ML20012G776
| ML20012G776 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/18/1993 |
| From: | Morrison D NRC - NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH REVIEW COMMITTEE |
| To: | NRC - NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH REVIEW COMMITTEE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012G775 | List: |
| References | |
| NACNSRRC, NUDOCS 9303160181 | |
| Download: ML20012G776 (10) | |
Text
,.
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ = - _
l 6
4 i
'S UNITED STATES r;
e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[.
Nuclear Safety Resea ch Review Committee Washington. D.C. 20555
,g FEB 181993 l
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH REVIEW COMMITTEE JANUARY 14, 1993, 8:30 A.M. TO 12:20 PM AT THE HOLIDAY INN CROWNE PLAZA ROC %VILLE, MD Committee members in attendance:
Dr. David Morrison, Chairman Mr. Sol Burstein Dr. Spencer H. Bush Dr. Herbert Isbin Mr. Edwin E. Kintner l'
Prof. Fred J. Molz Dr. Neil Todreas Dr. Donald L. Turcotte Dr. Richard C. Vogel Dr. Robert E. Uhrig NRC staff participants:
Mr. Eric S. Beckjord, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES)
Dr. Themis P. Speis, Deputy Director for Research, RES f
Mr. Marren Minners, Director, Division of Safety Issue Resolution, RES Dr. Bill M. Morris, Director, Division of Regulatory Applications, RES q
Mr. Lawrence Shm, Director, Division of Engineering, RES t
Mr. C3orge Segt, hsignated. Federal Officer Mr. John Hoyle, hiisory Committee Management Officer Mr. James A. Fitzgerald, Assistant General Counsel Mr. John L. Szabo, Deputy Counselor, Office of the General Counsel Approximate number of public attendees: 4 l
y Chairman Morrison opened the meeting at 8:30 a.m.
He outlined the morning's agenda.
It was planned as an executive session, concerning NSRRC operations, including discussion of the role and functions of the NSRRC and the functions and operations of its subcommittees, followed by presentations to the Commit-tee concerning administrative requirements of advisory committee operations and the new Government-wide standards of ethical conduct. The Chairman then called on Mr. Beckjord for introductory remarks concerning NSRRC operations.
.]
Mr. Beckjord distributed to Committee members a January 7,1993 draft of an Office of Inspector General (0IG) report regarding the performance of the t
Office of Nuclear' Regulatory Research, noting that the draft was not at this I
9303160181 930311 t
-PDR REVCP NRG*****
l.
PDR e
i
2.
gp,181993 time publicly available and that OIG requested precautions to safeguard its' contents, which are subject to revision. Mr. Beckjord noted briefly the issues raised by the report and invited the Committee to review the draft and offer its comments.
Committee discussion followed.
Then Mr. Beckjord discussed the charter functions of the NSRRC, ACRS, and ACNW, commenting on the relation between reviews of the NSRRC and ACRS/ACNW.
He described the evolution of NSRRC functions since the Committee's inception and commented on current activities and future needs. The enclosed talking points reflect the main points of Mr. Beckjord's remarks.
Committee discussion in the course of and following Mr. Beckjord's remarks included discussion of peer judgment as a primary means of evaluating re-search; the role of NSRRC as peer reviewer of the philosophy and conduct of NRC research; and the difficulties and potential problems of pre-established.
criteria and measurable goals for evaluating research. There was discussion of user need as the principal determinant of what research the NRC undertakes.
Mr. Kintner observed that development of fundamental scientific information deserves more emphasis than is currently given. Dr. Todreas, agreeing, stated the view that it may be time to shift back a little, away from an almost entirely user-need orientation, and that the NSRRC should help seek balance.
Mr. Hoyle then briefed the Committee on the administrative requirements'of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) as they apply to the operations of the NSRRC. Also covered was NRC policy on advisory committee operations, including operations of subcommittees whose work does not fall under FACA.
Messrs. Hoyle and Fitzgerald answered specific questions raised by Conittee members.
Mr. Szabo briefed the Committee on the new Government standards of conduct for Federal employees as those standards pertain to Committee members. He and Mr. Fitzgerald answered Committee members' questions.
Chairman Morrison thanked Messrs. Hoyle, Szabo, and Fitzgerald for their informative and helpful briefings on behalf of the Committee.
The morning session was adjourned at approximately 12:20 p.m.
Minutes approved:
}tt David Morris'on, Chairman Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee.
2
i
- i i
i 1
i i
TALKING POINTS roR 1/14/93 NSRRC MEETING - E. BECKJORD NSRRC OPERATIONS l
I L
5 6
i i
k i
i
~
t
e i
CHARTER FUNCTIONS OF NSRRC, ACRS, ACNW NSRRC "PROVIDES ADVICE ON MATTERS OF OVERALL MANAGEMENT IMPORTANCE IN THE DIRECTION OF THE NRC'S PROGRAM OF NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH."
ESTABLISHED BY NRC ACRS " REVIEW [S3 SAFETY STUDIES AND FACILITY LICENSE APPLICATIONS REFERRED TO IT..."
ESTABLISHED BY LAW BY LAW MUST REVIEW EACH OF CERTAIN CPS AND OLS OTHER REVIEWS A3 REQUESTED BY THE COMMISSION 1
CAN ADVISE LICENSING BOARDS (AT BOARD REQUEST, WITH NRC i
CONSENT)
ACNW ADVISES ON " NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT" AS DIRECTED BY THE COMMISSION.
ESTABLISHED BY NRC (IN 1988)
IT FUNCTIONS FOR WASTES SIMILARLY TO ACRS'S FUNCTIONING IN OTHER AREAS.
REPLACES PRE-1988 ACRS WASTE SUBCOMMITTEE, BUT, UNLIKE THE SUBCOMMITTEE, CAN ADVISE COMMISSION.
ACRS CAN (AND DOES) CEDE THESE FUNCTIONS TO ACNW BECAUSE THE REVIEWS INVOLVED ARE NOT LEGISLATIVELY MANDATED ACRS REVIEWS.
1
RELATION BETWEEN REVIEWS BY NSRRC & ACRS/ACNW SUBJECT MATTER REVIEWED MAY OVERLAP, BUT THE REVIEWS DIFFER BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES AND SCOPES OF REVIEW.
ACRS/ACNW FOCUS ON SAFETY JUDGMENTS UNDERLYING REGULATORY AND LICENSING ACTIONS, AND THE TECHNICAL BASES OF THOSE JUDGMENTS.
A RESEARCH FINDINGS CAN BE A PART OF THE TECHNICAL BASES NSRRC FOCUSES ON SOUNDNESS OF DIRECTION AND EFFICIENCY OF RESEARCH NO GREAT HARM IN SOME OVERLAP COMMITTEES NEED LATITUDE TO PURSUE CONTEXT AND PERSPECTIVE; CANNOT FUNCTION WITH BLINDERS ON.
COMPETING REVIEWS WOULD BE A PROBLEM i
2
?
SOME RECENT ACRS REVIEWS OF RES ACTIONS GSI RESOLUTIONS BS6:
DIESEL-GENERATOR RELIABILITY GSI 23:
REACTOR COOLANT PUMP SEAL FAILURE PROPOSED SITING RULE REVISION (PART 100)
(RESEARCH BASIS OF SEISMIC PORTION OF INTEREST TO NSRRC)
SAFETY GOAL IMPLEMENTATION - "LARGE RELEASE" DEFINITION MAINTENANCE REG. GUIDE f
LICENSE RENEWAL REG. GUIDE
- a AP600 INTEGRAL TESTING
- SEVERE ACCIDENT RESEARCH PROGRAM PLAN
- RESEARCH ON DIGITAL C&l*
+
VALVE OPERABILITY (NSRRC SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEWED VALVE AGING) i
- )
ALSO REVIEWED BY NSRRC, FOR DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES i
i 3
f 1
SOME RECENT ACNW REVIEWS OF RES ACTIONS i
HLW RESEARCH PROGRAM PLAN STATUS OF HLW ITERATIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT i
s
)-
i
.l I
4
a n.
n.
.u.-
.e.
.j o
i
.i
- )
'i i
y t
EVOLUTION OF NSRRC FUNCTIONS FEB. 26 - MARCH 1, 1991 MEETING AT SANDIA - ON' STRATEGY l
CHAIRMAN SELIN'S'FIVE QUESTIONS, Nov. 1992 l
l AP600 ROSA - VIA SUBCOMMITTEE JULY 1992 l
OTHER SPECIFIC-AREA' REVIEWS,-WITH SUBCOMMITTEE INPUTS
-f
~h
)
~fj
. i
-i
-I
?.;
-I l
l i
. I
=i i
5 l
r Ef 5
I
.i 4
P NSRRC & SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS, FY '92 & '93 COMMITTEE:
Nov. '92 APRIL '92 OCT. 92 (PHONE CONFERENCE)
JAN. '93 SUBCOMMITTEES:
e ADVANCED REACTORS 7/92 (AP600 ROSA) 12/92 (SBWR, OTHER AP600 TOPICS)
SEVERE ACCIDENTS 6/92 (SARF)
AGING 9/92 (PHILOSOPHY; VALVES)
WASTE 12/92 (PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; GENERAL UPDATE)
ADV. I&C AND HUMAN 12/92 (DI&C INTERFACES)
FACTORS WHAT ARE NSRRC MEMBERS' THOUGHTS ON THE WAY SUBCOMMITTEES ARE FUNCTIONING?
SHOULD THIS QUESTION BE REVISITED FRIDAY (1/15), P.M.?
FOR CONSIDERATION:
WHEN A SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING INVOLVES A MAJORITY OF THE NSRRC MEMBdRS, SHOULD IT BE SET UP AS A COMMITTEE MEETING?
E.G.,
ADV. REACTORS SUBCOM. MEETING OF 12/2-3/92 (WHICH HAD 7 MEMBERS PRESENT; 8TH MEMBER PART-TIME) i 6
6.
f i
t r
GENERAL PLANS FOR THE FUTURE O
CHARTER REQUIRES AT LEAST 1 MEETING PER YEAR 9
CUSTOM TO DATE:
2 OR 3 0
NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS PER YEAR IN FUTURE:
1 REVIEW OF RESEARCH AS A WHOLE (EXCLUSIVELY OR MAINLY)
ADDITIONAL MEETINGS (1 OR 2; UP TO 3) FOR (A) REVIEW OF SPECIFIC PROGRAM AREAS AND/OR SPECIFIC RESEARCH PROJECTS OR ISSUES, AS NEEDS ARISE O
SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS AS REQUIRED.
(TYPICALLY 3 TO 8 l
TOTAL?)
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN OR COMMITTEE REQUEST SUBCOMMITTEE INITIATIVE t
FORM AR H2C SUBCOMMITTEES FOR ANY TOPICS THAT DON'T FIT STANDING SUBCOMMITTEES WELL I
I