ML20058E959

Transcript of 931027 Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee Meeting in Bethesda,Md.Pp 1-63.Related Info Encl

ML20058E959
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/27/1993
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20058E953	List: ML20058E946 ML20058E959
References
NACNSRRC, NUDOCS 9312070271
Download: ML20058E959 (64)

Text

hh [M MM kbh kk,) N?h S h

n k~n

,hn ng vn &w&.au,r;.m.be%n mMp:&m e%mn; w - c;n ww wgwwa w n

ak s* am%y 4%ew%.Mm%yw%M;py%n@e m

M; W M3pM

< 7gA

- hm, &,p.

mk sw.s u.s n : :a.,mp:,gyygM, n e mt 3

n m,v

.g k

m o

n

. w.a.m y:. pp i

..: g uc r, wyo

. O"farn'. n m} -(g a

~ p; c,g ' c.

s

.*;: n m _,.,,

.m, 3 (

v.

~ w%

s 'w.

'+.:., ' ;

_e.

-

e f

~-

r w:

~ -y _.g %v g 2,

~

A r Q.. e %' a'%

q h,Q y,

1,'l4,s.

.4

> n v

df b MN m

1 I6 m..,:

W M b,"W';} (.

hb I '

)e

-.E 4

V MXC&mp,'q,(,0.j,{ L W'Q" L.[h* *.

h^' r; j.; M **fh a p-- Q].

?.

..t

W' f; f' '.

Wk iMR

" l'

( hiV 'V

.M

q:'m&'gNil?wQw.' r/.u I

y

.b'

. w"&pi T' I

' Q' ?,

~

b.*'

4 v u.m A

g !V ;'w?S%'~:Mg:?

~,

y u.. u,'A... W

+m.%.,,,

J.

s r

R w<,

3 a:&;: m -kk

,r:

+:.

-e c'.n':

u m, -q '

y L. ~=

w

~a v n

s e

! 0 % %~.w W h % r y;

s ' 'lW:

- i

@W d er a-i ^ jp; JQV; yp 8

, w; y; n

-1

'))

g},:@ y ' by N.y ' ' ' ' r s

4

%p

+n g-

&b" mn ve

}y g

g,.,[

, l,g (

%*p,y,V~Q-g,Cl% {~,OF, FICIAL TRA. N,SCRIPTf0FsPRO,C, EED,ING_$dy.

u o

t 4'.

/m e.

v

-.(n-

.. s t

%n.,.w%.J-.6

~,.i y

+

s-F t A

'M.'9

?g'.' r 4 w j

aM5

,.h_

~..

y s

su m - -me

.a %,,.

4

.e-n. o s.in.3 e n

%:d I

s 4

w -.

4 y)Qi&.,gy.p _,f T

. s.

u.s.

1

.n.. a

,s ss n.m W yd A+

c.

r -

n b' ~

gn. ;. ' ' M' [ '. #f.hyF4M:

3

/

~ g ; w&,W'.:Wh% A' hs i - [/

b' f

,g.6

?% L

%,t,W s

t

~

.U....

%~. p'.JC h.

n&w. m Q:p,Qp s

Y, V

[ ' #..'

s s

f, Q jSN c

~l 1.jN h

Y

{ f 'e

@,& e}z) p ~

9.wq? '.n2 n,Nr g'y' h;;J':u wl.h "e

s

}'

D,

V" g.

Y gy ;;

>, up%ps' 4

.y re,

4 gi je g' Eg R 2 g

ym,r A,.g. q.M,

% 'F..f p wfpg 6

t ', i, z

'5L},

Y

@&y.

_ _ f;

llj, lf 3 &_'l' r s+

r Y

Q M,.

J M r<ntw. w@y > e. s p.,:%+MW N

%Q mmm+

A; mb wgon

- t A.N..;ggg..s.h.w2 o.. v.

y a n,y A

.,r c

< f.w x ea 3.,.

p vy u' a

k A

~

\\

' m.

t.i r.3: + uym s.n~ 4w;%, W.,yw yes-,. +, ~

x w

.c.

l w

nmw u m s'*.

^m'...

. -~

N n

On m..

s g

.c o

, ~ &. o,' m

,*:.wp w g ga '

g

~. ; r n' Y bI(#

j*

d-aMg a,

%.dml y y ~.

~v x

e.

.t tfr:

, ;n;',

'. w.... v 3%

,m p % z#.9

/n p

s y.,-b ?

e ymn.

c <;n.

q....<~

q.

w.w. n?.g. 4

.qr

ry g,

a, m g, y.m%g;

.a ngQys. s W 9 y,;t,' '

3 y

4:3

,g. ;U v.a qvy.

n,

ya

{J

.,,o

}ucle'arfRegulatory1 Commission y j pa

. ;- /.

T k',.,

1

,f

-. s I

,[

3 N..f f

,..<~

4., M

a

.w 4 g%w+ 4@y;MM w$w/

E 9-b rb

-WP^

W s

o,

3. @

q:

,w0:k.wkwp;& @%m W r

y;

^e,

e w.

m

k;W: o.4QQ, g y

.y n%,'.

• Mi.yV. % y p bfpf fa p

S i

lb

%m{@E k.Nhh &

n q" I-m N9 hi g*.

lsucildarhfet.y4 es' aYchReNbsNoN)s w % @ M k' s

s 4

i n M sd s % d F W y

R

- wg

~ -e wnnw&ng u.+cm w

..m

~

~,8

, ur= _:- :

g

+

..gs Ape p.m y:m p ;fs. 2,.g u

g g.

-xn-

+g,

s y

-.m 1

r r

w;

, ; w v /pywy,.

, w 29.g

,, ~ %p y, gg g g'.g m q p

u mp

' i)

-,- h E

,w,.;s"'. y n4 p

f#

m' i~r,

h,p,: f 3

.m N.uwe. -en

, yh Y '*

,ea n,,y = ;J gg' ~

. amy, (g ' sy[y [;

y h.,

[

g.c g

f ah m

y J,

.o ap u,

4 9

1. [bI' Mh3%ym$ -w,::g

3-3

\\h i.

f Nh h Yk Y

h,j (DockANoi wmg a

td m m,,k ' e,',.s ws%a.; _

y

,e 4

d

~ r m@m e

% w' *(':

P fy" [%n f".%cd zi ' &Y,

t ug. A gQ$,fl 4 gM8m s?

i

_ & l.

'g h> f lt hij.,

kfD

+

gl r /

e@-

s-w A %q s

N ' f f Y,s~Yf fNjlfyf

n.,

g

^

(Q (.' "p

i.Q. ~

sh! -

3 g * ' j 6,$ An m%m$ %g w

5 E

c M,

v

&,~

a my"; M:4w%p%wp.m,%

y4

- i w..,,

,o r-

. 4,s-2 m&

.3 y-w

?.

\\ n;_.,

T.-.,'<

( n4..."- x@ h t w3.

.3

.e

• ".'vg(e 4.1 at 7 %. 4 g'n r. M 2,a vwAg.

S ry

_% W^n ev, fw.g, s :..s%f

, [t

' 4 4

%m e p

4 k

4'.- ". w gg'h 7

Y 1 W

%w

, q: Q. c 4

w_

g L

r ww&qsmp

.Q 4 y u

,jf.Q dQQ

~ < --

y. >

' :u_._mm% y s,n a,., &

pr O

m cyag g r

., &gg a

, j.1Be thesda:,5 Mary 1and; RP LOCATION:

vt. :. : -.. ~,

q59 p e-w gW t

4.w'[2;; MM$n 4

4

w~';{m.nu m@/n$e~'h MMW m

n p

9%

=

g,'y:qr.. S:.

g d

t%

,Oy.

v k

4.Jwq yg

$g>py2 a.g,Cfve@g %wmm W

fy, 4u M

)

g p

A o

yp

%~

a.,

.s 2

,, pg Ag

- v; m:.c $

$q q$l $w. "

~

\\ w '

-?

w

~,

7 N4 Y'

>n;

.p. '. y:

4,s.a w a r:4ysp ~,.m: n.

e

. s

+.1

..k

,ms r.

-m m.

1 i ^ ^VLn

~gyg;/ n&W n.

1 n :l$..

g m[

hNbh..

%~"

^

kf h h kl ONay(MAObf kh.I.

QQt

A

w.mp m..s a%. - u%

mm'

?1W%%m ~QQ,%, *e(.7 c

s "r

e 4

%mS -

i 3

4 y:..

['

.' L 9

c,n,

=

p9 a w Q4 n

.s n 8

N 3.M 4

>:ms a

q n: 4 e

u$$4$,;J4@%w'M [ N@ M M @$w'S QqM W a~~.

i N

t i

L i

R

L,

• 7 M %m % ' n M G M Ql W ey9 %

+

~ ~

x

_O N j ;

l

~

gw m wj p,.

sp'!.,'s*[

.c s

l. ;^

a

,e

~w. e. e w, %w.%,a.e.wn g

w% q %&

a-

- Y "o

w 3

i I

' i

_._-Q,

-} ' )

- yb ~ '

^

i

.g m

d.,

ur g.

h

^i

~

r

~

w j.5>'

e( m m.

~5 8g ck /

vd' +# a-a 3

gh..*p i..- Q f -[p t

-.'l'c p

N W

.?

.,y g

f 4 p/o'F i

p

'5 yp'-

4 WW 7 h;m"'

n i

5 L

6 9

y 1

d~-

1. t,;

. d4 :lg'4 91n y V

'~9 ?WlW}g%gg.%,

hff f&Y M:,

cg mw mn gMw t 4 f.

.4 V. W.

gci y

n

< ss,p Q,,

ye.: L v tg E

k', y G sg d7 8 1

[' h Mf{%i

n.m...

P/f 6, &;. -l@+%n, O'M

.@mp n g.

"M

'.f% w v4

[-

y e

an.

sLu 4

%mm Sv w%-a$F Q-

&_g wm,

. n m

nm mzYnkssocEMES.,1lT6WY,pMWN; $f J W $. b k.

m 1612X % N W45alte 3001 J WasMagton; D.C;20000 m,]' '$, MQ 7

N 9312070271 931.A118

1. An WM M W g%$4Mm g$g.

,e, PDR ORG NRE hhE Ny

$02@3MSj ede

> 1

{k,hkh&w m%g,hYY n

gun t

lN lff hh,h

-h k s Y

kh

~

O OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Agency:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Title:

Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee Docket No.

9 r

(

LOCATION:

Bethesda, Maryland DATE:

Wednesday, October 27, 1993 PAGES:

1 - 63 O

. r

.i '

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

1612 K St.,N.W., Suite 300 931PO70271 931118 Washington, D.C. 20006 Pon ORG P4RE A (202) 293-3950 ggg

1 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L

3 t

4 l

8 i

l 5

NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH REVIEW COMMITTEE 6

I i

7 l

8 l

9 l

l 10 Rockville Room 11 Pooks Hill Marriott 12 5151 Pooks Hill Road 13 Bethesda, Maryland

/j i

14 15 Wednesday, October 27, 1993 l

16 17 18 l

l I

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006

.(202) 293-3950 i

I

t

~2 1

PRESENT:

2 DR. DAVID MORRISON, CHAIRMAN 3

DR.

E. THOMAS BOULETTE,. MEMBER (via telephone]

i 4

.MR.

SOL BURSTEIN, MEMBER

{via' telephone]

j 5

a. SPENCER H. BUSH, MEMBER

[via telephone]

l 6

DR. HERBERT ISBIN, MEMBER l

7 MR. EDWIN E.

KINTNER, MEMBER 1

8 MR. FRED J. MOLZ, MEMBER

[via telephone]

j I

9 DR. NEIL TODREAS, MEMBER

[via telephone]

j i

10 DR. DONALD L.

TURCOTTE, MEMBER 11 DR. ROBERT E. UHRIG, MEMBER

[via telephone)

-l

[

12 DR. RICHARD VOGEL, MEMBER

{via telephone]

[

13 MR. GEORGE SEGE, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER J

15 STAFF PRESENT:

t

'l 16 MR. ERIC-BECKJORD l

17 DR. FAROUK ELTAWILA I

18 MR. TOM KING 19 DR. BRIAN SHERON 20 21 22 23 24 25 (J

ANN R1 tex s ASSOC 1A1ES, L1o.

Court Reporters 1612 K' Street, N. W.., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202):293-3950

. ~ -..

t I

E

)

3

.1 PROCEEDINGS O

2

[4 : 08 p.m. ]

l 3

DR. MORRISON:

Let me call this meeting of the t

4 Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee to order.

This L

5 meeting is being held in accordance with the requirements of 6

the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

It was duly noticed in 4,

l 7

the Federal Register and is open to attendance by members of j

8 the public.

Looking around the room I see no members of the I

9 public here.

10 MR. SEGE:

Did somebody just sign on?

i 11 DR. UHRIG:

Yes, this is Bob Uhrig.

12 DR. MORRISON:

Welcome, Bob.

The purpose of tar 13 meeting today is to deliberate on a report submitted to the Committee by the Severe Accident l Subcommittee _on the O

14 15 accomplishment, status and completion plans for the programs 16 being pursued under the NRC Severe Accident Research

. 1 17 Program.

Our meeting should focus primarily on the 18 accomplishment and changes since the October 22, 1992 1

19 meeting.

20 MR. SEGE:

Is somebody signing on?

Fred Molz, are 1

21 you on?

22

[No response.)

23 MR. SEGE:

There was a beep and we couldn't 1

24 distinguish it.

Please excuse the interruption.

l 25 DR. MORRISON:

We-will try to ignore those as we

. k ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters i

1612 K Street, N. W.., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

-5

+

4 l

1 go along until somebody_really gets on the line.

1 O

2 Since this is a. telephone meeting and since only 3

three of the Committee members are here-in the room, I would 4

ask those of you on the telephone to.do a' couple of things.

5 First, before you speak please identify yourself.so that the 6

recorder will be able to have the record reasonably l

l 7

straight. Secondly, I will try to acknowledge the people 8

that are on the telephone more or less in the order in which j

9 I am able to grasp that they want to make some comments.

i 10 I would suggest perhaps, to allow the meeting to 1

11 proceed in a reasonable manner, the comments in the room or 12 the commentors in the room, to hold your comments.to as-13 brief as possible but still get your message across and ther 14 pause, and allow the people from the outside to interrupt 15 with whatever issue that they want to make.

16 I think that's all we need right now from a' set of 17 rules to live by.

What I would like to do is call on Herb 18 Isbin, who is the Chairman of our Subcommittee on Severe 19 Accidents Research, and let Herb --

20 DR. MOLZ:

This is Fred Molz.

21 DR. MORRISON:

Welcome, Fred.

We just got through 22 some of the perfunctory details on the early part of the 23 meeting. I am about ready to ask Herb to summarize the 24 report by the Subcommittee.

Perhaps, Herb, it would be 25 worthwhile if you would pause after each section of the O

ANN RILEY & AdSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

~

4

.5 1-report and deal with any comments on that'particular.section 2

if your remarks are organized that way.

I imagine each of

}

i 3

the members has a copy of the report to'look at, and it 4

might be easier to comment as you are going along on each 1

5 major section, j

t 6

DR. ISBIN:

This is possible, but I'made some l

7 changes in the oral presentation just to make an abbreviated, 1

-i 8

approach.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

4 9

The Severe Accident Subcommittee has submitted its 10 report to the Nuclear Safety Research Committee for its 11 review and approval.

The Subcommittee has had the benefit l

12 of comments already submitted.

In this open meeting I, as j

13 Chairman of the Subcommittee, will present highlights for t

14 your final considerations.

15 Members of.the Subcommittee' include Dr. David i

16 Morrison, Dr. Richard Vogel, and Professor Fred Molz.

The

'l i

17 primary purpose of this report is to submit to the Director l

.i 18 of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, the 19 Committee's review of the Severe Accident Research Plan l

p 20 which has the acronym, SARP.

The report includes j

21 referencing our previous review of SARP.

All of the I

i.g 22 documents that the Subcommittee used for the August 2 and 3, t

23 1993 meeting.

t

'i 24 Let me start by first noting that the Research fq 25 staff has used risk analysis in the past as a tool for

.l 1

k i

1;;)

l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 i

Washington, D.C.

20006

?

[

(202) 293-3950

6 i

.l influencing the prioritization of severe accident research l

1 l

I 2

issues.

All current issues are considered to be major t

3 issues, and there are no low priority issues.

.f l

i 4

The Research staff utilizes the following l

5 categories for twelve severe accident issues.

High.

6 priority, medium priority and confirmatory, completed.

f 7

Eleven issues were identified for the Committee's 1992 f

8 report.

In this report the previous. fission product issue 9

is divided into two parts and placed into two categories, 10 one confirmatory and the other medium priority.

j i

11

-The three remaining high priority issues are 12 direct containment heating, advanced light water reactors, 13 severe accident codes.

The medium priority issues are' core j

1 14 melt progression, fuel coolant interactions and debris 1

0 15 coolability, hydrogen combustion and transport issues, l

16 fission product release, and this is with air ingress..The i

-i L

17 confirmatory category consists of one issue, PHEBUS-fission i

18 product and code assessment.

j 19 Finally, the completed category consists of the j

20 Mark I liner failure, scaling, core-concrete interactions, 21 TMI-2 vessel investigation program.

i 22 MR. BURSTEIN:

This is Sol Burstein.

May I 23 interrupt here?

j 24 DR. ISBIN:

Sure.

25 DR. MORRISON:

Yes, I think it's quite l

O_

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

. =

l i

7 l

4 1-appropriate.

l 2

MR. BURSTEIN:

It's my understanding that there j

3 was a discussion maybe this week at your conference of a 4-matter of the TMI-2 vessel-investigation.

I had heard --

5 and this is a comment that Neil Todreas asked be considered j

6

-- that the investigation program appeared to be highly 7

successful and it's a highly commendable activity.

8-If that is the case, would it be appropriate to 9

include some acknowledgement or kudos to the RES for having 10 done a very good job in this connection?

11 DR. ISBIN:

Yes, indeed.

I will so note.

12 MR. BURSTEIN:

Thank you.

13 MR. KINTNER:

While we are open to a -

scussion, 14 it took me a-while to understand that'while you talk of all 15 current issues are considered as. major and there are no low 16 priority items, there are medium and high priority' items.

'17 MR. BURSTEIN:

There is a difference, as I see~it, 18 between issues and priorities.

19 MR. KINTNER:

That must be the answer.

I wonder 20 whether you were accepting without comment, that there are 21 no low priority items.

22 DR. ISBIN:

The Subcommittee, indeed,.has accepted 23 this.

24 DR. MORRISON:

That acknowledges an item for'the 25 Committee since it would be our intention to adopt this O

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

8.

1 report as a report of the Committee.

The words are,_the 2

Subcommittee accepts these findings.

That would imply that 3

the Committee accepts'these findings, that there are no low 4

priority issues.

5 DR. ISBIN:

This is, indeed, in the detailed 6

report.

Shall I continue?

7 DR. MORRISON:

I am just pausing for a moment.

8 Hearing no disagreement, I would assume-that the Committee 9

will accept these findings as stated.

10 DR. BUSH:

I have one question, Herb.

11 DR. ISBIN:

Please go ahead.

12 DR. BUSH:

You use the word that has more than one 13 meaning under completed, scaling.

I am assuming that what you are really talking about is scaling laws; is that r

14 15 correct?

16 DR. ISBIN:

Yes.

I am using the same nomenclature 17 in the same way as given in the NUREG report.

It is,.

18 indeed, the scaling methodology, which was really completed 19 for our last report.

This is just repetition of the 20 category and repetition of what's in the NUREG report.

21 DR. BUSH:

The only point I make is that scaling 22 has two meanings or more than two meanings 23 DR. ISBIN:

I am using it --

24 DR. BUSH:

Clarification of it, that's all.

25 DR. ISBIN:

It's exactly as given by the Research I

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202)'293-3950

-9 s

1 staff.

So that, you should refer yourself to the NUREG 2

report for.the details.

I haven't changed in any way.-- the 3

Subcommittee hasn't changed in any way the listings as

'4 given.

The listings were clear to the Subcommittee.

5 Hopefully, we would just retain this approach.

6 DR. ELTAWILA:

If you want any clarification it's 7

up to you.

8 DR. ISBIN:

I think it's sufficient.

9 DR. ELTAWILA:

Okay.

10 DR. BUSH:

In the fourth line from the top of this 11 page it says the current listing of SA issues.

If you 12 wanted to refer to the source of that listing would it 13 perhaps satisfy everyone's concern here to.say the current

}

14 listing from NUREG number so and so.

15 DR. ISBIN:

Sure.

This is a good suggestion, and 16 we will do that.

17 MR. BURSTEIN:

I wonder if that would take care of 18 Dr. Bush's inquiry.

19 DR. BUSH:

In my field it has a totally different 20 meaning.

21 DR. MORRISON:

Is the source any different than 22 NUREG-1365, Revision 17 23 DR. ELTAWILA:

It's the original NUREG-1365, yes.

24 DR. MORRISON:

The previous sentence in Revision 1 25 was cited?

O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300

-Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

..~

... ~

~

l i

t i

10 l

1 DR. ISBIN:

It's the same.

Everything is the l

2 same.

3 DR. MORRISON: _Then, I really don't'think we need i

i 4

a reference because it's there.

l 5

DR. ISBIN:

I would be glad to put it in on page 6

two, just for clarity.

i 7

DR. MORRISON:

Fine.

Hearing-no further l

8 dissension on that, let's move to closure.

I i

9 DR. ISBIN:

We will have'one minor difficulty, 10 because my oral presentation will not necessarily follow 11 what's given in the written report.

But I would suggest I j

12 would be interrupted at any time, and we will try to handle

-I 13 it as we go along.

14 MR. KINTNER:

We_are dealing with.the written

~

15 report, and that's where we are commenting for final-16 agreement.

17 DR. ISBIN:

Yes, I thought an oral report could 18 be abbreviated and shortened.

19 DR. MORRISON:

It's only meant, as you say, to e0 lead us through.

21 DR. ISBIN:

It's not exact wording.

Exact wording 22 is given in-the report.

The report addresses the issues l

23 specifically.

However, for this presentation I will give an 24 abbreviated accounting, j

25 First, regarding closure.

The Subcommittee O-l i

ANN RILEY &_ ASSOCIATES, LTD-.

y._

)

l Court Reporters i

1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006-(202)-293-3950 u

11-1 concurs with the Research staff on goals, criteria and 2

processes for closure.

3 MR. BURSTEIN:

Another comment that I would 4

request be attributed to Professor Todreas-has to do with 5

this term " criteria", and perhaps he may have talked to you, 6

Herb, about it.

7 DR. ISBIN:

He has.

He has submitted his comments 8

to us.

9 MR. BURSTEIN:

This is a very broad and a very:

10 powerful sentence.

It talks about the goals, criteria and-11 processes.

The question that he was raising, as I recall 12 was, what criteria and where are they.

Has the NSRRC seen 13

.those criteria and is it something that needs to be-14 referenced in some respect that can be looked at.

15 DR. ISBIN:

To some extent the. criteria, of l

16 course, are given in.the NUREG report.

Each time we meet 17 with Research we revisit this_ subject.

As we are going to l

18 point out, closure is such an important agenda item that the

.)

i 19 Committee needs to continue its dialogue with the Research 1

'l 20 staff.

21 We have had written statements on criteria 22 starting with FEMI, back two or three years, and they have 23 been repeated in different forms.

We would like not for tus.

24 to spell it out ourselves, but to try-to ask the Research 25 each time we meet with them, what their current criteria O

ANN RILEY_& ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006:

(202) 293-3950 i

.. - ~

- i 12 1

might be.

It is a changing field to some extent.

2 I know what Neil's written statements were.

He 3

concluded that for us to include a full statement of 4

criteria in our report would probably not be that helpful.

I 5

So, I left it as we had given it previously.

6 MR. BURSTEIN:

Is there a simple reference?

7 DR. ISBIN:

Yes, the NUREG report.

8 MR. BURSTEIN:

As I recall, that does not appear 9

in these paragraphs on closure.

10 DR. ISBIN:

Are you talking about the NUREG 11 report?

12 MR. BURSTEIN:

Yes, sir.

13 DR. ISBIN:

We have had statements in the NUREG 14 report.

There is one early -- the first NUREG report does 15 discuss criteria and different approaches that might lme 16 used.

The revised report has very little change in it.

The 17 changes are mainly in melt progression.

18 MR. BURSTEIN:

Is that to include at the end of 19 this paragraph something like as stated in NtREG so and so.

20 DR. MORRISON:

I think that would.he a simple 21 change.

I think you are referring to the top of page_three, 22 is that correct, Sol.

23 MR. BURSTEIN:

It's just a reference.

24 DR. ISBIN:

I see what he means.

Sure, we can do 25 that.

^

ON ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 i

(202) 293-3950

,- ~

.I

}

13-1 MR. BURSTEIN:

If anybody wants to know what the.

j O

2 criteria are, they can go and look.

l 3

DR. ISBIN:

Yes.

The goals of the Severe Accident l

4 Research plan remain as given in our previous report.

i 5

Quoting: " Complete all the major severe accident

-l 6

experimental programs within the next two to three years."

(

\\

7 And:

" Closure of all severe accident issues in four years."

{j 8

MR. BURSTEIN:

I think we all wish you luck.

9 DR. ISBIN:

You mean, Research?

l 5

10 MR. BURSTEIN:

Closure.

j 11 DR. ISBIN:

Correct.

Well, with closure comes the 12 need to retain expertise.

The Commission and the Research'

-. i 13 staff should be looking ahead to determine just.what j

14 expertise needs to be retained and how this can be l

t 15 accomplished efficiently.

For example, the Research staff 7

-i 16 and the Commission have not yet developed a plan and a j

17' budget for the United States to maintain its world

}

18 leadership in severe accident code development, assessment 19 and maintenance.

20 Regarding closure, attention is directed to the 21 first high priority severe accident issue that reached

)

22 closure this year, the resolution of the Mark i liner 23 failure issue.

The conclusions are that with water present:

\\

24

" liner failure is physically unreasonable" and without water 25 present " liner failure is nearly certain."

The process by j

l 3-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court' Reporters

)

1612 K Street, N.W., Suite.300

't i

Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

.., ~ _ - _ -

L E

i

.I l

.14

?

i 1

which this issue was resolved is embodied in a methodology l

2 which is called risk oriented accident assessment i

3-methodology which has.the acronym, ROAAM.

f

-t 4

Let me return to the high priority issues and j

5 start with the direct containment heating issue, referred to 6

as DCH.

The developments in resolving DCH have been.

4 7

followed closely.

Again, the method of ROAAM has been used.

t 8

Two draft reports have been issued, one dealing with Zion.

j i

9 and Zion-like containments, and the other involves the i

10 Surry-type containment.

11 The first report developed the approach and l

12 analyses to demonstrate rather conclusively that, predicted 13 containment loads would not challenge the containment

)

14 integrity.

A similar conclusion was reached for the'Surry; 15 containment.

The Subcommittee'has been assured by the i

16 Research staff that it will be kept abreast of the peer 17 reviews for these reports and also of the remaining steps to 18 achieve a timely closure of this issue.

1 19 DR. MORRISON:

Perhaps we should pause and make 20 sure that the Committee concurs with the section.of the i

l 21 report on pages three and four dealing with, direct t

22 containment heating, and whether there are any other

~

23 questions for further deliberation on behalf of the 24 Committee.

25 MR. KINTNER:

In several places here -- this.is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suita 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

- - _. ~.

f I

i i

15 I

1 not cx1 direct containment heating, per se -- there are.

j O_

I 2

several places here where there are statements that we-3 request that we be kept advised.

I wonder whether we really:

i 4

mean.that literally,.which is to say, do we expect that the i

5 staff is going to recognize and send out --

I l'

6 MR. BURSTEIN:

I can't hear the voice.

It's l

7 breaking up a bit.

{

8 MR. KINTNER:

I will try again.

In several places l

9 there are statements that the Committee request that it be 10 kept advised on these issues.

That seems like a little bit t

11 of an unnecessary burden.

Do we really wish to ask the 1

?

1 12 staff to keep sending us information on these matters as i

13 soon as it develops?

Or, on the other hand, do we expect O

that when we do meet and discuss the subjects with them we

{

14 i

15 will get the information we need.

t 16' DR. ISBIN:

Do you want a personal opinion?

l 17 MR. KINTNER:

Yeah.

18 DR. ISBIN:

First of all, let me put it in two

~

11 9 ways.

The report that you have in front of you was approved l

l 20 by the Subcommittee and, to my knowledge, approved by l

21 members who read it and sent in comments specifically.

l i

22 Those we didn't hear from, it remains to be seen.

23 I would say that since.the Subcommittee isn't

.i 24 going to meet very often -- it's over a year since our last 25 meeting -- there are issues which are reaching stages of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington,-D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 a

~..._...

-16 1

closure and there are processes which are being used which l2 are important_to closure that I think that important-I l

3 aspects, the Research staff would indeed keep the-l 4

Subcommittee informed, particularly as we just mentioned 5

with DCH.

I will mention a few others in summary.

6 I think in terms of ongoing projects -- not day to 1

7 day but on significant accomplishments -- the Research staff 1

<*e j

o 8

would keep the Subcommittee informed.

They have been.

In

].I 9

fact, much of my participation in the DCH developments have 10 been through the Research staff keeping the Subcommittee I

l 11 informed.

)

i 12 DR. MORRISON:

This is Dave Morrison, speaking as j

l 13 a member of the Subcommittee, in trying to address-your 14 question, Ed.

I interpret the sentence as one of degree, L

15 not of kind.

Yes, we the Subcommittee and I think we the 16 Committee, want to be informed of significant activities'and 17 progress on some significant open issues that need to be-18 done.

19 It was my assumption in requesting that, that 20 depending upon the frequency of Committee meetings, that 21 perhaps this could be dealt with in a few minutes at the 22 next Committee meeting.

For example, what's happening with 23 the peer review for example, on DCH.

That would be January.

24 We are sitting here almost at the end of October. I don't 25 think that would be a burden.

I don't think it needs to be O

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950 y

L i

17 1

. a long report.

l 2

On the other hand, if there is some fast breaking 3

news -- certainly, Eric has done a good job of keeping us 0

4 informed of things that are happening;--'I assumed that 5

would take place.

I think this is just a reminder, is the 6

way that I would look at it in the text It procably 7

doesn't add a lot but it probably doesn't detract from the 8

message, either.

9 Are there any other comments on that particular l

10 issue?

Fred.Molz, as a member of the Subcommittee, do you j

L l

L 11 have any other views on that subject?

12 DR. MOLZ:

No, I concur with what has been stated.

13 DR. MORRISON:

Ed, where would you like to come i

14 out on it?

O

]

l 15 MR. KINTNER:

If that's what others wish, that's 16 fine.

If I were on the other side and I received this i

17 statement, the Subcommittee wishes to be kept informed on 18 the progress of the peer reviews for the Zion and Surry 19 reports, that would be a considerable effort on my part to 20 do that, literally.

It does imply a little bit of getting 21 into the executive management activities of the staff.

l 22 That's the only thing I am suggesting.

It happens-23 two or three times in here.

I can-imagine that they rack up 24 a list of things and that are going to call all of us on'a j

25 regular basis.

That's fine with me, if that's --

r t

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

-m-

-r-.

i-.u.-4

,m.

, d. r

--U

,r r

18 1

MR. BURSTEIN:

I think I have looked upon this in O.

2 perhaps a slightly different light.

This term about the i

3 Committee wishes to be kept informed is a_ term of art that.

f

~

we have been using for decades, to tell the staff that this 4

i t

5 matter isn't totally resolved yet; that we want to hold this 6

thing open and if you want to tell us what's happening to 7

this peer review or to some other subject or give us a 8

progress report, but don't think that we have forgotten i

9 about it.

We haven't signed off completely on it, and you-10 still have an unfinished task in this particular case-on d

11 your plate.

12 I think that is due and proper notice to the l

13 staff.

Depending upon the subject it could be burdensome as

-l l

l O

14 you point out Ed, or it could be routine, just like sending' r

15 me a copy of the peer reports.

I do think it's a valuable j

16 technique thac helps everybody know what this task really 17 is, and how much is finished and how much is yet to be l

18 completed.

19 DR. MOLZ:

I basically agree with that.

I think 20 you have to use a certain amount of common sense and do whe.c' 21 is practical.

Certainly, with having Subcommittee meetings 22 on every year or so, you can't keep up with every detail in 23 a meeting environment.

Yet, during any one year there's-24 probably a few things that you definitely should'know about.

25 It's just a way for the Committee and the staff I 1

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

. - = _.

~... -

19

l 1

1

-think to' work together, and both sides have to use a little

-l O-2 common sense.

I 3

DR. VOGEL:

I agree with your position, Fred.

I 4

don't think the intent is to get all detailed information to 1

L 5

the Subcommittee.

In fact,.you don't'want it.

l 6

DR. MOLZ:

No.

7 DR. MORRISON:

Eric Beckjord would like to make a 4

8 comment here.

'l l

9 MR. BECKJORD:

As I take in the discussion on this 10 point, I don't think that it is a particular burden for us 11 to keep you advised of the peer review.

It would only 12 become a burden if the peer review itself were falling-13 apart.

So, I don't think it's a problem.

I don't have a l ' O' 14 problem with the word.

15 MR. BURSTEIN:

If'something lila that were 16 happening --

.17 MR. BECKJORD:

It would be.a problem anyway.

18 MR. BURSTEIN:

We would just know it.

We wouldn't 19 have to have every detail of when what part was falling:and 20 things like that.

i 21 MR. BECKJORD:

That's right.

22 MR. BURSTEIN:

We would certainly want to know 23 that it fell apart.

24 DR. MORRISON:

I recommend that we leave'the text 25 as it is.

If anyone needs an interpretation of v' tat we mean ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 j

(202) 293-3950.

i i

..._.m._.,...;,

. ~ _. _.. _ -

L l

f 20 l

t 1

by that sentence, the record itself should be consulted.

O 2

There is plenty of information there that will either help _

3 to clarify or confuse you, whichever way you want to look at 4

the discussion.

5 Is there anything else on direct containment 6

heating before we leave that section of the report.

7

[No response.]

I l

8 DR. MORRISON:

If not, why don't you proceed-Herb, 9

to severe accident codes.

l 10 DR. ISBIN:

Both the Severe Accident Subcommittee 11 and the Advanced Reactor Subcommittee are coordinating their i

12 reviews on severe accident codes.

The three severe accident 13 major codes are MELCOR, the overall integral code to be used 14 in probabilistic rish analysis and audit evaluations, 15 SCDAP/RELAP 5, a detailed mechanistic code for in-vessel 16 severe accident analyses and CONTAIN, for ex-vessel 17 analyses.

18 For the Advanced Reactor Subcommittee, the 19 emphasis is on the thermal hydraulics and the applications 20 to advanced reactors, AP-600 and SBWk.

The Severe Accident 21 Subcommittee is following the progress being made for these-22 codes.

23 DR. MORRISON:

Are there any comments or questions' 24 on the Severe Accident Code section of the report?

25 MR. BURSTEIN:

One question, from Burstein.

In O

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington,.D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

21 l'

the middle of the.first paragraph on severe accident codes

]

2 appearing on page four, there is a sentence in that RES 3

indicated all-the modeling for AP-600 and SBWR would be done 4

in time for use in certification.

l 5

Dr. Isbin and I attended a meeting of the Advanced i

6 Reactor Subcommittee in Cambridge on the 18th, at which time

'.i 7

I believe the staff presented us with a schedule of some of j

8 their code development work and modeling, and the l

9 confirmation of some of that through the experimental i

10 programs that are currently underway.

i 11 As I recall, some.of the schedule indicated I

12 completion of some of that code work beyond the date for.

13 which certification was presently scheduled.

Dr. Isbin, I have to rely on you, to confirm whether my understanding is O.

14 15 correct or not.

l 16 DR. ISBIN:

I believe your understanding is 17 incorrect.

Indeed, the code improvements will be made.

18 They have to be made in order for the codes to be used in 19 this certification process.

20 MR. BURSTEIN:

I am talking about the schedules.

21 DR. ISBIN:

Yes.

22 MR. BURSTEIN:

Certification is scheduled for 23 when?

I i

24 DR. MORRISON:

May I ask the staff if they could 1

25 clarify that position?

i 7004 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

22

-l 1

DR. ELTAWILA:

All the code improvement for the O

2

.AP-600 and SBWR will be ready for the certification schedule 3.

in effect and maybe would be ahead of the schedule, so NRR 4

would be able to use them.

]

5 DR. SHERON:

That's both the severe accident and i

6 the thermal hydraulic codes.

l 7

DR. ISBIN:

I would agree, that's'how the

-l i

8 representation was made to us, l

9 MR. BURSTEIN:

I recall the date was 1996, for

'l I

10 completion of this code work.

That means-that the 11 certification will not occur until after 1996.

For me to L

12 say whether that's right or wrong, that's the conclusion d

i 13 that I would infer.

I do not believe that is consistent 14 with earlier certification schedules.

If it is, I am sorry

' O 15 I even brought it up.

f 16 DR. SHERON:

Sol, we will go back and look at the i

17 schedules again.

But I think our position is that -- as'a 18 matter of fact, our whole Research program with the codes 19 was predicated on getting the codes completed in time for 20 NRR staff to use them to support certification.

21 MR. BURSTEIN:

I certainly agree, that the. staff 22 cannot proceed with certification until they have this work.

23 But I am just wondering whether that' implies a delay in the 24 certification schedule.

If so, I imagine that the public is 25 entitled to know that and particularly any potential IJU4 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court' Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950 i

23 l

1 1

licensees.

0 2

DR. SHERON:

Sol, the certification schedulefis 3

independent of the Research program.

The certification of f

4 both of these designs is not dependent upon the staff 1

l 5

completing the research or the codes.

If.there is any delay

.e 6

in the certification it's due to other reasons than the 7

Office of Research.

4 i

8 DR. ISBIN:

Sol, you can actually check those l

\\

9 dates.

These are copies of papers that George Sege provided i

10 to you.

.I 11 MR. BURSTEIN:

Right, and we discussed them.

This 12 question was raised on October 18.

If you are satisfied i

i 13 with this sentence, let's agree to proceed.

)

14 DR. ISBIN:

I am satisfied O

5 f

15 DR. VOGEL:

I think it needs to be checked again.

l 16

DR. SHERON:

We will be glad to check it again and l

17 confirm it.

18 DR. VOGEL:

Thank you.

i 19 DR. MORRISON:

Would you do that Brian, and just 20 send a quick note out listing what the schedule for 21 certification is and what the schedule for the code 22 completion is.

23 DR. SHERON:

Sure.

24 DR. MORRISON:

If you could fax it to each of the

-l 25 Committee members, tha* would be very useful.

O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

i I-24' 1

DR. ISBIN:

The remaining high priority severe O

2 accident issue is core melt progression.

Here, too, i

i 1

l 3

significant progress has been made.

The Subcommittee i

4 believes that the core melt progression issue is close to a

]

5 resolution, and concurs with the milestones set.by the 6

Research staff.

l 7

DR. MORRISO:i:

That's on page five.

Are there any 8

comments on the core melt progression section?-

9

[:No response.]

10 DR. ISBIN:

May I proceed?

i 11 DR. MORRISON:

Hearing no comments, Herb, why 12 don't you proceed with debris coolability.

13 DR. ISBIN:

In the report the Subcommittee i

14 commented on the following programs, debris coolability -- I O

15 am going to lump all of these together because I am not j

16 going to be reading the report, per se -- debris 17 coolability, hydrogen combustion and transport, the Russian j

l 18 experimental program called RASPLAV, the use of the French 19 Reactor called PHEBUS to undertake fission product studies, 20 TMI-2 vessel investigation project.

21 Additionally, the Subcommittee reviewed the 22 current status for accident management _which was closed out 23 in fiscal 1992, individual plant examinations, risk analysis 24 of accidents initiating at low power'and shutdown 25 conditions.

This is a catchall.

O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 I

(202) 293-3950

25 1

I am going to come to an abbreviated summary., so-2 that we can come back and look at any individual item, if 3

you would like.

4 The Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee has.

5 strongly endorsed international cooperative research 6

programs.

The Subcommittee report lists a number of such 7

programs tha'; involve severe accident research.

The 8

Subcommittee, in its report, makes a number of suggestions 9

regarding the use of peer reviews, a process that the full 10 Committee has strongly endorsed.

11 However, the increasing use of peer reviews now 12 needs more structure.

The Subcommittee recommends that 13 guidance be prepared on when there is a need for a peer 14 review, objectives for the review, qualifications for the 15 peers and the use of international experts, number of peers 16 needed for a review, and conduct of the peer reviews.

17 The full Committee is committed to responding to 18 the Commission in regard to staff efficiency and 19 effectiveness, and the Subcommittee has started its 20 oversight on these matters.

21 The Severe Accident Subcommittee believes that 22 this report, supported by the reference material, provides a 23 general oversight of the Severe Accident Research plan and a 24 starting basis for in depth reviews of selected projects and 25 for compiling information which will be responsive to the O

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

-i 26 1

commitments made to the Commissioners by the full Committee.

O i

2 In partial summary of the report'let me conclude l

3 by the following statements.

The Subcommittee concurs with 4

the Research staff on the prioritization of severe accident

{

'\\

5 issues and on the goals, criteria and processes for closure, l

6 but notes the need for a continuing dialogue on these l

1 7

matt ers.

l 8

The Subcommittee concurs with the Research staff i

9 that there is a need for completing the resolution of the I

10 direct containment heating issue in an efficient-and l

1

-]

11 expeditious manner.

The Subcommittee requests that it be j

12 kept informed on the peer reviews for the Zion and Surry

{

j 13 reports, as well as on other activities involved with DCH.

l O

The Subcommittee has suggested that guidance ~be provided for 14 15 the structure and the needs for peer reviews.

16 The Subcommittee continues its efforts in j

17 following the progress being made in severe accident code i!

18 developments and assessments.

The Subcommittee recognizes 19 the progress being made in core' melt progression, and 20 believes that no additional programs be initiated until the 1

21 results of the peer reviews of the current programs have 22 been assessed.

23 An important Severe Accident Research 24 accomplishment is the resolution of the Mark 1 liner issue.

25 As in past reports by the Nuclear Safety Research Review i

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Ccurt Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 i

l Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950 i

i

4 _

t t

27 1

Committee, the effectiveness of ROAAM to resolve difficult f

O r

2 issues is acknowledged.

ROAAM has also-the potential to l

3 resolve the direct containment heating issue.

4 Mr. Chairman, this completes my oral presentation i

5 for the full Committee.

We can go back and pick up any of j

+

6 the other parts that you wish.

7 DR. MORRISON:

What I would like to do, Herb --

i 8

thank you for your overview -- if the Committee could'go

_i 9

back to page six.

In the first five pages we had' addressed r

10 any comments the Committee members had.

I think we ought to 11 pick up on six, and. see if there are any comments car 12 questions on debris coolability.

13 MR. KINTNER:

I don't want to beat a dead horse, 14 but this ends with the request that it be kept~ informed with 15 the progress being made in debris coolability.

If you go 16 later to page ten under peer reviews, the Subcommittee would 17

.like to be kept informed of the initiation and 18 accomplishment of the peer reviews.

These both have the 19 same kind of tenor that I had raised before.

20 I still think that we either do get enough 21 information in the normal course of events, meetings and so l

22 forth, or we need to make statements of this kind.

I would 23 consider it if I were staff or Eric, I would rather not be 24 constantly advised.

You want me to be kept informed.

I 25 mean, maybe it's needed but I don't see it's the right way O

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 l

Washington, D.C.

20006 l

(202) 293-3950

~

I 28 r

1 to do it, in a written report.

f i

2 That's a personal comment.

I juss, anted to point j

3 it'out that it wasn't just one that raised the question, 4

DR.-ISBIN:

Let me respond briefly.

The best 5

illustration of being kept informed, I think,.is the Mark 1 a

6 liner failure issue.

Here, I think the Committee owes a

~h 7

debt to Research for keeping it informed.

This went through 8

scme very difficult steps, but is really the first high.

f 9

priority issue that was resolved.

The Committee at least i

i 10 had an observer at the impor* ant stages.

7 i

11 In that respect, I think the Committee has taken i

12 its responsibility seriously and has provided an oversight I

13 which is important and an understanding which is important.

\\

14 This is a major accomplishment.

The Research staff did 15 indeed keep us informed.

I don't think it was an undue i

e I

16 burden in any way.

1 *7 DR. MORRISON:

I would come back, Ed, to the 18 comment that Sol Burstein made, this is a reminder that the i

19 Committee has not completely dropped this particular issue.

j i

20 It's something that we would like to remain abreast of.

-1 21 It's a tickler, if you would care to use that. terminology.

I i

22 MR. BURSTEIN:

I would like to hear those nice 1

23 things you are saying about me, but you are cutting out.

~

24 DR. MORRISON:

I said you told us Sol, that you 25 were going to tickle the staff with this comment, about O'

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950 I

, - _. -.,, - -+

.. ~.

-... - - - ~.. -

l

l

- 29 1

keeping informed on the progress of any particular item'in l

2 this report.

l 3

MR. BURSTEIN:

YeJ, sir.

4 DR. MORRISON:

Ed, you were going to address the 5

second issue.

i 6

MR. KINTNER:

There's another one that's been l

7 discussed obliquely, but seems to me worth some discussion 8

here in this group before we conclude what final words we 9

use.

Is it really true that a peer review costs more than a 10 million dollars each?

11 DR. ISBIN:

No.

You have to use it in its correct 12 context, Ed.

The peer review for a severe accident code, 13 that cost was a million dollars per year.

That's something 14 that Neil was also commenting on.

That involved d io ng a lot 15 of preparatory work just for the peers.

Il 16 MR. KINTNER:

I got it now l

s i

17 DR. ISBIN:

As I understand it.

I 18 DR. MORRISON:

Was your question Ed, simply to 19 clarify the dollar figure, or was there.something more?

20 MR. KINTNER:

I was surprised but I didn't read it i

21.

as the code only.

I thought it was each peer review costs j

i 22 that much, and I did surprise me.

1 1

23 DR. ISBIN:

Should the wording be improved there?

l 24 What page are you looking at.

25

-MR.

KINTNER:

It does say, if you rend it ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

2 Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006-(202) 293-3950

,~C p-

-rwe

>9---

i-e+

w w

w v-m-i

..-w e+- - -

,,.i

-i=ws,my

m.

30 i

l

\\

1 carefully, peer reviews for the SA codes is costly.

l O-2 DR. ISBIN:

What page are we on now, Mr. Kintner.

l i

l 3

DR. MORRISON:

I think we should move along on

(

4 page six.

There didn't seem to be anything other than Ed l

5

'Kintner's comment on the progress point on debris

(

l 6

coolability.

What about the other three titles on that i

l 7

page, hydrogen combustion and transport, RASPLAV and PHEBUS-I' 8

FP.

9 DR. ISBIN:

Our expert, Dick Vogel on fission

)

10 products, has contributed to this paragraph.

I think it's a l

l 11 good paragraph.

~

12 DR. VOGEL:

That's the PHEBUS?

13 DR. ISBIN:

Yes.

2 14 DR. MORRISON:

I believe also later in the report L O-15 when you talk about international or collaborative programs

]

16 in general you make a sweeping comment that covers these i

17 three, or at least touches on these three, as international l

18 efforts and collaborative efforts.

19 DR. ISBIN:

Yes.

20 DR. MORRISON:

Any comments on the TMI vessel 21 investigation project.

Sol, you lead off with that as a 22 comment early on.

l 23 MR..BURSTEIN:

Yes, sir.

I think some 24 complementary sentence'could be added to this section that 25 provides an update of what occurred at the~recent conference ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950-

.31 1

on this subject.

That's all I think that Neil had in mind.

2 I;

3 DR. MORRISON:

I would ask from the standpoint --

j 4

I have no argument with your point there, Sol.

I would just

-l 5

throw a question here to George Sege.

Would'it be-all right 6

co put that comment in as a footnote to_that particular I

t 7

page, so that we an adopt this as a Committee report without i

8 having to do the whole report?

i 9

MR. SEGE:

I see no objection to that.

10 DR. MORRISON:

Why don't we develop such a l

11 statement and put it simply as an asterisk after the whole 12 paragraph or an asterisk on the title and put it as a

{

13 footnote.

That way, we don't have to do the-whole report.

O 14 DR. ISBIN:

I would be willing to just put in the j

15 new statement, if you would.like.

There's no problem in-1 16 that.

17 DR. MORRISON:

This report will carry the date in 18 which you submitted it which is the front-date, and that 19 meeting had not been held.

That was the only thing I was 20 trying to eliminate, the question of what report were we 21 reviewing.

22 DR. ISBIN:

We will put it in as a footnote.

23 DR. MORRISON:

Any other comments on'the TMI 24 vessel incpection project?

25

[No response.]

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

i i

-32 1

DR. MORRISON:

I think we maybe also ought to O

2 compliment one of our members here, Ed Kintner, for a very l

3 excellent presentation at that Boston meeting.

4 MR. BURSTEIN:

We were trying to avoid that.

i 5

DR. MORRISON:

Sorry, sir.

j 6

MR. KINTNER:

You wouldn't have thought so, if you l

l I

7 had been there.

8 MR. BURSTEIN:

Well done, Ed.

9 DR. ISBIN:

We are on page eight now.

10 DR. MORRISON:

We're on page eight.

11 MR. BURSTEIN:

One further comment that I am J

i 12 representing Dr. Todreas on.

In the line under the 13 paragraph where it begins, depressurization --

i O

14 DR. ISBIN:

What page are you on?

l 15 DR. MORRISON:

Page eight.

i 16 MR. BURSTEIN:

In the middle of the paae.

The 17 sentence above it says RES continues to consider strategies 18 such as.

The belief is that debris coolability is really 19 not a strategy or a phenomena.

It doesn't really fit with 20 those other strategies that are listed.

I 21 DR. ISBIN:

You should bear in mind that.these 22 strategies come directly from the Commission paper.

23 MR. BURSTEIN:

He hasn't hesitated to correct them 24 before, either.

25 DR' ISBIN:

I would prefer that we leave it as it i

O

dRT RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

l Court Reporters 1612 K Street,EN.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

33 1

is.

2 MR. BURSTEIN:

I don't follow on page eight, what 3

you are talking about.

4 DR. ISBIN:

The bottom on page eight?

5 MR. BURSTEIN:

The tenth line down.

6 DR. ISBIN:

Where?

7 MR. BURSTEIN:

The line beginning, 8

depressurization.

That's a strategy.

Cavity flooding is a.

9 strategy.

Quenching a degraded core is a strategy.

Debris 10 coolability is not a strategy.

11 DR. MORRISON:

Brian Sheron wanted to make a 12 comment for clarification.

13 DR. SHERON:

I think perhaps what you mean by 14 debris coolability is the strategy of putting water on a 15 molten core that has already entered the cavity.

Cavity 16 flooding is usually meant when you flood up the cavit3 to 17 cover the lower head of the vessel and try and cool the r

18 debris inside the vessel.

19 Debris coolability is when you have a strategy

{

20 where you put water in the cavity and try and cover the l

21 debris, and thereby cool'it.

This is the whole MACE i

22 program.

23 MR. BURSTEIN:

We have cavity flooding, I agree to i

24 that.

25 DR. SHERON:

No, cavity flooding is different.

i i

i t

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters

'i 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950 l

]

l t

34 1

Where you are flooding the cavity all the way up to cover O

2 the lower part of the vessel such that if the debris.is in.

l 3

the lower head of the vessel, you have external cooling of 4

the vessel sufficient to prevent vessel failure and to i

5 prevent the debris from entering the cavity in the first 6

place.

7 That is what we have sort of defined cavity 8

flooding as.

l i

9 MR. BURSTEIN:

How do we define debris 10 coolability?

l 11 DR. SHERON:

That is the strategy of, after the 12 core has melted through the vessel and is sitting now in the 13 lower cavity interacting with the concrete, that you put i

i O

14

. l water -- somehow you put water on top of that debris -- and 15 that water cools the debris.

That is the MACE test.

That 16 is the objective of the MACE test.

That is'the strategy.

17 I think that is maybe what is intended here, 18 that's all.

19 DR. UHRIG:

Just call it debris cooling.

That's 20 better.

21 DR. MORRISON:

The suggestion is simply to change 22 it to debris cooling.

23 DR. SHERON:

That's. fine.

I 24 DR. MORRISON:

All right, that's accepted..Any 25 other issues on accident management?

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

1 Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 j

Washington, D.C.

20006 (202). 293-3950 1

-,-,,J.

-.-~

- =. - - - - -.

-e

-- - I

1 35 i

1

[No response.]

2 DR. MORRISON:

Let's move then to Mark 1 liner 3

failure issue.

1 4

[No response.]

k T

5 DR. MORRISON:

With no comments on that, let's J

6 move to risk analysis of accidents during low power shutdown 7

conditions.

s 8

DR. UHRIG:

Doesn't shutdown imply low power?

1 9

DR. ISBIN:

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

4 10 DR. UHRIG:

Doesn't shutdown imply that the power 11 is low?

1 12 DR. ISBIN:

These could be two different states, i

13 Bob.

14 MR. KINTNER:

One's critical and one is not.

l 15 DR. UHRIG:

All right.

16 DR. MORRISON:

Hearing no further comments on that l

17 issue. let's move to individual p' examination, page nine 18 in my copy of the report.

19

[No response.]

20 DR. MORRISON:

We are getting an amazing. amount.of 21 concurrence.

Let's move to international cooperative 22 programs 23

[No response.]

24 DR MORRISON:

Peer-reviews, page ten.

25

[No response.]

O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 3 00-Washington, D.C.

20006 j

(202) ~ 293-3950 I

a

r 36 i

1 DR. MORRISON:

How about staff efficiency and-

{

2 effectiveness.

Someone on the phone link had a comment?

i

\\

3 MR. BURSTEIN:

I thought I heard something too,

]

i 4

but if no one else is going to speak up Burstein will.

On

}

5 page 11 I had discussed with Dr. Isbin the word " undue" i

6 which is at the end of the fifth line.

I am not sure what

{

l 7

an undue amount of their effort means.

I know that a large 8

amount of their effort, but whether it's undue or not 9

depends on what the Director and a few of his assistants and i

10 bosses want those managers to do.

11 I am not sure whether the Subcommittee has made an 12 analysis of what is appropriate in that respect and what l

13 isn't.

Perhaps undue is appropriate.

It would seem to me l

14 that it may be at this point a large amount would seem to me 15 more appropriate than the word undue, which seems 16 prematurely critical.

17 DR. VOGEL:

I would agree with you on that.

.I la think that was subjective judgment.

It doesn't necessarily 19 stand up in close examination.

I would agree with your 20 suggested modification.

21 DR. MORRISON:

Are there any disagreements with 22 changing the word to large?

23 DR. VOGEL:

No.

24 MR. BURSTEIN:

No.

25 MR. BECKJORD:

Can I offer a gratuitous comment?

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters i

1612 K Street,.N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 i

(202) 293-3950

-i

.~-

i

)

37 1

DR. MORRISON:

Sure.

'2 MR. BECKJORD:

It seems to me that as long as you l

3 leave the phrase siphoned away in there the sense is the j

l 4

same.

i 5

DR. ISBIN:

Actually, that was really the l

l 6

representation made by some of the managers there.

I think i

7 this is an accurate statement of the impressions that.were 8

created in the presentation.

In other words, the necessity 9

of spending excessive amount of time on financial aspects in 10 order to make sure that you are following all of the i

11 requirements this was presented to us as a burden, a bur'en d

.l 12 which didn't seem to have an easy, resolvable conclusion.

I 13 MR. BURSTEIN:

May I make a major revision to that 14 sentence.

That is to strike everything after the word.

15

" project" and substitute for it the words "which requires a I

i 16 large amount of their effort or time."

l 17 DR. ISBIN:

I would like to ask the research staff 18 whether that statement really misrepresents'the impression 19 conveyed.

If it does, it should be changed.

If it doesn't, i

20 I would suggest leaving it as it is.

j 21 MR. BURSTEIN:

My point here is, talking to the l

22 Research staff is only talking to one part of the equation, j

23 the ones.who necessarily determine what their job

]

24 description is.

-l l

25 DR. MORRISON:

I think I concur with what you are j

O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

)

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202)'293-3950

+

~.

i l

i f

I 38 t

1 trying to make the change toward, Sol.

Unfortunately, 2

management brings a lot of other baggage in addition to the j

3 technical matters.

Perhaps if there is a research manager 4

who thinks that they don't have things like performance 5

evaluations, financial issues, human interactions, 6

communications and the whole list of things, the job 7

description has been too short.

8 MR. BURSTEIN:

Absolutely.

9 DR. TODREAS:

Excuse me.

I broke away and am on 10 the phone now.

I just wanted to let you know I came on.

11 DR. MORRISON:

Pleased to hear you are there.

-l 12 DR. ISBIN:

You have been well represented by Sol

'l

.i 13 up until now.

I 14 DR. TODREAS:

Thank you.

'O l

15 MR. BURSTEIN:

This is not anything that you have

-l 16 to do with.

We are on page 11 of Herb's report.

17 DR. ISBIN:

The Subcommittee's report.

18 MR. BURSTEIN:

The second full sentence of the i

19 first paragraph.

20 DR. TODREAS:

Thank you.

21 DR. MORRISON:

Your change was to have the 22 sentence read, Sol, research noted that project managers are 23 under considerable scrutiny for the financial aspects of 24 each project.which consumes a large amount of their time.

25 MR. BURSTEIN:

Yes, sir.

I ANN'RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 l

(202)'293-3950 l

l

}

39 1

DR. MORRISON:

Any comments?

2 DR. VOGEL:

I would agree with that change.

i 3

DR. MORRISON:

That's not an evaluated statement, 4

that's more of a factual one.

5 DR. VOGEL:

Yes.

6 DR. SHERON:

That's probably better.

'I 7

DR. VOGEL:

I hate to keep --

l 8

MR. BURSTEIN:

An undue amount of their. efforts.

9 may be siphoned away as a warning.

That's a slightly_

l 10 different sentence, i

-\\

11 DR. MORRISON:

That still questions whether we 12 have evaluated what their job is.

-i 13 DR. SHERON:

For the IG it's not undue'.

14 DR. MOLZ:

It's the technical matters that could 15 lead to oversights that would perhaps have safety 16 implic.

,ns.

Certainly we would want to keep looking at 17 the questions that relate to the basic reason you are doing i

18 something.

Often times financial aspects become kind of 19 superfluous and draw you away, and that's when that mistake 20 could be made.

21 DR. MORRISON:

I think we are dealing with the 22 baaic premise of management.

It's a question of how we want 23 to address this.

'I 24 MR. BECKJORD:

Can I say something'maybe to help 25 your discussion.

~

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006

.(202) 293-3950 a

i

-i 40 1

1 DR. MORRISON:

Yes, sir.

2 MR. BECKJORD:

The subject of the sentence is RES.

3 RES noted that project managers are under considerable 4

scrutiny and so on and so forth, and that consequently an 5

undue amount of their efforts is siphoned away.

This is an 6

observation attributed to Research staff.

It is not a l

7 Committee conclusion.

i I

.i 8

What the Committee says about this in the text.is j

9 that this and other factors, et cetera, are to be considered l

10 by NSRRC in 1993/1994 timeframe.

i 11 Personally, I don't have a problem with the way 12 it's stated.

I don't think -- the Committee did not ask me, i

13 so the opinion you are getting here attributed to RES is

(

from RES managers, not including me.

My own perspective on O

14 15 that is.that there 4.s a considerable amount of activity 16 which has been devoted in the past year to criticisms from

)

r' 17 the Inspector General's reports, the several reports on

+

18 Research management.

)

19 It is true, that a great deal of time has gone f

20 into rectifying several situations that they brought to our 21 attention.

The question in my mind is the following.

Is j

i 22 this large first time effort or additional effort that the l

23

_ entire staff had to put into the matter of rectification ~

^ t 24 going to.be an ongoing thing or was it just first time.

25 I think that's the question that we'are not really f

t

-t t

i O

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

l Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300

-i Washington, D.C.

20006 j'

(202) 293-3950 i

. ~ -..

i r

I i

41 1

able to answer yet at this point.

We have~several O

2 activities that are underway relating to -- we put a great 3

deal of effort into the amount of detail that is required in 4

project files, and we are now in the process of attempting f

5 to resolve the total of administrative requirements for 6

contracts.

In fact, we are meeting with the administrative 7

office on this at the beginning of next week.

8 If that matter is resolved satisfactorily and'if 9

the actions that we have taken on the files for the records 10 is accepted the next time the Inspector General looks at_it, f

11 and if we do not get additional requirements placed on the r

12 staff, this situation may turn out to be not undue.

The

)

i 13 question is whether that first time effort that was put into it is going to be ongoing or not, and I don't think we can.

]

O 14 15 answer that question today.

16 It seems to me that the statement as the 17 Subcommittee has proposed it to you is probably an accurate 18 description of the staff's views on this subject.

Would you 19 agree with that, Brian or Tom?

20 DR. SHERON:

Yes.

21 MR. BECKJORD:

A lot of people have this view, is 22 that right?

23 MR. BURSTEIN:

Add the word staff, after RES.

24 Otherwise I have to impugn this to you, sir.

25 MR. BECKJORD:

I see what you are saying.

I ' don't-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950 J

i

... ~.

t I

i

{

42 1

mind if you impugn it to me.

You didn't ask me, but I think O

2 those are -- I don't separate myself from those views.

3 Either way you want to state it is fine by me.

t 4

My point is, we don't know how this finally is 5

going to -- what it's going to be like when it comes out of 6

the wash.

If I look on it optimistically, I can say that we i

7 should be able to handle the administrative requirements L

L 8

with some more efficient working.

If that is not the case i

9 and we find out that this additional time is going to be j

10 ongoing then it's going to be an undue burden.

1 DR. ISBIN:

Wouldn't it be better to say who said 12 it?

I don't mean by name.

l 13 MR. BECKJORD:

That's fine by me.

14 DR. ISBIN:

That does seem to me that you may not i

15 wish to have this attributed to you.

16 DR. SHERON:

I probably said it, I will admit it.

17 MR. KINTNER:

Scme members of the RES staff they 18 just said it, that's the problem.

i 19 DR. SHERON:

I am not embarrassed about~it.

I 20 mean, that was my feeling and probably still is at this 21 time.

I agree with Eric, I don't know where it's' going to 22 be in the future.

At the time all the indications were that 23 the new management directive 11.7 and all the other stuff we 24 were going to do was really going to increase the amount of 25 time that the staff ought to put onto this.

The dust hasn't EO 1

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

i f

43 1

settled yet, that's all.

1 2

MR. BURSTEIN:

Would everybody be happy if we 3

added the word "RES" staff at the beginning.

4 DR. MOLZ:

Yes, that would be okay with me l

5 DR. UHRIG:

That sounds' fine toi me.

6 DR. MORRISON:

Let's accept that as a correct 7

statement, as modified by putting RES staff in at the time 8

this report was written and reviewed.

We, the Committee, 9

will simply view it as a benchmark against which we can l

10 measure any changes in the future.

11 Anything else on additional items or concluding _

12 statement?

i 13 MR. BURSTEIN:

On page 12 the late Dr. Todreas had O

14 a comment regarding which version of the MAAP code we were 15 making reference to.

That appears in the second line of the 16 second full paragraph on page 12.

I think he assumes that 17 it was revision 3B but perhaps it's something else.

18 DR. SHERON:

Yes, 3B is correct.

4 19 DR. MORRISON:

The staff indicates that 3B-is 20 correct.

21 MR. BURSTEIN:

Could we include that following the 22 word MAAP, code version 3B.

23 DR. MORRISON:

Herb, can you make that change?

'24 DR. ISBIN:

Yes.

25 DR. MORRISON:

Please do.

Any other. comments or i

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

~,

44 1

questions by the Committee?

2

[No. response.]

3 DR. ISBIN:

There are the' appendices,.if anybody 4

wants to make any comment on the appendices.

5 DR. MORRISON:

.Before we get into that, Herb, let 6

me call upon the staff that are here if they have any 7

particular comments or questions they wish to raise, that 8

perhaps we could address while the full Committee present.

9 We have Brian Sheron, Tom King and Farouk Eltawila i

10 here, whoever wants to speak.

11 DR. SHERON:

Why don't I start.

On page four, 12 just an editorial.

Under severe accident codes just the 13 line that says will be completed in time for -- it's the 14 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

That is strictly 4

15 editorial.

16 MR. BURSTEIN:

Brian, as long as you brought up 17 the subject to which we were making reference before, my 18 reference was to Lou Shotkin's presentation on October 15 to 19 the Advanced Reactor Committee in his figures one and figure 20 two in which he provided some schedules.

21 If you look at those you may find a question that 22 I raised about whether some of this testing and evaluation 23 and code work would be done before the scheduled final 24 regulatory action would be scheduled.

25 MR. KING:

I know the figures you are referring

- t ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

45 1

~

1 to, because Lou and I put them together.

~

2 MR. BURSTEIN:

Okay.

l 3

MR. KING:

We realized that you can't literally

{

4 take those milestone dates that are on there and read down 5

to the timescale.

The typist made some mistakes and we 6

didn't have time to fix them.

That schedule is in error 7

that was presented.

We will send you a revised one.

I i

8 MR. BURSTEIN:

If it's in error you will' correct 1

9 the information you gave to the Advanced Reactor 10 Subcommittee, and the Severe Accident Subcommittee statement i

l 11 stands as correct.

12 MR. KING:

Yes.

We need to provide a correct 13 schedule.

l 14 DR. SHERON:

We will send out the corrected

(

).

1 15 figures.

16 DR. TODREAS:

What did you say?

17 DR. SHERON:

We will send out the corrected 18 figures.

19 DR. TODREAS:

I must have missed that.

If you 20 would send them out as soon as possible, that would help us.

21 DR. SHERON:

All right.

22 DR. ISBIN:

Brian, was your comment on page four?

23 DR. SHERON:

Page four, under severe accident 24 codes, line ten.

This should be the Office of Nuclear.

25 Reactor Regulations.

That's all.

It was a typo.

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 4

Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

-#r-av v :?

r-

-mg a

e -

yr--_,m

,ur----

- - +

---m-M m

mM e-e

-w, m

w-w-m-

46 1

On page five about the fifth line down it says l

2 something about includes a new RES program at Penn State, 3

designed to demonstrate that with cavity flooding the heat 4

generation by the debris to the lower head will be coolable.

5 That's not a totally accurate representation of 6

the Penn State program.

The Penn State program is really 7

only designed to quantify the heat transfer from the lower 8

head to the coolant.

That would be surrounding the lower 9

head.

I would propose a word change as follows, and let me 10 start on the sentence that says additional severe accident 11 considerations for the Advanced Reactor Subcommittee include 12 a new RES program at Penn State, designed to -- I said 13 quantify the heat transfer from a debris filled reactor i

nO 14 vessel lower head to a water pool surrounding the lower i

15 head.

16 I think that more accurately describes the scope j

17 of the research.

l 18 DR. ISBIN:

May I ask Brian, whether this is a 19 departure from the handouts that we were given on this i

i l

l 20 particular subject?

21 DR. SHERON:

Not that I know of.

Farouk, are you 22 aware of that?

23 DR. ELTAWILA:f No.

1 24 DR. ISBIN:

I relied on those handouts to state i

25 the case.

1 l

l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

l Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 i

(202) 293-3950 t

i 47 l

1 HDR. SHERON:

We will have to go back and look.

If

[.

2 the handouts were in error, I apologize.

The intent of the 3

program is to quantify the heat transfer.

I 4

DR. ISBIN:

Do you have that written out so that I i

5 can have it?

1 i

6 DR. SHERON:

Yes.

I have noted it here, and I 7

will give you these.

8 DR. ISBIN:

I think Mr. Chairman, since there.are 9

these corrections, what you can do is to mark the

{

10 corrections on the copy that you have.

The report will come l

11 out with a new typed version, with the same date.

I see no i

12 problem with thr.t.

13 DR. TODREAS:

I have a suggestion here.

I think_

I i

14 Brian -- his contribution in terms of what's being j

15 quantified is specific but it loses the sense of the 16 ultimate goal and drive of the activity.

Therefore; it

- l 17 might be better to adopt his statement that says quantify la "x" but add into the sentence, with the goal of contributing 19 to the answer to the overall question of why.

20 DR. SHERON:

That's fine.

21 DR. TODREAS:

What is the overall question of, 22 where we are driving to.

We have lost the essence of 23 really, why we are doing something, which you had in the 3

24 first place.

].

25 DR. SHERON:

I don't have any difficulty with ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 r,

.. _,. _ _ _, - _ _. _ _ _ ~.. _ -... -....

.--.--m

-.=-

i 48 adding that.

1 2

DR. MORRISON:

You'll add those words?

I 3

DR. SHERON:

Yes, we will add some words.

The

\\

4-next item I had here was a couple of lines down It says l

i-5 the Subcommittee took exception to RES' view that 6

communications with DOE on ALF need remain restrictive.

I 7

don't think we had taken a pc sition that we ne eded to remain

{

8 restrictive in terms of our dealings with DOE.

I think our 9

concern was that much of the DOE work was basically being

)

10 done -- I won't say in secrecy, but it was certainly not 11 being done very open and in an arena in which we had ready j

12 access to the information.

13 We were not actively begging the DOE people to 14 tell us what they were doing.

I am just saying in terms of 15 the characterization, I think it's more that the DOE 1

I 16 information was just not being made readily available to the-17 public and we were not actively beating down DOE's door 18 looking for it.

19 DR. ISBIN:

Do you want to answer or should I?

20 DR. MORRISON:

Go ahead, while I am still trying

'I 21 to figure out what the_ subtlety is here.

22 DR. TODREAS:

Brian, if you have some suggested 23 wording don't keep it to yourself.

24 DR. SHERON:

I didn't write down any suggested

'i 25 wording on this one because if this was Herb's O

ANN RILEY~& ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

49 i

1 interpretation of what we said, no be it.

I am just saying i

2 that my feeling was that the message we were trying to get i

3 across is that the DOE information was just not readily 4

available to us and we weren't basically pounding down their 5

doors trying to get it.

f 6

DR. ISBIN:

I think each of us has certainly a i

7 different impression.

This is one-of the few times that I i

8 can recall that our Chairman, Dave Morrison, became a little 9

excited when he heard comments being made by Research of-l 10 being at sort of standoff lengths with DOE.

This-prompted 11 some rather strong statement made by our Committee Chairman.

i 12 I thought that the words here do indeed reflect F

13 what had happened at that particular meeting.

I leave to 14 the Chairman, because he was there.

l 15 DR. MORRISON:

I must confess that I come from the i

16 point of view that I think there is a Federal government, i

17 whether it's NRC, DOE, FAA, DOD or whatever.

It is a 1

18 Federal government, and I am a taxpayer.

I want to get 1

4 19 every value out of the dollar that I invest as a taxpayer.

20 If some organization is holding the cards close'to 1

21 their vest and not_ revealing'it to another organization, I 1

22 think something ought to be done about it, unless I am 23 protecting national security.or individual's representations j

y 24 or something like that.

i 25 It was my understanding when this-was raised at i

I A)

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 i

Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

50 1

the meeting, that the situation was very similar to what we 2

faced several years back in the high level waste program, 3

where the complaints from the NRC was that we can't get any l

4 information from DOE and DOE is investing a wh' ole hell of a 5

lot more money on high level waste than what we are.

The 6

Committee took a strong position at that time and now I

?

7 don't hear that comment anymore.

Maybe it's just because I 8

don't hear the comment anymore, but I also assume that J

9 there's a lot more information flowing.

)

i 10 The question back to you Brian is, is there 1

11 something there that would assist you in your research 12 program that DOE is doing and why shouldn't you be?

13 DR. SHERON:

Actually, we did.

We had a meeting 14 with them.

The only thing we found was this program at 15 Sandia called CYBL which is a lower head coolability type of 16 program.

There's no information on it yet that I 17 understand.

18 DR. ELTAWILA:

As Brian indicated, we had-a 19 meeting with DOE.

They give us a briefing about just words 20 about the program that they are sponsoring right now.

When 21 we asked Walt Pasedag to give us the information they answer 22 say he cannot do that immediately because he has.to go 23 through the vendors.

The work is going to.be used in.

i 24 certification and it has to be submitted formally-to the NRC

\\

25 on the docket.

He will not release it.

That's the word

- ]

2 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 3

1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 j

(202) 293-3950 i

51 1

that we heard from him.

O 2

DR. MORRISON:

What if I approached him with a 3

Freedom of Information Act request?

4 DR. ELTAWILA:

I don't know.

5 DR. SHERON:

They may try to hold it on exemption.

6 I really don't know.

7 MR. BECKJ3RD:

I can't think of an exemption under 8

which they could hold it.

9 DR. SHERON:

I don't either.

10 DR. ELTAWILA:

If Westinghouse is sharing the cost 11 it is an exemption.

12 MR. BECKJORD:

I don't think we need to debate 13 this at length.

I think it's important that we do have an 14 effective communication with them.

If this letter can help 15 us get that, fine.

I mean, if this comment here can help.

16 MR. BURSTEIN:

Mr. Chairman, I think we are 17 arguing the merits of the case without looking at these 18 words.

From what I hear I would leave them alone.

h.

19 DR. SHERON:

My only concern was that the 20 implication is that_the NRC staff's position was that we 21 were advocating an arms length relationship with DOE.

22 That's'not the case.

All we were saying was that we were 23 having difficulty obtaining data.

It was not readily 24 available.

We were not advocating that we don't want.it.

25 That is really what I am saying.

O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

52 1

I think we take exception.

We are not advocating 2

that we don't want to talk to these guys.

We are just 3

saying that --

4 MR. BECKJORD:

That's not what it says.

It 5

doesn't say that.

6 DR. SHERON:

It says we took exception to RES' 7

view that communications with DOE on ALWR remains 8

restricted.

9 DR. MOLZ:

If that is not an accurate statement of 10 RES' view then we shouldn't have it in there.

11 DR. MORRISON:

What is the correct statement.

12 MR. BURSTEIN:

What did RES say at the' meeting?

13 DR. SHERON:

What we said at the meeting was_that 14 we had not had good communications with DOE up to-that 15 point, that's all.

The information that DOE was generating, 16 if they were, was not readily available to the staff.

17 MR. BECKJORD:

I think that's what this statement 18 says.

As I read it, that's what it says.

19 MR. BURSTEIN:

That's not the way I read it.

20 DR. SHERON:

It's not the same.

21 DR. ISBIN:

You were given a reason why_the:

22 information couldn't be_readily transmitted to you. 'That's 23 restrictive, isn't it?-

24 DR. ELTAWILA:

This was after the fact. ~ We did 25 not state that in the meeting.

O 7d04 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

~

l 4

-53 1

DR. ISBIN:

That's the situation, isn't it?

I

_f 2

leave it to you, Mr. Chairman.

I am willing to accept 3

Eric's point of view here or Brian's point of view, but I i

4 think we should move on.

i l

5 DR. SHERON:

I am trying to think of some words 6

here.

7 MR. BUR 3TEIN:

The words are, the Subcommittee 8

expressed serious concern that RES communications with DOE l

9 on ALWR's remain restricted.

l i

10 DR. TODREAS:

That's a good way to put it.

11 DR. MORRISON:

Would you repeat those words again, j

12 Sol?

i 13 MR. BURSTEIN:

The Subcommittee expressed serious 14 concern that RES communications with DOE on ALWR's remain 15 restricted.

f 16 DR. MORRISON:

All right.

If there's no r

17 disagreement, let's accept that and move on.

18 DR. SHERON:

The next one is also on page five-l 19 under core melt progression.

It says the Subcommittee 20 believes that the core melt progression issue is close to

.l 21-resolution and concurs with the milestones set by RES.

l

\\

22 I guess we don't feel comfortable -- the staff j

23 doesn't feel -- that core melt progression is close at hand,

{

i 24 the resolution.

25 MR. BURSTEIN:

We are going to cut off your money i

5 i

)

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters i

1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 j

Washington, D.C. 20006 i

(202) 293-3950 I

l

-..-. = _

l l

.i 54 1

anyway, so it better be close.

2 DR. ISBIN:

We are talking only about one BWR type 3

test in this last phase progression.

Late phase has-only I

4 one test 5

DR. SHERON:

No, there's the MP series of tests.

6 Those are right now only looking at crust failure.

7 DR. ISBIN:

All right.

MP-1 and MP-2-have been 8

run.

9 DR. SHERON:

Right.

10 DR. ISBIN:

The emphasis was on the BWR dry core.

11 DR. SHERON:

There were two tests going on.at the 12 time.

One was on the reactor test which was the BWR, 1;

whether it drains or forms a blockage.

That was one issue.

14 DR. ISBIN:

Right.

15 DR. SHERON:

The other issue is the whole question 16 of crucible formation, melt relocation, lower head failure.

17 That's late phase melt progression.

The only test we had 18 going at the time was MP-1 and MP-2.

We put a hold'after 19 MP-2.

That was something the staff said we were going to 20 do, and we were going to do a complete peer. review of late 21 phase melt progression to determine if there was a test 22 program that could be run that would provide the definitive 23 data needed to put the issue to bed.

24 DR. ISBIN:

That's right.

I agree with that.

25 DR. SHERON:

We are not even at that point yet.

l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

1 Court Reporters i

1612 K Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 l

Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950 J

r-.

i

l 55 1

DR. ISBIN:

We talk about the peer review.

2 DR. SHERON:

But that doesn't mean that the 3

resolution --

1 4

DR. ELTAWILA:

Is close.

5 DR. SHERON:

Is close.

Unless you are saying the 6

resolution is that we can't solve the issue.

The point is 7

that just by running the MP-2 test does-not resolve late 8

phase core melt progression.

There are many, many other 9

aspects of it which we haven't even started to look at.

10 For example, MP-2 just looks at the interaction 11 between melt and a crust.

12 DR. ISBIN:

I understand.

13 DR. SHERON:

There's theories now that say that 14 crusts are going to fail high up on the side when they reach 15 some sort of a boundary.

This wasn't -- it's my j

16 understanding that this wasn't even the theory several 17 months ago.

The thought was that you have a molten' pool in 18 a crust and you would get the highest heat fluxes on certain 19 portions of the crust.

It was that higher heat flux that 1

l 20 was going to cause the point of failure.

{

21 MR. BURSTEIN:

Excuse me, Brian.

Without 22 regurgitating the entire presentation, the first part of'

.i 23 that sentence says with the additional tests already planned-24 and with the peer reviews for such tests in place, assuming 25 that you go through with those plans does that mean that 7dai RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

m i

56 1

it's close to resolution?

i 2

DR. SHERON:

No.

j f

3 DR. MORRISON:

Excuse me --

i 4

MR. BURSTEIN:

That's an inaccurate statement.

i 5

You and Dr. Isbin have to straighten that out.

6 DR. MORRISON:

Sol, let:me back up from that a 7

moment.

This is a Subcommittee view.

The Subcommittee 8

believes that the issue is near closure.

The staff can

~

9 disagree with that if that's their position on it.

We only i

s 10 concur with the milestones set by RES.

It's the 11 Subcommittee's view that the issue is close to resolution.

12 I am hearing a different point of view.

)

13 MR. BURSTEIN:

The Subcommittee got that from the

'l 14 staff, and the staff is saying that's not the case.

i 15 DR. ISBIN:

Fred, are:you there?

l 16 DR. MOLZ:

Yes, I am here.

I 17 DR. ISBIN:

I think we are in agreement with the 18 statement as given, aren't wt.

19 DR. MOLZ:

Basically, yes, although I am not sure.

20 if we discussed it in such detail at the meeting that we 21 discern these perceptions between the differences in these 22 perceptions between the Committee and the staff.

23 MR. BURSTEIN:

I have one answer for you.

Change 24 the word is to should be.

25 DR. MOLZ:

Yes, that would soften it a little bit.

O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300

-Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950-I

- ~. -...

1 4'.

57 1

DR..

ISBIN:

The statement as given, is a l

2 reflection of what the Subcommittee actually thought.

I v

3 need to count on you, Fred, because I am using almost some l

f'I 4

of your words here.

I agree with you.

We may be wrong, but i

5 I think this was certainly our judgment based upon what we 6

heard and the caveats that we have at the beginning of the 7

sentence do set the stage.

t 8

What do you think, Fred?

l 9

DR. MOLZ:

I really don't have a problem with the 10 statement as it exists.

If a number of people think we i

11 should soften it a little bit I don't have a problem with i

12 that, either.

-ij 13 DR MORRISON:

Dick Vogel, what is your opinion on l

14 this?

j 15 DR. VOGEL:

I wonder if maybe part of the 16 confusion is that we need to think in terms of core melt l

17 progression in two steps, one the early collapse-core and so-

)

I 18 on and then at a later stage.

It s. ems to me that we are 19 clor.

to being complete in our understanding of the early -

20 21 DR. SHERON:

Right, exactly.

We would agree, that 22 early phase is close to completion.

23 DR. VOGEL:

Right.

But the later phase, I feel i

24 uncomfortable in claiming that that's near to completion or 25 perhaps ever will be.

Have I complicated things?

\\

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporterc 1612 E Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 i

Washington, D.C.

20000 (202) 293-3950 i

i

,.-..,I

- ~.

58 1

DR. TODREAS:

You have complicated it a little for

.O_'

2 me, because the next sentence that is written dawn

~

I 3

specifically addressed what you thought of the late phase.

4 It says that while the staff told you it'needed more 5

attention -- you may or may not have bought it, but -ycx1 said 6

wait until the peer reviews have been assessed -- and then 7

you make up your mind.

I don't see what's new.

l 8

DR. ISBIN:

I am comfortable with what we have 1

9 said.

If the staff wants to comment on it in its response, 10 we will get the comments and we will handle it.

I think j

11 this accurately represents what the Subcommittee believed at 4

i 1

12 the time that we heard the report.

j T

DR. MORRISON:

Herb, let me ask just one more 14 question on that line that we were hung up on, the j

15 Subcommittee believes that core melt progression is close to

{

16 resolution.

Would it be appropriate to say that the early i

17 phase core melt progression issue is close to resolution?.

18 DR. ISBIN:

The early phase, nobody has any 19 problem with.

It's only the late phase, and it's only the 20 late phase that we are really addressing here.

21 DR. MORRISON:

I guess the longer we talk the more 22 confused I get.

When we get down to that last sentence 23 then, we emphasize that the late phase needs more attention.

21 DR. ISBIN:

No, the staff thinks that.

The staff I

25 thinks that, but we have some reservations.

We are trying l.

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006

{

(202) 293-3950' 1

.I

.~

3 i

59 c

-1 to be consistent with the idea that closure willLeomplete 0-2 all' major severe accident experimental programs within the 3

next two or three years.

[

4 You have plans for these tests, and we are willing.

j 5

to see what the peer reviews have to say about what you 6

accomplish.

I 7

MR. BECKJORD:

I would stand by your comments.

8 DR. ISBIN:

Thank you.

9 DR. MORRISON:

Any other comments on core melt i

10 progression from the Committee?

11 DR. TODREAS:

I think the give and take is 12 healthy.

I think you ought to stay with what's written and i

13 come back and clarify what they think, and then the 14 Committee will have another meeting and go at it again.

You i

15 don't have to build Rome in one day on an issue-like this.

16 DR. MORRISON:

Thank you, Neil.

We will accept

)

17 your suggestion, and move on.

Any other comments from the 18 Committee on the report?

19 DR. SHERON:

Do you mean staff?

l 20 DR. MORRISON:

Staff, I will come back.to the j

21 staff.

I think we ought to keep it on questions of fact and 22 where we differ on fact, rather than where we differ on 23 interpretation.

Brian, do you have any more that you want 24 to bring up?

25 DR. SHERON:

No.

I did want to just -

this would b

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

)

a

i I

t I

l 60 1

not be a fact so I' won't pursue it.

The only other one that f

O 2

would be on page 12, just more editorial.

It says RES is 3

establishing a special computer facility for carrying out 4

code calculations.

I just wanted to clarify that it's t

5 really not a special facility.

6 What it is, is we are installing work stations.

7 It'E just basically work stations are. going to be installed l

1 8

in various staff member offices.

I just didn't want to l

9 leave the impression that we had some special room or j

10 something.

11 MR. BECKJORD:

That's a work station.

-)

I 12 DR. SHERON:

Strictly.

]

13 DR. TODREAS:

It's a dedicated work station.

. O 14 DR. SHERON:

It's installing dedicated work t

15 stations for carrying out code calculations.

16 DR. ISBIN:

That is helpful.

17 DR. TODREAS:

Fine.

18 DR. MORRISON:

Anything else, Brian?

19 DR. SHERON:

No.

~

20 DR. MORRISON:

Tom, did you have anything to add?

21 MR. KING:

No.

22 DR. MORRISON:

How about you, Farouk?

23 DR. ELTAWILA:

No, thank you.

24 DR. MORRISON:

Can I conclude that the Committee 25 now concurs with the Subcommittee report, as amended, and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

t-r L

61 I

t i

that Herb will take care of adding a few changes.

We will 2

then accept the report of the Subcommittee as a report of l

l 3

the Committee?

4 DR. TODREAS:

So moved.

5 DR. MORRISON:

Are there any objections?

i 6

[No response.]

L 7

DR. MORRISON:

Hearing none, we accept it as a 8

report.

We compliment you, Herb, for your patience and 9

endurance in preparing it as well as hearing all the 10 comments and questions on it.

L 11 Eric, you had a comment?

12 MR. BECKJORD:

Not on the report.

l I

L 13 DR. MORRISON:

The issue of the report is over and 14-done with, we can move to other very limited items, since I

.O 15 know you folks have hung on your. telephones for quite a 1

16 while.

Eric, what do you want to bring up?

17 MR. BECKJORD:

We are sending out a note which you 18 will get in a few days, just asking for your suggestions for 19 candidates to replace those of you who will be leaving the l

20 Committee this coming year.

I just thought I would mention 21 that and emphasize it now.

I have gotten suggestions from 22 several people.

If you have any names that you have in mind-23 for Committee membership, get them to me or to George, 24 please.

25 DR. MORRISON:

I have just one other. item, and i

ANN R1 LEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 i

Washington, D.C.

20006 I

(202) 293-3950 1

.1 i

- ~,..

._-.I

I

?

62 C'--

1 that's to remind everybody that the next Committee meeting 2

is in January, on the 13th and 14th.

What we will plan to l

3 do at that meeting is to have a very open discussion on the-1 3

4 questions that were proposed by the Commission to us back in I

5 our meeting with them in July.

{

t 6

In addition, we may want to also discuss some-i 7

aspects of the organizati of research to do its job, to j

8 fulfill its mission wit.

NRC.

Prior to'that meeting, I 1

'l 9

think we can put together a fairly' detailed agenda.

You-j h

10 should be thinking about those as topics that we want to l

11 discuss at that meeting.

12 That is all that I had.

George, is there anything-13 of note that we ought to cover yet?

O 14 MR. SEGE:

No, I don't think so, Mr. Chairman.

i 15 DR, MORRISON:

Any parting comments from'any 4

16 members?

l 17 DR. VOGEL:

Do we have a Waste 9.bcommittee 18 meeting still scheduled in San Antonio in December?

19 DR. MOLZ:

Yes.

It's actively being planned.

I 20 should shortly have some information that I will send out to 21 the Subcommittee members, some preliminary information.

t 22 DR. MORRISON:

We also have a Human Factors 23 Advanced Instrumentation and Control Meeting in November, 24 the latter part of November, the 29th and the 30th.

Those 25 two Subcommittee meetings are scheduled then.

k ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,

Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 L

(202) 293-3950 I

,-r-v v-

-w v----

r t

63' 1

I thank you very much for your patience and your j

O 2

endurance in participating in this meeting.

It's very l

3 tough, I know, to be on the other end of the_ phone.

Perhaps 4

the time that you saved in not having to travel to 5

Washington or some other place, it's worth the ear ache that 6

you got in holding on to the telephone.

l

)

7 With that, let's close the meeting and adjourn.

l 8

[Whereupon, at 5:50 p.m.,

the meeting concluded.]

l 9

j 10 11 3

12

)

.t 13 l

l f

14

i

~

15 l

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O.

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1612 K Street,.N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950

. =

~,

'O REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE f

i This is to certify that the attached proceedings i

before the United States Nuclear Regulatory commission in the matter of:

f NAME OF PROCEEDING: Nuclear Safety Research Review i

DOCKET NUMBER:

- PLACE OF PROCEEDING:

Bethesda, MD were held as herein appears, and that this is the-original transcript thereof for the file of the i

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting.by me or under the direction of the court reporting O

company, and that the transcript is a true and i

accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.

Nw 747%"M -

Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.

4 A

I r

c 3 rg.,

ye..g g

g