ML20207E591
| ML20207E591 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/29/1986 |
| From: | Jungling T NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Seefeldt W ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| References | |
| REF-WM-1 NUDOCS 8701020223 | |
| Download: ML20207E591 (3) | |
Text
-
e i . .
N 007 2 9 M WM-86868 WM Re~gs g.77 . n *. _ p y~~~/
-1 ___hZj U, M
~"
-Ddit"r" M-Mr. Wally Seefeldt, Executive Secretary _ ____ _ _ __ ~ ~
Ad Hoc Corrocion Panel - -
Chemical Technology Division .O -
Argonne National Laboratory F m to V!M2Q_ f 9700 South Cass Avenue ,
Argonne, Illinois 60439
Dear Mr. Seefeldt:
{
Attached are a few brief comments regarding the DOE - Prepared Meeting Minutes.
In addition I would propose a suggestion, to Dr. Steindler and you, to be forwarded to 00E-HQ as you see fit, regarding the final public record of the 1985 and 1986 Panel reviews. From the memoranda signed by Mark Frei it is not clear that the November 1985 Panel reports or the Projects' responses to those {
reports will be included with the subject Meeting Minutes to constitute DOE's A final public record of the Panel activities. The Meeting Minutes alone do not constitute, as far as this Panel member is concerned, an acceptable summary of the Ad Hoc Panel activities. Therefore my suggestion is that the Panel indicate to DOE that as a condition for Panel concurrence they release at least the original Panel reports as well as these Meeting Minutes for the public record. As a further thought the Meeting Minutes desperately need a conclusion section to provide a measure of coherency to the documents. The depth of a conclusion section would be a matter of discussion, but potentially it could be as simple as reiterating or referencing the same conclusions made in the original Panel reports.
If you have questions regarding my comments, please contact me.
Sincerely, Thomas L. Jungling Engineering Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated 8701020223 861029 PDR WASTE WM-1 PDR 3FC :WMEG :WME : : : : :
4AME :TJungling :T n : : : : :
1 ATE :10/v}/86 :10/8/86 : : : : :
J
,r -
. A.
TLil 86868 ENCLOSURE 1-COMMENTS ON THE DOE-PREPARED MEETING MINUTES In general, the Meeting Minutes alone do not provide an organized or coherent means of conveying the problems and concerns identified in the reviews. Many of the Panel's concerns are buried within the text of the discussions and as such their impact is lost. In order to give meaning to the Minutes a conclusion section should be prepared to highlight the concerns which remain cr, perhaps more appropriately, to indicate that the concerns identified in the Panel reports still apply. The absence of conclusions or a summary allows many points to go unnoticed. An example of the subtleties in the minutes which are likely to be overlooked by the casual reader can be found in the second paragraph of the SRP0 Minutes. The paragraph indicates the Panels willingness to revise or addend the original Panel reports if misunderstandings or new information were identified. As a potential alternative to the above, the Chairman indicated that summary documents could be prepared by DOE-HO. The conclusion which one could overlock is the fact that the DOE-HQ prepared Meeting Minutes have been developed implying that the first two options were not applicable, i.e., there were no major misunderstandings or new information identified. ,.
Although these minutes generally reflect the discussions which took place, a few comments are noteworthy.
SRP0 Though I have no specific technical comments on this set of minutes, the tone of t:1e minutes seems to reflect a more positive atmosphere than I recall. In actuality, the Project was able to present very little detail regarding their
. -,------,-r-----,,---e.,---.a -
e --- - - e,---- -
w + --- --,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
' \
f:- -
e TLJ 86868 ENCLOSURE experimental programs since most were contained in an unreleased test plar document.
BWIP In the first paragraph on page 3 there is a comment concernir.g the dissolution of MgS. Although I had not noted the comment in my notes, i calieve the discussion concerned MnS inclusions within the steel, and tnerefore reference to MgS should be MnS.
In the last paragraph on page 4 and again in the first paragraph of page 7, reference is made to one of the candidate alloys as a 60/30 nickel / chrome or nichrome alloy. My notes indicate a 9Cr-1Mo steel instead of tha nichrome alloy. This discrepancy should be double-checked.
NNWSI No specific comments.