ML20137L525
| ML20137L525 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/21/1997 |
| From: | Rogers K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Mcgaffigan, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137L491 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-066, COMSECY-96-66, DSI-22, SECY-96-066-C, SECY-96-66-C, NUDOCS 9704070254 | |
| Download: ML20137L525 (5) | |
Text
.
l
[puog%
UNITED STATES
- ********#eeed NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
RELEASED TO THE PDR l '. '. ['"
g
~
+-
5 WASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555
~~
date ini j
- a * * * *........ ;.. tia!s OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONE R January 21, 1997
- i 4
i MEMORANDUM T0:
Chairman Jackson Comissioner Dicus
'Comissioner Diaz Commission McGaffigan FROM:
Comissioner Rogers aMLO.Q
SUBJECT:
COMSECY 96 066: Research DSI-22 After a review of Phase II of the Stakeholder Interaction Report and after listening to the Steering Comittee briefing on January 13 I believe that we should revise the position taken in the Comission's preliminary views on this l
DSI. Part of the' suggested revision is to insert staff guidance regarding maintenance of core capabilities. This was originally considered but was left out of the preliminary views because it was not felt to be appropriate during the public comment phase. The remaining suggested revisions are in response 4
to public coments that appear to be quite reasonable.
l I propose that the final Comission position be revised as follows:
i The staff should continue with the research program which should include elements of both confirmatory and exploratory research (option 4), bai;nced in such a way that both current as nell as potentially emerging issues ar > being addressed. Th6research[ program?:shosidifocesionTprograms;withlthejhis,1st 4
safety and regulatory!significanceHcoupled withithejmaintenan:e ofithe necessary1rchnicalicapabilityi~This" opt' ion" permits"resposse~t'o' programmatic t
i J
needs as well as anticipation of future needs.
)
In order to develop the scope of the necessary technical capabilities the Office of Research should develop criteria for determining core research capabilities for Comission approval prior to going forward. Therefore, the
- ~
Comission also anroves option 5 in conjunction with option 4.
It is recomended that ES be tasked with developing a set of core research capabilities for the NRC in consultation with the other program offices.
RES shouldj bs respon51bleifoEmonitorin' gland [abditintNRC'sicore!capabilitiesi'so'
'asito assistjagencystop managementL1nlensuringittatstheccore7 capabilities continuestoiexistGThusnRES7should}createla livingRagency wideidatabase that ! cont ai ns l ani i nventorylofithef techni calicorezepabil i ties) s i
j The staff should continue to support the Educational Grant Program.(option 6).
i Universities have and continue to serve the Commission as a significant component of its overall research program through;bothithe Educational Grant i
Program 1aridithe:Lnormalicontracting process.
However, the' Educational Grant 9704070254 970403 PDR NRCSA 1 22 PDR c
~,
^
J J
2 i
program should be re evaluated at least every two years to ensure that it continues to meet the Commission's policies and goals.
The staff should continue to support active participatwn in International Safety Programs (option 7). The staff should ensure that these international 4
i activities and the related programs are prioritized and appropriately i
integrated with other NRC research efforts (option 4), and are also properly j
considered in the establishment and maintenance of core research capabilities research31thibothlindustrytand;plorelthefoptioniof) performing ~fcooperativeth
. option 5). 1Wstaff;ihohldfek
(
I Legallramifications,31_ndependenseMandTpubliciperceptionishould beEconside' red 1
when exploring:ai;cooperativetresearchtprogram;OThe:. staff;should.also; examine the{feasibilitylof(improving [ access (tofesearch?jnformation?during the1early Phases;ofthel:workg 4
s i
There are many key questions raised in the paper. note in particular pages i
123M14 and 168!ofTthe[DSITdated SeptemberE16C1996";(iagest attached ans
~
marked),
that Fequire~ much thought ~to"res~olve. 't>ut"wlose inswers will have a
~
strong' bearing on how the agency will operate in the future.
Implementation l
of option 4 wouldishould include development of an integrated set of recommendations to'be~~ provided for Commi::sion consideration.
W l
i cc:
ED0 i-OGC SECY l
l' l
i 4
+
r-
RESEARCH DSI 22 l
In late 1993, Commissioner Rogers presented a paper that had as its central theme the importance of NRC's knowledge base to its success as a regulatory 4
In this paper he stated, "The quality of NRC's decisionmaking is agency.
ultimately dependent upon the agency's ability to:
identify relevant technical ~ knowledge needed for its regulatory decisionmaking; gain access to that knowledge; and, transfer that knowledge readily into its regulatory practice." This paper also suggested how the NRC might reorganize to be more effective in managing this knowledge base.
Although, reorganizations are beyond this phase of the NRC strategic assessment' initiative, two principles embedded in Commissioner Rogers' paper are relevant to the evaluation of the options presented here. These principles are the following:
(1) the NRC knowledge base requires continuing maintenance and extension and (2) qualified staff are the key to maintaining the NRC knowledge base. These two principles are addressed with the consequences under each option.
0 ganizational questien; rust ultimately be addressed, however, as the agency looks at how the research program might be implemented more efficiently and A Commission decision on this OSI 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 the research office compared with the role of the program offices.
For example, 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 whather such efforts should be performed by the program offices. On the other hand, should certain analyses performed by the program offices, such as thermal-hydraulic At present, most rulemakings are managed analysis, be performed only by RES7 Should that continue, or should all rulemakings be assigned to RES, by RES.
even though all rulemakings do not involve research, or should all rulemakings g#
be assigned to the program offices? What RES functions, if any, could be Should the performed more efficiently and effectively by the program offices?
overlap in some technical disciplines (e.g., thermal-hydraulic and severe-accident analysis, mechanical engineering, PRA, and human f actors) continue to exist between RES and the program offices to provide "of fice-dedicated" expertise, or should these be partially or completely merged to maintain a critical mass as a result of decreased resources? What should be the role of 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 concepts?
Even though activities in RES are under consideration for transfer to NMSS.
such a decision would permit economies, is it possible that research issues will be explored in a more limited way because of licensing concerns or pressures? This example raises a broader question for the entire reWch Could the NRC attract and retam top program if it were to be decentralized.
RELEASE DATE:
SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 13 DSI 22
... _. M DSI 22 RESEARCH research talent, and would research of a broader / exploratory 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 need to' be carefully considered in the i
next phase of the strategic assessment.
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 annealing of pressure vessels to counter aging effects) will raise new issues.
Financial pressures 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 reductions in budgets for industry-sponsored research 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 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 resench activities are reduced, RELEASE DATE:
SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 14 DSI 22
]
4 DSI 22' RESEARCH i[
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 i
degrees for other areas of ongoing research (e.g., reactor component i
materials, severe accidents, earth sciences, PRA, health physics, human I
factors, and instrumentation and control).
Because of such factors as the aging of nuclear power plants and the introduction of 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 i
. question that 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 ongoing as well as emerging issues.
Each area of 4
i technical expertise could be maintained:
(1) in house (NRC staff);
(2) through the support of contractors at national laboratories, universities, 1
or other appropriate organizations; or (3) by a combination of both in-house 4
l and contractor support.
j 1
This subsumed issue can be considered a DSI itself, since it encompasses the scope of the research program and to a large extent its role.
Among the i
questions to be addressed that bear on this issue are the following. ' Should j
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 l
performed in contractor organizations can and should be performed in house?
4 Which lower priority research programs should be discontinued, to be initiated i
again only if a specific need arises? As this feasible? What types and depths of expertise would the NRC need to ensure the availability of a j
critical mix of skills not only to address ongoing issues, but also to respond 4
to problems that may arise in the future? Examples of criteria that can be i
used to develop a core program are listed in Section IV under 0pcion 5.
It is anticipated that final criteria would be developed for approval by the j
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
'l and in such organizations as NEA and IAEA be maintained?
l This issue is subsumed because NRC's established leadership in safety research 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.
i
, RELEASE DATE: SEPTEMBER 16,'1996 18 DSI 22 t
I
, _ _