ML20134P606

Transcript of ACRS 970214 Meeting Re Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee in Los Angeles,Ca.Pp 717-734 & Closed Session.Pp 540-716

ML20134P606
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/14/1997
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:
References
ACRS-T-2091, NUDOCS 9702260044
Download: ML20134P606 (20)

Text

.- - - - - _ . .. . . - - - - - - - . . ..

OfficicI Trcnscript cf Precccdings

.: g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

A CRST-2091 i

Title:

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee

l l

TRO4 (ACRS)

. Docket Number: (not applicable) arrunn OarornAt

, TO BJWHITE

! M/S T-2E26 i 415-7130 THANKS!

! Location: Los Angeles,' California 3 1

O Date: Friday, February 14,1997 l (ljnged semdM W Work Order No.: NRC-1008 Pages 717-734 i

_ .- ~ r l ABS OSe Sogy- Reza. n

,. o  :

me cognittee LO$S AND CO., INC.

a! NEAl Ol l i .

Court Reporters and Transcribers i 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. 1

Washington, D.C. 20005 i (202) 234-4433 2s00g1

O '

MA 28#s4 97o214 ~

T-2091 PDR

l 717 '

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

()

G +++++

3 4 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE 5 THERMAL HYDRAULIC PHENOMENA SUBCOMMITTEE 6 +++++

7 OPEN SESSION 8 +++++

9 FRIDAY 10 FEBRUARY 14, 1997 11 -++++

12 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 13 +++++

)

'"' 14 The Subcommittee met in Presidents Room B of 15 the Doubletree Westwood Hotel, 10750 Wilshire Boulevard, 16 at 8:00 a.m., Ivan Catton, Chairman, presiding.

17 18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

19 IVAN CATTON Chairman 20 MARIO FONTANA Member 21 THOMAS S. KRESS Member 22 ROBERT L. SEALE Member 23 l

l 24 l [;

[ (/ 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433

718 1 ACRS STAFF PRESENT:

rN 2 Paul Boehnert N.]

3 4 ACRS CONSULTANT PRESENT:

5 Virgil Schrock 6 )

7 ALSO PRESENT:  !

8 George Bankoff  !

9 David Bessette 10 Farouk Eltawila 11 Joe Kelly 12 Jim Wolf em 13 Gary Johnsen i

r'~'j i,

Paul Bayless 14 15 Marcos Ortiz 16 Don Fletcher 17 Tom Larson 18 Gary Wilson 19 Cliff Davis 20 Norm Lauben 21 Bob Osterrieder 22 Walt Jensen 23 Simon Smith 24  ;

i f~h\ .

\s' 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 d

I 719 .

I 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S l

2 CHAIRMAN CATTON: I guess we'll need to O<- 3 caucus.

! 4 Virgil, I'd like to get something from -- j i

e 5 Well, first maybe I ought to see what everybody has to 1{

I 6_ say. i 7 Virgil, you're the only consultant.

MR. SCHROCK: That puts me on the spot, 8

]1 9 doesn't it? j 10 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Yes, it does.

11 MR. SCHROCK: Okay. Well, what can I say. I {

I i 12 think that we have very encouraging information in what

! 13 Dave Bessette and diMarzo presented in the sense of the l

()

14 simplicity of the system and the assurance that maybe the j l

15 calculations don't matter to us quite as much as we .j i

16 thought in that problem . 3 17 As far as the scaling analysis is concerned, I <

18 think that the results of both of these attempts to scale i

19 the facilities and answer the question of whether the data i J

20- are adequate give a tremendous amount of encouragement 21 that, in fact, the data are adequate. I've got a sort of l 22 seat-of-the-pants feeling, I think I expressed in an 23 earlier meeting, that-that's probably true.

! 24 I think there's a need to be a little cautious

[- ) 25 about overstating the case for what the scaling analysis i l NEAL R. GROSS i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 1 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000 # 3701 (202) 234-4433 j l

1 -m -

+e w-- ,,,.m.-----m-- -d-.r,-.p

I 720 1 has shown, given the fact that there are some assumptions

,73 2 that exclude kinds of phenomena that we know have been

() 3 troubling to the assessment of PWR safety for a long time, ,

4 all reactor safety, for that matter.

5 So I think the scaling contribution is a very 6 positive one. I think it's important to get the 7 documentation finished up on it. There are some omissions 8 and some changes in numbers in the INEL one that clearly 9 need to be fixed up.

10 I noticed some need to be a little more 11 attentive to getting the references right. I think,  ;

12 rather than giving references -- I've commented on this 13 before, I know -- give credit to the author. I mean  !

(' ') 14 there's reference in there by Carpos, Armour Research 15 Foundation in Chicago back in the late fifties or 1960 16 time frame, and it's a good reference. I'm, happy to see 17 it there, but nobody would be able to find it by looking 18 at the reference as it's cited. It's AIR Research 19 Foundation rather than Armour Research Foundation. The i

20 man's name is not given, and the title of the report is 21 not given.

22 So I'd like to see more attention to getting i

23 the documentation right on the references and use the 24 references that are most significant. If something has f3

(_,) 25 been published after peer review, give that reference; and I

l NEAL R. GROSS l

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 2344 433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433

721 1 if reference to a report, if all there is is a report, of' 2 course, that's what you have to give as a reference.

l i 3 I think the scaling thing is as good as it's 4 going to be, and I think that it is providing a very 5 positive contribution to the understanding that the data 6 base for assessment of the codes is really a good one, and 7 it's probably going to do an adequate job.

l 8 I think we need to keep open an alert eye to 9 the possibility that something hasn't really been l '10 identified yet that could crop up still, and that will not

! 11 happen if we'over-emphasize the rigor that's involved in 12 this scaling methodology. It, in both cases, involves l

13 considerable amount of assumption.

O 14 RELAPS, I think, is in need of further 15 improvement. I don't agree at all with the language 16 that's used in identifying acceptability. I think that 17 the language ought to be more self-critical, and I think 18 that there should be a more quantitative measure involved 19 rather than the one that is applied.

20 So I can't identify what it is, but I think 21 that the people who control this, which means Research, I 22 guess, need to insist on something that has a little i 23 tighter meaning to it and something which can stand up i

l 24 under the scrutiny of people who might be looking at it.

() 25 As we look at some of the presentations, some NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 1

722 1 of the graphs of results, and we say that looks poor to 2 us, but to the contractor it looks reasonable or even, in 3 some cases, good.  ;

~l .

4 So I think those are the main comments that I i i

5 have. I think we've moved a lot closer to having a good,  !,

1 6 satisfactory product here, and I think we'll get there, _

7 but I'm still reluctant to say categorically, yes, the j 1

8- code is capable of doing all these things; yes, the j 9 scaling has done all these things. j 10 I think there are some caveats that have to be 11 added to that. f 12 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Virgil, if you -- I don't )

13 want to spoil your vacation, but -- q O 14 MR. SCHROCK: Okay. No , you can't, because

)

15 I'm not going to do that, j 16 CHAIRMAN CATTON: When do you think you can i

17 get me something? You're going to be --

18 MR. SCHROCK: Let's say the 28th of February.  ;

i l

19 Is that soon enough? i 20 MEMBER SEALE: Two weeks.

21 CHAIRMAN CATTON: What day of the. Week is 22 that?  ;

23 MEMBER SEALE: Friday.

24 CHAIRMAN CATTON: That's tight.

25 MR. SCHROCK: That's tight?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

723 1 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Yes, because the letter fy 2 that's going to be written will be the following week. If N) you could get it to me on that Friday, that probably would 3

4 be okay. Then I can spend my weekend --

5 MR. SCHROCK: By FAX.

6 CHAIRMAN CATTON: By FAX.

7 MR. SCHROCK: To your home.

8 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Right. Okay.

9 George, you're going to FAX me something, too.

10 Right?

11 MR. BANKOFF: Right.

12 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Good. Mario, do you have 7, 13 any parting comments?

) 14 MEMBER FONTANA: Well, from what I've heard, 15 it appears that the plant is going to be able to withstand 16 these kind of challenges. It's good, because it's 17 supposed to be designed to do that.

18 It appears that the RELAP5 code, in the hands 19 of competent and talented users, can probably be used, 20 too. That raises a question of documentation. Say, a few 21 years from now, the users who are going to use this code 22 probably won't have a detailed knowledge of the quirks 23 inside and will know when to stop and when to start it and l

l 24 the various things that today's users can do. l i

(\

l

(_) 25 So I think documentation is going to be really l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 l i

d

I 724

! 1 important.

L s 2 That's all I have.

l l 3 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Okay. Tom?

4 MEMBER KRESS: Yes. I'd like to reinforce the l 5 feeling that this was a good job, well done, and that it's 6 nice to see that AP600 is so robustly designed that these i

7 design basis accidents are pretty well handled and that 8 the deficiencies in RELAP, whatever they might be, don't j 9 really make that much difference in the final figure of 10 merit which is the minimum water level in the core. ,

l 11 I think that is a good figure of merit for 12 those design basis accidents, and I think the scaling was i

13 very competent, very good, and did show that the various 'j i t 14 test facilities are well scaled and that the AP600 l l

15 conditions are met.

16 I don't think there's -- doesn't appear to be )

I 17 any need for additional tests.  ;

18 Those are my positive comments. A couple of 19 minor negative ones. We learned a lot in this study about

20. some of the deficiencies in RELAP that don't matter in 21 this case,.but could matter for other uses of RELAP. I 22 would encourage Research to continue trying to improve the q 23 RELAP models in those areas. l 24- With respect to the acceptability criteria, I f 25 think, actually, your qualitative measures of i

NEAL R. GROSS

! COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

725 1 acceptability have in them an implied quantitative value.

2 You've talked about whether or not they meet the data 7s i i

~

3 spread, the error bands, and whether or not they follow 4 the trends and whether or not they're significantly out of 5 those, i

6 Those could be converted into quantitative 7 values if you know the error bands in the data, which I 8 think you do know. I would encourage a little bit more 9 converting those and telling us what they mean in terms of 10 quantitative values.

11 I think they're good, by the way. I have no i 12 problem with those as choices for acceptance criteria. I 13 think we're in pretty good shape, frankly, and I like what

/,_T Y- 14 I've heard.

15 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Bob?

16 MEMBER SEALE: I have a couple of comments 17 beyond what has already been said, none of which I 18 disagree with.

19 As far as -- Well, two things. One, the use 20 of the OSU facility now, the kinds of things that Joe was 21 telling us about just before we ended up, is really 22 exciting. It shows that a ease of communication and 23 directing the objective of research is being developed 24 between the NRC staff and the experimenters, and that is,

(,,) 25 I know, an important element in some other things that I

NEAL R. GROSS t COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.  !

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 q

11 726 1 you're-talking about and the way you want to see things go 3 2 here in the future.

.g '

3 So I think the demonstration of that 4 capability that you're doing here in this particular case 5 is something you want to keep very good track of, because 6 I think it can be very persuasive in your arguments about "7 that being the way in which you might want to go in some -j 8 of your other developments of codes and so on. j r 9 I think the work -- That interaction is just f i

)

10 right on. i l

11 The other thing I would urge or Tom talks  ;

12 about quantitative. I guess, in terms of the standards l l

13 for the comments, the way in which you' characterize the j 14 quality of fit or no fit, usability for prediction or lack j i

15- of ability to predict and so forth, perhaps could profit j !

16 if you could get some input from your user. (l 1

17 Those comments of excellent or reasonable and- -;

i 18 so on are fine, but do they tell the user what he or she 19 needs to know when they get ready to use the code? I l 20 would think something that was a little bit more specific 21 in where the high spots are, where the difficulties are, 22 the importance of the quality of the input in certain key _

23 areas, that kind of thing would be much, much more useful 24 to the user than just making the kinds -- Well, and maybe

(%

(,). 25 you don't use those anyway, you know.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 33

727 1 Maybe we're getting fed thin beer here, so to

~

j 2 speak, in terms of the comments that are made, but 3 wherever -- When you get ready to talk to the user, when 4 you get ready to give the user something to work with, I i

1 5 sure hope that your characterizati m of the quality of the )

'I 6 output is much more useful. l

)

7 Just put yourself in the user's position and

}

8 ask yourself what would you like to have when you get i

9 ready to use this -- open up this black box and hope all I t

10 the wasps don't crawl out?

l 11 That's my comments.

l'2 CHAIRMAN CATTON: These are probably those big .j 13 ones that come from somewhere else.

14 MEMBER SEALE: Yes. Well, Pandora had the 15 same problem, you know.

16 CHAIRMAN CATTON: I really don't have a lot to j 17 add, but we have to decide what we're going to do

?

18 Thursday. I guess that's really your job, Tom, but I'll [

19 see what I can do. )

^

20 MEMBER KRESS: I would appreciate that. ]

I 21 CHAIRMAN CATTON: I think that the two scaling 22 studies need to be presented and, in particular, the fact 23 that the b . tom line, they agree. That, I think, is 24 'really key.

25 MEMBER KRESS: You know, I think we need to l

I NEAL R. GROSS - I COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVE., N.W. ]

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

728 1 show some of the comparisons in the tests and the data.

2 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Oh, yes. Yes, some of the 3 kind of stuff that Banerjee did.

4 MEMBER KRESS: I think it's going to take 5 about three hours.

6 CHAIRMAN CATTON: How long -- What did we 7 schedule?

8 MR. BOEHNERT: An hour and three-quarters.

9 MEMBER KRESS: We've got about an hour less 10 than we need.

11 MEMBER SEALE: Yes. Sam will scream, but

! 12 we're going to have to.

5 13 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Well, what's this next one iO j; 14 here?

i-l 15 MR. BOEHNERT: That's the question list.

f 16 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Oh, okay. I guess we'll a

j 17 just let Sam scream.

.r .

i 18 MR. BOEHNERT: You want three hours?

19 CHAIRMAN CATTON.: Three hours.

l 20 MEMBER KRESS: I think it's going to take the i

21 full three hours.

22 MEMBER SEALE: Sure. It really will.

23 MEMBER KRESS: Because, you know, we don't 5

24 have a good -- There was a lot of members on the committee 25 that aren't here, and they need to hear this.

NEAL R. GROSS -1 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-37C1 (202) 234-4433

'Il 729 1 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Now Ilthink,.on'the code, we  !

2 don't.need to hear a lot of the detail, but I think enough l.

t l

3 to put across the flavor; but the main thing, I think, 4 that would be helpful would be to address some of these l

5 issues that Tom and Bob raised about the figure of merit

! 6 and maybe even some suggestions about what you plan to do, l-7 particularly what Bob said, the input from the users.

l

! 8 You need something that will tell the user l-9 what he needs to know. If you just say reasonable, that l 10 doesn't tell me anything. If I look at the --

l I

11 MEMBER KRESS: They have a firm definition.

L l

12 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Well, they do, but, see, the 13 reasonable applies to whether or not a particular thing.

14 associated with AP600. If they say. reasonable, it should 15 be something more fundamental on that, so that if the code 16 is reasonable, I use it without concern. Here, I can't do 17 that.

18 MEMBER KRESS: These definitions are strictly 19 qualified for an AP600 small break LOCA.

20 CHAIRMAN CATTON: And I think you need to 21 think about broadening that out a bit, so that when you 22 say the code is reasonable for something, I don't have to I' 23 -- I can apply it to something other than just AP600.

i

, 24 I'm finding a lot of the deficiencies --

I

() 25 MEMBER KRESS: I wanted to ask you about that.

NEAL R. GROSS 4

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 33

730 f

1 That's an almost completely different task.

fs 2 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Yes, it is.

f )

'%/ And it's going to require a lot 3 MEMBER KRESS:

4 of thinking, and you have to -- I think it's application 5 specific, and you have to decide what the application is f 6 going to be before you can make the criteria you want in.

7 I think that's something worth thinking about, but it's 8 asking an awful lot at this point.

9 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Well, then every page had l

10 better be stamped AP600.

11 MEMBER KRESS: I think we'd be better off 12 being very sure we stress that qualification.

13 MEMBER SEALE: And that's one of the things I

/ ~ N.

'> 14 had in mind when I say help the user.

s 15 CHAIRMAN CATTON: I think that somehow the 16 PIRT got off track. When we started doing these things a 17 long time ago for CSAU, when they said phenomena, they 18 meant phenomena. Are your boiling heat transfer 19 coefficients any good? Are you friction losses any good? ,

i 20 Somehow this all got changed, and the change -

21 -

22 MEMBER KRESS: Got changed to the parameters 23 that are calculated to --

24 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Change lost the connection  !

/m 25 to the physics in the code. I'd really like to see that

(_

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

731

[

1 turned back. Turn back the clock a bit, so that when you t

n 2 tell me your code is good, I know what it's good for, not

)

v 3 the device.

4 MEMBER KRESS: That may be another study later 5 on.

I 6 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Well, no. I hear that, but 7 the present kind of PIRT, in my view, serves not too much 8 purpose for anything other than the specific application. .

+

9 MEMBER KRESS: I agree.

10 CHAIRMAN CATTON: If you take a look back what 11 was done on CSAU, you'11 find that there are statements 12 made about the heat transfer coefficients, about this 13 guy's thing,'about interfacial drag and other things that 14 have to do with a more general application of the tool, 15 and RELAP or TRAC or whatever it becomes is a general 16 purpose tool for the agency, and they ought to know about 17 that general purpose tool. i 18 MEMBER KRESS: That might be something they 19 need to think about. We have to view the PIRT we have now 20 as a very limited application PIRT.

21 CHAIRMAN CATTON: But, you see, they have done 22 this study. It's on the table. Can't they drop out of it l

23 some statements about these other things?

24 MEMBER KRESS: That would be something worth -

(-

() 25 - as a follow-up.

l l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

E 732 1 CHAIRMAN CATTON: If they don't do that, j t-l r- - :2 you're going to lose it.

N-)) 3 MEMBER KRESS: I agree. That would be an l

4 excellent follow-up, and along the same lines, I like this L 5 beyond design basis stuff that they're doing. I wouldn't 6 want to see it presented to-the full committee just yet.

I 7 So that's something we can leave off, but I think it's ^;

1 8 very good stuff that they need to continue, j

, 1 l .

D 9 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Well, on the other hand, it t, 10 gives you a better picture of what the tool can be used [

1 11 for. In that sense, I think it's important.

I

)

12 You know, what I would not like to see happen ii J

, 13 is, okay, we're done, finished, put it away; and four or. j

! 14 five years from now, another problem surfaces, and you lf L 4' 15 say, okay, and you reach back three or four years.

i 16 I think there should be some kind of a low {

! 17 level effort -- and I don't know what low means -- where )

l l 18 what you do is you make a very concerted effort to pick .;

I t l 19 these things up and fix them so that you can -- i i

l 1 20 MEMBER KRESS: Might be interface drag. )

i i

21 CHAIRMAN CATTON: That's right. I mean, there l

22 was a really -- the one that came up that just hit you in I

23 the face was the-subcooled boiling. It's just not treated

, 24 right, and I think it's not that difficult to go in and s) 25 try to figure out what to do with it; but it brings a NEAL R. GROSS  ;

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

i 733 1 number of things together.

2 It brings in this Weber number criterion for 3 the drop.of bubble sizes, subcooled boiling, and then 4 people start talking about coherence of the bubbles on the j 5 wall. Bubbles ain't coherent. They grow and collapse,

6. and you got a lot of them, and you're not going to get 7 those kinds of swings in mass.

8 MEMBER KRESS: But you agree, those things are q

)

9 not necessary for the AP600. ,]

r 10 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Yes, but we're -- I hope, ,i

y.

11 we're going to address a little bit broader question, 't 12 which is RELAP5 in the future. l t

13 MEMBER SEALE: I think that's what I -- That's U So -- o 14 certainly what I was talking about.

15 CHAIRMAN CATTON: You're right.

16 MEMBER SEALE: -- that on these experiments --

17 CHAIRMAN CATTON: It's like lessons learned. .l 18 There were a lot of lessons in this exercise. Let's 19 document them, and then you can pick them up and say, 20 okay, I'm going to take care of this lesson by doing i 4

21 something.

22 The only one I really heard a positive 23 statement made on is this horizontal stratification and 24 the entrainment. That's the only one I heard a clear 25 statement made on, but there were others as we went along.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISt.AND AVE., N.W.

- (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

734 1 Let's go back and pull them out and look at .

t l 2 them, and do something with them, and put them on some t

l 3 sort of a list that you're going to work on them as time

! '4 passes. Elsewise, why do you have this competence build-up i

5 in'Research? -I think you ought to be using it. If you 6 don't give the people something to do, they're. going to .,

1 7 leave, if they have anything inside them, they will.

l l

8 MEMBER KRESS: .We've got to give Simon ,

l- j 9 something to do. j

! 10 CHAIRMAN CATTON: That's enough preaching. 1 l 11 MR. ELTAWILA: Jennifer here said that she )

i 12 wanted to start working on the flow model. Before she  :

l- l l 13 even left the meeting, she says can I work on it, you i O 14 know. So there are --

15 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Okay. I'm done. Anybody.

t t

i 16 else have anything to say?

17 MEMBER SEALE: Thank you very much.

l \

l l 18 CHAIRMAN CATTON: Thank you, and I agree with 19 Tom. It's been a long battle. l 20 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off the 21- record at 1:01 p.m.)

22 l

23- )

l

' 24 l '25 l 1

\

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 y- --y= t

e l CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:

l l

Name of Proceeding: ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON THERMAL  !

HYDRAULIC PHENOMENA (OPEN SESSION)

Docket Number: N/A Place of Proceeding: LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear f~')

t Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to i

typewriting by me or under the direction of the court j reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.

A tbL "CORBETT RINER Official Reporter Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.