ML20206S381
| ML20206S381 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/04/1998 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-3121, NUDOCS 9905210113 | |
| Download: ML20206S381 (4) | |
Text
7 CERTIFIED BY:
Date Issued: 8/4/98
. Robert Uhrig 2-98 jdh'/!
~
k ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS THE SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JULY 17,1998 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND INTRODUCTION l
The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Subcommittee on the Safety Research Program held a meeting on July 17,1998, in Room T-2 B3,11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, with representatives of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regarding comments and recommendations in the June 16,1998, ACRS report, " Core Research Capabilities an Associated Staffs Response." The entire meeting was open to public. Mr. Amarjit Singh was the cognizant ACRS staff engineer for this meeting. The meeting was convened at 2:45 p.m. and adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
ATTENDEES ACRS Members R. Uhrig, Chairman D. Miller D. Powers, Member M. Fontana G. Apostolakis R. Seale ACRS Staff J. Larkins M. Zeftawy Erincioal NRC Soeakers M. Federline, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES)
O L. Donnelly, RES cSO\\
/l 1#
M. Mayfield, RES G
Pq '95~
^
No written comments or requests for time to make oral statements were received from members of the public. A complete list of meeting attendees is kept in the ACRS Office File and will be made available upon request. The presentation slides and handouts used during the meeting are attached to the office copy of these minutes.
9905210113 900004 PDR ACRS 3121 PDR DECICMATED ORIGI M L N N
,j, { ; ;, y }
t.crtified Dy
)
y
\\
p.
I
(.
I Safety Research Program-2' July 17,1998
. Meeting Minutes -
CHAIRMAN'S OPENING REMARKS
, ' Dr. Robert E. Uhrig, Chairman of the Safety Research Program Subcommittee, convened the meeting at 2:45 p.m. He stated that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss comments and recommendations included in the June.16,1998 ACRS letter report titled " Core Research Capabilities," and the response to that report from the Office of the Nuclear Regulatory Research.
NRC STAFF PRESENTATION
- Ms. Margaret Federline, Deputy Directv, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), gave the introductory remarks and presented the overview of research programs, specifically in the area of core capabilities. She stated that the NRC is in a transition period and the future mission of RES programs will be reflected in this transition. Ms. Federline stated that the staff's discussion was divided into the four following areas:
Core Capabilities Definition and Use i
l l
.i Essentiality -
Risk Considerations _
Uniqueness of Nuclear Applications 1
Mr. Lloyd Donnelly, RES led the discussion of these four key issues.
j Core Canabilities Definition and Use Mr. Donnelly stated that the expertise-driven core capabilities are a framework for defining the minimum skills and facilities needed to effectively support current and foreseeable regulatory
. activities. The expertise-driven core capabilities are appropriately developed as "needs,"
i independent of budget constraints, but it is the budget that ultimately determines the extent to I
which any of these needs can be funded. He said that the definition of expertise-driven core 4
capabilities as stated in SECY-97-075, " Methodology and Criteria for Evaluating Core Research Capabilities, " was misleading to the ACRS. The misleading words in the definition are,
" independent of wolkload demands. " Mr. Donnely said that RES used these words to distinguish
" expertise-driven" from " workload-driven" core capabilities. In retrospect, RES should have used the phrase " independent of the magnitude, but not the makeup, of workload demands."
- Also, there was some discussion about the word " minimum" used in the definition of core capabilities. Mr. Donnelly said that the term " minimum" was used to distinguish the source level for an expertise-driven core capability from the source level needed to support a core capability driven by workload, including both confirmatory and anticipatory research.
e t
--)
y Safety Research Program 3
July 17,1998 Meeting Minutes Essenbahty -
L Mr. Donnelly said that RES believes that essentiality is considered by virtue of making a good case in its analyses that each core capability is needed to support current and expected future regulatory l
' issues in a timely and independent manner. He also said that RES assumed in its analysis that for a core area it is not acceptable to take months or even longer to construct a capability that had been abandoned by the agency. RES has considered it essential to have knowledgeable people on the staff who are aware of research activities going on in the world, who are in contact with l
experts outside the agency, and, who are able to define the work to be done and provide guidance l
for and oversee the highly technical work performed under contract.
Risk Considerations l
The staff stated that risk had been considered in its assessment by virtue of looking at the frequency and safety significance of operational issues and the likelihood of change in l
technology /research results and their safety significance.
l-Uniqueness of Nuclear Apohcations The staff stated that uniqueness of nuclear applications was considered when addressing the j
i question of the availability of expertise and facilities from sources not funded by NRC. The staff believes that the timeliness of response to new issues and the availability of expertise that is free of conflict of interest with experience in nuclear applications is considered here.' The staff also assumed in its analysis that the agency would not want to experience undue delay (months or longer) to assemble and educate others before work could proceed. In addition, there is an issue l
of having knowledgeable in-house staff to define and direct procurement of a capability from i
L outside NRC and then to monitor the progress and quality of the work.
l.
j FOLLOWUP ACTIONS RES and ACRS should continue discussion of this topic considering in progress agencywide in core l
capabilities.-
l l
CONCLUSION
- This meeting was held for information only. No Committee action is required.
BACKGROUND MATERIAL PROVIDED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE :
Report dated June 16,1998, from R.L Seale, ACRS Chairman, to Shirley Ann Jackson, NRC Chairman,
Subject:
Review of SECY-98-076, " Core Research Capabilities" SECY-98-076 dated April 9,1999, " Core Research Capabilities" SECY-97-075, " Methodology and Criteria for Evaluating Core Research Capabilities"
~
.ic',-~,~
A-l-r i,
l l
I' Sr'C: Resarch Program.
4 July 17,1998 Mnvrirg Minutes l
=======:..
=======;
Ngte
.. Additional details of this meeting can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting i
available in the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006, (202) 634-3274, or can be purchased from Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd., (Court Reporters and Transcribers) 1250 l Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C., 20005 (202) 842-0034.
i i
i I
i l'
l l-
.J