ML20148J544

Notation Vote Response Sheet Approving W/Comments, SECY-97-075, Methodology & Criteria for Evaluating Core Research Capabilities

ML20148J544
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/27/1997
From:	Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20148J403	List: ML20148J397 ML20148J467 ML20148J482 ML20148J506 ML20148J515 ML20148J544
References
SECY-97-075-C, SECY-97-75-C, NUDOCS 9706170173
Download: ML20148J544 (2)

Text

. .- __- - - . - -._

- t

=

NOTATION VOTE i

RESPONS5 SHEET i

TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN i

SUBJECT:

SECY-97-075 - METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA FOR  !

EVALUATING CORE RESEARCH CAPABILITIES Approved db Disapproved _ Abstain

Not Participating Request Discussion j COMMENTS

! See attached comments.

i

/fy- ~

SIGNATdhE U Release Vote /V / }7, lii 7 DATE /

Withhold vote / /

Entered on "AS" Yes ( No t

o 9706170173 970606 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR 0'?C (i(7 O IU

Commissioner ticGaffiaan's comments on SECY-97-075 l

I compliment the staff on its substantial efforts in formulating methodology and criteria for ' evaluating core research capabilities and I generally agree I with what the staff proposes. However. I have some concerns with the staff's '

proposal

1. I do not necessarily agree with the RES view (p. 8) that a " program has, for all practical reasons, been sunset" where resources continue to be expended in a given area of research despite the fact that there are very low or no demands from users. To me, a program is sunset when it is at an end. I would be interested in RES's view as to whether the Hydrogen Distribution and Combustion Program at the core level described in Attachment 9 would be considered to be sunset, and if not, how low that program would go in a sunset state.

2. I generally agree that the . criteria for judging need for Support Areas 1 through 4 are appropriate and, from the examples in Attachments 9 and 10 properly weighted. Based on the example application in Attachment

9. I am not certain that the criteria for Support Area 5 are properly weighted. For exam)le, most of the ratings in Attachment 9 are " low" or "none" except for t7e ratings for the criteria in Support Area 5, which are "high" or " moderate". These ratings appear to have resulted in a determination that a core capability recuiring almost one percent of our Research budget should be retained for Fydrogen Distribution and Combustion Program. Yet I believe that it will be difficult to demonstrate a need for a core expertise-driven research capability in this area after the AP600 work is done. To me, involvement in resecrch with domestic and foreign organizations in the absence of strong scores in Support Areas 1 through 4 does little to demonstrate a need to maintain core capabilities and should not be given the same weight cs other criteria in Support Areas 1 through 4.

3. The criteria in Support Area 6 appear to be redundant and to result in a double counting relative to Support Areas 1 through 4.

4. I commend the staff for providing the examples in Attachments 9 and 10 but note my belief that it may be difficult to demonstrate a need to retain core research capabilities in the Hydrogen Distribution and Combustion area based on the evaluation presented in Attachment 9. That is. Attachment 9 may have intended only to " document" (in the sense of

" lay out the analysis on") a need for an expertise-driven core capability in this area, but it did not appear adequate to " demonstrate" such a need. I will reserve judgement on this area until the staff provides its assessment for all 39 Areas.

5. I agree with Commissioner Diaz' coment that although RES has the lead in the assessment of the need for core research capabilities, the core technin 1 capabilities in NRR. AE00, and NMSS need to be analyzed and incor[ . ated into the overall scope of the core capability assessment, especially the need for a separate expertise-driven capability in RES.

I note the Sai on DSI-22 asked the E00 by June 1 to recommend an approach to creating and maintaining an agency-wide data base on the core technical capabilities in the staff. This effort, once underway, should be integrated with the core research capabilities analysis.

' snCEE

/ 'o

~'g UNITED STATES

. / o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

, { .I w AsweNoToN, o.c. rossa

\.....J OFFICE OF THE June 6, 1997 .

j SECRETARY I

i MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan Execu 've irector for Operations A.n - -

FROM: John . Hoy e, Secretary i

SUBJECT:

STA F REQUIREMENTS - SECY-97-075 -

' METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING CORE RESEARCH CAPABILITIES 4

i

The Commission has approved the proposed methodology and criteria

for evaluating core research capabilities and provides the staff  !

4 the flexibility to make minor modifications to the methodology '

and criteria if needed.

The staff should 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. In addition to the inputs provided from other NRC user offices, areas of research suggested by the industry should also be considered. When documenting the core capabilities assessments,

the staff should make it much more clear as to how the recommended resource levels for each core research area were determinr.d.

j (EDJ) (SECY Suspense: 11/3/97)

The SRM on DSI-22 (COMSECY-96-066, dated March 28, 1997) tasked the staff to recommend an approach to creating and maintaining an agency-wide data base on the core technical capabilities in the staff. Also, the SRM on DSI-18 (COMSECY-96-027, dated August 26, 1996) tasked the staff to develop an action plan to include a process for identifying the agency's skills and core capabilities i requirements. The core technical capabilities residing in NRR, 1 AEOD, and NMSS should also be analyzed and incorporated into the overall scope of activities and integrated with the core research

! capabilities analysis.

i (EDO) (SECY Suspense: 12/19/97) i SECY NOTE: THIS SRM, SECY-97-075, AND THE COMMISSION VOTING RECORD CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5

, WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.

4

& ( -

1 The staff should review the level of resources being applied to J

research activities that are in a " sunset" state. The weighting of criteria for Support Areas 5 and 6 should also be reviewed.

cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan OGC CIO CFO OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)

PDR DCS l

l j

i

!