ML20043D698
| ML20043D698 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/03/1990 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2691, NUDOCS 9006110082 | |
| Download: ML20043D698 (57) | |
Text
_ -
Eng3 9, l 3 k '8 j [a[(
W
=
lh' as DATE ISSUED:
3/3/90 i
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES OF THE
[O $ O<N,, /'9 ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM FEBRUARY 7, 1990 BETHESDA, MARYLAND INTRODUCTION The ACRS Subcommittee on Safety Research Program held a meeting on Wednesday, February 7,
1990, at 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, to discuss the ongoing and proposed NRC Safety Research Program and budget, impacts of the budget reductions on the continuing and proposed NRC Safety Research Program elements, and other related matters.
The entire meeting was open to public attendance.
Mr. Sam Duraiswamy was the cognizant ACRS Staff Engineer for this meeting.
A list of documents submitted to the Subcommittee is included in Attachment A,
and a copy of the presentation schedule for the meeting is included in Attachment B.
ATTENDEES ACRS:
C.
P.
Siess (Subcommittee Chairman),
J.
C.
- Carroll, I.
Catton, W.
- Kerr, C. Michelson, D. A. Ward, and C. J. Wylie i
Sam Duraiswamy (Cognizant ACRS Staff Engineer)
Princioal NRC Sceakers:
J. M. Taylor, E. Beckjord, T. Murley, i,
F. Gillespie, B. Sheron, W. Minners, A. Burda, L.
Shao, and B. Morris l
J EXECUTIVE SESSION
'Dr. Siess, the Subcommittee Chairman, convened the meeting at 8:35 a.m.
and stated that the purpose of the meeting was to hear presentations by and hold discussions with the Executive Director l
for Operations (EDO), and representatives of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES),
and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) with respect to the following:
h 9
DESIGNATED ORIGINAL
/
Certified By
E t
1
' bL l l
i 4
no
- t SRP Meeting Minutes 2
February 7, 1990
- Contributions of the NRC research to carry out the agency's mission.
- Rationale for continually reducing the NRC research program budget.
- Consequences ' of continually dwindling research budget in carrying out the agency's mission.
- Overview of the RES funding for FY 1988 - FY 1991.
Impact of the budget reduction imposed by the Congress on the FY 1990 NRC Safety Research Program.
- Overview of the FY 1991 NRC Safety Research Program budget.
- Research priorities over the next five years and the an-ticipated level of funding.
- Major contributions of the NRC research to reactor safety in the past five years.
- Adequacy of the ongoing and proposed thermal-hydraulic research.
1 l-Dr. Siess stated that the Subcommittee had received neither written l
b comments nor requests for time to make oral statements from members of the public.
Dr. Siess stated that the main objective of the meeting is to gather information for use by the ACRS in its preparation of a sa.
.e g:
4 SRP Meeting Minutes 3
February 7, 1990 report to the ~ Commission commenting on the potential impacts associated with the continually dwindling NRC Safety Research Program support budget.
J.
M. TAYLOR Mr. Taylor stated that the NRC Safety Research' Program has been contributing significantly to the process of nuclear safety.
The high level management of the NRC, including a majority of the Commissioners, believe that a good and solid research program is invaluable and absolutely necessary for carrying out the NRC's mission.
Mr. Taylor stated that RES has been a world leader in the following areas of research:
- Severe accidents
- Thermal hydraulics
- Pressure vessel integrity
- Embrittlement of reactor pressure vessels
- Development and application of PRA methods.
However, because of the continually dwindling budget, the role of RES as a world leader has diminished.
Also, the use of large-scale experimental facilities as well as small-scale and separate effects facilities are being curtailed.
Consequently, they are loosing technical exportise in several important areas.
l Mr. Taylor discussed briefly the FY 1991 budget, stating that the p
initial request submitted to the Office of Management and Budget l
(OMB) included a total budget of $527.7 million for the overall
-agency; of this, $124.9 million was earmarked for the FY 1991 NRC l
Safety Research Program.
In its final mark, the OMB proposed a reduction of $52.7 million, thus bringing the total NRC budget for FY 1991 down to $475 million.
g O
6 SRP Meeting Minutes 4
February 7, 1990 Mr. Taylor discussed the allocation of the $475 million to various activities of the NRC (Attachment C, Page 1):
- Non-discretionary (salary, rent, travel, telephone, consolidation, etc.)
- 60%
i
- 13%
' RES
- 20%
- Other Program and Administrative Support 7%
Mr. Taylor pointed out that although the NRC budget continues to go up, it has not gone up a great deal because of the inflation-ary effects (Attachment C,
Page 2).
Even though the proposed budget for FY 1991 is $475 million, in constant 1975 dollars it is only about $224 million.
Mr. Taylor stated that the role of research in assessing the issues related to aging, future advanced reactor concepts, high-level waste disposal, Individual Plant Examination (IPE), human factors, severe accidents, and operational problems are vital to the agency's mission and should be continued.
Mr. Taylor stated that he intends to do his best to keep the research budget at least at a breathing level.
He believes it is very important to convince the OM8 and the Congress about the significance of the research and the contributions of research results to reactor safety.
In view of the limited research budget, i
he believes that the ACRS role is very important in providing advice on the scope and direction of the research programs, and I
also helping the NRC to convince the OMB and the Congress regarding
-the importance and contributions of the research so as to obtain
)
proper funding.
4 SRP Meeting Minutes 5
February 7, 1990 j
Dr. Siess asked the EDO's opinion on the comments made by some ACRS
]
members that the NRC should' eliminate a certain number of resident inspector positions and provide additional funding support to the NRC research program.
Mr. Taylor responded that it would be very difficult to reduce the staff.
Also, the Commission and the staff management decided not to take that approach.
The Commission's policy is to adopt the H+1 program (i.e., a two unit site will have three resident inspectors and a three unit site will have four resident inspectors, etc.).
Dr. Siess commented that the decreases in the research program support budget have been consistently disproportionate as compared to those for other NRC offices.
He wondered why there is no corresponding reductions in FTEs even when the budget reduction is significant.
Mr. Taylor stated that they have to follow some stringent criteria to reduce FTEs.
He committed to provide information on the trend in NRC FTEs for the past several years.
Mr. Ward stated that he is not sure whether the NRC's decision to reduce the research budget and devote more resources for inspection activities is appropriate.
Dr. Kerr commented that if the research budget always gets cut, NRC may have difficulty in recruiting some good personnel for RES.
(
1 Dr. Siess asked if the total NRC budget is reduced by $100 million l
by the Congress, what strategies do they use to accommodate this L
major reduction.
Mr. Taylor stated that such a major reduction would have a significant impact on the NRC's ability to carry out its mission.
However, under such circumstance, the NRC Safety Research Program budget would probably be reduced by 50 percent and the remaining 50 percent of the reduction would be distributed to other NRC offices.
s
,s i
SRP Meeting Minutes 6
February 7, 1990 l
e other NRC offices.
Dr. Kerr asked whether there is a minimum budget level for research below which NRC cannot have a viable research program.
Dr.
Beckjord stated that as a result of the budget reduction imposed by the Congress, the FY 1990 NRC Safety Research Program budget was reduced to about $88 million.
It was anticipated that implementa-tion of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Budget Reduction Act would reduce the NRC Safety Research Program budget to about 372 million; however, it did not happen.
Of this, about $17-22 million would be allocated for non-research activities within RES.
As a result, the research program support budget would have been between $50 and 55 million.
He believes that this level of budget would be a bare minimum for the NRC Safety Research Program.
With this level of budget, RES would have to terminate several programs rather than delaying them as is now being done.
Dr. Siess asked whether RES and NRR could agree on the areas of research with a research budget level of about $50 million.
Dr.
Beckjord stated that they might have to make some hard decisic s.
J l
It might be difficult to come up with an agreement in the firs' round of discussion.
He believes that eventually they might reach
]
an agreement.
1 RES PRESENTATION M ar Thrust of RES Procrams - Dr.
E. Beck iord. RES 1
Dr..Beckjord stated that the major thrust of the RES program includes the following:
l
- Implementation of the Severe Accident Policy, including IPE and Containment Performance Improvement (CPI) programs.
- Development of bases and rule for license renewal.
,4 y
'4 SRP Meetir.g Minutes 7
February 7, 1990 j
- Continuation of research on materials,
.non-destructive examination methods, and mechanisms of component aging.
- Execution of Severe Accident, Accident Management, Human Factors, and Seismic research programs.
- Completion of necessary actions on priority generic issues.
i
- Continued support for Health Effects, kaute Management, and I
Transportation programs.
'-Providing support for development of licensing criteria for advanced reactors.
In response to a question from Mr. Michelson, Dr. Beckjord stated that the Aging Research Program is intended to support not only the license renewal activities, but also the activities related to identification of aging mechanisms for various components and systems.
Dr. Sless asked whether the Aging Research is aimed at asking questions or answering questions.
Dr. Shao stated that it is aimed at asking as well as answering questions.
Dr. Siess asked whether the industry is going to answer some of the questions related to aging.
Dr. Beckjord stated that the util-ities, with,the help from the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC), are in the process of preparing several topical reports related to aging of reactor internale, containment, electrical cables, etc.
Upon completion of these reports, they will be submitted to the NRC for review.
o.
6 l
i SRp Meeting Minutes 8
February 7, 1990 Stating that there are several countries, such as Japan, throughout the world that' do not share the views of the NRC that severe accident research is important, Dr. Siess asked whether this is a real technical difference or a philosophical difference.
Dr.
Beckjord stated that the utilities in Japan do not seem to think that the severe accident issue is important.
However, the people-performing safety research in Japan believe that it is important.
As a matter of fact, the Japanese are interested in performing some severe accident experiments at the Sandia National Laboratories (SNL).
In addition, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and France are interested in severe accident research.
Dr. Kerr asked whether there is any effort under way to eliminate the artificial distinction between accident management procedures-for design-basis accidents and those for beyond-design-basis accidents.
Dr. Sheron stated that the utilities are required to provide symptom-based procedures; i.e.,
emergency operating procedures, for use by the operators in managing accidents up to and including inadequate core cooling accidents.
They are not required to provide procedures to the operators for managing severe accidents.
Such procedures are kept in the Technical Support Center and in the event of a severe accident the Technical Support Center staff would provide guidance to the operators for handling such an accident.
Dr. Kerr was not convinced by the explanation provided by the staff.
After further discussion, Dr. Beckjord proposed and Dr.
Kerr agreed that this issue be discussed in detail in one of the meetings of the Severe Accidents Subcommittee, i
Mr. Ward asked whether the Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee provides comments on the non-research activities of RES.
Dr.
a
.o,
^
SRP Meeting Minutes 9
February 7, 1990 Beckjord stated that they place major emphasis in reviewing the research activities.
However, they want to be kept informed about the application of the research results.
Stating that Advanced Reactors' issues are being handled by a Branch ' named Advanced Reactors and Generic Issues, Dr.
Siess wondered why RES - does not have a separate Branch to handle the issues related to Advanced Reactors.
Dr. Beckjord stated that a major part of the effort of the Advanced Reactors and Generic Issues Branch is devoted to the safety review of the DOE Advanced Reactors.
Some of its efforts are devoted to the prioritization of Generic Issues.
In response to a question from Dr. Siess, Dr. Beckjord stated that the review of the evolutionary LWRs, such as advanced BWRs, is being handled by NRR.
Dr. Siess commented that, in his opinion, the review of the DOE Advanced Reactors should also be handled by NRR.
Safetv Research Procram Budaet/FTE Trends for FY 1985 - FY 1991 Dr. Beckjord discussed briefly the safety research program budget trends for FY 1985 - FY 1991 (Attachment C, Page 3).
He stated that the research program budget for FY 1985 was about $133 million.
For FY 1990, it is about $88 million which represents a reduction of $45 million compared to the FY 1985 budget.
For FY
- 1991, the budget submitted to the Congress includes a total research budget of about $94 million.
If the Congress imposes a reduction as in previous years, the FY 1991 research budget will be reduced.
In constant 1975 dollars, the proposed FY 1991 budget is only about $43 million.
s t,-
SRP Meeting Minutes 10 February 7, 1990 i
Dr. Beckjord said that the total number of FTEs in the research office in FY 1985 was between 330 and 335.
For FY 1991, it has been reduced to 239.
Because of this significant reduction in FTEs, RES is not able to perform all important work.
They have to defer certain work, especially in the areas of rulemaking.
He stated that RES has lost several experienced people through resignations or retirement.
They have been experiencing trouble in hiring new people because of the existing government salary l
structure, housing costs in the Washington area, etc.
Research Procram Succort Vs Technical Assistance Procram Fundina Dr. Beckjord reviewed the funding levels for the research program support and for the Technical Assistance Programs (TAPS) (Attac-hment C, Page 4).
He stated that the FY 1988 funding included
$80.8 million for research and $14.4 million for TAP.
The proposed FY 1991 budget includes $78.6 million for research and $15.4 million for TAP.
Dr. Beckjord mentioned that as the budget gets reduced, funding for the long-range research efforts goes down; they concentrate more in performing short-range research to provide support to research user offices in resolving immediate regulatory issues.
For the past couple of years, he has been trying to keep the budget level for the long-range research activities at 25 percent of the total research budget.
But, in FY 1990 it is about $6 million short of that goal.
Dr. Siess commented that it is more important to identify the basic long-range research needs than to set a goal that the budget for long-range research activities should be at 25 percent of the total budget.
[
e e
l 4
i
-SRP Meeting Minutes 11 February 7,-1990 r
l l
Mr. Ward commented that the NRC has an unique responsibility that is different from other government or research organizations.
The nuclear industry being regulated by the NRC is sensitive to risk.
The industry may not have a tendency to explore certain issues.
The NRC research should try to explore areas that are not likely to be done by the industry.
Dr. Beckjord discussed briefly the distribution of the total RES funding.to various activities (National Lab contracts, university
- grants, cooperative program with foreign countries,
- salaries, travel, etc.) (Attachment C, Pages 5 and 6).
Overal1~Imoacts of the Budaet Reductions Dr. Beckjord provided a summary of the initial budget request submitted to the OMB and the reductions imposed by the OMB and the Congress (Attachment C, Page 7).
He said that for FY 1990, the request submitted to the OMB included a total budget of $120.6 million for the NRC Safety Research Program.
As a result of the reduction imposed by the OMB to total NRC budget, the research budget was reduced to $108 million.
It was reduced further to
$s7.8 million to accommodate the reduction imposed by the Congress.
Dr.- Beckjord stated that the overall impacts of the less-than-requested funding include the following (Attachment C, Page 8):
- Delays in meeting established milestones
- Loss of expertise
- Loss of, leverage.
Dr. Siess asked whether the Congress specifies what percentage of the reduction imposed on the total NRC budget should be taken out of the research program budget.
Dr. Beckjord stated that the Congress normally reduces the overall NRC budget.
The EDO and the Commission decide how that reduction should be accommodated.
- ~.
s.
. 4, -
'O SRP Meeting Minutes 12 February 7, 1990 Ste. ting that every year the research budget has been reduced dia. proportionately compared to other NRC offices, Dr. Siess asked whether the Commission and the EDO discussed the possibility of reducing FTEs instead of reducing the research budget significant-ly.
Dr. Beckjord stated that they might have discussed such a possibility, but he is not certain.
Dr. Siess commented that although the Commission and the EDO keep saying that the NRC research is important, he is not sure whether they really mean it.
At some point down the line, they have to realize that without research to provide information to answer certain questions they are going to have some problems.
Dr. Siess commented that if the NRC wants to convince the Congress that research is important and more funding should be appropriated, it should be able to provide examples to show that without the research they may have to make some conservative decisions that may lead to shut down of several plants which, in turn, may have significant impact on the industry and on the Nation's economy.
Trying to justify the need for additional funding for the NRC Safety Research Program on the basis of the " loss of expertise" may not have much impact on the Congress.
He asked whether the staff could list severa.'
examples regarding the past and expected contribution of rer.earch to reactor safety.
Dr. Beckjord stated that there are several nuclear plants operating currently and they are contributing about 20 percent to the Nation's energy need.
If one of the plants experiences a major I
accident, it may have significant impact on the public health and safety, and also have a major impact on the nuclear industry.
Therefore, he believes that they could come up with proper justification to convince the Congress about the importance of research and its contributions to reactor /public health and safety.
4 e:
j
,4:
SRP Meeting Minutes 13 February 7, 1990 Dr. Siess asked whether the staff could provide,with high level confidence, the following:
Information to demonstrate that ongoing and proposed research will provide some unique information to resolve certain safety problems associated with operating plants.
l Examples to demonstrate that if a particular research is not performed to obtain information within a few years for use in the regulatory decision-making
- process, several of the operating plants will have to be shut down which, in turn, may nave significant impact on the Nation's economy.
Dr. Sheron agreed to provide this information later.
Mr.
Michelson asked whether RES has any ongoing or proposed research in the fire protection area.
Dr. Sheron stated that in the Division of Systems Research they have initiated a research
- program, in response to the ACRS recommendation, to study the propagation of smoke.
They are in the process of gathering existing information on this issue.
He said that they would brief the ACRS and/or one of its Subcommittees in the future regarding the progress of this work.
Dr. Shao stated that in the Division of Engineering, they have not initiated any fire-related research, pending the completion.of the Individual Plant Examint. tion for External Events (IPEEE) work.
There is a. Fire Subcommittee that has been evaluating the fire-risk-issues to provide input to the IPEEE work.
Also, the industry is expected to perform an IPE on fire-risk issues.
Upon completion of the IPEEE work, they will decide whether additional research in i
the fire protection area is needed.
l l
t SRP Meeting Minutes 14 February 7, 1990 Mr. Michelson asked what tools the industry is going to use in performing its IPE on fire issues.
Dr. Shao stated that the industry is supposed to come up with the necessary tools for use 4
in this evaluation.
Stating that state-of-the-art techniques have been used in the fire-risk PRA performed for the LaSalle nuclear
- plant, Mr.
Michelson suggested that the RES staff take a look at those techniques.
Mr. Michelson stated that the staff has to decide as to how to deal with the fire-risk issues in the future plants that were identified by SNL in its Fire-Risk Scoping Study, such as propagation of heat and smoke, adequacy of fire barriers, inadvertent actuation of fire protection systems, intrusion of fire suppression water into control cabinets, etc.
Dr. Shao stated that this question should be directed to the NRR personnel.
If NRR submits an user-need request for research in these areas, then RES will consider initiating certain research, as appropriate.
Imoact of the Budaet Reduction Imoosed by thq.Conaress on the FY 1990 NRC Safety Research Procram The President's budget request submitted to the Congress in January 1989 included a total budget of $475 million for the overall l
Agency, including $103 million for the FY 1990 NRC Safety Research Program.
In addition,.$5 million was earmarked for the support of the activities related to High' Level Waste Disposal Program.
The initial request for the FY 1990 NRC Safety Research Program budget was $108 million.
The Appropriations Bill passed by the Congress included a reduction of $30 million to the overall agency budget, thus bringing the i
s.
J.
SRP Meeting Minutes 15 February 7, 1990 total agency budget down to $445 million._
To accommodate this l
reduction, the EDO had proposed, and the Commission had approved, J
a reduction of $20 million ' to the NRC Safety Research Program budget.
As a result of this reduction, the total - NRC Safety Research Program budget was reduced from $108 million to $88 million.
Since Dr. Beckjord briefed the full Committee during the October 1989 ACRS meeting regarding the details of the impacts of the FY 1990 budget reduction on the NRC Safety Research Program, the Subcommittee decided not to discuss this in detail at this meeting.
Imoact of the Budaet Reduction ProDosed by the OMB on the FY 1991 NRC Safety Reprarch Procram The initial budget request submitted to the OMB included a total budget of $124.9 million for the FY 1991 NRC Safety Research Program.
To accommodate the $52.7 million reduction proposed by the OMB to the total agency budget, the NRC Safety Research Program budget was reduced by $30.9 million, thus bringing the total FY 1991 NRC Safety Research Program budget down to $94 million which is about $6 million more than the FY 1990 budget.
The reduction of $30.9 million is proposed to be accomplished as shown below.
I 1
n
o
,s.
SRP Meeting Minutes 16 February 7, 1990-FY 1991 RESEARCH BUDGET PROGRAM (DOT TARS IN MILLIONS)
INITIAL OMB REQUEST kEDUCTION CURRENT 1.
Integrity of Reactor
$ 35.5M
$ 6.0M
$29.5M Components 2.
Preventing Damage to 21.6 5.3 16.3 Reactor Cores 4
3.
Reactor Containment 34.7 9.8 24.9 Performance 1
4.
Confirming. Safety of 3.6 0.2 3.4 j
Low-Level Waste Disposal l
54 Resolving Safety 23.7 7.8 15.9 Issues and Developing j
Regulations 6.
Confirming Safety of 5.8 1.8 4.0 High-Level Waste Disposal TOTAL
$124.9M
$30.9M
$94.0M Some of the major impacts resulting 'crom the budget reduction proposed by the OMB on the FY 1991 NP.C Safety Research Program are as follows (Attachment C, Pages 9-12):
Intearity of Reactor Components - Dr.
L.
Ghao, RES Reactor Vessel and PiDina Intecrity Completion of the staff review of PTS analysis methods and development of a basis to review licensee submittals will be deferred.
v e,-
1 SRP Meeting Minutes 17 February 7, 1990
- Testing of fatigue crack initiation in reactor materials needed to update the ASME Section III curves, that are seen to be nonconservative, will be delayed.
- The effort to develop comprehensive models of irradiation damage and to define annealing parameters and overall irradiation damage trends needed for understanding these important phenomena vital to aging plants and license renewal will be delayed.
- Developing an understanding of degradation modes of vessel internals will be deferred. This will prohibit the staff from reaching an independent assessment of industry technical reports concerning plant license renewal.
- Development'of recommendations for performance demonstration
-requirements for dissimilar metal welds, cast materials, and for_far-side inspection of pressure vessels will be delayed by one year.
- Preparation of an in-service inspection (ISI) mockup for steam generator tube inspection requested by NRR and Region I will be delayed by one year.
Acina of Reactor Comoonents
- Publication of research results evaluating mitigation methods to reduce the effects of fatigue and corrosion in some major LWR components will be delayed by one year.
' Initiation of the aging assessment of significant safety components and systems, including bistables and switches, BWR control rod drive system, main stream isolation valves, automatic depressurization
- system, containment isolation
A SRP Mrating Minutes 18 February 7, 1990 e
system, and the reactor control system will be delayed by one year.
Seismic and Structural Research
- Findings about earthquake casual mechanisms and prehistoric earthquake occurrence that could help finally close the Eastern U.S.
seismicity issue and help reduce the large uncertainties associated with seismic hazard estimates will be delayed by one year.
- Ongoing effort to provide an improved basis for predicting seismically caused soil settlement and liquefaction and the start of a planned program to improve the ability to consider local site effects in nuclear plant seismic hazard prediction will be delayed by one year.
- Confirmatory assessment activities of structural integrity efforts associated with aging and license renewal will be delayed which, in turn, would cause a two-year slippage of the development of a technical basis.
In response to a question from Dr. Kerr, Dr. Shao stated that the ASME code includes a fatigue curve.
However, it was based on the tests performed on new material at room temperature.
Therefore, this curve may not provide the proper information for use in the plant life extension.
The staff plans to do the testing at elevated temperatures and also at different environmental condi-tions so as to determine the impact of various environmental conditions on the initiation of the fatigue cracks.
Preventina Damace to Peactor Cores - Dr. B.
Sheron, RES l
Plant Performance
- Work on the application of the Code Scaling, Applicability, i
i 1
1 c
.s 1 SRP Meeting Minutes 19 February 7, 1990 and Uncertainty (CSAU) evaluation method to B&W plants will be terminated, thus eliminating the ability to complete the practical implementation of the B&W testing data.
- Efforts to develop modeling in response to new thermal-hydraulic Issues will be eliminated, thus compromising the ability to respond to future issues.
- Assessment of the TRAC code under the ICAP program will be reduced.
Reactor Acolications
- BWR instability analysis program developed following the LaSalle event will be terminated.
~
sients, requested by the ACRS, will not completed.
Evaluation of reactor and plant system performance for the Advanced Standardized BWRs will not be initiated.
Human Factors
- Level of. effort on qualifications for support and supervisory personnel at nuclear power plants will be reduced and delayed until FY 1992.
Accident Manaaement-
- Evaluation of accident mitigation strategies and development of methodology for determining uncertainties associated with l
such strategies will be delayed.
With reference to the RES proposal to terminate the BWR Instability l
Analysis Program that was developed followina the core power
(-
'ol w
SRP. Meeting Minutes-20 February 7, 1990 oscillation event at the LaSalle plant, Mr. Ward asked whether the i
General Electric Company (GE) is going to do any work on' this matter.
Dr. Sheron stated that GE will be doing some work on this issue.
J Mr. Ward suggested that the Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommit-
]
tee discuss the appropriateness of terminating this program in one of its future meetings.
Eggetor Containment Performance - Dr. B.
Sheron. RES Core Melt and RCS Failure
- The pace of planned out-of-pile experiments on core melt supporting crust formation and collapse will be slowed.
- Resolution of the Mark I and direct containment heating (DCH) issues associated with BWRs will be delayed.
- The schedule for-the revised Severe Accident Research Plan (SARP) will not be met.
Reactor Containment Safety
- ' Core / concrete interaction program will be slowed.
- Anticipated large-scale, semi-integral DCH tests will not be conducted in FY 1991, delaying the resolution of the DCH i
issue.
- Validation of codes to be used co estimate the consequences of severe accidents will be delayed for several years.
Reactor Accident Risk Analysis j
- The number of IPE submittals to be reviewed will be reduced, l
l.
l L
I.*
^
SRP Meeting Minutes 21 February 7, 1990
- The completion of advanced methods for performing PRAs (including the use of improved operating data, integration of
- human reliability analysis into PRA, etc.) will be delayed for several years.
Stating that several important research elements under the Reactor Containment Performance Program are proposed to be delayed or terminated, Dr. Siess asked what they plan to do under this program in FY 1991.
Dr. Sheron stated that the work planned under this.
program in Fy 1991 include:
4p#
- Core melt and NDS failure
- Core melt progression
-' Natural circulation in RCS
- Direct Containment Heating
- Fuel-Coolant Interactions Regarding the core / concrete interaction
- program, Dr.
Siess commented even though this work has been going on since 1984, it does not seem that they have got the answers to this problem.
He wondered why it takes so long to resolve a moderately narrow issue such as this.
Resolvina Safety Issues and Developina Reaulations Generic and Unresolved Safety Issues
- Resolution of certain high priority issues will be delayed.
- Completion of experiments and evaluation of their results concerning specific control room annunciator upgrades will be delayed.
- Efforts to provide support to NRR for their review of CANDU-3 reactor will be delayed.
i
\\
c l
SRP Meeting Minutes 22 February 7, 1990
- Development of analytical tools for use on the review of reactor physics, thermal-hydraulic issues, severe accident issues, etc., will be delayed.
. Safety Issues Beina Succorted by RES/Continuina Concerns - Dr.
E.
Beckiord. RES Dr. Beckjord reviewed briefly the safety issues that are supported by RES and the research funding levels for FY 1988 FY 1994 (Attachment C, Pages 13-14).
Dr. Beckjord stated that continuing concerns that are being/will be worked on by RES include the following (Attachment C, Pages 15-16):
- Structural Integrity of Components Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Supports
- Plant Aging
- Cracked Piping in BWRs
- Valve Operability
- Seismic Issues
- Accident Management
- Advanced Reactors.
Dr. Beckjord requested that the ACRS provide a report, commenting on the adequacy of the NRC Safety Research Program budget.
NRR PRESENTATION Introduction - Dr.
T.
Murlev Dr. Murley, Director of NRR, stated that he has always been a strong supporter of the NRC Safety Research Program.
NRC, being-a technical agency, should maintain technical excellence and he
ll
.s
-a, l
]
SRP Meeting Minutes 23 February 7,'1990 l
I believes that the NRC Safety Research Program will help maintain such a technical excellence.
He discussed briefly the regulatory needs for the NRC Safety Research Program.
In his view, a stable NRC Safety Research Program is needed to:
- Confirm the safety margins assumed when making regulatory decisions (e.g., LOCA/ECCS)
- Maintain state-of-the-art technical ability to deal with safety issues (e.g., Pressure Vessel Integrity)
' %elp provide technical bases to resolve Generic Safety Issues (e.g., Loss of RHR in PWRs)
- Develop new methods of safety analysis (e.g., PRA)
- Maintain a cadre of contractor experts for regulatory support (e.g., operator Licensing Examinations)
' Develop an international consensus on safety issues (e.g.,
Plant Aging Issues).
In response to a question from Dr. Siess, Dr. Murley stated that he believes that the NRC should have strong technical know-ledge /techni, cal bases for making important regulatory decisions.
He didn't mean to say that the NRC should maintain a cadre of research experts.
In response to a question from Mr. Carroll with regard to t' s continued research on Pressure Vessel Integrity, Dr. Murley stated that the NRC has not yet gained adequate information with regard
9 4%
.SRP Meeting Minutes 24 February 7, 1990 to the integrity of the pressure vessels.
He believes that continued research in this area is needed until they gain suffi-cient knowledge.
With reference to a statement made by Dr. Murley that'one'of'the regulatory needs for research is to develop an international consensus on safety issues, such as plant aging issues, Dr. Siess commented that he does not understand why this should be a research office function.
He does not believe that research needs to be performed to reach international consensus on plant aging issues.
Research is normally performed to answer questions and to resolve certain regulatory issues. He does not believe that research needs to be performed to identify which components in nuclear plant should be replaced; it could be done through inspection and maintenance programs.
Dr. Siess asked whether the Commission and the high level NRC staff management ever thought about reducing FTEs instead of reducing the NRC research program budget.
Dr. Murley stated that he does not believe they ever thought about cutting people to provide support for research.
Dr. Siess asked if the FY 1991 agency budget is reduced by $90 million by the Congress, would the Commission and the staff management consider cutting some people to preclude significant reduction to the NRC research budget.
Dr. Murley stated that if it happenc,.they have to cut the program support - funding for various N".C of fices.
He does not believe that they would cut the staff to provide support for research.
Stating that everyone seems to believe that the research budget has reached the bare minimum level, Dr. Siess asked whether NRR could convince the Congress that the research budget should be increased
ESRP Meeting Minutes 25-February 7, 1990 and any further reduction would have significant impact on the regulatory process.
Dr. Murley stated that although he believes that the research budget has reached the minimum level, it would be hard to justify to the Congress that further reduction to the research budget would increase the core-melt frequency by a factor of ten or more, or it would delay the issuance of a certain number of licenses.
However, they could try to convince the Congress by saying that we have an investment of $100 billion in the nuclear energy, and nuclear power is essential to meet the future elec-tricity needs of this country especially in view of the fact that supply of other energy sources such as oil and coal has been dwindling.
To protect this big investment and the nuclear energy, a stable NRC research program is essential.
Mr. Michelson asked why NRR does not want to endorse further research in the ftre protection area.
Dr. Murley stated that NRR believes that regulatory issues in the fire protection area for the current plants have been resolved.
Therefore, they do not feel that additional fire protection research is needed.
However, NRR does not object if RES wants to have a moderate program in the fire protection area.
Mr. Gillespie stated that NRR informed RES that they didn't see a need for an extensive multi-million dollar research program in the fire protection area.
- However, they support some exploratory research in this area in order to maintain some expertise.
Dr.
Murley, stated that NRR philosophy toward research is as follows:
- NRR would provide a strong endorsement to those research programs that are needed to gather information for use in the regulatory decision-making process.
e.-
e SRP Meeting Minutes
-26 February-7, 1990 l
- NRR would not object to continuing those research programs that are intended to be exploratory, with the anticipation that they would provide some useful information in the future.
NRR-Endorsement of Reactor Safety Related Research Activities -
Mr.
F. Gillemoie. NRR Mr. Gillespie stated that NRR has reviewed reactor safety related research activities addressed in NUREG-1319, "A Prioritization of Research Activities," and developed short-and long-term user-need statements for each of the research activities.
This information was transmitted to Dr. Beckjord, RES, by a memorandum from Mr.
Gillespie, dated July 17, 1989.
(Note:
Copies of this memorandum were' distributed to the Subcommittee during the meeting.)
Mr. Gillespie stated that there are a number of research activities addressed in NUREG-1319 for which NRR does not identify any short-or long-term user needs.
However, if RES plans to perform research in these areas, NRR does not object.
Those research areas for which NRR does not identify any short-or long-term user needs' include:
- ~ Piping-Integrity
Research areas for which NRR identified short-and long-range user needs includb:
- Pressure Vessel Safety
- Earth Sciences
- In-Vessel and Ex-Vessel Accident Management
[
' Core-Melt Progression and Hydrogen Generation
.y
s I
1 J
SRP Meeting Minutes' 27 February 7, 1990
- Direct Containment Heating
- Risk Model Development, QA, and Maintenance
' Risk Model Applications.
Mr. Gillespie stated that NRR has also developed research activity-endorsement / user-need statements for those research activities not included in NUREG-1319, such ar. Equipment Qualification Methods, Fire Protection, Steam Explosions, Severe Accident Management, Severe Accident Policy Implementation, etc.
Areas for which NRR
-has identified no short-or long-term user needs in this category include:
- Fire Protection
- Steam Explosions.
.With regard to several questions raised by Mr. Michelson on the bases for NRR's position for not endorsing further research in the fire protection area, Drs. Siess and Kerr suggested that the' Auxiliary and Secondary Systems Subcommittee explore this issue in detail during one'of its future meetings.
NRR's Procram-SuoDort Budaet for FY 1990 Mr. Gillespie discussed the distribdtion of the FY 1990 NRR's program-support budget to various activities (Attachment C, Pages 17 and 18).
He stated that NRR has a total program-support funding of about $30 million for FY 1990.
This funding has been-dis-tributed to,some major NRR activities as shown below.
- Licensing Action
$7 million
- Other
$6 million
- Severe Accident Management
- Advanced Reactors
- TMI-2
- Non-Power Reactor, etc.
i;-d;
- tb SRP Meeting Minutes 28 February 7, 1990
- Operator Licensing
$6 million.
- Regional Support
$3 million
- NRR-led Reactor Inspections
$3.5 million Dr. Siess asked about the total NRR budget for FY 1990.
Mr.
Gillespie stated that it is about $175 million.
Contributions of NRC Safety Research Proaram Mr. Gillespie stated that the NRC Safety Research Program con-tributes to the:
- Identification, prioritization, and resolution of regulatory concerns.
- Development of new/ revised regulatory requirements and guidance.
- Development of regulation for future reactors.
Mr. Gillespie discussed.briefly the uses of research (Attachment C,
Pages 19-20).
Drs. Siess and Kerr suggested that Mr. Gillespie provide a list of examples of the major contributions of the NRC Safety Research Program to reactor safety in the past few years.
Mr. Gillespie agreed to do so.
NRR Views on Thermal-Hydraulic Research Mr. Gillespie discussed the views of NRR on the Thermal-Hydraulic Research Program (Attachment C,
Page 21).
He stated that NRR believes that:
o
.s.
SRP Meeting Minutes 29 February 7, 1990 l
- Current thermal-hydraulic codes are sufficient.
- Major code development is not justified.
- Large-scale experimental facilities are not required for current or future designs.
]
- Thermal-hydraulic expertise should be maintained.
Dr. Siess asked whether NRR is satisfied with the level of research effort in the thermal-hydraulic area.
Mr. Gillespie stated that they are satisfied for the time being.
However, if the ef fort goes down because of budget reduction, they have to worry about maintaining a cadre of expertise in the thermal-hydraulic area.
Stating that RES plans to terminate the research related to BWR instability analysis, Mr. Ward asked whether NRR agrees with the termination of this program.
Mr. Gillespie stated NRR is comfort-able with the information gathered on this issue so far.
Indicating that the Commission wants to have improved fire protection systems for future plants, Mr. Michelson stated that he does not believe that the current regulatory (Appendix R) require-ments are adequate to achieve this purpose.
Inspite of it, NRR does not endorse additional fire protection research.
He asked whether NRR believes that they have adequate tools to review the l
fire protection system features at future plants.
Mr. Gillespie
[
stated that they believe they have adequate tools.
However, if there is a need for better tools, they may have to initiate necessary work to develop such tools.
l l
l t
o%
t SRP Meeting Minutes 30 February 7, 1990 SUBCOMMITil;d REMARKS / DECISION Several members of the subcommittee felt that the ACRS should either include comments in its ensuing report to the Congress on the ramifications of the continually dwindling NRC Safety Research Program budget or write a separate report to the Commission on this matter.
Dr. Siess stated that he had already prepared a draft letter to the Congress similar to the ones used in the past few years.
He believes that the full Committee has to decide whether comments on the adequacy of the NRC Safety Research Program budget shoulu be included in the report to the Congress.
The Subcommittee members decided to refer this matter to the full Committeo.
ACTIONS, AGREEMENTS. AND REOUESTS
- The Subcommittee decided that the full Committee needs to make a decision whether to include comments in its report to the Congress on the adequacy of the NRC Safety Recearch Program budget or to write a separate report to the Commission on this matter.
- Mr. Ward requested that the staff provide information on:
- Total budget for the Office of Research (FY 1975 - FY 1991) in 1975 dollars.
- Total FTEs for the agency (FY 1975 - FY 1991)
(Mr. Burda, RES, provided this information and was distributed to the members during the February 8-10, 1990 ACRS meeting).
i I
1 1
i SRP Meeting Minutes 31 February 7, 1990 I
t
- The Subcommittee requested that RES and NRR provide examples of the contributions of the NRC Safety Research Program to reactor safety.
(Related information provided by RES and NRR was sent to all members.)
- Mr. Taylor, EDO, agreed to provide information related to the trend in total NRC FTEs for the past several years.
(This information provided by RES was distributed to the ACRS members during the February 8-10, 1990 meeting.)
- Dr. Kerr agreed to discuss with the staff the artificial distinction between accident management procedures for design-basis accidents and those for beyond-design-basis accidents in one of the future meetings of the Severe Accidents Subcom-mittee.
' Mr.
Ward suggested that the Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena subcommittee discuss the appropriateness of terminating the BWR Instability Analysis research in one of its future meetings.
Dr. Siess thanked all participants and adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m.
Note:
Additional meeting details can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room.
2120 L Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
20006, (202) 6'.3.-3273, or can be purchased from Ann Riley and Associates, Ltd., 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300,
[
Washington, D.C.
20006, (202) 293-3950.
t l
l
,s O
LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM FEBRUARY 7, 1990 i
The Following are attached for your information and use:
1.
Presentation Schedule for the meeting.
2.
Budget Table - Nuclear Regulatory Research FY 1991 OMB Mark, dated December 26, 1989.
3.
Program Support Dollars and FTE for Major Program Of fices, dated November 9, 1989.
4.
Memorandum, dated September 15, 1989, from J.
Taylor, for Chairman carr,
Subject:
FY 1990 Appropriations Reduction.
7 5.
Memorandum, dated December 26, 1989, from A.
Burda, for RES Division Directors,
Subject:
FY 91 OMB Reduction.
6.
Impacts of the OMB final reduction on the FY 1991 NRC research.
7.
Memorandum, dated December 1, 1989, from J.
Taylor, for the Commissioners,
Subject:
Staff Requirements for the Thermal-Hydraulic Research Program.
8.
FIN-Level Research budget information.
9.
Description of the NRC Safety Research Program excerpted from the NRC's Five-Year Plan for FY 1990-1994, dated November 1989.
10.
Presentation Materials provided by EDO, RES, and NRR during the meeting.
l l
ATTACHMENT A l
\\
t l
.s PRESENTATION SCHEDULE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON THE SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM FEBRURY 7, 1990 ROOM P-110, 7920 NORFOLK AVENUE BETHESDA, MARYLAND i
ACRS CONTACT:
Sam Duraiswamy l
301-492-9522 NOTE:
- Presentation Time should not exceed 50% of the Total Time allocated for a specific item.
.The remaining 50% of the time is reserved for thw Subcommittee questions and answers by the Staff or its consultants / contractors.
- Number of copies of the presentation materials to be submitted to the Subcommittee:
25 copies.
TOTAL PRESENTATION ITEM PRESENTER TIME ACTUAL TIME 1.
EXECUTIVE SESSION C. P. Siess 10 min 8:30 -
8:40 am 2.
EDO PRESENTATION a.
EDO's Opinion on 50 min 8:40 -
9:30 am the contribution of the NRC Research in Carrying Out the Agency's Mission b.
Rationale Behind continually Re-ducing the NRC Research Program Budget c.
Consequences of continually Dwindling Re-search Program Budget in Carry-ing Out the Agency's Mission A77We# NAA/T O S-l
+,
,s SOfety Research Program M:eting Presentation Schedule February 7, 1990 TOTAL PRESENTATION ITEM PRESENTER TIME ACTUAL TIME 3.
RES PRESENTATION a.
Overview of the RES 45 min 9:30 - 10:15 am e
Funding for FY 1988
- FY 1991:
- Funding and FTEs for T.esearch Activities
- Funding and FTEs for Non-Research Activities
- Technical Assist-ance Program Support
- Research Contracts at National Labs
- University Grants /
Contracts
- Personnel Salaries
- Other Expenses
- BREAK ***
15 min 10:15 - 10:30 am b.
Impact of the Budget 45 min 10:30 - 11:15 am Reduction Imposed by i
the Congress on the FY 1990 NRC Safety Research Program 49-a.
e 4
(
i S3fety Research Program M;; ting Presentation Schedule February 7, 1990 TOTAL PRESENTATION IIEM PRESENTER TIME ACTUAL TIME 3.
Continued c.
Overview of FY 1991 60 min 11:15 - 12:15 pm Safety Research Budgett
- Request to OMB
- OMB Final Mark i
- Impact of the Reduction Pro-posed by the OMB
- Lt1NCH ***
60 min 12:15 -
1:15 pm d.
Research Priorities 30 min 1:15 -
1:45 pm Over the Next Five Years and the Anti-cipated Level of Funding 4.
NRR PRESENTATION a.
Major Contributions 60 min 1:45 -
2:45 pm of NRC Research to Reactor Safety in the Past Five Years b.
Impact of the Con-tinually Dwindling Research Budget on Research User Offices' Needs c.
NRR's opinion on the Adequacy of the ongoing and Proposed Research in the Thermal-Hydraulic Area, Especially on Thermal-Hydraulic Codes 25.J5
~ ~ '
l
.s l
safety-Research Program M:eting Presentation Schedule February 7, 1990 TOTAL PRESENTATION ITEM PRESENTER TIME ACTUAL TIME 4.
Continued jq d.
Technical Assistance
-Program Activities Within NRR i
e.
Differing Views, if any, Between RES and Research User Offices on the ongoing and Proposed Research 5.
SUBCOMMITTEE REMARKS 15 min 2:45 -
3:00 pm
- ADJOURN ***
3:00 pm
/f-4L
i r
i FY 1991 BUDGET
SUMMARY
.i
$475 MILLION i
i I
i NON-USCRENNMmf 605 i
t i
f r
}
ann. muss. mo woo us t
i I
OTER PROGRW/ADMBESTRAlNE SUPPORT 7%
4 ats 20s i
i..:
1 in tI.
ti i
Arraamr c c-1 1
u
[
o bL8Ut ]
U.S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TOTAL OBLIGATIONS IN ACTUAL AND CONSTANT DOLLARS
~ ;
(Donors in Millions) i soo l
,/
I m.-
["
\\ mee.w o.mer.
ee-s'
~
\\
ses-330-l
/
l l
b m.
,/
~
~
a s
1975 des.re
,/
e e
~
1
/
1e5- -
i iso--
i I
i as a
h i
1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 i
1976 1978 1980 1982
'1984 1986 1988 1990 l
t FISCAL YEARS l _ ~. u _ y 1990
(
C-2 i
e t
i j
i i
+
..y
-_..__.,...,-,.....,_,_..I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH BUDGET TRENDS FY 1985 - 1991 i
i DOLLARS (MILLIONS) 140 4
4 120 100 80
-......... ' ' ' ~ ~
l 60
---. ~
....- ~.
40 t
20 1-e a
a a
R O
r 85 86 87
~ 88 89 90 91 i
t FISCAL YEAR r
TOTAL FUNDS
---~~- CONST FY 75 DOLLARS i
(INCLUDES SAFETY ISSUE RESOLUTION) i i
i FY85 FY86 FYS7 FTSS Fv89 FY98 FT91 I
i TOTAR. FuuDS
$133
$107.4 $ 99.8 $ 09.1 $ 95.1 $ SS
$M t
MmT $
73.3 57.7 51,8 45.8 46.7 41.7 43.1
[
eTaken fres 1988 Survey of Carrent Busteess 1
C-3
--a
---a.x--
a
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH
-i BREAKDOWN OF FY 90 PROGRAM SUPPORT FUNDS
~
RESEARCH vs TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1
i PROGRAM FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 i
i INTEGRITY OF REACTOR COMPONENTS
$28.0
$ 2.1
$26.2
$1.4
$27.9
$ 1.7 i
t
(
PREVENTING DAMAGE TO REACTOR CORES 18.2 0
16.0 0
16.3 0
CONTAINMENT PERF.
~
j j
25.1
~ OE 20.9 1.4 23A 1.0 l
i i
i I
LOW LEVELWASTE 1A 0
1.7 0
3.4 0
i l
RESOLVING SAFETY j
j ISSUES,DEVEL REGS 3.6 11.5 2.7 12.9 3.2 12.7 l
j HIGH LEVEL WASTE 4.1 0
4.6 0
4.0 0
l l
$80A
$14.4
$72.1
$15.7
$78.6
$15.4 0-4 l
$95.2 ss72 seem l
i
i i
U.S. NUCI. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
i OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH RES FUNDING BY FUNCTION & CONTRACTOR TYPE
~
(IN MILIJONS) 8 PROGRAM SUPPORT FY 88 FY89 FY 90 FY 91
}
i i
rMME
$ 70.6,
$ 74.6
$565
$ 57.6 i
EDUC CONTRACTS 2.5 3.1 2.6 3.1 i
j EDUC GRANTS 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 FOREIGN 1.1 2.2 2.1 15 j
i OTHER GVT 2.7 3.2 3.4 3.0 l
NOT-FOR-PROFIT GRANTS 0.2 05.
0.3 0.2 INDUSTRIALS 8.4 7.8 ~
10.6 9.7 l
NOT-FOR-PROFIT 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.3 SBIR OS 1.2 05 05 UNDESIGNATED 9.3 15.9
]
TOTALS
$ 89.1
$ 95.2
$ 87.8
$ 94.0 i
SALARIES & BENEFIT $
13.2 14.3 15.6 15.9 l
ADMonSTRATIVE SUPPORT 4.9 4.6 5.2 5.6 i
TRAVEL 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 C-5 TOTAL RES
$107.8
$114.7
$109.2
$116.1 i
5 I
l i
E----
J
o es
,)
1/90 SREAKOOWN OF RES FUNDING FY 1988 - FY 1991 (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS) j i
DOE LABORATORIES FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 ARGONNE NATIONAL LAB 4.1 3.9 3.1 4.6 BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LAB 10.9 11.2 8.8 73 IDAHO NATIONAL ENGR LAB 13.9 15.2 12.1 13.5 LAWRENCE LIVERMORE LAB 1.1 1.9 0.6 0.8 i
LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LAB 5.4 4.7 1.5 1.3 OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LAB 9.3 12.1 10.9 10.5 PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABS 7.5 8.8 8.3 8.4 SANDIA NATIONAL LABS 17.2 16.2 10.7 10.9 OTHER 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.3 DOE TOTAL
$ 70.6
$ 74.6
$ 56.5
$ 57.6 OTHER UNDESIGNATED 0
0 9.3 15.9 EDUC CONTRACTS 2.5 3.1 2.6 3.1 EDUC GRANTS 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 FOREIGN 1.1 2.2 2.1 1.5 OTHER GOVT 2.7 3.2 3.4 3.0 NOT-FOR-PROFIT GRANTS 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 INDUSTRIALS 8.4 7.8 10.6 9.7 NOT-FOR-PROFIT 2.1 1.4 1.4 1.3 SBIR 0.5 1.2 0.5 0.5 TOTAL
$ 89.2
$ 95.2
$ 87.8 5 94.0 E
s
(?-d3
.t U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY RESEARCH
~
RESEARCH OFFICE BUDGET i
REQUEST vs APPROPRIATION i
I i
i i
i FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91 i
i i
REQUESTTO OMB
$130.0
$106.4
$117.6
$120.6
$124.9
)
i
{
PRESIDENTS BUDGET 99.0 103.6 113.2 ;g 108.0 94.0 l
t
=
APPROPRIATION 99.8 89.2 95.2 87.8 i
1 l
i i
i l
i l
f M ET N N m N N N c-7 i
i
)
\\
\\
l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. )
i OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH
~ l IMPACTS OF LESS-THAN-REQUE_STED FUN _ DING i
DELAYS IN MEETING ESTABLISHED MILESTONES t
l FORCES USE OF CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS IN DECISION PROCESS l
UNCERTAINTY IN SAN::f MARGINS IN OPERATING PLANTS POTENTIAL FOR CONTESTED UCENSING HEARINGS ESP IN RENEWALS l
l LACK OF CLEAR GUIDANCE, STABIUTY FOR INDUSTRY ESP IN SEVERE ACCIDENT AREA i
i LOSS OF EXPERTISE l
QUAUFIED EXPERIENCED CONTRACTOR STAFF REASSIGNED TO OTHER l
HIGHER PdlORITY, STABLE LAB PROGRAMS i
LOSS OF EXPERIENCED RES PROJECT MANAGERS INABIUTY TO RECRUIT HIGH CAUBRE STAFF i
LOSS OF LEVERAGE 1
INABOUTY TO PARTICIPATE FULLY IN COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS l
l LOSS OF LONG TERM SUPPORT BY LAB MANAGEMENT WITH A REDUCED
{
ABIUTY TO RESPOND TO OPERATING EVENTS l
8 i
C-8
L
-l i
j I
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0991ISSION
~
j OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH
.l l
IMPACTS OF FY 1991 CUTS (DOLLARS IN NILLIONS)
INTEGRITY OF REACTOR COMPONENTS: -$5.8M ($35.4 TO $29.6)
I DELAY BY ONE YEAR-i o
COMPLETION OF PTS ANALYSIS METHODS & IRRADIATION DAMAGE MECHANISM I
STUDY IMPORTANT TO LICEn5E R acWAL o
DEVELOPMENT OF METHODS TO MITIGATE EFFECTS OF FATIGUE AW CORROSION IN MAJOR LWR COMPONENTS (AGING DATA) o TESTING OF STRESS CORROSION CRACKING OF METALS (RELY ON IMOSTRY DATA FOR LICENSE RENEWAL) o TESTING OF FATIGUE CRACK INITIATION IN REACTOR MATERIALS NEEDFC TO UPDATE ASME SECTION III CURVES WHICH ARE SEEN TO BE NONCONSERVATIVE I
o DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESSURE VESSEL INSPECTIONS (LOWER ACCURACY OF INSPECTIONS) o ISI MOCKUP 0F STEAM GENERATOR TO SUPPORT IWROVEMENTS IN INSPECTIONS REQUESTED BY NRR AW REGION I o
DEVELOPMENT OF MODIFICATIONS TO ASME PRESSURE VESSEL CODES (III,IX) o CLOSURE OF ISSUES ON EASTERN SEISMICITY WITH IWACT ON IPEEE l
c-9 i.
J i
l T
e l-
)
i U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
'0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH
)
IMPACTS OF FY 1991 CUTS (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS):
i PREVENTING DAMAGE TO REACTOR CORES: -$5.3M ($21.6 TO $16.3) c o
TERMINATE CODE SCALABILITY APPLICABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY WORK ON l
B&W PLANTS (CAN'T APPLY B&W TEST DATA TO REGULATORY ISSUES) l o
TERMINATE OR REDUCE ANALYSIS OF RESU'.~3 FROM ROSA-IV, ASSESSENTS 0F TRAC AW RELAP IN TNE ICAP, AW ATWS ANALYSIS ON EFFECTS OF I
i INSTABILITIES ON ATWS TRANSIENTS i
o ELIMINATE DEVELOPMENT OF EXAWLES AW GUIDES FOR LICENSEES' l
DEVELOPMENT OF ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS AIDS o
DEFER TO FUTURE YEARS ACCIDENT MANAGF E NT AUDIT REQUIREE NTS o
DEFER EVALUATION OF ADVANCED BWR'S (EXCLUSIVE RELIANCE ON OLD j
ANALYSES) i l
C-Io i
i l
11 l
1
m.=
a m ma4he&hMmWedE4m hJh_e e
2 w
W lEl s-4 l s.m.l G
g m
eE
=
ms n s igm EW g"b 8 a
m3
=
~0 lk I"
~
E s8glw 55 s
l v5
.C*
5 K. E5"59 si *:
w 5y 1
s o
gE D
..E'gg d
==
0 W*es
[
m m
mg u
g gc st5 W
mW g
8 s"d
- 3 z
=
w= w=c.5 s
a a
a=
u s
m wd*e3 l
Es t
W "s a w vid 5
l MEsl l
JE A
E 3lr e
m
- !z-
- Wg es c
m85 w
E E
. ku xl$Es s
E E
B m
E css e al t5 5
M O
O U
O
l ll ll!llilIl j lji l
i!!l)l!
n 4
/
M D
R R
E 8
E E
E T
C C
M T
N S
7 N
8 N
I A
)
A E
A d
8 V
C T
S D
1 N
L N
A E
O E
O H
C V
H I
S O
S T
E N T M
E L
NC L
N O
R F
T OR L
O I E E
L O
S IA I
I T U T
A A
H E
W G
SE M
T A Q S
D C I E
I SS A
I N C
O I
H IE N
L F U R
P S
N MR I
U I
U S
T O
H U
G T S O
I H
C R E S
O)C R
f0Y S
E E
D A R A
U CR R
R C
W K R A E
S O
A S
SE E
R W E S
O N S E
YT L
G N
EN T
W I
EG N
C R
RA L
N LI OF S
N(E R
OL O
I US N TO A
O E
TU D
P DE O S
W I S F M
I AG
(
O ED MN E
LE L
H T
EO T
O O
GI L
A S S
CU C Y
UR S
E E
G T
V SWT T
E D L P A A U F
ER U
E NA O DA V
~
G N -
O R
EC E
OC R TI RA C
D P
AL L
E A T I
R N
E TR IP D Y A O
RL 1
UO N DP H
E R T I
LFO AA G
G O S T
AC 9
O I
R SR T RY I
A T E
EU 9
S LN 1
E ER A IR H
K A E L
C L H P
C U
RN I O
A U T M
D GT F
P G OS UF Y
S NO F
ERR I
I S -
SU T
A RT
.E F
STN NG Y
S EE AI IRO EE T
ATY EV SC O
Y )
O SCR I
T 9 CPKNI E
WS YI AE T
.F S
E IPRGLN F
)
LWE UF T
F 5
RUOI O
A 0 L
R E C N A 0
C A 1 ESWSN S
ARH O
A~
S $
N EIK 4
AT G
EEED R
EE N
P GTT KO G $
TLY Y I M
G O AARRW N
ACBG B K I
N T ENNOO I O NU N
A I
CIITWY M T M
ELAE INRIYM UMMC A
V 7 DIRATL R
RRFALL L
ELEEUE I 8 EOEEEU O 3 RETRCD F
TFDSDR S 2 N 5 E
O $
R (
ooo oo C (
o o
o ik
- l I!l l
i L
j i
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH l
SAFETY ISSUES BEING SUPPORTED BY RES - FY 90 - 92
)
4 i
CONTAINMENT STRUCTURALINTEGRfTY UCENSE RENEWAL-BASES AND RULE l
i
-l l
LOW UPPER SHELFWELD ISSUE ADVANCED REACTOR UCENSING CRITERIA
)
EMBRITTLEMENT OF RV SUPPORTS SEISMIC MARGINS AND REG SEISMICffY COMPONENT AGING PHENOMENA WASTE MANAGEMENT l
l 1,
FI.AW DETECTION & CHARACTERIZATMNG GENERIC ISSUE RESOLUTION STEAM GENERATOR DEGRADATION ACCIDENT MGT STRATEGY EFFECTWENESS CRACKED PIPIOGG 98UREG-1150 APPUCATIONS r
f SEVERE ACCIDENT: EARLY CONT FAILURE HUMAN RELIA 91UTYIMPROWERENTS l
IPE PROGRAM -Cm SOURCETERM RaAiED REO CNA ES l
I I
i 14 i
C-13 i
l
t l
1 i
i i
1
- l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH i
i FUNDING g i
PROGRAM FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 l
i i
(
INTEGRi1Y
$ 26.2
$ 30.1
$ 27.6
$ 29.6
$ 35.4
$ 35A
$35A I
i PREVENTION
$ 19.2
$ 18.1
$ 16.0
$ 16.3
$ 20.4
$ 19.1
$ 19.1 i
i CONTAINMNT
$ 30.0
$ 25.9
$ 22.3
$ 24A
$ 34.3
$ 36.0
$ 36.1 i
i I
l
)
WASTE
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 6.3
$ 7.4
$ 10.5
$ 11.0
$ 11.0 i
1 l
RESOLV BSSUES
$ 7A
$ 15.2
$ 15.6
$ 15.9
$ 23A
$ 22.2
$ 22.1 l
l i
$ 89.1
$ 95.2
$67A
$ 94.0
$124.4
$124.1
$124.1 t
l
[
4 15 i
i
1 i
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
i OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH
- )
CONTINUING CONCERNS 1
A.
STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF CONTAINMENTS i
B.
LOW UPPER SHELF WELD ISSUE AND RESEARCH C.
EMBRITTLEMENT OF REACTOR VESSEL SUPPORTS i
D.
RADIATION EMBRITTLEMENT OF REACTOR VESSELS 1
j E.
PLANTAGING
)
F.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF AGING COMPONENTS i
G.
CORROSION IN PIPING AND VESSELS j
H.
DETECTION & CHARACTERIZATION OF FLAWS IN CRITICAL COMPONENTS 1.
STEAM GENERATOR DEGRADATION IN PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS f
i J.
CRACKED PIPING IN BOIUNG WATER REACTORS l
i l
K.
EROSION-CORROSION OF SURRY FEEDWATER PIPE l
L VALVE OPERABILITY i
L M.
SEISMIC RESEARCH t
l N.
~
t t
i i
I i
16
[
C-s5 l
i i
l
r
=
,e a U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- l t
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH CONTINUING CONCERNS
)
O.
ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT I
i P.
HUMAN FACTORS j
Q.
INTERFACING SYSTEMS LOSS-OF-COOUNG ACCIDENTS (ISLOCA) l R.
SEVERE ACCIDENTS - EARLY CONTAINMENT FAILURE j
S.
INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATION (IPE) PROGRAM l
l T.
SOURCETERM u.
CONTana0ENT PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I
V.
RADIATION EFFECTS ON REACTOR WESSEL INTERNALS i
W.
LICENSE RENEWAL-RULEMAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION 4
I X.
ADVANCED REACTORS Y.
HIGH LEVELWASTE Z.
BELOW REGULATORY CONCERN I
i i.
t I
i i
.l
[
t i
C-/6 t
t
o, i
NRR FY90 BUDGET - BY PROGRAM AREA FEBRUARY 1990 4
UCENSING ACTION 7,000 OTliER 6,000 Severe Accident Management Advanced RX Reactor TMI-2 Non Power Reactor, ETC.
OPERATOR UCENSING 6,000 REGIONAL SUPPORT 3,000 STATE PROGRAMS 1,100 TVA 1,300 NRR LED RX INSPECTIONS 3,500 F]TNESS FOR DUTY RULE 250 PRA RELATED WORK 600
[
VENDOR INSPECTIONS 800 REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 400 c_f7
.m...m
.m m
m.-.
.m.
_m_m.
m 4
m.
.A m..
.as y
F
'u
.e NRR FY90 BUDGET - BY PROGRAM FEBRtfARY 1999 OPEftATMt IKENSING.
6000 29%
OTIIER.
m VENDeft INSPECTIONS.
809 2.7%
l peut Ims xx rNsrecn0Ns. 3sse a s.7%
f FITf8ESS FWt MfTY RUIE.
250.8".
l N
m.
i3
..ax N_-.
i i
STATE Pft0CRANS.
1199 3.7X l
i i
NEGIONAL SUPP0ftT. 3099 ISE m,
k i
1 C-16 L
- - - --J
~
o r,.
)
UTILIZATION OF RESEARCH T0 IDDTIFY, PRIORITIZE AND RESOLVE REGULATORY CONCERNS 1
e UNPISOLVED SAFETY ISSUES (USis) e GDERIC SAFETY ISSUES (GSis) e BNIR0llD.TAL ISSUES (Els) e LIEtCING ISSUES (Lis) e REGULATORY ltPACT ISSUES (Ris) o STRUCTURAL lhTEGRIT( OF C0fRAltmRS e
RADIATION EMP.RITTLDET OF REACTOR VESSELS e
PL#fi AGING e
BNIR0ffERAL QUAllFICATION OF AGING COMPONEhTS e
EROS!ON & CORROSION lll PIPING AfD VESSELS l
e DETECTION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF FLAWS IN CRITICAL (DPONDITS e
STEAM GDERATOR DEGRADAT10fl IN PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS e
CRACED PIPING IN BOILING WATER REACTOPS e
VALVE OPERABILITY e
SElSMIC RESEARCH e
NUREG-1150 (SAMDA ISSUES) s ACCIDDR MNAGEMDIT e
HUPANFACTORS e
INTERFACING SYSTD1S LOSS OF C00LAfd ACCIDEtR (ISLOCA) s SEVEREACCIDDRS e
INDIVIDUAL PLAfd EXAMINATION (IPE) e SOURCETERM e
CONTAlff06 PERFORmNCE ItPROMNT PFOGRAM (MARK I VENT) e RADIATION EFFECTS ON REACTOR VESSEL SUPPORTS e
LICENSE RENEWAL-REQUIREENTS AND ltPLDOUlt0 GUIDANI l
)
u C -ff L
e,.,.
6 N
l U
1 Ed NE 8
i g
l Ws$
S Ei l
E E
E l
l
=
6 6
W I
EglEE 5
0 E
59 b8 heNE 11111iii!!"
s,...I i
y O.9f.
.. ~.
NRR'S VIEW 0F THEPt%L HYDRAUI.lC RESEARCH e
ODJECTIVES t%IfRAlt! CAPABILITY TO ANALYZE OPERATING EVEhTS APPLY PESEARCH PESULTS TO RESOLVE CONCEPJG IN OPERATING AND FUTUPE PLANTS PERFORti NEW RESEARCH WHEPE JUSTIFIED e
KEY ASSlfFTIONS CUPREhT THERF%L P%CLIC CODES ARE SUFFICIE?R (t%JOR CODE DEVELOPfD U IS NOT JUSTIFIED)
LARGE SCALE EXPERIFBRAL FACILITIES APE NOT REQUIRED FOR CURPIhT OR FLTTUPE DESIGNS THEWAL HVDRAULIC EXPERTISE SHOULD BE t%INTAltE e
ACTIVITIES OVER TEXT 5 YEARS FINAll2E RELAP a TRAC CODES (FY91) f%!NTAIN rat 0NA, COBRA, HIPA-BWR, PELAP a TRAC CODES COPPLETE IhTERNATIONAL TESTit0 PROGRAttS (2D/3D, ROSA-IV, a BETSHY)
INITIATE ADVANCED REACTOR DESIGNS STUDY (AP 600, SBWR, CAfDU, PlVS)
DEVELOP TESTING LOOPS AT UNIVERSITIES ANALYZE OPERATlf0 EVEt#S 1NITIATE THEWAL SCIENCES STUDIES ASSESS FEASIBILITY OF PC-BASED CODES I
C -2 /
.