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.