ML20137L486
| ML20137L486 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/03/1997 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137L491 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-066, COMSECY-96-66, DSI-22, SECY-96-066-C, SECY-96-66-C, NUDOCS 9704070244 | |
| Download: ML20137L486 (8) | |
Text
. _ _
April 3, 1997 E 7,7JOTE:
The following documents are being released to the public at this time:
1.
Text of DSI e2 (Research) 2.
Staff Requirements Memorandum dated March 28, 1997.
3.
Views of Chairman Jackson dated January 30, 1997.
4.
Views of Commissioner Rogers dated January 21, 1997.
5.
Views of Conrissioner Dicus dated January 28, 1997.
6.
Views of Ccamissioner Diaz dated January 28, 1997.
7.
Views of Commissioner McGaffigan dated February 5, 1997.
$(r W
John C. Hoyle Secretary of the Commission
/
f eQDO nyt I
9704070244 970403
[gglgiggggggg[
f,)
PDR NRCSA I i
22 PDR
~
e Summary Analysis of Comments Research o
COMSEC"-96-066
_3.14 RESEARCH (DSI 22) 3.14.1 The Direction-Setting issue and the Options What should be the future role and scope of NRC's research program? The options include discontinuing the research program or modifying the role and scope of research; that is, whether and to what extent it should be confirmatory rather than exoloratory. Also addressed are options dealing with the Educational Grant Program and NRC's leadership in international safety research.
Option 1:
Discontinue NRC's Research Frogram gg g g g
Option 2:
Conduct Only Confirmatory Research 4 blW Dnv:
Option 3:
Conduct Only Exploratory Research date init!2
- =..............,;
Opticn 4:
Conduct Both Confirmatory and Exploratory Research Option 5:
Establishing and Maintaining Core Research Capabilities Option 6:
Having University-Based Resources as a Component of the Overall NRC Research Program Option 7:
Continue To Actively Participate in International Safety Programs 3.14.2 Commission's Preliminary Views The staff should continue with the research program, which should include elements of both confirmatory and exploratory research (Option 4) balanced in such a way that both current as well as potentially emerging issues are being addressed. This option permits response to programatic needs as well as anticipation of future needs.
In order to develop the scope of these technical capabilities, the Office of Research (RES) should develop criteria for cetermining core research capabilities for Comission approval prior to going forward.
Therefore, the Comission also approves Option 5 in conjunction with Option 4.
It is recommended that RES be tasked with developing a set of core research capabilities for the NRC in consultation with the other program offices.
The staff should continue to support the Educational Grant Program (Option 6).
Universities have and continue to serve the Comission as a significant component of its overall research program. However, this program should be reevaluated at least every 2 years to ensure that it continues to meet the Comission's policies and goals.
The staff should continue to supprt active participation in International Safety Programs (Option 7).
The staff should ensure that these international activitier and the related programs are prioritized and appropriately integrated with other NRC research efforts (Option 4) and are also properly considered in the establishment and maintenance of core research capabilities (Option 5).
Phase 11 Stakeholder into action deport Page 3-131
summary Arialysis of C5mments Research There are many Key questions raised in tne p per (note in particular pages 12 and 16) that require much thougtt to resohr put whose answers will have a strong bearing on how the agent) wil! operate in the future.
Implementation of Option 4 would include development ci ar. mtegrated set ci recomendations to be provided for the CommissionN considw v11tn.
3.14.3 Summary of Comments Significant/Important Comments Directly Mfectin; tm Treliminary Views A.
or the Direction-Setting Issue In both the written comments and those provided at the n akeholders' meetings, there was general agreement that the NRC should continue a research program One that involves both confirmatory and exploratory research (Option 4).
commenter (the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards [ACRS]) considered the preliminary view as continuing " business as usual" and recomrnded a more aggressive research program, without explicitly specifying whether this Several approach would result in more confirmatory or exploratory research.
commenters (e.g., Vine, Shriver) questioned the distinction between One commenter (Vine) questioned confirmatory and exploratory research.
whether research should be characterized as short-term and long-term research, while another (Reed) disagreed with using short-term and long-term to refer to confirmatory and exploratory research. One commenter (the Nuclear Energy Institute [NEI]) suggested that all research be based on user requests, including exploratory research. Several commenters (e.g., ACRS, Reed) indicated that the NRC should reevaluate the current split between confirmatory and exploratory research but did not suggest an appropriate split.
Those commenters (e.g., Organization of Agreement States, Randall) that addressed the other aspects of the preliminary view also supported the need for maintaining core research capabilities (Option 5), and several comenters (e.g., NEI, Oey) specifically commented on the need for a core of technically There was also support for continuation of competent staff at the NRC.
research at universities (Option 6) and support for international cooperative One commenter (Randall) noted that Option 6 implies that efforts (Gption 7).
the only way that the NRC can support university research is through the This commenter carrectly pointed out that research Educhtional G1 ant Program.
at universities, in addition to being supported through the grant program, has been supported through the normal contracting process.
A number of industry commenters (e.g., NEI, Vine) noted that although the issue paper included an option for international cooperative research (which the Commission supported in the preliminary view), it did not consider an These commenters suggested option for cooperative research with industry.
that the NRC should not duplicate research performed by industry and suggested that an option should have been included to utilize or cooperate in this researd, instead of performing separate confirmatory research. ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Systems (ABB-CE) recommended that there "should be a reassessment of how the NRC and the nuclear industrv can work together to cover the research needs common to both parties." Yankee Atomic Electric Company (Yankee) recommended that the NRC and the Electric Power Research Institute work together to " establish independent reviews of each other's work to reduce duplication" and that industry have a larger role in the decisions on the scope of research and in the formulation of specific research programs.
Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaction Report Page 3-132
Research Sununa'ry Analysis of Cornments NEI specifically disagreed with the view that duplication of research is NEI suggested that if NRC retains sufficient needed to maintain independence.
in-house expertise to independently verify industry research, it could include NEI also commented on industry contractors as part of its core capabilities.
the dupl: cation of research, stating that this " area of overlap represents a large and costly portion of the ongoing nuclear R&D [research and development]
A related area for collaboration suggested by NEI was with the in the U.S."
Specifically, NEI, suggested Department of Enorgy (DOE) research programs.
that a joint program between the NRC and 00E in support of the former Soviet Union and Central / Eastern European countries would be rare cost-effective.than separate efforts.
B.
Comments on Other Options One In general, the commenter: did not explicitly address Options 1, 2, or 3.
commenter (Randall) who did specifically offer views regarding Options 1, 2, and 3, did not support these options. Although NEI concurred with the Commission's preliminary views on Options 4, 5, 6, and 7, when commenting on offered the view that the research program could be Option 1, NEI significantly reduced in scope and expense and suggested this view as a sub-option (discor.tinuing NRC's research program was not considered credibic).
C.
Comments on Important Omissions In addition to those areas discussed above in which commenters noted omissions from the paper, a number of commenters (e.g., NEI, ABB-CE, McNeil, Lewis) i raised other issues that deal primarily with the implementation of the research program.
For example, several industry commenters (e.g., NEI, ABB-CE) raised concerns regarding the " openness of the research program." Several comenters (e.g., ABB-CE, Yankee), although supporting international cooperative research, expressed frustration regarding the inability to either participate in or obtain information from the international research programs (information is either privileged information or is obtainable only by paying Several industry commenters (e.g.,
to participate in the research program).
Vine, Yankee) expressed frustration with their inabili;.y to obtain access to NRC research while the research was going on, thus denying the industry an opportunity to influence the direction of the research.
I Several industry commenters (e.g., Yankee, ABB-CE) also raised the issue of timeliness of utilization of research results. These commenters expressed frustration with the slowness of utilizing research results to revise l
One commenter (McNeil) regulations that are too conservative and restrictive.
questioned whether the NRC can restructure its administrative practices and management culture to permit more rapid and efficient deployment of resources to address RES objectives. Another commenter (Lewis) suggested that the NRC utilize a non-Government organization to perform the research that NRC believes is necessary. Another commenter (McPherson) proposed the establishment of a post to support the International Safety Programs, which
'j would involve a split assignment between Europe and NRC Headquarters.
Several commenters (e.g., Randall, Silberberg) noted that they were opposed to l
One commenter the user offices performing research (dct.ntralized research).
(NEI) raised the question of whether the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) should conduct confirmatory research as part of a regulatory analysis responsibility, or whether RES should be asked to do this work, noting that "there is significant NRR funding of contractors to do work that is similar to Page 3-133 Phase 11 Stakeholder Interacion Repon
Research Sumany Analysis of Comments i
either RtS work or indastry work in the ' conf ir'natory research' field."
Several commenters (e.g., Yankee, Reed) raisea t he question of whether most rulemaking should continue to be managed by RES or be e ved to the program offices. One commenter (Reed) suggested tMs area as a separMe DSI, while others (e.g., Yankee, ABB-CE) specifi:aDy ter.ammeirJec that nh emaking be moved from RES.
Other commenters (e.g, ACRS, Hoires) ntygested spec 7Nc aren in which research should be undertaken.
Several cementers (e.g., SDberberg, Reed) expressed the view that more research was needed in the area of high-level and low-level waste.
Further, they recommended that this research not be under the direction of the program office but rather directed by RES.
The ACRS provided a number of suggestions regarding areas for specific research.
D.
Coments on Internal / External Factors One comenter (ACRS) gave detailed comments expanding on the external and internal factors discussed in the DSI to support its recomendations regarding areas of research and the need for a more aggressive research program to address these areas. However, it did not identify any new factors or take issue with any of the factors discussed in the DSI. Another commenter (NEI),
although agreeirig with most of the assumptions for internal and external factors, discussed the duplication of industry research as an external factor that was not considered.
E.
Comments on Staff Requirements Memorandum Questions In its preliminary views, the Commission did not pose any additional questions for public comment.
3.14.4 List of Commenters WRITTEN COMMENTc 1.
September 19, 1996, Michael McNeil, U.S. NRC 2.
October 2L 1996, Organization of Agreement States (Robert M. Quillin) 3.
October 26 1996, John Randall, U.S. NR 4.
November 3, 1996, Marvin Lewis S.
November 4, 1996,' State of New Hampshire, Department of Health and Human Services (Diane E. Tefft) 6.
November 7,1996, State of Mississippi, Department of Health (Robert W.
Goff) 7.
November 7, 1996, Organization of Agreement States (Robert M. Quillin) 8.
November 14, 1996, State of Oregon, Department of Human Resources (Ray D. Paris) 9.
November 14, 1996, State of South Carolina, Department of Health and Environmental Control (M.K. Batavia)
P:ge 3-134 Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaction Repon
Researds
?-M Analysis of Comments
=
10.
November 19, 1996, G.D. McPherson, U.S. NRC 11.
November 19, 1996, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (T.S. Kress) 4 12.
November 20, 1996, Moni Dey, U.S. NRC 13.
November 21, 1996, State of Louisiana, Department of Environmental i
Quality (Ronald Wascom) 14.
November 21, 1996, State of Georgia, Department of Natural Resources, (Thomas Hill) l 15.
November 21, 1996, State of Utah, Department of Environmental Quality, 1
Division of Radiation Control (William Sinclair) i 16.
November 22, 1996, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (Gary Taylor) 17.
November 25, 1996, Framatome Technologies (John Bohart) 18.
November 27, 1996, Nuclear Energy Institute (Thomas D. Ryan) 19.
November 27, 1996, State of Texas, Department of Health, (Richard Ratliff) 20.
November 27, 1996, Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (William P. Dornsife) 21.
November 29, 1996, Phillip R. Reed, U.S. NRC 22.
December 1,1996, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (Judith Johnsrud) 23.
December 2, 1996, Thomas Dragour, U.S. NRC 24.
December 2,1996, Mel Silberberg & Associates, (Mel Silberberg) 25.
December 2, 1996, State of New Jersey, (Jill Lipoti) 26.
December 2, 1996, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, (Jane M. Grant) 27.
December 2,1996, ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Systems (Charles Brinkman) 28.
December 2,1996, State of Illinois, Department of Nuclear Safety (Thomas Ortciger) 29.
December 3, 1996, "No Name" ORAL COMENTS Washington, D.C. (October 24-25, 1996) pages 1 - 37 1.
Kenneth Peveler, IES Utilities 2.
Gary Vine, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
Page 3-135 Phase 11 Stakeholder interaction Report i
Researd Summary Analysis of Comments 3.
Bryce Shriver, Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPC0)
Colorado Springs, C0 (October 31-November 1, 1996) pages 197 - 221 1.
Michael Holmes, Public Service Company of Colorado 2.
Charles Brinkman, ABB-CE 3.
Ashok Dhar, Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc.
4.
John Trotter, Polestar Applied Technology Chicago, IL (November 7-8, 1996) pages 1 - 28 1.
Narinder Kaushal, Commonwealth Edison Company 2.
David Swank, Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) i Page 3-136 Phase 11 Stakeholder interaaion Report i