ML20137L499
| ML20137L499 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/28/1997 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137L491 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-066, COMSECY-96-66, DSI-22, FACA, SECY-96-066-C, SECY-96-66-C, NUDOCS 9704070247 | |
| Download: ML20137L499 (6) | |
Text
_
s
~
- * *
- RELEASED TO THE
- e..e.......,,,,
' f UNITED STATES S
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION +
)
et WA SHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
/
j March 28, 1997
*******>e
$10RUAfW j
i l
MEMORANDUM TO:
L. Joseph Callan l
Executive Director for Operatic's l
l A
dhW' FROM:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary STAFF REQUIREMENTS - COMSECY-96-066 -
SUBJECT:
RESEARCH (DSI 22) l The staff should continue with the rese:rch program, which should l
include elements of both confirmatory and exploratory research (option 4), balanced in such a way that both current as well ac The research potentially emerging issues are being addressed.
program should focus on programs with the highest safety and regulatory significance, coupled with the maintenance of the l
necessary technical capability.
This option permits response to i
programmatic needs, as well as anticipation of future needs.
The term " exploratory research" which is used to describe that part of the research effort that addresses anticipated needs of the Program Offices should be changed to " anticipatory research."
In order to develop the scope of these technical capabilities the Office of Research should develop criteria for determining core l
l research capabilities for Commission approval prior to going l
the Commission also approves option 5 in forward.
Therefore, conjunction with option 4.
RES should develop a set of core research capabilities for the NRC in consultation with the other program offices.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
6/1/97) l In addition to the core research capabilities, it is essential that the NRC, as a knowledge-based organization, monitor the l
overall technical capabilities of its staff to ensure that the necessary core capabilities are maintained.
The staff should l
recommend the appropriate office within the agency and provide the estimated resources to perform this function.
To assist top the selected otfice should create and maintain agency management, an agency-wide database that contains an inventory of the technical core capabilities of the NRC staff.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
6/1/97) l The Commission supports increasin~ the percentage of the research
-budget executed by universities, but wants to consider additional approaches to working with universi*ies besides the current Educational Grant Program.
Such approaches might enhance 9704070247 970403 PDR NRCSA I PDR 22
m-.
i i
4
' l
' achievement of the goals of the NRC research program and provide additional benefits useful to he NRC.
In keeping with the NRC i
designation as a Procurement Reinvention Laboratory, RES should coordinate with the Division of Contracts in exploring innovative l
3 -
j ways to engage universities in NRC's research program (e.g.,
J through use of cooperative agreements, contracts and purchase l
j orders, or through establishment of research consortia or i
institutes in areas such as PRA).
Grants would be utilized where l
they are the most appropriate mechanism for achieving a purpose The staff would have the flexibility to of the research program.
award grants of up to $100,000 per year.
The staff should including an appropriate higher goal for l
develop this approach, the percentage of research carried out directly by universities, and submit it for Commi'ssion consideratien.
l.
l (EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
6/1/97)
The staff should continue to support active participation in International Safety Programs (option 7).
The staff should ensure that these international activitics and the related.
j programs are prioritized and appropriately integrated with other NRC research efforts (option 4), and also are properly considered l
l in the establishment and maintenance of core research i
i capabilities (option 5).
All research activities should be evaluated by the Office of Research for effectiveness, program of l
work, structure and budget, accomplishment of stated objectives-and should include a sunset provision.
The programmatic review l-should be. coordinated with the Research Effectiveness Review
?
3 Board or Executive Council, as appropriate.
The staff should explore the option of performing cooperative 1
j research with both industry, and the DOE, so as to minimize duplicative work - where appropriate.
Legal ramifications, j
independence, and public perception should be considered when The staff should exploring any cooperative research,rogram.
also examine the feasibility of impraving access to research j
j information during the early phases of the work.
l (EDO/OGC)
(SECY Suspense:
10/1/97)
There are many key questions raised in the research DSI paper -
i note in particular pages 13, 14 and 18 of the DSI dated September 16, 1996 (pages attached and marked) - that require much thought to resolve, but whose answers will have a strong 2'
bearing on how the agency will operate in the future.
should include development of an Implementation of Option 4 integrated set of recommendations to be provided for Commission consideration.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
8/1/97)
The Commission has decided that the preparation and coordination and of rulemaking should move from RES to the Program Offices, that most confirmatory research activities now in the Program Offices should move to RES.
The staff should develop and submit
. to the Commission an implementation plan, with possible options for carrying out this decision, including the necessary partnership activities.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
8/1/97)
In conjunction with its development of an implementation plan, the staff should consider the creation of a Research Effectiveness Review Board.
This board would be composed of representatives of the Program Offices and the Research Office.
Its purpose would be to advise the Director of Research and the Directors of the Program Offices on the effectiveness of the research programs in meeting the needs of the users and on the effectiveness of the program offices in supporting and in articulating their needs and priorities to the research offices.
i i
The Board would periodically review the bases for initiating, continuing, and terminating specific research programs giving particular attention to the effectiveness of broad based long range programs and the capabilities of the staff to address core research needs.
The usefulness and advisability of its continuation should be examined by the commission every three years.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
8/1/97)
Finally, the high-level staff task force (set up under DSI-2) should also identify the impact on research needs of NRC oversight of Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities, and advise the Commission on the resource implications of those impacts.
4
Attachment:
As stated cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan CIO CFO OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP E. Jordan (SARSC)
J. Silber (SARSC)
f RESEARCN DSI 22 In late 1993, Commissioner Rogers present'ed a paper that had as its central theme the importance of NRC's knowledge base to its success as a regulatory In this paper he stated, "The quality of HRC's decisionmaking is agency.
identify relevant ultimately dependent upon the agency's ability to:
technical' knowledge needed for its regulatory decisionmaking; gain access to that knowledge; and, transfer that knowledge readily into its regulatory shis paper also suggested how the NRC might reorganize to be more practice."
Although, reorganizations are effective in managing this knowledge base.
beyond this phase of the NRC strategic assessment initiative, two principles embedded in Commissioner Rogers' paper are relevant to the evaluation of the These principles are the following:
(1) the NRC options presented here. knowledge base requires continuing maintenance and ext These two principles staff are the key to maintaining the NRC knowledge base.
are addressed with the consequences under each option.
Organizational questions must ultimately be addressed, however, as the agency looks at how the research program might be implemented more ef ficiently and A Commission decision on this DSI is a necessary first step to effectively.
establish a framework within which effectiveness and efficiency initiatives can be properly evaluated.
A key factor affecting effectiveness and efficiency is the role of theFor example, research office compared with the role of the program of fices.
the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) is often asked to assist the program offices in the review of issues to support specific regulatory decisions (technical assistance). The question arises as to whether such On the other hand, should efforts should be performed by the progr.m offices.
certain analyses performed by the program offices, such as thermal-t'ydraulic At present, most rulemakings are managed analysis, be performed only by RES?Should that continue, or should all rulem even though all rulemakings do not involve rest arch, or. should all rulemakingsf, by RES.
What RES functions, if any, could be be assigned to the program offices?
Should the performed more efficiently and ef fectively oy the program accident analysis',ieihanical engineering, PRA, and human factors) continue to
~
exist between RES and the program offices to provide "of fice-dedicated" expertise, or shotild these be partially or completely merged to maintain aWh'at"sh critical mass as a result of decreased resoufce~s?
RES compared with that of program offices in staying abreast of national and international nuclear safety developments, emerging technologies, and design Budget reductions have been so severe that all HLW research Even though concepts?
activities in RES are under consideration for transfer to HMSS.
ruch a decision would permit economics, is it possible that research is' sues j
will be explored in a more limited way because of licensing concer Could the NRC attract and retain top pressures?
program if it were to be decentralized.
051 22 RELEASE DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 13
e AM A
DSI 22 PESEARCH research talent, and would research of a broader /explora.>ry nature be pursued with the research program components embedded in licensing organizations?
If not, would that fundamentally impact the ability of the NRC to fulfill its health and safety mission given where the regulatory programs are today?
Would the research budget be smaller and more efficient if managed by the licensing organizations? Would the absence of an independent research office P
result in lower quality research, absent a healthy technical debate between RES and licensing organizations over research applications and approaches?
All these questions and others will ieed to be carefully considered in the next phase of the strategic assesnit.
4 C.
External Factors Several external factors significantly affect NRC's research program.
External organizations that have an impact on NRC's research program are the nuclear industry, DOE, universities, international programs, Congress, and the public.
1.
Nuclear Industry Past research has provided an understanding and resolution of many of the important safety issues related to the design and operation of reactors.
Nevertheless, operational events, both domestically and internationally, including the possibility of a serious accident, are likely to continue to raise new issues.
In addition, the aging of plants and the introduction of new technologies (such as reactor instrumentation and control and the l
annealing of pressurc 'icssels to ccenter dgin'g effects) will raise new issues.
Financial pre sures on industry are also likely to have a number of effects, including an increased desire to use risk-informed, performance-based approaches to meet safety requirements and the use of higher burn-up fuels.
These same pressures -will also lead to redections in budgets for industry-sponsored rescarcn organizations such as the Electric Power Research Institute. The development of new reactor _ designs could increase the need for additional research,_although,.'at this. time, no new designs are expected in i
the foreseeable future.
Finally, because NRC's budget is recovered by licensee fees, there is likely to be increased pressure on the NRC to reduce its budget as a means of reducing licensing fees.
2.
Department of Energy, Including the National Laboratories As DOE's budget is reduced, its support of advanced reactor concepts is being reduced, which will reduce the need for NRC research directed at understanding these new designs.
In addition, as a result of budget reductions Government wide, research activities at the national laboratories are being reduced.
This is resulting in a loss of capabilities and limiting the expertise available to the NRC.
Further, as non-NRC research activities are reduced, RELEASE DATE:
SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 14 05I 22
w DSI 22 RESEARCH address some of the unique thermal-hydraulic issues associated with these passive designs.
However, work on the passive design is now coming to an end, and the NRC must again determine the type and scope of technical capability that need to be maintained to address both ongoing as well as emerging safety issues related to thermal-hydraulic phenomena.
This is also true in varying degrees for other areas of ongoing research (e.g., reactor component materials, severe accidents, earth sciences, PRA, health physics, human factors, 2nd instrumentation and control).
Because of such factors as the aging of nuclear power plants and the introduction t new technologies, certain program elements should remain strong; in other program elements, major work is being completed in the next year or so. Therefore, the key question tnat the NRC needs to address for all of its research programs is in what specific areas and of what scope does the NRC need to maintain technical capability to address onooing as well as emerging issues.
Each area of technical expertise could be maintained:
(1) in house (NRC staff);
(2) through the support of contractors at national laboratories, universities, or other appropriate organizations; or (3) by a combination of both in-house and contractor support.
4 This subsumed issue can be considered a DSI itself, since it encompasses the scope of the re.earen program and to a large extent its role.
Among the questions to be addressed that bear on this issue are the following.
Should core capabilities be maintained in some areas, with more robust programs in other areas? What is the right mix of in-house staff and contractor capabilities for each core area? Which of the analytical activities currently M
performed in contractor organizations can and should be performed in house?
Which lower priority research programs should be discontinued, to be initiated again only if a specific need ariscs? Is this feasible? What typas and depths of expertise would the NRC need to ensure the availability of a critical mix of skills not only to audress ongoing issues, but aise to respond j
i to problems that may arise in the future?
~xamples of criteria that can be i
used to develop a core program are listed in Section IV under Opticn 5.
It is anticipated that final criteria kould be developed for approval by the Commission.
After the Commission approved these criteria, RES would develop a well-defined set of core capabilities.
2.
How could NRC's established leadership in safety research domestically and in such organizations as NEA and IAEA be maintained?
This issue is subsumed because NRC's established leadership in safety rescarch is interwoven with and dependent on the role and scope of the overall research program.
NRC's leadership position could be affected by the elimination, downsizing, or restructuring of its research program.
As discussed previously, international interest in NRC's research results gives NRC the leverage to participate in many cooperative research programs overseas and to obtain international support for its own research programs.
RELEASE DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 18 DSI 22