ML19309G847
| ML19309G847 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/13/1979 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-1700, NUDOCS 8005070678 | |
| Download: ML19309G847 (14) | |
Text
AC RS ~ l'16 6 s'
8 0 0.5 07& [/ U9P 12/5/79 Meeting Date:
Date Issued:
12/13/79 MINUTES OF ACRS PROCEDURES SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING - DECEMBER 5,1979 p~~
~ ~~~'
~m WASHINGTON, D.C.
f Y
-.. ) a i
Purpose:
This meeting was called to discuss:
1.
Coments by designated members of the proposed Comittee report on ACRS Review of Regulatory Processer and Functions 2.
Proposed ACRS Activities regarding strengthening of the Com-mittee's role in the regulatory process as recommended by the President's Commission on TMI-2 Attendees:
M. W. Carbon J. J. Ray (part time)
M. Plesset W. Mathis M. Bender (part-time)
H. Etherington (part time)
S. Lawroski J. C. Mark (part time)
D. W. Moeller (part time)
H. H. E. Plaine R. F. Fraley S. Duraiswamy E. Igne Discussion:
1.
Proposed ACRS Report on the Regulatory Processes and Functions Coments proposed by designated members of the Comittee (see attachment 1) regarding Draft 5 (dated 11/13/79) and draft 6 (dtd.11/30/79) were discussed and incorporated as considered appropriate. A revised version of the proposed transmittal letter (draft 6 dtd. 11/30/79) was distributed.
It was agreed that a revised copy of the report would be provided to the full Comittee for further discussion on Thursday, December 6,1979.
2.
Proposed ACRS Activities - Recomendations of the President's Comission on the Accident at Three Mile Island a.
Improved ACRS ca1 abilities in the field of public health - The members concluded that tie capabilities of Dr. Moeller (25 years in the area of t
public health) with the support of a number of highly knowledgeable l
. consultants in this area provide adequate ACRS capabilities in the field of public health.
It was suggested however that a Fellow with an appropriate background might be warranted.
b.
Participation in AS&LB Hearings - H. Plaine suggested that it does not appear appropriate for the ACRS or its members to participate as a supplicant in what is in effect a trial vs. their present role as advisors to the judge. Several members expressed concern that this is, in effect, a downgrading of the ACRS which might adversely impact on the independence of the Committee or the collegial basis for its activities.
An alternate suggested was to require in the hearing process that ACRS recommendations should be binding on the parties, or at least should be dealt with as substantive issues during the hearing pro-cess, unless good cause is shown to the contrary on the record.
Some members expressed concern that to make ACRS recommendations binding on parties would compromise the advisory nature of the Committee.
A better system for staff follow-up and implementation of ACRS recommendations might be an appropriate alternative.
It was suggested, however, that direct participation in rule-making pro-ceedings which are usually legislative (data gathering) rather than adjudicatory (adversary) may warrant a different conclusion.
It was noted that members can intervene in the hearing process as pri-vate citizens, if they desire, under the existing statutes. They would in all probability have to do so without the support which would be available to them if this were written into the Committee's charter.
In general there was an inclination to stay independent of the hearing process as participants and focus on strengthening the Committee's role in other ways. A system which provides for specific response to ACRS recommendations by the NRC was suggested.
c.
Authoritv to Select Cases to be Deviewed - (Non-mandatorv Reviewi -
It was noted that the ACRS has long supported a non-mandatory review provision in the law which provides for an option regarding ACRS re-view at the discretion of the Committee or specific request by the Commission.
The members expressed continuing support of this option, d.
Increased Capability for Independent Analysis by the ACRS Staff Several alternates were discussed including the need for:
Improved technical supervision of ACRS Fellows
l
. Expanded permanent staff capacity to provide direct technical assistance to individual ACRS members i
work supported by outside contractors, etc. as needed (ytical Expanded permanent staff support to do independent anal e.g.,
$500,000 was suggested by Dr. Okrent for this purpose).
Written cannents provided by Dr. Siess and Dr. Okrent were considered during this discussion (Attachments 3 and 4).
==
Conclusion:==
Dr. Carbon agreed to prepare a proposed letter for ACRS consideration which would:
i support the non-mandatory op. tion address the need to strengthen consideration of ACRS recommendations and suggest direct response to the Cannittee regarding implementa-tion of ACRS recommendations address the need for increased permanent staff to improve technical management of the ACRS Fellowship program, and to provide direct technical support of individual members.
Attachments:
1.
Proposed Schedule for ACRS Procedures Subconnittee Meeting dtd. 11/27/79 2.
Memo from R. F. Fraley to Members, ACRS Procedures Subcommittee dtd.
11/28/79,
Subject:
Recommendations of the Kemeny Cannission Regarding ACRS Charter 3.
Memo to Max W. Carbon, Chairwan. ADRS from C. P. Siess, dtd. 11/10/79,
Subject:
Recommendations of Kemeny Commission Regarding the ACRS 4.
" Comments and Questions on NRC Comments to Dr. Press on ACRS Role,"
by D. Okrent l
l l
11/27/79 Proposed Schedule for ACRS Procedures Subcommittee Mtg.
December 5, 1979 I) 1:30 P.M. - 5:00 P.M.
Discuss coments by Designated Members rc
--opnead ACRS report on ACRS Review Processes and Functions of Rew ;,. -Bender dtd. 11/13/79 -
(Draf t by~ri.
Draft 5) 1:30 P.M.-2:00 P.M.:
1-1 Introduction
)
2-1 Regulatory Goals ) HE/g'r 3-1 Review Background )
2:00 P.M.-2:45 P.M.
RegulatoryOrganization(J.C. Mark)[3p 4-1/4-5 2:45 P.M.-3:30 P.M.
5-1/5-6 Nuclear Industry Organization (J.J. Ray)g7 3:30 P.M.-4:00 P.M.
MajorTechnologicalIssues(D.0krent)[3p 6-1/6-9 4:00 P.M.-4:30 P.M.
7-1/7-10UrgentRegulatoryManagement[EI Considerations (D.W.Moeller) 4:30 P.M.-5:00 P.M.
Overall Assessment and forwarding letter (all members)j/39 l
II) 5:00 P.M. - 6:30 P.M.
Proposed ACRS Activities (Report of Presi-dent's Comission on the Accident at TMI-2 Recomendation A.3) l ATTACHMENT 1
..e..
- i[cA UGfg, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES
'g ADVISCWr COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS f{
,- l W ASdlNGTON, D. C. 20555 g
g
%"'..... "e
November 28, 1979 MEMBERS, ACRS PROCEDURES SUBCOMMITTEE ACRS PROCEDURES SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING 04 DECEMBER 5,1979 - RECOMMENDATI OF THE KEMENY COMMISSION RE ACRS CHARTER The President's Commission on TMI has recommended the following with respect to the ACRS:
The Advisory Ccmmittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) should "3.
be retained, in a strengthened role, to continue providing The an independent technical check on safety matters.
members of the Committee should continue to be part-time appointees; the Commission believes that the independence and high quality of the members might be compromised by The Commission making them full-time federal employees.
recommends the following changes:
The staff of ACRS should be strengthened to provide a.
increased capacity for independent analysis. Special consideration M:ould be given to improving ACRS' capabilities in the field of public health.
The ACRS should not be required to review each license b.
application. When ACRS chooses to review a license application, it should have the statutory right to intervene in hearings as a party.
In particular, ACRS should be authorized to raise any safety issue in ifcens-ing proceedings, to give reasons and arguments for its views, and to require formal response by the agency to Any member of ACRS should be any submission it makes.
authorized to appear and testify in hearings, but should be exempt from subpoena in any proceedings in which he has not previously appeared voluntarily or made an individual written submission.
ACRS should have similar rights in rulemaking proceed-c.
In particular, it should have the power to ings.
initiate a rulemaking proceeding before the agency to resolve any generic safety issue it identifies."
In its November 9,1979 letter to Dr. Press, the NRC provided the follow-ing comments re these recommendations:
ATTACHMENT 2
c4A c-eW i l
~
Im
'v21, t M M ",LxrAca j
4 "A.3 Strengthen the Role of the ACRS
,,t ]
M Recommendation A.3 proposes strengthening (the role of the preseACRS Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards The ACRS viding an independent technical check on safety matters.
staff would have enhanced capabilities in independent analysis and Unlike its present mandate to review each appli-public health.
cation, the ACRS would choose when it wishes to-16t r;;d; ad
.::d d d :: ::
party te t'; prn ud @.
It would have simi-lar rights in rulemaking proceedings, including the right to initiate such proceedings.
The recently NRC also endorses a strengthened role for the ACRS.
initiated ACRS Fellows Program should assist in augmenting the It should be noted, analytical capability of the Committee.however, that the strength a reviews lie in the members and in their collegial interaction, and the addition of staff beyond some reasonable supporting level Concerning the will not contribute much to that strength.
President's Commission recommendation that the ACRS not be required to review each license application, NRC has fully supported the proposal in pending licensing reform legislation that would obviate this requirement.
The desirability of conferring on the ACRS the statutory right to intervene in hearings, s recomended by the President's Com-While doubt exists as to whether mission, is much less clear.
such ACRS interventions are pemitted under present legislation, the more important question is whether such authority is appro-for a part-time, advisory body that would then need a legal staff of its own, given the fact that active participation in hearings would likely detract from the present independence and objectiv-ity of the Committee and severely compromise the collegial nature of its advice and recommendations.
With respect to the President's Commission recommendation that would allow the ACRS the right to initiate rulemaking, it should be stated that the ACRS can now recomend rulemaking to the NRC.
The issue is whether and to what extent such an ACRS recom should be " compelling" in nature; for example, whether it should be treated as a mandate to the NRC staff to proceed unless other-
.NRC intends to address this wise directed by the Commission.
issue in connection with its consideration of proposals which As would delegate substantial rulemaking authority to the staff.
a general proposition, NRC fully concurs in the implicit thrust of the President's Comission regarding the ACRS; namely, that the views and recomendations of the ACRS be addressed promptly and substantively by the NRC staff.
Time did not pemit consultation with the ACRS on the foregoing Before taking final positions, NRC will wish preliminary views.to consider the coments of the ACRS, which have been
. ~.
-a-In accordance with a question raised during the November ACRS meeting, I checked the third sentence in the first paragraph.
It proved to be " sloppy" wording rather than a difference in interpretation as suggested. I have penciled in a proposed rewording which I believe correctly reflects the proposal of the Kemeny report. h is can be corrected when the NRC forwards their final position regarding this section.
With respect to the specific changes proposed, I offer the following com-ments as well as some suggested alternates for the Committee's cons...seration.
Strengthen the ACRS Staff to provide increased capacity for inde-a.
pendent analysis and improved ACRS capability in the field of public health,
% e ACRS Fellowship program has strengthened the independent capability of the Committee and the Comittee will have to decide if the present capacity is adequate. I believe that to take full advantage of the Fellowship program, however, at least three permanent professional positions are needed to pro-vide the technical management needed to provide day-to-day supervision and guidance to the Fellows and two additional supporting staff are neeoed to provide computer support, a better technical reference library, etc., in support of their activities.
To optimize this program a number of other restrictions which have been placed on hiring of the Fellows should be relaxed to obtain full benefit from the program.
In additioTr, since the NRC staff has indicated that it will be necessary to hire as many as 500 new employees (275 technicals) j during FY 1980, we might request a freeze on hiring of our Fel-lows by the staff to prevent depletion of the ranks. One of our Fellows has been hired by the NRC Staff already.
Even with a first class Fellowship p.logram, however, the present ACRS staff is not adequate to provire complete Comittee indepen-dence in its technical reviews and, at current levels, consider-able reliance will have to be placed on continuing support by the NRC staff. As an example, the NRC staff devotes approximately ten man-years of staff time to review of each CP and OL.
In addition, i
S. Hanauer has approximately 1.5-2 technical staff members working l
on each generic issue he is assigned to revolve. W e ACRS pres-ently has 25 unresolved generic items on its list and has recently decided to reexamine 20 others until recently considered resolved.
In addition, the NRC staff has considerable support from NRC con-tractorr including the national laboratories and educational insti-tutions. A workload and man-power analysis would be needed to establish appropriate levels of support but it is clear that a substantial increase would be needed to support complete Committee independence. As a minimum, I suggest that two additional full-time permanent staff positions are needed to work in areas related to the I
field of Fublic health, specifically the effects of low level radi-ation and the transport of radionuclides in the biosphere as well as their uptake in the food chain. Two additional non-technical positions will also be needed to support this effort.
w-I
4.
The ACRS should not be required to review each license appli-b.
cation but should select the ones it chooses to review.
This is in effect the non-mandatory review provision proposed Al though and supported by the Committee for a number of years.
the number of licensees is not expected to increase as rapidly as anticipated when the provision was first proposed, it is probably still a desirable option.
One problem with this option is the fact that the Committee may be distracted from project reviews with a resulting loss in contact with new reactor problems.
Statutory right of the Committee to intervene in hearings as a c.
party Although this does provide the Committee with an opportunity to debate and defend its recommendations before the hearing board.
I believe it will be seldom used and will actually reduce the stature of the Committee by putting it on the same level as the In addition, NRC staff, the applicant and other intervenors.
participation in hearings could involve large blocks of Committee time, a large part of which is spent debating legal and procedural issues rather than technical matters.
I believe a more desirable method to increase the impact of Com-mittee recommendations in hearings would be to require that:
"All recommendations by thi. ACRS will be treated as sub-stantive issues during the hearing and the board will require compliance with these recommendations unless good cause is shown to the contrary."
With current legal and procedural precedents the particular recommendations of the Committee are not considered issues and need not be addressed in the hearing itself unless specifically introduced by one of the parties. The only thing necessary to oroceed with a hearing is a showing that the law has been Its content is complied with by obtaining an ACRS report.
legally irrelevant.
Another alternate would be to open an effective line of communi-cation between the Committee and the Hearing Boards, who are in effect, taking the place of the Commissioners in the licensing At present the only real method of communication is Since the NRC staff, particularly at process.
via the regulatory staff.
the level involved in the hearings, no longer pursues Committee recommendations as vigorously as it used to, a more direct method of communication appears appropriate.
l
. z.. '
5.
A second alternate, which I do not believe is very practical, is to assign ACRS members as one or both technical members of licensing boards. The ACRS Subcommittee Chairman on the project being considered would be one logical choice.
A third alternate would be to limit consideration by the AS&LB's to non-technical issues (e.g., environmental, antitrust, etc. )In and let the ACRS be the final judge of technical adequacy.
many respects this was the situation which existed when single hearing examiners conducted licensing hearings before the AS&LB's were established.
Formal response by the agency to any submission made by the d.
Committee This is an item which the Committee and the Commission also has The details for follow-up regarding recognized as important.
response to ACRS recommendations are current topics of discussion.
Individual members should be authorized to appear and testify at hearings and subject to subpoena in proceedings in which he e.
has appeared voluntarily.
This has the same disadvantages as (c) above with the added problem that it weakens the collegial nature of ACRS activities.
A less disruptive mechanism for dissent is already provided members who disagree with the Committee's collegial opinion by the incorporation of minority comments in ACRS reports.
Improved follow-up re ACRS recommendations including those of minority members might also satisfy individuals who dissent without the need to take their case directly to the Hearing Boards.
The Committee and individual members should have the statutory f.
right to intervene in rulemaking proceedings.
Same disadvantages as (c) and (e) above but perhaps to E lesser degree when rulemaking proceedings are of a legislative rather than quasi-judicial nature.
ACRS should have the right to initiate a rulemaking proceeding g.
before NRC to resolve any saf'*y issue it identifies.
Although the specific intent of this recommendation is net clear, it appears to suggest that the NRC is obliged upon the request of the ACRS to initiate a rulemaking on safety issues the Committee identifies. Apparently the Committee or its members would then have the statutory right to intervene in the proceeding as noted earlier.
..~
6.
The right to initiate a rulemaking is consistent with the recommendation that the Commission be more responsive to the recommendations of the Committee.
The problems issociated with direct intervention are noted above.
I trust that the comments noted above will provide a basis for discussion by the Committee.
(V
. F. Fraley Executive DirectoT cc:
H. H. E. Plaine
....c.
.w"
' Q CH.E STE R _P. I SJ E S S I
CIVIL ENGIN EERING BUILDING f
URBANA, ILLINOl$
61801 J
10 November 1979 s
=4sr w. t,acoort,) Chairman, ACRS l
FROM:
C. P. Siess j
RE:
RECOMMENDATIONS OF KEMENY CG1 MISSION REGARDING THE ACRS Following are my comments regarding the recommendations of the Kemeny Commission and the responses thereto by the NRC in its report to the President:
Strengthened Staff I believe some additioral staff is desirable and may even be l
necessary. The Fellows are a big help but we have no assurance that l
the provision for them will continue forever. In my experience, the Fellows,do a fine job on the assignments given them. On the t
other hand, permanent staff members of the caliber of-those we now have could do many things better than the Fellows, at least partly because they will have a better background in the activities, history, and mode of operation of the ACRS.
I appreciate the Commission's point that the strength of the ACRS lies in tne members. What is ignored, however, is that i
part-time members can only act efficiently if they have the staff support to relieve them of administrative chores and to provide the technical and background information needed for them to make the best use of their limited time. Some members, whom I do not need to name, spend a very large portion of their time reading material to provide background and essential information.
Others undoubtedly do not and are frequently not well informed. This could be remedied, at least in part, if our experienced and knowledgeable staff members had more time to summarize important or essential information. To do this well requires both judgement and experience at a level we cannot expect to see in our Fellows.
It is worth noting that a true collegial opinion based on informal debate can result only if a substantial portion of the membership is reasonably well informed. Otherwise we are simply deferring to the expert opinion of a knowledgeable member; not necessarily bad in itself, but clearly not a collegial approach.
Improving ACRS Capability in the Field of Public Health l
The NRC did not address this reconunendation.
In my opinion, it is not needed. We have one exceedingly competent and fully informed member in this area. Although this makes a true collegial opinion on public health questions difficult, adding another expert in this area would not help much.
ATTACHMENT 3 e o
I believe that the greatest contribution the A:'RS can make is in the area of reactor safety, and particularly safety against "large" accidents. To do this, we probably could function without a member expert in public health.
In fact, without this expertise we could avoid taking on assignments in some of the areas that have occupied a large proportion of Dade Hoe 11er's time and what I consider to be an inordinately large proportion of the Committee's time.
I am happy to have Dade on the Committee and his contributions have been major, but I cannot agree to adding one or two or more members in that area. We might even want to recommend to the Commission that*they consider establishing another Advisory Committee to deal
- with radiological effects on public health. I realize that some members will object to any reduction in our role and " power", but I
I feel strongly that diverting our efforts to such peripheral, though important, matters has been one reason for our reduced effectiveness, and reduced role, in the area of reactor safety.
Non-Mandatory Review of License Applications I have always favored this strongly.
I still do.
However
-a Okrent pointed out, if the law is to be changed, it should be in the form we worked out several years ago with the AEC-NRC. Draft wording for the change in the law is in our files.
Note also that this change was resisted by the former Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, presumably because they were promotion-minded and felt that ACRS review lent an air of respectability or credibility to the process.
In no case should we accept the NRC interpretation of the Kemeny recommendation, that our review would be in the form of participation in the AS13 proceedings.
ACRS Participation in ASIS Hearings I have no objection to the ACRS as a body having the right to intervene in hearings, but I could not tolerate it being a requirement for ACRS review of license applications.
I believe that this right would be exercised only rarely.
The threat of possible intervention by the ACRS would be a powerful incentive for the Staff (or the Commission) to accept or otherwise be responsive to ACRS reconnendations.
Okrent suggested a panel approach if we should intervene as a committee. This probably will work, but it would still place a major additional burden on the ACRS if the right to intervene is exercised very often.
It is not certain that the hearing board, ASL3 or ALA3, would accept the panel approach and may wish to hear from all members. This obviously could give us a problem unless the law is written to permit us to decide how we should be I
represented.
If we are granted the right to intervene without the necessity of intervening, I have no major problem with this.
ACRS Member Participation in ASLB Hearings Unless this recensnendation was simply defining a mechanism for is, letting us delegate a member or members 1
ACRS participation (that it.
As I re.ad the Kemeny to represent the ACRS), I cannot acceptI note that it refers to ACRS intervention but Commission report, This suggests the interpretation refers to member participation._
in parentheses above.
I agree with Lewis that members should be free to participate as intervenors in their capacity as private citizens, but not as individual ACRS members rather than as members designated by the Committee to represent the ACRS as an intervenor.
ACRS Right to Initiate Rulemaking same rights to The recommendation is that the ACRS have th intervene in rulemaking proceedings as in ASLB proceedings.
In addition, the ACRS would have the power to initiate a I understand the first l
rulemaking proceeding before the agency.
part and have no serious objection to having the right provided we can be trusted to exercise it intelligently and sparingly, as I think we will.
I am not sure what is involved in initiating rulemaking Anyone, presumably including the ACRS, can petition the proceedings.
Does " initiate" mean that, if such a Commission for rulemaking.
petition was made by the ACRS, it could not be denied by the Commission. Or does it mean that, if the Commission denied a rulemaking petition from some party outside the NRC, the ACRS would Or further, could an have the power to initiate the proceeding.
outside party petition the ACRS to initiate a rulemaking proceeding I suggest and, if so, who would organize and conduct the proceeding.
that Herzl Plaine be consulted on this.
Procedure and Timing Although it might be nice to get our views to the President, I doubt if the Kemeny Commission recommendations regarding the ACRS will be viewed as a major issue and will receive little or no attention.
c t
The Congress, however, is more knowledgeable about the ACRS and what it does and it is the Congress that will have to change As a result, getting our comments and preferences before the law.
the Congress is probably much more important than getting them to the President.
If the Committee can finish a letter at the December meeting, fine.
since we may have to live a But it had better be well thought out, l
long time v'th what we say we want.
- ~
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ON tlRC COMMENTS TO DR. PRESS ON ACRS ROLE D. Okrent 1.
The Commissioners' recommendations would do nothing to strengthen the role of the ACRS.
2.
If the Congress wants to have a strengthened role for the ACRS, it should say so and develop specific changes. The ACRS could offer more specific comments at that time.
3.
The ACRS could use some funds ( w$500,000) which it could spend at national labs, etc. to do short-term studies.
4.
The ACRS Staff is inadequate in size if Mr. Fraley has to use Fellows to keep up with work that would have been done by the Staff.
S.
It appears that rulemaking will become increasingly important.
The ACRS should have some well-defined role in the process.
Perhaps, the ACRS views should be a part of the record and the ACRS should be asked to provide a further evaluation at the end of the submission of the formal record.
Since the Commission indicates it may delegate much of its rulemaking authority to the Staff, the ACRS role must be considered dif-l ferently than in the past.
6.
Perhaps the ACRS should have the right to intervene in a ca:e.
Furthermore, perhaps some formal requirement should be placed on the ASLB to respond to the ACRS recommendations.
7.
The NRC letter to Press says that ACRS views should be ad-dressed promptly by the Staff. Where does the Commission fit in? Are there not some ACRS recommendations that the Commission itself should address?
l l
ATTACHMENT 4
-