ML20141A683
| ML20141A683 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/03/1997 |
| From: | Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Mcgaffigan E, Rogers K, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141A507 | List: |
| References | |
| ACRS-3055, NACNSRRC, NUDOCS 9705140421 | |
| Download: ML20141A683 (2) | |
Text
g Igb UNITED STATES
,I y
F g}
NUCLEAR RE2ULATORY CSMMISSI'f N
/
'e CAsNiNor:N, D.C. 20555 4001 February 3, 1997 HEMORANDUM T0:
Chairman Jackson Comissioner Rogers Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Comissioner McGaffigan FROM:
Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
vt' Acting Executive Direc o rOperatioI
SUBJECT:
NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH REVIEW COMMITTEE SRRC) 1 REPORT DATED JANUARY 15, 1997 Attached, please find the NSRRC's report on its meeting held on November 14-15, 1996.
During this meeting, the NSRRC undertook a self examination of the value it is contributing to the Agency and generated a set of criteria by which the future performance of the Committee could be assessed.
In addition, the Committee compared its activities with those of other advisory committees, and it developed a set of operating principles and criteria to improve its advisory effectiveness and coordination with other advisory committees.
including the ACRS.
The NSRRC covered the above topics extensively and several conclusions and recomendations resulted from the Committee's discussions. A detailed listing of values ano performance evaluation criteria that were developed is included in Meeting Minutes attached to the NSRRC report. These values and criteria will now be used by the NSRRC as a guide to enhance its advisory effectiveness to the NRC.
The relationship between the ACRS and the NSRRC comittees was discussed at length, and various ideas and suggestions were considered by the NSRRC to improve on the way it provides advice on safety research issues and programs.
A table, also included in the Report Meeting Hinutes, showing the differences in responsibilities of these comittees will be used as a guide by the NSRRC in conducting its advisory role to the Office of Research. One specific recommendation regarding joint meetings was to have the NSRRC and ACRS Subcommittees meet jointly or attend each other's meetings to avoid duplication and save RES staff time and resources.
Contact:
J Cortez, RES 415 6596 9705140421 970404 5
2-The RES staff will be working with the NSRRC in the coming months to implement the above guidelines and criteria to improve its advisory effectiveness and coordination with other NRC advisory committees. As part of this effort, RES-i will provide the feedback on the usefulness of past recomendations that NSRRC requested (page 7 of the attachment).
Note that a planned Commission briefing scheduled for December 17, 1996, to 3
discuss Committee recommendations resulting from the NSRRC November 1996 meeting was postponed until more information was available. The attached 4
report should bring the Commission up to date on the NSRRC committee activities on this subject.
If the Commission desires a briefing following review of this report the staff will schedule a briefing by the NSRRC.
j The NSRRC self examination was conducted as part of the response to COMSECY 96 028. August 21, 1996, regarding the proposed Direction Setting Issue 19.
Independent Oversight. The self examination will be used as an input to the EDO evaluation of this inde l
complete in November 1997 pendent oversight activity which we plan to
Attachment:
Letter to D. Morrison from 4
E. Thomas Boulette dated 4
January 15, 1997 cc: SECY OGC OPA OCA 4
J 4
i 1
4 I
1 i
4
)
~,
1 O
s o
,r I
PLorrn Nuclear Power Station
)-
}
Rocky Hill Road Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 i
e E.T.Sindette, PhD 8
Senior Vce Freeleent - Nuclear i
i I
i Dr. Devid L. Morrison, Director OfBce ofNuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory r'a==tanian Waabington, D.C. 20555 l
DearDr.Morrison:
The uclear Safety Research Review Coennittee (NSRRC) met on November 14-15,1996, at NRC He%uarters NSRRC members present included E. T. *~1a. Chair, Michnol Golay, Robert 1
i Hatcher, Charles Mayo, John Taylor, and Sumio Yukawa. S. George Bankoffjoined the committee i
on the 15th. Also present were David Morrison, Director, OfBoe ofNuclear Reta+ary Research; Jose Luis M. Cortez, NSRRC Federa1 Designated Of5cial, and his assistant, Ms. Sandra Young 1
i At this meeting, the NSRRC undertook a self avaminatinn of the value h is contributing to the Agen' y and generated a set ofcdteria by which the fbture perfbrmance of the Committee could be c
l assessed in addition, the Committee compared hs activities whh those of other advisory committees and it developed a est of opersting principles and odteria to improve ha advisory effectiveness and ocordination with other advisory committaos, including the ACRS.
1 l
The yommittee covered the above topics extensively and several conclusions and recommendations resuhed tom the Cd='s discussions. A detailedlisting ofvalues and p i'ormance evaluation erher' is included in the enclosed meeting minutes. These values and critada will be used by the s
NSRRC in the fbture as a guide to enhance ks advisory ad' activeness I
In adiition, the Committee revised the NSRRC 8' aammia= structure assignments and renamed a i
Subwd;ies to resect RRS's new responalbilities in the nuclear waste area. A tentative NSRRC Comsaktee/Sah meeting schedule was agreed to fbr the coming year in the March-April i
1997 time Dame.
Other topics of general interest to tin Commines were also discussed and some recorr==d +1ons 2
made' regarding committee orgmai-=' tan ofibture met'u==, committee charter and mJttee i
e@' +% and review procedures As discussed below, vadous recommendations were unanimously adapted.
j r..
l Mm _arj o 3,b
.1
l Dr. David L. Morrison, Director Page 2 January 15,1997 m.isaa.wa arshe Ar'RE aad NtRRC-The relationship between the ACRS and the NSRRC committees was discussed at length and various ideasaod suggestions were cor sidered by the Committee in order to improve the manner in which theNIARC receives RES staffinput and Agency r='id~y requirements and the way NSRRC provides advice on safbty renaarch issues and programs. A table, showing the m(or differences in
-& and r==pa4Waa of thee commhtees, is included in the meeting minuta. This table will bd used as a guide by the NSRRC in aa-Mag its advisory role to the OfBee of Research. -
One ksy recommendation was that relevant NSRAC and ACKS takaaawa3*a== meetjointly or ettendleach other's meetings on the topics ofmutual interest and in some cases jointly hear RES staff pressotations to avoid duplication. Moreover this would save RES staff time and resources At presedt, the NSRRC does not see the need forjoint meetings as long as NSRRC members are infornied about the issues being diammand in fb11 ACRS cc.Tm.l Gee and ACRS subcommittee meetings As to NSRRC participation in ACRS Mags, the NSRRC Comsbe willlook to RES staff to identify appropriate ACRS meetings for NSRRC members to attend. NSRRC members and the Chairman of the NSRRC should be kept informed about ACRS Subcommittee M s, schedules and agenda subjects as soon as they become available to RES staff.
I I
DiscEon on NSRRC Subcommittee Structure and Activities:
Therelare presently five NSRRC Subcommittees: Materials hp-ing, Accident Human Factors, Waste, and PRA.
l Initially, the diamantana centered around the Waste Subcomnho and its present role in view of the thet that the high level waste program has been transfemd to NMSS and the only research within RES is related to radionuclide transport in tbs environment. It was suggested and agreed to by the NSRRC e:13 Wasta Suha~n=ia= name be changcd to Radionuclide Transport and that it meet wher ver it is desirable, but probably no more than cace per year.
The (**ee also considered whether the PRA aN the IAC and Human Factors Subcommittees 4%ez.io see is ibcused on the research needs in support of performance be combined. It was agreed to keep these subcommittees separate because the PRA Sub quite difforent from the responsibilities of the other Subcommittee. One of the big issues in PRA is the handling of uncatainty in the broad range of phenomena that are dealt with in nuclear reactor afay.
i
('
~ -..
l.
l L.
Dr. David L. Morrison, Directcr i
Page3 l
January 15,1997 i
i 1
l It was also agreed to leave the Aeoident Analysis Subs,r. Jues in place and ha as the newcluinnan.
l j
hgariling =Mn+a meetings it was suggested by Dr. Morrison that we have subconnit j
mestitgs in Faluuary/ March,1997, cad a ibil committee meeting in late March or April 1 else aggested that all unboommittees (other than the
- adiaaaenda Sawaam) mee,t at leas twise a year and to schedule two fbil connittee inestings during 1997. See the moedag mi l
, mars a letails on meeting dates.
4 l
h ahn on NERRC Make Structum and A dims:
l The NSRRC would like to have more feedback from the RES staff on th have b made by the NSRRC, in terms of what advice hca been usefbl, acce modified, inchading the reasons for the RES staffpositions. In addMaa, the NSRRC feels that i
j i
committes performance evaluations should be done by RES staff and the NSRRC better' determine the effectiveness of the advice and guidance given to the NRC by th I
Past i.iLirance of the Comminee should be based on their put recommendations (2 3 yea ofsubcomunittee reports) to see what impacts the Committee's r-madadaan have made on the program, citing speci8c examples. Feedback fkom RES stafron C-mia-- rac-dadaan and/or suggestions would also allow the C==' a to evaluate ha effectiveness on a continuing basis. The idea is for NSRRC to be able to develop a "accre" sheet on the Committee's raeammeadada staff an' d maff disposition of these rarammandatinas as a ibaction of time.
AnrU 1997 Mandae. Ternadve Plans The mleeting in April should focus os core competencies the C%ssion and help ensure that the Commission maintains an independeert technical base addition, the NSRRC will review its charter for modifications as needed, consistent with the assessaant criteria.
Sincerely, b.
pbdt E. Thomas Boulette, Chairman Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee
/*
. MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 14 15.1996 De NSRRC Comminee meeting was held on the aAernoon ofNovember 14 and the f
morning ofNovember 15,1996.
)
Merabers presset included E. T. Boulette, Chair, Michael Golay, Robert Hatcher, Charles i
Mayo, Jolri Taylor, Sumio Yakawa. George Bankoffjoined the Committee on the 15th.
1 Also present were David Morrison, Director - OfBoe of Nuclear Regulatory Research,
}
Jose Cortez and Sandra Young.
At this meeting, the NSRRC undertook a self-nah of the value h is contributing to the Agency and generated a set orcriteria by which the ibture performance of the
{
Committee could be assereed. In addiMthe Committee compared hs activities with -
i l
those o(other NRC advisory committees and it developed a set of operating principles and criteria to improve its advisory effectiveness and coordmation with other advisory committees.
(
l l
The stated purpose of the meeting as noted in the Federal Register was to:
)
?
1.
Evaluate the value and contributions of this C la. in assisting the OfEce of l
Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) in carrying out the NRC's regulatory responsibility and at the same time, develop a set ofcriteria under which the performance of the NSRRC could be evaluated in the future.
1 1r i
2.
Discuss the roles of the NSRRC and the NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor i
Safeguards (ACRS) in terms of areas of common interest of the two Committees and to find ways to effectively coordinate activities orcommon interest to make sure the Committees' activities are supportive and complementary in nature and evoid A9ah The Committee discussed both of the above topics in detail and several conclusions and l
recommandations resuhad fkom the Committee's discussions A detailed listing ofvalues l
and performance evaluation criteria is prenantad in the next section.
i j
In addition, the Committee revised the NSRRC hammi ee structure and assignments tt l
One of the suh.inittees has now been renamed to reflect RES's new responabilities in I
the nuclear waste area. A tentative NSRRC Committen/S&==i ee meeting schedule tt was agreed to for the coming year in the March April 1997 time frame i
l Other topics orgeneral interest to the Committee were also discussed and recommandations were made regarding Committee orgardrattaa of future==+iap, l
Committee charter and Committee evaluation and review procedures to facilitate future asseaament ofNSRRC usefulness and effectiveness i
a 1
I l
d>-
l
4 1
l l.
VALUES AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NSRRC 5
With respect to the Xahisa of the NSRRC, the Committee concluded that the most important values of the Comminee to the OfEce ofResearch include:
l j
1.
The NSRRC is the only NRC Advisory Committee that has a broad scope and i
cosaplete responsibility to cover all of the safety research programs. This is a real l
l-beneSt because other committees look only at p=H ad research areas, and only when moulstoryissues are discussed h
2.
The NSRRC appraises the research priorities and RES core competencies i
'I independent ofregulatory issues, and by so doing assisu in the Mr=4n of l
core espabilities of the Od5ce ofResearch.
3.
The NSRRC provides independent opinions and technical advice on RES program i
content because most Committee members are af51iated with the research l
I communitysad have relevant technical backgrounds outside the nuclear industry.
l 4.
The NSRRC is in a position to support the RES Director in controversial safety l
research issues by offering sin independent strictly technical perspective.
i y
5.
The NSRRC assists the Director ofRES in determining the appropriateness and j
correctness (total balance and content) of the direction of the research program j
keeping in mind the research priorities consistent with available budgets.
I 3~)
6.
The NSRRC assists the RES Director in evaluating whether the most qualified l
people are doing the research work at the best possible research estabuahmaate making their ren=w % on the best resources available.
4 j
7.
Amaaaamaar of the likelihood of the program meeting NRC regulatory needs and 9
j providing insighu on long-term anticipatory research needs is a unique function of j
the NSRRC.
8.
A comprehensive global view ofresearch is provided by the NSRAC including advice on priorities and an assessment ofprogram leverage obtained through international cooperative R&D.
1 9.
The NSRAC assists the RES Director with M4*6on ofcritical research areas j
that are not being pursued by staffor being supported under the RES program by j
making ahernative recommendations to resolve existing safety problems using new techniques or methods as necessary (e.g., the ROSA AP600 test program in Japan recommendation).
I i
4 4
i.
s e
a '
II.
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR THE NSRRC l
i j
The Committee noted the foDowing as possible criteria to be used by both the Committee j
and the NRC staffreceiving the Committee's advice and counsel for future evaluation of i
the performance ofthe NSRRC:
1.
Provide independent wWl assessment of the scope and priorities of the i
research program against near-term and long-range needs of the Agency, j
oonsistent with avalable resources (people and douars).
i l
2.
Recommend areas where RES can more effectively and ef5ciently addreas the needs ofits customers through couaborative research projects, implementation of j
technologies developed by others, and use ofbest performers.
i f
3.
Audit and effectively communicate the value of NRC's research program to the l
Commission and licensees (provide independent technical oversight for those areas that improve external support for decisions, i.e. budgets).
4.
Provide ;#a= in defining an appropriate level of core competencies in prioritizing individual programs i-bd:ag identifying improvements in research progmm planning and execution i
5.
Provide the RES Director with independent g"IA*= on controversial programs or those having large uncertainty as to the use and appucation of **iai results i
6.
Monitor the frequency of acceptance and implementadon ofNSRRC recommendations regarding RES programs based on the quality and timeliness of NSRRC recomm=da%.
7.
Evaluate the effectiveness ofinterfaces of NSRRC with the ACRS and other i
committees.
8.
Identify and nurture critical research issues to ensure that NRC anfety research
)
remains of the highest quality.
i 9.
Help formulate a broad-based safety research program and assess program results i
to ensure timely closure or extension and support when appropriate.
10.
Pwiodic effectiveness review.
l 2"
1
-]
ID.
NSRRC/ACRS RELATIONSHIPS AND RESPONSIBILITIES The relationship between these two Committees was discussed at length and various ideas and suggestions were considered by the NSRRC in order to improve the manner in which
{
j the NSRRC receives RES stasinput and Agency regulatory requirements and the way NSRRC provides advice on safety research issues and programs t
4 I
j.
' Other ideas and suggestions were ofered regarding ways in which the NRC could better j
obtain advice and counsel from the NSPAC on RES programs including ist.eraction and coordination with other advisory committees soch as the ACRS.
l
{
One of the We was that relevant NSRRC and ACRS tihaa==iamaa meet jointly or attend each other's meetings ce the topics ornastual interest and in some cases jointly hear pertinent RES staffpresentations to avoid duplication Moreover, this would save RES staff time and resources. NOTE: NSRRC members have already agreed to partidpate in some ACRS Subcommittee activities This wiD aHow the NSRRC to beter understand the ACRS's nuclear safety research needs At present, the NSRRC does not see the need forjoint meetings as long as NSRRC members are informed about the issues being discussed in full ACRS Committee and ACRS Ss~===h ee meetings t
As to NSRRC parMy*w in ACRS meetings, the NSRRC wiH look to RES staff to identify appropriate ACRS meetings for NSRRC members to attend. NSRRC members and the Chairraan ofthe NSRRC should be kept infwmed about ACRS M= J ee tt meetings, schedules and agenda subjects as soon as they become available to RES staff.
NSRRC members agreed to share the burden of attending the zaany ACRS hhe-mittee meetings by designating only one C==ia-a member to cover each meeting and report back to their respective subcommittees followed by a presentation or report to the fuU Committee.
The foUowing table compares the various roles and functions of the NSRRC and the ACRS. This table was prepared to point out the differences in Committee assignments and responsibilities, as noted above.
)
2
_v
s e
COMPARISON OF ACRS/NSRRC COMMITTTE RFAPONSIBr1i ias ACRS
'I NSRRC Ucense applicarice focus.
Research focus.
Review safety studies and fadity Raviews technical content of techniques Econse applications and submit reporta or =mhaa used to study a given as required by NRC reh4ns.
auc. ear sa'ety cong or technical isen.
Focus is on the safety ofoperations that Focus on the content and management l
may require research results.
ofrasearch programs.
Advise NRC on hazards ofproposed or Advises the NRC on the best technica!
l existirig reactor..fadities and the s.r.tMes to address scientiSc basis for l
adequacy ofproposed safety standards.
standards i
Perform other duties NRC may request NSRRC primary focus is on safety l
(WN review of the RES program).
rensarch methodologies.
The ACRS may conduct reviews on Kind ofsafety research to be done in speci6c generic matters or nuclear any area ofconcern (e.g. steam facility safety related' items requiring generatortube Saws or cracks scientiSc analysis (e.g. steam generator occurring as a resuh of failure modes).
overpressurization).
l Example: Ibe ACRS is concerned with e
N9: The NSRRCis more whether risk-informed performance-conconed with the tools that research based regulation (PBR)is a good idea oesds to providein order to allow the l
and would lead the NRC in the direction NRC to be able to go in that direction ofimproving safety with fewer (PBR).
resulations.
ACRS is a safety review committee.
TheNSRRCis a safety research review committee Reviews the effectiveness ofRES Reviews RES programs only, lookirng at programs and other NRC ofEcos in the priorities, costs and technical connection with the derApii.si;; of content ofsafety research programs rules and standards.
I fc l
l
l.
IV.
DISCUSSION ON SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVITIES i
j NSRRC SubcsT.T.ittees are: Materials Engineering, Accident Analysis, I&C and Human l
Factors, Waste and PRA.
l Initidy, the diaaianiana contered around the Waste LM= and its present role in view of the fact that the high-level waste program has been transferred to NMSS. The ACNW Committee has responmElity in the area ofoverd iak assessment and performance e.esessment of the long term nuclear waste repository, nd prnantly, the only 3
1 research within RES is related to radionuclide transport in the environment. This program is funded at about $2 miBion in FY 1996. It was suggested and agreed to by the NSkRC l
that the Waste hhrammi ee name be changed to adia end Transport and that k meet tt a
l whenever k is desirable but probably no more than once per year.
The Committee also considered whether the PRA and the IAC and Human Factors Suhemminees should be combined AAer some diamanlaa, it was agreed to keep these Subcommittees separate because the PRA Subcommittee is focused on the research needs F
in support of;.arformance based regulation, which is quite diferent frorn the j
responsibih of the other hhen==i ee One of the big issues in PRA is the handling of tt l
uncertainty in the broad range ofphenomena that are dealt with in nuclear reactor safety.
j It was also agreed to leave the Accident Analysis Subcommittee in place and have George i
Bankof named as the new Chairman now that Tony Baratta has of5cially resigned from the NSRRC. Bankoswould not serve on the PRA Subcommittee.
I i
Regarding Sukea==i"~ meetings, k was suggested by Dr. Morrison that we have at leam i
one %he==1 ee meeting in February / March 1997, before the budget cds and prior to a tt i
full Committee meeting which should be in late March or April 1997. Preliminary l
Committee schedules are to be pcoposed and sent out to d maahars in the coming weeks i
This achadnt, would then be used to infonn the ACRS about the NSRRC calendar of meetings Dr. Cortez will get a proposed calendar from T. Boulette and inform everyone including the ACRS. Dr. Boulette maggested that d Subcosastees (other than the i
Radionuclide Subcommittee) most at least twice a : fear and he aho plans to achadnle two i
full C=minee meetings during 1997. These meedngs should be in April and October in i
such a way as to satisfy the RES Director's needs Dr. Boulette suggested that meeting l
dates be set by the 1st of December of this year for the meetings to be held in March / April j
1997, and cwdy tentative dates established for d the fall meetings i
I o
- - -- ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~
4 i..
{',
V.
DISCUSSIONS ON MEETING STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES Conunittee Chainnan (Boulette) requested feedback from the RES staffon the j
rwcommendadons made by the NSRRC, in tenns ofwhat has been useful, accepte accepted, modified, as well as the reasons why. In addition, an NSRRC performance evaluation abould be done by RES staff and the NSRRC every 2 years to determ i
effectiveness of the advice and guidance given by the Committee Past per%rmance ofCommittee should be based on their past rae~amaade worth ofSubcommittee reports) to see what impacts the Cor mittee's recommendat have made on the program. Specific examples ofimpact should be reported. Feed j
from staff on Committee racernandah and/or suggestions is needed in order for th r==ittaa to evaluate ks ofrectiveness on a continuing basis. SpecificaDy, the NSRR 1
wants response Dom the staff as to the disposidos ofraemenandahe to date. For i
future meetings, the NSRRC requests an naammaramat of the actions taken by R i
regard to the rachattons made in previous meetings. NSRRC will develop a l
" score" shaet on tiie Committee's reces. css 4ations and staff disposition of these j
recoenmandatinaa over the yesn. The responses from the staffshould include the basis for the action on recommendation disposition.
f VI.
APRIL 1997 MEETING-TENTATTVE PLANS i
I The meeting in April should focus on core competencies by the RES office to car 1
duties to the Commission and help ensure that the Commission maintains an ind technical base. A set of assessment criteria will be developed at this meeting In a i
the Committee will review its charter for modifications to be consistent with assessment criteria.
I I
We recommended that the staffprovide background materials to Comminee members t weeks prior to enaatings, including instruction notes to identify what is included and how
(
these materials are to be used during meeting
'?
q h'I
. - - -