ML19338G429
| ML19338G429 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/08/1980 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8010290331 | |
| Download: ML19338G429 (5) | |
Text
.
d MEMORANDLt1 FOR:
T. E. Murley, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FRQ1:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reacter Regulation i
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F DOE RESEARCH PLAN ON LWR SAFETY i
On June 20, 1980 RES transmitted for NRR review and comment a draft document prepared by' LWR Safety Program Plan (FY /s 1980-1985)partment Sandia National Laboratories for the De of Energy entitled
." The aim of this five-year program as stated by RES is to develop cost-j effective improvements in power reactor availability and safety.
The document purports to be prepared in accordance with the December 28, 1979 DOE-NRC Interagency Programmatic Agreement in support of J
j, improved reactor safety. A central provision of this agreement is that DOE will budget for and provide the authorizations nee.essary
'e.
"c for the initiation and execution of specific agreed upon tasks, subject to funding availability.
P The draft program p1an emphasizes improved safety systems, man-machine interface, risk based analysis methods, and safety-related data, including several unresolved safety issues.
As requested by RES, the NRR review of this program bas considered the technical content of the proposed projacs and the relevance and timing of the proposed work with respect to current or anticipated NRC regulatory positions. We have also considered in our revicN NRC 6,1980 from ?. J. guidance to DOE as provided in' a memorandum of February Budnitz, Director of hES to R. L. Ferguson, Acting i
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Reactor Programs,00E;the
)
minutes of a meeting of the Joint Coordination Group held on April 16, 1980; i
and a meeting held with DOE on September, 16, 1980 in which our comments were discussed in draft form.
Present at the September.16 meeting with
~,
DOE were R. DiSalvo of RES, and G. Knighton and P. M. Williams of NRR/RSC8.~
. DOE personnel present were H. Feinroth, J. Yevick, and _J. Carleson.
i.
e Our principal comments concern the six NRC recommended programs as described in the February 6,1980 memorandum. These programs in order of decreasing priority are:. Add-on. Decay Heat Removal System,
.e t
Vented Filtered Containment System, Hydrogen Control Techniques, Improvements in Operator-Machine Interface, Advanced Seismic Design, and
.c :
Improvements in Simulator Capabilities.
Our cm ments are provided ia the table of Enclosure 1.
planned for FY 81 for the first three NRC recommended programs.It should be n t
for a reference design characterization study in four areas: meeting DOE infor j'f } h-September 16 At the
/
(1) risk i
1 g-pE Sp/$c2DN 4
_ _m
E o
om o
D D
g ao o
23 analysis, (2) constructability, (3) fuel utilization and (4) operational reliability and maintainability. These studies will be performed on the most advanced designs of the LWR manufacturers and will not be linked to backfitting considerations.
A. program brief will be available for NRC review about October 1,1980.
Our consideration of the imp /s funding decision for FY 81 will be madeact on NRC pl research as a result of DOE
'after our review of the October program brief.
It is apparent, however,.'
3 that any specific information that DOE may develop on the engineering feasibility of severe accident mitigation devices will be delayed about a year.
We also have provided additional comments in Enclosure 2 which,1f. incorporated, would improve the general utility of the Sandia document.to the NRC, and y
presumably to DOE also.
(
t' c
We appreciate the opportunity to. review and comment on the DOE res'earch plan on LWR Safety Technology. We anticipate our continued participation in this manner as the progtan develops.
. Origin:1 Siped by y
V'
'.O A;.
If. R. Danten Harold R. Denton, Director t
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
^
. n,,, e Enclosures s.
u.
,.y
- l. Status of NRC 1
Recommenations for P
,t Programs x
A t 5-L.
- 2. Additional Comments D
4' f On DOE Research Plan 3
w
+;
- DISTRIBUTIONS
^ :'
.RDISALVO
~.
6~ d NRR READING FILE # 4145
'RMEBERNERO
~ '
'^- +
SUBJECT FILE CENTRAL FILE (RSCB )
CKELBER c'
VSTELLO TERA g
RMIN0GUE PUK GWKNIGHTON SCAVANAUGH #4145 PWILLIAtis
~
"i,
2 JMULLIN e
~-
.,.HRDENTON
-+
E.
~
- TSCHULTZE ECASE FSCHROEDER l.
~
, u.
is s.
A DST 1RSC
.D5'T:R CB
. DS...:.G..J-D.IR.
,Ahltd.h,B,,,_,,,f\\
W
..0NRR OFFICE >
n PEiniamsf.jd... GW ni hton.......JSchroede r--- --
E + A -.
..HRD on-'
~
sunm wc >
101.2!80.......
10ll.180.....
101.bl8.0..
10 1 lBD..... ~ loik/BD:. ~
ont~
.c,_ mmmmco om
.... -.............-........ L..
'I i
ENCLOSURE 1 STATUS OF NRC RF00PUEf;DATIONS FOR DDE LUR SAFETY PROCRAf'S 1
imC RECOMi1ENDATIONS NRC-DOE Meeting on DOE /Sandia pro ran f6:-DOE fleeting CO Titt1S_
_(2/6/80)
_ (_4/16/_80) imeroved Reactor 2'" MW9 --
p /p 8_g_ _ _
Add-on Decay lleat DOE hiably interested Section 2.3.3.14 Scopinq study in the Sandia This represents an Removal System in program, trying to scopinq Stuity ini-plan witMrawn. A new altnation in W locate FY 80 funds, re-tlated at Sandia E' 9" "Iti be developed planning frote our comended FY 81 funds leadinq to eventual d5
" ~
testing and licensinq desinn study, revged pwas sMuM of a prototype system cons tder flPC research at Sandia which suaq-ested design bases.
Should address m'R's as well as pW's.
Vented Filtered DOE does not plan to No proqram Plan DOE program, if any, will be Irvact of DOE's pc.sition r
Containrent System fund program in this based on DOE's reference in this area is under area but is keeping design study.
- review, abreast of developments Hydrogen Control Sandia will recomend No program plan DOE program will be based DOE should supply Techniques DOE action for FY 81 on a forthcominq reconrendation relevant information from Sandia. ' fill not proceeded to f!DC at earliest without discussions with pRC.
onssible date.
Improvements in fmC Judces that DOE's Section 3.0 pescarch No Chance Opera tor-Machi ne program is responsive is planred in essentially DUTS notes that proqram
' Interface to flPC reconeeedations all areas Diff 5 has identified lacks (1) detailed descr-as imonrtant iption nf relationship in NPC needs and researth prnoram and (2) specific plans for conraination with tmC.
Advanced Saismic Sandia will reconmend Section 2.3.3.15 progran Ho Channe Design future DOE action begins with scopinn studies penqram in close anreement of alternate concepts proceeds with NEC reconrendations.
through selection of most fbre detail should be mising concepts to verifica.
added if available.
y U
- 5?e)
C3 Inprovements in fio Conrents Sectien 3.3.3.4 This is a pglor portion DOE prograiei satisfactnrily Simulator Capabilities problen stated and of DOE's FY 81 budqet.
reflects PRC recomendations progran. being studied Sardia is assessing prnoram but lac h detail on how h
to determine if it is specific onals will be complementary to industry accomplished.
pg prnoram b
)
r-ENCLOSURE 2 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON 00E RESEARCH PLAN FOR LWR SAFETY TECHNOLOGY (1) The program plan lacks, for the most part, specific identification and correlation of the DOE programs with NRCls regulatory needs and research activities.
Three NRC unresolved safety issues (A-ll, A-43, and A-17) are identified in the Safety Data Program Area, but elsewhere direct correlation with other l'RC planning documentation is not provided.
Three NRC documents which would be useful in this regard are "R11-2 Lessons Learned Task Force Status Report and Short-Term Recommendations" (NtREG-0578. July 1979), " Generic Task Program Descriptions "(NUREG-0 '.11 June 1978) and "NRC Action Plan Developed as a P,esult of the B41-2 Accident" (NUREG 0660, May 1980).
In addition, DOE should be advised to review the ACRS prepared document. " Comments on the NRC Safety Research Program Budget for Fiscal Year 1982" (NUREG-0699, July 1980).
(2) Many of the work plans do not acknowledge the status of information already available on a given, topic, or research programs cur rently underway developing related information.
As a result, a number of program plans raised doubts as to whether Sandia is fully acquainted with the state-of-the-art,and whether the research to be performed is unnecessarily duplicative of other previous or current activities.
We recommend that additional background information be provided for each major subtask which would include a brief review of related past and current work, together with citation of pertinent references from available supporting documentation.
(3) The type and amount of formal coordination planned with the NRC is not evident in the program plan. We believe the Sandia document should speak, both generally and specifically. to coordination needs and methods.
For example we suggest that.certain milestones be identified in each program schedule which would serve as points for formal interim NRC review of the program pr ogr ess.
At present the program appears ;o be only loosely coordinated with NRC and a potential exists for the interagency programmatic agreement to be poorly implemented.
(4) The Introduction should be expanded to further discuss the differences between DOEls approaches to reactor safety objectives and NRC /s.
For instance DOE should identify criteria it will use to obtain reliable cost estimates for safety improvements in its program to reduce the impact of safety on costs.
Further, DOE should be more explicit regarding its plans to coordinate with industry and foreign programs.
1 W.
,,.,c
~_
r
_~
. (5) In some cases it appears that DOE will be duplicating work to be performed either by the NRC, industry or foreign agencies.
Although we do not believe it is necessary for DOE to justify every potential duplication effort (other than by the expansion of background information as requested in our first content above),
DOE should provide in the introduction a brief discussion of the circumstances under which it believes duplication, or near duplication, is justified.
(6) In Figure 1, " Department of Energy Safety Technology Pc ogram," provision should be made for NRC Input.
(7) Program Area 2, " Improved Safety Systems" encompasses a very wide range of topics. We believe the organization and efficacy of the overall program plan would be enhanced if an additional program area entitled, " Degraded Core Safety Systems" were established to manage all of the program tasks j
pertaining to topics in that area.
(8)'In Figure 4.3, " Program Areas, Interactions and Objectives of Risk Methods Utilization " the words "NRC Recognition" appear in the Methods Demonstration-Methods Implement blocks.
Sandia should clarify that is meant by NRC recognition and state how it plans to achieve it.
(9) We request that the distribution of reports generated under this program be made available to the Office and Division Directors within NRR, RES, SD, and IE.
i I
i
{
l 1
l t
]
E Y
L r
-