ML20236S421
| ML20236S421 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/18/1987 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1625, NUDOCS 8711250153 | |
| Download: ML20236S421 (147) | |
Text
- - Oc237~-]&2Y URlGDDA o
UNnED STATES v
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
=====================================================================,,,,,,,,,,,,,_,.
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
THERMAL' HYDRAULIC PHENOMENA e
l.Q),
LOCATION:
WASHINGTON DC PAGES: 1 - 134 DATE:
h0VEMBER 18, 1987
====================,u==================================================
e 1",,,i.
f $b h s
r o-
~
~.
g,. M f 0lTI itC,O,, H E
...I
[xh J r Heritage Reporting Corporation Official Reponers I:20 L Strwt. N.W.
q washington. D.C. 20005 U.
(202) 628 4888 8711250153 g71118 PDR ACRS T-1625 PDR
- g;g.
' r. -
4
.-(
+
%1
'.1 PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE
.; [
-5 2
- 21
=UNITBD STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S 1
3-
. ADVISORY. COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS.
I 4-l n.;
- 5
l
'l 6
y.
i f
57i The contents of this stenographic transcript of the 1
"8 Proceedings'of.the United--States' Nuclear Regulatory
{
1
~9 Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS),
(
10
'as reported.herein,'is an uncorrected record of the discussions 11.
recorded at.the' meeting held on the above.date.
-(
12 No member of the ACRS Staff and no participant at
' 13-.this: meeting accepts any responsibility for errors or
- 14
-inaccuracies of statement or data contained 1.n this transcript.
g-15 16-a
- r..
. 17/
"18 19-20-21
.22
!'s 23 24 25-j: ;
i
'y Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l,
1 l-.
l l -
"t
~
~
~
j
.. y 1
1
.h,3 1
UNITED STATES' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
2 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
'3'
)
4
.In the Matter'of:
)
)
5.:
MEETING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
)
10N THERMAL HYDRAULIC.
)
6
- PHENOMENA-
)
)
- 7 Wednesday,
'8 November 18, 1987 l '-
9 Room 1046 1717 H Street, N.W.
10, Washington, D.C.
20555
.11' The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 12; pursuant to notice, at 8:30 a.m.
'(
13 BEFORE:
MR. DAVID A. WARD Research Manager on Special Assignment 14 E.I.
du Pont de Nemours & Company Savannah River Laboratory 15 Aiken, South Carolina 16 ACRS MEMBERS PRESENT:
l L
17 MR. JESSE C.
EBERSOLE Retired Head Nuclear Engineer 18 Division of Engineering Design Tennessee Valley Authority 19 Knoxville, Tennessee 20 MR. GLENN A.
REED Retired Plant Manager 21 Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant Wisconsin Electric Power Company l
22 Two Rivers, Wisconsin
'23 CONSULTANTS:
l 3
24 C.L.
Tien V.
Schrock 25 I.
Catton.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION-- (202)628-4888
_ = - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I WLMI
]
, l[~ :
vv 1'
v
.ACRS COGNIZANT-STAFF MEMBER:
1
'2.
Paul Boehnert 3
1NRC STAFF' PRESENTERS:
'4'
- 14. Lyon.
L...Shotkin 5:
- B.:Sheron R. Jones 6'
R.
Lee
-D.
Solberg 7
Y..Chen 8'
'9.
10 11 12-b 13-14
-15 16 17 18-19 L20 21 22 f
23.
i i
24 1
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION-- (202)628-4888
3 1
INDEX O-2 Items Discussed P_ age 3
Status of Potentially Unanalyzed LOCA Scenario 4
4 Introduction and Overview 5
of Thermal Hydraulic Research 21 6
7 8
9 10 11 p
I 12 0
13 14 15 16 17 18 l
19 20 21 22 23 O
24 25 HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
4 1
P h O C E E D
_I_ N G S
, ;+g ;
()
2'
/ CHAIRMAN HARD:
The meeting will now come to order.
3 This,isLa: meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor 4-Safeguards, Subcommittee on Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena.
I am 5
David Ward,.the Subcommittee chairman.
Other ACRS memberr 6
here are Mr. Reed and Mr. Ebersole, and I believe Mr. Mark 7
fwill be here.. We also have ACRS consultants Mr. Catton, Mr.
A' L8 Schrock and Mr. Tien.
Mr. Sullivan may be joining us
- 9 tomorrow.
.10 The purpose of the meeting is to review key elements 11~
of NR'C'Research Office five-year thermal hydraulic research 12 program for possible input to ACRS reports on thermal
- ('T 13 hydraulic research that will be for the Congress ar.a to the U.
14 Commission.
15 The Subcommittee will also discuss the status of the 16 NRC's action on potentially unanalyced large break LOCA 17 scenario, which we heard about a few monthe ago.
Paul 18 Boehnert are on my right is the cognizant ACRS staff member 19 for-the meeting.
20 Rules for participation in today's meeting have been 21 announced as part of the notice of the meeting previously 22 published in the Federal Register on November 3rd, 1987.
A 23
' transcript is being kept, and will be made available as stated
/^g -
24-in the Federal Register notice.
It is requested that each A ).-
i s
25 speaker first identify himself or herself and speak with i
i l
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 l
l
{
1
' 1C sufficient clarity and volume so that he or she can be readily v s.
()'
2
' heard.
3 I guess, Mr. Lyon, you have the agenda, and 4
apparentlyfMr. Lyon is going to'be the first speaker from, I 5'
guess actually with.NRR, but to talk about the unanalyzed LOCA
.6 scenario.
7 First I would like to point ott that one of the 8:
things I am going to be looking for and I think we should be 9
looking.for in our review here is how the, since we are
.10 looking;at sort of long-range thermal hydraulic research, is 11
.how'this program is serving the overall agency long-range or 112 strategic plan.
I think we need to keep that sort of context
// )
11 3
-in mind.
I guess the consultants don't have copies of this
~%J 14 strategic. plan'.
I tried.to get copies to you.
I don't seem 15 to.have been able to, but you know there has some, some 16 coherency to'the agency overall strategy and there is no, 17
.there is no purpose in a research program and in specific 18 technical area, if it doesn't somehow serve that, that overall i
19 strategy.
20 So I think in, as we review and comment on and 21 hopefully furnish some useful advice to the researchers in the 22-
.research office in this particular area, we need to keep in u
23 mind the, how this research information can serve the overall 24' goals of the agency over the next five or ten years.
25 One particular aspect of that is that with the
{
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
n 6
W 1
approach'being'taken now, particular.ly with the large break
,4 I
, gay
'(,),
. :2 LOCA, but I guess really with all LOCA analyses of the 3
remaining'research that needs to be done really could be
'4 looked upon as-serving what they call the CSAU program.
The 6-l 51 remaining. questions.really all center around the sort of 6
uncertainty analysis, or the, some definition of uncertainty 7
that'needs'to be applied with the present state of art, and so I
6 that is one.of the main purposes of research in that area is 9
to provide more information, you know, more explicit, reliable
~10 definition of uncertainty in this, in that particular area.
'11-So with that, does anyone else have anything they 12-would like to add?- Glenn?
I
13 MR. REED:
Well, I have to leave the meeting for a
. y) -
114 while.
I am not sure when I will get back, so I want to make
- 15 a' statement as an outgrowth of yesterday's meeting.
16 I think it should:have been very clear to us after 17-
' yesterday's meeting that a diverse technique for decay heat 18 removal is knocking on the door, and there apparently is a 19
-wide divergence in approaches, and there hasn't been proper 20 research on the blown-out depressurization approach, nor the
'21 components to do it, and I really think we should address j
1
'22-that,.and try to find out whether the B&W approach, I am going 23 to call it B&W, not Davis-Besse, the B&W approach or the CE 24 and Westinghouse approach depressurization of decay heat 25 removal is right.
I 1
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
p p
y 7
7 1
Now I don't like the B&W approach of increasing
, (_).
21-
- pressures to remove decay heat.
I.think that is the wrong 3
thing to do:
4 MR. EBERSOLE:
David, he got in front of me.
I also
-5
. thought' yesterday's activity was a model considering today in j
i L6 respect to the participants that get in this act.
I don't 7.
know who came up with those answers for Davis-Besse and 8
whether it was a technical consensus by competent groups or 9
. whether.it is uni-directional, some part I suspect Davis-Besse 11 0 people themselves.
1 11 I thought this is a good example to have a better 12 understanding between how NRR works with RES and with NRR's
(']'
.13 activities on hand,'they engage technical assistance without l
14 research becoming involved in it.
I don't know what the 15 criteria are for bringing researchers to the act and I don't
.16 mind a little overlap, but I sure would like to see some kind 17 of focus on that such as we heard yesterday by NRC.
18 I agree with Glenn.
It was an odd way that the 19 answers came out yesterday, and I couldn't help but think 20 where the studies that were formed in that connection and the 21.
unfavorable answers that came out, how that would look say if 22 they were reviewed in the light of large LOCA which is all
.23 this was, or intermediate LOCA 35 inch holes that were 24 introduced in the pipes.
I wonder if the answers they got, f,g-]
25 the bleed / feed type approach, were consistent with what came HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
8
/1
'out of.-LOCA.
- ( )-
2 MR. CATTON:
This would a good place for them to try 3
an experiment,'wouldn't it?
4 MR. EBERSOLE:
Whatever.
5 MR. CATTON:
Rather than building the 15 million
'6
' dollars integral facilities, they ought to have the capability 7
to stick this thing in and test it, yet they refuse to do 8.
that; 91 MR. EBERSOLE:
I.am a little sad to see the whole 10 NRC at the beck and call of any oddball design that comes in, 111
.th'at they have to pick up the rock and look at it.
I think, I 12' wish there was somehow a focus on converging on the safest
['Y
'13 sort of reactor we can have and then standardization approach
%./
l 14
.to that one and bring some sort of conclusion to it on this 15 side of infinity as to studying all these matters.
- 16 MR. REED:
You noticed on yesterday's session, that 17 the Davis-Besse or B&W people had a mental block against 18 depressurization techniques and valves and automatic control 11 9 -
to do it.
We don't have any facts.
20 CHAIRMAN WARD:
I didn't notice that.
I mean I 21 noticed that they had decided to do scmething different.
22 MR. REED:
You better believe it!
i 23' CHAIRMAN WARD:
I guess it wasn't clear to me it was
~s 24-a mental block.
It was a decision to do something different.
-(A
-25 MR. CATTON:
It was an unfair comparison of the two HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
r 9
1 approaches.
I have a comment on a lot of these documents,
/~s ;
4) 2-
'particularly the researen one.
I can do that one of two ways.
3-1Maybe I should make some comments-now or I could just save-4 this and put it all together and write it in a report.
'5-
. CHAIRMAN WARD:
Well, I would rather have, you know, 6
-some: discussion of it, but let's give the, let's give the
^
7 people from the staff a chance to give the presentations they 8
prepared, and then if,1you know, there aren't convenient a
9 points to bring out the, places to bring out the points you 10 wantLto raise, then bring them up at the end of the
'11~
discussion.
See, we are going to talk about NUREG 1252--is 1
12-that what you are talking about by some of these documents?
(]L 13 MR. CATTON:
Yes.
14
. CHAIRMAN WARD:
Okay.
That's what, we are going to 15 spend the whole morning on that.
16 MR. CATTON:
Spending the whole morning on it; when 17 I took a look at it, there.really is no clear statement of 18 objects, needs.
Also there is a lot of inconsistencies in the 19 report between what came out of the recent ICAP meeting and 20 what has been coming out of the CSAU meetings.
The needs that 21 seem to be coming through do not seem to be addressed in this 22_
report.
It would very helpful to me if they would like to 23 bring that together during their presentations.
It could be r
24 that the report was written sometime ago even though the date x_}-
25 is just a few days ago.
-HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
q-m, W.
e' 10 4'.
, r.
I E L1; l CHAIRMAN WARD:
Okay.
Why don't we, why don't Lk
'2:
- you--I think I'would like to go ahead with item 2, Mr. Lyon, i
3
~ andLthen we will go to the >verview of research, and maybe you L4' lcould' frame a couple of questions to' start out that so that 3.-
5 they can make sure to, you know, attempt to answer your
,c 6
' questions-as they go along or tell us whether they will be w
7.
. answered in the presentations.
8-MR. CATION:- Okay.
One of the first things--
9' CHAIRMAN WARD:
Not now.
Let's hear the unanalyzed 10 LOCA story first.
I would like to more or less follow the i
11 agenda.which you have in front of you.
C 12.
MR. TIEN:
If-somebody also could give us a little
[
13
' bit description.about the strategic plan if we don't have it, 14 and it is-very important.
Maybe somebody on hand, they 155
. presented that.
16 CHAIRMAN WARD:
Okay.
Maybe Brian, are you going to 17-start out or it is Lou?
18 MR. SHERON:
Lou.
19 CHAIRMAN WARD:
Lou is?
20 MR. SHERON:
Lou said he has something about the
.21 strategic plan.
22 CHAIRMAN WARD:
How you see your overall program l
23_
fitting into that.
f^g.
'24 MR. BOEHNERT:
I will be getting you guys copies.
L/
25 CHAIRMAN WARD:
Let's go ahead then with the status HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 1
g
-r
??
W Y.
i 4
yy Li a j
l 1l of1thefunanalyzed LOCA' scenario,'and I believe Warren Lyon is pz..
Q, 2E goingJto present.
,. I }
- 3-
_MR.'LYON:
' Good morning.
I have just a brief sort
,o
.41 of discussion for you this morning.as to where we are, where 5
.we have'been.
The where we are, we have a 5054F draft letter l
6 on my desk that has been reviewed at the section and the
. 3 17 ibranch. level and they have sent it back to me with some
,y en 8
- comments'for some improvements.
And we will get that cleared 19'
-out, and then we will review it further, of course, and take 1
-'10 it to.the' committee.
[11:
As to perceptions, this LOCA concern or' disease if
'12
'you will in my perception is not a problem for the B&W l/~Y 13
. machines..The configuration of.their NSS with the steam
%s.
+
14 generators, the vessel vent valves are such that there should 1
15 be no problem with the B&W machines and we do envision if a 16
'5054F 1ettei indeed is sent that it would go to the B&W 17-owners.
The perception with the Combustion machines is that 18 19 most of these will not be affected as seriously as would 20 perhaps the Westinghouse.
Now that's very preliminary.
There 21 are a number of configuration differences, but the major item 22 that leads toward that conclusion is the relative elevation of a23
.the crossover. pipe in the Combustion machines relative to the 24 top of the core.
25 The complicating factor is the potential for water HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
m-r,7 <
i ej.
4
('l -
. hold-up.in' steam generators under certain conditions, and we r
1: j gl 2
have7not conducted.any kind of an in-depth investigation of
- 3 the phenomena ~..
L4
'The situation with the Westinghouse machines is we 15 d:bd meet ' with representatives of' the Westinghouse owners, and 6'
. discussed some of the phenomena which we believe may occur, 7 5
.and we'came away from that meeting with the. perception that
? 8.l Westinghouse felt that they did not need to do'any further i
9' work,.and we feel that we have not been able to put this 10,
" problem to b'ed,
~
o 11 Research has also been working, looking at various
, 1SF aspects, and they have not been able to put it to bed, either, lf7 13'
'so the concern remains real.
~
-M 14 There is, however, no indication at least that I 15~
-have perceived, that says that this is a high-risk situation, 16-and so we don't..see any reason at this point that this has to
- 17 be a real top priority item that must be pursued.
One can 18
- continue to pursue it in a reasonable manner and arrive at a 19 solution to take care of it.
20-That's really about all I have to say at this point 21.
~ unless there are. questions.
l 22 CHAIRMAN WARD:
Okay.
Warren, what sort of thing 23 would a 5059F letter require?
24.
MR. LYON:
Basically a request to the owners to
' 25' investigate the phenomena, and establish that the regulatory HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 L__-_--_____=-_-_-
13 1
. requirements-are met, namely, the requirement pertaining to g
j<
(_),'
2
' analysis of-the.LOCA event in a.long-term situation.
Let me 3
give you a specific example.
4 One of the aspects of the concern, if you had a 5
large'LOCA that you ended up in a situation where you were 6
-cooling with cold' leg injection,. oiling in the core, steam 7
' passing through the hot leg, the steam generators, the surge 8
line, and out the break, and excess injection water also 9-flowing out the break, and steam generators hot, starting from
' 10 -
that point, which essentially is the point where we have i
H 11
.h' historically pretty much terminated our analysis, starting 12 from'that point, one of the things that an operator would do
}
13 would be to cool down steam generators.
y 14 In the process of cooling down steam generators, of
.15 course, you go through saturation temperature, and as you do
'16
.that, you will start to condense some of the steam that is 17 flowing from the core and passing through on its way out the 18 break.
19 The question in part is where would that condensate 20 go?
We are used to dealing'with relatively high pressures 21' where steam density is relatively high.
This is a low 22.
pressure' situation, so the steam velocities will be relatively 23 high and there is the potential of holding up a fair head of fs 24 water in the steam generators.
T-25.
At the same time, the velocity of steam flowing HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 l
w py 14 1;
through the crossover pipe would be' reducing as you are l
S-s j,)D
.2 condensing' steam, so the possibility exists that water from 3
.theEcold leg'could dump back into the crossover pipe, thereby
~4 blocking the~ crossover pipe,-and now we have a situation where 5.
we start to build: pressure'in the upper vessel and the hot leg 6.
due to both the water in the crossover pipe, and water 7
potentially held up in the steam generators, and so the 5054F
,7
'81 in effect,would say we want these kinds of situations l
9 investigated, and show us that your-plants operate
- 10, satisfactorily as a-result.
- 111 MR. EBERSOLE:
Is this for a large break in a
- 12 particular part of the profile?
L[~)N.
13-MR. LYON:
The one of concern would be a cold leg-t'
- w 14
break.
15 CHAIRMAN WARD:
It is not really large, well--
16 MR..LYON:
It could be anything from a break of 17 undetermined effectively smallness if you will, all the way to 18 the traditional 200 percent.
So to pursue your question 19 perhaps a step further, another aspect that I would envision a 20 final 5054F letter if indeed it comes out would be to look at 21 it for a spectrum of break sizes to make sure tnat you have 22
-covered the situation.
23 MR. EBERSOLE:
I think this brings up what came up 24 yesterday, whatever you are doing, at least I couldn't find 25 out the instrumentation that told me what I was accomplishing
. HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 I
j.C 15 y
1-
- In the. context of' cooling the core.
There was no level
. j,~).. ;
2 indication ~. lThere was no indication where the inventory was.
3 There was no distribution picture at all.
That's what 4
'B&W--because they never put in anything anyway.
5 MR. LYON:
Instrumentation, you are correct.
.6 Instrumentation is a very real concern for this loss of RHR 7
situation. : We are actively ' pursuing tilat.
8 MR. EBERSOLE:
How do you'know when you quit doing 9-whatever you are doing or taper off?
I don't know when you 10' quit. - See,.you stop the calculation, but he can't stop the 11 operation.
12 MR. LYON:
The perception is that hot leg injection 13 probably will cure the disease.
14
-MR.
EBERSOLE:
But you won't know.
I am talking 15 about in the actual case.
16 MR. LYON:
Remember in the actual case of the LOCA, T17 you used to--B&W as an example, in my perception, B&W does not 18
' suffer from this disease, so we are talking about the 19 Combustion and the Westinghouse machines, and under LOCA 20 situations, we would have certain instrumentation available in 21' these plants, and we need to look at the response of that 22 instrumentation to make sure it is telling us what we think it 23 is telling us, but just to take one example, if the thermal 24' couples at the core exit are telling me a particular 25 temperature, I will tend to believe that that is HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 G
uma m._,---------.----..---,---
--a-----
-__--------------,---.------_----.-----,,_--.-._-------,-..---------,a--.---
--.--------------------------.--___-----_a_-.------------__.--__------_-_J
16 1
representative of what is happening within the vessel, and if
()
2 I am reading saturation temperature or below, then I have a 3
warm and secure feeling.
4 MR. CATTON:
We have a--naybe it ought to be 5
revisited with a few of these things in mind.
6 MR. EBERSOLE:
I remember it has been 25 years since 7
Westinghouse said well, if you get a bad answer from the
'l 8
instruments, all you do is just turn it off and stand back and
<r 9
hope.
10 MR. LYON:
And that is not my perception of the way 11 out of this particular situation.
I do have some minor 12 concerns about what would happen as one initiated hot leg
{][
13 injection, bt.it once established, to me that would be a way to 14 make this particular disease to go away.
By the same token, 15 putting everything you have got into injection in the cold 16 legs for a large break LOCA with this disease applicable, 17 assuming it is real, and we haven't really established that 18 yet, but assuming it is real, putting everything you have into 19 the cold leg injection night not do you a bit of good.
20 MR. REED:
I'm sorry.
I was out and didn't catch 21 the accident, but I am beginning to catch on.
1 22 You do realize, of course, plants in the vintage of l
23 1960 to 1970 were designed with hot leg injection lines and 24 most of those lines have been capped off on such plants as O
25 that and so on because if you injected in the het leg, there HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
"TTT.
' " ju
.c;
-F '
17
.1"
. was always concern about wiping, on a hot leg break, wiping
' r'f.;
4,
'2
..that water out and it'would never get to the, fill'the core or 3:
get back:into the vessel.
>4-MR. LAUBEN:
Norm Lauben--but all those through the
!f plants have upper injection for lowhead.
.6 MR '. REED:
Direct vessel-injection, at the top.
1 7
MR. LAUBEN:
It is a different problem for them.
8 For large break, it is certainly a different problem.
9' MR. REED:
I was.just wondering about going back
'10
'into the hot legs again.
11-MR. LYON:.The hot leg injection situation that I am I
1'2 referring to is one in'which the early portion of the LOCA has
[fjl 13' already gone by, and we are now out where effectively we have
~v 14 concluded okay, the plant is okay and then we are saying hey, 15 wait-a. minute, perhaps there are some additional phenomena
- 06 here that-are acting so that perhaps things aren't quite as 17 clear as we thought they were, but I am talking typically an 18 hour2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> or more.
L19 -
MR. REED:
Okay.
Understand the gush has gone by.
l 20 MR. LYON:
The rush has gone by, and we are now in a 21' situation such that the amount of water being injected in the 22.
hot leg is more than sufficient to condense all steam that is 23 produced, so really ought to be able to take the core i
- ('s 24 sub-cooled.
i k.)
25 MR. BOEHNERT:
Has there been Commission L
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 l
e
h
.J !.
18 31
, notification 1yet on this?
i 1
?$
2' -
MR. LYON:
No.
p -
p
'3' MR. BOEHNERT:. Plan to do it in the future?
4:
=MR.
LYON:
Not to my awareness, no.
L-5; CHAIRMAN WARD:
What does that mean, Paul?
6' MR. BOEHNERT:
I don't.know what that meant.
I l
7 thought Commission notification on something like.this was
)
i ij 8
required, potential violation of the regulations.
Is that not i
'9 right?
l V
10 MR. JONES:
It was a management decision, Paul, up r.
li' from Ohio.
I think we are going to hold until we get further 12 along in development of the.5054F letter and its review up the
(~j' 13
. chain.
At.that point we will make the decision on v
14 notification.
If we go.out,.I am sure we will notify.
15 CHAIRMAN WARD:
The rule is that if there is a L
16 violation, the Commission has to be notified, but you have got 4
17' tiine-to tnink about it and decide whether there is a 18' violation?
Is that what is at issue now?
19' MR. LYON:
Do you want to address that, Bob, or do 20 you want me to?
We have prepared a draft notification which 21 we. prepared sometime ago.
The management opinion, as I 22 understand it, was that we should hold until we had a little bit better idea of the technical realism of the situation.
23 L
24 CHAIRMAN WARD:
Okay.
It just seems to be 25 stretching the.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
l 19 1
.MR.
CATTON:
We don't want a false alarm.
We have c n.
~ ().
'2 had a lot of those in the past.
3 CHAIRMAN WARD:
This has been going on for about 4
three months now.
Okay.
5 MR. JONES:
If I could add, it has been going on for 6
.about three months, but it has really taken a bit of a back 7
burner in the last three months.
Warren, unfortunately, also i
8 has the generic letter 8712 that, the response to the Diablo-9 Canyon event that we are giving much higher priority to.
10-Their 5054F letter was first out almost 20 months ago for 11 review.
There was' substantial number of comments that came p
12' back1on it from other offices.
That's what we are trying to j
-(';
13 accommodate, but with all the responses coming in on 8712, it
%)
14.
is basically a matter of priorities.
We can't get to it.
To I
1 11 5 a-large extent, it is really getting low-level attention right l
16 now until we figure out where we are going on the Diablo 17 Canyon matter.
18 CHAIRMAN WARD:
Okay.
Thank you, Warren.
Let's go 19
'to the Mr. Shotkin then, and the overview of the five-year i
20.
ple.n for thermal hydraulic research.
Now this is where I was 21 going to ask you to maybe state a couple of your questions if 22 you can so that Lou can decide whether you will be answering j
i 23.
those in his discussion, or whether we need to provide some l
l 1
(~s 24 time maybe at the end of the discussion to answer more
(
.25 specifically.
l l
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 I
7w L
4 20 e
Let me say a word about the, and.I guess you are
[
1-i V L;- L),
going to'say something about theEstrategic plan.
_And one of h:
3:
LtheLreasons'I. wanted to make a point here about the need to, 4-
'you know,.show the' correlation between this area of research 5
plan and strategic plan.is to make sure that we have as a 6
Subcommittee, sort of subjected ourselves to the, to the 7
Ediscipline of, of that relationship.
In other words, if we 8
have some ideas for where your resources should be going, we 9
should have kind of a grand scheme understanding of why we 1
10-think they should be going for something other than what you 11;
.are proposing, and I mean that's part of the reason.
t 12 The other reason is that I guess I just assumed that
{
lJ you in the research office have subjected yourself to the same:
13-14 sort of discipline, and but I would just like-to hear some 15 confirmation of that from you.
Okay?
Now mayba, I think it 16 might be_most efficient if Ivan could state a couple of his 17 questions.
It looks like he has got a whole list.
Can you 18 capture those.in a short paragraph or something?
And then Lou 19 can-decide whether to try to answer those specifically or 20' whether his presentation will answer them.
21 MR. CATTON:
I think I will just make a general i
4 22 comment and not, and I will save these and then maybe write 23 them later.
The TPG has been underway for a long time.
At o,f"s -
24 the ICAP meeting just recently, and as near as I can tell, the 25
. strategic plan said we should be heading toward accident HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
21
>1
'1' management.
.'I.see this disconnect between this report that I Q,3 J
2
?have read,-and these other items.
Brian gave an introductory 3
comment at the'ICAP meeting.
This document that is dated the
- 4 9th of November does not seem to be in accord with Sheron's I
5 comment.
This may be because the record was written sometime 6
ago, and it just takes time for these things to filter 7
.through'.
,8 With respect to the strategic management Mod 3, a
9-
. TRAC:is mentioned in here as is Mod 2.
It seems to me that 10 therefought to be a clear statement of what the needs arc, 11 where those things fit, and each step should be one by itself.
'12' When you finish a version of a code, you ought to stop and 1(~Y 13-then decide what you are going to do next, not just continue g) 14 forever kind of code development process, and if my specific 15
. comments aren't addressed, I will just put them into a letter j
16 or something at.the end.
17 I havc a lot.
18 CHAIRMAN WARD:
I don't know about a letter.
.19 MR. CATTON:
If we have time, we can go through 20 them.
21-CHAIRMAN WARD:
Be discussed right here in the 22 meeting.
23 MR. CATTON:
It would take me a half hour to go r" 1 24 through them all.
b l
25 MR. SCHROCK:
As I read the ICAP report and the list HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
(:
J.
22 1>
of--acknowledged deficiencies in the code, it seemed to me both p
I ()
'2f fcodes,.it seemed to me that there are some, some real 34 motherhood statements or whatever contained there that what is 4
, wrong is going to be fi:ced, but what.is wrong is that basic 5'
' data are lacking in many of those cases, and what I don't see
.6
'is how'the recognition of that lack of basic data is reflected 7
in the'research plan, and so I.would like to hear them comment
'8
.aboutnthat in his presentation.
9 MR. CATTON:
An example'is che interfacial transport 10' phenomena.
There is no mention under basic studies of that 11 uphenomena'at-all,-nor of condensation.
12'
' CHAIRMAN WARD:
Okay.
Go ahead.
[Y
'13~
MR. SHOTKIN:
Was'that, Mr. Catton going to get any
.q)
~1d' more specific about the commerits that were lef t out?
He just 15 made a general statement.
16 MR. CATTON:
I can just give a couple if you want, a 17 flavor.
18 CHAIRMAN WARD:
Sure.
Ga ahead.
19 MR. CATTON:
The first I have here is vent valve on 20 UBTF.
'21 MR. SHOTKIN:
No.
I didn't want to do anything you 22 didn't want.
He just said we didn't include some statement 23 that Sheron made, I just wanted to make sure what that g-24 statement was.
k.
25 MR. CATTON:
With respect to the future in the code HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 x-_-_____
. _ _ =
23 li development program, I see mention in this report of ym; ),
2 everything through a Mod 3, for TRAC and' Hod 3 for RELAP 5 and 3
'it seems to me that is kind of silly in the face of what our 4
future needs are in the strategic plan, which says accident 5.
management.
6 MR. SHOTKIII: 'Okay.
The easy answer to that is that 7
.part of the report was written a few months ago, and we 8-haven't"had time, we haven't been able to catch that.
So 9
thanks for the comment.
And we will catch it.
6, 10 MR. CATTON:
The date is 9 November on the report.
11 MR. SHOTKIN:
That's the date when it got out of the 12 word processor,'not when it got out of the peopic doing the
'"T 13 writing.
(_.)
14 Okay.
Before I start the prepared presentation, let 15 me address your need to know about strategic plan, five-year 16 plan, and the branch plan, and some of thet will be covered in 17 my presentation.
18 The NRC has started this year something new, and 19 they have had the SES staff come together in a meeting in 20 Baltimore for two days, and there were three meetings.
I went 21 to the second one.
Since there may be about 250 people, they 22 have about 80 at each one of these meetings, and we break up 23 into small groups, and we listen to the key actors, the EDO, 24 the deputy EDO, the heads of the offices, discuss the
.gT 25 strategic plan--not word for word.
We are supposed to have l
I HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 i
M' 4'
24
+
4 p
l w
1 read'that.before and.we are supposed to.have read the jf[_):
2 five-year-plan, but going.into the concepts, the trying to
+ujpf 3
establish'-the atmosphere or the climate, let's call it the q
r
(
4 felinate that'wershould be working in, and I found this very f
5 instructive and I would like to share some >f:these personal 9
6 insights first with you, if you want, and then I will get into g
7; the various plans and how they fit together.
8l I have been at NRC for about 13 years and I went to
'9
' meet the top' managers in NRC and I was surprised that I had A-10.
inever even.seen half of them, and I could only recognize the
?p 11 I faces of maybe one third of them, so that says that there is l
t
. 1'2
- something that I haven't been doing right.
That gives the 1
~a Y.c 13 firstfimpression of where thermal hydraulic research fits into L.:
14 the agency.
If I haven't interacted personally with our,
'15 l haven'tneven seen the people in the regions, for example,
=
=.,..,.
L' 16' don't even know what they do, what their thoughts are, that to i..
17 ume was a big drawback and it gives some idea of where thermal 18 hydraulics fits into the whole agency picture, i
19 The next insig~nt is I know we have heard the words, 20 and Stello had said it, that with the reactor climate that we 21 have, we are going to get away from emphasis on reactor design 22 and more into emphksis on reactor operation, and I have always O)'
'23 tried to figure out where thermal hydraulics fit into reactor
,.r-(
24 operation.
We know it fits into reactor design.
And in fact, V.
g 25 after the meeting, I came back knowing that I have to work a l
y HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
25 1
little harder at getting into operation and maybe I shouldn't, llh 2
maybe I shouldn't work too hard.
It is clear that thermal 3
hydraulic research is primarily connected with reactor design.
4 We worry about do the safety systems work when you turn on the 5
pumps and'you turn on ECC water?
How does it cool the core?
i 6
And you can do a disciplined study on this.
These are 7
hardware problems, design problems, but if there are no new 8
plants coming along, these design problems are going to 9
require much less attention.
It is going to be on a 10 case-by-case basis.
Some new issue comes up, how do we face 11 it?
12 But the real problems are the operational problems.
13 This became clear to me.
Now this again is a personal view.
gg 14 The operational problems have to do not only with the 15 operator, but with the utility management, and we have to keep 16 focusing on our agency mission to protect public health and 17 safety, and the kinds of activities that thermal hydraulics 18 has been involved in over the years has been design basis 19 accidents, that if you, suppose you do have something happen.
20 Can you cool the core with the ECC water?
21 But let me pose the following question that I think 22 is more real for protecting public health and safety than 23 continuing a lot more work and worrying about does the ECC 24 water get in after a large break, with all due respect to this 25 latest large break LOCA problem.
And again this is what I HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
=
(1 <
26 r
i.
- 1 think'actually happens.
Ituis three o' clock in the morning.
[j'(y),
2 LAn operator is running the reactor.
He has got aluminum plant h
.3 down the road that'needs electricity.
He gets a call from 4
Philadelphia, they need electricity.
He is busy switching the 5-
. gears around to get the electricity on the grid, and some, one 6.
of.the junior. operators says here is a thermalcouple that went 7
off. scale and I just heard a large noise in the containment.
8L What does he.do?
Does he call up at three in the morning his 9
boss--and he doesn't have any other indication, and he is 10 confused.
Does he call up his boss, wake him up at three in 11!
the morning and say hey, I am confused or what should I do 12'
'or--and' suppose it isn't the operator.
It is the shift
/ 3 13 technical advisor, the highest level guy there.
Or does he 14 shut the reactor down, and wait until he can figure it out?
15 And I think what that operator does or the
- n. _
16 decision-maker does at that point is where NRC is I believe 17 going to focus its attention in the future as an agency rather 18 than suppose he does make a decision, will the pump work?
It 19 is more what is the climate?
Will he be afraid of losing his 20 job if he shuts the reactor down?
And suppose that, that he 21-does shut the reactor down, and he gets, the next morning his 22 boss calls in and says well, didn't you see the memo that said 23 that that thermalcouple is going to be off scale for the next 24 two weeks and didn't you know that noise was somebody dropping s-25
- a. box and you are fired?
And I think that that's, that i
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
-m._.._____m_.__m
-~,--,-- -
f 27 1
requires a. lot of attention.
The human element in plant
( ).
2 safety is going to require a lot more attention, and that's my 3
perception.
4 Now' Brian's division is doing a lot of that work and 5
we will probably get involved in some of it.
It is accident
'6 management, some aspects of accident management; it is human 7
factors, although I don't know whether we will get too much 8
involved in human factors other than through training.
9 But given--I think that's the climate of the 10 strategic plan and the five-year plan and the emphasis, and
'll based'on that, how does thermal hydraulic research fit in?
12 And I think it is going to play a diminishing role, a smaller L(~l 13 role,fand maybe even a less important role, and it may be a v
14 role.only as things happen.
Keep some level of support going, 15 try to_make it-interesting, but really the important work is 16 going on in the, in other areas, and maybe when you have 17 another, God forbid, another accident, then you get the 18 thermal hydraulics going.
19 MR. EBERSOLE:
I want to say I sure appreciate this 20 presentation of yours because it parallels my own thinking for i
L21 many years, and I can't help but relate it to a recent finding 22 we made.after ten years on what was going on task action plan 23:
A-47 which is the presumably undesired influence from control ry 24 systems on the safety systems, and I was impressed by the fact 1.J 25 that the approach to that was the thermal hydraulic road which HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 u_
28.
l
-1 was thefwrong road.
We are so pre-conditioned to go down the l i,,)
.2' thermal' hydraulic road that they went straight into that area 3
- and-they did hybrid computerEdevelopment, whatever else.
4-That's not the problem.
There is about 50 to 60 5
control. systems in the plant that have a variety of potential 6
aberrations and spans and whatever, and so far as I know now, 7
they didn't methodically go out and look at--you are talking 8
'about now what.would the operator do if these things went to 9
their limits of. influence, and.then they, the plant couldn't 10
.get:out of the consequences of the parametric system being in 11 this new condition.
And I think you're entirely right.
~
12 I would like to mention another aspect of this.
As
("Y 13 TMI 2 showed us, there are comparatively slow-moving but
\\_/
14 deadly situations that develop when systems fail and you don't 15 get them back in time.
I am going out into service water 16 component' cooling, a variety of AC/DC, and many years ago we 17 thought long before there were any real codes to look at 18 detailed thermal hydraulics like you are talking about, it was 19 at least important to understand when failure of these service 20 systems that are normally operable and active reached some 21 irreversible state.where you had to, well, in short, you were 22 proceeding toward a locked-in state, and you knew without 23 thermal hydraulics you were gcing to have a melted core.
The rs-24 effort in those years was to determine what was the time l
U 25 interval within which to do something, and that was a large HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
n.-
29 1
Lorderlin.its own right, to find where the failure of all'of f
2 these' service. systems, including the instrumentation systems,
- 3-
. would41ead you and what you had to do between the time that 4'
the fault was initiated and the time the situation became w
5-
' irreversible.
I for one appreciate your new view on this 6
situation',.and I hope to see it more actively pursued.
'7 MR.'CATTON:
Does this mean you are going to rewrite 8,
1252?
It certainly does not reflect what you have just said.
9 MR. SHOTKIN:
Right.
I am talking from an office 10 point of-view.
-In my branch, there will still be need for 11 thermal. hydraulic research.
There will still be need for
' E12.
, thermal hydraulic applications, and I would like to go through
- ("T 13 what I see those needs are for the next several years.
The V
14-only point I want to make is that the, this is no longer, I 15 don't feel.is any longer a key aspect of agency activities,
-16.
and I-think this is certainly reflected in NRR's view after
'17 the reorganization when they have cut down their reactor
'18 systems branch.
I don't see it, I am not saying it is going
. 191 to zero and I will spend the rest of the time in my
' 20 presentation talking just about the future thermal hydraulics
'21 research, but I just first wanted to bring in this overall
.22 picture of strategic plan, five-year plan,.and then get down H23 to our branch plan.
c~~
24 MR. CATTON:
I have shared the view that you have e
.i 25 just expressed, but that doesn't mean that thermal hydraulics HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
_=__
i'..
30 1
- research goes away.
I don't quite agree with Jesse.
I
.-%f
'I..,)f 2
-MR..EBERSOLE:
I don't think it goes away.
3 MR. CATTON:
It has to take entirely different 4 '-
-flavor and that flavor'is not in 1252.
That was one of my L
.5 majorferiticism of 1252.
It wasn't reflected in there, di -
MR. SHOTKIN: 'You have to be careful.
This is being 7'
addressed on a division level where an accident management i.:
'8i plan is being developed, but it is being developed in another 4
L 9.
branch.:. We.are playing a small part or some part in it.
110 MR. CATTON:
What I think--
11-MR. SHOTKIN:
Human factors is being looked at 12 somewhere else.
[
13 MR. CATTON:
The part you have to play in the 14 thermal hydraulics research I believe is an important one, but 15 it is different.than'is in 1252, very different than is in 16' 1252..
17 MR..SHOTKIN:
Okay.
Well, I don't know whether to 18 change--I can.just.say the' timing was that this was written a 19 month ago and I came back from the conference a week ago.
20 MR. CATTON:
I was asking if you are going to
.21, reflect in 1252 what you have just told us?
22:
MR. SHOTKIN:
We can do it, but I don't see any need L
h 23 to rewrite the whole thing.
I would like to convince you of L'(R' i
24 that.
1 j
25-MR. CATTON:
I am not sure you are going to be able 1
HERITAGE REPOkTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
-_______a
l r
31 1
to do that.
h 2
MR. SHOTKIN:
Okay.
Let me go through the key 3
aspects that--now this was the personal view.
Now I will just 4
go through key aspects of the, of the strategic plan.
5 The strategic plan and the five-year plan are meant 6
to be documents that will be revisited annually or at least 7
the five-year plan.
Let me just tell you what is in the 8
strategic plan on research, to give you a flavor of that.
I 9
won't go word for word.
10 The first, it discusses research philosophy, and 11 under research philosophy, there are two main purposes.
The 12 first purpose is to make sure that we have independent ggg 13 expertise and information to make timely regulatory judgments, 14 so this firat purpose is the, let's call it the immediate 15 purpose.
16 The second purpose of research is more long range, 17 and that's to anticipate problems of potential safety 18 significance for which new or expanded knowledge is needed.
19 CHAIRMAN WARD:
Could I comment at that point?
20 Because in your earlier comments, I,
too, appreciate what you 21 said earlier in your personal reflections on I guess the 22 consciousness raising or something in the branch, and but I 23 guess I am worried a little bit about the statement you made 24 to the effect that the thermal hydraulic research might become 25 sort of a reactor, the thermal hydraulic expertise might have HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
v-,,
-32 1
to stay'there so it can react to future problems that might
[,f?
2' come up.
Well, to the extent that some future problem does 3'
come upland is unanticipated and you have got to barrel into 4-some big thermal hydraulic.research program to resolve it, 5'
then you have kind of failed today.
That means you would have 6.
failed today with this point about the strategic plan in E
7' anticipating this sort of thing.
(
8' MR. SHOTKIN:
I see this as the key problem that we 9
have in the future is how to keep good people, and I have 10
-discussed this with a few people, how to keep the best people 11 around so that you'need them in the future.
You can't tell l
12 them.to sit and wait until something happens.
They are not
~%
-13 going.to stay around.
You have got to give them interesting (G
14
.and important work to do, and they may have to be doing some 15 work evtside of thermal hydraulics or the thermal hydraulics 1
16 area.
You want to keep the key people involved.
They may 17 have to get off into certain aspects of accident management.
18-
.They may have to get into some of the severe accident part of 19 it.
20 MR. EBERSOLE:
I was thinking the severe accident 21 spectrum makes a statement about the thermal hydraulics you 22 get.into, isn't it?
23 MR. SHOTKIN:
Mr. Ebersole, this is, I see as a real rx 24 problem if there is no immediate need foreseeable.
I will go
'()
25 through the plan, you will see, we can, we can think of HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
4 33 1
interesting' things to do for a few more years, but we are py3 1,/.
2' going to start phasing. things out, but if you want to plan 3
Lahead much beyond that, we are going to--and I will show you i
4 what we are-doing to start up.
5 CHAIRMAN WARD:
What I was trying to say, this 6
element of the strategic plan where you are supposed to, what j
7J wereLyou', you were just describing the need to anticipate 8
areas where there might be problems in the future.
I mean 9
'that, that seemed'like that's a tremendous problem, challenge
'10
.to you in thermal hydraulics today.
~
11 MR. SHOTKIN:
I will show you what we are doing.
.n 12 CHAIRMAN WARD:
Okay.
Good.
' # I~T 13 MR' TIEN:
Again, I don't quite follow in the sense
.V.
14 the change.of emphasis from reactor-design to' reactor 15 operations means really there-is nothing.you really need to do 11 6-in thermal hydraulics or in the very low level.
Perhaps like 17 what Ivan mentioned is that just the thinking should be 18 changed.
19 1 am not sure whether right now what your statement 20 about,.you know,'there is nothing really more to do is based
' 21' on. previous thinking of philosophy because we are so used to 22 the design type of work, try to design such a way, discipline 23 research, and that we thought maybe from that viewpoint we 24 don't have much to do.
' (m-
'25 I think if you changed, you have to change your l<
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
! 4 :
L I
1L
. thinking, perhaps a lot of new. problem in terms of thermal
}f) i
,s.
'2 hydraulics aspect, in terms of operator's' functioning.
I do
'3
'not see,,you know, all the people have to wait and sit and 4
wait for'another. accident to happen.
I think.you should think 5
about~this, no such thing as unanticipated things happening.
6 I think we should have to.think about how the operator's 1
7-operation might affect such that thermal hydraulics can help.
i 8
.I think we just have to change our whole thinking.
Instead of j
9 always thinking to judge a new problem, perhaps we need a new 10 thinking for new problem.
l 11 I think for that item, I agree with Ivan.
I think 12 perhaps there are a lot of things you need to do in terms of y
?'N 13 this new framework.
I L).
14 MR. CATTON:
Let me give you an example,
'ihis came 15 from discussion I had with some people at EPRI.
You put the 16 operator in this particular position where he had one 17 thermalcouple.
He heard a bang or something.
There is a lot 18, of process instrumentation in a plant but it is never, it
' 19 always is not complete.
And what you need for the glue to put 20 it together is some sort of a thermal hydraulic calculational 1
21
. tool-.
The operator can take two or three measurements that he 22 can compare them against the failed one.
This is needed right
. 23 now.
The kinds of codes or whatever that are available to do l
L
,e w 24 this sort of thing are so simple, they are suspect themselves.
l%,]'
25 You could enrich that, still have a very simple and fast HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
[LL_
7 fr 35 l'
- running.
I think there is a lot of room for that sort of n.()
2; thing.
It would help your operator.
You build him something 3
that will:run onia-PC that supports what he sees or refutes
~4 what he sees or does something to help him.
5' MR. SHOTKIN:
I hope you are not getting the i
6 impression I can take an all or nothing approach.
7 MR. CATTON:
I don't see--
8 MR. SHOTKIN:
Change in emphasis.
9 MR. CATTON:
I don't see any of this in 1252, any of
{
10 this kind of~--
l 111.
MR. SHOTKIN:
That is correct.
12 MR. CATTON:
You know, EPRI with what has happened V['i 11 3 to them'in the past year or so,.they are not going to do it
)
14 now.
15-MR. SHOTKIN:
The other thing you have got to keep 16 in mind, the other issue, that is how much research should NRC l
i 17 do, and how much should industry do?
And when you get into 1
18 operational concerns, industry has a large role to play, and 19 NRC does not have a major role in making sure that the i
l 20' operator is trained or that the utility management knows what
'21.
they are doing.
That industry has to do a lot themselves.
22 MR. CATTON:
That's true.
23 MR. SHOTKIN:
Okay.
What I was just going through 24 was just now some words from the NRC strategic plan.
)
c l
4 25 So on the research philosophy, I discussed the two 1
1 l
l HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
n -.
36-11 main' purposes..The second part, and I am just going through A,)l 2) the outline of the strategic plan, were the priorities, that-al
'3
'we are. going'or we will'go through a.priortization process to 4
decide which research is most important,. and thermal 15 hydraulics will be one of the. areas that will be looked at.
6 Risk assessment will be an important tool in 7:
determining these priorities.
And I will just read a 8-statement that uncertainties in the estimate of risk will be 9
examined-through the deterministic' analyses and expert 10 opinion.
That's a quote from the strategic plan.
11, The second apart of the strategic plan under 12' research and. regulation development, there is listed an
-(a'y 13-overall' goal, and I will just read that to you--help ensure 14
- that research provides a technical basis for timely and sound I.
15 rulemaking and regulatory decisions in support of NRC L
16 licensing and inspection activities, and there is nothing new 17 about that.
18
.Then after that, we go into specific goals, and i
I 19' again, I don't think there is anything really new here.
The l
20 specific goals are to do research in support of user; second, 21 to do research for unanticipated needs; third, to maintain j
j 22 technical competence--that's to keep the staff around; and l
23 finally, regulation development.
r 24 Now that, that is the strategic plan, the part of it
(
L 25 that relates to research and regulation development, and it is HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
m n
37
-1.
just a few pages, and as you can see, it just gives a, a
' [s) 2 global picture.of what we should be doing.
s-.
1 3
MR. EBERSOLE:
It comes out of an extensive argument 4
we,had sometime ago at another meeting where we were talking 5
.about thermal hydraulics, but in addition to that, the 6
~ intermix of neutronics with it.-
And some of the people, and I 7-was not one of these, said that there were not, that you all 8
.didn't use the codes that involved neutronics to examine the 9
reheating of the.PWRs that have the problem of diminished 10.
boron concentration such'that they are not shut down with all 11 the rods.in, and attempt to go cold, they were returned to 12; power.
13-I thought that your codes had included thermal f
14 hydraulics and neutronics aspects to include the
- 15
-re-establishment of fission power when you overchill, which 16 produces interesting transients which wouldn't occur if the 17 things were truly shut down like a boiler is.
Is it true that 18 you-don't have?
19 MR. SHOTKIN:
For PWRs we have point kinetics so we 20 can look at the core as a whole.
. 21 MR. EBERSOLE:
Don't have distributed?
22 MR. SHOTKIN:
That we have for the boiling water 23 reactor.
The.RAMONA code has 3D kinetics interacting with 24 thermal hydraulics.
25' MR. EBERSOLE:
The boiler shut down because it l
L HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
38 f1' l sticks;allcthe rods,in, but the PWRs don't when.you have
, ~ _
,. g t (,) :
. secondary cooling such.as you have with the capacity for--in 2'
n 3:
B&W plants, it will come back to power and produce some 4,
interesting effects.
,4 5
MR. SHOTKIN:
We don't have codes that look at that.
6L MR. EBERSOLE:
Don't have codes that look at that, p
.7 okay.
-8 CHAIRMAN WARD:
Is RAMONA only for BWRs?
9 MR. SHOTKIN:
.Yes.
l 10 MR..EBERSOLE:
Should you have them?
11 MR. SHOTKIN:
We have asked this question, the same 12,i -
question to the ACRS.about five years ago, maybe more, and we
- 13' asked the question of NRR'about the same time, maybe three or
(}
14:
'four years ago, and the answer we got was I would say at best 15 wishy-washy. EIt was like well--
l
'16 CHAIRMAN WARD:
You are saying you got a wishy-washy 17 answer from the ACRS?
.18 MR. SHOTKIN:
Lukewarm; it was lukewarm.
It was 19 that we can't see--let me combine both ACRS and NRR--was we 20 can't see any need to put a lot of effort into this because we 21 don't see any important licensing issues that are coming up or 22 safety issues that you really need this.
If you've got RAMONA 23 for BWRs, fine.
That's good.
But looking at the effort that f'}
E24 would be required to put in neutronics into one of these, the U
~2 5 existing at the time of PWR codes, nobody was in favor of HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 Q---
39 l1 doing it, putting in the large effort for that, because nobody
.p y
- i,
[;
'2 could identify any~ specific problems to address.
-3 MR. EBERSOLE:
Influences PTS to some degree.
4 MR. SHOTKIN:
To some degree, but nobody was 5
willing --
6 MR. EBERSOLE:
Has a feel for how much.
7 MR. SHOTKIN:
To stand up and say it is really 8
important.
9 MR. CATTON:
I would hope you wouldn't put the 3D 10 kinetics into a code like RELAP or TRAC.
I would think that 11 this, what you are referring to, the single phase would be one 12 of1the ones going on, you would write a code that is strictly 13' single phase, very simple thermal hydraulics, and add kinetics 14 to it.
It'doesn't seem to me that is such a big deal, ought 15 to do it.
That would be one of the things that would fall 16 under this new sort of a view of thermal hydraulic research.
17 MR. SHOTKIN:
You will have to tell me what the 18 problem is because there may already be kinetics codes that l
l 19 have very simple--
20 MR., CATTON:
Maybe that that's all you need, but 21 addressing the question should be part of 1252, in my view.
22 CHAIRMAN WARD:
What is the question, though, I 23' guess?
.(s.
24 MR. CATTON:
The sort of question that Jesse raised L
25 during circumstances where you might get this very cold water
. HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
= _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ -
j 40 1-coming.'into thercore, an'd what happens?
f
., ~.
(,I.
'MR.
EBERSOLE:
The core refuses to shut down.
.2-
-3:
HR. CATTON: L It starts'to perc a little bit.
j 4
MR. EBERSOLE:
I thought the venders have, were 5
obligated to look at this in the worst fast cooling conditions 6
to simply confirm that damage didn't occur.
Isn't that true?
'7 MR. JONES:.This is Bob Jones, NRR -- that, the i
8 concern of return to critical and the need for neutronics j
9 typically shows up in steam line break accidents, with the 10 stuck rod assumption and the local power effects in the stuck 11:
rod zone.
12:
MR. EBERSOLE:
Worse case, the BWR plant, not only
['}
13 do you have the blown steam line, but you have major main
.y.
yn 14' feedwater' completely flooding the section.
You have a 15 tremendous chill.
16 MR. JONES:
You shouldn't get that, but let me just 17 answer it in.the general at this point.
18 The codes, I don't know of codes which specifically i
19 have the neutronics and the 3D neutronics and the thermal 20 hydraulics mocked up together.
What has been done is there 21 have been mixing coefficients placed in the thermal hydraulic 22 codes, importance factors, for calculating the reactivity
'23' transients based upon off on the side calculations of the f-% -
24 neutronics for the given transient.
And they use consecutive Q
25-set of methodology to do it.
That's how I know Westinghouse l
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
re W
41 l'
does it.-
And they have their own specific methodology on how y
Li[
2 they weight the power, what part of core, et cetera, to l
'3-
' account'for these types of 3D effect and 3D cooling and
'4 reactivity. feedback effects, so the capability exists in that 5.
manner _for'the design basis event.
l
.6 CHAIRMAN WARD; I guess there are a couple other 7
issues that I guess-the ACRS,has sort of related to this,
'8 Jesse, and one is the concern about the possibility of the, 9
there being positive reactivity coefficients in PWRs under 10 certain_ conditions, and there is the Subcommittee meeting at 11'
.the end of. January that is going to look at some questions 12 around that'.
' y 13-The other is in the letter we wrote on the
/V 14' chernobyl.
Following that review, we asked that the staff 15:
look at a, you know, somewhat broader program for identifying 16-the potential for an oddball reactivity excursion accident, 17 and I think this will fit.
18-MR. EBERSOLE:
Hight pick up on it.
19 CHAIRMAN WARD:
They do have a plan, we are planning 20 in the Subcommittee meeting.
They have contracted I think l
21 with B&L to do some work in this area.
I haven't figured out
'22 exactly what it is.
23 MR. SHOTKIN:
I will go through it.
That is part of 1
24
'our: report on Chernobyl.
l A.
25 MR. WARD:
Oh, that is okay.
All right.
4 HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
____2______________
I
42 p'
l' L
1-MR. SHOTKIN:
That's part of the prepared-y fs,
h },)/
2
, presentation.
What I am doing now is just.before I get to
? l s
L3 -
that, believe it or not.
g 4-CHAIRMAN' WARD:
Okay.
Go ahead.
-5 MR. SHOTKIN:
Before--let me get into the five-year "6
plan,.and by first stating that the strategic plan as I have f
- 7-outlined it,1.I don't think any one in my branch had any input j
8 into.the strategic plan.
This was done by a group of top 9-
. managers within the agency.
10.
The' outgrowth of the strategic plan was development 11' of:the-five-year plan, and there-we had a major input into our 12
~ sections.
In fact, all'the words are our words.
.13
-In the five-year plan, there is something called a 14 preventing damage to reactor cores, and that is primarily all
~15.
.the work in Mr. Sheron's-division outside of some generic a
16 issue work.' Under that, there is something called plant 11 7-performance, and plant performance is all the thermal T.
18 hydraulics work.
That's all of my branch's work is under J19 plant performance.
20 Included under the preventing damage to reactor 21 cores is plant performance which is thermal hydraulics, human 22 performance, which I have alluded to, reliability of reactor 23 systems and accident management, so many of the concerns that jev 24 I have expressed as being important to consider are being
'Q
-25' considered within our division, but not necessarily all within l '-
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4388
43 l
1 our branch.
And what you are going to hear today is the llh-2 future plans just at the branch level, and if you want to hear 3
what is going on in the division, Brian is hers and he can 4
answer some of the questions.
]
5 Now out of the five-year plan, an expansion of the l
6 words that we supplied to the five-year plan, we developed our l
7 branch plan.
The branch plan is structured in the following 8
way -- first, we discuss the irsues that we are working on or 9
that we expect to be working on in the near future, not 10 necessarily five years from now, and there is a list of 13 or 11 14 issues.
And then the next part of it is structured in 12 terms of programs, which is what we usually talk to you about.
gg 13 These are our programs.
And we have a table.
I don't know 14 whether it got in the version that went out to you, that 15 relates to issues to the programs, but that is sort of easy to 16 figure out.
.17 MR. WARD:
It is in here.
18 MR. SHOTKIN:
Under the programs, we have that 19 broken out into three parts.
First are programs that will be 20 finishing within the next two or three years, and there are a 21 lot of major programs that we will be finishing.
22 Second, what are our ongoing base programs?
This is 23 to keep the technical competence, to look at these 24 unanticipated or anticipated problems of the future.
25 And the third are new initiatives that we are HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
44
-1 undertaking right now or that we will be undertaking in the
. lll 2
near future.
One of the new initiatives is in accident 3
management, but since Brian Sheron's, another branch in 4
-Sheron's division is developing an accident management plan, 5
in fact Bill Beckner who used to be in our branch has 6
transferred over and is doing that work, I did not include any 7
of that in 1252.
I just, there is one line that says this l
8 accident management plan is being developed separately.
So 9
even though we may play a role or we will play a role and it 10 is not clear how large, you won't find that in 1252 because it 11 is being covered somewhere else.
12 And I hope that covers the relationship of the 13 strategic plan to five-year plan to branch plan.
If there are g
14 no further questions, I will get into the prepared 15 presentation.
16 MR. EBERSOLE:
Mr. Shotkin, for all these years it 17 would seem that there could be a development of some kind of a 18 compendium in the design of PWRs and boilers that says that in 19 a condensed way, what you should not do, because you point out 20 from the mistakes of the past like the attitudinal designs of 21 the B&W plants, the profiles and so forth, and what you should 22 do, so that the industry at large can converge on to a machine 23 that has a minimal of all these problems--the industry wanders 24 in with all sorts of designs like it always has.
I guess the 25 new ones are going to be better, but wouldn't it be part of HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
45 i
1 your function to, to develop some sort of a condensed version n)-
i of the mistakes we have made in the past and the ones we don't 2
~
3 want'to make in the future?
4 MR. SHOTKIN:
Well, if by you, you mean the generic I
5 you meaning NRC, the answar is yes, 15 MR. EBERSOLE:
R_ght.
You don't want to--there are 7
certain rocks that people bring in.
You want to throw them 8-back.
9' MR. SHOTKIN-The office that does that, does a good 10-job, is AEOD.
They put out periodic bulletins to the industry 11 that highlight, I won't call them accidents, but events that 12-occur at reactors.
They describe the event, and they tell all
(")T 13-the' utilities this happened in this reactor because of that or s_
14 you better, why don't you look at yours, and see that it 15 doesn't happen?
16 MR. EBERSOLE:
I know that, but that to me is on a 17 detailed scale.
I am talking about the major findings you 18 have made where the designs.shouldn't have been what they are.
19 MR. SHOTKIN:
The new designs that are coming in by 20 the, there are new designs being submitted to the NRC and they 21-are being reviewed.
It is being reviewed by NRR.
We are not 12 2 directly involved.
My branch is not directly involved in that 23 at all.
I don't know whether we have need to be.
As I 24 understand these new designs that are coming in, they are, the 7q Q./
l 25 rationale for the improvements are based on the experience of f
I i
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
46 mm.
m o -
e 4
1 the past, not on the operational experience, but the research g
nq;m.
J,y 2
experience of.the past, so I think that this is already being 3'
factored in by-the industry.
-4 MR. EBERSOLE:
So you don't expect any more funny
- 5-things to come in like'the B&W plants?
6 MR. SHOTKIN:
I can't say anything to that.
7 CHAIRMAN WARD:
I mean, I guess Jesse, if the, if 1
8 the. agency-thinks that some of the designs it is getting that
'9.
con' form with its regulations aren't, aren't the sorts of 10 plants that it thinks'should be opened, it ought to be
.11.
thinking about how to change the regulations to define what it
.12 Eneeds-.
5/k L13-MR. EBERSOLE:
Doesn't the --
- V 14 CHAIRMAN WAP.D:
I don't see any program to do that.
4 i
15
'I haven'tiseen any change in.GDCs which says thou shalt have U 1
11 6 "
tube steam generators or something.
17 MR. CATTON:
Or thou shalt not.
i
.18 CHAIRMAN WARD:
Right.
'19 MR. CATTON:
I think the advanced reactors, though, 20 certainly give you a picture of some of the thernal hydraulic 21 research that maybe ought to be going on.
Some of them have a 22 completely different upper plenum, and we are going to be 23 faced with a whole host of flow vibration problems.
rm -
24 What kind of tools does NRC have to address the new 25-design industry spectrum?
We don't want to start shaking RTDs HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
'47 r
'l'
' lose:and'have thermal shields fall apart again.
We ought to l
D-s i
.-( ):
2
'have:the> tools to' address it at the front end.
-I don't see l
3 any of that here, either.
And I am a little unsettled that i
4-the thermal hydraulics research seems to be uncoupled from 5
,everything that is meaningful.
If accident management is y
I 6
- going on somewhere else, the advanced reactors is going on in 7
a third place, why do we need a thermal hydraulic research 8
branch?
'50 CHAIRMAN WARD:
He is going to tell you.
10:
MR. CATTON:
Okay.
11 MR. SHOTKIN:
I will try.
12 (Slide)'
l('>T.
13 MR. SHOTKIN:
This is future plans for thermal A
14'
' hydraulic research.
i 15 The outline is first, I would like to go over the 16 regulatory applications.of thermal hydraulic research to show
'17 you first the issues that we are working on or have worked on 18
'in the recent past and are working on, what regulatcry impact 19 they have, and second, very importantly to show the current 20 and future users.
21-Now a lot of the material in this was already L
22 presented by Brian in some of his presentations to the ACRS, 23 so I'm just repeating it with maybe some slight modifications j
/ Sl 24 and update, and some new stuff.
%-)
l 25 The second, I would like to discuss our branch l
I HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 L'
48 1
structure, and research emphasis, show what it was in the ll 2
past, and'what it, how it is changing for the_ future.
3 Then I did point out in our branch plan we are 4
talking about major programs that will be completed by the end 5
of calendar year 1991.
I would like to go over those with I
6 you, also show major programs that we have already completed 7
in the last year or two.
And the: this follows the structure 8
of the branch plan.
9 First we go over the ones that we are going to s
10 complete very soon, the baseline programs that we would like 11 to continue.
This is just in thermal hydraulics.
And then 12 new programmatic initiatives to try to get off into slightly ggg 13 different areas.
But again, we are, we don't have complete 14 freedom to do whatever we want because a lot of these 15 interesting areas that we would like to get into are already 16 covered by other branches or other divisions.
17 And finally, going over the five-year plan for the 18 new branch structure, we will probably answer a lot of 19 questions you have of what does all this mean for the future?
20-So first, the issues, the first is the general 21 statement of the kind of work that we do.
We prevent core 22 damage, primarily, or if we can't prevent it, we try to 23 minimize it, and we do that tnrough understanding of the plant 24 thermal hydraulic performance under accident conditions, and 25 these are primarily or have been in the past design questions.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
m, 49 i
11 We have done a little work in bringing in operation, j
~
)
{ [._
L2 the operator.
There was the B&W safety re-evaluation study l
1
-3 that Don Solberg was. involved with where we brought in risk l
1L
.and. human factors, but tha't is sort of new.
We haven't done 5-too much of that.
We have been primarily involved with the 6'
design question', and here is some of the examples.
10
-}he have, we are doing the ECCS rule revision.
1 J
8 Hopefully we will have that, the final version, out in early i
9-spring.
We have started, actually we started several years 10-ago to look at a code-scaleability, applicability, and 11 uncertainty with'the idea of trying to achieve closure on our, 12 on our codefwork.
If you remember a few years ago, we started f~i 13 something called code applicability.
Even before that we had Q
14L something called code uncertainty, and now we have combined l
15-them all together into something called CSAU, which is a very 16' important_ program.
I agree with the Chairman's statement, 17' because it will tell us how to. achieve closure on what we hope 18 is not only on the scenarios for which data exists, but also j
19-those scenarios for which not too much data exists.
20 MR. EBERSOLE:
Let me ask a question here.
I go 21 back to where I used to work for TVA and the design capacity 22 Ewith the design organization.
We were the servants of the 23 Office of Power.
That is, we were annually put in competition 1
fm 24 with other ways of doing the design work.
This is an entire l
N j
u 25 group of several thousand people.
I p.
l I
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
~ ~ -
1
'l
,E,i ; i 50 5
1.
CHAIRMAN WARD:
Is this--
.,s-
{ )-
12 MR. EBERSOLE:
It is pertinent to this.
I see this
's L3 list here, and I say are you a service group for NRR, perform 4
under their general guidance?
To what extent is this 5
autonomous within your own group?
I am trying to find the 6-flow!of thought that puts this fabric together here.
I want 7
to_know who says who is going to do what because I know they p.
8.
have options of going out and getting work done other places.
9.
MR. CATTON:
And they do.
'10 MR. EBERSOLE:
And they do, and I want to know, I am 11' trying to integrate this process, and see whether all the 12
. things you have said here have been approved, or discussed or f^V 13' they are in concert with NRR instructions to you if that's the
%._)
14 way you work, or.to what extent they do or do not intend to 15 have this done someplace else.
16 MR. SHOTKIN:
All right.
Let me say I see the last, 17 the last one'is really ACRS and the regions.
It is not NRR.
18 NRR.on the water hammer, they keep saying they don't want it, 19 but I think everything else is either requested or approved 20 either explicitly or tacitly by NRR.
If we are doing 21.
something and NRR says we oppose it, then it is awfully hard 22 to'do.
23 MR. EBERSOLE:
This is, these all have the blessings p
24 of NRR?
L ).
25 MR. SHOTKIN:
Except for the last one.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
",fM 51 b
.v
- 1 MR. EBERSOLE:-'And then if you develop a topic of f
2.
your own, that's all right..You can carry it to NRR, get it 3f
' approved?
d' MR. SHOTK1H:
Oh, yes.
Many of the cases, a lot of 15 this stuff we, well, a lot of these things NRR will come with 6
a request and then we will deve3ep a fairly broad program and 7
we have pretty much freedom in, well, subject to resource 8'
restraints, and developing that program.
9-MR. EBERSOLE:
Can NRR also elect to say well, I am 10 going to take half a dozen similar things like this and go 11 have.it done someplace else and it is not in the body of 12 research?
'~N 13 MR. SHOTKIN:
Sure, they can say that.
'jd 14 MR. EBERSOLE:
This doesn't reflect the total 15'
.research picture by any means as though there are those 16 research items that are done by NRR in other areas.
Am I
- 17 correct?
18' MR. WARD:
Brian wants to--
19 MR. SHERON:
Let me clarify if I could the 20 relationship between what we are doing and the way we interact 21 with NRR.
22 The first off is that if you remember at the 23 reorganization certain I would call them quasi-regulatory
.r~
24 functions were transferred to the Office of Research,
' t.
'25 particu]arly the implementation of a number of policies, the 1
L HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 L
i
9 --
SM 4
52' w
v w'
M
.1(
policy,(the safety goal' policy, the policy on the 3.-
6 M
n.c.'
.p].
2-
-l).mMiementation:of safety goals-for advanced reactors.
'3 Research is responsible for developing those
' it a
4-policies..We'are also developing policies for, for example, w
one of the things we have to.do is
.5 on license renewal,
- 6 determine'what information we need in order to put those L
/
\\
MN 7
' policies'in place and have a technical basis to support either
- y W
i
'8-the policies or the regulations that implement those policies.
~ c 1
1 y
9-Those are decisions that are made in the Office of s10 Research.
o 11 MR. EBERSOLE:
How-about NRR?
y*
'MR.
SHERON:
No.
Research, my division, is
'. i;12
'(t 13 developing policies for the severe accident policy
%./ :
L'14 implementation,dand for license renewal.
I determine what F
15 research needa to be done in order to provide the technical f
- 16;
- b a s i s f t o i m p l s.t.e n t those policies.
17' MR. EBERSOLE:
You are talking what regulation?
$18 MR.'$ HERON:
Wait a minute.
When we develop these 19'
! policies and the implementing regs, the regulations for them, i
s
'@'q[
20 we.qdprdinate with Research.
I mean with NRR.
I'm sorry.
We s-
[
21 explain to them, you know, the way we are going.
We have 22-their peopleLsit in on the meetings, so okay, provide 23 comments.
So we do it in concert.
All right.
But we don't i
I rs 24 explicitly go over and say will you please approve this?
We 1
l ).
y
'25 basically bring them on board and explain to them how we are 1
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 s
mm_._____..
3 53 ME 1
going with'the program, and we listen to their comments.
n.
(..J.
2 MR. EBERSOLE:
I am just trying to find.out who is 3
in the front seat.
4 MR. SHERON:
In other areas, okay, we are charged, 5
just there is basic'research that has to be done, okay, for 6~
example', on. accident management, and we, NRR understanding is a
7 that NRR approves the concept of doing research in accident 8
management. -In terms of how we implement that program, what 9'
the specific elements are and the like, that's our job.
Okay.
-10 We go off and we do that.
We keep NRR informed, but 11 we don'tlspecifically go over and say please approve all this 12 stuff.
We just tell them this is what we are doing.
In other T i 13.
'areasLthere was work that was specifically given to Research.
L WJ.
14 For example, the follow-up on the Chernobyl and implications,
-15
,and the Brookhaven program, for example, on reactivity 16 accidents, we didn't say, NRR can we do this?
The Commission 17 approved the report.
The Commission said go forth and 18 implement.a program and do all the things that you said you 19 were going to do.
What we did is we agreed with NRR.
We said 20 these are the items that Research is responsible for, these 21 are the items that NRR is responsible for, and we will see you 2:2 in a year, and you give us what you concluded on your items.
23 We will put in what we conclude on our items.
.Obviously if f
24 things we came up with affect the regulations, we will have to iG' 25 coordinate with NRR.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
54 o
E 1.J MR. EBERSOLE:
.The regulations the GDCs and other G(m :)-;
2' legal controls, how do you interface with NRR?
Could you L
l:
3
-conceive thesefand develop them or they do or is it a mutual I
41 thing?
?
5 MR. SHERON:
NRR can identify to us their user
~
b 16.
needs.
l m-l '
7 MR. EBERSOLE:
Regulatory context?
l '.
8-MR. SHERON:
In a regulatory context; keep in mind 1-9 that when WRR,'you said you know NRR does some things with L10 contractors.
.Okay.
NRR does-tech assistance.
They are not I
l'1
. supposed to by charter do independent research.
14 MR. CATTON:
But Brian, historically.the technical
- j}
13-assistance has been in research programs, some of-thcm fairly 14 research'in depth.
L' 15 MR. SHERON:
Like what?
16-MR. CATTON:
The work at UCLA that I was involved 17' with,.that was clearly research, although it was under 18 technical assistance.
I am hoping that with you guys this 19 sort of stuff would end..
20 MR. SHERON:
I am not familiar with what, when you
.21 say research, you mean on what?
Pressurized thermal shock?
22-MR. CATTON:
No.
This'was severe accident stuff 23 that was done over the past five, six years.
I think this is fs 24 the kind of thing that Jesse may be referring to.
- b 25 MR. EBERSOLE
Right.
HEPITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
AM' 55 i
1 CHAIRMAN WARD:
This is cooling of, I mean damaged e $;
,j 2
core or something?
?
3 MR'..CATTON:
That sort of thing, sa, MR. SHERON:
In the past, there was not a clear 5-distinction between--the' implementation of the severe accident 6
policy was in NRR, and there was information that was needed, 7'
okay,zthat directly assisted us in implementing that policy 8
'versus basic'research.
1 9
MR. EBERSOLE:
Shouldn't you pick up the severe 10.
-accident problem at large, and let that, that be extension of
'11 thermal hydraulic?
12-MR. SHERON:
Severe accident work now is all in j
)
13 Research, okay?
The implementation of that policy went over 14 ~
there.
Now with regard to the thermal hydraulics, thermal 15 hydraulics, Lou's branch, carries the accidents up to the 16.
point of inadequate core cooling.
Once you start to lose core 17
' geometry and you move from the RELAP code, the codes like 18 SCADAP, the responsibility moves to the division or reactor 19 accident analysis, and that's Mel Silverberg's branch.
That 20 is the split that currently exists in the Office of Research.
21 MR. EBERSOLE:
Is that a rationale?
22' HR. EBERSOLE:
With the wind-down or kind of 23 wind-down here, it would appear to be almost a natural you Er]
24 would pick up severe accident work.
l-1,/
Well, No.
1, I think you are HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
m 56 o
1 misconstruing what, this word wind-down in thermal hydraulics.
}y~.
2.
' I: would rather call it a shif t in the emphasis, okay, from the
,g 3
'research in developing, as you said before, developing the I4 Lnextiversion of the code, and yet the next version and to keep 5'
' improving the code with no end in' sight approach, to saying I 6'
have got a code that is good enough to do the work I need to 7
do.
Now I am-going to do that work.
And what you see there
~8-is a parti'al list of the. kind of work that Lou will be 9
' focusing on in his. branch.
I think there is other areas.
I i10'
'.just--one came.across my desk the other day.
The Commission,
'11 you know, was so happy with the change in GDC 4, eliminated 12
'the prime break with respect to the snubbers and all that,
{[
13-
.they said' gee, maybe you can expand this into other areas like
'14 ECCS.
15 CHAIRMAN WARD:
Would you!
'16 HMR. SHERON:
So--
'17 CHAIRMAN WARD:
I never heard of that one before.
18-MR. SHERON:
There is a question of, that we might 19 have to answer to tell the Commission what is the impact of
.20
- that?
If we went to something where one had, for example, a 21 time-dependent break opening, how does that affect containment 22 design?- And so forth; how would the elimination of a large
-23 break LOCA affect equipment qualification?
These are the kind i
fs 24
~ of' questions I see that Lou's branch will be focusing on in V
25
-which the thermal hydraulics codes serve as just one tool in
. HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
57 l
1 an overall evaluation which could include consideration of x
-()
2-
' risk, could include consideration of human factors,.and the 3
like, and his branch is rightly called reactor and plant 4
systems.
It is not reactor and plant thermal hydraulics, so I
. 5 look~at his branch as a branch that is going to pull together 6
a lot of.these different pieces, okay, into, you know, one, 7
one final answer that takes into account all of these things.
8.
MR. EBERSOLE:
One of the impacts of~the TMI 2 9
accident was the realization which I think all of us really 10 do, that we.were likely to melt the core or damage it for 11 some, with-something beside the large LOCA, and once it has 12 been forcefully illustrated that you do get severe damage
' (~T 13
.without that unlikely event, it would seem almost automatic 14 that you would be willing.to accept a higher degree of damage i
15-for the large LOCA in view of what is a lower probability of 16 occurrence in view of all the other wide field of things that 17 could. happen.
You would reorient your consideration of level 18 of damage, some higher level for a large LOCA, but that's a 19 radical view.
20 MR. SHERON:
There is revision to Appendix K which 21-will make the large LOCA presumably not limiting for any 22 plant.
23 MR. EBERSOLE:
It shouldn't be.
fg.
24 MR. SHERON:
By allowing a higher level of damage U
25 won't change anything.
i l
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
r g n-?:
J l
19[ ',
5g h ' y'
,.1 CHAIRMAN WARD:
That's for'any plant that had at the i
s,
/( )f 2-
' heart of its design accommodating large break LOCA?
o f,!i 3
MR. EBERSOLE:
Yes.
u.
I'*
4
.MR..CATTON:
There is something that is described in 5
this twelve' called the regulatory research review group, and O 2
6 read a little bit about'its duties.
It sounds like it
. addresses all of these things.
Supposedly it has been in 8s
. existence for quite sometime.
9 MR. SHERON:
That's right.
It has worked very well.
~
1d' MR. CATTON:
Would it be'possible for us to get the 11' minutesLof their meetings?
They meet quarterly or maybe even 12 to hear more about how this process works?
I think it l'3 addresses most of the questions that Jesse is raising, or
~
14 concerns.
15.
MR. SHERON:
It is' designed to provide that rather 16
'close coordination that is needed between the Office of 17
-Research and the user offices, which right now are NRR and 18 AEOD, and what we do is, you know, whenever we have a major 19 shif t or a major question to-be. answered, we convene the 20 group,'and put it on the table.
-21 MR. CATTON:
Do they go through a list like this and 22 yea or-nay?
23 HR. SHERON:
We go through certain pieces.
Can't go j<
24 through every one in depth.
Otherwise we would meet for five r
25
' days running or something.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
i; 59 B
h 1
MR. CATTON:
I understand.
g i (f 12 MR.'SHERON:
We had a meeting, just as an example, 3
there was a meeting about a week ago, in which we convened a 4
group, and walked through this entire presentation that you p
5 are;seeing,'which is the shift-in orientation toward 6
- applications of; thermal hydraulic research.
And we took their p
F 7
comments and we. wanted to make sure that they were all in O
l 8
agreement, they didn't have any basic fundamental problems 9
with it.
That's the kind of integration that we have been
' 10
~doing with NRR and AEOD, just constantly.
11' MR. CATTON:
I think that's very good.
i 12 MR. SHOTKIN:
And I can report that we had both NRR
('T E13 -
and;AEOD yesterday down in Charlotte at our B&W meeting, so
(/
11 4.
AEOD'is-starting to send people.
And on the RRRG, we meet now 15 abcut once a month and give seminars.
The last one, Richard 16:
Lee talked'about the MIST program.
There is one coming up 17 where Bob Jones from NRR is going to talk on his SPI program, 18 with B&W, and Don Solberg will present the work that we have 19 been doing on feed and bleed.
And this, usually the RRRG ac 20~
it was designed in that was more of a say management level 21 group, but it has worked out better to have the whole branches I
22 involved where you get the working level people finding out k
23 what is going on in the other branch so that seems to improve A
24 the communication better.
a}n,,
You certainly need the communications, HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 l
er_ _:-.....
60 11~
but you also need the manager, and I was impressed by the fact 7-a;;.)
2:
that:this RRRG was'at a decision-making level that they were
-3L going to agree on things.
I am a little bit disenchanted if 4
it is just workers becauseLyou watch what happens at seminars, 5
everybody is asleep.
j 6
MR. SHOTKIN:
We feel, we feel that both the 7
seminars and the management level decisions, and we do have 8'
both.
,9 MR. CATTON:
Good.
l 10 MR. EBERSOLE:
Dr. Shotkin, let me ask you a 1
p 11 question. -Why don't I see up there in that list a title.something like chronology of parametric effects due to service
.. f~l 13' system failures?
Now why do I ask that?
You were scrumbed w/
14 into the large LOCA which is extremely fertile field for vast 15 studies on thermal hydraulics and all sort of fascinating heat 16 transfer phenomena and fluid dynamics, but on a probability 17
' basis, I just pick one, the DC systems, failing it, I think I 18 ought'to know, just as you tried to know for the loss of fluid 19 how much time I have got to have before I am locked into a
)
(
20 core melt.
Sooner or later I am going to be locked in.
I 21-can't do a damn thing about it, because I don't have any 22 movement, any transport of heat where it ought to go.
I don't 23-see anything like that up here, and maybe it is because it e
24' can't be called research but it is research, because 25 eventually you are going to get into parametric swings that i
l J
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 1
$ 1@
61
~
11
.may be irreversible and.they were at TMI 2.
, a.. t
(,)
2' MR, SHOTKIN:
As we develop our accident management
[
3 planning, we will be looking at the balance of plant because
]l 4'
again from this consciousness raising thing I went to NRR
- S management, made the point that a lot of the problems that
!6 lead to concerns happen outside the control room, and happen 7
in;theLbalance of-plant.
8.
MR. EBERSOLE: -Might be at the intake building.
9' MR. SHOTKIN:
Part of the accident management
)
'10 planning that we are working on at the meeting, even tomorrow 11' while we are here at ACRS, working on that plan, we de plan to I
12 look at the balance.of plant and see how it does affect
['1 -
13 conditions that could lead to, to severe accidents.
A/
14-MR. EBERSOLE:
Is that the chronology of I s 15l consequences?
16 MR. SHOTKIN:
Exactly right.
17 MR. CATTON:
The heat flow diagram you have been 18 asking for for ten years.
19 MR. EBERSOLE:
Twenty.
20 MR. SHOTKIN:
Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to stop 21
!any time.you are.
22 CHAIRMAN WARD:
I guess I would sort of like to have
'23 you finish this.
Let's let Lou go through this one.
l 24 MR. SHOTKIN:
We have gone through the pressurized
.Jrs 25 thermal shock studies that we have done, and we are just HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
62
.1
' finishing that up now is the only reason that it is-- writing 9,.jp);
2' some final reports.
3 The next one is our tests at the MIST facility that 4
we are doing.-
We are finishing up.
There is a follow-on
~
5 program..You will. hear about that later from Richard Lee.
I 6
~ mentioned'this B&W safety re-evaluation methodology which was, I
71 well, actually.in PTS we did get involved in other areas i
8-outside of thermal. hydraulics, but this safety re-evaluation 9
asas I think the first really large study that we did where we 10 consciously tried to include human factors, and risk along 11 with thermal hydraulics to get the total answer.
~12 Just yesterday, I came back today from a meeting
{}
held yesterday in Charlotte talking about the B&W wants to do 13 14-steam generator separate effects program that we are starting 15 with the industry.
ACRS and their consultants would have 16 loved to be~there.
We were talking about phenomena and 17 Lissues, and you know, really it was surprising to to me to
,18 hear these utility engineers really getting into the details
-19 of thermal hydraulics of their steam generator, but they are 20 very interested.
It seems to be going well.
They are, the 21-only problem is it may get a little diffuse.
We start 22 bringing in probably too many thermal hydraulic things.
-23 The boron stratification is something we are doing 24 again in the university on the West Coast.
We have done most gy Q
25 of that work, just follow-on studies to get some final HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
63
'1'
-answers.
I should probably point out which things NRR has
{
,-l
. asked for,'and so far, everything I have been through has, has y'ijp
'2
[
3 come either directly from NRR'or been coordinated very closely
-i 1
4 with NRR,.This the superheated equipment on containment 5
equipment.
Since we are called reactor plant and systems 6
branch, we.have been_ consciously talking with the containment L7 branch in NRR trying to see what their needs are, and this is 8
a need that they have identified and we are getting what we 9
call the user..need letter from this, and we have been 10
' discussing doing'some tests in the HDR facility in Germany.
11
' instrument tube-like ruptures is something we are finishing 12 up.
That request came from NRR.
The people who asked for it
//~T 13 are now in research.
J' 14 MR. EBERSOLE:
That's a particular instrument line, 15 not a generic or general instrument line failure study, is it?
16 MR. SHOTKIN:
That is instrument line that comes in 17 through the bottom of the vessel-.
18 MR. EBERSOLE:
That particular little set are--
19 MR. SHOTKIN:
The ones at the bottom of the vessel.
120 MR. EBERSOLE:
Does that mean that there are no 21-other instrument'line plants that you have some concern about?
E22 MR. SHOTKIN:
At the present time, no.
=23 MR. EBERSOLE:
It used to be that the Instruments I
fs 124-Society of America. permitted you to manifold instruments on b
25 one tap that produced absolutely spectacular results when you HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
64 1
lost the tap.
I don't know whether that has been corrected.
2 I know there is no regulatory structure to have corrected I
3 that, but you became blind as well as produce a small LOCA 4
when you lost a manifold.
That looked even more interesting 5
than the large LOCA because it gave you false signals and j
6 produced a small LOCA.
7 MR. SHOTKIN:
Okay.
Right.
I am glad you brought 8
that up.
I think that's the area that rates a lot more 9
attention is what does the operator see and what is going to 10 confuse him?
11 MR. EBERSOLE:
It started at the electrical 12 transducer, had nothing to do with the transducing function
'}
13 at all.
I think that's been partly corrected.
14 MR. SHOTKIN:
As we develop the accident management 15 plan, at least the input of my branch into that, we will be 16 asking a lot of these questions of is there adequate 17 measurements of plant behavior?
Is it displayed properly?
18 Will the operator recognize problems?
Will he believe what he 19 sees?
20 MR. EBERSOLE:
Will the level indication be --
21 MR. SHOTKIN:
How do you respond to these?
22 MR. CATTON:
What help does he need in the 23 decision-making process?
3 24 MR. EBERSOLE:
How much can you flush his brain with L )
25 before he goes crazy?
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
.c
'65 1
MR. SHOTKIN: -That is exactly right.
I brought up E(/mi 2
at this SES meeting,.I said well, what is the best way to do s_ 4 3l
.this?- Should.we concentrate on the operator, or concentrate
.4 Lon making'the plant more automatic the way the Germans do?
5 MR; EBERSOLE:
How do you strike a balance?
6-MR. SHOTKIN:
There was no balance.
The universal, 7
-they beat me under the table saying that forget making it more 18 automatic, that we:just want to concentrate on making it 9
easier for,the operator.
I mean making it more understandable 10 for the operator.
The decision-makers at least who were there
-;1 in the room I was in were not happy at all with the putting l
12' more doodads on to the plant.
f/
13 ifR. EBERSOLE:
They pat doodads in the operator's
,14 Ibrain.
When do they get concerned about that?
15 HR. SHOTKIN:
That's what they are concerned about.
.16-Okay..The operator's. ability to depressurize the plant is 17.
something that is an outgrowth of some accident management 18
-work, some initial work, and we will oe, we are talking with 19-
'the Italians about running a. counterpart test in the SPES
-20 facility, which is complicated by the fact of their large heat 21-loss that fast, so we are really not sure how good the results
'22 will be, but we will try the best we can.
,23 MR. CATTON:
Isn't there a capability to do that
.r -
24 kind of a test at' Idaho?
I 12 5 MR. SHOTKIN:
On what facility?
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 l
1 )i ' ?
~
i 66 1
MR. CATTON:
I'am not sure you need a facility to do J l _)
2
-that. kind offa test, but I think this is an excellent example 13
~ of why.you need.a. thermal hydraulics laboratory somewhere with
,4 steam supplies, pressure equipment and everything else.
You could set this experiment up and run it.
5 6-MR. SHOTKIN:
If.you could.
l'
. 7-MR. CATTON:
Why do you have to go to Italy to do
]
l--
l.?
~8z
.it?
g L
9-MR. SHOTKIN:
If you could design the experiment for L
10-us, or give us--
p-l J
11 MR.-CATTON:
I am not going to design the experiment 12
.for you.
It is a matter of a mind' set.
It seems to me that (T
13 youfought to be. focusing on one place for these things'so that 4
9 14
_ you build up the capability and you don't continually surplus 15 everything you do.
16 MR. SHOTKIN:
Let me give you a more serious answer, 17-better, answer to the question.
We look at this as an integral I
18 problem, a system problem, because the way you would 19 depressurize is open a vent in the top of the pressurizer, for 20 example, PORV, and--
21 MR. EBERSOLE:
Is that the best place to do it?
22-
' MR '. SHOTKIN:
First we have to look at what is l
23 already there.
We are not redesigning the plant.
We are just rg' 24 saying here is--what can the operator do today?
And the
.t j
- 25
-questions are what indications, when should he do it?
Should HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 E
67 l
.1' I wait until the: steam generator secon'dary dries up, talking 7Y
!)
2 station. blackout scenario?
And when he does open it, how fast 3
does the plant depressurize?
Will it depressurize to the
'4'
. accumulator set point?
When the accumulator comes on, what 5
.happens to the water as it comes into the system?
Does it 6
tend to cool the core or does it tend to repressurize the 7.
system?
So these sort of questions we feel are best answered
~
8 in an integral system facility.
We don't have one that we can 9:
have' access at Idaho, but we do have--
10 MR. CATTON:
You have SEMISCALE, or have you E11 destroyed it?
12 MR. SHOTKIN:
It is abandoned right now.
I won't
=13 say.it is-destroyed, but we do have facilities that are better 14-than'some SEMISCALE overseas and we are doing tests.
I should 15 mention ROSA-IV.
They have already done some station blackout 16 tests.
17 MR. CATTON:
I'am sure the facility overseas is 18 better, but the thing is that you support the facility 19
-overseas and the one facility you have here will continue to 20
' stay poor.
It seems to me you ought to be putting resources 21 in one place.
Just as soon as MIST is over, millions of 22' dollars of equipment is flushed and you can go all the way 23 back to the BDHT test that took place right after the 1972 24 hearings.
That's all gone.
Everything is all gone; people o
25 all gone.
If you add up the number of dollars that have wound 1
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
l M'
68
- s. l --
1 up just being surplus because of this kind of an approach to
')
2'
' things, you would have one hell of a facility today.
I think 4
.3 it is time you take the position and change.
That's preaching I
4; and1I will1stop.
-5 MR. SHERON:
I will make one response to that.
6-NumberLOne, SEMISCALE several years ago was costing us $7 7
million~a year.plus to maintain and operate.
'8 Number Two is that the SPES facility was offered to 9
us very, very cheaply, No. 1, is that we did not identify that 10-it.was~necessary to run tests in order to address this 11-problem.
You are dealing with the straight depressurization i
12 of the primary system.
We have had experiments out, or you
(~}:
13 know, for'doing that kind of, that kind of experiment.
We ran 14' LOFT. 'We ran SEMISCALE.
We ran MIST.
I believe we had an 15 opportunity because they said hey, we have a facility here, is 16
.there anything you guys would like?
Okay.
For a very, very 17 nominal amount of money we said yes, it is cost effective to 18 run that one experiment.
It was not necessary for any 19' regulatory purpose to run that experiment you might--in other 20 words, to definitely have to have an experiment.
It was 21 something we looked around and we said yes, there is a 22 facility there, could be useful.
We can get the job done for 23 a very, very nominal amount of money, we will do it.
If they b,g-
- 24 said it is going to cost a lot more, we would have said 25 thanks, but no thanks.
Okay.
We will just run the codes, but HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
- D 69
' t'didn't;say I have to go off because I said-I wanted to run l'
i
- s
[( h 2.
itLat--just;because it happened to be a foreign facility meant s
3.
that I was foresaking all of these U.S.
facilities because it c
L 4 was a requirement.
It wasn't.
5 MR. CATTON:
I understand, Brian.
I didn't want to 6
dwell'on that particular--I just used it as an opportunity to 7
preach at something I have been preaching for a long time.
I 8
really believe that NIUt needs this capability, and in order to 9'-
get it, at some point you have to decide that all your bucks 10 are going into one place in order to develop it.
If you don't 11 do that, you'are never going to have it.
Maybe somebody is 12.
making the decision we ain't never going to want it.
Then you j
i f~l\\.
are doing exactly the right thing.
l'3
'14 CHAIRMAN WARD:
Go ahead.
15-MR. SHOTKIN:
I think that decision has already been 16 made.
17 MR. CATTON:
Then I think it is a foolish decision.
18 MR. SHOTKIN:
Okay.
The Chernobyl implications on 19 regulatory, for reactivity accidents, Brookhaven is doing a 20 PRA type study, very small study, looking at the regulations L21 that exist today and the analyses that have been done in the 22 past, and right now without doing any new analyses, to see 23 based'on Chernobyl having a problem or positive reactivity frS) -
24 coefficient or starting from low power, have we overlooked
\\m 25 something in our previous analyses or is it overlooked in our HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
70 m
r L
1 regulatory requirements or regularly analyses?
We ars doing y%
R(
)
2_
audit offindustry submittals.
Again this comes through NRR.
(
~s P
3 That's typically their job.
They got a sum.Tittal from.CE on di upper plant injection and they have asked us to do that U
5 because we had a lot of experience in it.
i 6'
MR. EBERSOLE:
Before you learned of the Chernobyl 7.
' case, would you all look at such things as the mode switch in 8
1 reactors that enable you to rack it up from lower powers, 9-sensitive to high power sensitivity, and would you do the
.10 investigation associated with premature bypassing of low-level 1
11 trips?
12 MR. SHOTKIN:
We are doing a, what we hope is a
(~'T 13.
fairly thorough study for a few plants based on previous
. %,) :
14L experience using PRAs.
I am not familiar with the exact L
15 terminology that you are using, but if these show up--
t 16 MR. EBERSOLE:
You know you can come out of the hole 171 so fast.that you will flood the detectives, and the need for 18 level trips being ratcheted upward step-wise, and the operator 19 prerogatives --
20-MR. SHOTKIN:
We will transmit this to Brookhaven 21 and they will look at it.
22 MR. EBERSOLE:
Okay.
23 MR. SHOTKIN:
From time to time, we get involved
-w 24 with our traditional thermal hydraulic analyses and analyzing
'. operating events that have occurred in light water reactors, l
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
t 71 e
'l
- doing what if studies, and finally, we are doing a. water i
hammer. handbook for regional inspectors, which is one of our
. w):.
i 1
'2 3l
.new areas.
Even though NRR and AEOD are supposed to deal with i
4 the. regions or NRR is supposed to deal with the regions, the i
5 regional people.when you go talk with them, they do have their i
6 own needs, and we seem to be doing some work that, that they dont'even'know about or they don't have access to, and I
'7 i
.8 think in.the' future we would like to broaden our availability 9
to the regions to help them out in their activities, and one
.10 of them isieven.though water' hammer is a resolved safety I
'11 issue,uso from NRR's point of view we don't have to look at it l
12 anymore,'it turns out.that the regional inspectors do get
...) !
13 about one event per region per. year where they have to go in i
L N/L 14 and do their own independent analysis, and this handbook is i
-15.
something that they are interested in to help them when they
~16.
have'to do-that.
17 I can stop here.
18 CHAIRMAN WARD:
Okay.
Let's take a break until 19 10:35.
20 (A brief recess was taken.)
21 CHAIRMAN WARD:
Go ahead.
22 MR. SHOTKIN:
Continuing on with the prepared
)
23 presentation, as we are talking of the future plans for 24 thermal hydraulic research, we have looking at who our users f
'25 are now and in the future.
NRR has been our traditional user.
a HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 c__1_11_ __ _ _ _ _
J
w
[
72 1
.We. expect that they will' continue to have need for audit
(-)
2 calculations of industry submittals, but that this will u
f,
.3
' cont'inne at a fairly low-level.
We still feel we will need 4
codes'to look at specialized issues.
One of them is what 5
Warren Lyon was presenting here,.the long-term cooling after 6-
-LOCA, although we haven't really started anything on that, but 7
in the past, we have had important thermal hydraulic issues 8
'come up at the rate of maybe one per year where we get 9.
involved It is over in a few--pressurized thermal shock is, 10
.may last a couple of years, so we expect this to come in in a 11 sort _of haphazard way.
12 One thing we are planning to do based on NRR's needs 13 is to look, and this is sort of what Jesse was getting at,
~
p 14.
look'at the completed research that' exists, primarily thermal 11 5 hydraulics, and-see if we can pull together this research,
.16 synthesize it in one report that makes it available for future 17 use in regulatory applications.
18 One of the first ones we have looked at is feed and 19 bleed, and that's, that's finished.
That's, as I mentioned, 20 we are having the seminar with NRR.
We will discuss that.
'21 The next one that NRR has asked us to have something on is 22 natural circulation in PWRs.
23 CHAIRMAN WARD:
I think I read in the report those 2'4 -
'two documents have been issued.
I mean are there two?
,g_
(_[
25 MR. SHOTKIN:
The natural circulation has been HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 w-_.
n D
73 1
started,fyes.
_The: feed and bleed is in draft form.
e.,-s.
There is a draft form of the feed
- l ).
2 CHAIRMAN WARD:
'3 and bleed?
We haven't seen'that yet, have we?
4 MR..SHOTKIN:
I don't think so.
NRR in talking with 5-
' Wayne 1Hodges, has said that his needs and codes that he can 6
' identify are~to make the codes more user oriented.
In other 7'
Lwords, make the input / output routines easier to use, make them 8
faster running, make them more robust so that when NRR or 9
their contractors wants to use them now or in the future,'they i
110
'will have'less problems with them than in the past, and that's 11 something-that we can see that we ought to be doing.
12
'And finally, we are reviewing, I guess we will
/~Y -
.13 ;
continue to. review industry computer' codes for NRR.
Right now k) 14' we are looking at the Combustion Engineering LOCA code.
15 MR. EBERSOLE:
Let me ask you a question.
What sort 16 of connection do you have in the thermal hydraulics context to 117
.this very focal matter of TAB 45 on heat removal?
18-MR. SHOTKIN:
Of course the feed and bleed.
19 MR. EBERSOLE:
That's a part of it.
20 MR. SHOTKIN:
What we are doing is a part of that; 21 in the past, we have done, well, you don't care who paid for 22 it, but the Office of Research has done analyses on decay heat 23 removal using thermal hydraulic computer codes, and this was a 24 few years ago.
We have done experiments in our facilities 25 when they existed in SEMISCALE, and I believe in ROSA-IV and I
Ls 3ERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 E_ _
.a.
T' : >
Sw 74 a
.i1 1-also.in' MIST, so we have a large body of research that has fy
)
.2L already been completed on decay heat removal.
w.-
3-
~MR.
EBERSOLE:
Let me ask you this.
I try to look 4
at the reactors as central heat sources.for the electrical
- 5 industry and which one is going to prevail five years from 6
now, 'and I am prejudiced to the boiler, but that you can park 7-that.
8 MR. REED:
Came in at the right time, didn't I?
- t
.!F
'MR.
EBERSOLE:
Park that to one side.
Let me just 10-pick, I will pick the, the case where we got just a casual 11
' view'of a system called UPPS at GSAR 2 which offered some 12 fascinating possibilities with this design.
It is just a, you
('}.
13 know, it is not a borated core.
It offered the possibility as v.
14 you probably already know, of simple depressurization and slow
.15 heat-up of the suppression process and some control over the 16 level of water in it and eventually claiming the heat sink 17 would be the atmosphere'to containment vents prior to core 18 damage.
.19 Sound.s like a pretty close approach to dedicated 20-heat removal, if you could decide these simple components, be "21' immune to the vast field of influences which all the 22 spread-out systems now are.
'23 Do you all or did you get into these super l
Ws 24 simplified apparently concepts of getting heat out of the 25 core,.and rationalize your judgments as to which way you ought HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 Q =- _ __
T
}
75 7
r h
to'gochere in this' context?..
L
.- l '
.m.
j
)~
2 MR. SHOTKIN:
We have traditionally been involved in s_-
3-confirmatory research, where once the industry--
4 MR. EBERSOLE:
I know.
R 5
MR.-SHOTKIN:
Did the research.on these proposals 6
and comes in, then we see how good they are.
We did review a 7
. proposal by Glenn Reed and one of his cohorts on this r
1 8.
-dedicated system.
t 19 MR.'EBERSOLE:
.That's a different cat.
That's a 10' difficult way to, he is starting with a difficult problem.
I l
1111 am starting with a simple one.
' MI(. SHOTKIN:
We typically don't get involved in 12-('[
.13 what is a better design to make things safer.
That isn't a j
q/ -
14'
- question that we typically have been asked to resolve.
That's 15I industry's job, and then we review whatever they submit.
16 MR. EBERSOLE:
You pick up the rock they throw at 17 you'and' examine it and patch it.
18 MR. SHOTKIN:
That isn't to say we don't do some 19 thinking about this and some low-level work that prepares us 20 to answer these questions, but we don't specifically target a
-21.
. major program to look at what is a better design for a safer
'2 plant.
2 23 Continuing on, AEOD after the reorganization, AEOD i
'gs 24 had a newer, more active emphasis and they appear to be a v).'
-25 newer customer for our research.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 l
1
- _=______
]
76 4
I I
1 NRR technology, the Technology Training Center which f
2 is at Chattanooga has expressed a strong interest through a 3'
user need letter which we have answered to use our nuclear 4
plant-analyzer for some of their training programs, and we are 5
actively involved in setting up this program with the 6
Technical Training Center.
7 We have also looked at a possible link-up of our NPA 8'
with the existing simulators that are at Chattanooga.
There 9
is the Black Fox.
I think they have gotten a Westinghouse 10 one.
They are thinking of getting a B&W one.
Right now, the l
11 Technical Training Center is not too interested in our getting
.12 in and mucking up their software, but we are starting to talk
(]
.13
'with them of the possibility of improving the software in As 14 their. simulators, using some of our software, and then of
.15 course, the plant analyzer is currently used in the Incidence 16 Response Center drills.
17 AEOD has also expressed a generic interest in i
18 analyzing light water reactor incidents for them.
They n
19 expressed it in the user need letter and expressed it verbally l
- 20
'at this steering group meeting that we have had with NRR and
-21 AEOD a week ago that Brian mentioned.
Whether that interest
-2 2 -
will develop and how much it will develop still remains for 23 the future.
I don't expect it to be very strong interest.
r-s 24 The regions, and the, after the SES meeting, since most of the
.I 1
(A 25 people live and work in the regions, you are sort of dominated HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
4 77
,s 11 lby1 regional concerns, and that's where the real issues are.
y.)j 2
The regionsfdo have similar needs for training that they have A
'3 expressed to-us for'using our codes to analyze transients for di them.
Up until'now, there is nothing really specific, but we
~
5
. feel that-the interest should develop, and in fact, we are 6
interested in pursuing that interest to make sure that the 7
- regions do at lose what, they know what is available to them.
8 They don't have to re-invent the wheel as I know some of them 9l Ido.
They pay a contractor to develop a scenario or 110 calculation of a scenario for them to use in some of their
.11-l training exercises, and they are unhappy with it and we have 12 probably calculated one of those already.
}
R13 As Brian mentioned, we will, after the 14 reorganization, we will use codes, and some of our existing 11 5
. codes', we may need new' software, simpler software, in support 16 of research programs that are being developed within the 17' Office of Research-itself, and one of these is accident 118 management which I have mentioned already.
The CSAU analysis 19 connected with the Appendix K or the ECCS rule is another 20 area, and-general code QA requirements.
This is an area that 21' is developing, and is something that we see as a future area
.22 '
where we will be involved.
23 Now in order to get into the five-year plan for the i
1 241 branch, let me discuss the branch structure and the research l
r -
(
25 emphasis.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 l
hu--
-- _-- J
o
<O e
^
o 78
-i
- 1 "
(Slide)
.n q(,3 q _)
.2 MR. SHOTKIN:
In the past, we have always had say i
13
-two sections if you want'to visualize.it that way.
In.the 4
~ past, we-have:had'one section that looked at experiments.
g.
5..
This is when we had our large experimental facilities going, 6?
and another section that looked at analysis, they were 7'
developing computer codes.
And then a few years ago there was 7
>8 a-reorganization that says hey, you guys shouldn't be looking E
9 at experiments and analysis..You ought to be.looking at U
1CF issues,.and NRR also had a reorganization at the time where 11-they reorganized in terms of vender geometries, so we had a 12 similar reorganization-where we had one section looking at
- f)
13 Babcock and.Wilcox and. General Electric issues where the
, z 14 issues were' resolved with a-combination of both experiments 11 5 !
and~ analysis, and another section looked at Westinghouse and liS Combustion Engineering issues, - and the NUREG 1252 is still il7 structured sort of with this past thing with the issues 18 emphasized.
What we are doing now is reorganizing into two 19 sections where one is. called research, for lack of a better 20 name, and another is called applications, again for lack of a i.
21 better name.
' 2:L And I will'show you as you look at the five-year l
v 23 plan, that.in the research section we will include most of the D-i 24 code andtexperiment work, and the applications, it will be s
'25 just the use of the results of the research.
And this will c
I HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
___--_-__---__________--_-_a
79 1
become clear on the last page.
'llh 2
1 Now I would like to go through the way the 1252 is 3
structured.
4 (Slide) 5 MR. SHOTKIN:
And just do it in terms of programs; i
6 again, remember I have already discussed some of the issues we 7-are working on.
Now let me switch to the programs, and there 8
will be three vugraphs.
The first one is programs that we 9
are, have already completed, are, intend to complete by 10 calendar year 1991, and the bottom line is that we are going 11 to finish most of our major planned programs by the end of 12 calendar year 1991, and hers i? a list.
ICAP international
.ggg 13 code assessment program with about a dozen foreign countries 14 is scheduled to be completed around calendar year 1991, and 15 some of these agreements are coming up for renewal within the 16 next year or two and we plan to specify that they all end 17 around the end of calendar year 1991.
18 MR. CATTON:
With UPTF facility moving toward 19 accident management interests, are you going to remain 20 involved?
21 MR. SHOTKIN:
It depends on what they come up with.
22 We have a mechanism to remain involved because our instruments 23 are in there.
24 MR. CATTON:
I understand.
25 MR. SHOTKIN:
And it is sort of the leverage that we HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
\\g.
%) g 79 i
1 become clear on the last page.
()
2 Now I would like to go through the way the 1252 is 3
structured.
l 4-(Slide) 5 MR. SHOTKIN:
And just do it in terms of programs;
)
I i
6 again, remember I have already discussed some of the issues we I
I 7
are working on.
Now let me switch to the programs, and there 8
will be three vugraphs.
The first one is programs that we 9
are, have already completed, are, intend to complete by 10 calendar year 1991, and the bottom line is that we are going 11 to finish most of our major planned programs by the end of 12 calendar year 1991, and here is a list.
ICAP international 13
' code assessment program with about a dozen foreign countries
(}
t 14 is scheduled to be completed around calendar year 1991, and
/15 someLof'these agreements are coming up for renewal within the 16 next year or two and we plan to specify that they all end 17 around the end of calendar year 1991.
18 MR. CATTON:
With UPTF facility moving toward 19 accident management interests, are you going to remain 20 involved?
21 MR. SHOTKIN:
It depends on what they come up with.
l 22 We have a mechanism to remain involved because our instruments 23 are in there.
24 MR. CATTON:
I understand.
25 MR. SHOTKIN:
And it is sort of the leverage that we HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
n_------
L.
L 80 me 1'
have toiremain involved.
We have been talking with the pqij 2
LGermans'of what'they are planning to use the facility for in 3
,the' future, andEI. notice they are. planning and their answer is 4
what do you think we ought to be using it for?
And so it 5
depends 'cn1 what they come up with.
~
6 MR. CATTON:
Sounds like you are in negotiations at i
I 7
this time.
8 HR. SHOTKIN:
I wouldn't even really call it 9
negotiations.
We'are just letting them think of what they 110 want'.'to use it for, and then we will listen to them.
We are 11 not taking any active involvement in telling ~them what they 12 should use the facility for because we, other than doing some j
l13
. accident management like natural circulation in the. upper V}L
- 14' plenum,'you can think of one or two small. things to do, but as 15 far as a major program, we are waiting to hear from them.
16 fe 2Di 3D is going to be finished.
This includes 17 the UPTF.
The agreement is scheduled to end June of 1990.
'18 ROSA-IV, we are coming up with an extension of that agreement, i
19' another four-year extension, but that's a very low-level 20 program right now.
We don't expect very much involvement.
21 Even though we are in through 1992, we could very safely say 22 that we will end in 1991.
23' We are come coming up with plans or we have come up 24 with plans and you will hear about that tomorrow morning on v, final versions of our current generation of thermal hydraulic
)
. HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
81 4-1 1 codes which are. TRAC and RELAP, and we expect to come up, i-~
4 j.
2 we--Icdon't want to steal the presentation, but you know, we t
3' have'been working on getting a consortia arranged to have 4
. cooperative development, and.to finish these by June of
'89.
5 And finally, all of our, we have MIST and B&W 6
testing. 'Even'this new stuff that we are starting with the 7L owners-group and-we expect to.have a plan document by the i
8.
. August'of
'88, we would expect to finish that within a year or 9
two'so that.also will be finished calendar, year end of 10
, calendar-year 1991.
11 So what we see as we look into the future is a 12 fplanned termination of most of our major programs within two 13'
.or,three' years.
a(~'
L14 L We came up with the idea of a continuing 15 experimental capability.
There was actually some, some
'16'
' funding put in the budget for that, but after the 4
17
-reorganization, we decided there is no immediate need for j
l 18 this, and we will review the need periodically based perhaps 19 on' advanced LWR issues, but again, we are very cautious about 20 this because any new integral facility is going to be fairly 31 expensive, and'if it means a long-term commitment to a lot of l
-22 money in this area, I think we are going to be very cautious 23 before we make that commitment.
24 And then, of course, B&W testing will be a major 25 part of our program over the next few years, but that has a i
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 o
T:-
, w.
R 82
[
4:
1 scheduled end also.
We have already completed some major
((,( ;f
.2 programs.
We have.SEMISCALE and LOFT are finished.
FIST is o
f 3
' finished.
That was the GE integral facility, and the MB-2, U2 k
4 steam' generator program is finished, so that's the major l
'51 I
. programs that are coming to an end.
6 On the next~page, I will go through some of the p;
7' continuing baseline programs which will anticipate the future 8
-problems that.the agency might run into in the area of thermal
[
.9 hydraulics.
I 10 (Slide) 11 MR. SHOTKIN:
One of those that we intend to 12 continue is. nuclear plant analyzer which will be used at the
'/~)N E 13 Technical Training Center, the Incident Response Center at our 14-contractors.
Hopefully NRR will' start using it.
Hopefully 15' our own branch will start using it.
And then the data bank, 16
. nuclear plant data bank, there will be some interest in that,
- 17, although there is always a problem of getting data to put in.
- 18 We see again, and I have said this several times,
- 19 there will be a long-term declining emphasis on resources on 20 code development and assessment.
We really feel that we can 21 see the light at the end of the tunnel especially with the i
22' CSAU method giving us guidance on where we stand, and giving 23 us a yardstick to measure where we are.
. ;eg 24' However, we do feel that there will be a solid base
- k) 25 program in this area.
We will stake necessary code HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
?
83 p
m 1
improvements based on new information, not abandoning the-E
, f v.
3 ).
28
' codes.
We still feel that they.will still be used at a low 3
level, but the work on' improvements that has to go on will be
'4
.at an even lower level.
We will try to retain a' cadre of experts,- but'again, as I have said and I will say again, I 5-p 6
don't think we will be able to do that just telling them to
'7L
' keep improving these codes.without giving them something more r
8' interesting to do.
I think we will have to get them more i
1 9
involved in the front burner activities of'the agency like i
10' accident management, or perhaps severe accident work, but 11 that's justfa personal view.
And we will address new issues 12 as necessary.
{
We formed the thermal hydraulic Technical Support 13 14 Center which used to be called Technical Integration Center.
15 That will be at Idaho, and we hope to efficiently accomplish l
16 both-immediate and'long-term goals through this Technical
' 17 -
Support Center and we will continue basic studies as required.
18 Now let me go through some of the new initiatives.
19 (Slide) 20 MR. SHOTKIN:
Unless there is any questions?
I
'21 guess the rule of thumb is all the questions come in the first g
22 couple of hours!
That's okay.
23 Some of the new programmatic initiatives which you 24-will hear more about in the next day or two, we are forming j
gm N-)g
. 25 international code consortia, for TRAC and RELAF 5.
We have HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
\\
84 J-
.1 got' international interest in both RELAP 5 and TRAC.PWR.
We
'm 1/~v A part of this, the
,gf,
32-lare getting our. accident management plan.
c3
. way I'see 3t, is that once our plan is' developed, and once we 4-have/the ob3ectives of how we are, hou the NRC is going to 5
approach the activity of accident management, we may very well 6
require some software'.to help us do activities in that area.
7:
And I think what we will have to do is review the existing 8
software, compare them'to the objectives that we have, and see 9
if there is any deficiencies or any new needs that have to be
~ 10 -
met either with new software or improvements of existing 11 software.
.,7 12 And we.see that as a new activity.
T['T L
- 13 CHAIRMAN WARD
I don't understand what sort of
()
14 software you are' talking about.
.15' MR. SHOTKIN:
Accident management' codes; for
'16 example,.if you want to do some~what if study, if the NRC 17 wants to do what if studies on accident management, they will 18 definitely have to, my opinion, need a code that goes beyond 19 where our current thermal hydraulic codes go.
They will have 20 to go into some core damage, so it would be a code like, and I
' 21.
will'give you a specify example, like RELAP SCADAP.
- However, 22 thereHis a code like MARCH that doesn't do the front end as 23.
well,.'but it in quicker, and it is easier, and there are 1
24 champions for that code.
The agency might want to have a, t
A l
h
'25 instead of having one group say one thing and another group HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
= - - _ _ _ - - - _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ -
85
- L
- say another thing,.might want:to have an objective look at the
- a-
. (( )(
~2 wholo. problem of'what is the best software to use for accident E
.3' management.
4L We have, the Technical Training Center has 5-11 simulators-that they are-getting on line.
We are getting in a
'6.
positionLto improve the software in those simulators.
Once we 3-7-
establish good relations with the Technical Training Center,
.8
'this new initiative with industry and B&W wants to do steam 9:
generator testing.
We have met'about once a month.
- Again, 10 yoa would love'the sort of meetings.
We are going into all 11-these details of thermal hydraulic phenomena and issues and 12.
t<tansients'and conditions, and coming up with hopefully a good 13
' story for:why we need more data and what that data should look 14-like and then how to get it.
15' Once we finish with our University.of Maryland 1 16 College Park work or more of the work and we will compare it 17 with MIST, we will finish up our work on scaling of testing 18 facilities which we have sort of committed to ourselves to do 19 at least, and that is if in the future we decide to go into 20 more domestic test facilities, it may be possible to come up 21.
with a much smaller simpler test facility than what we have 22.
been used to in the past, and we would like to develop the 23 arguments for that using the results of the Maryland and MIST.
fm-
' 24 -
We will try to continue our support to regional--
J l
25 CHAIRMAN WARD:
So with that, what you plan to du is HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
nm:
86 3
L'
'O J
- write one'of these synthesis reports or something?
1
,,\\
y; )
J2 MR.1SHOTKIN:
Yes.
It is on the docket either this
.3 year or.next year.
I forget when.
di We.will continue our support to regional inspectors, s5 Hopefully that might expand.
We will look at 6L multi-disciplinary approach to issue resolution, as was
.7 mentioned before, that we don't want to keep our blinders on 8
and say that.since we know all about thermal hydraulics, that 9
the only input that we.can have is whenever only thermal 10-hydraulics is involved.
11 We would like to be able to resolve the total issue 12-and especially where it includes the human element, and we 1
7"Sp
, 13 would like to be able to use whatever other techniques are
\\_/ -
14 needed like. risk'to help us resolve that issue, so in the 15
. future we would intend to'perhaps get involved in some generic 16 issues, or safety issues that come up that do, that are based
- 17 on thermal' hydraulics, but do require multi-disciplinary 18 approach.
And that will, we are setting this sort of thing up 19-at the Technical Support Center at Idaho.
Finally--
~
20 HR. REED:
Question--I looked quickly through your 21' plans, research, and I didn't come upon research, the variety 22-that I'm most interested in, and I thought I had clubbed
~23' Beckard enough so he would kind of listen and perhaps it would
/~(
24 be in there.
.(/
25' Tell me, are you going to do research on the, HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
7.-
+
,~
87
,4 1
perhaps what may become the diverse technique for decay heat 4
[ '),
2'
- removal or something of bleed and feed or feed and bleed or e.-... v i
3.
- primary blow-down, and are you going to do research on the g
4 components,'particularly the-valves that might be used for 5
that?'
Lpr>
.6' MR. SHOTKIN:
I guess you were out of the room where l-7 a question came up what have we done on decay heat removal, 8.
and I went through the research that we have already done, SF which is a fairly extensive body of research.
10 What you are talking about I would answer in terms 11 of our new emphasis on accident management where we will be 12 looking at the diverse systems in the balance of plant, decay
/~T 13-heat removal, whatever, but in terms of guiding the operator C/
14 through an accident and managing an accident and I think if 15 what-you are saying fits into. accident management, that's 16 definitely on the books to get it done.
17 MR. REED:
I think we have to research the design p
18 first, its success or failure and the components that are 19 needed to make it work or not make it work.
Don't you?
I 20 don't think you are involved in operators or management or 21-
. procedures where we should be looking at what the designers L
L 22 show.
23 MR. SHOTKIN:
Are you talking about new design or ti-c 24 existing design?
.V)
. 25 MR. REED:
Well, take the existing which are being HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
88
'1c
. modified every day a little bit and moving a little more in 1
sw :
1)V)-
12 the' direction of blowing down from the primary l
3'
'depressurization mode.
Take the valves.
4-.
MR. SHOTKIN:
At the present point, we feel that we 5
have done--and-you are asking a general question.
I will give 6~
you-a general answer, that we have done enough research on 7
blow-down systems and feed and bleed and decay heat removal sc 8-that if a question does come up we would like to look at the 9
existing body of research to help guide us in an answer, and 10 in fact, we are coming out with the synthesis record on feed 11 and bleed research.
12 If there is some new issue that comes up through I.
[:
(~)
13 accident management, we are developing an accident management y
V' 14.
plan where we will look at this new issue.
15 MR. REED:
Let me take a small issue and see if we 16
.can lead into it.
As you probably-are aware, internal pilot 17 operator relief' valves on German BWR recently exploded 18 internally and blew down.
Now I would be concerned that 19' internal pilot operated relief valves might be just 20 willy-nilly without any forethought put on a primary bleed and 21-feed or blow-down system, and they might get into similar
'22 problems of stokometric hydrogen and oxygen accumulation on 23 the valves.
f, 24
!knf are you going to do research or verify or accept
( '-
25 the German position that there is something you should be HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 i
L___-_____-__-____-_--_____
89 y
1.
'doing:about pilot operator, operated relief valves or this
?.
decay heat removal service or they shouldn't be used at all?
j'
- 2 3
MR. SHOTKIN:
I personally don't know of any 4
research'that we are doing or planning to do in this area.
S-MR. CATTON:
Do you think there should be some?
6 MR. SHOTKIN:
Again, we have to ask ourselves if,
,y 7L how much gets done by industry and how much gets done by NRC?
1 8
MR. CATTON:
I am glad you said that.
Brian wants
.9~
to.say'something.
The listened to Toledo Edison yesterday and 10 they' fully'believe that the PORV valves are going to be able 11 to withstand whatever they are subjected to if used for feed 12
.and on a continuous. basis for decay heat removal.
f"N-13L MR. EBERSOLE:
Add 2700 pounds.
% ).
14 MR. CATTON:
Now we know that the EPRI study was not 15
. completed enough.
Industry says gee, the industry study done 16 by.EPRI is just fine.
I think somebody is going to look at 17
'that.
There was criticism in the literature of the EPRI 18'
' study, and nothing has been pursued.
We know from GINNI when 19 they modified the valve they found that simple bench testing 20 one time out of ten they tried to use it, it failed.
That's 21 what led to the stuck open PORV following the steam generator
'22 tube rupture.
I think there is room for some improvement in 12 3 this area and this is thermal hydraulic research of the type 73 24 that is needed.
A.)
-25 MR. SHOTKIN:
Did anyone want to say something?
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
90' I
b L
1 MR..SHERON:
I just wanted to remind you, Glenn,
[~lh -
-2' that the decay heat removal systems were studied extensively l
- 3 under-USI A-45, and in terms of whether new systems would be
- 4.
beneficial, cost beneficial, and if so, what. type of systems 5
would be cost-beneficial?
6 We looked at feed and bleed systems, and we looked 7-at dedicated systems that took you to hot shutdown and 8'
dedicated systems that took you to cold shutdown. 'The last 9
full. committee meeting, I believe I came-down and advised the 10 committee that the cost / benefit for either a dedicated system l
11 that took~you to cold or hot shutdown or a feed and bleed j
12 system were not, were not concluded to be cost beneficial in rT 13' the context of the Commission's backfit rule, and as such, our
(~)
14 preliminary. recommendation is we were not going to recommend 15 that such systems be considered as the resolution for A-45.
16 MR. REED:
And yet almost every operating PWR out 17-there now is saying I have procedures for use of feed and i
18 bleeed or bleed and feed for decay heat removal as a back-up 19 activity.
20 MR. SHERON:
Well, you are saying that the minute j
21 they say they want to use it as back-up technology, you infer 22 that it becomes like a design basis and it is required.
The 23
' point is it is not required.
It is a last-ditch effort.
It l
24 is not, there is no guarantee that that system has to work.
l
-(
V 25 MR. REED:
I see.
Once you lose your feedwater I
)
i HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
_ _ _ _ _ _ ___U
~
1 I
p.
0 91
)
m,
[.-
l' entirely, that system doesn't have to work.
You make the 3
L p
- n F
( )(
2 worst! worser, is that what you are saying?
q 3
'MR.
SHERON:. No, I am not saying that.
I am saying I
l 4
' that the' Commission ' has. established in its regulatory 5
. framework, okay, that the existing systems on the plants are 6'
considered safe enough.
And where do we stop if you are 7-concluding that decay heat removal systems are inadequate?
', 'Okay.
And that they should be fixed.
The Commission has 9
specified in its backfit. rule, okay, conditions under which we 10~
can backfit' equipment.
We have not concluded that it is cost 11 beneficial to backfit anything on to these plants at this 12 time.
/~N...
13 MR. REED:
How are you going to deal with the f.).
14 Davis-Besse voluntary backfit where they are going to run 15 pressurizer.up and use certain kinds of valves for this 16' back-up system if they ever have to use it?
How are you going 17 to' deal with that?
That's a voluntary commitment You don't
.18 have to worry about backfit modifications.
19 MR. SHERON:
I can't speak for NRR in terms of how 20 they are going to deal with this, but I presume it would be in 21' the same context they are dealing with the proposed vents for 22 Pilgrim, and that is that we will make a judgment whether, 23-assure ourselves that it does not adversely affect safety.
- ,-s 24 MR. REED:
You will do it without research?
', ([
25' MR. SHERON:
If somebody would tell me what research HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
L[
92 e
'li is needed--
([ )h 2
MR. REED:
I think the valve needs to be re-reviewed
~3 whether :),1 are applicable for the duty.
And you have got 4
and couls c, a paper research study by going to Germany, and 5
look"at your. records and decide whether they are applicable, 1
6 or should be used.
l
- 7 MR.. JONES
I guess I don't understand your question l
3 about the valves being capable.
I mean if it doesn't work, l
9
.that's where-we stand.
It-doesn't work.
If they work, great.
i 10 MR. REED:
What what would you approve as a valve 11-for a primary' bleed and feed?
12 MR. JONES:
I have no requirement.
What Brian is R}-
I' 13
'saying,-if you look at the systems today, with their main feed 14 system and.the aux feed system as required by the regulations, 15 and the reliability of those systems as they exist in the 16 field, there are no, there is no need, we cannot justify 17 backfitting a feed and bleed capability.
i 18' Now the fact that somebody has identified that, 19.
should I get into the circumstance where Ithe lose all my 20'
'feedwater and I need to establish another mode of cooling, we 21'
~ are going to try feed and bleed, and that's in essence what it 22 is.
-23
'MR.
REED:
I have got to get this in.
We heard here 5
H2 4, yesterday that at the University of Maryland test on natural
=
[%
~
25:
circulation on a low sat steam generator B&W system, that
. HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
93 1
natural circulation-seemed to be wandering around and not lll 2
necessarily starting up, and that the B&W engineer at the 3
facility went over and took, tweaked something, decided to 4
tweak blow-down and that got it to start.
5 Now I am very critical of low sat steam generator l
l 6
capability for natural circulation, not just loss of feed, 7
natural circulation.
8 MR. JONES:
I am not sure when that came up 9
yesterday.
I was here yesterday.
I don't remember us 10 discussing micu of the University of Maryland.
I did discuss 11 the fact that there were tests run in MIST whereby they put a 12 person in the MIST control room through a small break LOCA 13 scenario, and he followed the ATOG procedures or one of the q g' 14 steps he did usa and following the procedures was he opened 15 the PORV and as part of this overall test.
16 MR. REED:
In a case--
17 MR JONES:
It is not a requirement he does that.
I 18 mean this is in the procedures that he can do it.
I will also 19 say that you have to be careful in this test because this is a 20 guy that lives ATOG.
This is a guy that lives ATOG, knows it 21 in and out.
It is not an operator in a control room that has 22 all the other normal plant functions he has to deal with and 23 all the other procedures he has to deal with.
So this guy 24 knows the procedures by heart, unlike an operator, and just 25 said to the control room operator at MIST open the valve, or HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
94
'4 1
'depressurize:the steam generator.
T
^
(
f3 2
MR. REED:
Are you saying this particular person
.\\,'[
3' imust inspect all B&W low set steam' generator reactors right f4
'now in order.to tell the operator what to do?
f5 MR.~ JONES:
No.
That is not what.I am saying.
What
'6' I'am saying is they ran a test in MIST that just kind.of l?
I 7.
. walked through the ATOG procedures.
It was a let's do one.
'8 Tokay.
And they were just seeing whether, what effect operator 9
- control'might have, might have, on the small break LOCA
'10
~ scenario.
Thats all the test was for.
See if there was any 11
' phenomena.that might occur with the operator trying some of L12.
.the other things that he is directed to do in his procedures,
)U
^V 13
~ whether'some unique' phenomena might occur that the normal f14 testing mode might not pick up, so have the operator play his 15 games on this'to assure that if there is any phenomena that 16 might occur, we get a handle on it or provide it for db7
' benchmarking' efforts, and I was just observing yesterday that 18
-as part of-this, I know we opened the PORV to help 1 establish p
19 or reestablish natural circulation when the system was
.20 refilled.
4 21 MR. REED:
Did the PORV close?
1
-22 MR. JONES:
Yes, to the best of my knowledge.
23 MR. REED:
What type of PORV was it?
\\
24 MR. JONES:
It is not typical.
O-
~25-MR. REED:
Oh.
Thank you.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
t-r 95
' 1; MR.' JONES:
I wouldn't have ever said it was Eg..
I
~2 typical.
wl.
U3.
MR. REED:
Thank you very much for burying yourself.
3 4
MR. CATTON:
One of the big outcomes of Three Mile 5'
Island was the importance of PORVs, and the operator having a 6
lot'of faith in that they.were operating as they were supposed 7
to.
The argument that was made at that time was to gee, this 81 is something industry ought to do.
So NRC is going to do 9
nothing.
Well, NRC did noting, but it turned out that the 10 EPRI program was inadequate.
What next?
Now what I hear is 11 that well, gee, it is not important anyway so we are not going 12 to do anything.
We have forgotten all those things?
(~)
13; MR. JONES:
Let me try to answer that.
k.)
14 MR. CATTON:
Were the 11essons unimportant?
15 MR. JONES:
Let me try to answer that.
What we did 161 as part--
17 MR. CATTON:
I didn't mean it to be a question, just 18 a statement.
19 MR. JONES:
What we did with the EPRI program was to 20 look at performance of valves for design basis event to assure
'21 that they have fulfilled their function to close when they are 22 supposed to close.
What it did not look at was it did not
'23 look at feed and bleed uses.
Those were beyond design basis r-c 24L events conditions.
That was how the test was run.
It was to 4.(
25 provide confidence that the valves would close when they are
/
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 u-_____
1 t
96 1-
. supposed to close.
In a feed and bleed situation, to be 9-s l
y,,)'
'2.
honest with you, if that valve sticks open, great! I am happy.
I 3
.That's what he is directed to do anyway.
If it doesn't open, 4
'I am not,-that was not my design basis condition in the first
-5 place.
The objective of A-45 was partly to establish do I 6
need to add a feed and bleed capability?
7-
.MR.
CATTON:
I just asked about the previous 8
position that was taken by NRC and there was criticism in the 9'
literature of that program by the industry itself.
Have you
'10 reviewed it or read it?
11 MR. JONES:
No, that'I haven't.
12 MR. CATTON:
Seems to me that with no basis you have
~
- (d' L13 reached conclusions.
And I think that's a no--
14
. CHAIRMAN WARD:
I think we have gone considerably 15 astray here.
16 MR. EBERSOLE:
About Brian's comment, he has parked 17
-himself or one'sid of this question.
The lawyers that came 18
-down and told us about the court case where one couldn't 19' consider economics if you had not yet provided adequate safety 20-and the judgment call on whether you had' adequate safety 21.
depends on whether or not you invoked the cost / benefit
' 22 calculations, and so you are still just as much afield as we 23 ever were because it is a judgment call on whether you have 24' achieved adequate level of safety.
And thus if you have, you 25 don't need, you have to defend your, your new safety increment i
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 I
u_m_
m i
97 M1 I
w t
1 on cost / benefit basis.
If you haven't, then you can't--you j
1
)
s
'2 know what I-am. talking about.
Anyway, what Glenn got into I
)
.sk n 3~
~ think has a,gerdicic flavor.
These plants are composed of i
4 vessels and pipis'and pumps and valves mostly, which-is the 1
5 root cause of most of our' troubles, and of that set, I think 6'
the valves, and that's what Glenn was talking about, are the
.7[
ones'that cause maybe the most trouble, and he mentioned the
-8 PORV.
I would just call your attention to the fact in a lot 9
of accident considerations, such as those that have to do with 10 failure of pipes outside of containment, and which impose on 11 the primary loop and the secondary loop, a necessity to close 12 within prescribed times or else go beyond the design basis, we
/~V 13 find ourselves statistically at sea when we look at the scene V
14' and.the hydrodynamics.and the if you want to call them
-15
. hydraulics of the valves, if not the thermal aspect, being 16 able to close under emergency conditions which the statistics 17 don't stand up and for which they have never been tested.
18 I will call your attention to the ancient problem of 19-.
the main steam line failure, which feeds the HPSI pumps and 20 boilers.
That's the ten-inch main steam, 1100 pounds, and the
'21 standing' void that we know that the valves will shut if that 22 line breaks.
That becomes an accident far more important than
-23 the-LOCA because the answers to the consequences are not yet E
24 firmed up.
p ll
[
'2-5 The problem is, of course, the progression of l-l HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 bu_ _-__ _ _
_x -
o-1, 98 h
1
. environmental degradation ~that occurs throughout the plant if
- i s l
1 aj) 2-you don't close these exiting steam or water lines, and you fee' into a. regressive condition where you lose the plant
'3 d
4 mechanical facilities for continued cooling.
5.
I wonder whether or not this is an area where you 6
look harder at the details'of the plant.which you haven't 7:
' looked'at like these valves?
8 MR.'TIEN:
Could I come back to the agenda item?
I 9-think-we'got into some very specific issues and so I would 10-like-to just comment a little bit about the strategic plan and 11' five-year research plan.
.12 I think you outlined the strategic plan, both for
-131
' immediate and long-term, particularly maintain.the expertise
'.V} '-
14L capabilities and also the shift in emphasis to accident 15 management, so.on.
There:you have a five-year plan, but then
'16
.yourLfive-year plan raally outlined some of the programs you
.- 17 :
.are going to wrap up, and finish by 1991, and then some new 18.
program initiatives.
19 I.see as well as this report draft 1252, I think 20 there is something missing in between connecting your 21 strategic plan to your detailed operational research plan.
I 22' don't, I-would like to see perhaps even like a matrix type of 23 thing.
How your detailed new program initiatives, programs to j
(w 24 be wrapped up, how are they related to your strategic plan
(_)e 1
25 goals?
)
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 a,
l
- m --
?
~
99 p
1 Forl instance, experimental capabilities, your code
-[uh 2-or'CSAU type of work, after five-years, are you getting better 3'
in terms of your, after the end of five years, you can outline 4'
say, 'well,-we"can maintain, even expand a lot and handle our 5
capabilities'both in terms of experimental code, or we can I-6 really line up a very' nice operator-oriented thermal 7
hydraulics research.
I don't see that really--we got into a 8
' lot of detailed plans, programs, but I don't see how they are it
'9 all together in response to the strategic plan goals, so I i
10 think'that's something missing.
It is not very clear.
11' CHAIRMAN WARD:
Do you understand what Dr. Tien is 12 saying?
/"
13 MR. SHOTKIN:
I think I do.
We are involved in the
..V}.
L
.14-accident management plan.
I think a lot of what you are 15' saying comes into the accident management plan which is being
'16 developed.
i 17 I can--and I don't really want to talk about that 1
18 today because we are still developing that.
There is a lot of 19 work going on in that, in that planning function, that is not 20 part of 1252.
21 What I can tell you is how we would plan to phase 22 out'our thermal hydraulic work to make sure that we have got 23 enough' work done by the time all of our facilities are y-( -
24 finished, and I could start that discussion by saying that
$f 25 today there are people who feel that we ought to be finished.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202;628-4888
1R '
100 1J As.we look at our CSAU for'large break LOCA,.right now all we
-,8
.have is the blow-down peak.
That does not look too bad.
We l
( J-2
-3 can wait.until February or so when we get our reflood peak, 3
4' and.'I believe--and that for-TRAC and we will do it later for 15 RELAP.
I believe within a year lets say that for both TRAC 6-and.RELAP we will have the uncertainty applicability, 7-scaleability, set'for these codes for LOCA, and I, my 8
prediction'is that it will be good enough.
.9 To-come back, and we will have to argue that case p
10' with you, but I don't see anything, any indications if we look l
11 at overall, you know, the global picture, how well we are 12 doing, I don't'see where we are going to do that badly based
/"
13
[. '&' ;
on'all the work we have done up until now.
We have f.
L 1'4 comparative experiments, we know where the deficiencies are 15 pretty much, and we know what improvements have to be made.
l J16 We' don't see any'large unknown areas, any large
=
17
_ glitches that have to be fixed in our, in our thermal 18 hydraulic codes we have today, other than looking at a new L19 area like accident management where we may need to look at i
i 20 damaged cores, where we may need faster running codes, 21 simplified.
Our needs I believe will be quite different, and 22'
'that's what we are starting to look at now are these different
'23 needs, but the need we have today for our thermal hydraulic
. rw
-24 codes, I think we have to prove it.
We have to show it, but I
\\~)
~25 don't see any, any major problems in doing that.
l l
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 m.
...e
_x____
-m___.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ - - - _ _.. _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ - _. - _ - _ _ _. _. _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ -
101 1
1(
'Now~there will be problems where one code won't do
<-e 0
z.( ).
2
-good?on one experiment.and for example, I.think a question was 3-
_ going :to be raised of-why can't we get the secondary level
)
i "4
. correct on'the MISTLfacility?
Why are we missing it by ten 5
feet?
And there are answers.
There is a leaky valve, that c
6
'the results are very sensitive to the pressure difference.
'7 The' Germans brought up why aren't wo doing well on tiPTF test 8-212?
Well, it turns out that we weren't getting enough 1
9' condensation or it turns out they ran that test with steam y
10 flow that was twice as high, so if you look at globally the 111
- code, if we had t;o calculate that steam flow, go through it
$2-very quicklyLand we miss it, we wouldn't do a good job, but in T'j :
13 the.best' estimate sense, showing up in CSAU, that might not be
- q/
14 that important, so I-think we have to look carefully at t
'15 putting a lot more, how much more work we-put into this, and 16 we'have to ask ourselves these questions that were brought up
-17 before as to how important is it to safety, how important is 18 it to overall' code uncertainty in order to fix this in the 19_
. code?
And I think we are, we can see the end.
20 MR. TIEN:
Maybe I can go to one specific thing I 21.
have in mind, just say this new emphasis on the reactor design 22 to operation, I think that's good, but this also change a lot 23
-of thinking on thermal hydraulics research.
In the code area, 24 for instance, I can say right now you are thinking still more
")
%s t
l 25-old type of thinking, you know, based on the current code, and l
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 I
g 102 1~
how we maybe expand to cope with some accident management, but g.
M);i.
2 if we.really think about operation, operator's reactions, J
-3 human factors, this tremendous development in software area
-4:
which can really simplify a lot of say actual code 5'
calculations in terms of whatever kind of indication coming i
L 6
and how the reactor reacts and for different kind of reaction, 7
.what kind of consequence you will have, and then how would you
'8.
come back to feed into the operator's knowledge or indication, 9
that's ainew' area that is developing in the software.
Some 10 peopl'e calliit software engineering or computer-aided software 11-engineering.
12
-I-don't see it here.
That's what I am thinking.
If i
13 you talk:about five-year plan, perhaps we should have some x
14' initiatives, really, say which will be very good for this new.
l15 emphasisLto operations.
16 MR. SHOTKIN:
What you are saying is something that 17-is developing, and I will repeat again, there is an accident I
-18 management. plan that has,being developed, that is being 19 developed outside of the thermal hydraulics area.
We are 20
-having an input to that.
That is not included in 1252.
There J 21' Lis a human factors research plan that has being developed that 22 is again, it is still in this division but not in this branch, l
1 1
23-so I can't say anything about it.
l
.24 MR. TIEN:
You have to change the philosophy of the gs
%)
25-code development, with the new shift in emphasis, i
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
i l
103 MR. SHOTKIN':
Once the management plan is developed,
' 11
~
l 2<
once the human factors plan is developed, we even have a
?(L;)'
l 1
3 reliability engineering plan that's in another branch.
Once l
1 s
'4
-that's developed, and at the division-level, we get all these 5
plans'together and we look at thermal hydraulic research 1
6 capabilities and needs and the accident management, then we l
7 will~have overall better picture of how thermal hydraulics or
]
8 combinations of thermal hydraulics and other areas can fit l
I 9'
into this new software development.
l 10 Right now that's in the state of being developed, 11 these plans.
12 MR. CATTON:
It seems to me we ought to hear
- /~} -
'13 something'about that.
It seems to be a major part and I think LJ
' 14 '
of what some of us feel the new thermal hydraulic research 15-ought to be.
16' MR. TIEN:
That's what I feel is lacking.
We have 17 still used the old kind of thinking to, you know, think about 18
'how we move into the, you know, the reactor operation.
I
.19
'think really you change the whole thing in terms of 20 experiment, in terms of your code development and so on, how 21 we should tackle that in the five-year plan.
I think that's, 1
22' take a more active role instead of reactive mode, you know.
23 MR. CATTON:
If I wind up being overly-critical of
. what Lou is presenting it is because we don't have the whole 24
(./ '
l E25 picture.
I 1
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)S28-4888 o
104 c;
1.
MR. SHOTKIN:
I don't have it, either, but I can w.
)
2 assure'you.that we are working to develop, we are involved in 3
that.
4 MR. CATTON:
We have documents in front of us and
'S you wind up with a rather negative view of the documents i
F '
6-because the whole picture is not there.
There is a big chunk
- L 7
of-it; 8-MR. SHOTKIN:
I think there is a complete picture 9
that is presented as it stands.- There is not the complete 10-picture for the total future because that's still being 11-developed. 'That is still-being worked out, but it is being 12 worked out in' separate plans, administrative 1y.
And I think
[)i 11 3 that's the correct way to do it for right now.
I think that i
\\_, ^
L14 if we1 start to bring too many disciplines together, and
.15 develop a' plan'that coordinates too many disciplines, well, I 16' think we-may not come up with as good a product as if we first 17 let the plans get very, develop separately.
)
18 MR. CATTON:
I will try one more time.
At least my 19 own view of what is needed in thermal hydraulics research are l
20' the things that are necessary to support these other areas.
21l Some of us have pre-conceived notion, for example, of what 22'
.these things are, that should support accident management, for 23 example, wherever it is, whatever its plans are, and we don't 1
i i
]r 24' see them in what we have here.
We are told they are going to
.V 25 be done somewhere else.
i t
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
105 1
MR. SHOTKIN:
They are being done.
2 MR. CATTON:
If that's the case, myself I have a 3
feeling that about two thirds of what I found in 1252 should 4
be just eliminated now, and I don't think that's the proper 5
view I should take.
6 CHAIRMAN WARD:
I think we have to be careful not to y-7 expect the NRC research plan to be packaged and sort of 8
conform with our particular areas of interest.
9 MR. CATTON:
You are right.
10 CHAIRMAN WARD:
But, you know, it is packaged to 11 conform with, well, partly with the organization they have set 12 up, but I presume the organization is set up because they have 13 decided to, you know, break the overall task into managable c
14 pieces, and we aren't hearing about the whole research 15 program.
16 MR. CATTON:
I understand that, Dave, but we have a 17 document that is dated the 9th of November and it reflects 18 nothing that has gone on in the past four or five years.
It 19 is the same kind of document you would have had a number of 20 years ago.
It should reflect--
21 CHAIRMAN WARD:
It does say thermal hydraulic 22 research progress, which maybe it is misleading.
23 MR. TIEN:
It is five-year.
(-)
24 MR. CATTON:
This is a five-year program and if V
25 there is any consideration of the things that have been going HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 i
c 106-1
.ois 'itnshould reflect some of them somehow.
It may be a
.,q.
q/ -
'2 matter.of emphasis.
'3E CHAIRMAN WARD:
Well, I think it is partly a matter i- ).
4 of how things.are being divided up, a
5 MR. SHOTKIN:
I think so..
6
~ CHAIRMAN WARD:
Let me--okay.
I think, let's think l-7 about this'and whether we need to ask for some future meeting, 8
which I'm not_sure what the proper forum for that is, but I
- l..
i
'9 agree this.isn't the whole package and we are kind of 10 uncomfortable with where the boundaries are I guess.
L
- 11L Let me ask you a question., Lou, about a possible
.r
- 12 research initiative that I think would fall within your, you
~,
. s }.
- 13-
'know,'more traditional way of defining things, and that is on f
14-page 6 of_the 1252, introductory section, you talk about the 15 need to have tools to analyze three classes of events, and the 16 first of those is design basin accidents.
The second is 17 events.that have actually occurred, and the third is other 18 Ltransients that may be postulated usually based on risk 19:
assessment studies.
20~
I guess what I am wondering, have you considered 21-whether you don't need to factor three and two into one?
I 22 mean at what point--and we have a set of, you know, Chapter 15
- 23 and SAR, there is a set of design basis accidents which was y~
24-
. defined 25 years ago I guess based on what people understood L
'25 about,'you know, nuclear plant operation and possible safety l
l HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 l'E_______
4
'91 F P 1 '
pu ym, 107 1h issues at that time.
You know, since then we have learned an jf 2
awful lot, as you said in here, from these two different 3
perspectives, one, just from simple operating experience, but d'
second, we have also learned a lot from a lot of analysis and 5
thinking that has gone on about accidents.
6 It seems to me it might be about time to fold that 7
experience and that new understanding into a better definition 8-of-the design basis accidents.
In other words, if we want 9
plants.to be able to deal with the sort of transients that are 3^
described as, you know, class 2 or class 3, why don't we just 11 tell designers of future plants that, that the plant has to be 12 able to deal with those transients, and those should become
{)
part of the new class of design basis accidents.
13 14 Now I realize that maybe the strategic plan is 15 telling you to emphasize--maybe this doesn't have much to do 15 with existing plants, but you do, there is a continual 17 responsibility.
I mean you have got, the agency has active 18 programs related to the future L'w7s, and I guess I have really 19 been disappointed in what I see from EPRI and from the 20 venders.
They are all coming in with designs that meet 21 20-year old regulations, and it seems to me that they are 22 doing that because the agency hasn't made any move to 23 modernize its regulations.
I mean, for example, there is a 24 brief mention made here of, well, I remember reading a couple 25 of years ago th'at, let's see, as I recall, the EPRI made a HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
108 4
1-study with the BWRfplant that if it could design the ECCS
.i[
2 system based on an Appendix K best estimate evaluation instead 3-
.of an EM evaluation, if it could, you know, in a new plant, 4
.that?that' system in the plant could come out to be cheaper and L5-better able to deal with, with the sert of accident that was, 6;
you know,' defined under best estimates realistic approach.
.7 It seems to me~it'you go a step beyond that and now u
8
.look at large break LOCA.from the standpoint of, from the, go 9'
back'to the fracture mechanics arguments, and I gather that's 10' what Brian mentioned was, has been raised comewhere at the 11-'
Commission level
- GDC 4, there might be some great savings in, 12 you know, design of plants, and which I think would make r^y
- 13.
plants safer if we aren't investing attention and resources in
.Q 14.
' design basis accidents.that we know based on experience and our present' understanding aren't really the appropriate design 15 ~
16 basis accident.
17.
MR.'SHOTKIN:
You are raising a good point, and that 18 does fall within the new mission of the Office of Research 19 Regulation Development.
20.
CHAIRMAN WARD:
Yes.
21
.MR.
SHOTKIN:
Using completed research to see if we 22 can improve regulations or change them, and I think maybe we 23 ought to go back and look at that as part of our new l
- ~
24' application section.
I think we have some expertise there w
-25 that-could take this as something that is worth looking at.
~ HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 4
q 109 i
- l MR..SHOTKIN
We, and maybe Brian.should answer j
l f) 2 this, weldo hav'e programs that are looking at license renewal l
s>
l 3
. conditions for plants, license renewal, so I think we are 4
doing some of this already, and I will take it as an actual to 5
do just a little bit more of this at least from our own l
l 6
perspective.
Did you want to say something?
]
1 7'
MR..SHERON:
Yes.
I would remind the Subcommittee i
i 8
that several years ago, Combustion, when they first came in j
9 with their system 80 design, proposed to overhaul Chapter 15.
10 CHAIRMAN WARD:
'h, really?
O 11.
MR. SHERON:
They had a whole new set of what they 12 called design basis. accidents which were based on risk.
Okay.
f"N 13 CHAIRMAN WARD:
What happened to that?
G
~14 MR. SHERON:
Well, we looked at it.
We told them it 15 was probably going to take us the rest of our life to figure 16 out whether we.could approve it or not, which really didn't 17 fit in with their schedule.
The problem I would foresee with 18 any undertaking like that is that we probably spin our wheels 19 forever on it, and I am not saying that in a negative sense.
20 It is just that it is, I think that it is a fact of life right 21 now that if one was to go back and say what are the important 22 events which you design a plant to, do away with the stylized 23 chapter, you could probably take two approaches.
One is that l
p 7
.24 you win a risk, you would recognize very quickly that the only l
25 thing that you need to worry about are severe accidents that l
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 u _._
v _.
110
-1 fail, containment, if'you needed something like safety hole as
, ~s
( ).
2 yourfbasis, could do away with all the other stuff and say you 3-are,~all you.are going to do is'fix the severe accident, 4
containment..
5-
.The other way you could do it is you could say if I 6
look at the, all the events that happened, I get into multiple 7
failures:and I have operators making mistakes, so you could 8'
_try and sit down and generalize some criteria that says well, SF I have to;take, I' postulate my events and I to have a single 10 active: failure,..then I have to-postulate passive failure.
11 Most-likely melt the core, and most plants do that, or I could 12 say I.have to take a single active failure and one operator
/'N 13 e r r'o r,. o k a y, in which case then I could also probably melt the L-. d
~
l.
14 core very quickly.
If Because when I have the, start looking at all those 16 permanent mutations I can always find one, and then it gets
- 17
into the question of well, maybe, maybe there is a handful,
.18 that'I should look at some that I can't, and then you sit 19 there and argue forever.
20 The other problem I am going to have is on if I used 21 the probabalistic approach, yot; saw at the last full committee 22 meeting what happens when the staff does PRA and when the
.23 industry does a PRA.
We are tipically miles apart.
So we 24 would most likely argue for the next several years, numbers 25 going back and forth. and then on top of that, you would throw HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
Un
~
111 1
ll
'onotop of that whole argument the problem of coming up with I
~
f~h 2"
suitable design basis for containment, which would imply that x).
3
'it would most'likely be severe accidents.
l'[
24 CHAIRMAN' WARD:
Doesn't sound too outrageous to me 5
'since that is what containments are for.
That was just a--
6 let's not get into'that.
7 MR. SHERON:
Anyway--
8 CHAIRMAN WARD:
You can't tell me containments are I
-9 there<to protect against, the people against the LOCA.
10 MR.~SHERON:
I can tell you that's what sets their n
,11' design' base.
121 CHAIRMAN WARD:
I know.
That is two different 13 things.
14 MR. SHERON:
What went on in the minds of regulators
.15 many years ago.
11 6-MR. CATTON:
Ten CFR 100 says what it says, 17 MR. SHERON:
Right now there is a policy being 18 developed by Soloton Rostozi Research which addresses how the l
19 severe accident policy is proposed to be implemented for new 20 plante, for future plants, and you can see as you--I went l21 through the first' draft of that.
I had some questions, but L.
22 essentially the proposal that he was coming up with in his 23 draft does indeed require plants to show that design, that the E
- 24.
design can accommodate severe accidents.
It does not form, it 25 does not make them design basis in the sense of setting HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
41][
q 112
,1, 9
1
- pressure loadings and the codes limits.and et cetera, but you Gg
?( ).
~2 will find out that if a utility was capable of-making the 3
initiators of severe accidents low enough, in other words, 4
suppose they were very gcod designers and they could say I
.5 couldEmake all initiating sequences lower than ten to the i
6
.minus'seven, which leads you'back to the question then which
'7-is do I-even need containment on my plant if I can show that'I
'8 have purely preventien and I don't need mitigation?
And you i
9^
get=into that argument, and I think Solotan's approach falls 11 0 -
back.
11 CHAIRMAN WARD:
That argument sort of settled in the 12
'to the extent that'the safety goal policy has been, well, it
{}
13 is, isn't-completely settled, but that's a place where it can 14, be settled.
I mean it is' clear and evolving safety goal 15
. policy and implementation that there is insistence upon 16 defense evenlif-you'didn't, even if you claimed the i
17 probability of core melt is ten to the minus nine, so you 18 still got to have a containment because they don't believe i
19-you.
I 20.
MR. SHERON:
The safety goal right now doesn't say 21 that.
22 CHAIRMAN WARD:
No.
That's why I corrected myself.
.23 MR. SHERON:
That very fact is causing the staff a r-24
' lot of consternation, because we don't know--we really get 25 down to nitty-gritty of applying the safety goal, you run into HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4f,88 l-----_____
A
i I
113 J1
.all these' questions of.what is an acceptable core melt h.
- (
j.
2
. probability, acceptable. containment failure probability?
What
- v 3.
is a large re2 ease?
All'these questions need to be answered, 4-
'okay,Liniorder for us to really apply that safety goal, so I 1
5
~just think.that I would almost feel better that this kind of
- n 6
question be revisited once, once the Commission--I use the
'7 word globally--staff, commissioners, the ACRS--once we all yi
.8 agree.on how we are going to solve this issue of severe j/'
9.
accidents in the existing. plants and future plants, and I n10 1think-once that's established, so that'we know how plants will i
'11 1 be designed in the future, for severe accidents, then I think i
12L
.it is appropriate that you can go back and revisit the design
'./"%
13
-base and say can we do it better?
- V
- 14 '
CHAIRMAN WARD:
Yes.
I certainly think they are 35 connected, and you know, related very much, and I get the 16 feeling everybody is waiting for everybody else, but what I
-17
.have heard is that you know, you have developed within the
\\
18 agency and really within'the industry this really, there is 19' really a magnificent capability for, you know, thermal 20
-hydraulic analysis, and you are concerned that it is going to
" 21 -
rot away because you don't have any real high-powered stuff to 22
. work on.
23:
It seemed to me there are some sort of pretty 24 exciting possibilities for work, but just seemed to be content pc:Dr 1
25 to work, to sit on--I mean back 25 years ago there were a lot i
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
)
l
=_ ___
a
'114 l' -
of,1you know,..because of the extent of understanding, the
}4j 2:
knowledge base, the time, there were a lot of, sort of lot of f-3-
pragmatic' decisions made about design basis accidents, and one 4-thing and another, and they were made, they were judgment
-5 based, and the whole business marched on.
They were not bad
'6 decisions.
7 But you know a lot more now.
I mean you are in a 8
position to make better, take more scientifically based 9
decision or positions on some of those things, but there
- 1CF doesn't seem to be any energy for doing that, and I --
11 MR. SHOTKIN:
If the ACRS has got or this
-12 Subcommittee has ideas for new, exciting areas to look at,
(~d Y
13 please suggest them, but just remember that we can recognize
- A
~ 14 busy work as well as anyone else and it has got to fit into 15 the whole agency mission.
What is important for the agency?
16 I think that's what1the best people want to be working on.
It
'17 is not. hey, I'know how to do' thermal hydraulics, what can I 18 think up in order to keep myself busy doing thermal 19 hydraulics?
Keep that in mind when you--
20 MR. WARD:
I am certainly not proposing that, but I s
21 think there is some fundamental things that the, I mean I 22 think as a whole, the agency hasn't assimilated the experience 23 of the past 25 years experience, both operating experience,
.- es 24 and the experience of better analysis, hasn't assimilated that U
25 experience and recast it into a modern set of regulations, and l
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
= __
115' L1-
.to me, doing that'is,. takes pretty high-powered people as a fK
~
~;Q 2
pretty exciting task.
3' MR~ SHOTKIN:
If you are talking going back and 4'
changing the regulations based on_what.we know, I guess we are 5
going to be-doing.that a little bit with the GDC 4 versus 6
ECCS,'so'we will start that, but keep in mind that this, when 7-
-;Ifgaverthis personal thing at the beginning of the talk, 8
getting it to human factors, management issues, the people who
'9 presented it at this conference were quite up front, saying.
10 that thisyis. sort of beyond existing regulations, so even 111-getting into,these new, important areas,[I think people
.12 '
realize either they are slightly beyond, they are not covered (N!
13
-well in current regulations, so I think if thereLis' going to
.J
.14 1be any change to regulations, it will be in this area, the new 15 area, rather than say hey, we are much smarter, let's go back
-16 and look at it.
I could be wrong.
There is nothing wrong l
'17
-with doing it, but I think that the emphasis will be more in 18' the newer areas.
l 19 MR. REED:
I would like to get in ont last shot at l
l 20' this thing that is bothering me.
You people said you couldn't
{
L 21-
'backfit for diverse decay heat removal system, couldn't have 22 that happen as'a result of A-45 and the economics of that, but 23' you are facing advanced light water reactors and they have l'
L 24:
been submitted, part of them already, for Westinghouse and, by gy A/
25 Westinghouse and by CE.
In most of those advanced system 80 L
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
'M I
[
116 l
l 4
il there are the utilizations of the diverse q
'plus and Walker,
( )
f2 decay heat removal by_depressurization and blow-down.
13s
.Now how are you people going to approve let's say 1
4'
'and pass.cn1 and make a decision on'that, those advanced 5
l designs,:which-I understand you are going to do?
How are you
- EL going ~to do'thEt if you haven't done any research on it?
,e 74 MR. JONES:
Mr. Reed, I would argue that's the
[8 industry's job, to defend.their design.
9' MR. REED:
How are you going to say it is wrong?
It 10.
is'your. job to'say~it is wrong.
l~
L'
'11 MR.' JONES:
We'can approve it for a preliminary l
=
12
~ design approval subject to them doing appropriate testing for j.
113 prior to it'being exercised in the--these are paper plants.
14' MR. REED:
You are going to come out with--
[.-.
I 15 MR. JONES:
That is what I think we can probably be 16 doing.
I 17-MR. REED:
You are saying you find that system has 18 never been really rigorously tested and you don't approve it 19:
and they must do some testing?
20 MR.' JONES:
No.
We will approve the design based on 21'
'the analysis subject to confirmatory testing of selected areas 22-as we deem appropriate.
23 HR. REED:
Fine.
That's all right with me as long p- ;
24-as it gets done, but I would like to see it get done earlier lN
.25 so that some of these operating reactors which have HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATIO1; -- (202)628-4888 i
i
_-. _2 _-
117 1-vulnerabilities get fixed.
-j, -)
2 MR. EBERSOLE:- I would like to go back to 1255 just 3-a moment and pick up Dave's remark on Table 1, required 4:
accident transient analysis, Chapter 15.
I think it would be
.5 appropriate to' recognize that Chapter 15 as we look at them I
' 6 ~-
now has really anacronysms, and in the context they are not 7
complete,'and:that the so-called design basis. accidents be 8-stripped of their holy character.
I particularly like, I used 9
to have to work with, in the old TVA outfit, and they would 10L say we are going to have the safest plant we can have because 11 we are' going to take care of all these design basis accidents j
12-and that's.all we are going to take care of because that makes
' r)
13
.us comply with the' regulations, so we don't have to consider
(_/'
I 14-
'AC failure and DC failure, which in fact is a lot more
'15'
.important than many of the listed things here.
Those are just 16 examples.
17 MR. SHOTKIN:
- Okay, i
18 MR. EBERSOLE:
Because those are quote, incredible, i
19 That was the terminology before PRA.
I 20 MR. SHOTKIN:
Mr. Chairn I have the vugraph, I 21 have two more topics that are on the agenda.
One is future
-22 spending, which is the last vugraph, and another is the 23 spending priorities in light of expected budget productions.
D%
24 Should I go on to those?
C/ !
25-CHAIRMAN WARD:
Yes, let's go.
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
- = _ _ _
118 1:
(Slide) 1
" c ~.
yss This is the last page.in the handout, 4
l-2.
MR..SHOTKIN:
e 3,
and I don't.want'to go'through every number, but just acquaint
~4 you'withithe. trends that I am trying to portray here,
.5
'First, notice at the top that it starts Fiscal '88 g
6
'and goes'through Fiscal
'92.
It is broken into'two broad i
'7 program areas that are with this new organization within the 8
branch.
One,'the research area,.where this is a first cut at
.9 defining.what programs.would go into the research section, and 10 then-this is: applications, where this is a first cut at what 11?
work would go on'in the application section~.
-12 At the very bottom, I put continuing experimental
',/]"J.
13-
. capability as a separate item because we made a commitment
.14 -
that.we.would review that again~in Fiscal '90 and I have a
~
'15 small amount shown there and then some funding assuming that 16 that might get. approved, but that the funding shown would 17.
indicate that this facility if it did get built would be more 18 like the University of Maryland facility rather than a 19:
ROSA-IV.
i 20 The key things to note is on the total, you see on
- 21 the research area the totals go down as a function of time as I
22 our. major' programs close out, and you can see the 2D, 3D, it 23-goes down and goes to zero in '92 and the B&W testing goes up l
24
.in '89 but then goes down to zero.
We continue a program of fg i
25 basic studies, ROSA-IV at some modest level.
1 i
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
1 1
)
119 1
ICAP I.show some money in '92 but that is wr0p-up kh 2:
moneyLthat would go almost to zero in
'93.
We continue a low i,
3' level and codelimprovement, and code uncertainty.
When you 4:
'look at:the1 applications section, you see that the total 5'
starts at4.2, then goes up, and then reaches'some approximate 6
. level, a constant level, where'we would put decreased emphasis 7
lin the~ Tech Support Center.
We do.some work in containment 8
and balance of. plant".
I assume that what we are doing in 9[
Chernobyl implications would be finished in
'88.
We would
~10 still'be doing industry audits.
We would be looking at some L il' regulatory issues.as they arise.
I have some planned spending 12 here on accident management that when I showed it to some, I
k~Y,
13-some people say it is too low.
Some people may say it is too
%)
l 14 high.
Right now it is uncertain.
j l
15 The nuclear plant analyzer we feel would, should be 16'
.used by the training center, the regions and ourselves and the j
17 data bank, and then we would be doing analysis of transients i
18' as needed.
19 CHAIRMAN WARD:
Your numbers on accident management, 20 then what, that's your branch's contribution to this effort 21-which is going on in the other branch?
Y
~~
'22 MR. SHOTKIN:
That is correct.
That's an 23-approximate indication of at the present time what we could Eg-j.
24 see as a reasonable effort.
It may turn out to be too low or
.V 25 too high.
y HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 c_
_ - _ =. _ _ _ _. _. __
A
1 t
120 x
L1/
(Slide)
.s' A)h
(
2 MR. SHOTKIN:
Okay.
That's the end of my prepared
- 3-presentation.
What I can do is just go over in words spending 4
' priorities in light of expected budget reductions.
L5 We have gone through an exercise where our branch N
j6
'has been asked to'take a hypothetical S4 million cut in Fiscal 7
'88.
That's:4 million out of 14, 15.8 million.
What we did
- 8-is make'up aclist of priorities, where we would take the cuts, 9..
and I could go over those fairly quickly.
We have broke it up i
10
..first into' chunks like 500.K chunks, so one of the first
'11 -
chunks'that we have taken--these priorities might change when 12 we.get the actual funding cuts--we looked at our, our ROSA-IV 13" l support, and we. thought that we would cut that back.
We are 14 certainly going to-terminate our resident engineer at JERRY 15 and bring him home and rely on short visits by analysis 16 personnel. 'If we had to continue our analysis of ROSA-IV 17:
tests that ans are looking at for certain issues like 18 instrument tube line rupture or small LOCA without HPI, just 19
. delay the analysis and issue resolution.
20 The next chunk would be in what we call basic 21 stu' dies.
We would terminate the analysis that is going on at 22 the MB 2 test data.
We wouldn't set up analysis centers at 23
. universities.
We plan to set up, you know, we have an office 24
. policy to put more money at universities, and typically the t
f3.
()
25 money that goes out to universities is some professor that j;
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
--_-___-_-a
f' <,
4 gc-9 121 b
1 knows how to do experiments, but we haven't been servicing the
- - ~.;.
.(f 4L professors that are more interested in doing analyses, and e
.3 using computer codesi so what we would like to do is get some 4;
money out as part of this analysis centers and we were 5
just--and'that, by the way, we do that every year.
We come up 6
with this idea and then we cut it, so probably it will be the 17 same'this year as well.
I still think it is a great idea.
8 We would, the next chunk of money would be to l9' terminate a. lot of work that we have going on at Brookhaven 10; Lab-in doing domestic assessment of TRAC, BWR, and maintenance 4
11l of RAMONA, and we put that code on the shelf until a future
- 12 '
need arises.
13-1The next chunk of money would be to,-again in the
'1' d,
basic' studies, is-instead of continuing some of the lr 11 5 -
experimental work that we have going on at universities, we-
-16 just terminate most of that work.
We provide for support to 17 provide final reports and consultation resource services to 18 NRC.
19:
The next chunk of money would be in the ICAP area, 20 that we would eliminate the lab critiques of the foreign 21 assessment reports, and hence eliminate any formal lesson 22 learned capability in the ICAP.
We would reduce by 50 percent 12 3 of the training workshops.
We would delay implementation of 124 some of the MPA packages at the AEOD training center until the 25 next year.
HERITAGE-REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
122 1
The next' chunk would be to, in the code area, that
- .z U
~
I,J..
we would.just. reduce our work in code improvement and delay
- 2 3
- completion of these codes beyond the June '89 current target, 4
-andithe final chunk'would be:to, in the Technical Support
- 5
Center, to just eliminate the synthesis reports, actually p.
6 eliminate'the synthesis report on natural circulation, and 7
that's about where we stand.now.
Where we stand on Gramm 81 Rudman is'you know as'well as I do just whatever appears in 9
.the newspapers.
i 10.
CHAIRMAN WARD:
Okay.
'11 '
MR. SCHROCK:
I have some questions on what you mean 12 by final versions of the thermal hydraulics codes by June
'89,
- /)N 13 and then you'just commented that cutting this budget might
\\-
14-delay that, but when you look at these figures, it is hard to 15 see what accomplishing a final version really means in terms 16 of what the activity is.
17.
Can you comment on whe.t you mean a little more by a 18.
final version?
19 MR. SHOTKIN:
Yes.
We have been working on TRAC and l
20 RELAP 5, on a frozen version for the last two years, give or 21:
take half'a year, and we had scheduled the next version of the
-22 codes to come out this past summer.
Most of that work has 23 been delayed because we have concentrated on getting the QA 24' documentation out for the CSAU methodology, and in doing work
,e s '
(_)t 25' on the CSAU type methodology.
i l
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 1
iM k 4'i
.mg oW, 123 a-
- Vg 1.v di
-1
. We have, though, this backlog of completed work that o
& :. /m.
oc!
)
2'
.can go into a next version of the code, so there is that
~
%/
Y10 L3 factor.
6:
- 4' The next factor is that ICAP has been going on.
We
_:9
- y V
5 have beenidoing a lot of code assessment, and on 2D/3D, and we ji
-6 have' identified several areas where model improvements are-L
-6 7;
needed.
4
-8i
.Let's say.model improvements are suggested.
We j:
]
- 9-
' don't say that they are needed, but there is a list.
Now we 1.
n E 10'
. went there at'the ICAP meeting and there is a list this long 3
11-for TRAC and a list'this long for RELAP, and we put together a 12-code improvement plan that would try to improve all of the
/
~ 13 -
specific models that have been identified as deficiencies when 14 we develop these consortia.
15 Now if-we don't have the consortia, we will have to-161 go look and-put priorities on these, how important are they to
,[
17 safety?
How important are they to CSAU?
Do we really need to 18 do this?
Is it one guy doing one test, and he wants to model, 19 or is there a general consensus that there is a real 20' deficiency in the code?
So we have these lists and we have 21
-this completed body of work that we want to finish everything 22 in June of
'89, and that's where, you will hear tomorrow the 23
. code improvement plan, where we are going to meet in about a l[}4 24 month, and go over what resources are needed, and who is going v
A.
I 25 to supply the resources, who is going to do what to finish the
'O ~
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 ih' m
W 124 Ur 1
fjob.by June of
'89.
-But it is a job that we have identified, 4
c..
(
)
2
.the:needs.have been identified today.
.s x
3 MR. CATTON:
Lou, I got the sense at the ICAP 4-meeting that there is some people who would be satisfied with 5
TRAC version.14.3.
By.the same token,'there are some who felt 6
Ethat RELAP is great just where it is at.
I think that these 17 opinions need to be put forward in order to get a better.
8 sense.
9 MR. SHOTKIN:
We hit them every day at work, these 10 opinions, yes?. I am kidding.
oll '
MR. CATTON:
Why are these people wrong?
I mean 112 this should be tomorrow if that's where code improvement is
/~%
13 going to be presented, but just something to think about.
Ij-s 14 MR..SHOTKIN:
It is hard to say when anyone is wrong 15 or right.
16 MR. CATTON:
Things need an end.
Some people are 17 saying that this looks like a good end.
If it isn't a good 18 end, why isn't it a good end is something I would like to 19 know.
l 20 CHAIRMAN WARD:
Are they just individuals or a
.21 consensus.for this or is that the problem, Lou?
We have just l
22 got-different individuals expressing different opinions?
j
=23 MR. SHOTKIN:
There is that.
There are, yes.
I 24 don't want to get into personalities as to who is saying what, i
g~s u ).
25 but just take your question as it stands.
We have always had HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
_ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ - _.
[
125
~
'1; th~e; question-of when, how good is. good enough and when do we m
' f'jM 2'
-finish?
And'we could stop today or we could say well,.let's
- n 3'
take what we'have today, and use'it and then see if there is
~
'4-
'anything wrong and use CSAU to do that.
5 We have a lot of people use these codes.
Whether 6-you like it:or not or whether it is good or. bad, there has 7
'been a~ lot of use of these codes and a lot of things i
8 identified where people who use'the codes feel improvement
'9 should be made.
10-Now what--and NRR-has identified some needs that are 11' more to do not'so much with physical modeling but improving 12 input / output routines and improving numerics, and we have done f'5p 11 3 a lot of'this work already over the last two years.
What we
%)
14:
'are:saying is should we finish the frozen version of the code 15 ethat existed two' years ago, or should we take advantage of the 16 work that went on the past two years, add on to it another 17 year or so of work that we would do under a consortium and 18.
then call-that the final version of the code?
19 MR. CATTON:
I think what I would like to hear is 20' what are'those things?
And I have been sitting in on the TPG 21 meetings and listening to what is going on, and what I noticed 22 about-these lists of the ICAP meeting that were presented by 23 the code developers is that they did not necessarily reflect 24 what was coming out of the CSAU.
The lessons learned which I 25 believe are being compiled by Gary Wilson at Idaho, are not, l
f HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
~
126
'l don't have the same kinds of things in them so there is a
,m.
- .;l )
,2 disconne'ct between this group whose charter is the uncertainty 3
and'theicode developers.
Somehow you have got to put that
'4 together if you are arguing for --
5-MR. SHOTKIN: 'We have input from several groups, not 6
just the TPG; and several vocal groups.
.7 MR.'CATTON:
I understand that, but the bottom line 8
isLuncertainty.
If it shouldn't be the bottom line, I would 9
like to hear why it shouldn't be as well.
10 MR. SHOTKIN:
Okay.
'll MR. CATTON:
I may be off on the wrong track.
12 MR. SHOTKIN:
There are commitments, for example, in f'{
13 2D/3D program.
v 14 MR. CATTON:
Shouldn't this be part of tomorrow's 15 meeting on code development?
I was just trying to set the i
16 stage.for it.
17 MR. SHOTKIN:
It is coming up tomorrow.
18 MR. TIEN:
Coming back to the budget, if this cut 19.
does come, $4'million out of 16 million, 25 percent, that's 20
'much higher than the I guess agency's total, and can you 21' actually carry out this cut especially considering some 1
-22 contract going into our side like universities, well, already 123 in'the FY '88?
em '.
24 MR. SHOTKIN:
Well, you know, what can I say?
I j
l
>.q/
25 think what it reflects is the view within the Office of HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 l
I
y-,.---
127-L T
M' 11 JResearch' based on talking within the agency of the relative
.r j 2
importance.of' traditional thermal hydraulic research in terms n
Qp 3-of'the. entire agency mission, and I think we have to face up h
4 to:it, and I think this Subcommittee'has to face up'to it, and
)
the~way,weLare facing up to it is saying hey, we want to, we 5;
6' want to become.more-relevant.
We want to change.
We want to j
i t
7 do things that are important for the agency, and that's what
'8
.ws-are: starting to think about.
'9:
Now it-didn't get into 1252.
I think, don't think 10 we will have the answers to this for maybe another half a 11
-year, year, and.I would like to say now I wouldn't want to
.12 delay 1252 until we get all this'other priority straightened p
L /])
13-out.
' ' \\,.
14-But I think that can we absorb it?
Sure you can
- 15 absorb ~it.:
And continue on, you know, limpingly, and it is 16 inot.everything you would like to do.
You delay some things, 17 but the main message-is that it reflects the priority of this i
18 kind: of research within the agency at this time, and I think 19 that's important to realize.
R20 MR.-CATTON:
With the shift from the kind of thermal 21
. hydraulics we all have sort of grown to love, to severe 22 accidents, there is duplication, and let me give you an 23 example.
In 1252, COBRA dash NC, which I thought had died a
-24 long time ago, that's a containment code, you have got 25-contained HECTOR, CONTAIN, BEACON and if I thought about it, I HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
= _ _ _
-2
'128 l
! h;.
i
'P
' L1
.c'ould probablylcome up with a couple of more.
Why are you l : p~c r 1 L
12 doing~that?. Why don't you just get rid, get rid of some of
, %)
3-them?
You only need one.
4-MR. : SHOTKIN:
The only one that is in my purview is
'5 COBRA-NC, and we.have'been talking with the containment branch 6
and they'said'that's the one they want.
They want to see some 7
' work.done with that.
They want'to see some improvements made m
8.
to thati and that's the one we are working with.
~
.9 MR~ 'CATTON:
Well, I think that--
' 10 -
MR. LAUBEN:
This is not completely just for severe
~
~
11:
accidents I think in the sense that you think of, but what
~12 they are interested in to a large extent is equipment p
13 qualification.
14 MR. CATTON:
That means you want to predict humidity 15 andLtemperatures and that's what CONTAIN does.
16 MR..LAUBEN:
They say that's the one they want to
~17 use.
18, MR. CATTON:
Nobody is saying they want to use 19 CONTAIN at this time.
Maybe you ought to say take the money 20 from CONTAIN and put it, I mean you are developing at least 21 three. codes that do exactly the same thing.
-22 MR. SHOTKIN:
Okay.
I don't know whether--
23 MR. CATTON:
HECTOR, CONTAIN and COBRA-NC; that is
- 'l 24 too many.
a f:
25 MR. SHOTKIN:
We are not doing any development work HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
129
- 1'
.on COBRA-NC;. I don't'know-about CONTAIN.
That's in another g
i f--y;
- h., i_)
'2
. branch, andLHECTOR is'also in another branch.
13' MR. SHEROM:
Also severe accident.
k
'4 MR. CATTON:
CONTAIN is very general.
It does
- 3..
.5' everything.
It is'really a nice code from what I gather.
6 MR. SHERON:
.I.mean, you know, NRR is aware of all y
7 the codes that we'have developed and I think that what they 8
are telling us is that from the design basis standpoint, they 9
find the COBRA-NC codes--
10 MR. CATTON:
Facing 25 percent reduction is the 11 bottom line here.: And I think when that happens to you, you
-12
.can't -
we'll--
I'k 13 MR. SHOTKIN:
We are not going to save much money in V.
14 that; area.
- 15 MR. CATTON:
I understand that.
16 MR. SHOTKIN:.Let me tell you--
17-MR. CATTON:
I thought COBRA-NC had died a long time 18.
ago; I didn't know it still existed.
I don't believe in 19.
that.
L20 RMR. SHOTKIN:
Old codes never die!
l 21 MR. CATTON:
COBRA was a sub-channel single phase 22
' code-when it started, and now it does everything.
i 23' MR. SHOTKIN:
What they are interested in is what is i
jeS '
_24 the length, the amount and extent of superheat on certain
.V 25 equipment within the containment.
And that, they feel they HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
=_-
a 130 1;
require.afthree[ dimensional analysis to get that answer, g
- j J v.
- 2 because of some: preliminary data or some data from HDR,and 1
3' some' discussions with people from there say if you do, if your
'4 subcompartments are too large, you do not pick up the natural 5
convection that goes.on when the subcompartment is going to 6'
change:the'superheat.
7 MR.:CATTON:
I understand.that CONTAIN can't do C
I8 that, but HECTOR can and-HECTOR apparently also has been 19
. assessed against the European data that you are using as a
.10 Lbasis.
11' MR. SHOTKIN:
I will bring it up.
We will tell'the 12 containment' branch why aren't.you guys using HECTOR or 6
13 CONTAIN?
g 14' MR. CATTON:
That's what I would do.
I just bring 15 sthis up as a, to.me one of the~ obvious duplications.
I don't
~
16
-know how much other duplication is in here, but it seems to me
'17 somebody is~ cutting your budget, you get rid of the 18 duplication first.
I would have had that as item number one 19
-in your list.
20' MR. SHOTKIN:
I don't know of any duplication.
And 21:
I don't know whether what, I don't know whether what you are I
22-suggesting is real duplication, but--
23:
MR. CATTON:
It may not be.
g-g 24 MR. WARD:
Your lists were 500 K blocks you said?
'V
- 25 MR. SHOTKIN:
Roughly; toward the end they got up a HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 1
--- _ =-___:___-____-__
i
s 131 x:
4 1
21ittle higher.
. ;30-
).:
2
. CHAIRMAN. WARD:
Is this ever on COBRA-NC of that 3
magnitude?
4-MR. SHOTKIN:
No.
It: is like 50 K.
5 ~
MR.-CATTON:
I think it'is the'second item under 16 applications'
'7 CHAIRMAN WARD:
Okay.
Any other questions for Lou?
4
'8
.Okay.
Thank you, Lou.
thr. Bob Jones, are you ready?
9 MR. JONES:
I. don't have any slides.
If you don't
.10 mind, I wil1Tjust do it from here.
11-:
CHAIRMAN WARD:
That's all right.
12-MR. JONES:
Really the situation working with RES 13 and/or RES and NRR have been we have been coordinated through 2
.14
.the RRRG in combination at the various levels.
We have not
'15-beenLtransmitting' series of user need letters since the 116 reorganization or anything like that since last April.
17-Generally we are in agreement with the thrust of
-18
.their plan, the, basically the ending of the experimental 19-programs, the limitations or cutting back in the code area, 20-and the emphasis in the operational area.
Our mission, like 21-Research, has changed to the operations area.
We also expect 22
'to get into severe accidents, the individual plant 23 examinations, and we are still trying to figure out how we are j
j
.rg 24 going.to work along those veins ourselves, and in general, M
25-that's where we are at.
We have worked with them.
We have HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 i
m__.i :.._ _ _..
, i.
Oc.
??
132 r
(7 <
'l lalso looked.at,'therefore', budget cuts and how they.are l
Fii Oh 2
proposing toido thingse We.think they are reasonable given l
' %) '
1
.3 the magnitude of the cuts.
Not everything is what we would 4
like to see go, but looking at the overall picture, they seem 5.
reasonable.
And'that's in essence the comments..
We'are in 6.
'agreementLwith their plans.
p 7-CHAIRMAN WARD:
So NRR is' reviewing, I mean'all the 8:
'new--what do we call them, license or PD, preliminary design
'5L
. applications?-
l
'10 MR. JiONES:
Yes.
We.have our part.-
l 11 1
' CHAIRMAN WARD:
You aren't hearing from those 12-branches that they need some new or different or refined' tools
('g 13.
~ of' analysis or anything like that?
' w/.
R14 MR. JONES:
The problem that-we are having a-lot to 15-a=large extent with these., these advanced light water reactors 16 is even how do I apply the standardization policy and the l
17 severe accident policy when you don't have the policies
'18 developed for research yet on exactly how to apply those.
19 We haven't seen to the best of my knowledge anything 20.
that says I need specific thermal hydraulic research being i
21 done at this time.
22' Additionally, additionally as I said, I think that 23 to a large extent, that at this point, these are paper plants, 24 and.research resources are fairly limited, and it is difficult O
~ 25' in my mind to go out and fight for substantial amount of HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888
- p
7 y
133
'vs.
w
' 21 '
resources or any evenLsignificant resources tab spent'in j
"(
k 12!
research for them.
That as we go through these, if we come
~
y-3' intolareas.where research is necessary, there is the i
I
'l
'4:
1 continuing' experimental capability in the 91, '92 timeframe' gg qw ' '
L pR
'S
. whi~ch could be.used to look at these issues, and that's what-s 1N 6
we will do,ibut these are still paper plants at this point and 7'
we can't justify, spending the money that way.
~
8~
CHAIRMAN WARD:
What you are saying there bothers me
'9 when'you say.they are paper plants.
It sounds as if you are 10L not taking them seriously.
I mean the whole idea of this
)
$11'
- procedure is to get NRR'to take the issues seriously, and
~
512 write-them'off.
Does that mean-when an applicant comes in lY 13 with'a, with a real-plant' design, in five years or three years
,, g-14-or something, that the write-off on the preliminary design--I 15
. forget'what you call them--is not going to be, preliminary l
16'.
. design certification, is'not going to be a rock solid 17 write-off?
' 18 -
MR. JONES:
To some extent, I think that is going to
- 19' be true.
There'will be I'm sure areas identified where
-20 testing of specific components may be required, and absent 21 that testing, we are not going to be able tc write off on it.
t i-
'22 We will look at the unique features and make decisions about 23' need for testing.
I th:.nk similar to what we have done, the c,-%
24.
current generation of PWRs, some of it will be done after the 25 design or you'know, preliminary design certification process.
HERITAGE. REPORTING COP,PORATION -- (202)628-4888 c____
l 134 ls 1L iprograms-tofconfirm.some of the design features, but at this 75-
"L) lL
. point, our primarily emphasis is on the operating units, and 3
those issues',-but we'are looking at these plants seriously.
4~
'When I say they are paper study, it is a matter of 5
.given resources today, from a research standpoint, should I be 6
. throwing significant resources at them?
And the answer or the 7
judgment is at.this point in time, no, especially in light of 8'
- what we are seeing7 from Gramm-Rudman and what kind of an 9
effect it may have.
10.
CHAIRMAN WARD:
Okay.
Any other questions for Mr.
11~
Jones?- Okay.
Thank you.
Richard, would it hurt your 12 feelings if we waited until after lunch for you?
d(
13 Let's break until 1:30 then.
1 14' (Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m.,
the hearing was recessed, 15-to reconvene at 1:30 p.m.
the same day.)
16 17 18 19
. 20-21.
22 23
(~)h 24
' 25'
)
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION -- (202)628-4888 1
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 21.}. l
- )
37 DbCKETNUMBIER:
1 eI 4
CASE TITLE:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, i
Subcommittee on Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena
,)
9 5
EEARING DATE: November 18, 1987
'h.
6
- LOCATION
Washington, D.C.
I ib
,7 I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence 8
a are contained' fully'and accurately on the tapes and notes 9
j reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the I
10 11 r
12 G#
Date:
November 18, 1987 jf 14 i
I
,.4
..15 l
.h d
16 g
g Official Reporter
/
P 18 1220 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 g
20
$i' t
h.
f 23
' 24 l
25 HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION g
,j (202)628-4888 e
m_
,- -. ; ;-- 7 i-i i
i L
l' h -
s e:e
'l f
g.
,'[.\\,./ '.
2 3 >
r,,.
f
}.
.i
..f h_
s x
e
.c
,z g
1p
'CQ e---e U-j
.H-G,,
I E'Q
.i i
L
.m2
' ' '~
n 5
c.
rn I
c I
c;.
. i
+V ;:'lS +
'[
~
. g' q:.
'l s.s
.t.
a s
b i
e
{D W
f I
w s
w m
8 ge 3
a b
- kl l
g l k
H L
g l
e m
k W
W E
5 g gi 8
e s$sm k
g g8 B
z s
g o
r b
l hh
! l 8
e a
s y
al EE b
d Lb g. i d
i
q1 '
FFA s
TS R
R S
U W
T D
F B
N I
E A
N D
T O
N N
I I
A O
C T
L I
T H C P
T N
C A
)
A E
D F
L V
Y C
O U
E F
T f
C O F E
G R
S V
N I
W S I 0
A CC 2-l C
T T T L
T EA I
t rE M
A A
N N t
T S R
A E T
S N U
t R O T
G P R
EO E
EI A
N I D T N
I U Z F S
N I R Q I
S U D G
U E MS E
I T
N N B-I T N
N D
H O Y
G C T
S N N S
U N
I S
t E
V R
O T I
I S Tt OR A
O R N A
H E I
A N A l TI D
T TD R
C O C A U
CE t
O N I I T STO I
EC L
L OTF N T h E A
P ONA P N
S G C N
B I l I AA U
S ST0TC AL N
N M
N T A f A L P Y I
I A R D O MN U 0R N P R
(
T L NA
- )
D A TR L A S
WZT I
N EI O
T UYW E O OI U U
(
C E I G R & E-D R I S G E
G S YEE OTES EL E S R C
L EEBR I
I R '
C BI R E RN O A B
ON YC D UR A
E A F N T P N T G HR TM A KC I
l t
O OPE O T N T O OES C R C
C F
t O C UD 1 I A O I
1 TF F
L H E A TT R
S ER RA OK P S F U S ND ON R
O ETOl E
P OS G E E I
S E S O H
EP A L S WS T T C
Z N
AS I & T XAI YT P N B MT BOE E L T A Y OOD R
I C
)
O I C R
I N A
MI S
I YR S D H E-L I 1
R TA E
I L E
S T E EE R WF R HTT O 8 OE B I L 5 WA H s
N U L
l I A
P l LT A F B P UBP UL G t
T I
eI Y L N U T A M D I R R
C MP F
A D
A P BDR EYF OS I N F iE O
h H
P RY X
A E OP G OI T S I
1
/
P OH E
EL ZT - O TF N' L
t I
L A I A I L EA O E R Y F S V A T
T L T
U C R MMO S M MO BO I N H F
Y NA N
R SU R TD N R T U T O S I NR A N TY R
0)KF ETR R I L t
O R
E M E
S I I
O VR C
S ES F 1
D l
sN I S E E D A I
OEN S
T E E E
CC t O XNP H UN A
ER O
N A
R H C E I OC A A W
O L
P T
(
EC PC I
U T
G C
E A
L I
C I
A F
L D
R I
C E
E P
N P
A A
E P
S G
S Y
E R
U O
S T
S 1
A I
1 1
LU 3)
GE A
1 llt
S
)
M T
U A
A C
R O
G L
O N
R I
A P
AT R
G N
E N
O T
I C
F N
A I
T A
CE G
R N
T I
I L
R D
0 O
0 F
0 A
G.
M P
R N
E E S
(
T N N
- O I
S G I E
N T i
S O A s
Y L C t
L I
H S
A L
t M
N
)
P l
A A
D P
N R
3 E. A
)
I G
0
/
D E
O I
t Y
D G
P R
E 2
(
R O
N O
P
(
S O C
O L
T E T R
E H
N S
U A A
T V
C O
I S L C
S E
R R
S S U O
D A
F Y
G L
D E
L I
L
,. !,Q E
D S
R A
DE E
S L
E O
N EV E C
S J
R F
A E
D E Z R
(
R S
Y L I O t
L F S
P S
O E
T J
D N
)
W A E
XS i
M C
A H D D R E R A
O I
T O I O
s L C C E O E N'
ER T C S T t
T 0
TP A N 0
A A K
F E
R 0
A S E E RT H L L
O S
E ES U
I U
C
(
S I E R E R T U R M N
T N
I R
L U
L
/
C N F
- P I
P I
E R
I D R M E N
A T S EE O R E H S
P W
G S E
N E T S C U C T D
U N T I S
O D EU T
I E
S T
A C O L YU G W E
N H H E
C PERF N
S N
R C P L
t R
)
I P L O
E E
H L D 0 U S 'A N U L R
F E
ER I
E C P U I
I A
G L I T
R WE D E A K-R L
S A
U U
/
S E
N F S N B R N D I
E N
R Q KE F
S S
O E I TI M
D A
O U
DL D
O L C I
O M
E L S OF T L
R S
C E I I C 0 A EI T
)
X A E
S N T S S
C L E
E NG I
/
N BN V
S E N O0 O
U S E G WR I
I T
T NN E A N
I I A
U D I T BE E
H S H
L I I
I I
T U
I A
F D L NKVP C S E L
C A P D E O S S
L C E P O EP C
U I Y A A
T P U N
I A H A C I
D A WS M L
N O
W P
A D
I P
R O
G S
A T
R E
E E
N N
A R
Y E
R R
O R
T U
A C
LUG
\\'/.
E B
1
ga 4-.-
' ~.iI i
.9-f, :,,
"[- ;,
f*
J
--5-'
- 5. l f,
~
l, %; I 4%.,%);';
r
,' 9'.'p G-1
- l:U, p
.j i
u.
1 p.
p-f
.a i
d
(
t
1 9,
4 J--
I 3
1 r
f f -U 4
i
~
e -.
(j g
e-
_ >=9 W
s' 31 act e o e o o e V) ee ee j
~
i l
r d'.:.
l 1
'>}
-' g**
.\\t
.o
(
i
_[
EB LL IW D
EE
~
N T
S U
R B
AE
(
Y 1
T 9
I 4
9 L
1 I
R B
O Y
A C
P 3
A S F
C E T
O U
X L S E
D A S N
N T I E
N E
- M 1
R H
9 Y
EW T
I L 9
B 1
R R
S ED E
Y M
P E V
C A
S X C O
R E
E N F
G D
A M
O O
O S G V A
R C T N D R
D P
S I A G
N H E U
O E
D
/T N N R
O P
Y E
T I
W T
B N
F &
ND R
D A
O B O E O
E D
L C S J
E P
S R A
A E
N E A B M
L E
R O H P
L O
I T R Y A
F F
J S O O L 0
F A
R F L E
C E
0 M
E D A
B L
C VV N D C Y
A T
I A
E I L
D C
E S
D - L E D L
A S
TT 2 E
B O
P 3 A A T N O I
IW P
MF S -
F A / S N S I
B ER L
E O I O
C D O I
I T
H I 2 R F M T E G
A S L F P S
A P N
S I
I I
S M
N DD T
M A
I E C S
A R
F t W E
R G
l E
T G
O L
I I O
R L
V W
R 8
P E
P I
O B
~
W N
R R
O O
J J
A A
M M
h 3
(j TN E
T E
A S
I S
D E
E S
t S
l A
I D
H N
T A
OB T
N N
O H
i 0
I S
E T
T I
P A
L W
O D
M L
R E
E O
O I
F C
VE A
N C
D T
I A
N E
I W
Y D
A E
L
~
O M
N T
C N
~
E N
E N
B O
I O
C
)
L D
I S
L E
F E
I S
F C
W A
E R
B U
A O
S T
O E
T Y
S E
A N
R D
A K
R E
S E
N S
A D
I E
S R
B N
H E
O
/
A T
a C
F E
A P
T S'
N R
S W
T E
A I
I R
S T
D S
I A
T E
A N
D S
H R
E P
E E
M P
O B
X S
C A
R P
F O
E E
I R
E E
F C
U T
V G
Z E
F S
R 0E O
Y G
Y O
S O S R
L N
M R
I P L E
P A P
A I
A A
W U O S
N N
R S
A I
G S
D E
S G A
E L
O E
A N
i S
I T
C R
C C
L W S
A E
E L
N E
P N
S C E I
A D
D T-U E
L E
I E
N I
E S
P M
S AT D. H G T
A R
A D
C N S
E B
R E
B A
A E O M
A T-D T L C
G E
I N
L G
I I
C N
L H D S
U U
O O
/ N A
N N
L S
TA B
I TNO C
i t
f
=,&
y-w
~
=
~
N O
I
~~
T
+-
I lL 0
)
('I.
E P
S C
C E
N
)
A L*
D M E
U N R E O C
S F
E S
)
C I L OE N E Y
(
O P R S
R T S R TI A F R S E u O U I H T T : T D T uC A I
(
tA R S A N I O R O E L I L t
I S R E S
S 0 U E
N 0 P H C N P T V
O C I
T A I P N
~
I C
S I F -
A E T
T W
L C
A END( G A YN N R T I
D MEG I O A R T
O I
C E W NT I N O N
G 0I S G I P w
L P TEEP I
L A -
S T U
A N C C
N A R E I S O C n
T I
I O MNT WT S L A
TT D G I A N&TS G T D C M
A E
N R -
I P
N A
R D DOI O I N L P T I
R EI G
T C P WA P L G f
a t
O NC M & C U UE BS S P T I A I IP w
W L:
E
~
'3j y~
5 t.
]
y
-z
O 9
000 1 0 2 0 4 20 0 00 1 1 0 0 6 1 4 1
. ~
~
5 5
5 25 0 0 0 5 7 55 5 5 0 0 5 3 8.2 0. 4 19 0 0 O 1 1 20 5 2 00 0 0 1 1 0 0 6 1 2 1 2
7 005 0 207 4 5 5 5 5 00538 5
4 4
)
0
$ 9 1 1 O 1 1 2 0 7 2 00 0 0 1 1 0 0 6 1 0 1 M -
(
YF 4
4 0
4 4 5 5 8 0534 9 3 S. 0327 7
7 1
98 31 O 1 1 20 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 1 0 1 4
6 8
59 7 0 3 5 7. 1 5232228 53 2
- 2. 5 5
81 2 2 0 1 1 20 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 1 NAL OP R
A L
)
L L L
E A
S A A A
T T
T T T
Y O
N O O O
E-T E
TT T
V D
I
)
I F
C L
C A
A NO Y
I T
GE I
V I
T C
A C
E T
S
)
R T
T
)
S
)
(
(
N S Y' G
KE N T R ST S
R N I O I W O
N E A S I L L O
Z BN T I
+
R I
T Y A
A B D E
T NL A R C A E T
T A
S E A T T I P C N
C E P N A L A N NW T
S E P I S U E A D R P C A I
M EN C O L T S G K
P V
S F I B PI S A T T L A L D
(
A E
E A T / F D I N N N A A E
G I
V T R T I U A A AF
& T
(
A I
R N
D R E P EL R
P P H E T
R PC P
Y Y O T S
C M
S VS P N U WBR TN RR I R
I A R M
A E
I I U S I O T A E A A E E R
T D - C A N S L D E -
G 3 A I P EE H T R U U I L ' L S P l
0 k/S S A D D C N E D G C C C A E X P
F D OA C O O S EO H N E C U U N R E P
B 2 R BI C C N T C C I R A N N A
(
O G
N I
I H
T O
C A
U R
C N
I I
A T
E L
S P
N e
E P
O R
A C
_