ML20203F633

Responds to Commission Direction on Dsi 22 Contained in SRMs & 0916 Re Implementation of Commission Decision on Dsi 22.Commission Approval of Staff'S Proposed Implementation Plan,Requested

ML20203F633
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/30/1997
From:	Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
References
FACA, SECY-97-075-C, SECY-97-167-C, SECY-97-220, SECY-97-220-01, SECY-97-220-1, SECY-97-220-R, SECY-97-75-C, NUDOCS 9712170428
Download: ML20203F633 (51)

Text

,

I ........................

l ' RELEASED TO THE PDR o f*"%

{' m * $ /A)R/W ,Oh2 5

data wtes

%.....)

POLICY ISSUE September 30, 1997 SECY-M-220 (Notation Vote)

EDB: The Commissioners FROM: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations S.Ql}&Ql: IMPLEMENTATION OF DSI 22 BEEEA_RQJ PURPOSE:

To respond to the Commission's direction on DSI 22 contained in SRMs dated March 28, 1997 (Attachment 1) and September 10,1997 (Attachment 2), regarding implementation of the Commission's decision on DSI 22, and to request Commission approval of the staff's proposed implementation plan.

BACKGROUND:

The staff responded to the Commission's March SRM on DSI 22, *Research," in SECY 97 167, DSI 22 Implementation", in which it advised the Commission of its plan and schedule for implementing that DSI. In turn, the Commission provided further guidance to the staff in an SRM dated September 16,1997. In the two SRMs the Commission provided the staff with direction on a number of matters including the following (in the order in which they appear in the SRMs):

• The staff should develop an integrated set of recommendations for Commission consideration addressing the key questions raised in the DSI 22 paper. (March SRM) i CONTACT:

F. A. Costanzi, RES

-  % I Phone: (301) 415-6250 SECY NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY p j DN- Q ComiM AVAILABLE WilEN Tile FINAL SRM IS MADE AVAILABLE.

pgaT;"v" ' oR Pllr. .a. gr. fjl.

,, 220 R .- . .

The Commissioners 2

• The preparation and coordination of rulemaking should be expeditiously transferred from RES to the program offices. Where RES develops the technical bases for a particular rule, whether by confirmatory research or technical review, RES should provide technical guidance to the program office which has the lead and primary responsibility for the rulemaking (including associated Regulatory Guides). (March and September SRMs)

• Most confirmatory research activities now in the program offices should move to RES.

(March and September SRMs)

• The program office (s) should determine the need for RES concurrence on rulemaking matters based on the degree of technical guidance provided by RES in each case.

(September SRM)

+ The Commission disagreed with the proposal that RES include provision for short term technical assistance in its research contracts to assist the program offic9s in the parformance of " technical studies,"in that it should be the responsibility of the program offices to adequately plan for such situations. (September SRM)

• The staff should propose a responsible organization such as the Office of the General Counsel or the Office of Administration to be responsible for the rulemaking infrastructure. (September SRM)

• The staff proposed the consolidation of certain highly specialized technical expertise into one office to assure maintenance of a " critical mass" of knowledge. The Commission questioned this approach. The staff should provide a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of their recommendation to the Commission for consideration. (September SRM)

. With regard to the Generic Safety Issue program, the staff should follow an approach such that when the research and analyses on an issue have been completed and a resolution approach has been developed, implementation of the action to resolve the issue, whether it involves rulemaking, issuing a generic letter, or other regulatory action, will be performed by the program office. (September SRM)

The staffs proposed plans to respond to the above and the implementation plan follow.

DISCUSSION:

Recommendations on the cuestions referenced in the March 28.1997 SRM, Attachment 3 contains responses to the questions referenced !n the March SRM. Ten of the fourteen questions are answered directly. The remaining four will be answered as a part of the staff's response to the Commission's SRM on SECY 97-075 on core capabilities, which is scheduled to go to the Commission on January 30,1998.

i

The Commissioners 3-Trantfer of rulemakino responsibilities to the proaram offices, The Commission directed that the staff expeditiously transfer all rulemaking functions and responsibilities to the program offices. The Commission further directed in the September SRM that in those instances where RES develops the technical bases for a particular rule, that it provide technical guidance to the responsible program office.

The staff will transfer all rulemaking responsibility from RES to the program offices and will revise the Rulemaking Activity Plan accordingly. A list of rulemakings contained in the Rulemaking Activity Plan marked to indicate the program office that will conduct the rulemakings is presented in Attachment 4. Attachment 4 also contains a list of regulatory guides that accompany or are planned to accompany the rulemakings. Responsibility and resources for developing the technical bases for these regulatory guides will remain in RES.

The RES resources shown in Attachment 4 are those budgeted for these efforts in FY 98 and FY 99, including both FTE and program support funds. The budgeted resources were not established to complete all of the listed rulemakings. Rather, they constituted a " level of effort" for rulemaking activity that foresaw completion of approximately one rule for every two staff years of effort. Staff notes that RES resources budgeted for certain rulemakings were eliminated as a part of recent budget cuts. Program offices will evaluate the resources and workload associated with the transfer of rulemaking. The Commission will be advised of the impacts on the rulemaking schedules.

Resources will be transferred to the program offices as follows. Program support funds will be transferred consistent with the footnotes to the table in the

• Resources" section. RES claff will be provided to the program offices consistent with the FTE budgeted in RES.

Recognizing that more FTE are budgeted in FY 98 than in FY 99, permanent staff transfers will correspond to the FY 99 FTE budget. The additional FTE budgeted in FY 98 will be provided to the program offices using details that end at the end of FY 98.

Transfer of confirmatory research from the proaram offices to RES.

In the March and September SRMs, the Commission directed that most confirmatory research activities that had been ongoing and planned within NRR, NMSS, and AEOD be conducted by RES.

The program offices have examined the technical activities conducted in their respective offices, and have identified activities that are poiential candidates for transfer to RES. These candidate activities are listed in Attachment 5 along with the program office's recommendation for disposition. The program offices will continue to evaluate their ongoing programs and provide final recommendations for transfer to RES in conjunction with recommendations addressing the questions of consolidation of technical expertise and the program for dealing with generic safety issues, The staff proposes to retum to the Commission in November with its recommendations on what activities should be transferred to RES in the context of these three issues; transfer of most confirmatory research, consolidation of highly specialized expertise, and the Generic Safety issues program.

The Commissioners 4-Procram Office determination of the need for RES concurrenc.eA in the September SRM, the Commission directed that the program office (s) should determine the need for RES concurrence on rulemaking matters based on the degree of technical guidance provided by RES in each case. This direction will be implemented immediately.

Short term technical assistance, in the September SRM, the Commission disagreed with the proposal that RES include provisions for short term technical assistance in its research contracts to assist the program offices in the performance of *1echnical studies"in that it should be the responsibility of the program offices to adequately plan for such situations.

The staff understands the Commission's concern. Staff will not make provisions in the RES contracts that could have the effect of providing RES resources to supplement the " technical studies" performed by the program offices.

Tgn}fer of the rulemakina (nfrastructure, in the September SRM the Commission directed the staff to propose an organization to be responsible for the rulemaking infrastructure, and suggested the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) or the Office of Administration (ADM). This function consists largely of maintaining the NRC's rulemaking INTERNET web site, updating the Rulemaking Activity Plan twice yearly, and through contract support, periodically updating the agency guidance on performing regulatory analyses and cost benefit analyses. The staff believes that these functions are more administrative than technical or legal, and notes that ADM is already responsible for the publication of agency rulemakings. After discussions with both OGC and ADM, staff recommends that the responsibility for this function be transferred to ADM.

The resourcem that have been expended by RES for rulemaking infrastructure and oversight and that will be transferred to ADM are identified in Attachment 4, Consolidation of hiably specialized expertise, One of the key questions in the DSl 22 paper' referenced in the March and September SRMs raised the issue of office-dedicated expertise vs. the synergy that could result from conso:idation of staff to maintain a entical mass in light of decreased resources. In the September SRM, the Commission directed the staff to provide a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of their recommendation to the Commission for consideration, by October 17,1997. In response to this direction, the staff proposes to retum to the Commission by that date with a general discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of consol.dation.

'See Attachment 3 Question 4

The Commissioners 1 Staff proposes to retum to the Commission with its recommendations concerning l consolidation of specific areas of technical expertise in November. As discussed earlier, i these recommendation would be made in the context of three issues; transfer of most confirmatory research, consolidation of highly specialized expertise, and the Generic Safety Issues program.

Generic Safety issue proaram With regard to the Generic Safety issue program, the September SRM directed the staff to follow an approach such that when the research and analysis on an issue have been completed and a resolution approach has been developed, implementation of the action to resolve the issue, whether it involves rulemaking, issuance of a generic letter, or other regulatory action will be performed by the program office.

The approach for resolution of generic safety issues will be revised to more clearly define office responsibilities. RES will be responsible for priontization and resolution of generic safety issues including research and analyses. The responsibility for implementing the resolution will be the responsibility of the program offices. As discussed earlier (transfer of confirmatory research from the program offices to RES), the staff proposes to retum to the Commission in November with an approach to implement the direction in the September SRM that ensures that, as such issues continue to arise, sufficient resources are allocated within RES to enable it to conduct necessary research and analyses and to develop a suitable approach to resolution of the issues.

Implementation plans and impacts.

Implementation plans will be discussed with representatives of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) as appropriate following the Commission's decision. The staff will

. move as expeditiously as possible to effect the transfer of rulemaking funcUons and has targeted the transfer (including the transfer of dollars and reassignment of staff resources) to be effective within 120 days of the Commission decision. The physical relocation of the staff willlikely take longer. Steps to be taken in this process appear in Attachment 6.

Staff also notes that for RES and the program offices to continue to operate efficiently following the transfer of rulemaking, the need for new organizational structures within RES and the program offices must be considered. A'so, several RES staff who may be proposed to be transferred to the program offices have multiple rulemaking and research activities.

Therefore, as responsibilities and staff are transferred, some rulemakings and research activities will be reassigned. The reassignments willlikely adversely affect several rulemaking schedules, as transferred staff leam new responsibilities. The Commission will be kept informed of changes to the RES and program offices' organizational structure and where the staff reassignments have a scheduler impact on significant rulemakings.

RESOURCES:

There is no budget impact from the actions discussed in this paper, merely a realignment of resources among offices consistent with the realignment of responsibilities among the offices. The following table summarizes the realignment of resources, the details of which

The Commissioners 6-are provided in Attachments 4 and 5. The resources shown in this table reflect direct FTE, secretarial support and maragement supervision, but exclude office wide support. Resource changes associated with office wide support will be addressed as a part of the staff's recommendations on transfer of confirmatory research, consolidation of expertise and the Generic Safety issues program to be provided in November as discussed above.

BUDGETED RESOURCES TO BE TRANSFERRED FY 1998 FY 1999

$K' FTE $K' FTE*'

NRR treceipt of rulemaking) +370 + 9.0 +300 + 7.0 NRR*** ltransfer of research) 220 -0.4 120 0.1 NRR inet transfer to NRR) +150 + 8.6 +180 + 6.9 NMsS treceipt of rulemakingl +1395 + 17.5 + 1570 + 16.5 NMsS* * * (transfer of research] O -0.1 0 0 NMss inet transfer to NMssi + 1395 + 17.4 +1570 +16.5 ADM freceipt of rulemakingl +255 + 3.0 +500 + 3.0 ADM litansfer of research) als n/a n/a n/a ADM (net transfer to ADMI +255 + 3.0 +500 + 3.0 AEOD Ireceipt of rulemakingl n/a n/a n/a n/a AEOD ltransfer of researchl 0 0 0 0 AEOD inet transfer to AEOD) 0 0 0 0 RES ltransfer of rulemaking] 2020 29.5 2370 26.5 REs freceipt of researchl + 220 + 0.5 +186 + 0.1 REs inet transfer from REsl 1800 29.0 2184 26.4

' Does not include salaries and benefits; ** Irutudes overhead. Note: The n' 1998 resources shown abose comtitute the total budgeted resources for M' 1998 to perfonn the designated actiettles. The actual resources to be tremferred among the omtes will depend upon the timing of the transfers of the activit6es as dertned in the implementation plan (s). *** current Program Offke Fettmates COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implic.ations and has no objections. The Office of tne Chief information Officer has reviewed this paper for information technology and information management implications and concurs in it. The Office of Human Resources and the Office of Administration concur in the recommendations of this paper.

The Commissioners 7-RECOMMENDATIONS -

That the Commission approve the staff's proposals to:

1. Proceed to arrange the transfer of rulemaking resources and responsibilities to the program offices as described above and documented in Attachments 4 and 5.

2. Proceed with the transfer of staff and program funds according to the steps shown in Attachment 6.

3. Retum to the Commission with recommendations on the transfer of research activities currently in the program offices as discussed above and described in Attachment 5, the advantages and disadvantages of consolidating highly specialized expertise, and the Generic Safety issues program in November.

5 4. Retum to the Commission with the staffs views on the key questions in DSI 22 conceming core capabilities as a part of the staffs response to the SRM associated with SECY 97-075, scheduled for January 30,1998.

O hlNm i Li seph Callan Executive Direct for Operations Attachments:

1. Sta" Requirements COMSECY-96-066 - Research (DSI 22), March 28,1997 2, Staff Requirements SECY 97 it.;7 DSI 22 Implementation (Role of Research),

September 16,1997

3. Questions from DSI 22

4. List of Rulemakings and Associated Regulatory Guides

5. Candidate Activities for Transfer to RES G. Implementation Steps for Transfer of Rulemaking and Research Responsibilities and Resources

' = - * " - **<w -.is - .-,.-% 9weu. y , ,w-w - _ _ , , _,7, g. 4 .,

g , , M

8 Commissioners comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. ThursdayAlohtL16.1997.

Commission staff office comments,if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT QclohtL9dit92, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.

DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners OGC OCAA OlG OPA OCA ClO CFO EDO SECY L

ATTACHMENT 1 STAFF REQUIREMENTS COMSECY-96-066 - RESEARCH 1 DSI 22)

MARCH 28,1997

Ii

• ATTAC E NT . 1 l<'

o m.

.; , f ,. ,,g UNn*D sTAtss

./ . NUCLE AR REC.U .ATOHY COMMisslON

{

.I =>.a.otow.o c. mnem 1

- a

\

. , , , , , pf March 28, 1997 l 1

escenany l 4 MEMORANDUM TO- L. Joseph Callan r.:xecutive M "cror '*.r Q *"M ' ?

FROMt John C. Hoyle, Secretary

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - COMSECY-96-066 -

' RESEARCH (DSI 22) 4ne staff should continue with the research program, which should h)includeelementsofbothconfirmatoryandexplorecoryresearch 8

(option 4), balanced in such a way that both current as well as

. potentially emerging issues are being addressed. The research program should focus on progrcms with the highest safety an?

regulatory signaiicance, coupled with the maintenance of the nesa.. 4> technical capability. This option permits response to

. programmatic needs, as well as anticipation of future needs. The term " exploratory research" which is used to describe *. hat part of the research effort that addresses anticipated needs of the Program Offices should be changed to " anticipatory research."

(l)OfficeofResearchshoulddevelopcriteriafordeterminingcore1n order to develop th research capabilities for Commission approval prior to going

. forward. Therefore, the Commission also approves option 5 in conjunction with option 4. RES shev1d develop a set of core research capabilities for the "RC in consultation with the other program offices.

G OGF (RES) (SECY Suspense 6/1/97) 9600073 1n addition to the core research capabilities, it is essential (j)thattheNRC, as a knowledge-based organization, monitor the overall technical capabilities of its staff to ensure that the necessary core capabilities are maintained. The staff should recommend the appropriate office within the agency and provide the estimated resources to perform this function. To assist top

agency management, the selected office should create and maintain

, an agency-wide database that contains an inventory of the technical core capabilities of the NRC staff.

GDG) (0P) (SECY Suspense 6/1/97) 9700076 1 The Commission supports increasing the percentage of the research

- (h)budgetexecutedbyuniversities,butwantstoconsideradditional approaches to working with universi*.ies besides the current Educational Grant Program. Such approaches might enhance t

i .~.- "

I .

+ -

(t 2-i j achievement of the goals of the NRC research program and prov2de additional benefits useful to the NRC. In keeping with the NRC designation as a Procurement Reinvention Laboratory, RES should i coordinate with the Division of Con:racta in exploring innovative

+ ways to engage universities in NRC's research program (e.g., 1 through use of cceperative aorcements, centracts and purchase orders, or through establishment of research consortia or

,' innti*utem fn areas such as FRA). 3 rants would be utilized wherc 3

they are tne most appropriate meenanism ror acnieving a purpose

. of the research program. The staff would have thesflexibility to award grants of up to $100,000 per year. The staff should develop this approach, including an appropriate higher goal for the percentage of research carried out directly by universities, and submit it for Commi'osion consideration.

46994 (RES/ADM) (SECY Suspense 6/1/97) 9700077 The staff should continue to support active participat l,n in International Safety Programs (opt.cn 7). The staff a..ould ensure that these international activitic s and the related programs are prioritized and appropriately integrated with other NRC research efforts (option 4), and ,niso are properly considered in the eatablishment and maintenance of core research capabilities (option 5). A11'resea ch activities should be i

evaluated by the Office of Research for effectiveness, program of

' work, structure and budget, accomplishment of stated objectives i and should include a sunset provision. The programmatic review should be coordinated with the Research Effectiveness Review Board or Executive Council, as appropriate.

(h)The staf f with research should bothexplcre industry, theand option tha of DOE, performing so as tocooperative minimize duplicative work - where appropriate. Legal ramifications, independence, and public perception should be considered when exploring any cooperative research program. The staff should also examine the feasibility of improving access to research information during the early phases of the work.

(-999/OGC) (SECY Suspense: 10/1/97) 9700078 (RES 4 There are many key questions raised in the research DSI paper -

g note in particular pages 13, 14 , and 18 of the DSI dated September 16, 1996 (pages attached and marked) - that require j much thought to resolve, but whose answers will have a strong bearing on how the agency will operate in the future.

I Implementation of Option 4 should include development of an 6 integrated set of recommendations to be provided for Commission

consideration, i 4EDO4 (RES/NRR/NMSS/AE00) (SECY Suspense

8/1/97) 9700079 The Commission has decided that the preparacion and coordination of rulemaking should move from RES ro the Program Offices, and

that most confirmatory research act.vities now in the Program i Offices should move to RES. The staff should develop and submit i

l' u

d -3~

to the Commission an implementation plan, with possible options for carrying out this decision, including the necessary partnership activities.

4GDob (RES/NRR/NMSS/AEOD) (SEcY Suspense e/1/97) 9700080 In conjuncticn with its developmer.: ef an ivplementation plan, the staff should consider tne creation of a Research Effectiver.ese Feviaw 9. card. This beard wcuid be composed of representatsves of the Program Of: ices ana the Research Off2ce.

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.

The Board would periodically review the bases for initiating, cu...inuing, and terminating spec 1Jic 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 sdvisability of its continuation should be examined by tae Ccmmission every three years.

4; ~ ; (PES /NRR/NMSS/AE0D) (SECY Suspense: 8/1/97) 9700080 (fhFinally,thehigh-levelstafftaskforce (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. (NMS$/RES/NRR/AE0D/0E) 9700081

Attachment:

As stated cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan CIO CFO OCA f

0.' G Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP E. Jordan (SARSC) i J. Silber (SARSC) i i

e ,

i 1

• f m.

i.

f .

'.o' J IlMAI.:H t DS! 22 In late 1993. Comissioner Rogers present'ed a paper that had as its central theme the importance of NC's knowledge base to its success as a regulatory agency. In this paper he stated, *The quality of HRC'a cecisionmaking it ntify relevant is ultimately dependent upon tne agency's abilit) to:

g technical knowledge needed for its regulatory decistor.mikingt gain access te that knowledge; and, trsnsfer that knowledge readily into its regulatory practice.' This paper also suggested how theAlthough, NRC might reorganize to be more reorganizations are effective in managing this knowledge base.

beyond this phase of the NRC strategic assessment initiative, two principles embedded in Comissioner Rogers' paper are relevant to the evaluation of the (1) the HRC

. options presented here. These principics are the andfollowing:

extension and (2) qualified knowledge base requires continuing maintenanct- These two principles staff are the Lty to maintaining the NRC knowleoge base.

are addressed with the censequences under ea-6 option.

Organ 12ational questions must ultimately be addressed, however, Msand ently the agency looks at how the research program might be implemented more ef fi effictively. A Comission decision on this 05' is a necessary first step to establish a framework within which effectiveness and efficiency initiatives can be properly evaluated.

A key factor affecting effectiveness ar.d 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 regulatoryThe qu decisions (technical assistance). On the other hand, should

- efforts should be performed by the program oflices.

certain analyses performed by the program offices, such as thermal-hydraulic At present, most rulemikings are managed analysis, be performed only by RESTShould that continue, or should all rulema by RES.even though all rulemakings do RES What not involve functions,research, or !!ould if any, could be all rulemakings f,

be assigned to the program offices? Should the performed more efficiently and ef fectively by the program offices?

overlap in some technical disciplines (e.g., thermal-hydraulic and severe-accident analys{s','ieYhanical engineering PRA, and human f actors) continue to exist between RES and the program offices to provide ' office-dedicated

• l expertise, or should these be partially or completely merged to maintain aWhat"shd i critical mass as a result of decreased resour'ces?

RES compared with that of program offices in staying abreast of national and international nuclear safety developments, emerging technologies, and design concepts? Budget reductions have been so severe that all HLW research Even though I activities in RES are under consideration for transfer to HM55.

i such a decision would permit economics, is it possible that research issues I will be explored in a more limited way because of licensing concerns or piessurest This example raises a broader question for the entire rese6tch Could the NRC attract and retain '.op program if it were to be decentralized.

i 13 DSI 22

! RELEASE DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, !!?C

.I

1 a I 1*

• e i D51 22 RESEARCH research talent, and would research of a broader / exploratory nature be pursued

, with the research program components ebefdet 9. licensing organizations? If i not, would that fundamentally impact the ability of the NRC to fulfill its health ated :,3fety niss'on gtycn uncic thr regu1 story cropams are today1

_j Would the researen budget te smaller and more efficient ' f 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 wl11 need to be carefully considered in the next phase of the strategic assessment.

C "xternal factors Several exttrnal factors significantly affect 8.C's research program.

External organizations that have an impact on hat's re:earch program are the nuclear industry, DOE, univetsities, internatienal prc; rams, Congrass, and t;.e pt.tl i c.

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 reu. ors.

, Nevertheless, operational events, both domestically $nd 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 v'essels to counter iging ef fects) will raise new issues.

Financial pressures on industry are also likely +.o have a tiumber of effects, incluriing an increased desire to use risk 4 formed, 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-cponsored research organtrations such as the Electric power Research Institute. The development of new reactor.. designs could increase the need for additional researph,,:although, 'at this. time, no new* designs are expected in t 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 Itcensing fees. ,

4

2. Department of Energy, Including the National Laboratories 5

As DOE's budget is reduced, its support of advanced reactor cont:epts is being reduced, which will reduce the need for NRC research directed at understanding 1 these new designs. In addition, as a result of budget reductions Government L;

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 resea ch activities are reduced, t RELEASE DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 14 DSI 22 i

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

f. .

r; P.. ,

6 usa a RESEARCH i i .

1 1

f I

' address some of the unique thermal-hydraulic issues associated with these passive designs.

However, work on the passiva desip la now cceing to an end, >

. and the NP.C cust aptn determine the type ano scope of technical capak111ty that need to be risintalW te idW: teth :n;;in; s: .w1; a emerging safety  ;

g issues related to the'm:1.hydrau11: ;her. = ns. R h is also true in varying i

degrees for other areas of ongoing research (e.g., reactor component '

i materials, severe accidents, erth sciences, PRA, health physics, human factors, Md instrumentation a ' control). Because of such factors as the ,

aging of nuclear power plants A the introduction of new technologies,

certain program elements should remain strong; in other program elements, major work 15 being completed in the next year or so. Therefore, the key  ;

i, question that the NRC needs to address for al' af its reset,rch programs is in  ;

i 1

what specific areas and,of what scope does the NRC need to maintain technical  ;

i capability to address ongoing as well as en..ging issues, fach area of--

-technical expertise could be maintained: i' t- -(.) in bruse (NRC staff):

(2)throughthesupportofcontractorsatnettonal-laboratories,universitics, i or other appropriate organizations; or (3) by a combination of both in-house and contractor support.

i

h. This subsumed issue can be considered a DSI itself, since it encompasses the j scope of the research 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 six of in-house staff and contractor capabilities for each core arest Which of-the analytical activities currently /# 7 s

performed in contractor organizations can and should be performed in housef Which lower priority research programs should be discontinued, to be initiated y

- again only if a specific need arises? Is this feasible? What types and i i depths of expertise would the HP.C need to ensure the availability of a '

'a c'itical mix of skills not only to address ongoing issues, but also to respond to problems that may arise in the future? Exemples of criteria that can be g used to develop a core program are listed in Section IV under Option 5. It is j anticipated that final criteria would be developed for approval by the Commission.  ;

t

• arell-definedAfter the Cosnission approved these criteria, RES would develop a set of core capabilities.

1 2.

How could-NRC's established leadership in safety research domestically -

and in such organizations as NEA and 1AEA be maintained?

-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 pro NRC's leadership position could be affected by the  ;

i elimination, gram.

downsizin discussed previously, g, or restructuring of its research program. As -

international. interest in NRC's research results gives i NRC the leverage to participate-in many cooperative research programs overseas-and to obtain international support for its own research programs. '

ll

, RELEASE 0?.TE: SEPICMBER 16 - 109 ' 18' D5! 22 h .

1 y - ,

ATTACHMENT 2 STAFF REQUIREMENTS SECY-97-167 - DSI 22 IMPLEMENTATION (ROLE OF RESEARCH)

SEPTEMBER 16,1997

'g UNITED STATES _

f*'

,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N e wAswiNotoN. o c, 20666-000:

g {

9,,,,, September 16,.1997 Of f tCE of 1HE  !

stCmfTARY [

MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan  !

Executive Director for Operations

• Karen D. Cyr Gene 1-Co e o  ?

i FROM: Joh , , ecretary

SUBJECT:

ST F REQUIREMENTS - SECY-97-167 DSI 22-IMPLEMENTATION (ROLE OF THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH)

The Commission directs that the staff expeditiously transfer all  !

rulemaking functions and responsibilities to the program offices, a Likewise, most confirmatory research activities now in the program offices should move to the Office of Research (RES).  ;

i The Commission has disapproved the proposed plan which would retain certain rulemakings i'n RE9.'. Where RES develops the  ;

technical bases for a particulaY ~rul., whether by confirmatory research or technical, review, RES should provide technical guidance to the program office which has the lead and primary renponsibility for the rulemaking (including associated regulatory. guides). Similarly, the Program Office (s) should

-determine the need for RES concurrence on rulemaking matters Lbased on the degree of technical guidance provided by RES in each  ;

case - The Conmiiss%n -should be informed of progress in this y regard in the 9eptember 10, 1997 updat?.

(eD.) (RES) (SECY Suspense 9/->e /M) 9700080 i 9/23/97 The Commission also disagreed with the proposal that RES inc' ie provisions ~for short term technical assistance in its research contracts to assist the program offices in the performance of i

" technical-studies," in that it should be the responsibility'of

-the Program Offices. to adequately plan for cach situations, u ,

The~ staff expressed a desire to retain some rulemaking intrastructure in one-organization. The staff should propose a -

responsibletorganization,'such-as the Office!of the General ,

Counsel or the Officeiof-Administration.

SECY NOTE:- THIS SRM AND SECY-97-167 L WILL BE. MADE PUBLICLY-AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM,

,y e,.,e- ,.,-,,,.s , ,,w, ,,7 e,,, , y mir..#,- ,,%..e g ,y..s ,yy- y.-.- e - -- y.,me-,- - ,

1 The staff also proposed the consolidation of certain highly '

specialized technical expertise into one office to assure maintenance of a " critical mass" of knowledge. The Commission questioned this proposal. The staff should provide a discussion ,

of the advantages and disadvantages of their recommendation to '

the Comt ion for consideration.

(BDur (RES) (SECY Suspense: 10ft?f99) 9700247 10/10/97 With regard to the generic safety issue program, tha staff should follow an approach such that when the research and analysis on an issuo have been completed and a resolution approach has been developed, implementation of the action to resolve the issue, whether it involves rulemaking, issuing a generic letter, or other regulatory action, will be performed by the program office.

cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus . .,, , .

Commiasic ner Diaz -

Commissioner McGaffigan OGC -

CIO

• CFO OCA OIG Office Directorn, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Ma!')

PDR DCS

__ .._ . _ .~ _

9 4

ATTACHMENT 3 QUESTIONS FROM DSI 22 {

i l

l QUESTIONS FROM DSl 22 I 1 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). (A) The question arises as to whether such efforts should be performed by the program offices. (B) On the other hand, should certain analyses performed by the program offices, such as thermal-hydraulic analysis be performed only by RES?

Answer A:

. As stated in SECY 97167, technical studies which apply existing methuds to make regulatory decisions applicable to a specific licensee or group of licensees are not research, and should be performed by program offices.

Answer 8:

The staff proposes to respond to this question in November as a part of its recommendations on what activities should be transferred to RES in the context of three issues; transfer of most confirmatory research, consolidation of highly specialized expertise, and the Generic Safety Issues program.

2 At present, most rulemakings are managed by RES. Should that continue, or should all rulemakings be assigned to RES, even though all rulemakings do not involve research, or should all rulemakings be assigned to the program offices?

Answer The Commission has decided to transfer all RES rulemaking activities to the program offices.

3 What RES functions, if any, could be performed more efficiently and effectively by the program offices?

Answer:

The principal RES functions have been to (1) conduct confirmatory and anticipatory research, (2) manage the rulemaking activity, (3) develop and issue regulatory guides, and (4) manage the NRC generic issue rec.olution program. The Commission has decided that confirmatory and anticipatory research will be conducted in RES and that rulemaking and development of regulatory guides that accompany rulemaking will be done in the program offices. With respect to developme.nt of other regulatory guides, because most have a significant research component, staff believes it would be more effective and efficient to retain them in RES. With respect to the Generic Safety issues program, it does not appear to be more efficient or effective to assign them to 1

i l

a program office for several reasons. First, because responsibilities for timely licensing actions and responses to events can frequo,1tly dominate the attention of a '

program office, longer term in depth technical evaluations can suffer. Second, RES can consider generic safety issues independently, providing the bas!s for a healthy exchange of perspectives with the program offices. Third, RES involvement in generic safety issues provides an opportunity for RES staff to be involved in +he mainstream ,

of NRC's safety concems. Given this perspective, it appears there is little to be gained by transferring responsibihty for generic safety issues to the program offices.

4 Should the overlap in some technical disciplines (e.g., thermal-hydraulic and severe-

• accident analysis, mechanical engineering, PRA, and human factors) continue to exist between RES and the program offices to provide " office dedimed" expertise, or ,

should these be partially or completely merged to maintain a criCcal mass as a result of decreased resources?

Answer:

In the September 10,1997 SRM the Commission directed the staff to provide for the Commission's consideration staff's recommendations for consolidation, and associated advantages and disadvantages, on October 17,1997. The staff proposes to retum to the Commission with a general discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of consolidation on that date. The remainder of this question would be addressed as a -

part of the staff's recommendations on what activities should be trar sferred to RES in the context of three issuos; transfer of most conf..matory research, cansolidation of highly specialized expertise, and the Generic Safety issues program, to be provided to the Commission in November.

5 What should be the role of RES compared with that of program offices in staying abreast of national and intemational nuclear safety developments, emerging technologies, and design concepts?

Answer:

11is essential that both RES and the program offices stay abreast of all of these areas, as their responsibihties apply. As demonstrated by past experience, there are significant efficiencies to be gained by conducting cooperative national and intemational research programs. Furthermore the quakty of NRC research programs is enhanced by the information flowing from national and intemational activities and the peer review our programs receive through these interactions.

However, important perspective can also be gained from national and international developments involving new regulatory and safety issues, e.g. standards being used by other countries in licenshig decisions. The program offices need to keep abreast of such deve opments to be sure that NRC standards and regulatory approaches are benefitting from these perspectives.

2

Given the above, all offices will need to be active in all areas. However, it may be appropriate for the program offices to have lead responsibility for re0ulatory developments, but for RES to hate lead for safety developments, particularly those involving emerging technologies and design concepts. Such a division d responsibility would appear to be consistent with the Commission's direction in the September 16,1997 SRM on rulemaking and research.

6 Budget reductions have been so severe that all HLW research activities in RES are under consideration for transfer to NMSS. Even though such a decision would permit economies, is it possible that research issues will be explored in a more limited way because of licenting concerns or pressures?

Answer:

Within the constraints of the reduced budgets, the high level waste program has been refocused to address the most important technicalissues for repository licensing.

This ensures that resources are focused on the most significant activities to address these issues whether they be experimental, analytical, or review of DOE work.

Issues are reexamined and reprioritized on a regular basis to ensure that no key activities are omitted. This approach ensures attention to integration and timing of related multi-disciplinary activities. The ctaff does not believe that HLW issues will be exFored in a more limited way b6cause of licensing concerns or pressures.

7 Could the NRC attract ant retain top research talent, and would research of a broader / exploratory nature be pursued with the research program components embedded in licensing organizations?

Answer:

Assuming that adequate compensation is provided, the ability to attract and retain top research talent will be pnmarily affected by the confidence that these engineers and scientists will be participating in a stable long-term research program inat is technically challenging and professionally rewarding. Such stable long term research programs may be difficult to maintain in program offices where the primary focus will be rapidly emerging licensing issues and events requiring the immediate attention of staff and managers. This focus of the program offices on near term high priority licensing issues would also make it difficult for those offices to maintain the kind of broad exploratory or anticipatory research programs needed to effectively identify and resolve significant long-term issues which the NRC will be facing.

3

8 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?

Answer:

Either the failure to attract and retain top talent or to pursue anticipatory research could irapact the technical knowledge base needed for effective regulation. In some instances the resulting unceitainties could be mitigated by operating with greater margins. However, given examples such as the aging population of nuclear power

';' ants and the continuing need to understand implications of extended fuel burnup, er:d human performance issues, information important to NRC safety programs could be reduced if significant etcsion of research programs were to occur.

9 Would the research budget be smaller and more efficient if managed by licensing organizations?

Answer:

It does not appear to be generally beneficialin terms of size and efficiency to have the resaarch budget managed by the program offices. There is a potential that a transfer of this function could result in increased efficiency through the more intimate knowledge of the prograrr. office activities. Likewise, there is a potential for inefficiency because the program offices focus primarily on their principal activit;es. It is, of course, important that RES management strive to make research effective and efficient and responsive to program office needs.

Staff notes that the Commission has decided to transfer to REP most confirmatory research activities now la the program offices. In Attachment f. the staff proposes which activities might be transferred and which migiit best remain with the program offices. Therefore, this question also is addressed, as appropriate, as a part of the staffh proposal on each activity.

10 Would the absence of an independent research office result in lower quality research, absent a healthy technical debate between RES and licensing organizations over research applications and approaches?

Answer:

The DSI 22 issue naper provided the Commission with the option of discontinuing NRC's research progra;n. In the 9RM on DSI 22, the Commission directed the sthil to retain both confirmatory and anticipatory research, and to transfer most of the confirmatory research in the agency to RES. The staff believes these decisions moet this questiori.

a

11 Should core capabilities be maintained in soma areas, with more robust programs in other areas?

Answer:

Yes. In some cases a core level of resources will be adequate. !n other areas, workload demands may dictate a more robust program for a period of time. This question will be addressed in more detail in RES' response to the SRM associated with SECY 97-075 " Methodology and Criteria for Evaluating Core Research Capabilities." This response is scheduled for January 30,1998.

12 What is the right mix of in-house staff and contractor capabilities for each ( W .. ta?

Which of the analytical activities currently performed in contractor organizatim, can and should be performed in house? ,

Answer:

These questions will also be addressed in RES' response to the SRM associateo' with SECY-97-075 " Methodology and Criteria for Evaluating Core Research Capabilities,"

referred to in the answer to Question 11 above.

13 (A) Which lower priority research programs should be discontinued, to be inic.ated again only if a specific need arises? (B) is this feasible?

Answer A:

Any lower priority research activities that should be discontinued will be identified in the RES response to SECY-97-075. Prionties will also be set during the budget process. For example, during the intemal review of the FY 1999 budget and in response to the House proposed cuts to the FY 19?8 budget, the severe accident research program was identified as an activity that would be discontinued at certain funding levels.

Answer B:

Reconstituting a research program once it has been discontinued is marginal at best.

The feasibility of restarting individual programs could vary greatly from program to program, in some cases, experienced staff and potential contractors could be readily available. Attematively, identifying new staff and contractors who are knowledgeable and free of conflict of interest may be difficult. Bringing them on board, training them, 5

l

and giving them an opportunity to do enough work to become experts and, further, to be recognized as experts, may well take five years or more'. Staff recommends that ,

a decision to terminate a program generally be considered to be permanent. l 1

l What types and depths of expertise would the NRC need to ensure the availability of j 14_

a critical mix of skills not only to address _ ongoing issues, but also to respond to 3 problems that may arise _in the future? -

Answer:

This question will be addressed in RES' response to the SRM associated with SECY-97-075.

-l This estimate is based on the staff's experience in starting up the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses.

6 1

M - -*--, ,e S --

• __4u,+ma a ,.-a aa,a_. 44,-..m M MAL 1 a_ _A 4 J _J___a4.i4,,4 % 4-a,m_.Ase sg_h_4. h A u_. ,a_, J .J_ _a

.I ATTACHMENT 4 LIST OF RULEMAKINGS AND ASSOCIATED RESOURCES i

u 4

.)

]

RULEMAKINGS IN THE RULEMAKING ACTIVITY PLAN CATEGORY 1.. ACTIVE RULES - RULES IN DEVELOPMENT' HIGHER PRIORITY 8 NRR-C1 HP-11 Codes and Standards for NPP (Part 50.55a)- RM#318-AE26 . . . . . . . . .

NRR-C1HP-21 Reduction in Nuclear Power Reactor Security Requirements Associated With insider Threat (Part 73.55)--RM#405-AF11-W#950117 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NMSS C1HP 22 Safeguards for Spent Nuclear Fuel or High-Level Hadioactive Waste,

- (Parts 60, 72, 73, 7 5)-RM#34 6-AF32-W#930128 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NMSS-C1HP 24 Requirements for Shipping Packages Used to Transport Vitrified Wastes Containing Plutonium, Part 71 (PRM-71 11)-RM*491-AF59-W#960169 . . . . . . . . . . .

NRR-C1HP-26 Amending Initial Operator License Examination Requirements, Part 55-R M # 4 8 4- A F 6 2-W# 9 500 5 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....

NMSS-C1HP 27 Removal of the 5 Year Term For Licenses For The Medical Use of Byproduct Material, Part 35.18-RM#493-AF77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NRR C1HP 28 Revision to Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning Financial Assurance implementation Requirements, Part 50.2 and Part 50.75--RM#424--AF41-W#950112 . .

NRR C1HP-29 Insurance nequirements For Power Reactor Facilities Under a Possession Only License, Part 50--Rb11312-AF16-W#930116 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NRR C1HP 30 General Revisions to the Fitness For Duty Rule, Part 26- RM#397--AF12-W#890042..............,........................................

- NMSS C1HP-31 Exempt Distribution and Use of a Radioactive Drug Containing One Microcurie of Carbon 14 Urea, Part 30 and 32, (PRM-3512) --Rm#432 -W#970042 ...

NRR C1HP 32 Revision of Respiratory Protection Requirements, Part 20--RM#269----

W#970194.......................................................

'The office to which the rulemaking would be transferred appears at the beginning of each item.

. 'The order of presentation is the order in which rulemakings entered the rulemaking queue. l 1

l l

I

NRR C1HP-33 Safety Related Structures, Systems and Components (Direct Final Rulema king), Part 50-R M # 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NRR-C1HP 34 Allm.v For Plant Specific Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning Costs Requirements, Part 50.75- RM#347-AF40--W#950111 .......................

NRR-C1HP-35 Performance-Oriented Requirements for Fire Protection of Nuclear Power

- Facilities (Part 50)-RM#340-AF29 -W#920197 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \

MEDIUM PRIORITY l l

NRR C1MP-10 Shutdown and Spent Fuel Pool Operations, Part 50-RM*398 - )

AE97W#920223..................................................

NMSS C1MP 14 Deliberate Misconduct Rule, Parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, 72,110)~ '

i RM#4 2 5-AF3 5- W#9 60007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............

ADM-C1MP 15 Criteria and Procedures For Determining Eligibility For Access to Restricted Data or National Security Information, Parts 10 --RM*431--AF48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NMSS C1MP 17 Alternative Financial Criteria For Non-Profit Entities and Altemative .

Financial Criteria For Non-Bond Issuing Licensees RM#408-W#930212 . . . . . . . . . . . .

NRR C1MP 18 Audit Frequency For Emergency Planning and Security, Part 50, PRM 50-5 9, P R M 5 0 6 0 -R M # 413 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NRR C1MP-19 Addition of Radon 222 and Technetium-99 Values to Table S 3 and Revisions Resulting from Consideration of Highar Bumup Fuel (Part 51)--RM#116-AA31-- I W#910146.......................................................

i NMSS C1MP 21 Revision of Prototype Testing Requirements for Watches Containing j Tritium (PRM-3 2 04), Part 3 2.14-RM#4 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l l

NMSS C1MP-22 Miscellaneous Changes, Part 72--RM#446 -W#960162 ...........  !

l NRR-C1MP 23 Emergency Planning Requirements For Defueled Reactors and Exercise Requirements For Offsite Emergency Plans, Appendix E and Part 50.54(O), - RM#435 .. i LOWER PRIORITY NMSS C1LP-05 Revision to 10 CFR Parts 20,32,35,36, and 39 Regarding Minor Administrative Changes, Clarifications, and a Minor Policy Change--RM#402--AF46 . . . .

IRM C1LP-17 Submittal procedures For Documents, Parts 19,20,30 36,39,40,51,52, 5 5. 60-6 2, 70-7 5, 140. 150-RM*44 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

ADM C1LP 18 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 2 0)-R M # 4 7 5 - AF 5 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NMSS-C1LP 19 Notice to Employees: Minor Amendment to Part 19 RM#495 , . . . . . .

CATEGORY ll RULES FOR WHICH THE TECHNICAL BASES ARE UNDER DEVELOPMENT HIGHER PRIORITY NMSS C2HP 04 Criteria For Recycle / Reuse--RM#381-W#940059 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NMSS C2HP 05 Disposal by Release into Sanitary Sewerage, Part 20-RM#288-AE90 -

W#940008.......................................................

NMSS C2HP-07 Amend Certification of Compliance NO.721007 For The VSC-24 Dry Spent Fuel Storage Cask, Part 72.214-RM#390 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 MEDIUM PRIORITY NMSS C2MP-05 Exemption from Licensing of Certain Products, Parts 30,32 RM#400-W#900208.......................................................

LOWER PRIORITY NONE............................ ............................

CATEGORY lli RULEMAKING PLAN BEING DEVELOPED HIGHER PRIORITY NRR-C3HP-07 Skin Dose Limits For Hot Particles--RM#164--W#900178 . . . . . . . . . . . .

NMSS-C3HP 09 Update of Decommissioning Funding Ce t!fication Amounts For Applicants and Licensees. Parts 30, 40, 70--RM#243 .........................

NMSS-C3HP 10 Elimination of 30-Day Delay in Loading Spent Fuel After Preoperational Testing, Part 7 2.8 2(E)-R M # 4 3 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

NMSS-C3HP 12 Storage of Greater Than Class C Waste, Part 72-RM#436-W#960157 l

NMSS-C3HP 13 Energy Compensation Sourt , For Well Logging, Part 39-RM#440 ...

NMSS-C3HP-14 Expand Applicability to include Additional Parties, Part 72-RM#439- l W#960160....................................................... l NMSS-C3HP 20 Options For The Use of Radiography and Radiographic Equipment and A N S I N 4 3 2, Pa rt 3 4- R M # 4 7 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NMSS C3HP 22 Revision of Dose Limit for Members of the Public Exposed to Hospitalized Patients, Part 20 (PRM-20 24)-RM#490--W#960154 .,.......................

NMSS C3HP 23 Specific Domestic Licenses of Broad Scope For Byproduct Material, Part 33-RM#448-AF54.................................................

NMSS-C3HP 24 Major Revision of 10 CFR Part 35-RM#497 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NMSS C3HP 25 Part 76 Certification Ammendment Process, Part 76.45-RM#499 . . . .

MEDIUM PRIORITY NRR C3MP 01 Fitness for Duty (Scope)-RM#396--AF13 ......................

NMSS-C3MP-06 Special Nuclear Material Accountability, Parts 70,74--

R M # 3 0 9 --W # 9 6 0 0 0 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NMSS C3MP 12 Clarifications and Addition of Flexibility to Part 72 -

R M # 4 3 8 --W # 9 6 01 5 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NMSS C3MP-13 Geological and Seismological Characteristics of Spent Fuel Storage Systems. Part 72--RM#441-W#960161 ..................................

NMSS C3MP 14 Adoption of Part 20 Dosimetry Methodology To Part 72--

R M # 4 3 7 --W # 9 6 01 5 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NMSS-C3MP-15 Financial Assurance Requirements For Waste Brokers and Sealed Source Users-RM*480....................................................

NRR-C3MP 16 Alternative Site Reviews. Part 50--RM#313 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NRR-C3MP-18 Staffing and Training Requirements For Defueled reactors.

Pa r t 5 0, 5 5 - R M # 4 4 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NRR C3MP-19 Use of Alternate Cladding Material in Reactors, Part 50-RM*449 . . . . . .

4

NMSS-C3MP 21 Financial Ascurance For Teletherapy and Krypton-85 Licensees Parts 30, 35-RM#482......................................................

NMSS-C3MP 22 Relief From The Use of Part 35 Requirements For Teletherapy Devices For Non-Human irradiation, Part 36-RM*479 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NRR C3MP 23 Exemption From Criticality Monitor Requirements For Fresh Fuel, Part 70.24-RM#494 ...................................................

NMSS-C3MP-26 Compatibility with the IAEA Transportation Standards, Part 71-RM#496 NRR C3MP 28 Codes and Standards, Part 50.55a (h)--RM#498 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NMSS-C3MP 29 Spent Fuel Shipment Information Protection Requirements, Pa rt 7 3 - R M # 5 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LOWER PRIORITY NMSS C3LP-01 Clarification of Criteria for Uranium Mills and Tailings, Part 40--RM#380--

VV # 9 4 0 0 7 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NRR C3LP-05 Removal of Obsolete Appendices M, N, O, and O From Part 50--RM#483 .

NRR-C3LP-06 ELiM!NATE 10 CFR PART 2, APPENDIX A--RM#489 ...............

CATEGORY IVA PETITIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION NRR C4A-02 Acceptability of Plant Performance for Severe Accidents: Scope of Consideration in Safety Regulations, Part 50- RM#268-Ali38-W#900201 ..........

NMSS-C4A-07 PRM 20-21 Petitioner: Keith J. Schlager, Ph.D., et al.--RM*4 51. . . . . .

NRR C4A 14 PRM-50-62 Petitioner: Nuclear Energy Institute-RM#459 . . . . . . . . . . . .

NRR C4A-15 PRM-50 63 Petitioner: Peter G. Crane -RM#460 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NMSS-C4A-18 PRM 3513 Petitioner: National Registry of Radiation Protection Technologists (N R R PT)--RM #4 6 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NMSS C4A-23 PRM 30-61 Petitioner: Nuclear Energy Institute-- RM#468 ..........

NMSS-C4A 24 PRM 70-07 Petitioner: Nuclear Energy Institute-RM#469 . . . . . . . . . .

5

l l

j CATEGORYIVB RULES ON HOLD i NMSS C4B-01 Requirements for Possession of Industrial Devices Containing Byproduct  !

Material (Parts 31,32)-RM#81-AD34-W#890090 ..........................

I NMSS C48 02 Requirements Concerning the Accessible Air Gap for Generally Licensed '

Devices (Parts 31, 32)-RM*264-AD82--W#900192 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  ;

NMSS C4B-04 Revision to Parts 30 and 40, to Address RSO Duties--RM#386 . . . . . . . .

NRR-C48-09 Rulemaking on Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Part 52--RM#411 .......

NMSS-C4810 Addition Of DOE Multi Purpose Canisters, Part 72.214-RM#412 . . . . . .

NMSS C48-11 Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material-Revision, Part 70 --

3 M # 3 51 -- A F 2 2-W # 9 4 010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NMSS-C4B 13 Conforming 10 CFR Part 60 to EPA Standard and NAS Recommendations-RM#430 ........................................................

NMSS C4819 Transfer of Unimportant Quantities of Source or Byproduct Material to Exempt Persons, Part 40.51 -RM #447 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NRR C4B 21 Revise Part 50.34(f) To Apply To Unknown Future Designs-RM#485 ....

NRR-C48-22 Licensing Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators Limited to Fuel Ha ndling -R M #4 8 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................

NMSS C4B-23 General Domestic Licenses For Byproduct Material, Part 31- RM#487 . . .

NRR C4B 24 Reduction of Additional Reporting Requirements imposed on NRC Licensees (10 CFR 50), RRGR ltem 59a--RM#387-W#940118 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NMSS-C4B-25 Extremity Dosimetry--RM#146- W#870013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

REGULATORY GUIDES UNDER DEVELOPMENT ACCOMPANYING RULEMAKINGS*

Regulatory Guide on license renewal for NPP, Scope of envoirnmental effects... License-RenewalRule (completed)

Regulatory Guide on Financit' Accounting Standards Board (FASB) standards for decommissioning cost accounting.....NRR C1HP-28 Revision to Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning Financial Assurance implementation Requirements, Part 50.2 and Part

50. 75-RMN424--AF41-WNC50112 RG 8.15 (rev) " Acceptable Programs for Respiratory Protection".....NRR-C1HP-32 Revision of Respiratory Protection Requirements, Part 20-RMN269--WN970194 Regulatort' Guide on Demonstrating Compliance with the Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning... Decommissioning Rule (completed)

DG 0006 Guide for the r> reparation of Appnvations for Commercial Nuclear Pharmacy Licenses... Radiopharmacy Rulemaking (completed)

DG-0007 Guide for the Preparation of Applications for Licenses to Authorize Distribution of Various items to Cominercial Nuclear Pharmacies and Medical Use Licensees... Radiopharmacy Rulemaking (completed)

DG 0009 Proposed supplement to RG 10.8, Rev.2: " Guide for the Preparation of Applications for Medical Use Programs"... Radiopharmacy Rulemaking (completed)

Performance-Oriented Requirements for Fire Protection of Nuclear Power Facilities (10 CFR Part 50)....NRR-C3MP-04 Performance-Oriented Requirements for Fire Protection of Nuclear Power Facilities (Part 50)-RMM340-AF29-WN920197 T

• Associated rulemakings are indicated in italics.

7

4.

. BUDGETED RESOURCES TO BE TRANSFERRED ,

FY 1998_ . FY 1999

$K'- FTE'* $K' FTE"  ;

-j

'1 NRR Transferred _" : " .g (including --

E-: .;n,0.; regulatory guidest and regulatory guide development resources Reactor rulemaking Econsing (direct)- 120 5.0 50 4.0 ,

l

. Reactor rulemaking red. prot. (direct) 80 2.5 80 '1.5 -i I

? Reactor Technical Assistance 170 - 170 -

l TOTAL DIRECT 370 7.5 300 5.5 -I

-l Management and support - 1.5 - 1.5 TOTAL 370 9.0 300 7.0 NMSS Transferred rulemaking (including  :

eccompanying regulatory guides) and l regulatory guide development resources Materials rulemaking Econsing (direct) ISO 6.5 80 5.5 1 Materials rulemaking red. prot. (direct) 75 3.0 350 3.0 l I

Material Technical Assistance 370 - 370 -

Decommissioning rulemaking (direct) 100 5.0 ~100 5.0 Decommissioning technical assistance 670 - 670 -

TOTAL DIRECT 1395 14.5 1570 13.5 Management and support - 3.0 - 3.0 TOTAL 1395 17.5 1570 16.5 l ADM - Transferred resources infrastructure and oversight (direct) 255 3.0 500 3.0

• - Dem est include salenes and benefus: ** lacando enchend. Neee: ne FY 1998 resones shows shee, c-- s*=aa the total bedsened rasenes for FY 1998 se performs the demsmated activities, h actual rueenes le be transferred amness the eNires wiu depend epos the timing of the transfers of the actinties as defined in the

- inspionnestanes plas(s).

1 8 .:

-. m J.ada b a-

.4 .arha. +43- J.A a._ +.. u, .m..,h.s -- - A w. aJ-A -@ A al- 4-----S 4.hJ.- - d --.d_-4---- - -- w .M k

4 ATTACHMENT 5 9

l CANDIDATE ACTIVITIES FOR TRANSFER TO RES l

l l

4 9

TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES CONSIDERED BY PROGRAM OFFICES AS POTENTIAL CANDIDATES TO RES The program offices have examined the technical activities conducted in their respective offices, and have identified activities that are potential candidates for transfer to RES. These candidate activities are listed in this attachment along with the program office's recommendation for disposition. The program offices will continue to evaluate their ongoing programs and provide final recommendations for transfer to RES in conjunction with

- recommendations addressing the questions of consolidation of technical expertise and the program for dealing with generic safety issues. The following table summarizes the realignment of resources, the details of which are provided in this Attachment and in Attachment 4.

BUDGETED RESOURCES TO BE TRANSFERRED FY 1998 FY 1999

$K' FTE" $K' FTE" NRR freceipt of rulemaking] +370 + 9.0 +300 + 7.0 NRR" ' ltransfer of research) -220 -0.4 120 -0.1 NRR inet transfer to NRR) +150 + 8.6 +180 + 6.9 NMss (receipt of rulemakingl +1395 + 17.5 + 1570 + 16.5 NMss* *

• ltransfer of research) 0 -0.1 0 0 NMss inet transfer to NMSsl +1395 + 17.4 +1570 + 16.5 ADM freceipt of rulemaking) + 255 + 3.0 + 500 + 3.0 ADM ltransfer of researchl n/a n/a n/a n/a ADM Inst transfer to ADM] + 255 + 3.0 +500 + 3.0 AEOD Ireceipt of rulemakingl n/a n/a n/a n/a AEOD*" (transfer of research] O O O O AEOD Inet transfer to AEOD] O O O O RES itransfer of rulemaking) -2020 -29.5 -2370 -26.5 RES Ireceipt of research) + 220 + 0.5 +186 + 0.1 RES Inet transfer from RES) -1800 -29.0 -2184 -26.4

• Does not include salaries and benefits; " locludes overhead. Note: The FY 1998 resources shown above constitute the ual budgeted resources for FY 1998 to perform the designated activities. The actual resources to be transferred among the offices will depend upon the timing of the transfers of the activities as defined in the knplementation plan (sh '" Current Program Office Estimates 1

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION In Service insoection Relief Reauest Database The purpose of this database is to develop and maintain a comprehensive inventory of relief requests to assist the staff (1) to address ISI requests for relief and alternatives so as to provide more uniform terminology, (2) to maintain the traceability of all data to source reference documents and notes to discussions on each report, and (3) benefit is gained by case of reference to same or similar reques+s for relief and/or alternatives.

The database is to be updated every six months bas sd relief requests processed during last period.

Resources: FY98 $20K and 0.125 FTE FY99 $10K and 0.125 FTE Disoosition and Rationale Not to be transferred, because the development of this database only involves collection of data regarding licensing documents and not research. NRR's future reviews and evaluations of reaulatory actions involving licensee's requests for relief and alternatives to the ASME Code,Section XI requirements, requires that this information be readily available to NRR staff.

Steam Generator Database The NRC Steam Generator Database (SGD) provides the NRC with the capability of maintaining current information on steam generator materials, inspections, and operating experience in a comprehensive manner. The SGD include chronological information for each plant and inspection report data for SGs since 1991, including licensee and NRC data. The SGD provide the staff with a tool to evaluate and monitor materials aspects for licensing and inspection reviews while minimizing the staff time involved with locating references and data.

Resources: FY98 - $50K and 0.2 FTE FY99 $30K and 0.2 FTE Disoosition and Rationale Not to be transferred, because the development of this database only involves collection of licensing documents and references in a database - and not research.

NRR's future reviews and evaluations of reaulatory actions involving steam generator performance requires that this information be readily available to NRR staff.

. Reactor Vessel Intearity Database The Reactor VesselIntegrity Database (RVID) was developed following the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff review of licensee responses to Generic Letter (GL) 2

92-01, Revision 1. The RVID2 summarizes the properties of the reactor vessel beltline materials for each operating commercial nuclear power plant. For plants that are not operating, existing data has been maintained; i.e., no existing data for non operating plants has been deleted. The RVID2 program has references and notes that document the source (s) of data and provide supplementalinformatbn. Additionally, the RVID2 includes sort and data search capabilities. The user can select a desired grouping of plants and then specify information categories to search and list.

The RVID2 program was designed and developed to reflect the current status of reactor pressure vesselintegrity, and the data is consolidated in a convenient and accessible manner. Some of the data categories are inputs of docketed information; other data categories are computed values, which are not necessarily docketed. The programming logic used for calculations in the RVID2 program follows the methodology in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.99, revision 2.0. (RG1.99r2). The newest Access Version'"

of the database will be released on the World Wide Web (www) once the data have been updated.

Resources: FY98 - $10K and 1.0 FTE FY99 - $20K and 0.5 FTE Discosition and Rationale Not to be transferred, because the development of this database only involves collection, evaluation and analysis of licensing data - and not research. NRR's future reviews and evaluations of maulfitory actions involving reactor vessel requires that this information be readily available to NRR staff.

Grid Reliability Technical Study The subject study provides staff support to the following NRR Action Plan task elements from the Grid Reliability Action Plan: (1) Develop technicalinformation to assess and evaluate the risk significance of potential grid instability due to deregulation; (2) Monitor industry deregulation and its impact on the reliability of offsite power to nuclear power plants; develop and implement staff level contacts with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Energy (DOE);

assist Regional personnelin establishing contacts with power pools and reliability councils in their area; (3) Development of generic communication; and (4) Evaluate, based on Task 1 results, the need for regulatory actions; evaluate method (s) to identify grid centered event precursors; evaluate the impact on deregulation SBO risk reduction goals; assess any requirements and the effectiveness of such requirements and enforcement policies as imposed by the North American Electric Reliability Council.

Resources: FY98 - $220K and 0.1 FTE (Tasks 1 and 4)

FY99 - $120K and 0.1 FTE '

Disoosition and Rationale Task elements 1 and 4, as mentioned above and in the Grid Reliability Action Plan, may 3

be transferred to RES. Task elements 2 and 3 should remain within NRR to assist EELB -

in the assessment of licensee compliance with the existing regulations associated with ensuring offsite power to nuclear power plants. Given that the subject technical study is an integral component of the staff's efforts to meet the intent of the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated May 27,1997 those commitments associated with the subject SRM should also be t..msferred to RES with task elements 1 and 4.

Assessment of Turbine Failure at Vandellos 1 Development of staff NUREG or other publication to document turbine building fire issues for U.S. plants in light of the Vandellos fire.

Resources: FY98 6 0 and 0.3 FTE FY99 - $ 0 and 0 FTE Disoosition and Rationale To be transferred to RES and should be combined with overall fire protection research activities.

Rebaselinino Analyses for imolementation of Revised Accident Source Term at Ooeratina Reactors Using Surry and Grand Gulf as model plants, dose calculations are being run for the spectrum of Design Basis Accidents. The term "rebaselining" comes from the analyses of the plants as currently designed using both the current regime (TID source term, whole body / thyroid dose acceptance criteria, an1 associated calculational assumptions and methods) and the new regime (NUREG 146 3 source term, TEDE dose acceptance criteria, and revised calculational methods). Tt.ese analyses will allow us to understand the impact of the revised source term before any design changes are made based on the revised source term. - DBA dose will then be performed applying the various possible design changes licensees have or may propose based on the revised source term. These analyses will allow the technical reviewers to make sure that all of the calculational methods are developed that will be needed to review the pilot plant licensing applications. Using the information in NUREG-1150, the impact on risk from these potential design changes will also be assessed. Finally, the impact nn other "non-dose" design basis safety and licensing analyses from these design changes will be examined.

Resources: FY98 - $150K and 1.3 FTE FY99 - $0 and 0.7 FTE Disoosition and Rationale:

Rebaselining will provide support for the rulemaking and for the pilot plant and follow-on plant licensing reviews. Because it appears that both these activities will be conducted by NRR, NRR should have the lead for this effort. However, RES developed 4

the revised source term and has substantial expertise and technical assistance contract connections in this area. For these reasons, RES has always been part of the task force led by NRR for the overallimplementation effort. Because of RES's expertise RES needs to take a much more substantial role in the rebaselining effort. The details of that increased role are being discussed now by RES and NRR branch-level management.

DBA Meteoroloaical and Dose Assessment Calculational Code Devetooment NRR uses several computer codes to assess the meteorology and offsite and control room doses for DBAs associated with license applications: PAVAN, ARCON, HABIT, and RADTRAD. HABIT was developed by RES. RADTRAD was developed by NRR.

NRR staff still needs training on RADTRAD and holp from Sandia will be needed as the NRR staff starts to use the code for actuallicensing cases. ARCON was also developed by NRR. ARCON is finished, and training and help in actuallicensing use will still be needed. PAVAN and other related codes already exist and are being updated to run on PCs and use ARCON like data handling methods.

Resources: FY98 $50K and 0.2 FTE FY99 $0 and 0 FTE Disoosition and Rationale:

NRR believes all these activities should remain under NRR; however, RES could be given the lead for the PAVAN and other related meteorological code development since code development is an RES responsibility. (NRR to provide resource split)

NRR Identified and Transferred Research Resources FY 1998 FY 1999 Identified Transferred _

identified Transferred

$ in K FTE $ in K FTE $in K FTE $in K FTE 500 3.2 220 0.4 180 1.63 120 0.1 5

4 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS Backoround As a result of severe budget reductions in FY 1996, the HLW Management Board, made up of managers from DWM, RES, and the CNWRA, made recommendations on the prioritization and consolidation of ongoing research and technical assistance activities being conducted and planned at the CNWRA in light of the refocused HLW repository i

program and reduced budget. The Directors of RES and NMSS agreed with the HLW Board's recommendations and noted that the best way to manage the HLW program was to consolidate these activities in NMSS. The decision to consolidate HLW activities in NMSS was approved by the EDO and the Commission was informed (Memoranda dated 2/28/96 and 4/9/96). In the EDO's memorandum to the Commiss!on (dated 2/28/96)it was noted that NRC could no longer afford the costs of running the HLW program

, between the two offices and still maintain a minimum acceptable level of tc,chnical expertise within the Commission and the CNWRA.

As a result of the decision to consolidated HLW activities in NMSS, all activities were grouped by the 10 key technicalissues (KTis) most important to repository performance at the Yucca Mountain site. Within each KTl, the activities were prioritized and resource limits set consistent with the reduced budget. This resulted in a list of funded and j unfunded research and technical assistance activities. Of the eleven research projects, selected tasks from four high priorit/ projects could be supported -- three at the CNWRA and one at the University of Arizona. This work was funded as technical assistance specific for the Yucca Mountain site and was managed under the existing KTl structure, that is: 1) igneous activity KTl probability and consequence studies; 2) near field environment KTl effects of engineered components on near field water chemistry; 3) l container life KTI long term corrosion testing; and 4) radionuclide transport KTI-altemative conceptual models of transport. Subsequently, in FY 1997, CNWRA support for l

work in two of the KTis, container life and radionuclide transport, was eliminated as a result of continued reduced funding for the repository program. Work at the University of l Arizona has been phased out. However, the long term corrosion testing was continued in order to build on the years of data already collected. The end result of these budget reductions on research activities at the CNWRA was a reduction of approximately 90-95%

in funds allocated for these activities and the refocusing of the remaining activities to site-specific applications. Further, project management of these activities has been subsumed into the regular duties of program element managers and represents only a small fraction of their element responsibilities.

The activities identified on the accompanying pages represent a combination of the remnants of the previously described research activities and other DWM/HLW activities that may be considered research. Othe: activities such as work on models related to developing an implementing rule and work on conceptual models for thermohydrologic processes at Yucca Mountain were considered, but not documented in the accompanying pages because no significant work is expected to occur in FY98. Site specific activities that are potential candidates for startup in FY98 (e.g., review of DOE's basis for incorporating matrix diffusion into PA calculations) also are not included due to the uncertainty in the appropriations expected from the Nuclear Waste Fund in FY98.

6

Total System Performance Assessment Code Develcoment.

Joint NRC/CNWRA code enhancement effort has focused on having the licensing tools necessary to perform pre-licensing consultations, develop staff independent review capabilities, and evaluate an eventuallicense application from the Department of Energy, h FY97, TPA code development has proceeded through the testing and verification of the TPA 3.1 code. The code was completed and placed into configuration control on or about September b,1997, and is now being implemented in pre-licensing consultation activities related to confirming those issues related to a geologic repository that are most important to demonstrating compliance, in FY98, it is expected that TPA 3.1 code development would be largely limited to activities related to determining the contribution that individual components of the repository system make to the isolation of wastes.

Resources: FY98 Approx. $75K and 0.05 FTE FY99 Approx $75K and 0.05 FTE Disnosition and Rationale Not to be transferred because development (including most testing and verification) is essentially complete and offorts are now largely focused on the analysis of site characterization data, resolving potentiallicensing issues, and further developing DWM staff's licensing review capability by manipulation of the code. The TPA 3.1 code is being used to develop the staff's independen* understanding of the abstraction of site-specific processes in order to prepare a standard review plan and review DOE's test plans, data, and assessments. All efforts are focused on site specific work for the proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Consequently, this technical work provides the tools and understanding the staff will use in its licensing reviews of DOE's program and is not considered to be " confirmatory research." Finally, this disposition is consistent with the EDO's decision (EDO to Commission dated 2/28/96:

EDO to Commissioner Rogers dated 4/9/96) to consolidate HLW activities in NMSS.

Lono-Term Corrosion Studies Related to Waste Packaoe Dearadation Corrosion behavior of waste packages used for disposal of spent nuclear fuel over long time frames (> 1000 yrs) is uncertain. Long term corrosion experiments have been oi.;;oing at the CNWRA for a number of years. The goal of these experiments is to better define the behavior of various metals and alloys (including galvanic coupling) when exposed to Yucca Mountain site related conditions (e.g., J 13 water) for long periods of time.

Resources: FY98 - $100K and 0.05 FTE FY99 - $100K and 0.05 FTE Disoosition and Rationale Not to be transferred because of EDO's decision (EDO to Commission dated 7

2/28/96: EDO to Commissioner Rogers dated 4/9/96) to consolidate all HLW activities in NMSS so as to maintain a minimum acceptable level of technical expertise within the l Commission and the CNWRA. In addition, budget reductions the last two FYs have  !

resulted in most CNWRA work being focused on rosolving potentiallicensing issues 1 and developing staff review capability for the Yucca Mountain site. Although the work could be transferred to research because of the potential for work of this nature  ;

to be applied to generic issues related to the evaluation of the long term behavior of l I

various metals and alloys, activities directed towards generic applications would necessarily have to be funded out of non-Nuclear Waste Fund monies, j Volcanic Analoaue Studies to Define Conseauences of Volcanic Events  !

Volc6nic analogue studies are being conducted by the CNWRA to aid in determining the ,

eruption dynamics of a volcano that pot 3ntially could disrupt the geologic repository at Yucca Mountain in order to provide the technical basis for defining the consequences that would result from such a disruption. Scientists at the CNWRA are examining analogue sites (e.g. Mtive volcanos such as Cerro Negro, Nicaragua) to better define the characteristics of basaltic volcanic events including the energetics of the eruption and the distribution of ash after eruption. The results of thece analyses are being f actored into risk analyses and are being applied to ongoing HLW performance assessment activities. Further the results of these activities have been used in IAEA-funded activities and published in the peer-reviewed literature.

Resources: FY98 $40K and 0.05 FTE FY99 $40K and 0.05 FTE Disoosition and Rationale Not to be transferred because of EDO's decision (EDO to Commission dated 2/28/96: EDO to Commissioner Rogers dated 4/9/97) to consolidate all HLW activities in NMSS so as to maintain a minimum acceptable level of technical expertise within the Commission and the CNWRA. la addition, budget reductiorts the last two FYs have resulted in most CNWRA work being focused on resolving potentiallicensing issues and developing staff licensing review capability for the Yucca Mountain site. Although work is focused on understanding site-specific processes for Yucca Mountain, it could be applied to other, unrelated, nuclear siting activities. Therefore, the CNWRA work is extending the frontiers of understanding in volcanic risk assessment as applied to nuclear facilities. However, any activities directed towards applications other than Yucca Mountain would necessarily have to be funded out of non-Nuclear Waste Fund monies.

Studies of Structural Deformation in the Yucca Mountain Area to Define Consecuences of Faultino Events Studies of structural deformation (faulting and paleo-seismicity) ate being conducted by the CNWRA to develop an independent review capability to assist in risk analyses for seismic hazard and fault displacement hazard for the geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. These studies are designed to provide the technical basis for staff 8

comments on the adequacy of preclosure design of surface facilities at the repository and evaluations of the effects of faulting on repository performance during the postclosure. CNWRA efforts are focused on the evaluation of faulting and seismic events in the Yucca Mountain area. The results of these activities are published in peer reviewed literature.

Resources: FY98: Approx. $100K and 0.05 FTE FY99: Approx. $100K and 0.05 FTE Disoosition and Rationale Not to be transferred because of EDO's decision (EDO to Commission dated 2/28/96; EDO to Commissioner Rogers dated 4/9/96) to consolidate all HLW activities in NMSS so as to maintain a minimum acceptable level of technical expertise within the Commission and the CNWRA. Further, although some innovative approaches are being applied, all activities are oirected at the study of the Yucca Mountain area and, as a result, are site-specific and focused on developing an independent licensing review capability. CNWRA activities in this area are not extending the frontiers of understanding of deformation in the Yucca Mountain area, but applying known techniques to assist in understanding site-specific processes in order to prepare a standard review plan and to review DOE's test plans, data, and assessments. Finally, because of progress made in the analysis of this key technicalissue, FY98 expenditures for this task are being reevaluated as part of the FY98 reprioritization of HLW activities based on the results of planned sensitivity studies.

Develooment of a Database on the Effects of Low Doses of ionizino Radiation and its Acolication for Assessino Radiation Hormesis as a Biolooical Hvoothesis The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other relevant Federal agencies are -

participating in the organization and conduct of workshops designed to assess hormesis as a biological hypothesis, and its potential societal and scientific significance. In addition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, these Federal agencies include the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Department of Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-

Office of Research and Development, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - National Center for Toxicologic Research, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Research, and U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The workshops would be conducted as a Biological Effects of Low Level Exposures (BELLE)- related activity, administered at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, under the direction of Edward J. Calabrese, Professor of Toxicology.

These workshops would be supported by the development and completion of a relational retrievsl data base on chemical (University of Texas A#d ., and radiation hormesis (Nuclear Regulatory Commission). A workshop advisory committee will be assembled from representatives of DOD, EPA, NIEHS, FDA, ATSDR, DOE and CPSC.

The committee will provide the Principal Investigator, Professor Calabrese, with direction on the series of workshops with respect to selection of topics and speakers -

9

and on the integration of information into the workshops from a companion project dealing with the development of a radiation hormesis data base. Total costs of the workshops are:

Resources: FY98 $ 0 and 0.05 FTE FY99 - $66K and 0.05 FTE (Unbudgeted)

Note: Total NRC contribution $181K NRC (Radiation Hormesis Data Base), $334K by Other Agencies (Organization and Conduct of Workshops)

Discosition and Rationale To be transferred, collection, evaluation, and analysis of the relational retrieval data base will be completed in FY99, and integrated into the workshops, FY99 funds have not been allocated; therefore, RES will evaluate the appropriateness of transferring funds from other sources to provide the identified FY(( funding.

Inchnical Assistance for Reviewina License Submittals Concernino Decommission!na -

Task Order 04. Modelina of Leach Processes at Decommissionina Sites CNWRA will evaluate and compare the capabilities of f ate and transport codes currently used in site decommissioning performance assessment with possible application to SDMP sites. With mineralogic characterization information supplied by RES and in cooperation with RES, CNWRA willidentify possible constraints on input parameter values and identify limitations on general applications, in conjunction with RES, CNWRA will use SDMP leaching information from RES studies to provide constraints on source term parameters for fate and transport calculations.

Geochemical modeling (E03/6) at CNWRA may be used to evaluate the effects of leaching the waste under conditions anticipated rt the SDMP sites.

Resources: FY98 - $0 and 0 FTE FY99 $0 and 0 FTE Discosition and Rationale Not to be transferred. Work is underway and fully funded. Transfer of work would be disruptive and not cost offective.

Billet Dron Test This project is largely completed using FY 97 funds, which are largely spent. The draft final report is scheduled to be submitted to NRC on 10/15/97. No follow on work is planned or budgeted.

Resources: FY98 - $0 and 0 FTE Resources: FY99 - $0 and O FTE 10

Dianosition and Rationale -

' Not to be transferred to RES_because the work is'largely complete. -

Diffusivity of Zinc -l This is a ' scoping study to be performed at NIST to determine if further research is. ,

4 needed in this area by NRC. The scoping study is being funded using FY97 funds, but the work willlargely be done in FY98. If the results of the scoping study identify further technical studies that are needed, SFPO agrees that follow on work should be 4

- conducted by RES. -

4 Resources: FY 98 60 and 0.05 FTE 4

FY 99 - $0 and 0 FTE i Discosition and Rationale -

To be transferred since further technical studies if needed, should be conducted by RES.  ;

4 i

NMSS' identified and Transferrod Research Resources FY 1998 FY 1999 .

Identified Teansferred identified Transferred

$ in K FTE $in K FTE $ in K FTE $ in K FTE 1

l 315 0.3 0 0.1 381 0.25 0 0 i'

1

'1..

4

11

n. - -. _ , _ . . . . . .

_u .u _ .. =

OFFICE OF ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA Common Cause Failure (CCF) Database The CCF database consists of events from LERs and NPRDS that are evaluated for their common cause potential and listed in a retrievable format. It also includes the calculational tools to evaluate the operating experience data in order to quantify CCF parameters suitable for use in reliability and risk assessments. This project grew out of methods developed by RES to analyze data for estimating CCF parameters for reliability and risk assessments.

Resources: FY98 $300K and 1 FTE FY99: $300K and 1 FTE Disoosition and Rationalg Not to be transferred, because developrnent is now complete and future work will involve only collection, evaluation and analysis of the data. The future effort is an integral part of the AEOD work to apply risk-based techniques to the analysis of operating experience.

Loss of Offsite Power Database The loss of offsite power database consists of events relating to losses of power along with plant information relating to the design of the offsite power system in a ,

retrievable format suitable for analyzing the frequency and duration of LOSP events.

Resources: FY98 & FY99 -included in CCF values above Discosition and Rationale Not to be transferred because this effort is an application of pretiously existing methods to analyze the operational experience relating to loss of offsite power events at nuclear power plants. The activity updates the data and estimates of the frequency and duration of loss of offsite power events in a manner suitable for reliability and risk assessment quantification as well as providing insights into the engineering and operator performance aspects of the events.

Performance Trend Plots (SMM suonort)

The performance trend plots and supporting analyses are to be used as inputs for the SMM screening meetings to aid in deciding which plants should be discussed at the SMM. The plots represent the integration of performance data readily available from the PI program and other sources. They show the combined plant performance with respect to these inputs over time and with respect to the industry averages.

Development of performance trend plots to support the SMM process is an expansion and enhancement of the methodology proposed by Arthur Andersen in their report on

. the SMM process.

12

_...--a a. a1 -- -__ " __-_---.___a-----a------.---__m_ -

---

- - , - .-__- - w_ ---

Resources: FY98 $330K and 2 FTE FY99 - $330K and 2 FTE-Discosition and Rationale Not to be transferred because this activity does not require development of new methods or technology, instead it uses readily accessible data sources and statistical t tools to analyze the operating performance of plants.

Risk Based Performance Indicators This activity is intended to replace the current Pls with those that would have a more direct connection to public risk. Examples would include substituting risk important initiating event frequencies and their trends for scram rates and trends, and using system and component reliabilities and trends instead of counts of safety system failures, etc. This effort is based on evaluations of actual plant operating experience.

Resources

FY98 - $450K and 1.25 FTE FY99 - $100K and 2.5 FTE Disoosition and Rationale Not to be transferred because this activity will not involve new technology or new methods but will use existing analytical techniques such as those being applied in the analysis of system reliabilities and initiating events.

Human performance Database Analysis This activity includes data entry into a human performance database and analysis and evaluation of the database to feed back lessons of operating experience. This activity extracts information from detailed event investigations into a database previously established by an interoffice task force.

Resources: FY98 - $75K and 1 FTE FY99 - $ 0 and 0.5 FTE Disoosition and Rationale Not to be transferred because this activity does not require new methods or technology development. Analysis and evaluation of operating experience including

- human performance is an integral part of AEOD's efforts to extract the lessons of operating experience snd feed back the findings.

+

13

1 e

AEOD Identified and Transferred Research Resources FY 1998 FY 1999 Identified Transferred identified Transferred

$ in K FTE

• in K FTE - $ in K FTE $ in K FTE

-11E5 5.25 0 0 '730 6.0 0 0 14 l.

l 9 l l

I l

Summary of I Identified and Transferred Research Resources FY 1998 FY 1999 Identified Transferred identified Transferred Office

$in K FTE $ in K FTE $ in K FTE $ in K FTE NRR 500 3.2 220 0.4 180 1,63 120 0.1 NMSS 315 0.3 0 0.1 381 0.25 0 0 AEOD 1155 5.25 0 0 730 6.0 0 0 15

9 ATTACHMENT 6 IMPLEMENTATION STEPS FOR TRANSFER OF RULEMAKING AND RESEARCH RESPONSIBILITIES AND RESOURCES

e l

IMPLEMENTATION STEPS

• Identify candidate staff associated with transferre $ functions (for examole, rulemaking and supporting regulatory guides). Refine FTE allocation to current office and other program offices.

• Determine specific staff to be transferred (an individual's activity may support more than one pregram office or be divided betweba trar,sferred and retained activities within an office) and develop new organizational structure (for example, a new branch or branches)

• Undertake appropriate discussions with the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU)

• ADM performs functional transfer

• Present proposed arrangements for relocation of staff to office LMPCs a

Reach agreement with LMPCs on arraagements for relocation

• Effect relocation of staff a

i

_ _ _ - - _ ___-_____