ML20236Y493

Provides Commission W/Prioritized List of Intl Cooperative Research Activities

ML20236Y493
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/28/1998
From:	Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
References
SECY-98-182, SECY-98-182-01, SECY-98-182-1, SECY-98-182-R, NUDOCS 9808120258
Download: ML20236Y493 (30)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:2eooooooooooooooooooooo. RELEASEDTOTHE PDR fa%y r h 5 T/h/W 00 5 1 em ms t / POLICY ISSUE h (Information) July 28.1998 SECY-98-182 EQB: The Commissioners FROM L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

PRIORITIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE RESEARCH ACTIVITIES i PURPOSE: To provide the Commission with a prioritized list of intemational cooperative research activities. BACKGROUND: COMSECY-96-066 (Attachment 1) directed that "the staff should continue to support active participation in International Safety Programs (option 7). The staff should ensure that these international activities and the related programs are prioritized and appropriately integrated with other NRC research efforts (option 4), and also are properly considered in the establishment and maintenance of core research capabilities (option 5)." SECY-98-076 (Attachment 2) gave consideration to and included international cooperative research activities in its various core capability assessments. It also explained that rather than prioritizing its intemational cooperative research activities as part of its core capability assessment as originally planned, RES would perform this prioritization during the FY 2000 budget development process and provide it to the Commission after the CFO budget recommendations were forwarded to the Commission. m

Contact:

/ Lloyd J. Donnelly, RES / (301) 415-5828 I' g6\\k $6-{ pt - S x 9008120258 900728 h ~ PD't SECY 98-182 R PDR

2 DISCUSSION: The staff has prioritized its current active international cooperative research activities (Attachment 3). It did not prioritize cooperative efforts that are under development because there is not currently enough information to apply the criteria. The staff used the criteria and weighting scheme as shown in Attachment 4. The weights assigned to each criterion reflect the staff's view of the relative significance of each criterion to the overall priority. These criteria were derived largely from the metrics for Criterion No.11 and Criterion No.12 contained in to SECY-97-075 (Attochment 5). Although these criteria do not include a direct consideration of quantitative risk estimates, staff plans an office wide prioritization of RES activities for the FY 2001 budget which will include a more quantitative consideration of risk. The staff believes that this prioritization is consistent with the prioritization of research activities performed during the development of the RES budget and reflects the relative importance of these activities. The agreements prioritized in Attachment 3 support various work activities in the RES budget including some high priority user need requests. The prioritized list at Attachment 3 shows the point score for each activity and also a group number. When prioritizing those activities, they fell into three basic groups as described below. These descriptions accurately characterize most of the activities in each group, but there are some exceptions. Highest Priority - Group A (22-28 points): These activities are focused on a current safety or regulatory issue or are providing immediately useful safety / risk information, are being performed at one-of-a-kind facilities / locations, are needed to maintain a core capability and are being obtained through leveraged funding arrangements such that the net cost to the NRC is a small fraction of the total project cost. Second Highest Priority - Group B (17-18 points): These activities are providing immediately useful safety / risk information, are being performed at one-of-a-kind facilities / locations, are not needed to maintain a core capability and are being obtained through leveraged funding arrangements such that the net cost to the NRC is a small fraction of the total project cost. Third Highest Priority - Group C (13-15 points): These activities are providing immediately useful safety / risk information, are not one-of-a kind (i.e., the work could be perf m,d elsewhere albeit at greater cost to the NRC), are not needed to maintain a core capability and are being obtained through leveraged funding arrangements such that the net cost to the NRC is a small fraction of the total project cost. In summary, cooperative programs that are focused on a current safety or regulatory issue in a highly unique facility (e.g., high burn up fuel experiments in the CABRI test reactor) received the highest priority ratings. Those receiving lower scores also provide valuable technical information and at comparatively low cost to the NRC. Where necessary, funding for NRC's contribution to these programs is in the current RES budget request for FY 1999/2000. All these programs should be retained because of their cost-effective contribution to NRC's research program. l lE

3 COORDINATION: This paper has been coordinated with the Office of the General Counsel which has no legal objection. The Office of Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this Commission Paper and has no objections. L. o eph Callan Exe4)ive Director for Operations Attachments-J 1 COMSECY-96-066 j

2. SECY 98-076 (w/o attachments)

3. Prioritized Listing

4. Prioritization Criteria

' 5. Attachment 5 to SECY-97-075 DISTRIBUTION: Commissioners j OGC l OCAA OIG I OPA OCA l l CIO l CFO EDO SECY 1 l (E-____---____---__----------.-_-- l

\\o*;, UNITED STATES / NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y* WA SHIN GTON, D.C. 20555 0001 g g e %,,,,, M March 28, 1997 SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operatia's Secretaryh JhW' FROM: John C. Hoyle, STAFF REQUIREMENTS - COMSECY-96-066 -

SUBJECT:

RESEARCH (DSI 22) which should The staff should continue with the research program, include elements of both confirmatory and exploratory research balanced in such a way that both current as well as (option 4), The research potentially emerging issues are being addressed. program should focus on programs with the highest safety and regulatory significance, coupled with the maintenance of the This option permits response to necessary technical capability.as well as anticipation of future needs. The . programmatic needs, term " exploratory research" which is used to describe that part that addresses anticipated needs of the of the research effort Program Offices should be changed to " anticipatory research." In order to develop the scope of these technical capabilities the Office of Research should develop criteria for determining core research capabilities for Commission approval prior to going the Commission also approves option 5 in forward. Therefore, RES should develop a set of core conjunction with option 4. research capabilities for the NRC in consultation with the.other program offices. (SECY Suspense: 6/1/97) (EDO) it is essential In addition to the core research capabilities, as a knowledge-based organization, monitor the that the NRC, overall technical capabilities of its staff to ensure that the The staff should necessary core capabilities are maintained. recommend the appropriate office within the agency and provide J To assist top the estimated resources to perform this function. the selected office should create and maintain agency management, contains an inventory of the an agency-wide database that technical core capabilities of the NRC staff. (SECY Suspense: 6/1/97) (EDO) The Commission supports increasing the percentage of the research executed by universities, but wants to consider additional budget approaches to working with universities besides the current f Educational Grant Program. Such approaches might enhance l l

.- to the Commission an implementation plan, with possible options for carrying out this decision, including the necessary partnership activities. (E_O) -(SECY Suspense: 8/1/97) In conjunction with its development of an implementation plan, the staff should consider the creation of a Research Effectiveness Review Board. This board would be composed of representatives of the Program Offices and the Research Office. Its purpose would be to advise the Director of Research and the Directors of the Program Offices on the effectiveness of the research programs in meeting the needs of the users and on the effectiveness of the program offices in supporting and in articulating their needs and priorities to the research offices. The Board would periodically review the bases for initiating, continuing, and terminating specific research programs giving particular attention to the effectiveness of broad based long range programs and the capabilities of the staff to address core research needs. The usefulness and advisability of its -continuation should be examined by the Commission every three years. (EDO) (SECY Suspense: 8/1/97) Finally, the high-level staff task force (set up under DSI-2) should also identify the impact on research needs of NRC oversight of Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities, and advise the Commission on the resource implications of those impacts.

Attachment:

As stated cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan CIO CFO l OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP l l E. Jordan (SARSC) J. Silber (SARSC)

1. o uauq#

UNITED STATES f p" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION { WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 0001 e March 28, 1997 srcarTany MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operatic s k FROM: John C. Hoyle, Secretary

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - COMSECY-96-066 - RESEARCH (DSI 22) The staff should continue with the research program, which should include elements of both confirmatory and exploratory research (option 4), balanced in such a way that both curren:: as well.as The research potentially emerging issues are being addressed. safety and program should_ focus on programs with the highest regulatory significance, coupled with the maintenance of the necessary technical capability. This option permits response to as well as anticipation of future needs. The programmatic needs, term " exploratory research" which is used to describe that part of the research effort that addresses anticipated needs of the Program Offices should be changed to " anticipatory.research." l In order to develop the scope of these technical capabilities the Office of Research should develop criteria for determining core research capabilities for Commission approval prior to going ~ forward. Therefore, the Commission also approves option 5 in RES should develop a set of core conjunction with option 4. research capabilities for the NRC in consultation with the.other program offices. (SECY Suspense: 6/1/97) (EDO) it is essential In addition to the core research capabilities, as a knowledge-based organization, monitor the that the NRC, overall technical capabilities of its staff to ensure that the The staff should necessary core capabilities are maintained. recommend the appropriate office within the agency and provide To assist top the estimated resources to perform this function. the selected office should create and maintain agency management, an agency-wide database that contains an inventory of the L technical core capabilities of the NRC staff. l (SECY Suspense: 6/1/97) l (EDO) The commission supports increasing the percentage of the research executed by universities, but wants to consider additional budget approaches to working with universities besides the current Educational Grant Program. Such approaches might enhance

. ide achievement of the goals of the NRC research program and provIn keeping w l additional benefits useful to the NRC. RES should designation as a Procurement Reinvention Laboratory, coord (e.g., ways to engage universities in NRC's research programcontracts and purchase through use of cooperative agreements,of research consortia or or through establishment Grants would be utilized where

orders, institutes in areas such as PRA).

they are the most appropriate mechanism for achieving a purposeThe of the research program. The staff should per year. award grants of up to $100,000 including an appropriate higher goal for develop this approach, directly by universities, the percentage of research carried out and submit it for commi'ssion consideration. 6/1/97) (SECY Suspense: (EDO) active participation in The staff should continue to support International Safety Programs (option 7). The staff should ensure that these international activities and the related programs are prioritized and appropriately integrated with otherand also NRC research efforts (option 4), in the (establishment and maintenance of core researchAll (option 5). evaluated by the Office of Research for effectiveness, program of capabilities work, structure and budget, accomplishment of stated objectives and should include a sunset provision. The programmatic review should be coordinated with the Research Effectiveness Review Board or Executive Council, as appropriate. The staff should explore the option of performing cooperative and the DOE, so as to minimize research with both industry, Legal ramifications, duplicative work - where appropriate.and public perception should be consi independence, The staff should exploring any cooperative research program.also examine the feasibility information during the early phases of the work. 10/1/97) (SECY Suspense: (EDO/OGC) There are many key questions raised in the research DSI paper - , and 18 of the DSI dated note in particular pages 13, 14 - that require September 16, 1996 (pages attached and marked) but whose answers will have a strong much thought to resolve, bearing on how the agency will operate in the future. should include development of an Implementation of Option 4 integrated set of recommendations to be provi consideration. (SECY Suspense: 8/1/97) (EDO) the preparation and coordination The Commission has decided that and of rulemaking should move from RES to the Program Offices, confirmatory research activities now in the Program The staff should develop and submit that most Offices should move to RES.

l l ! to the Commission an implementation plan, with possible options for carrying out this decision, including the necessary partnership activities. (E 0) (SECY Suspense: 8/1/97) In conjunction with its development of an implementation plan, the staff should consider the creation of a Research Effectiveness Review Board. This board would be composed of representatives of the Program Offices and the Research Office. Its purpose would be to advise the Director of Research and the Directors of the Program Offices on the effectiveness of the research programs in meeting the needs of the users and on the effectiveness of the program offices in supporting and in articulating their needs and priorities to the research offices. The Board would periodically review the bases for initiating, continuing, and terminating. specific research programs giving particular attention to the effectiveness of broad based long range programs and the capabilities of the staff to address core The usefulness and advisability of its research needs. continuation should be examined by the Commission every three years. (SECY Suspense: 8/1/97) (EDO) Finally, the high-level staff tack force (set up under DSI-2) should also identify the impact on research needs of NRC nuclear facilities, and oversight of Department of Energy (DOE) advise the Commission on the resource implications of those impacts. I

Attachment:

As stated cc: Chairman Jackson l~ Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner'Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan. CIO CFO OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP E. Jordan (SARSC) J. Silber (SARSC)

/ 4 RESEARCH DSI 22 In late 1993, Commissioner Rogers presented a paper that had as its central theme the importance of NRC's knowledge base to its success as a regulatory In this paper he stated, "The quality of NRC's decisionmaking is identify relevant agency. ultimately dependent upon the agency's ability to: technica1' knowledge needed for its regulatory decisionmaking; gain access to that knowledge; and, transfer that knowledge readily into its regulatory This paper also suggested how the NRC might reorganize to be more Although, reorganizations are practice." effective in managing this knowledge base. beyond this phase of the NRC strategic assessment initia These principles are the following: (1) the NRC options presented here. knowledge base requires continuing maintenance and e These two principles staff are the key to maintaining the NRC knowledge base. are addressed with the consequences under each option. Organizational questions must ultimately be addressed, however, as the agency looks at how the research program might be implemented mo establish a framework within which effectiveness and ef ficiency initiatives effectively. can be properly evaluated. A key factor affecting effectiveness and efficiency is the role of the For example, research office compared with the role of the program offices. the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) is often asked to assist the program offices in the review of issues to support specific regulatoryThe decisions (technical assistance). On the other hand, should efforts should be performed by the program offices. certain analyses performed by the program offices, such as thermal analysis, be performed only by RES? Should that continue, or should all rulemakings be assigned to RES, even though all rulemakings do not involve research, or. should all rulema by RES. go, What RE5 functions, if any, could be be assigned to the program offices? Should the performed more efficiently and effectively by the program offices? overlap in some technical disciplines (e.g., thermal-hy exist between RES and the program offices to provi critical mass as a result of decreased resoufces? RES compared with that of program offices in stay Budget reductions have been so severe that all HLW research Even though activities in RES are under consideration for transfer to NMSS. concepts? such a decision would permit economics, is it possible that research issu will be explored in a more limited way because of licensing concerns or l This example raises a broader question for the entire researchCo pressures? program if it were to be decentralized. 051 22 RELEASE DATE: SEPIEMBER 16, 1996 13

.-.......-.m a \\ \\ \\, l DSI 22 RESEARCH l l research talent, and would research of a broader / exploratory nature be pursued with the research program components embedded in licensing organizations? If not, would that fundamentally impact the ability of the NRC to fulfill its health and safety mission given where the regulatory programs are today? Would the research budget be smaller and more efficient if managed by the licensing organizations? Would the absence of an independent research office P result in lower quality research, absent a healthy technical debate between RES and licensing organizations over research applications and approaches? All these questions and others will need to be carefully considered in the next phase of the strategic assessment. C. External Factors i Several external factors significantly affect NRC's research program. External organizations that have an impact on NRC's research program are the nuclear industry, DOE, universities, international programs, Congress, and the public. 1. Nuclear Industry Past research has provided an understanding and resolution of many of the important safety issues related to the design and operation of reactors. Nevertheless, operational events, both domestically and internationally, including the possibility o.f 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 'agin'g effects) will raise new issues. Financial pressures on industry are also likely to have a number of effects, including an increased desire to use risk-informed, performance-based approaches to meet safety requirements and the use of higher burn-up fuels. These same pressures.will also lead.to reductions in budgets for industry-sponsored research organi stions such as the Electric Power Research Institute. The development of new reactor _ designs could increase the need for additional research,;although,.'at.this time, no new designs are expected in the foreseeable future. Finally, because NRC's budget is recovered oy licensee fees, there is likely to be increased pressure on the NRC to reduce its budget as a means of reducing licensing fees. 2. Department of Energy, Including the National Laboratories As DOE's budget is reduced, its support of advanced reactor concepts is being reduced, which will reduce the need for NRC research directed at understanding these new designs. In addition, as a result of budget reductions Government wide, research activities at the national laboratories are being reduced. Inis is resulting in a loss of capabilities and limiting the expertise available to the NRC. Further, as non-NRC research activities are reduced, RELEASE DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 la 051 22

) i i l DSI 22 RESEARCH address some of the unique thermal-hydraulic issues associated with these passive designs. However, work on the passive design is now coming to an end, and the NRC must again determine the type and scope of technical capability that need to be maintained to address both ongoing as well as emerging safety issues related to thermal-hydraulic phenomena. This is also true in varying degrees for other areas of ongoing research (e.g., reactor component materials, severe accidents, earth sciences, PRA, health physics, human factors, and instrumentation and control). Because of such factors as the aging of nuclear power plants and the introduction of new technologies, certain program elements should remain strong; in other program elements, major work is being completed in the next year or so. Therefore, the key question that the NRC needs to address for all of its research programs is in i what specific areas and of what scope does the NRC need to maintain '.echnical capability to address ongoing as well as emerging issues. Each area of technical expertise could be maintained: (1) in house (NRC staff); (2) through the support of contractors at national laboratories, universities, or other appropriate organizations; or (3) by a combination of both in-house and contractor support. This subsumed issue can be considered a DSI itself, since it encompasses the scope of the research program and to a large extent its role. Among the 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 area? Which of the analytical activities currently /# performed in contractor organizations can and should be performed in house? Which lower priority research programs should be discontinued, to be initiated again only if a specific need arises? Is this feasible? t,at types and depths of expertise would the NRC need to ensure the availability of a critical mix _of skills not only to address ongoing issues, but also to respond to problems that may arise in the future? Examples of criteria that can be used to develop a core program are listed in Section IV under Option 5. It is anticipated that final criteria would be developed for approval by the Commission. After the Comission approved these criteria, RES would develop a well-defined set of core capabilities. 2. How could NRC's established leadership in safety research domestically and in such organizations as NEA and IAEA be maintained? This issue is subsumed because NRC's established leadership in safety research is interwoven with and dependent on the role and scope of the overall l research program. NRC's leadership position could be affected by the elimination, downsizing, or restructuring of its research program. As l discussed previously, international interest in NRC's research results gives NRC the leverage to participate in many cooperative research programs overseas i and to obtain international support for its own research programs. { , RELEASE DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 18 DSI 22 i-

w 1 s g o b N L., t. .. s. !..1l1 W sf :' ,, ~ f POLICY ISSUE (Notation Vote) Aoni9.1998 SECY-98-076 EQB: The Commissioners l EEQM: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

CORE RESEARCH CAPABILITIES PURPOSE: To provide the Commission with the results of the expertise driven part of the core capability assessments perfont.ed by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), to obtain the Commission's app aval of these assessments and to seek Commission endorsement of staffs plans for related follow-on activities. BACKGROUND: On April 2,1997, SECY-97-075 (Attachment 1) was sent to the Commission requesting approval of a proposed methodology and enteria for evaluating core capabilities in RES. Attachment 2 is the June 6,1997, Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) which approved the proposal in SECY-97-075 and asked the staff to: 1. ensure that the areas of research identified for assessment include those areas that are essential for the support of current and foreseeable future regulatory activities. 2. in addition to the inputs provided from other NRC user offices, also consider areas of research suggested by the industry;

Contact:

!wIE: TO EE MADE PUBLICLY AV/.:LABLE i L!cya J. Donnelly RES

• M' Ti:E FI: r - ' :G : S MADE AA : LAbLE l

l (301)415 5829 l __._______.______.______________________m

4 The Commissioners 2 3. make it much more clear as to how the recommended rescurce ! eve!s for each core research area were determined when documenting the core capabilities assessments; 4. analyze the core technical capabilities residing in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD), and Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and incorporate the results into the overall scope of activities and integrate the results with the core research capabilities analysis; 5. review the level of resources being applied to research activities that are in a " sunset" state; and, 6. review the weightir.g of criteria for Support Aree' 5 and 6. [RES identified 6 regulatory functions in SECY-97-075 where sur, yt from a core capability might be needed. Area 5 addressed cooperative research and Area 6 addressed responses to oversight groups.] DISCUSSION: The staff's response to these SRM items is as follows: 1. The staff should ensure tha,t the areas of research identified for assessment include those areas that are essential for the support of current and foreseeable future regulatory activities. Through its own examination and through its coordination with both intemal and extemal organizations (as discussed in SECY-97-075-see page 3, Coordination with Others), RES believes it has identified all research areas that are essential for the support of current and foreseeable future regulatory activities. Additionally, RES will soon initiate an effort to explore potential areas of future research with NRC offices and with extemal stakeholder such as industry and intemational organizations. Core capabilities could be impacted if these exchanges define new regulatory needs that require the application of research expertise that does not exist within the currently identified core capabilities. Finally, as noted in SECY-97-075, staff did not go beyond the bounds of current planning assumptions, e.g., the staff did not consider core capabilities that might be needed to support the regulation cf Department of Energy (DOE) facilities or the preparation for a mixed oxide fuel application. Significant changes to the RES mission could create the need to add or delete core capabihties. 2. In addition to the inputs provided from other NRC user offices the staff should also consicer atest of researc". sugps;ec byinc incus;rv NP.C urer c'f;ce ir,cu: was c::ainec inrcugn inE;r coc:c'na'x cn inis peper P l this regard, user c'fices were net asked ic cencur en scecif:c skills and resource eve:s ter the ccre escatWii ts. Tre r ccr.;urrence v.75 tasta cn agreemer.: tr.a

The Commissioners the list of 29 areas (Attachment di is correct and that the justification for each of the 29 areas is consistent with their views. On March 25,1997, the staff met with severalindustry representatives to discuss opportunities for collaborative research and to obtain their comments on the areas of research the staff had tentatively identified as possible core capabilities. Given that only two areas were l added since that time, additional industry input has not been sought. Following L the March 25 meeting, Dr. Andrew Kadak, President of Yankee Atomic Electric j Company, sent a letter to Dr. David Morrison summarizing industry's views on the meeting topics (Attachment 3). In that letter, he concluded that there was I general consensus with the basic competencies (the proposed core research areas) required for NRC to be an effective regulator. Under the recently signed Memorandum of Understanding on cooperative research, RES continues to be in contact with the Electric Power Research Institute through discussions related to the coordination and exploration of cooperative research programs that are of l. mutual benefit. No new areas for research have been identified as a result of l these discussions. 3. The staff should make it much more clear as to how the recommended resource levels for each core research area were determined when documenting the core capabilities assessments. The staff has provided, following each resource table, a discussion of the bases for the expertise driven part of the core capability resources that is more detailed i l than the narrative included in the examples contained in SECY-97-075. More specifically, the need for FTEs for both in-house staff and for contractor staff have, in most cases, been described for individual or fractional FTEs. 4. The staff should analyze the core technical capabilities residing in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD), and Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and incorporate the results into the overall scope of activities and integrate the results with the core research capabilities analysis. SECY-98-037, forwarded to the Commission on March 4,1998, describes the i steps to be taken to perform core capability assessments throughout the agency. l During this process, the PES core capability assessment results will be integrated into the agency-wide effort. This will include initiating an assessment of the availability of skills relative to the core capability requirements identified in tNs paper and developing s:ra:egies to resolve any skill short falls or overages. It it also anticipated that the research core capabilities may be updated and revised i as the agency-wide ccre capacibuec are updated. With respect to the croader effort. the RES core capabikty assessment methodology is rot intended tc be a prototype fcr ascesse.; c" at cti:et For example. the REE fccus cn sus c highly sce:elTed tec n: af encue rev nct be senlicable 'cr term CW rr r cf tne agency i l 1 w______-__---__-_____________.

J The Commissioners 5. The staff should review the level of resources beinc aconec to research activities that are in a ' sunset" state. As discussed in SECY-97-075, core capabilities include consideration of both expertise driven and workload driven resource levels. RES has examined and identified " expertise driven" core capabihties for all areas of research that it believes need a core capability to be maintained. Any area of research with a current budget that is at or below the expertise driven resource level is considered to be sunset as explained on page 8 of SECY-97-075. In other words, the level of resources is driven by the need to maintain expertise, not the need to satisfy regulatory requirements. Nevertheless. resources at the expertise level can and do satisfy regulatofy requirements, but the level of resources is not driven by the requirements. Therefore, all activities in a sunset state have been reviewed, along with those that are not yet sunset. There are currently 10 core capabilities that are sunset. These are identified in Attachment 4. 6. The staff should review the weighting of criteria fer Support Areas 5 and 6. [RES identified 6 regulatory functions in SECY-97-075 where support from a core capability might be needed. Area 5 addressed cooperative research and Area 6 addressed responses to oversight groups.) RES has reviewed Support Areas 5 and 6 in response to the Commission's comment about the relative weight they might receive in making decisions about the need for core capabilities. RES developed the six Areas as a framework to help focus and make more objective its decisions on core capability needs. RES did not intend to use this framework quantitatively and, therefore, did not assign j weightings to these areas as a measure of their relative importance. Having said that, RES agrees that if Areas 5 and 6 were the only Areas where a core capability could make a contribution, there likely would not be a need for a core capability in that area of research. Following is a discussion of the material forwarded by this paper: Summarv of the Exoertise Driven Part of the RES Core Caoabihtv Assessment: SECY-97-075 identified 39 areas of research where core capabilities might be needed and stated that the number of areas could be adjusted during the process of conducting the assessments. This paper forwards core capability evaluations for 29 areas of research,. The original 39 areas of research were reduced to 27 as logical combinations were made during the assessment process. None of the onginal 39 areas was deleted. Additionally, as a result of reviewing the 27 areas, two new areas were added - Fire Protection I and Safety and Materials Cnticahty Safety. These 29 areas reoresent tne current collective l views of RES and NRC user offices. Earlier reviews by outside organizations did not identify any areas beyono tnese 29. Several areas of possibie researen were oeemed to not neec e core capab@.y. These are: matenal control and accounting, physical secunty, and environmental sciences (e g., biology, ecology). The staff beheves that if the expertise dnven

The Commissioners level of resources is maintained in the 29 identified areas. RES will have access to a full rance c' research expertise that can help respono to any unanticipated technical issues that may anse { This expertise is often shared between RES anc contractor organizations. In these instances. there may be opportunities to substitute in-house staff for contractor funding which may prove j useful during the budget process. This level of resources is a minimum capability that in most cases would need to be augmented to accomplish certain workloads. Without these minimum capabilities, significant time could be required to respond to issues or overly conservative regulatory decisions may have to be made. The results of the RES core capability assessments are contained in Attachment 5. The Commission should note that core expertise in the disciplines required for research to support licensing of the Department of Energy's high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, are resident within the NRC's Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses and NMSS. The need for this expertise is not addressed in this paper. 3 During the development of the core capabilities, it became apparent that there is an inextricable relationship between the availability of expertise / facilities and the pursuit of meaningful research. Researchers must be actively engaged in their field of expertise to keep their skills sharp, maintain their qualifications, and stay in contact with their peers. If NRC and its contractors are j not pursuing relatively stable programs involving challenging work, talented personnel are likely ) to leave. Another result is the loss of access to facilities and potential elimination of facilities due to lack of support. RES has built what it believes to be a minimum analytical and experimental effort into each core capability to provide reasonable assurance that both expertise and facilities can be retained. However, it should be recognized that, at the expertise level, there will be instances where only a single expert in a specific technical discipline will be available. In these situations, should the individual leave the NRC or one of its contractors, there could De a significant period of time before the necessary expertise could be reestatslished. Exoertise Driven Core Caoability Resources Versus FY 1998 Budoet. i is a summary showing expertise driven resources for each of the 29 core i capability areas. This resource summary compares these resources with the FY 1998 budget. To help relate the core capabilities to areas of the budget, a crosswalk between each core capability and the budget sub-activities they support is provided in Attachment 7. At the end of the resource summary, other budget activities are listed. The total resources in the FY 1998 budget column equals the current FY 1998 budget for RES. In order to provide a complete financial picture, Attachment 8 contains details on projects for which RES has recently requested more than 53.5M from prior year carryover funds. One can see from the resource tables that three conditions exist. When the budget and cc e resources are ecual or approximately ecuz!, '. inc: cates that the current buoget is s ufficie t ic sustain the core level of expertise and expenmental facilities in that capability. When tne budge'. is less than tne core. r. means that REE it nc., ccr ncned it respond i, t amely 1sth.c u some, but not all, issues that might anse in :nst ccsbilnv In these ins:ances. the e*fer: - w ( buoget shcrttail(if greaer tnan 5100K)is cescnDec n the !ast secticn ct Ine CErrative btMO IN I resource tables. These shortfalls will be exsmined curing tne uocomino budoet cycle relanve te

The Commissioners 6 other pnonties When the budget exceeds the core level. it means that today's workloads. dnven by user needs and/or anticipatory research, dictate the application of resources above the core level. Because the FY 1998 budget was selected as a basis of comparison, resource differences identified in the resource tables may or may not reflect the long term situation. It should be noted that there is significant ongoing work that would have to be terminated if RES was only funded at the expertise driven level. Some of the areas that are impacted are thermal hydraulic code development, PRA guidance development, fuel behavior experiments, digital instrumentation and control guidance and steam generator tube inspection and analysis. Each core capability assessment answerc 5 key questions. The answer to question #4 in each assessment describes the specific work that could not be done in each area. Differences Between the Assessments Provided in this Pacer and those Described in SECY QZ5: The material provided in this paper and future plans to deal with core capabilities differ in three ways from those desenbed in SECY-97-075. The first difference is related to " workload driven" core capabilities. SECY-97-075 described two types of core capabilities-

• expertise driven" and

" workload driven.' Excertise Driven: This is a resource that would: stay current with the state of art (new and evolving nuclear related technologies, new research and other related developments) and understand the safety and regulatory significance of this work; provide a level of expertice and interaction such that there is ready access to experts worldwide; understand and maintain NRC's technical knowledge base and analytical tools; provide a nucleus around which a larger capability could be built, if needed; provide an "on-call" resource to help respond to unanticipated technical issues; and, conduct or cooperate in joint research efforts of a limited nature needed to retain expertise or to have access to facilities. This rninimum capability is not based on workload. However, meaningful, challenging work is necessary to attract and retain high caliber expertise, both at the NRC and at contractor organizations. Core funding would also be needed to support work at critical or unique facilities, so those facilities are available when needed. Workload Driven: This is a resource to conduct research in response to recumng demands from the regulatory process, largely from user needs, but it could also include anticipatory research. The resource levelis determined based on past expenence and the staff's expectation of what would be continuing, relatively steady state workload demands for the foreseeable future. It is not based on temporary or peak workloads that l currently exist nor does it anticipate any in the foreseeable future. Peak or temporary work would be accomplished with above core resources provided as part of the RES budget. The functions described above under expertise dnven. will also be performed within a workload driven core capability. The core capabilities assessments in Attachment 5 are expemse onven. As RES started to assess workload driven core capabilities, it was recognized that resources to accomplish workload dnven requirements are ultimately determinec by tne annual budget process This

I Tne Commissioners 7 process starts with RES, in conjunction with other NRC program offices, developing its annual budget request based on an assessment of work that neecs to De accomphshed. This request is then reviewed by the Program Review Committee, the Executive Council, and the Commission within the context of agency wide priorities and fiscal constraints. The Office of Management and Budget and Congress subsequently influence the size and makeup of the agency's budget, which historically has altered the makeup of the RES budget. The staff does not believe that a separate workload based assessment, performed outside the budget process, would be meaningful and concludes that the annual budget for RES best portrays the agency's l position on,a resource level to support workload driven core capabilities. Notwithstanding this conclusion, there are currently new user needs and some anticipatory research projects that the FY 1998/1999 budget levels cannot support. These shortfalls will be evaluated and prioritized along with existing research programs for both F.Y 1999 and FY 2000 during the upcoming intemal budget review. it is likely that some work will either continue to be deferred or not be done at all due to existing fiscal constraints.' In this regard, RES recently requested more than $3.5M from prior year carryover funds to initiate work in several areas (Attachment 8). ( The second difference is that SECY-97-075 stated that after the Commission gave its preliminary approval to the core research capabilities, reviews by intemal oversight groups and extemal stakeholder would " closely follow." Although these reviews will still be performed, RES plans to first complete three related follow-on activities. These are: 1) the intemal budget review l for FY 2000,2) prioritization of research program components, and 3) the exploration of potential l future research programs. Because these activities could result in changes to the RES core l capabilities or the resource levels for core capabilities, staff recommends they should be i completed, and core capabihties updated as needed, before any further core capability reviews by stakeholder are solicited. Given the above, extemal stakeholder reviews would likely take place next fiscal year. The third difference involves prioritization of intemational cooperative research. SECY-97-075 stated that intemational cooperative research efforts would be prioritized during the core capability assessments. RES now proposes to perform this priontization as it priontizes its activities during the development and review of the FY 2000 budget. In doing so, senior management in RES, NRR, NMSS and AEOD will do a qualitative prioritization, which will be j followed by a more systematic prioritization effort at some future date. The intemational cooperative research prioritization will be provided to the Commission after the CFO budget recommendations are forwarded to the Commission.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Commtssion note the expertise enven core research capabilities provided in will be considered as part of the Agency-wide effcrt to perform core capabikty assessr ents as outhned in SECY-96-037

b The Commissioners COORDINATION: This paper has been coordinated with the Office of the General Counsel wnich has no legal objection. The Chief information Officer has no objections to this paper. The Office of Ch Financial Officer has reviewed this Commission Paper and has no objections. L.Jos eh allan Exec e Director for Operations Attachments: 1. SECY-97-075

2. SRM dtd. 6/6/97

3. Kadak Letter

4. List of 29 Core Research Areas

5. Core Capability Assessments

6. Resource Summary

7. Crosswalk - Core Areas to Budget Sub-activities

8. Mid-Year Request Commissioners' completed vote sheets / comments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by COB Monday, April 27, 1998.

Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Monday April 20, 1998, 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 OIG OPA OCA CIO CFO EDO REGIONS SECY

( eoies ue c o) r led n n uDcy b o mis l e o h a sr s c a r e a t g id t t pacu h i o e e n r en t nr o st hI aie ial ed sl vi t n cRl s a. - i r ma edi r ( t t t e a au nvs eg o wey a u adl p oel ge t sf eu lal gt ml et r ncm c ur t n o f iglao ene lan s nf o t d s i ct nf r n ye is oe ee o p. i t ar el d usf r rd yu gs cc. t a s e s r r yi n t lai t c oripc e cf u inet en r s s e eeu cer n n c r t d st ct o o ehi t e f a a s eai nlut Tt a t a c sgl a sb eret di t e i o s c d n er a n sd r t t l d c e asan n e eaiu ege les o vo o a f nh

n. u t

N a r ef r t d r I i n t r o. a ai g dl p c O d ebf s a eimi e/o w i s pd T lau at p c it o s s t r h d et A l yna n e syu eet n u ini mo r f n ptaB ol oJ a P vy f r t ai I oi I r t e M t r n y o t t f of n n aD gnc in la S R Reh a u r t s ic id nai r t g I S nt A ege R iv a e .b r it t B ht sb E C s e Tn d uu l' md o se est sir t r t s s er ed ct e n c r t T E ei C .t n E a oi d n r I imle eo mig A epc i mdi n eepau t V D paih t t r I r a u f dt r nv et r t r h J p n o u os h s oas r s h lod o nTf / f f f or o rk i C o u o T es t nf t CerPs p o r s pe inr an o e/ot C x v e of R n n ps .r r sa n i y ei pc s t io . e e yd nr rd iot A e e gao a Niol t r r b di n opa et n t cs e t nwo si H ler t l t n a ei un if pt ae i u l a r e e gr v ul lc s t sd t i u a om as sar oit eim i e C cs e R se lytepr e isDr nwnm t e meoTa s l c w it t ep let wufo e vl. e e I mi ap r gc v s e vle. on r e t e r A g g. r s b neu I dL oc f a nCo s r r u a ton n I Ca i hiEf iut E meyn s u S la o f p cd a t t io n ef MmSl a oxuPa pihl f f t t o h pd c a E ga ul cs it k t u n Ctet n c / eElcUas unei t md i r n e a v a r R imt u n d D'r o lama Re iot nNdi ur rCt ic g.i yen r r i e r ad ns u Nc e b cb o s r c. b a E nE e al bdi oi) n e aie inoPmr elt pnpu la it t t h id V .r dS h h c d ult v f ep c osio e r igoaot lo r e eT ga cut x I ur s o e T r P pP Hlolplou C ph r J aNIno Emrb pu f t A R E sr P d e ah O o o o t f L O 2 t e1 s C e m m T L er o g A s t r n t xf N n Es iv e r n o O n eo P r o di I T E p na c t A M m )y Uiz imt N A o n n y a ie t s R N Cin g e u it E le gr Sm r o n T em e ni t N Sm In ot t 1 a 2 o n f t s n I oC n u o o nn el iC ) t E m p )s a e) ioa ) r ap I C N e nNe o eN t t uo R N RA ir iaAt b r A t la cP r B A RP Pn la u n n vE A R SA oAu looA F J J o J E( C( N( C( c CC( STN I 8 3 3 3 3 O 2 2 2 2 2 P P U O A A A A A R G

I1illll 1lil!!!l l iI ,ll l gg irn A ee y R s, Cf i Rs ,ct t nawl nEo gd nu a e t o aa Pd o adid fa MLr aCt f o t ich pel n a sy l ar r d d n ol o ee ymt Jl esn c ct e l v ,t n o o h m sl a vs a il xaim gwi a t l c i a p ci ef an w nm;mn lealo d t t e ae so i a aes f ih edt d e oa u f s e fol n n suan mhcio n nie tud o l it e v e n io ncd a r l r oril o t eid h ma et onl t ,, ga pi a s f ecoi l ar a lt icsy t r t t n eaf o

ssnid sen o t

at pwl n n mf oilit t r set al er ei ao e b eish a r u t mla ledt c x r n niu un l m oSp t e v t t a i c dli t n O pl t r ugnef. e e o ec a eau uo f dTso lca ml pla p mt v r r o s eOy si nt t c N inf it nan na x c ul r e s tlaRl s a n t cot e in e

miemi, r

eb t d naiat a e r pi os eKci IO ner adm r niis uexr s t an e h n bt eel h d mt s t rie T oat a t pe ss lcm.o D I is onr c nDd h P pi otee a e s igmd ) p x u. r a f s s ne a rt Ae Hrea sm e O y. d E R ymefnes l n r gt a U C la ou i l a InSr or sRa a ct r a u r n r oio g rAI I e c N S n, uf ss cock c .Ui

c t

t s t zp e t ah s in cipro F ,C E a u nem I / s sir r T C gtst e gn swt i ef eu l t a ai r up n aF t e er N n e d ri s e or ,s h d h pg r O it t oiae dids a v a n nhlyc ict isn t s C egt o l s n n e r is r eu aTai o ect n r ca ca ns ne ( t eid r n r t l aee a s ie ipupu S t nin,s h aaeis etne s r r r ni s E epc oiqo io e t t d HsDre r f eai , ulsn t t e e etna I oyrAud oiwn ga t T n r er .s vmer sii n gh I t t n V pi s s m aa. s sr eiCo i c a eTt s wet e o r s T ma, s. e f I s d n di ,e o loDgmit n ph s d e r v t c C opt t nt i r o sig c ach l neli a i x cl A ce e os o a ent o ;y i t cas vi u zscf ne ao f it i ya n o net r t r ue t r e r yo eiisf H o cl l l a it m tnP d gl Kn l t hbt f i l u r o sl ,as ia eom aie a C sma e .r f a t rt c R e sw mso i ecis r etsia u e cRi oc sl , nt t ef ymcf y er chlu r A di r i h pat y E i e aipid d ninla vd e amd ot on nl c o eia 2 v s eud e s u uiagn o nf n o f S r nh qt s er i t E Posesu SsFsa Caemisa n CiJ a R E )A y t V a S it I t n T n U u A e R m A, m n E m EP ia R o O C O tn O s o K n u E, a C e C e L s n C o p A s N E i o N ru O M ic n A E o A m it R )d r IT N is c F e e e a AN S e N, v h r lo o t A v t R n E o In P n 0 t e A ci 1 T n es s ~ r J N ito u je u oi I t Pn p )s r r c t l a) N r u n u Yie nA oN r t r SiW e e o OLt bA l d c R An lap ial Tu louA la2 AI o oA l J T C( SH( H (1 F( c ST N 3 3 3 3 I O 2 2 2 2 P P U OR A A A A G f

us. c h nr ie s nl e t o s e u s c a guo d v r d u B au e e uoj u t pe e. lesi f inbic em s s or a e f r t k i ef r l l c u e gm sr Rl o h l su a t yya ei b g e d gs a l u n. s t ng n r s m swp al a o no an n i s t t es e med sk iot e ue ni Mes i t r t t t lar cp er e isl c d r uh adl m ou u t i a d r R h uk d s s c a c s d e o e o isr mlc c n a t r t n al sD c t iRf sAi d ci oP r s al n l aei r o an t w rJ t y .d eya h o u o, id f ea s c t p cis o r d is h n t a isb r uiy o u e o r sa. me d mc mr gd s n s. lal e d s c t ov a d d r a o g od e d o n N p n ein igh c eo e h s nio x oa c c a c nt ny a si )D OI e t u ct g n t is oe l sias loc in ms dA dAs iea E T r ml n t ml t laeR o N I nsP inl e e U P et r e s a s ys t a r s er f eu emr ah ix t I R ou nb o t t d o od mt es otaHe o o ge d g nd s yc c T C it e mg e ab n it ih n t N S p l a ia nf r et n ol hi o o it aio ed n t l en O E ui4 dhi r wy t iavwp p e t t a s e ot s o s ei C D c w1 rCi hl i em l o gl n e rh n ( c d ai e 2 x t loi i o pwior pt lt os f e e of la u d S 4 oh r t c la r mi f lt t p o aci E t f d e v I ouR y o t nm c o r s t T s eC d g n in s b e n pa u s in m r f uny a ah I t / ) r s i edji V cR G swd t i t t n n e ad e e i ak l( h o t is os h e I f .E lal a i e ai T ol f i l mU t i t f h c cve C e )a R. cov e e n a r a oTni eot u ei I a ciU 0 ig e ut la a a ion .e el sN1 o eh s mmd A it f k h t s 5 d n i H is u loi le nv mr. t gr a nt r si s v men n t n1 i e i s a C im (y lsG imk nRi ae f o mnl glusi imla o o s R a r t a r o a it r o nt t eE eUu y et A ri r r or m sc or o e r t E eidR dk d e r ue l pe d la u o e f e f t l t r c r t i ipe v t n e ad S ecoU s eet vis h n n o e r E DfamN Et e S wu Pni is r u Pmo R EV I n T o a A t n e a R a) e d E pR t f n P it ly o o y aD m J O b g is d P O m o) n o u mJ E mN i r o( o r t C C eI a o f o r S r r L 3 hA h C n A s o lst e c N E iv2 CR s it iaa t n O M a c nK s t ) o r e o r e oU e s M) eR t t r ) t e N a n I A ej o y N pr dS, nS S i gA Mo T r e A oP t N o uU mR d) n n it oP Va N u tsR e eCo R C )s l A e C A r r Pt t t scc S J t E Rs t c a r C i T in L g sS 3 y d n e c J E A sA1 n f N off igB AI laE n o ) s le o ( a m I JE o, SG C it N7 ( loa o gl V E n( u e ) RnA P inp C io D) oI imIS akI eN ueA N t EiS ras eS I WN r ar t id cR mA i A lawP CdU U CmR car id pR Ro aaP aR voA rE F J r F IrC( G( EP( JR( E( Nf r ( STN 3 3 2 2 I 3 3 2 2 2 2 O 2 2 P P U O A A A A A A R G

a in s u a laos d s t ni s l eqc e s nud enc ss t r r e nr eE e psg mo npy a edO l as le a a n sp e l e n e c iab eu d r t t id s n c r vi l s n kt ebd sl imoel. s r on ee ei l s lut r n a r u c e r c r isi iae s a cag r ainll oaid es i e sD a f a t is wecr ear pf n e i f mfof o p of mh iwe d r can e x,.i st a y c d lae a eeed sht a ot sn ged l ch et com Pgcia el r es h eieio int nl it a n t r n p up F a psa i yf ee m vr t re e ac a ie n la ovm mpe s mis vc u pd eo u a r wd ul pi nd eins o u r sr i c b d o n N los a sa o i t vi aa eay eleri opc f o t t r v ed p gl h et n e d r f O le o e oe d r t ePedS n h ex c e u u pd Pf pb I s eo el t r t T spnd e a a t r t P d la . izE el r o set i D I eu u o ) r s si r nt lawtutceDm Neen o es M E R vs eh n el os t rl r yr i u e e S nl Svmo ei t . f of U C r o e c ol lul st t t ey et a A e epf ey Ps n l N S t a efain dB d o mh ept n I iaa iai r cik lt c l t it a s Ct/ot ic I E T D eid ge u e r eoiio r s enf t r n e p i oapmt Rd o ym N rDanr sb n n r t ee Nec a r r r O o. es u lad i e g x f o eal aht in t C sh sC n eis pcc e eadf t en a va ei h le aC t r s nr e nt h ah s yml n ( s isoes. e c i h t t S c oh p e r s r i ws u o R E lyit f b e eh us n nt I ad o imdf aie r o b ela pi s e ooN r I nn l g g. eoi r n a T f t oe eip. ol ac o cv wast et t V aoVnt c pc e e soel mf t w ol s i r TI d cPd ae x gnn ng ei t t rj si r oi nt Rut o e r iv isphl ae t ae n b sr n l s e c C a er c ont p d u mgmh od n et m t gt i r t i f i n nsk in sn t n A sd H ncl ,e e as a e oi ins i no o vd s u ed r lo it inn s ces mi la lab ip cr r sr nof a a e v i e o uuu C e a r g s r ad n t p mcd ost rl ,s m oo ea cr gr iu e d anl r as e a one R i e it e yt r e gt smmd ee locl o a r e ee e rh mbid s t mia A r r o la u ae et e e d n p l c E pvan o auf w olo s t l ed a u nh x S x ef o o nr e la r e o uwe Cirne E Esocmc Asb PmvNt t c f R E la V D I ir T e C t y A s a E it t R n M O n E e / u P m l A i) r E m a O eD u) N m r ) t s O pB cd ) e o C xT ua e i C r r E - le t t t u n n L p S t u a A ei it r h g s o e N E u s n n c p s O M lir iu I A ipb I r o ae r v e T Fb Pm o h u N E A d m u t t r a o N ae al 0 leCo )A h 6 R em c 1 E H c E r 1 s t T r c ueR u s u l K u lp ee NleO N ( lp wjo f t K V I or o a, A I U l p A S E )s t Ce yBN Lt iaD i( cS Ni t r A P eS B r t dC ge P SjU E An u nE e sA Ar H Ru o aO i ( R F o t S( InsJ RP( P( c ST 8 8 8 N 8 1 1 1 I 1 O P P U B B B O B R G

e O p u )e l r dh o d c dd pd x c p Md eo d p leog m n lcaf a 5 aed c u non / n o a an uci h t o. ink o, P r r r s f s sall eo st o m )n )c. e pcr s s d Aeh swhf uio p t s p s ot ari is o Li t s p i c my u int e h yyh E n; age p a t t uh s

ais, t

li pu it la e R e )s ; inn i( s sli b s lt a y hdl nb n c e t cae e am eieeud h no dfedid( iu c er s mli ,A lc ct eg iget r u o ud e mis s et d nR h is! i e n v s r d e r s eP om ine s f no d. t ef deymr h oao t y a ar s e st l at o sspd st r r t is a h i lu et e egi n o s zt r c aao f u r v s d nnia t a r N ytoc a ua k e lea oigt ed v i sc e r v t ) n al nr r is a vb Cl or pn D O la ct t e ar oc e a y r e edC se cs ( E IT a ea e o o e, c t t h sP .er nee r n pg it t U P N I sDa imc is uss a min eRy ;lyi is d d c laya e l t I R e r r i n d 3 e e e s ep l i h c a) nl np o e n r ua d p lyt ip b T C et t i N S lc r eh n a x e a, a y( ge n n1 oia x a eFib t a t ls b O E r o nmv Ba a;e C D ingg t t e a n inp iin d isa r y c r t i ph sd ipa s s iaCml e t ( apu i a et mat pb u l n mr ca a e e t loo bis S h I et ar h a inx f eh o Rnat E a b e h c e d T mvs lo e g cm nT i ,a v t c nu n. et od n ey ai e yd o r r r os eA a ,l I a V rd o c a r t T o e isr h a a eah mR t 2 gl t i r f t I g e np df c nDniib r n r o c wd mr pP s oOsa em C pac b c x n e aof it ( r o emi r ef e u oele aMal sd A e s R s. t d o n no ef s v s ic/gc a s n C ivtnNw let i me it i r eb v n e e n H 1 l mt ie l d io pFi s ea n y o t e s aaf pPn esin a s l t si r r R c o ,t iad aa. r v i a n u ei s a A reioe sb m o A s pnst ic eCt o s e a r prepr vl r iv e oce vp ora no o t n ene s oh a nl E o p pl dAic did - o o ep S o e x o n e a f nr r xu u E Cesf Ec I ep Ct aea CTmocmc R EV s s I t t T n n A e e ) R C m m e e E A e e P E )s r r n e g g (gi O o a a O pnt As s r C u in Re e k u o L c o Pd d r A G a c nl lu u ) r N E e eC6 o c sc O M u s i d n i l i c t ) n i n v 1 t u t e I A it ir atem ed, ad, t T N s r s o m e )n d e )n r A t N In) n eir v v E psf el o yl o u s s e oi h oi R vC o o t t E oN c oAn r v a l nr - v a gnr C lai Aie aie o t T aA 2 lan sd msd t N hR t 1 a eei r ei c z vis eis I r F s n ei it tr r n ht n u/ u omn ano KIA lp no t a ( i ta ng r uc uc S EI or e or Por C S C R nrio pce Mce r U AP ev o d d n0 o7 A8 R t n n 2 R E nE( C (1 u C( u I 8 R( M( STN 7 5 3 3 3 I 1 1 1 1 1 O P P U O B C C C C R G

lam oo mo eeic r o eir i c hht n f t s np sspt n l t t eo s c iaa nf e o ea yih at c o ot md s mle t f v e, cr ni gmr o m s. t ir er eoy d o c f nef e e ag at cl e n a st s eH ist eit r n pd s a i t n s n e s x e r t c a y / me ne a bt s pT a e m ed a h aRaio l icf cd r f e d o lc . od d l nlaal o ele nc or r u r aH uleeod e it ggar mw t n u cc nb aeer o s/ t d p ed eT ef nl a df h e ae m mt i h a n n n t r i y p ur;u u u a mf oo t r on od yl s lals e f r ct n r ) a e r it a ine o a ,i r v oyv a N l o i ef n t mi ve t f a a r ee O cp g e s r h fo ol D I it r ume o os t p ngp ge E T r hi U P lyu ant eb e emi t s i t t v N I a h d nnt g s gif eicn n n snd a sl e i xl l ua o amc nh iss I R nn c u o T C a) cmedhi h a e ys e t r b la e N S icn nn s oc a c otcs t ost epel er uem n v s o ni ia ic xf r x O E lui r ae v p ed e C D aa it mn nn d pnt u r d u t r d it a oe oo n p s ( o a o oa ns S y mr cri i a at ce as y ust s g gd ssad r E h f nmt l e e e oo nsf m n o I r o ya gp i T l n f r I a V me inpae a it ra t Cem n ,r r r r r t o e a gR a f r a o dh r pof r I r r e o o ht d n s T e n co ivi u p p r b. ee Ns n c c r n r poa, r x a C h a ast u nen ch oi o l .o t A at f n aes e oant n r o os a c h ct g d e nf er eblAt nia H o it n oo eit a n h e s e m it r t r C ga r t , : e. g c er a e md lao g p a R n on eeg g i ai r n r e 0 r l ma A a b esd oind p e eR0 me om o lad a ur t u E h r 6 o cel d al s i xWPoe c lo cl c ye p r v S x c e f a E E (c Carienhhin RePAnd In d R E n V s ito t I h T n a t A i e id w R m a t E n e R P e e r n O m g o e a O p v s u C o e r o L p d r ) u G A m sl c N E i tnn e O M e ei v d d d; i ) I A ta sd o T N C ic e )n 0 e me r A cv v N ic al o 0 pisl o oi 6 on R lu ev a P oa n t v r nr E a eie A Chi T r c s N d vsd r y eei o la e e ) si s f nMi I H E r r ( n t t V) o laAC Pno IN iagu en t uc MEN Ror AA o ma c CA Ace SP m re eR S1 d OA e a1 h t hF C2 n ( ( u RJ In D (1 Tt ( STN 3 3 3 3 I 1 O 1 1 1 P P U O C C C C R G l! jI

lIlll l

fl 32{g33 f ) o d s t s en s t i ) e co nt n eP an e p h io t x2 P ra e( s whcsf it s1 ari e le(s ad n h r n ene e iasab it t e wh t nr se o m t iala n u ay r mn et b r u omf g d lpi oi pe t r a ea o v p p l mlea t h i% n l ev n S i tWidt o3 n: o T J3 N I O e e ia d c P rbr t y e ol e p t G e etsw l f s,n i h N sgei v a o 6 n st id e sl s 6 IT r i a a nul H ovb m eo e 3 f oar pwk 3) G lupaf x r h s r o t n eio n t t f E emd i et w it I wi / si o sk u W u r soi obo mP ,l s m r,d yt or a2 / le el g et nt o r( A aman)s e gl s s t ) g cit bnat or c n n e I i r R d si est ni doci p E elya o h T msahP lu l it o t t ecP no ok a msnn5 Wt r5 ioy I aae( a p( Jb R i C f t o s e t e r r nk C r io c ny oo o r oro cl k c ojodR t e it ar n % RpnNr t a co t u a f f k ay i l lu r it w )s e 7Oo R b o c n s sg e u ( )O t r 6st ds e e h aet r) I sen rhin us h r r t r) o pt o ct eoCy oco s n ih t srt mop ai wt oRn ed u l cui t r tr on i oid o on No oyo r eb t 0 oP m yh serir pt gi o1 t pep net o nh yt s5 abi t ( n f ik e e e (y gd wt owl r u a0 mal t si n o) s r t b ut oiametuma s1 it cs ,mie M lt ns sds w ( t yt i r sh bil ppa sb cnn ib nirfaigo i r r r i A cee t a t e get gineP t l o er u supe np nroopn ogr R iu s oo s o a io r r ml r xori Dcis Cwie Cc J mpecpsfo3 G ( O R m P a or L t go A n r e oP gs r e N N it ne o g O O uy c i r sr C a b o Uu o e I r T irt IT AY t a f o t v nl oS n e A ZR o ug ye o L I N TO Ce it v iy e t t ui R R G l i I f R it l c o ba bi r E e 's in ib u E O r s r t a o T T uC ae np s I N RA aR et oa e l l PC VN F A CC R I

METRICS SUPPORT AREA NO. 1: PROVIDE THE TECHNICAL BASES FOR REGULATORY DECISIONS ON REGULATORY OR SAFETY ISSUES (INCLUDING THE RESOLUTION OF GSIs) STEMMING FROM POWER PLANT OPERATIONS. EVENTS. MATERIALS USES AND LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUESTS Criterion No.1: Frecuency of occurrence: HIGH - Issues steming from power plant operations, events, materials uses and li' cense amendment requests are expected to arise one or more times per year. MEDIUM - Issues steming from power plant operations. events. materials uses and license amendment requests are expected to arise in the foreseeable future. but at a frequency of less than HICH (above). LUw - Issues stemming from power plant operations, events, materials uses and license amendment requests are not expected to arise in the foreseeable future. Criterion No. 2: Safety or reculatory significance if they occur: HIGH - The issues steming from power plant operations, events, materials uses and license amendment requests are likely to raise significant doubt regarding the ability of the licensee's safety measures, such as systems, structures, components, procedures, or programs to maintain acceptable safety margins (e.g., in preventing core damage. off-site release, morbidity. or mortality). or identifies a major gap in the scope of NRC's regulations or regulatory guidance. MEDIUM - The issues steming from power plant operations events, materials uses and license amendment requests are likely to raise moderate doubt regarding the ability of the licensee's safety measures. such as systems. structures. components. procedures. or programs to maintain acceptable safety margins (e.g.. in preventing core damage. off-site release morbidity, or mortality). or identifies a moderate gap in the scope of NRC's regulations or regulatory guidance. LOW - The issues steming from power plant operations, events. materials uses and license amendment requests are likely to raise little doubt regarding the abil1ty of the licensee's safety measures, such as systems. Structures. Components, procedures, or programs to maintain acceptable safety margins (e.g. in preventing core damage, off-site release. morbidity or mortality). or identifies a small gap in tne scope of NRC's regulations or regulatory guidance.

l l SUPPORT AREA NO 2: rROVIDE THE' TECHNICAL BASES F0F REGULATORY DECISION ON REGULATORY OR SAFETY ISSUES (INCLUDJNG THE RESOLUTION OF GU s) STEMMING FROM NE? OR EVOLVING TECHNOLOGIES AND/OR RESEARCH RESULTS Criterion No. 3-likelihood of chance: The technology is evolving at a rapid rate and is expected to HIGH - continue at that rate for the foreseeable future. or a significant amount of new results is expected from ongoing or planned research l activities. Th'e technology is evolving at a moderate rate and is expected to MEDIUM - continue at that rate for the foreseeable future. or a moderate amount of new results is expected from ongoing or planned research activities. The technology is evolving at a slow rate and is expected to LOW - continue at that rate for the foreseeable future, or a limited amount of new results is expected from ongoing or planned research activities. Criterion No. 4: Safety or reaulatory significance. if the chance occurs: The new or evolving technologies and/or research results are HIGH - likely to raise significant doubt regarding the ability of the licensee's safety measures such as systems, structures, components, procedures. or programs to maintain acceptable safety margins (e.g.. in preventing core damage. off-site release. or identify a major gap in the scope of morbidity, or mortality),lato'ry guidance. NRC's regulations or regu MEDIUM - The new or evolving technologies and/or research results are likely to raise moderate doubt regarding the ability of the licensee's safety measures. such as systems. structures, components. procedures. or programs to maintain acceptable safety margins (e.g.. in preventing core damage, off-site release, morbidity. or mortality). or identify a moderate gap in the scope of NRC's regulations or regulatory guidance. LOW - The new or evolving technologies and/or research results are likely to raise little doubt regarding the ability of the licensee's safety measures. such as systems. Structures, components, procedures, or programs to maintain acceptable safety margins (e.g.. in preventing core damage, off-site release, morbidity, or mortality) or identify a small gap in the scope of NRC's regulations or regulatory guidance.

t l SUPPORT AREA NO 3: DEVELOP. MAINTAIN. AND APPLY ANALYTICAL TOOLS / DATABASES--MAINTAIN INSTITUTIONAL TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE BASE 1 Criterion No. 5: Breadth and frecuency of aDolication of tools / databases: HIGH - Tools / data are expected to be used many times each year and/or they apply to a wide range of applications; e.g., multiple reactor types, phenomena, issues, events. MED - Tools / data are expected to be used several times each year and/or they apply to a few broad-based applications. LOW - Tools / data are expected to be used only occasionally and/or they apply to a few narrowly focused applications. j Criterion No. 6:

Dearee of improvement needed in tools / databases:

HIGH - Major deficiencies exist in tools / data that will prevent their use { in addressing expected safety or regulatory issues. or tools are ) highly inefficient to use. MED - Deficiencies exist in tools / data that will detract from their usefulness in effectively addressing expected safety or regulatory issues, or tools are moderately inefficient to use. LOW - Deficiencies exist in tools / data that should be corrected to optimize their value, but there are no significant' deficiencies, or tools have minor inefficiencies that could be eliminated. Criterion No. 7: Value of tools / databases /knowledae base to the reculatory orocess: i HIGH. Tools / databases / knowledge are expected to be highly effecti/e and efficient in making significant safety or regulatory decisions with no reasonable alternative being available. and/or knowledge l base is highly complex and limited to a single person or very limited number of people. MED - Tools / databases / knowledge are expected to be effective on efficient in making safety or regulatory decisions and alternatives would be time consuming and costly, and/or knowledge base is relatively complex and limited to a single person or very limited number of people. LOW - Tools / databases / knowledge are expected to be useful in making safety or regulatory decisions but there are other alternatives that could be employed at little additional cost. and/or knowlecge base is common and rather widely understood.

1 SUPPORT AREA N1 J; PROVIDE THE TECHNICAL BASES FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO REGULATORY FRAMEWORK (i.e.. REGUSTIONS. REGULATORY GUIDES. CODES AND STANDARDS. NEW INITIATIVES) . Criterion No. 8: Need to improve requirements and/or outcance: HIGH - The regulatory improvement is needed for adequate safety: or it will have a significant impact on regulatory efficiency or regulatory flexibility for a majority of licensees or applicants in any category (i.e.. there is a major gap in NRC's regulations). MEDIUM - The regulatory improvement is needed as a safety enhancement: or it could have a significant impact on regulatory efficiency or regulatory flexibility for a significant number of licensees or applicants in any category. LOW - The regulatory improvement could have an impact on regulatory efficiency or regulatory flexibility for a significant number of "censees - applicants in any category. Criterion No 9-Need to succort new NRC reculatory initiative and/or aDDroach: HIGH - A significant contribution will be made to support a new NRC regulatory framework or approach such as risk-informed. performance-based regulation. MEDIUM - A moderate contribution will be made to support a new NRC regulatory framework or approach such as risk-informed. performance-based regulation. LOW - A small contribution will be made to support a new NRC regulatory framework or approach such as risk-informed, performance-based regulation. 1 l l

SUCDORT AREA NO 5: IMPROVE THE TECHNICAL BASES OF REGULATION THROUGH INVOLVEMENT IN RESEARCH WITH DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN ORGANIZATIONS Criterion No. 10-NRC's commitment: HIGH - There is or will be a formal agreement between the NRC and one or more organizations for cooperative research or the cooperative effort is a U.S. Government-mandated program or the cooperative effort is a major contributor to the regulatory program of another country. MEDIUM - There is no formal agreement. but NRC maintains ongoing participation in research-related activities with organizations such as DOE. EPRI.. IAEA. and NEA. LOW - There is no formal agreement, but NRC participates in research-related activities on an ad hoc basis. Criterion No. 11: Value of contribution to reoulatorv orocrams: HIGH - The results from cooperative programs directly support resolution of safety or regulatory issues and are not otherwise available, or the cooperative program is vital for NRC to sustain a core research capability. 1 MEDIUM - The results from cooperative programs provide information ~ l imediately useful for code assessment. confirmatory information. or expanded databases. but are not essential to resolution of safety or regulatory issues. LOW - The results from cooperative programs help maintain awareness and have potential for use over the long term. Criterion No. 12: Leveraae factor for NRC resources: HIGH - 67% or more of the work on cooperative efforts is done by or paid for by others. MEDIUM - 33-66% of the work on cooperative efforts is done by or paid for by others. LOW - Less than one-third of the work on cooperative efforts is done by or paid for by others.

i 1 SUPPORT AREAS N0 fx RESPOND TO OVERSIGHT GRDUPS (CO M 55.'ON CONGRESS. PUBLIC. ACRS. ACNW. NSRRC) Criterion No.13: Likelihood of occurrence: The subject matter is sufficiently important to oversight groups HIGH - that future requests for status reports or insights are expected to occur several times a year as results are available. The subject matter is of moderate interest or the pace of new MEDIUM - developments is such that oversight groups are likely to request stetus reports or insights about twice a year. LOW - The subject matter is usually addressed on an annual frequency (or less often), which suggests that the issue does not require immediate resolution. the technical progress is slow due to the complexity of the problem. and/or it is a recurrent topic. Criterion No. 14: Comolexity and significance of subiect matter: HIGH ' The oversight groups need to.be in the position to give guidance and direction in this area and to incorporate current findings into policy decisions. It is a national or international issue of high regulatory or safety significance that requires prompt This would be the case in an abnormal incident involving action. potential significant risk to the public or in the resolution of a complex design issue relating to a license application. MEDIUM - Technical issues under consideration are those in which there are diverse opinions regarding the means to resolve differences among the licensee. staff. or interested technical community. These differences may arise from lack of data or technical knowledge from conflicting data and opinions. or from several alternative approaches to address the perceived issue. LOW - Technical issues'are reasonably well understood and the path to their resolution is relatively straightforward and agreed upon. ,}}