ML20153E741

Disposition of Recommendations of Natl Research Council in Rept, 'Revitalizing Nuclear Safety Research'

ML20153E741
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/31/1988
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20153E706	List: ML20153E702 ML20153E741
References
NUDOCS 8805100090
Download: ML20153E741 (38)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4 OISPOSITION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL IN THE REPORT "REVIVAllZING NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH" U.S. NUCLEAR REGUI ATORY COMMISSION MARCH 1988 8805100090 080406 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRE3PONDENCE PDR L__.

O 4

INTRODUCTION This report is a reply to the National Research Council indicating how the applicable recommendations of the Comittee on Nuclear Safety Research are being implemented by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission.

BACKGROUND In June 1985 the National Research Council convened an ad hoc panel at the request of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. This Danel, the Comittee on Nuclear Safety Research, was convened '

to answer some fundamental questions regarding the future course of nuclear safety research in the V. S.

The panel was asked to address the following questions:

1. What can be said at present about the information needs that will be confronted by those who regulate nuclear power in the 1980's and 1990's that can be met, in part, through new research?

2. What are the alternative mechanisms for producing these research results and the relevant strengths and limitations of each?

3. What, if any, advantages accrue from federal support of undirected research in nuclear safety, including replenishing the pool of scientific talent available to address specific problems as they arise?

4. What are the implications of the findings for questions 1 through 3 above for the scope, structure, and coverage of the federal program, given current statutory requirements?

HISTORY The panel's report, "Revitalizing Nuclear Safety Research," was printed on December 8, 1986. The Comission discussed the staff's review (SECY 87-53) of the report on February 24, 1987, and the following day the Commission met with members of the panel. Most of the panel's recomencations were accepted by the staff and plans were begun to inplement the recomendations. One major action approved by the Comission was the formation of an independent advisory committee for the Research office (SECY 87-119). Other plans were ccepleted, and actions were initiated through the strategic planning process and other means.

These activities were reviewed with the Comission on July 21, 1987, following which the Comission issued instructions on the completion of the actions (COMLZ 87-18/COMFB 87-2, August 7, 1987).

0 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT

! This report consists of two parts. Part I deals briefly with Comission views on the four important general conclusions of the panel. Part II sumarizes the initiatives undertaken in accordance with the Comission's t

directives to implement the recomendations of the panel.

In Part II, the panel's recomendations are taken up in the order given in Table 1, which also shows the relationships to the recomendations enumerated in Chapter 4 of the panel's report. Brief coments are also made on the programatic recomendations m> e in Chapter 3 of the report. i I

a 4

d 1

l i 2

SUMMA _RX The Commission endorses the majority of the recommendations made in the National Research Council report. Initiatives to implement these recomendations are:

1. The Comission approved organization of a Nuclear Safety Research Review Comittee comprising distinguished individuals skilled in the range of technology and science important to the NRC and fully qualified to advise on matters pertaining to the management of the safety research program.

2. The Comission approved the inclusion in the Strategic and Five Year Plans of a cogent statement of the philosophy of safety research. An improved ,

statement has been incorporated in this report. '

3. RES contractors are required to submit research results to widely read professional journals for peer-reviewed publication when the body of work is judged by the researchers and their management to warrant such submittal.

This peer review is in addition to the review of work in progress by the research project review groups.

4. A set of management-level Senior Research Program Review groups has i been established to coordinate the line Offices in the development and planning of I the safety research program and in expediting application of the results. l

5. The Comission is comitted to maintaining a high-quality, efficient, and effective safety research program necessary to support the regulatory j mission and to advocating the budget required for the program before OMB and i Congress. The Chairman has appointed a member of his staff to provide full-time i liaison with the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, and the Comission will continue to hold regular meetings with the Research Office to discuss

selected high-priority topics. Through this process, as well as through the Comission's Five-Year and Strategic Planning processes, the Comission intends to actively exert its oversight of the planning of the safety research program and to reinforce the agency's focus on the resolution of high-priority l safety issues.

6. The safety research program has been restructured along the accepted lires of defense in depth instituted to ensure public health and safety. The technical output of the research and the management problems encountered in i doing the work are regularly discussed among NRC staff, the contractors, and other interested parties from industry and the academic world to promote cooperation and coordination of research efforts and a rational approach to planning the solution of high-priority problems.  ;

7. An intensive effort has been started to develop a better level of interaction with universities and other not-for-profit research institutes to draw on the expertise available there. The grants program continues to be fully utilized and well received. A broad agency announcemert format is being used to improve contact with universities and promote their involvement

in solving safety problens by introducing an effective mode of contracting '

for services, in addition, procedures for personnel exchange and staff tednical training are being developed and used.

3

. l l

i 1

.i i

8. The Commission continues to strongly support efforts ht cooperation  :

and coordination with other agencies, deniestic and foreign, to enable efficient i conduct of work and to promote improved safety. .

The Commission does not agree with the recommendation on separating the functions of Standards Development and Research at this time. The recent  !

reorganization should be allowed a period for shakedown and performance prior to assessing its effectiveness, which should precede any further organizational change.

l i

t 4

d 0

)

4 1

)

l i i

)

, I 1 I i

l l

l

4

\ l

I I

i l

RESPONSES AND INITIATIVES l i

Part I l MANAGEMENT ISSUES The National Research Council report, "Revitalizing Nuclear Safety Research,"  !

l sets forth on page 2 three general conclusions 6 bout nuclear safety research:

"1. There'are general principles for helping to answer the set of questions, 'Who should pay for, who should carry out, and who should establish the agenda for nuclear safety research.' ,

"2. Research on matters related to the safety of comercial power reactors  !

should continue to be performed. ,

"3. Serious management problems affect the research program of the NRC, but there are well-known practices of the general research and development comunity that can be used to help solve some of these problems."

l We agree with these conclusions and, except in minor aspects, the specific recomendations drawn from them.

The report also points out on page 3 that "The comittee recognizes that in the real world when budgets get cut the first things to go are those that do  ;

not have obvious, imediate, guaranteed payoffs. This is what has happened to the federal program of nuclear safety research." The Comission has, in the i

current budget, taken the lead in reversing this approach and intends to continue to support research priorities important to the agency mission. It is our view

. that the NRC regulatory safety research program has a sound record of achievement and that cont nued steady suoport, coupled with the improvements in rrogram i

development and conduct discussed in the following sections, will ensure that  ;

J research results are implemented in more effective regulation of operating nuclear J power plants and other licensed facilities and activities.

)

i s

i l

i .j l

l j

I 1

I  ;

l l

{ S j 1  ;

A

I

)

i Part II RECOMMENDATIONS IN CHAPTER 4 Recommendations Addressed to RES l

Recomendation 1: The NRC should bring in high-caliber researchers to bolster management.

The Office of Personnel, acting with the Office of Nuclear Regulatery Research, i is developing a plan, as described below, to achieve the goals recomended by the National Research Council.

l ACTION PLAN TO IMPROVE STAFF CAPABILITIES Objective and Introduction l

The objective of this plan is to provide a number of mechanisms whereby the staff of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research and, where applicable,  ;

other Comission Offices can gain increased access to and familiarity with a l broad range of academic knowledge and also direct experience with the methods and modes of conducting research. In this way, some of the problems that led the National Research Council to make its recomendation concerning Research  !

staffing can be resolved. In addition, the Comission sees value in enhancing the operational knowledge of current research staff to facilitate the transfer ,

of research to regulatory practice, j Initial attempts to provide top-down resolution through the hiring of high-level managers with active research experience from outside NRC have proved unsuccessful, n!hile this avenue will continue to be explored, other measures, such as visiting fellowships, staff exchanges, and staff fellowships, will be introduced. In implementing these measures, full advantage will be taken of the growing comunity of interest between the academic world and the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research steming from the revitalized grant proqram and the expanded area of direct contracts with universities.

Each of the measures mentioned above is discussed in turn.

Hiring Managers with Active Research Experience Initial efforts at hiring from the outside have been fruitless. The most frequent reasons given for refusing an offer despite strong interest in the job were the following: two-career family considerations, concerns over teen-agers' school transfer, and the cost of real estate in the area. Nevertheless, the success enjoyed by other agencies indicates we should persr/ere.

In particular, the Nationa Science Foundation (NSF) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) have a continuing program of hiring from the outside for tem appointments. Other Defense research establishments do so as well, but on a reduced basis. Of course, the National Instittter of Health 6

I l

i also follows such a policy, but its comunity is accustomed to this practice.

4 Interviews will be held with responsible officers of NSF and DARPA, and possibly other agencies, to see what programs they employ and to determine how

• those programs can be adapted to NRC use.

VisitingFelloYships Visits' by distinguished researchers for a term of one or two semesters or a

, sumer term plus a semester would be sufficient to allow such individuals to  ;

develop a critical review of the work needed and being pursued by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research in a given area. Corrective actions would be discussed with senior management and staff, and a report provided to the Office Director.

A Visiting Fellow could be hired directly on a term appointment or as a con- i sultant. In either event, the maximum salary the NRC could offer would generally be below a level acceptable to university researchers. If the Fellow were on a sabbatical, the home institution would usually pay the individual some portion of his or her normal salary; this would tend to ease the situ-ation, but the supply of such resources is expected to be limited. A potential problem with a term appointment is that it might be charged to the Office FTE allowance. Our objective is to avoid this problem by working out arrangements with the home institution under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act that would provide for an appropriate salary and that would not count against the FTE allowance.

There may be some instances where obtaining the necessary security clearances >

will be an impediment, largely during visits to certain laboratories. However, ,

most work in the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research is unclassified, so '

the lack of high-level clearance would not ordinarily be a hindrance.

This initiative was started by a letter seeking nominations that was sent out l in early December. Nominations are still being received and evaluated.

Staff Exchanges Exchanges of staff between the NRC and the national laboratories or  !

universities can readily be acccmplished under the existing Intergovernmental Personnel Act. An exchange program allows staff with some research experience J to renew their skills, i There will be some significant expense to the NRC to pay relocation expenses of NRC staff and travel or per diem costs. Similar expenses will be incurred by the individual from the reciprocating institution. (Experience indicates that it will be rare for the other institution to bear a significant part of the cost except for some portion of the salary.)

Consultation with the Office of Administration and Resources Management (Division of Security) will be needed to arrange for security clearances, i

7

]

i i t

1 The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research will develop program guidance on the following topics: (1) what is the desired outcome; i.e. how will the potential benefit to NRC from an exenangr be made evident; (2) the extent to which such  :

exchanges need be one to one; (3) research areas where exchanges are desired-and (4) candidate selection criteria.  ;

Future service obligations for public sector participants are generally part of  !

such agreements. The amount of the obligation is propnrtional to the time spent away from the public sector. 1 i It is estimated that a plan for these exchanges will be put in place by May 31, ,

1988.

Staff Fellowships Staff fellowships are an extension of the staff exchanges outlined above. They represent a mechanism for staff with little or no research experience to gain

' direct knowledge within the structured environment of a university or labor-atory. Fellowships differ from exchanges in that there is no requirement for a replacement exchange individual, and the NRC employee would be recoiving an

edumtion possibly leading to a degree or an essential part of a program leading to a degree. Thus, such fellowships will be conducted under the Office of Personnel Management's regulations for long-tenn training (in excess of 120 days.)

Staff fellowship programs are found throughout federal agencies. They were long in use in the AEC and now in DOE. They are also extensively used at the Office of Naval Research, Naval Research Laboratory, and other places.

4 The funding requirements for a fellowship program will, at a minimum, include l tuition and laboratory fees, employee's salary and benefits, relocation, ,

travel, and per diem.

The development of a fellowship program includes selection of participating institutions and securing agreements with them, as needed; establishing selection criteria for NRC employees and developing the selection process; and  ;

identification of the fields of the research fellowship. Naturally, extended service agreements and, potentially, union negotiations will also be required.

Valuable guidance is available from the agencies listed above, and a milestone plan for the program was in place at the end uf March 1988.

Conclusion l Four mechanisms are available to overcome the problems related to staff development cited by the National Research Council. These mechanisms are costly and, in some cases, impact adversely on FTE limits. On balance, they j

i are believed to be of substantial eventual benefit to the NRC and to the i j Research staf' in providing for career path development. ].

i i 1  !

] 8

I Recommendation 2: The NRC should consider separating the functions of standards development and research.

The Comission does not agree with the recomendation on separating the '

functions of Standards Development and Research at this time. The recent reorganization (April 15,1987) should be allowed a period for shakedown and performance prior to assessing the effectiveness, which should precede any further organizational change.

Nevertheless, the Comission understands the expressed concerns and plans to j evaluate the effectiveness of the current organization in this respect. This

~

evaluation will include the following considerations:

1. In the present organization, a functional group responsible for a technical discipline such as mechanical engineering carries out both research and standards development activities in that disciplinary area. Management leadership and judgment are required tn establish the appropriate balance between the activities and to determine tne input needed from research for developing a standard. If research and standards were to reside in different Offices, the same kinds of leadership and judgment would be required, but at a higher level in the organization. The question thus becomes: "At what level in the organization is management responsibility for this type of leadership and judgment best piaced: at the Office level or higher?"

2. Although separation of research and standards might sharpen the focus ,

of each activity, it would require additional staff resources. Because the same  ;

kinds of expertise would be required in two organizational units, there would be duplication as well as increased overhead.

3. Tne interfaces on regu'latory products between RES and the user office ,

are fewer and less complex than they would be with RES, the user office, and a i separate standards office, a factor that could influence productivity.

)

)

b 4

4 i

J 9 l i

l

i l

l i

l l

l l

Recomendatio13: The NRC should develop a cogent philosophy of safety l research.

The development of a cogent statement of research philosophy was a major goal of planning efforts of the principal staff and the Comission. As with any such l effort, the statement may be revised from time to time to reflect experience and changing needs. The current statement follows:  ;

i Nuclear Regulatory Research Philosophy  ;

The NRC mission is to ensure the safe design, construction, and operation of the nuclear facilities and activities it regulates. The technologies employed

are relatively new and highly complex, and it is often tiecessary to make regu-latory judgments on matters related to safety that are well beyond nonnal ex-perience-based engineering practice. We require a high confidence level in order to avoid undue risk to the health and safety of the public, especially 1 when these matters involve high-consequence accidents or disposal of radio-  !

active waste. Thus it is essential to do research and develop knowledge that i gives confidence in the judgments and provides the technical basis for writing i safety regulations and evaluating licensee performance. Furthermore, unfore- l seen safety problems continue to arise from operating experience. The NRC must l have readily available sources of expertise in order to solve these problems promptly. The best way to develop and retain such people is to carry out a stable program of research that requires the continuing presence of experts in the NRC and contractor organizations who understand the state of the art in l pertinent areas of technology.

Because of the reliance placed on tne research croducts, the NRC intends that l its research program achieve first ank excellence. This means seeking the l best researchers and the best laboratories, on the one hand, and, on the other, attracting and developing excellent research managers within the NRC who can deal with researchers as technical peers, who can distinguish between first and second rank work, and who excel in leading toward safety research goals. Both tasks require not only scientific and engineering credentials, but also broad i knowledge of nuclear power plants and safety issues, i

The primary benefits of research for the NRC should be improved regulation j through better definition and refinemeni. of safety margins, anticipation of j operational problems, and tools to deal with safety issues as they arise. i The knowledge that makes this possible can be expected to have side benefits leading to improved operation and maintenance and, eventually, to l

improved designs.

The NRC nuclear regulatory research program itself has two main purposes. The first is to provide independent expertise and information for making timely regulatory judgments. The information should be independent in the sense that  !

it is not derived solely from ir.fonnation provided by licensees and that it has received peer review by experts who did not perform the research. Research

required for this purpose is mostly oriented to problems that are foreseeable in the near tern. The second purpose is to anticipate problems of potential i

l 10 l

i l*

I safety significance for which new or expanded knowledge can assist the NRC in  !

pursuing its mission. To this end, exploratory research is frequently required  !

4 to provide new knowledge. The expansion of knowledge can help to recognize unforeseen situations and to prepare for dealing with them. Research for this-l purpose is generally long term, requiring effort over a period of five to ten l years.

1 To plan a satisfactory research program, we must define the needs for knowledge,  ;

i the structure those needs impose on the program, the categories and scope of knowledge needed, and the basis for setting priorities. Doing this requires the involvement of all concerned parties: users, researchers, and the technical comunity.

Needs and Structure: The needs for knowledge arise within a regulatory process that is based on the NRC's long-standing philosophy of defense in depth as implemented by the General Design Criteria and their associated regulations for hardware, by regulations on human factors issued after the TMI-2 accident, and ,

by the regulations for disposal of radioactive waste. This context provides a clear and logical structure for the research program. Because all the lines of r defense are important to safety, an appropriate and sharply focused research l effort must support each line.

~

4 Categories: We identify three categories of knowledge. The first category ,

relates to the technical basis of a facility or activity proposed by a lic- )

ensee. Typically, the licensee presents the basis in the application. The  ;

i regulator is responsible for reviewing its adequacy for design, construction,

and operation. In order to make judgments on questions of safety, the regu- I

lator frequently turns to the research program for confirmation of the margins .

of safety in the facility and its operation. The second category of knowledge l I relates to the understanding of unforeseen events that arise in the course of f operating experience and the anticipation of events that could occur and have i safety significance. Development of this knowledge makes it possible to deal with these events and to revisit earlier safety reviews and make improved eval-uations of safety and risk. The third category of knowledge is the character-

! ization of uncertainty in matters of risk significance. The ability of 4

regulators to make decisions based, in part, on risk significance hinges on the appreciation of uncertaintie; in the expected performance or accident evalu-ation. It is therefore important to reduce uncertainties in these matters.

j Scose: Consideration of risk has important implications for setting scope i I wit 11n these categories of k1owledge. Risk assessment requires determination

! of both the probability of an accident and its consequences. Hence the needs i for infonnation are likely to span a broad range of topics on the reliability )

of components and systems, including the interaction of human factors, from 1

nonnal to extreme cer.ditions of operation during their anticipated life span. l

The needs for information about consequences span a similar broad range. With l l regard to waste disposal, we note that the scope includes the perfonnance of '

] repositories and systems for very long periods of time.

i i  ;

{ 11

In all cases, the knowledge required from NRC-sponsored research must be clearly related to the regulatory mandate. There are cases where research can serve objectives that are of interest to incustry as well as the rer;ulatory mandate.

Where mutually beneficial, cooperative research between the NRC and industry should be pursued. In general, the NRC role should be to identify and scope problems associated with operation of plant components and systems, and we believe the industry should undertake to provide the necessary specific solutions.

Priorities: Risk assessment is an important tool for setting priorities.

Needs for new knowledge associated with higher risk, taking into account uncertainties, receive higher priority, other things being equal. Detenninistic analyses (e.g., fluid flow, heat transfer, or fracture mechanics calculations) and expert opinion are the principal means of examining the uncertainties in estimates of risk.

Program Implemtritation To implement the planned research we must consider how to do the work, how to measure the value of the knowledge, and when to close a research project.

Doing the Work: The following are the guidelines on how best to obtain the knowledge that research should provide: (1) the research must be relevant to the regulatory issue as demonstrated by preceding exploratory wo?k or by analysis of the stated issue; (2) the expected value of the knowledge should justify the cost of the research; (3) the best people and laboratories should perfonn the research; (4) to the extent practicable, there should be a compe-tition of ideas from which to select the future path of a new research project; (5) near-term research should be timely considering the need for which it was undertaken; (6) research for the purpose of identifying or resolving unantic-ipated problems should be done in order to enable rapid response capability when new situations arise; and (7) peer review of work should be done to establish technical acceptability, and the reviewed work shoul/, be widely '

disseminated to inform the public.

i Value: We can measure the value of knowledge gained from research by its end use. The question to be answered is: How much of the knowledge and infor-mation produced by research have we put to regulatory use? Regulatory use includes licensing judgments, regulations, and policy documents. The use can l be in the form of confirmation of decisions already made or input for decisions i to be made. Knowledge and information from research is valuable when it helps to define risk. It is especially valuable when it makes possible cost- ,

effective safety improvements that significantly reduce the risk to the health  ;

and safety of the public.

Closure: Closure of NRC research is indicated when the knowledge derived is sufficient for the needs or when the value of incremental knowledge from further research has tapered off. Then it is time to consider actions to close an issue: to summarize what is known; to provide a useful compendium of knowledge readily useful i= regulatory functions such as guides, standards, rules, and assessment of safety margin; and, finally, to provide an orderly I l

)

12 I

1 i.

i I

I transition to other potential users of the research such as industry or 00E.

Great care appropriate to the risk involved is required in arriving at this judgment.

Conclusion ,

4 To carry out its mission, the NRC requires excellence in safety research. We 4 cannot overemphasize the fact that stable funding is critical to the success of long-range research and to retaining the best minds to carry out the work and apply it to regulatory issues. At the same time, careful periodic review of '

long-range research is needed as work proceeds in order to ensure relevance to '

changing regulatory needs and to feed new information back into the planning and cenduct of future work. Such review helps keep long-range efforts vital. ,

In this statement of philosophy, we have set forth the key principles that  :

1. should govern the definition, planning, conduct, use, and closure of nuclear regulatory research projects.

i

)

i i

i i

1

r _ _:,

l i

Recomendation 4: The NRC should establish a research program planning process

, involving all of the relevant offices within the NRC, as well as l representatives from industry and the university research community acting as l participating advisors. l l

In its discussion, the National Research Council points out: "The NRC long-range l plan is not really a plan so much as a description of current projects. So ,

although many 'long-range plans' have been written, there is little long-range planning. (This happens to be true not only at the NRC but within the federal i government as a whole.)"

The Comissien has taken the lead in overseeing the drafting of a five-year I plan for the agency. As part of that five-year plan, the Office of Research has attempted to set out a rational plan of accomplishment. Any such plan is

> subject to any variance of funding level. To the extent a degree of funding i stability is maintained, it is believed that, with the active involvement of I the other concerned Offices, a sound plan can be made and implemented. To this end, measures have been instituted to secure the degree of involvement i recomended by the Council.  !

As stated in the Strategic Plan (section 8.3.1), the plan is to develop review j

, groups and use those groups in planning and developing research programs to support NRC programs and strategies. As described below, two types of review  ;

groups have been established: management-oriented Senior Research Program ,

Steering Groups and Research Project Review Groups to provide a pool of in-house expertise to ensure that the best technical insights are being provided for the l formulaticn of research proiects and to enhance the exchange of infomation  !

between Comission Offices. These Research Project Review Groups provide the best arena for face-to-face discussions between research prooram managers and ,

the users of research. Such face-to-face discussions should continue on a  ;

regular basis to be most effective. The NRC supports fully the recomendation I

) that representatives of the academic and industrial technical comunity be l insolved. Provision is made and utilized for such representatives to attend j the meetings cf the review groups as individual consultants, adding their i expertise to the pool of knowledge.

One of the jobs of the Senior Research Program Steering Groups is to review the extent i to which face-to-face discussions have been successful in promoting an exchange l of views and transfer of technology in key areas of interest. More to the point in formulating basic program directives is the duty of these groups to see to it that user offices have thoroughly thought through their technical information needs, that these are correctly understood by the research program managers, and that the resulting programs are fully responsive to the user needs. The enhanced comunication that results from this process will greatly assist the growth of understanding of the technical implications of information 2 that is developed and the Dotential effects on regulation so as to provide timely basis for mid-course corrections in development and use of the 1

information. I i

l l

3 J

14 l

Y In addition, the continuing staff-level discussions of the resolution of -

generic and other special regulatory issues contribute significantly to the '

definition of user needs for research.

J Key indivduals have been named to the review groups. Sone groups have been i meeting regularly for the past several years, but the majority are being I reconstituted. These groups have been operational since October 1, 1987.

In addition, the Director of the Office of Research and his principal staff meet often with their counterparts in the other Offices for an exchange of information to develop a mutual understanding of key issues, progress toward l their re:olution, and work that is needed.  ;

Under cooperative and collaborative agreements with foreign agencies, a significant amount of planning information is shared to promote :oordination of efforts.

< Finally, meetings held twice yearly with the principal contractors and with  !

I other research sponsors such as EPRI and NUMARC serve to promote research cooperation and coordination of efforts and planning to provide a rational  ;

approach to solutien of key problems. l l

l l

1 i

i 1 l l

l i

15

.. j l

\

! Recommendation 5: The NRC should impanel an independent advisory group l reporting to the Director of RES.  !

The National Research Council report states: "The group should be charged i

with independently reviewing for the director of research, from the perspective of the general principles cited in this report, the overall structure and thrust )

I of the research program."  ;

4 Accordingly, the Comission has created (cf. SECY 87-119, May 11,1987) an -

independent advisory comittee eclied the "Nuclear Safety Research Review 1 J

Comittee" (NSRRC). The purpose of that Comittee is to rake assessments of .

and recomendations concerning:

4 1 1. Confortnance of the NRC nuclear safety research program to the NRC i philosophy of nuclear safety research and to specific Comission directions.

2. Likelihood of the program meeting the needs of the users of research.

3. Appropriateness of the longer range research programs and the

correctness of their directions.

I

! 4. Quality of personnel and facilities doing the work. Whether there are

other options, including cooperative programs, that would yield higher quality work or otherwise iriprove program efficiency.

S. Objectivity of the program and adeouacy of peer review.

j In addition, the NSRRC will conduct specialized studies when requested by  ;

I the Comission or the Director of RES. ,

The NSRRC reports to the Director, RES, and, through that Office, to the Comission; Comittee members are appointed by the Comission.

) The NSRRC ls now functional and held its first meeting February 17 and 18,  ;

1988, in Bethesda, Maryland. A partial list of panel members has been approved  ;

I by the Comission, with specified expertise to be added by naming additional  ;

j members in the near future.

I l  !

i 1

I 16

.-_.,_,,__..-9 .-,, ,. _. -.__-, --.

.,._-.,c.m --- ------,s ,y- -m, -

r,--y w .q wy,-g,

1 I

r Recomendations 6 and 7: The NRC should create a fair and competitive process  :

for contracting for research and should analyze the relative costs and benefits of consolidating work at national laboratories.

The National Research Council panel made several key remarks about contracting for research:  ;

1. "The comittee is concerned that a valid basis for contracting nearly all of the safety research program through the national laboratt, ries does not exist. The comittee concluded that a fair competition among the national laboratories, industry, and the university research comunity might lead NRC to allocate a larger share of its research ,

to private industry and to contract researchers in the universities."

2. "Consolidation might have the benefit of increasing laboratory management attention on NRC programs and might provide a stronger corps of researchers both inside and outside the laboratories."

The Strategic Plan states (cf. 8.3.4) that the NRC will: l "Develop policies and procedures to enhance the NRC's capability to place research contracts at universities and other not-for-profit i'istitutions on a timely basis. These policies and procedures will be utilized to <

create a fair and competitive process for contracting for research, thus I allowing a better basis for analyzing alternative ways of conducting the l work. A long-range objective will be the performance of a greater portion  ;

of NRC-sponsored research at universities than is now the case."

To this end, the Division of Contracts and RES have met with officials of DARPA, NASA, ONR, and NSF. Drawing on the experience of these other agencies, a decision has been made to proceed aggressively with the use of the "Broad itgency Announcement" procedure of advertising needs for research support. Such announcements do not preclude the participation of any research organization and have proved effective in securing widespread university participation in support of agency programs. Announcements for two projects using this procedure are in the final stages of preparatinn. We expect that universities will respond to these announcements and compete favorably. Program funds have been set aside in each program unit for contracts under the tems of a broad agency announcement for work starting in FY88.

In view of the budget reduction for FY 1988, it is unrealistic to expect that the shift to universities and industry can ptoceed without further reducing funds available at the national laboratories. Thus most shifts in funding will have to balance the cost of abandoning or stretching out work in progress against the gains that can be expected from bringing in new people in a com-petitive environment.

The national laboratories are a valuable resource of scientists and engineers '

knowledgeable about the problems of reactor safety and the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The intent of the panel was rot to discontinue work at the 17

I  :

1 l

l i

1 a

l national 1.lboratories but to make sure that the best people are doing the work at

the best p' aces. Frequently, this will be at a national laboratory. There is.

however, a tendency to continue a project under the same work order even though  ;

l the content and direction may have changed significantly over the years. Two j actions counter this tendency: (1) Detailed scrutiny has been made of compliance

~j with formal criteria for conduct of such work established by the NRC and DOE l and(2) Inunsive review of each project in relation to other work has been '

made during preparation of the revised FY 1988 budget. We expect similar levels

! of examination to continue.

To ensure more competition of ideas and to draw on the expertise of the j national labs as well as the universities, a pilot strategy exists of t formulating plans for new programs within the NRC staff and then sending the plans out for wide-ranging anonymous peer review by experts at the labs, '

universities, and industrial organizations. Coments will be used to revise the plans as indicated.

Subject to budget constraints, the NRC will continue funding its program of '

university grants, which is limited by law to 1% of the RES budget. The program has been oversubscribed in FY 1987, thereby producing a backlog for FY 1988. The procedures of this program emulate those of the NSF.

1 l

Some grants are proposed to enable faculty at Historically Black Colleges and  ;

y Universities to participate in NRC programs at national laboratories and, on ,

the basis of such sessions, develop proposals for joint efforts. DOE has found  :'

j such programs to be useful in this regard.

\

Many national laboratories seek active participation with universities in  ;

cooperative programs or assignments for faculty and students on laboratory  ;

j programs. To the extent feasible, the NRC will attempt to facilitate increased l joint use of large facilities at the national laboratories. On occasion, this '

has happened as a result of the use of academic expertise in the design and planning for facilities such as the Heated Detonation Tube at Sandia National Laboratories. But until now, there has been no stated Office policy or practice i of encouraging such use. As our involvement with the academic community grows, >

3 the staff will be directed to seek out opportunities where joint use of large facilities will be benefici .1, and the laboratories and universities will be encouraged to seek att such opportunities on their own.

i i

l i

18 ,

i 0 i a s i

t

(  !

4 Recomendation 8: The NRC should institute an annual review of the program with  !

i the principal perfomers of the research. l t

The National Research Council panel remarked: "The Managers of NRC programs at <

4 the various natienal laboratories seldom meet to discuss the philosophy, content,  !

and direction of the NRC research program. This means the laboratories have little j opportunity to assist in the design of the program."

The recomendation is reiterated in the Strategic Plan (cf. 8.3.1). The Office i Director has met semiannually with the principals at the major contractors. l The meeting in the fall of each year is held in conjunction with the Light Water Reactor Safety Research Information Meeting and is focused on such ,

management topics as:

1. How to manage budget cutsi ,

2. What safety research is needed that is rot being done; i

3. Setting research priorities; I 4 Measures to ensure quality. l 9

The discussions cover the safety research program; although the safety of operating nuclear power plants is the predominant focus, the discussions ,

include all the other safety issues important to the NRC such as waste l disposal, fuel transportation, fuel facilities, and the uses of byproduct i materials. l At other times of the year, topical meetings are held to discuss among the  !

principal managerial and technical staff recent progress and the current state  !

of the art in major areas such as severe accident analysis, risk assessment, ,

and plant agirg.  ;

1 Additionally, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research assembles meetings of ,

interested staff (from all Offices) and researchers to discuss specific j

programatic areas such as severe fuel damage, code assessment, or pipe inspection.

6 1

4 l,

)

i  ;

j i l

4 i

' 1 19 l

1 1 I i

J 4

l Recommendations 9-12: The NRC should do more work at universities.

4, l The National Research Council panel made several reconrendations directed at 1 4

increasing the level of work at universities. The key remarks are:

i 1'

1. "As previously noted, university research has some clear benefits.

• he universities provide a source of independent thinking as well as

' centers of excellence' in basic and exploratory research."

2. "Dedicated long-term funding of university researchers must be available to ensure retention of a corps of experienced academic researchers in basic science and engineering and to provide a training 4'

ground for the future nuclear safety research professionals that will be

~

needed to staff industrial laboratories, contract research organizations, and government agencies."

i 4

j 3. "However, the NRC apparently has had difficulty in using the universities, in part because of the contract problems discussed earlier and in part because strong links have not been sustained between the ,

universities and the NRC."

Two types of work are perfomed at universities

grants and contracts. It is necessary to distinguish t'etween them, i

. A grant is essentially a gift of money to sponsor work in a defined area of wide public interest. It is essential, under the law, that the "NRC's benefit from the results of the assistance project [ grant] should be no greater than for  ;

other interested parties."

. In the case of a contract, en the other hand, the primary purpose is to buy or l procure well-defined research in direct support of the NRC's licensing and research mission. Moreover, the end result is clearly defined and parameters and specifications are prepared in advance of the work.

The Office of Research intends to use both routes for increasing research i

performed at universities.

1

{

Members of the Nuclear Engineering Departrent Heads Organization (NEDHO) report that grants are generally used to support work perforred by students. l whereas contracts support work with a substantial degree of faculty I

participation. They expressed a substantial preference for grant support l

over contract support in the current situation where financial support for

! graduate students is a major concern.

I Keeping in mind the considerations discussed above, the following steps have 1

been taken to implement the panel's recomendations; these have been cited i earlier

1

! 1. In coordination with the Division of Contracts, a decision has been i made to follow the pra;tice of agencies such as ONR and DARPA and use the j Broad Agency Announcement as a means of inviting proposals from a wide range of j research organizations, especially university and not-for-profit institutions.

I 20

]i .. . -- . - _ _ - -- --. . - . - . _ -. - - - - . - _ .

.y l

i j

i-l l i

2. Beginning in FY 1988, a portion of program support funds has been 3

designated in each program unit to support non-DOE contracts; i.e., contracts j

with universities or private enterprises.

! 3. To stimulate a competition of ideas and broaden involvement of  !

possible sources of expertise, the following approach is being considered for  :

j use with new research projects: first, develop the plan of work within the NRC; j j second, circulate that plan for anonymous peer review among the universities, industrial and not-for-profit research organizations, and the national  !

laboratories. The coments will be used in revising the plan as indicated. ,

4. The grants program has been aggressively promoted with a procedure for i independent anonynous peer review of proposals in conscious emulation of procedures at the National Science Foundation. The program is limited by law  !

l to 1% of the total RES budget; it has been oversubsc-ibed in FY 1987, thereby producing a backlog for FY 1988. l i

. I

)

i i  !

5 l

l l l 1

l 4

l l

I d

i

i l

Recomendation 13: The NRC should establish Independent topical peer review '

groups and encourage publication of sponsored research in peer-reviewed journals.

The National Research Council panel remarked: "The traditional means by which  :

i the scientific and engineering communities ensure the quality of research is through peer review." The NRC fully concurs with this. j Several measures have been taken to respond to panel recomendations regarding assurance of the quality of work. A policy has been established to restore the practice of using research review groups to review the technical aspects of on-going or proposed research projects from the perspective of project I objectives, experimental or analytical procedures, adequacy of products, and I the analysis of results. A policy has been established that emphasizes the role of publishing research results in the open literature in peer-reviewed '

journals; contractors have been infonned that this is the expected norm. The program managers will follow performance in this area. The Office Director has -

arranged to meet at least annually with key members of the Laboratory n,anagements and others to get their views on the quality and technical directions of the j work. ,

l Special projects of ten deserve special peer review, usually at the draft or preprint stage. Currently, we have initiated an in-depth peer review of DRAFT  ;

NUREG 1150, "Reactor Risk Reference," and a similar review of the "Code Scaling i and Assessment of Uncertainty" proposal, j The following specific steps have been taken:

Peer Review Groups .

t On July 7,1987 the RES Office Director requested replies from the Directors of the other NRC line offices on the proposed organization of two sets of research  !

review groups: l

1. Senior Research Program Steering Groups to advist. the Office of Research on the conduct and broad scope and direction of major research programs; and

2. Research Project Review Groups composed of NRC staff from concerned offices :

to fonn a pool of in-house expertise to ensure that the best technical insights are being used in the fomulation of research projects, to onhance the erchange of information between offices, and to eliminate duplication of effort between the  ;

research and technical assistance programs. These review groups will empicy  ;

independent technical experts as consultants as needed.

The Office Directors were asked to be prepared to designate staff to (

participate in these groups when a consensus is achieved on their structure. ,

l Positive replies were received from the other Offices, and review groups were fomed and functioning by the end of October 1987, i

22 j

lC f i

j.

I i

t i  !

l Publication Policy {

l i l

j In 1985 and again on March 12, 1986, the major contractors were encouraged to

publish papers in major scientific journals as well as in laboratory reports f

and computer code manuals.  ;

) i 4 This policy was reinforced with a nemorandum to RES staff dated May 26, 1987 l l and a follow up letter to RES contractors on July 28, 1987, stating that ,

! the publication policy of RES consists of the following points:

1 l 1. Publication of results from RES-sponsored programs in refereed i scientific journals is a required goal.

I  ?. The fom 189 or other contract for work in FY 88 and beyond must i i contain this directive. (The form 189 is the statement of work and funding and  !

has the effect of a contract.) ,

i

3. Whether a body of work warrants submittal for publication will be i j judged by the researchers and their managementi an infonnation copy of each  !

submittal should be sent to the RES project u nager at the same time the q

article is submitted for publication, j l 4. At the end of each fiscal year (September 30) RES will compile a list  !

i of papers published during the preceding !?. months. A publication that has  !

j received a peer review with a notice from the editor that the paper will be l 4 published, or published after indicated revisions, will be listed as "in  !

pre s s . " j j Contractors were asked to get this compilation started by s ibmitting a list of l all reports published in peer-reviewea journals in the three-year period ending  ;

September 30, 1987. (Publication can often take three years in a major l i journal.) The list of such publications was incorporated in SECY 87-292, dated ,

j November 25, 1987. l:

) RES Branch Chiefs bave been specifically charged with ensuring that this policy I i is carried out in their review of contractor perfomance.  !

i '

1 1

1 i

23

i i I I I Other Considerations  ;

Cooperative Activities The National Research Council report (pg. 13) stated that "where the proximate t beneficiary of the research is industry, the presumption is that industry should j

i pay for it." We concur in this recorrendation. The Office of Nuclear Regulatory l 3

Research has adopted this approach for selected projects in the past, such as on 1

the FIST facility)(with H GE),

and the both MIST the(B&W facility MB-2 steamand Owners), generator we intendtest facility and the to pursue I FLECHT progrn it in the future (7 ,The changing nature of the nuclear industry, however, has j imposed several constreints on our a W ity to conduct cooperative research programs. With the lack of new pla - 9rs and new designs, the reactor vendors  ;

no longer have the same degree of f '.e t in cooperative research on large-scale  ;

, programs. Nor do they appear to h6  % research budgets that they had in' the i

.i 1970's. ,

Incentives for cooperatively sponsored research have shif ted to the operating j plant owners, and support must be accomplished with the owners groups, NUMARC,  ;

or EPRI. Cooperative efforts with EPRI have been successful; " expect this i 4 relationship to continue, and we would like to expand cooperr e research i efforts with EPRI. Dealing with owners groups is somewhat m m ".mplicated and l presents some constraints. First, they are composed of members o..a a variety t

l of points of view on the benefits of proposed research and must themselves achieve 5

a consensus view on any proposed research before they can vote to fund the l 4

research. Secondly, unless the needed research is "required" by the NRC,  ;

Public Service Connissions may not allow the costs to be passed on to the ratepayers. The NRC, in turn, would have to perfom detailed cost-benefit '

analyses to justify "requiring" the industry to fund the research. We know l from experience that it is difficult to quantify the value of research in dollar terms that are not open to question by parties with different views.

l The results of these constraints are that any cooperatively funded research

with the utility industry involves significant staff resources and a prolonged negotiating process. For example, the current cooperatively funded research program on B&W plants utilizing the MIST facility took approximately 2 years to

}. negotiate and an additional two years to conduct.

t Negotiation also has taken about two years to achieve agreement in principle

] with the B&W owners group for a cooperatively funded research program to study  !

l the thermal / hydraulic performance of the once-through steam generator design I used in all BAW designed plants.  !

I l

) We have had an effective and cooperative relationship with Industry's Degraded l j Core Research Program (IDCOR) for a period of years to review the technical i 1

focus and progress of the severe accident program. The main outcome of this

relattenship is the Independent Plant Examination (IPE) program, one of the 1 elements that have been developed to implement the Comission's Severe Accident Policy. The purpose of the IPE is to provide a schere for each licensee to follow in reviewing his plant to uncover any specific vulnerabilities of plant  !

i systems with respect to beyond- design-basis accidents.

l l 74

\

Finally, we continue to use international cooperation to advance our program to the mutual benefit of ourselves and our partners. Not only does this cooperation support our program with funds or with contributions in kind, but the independent coordinated perfonnance of work and exchange of results enable the cooperatirg parties to complete their work faster. We strongly believe this cooperation enhances nuclear power reactor safety around the wnrld, as well as being of direct benefit to us. Examples where such benefits have expedited work include the tests'at ROSA III in Japan, the 20/30 program, the data on core / concrete interaction exchange with the FRG, and financial support for a number of programs. We are currently attempting to obtain international support for the investigation of the condition of the TMI-2 reactor vessel bottom head.

Program Accomplishments The Office of Research published NUREG 1262 in the spring of 1986 to sumarize research accomplishments in the recent past. The report will be updated annually as NUREG 1266. In 1987, this task was delayed by the NRC reorganization.

Recomendations Addressed to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO)

Three recomeadations are explicitly directed at the EDO:

1. The ED0 should ensure that more face-to-face discussion occurs among the NRC program offices at the branch level concerning the philosophy and content of the research program.

The E00 has endorsed and actively supports the senior steering groups and research project review groups; these are designed, among other things, to foster the face-to-face discussions described by the National Research Council.

2. The NRC should adopt the practice of producing interoffice documents that sumarize what is known and what research is still needed.

The Research Information Letters issued by the research office have been tradified in format to serve this purpose.

3. The NRC should charge its contract office to develop procedures to make research contracting with organizations other than the national laboratories an easily available option.

This has been done and, as discussed previously, is completed with the adoption l of the "broad agency announcement" technique. l l

l 1

l l

25

Recommendations Addressed to the Commission Recommendation 1: Congress should relieve ACRS of the formal requirement to review the safety research program.

The Commission has recently asked Congress to formally relieve the ACRS of the responsibility of providing an annual report to Congress on the NRC's research program.

Recommendations 2 and 3: The options for restructuring the NRC to restore leadership to the research program should be reexamined, and the Chairman should assign a staff member full-time to monitoring research.

The Commission is mindful of the concerns expressed in this recommendation and, as has been discussed earlier, intends to monitor organizational performance closely. A member of the Chairman's staff has been assigned to monitor research on a full-time basis.

Recommendation 4: The Chairman should require periodic reviews of t.' status of major research projects.

Such reviews are now being regularly carried out.

Recommendation 5: The Chairman should defend the research program before OMB and Congress.

The Chairman has done this in the past and will continue to do so.

Recommendation 6: DOE and NRC should collaborate and share information, including that from classified programs.

Valuable collaboration on unclassified programs will continue. Of particular significanco was the collaboration on the decommissioning of the Shippingport Reactor, wherein the NRC gained valuable information on aging effects.

Collaboration on classified programs is, of course, performed on a "need-to-know" basis under interagency agreements.

Recommendation 7: DOE should ensure that a portion of its. budget for university-based R&D supports safety research relevant to current reat'. ors.

Informal interagency coordination among DOE, NSF, and NRC has been set up, but the amount of support available is significantly affected by general reductions in the FY 1988 budgets.

26

1

. t s

4 PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS In Chapter 3 cf its report, the National Research Council made a number of programmatic comments. These have been reviewed, and all comments and recommendations are included within the program proposed for FY 1988 and beyond. Specific comments are addressed below; the comments are organized according to the research budget categories.

Integrity Of Reactor Components This program examines reactor plant systems and related components to see if they perform as designed and to ensure that their functional integrity and operability are maintained over the life of the plant.

Behavior of Materials in Nuclear Power Plant Environments The NRC agrees with the Connittee's position that basic, exploratory, long-term research on materials used in the structures, systems, and components of nuclear power plants is essential to establishing a technical base for confirming the adequacy of many aspects of plant design, construction, and operation. Recognizing the facts of budget reduction, the NRC has found it necessary to emphasize immediate needs at the expense of longer term research.

Nevertheless, RES has a connitment to redress this situation as soon as it is possible to recover from the current budget limits. Even at the present level of funding, some basic research on radiation embrittlement is being sponsored at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and an ongoing program on fracture mechanics is being performed as part of the Heavy Secticn Steel Technology (HSST) program. Basic research results from the HSST program led to the identification of the pressurized thermal shock (PTS) issue, which, through further focused research, was resolved.

Decommissioning The NRC agrees with the Committee that decommissioning will be important i in the future and that NRC must be prepared to deal with the associated issues.

Currently, NRC is establishing regulations that address financial and operational responsibilities of licensees. The NRC agrees with the Committee on the need for a continuing research program to support the larger need for decommissioning j

that will reise in the future. We believe, however, that the amount of research NRC is currently sponsoring on decommissioning is sufficient to support the j present regulatory activity. Present research includes acquiring and analyzing i data on techniques, wastes, radiation exposures, and costs from the decommissioning l of the Shippingport and Humboldt Bay plants and from the cleanup of TMI-2. This (

research will help define areas of concern that need further research to ensure ,

that NRC will have a technical base to support future regulatory actions, i 27

O

\

l QualityAssurance/QualityControl The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has undertaken a new approach to assessing programs associated with assurance of quality at operating reactors. This revised approach is in its initial stages. When results of this approach and associated inspections are available, the NRR staff will recomend research in the QA/QC areas. The recomendations of the Comittee will be factored into the staff's research needs.

Nondestructive Testing and Examination The National Research Council report states that further research is needed to develop advanced NDT capabilities and to refine techniques presently in use.

In addition, the report recomends that NRC dedicate a portion of its funding to basic and exploratory research directed to the monitoring of component and system degradation. The NRC agrees with the Comittee's position on the need for the development of advanced NDT and NDE techniques, including the need for basic research directed to developing techniques for monitoring structural degradation. It must be noted, however, that the existing scope of NRC research does not include developmental activities. In general, present research is focused on confirming the applicability and reliability of NDT and NDE techniques used by licensees and on improving these techniques, except for the following:

The Reactor Vessel and Piping Integrity program recently furnished an example of the progression from basic exploratory work on new methods of flaw detection to their application to nondestructive inspection of piping by improved ultrasonic methods. This work, which took about 11 years to come to fruition, is a major advance in the assurance of safety in the operation of nuclear power plants.

Seismology, Soil Mechanics, and Structural Response to Seismic Events The Comittee may have misunderstood the relationship between the USGS and NRC programs in seismology. The two programs have, in fact, been highly j ccordinated.

Basically, the USGS focuses on the seismology of the continental U.S. west of the Rockies and the NRC on the rest of the continental U.S. The data-gathering program in the U.S. east of the Rockies is gradually being turned over to the i USGS. RES is expanding its interaction and cooperative support of projects with the Earth Sciences Division of the National Science Foundation.

In addition, the NRC is sponsoring a major research program involving j geophysicists and engineers to develop methods, procedures, and data to estimate the capability of nuclear power plants to withstand earthquakes larger than their original design basis. This research is closely coordinated with similar efforts being carried out by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to avoid unnecessary duplication and to ensure that mutually beneficial products are produced. i 28

)

Plant Aging (License Extension)

The NRC agrees with the Committee's conclusion that NRC needs research to enable it to determine whether an appropriate basis for granting license extensions can be found. In fact, NRC has taken the lead, worldwide, in the area of plant aging research. The Nuclear Plant Aging Research Program (NPAR) has been fomally in place since 1982, and, consistent with the Comittee's recontrendation, involves research into the aging phenomena of all types of materials, components, and systems found ia licensed comercial nuclear power plants. Specifically, this research involves such areas as structural integrity of plant systems, on-line diagnostics, integrity of radiation-embrittled materials, annealing, nondestructive testing, and the functional capability of systems and components.

The above research is currently being conducted at a number of national and private laboratories and is principally directed toward addressing i aging-related safety issues in a timely manner. The Comittee is correct in observing that the results are not yet being used to resolve license extension issues. However, as the research program progresses over the next several years, the results will serve as the basis for the Comission's regulations dealing with license renewal or extension. The NRC's funding for this program j has been reduced with the decline in the overall NRC research budget. The NRC intends to recover this funding as soon as possible. Even so, it is i anticipated that industry, including EPRI, and DOE will address and  ;

accelerate their share of research. i The NRC agrees with the Comittee's coment on cooperative research programs. l The integration of the NPAR program within NRC and between NRC and other l domestic and international organizations was the primary objective of the NRC's 1 Technical Integration Review Group on Aging and Plant Life Extension (TIRGALEX),

which was fomed in 1986. An Aging and Life Extension Coordinating Comittee 1 I

(ALEXCC) has been established to implement the actions recommended by TIRGALEX.

RES has, for example, recently met with DOE (and the EPRI Equipment Qualification Advisory Group) to exchange infonnation on resident aging j programs. i 1

29

l 1

Prevent Damage to Reactor Corts l

Preventing damage to reactor cores encompasses the operations of the reactor as ,

a system, including control of power level, maintaining water in the reactor  !

system, core cooling and heat removal, and keeping coolant temperatures and i pressures within appropriate bounds. The scope includes consideration of I operator actions (human factors) and of both nomal and abnomal transients, l l

Thermal Hydraulics  !

l The NRC agrees with the Comittee's view that whenever it is determined that specific analysis is necessary on thermal-hydraulic transients, these will be performed with the most appropriate analytic tools available. The NRC will l continue to be alert to opportunities for improving these codes when found to j be necessary to resolve specific issues. The speed of themal hydraulic computer codes is being enhanced by the use of the fastest machines available, improved numerical techniques, and parallel processing. In addition, the j development of the nuclear plant analyzer and nuclear plant data bank will make 4 the codes much easier to use and reduce analysis time significantly.

The Committee's coments on NRC's thermal-hydraulic transient codes fail to make the distinction between codes used by NRR to audit calculations submitted by licensees and the best-estimate codes developed by RES. The fomer do in-deed contain conservative assumptions and models. The models and correlations used in RES-developed codes are best estimate and provide f.he most realistic predictive capability available at the time they were developed. Research intends to utilize the results of more recent thermal-hydraulic experiments to improve on this predictive capability.  ;

The NRC is in full agreement with the Comittee's assessment that the NRC i should have participation in international thermal-hydraulic prograns whenever i it is advantageous and practical for the NRC to do so. The NRC is and has been l participating in the 2D/3D Program, which involves a trilateral agreement l between the Federal Republic of Gemany, Japan, and the U.S. to study reflood l and refill phenomena in large-scale thermal-hydraulic facilities. The U.S. is 1 also collaborating with Japan on the ROSA-IV project, which is soon to begin testing. In addition, the NRC nas entered into thirteen bilateral 4 international agreements (with three additional agreements pending) for l participation in the International Code Assessment Program. The objective of this program is to assess NRC themal-hydraulic computer codes by exercising them against tests in a broad range of experimental facilities throughout the l world.

Having outlined these thermal-hydraulic activities, we should also note the remarkable success of this program with respect to resolving the technical issues associated with transients and loss-of-coolant accidents. It is our judgment that the need for further work in this area is tapering off and that it is time for research to focus more strongly on damaged cores and accident management.

30

Accident Management With respect to the Comittee's recomendation that more research on accident prevention is needed, a plan is being develcped for research nn accident management that will prevent transients and small incidrats from becoming severe accidents. This program will apply the knowledgt of accident phenomenology gathered over the past eight years to deve'oping strategies aimed, first, at retaining reactor cores in the vessel .in the event of a core-damaging accident and, failing that, to reduce the r isk of early containment failure. An agreement in principle has been reached with NUMARC for industry cooperation in this area. It is expected that NUMARC will undertake to lead the utilities in improving emergency operating procedures in accordance with accident management developments. There are also international efforts under way in the Federal Republic of Gennany, France.

Sweden, and Japan. A research agreement on accident management with the FRG has been drawn up, and one exists with the Comission of European Communities regarding work at the Joint Research Center at Ispra.

Extended Fuel Cycle Two types of extended fuel cycle cores are currently under consideration:

1. Use improved fuel in the same lattice,  ;

2. Use a fundamentally different lattice. ,

For cores of type 1, the consensus is that the tests perfonned by industry and DOE satisfy current regulatory requirements and that no active participation by l NRC Research is required. Since these fuels contain significantly more transuranics at end of life than does current fuel, this position may have to be reexamined if such isotopes are found to be important in assessing risk from nuclear pcwer plants.

For cores of type 2, the situation is different. In Europe the plans are to use very dry lattices on a hexagonal mesh, together with very high burnup and plutonium recycle. Any move to use such designs in the U.S. would have ma,ior policy as well as research implications. U.S. vendors do not appear to be following this trend, at least as far as plutonium recycle is concerned, but l the situation requires careful observation. l Human Factors, Instrumentation and Control, and Operations This element has several components integral to it or strongly interfacing with i t. NRC agrees that human factors research needs in these areas should be reassessed and that a comprehensive program should be developed, it is with this realization and objective that NRC is sponsoring an ongoing effort with the National Research Council. The Nstional Research Council completed a study of human factors / human reliability research needs in nuclear power operations.

31

Its report, issued in February 1988, will be an important element in setting the agenda for human factors research. In anticipation of this report, the staff drafted a research plan for human safety performance research that will encompass the elements recommended by the Committee as well as seek the participation of industry and 00E.

Research needs for diagnostic instrumentation, on-line calibration, and advanced technology applications in nuclear power plants will be reassessed in cooperation with DOE and industry.

Furthermore, the larger question of plant dynamics and control, including its relationship to Unresolved Safety Issues A-47, A-49, and A-17 on the safety implications of control and safety system interactions, will be reassessed and properly integrated with the research efforts on human factors and thermal hydraulics, taking into account rapidiv changing technologies such as process control.

Reliability of Plant Components and Plant Systems NRC agrees with the basic conclusions of the National Research Council report in this area. RES has done and is continuing research that has centered on reliability monitoring, common-cause failure assessment, evaluation of defensive strategies, development of performance indicators, and development of data requirements to -

aid in these applications. For example, we are developing improved indicators fl for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance and the availability and reliability of important safety systems.

RES has just completed a joint project with EPRI to develop procedures for  !

common-cause failure analysis that address engineering aspects of the components as well as historical experience (NUREG/CR-4780). Follow-on research in this araa is addressing the identification and development of defensive strategies to prevent ccmmon-cause failures. Operation Safety Reliability Research is I evaluating the effectiveness of reliability engineering methods to help prevent l problems from occurring at plants. This work nas included tasks undertaken l with industry participation. '

In addition, work on seismic effects includes assessment of component fragility, and related work is performed on environmental qualification of equipment.

I 32

l F

Reactor Containment Perfonnance and Public Protection from Radiation Although the Commission's highest priority objective in its regulations is the prevention of accidents, it has applied a defense-in-depth philosophy that recogni7es the need for additional measures to mitigate the potential radio-logical hazards if an accident should occur. Substantial safety margins have been incorporated in this evolving program that has been the foundation for the licensing and regulation of nuclear power plants. Assessing the effectiveness of this program in achieving and maintaining an acceptably low level of resi-dual risk to the public is a primary objective of the research in this area.

Severe Accidents The Comittee notes that significant advances have been made on under-standing the complex physical and chemical phenomena of severe accidents but that uncertainties remain. A detailed review of the principal areas of uncertainty and identification of research programs that would fill in gaps in the understanding of important phenomena were undertaken by an expert peer review group. Their report was presented to the Comission in April 1987.

Substantial funding would be necessary to carry out most of the review group suggestions.

Modeling of severe accident phenomena for use in quantitative risk assessment  !

has been a primary goal of this research program and this effort will continue.

The pace and thrust however, will be governed by the budget and by increased recognition of the importance of: (1) developing strategies to stabilize and hal~t core degradation and prevent vessel meltthrough and (2) resolving containment performance issues. NRC believes that the resulting program adjustments are in accord with the Comittee's recomendations.

Finally, the Comittee recomended cooperation between the NRC and the iridustry on experimental work on severe accidents. Although the staff has in the past cooperated with EPRI in the execution of some industry severe accident research programs, it has now taken steps to coordinate more closely in their i formulation to enst e that there is no unnecessary duplication of effort. )

Safety Analysis Methodology and Application NRC aarees with the Comittee's coments and recomendations on the further development and use of probabilistic risk analysis (PRA). Recognizing that existing PRAs have uncovered plant-specific vulnerabilities, the staff and the industry have jointly worked to develop a program of Individual Plant Examinations (IPE) to include all licensed plants. NRC agrees that its activities in PRA applications must be strongly guided by the recognition that it is the discipline of the process that has the greatest potential safety benefit for operating plants. The introduction of PRA methodology into the regulatory process should not inhibit this objective by placing unwarranted emphasis on numerical values of bottom line estimates. The staff is continuino 33

- ---_ - - - -, - . . - . . -. . - i

> C I

l I

efforts to improve ts review procedures and criteria for evaluation of industry l PRAs and PRA findings with emphasis in the use of state-of-the-art methodology.  !

The NRC staff is also continuing its efforts through generic research to im-  !

prove PRA methodology. NRC agrees that the analytical treatment of human factors, dependent failures, and external accident initiators are prime targets for this work. The staff also is continuing work to incorporate improved '

l phenomenological models into PRA methodology as results become available from the severe accident research program.

The major effort in PRA that has been undertaken by the staff is the prepara- l tion of the Reactor Risk Reference Document, NUREG-1150. On completion, it is expected that this work will reflect advances in methods for identifying l important reactor accident sequences, plant-specific assets and liabilities 1 relating to risk for each of the five plants studied, and potential means for further mitigating the consequences of accidents. It is also expected to reflect an important advance in the treatment of uncertainties through the application of research developments in the field of decision theory, i The Committee also suggested that both industry and the NRC should fund research on PRA methodology and that the agenda should be set cooperatively.

Both have carried out such research in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future. NRC believes that it is important to compare independently developed methodologies and to understand differences in the treatments of severe accident phenomena. The comparison activity has been under way for some time and has resulted in agreements on acceptable I resolutions of a number of important technical is=ues. Current and future agenda setting for these comparisons focuses on evolving analytical tools (computer codes) expected to be used independently by each. This . tivity relates primarily to the industry's MAAP code in comparison 'c ine RC's MELCOR code.

1 34

Reaulatory Analysis Policy Research The Committee commented briefly on the absence of research on two policy issues: (1) the use of scientific and engineering knowledge in nuclear regulation and (2) the definition of the sort of knowledge that is most useful for decision makers. The Concission did have an Office of Policy Evaluation that provided a forum for resolution of these issues with respect to defined regulatory topics.

That Office was disbanded a few years ago, and its scope was not reassigned.

Even if such work were within the assigned scope of Research, the budget priority relative to pressing safety research would now be low. Nevertheless, we agree that issues identified by the Connittee deserve careful consideration.

Reevaluating Existina Regulations The Committee pointed cut that the body of codes, standards, criteria, and regulatory guides and rules used in regulating the nuclear fuel cycle have accumulated over twenty five yects, and that a number of these are considered to be in need of updating. Although there have been continuing efforts to revise regulations as new knewledge has become available, there has been no systematic research pregram to review the entire body of regulations. The research to reevaluate existing regulations has been focused on requirements for light water reactors. NRC agrees that such a systematic effort is needed, and has inserted a description of such an e# fort in the Strategic and Five-Year Plans. Unfortunately, a portion of the work has been deferred until FY 1989 as a consequence of budget reductions. The intention is to restart this effort when the research budget is restored to the levels assumed in the Five-Year 1 1

Plan.

1 1

35 l

CONCLUSION The initiatives presented here are responsive to the recomendations of the National Research Council and Corinission directions. The Strategic and Five Year Plans embody these initiatives within their structure. Given the Connission's strong endorsement of the Comittee's findings and the Strategic and Five Year Plans, no major obstacles to s'Jccessful implementation are foreseen.

i I

I l

36 l

e Table 1 Correspondence Between Recommendation Numbers in Part II of This Report and Those in Chapter 4 of the National Research Council's Report, "Revitalizing Nuclear Safety Research" Chapter 4 Part II ~ of the of this Council's report: report: Brief Title Addressed to RES:

1 1 Bring in high-caliber people...

2 2 Separate standards development and research...

3 3 Develop a cogent research philosophy...

4 4 Research planning process involving...

5 13 Impanel independent advisory group...

6 15 Create fair and competitive method for ...

7 17 Analyze costs and benefits of consolidating...

8 18 Annual review of program...

9 19 Request expanded grant authority...

10 20 Assist university faculty in working at national...

11 21 Establish competitive grant program...

12 22 Assign staff to oversee university funding...

13 14 Establish peer review groups...

Addressed to EDO: )

l 1 5 Ensure face-to-face discussions... I 2 6 Produce interoffice documents...  !

3 16 Charge contracting office with developing... j Addressed to the Commission:

1 7 Relieve ACRS of formal requirement...

2 8 Options for restructuring NRC...

3 9 Assign staff member to monitor research...

4 10 Require periodic review of major research...

5 11 Defend research program before 0MB...

6 12 Share information with DOE...

7 23 COE should ensure portion R&D supports...

J l