POLICY ISSUE

(Notation Vote)

January 6, 2005 SECY-05-0005

FOR: The Commissioners

FROM: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations /RA/

SUBJECT: OPTIONS FOR RESEARCH EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW BOARD

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this paper is to provide the Commission with options concerning the activities of

the Research Effectiveness Review Board (RERB), seek Commission endorsement to end

RERB, and provide pertinent updated information. Toward that end, this paper addresses the

functions of the RERB which have been overtaken by other changes such as the strategic

planning process, inter-dependent office Operating Plans, and common prioritization.

BACKGROUND:

In 1996, as part of strategic planning, the staff examined the state of the NRC’s research program

and identified options concerning its future. After reviewing the information, and considering related

stakeholder comments, the Commission issued staff requirements memorandum (SRM)

COMSECY-96-066, dated March 28, 1997, which instructed the staff to consider creating an

RERB, which would be chaired by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) and

composed of representatives from the Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD), 

as well as the regional offices. The Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR)

was included in April 2002 following its establishment. The RERB periodically reviewed the 

bases for initiating, continuing, and terminating specific research programs, giving particular

attention to the effectiveness of broad-based, long-range programs and the staff’s capabilities to

address core research needs. In addition, the Commission expressed its desire to conduct a

triennial review of the usefulness of the RERB and the advisability of continuing its existence.

CONTACT: N. P. Kadambi, RES

(301) 415-5896
The Commissioners 2

In response to the SRM on COMSECY-96-066, the staff prepared a Commission paper (SECY97-224, dated October 1, 1997), entitled “Creation of a Research Effectiveness Review Board,”

which the Commission subsequently approved in a related SRM dated November 4, 1997. 

Since establishing the RERB, the staff has provided periodic reports to the Commission,

in SECY-01-0163 (dated August 24, 2001) and SECY-03-0204 (dated November 25, 2003),

regarding the activities of the RERB and the status of the agency’s research program.

As described in SECY-01-0163, the RERB activities included selective review of RES products

and user need requests, as well as the operating plans for pursuing research. Insights were

gleaned concerning the effectiveness of the conduct of research and the interaction between

the principal offices that affects RES and its products. For example, the RERB found that the

user need development process was important in establishing common expectations between

the licensing office and RES. In addition, RERB deliberations led to a recognition that a wider

range of issues and sources of information ought to be considered in order to successfully

evaluate the effectiveness of the research program. The RERB concluded that these broader

issues could benefit from higher management dialogue. As a result, the RERB was

reconstituted at the Deputy Office Director/Associate Director level. Systematic “vertical slice”

reviews of research projects were undertaken to obtain data and insights on the effectiveness

of the existing processes supporting the initiation and conduct of research. 

In the last report on RERB, SECY-03-0204, the staff informed the Commission of continued

improvements in coordination of research through a marked increase in the number and scope

of inter-office communications between assigned organizational elements in each office. 

Significant institutionalization of beneficial changes was noted. New initiatives were described

that further enhanced research effectiveness, such as a system for common prioritization of

work based on the unifying concepts in the agency performance and strategic goals. User

need improvements were customized to meet individual office circumstances, and included

innovations such as the advanced reactor Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and steering

committee.

DISCUSSION:

The processes that enhanced the effectiveness of the research program have matured

significantly. As a result, the staff believes that it is appropriate to revisit the benefits of

continuing RERB activities. The Commission’s original objectives for creating the RERB have

been attained, and even surpassed in some respects. The oversight functions of the RERB are

routinely fulfilled by the program reviews performed by the Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards and the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste. Candid feedback provided by the

program offices regarding progress on research projects in which they have interests informs

inter-office interactions.

Since initiation of the RERB, the agency has made significant and continued progress by way of

enhancements in the effectiveness of the interaction, communication, and coordination between

RES and the user offices. For example, meetings between the office directors occur more

frequently and focus on outcomes that have agency-wide benefits. Also, operating plans are

coordinated and integrated to ensure that RES activities and research program products to

support Program Office activities are identified and that milestones are established to meet

defined expectations. Quarterly and more frequent office level meetings ensure that impacts

are considered before changes in schedule or scope of the work are made.
The Commissioners 3

One example of improved integration of activities or connectivity is the practice that has been

adopted to tailor interactions between RES and other NRC offices to suit individual office

needs, rather than impose a standardized user need process for all offices. This approach has

worked well. For example, during the preapplication reviews of the Advanced CANDU Reactor

700 (ACR-700) and the Economic and Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR), the

deliberations of the TAG and the Advanced Reactor Steering Committee (ARSC) supplanted

the user need process, and the reviews are accomplishing the desired objectives more

efficiently. Also, coordinated advanced planning and careful coordination during project

development and implementation ensure that products meet user office needs.

Current routine processes and communications emphasize defining up-front the purpose and

end-use applications of research work, achieving agreement on milestones and schedules,

sharing information on the status monitoring efforts, and integrating periodic reviews of

Operating Plans. The staff has also achieved considerable progress toward a common

approach to prioritizing research activities in the reactor, materials, and waste programs. 

This moves the agency closer to adopting a more consistent approach for prioritizing like or

linked activities, and using a similar basis for prioritizing the work based on the NRC’s strategic

performance goals. At the same time, the offices are working toward a common approach for

developing and executing their operating plans. Plans now better reflect agency goals,

objectives, and priorities. Office level budgeting decisions have also improved in that they

reflect resource allocation agreements reached by properly aligning plans across offices. 

Additionally, quarterly reviews of operating plan implementation at the Office and Deputy

Executive Director for Operations levels provide senior management review and further

integration of activities. These efforts will contribute to the agency’s use of the Program

Assessment Rating Tool as required by the Office of Management and Budget.

OPTIONS:

The staff has identified two options related to RERB activities. These options take into account

the high level of coordination that has been successfully implemented between RES and the

other offices. Although maintaining the status quo is also an option, the staff discounted its

merits because, as will be noted below, the status quo has been superseded by improvements

in routine practices, and does not meet effectiveness and efficiency objectives. The on-going

development of improvements such as interdependent Operating Plans, periodic status review

meetings, routine office level coordination meetings, and the other activities addressed above

have taken the effectiveness of research coordination beyond the level envisaged at the time

that RERB was formed. For example, program offices routinely participate in program reviews

conducted at national laboratories on NRC research projects. Therefore, the staff concludes

that continuation of the RERB in its present form duplicates other routine activities.

Option 1: Decrease the involvement of the RERB

Under this option, the RERB would continue. The RES Deputy Office Director would continue

to chair RERB meetings, which would be called on an as-needed basis. For example, the need

for a meeting might be signaled by evidence of a problem observed by any member of the

RERB.
The Commissioners 4

Option 2: Terminate the RERB

Under this option, the RERB would be discontinued on the basis that the original functions are being

accomplished by routine operations and communications, and the RERB is no longer necessary. 

As discussed earlier in this paper, communications as well as agency and office processes have

been enhanced to fulfill the function of the RERB. Terminating the RERB would serve the

interests of the agency’s strategic performance goal to ensure effectiveness, efficiency, realism,

and timeliness. Specifically, this option could improve efficiency through resource savings. If

the Commission elects this option, this paper would be the RERB’s final report.

RECOMMENDATION:

The staff recommends Option 2, to terminate the RERB in the interests of effectiveness and

efficiency.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has concurred on this Commission paper. However,

the staff did not submit this paper for review by the Office of the General Counsel because it

does not involve rulemaking, interpretation of regulations, policy matters, or other actions

that might have legal or regulatory implications.

RESOURCES:

Both options will save resources by eliminating duplicate activities. The larger saving is expected to

be obtained by Option 2.

/RA/

Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director

 for Operations
4

Option 2: Terminate the RERB

Under this option, the RERB would be discontinued on the basis that the original functions are being

accomplished by routine operations and communications, and the RERB is no longer necessary. 

As discussed earlier in this paper, communications as well as agency and office processes have

been enhanced to fulfill the function of the RERB. Terminating the RERB would serve the

interests of the agency’s strategic performance goal to ensure effectiveness, efficiency, realism,

and timeliness. Specifically, this option could improve efficiency through resource savings. If

the Commission elects this option, this paper would be the RERB’s final report.

RECOMMENDATION:

The staff recommends Option 2, to terminate the RERB in the interests of effectiveness and

efficiency.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has concurred on this Commission paper. However,

the staff did not submit this paper for review by the Office of the General Counsel because it

does not involve rulemaking, interpretation of regulations, policy matters, or other actions

that might have legal or regulatory implications.

RESOURCES:

Both options will save resources by eliminating duplicate activities. The larger saving is expected to

be obtained by Option 2.

/RA/

Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director

 for Operations

E:\Filenet\ML042740669.wpd

*See Previous Concurrence

OAR in ADAMS? (Y or N) Y ADAMS ACCESSION NO.: ML042740669 TEMPLATE NO.

SECY-012

Publicly Available? (Y or N) Y DATE OF RELEASE TO PUBLIC SENSITIVE? N

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy

OFFICE RES* E RES* E RES* N RES * E RES* E RES E D:NMSS* E

NAME NPKadambi:dfw JDanna PGarrity MGamberoni FEltawila JCraig JStrosnider

DATE 09/22/04 09/23/04 09/17/04 09/28/04 10/04/04 12/ /04 12/20/04

OFFICE D:NRR* E D:NSIR* E OCIO* E D:RES E DEDMRS E EDO E

NAME JDyer by B. Sheron RZimmerman JFunches CPaperiello MVirgilio LReyes

DATE 12/16/04 12/15/04 12/22/04 12/23/04 1/06/05 1/06/05