ML20148B912

Inquires as to Whether Germany Received Similar Inquiry & If So,Whether a Birkhofer Is in Agreement W/Proposed Quadripartite Meeting to Be Held in Japan

ML20148B912
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/28/1997
From:	Larkins J Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Birkhofer A GERMANY, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
Shared Package
ML20148B866	List: ML20148B861 ML20148B898 ML20148B906 ML20148B912
References
ACRS-3052, NUDOCS 9705130408
Download: ML20148B912 (9)

Text

n UNITEJ STATES

/o e aseg% NUCLEAR REEULATORY COMMISSION

• l g

ADV NUCLE STE WASHINGTON. D.C. 30585

- Q. oc ..* /

ornCEar ACitS/ACNW February 28, 1997 Prof. Dr. Adolph Birkhofer Geschaftsf,uhrer Gesellschaft for Anlagen und Reaktorsicherheit mbH <

D 8046 Garching Germany

Dear Dr. 81rkhofer:

We received an email message on November 11. 1996, from Mr. Shoji Yamada regarding the proposed Quadr 1partite Meeting to be held in Japan sometime in the coming year. We responded to Mr. Yamada (copy attached), indicating our preference for a meeting in October 1997. We would like to know whether Germany received a s1mtilar inquiry and if so, whether you are in agreement with our proposal.

We also have not received a response from the RSK as to what date would be most convenient for a meeting with the ACRS this spring. Our last fax from Dr. Candell. dated October 30. 1996. stated that we would be informed 1mmed18tely after the RSK meeting of November 20. 1996.

In order to complete our schedules for the rest of this year and to provide time for travel arrangements, we would greatly appreciate your advising us of your response to these inquiries.

Sincerely.

John T. Larkins Executive Director

Attachment:

Email messege.to 5. Yamada dated January 9, 1997 9705130408 970307 I PDR ACRS 3052 PDR

~~~gpy7.G)fD '1GiQd: D7G D R9(-GS 49 229 67e386- e1 -

. a.

J W - ,

~

L2i *

'. Biomeneous -fhr M N ,

w.. -

mar.n.-immes-maa. 4 - ;7 ;,.-

Steueruusr. 30 (StA. l .'.,i

> J/a

.[

,t. .. ,

$3117 Seem  ; b, ,,,7,, .. .

y A , . .s.er..: ':. . .."

TsMhs4frJ ..

PaesismittFtemsHe.11 M Se oder/or 0224/67 81 $1 .

m. w. w. y Teichn/ -

.t..

'a j Phoes No.: 0338/W f986 ,{

.. . a L. ,

. PN +

t ..

An/I'o: a s ., ,

ACRS-Office clo Mrs. Susumers Toisfan Nr./

1

Fecalenile Phoes No.

- 00130141$ S$89 f r- s

i von /from: I Cands11/R$K.Oneshafissis11

( ... .

b. .

28.02.1997 DesuavDese s.

s '

5 i e

Soissmanhl/ 7

• 2""# 8

~ ' ' ~

No of peess:  ! I i i -

l l ilihjaus: ACR$/$K 4essestos about R&D worls os advenned suectors Raf.: My MkBe10r90/!f46

• 1

.L.. _:. a Deer Mrs. Suersnets." ~~ ' *

. . e . .s .

c3 the last sassdag to 35K os Pubeunty it. 1997 61 was eveemaally pnosible en have a diwussiori oni the daten whi.h

' hows been prisposed % your W 10/1$11996 (l.a. Fabrisary S. Iderch S. April 2. April 30. Jusse 10 a snesdag e4th ACRS)1ts .essnes6en led so she conclusion that for she RSK the some caovunient does w I

1997. I have teos d S nufges yes and so ask if tie dans is edil conwee6ent int the ACRS.

m is Wie asst days ! M $ esed es you a peopaeol for to agends of die Inestints.

. p . .. i

4. . -

Seesengards t g..g f t---

ca.es:: E, .. . _ , .s

.I + l[]

p._

81/

, _ , - ~ . ,---r ~

' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ^'

1997-03-05^~18f16^^ B'f5 S'RSK-G5'~ ~ i9 228'670388^ ~ Ei1 4- :4

..~ . $ i r

r.!- -

MW

s. ?_=::s RSK c 4 as e 3~ 1.Z::

u ar. 30 <sw , , , - 1 I

53317 Bonn t = .,7 a . ,

. . ..p heefan Nr./. 1 l

I Paesindh Phone No'. ! 03 88'oder 0228/67 81 $1 .

mo..

Telefan/ 'l '.. .

Phone No.: 0238/9b$ 757 " " .

t i .: 3 I M  !

• A An/To:

• ACRS-Office .

I t" , clo Mrs. Swnmers i r-w .

1 Telefan Nr./Pensleellei b 150.: 001301-41S S$89 t r-- *

• c

]

i von /from: I, - --

Candeli/RSK Oeschaftsstelle L

t - .. ..

i Desman/Dete:

f.. =.=_ *_ . 05.03.1997 .

7 o -. '

Seitensabl/No of pageh ,

3 L

4" ....; I *  !

Deer. Mar. Summmers;4-- - 3-g.. . ._ . .

es I have announced lesey be doesd February 24.1997 yee will Snd attaclwd de pnp >nal of dw RSK fue dw spinta ol the RSK/ACKS . Is'you can see the proposed progress is quite eastensive, so that a two days respectively one aval half day mansine muun m wwfirtwenintfhl if II is tymwmient en ytm in nel(hiinn the R$K wishes nian in vhit snme fest ,

^

tacilidos in USA la och soidow the sumis of the ongoing esperizoents on hydrogen, steem emplosions, core spreal ww nuit etc. Scene latiiessimos arigivien on the second page of the agenda.

j a.

, .4.

Maally I would lits 6, " ^ . ,, shot the RSK stenches great impanance to a participation of the OPR to this nweting.

ne season le that k hucuts to teuer a Genman and Preach pardolpation slew we are going in infosm you on die development sensus of bec eeubios ymject .5PR". In this regned i already comacted the CPR. hut dll now I cannot wy I either same OPR uneed Wts*Wlfparticipate or who they are, i espect an answer on the beginning at mest wuk.

e w IMM MWW W b yoter eWort in W W gelse A eneedng.  ;

b .m mem regates r.

q i.r, [

i i . L:

7 .. . w .

r .

• er  !

<- s 3

I- f

7_

m a -

. P 4 ,2 4

E  :

3 Teatetive aseeds

. .t j.

p -j g _

.- uses,s.1se  ;

Noelear Ragadstory Commission /

~.", . . ..

Advisory Commaitsee en Reactor Safegards 2

. l * . ,.' ?- andorthe

,~ -

i

Reaktor-Sieberheitskommissolon (RSK)

I -i.

ip- -

April 30 and May 01,1997

.I 4 _

4 & W 6 +

L  :

c Wednesday, @

y ,e

^

! We:come * ,,

08.30 08 45 a m.

k 'r a

l 2 Stans -- f;'- "i et the licenstas & M. of AP 600 and SBWR ( ACRS/USNRC) 08 45 09.15 a m.

Status r I _ _,, of the endmy requirements and guidelines for future PWR (RSK) i .

3 emportance (ACRS/USNRC, RSK[Lindener]) 09.15-11.15 a m 4 Huammaes$sre ' "

l j -.

4.1 RAD mortt der advanced designs (ACRS/USNRC) 11.1512 00 a m

~

F yg,,y ...a

, k 4.2 RAD wortider advanced designs (RSK[Wilpert]) of (n 01.30 p m 6

1 4.3 Discussi( 0130 02 00 p m. l t

J k 2 5 RAD mfy rad tuplemensation aspects fbr the hydrogen problem related to severe accidents StSKPd. Fischer). USNRC) 02 00 04 00 p m j .

6 M m"  : 04 MIS p m i

1 .-

}

p -

,i e_ / A> _

D #

% ar er: e aszAcasivro me.svacas v wie w Ten.v.*ume san comeimmende f- e 04os toe 7 ens Sorte I von 2 t e L...

1997-03 18 27 Bf5 3 RSK-G _S _

49 228 670388 03

., 4 .

3 3

. I  ;

. ', j n .r y. w .y d ,i m )

\ =

1 Stabas of k "- -" and analytical R&D lbr severe accidents of APoou and SSWR (ACRS/USIdRC) 08 30-12.00 a m f -

Brook [

4 ,

0100 02.00 p m 2

R&D .1[ _' ^ the the EPR (RSK(Kessler er Hocken))

3 Dissuasion

• i 02 00 04.00 p m.

L 4 Meacellanelius 04 00-0415 p m 1 .

t In connection with this smeeting the RSK participants would like to visit some test facilities in the US A. According to 1

the wish of the RAM ddlemmas research projects should be visited I SANDIA(HM) l

latensesed vish M. Macher 3 Santa BarbersI University of Califbrnia -(steam explosions. es vessel coolms)

Interested vistier: Micken 1 3 Oak Ridge Na$6onal Laborssary - Oak Ridge - (core spread) or

• l Argonne NanM IJMaratory Arlonne -(core melt) j Interessed visiers: Kelsler/Hi: ken 6 ,,

According to the pduposed discueston themes following RSK members old participate to the meeting Prof Birkhofer. Prof. Keeder. Prat M Fischer. Prof Hicken. Dr. Lindauer. Piof Wilpert. Since the meeting is ibroocn on Aprtl 30 and May Of.1997, it seems convenient to plan the visit of the test facilities respectively on follomng three days. k April 24/ April 29 01,1997.

,1 I l

% l 6

l

} .-

I a +

i s

5

)

a kuKACES/VTO stMKtAcan' verlene~io.Taossvemns Deesearsa Aar anMemeiuta e on et loot u Seite 2 von 2 ant eusesnesame  ;

g .

F t

03/03 l

I

i et/48/97 5058210243  :

11:21 FAI 8088210245

, I To:

PLANNING AND PROCEDURES SUBCOMMu ut,E .

l From: D.A. Powers February 9,1997 subject:

OBSERVATIONS ONREVISED PROCEDURES i

At our subcot.unicee meeting in Boston, we settled on some tuvised opers in the hopes that we could improve our productivity and our ability to raisc our "sc% proc ores"slative to some performance metrics. We malized when we adopted the new procedwes th

- take time to establish and that we may have to refine the procedures as we gained The February meeting of the ACRS was the first real opportunity to see how well the pro 4

worked and where improvements could be made. I think it useful to keep a record ottlhe experience. Once we have enough experience, perhaps we can think about refinemcats. My i observations conceming our experiments with revised procedures are listed below:

o A first presentat2on of a letter in outline form (i.e., "the first paragraph does this", "the second paragraph does that", etc.) seemed to work well and elicited a useful j

discussion of content among members. It might work better if the author,'actually {

provided a list of the points, rough areas, and concerns.

j e

o The discussion elicited by the outline presentation may well reves) subgmups with A the ACRS that have strong interest in revising the content and wording of p draft

, letter.

ji o 1:

Anempts by an author to edit his draft letter during a meeting based on markups provided by members and staff does not work well. In my case, .

l,

- it took ac out of tbc ongoing discussion of other things, and ,

- I had difficulty understandag the intent behind suggested wording changes and adjudicating among conflicting sevisions o Line by4ine nyiew ofletters seems to be unavoidable. '

o Line-by-line sview does seems to drive wording toward the bland and passive. I wonder ifit does not obscure the thrust or salative intensities ofpoint that we try to make, Does this leave the reader in quandary about what it is we would l'sve him do?

l l

l 1

I.

.. _ _ . . _ . . __ _ _ . _ . - - . _ _ _ --- - - - - ~

l b~ ,

o ' Major disagreements within the Committee were revealed only after a dras letter had

, been prepared even though topics such as the HPPP and Shutdown Risk had been on the table sace Deccaber. This I found very surprising. Does it mean t%nrevealed disagreements may exist concoming letten we are able to push through is a single meeting?

l o A key element of ou revised strategy was to have an evening to look at Ipsers as a whole before going final on them. I'm not su s this was effective. Perhaps p set of '

guidelines need to accompany letters to (a) remind Mer.:bers to do this kini of a review, and (b) provide guidance on the types orquestions that they shouhl be asking such as: .

4

-is the letter factually accurate?

e

- does the letter fairly represent the staff position?

- is the message consistent from beginning to end?

- will recipientpien know what is being suggested and why? l; are the suggestions contrary to law or policy? ,,

other things might be suggested for consideration so we don't put our collective foot in it.

t i

4 I

i il i h .

l I

l l.

!l 1

i-c- .

j 3 (

4

~. To: PLANNING AND PROCEDURES SUBCOMMITTEE l i.. >

l 1

- From: D.A. Powers February 22,1997 '

i subject: SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH j l

I believe that we should give consideration to activating a subecmmittee, or prhaps better a study group, on NRC research. My sense that there is a need to do this comes;from a

several sources: ,

I 4

. e For two years now we have had a plan to discuss regularly at the close of cur meetings the needs for research, but the press of busmess has made this impossible.

i e The Commission is asking for our help in prioritning research (See memo from Miller on his meeting with McGaffagan.)  :

5 e ACRS is obligated by legislation to report to Congress on nuclear safety research (I note that I see no evidence that our report is to be confined to NRC sponsored

. nuc! car safety research.) This obligation has not received the anention that it perhaps deserves in the recent past.

1

! e NSRRC is focused more on the conduct of planned rescarch than on the mscarch needs and priorities.

,. . I

• PRA research at NRC is manifestly insufficient to support the drive toward risk-informed and performance based regulation. l i

o The human factors research program is in disarray because of undisciplined planrung, l

inefficient compar

mentalization and lack of ownership. ,

• Some elements of NRC's research program are so absorbed into servicin[ current user needs that efforts to forecast and respond to future challenges are neglected.

l

• An entitlement mentality within the various elements of NRC rescarch pariitions

, resources to the point research is ineffective in supporting agency wide idi11stives, e Transitions are taking place in the way NRC does research that include more reliance

. on cooperative research programs with other countries, more reliance on ip-house"

. capabilities, and decreased use ofnational laboratory staff (who have pariarmed so

' heroically for NRC in the past!). 1 i

/6 a

,i l l ,

. +

m ec

- I f

~

1am unenthusiastic about pattermng a subcomminee on research along tbc same lind

' for our existing subcommittees and subcornmittee meetings. I am anxious also createnot to another burden on members' time and ACRS travel budgets. I have toyed with ea ofthe iM adding

' to the obligations of the planning and procedures subcommittee to include thisroh reses function.

It seems to me, however, that the current planning and ymcedurss subcommittee lac k a sufficient breadth of expericace to do this taak well. Some thoughts and options that I have are as had

follows

.

4 o The Research Subcommittee abould be constituted as a Study Group akia p the study groups used by the C==Aa= and that it be obligated to produce a report to the Commission like a National Academy of Sciences report. This report widjof course, have to be endorsed by the ACRS. The report would address:

l

- research needs, i' l - research priorines, and I:

- conduct of research.

o Meetings of the Subcommittee will usually be scheduled for the Saturday or i

otherwise the last day of the full Committee meeting from 12:00 noon to 6:00 pm.

This would sNord an opportunity for all members to participate at least in some fraction of the proceedings. Most of the proceedings of a Study Group would not require presentations of the NRC stas. When such staffpresentations were needed, they could be scheduled as part of the full ACKS meeting.

o The Severe Accident Subcommittee should be abandoned and its functions absorbed by the new Research Subcommittee. Similarly, the generic functions of the Thermal 1 Hydraulics Subcommittee would be absorbed. Obligations of the Thermal Hydraulics

Subcommittee for standard plant cern5 cation would be absorbed by the AP600 Certification Subcommittee. Perhaps other Subcommittee functions such as functions of the PRA Subcommittee could be absorbed by the Research Subcommittee.

o It may be useful to ask a member of ACNW to be at least a corresponding member of the Research Subcommittee or ACNW should be asked to contribute to the report on research needs and priorities. ;l l'

^

l l

l l .

}

l

=

i.

i M

li

-