ML19323G869
| ML19323G869 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/03/1980 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T, NUDOCS 8006090130 | |
| Download: ML19323G869 (25) | |
Text
i l
(W
~r'g oRd$h NRC I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ACh
.6/3/80 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Parker
- bfml 3
PUBLIC MEETING t1(~')
4 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS g
5 SUBCOMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFETY RESEARCH j
6 R
7 s
j 8
Nuclear Regulatory Commission d
Room 1046 d
9 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
g 10 Tuesday, June 3, 1980 g
11 3
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:40 a.m.
j 12 g3 y
BEFORE:
V g
13,
DR. DAVID OKRENT, Presiding E
14
- a DR. CHESTER P.
SIESS E
15 5
DR. STEPHEN LAWROSKI si I6 DR. DADE W. MOELLER A
d' 17 !
WILLIAM M. MATHIS 5
18 5
ALSO PRESENT:
E 19 l b
SAM DURAISWAMY 20 DR. THOMAS G. MC CRELESS 21 io) 22 i
23 !
C) 24 v
25 L
l 800e090l %
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
n a
i
- bfm2 1
PROCEEDINGS
/b 2
DR. OKRENT:
The meeting will now come to order.
This 3
is the meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, O
4 Subcommittee meeting on reactor safety research.
I am David e
5 Okrent, subcommittee chairman.
h 6
The other ACRS membars present today are Chester Siess, R
7 Dade Moeller, and William Mathis.
Other members may come in s
j 8
later.
O q
9 The purpose of this meeting is to review portions of zol 10 the FY-1982 research budget and other related items.
It may be
=
11 necessary to close one or more sessions of this meeting in order a
g 12 to protect predecisional budgetary information.
I asked that
()
13 Dr. Budnitz identify those portions that must be closed.
=
l 14 I hope that we can keep much of this meeting open to
$j 15 the public.
This meeting is being conducted in accordance with z
y 16 the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the W
6 '17 Government in the Sunshine Act.
}
18 Dr. McCreless is the designated federal employee for E
19 g
the meeting.
The rules for participation in today's meeting M
20 have been announced as part'of the notice of this meeting, 21 previously published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, May 20,
()
22
- 1980, i
23 [
A transcript of the meeting is being kept.
Copies of
()
24 the. transcript of the open sessions will be made available as 25 l stated in the 'ederal Register notice.
It is requested'that
.h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
b
3 bfm3 I
each speaker first identify himself and speak with sufficient s
2 clarity and volume so that he can readily be heard.
3 We have received no tritten comments or requests for r~\\
V 4
time ot make oral statements from members of the public.
We will 5
g proceed with the meeting.
I call upon Dr. Siess to explain n
j 6
his plan of action for today's review.
R b
7 DR. SIESS:
Thank you.
I think today we will have a a
j 8
mixture of form and substance.
0 0;
9 (Laughter.)
zo 10 One of my principal concerns as editor of the report 5
11 has to do with form.
We have received from the staff -- and they a
p 12 will present today their budget in terms of a completely new and
=
3g 13 different and differently ordered and grouped decision units.
4
=
l 14 There are eight decision units, which means there will
$j 15 be eight chapters in the report -- eight sections in the report
=
\\
16 g
to keep from confusing the Commissioners.
e j
17 So, one problem we will have is to assign those sections i
$w 1
y 18 to appropriate subcommittee chairmen so that they can prepare P
1 W-9 g
tme for next month.
They are not going to fall into nice l
20 pidgeon-holes, corresponding one-to-one on subcommittees, except l
21 in a few cases.
22 The new decision units we have at the moment, only 23 :h by. titles, so some of.the discussion -- at least I will try to i
f3!)
24 interject from' time to time -- questions about what is included s
25 in the decision unit'and how it relates to the_ decision units we i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4 bfm4 I
dealt with last year so we can get the proper assignments.
O 2
We will expect the staff to explain those things to 3
us.
By the end of the meeting, I hope to have the assignments O
4 for the chapter authors, with the sub-authors, as necessary.
5 y
That is the form part.' The substance part I will lerre 9
6 chiefly to Dade.
That is what is in there: What are you doing R
b 7
and why?
3 5
3 One thing I would like to have the staff address is d
q 9
the mission or the objectives of research -_ " defined" in the zo h
10 PPG -- what do you call it?
G -- what is the G -- policy program
=
11 planning guidance.
's Y
12 I read it.
I was confused.
I was not very well guided.
5ag 13 Having some ideas of my own as to what the mission is of m
5 14 research, I could find that in there, but I'm sure anybody else 15 could find just about what they wanted.
g'
'O I would like to get the staff's interpretation of the x
f 17 direction they have received from the Commission on policy, z
{
18 program, and planning.
19 g
Also, I want to commend the research staff on having I
20 issued an RFP to look at volcano hazards of the northwest United
~
21 States.
()
22 (Laughter.)
23 It is very timely.
m i) 24 MR. MATHIS:
I brought a small sample of ash.
s_
Js 25 t.
(Laughter.)
s i
~!
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l s
bfm5 I
DR. SIESS: 'Has everybody got a copy of the agenda?
2 DR. BUDNITZ:
On that last section, Tom Murley spent 3
last July on top of that mountain.
I didn't remember that.
He U
4 is the last one in the room who has been on top of that place.
5 g
They have lost 1600 feet off of the top of the thing.
9 3
6 (Laughter.)
R 7
Chet, I will start by talking about the decision unit a
j 8
realignment because if I do not do that, the logic of a lot of G
q 9
the rest will not be quite so clear.
The reason for realigning z
Og 10 the decision units was because the existing ones were giving j
11 us all sorts of difficulty in a number of ways, ways that you a
p 12 identify in your own review.
O3 13 5
Ways that really are our own'and don't impact the x
l 14 way you view us.
The first vu-graph shows the purpose for the
$j 15 realignment.
If anybody tries to pin me down, as Frank x
g 16 Arsenault attempts to do, as to which of these are most important, w
~
d 17 I will be darned if I know.
5 5
18 They are all comparably significant.
The first -- it P
{
19 says more representative grouping of related research areas.
Now n
20 why would you want a group research product in a decision unit 21 structure that is more closely related to or more closely
()
22 representative?
23 The reason _for that is the concept is it is supposed to
.()
24 l be a decision unit.
.That is, people like OMB or Congressional 25l staff people ought to be~able.to look-at a unit ans say "We are I
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, lNC.
6 bfm6 I
going to be able to make a decision on that unit."
2 The decision then ought to be made in substantial 3
part based on the relevance of the regualtory process which we OV 4
support.
So, that is the first one.
5 The second is to highlight Lessons Learned from Three 8
6 Mile Island and so on.
They would have programs in 82 that G
7 are significant and '83 and '84 more significant; that we would j
8 like the OMB and our own Commission and Congressional people to d
q 9
make decisions about that were miniscule in, for example, FY '79 zog 10 and are now very large.
E 11 Third, we want to stress program areas and not organiza-a f
12 tions.
We made an explicit decision that we were going to try to
()
13 get away from the idea that the X, Y, Z branch would have the
=
l 14 X, Y, Z decision in it that belongs to them.
Where a branch-
{
15 chief -- this was true of four or five of our decision units --
=
j 16 he felt he controlled the money and it was under his own purview.
w I
17 l That notion of mixing our organizational and program-t W
{
18 matic approaches underlie some of-the decisions we make here.
P
}
19 Not all of them, but some of them, n
20 Finally, to get some flexibility.
Flexibility is 21 really important.
For example, when we were trying to find some
()
22 more money this year to fund IREP or something else in this 23-
-assessment, I~ guess we were trying to find money to pay back the
- ( )
24 money tnat PAS had spent on the Rogovin requirement.
25[
They way the Congressional restrictions had'been set i
l
.I'
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
7 bfm7 1
down, the only place we could look for that money was either in O
2 the seismic and site decision units, or in waste management, 3
because we were constrained by everything else.
We could easily O
4 reprogram from either of those two into risk assessment, but not S
5 from anything else.
0 6
We are always going to be left with some of that be-R 7
cause of the way Congress is going to delineate things.
It sure a
j 8
does not make sense that waste management is the only easy -- or d
o; 9
the other one being site and seismic stuff -- are the only easy 10 places to administrative 1y find money for extra risk assessment.
E j
ll That is nuts.
k j
12 DR. OKRENT:
If I understand the logic then, in the
(')
b 13
\\>
5 new decision units, you scrambled everything so you can always
=
l 14 go from one to another.
,2 15 (Laughter.)
=
j 16 DR. BUDNITZ:
If the world were best, we would only w
d 17 have one decision unit and we would be able to play with it.
x i
E 3
18 (Laughter.)
P
{
19 They won't let us get away with that.
We did specifi-n 20 cally try'to have some of that so we can move stuff around.
- That, 21 by the way, is^not a trivial point.
It is a major point.
(3
()
22 Sometimes you are trying to move around $300,000 in a
. 23.j program that is, after all, $200 million.
'It-is like a tenth of 7s
, (,)
24l a percent ntotion.
Our hands are tied.
i 25[
Our hands are certainly tied when it gets over $500,000-B 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8
~bfm8 I
because then you have to go all the way to Congress; $500,000 is, O
2 after all, a quarter of a percent, or something.
3 So, it is nuts.
O 4
(Slide.)
5' y
Now, I will show you a chart with the.ew decision n
6 units on them.
You have probably seen some of tTis.
That R
7 chart is not as useful as the one I am about to rhow, which I Aj 8
drew last night because it shows that there are eight -- the d
=}
9 program direction and support pays for may salary and Mr.
z Og 10 Scroggins in the mail room and stuff lika that.
John Larkins Il and stuff like that.
's j
12 This is the chart that I want you to look at for a
( )
l= 13 minute.
=
l 14 (S lide. )
$j 15 DR. SIESS:
That is more what I expected.
=
g 16 (Laughter.)
I N
17 l DR. BUDNITZ:
It is not as confusing as it looks when w=
{
18 I lead you through it, if I can find a pointer.
In order not C6 I9 g
to -- I drew that line from LOFT to LOFT and it confused n
20 ;
everything'else.
So, I cut it off.
I 21 Systems engineering has gone into two places, mostly I) 22 into this new place, the LOCA and transient reserach.
LOCA and 23 transient research collects all code development.
What that is
.i
()
24 l is the ' sort of LOCA and transient research -- it is for the small 25 ] breaks. in transients,. the disciplines that were collected -in the II; ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
9
'bfm9 I
large LOCA program of the last decade, including fuel behavior 2
work that is related to it.
3 That goes into this first decision unit.
Most of 4
systems engineering code development and fuel behaviori that is 5
g
- hat is in here.
That is our largest dicision unit by far.
n 3
6 As you will see, it is the one that is shrinking most R
I eS 7
rapidly.
It is planned for increasing reduction; more and more a
j 8
reductions in the next couple of years.
d m;
9 Left is LOFT.
Okay.
LOFT supports that in important zog 10 ways.
It addresses many of the same questions.
3_
11 DR. SIESS:
Your code development all ends up in LOCA "s
I 12 and transient research.
What about fuel codes?
-5 l 13 DR. BUDNITZ:
No, no.
That is the,old coded develop-m l
14 ment decision unit.
{
15 DR. SIESS:
That is not fuel codes?
=
y 16-l DR. BUDNITZ:
Some of the fuel code work; in fact, most W
d 17 of it was in the fuel behavior decision unit.
That, that is 5
ww 18 related to the LOCA and. transient work ends up here.
EF 19 g
(Indicating.)
M 20 So, here we now have all of the code work that is 21 related to 'LOCA and transients; whether or not it is fuel codes O
22 m not.
23 DR. SIESS:
What fuel code research is not related to
(')
24
_LOCA and transients?
I 25,
DR. BUDNITZ:
That which is the next one. -The severe i
e i.
n ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
10
-bfml0 1
accident phenomenon mitigation.
That is codes that look at the 2
way fuel behaves, or moves from the stable operating condition 3
()
~~
DR. SIESS:
Core melt?
o 5
g DR. BUDNITZ:
Fuel damage and core melt.
3 6
DR. SIESS:
But codes that deal with clad burst and E
7
,~
flow blockage, et cetera, are in LOCA and transient research and n
8 8
codes that deal with fuel melt are down in severe accidents.
d6 9
i DR. BUD 6JTZ:
Right.
oP 10 DR. SIESS:
I think I understand.
=
E 11 j
DR. BUDNITZ:
The other one that is related to that, J
12 E
then, is the plant operational safety.
The plant operational
(~T S
13
\\_/
5 safety isour new large decision unit.
It is the second largest E
14 y
one.
It collects a lot of work that was doing on in dif ferent 15 g
places.
~
16 j
There is part of systems engineering, for example, d
17 y
that in the past was held in systems engineering that is now E
18
=
going in there.
Some of it had to do with human factors and s
19 j
some of them had to do with operating, environmental questions, 20 and so on.
21
. Plant operational safety also gets all of the PSI,
(~)
22
-primary system integrity decision unit.
It all goes in there.
s In the seismic engineering.and' site _ safety, what goes in there
/^/
f _is the-engineering part.
h 24
\\-
25 1 What;I:mean,by that is basically all of the area.
H
[.
=h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
11 i
bfmil I
that Larry Shell and his branch chief look after more or less 2
is in there.
Richardson's branch work is in there.
3 So, you can see that plant operational safety collects O
4 not only some of sytems engineering, some primary system integrity 5
g and some seismic -- the engineering part of the old seismic e
j 6
engineering and site decision units, but it has in it the human R
8 7
factors work, which is new.
It has in it some I & EC work, a
j 8
instrumentation and electrical controls work, which is new.
O n;
9 By new, there may have been bits and pieces, but it is zo g
10 basically a new area that we will come to.
It collects there.
j II Things that are operational 1.y up -- operationally 3
N I2 oritented.
Now, the other important one for the reactor safety OEag 13 side is the severe accident phenomenon and mitigation.
What
=
l 14 this collects is new programs and some reorientation of existing-
$j 15 programs in the area of phenomena of accidents that proceed into
=
I 16 core melt.
d l
^
17 '
Then, the phenomena of what happens after core melt and 5w 3
18 interacts with base mattom, gasses evolve or whatever.
You notice P
19,
that it has part of the fuel behavior decision unit in it.
That g
5 20 is parthaps maybe a quarter of it.
I do not remember the numbers, 21 but I have them here.
(~%
t
(_)
~fl ll Anyway, that part of the fuel behavior decision unit i
23 l of the past that examines fuel-and_ core behavior beyond when it
)
(-)s 24lstartstolosestructuralintegritygoes in there.
All of the 25 ) stuff 'that studies not.only ' severe accident phenomena but miti-
~
1 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
12
.bfm12 1
gation.
O 2
The containment questions and so on, containment 3
response is all in there.
You notice the fast breeder reactor O
4 and advance converter reactor stuff goes in there.
That is a g
5 bit of an anomaly.
Q 6
Much.of the fast reactor stuff is, of course, related R
CS 7
to exactly these, the liquid metal reactors.
A lot of it is s
j 8
related to and reoriented toward water reactors.
There is'some d
9 stuff that does not have anything to do with any of this stuff.
zoy 10 It is fast reactor stuff.
It is under there, too.
We E
h 11 had to stick it somewhere.
That's where it is.
's j
12 So, the better title for that would be " Severe accident
/~T\\_/3 13 phenomenon and mitication and fast reactor research."
That's 5=
l 14 where it all is, but the title was too long.
There is some
,2 15 stuff that is special for breeders that is in there.
x y
16 Basically, except for what happened to risk assessment w
d 17 l down here, that is the reactor safety part, the first four plus N
I 5
18 the risk assessment.
=H h
19
'By reactor safety, I mean reactor accidents.
So, that 5
20' is an exaggeration too, in part, because some of the siting and 21 environmental has a very strong component.
()
223 For example, earthquakes and floods as initiating 23 events.
-What we have done is we have gathered the seismic and
()
24 i
site parts.of this decision unit together with the reactor 1
- 25 li environmental and fuel safety evnironmental.stu:
and stuck them i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
a m
13 bfm13 I
(.
in a decision unit that gathers together all those siting and
, )
2 environmental research.
3 DR. SIESS:
You are calling that siting and evnironmen-
,s
/
)
LJ 4l tal and what I guess is seismic and evnironmental.
Have ycu 5l j
j changed it?
9
]
6l DR. BUDNITZ:
It is seismic.
R b
7 DR. SIESS:
Seismic?
Ej 8
DR. BUDNETZ:
It is siting and environmental, d
k 9
DR. SIESS:
Okay.
2 10 DR.
JDNITZ:
Now, what it has is from here.
z Il ;!
(Indicating.)
=y 3
i j
12 l For example, for earthquakes as an initiating event,
(~')
5 l
\\'
g 13 l so that when Jerry Harber or Bob Ebby are worr.ying about tornadoes
=
h I4 or earthquakes as an initiating event, it is in there.
The
{
15 reactor environmental stuff is both routine and the environmental
=
16 g
impacts of accidents.
That decision unit, I think, is an W
g 17 important logical bringing-together of a lot of programs that I
{
18 '
have been scattered around,.which certainly is overdue.
I" Now, you notice something else that happens there, n
20{
t also.
This crosses the visions, primarily the RSR division has 21 these progra.ns.
1 22 h (Indicating.)
/
F 23 l This other division has the environmental stuff in
.r m
( )
24 it.
Crossing of divisions is an important goal of that.
25 DR. SIESS:
Siting and evironmental involves both RSR d
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
O.
14
- ,bfml4 I
and safety?
2 DR. BUDNITZ:
Yes, it does.
Now, waste management is 3
the same.
There is some cross-talk here -- there is some O
4 dashed lines that I could have put in in turquoise or something 5
y to show little changes of a minor nature, but I have not got them 9
3 6
on this slide because it is too confusing.
R 7
We probably in logic should have left safeguards s
j 8
research as its own decision unit, but it turned out it was quite d
y 9
small and we lumped it in an illogical decision unit as two z
Og 10 things together.
11 I do not apologize for that.
It is just that if we M
j 12 left fuel cycle safety, which we have here differentiated from 5
s a
5 13 fuel cycle environmental, if we left it as a decision unit on its
=
h 14 own, it would be 2 million, and su#eguards was another four or 5
2 15
- five, 5
y 16 So, we bumped them.
I think we all agree that is not w
{
17 logical.
It is a way of not having a S2 million decision unit.
18 You see, previously fuel cycle safety and environment was in c8 19 g
one decision unit.
5 20 We took the environment and stuck it somewhere, so we
~21 had-fuel cycle safety left.
Whether that is closely enough
()
22 related to safeguards to make one logical unit is for you to 23 ;
judge.
.y.
1) 24 j I have just told you my opinion.
I do not thin,. it is, t
25 but:it is a convenient.way of not having another one.
i.
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
15 bfm15 I
b"' t2 Now we have taken risk assessment and taken that part b
2 which is waste management and put it with waste management.
So, 3
now for the first time, waste management has all the waste
\\_
4 management in it, which I think is a bit of logic that was not s
5 true before.
9 6-Those of you familiar with the program know that Mike R
7 Callingford and some colleagues have been working with Sandia for 3
y 8
several years on a waste management risk assessment effort.
d n;
9 Certainly, it belongs in waste management.
It is not -- it is z
Og 10 not quite so logical in risk assessment.
E h
11 The rest of that, more or less, has gone into systems k
j 12 and reliability analysis.
Systems and reliability analysis is
=
O33 13 the new title for -- because we think it'is a better description
=
l 14 for used to be called risk assessment.
$j 15 Then, I have improved reactor safety.
That one we x
j 16 have eliminated.
That is a conscious policy decision in which w
d 17 :
we have taken the pieces and put them where they belong.
18 l For example, the improved reactor safety human factors P
19 g
stuff is in plant operation safety.
The filter vented containment a
20 1
is in severe accident and other pieces where they go.
i 21 h
The reason for eliminating that is exactly the converse
/~').
22fofthereasonwhySaulLevinewantedtocreateitin1903,or
(,
l-23 l whenever it was.
I think it was four years ago.
I think it was
()'
24 created.for the first time in the '78 budget cycle four years i
~
25 l ago, now this is
'82.
i!
I t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 16
,bfm16 1
The notion there was we were going to create a special O
2 thing called improved reactor safety.
Everybody is going to 3
pour money in it, remember?
4 DR. SIESS:
They didn't.
5 g
DR. BUDNITZ:
That happened so successfully we still n
6 have $1 million this year.
We decided that there was no logic R
7 in that.
We are following the lead that you people took in s
j 8
your last write-ups, the last two, in which you said that the d
9 entire program, whatever its elements, ought to have both z
O b
10 confirmatory and improved and exploratory research in them.
?
11 So, we just mixed them up.
I have insisted that is
[
12 in part political.
Nobody expects we are going to get a lot of
(~)
\\
13 money for that by identifying it anymore, so we are going to
(_/
5=
m g
14 stick it where it belongs, which is in the bits and pieces; but 5
15 we can identify it for you -- and we will here -- what the i
E y
16 improved safety program would look like in '82 if it were in the w
17 old decision unit.
18 l cw You will see that it-has gone from $4 1/2 million to P
{
19,
something like 12.
n 20 DR. SIESS:
This would be the classic improved safety.
i 21 The items that were identified in NUREG-0603.
1
()
22 DR. BUDNITZ:
And some others.
23 ;
DR. SIESS:
I think that would be helpful.
There were
()
24l_threeorfouridentified.
The little rrajects you had going 25, -had been moved various places.
You have others.
b
.)
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
.~.
17 bfm17 I
DR. BUDNITZ:
I have to insis't that that is a policy
()
2 decision and if you want to comment on that, we would like to 3
have your comments.
U 4
You notice, we have just a limited that not only as e
5 decision unit, but as a concept for budget argument, because 6
we were getting beat on it.
We thought it was a mistake.
We R*5 7
took the confirmatory exploratory and improved safety -- they s
j 8
ought to be argued for in each area, whichever it is.
d 0;
9 DR. SIESS:
Personally, I agree because the previous z
O 10 strategy did not get you any money.
E k
II DR. BUDNITZ:
Yes.
That was the point.
B f
I2 DR. SIESS:
0578 got no response from the Congress in
/~T 3
V 5
13 terms of dollars.
=
l 14 DR. BUDNITZ:
They may have read it, but it did not
$j 15 work two or three years later, anyway.
=
E I6.
DR. OKRENT:
Where does accident analysis -- I mean, w
I h
17 l you know, consequences and this sort of thing that PAS used to-18 l
=
do?
5 "g
19 DR. BUDNITZ:
It is still in the afstems and reliability n
20 analysis.
Part of it is in environmental.
That is the analysis --
21 the consequence analysis of the sort that WASH-1400 did is here.
()
22 Research to provide phenomenological information to support that 23 is here.
CI 24 l (Indicating.)
t 25)
For example, if one finds that the deposition velocity e
J W
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
j 18 bfml8
' n a.certain wet desert region is not understood.
Arsenault's I
i O
2 SAFER program here is going to provide that information.
3 DR. SIESS:
Where is the CRAC code?
O 4
DR. BUDNITZ:
Here.
e 5
(Indicating.)
0 6
Let me describe the logic there.
What we did is we R
- E 7
took all of the stuff that explores phenomenon.
There was some s]
8 in risk assessment.
For example, the various computer codes and d
q 9
things like that.
We took it out and let this analyisis, systems z
O
,{
10 and reliability analysis.
There are no phenomena in here.
=
5 II The phenomenoolical research, the understanding of B
y 12 phenomena that support these analyses is elsewhere.
That is 5
O I3 5
a bit of logic that is'different than what was done before, in l
14 which the risk assessment decision unit contained a lot of stuff
{
15 that explored phenomena, not a lot, but significant.
Anyway.
=
16 g
a few million dollars.
w 17!
It explored phenomena that involved risk assessment.
s 18
-g We are not doing that anymore.
Now, besides the major lines E
~
19 e
here, I could draw -
I said in another color I could draw a lot A
i 20 l of minor lines that go all over the place that would just con-
.t 2I ;
fuse you; with $.9 million going somewhere where we realigned.
()
22 things.
23, l For example, over the years, risk assessment supported
()
24 some steam explosion work.
It clearly does not elong in risk i
25 ] assessment or' in systems and reliability.
.It belongs;in severa t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
19
'bfm19 1
accident.
That's where we put it.
Okay?
O' 2
The reason it was steam explosions there was because 3
WASH-1400 needed that information.
It was felt -- done for that
()
4 purpose, okay?
e 5
Now, let me describe the deb ts of this new decision M4 6
unit approach.
There are a couple; that is, what is poor about R
7 it.
N j
8 Well, first as a point of logic, there is some stuff d
d 9
in LOFT that ought to be in one of the other decision units.
i h
10 We decided as a matter of policy to put everything about LOFT n
j 11 in the LOFT decision unit, not just LOFT operations on the major B
y 12 LOFT programs.
=
- n)
(_
13 So that, for example, there is a bit of money under l
14 the LOFT decision unit that is an improvement in the LOFT
$j 15 control room or control system.
That, if it were not, LOFT would
=
j 16 be under plant operational safety.
It is at LOFT.
That-is e
1 6
17 l merely in order that everything in the LOFT project be identified 5
18
.together.
=g-19 Secondly, there is some mixing and confusion in our g
5 20 work on, for example, supporting.the siting rulemaking.
If you-4t1 ask me where,_here, are we supporting the big and important n()
22 siting rulemaking or related rulemakings, I would say-it is l
23 l kind of mixed up.
We cannot identify that.
.w][~ ~
24 A~'lbt of it is in siting and environmental research..-It is:in systems and reliability analysis and so forth.
So there L!
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
9
20
'bfm20 1
are so a important new thrusts or new emphases in the program O
2 that are not reflected here.
There are a couple of others.
We 3
will probably uncover them as the day goes on.
O 4
Do you have any questions so far?
5 (No response.)
6 DR. MC CRELESS:
Is there anyone in the audience not 57 CS 7
from NRC?
s j
8 DR. BUDNITZ:
I was' going to ask that myself before I e
o; 9
went any further?
zog 10 DR. SIESS:
Let me ask a couple of questions, Bob, E
11 just to get myself oriented.
I am looking back at the decision is j
12 units we dealt with last year.
We had a category we called (V
5
~T 5
13 reactor and environmental effects.
m h
I4 Dh. BUDNITZ:
Yes.
!Ej 15 DR. SIESS:
It looks to me like that now ends up in i
16 Si partly -- partly in siting and environmental, and partly --
A f
I7 I DR. BUDNITZ:
Safeguards and fuel cycle safety.
=
18 DR. SIESS:
In other words, in the first part, in the
{
l~
19 g
siting and environmental, it looks like the items that were n
20 called occupational health, environmental impacts -- I'm sorry, 21 I am reading the wrong'one'.
The physical transport and effluent O
22 characteristics enes up in,1,1ng ane environmenta1, ece1ogica1 23 -
processes we do not really concern ourselves_with.
O 24l Ree1atiom eesimeery ane hee 1eh effects
.u1,se in 3-125i siting and environmental,_right?
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4 l
l 21 Bfm21 1
DR. BUDNITZ:
Right.
O 2
DR. SIESS:
Socio-economics and regional would be 3
there?
O 4
DR. BUDNITZ:
In siting and environmental, that is e
5 right.
h 6
DR. SIESS:
Occupational radiation exposure?
R 7
DR.-BUDNITZ: Yes, but let me describa the occupational s
j 8
protection division so you will understand.
The occupational d
c 9
protection work, figuring out schemes for protecting workers is Y
10 in safeguards and fuel cycle safety.
Even that part of the z=
i j
11 occupational work that protects workers around reactors.
m j
12 We just had to put it somep!. ace.
=
(s w) h1 3 DR. SIESS:
That would be under fuel cycle facility j
=
E 14 safety?
d i
u 2
15 DR. BUDNITZ:
Safeguards and fuel cycle safety.
5 y
16 DR. SIESS:
I am looking at the sub-units.
^
\\
d 17 DR. BUDNITZ:
Yes.
5 5
18 DR.-SIESS:
That is fuel cycle facility safety?
=H
{
19 DR. BUDNITZ:
It is called occupational protection, n
20 Chet.
DR. SIESS:
Not on my. list.
21l (o
22 I
)
DR. BUDNITZ:
The occupational exposure-and healtn 23,
effects stuff, though, which measures exposures and worries about
(')
24 f health effects is in siting andlenvironmental, okay?- That is 25 ; _'the l difference.
I have to make that difference for.you,zor else i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,'INC.
22 bfm22 1
you will - -
O' 2
DR. SIESS:
Nothing is under safety and fuel cycle --
3 DR. BUDNITZ:
Occupational protection.
It is a late 4
edition, which probably not on your list.
g 5
DR. SIESS:
It is not on any list.
That we simply 9
3 6
add?
R
- E 7
DR. BUDNITZ:
Right.
Nl 8
DR. SIESS:
What do you call it?
d
=;
9 DR. BUDNITZ:
Under safeguards and fuel cycle safety zc h
10 you have the following:
You have physical protection; MC & A, E
II and so forth; decommissioning and so forth.
You just add a
p 12 occupational protection.
(~) 5y 13 DR..SIESS:
All right.
That includes items -- that
(
=
m 5
14 includes part of the 61d occupational radiation exposu're?
2 15 DR. BUDNITZ:.That's right.
As I said, we have
=
i g
16 separated occupational protection from operational effects, w
N I7 l 5
health effects, and.so on.
c g
18 DR. SIESS:
And part of that then ends up there, and C"
19 g
i part of it ends up as occupational exposure and health effects, n
20 right?
i l
2I-DR.'BUDNITZ:
Yes.
/~^
22
(,)'
DR. SIESS:
Decommissioning now ends up in?
23 DR..BUDNITZ:
Safeguards and fuel cycle.
}
24
~
DR. SIESS: ' Safeguards and. fuel cycle.
Now, under the 25.i old fuel' cycle unit, you had effluent' control which now comes-3 e
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY 'INC.
23 Lbfm23 l
under safeguards and fuel cycle; then just safety, which would 2
come under fuel cycle facility safety, I assume.
3 DR. BUDNITZ:
Yes.
O 4
DR. SIESS:
Occupational health includes some of the e
5 stuff we just talked about, environmental impacts.
h 6
DR. BUDNITZ:
That is now all under environment.
Fuel R
7 cycle environment'is all under environment.
A y
8 DR. SIESS:
That would be under the airborn effluents d
c; 9
environmental impact and aquatic environmental impact and zc g
10 transportation.
We have decommissioning twice, but the decom-E 11 missioning now includes both.
3 N
12 DR. BUDNITZ:
Reactors and other facilities.
E O5 a
13 DR. SIESS:
Y o u h a v e t h a t l i-s t e d u n d e r s a f e g u a r d s a n d
=
h 14 fuel cycle safety, but that decommissioning includes reactors
$j 15 and --
z d
16 DR. BUDNITZ:
Yes.
All right?
A 5
II l DR. SIESS:
Those were two pretty mixed up areas.
I'm i
5
{
18 not sure they are better now, but at least I know where they P"
19 1
g are.
n 20-DR. BUDNITZ:
We had some stuff where we could-have 21 separated reactor decommissiching from' fuel cycle decommissioning,
.( )
22 but1that-was such a-little program.
23 f DR. SIESS:
Okay.
(}
24 l DR. BUDNITZ:
Okay.
Now, I-just want to then go back
- )
, 25 q, and show you where -- the rotivations here.
We are trying to i
l
~
ALDERSON REPORTING COM'PANY,'INC.
24
.bfm24 1
stress program areas, particularly the new ones.
2 We are going to stress plant operational safety.
The 3
decision unit is going to be identified and argued for as a 4
unit, severe accident consequences and mitigation, then the e
5 systems interaction.
h 3
6 Those are important philosophical reasons for what R
Iend t2 8 7
we did.
There are a lot of managerial ones as well.
Ml 8
(Thereupon, at 10:15 a.m.,
the Committee entered i
do 9
into closed session.)
i=
10 j
11 a
1 d
12 E
3 g
13
- n E
14 'I a
d 1
h:
l 2
15 i
5 j
16 r
us 6
17 i u
5 18 e
i:
I 19 A
20 i
21 O.
22 23 i
L Cr 2'l
-25 i
1 n'
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the O
in the matter of: ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
SUBCOMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFETY RESEARCH Date of Proceeding: June 3, 1980 Docket flumber:
Place of Proceeding:
Washington, D. C.
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.
David S. Parker Official Reporter (Typed)
- O G
M l'
_[,
Official Reporter (Signature)
O O
_