PRM-50-93, no sweat at NRC's OGC

So, here is the latest. Click to enlarge, and use your back arrow to return. Mote later regarding this.

CHAIRMAN ABDEL-KHALIK: "You have five minutes to make your remarks."

Forward: On January 14, 2011, I addressed the ACRS in matters related to the Rod Bundle Heat Transfer program at Pennsylvania State University and also the User Need Request that is on file (ML100770218). Although ACRS allows NRC staff to use all of the time they want in generally poorly organized presentations, I was restricted to five minutes. Following is copied from the transcript of the meeting. I participated via a telephone connection. My two page handout is also here.

CHAIRMAN ABDEL-KHALIK: Mr. Leyse?
MR. LEYSE: Yes, can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN ABDEL-KHALIK: Yes, we can. You have five minutes to make your remarks.
MR. LEYSE: Well, do you want me to start now?
CHAIRMAN ABDEL-KHALIK: Yes.
MR. LEYSE: Okay. It'll take me 10 seconds to walk to my notes, and we'll be going.
I’m Bob Leyse. I have 5 minutes. Starting with slide 1:

On December 2, 2010, I taught Full ACRS that 2200 degrees Fahrenheit is too high as a PCT to insure that thermal runaway will not occur in a LOCA.

Today I’ll focus on two items:

RBHT at Penn State and the User Need Request, Leeds to Sheron, April 26, 2010, which is a user need request for a technical analysis of PRM-50-93. November 17, 2009.

Starting with RBHT:

RBHT has apparently explored the relatively low temperature regions of LOCAs utilizing its 49 rod full length assembly with Inconel clad heaters. Very likely millions of dollars have been spent over the 13 year activity. The most recent pubic discussion of RBHT was at the ACRS Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee, Monday, October 18, 2010. Of course, the general uselessness of RBHT is due to its lack of data with zirconium alloy cladding in the region greater than 1800 degrees Fahrenheit that is documented in plant licenses. NRC has avoided exploring this region with multirod assemblies having zirconium alloy cladding.

NRC (outrageously) has always promoted RBHT at Penn State
as highly applicable to TRACE and licensing. However, the documents are generally not available to anyone outside of NRC and its contractors.

ACRS Consultant Wallis may have had such access because at the cited meeting of the Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee he observes: “Are we going to hear about this later? Because the only thing I have seen from the Penn State work was some very sort of crude results,
but they measured all kinds of stuff.”
Next, I’ll move to the user need request, I’ll cite a tie-in to Penn State’s RBHT.

In the User Need Request, Leeds to Sheron, April 26, 2010, Leeds refers to the Technical Safety Analysis dated April 29, 2004, of my PRM-50-76, docketed May 8, 2002, as an “… outstanding technical analysis … .” However, the facts reveal that NRC’s Technical Safety Analysis of PRM-50-76 is most certainly not an outstanding technical analysis. Referring to RBHT, the Technical Safety Analysis of April 29, 2004 reports, “Current programs at Pennsylvania State University … are far more cost effective.”

So, in 2004, NRC staff was praising RBHT, but more than 6 years later, Expert Consultant Wallis reported, “…Penn State work was some very sort of crude results.”

Now, since RBHT has only used inconel clad bundles, it is absurd that Leeds lauds the 2004 Technical Safety Analysis of PRAM-50-76 as an “… outstanding technical analysis … .”
Of course there is much more documentation of the defects in RBHT and the User need letter than I am covering in 5 minutes.

Slide 2 has blue and black type. The blue type is what the Thermal Hydraulic Subcommittee was told on October 18, 2010, as its list reports that are dated 2008. The black type reveals that none of the reports have been released by NRC and three of the reports have no assigned date of release.

I still have over one minute. It’s not on either slide, but in the referenced meeting of the thermal hydraulics subcommittee there was a lot of discussion of the impact of various grid features, such as mixing vanes, on test results. However, if zircaloy grids had been used for comparison with inconel, and if the tests were conducted at realistic temperatures depicted in actual plant licenses, the impact on test results would have been far greater than the relatively minor impact of mixing vanes.Finally, I should not have been restricted to five minutes, more later on that. That’s it.

CHAIRMAN ABDEL-KHALIK: Thank you, Mr. Leyse. Are there any questions for Mr. Leyse? Well, hearing none, thank you. Are there any additional questions to either the staff, or to AREVA considering the fact that this is an open session? Hearing none, we will recess at this time. Our schedule calls for us to go to a lunch recess. We will reconvene at 1:15, and at that point we will be off the record.

Following are the two slides that are in the transcript. Click on the slide to enlarge and use your back arrow to return here.

Some history -- Microscale Heat Transfer to Subcooeld Water, 200-6000 PSIA

Microscale Heat Transfer to Subcooled Water
200-6,000psia, 0-3,500W/cm2
ROBERT H. LEYSE Article first published online: 24 JAN 2006

DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2002.tb05912.x
Issue
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 974, MICROGRAVITY TRANSPORT PROCESSES IN FLUID, THERMAL, BIOLOGICAL, AND MATERIALS SCIENCES pages 261–273, October 2002

LEYSE, R. H. (2002), Microscale Heat Transfer to Subcooled Water. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 974: 261–273. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2002.tb05912.x

Author Information
Inz, Inc., Sun Valley, Idaho, USA
*Correspondence: ROBERT H. LEYSE,

*Correspondence: Address for correspondence: Robert H. Leyse, Inz, Inc., P. O. Box 2850, Sun Valley, ID 83353, USA. Voice/fax: 208-622-7740; Bobleyse@aol.com.

Publication History
Issue published online: 24 JAN 2006
Article first published online: 24 JAN 2006

Keywords:microscale heat transfer;ultra-high heat flux;supercritical heat transfer;phase change heat transfer;subcritical boiling heat transfer;intense turbulence

Abstract: Exciting heat transfer phenomena have been discovered with a micron-sized heat transfer element operating in subcooled (20°C) degassed, demineralized water over a wide pressure range (200-6,000psia) at heat fluxes up to 3,500W/cm2. The platinum heat transfer element (diameter 7.5 microns, length 1.14mm) is installed within a one-cm3 stainless steel chamber. Sealed electrical terminals penetrate the chamber to effect direct current heating of the platinum element. Pressure is applied pneumatically. The adiabatic heating rate of the element is 6°C per microsecond at 3,700W/cm2; response is essentially instantaneous for the procedure described herein. The direct current voltage and current are measured from which the power and the resistance (temperature) are determined. The following procedure applies: (1) Pressurize the water-filled stainless steel chamber to 6,000psia. (2) Apply power at 3,000W/cm2. (3) Maintain constant heat flux as pressure is smoothly reduced from 6,000psia to 200psia over a period of 20 seconds. Record voltage, amperage, and pressure at 0.1 second intervals. Heat transfer phenomena thus discovered: (1) Element starting temperature of 370°C at 6,000psia smoothly increased to 380° as pressure was reduced to 3,970psia. (2) At 3,970psia the temperature abruptly stepped upward to 590°C. (3) Temperature smoothly increased to 730°C as pressure was reduced to 3,230psia. (4) In the vicinity of the critical pressure, the temperature turned around and began smoothly decreasing. (5) At 2,350psia, the temperature stepped down from 520 to 350°C. (6) Temperature smoothly decreased to 230°C at 190psia and power was then turned off. Bulk water temperature increased less than 4°C. Controlled gravity (KC-135) tests are planned.

e-mail to NRC OGC Stephen Burns

I sent this to Burns on February 4, 2011. I’ll report the response.

Bajorek Reference to OGC: ACRS Subcommittee, October 18, 2010

Sir:

Please fill me in on the details of communications between Bajorek and perhaps others and yourself and/or your staff regarding the timing of the NRC’s evaluation of PRM-50-93. I was quite surprised to learn at the October 18, 2010, meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee that you advised that the evaluation of PRM-50-93 could be delayed. According to Bajorek, you advised that the date of August 2010, that is specified in the User Need Request, Leeds to Sheron, April 26, 2010, ML 100770117, could be delayed by about as long as the NRC decided to delay that evaluation. Bajorek reported, “But because they amended their own petition, and submitted
another petition, OGC decided to lump it together and
that window of time has moved out.”

Following is from the transcript of that meeting:

Page 468 follows:
16 CONSULTANT KRESS: I found it very unusual
17 that public comments are made to the subcommittee.
18 Those usually go to the full committee. I don't know
19 what your obligation is with respect to those.
20 CHAIR BANERJEE: I think to report it to
21 the full committee and ask if --
22 CONSULTANT KRESS: Just report it to the
23 full committee.
24 CHAIR BANERJEE: ask if they wish it to be
25 made to the full committee. I don't think that we can
act on it.
2 CONSULTANT KRESS: No. That was my point.
3 It has to be acted by the full committee.
4 CONSULTANT WALLIS: But if you want a
5 comment, it looked as if there could be a significant
6 point here, I mean it's something that is not trivial
7 to look at and see is there a question here and what's
8 the evidence for --
9 CHAIR BANERJEE: Has the comments been made
10 to the staff or is it just to the subcommittee?
11 MR. BAJOREK: This is Steve Bajorek.
12 Actually there are two petitions in play right now.
13 The petition they talked about brings up the point
14 that they Baker-Just is possibly not conservative. He
15 has the same comment on Cathcart-Pawel. Asks to look
16 at some of these other test data that he claims we
17 have not looked at before.
18 He also submitted --
19 CHAIR BANERJEE: Particularly bundle data.
20 MR. BAJOREK: Bundle, yes. The staff has
21 put together a small group to start to evaluate these
22 concerns. We started to take a look at it and another
23 petition came in, this one on the behalf of
24 Connecticut or Yankee, it's a plant that's been up for
25 relicensing. There are --
CONSULTANT WALLIS: Vermont Yankee?
2 MR. BAJOREK: Vermont Yankee, that's right.
3 Vermont Yankee is being relicensed. They have also put
4 in a petition on their behalf where they cite many of
5 the same concerns. Because these petitions are over
6 lapping, the staff decided they were not going to look
7 at them individually, they were going to put them
8 together. We went through our OGC. They said that was
9 an appropriate thing to do and now the window of time
10 for evaluating those petitions and those concerns has
11 been reopened and I think we have another -- I think
12 we have a year to go through and reevaluate
13 everything. So there's a group that is looking at
14 that.
15 CHAIR BANERJEE: So I think we can report
16 that to the full committee.
17 CONSULTANT WALLIS: But just report that.
18 That's all we have to do.
19 MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK: And I think from the
20 committee's perspective, we await the staff's
21 evaluation and we will review the staff's evaluation.
22 MR. BAJOREK: He did make the point that
23 while there was a user need letter, point out and the
24 research was supposed to have responded by I think the
25 end of August. That was the original schedule. But
because they amended their own petition, and submitted
2 another petition, OGC decided to lump it together and
3 that window of time has moved out.
4 CHAIR BANERJEE: Okay. Well with that, I
5 think I'd like to thank you all and adjourn the
6 meeting.
7 (Whereupon the meeting was adjourned at
8 6:55 p.m.)
End, Page 471

I note that prior to Bajorek’s reference to your ruling, Consultant Wallis remarked, CONSULTANT WALLIS: But if you want a
5 comment, it looked as if there could be a significant
6 point here, I mean it's something that is not trivial
7 to look at and see is there a question here and what's
8 the evidence for --

And following the presentations by Mark Leyse and Robert Leyse, the Chairman of the Committee stated:
Page 191 of the transcript.
CHAIR BANERJEE: Thank you both very much.
16 We appreciate your comments, and we will certainly
17 take them into account.

However, following the above first cited remark by Bajorek, the ACRS has dropped all discussion of the Leyse submittals. And also,

19 MEMBER ABDEL-KHALIK: And I think from the
20 committee's perspective, we await the staff's
21 evaluation and we will review the staff's evaluation.

Although Bajorek as well as the members of the subcommittee were on the scene during the Leyse presentations, they made no remarks while the Leyses were on the bridge line. Instead, the remarks by Bajorek and the subcommittee came at the end of the meeting when neither Leyse could respond.

In closing, I repeat, please fill me in on the details of communications between Bajorek and perhaps others and yourself and/or your staff regarding the timing of the NRC’s evaluation of PRM-50-93.

Robert H. Leyse bobleyse@aol.com