Baker-Just, ANL-6548, WAPD-104, BMI-1154, Zirconium Fire (Bundles)

The following is from
Zirconium Fire Testing at Sandia
ML11031A000, page 58 of 226

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1103/ML11031A000.pdf
Phase 2 will address radial heating and burn propagation and
will include effects of fuel rod ballooning. Five full-length
assemblies will be constructed in which the center assembly
will be of the same heated design as used in Phase 1. The four
peripheral assemblies will be unheated but highly prototypic,
incorporating prototypic fuel tubes and end plugs. These
boundary conditions experimentally represent a “cold neighbor”
situation, which complements the bounding scenario covered by
Phase 1. The peripheral fuel rods will be filled with high density
MgO ceramic, sized to precisely match the thermal mass of spent
fuel. Studies using this test assembly will conclude with a fire
test in which the center assembly is heated to ignition, which
eventually propagates radially to the peripheral assemblies. All
of the fuel rods in two of the four peripheral assemblies will be
pressurized with helium so that these fuel rods will balloon when
the zirconium-alloy cladding reaches a high enough temperature.
The two peripheral assemblies without pressurized rods will serve
as a control for evaluating the effect of ballooning.

Here is one reference that was released on January 3, 2012: (ML113140453) - RES Staff Presentation Handouts Materials NRC-RES/EPRI Coordination Meeting Friday, September 30, 2011, (23 page(s), 12/22/2011). The release on January 3, 2012, disclosed that the corrosion testing of full-length heated bundles of zirconium alloy assemblies is being done at Sandia, it has 12 foreign participants, the full length assemblies are 17 by 17 arrangements of PWR fuel geometry, and testing is being done in air only.

The following cross sections of the zirconium clad heater bundles at Sandia are copied (and enlarged) from ML113140453, page 4 of 23.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1131/ML113140453.pdf

Analysis Support
As in the previous BWR study, all stages of testing will use
MELCOR modeling results. Pretest MELCOR modeling results
will be used to guide the experimental test assembly design and
instrumentation. MELCOR modeling results will also be used
to choose experimental operating parameters, such as the applied
assembly power. At each step in the testing, improvements
will be made to the MELCOR model to continually increase
confidence in the modeling validity.

TH28 Thermal-Hydraulic and Severe Accident Research

Regulatory Information Conference (RIC) Thursday, March 15, 2012

TH28 Thermal-Hydraulic and Severe Accident Research

The session will focus primarily on the NRC’s efforts to address current issues in the areas of thermal hydraulics and severe accidents, including experimental and analytical tool development programs. In particular, presenters will discuss the following topics:

The NRC’s use of computational fluid dynamics codes

Use of SCALE to generate neutrons cross sections libraries in support of PARCS/TRACE reactor analysis activities

Coupled calculation in TRACE-PARCS code

MELCOR, the severe accident code

Overview of DOE’s thermal-hydraulics modeling and simulation R&D within the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of LWRs (CASL)

SESSION CHAIR: Michael Scott, Deputy Director, Division of Systems Analysis, NRC/RES

SPEAKERS/PANELISTS:
Computational Fluid Dynamics for Nuclear Safety AnalysisChristopher Boyd, Sr. Technical Advisor for Computational Fluid Dynamics, Division of Systems Analysis, NRC/RES
Use of SCALE to Generate Neutrons Cross-Sections Libraries in Support of PARCS/TRACE Reactor Analysis ActivitiesMourad Aissa, Sr. Criticality Safety/Reactor Physics Engineer, Division of Systems Analysis, NRC/RES
TRACE/PARCS Coupled CalculationsNathanael Hudson, Reactor Systems Engineer, Division of Systems Analysis, NRC/RES
Development and Applications of MELCORHossein Esmaili, Sr. Reactor Systems Engineer, Division of Systems Analysis, NRC/RES
Thermal Hydraulics Modeling and Simulation R&D within the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of LWRs (CASL): A DOE Energy Innovation HubDouglas Kothe, Director, Consortium for the Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory

SESSION COORDINATOR(S):
Antony Calvo, Information Technology Specialist, Division of Systems Analysis, NRC/RES, tel: 301-251-7677, e-mail: Antony.Calvo@nrc.gov

PRM-50-76: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Defective Actions

Here is the PRM-50-76 that Robert H. Leyse submitted on MAYDAY, 2002.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0222/ML022240009.pdf


Here is NRC's Technical Analysis of PRM-50-76:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0412/ML041210109.pdf

Here is the submittal to the Commissioners that requests approval of the denial of PRM-50-76, June 29, 2005, ML050250359.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0502/ML050250359.pdf

Here is the voting record, August 5, 2005

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/cvr/2005/2005-0113vtr.pdf

Here is the Staff Requirements Memorandum, August 5, 2005, ML052170385.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0521/ML052170385.pdf

Here is the denial of PRM-50-76, August 25, 2005.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0522/ML052220454.pdf

Here is a letter from McGinty to Leyse
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1009/ML100950085.pdf
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1009/ML100950085.pdf
Following is page 1 of a letter from Timothy McGinty, Director, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to Robert Leyse, April 16, 2010, ML100950085. This letter describes the release of documents that were referenced in the June 29, 2005, request to the Commissioners to deny PRM-50-76, but which were not published in the Federal Register notice of the denial. Robert Leyse did not become aware of this discrepancy until early in 2010 and he then called for the release of the documents. However, NRC never disclosed this to the Commissioners and this omission was also never published in the Federal Register. Note that McGinty writes, "The NRC staff decided to remove the references because (1) they did not constitute a significant part of the basis for denying the petition0n and (2) the reports were not then available in the NRC's files."

April 16, 2010
Robert Leyse
P. O. Box 2850
Sun Valley, ID 83353
Dear Mr. Leyse:
Between February 7, 2010, and February 23, 2010, you sent a series of e-mails to the
Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and to other NRC employees,
including General Counsel Stephen Burns and staff from the Public Document Room. You
requested that the NRC make the following documents publicly available:

Bostrum, W.A., WAPD-104, “The High Temperature Oxidation of Zircaloy in
Water,” March 1954.

Lemmon, Jr., A.W. BMI-1154, “Studies Relating to the Reaction Between
Zirconium and Water at High Temperatures,” 1957.

In your February 17, 2010, e-mail to the General Counsel, you alleged that these two
documents were not made publicly available by the NRC staff in contradiction to the listing of
these two documents in a table describing the availability of documents in a draft Federal
Register Notice (FRN) of denial of a petition for rulemaking. The draft FRN was provided to the
Commission in SECY-05-113, “Denial of a Petition for Rulemaking to Revise Appendix K to
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50 and Associated Guidance Documents
(PRM-50-76),” June 29, 2005.

Although these reports were listed in the draft FRN of denial, they were not referenced or listed
in the final denial of the petition for rulemaking (see 70 FR 52893; September 6, 2005). The
NRC staff decided to remove the references to these two documents in the final FRN because
(1) they did not constitute a significant part of the basis for denying the petition and (2) the
reports were not then available in the NRC's files. You should also be aware that WAPD-104
was prepared in 1954 for the Atomic Energy Commission’s office for naval reactors. When the
NRC was created in 1974, records related to naval reactors were assigned to the Energy
Research and Development Administration (which is now the U.S. Department of Energy).
Nevertheless, the NRC has been able to obtain copies of the above reports. They are now
publicly available in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access Management System (ADAMS)
at the following ADAMS Accession numbers:

WAPD-104—ADAMS Accession No. ML100900446

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1009/ML100900446.pdf

BMI-1154—ADAMS Accession No. ML100570218

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1005/ML100570218.pdf

Here is the Baker-Just Report, ANL-6548, that is based on WAPD-104 and BMI-1154.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0505/ML050550198.pdf

Accident Management Advisory Tools (AMAT)

It will be interesting to see of this goes anywhere. AMAT was discussed at the full ACRS on March 9-10, 2012. Apparently the game is to plug in AMAT at the start of an event or during the event in order to gain insights into what may happen.

A few decades ago, ACRS discussed Instrumentation to Follow the Course of an Accident and they may have written a letter or two.

After TMI-2, some vendors sold Safety Panel Display Systems.

NRC Delay - Why is there no testing with Zr Bundles?

I'm certain that Senator Risch will extract a response. I have been on this case for well over 10 years and my denied PRM-50-76 goes back to Mayday 2002.

Today, I e-mailed Senator Risch, asking him to get the NRC to answer my letter of 7 weeks ago.

Subject:
Fwd: Letter to Senator Risch
Date:
3/8/2012 1:41:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time
From:
Bobleyse@aol.com
Reply To:
To:
kari_emond@risch.senate.gov


Kari:

It appears that NRC s dragging its feet. Perhaps Senator Risch could remind the NRC that a timely response is warranted. Again, I appreciate the work of your office.

Bob

From: Bobleyse@aol.comTo: kari_emond@risch.senate.govSent: 1/19/2012 8:37:02 A.M. Mountain Standard TimeSubj: Letter to Senator Risch

Kari:

Attached is my letter to Senator Risch. I highly value your cooperation as well as the effectiveness of Senator Risch in extracting responses from the NRC. These matters are becoming deeper and deeper.

Now I'll get outside and run my snowblower.

Bob Leyse bobleyse@aol.com


Here is the letter that I sent on Jnauary 19, 2012:

Robert H. Leyse
P. O. Box 2850
222 Elkhorn Road
Sun Valley, ID 83353

January 19, 2012

The Honorable James E. Risch
United States Senator
1411 Falls Avenue E Suite 2
Twin Falls, ID 83301

Dear Senator Risch:

Nutshell: Why is NRC reluctant to perform the testing in water-steam per PRM-50-76?

The main appeal of my PRM-50-76, ML022240009, Docketed May 8, 2002, is that further tests with zirconium clad bundles in water-steam are necessary. NRC denied that PRM, asserting that sufficient bundle tests had been performed at NRU, Canada, via a contract with Pacific Northwest Laboratories, see ML041210109, April 24, 2004. NRC now says that none of these Canadian tests are applicable and I believe you have already asked NRC for the details of their analysis that I requested in my letter of December 19, 2011.

On December 19, 2011, I wrote you, “I must keep this inquiry brief; hence I am deferring other concerns until very early in 2012,” It turns out that on December 23, 2011, I inadvertently found out that NRC has a huge program that involves corrosion testing of full-length heated bundles of zirconium alloy assemblies, see ML11031A000, page 58 of 226, I have asked NRC about this and they have told me nothing. Then, on January 5, 2011, I accidently ran across an NRC disclosure of a closed meeting that was held on September 30, 2011, that included EPRI and DOE and that included discussions of the corrosion testing of the full-length heated bundles of zirconium alloy assemblies. Here is one reference that was released on January 3, 2012: ML113140453 - RES Staff Presentation Handouts Materials NRC-RES/EPRI Coordination Meeting Friday, September 30, 2011, (23 page(s), 12/22/2011).

ML113140453 - RES Staff Presentation Handouts Materials NRC-RES/EPRI Coordination Meeting Friday, September 30, 2011. (23 page(s), 12/22/2011)

Please have the NRC tell us about the corrosion testing of full-length heated bundles of zirconium alloy assemblies. The release on January 3, 2012, disclosed that the testing is being done at Sandia, it has 12 foreign participants, the full length assemblies are 17 by 17 arrangements of PWR fuel geometry, and testing is being done in air only. Why is NRC reluctant to perform the Sandia tests in water-steam as called for in PRM-50-76?



Robert H. Leyse