ML19345G393
| ML19345G393 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/07/1981 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-1802, NUDOCS 8104070158 | |
| Download: ML19345G393 (11) | |
Text
_
. A. - L?,_
m.,.,
& #3./y a
]b.
ISSUED:
1/7/81 um
$b f-f Li.-[
U L t,.! Ui -
MINUTES OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON j//
NRC SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM DECEMBER 3,1980 WASHINGTON, D.C.
The ACRS Subcommittee on NRC Safety Research Program held a meeting on December 3, 1980, at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Mr. San Duraf swamy was the Desig-nated Federal Employee for the meeting. A list of documents submitted to the Subcommittee is included as Attachment A.
ATTENDEES ACRS Members:
C. P. Siess (Subcommittee Chainnan), S. Lawroski, W. Mathis, C. Mark, M. Carbon, D. W. Moeller (pm), D. Okrent (pm), P. Shewnon (pm),
D. Ward (pm), W. Kerr (pm), M. Bender (pm).
Principal NRC Speakers:
R. Minogue, F. Arsenault, L. Shao, H. Sullivan, D. McPherson, R. Bernero, R. Scroggins.
Principal DOE Speakers:
J. Griffith, H. Feinroth, C. Dahlgren.
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN Dr. Siess, the Subcommittee Chairman, convened the meeting at 8:40 a.m. and indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the following:
1.
Department of Energy's (DOE's) Light-Water-Reactor (LWR) Safety Technology Program and the associated budget.
2.
New developments in NRC's Safety Research Program.
3.
NRC's Long Range Research Plan.
4.
Responses from the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) to ACRS recommendations and corrnents listed in the ACRS report to the Commission (NL9EG-0699, dated July 1980).
5.
Preliminary draft Chapters of the ACRS report to Congress on NRC's FY 1982 Safety Research Program and budget.
He stated that those portions of the meeting relating to the discussion of FY 1982 budget for NRC and DOE research programs and tha preliminary draft chapters of the ACRS report to the Congress will be closed to the public. The Subcommittee had received neither written comments nor requests for time to make oral state-ments from members of public.
810407o/57
NRC Safety Research Program
-t-December 3,1980 PRESENTATION BY DOE ON DOE'S LWR SAFETY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
~
Overview of DOE's LWR Safety Technolocy Progran - Mr. J. Griffith Mr. Griffith, Director of the Of fice of Light Water Reactors of DOE, indicated that the Office of Light Water Reactors has the overall responsibility to carry out the DOE's LWR Safety Technology Program. The Office of Light Water Reactors consists of the following Divisions:
1.
Systems and Safety Evaluation 2.
Fuels and Components 3.
Materials and Structures 4.
Nuclear Fuel Cycle.
Mr. Griffith reviewed briefly the role of DOE, indicating that DOE plays an advocacy role in nuclear power and they are trying to help the utilities and the industry solve some of their problems. He believes that DOE's LWR Safety Technology Prograh will contribute to:
1.
assessing risk and reliability u51r.g levels of safety approach, 2.
speeding up the construct <on of new plants using modularization and standardization developments, 3.
informing the public about -the relative risks and benefits of nuclear
- power, 4.
operating the plants efficiently, 5.
resolving the issues associated with wastes and the interim storaga of spent fuel elements, and 6.
helping the industry to solve some of their financial problems.
Mr. Griffith stated that the overall FY 1981 budget for DOE's programs is about
$35'aillion. The f rogram pertinent to Safety was funded at $4.1 million in FY 1979;
$3.64'million in FY 1980 and $8.0 million in FY 1981.
In addition, the Program on TMI-2 has a funding level of about $9 million in FY 1981.
DOE's Safety Technology Programs - Mr. Feinroth Mr. Feinroth, Acting Director, Systems and Safety. Evaluation Division of DOE,.
reviewed briefly the objectives of the research and development programs being carried out by DOE in the Safety Technology area and the associated FY 1981
' budget for these programs:
m -
NRC Safety Research rivyram
-a -
Dzccaber 3,1980 Plant Systems
$1.2 Million Plant Components 0.5 M Materials and Structures 0.4 M Man Machine Interface 1.3 M Training 0.55 M Risk Methods Utilization 1.25 M Safety Data
'.3 M
Baseline Characterization 1.5 M TOTAL 8.0 M Dr. Siess asked whether DOE has considered the problems associated with implementing new developments through the licensing process.
Mr. Feinroth replied that, if DOE is successful in the development of a new feature and if it is recognized by the industry and NRC as a feature to improve the safety and reliability of the plants, he does not believe that there will be any problems in getting that new development through the licensing process.
Dr. Siess commented that it would be nice if it were a simultaneous recognition rather than a sequential recognition.
Dr. Siess asked at what stage the industry and the NRC get involved in DOE programs. Mr. Feinroth said that' he believes that the industry and NRC will get involved in DOE programs at the early stage.
With regard to the DOE program on " Nuclear Power Manpower Projections", that is intended to provide guidance to the industry to assess the total manpower needs, Mr. Mathis asked about DOE and NRC coordination in this area.
Mr. Feinroth stated that he does not believe DOE is coordinating with NkC on this specific task.
~ Mr. Mathis pointed out that NRC has recently issued a document on " Guidelines for Utility Management _ Structure and Technical Resources" for'public comment; he believes that there should be coordination between NRC and DOE in this area.
If_ there is no such coordination, there is a possibility that DOE and NRC may come up with two different sets of guidelines and the industry may have to choose between those two.
p'
NRC Safety Research
-4 D:cember 3,1980 DOE PROGRAMS TO COMPLEMENT NRC PROGRAMS Mr. Feinroth stated that the DOE programs on " Fire Hazard Analysis", "Contairrtent Sump Perfomance Testing" and " Atmospheric Release Advisory Capability (ARAC)"
are designed to complement the appropriate NRC programs.
Mr. Feinroth pointed out that, in addition to the above programs, DOE is carrying out the following programs as requested by NRC:
1.
Add-on Decay Heat Removal 2.
Vented Filtered Containment 3.
Hydrogen Control Techniques 4.
Improvements in Operator-Machine Interface 5.
Advanced Seismic Designs 6.
Improvement in Simulatcr Capabilities.
Mr. Feinroth pointed out that, in accordance with the programmatic agreement between 00E and NRC, there has been coordination between them (exchanging program
~
documents, conducting periodic review group meetings, etc.) in carrying out the appropriate safety research programs. However, owing to some organizational changes there seem: to be insufficient coordination recently; he believes that in the near future they will establish adequate coordination.
Dr. Siess asked about the amount spent by industry in research and development programs. Mr. Feinroth said that in his opinion, the industry may be spending about a billion dollars per year.
In response to another question from Dr. Siess as to whether DOE's role is to interpose itself between NRC and the industry or to translate NRC requirements for industry or help industry to meet NRC requirements, Mr. Feinroth stated that DOE is not interposing itself between NRC and the industry. He believes that DOE is helping industry -in developing improvements to the extent the industry wishes.
Indicating that the DOE's. budget of about $8 million for safety technology programs seems to be insignificant compared-.to the NRC budget (about $200 million) and in-dustry spending (about one billion), Dr. Siess asked about DOE's role, with such a limited funding level, between NRC and the industry.
L 7
. December 3, 1929 NRC Safaty Research Hr. Feinroth stated that the potential benefit of a research program is not The necessarily proportional to the amount of money allocated to that program.
fact that DOE has a small budget for a safety research progra? does not mean that tha benefits expected of this program will be small. Further, he believes that DOE is assisting NRC and industry in resolving some safety problems by making its laboratories available to them to perform the necessary research work.
Dr. Lawroski asked whether the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Division of DOE has any ongoing program to assess the relative risks of various areas of the fuel cycle such as reprocessing and waste disposal. Mr. Griffith responded that the fuel cycle program under the Office of Light Water Reactors is a small program and it is mainly focused on the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFSR) fuel cycle.
Mr. Feinroth added that, in addition to t e program un er the Nuclear Fuel Cycle h
d Division, 00E has another program under the Ceputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management and Spent Fuel Storage. However, he is not familiar with to what extent they use risk assessment methodology in their activities.
Dr. Siess suggested that tha Waste Management Subcognittee of the ACRS may want to discuss this issue with DOE in detail in one of the future Subcomittee meetings.
r L
h$
.-- m em is 2,
-~
a L -.
-~
PRESENTATION BY NRC Introduction - Mr. Minocue, Office of Nuclear Reculatory Research (RES)
Mr. Minogue, Director of RES provided the following general cornents:
1.
The relevant roles of DOE, NRC and the int'ustry in carrying out the research programs are not defined clearly and he believes that the roles of these organizations should be re-examined.
Although thera has been sufficient. coordination between NRC, DOE 2.
and the industry in some specific areas, the overall coordination t'
December 3,1980
-6 NRC Safety Research r.v3.
He believes that a substantial has not been as good as it should be.
improvement in coordinatinn between these organizetions is required.
Dr. Siess commented that he agrees that a re-evaluation of the definitive roles of DOE, NRC and the industry in the safety research and development areas is The direction given by the Of fice of Management and Budget (0MB) in the Improved Reactor Safety Systems area is not particularly helpful in defining necessary.
the overall roles of DOE and NRC, NRC Comments on DOE's LWR Safety Technolocy Program Plan - Dr. R. DiSalvo Dr. DiSalvo reviewed briefly the NRC commer,ts on DOE's LWR Safety Technology Responsiveness of DOE to NRC recommendations is somewhat mixed. DO Program:
1.
programs in certain areas such as Add-On Decay Heat Removal System, Vented Filtered Containment, and Hydrogen Control are not that However, he bel'ieves that DOE's efforts in the Man-responsi ve.
~
Machine Interface area are very much responsive to NRC recommendations.
The efforts on some areas (Equipment Qualfication, LWR Data Base, 2.
Comparative Risk Study and Simulator Improvements) will require close coordination to avoid duplication and to obtain results on time.
New Deeelopments in NRC's Safety Research Procrams Since the Issuance of the ACRS Report to the Commission (NUREG-0699. July 1980)
Mr. Sullivan provided a brief overview of some of the new developments in NRC Safety Research Programs since the issuance of the ACRS Report to the Co in July 1980 (NUREG-0699).
Semiscale M00-5 (B&W) Desian_
Mr. Sullivan said that two types of ' design modifications to the exist-One of them is a ing Semiscale system wers proposed by EG8G of Idaho.
For this Single-loop System to represent the Westinghouse design.
system, the existing Semiscale system can be used with certain modifica-The second one is a two-loop tions which would cost about $2 million.
The construction of this system will system to represent the B&W design.
cost about $18 million.
-+
w
. December 3,1980 nRC Safety Research Mr. Sullivan said that the ACRS, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) of NRC and the Germans have expressed interest in the Semiscale MOD 5 design. The NRC Staff met with the Germans in November 1980 at Silver Spring, Maryland. At that meeting, the Germans expressed interest in the Single-loop system; the NRC Staff suggested that the Germans provide the steam generator in addition to the $2.5 million which they would provide for the construction of the facility.
Recently, the NRC Staff has received a telegram from the Germans indica-ting that they may not be interested in the Semiscale M00-5 design.
However, the NRC Staff is still pursuing this issue with the Germans and any further develocments will be notified to the ACRS.
LOFT Program Mr. Sullivan said that in response to ACRS comments listed in NUREG-0699, the NRC has formed a Special Review Group (Attachment B, page 1) to review the LOFT program and advise the Cuamission oc +he continuing NRC support fer this program beyond 1982.
In addition, the NRC Staff has been talking with industry, DOE, and foreign countries to obtain support for the LOFT program (Attachment B, page 2).
Mr. Sullivan said that the Special Review Group report is expected in February 1981. Based on that report and ACRS comments, the Commission will make a decision on the continuing operation of LOFT beyond 1982.
l L
Dr. Siess said that the ACRS may like to conment on the LOFT program after obtaining the Special Review Group report and information on definitive alternate sources of funding. He suggested that the NRC get the ACRS comments prior to making a final decision on the LOFT progr'am.
Developments in Rulemaking Activities f
Mr. Bernero reviewed briefly the'new developments in rulemaking activities, l
indicating that in response to the ACRS recommendation in NUREG-0699, a " Degraded Core Cooling Steering Committee" has been formed to coordinate the activities in the following rulemaking areas:
a
N'nC Safety Research December 3,1980 1.
Siting 2.
Dnergency Planning 3.
Minimum Engineered Safety Featu 3s 4.
Degraded Core Cooling 5.
Class 9 NEPA Mr. Bernero said that the Degraded Core Cooling Steering Committee will review the adequacy of the existing research programs and identify additional research needs and resources to support the rulemaking proceedings.
Mr. Bender commented that the NRC Staff should assess the risk associated wf'n immobilizing the radionuclides released into the containment during an accident and should also come up with a plan for the safe disposal of these radionuclides.
Mr. Minogue stated that the NRC Staff would consider Mr. Bender's comment.
Long-Range Research Plan Mr. Minogue reviewed briefly the overall objectives of the Long-Range Research plan, indicating.that it is an effort to obtain input to the Safety Research Programs from higher level personnel. This approach will help develop research He also intends to programs to deal with broad safety issues in some coherent way.
obtain input from various laboratories, industry and DOE prior to developing a final Long-Range Plan.
Pointing out that the RES programs are listed under "Other Policy" in the Policy, Planning, and Program Guidance (PPPG) document, Dr. Siess wondered how a program that takes about half of the Commission budget is not given more recognition and guidance.
l l
Mr. -Minogue said it seems that the Research Office is not aken quite as seriously as some of the other offices. However, he expects that the Long-Range
~
Research Plan will provide some feedback into updating the PPPG document and the updated PPPG will have a better recognition of the research programs.
b Y
NRC Safety Research Pr
-Y -
- ember 3, 1980 Mr. Bender asked whether there are any Commission criteria to determine the order of importance of the research programs in various areas. Mr. fiinogue replied that, with the existing guidelines, it seems very difficult to deter-mine the relative significance of some programs, However, he believes that risk assessment techniques may provide some help to determine the order of importance of some programs in the future.
Mr. Bender commented that there is a need for some definitive criteria for use in detennining the acceptability and the relative significance of various research He believes that the whole research plan needs tc be developed a little programs.
bit more logically.
In response to a question from Ors. Mark and Siess with regard to the mechanism to include a new res,earch program, that may come up in the future, into the Long-Range Research Plan, Mr. Minogue,said that.any such new issues could be handled by re-programming.
Mr. Arsenault provided a brief overview of the Safeguards, Fuel Cycle and Environ-mental Research (SAFER) long-Range Plan which involves the Decision Units on Waste Management, Safeguards and Fuel Cycle Safety; 'ir. Bernero discussed briefly the the Division of Systems and Relicbite Research (DSRR) Long-Range Plan which d Reliability Analysis (SARA); and Mr. Shao involves the Decision Unit on Sy
.1 reviewed the Reactor Safety Research (RSR) Long-Range Plan that involves the Decision Units on Plant Operational Safety, LOCA and Transient Reseaech, LOFT, Severe Accident Phenomena and Mitigation Research and Siting and Environmental Research.
Indicating that the KY 1981 and 1982 budget for certain programs sucn as the
" Reliable Decay Heat Removal" and " Degraded Core Cooling" is very small, compared to that for the LOCA related research programs, Dr. Okrent asked whether the priori-ties given to these programs are correct from the point of view of their potential benefit.
e -
4
NRC Safety Research Program December 3, 1980 Mr. Bernero responded that it is very difficult to say whether the budget assocl-ated with a program concerned with LOCA and Transient Tiesearch is worth more than a program in the Severe Accident Phenomena and Mitigation area. However, he believes that they now are giving more attention tc the programs in the risk araessment and accident mitigation areas. Mr. Minogue added that he believes that the overall priorities of the entire research program needs re-evaluation.
They are in the middle of such a re-examinstion and until it is completed he may not l
be able to say whether the potential benefit of a certain research program is proportional to the budget allocated to it.
Dr. Okrent commanted +. hat it does not seem that there is going to be any chtcge in' the NRC Staff's method of assigning priorities in t're near future; he believes that the re-evaluation of priorities of the research programs in-terms of their risk-reduction po,tential and regulatory needs is long overdue.
In response to a question from Dr. Siess, Mr. Minogue stated that the Draft Long-Range Research Plan will be finalized by the end of February 1981 and will be sub-mitted to the Commission for ese in the preparation of PPPG.
Dr. Siess said that he does rat believe that the ACRS can provide its formal comments on the Longeiange Research Plan by February 1981 because it will be oevoting much of its time in the preparatior, of the ACRS report to Congress on NRC's-Safety Research Prngram. He sugges+ed that interested members of the ACRS and/or appropriate Subcommittee Chairmen provide their cLaments directly to RES on the Long-Range plan. However, RES should remember that such comments are from individual ACRS memoers and not from the ACRS Tull Committee.
DISCUSSION OF PES RESPONSE TO ACRS COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS LISTED IN NUREG-0699_
Dr. Siess said that the RES response to ACRS comments and recommendations listed l
in NUREG-0699 were transmitted to ACRS by Dr. Murley on October 31, 1980. He suggested that individual ACRS members and especially those responsible for review-ing Decision Units or certain specific subelements review the adequacy of the RES response and provide their comments to Sam.Duraiswamy prior to the January 1981 ACRS meeting. All these comments' will be. collected and sent to RES as a formal ACRS response with the concurre.nce of the Full Committee.
December 3, 1980
-//
NRC' Safety Research Fruyeom DISCUSSION OF THE PRELIMINARY ORAFT CHAPTERS OF THE A 45 p.m. - 5:00 a.m.)
SESSION 3:
The Subconnittee discussed briefly the preliminary ' draft chapters of the ACRS Report to Congress that were prepared by the responsible ACES staff engineers.
Dr. Siess suggested that the responsible Subcommittee Chairmen and members review appropriate draft chapters for emphasis and correctness and revise them as th necessary and send copies to him and te Mr. Sam Duraiswamy as soon as possible.
He stated that tr.e First Draft of the ACRS Report will be discussed in the January 7,1981 NRC Safety Research Pr: gram Subcommittee meeting and then by the F dur ng the January 8-11, 1981 ACRS meeting.
i Dr. Siess thanked all participants and adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
e b
F
, a w
w
+mm ms y