 |
Search Options | |||
| Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us |  |
|||
Home > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections > Commission Documents > Commission Meetings, Slides, Transcripts, Meeting SRMs, and Full Written Explanation for Closed Meetings > 1997
>
05/02/1997
1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
***
MEETING WITH NUCLEAR SAFETY
RESEARCH REVIEW COMMITTEE (NSRRC)
***
PUBLIC MEETING
***
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Commission Hearing Room
11555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland
Friday, May 2, 1997
The Commission met in open session, pursuant to
notice, at 10:53 a.m., the Honorable SHIRLEY A. JACKSON,
Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission
KENNETH C. ROGERS, Member of the Commission
EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR., Commissioner.
. 2
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
JOHN C. HOYLE, Secretary
KAREN D. CYR, General Counsel
E.T. BOULETTE, NSRRC Chairman
S. GEORGE BANKOFF, NSRRC
MICHAEL W. GOLAY, NSRRC
CHARLES MAYO, NSRRC
CHRISTINE M. MITCHELL, NSRRC
JOHN TAYLOR, NSRRC
SUMIO YUKAWA, NSRRC
DAVID MORRISON, Director, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research
. 3
P R O C E E D I N G S
[10:53 a.m.]
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen.
I am pleased to welcome Dr. E. Thomas Boulette and
members of the Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee, and
Dr. David Morrison, Director of the Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, to brief the Commission on recent
activities of the committee.
The Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee or
the NSRRC, as it is called, advises the director of Nuclear
Regulatory Research and, through him, the Commission on the
quality and conduct of NRC research activities and gives
recommendations concerning the overall management and
direction of the Nuclear Safety Research Program.
At today's briefing, the following topics will be
discussed. First, observation and recommendations of four
subcommittees, among them the Materials and Engineering
Subcommittee, a joint report from the INC and Human Factors
Subcommittee and the PRA Subcommittee. And, finally, the
Accident Analysis Subcommittee.
Also discussed will be research core capabilities
and the committee's view of these, comments on the
committee's effectiveness in support of research and
comments addressing the Commission's questions concerning
. 4
human reliability analysis and their relationship to PRA.
The Commission appreciates your effort and look
forward to hearing from you. I understand that if there is
any presentational material, it has already been made
available.
Please start, Mr. Boulette.
DR. BOULETTE: Thank you, Chairman Jackson, and
good morning, Commissioner Rogers, Commissioner McGaffigan.
We are pleased to be here this morning to give you
our views of the research program that the NRC is very
dependent upon. We will also afford you an opportunity to
meet the membership. I know you haven't done that before.
And in fact what we have planned is that every member at the
table be speaking.
The agenda is relatively tight. I was present for
the ACRS meeting and I can see how these proceedings go. I
am going to encourage the membership of this committee to be
cognizant of the time and the messages that we are trying to
present to you.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It is we who caused the delay.
DR. BOULETTE: A couple of comments about the
committee itself.
Historically, there have been 12 members on this
committee. Currently there are only seven. Soon, there
will be only six unless we -- unless Dr. Morrison is
. 5
successful in recruiting some other members. One of the
concerns that we have is the breadth of expertise that the
Committee is trying to sustain so we will be working on that
over the next couple of months.
To make the committee effective, we have broken it
up into five subcommittees, four of which are very active.
One is somewhat inactive because of the area of expertise on
high-level waste.
The four committees will report to you this
morning their findings at their recent meetings and their
views of the specific areas of which they have
responsibility.
The committees include the committee on PRA. Mike
Golay is the chair of that committee. Another committee is
Human Factors and INC. Charles Mayo is the chair of that
subcommittee. Accident Analysis is the third subcommittee
and George Bankoff is the chair of that subcommittee. And
Materials and Engineering is the fourth and that is chaired
by Sumio Yukawa.
We try to meet twice a year as the full committee
and the subcommittees try to meet two to three times a year.
We have no staff so most of what you get is a bit
sophomoric, I think, in terms of the quality of the typing.
That is because I do the typing of the reports.
We have tried to address the concerns that the
. 6
Commission had in terms of the interface between this
committee and the ACRS. I think we have been very active
this past 12 months in doing that. The way we do that is to
try to be very cognizant of their schedule and the meetings
that they have and then selectively select a member of our
committee to attend some of the meetings. There have been
at least a half a dozen or so meetings that we have been
participating in. It has been very useful to us. It helps
to focus on what we may want to talk to the staff about.
With these preliminary comments, I will move on to
the next subject on the agenda which is a report on the
joint meeting of the INC and Human Factors and the PRA
subcommittees and that is Charles Mayo.
MR. MAYO: Okay, thank you.
Our committees had a joint meeting primarily to
review and prepare response to the questions that had been
posed about the use of human reliability analysis and PRA
and we reviewed the human performance program plan, the PRA
implementation plan and other material provided to us and
concluded that the research projects in human factors and
human reliability analysis are largely unrelated. This
seems to be primarily driven by user needs to perform
reliability analysis and the licensing space as opposed to
developing methods and data specifically directed to the
human reliability analysis problem and applications of it.
. 7
RES does have two programs in human reliability
analysis area and considers them to have somewhat limited
scope. There is the Athena project on the areas of the
commission and the organizational factors management. I
would have to say that our subcommittee has been concerned
about the issue of the organizational factors research
program for a number of years and I came on the committee as
previous work was ending so I don't know the historical
details but we still have some concerns about progress in
that area.
Additionally, in looking at the programs that were
going on or could be going on, the data needs, we had the
analysis that there was likely to be significant relevant
experience in the NRC operating database and we could see
references in some of the program plans to this being
collected and the licensee event report improved and so on
to develop for human reliability data. We feel that this is
a research area or opportunity for data that should not be
ignored and particularly in comparison to the classical
human reliability analysis type data that has come from
other industries.
And the final point was there was a belief that
the two projects that are currently going on did not
constitute a developed research plan to develop the human
reliability, human factors analysis into use in the PRA but
. 8
that improvements certainly could be made through a longer
term program.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask you a couple
questions.
You talked about the human reliability analysis
program having limited scope. Has the committee made any
specific recommendations on an expanded scope?
MR. MAYO: We have not had the opportunity to do
that. We had a busy meeting when we got to this point.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you plan to make
recommendations?
MR. MAYO: We are trying to get together again in
the early part of the summer and discuss this, after we have
had a better sense for material we received and feedback
from the ACRS.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You mentioned that user needs
do not address development of human reliability analysis,
that portion of the PRAs -- I'm going to call it HRAs from
now on. To what extent has the current state of the art in
HRA limited our ability to apply PRA results in the
regulatory arena.
MR. MAYO: That question I must defer to some of
my colleagues on the Committee.
DR. BOULETTE: Christine, can you take that
question?
. 9
To what extent can HRA be effectively used in PRA,
I think, is the nature of the question.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes, in the regulatory arena.
MS. MITCHELL: I think that if you have a -- to
the extent that you are able to model human operators, you
have a stronger model. To the extent that you are not or
you don't have particularly valid data for that, it limits,
limits your overall model.
My understanding is that HRA is pretty primitive
at this point in time. My understanding from your last
session with Dr. Apostolakis is that -- and I concur -- is
that it's a mess. So it needs some attention, although I
caution that this isn't just a matter of money and effort;
this is the state of affairs in lots of other industries.
Modeling human performance and using those models in an
analytic way is not widely done anyplace.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And you mentioned that analysis
of operating experience should be a resource for relating
HF, HRA and PRA. Why is that not happening?
MR. MAYO: I believe it is happening in certain
ways. Our exposure to date has been limited to what we read
about projects in the program plans, particularly in AEOD
activities, which we haven't gotten into much detail on.
I guess our concern was the absence of seeing
active work going on within the RES division itself.
. 10
MR. GOLAY: I think there is another point, if I
can offer a comment, which is that in order for data to be
useful in modeling, there has to be a coupling between the
model development and understanding that the case is being
analyzed. And the lack of interaction between research and
AEOD was effectively a lost opportunity that we were drawing
attention to, in that AEOD has been using PRA to try to
understand some events, precursor analysis, for example.
But the feedback link to the research program and to setting
the agenda to refining the models to understanding results
that they are getting wasn't there.
So the format, for example, in which the AEOD
evidence was being interpreted was not in a state where
researchers could make easy use of it so it was not making
the kind of contribution that could be made at fairly modest
marginal cost, it appeared.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, in fact, now AEOD and
research are part of the same organization and it was meant
to address some of this. So, Dr. Morrison, can you give is
some edification relative to what is happening in this
regard?
DR. MORRISON: Yes. We are very, very much moving
out based upon both the recommendations that ACRS made in
this broad area as well as the comments that NRC has made.
Two things to note, one is that there has been a
. 11
recent reorganization within the Office of Research that
placed HRA or actually people from PRA that had been doing
some HRA activities, into the human factors area and vice
versa, so that they are closely coupled and, second, this
group is developing a human performance, human reliability
plan that is basically going to be an agency wide plan that
has its origins in research and trying to address the
immediate needs that have been raised by both committees.
That plan should be available for review, I would
think, by the subcommittee here at the early summer meeting
so that there will be an opportunity to get feedback on the
plan that is being developed.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What about the issue of
specifically linkages between research and AEOD or research
drawing on the AEOD operating database?
DR. MORRISON: Well, those have existed in the
past. Obviously, they need to be strengthened. They are in
the process of being strengthened. We have been working
quite closely with AEOD in the accident sequence precursor
efforts and we can broaden out on that particular basis.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, the question I guess I am
asking you is, as part of this agency wide plan, is this
issue of cross linkage and, you know, use of the database
being explicitly addressed? Because you are right, it has
existed all the time but the Committee is making a statement
. 12
as has made -- been made by ACRS that the activities are
unrelated and that the database has not been drawn upon.
DR. MORRISON: Well, it will be explicitly
addressed in the plan and what steps we will take to make
sure that that continues.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Rogers?
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: No questions.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Could I ask the
relationship between your body and ACRS in looking at this
issue? You are both looking at it simultaneously and
reviewing plans, both finding them not very acceptable at
the moment and telling the staff that they have to rework,
as ACRS, Mr. Apostolakis, said, the staff is in agreement
and has gone back to the drawing board.
But what is the value added of your look at it
compared to ACRS or how should we think about rationalizing
that?
MR. MAYO: Well, we are developing a relationship
with ACRS. In my particular case, I was unable to attend
their last subcommittee meeting so I personally did not
participate, but our other committee members have been
attending the ACRS meetings and I have seen, as mentioned
earlier, progress in coordinating our activities.
MR. GOLAY: I will add one thing.
The mandates of the two groups are somewhat
. 13
different, in that our committee is concerned with the
research program throughout NRC. The ACRS is concerned with
the reactors, reactor-related activities of NRC and there is
an intersection concerned with research related to reactors,
which is the bulk of research but not entirely.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
DR. BOULETTE: The next subject that we wanted to
discuss with you is the subject of PRA and its use in risk-
informed performance-based regulations and Mike Golay will
speak to that.
MR. GOLAY: The subcommittee we have on PRA has
put together partly to help the research group develop the
capabilities which are needed to support all of the NRC in
making performance-based regulation an effective reality.
So I will make my comments sort of from that perspective.
Whenever we have reviewed their programs, it has
always been to try to answer questions about what do they
need to do in order to be an effective support and the thing
that we are seeing is that there are ways that research
could be much more valuable, primarily in promoting fluency
concerning PRAs throughout the agency. They participate
with AEOD in training and one of the things which we can see
is that sensitivity to what PRA will tell you really has not
permeated very much in the functioning of the agency, at
least anecdotally it appears that way when you talk to
. 14
licensees and ask, do you ever see any evidence that
performance-based regulation is a reality within the agency
or in terms of how you resolve issues in dealing with the
NRC and the answer is consistently that there is --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Are you saying risk-informed
performance-based regulation or are you saying performance-
based regulation?
MR. GOLAY: I mean the former. I was trying to be
brief.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, I just want to be sure I
understand what you are talking about.
MR. GOLAY: No, that's what I mean.
That one of the things they say is that the staff
appear really not to be knowledgeable about PRA or even
aware that it is one of the tools which could be used in
dealing with the questions which come up with the licensees.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Now, they are talking about the
staff lacking knowledge, are you talking at the level of the
resident inspectors, at the region-based inspectors?
MR. GOLAY: It is at the regions primarily, that's
right. So consistently when you ask them, well, are you
trying to pose some of your arguments in risk-based terms,
they say, no, because the NRC is unable or unwilling to
communicate in those terms.
Which comes back then to the research program
. 15
because of the role that they play in instilling those
capabilities. I think one message is that they could be
very valuable in being more vigorous in this kind of thing
so that if you look at the second bullet, when we say, what
is really meant here, say greater use of PRA is needed in
guiding regulation, it really means in terms of dealing with
licensees as opposed to formulation of policy or
determination of new regulatory statements.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So this committee, has this
committee had any role in reviewing or participating in the
review of the PRA reg guide or standard review plan?
MR. GOLAY: Only because I took the initiative to
get those documents and review them. Had I not done so,
they would not have come to our attention.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You provided commentary back to
the staff?
MR. GOLAY: No, I read them so I could, first of
all, know what they are trying to do and if I were asked
anything about them have some kind of answer.
But I am saying routinely that kind of thing is
not brought to our attention.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I see.
MR. GOLAY: As we have been working so far.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So research has not had a role
in reviewing these documents themselves?
. 16
DR. MORRISON: Well, research has had an integral
role in developing the --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Developing them, right. But
this committee was not asked to review them.
DR. MORRISON: No. This committee generally has
not been asked to review regulatory guides or anything
related to the rulemaking process.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
MR. GOLAY: Right.
The third bullet goes to also the interaction with
the licensees and within the staff in that the other thing
that I at least have become aware of is with the two thrusts
that are going on in the agency at the moment, one concerned
with strict conformance to commitments that licensees have
made, that there is effectively an interference that is
being created which I would say is working against
performance-based regulation in that the licensees are
asking, well, should we be paying attention to the letter of
the law in fine detail without regard to the substance of
what is being regulated and I think they are concluding
that, yes, that that is the case, at least in the past year
or so.
And, contrasting that to, well, should I try to
use risk-informed performance-based regulatory approaches to
problems which are, as you know, concerned with the
. 17
substance. There is some variation in how you pose those
arguments.
Uniformly, what I am seeing is they are basically
ruling out performance-based regulation as an approach and
this has, I think, an important effect because it also
decreases the resources within the licensees to play ball in
the risk-informed performance-based regulatory arena. So we
have got sort of systematic interaction here, which is
undermining the needed growth of capabilities to support
that approach to regulation, both within the utilities and,
I would say, within the NRC.
You know, George, in the last session, spoke about
this maturation time which is needed before the licensees
are able to actually use this way of approaching problems
effectively and what I am observing is that in fact that
maturation is being suppressed by these two parallel sort of
conflicting messages.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you are suggesting that the
licensees are suggesting that they should be relieved from
their commitments because they have no safety significance?
MR. GOLAY: Not at all. I would say it is a
matter of style rather than whether they feel they need to
be strongly committed because resources have to be divided
in some fashion and what they are doing is putting their
resources into compliance and they are taking them away from
. 18
building the capability for risk-informed performance-based
regulation. So it is having an effect in that fashion.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, you know, we have a risk-
informed enforcement policy and we are a regulatory agency
and so I think, you know, we have to come around this issue
of compliance issues versus safety issues. If, in fact,
licensees feel that there are compliance issues that do not
have a safety basis, I think all of us would welcome them
being brought to our attention because I think we are not
interested in having compliance against things that do not
have a safety case. But I think that you cannot talk about
a regulatory agency not expecting people to comply with
something.
MR. GOLAY: Absolutely. Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
MR. GOLAY: No question.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So I don't think we want to get
off into those kinds of pejorative discussions.
MR. GOLAY: That's right. I only wanted to draw
attention to some interactions which are effecting the
advancement of performance-based regulation, which I think
is really one of the key contributions that the agency has
been making in recent years to improving safety.
We spoke -- on the fourth bullet, we already spoke
about the coupling between AEOD and research and so I don't
. 19
think we need to say more about that. And I would say that
basically the agency really can be congratulated for making
good progress in development of the draft reg guides,
revisions to the standard review plan, development of some
PRA tools like the Saphire code suite.
So in building this infrastructure, there are some
good things, good things to point to, and there are other
areas where, if the resources could be applied, it would be
good to make more rapid progress. I would say these
primarily concern dealing with uncertainty that was spoken
about in the last session.
I would say, dealing with data was not talked
about very much but, again, this is an area where the NRC
and particularly research could be effective in that what
you really need is a systematic method for collecting data
in a format which is going to be easily scrutinized, permit
the data to be scrutinized and transformed into a format
that will be useful in PRAs, and right now we don't have
that. What we have is a more of an anecdotal data
collection system existing within NRC, in INPO, in EPRI with
the various PRA vendors and so on. So standardization and
attention to that is very important because collection of
data is a long-term process but a little up-front investment
can pay off by being made early.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do we need the reliability data
. 20
rule?
MR. GOLAY: I don't know the answer. I am more
comfortable stating the goal than addressing the tactic.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I think we all have the
same goal. I think to get there requires a tactic.
MR. GOLAY: Yes. But in addressing sort of agenda
items where research might think about applying more
resources, those are I would say the two primary ones.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
Commissioner Rogers?
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes. We are talking here
about PRA and we are also talking about risk-informed
performance-based regulation and the point that I feel
sometimes gets lost here is the value of risk, a risk-
informed point of view that is not entirely based upon a
full quantitative PRA but it is, nevertheless, a risk
ranking, a risk assessment in some way that isn't dependent
totally upon having data, reliability data, that just simply
may not exist. And yet that perspective is a very valuable
one.
I just wonder what your thoughts are on that,
because it seems to me that we tend to keep coupling PRA or
interpreting risk-informed performance-based regulation or
risk-informed regulation in any way, whether it is
performance-based or not, on the notion that it starts with
. 21
a PRA. It doesn't have to depend totally on a full PRA. A
risk assessment can still be a very valuable beginning point
for looking at a system and that is happening in the
materials area but -- and I wonder to what extent you are
aware of that.
In the materials processing plants, that is
exactly what they are doing. They are not doing PRAs but
they are doing risk categorization and risk classification
as part of their overall systems analysis.
DR. YUKAWA: I would just like to make a comment
here that I am a member of the PRA subcommittee but also I
am making this comment as a member of the AMSE Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code at ISI. There have passed now in
Section 11 several risk-based inspections. They are on
piping. And I think the industry will look to what the
Commission will do about that to see what the future holds
for them. So that should be coming through as a code case
pretty soon.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Within months or this year?
DR. YUKAWA: It has passed all the main committees
now so it should be coming up within the next, latter half
of this year anyway.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So this is specifically with
reference to piping?
DR. YUKAWA: This is for -- there are two kinds of
. 22
code cases. One is very specific to a very specific line, a
pipeline. The other is a more general one about risk-based
inspection for a larger category of pipes. The first, more
restrictive one, is only for class one piping.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
Commissioner McGaffigan? Okay.
DR. BOULETTE: The next item on the agenda is
going to be discussed by Christine Mitchell. The subject is
her review of the National Academy of Sciences report on
digital INC.
Christine.
MS. MITCHELL: Thank you.
I guess I should introduce this by saying it is
not really a review because I wear two hats. I served on
that National Academy committee as well as on the NSRRC and
so what is on your handout is just a high-level set of
points and I would be happy to field questions.
I think the major things that the National Academy
report provided include an affirmation that although digital
technology is state-of-the-art technology and continues to
change at an increasing rate, there is a great deal of
experience with digital technology both in the nuclear
industry and in many other industries. The point being that
there is a tremendous amount of experience out there, even
though it is not necessarily U.S. safety system experience
. 23
in the nuclear industry.
The second is that the committee affirmed that
digital INC has the potential to enhance safety and
reliability so we agree that this is a productive avenue to
pursue, basically agreeing with agencies such as the FAA,
both on the flight deck and in air traffic control, that
digital technology can make an improvement as well as being
a cost efficient way to go.
And finally, in terms of nuclear applications and
their particular cultural history and movement from analog
to digital technology, that there are some special concerns
that need to be looked at that are not necessarily the
concerns of other agencies. I mean, I think the aviation
industry is the one that has brought forward the -- as the
example most often and, just an example of how the nuclear
industry is different, redundancy, as I understand it, in
the nuclear industry often means two identical things that
can fail whereas airplanes never run with -- one way of
achieving redundancy is two different implementations and
the FAA said, well, you know, it would never occur to us to
run an airplane with a jet on one side and a propeller on
the other. We don't have that same set of or culture of
implementing redundancy. So there are some very special
things that need to be addressed as digital technology is
implemented.
. 24
One of the things that came up during the ACRS
briefing that I probably should address is our committee did
not suggest that the staff loosen its rules in any way for
digital technology. We, in fact, endorse the normal and
conventional way that 10 CFR 50.59 has been applied. One of
our members was a former commissioner, Jim Curtis, and we
spent a lot of time trying to understand what the normal
process was and stressed that we didn't think digital
technology should require a change in that process. So we
affirmed essentially how things are done now and suggested
that no change be made.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Rogers?
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: No questions.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan?
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: On that last point, that
is not the way the staff interpreted the recommendation and
in their response they thought, based on the document that
they have submitted to the Commission and we have now put
out for public comment that you were suggesting that small
changes, which is the heart of the debate over whether we
ever endorsed INSAC 125 or we didn't and the staff didn't,
that the small changes in safety are going to get there, to
our end-reviewed safety question or not.
Small changes, in the view of the staff, is an
unreviewed safety question and so they did reject that part
. 25
of your recommendation, you know. I know that there is
probably debate. We are going to have it in the comments on
the 50.59 paper. But I think where the staff has been for
some time is that they did not endorse INSAC 125 over this
fundamental issue.
MS. MITCHELL: Again, I think that we were very
careful to say that what was intended here was that digital
technology shouldn't be treated in any way that was
different than previous technology. And that just because
it had software or hardware that it was automatically an
unreviewed safety question was not something that our
committee endorsed.
My understanding was that the agency, in terms of
these generic letters, has had several drafts of these
letters and so there wasn't just one stand on this.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Could I ask a second
question that goes to what are the implications of this
report for the research program of NRC as opposed to our
rulemaking or reg guide efforts? Is there additional
research or different research than what we are currently
doing in this area?
MS. MITCHELL: The committee made recommendations
for action as well as recommendations for how research could
proceed or be improved in each of the six technical areas
and two strategic areas, so we had some very specific
. 26
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: How large -- a question
the Chairman doesn't want me to ask --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No, no, no --
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: What order of magnitude,
what order of magnitude research program that we are not
currently conducting or reorientation of a current program
that, you know, are we talking $5 million per year? Did you
get into that level of detail?
MS. MITCHELL: We didn't get into a specific
number but I, as a committee member, tried very hard to
prevent my fellow committee members from taking unresolved
research issues or even technical issues and dumping them in
the category of this needs research and this needs dollars
before we can continue.
So we tried to suggest directions that could be
pursued in light of where things were and where things were
likely to be.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I just wish to point out for
the record that my fellow commissioner and I are actually in
concurrence. I am always interested in what the net net
dollar amount is but, having spent my career doing research,
I know it is very important to define what the problem is,
what the research is you want to do, what scope makes sense
and what dollars it would take to accomplish that scope and
. 27
then one decides on the strategy of how to parse those
dollars.
I think in the end what would constitute the right
program and what it would cost is something we are
interested in.
DR. BOULETTE: It does raise a point I was going
to mention in closing and I may as well bring it up now.
This committee is unique in its ability to or in its focus
in looking at the broad scope of the research program and
trying to help the director to prioritize his efforts or the
efforts of the staff.
These questions come up and I've got a note in the
back of this folder that says the next meeting we have, we
have got to talk about shutdown research because it is
clearly an area that is significant. As a licensee, I know
that. There has been a lot of effort in the industry to try
to respond to that concern. As we respond to it, it is very
clear that this is a different game, shutdown operation.
So I am sure that Dave and this committee will
talk about that over the next several months and try to
bring some plan to this.
MR. MAYO: May I make a statement?
I would like to add to Christine Mitchell's
statements. I certainly believe there is additional
research to be performed. Since I have been on this
. 28
committee for several years, we have been saying, well, we
are not doing much right now because we are waiting on the
study. I have read the recommendations and the report and I
believe there is a lot of substance to them and it is
something that our subcommittee will be picking up at the
next meeting.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
DR. BOULETTE: The next area to be presented to
you is in the area of accident analyses and George Bankoff
will do that.
George, go ahead.
DR. BANKOFF: In connection with this general idea
of longer range view for this committee, I have condensed
this report to just three bullets and I welcome comments.
There is a lot of meat here and I would like to go over them
in just a little detail.
The first thing has to do with the recent
development due to a rather extensive study spearheaded by
Professor Theophonus at Santa Barbara who, for which he has
just received the Ernest Lawrence award from DOE on the
strong likelihood of lower head integrity which means,
basically, that if you have a reactor with a flooded cavity,
if you have that type of design such that you can flood the
bottom half of the reactor, that boiling heat transfer will
prevent -- will be sufficient to prevent the failure of the
. 29
reactor, the retention in core of the melt, the core melt.
That is of such significance, obviously, that it
is worth examining it more fully in the research area and
justifying further work, possibly. The basic correlations
have been shown to exist for various scales of the reactor
and it is very simply a function only of the angle, the
polar angle of the position. So in view of this, we are
recommending that this be examined and maybe reallocate some
money.
Now, what this means, basically, is that some
reactors such as the AP 600 do have floodable cavities.
That is an important thing right there. Some existing
reactors also have this. Others, many others do not and so
the existing program, which is part of a very large program
internationally, should be continued because this does not
apply to them. But it is an opportunity for the United
States to lead in this area, become again a leader in severe
accident technology.
The second bullet has to do with the existing
codes and the current scaling methodology. I was very
pleased to have a chance, and under the initiative with
better cooperation between ACRS and our committee to act as
an observer and a participant in the Thermal Hydraulics
Committee meetings and as a result of that, I had some
rather -- some severe concerns about the current scaling
. 30
methodology which I think should not impede in any way the
existing process for licensing of AP 600, that is far gone
and so forth. But I think that it is time, this methodology
is 15 years old, it has never been really examined
impartially and objectively and that it is a long-range
subject for study, worthwhile, that this is a suggestion.
Finally, this -- the combining of four major
codes. We have a code update program. And combining that
into a single modern code is clearly a worthwhile idea but
it needs to be done quite cautiously. There has been a lot
of experience and money invested in the present codes, they
function reasonably well. What we want to make sure is that
we do it cautiously, that we don't degrade capabilities at
the same time as we add to convenience.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I guess the question I
have is, is this a generalized caution or are there some
specific concerns in terms of the approaches being taken or
contemplated that are problematic?
DR. BANKOFF: Well, there are some features such
as the introduction of transport equations for interfacial
area which in principle are interesting but the existing
correlations, the existing data in general do not involve
interfacial area and so the question is what the database
would be when one transfers that into a complex plan.
There is a desire to simplify the codes in the
. 31
sense that they would no longer have more than two fields.
This may or may not be -- this is a goal that had been
expressed from the beginning but it may not be achievable
without severe loss of accuracy.
They are talking about also maintaining existing
integral capabilities and that is also worthwhile but it is
necessary to really have a cost/benefit analysis, because
those are expensive, to decide what are the gaps in our
knowledge that are really important and will these proposed
experiments fill those gaps.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Rogers?
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes. It was just on this
question of experimental validation of final results.
Do you think that there are existing facilities in
the world that can provide the data that would be needed to
validate a master code of this type?
DR. BANKOFF: Well, I think there are lots of data
that has been used to validate existing codes and the
question is whether the new code would handle those data as
well. We don't have to necessarily get new data. What we
have to be able to do is to show that the new code will have
the breadth of capability and the accuracy as well for a
complex plant, because it is a very -- it can do very well
one place and fail miserably in another.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: My take is that there is a
. 32
subtlety to Commissioner Rogers's question, if I may.
Because, presumably, the idea of developing this large
master code is meant to address certain vulnerabilities or
holes in the existing disparatized codes. If that is the
case, then, you know, there is a separate issue of modeling
the regions and thermal hydraulic space that can be modeled
with existing codes versus going and addressing regions that
are not addressed.
I am not a thermal hydraullics expert and I think
the question, at least the way I would take it, would be are
there existing experimental capabilities around the world
that would allow one to have some appreciation for the
ability of the larger code being contemplated to in fact
give information in regions that the current codes do not?
DR. BANKOFF: Well, let me answer by saying I
think the major -- a major consideration in combining these
codes is maintainability and to reduce the cost of keeping
four codes up to one. That is a major consideration. Then
the question is, what about all these facilities that have
been used in the past? We have facilities, for AP 600 there
is an Italian facility, there is a Japanese facility. We
have one at Oregon State, we have something at Purdue.
So all of these facilities, all they do is take
money.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: They are all based on some
. 33
kind of a single aspect of the system, either modeling full
height at the spec facility or modeling something else at
the Rosa Facility or trying to model everything else,
everything at the Oregon State facility at a quarter scale.
So there are scaling questions that are involved with every
single one of those facilities and now we are talking about
a master code that we hope to be able to rely on but in the
long run, the question really comes to something like what
the Chairman has said.
Are we going to wind up with the need, really, to
validate something in addition to whatever data -- provide
data in addition to whatever is there?
DR. BANKOFF: The point is that any, any code that
is really good and that has been developed for this kind of
data should predict data from any one of these. It should
not be limited. You should be able to go back, not only
that to the integral scale test but you should be able to
look at separate effects tests, smaller scale. It should be
code which is quite general. That is the hope of it.
Now, the reason we think about caution is that it
never worked out that you can make it that general, that it
works very well here but doesn't do so well in some other
places.
So when we say it has to be done cautiously, it
has to be done with continuous checking to make sure that
. 34
you haven't lost something at the same time as you are
gaining something.
DR. BOULETTE: Isn't it also true, though, George,
that the data set that is being derived for a specific code
is derived with that code in mind if you want so it has
limitations?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right, that's what we are
talking about.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: That is what we are talking
about.
DR. BOULETTE: And my answer would be there would
have to be some verification.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: And my impression is that in
every one of these experiments you can get pretty good
results if you adjust certain parameters. But then you
readjust those parameters when you look at another
experiment and that is not a master code; that is something
else.
DR. BANKOFF: That has been the situation now.
Blind experiments in advance are -- I mean, blind
predictions in advance are very difficult.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan?
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Just one point of
clarification. The advice you are giving us at the moment
sounds very similar to advice Dr. Caton gave us last fall
. 35
when he was looking on behalf of ACRS.
Is that right? You participated with him and do
you agree with Ivan Caton's --
DR. BANKOFF: On the codes?
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: On the codes.
He had some of the same concerns about --
DR. BANKOFF: I didn't go to that meeting so I
can't really say.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think we should move on.
DR. BOULETTE: Very good. The next subject is
materials and engineering and in this case it is Sumio
Yukawa.
DR. YUKAWA: The scope of this subcommittee is to
do research that helps support maintenance and control of
pressure and structural integrity of the whole pressure
boundary system and, as such, it includes materials,
engineering and performance evaluation of components and
items that primarily constitute the first line of defense in
this defense in depth strategy. So it is items like the
reactor pressure vessel, piping, valves and so on.
This research area has been an area that involves
maturing technology, by and large, as exemplified by big
programs like the Heavy Section Steel Technology Program
that has been in existence for about 25 years now, the
Piping Integrity Program and several other rather large
. 36
programs.
The question comes up, well, have we learned
enough? And especially in these days of decreasing
resources.
Yet we feel, yes, there is a need for selective
research because newer issues and needs are coming along,
particularly in the areas of less conservative regulations,
license renewal issues and, as we have mentioned here
earlier, databases for PRA.
So there is a need, we feel, to have research
programs in these selective areas and in this context I
would like to say that research staff has scheduled a peer
review of the whole reactor pressure vessel integrity
program for early July and I don't know what the outcome of
that will be but it certainly will be some of these
questions and issues will be covered there.
We suggest, perhaps, that there ought to be
similar critical reviews of other program areas, depending
on what the results of this peer review are.
Now, on the next bullet, the third bullet, the
third item, I think you have received a letter already which
was prompted by a question about well are there simpler or
easier ways to measure some of these degradations and
properties that accompanies thermal and radiation damage and
so forth and I think the reply you received was pretty much,
. 37
well, there is very little hope for that right now in the
near future.
Given that, we think that basic research to
improve mechanistic understanding of the processes that
underline engineering performance still needs continuing
support.
Then on the fourth and last item, in the direction
setting issues, DSI 22, it suggested that opportunities for
the three C's, I call them three C's in research,
coordination, cooperation, collaboration with industry and
international programs and to that I would like to add
perhaps that the Naval Reactors Program ought to be somehow
or another included. Now there is a lot of questions about
that but my impression is that the Naval Reactors Program is
now releasing a lot of their at least research study
results.
One in particular that I am familiar with has to
do with a chemical species diffusion model that really helps
to understand what the role of fatigue crack growth in a
light water reactor environment is. If we had known about
it or this information -- we, I mean, in particular the
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, if we had known this
information we could have done some things differently in
the code and presumably it would affect the research program
also.
. 38
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So it is called the Chemical
Species what?
DR. YUKAWA: This is a diffusion model for
specific chemical species in the water that has put an
impact on whether or not fatigue crack growth is aided and
abetted by the light water reactor environments or not and
that is a very, very interesting issue and more than
interesting it can be used in defining when the problem is
there and when it is not there.
Now, so I just mentioned this about the Naval
Reactors Program. I leave it up to somebody more than
myself to try to see what can be done there.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you are saying there are
perhaps some opportunities in our own yard?
DR. YUKAWA: Yes, I think there is. Because after
all, they are operating the same systems that we are and
many of the same materials and the same engineering
problems.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, Commissioner Rogers?
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan?
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I do think that's a
worthwhile suggestion to follow up.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's right, exactly.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I wonder if we could ask
. 39
Dr. Morrison if he has had any chance to look into that.
DR. MORRISON: I haven't had a chance to look into
that specific recommendation that Sumio has made. But we do
maintain a continuing relationship with the Naval Reactors
program and will put that specific item on the table.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Do you get a chance to
review the Naval Reactors Research Program and have some
visibility into it or is it invisible?
DR. MORRISON: No, it is more picking up instances
like this when we get involved in it that we can tie into a
specific request. We don't have a broad interaction with
Naval Reactors.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: A lot of the stuff is not
generally available.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I understand. I have
always felt that Naval Reactors erred on the side of -- too
far on the side of keeping everything --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right. I mean, I think the
point is made that there is opportunity there and I think
that's the point.
DR. MORRISON: Certainly on a very generic issue
like this. There are as many differences as there are
similarities between the Naval reactors and the light water
reactors that we use.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right. And perhaps we can be
. 40
more aggressive in pursing these avenues.
DR. MORRISON: Right.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's your point, I think.
Okay.
DR. BOULETTE: And that's a comment, again, that
we were going to make in a broader scope, not only the Naval
Research Program but other initiatives with the industry,
conceivably.
The next subject that we wanted to discuss is
entitled Methodology of Core Research Capabilities
Definition. This was going to be presented to you by John
Taylor. I think some of you know John. He is a retired
executive with EPRI.
John called in yesterday with the flu. I
volunteered to do his presentation. I have also acquired
his flu so we will see what happens.
What I thought I might do is read his words. I
can do this in about a minute, minute-and-a-half, I think,
and hopefully it will stimulate some questions. If it does,
I will invite the members of the committee to help me out
with the questions.
John says that the methodology which research has
developed to define core capabilities is systematic and
thorough and should provide an objective assessment of core
research capability requirements. The five-step approach is
. 41
appropriate. The definition of what constitutes a core
research capability, identification of the research
functions where support from a core research capability is
needed, development of criteria to indicate the amount of
support needed for each regulatory function and the
importance of that support to the regulatory mission of the
agency, documentation of the staff and contract resources
needed for each core capability as derived from the first
three steps and identification about areas of research that
needs to be assessed for core capability.
The Office of Research is to be commended for
their efforts as they develop the methodology to obtain the
viewpoints of the NRC user offices, NRC program managers and
the national labs, deans of nuclear engineering of six
universities and industry personnel involved in nuclear
research. The following suggestions are made which the
committee judges will enhance the results of application of
the methodology.
First, 39 areas of research have been identified,
primarily in terms of technical skills, where the potential
need for core capabilities will be assessed. To provide a
clearer basis for the prioritization of these needs, it
would be appropriate to define the Office of Research's R&D
objectives as well as the technical skills, where are we
going, what are we trying to accomplish?
. 42
The methodology provides a detailed form of
prioritization for assessing for each skill area the
regulatory needs which would be fulfilled in that area.
Yet, review of the two examples of application of the
methodology shows a relatively small difference in
capability requirements between an area of high activity,
work load driven, and one which is relatively inactive,
expertise-driven.
In the planned application of the methodology
existing research core capabilities that derived only from
the staff of the Office of Research, the committee believes
that NRR staff should also be considered as contributing to
core capabilities where they have appropriate skills.
From the two examples of application of the
methodology, it appears that less important areas will be
assigned a minimum of one staff member, a full-time
equivalent staff member. This may impose a higher staff
requirement than funding permits. Consideration should be
given to providing all the needed capability in such areas
through contractors, particularly the national labs.
The planned scope of the evaluation that is
limited to the current understanding of the regulatory
environment does not consider potential future needs and we
heard of one this morning in terms of shutdown technology
and some research that might be useful and applicable in
. 43
that area.
This restriction inhibits planning for new
initiatives, particularly in anticipatory research. Lead
times in developing new skills can be lengthy.
Although the implementation of the core capability
program logically follows the completion of the assessment
and Commission approval of core capability needs,
preliminary planning should be defined as to how these needs
will be maintained or remedied. The implementation will be
difficult because of the present and continuing budget
restraints and further guidance can come on priorities by
assessing the specific difficulties and costs of maintaining
capabilities in each area.
This capability assessment is key to maintaining
the necessary research competence to permit the Office of
Research to meet its responsibilities. Accordingly, it is
being given in-depth and high-priority attention by the
manager of the Office of Research.
The above comments are intended, on the one hand,
to help meet the capability requirements in a limited
resource context and on the other hand to enlarge the
assessment to include anticipatory research needs.
Those would have been John's comments. Are there
any questions or comments to that?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Rogers?
. 44
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: No.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan?
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: No.
DR. BOULETTE: Let me take a few minutes to close
and I will be very brief. I had two points that I wanted to
make.
One focused on the role of research in the NRC.
As you know, the ACRS has already presented its report to
Congress and I won't repeat some of those things. But I
should say this committee endorses those comments made by
the ACRS. We strongly feel that there is a need for
continuing and maintaining research in supporting the
regulatory process. We are concerned, however, that
research is primarily user need driven and that probably the
Office of Research ought to try to balance its resources, as
tight as they may be, to allow for some preemptive or some
exploratory research and we have had discussions with
Dr. Morrison about that.
The other point that we would make, and it is
highlighting a point that Sumio made in terms of
collaboration with the Naval Research Program, we do believe
and we do want to encourage the Office of Research to be as
collaborative as it can be with the industry and, in
particular, for example, the issue of shutdown technology
and the research that might support regulatory processes in
. 45
that sphere. It would seem to me that working with the
industry collaboratively would really help there.
A point that has come up on occasions within our
committee and I think with the Commission is the
effectiveness of this committee. We have struggled with
that for a couple of meetings now because it is a fairly
subjective question. Some of the things that we hope to do
to assess our effectiveness is to be more diligent about
following up on the recommendations and concerns that we
expressed in our reports to Dr. Morrison. So you will see
in future reports from us a bringing back of older issues
that we have raised and how they have been disposed of, how
they have been addressed.
Hopefully, from that kind of review, we will be
able to assess how effective we have been and how much we
have been able to help shape the program of research.
With that, I would say that constitutes our
report.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Rogers?
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I would like to thank
you, Dr. Boulette, members of the committee, and
Dr. Morrison, for the briefing. It has been very
interesting.
Echoing your words, our research program has to
. 46
provide a strong and independent technical capability to
undergird our regulatory programs and so the Commission
appreciates the committee's efforts in this regard. We
would urge you to continue to work with the staff to resolve
issues and concerns.
I want to highlight again the area of human
factors and because operational experience has shown and you
have that experience that human performance is a major
factor in the safe operation of nuclear plants and, as we
have been talking about, the staff is developing for review
an agency wide program plan for human reliability assessment
and human performance evaluation. It is expected to be
available by the end of June. I think it would be useful
for your committee to review the plan, particularly from the
point of view of its implications for research and to
provide your views to the Commission through the Director of
the Office of Research on the adequacy of the plan to
advance the state of the art.
DR. BOULETTE: We will do that.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And let me just tell you some
particular things that I think are important to look at and
those have to do with the ability to assess errors of
commission, cognitive errors, crew performance,
human/machine interface effects and is effect upon
performance, information technology effects and that comes
. 47
into -- that plays into the digital INC arena, as well as
relevant social and organization effects on human
performance.
I think if you can provide value-added in that
arena and to report those views to the office director and,
through him to the Commission, I think that we have talked
about the need for effective research in these areas, a well
scoped out program. But I believe that scope -- cost
follows scope but you have to cost it out and I think,
Dr. Morrison, you have gotten some clear indication that
there is interest in these areas and I think we should also
take to heart what came out of the discussion with
Dr. Yukawa relative to looking close at hand for some
additional data and research cooperation.
Unless there are any additional remarks by my
colleagues, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the meeting was
concluded.]
|
Privacy Policy |
Site Disclaimer |