ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEEDES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM(80)750
Vol.1980/0234

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement (CEE,Euratom) n°354/83duConseildu1erfévrier1983
concernant l'ouverture aupublicdesarchiveshistoriques delaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergieatomique(JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifiéparlerèglement (CE,Euratom) n°1700/2003 du22septembre 2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003, p.1),cedossierestouvertaupublic.Lecaséchéant,lesdocuments
classifiésprésentsdanscedossierontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance withCouncilRegulation (EEC,Euratom) No354/83of1February 1983
concerning theopeningtothepublicofthehistoricalarchivesoftheEuropean Economic
Community andtheEuropean AtomicEnergyCommunity (OJL43,15.2.1983, p.1),as
amended byRegulation (EC,Euratom) No1700/2003 of22September 2003(OJL243,
27.9.2003, p.1),thisfileisopentothepublic.Wherenecessary, classifieddocuments inthis
filehavebeendeclassified inconformity withArticle5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung (EWG,Euratom) Nr.354/83desRatesvom1.
Februar 1983überdieFreigabe derhistorischen Archive derEuropäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI.L43vom15.2.1983,
S.1),geändertdurchdieVerordnung (EG,Euratom) Nr.1700/2003 vom22.September 2003
(ABI.L243vom27.9.2003, S.1),istdieseDateiderÖffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit
erforderlich, wurdendieVerschlusssachen indieserDateiinÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel5
dergenannten Verordnung freigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
i ■
COM(80)750 final
:i <
Brussels -18thNovember 1980
MULTIANNUAL RESEARCH PROGRAMME
OFTHEJOINTRESEARCH CENTRE
1980-1983
REPORT FROMTHECOMMISSION TOTHECOUNCIL
ONTHEIMPLEMENTATION OFTHEFIRSTPHASE
OFTHESUPER-SARA PROJECT
'X7c2-\
ί'ί-ι··
C0M(80 >750final

TABLE OFCONTENTS
Page
1. 'Introduction 1.
2.TheRole oftheSuper-SARA Project inReactor Safety Research 3
3.Technical Aspects oftheProject 6
3.1 .General objectives and composition ofthe Super-SARA test
programme (SSTP )prepared and approved bytheTask Force 6 .
3.2 .Description oftheconsensus LB-LOCA Part ofthe SSTP 11
3.2.1 .Needs andconstraints :fields covered *byother -
Large Break-LOCA fuel behaviour programmes 11
3.2.1.1 . .Out-of-pile research programme 11
3.2.1.2 .In-pile research programmes 12 ,
3.2.1.3 .Prospects for the attainment of .
simulation ofburn-up " ,13
3.2.2 .TheConsensus Super-SARA LB-LOCA Test Matrix 14
3.3 .Description ofthe consensus Severe Fuel Damage (SFD )
part ofthe SSTP * . " - 17
3.3.1 .Needs andconstraints :field covered bycjther ' 11
SFD programmes . ■
3.3.2 .The consensus Super-SARA SFD test matrix 18
3.4 .Fission Product Release 21
 >
3.4.1.:Needs and constraints field covered by
other programmes 21
3.4.2 .Fission product release investigations 22
3.5 .Outline ofsome technological problems underlying the ,
feasibility ofthe tests 24
3.6 .Some particular Recommendations oftheTask Force -.'26
4.Other Aspects oftheProject 33
4.1 .Time Schedule ajid Financial Aspects 33
/
4.1.1 .Time Schedule 33
4.1.2 .Financial Allocation forSuper-SARA Project 33
4.2 .Implementation oftheProject -~ 36
4.2.1 .Establishment ofaconsultative structure for
the experimental programme .36
4.2.2 .Participation ofnational specialists inthe
implementation oftheproject 37
4.2.3 .Description ofthe internal management structure 37
4.3 .Participation ofThird parties intheProject 40
4.3.1 .United States V 40
. 4.3.1.1 USDOE 40
4.3.1.2 USNRC 40
4.3.1.3 EPRI , ' .'■ '- 41
4.3.2 .Japan , 42
4.3.3 .Sweden '42
5.Conclusions 44
Annex I List ofTask Force Participants - •
Annex II Calendar ofTask Force meetings
.Annex III Summary description of ,the Super-SARA loop andorocurement status

-1-
1.Introduction
I.This document isintended toreply tothewish of -theCouncil tohave
atitsdisposal additional information ontheobjectives andcurrent
status oftheSuper-SARA project .The report presents the results of
thework ofthe first phase oftheproject and sets out theprospects
for the implementation ofthe second phase .
Itshould berecalled that on13March 1980 ,the Council adopted amulti -
annual research programme tobeimplemented bytheJoint Research Centre
(O.J. of18March 1980 ,no.1>12).The Council further stated onthis occasion *)
"that itapproves the implementation oftheSuper-SARA project including ,
inaccordance with theACPM guidelines ,experiments onloss ofcoolant
through small and medium sized breaks .However ,the financial appropriation
fortheproject (43.92 MEUA ),which isthus approved ,comprises one portion
tobeimmediately available ,viz .3.31 MEUA necessary forthework in1980 , v
while theremaining portion (40.61 MEUA ),fortheyears 1981 to1983 ,is
frozen .Atthe end of1980 ,and onthe basis ofthe new information then
available ,theCouncil will berequired todecide onthecontinuance of
theproject andontherelease oftheremaining portion oftheappropriations .
Should this \ieciK ionnotbetaken ,the Council must decide onthe future
utilization o>'the^taff working onthis project ."
TheCommission wi=hes\\o stress once again theimportance oftheSuper – ~
SARA project ,which cOi\v\itutes afurther Community initiative of
greatest importance .int'vef.ieid ofreactor safety .Itistheresponsibility
oftheCommission tounde-';in fct-.beneed foraprompt execution ofthe
Super-SABA project within t^-raite ofthe1980-1983 JRCmultiannual
programme andtodraw theatt-.utioi .\tothegrave consequences ofa
negative decision oftheCouncil on\j\e future development oftheJoint
Research Centre .
II.Thefirst phase oftheproject hasbe«nmX^nly devoted tothecontinuation
oftheconstruction oftheSARA loop accord\.g totheplanned schedule ,to
thedetailed study andcompletion ofthecontent :oftheexperimental pro­
gramme andtothestudy ofthetechnical complementarity OftheSuper -SARA
project inrelation totheother projects being carried outinthesame field .
*)Statements forEntries intheminutes oftheCouncil (Document 5422/80of
4March 1980 )

-2-
TheCommission ispleased toemphasize the extremely significant contri­
bution made tothis task bythe experts oftheMember States meeting in
theTask Force -established inJune 1980 following the invitation addressed
bytheDirector-General oftheJRC tothePermanent Representatives .
The list ofexperts who took part intheTask Force iscontained inAnnex I,
and thecalendar ofthe meetings inAnnex II.The constructive spirit which
was shown during thework ofthe Task Force should inthe Commission 's
opinion serve asabasis folrthe further development ofaproject ,inthe "
implementation ofwhich t±ie laboratories ofthe Member States would be
widely associated ,andwhere aclose collaboration would beestablished with
theprojects ofthe same nature ,in-pile andout-of-pile, conducted with the
Community and elsewhere.' ^
[II.This document iscentred upon thetechnical aspects oftheSuper-SARA project
,inwhich thembst significant developments have taken place during the
first phase .Itfurther covers /the financial aspects oftheproject ,thei
main modalities foritsexecution andthequestion ofcooperation with third
■'parties .
■ ■TheTask Force >after recommending unanimously atest programme ,has issued
acertain number ofrecommendations concerning thefurther development of
theproject .These recommendations aresetout inchapter 3.6
ofthis document . -;
IV.This document hasbeen submitted -forOpinion totheAdvisory Committee on
Programme Management "Reactor Safety "and theGeneral Advisory Committee
oftheJRC .These opinions will betransmitted totheCouncil assoon as
approved bythe respective Committees .

The Role ofthe Super -SARA Project inReactor Safety Research
While allprecautions aretaken innuclear plant design and
operation toensure that accident situations areofvery
lowprobability ,itremains ,however ,necessary toobtain
information ontheconsequences ofaccidents ,irrespective
ofthelowprobability oftheir occurrence inorder toverify
above all that they donot lead tounacceptable release of
radioactivity into the environment .
TheSuper-SARA project -asanin-pile investigation into the
behaviour ofLWR (PWRorBWR )fuel assemblies during awide
variety ofaccident conditions -isaimed ,together with
other on-going programmes ,atproviding this type ofinformation .
The accident conditions investigated relate toloss -of-coolant
from theprimary system ofthereactor ;they range from those
ofthe large break loss -of-coolant accident -thedesign basis
accident used todate -tothose ofmany scenarios ,involving
ι,
thesimultaneous failures ofindependent ma]orsystems ,inwhich
core uncovery occurs -leading possibly totheso-called Class 9
accident conditions . - .
All these accident conditions lead toincipient -to-severe fuel
damage conditions ranging uptoclad melting and dissolution of
UC>2pellets ,widespread clad oxidation andembrittlement ,formation
ofblockages due tofragmentation and frozen slag ,enhancement of '
fission product release anddegradation ofcore coolability .
TheSuper-rSARA project isfocussed onthegeneral mission of
Iquantifying the above fuel damage states and thecorresponding .
fission product releases occurring over thebroad accident spectrum
referred above . -
\ . ■ .

-4-
Furthermore ,theinformation obtained onthe core blockage which
canresult from thevarious types ofdamage will indicate the
degree ofcore coolability available forrecovery ofplant control
should anaccident occur .Ta^en inconjunction with aknowledge of
the fission 'product release ,this information could beanextremely
important factor inthebehaviour andprocedures adopted byoperators
andpublic authorities during the evolution ofthe accident .
Itshould bestated atonce that theSuper-SARA project cannot '
reproduce the full setofgeometrical parameters involved under accident
conditions inanLWRprimary system .However ,itisintended that the
manner inwhich fuel damage occurs in .theSuper-SARA project besimilar
tothat inafull scale core because the imposed thermohydraulics '
boundary conditions (different to,butbased onareal reactor situation ) ■
will beregulated soastobracket the fuel behaviour conditions predicted
I .
tooccur in'the full scale accident .Inaddition ,the test cluster
temperature distribution will bechosen toensure correspondence with
that forrods inafull scale core .There will thus begood compatibility
inthephysical conditions ofthetest andtheaccident itself . -
Insummary ,bygenerating data ofsufficiently general character on
fuel damage and fission product release against the above background
ofpublic concern ,thepractical uses oftheSuper-SARA project are
expecte 'dtobeasfollows : '
1.toassist ;those responsible forsafety assessments byproviding
:additional important information onaccident situations which can
•*i .
lead toincipient -to-severe fuel damage ;
2.tocontribute totheknowledge offission product releases tothe
primary system ,which isanimportant source term inestablishing
more realistic emergency plans ;
3.tohelp identify remedial measures tomitigate degraded core cooling
.conditions ,including thesystems tomonitor them ,andthespecification
ofoperator procedures tocombat them .

The Super-SARA project itself cannot answer all thequestions which
areposed inthis complicated field .Itrather forms animportant
part ofamosaic ofprojects which together represent acoherent
attack onthese questions .
Inthis mosaic ,oneidentifies essentially theout-of-pile programmes
inREBEKA inGermany and MRBT intheUnited States aswell asthe
in-pile programmes PHEBUS inFrance "andPBFintheUnited States .In .
view ofitsdetailed technical character ,therelationship of ..
Super-SARA with these programmes -ofacomplementary oraconfirmatory
nature -isoutlined inthe following chapter dealing with technical
aspects -oftheproject .
»
Itshould nevertheless bepointed out here that the Task Force reached
anagreement onthe establishment ofmechanisms toensure the
complementary /confirmatory role oftheSuper-SARA project notably
/
through thepooling ofinformation with PHEBUS andPBF .
The characteristics ofSuper-SARA which give itadistinct place in
themosaic areclear :large dimensions oftest bundle ,complete
range ofaccident simulation ;out-of-pile test calibration .These
characteristics ,together with those available atESSOR –single
purpose operation ,contiguous hot cells ,blinker containment -give
theSuper-SARA .project asignificant capability .

Technical Aspects oftheProject' .^
Preamble " -
».
The mandate oftheTask Force istogive technical support tothe Commission
inthedefinition ofthe Super-SARA programme objectives and toassure a .
■strong link between the programme and theout-of-pile and in-pile experiments
underway inthedifferent laboratories . .•
During theperiod from June 1980 (when theTask Force started )toOctober ,
theTask Force has elaborated aconsensus test matrix which isexpected to
give asubstantial contribution tothe understanding offuel cluster be­
haviour (damage and fission product release )under abroad speictrum of
accident conditions .
Itwasnotthemandate ofthjeTask Force todiscuss indepth questions of
•feasibility ,instrumentation etc .Nevertheless ,anumber ofunresolved
technical problems which have been pointed out intheTask Force are listed
inChapter 3.5 . \ - -
Consequently ^thetest matrix wasformulated onthepresumption that the
technology necessary toaccomplish theprogramme will befeasible and in
theknowledge' that thetechnology isalso being actively pursued bycomple -
' (
•mentary programmes .Itisunderstood that the matrix isnot frozen andmay
bemodified torecognise .theresults ofon-going technological effort .
Themandate excluded also allquestions concerning organisation ,management ,
budgeting and time schedule for the further work . ^
1.General Objectives andComposition oftheConsensus Super-SARA Test
Programme (SSTP )prepared andapproved bytheTask Force •
The first basic objective oftheconsensus SSTP istheattainment of
data and adeeper generic understanding concerning those aspects ofLV7R
fuel cluster .behaviour which canlead tosignificant fuel damage ,core

1
-7-
blockage and coolability problems asaresult ofhypothetical accident
situations ofalowprobability where normal safeguard systems areassumed
tobepartially orwholly in-operative .
'
Inaddition tosuch anunderstanding ofthe thermomechanical and thermo -
hydraulics processes governing LWR fuel cluster damage andblockage ,a
second basic objective isth£ correlation ofthe transient fission product
release (FPR )occurring during accident situations with the type and
extent ofthe fuel damage provoked .
s ■ • ■
The corfsensus SSTP covers fuel cluster behaviour both for the "fast
transient conditions ofthe "large break "loss -of-coolant -accident (LB-LOCA )
and the "slower "transient conditions ofother accident scenarios which
under certain circumstances could lead toperiods ofpartial core un-
covery and higher clad temperatures and apotential for severe fuel
damage (SFD ).Animportant example ofsuch a"slow "transient leading
toSFD isprovided bytheThree Mile Island (TMI )accident .
The majority ofthe Task Force considered from thebeginning that more
emphasis should beplaced onthe SFDpart oftheprogramme than onthe
LB-LOCA part .Thereason forthis isessentially that ,while aconsiderable
amount ofwork hasbeen started orcompleted for theLB-LOCA ractivities
intheSFD field are relatively behind andrequire intensification in
order toprovide SFD data asquickly aspossible .
TheLB-LOCA part oftheconsensus SSTP hasbeen established onthebasis
oftheTask Force requirement (2)that itmust beconfirmatory with respect
tothecurrent out-of-pile LB-LOCA fuel behaviour programmes (which are
able toscope ,well thegoverning parameters andrequire only limited in-
pile checks toconfirm thetypicality ofrod-simulator performance )and
complementary with respect tothe current in-pile LB-LOCA programmes
(where the data available orexpected should bebacked upbyin-pile tests
which give something new ).

The Super-SARA loop isbeing fabricated with the design aim tosimulate
the entire LB-LOCA scenario ,blowdown toreflood ,byme'ans ofcontrol
actions onvalves and cluster power .This capability will beexploited -
inorder tomeet thebasic objectives stated above ,which ,for theLB-LOCA
take onthe following particular form :
-Clad deformation characteristics ,likely tobedominated byhigh
strain-rate ballooning ,influencing the degree ofcluster blockage .
-Interactions caused bydeformations which might influence the
cluster blockage fraction .
-Rod cluster coolability and thermal response during reflooding . :
■ ■ - i.
-Dependence ofFPR ontheextent ofcluster damage ^ A
The Task Force has proposed aLB-LOCA test matrix which fits within the
required confirmatory /complementary context bymeans ofthefollowing tests :
-4Tests with 2m _long PWR (type 17x17)clusters of-32
rods ; ■i•' , - .
-1test with "a2mlong BWR-type cluster (probably type
8x8R); -1| ~
-2unspecified tests tocover unforeseen requirements ofhigh priority '
arising atalater stage .
Incontrast totheLB-LOCA part ,the SFDpart ofthe consensus SSTP seeks
togenerate amore comprehensive range ofdata .There isnot currently the
wide "variety ofactivity for /SFD asfor theLB-LOCA field :theonly other
known comparable SFDprogramme isthat planned forthePBF atEG&G-Idaho ,
starting inlate 1981 orearly 1982 .ThePHEBUS programme isalso expected
tospecify SFD tests which must bealso considered .For the time being ,the
SSTP has toensure agood complementary /confirmatory relationship only with
the PBFprogramme . -
Considering thebasic objectives stated above and the large array ofaccident
scenarios which maypotentially lead toSFD ,1asoccurred inthecase ofthe

-74
-,9-
TMI accident ,the Task Force has noted that theSuper–SARA loop has
thedesign aim toreach these objectives byexploiting itsplanned
capability tosimulate the essential common feature ofall the SFD
scenarios :cluster uneovery toprovoke relevant transients ofclad
temperature incombination with relevant transients ofsystem pressure ,
followed byresubmergence andquenching *TheTask Force has stipulated
that this capability must beused toaddress the following particular
SFD objectives (2,3)J
a)Degree ofoluster blockage and ,FPR due toclad deformation
andrupture atlowstrain-rates ,possible in"core uneovery "
transients ,especially considering 'the effects ofclad oxidation
onsuchdeformation inthehigh .high ^Jrairre (/-«»1100 -1650K ).
b)Decree ofcluster blockage andFPR resulting from the formation
ofarubble bedduetothewidespread oxidation oftherods
« – ■■ "–■"-
(upto<–»2000K ),with ,orwithout prior ballooning and rupture ,
followed byrodfragmentation either byquenching (re-submergence )
orsystem depressurisation .
c)Degree ofcluster blockage andFPR resulting from the formation
ofaZr/UO^liquid solution above^2170K (rod "candling "),with
, .orWithout subsequent rubble bed provocation byquenching .
The Task Force has proposed aSFD test matrix which fits within the re­
quired complementary /confirmatory relation with PBF attained ,bymeans
ofthe following tests s
-3tests with objective (a),allwith 2mlong PWR*type clusters
of32rods ? ' 1.
-4tests -with objective (b).,3with a2mlong PWR*type clusters
of^2rods ,1with a2mlongBWR+type cluster ;
-5tests with objective (c),4with a2mlong PWR*type clusters
-of32rods ,1-witha2mlongBWR+type cluster ;
*ThePWR clusters will allbeof17x17type geometry
+TheBWRclusters will probably beoftype Bx8R

-10-
-2unspecified tests topermit the inclusion ofunforeseen
,objectives which may later become ofhigh priority . .
Inconclusion ,the consensus SSTP iscomposed tentatively ofanoverall
number of21tests which seem tooffer atthis moment areasonable
coverage ofmany ofthe important accident conditions currently of
interest ,-taking into account the -other programmes inthe fuel be­
haviour field .Inthe following chapters ,these tests are described
inmore detail ;but itshould behinted that ,ifpriorities change or
newproblems emerge inthe future the SSTP will also have tochange .

Ki ' »
-11-
3.2 .Description oftheConsensus LB-LOCA Part oftheSSTP
3.2.1 Needs andconstraints :field covered byother LB-LOCA fuel behaviour
programmes • ■ ;
3.2.1.1 Out-of-pile research -programmes
j Considerable progress has been made inthe characterisation and under­
standing offuel rodand cluster behaviour during theLB-LOCA byout-
of-pile research .The range ofthis research extends from thedetailed
study ofseparate effects ,asexamplified bytheclad tube ballooning
studies conducted inthePROPAT rig atthe UKAEA-^Springfields andEDGAR
facilities atCEA-Saclay ,tothetesting oflarge clusters using sophis­
ticated electrically heated rod simulators *asexamplified bythe studies
conducted inthe REBEKA installation atthe KFK-Karlsruhe and the MRBT
facility at:theORNL-Tennessee . ■_ 1/1"
Between them ,these programmes investigate fuel behaviour over awide
parameter :range and gofartowards theverification oftheoretical
models intended for eventual LB-LOCA analysis infull-size reactor con­
ditions .They leave open ,however ,thequestion 'how "prototypical "is
thebehaviour ofrod simulators ?1Toanswer this question ,avery few
specific in-pile tests are recommended inaddition tothose performed
- ' :.!' I! '
already inPBF and FR2 andplanned inHalden .These tests should beper­
formed under slow creep rate conditions andbeexplicitly designed to
; I '1 1 '
check andconfirm specific out-of-pile bundle tests .TheTask Force hasre­
' ' . I.-: • " >;
commended that theLB-LOCA part oftheSSTP should fulfil this confirmatory
■role . . ■■ ' ■
-Such arole could also cover the secondary question raised bythe fact
that thecut-of~pile tests simulate only theblowdown phase ortheheat-
upphase separately andcannot simulate thewhole ,LOCA transient which
should betreated intheSuper-SARA loop .
r,t: '■ • .
V \ . ' ■^^ ■
,1s"* •
.11 *
:ι1 , . ■ ■'

-12-
,ί
3.2.1.2 .In-pile research programmes
Considerable work onthe behaviour ofreal fuel rods inLB-LOCA con­
I - .
ditions isalso underway xnvarious experimental reactor facilities "
andhas the same ultimate objective astheout-of-pile work :theveri-
ι
•fication ofcomputer models needed for the analysis ofthe "full scale
LB-LOCA .The main facilities relevant tothis discussion are :DK/FR2 ,
KFK ;PBF ,EG&G Idaho ?PHEBUS /CEA-Cadarache ;NRU ,AECL-Chalk River .
TheLOFT facility isnotdiscussed because itisanintegral plantbe -
haviour facility not dedicated only tofuel behaviour .
.~ ' These in-pile test programmes vary inscale andparameter coverage and
the recommended complementary place for the SSTP canbeidentified only
v bytaking anoverview ofthemain features ofeach installation ,For *
present purposes ,the features considered relevant totheLB-LOCA test
objectives are established for each installation byfour questions :
Arerodfluster effects -included ?Istheheated length sufficient for
good reflood thermohydraulics ?ISthewhole LOCA sequence included ?
Isthe effect ofprior burn-up included ?The table below shows the
situation onthese question . '- '
Feature
Installation^ -*-^!–1I1"
j .•2 •'•■••• 3 . 4 .
i ■ ■
cluster ?length :,.•
(m)whole
LOCA ?
'1burn­
up?
DK/FR2 no
:0.5 : no yes
PBF ; no 0.9 i:: vyes yes
PHEBUS . :'I
yes 0.8
. : ■1-'1yes yes
: ^ 1 1
NRU •, ' yes 3.6 Γ;; no , no
SSTP ■n -! ' yes 2.0 " yes yes

1«
-13-
Itap..etrs imroediatt-iy chat the SSTP isalready partially complementary
totheother programmes inthe fact that itresponds positively toall
ofthe first three features while the others donot .However ,the Task
Force has recommended that ,inorder tobecompletely complementary ,the
SSTP should strive toinclude also thefourth feature :effect ofprior
burn-up onthe cluster behaviour .
3.2.1.3 Prospects for the attainment orsimulation ofburn-up
For theLB-LOCA tests itisdesirable toobtain the same total power in
each rod ofth'e cluster .Because ofthehighly thermalised neutron
energy spectrum inthe ESSOR reactor ,this requirement can only beful­
filled byzoning thefuel enrichments :central rods«»9.7 %;boundary
rods /N^4.0 %.Such zoning makes itimpossible topre-irradiate entire
Super-SARA clusters inother reactors with other spectra ^andthebest
that may beexpected isthepre-irradiation ofafew single rods and
their subsequent insertion into anon-irradiated assembly .Inthis way ,
for example ,the 4central rods could bepre-irrad.iated .Pre-irradiation
inthe Super-SAPA loop itself would bethe perfect solution but itre­
quires long periods ofsteady full power operation ofthe reactor which
atthemoment isnot compatible with theminimised operational arrange­
ments for theESSOR complex .
The Task Force attempted toassess (4)thepossibility ofobtaining the
principal effects ofsignificant burn-up without going tolong pre-
irradiations .The effects tobeattained are essentially the fuel cracking
andrelocation patterns ,theUO/clad chemical bonding and thecladding
creepdovn typical ofsignificantly burned fuel rods .These effects are
important because when clad ballooning occurs inresponse toaLB-LOCA ,
the fuel fragments may "follow "thedeformation andmaintain anear-
uniform temperature around the clad circumference .Asiswell known ,
thi3 would tend toincrease clad strain and cluster blockage and thus
impact sicrnxf icantly on-amajor test objective .

-14-
TheTask Force produced evidence that theUC>2pellet cracking ;
andrelocation pattern typical ofhigh burn-up canbeattained
bynoinore than /%,2days full power operation ,combined with at
least 3|cycles between full andlowpower ,each onatimescale of
1hour .However ,itappears that this treatment will not enough
toprovoke thedesired UC^/clad chemical ,bonding andclad creepdown .Clad
creepdown could beattained bysuitable design and/orpre-treatment .
Inconclusion.it isconsidered necessary that each test bepreceeded
; ' i .- i , - • - i
bytheabove preconditioning toprovoke most ofthedesired effects
ofburn-*up ,that asurveillance ofin-pile test data bemaintained to
establish theconditions forobtaining UC^/clad bonding andthat ,
inthemeantime ,theLB-LOCA programme should foresee theuse of
"some irradiated rods "incase UC^/clad bonding isnotattainable
inany other way .
rf. , "HI■ ' '1 r
■ \'■' r~mr■ '■i "• '
The Consënsus Super-SARA LB-LOCA Test -Matrix
γι· -· ηι ■ ■
All oftheabove needs and constraints have been synthesised into
• ii ; i,nr - . i :- ■' •. -
thetest matrix shown intable 1,which isrecommended bythe "Task
.Force (!>)<. .
: . ;i-i " - i«n i \
All tests will involve the complete LB-LOCA sequence (blowdown ,re­
fill ,reflood )forwhich thetimescales and thermohydraulic variables
will bemade toliewithin the "prototypical "LOCA ranges bydeliberate
πιη , :. Γ- '■I ' ·♦ '
loop and reactor control actions .Theproposed mode ofreflood for all
•::r- • -i:l I f •
tests is"forced feed "with constant water inlet velocity (2cm/sec).
rT.- '
Before theexecution ofanin-pile test *1these control actions will' be
reproduced ,corrected ,repeated .andconfirmed byusing theelectrically
heated Parallel twin channel .,
." '• ;ii. .'--i' ! ^ ■
Two classes ofcontrol action arerequired toyield two types of
1I
peak clad temperature (PCT )history s'
ι-'
' '.' ,' η ' '' " · ' "*·
,Γ ' · ■· .
κ.. Ι' ·*·
n : ■ < ''1 -r- •• -

Type A,inwhich the channel flow andheat transfer coefficient
(HTC )areminimised during blowdown to ,provoke arapid rise of
PCT tothe target value before theclad isloaded bythedrop of
system pressure .
I *
Type B,inwhich the channel flow and HTC are 16ft tovary more
freely tolimit therise ofPCT until completion ofblowdown .
Type APCThistories provide "heat -before -load" situations suitable
forprovoking deformation atpre-selected values oftheclad ,
temperature followed bythe reflooding andquenching ofthedamaged
cluster . ;
Type BPCThistories provide "load-rbef ore-heat "situations inwhich
deformation occurs only after blowdown during the lowpressure heat -
upphase .|Type Bhistories are needed ±n ;order tocorrelate with out-
of-pile tests which reproduce only thelowpressure heat-up /reflood
phase .
The emphasis intheLB-LOCA test matrix isondeformation inthe
/
high <JCphase oftheclad because thestrain andblockage potential
are greatest .Only test 1'investigates deformation athigher PCT in
the&phase where asecondary potentiality forhigh strain ispossible .
Test 2isthe base case and ,taken with test 1,brackets the
interesting range ofPCT inamanner complementary toother in-pile
programmes (seeprevious discussioii of^Installations inchapter 2).
Tests 3and 4seek toconfirm theresults -*ofoutrofr-pile tests with
rod simulator clusters (REBEKA ;eta.)and .astest 4isforeseen with
some irradiated rods itisalso complementary toNRU (which uses
fresh fuel ). '

^Tests 1-4 foresee theuse of2mlong PWR (type W17 x17)clusters of
32rods .Test 5isforeseen with a2mlorig BWR (probably type GE8
x8R)cluster containing anumber ofrods tobedetermined .This test
f . . . '
,isexpected toconfirm that thecluster geometry does not strongly
influence thebehaviour patterns ofinterest !andthat thecodes veri­
fied bythePWRdata areapplicable toassess also BWR fuel response .
From this viewpoint ,complementarity with allother programmes using
■PWR fuel can beclaimed .
Two unspecified tests .have been recommended bytheTask Force to
cop# with additional objectives ,e.g. remedial measures todiminish •'
thedamage caused bytheLB-LOCA ,orinvestigate unforeseen problems
..arising with *.high priority . ' ■i,•'n • r_k

sf®
-17-
3.3 .Description oftheConsensus SFDPart ofthe .SSTP
ι
3,3.1 Needs and constraints :field covered byother SFD programmes
The German delegates tothe Task Force described KfK simulations of
SFD situations inout-of-pile mock-ups ofPWR clusters heated at
various rates byJoule heating [3).Within the restraints ofthe test
conditions ,,themajor conclusion ofthis work isthat iftheramp rate
ofrise ofthePCT isless than 0<5K/sfthecladding isall
oxidised before melting ,but that ifthis rate exceeds <-«<•lK/sthen
seme Zrmetal survives until melting and for 4-K/saconsiderable
portion ofthemetal survives andforms asolution with theUC^which
relocates {"candles ")down and resolidifies atlower elevations .
These experiments offer the only clear guidance concerning themanner
ofhandling thePCT toobtain different states ofSFB .
The only known in-pile programme aimed atthe in-pile study ofSFD isthat
planned for the PBF atEG&GIdaho (6).Current priorities inthe
U.S. have dictated that this programme shall beconcentrated on
theinvestigation ofcluster "candling "and/orfragmentation with
the aim ofobtaining data onfuel relocation and rubble bed block -
I
ages and the associated FPR asquicklv aspossible ,,Seven tests
i
areproposed bytheTask Force :the five with leading priority are tentatively
scheduled for execution between end 1981 and mid 1984 .
The Task Force has suggested that the SFDpart ofthe SSTP should
include tests which confirm the PBF results 'and others which are
complementary .(Such arelationship with other national programmes
isalso suggesced .e.g. PHS3US ,when their SFD tests plans be^rae
known ).The three consensus SSTP SFDobjectives ,defined previous­
ly,allow this complementary /confirmatory role bycovering awider
} ■ ι
range ofconditions ,thus permitting the :detailed examination of
some aspects offuel damage (e.g. deformation )which arenotthe
}' < ' !
primary concern ofthePBF .Thediscussion oftheSFDtest matrix
below will show how this isrealised indetail .

«' ''■
During Task Force discussions ,some differing views concerning the
fuel preconditioning best suited totheSFD test objectives were
voiced .
r ■
Forobjective (a):degree ofcluster blockage andFPR due toclad
deformation ,itwould appear that the same arguments apply asfor
! I .
theLB-LOCA ,i.e. good preconditioning -to-obtain -prototypical
pellet cracking andrelocation andpellet /clad bonding isnecessary
toensure thecorrect clad temperature ,distribution ,For objectives
(b)and (c):degree ofcluster blockage andFPR resulting from rod
fragmentation andcandling ,there were some opinions that such pre-
I ' • - "
conditioning may beunnecessary . ; ~
The Task Force underlined the need toinclude inthe tests for
-.• »: ''O •'• .'' ! '
objectives (b)and (c)some measurements ofthe thermohydraulic
Ί .' . . ·'' "■
characteristics oftheblockages .Inview oftheextremity of
some ofthe .conditions leading tothese blockages :extensive
il-:r . r
oxidation and "candling "oftheUO„/Zrsolution followed bythe
n • "p >1
formation ofrubble and frozen slag onquenching ,itisnotyet
n1 - :
clear what techniques canbest beused for these measurements .
;.1 ;; ti♦ • -r:
Itisexpected that the PBFprogramme will stimulate theneces­
sary technology inthe U.S. for this and similar test-train
problems and that benefit can betaken from there bythe SSTP ,
!.i -ï .£n ! n
which isscheduled tostart later .
2The consensus Super-S&RA SFD test matrix vo
Table 2shpws the test matrix into which' has been factored the
"'^ ' ■1 j...
agreed SFDobjectives inconjunction with above needs and
.lu - - I•! ■ :
constraints .TheTask Force hasgiven itsapproval (5).
:i ii'•' :'i ' '
• ' n ; ,Theprogramme isdivided into three test series iA,BandC,
corresponding toobjectives (a),(b)and (c)defined earlier ,
■r •„ <plus series Dunspecified tests tocope with unforeseen new
\* ■*. ! r:' • • ' '*problems ornewways ofconceiving ofproblems which might hit
first priority inthefuture . [ . i ."

All tests will involve the feature common tothe wide variety of
relevant accident scenarios :controlled cluster uncovery to
elevations and atsystem pressures appropriate for theprovocation
oftheparticular cluster responses defined bythe test objectives .
This report does notattempt anydiscussion oftheaccident
scenarios .themselves .Control systems will bebuilt into the loop
toaccomplish therequired thermohydraulics conditions and
transients andthese will bechecked before in-pile testing byusing
theelectrically heated paralled twin out-of-pile channel .
Table 2islargely self-explanatory andrequires only some addition­
algeneral comments .These comments will not touch ontheFPR
objective ofthe tests which istreated separately inalater
section .
V : I
Test Sériés A(tests 1-3)investigates pôsbible large extended clad
I.
deformation ,characterised as sausage "ot"carrot "ballooning ,
which may involve strong rod-to-rod interactions and significant
cluster blockage fractions .Theseries investigates such deformation
forthe»Ciorjust pC/ phase ,1where' expected ballooning is
largest {test 1),andforthelow&(test 2)andhigh^(test 3)
/
regions whiere deformation isalso potentially large but strongly
affected bythe occurrence ofsimultaneous oxidation .All three
tests will beconducted with 2mlong PWR (W17x17)type clusters
of32rods . ■ j<
Test series B(tests 4-7 )investigetes transients which maylead
torubble bedblockages butno"candling ".,Onthebasis oftheKfKun . ' '■ '•'■r- ■ '
out-of-pil$ test results ,aramp rate ofrise of 0.3K/sinthe
PCTcanbeused toensure thenecessary clad oxidation .Test series
Bl (test 4-6 )twhich will beconducted With 2mlong PWR (W17 X17)
' . >1r. ■' ■ '
type clusters of32rods ,investigates theprocess ofrubble bed^i . *- s '
formation duetoquenching after clad rupture andembrittlement
ιη -= ■ >. -·" '
rVh :i•rMn *• . :•
\"-i '' ■♦«f\i
ι ,·~:' ι
i\,

/• • r .
-20-
bywidespread external and internal oxidation ,with thePCT rising
to»^» 1900K .Test 4seeks toassess the Condition ofthe cluster
prior tofragmentation byterminating with aslow cool-down to
avoid thermal shock ;test 5isarepetition butwith athermal
shock due tofast quenching .Both tests involve clac^ballooning
and rupture asthePCT rises through the Zr phase and thenext
test ,test 6,examines how the rubble bed characteristics are
changed ifthis early ballooning andrupture occur inthfehigh
phase oftheclad (which maypredispose thejdad toadifferent
fragmentation pattern ).Test 5isthe first test inthematrix
involving themeasurement ofrubble bedblockage characteristics
andwill thus bethefirst real check within the SSTP$nthetest-
train technology tobedeveloped forthis purpose .Tesg :geries B2
(test 7)investigates theprocess ofrubfcjle ^bedformation dueto
depressurisation (with PCT 600K )following extensive clad
• ' r
embrittlement byexternal oxidation (wit^.pCT v"S,1500K ).The
Task Force agreed that this ismore aprpblem fortheBWRand
thetest will therefore beconducted with ..a;2mlong BWR (probably
type GE j3xj8R)cluster containing anumber ofrods tobedeterminated .
Test series .,C (tests 8-12 )investigates ^ansientg .which may lead '
torod "candling "bythedissolution of -UO^in molten Zrfollowed
byquench induced blockages consisting of .rubble andifrozen slag .
The out-of -pile KfKresults suggest that -thePCT 'must beraised
faster thanp*lK/stoobtain theZr/UO^(liquid .Test series CI
(tests 8-11 ),,which will beconducted wirtph ■2mlong -PWR (W17X17)
type clusters of32"rods closely resembles ^series Blbutwith the
PCTrising ;more rapidly (^4K/s)toahigher level t'V 2300K )so
astoaddrod "candling "andfrozen slag :^lockage -to .theprocesses
occurring .Test 8seeks to"freeze "the "cluster in-ifcs "candled "
geometry prior tofragementation byusing -aslow shock-free cooldown .
ι ι. ' .
M i ' "' ;.. 'r■iv .
''. - •m.i,m
·>; ·!Ί"
ι . ■ . . ■
or •. . M R

Test 9repeats this test butwith afast quench toprovoke rod
fragmentation andmeasure thethermohydraulic characteristics ofthe
-blockage .Both tests 8and 9involve clad ballooning andrupture as
thePCT r;ises through the Zro£»Phase andtest 10examines how the
blockage characteristics are changed ifthis ,early .rupture occurs in
thehigh phase (which maygive rise toquite adifferent rupture
configuration and thereby adifferent "candling "behaviour }.Test 11
isintended toconfirm that theprocesses remain essentially
unchanged ifthePCTrise rate isvery high ,(^4K/s)asoccurred in
theTMI accident .Test series C2 (test 12)investigates conditions
related tothe inlet flow blockage accident oftheBWR forwhich the
problem isjaccording tothe U.S. observers oftheTask For9e ,
essentially ^toassess ifmolten fuel could penetrate toneighbouring
,fuel assemblies andcause apropagation pr<?cesses .Test 12isaccord­
ingly aminvestigation into therelocation ofthejliquid Zr/U0~2kut
theBWR-basejd test-train design required ,togain insight forthe
above assessment hasnotyetbeen given anythought .Inanycase ,
with thev$ry strong negative pressure differential across the clad ,
test 12wiij.1 probably have ahigher propensity for ."candling "than
any other :test . ,
i:: ''Vii:h "
Fission Product Release •
. .i.'": h'rh . ' '' .>■
1Needs and constraints ;field covered by ,other programmes
The consensus test programme described above entails thedeliberate
provocation ofseveral types anddegrees offuel cluster damage ,
extending from multiple ballooning andrupture inthe "Icwer "range
-ofclad temperature (1070-1650K ),through cluster collapse by
oxidation aridfragmentation at"intermediate "temperatures (*"/1900K )
ri ; Il :;ii t. t>
uptocluster "candling "at"high "temperatures (**»2100-2300K )..

TheTask ^orce hasrecommended that fission product release (FPR )
i' ■^ ■ - ( - 'should beregarded asamajor objective oftheSSTP ,especially in \
theframe ofthe SFDprogramme .There are three reasons for this \
objective :
,-need ,toknow theradiological effects intheplant and
environment which result for ahypothetical accident ;-
-need fordiagnosis ofanaccident situation ;r"
-need forFPR instrumentation tosatisfy these two requirements .
Thebackground inthis field hasbeen considered ,(e.g. German
studies ofsimulated FPR ;hot cell experiments attheORNL )but , "; '
there appe^ir tobeinsufficient in-pile jtests aimed atobtaining
adata bas& capable ofsustaining model andcode verification .
.7j.; IlÎ . '•»
Considering' theexperience available intneCEA-Grenoble (FLASH­
, . ■■■.>
SILOE project )andEG&G-Idaho (PBF programme ),theTask Force
'recommends that theSSTP should adopt aconfirmatory relationship
'tothese ^tildies ,especially totheanalytical andexperimental
'programme conducted atGrenoble . >1H |.
.'• ■^ I■ 'vr** ' ""■11
* : ' 'V . • •' •' ■ !i
3.4.2 Fission Prdduct Release Investigations ■
' )
TheTask ,F'oi'ce hasrecommended that the :loop should beequipped
with aninstrumentation system capable of"Monitoring 'thetransient
T.ofFPRoccurring foreachtypeoffueldamage .Thedata supplied
bythis system will assist thesearch for facorrelation between
FPR and thetype and extent offuel damage . ,>
: .' . .'li' - .1.; -- • .
TheTask Fbrce attempted toidentify ~the r'general specifications
foratransient FPRmonitoring system andthe duration offull
power operation oftheloop needed to !ensure asufficient fission product
MM ■ I' Iinventory forthemeasurements .Particularly useful information
onthese poihts waspresented from theFrench andU.S. participants ,

23 -
from which itwas concluded that transient FPRmonitoring equipment
must include :
-delayed neutron detection onthe loop asnear aspossible to
i
the test fuel (overall signal oftheFPR transient );
-3*detection atsuitable locations ontheloop topermit
^-spectrometry (identification andlocation ofnuclides as
afunction of time );
-on-line -spectrometry for one ofthese locations tohave
immediate information onfuel damage during the test ;
-filters orbottles connected tothe loop ortest-train totake
samples ofcoolant atvarious times soastolater check the
I<
release ofgaseous andvolatile longer-lived fission products .
There was disagreement onthe duration ofthe full power operation
needed toprovide auseful fission product inventory for atest .
The French experts felt that maybe 15days ofsuch operation isadvisable
for fresh fuel inorder tobuild uparange offission products covering
those with short (<wmin )tomoderate (days ,e.g. I*"**,Xe*^)
lifetimes ,.While many participants agr&ed with this ,the U.S. experts
felt that the behaviour orthe short-lived nuclides provides auseful
guide tothebehaviour ofchemically similar longer-lived isotopes
and that ,consequently ,afewhours of'full power operation isall
that isnecessary .
Even taking into account thecurrent unlikelihood (seechapter 3.2.1.3 )
ofattaining aduration of15days full 'p°weroperation (except
maybe inone test ),it-^nsagreed that therecommended measurements
will ina>y case be <■."eianificance whatever the duration ,air"'
irr<

-24-
Inview ofthe experience andresults onFPR available attheFLASH
projectin ■theSILOE reactor oftheCEsi-Grenoble ,there arestrong
suggestions that theSupep-SARA FPRmonitoring equipment anddetailed
.programme should besetupinclose collaboration with theCEA .U.S.
experience atthePBFmust also beconsulted .
3.5 .Outline ofsome Technological Problems underlying theFeasibility ofTests
This chapter isdefinitely not intended tocover all technological
problems posed bytheSSTP ,butonly tonote some ofthe significant
problems which have astrong impact onthefeasibility ofthe
programme iandwhich have been raised during theTask Force meetings .
Itisclearly understood byallparticipants that solutions tothese
. ' ••. ' ' 'v* '! ' v
problems are amatter forprolonged design andanalysis .
For theLBKLOCA tests itisconsidered necessary tostudy more deeply
theeffects' oftherodpower tilt ,whick /1fore-xample ,maygive rise
toanon-typical diametral Clad temperature difference andresulting
'deformation . ,
• ; * ·; '· /■
The control ofthe thermohydraulics transient processes which determine
therequired clad temperature history andassociated deformation must
'beexplored' .Problems arise from several 'sources :uncertainties such
asdry-out' andre-wet effects associated with thecluster length ,
reliability of .monitoring thepeak Clad 'temperature ,;variations of
cluster power distribution dvietothecoolant density distribution ,
measurement andcontrol ofcluster power 'andcool!lng fThepossible
contributions andproblems oftheout~o£-pile parallel twin channel
ΠΊ ■.!ηίν· ·'ί ·■
should befurther investigated (similar ^ty^contamination ,rod
simulator ).Most oftheproblems for ,theLB-LOCA areamenable to
rih 1
resolution byexisting methods and/ortechnology andwill ,receive
.» *N » - .
considerable supporting attention from other on-going programmes such
asREBEKA ;at .KFKandMULTIBOD intheUifAEA . r i;
·'. ■ΗΜ',·.··. ' ''τΗ'-Γ ·Λ· '
H ''1:1 ** .n ; • .,■
. ' •' "■ i -i-,: 'i ■!'•
η :
ι

■»>
-25-
For the SFD programme ,however ,theproblems require additional
development for their solution .The major leading problem isthe
containment ofhigh temperature .Cluster temperatures upto 2300 K
are foreseen and necessitate that the in-pile pressure tube be
protected byathermal shield around and extending above the cluster .
Concepts for this shield are under investigation and the incorporation
ofabypass flow within the interspace between the shield andpressure
tube iscommonly considered necessary toguarantee the pressure tube
against all hazards originating from the high cluster temperature .
Spray steam cooling and fuel catching systems must bedeveloped .
The instrumentation and control systems needed toregulate the cluster
uncovery transient must face theproblem ofmonitoring high temperature
-ι,
inthepresence oftheZr/H^Oreaction .Developments forthein-pile
thermohydraulic characterisation ofrubble and slag blockages must
beundertaken .
The possible impact oftheFPR objectives and instrumentation require­
ments onthe loop must bepromptly assessed and the test operations
needed ]tbmeet theobjectives must beexplored .All ofthese problems
arebeing investigated forthePHEBUS aridPBF SFD°Drocrrammes an<^the
solutions proposed will beavailable forapplication intheSSTP .
' (
The Task Force recognises that the solution tothese problems will
emerge gradually . '
The Task ,Force further recognises that adialogue has already been
established between the JRC and reserach groups deeply involved
insimilar studies .These groups have expressed their willingness
toactively contribute tothe SSTP for the sake ofmutual benefit .

-26-
3.6t Some Particular Recommendations ofthe .Task Force -
While noting that theSSTP will remain inthenormal Commission
/advisory ,;framework (Advisory Committee !fortheManagement ofthe *
Reactor Sa,fety Programme ),theTask Force nevertheless recommends
. 11 . ■ :. ..♦
•.that the ,,following actions should beundertaken :-^ .
I. .TheJRC should identify and sponsor any supporting studies or
tests which are necessary ,either atIspra orwith thehelp of
participating parties ,tosolve theproblems outlined inchapter 3.5
II.Working groups should besponsored toassist the solution of
problems when required .Inparticular ,working groups are needed
to'eixplore further therequirements' oftheSSTP inthefields of
'1V PIE iandFPR . <.■ i>.
■'··.' '. ·*ι , '. .; " -·.η ιί.> . ;ι >
III .The i?PC should undertake collaboration with theFLASH /SILOE
Pro-jjjfct atGrenoble .todefine the PRobjectives andinstrumen­
tation inmore detail . ,^ ft • i
i -- 1 '- '' '■ • . .■1 • .•
IV.TheJRC should promptly identify -the impact oftheconsensus
•^programme onthe loop design .- m .
.-' ' Λ ' ·. ' -■ ' ·:-ΐ4 ' . - '
V. The JRC should maintain arunning dialogue with the Italian
;, • licensing authorities onlicensing procedures -.TheTask Force
1 algo -recommends that thelicensing ]-authorities becontinuously
:,.informed ontheevolution of test matrix *mnd theresolution
ofthetechnical problems . 1 '
V - i ' *' | ' 'I »
VI.Whi^theconsensus SSTP isa=vajl^c ^answetb tc*;current needs ,con­
sumption with those responsible ^§orsafety assessment inthe
va^us countries should bemainlined inorder toensure aconnection
tolicensing questions asthey evolve .
. ' ' ?• ? .4« h* . \
VII .At^appropriate times ,seminars shquld besponsored atIspra or
elsewhere toallow theexchange pfinformation between fuel be­
haviour programmes andensure thebbntinuing correct relation­
ship oftheSSTP tothese programmes . '*
fiI- ; .... M *^-i H
''-i >KiV -X ' 'V ,■ :
. : ' !. . 1 " ■ ''·■ :·;:·:·ν.· :·;■··;

-27-
REFERENCES
1.Super-SARA Programme inESSOR :Summary Objectives and Status ,
April 1980s ES.2.5500.A.004
2.Minutes ofthe first meeting ofthe Super-SARA Task -Force ,
' I '
Varese ,June 17-18 1980 :SSTF 2
3.Summary ofthe second meeting oftheSuper-SARA Task Force
(KFKbrainstorming session included ),Ispra ,July 22-23 1980 :
■■SSTF 3 • , ■
4.Super-SARA Brainstorming Session ,September 10-12 1980 ,
CEA Cadarache :SSTF 4
• r'P " r . '
5.Summary ,ofthe third meeting oftheSuper-SARA Task Force ,
September 18-19 1980 :SSTF 5
*Γ* 1· " · ' 5η · .Ί · ·η
6.Severe core damage assessment program experiment requirements
!J.M. BROUGHTON ,March 1980# EGG-TFBP -5067 .
4
.^■'-iAQ-.... •1...r\
1 '- ■ ;'Y •v
7î
:ι : · : . ι·
M1ν, .η
/.
t 4 •
i* ;-■ . ?•
n ! ■Hv.«»,

TABLÉ 1sCONSENSUS SSTPs r.ARn UHREAK LOCA TEST MATRIX
TESf
HO--y-3-=&rtam(m -1'-s~'1~ROD BUHDtQ -.:
GEOMETRYCLAD TEtlPEliATURE HISTUUY *
\;.FUEL _ cohments
i' jInvestigate clad deformation
phase in"heat before
load "conditionsPWR** Type A,deformation at-v»1300K Fresh
Pre-conditionedComplementary toPHEBUS ,
PBF ,NI4J
■■ 1
2 LB-LOCA BASE CASE :maximum
potential forclad
deformation (high );
"heat before load "
conditionsPWR** Type A,deformation at-v1070K Fresh
Pre-conditioned
3 Astest n£>.2but
:deformation in"load before
heat "conditionsPWR**
3 "":Type B,deformation at^loyOK Fresh
Pre-conditionedConfirms REBEKA# MHBT
Complementary toNRU
"• •3 - .'
: .
■'j" : '
jj4;,Investigate ^ffeet'of rfuel -Vi
burn-up i.e. fuel
cracking ,relocation etc .3 ; ;
1pub** ^
' 3 ■•" 1 1 .3 :
iypé' jHtdeformation at^10?OK3 " *
Sorae .irradia ted
roda
'.5...I : ;
Confirm extrapolation of
"PUR test results toother "
:fuel geometries •BUR+ Type B,deformation at-v1070K
Il 33' a ; ;j––
.y' 1: • 'Fresh
Pre-condi tioned
–'.3Complementary toPHEBUS ,
PBF ,NRU ,REBEKA ,MRBT
- 3
6
72UNSPECIFIED TESTS TOPERMIT TESTING OPREMEDIAL MEASURES ORANY OTHER STUDY LATER ENTERING HIGH PRIORITY .
*Seetext forthedefinition oftypes AandDclad temperature history
17x17type
The1WRcluster willprobably type8x8R
N.BiForalltests "forced feed"reflooding will beadopted with inlet water velocity of2cm/s

TABLE
CONSENSUS SSTPlSEVEREKlbl.llAIWiE(3P1>)TESTI1ATH1X
tESTSEHIE3 AlINVESTIGATION OFEXTENT OKCI.IISIERDLOCtACE ANDFISSION PRODUCT RELEASE DUETOCLAllDEPORHATION UNDER
"SHALLAIMIHKUIUIIWtKAt"CONDITIONS !PWR(*17»17TYPE)FUKL(1EOHKTVY
iTCST
«•INTUn-IOtlSREQUIRED
FCT(r)IKQUIRBD
JtAMPRA1K
TOPCTP5Y8
coiimoLTESTTERMINATION AIID
EXPECTED FINALSTATE
OFCLUS1KRFURTHER 1N-REACTOROPERATIOIIS AND
MEASUREMENTS PRIORTOEXTRACTION
OrTEST-TRAINRELATION
WITHOTHERSFD
PROORAHHUS *
1"*i
ICladcreepballooning and
ruptureInthe>4oro<♦fi
phase,attained byboil-
offtorequired PCT,then
rampingof1080
-12008MPa
adjustedaothatAPcwO
whenPCTstabilised then
rampedat-0.003MPa/sto
«MPaAfterattainment ofwidespread
cladrupture,reactorshut
downtlwncluster re-
submerged .Deformedcluster
configuration "froien*for
PIEI
Non* Complementary
tOPBP
m ICla<lcreepballooninganilΙΛ,1330 Imax*pass»-1^0HP*- ■ Afterattainment ofvide- None ■ Complementary
..
]
I'-"-
3.....il..
3:
•3!
3:
3:•mptuieInthe^"pKase.jJ
ulUi'sflnntdiiecftA oxiUatlon
attained byfastbail-off
torequired PCT,then
rappingof
.3.
..J..adjustedaothatAP^
•whenPCTstabilised Hum
rampedat0,05-0.005
HP«/sto~4(4Pa
8KKpoutnotk *
;•"3
:j •spreAdtilad~*ruplure rreactor "
poweraijdIIP!flourate ]
controlled simultaneously
toobtaincooldovn without
thermal shock*deformed
cluster ^configuration r
•froien*forPIE.ToPOP-–
IAstest2,butforhl'ih
flphaseλ.1650 SEEroOT-mots^1
n .m
SEChjon*rre•• «
I 1Mono Complementary
toPOP
«Currently,essentially onlytheUSHKCPUPprogrammeatECM1IdahohasaderiiiedSFDprogramme.WhentheFrenchCEAI1IEMISandother _
SPItprograms arederined,tlwrelationship attheSS'lPalsotolliusaprogrammes willhavetobeconsidered *._
•Systempressurerampchoseniillw:range-U.In"lo•U.IHiJMl'a/stoi>l<talndesiredamountofoxidationduringdeformation . 1
®Thisramp-ratemustbe<lefln>ItakingIntoaccount «lu:Zl/l^Orcacliuiiaii.Idisoriatudcuntrollali|lity |itshouldalsotakeaccountof,
oftheSMllscenarios forwlifihiluformatioii/>u|>u<reinlhi-fiphasenccui.

TABLE 2(continued )
J#. CIHMEH3N9 SSTPtSUVtm.Ml>:».l»AHAiiti(SM*1TESTItATWtX
SfcRIKSBiiHVfiSTIQATIOII WSXWIIT OPCLUS'flSROI.OCk'AilK AlioKISSIONIHOMfCfREIEASEUITifHUMOf.WtCOMWWSIIT U>BTOHODFKAGHEflTATJON ANDRUUULBUEDFORMATION
IfcjiX 'wwiu»**>pubwquencnimnj£L(H7*17iyk) ra •-r
1kif
M*lirrtimoris
fHEQUIBED
PCT(ï)RCQllIHUl>
RAHI'HAIS
TOPOT
(«A)1SYS
CUUIVUL1LSTTfcfcMItlA'l'IOII Alili
txvtcìtu Kit)Al,3TA1K
OPCUTTERHifthltlHIN-REAC1UK OPERATIONS AND
mka'Jureiiemts priortoextkactiou
OKTEST-TRAM ."
« rREI.ATION I
VU1I0'HIEWSFD
ï'UOGHAmtS +|
*4
J
...--J
"~T"
-3
3;
«
JJ
.1fk;aperatur «r^np,atUtiwd
tyboil-off toprovoke
cladballooning and
rujtlurtinrhe«-<or«»<+
phasefullovei)bycomplete
t«|(l4tiO|iMÎ900 flMPa
'adjusted sothat
;ballooning occursuiienthe
cladteoip*rtache*11OOXOoattainment Of'complete
cldtiokillation Inthetoiv
ofitm4P»Tgreactor power
andliftilovrate controlled
simultaneously to.obtain
rooldoun vith<«itthermal
shock.Cluster toretain
integrity forPIS.Hotie Couplementary
toPUP
Attent4butwith
provocation ofrubblebed
byfastquench -J..:
"~ "3"^:
'"~ -'3:as1900
--*j ..**0.3*.*
::.y:Aaintest4
*"3"*-*––s.-.r.ju-iz-
13 i"i--"vChattainment ofcomplete
cladOftidution inthezone
ofthercr,cluster
.rapidlykulHoertjed (llPIr:3
fjowrate 10cm/a)U>
-.provoKc arubbleImJIticn
feacior 'scruiwucd.
-- 1 3
__2 3a -Measurement ofAPand
generated acrosstherubblebed
usinglowpoyerandflow
(preferably ,steam)*
Check-out oftechnology toBe
developed forinstrumenting
thermohydraulic characteristics
ofpost-test blockages *#Compleaentary
toPBF
Astest4'butwith
ballooning andrupturein
thehigh0phase(^1650t)
:andwithprovocation of3
rubblebedbyfastquench
}–/ν1900"^0,1"
ir*flMPa
adjusted sothat\
ballooning occurswhenthe
cladicniureaches/vH5u^Asfortest)•
-""3'- 'J■1-Measurement of£LPandAT
generated ,acrosstlienibblebed.
usinglowpowerandflow
(preferably Stcoiu).
' -1-Complementary
toPUP
ttüfdEkIKSU2tRUUlüBUEDPUBTOÜUITTtBSNATTEBING ONDEPRESSURISATlOtlj bVUMIEL(PÜOlWhl.Y ÜB8*BR)32
CladAMIdationwithout
ballooning attained by
boil-off torequired PCT
followed bycooldown
followed byfra«jiucntation
duetodiopof-SystuM
pressure (liURaccident
•ituatioi»)<vt500
for
Ofcidatloii
^6ου
£ογ
fragment­
ationforheat-ui »
•χ–2
forcooldown/ν4ΗΡ<ι
adjusted soAp<0 when
K:Tstabilised to
provokedesiredclad
OAiktatiuii )llieiidropped
tos*IHi'aatter C<«»1-
downtoprovoke
shatleiHtjuTthecUul.Onattahsiicnt ofdesired
cladMiiiatUii (reactorpower
andilPiflowrate controlled
simullattuously toobtain
«'Oi*)duw)it withoutthermal
iltdLi,toh:f^6lW(.After
cladshatturtng ,slow
cutihluuii continued .'Asfortest6 Compleioentary
toFOK
..Tcmpcraluro ralelatest*4.5.6,'U.iwcntentativelytobc^O.J</all.cUa^isorKiti...»tcitlo„ithatcla.toxidationwillbeco-fletedduringther«,..

TABLK(GUII((IlU««I)
CUUSENSdS SSTPiBKVEkB fUKI.I>A)MGE (8M)1ItSTHATHTX
TK3TSÉK(E3OiINVtttTfÜATltM UKtXlVIlrUKCI.UU'KR UI.C«:fAl!B IiIIKHlKUHMATIOIIOfAHOLTSlI
•SOMJTIOtf OfUO.1)1ZlNtlAt.LOY («01i"CAHOMlM*)*KWttlliLY KH.tUVfcD BYQUKllClllllOUtftl*KUDULtSQEO
tKSTStklKlCI|PWK(lfl7 ft17TYPE)FUEL
«:δΤ
ΗβINTUITIONSKEQUÏKKO
PCT(K)
isequiKuu
HAMPRAtlS
tOKÎT
(ï/à)P
SY®
coumu.TKSTTtNllltlATIIHl ADD
kJffLOtl >KIIMLS'fATK
OKCUUIt*FUHItttitl iM-mU'ltttt OI'EKATIOflS AtlU
MEASlllltKUIIS I'KIOKTOtxmcTIUtl
UKItST-'lVAIII |VCLAtlOrt
WITHO'DIEKSf1>
moiatAtifts *
βTemperature ramp,attained
byboil-off ,toprovoke
cladballooning andrupture
inHw^orU 1phase
£aHowcd byoxidation and
Uitfformation ofaliquid
2sy4ttisolutiontoprovoke
"candling "2300~4**
-8MPa
adjusted sothatballooning
occurswlwiithecladletup*
reaches ItMiKAfter(heVCtreadies
withOiecluster
"[Cdivljud*IH(lietoneof
thel>!T|reactorpuwerand
UPIt'loui'ale controlled
simultaneously toobtain
coolduunwithoutUmrimtl
shock«Chuiertoretainits
"candled"tfeunvtry furP1B«Hwie . :
■ *Confirmatory
tofOK
9
––.-3·,Asintest0butwith
provocatioa ofrubblebed
.bylastquench* ]:
32300^4^
/tiinte»t8 AflerDielUtreaches
?30l>K#withthecluster•candied*inthetoneof
tlier*JT,•'clusterrapidly j
iUUaulded (IIP!(luw'V10
c«/»)io:^iuvoL,e4rubble
–•]–''■■-J-■■■■-. ......-Measurement ofAPandAT
generated acrossrubblebedusing
lowpowerandflow(preferably
Steam)* y–
.;*•"Confirmatory
toP8P
r: –.. I .... '
10AstestSbutwith
ballooning andruptureIn
thehlyh/9phaseandwithprovocation ofrubblel»ed
byf«M*_t_<iuci.ch./~>a3oo ^flM^a
adjusted sothatballooning
occurswhenthecladtemp*
reaches^1650k*Asinteftt i
■ ■ • •-Asintest9 '3• OonplUMntdry
tofBP
**'.
ή *THlcorrelation test*3
Astest9butwith
highertemperature
romprate.«/2300X
t .■A*intesitII•1A 1'
A|intust)
J-----:i...'J;
Asiiitest9 Confirmatory
toPBPI
u
..'• !/.... . • :"V-.;' .:
ifrTemperatui *rawprateintesta8-1Cchosententatively tobe^4f/sunthebialsOfKitindlcatlont thafcfumétt
metalwillsurvivetofunstheZr/VJmoltensolution above2070K*

•TA®#•K«I(conIInu«ii) *
;jamsmsita SUH'IahVi;m -:nm.itAHAfiti -(srw\TESTHAI-HK v:.
χ::η:»3·5-*\ζ ν.-..-.··.·.·.-^··–..-.."Τ".
TESTSKfrftffCliNVfcSTi&trjofj up.XTUfTl»*UtJjgTiCIf UMK.'ICAlife ;I4JKTOKOWHATlUN OFAHOl.Thll
SUtAffllkl V¥uuIIIZIKtiAIl.UY(lKi|>"CAUlH.lIftl"),POSSIM.Y t'O!.L0VU>ÛYCjUUJO»ItlbUCO)WIULil.t:ÛKD
natSEtflESC2iDUBHJ&USIMULATION OPBVBCHANNELXULLTM.OVBI^OCXAGt :COrM>lTJON3 (i'ttOUAHLY OK6*8«)
»Tbvpcrfttum rampAttained
l»yboll-offtoprovoke
"candling *Andrelocation
ofmoltenproducts *
Assessment OfOWKshrbud
mcit-thruuyh potential .a/2300^4+♦ ~βΚΡΛ
(ΑI»<<Λ)OnAttainment ofsignificant
"CtfiiJlinu *reactorpoweramI
III*/flovratc controlled
•iffiuUdtitfcMaly loobtain
cuoldovii without thermal
ClustertoretainIts
*Caiuilcd HycuActry forPIEHoneComplewciitary
tom
* **»««•chosantentativelytobe~ir/«onMmt»«Uofinindie**!*™«m««omiZr<*U1viU.urvlv.toformth«Zr/lJO. £
aoUeosolutionabova21/7Or. .. *s
.. ! f, * v • ..*
TESTSb'RlRSDiUN3PGC1PIED TESTS
}14I2 testato|»ermlcstudieslaterenteringhighpriority,currentlyunforeseen *
r
■■i■

4.Other Aspects oftheProject
4.1 .Time Schedule and Financial Aspects v
4.1.1 *Time Schedule
' ''
The time schedule oftheSuper -SARA loop assembly and
commissioning programme foresees theavailability ofthe
loop fortest initiation inmid-1983 {seeAnnex 3).Assuming
that the consensus programme remains atthe level of21tests ,
this implies atest frequency of6tests peryear toterminate
theCommunity programme attheendof1986 .
I. . .
4.1.2 .Financial Allocation forSuoer.-SARA Project
Thefinancial allocation fortheSuper-SARA project ,within the
overall ,global envelope of510.87 MEUA decided bytheCouncil
for the 1980-1983 multiannual programme oftheJRC asawhole ,
was fixed at43.92 MEUA ,divided into 3.31 MEUA for the first
phase ioftheproject (1980 )and 40.61MEUA forthesecond phase
(1981 ^1982 and 1983 ).This refers tothe allocation atthe
charge oftheCommunity budget ,sinc6 thecontributions ofboth the
Italian Government t<Jtheconstruction oftheloop andtothe
,1 .• • ' *
financing oftheproject proper andoftheUSNBG inkind have been
duly -taken into account andareov&r andabove this netallocation .
■A '\ .'■ ■*.r*' .Î^ ,
Λ ·. ';■>η~

34-
The breakdown ofthe allocation thus fixed would beasfollows s
SUPER-SARA Project 1980 1981 1982 1983 iTOTAL
A.Experimental Programme:π
A.1.Personnel Expenditure
I0'21:4,90 4,90 4,90
• . 1!14,91
A.2.Specific andService
Appropriations 3,10 :1 .' ■*
5,91 ":4,25 3,96I
17,22
B.Operation of
ESSOR ReactorI -
B.l .Personnel Expenditure 2,01 2,02 2,02 6,05
B.2 .Specific' andService
Appropriations ?1,80
y*1,91 ;2,03 5,74
Grand Total
; . - ' ■ t \3,31
j14,62 I
' I13,08 12,91 '
"43,92
r j • - . ■. ■
Since then ,personnel expenditure hasbeen revised totake account
fi'. 'f
ofthe decisions onsalaries subsequently taken bytheCouncil and
• .η,, . .. ■·
ofthehypotheses used for the calculation ofstaff expenditure xn .
thedraft 1981 budget transmitted bytheCouncil totheParliament .
Π «-
ΓV '
Further ,-the specific appropriations have been re-fevaluated asa
function ^pftheobjectives atpresent assigned tothe Super-SARA
test pz&gramraa (SSTP )following thework oftheTask-Force .The
breakdown oftherevised financial ,all (qpation isatpresent asfollows
Π Γ?ΓΤΓ! Π Γί
r ■.
SUPER-SARA Project
l! : : ;_ _i
1980 -I■ 1
1β81 1982 1983 TOTAL
1rs ri A.Expérimental Programmeh
i1er -
iv ■ ■?!
r .,
A.1.Personnel Expenditure
A.2.Spécifie andService
Appropriations
;i: - i.0,58
3,10'6,37
hr.*
'61,00
t6,37
7,006,37
Γ .
15,1219,69
21,22
B.Operation of
ESSOR :Reactorf
I■. "■
! »-■*•,^
i" '• '
B.1.Personnel Expenditure 2,46 2,46 •2,46|7,38
B.2 .Specific amdService
Appropriations
n
:ih:I!•
|1l"
1,81r-*'1,90 Λ2»03
I _5,74
I
Grand Total3,68 10^64 17,73 15,98 54,03
nt:..

The increase mpersonnel expenditure (+6,11 MEUA )ispart of
there-assessment ofpersonnel expenditures (267.3 MEUA )provided
for following any Council decision adjusting -the level of
remunerations (seeCouncil Document 5422 /80of4March# 1980 ,
paragraph ,7,page 4).For theincrease inspecific and service
1I
appropriations (+4MEUA ),theCommission states itsintention
toabsorb ,itwithin theamount of243V5J^MEUA foroperating
expenditure ;this being aflat-rate assessment expressed incurrent
values (seeCouncil Document 5422/80of4March ,1980 ,paragraph 7,
page 4)*■ThenewSuper-SARA financial allocation isagain netof
the contributions ofthe Italian Government and ofthe USNRC as
explained onpage 33. ,\
•-ï•-! '■\ '•-fH ' 'V-'
Asfar the financial contributions \of-other organization sare
Concerned *these will come innet reduction ,from the financial
allocation oftheCommunity . «'i .

4.2 .Implementation oftheproject
4.2.1 .Establishment ofaconsultative structure fortheexperimental ;
programme 1 v
r •' ■. .
Thefirst phase (1980 )oftheSuper-SARA project hasbeen realized with
theassistance ofa"Task Force "composed -©£ •experts from theMember States
I
andwith the rparticipation ofobservers from third countries interested
intheproject . v
The extremely satisfactory results ofthis type ofcollaboration with
thenational experts has ledtheCommission topropose forthe second phase
oftheproject asimilar consultative structure ,while respecting atthe
same time therole assigned totheReactor Safety ACPM .
This proposal isfor thecreation ofaTechnical Committee composed of
experts intheareas deriving from the'obi£dfcives oftheproject .The
•nr.
task ofthe :cbmmittee would betoassist theJRC inthecontinuing process
offormulation ,preparation andinterpretation oftheexperiments tobe
•*.» y. ~ry i **
carried out ,itwould further assure theclose liaison necessary between
!• 1 .
theSuper-SARA project andthedifferent national ,programmes inthis field .
r5I :; . ,n ...
Γ !*' -' ' '
Forgeneral ^questions ofthemanagement oftheproject andparticularly
itsco-ordination with therest ofthe 1Reactor Safety Programme ,theReactor
Safety ACPM *'would maintain theconsultative rolegilven itbytheCouncil
Resolution of18July 1977 ,andinparticular would give itsformal opinion
onthemanagement oftheSuper-SARA project i'TheCommission proposes that
amember ofrtheACPM designated byitshould )exofficio bemember ofthe
Technical Cpmpittee . . ... ;i S^if/ i-i

φ
4.2.2 .Participation ofnational specialists intheimplementation
oftheproject ' -
Inaccordance with article 7oftheEuratom Treaty ,the execution ofthe
ι
Super-SARA project ,asofall theother projects decided within themulti -
annual programme oftheJRC ,istheresponsability oftheCommission alone ,
which makes use tothis end ofthepersonnel oftheJoint Research Centre .
Nevertheless ,inview ofthemultiple interfaces between theSuper-SARA
project andtheprojects carried outnationally andofthecollaborations
foreseen tothis end ,theCommission considers itdesirable that specialists
' ' •
from theMember States should bedetached totheproject for itsduration .
TheCommission isexamining thepossibility ofoffering tothese specialists ,
whowould be'integrated into theJRC teams rconditions analogous tothose
assured currently tonational experts putatthedisposal oftheCommission
services or-,tonational civil servants )seconded tothen Commission .
■<. -m r ~ ■ r:"i
'r;13 ' " ■ n'! . *'*
'4.2.3 .Description ofthe internal management structure
Themanagement oftheproject will becartied outaccording totherules
'ofthematrix' structure asinforce atthe'lspra Establishment :
A. Within theProjects Directorate ,aSuper-SARA project unit will be
constituted ,whose task will beto ;coordinate attechnical emdbudgetary
level all the activities which contribute tothe realization ofthe
'programme . j ■n• , •
Inparticular ,this unit will :nn^n 1 -•
-assure theexternal relations necessary fortheproject (consultative
.r :.n-fi : :»*.• .committees ,national laboratories )s
" ΠΜ π Π
-work out theexperimental planning andcorresponding specifications t
t
-define .andmanage thestudy contract ^.4
f'H ... n *
ii;i " i,
ηη*ι

-38-
2- 1.1 _2.'-■'impiéittpnfcaticn <p£theprojéc– *
-overview -andcoordinate theactivities relevant tothe^project
•i vestructure fortheexperiments !
2.1VEstablicih^'ed wtf 1by~"tne*'$cientific Division oftheEstablishment ;
jrocrratrjne
-control the timetable ofthe execution ofthework i*
project nasbeen realized
ssistax^' t"#skForce "composea ox - " _lefirst p:.*sœanage -'tne -
ieassistâmes' 7-*"^#skrçjTec^-ouaget . >.r5 .„* ^**013tVie M®nii>^r StatesForce composed ofaxpe __s-
ested
nthe pro^e.^specializations required ior .thetasks setoutabove j
-f.*Ms cf -collaboration vitn„0_/ ,- *--w– '
«;=e'urB^VTheScientific Departments ,andDivisions ,of BsfeflteH shment 3&3.1 .
■ ••■!■ -asled Oo^mi"c . : •'
..av becharged with carrying outthe_work of -theproject .Thedivision
' ' 'ofwork will bemade according to_t^eir -disciplinary specialization .
>*zs:.T.eö -/--j tc-nc
'These will beregrouped inthescientific sectors which will be
V ...-p-iprogressively reihfbrced'in personnel ,whether byinternal collaboration
__orbyexte?ftal vrecruitmertt .Thespediallsts sent bythepartners will :-.v/:-' ... -5-•-fv-- •: ss
j',,.5'tii-beinsertec ^into thedisciplinary sectojrs ^ r,r .^
ïïitiUï' - :natiën Jnt9rFrat?-.io-.,'_:•
: The main tasks entrusted rtothe :Scientific Divisions will bethe .
■··:_■=ον ...ο -τ––·–– - · ' ' - ···■· ■ ■ · ·.
.■··.■· ·· (3«·'■■■„.
. . .following ..! -:-r '':
> - A " | !jeH\\ ' 1 l
J a)-Realisation oftheSuper -SARA lbopTa'nd experimental equipment '
.™ •including tiie test sections ; . /,.-• ~tor .
■ - - ■ . "; Μ.ΠΗ .· ·'· –ϋ
-Preparation and execution ofexperiments ;operation ofthe' .
V :V'i ■ . ',cn'
reactor and loop ;
,;; - (:.j . " .! -i ':
-Acquisition andcollection ofejcperimental data ,.
• ·· 'ν*►;"" · '" ΚκιΗ '· ιΐ
These tasks will becarried outbytheESSOR Division oftheApplied
....-v- .... -■».M ■ :: n:i V,^ :1
,Sciences andTechnology Department .This Division will further have
»'! H -P?3, . I- '
-theresponsibility forsafety analysis andquality assurance ,andfor
obtaining theauthorizations from^ther Italian authorities .
' i)i s: i;n^ a *
I«· ·: 1 ■■ '
1Ί ..." · .
■,«Α '"· "··?/( Μ
,it; -'!'M*h ■ ' 'il
Α1 :Γ,

-39-
b)-Thermohydraulic ,thermomechanical and reactor physics
analysis relat.lvs totheexperiments tobecarried out .
t
These tasks will becarried outbythe Heat Exchange and
i
Applied Mechanics Division oftheApplied Sciences apd
Technology Department andbythe Information Analysis and
Handling Division oftheMathematics and Systems Analysis
Department . . '
c)-Post-irradiation examinations .
These tasks will becarried outbytheADECO Laboratory .
(ESSOR Division ,Applied Sciences andTechnology Department )
andbytheMedium Activity Laboratory (Materials Division ,
Natural Sciences andPhysics Department ).
The total numbej :ofresearch staff allocated tothis project by
Council Decision is75.Present staff consists of40agents ,and
will beincreased as .follows :
.beginning 1981 .47 agents
beginning 1982 70 agents >
beginning 1983 75 agents

4.3_, .Participation afc-Thi -rdParties IntheProject ^
--'1" ---'■ • v^ •anttotheproject4.3.1 .United States ofAmerica ?xperinentf :
"rrTr " ' îEstablishment :
Atthe "time o~ftheCouncil Decision ontheJRC mult£aW?ff£l ^research programme '
• - • wlfch
1980-1983 ^participation intheSuper-SARA project was 1envisaged from the
-v,oMr-no r"races ■■
USNuclear jjRegUlatory Commission (USNRC )andfrom theElectric Pqwer Research
InstituteÌfE#RI )-Palo Alto .California .Since this Dé5is£ortpeadUìiÌJ»5kjic^L
contacts Ka^I been taken with theUSDepartment ofErt®pgy toinvestigate a ..
further cooperation with this Department .Thecurrent -situation "isdescribed '
below . H-s-ab -lishr.ent will .
'■ • .. me division
- '-'ir.îrv .àoecializi -iis. -..
4.3.1.1 USDepartment ofEnergy (USDOE ) . . w.-i-cr,.v.i-11 be
Discussions have been held with representatives ofthe-Department rat =Ener.gy
toinvestigate thepossibility ofaDOEcontribution totheSuper-SARA pro­
ject .This contribution -which should beinthe form ofcash -should
.Sions VT'li "1hcomplement theUSNRC contribution inhardware ;Several meetings were neld
tobrief theDOEonthetechnical aspects oftheSuper-SARA project .The
DOEhasindicated ,that theobjectives pursued bythisCommunity project .
didnotcorrespond toahigh-ranking priority within theDOEresearch develop­
ment anddemonstration programme onlight water reactor safety .Nevertheless
they expressed their willingness toreview their position taking into con­
sideration thelatest orientations oftheSuper-SARA project asthese
emerged from thework oftheTask Force .TheCommission will benotified
oftheresults of !this review inavery near future andwill inform the
Council accordingly . ." -
4.3.1.2 USNuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC )
J ir-r ..r.•
Asalready indicated totheCouncil ,theUSNRC will participate inthe .
t
Super-SARA project bysupplying test hardware ,personnel andservices to
theproject andwill make available totheproject therelevant know-how
available inthe USNRC .

· - ί_· · ' ' ■
- -41-
■ ' I '
The hardware -contribution ofthe USNRC can bedetailed asfollows :
a)Supply oftest trains with theaccompanying analytical and technical
support :
I
■-1large Break Test Train refurbishable
1-1Severe Fuel Damage Test Train (for alowtemperature experiment )
refurbishable 1
-1Severe Fuel Damage Test Train (forextreme température experiment )
non-ref urbishable .
. ιV .The first two test trains should bedelivered before endofcalendar year
|
1983 fthethird onewillbedelivered during thecalendar year 1984-ca­
lendar year1986period in .accordance withtheprogres^j intheexperimental ■
test programme .Inthecase ofthetworefurbishable t^st trains ,refurbish­
ment will beperformed byJRC Ispra with the support ofUSNRC contractor
; I. I ; ,
personnel .
b)NRCwill further supply instrumentation ,thedetailed nature ofwhich
will beagreed later intheprogramme ,during thecalendar year 1984 -
calendar year 1986 period ,uptoanamount of2.5M$including thein­
strumentation !required fortherefurbishment .Itisunderstood that the
USNRC contribution issubject totheUSCongress' allocation ofappropriated
'funds .Awillingness hasbeen expressed bytheOffice ofResearch ,USNRC ,
f \ '
toinvestigate thepossibility toincrease atalater stage ,i.e. forthe
period calendar year 1984 -calendar year 1986 ,itscontribution tothe
project beyond the one described .,
i- ■• • •
4.3.1.3 .Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI )
Intheadvisability report onSuper-SARA sent totheCouncil on15November
..)•< . ■•
1979 ,mention wasmade ofdiscussions being held with theElectric Power Re- •
'il 111:. ' .
search Institute (Palo Alto ,California ).EPRI hasindicated itsreadiness to
,;:j .
participate intheproject bymaking available atPalo Alto asmall team of
experts ,particularly inthermohydraulics ,forthepreparation andinter­
pretation oftests .

-42-
This contribution ,though ofhigh quality ,would belimited insize
(2to3man/year peryear )and theCommission felt that ,itwould create
anunbalance between thebenefits itwould bring tothe Community and
theadvantages given away byaccess totheresults oftheproject .Further­
more ,thetype oftechnical support which could begiven byEPRI would
preferably bysought through thesecondment ofMember States specialists >
(seeparagraph 4.2.2 .above ).TheCommission' hasnotbrought further ,in
these conditions ,the discussions with EPRI . .
4.3.2 .Japan ; " . -
» • .
After detailed contacts onaJapanese participation intheproject involving
Ambassadors and Science Attaches ofthe Member States ,towhom the Commission
wishes toexpress its gratitude for their assistance and support ,the Japanese
authorities have most recently notified theCommission that Japan isnot
ready for the time being tocontribute totheproject .
With the assent oftheCouncil ,theCommission would keep the relevant
Japanese bodies informed ofthe general development oftheproject inorder
toallow these bodies toreview their position atalater stage .
4.3.3 .Sweden
Contacts have been established inSpring 1980 with theSwedish authorities
inorder to ,explore apossible Swedish participation intheproject .At
thediscussions held attechnical level inJune andSeptember 1980 ,the
interested Swedish parties have shown great interest intheproject and
readiness toparticipate subject tothenecessary funds being available .
The contacts arecontinuing inparticular todetermine the .size andnature
ofapossible Swedish participation .

The Commission has indicated tothe Swedish authorities that itwould
hope that sufficient progress canbemade inthis area tobeina
position toreport adequately onthematter ofthe Swedish contribution
during the discussions ofthepresent report intheCouncil instances .

*44m
5.Conclusions
Onthe basis ofthe elements set out above ,the Commission considers
that there isanurgent need that theCouncil decide ^topass without
further delay ,tothe second phase ofthe Super-SAJRA project and to
release thecorresponding appropriations .

ANNEX I ' .
ssca=ss =
LIST OFPARTICIPANTS ATTHE SUPER-SARA TASK FORCE MEETINGS
Belgium
Denmark
Federal Republic ofGermany
France
Great Britain
Irelarid
Italy
. ·- ·Γ
Netherlands
Japan
U.S.A.P.G0VAERTS
W,HEBEL
A.OLSEN
S.DAGBJARTSSON
F.ERBACHER
A.FI'EGE
H.RININSLAND
L.SEP0LD
H.WATZINGER
MCHAGROT
F?.*DELNEGRO
M.GOMOLINSKI
J.C.JANVIER
J.H...GITTUS
P.GEORGE f
F.J.TURvb
i
G.AMBROSI NI
C.MANCINI
U.ROCCA
&.VALLI
A.DEJOODE
G.VAYSSJER
T.HOSHI )
J.BROUGHTON )
;E.COURTRIGHT )
C.MOHR ' )
R.VAN HOIITEN )
Commission oftheEuropean Communities
■rH.BLANK 1
T.DOYLE '
G.FAYL
S.FINZI
R.KLERSY
A.MARKOVINA
J.RANDLES
0.SIMONI 1 .
F.TINAGL IObservers

AnnexII
esssasssa
CALENDAR OFTHEMEETINGS OFTHESUPERSARA TASKFORCE
/ 1
Varese 17-18June1980
I
Ispra "22-23July1980
»
Ispra 18-19September .1980 ■
Ispra 8-9October1980
, .. *\
CALENDAR OFTHEBRAINSTORMING SESSIONS '.
Karlsruhe 15-'16-17July1980
Cadarache 10-11-12September 1980

SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONANNEX in
\' i
OFTHESARALOOPANDPROCUREMENT STATUS
TheSARALoop •-
Descriptionofthepresentconfiguration
TheSARAloopisahigh-pressure watersystemcapableof
r.testingeithersinglepinsorfuelbundlesatvariouspressures
andtemperatures .AsLmplified flowcircuitisshowninFigure 1.
TThemainaimoftheloopistocarryoutsimulated loosofcoolant
accident experiments -illthepressurized watermodeinsupportof
thePWandBWreactorsafetyprogramme ;operation intheboiling
watermodeinalsopossible.Ithasthe"capability o£simulating
the"LargeBreak"accident andcurrently (Sept1980)alarge
proportion ofthecomponents havebeenorderedandarein
manufacture .Installation oftheplantisprogrammed tostartin
theESSORreactor*inMid1981withthefirstoutofpile
commissioning .testsplannedforMid1982tobefollowed 6months
laterbythein-pilecommissioning .Astudyhasbeencompleted
whichdemonstrates thefeasibility o£modifying theSARAloopto
carryout"SevereFuelDamage"experiments .Ageneraldesign
studyisnowbeingcompleted toexamineindetailtheimplications ,
ofthesedifficult experimental "requirements .Specification and
procurement of?.■:..Jtionalloopcomponents willtakeplacein1981
following thecompletions ofthedesignstudy.
Thebasicloopparameters are:
In-piletest-section power(PWMode),=2.26MW(maxfissile)
Out-of-pile ""(PWMode)-*'2.26MW(nelectrical )
Main-loop flow ,=12kg/s(maximum)
Designpressure:Maincircuits =20_MN/m2
Ir.-piletest-section =18MN/m2
*Thebas3c.layoutandcharacteristics oftheESSORreactor and
relatedlaboratories aredescribed inthereport"TheESSORPlant
Facility "Sept»1978.

Loopmaterial :Maincircuit •=31ôLstainless steel
'In-piletest-section =Zr-2jNbâlloy
Main-loop pipework 3in.nominalbore
Pressure-vessel code:Maincircuits =ASMEIIIClass 1
r-t ' ' nnnn' onr1i i
Secondary circuit =ASMEIIIClass3
TheMainLoop ./■'
Figure 1showsasimplified flowdiagramoftheSABAloop,
The'principal loopcomponents are-themaincirculators ,,flow
meter,mainheater,filter,shut-offvalve(V2),inlet
qualitymeter,,testsection,steamseparator ,outlet-quality
meter,shut-offvalve(V3),filter,pressurizer ,subcooler
and,onabypassline,themaincoolerandthepurification
' - ;' i'• , 'circuit# ' ■*
The'loopfeedstwodifferent test-sections ,thein-pile .
test ;section,and.aparallel twin^testsectioncontaining
and 1identical butelectrically heatedrodbundlewhoseY
:purposeistochecktheloopthermohydraulic behaviour in
advanceofthenucleartests-Thearrangement isexpected
to;givevitalinformation forthe1proving'ofthe"in-pile _>
vtest :programme anditssubsequent (detailed execution and • '
analysis. ...i \
Under ,normalsteadyoperating' conclitions ,'waterispumped ■
throtighthemain-loop heater(1M5?capacity)' whichis.used
toobtainthedesiredwatertemperature orsteaijt,quality ■-y
at'theinlettothetestsection.Valves -V2?and-'V3are •
op6nandVI0andV34inthebypass'line closed..Thewater
isheatedfurtherbythetestfuiei'inthein-pilesection
beforepassingtothesubcooler 'WheninJ?WRmode,orthe
condenser wheninBWRmode.Coldwater;fromthemain!
coolerismixedwiththemainloopflow ,ihthesubcooler
toprovidesubcooled wateratthepumpinlet.Pressurein
theloopiscontrolled byaheater'inthepressuriser when'
.operating inPWR.modeandbythe'pressuriser spraywhen
.operating intheBWRmode, ■

LOCA-simulation equipments
Addedtothebasicloopcircuitareanumberofspecial
features sothr.tloss-of-coolant-accident testscanbe
parriedout„Significantly ,beforeaLOCAtestisinitiated
theloopisdividedintotwopartsbytheclosingofvalves
V2andV3andtheopeningofthebypasslinesvalves VI0
andV34.Thisensuresthatifanydamageoccurstothetest
assembly duringaLOCAtestallthecomponents areretained
inarelatively smallsectionoftheloopandprevented
frombeingsweptaroundthemainout-of~pile loopcircuits
inthebunker.Other LOCAfeatures aredescribed inthe
paragraphs following .
After -isolation ofthetestsectionbyV2andV3,V6and/or
V8areopenedtoblowdowr .thetest'sectionintothequench
tanksataratecontrolled byV7and/orV9;incertain
experiments V755mayalsobeused'forcontrol.
Uponcompletion ofblowdown ,V764isclosedtoisolatethe
coldleg,..;ndthepipework belowthetestsectionisrefilled
rapidly asthereflood pumpinjectswaterfromthereflood
tankthrough V766.
V766closeswhenthewaterisjustbelowthesection,anda
pauseensues -,vhilstthetestsectionheatsup.Although no
flowisrew...-1thereflood pumprecirculates itsoutput
throughthereflood tanktoavoidoverheating .
Refloodisinitiated byopening V23.If'cyclicreflood' is
required "heii"763isoscillated open/closedtoallowwater
tnberejected frortthetestsection (whichhasablanket
.:-.ssuveo-^Sbars,controlled by'V7).
loT'ticc-wpjceionofreflooding ,V766"opensagaintoallow
f= •.r<rtieuppertestsection.Aswaterreaches -
ti"r•;••r-'ur.lu-atc -:?,'.76-'opensagaintofloodthecoldleg
~^"':•:>o:r-,p,rmcoolingtobegin0Vfcenthiscircuit
"- ~7oc-'.revater -i~cutoffbyclosing V?66and

Severe FuelDamageExperiments
Tocarryoutthesetestssomemodification totheSARA ,loop
vill.benecessary .Themainfeatures ofthemodified loop
aretshowninFig.2andconsistofs
a)'<Ahighpressurereflood pump_andrefloodtankmake-up .
""pump,whichwillsupplycoolingwater"to"thepressurised ~
-in-piletestsection.Thiswaterwillbeevaporated in.
sthehalfexposedfuelbundleandthenpasstothequench
-'tank.' .,
b)-Specialinstrumentation "for.thedetection offission
:productswhichwillinclude ;agammaspectrometer .
c)|bpraycoolingofthesteamasitleaves^thefueltokeep
,•thepressurevesselandpipfewbrktheirdesigntemperature
d)Acoolingjacketaroundtheblowdown pipeinthequench
• • ._.' ■ i'-
-itankwillcondense thesteamasitarrives.Anyhydrogen
1contentwillberetained .?^
e)A.hydrogenrecombination unitwhichwill-dealwiththe
•„'hydrogen accumulating inthequenchtanks.
*»-f;'• n
f)-;Arecirculating gassystemwhichwillprovideexternal
coolingforthepressurevesselandwhichwillreject ;
I ,! •|
i!heattothereâctor DoO.1
g)j,Acontrolsystemtoregúlatefuelcladdingpeák
-•i ' rv'■->! ' ■
!.temperature bycontrolling thewaterboil-off ordry
k)h"* /H>i"!
!outlevelinthefuelbundle.
'. . • •i1;■!
Λ.ατ. ■» « ■.-'.«>h):,Ablowdowncontrolvalve,controlled fromapressure
n,^ n ,
sensorwhichwillregulate systempressure.
1 η
i)..[Anothersteampressuriser with'controlvalvewhichmay
:benecessary tostabilise systempressure.
rvt- •:
Anewtestsectionwillbeneededtomeettheseverefuel
;τ·ν^*
damageexperimental requirements .Thehighfueltemperatures
j • !•Hr* "'•proposed demandthatthein–pilepressurevesselbeprotected

*3
-5- •
Apreliminary design shown inFig .3incorporates aspecial
insulating shroud ,-core catcher ,steam cooling spray system
and instrumentation located atthe cool inlet .
Loop Prcicurement status
.Theprocurement ofthecomponents has continued onschedule .
Fig .4shows therhythm ofcomponent ordering andanidentification
». i -
ofsome ofthemain orders .ItisanS-curve typical ofsuch projects
except forthe evident freeze imposed in1978-1979 pending Community
approval oftheSuper-SARA project .The components already ordered
atthe endofthe 1977 ,pressure vessels and main pumps ,will bedis-
pf\te';\ia<3 t©IspEa intheperiod raid-Octobon 1980 -April '81 f
The following subcontracts have been placed in1980 svalves ,auxiliary
pressure vessels aixifilters ,auxiliary pumps ,instruments ,electrical
comppnents . 1 .
The following subcontracts have already ,been approved and the sub­
contracts will beplaced inOctober 1980 :Gray Iocs ,glove box ,ZrNb
material . . •. :n :• - >,
Thetender .action andassessment willbecompleted inOctober 1980and
thecontracts will uefinalized before theendof .this year forthe
following subcontracts :out-of-pile test section heaters ,motor ,
alternator -sets ,installation .
The remaining contracts ,listed below ,will beplaced during 1981 ,in
agreement .with theschedule for theSARA loop shown inFig .4:
.In-Pile Test Section andOut-of-Pile Test Section manufacturing
contracts ,,0ut-c _> leTest Section power ,supply .'
The procurement st;:us described above refers tothe loop design and
construction specified perform Large •Break-LOCA experiments .The
components ;and systems necessary tocarry out Severe Fuel Damage
experiments will bespecified early ,next ,year and tender actions •
will then ,start . ,-,..n
TheCritipal ^Path .Network ofallactivities involved inthe loop design
er.dconstruction should becontinously ^assessed with aview to-avoid
delay due toth<radditional features already specified and those that
could be .defined by -further design andanalysis ,;above all ,inconnection
wxfch ihetest train design . -, '
-, : ,' , C '•! : ■:

' O (V'_ __....' •I^ REFLOOOTANKLOCARESERVOIR
O a I ,EMERGENCY COOLING TANKS\.£i– :*– '~r–^r– . ■ f1 r~~1
tt(. .766 > . •αι . .|| ■ 7"fV.M' I SECTIONpLET
';:/R NCHTAI7--LA-"'L'\S^-SU"U^T–,• CX3 ii–i–fr-, •" i A»* -23W 763TANK *275T ,PRESSURIZERiJ ' 356 357.f INCLUOINGCONDENSERrun »„ I ;– S~\_AMOSEPARATORLn -T-J––»R–HXJ–1–M–1–TXÏ–M–M–1 |Y.I
I I • 43 5025v~/■26 Ir-H : 1 A I
Ο[–^[χ ι■ ι1–^–0–I ·ί1I?.,«4·:. ΠΙ1 4πÀ\ ' :,%UU
,Λ.Ν'.«» ^ Τ <1^34lt ;;; ,.....T*; ' 1S
I–!J308If 'a£,0'" SUBCOOLERLrrn–
' rS298JO£0--BLEEDTO it YT3?m7 ^jjO,.r_T?97^SUBCOOIER {_ 1––1|_ 'TMPUMP
■ r?r^T/.« I. Tfrir-71a.... \IY^\«0«HÎT ,.IF^^HW"I:::DTT I=IX'I♦WL'»»"»":'.-R:L&OQA .M' U-R .=■... L I
■JOT T.T..1RLR°L " SS*«««««.»:?V,O
r-L-v\-/-<Y/,-V.r TESTSECTION -* .;•.»CfefVWr-S'rS-SH*.i;5• 1 1'Ψ Τ?Τ Ν.::,,
<--'764•' ' 760 ,___/ OUENCH TANKS , , .-//////'/'
Fig.1.SARAFLOWDIAGRAM FORLOCATESTS(Simplified )

21^ ι/■ ·. .· ■
■; · ·. *.... .. * ' ■
V7« ' HPPUMP STEAMPRESSUR(Z£Rr-–^ "»»» 11.1,1WlK
'■'& /C\;REFLOOD * Tpflf?.....t––W–-taw
XOV762 " FISSIONPRODUCTS –
IV?3"J- I. .SCPARATOR DETECTOR -„V16 $-0£V3-3.v.1••O•r-_i-OWÖ–j«•••-•---.... ..m..Jr7" MAIMt" -m –––r–r^3–loop -
FLOWMETERXFLOTTERI.= '.>•w,n .I,I,wvn,.b.«-^ >tV20^^...,V17
#~*^£.C.C..QUENCHTAJ.'K^fjjj T"" L00Pi-^B°^)aOT,^00PIS-
S(,''' MTT««•srt--fi-• •-'V'
:r~l i"OUR€±.N,
•!I•'J< iwniY>2_i '•. -HT.L^vaive
-.'•*-UH–-IJ/T^CONTROL .1l '•P§r il .,.irwwwwALpR£SSUnE VESSELjf' ./'f"~
C°2I<14–p- [U-RADIATIONSHIELDS f X-K)V6 ,r–AIR
INTERSPACE JJ'PkWU-SAFETY VESSEL 'I a i"'i-.ltSp^wtlTvt»5»tv 181 -43-^ 1HYnRDTiFM Ι ^ΐϊ^ΓΛΐ.1.-τ- ~ίΓϋί^ΛΛΓίΙΤν&ϋίΐ,.· 1 _3 IΠΗνηοη/τυ
·!■„-,ΤΤ=.Ιη»^8Ι.,,,·, V;■/Τ*– <!.,"" ■ •''...VL__j"n11 fftss li4 • i–rI1X ••;,vv:'i3 >•:t>k li«!' .j-> ■i:1<*'1 It:v'* vr</!,•,11;.J.. .: 11,Qs?.Ii3? *||-r 3 i■tm• *>, 111_ rm)L1• i*»< -i2j. g-y S .ii•:\»)o ;;rr . ■ *
• T'\m il ^,ACT.VE|l jh-COREJIATCHER || ;."2?4^r-|WASTE
< ! .. 1"«-H––"■■"'I•" 1."'"i-V .f COOLINGFROMSARA-
• *lLJ 5.> !.-,'i•SECONDARV CIRCUIT
j[L-Z-3ZZ---:5|J3_i||._....
rr-!V76t JJi.i9.1 -i#
**' ''
.. * *
Flg.2.SARALOOPFLOWDIAGRAM FORSEVEREFUELDAMAGE EXPERIMENTS V*.
* . V*
■.\
r'
"■ . i.';
• *' f'

t ■
&
^' 1 '• •• I o* «»E « -i
KltrthV .Mt!. o/ !K* . *'*
»<!».»»· »Ι»\Η»««ι »·»*·»«! I .Γ»I >·. ι "ύ ·"»V
»!•*«» t.mn IM j y ^ ;;;'S -Tic
I.»I.4II1HI ïjI UÎJ4»U.<M «*. ^ - M,
«Γ»ΜΙ 1·* I' I I
'H ' / / 'f" / ' j i
i , ' / ;.l ! i7
,r:;- ïi
mruiw • " :r :j" I ..." >../\.j 11J - •// -^ .. ■: . ... ... iA.u -ri . . ••---- // :-A..- •
■, . ■■-·:!:ΙΙΗΗ:ΉΡ :ΙΡ^·
: - .-■"/-Ι:· ·"'""Γ"ι··»· ·
• IWSWIM S»#»OM
>. • " d iwiit\i*-mmwti rets**! v r r*o.miw*i>f»fcr MMIAIAI .
I l" lIPW1*MW «ioIUIL «>w, * /.'
; MiPi : Ir~' " ■Jåwmi ,>I;a,! . I\\» \ •/ I>Tr-v-f. |\. : As . V. 'rrT'TM i'.\J< ,
('riJ,V•'' ì)l' ''li■'VifN f fe*"\ ullliii di' 1VLI'l ^"l.I./ l'/>**iS*i'"iA'>\ i ». '1 \ irto coititi !inw(nulli 2# !•\t<t.•1i-1l>1^ 1 •,\'4!I"1"»;1.7 >v •a /«.«*»«. »««»»«. * . ■ •\ f .•
(U*I.Mt (Nihf \ 1 V-.'.I ^i, 'VN^J'I''♦/"/ ' SI '^1 \ /Wlu.'.W C^IM »0MHKWHH 9, ,•\ •' ft MWlWUft
ν*ΐν»ιΗ ί«ΐΗίΙ*ΐ4»Κ '■ ■,{ '' ίΝ\ /ηΐ,ν1Μ,Νΐ ™'ι*'Ρ,,Λ ^Ι "· __>1 ■/. 1^».. »«.
iíiiKíúr . '! Vh •'] wníwno | I\N»/ ' H" /"«».«*« H,R |
... ... . ' i i / . I •-•-/ .W «
,. '■• . H..---
~•-r-7:rr~ -^™*~ r*.~"rTt ~ . !'rlH '! - ... .1' \... -^nwwa (ooiMnnow
: : •r ' ■ r.jn1,1 .,___ iib' ■| |-; -- V .H-o.. .... -•^L" ''^T– I•.K"
•:,,.-1 • ! . .:,i;l•'! - . .
•· 3 · :- ... » , '* ' ι·>ο . \ . " ι
'Ϊ.·.' ::■■:Λ,:■■■: ■■■■·.V: -ν-Τ ν·... --Α.. ■■ .'/-,, I
• tJ '■ 'INIMRwo \+11 .\ U*- ./ *9
fu«wa,i -vlilMllnhlél i ...m„I»MIA •ot^ws IWWUMI S !'J
^ -U»M WI-AI4II4 ..1-UlUMft • L \ i ivi' .-*tUIWtJMlMS limita .ftlll'O» «•Ipl
•J*- ../rtrtrvu . –*'•?**" • fiM.mni 4Ml a>' Mlalν ι .■: ; -«·«·««· «««·«> ηι-|ί ϊ|ΐϊ-■
' l^iti '*•11i.1'*Il-Lil •^1 il'WIf.mnuii IM' .* I «]>'».J';»!•* I * t2 'Eik
ÍA\j\•!'!*! l!v MHKMUi.tk.iiMiuumiuc , t!,r r.\t\ i*-i!:!'.^r' 1 i.1 L»«I h.r.CU *'Í1'iw^-nnis Ui | |í1'rÍ»M
Ii!/.|K'Mn*.!j1| ,j-1 mHw wmniii » \f ^ 9 ■■«!!...< 1 1 '•«rSI' –1 I .J IiI..Li.iMi.i 11.1Mt ..lidili . -h'I IIII>'•••. 11V!; .*1*' 1 T,.I «i h.rai >•«»'tww-MMs km |iii'r i»1 |I o3v*
\'i M't .•']ill ij;1 ,,IHwtHwwiiWfi i*nnnin » \]f i"':J]I .■^
| i.1,Si'fjlr I ,j*u-tu'«.M IH^V-'Oj ;S-i'l/ ' ..i ; -
Vl''i.!"■.! ' ; I I [ *a.••««tfuiviwhia^hs . « j*.<•>•!*• 1
■cm ■', :! ■ v ■'■■ '
■"'li ' . \s . I .111.1.«ti- . ■■',..■■w'-''J • 1 . ; . :
Pig3JEST TRAIN FOR "SEVERE FUEL OAMAGE "TESTPROGRAMME -

ORDERCOMUIIWENT
lorM'o/yw»it»)
«IPTSiODPJS
MNSTAUATIÓH
rELËCTRiC4l aIN$T3UME»tUTl&H ,
SMALlME$*U«T£ Y£$S£lâ
1r--«; 'VALVES .
AUXILIARY PUMPS5
3
MÀiHPuMPS
^MAINPHESSURF VESSELS *
1977 197»
OEC71
CONSTRuCflOM
cowfRAcrJAh7e
CONTRACt
FROZèN1979
MAY79
CONTRACT
RESTAR1ΤΤΓίΤνΤί ΓΓΓΤ1IJFMAH JJASONS
1980.....----f s
1981 1982 ,19S3
t,C0MW!5S'QN!fr!i _J4._
[NCNKuafAiinuclear ;
MAY82 1
ASSEMBwY
COMPLEOON
'OATE_EXP._
PRQGR .
Fig.4SARACONSTRUCTION -ACCUMULATED COMMITMENT> "ri
-*'}
■*>f
XJ
'f:V
%f
v.$■
■l■.%ï,g.
.1-.y
;,:3
•?î
•I
'1
•M
&
4f
$•
*>.
1 ■
"I
- 'A
-'I
^5"
0
Λ
.■'«
î
"4 *'

FINANCIAL SHEET
♦ ... ;
ΠΠ ηηηη ηη
. 1\..
-1.Programme Décision
Thefundsnecessary fortheimplementation oftheSUPER-SARA
project havebeenprovided forwithintheallocation forthe
.JRC's1980-1983 muItiannuaIprogramme decided bytheCo.uncil
on13March,1980. >•
Thesefundsareincluded withinthetotalamountinscribed for
theReactorSafetyProgramme .
They?,mpuntto43.92MEUAfortheper,i^)d1980*1983,ofwhich:
°3.31MEUAfortheimplementation ofthefirstphase(1980)
Ιτ1
* _ " 1..°40.6'1"MEUAasaprovisional amountfortheimplementation
ofthesecondphase(1981-1983).
■..r■: *.yî *
:l ' • .ii>t P*'
2,Budgeti hn?d
.Ii* ■ .'
2.1.Thefundsnecessaryfortheimplementation ^>fthefirst
phasehavebeenmadeavailable inthegeneral Budgetofthe
m
European Communities forthe1980budgetary year(chapter 33,-
post3300).
f.n ^ni?/î-,na
Γ ' ι
2.2,For£hesecondphase,theportion^of.theappropriations for
theworkforeseen in1981hasbeeninscribed bytheCouncilfr< 1' '
inthedraftBudgetforthe1981budgetary year.
m; ■ n..
■i .;■"• if»'• :>*,-.■■
•'^; nn»•<i
I'·: ·. ■- .·■·
f •'r!»?r' f,
'V J':"1 ■•:

Pending itscons -H*ration oftheReport which isthesubject
ofthis note ,the "ounci Ihasinscribed these appropriations
asfollows : ' *
inMEUA
Chapter orpost J Commitment
appropriations
\lPayment
appropriations
i
Chapter 33/post 3334
(personnel corts )l -– ■■
l
8.830 8.830 .
Chnpter "[100 (1)
<oneratina cost ,
oiSUPERS WO
H" •>' ■i'<»!
'7.720 /' "3.160
ITOTAL ,■'16,550 , 11.990
..r, „„^ !n^ •
L :
n , ■ '^
I– J " k '
The Qburici' .has un'^rtaken toadopt itsfinal ,position
ontheSUPER-CARA project before §1December /-1980 .The
\ i t­
,jiordure formaking available thefunds blocked in
Chapter 100will beundertaken ,in.parallel .
ooo