ML25167A189

06-20-84 Comments on the NRC Safety Research Program Budget for Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987

ML25167A189
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	06/20/1984
From:	Ebersole J Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Palladino N NRC/Chairman
References
Download: ML25167A189 (1)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 June 20, 1984 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555

SUBJECT:

COMMENTS ON THE NRC SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEARS 1986 AND 1987 During its 290th meeting, June 14-16, 1984, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards {ACRS) completed its review of the program support budget for the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) for Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987.

This matter was considered also by the ACRS Subcommittee on the Safety Research Program at meetings in Washington, D.C., on May 9 and June 13, 1984, and at several meetings of other ACRS, Subcommittees having interests in specific portions of the research programs.

During our review, we had the benefit of discussions with representatives from RES and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR).

The proposed program support budget for FY 1986 presented to the Subcommittee on May 9, 1984 included $165.8 mill ion for research pl us $12 mil 1 ion for decommissioning of the Power Burst Facility {PBF).

The $165.8 mill ion for research was essentially the same as the $168.6 mill ion in the Long-Range Research Plan (LRRP) for Fiscal Years 1985-1989, and represented an increase of $17.6 million over the $151 million request to the Congress for FY 1985.

At the Subcommittee meeting on June 13, 1984, the RES Staff presented a smaller budget, resulting from review by the Budget Review Group (BRG).

This budget for FY 1986 includes $149.9 million for research plus $12 million for decommissioning the PBF.

At the same time, we were infonned that the program support budget for FY 1985 had been reduced by $3.8 million, to $147.2 million.

Al though we see some merit in, and understand the basis for, basing the initial budget estimates on the program scopes projected in the LRRP, we nevertheless believe that a proposed increase of more than 10 percent for FY 1986 is unrealistic in view of the recent history of continuously de-creasing Congressional appropriations for the NRC as a whole and for re-search program support in particular.

For this reason, our review and comments herein are based on a proposed research program support budget of 3529

Honorable Nunzio June 20, 1984

$149.9 million for FY 1986 for research plus $12 million for decommissioning the PBF.

We have looked at this total and its allocation among Decision Units and Subelements of the program in relation to the new total of $147.2 mill ion for a comparable program scope in FY 1985.

We have considered al so the proposed budget for FY 1987, but our major comments will relate chiefly to FY 1986.

We believe that the proposed budget of $149. 9 mill ion for FY 1986 is at an appropriate level in relation to the current budget (FY 1984) and that for FY 1985.

We realize that the Congressional appropriation for FY 1985 may st i1 l be less than requested.

However, s i nee this may turn out to be the case also for FY 1986, we believe that the proposed figures provide the best basis for our review and comments.

The proposed allocations to Decision Units of these funds for FY 1985, 1986, and 1987 are shown in Table 1, together with our recommendations for FY 1986 and 1987.

Comparison of the allocations for FY 1985, 1986, and 1987 reveals three instances in which budget changes are proposed that represent si gnffi cant changes in direction, emphasis, or policy.

These are:

Elimination of all research related to Advanced Reactors, both Liquid-Metal-Fast-Breeder Reactors (LMFBRs) and High-Temperature-Gas-Cooled Reactors (HTGRs), in FY 1986 and 1987.

Significant reduction (by about one-half) in the funds for research on Waste Management, in FY 1986 and 1987.

The addition of $7.7 million in FY 1987 for work on a Modular Facility to replace the existing integral facilities for research on thermal-hydraulic transients.

We agree with the proposal to eliminate the RES-supported programs relating to LMFBRs and HTGRs in FY 1986 and 1987 if adequate Technical Assistance funding can be provided for the NRR Advanced Reactors Group.

We continue to believe that the NRC must interact with the Department of Energy (DOE),

industry, and foreign advanced reactor efforts and that it must be prepared to initiate new research programs when the need for NRC action is more imminent than it is now.

We believe that the Advanced Reactors Group can accomplish the appropriate mission with Technical Assistance funding of about

$1.5 million per year.

Although the proposed reductions in funding for Waste Management research in FY 1986 and 1987 are significant, we believe that, with care and proper 3530

Honorable Nunzio June 20, 1984 coordination, the NRC can meet its regulatory obligations.

In this regard, we offer the following comments:

The NRC Staff must fully coordinate its Waste Management related activities within RES and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS).

A total of about $11 mill ion for Technical Assistance programs is budgeted for FY 1986 in NMSS.

These funds, combined with the proposed overall allocation of $5 million within RES, will provide a total budget of approximately $16 mill ion for FY 1986.

Properly directed, we believe this 1 evel of funding is adequate.

The NRC Staff must exert a greater effort to coordinate its Waste Management program with outside organizations, such as DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA}, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI}, and the individual states.

Our review indicated that improvements are needed in this area.

In terms of the ongoing program, we recommend that the NRC Staff not attempt to develop in-house expertise capable of providing an independent evaluation of every argument submitted by DOE in support of its proposals for High-Level Waste (HLW} repositories.

Adequate expertise in certain specialized areas can be more efficiently ac-quired through the use of consu,-tants.

We understand that the standards being developed by EPA for HLW repositories wi 11 be probabilistic and quantitative in nature.

We recommend that the NRC Staff maintain a research program adequate to permit them to conduct quantitative assessments of the rel eases from such facilities in order to evaluate whether a given design wi 11 be in compliance.

In the area of Thermal-Hydraulic Transients, all current programs in integral test facilities are scheduled to end in the 1987-1988 time frame.

While smaller, separate-effects tests apparently will continue, we believe it essential that consideration be given to continuation of a significant program in integral facilities.

Integral system tests can provide the comprehensive support for necessary ongoing code development and maintenance and assure continuity of a strong body of expertise in this important reactor safety area.

The NRC Staff has begun a study of the feasibility of a new Modular Facility which would replace the existing separate facilities, Semiscale, Fully Integrated System Test (FIST), and Multi-loop Integral System Test (MIST}.

It is not clear, based on a preliminary description of such a facility, that a Modular Facility would offer significant advantages 3531

Honorable Nunzio June 20, 1984 over continuation of programs in the existing facilities.

We believe that further study of the Modular Facility concept may be useful, but that any firm funding or program commitments are not warranted at this time.

For these reasons, we believe that the funding for integral facilities in the Decision Unit on Thermal-H-ydraul ic Transients need not be increased as much as proposed for FY 1987.

We recommend, therefore, that funding for Semiscale be at a level of $4 mill ion in FY 1987, and that funds not be requested for design and construction of a Modular Facility until a firm decision has been reached on the need and cost effectiveness of such a facility.

In addition to the foregoing comments relating to significant changes in the proposed budgets, we offer the following comments concerning other portions of the research program.

In the Reactor Engineering Decision Unit, we note the rapid increase in and relatively high cost of the nuclear pl ant aging research program and are concerned that a disproportionate amount of the research budget may be expended on the evaluation of components from decommissioned pl ants.

We support the development of surveillance and monitoring techniques to detect aging effects prior to loss of safety function but question the cost effec-tiveness of examining a limited number of aged components from a very small number of facilities as a basis for developing constructive guidance or techniques concerning aging.

We believe that this portion of the program should be carefully reevaluated.

With the imminent adoption of a Severe Accident Policy and a rulemaking on Source Terms scheduled to begin at the end of CY 1984, the research programs in the Accident Evaluation Decision Unit must be redirected to concentrate on residual uncertainties that remain after these new policies are in pl ace.

Because this redirection has not been completed, the research now proposed for FY 1986 represents, in many cases, a continuation of research that has been under way for several years.

We question the proposed growth in the Fission Product Source Term program and the continued high expenditure in the Damaged Fuel program. We expect to follow and to comment on the redirection which should produce a decrease in the research needed.

With regard to the programs in the Reactor* Operations and Risk Decision Un it, we have repeatedly recommended a high priority and greater funding support for the Severe Accident Risk Reduction Program.

However, funding for this program is being reduced from $0.5 million in FY 1985 to $0.2 million in FY 1986 despite the existing very considerable deficiencies in infonnation needed to answer such questions as:

How do we specify a containment perform-ance criterion?

What is the risk level for each cl ass of reactors?

How 3532

Honorable Nunzio June 20, 1984 important are plant-specific features to risk?

What is the role of external events, design errors, systems interactions, sabotage, aging, equipment qualification, and operator errors of commission and cognition in evaluating risk?

We believe that a continuing high priority and an increased rather than decreased funding level in FY 1986 is warranted for this program.

Such funding should be reallocated from within this Decision Unit or from other programs of 1 esser importance and cost effectiveness, such as the Damaged Fuel program.

Attachment:

Sincerely yours,

~~~~

Jesse C. Ebersole Chairman Table 1, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Program Support Budget 3533

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

TABLE 1 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH PROGRAM SUPPORT BUDGET (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)

FY 1986 FY BRG ACRS DEC IS ION UNITS 1985 MARK REC OMMEN-DATIONS REACTOR ENGINEERING

42. 9 48.6 48.6 THERMAL-HYDRAULIC TRANSIENTS 25.7 24.8 24.8 ACCIDENT EVALUATION 42.0 37.2 37.2 REACTOR OPERATIONS AND RISK 20.8 25.2 25.2 WASTE MANAGEMENT, EARTH SCIENCES, AND HEALTH 15.8 14.1 14.1 RESEARCH TOTAL 147. 2 149.9 149.9 PBF DECOMMISSIONING 12.0 12.0 TOTAL 147.2 161.9 161.9 3534 FY 1987 BRG ACRS MARK RECOMMEN-DAT IONS 44.3 44.3 35.8 28.6 36.1 36.1 24.4 24.4 14.4 14.4 155.0 147.8 3.2 3.2 158.2 151.0