ML20133Q206: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:.           -
{{#Wiki_filter:.
JyCf.S-A35G
JyCf.S-A35G
  $                  /                                     -
/
AAWA i};!
Q h i};!
Qh      d       Qj t                                                 "
AAWA d
g                                 DATE ISSUED: 10/1/85 e[gg                       PROPOSED MINUTES /  
Qj t
g DATE ISSUED: 10/1/85 e[gg PROPOSED MINUTES /  


==SUMMARY==
==SUMMARY==
OF THE ACRS ADVANCED REACTORS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 1985 fif[
OF THE fif[ 5 ACRS ADVANCED REACTORS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING M.
M. 5 WASHINGTON, DC j$l[f g, g7
SEPTEMBER 25, 1985 j$l[f g, WASHINGTON, DC g7


==Purpose:==
==Purpose:==
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed policy for regulation of advanced nuclear power pl:.nts.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed policy for regulation of advanced nuclear power pl:.nts.
Meeting Attendees:
Meeting Attendees:
ACRS                                   NRC Staff J. C. Mark, Acting Chainnan           T. King C. P. Siess, Member                   C. Allen M. El-Zeftawy, Staff                   S. Sands s
ACRS NRC Staff J. C. Mark, Acting Chainnan T. King C. P. Siess, Member C. Allen M. El-Zeftawy, Staff S. Sands s
C. Ader DOE                                   P. Wood F. Gavigan                             K. Herring G. Sherwood Others T. Henry, CE C. Brinkman, CE S. Watson, Bechtel S. Gray, EPRI L. Connor, Doc-Search Assoc.
C. Ader DOE P. Wood F. Gavigan K. Herring G. Sherwood Others T. Henry, CE C. Brinkman, CE S. Watson, Bechtel S. Gray, EPRI L. Connor, Doc-Search Assoc.
Highlights, Agreements, and Requests
Highlights, Agreements, and Requests 1.
: 1. T. King, Advanced Reactor Group /NRR, overviewed the NRR advanced reactor activities since February 1985. The major milestones are:
T. King, Advanced Reactor Group /NRR, overviewed the NRR advanced reactor activities since February 1985. The major milestones are:
* On March 26, 1985, the Commission issued the proposed policy q
* On March 26, 1985, the Commission issued the proposed policy q
statement on the regulation of advanced reactors for public comments.
statement on the regulation of advanced reactors for public comments.
* On April 26, 1985, DOE formally transmitted to NRC a plan and
* On April 26, 1985, DOE formally transmitted to NRC a plan and schedule for review of an HTGR.
,                                    schedule for review of an HTGR.
DESIC1:ATED ORIGil!AL s.,N 8511010432 851001 C # '"' N D PDR ACRS 2356 PDR
DESIC1:ATED ORIGil!AL s.,N 8511010432 851001                       C # '"' N D PDR   ACRS 2356                   PDR


a                                                                                       a s                                                                                                 ;
a a
                                                  .                                                            l Advanced Reactors Minutes                       September 25, 1985
s Advanced Reactors Minutes September 25, 1985
                                                                                              %y$$   .jp ' . -
%y$$
.jp '.
35 ~ g <'
35 ~ g <'
* On July 1, 1985, DOE formally transmitted to NRC a plan and ,         >
* On July 1, 1985, DOE formally transmitted to NRC a plan and,
schedule for review of two liquid metal reactors (LMRs).
schedule for review of two liquid metal reactors (LMRs).
: 2. DOE has been monitoring advanced LWRs and LMR/HTGR Program efforts in the U.S. and overseas. One of the major concerns is the issue related to severe-accidents.
2.
: 3. The one HTGR concept currently under consideration by the NRC is a 350 Mwt (140 Mwe) modular design, with reactor vessel and steam generator located below grade. The designers are GA Technologies /
DOE has been monitoring advanced LWRs and LMR/HTGR Program efforts in the U.S. and overseas. One of the major concerns is the issue related to severe-accidents.
Bechtel/CE/GE. It is an annular core design with prismatic fuel blocks similar to Ft. St. Vrain. There is one loop per module and one turbine-generator per 3-4 modules.
3.
Mr. F. Gavigan, DOE, stated that the major reasons for selecting i
The one HTGR concept currently under consideration by the NRC is a 350 Mwt (140 Mwe) modular design, with reactor vessel and steam generator located below grade. The designers are GA Technologies /
prismatic fuel versus the pebble bed are:
Bechtel/CE/GE.
It is an annular core design with prismatic fuel blocks similar to Ft. St. Vrain. There is one loop per module and one turbine-generator per 3-4 modules.
Mr. F. Gavigan, DOE, stated that the major reasons for selecting prismatic fuel versus the pebble bed are:
i
* Cost estimates showed that the prismatic fuel design has a
* Cost estimates showed that the prismatic fuel design has a
{                                 considerable margin over pebble bed ($100 to $200 per Kilo-       '
{
watt).
considerable margin over pebble bed ($100 to $200 per Kilo-watt).
* In considering the major accidents, the prism has a major advantage over the pebble bed. The shutdown margins are k                                 larger and provides a better response.
* In considering the major accidents, the prism has a major advantage over the pebble bed. The shutdown margins are k
larger and provides a better response.
'e
'e
* DOE is starting the prioritization process to limit the number
* DOE is starting the prioritization process to limit the number
)                               of converter concepts that will be funded in the next couple of years.
)
of converter concepts that will be funded in the next couple of years.
s There is no containment, the design has confinement building only '
s There is no containment, the design has confinement building only '
to assure that no offsite dose consequences result from operation.
to assure that no offsite dose consequences result from operation.
: 4. The two LMRs currently under considerai: ion by the NRC are:
4.
7                             , _
The two LMRs currently under considerai: ion by the NRC are:
7


o v-
o v-5 Advanced Reactors Minutes September 25, 1985 yn w
      -                                                                                                    5 Advanced Reactors Minutes                             September 25, 1985 yn w
, (:9 '
                                                                                                  ; , (:9 '
N[ d *
* N[ d
* Power Reactor Inherent Safety Module (PRISM), 425 Mwt (133 Mwe) modular design.
* Power Reactor Inherent Safety Module (PRISM), 425 Mwt (133 Mwe) modular design.                                               :*'
* Sodium Advanced Fast Reactor (SAFR), 900 Mwt modular design.
Sodium Advanced Fast Reactor (SAFR), 900 Mwt modular design.
The PRISM designers are GE/Bechtel/ United Engineers /Bryon-Jackson /
The PRISM designers are GE/Bechtel/ United Engineers /Bryon-Jackson /
Foster-Wheeler. It is a pool type LMR with reactor vessel located below grade. It has a homogeneous core design with oxide fuel versus metal fuel still under consideration. There is one loop per module and one turbine-generator per 3 modules. Reactor guard vessel will be used as containment boundary. The balance of plant
Foster-Wheeler.
  +
It is a pool type LMR with reactor vessel located below grade.
(BOP) is completely disconnected from the primary loop safety considerations. The module's life is expected to be 40 years.
It has a homogeneous core design with oxide fuel versus metal fuel still under consideration. There is one loop per module and one turbine-generator per 3 modules. Reactor guard vessel will be used as containment boundary. The balance of plant (BOP) is completely disconnected from the primary loop safety
+
considerations. The module's life is expected to be 40 years.
The SAFR's designers are Rockwell International /Bechtel/CE. Each SAFR unit is a pool-type LMR design with reactor vessel and steam
The SAFR's designers are Rockwell International /Bechtel/CE. Each SAFR unit is a pool-type LMR design with reactor vessel and steam
{                 generators above grade with passive DHR. It is a homogeneous core design with metal fuel as reference with capability retained to also use oxide fuel. Plant design life is given as 60 years. The BOP is completely decoupled from reactor safety consideration allowing conventional construction.
{
: 5. The overall DOE plan is to:
generators above grade with passive DHR.
It is a homogeneous core design with metal fuel as reference with capability retained to also use oxide fuel. Plant design life is given as 60 years. The BOP is completely decoupled from reactor safety consideration allowing conventional construction.
5.
The overall DOE plan is to:
r Y
r Y
have the NRC conduct over the next 2-3 years a review of the HTGR and LMR conceptual design. This includes issuance of a
* have the NRC conduct over the next 2-3 years a review of the HTGR and LMR conceptual design. This includes issuance of a
~
~
Preliminary Safety Infomation Document (PSID), SER, and licensability letter. -                                       ?
Preliminary Safety Infomation Document (PSID), SER, and licensability letter. -
1989 thru late 1990s pursue standard design approval and     -"
?
certification of the design through rulemaking.               -
* 1989 thru late 1990s pursue standard design approval and certification of the design through rulemaking.
e g ~mg p       .es's.-               '#
e g ~mg p
.es's.-


                                                                                              ^*
^*
o
o
                                                                            '        ~
~
Advanced Reactors Minutes                       September 25, 1985 k;h
Advanced Reactors Minutes September 25, 1985 k;h 6.
: 6. NRR will interact with the designers, licensees, etc., at an early g- n stage in the process in order to minimize regulatory delay. The ';'
NRR will interact with the designers, licensees, etc., at an early g-n stage in the process in order to minimize regulatory delay. The ';'
key points of the Advanced Reactors Group's (ARG) approach are to build upon the LWR framework, where practical, and to assure that advanced reactors are at least as safe as current generation LWRs.
key points of the Advanced Reactors Group's (ARG) approach are to build upon the LWR framework, where practical, and to assure that advanced reactors are at least as safe as current generation LWRs.
: 7. T. King discussed the revised Comission Policy Statement on the regulation of advanced reactors (SECY-85-279), which was issued on August 21, 1985. The previously proposed policy statement (SECY-84-453A) was redrafted by the NRC Staff to provide better
7.
    ;            organization and clarification and also to incorporate the public
T. King discussed the revised Comission Policy Statement on the regulation of advanced reactors (SECY-85-279), which was issued on August 21, 1985. The previously proposed policy statement (SECY-84-453A) was redrafted by the NRC Staff to provide better organization and clarification and also to incorporate the public comments. The main points included in the redraft are:
:          comments. The main points included in the redraft are:
l,
l,
;'
* Encourages early interaction between NRC and Reactor designers j
* Encourages early interaction between NRC and Reactor designers j                   on licensing criteria.
on licensing criteria.
}5
}5
* Encourages certain features and characteristics be included in y                   advanced designs.
* Encourages certain features and characteristics be included in y
    ~t .
advanced designs.
~t.
p
p
* Encourages early discussion on the use of proven technology or i                   technology development programs and their effect on regulatory n                      requirements.
* Encourages early discussion on the use of proven technology or i
technology development programs and their effect on regulatory
(
requirements.
n%
* States that advanced reactors must provide the same degree of protection to the public and the environment as do current generation LWRs.
* States that advanced reactors must provide the same degree of protection to the public and the environment as do current generation LWRs.
1
1
* States that licensing guidance for advanced reactors will 7                      build upon the criteria and regulations developed for LWRs. '           4 s s 3
* States that licensing guidance for advanced reactors will build upon the criteria and regulations developed for LWRs. '
: 8. The public coments were received from 20 parties. Seven from y               utilities, six from vendors, two from national labs, and five from
7 4
                                                      ^
s s 3
                                                                        ,m_   _.__
8.
The public coments were received from 20 parties. Seven from y
utilities, six from vendors, two from national labs, and five from
^
,m_
pr '_
pr '_


          ,    Advanced Reactors Minutes                       September 25, 1985 s -
Advanced Reactors Minutes September 25, 1985 s -
Q:}       e others. The main points that were raised in the public comments are:                                                                           '
Q:}
e others. The main points that were raised in the public comments are:
* Reduce prescriptive nature of NRC regulations.
* Reduce prescriptive nature of NRC regulations.
* Encourage greater inherent safety / safety margin than provided in LWRs but don't require it.
* Encourage greater inherent safety / safety margin than provided in LWRs but don't require it.
Line 116: Line 137:
* NRC should not favor any design, design feature or design approach over another.
* NRC should not favor any design, design feature or design approach over another.
* NRC should not require a prototype demonstration plant.
* NRC should not require a prototype demonstration plant.
Q l         9. The original draft policy statement presented six issues on which the Commission solicited public comments. The NRC Staff has 4
Q l
prepared a proposed Commission response on the basis of the public a
9.
        .          comments.
The original draft policy statement presented six issues on which the Commission solicited public comments. The NRC Staff has prepared a proposed Commission response on the basis of the public 4
: 10. A report in the form of a NUREG will be published shortly by the
comments.
:e                  NRC Staff to discuss the revisions to the policy statement and will J,  ,
a
contain the abstract of public comments and the Commission's z               response to the six specific questions. This approach is intended aa                  to ninimize the information contained in the Federal Register. The Jl                 proposed NUREG will be prepared immediately following the Com-4t                mission's approval of the policy statement.
: 10. A report in the form of a NUREG will be published shortly by the NRC Staff to discuss the revisions to the policy statement and will
s[
:e J,
contain the abstract of public comments and the Commission's z
response to the six specific questions. This approach is intended a
to ninimize the information contained in the Federal Register. The a
Jl proposed NUREG will be prepared immediately following the Com-4 mission's approval of the policy statement.
t s[
t
t
'l E'
'l If E'
If 9-r g            _          .  . _ _ ._        _        -
9-rg


o                                                                                         n Advanced Reactors Minutes                           September 25, 1985
o n
                                                                                                      % .w p s, . , fg jQ~           *
Advanced Reactors Minutes September 25, 1985
: 11. As a result of the Subcomittee discussion and questions, a pro v. rv 4
%.w p s,., fg jQ~
                                                                                                                ~
v rv 4
posed NRR interaction with ACRS was suggested, as follows:             5' FY 86
~
: 11. As a result of the Subcomittee discussion and questions, a pro.
posed NRR interaction with ACRS was suggested, as follows:
5' FY 86
* Present proposed containment / confinement design and design criteria, including Site Suitability Source Tenn (SSST), for HTGR and LM'Is.
* Present proposed containment / confinement design and design criteria, including Site Suitability Source Tenn (SSST), for HTGR and LM'Is.
Present proposed design basis accident envelopes for HTGR and a
Present proposed design basis accident envelopes for HTGR and LMRs, including how they were selected.
LMRs, including how they were selected.
a FY 87 Provide description of key HTGR and LMR systems, based upon PSID.
FY 87 Provide description of key HTGR and LMR systems, based upon PSID.
* Provide staff evaluation of HTGR concept.
* Provide staff evaluation of HTGR concept.
* Receive ACRS letter on the HTGR concept.
* Receive ACRS letter on the HTGR concept.
1 J '
1 J
FY 88
FY 88
_
* Provide staff evaluation of LMR concepts.
* Provide staff evaluation of LMR concepts.
T.
* Receive ACRS letter on LMR concepts.
* Receive ACRS letter on LMR concepts.
T.
: 12. Dr. C. Mark (Acting Subcomittee Chainnan), and Dr. C. Siess will ji present the revised proposed policy statement to the full Comittee M
: 12. Dr. C. Mark (Acting Subcomittee Chainnan), and Dr. C. Siess will ji                           present the revised proposed policy statement to the full Comittee M
on October 10, 1985 for further discussion with a possibility of 2
2                            on October 10, 1985 for further discussion with a possibility of preparing a report to the Commission. T. King will be present to e
preparing a report to the Commission.
answer any questions.                                                 :
T. King will be present to e
answer any questions.
NOTE:
NOTE:
  -                                Additional meeting details can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., or can be purchased L.
Additional meeting details can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., or can be purchased L.
F from Ann Riley & #ssociates, Ltd., '6ES I Street, N.h'. Suite 921, Washington, D.C. 20006,(202)2933950.
F from Ann Riley & #ssociates, Ltd., '6ES I Street, N.h'.
                              ~~               ~
Suite 921, Washington, D.C. 20006,(202)2933950.
                                                                              ~
~~
_______ __                                                                                      --.~'--}}
~
~
- -. ~ ' - -}}

Latest revision as of 07:05, 12 December 2024

Proposed Summary of ACRS Advanced Reactors Subcommittee 850925 Meeting w/NRC,DOE,C-E,Bechtel,EPRI & Doc-Search Assoc in Washington,Dc Re Proposed Policy for Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power Plants
ML20133Q206
Person / Time
Issue date: 10/01/1985
From:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-2356, NUDOCS 8511010432
Download: ML20133Q206 (6)
v • d • e


Text

.

JyCf.S-A35G

/

Q h i};!

AAWA d

Qj t

g DATE ISSUED: 10/1/85 e[gg PROPOSED MINUTES /

SUMMARY

OF THE fif[ 5 ACRS ADVANCED REACTORS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING M.

SEPTEMBER 25, 1985 j$l[f g, WASHINGTON, DC g7

Purpose:

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed policy for regulation of advanced nuclear power pl:.nts.

Meeting Attendees:

ACRS NRC Staff J. C. Mark, Acting Chainnan T. King C. P. Siess, Member C. Allen M. El-Zeftawy, Staff S. Sands s

C. Ader DOE P. Wood F. Gavigan K. Herring G. Sherwood Others T. Henry, CE C. Brinkman, CE S. Watson, Bechtel S. Gray, EPRI L. Connor, Doc-Search Assoc.

Highlights, Agreements, and Requests 1.

T. King, Advanced Reactor Group /NRR, overviewed the NRR advanced reactor activities since February 1985. The major milestones are:

  • On March 26, 1985, the Commission issued the proposed policy q

statement on the regulation of advanced reactors for public comments.

  • On April 26, 1985, DOE formally transmitted to NRC a plan and schedule for review of an HTGR.

DESIC1:ATED ORIGil!AL s.,N 8511010432 851001 C # '"' N D PDR ACRS 2356 PDR

a a

s Advanced Reactors Minutes September 25, 1985

%y$$

.jp '.

35 ~ g <'

  • On July 1, 1985, DOE formally transmitted to NRC a plan and,

schedule for review of two liquid metal reactors (LMRs).

2.

DOE has been monitoring advanced LWRs and LMR/HTGR Program efforts in the U.S. and overseas. One of the major concerns is the issue related to severe-accidents.

3.

The one HTGR concept currently under consideration by the NRC is a 350 Mwt (140 Mwe) modular design, with reactor vessel and steam generator located below grade. The designers are GA Technologies /

Bechtel/CE/GE.

It is an annular core design with prismatic fuel blocks similar to Ft. St. Vrain. There is one loop per module and one turbine-generator per 3-4 modules.

Mr. F. Gavigan, DOE, stated that the major reasons for selecting prismatic fuel versus the pebble bed are:

i

  • Cost estimates showed that the prismatic fuel design has a

{

considerable margin over pebble bed ($100 to $200 per Kilo-watt).

  • In considering the major accidents, the prism has a major advantage over the pebble bed. The shutdown margins are k

larger and provides a better response.

'e

  • DOE is starting the prioritization process to limit the number

)

of converter concepts that will be funded in the next couple of years.

s There is no containment, the design has confinement building only '

to assure that no offsite dose consequences result from operation.

4.

The two LMRs currently under considerai: ion by the NRC are:

7

o v-5 Advanced Reactors Minutes September 25, 1985 yn w

, (:9 '

N[ d *

  • Power Reactor Inherent Safety Module (PRISM), 425 Mwt (133 Mwe) modular design.
  • Sodium Advanced Fast Reactor (SAFR), 900 Mwt modular design.

The PRISM designers are GE/Bechtel/ United Engineers /Bryon-Jackson /

Foster-Wheeler.

It is a pool type LMR with reactor vessel located below grade.

It has a homogeneous core design with oxide fuel versus metal fuel still under consideration. There is one loop per module and one turbine-generator per 3 modules. Reactor guard vessel will be used as containment boundary. The balance of plant (BOP) is completely disconnected from the primary loop safety

+

considerations. The module's life is expected to be 40 years.

The SAFR's designers are Rockwell International /Bechtel/CE. Each SAFR unit is a pool-type LMR design with reactor vessel and steam

{

generators above grade with passive DHR.

It is a homogeneous core design with metal fuel as reference with capability retained to also use oxide fuel. Plant design life is given as 60 years. The BOP is completely decoupled from reactor safety consideration allowing conventional construction.

5.

The overall DOE plan is to:

r Y

  • have the NRC conduct over the next 2-3 years a review of the HTGR and LMR conceptual design. This includes issuance of a

~

Preliminary Safety Infomation Document (PSID), SER, and licensability letter. -

?

  • 1989 thru late 1990s pursue standard design approval and certification of the design through rulemaking.

e g ~mg p

.es's.-

^*

o

~

Advanced Reactors Minutes September 25, 1985 k;h 6.

NRR will interact with the designers, licensees, etc., at an early g-n stage in the process in order to minimize regulatory delay. The ';'

key points of the Advanced Reactors Group's (ARG) approach are to build upon the LWR framework, where practical, and to assure that advanced reactors are at least as safe as current generation LWRs.

7.

T. King discussed the revised Comission Policy Statement on the regulation of advanced reactors (SECY-85-279), which was issued on August 21, 1985. The previously proposed policy statement (SECY-84-453A) was redrafted by the NRC Staff to provide better organization and clarification and also to incorporate the public comments. The main points included in the redraft are:

l,

  • Encourages early interaction between NRC and Reactor designers j

on licensing criteria.

}5

  • Encourages certain features and characteristics be included in y

advanced designs.

~t.

p

  • Encourages early discussion on the use of proven technology or i

technology development programs and their effect on regulatory

(

requirements.

n%

  • States that advanced reactors must provide the same degree of protection to the public and the environment as do current generation LWRs.

1

  • States that licensing guidance for advanced reactors will build upon the criteria and regulations developed for LWRs. '

7 4

s s 3

8.

The public coments were received from 20 parties. Seven from y

utilities, six from vendors, two from national labs, and five from

^

,m_

pr '_

Advanced Reactors Minutes September 25, 1985 s -

Q:}

e others. The main points that were raised in the public comments are:

  • Reduce prescriptive nature of NRC regulations.
  • Encourage greater inherent safety / safety margin than provided in LWRs but don't require it.
  • New set of GDCs for advanced reactors should be developed.
  • NRC should not favor any design, design feature or design approach over another.
  • NRC should not require a prototype demonstration plant.

Q l

9.

The original draft policy statement presented six issues on which the Commission solicited public comments. The NRC Staff has prepared a proposed Commission response on the basis of the public 4

comments.

a

10. A report in the form of a NUREG will be published shortly by the NRC Staff to discuss the revisions to the policy statement and will
e J,

contain the abstract of public comments and the Commission's z

response to the six specific questions. This approach is intended a

to ninimize the information contained in the Federal Register. The a

Jl proposed NUREG will be prepared immediately following the Com-4 mission's approval of the policy statement.

t s[

t

'l If E'

9-rg

o n

Advanced Reactors Minutes September 25, 1985

%.w p s,., fg jQ~

v rv 4

~

11. As a result of the Subcomittee discussion and questions, a pro.

posed NRR interaction with ACRS was suggested, as follows:

5' FY 86

  • Present proposed containment / confinement design and design criteria, including Site Suitability Source Tenn (SSST), for HTGR and LM'Is.

Present proposed design basis accident envelopes for HTGR and LMRs, including how they were selected.

a FY 87 Provide description of key HTGR and LMR systems, based upon PSID.

  • Provide staff evaluation of HTGR concept.
  • Receive ACRS letter on the HTGR concept.

1 J

FY 88

  • Provide staff evaluation of LMR concepts.

T.

  • Receive ACRS letter on LMR concepts.
12. Dr. C. Mark (Acting Subcomittee Chainnan), and Dr. C. Siess will ji present the revised proposed policy statement to the full Comittee M

on October 10, 1985 for further discussion with a possibility of 2

preparing a report to the Commission.

T. King will be present to e

answer any questions.

NOTE:

Additional meeting details can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., or can be purchased L.

F from Ann Riley & #ssociates, Ltd., '6ES I Street, N.h'.

Suite 921, Washington, D.C. 20006,(202)2933950.

~~

~

~

- -. ~ ' - -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20133Q206&oldid=4235278"