ML20148H612
| ML20148H612 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/18/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8803300045 | |
| Download: ML20148H612 (107) | |
Text
fMENNN'NNd@dddW9VGVQVfVfVdWG(WpVgVgVntVgyW;V;(gVflgygygygggggggggg,g b
TPAt!SMITTAL T0:
X _ Occument Control Desk, 016 Phillips
- )
j ADVANCED COPY T0:
The Public Document Rocm 8/2 >dI DATE:
-z j
[
FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch E
M Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting 93 l;
document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and 3
Dl!
placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or
- 2 required.
/ a A A s.t,or/l n.
i,
.r 5 u w n a/
j S
Meeting Titie: "fl L G h'
km i r, n i. 4., > { /$ usm Lj bl&
w,-
)
g Meeting Date:
S/)P/Pf Open V
u osed t
R i
Item Description *:
Copies Advanced DCS G
5 to PDR g
- 8
[
9i h
6
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 l
tJ/d u
d u
c it:
g 2.
i E
g i_l il 3.
=$
-$l
=-
S hI lh'4 M
a s.
- s 4
6.
El24 9
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
3 C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY g
8803300045 880318
.7 PDR a)R8 l
l Yl lY Yl YbYlYYlYlYlI lYlbbYIlllbYlYl lhlhlhlhlhlhhlhlhlhlflYlb)
l e
,, I e
(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
i
Title:
NRC Participation in International Agreements and Research Programs Location:
Washington, D.
C.
Cate:
Friday, March 18, 1988 Pages:
1 - 73 Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
4 g
6 s
I 1
D I SC LA I MER 2
3 4
5 6
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on s
3/18/88 In the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9
N. iJ., Washington, D.C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 12 inaccuracies.
13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the i
16 matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authorire.
22 23 24 25
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 NRC PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS 5
AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS 6
7 PUBLIC MEETING 8
i 9
Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
l 10 Room 1130 11 1717 H Street, Northwest 12 Washington, D.C.
13 14 FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 1988 15 16 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 17 notice, at 10:03 A.M.,
the Honorable LANDO W.
ZECH, Chairman of 18 the Commission, presiding.
19 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
20 LANDO W.
- ZECH, Chairman of the Commission 21 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 4
22 FREDERICK M.
BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission 23 KENNETH CARR, Member of the Commission 24 KENNETH ROGERS, Member of the Commission 25
9 2
1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
2 3
W.
PARLER 4
S.
CHILK 5
V.
STELLO 6
H.
DENTON 7
E.
BECKJORD 8
J.
SHEA 9
10 11 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
12 13 G.
ARLOTTO 14 J.
CORTEZ 15 16 17 18 l
19 l
i 20 21 22 23 24 25
9 3
1 PROCEEDINGS 2
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
3 The purpose of today's briefing is to review the internationda.
4 activities and the research programs of the Nuclear Regulatory 5
Commission.
This is an information briefing which will help 6
build the framework for establishing the priorities of our 7
international programs.
8 As most of you know, in the 16st NRC reorganization, 9
the Office of International Programs was organized within the 10 Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, referred to as GPA.
11 One of the objectives behind this reorganization was 12 to bring the focus of our international programs closer to the i
13 Commission.
j 14 In an effort to do this, the Commission requested a 15 review of the policies and procedures by which NRC's 16 international commitments, including research activities, are 17 undertaken and maintained.
18 In December 1987, GPA forwarded a paper, SECY 87-310, 19 containing recommendations to the Commission for NRC's 20 international priorities and suggested procedures for orienting 21 our programs to support these priorities.
22 This paper focused on NRC's research activities which 23 we'll be hearing more about today from our Office of Research.
24 We'll also be given a broad overview of all of our 25 international activities by the Office of International
4 1
Programs.
We're covering a lot of ground here today; I'd ask 2
our briefers to stick to the alloted of time as best they can 3
so that there's time for Commissioner questions.
4 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any opening 5
comments before we begin?
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I just have one comment on a 7
matter that I'd like to have Harold focus on somewhat at least, 8
and that is fairly obvious I guess, but the roll that GPA and 9
IP, I guess, in particular, can and should play in this area of 10 general oversight and review of our research programs and 11 priorities.
12 I assume you're prepared to speak to that subject, 13 but it's something I'd like to hear a little bit about.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Any other comments?
Mr.
i 15 Denton, you may begin please.
16 (SLIDE.)
17 MR. DENTON:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you 18 mentioned, we've been organized for about nine months at the 19 Commission level.
During that time we've been trying to get
)
20 our arms around all the Commission's activities and their 21 practices, and we're looking for ways to keep you more involved 22 and better informed about what we're doing.
23 You've seen some of the results.
We try to make sure 24 you're informed about all the developments that are going on 25 worldwide.
There's been an enormous increase, I think, in j
1
O 5
1 international activities since Chernobyl.
2 You know there are now 417 reactors operating 3
worldwide in 26 different countries.
4 In the materials area, I was a little surprised to 5
find that the three microspheres were being distributed in some 6
44 countries, for example, that we had to coordinate with.
7 About 15 of those countries have very small regulatory 8
programs.
9 So in both the nuclear reactor safety and material 10 safety area I-think there's been a big increase in the use of 11 these materials and the information we can gain back and in 12 people who want information from us.
13 We're looking for way to keep the Commission 14 involved at the right level; trying to get a unified NRC 15 position and then make sure it's consistent with the U.S.
16 position so that when we interact with any group outside the 17 U.S. we are really reflecting what you want done and what the 18 U.S. wants done.
19 Jim has about a 20 minute overview of the agreements, 20 the NEA/IAEA arrangements and how we interact with the outside 21 world and within the agency, and I think it's probably best to i
22 let him get right into that.
That would be followed by Eric l
l 23 talking about the research program, and then we could go into 24 whatever areas that would be appropriate.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All -lght, fine.
Mr. Shea, you may
H 6
1 proceed.
2 (SLIDE. )
3 MR. SHEA:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The next slide 4
would show the proposed outline to the briefing. As Harold 5
indicated, I will start off by giving an overview of NRC's 6
international program.
You have a copy of the handouts there.
7 That would give sort of the goals, structures, 8
resources and activities in our program, and come into the 9
question of policy oversight by the Commission and the current 10 Commission involved in any possible recommendations for the 11 future.
12 My emphasis will be on the non-research safety 13 cooperation since Eric Beckjord will follow with discussion of
)
14 the research cooperation.
The time is limited -- can I have 15 the next slide, please?
16 (SLIDE.]
17 MR. SHEA:
The time is limited here so I won't be 18 able to dwell too much on any one topic.
The purpose today is 19 to give you an overview, to give you an information base for 20 later Commission decisions.
21 We had given you a previous paper, as you noted, Mr.
22 Chairman, and a Commission assistance briefing and a background 23 paper that was provided, draft paper, a couple of days ago to 24 supplement the information in the first paper in some areas 25 that were not covered.
7 1
I want to focus our briefing on the question of 2
Commission involvement and the oversight of these activities.
3 (SLIDE.]
4 MR. SHEA:
The next slide will just briefly note a 5
very important element of our program that NRC carries out it's 6
international activities within the overall foreign policy 7
context set by the State Department.
8 Our international activities have as their purpose to 9
advance U.S.
and NRC overall interest.
The State Department, 10 looking at it very broadly, negotiates broad agreements for 11 cooperation with other countries, setting the terms and 12 conditions for nuclear cooperation.
And, within that 13 framework, NRC develops its regulatory exchange arrangements 14 which are centered in GPA, and specific research cooperation 15 agreements centered in the Office of Research but it's within 16 that overall foreign policy framework.
17 Also our export and international safeguards or 18 related activities are carried out within that framework and 19 taking policy guidance from the State Department continuously.
20 On particular issues, and also on technical policy 21 issues, seeks to forge an inter-agency consensus.
We are 22 heavily involved in that process.
23 Moving on the next slide.
24 (SLIDE.)
25 MR. SHEA:
This outlines very broadly our
t 8
1 international goals.
Not in priority order, but in two basic 2
categories; one in the safety area and one in the 3
export / safeguards area.
4 They are centered in general, ensuring that our NRC 5
programs support our statutory purposes and NRC's programmatic 6
need for foreign input.
For example, in the public health and 7
safety protection, the central purposelof the Commission, we 8
look to receive foreign information to fold into our regulatory 9
decisions since there's a lot of reactors operating abroad, 10 including experiences that we need to know about.
11 Also, supporting State Department objectives, say for 12 example, through providing safety assistance to foreign 13 nations.
State also wants that done.
14 And, we try to be responsive to foreign governments 15 and international organizations for NRC support.
16 Most of our effort is in the reactor safety area.
We 17 are trying to do more in areas such as radiation protection and 18 waste management.
And, I might say that in general, 19 historically NRC's international programs have been approved 20 and developed as separate parts of programs within the 21 Commission.
22 Now we're taking a broad look back and looking at the 23 program as a whole to see if some improvements can be made, 24 better coordination, and more oversight, whatever is needed.
25 We're taking a fresh look at it.
It's an important
~ -
=-
9 1
area, as Harold noted, referenced in our five year plan and if 2
you have no further questions about the specific statutory 3
requirements and purposes, I can move on.
4 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Let me ask a question on the
]
l 5
first item, the first bullet there.
What, statutory requirement i
6 are you referring to there?
7 MR. SHEA:
Referring to NRC's responsibilities to 8
protect the public health and safety.
9 COMMISSIONER CARR:
But it doesn't say we have to use 10 foreign data and resources, i
11 MR. SHEA:
No, that's right.
The statutes are not 12 explicit on that point.
It is an implicit statutory basis and 13 in order to carry out our domestic responsibilities, we would 14 want to be aware of input from foreign reactors which are often i
15 very similar to U.S.
reactors and have experience that has 16 often proved beneficial to our program.
Sometimes problems 1
17 will show up in foreign reactors first before they are noted 18 here and that enables us to fix problems before they show up in 19 our reactors.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I agree and I don't think 21 Commissioner Carr le questioning it, but --
22 COMMISSIONER CARR:
I think you ought to use all the 23 help you can get.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I do, too.
25 COMMISSIONER CARR:
It's the statutory requirement
10 1
for that.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
There's not a terribly clear 3
statutory requirement and I think the very good memo that GPA 4
did points that out.
It's mostly implicit.
5 MR. SHEA:
That's right.
And within that area you 6
have research activities, we have our material safety, waste 7
management research, all of this as well as our reactor safety 8
focused activities underway.
9 (SLIDE.]
10 MR. SHEA:
So, if I could move on the next slide, 11 which outlines our current. partners in safety cooperation and 12 the major forms of cooperation, we have three basic means here; 13 bilaterals directly with otrer countries, NRC equivalents 14 through the IAEA and through the nuclear energy agency of the 15 European OECD.
16 Each of these areas have certain advantages and 17 disadvantages.
For example, the bilaterals are often very 18 important for direct acquisition of safety information and
\\
19 clarifying particular technical problems or checking out j
20 rumors; for example, the recent report of a second Soviet i
21 accident, we were able to put to rest within a few hours by our 22 Worldwide network of direct contacts and safety agencies 23 calling in and finding out what was involved there.
24 Specific technical problems, you can call people up 25 and solve those problems.
People are candid, it's a quick
4 l
11 l
1 channel, a good way for our assignees from foreign countries to 2
be trained.
3 The IAZA has global membership and has certain 4
strengths for looking at longer term issues, getting full 5
coordination among various countries in the world, rather than 6
dealing with them one by one, and, of course, the safeguards 7
area is unique to the IAEA.
8 The European community and the NEA involves our 9
closest friends and it's noted here Western European nations 10 and Japan, they are prime users of U.
S.
type reactor 11 technology and you avoid the political activities of the IAEA; 12 non-political framework which helps us get on with the business 13 more swiftly.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I don't want to jump ahead in 15 the presentation here, so if you're going to address this let 16 me know, but I would like at some point to get a sense of what l
17 we have done in the past; what mechanisms there have been, and 18 I guess, maybe this would be you to speak to, Vic, perhaps as 19 much as anyone, what we have done in the past to exercise some 20 oversight in planning and how these many, many cooperative 21 programs develop.
22 The answer may be that they've kind of grown like 23 topsy and there has been no careful coordination oversight.
24 MR. DENTON:
I think, Commissioner, we will try to i
25 answer what we have done in just a few slides, and then we can
12 1
determine if it is adequate or not.
i 2
MR. SHEA:
I might just note quickly the OSART 3
program under the IAEA is particularly important to us, and we 4
have had not only support, but foreign OSARTs or safety reviews 5
of foreign programs, but one within the.U.S. that occurred at 6
Calvert Cliffs last August.
7 Also, the second item under IAEA, the IN SAG group 8
which is important agency or group of experts, really, that 9
advises the IAEA Director General about the broad issues of 10 safety, for example, built on safety principles.
11 The next slide will show the involvement of the NRC l
12 Staff in these three areas of activity.
You see the headings 13 there for bilateral, IAEA and NEA activities, and the principal 14 offices along the left column of the NRC, and GPA, down there 15 at the bottom, noting the policy development coordination role 16 that we have for across the board.
17 This is not meant to be a comprehensive. list, but 18 it's pretty inclusive, and it's illustrative of the areas in 19 which we do get involved, and you see quite a bit in the 20 bilateral, shading down a bit in the IAEA, and to some extent 21 less in the NEA, but they're all very important, and all have 22 certain advantages and disadvantages, as I noted earlier.
23 If there are no specific questions on those areas, I i
24 didn't plan to go through them all in detail.
I think most of 25 them you are generally familiar with.
i
_.___--i
13 1
COMMISSIONER CARR:
I think the bottom bullet there 2
is the one that we are most interested in today, right?
3 MR. SHEA:
Yes.
That's the one I wanted to get to 4
quickly on the last couple of slides.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right, let's proceed.
6 MR. SHEA:
The next slide that's in your order there, 7
the resources, just to give you an idea of what kind of 8
resources we have in the international program area.
It adds 9
up to about 45 staff FTEs with the bulk of them, over 60 10 percent, working on Safety Cooperation; some 28 FTEs, most of 11 them in GPA and exports and international safeguards, a little 12 bit under 40 percent, 17 FTEs, a grand total of about 1.5
/
13 percent of the NRC staff resources dedicated to this effort.
14 The next slide gives you a quick idea of the foreign 15 travel that we do at NRC, for one year, fiscal
'87, you see the 16 bulk of the travel devoted to reactor safety, almost 90 17 percent.
A little bit in materials safety, a small amount in 18 exports and international safeguards, and a small amount in 19 waste.
20 The export safeguards resources FTEs exceeds the 21 foreign travel by quite a bit.
Most of the travel is related 22 to reactor safety.
23 The foreign travel in fiscal '87 ran a little under 5 24 percent of the total NRC travel projections, and that will be 25 up a bit next year.
. _=.. =. _
14 1
If I could move to the next --
2 COMMISSIONER CARR:
What is the gross on that?
3 500,000 something?
4 MR. SHEA:
Yes,.about 500,000 for
'87, 535,000 out of 5
about 11,300,000 total travel, looking at projections of about 6
716,000 for
'88, in line with the increased involvement in 7
international activities.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
How about '89?
What's
'89, do you 9
know?
10 MR. SHEA:
No, I don't have a projection, Mr.
11 Chairman, on that.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Let's see, these are trips, 14 not money?
15 MR. SHEA:
Yes, that's cut by trips.
We could also 16 do it the other way.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I think you ought to do it in 18 money as well, as trips can be over and back, or they can be 19 two, three weeks; a big difference.
20 MR. DENTON:
I think that's true.
This was more 21 illustrative of the -- in general, it's mostly reactor safety 22 and not the other areas.
But we are trying to --
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I guess it probably would 24 cut, if anything, even more heavily in reactor if you did it 25 the other way.
I suppose that's true.
i
1 15 1
MR. SHEA:
I think that's right.
We have looked at j_
i 2
that, and it's pretty similar.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
4 MR..SHEA:
The next slide will be getting right into 5
the area that we really want to focus on today.
First slide of 6
three here shows the coordination and approval of NRC's formal 7
international commitments and the current Commission 8
involvement.
9 The first is the major export-import licenses that 10 come to the Commissior..
There, there is a very structured 11 system for Commission review, in which they are informed of all 12 major activ,ities, approve those not delegated to the Staff, and 13 the signature of the exports is done at the Staff level, but 14 with Commission review.
15 Our regulatory exchange arrangements, which on the 16 next slide I noted are negotiated by GPA and coordinated with 17 the State Department, as are all our agreements, our research 18 agreements, too.
Most of those come up for Commission 19 approval.
They are usually assigned by the Chairman, in fact.
20 The research cooperation agreements, as with these other 21 activities, are all notified to the Commission, but the 22 approval is -- by the commission is only occasional.
This is 23 selective.
For example, the Tadotsu Seismic Research 24 Agreement, and there is a Japanese code program in '86 and
'85, 25 German and Spain research agreements were signed by the
16 1
. Commission, but it's more selective than the case of the 2
regulatory.
3 MR. DENTON:
We have been trying to send more of 4
those up to the Commission.
I think we just sent the Alligator 5
River project, for example, as a novel approach.
So we are 6
trying to screen for the Commission the ones that seem to rise 7
to some threshold.
8 COMMISSIONER CARR:
I would think we would want to 9
see the ones that committed budgetary outyear numbers.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Yes, certainly -- I agree.
P 11 Certainly the same threshold that the EDO, for example, 12 currently uses to send matters to the Commission.
If we are 13 committing resources that rise to that threshold in principal, 14 those always should have been submitted to the Commission, 15 whatever that is, three quarters of a million dollars, I guess.
16 MR. SHEA:
We do have a slide, one later, that has a 17 recommendation that we pick certain agreements that have major 18 resource commitments, and send them to you for review.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Now there may be other 20 criteria as well which you may be getting to.
For example, 21 first time cooperative agreements, country to country, which 22 often even aren't area-specific.
23 MR. DENTON:
I think we are working on a t'hreshold 24 below Vic's budget threshold, and we are trying to pick out 25 those that have those unique --
l
~l 17 i
i 1
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
It's policy matters, it seems 2
to me that those should --
3 MR. SHEA:
We are trying to send more to you in 4*
general to keep you informed, to give you the option to say I 5
want to see more of this or that.
6 The next slide attempts to outline the current i
7 management oversight for NRC of international activities.
I 8
Looking at the Commission role, GPA and EDO.
The Commission i
9 role, as we noted there, is to look at policy matters that the 10 Staff may send up or the Commission may initiate with GPA then 11 informing the Commission and EDO of significant international 12 development screening activities that occur, and sending those 13 to the Commission.
Making sure that policies, from the State 14 Department primarily, are made known to the appropriate people, 15 and for major activities such as international -- helping the l
16 Commission develop policies and priorities, coordinating with 17 EDO as appropriate.
And, of course, EDO's role is then to 18 implement the Commission guidance programmatically and watching 19 resources, such as foreign travel, and keeping the Commission l
20 informed of the significance of foreign safety information and
{
21 experience, and supporting Commission policies.
22 We have -- I was mentioning the informing of the 23 Commission -- a number of examples I might just mention to make 24 this a little mure concrete, such as when we sent to you review 25 of our foreign assignee program to see whether we should make
18 1
any changes in light of increasing movement toward cooperation 2
with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
You reviewed that 3
recently, gave us guidelines, and Ue carried those out.
4 Assistance to the Koreans in nuclear safety was another issue 5
which we sent up to define a program, and there's some policy 6
issues that are continuing to the present day.
7 We have emerging cooperation with the Soviet Union 8
and Eastern Europe that has heavily involved the Commission, 9
and we're moving toward a possible cooperation'and agreement 10 with the Soviet Union at this time.
11 The recent NUCHEM affair could affect our export 12 licenses.
We looked at that closely and kept the Commission 13 informed.
The U.S.-China agreement, going back a little bit, 14 South African uranium import issue, and Calvert Cliffs OSART, 15 Mexican and Canadian issues on our borders.
Those are 16 examples, much as -- note the mechanisms by which we do this.
17 We have a new quarterly report which we started a few months 18 ago.
The second one should be on your desk in the next day or 19 two.
Special memos on issues on clearing cables, cable 20 highlights, memos and so on that we send out, and senior 21 commission visitors have memos for their visit which outline 22 issues as well.
23 So those are examples of what we do, and the next 24 slide --
25 COMMISSIONER CARR:
On the top line there on that l
l l
l
x 19 1
one, it says "as issues arrive."
Are we really just reactive, 7.,
2 or are we trying to be proactive?
3 MR. SHEA:
We are definitely trying to be proactive.
4 GPA's role is an evolving one, since we were reorganized, as 5
Harold mentions, last year, and we have been trying to get more 6
proactive, identify issues early, send them to the Commission, 7
and have those decided, have you more involved in deciding.
S those, and if you'd like to give us any more defined guidance 9
about that, we would appreciate it.
10 MR. DENTON:
Vic and I have been trying to lay out 11 what the issues are each year, and you have seen some recent 12 memos on that, that say these are the big issues, they tend to 13 be operational safety issues, improving safety, and assigned 14 resources for the entire year, and send that up to you and see 15 if you agree if that's the way to allocate resources.
And then 16 everybody can plan that way, so it's not taken just ad hoc in 17 every individual case.
18 COMMISSIONER CARR:
I'm interested especially in 19 issues we can put to bed and quit worrying about.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
There aren't any like that 21 around here.
22
[ Laughter.)
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Well, let me just make a poin*. here, 24 too.
I think it's awfully important to me, and I think to my 25 colleagues, as we have gone into this reorganization, and
. - - ~.
20 1
brought IP to the Commission level, GPA and IP-folks should 2
recognize that the Commission wants to take a stronger hand in 3
all tifs.
And it means you have a different role in IP.
You 4
are not just liaison with other international officials or even 5
our own agency officials in the country.
We are looking to you 6
to be more substantive and to give us recommendations on 7
issues.
8 Now that doesn't mean.you have to have all the 9
expertise in your own organization, but it does indeed mean, in 10 my view, that you should bring recommendations to us on large 11 issues that we can close out or not close out, but that are 12 going to be ongoing or whatever, and give us a substantive i
13 recommendation.
Nc t just a recommendation, for example, from 14 the State Department; not just a recommendation from other f
15 departments; but -- of course, all those will be input to your 16 recomuendation, but what I'm looking, and I think my colleagues 17 are looking to, is a more substantive recommendation on 4
i 18 international activities from our international programs office 19 than you have been ust1 to in the past.
That's a different 20 role for you, and it's important to us that we feel we get the 21 best professional advice we can on these policies that we're l
l 22 involved in.
That's important, and I hope we all understand 23 that, and I think you do, Jim, and I think some of your people I
24 do, but it is a new role, and you may need more support in that
]
0 25 office, I don't know.
But you're going to have to tell us.
)
1
21 1
But you've got to recognize, you're in a new role.
We don't 2
want you just being liaison.
We want you to be more involved 3
in the substance of matters.
I 4
okay, let's go on.
i 5
MR. SHEA:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
6 That is how I view the role and the staff as well.
l 7
(SLIDE.)
8 MR. SHEA:
The last slide shows recommendations for 9
you related to what we've been talking about where we suggest i
10 that GPA working closely with EDO would inform the Commission 11 of international activities that might have policy relevance, R
12 the very point you were mentioning, and make recommendations, 13 and keep checking on international activities and let you know 14 periodically what we think of the Commission objectives, and 15 whether they're being met.
16 GPA might also send the Commission for review and 17 approval, proposed agreements with new countries, defining what l
1 18 agreements we'd cend up.
It might be new countries, agreements 19 requiring significant new NRC resource commitments, or those 20 having policy significance.
21 Those are kind of three categories that occurred to 22 us that might be useful for you to look at.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
We're certainly to the first 24 level now in the outline of what needs to transpire, it seems 25 to me.
We went through two tries to get to this point, but t
22 1
there's an awful lot said in that first recommendation there as 2
you well understand, and Vic, as you can attest, this isn't a 3
solicited question or response, but I can well imagine that, at 4
least I would hope that you would welcome the directive and 5
opportunity here to get a handle on these commitments and how 6
they grow and what we're doing and set up the appropriate 7
institutional coordination here at Harold's shop.
8 I don't frankly know what the next step in the 9
outline below point one is or should be, or what makes sense, 10 but it's clear that there has to be some definition of 11 responsibility and a great deal of close coordination for 12 oversight on sort of a weekly, almost daily basis between IP l
13 and the Commission's shop and your shop.
14 I don't know whether you have any comment on that or 15 not, but it seems to me we've got a fair distance to go here in 16 getting a real handle on what our commitments are, how they 17 develop ar.d where the resources should go.
18 MR. STELLO:
Short answer is I agree fully.
I think l
19 you're right, it's a first step.
For many years we really 20 haven't been sitting down trying to evolve what ought to be the 21 Commission's policy with regard to the whole host of 22 international programs, and we're evolving it now.
23 I think it is very important because it does have 24 implicit with it a commitment to do things and usually the 25 commitment involves fairly high level people.
It isn't the
23 i
l 1
kind of a thing you can just send up as typical.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Let me just make a comment, too, and 3
this is a very important point that Commissioner Bernthal has 4
raised and I was looking at that chart the same way and I 5
think, perhaps, maybe the most important words you've got up i
6 there on the first line, say, "in coordination with the EDO."
7 Because, you see what's happened over the years, at 8
least my perception is, and many years of practice of IP under O
the EDO, and other EDO's before Mr. Stello, EDO has a very big 10 job; a lot of responsibilities.
11 He has to focus on the urgent priorities of the day
)
12 to day business, public health and safety and so forth.
13 International programs, it's at least been my 14 perception, has not been necessarily the highest on his 15 priority list and as a result international programs people 16 have, indeed, gone along and done what they thought interfacing 17 with research and whoever, and they did the best they could and 4
18 I think they did a very good job.
19 But, my point is, I don't think the EDO, any EDO, 20 really had the time, even if he had the inclination, to jump in 21 on these international programs and give it the attention it 22 should have.
23 I don't blame the EDO.
I don't blame the staff.
And 24 that's why I thought, and my colleagues thought, it would be 25 important to bring this to the Commission.
24 a
1 Now, in so doing though, it is very important, as far i
2 I'm concerned, that we don't cut out the EDO.
Now you see, 3
we're trying to help him in his job as I see it because he is 4
focused on a day to day basis on public health and safety 5
issues.
6 And that means that our international activities have
+
7 got to coordinate with the EDO.
So when you say "in 8
coordination with EDO" that means an awful lot to me because we
)
9 don't want you to think you're going to bring your programs to t
10 the Commission, the Commission is going to operate on a vacuum j
i 11 internationally.
We're not going to do that.
12 So, it's impcrtant to me and I think all of us to 13 know that you will coordinate with EDO.
14 Now what it means to Vic Stello is that as you bring i
things to him, you'll have them staffed out.
You'll have 15 16 pro's, con's, the here's what happens if we attend this 17 conference, or if we go to this meeting and can we afford to 18 send one of his senior people here, there, whatever, and also 19 what stance should we take when we go to an international 20 meeting.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That's an important point.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Exactly.
And so, Vic, you've got to 23 be involved in this and we've got to know when one of your 24 senior people goes to an international meeting representing the 25 Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States of America;
25 1-that's our job.
2 We have to know what he's going to say, we've got to 3
prove his position, and my perception has been in the past, we 4
really haven't done that very well and we're trying to do it 5
better now.
And, it's very important.
)
6 And, so IP would bring, as I envision the system, 7
through GPA, and this means Harold, you and Vic have got to be 8
close on these matters.
Not just Jim Shea and Eric Beckjord, 9
but you and Vic, and Vic's got to be given the completed staff 10 work, if you will.
11 You've got to say here's what we think, here's the 12 pro's and con's and then Vic's got to say I agree or I disagree 13 and I'll tell you why I disagree.
14 And so when it comes to the Commission, if there is 15 disagreement, we should hear about that.
We could say you 16 think this, he thinks that, fine, bring it to us, we'll make 17 the decision.
18 But we would hope that you could work most of those 19 things out yourself.
So that we're really -- you're giving the 20 Commission what Vic and his judgment overseeing the staff feels 21 is in the best interest of public health and safety for the 22 United States.
23 And you're of course tuned to the same issues so I 24 would think that most of the time, almost all the time, you 25 would bring us a coordinated position.
And so, it's important
26' 1
that you coordinate with EDO and keep him informed so he 2
doesn't have to spend a tremendous amount of time deciding 3
whether it's well staffed.
You should give him a well staffed 4
piece of work and with all the background, so he can say yes 1
5 that makes sense to me, that's exactly what we want to do.
6 And my view is as we keep working on this in the 7
months ahead, and perhaps years ahead, then we will be 8
developing a clear close coordinated relationship so the 9
Commission will be getting the best solid advice from the staff 10 and supervised and supported and coordinated by the GPA and the 11 IP organization, so the Commission can then feel confident that 12 we really are prioritizing our international activities.
^
)
13 So, it really is important that you coordinate and I I
14 agree with that thought very strongly.
15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Mr. Chairman, if I could just 16 say, I agree with everything you've say.
I think that that's 17 very important.
18 I think we have to keep in mind in that process, 19 though, the importance of the information that comes through 4
20 the research network of what the opportunities are 21 internationally that may not come so readily through the more 22 formalized and higher level connections at GPA and that i
23 international programs maintains.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good point.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
There's a network out there of
27 1
working scientists who are communicating with each other all 2
the time and feel very comfortable by working through the 3
research end of the establishment that we must be very 4
cognizant of in trying to match the opportunities which we may 5
or may not want to pick up, and our own priorities as a 6
Commission.
7 So, that I think it's terribly important that that 8
level be in there in the scrubbing down of priorities and 9
matching them to opportunities.
Some opportunities we may just 10 have to take pass on.
They look very attractive, but we don't 11 think they fit in with our priorities.
12 So I think it is important in the priorities setting 13 of international programs that there be a strong input from the 14 research end of the house where the connections and knowledge 15 exist as to what the opportunities are, but I think that 16 information then has to be matched up against the Commission 17 overall priorities.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I agree and I envision, Eric, that's 19 your job.
You hear about these international or research 20 things maybe before anybody.
21 You have to tell Vic, convince him that it's 22 something really important and therefore he can interface with 23 the others, and of course, you can, too.
24 It's a very good point.
We have all kinds of 25 opportunities in the research world to be informed and that's
7 28 1
how I envision it would fit in the system.-
2-You would make sure that the EDO was informed about 3
your support for certain activities and make sure that it is l
4 surfaced and then, of course, the EDO'could work it out with l
5 the GPA people and bring-it to the Commission.
6 That's a good point.
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I agree and it's clear that 8
the Chairman has a fairly clear vision in his mind now of what i
j is ultimately your responsibility, Mr. Chairman, that's how to 9
10 coordinate this from a management standpoint.
11 One does not want to overly formalize these things, 12 but there may even, indeed, be some amount of paper that would 13 be appropriate to make clear to everybody what the 14 responsibilities are here, that remains to be seen, I guess.
15 MR. SHEA:
I might just end up, Mr. Chairman, noting l
16 the last two recommendations are periodic perhaps annual 17 reports to the Commission, so that you have a better idea of 18 what's happening in the regulatory research activities.
19 And then, suggesting that you decide on NRC's 20 international priorities, we have looked at all the information 21 considered, the staff briefings, and so on.
The earlier papers I
22 suggested some priorities.
j l
23 At this point, I'd like to turn it over to the Office j
l 24 of Research to describe their program, Eric Beckjord.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right, thank you very much.
Mr.
~
29 1
Beckjord, you may proceed.
2 MR. BECKJORD:
Thank you.
If I could have the slide 1
3 marked No.
1.
4 (SLIDE.)
5 MR. BECKJORD:
This is the outline of what I'm going 6
to cover and I don't think I need to say more about the 7
outline.
8 I 'll jp3 to No.
2, please.
9
[ SLIDE.]
10 MR. BECKJORD:
As a frame of reference I've set forth.
11 here the NRC research program objectives, guiding principles 12 for planning, implementing and managing the rescarch program, 13 which is in the strategic plan, in the philosophy statement as 14 modified in the response that's going to go forward to the 15 National Academy of Science.
j 16 And, the program plan, the research programs are 17 described in the five year plan, and then at a level of greater 18 detail, there are also individual research program plans.
4 19 (SLIDE.]
20 MR. BECKJORD:
Next is shown the structure of the 21 research program in the five main areas that we work-in.
I'm 22 sure you're all familiar with both the context of the program 23 and with these other elements through the programmatic reviews 24 and the budget reviews, and I don't need to dwell on it.
25 But it is the frame of reference for talking about j
j l
30 1
the-international cooperative activities.
'So go to the next 2
slide, please.
3 (SLIDE.)
4 MR. BECKJORD:
I want to say a few words about the 5
basics of the international activities.
6 They're important to the NRC research program and the 7
results that are expected from it because they are a complement 8
to the program.
9 They help to expand the research and improve its 10 quality and I think. most important, these cooperative efforts 11 put the research people in contact with the facilities that are 12 available in other countries, with foreign scientists and 13 engineers that are working on common problems.
14 And this contact enables us to draw on their research 15 results generally as well as the explicit things that we're 16 cooperating on.
I i
17 And it contributes to the network that Commissioner 18 Rogers has already so well described.
19 I'm going to be saying more about this.
If I could 20 have the next slide, please.
21
[ Slide.]
22 MR. BECKJORD:
The authorization for engaging in 23 these activities has already been described.
It is shown again 24 here.
It's authoriv.ed by Congress, it's authorized by the 25 Commissioners in the policy and planning guidance, and finally
31 i
1 all the agreements for research cooperation are reviewed by the I
2 Staff, by the State Department, and finally signed off by the 3
EDO, and in some cases the Commission.
4 If I could have the next slide, please.
5 (Slide.)
6 MR. BECKJORD:
The objectives for foreign cooperation 7
are spelled out here.
I think they are evident and I don't H
8 need to say much more about them.
I_think in those objectives j
9 are included both the' things that we receive from foreign V
10 cooperation and the things that we make available to the 11 governments and people that we are cooperating with, 12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Let me just make one comment, 13 and again I don't know where this fits in, but if you're going 14 to address this issue later, let me know.
One of the things 15 that I hope at least this agency would be attentive to -- I 16 wish other agencies would be, as well -- but one of the things 17 that I would hope, picking up on Commissioner Rogers' earlier 18 point, that we would be very sensitive to, is trying to make 19 sure that the real research experts, the scientists, are the I
20 guys that, when appropriate, and it very often is appropriate, 21 that they are the ones that under the aegis of the NRC are 22 representing the United States government, when that's 23 appropriate, abroad in the interactions with the scientists 24 abroad, as opposed to, if I may say so, as opposed to the 25 administrators who may well be going along'and may well be
32 1
representing.
But the reason I raise this issue is because of 2
the striking disparity that I frequently heard about, where 3
international meetings are held and -- well, to pick a random 4
example, the Soviets will send someone like Velikhov or -- not 5
just the Soviets, I think many other. countries -- the 6
representatives of the governments in highly scientific areas 7
from many other countries tend to be those who are the experts 8
in the particular subject matter, or at least have very broad 9
technical expertise, and I would hope that we consciously try 10 to match that kind of policy here in this agency.
I think we 11 do better than many other agencies, I should say, but just a i
12 point to keep in mind.
13 I hope I'm making myself clear, and I hope you 14 understand the point.
15 MR. BECKJORD:
Well, Commissioner, I like to think 1
16 that I have not very many administrators, but I've got a lot of 17 program managers --
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Right.
19 MR. BECKJORD:
And so in carrying out these 20 cooperations, we -- the program managers have to be involved, 1
21 because they are responsible for directing the program.
But we i
22 involve in every case that I know about, you know, people who j
23 are working on the engineering and scientific question.
So I 24 think it's a --
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, it's very simple.
As a
6 si l
33 1
practical matter, and I agree with you, the NRC has oversight i
2 responsibility.
But if you're going to a meeting where -- I 3
don't know what it is, on severe accidents or sotaething, let's 4
say, I think we do this pretty well, actually.
I'm not 5
necessarily here being critical.
We always can do better, I l
6 think, but we also want to represent this country with the very 7
best people in severe accidents, then.
It might only be one; 8
it might be two.
But that does not always happen, I think.
It 9
certainly doesn't always happen throughout the government, and 10 I don't think it always happens here as often as it should.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
1 12 MR. BECKJORD:
If I could have the next slide.
l 13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I agree with Mr. Bernthal, though.
I 14 think the point is well taken, and I think we do that fairly i
15 well, but I think it's something to keep in mind.
.I think it's
)
16 a good point.
I 17 All right, let's go.
18 MR. BECKJORD:
This is a matrix which shows the 1
19 areas, the structural areas of the program, and then the 20 countries that are involved with us in these efforts.
The top 21 line, which states general research cooperation, is the 22 unbrella agreement.
We have this umbrella agreement which is a 23 general agreement on cooperation.
What is really important is 24 the agreements, the more detailed ones, that are established 25 under it.
34 1
And so the next four areas down-are the main 2
technical areas of the program, and you can see by the stars 3
which countries are involved in those programs.
I think the 4
chart tells you a lot.
There also it is important to note that' 5
the countries that have the most important programs are France, 6
the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, then the United 4
7 Kingdom, and the OECD/ CEC countries taken as a whole.
8 And one thing in the integrity of reactor components 9
program that is very important, there are fewer stars ~in it 10 which seems to indicate otherwise, but that's not the case and, 11 in fact, the programs there are contributed to -- we are 12 involved with those countries having the strongest research 13 efforts in that area.
14 But I think it indicates a very broad range of 15 cooperation with many countrier in many areas.
16 COMMISSIONER CARR:
You might discuss in that last t
17 one for me a little bit that has no stars in it.
18 MR. BECKJORD:
Well, I left that in there, 19 Commissioner, because that's an important area of the program.
'l 20 I'm going to touch on that.
There are no formal agreements 21 relating to the resolution of safety issues, but there's a lot 22 of discussion and exchange of information on approaches in 23 different countries.
So I would say that that bottom line, 24 although it's blank, it's conducted informally, rather than by 25 formal agreement.
i e.
e-
35 1
If I could move to the next slide.
2 2
(Slide.)
3 MR. BECKJORD:
This indicates the dollars in fiscal 4
1987, fiscal 1988, and it's shown -- the first set of programs 5
shows the contributions from overseas to the NRC programs, and 6
then the second category shows our contributions on foreign 7
programs.
And I do note that there is a favorabic balance.
8 It's not a major point, but at least it's better than the trade 9
balance is at the time.
10 There is one other comment I want to make about it.
11 If you look at the commitments in the outyears, which are not 12 shown on the viewgraph, in all but two cases, these are one-13 year commitments for about the same amount of money as is shown 14 in the fiscal '88 column.
The two exceptions to that are the 15 severe accident program, which is on the second line of the i
16 first series.
17 That program runs out for another three years, by the 18 current agreements, and at about a level of $3 million in each i
19 year.
And the second one that is a longer range commitment is 20 the Alligator River Analogue Project, which is the last line of 21 the second series, and that runs for three years beyond fiscal 22 1988 at about the same level of approximately $150,000 a year.
i 23 So those are the long range commitments in the 24 outyears that we have now, those two.
J 25 If I could move to the next slide.
i
._m l
36-1 (Slide.]
l 7,
t 2
MR. BECKJORD:
Now I want to get in, a little bit t
3 more into the details of the programs, taking them up by the 4
main program elements, first. integrity of reactor components.
j l
5 There are five programs shown here.
I'm going to show a little 6
bit more detail on the IPIRG, or International Piping Integrity 7
Program, which I think is the next slide or two.
8 The second program here is an important one, a 9
program for inspection of steel components in cooperation with' e
10 OECD countries.
That's otherwise known as the PISC III 4
i 11 program. It's mainly for flaw detection and location in reactor 12 vessels and piping and nozzles.
And it is a -- that is also a i
13 three-year program.
The funding on it is rather large by the j
l 14 OECD countries, totaling about $18 million a year.
Our own 15 contricution to it is principally in services and the provision 1
16 of samples for study.
Our expenditures in it have been 17 something less than $1 million a year spent in this country.
i 18 The next program is characterization of pressure 19 vessel materials, involvement with the UK and the Federal 1
20 Republic of Germany.
The total program is about $2.5 million.
21 The next one is the Seismic Safety Research Program.
j 22 I think I have a slide on that, the Tadotsu facility, later i
i 1
23 which I will comment on.
Yes, that's on the next slide.
I'll 1
4 1
j 24 comment on that in the next slide.
i 25 And then finally, the TMI 2 reactor vessel botton
)
W 37 1
head examination.
I said a few words about that yesterday at 2
the Commission meeting.
In summary, that is expected to be 3
about a $7 million program.
We are asking for contribution by 4
the OECD countries of 50 percent of that amount.
It will 5
extend over three years, obtaining the samples at the end of 4
6 this calendar year, or the beginning of next year.
Then 7
laboratory examinations, which will begin in 1989, and be I
8 completed in the following year.
9 There is a great deal of interest in the program.
As 10 I said, I am optimistic that we are going to get an important 11 response and financial contribution to it.
12 The main effort of that program will be to establish 3
i 13 the condition of the vessel bottom head at the time of the 14 accident, so that we know what capabilities we had and what i
1 15 additional margin, if any, that there was.
It's very important i
l 16 to the severe accident program and, in particular, the 17 development of better accident management strategies in the 18 future.
4 4
j 19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
This Japanese seismic program j
20 21 MR. BECKJORD:
If I could have the next slide, i
22 please.
i 23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Oh, I'm sorry.
Am I ahead of 1
24 you?
25 MR. BECKJORD:
No, it's coming up on the next slide, i
I
=
38 i
7.
1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
All right.
Go ahead.
2 MR. BECKJORD:
Well, I visited the Tadotsu facility l
3 in December when I was in Japan.
It's a very impressive 1
4 facility.
It is, at the time that I was there, it was testing 5
a one-third scale model of a PWR primary system with one loop 6
to represent the others.
The weight of that was about 1000
)
7 tons.
It's on a 15 meter by 15 meter test pad, which moves in 8
the vertical direction and moves in one direction horizontally.
9 When you see the test going on, you might say, well, l
I l
10 ho-hum, you can see something moving maybe a couple of inches.
11 But when you think about it and realize that that's a thousand 12 tons that's moving, and that it's moving at frequencies up to 13 three times the actual seismic spectra that they're using for l
14 the test, why, there's tremendous energy involved in it.
And 15 it's going to -- the tests are in both the elastic range and 16 they're going to do some in the inelastic range.
That facility 17 now, to build that, we're talking about in excess of half a j
18 billion dollars to reproduce that facility now.
The Japanese 19 have put enormous resources into it, and we are very fortunate 20 to be able to be a part of that effort with a rather small 21 contribution.
Our contribution to it is, oh, on the order of i
1 i
l 22
$1-$2 million total over the program.
i 23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Oh, I'm sorry, this slide j
24 says NRC costs less than $100 million, and I -- that looked a f
25 little expensive to me.
i
39 1
MR. BECKJORD:
No, there's a typo there.
About $1 2
million.
They -- in addition, I mentioned the PWR third scale 3
test.
They are testing other -- they will be testing BWRs and 4
containment structures as well.
If you are in Japan,.I would 5
highly recommend a visit to that.
It's extremely impressive 6
work, and it has been -- the entire program, from design to 7
construction to testing, is being executed in an excellent 8
fashion.-
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, let me -- excuse me.
)
10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Was that laboratory set up for 11 general seismic work for all purposes, or was that --
12 MR. BECKJORD:
No, nuclear.
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just for nuclear?
14 MR. BECKJORD:
They may have in mind doing some other 15 testing there, but it was built for --
l 16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
For building construction and j
i 17 things like that?
18 MR. BECKJORD:
-- for the nuclear plants.
And it is 19
-- the work is managed under a company which was set up under 20 the aegis of MITI for -- in fact, it's the Nuclear Power 21 Engineering Company.
22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I see.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I had seen it when I was in Japan, 24 and it's very worthwhile visiting it, if you have an 25 opportunity to see it.
It's very impressive.
40 1-COMMISSIONER - BERNTHAL:
I was-just going to do a 2
quick reversal of field here, first wondering about the 100 3
million and who else was paying, and now I'm going to ask 4
whether we're really getting access to everything that comes 5
out of this for under a million?
Is that all the information?
6 MR. BECKJORD:
Guy, do you want to comment on'that?
7 Mr. Arlotto?
I think the answer is yes.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Please identify yourself, Guy, for 9
the reporter.
l 1
10 MR. ARLOTTO:
Guy Arlotto.
11 Mr. Chairman, we are getting everything.
In fact, as l
12 part of our workshop, which we are going to have with the i
13 Japanese in May, they are going to put more on the table 14 regarding tests that we are not involved in.
We are 15 principally involved in the PWR loop test.
They were 16 specifically -- that was specifically designed by the Japanese i
17 as a proof test, in essence for public consumption, that we're j
18 okay.
That's not much good for us.
We're looking to benchmark 4
19 our seismic codes as they go from elastic to inelastic, and we j
j 20 now have convinced them, and they are going to perform the 21 test, to go inelastic.
22 To go back to something else, and this is another 4
23 example of the fact that we really do send the experts.
In 24 this area we send almost exclusively the people from 25 Brookhaven, i
1
41 1
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Good.
l 2
MR. ARLOTTO:
To interact with the Japanese in design 3
and. structure of this test.
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I think we do fairly well.
5 Well, I'd just say that's a tremendous bargain, if we're r
6 getting all of the information.
.It really is.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All-right, let's proceed.
8
[ Slide.)
9 MR. BECKJORD:
If I could go to the next slide, just J
10 a brief mention of the IPIRG program.
This program had the 11 objective of providing technical data to back up the leak-12 before-break investigations which have been largely completed 13 for the large reactor coolant piping.
14 It's very beneficial to the NRC.
What I would say 15 about it is, it's about a $5.5 million program, which as I 16 understand it, the NRC originally was going to carry out 17 entirely on its own, and several years ago when there were some 18 budget problems at the time, the decision was made that rather 19 than cut the program back to see if it would be possible to 20 enlist foreign cooperation, and it was entirely successful, and 21 the program is now going forward at the original scope, getting 22 very good results, and our NRC contribution to it is about $1.6 23 million out of the 5.5.
24 If I could have the next slide, please.
25 (Slide.)
)
42 1-MR. BECKJORD:
That's moving to reactor core damage 2
prevention.
The big efforts there are in the ROSA program in i
3 Japan, which is for small break loss-of-coolant accident 4
investigations, and the 2D/3D program in Germany, which is for 5
the large LOCA.
I've got a slide on that coming up to say a 6
bit more about it.
So I'll defer to that.
The BETHSY test 7
facility in France has been constructed for the purpose of 8
testing accidents, the course of development of a severe 9
accident, before -- at the early stages, and we are cooperating 10 in that, and we are going to get -- I believe there are four 11 test runs that will be done explicitly at our request.
l 12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
What's the total amount 13 committed in that category?
International programs?
Thermal 14 hydraulic research.
l 15 MR. BECKJORD:
Let's see.
I can --
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Step to the microphone and identify l
17 yourself, please.
18 MR. CORTEZ:
I am Jose Cortez from the Office of 19 Research.
As far as money contribution directed to the thermal 20 hydraulics area, the BETHSY program, we are not contributing 21 funds, we are providing codes and analyses in return of 22 experimental data.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
- Okay, j
i 24 MR. CORTEZ:
On all of them, essentially we provide 25 the instrumentation and codes to the programs.
In the case of i
43 1
2D/3D, we provided instrumentation that is now being used in 2
the test facility.
We spent quite a bit of money on that 3
particular program.
It's been going on for almost eight years, 4
it will be close to a 10-year program.
5
. COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I guess they're -- I didn't 6
get a dollar answer, but obviously we spent a good deal of 7
money on the instrumentation.
8 MR. CORTEZ:
No, I understood the question to be how 9
much we spent overseas, and we've been talking about how much 10 we spent overseas versus how much we spend in-house.
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But we provide 12 instrumentation that was developed here in-house, right?
13 MR. CORTEZ:
At Oak Ridge, right.
14 MR. BECKJORD:
We provide it and we install it.
That 15 commitment has about another year to go, and then we will be 16 finished with the 2D/3D.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right, continue.
18 MR. BECKJORD:
Just about a word about the other 19 programs here.
The human reliability with CEC countries, 20 that's for -- a program for measuring human reliability methods 21 for application to PRA studies, small but important program.
22 The next one, maintenance personnel, it's a study of 23 personnel errors in equipment maintenance, and ways of reducing 24 the maintenance errors that could cause accidents.
25 Next one, next to last one on the list, is the common em
... ~
- ~
e 44 1
cause failure analysis, a program with the UK-AEA.
It's 2
developing a database for common cause failures, again for 3
probabilistic risk assessment application.
l i
4 And finally, the accident management cooperation.
}
5 That's a new program which is developing now with Prof.
i 4
6 Birkhoffer's group, the GRS.
We will -- we have agreed in j
7 principle on the program, and there's a meeting coming up, I i
i 8
believe, in the beginning of July to get it. seriously underway, l
9 and that will be a very important program.
10 If I could have the next slide.
l 11 (Slide.)
1 4
12 MR. BECKJORD:
There's a bit more information here on 13 the major thermal hydraulics testing program, the 2D/3D, which 14 encompasses both German facility, the upper plenum test t
15 facility, and the Japanese ROSA 4 for small-break testing.
t i
16 There have been large amounts of money invested, not i
i l
17 only in overseas, but as you know, a great deal of money in the 18 follow-up on the loss-of-coolant accident and emergency core
{
J l
19 cooling technology.
I 20 My view on that is that that has been an extremely 1
1 j
21 successful program.
It's coming out, the final results of it j
22 will be coming out in the Appendix K revision which is --
23 essentially gives the regulations for emergency core cooling 24 systems, which you will be seeing in a few months.
It's been 25 very successful.
I think the research in that area is going to l
l
45 1
be winding down on the design basis loss-of-coolant accidents, 2
but I think that we will be using the -- some of the people and 3
some of the codes and technologies as we move forward into new 4
work on accident management.
5 There are still a few areas to finish off on the 6
traditional thermal hydraulics work, and what we're looking at 7
carefully now is to answer the question what should be the 8
level that we taper off to?
We will always want to maintain 9
capability in the thermal hydraulics area because it's of such 10 obvious importance to the safe -- operation, safe operations of 11 the power plants.
12 I think I will go to the next slide, reactor 13 containment performance.
j 14 (Slide.)
15 MR. BECKJORD:
The most important reactor containment 16 integrity work has been on the steel containment experiment of 17 several years ago which you're aware of, and then the 1/6th 18 scale reinforced concrete car.tainment test at Sandia last year 19 in July, i
20 The tests -- that series of tests is complete.
It l
21 was reported to you.
The analysis and the evaluation is 22 underway, but not yet completa.
23 I think that has beet; also a very successful test 24 showing that there's a very considerable margin in the 25 reinforced concrete containments.
- l 46 h
1 I think that we need to go forward and do work in the l
2 prestressed or post-tension concrete containment area to get a f
I 3
good idea of what the margins are in those designs established 4
on an experimental basis.
5 We are looking into the possibilities of doing that i
j 6
with the United Kingdom, where a test is planned in that area.
L.
7 The second area I would like to mention here is the 8
severe accident phenomenon.
You received a report last year 4
9 from Dr. Koutz at Brookhaven on the uncertainties, the.eight.
f 10 major uncertainties.
I'm not going to go through those in 11 detail, but the severe accident, the severe fuel damage program 1
12 is an important one.
It's ongoing.
We are looking to focusing j
i 13.
that into developing some of the answers that we're going to be 14 needing in the kinds of questions that come up in the MARK I 15 containments, and that will -- other questions, similar l
4 l
16 questions Will come up relative to the other containments, the 17 ice condensers and the large drys that we are also looking at.
t 1
(
18 We get some -- there's some very good work that's i
j 19 done overseas in this area.
I would just mention the CORA i
20 facility at Karlsruhe in Germany, which is an electrically
)
)
21 heated mock-up of core fuel which is heated to -- up to damage f
l 22 and then melting temperatures, and it's given some very good E
1
~
23 tests under controlled conditions which are very helpful in
)
24 developing models for the development of severe core damage, 1
25 core melt progression.
1 7
I i
l 2,
- -~-
- ~ - ~~ i
4 47 1
Another facility also at Karlsruhe is the Beta 2
facility, and I think some of the best work in core-concrete I
3 interaction was done a couple of years ago at Karlsruhe, and we 4
are cooperating with both of those programs.
)
5 If I could move to the next slide.
6
[ Slide.)
7 MR. BECKJORD:
This goes -- gets into the safety of 8
nuclear waste disposal.
We have cooperative efforts that --
9 the scale of programs here on high level waste is smaller than 10 in the ones I've previously discussed, but I think this is a 11 grcwing area, and I think we are going t7 see more research as 12 time goes on, particularly as we approach the licensing of a 13 fuel repository in this country.
14 In the first line there, cooperative work with 15 France, Japan and Switzerland, that's on the characterization 16 of high level and transuranic wastes and on the migration of 17 radionuclides through soils.
18 In the second category, those -- the Hydrocoin and 19 Intraval are programs organized by Sweden.
They are concerned 20 with groundwater hydrology and radionuclide transport.
They 21 have be.en very, very important, and very useful programs.
22 The third one is the International Alligator Rivers 23 Analogue Project, which I believe you have had a briefing on.
24 That's just getting underway.
That's gachydrology and 25 geochemistry, and using the natural uranium ore bodies in w
e
l 48 1
Australia as a means of establishing just how the migration of 2
materials, the radionuclides, would take place after long 3
periods of time.
4 AE? there are some other projects under discussion.
5 As I tiid, I think it's a growth area.
I guess one 6
concern that I have in this area is that -- some great concern 7
to me is that the legislation on the high level waste 8
repository requires that this be designed for 10,q00 years of 9
operation, and that poses a problem, I think, in establishing a 10 scientific base for proving that something will carry out its j
11 function for that long.
That's going to be a very difficult 12 problem for the research program.
I just point that out.
It i
13 will require the best of effort all the way around.
14 MR. PARLER:
My recollection, Mr. Chairman, was that 15 is the EPA standards which probably refer to the legislation.
4 i
I 16 MR. BECKJORD:
Yes.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you.
18 MR. PARLER:
A subject that 1 believe our advisory 19 committee commented on, the 10,000 years.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes.
I 11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That's right.
j 21 MR. BECKJORD:
The Research Avxisory Committee is 23 going to be connenting on that, also.
If I could go on to the 24 next slide which is entitled Foreign Nuclear Safety Regulatory 25 Research Philosophy.
j
'e p
=
-~
m
49 1
[ SLIDE.]
2 MR. BECKJORD:
What I've shown here, there are three 3
examples of specific safety issues which were identified 4
overscas.
5 First, the reactor coolant pump seal failure by 6
EDF/CEA in France; the in-core instrument tube vibration 7
problem in BWR; and steam generator tube vibration problems 8
identified also in France.
9 I think these were important issues which-came to our 10 attention earlier than they, perhaps, otherwise might have 11 through our research contacts.
12 The next category, there are three more general 13 categories of information or insights gained from contact 14 overseas.
The French approach to resolution of black out 15 issues and the development of their severe accident procedures, 16 the H and U procedures.
. 17 The U.K.
approach to resolving some generic issues 18 for their Sizewell B Plant.
19 And then finally the Swedish approach to dealing with 20 specific plant vulnerabilities.
21 And these contacts here have had important fall out l
22 in the black out rule which is now before you and in the 23 resolution, severe accident implementation policy, and there 24 will be a generic letter on the independent plant examination 25 which will be coming to you over the next month or so.
I l
~~.
50 1
What we've learned overseas has had an important part 2
in the development of that rule and the IPE process.
3 If I could go quickly to a couple more here.
The 4
next one, benefits of the'research cooperation.
5
[ SLIDE.]
6 MR. BECKJORD:
I guess the point is that we can -- on 7
the first point, we can do more and we ca get further with 8
international cooperation than we could on our own, given the 9
same level of expenditure.
That's the first point.
10 The second point, we can gain access to expert 11 knowledge overseas and get a measure of peer review on our work 12 and that improves the quality.
13 And finally, on the third point, we get some very 14 good ideas from overseas sooner than they might occur to us, 15 and the results of all this flow into rules, they flow into 16 writing of regulations, and what is very important which is our 17 own ability that we have to make -- our own ability within the 18 NRC and our contractors to make better decisions, more reliable 19 decisions relating to safety as a result of these contacts, the 20 points that Commissioner Rogers has already made.
21 (SLIDE.]
22 MR. BECKJORD:
The benefits to foreign groups are 23 shown on the next slide.
I think these are self-evident.
24 As we improve the safety technology base, it helps us 25 and it helps the foreign partners that are engaged in these
51 1
programs with us and I think that's-important.
2 (SLIDE.]
3 MR. BECKJORD:
If I could go to the last slide, a 4
summary of what I've covered here.
What's important about the 5
nuclear safety research cooperation, I guess in giving my own 6
additional summary, I think that we can achieve our goals in 7
the future faster and better by sustaining and expanding our 8
cooperative safety research projects with other countries.
9 I think, as we go along, our own research program is 10 going to evolve and it's going to_ sharpen its focus on some 11 issues.
12 But,.in any event, what I've said is true; that the 13 foreign cooperation is going to be helpful to us, it's going to 14 be of benefit on both sides, and I believe that this is an 15 important fact.
16 The best ties that we've had over the years 1
17 historically have been through the research people in other 18 countries in this area, and I think that's an important 19 consideration in the development of the policy.
20 I think that completes what I have to say.
1 21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right, thank you very much.
Mr.
22 Stello?
Do you have some comments to make?
23 MR. STELLO:
I just have a few brief observations I 24 want to make.
25 Over the years, and Eric has already pointed out some
52-1 examples of information, we learn safety problems first in 2
foreign countries and there's probably a dozen or more rather 3
significant problems we learn about in that manner.
4 Those of you who can remember way, the BWR problems 5
and the most recent pump shaft failures at Palo Verde, which 6
directly impacted our ability to make our safety judgments and, 7
hence, licensing of the plants, or continued operation of the 8
plants.
9 I wouldn't want to just stop to say well we heard 10 about the problem, that helps us get our understanding of the-11 problem and the solution, but we also get a lot of technology 12 out of that.
13 We learned about the large pipe cracking in the BWRs 14 first in Japan, and we learned about some of their techniques 15 for examination, instrumentation and how to do it, as well as i
16 insights in some of the things they do to preclude those kinds j
17 of problems.
18 So, in the point of view of getting information which 19 helps us do our safety job better and faster, there's obviously 20 a secondary benefit which allows us to get that job done a lot 21 more efficiently and not have to unnecessarily shut plants down 22 to do examinations of equipment that we can avoid doing because 23 we can get that information from other places.
24 So this involvement with foreign countries, I think, 25 has been very, very helpful in the agency doing its job.
53 1
Of necessity at this briefing, we had to focus an 2
awful lot on in terms of very broad generalities, except for 3
the area of research, I want to remind you that we have a lot 4
of other areas of cooperation, especially in the area of 5
helping countries like in training.
j l
6 People from Chattanooga, our instructors, go and give 7
complete training packag s and actually train some of the 8
regulators in foreign countries as well as assignees who come 9
in and work within the agency as well as some of the people 10 from the NRC that we send overseas.
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Let me just ask a question 12 here, Vic.
Is there a coordinated focus internationally for, 13 and Harold you may be more familiar with this by now, for 1
14 trying to decide, since we're so much all in this together now, 15 and since I guess the American design reactors have by and 16 large with modifications formed a world standard to date, is it 17 all pretty ad hoc, in other words, in determining research 1
18 programs, someone has a bright idea and sends his people out to 19 try and get some money or is there an evolving, more 20 centralized attempt to plan and execute research; well, let's 21 take as an example, the Japanese seismic facility.
It doesn't 22 make sense for everybody to do that.
It's expensive.
23 But I'm sure the Japanese decided to do it on their 24 own.
Is that beginning to change or is there any effort to 25 work together on these things?
54 1
MR. DENTON:
Let me start and I'll let Eric answer.
2 In the NEA context, I think there is a lot of give 3
and take among all their research,;eople about what needs to be 4
done and there have been efforts to catalogue every year what 5
the research programs of each member country is so that 6
research planners like Eric can adjust their own programs.
7 But it comes about through the enterplay in those-8 forms and sometimes countries do things that no one else joins 9
and so forth.
10 In the TMI vessel examination, an initiative started 11 by Eric in which he pushed it into NEA context and people have 12 agreed with it.
But let me turn the floor to Eric for a 13 specific answer.
14 MR. BECKJORD:
I think that's the most important 15 activity, Harold, of the NEA's committee on the safety of 16 nuclear installations and its subcommittee structure, there's a i
17 special expert committee of senior experts, and then there are 18 five groups that deal with systems and transients with severe 19 accidents, with primary system integrity, with operational data 20 collection and human factors, they cover all the areas in these 21 committees and the point is that it serves as both an informal-22 ground for discussing research ideas and activities and also 23 they have a more formal arrangement of establishing standard 24 problems which each of the countries will then work on and then 25 they'll get together and compare their answers.
~. - - -. -. - -..
=
55 1
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
The question that I have is 2
this really.
Suppose, for example, that there is a decision, a 3
consensus among the experts now, at some forum that NEA might 4
devise, that with all the talk about. filtered vents that it's 5
really time that we had some central study of that for the 6
international community.
Does anybody plan ahead in that way 7
for concerted research, yes, this needs to be done, it's going 8
to take this much money, let's start from here and go out and 9
try and solicit the money and decide where the project is going 10 to be done because it's not a single facility.
11 MR. BECKJORD:
The initiatives take place at the 12 countries and then these projects are discussed at places such 13 as CSNI.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
So the answer to the question 15 is no, there's no international beginning point that then goes 16 out and tries to put things together.
17 MR. BECKJORD:
I think it's the other way around.
It 18 happens first nationally and then moves to a firm like the 19 CSNI.
20 CCMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just to follow that up a little 21 bit more, have you seen any evidence of that proprietary 22 interest overseas that are perhaps creating some gaps in 23 research that cannot be filled by international programs, that 24 really have to be done at home, that we should be paying 25 attention to?
56 7.
l' MR. BECKJORD:
I will give you an answer off the top 2
of the head.
3 The proprietary interests have always been extremely 4
important in any reactor development questions.
~
5 They have been less important-in the safety questions 6
which everyone recognizes are common safety problems.
7 But again, when you talk about the vent, both the 8
Prench and the Germans are very interested, and the Swedes are 9
interested in the market possibilities for their systems.
10 So, that may be, as an exception to the rule on 11 safety, that they are perhaps a little less forthcoming on that 12 than they are on other safety issues.
So I think that in some l
13 cases, the proprietary interests are something of a gate.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
15 MR. STELLO:
We're finished.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right. Thank you very much.
17 Questions from my fellow Commissioners.
Commissioner Roberts?
18 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
No.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Bernthal?
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, just to comment.
I 21 guess the thing that troubles me a little bit, maybe I should 22 come back home to TMI, is that on a matter as important as the i
23 TMI lower head analysis, let's forget about the fact that the 24 United States of America doesn't seem to be able to come up 25 with the small amount of money to finish that research in view l
57 1
of all the money we've spent on the whole accident, but that's 2
not the issue here.
3 It bothers me a little bit, using that as an example, 4
that on a matter so important in research, that it really 5
starts here with our then having to go solicit instead of there 6
being a sort of international focus and I'm using that as an.
7 example that, you know, that lower head is terribly important.
8 We all ought to get together on this and make sure 9
that we get everything out of that we can.
It seems like it's 10 ad hoc the other direction that you have a bright idea.and then 11 you go international and try and collect and solicit some 12 support for it.
13 MR. STELLO:
I think it's a mixture.
It is ad hoc in 14 large measure.
But there is an awful lot that goes on at the 15 CSNI at the levels of people in other countries in jobs similar 16 to Eric's who get together and try to reason together, and have 17 produced some reports overall on what research is being done 18 and where there appear to be gaps.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That's different.
I'm not 20 talking about collating or even analyzing the data being done 21 elsewhere.
22 MR. STELLO:
The next step in terms of saying here 23 are some gaps or here are some things that we ought to get 24 into, that gets to be more ad hoc done by a particular country 25 coming back in.
58 1
To try to do that on an international plane of 2
directing in any way that research activity would be enormously 3
hard to recognize in the United States why we have substantial 4
research goes on here at the NRC.-
You have EPRI, that does i
5 some, you have our steam suppliers and architect engineers who 6
are also doing some research.
7 And if you go to some foreign countries, the same 8
things that go on, and that gets to be information that Mr.
9 Rogers has pointed out, proprietary where the designers want to i
10 hold that very close because it's in the marketplace and their 11 competing with each other.
A very difficult problem.
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I agree.
And that is i
13 probably not the main focus here today.
Eric, you had given us 14 a summary of many different areas of research that is going on 15 in the international arena.
Does research currently have a 16 systematic process, or are you planning a process for l
17 systematic review of priorities that should be attached to 18 these various international commitments?
Do we -- you've got 19 it all together in one place now.
Is that going to have a 20 systematic careful review from time to time within your shop, 21 to determine where the priorities should be in making 22 international commitments?
I don't even know what kind of 23 money we're talking about here, and some of the costs, as we 24 heard earlier, are hidden and hard to identify directly, 25 perhaps, where we supply instrumentation or expertise or
59 1
something.
But is there any mechanism in place for doing that?
2 MR. BECKJORD:
Well, prioritization has been 3
discussed for a long time.
We are in the middle now of 4 ~
prioritizing all of our safety research for the preparation of 5
the fiscal 1990 budgets.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I understand, yes.
7 MR. BECKJORD:
And I haven't separately prioritized 8
the international cooperation, but to me, the international 9
cooperation should complement our own programs.
I have always 10 felt that, you know, we should -- on the top priority things, 11 we should be looking for international cooperation and --
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Sounds reasonable.
13 MR. BECKJORD:
-- and we look at it in each area.
So 14 I think that in general that what's going to come out of the 15 research prioritization for the entire program will be a better 16 guide for where we should be going, looking for international l
17 agreements.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, I agree with that.
It 19 seems like a rational, logical approach.
You establish your i
20 priorities, and then make sure the international programs fit 21 into the domestic program.
22 I have a couple other things.
Someone else go ahead 23 here.
I think I've said enough for a while.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Carr?
i 25 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Yes.
I only have two comments.
i
60 1
One is I think all this ought to be wrapped into the five-year 2
plan so we can look at it for the long term and see how it fits 3
into the overall goals and where we're going.
4 And the second thing is on the -- I certainly have no 5
problem with the numbers of things we do in the international 6
area.
I do have some problem with numbers of travelers we send 7
to the same meetings, and I would encourage us to look, be 8
careful we send the right people and the right number of 9
people.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Rogers?
11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, I guess just on that 12 priorities thing, I guess we all know that that's a very 13 important issue, and I suppose one of the reasons for this 14 meeting was to inform us a little bit about your thinking 15 there, but there didn't seem to me to be an obvious congruence 16 between the priorities in SECY 87-310, which I guess started 17 this ball rolling in some way, that I thought were very neat 18 and tight, seven priorities that Harold Denton listed, and the 19 research program, the international program.
20 It wasn't obvious how they matched up.
Maybe they 21 do, maybe they don't.
And I think that again, just coming back 22 to one of those early comments that I made, that I think that 23 while I looked at those priorities in-87-310 and they looked 24 very reasonable to me and they looked very neat, they also do 25 have to scrub up against the opportunities in a sense, so that
61 1
your approach, Eric, sounds a reasonable one, you know, see 2
that your international programs match the priorities of 3
research in general.
But I don't know how that fits against 4
the priority list that was in SECY 87-310, the seven items of 5
priorities.
I just don't know.
Maybe they do, maybe they 6
don't.
Could you comment on that?
7 MR. DENTON:
Let me start.
I was looking more for 8
the future to say what should our priorities, and with all 9
plants essentially in operation, I thought we should have a 10 focus on operational safety aspects.
Many of the things Eric 11 is doing relate to operational safety, but I thought that if wo 12 were in'a budget crunch, our main interaction with 13 international should be to keep the plants we've got operating 14 safely, and we've said that's our number one strategic goal, 15 and so that's why I put that one number one, and then I put 16 category number two, improving the safety through advanced 17 designs and further knowledge and so forth.
18 So I was trying to provide a framework for the 19 future.
I think many of the programs that Eric was describing 20 were started years ago, and they're now coming to fruition.
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, but now is the time to 22 try to bring these together in some way so that they are --
23 they do fit.
Maybe they won't fit right away, but again, it's 24
-- it ties into Commissioner Carr's suggestion that this be 25 folded into the five-year plan, and there is an opportunity to
62 1
do that.
2 The other one is could you say just a little bit 3
about the distinction between cooperative research and just 4
contracting for research overseas?
I assume that there is a 5
difference, that those processes are always not the same.
You 6
may find that there is somebody overseas to actually carry out 7
a piece of research and do it much better than we have the 8
capability here, and that need not be a cooperative program, 9
that's just a contracting for research program.
10 Are those items just automatically listed under the 11 cooperative research, or are they a separate item in your 12 international programs?
13 MR. BECKJORD:
No, they would be separate.
That's 14 rather small.
I'd have to go back -- I'm sure there are some, 15 but I don't think they are significant in dollars where we have 16 contracted separately from a cooperative program.
17 MR. STELLO:
Well, I think maybe there's some 18 fuzziness there, because the shake table tests in Japan, about 19 the only place you can get them done in the world, and we're 20 funding -- giving money directly --
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
I'm not objecting.to it, 22 I'm just raising the question of where it fits in.
23 MR. STELLO:
No, but maybe we should call that a 24 contract.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I would, unless we're -- unless
63 1
it is, you know, truly a cooperative program, in which we are 2
s) 3 MR. BECKJORD:
I think it's cooperation, because I 4
don't think what we're contributing pays anywhere near the cost 5
of the tests.
6 MR. STELLO:
Well, that's true, too.
It's fuzzy in 7
terms of definition.
8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, it will be interesting 9
just to see what that does amount to.
I wouldn't make a big 10 point of it.
11 The other concern I have is this looks so wonderful 12 and such a wonderful bargain, and I'm sure it is, that, you 13 know, there isn't really a free lunch in this world, and 14 somebody's going to decide at some point whether they're 15 getting enough back, and your list of benefits to the overseas 16 people is a very general one, but one wonders whether we in the 17 long run are planning activities which make us an attractive 18 partner in the long term future for some of this kind of thing.
19 And I'm just a little concerned about that.
20 MR. STELLO:
Well, there's an easy answer to that.
21 Right now there are on the order of about 300 operating plants 22 in the world, and about 100, nexus of 100 of them in the U.S.
23 So in terms of just the operating experience, we list about a 24 dozen problems that we learned from them first.
There are many 25 more than that that they have learned from us, and we give then
64 the same types of information to help them preclude having 1
2 those kinds of difficulties in their plants.
So I think the 3
incentive is clearly there.
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
So we should be spending a 5
third of the world's expenditure for research; right?
l 6
MR. STELLO:
Well, we --
7 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I didn't-say that.
8
[ Laughter.]
9 MR. BECKJORD:
We still have the largest and most 10 comprehensive program, and our experts are -- many of them are 11 regarded as the world experts.
Also, as_I said at the very 12 end, the fact is that the capabilities abroad are increasing 13 and the strength of their programs is increasing.
14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, this is really what I'm i
1 15 coming to.
It is indeed the case if you take a snapshot 16 picture right now, but if you ask and inquire as to what the 17 average age is of the expert in some area of-nuclear technology 18 in the United States, and the age, the chronological age of 19 those folks overseas, I'd be interested in knowing-what those 20 numbers are, because I think there are younger people coming in 21 overseas that are not coming in here, and that the strength of 22 our programs is based on past performance and experience, 23 rather than future expectations.
24 MR. BECKJORD:
Well, you're right about that.
I mean 25 we don't have to research it to --
1
,,.. _.,,, ~,.. ~...-
65 1
[ Laughter.]
2 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I didn't really think we did.
3 But I'm concerned about that sort of thing, because while we 4
have that reservoir of expertise, it's not always going to be 5
there, and we're still looking now at another 20 or 30 years 6
for existing plants, and we want to continue to improve our 7
capabilities in safety research, and I just wonder whether the 8
situation that we are enjoying right now, which is really 9
reaping the benefits of our past performance and commity.ents, 10 will in fact be a situation that we could 1;iok forward to, 11 let's say, 15 years from now.
12 MR. STELLO:
Why only go 15 years?
Are we truly the 13 leaders today?
If you look worldwide and you look at who has 14 built the latest research reactor, that can do the best 15 research, I think you'll find lots of them overseas and none of 16 them here.
I don't know whether we've lost it or not, but a 17 lot of the people that I talk to, especially in the i
I 18 universities, they are of the feeling that we have already lost 19 our leadership at that grass roots level, at the university 20 level.
That's the feedback I get.
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, I'm just saying that if 22 we're talking about safety research, and we want to be able to 23 stay in that game of reciprocity, we have to be putting 24 something up ourselves.
25 MR. STELLO:
I agree.
66 1
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
And what I see is that we are 2
just running on our past investments, and I don't see the 3
investments in the future, and I think it's something for us 4
all to be concerned about.
I think it's a very serious 5
question.
6 MR. BECKJORD:
Well, I think that's a broader 7
question than just nuclear regulation and safety.
It has to do 8
with the future of energy development, too, and whether-there's 9
going to be --
10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, I just tried to stay out 11 of that, because I think our business is safety, and let's -- I 12 mean let's just look at what we really have to do, and whether 13 we can continue to do it.
There are other questions, of 14 course, but let's just -- you know,- I'm saying let's just not 15 even get into those, and can we continue to do what we should 16 be doing in delivering the best quality safety oversight in 17 this country with the kind of expectations that we might be 18 facing if you look out another 10 years.
l 19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Just a couple comments.
20 As most of you know here, one of my personal 21 initiatives is to bring as much coordination to our NRC 22 activities as possible, and we are doing that.
We have 23 reorganized our headquarters staff.
We have put some 24 significant changes in that reorganization, one of them being 25 formation of GPA.
So today we are talking about coordinating
67 1
in a very important matter, as far as the Commission is i
2 concerned, and I do think that we are making progress, but 3
we've really just taken the first step.
I think this 4
initiative is long overdue myself.
5 So we have a lot of fine people.
We've got to make 6
sure that we use those people and our resources as effectively 7
as we can, so this coordination that we are talking about is 8
very real and can be -- improve our effectiveness and our 9
efficiency.
10 I appreciate the fact that it's already been 11 mentioned, the reference to the five-year plan, b'ecause I was 12 going to mention that, too.
Because that's where we are again 13 coordinating and organizing and managing our activities in a 14 formal sort of way.
That's important.
I appreciate those 15 comments that have just been made.
16 I would also like to say that in reference in SECY 17 87-310, priorities that GPA has recommended,_I would like to 18 make sure that the EDO would concur with those and comment on 19 those.
So I would like to ask that we get something from the 20 Staff that would comment on those priorities and any other 21 suggested modifications that you might deem necessary, again, 22 in coordinating our staff and our GPA organization, before it 23 comes to the Commission, so I'd like that to take place.
24 I'd also like to emphasize again the importance of 25 our people representing us overseas at various conferences,
-. =.
68 1
making sure that they check with EDO, if that's who they belong 2
to, but also check, or EDO have someone check with GPA to make 3
sure that when they go ever there, they've got the Commission 4
policy, the Commission position, if we have one, so that when 5
they come back from overseas, they can not only give us the 6
feedback, but they will know ahead of time wnat our position 7
is.
And so that again is coordinated.
8 It is important that we have people going overseas 9
representing us internationally that the Commission knows what 10 the position is going to be, they know the position, and we i
11 have an obligation to assist in that regard.
12 So I think in that way we can improve what has taken 13 place in the past.
And again, the feedback is important.
14 We've got to find out what happened and we need a better 15 feedback system, I think.
I know it's being developed, and 16 Harold, you have been instrumental in attempting to take 17 initiative in that regard, and I'd like that to proceed with 18 some degree of vigor.
19 We haven't talked too much, although just a little 20 bit, about the other parts of our organization, for example, 21 NRR, and NMSS.
We have a very strong, as we saw from the --
22 some of the charts, a very strong part of this program, we have 23 focused on research, but appropriately so, research has a lot 24 of things that have been going on overseas for a long time.
25 But I am also aware, and I know my colleagues are, too, that in l
69 1
NRR there is an awful lot of important international 2
negotiations and things going on that we participate in, and 3
that take place from time to time.
4 They have equal importance to the research program, 5
in my judgment, and NMSS, especially in the waste area, as_we 6
go into that important field now, and as we noted from one of 7
your slides of other nations, we are coordinating in waste 8
activities, but that also should be not put down too low on the 9
priority list, because those are important programs.
So the 10 EDO has other responsibilities that we haven't talked too much 11 about today, but I just wanted to emphasize that the Commission 12 is well aware that those are important responsibilities, too.
13 Are there other questions?
Commissioner Bernthal, I 14 believe you had a question.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I just want to make a comment 16 or two, and I will try to couch things in terms of comments 17 here, rather than questions, so we can finish up.
18 I agree with the comments of a couple of people on 19 this side of the table about the priority list that, Harold, 20 you sent to the Commission.
It reflects a good deal of 21 thought, and I agree that the EDO should also comment on that.
22 The last two of those items, I guess, once again I 23 would stress that -- I guess I'm getting lost in the 24 organization there.
II and III, those last two items, there's 25 a good deal there more than meets the eye in terms of things
70 1
that the Chairman had mentioned earlier, coordination and 2
implementing a structure for making sure all these wonderful 3
things happen.
And I will just leave it at that.
I am very 4-interested, though, in hearing EDO's comments and exactly how 5
we are going to make it all happen.
6 Let me just throw out a few items here that, without 7
discussing them and answering them today, it seems to me we 8
ought to be thinking about, and at some point I think the Staff 9
should respond to the Commission on.
One is -- well, I don't 10 need to say that, it's already been said, the question of 11 Commission policy, and whether there's a mechanism to make sure 12 that's implemented abroad.
13 I would also ask the extent to which GPA and EDO have 14 been or now can in the future coordinate in respect to foreign 15 travel and make sure that those things are reviewed on some 16 sort of priority basis.
One item that has not been mentioned 17 is that of contractor foreign travel, and whether similar 18 standards apply there, what mechanisms are in place to make 19 sure that we're getting the most for our money, and that we get 20 the best people to the right meetings.
21 I would also urge that there be some mechanism put in 22 place for regular reporting of Staff foreign travel.
In other 23 words, they go somewhere, they find out something that's 24 important, we don't need to be deluged here with a lot of 25 paper, but I would hope GPA, in working with the EDO, perhaps,
71 1
can pinpoint things that are important so the Commission sees 2.
them.
And a similar statement would apply, I guess, to 3
international developments in different forums that I think 4
Harold and IP now are beginning to pay more attention to.
5 I would also like to point out that the memo that you 6
sent down here, somebody sent down here not so long ago, listed 7
40 international activities in the next six months that we're 8
either participating in or supporting at one level or another.
9 Again I get back to priorities and making sure that we ought to 10 be doing all these things.
Maybe we should be doing more, I 11 don't know, but let's nake sure these aren't accidents.
12 I guess that's it.
Those are just a few items that I 13 hope we address.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Any other comments from 15 my fellow Commissioners?
16 Well, let me thank you --
17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
If I could just say --
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Please.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Because I think this has been a 20 very useful and informative meeting.
I think it's been very 21 constructive, and I think that it's been very helpful to me, 22 and I appreciate it very much.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
It was a good briefing.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I was going to say the same thing, 25 but I might take another minute and say it, anyway.
_ = _ _
72 1
Harold, I think you have taken on a terrific i
2 responsibility here for us in helping us coordinate these 3
important international programs, as well as tiac state 4
programs, which we haven't discussed here at all today, as well 5
as coordinating the public affairs and Congressional affairs 6
matters, too.
7 But it's a new role.
I think you moved out with the 8
help of your office directors in a very commendable manner.
We 9
are feeling our way a bit.
The purpose of this meeting is 10 really to assist you, make sure you understand what the 11 Commission wants.
But I think you have done a very fine job, 12 and I commend you for that.
13 I'd also like to compliment you, Vic, and the way 14 your people have worked with this new organization.
Today we 15 have heard from Eric Beckjord, and I believe that -- I've been 16 very encouraged by what I've heard.
I feel like we are 17 bringing things together, we are bringing things to the 18 Commission that will be important, and we will coordinate our 19 activities better.
l 20 So I am very encouraged, too, and I want to 21 compliment all of you for your efforts to attempt to make our 22 organization better coordinated and to assist the Commission in i
23 making the best policy decisions we can in the international 24 area, as well as other areas.
25-All right.
With that, we will stand adjourned.
73 j
1 Thank you very much.
2
[Whereupon, at 11:50 o' clock a.m.,
the meeting was 4
1 3
adjourned.)
4 j
5 s
7 8
9 10 11 l
i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3
1 4
This is to certify that the attached events of a 5
meeting of tne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
E 7
TITLE OF MEETING: NRC Participation in Internationa) Agreaments and Research Programs 8
PL3.CE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING: Friday, March 18, 1988 10 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the Commission taken
/'
13 stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by 14 me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the 15 foregoing events.
17 18 l7, 19 20 21 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
23 24 25
a
/
NRC'S INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS COMMISSIGN BRIEFING MARCi! 18,1988
i r
Y l
4 i
BRIEFING OUTLINE 1
j I.
OVERVIEW 0F NRC'S INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM I
-- J. SHEA, GPA/IP I
II.
DESCRIPTION OF NRC'S INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
-- E. BECKJORD, RES III. CLOSING COMMENTS i
-- V. STELLO, EDO b
4 4
I l
1 I
A
W.
._.ms
.A u
mal u.
u g
. 9 L
hf FOREIGN POLICY FRAMEWORK' NRC CARRIES OUT ITS INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE OVERALL FOREIGN POLICY CONTEXT SET BY STATE DEPARTMENT.
I i
I
-m-
-m,--
a
c NRC'S INTERNATIONAL GOALS SAFETY STATUTORY BASES
- GAIN ACCESS TO FOREIGN DATA AND RESOURCES TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY CARRIES OUT STATUTORY PURPOSE OF NRC-LICENSED FACILITIES AND MATERIALS
- ENHANCE NUCLEAR SAFETY PRACTICES WORLDWIDE, ESPECIALLY SUPPORTS USG FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES IN THE USE OF U.S.-SUPPLIED POWER REACTOR TECHNOLOGY AND INDIRECTLY SUPPORTS STATUTORY PURPOSE EXPORT / SAFEGUARDS
- CONTROL EXPORTS OF NUCLEAR-RELATED COMMODITIES AND CONSULT ON SPECIFIC STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS EXPORT ACTIONS OF OTHER AGENCIES
- IMPROVE INTERNATIONAL SAFEGUARDS AND PHYSICAL SECURITY MEASURES CARRIES OUT STATUTORY PURPOSE AND SUPPORTS USG NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES
- IMPLEMENT AGREEMENT TO APPLY IAEA SAFEGUARDS TO NRC-LICENSED USG/IAEA SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT; ALSO NUCLEAR FACILITIES SUPPORTS USG OBJECTIVES 1
CURRENT PARTNERS IN SAFETY COOPERATION AND MAJOR FORMS OF COOPERATION
- BILATERALS WITH ALL MAJOR NUCLEAR POWER COUNTRIES / AREAS EXCEPT USSR, EASTERN EUROPE AND CANADA
- WORLDWIDE NETWORK 0F DIRECT CONTACTS IN SAFETY AGENCIES
- TWO-WAY FLOW 0F INCIDENT DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION
- CONSULTATIONS ON REGULATORY ISSUES
- EHERGENCY PLANNING
- RESEARCH COOPERATION
- TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING
- FOREIGN ASSIGNEES
- IAEA (GLOBAL MEMBERSHIP)
- OSART PROGRAM
- INTERNATIONAL SAFETY PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS (INSAG)
- U.S. "COST-FREE" EXPERTS
- INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY CONFERENCES AND MEETINGS
- OECD/NEA (W. EUROPE, CANADA, JAPAN, AUSTRALIA, U.S.)
- INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM
- STANDING COMMITTEES ON SAFETY, RADIATION PROTECTION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, THIRD PARTY LIABILITY
- INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES AND TECHNICAL MEETINGS
~
NRC STAFF SUPPORT BILATERAL IAEA NEA NRR ABWR-JAPAN OSART MISSIONS LICENSING SURCOMMITTEE USSR /CHERNOBYL REACTOR SAFETY MEETINGS OF CSNI ADVICE TO FOREIGN ADVISORS TO KOREA, MEXICO, CONTAINMENT VENTING COUNTRIES CHINA AND EGYPT FOREIGN ASSIGNEES POST-CHERN0BYL PROGRAM RES PIPING INTEGRITY SAFETY STANDARDS SAFETY COMITTEE SEISMIC-JAPAN PRA - NUREG 1150 PRINCIPAL WORKING GROUPS STEAM GENERATORS POST-CHERNOBYL PROGRAM SEVERE ACCIDENTS PLANT AGING THERMAL HYDRAULIC CODES AEOD INCIDENT ANALYSIS INCIDENT REPORTING AND PRINCIPAL WORKING GROUP TRAINING COURSES ANALYSIS EMERGENCY COOPERATION TRAINING SUPPORT FOREIGN ASSIGNEES NMSS SAFEGUARDS SAFEGUARDS IMPROVEMENTS RADIATION PROTECTION ASSESSMENTS US VOLUNTARY OFFER WASTE MANAGEMENT PHYSICAL SECURITY RADIATION PROTECTION MISSIONS FUEL CYCLE SAFETY TRANSPORTATION SAFEGUARDS ADVISOR-US MISSION CASKS MATERIALS SAFETY REGIONS FOREIGN ASSIGNEES OSART MISSIONS FERMI II/ CANADA ADVISORS TO KOREA AND ASSISTANCE TO MEXICO MEXICO ACRS EXCHANGE MEETINGS WITH FOREIGN COUNTERPARTS GPA POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND COORDINATION FOR ALL NRC'S INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
COORDINATION AND APPROVAL OF NRC'S FORMAL INTERNATIONAL COMITMENTS CURRENT COMISSION INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITY INF0 APPROVAL SIGNATURE 1
MAJOR EXPORT / IMPORT LICENSES ALL THOSE NOT DELEGATED TO STAFF DELEGATED REGULATORY EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS ALL MOST MOST RESEARCH COOPERATION AGREEMENTS ALL FEW OCCASIONAL 1
ESOU RCES BY
\\~~ER \\K~ O N A_
PROGRAM AREA 45 STAFF FTEs 1
SAFETY COOPERATION I
4 62.2%
l 1
l 37.8%
l l
l EXPORTS & INTL SAFEGUARDS l
i (1.5% OF NRC STAFF RESOURCES)
I i
I
\\ RC TO R E G \\
~~
R AV E PURPOSE FY 1987 REACTOR SAFETY MbONk MATERIAL SAFETY 1.5%
EXP & INT'L SGDS 5.4%
WASTE 5.7%
TRIPS
CURRENT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT FOR NRC'S INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES COMMISSION AS ISSUES ARISE, THE COMMISSION REVIEWS, AND DECIDES UPON, INTERNATIONAL POLICY MATTERS.
REVIEWS ARE SOMETIMES INITIATED BY COMMISSION AND SOMETIMES BY STAFF.
GPA INFORMS COMMISSION AND ED0 0F SIGNIFICANT INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS AND RECOMMENDS ACTIONS AS APPROPRIATE.
ENSURES USG POLICIES ON INTERNATIONAL ISSUES OF NRC CONCERN ARE MADE KNOWN TO THE COMMISSION AND EDO.
ASSISTS COMMISSION IN DEVELOPING POLICIES AND PRIORITIES IN THE INTERNATIONAL AREA AND HELPS ASSURE NRC ACTIVITIES ARE IN ACCORD WITH THESE POLICIES AND PRIORITIES.
COORDINATES WITH ED0 AS APPROPRIATE.
EDO IMPLEMENTS COMMISSION GUIDANCE PR0 GRAMMATICALLY FOR INTERNATIONAL MATTERS AND WHEN REPRESENTING NRC INTERNATIONALLY.
REVIEWS AND APPROVES STAFF RESOURCE COMMITMENTS FOR INTERNATIONAL PURPOSES (E.G., FOREIGN TRAVEL).
ADVISES COMMISSION OF FOREIGN SAFETY INFORMATION AND EXPERIENCE AND THEIR RELEVANCE TO DOMESTIC ACTIVITIES.
SUPPORTS COMMISSION POLICIES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES.
1
. \\
RECOMMENDATIONS
-- GPA, IN C0 ORDINATION WITH EDO, INFORM COMMISSION OF INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF POTENiiki POLICY SIGNIFICANCE, WITil APPROPRIATE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND PERIODICALLY ASSESS ALL INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES TO ASSURE COMMISSION OBJECTIVES ARE MET.
-- GPA SEND THE COMMISSION, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL, PROPOSED AGREEMENTS WITH NEW COUNTRIES AND AGREEMENTS REQUIRING SIGNIFICANT NEW NRC RESOURCE COMMITMENTS OR HAVING POLICY SIGNIFICANCE.
-- EDO PREPARE ANNUAL REPORT TO Tile COMMISSION ON CURRENT AND FUTURE INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY AND RESEARCH COMMITMENTS.
-- COMMISSION DECIDE ON NRC'S INTERNATIONAL PRIORITIES AFTER EVALUATING ALL INFORMATION.
0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH NRC PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS COMMISSION BRIEFING MARCH 18, 1988 ERIC S. BECKJORD, DIRECTOR OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH
e O
0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH NRC PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS t
OUTLINE I. RESEARCH PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES WITHIN THE NRC II. INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH COOPERATION RATIONALE FOR SAFETY RESEARCH COOPERATION AUTHORITY / COMMISSION PLANNING AND GUIDANCE FOREIGN RESEARCH COOPERATION OBJECTIVES FOREIGN RESEARCH COOPERATION BENEFITS III.
SUMMARY
t-
0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH l
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES RES RESPONSIBILITIES WITHIN THE USNRC t
THE PURPOSE OF THE NRC'S OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH IS TO DEVELOP THE NECESSARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION BASE NEEDED TO MAKE SOUND REGULATORY DECISIONS.
APPROACH DEFINED IN NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY (STRATEGIC PLAN; NAS REPORT RESPONSE)
PROGRAMS DESCRIBED IN 5 YEAR PLAN PROGRAM STRUCTURE:
THE NRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH IS DIVIDED INTO FIVE PROGRAM CATEGORIES:
1.
INTEGRITY OF REACTOR COMPONENTS 2.
PREVENTING DAMAGE TO REACTOR CORES 3.
REACTOR CONTAINMENT PERFORMANCE AND PUBLIC PROTECTION FROM RADIATION 4.
CONFIRMING SAFETY OF NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL, AND 5.
RESOLVING SAFETY ISSUES AND DEVELOPING REGULATIONS 3
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH COOPERATION f
INTERNATIONAL SAFETY RESEARCH COOPERATION IS A VITAL PART OF THE NRC PROGRAM.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH COMPLEMENTS AND SUPPORTS NRC PROGRAMS.
THE NRC PARTICIPATES IN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS TO EXPAND AND IMPROVE ON THE QUALITY OF SAFETY RESEARCH RESULTS NECESSARY TO MAKE SOUND TECHNICAL REGULATORY DECISIONS IN A COST EFFECTIVE MANNER.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS BENEFIT THE NRC SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAMS BY PROVIDING ACCESS T0:
FOREIGN RESEARCH FACILITIES FOREIGN SCIENTIFIC PERSONNEL AND FOREIGN RESEARCH RESULTS
0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH t
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT AUTHORIZED BY:
1.
COMMISSION 1987 POLICY AND PLANNING GUIDANCE-NUREG-0885 (SEC.F. 5) 2.
NRC CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS BILLS FOR FY 88 AND FY 8 3.
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS RECEIVE NRC STAFF REVIEW AND U.S. STATE DEPARTMEN REVIEW AND AUTHORIZATION PRIOR TO NRC SIGNATURE
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARrd INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVIT'ES FOREIGN RESEARCH COOPERATION OBJECTIVES t
THE NRC POLICY OF COOPERATING WITH OTHER COUNTRIES IS DESIGNED TO ACCOMPLISH THE FULLOWING OBJECTIVES:
1.
EXCHANGE INFORMATION TO EXPAND NRC TECHNICAL DATA BASE 2.
ORGANIZE AND JOIN FOREIGN SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAMS TO MAKE OPTIMUM USE OF OUR OWN RESOURCES AND ENHANCE OUR RESEARCH CAPABILITIES 3.
PARTICIPATE IN COOPERATIVE PROJECTS TO SHARE IN THE EXPERIMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS GENERATED BY FOREIGN RESEARCH GROUPS 4.
PROVIDE SAFETY INFORMATION TO COUNTRIES USING OR CONTEMPLATING THE USE OF U.S.
NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY, ATID 5.
INTERACT WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNED WITH NUCLEAR SAFETY
~ ~
TO PRESENT OUR RESEARCH RESULTS AND OBTAIN EXPERT REVIEW
CEC /DCEO l
D aivalsoguY l
.K.U TIA dnalreztiwS nedewS f
ZOU mm niapS i)-
senippilihP M
mH yawroN MO 4
,<- )
y sdnalrehteN m m-zc ocixeM O<
o H y>
o aeroK
>~'C 2 napaJ Om T
ylatI M3 OO ynamreG.R.F 33 ecnarF
>0 mry dnalniF -
02 CO adanaC y
muigleB j
l mp O2 ailartsuA m D:
Om
=
o y
i i
42_
O 5
Elh I _!I 7
5
- $ " 32m 47
- p r o Fsp3 R
o 3B E=
ee m
u mo o
- a. 3 3
00 3mO mE al mo o
o c o m o me oO O 'o o$@
F(
e*
s 5
hi 5$
I EE R5S mu eS ma gom
= s" e
o so
.m, m
@m ma c so sa mo e
mea oe es 00 ym Tg mTT 02 mm
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES I.
FOREIGN FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO RES PROGRAMS PROGRAM FY 87 FY 88 IPIRG (PIPING INTEGRITY)*
$1,100K
$1,100K SEVERE ACCIDENTS AND CONTAINMENT LOADING *
$3,235K
$3,085K ADVANCED CODE DEVELOPMENT (AFDM, CONTAIN)*
$0,640K
$0,520K (PROJECTED)
SEISMIC STUDIES (FRANCE)
$0,085K PLANT ANALYZER DEVELOPMENT (SPAIN, AIT)
$0,050K
$0,350K (PROJECTED)
(SEVERAL COUNTRIES PARTICIPATE)
TOTALS
$5,025K
$5.140K II.
NRC FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO FOREIGN PROGRAMS HALDEN REACTOR PROJECT (DECD)
$0,766K
$0,765K SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND RISK ASSESSMENT (UK)
$0,085K
$0,090K HDR SEISMIC PROGRAM (FRG)
$0,040K
$0,100K TAD 0TSU SEISMIC PROGRAM (JAPAN)
$0,100K
$0,350K ALLIGATOR RIVERS ANALOGUE PROJECT (0 ECD)
$0,150K TOTALS
$0,991K
$1,456K
~
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES PROGRAM CATEGORY:
INTEGRITY OF REACTOR COMPONENTS SIGNIFICANT COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES SUPPORTING THIS PROGRAM CATEGORY IPIRG - INTERNATIONAL PIPING INTEGRITY RESEARCH GROUP (SEVEN COUNTRIES PARTICIPATE)
PROGRAM FOR THE INSPECTION OF STEEL COMPONENTS (OECD)
CHARACTERIZATION OF IRRADIATED PRESSURE VESSEL MATERIALS (UK AND GERMANY)
SEISMIC SAFETY RESEARCH COOPERATION (JAPAN, GERMANY, FRANCE, AND CANADA)
TMI-2 REACTOR BOTTOM VESSEL EXAMINATION PROGRAM (DECD)'- UNDER DISCUSSION
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES SEISMIC SAFETY RESEARCH COOPERATION TAD 0TSU SEISMIC PROGRAM:
IN COOPERATION WITH JAPAN WE ARE PRESENTLY PERFORMING 1/3 SCALE MODEL PWR REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM VIBRATION TESTS INTO THE INELASTIC RA THE NRC PROGRAM IS ONE OF A SERIES OF EIGHT EXPERIMENTS BEING CONDUCTED BY THE JAPANESE TO STUDY THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF LARGE REACTOR COMPONENTS MODELS OF:
CONTAINMENT VESSELS (1/3.75 SCALE)
PRIMARY COOLANT LOOPS (1/2 SCALE)
REACTOR VESSELS (1/2 SCALE) AND REACTOR INTERNALS (FULL SCALE) FOR BOTH PWRS AND BWRS TOTAL COST TO THE JAPANESE OF THIS 6-YEAR PROGRAM: >$500 MILLION (INCLUDES
$200 MILLION TO BUILD GIANT SEISMIC VIBRATION TABLE)
NRC COST IN THIS PROGRAM: T $1 MILLION BENEFIT TO NRC:
OBTAIN SEISMIC FRAGILITY MEASUREMENTS ON MAJOR COMPONENTS VALIDATION OF SEISMIC CODES
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH I
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES INTERNATIONAL PIPING INTEGRITY RESEARCH GROUP (IPIRG)
EXAMPLES OF DATA OBTAINED VIA IPIRG:
DYNAMIC LOADING PIPE FRACTURE (JAPAN)
QUASI-STATIC LOADING PIPE FRACTURE (JAPAN, FRANCE, CANADA)
AGED CAST STAINLESS STEEL MATERIAL (FRANCE)
LEAK RATE AS A FUNCTION OF CRACK SIZE AND LOAD (CANADA, JAPAN, UK)
BENEFIT TO NRC:
GAINING CRITICAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION WITHOUT EXPENDING RESOURCES JOINT FUNDING OF LARGE TEST FACILITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CRITICAL PIPE FRACTURE TEST DATA INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS ON LEAK-BEFORE-BREAK TECHNOLOGY 4
=
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES PROGRAM CATEGORY:
PREVENTING DAMAGE TO REACTOR CORES SIGNIFICANT COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES SUPPORTING THIS PROGRAM CATEGORY:
l THERMAL HYDRAULIC RESEARCH AND COMPUTER CODES ANALYSIS ROSA-IV PROGRAM (JAPAN) 2D/3D PROGRAM (JAPAN / FEDERAL REPUBLIC 0F GERMANY)
BETHSY TEST FACILITY (FRANCE)
SPES AND GEST-GEN (ITALY)
ICAP INTERNATIONAL CODE ASSESSMENT AND APPLICATIONS PROGRAM (12 COUNTRIES PARTICIPATE)
COMMISSION OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (CEC) HUMAN RELIABILITY BENCHMARK EXERCISE MULTI-NATIONAL MAPPS CODE CASE STUDY (CEC SPONSORSHIP)
(MAPPS - MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE SIMULATION) l DEVELOPMENT OF COMMON CAUSE FAILURE ANALYSIS METHODS (UK)
ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT COOPERATION (BMU-GERMANY) l
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ACTIVITIES DEVELOPMENT OF 2D/3D COOPERATIVE EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM GERMANY BUILT LARGE SCALE TEST FACILITY:
UPPER PLENUM TEST FACILITY (UPTF)
JAFAN BUILT TWO INTERMEDIATE SCALE TEST FACILITIES NRC SCOPE:
CODES, ADVANCED INSTRUMENTATION, DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEMS JAPAN INPUT THROUGH 1988:
$120M F.R. GERMANY INPUT THROUGH 1988:
$180M NRC INPUT THROUGH 1988:
$85M BENEFIT OF COOPERATIVE PROGRAM TO NRC:
FULL SCALE DATA USED TO SUPPORT REALISTIC ANALYSIS OF LGCA:
REVISION TO 10 CFR 50 APPENDIX K
0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ACTIVITIES I
PROGRAM CATEGORY:
REACTOR CONTAINMENT PERFORMANCE AND PUBLIC PROTECTION FROM RADIATION I
SIGNIFICANT COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS SUPPORTING THIS PROGRAM CATEGORY CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY (UK, FRANCE, GERMANY AND OTHERS)
INTERNATIONAL SEVERE ACCIDENTS AND CONTAINMENT LOADS RESEARCH GROUP (12 COUNTRIES PARTICIPATE)
- EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
- CODE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT
- - - - - +
a------w-
+
-w-e.e--
t-v------
---+w
-- -= +
e-
'rv v
e----ve-
~
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES PROGRAM CATEGORY:
CONFIRMING SAFETY OF NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL SIGNIFICANT COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES SUPPORTING THIS PROGRAM CATEGORY COOPERATIVE INFORMATION EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS WITH FRANCE, JAPAN AND SWITZERLAND,
't INTERNATIONAL STUDY GROUPS (HYDROCOIN AND INTRAVAL) ORGANIZED BY SWEDEN, INTERNATIONAL ALLIGATOR RIVERS ANALOGUE PROJECT - AN AUSTRALIAN PROJECT SPONSORED BY THE OECD, AND COOPERATIVE PROJECTS WITH CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM - UNDER DISCUSSIO J
m
Le a
a e
4 e
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES FOREIGN NUCLEAR SAFETY REGULATORY RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY t
THE USNRC HAS BENEFITED FROM FOREIGN SAFETY RESEARCH/ REGULATORY APPROACH A EXAMPLES OF SAFETY ISSUES IDENTIFIED OVERSEAS FIRST REACTOR COOLANT PUMP SEAL FAILURE IN-CORE INSTRUMENT TUBE VIBRATION IN BWR STEAM GENERATOR TUBE VIBRATION EXAMPLES OF INFORMATION/ INSIGHTS FROM FOREIGN APPROACHES TO RESOLVING GENERIC ISSUES
- FRENCH APPROACH TO RESOLVING BLACK 0UT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEVERE ACCIDENTS PROCEDURES
- U.K. APPROACH TO RESOLVING PWR RELATED GENERIC ISSUES FOR THE SIZEWELL B PLANT
- SWEDISH APPROACil TO IDENTIFYING PLANT SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES AND DECISIONS ON HOW TO HANDLE THEM
O DFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATOPJ_BESCARG INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES HENEFITS OF NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH COOPERATION THE NRC HAS RESEARCH COOPERATION AG3EEMENTS WITH NEARLY ALL WESTERN COUNTRIES WHICH HAVE S!GNIFICANT NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMS.
i BENEFITS FROM FOREIGN RESEARCH COOPERATION:
)
l 1.
ALLOWS NRC TO EXPAND OR CONTINUE SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAMS AT A HIGHER LEVEL 0F EFFORT TilAN WOULD BE POSSIBLE WITH ONLY DOMESTIC RESOURCES, 2.
THE FOREIGN TECilNICAL COOPERATION PROVIDES THE NRC WITH AN INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL EXPERT REVIEW 0F NRC RESEARCH PROGRAMS, 3.
FOREIGN RESEARCH COOPERATION PROVIDES THE NRC VALUABLE FEEDBACK ON SAFETY l
PHILOSOPHY AND APPROACH TO SAFETY RESEARCH PROBLEMS.
1
0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES SAFETY RESEARCH C0QPERATION BENEFITS TO FOREIGN GROUPS BENEFITS TO FOREIGN CRQUES
{
MOST WESTERN COUNTRIES JOIN 00R NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH ACTIVITIES BEC THEY WISH TO MAXIMIZE 1 HEIR OWN RESEARCH PROGRAMS.
THESE COUNTRIES REGARD THE NRC AS THE LEADER IN MANY SAFETY RESEARCH SUCH AS MATERIALS AND SEVERE ACCIDENTS AND CONTAINMENT LOADING RESEARCH, RISK ASSESSMENT, ETC.
IN SOME INSTANCES FOREIGN GROUPS ARE WILLING TO COMBINE THEIR RESOURl WITH OURS IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR SAFETY RESEARCH OBJECTIVES IN EFFECTIVE MANNER.
i 1
i t
I
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH
!NTERflATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES
SUMMARY
t NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH C00PERA110#
EXPANDS THE NUCLEAR SAFETY DATABASE ON COMMON SAFETY PROBLEMS MAKES BETTER USE OF EXPENSIVE RESEARCH FACILITIES AND RESOURCES MAKES OPTIMUM USE OF THE LIMITED SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING PERSONNEL AVAILA TO WORK ON NUCLEAR SAFETY WORLD-WIDE ALLOWS SMALLER COUNTRIES WITH A LIMITED NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAM TO HAVE AC VITAL NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH INFORMATION SAFETY ENHANCEMENT OF LWR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS WORLD-WIDE l
,,,