Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Significant links for the 1% in BWR Mark I and Mark II venting II


Also we have these from NEI:

And this is from NRC, released November 14, 2013:

I sent this email today

Fwd: The circle
Date: 11/29/2013 8:33:35 A.M. Mountain Standard Time

Hello Again:

I found the problem.  ML13304B838 is incorrect.  ML13304B836 works. I believe that the sentence in ML13326B085 should be improved as follows:

For additional information, on November 14, 2013, the NRC has issued the interim staff guidance (ISG) document JLD-ISG-2013-02 (ML13304B836) for the implementation of Order EA-13-109, which endorses
the industry guidance in NEI 13-02 (ML13316A853) with some clarifications.
I have not studied ML13304B836 and ML13316A853.  However, it is interesting that a word search on "1 percent" yields zero findings in ML13304B836 and seven in ML13316A85.
Also, I note that ML13304B836 does not reference ML13221A011 of August 9, 2013.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

The one percent and BWR Mark I and II

Speaks for Itself

Note:  The following is a copy of ML13326B085.  Unfortuately, the spacing is altered from the document that is on NRC's ADAMS.

Response to Mr. Leyse’s email dated October 14, 2013 regarding corrections to
ML13221A011 related to basis for venting capacity in Order EA-13-102.

The NRC staff prepared “Basis for Venting Capacity in Order EA-13-109, ‘Order to Modify
Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened Containment Vents Capable of Operation Under
Severe Accident Conditions’” (ML13221A011) in response to an inquiry received by the NRC in an e-mail dated July 25, 2013 from Mr. Robert H. Leyse. This document was provided to
Mr. Leyse in an email dated August 9, 2013. The subject of the inquiry and related response
was the design goal requirement in EA-13-109 of 1% decay heat removal capacity of the severe accident capable hardened containment vent system (HCVS) for boiling water reactors with Mark I and Mark II containments. In an e-mail dated October 14, 2013, Mr. Leyse stated the
following in regards to the response provided in the subject document:

1) It contains an erroneous statement related to the basis for the venting capacity and,
therefore, requests the staff to delete the statement from ML13221A011.

2) Document should Include the ADAMS Accession number for a document referenced
within, namely Reference 3.

3) The release (or ADAMS placement) date of document ML13221A011 be corrected from
August 9, 2012 to August 9, 2013.

4) ML13221A011 should acknowledge that it was a response to an e-mail inquiry from Mr.
Leyse on 7/25/2013 and that additional corrections were also made to the same
document as requested by Leyse in an e-mail dated 10/14/2013.

Item 1:

The statement in ML13221A011 that Mr. Leyse views as erroneous reads

The design analysis included a vent design objective of venting approximately
1% of decay heat for a 56 psi saturated steam pressure.

The statement is part of a paragraph that provides the basis for venting capacity in Order
EA-13-109, “Order to Modify Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened Containment Vents
Capable of Operation under Severe Accident Conditions.” However, the context of that
sentence is that it provides a description of the basis for the vent modification at the Pilgrim
Nuclear Power Station (PNPS), as contained in Enclosure 1 to Generic Letter (GL) 89-16. That
enclosure contains a statement in Section 3.2.1, Objective of Design Change that reads

For 56 psi saturated steam conditions in the torus, approximately 1% decay heat
can be vented.

The meaning conveyed by these statements is consistent, and therefore, the staff believes that
the referenced statement in ML13221A011 is not erroneous. The PNPS and the GL 89-16
hardened vent system was not required to accommodate 1% steam flow plus a worst case
hydrogen generation rate while maintaining containment pressure below its design pressure

For additional information, the NRC has issued the interim staff guidance (ISG) document
JLD-ISG-2013-02 (ML13304B838) for the implementation of Order EA-13-109, which endorses the industry guidance in NEI 13-02 with some clarifications. The industry guidance is an attachment to the ISG. Section 4 of NEI 13-02 contains the requirements for sizing the vent,
which includes considerations of suppression pool heat capacity, and simultaneous venting of
steam, hydrogen, and other non-condensable gases, including auditable analysis/calculations
that are required to be performed by the individual licensees in support of the vent sizing.

Items 2, 3, and 4

For Item 2, the staff agrees with Mr. Leyse that adding an ADAMS accession no. ML13017A234to Reference 3 will be useful. For Item 2, the staff thanks Mr. Leyse for pointing out the erroneous date on page 3. The correct date should be August 9, 2013 and not August 9, 2012. Finally, the staff recognizes that the response included in ML13221A011 was prepared in an email inquiry by Mr. Robert H. Leyse, to OPA.Resource@nrc.god on July 25, 2013 and this supplemental response is also prepared in response to Mr. Leyse’s email dated October 14, 2013.

November 20, 2013

ADAMS Accession No.: ML13326B085

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Spent Fuel Pool Meltdown Testing at Sandia (NRC)

Here is the link to the delayed report.  More later.
Following is copied from the cover:

NUREG/CR-7143   ML13072A056


Characterization of Thermal-Hydraulic

and Ignition Phenomena in Prototypic,

Full-Length Boiling Water Reactor Spent

Fuel Pool Assemblies After a Postulated

Complete Loss-of-Coolant Accident

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Manuscript Completed: October 2012

Date Published: March 2013

Prepared by

E. R. Lindgren and S. G. Durbin

Sandia National Laboratory

Albuquerque, NM 87185

G. A. Zigh, Technical Advisor

A. Velazquez-Lozada, Project Manager

So, I have studied a lot of that report, but I still have work to do in reviewing that.  It is not quality work.  Following are selected sentences (italics) and some of my findings to date:

PAGE iii 
The close coupling of the experimental and numerical programs allowed for rapid validation and improvement of the MELCOR whole pool calculations. Because of the success of this approach, this project will be used as a model for subsequent studies.  

As I read the report, MELCOR was certainly not validated.  Data was fitted to MELCOR, but it is not proven that MELCOR would be applicable beyond the experiments that are described.  It certainly has not been established that the approach in these limited experiments is in any way suitable as a model for subsequent studies.

PAGE xix
Incorporation of “breakaway” Zircaloy oxidation kinetics into MELCOR was vital for

accurately capturing the Zircaloy heat-up to ignition and oxygen consumption.  
This is reported as one of several "... key findings from this integrated experimental and simulation program ... ."  Of what value has MELCOR ever been if it did not incorporate the kinetics of Zircaloy oxidation?  It appears that MELCOR has been updated based on the limited experiments, but it has not been established that this specific updating of MELCOR is of any use elsewhere.

It was known that some of the assumptions in the accident progression in NUREG-1738 were necessarily conservative,especially the estimation of the fuel damage. Furthermore, the NRC desired to expand the study to include accidents in the SFPs of operating power plants. Consequently, the NRC continued SFP accident research by applying best-estimate computer codes to predict the severe accident progression following various postulated accident initiators. The best-estimate computer code studies identified various modeling and phenomenological uncertainties that prompted a need for experimental confirmation [2]. The present experimental program was undertaken to address thermal-hydraulic issues associated with complete loss-of-coolant accidents in boiling water reactor (BWR) SFPs.  

Supplementary Notes by G. A. Zigh, Technical Advisor  and

A. Velazquez-Lozada, Project Manager include:

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) performed an experimental program to address thermal-hydraulic issues associated with compete loss-of coolant accidents in boiling water reactor spent fuel pools (SFPs).  The objective of these experiments was to provide basic thermal-hydraulic data associated with a postulated SFP complete loss-of-coolant accident.  The accident conditions of interest for the SFP were simulated in a full-scale prototypic fashion (electrically heated rods in prototypic assemblies and SFP rack) so that the experimental results closely represent actual fuel assembly responses. A major impetus for this work was to facilitate code validation (primarily MELCOR) and reduce modeling uncertainties within the code.

I have already posted the following on October 6, 2013, however, I am repeating that post for convenience at this entry.  This was first posted by Enformable and the following is copied from there.

March 16th, 2011 – Classified as OUO documents – BWR zirc fire data

From: Gibson, Kathy
Sent: Wednesday, March 16,2011 2:17 PM
To: Zigh, Ghani
Subject: Re: Spent Fuel Experiments
We have multiple requests from multiple parties for a plethora of information. This request is in the que. Will talk with you about this when I can.

From: Zigh, Ghani
To: Gibson, Kathy; Scott, Michael
Sent: Wed Mar 16 14:01:31 2011
Subject: FW: Spent Fuel Experiments
What is our decision on sharing the BWR zirc fire data with GE and NEI.
They are classified as OUO documents.

From: Durbin, Samuel []
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 1:57 PM
To: Zigh, Ghani
Subject: FW: Spent Fuel Experiments
From: Saito, Earl F. (GE Power & Water) [mailto:EarI.SaitoqCanf.com1
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 11:35 AM
To: Durbin, Samuel; Rochau, Gary; Lindgren, Eric; Gauntt, Randall 0
Cc: Bonano, Evaristo Jose; Sorenson, Ken B
Subject: RE: Spent Fuel Experiments

From: Durbin, Samuel rmailto:sdurbin0sandia.gov1
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 1:20 PM
To: Rochau, Gary; Lindgren, Eric; Gauntt, Randall 0
Cc: Saito, Earl F. (GE Power & Water); Bonano, Evaristo Jose; Sorenson, Ken B
Subject: RE: Spent Fuel Experiments
Attached are Mhe three relevant papers that were published in the ANS Transactions - Winter Meeting 2006 I Volume 95.
Your will note that the two papers based on the Sandia testing were heavily redacted at the instruction of the NRC. The test information is generally considered Official Use Only. We will need to receive permission from the NRC to release more substantial reports.
Samuel Durbin II
Sandia National Laboratories
Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technologies, Organization 6223
PO Box 5800 - MS 0747
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0747 •a
Office: (505) 284-7850A
Fax: (505) 844-2348

iau, Gary
esday, March 16, 2011 10:32 AM
, Samuel; Undgren, Eric; Gauntt, Randall 0
tito Ph. D. ('; Bonano, Evansto Jose
Spent Fuel Experiments
Sam, Eric, and Randy,
Earl Saito of GE-Hitachi has contacted me regarding some information on your Spent Fuel experiments, in particular, the BWR experiments. GE, as you can imagine, is trying to gather information on spent fuel pool issues for BWRs.
Can you please send the publically released papers you have written to "prime the pump"? I am sure there is material that you cannot share at this time, but I am looking at our NDA agreements to determine what latitude we may have, if any.
Gary E, Rochau, Manager
Advanced Nuclear Concepts
Nuclear Energy and Global Security Technologies Center
6585/2104, Organization 6771
P.O. Box 5800, MS-1136
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87105-1136
Phone: (505)845-7543
Fax: (505)284-4276

And, here is a very interesting trip report:

The Fourth Program Review Group (PRG) and Management Board (MB) Meeting for
Spent Fuel Pool Project in Paris, France.
Dates of Travel, Countries and Organizations Visited
I departed for Paris, France on Saturday November 26, 2011 to attend and participate in
the fourth PRG and MB meeting for the spent fuel Zirc fire project. Meetings were held
at the OECD Issy-les-Moulineaux, France, November 28-29, 2011.
Author, Title, and Agency Affiliation
Ghani Zigh, Senior Level Advisor, DSA:RES.
Not applicable
To participate in the fourth Program Review Group and Management Board meeting for
the Spent Fuel Pool Project.
Abstract: Summary of Pertinent Points/Issues
In the PRG and MB of the PWR Zirc Fire project:
• PRG meeting was chaired by Techy Zsolt from Hungary.
• MB meeting was chaired by In De Betou Jan from Sweden.
• I made detailed technical presentations and explanations on the program review,
program of work and budget, phase experimental data and analytical
comparison, and the next phase technical design plan.
• Deliverables were discussed.
• Sensitivity of the data was discussed.
• Schedule and budget for 2011 and 2012 were discussed.
• Delay in the financial contribution of University of Pisa (UNIPI) was discussed.
• Technical decision done by PRG through E-mail was discussed.
• Next meeting was proposed to be held in Albuquerque, NM in October of 2012.
In November 28-29, 2011, I participated in the fourth Spent Fuel Pool PRG and MB
meeting held in Paris France. The experiment is taking place in Sandia National
Laboratory (SNL), Albuquerque, NM. In the first day of the meeting, PRG met. In the
meeting, Techy Zsolt from Hungary chaired the meeting as elected in the previous PRG
meeting. As USNRC lead, I gave detailed technical presentations on the program
review as well as the program of work and budget for 2012. Also, I presented the
experimental and analytical results for phase 1 of the program that was concluded
recently as well as the technical design plan for phase 2 of the program that will be
concluded by the end of next year. Additionally, detailed plan as well as deliverables
for 2011 and 2012 for the project was discussed. Finally, the next PRG meeting was
agreed to be held in Albuquerque, NM in October of 2012.
In the second day, the management board meeting was held. The meeting was chaired
by In De Betou Jan from Sweden as elected in the previous MB meeting. In the MB
meeting, I presented a concise report about the status of the program of work for 2011
as well as an overview of the overall program in the PRG meeting. My discussion in the
MB meeting also included the confidentiality of project data and results. Then, the list of
PRG actions from the previous day was approved. Also, the schedule and budget for
2011 and 2012 was discussed.
The MB has taken note of the delay in the financial contribution from UNIPI to the
Project and of its commitment to provide their entire contribution to the Project by the 30
June 2012. Considering this exceptional situation and following provisions from Article 2
c) 4 of the SFP Agreement the MB agreed that UNIPI continue to attend the Project
meetings and receive e-mail exchanged within the Project. However the MB asked the
Operating Agent to hold any further distribution of Project Phase II Data until payment
from UNIPI is received.
MB agreed according to Article 2 c) 3 that any technical decision done by PRG
electronically could be based on two-thirds quorum of the voting strengths.
Notwithstanding the above, the agreement of the USNRC shall be required for
decisions, which might affect the safety of tests, operations and personnel, or
concerning insurance
Pending Actions/Planned Next Steps for NRC
The PRG and MB members for the Spent Fuel Pool Project will meet in Albuquerque,
NM in the October of 2012 to discuss the status of the work and future activities of the
Points for Commission Consideration or Items of Interest
No commission action is required.
The draft official summary of the PRG 4 and MB 4 meetings are attached.
“On the Margins” 

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

The ACRS Exposed the Myth of the EPRI Code RETRAN-3D

On Wednesday, July 14, 1999 (Bastille Day), the U. S. NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards heard testimony by its member, Professor Graham Wallis.  Professor Wallis analyzed RETRAN-3D, which is a program for transient thermal-hydraulic analysis of complex fluid flow systems.

The discussions were detailed for several hours.  The Committee, informed by Professor Wallis, was not favorably impressed with the quality of RETRAN-3D.  Here is an excerpt from the transcript that displays the hostile exchange between EPRI's RETRAN-3 promoter and Professor Wallis.

MR. AGEE:  We feel that some of Dr. Wallis' statements
are very simply confusing the momentum and the nodal
balances of the equation.  These equations are straight 
out of Slattery and Bird, Stewart and Lightfoot. It's not 
simply EPRI's --  

DR. WALLIS: Can I comment on that, please? I have taught from Bird, Stewart and Lightfoot for about half my life, and I cannot find anything in Bird, Stewart and Lightfoot which is correctly being interpreted in the literature you gave me. 

MR. AGEE: This is fundamental --

DR. WALLIS: It's been misunderstood and misused, and it is wrong -- excuse me -- it is inappropriate to invoke Bird, Stewart, and Lightfoot as an authority for what was done.

Here is the link to the complete transcript of the above meeting and it is a significant disclosure 14 years later:

Here is another link from about a year after the above ACRS meeting:

This is interesting.  Here is the opening paragraph of NRC's documentation:


On November 3, 2000, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) met with the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) to discuss the staff’s review of the RETRAN-3D computer
code. Attachment 1 is a list of attendees. During the meeting the staff discussed its conditions
and limitations for the use of RETRAN-3D. The code is under review by the staff for approval
for application to transients discussed in Chapter 15 of the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Reports for boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors. The conditions and
limitations for the use of the code which were agreed upon by the staff and EPRI during the
meeting are listed in Attachment 2. 

It is an interesting document.  Actually, EPRI was not present at the meeting; only its Washington D. C. representative was present and it is unlikely that he had any awareness of much.  The nuclear power users of RETRAN-3D and their contractors were there.  The EPRI "developers" of RETRAN were not involved and they were not on the distribution of this memo. It would be interesting to know how all this got set up.  Here is the list of attendees.

NOVEMBER 3, 2000

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
G. Vine

A. Attard
R. Caruso
R. Landry
L. Olshan
H. Scott
J. Staudenmeier

T. George, Nuclear Management Company
M. Paulsen, Computer Simulation & Analysis, Inc.
G. Swindlehurst, Duke Power