Search Options
Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us

SECY-98-030

February 25, 1998

PURPOSE:

To respond to the Commission's direction on DSI 22 activities contained in the SRM on SECY 97-220, dated December 5, 1997 (Attachment 1).

BACKGROUND:

Following Commission review of the direction setting issue (DSI) paper for research, DSI 22, and consideration of stakeholder comments, COMSECY-96-066 was issued on March 28, 1997. This SRM contained the Commissions decision on actions to be initiated related to DSI 22. The staff's response to this SRM was contained in SECY-97-167 which discussed the staff's proposed plan to implement the Commission decision. The SRM on SECY-97-167 was issued on September 16, 1997, which contained direction to the staff related to DSI 22 implementation issues. The staff's response to issues contained in the earlier SRMs was contained in

SECY-97-220, dated September 30, 1997 (Attachment 2). That SECY contained the staff's proposed plan to transfer rulemaking resources and responsibilities to the program offices and discussed responses to questions related to the staff's plans for activities to implement DSI 22. The Commission in SRM dated December 5, 1997, approved the proposed plan discussed in SECY-97-220 subject to six specific comments.

DISCUSSION:

The staff's responses to the six comments contained in the December 5, 1997, SRM are discussed below:

1. "The staff should clearly define the scope of activities meeting the definition of confirmatory research as defined in SECY-97-167. Technical activities meeting this definition, but not being transferred to RES, should be identified and the reasons for not transferring the activities should be provided."

Offices used the definition in SECY-97-167 as the basis to determine what is and is not confirmatory research. The definition is:

"Activities which (1) develop new methods or new data, (2) develop new computer programs, (3) modify/existing methods by adopting new models or approaches or scientific data, (4) evaluate/validate existing methods or (5) extend the frontiers of understanding of a given area, are research"

In applying Item 4 of this definition the staff has not considered the evaluation of a licensee's methods as research work, but rather as a program office function. Accordingly, no work of this type has been identified as confirmatory research.

A number of activities in the program offices, meeting the definition of confirmatory research, were identified as candidates and were evaluated for transfer to RES. These activities, their evaluation and their recommended disposition are listed in Attachment 3. Those that are recommended for transfer to RES would result in 1.4 FTE and 487K of FY 1998 appropriated contract funds being transferred to RES (corresponding FY1999 resources to be transferred will be identified as part of the FY2000 Program-Based Budget Review (PBBR) due to the Commission in July 1998). In addition, some funding from DOE to support the Russian regulatory authority (GAN) review of the core conversion of three Russian production reactors would be allocated to RES once received from DOE, and the lead for this activity would be transferred from NRR to RES.

2. "The staff should provide recommendations on the Generic Safety Issues Program and the consolidation of highly specialized expertise to the Commission. As with the Rulemaking Activity Plan in the rulemaking area, there should be a mechanism in place to set priorities and scheduling for generic safety issues and to pass that information to the Commission for review."

Generic Safety Issue (GSI) Program

The GSI Program involves responsibilities and activities for NRR, NMSS, and RES. SECY-98-001, dated January 2, 1998, described recent actions that were initiated to ensure that the respective roles of each office are understood and that close coordination is practiced to eliminate duplication of effort and to have one agency-wide tracking system for GSIs.

The GSI program includes six steps. The first step is identification of the GSI. The second step is prioritization, an evaluation of the safety significance and cost/benefit associated with the issue. The third step is resolution. During this step, the evaluation of the issue continues and a solution is identified. In the final stage of the resolution step, the generic evaluation of the options, including appropriate cost-benefit considerations, is completed. At this point in the process. the lead office shifts from RES to NRR. The fourth step is imposition. This step is taken by the program office since it involves regulatory actions such as rulemaking or issuance of a generic communication. The fifth step is implementation by the licensees who implement the solution to the issue. The sixth step is verification. During this step, the staff verifies that the solution has been implemented by licensees. This step may include a number of different activities including inspections. Attachment 4 provides an additional discussion of the GSI Program.

The staff's recommendation for the GSI Program is that the current responsibilities and process be maintained. RES would continue to prioritize reactor related GSIs and evaluate, through the conduct of research, reactor and materials GSIs, as necessary, except those involving high level waste issues. NRR would continue to impose and verify implementation of the resolution of reactor related GSIs. NMSS would continue to prioritize, resolve, impose, and verify implementation of non-reactor related GSIs.

A related issue involves the Generic Issue Management Control System (GIMCS). Currently, RES coordinates inputs from the program offices and updates this tracking system each quarter. The current GSI Program includes a mechanism to prioritize GSIs. Based on the prioritization step, GSIs are categorized as "high," medium," low," or "drop." Resources are expended on GSIs in accordance with this categorization. This process is described in detail in NUREG 0933. Additionally, schedules, activities and milestones for GSIs are included in GIMCS. The GIMCS update process focuses attention on the status of GSIs. Updates are provided to the EDO. RES will revise the update process to include sending a summary of activities related to open GSIs to the Commission on an annual schedule. Responsibility for this system could be transferred to the Office of Administration, as was the case for the Rulemaking Action Plan, or the responsibility could remain with RES. The staff recommends that responsibility for updating GIMCS based upon input from the program offices remain with RES as discussed in SECY-98-001.

Consolidation of Expertise

Regarding the consolidation of highly specialized expertise in one office, the staff notes the initial statement of the issue in DSI 22:

"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-dedicated" expertise or should these be partially or completely merged to maintain a critical mass as a result of decreased resources?"

In the September 16, 1997 SRM, the Commission directed the staff to provide a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of their recommendation to the Commission for consideration. In SECY-97-220, the staff proposed to provide the Commission with a general discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of consolidation.

The staff found the primary advantages associated with consolidation are as follows:

• Having a group of individuals with similar expertise as compared with one or two experts. When working in a group, individuals could specialize further, increasing the breadth and depth of the groups competence. A group with a number of similarly skilled staff can be more robust against loss of skill or corporate memory than one or two individuals. A group of experts can also be more able to respond to simultaneous short-term demands than one or two individuals. The groups supervisor may have the opportunity to improve quality by having products peer-reviewed internally. Depending on the size of the group, it may constitute an entire section or branch. It might, therefore, have a supervisor or manager who can fully support the groups technical needs, and may be trained in the groups area of expertise.

• Consolidating work could improve the efficiency and quality of the agencys efforts by bringing developers and users closer together and maintaining agency expertise by keeping a nucleus of staff interacting and sharing ideas.

• Consolidating work could also result in consolidating contractor support by reducing the number of separate contracts and/or bringing more work in-house.

The staff also identified a number of disadvantages associated with consolidation of specialized expertise in a single office. The primary disadvantages associated with consolidation are as follows:

• Decrease in the efficiency of the organization beyond the consolidated group. For example, the office giving up its expertise to the consolidated group would need to arrange to obtain the groups technical assistance across office lines, which could be less efficient than managing the technical work directly. The office managing the consolidated group also faces additional challenges, such as planning and budgeting to support the needs of another office.

• Consolidation would generally result in the receiving office performing work that is currently the formal responsibility of the contributing office.

• Technical expertise is needed as an integral part of many activities within an individual office. For example, technical expertise is required in NRR to support timely decisions needed for operating plants, to resolve plant restart issues, to assess allegations and 2.206 petitions, and to respond to inquiries from Congress. Similarly, RES needs technical expertise to perform and manage research and technical contract management on a day-to-day basis. The results of consolidation could impact these needed staff capabilities in the individual offices.

• The different functions and responsibilities of the offices could cause conflicts in the priority and attention assigned by the receiving office to the work being performed for another office. For example, extra effort to ensure key office milestones are achieved could temporarily divert resources away from activities that are not mainstream office functions. This has the potential to impact work being done for another office.

The staff identified and evaluated six technical areas as possible candidates for consolidation within a single office. These areas are:

• Thermal-Hydraulic, Fuels, and Severe Accident Analysis

• Review of Vendor Thermal-Hydraulic and Fuels Codes

• Performance of High-Burnup Fuels

• Earth Sciences

• Human Factors

• Participation in High Level Committees within ASME and Other Standards Developing Organizations

The staff found that each of these candidate areas was subject to one or more of the advantages and disadvantages documented above. On balance, the staff could not conclude that the advantages of consolidation outweigh the disadvantages, and thus no consolidation is recommended to be undertaken at this time.

3. "With regard to the lack of resources to carry out all the rulemakings currently underway, the staff should identify in the Rulemaking Activity Plan (RAP) which rulemakings will be delayed or eliminated to permit the Commission to concur with or amend the proposals as necessary. The RAP should become an effective mechanism for setting priorities for application of limited resources in the program offices. High priority rulemaking activities (such as the Part 35 revision and the regulatory guide for the license termination rule) should not be adversely impacted by the transition."

The program offices will identify rulemakings which will be delayed or eliminated during the next update to the Rulemaking Activity Plan to permit the Commission to concur with or amend the proposed changes.

4. "While the Office of Administration (ADM) will be designated the responsible organization for rulemaking infrastructure, the function of preparing OMB clearances for specific rulemakings should be retained by the program offices. In addition,

updating the Rulemaking Activity Plan will be a compiling function for ADM. the responsibility for proposing priorities remains with the Directors of the program offices."

The staff discussions related to implementation of DSI 22 will implement this direction. Each office will work with ADM to ensure that the information necessary to update the Rulemaking Activity Plan is accurate and timely. The EDO will monitor this item to ensure a smooth transition of this function.

5. "The staff should forward the information on the staff core capabilities in response to the SRM on SECY-97-075 by the end of January, 1998."

RES is working to provide information on core capabilities. This SECY will be provided by the end of March 1998.

6. "The transfer of rulemaking functions, staff and funding to the program offices should be complete by the end of February, 1998."

The staff has and will continue to make the transfer of rulemaking functions, staff and funding. In order to initiate this transfer, some staff involved in rulemaking have been detailed to the appropriate program offices and other actions to address administrative aspects of the transfer of rulemaking functions are underway.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objections. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objections. The Office of the 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.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Commission approve:

Note that the transfers of confirmatory research will be discussed with the Agency LMPC and will be completed one month after completion of these discussions.

ATTACHMENT 3

Confirmatory Research Activities

Summary

* Does not include Nunn-Lugar funding for support of core conversion of Russian Production reactors.

ATTACHMENT 4

GENERIC SAFETY ISSUES PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION OF DSI 22

The Generic Safety Issue (GSI) Program was one of the functions reviewed as part of the direction setting issue paper review of the activities conducted by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. The GSI Program is described in NUREG 0933, "A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues." The current program began in October 8, 1976, when the Commission directed the staff to develop a program plan for resolution of generic issues and completion of technical projects. The staff developed a generic issues program to address potential safety enhancements. It is important to note that this program does not include issues of adequate protection or compliance with existing regulations. As discussed in NUREG 0933, issues of significance such as adequate protection issues or compliance issues are excluded from the GSI process since decisions must be made in a shorter time frame. Actions taken for adequate protection or compliance issues generally takes the form of a Bulletin or Order.

The program is comprised of six steps: identification, prioritization, resolution, imposition, implementation and verification. These steps are described in NUREG 0933. In summary, identification includes the identification of a generic concern by an individual or organization within the NRC staff or an advisory panel, a member of the public, or a member of industry. Prioritization includes a review of the safety significance of the issue to assist in a determination of the allocation of staff resources. Issues which have little safety significance and hold little promise of worthwhile safety enhancement are removed from consideration. Resolution includes the development of a plan of work, including milestones, to develop a technical solution to the GSI. The technical solution is the basis to develop a proposed resolution. This step may include consideration of several alternatives and involve a regulatory analysis, including a detailed cost/benefit analysis for each alternative. Imposition includes the regulatory action which requires affected licensees to prepare a schedule for implementing the resolution. Implementation includes the affected licensees' activities to satisfy the requirements or commitments made during the imposition step. Verification includes staff actions to verify that affected licensees have implemented the necessary actions. Inspections may be performed on an audit basis.

Two broad options were discussed: (1) continuing the current process in which RES is responsible for prioritizing reactor related issues, and conducting research to identify solutions; NRR is responsible for imposition, implementation and verification of the solution for reactor related GSIs; NMSS is responsible for all aspects of GSIs for its licensees; and (2) transferring responsibility for conducting research and identification of the solution for all GSIs to RES; NRR and NMSS would be responsible for imposition, implementation and verification as appropriate.

A related issue involves the assignment of responsibility for updating the Generic Issue Management Control System (GIMCS) and NUREG 0933. There are two options related to this issue: (1) RES would retain responsibility for updating GIMCS, and (2) the responsibility for updating GIMCS could be transferred to the Office of Administration.

The staff recommends that the current assignment of responsibilities be maintained as discussed in option (1) above, with the clarification that confirmatiory research necessary to resolve GSIs involving NMSS (except those which may be related to high level waste issues) be conducted by RES. Currently there are no open NMSS GSIs that are the subject of confirmatory research.

Proposed Transfer to RES
of
Confirmatory Research Work Currently in NRR

Proposed Consolidation in RES of Areas of
Limited Expertise

Proposed Transfer to RES
of Confirmatory Research Work Currently in NMSS

Proposed Transfer to RES
of
Confirmatory Research Work Currently in AEOD

*Criteria are: 1. Develop new methods or data; 2. Develop new computer programs; 3. Modify existing methods by adopting new models or approaches or scientific data; 4. Evaluate or validate existing methods; 5. Extend the frontiers of understanding of a given area.

* Using definition of research contained in SECY-97-167: "Activities which (1) develop new methods or new data, (2) develop new computer programs, (3) modify exiting methods by adopting new models or approaches or scientific data, (4) evaluate/validate existing methods or (5) extend the frontiers of understanding of a given area, are research -- either confirmatory or anticipatory depending on whether the research addresses current or potentially emerging issues. Studies which confirm safety design or safety margin are confirmatory research."