ML20205C214

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of 850913 Periodic Meeting W/Acrs in Washington,Dc.Pp 1-48
ML20205C214
Person / Time
Issue date: 09/13/1985
From:
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 ACRS-GENERAL, NUDOCS 8509200198
Download: ML20205C214 (53)
v • d • e


Text

-

e ORIGINAL i

' h,.d UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I"

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

., _,,,1

.:. Li sy

.. -q

~;1.T T s.

.. e In the matter of:

g; 4

W COMMISSION MEETING

' a:R 4

Periodic Meeting with 3

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ' s?fil +c

C (Public Meeting) c,.x, 7 Docket No.

~ j .n t L i ( Y f Location: Washington, D. C. Date: Friday, September 13, 1985 Pages: 1 - 49 8509200190 050913 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES i Court Reporters (, 1625 I St., N.W. Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950

6 a' T., .;;:2 1 O I SCLA I MER 2 3 4 5 6 This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Friday, 3 Septater 13,1985 in the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9 N.W., Washington, D.C. The meeting was open to public ~ 10 atten ance and observation. This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 12 inaccuracies. g 13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in to any procee:d i ng as the result of or addressed to any statement 1 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authorire. 22 23 24 25

s 1 4?if i UNITED STATES OF AMERICh NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI'4SION 2 3 PERIODIC MEETING WITH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4 PUBLIC MEETING 5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W. 7 Washington, D. C. i 8 Friday, September 13, 1985 9 The Commission convened, pursuant to notice, at 10 3:35 p.m. 11 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: 12 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission i THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner i3 JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner 14 FREDERICK BERNTHAL, Commissioner LANDO ZECH, JR., Commissioner 15 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLEr I6 S. CHILK 17 H. PLAINE D. WARD 18 J. EBERSOLE C. MARK 19 P. SHEWMON D. MOELLER 20 H. LEWIS W. KERR 21 D. OKRENT i C. MICHELSON 22 F. REMICK C. SIESS 23 R. AXTMANN C. WYLIE 24 B. REED 25 0

s 2 DI@, sp. 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Good afternoon, ladies and 3 gentlemen. Before beginning the meeting of the Commission 4 5 with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, I would 6 like to take a moment to honor one of the committee members 7 well known to all of us. Dave Okrent. 8 Last week the NRC held its annual award ceremony 9 honoring distinguished employees. Although we do not have 10 a military band and color guard --- 11 (Laughter.) 12 --- as we had last week, I think that today's 13 ceremony is an equally important occasion. 14 Dr. David Okrent is a member and past Chairman of is the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. 16 Simultaneously, he is a professor of engineering and 17 applied science at the University of California, Los 18 Angeles, where he has served since 1971. 19 In recognition of his long service and significant 20 achievements, he is being given the Distinguished Service 21 Award, the highest honor award granted by the Nuclear 22 Regulatory Commission to an individual. 23 With your permission, I would like to read from 24 the citation as follows. 25 "In recognition of his leadership and service l I..

i 3 3 (c.s.f i during his 21 years with the Advisnry Committee on Reactor 2 Safeguards, particularly noteworthy are Dr. Okrent's 3 outstanding contributions to the development and application of probabilistic risk assessment and 4 f 5 quantitative safety goals for the regulation of nuclear 6 facilities. "A long-standing member of the ACRS, Dr. Okrent 7 also actively participated in the identification and a resolution of numerous difficult and safety related 9 to issues. These efforts reflect his dedication and are a ti credit to him and to the NRC." Dave, if you will step" forward, I will have the 12 privilege and honor of presenting to you this certificate i3 from which I quoted part of the citation. You will notice i4 that the citation is much longer than the one I read. is (Laughter.) 16 u (Chairman Palladino and Dr. Okrent stand in front 18 of the NRC Seal between the flags to have their picture i, taken.) 20 (Loud applause.) 21 Now, Dave, along with this certificate goes a 22 medallion, which I am told is solid gold. 23 (Laughter.) And it could be. 24 25 (Laughter.)

4 f::.~% It has been a privilege wording with you, Dave, i_ -; i 2 and we look forward to continuing to work with you. 3 (Chairman Palladino and Dr. Okrent return to their 4 seats.) 5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Incidentially, I have got a copy of the program for you that shows that you were 6 7 identified appropriately. 8 MR. OKRENT: Thank you very much. 9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right, let me go on. This afternoon we are holding one of our periodic 10 1 11 meetings with the ACRS, and we are pleased once again to ~ 12 welcome the committee. 13 Three subjects are scheduled for discussion. ACRS participation in the DOE program to handle and dispose of -J 14 15 civilian waste, the NRC severe accident policy and human i6 factors research. 17 As reflected in the scheduling notes, with respect 18 to the NRC high-level waste program, the committee has proposed an ACRS oversight role for staff activities in 19 20 this area. 21 Regarding the severe accident policy, the 22 committee feels that there is a need to account for 23 positive and negative human performance in the 24 implementation of a recently published final policy 25 statement. 7 .s

5 0% Finally, the members have requested an opportunity 1 2 to exchange views with the Commission on the need for human 3 factors research. We look forward to the ACRS views on these 4 5 important matters, and let me first, before turning the meeting over to the committee, ask whether other 6 7 Commissioners have opening remarks. COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: No. 8 1 9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: No. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: No. 10 COMMISSIONER ZECH: No. ii CRAIRMAN PALLADINO: k11 right. Then we will turn 12 the meeting over to Mr. Ward. i3 14 MR. WARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. We are glad to be here. is Our first topic will be led with a preliminary 16 i7 discussion by Dr. Moeller. is MR. MOELLER: Thank you, i9 As you will recall, on August the 13th, we sent a letter to the Commission outlining a proposed activity on 20 the part of the committee relative to the review of high 21 22 level waste. Of course, the opportunities or the alternatives available would be for you to decide that we 23 would no nothing or we would do it completely, or something 24 in between. 25

\\ 6 %i?" L-t;> 1 We have proposed in the letter that with 2 appropriate financial support we would be as a committee be 3 willing to undertake this task. I might mention that I found it personally 4 5 gratifying to note that this morning we met with the panel 6 that had been set up to review ACRS effectiveness, and in 7 their written report, as well as in their oral remarks this a morning, they suggested that radioactive waste was an area 9 in which the committee should indeed take an active role. to so we have submitted our proposal to you and we 11 look forward to your response or comments or 12 recommendations. 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Thank you, Dade. 14 I haven't gotten feedback from Commission members J is as yet. However, I found the proposal not only 16 interesting, but I think consistent with my own thinking in 17 part. 18 I guess the part that was not consistent with my 19 thinking I should use as the basis for a question or two, 20 and that has to do with the additional resources. 21 I appreciate that additional resources may very 22 well be'needed, but I was interested in what kind of 23 activities did you envision that would be different from 24 current activities inso far as additional resources are 25 concerned? '2 i

7 6L s Lyf ) MR. MOELLER: At the moment the committee had 4 2 reviewed of course our financial support and had estimated, the ACRS staff had estimated that we perhaps could devote 3 two to three, as I recall, meetings, subcommittee meetings 4 5 each year to this topic. We believe to do the job adequately will require 6 twice to three times this number of subcommittee meetings, 7 and that was the basis for our request. a 9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: As I recall, the additional to dollar amount was roughly $100,000? 11 MR. MOELLER: Yes, sir, plus four full-time ~ 12 equivalents in terms of people. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Now I guess the harder i3 problem might be the four full-time equivalent people. i4 15 Could you comment on that for a moment? 16 MR. MOELLER: I,think perhaps it would be best for 17 Mr. Fraley to comment. is Ray? Where is Ray, j 19 MR. FRALEY: We have approximately a half a man-20 year now devoted to following radwaste matters. We figure that we would certainly need considerably more subcommittee 21 22 meetings and some additional staff to monitor what is happening in this area, both in the staff and over in the 23 24 Department of Energy. I think I came out to two and a half additional 25 i _ _ ~ _.

t 8 -9 ' $;Y f 1 technical people, and then we figured we would need one and 2 a, half support people to handle the documents, the 3 preparation of minutes and that sort of thing. 4 But it was not only to cover the increased number i 5 of subcommittee meetings, but to monitor what was happening i 6 in this area within the NRC and in DOE. 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Now is it conceivable that we 8 might phase in, or would you. comment on the problems you l 9 would see if we were to try to phase in and not achieve all i i io the FTE's at one time, but achieve them over a period of i 11 time? 1 12 MR. MOELLER: That obviously is an approach that i i3 we could take, and we had one of our fellows review the j-; i4 various tasks to be done in this field. l 1 is And, as we mentioned in our letter, we saw it as 16 an opportunity for us to be more active, not only say in 17 high-level waste, but on low-level waste, uranium mill i is tailings, radioactive material transport and to perhaps 1 ~ 19 give more attention to NRC research in this area, as well 20 as looking at the general requirements for the overall high-21 level waste program, the siting and licensing of the first 22 repository, the same for the second repository and the same i 23 for monitored retrievable storage, and then there are i 24 problems or issues related to the interim storage of spent j 25 fuel and, lastly, the resolution of issues related to

'n

\\ Ji

i o i 9 I:f.w'h Y packaging and transport of spent fuel. 1 i I think surely we could phase in. I personally 2 feel or believe, this being a personal opinion as 3 Subcommittee Chairman for Radwaste Management, that we are 4 1 already getting, or we are quite substantially behind, and 5 { I think it would take some running to catch up. 6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: One other question on ] 7 a resources. Is it possible that you could cut back on some t other activities and produce some part of the additional 9 to FTE's that you need? MR. MOELLER: Dave, do you want to comment? 11 ~ 12 MR. WARD: Well, of course, this is possible, and this is something that we have given some considerable 33 thought to and, because of the budget constraints, we have 34 in fact reduced our attention to some activities and 15 i' reduced the level of sub' committee meetings, for example. 16 Faced with what we saw as really an increase in 17 1 the committee activity to support the waste management is program, our choice was to seek further resources rather { i, I I than back off further on some of our more traditional 20 activities. 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, let me say that I am 22 heartened by your proposal. I will probably have some i 23 i comments as a result of your discussion here on resources, 24 but I recognize that you can't do additional work without 25 t' e 1

i., s 10 >:Q j 399 1 some additional resources. I am just trying to see how we i. 2 can make the best use of what resources we have totally. i 3 But let me turr to my colleagues and see if they 4 have comments. 4 5 Tom, do you have any? + COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: No. 1 i 6 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Jim? 4 f a COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I have just a couple of 9 questions, Dade. 10 Your letter doesn't comment on a couple of aspects i i j 11 of the staff proposal, and I wondered if you had any l 12 thoughts on this two-tier approach of asking the National Academy of Engineering to set up a committee in addition to 1 7 13 14 your review in the ACRS, whether you had any thoughts on =J j j 15 that, whether you think that is necessary or unnecessary, 16 'useful or whatever? I l 17 MR. MOELLER: I believe speaking for the i i is committee, yes, indeed, we did discuss that, and our I i 19 opinion was that we could do the job, or we felt we could j 20 do the job effectively and efficiently and on time. 21 Whereas if you go to a National Academy committee, there 22 will be delays and so forth. i 23 There may be other better ways. In fact, in our 1 24 letter we mention, as I recall, that we would almost i 25 suggest that you appoint, if you indeed wanted to go to a i i ._,_..._...-._.,,,_u.....,.-_..~,.__...._,._.,_____-,.

i 11 j 49.D QS-i separate group, just go ahead and appoint a separate committee that maybe would look to the ACRS staff for staff 2 L 3 resources, but be directly advisory to you and give you what you want on a timely basis. 4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The other question, and 5 I understand the point about not changing the composition 6 7 of the membership of the ACRS, the suggestion in the staff's paper was that this be done at the full committee a 9 level. Have you thought about how you want to do that, or i io do you have any comments on that, or whether you want to si stick with the subcommittee approach that you have used? MR. MOELLER: We did discuss that also, and again 12 i3 I.may be misquoting what the committee believes, but as I j ~ I i y understand it, we have already taken steps, and we will l continue to take steps to strenthen the expertise available is I 16 through our consultants to the subcommittee. i7 In terms of the full committee, when we said in is our letter that we did not believe that it will be i 19 desirable or practical to significantly alter the Current i i 20 membership, what I think the committee means by that, and i i 21 here I am off on a tangent, but it is that we could make 22 changes, but if we do, we would prefer to do it as members 23 complete their terms and as opportunities come up to l 24 appoint new people rather than suddenly and drastically 25 doing it. We would rather approach it as the opportunities i 1 i i e y+ ,.-g- ,y. yp._r-,we ,w -_,-_-,_m.w.w---.p--m--.,wwww-yp,yw------e -.-+-w--e.,--,---.-~

O i 12 r:% Lj i arise. 2 COMMISSIGNER ASSELSTINE: Thank you. Those are l 3 the couple of questions that I had. 4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Fred? 5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I think maybe my question 6 is as much for us. What is our timetable for the 7 Commission making a decision on how we are going to handle a this, Joe? 9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I would suggest that I propose a response and then see if the commission buys it, to 11 or I can as for input, but sometimes we focus more clearly ~ 12 if we make a proposal and then people can add or subtract ia from it. J 14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I really haven't is formulated an opinion on this yet. I happen to believe 13 that, though I am less f,amiliar with the National Academy 1 17 of Engineering than with the National Academy of Sciences, is that groups like that tend to have a horizon of activity in 19 time at least that lies somewhere fairly far out in the 20 distance. They do have prestige that they can lend to any 'a 22 such project, and my point is that, not only in that area, 23 but in one or two other areas that the Commission has 24 considered I am less enthusiastic about expecting from the 25 National Academy of Engineering the kind of rapid or semi-1 4 ---._-.--.c

i T 13 j' - 5 ': rapid feedback that the Commission I think would find most , YN3 i 1 useful and I would hope that we get from the ACRS on this I 2 3 and other matters. But I just don't know. I haven't really made a decision on this. i 4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think the National Academy 5 is particularly useful in coping with specific problems or .l 6 I doing studies in the specific area. Have them on a 7 1 continuing basis and making comments may also get us into i a i difficulty with the Advisory Committee Act. j 9 10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes, I agree. i 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But that doesn't foreclose 12 going to them for certain specific questions. COMMTSSIONER BERNTHAL: Something that you don't j i3 14 need to know about day after tomorrow as well. But the l upside of the Academy, perhaps more so in this area than 15 1 any other area that the staff or commission has considered 36 i 17 the Academy having a role, is the fact that in this area i j is you really do want to lend whatever prestige you can to the decision that ultimately is proposed, and I think that is 19 20 terribly important. If they can assist in that, I think we 21 should figure out a way to put them into the mix. 22 CHAIRMAN FALLADINO: Lando? l 23 COMMISSIONER EECH: Yes, I have a couple of i 24 comments. I First of all, I think it is good and appropriate 25 i f i i ) 4 1

14 !h i that the ACRS does indeed get involved in the waste _f, 2 program. I think you should be invovled to the extent that 3 you can eventually give us a piece of paper like you do for 4 other matters that tell us that you agree or do not agree 5 with the reasons on the approach we are taking with respect 6 to the ultimate goal. 7 And in order to do that, you do need resources. I a respect that. On the other hand, it seems to me that this 9 is one of the reasons I have been so interested in getting a five-year plan for our agency, because as we look ahead to 11 we do see our role changing somewhat, and your role changing, too, with the number"of reactors decreasing in 12 i3 the future, the total numbers, unless we get some more 14 reactors ordered. 15 so this is a long-range program, this waste 16 Program. I don't have a good feel for the resources that 17 are needed, and I agree with the Chairman's concern. I is mean we have to defer to you and your staff to a degree on 19 it. On the other hand, I would cak the staff to take a 20 ' look to see if we couldn't take on this new responsibility, 21 and it is a new responsibility, and I think it should be 22 taken on, but I think we should also recognize that your rule as well as our role could be changing, and perhaps 23 24 that as we look to the future we would find the resources 25 within what we already have to do a thorough and careful i p

15 1 job that we could all have some confidence in. had i 2 So I think it is appropriate that you get 3 involved. I just don't know that the resources are i necessary when you look ahead and you may need more 4 resources in a few years from now if you get heavily 5 involved in this program. 6 On the other hand, our reactor resources look like 7 thay should ~oe going down, the reactor responsibilities a y perhaps. So I would at least for now feel that you should get involved, and you should start out doing what you have to to do_, but see if we can't kind of take it out of our hide n 12 for the cime being and see what we need for th MR. WARD: Could I respond to that briefly because i3 I think my comment earlier on the potential for using e a existing resources wasn't ccmplete. is We do spend a significant effort each year on a 16 17 report to the Congress on your research program. "e have is that responsibility and I think we will have to carry i through with it. i, I However, we think we see a means to simplify 20 21 that. And while we of course will continue to be involved 22 and give you advice on the research program, we think the 23 production of the report for Congress itself can be 24 simplified, and I think thac will give us at least a fraction of the resources we need here, and there may be 25 J l l

{ 16 fdh Gell 1 other things. 2 I think you'are right. We need to continue to 3 look. I was going to mention a little later some advice we got today from a panel, and I will wait on this until 1 4 5 later. But I think they suggest there is potential for 6 Simplifying our activities in Certain areas. 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Dave Okrent, you had a 8 comment? 9 MR. OKRENT: I was only going to urge caution in 10 your choice of things that you ask the Academy to do. Based _on my observation and partly from participation in 11 12 some of their activities, there are some kinds of 13 activities that they do very well. In providing decisions i -J 14 on controversial issues like, for example, how safe is the 15 LMFBR, I would say they didn't come out with flying colors 16 on. So again let's leave it that way. One wants to be 17 selective. 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. I think Chester Siess 19 had a comment. Is that Chester back there? 20 MR. SIESS: Since Dave opened the subject, I would 21 like to comment a bit on that, too. 22 First, you should realize you will not be dealing 23 with a committee of the National Academy of Sciences or the 24 National Academy of Engineering. It will be a committee of 25 the National Research Council, which is governed by those _-,e --c-r- v.r

4 17 i two bodies. 2 As far as prestige is concerned, you have four 3 members of the National Academy of Engineering facing you around this table right now, and some on the other side, or 4 at least one on the other side, and that is probably as 5 many members of the Academy as you will have on a National 6 Research Council committee, y So the prestige you get from that may be more a imaginary or more subjective than real, and I would just 9 io like for you to think about that. COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, to be sure, but 11 12 unfortunately they don't have the title. The imprimatur is i3 not on the document, and that is of some importance. I u entirely agree with you though. MR. SIESS: I depends on who you are trying to 15 address. 16 17 (Laughter.) is COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, I think it sometimes doesn't matter. 19 20 MR. SIESS: I don't think the ACRS has any objection to whatever you may do with the Academy, but it 21 was not intended as a substitute. It was another layer. 22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I will grant your point on 23 24 the substance. COMMISSIONER ZECH: My view is that the ACRS 25 1

18 1 should take the lead in this endeavor, and I presume that i 2 is what your letter envisioned. 3 MR. WARD: That is right. 4 COMMISSIONER ZECH: I am not sure exactly what you 5 mean by the new standing committee under the auspice of the 6 National Academy of Engineering, but I am glad it came up 7 because to me the most importanta thing I think is that the a ACRS be involved, the Advisory Committee on Reactor 9 Safeguards be involved. I don't think you need much more 1 10 than yourselves and your collective judgments and wisdoms, i j 11 but perhaps you feel you do. I am envisioning the 5dvisory Committee on Reactor 12 i3 Safeguards involve themselves and not necessarily anybody -J 14 else at all. That is my view right now. 15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Carson. 16 MR. MARK: There is a point which is obvious, but 17 I don't think has been specifically mentioned. The is question of resources, a part of that, in fact an important 19 part of it has to do with the fact that we will have to 20 consult people and bring them to Washington who are in fact 21 experts in soil mechanics and geochemistry and so on, and 22 Part of the need is exactly-that, and that we confess we would use it seismology of course if we starting over again 23 24 with Diablo Canyon or so. But it is something that we can't 25 _just stop doing something and do this instead. j3

19 i l 1 ,~ w 2h i The other point that I would like to just 2 identify, and Commission Zech mentioned that reactors are 3 going away, I don't believe that. New license applications are coming down and mishaps in the field are holding up, 4 and with more reactors on line, there is a good chance that 5 there will be a steady diet of things entirely worth giving 6 7 attention to. The other point that Commissioner Asselstine 8 referred to was do it more in the full committee than in 9 the subcommittee, and yet this activity that we are talking to about here is not really black and white different from the ti way we go about, let's pretend,' the River Bend plant. A 12 subcommittee sits all day and listens to stuff which has to i3 be said in that connection, and the committee gets a cut-u down summary of that and says good, I am persuaded by what is you told me and here is a letter for Mr. Asselstine. i6 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think when we use the word ja " full committee" I think we are thinking of the way you operate where you work with subcommittees, but then the 19 20 document receives --- 21 MR. MARK: Well, a great deal of the stuff that 22 has come up so far perhaps isn't worth even the j subcommittee's attention, and yet they have got to know 23 about the vast reams of paper that exist in order to decide 24 that we have seen them and that is enough of that. But the 25 y.,

20 rf h L.?j i committee doesn't have to go through that. 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, I appreciate that. 3 MR. MARK: This is a matter of scheduling and planning out of technical content. 4 5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But we do receive our l I 6 significant decisions from the full committee even though 7 it is developed in large part in the subcommittees. 8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I wanted to comment on 9 Chet's comment because it does raise a thought which may be io wildly unrealistic. But if we have a significant i 11 contingent of the National Academy here on the ACRS, one 12 imagines in a dream at least that it might be conceivable i 13 that there could be some cooperative or other arrangement i J 14 without being accused of incest or whatever it might be. 15 It is just a thought. I am not sure whether the Academy is would consider that beneath its dignity or exactly what the 17 response would be, but maybe it bears some consideration. is In other words, what I am saying is that is-it l 19 entirely beyond the pale for our ACRS or a component 20 thereof to perform as an arm and agent of the National i 21 Academy in carrying out its duties in this area? Probably i 22 yes, but it is a question worth asking. 23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I would like to just i 24 second the point that Carson made on the reactor side. I ~ 25 think one of the things that I want to do, and I am looking i 1 l

t 21 i?s forward to reading this report you all just received 2 O i because I happen to think that over the next few years the 2 3 challenges that you all and that we face are going to 4 grow. They are not going to diminish. And how you all 5 best use your time and how we best use your time to move forward in the reactor area and what resources you need to 6 keep up with that pace is of real concern to me, and I want 7 to take that into account when I factor in the committee's a 9 role on the waste issues. g MR. MARK: I didn't mean to pretend that I had a 30 good meansure of this, but I thought the assumption that it it 12 was going to tail off may not necessarily hold up. 4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I agree with that very i3 much. ja COMMISSIONER ZECH: I don't have any intention of 15 telling you that our responsibilities are going to tail off ~ 16 i7 nor are yours going to tail off, but as I recall, unless we is have gotten any more orders in that I don't know about, we 19 won't be putting any more on line in a couple of years. That doesn't mean we won't have a lot out there to worry j 20 about and be concerned with and to keep on top of, and that 21 22 is I know your point, and I agree with that. But my only point is that unless we do get some 23 i more new orders, I think we are going to have to retailor 24 some of our responsibilities at the Commission and at the 25 i l

22 I staff and refocus perhaps on the changing responsibilities 2 that we have, and I think the same thing bears on the 3 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. That doesn't mean that there is not plenty of 4 things to focus on, but I do think that as we look to the 5 changing times and things do change that the waste is a 6 very, very important program that we Will be involved with, 7 and I think you should be involved in it also, and I think 8 9 it is a matter of changing your priorities a bit and to looking at where we should put our focus. I just think it perhaps can be done by our Commission as well as your 11 ~ 12 committee as we go about looking to the changing future, is which is changing. 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, let me propose that is maybe we have gotten enough exchange of ideas here, and I will get perhaps the help of OPE in drafting a possible 16 response and then we can see how the Commissioners feel 17 is about it. 19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Could I either as part of 20 your comment or as a new idea perhaps make a suggestion. I 21 don't really know what we are talking about here other than I have seen a hundred thousand dollars somewhere here. 22 23 Have we had prepared for us, and I may be embarrassed here, but I don't think we have had prepared for us a kind of low-24 budget /high-budget scenario which actually costed out what 25 j

23 Sk the alternatives could be and what capabilities would '^ d i attach to an expanded alternative of a well-funded separate 2 advisory committee or special subcommittee of this advisory 3 4 committee? 5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, we may ask OPE to 6 explain it. COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, I would like to see 7 a that, and moreover it seems to me that this area is important enough that if on seeing that and being supplied 9 with the capabilities of such an arm of the ACRS or io separate group might be, and if the Commission decides that i t it is important enough, I think' we ought to ask for it and 12 go to the Congress, or perhaps the ACRS should go to the 33 Congress if it is significant enough. I don't really know i4 what we are talking about here when we talk about a hundred 15 thousand versus something else. 16 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I would say we ought to is look at it, but I think no matter what we decide as an initial start, over the long haul attention is going to 19 have to be given to your budgetary needs to handle this as 20 well as our own budgetary needs. 21 Incidentally, we do have an OPE paper on this 22 general subject that might be worth reviewing. I don't 23 recall what they say about costs. 24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I didn't see that kind of 25 4

24 _;~. 13 1 detail in there. 2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It is not. It is not in 3 there. 4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: But my point is that ! 5 sort of feel, and I suspect that you would not find the Congress turning down on a legitimate request from a panel 6 7 of scholars that is going to assist in providing advice on a this subject. I just cannot imagine on something so important that if there is a sensible proposal for advising 9 to the Commission that they will deny funding for that. 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I think they already 12 have. 13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That is because we have J 14 not spelled it out, Joe. 15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What generally happens is they say that is a good idea and take it out of your total 16 17 budget. However, I think we are getting into matters that la we are going to have to develop. I think we seem to have a 19 sense that there is great value in having the ACRS 20 undertake this activity. We have a budgetary question or l two that we have to address in developing this, and we will 21 l 22 look and see what comments we get with regard to the l 23 Academy. l 24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I would just add on the 25 funding point, this is one area where I don't think that l

25 .rc, '5$2 i the funding difficulty ought to color our decision --- CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I was thinking primarily the 2 3 FTE's is the point. COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: --- because it is all 4 5 going to be funded out of the waste fund anyway. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Let me suggest that we 6 7 go on to the second topic. 8 MR. WARD: Okay, fine. With your permission, I 9 would like to combine the next two topics. I think they io fit that way. And if our discussion on these combined topics doesn't fill the 35 minutes or so that we have left, n ~ we do have another topic which we would like to discuss 12 with you. i3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, semething that I u perhaps should have said at the beginning is one of our 15 good colleagues, Sheldon Trubatch from the Office of 16 17 General Counsel, is leaving us today, and they have a is little ceremony they had planned for 3:30 and they were hoping that we might break up or at least recess in time so i, 20 the committee could participate. So if we get done by 3:30 or 3:35 or 3:40 --- 21 22 MR. WARD: You won't be at all angry with us. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We won't be angry, yes. 23 MR. WARD: We will go ahead with this combined 24 25 topic then.

26 ..3 1 Flowing out of your severe accident policy was a c 2 plan to look for outliers in the operation of nuclear power 3 plants. There is a concern that while the general population of plants, the risk. of core melt was rare enough 4 5 that this might not be true of every one of the 95 or the 6 eventually 105 plants. The ACRS commented on this in letters recently of 7 April 15th and also on November 6th of last year, and let 8 9 me just read a brief quote. 10 "The quality of operation is not the same at all 11 plants. The ability of operators, the quality of 12 equipment, maintenance and testing programs, the 13 comprehensiveness of technical support and the overall ability of plant management are important considerations in 14 is operation. There does not exist at present satisfactory means for fully evaluati,ng these factors. Development of 16 17 an effective and practical approach to do this should be a is high priority matter for the NRC." We are concerned that we don't see such an 19 20 activity underway, and let me explain a little bit further. 21 It is planned to use PRA or the methodology, some 22 simplified PRA methodology to look for outliers, but I 23 think we need to remind you that while PRA can tell us much 24 about the design of the plant, it tells us very little 25 about the operation of the plant. This other tool is ' b

27 Ch needed to tell us about the operation. f 'k? i We think this is important because there appear to 2 be very large differences in how well plants are maintained a and operated, and there are strong indications that these 4 differences may influence safety more profoundly than 5 whether, for example, the nuclear steam supply vendor at a 6 plant was Westinghouse or B&W or whether the containment 7 was a Mark I or a Mark III. And those are the things that a 9 the PRA is preoccupied with. There may be a good reason for this. After all, io n the-NRC has developed through the years an elaborate ~ network of regulations which' apply to the designs of all 12 i LWR's. If these have been affected, we really shouldn't be 33 i surprised at plants designed to these regulations are all j u estimated to be within a fairly narrow range in core melt 15 probability and related risk numbers. a But the NRC hasn't regulated as extensively the I 17 la organizations that run nt: clear power plants. You license operators and we count on that taking care of i, organizational performance all the way from anywhere in the 20 management structure to'the apprentice electrician. 21 And given the individualistic experience and 22 traditions of 55 really very different nuclear utilities 23 and no history of major NRC influence toward 24 standardization of these operational. attributes, I think we 25 A ~f m.- - ~ ., _ ~

28 EP can hardly be surprised that there is a large variability b t;' I l 2" in operating performance, 3 There are some attempts certainly to objectively and even semi-quantitatively make these measurements. Your 4 5 SALP ratings are an attempt. But I think everyone agrees 6 that they are of limited usefulness. They are certainly not quantitative, they are really not particularly 7 8 objective. They are very subjective, but they are the best 9 that can be done. I think that a practical tool for doing this could 10 be a product of research, and it is the sort of research 11 ~ 12 that can be dumped into the bin called human factors 13 research. 14 Now this is where many of my colleagues on the is commitee disagree with mc. I think there is some agreement 16 and some disagreement on the practicality of whether such a 17 tool can be developed. I don't think there are many who la disagree with the desirability or perhaps even the 19 necessity of having such a tool. But this brings me around 20 to the subject of the human factors research program. There was for a short time a program of research 2i 27 sponsored by the NRC in this area we call human factors. 23 It reached its peak I guess about two years ago and it is f 24 completely disappearing this year. 25 The program has ended because the Commission m l

1 29 . '$l2-h t i decided not to support it despite ACRS to the contJary. The ACRS had originally urged a program in human factors 2 research as early as 1978, and that is before the Three 3 4 Mile Island event. 4 From 1979 to the present of course fueled by some 5 of the obvious problems revealed by the TMI experience, the 6 ACRS has continued to that a vigorous research program is 7 8 important. In our report earlier this year on the research 9 prcgram, and let me quote, the ACRS said, "We strongly to disagree ifth the decision to eliminate all human factors n ~ research from the budget and recommend that funding in the j 12 amount of $2.5 million be provided. 33 j n' Now there could be a number of reasons for your u decision to discontinue the research. I am not what yours 15 are, but let me just mention a few possibilities and then 16 we can have a more general discussion. i7 i is First, a reason could be that there is a perception that human performance programs don't contribute 39 20 to risk. I doubt-that this is yours. You have heard the oft _epeated number that 40 percent of LER's are human a 21 4 factors related, and PRA estimates indicate a similar value 22 for contribution to core melt risk from human failures. 23 Some observers think the real number may be more 24 25 like 85 percent. INPO significant event analysis reports 1

30 T8h 4 t'$ 1 indicate 52 percent of significant events have as a cause 2 human failure. 3 A second reason you have decided to cancel research might be that you believe all human factors 4 5 problems have been solved. I am certainly not convinced of 6 this, and let me just as an indication that there are still 7 human factors problems out there, let me --- a COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It sounds like there are a 9 few strawmen thrown in here. 10 (Laughter.) 11 'What are the real reasons? 12 MR. LEWIS: They might scare away crows. 13 (Laughter.) 14 MR. WARD: Let me talk about the Davis-Besse 15 incident of June. 16 Now tua; incident hasn't been noted as one with a 17 high human factors. failure content. There was a human 18 factors aspect to it, but your investigating team, which I 19 think did an excellent job, has come to a somewhat i 20 different conclusion as far as human factors problems as 21 far as operations were not the single key cause. 22 But there were some things. For example, i~ 23 something that initiated the problem in the incident was 24 when an operator isolated the aux feed pumps when he 25 attempted to start them manually in advance of the .. ~ -

31 db . E. Y i automatic start. Now he pushed the wrong buttons, and 2 let's put that aside. 3 But why did he do that? Have we decided what should be automated and what should be manual in a nuclear 4 5 power plant? COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Ah ha, there is the issue. 6 7 MR. WARD: Right. Should operators override an automatic emergency function? Those are human factors a questions, and I don't think your staff knows where to come 9 io down on that question. 1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I couldn't agree with you 11 12 more. MR. WARD: And I think a thoughtful research ,3 ja i program in human factors could lead to some information l 14 which would help make better decisions in that area. is Okay, there are,a couple more in the Davis-Besse 16 17 thing, and I won't belabor it. But that is the sort of is thing and there is a lot of potential. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: On both sides, both negative 19 20 'and positive. MR. WARD: Yes, I think that is right. 21 COMMISSIONED. OEkNTHAL: But I think the reason the 22 Commission has ---do we take the blame for --- 23 24 MR. WARD: Sure. Oh, you have got to. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We take the blame. j i 25 s ~ e- --.-,--vn --,- - -,, - - - --,--w w ..-a-,

32 1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, whoever takes the 2 blame, the reason the program has been cut back I think has 3 more to do with severe cutbacks by the Congress and the 4 need to make choices. Sometimes if the programs are not perceived as being terribly strong, then you lose them. 5 6 That doesn't mean they aren't important. The question is 7 is the program strong. My sense is that was an element of a the Commission's decision, but maybe I am wrong. 9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me make a comment. I 10 think one of our problems, and I will speak about my 11 problem --- 12 MR. WARD: Okay. 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: --- I didn't know what to do 14 in human factors research. But then you came up with a is proposal, and I think I have found the reference here, or 16 maybe it was the staff, I am not sure --- 17 MR. WARD: If it is the one I am thinking of, it is was the staff, but we endorsed it. 19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You endorsed the proposal to 20 have the National Academy of Sciences, I believe it is --- 21 MR. WARD: Right. 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: --- look at what research was 23 needed in this area, and there was a recommendation that we 24 spend $132,000 over a 12 to 18-month period, and that 25 sounded like a good idea to me, and my budget submittal to i -l

33 .a U$I 1 the Commission was that we implement a human factors 2 research program based on the results of the National 3 Academy of Sciences' study. Now when we went through to find the money for 4 these for I think it was the year 1987, the concept of the 5 National Academy of Sciences' study I think survived, but 6 we had to defer, or the Commission decided to defer the 7 actual research program until -- it just says defer a implementation of human factors research program based on 9 4 what we had to do to the budget to survive. to 11 But I think we might fare quite well in understanding the problems bett'er if we went ahead with 12 this National Academy of Sciences study. 33 14 MR. WARD: I think it can help, and I guess my 15 concern is that it may be too late. Your research staff is 16 gone. It is scattering to the four winds, and I think you may have lost some credibility with the community of human 17 is engineering researchers out there when you try to rebuild a i9 program. You are going to have to draw people back in. What I would like to try to emphasize is there is 20 a technology in this business, and warmed over 21 therohydraulic analyzers and warmed over structural i 22 analyzers can't conduct that pecgram. It is.a scientific 23 discipline, and you are losing the people you had in it and 24 l 25 you might not be able to get them back. I think it has l

34 (f) Jc! :' i been a serious problem. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I think we need to keep 2 in mind that aside from research we still have quite a 3 number of human factors activities underway and ongoing. 4 1 5 MR. WARD: That has been seriously cut back, too, as I understand it. 6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I don't have that figure in 7 a my mind, but I don't think we cut it back --- 9 MR. WARD: My understand'ing is it is about half of io what it was two years ago. 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I hesitate to draw on a poor 12 memory on that subject, and I don't know if anybody from the staff is here that remembers. But I still think it is i3 u quite significant. I MR. WARD: Right. But let me make the point that 15 is not research, and we often hear that INPO --- a I CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I was thinking that helps i7 is keep the community together. 19 MR. WARD: It does. We also hear that INPO and Newmark are doing work, and they are doing important work, 20 21 but they are not doing the research. It is not research. CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, my only point in 22 bringing it up was that that helps keep the community 23 24 together while we get some input as to what research we 25 ought to be doing, because if we had the money, we would 1

i 35 ) TfD 3rd-i have to decide where we were going to put it and what we 2 were going to do with it. Maybe the staff and.you know 3 what to do, but it was not certainly communicated to us. 4 MR. WARD: No, there was a problem and we have 5 talked about it before, and I won't belabor all the reasons 6 for that. But I think if there is an effort that is to be 7 rebuilt, it needs an advocate at high levels in the agency a and perhaps on the Commission because there isn't the sort of flywheel effect for human factors research programs out 9 10 there in the national laboratories and the rest of the 11 nuclear oriented research community that there is for ECCS 12 and structure mechanics and all these other things. 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, in fairness to both the 14 Commission and to your point, the Commission has a great is interest in human performance at all levels, and 16 particularly top management which seems to play an 17 important role in how an organization operates and under is what attitudes it operates. 19 So I don't think there is a lack of sympathy. I 20 think there is perhaps some lack of understanding of what 21 to do about it and that is where some guidance could be 22 useful. 23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I am certainly not fearful 24 of admitting my ignorance on exactly what goes on, or went 25 on maybe is the right word now, in our human factors A l l i

1 36 dhk l 1 research program in this agency. 2 Dr. Ward has made one comment, however, which by my demonstration I certainly agree with very strongly, and 3 if that is what human factors research means, or at least 4 5 some substantial fraction of it, that is in taking a hard and proactiVe kind of position on the issue of plant 6 7 automation and where we are winning and where we are losing by interposing the human being, now that is the kind of 8 thing that I think is terribly important and we can't 10 afford not to do. Il There have been other aspects of human factors ~ 12 research that I have been less than enthusiastic about, to 13 say the least, and let's just leave it at that. I am willing to be educated on this subject, and I honestly 14 is don't know where a lot of our emphasis has been up to this 16 point in this agency. Maybe the Academy study isn't all 17 such a bad idea. 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, that is what I would 19 like to see us undertake and maybe they can help us 20 identify --- l 21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I will say another thing 22 though again about academy studies. I have some concern, 23 and I am sure that I am in need of education here, too, but 24 I have some concern that the National Academy not begin to 25 evolve into another contract seeking agency in effect. It i l l l

1 37 $h 2Vi/ 1 seems to me they are ill suited to that sort of thing. I 2 don't know whether this would fall in that category, but it 3 may well be the National Academy, aside from the prestige d of its name, is not the best --- 5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, actually it is the 6 National Research Council's Commission on the Behavioral 7 and Soci:1 Sciences and Education. 8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Fine, but the same point though. 10 MR. WARD: But this is a place where the obvious problem has been the difficulty in developing a real viable 12 research program that had a lot of credibility and has 13 shown results. I am not sure the National Academy is the id best place to go to get help, but it is obvious that some is help is needed with it from somewhere. 16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: But where is the best 17 place to go, and that is where we ought to go it seems to 18 me. 1 19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, we had a proposal from 20 them. That is one plus they have. 21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Have we asked anybody 22 else? 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: No, I don't think we have. 24 MR. MOELLER: Excuse me. Some years ago the Human 25 Factors Society did a study, as I recall. I don't remember t l b

d 38 6 l the details. x2 l 2 MR. WARD: That is right. About five years ago 3 there was one and I think it was some help. I think there has been a lot of maturing in the understanding of human 4 5 engineering and the application of it to the problems of 6 nuclear power since that time. That maturing was needed, 7 and I think the fact that we were immature in that area has 8 been much of the problem. 9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Did you have a comment, Jim? 10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Dave has got something. 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Oh, I am sorry. Go ahead. 12 MR. OKRENT: There is another thing the Academy 13 does, and that is hold two-day workshops where they bring g, 14 people in who give papers for discussion, and that might be 15 in fact not a bad way to try to have the topic addressed of 16 what should be the NRC research program in human factors 17 and why and where should we go perhaps. la I wouldn't want to see a workshop where only 19 people from the Human Engineering Society came, for 20 example. They certainly should be there, but you want a 21 real mix of people, and I think that could be very 22 interesting and might even develop some reasonable ideas. 23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It sounds like a good 24 direction to me. 25 MR. LEWIS: If I may, I have a little bit of l O e w w,,---

39 FE@'- UUY I concern because I share everybody's view that human factors 2 is becoming more and more an issue in nuclear safety, both 3 at the deep level, the level of automation and also from the fact that we are just seeing a cascade these days of d 5 tests and maintenance induced major accidents which all have human components, and without repeating the fact that 6 7 humans also sometimes are on the other side of the mean or 8 median, whichever you prefer, which is there. The problem I have with an Academy symposium is 10 that usually it represents the reporting in a coherent way 11 of work that has already been done, and I am not so sure 12 that in this field there has been a great deal of work 13 done. People have spoken around the quality of human 14 factors programs, and I confess to have never been at a is human factors meeting from which I came away saying to 16 myself, by golly, so that is what it is all about. It just 17 hasn't happened yet, and I suspect, although I am happy to 18 be corrected, that the work hasn't been done and that the 19 problem is to get a sensible program of research in those 20 human factors issues which are important to nuclear safety. 21 I share Dave's view that I wouldn't like to see 22 just the human factors buffs participate, and I don't know 23 how to do it. That is why I have shut up up to this 24 point. But, by golly, I do think it is important. 25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That was part of my problem, .i

t 40 I6N Ce 1 and that is why I said, bey, this is a great idea and we 1 2 ought to go out and get somebody. Maybe it isn't the 3 National Academy, but based on what they had written here, j i 4 it sounded like a sensible approach. 5 MR. OKRENT: Excuse me, if I could interrupt. If you read the proceedings of the academy workshop on risks 6 1 7 from leaking chemicals or something like this back in 1974 or the workshop on societal risk back in around 1971 or '72 8 you just see a broad exploration of ideas from differing 9 i 10 points of view. It is not just the reporting. People just don't_.come in and give papers on what they have done. 11 12 There is a lot of exchangs of opinion and thinking. If it 13 is properly organized in fact it can be quite useful. id CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And the attendees are quite l 15 knowledgeable people generally, and I mean knowledgeable in 16 a wide spectrum of activities, and they do pose some very l l 17 useful --- 18 MR. LEWIS: I have participated in both kinds of 19 the Academy, and there is no question that if you bring 20 good people together and let them ferment, sometimes good 21 things come of it. I am not sure that it requires an 22 Academy workshop to do that. 23 MR. OKRENT: Maybe symposium is the term. But 24 there is a two-day affair that they hold where they being 25 in a range of people all to address the topic. d t Y n-e e-- ---vn,,-+- e- ---,r--w----* +-e .-.-v-w---- -v-wvv ---,--e www.- ---,t->-w----~,--ww,-w.-w.--,

41 f' V I MR. LEWIS: I have been in many of them. 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, the question is trying 3 to get a handle for what the research ought to be and d whatever the best mechanism is is something perhaps we 5 ought to develop. 6 We don't have any money, at least as far as I see 7 into '87 to do the research, but that doesn't say we 8 couldn't readjust when we understand the priorities better, 'I and I would encourage that we either undertaken the 10 National Reserach Council proposal or go out for proposals to make a determination. 12 MR. WARD: Well, we don't have any recommendation 13 different from the previous one, which was to go ahead with 14 that. I think that is our best bet at this time. 15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Are there other 16 Commissioner comments or. questions? 17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, I just have to say 18 that I don't have a lot to go on here, and I am not sure I 19 would start out this way. I think I would first try and l 20 get a group together, something that isn't going to cost 21 anything in the neighborhood of $130,000, to try and reach 22 at least a broad consensus, if that is possible, on what 23 general areas of science and engineering and in what general area the problems are to be found. 2d l 25 I have a feeling that if you start right here 1 a

42 ' ata. under the auspices of the National Reserach C'ouncil's l YSU 1 2 Commission on Behavior and Social Sciences and Education you have already made that decision to a large extent. 3 4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, no. I would say that 5 we can always modify our proposal and say there is a first i 6 step, absent a symposium, to generate --- 7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That is what I am in favor 8 of, frankly. j t 9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But I don't find that we get 10 many things done for $132,000 by contract. 11 (Laughter. ) 12 And I say this at least is something that is ready i 13 to go, and if we start to rehash, it just takes longer to 14 get something ready to go. 15 MR. WARD: I really think they are going to i 16 attempt to do pretty much what you have described, Fred. l 17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Are they? 18 MR. WARD: Yas. I am not sure they are going to t 19 do it successfully, but we can try. f 20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I have just one 21 question. I take it there is no way to retain the existing 22 institutional base that we have now while that is being 23 done, essentially the elimination of the present research 24 program in this area and they are leaving, right? 25 MR. WARD: That is my impression, and I don't have .m., _._..___.__,.,__-,..c ._-y

43 o VT C C'F 1 all the facts, but they must be. 2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, you gentlemen I 3 think understand my concerns, and you may even share some of my -- I have prejudices obviously, and you may share 4 5 those. Having said my piece, if it is the recommendation and judgment of this panel that that is the best first 6 7 step, I am willing to accede to that. 8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes. Mr. Shewmon. MR. SHEWMON: Let me repeat what has been said and 10 some other things. It seems to me where I have heard of human factors 12 research longer has been in the military. So I am a little 13 bit surprised that Hal hasn't bumped into it, or maybe he ~ ~ " Id has and that is~what is behind some of his comments, and is Commissioner Zech also would have. So that would be one 16 place you would get your experts. 17 The other is I worked for the National Science la Fuondation for a while, and'I have probably been one of } 19 Dave Ward's most "nigoing" counteradvocates here, because i 20 what I have asked myself is what are the ideas which are in i 21 contention, you know, and what are the possibilities which 22 we can fund. That was what you did at the NSF. 23 And it seems to me that the NRC, and this is the 24 National Research Council now, went out and tried to get 25 people together who had worked on that area and you said i . ;3 3

44 MCI. 'JT 1 would you try to come back and show us what the 2 possibilities are. But that probably is ahead of whatever 3 is in second place. 4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Any other comments? 5 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Just a brief comment. You are 6 right, the military has done a number of things in the 7 human factors area, and I think in many areas they do lead 8 the field in this regard. + Dave, you mentioned 52 percent operating errors. 9 10 I would submit that that is probably a good number for the opera _ tors, but I would submit that if you look at the human 11 ~ 12 factors part of it, the people part of it, you know people 13 design these plants, people operate them, people build 14 them, people maintain them, people; people is the problem. i ' ~ f 15 Many, many of our problems, or most all of them, in my 16 judgment, can be looked back to some kind of human error. l l 17 So I appreciate the fact that you brought up this 18 subject to talk about because I do feel that the people l 19 paru, the human part, the human factors and human 20 everything is a very big part of this business, and there 21 is where the problems lay, not just because people want to 22 make mistakes, but because people do, i ~ 23 I submit that it is a very important subject, and 24 I agree with most all the comments that have been made. I 25 have looked at it from every which angle in my previous ( l .. ~. _

45 ll?';", 2- - i life, and I have been involved in a lot of these kind of 2 discussions, the people side, the training side and the 3 human side, one thing I will say though is research is always d 5 hard to defend, but I can tell you that the hardest 6 research to defend of all is the human research. 7 (Laughter.) 8 Hardware research is not that difficult, although difficult. But human research is very hard to defend, and 10 perhaps that is our problem. I so feel that the fact you brought it up is important, and I do think that the people side and the 12 13 human side of our business and, frankly, almost every 14 business is something that we can all.probably do an awful 15 lot better, 16 I think we have made some improvements in our 17 control room layouts and things like that, but we have just 18 really kind of touched on it, and there is a long way to go. But we do have to be realistic about it because you 19 20 can, and I have listened to lots of people who would try to 21 tell me all kinds of wonderful things. You really have to 22 know what you are talking about and you have to get a mix, 23 and I agree with that, too. But when you do, you can make 24 some productive things. l 25 So I think the fact that you have brought it up \\ {.]. ~ :' . ~. -

46 y:; I and discussed it for this length of time is important, and I appreciate the fact that you have done that. 2 3 MR. WARD: Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I'might note that when 5 reactors are designed and completely operated by computers, 6 we will have computer performance research. 7 (Laughter.) 8 MR. LEWIS: We should begin by automating ACRS. 9 (Laughter.) 10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I think you have 11 brought up a very important point, and the jest is not 12 intended to demean what you brought up. I think it is a very important subject and I thing one that we are going to 13 14 want to address a little more carefully within the 15 Commission. 16 I would welcome.any suggestions on how to proceed from any of the Commissioners, but I plan to give it some 17 18 thought and, if I get no proposal, to make a proposal. 19 MR. WARD: Okay. Thank you. 20 I realize you'want to get off, but let me mention 21 one other thing. We have sent each of you a copy of this report,NPanelOnACRSEffectiveness,whichweput 22 23 together several months ago. 24 They furnished us with a report just last week. 25 They came and reported.to us this morning. I think they 9 I 6 ,,.m ,,,,-r ..c----- --v.-

47 CG;; L "' I did a very thoughtful job. The report is fairly thick, but 2 it is really quite readable. I know you have a lot of things to read, but they ask you to give it some attention, 3 There are a number of things in here they make. d 5 They give us 27 recommendations. 6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: They have a good section on 7 conclusions and recommendations that is worth reading.. 8 MR WARD: They do. There are a number of things which we can do on our own, but there are a considerable 9 number which really related to what you want us to do. So 10 il I think at some point in the future we will want to 12 interact with you on much of this. 13 MR. LEWIS: We should devote a full meeting to it. id CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think that would be a good ~ ' is idea. 16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Why not have them 17 explain it in the next meeting. la MR. LEWIS: It is important. 19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I don't know if you suggest 20 that we have a presentation by them, but that is not out of 21 order either. 22 MR. WARD: Ah, that is a thought. Would you like 23 that? 24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, why don't we explore 25

that, i

i I f 1 l l

48 m ..- y 1 COMMISSIONER ZECH: It would be very useful. 2 MR. WARD: All right. We will arrange that. 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, we thank you very much 4 for bring with us. 5 MR. PLAINE: Mr. Chairman, would you let the group 6 know that there is this presentation to our departing Colleague, and that those who are his friends and others 7 8 are welcomed to attend it. It is right next door. 9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Friends and enemies. 10 (Laughter.) 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Thank you. 12 We will stand adjourned. 13 (Whereupon at 3:43 p.m., the meeting adjourned.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

e f..O$1 .x, A.' ' 1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER l 2 3 4 5 .This is to certify that the attached proceedings 6 before the United States Nuclea'r Regulatory Commission in the 7 matter of: COMMISSION MEETING e 9 Name of proceeding: Periodic Meeting with Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (Public Meeting) 10 11 Docket No.! 12 place: Washington, D. C. 13 Date: Friday, September 13, 1985 14 15 were held as herein appears and that this is the original 16 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuctear 17 Regulatory Commission. 19 (Signature) gg (Typed Name of Repo'rter) Mary C2'Simons 20 21 22 23 Ann Riley & Associates. Ltd. 24 25

, SCHEDULING NOTES TITLE: PERIODIC MEETING WITH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTDR SAFEGUARDS (ACRS) SCHEDULED: 2:15 P.M., FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1985 (OPEN) i ~ DURATION: APPROX l-1/2 HRS PROPOSED

  • ACRS PARTICIPATION IN DOE PROGRAM TO HANDLE AND DISPOSE OF
TOPICS :

CIVILIAN RADWASTE THE ACRS MEMBERS WILL BRIEF THE COMMISSION REGARDING THE COMMITTEE'S LETTER OF AUGUST 13, 1985 WHICH PROPOSES AN ACRS OVERSIGHT ROLE FOR STAFF ACTIVITIES IN THIS AREA.

  • NRC SEVERE ACCIDENT POLICY THE ACRS MEMBERS WISH TO DI CUSS THE NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYSES AND ASSOCIATED DATA BASES WHICH CAN ACCOUNT FOR BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE HUMAN FERFORMANCE.

(THE ABILITY OF OPERATORS, THE COMPREHENSIVENESS OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND THE OVERALL ABILITY OF PLANT MANAGEMENT ARE IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS i IN OPERATION. THERE DOES NOT EXIST, AT PRESENT, A SATISFACTORY MEANS FOR FULLY EVALUATING THESE FACTORS.)

  • HUMAN FACTORS RESEARCH THE ACRS MEMBERS WISH TO EXCHANGE VIEWS WITH THE COMMISSIONERS i

ON THE NEED FOR HUMAN FACTORS RESEARCH RELATING TO NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATIONS. (ADDITIONAL DETAILS PROVIDED TO COMMISSION OFFICES) l

YY kh h Y hkG kkh G h h Qlhhhgh hg( h q\\)ghy\\)gh90g(90gllg(g(90qQh & &h fh l TRANSMITI' L 'IO: W==nt Cbntrol Desk, 016 Phillips A L c ADVANCED COPY 'IO: / / 'Ihe Public Document Boon /7 [h DATE: cc: C&R t hs. FROM: SECY OPS BRANCH papers) Attached are copies of a Cbmnission meeting transcript (s) and related meeting atv'==nt (s). 'Ihey are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and placement in the Public Docment Ibczn. No other distribution is requested or required. Existing DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual doctanents wherever known. Meeting

Title:

J sLL N d /8$ 8 N Closed Meeting Date: 9//5/#J' open DCS Cbpies (1 of each checked) Item

Description:

Copies Advanced Original May Duplicate To PDR W =ent be Dup

  • Copy
  • 1.

TRANSCicer 1 1 When checked, DCS should send a copy of this transcript to the LPDR for: W//M j 2-f 3. 4. i (PDR is advanced one copy of each doctanent,

  • Verify if in DCS, and j

two of each SECY paper.) Change to "PDR Available." f l l bYlklbb b bYh -_}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20205C214&oldid=4064481"