ML20205C715
| ML20205C715 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/24/1986 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205C720 | List: |
| References | |
| ACRS-2479, NUDOCS 8703300244 | |
| Download: ML20205C715 (21) | |
Text
.
QMS-M19
'%TP yI,
fDL 4W/7 d
j E
DATE ISSUED:
12/24/86 hf.)
ahw
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES OF ThE ACRS SUBC0FMITTEE MEETING ON THE SAFETY RESEARCH PROGP,AM DECEMBER 10, 1986 WASHINGTON, DC 1
l l
INTRODUCTION The ACRS Subcommittee on the Safety Research Program held a meeting on Wednesday, December 10, 1986, at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.,
to discuss the proposed NRC Safety Research Program and Pudget for FY 1988 and gather information for use by the ACRS in its preparation of the annual report to the Congress on the related matter. The entire meeting was closed to the public attendance as requested by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) Staff (See Attachment A). Mr. Sam Duraiswamy was the Cognizant ACRS Staff for the meeting. A tentative presentation schedule for the meeting is included in Attachment B.
A list of documents submitted to the Subcommittee is included in Attach-ment C.
ATTENDEES:
ACRS:
C. P. Siess (Subcommittee Chairman), J. C. Mark, W. Kerr, C. J. Wylie, C. Michelson (part time), M. H. Carbon (part time), D. A. Ward (part time)
Sam Duraiswamy, Cognizant ACRS Staff Principal NRC Speakers:
E. Beckjord, G. Marcus, D. Ross, G. Arlotto, K. Goller, L. Shao, B. Morris, T. King, K. Kniel, P. Justus, i
W. Walker, J. Greeves, L. Solander 1
EXECUTIVE SESSION Dr. Siess, the Subcommittee Chairman, convened the meeting at 8:30 a.m.
and stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the folicwing:
- Effects of Reorganization - Staff and Budget.
hfg33ggg4e61224 pgag7y,3 oggggyg c.am a = fx s
4
\\
Safety Research Program Minutes December 10, 1986
- Proposed NRC Safety Research Prooram and Budget for FY 1988, specifically the changes made to the program and budget subsequent to the June 11, 1986 ACRS report to the Commission on the FY 1988 NRC Safety Research program and Budget.
- The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) preliminary mark on the NRC Safety Research Program and Budget for FY 1988, and the impact of the OMB-proposed reduction on the continuing and proposed research contracts.
(NOTE:
Since the details of the OMB prelimi-nary mark was not available at the time of the subject meeting,the i
Staff presented the priorities and impacts assuming a 10-percent reduction to the research budget that was submitted to the OMB on September 2, 1986.)
- Comments fron the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) on the proposed research and budget for FY 1988.
- Format and Content for the forthcoming ACRS repcrt to the Congress.
Dr. Siess said that this meeting would involve discussions concerning the impact of anticipated budget reduction on the continuing and pro-posed research contracts; RES Staff feels that premature disclosure of the possible curtailment or elimination of any research contract could result in an inability to retain key personnel and thereby frustrate the Commission's ability to implement the affected programs effectively. As a result, they requested that the meeting be closed to the public attendance. Consecuently, it Was Closed to the public.
PREAMBLE Prior to holding discussions on the scheduled items, Dr. Siess provided a brief preamble. He said that in its February 19, 1986 report to the
o t
Safety Research Program Minutes December 10, 1986 Congress on the FY 1987 NRC Safety Research Program, the ACRS made the following two points:
- The ACRS committed to perform an independent evaluation of the recommendations of the National Research Council regarding the future NRC Safety Research Program and provide comments to the Congress on the adequacy of these recommendations.
- Also, the ACRS requested that the Congress reconsider the statutory requirement that the ACRS submit an annual report to the Congress on the NRC Safety Research Program; instead, the ACRS suagested that it would provide comments to the Congress on the research program from time to time as seems appropriate to the issues.
He said that since the Congress has not responded to the above proposal, he plans to reintroduce this subject during the December 11-13, 1986 ACRS meeting, requesting the full Committee to decide on the following:
- Should the ACRS request the Congress once again to provide relief to the requirement that the ACRS submit an annual report to the Congress on the NRC Safety Research Program?
- Should this year's report to the Congress include comments on the adequacy of the recommendations of the National Research Council rather than on the proposed NPC Safety Research Procram and Budget for FY 19887 Dr. Siess mentioned that the Mational Research Council report will be made available officially by December 22, 1986.
Mr. Michelson commented that if we decide to write periedic letters to the Congress on important research issues, there will be a need for
c e
Safety Research Program Minutes December 10, 1986 certain number of Subcommittee meetings to discuss the issues with the Staff and develop comments.
Because of the budaet constraints, he is not sure whether he will be authorized to have such Subcommittee meet-ir.'s to deal with this issue.
RES PRESENTATION Effects of Reornanization on RES Staff and Budget - Mr. Eric Beckjord Mr. Beckjord said that under the proposed reorganization, RES will have the following four Divisions:
- Division of Engineering
- Division of Reactor and Plant Systems
- Division of Reactor Accident Analysis
- Division of Regulatory Applications He said that as a result of the proposed reorganization, RES will inherit the following additional responsibilities from other offices:
- Resolution of generic safety issues, including Unresolved Safety Issues.
- Review of full scope Probabilistic Risk Assessments (PRAs).
- Activities related to technical rulemaking.
- Activities associated with Standardization and Advanced Reactors.
An additional 70 or 75 personnel will be transferred to RES as a result of the reorganization. Also, about $5 million is expected to be trans-ferred to RES.
- = -..
Safety Research Program Minutes December 10, 1986 Pr. Beckjord stated that the proposed reorganization for RES has been submitted to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) for review. He believes that it will take about 4 months for the reorganization plan to become effective.
Mr. Beckjord said that in its preliminary mark, OMB has proposed a reduction of $48 million to the agency budget, thus bringing the total agency budget down to $380 million. The Commission has submitted a reclama to OftB reouesting restoration of all of the reduction proposed by OMB.
Mr. Beckjord discussed briefly some of the important activities undgr way in RES. He mentioned also that they are in the process of develop-ing a plan to increase the level of research work at Universities.
Dr. Siess asked how many of the RES Staff are engaged in Standards development activities. Dr. Ross responded that there are about 180 personnel in RES, and about 10-20 people are associated with Standards development activities.
Eudaet Overview - Dr. Gail Marcus Dr. Marcus discussed briefly the funding proposed for various Decision Units and Subelements (Attachment D, page 1). She discussed also the changes made to the FY 1988 research budget subsequent to the June 11, 1986 ACRS report to the Commission on the FY 1988 NRC Safety Research Program and Budget (Attachment D, Page 2). She said that at the time of the ACRS review in June 1986, the total research funding proposed was S99.6 million.
Subsequently, as a result of the recommendation by the Budget Review Group (BRG), $5.5 million has been added to the research budget; $5 million of this was earnarked specifically for the thermal-hydraulic experimental program at Idaho, and the remaining $0,5 millier was to support work in the Advanced Reactors area.
Since then, $1.5 million has been taken out of the research budget to support the agency
o s
Safety Research Program fiinutes December 10, 1986 consolidation. As a result, the budget request submitted to the OM9 includes a total budget of $103.6 million for the FY 1988 research which is $4 million more than that proposed at the time of the ACRS review in June 1986.
Dr. Marcus said that as compared to FY 1987, the funding for research in the following areas has been increased significantly (Attachment D, page 1):
- Thermal-Hydraulic Transients
- Plant Aging
' High-level Waste
- Low-Level Waste The research areas for which funding has been reduced significantly as conpared to FY 1987 are as follows:
- Severe Accident Risk Assessment
- Piping Dr. Marcus said that the NRC research has been categorized as shown below (Attachment D, page 3).
Analysis S 23.1 million Prevention
$ 64.4 millior Mitigation
$ 16.1 million Total
$103.6 million Dr. Siess commented that the definitions of " Prevention" and "Mitiga-tion" are not clear.
Unless these categories are defined explicitly, he does not believe that it is going to be that much helpful.
Dr. Marcus agreed that these categories should be looked at to make sure that everything is totally consistent.
e 4
Safety Research Program Minutes December 10, 1986 Dr. Marcus said that the major ACRS comments in the June 11, 1986 report to the Commission have been taken into consideration in the development of the FY 1988 research and budget (Attachment D, page 4). She dis-cussed briefly the research areas that will be affected if there is a 10-percent reduction to the research budget reouest submitted to the OMB (Attachment D, page 5).
i Dr. Siess asked whether they have any plans to perform research on Human Factors in FY 1988. Dr. Marcus responded that the National Research Council Study on the Human Factors research has not yet been completed.
Depending on the results of this Study, consideration will be given to include Human Factors research in the budget.
Stating that in the June 11, 1986 report to the Commission the ACRS commented that in order to decide whether additional research is needed to reduce existing uncertainties in the Severe Accident area, NRR must decide what uncertainties are acceptable in connection with its regu-latory responsibilities, Dr. Siess asked whether any thought has been given to this issue.
Dr. Ross responded that during a Commission meeting in July 1986, Commissioner Bernthal proposed that RES convene a panel to consider additional research needs in the Severe Accident area and submit that information to the Commission for consideration. This proposal by Commissioner Bernthal was agreed to by Chairman Zech and Mr.
Stello. Accordingly, RES has submitted a report to the Comnission on this matter.
Dr. Siess reiterated the previous ACRS comment that more consideration needs to be given to what has been learned from the research of the past five years or so, and what uncertainty can be tolerated by the regula-tors. With diminishing resources, it is increasingly important that the research he specifically designed to address safety concerns. He asked whether RES has any idea of knowing when they will finish the research in the Severe Accident area.
Dr. Ross responded that a major portion of
e Safety Research Program Minutes December 10, 1986 the Severe Accident work is intimately coupled with the regulatory process. They are trying to take account of the uncertainties in the regulatory decision-making process.
Stating that during the June 6,1986 ACRS Subcommittee meeting on Containment Requirements, Mr. Bernero discussed a partial solution to the severe accident problem, Dr. Siess commented that it was very difficult to decide how much of the solution was based on the results of the research performed so far. Also, it was difficult to see whether the uncertainties and the effectiveness of the solution had been ex-plored thoroughly.
Impact of Anticipated 10-Percent Reduction on Various Research Contracts Engineerino Safety - Mr. Larry Shao Mr. Shan stated that the Division of Engineering Safety censists of three Branches: Materials Branch, Plant Safety Branch, and Waste Management Branch. The total funding for research in this Division is
$51.3 million.
If there is a 10-percent reduction in the budget, it will be accommodated as shown below (Attachment D, pages 5 and 6).
- Materials Aging
- $1.8 million
- Plant Safety
- $2.5 million
- Waste Management
- $0.9 millier Total
- $5.2 million He said that the proposed cuts will not have any impact on the interna-tional and donestic agreements or on the projects that are nearing completion.
Dr. Siess asked about the Seismic Piping Test Program. Mr. Shao re-sponded that this is a cooperative progran between the NRC and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
In FY 1987, tests will be
4 Safety Research Program Minutes December 10, 1986 conducted on the carbon steel piping system, and in FY 1988 stainless steel piping system will be tested.
He said that the NRC participation in this program will end in FY 1987.
Dr. Siess asked whether this program is likely to be continued in FY 1988 without the NRC participation. Mr. Shao responded that they have not yet discussed this issue with EPRI.
i Mr. Shao discussed briefly some of the recent contributions of research performed in the Engineering Safety area (Attachment D, pages 7-9).
1 Reactor System Safety Program - Dr. Bill Morris
- Thermal-Hydraulic Research Dr. Morris discussed briefly the work planned in the Thermal-Hydraulics area (Attachment D, page 10).
He said that some of the research planned in this area include:
- Evaluation of the safety implications of complex operational transients in B&W designed reactors.
- Work necessary to support the proposed revision to Appendix K.
- Experimental programs in cooperation with industry and foreign partners to support implementation of revised Appendix K.
Dr. Siess asked whether there is any program to provide data to validate the codes for boiling water reactor (BWRs). Dr. Morris responded that adequate data had already been obtained through the test programs conducted at the FIST facility for use in the validation of EWR codes.
Mr. Michelson commented that the technical basis document intended to support the Appendix K revision has some deficiencies, and some experi-mental and/or analytical work may be needed to improve this document.
e c - --
. - ~, - -,, - -, - -,
e,
4 Safety Research Program Minutes December 10, 1986 He asked whether adequate funding has been included in the FY 1988 research budget to perform necessary work to take care of the problems in the technical basis document. Dr. Morris responded that he believes necessary funding has been included in the budget for this purpose.
Stating that the funding for the Thermal-Hydraulics research has been increased by about $5 million since June 1986, Dr. Siess asked what specific research will be funded with this additional money. Dr. Morris responded that this additional funding is to support the MIST follow-on program and also the experimental work at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) to improve computer code modeling of B&W transients.
Dr. Ross stated that a major portion of this money is intended to provide support for a future one-tenth linear scaled integral test facility (representation of a Ball reactor system) to be built at INEL.
This facility is expected to cost about $20 million.
Since the NRC did not get any funding support for such a facility from the B&W Owners' Group, they plan to spend about $5 million a year for the next four years to build such a facility. RES believes that testing at this facility will provide additional safety information to help resolve operational problems being experienced at B&W reactors.
However, he would like to get the ACRS opinion as to whether the NRC will benefit from the operation of such a facility.
Mr. Michelson commented that since this is a new proposal, more detailed infernation shculd have been provided to the ACRS. He wondered why the ACRS was not informed of such a proposal in June 1986.
1 Dr. Siess asked whether the technical integration center at INEL is intended to integrate all research in the Thermal-Hydraulics area that are performed in other national laboratories or it is just to integrate the work at INEL.
Dr. Morris responded that it is intended to intecrate all the work in this area.
Safety Research Program Minutes December 10, 1986 Dr. Siess asked how much money will be spent in FY 1988 at INEL for Thermal-Hydraulics research.
Dr. Morris said about $8 million.
Dr. Kerr asked whether the proposed facility is intended to provide l
information to solve safety problems or just to increase the Staff's ability to model all transients at B&W plants. Mr. Shotkin respcnded that NRR is careful not to call these as safety concerns; if they do, they have to shut down the B&W plants. Since operating experience shows that there are more transients at B&W plants, the NRC Staff warts to take more aggressive steps and try to anticipate these transients rather than sitting back and waiting for them to happen.
4 Dr. Siess asked does the fact that we have certain ignorance about how the B&W reactors behave increase the prebability of core melt. Dr.
Morris responded that if the operators do not understand how the B&W reactors behave under certain transient conditions, they may have difficulty in taking proper course of action and thereby increasing the probability of core melt.
Dr. Kerr commented that there are certain BAW plants that have good operating history. He is not sure whether it is the design of B&W reactors or the operating organizations actually causing the problems.
He believes that the Staff should make sure that they are trying to solve the right problem.
Dr. Siess asked under what circumstances will the Staff decide that no more research is needed in the Thermal-Hydraulics area.
Dr. Morris responded that if the operating experience does not raise new questions, he believes that over a period of time they should be able to stop the research in the Thermal-Hydraulics area. However, they need to maintain certain computer codes for analyzing new transients, should they occur.
Mr. Shotkin stated that once they had assessed the necessary computer
12-December 10, 1986 Safety Research Program Minutes codes and defined the acceptable level of uncertainties, then they could say they have done enough.
Dr. Siess asked once the uncertainties are defined will they be sat-isfied with it or try to do more research to reduce the uncertainties.
Nr. Shotkin responded that if the Ccmmission, ACRS, public, and industry are happy with the level of uncertainties, he believes that they can stop the rasearch.
In response to a question from Dr. Siess as to why the MIST program is I
not providing the necessary information on R&W reactor designs, Dr. Ross responded that they cannot have a good steam generator model at MIST.
Dr. Morris responded that MIST was designed to handle primarily small-break LOCAs, It would be difficult to model other complex transients at MIST.
i.
Dr. Morris discussed briefly the impact of an anticipated 10-percent reduction on research planned in the thermal-hydraulics area (Attachment D, pages 5 and 11).
- Risk and Reliability Analysis - Dr. Bill Morris Dr. Morris discussed briefly some of the important research planned in i
the Risk and Reliability Analysis area for FY 1988 (Attachment D, page 13). He said that high priority has been given to the work related to the completion and publication of fiUREG-1150, " Reactor Risk Reference Document," in January 1987 for public comment.
Final version of this document is expected to be issued in January 1988.
Dr. Morris discussed briefly the impact of an anticipated 10-percent reduction on the research proposed in the Risk and Reliability area (Attachment D, pages 5 and 12).
1 7,,.,.,
m,..
..,.,.c-
Safety Research Program Minutes December 10, 1986 Dr. Siess asked whether RES has any plans to look at the reliability-based maintenance programs.
Dr. Morris responded that the Reliability Assurance, and Aging programs are expected to support the maintenance program.
Dr. Siess asked whether any of the utilities are using the reability-based maintenance progran. Mr. Burdick said that some of the utilities use this program.
Dr. Morris mentioned that they intent to include a treatment of external events for selected number of plants in the final version of NUREG-1150 Although they have limited data base, he believes that an assessment of j
the external events could be done.
Mr. Michelson ccmmented that without adequate data base, they have to play a guessing game. He does not believe it will provide meaningful information.
- Accident Evaluation - Dr. Bill Morris Dr. Morris discussed the research planned in the Accident Evaluation area (Attachment D, page 14). He said that high priority has been given to the work related to the resolution of those technical issues for which there are large uncertainties. Research in this area will be 4
directed toward answering several key regulatory questions such as:
- How and where Mark I Containment might fail?
- Will the molten core on the floor of Mark I containment spread to the edges of the floor and attack the support structures of the containment causing containment failure?
i
- Is there enough natural cooling for the molten core to freeze i
before it starts spreading?
.rn- - -,
,-e
-v
,.--,---,-,,e
m>w
o O
Safety Research Program Minutes December 10, 1986 Dr. Kerr asked why there is a need for research on the above issue since Mr. Bernero has already proposed what needs to be done to take care of the above problem. Dr. Morris responded that it is Mr. Bernero's view.
He believes that research still needs to be done to explore this issue.
Dr. Siess asked whether there are other issues for which the Staff might be able to decide on a possible solution without additional research.
Dr. Morris responded there is a possible solution to the direct contain-ment heating issue.
If there is a reliable depressurization systen, high pressure ejection of molten core could be avoided which, in turn, would preclude the direct heating of the containment. Although this is a possible solution to this issue, he is not sure whether the agency will accept it without further research.
Dr. Siess asked what sort of experiments would they plan to do to determine the amount of molten core that wculd flow out of the reactor vessel. Dr. Morris stated that the Invessel Core-melt Progression Program is intended to answer this question. The experiments planned under this program will be contucted at National Research Universal Test Reactor (NRU) and Annular Core P.esearch Reactor (ACRR) facilities.
The data from these experiments ar.d the MELPROG ccmputer code would enable them to estimate the amount of molten core ejected from the reactor vessel qn to the containment floor.
Dr. Kerr commented that he does not believe that they wculd be able to determine through tests how much molten core would be ejected from the 1
vessel.
Dr. Morris said that they plan to use not only the test data but also the computer code to estimate the amount of molten core that would flow out on to the containment floor.
Dr. Morris discussed briefly the impact of an anticipated 10-percert reduction on research planned in the Accident Evaluation area (Attach-ment D, pages 5 and 11),
i
Safety Research Program Minutes December 10, 1986 I
Regulatory Applications Program - Mr. Karl Goller Mr. Galler said that the proposed funding for this program is $2.1 million. All of the work planned (Attachment D, page 15) in this area will be performed under Technical Assistance Contracts. Any reduction in budget for this program will be accommodated by reducing the funding for the work related to:
- Value-Impact Methods for Other Than Nuclear Power Plants
- Peer Review of Research Programs Radiation Protection and Health Effects Program - Mr. Karl Goller Mr. Goller discussed the planned work under this program (Attachment D, page 16). He said that the total funding proposed for this program is
$0.3 million. They do not plan to perform any work on Health Effects.
He said that there seems to be a consensus that funding for this program has been sever +1y cut. He believes that there is a possibility that some additional funding will be provided to this program.
Dr. Siess asked how many people are there in the agency who involve in the Radiation Protection and Health Effects work. Mr. Goller responded he is not sure of the exact number of people involved in this area.
Dr. Siess asked about the Department of Energy (DOE) budget for the Radiation Protection and Health Effects program.
Dr. Ross said that DOE is spending about $40-45 million in this area.
Summary of the National Research Council Report on Nuclear Safety Research - Mr. Eric Beckjord Mr. Beckjord provided a summary of the main contents of the report prepared by the National Research Council on the Nuclear Safety Research Program (Attachment D, pages 17-23).
He said that the report is very critical of the process of developing a NRC research program.
It is
- -i --
e
Safety Research Program Minutes December 10, 1986 also fairly critical of the NRC.
In the transmittal letter of the report, Mr. Frosch, Chairman of the National Research Council, states:
"... there is a general agreement with the Committee that many of the problems which the Commission has been having with its research program stem from problems inherent in the current structure of the Commission, its internal communication and operating practices."
Mr. Beckjord said that the report discusses about the need for maintain-ing a strong research program in the NPC, who should conduct the re-search, the importance of participating in international research, what the Commission needs to do to obtain support to the NRC Safety Research Program, etc. The report recommends that the standards development activities should be separated from RES. There is also a recommendation that the Congress relieve the ACRS of any formal requirement to review the NRC Safety Research Program.
However, RES should continue to interact with the ACRS and obtain advice in formulating research programs. The report also identifies areas for future research (Attach-ment D, page 21).
The report points out that there is a strong disagreement at the top levels of the government on the need for nuclear safety research.
It is one of the main reasons why the NRC research funding has been declining constantly.
Dr. Siess asked whether the report compares the NRC research with the research being conducted by other federal agencies. Mr. Beckjord responded that it does not compare the research being done by all the other agencies.
It mentions briefly about DOE and NASA work.
Dr. Siess asked whether the report provides any recommendation on a viable level of funding for the NRC research. Mr. Beckjord said it does not.
Safety Research Program Minutes December 10, 1986 Dr. Siess asked whether it would be helpful to RES if the ACRS provided comments to the Congress on the recommendations contained in the report.
Mr. Beckjord responded that any ACRS comments on the contents of the report would be very helpful to RES.
Dr. Kerr asked why there is no strong support at the Congress for the NRC Safety Research Program. Dr. Ross responded that the Congress stems to feel that since there is no strong support from the Commission for the NRC Safety Research Program, why should it provide support.
Dr. Kerr asked whether there is something that the Staff could do to convince the Commission about the importance of the NRC research. Dr.
Ross responded that RES has started providing periodic presentations to the Commission on various parts of the NRC Safety Research Program. He believes that this approach would help them understand the importance of the NRC research.
Dr. Siess recommended that it would be more helpful if NRP, the research user office, went to the Commission and talked to them about the impor-tance of the research program.
Research Proaram Gaps - Dr. Denwood Ross Dr. Ross discussed briefly areas where research has been terminated or significantly reduced over the past few years (Attachment D, page 24).
He also discussed research areas where some work has been delayed cwing to lack of sufficient funding (Attachment D, pages 25-31).
He said that they are in the process of sending detailed reports to the Commissicn emphasizing the need for pursuing research in these areas. He committed to provide copies of these reports to the ACRS.
NRR PRESENTATION _]ir. Tom Kino Mr. King presented the NRR comments on the proposed NRC Safety Research Program and Budget for FY 1988 (Attachment D, pages 32-35):
._...__.._,m.
o Safety Research Program Mirutes December 10, 1986
- MRR is in general agreement with the proposed research and budget.
NRR intends to perform additional review of the research and budget proposed for FY 1988.
- NRR position on the proposed cuts to accommodate a 10-percent reduction has not been established due to time constraints.
- It is not apparent that all code maintenance activities requested by NRR, in a memorandum dated September 23, 1986, are funded in FY j
1988. NRR plans to discuss this issue with RES.
NRR is concerned about the delay, on the part of RES, in issuing the report on this matter.
Dr. Kerr commented that it is not clear to him why RES has to do the prioritization work. Since NRR knows what their needs are, he believes that NRR should do the prioritization of the NRC research. Mr. King responded that it is a coordinated effort between NRR and RES. However, since RES is familiar with the overall research program better than NRR, they have the primary responsibility for completing this task.
Mr. Michelson asked whether NRR agrees with the RES proposal to build a one-tenth scale integral facility at INEL to investigate the issues associated with the B&W reactor designs. Mr. King responded that NRR is in favor of building such a facility. Also, NRR agrees with the funding
($0.8 million in FY 1988 and $2.7 million in FY 1989) proposed by RES for this task.
Mr. Solander discussed briefly the Technical Assistance Program in NRR for FY 1987 (Attachment D, page 36).
Safety Research Program Minutes December 10, 1986 NMSS PRESENTATION High-Level Waste - Mr. Phil Justus Mr. Justus said that NMSS is in agreement with the proposed research and funding for FY 1988 in the Figh-Level Waste (HLW) area. He discussed briefly _the Technical Assistance Program activities in the HLW area (Attachment D, paged 37 and 38).
Stating that if there is a 10-percent budget cut RES plans to eliminate the funding for the work related to Groundwater Dating / Geochemical Analogues for model validation, Dr. Siess asked whether NMSS agrees with this proposal. Mr. Justus responded yes.
Low-Level Waste - Mr. John Greeves Mr. Greeves said that they have recently prepared a user need letter identifying research priorities in the Low-Level Waste (LLW) area (Attachment D, pages 39 and 40). Based on their review of the proposed research and budget for FY 1988 for LLW research, they do not have any disagreements with the RES proposal.
He discussed briefly the Technical Assistance Program activities in the LLW area (Attachment D, pages 41 and42).
Indicating that if there is 10-percent budget reduction RES plans to eliminate the funding for the work on Role of Organic Complexants and Micro particulates in Containment Transport, and Characterization of Retardation Mechanisms in soils Dr. Siess asked whether NMSS agrees with this proposal. Mr. Greeves said yes.
Dr. Siess asked whether the NMSS Staff has been following whtt sort of research EPA is doing for the disposal of toxic chemical westes so as to find out whether some of those techniques could be used by the NRC in the disposal of LLW. Mr. Costanzi responded that the wastes being dealt with by EPA is of sludge type. Since the LLW being dealt with by the NRC has to be solidified prior to disposal, he is not sure whether the
~
1 1
=
Safety Research Program Minutes December 10, 1986
)
techniques developed by EPA could be used for the LLW disposal.
In any event, they normally have contacts with EPA to exchange information.
SUBCOMMITTEE REMARKS Dr. Siess said that the issue whether we should write a report to the Congress this year will be discussed at the December full Committee meeting.
If the Committee decides to write a report, cognizant Subcommittee Chairman should provide input to Draft 0 of the report by December 31, 1986.
Dr. Siess thanked all participants and adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.
i c
B LIST OF COCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE DECEMBER 10, 1986 SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM MEETING I
1.
Tentative Presentation Schedule.
s 2.
Memorandum from R. Gustave to S. Duraiswamy related to FY 1988-1989 Budget Table, dated October 15, 1986.
c.
3.
Portion of the " BLUE BOOK" dealing with the Commission's Budget request to the OMB for the FY 1988 NRC Safety Research Program.
4 Information presented to OMB by RES on September 9, 1986.
5.
Program Support Bedget Estimates, (FIN level budget information),
dated November 12, 1986.
6.
ACRS report to the Commission transmitting comments on the NRC Safety Research Program and budget for FY 1988, dated June 11, 1986.
7.
ACRSreporttotheCongressontheFY1987NRCSafet[vResearch Program, dated February 19, 1986.
8.
RES responses to ACRS recommendations contained in'the June 11, 1986 report to the Commission on the NRC Safety Research Program Budget for FY 1988 dated July 28, 1986.
9.
Memorandum from E. Beckjord to R. Scroggins related to " MINIMUM" Research Program, dated October 7, 1986.
- 10. Memorandum from D. Ross to RES Staff concerning, "RES Goals For The Next Year," dated September 3, 1986.
- 11. Memorandum from E. Beckjord to R. Scroggins related to "RES FY 1987 g
Budget Reduction," dated October 2, 1986.
12.
Presentation Materials submitted to the Subcommittee during the meeting.
.3
. - -