NUREG-1802, Vol. 1

Role and Direction of 

Nuclear Regulatory Research 

Summary of Expert Panel Report 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission "E 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 r
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS 

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material 

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at 

www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. 

Publicly released records include, to name a few, 

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices; 

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and 

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal 

memoranda; bulletins and information notices; 

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event 

reports; and Commission papers and their 

attachments. 

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC 

regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of 

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 

of these two sources. 

1. The Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Mail Stop SSOP 

Washington, DC 20402-0001 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov 

Telephone: 202-512-1800 

Fax: 202-512-2250 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

Springfield, VA 22161-0002 

www.ntis.gov 

1-800-553-6847 or, locally, 703-605-6000 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows: 

Address: Office of the Chief Information Officer, 

Reproduction and Distribution 

Services Section 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION @ nrc.gov 

Facsimile: 301-415-2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC's Web site address 

www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/indexnum.html 

are updated periodically and may differ from the last 

printed version, Although references to material found 

on a Web site bear the date the material was 

accessed, the material available on the date cited may 

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material 

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as 

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal 

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and 

congressional reports. Such documents as theses, 

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and 

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased 

from their sponsoring organization. 

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained at

The NRC Technical Library 

Two White Flint North 

11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852-2738 

These standards are available in the library for 

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are 

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the 

originating organization or, if they are American 

National Standards, from

American National Standards Institute 

11 West 4 2 nd Street 

New York, NY 10036-8002 

www.ansi.org 

212-642-4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated 

only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including 

technical specifications; or orders, not in 

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed 

in contractor-prepared publications in this series 

are not necessarily those of the NRC. 

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative reports and books prepared by the 

staff (NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors 

(NUREG/CR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of 

conferences (NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reports 

resulting from international agreements 

(NUREG/IA-XXXX), (4) brochures 

(NUREG/BR-XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal 

decisions and orders of the Commission and 

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of 

Directors' decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC's 

regulations (NUREG-0750).
NUREG-1802, Vol. 1

Role and Direction of 

Nuclear Regulatory Research 

Summary of Expert Panel Report 

Manuscript Completed: September 2001 

Date Published: September 2001 

Prepared by 

R. W. Durante, Durante Associates 

Under Contract to 

Arthur Andersen, LLP 

1150 17'b Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20036-4613 

and 

J.W. Johnson, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001
Abstract

This report summarizes the input received from a 17-member Panel of Experts on the role and 

future direction of nuclear regulatory research. Membership on the panel was comprised of 

representatives from Congress, government, industry, universities, private consultants, 

international, and the public. Major focus areas of discussions included research funding, 

cooperative research, infrastructure, and communication. The work of the panel was divided 

into two phases. Phase 1 focused on the vision, mission, and general direction of regulatory 

research. Phase II provided guidance and perspectives on the future direction of regulatory 

research.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PaAa...e. 

Abstract...........................................................Dii 

Acknowledgm ents ..................................................... vi 

Introduction .......................................................... 1 

Invitation Letter to Panel Members ........................................ 3 

Expert Panel M em bers ................................................. 5 

S um m ary ........................................................... 6 

Responses to the Chairman's Three Questions ............................. 11 

Panel Chairman's Opening Remarks ..................................... 13
Acknowledgments

In 1974, Congress mandated the formation of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research to 

ensure "an independent capability for developing and analyzing technical information related to 

reactor safety, safeguards and environmental protection in support of the licensing and 

regulatory process." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulatory research program continues to provide a significant part of the Commission's independent technical capability. The scope and emphasis of NRC's reactor research program have changed over the years as 

nuclear technology has changed and continues to evolve. As a means of supplementing our 

internal planning, it is essential that we seek stakeholder input on the role and future direction 

of regulatory research. To accomplish this goal an Expert Panel was formed consisting of 

representatives from Congress, government, industry, universities, private consultants, 

international, and the public. The panel was chaired by Dr. Kenneth C. Rogers. Mr. Raymond 

W. Durante served as the panel coordinator. 

The work of the panel was divided into two phases. Phase 1 focused on the vision, mission, 

and general direction of regulatory research. Phase II provided guidance and perspectives on 

the future direction of regulatory research. The Members of the Expert Panel volunteered their 

time and resources to support this important agency initiative. The Commission was briefed by representatives of the Expert Panel on May 10, 2001 on their findings. The Commission 

expressed their appreciation to the Panel and commended them for a job well done. I also 

wish to express my appreciation to the panel for their invaluable contributions on topics of 

immense value to the NRC as we plan the role of regulatory research in a rapidly changing 

environment in the nuclear industry and the regulatory arena. 

Ashok C. Thadani, Director 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Vi
I INTRODUCTION 

The Nuclear Industry is currently involved in important and far-reaching changes 

that are creating new issues and new challenges for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). As a result, the Agency is currently involved in an internal 

evaluation to determine how it can meet these challenges and at the same time 

continue its objectives to maintain safety; protect the environment and the common 

defense and security; increase public confidence; make NRC activities and decisions 

more effective, efficient, and realistic; and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on 

stakeholders. An essential part of this effort is a thorough review of the activities of the 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES). Since it was established by Congress in 

1975, RES has provided a significant part of NRC's independent capability for 

developing and analyzing technical information related to reactor safety, safeguards, 

and environmental protection in support of the licensing and regulatory process. 

As a means of supplementing internal planning, input from stakeholders was sought on 

the role and future direction of RES in this rapidly changing environment. A 17

member panel of experts (chaired by former Commissioner Kenneth Rogers and 

representing industry, academia, government, and public interest groups) was 

assembled and asked to present their views and comments on the vision, mission, role, 

and general direction of regulatory research and to provide insight and guidance for 

future activities. A list of the members, all of whom who served voluntarily, is included 

in Volume I of this report. 

The work on this report was divided into two phases and the Panel was convened for 

two meetings for each phase. The first two-day meeting was opened by NRC Chairman 

Richard Meserve, followed by presentations from and open discussions with senior 

RES staff. The panel met the next day for internal discussions and then adjourned. 

Individual preliminary written statements were submitted by each of the members 

identifying key issues and recommendations. The second meeting involved only the 

panel and focused on more detailed discussions of individual statements, which were 

then finalized by the authors and included as part of this report. The objective of Phase 

1 was to broadly examine the mission and role of RES and its contribution to the basic 

objectives of the NRC. Since this was a non-FACA panel (Federal Advisory Committee 

Act), no attempt was made to develop a consensus report; instead, members were 

encouraged to present their own individual viewpoints and recommendations. 

However, based on the information from the written submissions and discussions 

during the meetings, there appeared to be several conclusions and recommendations 

widely shared by many panel members. These issues were restated in the form of 

recommendations to the Commission, and for the Phase 2 effort, the Panel was asked 

for their individual suggestions and comments as to how these recommendations could 

be implemented. Phase 2 was conducted in a similar manner with a two-day and a 

one-day meeting in which presentations were made to the panel by NRR, NMSS, RES, 

and representatives of the regions. Prior to the meetings, the panel requested and was 

provided with detailed information on budgets, programs, and specific activities of these 

offices.

1
The panel submitted their individual comments and recommendations that are included 

in Volume II. At the onset of Phase 1, in his opening address to the Panel, Chairman 

Meserve offered three questions for the panel's consideration. There were preliminary 

responses to theses questions in Phase 1; however, the panel requested and was 

provided with more information in order to provide more substantive answers. The 

three questions and the individual final responses are included in Volume II of this 

report. 

It should be strongly emphasized that this panel was a non-FACA committee and there 

was no attempt to reach a consensus. The material in this report represents the unique 

viewpoints of the panel members based on their experience and understanding of 

research as it is conducted by the NRC. The views of the panel members, including the 

Chairman, are their own with no editing or modification; they are included in their 

entirety in Volume II. Volume I is a summary, written by a non-member of the panel, 

that summarizes the positions commonly held by a majority of the panel members, 

including conclusions and recommendations which appeared to be most widely shared.

2
UNITED STATES 

S1 , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

July 3, 2000 

Dr. Kenneth Rogers 

6202 Perthshire Court 

Bethesda, MD 20817 

Dear Dr. Rogers: 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is currently involved in a number of important changes we 

believe will improve safety, regulatory efficiency, and improve public confidence. An essential 

ingredient for success in these new initiatives is a sound research program. Since it was 

established by Congressional action in 1975, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research has 

provided a significant part of the Commission's independent capability and will most assuredly 

continue to be an important resource in the future. 

As a means of supplementing our internal planning, we are seeking input from stakeholders on 

the future direction of regulatory research. The approach we are taking is to obtain the views of 

experts from government, industry, and the public to meet with research staff and provide 

insight and guidance for future research programs. This effort would be undertaken in two 

phases. Phase I would focus on the vision, mission, and general direction of regulatory 

research. Phase II would provide specific guidance and perspectives on the future direction of 

regulatory research. 

I am writing to you to invite you to participate as an expert for Phase I. The membership for 

Phase II will be determined at a later date. Your contributions along with those of other experts 

who have been carefully chosen will help NRC plan the role of its research in what is clearly a 

rapidly changing environment in the nuclear industry and regulatory arena. The resulting input 

will help ensure NRC's decisions have a strong technical base, are clearly understood by the 

public and the regulated industry, and provide the NRC with the tools to anticipate and 

proactively address this ever changing environment. 

The first meeting will be held in the Washington, DC, area on August 16-17. Specific details, 

including a list of other experts, are enclosed. 

For additional information, please contact Mr. Ashok C. Thadani, Director of the Office of 

Nuclear Regulatory Research. Mr. Thadani's mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail 

address are: 

Ashok C. Thadani, Director 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

(301) 415-6641 

E-mail: ACT@ NRC.GOV

3
Dr. Kenneth Rogers

If you need assistance with your travel arrangements and hotel accommodations, please 

contact Mr. James W. Johnson of Mr. Thadani's staff. Mr. Johnson can be reached on 

(301) 415-6293. 

1 look forward to your participation and help in charting an appropriate course for NRC's 

research activities. 

Sincerely, 

William D. Travers 

Executive Director 

for Operations 

Enclosures: As stated

4
EXPERT PANEL MEMBERS

Panel Chairman: Panel Coordinator: 

Dr. Kenneth C. Rogers Raymond W. Durante 

Former NRC Commissioner Arthur Andersen 

Dr. John F. Ahearne Dr. Theodore U. Marston 

Director VP and Chief Nuclear Officer 

Sigma XI Electric Power Research Institute 

Research Triangle Park, NC Palo Alto, CA 

Dr. Robert J. Budnitz Dr. Dominic J. Monetta 

President Resource Alternatives, Inc. 

Future Resources Associates, Inc. Washington, DC 

Berkeley, CA 

Mr. David R. Helwig Dr. Kenneth L. Mossman 

Commonwealth Edison Director, Office of Radiation Safety 

Downers Grove, IL Arizona State University 

Tempe, AR 

Dr. Michel Livolant* Dr. Thomas E. Murley 

Director Consultant 

Institute de Protection et ed Surete Nucleaire (IPSN) Bethesda, MD 

Cedex, France 

Dr. David Lochbaum* Mr. Harold B. Ray 

Nuclear Safety Engineer Executive VP 

Union of Concerned Scientists Southern California Edison 

Washington, DC Rosemead, CA 

Dr. Jane C.S. Long Kristine L. Svinicki 

Dean, Mackay School of Mines Legislative Fellow (Senator Craig) 

University of Nevada, Reno Washington, DC 

Dr. Edwin Lyman J. Aloysius Hogan 

Nuclear Control Institute Counsel (Senator Hagel) 

Washington, DC Washington, DC 

Dr. William D. Magwood, IV Andrew R. Wheeler* 

Director, Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology Counsel, Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

U.S. Department of Energy Works 

Washington, DC Washington, DC 

Mr. Alexander Marion 

Nuclear Energy Institute 

Washington, DC 

Alternates 

Dr. William H. Bohlke Dr. Paul Leventhal 

Exelon Generation Nuclear Control Institute 

Downers Grove, IL Washington, DC 

Dr. John Gaertner A. Edward Scherer 

EPRI Southern Califomia Edison 

Charlotte, NC San Clemente, CA

* Participated in Phase I only.

5
SUMMARY 

PHASE I 

The 17 statements presented in this report are the views of individual panel members, 

including the Chairman. No attempt has been made to reach a consensus or establish 

a uniform set of recommendations. It is clear, however, many issues and conclusions 

were independently considered by more than one panel member, and in some cases a 

majority of the panel. The submissions of the individual panelists contain many unique and important comments and ideas that merit serious consideration; therefore, all the 

individual statements should be reviewed in addition to this summary. Issues 

considered most prevalent are discussed below. 

The panel members were in general agreement that a strong viable RES with world 

class expertise must be maintained in order to ensure a sound technical base for all 

NRC activities and to maintain the credibility and leadership role of the NRC both 

domestically and internationally. Most panel members were of the opinion that RES 

must expand in-house expertise by adding experienced professionals, qualified in areas 

directly related to current and anticipated regulatory activities. There was no criticism of 

current personnel, but it was felt that, through attrition and budget reductions, technical 

expertise has been steadily eroded in some technical areas. It was suggested that 

RES have a cadre of full time in-house technical experts available to keep abreast of 

worldwide technical developments that might impact on regulatory activities. 

There was general concern that the physical facilities available to RES are showing their age and rapidly becoming obsolete and expensive to operate, particularly those of 

the National Laboratories. Many of these facilities, as well as those at universities and 

in private industry, are being shut down prematurely for economic reasons. NRC must 

work with industry and other government agencies to make a case for maintaining 

these facilities in preparation for future work. There was concern that, in order to 

maintain independence, RES was forced to utilize government facilities that were 

obsolete or inadequate. This prompted further discussion by several members of the 

panel on the need for more collaborative efforts, using the resources and facilities of 

industry and international sources. Successful collaborative efforts in the past with 

foreign-owned facilities were cited as examples. 

There were extensive discussions regarding the question of whether the NRC can 

maintain independence in its decision making while utilizing data and test results 

obtained by others. It was generally agreed that a solution to this dilemma must be 

found, and most of the panel members commented on this topic. Most of the panel members recommended RES increase its cooperative research efforts with DOE, 

industry, EPRI, and international organizations. It was felt that, with declining budgets, 

pooling research efforts with others would result in more effective use of available 

resources and this practice should be more frequently utilized. It was suggested that 

RES would not necessarily have to initiate or manage all research efforts, but it must be 

in on the planning and establishing of objectives for such research programs that it 

needs to use. It was recommended that current working agreements with DOE and

6
EPRI be re-examined and strengthened wherever possible and more fully utilized. 

There was concern, however, that RES not rely solely on the advice and guidance of 

those organizations that might ultimately do the research. 

An underlying concern among several panel members was whether RES was operating 

in accordance with the intent of the original congressional mandate. The question was 

raised as to whether all research should be conducted in a single organization, i.e., 

RES. Members differed on this issue; however, several felt that a single strong center 

conducting all research for the Agency should be considered. There was considerable 

discussion- regarding the proper balance between anticipatory and confirmatory 

research and technical support, with general agreement among the members that the 

current mix of anticipatory and confirmatory research appears to be reasonable. There 

were questions on how decisions are made, what anticipatory research is done, and 

what objectives are sought. Several members of the panel stated that costs for 

anticipatory research should not be recovered through fees, but from general funds. 

Several panel members suggested the definition of research as it is conducted by the 

NRC should be more clearly defined, and more transparent methods are needed to 

decide what research needs to be done and when to start and when to terminate 

research projects. 

The crosscutting issue that impacted all other issues was funding the RES efforts. It 

was generally agreed that funding was at a dangerously low level and any further cuts 

would make the viability of RES questionable. The need for full cost recovery places 

too much burden on stakeholders, and opinions ranged from funding RES completely 

from general funds to at least providing a significant percentage from that source. 

Several panel members felt stakeholders should not be required to fund any 

anticipatory research, even though such research has value and may be needed for 

future regulatory actions. It was suggested that the NRC at the highest levels increase 

contact and dialogue with the Congress to obtain budget relief and reconsideration of 

the requirement for full cost recovery. Support by the nuclear industry in this effort was 

regarded as essential for its success. 

A majority of the panel agreed that RES must improve its communications efforts with 

the stakeholders, other government agencies, and internally with the Commission at all 

organizational levels. Concern was expressed that in many instances the public and 

even industry are unaware of what RES programs were under way, the objectives being 

pursued, the final results, and how these results were used for regulatory purposes. 

Several panel members urged more active and direct leadership by the Commissioners 

in support of RES both internally and externally to underscore the value of the research 

performed at the NRC in support of nuclear safety domestically and worldwide. Support 

from stakeholders, particularly the industry and DOE, is needed to achieve this 

objective. 

Finally, it should be noted that at the first panel meeting NRC Chairman Meserve, in his 

opening remarks, posed three questions to the panel and most of the members 

attempted to respond directly to these questions. These individual responses are 

included in Volume II.

7
PHASE II

The objectives of Phase 2 of the expert panel were to identify key policy 

recommendations to the Commission that were developed in Phase 1 and suggest 

ways and means to implement these recommendations. There was general agreement 

on the importance of maintaining and supporting a strong research capability to ensure 

the safety of U.S. nuclear facilities and contribute to U.S. leadership in nuclear 

technology worldwide; therefore, the panel focused on identifying strategies to achieve 

this objective. While there was no attempt to establish a consensus among the panel 

members, similar specific recommendations were made by a significant number of 

panel members, in some cases the majority, for actions to be taken by the 

Commissioners, EDO, and RES to improve and enhance RES operations. The scope 

of attention given by the panel members was extremely broad and covered a wide 

range of RES operations and interrelationships with the other program offices. In order 

to produce a manageable analysis, the individual panel members' comments and 

recommendations that appeared most often were combined into four major policy-type 

recommendations. The panel was asked to focus on these recommendations and 

present their views and suggestions as to how they might be implemented. The four 

recommendations are listed below, followed by brief statements on how they might be 

implemented. It should be emphasized that since this is a summary only the 

suggestions that appeared most often are included. There are other important issues 

and recommendations made by individual panel members that should be considered. 

For this reason it is important to review the individual statements of each panel member 

as contained in Volume II of this report. 

Specific Recommendations 

1. The NRC must maintain, as a used and useful arm of its organization, a reliable, 

respected Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research and must support this office 

with the necessary people and resources so it is an unassailable source of 

technical information and support for regulatory actions. This is necessary not 

only to establish the credibility of NRC's technical decision making and thereby 

ensure the safety of all NRC licensed activities, but also to ensure U.S. 

leadership in the technology of nuclear safety regulation. 

a. RES was established by legislation and given a mandate to ensure an 

independent capability for developing and analyzing technical information 

related to reactor safety, safeguards, and environmental protection in 

support of the licensing and regulatory process. The Commission should 

explore ways to increase the funding for RES in order for this 

responsibility to be adequately carried out. 

b. The Commission should direct the EDO to establish minimum 

requirements for RES core capabilities and resources required for 

maintaining the necessary people, analytical tools, and access to facilities.

8
c. The Commission should charge RES with monitoring the Agency's state 

of readiness to meet future challenges as a result of new technologies, 

advances in reactor design, safety issues, and industry initiatives and to 

report its findings to the Commission on a periodic basis (e.g., biennially). 

2. RES must support the activities of other program offices, which in turn should be 

required to coordinate their activities with RES at least to the extent of planning 

new work, establishing objectives of technical studies, and assessing the validity 

of data and analyses. At the same time, RES should be allowed to initiate 

anticipatory technical studies without approval by program offices, but with their 

cognizance and input wherever possible. RES must be able to do and be seen 

as able to do independent verification of data that NRC will rely on for regulatory 

action. RES must institute and maintain a comprehensive and effective 

communications program to make available its plans and activities. 

a. The Commission should require RES to develop a strategic oversight 

system for its anticipatory research and require input from the program 

offices in both identifying and prioritizing anticipatory work. However, the 

decisions on an anticipatory research program must lie with the Director of 

the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. RES should provide the 

Commission with annual reports on the results of its anticipatory research 

program. 

b. The Commission should encourage the expansion of RES activities 

beyond narrow technical activities and task RES with responsibility for 

identifying new systems-wide issues that could have significant safety 

implications and for proposing further relevant studies. Examples might 

be the impact of regulation on a licensee's safety culture and the positive 

or negative synergistic results of current or new regulations or new 

industry initiatives. 

c. The Commission should direct RES to improve communications with 

stakeholders on its research program. RES programs should be 

described in understandable language in reports including, but not limited 

to, an annual RES report that describes the purpose of the research, the 

expected use in the regulatory process, and sunset criteria for each major 

research program. 

3. RES must continue to increase its cooperative efforts with other organizations 

including, but not necessarily limited to, EPRI, DOE, industry, academia, public 

interest groups, and international organizations. RES must seek out and, 

wherever possible, utilize facilities, equipment, and resources available from 

these entities and maximize the use of technical data and results already 

developed. RES, in cooperation with and supported by the Commission, must 

establish procedures to accomplish this while fully retaining the decision making 

independence of RES.

9
a. The Commission should direct RES to expand its base of contractors to 

include more private organizations. RES should explore innovative ways 

to contract with private organizations that will not significantly delay the 

contracting process. 

b. The Commission should direct RES to identify inhibitors to further 

expansion of cooperative research with the international community, 

EPRI, DOE, and the nuclear industry and to propose for Commission 

consideration strategies to implement such cooperative research without 

compromising NRC's independent regulatory decision making. 

4. A clear and understandable definition of what research includes and does not 

include at the NRC and its value to the safety of the nation's nuclear program 

must be established by the Commission and accepted internally by the program offices and staff personnel and effectively conveyed to all the stakeholders. 

Continuing efforts must be made through research to eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens on stakeholders while at the same time focusing on areas 

that will benefit them through safer and more efficient operations. Charges to 

licensees for research costs should be on the basis of identifiable value to the 

efficient and effective regulation of those licensees. 

a. The Commission should establish a clear concise definition of research as 

it is conducted by this agency, with clear distinction among anticipatory research, confirmatory research, and technical assistance and the 

significance of "realistic" in a RES context. 

b. The Commission should support adjustments to the fee structure to 

ensure that funding derived from licensee fees is used only to support the 

regulatory needs of those licensees. Funding for new technology and 

advanced designs should be independent of the fee structure. 

In addition to the four policy recommendations given above, the panel was also asked 

to respond to three questions posed by Chairman Meserve at the opening meeting. These questions are listed below with brief responses, representative of the most 

commonly held positions of the individual panel members. It should be stressed again that for the sake of brevity only the most often expressed comments were summarized. 

There are other important comments included in the individual statements by each of 

the panel members and these statements should be carefully reviewed.

10
RESPONSES TO THE CHAIRMAN'S THREE QUESTIONS 

At the onset of Phase 1, the Chairman emphasized the importance of this study to 

assist the Commission in chartering future tasks of the RES. Chairman Meserve stated 

that, among other things, he was seeking answers to the following questions: 

1. Are we spending enough on research? 

2. Are we doing the right research? 

3. Are we doing research with the right people? 

While most panel members provided opinions on these questions, all members 

indicated they did not have enough material or background information to properly 

address these questions. As a result, Phase 2 presentations were made by NRR and 

NMSS describing research activities relative to user needs and RES described the 

anticipatory research being done. Based on this more detailed information, the panel 

was able to provide more specific answers to the questions. It should be emphasized 

that in Phase 2, which was conducted in the same manner as Phase 1 as a non-FACA 

committee and a non-consensus report, there were a number of comments and 

recommendations by more than one member of the panel and in cases a majority of the 

panel. The comments and recommendations below represent a combination of Phases 

1 and 2 material submitted by the expert panel. 

1. Are We Spending Enough on Research? Based on the presentation by RES, it 

was concluded that research in general and anticipatory research specifically are 

substantially under-funded. While not everyone provided numerical 

assessments, those who did put this shortfall in the range of $4-12 million per 

year. It was pointed out the research budget has been significantly reduced over 

the past 10 years while the challenges to research based on emerging issues 

have increased. It was stated that somewhere between 80-90 percent of the 

RES research budget is dedicated to user-need research. The remaining 10-20 

percent did not appear to be adequate for RES to undertake research on 

emerging issues arising from decommissioning, license transfer, advanced 

technologies, license renewal, and other such activities. Several panel members 

felt RES should be able to challenge technical results from both NRR and NMSS 

technical support activities to be certain a sound technology database is being 

used in license decision making. A number of panel members expressed 

concern that RES's budget was insufficient to maintain its technical core 

capabilities needed in the face of declining staff throughout the Agency. It was 

suggested that RES increase its technical capability and expand its contractor 

services as well as the facilities that are used. This would require additional 

funding. 

2. Are We Doing the Right Research? The majority of panel members strongly 

indicated that not enough anticipatory research is being done and RES is not 

doing enough work in the material and waste areas. It was also suggested that 

RES should be doing more work on the utilization of PRA results and developing 

improved PRA methods, and RES should be working on improving data that

11
would permit the Commission to assume its goal of reducing the financial burden 

on stakeholders. Several panel members felt that, regardless of the work being done by NMSS in evaluating the ability to license waste management programs, 

special research skills are required to review that work and verify its credibility. Decisions regarding the ultimate safety of the Yucca Mountain Project, for 

example, will be carefully scrutinized by stakeholders and solid research data 

must be available to support the decisions made by the Commission. It was felt 

that by placing such a strong emphasis on research applied to user needs, significant gaps in technology will result that cannot be filled because of lack of 

funding and personnel. Although several panel members did not feel licensees 

should pay for anticipatory research, they recognized the need to perform this 

research. It was recommended that a more robust funding of research be 

pursued by the Commission with a larger percentage of the funding derived from 

the general funds appropriated by Congress instead of licensee fees. It was also 

recommended that a systematic process of prioritizing research projects be 

established with greater coordination between NRR and NMSS. Some panel members suggested that more communications with licensees and other 

stakeholders outside of NRC would increase the likelihood that the necessary 

research is being performed. 

3. Are We Doing Research with the Right People? Several panel members pointed 

out that it was the intent of Congress for NRC to use DOE's national labs to take 

advantage of the large DOE budget for research. However, with a reduced RES 

budget, it becomes more difficult to conduct research with varied contractor 

types and at the same time sustain some minimum funding level to ensure 

quality products. The Commission must continue to find ways to use DOE 

laboratories as well as DOE resources. This can be done through collaborative 

efforts suggested by the NRC but carried out by the DOE. It was pointed out that 

complex contracting procedures can take too long to contract with organizations other than the national labs, and NRC should find ways to reduce the time it 

takes to contract with industry, academia, and other private organizations. It was 

stressed that this must be done carefully so the NRC in general and RES 

specifically do not diminish their independent roles or relinquish safety objectives in any way. Several panel members felt that anticipatory research, particularly long-term projects, can benefit by contributions from university teams that fit 

less-structured and less time-disciplined modes of operation. However, RES 

must continue to develop its skills in managing university research projects. RES 

should also review the working arrangements they currently have with EPRI and 

DOE to be certain they provide sufficient flexibility to maximize the benefits of the 

work being done by those two agencies without losing independent verification 

capabilities. It was also pointed out that advice on research provided to the NRC 

by the ACRS and the ACNW is excellent, but both of these committees are 

heavily burdened and some new mechanism could be created to provide 

additional oversight in the form of periodic reviews of NRC's overall research 

programs by a broad-based group of experts every two or three years. 

Specifically, it was recommended that the Commission require RES to review all 

its programs and reassess the unfunded-but-needed efforts and develop a set of 

required competencies and amount of funding required to perform these 

projects.

12
PANEL CHAIRMAN'S OPENING REMARKS 

Expectations/Plans/Mode of Operation 

Panel Chairman: Kenneth C. Rogers 

August 16, 2000 

Once again, welcome to you all who have generously agreed to contribute your time 

and thoughts to this NRC effort to ensure that its research activities are as valuable as 

possible in supporting the agency's responsibilities with regard to public health and 

safety and the environment. With your indulgence, I will call to mind some of the history 

behind our being here today. 

The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 replaced the Atomic Energy Commission by 

two new entities: The Energy Research and Development Administration and the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The AEC was a very large, powerful and heavily 

funded agency with activities in all areas of nuclear technology, including promotion and 

development of the uses of nuclear materials as well as the regulation of their safe use. 

These functions were divided between the two new agencies with safety regulation of 

civilian uses assigned to the NRC and military uses and development and promotional 

activities for civilian uses assigned to ERDA. Both new agencies were supported by 

appropriations derived from general funds rather than from licensee fees, an important 

difference for NRC today. 

The Act directed the establishment of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research with a 

Director reporting to the Commission and charged with 

Developing recommendations for research deemed necessary for 

performance of the Commission of its licensing and related regulatory functions 

Engaging in or contracting for research which the Commission deems 

necessary for the performance of its licensing and regulatory functions. 

The NRC was not given any substantial laboratories of its own, but other federal 

agencies were expected to meet those needs of the NRC that require access to 

physical laboratories. 

The Act further stated "... the head of every other federal agency shall 

cooperate with respect to the establishment of priorities for the furnishing of 

such research. services as requested by the Commission.... 

furnish to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, through their own facilities 

or by contract or other arrangement, such services as the Commission deems 

necessary....

13
consult and cooperate with the Commission on research and development 

matters of mutual interest and provide such information and physical access to 

its facilities as will assist the Commission in acquiring the expertise necessary to 

perform its licensing and related regulatory functions. 

Clearly the Congress expected the NRC to have access to all federal facilities to obtain 

research information and to be billed for these services. It left up to the Commission to 

decide what kinds of research it would need and how and where it would acquire them. 

Over the nearly 30 years that have passed since the NRC and the Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research were created, there have been vast changes in NRC's needs for 

information derived through the Office of Research and how meeting those needs is 

funded. The role of NRC research in the scientific and technological community world

wide has evolved, and a number of NRC-sponsored studies have had great impacts on 

the entire nuclear technology community and have resulted in NRC becoming regarded 

as a leading world-class authority. 

Various reviews of NRC's research programs have been carried out. The most 

comprehensive study was conducted under the auspices of the National Research 

Council in 1986. Two of our own panel members were associated with that study, John 

Ahearne and Robert Budnitz. That study made a number of recommendations, and 

although the context in which they were made has changed considerably, many of its 

recommendations have relevance to today's world. In my view two of the study's most 

far reaching statements were the call for routine use of peer review to instill 

confidence in the quality of research results, and establishment of a strong advisory group that includes independent experts from industry and academia 

along with representatives of organizations performing research. 

The NRC has been striving to strengthen all of its activities, and in my opinion, the 

convening of this panel is testimony to NRC's genuine effort towards continual self

improvement. I believe that the establishment of this panel is neither an exercise in 

self-justification by the NRC nor is it a. response to an immediate acute problem. Rather, I view it as NRC's search for constructive criticisms from each and all of you as 

knowledgeable stakeholders. I see my role as Chairman as facilitating their 

development through a process involving presentations by NRC staff with ample opportunities for you to raise questions and to seek clarifications and the sharing of 

your own thoughts with your fellow panelists. I do ask you to forego taking issue with 

the NRC staff on any of the matters in their presentations and to reserve expression of 

those thoughts for your individual presentations to the panel on Thursday. Today should be directed towards probing, discovery, and clarification with analysis and 

recommendations for reinforcement or remediation put off until tomorrow. I will be 

amenable to accepting recommendations for improvements in today's process after it 

has had a chance to evolve during the day. 

Before we turn to the presentations does anyone have a question or comment? 

Mr. Thadani, Director of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, will lead off.

14
Panel Chairman: Kenneth C. Rogers 

February 21, 2001 

NRC Experts Panel on Research 

Welcome and thank you to everyone participating in our final panel meeting here or on 

line. Dr. Jane Long and Dr. Kenneth Mossman are with us via telephone. 

This meeting is open to the public and we have with us some additional interested 

people seated around the room. Would you please introduce yourselves? 

Welcome to you also. 

We have two activities to complete today. The first is to share our individual comments 

on each of the four statements proposed for Commission consideration and action, and 

the second to have one last go around on our individual answers to Chairman 

Meserve's three questions to the panel and any related matters. 

Following Mr. Thadani's comments on the work of the panel to date, I propose to take 

up our first task and complete it by 12:30 at which time we will break for lunch. We will 

resume our work at 1:30 by taking up the Chairman's questions and related matters 

with an objective of closing the meeting by 4:30. 

Our time will be very tight, but if each of us tries to keep our comments to 5 minutes, I 

think that we all will have an opportunity to participate. I propose to take up the 

statements one at a time with suggestions for any truly significant wording changes in 

that policy statement and whatever suggestions you have for Commission actions to 

effectuate the policy. (Your final written submissions will provide the opportunity for fine 

scale wordsmithing.) Mr. Durante will put the essence of each comment on a poster 

sheet so we can all see how they stack up. These will be important for his summary 

and for my presentation to the Commission at a Commission meeting in May. I will 

invite your comments as in the past by going around the table. 

But before we begin, Mr. Durante has some housekeeping information for us. Ray... 

Thanks very much.

15
NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER 

(2-89) (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev., 

NRCM 1102, and Addendum Numbers, if any.) 

3201. 3202 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET 

(See instructions on the reverse) 

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE NUREG-1802, Vol. 1 

Role and Direction of Nuclear Regulatory Research 3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED 

Summary of Expert Panel Report MONTH YEAR 

September 2001 

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER 

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT 

R.W. Durante, Durante Associates, under contract to Arthur Andersen, LLP Technical 

J.W. Johnson, NRC 

7. PERIOD COVERED (inclusive Dates) 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address, if contractor, 

provide name and mailing address.) 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type 'Same as above' ifcontractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulat ory Commission, 

and mailing address.)

Same as 8. above.

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less) 

This report summarizes the input received from a 17-member Panel of Experts on the role and future direction of nuclear 

regulatory research. Membership on the panel was comprised of representatives from Congress, government, industry, 

universities, private consultants, international, and the public. Major focus areas of discussion included research funding, 

cooperative research, infrastructure, and communication. The work of the panel was divided into two phases. Phase 1 focused 

on the vision, mission, and general direction of regulatory research. Phase 2 provided guidance and perspectives on the future 

direction of regulatory research.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report) 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Regulatory research, confirmatory research, anticipatory research, cooperative research, unlimited 

infrastructure, communication, independence. 14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATIO 

(This Pa~ge) 

unclassified 

(7Tis Report) 

unclassified 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (2-89) This form was electronically produced by Elite Federal Forms. Inc.
LPrinted 

Jon recycled% 

Federal Recycling Program
UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001 

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300