NUREG-1319, Provides Third Rept of Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee 8900523 & 24 Meetings Re NRC Disposition/ Implementation of Recommendations of Natl Research Council Rept, Revitalizing Nuclear Safety Research

Provides Third Rept of Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee 8900523 & 24 Meetings Re NRC Disposition/ Implementation of Recommendations of Natl Research Council Rept, Revitalizing Nuclear Safety Research

ML20042E736
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/11/1989
From:	Todreas N NRC - NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH REVIEW COMMITTEE
To:	Beckjord E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
References
RTR-NUREG-1150, RTR-NUREG-1319 NACNSRRC, NUDOCS 9005030019
Download: ML20042E736 (8)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:* l s Nk NUCLEAR RE UtATO OMMISSION ~ Nucioet Safety Research Review Committee weshineton, o.C. asses o,,, o August 11,1989 Mr. Eric S. Beckjord Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research US Nuclear atory Commission 9 Washington, 20555

Dear Mr. Beck)ord:

This letter presents the third report of the nuclear Safety Research Review Committee .NSRRC) which was established by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission USNRC) on February 8,1988. This report forwards out views cerived from the full ttee's third meeting held May 23 and 24,1989. The scope of this meeting involved: 1) completion of the Conunittee's review of the USNRC's disposition / implementation of the recommendations of the National Research Council's report, "Revlwising Nuclear Safety Research," issued in December 1986.

2) amplification of the reviews cf specific technical programs in the folk. wing four areas which were undertaken during the fall of 1988 by'd Reactor our Sub-committees, i.e., Severe Accident / Accident Management, In particular, these Aging an Pressure Vessels, Human Factors, and Waste Disposs].

reviews focused on the remaining two charges in our charter which were not covesed in our Lat letter report - specifically (a) whether the best people are doing the work at the best places... and (b t whether the program is free of obvious bias and whether the research prociucts have been g,ven adequate, unblased peer review. - 3) consideration of whether and in what manner the Committee should review other RES activities which, although not reserb programs, will have a measurable in0uence on the nature of future resea.eh activities which RES will conduct. Prior to reporting on the Committee's conclusions in each of these three kreas, there are several general topics which were addressed that we wish tc draw your attention to. '

• Interaction of RES and NRR The Committee was privileged to hear from Dr. T. Murley regarding his views on (a) the merit, from the reactor regulation viewpoint, of maintaining expertise in the technical community in areas of interest to NRR and (b) the positive interaction ongoing between the offices of RES and NRR regarding the articulation and addressing of user needs. We are pleased with Dr. Murley's

$-{ /) positive assessments. Further, it is gratif og that our sufJtestion that each I, NRC user office articulate yearly its n s in writing, is hin adopted. It 3 appears desirable that the managers of these offices individuall address the Committee periodically to appraise us of the effectiveness o this crucial user-executor link as Dr. Murley did this year and Mr. Bernero (Director, i v NMSS) and Mr. Snlezek (Deputy Director, NRR) did lu June 1988. L[ 9005030019 890811 n PDR ADVCM NACNSRRC ~ l PDC

jw I Mr. Eric S. Beckjord August 11,1989 l page two l 4

• Maintaining Staff and Contractor Expertlee through Research j

The presentation by Dr. Sheron stressed the need to continue the modest level k of thermal hydraulles research activity with the objective of maintaining staff l and contractor expertise sufficient to respond to potential regulatory needs. The Committee endorses this objective in this research area but recognises that of reseuch activities lu many other technical areas. For example, justification the general applicability of this policy portends development and the eroding t U.S. capability in reactor physics research was also discussed at this meeting, t ' We consider the ning of scope and execution of research based on this objective a chall undertaking and encourage RES to develop and present its plans regarding t issue to the Committee at a future meeting.

• Introduction of Advanced Technology into U.S. Plants During the human factors area discussion, it was observed that utility control rooms were yeus behind the chemical processing industry, for example, in installing new electronic technologies. This is meause there are currently

? l severe restrictions regarding introducing advanced technology in our nuclear plant control rooms. The major current tuhlbitor is the need to establish that a new instrument or control device will meet all of the technical requirements of l the original Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). It was reported that often the NRC is dealing with higher priority issues and will not invest the review l time to qualify.a new icstrument. This is in stark contrast to the encouragement of new technology in other countries. Similarly, utilities have been reluctant to depersd on computers for control of processes or even for any safety related activity, because there would have: to be a subsequent l demonstration that the computer could survive an earthquake and other events, in order to get advanced technology into the control rooms, it will take special initiative on the put of the NRC to commit to doing reviews for those who bring in new technology. The Committee is disturbed by this trend but recognizes it is.a general NRC Issue. Nevertheless, it challenges RES to address the issue and propose, within 1 its purview, steps to promote the introduction of new Instrumentation and r Control technology as well as new technologies more generally into U.S. plants. j (' In addressing this issue, RES could consider the following questions reguding the general issue of technology transfer into the utility industry. How are new i technologies absorbed into the utilities? What aw the barriers to new technology transfer? How can one remove unnecessary barriers if they exist? l (1) USNRC RESPONSE TO THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORT l The Committee believes that the NRC and RES in particulu have been very re;ponsive to the recommendations of the Research Council's report. The establishment of the l l NSRRC, the internal RES reorranization, and the implementation of improvements in research ph>nning and prioritizatfon are good exaples of the efforts and the progress that j i

i 1w ( li 1 y 6 Mr. Eric S. Beckjord August 11,1989 j page three RES has made in revitalizing nuclear safety research. The Committee does, however, offer i the followin5 specific comments. Attractine Outelde Reneechers to Bolster Manarement You have made significant effort to entice senior managers from outside government to i join RES. Since this effort has not borne fruit,it is even more important to emphasise the program of enhancing the management capabilities of the current-personnel within the 2 l-Office of Research. This can be done by exposing managers or potential mais6ers to t id i d by sending people to work on assignments in , g/ outs e execut ve management programs an the laboratories of some of the NRC contractors. The purpost 's to expose managen to - f different approaches and new ideas. Although you indicated that some of your managers are sent to the Federal Executive lastitute, e.ad although this is good, there are advantages to exposing theni to managen from other bubinesses. Annum 1 frorram Review with the Princinal Pt.rformers of Research While your office has instituted meetings with contractors at a number of leveis to discuss the overall research program, it appears that only a few RES managers _ are conducting effective performance review meetings. The Committee believes that project l review meetings in which such factors as timeliness of reults, quslity of results, technologic q' innovation, project management and budget adherence are,gxam"Aned and subsequently i reviewed with your contractors are a valued activity of RES management. We would like to be kept informed of the progre6s of this program and at our next meeting would welcome your assessment as to whether utilization of a more comprehensive performance appraisal-i system would be beneficial. l Peer Review of Research Products The Committee recognizes the steps that you have taken to inject the peer review-process into the research contracting process and the conduct of research activities. The achievement of an effective peer review process vill take time to truly take root. The (,

• Committee has observed that currently the degree of peer review varies considerably across your research activitly spectrum (se our second report af February 7,1969)..The Committee believes that this lasue needs careful monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of your initiatives.

RES Grant / Contract Procurement j i participation of qualified university investigators in the RES program has been slow Not withstanding your initiatives and intentions, the progress in enhancin i University Participation in the RES Program EY Bf EY_.Bl EY.It3 D'E Contracts 3% 3% 3% 3% Grants 1% 1% -1% 2%

~. Xy g, w .{ l l,. l Mr. Eric S. Beckjord Argust 11,1989 l l-page four l At our meeting, you and Mr. Burda stressed that the most useful contracting vehicle for RES to expand the participation of industry and universities in its research programs is i l the use of broad agency announcements (BAA's). The Committee strongly. encourages. implementation of your stated plan to use BAA's to attract industrial and university j

7, participation and to stimulate new approaches to solving the difficult safety problems. We i

will examine with interest the results of your new initiatives in this area. j l + l Establishment of a for Research Planninz Process l l Progress in this area has been marked through your articulation of a research l philosophy and renewad efforts to coordinate with re evant offices inside the USNRC and or initiative of i contractors and other research sponsors outside the USNRC. Further, a ma;NUREG-1319); RES in this area has been the development of a Prioritisation Procedure ( which was presented to the Committee at this meeting.' The Committee found the proposed procedure thoughtful and comprehensive but believes that quality of results } l should be considered in prioritizing research activities. Perhaps this is best done by defining the attribute "usefulness" to clearly include assessment of whether the expected quality of the research product can be sufficient to resolve the issue. Overall, we view the prioritizattan procedure as having the potential to serve as a useful guide to RES management if used properly. However, any scheme for setting priorities can become institutionalized and become a check-list whereas it abould be a n. , thought-etimulating procedure. The merit of any prioritization arocedure is the effort management makes to address the critical queulons that will leac to a quality decision.. i 4 Given the activity summaries and assessments that are appended to NUREG-1319, it does l , appear that the procedure is being used a:propriately at this phase. However, there was 1 insufficient time for thorough discussion of the subject at our meeting to determine if the Division Directors and Dranch Chiefs are fully supportive of the procedure and have accepted it as a management tool for regular use. Wealll feel more comfortable when we develop the sense that the prioritization process has permeated all of RES's operations. Even when it is in regular use, there exists the potential for misuse - for example, if it is l used too rigidly. Further discussion of the utihty of the prioritization procedure to RES l would be appropriate at the next Committee meeting. (2) AMPIAFICATION OF TECHNICAL REVIEWS OF FALL 1988 BY NSRRC SUBCOMMITTEES IN FOUR AREAS The Committee intends that review of these areas be continued by its Subcommittees during the fall and winter of 1589/90. This continued review is considered desirable v) ~ allow review of a.dditional specific programs which were not discussed in the 1988 review and to monitor the continued RES and contractor response to Committee observations, hgte Accident /Accidem Manarement 3 The process of reviewing and revising the Severe Accident Research Program (SARP) was comprehensive and RES is to be complimented for its execution of this effort. RES t W,1' was able to receive input on the usefulness of research projects from outside technical experts, and then the RES tenior management staff made (2e final judgments on what had N--.

(, w Mr. Eric S. Beckjord August 11,1989 page five to be done to revim the plan. The resulting plan should lead to closure of the neu-terrn safety issues. Froa. 4 program management standpoint, however, the revised SARP lacks iTicity with respect to deliverables and milestones. If the activities described in the an we to be accomplished effectively, RES management should have criteria by which - efforts that are planned. y of the results obtained in the various experimen can judge the validit In addition to a review of the activities underway, which must address the difficult areas of computer code reduction and scaling principle development, the severe accident Subcommittee would like to address these management items at its meeting later this yeu. Arine and Reactor Preasure Vennels The reservations cited in our February 7, 1989 luter which forwuded the Subcommittee comments on Aging and Reactor Pressure Vessel are resolved. The Subcommittee's emphasis will now shift to the seismic and containment program elements. Human Factors Our discussion focused on the Subcommittee's dissatisfaction with the research cpproach, particularly the criteria for selecting researchers, in the Organir.ation and Management area. Your subsequent exchange of letters (June 8,1989 and June 23,1989) with the Subcommittee chairman, Tom Sheridan, will serve useful in forwuding the recewed discussloa of this issue at the planned November 1989 Subcommittee meeting. Additional issues that the Subcommittee now envisions discussing include: Advance Instrumentation and Control in the' form of artificial intellignce, l t systems and other computer-based operator / maintenance d slon l Del >hl and other methods for elicitation and refinement of subjective probabilities from human experts. Collaboration with other agencies in researching human factors of operation and maintenance of complex systems. Waste Disnosal Both high-level and low-level programs are being rethought in light of new user need letters. RES should take the initiative of insuring that users need letters are obtained from states which will be hostin6 ow-level-waste burial faci!1 ties. Indeed, the states will be l I. A setting the standuds for bunal and, therefore, muld outline what reseuch would be needed for them to set logical standards. Overall, the plan, seem to be off to a reasonable sta t. However, there still seems to be ' a tendency,to do unrealistic planning in light of projections lor relatively irXdest budget l, b pEoritization document and projected budgets in the five-year plan. plans 11. light incrgnes. The Committee urges RES to comp ete the program These budgets cleuly will not allow resoiving all issuu delineated in the user need letters. Thus, these letters cannot be the only guides to program planning. In addition, NMSS must convey its highest priority needs to assure t mely licensing decisions, particularly in licensing the 4

? ~ q.. ,.c I l l i Mr. Eric S. Beckjord July 12,1989 page six l l Yucca Mountain repository. Without luge increases in the reseech budget, it would be unrealistic for NMSS to assume that RES can deliver, in a literal sense on all the requet.tt, i in the high-level-waste user need letter. The Southwest Research Institute will soon take over major responsibilities for l high-4evel-waste research with activities transferred from other NRC contractors. The Committee reiterates its concern that there must be a balance between the need for an i unbined contractor without conflict of interest and the need for scientific and en;;lneering i excellence. The NSRRC charter calls for us to be concerned that the best people are performing the research. The SWRI should be charged with developing expertise in a few relavant areas, especially those where the potential for conflict of interest exists with other L contractors. The remaining work should be assigned to the contractors with demonstrated ',(, capabilities and the best ideas. In this regard, t w Committee strongly affirms the view of its Subcommittee based on its fall 19S8 program review that the quality of the rescuchers under contract was very high art. El necatery steps should be taken to. insure the continued availability of this diversity of qualifeo contractors. l (3) COMMITTEE REVIEW OF THE FULL SCOPE OF RES ACTIVITIES involves programs other than the initiation and management of research programs) The Committee has noted that about 40% of RES activity (based on staff assignment Nevertheless, the Committee's Charter focuses the Committee's attention primarily upon l RES rescuch programs. At this meetint, as well as at previous meetings, the Committee has been given an-orientation regard ng such specific RES programs as NUREG-1150. This time the Committee heud of the Mark I " improvement proposal" that has been presented by NRC staff to the Commission. We also saw the results for Peach Bottom I and 3, of i probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) on Mark I contamment failure obtained in the severe accident research pmgram and reported in the new draft of NUREG-1150. The Committee noted that the PRA results do not seem to support the Muk 1 " improvement proposal." r However, the Conunittee feels that its function should be limited to research matters - the quality, type, and appropriateness of research - and that policy advice on regulation and safety matters should be provided by others, notably the Advisory Committee on Reactor " improvement proposal. gly, the NSRRC offers no direct comment on the Mark I Safeguards. Accordin Nevertheless, the Committee believes that it should broaden its review to those aspects sf such RES programs which could have a broad impact on the future selection and }, direction of specific reseuch activities. This desire was discussed with you at our meeting and you subsequently (letter of June 12,.1989) suggested that evolutionary and advanced reactor safety evaluations be an added uea we should review. We accept that and suggest that we additionally review with you the general issue of the credibility of RES research 1 results. This has been brought into focus by this apparent discrepancy between the i NUREG-1150 research result and the RES Muk 1 improvement proposal,. This is a specific example of the more general issue - what are the criteria that research results must meet? II research falls to meet the requirement of being useful to the staff and Commission i Commission in reachm decinions, is it an acceptable RES research product? }f it does not fall, what is missint? Finally, our discussions could include further discussions of r.everal t

O .p Mr. Eric S. Beckjord August 11,1989 page seven ' areas that we have already considered but not fully discussed. As suggested in your June 12 letter these areas include the research element processes of priorlGaation, p1 nning, and closure determination as well as university program development. This overall group of issues could best be covered initially by an early spring 1990 meeting with a Subcommittee followed by full Committee discussion later that spring. ' Finally, the Committee wants to express as appreciation to you and your staff for contributing so directly in matin r, this an effective meeting. More broadly,)we believe that our activities and recommendat ons to date (summarised in Appendix A havb received your full attention and careful consloeration. We trust t' cat such continued dynamic Interaction between your office and the Committee will be of benefit to the conduct of the Commission's research program. Sint:erely, (fh l r Nell E. Todreas Chairman, NSRRC 2 )

l

• a.. d i

l l .e: l l l f l l t i l t 1 Annendix A i Record of NSRRC Activitlec i Full Committee ging or Sub Committee NSRRC Tater Renorts RES Resnonse i ' ).17-18,1988 Full Committee i August 11,1988 December 20,198S - te 2-3,1988 Full Committee l tcber 11,1988 Four i Subcommittee February 7,1989 April 7,1989

ember 13,1988 Meetings I

y 23-74,19S9 Full Committee August 11.19S9 f i a t 'I k ,,,..}}