Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
FCR L!3v;v ;.u ! REVITALIZING NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH Committee on Nuclear Safety Research Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources National Research Council PROPERTY OF NAS - NAE JAN 0 5 1337 LIBRARY NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1986
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technol- ogy with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. The Council operates in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy under the authority of its congressional charter of 1863, which establishes the Academy as a private, nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation. The Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in the conduct of their services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. It is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970, respectively, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences. Support for this project was provided by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corn- Available in limited supply from the Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources, 2101 Constitution Ave., Washington, D.C. 20418 Printed in the United States of America
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL COMMISSION ON PHYSICAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICS, AND RESOURCES 2101 Constitution Avmuv Ha^hmgton. D.C 20418 COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH December 8, 1986 The Honorable Lando H. Zech, Jr. Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to present the report, "Revitalizing Nuclear Safety Research," by the National Research Council's Committee on Nuclear Safety Research. The subject of this report is an important one, both because of the number of operating commercial nuclear power reactors whose safety must be assured and because of the continuing level of operating problems, which the committee believes stem, at least in part, from an inadequate base of knowledge, which could be provided by a satisfactory continuing program of research. While we believe the report speaks for itself, there is one aspect of it that I believe deserves special comment. It is never easy for a committee to achieve a strong consensus, and all committee utterances must be taken to be weaker than the views of individual members. I believe that in this case, however, there is general agreement within the committee that many of the problems that the Commission has been having with its research program stem from problems inherent in the current structure of the Commission, its internal communication, and its operating practices. A discussion of these issues is presented in Chapter 4 of the report, "Eliminating Barriers to an Effective Program of Nuclear Safety Research." I might add that my personal views in this matter are particularly strong: it is difficult for me to see how the Commission can function effectively given its current structure. As will be clear from Chapter 4, such a conviction is not the same as knowing what structure would be better; should there be a real desire for change, that problem is left as an exercise for the Congress, the Administration, or some successor advisory group. The Soviet nuclear accident at Chernobyl occurred after the committee had completed its active period of meetings and consultations. While the committee was not able to have a fully informed discussion of that accident, there was enough exchange of ideas for us to be able to say that a more in-depth treatment of the events at Chernobyl would be unlikely to result in real changes in the report. Perhaps further discussion would lead us to place even greater emphasis on the issues of human factors, instrumentation and control, and operations, but the report already calls for more intensive research in those areas. If there is any way in which the committee can help make the report more useful to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, we hope you will call on us. IS. 'Robert A.'Frosch Chairman [ht National Rnrarch Council is thr principal oprrating ttgtncy of Ihr National Acadtmv of ScitnctS and thr National Acadfmv of Lnginrtnng to trrvt govrrnmrnt and othrr orgmtuatioru
COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH ROBERT A. FROSCH, Vice President, General Motors Corporation, Chairman JOHN AHEARNE, Vice President, Resources for the Future ROBERT AVERY, Director, Reactor Analysis and Safety Division, Argonne National Laboratory JAMES BILODEAU, Associate, Eagle Engineering, Inc. ROBERT S. BRODSKY, Associate, Basic Energy Technology Associates, Inc. ANNICK CARNINO, Assistant to the Director-Inspector General for the Safety and Security of Nuclear Installations, Electricite de France MYRON B. FIERING, Gordon McKay Professor of Engineering and Applied Mathematics, Harvard University TED GREENWOOD, Associate Professor of Political Science, Columbia University WILLIAM KASTENBERG, Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California at Los Angeles HUGH KENDRICK, Senior Vice President, Science Applications International Corporation DANIEL MENELEY, Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of New Brunswick ANTHONY ROISMAN, Executive Director, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice CHRISTOPHER G. WHIPPLE, Technical Manager, Electric Power Research Institute ROBERT J. BUDNITZ, Energy Engineering Board Liaison Staff: STEVEN M. BLUSH, Senior Staff Officer KATHLEEN C. KADANE, Staff Assistant
COMMISSION ON PHYSICAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICS, AND RESOURCES NORMAN HACKERMAN, Robert A. Welch Foundation, Chairman CLARENCE R. ALLEN, California Institute of Technology THOMAS D. BARROW, Standard Oil Company, Ohio (retired) ELK AN R. BLOUT, Harvard Medical School GEORGE F. CARRIER, Harvard University DEAN E. EASTMAN, IBM Corporation JOSEPH L. FISHER, George Mason University WILLIAM A. FOWLER, California Institute of Technology GERHART FRIEDLANDER, Brookhaven National Laboratory MARY L. GOOD, Allied Signal Corporation PHILLIP A. GRIFFITHS, Duke University J. ROSS MACDONALD, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill CHARLES J. MANKIN, Oklahoma Geological Survey PERRY L. McCARTY, Stanford University WILLIAM D. PHILLIPS, Mallinckrodt, Inc. RICHARD J. REED, University of Washington ROBERT E. SIEVERS, University of Colorado EDWARD C. STONE, JR., California Institute of Technology KARL K. TUREKIAN, Yale University GEORGE W. WETHERILL, Carnegie Institution of Washington IRVING WLADAWSKY-BERGER, IBM Corporation RAPHAEL G. KASPER, Executive Director LAWRENCE E. McCRAY, Associate Executive Director VI
Contents Preface ix Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 7 2 Principles of Nuclear Safety Research 11 3 Elements of a Future Agenda for Nuclear Safety Research 25 4 Eliminating Barriers to an Effective Program of Nuclear Safety Research 43 References and Bibliography 65 Appendixes A Sponsors of Commercial Nuclear Research and Development 75 B Planned FY 1986 Safety Research Program of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 91 C Planned FY 1986 Nuclear Research Program of the Department of Energy 159 D Actual CY 1985 Nuclear Research Program of the Electric Power Research Institute 173 E Sample Questionnaire on Nuclear Safety Research 217 F Recipients of the Committee's Questionnaire 221 G Participants in Committee Hearings 229 H Biographical Sketches of the Members 231 vu
Preface The Committee on Nuclear Safety Research was formed by the National Research Council in response to a request from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to conduct an inde- pendent, one-year study of the future role of the NRC's program of regulatory research. The committee was asked to develop fun- damental principles of nuclear safety research based upon exami- nation of the following questions: 1. What can be said at present about the information needs that will be confronted by those who regulate nuclear power in the 1980s and 1990s that can be met, in part, through new research? 2. What are the alternative mechanisms for producing these research results and the relevant strengths and limitations of each? 3. What, if any, advantages accrue from federal support of undirected research in nuclear safety, including replenishing the pool of scientific talent available to address specific problems as they arise? 4. What are the implications of the findings for questions 1 through 3 above for the scope, structure, and coverage of the federal program, given current statutory requirements? At its first meeting, the committee was asked by the then chairman of the NRC, Nunzio J. Palladino, to address a slightly different set of questions. Though Chairman Palladino's questions overlapped those included in the formal charge to the committee, they also raised a broader set of issues. The committee was asked to answer the following questions: ⢠Did the committee agree or disagree that more research is needed? IX
If it agreed that more research is needed, what program of research did the committee feel would anticipate future regulatory problems? If it disagreed, how fast did it feel that current efforts should be phased out? Is it better for licensees to do the research, only the NRC, or some mix? If a mix, what should that mix be? Should federally funded research be aimed at specific prob- lems as they arise or at broader issues in anticipation of specific problems? To what extent should research work be focused solely on explicit, near-term objectives? If any other type of research work should be done, how should it be guided? What is the potential value of retaining a general pool of scientific and engineering talent that could be directed to work on specific problems as they arise? Because of Chairman Palladino's desire to have the committee address issues of nuclear safety research in this broader context, the committee's report occasionally touches on matters that go beyond the formal charge. In addition to developing principles of nuclear safety research, which was the committee's primary responsibility, the committee initially intended to examine what research was being done and what would be needed in the future, and to make recommenda- tions as to whether the current program of research should be modified, expanded, or contracted. However, the committee early in its deliberations reached the general conclusion that manage- ment problems within the NRC made it unlikely that any detailed modification of the content of the NRC research program would lead to significant improvement. As discussed in the report that follows, the committee was drawn to this conclusion because it found a program that lacks direction and a coherent and effective set of principles for organizing an integrated program of research. Consequently, the committee was compelled to focus primarily on the fundamental building blocks of a safety research program and on making recommendations that would improve NRC man- agement of research. In the committee's judgment, it was less meaningful for the committee to address whether the right re- search was being done than to confront the institutional problems that the committee did address.
The membership of the Committee on Nuclear Safety Re- search reflected the diversity of backgrounds necessary to perform the work assigned to it. The committee included a former chair- man of the NRC; a former assistant director to the late Admiral Hyman G. Rickover in the naval nuclear program; and a former senior member of the policy planning staff of the Department of Energy (DOE). It included-several members who had experience managing or conducting nuclear safety research at federal lab- oratories; several who had managed or conducted research while working in the electric utility, nuclear supplier, or engineering con- sultant industries; and several who had performed nuclear safety research while in positions in academia. Two members had experi- ence managing and conducting research either for French or Cana- dian utilities and regulatory agencies; another had participated in adjudicatory hearings before and litigated civil cases against the NRC; and several others had both scientific/engineering and policy analysis backgrounds but had no direct experience working either for the nuclear industry, the NRC, or the DOE. Finally, the committee was fortunate in being able to call upon the advice and assistance of Dr. Robert J. Budnitz, a former director of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. During the study, Dr. Budnitz was a member of the National Research Council's Energy Engineering Board, and he served throughout the study as liaison between the board and the committee. Although not formally a member, Dr. Budnitz was in every other respect an integral part of the Committee on Nuclear Safety Research During the period from November 1985 through May 1986, the committee held four public meetings, each of two days duration, for the purpose of obtaining the views of individuals knowledge- able about the nuclear safety research enterprise. From the NRC, the committee heard from the chairman and three of four other commissioners; from both the current executive director of oper- ations and his predecessor; from current and former directors of the Office of Research; from senior staff members of the Office of Research and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation; and from two senior members of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. The committee also heard from senior members of the staffs of the DOE and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); from representatives of electric utilities, reactor vendors, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), and the Elec- tric Power Research Institute (EPRI); from senior staff at DOE XI
national laboratories currently responsible for managing programs of nuclear safety research; and from university faculty. In addi- tion, the committee and its staff prepared a series of questions on nuclear safety research that were addressed not only to those who appeared before it but to more than 200 others active either in sponsoring, conducting, managing, using, or evaluating nuclear safety research. In its deliberations, the committee relied on the material from its hearings and written replies to its questions; on documents made available by the NRC, DOE, and EPRI; and on its members' experience in R&D management and science pol- icy formation and their personal knowledge of the programs and budgets of organizations engaged in nuclear safety research. The committee immediately recognized that, in order to be manageable, the scope of the study would have to be circum- scribed. Had the committee employed the broadest definition of "nuclear safety research," it would have faced enormous difficulty in addressing the issue in the limited time available. The commit- tee therefore decided to limit its attention to research connected with the safety of commercial nuclear power reactors, giving es- sentially no attention to other important issues, such as the safety of naval propulsion reactors, the safety of defense production re- actors, the safe production and use of radioactive isotopes, or the safe disposal of high-level nuclear wastes or other activities associ- ated with the use of nuclear materials (e.g., uranium mining and milling, fuel fabrication, enrichment, and transportation). Had the committee focused on the technical issues of reactor safety research rather than the institutional ones, there would have been need for far more discussion of foreign programs than is presented in this report. xn
