there, yes.
6 M P.. LANPHER:
Judge Brenner, I would like to 7
ma rk as Suffolk County, I believe it is Exhibit 4, Board 8
Notification 81-49, since we are going to be discussing 9
it.
It is referenced in the contention.
10 (The document referred to 11 was marked Suffolk County 12 Exhibit No. 4 for 13 identication.)
(,/
14 (Counsel handing documents to Board and 15 parties.)
16 JUDGE BRENNER:
Did you identify it on the 17 record?
If you did, I missed it.
18 MR. LAMPHER:
I will do it again.
19 JUDGE BRENNER:
If you did, that is all 20 right.
21 MR. LANPHER:
I was going to ask a question.
22 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 23 Q
Mr. Sun, is this Board Notification 81-49?
A (WITNESS SUN)
That is correct.
25 MR. LANPHER:
It has been marked as Suffolk
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 10024 (202) 554-2345 l
2622
()
1 County Exhibit 4 for identification, Judge Brenner.
I 2
would move its admission into evidence.
3 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, the copy you gave me 4
does not have the last page which contains a reference.
5 MR. LANPHER:
What page are you missing, Judge 6
Brenner?
7 JUDGE BRENNER:
Let us go off the record.
8
( Discussion of f the record.)
9 JUDGE BRENNER:
Ba:k on the record.
10 JUDGE MORRISs Just for the record, the 11 transmittal memorandum is from Robert L. Tedesco to the 12 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for the Shoreham 13 Nuclear Power Station, dated December 11, 1981.
(_/
14 JUDGE BRENNERs Is there any objection to 15 admitting this into evidence?
16 MR. REVELEY No objection.
17 HR. REPKAs No objection.
18 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right, it is admitted as 19 Suffolk County Exhibit 4.
In additionk, for 20 convenience, let us bind it in to the transcript at this 21 point.
22 (The document previously 23 marked Suffolk County 24 Exhibit No. 4 for 25 identification was f'%
J ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2623 Q
1 received in evidence.)
2 (Suffolk County Exhibit No.
u, Board 3
Notification 81-49, follows:)
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 l
25 O
ALDERSON REPOR 3 COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGivN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
"n.[
D w c;wn
'p r k'D /
December 11. 1931 oooo*
Docket lio. 50-322 jf 2 The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for the HEMOM!OLM FOR:
Shoreham !!uclear Pcwer Station Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director FRO.:
9 for Licensing Division of Licensing BOARO fiOTIFICATIO!i - JAPAt:ESE CORE SPRAY DIST SU3 JECT:
Ott A SIMULATOR BWR/S CottFIGURATIO?!
, (B:(-81-43)
By remarandum dated Dececher 3,1931 the Division of Systems Integration, in the Office of tiuclear Reactor Regulation indicated that the staff has been infonned by the ACRS that Japanese core spr This inferration relates to BWR/4 and spray ficw due to r.nldistribution.
BWR/S reactor types.
(v')
Since this constitutes new inforration which relates to conte in this preceding, it is being forwarded for the Board's information.
O Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing l
Division of Licensing l
Enclosure:
DSI/:;RR Pero dated 12/03/81 cc: See next page 1
l l
{}
- V l
l
0!STR190TIO!4 0F BOARD liOTIFICATIO!4
(?.ECElli Si.15"lc ACTIVITY - LOW PC',:ER OPERATIO:is, SHOREHAM)
ACRS Members Shoreham
', tonic s'afety and 1.icensing Dr. Robert C. Axt: nann Board Panel Mr. Myer Bender
'itcaic Safety a :d Licensing Dr. Max W. Carbon Mr. Jesse C. Ebersole i
Appeal Board Fanel Docketing and Service Section Mr. Harold Etheringtor, Dr. Villiac Kerr l'itward M. Barrett, Esq.
Dr. Harold W. Lewis N ffrey L. Fut:2r, Esq.
Dr. J. Car' son Mark 9alph Sh piro, Esq.
Mr. Willian M. Mathis N ward L. Slau, Esq.
Dr. Dade W. Moeller s'. Taylor Reveiey III, Esq.
Dr. David Okrent
'. ef frey Cohen, Esq.
Dr. Milton S. Plesset
{tchsen B. Lat;am, Esq.
Mr. Jere.r.tah J. Ray
- ncrgy Research Group, Inc.
Dr. Paul G. Shem.on
, N el Blau. Esq.
Dr. Chester P. Siess Nvid H. Gilcar'.in, Esq.
Mr. David A. Ward
r. Jef f Sr.i th
4B Technical Associates
]' onorable Peter Cohalan
.tra I. Bialik, Esq.
O e
e e
l E
o e
9
^
,=
~p 7
_ang?g UNITED STATES 4
NUC1. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
g
.g
,g wAsniscion.o.c.:osss p
9
.e
%.....+'
DEC 3 1981 (7
MEMORANDUM FOR: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director s)
Division of Licensing FROM:
Roger J. Mattson, Director Division of Systems Integration
SUBJECT:
BOARD NOTIFICATION - BWR CORE SPRAY DISTRIBUTION CONCERNS 1.
Item for Notification O
The staff has been infomed by the ACRS that Japanese spray distribution tests of a simulated BWR/S configuration have shewn that central bundles receive icw core spray flow due to ma1 distribution. We have also discussed the Japanese tests with the General Electric Ccapany.
The Japanese tests were conducted for utilities which have kept the data proprietary and very little specific infomation is available in the U. S.
The test data obtained was for tests in steam of a 60 sector of a full scale BWR core. The results were very similar to g
those obtained frem 30 sector tests in steam in BWR/6 and BWR/4 (similartoBWR/5)configurationsunderthejointNRC/EPRI/GE q
Refill /Refleed program in Lynn, Massachusetts in 1979-80. The BWR/6 U
test results are discussed in staff SERs.
0 The Lynn data are believed to be atypical of a BWR 360 configu-ration. Thisconclusionisbasedonknowngesignatypicalities,
~
on data from air-water tests of a BWR/6 360 configuration and data from tests with other variously sized sectors which have shown that BWR/6 spray overlaps in the center of the core causing high flow to central bundles. This overlap does not occur in'a sector test since O
thenozzlesfremtheoppositesectorwhichwouldprovidetheoveg-lapping flow are not available. We would expect the Japanese 60 sector test to suffer the same deficiency.
We understand that the Japanese core spray test program for the i
BWR/S configuration consists of the following:
(1) single header operation in all tests (two are available in all BWR/5 reactors)
(2) 60 sector tests in steam toinadequatesteamsupply)yeverysixthnozzleoperating(due (3) 360 tests in steam with onl
(.4) 360 tests in air
'8112300266'OG2O" DR ADOCK 05000322
' PDR 201'1"51
._...._......y
.7
~
i o..
0E Earrell G. Eisenhut
- Althougg no specific data are available, we have also been told that the 360 tests by the Japanese with 5/6 of the spray nozzles blocked hs g
gave similar results to the 60 sector tests. This could be in-terpreted to infer that our previous conclusions concerning the atypicality of icw central bundle flow are incorrect or are not 3
applicable to the BWR/4 or 5 configurations.
This data is important to us and we are asking our O'f'fice of International Programs to actively seek it from the Japanese govern-ment. Since credit is taken for core spray heat transfer consistent with an assumption of a minimum !. pray flow to all bundles in the General Electric ECCS Evaluation Models, this infonnation may be of interest to licensing boards.
2.
Relevancy and Materialit,y, The Japanese tests are designed to simulate a BWR/5. Because of similarity between BWR/4 and BWR/5 designs, the new data also may have implications for BWR/4.
Thereisalsogomepossibilitythat the new data centradict conclusiens from 360 air-water tests in the U. S. for a SWR /5 configuration.
O The test resuits relate to tne vei4dity of core sprey coo, ins assumptions empicyed in the Appendix K LOCA Evaluation Model for licensed BWRs.
3.
Sionificance of Test Information The Japanese data are not the first to show low flow to some sections of BWR cores. Thus, as described above, the staff has previously considered the effect of low core spray flow to individual channels O,$
on calculated peak clad temperature (PCT).
In our evaluation of i
NEDO-20566 M.endment 3. " General Electric Company Analytical Model for Loss-of-Coolant Analysis in Accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix K -
Effect of Steam Envirencent on Core Spray Distribution," it was concluded that minimum spray flow to any channel following a LOCA would not be less than half of the design flow that was demonstrated to be available by tests and calculaticns.
The tests and calculations did not include steam effects on nozzle spray patterns and flow rate. Based on measurements of minimum bundle spray flow for each BWR size ar.d type for one sparger only, in air, tne minimum flow for.
BWR/2 through BWR/5 designs was calculated to be 1.3 times the flow necessary to remove decay heat by vaporization (reference ficw).
p Thus, the steam effects on spray distribution would not result in V
less than 0.65 times the minimum reference flow (or 1.3 times with both spray spargers operating). BWR FLECHT data (Ref. 1) show e
O
m s'
0E Darrell G. Eisenhut,
little degradation in heat transfer for flow as low as 0.38 times
()
the reference ficw, or approximately one gpm. As far as we have begn told, the minimum ficw observed for any bundle in the Japanese L
60 sector tests was one gpm. The heat transfer coefficients in l
GE's ECCS Evaluation Model are based on the FLECHT data, and a minimum bundle ficw of cne gpm would justify the hegt transfer coefficient for core spray cooling (1.5 Btu /hr-ftz-F) used in that Model.
To demonstrate conservatisms in the ECCS Evaluation Model and in response to Questions raised by(the NRC staff, the effect of reducing the core spray cooling to zero i.e., no credit for core spray cooling) has been evaluated by the General Electric Ccmpany for one BWR/3 and cne BWR/5.
For the reactors evaluated, it was found that the peak clad temperature limit in 10 CFR Part 50.46 of 2200F was not exceeded even if credit was not taken for core spray cooling.
It was further shown that a core spray maldistribution can result in lower peak claa temperature if the spray flow is assumed to flow down peripheral channels so as to increase the bottom reflood rate.
These results, hcwever, are not necessarily valid for all BWRs since l
they are dependent on plant specific reflood rates and on the available margin to the peak clad temperature limit (2200F) in Q-previous calculations.
The staff concludes that the new infomation from the Japanese tests does not pose a safety concern for operating reactors for the following reasons:
(a) Only preliminary and inccmplete data are available from the Japanese tests and it is impossible to draw final conclusions from them at this time.
(b) Core spray flow maldistributions resulting in flows on the order of one gpm per bundle (apparently consistent with those g
obtained in the Japanese 60 sector tests) would remain con-sistent with the core spray ' cooling assumptions employed in the present ECCS Evaluation Model of GE.
(c). Evaluation of one BWR/3 and one BWR/5 plant have shown that at least some plants can meet the LOCA core cooling criteria without taking credit for any spray cooling, although this may not be true for all plants.
The staff intends to pursue this matter by attempting to obtain g
i) access to details of the Japanese tests via our international infomation exchanga programs.
In addition, the General Electric Company has been asked to brief the ACRS subcomittee on ECCS concerning its awareness and interpretation of the Japanese data, s
~.
- t. * *.
t N'
r.
k.
4-DEC a ;ga; Darrell G. Eisenhut
, (:
4.
Relation to Projects O
The aenenese tests reiete to awa/4 end exa/s reector types.
it is recomended that appropriate boards be notified of the existence of the data and of staff's plans to try to obtain the data for evaluation of their effect on the GE ECCS Evaluation Model.
l
\\
l x
Roger tson Director t
(*
Division Systems Integration 4
9 0
i,
a es*
l0 e
9 l
0 8
e e
I e
l
.i
. I l_
/
i q
DEC 31331 i
1
.i Re ference o
1.
APED-5529, " Core Spray and Core Flooding Heat Transfer Effectiveness in a Full-Scale Boiling Water P.eactor Bundle," June 1979. F. A. Schraub,
4 and J. E. Leonard.
i 1
i i
j t
=
j i
~
l O
I 4
i l
1 1
1
=
1 1
I.
i 4
O I
j.
e r
i e
,,we==--------v---www,-,w, 4-%,
e..e---~
wee,---,v 3.--w=
- - -., -, - - -,, - - + = * - -, - - - - - - -
2624
()
1 BY MR. LANPHER.
(Resuming) 2 0
Mr. Hill, you said you believed that the Lynn 3
data that you referred to earlier as providing the basis 4
for your confidence with the same Lynn data as 5
referenced in this Board Notification.
Have you had an 6
opportunity to look at this and see if that is, in f act, 7
correct?
8
( Witness reviewing document. )
9 The Lynn tests, not the Lynn data.
10 A'
(WITNESS HILL)
The Lynn tests, taken place 11 prior to this notification, yes, there had been Lynn 12 tests, and I as sure the results came out approximately 13 the same time as the Board Notification came out that 14 are not reported in this notification.
15 0
Okay.
So there is Lynnn test -- there are 16 Lynn test ref erence in this notifications is that 17 correct?
l 18 A
(WITNESS HILL)
That is correct.
19 0
But the tests you were referring to before as 20 providing the basis for your confidence that adequate 21 coolin will be schieved or not -- are different tests 22 than the tests that are referred to in the-23 notification?
()
24 A
(WITNESS HILL)
I believe -- and I will take 25 another look at the notification -- but I believe that
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2625 (h) 1 this notifiestion tsiks about water running down the 2
quenched bundles.
And that is part of this Board 3
N o ti fica tio n.
The data that is not referenced here is 4
the data that shows that we not only have water going 5
down to the quenched bundles but also have the pool at 6
the top at the ssme time.
7 0
Would you -- do you want to take a quick look; 8
I think if you look at page 3 of the notification --
9 (Witness reviewing document.)
10 A
(WITNESS HILL)
There is other test data 11 reported in this Board Notification from 1968, the 12 Flecht data, and that is what is put in Reference 1 in 13 the back.
O 14 Q
Look in g at page 3 of the Board Motification, 15 Mr. Hill, the first full paragraph on that page, it 16 talks about the effect of reducing core spray cooling to 17 zero.
Do you see that reference, sir?
18 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Yes, I do.
19 0
And is that the evaluation regarding l
20 peripheral channel flow providinc adequate core cooling 21 that you were referring to?
i 22 (Witness reviewing document.)
i 23 A
( WITNESS HILL)
Yes, I believe it is.
()
24 0
And is it not true that that notification 25 states that General Electric had evaluated that for BWR3 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2626
()
1 and a BWRS, sir?
2 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Yes.
3 0
Is it not true also that the notification 4
states that the results are not necessarily valid for 5
all BWRs since they are dependent on plant-specific 6
reflood rates and on the available margin to the peak 7
clad temperature limit, 2200 degrees Fahrenheit?
8 A
(WITNESS HILL)
That is also true.
But let me 9
add to that that General Electric also reevaluated --
10 also evaluated this specific case for all of the plants 11 in the licensing review group, which included S'horeham, 12 and presented that data to the NRC, and the data that 13 was presented on a bounding plant that showed the O
14 bounding plan t analysis.
15 Q
Was that bo un din g plant Shoreham, sir?
16 A
(WITNESS HILL)
I do not recall.
17 0
When were these data submitted?
18 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Approximately the same time of l
19 the Board Notification.
I do not recall exactly whether l
20 it was in December or -- but it was about the same time, 21 probably a little after this.
22 0
Mr. Sun, you were nodding your head.
Can you I
23 clarify this situation for us?
[
/-
l 24 (Pause.)
l 25 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Brenner, off the record.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2627
()
1 (Discussion off the record.)
2 BY MR. LANPHER:
( Resumin g) 3 Q
Go ahead.
I am sorry, Mr. Sun.
4 A
(WITNESS SUN)
This particular information is 5
included in a package presented by Dr. Beckner of the 6
NRC staff to the ACRS.
7 JUDGE BRENNER:
I missed the name.
Hold it.
8 WITNESS SUN Okay.
9 JUDGE BRENNER:
Presented to or by, what was 10 th enam e ?
11 WITNESS SUN Presented by Dr. Beckner, NRC 12 staff, to the ACRS ECCS Subcommittee December 3, 1981.
13 BY MR. LAMPHER:
(Resuming)
O 14 Q
Mr. Sun, I thought you were going to cla rif y 15 A
(WITNESS SUN)
That information is included in 16 that package, yes.
17 Q
The information from General Electric?
18 A
(WITNESS SUN)
That is right. And made 19 available to the public in this package.
20 Q
So that was received at the time of the Board 21 No tifica tion ?
22 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Okay, about the same day.
23 Okay.
()
24 Q
So you had received --
25 A
(WITNESS SUN)
No, no, I think --
AU ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1620
(])
1 JUDGE BRENNER:
Wait a minute.
let him finish 2
his question, and then when he is finished, you can give 3
your answer.
4 All cight, ask your question, Mr. Lanpher.
5 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 6 0
Mr. Sun, I as only trying to get the 7
chronology for when the NRC staff received the General 8
Electric data which Mr. Hill referred to.
Was it 9
received before December 3, 198' -- before December 11, 10 19817 That happens to be the date of the memorandum 11 which was sent out to the Licnesing Board.
12 A
(WITNESS SUN)
About the same time.
About the 13 same time, because this presentation made by our staff O
14 is in New Mexico and at the same time when we are aware 15 of this -- aware of this, we have another staff to 16 prepare the Board Notification letter.
So we got this 17 da ta at the same time, almost the same date, probably 18 one day late, exset.
19 Q
Mr. Sun, would you turn your attention to page 20 3 of the Board Notification, please.
That same 21 pa ragraph which I directed Mr. Hill's attention to, at 22 the time this paragraph was written, did you have the 23 General Electric data?
()
24 A
(WITNESS SUN)
We were told we do not have a 25 written one like the one I indicated, the package.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2629
(])
1 Q
In other words, you had been provided their 2
information orally or you discussed it, but you had not 3
formally reviewei that package; is that correct?
4 A
(WITNESS SUN)
We were informed orally, and 5
they made a presentation to us in our office, and I 6
think in Ncvember.
7 0
Now, notwithstanding the fact that a t the time 8
that General Electric spoke with you, did they state 9
that they felt that their calculations were applicable 10 to BWR4s as well as BWR3s and 5s?
11 A
(WITNESS SUN)
The information we got in 12 November is to aidress BWR5s specifically.
The 13 information indicated in the December 3 covered BWR4 and 14 BWRS.
15 Q
What was the reason that the staff included 16 these cautionary words, the ones I quoted before from j
l 17 page 3 of the Board Notification in the notification?
18 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Because we snow that those 19 numbers are plant-specific, and we want to make sure 20 that all the information has been investigated and then 21 we will create, you know, our position.
This is for 22 caution purpose.
NRC's position, we had to make sure 23 all the inf ormation is available to us and then we make
()
24 a position firm.
25 0
What investigation has the staff made since O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2630
()
1 the issuance of this Board Notification?
2 A
(WITNESS SUN)
One thing is, as I indicated, 3
in the December 3rd presentation package to the ACE 3 Cs 4
ECCS Subcommittee; th a t is, the peak cladding 5
tempera ture f or the limiting BWR4 and BWR5 case.
6 JUDGE BRENNER I missed the last phrase.
7 WITNESS SUN:
Okay.
8 JUDGE BRENNER:
Pesk clad temperature for the 9
BWR4, BWR5?
10 WITNESS SUN:
BWR4, BWR5, and those are the 11 limiting cases.
This is the limiting case to cover BWR4 12 and BWR5 to make sure the fast refloods effect well, 13 make sure that the peak temperature will not -- will not s
14 be higher than 2200 degree Fahrenheit.
15 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 16 0
Excuse re.
What is the limiting case, sir?
17 A
(WITNESS SUN)
The limiting case is the 18 recirculation line break with one low pressure hose for 19 injection failure.
So that is the low pressure 20 injection system failure.
21 Q
My question ist subsequent to the issuance of 22 the Board Notifica tion, what actions has the staff taken 23 to investigate this matter further?
()
24 A
(WITNESS SUN)
We -- first of all, we look 25 into the existing informations that is, what is the data O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
2631
()
1 ve can support or disconfirm the 1.5 units for the core 2
hea t transf er coef ficient or not.
And to do that, we 3
csiculated this value by using the existing correlation 4
for the steam atmosphere.
That is apparently the 5
limiting :ssa -- one.
6 Two, we also look into the two-loop test 7
apparatus result.
That is also conducted in a steam 8
atmosphere, and both pieces of result confirm that the 9
core spray convective heat transfer is higher than 1.8 10 units.
This provided us one of the bases for us to 11 amake our NRC position.
12 And the other piece of work we are doing is 13 th a t we look into this information that was presented by 14 GE to us on December 3, and we make sure that the other 15 phenomena considered are properly considered.
And we
~ 16 concluded that the peak cladding temperature was not 17 higher than 2200 degrees Fahrenheit even assuming the l
18 core spray convective heat transfer equal to zero by 19 taking credit of the fast reflood phenomena due to the 20 flow down through the perhipheral channel.
t 21 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.
22 JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. Sun, at one point in that i
23 answer you said 1.5 units for a coefficient.
Do you
()
24 mean BTUs per hour or some other unit?
25 WITNESS SUN That is right.
BTU per hour per
()
1 i
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2632
()
1 decree of Fahrenheit per square foot.
Tha t is the 2
units.
3 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 4 0
At the time this notification was issued, the 5
NRC staff stated that its data concerning the Japanese 6
tests, which I referred to in the Bosed Notification, 7
was very limited; correct?
8 A
(WITNESS SUN)
That is right.
9 0
You also stated, or the NRC stated, I believe, 10 that it would seek to obtain additional da ta, correct?
11 A
(WITNESS SUN)
We pursued the Japanese data 12 further on an expedited basis.
When we got the Japanese 13 da ta, that will help us to further understand the 14 behavior.
But there we have no further safety impact --
15 there were no further impact on our conclusion we 16 present here.
17 0
Did you get additional Japanese data?
18 A
(WITNESS SUN)
We have not got it yet.
19 0
How can you conclude that additional data 20 would not affect your conclusion when you do not have 21 the data yet?
22 A
(WITNESS SUN)
The key point here is that 23 whether the core spray convective heat transfer
()
24 coefficient equal to 1.5 unit, which specified in 25 Appendix K or not, as I indi= ate from our study from the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2633
()
1 test results, the steam environment already provide 2
these value for hest transfer coefficient.
3 Number two, we already did a sensitivity b(-w 4
study.
I assumed this coefficient equal to zero, and we 5
demonstrated that the current temperature is still less 6
than 2200.
This is a base for us to concluded even 7
before f urther inf orma tion, we think our study already 8
covered the extrene cases.
9 JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. Sun, while there is a to pause, let me explain things so you will relax.
This 11 problem is common to many witnesses and not unique to 12 you.
It is frustrating that you are not allowed to 13 speak as f ast as you think.
But the important thing 14 here is-to have the written record, as you can see in 15 the tr1nscripts we are collecting.
And it is difficult 16 for the reporter to get it.
17 So actually, your accent is a very slight 18 problem when you speak at normal speed, and it is 19 difficult f or the reporter to pick up any witness when 20 they speak fast.
And I know it is frustrating to you, 21 but you have to try to bear with us.
22 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 23 0
Mr. Sun, is it your testimony th a t the 24. Japanese data are not important, further Japanese data
()
25 are not important?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2J45
2634
()
1 A
(WITNESS SUN)
It would be nice to have it.
2 But there is no safety impact of that information, do 3
not have safety impact.
4 Q
It is true, is it not, that at page 2 of the 5
Board Notification, it is stated that the data is 6
important to the NBC, that the NRC was asking the 7
International Programs Office to actively seek it; 8
correct?
9 A
( WITNESS SUN)
That is right.
On an expedited 10 purpose.
11 0
Was this expedited purpose just as a matter of i
12 in form ation ?
Generally, it has no safety concern?
That 13 is your tastimony?
()
14 A
(WITNESS SUN)
I wanted to reserve a little 15 bit because it is preliminary information, and we like 16 to know -- we wanted to get a full set of information we 17 then can find what is the significant information which 18 is going to help us to understand the core thermal 19 hydraulics.
20 0
On page 3 of your testimony, Mr. Sun, you 21 state that the Board Notification and the information 22 contained therein is of no safety concern.
That same 23 statement appears, the safeticoncern statament appears
)
24 in the Board Notification.
Can you define " safety 25 concern," please, as you use it?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2635
()
1 A
(WITNESS SUN)
" Safety concern" means the 2
evaluation the model used in the General Electric 3
ECCS model is consistent with Appendix K's requirement, 4
number one.
Number two, their analysis will violate the 5
10 CFR 50.46 limit on that.
This is what we are talking 6
about when I referred to " safety concern."
7 0
Do you not believe, Mr. Sun, that it may be 8
premature to determine whether or not this is a safety 9
concern since the additional data which the staff was 10 seeking his not yet been obtained by the staff?
11 A
(WITNESS SUN)
I do not agree with your 12 statement.
I think it is clear to me that it is not a l
13 safety concern.
We already did a study and the 14 developed information to us already support our 15 conclusion.
16 (Pause.)
17 Q
Mr. Sun, as I understand your testimony then, 18 there is one factor at least and the reason that this is l
19 not a safety concern is that there have been analyses a t l
20 the Lynn facility which show that even if no creait is 21 taken for core spray to the tops of the core, there will 22 be adequate heat transfer because of the flow of water 23 down the peripheral channels; correct?
()
24 A
(WITNESS SUN)
There in no credit taken for 25 core spray convective heat transfer, which is equivalent O
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024(202) 554 2345
2636
()
I to say there is no core spray cooling effect credit 2
taken for it.
3 Q
It is assumed, in effect, that all the core 4
spray goes down the side and comes up f rom undernea th; 5
is that correct?
6 A
(WITNESS SUN)
That is not right.
7 0
Could you explain how that is incorrect, sir?
8 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Not all the wa ter --
9 Q
Mr. Sun, I do not mean to interrupt you, but 10 that'is the way I ' aterpeted your testimony on page 4.
11 So I am trying to understand your testimony.
It is the 12 bottom third of the page, where you say, " Assuming that 13 the core spray coolant flows down the peripheral 14 channels to increase the reflood rate as observed in the 15 U.S. Lynn test," and you go on to say, " Peak cladding 16 temperatures are not exceeded."
That is your testimony; 17 correct?
18 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Okay.
I think I have to 19 qualify that.
When we address it, we are only 20 addressing the hottest channel, which you might not get 21 any core spray flow -- okay -- but from the core spray 22 distribution point of view, but some of 'the bundle away 23 from the center you would have water.
()
24 And because of the CCFL effect -- CCFL means 25 countercurrent current flow limitation effect -- the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2637
()
1 water will be -- will break down and penetrate to the 2
fuel channel.
And this is part of the water come from 3
core spray system and some of the water, because of --
4 because of -- stopped by the steam and therefore form a 5
pool at the top of the plates and because of steam 6
subcooled affa t,
subcool effect, therefore, the flow is 7
going to flow down peripheral channel, go into the lower 8
plenum and start a flood -- flooding from -- into the 9
fuel channel.
10 So the question is -- the answer is some of 11 the flow is going to flow down through the fuel channel, 12 some of the fluid is going to flow down peripheral 13 channel into the lower plenua, start to reflood.
In O
14 addition to this, we have low-pressure -- low-pressure 15 safety injection system that is going to help reflood.
16 Q
Did the NRC staff assume for all of its 17 calculations that the low-pressure coolant injection 18 system would be available?
19 A
(WITNESS SUN)
It is not contradictory with 20 the requirement indicated in Appendix K.
21 2
That did not quite answer my question, or at l
22 all.
Let me repeat the question.
In your previous
(
i 23 answer, sir, you had stated in addition the low-pressure 24 coolant injection or safety injection is going to assist 25 in core reflood.
Did the staff assume in all the cases l ()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2638
(])
1 which it analyzed or reviewed, that low pressure coolant 2
injection r,fstem would be operating to assist in 3
reflLM41 O
4 A
(WITNESS SUN)
The only thing we require them 5
to do is to assume the worst single failure.
They 6
already considered one ECCS system will be failed.
7 There are two low-pressure safety injection; even if you 8
assume one is failed, the other will work.
9 Q
So in all of the staff's reviews, you assumed to that it lesst one low pressure coolant injection system 11 was operable; correct?
12 A
(WITNESS SUN)
This is the result for the 13 limiting case General Electric submitted to us, yes.
14 0
Mr. Hill, is that correct, in your opinion ?
15 A
(WITNESS HILL)
I think what Mr. Sun is 16 referring to is the general assumptions that go into any 17 ECCS analysis.
18 However, with the BWR4, that one LPCI loop 19 that is operable which is not failed by means of an 20 injection valve failure, which is a limiting failure, 21 would pump into the recirculation loop and could be 22 assumed to leave through a break in the discharge of 23 that line, so that its water would then be spilled out
()
24 into the containment, the reb y leaving actually no 25 injection water going into the vessel from the LPCI
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMD 'NY,INC, 400 VIRGIN 1A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2639
()
1 systems.
2 But I think whst Mr. Sun was saying -- h.e 3
would have to say it himself obviously -- but it is that O
4 4
in the classical single-failure assumptions, you do not 5
have to assume that that system is inoperable, because 6
you have already taken a failure in the other system.
7 0
let ne ask this just a different way, Mr.
8 Sun.
Did the NRC take credit for additional cooling 9
effects in all of its analyses from low pressure coolant 10 injection?
11 A
(WITNESS SUN)
It is included in the approved 12 ECCS model, so we do not consider that additional 13 credit.
O 14 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
15 Q
Mr. Sun, in an earlier answer you described 16 countercurrent flow limitation, or referred to it.
- Now, 17 that does result, does it not, in the formation of a 18 coolant pool at the top of the core; correct?
19 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Right.
j 20 0
Would a pool of froth above the core or this t
21 pool above the core -- how does deep does that pool 22 become?
23 A
(WITNESS SUN)
At the present time -- first of
()
24 all, I wsnt to sidress how -- what models -- assump tions 25 used in the model, whatever amount of water accumulated ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2640
(])
1 at the to p, we just threw it away.
From test data, this 2
water level could go higher, 10 inches, 15 inches.
3 Q
Could be, in fact, above the nozzles?
4 A
(WITNESS SUN)
About, above, around that 5
ares.
Could be lower or just about that area.
6 Q
Is the depth of the pool or the froth or the 7
froth enough to force design flow rates down each 8
bundles and by design flow rates, I mean approximately 9
3.25 gallons per minute?
10 A
(WITNESS SUN)
I cannot answer you what is the 11 flow rate.
Okay.
Maybe General Electric people can 12 answer this question.
We are concerned about whether 13 the heat transfer :oefficient, the use is consistent O
\\/
14 with Appendix K or not.
And our conclusion iss yes.
15 We are not concerned about flow rate.
16 Q
Mr. Sun, is it possible for countercurrent 17 flow limitation to also occur at the bottom of the fuel 18 bundles?
19 A
(WITNESS SUN)
It is possible, yes.
20 0
If that were to occur, would it not slow the 21 reflood rate for the core?
22 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Contrarily, if that occurred, 23 that is going to reduce the drain rate due to the
()
24 depressurization.
Therefore, you are going to have more 25 water contained in a fuel channel as a consequence of a
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2641 1
LOCA.
2 Q
Let us come back to that for a moment.
It 3
would also -- it would block additional water coming in 4
from the bottom; correct?
5 A
(WITNESS SUN)
It is going to block the water, 6
drain out of the fuel channel.
7 0
Mr. Sun, I would like you to try to listen to 8
my question, and answer.
If countercurrent flow 9
limitstion occurs at the bottom of the bundles, will 10 that not act to block or impede the entry of additional 11 water into the bundles?
12 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Because there is some other 13 phenomena, like multiple-channel efect, this seems to be 14 not the case.
15 Q
Is your answer then no?
16 A
(WITNESS SUN)
That is right.
17 0
In other words, countercurrent flow limitation 18 at the bottom of the bundles, which you said can occur, 19 will not in any way impede the entry of water which is 20 flowing down the peripheral channels from entering into 21 the fuel bundles and flowing out.
Is that your 22 testimony?
23 A
(WITNESS SUN)
What?
Okay.
The CCFL will
()
24 occur at the beginning of the transient when the reflood 25 occur, the bottom -- the CCFL in the bottom will not O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1 1
l 2642 1
i j -
occur anymore because you do not have the steam 1
2 ge n e ra ted.
You have water coming from the bottom.
O A
i I
5 6
1 l
7 4
l 8
9 l'
l 10 11 12 k
l 13 14 15 i
16 4
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2643
()
1 JUDGE MORRISs Mr. Lanpher, I am not sure I 2
understood your question, but if you are talking about 3
countercurrent flow taking place at the bottom of the 4
fuel channel, I assume you are assuming that wa ter is 5
flowing upward in that channel.
Was that correct?
6 ER. LANPHER:
That is what I as trying to 7
probe, Judge Morris.
My understanding is that you can 8
have this limitation at the bottom which may hold up 9
water within the channels, but at the same time m.a y 10 impede.
11 JUDGE MORRIS:
That is where I have trouble.
12 If the word is " flow," to me something is moving.
And 13 if it countercurrent, it is flowing up.
Is that not 14 your understanding?
15 MR. LANPHER:
My understanding is probably not l
l 16 too relevant on this record.
17 (Laughter.)
18 JUDGE MORRISa I am only asking so that the 19 witness understands what you are talking about.
20 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferrine.)
21 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 22 0
Let me try it from a dif ferent a ngle.
Maybe I 23 was using the wrong words.
Mr. Sun, is it your
()
24 understanding that in a LOCA situation it is possible l
25 th a t a condition will exist at the bottom of the fuel
)
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
I 2644
()
1 bundles such that a stagnant condition is created so 2
that water does not drain out of the bundles -- in other 3
words, downward -- but it also impedes the entry of O.
4 water froi outside the bundles, outside from beneath the 5
core into the core?
6 A
(WITNESS SUN)
I agree with your first part of 7
statement; that is, it is going to stop reduce the 8
drainage rate, but once the reflood stage come, the 9
vater is going to push up through the fuel channel.
And 10 I did not see any phenomenon that it will block it.
I 11 mean the CCFL is not going to block the movement of the 12 flooding flow.
13 0
I did not use the term CCFL because I think x
14 that is where Judge Morris probably corrected me.
That 15 is the wrong phenomenon.
But I believe you testified 18 that a condition can exist at the base of the fuel 17 bundles that holds up the water, number one, in the 18 fuel; correct?
19 A
(WITNESS SUN)
The water is going to move up.
20 It is going to move up gradually from the bottom to the 21 top of the fuel because the water mass of inventory 22 increase due to the safety injection system.
23 Q
Let me try it a different waY.
()
24 Mr. Hill, can you turn to page 5 of your l
25 testimony?
And in your answer to question 12, subpart i
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2645
()
1 3,
you state that, "The holdup of water in the bundles 2
due to countercurrent flow limiting at the side entry 3
orifice can contribute to additional heat transfer 4
capacity."
Is that a fair characterization of your 5
testimony?
6 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Yes, it is.
7 Q
Can you explain this phenomenon?
8 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Countercurrent flow limiting 9
there is approximately the same phenomenon that we 10 discussed for the top of the fuel bundle.
The phenomena 11 is stesa updraft from the lower plenum into --
(
12 attempting to get into the bundle which holds up the i
13 uater in the bunile and thereby providing a slower O
14 drainage rate out of the bundle.
This is the kind of 15 phenomenon that we would observe in test data, realistic 16 test data.
17 In addition to that, we also have 18 realistically tha bypass regions in the core that fill l
19 up very rapidly after core spray turns on and water l
20 leakage into the bundle through orifices f rom the bypass l
21 orifices from the bypass r egion, continuing to keep l
22 water into the bundles in sort of a monometer effect, if 23 you will, with the bypass region.
)
24 So we have water going into the bundles from 25 th e bypass region continuing to keep them full.
We have O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2646
()
1 countercurrent flow limiting a t the bottom continuing to 2
keep the water up in there.
3 0
You say you have countercurrent flow limiting CI 4
at the bottom; correct?
5 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Yes.
6 Q
That nas the effect of holding water up in the i
l 7
fuel channels?
8 A
(WITNESS HILL)
That is correct.
9 Q
Does that have any effect on the entry of 10 additional water into the fuel channels?
11 A
(WITNESS HILL)
I think the question you are 12 trying to ask is is the reflood uniform, getting uniform 13 reflood rate.
I think you are going about it by asking
(
14
.ibout CCFL at the side entry orifice, and I cannot say l
15 that that particular phenomenon cause a nonuniform l
16 reflood rate.
17 I am trying to recall test data.
I believe 18 there might be some nonuniformities due to 19 multiple-channel interaction type of effects.
But 20 nothing substantial.
I do not believe tha t everything 21 reflooded nice and uniform, but nevertheless it did not 22 impede the reflood.
I cannot say specifically that th a t 23 phenomenon caused any differences in the reflood.
Does
()
24 that help?
l 25 0
Yes.
Thank you.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2647
()
1 JUDGE MORRIS:
Just for clarity, Mr. Hill, 2
where is the sida entry orifice located?
3 WITNESS HILL:
It is at the bottom of the fuel 4
bundle, and that is the orifice at which the wa ter would 5
flow into the bundle.
6 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
7 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Could you please perhaps 8
help me?
The quastion asked a moment ago was whether 9
there was a stagnant zone at the bottom of the fuel 10 bundle in the context of this CCFL.
Your testimony says 11 there is a holdup.
Is that the same as a stagnant 12 condition?
13 WITNESS HILLS Stagnant implies that nothing O
14 is moving.
Holdup, there is movement; some of the water 15~
in the bundle is flashing into steam and going up and 16 causing additional cooling to the rods through steam 17 cooling as well as water flowing into the bundle from 18 the bypass region.
So there is a dynamics going on 19 there.
Holdup means it is being prevented from draining 20 out from the side entry orifice.
21 JUDGE CARPENTER:
So that from a material 22 balance point of view, there is a lower temperature.
If 23 it was stagnant, this would not contribute to lowering 24 the tamperatures, it would contribute to a higher 25 temperature?
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2648
()
1 WITNESS HILLS If it were stagnant and not 2
allowed to run out but also not being replenished, it 3
would still contribute to a lower temperature because if
(}
4 there were no CCFL at that side entry orifice, the water 5
would simply drain right out like water out of a staw 6
when you lift it up from a glass, where if there is a 7
stagnation there, which there is not, but if there were 8
just a stagnation, then the water that would be left in 9
the bundle would be vaporized and the vapor would take 10 in'-- that process of flashing would take out the 11 additional heat.
There would be water in there to 12 remove heat.
13 JUDGE CARPENTER:
You are still making it
)
14 periodically stagnant.
But let us not go into it.
l l
15 Thank you very much.
16 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 17 0
Mr. Hill, I believe this morning you described 18 the GE design goal had been to deliver a minimum amount l
l 19 of core spray to each core bundle or a rated flow of l
20 about 3.25 gallons per minute; correct?
l 21 A
(WITNESS HILL)
That is correct.
22 0
And I believe the evidence with the 23 stipulation we have is that that is not achieved for
()
24 certain of the core bundles at least; correct?
25 A
(WITNESS HILL)
That is correct.
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA As.
3.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2649
()
1 0
Has GE done anything to change the systems, 2
the core spray systens, to allow for -- to provide for 3
achieving the original design flow or design 4
distribution?
Excuse me.
5 A
(WITNESS HILL)
General Electric has invested 6
upwards of $15 million in attemp ting to analyze what 7
test and analyze the effects of the core spray 8
distribution, or maldistribution, as it is referred to 9
in the Board Notification.
I think we have definitely 10 established that there is no consequential effects on 11 core cooling or adverse effect on core cooling as a 12 result of it.
So, yes, we have taken lots of action i
13 over a long period of time to understand and analyze
()
14 this.
15 0
You have analyzed it.
I understood that from 16 before.
- 4 ave you taken any steps to change, for 17 instance, the nozzle design or anything along those 18 lines to alleviate the situation?
19 A
(WITNESS HILL)
We have looked at nozzle 20 design and direction and placement for the BWR6, which 21 is our present product line.
And that is part of the 22 evaluation that was done for the BWR6 that was submitted 23 to the Commission.
And the verification of our
()
24 methodology.
25 0
Are steps being taken with the BWR6 to achieve O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 J
I i
2650
()
1 a more uniform -- not uniform but that minimum rate 2
of flow?
3 A
(WITNESS HILL)
The BWR6 core spray 4
distribution is a more uniform distribution.
I do not 5
recall whether it has the same design goal number for 6
the 6 or not.
But that nozzle placement and nozzle 7
development has taken place and tests have been 8
conducted.
And as I mentioned before, that is -- that 9
methodology and that design has been submitted and i
10 approved by the NRC.
11 3
M r. Hill, you have testified, and I quote, 12 "The GE tests that have been performed show little 13 degradation in heat transfer for spray flows as low as 1 0
14 gallon per minute per bundle."
Little degradation 15 implies some degradation.
Wha t is the quantity of that 16 degradation, sir?
17 I would give you an exact page reference.
I 18 think it is either the bottom of page 4 or top of page 19 5.
I have your original testimony with your changes 20 written in, so my page numbers may be a little 21 different.
22 JUDGE BRENNER:
It is the bottom of 4,
over to 23 the top of 5.
24 WITNESS HILLS I just wanted to take a look at 25 it.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2651
()
1 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 2 0
It is your answer to question 11, sir.
3 A
(WITNESS HILL)
The test data that we are 4
referring to there is a Flecht-type test data, and we 5
were looking at temperatures and what we -- the 6
temperature is given certain flow rates.
7 And what that data showed is that there was 8
not a large variation in resulting tempera tures from the 9
Flecht tests with flow rates down to as low as about 1 to gallon per minute.
11 0
With flow rates as little as zero gallons per 12 minute for the central bundles -- we will use the 13 definition of 54-inch diameter for those bundles -- what i
,s q) 14 is the degradation in core spray, if you know, if any?
15 A
(WITNESS HILL)
The degradation in core 16 spray?
17 0
Not in core spray.
In heat transfer.
18 A
(WITNESS HILL)
I would have to say now we are 19 stepping sway from a core spra y issue and we are talking 20 about heat transfer in general.
And that would depend l
21 upon the temperature at which you run the tests.
These 1
(
22 are different cooling mechanisms it different 23 temperatures.
24 0
Let us assume yo ur limiting case LOCA where 25 you have been at full power and it is the worst break ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2652
)
(
1 and you do not have any spray coming into the top.
You 2
have a pool up there and the rest of the water is coming
()
3 down through the peripheral bundles.
Can you quantify 4
the degree to which the heat transfer is less than the 5
heat transfer shich was assumed or calculated in the 6
FSAR originally?
7 A
(WITNESS HILL)
I originally thought you were 8
asking about Flech t-type test data.
I now understand 9
that you are asking about a LOCA type of event with no 10 water in the central bundles.
Given steam flow in those 11 bundles, which would be the mechanism for holding up the 12 wa te r, in your opinion, the heat transfer coefficients 13 would be far above those of Appendix K.
O 14 Q
Are they less than those heat transfer 15 coefficients originally assumed in the FSAR.
l 16 A
(WITNESS HILL)
The heat transfer coefficients 17 assumed in the FSAR a re those in Appendix K.
18 0
Those are the ones that have to be met.
I 19 understand that.
But w h a t -- le t me ask the question 20 again.
When you originally designed the Shoreham 21 facility and put in the core spray system, you took 22 credit for that core spray system delivering wa ter f rom l
23 the top.
And you calculated an assumed heat transfer 24 which was met, which was achieved; is that not correct?
l 1
25 (Pause.)
O l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2653
(
1 A
(WITNESS HILL)
We do not calculate a heat 2
transfer.
We use the Appendix K value.
If we were to 3
calculate that heat transfer coefficient, rather than
{}
4 using the Appendix K value, we would be calculating not 5
a single number but a function over time as different 6
phenomena come into place.
And that number would be 7
well above the Appendix K value.
8 0
In one of your earlier answers I believe you 9
stated th a t when you have now gone back and redone these 10 transfer calculations, assuming no -- not taking credit 11 for the core spray, you found a heat transfer 12 coefficient which is f ar better than the Appendix K 13 value; correct?
So you have gone and done that?
14 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Woule you like to restate t
, 15 that, please?
I lost my train of thought.
l 16 0
In an earlier answer, you stated that when you 17 no longer took credit for the core stay, you did some 18 additional analyses of the heat transfer where you have 19 steam cooling and some other f actors, which is set forth 20 in your testimony.
The heat transfer coefficients 21 ex ceed those of Appendix K, or substantially exceed -- I 22 forget what your words were -- you did not just say met 23 Appendix K, you said exceeded that.
Do you recall 24 that?
l l
25 A
(WITNESS HILL)
I am not -- I would like to be
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2654
(])
1 able to go back to what I really did say.
No, I do not 2
recall exactly what you are saying.
We did 3
calculations.
4 0
Let me ask it another wa y.
You sa y on page 5 5
in answer to question 12, you have listed steam cooling, 6
fast core reflood, upper water; you say these mechanisms 7
together provide much greater convective heat transfer 8
than that prescribed by Appendix K convective heat 9
transfer coefficients; correct?
10 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Yes.
11 0
So you exceed the requirements of Appendix K, 12 according to your calculations; correct?
i 13 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Yes.
Using those phenomena, O
14 We would exceed those requirements.
15 0
Now, did you exceed the Appendix K 16 requirements in the original FSAR calculations?
17 A
(WITNESS HILL)
No.
We used the Appendix K 18 numbers.
19 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
20 0
These phenomena were always present, these 21 three phenomena that are discussed in the answer to 22 question 12.
Ihese are not new phenomena; correct?
23 A
(WITNESS HILL)
I am not sure what you mean.
24 They may be new in the fact that as we do more testing, 25 we may discover more things.
Nature has not changed, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2655
(
1 and even though we might not have known about it 10 2
years ago, we know about them now.
3 0
Fine.
But you did not take credit for these
)
4 in the original FSAR; correct?
5 A
(WITNESS HILL)
That is correct.
6 0
You did take credit for core spray cooling; 7
correct?
8 A
(WITNESS HILL)
We used the Appendix K heat 9
transfer values.
10 Q
At the top of --
11 JUDGE BRENNERs I am sorry, are you satisfied 12 with that answer to your question?
Because I do not 13 understand it in that context.
14 MR. LANPHER:
Go ahead.
15 JUDGE BRE3MER:
The question was -- I had 16 trouble with the question, too.
The question vasa You 17 did assume core spray cooling in light of all the 18 testimony we have that in itself can be smgibuous.
And 19 then in response to that, you stated, we assume the heat 20 transf er coef ficients in A ppendix K.
21 I do not know if that is a yes or a no answer, 22 and I do not know how you understand Mr. Lanpher to mean 23 the term core spray cooling.
24 WITNESS HILLS That might be part of the 25 problem, sir.
I do not understand, possibly, his term.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
.~.
2656 l
()
1 But I attempted when we first came back from lunch to 2
explain how our model does work.
And our model uses an 3
Appendix K value.
We also calculate a flow that goes 4
down the bundle in the area of 2 to 4 gallons per minute 5
per bundle.
And we use that water not mechanistically 6
to calculate a heat transfer coefficient, but we use 7
that water for the reflood calculation.
8 The heat transfer coefficient had already been 9
determined by the law.
And so we used it.
We did not 10 go back.
We do not calculate a number, a heat transfer 11 coefficient, tha t by the law we cannot use.
Does that 12 make it clear?
13 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, I understand that you O
14 take the heat transfer coefficient in Appendix K for a l
15 number of reasons.
But you had to have the analyses to 16 show that your heat transfer would not be worse, and 17 that is where I am losing the term coefficient in the l
18 context you gave it to me.
1 19 WIINESS HILL:
As I have stated, we do a 20 calculation that shows that flow rate down the bundles 21 is between 2 to 4 gallons per minute.
In addition to 22 that, we have the test data to show that the heat 23 transfer coefficients are substantially in excess of 24 those specified in Appendix K.
Is that clear, sir?
l 25 JUDGE BRENNERs Yes.
At first, I thought I O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) E!4-2345
2657
()
1 heard you say you used the coefficient because it was in 2
Appendix K.
It is not tha t simple.
You had to verify 3
that your situation -- that the tests warranted using 4
that coef ficient; that is, your heat transfer would not 5
be worse.
Correct?
6 WITNESS HILL:
Yes, sir.
7 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 8 0
Mr. Hill, in your testimony in answer.to 9
question 12, you describe the steam cooling from the 10 uprush of steam through the core.
This cooling 11 mechanism, is this as effective as cooling with wa ter?
12 (Pause.)
13 A
(WITNESS HILL)
I am not sure I can answer 14 that unless I am looking up flow rates of steam and i
l 15 water.
l I
16 0
Would it generally be preferable in terms of l
17 heat transfer to have the channels, the areas between l
18-the fuels, the fuel rods to be filled with water or with 19 steam in terms of maximum heat transfer?
20 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Given similar flow rates, 21 water would be preferable.
22 0
So this steam uprush is a less effective 23 method of heat transfer than if the re were full core
()
24 reflood, for instance?
l l
25 A
(WITNESS HILL)
The last part of your question
()
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2658
()
1 indicated that possibly the core would not reflood.
2 0
I did not mean to imply that.
3 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Then would you ask the 4
question again, please?
5 0
I think I got the point on the record, and 6
that is all right.
7 (Pause.)
8 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Brenner, I would like to 9
go over my notes for a couple of minutes.
I think I can 10 finish up r ea so n a bly soon.
11 JUDGE BRENNER:
Would it disturb you if I 12 jumped it while you read your notes?
I mean I want you 13 to be able to hear.
O 14 MR. LANPHER:
I think I am still going to want 15 just a couple of minutes just to review the notes.
But 16 if you want to do it first.
17 JUDGE BRENNER:
Let me see if I can reduce 18 this to terms I understand, which may not be possible.
I 19 Based on the testimony we heard here, and T 20 quess I will address these questions to both of you and i
21 ask you each to respond in turn.
22 As I understand it, the test data which has 23 given rise to showing tat there may be nonuniform
()
24 distribution through the channels in the bundles -- and 25 unless I indicate otherwise, when I say channels in the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2659
()
1 bundles, I am excluding the peripheral channels, which 2
are not really the same type of channels, there are more 3
spaces.
C.
t 4
Starting again, as I understand it, the tests 5
showing that there may be nonuniform distribution of the 6
core spray through the channels in the bundles, is, in 7
fact, no distribution at all as to some of it was caused 8
by the phenomenon of steam in the bundles preventing the 9
spray from distributing down, from flowing down?
Is 10 that right?
11 WITNESS HILL:
Let me just correct it a little 12 bit.
Close, the steam in the upper plenum, where the l
l l
13 spray headers are located and the nozzles are located,
)
i 14 the steam in that environment causes a maldistribution, l
15 not the steam coming up through the bundles, although 16 that steam is part of the steam that would eventually be 17 in the environment up in the upper plenum.
18 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
So it is possible I
19 to have tha t maldistribution and also not to have the 20 water holdup due to countercurrent flow?
21 WITNESS HILL:
I believe the answer is no.
22 During an event where you are going to have the steam 23 uprush, you will have a pool of water up above.
()
24 JUDGE BRENNER:
Is it --
25 EITNESS HILL:
A t the same time, you will have O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2660
()
1 a maldistribution of spray into that pool, and, in fact, 2
the pool -- the level of the pool will oscillate a 3
little above and a little below that spray sparger 4
So for some time your spray nozzles are 5
actually spraying directly into that pool of water.
And 6
this is going on at the same time that you have 7
subcooled water passing down through the outer 8
peripheral bundles.
Did that answer it?
9 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, I am trying to see where 10 I am going.
I think that there were possibly 11 inconsistent assumptions made f or conservatism, but I am 12 not sure.
And maybe I ought to ask it directly.
13 I thought I heard Mr. Sun at least testify, 14 and also that is what I inferred f rom his direct written 15 testimony, that for purposes of the testimony -- and I 16 guess I will address this to you,'Nr. Sun -- you assumed 17 both that there would be no distribution of core spray i
18 through the inner fuel channels and also no water 19 accumulated being held up above the fuel.
Is that 20 correct?
You are making those assumptions?
21 WITNESS SUN That is what the present GE ECCS 22 evaluation model said.
23 JUDGE BRENNER:
Although you were assuming
()
24 flow down the peripheral channels for the reflood rate?
25 WITNESS SUN:
That is correct.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2661
()
1 0
JUDGE BRENNER:
Are those assumptions -- can those 2
assumptions be correct, or is it impossible to both have 3
the core distribution without having also the water 4
holdup?
5 WITNESS SUN:
I think some of the water will 6
be hold up at the top because of CCFL effects.
7 JUDGE BRENNER:
If you are also sssuming there 8
is the steam environment causing core distribution?
9 WITNESS SUN:
Corr 3ct.
10 JUDGE BRENNER Mr. Hill, do you agree or 11 disagree?
12 WITNESS HILLS Yes, I agree.
I think what we 13 are having a little bit of difficulty doing is 14 understanding an Appendix K model that has conservatisms 15 in it that are not true to what nature really does.
And 16 when we conduct tests, we find out what nature really 17 does, and we find out, you know, we made very, very j
18 conservative assumptions at the time we made or 19 developed our models.
20 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
Related to this, 21 Mr. Sun, I got confused in one of your responses to Mr.
22 Lanpher after the lunch break because I thought this 23 morning you had told me what I think you just told me
()
24 now; that is, when you testified on the bottom of page 4 25 and going over to page 5 of your testimony, that the
~
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
2662
()
1 requirements of Appendix K and 50.46 are satisfied even 2
without taking credit for core spray cooling.
3 You were assuming only core spray in the 4
peripheral channels as it would add to the reflood.
Am 5
I correct so far?
6 WIINE55 SUNS That is correct.
7 JUDGE BRENNER:
Yet I thought I heard you say 8
in response to one of Mr. Lanpher's questions that you 9
were also assuming some spray over the top of the 10 bundles in addition to the peripheral flow.
11 WITNESS SUN For core heat transfer 12 coefficient, this effect is not taken credit for.
13 JUDGE BRENNER All right.
So when you 14 answered Mr. Lanpher, were you testifying that you 15 thought it would occur even though you are not taking 16 credit for it?
17 WITNESS SUN:
That is right.
18 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
Thank you.
19 NR. LANPHER:
I would like to take a couple of l
20 minutes.
l l
21 JUDGE BRENNER:
All righ t, let us take a break l
l 22 until 3:15.
23 (A short recess was taken.)
()
24 25 l
l 1
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2663
()
1 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right, whenever you are 2
ready, Mr. La n g h e r.
3 (Pause.)
4-BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 5 0
Mr. Sun, I believe this morning you responded 6
to a question indicating that you understood the term 7
steam binding.
Do you recall that discussion we had 8
this morning?
9 A
(WITNESS SUN)
I laterpreted it wi th respect to to the CCFL from the point of view yot said that is what 11 you mean.
12 3
That is right.
It is related to that effect.
13 Are you familiar with the term " parallel channel O
14 effects"?
15 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Yes.
16 0
Could you define -
please state your 17 understanding of that ters?
18 A
(WITNESS SUN)
" Parallel channel" means you 19 have more than one fuel channel and sitting in the core 20 and the phenomenon is because of power distribution in 21 the core would be dif f eren t; therefore the flow 22 condition in each part would be different.
And when we 23 analyze the core heat transfer phenomenon, we consider
()
24 the hottest channel, and because of the other -- becsuse 25 the cool channel next to -- surrounding the hot channel, O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2664 1
therefore, there is 3 tendency tha t because the flow j
2 where flow to that channel through the side entry
{}
3 orifice from the core channel to the hot channel.
4 2
Mr. Sun or Mr. Hill, are either of you 5
f amilia r with a study performed by Penncalcar 6
Polytachnte Instituta entitled " Parallel Channel Effects 7
During the Emergency Core Cooling of a BWR"?
8 (Pause.)
9 A
(WITNESS SUN)
The reference to this work done i
10 by Dr. Leahy?
11 0
That is correct.
For the record, he is one of 12 the authors.
13 A
(WITNESS SUN)
One of the authors.
I think I 14 know -- I heard sbout it.
15 JUDGE BRENNER:
Did you want an answer from 16 Mr. Hill also?
17 MR. LANPHER:
I assume by his silence that he i
18 was not familiar with it.
19 WITNESS HILLa I was waiting for Mr. Sun to 20 finish.
21 HR. LANPHER:
Fine.
22 WITNESS HILL:
I am aware that Mr. Leahy is 23 conducting some laboratory tests with small glass-type 24 apparatus to simulate some of the effects of a BWR.
The 25 extent of -- the exact data, what he is trying to O
ALDERSON REPORTIN'l COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 2002^ (202) 554 2345
2665
()
1 conclude, I do not know.
2 BY MR. LANPMER:
(Resuming) 3 0
You have not read his study?
4 A
(WITNESS HILL)
No, I have not.
5 0
Have you, Mr. Sun?
6 A
(WITNESS SUN)
I read one of the reports 7
prepared by one of our staff, and their report indicated 8
the result from RPI's test confirmed tha t the 9
multi-channel behavior is there and, therefore, thus 10 going to provide better cooling.
This result indicated 11 in a package I mentioned to you, presented by Dr.
12 Beckner'in December 3,
'81.
13 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
14 MR. LAMPHER:
I have no further questions.
15 JUDGE BRENNER:
I guess that cuts my asking 16 you where parallel channel flow is on your 17 cross-examination plan.
It was not there, van it?
18 MR. LANPHER:
I do not think so.
19 JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. Reveley?
20 MR. REVFLEY4 We have no questions.
i 21 JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. Repka?
22 MR. REPKA:
I have just one minor question.
23 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
()
24 BY MR. REPKA:
25 Q
Mr. Sun, in your testimony this morning you l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 1
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
T 2666
()
1 made reference to an equation, and you said it was 2
either in Chapter 25 or Chapter 29 of a textbook by 3
Bennett & Meyer.
Is that a correct reference?
4 A
(WITNESS SUN)
I am not sure that is a correct 5
the reference is correct.
My intention is I wanted 6
to refer that the correlations used for the natural 7
convective heat transfer period.
8 MR. REPKAs Thank you f or tha t clarification.
9 No further questions.
10 (Board conferring.)
11 JUDGE BRENNER Judge Morris has questions.
12 BOARD EXAMINATION 13 BY JUD~E MORRISt O
14 0
Bear with me for a minute while I review my 15 notes.
16 (Pause.)
17 Mr. Hill, is there any difference in design 18 with respect to the core spray system and core geometry 19 between a BWR4, the generic class of reactors, and the 20 Shoreham plant?
21 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Between the generic BWR4, okay 22 23 Q
Or 5.
()
24 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Yes, there is with the 5.
t 25 Shoreham is a 4 And I cannot think of anything unique O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 vtRGIN!A AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554.345
2667
()
1 right now about its core spray system to the other 4s.
2 There is a difference with the Ss and 6s.
If you like, 3
I could explain but 4
0 would this difference in any way affect your S
conclusions with respect to the performance of core 6
spray at Shoreham?
7 A
(WITNESS HILL)
No.
8 Q
Mr. Hill, could you -- I mean, Mr. Sun, could 9
you respond to that?
10 A
(WITNESS SUN)
I agree with -- I think the 11 answer is no.
- 12 JUDGE BRENNERs I guess I need a little 13 clarification.
O 14 BY JUDGE BRENNER 15 0
When you were talking about a difference, Mr.
16 Hill, did you mean differences between a 4 and, in turn, 17 a 5 and a 6, or did you mean differences among different 18 Ss and differences among different 6s?
19 A
(WITNESS HILL)
I meant differences between 20 the product line BWR4 and those in product lines BWR5 l
l 21 and 6.
22 BY JUDGE MORRIS:
23 Q
Mr. Hill or Mr. Sun, we have talked about
(
24 peripheral flow.
Is that flow all confined to 25 peripheral fuel channels, or are there other flow paths l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2668
()
I where water on top of the core could reach the bottom of 2
th.e reactor vessel?
3 A
(WITNESS HILL)
Well, I think we have
(}
4 discussed the fact that the wa ter can come down through 5
any of the bundles, but the accelerated fl.ow, if you 6
will, comes through the subcooling of the peripheral 7
bundles.
And I think that is -- there is also water 8
that will fill up in the bypass region and then leak 9
into the bundles through the bypass holes.
10 But if you are talking about reflooding, water 11 getting down into the lower plenum, that would be just 12 from the core spray system, not including the other 13 injection systems, but just from core spray.
It would 14 be coming down through the peripheral bundles.
15 0
In your view, either or both of you, would 16 there be any significant difference in hea t transf er 17 coefficient during the LOCA situation between a 7 x7 18 array fuel bundle and an 8 x8 fuel bundle?
19 A
(WITNESS SUN)
In a real situation, the heat 20 transfer coefficient will be different.
However, in 21 analysis, the General Electric model used 1.5 units, i
22 which is specified in Appendix K.
For both 8 x8 and 7 23 x 7, the heat transfer coefficient in a real situation 24 will be higher than that.
25 Q
In a real situation, what would the difference O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2669
()
I be?
2 A
(WITNESS SUN)
The real situation means if you 3
run simulated to the condition which you could O
i 4
experience in a plain condition and an accident 5
condition and then in that circumstance then the core 6
heat transfer coefficient will be higher than 1.5.
7 0
Will be higher than 1.5 in both arrays?
i 8
A (WITNESS SUN)
In other words, the final 9
result is that the f uel clad temperature will be lower 10 in a fuel situation.
11 Q
But will there be a difference in the heat 12 transfer in s 7 x 7 array from 'n 8 x 8 array?
a 13 A
(WITNESS SUN)
Okay.
The core heat transfer (2) 14
-- con vective hea t ttansfer is a function of the 15 geometric factor and flow condition and thermal 16 hydraulic -- thermal physics property.
I would expect 17 that they would have some difference.
18 0
Could you describe that difference?
19 A
(WITNESS SUN)
The difference is -- really 20 depends on those parameters, the-three parameters, 21 geometric parameters and flow condition and thermal 22 physics property as a consequence of this design for 23 particular transient conditions.
()
24 0
Are you able to say that the heat tranfser in 25 an 8 x 8 array would be less than or greater than in a 7 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2670
()
1 x 7 array?
2 A
(WITNESS SUN)
I do not have this 3
information.
4 0
M r. Hill?
5 A
(WITNESS HILL)
I would suspect there, in a a
6 realistic sense, might be some difference.
I do not 7
recall seeing any data for 7 x7 fuel, and I have seen 8
the heat transfer coefficients for -- or the coefficient 9
functions for the 8'x 8.
10 As Mr. Sun pointed out, with the various 11 geometries they might be different.
The 8 x 8 contains 12 va ter rods and would provide better cooling.
I am not 13 sure that that bears directly on the heat tranfer O
14 coefficient itself, though.
15 So I guess directly, I do not know, is the 16 appropriate answer.
17 Q
So I guess both of you would say you are not 18 aware of any significant difference between the two, 19 ignoring the fact that this is a time-dependent function l
20 and there are geometrical changes and so forth?
21 A
(WITNESS HILL)
That is correct.
l 22 (Board conferring.)
23 JUDGE MORRIS:
That is all I have.
Thank you
)
24 very m uch.
l l
25 JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. Lanpher, do you have any l
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPAtlY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2671
()
1 questions based on Mr. Repka's question or the Boa rd 's 2
questions?
3 ER. LANPHER:
No, I do not.
4 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
5 Mr. Reveley or Mr. Repka, any questions based 6
on the Board's questions?
7 MR. REVELEYs No.
8 MB. REPKAs No, sir.
9 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right, the panel is A~d we to excused.
We appreciate your coming very much.
n 11 are glad we have concluded today with you.
12 (Witnesses excused.)
13 (Pause.)
O 14 JUDGE BRENNER:
Two minor reminders, and then 15 I will get to the next sta tement.
We will be 16 reconvening Tuesday, June 1, a t 10:30 in this hearing 17 room.
Thereafter, on the week commencing June 8, we 18 vill be convening at 10:30 in the Court of Claims 19 hearing room in Hauppauge, as previously announced.
And 20 also, in that Court of Claims hearing room at Hauppauge, 21 we will be convening at 10:30 on Tuesday, June 15.
22 So for those two weeks, Tuesday through 23 Friday, we will be in that hearing room.
At least 24 through that tiaa period, we will continue taking 25 limited appearance statements, limited to 5 minutes, at O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2672 1
approximately 5:00
- p. m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and 2
Th u rsd a y s, not Fridays.
(}
3 After the two weeks in Hauppauge, present 4
plans are to be back in this bearing room on the Tuesday 5
commencing June 22 at 10:30 a.m.
Howeter, if the air 6
conditioning does not hold up or whatever, we will be 7
actively looking for another hearing room.
We have been 8
very lucky with the weather this week.
We will see what 9
the true test is when the weather gets warm.
I am 10 a f raid I know what it is going to be.
But we will wait 11 and see.
12 Since the parties did not get back to us, we 13 assume that there were no strong arguments as to the O
14 week we have chosen to be in recess.
And therefore, 15 that week will be the week of Monday, June 28th.
16 MR. LANPHER :
Judge Brenner, could I say one i
17 thing with respect to that?
And that is, it is 18 difficult for some consultants, not particularly for us, 19 to travel on holidays.
This coming Monday I recognize well, they recognize that they are going to be 20 21 traveling.
After that recess, we have -- that is, the l
22 July ' th holidsy 4
23 JUDGE BRENNER:
That is after the recess, so Q<
l
- s/
24 that does not affect the recess.
l l
l 25 MR. LANPHER:
I think that recess goes through O
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2673 O
1 2
JUDGE BRENNER:
Through to Tuesday, July 6th.
3 MR. LANPHERa And the holiday is celebrated on 4
the 5th, that Monday.
And I would like you to consider 5
extending that recess one additional day so that the 6
consultants do not have to travel on a holiday.
7 JUDGE BRENNER4 All right, we will consider 8
it.
I do not wan t to hear argument on it now.
If we 9
contempla te doing it, I will hear from the parties.
But to we will consider it.
11 I will note that we have been on a 12 Tuesday-through-Friday schedule for the purpose of 13 giving people that one day, not as a day off so much as O
14 to be working on the case.
We know you need time, and 15 the Board needs time to wo'rk on the case also on that 16 day.
We will consider it.
Depending upon the demand 17 for limited appearanre statements, we may well not take 18 any more after June, but we will see how it goes.
19 If anybody in the room has the means to get 20 that information to the public, they are free to do so.
21 (Laughter.)
22 JUDGE BRENNER:
In response to some of the 23 comments we had yesterday with respect to the
)
24 cross-examination plans that will be required to be 25 received on June 8th, there will be at least two l
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2674
()
1 contentions from the May 25 testimony.
Hopefully -- do 2
the parties know the beginning of the order of the 3
testimony yet?
)
4 MR. REVELEY:
No, I am afraid we do not, 5
Judge.
6 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
I would like to 7
find out sooner rather than later next week.
8 MR. REVELEY:
We will try to get on top of it 9
early next week.
10 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
You need to know 11 so you know which cross-examination plans to be working 12 on.
13 MR. LANPHER:
Try 7B.
O 14 JUDGE BRENNER:
We are talking about two 15 contentions in addition.
16 Are there any other miscellaneous matters 17 before getting to the other matter?
18 MR. LANPHER:
Ms. Letsche has something.
19 MS. LETSCHE:
Judge Brenner, I b riefly wanted 20 to inform the Board of the conversation I had this 21 morning with Mr. Edgar, who is representing Stone &
22 Webstar, just to update you on this.
I think, based on 23 our conversation, we are in the process of reaching an 24 agreement with the Stone & Webster people.
25 Mr. Edgar authorized me to advise you that the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2675
(_3) 1 Stone & Webster request should be held in abeyance for r
2 now.
We see going to be further discussing the matter 3
next week and will inform you as to what we resolve.
4 But at this point it appea rs that the Board is not going 5
to have to make sny kind af rulings on the proprietary 6
request that Stone & Webster has made 7
And in light of that, I would request that we 8
not have to make the filing you had suggested on June 1 9
con'cerning our more specific use of the testimony -- of 10 the information by Suffolk County.
11 JUDGE BRENNER4 Have you discussed this with 12 Mr. Reveley or somebody for LILCO and the staff?
13 MS. LEISCHEs No, I have not had an
()
14 opportunity to do that.
I wanted to advise everyone all 15 at once of what has transpired.
16 JUDGE BRENNER:
In light of what you Just told 17 me, I am very willing to defer the date.
But I do not 18 want it to carry on -- be deferred too long.
19 MS. LETSCHE4 I anticipate we will be able to 20 let you know sometime in the middle of next week exactly 21 where we stand on it.
But it does appear there will not 22 be a problem.
23 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right, that sounds very 24 reasonable.
25 Mr. Reveley, do you agree?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2676
(
1 MR. REVELEY:
We are delighted.
2 JUDGE BRENNEE:
Mr. Bordenick?
()
3 MR. BORDENICK:
I am generally delighted.
The 4
only problem is I have finally gotten in touch with the 5
staff, and I am getting asssive amounts cf machinery in 6
motion to try to get you some past experience.
And I am 7
vondering, in li7ht of what has been said, whether you 8
vant me to call that off.
9 JUDGE BRENNERa Yes, why do you not call that 10 off.
And if we plug it back in again, we will still 11 give you about a week's time f rame, recognizing you 12 turned it off at our request.
13 HR. BORDENICK:
Fine.
O 14 JUDGE BRENNER:
The Board is delighted also if 15 it works out.
I want to note for the record tha t it is 16 obvious to us that a lot of time has been spent by 17 representatives for the County as well as 18 representatives of Stone & Webster and LILCO and, to 19 some extent, the staff.
And we do appreciate that time 20 is being spent in order to save time for the Board and 21 also in the proceeding.
So, thank you.
22 All ri gh t, the parties have agreed upon the 23 following statement, and rather than have to depend upon 24 other means of distribution on behalf of the parties, I 25 will make it here on the records O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
I 2677 j
O Surro1k countr, trtco, end the nac starz are 2
setively dealing wi th the matter of Shoreham's new fuel 3
under the supervision of the Board.
No further reports 4
regarding the considerations involved will be given.
5 All right, we are adjourned.
I hope everybody 6
has a nice holiday weekend.
And we will be back here 7
Tuesday morning.
8 (Thereupon, at 3:55 p.m.,
the hearing in the 9
above-entitled astter was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 10:30 a.m.
on Tuesday, June 1,
1982.)
11 12 13 O
15 16 17 18 19 20 2'
22 1
23 O
24 25 O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
I b
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIC*T This is to. certify that the attached proceedings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the matter of: Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station)
Date of Proceeding: May 28, 1982 Docket !! umber:
50-322-oL Place of Proceeding:
Riverhead, New York wore held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Coc: mission.
David' S.
Parker Official Reporter (Typed)
(SIGNATURE OF REPCRTER)
O O
_ _ _