ML20062H539
Text
'
lhh UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD i
In the Matter of S
S l
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S
COMPANY S
Decket No. 50-466 S
3 (Allens Creek Nuclear S
Generating Station, Unit 5
No. 1)
S Statement Of Material Facts As To f
i Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard
)
i I
(1)
SCRAM reactivity is a measure of the amount of negative reactivity that is produced by rapidly inserting control rods into a reactor thereby shutting the reactor down.
(Affidavit, p.
2)
(
(2)
General Electric does not utilize the WIGLE code, but utilizes a one-dimensional time / space code to predict the values of SCRAM reactivity.
The conservatism of this code has been demonstrated by comparison with actual plant data at l
i operating BWRs.
(Affidavit, pp. 2-3)
(3)
The data obtained during the Special Power Excursion Tests (IN-1370) were conducted in a test reactor l
bearing no resemblance to a BWR core and did not measure the i
effects of SCRAM reactivity since no control rods were inserted.
Consequently, that data does not provide any relevant information l
i about the conservatism of either the WIGLE or General Electric l
l l
g o0 128 B
~
hl code used in predicting SCFJ.M reactivity values.
(Affidavit, pp. 3-4).
a e
i E
I I
J l
t f
. 9. 9
,80-8 55 COSTS E AF/CO MP Doherty Contention No. 15/
PAID BY PLF. DEF.
~
f WIGLE Computer Code
(
3 4
IN T!!E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSIO:!
7 Y
IN THE MATTE R OF :
)
!!OUSTON LIGHTI:iG AND POWER
)
l
. COMPANY, DOCKET NO. 50-466 (ALLENS C RE EK MUCLEAR
)
GE NE RATIN G STATION, UNIT NO. 1)
)
M E
k A
b DE POS ITIO!! OF:
~
J Oll!!
F.
DOllE RTY y
C l
6 9
4 e
e I
p 13C
- ~ : ' c {>.' '. ' /, j,'.,-1,. i.'gg -
g i
/n 1
- 3. -
o
.s
?*Y', f~l$.'
. ', r? ~ -
l
-y 4
1917 Bank of the Southwest Building. Houston, Texas 77002.(713) 652 5911 t?sh
l 1
turbine.
I t
2 A.
Yes.
Ckay.
l 3
0 All right.
Le t 's go to your contention 4
on F C l4 A t' reactivity function.
Tha t 's
- v. o u r number l
f 15.
1 hould you explain to me 'ha: you.
cacerstcnd a "; C F.t.- reac.ivity function to ce?
~
A.
It's a te r.:
tha t alluded me rather nadiv.
' e en s t ud ing it anu u ing it it teference to C
I've Ic the actions or tha novenent of neutron through a i
i 11 core, a r.d describing the c.ffects of various core alonc t!,e nove~ent of structurec alonc that it's an attempt to decerihe 12 noutran: f r o-a 1'
ice neutron activit/ in the core at any tinc.
- hy the reference to SCPAr?
18 C.
l i" A.
Now you got me.
I've never understood 17 that unless it's just to talk, about
- t. hen S C P. A M 13 shou *d occur, or the sufficient to SCRA9 I C-reactivity or something like that.
I've never CC understood 'hy SCitA.'4 in in there.
l 21 C.
Ect it's your understancing that F C P /. ?
i i
"I reactivity function discussed in thLs contention 22 has nothing to do with the insertion of control C.*
rods?
.I 25 A.
- o.
It does have something to co
'v i t h l
..C.
. u
. ~
...~....,:,
.cu.
.:..;...n.
C -....s.i e
r.
V p. (' r1 *.* ^m s.',
t.V. a*.?
( "' 1..i i
...t. 7.., R. C. 9 i
- .--------------------------------a
4:
1 the insertien of control rods.
2 c.
khat does it have to do with the j
2 insertion of control rods o r 'S C " A ?d ?
4
/.
A.
It seens to be en attempt to describe 5
the actions of the safety devices such as the l
1 control cads and the ecclant on a on neutren 7
activity.
Au fcr cc I know, to both ev e r p o vv e r i n ?
events or just changes in the systen aar whatover
?
reason.
Just the nornal increasing in ;.o.a r or 10 prasuaahly decroesin; in p o.; e r.
"ow is the cc?AP reactivity function 11 calculated by General ricetric?
12 A.
It's calculated by one of
%c tipes of J
1' codes.
Either wna t 's cel cd a neutron di: fusion I
15 or transport theory.
I had trouble keeping thase 15 in my nind.
hhich ever, ulus several subcodes 4
f 17 designed to take up various aspects of the core I
le several aspects of the core, including, perhaps 19 I'e not certain.
Perhaps, including the affect I
l 20 of delayed neutrons, the affect of control rods l
l 21 channel boxes, guide tubes.
C.
Mhera did yo u derive this in f o rma tio n l
22 atout CE's information on SCPAP function?
24 A.
Mostly tron Cr. Sebs's book.
I 25 C.
Fr.
bebt was describine the calculation i
i a
f
.~
INTEHNATICNAL CCUAT el i. F C R '1 S R S,
INC.
MN liC U S T O N', TETAS (713) 552-5911 l
=
1 for the sort used in the
?,l l e n s Creek analycis?
A.
hell, no.
Cr. hebb c id n' t know abcut v
2 Allens creek.
1
- netever he is
.e C.
!?c w do you know that 5
discussing, of whatever relevance, i s the same 6
function that we're discussing as applicable to 7
9 7
bilens C r e e r.?
i s
S
?..
.a n t
- add s:mething i r.
.y earlier they use a cif f usion t*r e c t y.
Iat;/.
It's CC's i
J tr C.
CE uses a diffusion theory 11 7.
Courled with nunerous or several Other i
a' not theerios, several other programs 17 theories 1:
t r. a t take up varicus a;pects of the core.
4 r
le C.
CE uses a neutron diffusien theory and i
5 15 scher coces?
I i
1 i
ic A.
Subroutines or codes.
[
c l'
C.
Subroutines or coJes to calculate ? C T.' "
{
1 4
i
!?
activit, f uric t i o n ; is that your und e r s ta nd ing ?
l l
l 19 A.
Yec.
t i
I 2C C.
%ha t's the basic of this i nfornation?
i 1
i 21 A.
Tha t 's from h e h 'c.
.r.
Petc is l
l 02 C.
Ckay.
bo w do you know that
)
22 discussing the CCRAM reactivity function of the j
i sane variety as is relevant to this c o r. c o n t i o n ?
I' t
I guess I'm unclear on 25 A.
If you nean
.n.2..,
i: C.
q'j i
.t-
.,. ~. I L
.s i
..t n '.
.r
- r
- c..
v
.v. s e-3 e,,_ce,i e
$he
.EM
---'-,-~~---M
[gh. y, m.
s m
ON) w h
q 4
t I
shat you r.ean uy the cuestion, sir.
If you-nean is that what you're Jetting 0
ACNCS exclusively
/
C.
You assert that rencral El ec tr ic has 5
i= properly accounted for s c B A.v reactivity.
r A.
'Ih e y a n o n ; others.
They are the ener 7
c o c!: '/.
O c.
I a s k 's d yo u what your unc;c e s a nc ine as 6
a: to how CE actually calculated C C F t. *. reactivity,
- r.
as ' you told e that your unders andin.; i.. a s
'cht's
".o c k.
And I '.- a s h i 't ~ you
'J e r i 't e d f r o :- Mr.
.+
17 now dc you P.n o w w'at
?* r. '. ' e b b is deceriting in 1.-
-:.at cook ic c p r. l i c c - i t to unat CF cctuclly :* o e n ?
l A.
I don't b.elieve Fr.
/eth Nauld 15 r: i s r e p r e s e n t wha t CE has done.
Also, I've run 1#
across articles which seemed to indicate CE's 17 working le C.
Fr.
's e b b l
on problens in the core.
1?
A.
l-Or C.
All riqht.
Le t :e interrup
- you, i
I l
L 21 t.
ihich t
~2 O.
Le t me interrupt.
l I
22 A.
I would like to finish my answer.
i l
' ebb states i
f'.
Le t ao interrupt you.
Sr.
25 in his book ti.a :
C. :' i.s using a neutron dI(fusion i
t i
e l
4 I
1 e : r.... ;
e..,
I,,
- n..I,.., -
~. t a.,.
t - _...
.e.
10.4
..c.
1.,,
,u
..c..,
. ~. -..,
'l 1
t!.eo r y and various other sub-routines?
7 A.
Yes.
Essentially he says that.
2 c.
Wo ulc you reint
- r. e tc the portion cf the
/
b o o 's.
wnere he says tha t?
5 7.
I' a q e C.
Could I soe it?
Could you point the
]
t a
nrtion o u t?
4 1
i
/.
In :ne blue there.
..h e r e it starts *
- c r e o v e r ?
t.
o ir Ye s.
C.
- arcover t h cer!tal :':' n D c e I : u l e t i c :-
4 12 etheds are found on nuncrous :.a t h ema t ic a l I
c ;. :. r o.< i r.: a t i o r. s to th2 t r. e c r y i :- order to rerter-le
- . r a c t i c a l c,= l e u l.= t i o n s w!
- n a corputer.
'necif-15 ically it CE-PFA c alcul a t io ns are based on a if simplifted theory of neutron dynamics known as l'
diffusion theory, a m a t h e::a t i c a l approximation of 10 the rigorous neutron transport theory.
The error le which has never been determined by ;.o w e r eacur-2C sion experitents or Fb-PEA calculations 'ith C.h e 21 rigorous theory."
22 Is that the r epr esen ta tive portion of i
23 tha t?
4 24
.a.
Ye s.
- here in there decs it ciscuss F C n.\\."
25 O.
e i
j l
- :J T F 3 9 A T IC : A L COURT GCPC772'c, I :-! C.
t" iC
- u.. c t q..
- u.,
. r..v s..e g.,n, a c..,. _ c,<~,,
r r
1 reactivity function or anything else refered in 2
this contention?
3 A.
kell, it doesn't t a l k.
about C. E j
i 4
specifically.
7 i
1 5
C.
coes it talk about FCFAM reactivity?
Ll F
t e
Yes.
! belicyc so.
e 7
C.
Where does it discuss tha t?
I haven't
?
run across those
-o rd ; once.
4 9
T.
Perhaps not.
IC C.
I don't believe there is a *perhaps" to j
u s
- 1 at,
'r.
.~ o n e r t y.
4 1.
A.
' ell a
t i
Faall read furtner?
I c
l e.
A.
I could read sone.
i 1
I 15 O.
hull, I asked you from the reference lf where Fr.
Lebb stated t
i 17 A.
Pag e 49.
5 18 C.
Yes?
t 19 A.
Right here sta t ting with *cince the 20 nuclear industries."
i 21 C.
I'd like fo r you to point out where you 22 encounter the word CC R Att reactivity in any of I
I 22 those excerpts of.= r.
's e b b.
And the basic issuo I,
1 l-2*
under c o n s 'i d e r a t i o n is -hether or not FCIAF 25 reactivity function nas been properly calculate
}
i IN~fo:4 A 10 N A L C C t:it ; F I F C 3 '; i ;i d, I C.
g,{
- 1
.f
'oe
^
(
I..JJ 70.-75, 1 b w b,..,.%.*,
.A 6
~
m 1
1 by vu.
2 A.
All rignt.
2 0
And you assert that
- f.
Sebb alleges 1
4 that they have no t?
A.
YeS.
4 6
c.
I'm at a loss, because I don't owlieve i
anything s,e've cited so fcr touches en SCF/"
j i
reactivity.
i
?
A.
/- 11 rignt.
!r Well 11 A.
.011.
You have the questions.
Co ahead.
1 1:
C.
ry question is:
how do you believe 12 r eneral Electric calculates SCFA.w reactivity r
I le function?
15 A.
! believe they use a two diaensional I
15 code called h!CLE in coucling with several other i
i l'
codes.
I 19 0
Sell, t ha t's the first t im e yo u ' v e i
t 1 ()
introduced h1CLE.
Oces
.A r. hebb say in his book I'
20 that CC uses kICLF to calculace S C.7 A " reactivity?
11 A.
Yes.
I' i
2:
C.
would you point that out for e,
please?
22 A.
All right.
It says " nuclear industries I'n liable to read again 24 9hn design basis" iS feca -nat I've just read to you.
"The c' e s i g n
-,..... - e n.. e,
e n., -. -
-,,.. 8 r.
b4 ben.
SL e n
3 - (.* 1..-
..1
.T a 4% '-.
A 3. ^. (* C ". f. t,*
- F *** A.C.
{ * 't.1. )
d r., 7.. f. 019
, i, a
4 %.#
y
I 1
bcsis accidents are checked with
>ICLE.*
2 c.
"e a i t a minute.
We haven't even c o r.e 2
close to the tcsic issue; (A) whether or not
/.
S C R A.M reactivity function is calculated using 5
hICLE, and -( 2) we are discussing a calculational 6
.ethod not comparisons, are we not?
7 A.
Well e
C.
It svens to ne the pa s sag e you read c r. -
1 o
both accounts neither ta e n t i o n s _ C C T. A.M reactivity 1c function, nor does it naxe a sta te en t as to 11 csleulational nothod, cut only ac tn cceparisons 1.'
rade?
12 A.
311 rigne.
It C.
"ow, I need to understard what is exactly being alleged here.
Are jau alleging I
1*
that CE uses WICLC to show S C R A.6-reactivity 17 function, and if so, what's the basis of that la a ll ega t io n?
'ICLE to calculate 19 A.
I'm saying they use 5
l 2C they eneck the design based power source and 21 accidents with
'A I C L E.
4 C.
That's totally different fecn what I had 22 stated.
So is the answer, no, you're not Cr a ll eg ing that CE uses 5ICLE to calculate
.c C ? A
i 25 reactivity f unc tion s?
i g,g~
I n i :. d a A T I L N A L C C U :i T P t r C A T 2..- L,
Iac.
HCO3TO:1, TEMAS (713)
~ 7. - 5 0 1 1 l
l 1
/s.
I '.m not clear on the definition of
- C F i."
2 reactivity," that's wny 2
c.
It is the central issue in your
.?
contertion, so your not being cl ea r is quite a 5
- debacle, r-A.
Whatever you wish to label it.
I have 1
7 no p r o c l e.-
with your l a b e l i ng process.
O.
I'n having acute proble.s -ith your D
cen ten t ion.
l to hell
'l C.
I think t h e r., e are o}.cnly sinile 12 questions
!?
A.
I d ic n ' t sa y tney are c o r. r. l i c a t e d.
E uses briLE to le C.
to you allege that s
IF calculate S C F t..M reactivity functions?
I '.
.T.
YeG.
17 C.
'e h a t is the basis of that allegatien?
f r e e.
what Mr. 'eebb has acid 13 A.
Pa r. Webb 10 here.
20 C.
Can you point that out to
,m e where he 1
21 says tha t?
as n.
..o.
22 C.
All r ig h t.
Can you tell me -hat a one-24 ei. tensional t ira e cece is?
I l
25 7.
It's a ecde that treats neutrons as
= uou t c u. s c am s r e en Ea.,
- c.
1,3.s p... -
- f., 1,
e, e.,. _ 3 e.
I. c.,s e.. r,,.,
.s. t.
4 1 L -
4----_,,,,.
i 1
being adnitted in all direction e c u. a l l y.
s 2
C.
?here did yo u derive that c e f i n,Jt i o n i
i 2
fron?
s, e
A.
I don't recall.
1 4
C.
It is your inpiession trat thet is the i.
A definition of an one-dinensional time code?
- j T
?.
A time code 2 think 'ould alco include
{
e v
?
actors of time.
hi C.
All r i.; h t.
\\
i 1
I 1 f'
?.
'Iu c h aS Ohe anount Cf tire
!!' A it t*kes
.1 11 for a neutron to cove it's nigratory rcth.
That i
i 12 tyce e'
thinq.
13
- s..
Is it your assertion that such a e c f +e is i
1.*
i n a [: p r o ;. c i a t e for calculatine S C G A." recetivity l
i 15 functions?
15 A.
Th a t it's insufficient.
'{nsu f f ielen t?
17 C.
hhy is it 10 A.
tie c a u s e l s e v e r a l of the in c id en c e i
l l
t 19 centioned h e r'c have occurred ;.a r t i c u l a r l y of 20 these pulse neutron injections as nentioned in i
i i
II t.i e con ten t ion where bursts of neutronc a r'e
[
22 injected into the side of tac reactor.
1 22 C.
Le t ra e ask the cuestion ag a i n, becauce I N
I+,
24 totally missed the answer.
o u : c a i d tr a t a one-t l
25 dinensional J
l 5 :.. r. r.- /. ; I J.. n I.
C L L,-
. t. 4 t. : L..:,
- .s c.
ri C U U 7 N, TC.VAC
( ~ 12) G ( 2 - 3 ". 1 1 4,9,.
I MMNMM 1
+
1-
I i
1 A.
hell, it does not p r ed ic t ene affects of I
a pulsed neuteen injection in ene contention.
l 1
2 C.
'c h a t var t r.e purpose Of the tecto i
t.
conducted by the Idano nuclear expe r inen tal l
5 la co r a to r ie s?
j i
i 6
A.
Lo r d, they've conducted thousands c.
I believe you only ~ade reference to onc i.
in your contention.
l l
J, I
t A.
All right.
l 1
1^
c.
e con c: art there.
That sacas
},
i Il arrropriate.
II A.
hell, there were several, as it is 12 c.cationed in ene contention.
1' C.
There was one group.
I!I-1 ? ?O, was it 15 no t?
16 A.
Yes.
i 17 C.
hhat ws:
la A.
Tha t 's several in onc report.
1?
C.
What was the purposes of the tests 20 conducted in the IN-1270 group?
i 21.
A.
(No Response) 1 22-0 wnile you're thinking about that, I'll 3
22 ask a cuestion that will clarify the first.
I:
i 2'
the IN-1270 designed-to. measure the CCPAN 25 reactivity?
1:4 T F R t; A T I C ?: A L C C U I. i TCPCRTCRC, :: C.
i.C U S T C N, TEXAS (713) 452-3911
)Abb
--'g
I 7.
I don't have T v - 13 7 c.
In front of me, so 2
I don't know what the purpose of it was.
if 2
c.
So any results produced by Iv-1770 4
you don't know the perpet of the test would seem 5
to ne to se speculative at best.
6 A.
hell, sometimes tests can yield 7
c.
'.nat results cid IN-137C producc?
A.
Th a t unveriflad FIA theery :: r e d i c t s that 9
ne peak energy yiel pe: Tran of fuel of the 1c design case FIA approaches rather closely to the t'
esign safety linit of ??O enloriec heer for gram.
17 0.
What does that have to do with s c r. A."
r e ac t iv i ty which is the central Issue o *~ this la contention?
15 A.
It sta tes that the unverified i
li calculation was pretty close to what was the 17 design safety limit of the fuel rode.
la C.
'd h a t does that statenent have to do with 19 S C P /..M reactivity function?
'r h a t ' s the i
20 correlation?
l 21 A.
Fell, they are not statistics I
l 22 c.
I.ocan you can say tha t I9-1270 proves 22 that zebras have stripes.
What does that nave to 24 do with the SCPAP reactivity function which is I
l 25 the thrust of this contention?
l l
l t
l
- \\ ; a m ic. i c "i i u :. ' : '- a-Fct..==, ::. c.
1dh l
... age,.c e.,
. r. y. c
_(S1.1) e c,,.s. c. o.t p
I.I-
+,,3,yv-----
my-y-
-y
,------.--w--u-w
,n
e..--
--**--m
I 1
A.
The issue under here is that under pr ed ic tio n of the enercy yield and power
- 1 i
excursian.
/
C.,
Ita v e you changed the inport of the 5
contention now?
It does not deal with U C A A.*
f reactivity function?
7 A.
The truc ECTAr r eac tiv ity ' unction
<enerated is too small
.h $ n c o n i. a r e e to dat:
n 1
O IN-127c.
I i
1r Q.
% hat data i r.
!"-1270 sbould ScrAv i
i a
f 11 reactivity no co nd uc ted ag: inst?
i 17 A.
The one ! just read.
12 2
! don't recall you reading cny.
.oulc f
it you read it for ne again?
i 15 A.
bell, I could road it again.
}
16 C.
%ould you do so?
t 17 A.
As it is, the unverified FEA theory IC predicts that the peak energy yield por gram of l
19 fuel of the design based power excursion access j
. " ^
approaches rather elecely to design safety lin i t j
J I
i l
21 of 2*C calories per gram.
l 2:
C.
Khy would anyone choose to compare ScnA*
22 reactivity and 200 calories per gram?
ehat do t
they nave to do with one another?
l 25 A.
'e e l l, 200 calories per gran is the i
Ldb I.4TERVA!!ChriL CCCPT R '_' ? O R T E F O,
!"C.
e,..c.v.,
v,s.s c
( *,,..-
.: e..e _ :: e,1 1 no
v..
I result.
2 C.
The result of wha t?
?
A.
Cf underesti.ated TC:?P reactivity.
t C.
!!o w did you draw that conclusion?
5 A.
If the SCFAP reactivity is under-c estinated, then the d e c it; n safety !! nit w o e: 1 :' he, if c :c c e e d e d, 'co u ld ind ic a :e unsafe condicians.
C.
'- h a t ?
C-A.
Cid you have t r o u r. l e hearin; no?
IC I hope J0.
don't bc nat way, please.
Fe're 11 A.
I
!?
aluost finish.
I c:tpect to be trea:ed with 1."
respect here.
1.*
C.
Sould you e.xplain to ne the difference 1.C between ECRAM reactivity and I?C calorios per 17 grae and I'-137C, and T think we can finish.
Luc l
l' if you continue-to run around in these circles, 18 then I think you can an ticipa te cone loss of II pa t ienc e?
20 A.
I object to any further cuestioning.
I 21 C.
I have a number of c,cestions.
You haven't eeplained to me 23 A.
I'll find 24 C.
Ca n you explain to ne the IN-12'r tes:
l 1
t 25 reactors and the results of t
I
- T E h ti AT IO N A L C t U i, T P C P C T: 7 C F T,
!"C.
1dd
" C "s " *. C ", ". r 7 A _"
( ~ 1 '. ) 3 ". ~
5.C '.'
i
)
+ - -. - -
3-=--
eem---ey-
.m o-.---.--~-1-~-----y+
r- - -
r
=
I I
A.
Not without searching around.
l 2
0
- as it a EFR mocn up?
'as it in tend ed to slaula te the design and functioning of a E h l:7
^
1 t'
d 4
- 1..
I don't believe it was.
5 O.
Can you tell ne how they r.easured FCRA*
r teactivity in IN-1270 tests?
7 A.
Not at this r.c n e n t.
I don't I: a v e the
[
d o c u s.. e n t
- s. i t h :t o.
2 It is your und e r s tand ing that they d'~
9 Ir in icet e.easure scr:M reactivity in 05is instance J
v L
11 A.
I'm not certain of that at thi.c reint.
L' h
12 c.
.' 1 1 riqht.
c, I
I believe thay d i :..
1 I
)
i 14 c.
Ia there anythine in the report on i
i e
1:
I:4-1270 which indicated tna C F.' s calculated E
?
1 +"
F C P A :t reactivity was too small?
?
17 Yes.
As I was reading previously.
10 C.
You were r e ad ing fron 4r.
Sebb's book, I e
19 believe?
2r A.
That's r ig h t.
i 21 7.
I neant in the IN-1270 report?
l' l.
22 Yes.
l 22 0
All right.
.{
t i
i A.
I don't know if there's a r. y t h i n g in that l
25 report, and I don't know that it would be r
l i s. :. n ?. A ; I G.. A L.
C t. u n. n :. i s n. c. ri d, i.< C.
d'5
^
?! C " G T C a, 7 F X.4 5 (712) 652-5911 i
~
t I
relevant to AC:JC S.
7 c.
t.r e you under the lupression that rr.
1 2
hebb's book does, in fact, discuss C C D A.*'
4 reactivity at sone place?
5 A.
Yes, I an.
l e
tc.
Se h e. v e not ;ee discovered that cloce; i
l 7
is that co r r ec t?
j i
I
.c A.
I thina I r;4ve.
You think we've not.
f c
v.
tell, do the words S C F t.F reactivity 1r f u r. c t i o n " a r,; c a r an, place in :nat book?
Let.~ e a r. h you thct si Ilc cuestion.
17 I haven't found tc2n, but that decan't 12
- r. c s n t :; a t they don't appear in a..t t n a r qu!st.
l.*
C.
You mean there is 3nother rhrese trat 15 cones out to the some function?
I' A.
Yes.
17 C.
khat is that?
!?
A.
I'm not certain.
19 C.
But your sure that it's in the book?
2r A.
At this po in t, I an.
I will notify you i
i t
4 21 if I have a change in mind.
22 C.
And can you indentify for
.e the exact 22
,c o r t i o n of the book *** h i c h discusses.the S C R A."
1 I
2J r e a c t i v i t,- and reachas the conclusion that l
1 I
l 25 Ceneral riectric's cot the l
I :i T E.T N A T ! O.v /. L CCURT si E F C P T T 'i F, I:T.
1@
UCUFTCN, T E.v A C.
(~12)
- 92-A"11
+
1
I 1
A.
kait a minute. ?f you'll eut that 2
questian in half, ti.e n I can reply to that.
o C.
bhich half do you choose to reply te?
4
,g,
<,c l l, I will answer to both, but as i t 5
stands right now, it's a yes and no answer, and 5
that procaoly is confusing.
l
?
I C.
c.i n you induntify in the book where i t S
discusses SCHAM reactivity uncer another n a c'e ?
~
d' 9
A.
Yes.
Chapter four.
i
)
1r C.
til c'
chapter four is enneerned with 11 S C O.A ? recctivity?
l 1
i A great deal of it is.
f 1~
c.
1: e s.
will we iri entify in chapter four 14 hen :- c. Sebb is referring to S C. A ?4 reactivity?
~
I
!5 A.
I will let you know.
j 14 c.
All right.
17 A.
I'm willing to let you Answ.
If you 1
13 read the book, you r.:ay i r.d e n t i f y it yourself.
i 19 Q.
'a h a t we need to understand i s not ny 20 interpretation of the book, but yours.
cfnce 21 I've not filed contentions 2:
A.
I've given you that.
22 C.
You've given me which?
2a A.
- y in ter p r e ta tio n.
l 25 C.
! missed it.
j t
i
- "C.
I s i c... w ' i c...A L ct.r.
u s. c t...,
- . -.. c T C N, " ~ x.* ~
t' '. '. ' ) <'*
~.C. 's 1
- i. -
,4
-~
a aug
-____m
=
I A.
': :: 4 t it is a description of :no core a description of tne actions of activity, the 2
the neutrons and how they cove in t.a e core in betn normal power increasing and in accident conditions.
'x h a t do you suppose has to b? done to
^..
7 correct CE's c a lc ula t ion s of C C.1 A " reactivity?
j i
a A.
I think a throc-dimen31onal analysis is 9
nefcesSdry.
,i lt C.
'.- h a t will the threc-dinensional analysis f
1; supply t h.: t ' s n o *. c.:ssine,?
a certainty if it provec
}
1:
A.
It will currly 12 t :;e exr e r ite. e n t a l result:
1:
Do you have reference to the I N - 1.' ? c 15 experimental results?
16 A.
I don't feel that I answered
- v. o u r I
17 question or quite had a chance to complete that.
IP Q.
You said that the three-dinencional size r
10 would produce results comparable to the test 2C results.
T'n asking you wnether the test results 21 you had were the IN-1370 what was your l
22 A.
No.
The test results 23 question again?
i i
24
.v F. EICFLE:
hould you read the l
}
25 last cuestion, please?
h i
i i
I N T E P. :4ATIONAL CCCPT P E P C.4 T E H C,
INC.
~g uCUSTON, TEXAE (713) #52-5911
]
2
( '( !! C p r. I' r c t.',
the requested testimony e
3 was read back by the court reporter.)
t
.,4 5
A.
Yes.
ihe ancher should be yes a n c' not 6
no.
q 7
Q.
Le t ' s go on to yo u r contention on
-D G
blockage of the intake canal.
9 Wh a t can cause the Llockage of the m
10 A.
Gl id ing. ud wo uld he the culprit.
3 1
11 0
Is that your concern?
j 17 A.
As far as I understand it, yes.
13 C.
Ehat's the source of the nud?
Jn 14 A.
1he walls.
W(
15 O.
1he walls are nado of mud?
16 A.
Cr whatever the ra a t e r i a l s is.
17 c.
Is it your impression that the sides of 18 the U li F is n a rl e out of earth?
i 19 A.
F o r.. e natorial other than concrete or 20 colid material, yes.
Pl 21 O.
You're concern is that the valls will 5
22 slip off and block the intake canal?
U
+
23 A.
Yes.
l 7t O.
Is your concern anything different than 25 that ext ressed by the PRC staff?
p!
169 t
i
-e
,