ML20138J021
| ML20138J021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/02/1997 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9705070367 | |
| Download: ML20138J021 (89) | |
Text
..- .
....-..7 3,. ,, ,.3
- (, , 44 3-l U k,, y ,0XM-l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
Title:
MEETING WITH NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH REVIEW COMMITTEE (NSRRC) - PUBLIC .
MEETING ,
Location: Rockville, Maryland i
Date: Friday, May 2,1997 6
Pages: 1 - 47 h /
l!.!{}!.!I!.!II,!!!!I.!!
, e - kill!
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1250 i St., N.W., Suite 300 N[I'
[Otl58 Wmhinmn, D.C.20005 o l (202) 842 4034 g,pu)d\
g g
9705070367 970502
.7 PDR J
l s*
l' DISCLAIMER ,
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on May 2, 1997 in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This tranneript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may f
contain inaccuracies. '
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
2 1 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 *** J 4 MEETING WITH NUCLEAR SAFETY 5 RESEARCH REVIEW COMMITTEE (NSRRC) 6 ***
7 PUBLIC MEETING 8 ***
9 10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission i 11 Commission Hearing Room 12 11555 Rockville Pike 13 Rockville, Maryland
)
14 i l
15 Friday, May 2, 1997 16 17 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 18 notice, at 10:53 a.m., the Honorable SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, 19 Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
20 21 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
22 SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission 23 KENNETH C. ROGERS, Member of the Commission 24 EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR., Commissioner.
25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
( Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l .
l 2
l 1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
2 1
3 JOHN C. HOYLE, Secretary 4 KAREN D. CYR, General Counsel 5 E.T. BOULETTE, NSRRC Chairman 6 S. GEORGE BANKOFF, NSRRC 7 MICHAEL W. GOLAY, NSRRC 8 CHARLES MAYO, NSRRC 9 CHRISTINE M. MITCHELL, NSRRC 10 JOHN TAYLOR, NSRRC 11 SUMIO YUKAWA, NSRRC 12 DAVID MORRISON, Director, Office of Nuclear 13 Regulatory Research ,
l 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l
! ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ,
l Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
.-- .. _ - . . _ - - . . - . - , .-.. - - - - . _ . . . . . - ..=. . - . - .-
3 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 (10:53 a.m.)
i 3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Good morning, ladies and ;
4 gentlemen. -!
-5 I am pleased to welcome Dr. E. Thomas Boulette and i 6 members of the Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee, and l I
7 Dr. David Morrison, Director of the Office of Nuclear 8 Regulatory Research, to brief the Commission on recent 9 activities of the committee.
10 The Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee or !
l 11 the NSRRC, as it is called, advises the director of Nuclear 12 Regulatory Research and, through him, the Commission on the 13 quality and conduct of NRC research activities and gives 14 recommendations concerning the overall management and 15 direction of the Nuclear Safety Research Program.
16 At today's briefing, the following topics will be 17 discussed. First, observation and recommendations of four
- 18. subcommittees, among them the Materials and Engineering 19 Subcommittee, a joint report from the INC and Human Factors 20 Subcommittee and the PRA Subcommittee. And, finally, the 21 Accident Analysis Subcommittee.
22 Also discussed will be research core capabilities 23 and the committee's view of these, comments on the 24 committee's effectiveness in support of research and 25 comments addressing the Commission's questions concerning ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters '
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
- _ - _ - - . - _ - - ._~ -_ -
4 1 human reliability analysis and their relationship to PRA.
2 The Commission appreciates your effort and look ,
3 forward to hearing from you. I understand that if there is 4 any presentational material, it has already been made 5 available.
6 Please start, Mr. Boulette.
7 DR. BOULETTE: Thank you, Chairman Jackson, and 8 good morning, Commissioner Rogers, Commissioner McGaffigan.
9 We are pleased to be here this morning to give you 10 our views of the research program that the NRC is very 11 dependent upon. We will also afford you an opportunity to 12 meet the membership. I know you haven't done that before.
13 And in fact what we have planned is that every member at the 14 table be speaking.
15 The agenda is relatively tight. I was present for 16 the ACRS meeting and I can se2 how these proceedings go. I 17 am going to encourage the membership of this committee to be 18 cognizant of the time and the messages that we are trying to 19 present to you.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It is we who caused the delay.
21 DR. BOULETTE: A couple of comments about the 22 committee itself.
1 23 Historically, there have been 12 members on this 24 committee. Currently there are only seven. Soon, there 25 will be only six unless we -- unless Dr. Morrison is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
4 f 5
1 successful in recruiting some other members. One of the 2 concerns-that we have is the breadth of expertise that'the ,.
3 Committee is trying to sustain so we will be working on that 4 over the next couple of months, f i
5 To make the committee effective, we have broken it i 6 up into five subcommittees, four of which are very active. ;
t 7 One is somewhat inactive because of the area of expertise on !
8 high-level waste.
9 The four committees will report to you this !
i
' 10 morning their findings at their recent meetings and their l t
11 views of the specific areas of which they have :
i 12 responsibility.. l l
13 'The committees include the committee on PRA. Mike 14 Golay is the chair of that committee. Another committee is ,
l 15 Human Factors and INC. Charles Mayo is the chair of that i 16 subcommittee. Accident Analysis is the third subcommittee i 17 and George Bankoff is the chair of that subcommittee. And l r
18 Materials and Engineering is the fourth and that is chaired i 19 by Sumio Yukawa. 7 20 We try to meet twice a year as the full committee ;
21 and the subcommittees try to meet two to three times a year.
22 We have no staff so most of what you get is a bit 23 sophomoric, I think, in terms of the quality of the typing. !
24 That is because I do the typing of the reports, i
25 We have tried to address the concerns that the l
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 6 i i
Commission had in terms of the interface between this 1
l 2 committee and the ACRS. I think we have been very active ,
3 this past 12 months in doing that. The way we do that is to i 4 try to be very cognizant of their schedule and the meetings ,
5 that they have and then selectively select a member of our 6 committee to attend some of the meetings. There have been 7 at least a half a dozen or so meetings that we have been !
8 participating in. It has been very useful to us. It helps 9 to focus on what we may want to talk to the staff about.
10 With these preliminary consaents, I will move on to 11 the next subject on the agenda which is a report on the 12 joint meeting of the INC and Human Factors and the PRA 13 subcommittees and that is Charles Mayo. i 14 MR. MAYO: Okay, thank you.
15 Our committees had a joint meeting primarily to 16 review and prepare response to the questions that had been i
17 posed about the use of human reliability analysis and PRA 18 and we reviewed the human performance program plan, the PRA 19 implementation plan and other material provided to us and )
20 concluded that the research projects in human factors and i 1
21 human reliability a- ysis are largely unrelated. This 22 seems to be prima- driven by user needs to perform ;
23 reliability analysis and the licensing space as opposed to j 24 developing methods and data specifically directed to the l 25 human reliability analysis problem and applications of it. I j
l 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. J Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 2 5
""""i"!'"64?: 63 l
7 1 RES does have two programs in human reliability .
l 2 analysis area and considers them to have somewhat limited .l There is the Athena project on the areas of the j 3- scope. t 4 commission and the organizational factors management. I ;
5 would have to say that our subcommittee has been concerned i i
6 about the issue of the organizational factors research !
7 program for a number of years and I came on the committee as {
8 previous work was ending so I don't know the historical 9 details but we still have some concerns about progress in ;
10 that area. :
11 Additionally, in looking at the programs that were ;
l 12 going on or could be going on, the data needs, we had the r 13 analysis that there was likely to be significant relevant !
14 experience in the NRC operating database and we could see }
15 references in some of the program plans to this being !
16 collected and the licensee event report improved and so on r
17 to develop for human reliability data. We feel that this is 18 a research area or opportunity for data that should not be ,
19 ignored and particularly in comparison to the classical ;
20 human reliability analysis type data that has come from ;
21 other industries. l l
22 And the final point was there was a belief that {
t 23 the two projects that are currently going on did not !
l 24 constitute a developed research plan to develop the human [
25 reliability, human factors analysis into use in the PRA but }
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 -
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 !
i
,- __. - - _ _ _ . ~ n - , ., . , . - . - - - - - . . . - .
~
8 ?
1 that improvements certainly could be made through a longer
- 2 term program,
- f>
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask you a couple ;
t' I
- 4 questions. i F
$ 5 You talked about the human reliability analysis l 5-
} 6 program having limited scope. Has the committee made any l l
7 specific recommendations on an expanded scope? lt
! 8 MR. MAYO: We have not had the opportunity to do I i
' t 4
9 that. We had a busy meeting when we got to this point. l l 10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you plan to make ;
i :
i 5 j 11 recommendations?
12 MR. MAYO: We are trying to get together again in l 13 the early part of the summer and discuss this, after we have l
I i
14 had'a better sense for material we received and. feedback i
J i i 15 from the ACRS. l 1 !
t f
- 16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You mentioned that user needs 17 do not address development of human reliability analysis, i 18- that portion of the PRAs -- I'm going to call it HRAs from i l
) 19 now on. To what extent has the current state of the art in 20 HRA limited our ability to apply PRA results in the j l
21 regulatory arena. 1 l
22 MR. MAYO: That question I must defer to some of )
23 my colleagues on the Committee. I 24 DR. BOULETTE: Christine, can you take that 25 question?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
9
~
1 To what extent can HRA be effectively used in PRA, 2 I think, is the nature of the question. )
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes, in the regulatory arena.
3 MS. MITCHELL: I think that if you have a -- to 4
5 the extent that you are able to model human operators, you 6 have a stronger model. To the extent that you are not or 7 you don't have particularly valid data for that, it limits, 8 limits your overall model.
9 My understanding is that HRA is pretty primitive 10 at this point in time. My understanding from your last 11 session with Dr. Apostolakis is that -- and I concur -- is 12 that it's a mess. So it needs some attention, although I l 13 caution that this isn't just a matter of money and effort; 14 this is the state of affairs in lots of other industries.
15 Modeling human performance and using those models in an 16 analytic way is not widely done anyplace.
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And you mentioned that analysis 18 of operating experience should be a resource for relating l
l 19 HF, HRA and PRA. Why is that not happening?
20 MR. MAYO: I believe it is happening in certain 21 ways. Our exposure to date has been limited to what we read 22 about projects in the program plans, particularly in AEOD ,
23 activities, which we haven't gotten into much detail on.
24 I guess our concern was the absence of seeing 25 active work going on within the RES division itself.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
10 1 MR. GOLAY: '
I think there is another point, if I l 2 can offer a comment, which is that in order for data to be 3 useful in modeling, there has to be a coupling between the 4
model development and understanding that the case is being l 5 analyzed. 1 And the lack of interaction between research and 6
4 AEOD was effectively a lost opportunity that we were drawin;
] 7 attention to, in that AEOD has been using PRA to try to J
8 understand some events, precursor analysis, for example.
1 9 But the feedback link to the research program and to setting 10 the agenda to refining the models to understanding results 4
] 11 that they are getting wasn't there. !
f 12 So the format, for example, in which the AEOD 13 evidence was being interpreted was not in a state where 14 researchers could make easy use of it so it was not making 15 the kind of contribution that could be made at fairly modest 16 marginal cost, it appeared.
i 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON.: Well, in fact, now AEOD and 18 research are part of the same organization and it was meant j 19 to address some of this. So, Dr. Morrison, can you give is
! 20 some edification relative to what is happening in this 21 regard?
22 DR. MORRISON: Yes. We are very, very much moving 23 out based upon both the recommendations that ACRS made in 24 this broad area as well as the comments that NRC has made.
25 Two things to note, one is that there has been a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
11 1 recent reorganization within the Office of Research that 2 placed HRA or actually people from PRA that had been doing 3 some HRA activities, into the human f?cf. ors area and vice 4 versa, so that they are closely coupled and, second, this 5 group is developing a human performance, human reliability 6 plan that is basically going to be an agency wide plan that 7 has its origins in research and trying to address the 8 immediate needs that have been raised by both committees.
9 That plan should be available for review, I would 10 think, by the subcommittee here at the early summer meeting 11 so that there will be an opportunity to get feedback on the 12 plan that is being developed.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What about the issue of 14 specifically linkages between research and AEOD or research 15 drawing on the AEOD operating database?
16 DR. MORRISON: Well, those have existed in the
'17 past. Obviously, they need to be strengthened. They are in 18 the process of being strengthened. We have been working 19 quite closely with AEOD in the accident sequence precursor 20 efforts and we can broaden out on that particular basis.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, the question I guess I am 22 asking you is, as part of this agency wide plan, is this 23 issue of cross linkage and, you know, use of the database 24 being explicitly addressed? Because you are right, it has 25 existed all the time but the Committee is making a statement ANN RILEY & ASSOC!ATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
.. .- . - _ _ ~ . - . . _ - . - . . - . . - . - . ~ . - . - - . . ~ - . . . - - . - . - - . - - - - _ .
12 1 as has made -- been made by ACRS that the activities are 2 unrelated and that the database has not been drawn upon.
3 DR. MORRISON: Well, it will be explicitly 4 addressed in the plan and what steps we will take to make 5 sure'that that continues.
l i
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Rogers?
7 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: No questions.
8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Could I ask the l
l 9 relationship between your body and ACRS in looking at this 10 issue? You are both looking at it simultaneously and
-11 reviewing plans, both finding them not very acceptable at 12 the moment and telling the staff that they have to rework, 13 as ACRS, Mr.~ Apostolakis, said, the staff is in agreement 14 and has gone back to the drawing board.
l 15 But what is the value added of your look at it 16 compared to ACRS or how should we think about rationalizing 17 I that?
1 18 MR. MAYO: Well, we are developing a relationship i i
19 with ACRS. In my particular case, I was unable to attend )
20 their last subcommittee meeting so I personally did not l I
21 participate, but our other committee members have been 22 attending the ACRS meetings and I have seen, as mentioned 23 . earlier, progress in coordinating our activities.
I 24 MR. GOLAY: I will add one thing.
l 25' The mandates of the two groups are somewhat
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
! Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
13 1 different, in that our committee is concerned with the 2 research program throughout NRC. The ACRS is concerned with 3 the reactors, reactor-related activities of NRC and there is 4 an intersection concerned with research related to reactors, 5 which is the bulk of research but not entirely.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
7 DR. BOULETTE: The next subject that we wanted to 8 discuss with you is the subject of PRA and its use in risk-9 informed performance-based regulations and Mike Golay will 10 speak to that.
11 MR. GOLAY: The subcommittee we have on PRA has 12 put together partly to help the research group develop the 13 capabilities which are needed to support all of the NRC in 14 making performance-based regulation an effective reality.
15 So I will make my comments sort of from that perspective.
16 Whenever we have reviewed their programs, it has 17 always been to try to answer questions about what do they 18 need to do in order to be an effective support and the thing 19 that we are seeing is that there are ways that research 20 could be much more valuable, primarily in promoting fluency 21 concerning PRAs throughout the agency. They participate 22 with AEOD in training and one of the things which we can see 23 is that sensitivity to what PRA will tell you really has not 24 permeated very much in the functioning of the agency, at 25 least anecdotally it appears that way when you talk to l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
. - .-- - - - . _ _ . - . - _ . - ..-. - - - - - . -- = . _ . ._ -
Y
. I 14 ;
1- licensees and ask, do you ever see any evidence that '
2 performance-based regulation is a reality within the agency ;
4 3 or in terns of how you resolve issues in dealing with the !
4 NRC and the answer is consistently that there is --
i 5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Are you saying risk-informed 6 performance-based regulation or are you saying performance- ;
7 based regulation? f i
8 MR. GOLAY: I mean the former. I was trying to be i
9 brief. '
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, I just want to be sure I j i
11 understand what you are talking about.
12 MR. GOLAY: No , that's what I mean.
i 13 That one of the things they say is that the staff i i
14 appear really not to be knowledgeable about PRA or even t 15 aware that it is one of the tools which could be used in r 16 dealing with the questions which come up with the licensees. I 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Now, they are talking about the 18 staff lacking knowledge, are you talking at the level of the 19 resident inspectors, at the region-based inspectors?
20 MR. GOLAY: It is at the regions primarily, that's 21 right. So consistently when you ask them, well, are you 22 trying to pose some of your arguments in risk-based terms, 23 they say, no, because the NRC is unable or unwilling to 24 communicate in those terms. l 25 Which comes back then to the research program ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. !
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 15 )
~
1 because of the role that they play in instilling those 2 capabilities. I think one message is that they could be 3 very valuable in being more vi,gorous in this kind of thing so that if you look at the second bullet,-when we say, what 4
5 is really meant here, say greater use of PRA is needed in 6 guiding regulation, it really means in terms of dealing with 7 licensees as opposed to formulation of policy or ,
8 determination of new regulatory statements. t 9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So this committee, has this 10 committee had any role in reviewing or participating in the ,
t 11 review of the PRA reg guide or standard review plan?
12 MR. GOLAY: Only because I took the initiative to 13 get those documents and review them. Had I not done so, 14 they would not have come to our attention. ;
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You provided commentary back to 16 the staff?
17 MR. GOLAY: No, I read them so I could, first of 18 all, know what they are trying to do and if I were asked ,
19 anything about them have some kind of answer.
20 But I am saying routinely that kind of thing is 21 not brought to our attention.
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I see.
23 MR. GOLAY: As we have been working so far.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So research has not had a role l 25 in reviewing these documents themselves?
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 !
Washington, D.C. 20005 ;
(202) 842-0034 !
16 1 DR. MORRISON: Well, research has had an integral '
]
2 role in developing the --
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Developing them, right. But 4 this committee was not asked to review them.
5 DR. MORRISON: No. This committee generally has 6 not been asked to review regulatory guides or anything 7 related to the rulemaking process.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
9 MR. GOLAY: Right.
10 The third bullet goes to also the interaction with 11 the licensees and within the staff in that the other thing 12 that I at least have become aware of is with the two thrusts 13 that are going on in the agency at the moment, one concerned 14 with strict conformance to commitments that licensees have 15 made, that there is effectively an interference that is 16 being created which I would say is working against 17 performance-based regulation in that the licensees are 18 asking, well, should we be paying attention to the letter of 19 the law in fine detail without regard to the substance of 20 what is being regulated and I think they are concluding 21 that, yes, that that is the case, at least in the past year 22 or so.
23 And, contrasting that to, well, should I try to 24 use risk-informed performance-based regulatory approaches to 25 problems which are, as you know, concerned with the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
- 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
17 l l
1 substance. There is some variation in how you pose those 1 2 arguments.
3 Uniformly, what I am seeing is they are basically 4 ruling out performance-based regulation as an approach and 5 this has, I think, an important effect because it also 6 decreases the resources within the licensees to play ball in 7 the risk-informed performance-based regulatory arena. So we 8 have got sort of systematic interaction here, which is 9 undermining the needed growth of capabilities to support 10 that approach to regulation, both within the utilities and, 11 I would say, within the NRC.
12 You know, George, in the last session, spoke about 13 this maturation time which is needed before the licensees 14 are able to actually use this way of approaching problems 15 effectively and what I am observing is that in fact that 16 maturation is being suppressed by these two parallel sort of 17 conflicting messages.
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you are suggesting that the 19 licensees are suggesting that they should be relieved from 20 their commitments because they have no safety significance?
21 MR. GOLAY: Not at all. I would say it is a 22 matter of style rather than whether they feel they need to 23 be strongly committed because resources have to be divided 24 in some fashion and what they are doing is putting their 25 resources into compliance and they are taking them away from IdRJ RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
18 1 building the capability for risk-informed performance-based '
2 regulation. So it is having an effect in that fashion.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, you know, we have a risk-4 informed enforcement policy and we are a regulatory agency 5 and so I think, you know, we have to come around this issue 6 of compliance issues versus safety issues. If, in fact, 7 licensees feel that there are compliance issues that do not i 8 have a safety basis, I think all of us would welcome them 9 being brought to our attention because I think we are not 10 interested in having compliance against things that do not 11 have a safety case. But I think that you cannot talk about 12 a regulatory agency not expecting people to comply with 13 something.
14 MR. GOLAY: Absolutely. Absolutely.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
16 MR. GOLAY: No question.
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So I don't think we want to get 18 off into those kinds of pejorative discussions.
19 MR. GOLAY: That's right. I only wanted to draw 20 attention to some interactions which are effecting the 21 advancement of performance-based regulation, which I think 22 is really one of the key contributions that the agency has l 23 been making in recent years to improving safety.
24 We spoke -- on the fourth bullet, we already spoke l 25 about the coupling between AEOD and research and so I don't ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
i 19 1 think we need to say more about that. And I would say that 2 basically the agency really can be congratulated for making 3 good progress in development of the draft reg guides, 4 revisions to the standard review plan, development of some 5 PRA tools like the Saphire code suite.
6 So in building this infrastructure, there are some 7 good things, good things to point to, and there are other 8 areas where, if the resources could be applied, it would be 9 good to make more rapid progress. I would say these 10 primarily concern dealing with uncertainty that was spoken 11 about in the last session. !
(
12 I would say, dealing with data was not talked {
13 about very much but, again, this is an area where the NRC 14 and particularly research could be effective in that what 15 you really need is a systematic method for collecting data 16 in a format which is going to be easily scrutinized, permit 17 the data to be scrutinized and transformed into a format 18 that will be useful in PRAs, and right now we don't have 19 that. What we have is a more of an anecdotal data :
20 collection system existing within NRC, in INPO, in EPRI with 21 the various PRA vendors and so on. So standardization and J 22 attention to that is very important because collection of 23 data is a long-term process but a little up-front investment 24 can pay off by being made early.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do we need the reliability data ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
20 1 rule?
2 MR. GOLAY: I don't know the answer. T am more 3 comfortable stating the goal than addressing (n? tactic. l 4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I think we all have the 5 same goal. I think to get there requires a tactic.
6 MR. GOLAY: Yes. But in addressing sort of agenda j 7 items where research might think about applying more 8 resources, those are I would say the two primary ones.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
10 Commissioner Rogers?
11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes. We are talking here 12 about PRA and we are also talking about risk-informed 13 performance-based regulation and the point that I feel 14 sometimes gets lost here is the value of risk, a rick-15 informed point of view that is not entirely b5 sed upon a 16 full quantitative PRA but it is, nevertheless, a risk 17 ranking, a risk assessment in some way that isn't dependent 18 totally upon having data, reliability data, that just simply 19 may not exist. And yet that perspective is a very valuable 20 one.
21 I just wonder what your thoughts are on that, 22 because it seems to me that we tend to keep coupling PRA or 23 interpreting risk-informed performance-based regulation or 24 risk-informed regulation in any way, whether it is 25 performance-based or not, on the notion that it starts with ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
21
~
-1 a PRA. It doesn't have to depend totally on a full PRA. A 2 risk assessment can still be a very valuable beginning point 3 for looking at a system and that is happening in the 4 materials area but -- and I wonder to what extent you are 5 aware of that.
6 In the materials processing-plants, that is 7 exactly what they are doing. They are not doing PRAs but 8 they are doing risk categorization and risk classification 9 as part of their overall systems analysis.
10 DR. YUKAWA: I would just like to make a comment here that I am a member of the PRA subcommittee but also I
~
11 12 am making this comment as a member of the AMSE Boiler and 13 Pressure Vessel Code at ISI. There have passed now in 14 Section 11 several risk-based inspections. They are on 15 piping. And I think the industry will look to what the 16 Commission will do about that to see what the future holds 17 for them. So that should be coming through as a code case 18 pretty soon.
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Within months or this year?
20 DR. YUKAWA: It has passed all the main committees 21 now so it should be coming up within the next, latter half 22 of this year anyway.
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So this is specifically with 24 reference to piping?
25 DR. YUKAWA: This is for -- there are two kinds of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
.- . ~ . _ . _ . - -_. . _ - , -- -
l 22 1 code cases. One is very specific to a very specific line, a -
j 2 pipeline. The other is a more general one about risk-based 3 inspection for a larger category of pipes. The first, more 4 restrictive one, is only for class one piping.
5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
6 Commissioner McGaffigan? Okay l 7 DR. BOULETTE: The next item on the agenda is !
8 going to be discussed by Christine Mitchell. The subject is I
9 her review of the National Academy of Sciences report on 10 digital INC.
11 Christine.
12 MS. MITCHELL: Thank you.
13 I guess I should introduce this by saying it is 14 not really a review because I wear two hats. I served on 15 that National Academy committee as well as on the NSRRC and 16 so what is on your handout is just a high-level set of 17 points and I would be happy to field questions, j 18 I think the major things that the National Academy l 19 report provided include an af firmation that although dig. ital 20 technology is state-of-the-art technology and continues to 21 change at an increasing rate, there is a great deal of 22 experience with digital technology both in the nuclear 23 industry and in many other industries. The point being that 24 there is a tremendous amount of experience out there, even 25 though it is not necessarily U.S. safety system experience ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
23
~
1 in the nuclear industry.
2 The second is that the committee affirmed that 3 digital INC has the potential to enhance safety and l 4 reliability so we agree that this is a productive avenue to 5 pursue, basically agreeing with agencies such as the FAA, .
6 both on the flight deck and in air traffic control, that 7 digital technology can make an improvement as well as being 8 a cost efficient way to go.
9 And finally, in terms of nuclear applications and 10 their particular cultural history and movement from analog 11 to digital technology, that there are some special concerns 12 that need to be looked at that are not necessarily the 13 concerns of other agencies. I mean, I think the aviation 14 industry is the one that has brought forward the -- as the 15 example most often and, just an example of how the nuclear 16 industry is different, redundancy, as I understand it, in 17 the nuclear industry often means two identical things that 18 can fail whereas airplanes never run with -- one way of 19 achieving redundancy is two different implementations and 20 the FAA said, well, you know, it would never occur to us to 21 run an airplane with a jet on one side and a propeller on 22 the other. We don't have that same set of or culture of 23 implementing redundancy. So there are some very special 24 things that need to be addressed as digital technology is 25 implemented.
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 1 (202) 842-0034
24 i
1 One of-the things that came up during the ACRS '
2 briefing that I probably should address is our committee did !
3 not suggest that the staff loosen its rules in any way for i
4 digital technology. We, in fact, endorse the normal and !
5 conventional way that 10 CFR 50.59 has been applied. One of 6 our members was a former commissioner, Jim Curtis, and we l 7 spent a lot of time trying to understand what the normal 8 process was and stressed that we didn't think digital 9 technology should require a change in that process. So we i
10 . affirmed essentially how things are done now and suggested i 11 that no change be made. !
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Rogers? !
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: No questions. I 14- CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan? !
t 15 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: On that last point, that l
16 is not the way the staff interpreted the recommendation and 17 in their response they thought, based on the document that 18 they have submitted to the Commission and we have now put 19 out for public comment that you were suggesting that small i
20 changes, which is the heart of the debate over whether we 21 ever endorsed INSAC 125 or we didn't and the staff didn't, 22 that the small changes in safety are going to get there, to i
23 our end-reviewed safety question or not. !
24 Small changes, in the view of the staff, is an l
25 unreviewed safety question and so they did reject that part l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 '
(202) 842-0034
- l. '
4 25
^
l 1 of your recommendation, you know. I know that there is 2 probably debate. We are going to have it in the comments on j 3 the 50.59 paper. But I think where the staff has been for i :
4 some time is that they did not endorse INSAC 125 over this 5 fundamental issue. !
6 MS. MITCHELL: Again, I think that we were very i 7 careful to say that what was intended here was that digital 8 technology shouldn't be treated in any way chat was 9 different than previous technology. And that just because 10 it had software or hardware that it was automatically an 11 unreviewed safety question was not something that our j 12 committee endorsed. ,
13 My understanding was that the agency, in terms of 14 these generic letters, has had several drafts of these 15 letters and so there wasn't just one stand on this.
16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Could I ask a second 17 question that goes to what are the implications of this 18 report for the research program of NRC as opposed to our 19 rulemaking or reg guide efforts? Is there additional l
20 research or different research than what we are currently 21 doing in this area? ;
22 MS. MITCHELL: The committee made recommendations 23 for action as well as recommendations for how research could 24 proceed or be improved in each of the six technical areas 25 and two strategic areas, so we had some very specific i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 i Washington, D.C. 20005 !
(202) 842-0034
1 26 I 1 recommendations. '
2 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: How large -- a question '
3 the Chairman doesn't want me to ask --
l l 4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No, no , no --
5 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: What order of magnitude, 6 what order of magnitude research program that we are not 7 currently conducting or reorientation of a current program 8 that, you know, are we talking $5 million per year? Did you 9 get into that level of detail?
10 MS. MITCHELL: We didn't get into a specific 11 numbe. but I, as a committee member, tried very hard to 12 prevent my fellow committee members from taking unresolved 13 research issues or even technical issues and dumping them in 14 the category of this needs research and this needs dollars 15 before we can continue.
16 So we tried to suggest directions that could be 17 pursued in light of where things were and where things were 18 likely to be.
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I just wish to point out for 20 the record that my fellow commissioner and I are actually in 21 concurrence. I am always interested in what the net net 22 dollar amount is but, having spent my career doing research, 23 know it is very important to define what the problem is, 24 what the research is you want to do, what scope makes sense 25 and what dollars it would take to accomplish that scope and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
27 1 then one decides on the strategy of how to parse those 2 dollars.
3 I think in the end what would constitute the right 4 program and what it would cost is something we are 5 interested in.
6 DR. BOULETTE: It does raise a point I was going 7 to mention in closing and I may as well bring it up now.
I 8 This committee is unique in its ability to or in its focus 9 in looking at the broad scope of the research program and 10 trying to help the director to prioritize his efforts or the 11 efforts of the staff.
12 These questions come up and I've got a note in the 13 back of this folder that says the next meeting we have, we 14 have got to talk about shutdown research because it is 15 clearly an area that is significant. As a licensee, I know 16 that. There has been a lot of effort in the industry to try 17 to respond to that concern. As we respond to it, it is very l 18 clear that this is a different game, shutdown operation. ,
l ?
19 So I am sure that Dave and this committee will I 20 talk about that over the next several months and try to ,
1 I
21 bring some plan to this.
l l I
l 22 MR. MAYO: May I make a statement?
23 I would like to add to Christine Mitchell's l
24 statements. I certainly believe there is additional 25 research to be performed. Since I have been on this I
I I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l !
l 28 i l
1 committee for several years, we have been saying, well, we 2 are not doing much right now because we are waiting on the ,
3 study. I have read the recommendations and the report and I i 4 believe there is a lot of substance to them and it is l 5 something that our subcommittee will be picking up at the 1
l l
6 next meeting.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
8 DR. BOULETTE: The next area to be presented to j i
9 you is in the area of accident analyses and George Bankoff 10 will do that.
11 George, go ahead.
12 DR. BANKOFF: In connection with this general idea 13 of longer range view for this committee, I have condensed l
14 this report to just three bullets and I welcome comments. l i l 15 There is a lot of meat here and I would like to go over them '
16 in just a little detail. j 17 The first thing has to do with the recent 18 development due to a rather extensive study spearheaded by 1 ,
19 Professor Theophonus at Santa Barbara who, for which he has !
20 just received the Ernest Lawrence award from DOE on the I 21 strong likelihood of lower head integrity which means, 22 basically, that if you have a reactor with a flooded cavity, i 23 if you have that type of design such tnat you can flood the l 24 bottom half of the reactor, that boiling heat transfer will 25 prevent -- will be sufficient to prevent the failure of the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
i
29 1 reactor, the retention in core of the melt, the core melt.
2 That is of such significance, obviously, that it 3 is worth examining it more fully in the research area and !
4 justifying further work, possibly. The basic correlations ,
I 5 have been shown to exist for various scales of the reactor !
l 6 and it is very simply a function only of the angle, the j 7 polar angle of the position. So in view of this, we are 8 recommending that this be examined and maybe reallocate some )!
- 9. money. ]
10 Now, what this means, basically, is that some !
1 11 reactors such as the AP 600 do have floodable cavities. I 12 That is an important thing right there. Some existing i 13 reactors also have this. Others, many others do not and so l 14 the existing program, which is part of a very large program 15 internationally, should be continued because this does not !
16 apply to them. But it is an opportunity for the United l i
17 States to lead in this area, become again a leader in severe l 18 accident technology. !
19 The second bullet has to do with the existing !
l 20 codes and the current scaling methodology. I was very )
l l 21 pleased to have a chance, and under the initiative with
]
22 better cooperation between ACRS and our committee to act as 23 an observer and a participant in the Thermal Hydraulics l 24 Committee meetings and as a result of that, I had some l1 25 rather -- some severe concerns about the current scaling '
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ,
t
, Court Reporters l 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C. 20005 !
(202) 842-0034 i
. _ _ . - - . _ . . _ _ . . . . , . _ _ . _ _._- __ _ _. . i
30 1 methodology which I think should not impede in any way the ~
2 existing process for licensing of AP 600, that is far gone l 3 and so forth. But I think that it is time, this methodology 4 is 15 years old, it has never been really examined 5 impartially and objectively and that it is a long-range 6 subject for study, worthwhile, that this is a suggestion.
7 Finally, this -- the combining of four major 8 codes. We have a code update program. And combining that l 9 into a single modern code is clearly a worthwhile idea but 10 it needs to be dor quite cautiously. There has been a lot 11 of experience a: aoney invested in the present codes, they 12 l function reasonably well. What we want to make sure is that l 13 we do it cautiously, that we don't degrade capabilities at i 14 the same time as we add to convenience.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I guess the question I l
16 have is, is this a generalized caution or are there some 17 specific concerns in terms of the approaches being taken or l i 18 contemplated that are problematic? l 1
19 DR. BANKGFF: Well, there are some features such i 20 as the introduction of transport equations for interfacial 21 area which in principle are interesting but the existing 22 correlations, the existing data in general do not involve 23 interfacial area and so the question is what the database l
24 would be when one transfers that into a complex plan.
I 25 There is a desire to simplify the codes in the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
! 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
< 1
( .
\ .
31 i l 1- sense that they would no longer have more than two fields.
2 This may or may rat be -- this is a goal that had been 3 expressed from the beginning but it may not be achievable 4 without severe loss of accuracy.
5 They are talking about also maintaining existing 6 integral capabilities and that is also worthwhile but it is 7 necessary to really have a cost / benefit analysis, because 8 those are expensive, to decide what are the gaps in our 9 knowledge that are really important and will these proposed 10 experiments fill those gaps. ,
t 1
11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Rogers? '
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes. It was just on this 13 question of experimental validation of final results.
l 14 Do you think that there are existing facilities in 15 the world that can provide the data that would be needed to 16 validate a master code of this type?
17 DR. BANKOFF: Well, I think there are lots of data 18 that has been used to validate existing codes and the 19 question is whether the new code would handle those data as 20 well. We don't have to necessarily get new data. What we 21 have to be able to do is to show that the new code will have 22 the breadth of capability and the accuracy as well for a 23 complex plant, because it is a very -- it can do very well 24 one place and fail miserably in another.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: My take is that there is a l
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
~ . - -.. -. _-- _ _ __ ._ . _ . _ . - _ _ _ . _
32 1 subtlety to Commissioner Rogers's question, if I-may.
2 Because, presumably, the idea of developing this large 3 master code is meant to address certain vulnerabilities or .
4 holes in the existing disparatized codes. If that is the 5 case, then, you know, there is a separate issue of modeling !
6 the regions and thermal hydraulic space that can be modeled 7 with existing codes versus going and addressing regions that 8 are not addressed.
9 I am not a thermal hydraullics expert and I think 10 the question, at least the way I would take it, would be are 11 there existing experimental capabilities around the world l 12 that would allow one to have some appreciation for the 13 ability of the larger code being contemplated to in fact 14 give information in regions that the current codes do not?
15 DR. BANKOFF: Well, let me answer by saying I 16 think the major -- a major consideration in combining these 17 codes is maintainability and to reduce the cost of keeping 18 four codes up to one. That is a major consideration. Then 19 the question is, what about all these facilities that have 1 20 been used in the past? We have facilities, for AP 600 there 21 is an Italian facility, there is a Japanese facility. We 22 have one at Oregon State, we have something at Purdue.
23 So all of these facilities, all they do is take !
24 money.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: They are all based on some ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
33 1 kind of a single aspect of the system, either modeling full j 2 height at the spec facility or modeling something else at 3 the Rosa Facility or trying to model everything else, 4 everything at the Oregon State facility at a quarter scale.
5 So there are scaling questions that are involved with every 6 single one of those facilities and now we are talking about ,
7 a master code that we hope to be able to rely on but in the 8 long run, the question really comes to something like what I
9 the Chairman has said.
10 Are we going to wind up with the need, really, to 11 validate something in addition to whatever data -- provide ;
12 data in addition to whatever is there?
13 DR. BANKOFF: The point is that any, any code that f 14 is really good and that has been developed for this kind of ,
15 data should predict data from any one of these. It should 16 not be limited. You should be able to go back, not only 17 that to the integral scale test but you should be able to 18 look at separate effects tests, smaller scale. It should be l 19 code which is quite general. That is the hope of it.
20 Now, the reason we think about caution is that it ,
r 21 never worked out that you can make it that general, that it -
22 works very well here but doesn't do so well in some other 23 places.
24 So when we say it has to be done cautiously, it 25 has to be done with continuous checking to make sure that i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 e
a . -
l 34 1 you haven't lost something at the same time as you are ^
2 gaining something.
3 DR. BOULETTE: Isn't it also true, though, George, 4 that the data set that is being derived for a specific code 5 is derived with that code in mind if you want so it has 6 limitations?
7 . CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right, that's what we are 8 talking about.
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: That is what we are talking 10 about.
11 DR. BOULETTE: And my answer would be there would 12 have to be some verification.
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: And my impression is that in 14 every one of these experiments you can get pretty good 15 results if you adjust certain parameters. But then you 16 readjust those parameters when you look at another 17 experiment and that is not a master code; that is something 18 else.
19 DR. BANKOFF: That has been the situation now.
20 Blind experiments ir advance are -- I mean, blind 21 predictions in advance are very difficult.
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan?
23 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Just one point of 24 clarification. The advice you are giving us at the moment 25 sounds very similar to advice Dr. Caton gave us last fall ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
35
^
1 when he was looking on behalf of ACRS.
2 Is that right? You participated with him and do 'l 3 you agree with Ivan Caton's --
4 DR. BANKOFF: On the codes?
5 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: On the codes. ,
6 He had some of the same concerns about --
7 DR. BANKOFF: I didn't go to that meeting so I 8 can't really say. !
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think we should move on. ,
10 DR. BOULETTE: Very good. The next subject is 11 materials and engineering and in this case it is Sumio 12 Yukawa.
13 DR. YUKAWA: The scope of this subcommittee is to 14 do research that helps support maintenance and control of ;
15 pressure and structural integrity of the whole pressure 16 boundary systen and, as such, it includes materials, 17 engineering and performance evaluation of components and 18 items that primarily constitute the first line of defense in i 19 this defense in depth strategy. So it is items like the ,
I 20 reactor pressure vessel, piping, valves and so on.
i 21 This research area has been an area that involves :
22 maturing technology, by and large, as exemplified by big 23 programs like the Heavy Section Steel Technology Program 24 that has been in existence for about 25 years now, the 25 Piping Integrity Program and several other rather large i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. .
Court Reporters "
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 t
_ _ m ._ . . . .- . .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . ~ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ .
36 1 programs. '
2 The question covas up, well, have we learned 3 enough? And especially in these days of decreasing 4 resources.
5 Yet we feel, yes, there is a need for selective research because newer issues and needs are coming along, 6
4 7 particularly in the areas of less conservative regulations, l 8 license renewal issues and, as we have mentioned here i l 9 earlier, databases for PRA. '
l 10 So there is a need, we feel, to have research l 11 programs in these selective areas and in this context I f 12 would like to say that research staff has scheduled a peer 13 review of the whole reactor pressure vessel integrity i 14 program for early July and I don't know what the outcome of 15 that will be but it certainly will be some of these 16 questions and issues will be covered there. L i 17 We suggest, perhaps, that there ought to be l 1 !
, 18 similar critical reviews of other program areas, depending l 4
j 19 on what the results of this peer review are. l l
20 Now, on the next bullet, the third bullet, the l 21 third item, I think you have received a letter already which {
l 22 was prompted by a question about well are there simpler or l
23 easier ways to measure some of these degradations and 24 properties that accompanies thermal and radiation damage and 25 so forth and I think the reply you received was pretty much, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
.-.._- - - - . - . . - .. . . - . - . . - - - _ - . . . . . -. . ~ . . . . ~ ._-.- -
1 i
5 37 i i
I* 1 well, there'is very little hope for that right now in the i
l 2 near future.
i 2 Given that, we think that basic research to f 4 improve mechanistic understanding of the processes that 5 underline engineering performance still needs continuing !
t 6 support. ;
7 Then on the fourth and last item, in'the direction ;
8 setting issues, DSI 22, it suggested that' opportunities for .
9 the three C's, I call them three C's in research, t i
10 coordination, cooperation, collaboration with industry and 11 international programs and to that I would like to add ;
i 12 perhaps that the Naval Reactors Program ought to be somehow 13 or another included. Now there is a lot of questions about 14 that but my impression is that the Naval Reactors Program is i 15 now releasing a lot of their at least research study l 16 results. l 17 One in particular that I am familiar with has to i i
18 do with a chemical species diffusion model that really helps !
t 19 to understand what the role of fatigue crack growth in a l i
20 light water reactor environment is. If we had known about ;
21 it or this information -- we, I mean, in particular the .
22 Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, if we had known this ;
23 information we could have done some things differently in 24 the code and presumably it would affect the research program l 25 also. t f
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. [
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 I Washington, D.C. 20005 ;
(202) 842-0034 .
38 1- CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So it is called the Chemical 2 Species what?
3 DR. YUKAWA: This is a diffusion model for 4 specific chemical species in the water that has put an 5 impact on whether or not fatigue crack growth is aided and 6 abetted by the light water reactor environments or not and 7 that is a very, very interesting issue and more than 8 interesting it can be used in defining when the problem is 9 there and when it is not there.
10 Now, so I just mentioned this about the Naval 11 Reactors Program. I leave it up to somebody more than 12 myself to try to see what can be done there.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you are saying there are 14 perhaps some opportunities in our own yard?
15 DR. YUKAWA: Yes, I think there is. Becausc after 16 all, they are operating the same systems that we are and 17 many of the same materials and the same engineering 18 problems. l 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, Commissioner Rogers?
l 20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Nothing.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan? I l
22 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I do think that's a 23 worthwhile suggestion to follow up.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's right, exactly.
l 25 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I wonder if we could ask l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters j 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 '
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
39 1 Dr. Morrison if he has had any chance to look into that.
2 DR. MORRISON: I haven't.had a chance to look into 3 that specific recommendation that Sumio has made. But we do 4 maintain a_ continuing relationship with the Naval Reactors 5 program and will put that specific item on the table.
6 COMMISSIONER.McGAFFIGAN: Do you get a chance to 7 review the Naval Reactors Research Program and have some 8 visibility into it or is it invisible?
9 DR. MORRISON: No, it is more picking up instances 10 like this when we get involved in it that we can tie into a 11 specific request. We don't have a broad interaction with 12 Naval Reactors.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: A lot of the stuff is not 14 generally available.
15 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I understand. I have 16 always felt that Naval Reactors erred on the side of -- too 17 far on the side of keeping everything --
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right. I mean, I think the 19 point is made that there is opportunity there and I think 20 that's the point.
21 DR. MORRISON: Certainly on a very generic issue 22 like this. There are as many differences as there are 23 similarities between the Naval reactors and the li bnt water 24 reactors that we use.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right. And perhaps we can be ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.,
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
4 40 1 more aggressive in pursing these avenues.
2 DR. MORRISON: Right.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's your point, I think.
4 Okay.
5 DR. BOULETTE: And that's a comment, again, that 6 we were going to make in a broader scope, not only the Naval 7 Research Program but other initiatives with the industry, 8 conceivably.
9 The next subject that we wanted to discuss is 10 entitled Methodology of Core Research Capabilities 11 Definition. This was going to be presented to you by John 12 Taylor. I think some of you know John. He is a retired 13 executive with EPRI.
14 John called in yesterday with the flu. I l
15 volunteered to do his presentation. I have also acquired 16 his flu so we will see what happens.
17 What I thought I might do is read his words. I 18 can do this in about a minute, minute-and-a-half, I think, 19 and hopefully it will stimulate some questions. If it does, 20 I will invite the members of the committee to help me out 21 with the questions.
22 John says that the methodology which research has 23 developed to define core capabilities is systematic and 24 thorough and should provide an objective assessment of core 25 research capability requirements. The five-step approach is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
41 1 appropriate. The definition of what constitutes a core 2 research capability, identification of the research 3 functions where support from a core research capability is 4 needed, development of criteria to indicate the amount of 5 support needed for each regulatory function and the 6 importance of that support to the regulatory mission of the 7 agency, documentation of the staff and contract resources 8 needed for each core capability as derived from the first 9 three steps and identification about areas of research that 10 needs to be assessed for core capability.
11 The Office of Research is to be commended for 12 their efforts as they develop the methodology to obtain the 13 viewpoints of the NRC user offices, NRC program managers and 14 the national labs, deans of nuclear engineering of six 15 universities and industry personnel involved in nuclear 16 research. The following suggestions are made which the 17 committee judges will enhance the results of application of 18 the methodology.
19 First, 39 areas of research have been identified, 20 primarily in terms of technical skills, where the potential j 21 need for core capabilities will be assessed. To provide a 22 clearer basis for the prioritization of these needs, it 23 would be appropriate to define the Office of Research's R&D 24 objectives as well as the technical skills, where are we 25 going, what are we trying to accomplish? l I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters !
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 )
Washington, D.C. 20005 1 (202) 842-0034 !
d
1 1
42 I
. I 1 The methodology provides a detailed form of 2 prioritization for assessing for each skill area the 3 regulatory needs which would be fulfilled in that area.
4 Yet, review of the two examples of application of the l 5 methodology shows a relatively small difference in 6 capability requirements between an area of high activity, 7 work load driven, and one which is relatively inactive, 8 expertise-driven.
i 9 In the planned application of the methodology 10 existing research core capabilities that derived only from 11 the staff of the Office of Research, the committee believes l 12 that NRR staff should also be considered as contributing to !
13 co.e capabilities where they have appropriate skills. '
14 From the two examples of application of the 15 methe;dology, it appears that less important areas will be 16 assigned a minimum of one staff member, a full-time ;
l 17 equivalent staff member. This may impose a higher staff
'8
. requirement than funding permits. Consideration should be 19 given to providing all the needed capability in such areas 20 through contractors, particularly the national labs.
21 The planned scope of the evaluation that is 22 limited to the current understanding of the regulatory 23 environment does not consider potential future needs and we 24 heard of one this morning in terms of shutdown technology 25 and some research that might be useful and applicable in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 43
- 1. that area, i l
2 This restriction inhibits planning for new 3 initiatives, particularly in anticipatory research. Lead )
4 times in developing new skills can be lengthy.
5 Although the implementation of the core capability ;
6 program logically follows the completion of the assessment !
7 and Commission approval of core capability needs, 8 preliminary planning should be defined as to how these needs 9 will be maintained or remedied. The implementation will be 10 difficult because of the present and continuing budget .
r 11 restraints and further guidance can come on priorities by l 12 assessing the specific difficulties and costs of maintaining ;
13 capabilities in each area. l This capability assessment is key to maintaining !
14 15 the necessary research competence to permit the Office of !
16 Research to meet its responsibilities. Accordingly, it is l 17 being given in-depth and high-priority attention by the ;
18 manager of the Office of Research. l 19 The above comments are intended, on the_one hand, j 20 to help meet the capability requirements in a limited i 21 resource context and on the other hand to enlarge the 22 assessment to include anticipatory research needs.
23 Those would have been John's comments. Are there 24 any questions or comments to that?
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Rogers?
l i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ;
Court Reporters 1250 I Streat, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 i (202) 842-0034 '
_ ~- _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ ______.___.m _ . _ . . _ _ _
44 1 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: No.
2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan?
3 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: No.
4 DR. BOULETTE: Let me take a few minutes to close 5 and I will be very brief. I had two points that I wanted to 6 make.
7 One focused on the role of research in the NRC.
8 As you know, the ACRS has already presented its report to i
9 Congress and I won't repeat some of those things But I 10 should say this committee endorses those comments made by '
11 the ACRS. We strongly feel that there is a need for 12 continuing and maintaining research in supporting the 13 regulatory process. We are concerned, however, that 14 research is primarily user need driven and that probably the 15 Office of Research ought to try to balance its resources, as 16 tight as they may be, to allow for some preemptive or some 17 exploratory research and we have had discussions with 18 Dr. Morrison about that.
19 The other point that we would make, and it is 20 highlighting a point that Sumio made in terms of !
21 collaboration with the Naval Research Program, we do believe 22 and we do want to encourage the Office of Research to be as 23 collaborative as it can be with the industry and, in 24 particular, for example, the issue of shutdown technology
, 25 and the research that might support regulatory processes in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1 Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
45 1 that sphere. It would seem to me that working with the 2 industry collaboratively would really help there.
3 A point that has come up on occasions within our 4 committee and I think with the Commission is the 5 effectiveness of this committee. We have struggled with 6 that for a couple of meetings now because it is a fairly 7 subjective question. Some of the things that we hope to do 8 to assess our effectiveness is to be more diligent about 9 following up on the recommendations and concerns that we 10 expressed in our reports to Dr. Morrison. So you will see 11 in future reports from us a bringing back of older issues 12 that we have raised and how they have been disposed of, how 13 they have been addressed.
14 Hopefully, from that kind of review, we will be 15 able to assess how effective we have been and how much we 16 have been able to help shape the program of research.
i 17 With that, I would say that constitutes our 18 report.
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Rogers? i 1
20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I have nothing.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I would like to thank 22 you, Dr. Boulette, members of the committee, and 23 Dr. Morrison, for the briefing. It has been very 24 interesting.
25 Echoing your words, our research program has to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l l .
46 1 provide a strong and independent technical capability to 2 undergird our regulatory programs and so the Commission 3 appreciates the committee's efforts in this regard. We l
4 would urge you to continue to work with the staff to resolve 5 issues and concerns.
l 6 I want to highlight again the area of human 7 factors and because operational experience has shown and you l
8 have that experience that human performance is a major
! 9 factor in the safe operation of nuclear plants and, as we t
l 10 have been talking about, the staff is developing for review '
11 an agency wide program plan for human reliability assessment l
12 and human performance evaluation. It is expected to be 13 available by the end of June. I think it would be useful 14 for your committee to review the plan, particularly from the 15 point of view of its implications for research and to 16 provide your views to the Commission through the Director of 17 the Office of Research on the adequacy of the plan to l
18 advance the state of the art.
19 DR. BOULETTE: We will do that.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And let me just tell you some 21 particular things that I think are important to look at and 22 those have to do with the ability to assess errors of l 23 commission, cognitive errors, crew performance, 24 human / machine interface effects and is effect upon 25 performance, information technology effects and that comes ANN R1 LEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters I
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
. _ -- ~ - . - - - . -
o l 47
! i 1 into -- that plays into the digital INC arena, as well as ]
2 relevant social and organization effects on human 1 l
3 performance. l j
-4 I think if you can provide value-added in that 4 5 arena and to report those views to the office director and, l ,
L 6 through him to the Commission, I think that we have talked I 7 about the need for effective research in these areas, a well l ,
8 scoped out program. But I believe that scope -- cost !
9 follows scope.but you have to cost it out anu I think, 10 Dr. Morrison, you have gotten some clear indication that 11 there is interest in these areas and I think we should also 1
12 take to heart what came out of the discussion with i 13 Dr. Yukawa relative to looking close at hand for some 14 additional data and research cooperation. !
15 Unless there are any additional remarks by my 16 colleagues, we are adjourned.
17 [Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the meeting was 18 concluded.]
19 20 -
l 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
L Court Reporters
! 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
4 1 i CERTIFICATE 4 :
! This is to certify that the attached description of a meeting l 1
of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled: i
) 'l 4
TITLE OF MEETING: MEETING WITH NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH l REVIEW COMMITTEE (NSRRC) - PUBLIC i .,
j MEETING I i i i
l PLACE OF MEETING: Rockville, Maryland i
I I
1 l DATE OF MEETING: Friday, May 2, 1997 !
a a was held as herein appears, is a true and accurate record of i the meeting, and that this is the original transcript thereof I taken stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company Transcriber: ('iprJ b L i dict h p (I Reporter: Mark Mahoney i
i i
s BRIEFING PACKAGE l MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH REVIEW COMMITTEE (NSRRC)
MAY 2, 1997 I CONTENTS:
e Scheduling Notes e NSRRC Member List e NSRRC Charter
- Presentation Slides
- NSRRC Report I
l i
I i
l l
I
4 SCHEDULING NOTES
Title:
Meeting with the Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee (NSRRC)
Scheduledi 10:30 a.m. Friday. May 2, 1997 (PUBLIC)
Duration: Approximately 1-1/2 hours
Participants:
Members of the NSRRC David L. Morrison, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research I ,
., )
\
i I
- i. l
)
1 l APRIL 1997 L
i NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH REVIEW COMMITTEE (NSRRC)
\
l l
l Dr. E. T. Boulette, NSRRC Chairman J
- Sr. Vice-President, Nuclear Operations and Station Director, Pilgrim Station Boston Edison Co.
! -Dr. S. George Bankoff 1: Professor of Chemical and Mechanical Engineering (Emeritus)
Northwestern University
! Professor Michael W. Golay 4 Professor of Nuclear Engineering ,
M. I. T.
] Professor Charles Mayo j Associate Professor of Nuclear Engineering
! and Director. Nuclear Reactor Program
{ North Carolina State University i
- Professor Christine M. Mitchell Professor. School of Industrial and Systems Engineering Center for Human-Machine Systems Research l Georgia Institute of Technology j~ Mr. John Taylor Vice President. EPRI (retired) i- Dr. Sumio Yukawa j- Consultant (metallic materials, components) t l
l 3
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CHARTER NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH REVIEW COMMITTEE
- 1. Committee's Official Desienation NRC Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee (NSRRC)
- 2. Committee's Obiectives. Scope of Activities, and Duties On a continuing basis, NSRRC will provide advice to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research and through him the Commission, on matters of overall management importance in the direction of the NRC's program of nuclear safety research. Matters requiring NSRRC's attention will be posed by the Commission by ths Director of the Research Office, or as an outcome of prior NSRRC deliberatiens.
Nuclear safety research is understood to encompass technical investigations of the implications for public health and safety of the peaceful uses of atomic energy and the reduction of those investigations to regulatory practice.
NSRRC activities will include assessment of and recommendations concerning:
- a. Conformance of the NRC nuclear safety research program to the NRC Philosophy of Nuclear Regulatory Research, as stated in the Commission's Strategic Plan, and to specific Commission directions.
- b. Likelihood of the program meeting the needs of the users of research.
- c. Appropriateness of the longer range research programs and the correctness of their direction.
- d. Whether the best people are doing the work at the best places; whether there are other options, including cooperative programs, that would yield higher quality work, or otherwise improve program efficiency.
- e. Whether the program is free of obvious bias, and whether the research products have been given adequate, unbiased peer review.
In addition, NSRRC will conduct specialized studies when requested by the Commission or the Director of the i
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. If appropriate, these studies will be published as reports.
l
- 3. Time Period N'ecessary for the Commission to Carry out its Purpose 1 In view of the goals and purposes of the Committee, it is J
expected to be continuing in nature.
- 4. Official to whom this Committee Reports The Director of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research and, as appropriate, through the Director to the Commission. l
- 5. Acency Responsible for Providina Necessary Succort for this Committee 1
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Within the Commission, support will be furnished'by the' Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. -
l j
- 6. Description of Duties for which the Committee is Responsible l The duties of the NSRRC are solely advisory and are stated in paragraph 2, abcve.
- 7. Estimated Annual Operatina Costs in Dollars and Man-Years
$185,000; 0.8 person-year.
- 8. Estimated Number and Frequency of Committee Meetinas The Committee will meet at such times and places as it deems necessary, but not less than once a year. Subcommittees may meet as deemed necessary to achieve their assigned tasks. I
- 9. Committee's Termination Date Two years from the filing date, subject to renewal by the Commission. See also, paragraph 3 above.
- 10. Members
- a. Committee members, including the Chairperson, shall be appointed by the Commission following nomination by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
- b. Approximate number of Committee members: 9 to 12.
- c. Members will be chosen to ensure an appropriately.-
balanced representation of the research management community, taking into account: (1) demonstrated experience in high-level management of programs in
\
applied research; (2) demonstrated expertise in one or more disciplines of applied science and engineering;
~
(3) broad acquaintance with the public health and safety issues associated with the peaceful uses of atomic energy, and (4) a balance of experience in the academic, industrial, and national and not-for-profit laboratory environments.
i
- 11. Date of Filina: h' / . / . l
[
' G, .
- ]
.. '?..i.-
A'ndrew L. Bates ,
Advisory Committee Management Officer l l
! l 1
l l
l 1
I l
l l
1 l-
0 e
9 4
" +
k PRESENTATION SLIOES l
l I
i i
l i
r i
NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH REVIEW COMMITTEE i
(NSRRC)
MEETING WITH THE COMMISSION i MAY 2,1997 i
i i
l ,
, INTRODUCTION l
l ;
l l
o Current Membership 1
o Subcommittee Make-up o Schedule o ACRS Interface
i JOINT MEETING OF THE NSRRC I&C AND HUMAN FACTORS /PRA i SUBCOMMITTEES
+
! o RES projects in HF and HRA are largely unrelated o HRA program has limited scope - Atheana had-organizational factors o User needs do not address development of HRA portion of PRA '
o Analysis of operating experience should be a resource for relating HF, HRA and PRA l o Longer term programs are needed to advance HRA using HF/HRA projects and PRA analysis of operating experience
PRA IN RISK INFORMED PERFORMANCE BASED REGULATION O RIPBR is absent at the NRC regional / licensee interface
~
o Greater use of PRA is needed in guiding regulation NRC is advancing dual regulatory emphases, causing confusion o
o AEOD could make more use of PRA in helping RES to refine PRA/HRA capabilities i
o Many problems of RIPBR implementation are being deferred too long i
l i
NAS REPORT ON DIGITAL I&C o State-of-the-art technology, widely used o Potential to enhance safety and reliability o Must be implemented with care in nuclear e
f u - - - - ---- - _ - - - - - - -_ _- - ---_ _ - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - -
ACCIDENT ANALYSIS i
o Strong likelihood of in-vessel core retention in reactor with flooded cavity, owing to excellent lower-head cooling o Existing codes not used for phenomena ranking in current scaling methodology o Combining four major codes into a single modern code needs to be done cautiously
MATERIALS AND ENGINEERING l
o Scope addresses maintenance / control of pressure and structural
! integrity of systems -
I o Less conservative regulations, license renewal rule, and PRA databases require further research o Need to develop mechanistic understanding of damage functions o Explore coordination / cooperation with selected naval reactor research programs
METHODOLOGY OF CORE RESEARCH CAPABILITIES DEFINITION o Methodology systematic and thorough; provides an objective assessment o To ascertain priorities, R&D objectives as well as technical disciplines should be considered o Scope limited to RES capabilities is too restrictive j r
o Consider filling inactive capabilities outside NRC staff o Scope based only on current activities restricts planning horizon 1
o Need to identify plans to maintain and remedy core capability requirements I
l
t CLOSING o Role of the Office of Research in NRC o Effectiveness of NSRRC
9
. l 8
4 i".,
- i '
i 1
i 6
1
~
0., ,
b 4 4 i
i 4
i 5
j
}
k NSRRC COMMITTEE REPORT OF ITS APRIL 3-4,1997 MEETING i
~
sanan es on Pilgrm Nuclear Power Station i
Rocky Hdi Road Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 l ,
1 l
t E. T. Boulette, PhD Senior Wee President - Nuclear ,
, April 25,1997 5
l Dr. David Mordson l
USNRC, Omce of Nuclear Regulatory Research l
l Mail Stop TDS, Washington, DC 20555 l
l l
Dear Dr. Morrison:
l Enclosed is the report of the NSRRC Committee meeting on April 3 & 4,1997. Please note that the subcommittee reports are attached.
If you have any questions on the contents, please call me. I l
l l
l l
~
Sincerely, E. Thomas Boulette, PhD 1
l l CC: NSRRC Committee Members l J. Cortez l
Encs.
- vep i
l J 1
]
1
NSRRC REPORT APRIL 3-4,1997
/
i The Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee met on April 3-4,1997 at Two White Flint North Bldg., Rockville, MD. Members in attendance included E.T. Boulette, Chair, S. George Bankoff, Michael Golay, Christine Mitchell, John Taylor and Sumio l Yukawa. Also attending the meeting were David Morrison, RES Director, Jose Cortez, i l
DFO, and several members of the RES staff. A copy of the meeting agenda is attached l Boulette opened the meeting by reviewing the agenda and emph= Mag the need for preparing for the wing with the commission on May 2. The committee brieoy j f= *=1 the format for that ra=+iag. with the position taken that each member would ;
make a brief report in their areas of review. l l
Morrison then made a few remarks regarding the recent management changes in the NRC, with emphasis on the RES organization. Morrison also discussed the evolutions in the NRC's strategic plan emph==iving anticipated changes expected in the next year or so. l J
Golay, with the assistance of Mitchell, next made a presentation of thejoint wing of the PRA/IAC and Human Factors Subcommittees held on January 24,1997. The l
- repon was reviewed and commented upon, with some discussion of the subcommittees' !
response to the commission's questions in this area posed last September,19%. The major observations and recommendations are summarized as follows, with the complete repon attached.
l The current RES human factors (HF) and human reliability analysis (HRA) programs l
are largely unrelated. The current HRA programs also are not coupled by work of AEOD
! in assessing actual event experiences. That situation should change; reorganization would be helpful. The HF/HRA programs of RES are too much dominated by User Needs, uncoordinated, short term-oriented and therefore too often lacking in genuine research content, and typically not organized to formulate and resolve hypotheses.
The HRA program is underfunded and optimistic. It consists of only two projects:
ATHENA - for errors of commission, and a project concerning Organizational Factors.
Currently HRA in PRAs relies upon empirical data for quantifying the reliability of l
l simple human actions. With current capabilities HRA is not ready to quantify the reliability of commission errors, cognitive errors, crew performance, human-machine interface effects upon human performance, infonnation technology effects and social and organizational effects upon human performance.
l
) Reorganization of current effons can be valuable. Imponant foci should include
- coupling of HF and HRA efforts, linking HRA/PRA advancement to work of AEOD and NRR, and cooperation with the complementary research programs of other organizations. l 1
4 The next area discussed by the committee was a report by Mitchell of the NAS final report " Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems in Nuclear Power Plants, Safety and Reliability Issues". Major points of discussion and observations are summarized as follows:
The Committee on Application of Digital lastrumentation and Control Systems to Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Safety of the National Research Council submitted its final report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulato'ry Commission (US NRC) in December 1996.
In the report, the Committee made several points. First, the Committee noted that while digital instrumentation and control equipment is state-of-the-art technology, it is widely l used both inside and outside the nuclear industry; thus, a large body of experience ,
continues to accumulate. Second, digital technology, including hardware and software, has the potential to enhance safety and increase overall system effectiveness in both nuclear and non-nuclear applications. Finally, due to significant differences between analog and digital technologies, the nuclear industry must implement digital technology with care and caution, particularly in safety-critical systems.
l The Committee conducted its analysis in the context of eight key issues: six technical and two strategic. A total of 39 recommendations were made. Technicalissues included consideration of characteristics that highlight. differences between traditional analog technology and emerging digital systems. Technical issues include systems aspects of distributed systems, software quality assurance, and software reliability. Strategic issues address the regulation process including 10 CFR 50.59 reviews and the adequacy of the US NRC technical infrastructure to respond to quickly emerging technologies.
The Committee reviewed a range of past experience that the US NRC and the j i
nuclear industry have had with digital applications in both current and advanced plants.
I l The Committee endorses the current position of the US NRC and its application of 10 CFR 50.59 with respect to the use of digital technology. The Committee strongly l
l encourages the maintenance of the distinction between digital upgrades that.are significant l (i.e., pose unreviewed safety questions) and those that are not. Based on this distinction, the Committee recommends that the US NRC tailor the scope and depth of regulatory review in a manner commensurate with significance.
1 The Committee stressed the importance of maintaining a technical infrastructure i
l which allows the US NRC to address emerging opportunities and issues. The continued change in digital technology and an increase in the rate of change appears inevitable. It is difficult but critical for the US NRC staff to ensure that the vision and technical skills of the staff keep abreast of rapid technology change and potential applications in nuclear applications.
A knowledgeable infrastructure will allow the US NRC to address technical issues in both the regulatory and research areas. The Committee noted that while there are no
' silver bullets' to finally resolve the myriad of technical issues associated with digital
- technology, +=2ete resources and experience exist to permit the ir-s nal incorporation of such technology in nuclear power plants in a manner that ensures the necessary levels of safety and reliability.
Committee deliberations and the revision of the Standard Review Plan preaadad concunently. At this point, the US NRC staffis reviewing the National Research Council report to ensure that either the Standard Review Plan revision or subsequent deliberations address each of the issues identified in the r,eport.
Professor Bankoff next reported on the Accident Analysis Subcommittee meeting held on April 2,1997. Several of the subcommittee members were not inne aad== for this meeting because of the northeastern blizzard. The principal observations and recommendations of this subcommittee are as follows, with the full report attached.
Coordination with ACRS George Bankoff attended as an observer and invited participant of the meetings of the i ACRS Thermal Hydraulics Subcommittee on December 18-19,1996 on AP600 I PIRT/ scaling analysis with Westinghouse and NRR representatives and on Febmary 12- '
14,1997 to discuss application of the RELAP code to integral test data obtained in the three integral test facilities (OSU, Italy, Japan).
As a result of these meetings, some apparent difficulties in the current scaling methodology were identified, as described in the letter from Dr. Bankoff to Dr. Catton, dated March 13,1997, who was the ACRS Subcommittee Chair at the time. It was ;
suggested that this would be an appropriate subject for the study. j 1
The available member of the AA Subcommittee met with RES staff on April 2,1997 l to discuss the severe accident program in the light of recent work by Theofanous, et al.,
suggesting the strong likelihood ofin-vessel i: ore retention for a reactor whose lower head i i
is immersed in a flooded cavity (AP600 and others). There is an active RES program on lower head integrity. The subcommittee wishes to emphasize the following point: the '
CHF for boiling heat transfer from a submerged lower head has been correlated as a single function of the polar angle, for data from several scales and locations. The minimum CHF ,
is sufficient to keep the lower head cool (a few tens of degrees above the saturation temperature), so that thermal failure, due to creep or local melting, cannot occur. This possibility needs to be thoroughly researched.
Code Updating ,
The four major codes are slated to be combined into a single modem, modular code.
! This is a worthwhile project, but needs to be carefully monitored and tested to see whether j the technical capabilities of the present codes are being retained.
l l
t
l-s l . It is also proposed to convert the fundamental equations (heat, mass and 1 mon-mun) to more suitable dependent variables, such as interfacial area per unit volume.
This should be done very cautiously.
4 r l
~ It is also proposed to conduct a coa
- Mag experime'ntal program in an NRC-supported facility, such as at Purdue. The subcommittee recommends that prior to i running any experiment the gaps in existing knowledge, based on available data, be j identi6ed and an analysis be made showing how the experiment will remedy the situation.
. Next on the committee's agenda was a brie 6ng by S. Yukawa on the Materials and !
l Fa=iaW Subcommittee meeting also held on April 2,1997. Attendance for this l meeting was also limited by the April 1 storm. Major findings of this subce-wJttee are as l
i follows with the ft" text of the report attached.
j In a one-half day meeting on April 2,1997 RES staff presented the status of and plans for research programs in two progrkm areas:
Environmental Qualification (EQ) of Electric Cable Systems ECCS Strainer Blockage The presentations indicated that both programs are proceeding on schedule with useful results. Through year 2000, the focus of research on EQ of Cables is on the effect of thermal and radiation aging on the performance of cables used in I&C systems. After that, studies on power cables and connections are planned. The subcommittee's one recommendation for this program is to be sure that the anticipated testing results will be sufficient t'o fulfill the data needs of PRA methodology for I&C systems.
The testing and experimental phase of the research on Strainer Blockage will be completed in FY 97 and some regulatory actions have already been issued. Additional actions may be issued as needed. This resear5h program has the elements of a useful and benc6cial coordination between NRC RES, nuclear industry groups and component suppliers.
1 Several weeks prior to this committee meeting, an NRC-industry meeting on safety research was held at NRC Headquarters. The meeting took place'on March 25th and was attended by utility representation, NRC staff, EPRI, regulatory owners groups, major nuclear vendors, NEI and DOE. The meeting was sponsored by David Morrison of the RES staff, Andrew Kadak of YAEC and John Taylor, member of the NSRRC. Taylor ,
reported the observations coming from the March meeting to the NSRRC and, after some j discussion with the committees, compiled the following observations:
RES is to be commended for their efforts, as they developed the methodology to l obtain the viewpoints of the NRC user offices, NRC Program Managers in the national i labs, deans of nuclear engineering of six universities, and industry personnel involved in nuclear research.
.j
' The following suggestions are made which the committee judges will enhance the results of application of the niethodology:
Thirty-nine areas of research have been identified, primadly in terms of technical skills, where the potential need for core capabilities will be staanwi To provide a clearer basis for the prioritization of these needs, it would be appropriate to define the RES R&D objectives as well u the technical skills. The methodology provides a detailed form of
-prioritization by assessing for each skill arek the regulatory needs which would be fulfilled !
in that area. Yet, review of the two examples of application of the methodology shows a relatively small difference in capability requirement between an area of high activity (work-load driven) and one which is relatively inactive (experdse driven).
In the planned application of the methodology, existing research core capabilities are derived only from the RES staff. NRR staff should also be considered as contributing to core capabilities where they have appropriate skills.
From the two examples of application of the methodology, it appears that less important areas will be assigned a minimum of one RES staff member. This may impose a i
higher staff requirement than funding permits. Consideration should be given to providing all of the needed capability in such areas through contractors, particularly the national labs.
The planned scope of the evaluation is limited to the current understanding of the !
regulatory environment and does not consider potential future needs. This restriction j
inhibits planning for new initiatives, particularly in anticipatory research. The lead times in i
developing new skills can be lengthy.
Although the implementation of the core capability program logicall'y follows the completion of the assessment and Commission approval of core capability needs, prehminary planning should be defined as to how these needs will be maintained or l
remedied. The implementation will be difficult because of the present and continuing budget restraints and further guidance can come on priorities by assessing the specific difficulties and costs of maintaining capabilities in each area.
This capability assessment is key to retaining the necessary research competence to permit RES to meet its responsibilities. Accordingly, it is being given in-depth and high priority attention by RES management'. The above comments are intended on the one Iand, to help meet the capability requirement's in a limited resource context; but on the I other hand, to enlarge the assessment to include anticipatory research needs.
The remainder of the meeting was devoted to a review of the conunittee's effectiveness in supporting RES and preparation for the meeting with the commission on i
May 2. With regard to the subcommittee's effectiveness, several observations were made.
j First, the committee believes it should continue to emphasize a longer term view of research. To that end, the conunittee needs to spend more attention on the long-term
l plans ofRES, to ensure appropriate priority is placed in anticipating future needs. An associated concern is related to how much of RES' efforts are devoted to user needs response. Adgata resources need to be reserved for the longer term viev', which will require managing the user need responses appropriately.
The committee believes that it can assess its effectiveness by requiring a periodic review of the staffs response to its recommendations. This activity will become a standard agenda item for future committee inecting, with a request tint RES formally address all committee recommendations and observations, with a discussion about their j resolution.
The committee wants to bring to the commission's attention recent recommendations j
' from the ACRS, the NAS and the NSRRC all supporting continuing safety research. It is '
considered a vital activity for the NRC, and, in spite of necessary budget reductions, must be managed to ensure maintenance of primary functions.
The final segments of the meeting were devoted to preparations for the meeting with the commission.
l I
I l
4/25/97 I
l t
e
, Attcchment #1 .
Report of the NSRRC Subcommittees of Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Human Factors Concerning the NRC Human Factors and Human Reliability Analysis Research Programs t
INTRODUCTION The NSRRC Subcommittees ofProbabilistic Risk A=>" ment (PRA) and Human Factors
& Instrumentation and Control (HFIC) held a joint meeting on January 24,1997 to review the progress of Human Factors research and to discuss the Commission's questions in a September 10,1996 SRM. The purpose of this meeting was to respond to the Commission's request for the NSRRC to:
O 1) Continue to review the progress of human factors research i O
O 2) Identify those human factor areas that can be treated adequately in PRA l O
O' 3) Identify human factors areas where progress for inclusion in PRA is likely. ;
0 OReference material provided by RES included:
O i O 1) The December 30,1996 ACRS Questions on Human Performance Plan addressed to the EDO O
q O 2) Presentation materials provided by RES for the last meetings of the two O subcommittees .
O ,
I O 3) The NSRRC report on the last PRA and HFIC subcommittee meetings 0
- O 4) The August 1995 and July 1996 versions of the Human Performance Program Plan O
O 5) The January 13,1997 Quarterly Status Update for the FRA Implementation.>O O
HUMAN PERFORMANCE PLAN O
The Human Factors Coordination Committee meets approximately every six months to coordinate the NRC's human factors activities and to update the NRC's Human Factors Program Plan as necessary. Revision 1 to this plan (July,1996) summarizes the goals, objectives, lead office, and other information supporting this plan.
4 l
,. 0 !
RES is the lead office in this plan for accomplishing the following goals:
1 0 l OGOAL 1: Assure the Adequate Safety Performance ofNuclear Facility Personnel 00 Objective 1.1 Assure that nuclear facility personnel are adequately qualified and i l
0 that O staffing is appropriate ,
O l 0 1.1.3 Modify Regulatory Guide 1.8 0 1.1.6 Develop Performance-based Approach to Determining Fitness-for-l 0 Ny 0 1.1.4 Develop Guidance for Staffing at Operating Reactors l
O 1.1.8 Develop Guidance for Staffing for Advanced Reactors 0
! O Objective 1.2 Assure that nuclear facilities have effective human-system interfaces 0
l 0 1.2.4 Develop NUREG-0700, Rev.1 0 1.2.5 Develop Guidance for Advanced Alarm Systems 0 1.2.6 Develop Guidance for Hybrid Control Rooms l 0 1.2.7 Develop Guidance for Display Navigation l 0 1.2.8 Prioritized Human-System Interface Issues 0 1.2.9 Develop Future Revisions to NUREG-0700 0 1.2.11 Develop Guidance for Computerized Job Performance Aids ,
0 Objective 1.3 Assure that nuclear facilities have effective organizational practices 0 ,
Develop Method to Quantify Organizational Performance Factors l 0 1.3.2 0
0 -
l OGOAL 2: Provide Empirically Based Information to the Regulatory Process O
O Objective 2.1 Assure that human performance is effectively assessed
' O O 2.1.3 Revise Human Performance Related Management Directives O 2.1.4 Revise Human Performance Investigation Process 0 2.1.5 Analyze and Disseminate Human Reliability Assessments / Probabilistic 0 Risk Assessments (HRA/PRAInformation -
1 0
0 Objective 2.2 Assure the availability and use of adequate human performance D information O
- 0 2.2.10 Determine the Feasibility of Using Task Network Modeling for Regulatory 0 Applications I
l l
l l
i
- O- 2.2.11 Develop Methods to Obtain Empirical Operational Data ,
- O
- O 2.3.1 Develop Methods for Quantifying Errors of Commission 3
0 2.3.2 Develop Methods for Quantifying Organi =*ional Factors for PRAs
> 0
! O Objective 2A Assure that research is focused is based on providing technical bases fer. Commission policies and regulatory decisions j
O O 2.4.4 Develop Standardized Fonnat for User Needs
] O 2.4.7 Conduct Feasibility Studies of Emergent Issues i
j O i j OGOAL 3: Ensure Adequate Availability and Effective Coordination ofNRC Resourcec to carry out the Human Performance Programs.
l
> 0 i
O Objective 3.2 Assure effective communication within and across offices j O O 3.2.2 Develop and Implement Human Performance Orientation Training i
O O Under Objective 2.2 Assure the availability and use of adequate human performance information in the Human Performance Program Plan, AEOD has the
- following six activities:
O O 2.2.1 Integrate Human Performance Information Into a Consolidated Event Data Base O (Schedule TBD)
O ,
O 2.2.2 Modify the SCSS to Include More Human Performance Information and f make SCSS More Widely Available O
O (continuing)
O O 2.2.4 Make AEOD Human Performance Event Database Available Throughout the O Agency 0 (Schedule TBD) l l
i O 2.2.5 Revise NUREG-1022 to Better Define the Human Performanc : Information O Required in Licensee Event Reports l 0 (Schedule TBD)
O O 2.2.6 Determine Information Needs for HRAs O (Schedule TBD)
O O 2.2.7 Assess HRA Models to Assure Human Performance Databases Contain
/
. O Information Useful for HRAModels O (Schedule 3Q/FY97).
O Of these items, only Objective 2.3 is related to the use ofHRA in PRA. Human reliability data and such as being collected by the AEOD would appear to be essential to the development of HRA models and their incorporation in PRA.
O OPRA ,
. O Oln the January 13,1997 Quarterly Status Update for the Probabilistic Risk A=>= ament i (PRA) Implementation Plan (SECY-97-009), the Subcommittee found RES referenced as a lead o8 ice in the following categories:
l 0
01.7 Regulatory Effectiveness Evaluation (With NRR)
O Assess the effectiveness of two major safety issue resolution efforts (i.e. SBO and i ATWS rules) for reducing risk to public health and safety.
O O1.8 Advanced Reactor Reviews -(with NRR) 0 1 0 Develop independent technical analysis and criteria for evaluating industry initiatives and petitions regarding simplification of emergency preparedness regulations.
O O 1.9 Accident Management (with NRR)
O O Develop generic and plant specific risk insights to support staff audits of utility accidents management programs at selected plants.
O1.10 Evaluating IPE Insights to Determine Necessary Follow-up Activities (with NRR) ,
O .
O Use insights from the staff review ofIPEs to identify potential safety, policy, and O technical issues, to determine an appropriate course of action to resolve these ,
potential issues, and to identify possible safety enhancements.
O O2.1 Develop Regulatory Guidelines O
O Regulatory Guides for industry to use in risk-informed regulation (General, IST, ISI, GQA, TS).
O O2.2 Technical Support O
O Provide technical support to agency users of risk assessment in the form of support for risk-based regulation activities, technical reviews, issue risk
t annaammenen, natimical analyses, and develop guidance for agency uses of risk assessment. ;
O '
O2.3 Support for NRR Standard Reactor PRA Reviews ,
O O Modify 10CFR52 and develop guidance on the use of updated PRAs beyond design certification.
O - ,
2.4 Methods Development and Demons'tration !
O O Develop and demonstrate methods for i~ lading aging effects in PRAs. l O
O Develop and demonstrate methods for 3-l'idiag human errors of commission in !
PRAs. l 0
Develop and demonstrate methods to incorpo' rate organizational performance into 1 O -
PRAs.
O !
O Develop and demonstrate risk assessment methods appropriate for application to medical and industrial licensee activities. .
O O2.5 IPE and IPEEE Reviews !
O i i
O To evaluate IPF1IPEEE submittals to obtain reasonable assurance that the licensee has. adequately analyzed the plant design and operations to discover' vulnerabilities; and to document the significant safety insights resulting from IPE/IPEEEs.
O O2.6 Generic Issues Program O To conduct generic safety issue management activities, including prioritization, resolution, and documentation, for issues relating to currently operating reactors, for advanced reactors as appropriate, and for development or revision of associated regulatory and standards instruments.
O ,
O3.2 Accident Sequence Precursor Program O
C >mplete quality assurance of Rev. 2 siinpli6ed plant specific models.
O O Complete feasibility study for low power and shutdown models.
O O Complete initial containment performance and consequence models O
l 03.6 Staff Training (with AEOD)
. O i
_ . _ _ ._ _ _. _ _ _ . - - . _ _ _ _ _ . . ~ _ _ . . .._ _ _ . . _ _ _ . ,
i i
r i
j O Develop and present ApWir C training courses O !
04.1 Validate risk analysis methodology developed to assess most likely failure n' odes l
and human performance in the use ofindustrial and medical radiation devices.
.4 O Continue the developinent of the relative risk m4~Jology, with the addition of .
4 0 event tree modeling of the brachytherapy remote afterloader. l l 0 . .
- O Extend the application of the methodology and its further development into
- O additional devices, including teletherapy and the pulsed high dose rate afterloader.
! O 04.2 Cei== use of risk assessment of allowable radiation releases and doses
- associated with low-level radioactive waste and residual activity (with NMSS).
O 1 l 0 Develop decision criteria to support regulatory decision making that incorporates l 0 both deterministic and risk-based engirsing' judgment.
j O 04.3 Develop guidance for the review of risk associated with waste repositories (with l .
l NMSS).
! ODevelopment and Demonstration activities of
! O 1
0 - Develop and demonstrate methods for including human errors of commission in l'
O PRAs
! O O - Develop and demonstrate methods to incorporate organizational performance l into
! O PRAs.
a .
i I
}: .
h
. 1 i
f
1 ,
i' a
j
, OBSERVAT10NS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES i 1
The =dw=wnittees have several areas of consensus'concerning the information presented l I to us. We summarize them in the following discussion.
i i The RES Pmi=** in the Areas ofHuman Factors (HF) and Human Reliability Analysis IHRA) arelargelv unrelated
! In the presentations from the RES and NRR staff members concerned with the HF and j HRA programs, respectively, it became evident that the great majority of the HF programs j have been formulated without regard to the need to improve the understanding of HRA.
Rather, most of the work being done is in response to NRR user needs. As such each element is typically short term-focused and not coordinated with the others. The fact that l-
- user needs are not formulated in a coherent fashion is sufficient to explain the latter aspect.
I i This incoherence is also reflected in the apparent lack ofinteraction by the HF and HRA i efforts with the real-world analysis efforts of AEOD. In an effective, comprehensive {
j research program it would be logical to expect a portion of to be comparing knowledge j gained in individual projects with what is being learned about actual operating plants, and
- also contributing to the formulation of the AEOD research plan. Further, a connection between the operating plant analyses and the research program would be expected to i l I provide theoretical models in terms of which to make ~ sense of the observed operating results. The absence of such interactions is symptomatic of the absence of a meaningful l
! HF/HRA research plan within RES.
As most of the current user needs and independent research efforts were formulated prior l
- to the current NRC emphasis upon Risk Informed Performance Based Regulation i (RIPBR) it is perhaps not surprising that they are unconcerned with how the work to j address these user needs could be useful in the HRA portion of a probabilistic risk l l
assessment (PRA).
l However, regardless of the cause of the lack of connection between the HF and HRA
- programs, it would be valuable to coordinate them. Logically each HF project should have an implication for the understanding of HRA, and should be able to contribute to an l increasing body of knowledge in this area. Hopefully this will be done.
)
i The HRA Program is Far Too Small for Likelv Success j In addition to the problems mentioned above the HRA program appears to have two main
- elements
- the ATHENA project - intended to provide models and data concerning errors of commission and of cognition and the Organizational Factors (OF) project - intended to j provide contributions concerning the effects of organizational structure and management j approach upon power plant risks. In fact the information provided to our Subcommittees to-date has been so little that it is impossible to make any meaningful statement conceming the goals or methods of either project. However, we can note that the ATHENA budget 1 l i
i i
a i
1, l
! of $700k manually is small in terms of the challenges of developing a deep undwer.dirig the prahlans being addressed; the area of HF is one where the NSRRC has rapaatMy l 1 !
i=- "+i eitbar termination of the work of RES or a fresh start, based upon new and :
- better ideas. We have seen no evidence of the latter; so we remain skeptical that the OF ,
. project willbe useful.
J The HF approach within RES is apparently based upon simpic empirical handbook models
- ofl==nen error utes, developed about 17 years ago. These are not very useful concerning such topics as digital human =~h interfaces, cognitive errors, crew interactions, i psychological motivations of human performance and social and organizational interactions. Progress in these areas is difficult and requires a sustained and substantial l
research cammitment. Such a commitment is not evident in the RES program, which can ,
j !
be characterized as under-funded and optimistic. The two current efforts may have the j ;
right goals, but we would expect them to be accompanied by several more projects, at a much more substantial budgetary level in order to have any reasonable chance of making l l
important contributions. Rather, the current approach appears to be one of doing what is l
} l i
feasible under stringent circumstances, and hoping for good luck.
l However, it is conceivable that things are much better than this summary indicates. We
' need much more information from RES before we can say more. Through this letter we request that information.
4 i
' DISCUSSION OF THE RES PROGRAMS l 4
! An essential tool in the current NRC thrust to implement RIPBR is PRA. An area of (
important PRA uncertainty and weakness is that of HRA (as is recognized among the l NRC staff). As is discussed above the current program of RES does not promise to improve this situation. This is because currently RES lacks an effective research program i
in this area l Rather they have two small projects,'and poor linkage of HRA improvement to most of the relevant efforts within the overall HF program. Much of this can be explained by the internal NRC policy of focusing RES's resources upon user needs, upon l l severe budgetary restrictions and perhaps from too much experience within the research l 5 organization of focusing upon short term requirements.
If the NItC is to be realistic about improving the current state of knowledge in HRA it is 3
' i r->==ry to establish a long duration (i.e., > 10 years), substantially funded (i.e., > $3 l Million annually) program for this purpose. Much of this could be done by 3 i reprograrhming the combined HF and HRA efforts, but doing so would likely require ,
i serving NRR's user needs elsewhere.
The test of whether a revised research program is likely to be effective could be provided j 3
by examining the degree to which it would be able to help answer the following questions ]
j adequately-
' )
i
- 1. What questions must be answered in order to understand HRA sufficiently, j
? .
I
- 2. How is the overall NRC effort trying to get these answers, 4 3. How does the work of RES fit into the overall NRC effort,-
j 4. What are the knportant elements of the RES HRA and HF programs, and how do they j conform to the rationale of the overall NRC cifort, i 5. How are the expected products of these elements p.lanned to be-
! employed?
One should expect the answers to these questions to provide the bases of the HF/HRA l rw4 program.
i However, we asked these questions in examining the HF and HRA programs and still need
' much more information before we will know the staffs understanding of them. This i situation is symptomatic of the weakness of current efforts in attempting to constitute an effective HF/HRA research program.
i 1
4 e
l 4
i d
S O
4 o
9 D
e O
Attachment #2 l
l
- ACCIDEbfr ANALYSIS SUBCOMMIi i te REPORT
- 1. Coordination with ACRS In accordance with the letter from John Larkins to David Morrison, dated December 13, 1996, on ACRS and NSRRC coordination, the Accident Analysis (AA) Suhmmmittee Chair, George Bankoff, attended the meetings of the ACRS Thermal Hydraulics Subcommittee on December 18-19,1996 to review AP600 PIRT/ scaling analysis with Westinghouse and NRR ivi a.tatives, and on February 12-14,1997 to discuss application of the RELAP code to integral test data obtained in the three integral test facilities (OSU, Italy, Japan). A substantial fraction of both meetings was occupied by the application of the current scalinE methodology to the small-break accident. This is not the most dangerous one, but exercises the passive features of the AP600 design more fully.
For the December meeting Watinghouse provided two major reports:
WCAP-14727, "AP600 SCALING AND PIRT CLOSURE REPORT" Propriety Class 2, t ud l WCAP-14772, "AP600 TEST PROGRAM OVERVIEW" Non-Proprietary Class 3.
t The first was a comprehensive summary of previous work, detailed in a large number of i
previous reports of the past six years. In itself, it was quite massive, containing more than i 190 figures and running about 300 pages. The second was intended as a guide to the first, although there were a number of complaints by the consultants that the w =ry information to back up statements made during the presentation could not easily be found.
- It was requested that a " guide to the guide" be supp
- ied, in the form of an additional -
summary report pointing to the evidence supportmg all assumptions and conclusions.
The plant structure is quite complex, and when added to the changes in behavior in various
! time periods in a small break accident, the level of detail becomes too much to describe even briefly.
The Phenomena Identification Ranking Table was developed for each type of transient, including LOCA, SBLOCA, operational transients and long-term cooling. The scaling l analysis is performed by writing the global conservation equations for mass, momentum and energy at the system level for specific' time periods dunng the transient, and normalizing by dividing through by the coefficient of the driver tenn in each equation. The coefficient of the driver term, such as the hydrostatic head term in the momentum equation, is then unity, while the coefficients of the other terms can be used to evaluate which terms are of minor importance. In a loop the sum of the pressure drops, including frictional and inertial terms, is equal to the hydrostatic pressure difference. This means that the sum of the dimensionless coefficients should be close to unity if the dimensionless dependent and independent variables are properly scaled. This turns out frequently to be not the case.
Other difficulties exist, which are described in tre letter from Bankoff to Dr. Catton, dated March 13,1997, who was the ACRS Subcommittee chair at the time, . -
discuss the severe accident program, in the light of recent work by Theofanous, et al.
suggesting the strong likelihood of in-vessel core retention for a reactor whose lower head j is immersed in a flooded cavity (Ap600 and others). There is an active RES program on lower head integrity, as summarized in the accompanying viewgraphs. The subcommittec ,
l j
wishes to cmphasize the following points:
i
- 1. The CHF for boiling heat transfer from a submerged lower head as summarized on i
l l
4 pp. 30,31 of the viewgraphs, is conelated as a single function of the polar angle, e, where at the bottom of the reactor 0=0*. The minimum CHF is sufficient to keep the lower head cool (a few tens of degrees above the saturation temperature), so that -
thermal failure, due to creep or local melting, cannot occur.
- 2. This possibility needs to be thoroughly researched, and the subcommittee recommends switcisng of some funds from internal heat transfer dynamics in the lower head, as well as ex-vessel accident analysis, to provide an adequate budget.
If verified, this scenario means that for floodable cavities the ex-vessel portion of the seveie accident scenario is of' negligible probability.
- 3. It is early to make ajudgment, but the RASPLAV experiment, being a full-scale melting experiment with electrical heat, is difficult to instrument, expensive, prone to failure, and slow to reconstruct and to run. This may be a place to economize.
- 3. Code Updating
- The four major codes are slated to be combined into a single modern, modular code. This is a worthwhile xoject, but needs to be carefully monitored and tested. Some simplifications, . ike going to c two-fluid code, may lead to reduction of capability of handling some types of boiling and dispersed flows, especially with multiple materials.
Nevertheless, tius is the proper direction to go, but with constant checking, evaluation and reevaluation to see whether the technical capabilities of the present codes are being retained.
It is also proposed to convert the fundamental equations (heat, mass and momentum) to more suitable dependent variables, such as interfacial area per unit volume. This should be done very cautiously,in view of the large body of experiments in which these measurements were not made, together with the conelations based on these experiments.
It is also proposed to conduct a continuing experimental program in an NRC-supported facility, such as at Purdue. The subcommittee recommends that prior to running any experiment, the ga z in existing knowledge, based on available data, be identified, and an analysis be made s iowing how the experiment will remedy the situation.
. Attachment #3 NSRRC SUBCOMMITTEE ON MATERIALS AND ENGINEERING MINUTES OF APRIL 2,1997 MEETING l The Suhmmmittee met in a moming session on this date at the NRC offices in Rockville.
Sumio Yukawa, Subcommittee Chair, was the only mamhar able to attend the maa*iag E.
T. Boulette and John Taylor were unable to attend due to a New Enfmad snowstorm and a prio'r commitment.
l The meeting concentrated on presentations and discussions on two research program areas which were:
l I
l Environmental Qualification (EQ) of Electric Cable Systems presented by Michael E. Mayfield, Chief Electrical, Materials, and Mechanical Fnpre:ing Branch Division ofEngineering Technology ECCS Strainer Blockage Research presented by Michael L. Marshall, Jr.
Generic Safety Issues Branch ,
Division ofEngineering Technology l The funding for these two program areas together total approximately $1.5 million in l
l FY97. The funding in FY94 was about $2.0 million. The following is a brief summary of l the issues, scope, contents, and status of research in these two program areas. ;
i l
l EO of Electrical Cables The current research in this area concentrates on cables and associated connectors used in instrumentation and control applications inside the containment. The concem relates to the reliability, capability, and perfonnance after thermal aging and radiation damage effects l on the insulations and connections. Testing requirements and qualification criteria for the cables have changed over the last twenty years so that cables in operating plants have been
" qualified" to differing requirements. The staffinitially identi6ed 43 EQ tech scal issues deriving from these differing requirements. A literature review effort has reduced these to 19 issues and further resolutions are likely. -
The ongoing rewarch program includes studies to understand the differences, if any, between artificial and natural aging on the chemical, electrical, and mechanical characteristics of the cables. These characteristics will be measured on new and artificially
! aged iterns. Additionally, cables have been acquired from Yankee Rowe and Trojan plants
- which had twenty and ten years of service respectively. The testing includes exposure to steam conditions representative of LOCA events. Among the expected results is 1
i
, 1 verification of aging models that can be used for time extrapolations for license renewal purposes.
The program plans schedule completion of major part of the research on I&C cables by the year 2000. AAer that, research on power cables and penetrations are planned.
The Subcommittee believes that results of this research are vitally naadad. The program is l
well structured and prMag on echadule There s is some concern about whether the scope and extent of the program will fulfill the needs for a PRA analysis of the I&C system. This concern should be discussed with those responsible for PRA methodology of ,
I the I&C system to determine if the anticipated results are sufficient for their needs. The diaen==ian should include the fact there may be a paucity of and uncertainty in the data i between the observed aging detedoration and the functionality of the I&C system which may reduce the value ofPRA applications to this problem. i l
I STRAINER BLOCKAGE The strainer prevents passage of deletedous debds in the water drawn from the wet well and their entrance into pumps, valves, and nozzles of the ECCS system. Recent plant incidents and studies of potential circumstances of a LOCA event indicate that blockage in and damage to the strainers may occur more easily and quickly than anticipated which could reduce the flow required for ECCS conditions. One possible consequence of a LOCA event involves a waterjet that can disintegrate and spread fibrous theimal insulation and other materials into the wet well.' Test and analysis results point to a very l high conditional probability ofloss of ECCS capabilities. A computer cod (t: analyze ;
strainer blockage has been developed and is publicly available. To date, the studies have been primadly on BWRS in cooperation with the BWR Owners Group (BWROG) but studies for PWRs are ongoing.
Recent regulatory action has requested BWR1icensees to implement appropriate actions during outages starting after January,1997, to ensure that ECCS functions are not impaired. The NRC has determined that this is a compliance issue, not a safety enhancement issue.
The research schedule is that all of the experiments and tests will be completed in FY97.
The currently remaining FY97 work is pdncipally concerned with debris transport. The NRC RES results and plans plus those of BWROG and new design strainers by vendors should bring a closure to this problem.
The Subcommittee believes that this research program contains a beneficial and coordinated mix ofinputs from NRC, nuclear industry groups, and component suppliers.
. Attcchment #4 l AGENDA .
NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH REVIEW COMMITTEE (NSRRC) l .
April 3-4,1997 ,
Room T-10A1. Two White Flint North (TWFN) Building 11545 Rockville Pike. Rockville. MD i
l .
Thur= day. Anril 3 .
9:00 - 9:30 Opening remarks E. Thomas Boulette. ,
l l Chairman NSRRC l .
Current statu's D. Morrison. Director l
RES l ~
9:30 - 10:15 Report of the Joint Meeting of M. Golay. NSRRC
( the PRA/I&C and Human Factors i
Subcommittees on their meeting ofJanuary 24,1997 i
10:15 - 10:45 Report of the NAS final report C.Mitchell. NSRRC
" Digital Instmmentation and Control Systems in Nuclear Power Plants.
Safety and Reliability Issues" 10:45 - 11:00 BREAK l
l 11:00 - 11:30 Report of the Accident Analysis S. George Bankoff.
Subcommittee on its meeting of NSFaC April 2,1997 ,
11:30 - 12:00 Report of the Materiais and S. Yukawa. NSRRC Engineering Subcommittee on
! its meeting of Aril 2,1997 12:00 - 1:00 LUNCH BREAK i 1:00 - 2:00 Industry meeting report on core J. Tayl5r. NSRRC research competencies 2:00 - 2:15 BREAK <
2:15 - 5:00 Discussions on Research Core ' NSRRC Committee Competencies RES Staff i
Friday Anni 4
^
j 8:30 - 10:45 Continuation ofDiscussions on NSRRC Committee
' ~
Research Core Competencies RES Staff
- 10
- 45 - 11:00 BREAK 11:00 - 12:00 Review ofNSRRC Committee Effectiveness NSRRC Committee RES Staff ,
i 12:00 - 2:30 LUNCH BREAK J
2:30 - 5:00 Preparation for May 2.1997 NSRRC NSRRC Committee meeting with the Commission 3:00-3:15 BREAK f 5:00 PM ADJOURN i
a 1
O I
h I