ML20196H140

Disposition of Recommendations of the National Research Council in the Report Revitalizing Nuclear Safety Research

ML20196H140
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/30/1988
From:	NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:
References
NUREG-1325, NUDOCS 8807060093
Download: ML20196H140 (43)

Text

.-

2 .s NUREG-1325 Disposition of Recommendations of the National Research Council in the Report "Revitalizing Nuclear Safety Research' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Offico of Nuclear Regulatory Research f ~ ,,,

s 8 6

!#7188!8 PDR 1325 R

I f, s d'

NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:

1. The NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20555

2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Of fice Box 37082,

)

l Washington, DC 20013 7082 1

j 3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows repr(sents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.

Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence.

The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC sponsored conference proceedings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances.

Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commitsion.

Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, jo"rnal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.

Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non NRC conference procedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited, Single copies of NRC draf t reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Division of Information Support Services, Distribution Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC 20555. ,

Copics of industry co6s and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.

NUREG-1325 Disposition of Recommendations of the National Research Council in the Reaort "Revitalizing Nuclear Safety Research'

$rm:5nts"**

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Weshington, DC 20555

,f"a ,,s e

/

c

ABSTRACT On December 8,1986, the Committee on Nuclear Safety Research of the National Research Council submitted its report, "Revitalizing Nuclear Safety Research,"

to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Commission and its staff'have carefully reviewed the Committee's report and have extensively examined the planning, i.:plementation, and management of NRC research programs in order to respond most effectively to the Committee's recommendations. This report presents.the Commission's view of the Committee's report and describes the actions that are under way in response to its recommendations.

J iii

I CONTENTS

-! ABSTRACT ............................................................ iii INTRODUCTION ........................................................ vil ix

SUMMARY

1 I. MANGEMENT ISSUES ............................................... .

............. 2 II. RECOMMENDATIONS IN CHAPTER 4 0F THE PANEL'S REPORT 2

Recommendations Addressed to RES ...............................

Recommendations Addressed to the Executive Director 21 for Operations (ED0) ...........................................

.................... 22 Recommendations Addressed to the Commission 23 III. PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................

23 Integrity of Reactor Components ................................

26 Prevent Damage to Reactor Cores ................................

Reactor Containment Performance and 29 Public Protection from Radiation ...............................

31 Regulatory Analysis ..... ......................................

32 IV. CONCLUSION .....................................................

APPENDIX: Transmittal Letter to Dr. Frank Press, Chairman,

................................ 35 National Research Council v

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

BACKGROUND In June 1985 the National Research Council convened an ad hoc panel at the request of the Nuclear Reguiatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. This panel, the Committee on Nuclear Safety Research, was convened to answer some fundamental questions regarding the future course of nuclear safety research in the U. 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 Commission 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 recommendations were accepted by the staff and plans were begun to implement the recommendations. One major action approved by the Commission was the formation of an independent advisory committee for the Research office (SECY 87-119). Other plans were completed, and actions were initiated through the strategic planning process and other means.

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

vii

e d' 1 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT

~

Chapter I of this report deals briefly with Commission views on the four important general conclusions of the panel. Chapter II summarizes the initiatives undertaken in accordance with the Commission's directives to implement the recommendations of the panel. The panel's recommendations are taken up in the order given in Table 1, which also shows the relationships to the recommendations enumerated in Chapter 4 of the panel's report. In

, Chapter III, brief comments are made on the programmatic recommendations in Chapter 3 of the panel's report.

O viii

1 s

SUMMARY

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

1. The Commission approved organization of a Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee 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 Commission approved the inclusion in tne 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 been established to coordinate the line Offices in the development and planning of the safety research program and in expediting application of the results.

5. The Commission is committed to maintainirig a high quality, efficient, and effective safety research program necessary to support the regulatory mission and to advocating the budget required for the program before OMB and Congress. The Chairman has appointed a member of his staff to provide full-time liaison with the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, and the Commission will continue to hold regular meetings with the Research Office to discuss selected high priority topics. Through this process, as well as through the Commission's Five-Year and Strategic Planning processes, the Commission 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 safety issues.

6. The safety research program has been restructured along the accepted lines of defense in depth instituted to ensure public health and safety. The technical output of the research and the management problems encountered in 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 thcre. The grants program continues to be fully utilized and well received. A broad agency announcement format is being used to improve contact with universities and promote their involvement in solving safety problems by introducing an effective mode of contracting for services. In addition, procedures for personnel exchange and staff technical training are being developed and used.

ix

8. The Commission continues to strongly support efforts at cooperation and coordination with other agencies, domestic and foreign, to enable efficient

, conduct of work and to promote improved safety.

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

reorganization should be allowed a period for shakedown and performance prior l

to assessing its effectiveness, which should precede any further organizational change.

l l

D X

I. MANAGEMENT ISSUES The National Research Council report, "Revitalizing Nuclear Safety Research,"

sets forth on page 2 three general conclusions about nuclear safety research:

"1. There are general principles for helping to answer the set of

7. -

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 commercial power reactors should cor.tinue to be performed.

"3. Serious management problems affect the research program of the NRC, but 3 gN

.h there are well-known practices of the general research and development community that can be used to help solve some of these problems." yff.y We agree with these conclusions and, except in minor aspects, the specific fk..

recommendations drawn from them.

6 g-m n ..

I The report also points out on page 3 that "The committee recognizes that in j the real world when budgets get cut the first things to go are those that do not have obvious, immediate, guaranteed payoffs. This is what has happened to  !

the federal program of nuclear safety research." The Commission has, in the -

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 continued steady support, coupled with the improvements in program development and conduct discussed in the following sections, will ensure that research results are implemented in more effective regulation of operating nuclear power plants and other licensed facilities and activities.

N N

-1 II. RECOMMENDATIONS IN CHAPTER 4 0F THE PANEL'S REPORT REC 0 m EN0ATIONS ADDRESSED TO RES I

[ Recommenda' tion 1: The NRC should bring in high-caliber researchers to bolster management.

The Office of Personne', acting with the Office of Puclear Regulatory Research, is developing a plan, as described below, to achieve the goals recommended by the National Research Council.

l Action Plan to Improve Staff Capabilities Ob.iective and Introduction 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 Commission Offices can gain increased access to and familiarity with a 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 recommendation concerning Research staffing can be resolved. In addition, the Commission sees value in enhancing the operational knowledge of current research staff to facilitate the transfer of research to regulatory practice.

Initial attempts to provide top-down resolution through the hiring of high-level managers with active research experience from outside NRC have proved unsuccessful. While 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 community of interest between the academic world and the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research stemming from the revitalized grant program and the expanded area of direct contracts with universities.

Each of the measures mentioned above is discussed in tum.

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 persevere.

In particular, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) have a continuing program of hiring from the outside for term appointments. Other Defense research establishments do so as well, but on a reduced basis. Of course, the Nationai Institutes of Health 2

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

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 they can be adapted to NRC.

Visitino Fellowships Visits by distinguished researchers for a term of one or two semesters or a summer 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-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 portiori 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 clearences However, will be an impediment, largely during visits to certain laboratories.

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 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 accomplished under the existing Intergovernmental Personnel Act. An exchange program allows staff with some research experience to renew their skills.

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 1--titution. (Experience indicates that it will be rare for the other institutkn 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.

3 i

l

i 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 exchange 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 proportional to the time spent away from the public sector.

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 1

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 receiving an education 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-term 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 00E. They are also extensively used at the Office of Naval Research, Naval Research Laboratory, and other places.

The funding requirements for a fellowship program will, at a minimum, include tuition and laborato y 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 of March 1988.

Conclusion Four mech.nisms 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 are believed to be of substantial eventual benefit to the NRC and to the Research staff in providing for career path development.

4

L ,

l l

I l

l I

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

The Commission does not agree with the recommendation 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 Commission understands the expressed concerns and plans to 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 to establish the appropriate balance between the activities and to determine the 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 placed: 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. The interfaces on regulatory products between RES and the user office are fewer and less complex than they would be with RES, the user office, and a separate standards office, a factor that could influence productivity, t

5

Recommendation 3: The NRC should develop a cogent philosophy of safety research.

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

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 necessary to make regu-latory judgments on matters related to safety that are well beyond normal 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 when these matters involve high-consequence accidents or disposal of radio-active waste. Thus it is essential to do research and develop knowledge that gives confidence in the judgments and provides the technical basis for writing safety regulations and evaluating licensee performance. Furthermore, unfore-seen safety problems continue to arise from operating experience. The NRC must 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 pertinent areas of technology.

Because of the reliance placed on the research products, the NRC intends that its research program achieve first rank excellence. This means seeking the 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 cnly scientific and engineering credentials, but also broad knowledge of nuclear power plants and safety issues.

The primary benefits of research for the NRC should be in? roved regulation through bet c'- definition and refinement of safety margins, anticipation of operationa? r oblems, and tools to deal with safety issues as they arise.

The knowledge that makes this possible can be expected to have side benefits leading to improved operation and maintenance and, eventually, to 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 information 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 term. The second purpose is to anticipate problems of potential 6

safety significance for whict new or expanded knowledge can assist the NRC in pursuing its mission. To this The end, exploratory research is frequently required expansion of knowledge can help to recognize to provide new knowledge. Research for this unforeseen situations and to prepare for dealing with them.

purpose is generally long term, requiring effort over a period of five to ten years.

To plan a satisfactory research program, we must define the needs for knowledge, the structure those needs impose on the program, the categories and scope of Doing this requires knowledge needed, and the basis for setting priorities. users, researchers, and the technical the involvement of all concerned parties:

community.

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 re]ulations for hardware, by regulations on human factors issued after the ThisTHI-2 accident, context providesanda by the regulations for disposal of radioactive waste. Because all the lines of clear and logical structure for the research program.

defense are important to safety, an appropriate and sharply focused research effort must support each line.

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

relates to the technical basis of a facility or activity proposed by a lic- The ensee. Typically, the licensee presents the basis in the application.

regulator is responsible for reviewing its adequacy for design, construction, and operation. In order to make judgments en questions of safety, the regu-lator frequently turns to the research programThe for confirmation of the margins second category of knowledge of safety in the facility and its operation.

relates to the understanding of unforeseen events that arise in the course of operating experience and the anticipation of events that could occur and have 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 regulators to make decisions based, in part, on risk significance hinges on the I appreciation of uncertainties in the expected performance or accident evalu-ation. It is therefore important to reduce uncertainties in these matters.

Scope: Consideration of risk has important implications for setting scope within these categories of knowledge. Risk assessment requires determination of both the probability of an accident and its consequences. Hence the needs for information are likely to span a broad range of topics on the reliability of components and systems, including the interaction of human factors, from normal to extre.ne conditions of operation during their anticipated life span. With The needs for information about consequences span a similar broad range.

regard to waste disposal, we note that the scope includes the performancs of repositories and systems for very long periods of time.

7 j

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 industry as well as the regulatory 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.

f Priorit_ies: 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 equel. Deterministic 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.

Pr +am Implementation

. plement the planned research we must consider how to do the work, how to

..sure 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 work 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 perform the research; (4) to the extent practicable, there should be a compe-tition of ideas from which 'o select the future path of a new research project; (5) near-term research shcaid be timely considering the need for which it was undertaken; (6) research for tae purpose of identifying or resolving unantic-ipated problems saould be done in order to enable rapid response capability when new situations arise; and (7) peer review of work should be done to establish technic- acceptability, and the reviewed work should be widely disseminated to ir ,rm the public.

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 pt.t to regulatory use? Regulatory use includes licensing judgments, regulations, and policy documents. The use can be in the form of confirmation of decisions already made or input for decisions to be made. Knowledge and information from research is valuable when it helps 21 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 che 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 i

knowledge reauily useful in reellatory functions such as guides, standards, l rules, and assessment of safety margin; and, finally, to provide an orderly 8

transition to other potential users of the research such as industry or D0E.

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

Conclusion To carry out its mission, the NRC requires excellence in safety research. We 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 tne pitaning and conduct of futurc work. Such review helps keep long-range efforts vital.

In this statement of philosophy, we have set forth the key principles that should govern the definition, planning, conduct, use, and closure of nuclear regulatory research projects.

l l

9

i l

1 l

I Recommendation 4: The NRC should establish a researcn program plannirg 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.

In its discussion, the National Research Council points out: "The NRC long-range 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 government as a whole.)"

i The Commission has taken the lead in overseeing the drafting of a five year plan for the agency. As part of + hat 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 stability is maintained, it is'belicved that, wi'h the active involvement of the other concerned Offices, a sound plan can be made and implemented. To i l

this end, measures have been instituted to secure the degree of involvement l recommended by the Council.

l As stated in the Strategic Plan (section 8.3.1), the plan is to develop review 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 formulation of research projects and to enhance the exchange of information between Commission Offices. These Research Project Review Groups provide the best arena for face-to-face discussions between research program managers and

he users of research. Such face-to-face discussions should continue on a regular basis to be most effective. The NRC supports fully the recommendation that representatives of the academic and industrial technical community be involved. Provision is made and utilized for such representatives to attend the meetings of the review groups as individual consultants, adding their expertise to the pool of knowledge.

One of the jobs of the Senior Research Program Steering Groups is to review the extent to which face-to-face discussions have beer, successful in promoting an exchange of views and trans er 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 responsiva to the user needs. The enhanced communication that results from this process will greatly assist the growth of understanding of the technical implications of information that is developed and the potential effects on regulation so as to provide timely basis for mid-course corrections in development and use of the information.

10

In addition, the continuing staff-level discussions ci the resolution of peneric and other special regulatory issues contribute significantly to the definition of user needs for research, Key indivduals have been named to the review groups. Some groups have been meeting regularly for the past several years, but the majority arn being 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 couaterparts in the other Offices for an exchange of information to develop a nutual understanding of key issues, progress toward their resolution, and work that is needed.

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

Finally, meetings held twice yearly with the principal contractors and with' 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 solution of key problems.

l 11 l

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

The National Research Council report states: "The group should be charged with independently reviewing for.the director of research, from the perspective of'the general principles cited in this report, the overall structure and thrust of the research program."

Accordingly, the Commission has created (cf. SECY 87-119, May 11, 1987) an i.1 dependent advisory committee called the "Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee" (NSRRC). The purpose of that Committee is to make assessments of and recommendations concerning:

1. Conformance of the NRC nuclear safety research program to the NRC philosophy of nuclear safety research and to specific Commission 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.

A. Quality of personnel and facilities doing the work. Whether there are other options, including cooperative programs, that would yield higher quality work or otherwise improve program efficiency.

5. Objectivity of the program and adequacy of peer review.

In addition, the l'SRRC will conduct specialized studies when requested by the Commission or the Director of RES.

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

The NSRRC is now functional and held its first meeting February 17 and 18, 1988, in Bethesda, Maryland. A partial list of panel members has been approved by the Commission, with specified expertise to be added by naming additional members in the near future.

12

Recommendations 6 and 7: The NRC should create a fair and competitive process for contracting for research and should analyze the relLtive costs and benefits of consolidating work at national laboratories.

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

1. "The co'aittee is concerned that a valid basis for contracting nearly all of the safety research program through the national laboratories does not exist. 1 committec concluded that a fair competition among the national laboratories, industry, and the university research community might lead NRC to allocate a larger share of its r2 search 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:

"Develop policies and procedures to enhance the NRC's capability to place research contracts at universities and other not-for profit institutions on a timely basis. These policies and procedures will be utilized to create a fair and competitive process for contracting for research, thus allowing a better basis for analyzing alternative ways of conducting the 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 Agency 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 preparation. We expect that universities will respond to these announcements and compete favorably. Program funds have l

l been set aside in each program unit for contracts under the terms 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 proceed 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- l 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 not to discontinue work at the 13

m

,.o national labor. tories but to make sure that the best people are doing the work at the best places. Frequently, this will be at a national 'iaboratory. There is, however, a tendency to continue a project under the same work order even though the content,and direction may have changed significantly over the years. Two actions counter this tendency: (1) Detailed scrutiny has been made of compliance with formal criteria for conduct of such work established by the NRC and DOE and (2) Intensive review of each project in relation to other work has been made during preparation of the revised F' 1988 budget. We expect similar levels of examination to continue.

To ensure more competition of ideas and to draw on the expertise of the national labs as well as the universities, a pilot strategy exists of 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. Comments 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 P '987, thereby producing a backlog for FY 1988. The procedures of this proc .nulate those of the NSF.

Some grants are proposed to enable faculty at Historically 8'a;k Colleges and Universities to participate in NRC programs at national laboratories and, on the basis of such sessions, develop proposais for joint effor w. DOE has found 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 programs. To the extent feasible, the NRC will attempt to facilitate increased 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 anI planning for facilities such as the Heated Detonation Tube at Sandia Natioaal Laboratories. But until nov, there-has been no stated Office policy or practic?

of encouraging such use. As w r involvement with the academic community grows, the staff will be directed to seek out opportunities where joint use nf large facilities will be beneficial, and the laboratories and universities will be encouraged to seek out such opportunities on their own.

l 14

Recommendation 8: The NRC should institute an annual review of the program dith the principal performers of the research.

The National Research Council panel remarked: "The Managers of NRC programs at the various national laboratories seldom meet to discuss the philosophy, content, and direction of the NRC research program. This means the laboratories have little opportunity to assist in tiia design of the program."'

The recommendation is reiterated in the Strategic Plan (cf. 8.3.1). The Office Director has met semiannually with the principals at the major contractors.

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 cuts;

2. What safety research is needed that is not being done;

3. Setting research priorities;

4. Measures to ensure quality.

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 disposal, fuel transportation, fuel facilities, and the uses of byproduct materials.

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 aging.

Additionally, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research assembles meetings of

. interested staff (from all Offices) and researchers to discuss specific programmatic areas such as severe fuel damage, code assessment, or pipt inspection.

l 15 i

I

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

The National Research Council panel made several recommendations directed at increasing the level of work at universities. The key remarks are:

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

The 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 ground for the future nuclear safety research professionals that will be needed to staff industrial laboratories, contract research organizations, and government agencies."

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 performed at universities: grants and contracts. It is necessary to distinguish between them.

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, on the other hand, the primary purpose is to buy or 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 performed at universities.

Members of the Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization (NEDH0) report that grants are generally used to support work performed by students, whcreas contracts support work with a substantial degree of faculty participation. They expressed a substantial preference for grant support over contract support in the current situation where financial support for graduate students is a major concern.

Keeping in mind the considerations discussed above, the following steps have been taken to implement the panel's recommendations; these have been cited earlier:

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

16

l 1

s

2. Beginning in FY 1988, a portion of program support funds has been designated in each program unit to support non-DOE contracts, i.e., contracts 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 use with new research projects: first, develop the plan of work within the NRC; second, circulate that plan for anonymous peer review among the universities, industrial and not-for profit research organizations, and the national laboratories. The comments will be used in revising the plan as indicated.

4. The grants program has been aggressively promoted with a procedure for 1

independent anonymous peer review of proposals in conscious emulation of procedures at the National Science Foundation. The program is limited by law

! to 1% of the total RES budget; it has been oversubscribed in FY 1987, thereby producing a backlog for FY 1988.

l l

l l

l 17

.g.

4 Recommendation 13_: The NRC should establish' independent topical .eer review

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

The National Research Council pnel remarked: "The traditional.means by which the scientific and engineering communities ensure the quality of research is, through peer review." .The NRC fully concurs with this, e

~ ~

Several measures have been taken to respond to. panel recommendations;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 objectives, experimental or analytical ~ procedures, adequacy of products, and 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 informed 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 managements and others to get their vievs'on the quality and technical directions of the-work.

, Special projects often' 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 and Assessment of Uncertainty" proposal.

The following specific steps have been taken:

Peer Review Groups On July 7, 1987 the.RES Office Director requested replies from the Directors of th.e other NRC line offices on the proposed organization of two sets-of research .

review groups: l

1. Senior Research Program Steering Groups to advise the Office of

-Research on the conduct and' broad scope and direction of major research prograes; and

2. _.Research Project Review Groups composed of NRC staff from concerned offices to form a pool of in-house expertise to ensure that the best technical insights are being used in the formulation of research projects, to enhance the exchange of information between offices, and to eliminate duplication of effort between the research and technical assistance programs. These review groups will employ independent technical experts as consultants as needed.

The Of'fice Directors were asked to be prepared to designate staff to participate in these groups when a consensus is achieveo on their structure.

Positive replies were received from the other Offices, and review groups were formed and functioning by the end of ne.tober 1987.

18

Publication Policy 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 and computer code manuals.

l This policy was reinforced with a memorandum to RES st:ff dated May 26, 1987, and a follow-up letter to RES contractors on July-28,1987, stating that I the publicetion policy of RES consists of the following points:

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

2. The form 189 or other contract for work in FY 88 and beyond must contain this directive. (The form 189 is the statement of work and funding and has the effect of a contract.)

3. Whether a body of work warrants submittal for publication will be judged by the researchers and their management; an information copy of each submittal should be sent to the RES project manager at the same time the article is submitted for publication.

4. At the end of each fiscal year (September 30), RES will compile a list of papers published during the preceding 12 months. A publication that has received a peer review with a notice from the editor that the paper will be published as submitted or after indicated revisions will be listed as "in press."

Contractors were asked to get this compilation started by submitting a list of all reports published in peer-reviewed journals in the three year period ending September 30, 1987. (Publication can often take three years in a major journal.) The list of such publications was incorporated in SECY 87-292, dated November 25, 1987.

RES Branch Chiefs have been specifically charged with ensuring that this policy is carried out in their review of contractor performance.

19

_ther 0 Considerations Cooperative Activities The National Research Council report (pg. 13) stated that "where the proximate beneficiary of the research is industry, the presumption is that industry should pay for it." . We concur in this recommendation. The Office of Nuclear Reg"latory Research has adopted this approach for selected projects in the past, such as on -

the FIST facility (with GE), both the MB-2 steam generator test facility and the l FLECHT program (W), and the MIST facility (B&W Owners), and we intend to pursue 1 it in the future. The changing nature of the nuclear industry, however, has 1 imposed several constraints on our ability to conduct cooperative research programs. With the lack of new plant orders and new designs, the reactor vendors I no longer have the same degree of interest in cooperative research on large-scale l programs. Nor do they appear to have the research budgets that they had in the l 1970's. i Incentives for cooperatively sponsored research have shifted to the operating i plant owners, and support must be accomplished with the owners groups, NUMARC, l or EPRI- . Cooperative efforts with EPRI have been successful; we expect this i rel.itionship to continue and we would like to expand cooperative research i efforts with EPRI. Dealing with owners groups is somewhat more complicated and l presents some constraints. First, they are composed of members with a variety l of points of view on the benefits of proposed research and must themselves achieve a consensus tiew on any proposed research before they can vote to fund the research. Secondly, unless the needed research is "required" by the NRC, l Public Service Commissions may not allow the costs to be passed on to the l ratepayers. The NRC, in turn, would have to perform detailed cost-benefit analyses to justify "requiring" the industry to fund the research. We know from experience that it is difficult to quantify the value of research in i dollar terms that are not open to question by parties with different views. '

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.

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 the thermal / hydraulic performance of the once-through steam generator design used in all B&W design 3d plants.

We Mve had an effective and cooperative relationship with Industry's Degraded Core Research Program (IOCOR) for a period of years to review the technical focus and progress of the severe accident program. The aain outcome of this relationship is the Independent Plant Examination (IPE) program, one of the elements that have been developed .o implement the Commission's Severe Accident Policy. The purpose of the IPE is to provide a scheme for each licensee to follow in reviewing his plant to uncover any specific vulnerabilities of plant systems with respect to beyond-design-basis accidents.

20

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 performance of work and exchange of results enable the cooperating parties to complete their work faster. We strongly believe this cooperation enhances' nuclear power reactor safety around the world, 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 2D/3D 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 summarize 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.

RECOMMENDATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (ED0)

Three recommendations are explicitly directed at the EDO:

1. The EDO 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 ED0 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 summarize what is known and what research is still needed.

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

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

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

21

I l

l REC 0lHENDATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSION i l

Recommendation 1: Congress should relieve ACRS of the formal requirement to review the safety research program. l The Commission .has recently asked Congress to formally relieve the ACRS of the I responsibility of providing an annual report to Congress on the NRC's research l 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.

1 The Commission is mindful of the concerns expressed in this reco.nmendation 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. j Recommendation 4: The Chairman should require periodic reviews of the status of major research projects.

Such' reviews are now being regularly carried out.

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

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

Recommendat;on 6: DOE and NRC should collaborate and share information, including that from classified programs. )

Valuable collaboration on unclassified programs will continue. Of particular j significance was the collaboration on the decommissioning of the Shippingport l 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 reactors.

Informal interagency coordination among 00E, NSF, and NRC has been set up, but the amount of support available is significantly affected by general reductions in the FY 1988 budgets.

22

III. PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS In Chapter 3 of its report, the National Research Council made a nun.ber 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 ars addressed below; the comments are organized according to the research budget categories.

Irtegrity 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 Committee's position that basic, exploratory, long-term re3earch 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 n:cessary to emphasize immediate needs at the expense of longer term research.

Nevertheless, RES has a commitment 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 Section 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.

Occommissioning l The NRC agrees with the Committee that decommissioning will be important l

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 that will arise in the future. We believe, however, that the amount of research NRC is currently sponsoring on decommissioning is sufficient to support the present regulatory activity. Present research includes acquiring and analyzing data on techniques, wastes, radiation exposures, and costs from the decommissioning of the Shippingport and Humboldt Bay plants and from the cleanup of THI-2. This i research will help define areas of concern that need further research to ensure l that NRC will have a technical base to support future regulatory actions.

23

-Quality Assurance / Quality Control 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 recommend research in the QA/QC areas. The recommendations of the Committee 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 recommends 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 Committee's position on the 7eed 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 pro 0 ram 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 impruved 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 Committee may have misunderstood the relationship between the USGS and NRC programs in seismology. The two programs nave, in fact, been highly coordinated.

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 ovar to the USGS. RES is expanding its interaction cnd 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 geophysicists and engineers to develop methods, procedures, anc' 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.

24

Plant Aging (Licens_e Extension)

The NRC agrees with the Committee's conclusion that NRC needs research to enable it to detarmine 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 formally in place since 1982, and, consistent with the Committee's recommendation, involves research into the aging phenomena of all types of materials, components, and systems found in licensed commercial 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 aging-related safety issues in a timely manner. The Committee is correct in observing that the results are not yet being used to resolve license extension 1 issues. However, as the research program progresses over the next several years, the results will serve as the basis for the Commission's regulations dealing with license renewal'or extension. The NRC's funding for this program 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 anticipated that industry, including EPRI, and DOE will address and accelerate their share of research.

The NRC agrees with the Committee's comment on cooperative research programs.

The integration of the NPAR program within NRC and between NRC and other domestic and international organizations was the primary objective of the NRC's Technical Integration Review Group on Aging and Plant Life Extension (TIRGALEX),

which was formed in 1986. An Aging and Life Extension Coordinating Committee (ALEXCC) has been established to implement the actions recommended by TIRGALEX.

RES has, for example, recently met with DOE (and the EPRI Equipment I

Qualification Advisory Group) to exchange information on resident aging I

programs.

?5

l l

l Prevent Damage to Reactor Cores 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 pressures within appropriate bounds. The scope includes consideration of operator actions (human factors) and of both normal and abnormal transients.

Thermal Hydraulics The NRC agrees with the Committee'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 continue to be alert to opportunities for improving these codes when found to be necessary to resolve specific issues. The speed of thermal hydraulic computer codes is being enhanced by the use of the fastest machines available, improved numerical techniques, and parallel processing. In addition, the development of the nuclear plant analyzer and nuclear plant data bank will make the codes much easier to use and reduce analysis time significantly.

The Committee's comments 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 former do in-deed contain conservative assumptions and models. The models and correlations used in RES-developed codes are best estimate and provide the 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 Committee's assessment that the NRC should have participation in international thermal-hydraulic programs whenever it is advantageous and practical for the NRC to do so. The NRC is and has been participating in the 20/3D Program, which involves a trilateral agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, and the U.S. to study reflood and refill phent.nena in large-scale thermal-hydraulic facilities. The U.S. is also collaborating with Japan on the ROSA-IV project, which is soon to begin  !

testing. In addition, the NRC has entered into thirteen bilateral . l international agreements (with three additional agreements penriing) for participation in the International Code Assessment Program. The objective of this program is to assess NRC thermal-hydraulic computer codes by exercising them against tests in a broad range of experimental facilities throughout the 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.

26

Accident Management With respect to the Committee's recommendation that more research on accident prevention is needed, a plan is being developed for research on accident management that will prevent transients and small incidents from becoming severe accidents. This program will apply the knowledge of accident phenomenology gathered over the past eight years to developing strategies aimed,.first, at retaining reactor cores in the vess'el in the event of a core-damaging accident and, failing that, to reduce the risk 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 i 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 Germany, France, 1 Sweden, and Japan. A research agreement on accident management with the FRG l has been drawn up, and one exists with the Commission 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 performed by industry and DOE satisfy current regulatory requirements and that no active part b pation by NRC Research is required. Since these fuels contain significantly more transuranics at end of life than does current fuel, this positior mal lave to be reexamined if such isotopes are found to be important in nsessing risk from nuclear power plants.

l For cores of type 2, the situation is differE - In Europe the plans are to use very dry lattices on a hexagonal mesh, tog 5 er with very high burnup and plutonium recycle. Any move to use such designs in the U.S. would have major 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 the situation require; careful observation.

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 National Research Council completed a study of human factors / human reliability research needs in nuclear power operations.

27

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 DOE.

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 Unresol ad Safety Issues A-47, A-49, and A-17 on the safety implications or control and safety system interactions, will be reassessed and properly integrated with the research efforts on human factors and thermal hydraulics, taking into account rapidly 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 fe.ilure 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 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 anaiysis that address engineering aspects of the components as well as historical experience (NUREG/CR-4780). Follow-on research in this area is addressing the identification and development of defensive strategies to prevent common-cause failures. Operation Safety Reliability Research is )

evaluating the effectiveness of reliability engineering methods to help prevent i problems from occurring at plants. This work has included tasks undertaken l with industry participation. j In addition, work on seismic effects includes assessment of component fragility, and related work is performed on environmental qualification of equipment.

28

Reactor Containment Performance 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 recognizes 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 Committee notes that significant advances have been made on under-standing ile complex physical and chemical phenomena of severe accidents but that unce tainties remain. A detailed review of the principal areas of uncertainty and identification of research programs that would fill in gaps in the undert tanding of important phenomena were undertaken by an expert peer review group. Their report was presented to the Commission in April 1987.

Substantia 1 funding would be necessary to carry out most of the review group suggestior.i.

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 halt core degradation and prevent vessel meltthrough and (2) resolving containment performance issues. NRC believes that the resulting program adjustments are in accord with the Committee's recommendations.

Finally, the Committee recommended cooperation between the NRC and the industry 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 formulation to ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication of effort.

Safety Analysis Methodology and Application NRC agrees with the Committee's comments and recommendations on the further development and use of probabilistic risk analysis (PRA). Recognizing that axisting 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 continuing 29

efforts to improve its review procedures and criteria for evaluation of industry PRAs and PRA tindings 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 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-tion of the Reactor Risk Reference Document, NUREG-1150. On completion, it i, ,

expected that this work will reflect advances in methods for identifying important reactor accident sequences, plant-specific assets and liabilities 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.

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 resolutions of a number of important technical issues. Current and future agenda setting for these comparisons focuses on evolving analytical tools (computer codes) expected to be used independently by each. This activity relates primarily to the industry's MAAP code in comparison to the NRC's MELCOR code.

i 30

Regulatory Analysis Policy Research The Committee commented briefly on the absence of research on two policy issues: (1) the use of scientific and enginetring knowledge in nuclear regulation and (2) the definition of the sort of knowledge that is most useful for decision makers. The Commission 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 Committee deserve careful consideration.

Reevaluating Existing Regulations The Committee pointed out that the body of codes, standards, criteria, and regulatory guides and rules used in regulating the nuclear fuel cycle have accumulated over twenty five years, 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 knowledge has become available, there has been no systematic research program 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 effort 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 Plan.

31

IV. CONCLUSION The initiatives presented here are responsive to the recommendations of the National Research Council and Commission directions. The Strategic and Five Year Plans embody these initiatives within their structure. Given the Commission's strong endorsement of the Committee's findings and the Strategic and Five Year Plans, no major ot,stacles to successful implementation are fareseen.

32

l l

Table 1 Correspondence Between Recommendation Numbers in This Report and Those in Chapter 4 of the National Research Council's Report, "Revitalizing Nuclear Safety Research" Chapter 4 of the 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 res2 arch 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...

3 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:

1 5 Ensure face-to-face discussions...

2 6 Produce interoffice documents...

3 16 Charge contracting office with developing...

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 OMB...

6 12 Share information with D0E...

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

33

APPENDIX Transmittal Letter to Dr. Frank Press, Chairman, National Research Council UNITED STATES

[pa sseg*'o\

!",,f NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON. D. C. 205S5

{ t

% a

%, s ,# April 6, 1988 CH AIRM AN Dr. Frank Press, Chairman National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20418

Dear Dr. Press:

On December 8, 1986, the Committee on Nuclear Safety Research of the Natienal Research Council submitted its report.

"Revitalizing Nuclear Safety Research," to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Since then, the Commission and its staff have carefully reviewed the Committee's report; extensively examined the planning, implementation, and manage-ment of NRC research programs; and considered how to respond most effectively to the Committee's recommendations. The paper enclosed with this letter, "Disposition of Recommendations of the National Research Council in the Report, 'Revitalizaino Nuclear Safety Research,'" presents the Commission's view of the report and describes the actions that are under way in response to recommendations of the report.

The Commission appreciates the National Research Council's review of our nuclear safety research program. The report is an excellent one and has been very helpful in the redirection

• of our program, p Sincerely,

)

& Lv.

Lando W. Zech Jr.

I -

t

Enclosure:

As stated a

35

~ _~ - - _ _ _ _ __

7,. ._

7 " *,"3 d','- BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-1325 SE E e~SYaWCTeO~5 t .tvi*St 3 LE Avt .L A's.

2 T af tt AND SveflTLt Dispo ion of Recommendations of the National Researc Council in the Report "Revitalizing Nuclear Safety earch" '"'"""'#"'.

uo~YM p vta

. .uv o. . ,

April f 6 OATptPO.T issut0 1988 Wo~TM 7 vta.

Jung 1988 i . ..oacia , ..v.,i~vo. .

,,..o..,~oo.o. .,.,,o~~ . .~ . ti~o .oo.i ns ,, i. c ,

l Office of Nuclear ulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulat y Commission ,,,,,,,[,2,,,,,,,,

/

Washington, DC 20555

, l' o,.

o.1 io 3,o~so. ,~o o. o.~ ,1 1,os .. .~o .,t,~o .ess,,. i.c ,

j.. v.,

Technical Office of Nuclear Regulat y Research g)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co issicn 4 . ,s.,oocove. ion ,

Washington, DC 20555

,,. .. ...~,...~o,,, ,

, , , c . .e, am . .....

On December 8, 1986, the Committe on N ear Safety Research of the National Research Council submitte it report, "Revitalizing Nuclear Safety Research," to the U. S. Nuclear Reg ' Atory Commission (NRC). The Comission and its staff have carefully review the Coinmittee's report and have ementation, and management of NRC extensively examined the planning, research programs in order to res ' st effectively to the Committee's recommendations. This report p ents e Comission's view of the Committee's report and describa the act ns that are under way in response to its recomn'endat 5.

/

16 Avaiwa8 Lar y t o DOCv t ~t a~ a tvs.s . . atin as Otsc...To.s Nuclear Safe Research Reactor Safety Res rch ""i m Research Pr . ram Safety Research Pro' ram Unlimited

'4 SEC(.ity cLatsisicatio, if ae sspei

. ,e m .. .m o,.. 3 ,..."$ Unclassified i f h4 W)

Unciassified 17Nv.St.Qf ,Aal$

% ...4.

. u. s.ccom =i m=t m orr ict i me.m.misme

UNITED STATES s,,0,, , o, r . 3 3 ,,1,

, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Posr^o&6jiid '* o ,

c WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 etawi N3 o s7 OFFICIAL BUSINESS

\ PENALTY FOR PP'VATE USE, $300

) 4:R::s - RN!_.

,,1 iunn1n1 ,,

y:1 L ( w

'J L <

' ,;, lu T

< '; ? ,

Ha-ppp .j p , ,

W '. b h [ g r; y c .;

IC >cSe.

m a

=

33 m

A C

ti z

O Z

C O

Ch n

E M et 3

m (S

E u

O

'i i u

r E

c B

_ _