ML20245A576
| ML20245A576 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/03/1987 |
| From: | Bernthal F NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Asselstine, Roberts, Zech NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235N989 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-300 NUDOCS 8704150239 | |
| Download: ML20245A576 (4) | |
Text
I
/
UNITED tTATES f
[g k
ay a
3/14/87 OR TWO WEEKS AFTER "D 9 February 3, 1987
[. 7-'
-b RECEIPT OF EDO'S RECOMMENDAC
,0N RESEARCH, WHICHEVER IS OFFICE OF THE LIMITED DIS 1'RIBUTION SOONER COMMi$SIONE R
^
~.
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Zech CCMFB-87-2, Commissioner Roberts y
ComiWoner Asselstine Commissioner Drr FROM:
Frederick M. BerotPal
SUBJECT:
Report of the Naticnal Research Council:
" Revitalizing Nucis;ar Reactor Safety Research" The desire to put the best face _on a devastating indictment of the Agency's research program is perhaps forgiveable, but if the NAS report on the above-captioned topic was "a welce,me endorsement of initiatives that have, to a large extent, already been initiated by Research", then Appomattex was "a welcome endorsement of initiatives that were, to a large extent, already undertaken by the Confederate Army".
Be that as it may, what is important now is to recognize how mcch remains to be done, and to undertake significant and lasting initiatives.
It should especially be noted that the NAS report was in many respects simply an echo of warnings contained in the American Physical Society's 1984 report to the Comission on Source Term. There was minimal Agency initiative in response to the sharp criticism of NRC research programs already clearly implicit in that 1984 report.
In that vein, I want to bring to the Comission's attention a number of recommendations I submitted to the National Academy Panel on March 21, 1986 (and copied to the Comission) in response to questions submitted to all Commissioners. Many of the Academy Panel's recommendations comport with my own thinking, but I believe the following may offer somcwhat more in the way of specifics.
In fairness, I am well aware that Staff has, within the past few months, taken steps to initiate some of these recommendations:
"11. What recommendations do you have for improvino nuclear safety research?
" ANSWER 11 While I recognize that the American Physical Society (APS) charter was ouite different from that of the present National Academy Comittee, the recent Report of the APS Study Group on itadionuclide Release from Severe Accidents [Rev. Mod. Phys. 57:51(1985)],inits critique of certain specific problems in nucleaFsafety research, points toward generic problems in the management. and administration of nuclear safety research. While'APS did not specifically address how the federal agency principally responsible for funding much cf that research might ass %t in resolving these problems, the inferences are not difficult to draw.
t
[/[j 9
(( / '/N a
j
)
~
l, 4cy.
L
w -
f l l
f "With that as a starting point, and in sumary of several points discussed in more detai? earlier fe this'[ March 21,1086] paper, I I
offer the following recommendations:
"o NPC should substantially change its approach to the f
management and administration of research under its purview.
The following specific measurer might be explored:
-- Classify research decision units and programs i
according to clear research objectives understandable i
to Congress and the public (e.g. " Improved Reactor l
i Safety", " Unresolved Safety Issues"), rather than by vague or arcane technfcal categories.
-- Adopt a management approach, perhaps matrix
{
management, that directly involves, wherever possible, j
the agency unit that must make decisions based upon the i
results of the research., Research that is basic in nature, or involves cooperative comitments with foreign countries, or tha; is otherwise broadly perceived to be in the national interest may be an j
l er.ception, but should be clearly so labeled.
l
-- Establish a strono, fomalized, peer-review procas to assess quality of research proposals, programs, and publications.
"o NRC should actively prcmote the establishment eind l
l professional integrity of archival, refereed scientific l
l l
journals accepted by the comunity of scholars as l
authoritative in the field of nuc'ie:r safety research.
Those who fend nuclear safety research should require that safety research contractors, whenever pussible, publish research results in such journals. The adequacy of such research, whether carried out by NRC contractors or others, should be assessed and evaluated, in part, on the basis of the number and ouality of such publications.
"o Encourage the comunity of scholars in nuclear safety research, and especially NRC contractors involved in such research, to form an inde3endent advisory body, (Nuclear Safety Research Advisory Panel, NUSPAP?) modeled after HEPAP and other such existing bodies. The NUSRAP charter should be to consider annually, or as needed, the appropriate specific allocation of funds among varicus disciplines of I
l nuclear safety research, and to make recommendations in a timely manner to the NRC or to any other cognizant entity.
NRC should play an active role in meetings of the advisory group, but only as one (if perhaps especially important) participant.
4 h---------.____
~
r a
"o Recognizing it will take time for the salutary changes that should arise from several of the above measures, as an intarim step NRC should convene as soon as possible (and eventually, under the aegis of the proposed N'JSRAP) panels of experts in several significac fields of nuclear. safety research to provide short term guidace on avenues of inquiry most likely to lead to resolution of major outstanding questions.
(Cf. for example the ed hoc panel convened two years ago by Brookhavan National Laboratory to provide guidance for resolution of steam explosion issues.)"
[Bernthal letter to Mr. Steven Blush, National Research Councile, March 21, 19861 To the abcre reccmendations, I would today add the following:
The Commission should schedule a meeting as soon as possible c
with Dr. Frosch and any Panel members he may wish to include, to discuss the NAS Panel report and recommendations.
The NRC should institute a program of professional " rotator" o
positions in appropriate key research areas (a comon practice at the National Science Foundation and DOE in managing their research progrcms). Highly qualified specialists with administrative capability should be recruited from universities and the national various agency programs for a fixed period of time (y administer laboratories to have full responsibility for actuall usually t e years) before they return to the research comunity. Such programs provide an excellent mechanism for keeping program administrators in touch with reality.
Two further points: Several months ago I asked for a sumary of the responsibilities, professional credentials, staff turnover, etc. of RES.
It is gratifying to note the estimable technical capabilities of the RES staff: 78 percent of RES professional staff have advanced degrees; 46 percent have Ph.D.'s or other doctorates.
It is clear RES is not lacking in technical capability. But there are some curious anomalies.
For example, in one crucial technical area, no person with an advanced research degree appears in the line organization at all -- such circumstances may be well-suited for " rotator" positions. In other areas there are apparent mismatches between education / experience and job assignment. Given current FTE and SES limitations, an infusion of new technically-capable personnel as recomended by the National Research Council may not be in the cards -- except perhaps by the temporary " rotator" mechanism. All the more essential, then, that valuable human resources be wisely used, an ob.iective I am sure the EDO fully shares.
Finally, a brief coment on the proposed reorganization plan for RES:
I did not understand the intent of the Comission to be that the "two deputies" condition should be implemented so that every RES man and woman would have two masters, so to speak, and I am concerned over the likely outcome of such a two-fold matrix arrangement. What was intended was that the two e
~#~
.. ~
deputies would continue, for an indeterminate pericd of time, to administer their respective research divisions and responsibilities in two, nearly intact line organizations. While it was recognized that such a manage'ent m
arrangement would eventually be modified, the Commission's concept for an appropriate transition period was not at all unlike that which served the Office of General Counsel rather well when it merged with ELD. Recognizing that almost any paper organization can work, and may work well depending on the commitment and inclinations of the people -involved, the situation nevertheless requires careful oversight.
SECY, please track Commission comment on the above recommendations in conjunction with corients on the ED0's forthcoming paper on this subject, but in no case to begin later than March 1.
cc: Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Carr Mr. Stello Mr. Beckjord SECY LIMITED DISTRIBUTION 1
t
_. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _