UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

 October 11, 2016 

 

MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Burns 

Commissioner Svinicki 

Commissioner Baran 

FROM: Victor M. McCree /RA/

 Executive Director for Operations 

SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE AGENCY’S 

LONG-TERM RESEARCH PROGRAM 

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the recommendations of the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff on the Long-Term Research Program (LTRP), in response 

to Commission direction in the staff requirements memorandum (SRM)-COMSECY-16-0006, 

“Revision to the Agency’s Long-Term Research Program and Related Reporting to the 

Commission,” dated April 13, 2016. This includes a discussion of the relationship of the LTRP 

to the generic issues (GI) program and consideration of enhanced milestones to tie research to 

user needs in response to the SRM. In COMSECY-16-0006, dated February 29, 2016, the staff 

sought Commission support for reconsidering the LTRP in light of Project Aim and committed to 

informing the Commission of its findings by the end of fiscal year (FY) 2016. 

Section 205 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 establishes the fundamental role of the 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) in the NRC. The role is further specified in Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 1.45, “Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.” 

As specified in the Act, the role of RES is to develop recommendations for research deemed 

necessary for the performance of NRC’s licensing and related regulatory functions, and to 

engage in and monitor contracts or agreements for the research. Additionally, the Commission 

further defined the roles and responsibility of RES under Direction Setting Issue (DSI) 22, 

Research. In particular, in SRM-COMSECY-96-066 – “Research (DSI 22),” dated March 28, 

1997, the Commission directed the staff to continue with the research program, which should 

include elements of both confirmatory and exploratory research. 

In SRM-COMDEK-06-0001, FY 2008 Budget Proposal,” dated August 23, 2006, the 

Commission directed the staff to conduct “forward looking” regulatory research by monitoring 

emerging technical/regulatory issues and initiating research to support such needs in a timely 

manner. In response in SECY-07-0192, “Agency Long-Term Research Activities for Fiscal Year 

2009,” dated October 31, 2007, the staff provided the Commission with a list of feasibility 

CONTACTS: Thomas H. Boyce, RES/DE/RGGIB 

 301-415-7335 

 Kurt O. Cozens, RES/DE/RGGIB 

 301-415-6362 

PLEASE RESPOND BY: 

October 26, 2016 

COMSECY-16-0021
The Commissioners - 2 -

studies, which were to be initiated in FY 2009. The intent of a feasibility study is to determine 

the viability of a research idea and to fully assess the agency need before dedicating significant 

resources to conduct a research study. 

The report was the first in a series of annual LTRP reports that articulated the feasibility studies. 

In SRM-COMSECY-13-0009, “Modification or Closure of Action Items in the Commission 

Tracking System,” dated August 8, 2013, the Commission reaffirmed its position that the staff 

should continue issuing an annual LTRP report and the staff has continued to provide the 

annual report to the Commission. 

In 2015 the staff reviewed the LTRP to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the program. 

This assessment was included in the 2015 annual report (SECY-15-0042, “Agency Long-Term 

Research Activities for Fiscal Year 2017,” dated March 20, 2015). The staff examined whether 

the LTRP produced feasibility studies that were effective in meeting the agency’s research and 

regulatory needs. The staff rated the success of the program based on whether the completed 

LTRP feasibility studies transitioned into the overarching research program. The staff found 

that, since the initiation of the LTRP in 2007, 27 feasibility studies had been approved and 

undertaken. Of these, 15 studies had been completed, 5 studies had been cancelled (generally 

because of a change in the regulatory need), and 7 studies were still active. Of the 15 

completed studies, 14 had successfully transitioned into the research program through user 

need requests (UNRs), Research Plans, or other formal agreements between RES and the 

regulatory offices. Based on the assessment, the staff concluded that the LTRP was 

accomplishing its purpose of enabling the NRC to meet its anticipated future regulatory needs. 

In 2016 as part of the agencywide rebaselining effort for Project Aim, the staff identified the 

LTRP as a candidate to be streamlined, and the subsequent SRM-COMSECY-16-0006 directed 

the staff to reconsider the efficiency and effectiveness of the LTRP. In response, the staff 

conducted an evaluation of the LTRP and how the LTRP contributes to the overarching 

research program. The staff found that the feasibility studies conducted under the LTRP were a 

worthwhile contributor to a continuum of research that includes identification, planning, and 

execution of research projects. The projects arise from several sources, including the LTRP 

feasibility studies. Research projects are typically planned in response to UNRs or Research 

Plans1. These research projects are coordinated with the regulatory offices to ensure that 

regulatory needs and agency priorities are met, consistent with the agency common 

prioritization criteria. Based on this priority, the appropriate research projects are conducted to 

the extent resources permit. The results of the research are used to inform or define regulatory 

actions, such as support to licensing and updates to regulations, guidance, or implementation of 

Commission policy. 

The staff also found that the current long-term research program could be enhanced to be more 

efficient and effective. First, the long-term research and associated planning activities should 

be treated as part of the continuum of research activities and the designation of “long-term” 

research as a separate research program (e.g., the LTRP) should be discontinued. This 

 

1A detailed discussion of the process for identifying research needs, including definitions of UNRs and 

Research Plans can be found in the RES Office Instruction, PRM-001, Rev.1, “Process for Responding to 

Work Requests: Informal Assistance, Research Assistance, User Needs, and Research Plans,” 

Agencywide Document Access and Management System Accession No. ML15187A012. 
The Commissioners - 3 - 

recognizes that some research projects require significant fore-thought to enable the 

development of a research study to fulfill the regulatory need and the length of time is 

determined by the work necessary to address the need. In addition, the staff considers longer 

term needs as part of routine activities and as a result, long-term research and its planning 

activities do not need a separate program and may be managed using the same process used 

for planning and conducting other research projects. 

Second, research feasibility studies could be identified and carried out on a more frequent basis 

than on an annual basis. Under the existing LTRP, the staff would identify long-term research 

projects once per year as part of developing the annual report. This also created a situation 

where the proposed feasibility studies were identified, but not funded or begun until 2 years later 

as part of the budget execution cycle. Going forward, the staff plans to develop a process that 

enables the staff to solicit ideas more regularly, particularly from the agency senior-level 

advisors, followed by a periodic screening evaluation. The staff plans to place ideas that pass 

the criteria of the screening evaluation into a portfolio and appropriately prioritize the feasibility 

studies depending on the regulatory need. The offices would consult on whether to proceed 

with the feasibility studies at the division director level, consistent with the common prioritization 

process. 

In addition, RES plans to increase interactions with the NRC regulatory offices regarding using 

the results of the feasibility studies for planning research. In particular, in coordination with the 

regulatory offices and business line leads, the results of the studies would be used to plan and 

launch research projects, typically in response to UNRs or Research Plans. Approval of these 

projects would be at the division director or office director level, consistent with other projects in 

the continuum of agency research activities. The staff also plans to continue to engage the 

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) on the results of the feasibility studies as 

part of the current research program reviews conducted by the ACRS. 

The 2015 effort to measure program effectiveness was the first time the staff had taken a critical 

look at the LTRP and concluded that the program was accomplishing its purpose. The staff 

plans to continue to assess how the efficiency and effectiveness of the feasibility studies can be 

improved upon, recognizing that they are one component of the continuum of research projects. 

Also, the staff plans to include more objective measures of effectiveness for feasibility studies, 

such as an assessment of quality and value. This is consistent with the current measures of 

quality and value that are used to monitor the continuum of research projects and includes 

monitoring the development of projects at appropriate interim milestones. 

The staff keeps the Commission informed of the significant activities that are part of the 

continuum of agency research, as appropriate, regardless of whether the activities result from 

UNRs, Research Plans, or Commission policy. Therefore, the staff believes that there is 

minimal additional benefit from continuing an annual report to the Commission on the “Long 

Term Research Program,” which is focused on the feasibility studies and recommends 

discontinuing the reports. In addition, the staff’s current initiative to enhance the tracking and 

reporting on research projects will enhance Commission access to the status and performance 

of research projects. 
The Commissioners - 4 - 

In SRM-COMSECY-16-0006, the Commission also directed the staff to examine the similarities 

and overlap between the LTRP and the GI program. The LTRP and the GI program are two 

distinctly different and separate programs. Although each program involves technical 

assessments, the GI program evaluates focused issues that have direct regulatory applications 

based on their safety significance, whereas the feasibility studies address broader scoped 

issues that may have regulatory application, but have not yet been assessed for their safety 

significance. Based on the staff’s assessment of GIs, the staff may identify the need for and 

conduct research. For example, this was done for GI-193 regarding the potential for air binding 

of emergency core cooling pumps during a design basis event, thereby causing a loss of core 

cooling. In this case, the research was needed in the short-term to support regulatory decisionmaking and was successfully completed in approximately 8 months. This research 

complemented the staff’s assessment under the GI program and successfully contributed to 

resolving the GI. Therefore, because the programs are different and do not overlap, the staff 

does not believe that the programs should be integrated. 

Based on the direction in SRM-COMSECY-16-0006, the statutory and policy framework for 

RES, and the evaluation summarized in this document, the staff recommends that the 

Commission: 

• Eliminate the designation of the LTRP as a separate program from the NRC’s existing 

research program, but continue the use of feasibility studies to support the planning of 

appropriate research activities within the continuum of research. 

• Eliminate the annual SECY report sent to the Commission on the feasibility studies 

planned for 2 years in the future. The staff will keep the Commission informed of 

significant activities in the continuum of agency research, as appropriate, including 

through the annual budget process and through enhanced reporting and tracking of 

research projects. 

• Maintain the existing relationship between the GI program and research projects. 

SECY please track. 

cc: SECY 

 OGC 

 OCA 

 OPA 
The Commissioners - 4 - 

In SRM-COMSECY-16-0006, the Commission also directed the staff to examine the similarities 

and overlap between the LTRP and the GI program. The LTRP and the GI program are two 

distinctly different and separate programs. Although each program involves technical 

assessments, the GI program evaluates focused issues that have direct regulatory applications 

based on their safety significance, whereas the feasibility studies address broader scoped 

issues that may have regulatory application, but have not yet been assessed for their safety 

significance. Based on the staff’s assessment of GIs, the staff may identify the need for and 

conduct research. For example, this was done for GI-193 regarding the potential for air binding 

of emergency core cooling pumps during a design basis event, thereby causing a loss of core 

cooling. In this case, the research was needed in the short-term to support regulatory decisionmaking and was successfully completed in approximately 8 months. This research 

complemented the staff’s assessment under the GI program and successfully contributed to 

resolving the GI. Therefore, because the programs are different and do not overlap, the staff 

does not believe that the programs should be integrated. 

Based on the direction in SRM-COMSECY-16-0006, the statutory and policy framework for 

RES, and the evaluation summarized in this document, the staff recommends that the 

Commission: 

• Eliminate the designation of the LTRP as a separate program from the NRC’s existing 

research program, but continue the use of feasibility studies to support the planning of 

appropriate research activities within the continuum of research. 

• Eliminate the annual SECY report sent to the Commission on the feasibility studies 

planned for 2 years in the future. The staff will keep the Commission informed of 

significant activities in the continuum of agency research, as appropriate, including 

through the annual budget process and through enhanced reporting and tracking of 

research projects. 

• Maintain the existing relationship between the GI program and research projects. 

SECY please track. 

cc: SECY 

 OGC 

 OCA 

 OPA 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML16244A184 SRM-COMSECY-16-0006-1 

OFFICE RES/DE RES/DE RES/DE NSIR NMSS NRR 

NAME K. Cozens T. Boyce B. Thomas B. Holian S. Moore W. Dean 

DATE 9/13/16 9/13/16 9/22/16 9/09/16 9/08/16 9/12/16 

OFFICE OGC NRO QTE RES EDO 

NAME B. Mizuno J. Uhle J. Dougherty M. Weber V. McCree 

DATE 9/07/16 9/07/16 9/02/16 9/22/16 10/ 11 /06 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY