ML20197A637

Summary of ACRS Subcommittee on Reactor Safety Research 780531 Meeting Re ACRS Efforts to Review NRC Research Programs & Prepare Rept to Congress.Supporting Documentation Encl

ML20197A637
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/30/1978
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-1543, NUDOCS 7810200084
Download: ML20197A637 (66)

Text

. _ - - _ . _ - .

%q pq ~ '

F." 2 %'

i j'J j }l j -

g L DATE ISSUED: 6/30/78  ;

4

t. 3

} aQ g,/30/15' ~ ~ ('d R 't/v/7 ?

MINUTES OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFETY RESEARCil MEETlllG OF MAY 31, 1978  !

WASillflGTON, DC l

[

l

\

The ACRS Subcommittee on Reactor Safety Research met to discuss the ACRS efforts for reviewing the NRC research programs and for pre-paring the report to Congress. The notice of the meeting appeared in the Federal Register of May 16, 1978. A copy is included as l Attachment A. The Committee received no request to make an oral statement nor did it receive a written statement. A list of attendees is included in Attachment B. The Subcomnittee did not prepare any documents during the meeting.

OPD1 SESSION (2:00 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.)_ l Dr. Siess, the Acting Subcommittee Chairman, called the meeting to order, explained the purpose of the meeting, discussed the rules and procedures for conducting the meeting and identified the principal participants.

Dr. ticCreless, the Designated Federal Employee for the meeting, outlined the information provided to the attendees for background information. A copy of the infornation provided is included as Attachment C.

Dr. Siess explained the proposal to reorganize the ACRS generic subcontnittee structure and the effect of the reorganization on the preparation of the report to Congress. In lieu of various chapters of the report being prepared by Working Groups, generic subcommittees will prepare appropriate chapters. Dr. Siess identified the generic 70/o2_udy

RSR Meeting 5/ 31/78 subcommittee, its chairman and the chapter of the report to be covered. These are in tabular form below:

Subcommi ttee_ Chairmart Chapter ECCS 11. Isbin ECCS Systems and Analysis Development Reactor Fuel P. Sheunon Reactor Fuel Metal Components P. Shewmon ,

Primary Systems Integrity Extreme External D. Okrent/ Earthquakes, Tornados, Floods l Phenomena C. Siess acting and Hurricanes l in his absence l Advanced Reactors M. Carbon Advanced Reactors i

Radiological Effects D. Moeller Site Evaluation (other {

and Site Evaluation than extreme environm ntal l cffects)

Safeguards and C. Mark Safeguards and Security l

Security l

Reliability and W. Kerr Reliability and Probabilistic l

Probabilistic Assessment Assessment Dr. Siess discussed the Chapter outline for this year's report. He identified several topics such as human engineering, decommissicning, decontamination, loose parts monitoring and fire protection that I do not obviously fit in particular chapters but that should be included in this year's report. Dr. Murley suggested that RES l has a budget item called operational safety that includes such f research as fire protection, qualification testing of electrical l equipment and human engineering. lie said that a chapter in the l ACRS report called operational safety could logically contain l many of the topics identified by Dr. Siess. j t

RSR Meeting '

5/ 31/78 Responding to a question from Dr. Siess, Mr. Levine explained that the RES program on improved safety will be divided and assigned within the existing organization. Containment concepts will be assigned to the Risk Assessment Group, improved seismic design assigned to General Reactor Safety Research Group, improved ECCS )

assigned to ECCS,and improved residual heat removal to Risk Assess-ment.

Dr. Siess suggested that additional consideration be given to chapters of this year's report and to the assignment of the topics to be covered.

Dr. Siess asked if FY-80 budget information would be available to the ACRS for consideration in this year's report. Mr. Levine said no, the budget does not go to Congress until January. He promised to give the Committee a lot of detail of the RES FY-79 budget and some idea of which ways things might go depending on what is approved. Dr. Siess noted that this was the same situation as last year and that he had not heard of any serious complaints on the report.

Dr. Siess said that this year's report would include an executive summary and that each chapter should be prepared with a paragraph or paragraphs that can be included in the summary.

He discussed the scope of the 78 report. He reminded those present that the Comnittee had indicated that this year's report would include priorities among areas. Dr. Siess said that he believed that some of the work of the Technical Assistance program was infact short-tenn research and that he believed that all research e

CED

I a i RSR Neeting

• 5/ 31/78 i

l should have some coherence. Dr. Siess asked how research programs i were initiated. Mr. Levine explained that research programs were the result of " user" requests and that RES did not and could not initiate any research on its own. RES might however take its perceptions to user organizations and ask them to endorse the research. Responding to a question, Mr. Levine explained that this restriction on who may initiate research was a recent development.

(This is to be discussed in the briefing described on page 6).

Mr. Levine briefed the Subconmittee on the NRC Staff's resport to the Coamission on NUREG-0392 (SCCY-78-270), . A copy is included in Attachment C. He said that the Staff believed that the ACRS l 1

report would be more helpful than occasional letters from the Committee. Mr. Levine said that RES agrees with the vast majority of the comments. RES has endorsed the comment that RES do research on improved safety research. Mr. Levine noted the fine conments on the quality of the Research organization, its work and the need for additional people. As areas of disagreement, he said that RES does not feel that there is a justifiable basis for an expansion in research t concerning fast reactors until some initiatives are taken by the Admini- l stration. He said that, in view of DOE's extensive research program on search and recovery of special nuclear material, the NRC Staff sees no need fer NRC research in this area. RES sees no need for research in the area of deconmissioning.

Dr. Siess mentioned the problems that the ACRS had last year in trying to obtain copies of the RES 5-Year Plan. Mr. Levine explained that while an R&D panel Report (i.e. the 5-Year Plan) was issued in 1976, l the draft version prepared in 1977 never did receive management review and was never issued as a final document. The 1978 draft copy is now undergoing management review and Mr. Levine promised to provide copies to the ACRS when they are available in July. The report will cover only the RSR programs ( 85% of RES research money). Additional l a,  ;

, , 1

. . l RSR Meeting 5/31/78 information that should be useful to the Committee is contained in the Buff Book. '(Programs on SAFER, siting, and risk assessment are not currently included but Mr. Scroggins says that additional volumes of the Buff Book are in preparation and will cover at least some of these programs.)

4 Mr. Levine identified several areas where policy considerations are pending. He said advice from the ACRS in these areas would be helpful.

They i.nclude the rate at which risk assessment might be used,' how l risk assessment might be used, and trie kinds of training that people l need to use risk assessment. In responding to a question from Dr. Siess, Mr. Levine indicated that the Probability Assessment Branch has been re-designated as a division under the direction of Tony Buhl; lan Wall has left the llRC. The major tasks of the division include doing actual research, contracting research out, doing work for other organizations,and some training of flRC personnel. Dr. Siess suggested that the ACRS Risk Assessment Subcommittee examine the organization of the division to do its job and to assemble ACRS feedback on the use of risk assessment in general.

Mr. Levine provided the Subcommittee with a copy of the speech that he gave in Phoenix. (Copies have been provided to the ACRS; a copy is attached to the record copy of the minutes.)

The difficulty in establishing priorities was discussed. Mr. Levine noted that in the zero base budget method now being used, all work is assi.gned a priority annually. Each level of each category, each decision package, and each decision unit has a number assigned.  :

Dr. Siess asked Mr. Levine if he envisioned any work being done by DOE that parallels, compicments, supports or is an alternative to NRC research programs. Mr. Levine said that he was aware of such

RSR Meeting 5/ 31/78 He cited as examples improved activity in the area of improved safety.

reliability of shutdown systems and decay heat removal systems.

Mr. Levine explained that RES was actively tracking reactor safety research world-wide. RES is closely following the activities of the Committee on the Safety of fluclear Installations (CSf11). There are significant programs in Germany, Japan and France. Mr. Bender suggested that RES provide an assessment of how the international work contributes to the overall RES research. Mr. Levine agreed to provide such a report.

The organization of Research Review Groups was discussed. The members ]

of each group are NRC employees with the Chairman coming from RES.

In addition persons from outside NRC participate in activities of the review groups as consultants. There is a review group for each area of research. Each group serves as a peer discussion group.

Responses received to the memorandum dated February 1,1978, concerning a review of tiUREG-0392 and identification of promises made fer the j 9

1978 report were discussed. Dr. Siess suggested that the responses might be reviewed in light of the current meeting to see if anything l

has changed.

Dr. Siess said that he envisions a change in the format for chapters l for the 1978 report to Congress, and maybe in the report format. He said that Dr. McCreless and he would provide a schedule of activities which concern the preparation of the report.

Mr. Levine's letter to Mr. Fraley dated May 30, 1978 was discussed.

(IncludedinAttachmentC). Dr. Siess said that as many piembers of ACRS as possible should hear the NRC Staff's comments and actions

RSR Meeting 5/ 31/78

)

I resulting from last year's ACRS report to Congress. Dr. McCreless j suggested that this might be done at the July meeting of the ACRS. l It was agreed that such a report would be planned for the July meeting. l l

Dr. Siess mentioned that Mr. Levine had suggested in his letter that it might be desirable for this year's report to concentrate on specific topics and on the direction that the programs are going.

Dr. Mark cautioned that a report that omitted at least some mention i of a research program might lead to a conclusion by some readers I that if it was not mentioned in the ACRS report then the ACRS did not think it was working doing. Mr. Bender suggested a meeting with Mr. Henry Myers of the Congressional Staff to determine what is wanted and how it is to be used. Dr. Siess summarized Comnittee actio'n : quick overview of RES program to see how much of it is I the same and can be reported in this years report as going along as previously reported; and how much of it should be examined in detail I

and fully discussed in this year's report. Mr. Levine indicated that he would derive a list of changes of programs and include them in his overview report to the ACRS. He will provide written information on changes in program directions, completions, deletions and additions.

Dr. Siess said that he thought the Chapter organization of the 1978 l

report should be generally as it is. The format within the chapters l

might include an identification of programs which are an extension l of 1977 programs and an identification'of new projects with full description. He promised to provide Subcommittee members with a i suggested outline for chapter preparation. Dr. Siess said that later he will ask Chainnen of Subcommittees that are writing chapters to provide a subject outline of chapters.

r~- l 6 m I

RSR Meeting 5/31/78  ;

The Subcommittee discussed the third suggestion in Mr. Levine's letter.

The suggestion calls for briefing of the ACRS near the end of the  !

year in which changes since the Committee reviewed the projects will be discussed.

The meeting of the Subcommittee was adjourned. (Advanced Reactors i Subconmittee meeting followed to discuss information needed for  !

writing chapter of research report on advanced reactors.)

i i

i l

c o

l NOTE: A complete transcript of the meeting is available at the f1RC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, ft.W. , Washington, D.C. ,

or can be obtained from Ace-Federal Reporters, Incorporated, 444 florth Capital Street, N.W. , Wasliington, D.C. 20001.

P me **

l .A n

N OllCES 1

17590-01}

t;UCLEAit P. Cui A103:Y COMMI55lOtJ ADVISOl'Y COMullfi t t,?s Rrt#TOtt SME.

0045105 5U*.COMulil[E ON RIACIOR SAIOY Rf5(ANCtf floHco of Meeting The ACitS Mul enreinittee on Itcar.-

tor h..iety 1(evart h will 1,ohl ali oben ineellnr: on May 31 1978 in rourn 101G. l'il'l 11 Street IJ W., W,uhini; ton.

D.C. 2tEs5 In at r_ordant e v;f f h t he procedores outlin(d in the l'imnur. l!'.rnfr;ra en Octoher 31 Hri/. par:e M972 oral or w!stleri Mate! cent , ina v he? pre.."n'ed by inelnbtrs of the pubhc. ri corrton: .

Will be pertuitted only durnir: tho.e por tions of t he

'n<" tirn: w hen r. ti s.n.

F.cript n beinn hept, nod que etion~. inny be u ted ordy by inernbm of the out:.

tonnt ittee, its cent ultants, not! M."If. I PorM tis destri:n 10 Innte ot al Llate-rnenta .shouhl liotsfy the Denf'*nate d l'eth 'al Ernplove. t . f ar in advance . .

Drarticable 3 0 t he(, t nropria!e arrr.n; <

int nt.; enn be truh to nilow the ni ti -

r:ity time dulir:;' the Inectnin for :,nch f.! O t inen ts.

The e"enda fer tuhject rnceling shall be as follows Wednt;, day MC/ M.1970-2 p.rn, entil the conclu.wn of bu int:,,

4 The 2.ubcornmil t re will inet t in ex. l ceutive f.e.ssion to dr.ctm s erlei. e t. I forts for the / CJ :.'.; 1978 r epor t- to  !

Cult:r e.w on ImC reactor safety J c- i sensch. i Furt her Info:Inaf fon recardhu:

1 t opic.1 to be de;co:.:;ed, whet her t he raertion lias been cancded or re: ene-duleti, the Chahin:'in, t ulitu: on t e-que.:Js for t he o; ,u.rt unity to pr e +nt oral 1,thirinents cNd the tiene allotted therefor can im ob:ainn.1 by a pt opaid telephone er 11 to t he Ue.;;;;tiated l'ed. l cral 1;inployee f or this niet ting. Dr.

Thomas G. Mc Cref c.a. tele;dione 2J2-G34-1371. between 8:15 a.in, and 5 p.in.,

c.d.t.

Dated: May 11,19'la.

Jont< C. Ifon.r:.

A ttt>h as y Com tn e t tre 1letnu,winent UHttt>r, (Fit Doc. 70133M hicd 515 71:;itu tun) tit?tR/it l TCtSIIR, VOL. 43, tJO. 95-TUISDAY, MAY I6,1976 ATTACHMENT A

ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFETY RESEARCH MEETING MAY 31, 1978 WASHINGTON, DC l

ATTENDEES LIST ACRS HRC C. P. Siess, Acting Chairman C. Kelber, RSR D. W. Moeller, Member R. M. Scroggins , RES W. Kerr, Member D. E. Solberg, SAFER M. Bender, Member J. Austin, OPE t M. W. Carbon, Member S. Levine, RES J. C. Mark, Member T. Murely, RSR R. Savio, Staff R. Wright, Staff ERASCO SERVICES, INC S.. Duraiswamy, Staff A. Bates, Staff S. Dansky P. Dochnert, Staff ,

T. G. McCreless , Staff

• GE,

• Designated federal Employee N. C. Shirley RAMCO INC- PUBLIC B. A. Maguire C. G. Rubler ATTACHMENT B I

l l

f"  %,, ,

um ii o n Airs .

4 ,p ., - 4,4,, Nuct.n An HEGul.ATOHY COMMISSION .

t. .

. m. ,. ) ' C; WA5t HNG TOl o. c. ?a355 v - n.

'~ -

A :f'g, Nay 3% 197"

% +...? .

I'.m0RANDUM FOR: R. F. Fraley, Executive Director Advisory Conmittee on Reactor Safeguards FROM: Saul Levine, Director Office of Huclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

ACRS 1978 REVIEW OF NRC SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM He have noted that the ACRS Safety Research Subcommittee will be meeting in Executive Session on May 31, 1978, to discuss plans for the review eiforts neces'ary for the ACRS 1970 Report to Congress on NRC's Saf ety Researcir Program. We would like to offer some con.:.ents and suggestions f or consideration by the Subcommittee in planning the 1978 review in t.h i S irrea.

1. An initial meeting (possibly late June or early July) with the full Research Subcoir.nittee to review NRC comments and actions resulting from the 1977 ACHS Report to Congress (NUREG-0392) and to present  !

to the Subcom:ittee an overview of the current status of the research programs. In this regard, attached for your inforraation, is a copy of an Information Paper recently submitt.ed.

2. We suggest that a suitable, and perhaps, more ef ficient , approach to t he preparation of this year's ACHS report. would he for the various working groups to hold appropriate meetings on specific topics of interest in contrast to conducting complete detailed reviews of each working group area in view of the extensive effort that was performd by the ACRS in preparation of the 1977 Report to Congress. Ior example, these topics could consist of major new

. program initiatives; prograus that have undergone significant change since 197/ and research topics for which the ACRS had noted significant interest in the I 1977 rep 3rt. Some examples of specific topics that racel these criteria iIfe: 3-D Flow Distribution Program (URC, Germany and Japan), Loft, BWR-ECCS Research, Advanced Code Development, In-Pile fuel Cchavior Studies, Seismic Margin Investigations, Waste Manage-inent, e tc. l l

i .

I i

ScAsm6 CA i

I R. F. Fraley May 3'), 1T/3

3. Prior to final preparation of the 1978 Report to Congress, we'would suggest an additional overview presented to the Subcottraittee updating the status and current plans for the !!RC's Safety Research Programs.

lle hope that'you find the above suggestions useful and we would be most happy to discuss these with you if you so desire.

?

cw vS S 11 Levine, Director Office of f!uclear Regulatory Research

Enclosure:

Information Report, SECY-7&-270 cc l'W. i .;;

Sib..u.i w

[CISr!

CSni t'i Rili w.iu e

1 l l

..~.....................

i ? ~n C. H J2 / F(f )

i

(

u w", . " n*

v. ?.

>>c-:

3 nuct.E.: a necuuc ,p v cct".ussion SECY-7S-270

-~-- -

li41 ORi/. S1 ATIO N R EPO RT W, 3DwD ,'>x N. . s g PC,m g .

g"' <q 97E,$s

.r .o.-r:

ine Coninissioners -9 i

, ~!. . ds\

H F-cm: Saul Levine, Directar H

- - ~

Office of Nucicar Regulatcry Research h D.

Qrf:

fi,\ .$'

Lee V. G:3 sick

Exccutive Dire::cr pg

/ y. r wh/ dh '

for Operations j 50)fect: ACRS REPORT TO CCNSRESS, " REVIEW AN: EVALUATION OF l

THE NUCLEAR REG'JLC'Ai C2C'!SSION SAFETY RESEARCH PR03?#1," (NUREG C392)

P ., c o t s_e,:

To inform the Cor.r.ission-of the irnpact of conclusions and recor.end3 tions con.tair.ed in the subjec t report

.on NRC rese, arch.and technical essistance programs.

Back:round: NRC's FY 1978 A.,thorizatior Bill rNuired that the c

ACRS conduct an annual revcw of the NRC's safety research program and to re' Drt the resul ts of the study to Congress by Cecember 31 of each year. In 1977 the ACRS set up six Xcrking Groups which performed a co. Torch 2nsive review of the RES program, and also the NRC Te:hnical Assistance Contracts.

During the sevcr. .cr.th pericd frem June through December, the six W:. eking Groups held a total of 26 days of meetings with me.:cers of the RES staff, members of the s tafis from other NRC offices, NRC contractors , an.d represent.atives of DOE, the nuclear industry and industry associations such as EPRI.

As a result of these discussions and review of information sube.itted to the ACRS by the staff, the Comittee prep.ved the sob;"ct r? port to Congress (NURRG C?92) which c u-ented on ti.e current kiS shfety research prb ram and NR: technical assistance Contracts.

t.

<. + ;g i," , O.S

~,T y-- -

. . . . . . . . . m .t.. -. . ,. m .. . . . . .

The Coarissioners .

Discussion:

Over the years , the staff has profited greatly from ACRS advits which has been contained in letters to the Coo.,ission rega ding sa?c y research. The new Congressional cequiret.ent for en annuai ACRS rescrt will supplement the letters the ACRS has written in, the past, and '..e believe that these reports will provide us with even more useful guidance for our future programs.

We hava l revie, ed the ACRI repart as wall as the su::ca ry of th&ir recom.: 9ndations to Congress of January ?_7,1978. In addition to the specific cyments and r?gr .anda tions rela ted to elements of the RES progran, the ACRS made sqme ganacal observa tions waic.'1 shoulc be esp?ciaTly noted:

1) The ACRS report conta, ins many specific cuaents and recorr.'.2ndations that it feels should be impicr. anted in the RES program. RES acrees that the vast mijurity of the ccF. 2nts will strengthen and enhance the utility of our present safety research pragram. Many of the co:/.ents are covered in our ongoing ind alrendy planned program.

Most of the others will be acco:wodated by adjustments in the current FY 1975 and FY 1979 budgets.

2)' In general, the ACRS supports the scope and priorities of the NRC confir;r.atory safety renarch program. It also judges the overall manageir.ent of RES to be cuite ef fective, the ceapetence and dedication of the professional staff to be  !

impre'.sive, and the selection of research invenigators and contractors to be effectivo.

3) The ACRS also "recowaends strongly that the NRC becmae more involved in research that has the -

potential of 1. :; ding to the develorment of improved sa fety syste.~. concepts. It is both

$ g g q$ g '

' , l [ g l *f, b 2*  ;(;  ; ' ' 5 0 *I I

• ly q

.e } .

_3. n i

. n_ _, .. --., . . .... .

i (t

The Co.anissioners - 3-desirable and appropriate for the NRC to conduct research on new safety conceots, but their develop. rent end imo'ementation should be carried out by the nuc:eir industry or the '

Depart..un t of E.urgy (DOE) . " Some of the key recom:3ndatiors in the ACES report are on research topics related to improvements of .

_ , , reactor sa fe:y. These topics, and others, are being considered as part of NRC's plan for research on is.med retct: safety which was subsitted to tos Congress on April 13,197S, cs required by te.a NRC's FY '.973 Authorization Act. The C;n ission is c'.,rrently considering the level of resources req; ired and schedule for inp'i caen ting the plan.

4) The ACRS report also contains some counents on organization, mar.ap nnt and sta ffing affecting the research program that DES is new examining. Mcre pa rticularly, the ACRS expressed concern that the demands placed on the RES staff to plan an effective r search program, to ac.inister and manage :.ntractual researgh ef forts and to concuct the extensive coordination and interaction with user offices and other reseirchers wou'd soon tax the RES staf f to the point of ii. pairing its performance.

The FY 1979 req.ast for 15 viditional positions will bring RES up to a pa-sonnel level of 162.

These positions will be used in support of the LOFT, 3-D, o,ierational safety, risk assessment and environmental and fuel cycle programs. RES will soon be reviewing its needs for FY 1980 and it is exp>>r.ted that additional staff will be required 1) to better fulfill existing agency requiremnts for coordinatior with other NRC of fices and govern::.ent agencies, 2) to better l it.onitor the renarch pr g ams of industry, other agencias and foreign countries, 3) to fulfill the coorfir.a tion requirements involved in the annual trports te C;n ress-by j the ACRS on RES progras, 4) to pre; cre NRC's annual report a.,,w to Congress on inge:ved reactor safety pri c \ t c. p '~ i n i s ': e r a n 1 tra n 'Je tho o :..a .r. '.'p o,?1 . 'c.r.y roseirca ana pm eibb n; 4'

.1i.s on the no.1.s

. . c . . ' .' . , .1...,.

c]..<;i.:il L ,.1 c ;;,ginn, 31y0,

1

(.

Tne Coranissioners 5) The ACRS stat d that the results of the reseSrc'n programs to dete have not ind{cated a need for full-scale LOCA testir; of a nuclear pc ~er reactor.

6) Based on its obse vations of the current greater emphasis or, ncn-proliferation and cf the ince _sd concern fo protection of licensed nuclear facilities <! gainst sabotige, the ACR5 believes that the future requirem .nts for s a fe.P 6 'd 3 rM03rch will be at leest '.s greSt es in ;he past two to t.hroa yeart and that the pr?sent levels of surg rt for this en ;tcch in RES shsuld be m6intained, as a minitu

..,..4... -

7) With regard tc Technical Assistence Contracts (TAC) sponsorv by other NRC of fic's than RES, the ACR3 bel ic'. j th t3 sucn TAC's '..cre neccssc ry and appropria t _ to rnet the o'.50r of fices '

responsibilities. However, since s0:.1e of ther.e TAC's could be construM as ecc.carch, the ACR5 was corcerne tha t 6 der.;uc te proce;..res d id oc t seem to exist to ensure coordination with the research coriducted by RES.

New procedures a re new in ef fec t t-ha t should

] ensure pro;.. r enordina t. ion of TAC's with PES.

The Contract i'ev'en Board serves to ensure RES revieb . .id cocedinetion of pro;,osed contruts from all of fic , with orginizations other th: n DOE labora tories (i .e. , universities, private cor.panies, consultants,etc.). Procedures for placin,; wer k with DCE lat, oratories have just L; n estchiish.;c' by the Concission (P.ulietin 110?)

that should ensure tha t Technical Assistance work at DOE laboratories is also c>ordinated with thc rese.6rch work conduc ted by RES.

As previously note 1, the rujority of the ACRS saecific cci s.m.n ts and re :0: c:nd S t ions rela ted to el. erit s of the Rf.S pr9g r6.n S r.: heing lice.1,wdcited in our Curr0nt f( IT/n and planc.H FY l'),'S pr ogram. Jh. , u l i. s o f U . . ~. 0 e f foria will he r :a)ct d to I.he ACR'; as cart oft.,ir

1. : c th< C '- x foty as .ar . pec , e n.

w-

(

Tce ::>. .ni ssioners 'bever, c few of the specif'ic AC?,5 recorrendations r

cf.nnot or should rio; b.? covered in RES's orojectec program througr. FY 1979 for various reasons. The folicwing sonr,5ry c.+rtains to in?se 'e.. cases whicn are discussed in Fr.;re detail in Appendix A.

1. A few of the ACRS reccaner.da

• f ons relate to areat .,here .'G.C does not currently conteT. plate additional researth in view of other ags.ncies activities or necessary initie.tives. For example:

a. ,While RES agrees witr. the CC;.5 that N E's 53'ety research prog-ar in fhst resctors shculd continue to be raorisrtad in order to be most

~' responsive to new 3d.r.inistr3; ve initiatives,

.Significant expansion of this research ar0S would have t; awiit these initiatives by COE.

b. Research studies.related to search and recovery o' diverted Srecial Eclear .'4tericis is edequSti..'. covered in DOE's progran.

o C. RES ol3ns no r2s9 arch on fe5 tares to facilitit; the deccanissioning of nuclear facilities. This .s being considered in studies for OSD as part of the re-evaluation of decomiss ioning policy.

2. For the uost pn t, the other reco:c.andations discussed in Appendix A w?ich cannet be der.e in FY 1978 or FY 1979 becausc c.f existir.c budget limit ations will be taken in n account in for,ulating our FY 1930 proy.c These incl:.de rc:saarch on in-plant ctpewres, environmental pathways, heelth and safety of altccr.ite fuel cycles, spent fuel tr.anana-i rnot, envirc.r.wntal surveys and runitoring and radioactive . is t 2 Moaget .en t. RES will take the l initia tive in planning and budg.eting for the research required by those ACRS re'.ci .codations and in I

coordinsting tPr.;a ne2ds with the other of fices in NRC.

The Cormissioners -

6-

~' Coordination:

~ ~ ~ " -

The tachnical aspects of this pacer have been coarfinata;'

with the Offices of Nuclear Reac:ar Regulation, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and 5;.andards Develoor.unt.

1 0 6-1)

Saul Levine, Director

, wvm Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Enci05JrO. .

nppencix n, 97.. ..

o.r:g. 7. m2.

C o; :ssioners Co. liss ion S ta f f O f fices Exec. Dir. for Opers.

Secretarict I

p .-..

__ _s_--___--._- ---.. -

ACRS' PECOM'MNDAT10N5 RELATEC 70 .90RK N0f CURRENTLY ACCOMMODATED IN pie RE5 PROGRAM The ACRS report to Congress on the RC's safety research progran (NURE2-0392) includes i number of recorrendations related to RE5 ortgrans RE5 acrees .

with the vast majority of these rec:m::ncations and '.his work is included in our current r.y 1,:/o ang oscnneg - -

v r,.

by adjustments in these budgets.

s i :v :

progra:. or wi,,1,ea accc.noca tes 4 The following com. nts pertain to the few ACR5 recs..endations which cannot be accor.nodaced in our procram. tr. rough FY 1973. In general, these specific program. r3comnndations will be inclucey by RE5 in the pian.nea FY 1952 The few r f.uining recon mnw.'ons which wiil nct be covered relate to areas which are being adequately addressed by other a gncies, are more aporopriate for other agencies or industry, or are dependent upon aduinis tra tive initiative.

Recurenda tions pertlining to improved sa f9ty reseir h tooics are not included in tnis list qs th ?y are ciscussed in '.".e plan for research on inot oved sa fety system bein; precared for submission to Congress which has been forwarded to the Comission.

1.

_M._v a. .n_c_e d . R.r- a c t o.r. s.._(.C h. a_ o_t e__r _6 )

a.

.F,e..s e. a r.c h o n... .A l t.e..rn a.t e A d v a n c e c. E e S c t o r s Tim ACR5 believes thet the NRC sno' uld be enouraged ef forts to reorient the / REr, ; :rjram in an anticip:.,.ntyits direction in vicw of the possibility cf cranges in policy that may result from currient nonproliferation e' forts.

RES agrees with this recc cenda: ion from the ACRS; hcwavar, in the past tiro years our bu y t r. quests in the atunced reactor _

area have been sign 111cantly re6ced, in our vieb, even below the ._

level th.it is ccosic. tent wi th e ' .:nistrative initia tives ~ ~~'

~

Therefore, RFS intends to rear.unt Srd bro 3 den its advanced reactor s!'ety research prccrea in res:Onse to DOE initiatives, t>ut these changer will have tc ewait the FY 1920 budget cycle.

b. SAREF(Safety RM.ea rch Facili ties)

,n..t.hou,,

a enc,orsing t he spec 1ric w ,,tr r

epproacn. or eraphasis, .ne s ACRS believes tha t an experrental fast-reactor sa fety prograra by DOE and relsted NRC activities warrant continued support, and planning should continue.

RES agrees with the desirability of the ACR5 recomendaticn.

Hovever, since DOE has not recuested funds for SAREF in their FY 1979 booget, RES is dro; ing its program in ex;uriwintal tes t planning for St.?EF in FY 1975 v.c FY 19:9. RE$ does not plan l.

, to

-. re ., ,initiate

c. the.---test planning ef fort until DOE establishes

c,

.HT2 R....Re.se a rc h -

The ACRS believes that the HTGR safety research program might be broacened to identify alterra accident scenarios for their possible influence on safety criteria.

The HTGR prograa is currently ceing maintained at a icw level of funding, and any broadening in the program would be dependent upon new DOE initiatives.

2.

.F..u. .e.l.. C.c. l e. .a nd E..n v i r..o..nme.n.t a..l.-. R n s e r t h -( Ch a.. o t e r. -.7._)

With ren+ct to fuel Cycle and Environmental Research (Chapter 7), the ACRS bcs tt opinion that the fuci :ycle, health, and environmental research curo rcly unr'erway within the NRC clearly addresses needs of tha ace,cy. They also note that the assigrmnt cf priorities for research within this subjr:ct a: ec is in need of greatcr attention RES will, during the current fiscal year, develop a procedure for assigning and coordinet,ng the priorities of fuel cycle and environ-

.antal research.

A

a. I r.- Pl a n t En oc ures The ACRS reccunends tha t more >.tr.ition be direc ted to research ascociated' with internal occupe-ion <l exposures, including .

mc:els for estimatin;. doses anc data necessary to establish AL MA criteria. Rr5 considari the work now undentey would be useful.that a significant expansion of There has bean little fe mal support for dosiotry research in the licensing offices and PJ.S recometr'ed b;dge t levels for nealth effects research . _ . . . . . . - . - .

cecerally have been cut during budcet reviews.. - - If the decisien is bne that additional epida.nioiccical s tudies should be w:de by NR^

to cor. firm the health ef fects resulting.from ex,wsure to low leyels of r adiation, ini pinnt e> D nal e.oesures _will be cons ider?d as .. ell e: ..

c .e r sources.

A new eficr will be undertn en in the FY 1930 buJgc; p rt ;m retion to define rs::rch in this aree for coordina tion wi th the user offices. NM55 s taff have iden tified m.ed for biological hil f-lif de: for various radionuclides involved in uranium milling and is cur ently waching with R25 to gavelopj , rte}/ programs.

b. .E n / ; -o nn ? m. a l.. . a.th wa y s--

Thu ACR3 recoraends increased e' fort to confim dose e;ti:actes from en. . com. n tal enlenes wi th pa r ticular at ten t ion to liquid pa th-ways and pe t tula ted acciden". condi tions. They indicate that this rc' 'ue N l ip ch i p 'should inclW verifici. ion of dow calcula ti:n t.:ethods, Cf ileria fOr err /1;' 'entJl W T.pling, anl dr! dOpini in ,r3ition on the behavior of .idicnuclides in coopic n a

, i ,  ? '

l. . P. i t h DJ,.s of pe0 pie. ;nu e is 6 3; MaM fo r re. '< t'C h ' LO c o n l 1 f % Lt .

/ r, \,. g},{(,!) 9.Ij. . , . g r, j , g j g (, h /. p ra pj [ p;); ; f ;q] (,yg } g [,! C l } i f, i n r.

s i

.m . . ...ot si

. . -/ , a h on.

I

, I The current research on critical pathways in acuatic environments is ceing recucea in r f 1: /c pursuant to an ia.r. eview o, their research requirements. Researca on soil adsorction and plant uptake will be continued at the current level thr7uch FY 1979.

A small pro.i.ec t is beina ini:iated in FY 1978 to assess the ef ect of age and sex on dose and healtn effec:s. RES will include in the FY 1980 program and bucge: so.ne utansion and expansion of this research aion; the lines ret;.r, ended by the ACRS. .

c. Decovoissioninc -

The ACE 5 re:0:,.~.n n'i s t h a t rise.:rch be dcrs ;c iden:'fy design fea ture , ma terials and si?e S ~_'eCliCn factors ;ha", woul3 manm12e cc ivatico products end r.ac1.i;;a te di sa s semoly and return of the site to sa'fe Us'e. _- _ . . . - . . - - - - .

The NRC reple:ary policy on :.c;.cmissi:ning is being re-evaluated (SECY-73-13, Feb., 1978). Until there is a citarer indication of he./ the NRC will approach the regula tion of dect missioning and po s t - d e c t.

m ssi;ning activities, EES does not plan to initiate any eneerch in this area. It is p;ssible tha: technical assistance pregraMS Will show ;na t desian cr fa .'.erial opticn3 Will affect only cost rather than safety enc thu prov de e stimius for this re;earch i treing donc The AC"5 .us briefed on this subject

,y a ,,7,u stait.- .by DOE and industry.

n i n r e ,vr u a ry , l ,w.-.3 o

d. M terna tt fuel Cvcies ACRS recs ends research to eva.luate the potential health and safety problet associated with alternate fuel cycles under considera tion in other agencies.

The br'alth enc ;afe:y proble 's associated with alternate fuel cycles arises m inly out of th< diffe ent ata inis that are p ec du r.cx' e nd p roce . sed. In ad ition to NRC's current wall cr" e a rch e f for t s on thuriu:. enr;ures ard haalth ef fects ,

rcn,ea rch r:n gh t be na uded on ur mi um-223, pl u'.on f u:r. , rarbon 14, t r i iv uc. , a rc.4 cme ri c i um. .. ..

inis mgnt involve not only researc,o on exposurt and health effM ts but work to char 2cterize waste strears, and to evaluate cPemical and biologicel processes in critical pa thways tc raan.

R'i S will consider the need for work in this area in connection

. with t.his FY '?80 h.t :t ret;est He.. "/ e r , thr: CS has poinb d out that the NiC is not the pr ?er agancy to 'unc.er'.ahe oxlensive studies of the sh-nd long teen ef fects of pcoul.ition ~ ~ ~~ ~

j ' S L '"'. ; 5 C

.n- ".4Clc.' ....iC i

l l

!

• g p=== + r =+=

s

. -4 t

Consequently any research to be proposed for FY 1980 in this crea, will take account of the work beinc dcne in other ace.ncies s Jne.

o, as well as the specific interests and responsibilities

.~

I 1 e. Scent Fuel Manac: ment The ACRS recomnds remrch on the problems assoc ated with the management of increasing quantities of spent fuci fro,n nuclear power plants.

RES has identified several potential resecrch requirements in this atea. Ex i s ti ne; NRC criticality s tudies previde data releven; to incru : sed deinity cf fuel storage; )ther research possibilities relate to lc nc term corrosion pr:alems and crud buildup on stored assenblies. If further, deta' led consideration indicates a n:ed for edditional research in thes; areas, RES will include th'.m in future plans.

f. EnvironnentalSurvevsandMeniIorina in its disassion, the ACRS noted it s view tha t 'corit'inuing ~[

s envi tudies ron: shN1d be done to confirm the efreciiveness of ental surveys so tha t onnece>sary sampling and analyses are avoided.

NEC agrees and already has nearly completed a study, which looked at non-radiological survey date at all power plants with an npc.catir.g his tory lonpr than one year This study, while dn:;cnstrating the usefulne:.s of much of the data that has b;en collectod, also identific d soc deficiencies and some unn;;cessary requirem3nt: for samplino. These results suoyest the need for furthcr research of this type. Rev ic:as of. survey _ da ta tvil.l _ be incl.&d in the broader environ:antal s tudies beinq conducted at icw level unie disposal sites and mill tailing sites.

RES uill continue its consnitotions with the NRC licensing offices to define their needs for extended analyscs of survey data and will plan rescarch in FY 1980 purusant to those consulta tions.

g. Radicac;ivt plas te Mangen:nt The ACRS urges NRC to maintain a vigorouc prop 3m of research on radicat'.ive. v.:ste manymnt and to #velep a ca? ability for inda nd*JnI eiss *5s:'Unt of the research findings of others.

The ACR$ crecifically m e ions the ~ N to consider research needs as::;'a'. W '. '. ; le , ;Ve o i ;) op . '.' Or, e ' , a ' s } c ra g.. ,

7. . -.-

s

t

i. .'

5-of hiah level w.ste and the r.ee: tc establisn criteria and monitoring orocedures with r.: pc.c: te the migraticn of racionuclices from or within e :isposal si e.

RES agrees that the subject of s.aste management deserves a vigorous program to identify anc :anauc: research Sn imaroved methods or data. We are cur en::/ davelocing re necs for risk assessment of long tern, geologic "#sposal of serious forms of nuclear Wastes and Continuing to "eview tre CCE ind NMS$ Waste l management progr :as . . .

7 n.e ini tia , recuire: resair:h on s'ecific technical issues has been identied, but sn i .entary research reoues ts a re excec ted to fol ,0w. . . .ine waste mar,ag rent options l i nc l uu,e d i s c o s a ,i o r s cen t ,u e ,i , otn cons :.e rr n '. ~. c ': c:.y,_

. _._ etrievaalii 1solated fission products anc trinsuran1: nas es. . .

Ongoing progr ms in technicci as;:; tan:e an: c;nematory research applicable to icz level was :

Table E-1 (enclosure 3). rd . ige. ant are ::c' rented in fPJ?~;-C.0, Trang ::ais ' ::r T'5I to RES desc riba additional research needs that w'il contribute to the develoiren; of technological bases sopcortive c' standards , crit :ria , and regi,+: ions for challow land burial.

needs are currently ;nder revic, cy Ri5.Resear: proc. csal.; ::verirc. some of these -

At tho present, 1 ree.earch studits are in cc:.;ress, one of which is site wecific and the others are nneric tc :ne 10,9 level weste progreo. nesearch proposa.:s ccn ,,

n', othe rc;u,a tory needs are c.u rrently unde r re v ie'.i by RD ::n: V.5 5 .

In cocedination rancc co;prehcasivo withpian NMSS, for RES s: 'f is currently de7dioping' a long Will encompass i.w ..,q r e s e a rC .,) n% i tu;'2s of a mar: ga'eric natare,'that

, anC t n.e .,,J t . .

ilpn . .

3 CU.]eC li ve OT.

es ta u. , . , ing .;er.eri c techno,i cg i ci

,Ja s e '.

n ,,n. . .icn site spac1ric cri cicn'j and 'ia f tenn or s care ite sc,iection, can be de.eioped. ,iiti's ing, C,:s es ticos , decomissioning , . . .

n i s p ,i a n , 'a.,l en c onp ,i c te d , wi l ,i p a v i ..c t .

budgeting for im:-levei vast the ,asesc ,inr p,ianning and s u g yt .; t revisions of some projecM planned fcr FY-1979.. res:5cch in R1?SO and beyo 3.

S._a f. .e. n. e.r._d.. .s .R e. s e +. r c.h ( C. ~h.a.o_ t.e.r . 8 l.

h'ith espec t to Sa fe.n.aras that w p ra m..! has been ,.,el; R.' search f:. i,1(Chec':sc 8), the ACRS conclu R d 4

are c m,. ently m.ns, ..d ele m ts of the n-^M eand 7.a t apcropriate priorities bl.c been applied to the dif fer ent

)

~ h e.. .. m'; . ions tV t :rt nc c'v c : >

pld nt; 'I firQji C ta 3 r e d I S C'lC*n # DC,W d r.d

• r' 'a / :he ex i s t inij c r  ;

hpiC?) hC A,d i n,;3,

.y.e m 4

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ ~ - - - _

. (> .

.a. .I.m.y o v ed ._Sa f.t..:.u e r.d. s 1. .:c h._n i nu c. _s_.

The ACRS recoccends more support of work to enhence the evabation and aoplication of techniques which ern capable of promptly detecting diversion of SNM. In this connection the ACRS specifically r..entions research to assess the effectiveness of techniques being developed by other organizations, the monitoring of ingress and egress points of nuclear facilities and confirmuory research an the applicability of ncw tec! ues to accumnoda:e alternative fuei cycles.

RES reduced in FY 1978 the level of funding on the project to develop methods for evaluating the effectiv: ness of mat: rial control and accounting. This r duction e was Lesed on the NRC perception that :ne decision to defer recrocessing reducec Uw urgency and priority of this task. Hcwever, the increased attention t: ing given to material contr31 and accounting.

regulations during FY 1978 indica tes tha t a higher level of effort in this crea night be desirable. As sug ested by the ACRS, RES is considering rHlipaunt of the res.:'rch progrua .

to parmit so:m increase in this area during FY 1975 and FY 1979.

The .we thods bein control anc accou;,nting will permitdeveicped the assessaent of techniques by NRC for evaluation of matarial b:.ing developed by oths ar. .:ies and such e,3't, ants hcve te n discu' ed iniyi;11y with DOE siaff. Hou we r , additwncl work is required to validate the methods befort they can b2 confidently applied.

The nothods will cover the entire field of material control and accounting including ingress and egress conii.oring, material control through hardware design and pror: dural controls, and materiais measurement and accounting techniques.

At pusent, i t de:es not appna r tha t al terna tive T ;el cycles will pres nt ncw saiquarc's problems requiring additional MRC rc.3earch or major revisivns in the program. DOE is conducting an agressive program to develop measurement techniqu~s applicable to the dif ferent ch aical and isotopic forms of materials to be f ound in altern::tt: fuel cycles.

b. Se s rch anf. ,'l >c overy of SNM_

The ACRS re'.cwNed support of s tudies to detcrmine the fenibility of locating diverted SNM at loca!. ions such as open terra in, ci ties , rivers , ldes , etc. .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - i 7...

tru Ecad a sot::

' ouotaq u ueutes.tnba; y;;9ess; Cue pet);2uept300 sy2 Aq pe:vp0:wcase Sut

Ou say 300 pue

,ss,.,:, vi yous;3 Ou tuu?[3 4:us5u,t;uc3 ey; 's3d ucc caq u0,ta e;[nsuG3 5J C; 3 C; C '1 O sapntou; yo;.uv 2;p:.:; sues uop[002J0d '((Utus 30 ;uGTdO[0Aap ysavest; SA;;;9 us say este 30c .se;op wns a.0;da!. c; ;;0;;a ccu,th sno ta na 30 Ouse d tnba su;G I,utn ,t q CUJ pus CJC136'.Op SFOn[DUL y0'UM A 3 ,t t t q P O +'.' 3 [Puo,t];JOdo uV 300

cuesuocs 30c 'X;;;.30s pu; sp;en5;,;.93 ;o uo;s p,tc ay; Aq UGD]

(._' cW, sms.i. u.s.:?0e loua5;e;; .in [Jr.". se; c; pou5 tsse 4

'" u22;GGJ5 ? A3uG5 E;E;u; yon 0Jy", 's&y sHO t 2Un'4 t ds SUO;;?DO[ pu' snO;J?A U; W','s OG ;s G/. t p ;G UO ,t ; E 30 [ Gy; bututuu?;Gp JO %S2; a y,!,

t

.f.

0 e 8 I t

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - l

, , c, UNIT [D ST ATES 8 \[ ,,

/' *

+[ jk,f / I NUC1.E AR Hf GULATOR Y COMMISSION t%,Nh WA51Hf/GloN, D. C. 20%5 s

)! '

gfy 'l 5 1370 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Advanced Reactor Safety Research Staff I ROM:

Charles N. Kelber, Assistant Director for Advanced Reactor Safety Research

SUBJECT:

ACRS REPORT The encloscd correspondence (fraley to Gossich, liny 10,1978) describes of our program.a report we are asked to submit for the use of ACRS-WG-8 in its review The work involved is substantial and we are arranging for NUS to do the technical editing and report preparation.

The basic sources of ratorial will be:

S-year Plan; ZilB-pacLage and supporting budget data; EPRI report; andBuff B exchange agreements. The 00E-lC9's will be used where available. ,

I have asLed central point ofRon foulds to direct this activity for us and serve as contact. Please help him.

This is an important, high-priority task.

3wch

?

y'h

/

Charles N. Kelber, Assist ont Director for Advanced Reactor Safety Research Division of Reactor Safety Research cc: T. liurley R. foulds R. Scroggins T. McCreless, ACRS /

e a

. ' .g; , ' f', UNL'l0D S1 ATES

/ ' ,g y .

NUCLEAR fil: Gill. AIOltY COMMISSION

% Q.ls,l-[3 / f ADVISOHY COMMllII E ON Uf ACTOil SAF CGUAIIDS SW!

% ' %.'[y[ WASHING ION. t). c. 70%S May 10, 1978 ,' " l 's tt i f) )

l gfN(101373\

ea, v.\

<i, h hn.

4!()](L.6}y w.. T Leo V. Goccick, Executive Director for Operations SUB3LCf: ACTS Id:lG& TO O2GRESS ON !'RC RI'SMARCil The ACRS Su'.cuarnittec on Advanced Reactora has identified inforivalion needed by the Contni t tee in its pr e:xiration of the sub:ioct. report t o Congrenn.

It is requented that you as range to have this i fn urnat. ion, as cut.lirved in the at tachttent, provich] ,t o the Coinnit t ee so the ACiS Sulcouaittee revity of this topic can Legin la' July 15, 1978.

Please advine ne as noon as ponsible of your point of contact for this effort.

Dr. McCre3 ens has been designated as the ACI:S point of cont act.

n D, nL' R. P. Praley Pxecutive Direc[t.'or At.t ach'azn t :

As f,i al.ed aLove cc: 1;. Case, IJRR ,

S.1,eyinc, IES C. Smit h, NMSS R.11incgue, OSD T. 11o r 3 ey , 16 R F. Art:enalt, SAFER C. Ke.ller, AnSR /

f e

_ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - - - 4-

1%I(P I A. Inforroat ion Rc<inent ed: Provide an outline (assenble t he miterial in one single, concise report) of world-wide advanced reactor work in progress and planned. " Advanced reactors" are defined to be all potentially-comercial types of po.ver reactors except present-day 3ight water reactors. " Work" is defined to ine]ude efforts directed toaard saf ety or toaard related nntters (e.g. , R & D) which have an important tearing on safety. The kinds of work involved should include a experirents, b analysis and conput er andels, c.

literature study, and d data conpilation. " Effort" is defined as any technical study, program, or project costing over $50,000 per year. Efforts costing less than S50,000/ year should he lumped into groupings, copocia))y for activities in the planning stage. l'or the latter (planning ntage act ivit.ies), e:;tirrates of future costs shou]d be given. This re:Juest is intended to seek only infornut ion which is reasonably available to the RCS staff; "unkn?.vn" is an acceptable answor. Precise bedget values are not sc>ught; estinates to 1 25t will usually be adcquate. Ilosever, the uncertainty range on a)) cost estinates riould b2 sts M.

B. Timing: By Ju]y 15,1978 C. Oider of Informatjon:

Addrecn the efforts in the following ordar:

3. NIC RCS -- current year

2. NlC IU:S -- J ast year

3. NIC RUS expected or planned for each of tJie next five years

4. Other Offices of HIC -- current year S. DDE (Segregate by Office) -- (1) current year (2) future years El'RI if significant charges are anticipated, f> .

-- (1) current year (2) future years

7. if. signi f jeant charges. are ant icipated.

Other Private Industry - (1) current year (2) future years 8.

if significant charges are anticipated.

England, France, Germany, -- (1) cur rent year (2) future years Russia, Japan, ot hers if significant. chargen are anticipated.

D. Jnformation Categories: Categorize the inf ornut ii>n approxintat ely to coincide wit h RSR cat egories, nanely: (a) 1.MFnR Analynis (1. Acci-dent Analyuis and 2. Safety Test Pacilities); (b) 1.MPBR Experinents; (c) Gas-Cooled Reactors (1. IlER and 2. GCFit); (d) et c.

_ _ -. . _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - n.=

• N. Information sought - Philosoptrt: In not nore than three tyrowritten pages, presen;. a condensed statei.ont on the research philosophy behind the NfC Advanced Reactor Sifety Research prcxjram. Inco.porate such thoughts as: What is the basis on which you have arrived at your pres-ent program? What do you hope to acconplish? What alternatives have been considered? Iloa does your program relate to those of other US or foreign groups?

F. Informatirjn Sought, _St_r_engths and Weaknesses: In not nore than two pages, suan.arize the strenjths and weaknesces of your current pro-grton and, if appropriate, the reasons for both. Indicate whether and where additional effort is needed.

G. Information Sou,ht -- D: tails: Identify U1e Reseach and Development isn~ei (5f t fie 'Prirjins~iLWTFC6mai t tee. Provide the follosing de-tailed infornation on each effort (as defined above) in all the pro-3 grams listed under "C" atove:

1. Descriptive title --

10 words or less

2. Purpose of effort - 20 words or less

3. Cost during current year

4. When was the efforL started?

5. When will the ef f ort likely tw bo'npleted?

6. f:ffort init.iated at the suggestion or request of whom?.

(lGR, I,icensing, ACfG, et c. )

7. Specific aims and goals of the research defined by whom?

(Assist ant Direct or f or AIGR, Office Director, Comnittee of Directors of NRR and RP,3 Of fices, etc. )

8. Naue of individual Nic technical person over seeing.

9. bocation of where work is b>ing done. ,

10. Why in the work Leing perfor ned on this particular time '

schedule?  !

11. Current status of effort (20 words or less)

12. Milestories: 1. What significant infornution do you expect to get from the effort this year? (50 words or Jess) 2. What significant mileutones will occur within t.he next few yeat s (a chart of milestones as shvan in the attached sanple would be acceptal>le)? '

13. Does NIC exchange information on the topic of this specific effort with any other nation? Which? Fornal or infornal

, exchange?

14. Doon DT exchange information on the topic of this specific effort. with any other nation? Which? Fornul or infornal exchange.

e-2-

II . Ali 3 nnvent: Follos a norder nyntem such that like efforts by dif-forent investigatorn have the nano numtnrc. For exanple, if an 11RC experinental pwJram in ncxJium concrete interactions is number 1]R4d, a similar experinental nodium concrete interaction program in Prance should have the cane identificaLion numter, llR4d, in tJie French list of efforts.

I. Foreign Information: It in obvious that infornation on all of the iteno 1-14 of f oreign ef fortn will not in availab]e (likely 4, 5, perhapc othern) and/or nay not apply (6, 7, 8) . Do the lost you can; le reasonable. Iteun 33 and 14 on foreign J int.c should in answered "in reverce" "Dces France exchange infornation on thin topic with NRC?"

J. Referc neen nnd suororting liatorial: Cite references extensive)y, ,

ta nupport state:ents. Att.ach supporting or explanat ory rrat erial only in rare,ipt2:ntteji. He ate seeking an organivc<1 nunnery /

outline witJiout a large ranc of nutorial to nLudy and fit together.

K. Follow-Up: It in anticipat ed that Sufroamittee neetings will be init iat.ed abant August to explore det ails of the r.untrary precented here, rurther, thic outline wi)) form the tusin for ruetings in the Aujunt-Octoba period to explore such topics as:

1. Are the goaln of a) cpecifie efforts and b) the overall pro-gram well (sharply) defined?

2. In planning ado]uate and will the desired results likely be forthcoming f rom the of fort.?

3. Will neecbd reccarch resultn .likely b2 available on a tinely basis?

4. Are renearch results transmitted rapidly and efficiently to user group 3?

5. J n AIGR responnive to user needs?

6. Does AIGR int er f ace of f octively wit h ather organizations?

7. Do?n ARSR need better accens to relat ed outside?

8. Do t he resulta of such outside work satisfy, in part or in whble, AIGR needs? *

9. Dcen. the duplication of work between AlsR and other groups enhance the NnC regulaloty function?

10. Do foreign exchange programa exist. whete appropriate?

11. Ilan AIGR lxen renponcive to recannendat ions irride Decenber 31, 3977?

12. Are there arcan where ARSR conpet.ence chould !;c nt.rengthened?

13. Are contractvrn and subcontractors conpetent?

14 .In the AISR program uteting 1.he nation's needu on a tinely basis?

i .

PARI' II A. Information,P3 quested:

1. In perhaps three or four pages, (a) outline and sunmarize the current status of the DDE IJonproliferation Alternative Systems Assesstrent Program (!uSAP) , (b) indicate the Inilestones which are expected in the future, and (c) indicate what role, if any, IES, ARSR, or any other lHC groups are taking in this study.

Describe any plans which Nlt or Rrs my have to contribute to the '

study at a Jater date, and describe any criteria which have been established to trigger such participation.

Describe any weaknesses which exist in the present NIC p3an or Jack of plans to participate in the study (including minority vicv s) .

Corment on the need for NRC participation in NNIAP durirg the definitive perjod of the study (rather than after the fact) in or der t.o help assure t hat (a) ackquate attention is given to the selection of reactor and fuel cycles which are nest acceptable fs om the safety standpoint and (b) future de]ays in licensing do not result from a lack of !HC input to the Program at this stage.

2. Provide the information requested in I above for International Puel Cycle Evaluation (IKE) .

B. Timiin: July 15,1978 I

e 4-

l STATEMENT OF SAUL LEVINE DIRECT 0'R, 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FISCAL YEAR 1979 BUDGET HEARINGS AbtLed c.-3

TESTIMONY TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Overview of FY 1979 Budget Request

3. Program Highlights

4. Management of NRC's Research Program

5. Research Results for FY 1977 1

1

6. ACP.S Review of NRC Research Program

7. Improved Safety Research

8. Conclusion l Attachment 1: Research Information Letters A

Mr. Chairman, Introduction I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee today to discuss the proposed confirmatory safety research program for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in FY 1979. With me here today are Dr. Thomas liurley, Director of the Division of Reactor Safety Research,,

Mr. Frank Arsenault, Director of the Division of Safeguards, Fuel Cycle

& Environmental Research, and Dr. Anthony Buhl, Director of the Probabilisti:

l Analysis Staff.

In testimony submitted to the Congress last year, I described the basis for the formulation and scope of our safety research program. ,

)

As you know, in accordance with the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, our program involves research on all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, except for mining, which is regulated by. the states. The research we do is confirmatory in nature, and it covers nuclear power plants and other fuel cycle facilities; as well as the areas of safeguards, transportat'.

management of nuclear wastes, environment, and risk assessment.

We are now engaged in preparing our first annual report to the Congress that will contain recommendations for research projects directed toward improving the safety of nuclear power plants. This report is required by our FY 1978 Authorization Act,.and we expect it to be submitted by I

1 April 12 of this year. The new work to be discussed in the report will represent a departure from the previous constraints that kept our program in a confimatory and thus principally reactive mode.

i This new direction will now enable us to take initiatives in exploring areas of research that could potentially improve the safety of reactors.

Furthermore, we have in hand the first annual report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards which reviews and evaluates our research f program. This report was also prepared in response to the requirements of our FY 1978 Authorization Act. We note that it supports the need for llRC research on improved safety concepts, and that it also makes additional, detailed recommendations to help guide our program for research. We are now analyzing the report to determine its detailed impact on our program.

I will say more about these two reports later in my testimony.

I would like now to present to the Subcommittee, first an overview of our FY 1979 budget request, then some management improvements that we have accomplished, and also the results we have achieved in FY 1977.

2. Overview of Budget Request As shown in figure 1, our total research program budget request for FY 1979 is $163.5 million as opposed to our FY 1978 available funds of

$140.0 million. Accounting for inflation and the transfer of certain fixed cos ts from DDE to flRC, this represents a.. modest growth of less than three percent. As shown in Figure 2, in the areas outside light water reactor (LWR) safety, (i.e. advanced reactors, safeguards, fuel cycle facilities, transportation, waste management, environment, and risk assessment), the budget request represents a slight decrease (s$600,000)

in response to the President's initiatives (on breeder reactors and fuel reprocessing) and to accommodi.te normal program trends. In the LWR area, there is a requested increase'of $22,400,000. In this very important J area, the requested funds represent a real growth of 6%.

The Loss of Fluid Test (LOFT) program increase is $13.1 million of the ,

$22.4 million. Ten million of the LOFT increase represents the transfer of operating costs for the LOFT Facility from DOE to NRC, as we move from the preoperational phase into the experiment progrtm, and does not represent any real growth. The remaining $3.1 million will be used for advanced instruments, replacement, fuel and additional analysis of experimental data for LOFT.

The remaining $9.3 million increase will principally provide:

p Additional tests to study heat transfer effects during emergency core coolant injection in a loss-of-coolant accident in both PWR's and BWR's, e Expansion of the test program in reactor operational safety to include more tests on fire safety research, pipe whip research, and relief valve behavior, e Additional funds for instrumentation support and computer analysis for the cooperative program with Germany and Japan on three-dimensional flow effects during a loss-of-coolant accident.

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

e Additional work on verification of advanced codes and on l

improvements to existing codes to increase their flexibility and , accuracy. i l

e New programs to investigate more realistic pipe break criteria which could result in simpler plant construction, (such as reduced numbers of pipe restraints and supports),

and in enhanced safety, as well as field tests of new non-destructive examination techniques for operating systems, e

A very important new research program to assess the conservatisms and to improve the current methodology for the seismic design of nuclear power plants.

As an additional matter affecting our budget request, we testified last year that we would be requesting funds for an ECC Bypass Test facility.

Before discussing the current This objective has not yet been achieved.

status, let me describe the basis for this program.

One of our planned programs to confirm the effectiveness of emergency core cooling systems is a fairly large experiment to investigate the The term potential for emergency core cooling water to bypass the core.

ECC bypass refers to the situation in which, should a LOCA occur, the water being injected from the ECCS accumulators does not reach the

-n -

5 reactor fuel during the time that the cooling water present during normal operation is blowing out of the vessel. Data are needed in this area since models do not exist to describe the phenomena with enough confidence to realistically predict when and how much water 2

might reach the fuel. We have completed the conceptual design of a facility that will be able to measure ECC bypass effects in 1/5 and '

1/3 scale vessel tests.

However, a sufficient consensus in the technical community concerning the adequacy of this experiment does not now exist, and we have decided not to proceed with it at this time. Questions have arisen.-

about the need for more small experiments, the size of the facility, and whether it should be a single purpose or multi purpose facility.

Based on this situation, we are now conducting studies and further-discussions to cover these matters. If the decision is made to proceed with a new safety research facility, we will return to the Congress for necessary approvals before proceeding.

3. program Hiohliohts A. I would like, in the following discussion, to point to some new or enlarging areas in our program that I think you will find of interest.

A significant effort will be expended during FY 79 to continue planning an experinental program to determine the three dimensional behavior of emergency core cooling water as it refloods the core after a l

LOCA. He mentioned this experiment in our testimony last year indicating that we would continue to study the type of experiirental facilities p-

,= ,

i 1

l 1

l During the last year, we have required to provide the needed data.

been planning a cooperative program with Japan and Germany in will make use of planned facilities in their countries to provide the f

The V. S. will provide advanced computer codes, experimental data.

We are now in the ,

analyses, and instrumentation for the joint project.

d  ;

process of negotiating formal agreemcnts among ourselves, Japan, a f Germany; no exchange of funds is contemplated at this time.

B.

A major new program that we are starting in FY 1978 and which accelerate in FY 1979 is research to evaluate the cons saf ety margins in the scismic design methodology for nuclear power plants. The approach will be to utilize probabilistic techniques to analyt.e and improve the methods used for the seismic design of plants and other nuclear facilities.

C.

An area of growing importance in light water reactor safety researc An important aspect is is the progran on operational reactor safety.

the need to assure that various naterials used in plant containrents d

actually meet the standards set by the Conmission to ensure their c effectiveness under the extrene environmental condition The question develop inside the containment following a severe accident.

in point is that of possible syncroistic effects of these environments l on the validity of this testing method.

J

In FY 1976, we started a program to examine the adequacy of the materials testing methodology. required by applicable codes. Af ter testing several materials such as paint and electrical cables, and finding no evidence of synergistic effects, we then tested cable connectors. All of the connectors failed the tests, even though there appeared to be no evidence of synergistic effects. Although there was some question about the applicability of these specific connectors to reactor applications, we felt it prudent to inform the reactor licensing staff of this matter. Subsequent investigations led to changes in some opera ting reactors.

Further tests of cable connectors directly applicable to reactor applications are now planned. We are also conducting continuing tests to evaluate the effectiveness of fire protection guides for electrical ,

l cables and the effectiveness of flane retardant coatings and other fire barriers for electrical cables used in nuclear plants.

4. Ignagement of NRC's Research Program A number of management improvements have been made in NRC's research program during the past year. A factor which has significantly improved our management of research is the successful implementation of the NRC/DDE interagency agreement which was executed in March of 1977. It facilitates our placement of work with DOE, provides for close NRC interaction in DOE planning for the support of our research programs, and most importantly, provides an effective means for resolving problems.

.g-Last year we reported to the Congress that, after a succession of schedule slippages and cost increases, the LOFT project appeared to be

' under effective management control. The. progress on the LOFT program in the past year confirms .this: LOFT remained within projected costs and currently is several weeks ahead of the schedule established in October 1976. We will continue to monitor the performance of this project closely.

Now that our research program has begun to produce results at a high rate, we have established a formalized method of transmitting research results to the user organizations in NRC such as the licensing, standards development, and inspection staffs, the ACRS, and the Hearing Boards, as well as making the results available to the public. When a significant piece of research is completed, we prepare a formal transmittal document called a Research Information Letter (RIL), having a distribution encompassin; those organizations just indicated as well as others.

We have had for several years a system of research review groups that The membership of these help to plan and guide our research programs.

groups consists of personnel from our research staff and other NRC The offices that have an intere:t in the results of the research.

cognizant research review group will, when appropriate, review the e

.g-1 l

results of the research and assist in the preparation of the RIL. This process assures that the results are presented to the users in such a way that they can be applied to flRC's regulatory process. We also work i

with the user offices when needed to assist them in implementing the 'I results. In the last year, we have completed 11 RIt's as shown in Attachment 1 to my testimony. We plan to issue about 40 this year.

1 As part of the overall review of the NRC research program, the ACRS 1/

also spent some effort in reviewing the management of the program. The ACRS found our overall management t,o be quite effective, the competence j and dedication of the professional staff to be impressive, and that the selection of investigators and contractors to perform the research had been done effectively. The ACRS also had some suggestions for management improvements a f fecting the research program's ' organizational structure that we are now examining flore particularly, the ACRS expressed concern that the size of the program and the need for extensive coordination and interact; ion with user offices and other researchers would soon tax the RES staff to the point of impairing its performance. We share these concerns and urge the support of our request for 1S additional 1/" Review and Evaluation of the NRC Safety Research Program" Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, December 1977

~

4 positions to bring us up to a personnel level of 162. These positions will be used in support of our LOFT, 3-D, operational safety, risk assessment and environmental and fuel cycle programs. Although we might need even more staff as the ACRS suggests, our preference is to operate with a lean organization in order to assure maximum output ,

from our professionals. We will continue to monitor our workload closely to be sure we do not seriously impair our capability to manage our programs effectively.

5. Research Results and Their Utilization A. I would now like to discuss some of the major research results ~~

produced by our program in the past year as well as their utilization in the licensing process. The major experimertal facility in the water reactor safety program is the Loss of Ficid Test (LOFT). Five i

non-nuclear tests have been conducted in LOFT. No power was being generated during these tests since the nuclear fuel was not installed.

The general conclusion that we have drawn from these non-nuclear tests is that the computer predictions generally agree with the LOFT test data.

The nuclear fuel has now been loaded into the core (September 1977), and the reactor is expected to attain criticality in February 1978. After a period of. low power physics tests, another loss of coolant test will be made in April 1978 with the core in place, but generating no heat. The first nuclear test in LOFT is expected to be conducted in late 1978, and a total of three nur. lear tests will be conducted in FY 1979.

B. The first loss-of-coolant experiment using a small bundle of nuclear fuel rods was conducted in January of this year in the Power Burst Facility at the Idaho National Engincering Laboratory. This test is the first in a series of tests designed to study the behavior of nuclear fuel under loss of coolant accident conditions. These tests will be valuable in helping to predict the behavior of fuel in LOFT nuclear tests.

C. Last year we described a series of tests conducted to validate the analytical methods for predicting flaw initiation and arrest in reactor pressure vessels. Another test was made this past year on a 39-inch diameter, 6-inch thick pressure vessel. In this test, a previous failure in the vessel had been repaired by building up the failure with weld metal, and a 5-inch deep flaw was then machined in the repaired region. Again the vessel sustained more than twice the design pressure of an unflav.ed vessel before it failed. This test has provided additional confirmation of code-specified welding procedures for repairing flaws in reactor vessels.

D. In the Semiscale facility in Idaho, tests were carried out on alternate designs of emergency core cooling systems. These tests indicated that there were potential benefits to be gained from alternate designs of ECCS systems. These preliminary conclusions will have to be confirmed by tests in the modified two-loop configuration using full-length electrically heated fuel bundles. These tests are planned for FY 79.

.= ;

i - ,

E. In order to measure the response of a Boiling Water Reactor containment structure to dynamic loads expected in a loss-of-coolant l accident, a 1/5 scale segment of a BWR suppression pool was built at Lawrence Livernare Laboratory in California. This experiment was designed and constructed and tests were completed within a year.

Evaluation of the test data showed that the dynamic loads on the structure were 40?; lower than one would predict using previous design analysis methods.

F. The computer code RELAP-4, currently in use by the NRC licensing staf f to calculate the effects of loss-of-coolant accidents, was improved and e> tended to cover the final, or reflood, phase of LOCAs. This code will be made publicly available soon.

G. The first version of the advanced computer code TRAC was completed by the los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and will soon be released for public use. The TRAC code will have the capability to calculate the three-di[ensionalthermal-hydrauliceffectsinsidethereactorvessel during a loss-of-coolant accident.

ll The fuel behavior code FRAP-T has been updated to include all LOCA models required to describe the fuel rod behavior during a transient.

For the first time, enough data have been generated to allow for statistical analysis of code performance in the verification process. This results in predictions which contain standard error bounds.

1. An advanced containment code, BEACON-2, was completed and released to the public at the end of last year. This code computes effects that could occur within containment building in the event of severe accidents. It has the capability to calculate multidimensional pressures and flows, jet impingement loads on component walls, hydraulic loads on the reactor vessel,and loads on walls within the containment building.

J. A preliminary cost-benefit analysis of underground siting concepts was carried out by Sandia Laboratories. The study concluded that there were both positive and negative safety aspects of underground siting.

It also concluded that much of the positive safety benefits of underground siting could be attained by having a vented containment design, but at far less cost. Further work.is planned in this area in FY 1978.

K. The FRANT!C code was developed to optimize the testing requirements for reactor systems. It has shown that significant reductions in safety system testing requirements can be made without reducing reliability.

This code is being used by the NRC to improve the testing requirements in reactor licenses.

L. An early simplified method (EASI) for evaluating the effectiveness of safeguards systems for the physical protection of facilities was provided to NRC offices, DOE and industrial users. This work is a preliminary outcome of several projects to provide systematic methods y ~,v

for evaluating safeguards ef fectiveness as well as measured or authoritatively derived data to support staff judgements concerning the performance of safeguards components or subsystems. The projects cover safeguards for nuclear materials in transport as well as at fixed sites and include both physical protection and material controls and accounting safeguards.

These methods will aid, rather than replace, the current evaluation processes within NRC. However, NRC has identified a need for these in order to increase the uniformity of staff judgements as well as to provide licensees with a better understanding of NRC's objectives and standards.

The evaluation methods include models that permit a computer graphics-representation cf nuclear facilities and possible adversary activities and the assessnent of the interactions that may occur. While this simulation reflects the same process that underlies current NRC evaluations, the systematic approach being developed will provide a basis for improved consistency in evaluations and judgments and make it easier to docurrent and comunicate what is learned from experience.

The methods for evaluating the effectiveness of safeguards systems vere developed for use by NRC in early 1979 after demonstrations and user tests during the current year. However, certain of the techniques have already been used effectively in simpler or preliminary versions by l

Department of Energy facilities and by private industry in identifying important elements of the security system and in assessing the relative value of security options under consideration.

r 15 -

M. An NRC catalog of safeguards physical protection equipment and a guide for use by NRC inspectors in field evaluations of the equipment were produced to support inspections of safeguards at reactors and other fuel cycle facilities and to assist NRC's Office of Security in their inspection of various NRC and contractor facilites.

N. Tne Integrated Safeguards Information System (ISIS) research project has completed an analysis of the NRC's organizational safeguards information requirements, and an assessment of the capabilities of existing information systems to supply needed data as a basis for a general system design for an Integrated Safeguards Information System to be completed in May 19[8.

O. In response to the Scheuer amendment to NRC's FY 1976 budget appropriatic a container for the shipment of plutonium by air was successfully designed and tested to provide the technical basis for NRC certification of an air-transportable container for plutonium oxide.

P. Licensee programs to sample and measure the aquatic environs of nuclear power plants were evaluated for 14 operating plants to assess the need for revisions to NRC environmental technical specifications.

l The results are being used to improve the environmental requirements in reactor licenses and the technical guidance for compliance with the specifications.

l Q.

Two initial series of first-of-a-kind in-reactor experiments were ,

completed in the Annular Core Pulse Reactor at Sandia Laboratories in f i

The first series explored the amount of work-energy l Albuquerque.

that might result from a very low probability core disruptive accident.

The results~ indicate low energy yields. The second series explored the ability to remove heat from nuclear core debris after an accident. .

Early results indicate increased coolability over predictions made by calculations.

R. The SIMMER code for analysis of fast reactor core disruptive accidents was corrpleted and released to the licensing staff and technical community. The code has been used to analyze the energy imparted to the rcmctor vessel head during a core disruptive accident. The preliminary results show a substantial reduction from previously used conservative models.

6_.

ACRS Report to Congress on NRC's Safety Research Program Over the years, the regulatory staff has profited greatly from ACRS advice on safety research which has been contained in letters to the Conynission. The new Congressional requirement.for an annual ACRS report will supplement the letters the ACRS has written in the past and we are sure that these reports will provide us with even more useful guidance for our future programs.

l We are still in the process of analyzing the recommendations contained in the first ACRS report N ot determine their full impact on our ,

programs. C.:r preliminary assessment indicates that some of the recommendations concern work we have already planned and that many more can be covered within our planned FY 78 and FY 79 budgets by reordering of-priorities. Some reconmendations are also in the direction of resea'rch in improved reactor safety; these will- be considered as part of our program in that area.

We are planning a report in the near future to our Commission on the inpact of the ACRS recommendations on our programs. This report will cover which ACRS recommendations we can accommodate and the courses of 1

action that should be taken for those which cannot be accommodated l 4

within our planned FY 78 and FY 79 budgets.

l

/. Improved Safety Research As I said earlier, the removal from our enabling legislation of the restraint that permitted only confirmatory research will now allow NRC to perfonn research in areas that might potentially result in improvements in reactor safety. Let me explain what this means in a little more detail.

The NRC FY 78 Authorization Act requires us to develop a long-term plan ,

for projects for the development of new or improved sa fety systems for nuclear power plants. We would interpret this requirement to mean that l

l I

if " Review and Evaluation of the NRC Safety Research Program" Advisory Conmittee on Reactor Safeguards, December 1977 1

1

NRC projects would be directed toward the gathering of physical data and the creation of analytical models for the regulatory analyses that would be needed as a part of regulatory approvals of improved safety concepts. We believe that it would be inappropriate for the NRC to go beyond this point in referencing detailed systems designs. The ACRS has stated similar views about NRC's role in its report on our research program.

To perform the detailed design of a system could place the NRC in the position of having to review and approve its own design as a part of its licensing process. We believe, in cases where detailed designs may be needed to determine the adequacy of a safety concept, that such designs can be prepared by DOE. Our preliminary conversations with DOE indicate this to be a viable approach.

We have established a research review group to give us guidance in the preparation of this report. It is composed of NRC technical staff representing the applicable major offices and a number of consultants drawn from NRC contractors, private consultants, industry representatives, and persons who have been critical of nuclear power. We also plan to obtain ACRS advice on the report before its submission to Congress.

We had a beneficial first meeting of the reactor research group on January 10, 1978, and are planning a second meeting on February 10. We plan to provide a useful first report on April 12th of this year, but i

l l

l expect it will not be as complete as we would wish because of the short l

time available for its preparation. We expect next year's report to be more complete.

An itero of some interest is the area of research on the improvement of reactor safety as it relates to decay heat removal. In their review f

of our safety research program, the ACRS suggested that a more signif# cant research effort should be placed on the reliability of decay heat removal systems. The importance of decay heat removal systems to reactor safety has been recognized for several years, and its importance was confirmed

. by the Reactor Safety Study. Ilowever, as I have stated, under the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act, NRC's research charter was limited to confirmatory resca rch . Now that this constraint has been lifted by the 1978 Authorization Act, we can undertake research directed toward improving the safety of reactors. We are currently examining what research could be done to improve the reliability of decay heat removal systems in nuclear plants.

Since the FY 78 Authorization Act which allows NRC to expand its research into the area of improved safety did not become law until December 13, 1978, our current FY 79 budget request contains no funds explicitly earmarked for such projects. While we have been conducting some continuing work on alternate ECCS systems and alternate containment concepts which can fit into the category of research on improved safety, it may be that our examination of these and other areas will result in a requirement for additional funds. Our report to the Congress will address this matter.

l

1

.- 8 j l

8. Conclusion l

\

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report that the NRC research l 1

program is in my view making excellent progress in meeting its objectives, f We are producing results which are proving useful in supporting NRC's 1 regulatory functions. In addition, we are looking ahead to performing research directed toward the improvement of reactor safety. I would .

be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

l O

l .

NUCLEAR REGU LATORY RESEARCH FY 79 CONG (IN MILLIONS) k 0 .FY 1978 FY 1979 CHANGE PROGRAM SUPPORT S125.3 $147.1 S21.8 PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTR ATIVE 6.8 7.9 1.1 EQUIPMENT 7.9_

8.5 0.6 TOTAL 140.0 1 G3.5 23.5 PERSONNEL (147) (162) (15) fi$:;re I l

l l .

)

)

l

NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH - '.

~

PROGRAM SUPPORT --

FY 79 CONG (IN MILLIONS)

LIGHT WATER REACTOR FY 1978 FY 1979 CHANGE -

SAFETY RESEARCH .

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING S31.5 S35.6 S 4.1 LOFT 13.3 26.4 13.1 CODE DEVELOPMENT 8.3 9.9 1.6

~

FUEL BEHAVIOR 22.1 22.8 0.7 PRIMARY SYSTEMS INTEGRITY 6.9 8.4 1.5 StTE SAFETY 5.2 6.6 1.4 TOTAL 87.3 109.7 22.4 FAST BREEDER REACTORS 13.5 12.6 -0.9 ADVANCED CONVERTER REACTORS 2.2 2.4 0.2 TOTAL RSR 103.0 124.7 21.7 ENVIRONMENTAL, FUEL CYCLE 12.8 12.8 SAFEGUARDS 6.6 6.2 -0.4 PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS 2.9 3.4 0.5 TOTAL 125.3 - 147.1 21.8 .

I pj.we ?

i

SUMMARY

OF RESEARCH INFORMATION LETTERS ISSUED SINCE FY 1977 RIL #6 -

Title:

A Critique of the Board-Hall Model for Thermal Detonations in the U0 -Na System October T2~,~T976 4 Date Issued:

The " Board-Hall" theory describes the spreading of explosive ,

reactions in a mixture of molten fuel and sodium coolant in the course of a postulated accident involving serious core damage in an fast breeder reactor. A critical review of this theory was conducted. The results of the critique reinforced the belief of NRC's staff that such explosive reactions have a low .-

probability. This critique was used as an aid in answering ACRS concerns and was employed in supporting the licensing staff's position in evaluating the preliminary safety analysis report for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor.

RIL #8 -

Title:

Decay Heat Data Applicable to LOCA Evaluation Date Issued: March li~,7 Y77 Recent calculations and experiments were performed to determine a best estimate of the value of residual (decay) heat generated in nuclear fuel after reactor operation ceases. The value chosen for the residual heat rate plays a very important part in predicting the performance of emergency core cooling systems. The results of this work indicate that the decay heat rate currently used in licensing calculations has a 27%

margin over the newly-determined value. The impact of the information on NRC's. approach to the evaluation of ECCS systems is now being examined.

l

l Rll #9 _ Tit 1_e: High _ Temperature Oxidation of Zircaloy Fuel Cladding in Steam Date issued: March 14, 1977 Experiments were conducted to determine the embrittlement of nuclear fuel cladding when it is exposed to severe oxidation by extremely hot steam during a postulated loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). This fuel cladding serves as the primary barrier to contain radioactive  !

fission products in partially spent fuel. The results indicate that the thickness of the embrittled layer in the fuel cladding wall would be significantly less than calculated for any postulated LOCA, and more wall material will be left which is capable of sustaining mechanical loads later in the course of such an accident. This information, together with data on the rate of increase of oxygen in the cladding, provide a more scientific basis for establishing fuel l clad erbrittlerent criteria for emergency core cooling system acceptance.

RIL #10 -

Title:

Pressure Vessel Failure Probability Prediction (OCTAVI A Codel Date Issued: February 25, 19 7 OCTAVIA is a computer code for predicting failure probabilities for  !

reactor pressure ~ vessels as a function of tempe"ratures and pressures that might occur during startup and shutdown operations. Effects of material properties and operating age were also included. The results indicated that existing safety margins could be significantly reduced with continued vessel aging (resulting in radiation embrittlement) if the occurrence of overpressure events is similar to that previously i

observed. It enabled the tiRC licensing staff to confirm, in a more rionrous quantitative manner, earlier licensing decisions to reduce the allowed frequency and maximum value of the pressure transients.

These decisions are resulting in modifications to reactor operating procedures and the installation of physical devices to limit pressures ,

in operating plants to specified values.

RIL #11 -

Title:

IEEE Nuclear Reliability Data Manual Date issued: September f5, 1977 A failure rate data manual was developed for risk and reliability analysis of reactor systems. The manual contains failure rates and failure mode information for over 1,000 electrical, electronic, and l l

sensing components used in nuclear power plants. A method is given for collecting and presenting reliability data for evaluations of safety-related nuclear plant systems.

Uncertainty bounds are also provided for each estimate of component failure rate. This work is part of a continuing effort to establish an interim data base on electrical and electronic components for NRC use until significant operating data on components used in the nuclear I industry becomes available. .

4-RIL #12 -

Title:

Modifications to Pressure Vessel Failure Probability

-Prediction (OCTAVIA Code)

Date Issued: June 16, 1977 Modifications were made in the OCTAVIA computer code reported in RIL #10, for predicting reactor pressure vessel failure probabilities.

It includes a capability to handle residual stress in a reactor pressure vessel which can either be constant, or vary with the size of a flaw l

in the pressure vessel steel. The code user can impose an upper bound '

on the toughness of the pressure vessel steel, and a capability exists to handle uncertainties in the toughness.

Rll #13 -

Title:

Residual Rtre : tr Weids D te k ned: november ll ,197T A verified model is presented for predicting residual stresses resulting from the welding of pipes, and the estimation of residual l

stresses resulting from weld repairs of reactor pressure vessels. The I l

model can be used in the licensing process to aid in the evaluation of crackirg that has occurred in girth-butt welds in pioing. It should l also prove to be useful in any safety evaluation of proposed repairs by weld buildup in the corner regions of pressure vessel nozzles after cracks have been removed, and in vessel weld repairs.

1

.n RIL #14 -

Title:

Physical Separation Criteria for Electrical Cable Tray (Horizontal Open Space Configuration)

Date Issued: November 9, 1977 The ad.equacy of the required spacing of electrical cable trays at nuclear power, plants was examined to prevent the spread of cable fires. Results indicate that currently used criteria for cable tray  !

separation appear to be adequate for electrically-initiated fires, but '

that changes may be required for fires' due to external ignition sources.

The regulatory staff is already requiring changes in plants in parallel with work to revise the applicable regulatory guides. ]

l RIL #15 -

Title:

Characterization of BWR Feedwater Nozzle Corner Cracks

~

Da te Issued: December 1, 1977 Pressure loading of cracks in the inside corner of feedwater intake nozzles for boiling water reactor (BWR) pressure vessels have been characterized. The characterization established the relationship between stress-generated pressure and measurable crack parameters, in order to determine the growth of the crack and its critical size. These results can be used to check the calculations, based on internal pressure, for the safety analysis of BWR feedwater nozzle corner cracks.

RIL #_16 -

Title:

Warm Prestressing Date Issued: December 1, 1977  ;

The effect of cold emergency core cooling water on hot reactor pressure vessels was considered. The resulting themal shock could, under " worst case" conditions, lead to the prediction that flaws in the

steel pressure vessel would extend. Results reported here provide ,

a verification of the " warm prestressing" effect which can preclude crack extension when it otherwise would have been predicted. To describe this ef,fect, once a crack is loaded while the material is very tough, no rapid extension will occur.during subsequent combined cooling and unloading. It has been shown that under the most severe '

conditions, the crack can penetrate no more than 1/3 of the pressure vessel wall. This means that the vessel will always be capable of retaining emergency cooling water, thus keeping the core cool and providing for a safe shutdown. Thus, vessel failure is not possible

"~

following warm prestressing under conditions where cold emergency core cooling water is injected into the hot pressure vessel following a loss of ccolant accident.

RIL #18 -

Title:

FRANTIC Computer Code Date Issued: November 18, 1977 The FRANTIC code was developed to optimize the testing requirements for reactor systems. It has been shown that significant reductions in safety system testing requirements can be made without reducing the reliability. This code is being used by the NRC licensing staff to impr6ve the testing requirements in regulating reactors.

.k

g.4 ,.,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 'l 3 figt'

• - i)T.ji;j)2 f0,c' ~

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HEACTOR SAFEGUARDS *

• k . ,,, [ ,

WASHINGTON. D. C. 2M55

• • ..+

February 22, 1978 TO: ACRS Procedures Subcomnittee .,. . . . - . ,

, .f,,,,

ACRS Technical Staff -

FTOM:

1 SULGE0F: PIOPOSED OrGNi1ZATION N4D ISSIGNMEN1'S IDR 1978 IEPOIC ON SM'lJi'Y RESEARCB PFOGPXG hinu N; m h E;I e

.2 til $

)

hua.h4.5 c-9 nm C - II 4

\

l -

/ c PUlluC 1.AW 95 209-DEC.13,1977 91 STAT.1481 Public Law 95.-209 95th Congress

• An Act To authortre appropriations for .N*ncicar fleentatory 1 ononianlon for the nscal Dec.13. I')77 3eur 197x, und fur other purtwucs (S.1131l lic it erweled br/ the Sentile trnd flootse of llrpresenttrtires of the United Stato of .1incrir,a in Congecas uncmbled, Nuclear Rerulatory at Tuotaxmox ,f,,[,

,[,

Smrnm 1. (a) There is authorired io be appropsinted to the Nuclear 8" '"a " "" a -

llegulator P68-  :

mission")y to Poinn i.3 its carry out ionfunctioni t herea and fter authoritics in t hi, ni r under ref er the r edAtoinic to as Ihe "Com- '

Energy Act of 1%I t-12 l'.S.C. .'ut7) aint the Energy licoreaniza-tion Act- of 1971 (12 U.S.P. .NS) for the fiscal year 1978 to remain available until expended $297.710,000 to he alhicated as follows:

(1)'For "Nuclea r Heactor Regula tion", not niore than

$i1,4 80,000 t (2) For" Standard, Develolonent", not enore than $12,100,000; (3) For " Inspection and Enforcement", 'not more than (33,050,000; 4

t hn(n)$22.000.000:For " Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards", not more (5) For " Nuclear Regulatory Research", $149.000.000t (G) For " Program Ttchnical Support", $10.150.000t of which an alnount rol to exceed ydnn.n00 is authotized for a fellonhip pro ~ ram lunsuant to scetion 5 of this Act. '

iha n)$20,010,000.(Y For " Program Direction and Admini5tration", not inore h) Of the total amount authorized under section 1(a), the Com. Reallocation.

mi(ssioners may, by majority vote, reallocate tunone program activi.

ties specified in subsectron ta) or peudunnt to the authonty eranted in subrection (d) an amount not cweedine Sto. con. coo except that t he amount transfened from :my of the major prognon activitics '.peci.

fled in subscetion (a) Shall not execed 15 per cenium of the amount so specified. Prior to any scalloention of an amount in accordance with '

the piovisions of thii >nhsection. where such amount is in excess of

$500,000, the Conuniv. ion . hall inform the nppropriate congressional  ;

committees. Such reallocation may be made notwithstanding'the litui.

tntions of subsection (a).

(c) No innount unthorized to ho appropriated for contracts for Safernant research, studien, nml tec15dcal aristanco on dome .iic sa fcguard mat. rescarch contract ters under . subsection a) including anv amount reallocated utuler sub. H a 'n"c a '.

4 section (b) mhy be u<(cd for such cont'racts and no sonount 0"bh""""- nuthorized .

to be appropriated under this sub-ection inav he used hv the 00 ice of Nuclear 1 cgulatory Research for such contracts until a if atement sup, porting the need for t.uch tescarch. stude, or technical assistance fras been prepared ami published hv the Cominis-ion.

(d) No omount nuthorized to I,o a ipropriated for contractifor

• regulatory research related to advanen scactor ra fetv under this Act.

mnv he uied for such contracts except ns dirceted hv 'the Commission, following consideration bv the Connni~sion of nnv reconunendation that may bo mado by tbo ACHS segarding tho inct osed i research.

le.lM o = 17 (133) e e

h

._ ,s. ._ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D 91 STAT.1682 PUllLIC LAW 95-209-DEC.13,1977

.for(e) In Ihe event Ihat the license npplicatinn is witInlrawn or fmnlin,g the continuation of the Clinch Itiver lheeder Heactor project is not anthorized or uppropriated the total anthorization in subscetion .

(a shall be re.Inced by ::d. inn,nno.

f in the event. that (nrther construction of tho fncility nt Itarn-w 1,) South Carolina, for the pmpose of providing plutonium to he I usod as inel is canceled or deferied t he total anthurization in onbsec-tion (a) shall be reduced by $2,100,000.

CO)f 3 TIS 5 ton Pt:RsONNf;f, Quartedy nport . Se:c. 2. Section 001 of title 17 of the Energy Itcorganization Act of to Coegress.

42 USC 5841. }971 js timended by adding the following new subsection at the end thereof:

"(h) The Cononi+ ion shall prepare and solunit to the Congress a quarterly report which documents for grades US-Il or above: ,

"(1) the innnber of minority and wolnen candidates hired, by ' l grado level; i

"(2 by"gra)de kvel;the numl.cr of minority and women employees promoted job (descript ione,3)informine the procedures potential followed applicants. by the Conuniuion inl preparingl and selectmg ( i from candnhites the pec ons so he employed in positions at grade GS-11 or above; and '

42USC 2000e.

"(4) other steps taken to meet provisions of the Equal Employ-ment Act.

The first such rpinrterly report < hall be submitted to the Congrees not later than .f anuary 31,1978, and ruhmpient report.s shall be sulnoitted prior to the emi of one calendar month after the end of each calendar quarter thereafter.".

UNnr.soLven sart.Tr uscr.s i

i Src. 3. Titic IT of the Energy iteorganization Act of 1974, is '

amended by adding the following new section at the end thereof:

1 "UNHESOLvnD SAFETr IS5tJES r!.AN 42 USC 5850.

"Src. 210. The Conuniuion shall develop n plan providine for the specification and analysis of unresolved safety iones relating to l Sul.minal to nuclear reactors nnd shall take such action ~as mw be neces-arv to concess. implement conective measures with respect to such' issues. Such plan Provm report . shall be submitted to the Congress on or before .innuary 1.1978 and progre.w r ports shall bo inelnded in the annual report'of the Com-nnssion therca fler.".

nrrnovro sAtrrr srsn:3rs r"scanen lontacrm pleo ', Sin 4. (a) Section 005 of the Enctcy Itcorganization Act of 1974 derci v aent.

42 USC 5Gts. is amended by adding the following new' subsection at the end thereof: i "f i for (th)e develThe Conunission shall develop r n long. term plan for projects  !

POWelplaids.,opment' of new or improved .sa ely cyqcms for nuclear l i

l

,

• 4

j '

~

,,T-g , g i

Full!.lC I,AW 95-209-DEC.13,1977 91 STAT.1483 arsnin 8Arrry new:anen nTtroy Sr.c. 5. Section 29 of il.e Atennic Fnergy Art of 1951 is aniended hv Annual repart ta e adding eln follow ing al t he rnd thereof:"In addition to its ot her dut ie's C'"'rr" $- * '

under this scetion,Ihe emomitive, nmking use of nll avnilable tourres, 42 (6C 20n

a. hall undertal.c a stenly of reactor safety swearch ami prepare aiol '

subrnll annually o the Congress a repent containing ahe sesof ts of such s>tudy.The first such report sha'll be snbinitted in t he Congress not later than Decernher 31,1077.

ACHS FET.1/JW.9 fille pjgrx; NAM I Src c. To assist ihe Advi.sory Conunittee on licartor Sategnard,in Luliti4meni.  !

carryin;*

program out its which innler function, the cenninittee shall establish a fellow 3 hip 4213C 2040. ,

entific expeitire are a->pernons havin:t igne.1 partienlar appropriate iaska relating toengincesing the functionsor ort. I of the connuittee. Such fellowrhip shall he for 8.vear period,. and the recipients of >.uch felinwships > hall be selectedt inrsuant to such cri. '

teria nsinay be established by the conunittee.

ORGAN 3ZAT!oNA!, CONrLICTS or JNTr. REST Src. 7. The Cominission > hall by December 31, 1977, promulgate Guwelines.

guidelines to be npplied by Ihe Cominirsion in determining whet her nn 42l'5C2201 i organization inupooing to enter into a contrai tual arrangement with mde-the Connoinion has a conflict of interest which might irupair the con-tractor's judginent or otherwisc give the contractor an un fair competitive advantage.

COorrHATIVn REsEAltCJ! FUNn!No Src. 8. Moneys received by the Conuniuion for the cooperative sal.iries and g

nuclear safety rezcarch progrnmsinay be n tained and need for ralaries execum-and expenses avociated with tho.c prnurams, notwith tanding the )

provisions of scetion "c17 of the Itevi cd Statutes (31 U.S.C. ist),

and shall remain available nntil expended. Funds nmy he obligated for purposes stated in this Ecction only to the extcht provided in appropriation Acts. .

TRAN$FER OF FUNDS q

' Stc. 9. Transfers of snms from salaries and expent.cs may be inade I to other agencies of the Government for the performance of the work for which the appropriation is inade, and in such cases the f,ums so transferred nicy bo merged with the appropriations to which transferred.

9 J

4 8

. O e

W% l

_, ~

\

, .Nc g,

. l, 91 STAT.1484 Pull!,1C 1.AW 95-20%-1)EC.13,1977 .

nennenaruru Sr.c,10. Notwillistaniling any otlier provision of this Art, no authority to anni.e paynwnts innter 11:19 Art shall lu clicctire c. wept to such c. stent or in inch ntnounts as are provitic<l in nilvance in '

appropriation Acts. .....

Approved Decernleer 13,1977.

1 1

l I

I l

6 I F

LECISt.ATIVE lilST0!!Y:

il0llSE liEPoltTS No.95-289 accomianying 11.11, 3 555 (Cnmm. on Interinr and Inuitar Aff.dre and No. 95-7 tin (C,.mm. of ('onferenct).

SENATE IIEPoltT N..95-196 (Comm. .m Enurnnment and l'ulitic WarL*).

CONCIO$SION Al, it ECORil. Vol. 123 (1977).

blay 25. considere ! ami sia. cil Srnaie.

Seg.t.17. considered and p sal Iluu*e. aniended, in lieu of 11.11. 3455.

Nov. 3. Ilouse ereced to conference rt; met.

Nov. 29. Sensie ar, reed to conference seg. ort.

O

?

9 a *