ML20140F659

Summary of ACRS Subcommittee on Class 9 Accidents 850125 Meeting in Washington,Dc Re Severe Accident Research Program & Redirection as Result of Budget or Revised Informational Needs

ML20140F659
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/06/1985
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-2275, NUDOCS 8507120160
Download: ML20140F659 (7)

Text

-

1. CRs-pA %

f,f'jf lP] POR o& DIG S Date Issued: 3/6/85 h

shg /ss PROPOSED MEETING MINUTES ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLASS 9 ACCIDENTS JANUARY 25, 1985 WASHINGTON, DC The ACRS Subcommittee on Class 9 Accidents held a meeting on January 25, 1985, in Room 1046, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the severe accident research program (SARP) and its redirection as a result of budget or revised informatic,nal needs. Attachment A is the Attendance list and Attachment B is the Reference list.

Principal Attendees ACRS NRC W. Kerr, Chairman M. Silberberg C. Siess, Member R. Wright M. Carbon, Member L. Chan D. Ward, Member T. Lee P. Shewmon, Member J. Teleford I. Catton, Consultant G. Burdick M. Bender, Consultant T. Walker J. Lee, Consultant P. Worthington M. Corradini, Consultant B. Cook, EG&G P. Davis, Consultant A. Wang, Staff, DF0 Meeting Highlights, Agreements, and Request

1. W. Kerr opened the meeting by stating that he is working on the report to Congress. He forwarded a set of questions on SARP (Attachment C) to the Staff which he hrspes will be answered during this meeting. He noted that the draft supplement to NUREG-0900 will be used as the outline for the meeting. He asked the Staff to note any changes that have occurred since it was written.

8507120160 850306

$5 PDR

~.

Class 9 Meeting Minutes January 25, 1985

2. M. Silberberg presented an overview of the SARP. The draft supplement to NUREG-0900 is a working document depending on budget, ,

IDCOR interaction and the APS review. He expects that the source term re, assessment will be completed before FY 1986.

3. W. Kerr asked the Staff to distinguish between " source tem regulatory implementation" and " severe accident policy".

R. Bernero stated that the severe accident policy deals with the approaches for assessing the risk of existing plants and the needs for potential backfits. The " source term regulatory implementation" will identify those parts of regulations and related standards where changes are warranted based on the new source term knowledge.

4. W. Kerr noted that the severe accident policy statement is complete and the source term reassessment and severe accident risk reduction program (SARRP) are scheduled to be completed in FY 1985.

Information is needed on why funding is required in 1986 and beyond. M. Silberberg said the proposed research is confirmatory, designed to reduce uncertainties and to improve methodology.

S. W. Kerr asked the Staff to explain the relationship between l

research and policy. He believes that in order to propose a l

research program, one needs to know the objectives. Unless

( criteria regarding acceptable uncertainties, risk, early fatalities, and other important parameters are defined, he does not f see how those evaluating the research results will know if they j

have met their objectives. M. Silberberg stated that research and policy are a parallel effort. The Staff needs more information to formulate a policy. R. Bernero that noted the Staff is preparing for the Consnission a menu of possible regulatory changes and their l priorities. Z. Rosztoczy observes that the Staff is formulating a j program to identify questions and decisions yet to be nade.

• Class 9 Meeting Minutes January 25, 1985

6. W. Kerr asked whether Commission approval of the proposed SAP will affect the research program. R. Bernero answered no.

7. W. Kerr notes that the supplement to NUREG-0900 implies that a decision has not yet been made as to whether computer codes are going to be used in the regulatory process. R. Bernero said that is correct. W. Kerr notes also that the supplement states that Station Blackout issue is resolved. M. Silberberg said the coment on Station Blackout is incorrect.

8. M. Corradini asked if the Staff had developed any contingencies should the APS reject the Staff methodology with regards to the source term. M. Silberberg says there are no proposed alternatives should the APS reject the Staff approach. M. Bender asked if the Staff is reviewing the data base to determine if there is sufficient information to interpret the behavior of a severe core damage accident, independent of the APS findings. M. Silberberg said the Staff is making judgments with regards to the adequacy of the data base. He hopes the APS will either adjust, reinforce or add to their judgments.

9. I. Catton warned that the phenomena being modelled are complicated.

The Staff needs a contingency plan in case the " uncertainty" in the codes is too large to make the codes useful.

10. The Subcommittee questioned the appropriateness of the in-pile experiments. R. Wright suggested the ACRS and its consultants either meet with the Staff contractors or possibly attend the Staff's semi-annual severe fuel damage meetings to get a better understanding of the objectives of the in-pile experiments.

i

11. I. Catton believes a strong interface between the analytical and l testing staffs is needed to insure good results. M. Corradini i

l.

Class 9 Meeting Minutes January 25, 1985 asked if the codes are being validated by data or if the data are just being fitted into the codes? M. Carbon asked how, since the number of integral test are limited, does one confinn that the test being done is the correct one.

12. W. Kerr asked if, in the ASEP program, the plant evaluations include all TMI changes installed and proposed? G. Burdick said the ASEP only includes the installed systems. W. Kerr noted that it might have been prudent to include all required TMI fixes for this study.

13. P. Davis asked why, since the Staff has determined that plants are safe enough, is there a need for SARRP?

14. B. Cook presented results which indicate the temperature at TMI were higher than previously thought. She stated that the TMI samples indicate bulk melting of the TMI core (temperatures greater than 2950'K).

15. The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

NOTE: Additional meeting details can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC, or one can be purchased from ACE-Federal Reporters, 444 North Capitol Street, Washignton, DC 20001 (202) 347-3700.

i l

l- _ ._

l MEETING ROOM __ / d b

_/O 'd d @ M -

4

'DATE_/W'M ADVISORY COMMllTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS MEETING (LAS5 -9 &ccidads ATTENDEES PLEASE SIGN BELOW

" BADGE NO, AFFILISTION NSE Y (0.CovvoAJW [044I Il ti n < r ,

, .3 C Lee- 5097I kk s C6 M it / to n c 3 ?P dia b h 5 0 9 'lll' n

1. s. Ann,w corss ..

e o vi t B._+4e lls s G t .r) 5 % : ,,

'n, . . o .L ?. e,s ph E oG39 du rr b m l 6 Asso,,.0 4 8,b 6 04% 5 LNA 7 lov,s EDW'7 E f,+ 4 *T/s d .

8 O /4>d OD'. b' 9 $

10 11 j 12 l 13 14 15 16 .

17 18 19 20

i Class 9 1/15/85 Meeting Reference List l 1. Memorandum from A. Wang to W. Kerr, " Project Status Report for the ACRS Class 9 Accidents Subcommittee Meeting, January 25, 1985 Washington, DC," dated January 15, 1985.

2. Draft NUREG XXX, " Plan for Severe Accident Research and Regulatory Implementation".

i e

)

i I

+

% p b7 ,

i EVIEW OF SOURCE TERM RESEARCH

,0UESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED DURING R .

1) Review the original objectives of the research program. i.

2) Describe new objectives or needs that have been identified since the program began.

3) List and briefly describe the objectives that have been achieved or have been abandoned since the program began.

and describe which

4) Identify the objectives not yet achieved, and how, by the FY '96 of these is expected to be achieved,not just a listing of the projects, Research Program. (Please, but a brief analysis of each project's contribution Also,in the interests to achievement of the program objectives.

of time saving and efficiency in use of resources, please have one or two people who are familiar with the total program make the presentation, rather than having a large number of ,

The specialists specialists make individaal presentations. An might be, brought along to answer specific questions.

elternative is to get the answers later, if necessary).

5) What impact, if any, is the report of the APS review team expected to have on the FY '86 program and budget?

6) Identify and discuss briefly any research by others that is enpe'eted to contribute to the Source Term Research List and discussprogram any objectives during the FY'86 time period. to call in research by others likely to differ with or question the results of the Source Term Program.

11-X-84 l

i I

==

4 e

.,e -. - , - - - . - - - -- - - - . - - - - - - -