ML20135C940

Comments on DSI-22, Strategic Assessment Issue Paper: Research

ML20135C940
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/29/1996
From:	Reed P NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
DSI-22-00016, DSI-22-16, NUDOCS 9612090169
Download: ML20135C940 (8)

Text

,

,p * %

4 UNITED STATES j

d I [.+

't NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 D$1Q2 l

\ *

/

November 29, 1996

@ l s \ d'  ;

MEMORANDUM T0: John C. Hoyle $>

Secretary'of the Commission t -f i ;

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission !r fi Attn: Chief of Docketing Service Branch fiOV 2 9 m l FROM: Phillip R. Reed Waste Managemen Branch

[ #: -

^8' '/

Division of Regulatory Applications " "" ~ ; .' ' '

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research -

SUBJECT:

COMi1ENTS ON STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT ISSUE PAPER DSI'22: RESEAL' l

In response to the Commission's solicitation, I am enclosing my r.omments on NRC's Strategic Assessment Issue Paper DSI 22: Research.

I find the Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining Initiative to be a significant step toward refocusing the NRC's goals, assumptions and strategies in a rapidly changing environment in which NRC conducts its activities. j I am pleased to provide my views on research policy issues as a member of the NRC j staff.

Enclosure:

As Stated 1

I DSI 22: RESEARCH 9612090169 961129 PDR NRCSA I 22 PDR

?$/3

i

, }.

O COMMENTS ON STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT ISSUE PAPER

DSI 22

RESEARCH l 1. Option 4: Conduct Confirmatory and Exploratory Research

! I fully support Option 4 as the only cor.structive and practical means for i conducting research in NRC that ensures both the current and future research l needs are addressed and, at the same time, allows RES to fulfill it's

congressional mandate in accordance with the requirements of the Energy i Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA 74). I also am in favor of moving away from the present 80/20 allocation of research funds for confirmatory / exploratory research needs.

i l However, I'm not convinced that time should be one of the criteria (page 8) used i to define confirmatory (short term) and exploratory (longer term) research. The

issue paper should not use short term and longer term to distinguish between confirmatory and exploratory research programs. Some confirmatory research l programs could be long term (two to three years) while some exploratory research  !

j programs could be short term (one year or less). l

!. The DSI 22: Research issue paper should provide more discussion about exploratory l research programs. Exploratory research need not be long term although it is generally accepted to be more than one year. Excellent exploratory research i projects, especially if they are designated as " Scoping Tests or " Scoping i l ' Experiments", can easily be performed in a short time (one year or less). Could l 1- not exploratory research be defined as research that is more pure and fundamental i or more like NIH type research? It would also be appropriate to say that i exploratory research is basic research. More likely from NRC's view, it would L be applied research as opposed to theoretical research and directed toward more some agency application rather than being off somewhere in the abstract. It's 8

also not clear in the issue paper at what level, Director, Division, or Branch, the ratio of exploratory / confirmatory research funds would apply. My vote would be to apply it at the Branch level. I would also hope that RES would have sole authority to approve this type of research and that it would not have to be

reviewed by a user office or the EDO. RES should have complete discretionary l authority as to how and where these funds are spent. These considerations should

be incorporated into the discussion of exploratory research on page 8 of the

[

I issue paper should.

2. Option 5: Establishing and Maintaining Core Research capabilities Although I am in agreement with the goals of establishing core research

} capabilities (i.e., expertise, experimental facilities) to maintain critical 4 competence and capabilities to address ongoing and future research issues, I am l

]

a little uneasy with some of discussions presented on this topic in both Option l

5 'and the subsumed issue on page 17. From the dialogue presented, the '

) implication is that reductions in staff may soon begin in RES.

l I firmly believe this critical issue should be developed as a separate DSI issue j paper because it goes to the heart of the entire RES research program. The RES i

1 DSI 22: RESEARCH j i

i

i

! i professional staff should be involved in developing the criteria for determining core research capabilities and thoroughly review and evaluation should be

^

performed by both the RES management and professional staff before the final criteria are approved by the Commission.

Any RES reorganization that is being considered should be put off until Option 5 is fully resolved.

The arguments presented for adopting Option 5 appear to be directed mainly toward the RES technical staff. Establishing and maintaining core research capabilities criteria should also be developed for and applied to the RES management. It is  !

quite possible that a number of adjustments for RES management will have to be '

made as RES adopts to a new research strategy. The SES generic management philosophy and style will likely be severely tested in changed environment.  ;

There most likely will be a transition from the SES managing staff who managed '

staff contract research programs to managing staff doing research. Generic management will have to yield to technical management. These changes are likely be more profound in the RES division (s) where a rulemaking management philosophy dominates over a research philosophy and where SES rules and regulationa managers oversee research programs and research staff.

Some important matters that I feel must be addressed in developing essential core capabilities criteria in RES include:

1. Confirmatory research and exploratory research elements.

2. Commissioner Rogers' research recommendations for a redefined RES.

3. RES reorganization issues.

4. Rulemaking activities in RES (unless addressed sooner).

5. Performing research studies and managing research programs in division (s) where management with regulation and rulemaking philosophy dominate over the research philosophy.

6. Should this be a separate DSI issue?

7. Should RES attempt to obtain a national laboratory to conduct laboratory studies involving reactor safety, spent fuel, radiological, and radwaste research programs as RES resources decrease?

8. Staff with multidisciplinary expertise; how will this be handled?

9. Staff with both radiological and nonradiological expertise.

10. Small research programs vs megabuck programs.

11. Computer studies versus laboratory investigations

12. Long-term field programs versus short-term laboratory and paper studies.

13. The institutional RES memory.

14. Can the SES management style survive in a research organization?

3. Option 6: Having University Based Resources as a Component of the Overall NRC Research Program It is important to have university resources as a component of the RES research program. However, in times of serious budget reductions this element may have to either be reduced or eliminated depending on the severity of the budget cutback because university research would very likely be considered to be of lower funding priority. Eliminating the Educational Grant Program would not cause RES to be without university research programs. RES could always fund 2 DSI 22: RESEARCH

l l

}S universities through sole source or competitive bidding funding methods. One

disadvantage of using the Educational Grant Program is that RES must accept whatever is in the proposal and cannot modify or make additions or deletions to the proposal to meet more urgent needs.

4 i 'One way to use the universities, is to prequalify a number of universities similar to the Basic . Order Agreement approach used by NRC to fund research 4 programs at nonuniversity. Another way would be to select one or two universities as centers of safety research and then fund them to do exploratory

research. Universities that have licensed nuclear reactors would seem like an

ideal place to do safety and radwaste research simple because they.have the

! qualified personnel, laboratories and other resources to do high-quality research j studies. Perhaps RES can work something out so these university facilities would be available to NRC for conducting research programs.

It is somehow ironic that while on one hand this issue paper is extolling the qualities and virtues of funding research programs at universities, RES is in the process of terminating an urgently needed, staff supported, and quality research program with a world-class principal investigator at a well-known university so that the funds can be spent on a similar, but far lesser-quality, research program at a nonuniversty with lesser known principal investigators.

4. Option 7: Continue Active Participation in International Safety Programs I support this option and believe that participation in international nuclear safety research programs and being part of foreign exchange research programs is an ideal way to obtain important research data and information on nuclear programs with minimal staff resources. But Option 7 appears only to apply to the reactor safety research programs. Research programs involving radioactive waste management appear to be excluded. Many foreign countries with active commercial nuclear reactor programs also have excellent HLW and LLW research programs that provide research data and information which would be of use to the RES staff involved with HLW and LLW disposal issues. Option 7 should be revised so that it also applies to nuclear waste research programs involving the disposal of high- and low-level radioactive waste.

5. RES Research Programs Not Discussed in DSI 22: RESEARCH The emphasis of this issue paper appears to be directly solely toward reactors and the reactor safety research program. The examples and references to research strategies discussed in most of sections of the issue paper use reactor safety research issues. Except for a small paragraph on HLW and LLW on page 10, there is litt1~e recognition of the contributions made from the HLW and LLW research program and no mention of the potential impacts on these research programs from the possible redefined activities suggested in the paper. This issue paper should be revised to reflect the Commission's HLW and LLW research efforts.

6. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Research Program On pages 3 and 10 of the Research issue paper, statements are made that "NRC's LLW was identified by the staff and accepted by the Commission as being phased out." I'r not aware of any written Commission decision phasing out the LLW 3 DSI 22: RESEARCH

4 1  ; .

J 4

, program. In fact, the Commission is in the process of overruling NMSS's

- recommendation for terminating the LLW program and is reinstating the LLW 4

research.

SECY 95-201 " Alternatives to Terminating the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program" proposed reducing the LLW program and terminating the RES research program. The paper was not acted on by the

, Commission, but was returned to NMSS so that LLW issues could be further considered as part of the strategic assessment initiatives and so the Advisor Commission of Nuclear Waste (ACNW) could provide its views on the subject.

J

! In the Strategic Assessment Issue Paper DSI 5: Low-Level Waste, the Commission's j view on the LLW issue is Option 2, Assume a Strong Regulatory Role in the j National Program. Under this option, the NRC staff would restore all the LLW

! activities that were performed before the recent reductions in the LLW program, including research directed solely to LLW disposal. The Research Strategic

Assessment Issue Paper, DSI 22, should be revised to reflect the Commission's new

! views about the LLW research program.

i An important outcome of the Commission's decision is that a number of excellent i RES LLW research programs, especially the field programs and those using actual

} waste, that were either terminated, severely cut back, modified or prevented from f doing followup research can now be reinstated but a considerable increased in I cost. I

7. High-Level Radioactive Waste Research Program

In the last paragraph on page 13 under the heading "B. Technical Expertise", the Research issue paper says that " Budget reductions have been so severe that all HLW research activities in RES are under consideration for transfer to NMSS." l

! Sadly, this has now happened. All RES HLW research programs have now been

terminated and transferred to NMSS.

i

To have NMSS conduct research programs involving HLW, instead of RES, seems to go against congressional intent because RES was established by Congress i specifically for the purpose of conducting research in NRC. Allowing NMSS to conduct research programs may be unlawful because the Energy Reorganization Act  !

~

of 1974 states in Sec. 205(b) that only RES, not NMSS, shall perform such l functions as the Commission delegates including " engaging in or contracting for '

i research which the Commission deems necessary for the performance of its

licensing and related regulatory functions." Even the House of Representatives j Report, HR 93-1445, which went on to become the ERA 74 says in the section on j " Commission Research Activities" that "In providing for an Office of Nuclear i

Regulatory Research, the conferees wish to make it clear that this Office will

) be responsible for such research as is necessary for the effective performance of the Commission's licensing and related regulatory functions." It would appear l that a NRC manager's idea of what is appropriate cannot override the federal

energy laws.

I I believe the impact of this decision to transfer all HLW research to NMSS from

RES has had negative impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of NRC's research efforts in HLW. The professional staff in the Waste Management Branch are no 1

4 DSI 22: RESEARCH i

j 1

1 I .

l e

longer "in the loop" to discuss, comment on, and give their professional views l

, on issues involving HLW. There are no longer RES-NMSS staff-to-staff 4

interactions to discuss issues involving HLW and exchange technical information.

RES professional staff are not invited to attend NHSS, CNWRA, or DOE meetings to review and evaluate technical topics. The extensive institutional history and

, baseline research knowledge that has been accumulated over the past decade by the WMB professional staff is now no longer available for use in the Commission's HLW program. I and other professional staff are finding it extremely difficult to stay abreast of national and international waste management disposal developments, emerging technologies, modeling and computer developments, and l other aspects concerning HLW waste disposal concepts.

l I hope the Commission reverses it's decisions on research involving HLW and restores the HLW research program in RES. The Commission should also consider using operating funds appropriated by the congress to support the HLW research program in RES instead of relying on the waste fund for the HLW budget.

i NHSS is supposed to be restricted to conducting only technical assistance

! programs. However, NMSS has technical assistance projects that are really i' research projects. RES management needs to diligently protect the functions of RES: Performing research to support the NRC"s licensing and regulatory functions. i j 8. Rulemaking vs. Research in RES

! Rulemaking activities are currently being performed in RES. No issue paper about RES research programs would be complete without a detailed dissuasion of the impacts these rules and regulation activities are having on the RES research i programs. The issue of whether rulemakings should be conducted in RES, even though they do not all involve research, or be assigned to the program offices

. in NRC is raised on page 13 under item II.5.B., Technical Expertise, of the DSI 22: Research issues paper. But the issue paper indicates this topic will be considered in the next phase of the strategic assessment.

. The resolution of the rulemaking issue in RES is too important of an issue to be

deferred until the next phase of the strategic assessment. Rulemakings in RES 1 can have serious impacts on a research program that is not involved with rulemaking activities. They should either be the subject of a separate option

under Section IV, Options, of the DSI:22 Research issue paper or be discussed in detail under Option 4.

The original intent of combining research with rulemakings in RES was to provide

a better transition from research result to effective regulation. This has not worked. Research programs that have nothing to do with rulemakings suffer

! greatly when they happen to be in a RES division where the main objectives of the division are to plan, develop, monitor and direct rulemakings and related standards development. This happens because there are few experienced research managers with active research experience in the management system to oversee the research programs. The research manager positions he /e been replaced by rules and regulations managers who have little experience with managing sophisticated and state-of-the-art research programs and who are not familiar with the issues being investigated. The result has been for more rulemaking protocols to replace technical competence and experience in the management of the research and thereby

5 DSI 22

RESEARCH

. . - - - - - - . ~ . . . . . . . _ . - . . . . . - . - . . - . - . - - . ~ . . . - - _ - - . - - . . - - . . . - - _ . .

I

, l i

i< diminish the effectiveness of the program.

l Both the Comission and RES should strongly consider separating the functions of l rulemaking and research.

l

> l i

I i l I I

l '

t i

l I

I i

i 3

l i

i I

I f

(

l P

1 i

n l

l l

1 l

1 6 DSI 22: RESEARCH I

i 1 I 1

4 ,

-- . _ _ _. . =- - _ _ .-_ . - _ . - - - . . .

vococobooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o#'

• U2sr nr.ma: PRR Qusua: HPIIID-TW9-9B3

• l 0 File name: RESEARCH.D22 Server: TW9

• l i *' Directory: *

)

jo

Description:

o November 29, 96 01:16pm

• J ococoo************************************************************************** l 0

• l o PPPP RRRR RRRR

• l 10 P PR RR R *  !

• P PR RR R

• l 0 PPPP RRRR RRRR

• l 0 P RR RR *  !

O P R R R R

• l 6 P R RR R

• o

• coccoo**************************************************************************

c *

• W W ooo rrrr dddd PPPP eeeee rrrr fffff eeeee ccc ttttt

• jo W Wo or rd dP Pe r rf e c c t *

'o W Wo or rd dP Pe r rf e c t

• 4 0 WWWo o rrrr d d PPPP eeee rrrr ffff eeee c t

• io WWWo orr d dP e rr f e c t *

• WW WW o or r d dP e r r f a c c t

• 4 o W W ooo r r dddd P eeeee r rf eeeee ccc t

• lo

• 00000c**************************************************************************

l i

i