ML20065N671

Affidavit of TB Cochran Clarifying Testimony at 820826-27 Hearings.Shock Wave Production Not Required for Nuclear Explosion to Occur

ML20065N671
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	10/20/1982
From:	Cochran T National Resources Defense Council
To:
Shared Package
ML20065N625	List: ML20065N623 ML20065N644 ML20065N657 ML20065N671 ML20065N692 ML20065N721
References
NUDOCS 8210220283
Download: ML20065N671 (3)

Text

._ _

/

a

'l DOCKETED U'3HRC 52 OCT 20 PS:d1 gctopcgg g 1982

.i TING & SERVICE.

BRANCH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

i Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger,Jr.

l Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

)

In the Matter of

)

)

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

)

Docket No. 50-537 PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

)

}

}

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant)

)

)

)

f i

AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS B. COCHRAN I, Thomas B. Cochran, being duly sworn, do hereby affirm and say:

1.

My name-is Thomas B. Cochran.

I reside at 4836 North 30th Street, Arlington, Virginia 22207.

2.

I testified.as an expert witness on behalf of Intervenors Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and the Sierra Club at the' Clinch River Breeder Reactor site suitability l

l B210220283 821020 i

PDR ADOCK 05000537 i

O PDR 1t'*-

-e----y 9

=--r g-

--v

'dey-w+m-4-et--N-F w

- vpy e-

-a-w-w=:*

si---*

• -g

'v -

---

-- - i

'D-

/

• hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on August 26-27, 1982 in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

3.

This affidavit is prepared for use in the above-captioned proceeding.

4.

My testimony at Tr. 2777, 2779, 2785 and 2789 contains an error which I wish to correct.

5.

In response to a series of questions by Judge Linenberger I incorrectly characterized a nuclear explosion as requiring a sufficient rate of energy deposition to result in the generation of a shock wave.

Although it was not my intent, I may have left the impression that this was an important damage mechanism in an LMFBR energetic CDA.

6.

While shock wave propagation may (or may not) be an important determinant in the energetics of a CDA (i.e.,

in whether a large energetic vapor explosion could ever occur) [see generally Alan E. Walter and Albert B.

Reynolds, Fast Breeder Reactors, Pergamon Press, 1981, pp. 654-660] shock wave production is not required for an explosion to occur.

7.

Furthermore, in a CDA, or nuclear explosion in an LMFBR, the expansion of a high temperature pressure bubble of reaction products, or vaporized material (e.g. fuel) is thought to be the predominant damage mode (rather than shock wave propagation) for the slower time-scale pressure buildup of an LMFBR excursion as i

compared to a chemical high-explosive detonation.

[ Walter and Reynolds, og. cit., p. 664.]

'l

---,e-<-m-~

.y w

+.-

8.

In response to Interrogatory 23 of Applicants' Sixth Set of Interrogatories to Intervenors, I have set forth a more co'aplete (and accurate) definition of a nuclear explosion in an i

LMFBR.

30 ho Thomas B. Cochran Date:

October 20, 1982 Sworn and subscribed to before me this /o A day of October, 1982.

bw2 S

Notary Public My Commission Expires: //u/r_z.

i

_,m.

_y,,

c y

-.__.