ML20059E283
| ML20059E283 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/04/1992 |
| From: | Schrock V Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Catton I Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-CT-2011, NUDOCS 9311030157 | |
| Download: ML20059E283 (1) | |
Text
_ - __-___ ____--__.
I 6T-26ll
\\
/em'o e n m g es UNITED STATES
{.p,
/,'g y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
r ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS j
o, g
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55 b
%~%
o March 4, 1992 i
i, 1
MEMORANDUM FOR:
I.
- Catton, Chairman, Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee i
\\
FROM:
Virgil Schrock, ACRS Consultant
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS CONCERNING THE NEED FOR INTEGRAL SYSTEM TESTING FOR THE WESTINGHOUSE AP600 -
THERMAL HYDRAULIC PHENOMENA SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, MARCH 3, 1992 I
In response to your request, here are my answers to the four questions you posed at the beginning of the subject meeting.
1.
Is high-pressure, full-height testing necessary?
NRC-NRR has made a compelling argument in favor of such testing.
W has presented a weak argument that their test j
program is sufficient.
Based on available information (probably inadequate for a sound conclusion), it would be j
I prudent for ACRS to support the NRR position.
l 2 Is H responsible (for conducting such testing)?
Yes
\\
l 3.
Is NRC-RES responsible (for the conduct of such testing)?
Only if NRR says they have a need for confirmatory research.
- Here, I disagree with Dr. Murley.
independent research to reach their decision on certification, i
this testing should be completed
- before, not
- after, 1
certification.
l
- 4. Should RES use ROSA-IV?
No. Technical arguments f avoring ROSA over Semi-Scale are not convincing to me.
Even if Semi-Scale costs more, the longer-term benefits may justify the difference.
Also, use of ROSA-IV is undesirable from a political standpoint.
I a ;, cu1GIEAL 9311030157 920304
~d
. -ufi ed By -
~
,E ___-______ _-- _----__--_---_--..----_--- ----------..--- - ---------_----------- - - _------- - - - -