[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51783-51785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-20172]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

[Docket No. PRM-50-76]


Robert H. Leyse; Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission is publishing for comment a petition for 
rulemaking filed by Robert H. Leyse on May 1, 2002. The NRC assigned 
the petition Docket No. PRM-50-76 on May 8, 2002. The petition requests 
amendment to NRC's regulations concerning evaluation models for 
Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) and associated guidance 
documents. The petitioner believes the amendments are necessary to 
correct technical deficiencies that do not consider the complex thermal 
hydraulic conditions during a Loss-of-Coolant-Accident (LOCA), 
including the potential for very high fluid temperatures.

DATES: Submit comments by October 23, 2002. Comments received after 
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the 
Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received 
on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-00001, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff.
    Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 
between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
    For a copy of the petition, write to Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules 
and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 
20555-0001.
    You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive Rulemaking 
website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. This site allows you to upload 
comments as files in any format, if your web browser supports the 
function. For information about the interactive Rulemaking website, 
contact Ms Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905 (email:[email protected]).
    Documents related to this petition, including comments received, 
may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on 
the NRC Web site (the Electronic Reading Room), http://www.nrc.gov. If 
you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing 
the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 
1-800-397-4029, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001 or e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Mr. Leyse's petition covers three distinct 
issues: (1) Amendment of Appendix K to Part 50 of the Commission's 
regulations, (2) amendment of an NRC guidance document entitled 
Regulatory Guide 1.157, Best-Estimate Calculations of Emergency Core 
Cooling System (ECCS) Performance, and (3) the need for further 
analysis of Part 50 backup data.

Issue (1)--Amendment of Appendix K to Part 50

    The petitioner details at length technical deficiencies in Appendix 
K to Part 50, in Section I.A.5. The petitioner claims that Section 
I.A.5 does not accurately describe the extent of zirconium-water 
reactions that may occur during a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). The 
petitioner specifically describes how the Baker-Just equation used 
(Baker, L., Just, L.C., ``Studies of Metal Water Reactions at High 
Temperatures, III. Experimental and Theoretical Studies of the 
Zirconium-Water Reaction,'' an Argonne National Labs document (ANL-
6548) page 7, May 1962) does not include any allowance for the complex 
thermal-hydraulic conditions during a LOCA, including the potential for 
very high bulk fluid temperatures within the cooling channels of the 
zirconium-clad fuel elements.
    The petitioner cites the abstract of ANL-6548, and disputes the use 
of the conclusions drawn using test apparatus that do not accurately 
reflect the conditions present during a LOCA, specifically:

--The bulk water temperature was no greater that 315 C (599F),
--The volume of water within the test apparatus was substantially 
greater than the volume of zirconium specimens, creating a vastly 
greater capacity to cool the heated zirconium particles of the Baker 
and Just experiment than would exist under LOCA conditions, and
--Zirconium specimens were exposed to water only, while LOCA conditions 
include steam and non-equilibrium water-steam mixtures that reached 
higher bulk fluid temperatures. The petitioner further questions the 
appropriateness of the dimensions of the apparatus used in the 
investigations, detailing volume ratio of water to zirconium for 
several specimens.

    The petitioner concludes that a footnote to the Baker and Just 
analysis stating ``This discussion is of a preliminary nature: work in 
this area is continuing,'' obviates the application prescribed in 
Appendix K to Part 50 in Section I.A.5. of the Baker-Just equation

[[Page 51784]]

to calculate the rate of energy release, hydrogen generation, and 
cladding oxidation from the metal/water reaction.

Issue (2)--Amendment of Regulatory Guide 1.157

    The petitioner states Regulatory Guide 1.157, Best-Estimate 
Calculations of Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Performance, uses 
data from NUREG-17 (the particular reference is ORNL/NUREG-17, 
Zirconium Metal-Water Oxidation Kinetics IV, Reaction Rate Studies, by 
Cathcart, et. al., August 1977) for calculating the rates of energy 
release, hydrogen generation, and cladding oxidation for cladding 
temperatures greater than 1900 degrees F. The petitioner claims this 
data is based on very limited test conditions and consequently, the 
results obviate the use of NUREG-17 in LOCA conditions.
    The petitioner describes the following test conditions:
--Zircaloy-4 specimens exposed only to steam, rather than fluid 
conditions as present in a LOCA;
--No documented heat transfer from the zircaloy surface to the slow-
flowing steam;
--Small scale laboratory testing without conditions typical of the 
complex thermal-hydraulic conditions that prevail during a LOCA; and
--An unexplained shift from the MaxiZWOK (testing apparatus for 
investigations in the temperature range from 1652 to 1832 degrees F) to 
the MiniZWOK (different testing apparatus for investigations in the 
temperature range 1832 to 2734 degrees F).

    The petitioner believes that the investigators have drawn 
misleading conclusions that ``overlook very substantially greater mass 
transfer coefficients that accompany the so-called appropriate heat 
transfer coefficients.'' The petitioner concludes that ``it is those 
very substantially greater mass transfer coefficients that led to the 
temperature overshoot of the MaxiZWOK test at 1832 F, and that would 
have led to very substantially greater temperature overshoots and 
likely destruction of the Zircaloy tubing if MaxiZWOK had been operated 
over the temperature range of the MiniZWOK runs.''
    The petitioner cites NUREG-17 and the following warning on its 
introductory page: This report was prepared as an account of work 
sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States 
nor the Energy Research and Development Administration/United States 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, nor any of their employees, nor any of 
their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any 
warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or 
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any 
information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents 
that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. The petitioner 
believes that inasmuch as the investigators do not warrant their work, 
and specifically assume no responsibility for the accuracy of their 
work, that the NUREG-17 is inapplicable to the regulation of nuclear 
power reactors in the U.S.A.

Issue (3)--Need for further Analysis of Appendix K Backup Data

    The petitioner challenges certain technical statements and 
conclusions in the data report referenced in Appendix K.I.D.3. and D.5; 
the petitioner notes that the full title of the report is ``PWR FLECHT 
(Full Length Emergency Cooling Heat Transfer) Final Report,'' 
Westinghouse Report WCAP-7665, April 1971. The petitioner explains that 
the data in WCAP-7665, which includes the certified Run 9573, includes 
the complex thermal-hydraulic conditions and zircaloy-water reactions 
that characterize reflood. The petitioner states that these conditions 
are not found in the narrow test procedures of ANL-6548 or NUREG-17.
    The petitioner explains that a pertinent description of the 
complexities of thermal-hydraulic conditions during reflood, including 
negative heat transfer coefficients, is included in Part 3.2.3 of WCAP-
7665, and further states that this description applies to data 
collected with FLECHT bundles with stainless steel cladding. The 
petitioner feels that another FLECHT zircaloy bundle test, Run 8874 is 
also pertinent to issues raised in this petition.
    The petitioner cites WCAP-7665, Part 5.6, and finds statements 
regarding zircaloy-Stainless Steel Comparison to be misleading, because 
they imply that stainless steel heat transfer coefficients may be used 
as a conservative representation of zircaloy behavior. The petitioner 
believes that the differences in behavior for various test runs are 
explained by the differences in the thermal hydraulic conditions that 
led to a different combination of heat transfer and mass transfer 
factors, and are not due to inconsistency of the data, as implied by 
the report.
    The petitioner also finds Part 5.11 Materials Evaluation section of 
the report to be misleading in view of the total experience with FLECHT 
Run 9573. Finally, the petitioner notes that the same warning language 
as in NUREG-17 is on the cover page to WCAP-7665.
    The petitioner further identifies a number of aspects of the data 
supporting the document entitled ``Acceptance Criteria for Emergency 
Core Cooling Systems for Light-Water Cooled Nuclear Reactors-Opinion of 
the Commission,'' Docket No. RM50-1, December 28, 1973, and notes the 
Commission concluded, ``It is apparent, however, that more experiments 
with zircaloy cladding are needed to overcome the impression left from 
run 9573.'' The petitioner finds that there has been a lack of 
appropriate response to the Commission's expressed need for more 
experiments, and believes that at the very least, Run 9573 should have 
been repeated. The petitioner emphasizes that although at least one 
billion dollars had been expended on other analytical efforts, there 
has been no reported analysis of FLECHT Run 9573.
    The petitioner states that the test programs of the subject 
petition were funded by government agencies, and believes that most of 
those programs were firmly controlled by those ``who were indoctrinated 
in the methods of the tightly regimented Naval Reactors Program.'' The 
petitioner finds that the ``biased reporting of WCAP-7665 may be traced 
to these controls,'' and believes that ``the lack of application of the 
MaxiZWOK apparatus beyond 1832 F in NUREG-17 may likely be traced to 
rigid restrictions by management at the NRC.'' The petitioner further 
contends that while the Argonne work of ANL-6548 was likely less 
impacted by these controls, the controls likely did inhibit further 
analysis or reporting of FLECHT Run 9573.
    The petitioner notes that he has made several requests to the 
Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory for Report KAPL-1534 which have been 
ignored.

Request For Comments

    The Commission requests public comment on the issues raised by the 
petitioner. In particular, the Commission requests public comment on 
the following questions:
    (1) Are the petitioner's three concerns with respect to ECCS 
cooling valid? If so, do these concerns constitute a significant safety 
concern?
    (2) Are there actions available to the Commission other than 
rulemaking that would effectively address the concerns raised by the 
petitioner?

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of August, 2002.


[[Page 51785]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 02-20172 Filed 8-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P