ML19345G302
| ML19345G302 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/11/1981 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341B548 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8103180119 | |
| Download: ML19345G302 (15) | |
Text
(~~>l FEPORT OF LOCT SFCIAL FEVIcW GFDP PESP.TATIQ! TO CGT11SSIO" B10318 0 \\ \\k
ACRS IMITIATl W *
"l.1TI' REPRESENTS THE LARGEST SINGL' EXPEND 1TURE IN THE SAFETY RESEARC!
BUDGET SO THAT ITS PROGRAM MJST BE CONSIDERED WITH SPECIAl. CARE. WE REC 0ftiEND THAT THE TESTS THROUGH FY 199 BE ATQUATELY FUNDED AND THAT FOLLOWING THE 192 TESTS TIE FACILITY BE DEC0ftilSSIONED LNLESS IT IS TAKEN OVER BY THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY. THE FINAL TESTS TO BE RIN TO THE C0ffLETION OF THE PROGRV1 SHOULD BE CAREFUL 1Y SCRlITINIZED AND EVALUATED BY [S TO OBTAIN THE MOST USEFUL FINAL SERIES.
WE WOULD ALSO WISH TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE CHOICE OF THESE TESTS. EFFICIENT OPERATION OF THE FACILITY APPEARS TO REQUIRE THE REQUESTED LEVEL OF SUPPORT AND THEREFORE WE ENDORSE THAT LEVEL."
90[G-0699, "C0mENTS ON THE f.fC SAFETY PESEARCH PROGRAM 3UDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 19&," JULY 19f30.
GARER OF TdE WFf SECIAL P9/IW GPRP THIS GROUP IS ESTABLISHED FOR TE PLRPOSE OF REVIEWING THE LOFF PROGRAM #1D REPORTING ON THEIR FINDINGS TO THE flRC C0m!SSIQ1ERS.
TE EVIEW SHALL BE TECmICAL IN NATURE, FOCUSSING Ole BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE BENEFITS EXPECTED FROM THE PROGRAM PLANNED FOR THE P/1981 TO P/198 PERIOD.
THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE GROUP IS TO CONSIDER WHETHER LOFf SHOULD BE DECONISSIONED IN P/1983, AS REC 0 MENDED BY WE ACf6. THE GROUP WOULD BE EXPECTED TO CONSIDER TE LOFF PROGRAM FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF !!RC'S OVERALL RESEAROi PROGRAM #1D IN TERMS OF THE NEEDS OF REACTOR REGULATION. ' TO FACILITATE THIS WORK, f!RC #4D THE IEL, WERE LOFT IS LOCATED, WOULD PROVIDE PRESENTATIONS, REPORTS, TOURS, #1D INTEPNIEWS.
ALSO, THE GROUP WOULD BE WELCOE TO ATTEND NN TESTS PERFORMED IN THE LTT REACTOR OR RELATED FACILITIES.
TE REPORT WOULD BE INTENDED TO AID THE C0mISSIONERS IN BEIR DECISION WHETHER TO CONTINUE flRC SUPPORT OF THE WFf PROJECT BEYOID P( 192. THE REPORT SHOULD ADDRESS SPECIFIC REGULATORY NEEDS #4D DESCRIBE HOW THE RESULTS OF THE LDFF PROGRAM ARE EXPEClED TO MEET THOSE NEEDS. FURTERMORE, BASED ON THE PERFORMANCE AND RESPONSIVENESS OF THE PROGRN4 TO DATE, THE REPORT SHOULD INDICATE THE LIKE-LIH00D THAT TE PLR1NED PROGRAM WILL PfD/IDE TE EXPECTED INFOR4ATION #4D THAT IT MAltEAINS REASONABLE FLEXIBILITY TO ADDRESS CHN4GING REGULATORY ISSUES.
A FINAL REPORT WOULD BE ISSED BY FEBRUARY 3,1981, N4D AFTER FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSIONS WITH TE C0mISSIONERS, THE GROLP WOULD E DISSOLVED.
tDEfB A9 C0f6tLTN!TS OF l'iE LOFT SPECIAL EVIEW G'.U_P f0Ef6 AFFILIATIm D.~ PoSS (GiAIRMnD OFFICE OF MEAR PEACTOR PEGULATlat, NRC R.BERNERO 0FFICE OF NUCEAR REGULATORY PESEARCH, NFC R. CFRA 0FFICE OF NUCEAR REACTOR PEGULATIQi, NfC L. JAFFEE NATIONAL AERO1AUTICS #1D SPAE ADMINISTRATIOl A.PRESSESKY llEPARTtO1TOFENERGY B. SHER 04 0FFICE OF NUCEAR fDCTOR PEGULATION, NRC R. WOODRUFF -
0FFICE OF INSPECTICt1 #1D Ef1FORCEfENT, NFC C0'EILTABS AFFILIATIW
- l. CATTQi lhlVERSITY OF CALIFOR11A AT l.DS ANGELES F. FINLAYSQ4 AEROSPACE CORPORATIO4
-P. GRIFFITH PASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF IEOf10 LOGY H.ISsIN thlVERSITYOFMINNESOTA H. K0urS-BR00 MAVEN IhTIONAL LABORATORY R. PACK INSTITUTE OF IbCEAR POWER OPERATIONS A. WILLIAM SNYDER SANDIA I!ATIONAL l.ABORATORIES B.Sua EECTRIC POER RESEARCH INSTITUTE
[GilATORY WFIS C0tBIE[D e LWR SAFETY ANALYSIS (D LOCA (2) ANTICIPATEDIRANSIB1TS
-(3) SEVERETRANSIENTS 9. l GRADED COOLING (D MIts (2) SEVERE 9 @ERATIONAL ASPECTS
.(D HtmN-fhWINE INTERFACE i
(2)
INSTRUMENTATIONDEVELOPMENT j
e RISn-REDUCTION PERSPECTIVES i-l.
I
RnlF T LOFT It' SAFBY #MLYSFS e liff IS A 1/60TH SCALE TEST FACILITY PRIl%RILY USED FOR SAFETY N1ALYSIS COWlHER CDE ASSES 9ENT.
e COWlRER CODES ASSESSED INCLt0E THOSE DEVELOPED BY I![{ NO THOSE EVELOPED BY INIUSTRY.
e COWUTER COM PREDICTIONS OF PLMIT RESP 0flSE TO TRNISIBITS NO ACCIENTS PROVIE THE BASIS FOR DCTERMIN!!E PlR4T ACCEPTABILITY.
e PRIMARY PtRPOSE OF l0FT WAS TO ELP SOLVE LOCA.
e' GENERAL ASStWTION IS THAT ULTIfMTE GOAL OF COfilSSIQ1 IS TO QUANTIFY rYPENDIX K 10 TP. 50.% SAFET( MARGINS M4D REVISE ECE RULF..
e SIN IMI-2 ACCIENT, LOFT ROLE HAS BEEN REVISED AND REORIENTED BY ES IN ANTICIPATION OF. OiANGING REGULATORY NEEDS.
.v v.
4 SIMILARITY OF LOFT TO C0tfERCIAL RE e LOFT IS NOT EXPECTED TO PERFORM EXACTLY LIKE A C0ftERCIAL NR DUE TO SCALE AND OTHER DISTORTIONS.
e GCML IS FOR LOFT TO EXHIBIT SAME GEERAL PHENCENA E)PECTED TO OCCUR IN LARGE WR.
e 1 GREE TO WHICH 1.WT PRODUCES EXPECTED PHEN 0ENA IS DEPENDENT UPON THE ACCIDENT OR TRNISIENT BEING SIMULATED AND THE LARCE WR TYPE IN QUESTION.
e FOR LARGE-BREAK LOCAs, GENERAL CONCLUSION IS THAT LOFT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR OVERALL CODE ASSESSMENT PURPOSES.
CERTAIN DISTORTIONS (E.G., SHORT CORE) REQUIRE StPPLEMENTAL LARGE SCALE SEPARATE EFFECTS TEST DATA (E.G., REFLOOD BEHAVIOR) e FOR SMALL-BREAK LOCAS, ATYPICALITIES APPEAR TO PRECLUDE OCCURRENCE OF KEY PHENCENA EXPECTED DURING SMALL BREAKS IN LARGE NRS. USEFORSMALL-BREAKLOCA-SIMULATION SH0lLD BE MINIMAL.
e CAPABILITY OF LOFT TO PRODUCE GENERAL PHENCENA ASSOCIATED WITH N01-LOCA TRANSIENTS AND ACCIDENTS, NOT YET THOROUGHLY ASSESSED. HOWEVERTESTRESULTS EXPECTED TO BE USEFUL.
4
+ w r
APPRCA01 Th(E!! BY LSRG IN IEIERMINING ADDITIONAL ESTING fFFTE e ESTABLISH LIST OF TESTS THAT SHOULD BE RUN IN LOFT DUE TO UNIQUE ATTRIBUTES OF FACILITY (I.E., LOFT IS THE ONLY OR MOST COST-BENEFICIAL FACILITY FPOM WHICH TO OBTAIN THE DATA) PRIOR TO DEC0fEISSIONING.
e SOLICIT INPUT FROM:
(D NRR, ES (2) COM ASSESSENT PEOPLE AT NATIONAL LABS (3) -PWR VENDORS (4) LSRG e ASSIGN PRIORITIES TO EACH TEST IN LIST BASED ON RELATIVE USEFULNESS/IWORTANCE AND ABILITY TO CONDUCT QUICKLY WITH MINIMAL IWACT ON OTHER TESTS.
e ESTABLISH REC 0ftENDED DECOW.ISSIONING DATE BASED ON NUMBER AND TYPE OF ESTS IDENTIFIED.
e LOOK AT TWO ALERNATIVE DECOPHISSIONING DATES AND IWACT ON SAFETY ANALYSIS PROCESS.
[CatFRED ESTI%
PRimITY SSIGNATION IYPE DESCRIPTION llLGa L4-2 BLOCA BLOCA WITH LPI LA-1 BLOCA BLOCA WITH OFF410R"AL INITIAL COPIDITIUS 15-1/LB-2 IBLOCA/lflCOER( IBLOCA/C0E [flCOEP/ WIE HIGi IECAY HEAT LA-2 IBLOCA IBLOCA WITH DIFE["I C0'!DITIGS FPfM L5-1 L9-2/L6-7 TP#6JENT
- 10-2 TUPSI.'E TRIP TP#EIBIT/
ST. LUCIE NATUPAL CIEllATIQ!
C00UDPIEVE.T L9-3+1A-3*
TPA'SIFRT AlWS IIIDUED BY LOSS OF FEWAER-2 TESTS ftnItr4 L2-6 BLOCA WITH PEP SSURI2ED FLEL 1A-4 BLOCA EST FOR PMATABILITY LA-5 SBLOCA WITH RCPs OPEPATIt!G (F0110W-W TO LM 13-3 SBLOCA IIXYED-CF&l POPN "ACCIErrt OEPRIE" EST Loi L6-4 TP#SI9T R0D WITHDPMAL L9 TP#SIBIT ATWS INDUID BY LOSS OF 0FFSIE PGER LA-6 TPREIEMT UNCONTROLL9 BORON DILLITIU!
LA-7+1A-8 TPA'SIBIT STFRLINE BEAG (WIlH AND WITH0lE OFPSITE PGED TOEDULE LA-3 IF NEEDED AS A FOLLfW-ON To L9-3
4 NPREVALLMTI0r!
NPR smu_D PROVIE f6 WIT 11 EFIf11TIVE l@I USER tEEDS TAKI?iG I!KO ACCam THE LSP.G RECCitETID TESTS.
~
H11WRAGINE IREPFAE e M HAS AN AUGMENTED OPERATOR CAPABILITY PROGRAM e FACILITY FOR RESEARCHING TE HlfMN-MACHINE INTERFACE MUST FAVE:
(1) REALISTIC TERATIWAL ENVIRWMENT (2) TE ABILITY TO REPRODUCE TliE TESTS USING A VARIETY OF OPERATORS (3) CAPABILITY TO GENERATE T(PICAL TRANSIENT RESPONSE (4) CNTROL Rom WITH DATA DISPLAY AND C01 TROL ANNABLE TO RECONFIGURATION e LOFT, EASURED AGAINST TliESE THREE CRITERIA FALLS SHORT IN (2), (3) MD (4).
e MISSION COULD BETTER BE DONE IN EXISTING SIMULATORSJ HOWEVER SIG11FIC#4T (FGRADING IS NEEDED 01 MANY SIMULATORS TO sit 1JLATE THE MORE CHALLENGING EVENTS.
e LOFT IS USEFUL AND RESPONSIVE TO NRR REQUESTS ON VERIFICATION OF DESIG1 0F REACTOR VESSEL LEVEL INSTRtWNTS, ALQ1G WITH PROOF ON OlliER ES-SPONSTED FACILITIES.
l i
i
IEGPAIB C00Uf'G e IRC HAS INDICATED #1 INTEREST IN FURTHER UNTRSTN1 DING THE PHENOENA ASSOCIATED WITH DEGRADED OR MOLTEN CORES.
e SOPE RISK REDUCTIO 4 IS PERCEIVED IF INADEQUATE CORE COOLING CN1 BE DETECTED NiD AWSTED. -
e LOFT CAN BE USEFUL IN VERIFYING SOE ICC ASStNPTIQ4S, BUT CARE f1JST BE TAKEN IN 1.HTOWARD FTL DAMAGE THAT COULD JEOPARDIZE COPPLETION OF THE TEST MATRIX, e SEMISCAE HAS USE, ALSO.
e IhGRADED COOLING STEERING GROUP EXISTS, #1D MAY EXPRESS VIEWS INDEPENDENTLY.
-9
'e,--
+-pw-
--yr giwiw pr-v g
a
L}T TESTIM IN RISK EPSECTI'E e II)Ca (D LBLTA + IBLTA NOT RISx-DOMIfwiT, tritISS SYSTE!E POORLY DESIGED, OR ERRORS IN CALCIA.ATIOl MOTLS; IBLOCA TESTS SHOULD AID IN DJANTIFYIfiG
[fi&RTAlflTIES.
(2) S10CA IS RISK-D0ilfWIT. TO DATE SIX SMALL BREAKS PERF0P?ED AT L TT.
e klTICIPATED IFRISIERS (D halCIPATED OPERATIQiAL OCCWRBIES (0JCE OR MORE PER PLAIT LIFETIE) /PE NOT RISK-SIGlIFICA'ITJ (2) LET SCALING NOT WELL-ESTABLISEDJ TESTS ARE FEEDED TO VERIFY VBIDOR MODELSJ (3) TESTS ARE BEST D0fiE It[ 3111,1)
(4) AiTICIPATED TRAfiSIBITS OCCUR ROUTIfELY; EST SOLUTIQi IS TO REQUIRE EACH REACTOR TO HAVE 01-LINE PICORDING DEVIG (" FLIGHT PICORDER", OR "REACTINTER")
e SEvsm TRANSIENTS (D RISKS OF DEGRADED CORE SEQUENGS DOMINATED BY FULL CCRE ELTJ (2) SCE DEGRADED CDOLING LDUENGS SHOULD BE EXPLOREDJ (3) b TO EXTEND SCAllfiGJ APPROAOi CAREFtI LY.
e @ERATIOfiAL (D STlDIES~ SHOW ABOUT HALF OF RISK ATTRIBUTABLE TO Hlf%'t ERROR.
(2) PREINCIDENT ERRORS OF CD141SS10ft OR OMISSIOi DQi!NATE RISK.
(3) LTT TESTS PERTINSIT TO ERRORS OF C0ffilSSIOl OR OMISSIOl DWING IfiCIDENT.
(4) 1TTNOTIDEALFACILITY.
FU!DHG e ADDITIOiAL LOCA & tbl-LOCA TESTS SHOULD SE PERFGW_D (D LOCA-PESOLvE DiCERTAINTIES:
CODE ASSESStelT C0f1 FIRM COPLETEt1ESS OF MODELS QUNITIFY SAFETY PARGItiS (2) hiTICIPATED TRN4SIBITS NOT SIG11FIC#fT RISK ASSESS IfIDUSTRY CODES BETTER IMTA FiOM OPERATING REETORS IF RECORDIflG DEVICE USED 1.0FT CNi EXN4INE SOE OPERATING EVDRSJ BETTER INSTRttENTATIQi (3) SEVEREIRNiSIBUS SIG4IFICANT RISK COULD ASSIST Iti C01FIRilt1G Alks MaDEl.S, ItiADEQUATE CORE COOLING SHOULD AVOID EARLY CalT#ilNATI0tl OF LTT e - E MJST TAE FORE ACTIVE ROLE Iti IDBRIFYING LOFT NEEDS e EFEDITE CODE ASSESSEnr
' e LOFT IS USEFUL AS IEST BED FOR NEW INSTIMERATIQi e SEVEE FUEL DVW3E STUDIES ARE PERIPERAL, ESFECIALLY SEVEE DNiAGE e l@ T NOT SPPROPRIATE FOR NtfWi-fACHINE INTERFACE STUDIES (HLPW1 FACTORS) e v
[CMEMTIM BASED UPON WHAT IT PERCEIVES TO BE THE CURRENT REGUI.ATOR( NEEDS, TE $$
HAS IDENTIFIED A SERIES OF TESTS THAT SHOULD BE PERFORED WITH LOFT IN ORDER TO NET THOSE NEEDS. WHILE THE 6% HAS INDICATED A BASIC PRIORITY FOR THESE TESTS, IT IS REC 0ftENDED THAT Tlg DETAILED PLANNING AND SCEDULING FOR TESE TESTS BE PERFORND BY E AND EG8G IDAHO IN A MANNER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH DEC0ft11SSIONING AT TE END OF P/1983.
IN ADDITION, W E 1.S5 RECOMS THAT FURTHER STUDIES BE INITIATED TO EVALUATE THE FEASIBILIT( OF PROVIDING A STRETCHED-0UT SCHEDULE FOR l.ff, AT A TOTAL l
COST NO HIGHER THAN BAT NOW CONTEMPLATED THROUGH P( 198. SUCH A STUDY COULD RESULT'IN EXTENDING l.0FF FACILITY AVAILABILIT( TO RESOLVE PROBLEMS THAT ARE NOf LNFORESEEN.
L I-
NUREG-0758 REPORT OF THE LOFT SPECIAL RE'/IEW GRCUP LOFT Special Review Group U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCM ISSION h,
'Q*
,e q. k,'3yagy.g y
k
, r
- m.
T II F.
\\EnosFACE C O R P O R.\\ T I O N rmt Office Ikx ofnr. [ n.\\nedv<. Califam s 7)C09. Telephone: s fI D %M January 19, 1981 4
Cr. Cenwood F. Ross, Jr., Chairman LCFT Special Review Grcup Division of Systems Integration Gf fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.3. E clear Regulatory Commission-hashington, CC 20535 Cear Dr. Ross :
After contemplating the results of the last LCFT Special Review Group (LSRG) meeting, I have concluded that I cannot support tne apparent consensus of the group to recommeno termination of the LCF" program at.tne enc of FY 1983.
I recognize that programs that have cutlivec enelt userulness can anc should justifiacly be terminated.
Kowever, ~ I believe that the evidence strongly supports the position that-ICFT, en calance,.has not yet fulfilled its mission and is peccucing valuable insights into problems of reactor safety with every tect.
These insights into'. Impor tant phencmena that were previously unicentifiec in over ten years of. separate effects testing include in part such etfects as,'three cimensional flew cehavior in the downcemer, early. clac revetting eccurring during the bicwccwn phase of a large
.IECA, and the remarkable effectivenss of the pumps to cool the core With two-phase steam of very high quality--as demonstrated in the recent L3-6 test.-
These insights into new phencmena together with the influence of recent unanticipatec incidents in large ocerational power reactors have biased the LCFT pecgram toware concuct,1,3 tests. related to phencmena
' wi.ich weia largely unreccgn:, red scre th.tn two years cgc.
The LCF-results have ; shcwn the need for improvements in elementa cf the large nuclear. reactor safety analysis ccdes and outstrippec the current cede cevelopment, assessment, and evaluation efforts.- Since. the current direction of the LCFT program is heavily influenced by the. events of the past. two years, :,
seems -incongrucus to believe that the LSRG has auff;cient insight-inn the future to suggest that the pecgram - will nave outlivec its usefulness within the 'next two years.
I have come to _ the conclusion that tne LCFT facility and a nucleus -
of 'its cacre of' perscnnel co indeed represent a ~ unique national resource. A resource which has act. cnly. contributed much. useful data -
w:,tn ; respect, to reactor safety,. cut has also previcec equally
- significan ' psycnoicgical benefits to the public.
LOFT has a unique Qg pp~.. 2, icss. cm3 r me sase su m=
J L,kk.
s_a.
v 2cw g -
~
s c-c
- ps ane
'o, UNITED STATES
! * *.,. y 7.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION vsASM18*GTON. D. C. 20555 I.
%* &v /,,i s.,
DEC U 1S30 Mr. Thomas Ands-n,, Manager Nuclear Safety Cepartment Westinchouse Electric Corporation P. O. Sox 355 Pittsburgh, Pa.15230
Dear Mr. Anderson:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR CCMMENTS REGARDING THE LOFT SPECIAL REVIE The purpose of this letter is to solicit your coments regarding the continued In particular, we would appreciate your thoughts operation of the LOFT facility.
concerning coeration through FY 1985 as contrasted with the recomendations of The ACRS has recctmended to the Comissica (letter frc= M. S. Plesset the ACRS.
17,1930. "Coments on the NRC Safety Research Program to J. F. Ahearne, dated July Budget for Fiscal Year 1982," NUREG-0699) that following the FY 1982 tests scheduled to be conducted at LOFT, the facility should be decocnissioned (or perhaps taken over by industry).
(A copy of this recomendation, as extracted from NUREG-0599, is included as Enclosure 1 to this letter.)
As a result of this recorrendation, the Comission established, on October 23, 1980, a LOFT Special Review Group (LSRG) for the purpose of reviewing the LCFT The report is intended to program and reporting its findings to the Comission. aid the Comission in thei I have been appointed as the Chairvan of the LSRG.
project beyond FY 1982. shows a listing of the membership of the group and Enclosure 3 is a copy of our charter.
As noted in our charter, our efforts will include addressing specific regulatory needs and how the results of the LOFT program are expected to meet those needs.
In addition, we will report, based upon the performance of the program to date, l
on the likelihood that the planned program will provide the ex::ected infomation i
and that the program can maintain reasonable flexibility to address changing regulatory issues. Our group is divided into four subcoenittees, each of wnich will evaluate the technical adequacy and usefulness of LOFT as 't relates to the following areas:
1.
Operational Aspects (Man-Machine Interface);
2.
Code Verification and Scaling; 3.
Transients, ATWS, Risk Reduction; and, 4.
Degraded Cooling.
,n
(
3-2 7
DEC 8 1980 Mr. Thomas Anderson
.2, Based upon our review in these areas, we will evaluate the following three options for the LOFT program: Option A-run through FY 1982; Option B-run through FY 1983; and Option C-run through FY 1985. Enclosum 4 provides a sumary of the planned LOFT test sequence for the three options.
The review group would very much appreciate your views and coments regarding the Specifically, any coments with respect matters under consideration by the LSRG.
to the usefulness of the planned tests for providing needed safety-related research in the areas being addressed by the four subcomittees, would be most helpful.
Due to the short amount of time allotted to the LSRG to perfom this review. I This will assure would like to have any coments you may have by January 1,1981.
sufficient time for the LSRG subcomittees to integrate your coments into the review process.
If you would like additional information associated with the LOFT program and/or our review group effort please feel free to contact me at (301)492-7373.
- Sincenly, h
' Au.e Denwood. Ross, Jr.. Director Division of Systems Integration Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Pelosures:
As stated cc: LSRG Members & Consultants IDENTICAL LETTERS SENT TO THE FOLLOWING:
James Taylor, B&W Edward Scherer, CE Glen Sherwood, GE B-3 m,,
e,
.-ee emm ee m*
- -M"*"
ENCLOSURE 1
/
'o UNITED STATES
! ",,,f,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS r
a W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 O,
g s, v.....f July 17, 1960 Honorable John F. Ahearne Ch ai rman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Dr. Ahearne:
The Advisory Cocinittee on Reactor Safeguards submits herewith its coments on the budget for FY 1982 of the Of fica of Nuclear Regulatory Researen.
Only that portion of the budget relating to Program Support has been con-sidered. The funding levels considered are those allocated by the EDO Staff in its preliminary mar <up of 2 July 1960 and those requested by RES in its reclama of 9 July 1330.
Conne.ts on personnel requirements and allocations are included in a few instances where particularly appropriate.
Sincerely, Milton S. Plesset Chcirman Attacnment:
NJREG-0599 c-,
7..
.a. Sird M
.u w
'M) df &
3-t t_.
,s Babcock & Wilcox wei.., e c., o.a.r.i.ea o4,....a 3315 cm Korest Acas a McCormott company P O Bos 1260 Lynencurg. Virginia 24$05 (804) 384-5111 January 20, 1981 Or. O. F. Ross U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Dr. Ross:
In response to your request (letter, D. F. Ross to J. H. Taylor dated December 8, 1980 - subject: Request for Coments Regarding tne LOFT Special Review Group's Studies), the Babcock & Wilcox Company submits the following comments regarding the continued operation of the LOFT facility.
It is our belief that the LOFT facility has served a useful purpose in S&W's involve-establishing a sufficient data base to assess ECCS codes.
ment in the NRC's Standard Problem and Required Licensing Problem Programs has given us added confidence in our ECCS code's ability to sufficiently predict conservative results. This confidence stems from the pretest predictions and the post-test evaluations performed to understand differences between the test results and the prediction due to test Combining this with the fact that vendors are required to anomalies.
perfonn ECCS design calculations based upon evaluation models and ECCS rules which contain conservatisms, we believe the future benefits to be gained from the LOFT facility are limited.
In direct response to the four areas of review on which the special review group is concentrating, we offer the following coments:
Operational Aspects (Man-Machine Interface) - It is our belief that 1.
operational aspects can best be addressed by studying actual environ-As a second choice for studying MMI, ment of the operating plant.
plant simulators can also be used. The use of the LOFT facility would not only be atypical to an actual PWR but would also be an excessively costly :neans of investigating man-machine interfaces.
Code Verification and Scaling - Because of the atypicalities of the 2.
LOFT facility as compared to a PWR (smaller core height, larger surface to volume ratio, one active loop, the height relationship between the core anc the steam generator, etc.), the results obtained
'have always yielded a degree of uncertainty from both an industry and public perspective.
In addition, a number of uncertainties related either to the analytical code predictions or_ to the test facility i
@'-m' s
ca 0-21
\\
9 f,W
'vo
,U Stro ) D:;
0
83abcock&Wilcox
- itself have hindered the use of LOFT as a viable computer code verification facility. We believe that the establishment of various separate effects test programs directed towards investigating th,e uncertainties identified during the LOFT program would be more cast effective, eliminate LOFT system interaction effects and provide qualitative information which could potentially be used by the NRC for code verification purposes.
Transients, ATAS and Risk Reduction - We believe that the atypicalities 3.
between the LOFT facility and actual PWR's will be even more predominant This is particularly true for those non-LOCA transients for these tests.
Since the which are affected by asymetric stea.n generator responses.
LOFT facility has only one loop, the usefulness of these tests is also In addition, the tests scheduled to assess either AT45 or limited.
risk reduction have not been sufficiently defined to warrant additicnal coments at this time.
Degraded Cooling - We believe there is reason to question the validity 4.
of tests in this area which may be run on the LOFT facility due to the extreme complexity of the event especially when the atypicalities of In view of the questionable test benefits, the facility are considered.
it would seem inacoropriate to conduct this very costly series of tests which involve severe core damage and will require expensive subsequent decontamination operations.
In sumary, it is B&W's conviction that the monies and other resources being invested in the LOFT program would have a greater return in terms of added safety if they were applied more directly to understanding and minimizing actua' plant operating problems rather than being applied to a facility Therefore, based upon the options presented which is as atypical as LOFT.
We would also
-in your letter, B&W would recomend the option "A" program.
recomend that the last three tests L2-6, L9-3, and L8-4 be carefully evaluated from a cost-benefit standpoint.
If you have We appreciate the opportunity to provide you these coments.
any questions, please contact me or George Geissler (Ext. 2536) of my staff.
l-Verv truly yours, p hI h
W/'
i
/JamesH. Taylor Manager, Licensing JHT/dsv cC* R.3. Borsum D.H. Roy 3-i:2
r d
- ~
f f
'et 2:3/628-191 ?
- e'ex 99237
' y 15 y !,i l,, g y M g, C4 Power Systems Comeuston Encireeneg. +:
1000 : eseect Al Aca:
Win scr Conreene:,t ;6C?5 POUER M SYSTEMS January 9, 1981 LO-81-003 Dr. Denwood F. Ross, Jr.
Director Division of Systems Integration Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- 3. S. Nuclear Regulatory 00cmission Washington, D. C.
20555 Subj ect: Recuest for Ccements Regarding the LOF' Special Review Group's Stucies Cear Dr. Ross:
In respense to ycur letter of December 8,1980 C0mbustion Engineering offers the following cements regarding studies being conducted by the LCFT Scecial Review Group.
As you are aware, C moustion Engineering has consistently been of the a: inion that separate effects testing is the most direct and cost effective method for conduct-ing research into phencmena associated with loss of coolant accidents. Nonetheless, Combustion Engineering believes that integral testing done to date at the LOFT facility has been of value in confirming separate effects results and, perna:s as importantly, has been perceived by a significant segment of the putlic to be more definitive and convincing.
With regard to the range of tests which might be conducted in the future at the LOFT facility, we believe that some of the proposed tests may produce resuits of In value, wnile others are of less technical merit and could be dispensed with.
any event, it is our opinion that performance of the most significant tests shculd not be unduly delayed.
Of the tnree options icentified !;? the charter of i;he LCFT Special Review 3rouc, we tend to sue:crt action A.
While we might have chosen a somewhat different set of tests, cetion A acpears to do a reasonable job Of selecting the mos: meaning'ui tests and ace:mplishes tnem with ex:ediency (by the end of 1982).
Regardless of the test program selected, we would suggest that tne facility not be dec crissionec in such a way as to preclude its potential use in other testing in-An evalua:icn cluding possible succert for na degraceo core ruiemaking proceedings.
of the potential usefulness of the LOFT facility in this regard can be made at the conclusion of the current test progrsins.
O\\
\\
W9
- 810113O y c a-23 pF
l A
P00R ORIGINE=
Or. D. r. Ross, Jr. 1 r
1 i
We would be hapoy to share with you some of Cur thoughts on the merits of the proposed test programs if you think such a dialogue would be beneficial. Please call me or Mr. E. H. Kennecy of my staff, if we can be of any further assistance.
Very truly yours, CCMBUS770N E.vINEERING, !NC.
AA 4
x.
- A n rer~
Director Nuclear Licensing AES:cw 4
4 3
p S-24
I e,
ih r.
j
.s-s.-a b ElJ.*n d!.'Q('f f.l.C bs..)IL!0 s u c t. c.s. n p o v, E n
~
O Y c r a t.'s O t y : s t o n e py 4;o.-
cr.ac.,
.tsemic cownw. in cir<r:s xn aw m. cit 7crwum3
'g,," ' ' "' "U liC G52, (E3) 925-5030 11.5. :lucler F.egulatory C nissica Office of tiuclear Reactar Reguletten A shington, D.C.
20555 Atuntica:
Mr. Op.rt. cod F. Ross, Jr., Giracter Divisica of Syste ts 'atgratica a
Gentier.*re:
S'JSJECT:
C0h5NT3 ON FUTriEi iiSIDe.1 Ili LOFT Refercnce:
Letter to G. Sherw::d free. D. F. Ecss, Jr., ' R+wn for Carrants Regarding the LG/T Sp9cial ?en.m Occup's Studies," dated Ovceeber S,131 This letter responds to ycur request (Rafer2 ace $ La ca:s. tant on the conticuad :peration of the LCFI fc.cility.
The t"JT t*:st ; ra;,r.3.e i s oriented to ard nsolution of WR cafety issu.ss and nah5.u s::M tantle:
contributicts to CWR =afety technoic;;y. Therriero, G2n+ral Elect'ric will cnly provide ganeral coerents on the pr:poud toting pregret.
L'a rob tnat in the area of BR ECCS technology, bcth General Ele:tric and URI are directly involved in technical directica of hMC funded programs (B3/ECC and Rrffil/Refiece).
This involvement. insures the value of thne prog37.is in rcsciv;ng real technical issues. Co r-res;:codf agly, participction by the P'.G vender: end ' PRI wea!ci help t
insure the value of prcgrans conclucted in tne LUFF facility.
The LGFT Special Reviev Group idantified fear area: fer evalecicn.
I CcM.ents on each fc11cw:
1.
Operational Asc9 cts (?lan-H2 chic? In te rf.2c0 This area of research is in a relatively estly state of devoleprant. Inere!cre, inclusion of tests : pacifically e
4.
I-
).
N g, [' /
3-25 L
.~
o l
700R ORIG NAL U.S.fWelearRcQuiat.oryCo.ntirdion Page 2 directed to it in a facility such as LOFT is premature, This effort is rnore suited tu evaluatten in non-nuclear a..
facilities, with any neces:ary nucl.:.tr evaluauor.s canducted by performing less severd transient tests in cperatint reactors.
.i 2.
Code Verlifestien and Scalte:
Any effort in this area,will primarliy apply tn ?WR t.echnoicgy.
Thereforo, General Electric Mil r,ot cow.a::t.
3.
Tr1nsients, ATWS, Risk Reduction Any effere in this arcs will prt.urtly only to M:R ccchnology.
Therefora, General Electric will not comnt.
4, Georaded Cooling Octomination of any necessary testing will not be possihre until completion of the degrand core ruhrr.a'4 f r.g.
- Thus, consideration of this dres for LOFT ic prematare. Tire appropetate coursa of action in this aru is first to perform
+
a prob.ibilistic risk asses: ment to est 41[shed safety geal*,;
and then, t3 identify what tests, if any, cro r.eeded.
In sumary, since the LOFT facility is pet narily oriented towards testing for resolution of FWR safety 14 sues, General Electric can not coment on its value, For areas that could possibly beneft; the
%'R, courses of action other than testing in teFT are considered cara appropriate at this time. If yru would like adaitioral inf.nn2 tion or clarification of these coments, pleasa contnt th I:.H. Cucht.ol:
(408)925-5722,
'Very truly-yours, dl
?0 ! fik
. $4fety & Licensing Operattan bec:
H.H. VJepfar GGS:rf/696-7, 4C J.E.trood G.E. Of;t R.H. Suchhol:
1 W.H. 0'Ardenne
" u..
r 1
E. Saith
. 9 ;O.y.'t
. =
b
)
.st%.e94te #IIPles 4 4'
".l9etioMefft.eettf%eH6'eff'8HMEltil iflItaf'L8'f**89'88l*8'l**8'#'I'##'f ***II4pt';lW4sN'ps.4H'Wleptese-Ne&ds**mantHedteslBeHe*eM N,.M4.stfe.1.MvNeMoM$#M.Fet4M* 'd'a3 4MtN.M.+ M..%eP*
s
~
g-26