ML19309G912

Summary of 800109 ACRS Procedures Subcommittee Meeting in Washington,Dc Re Proposed Changes & Guidelines for ACRS & ACRS Participation in NRC Rulemaking on Radwaste Storage & Disposal

ML19309G912
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/01/1980
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-1709, NUDOCS 8005070763
Download: ML19309G912 (55)

Text

_

/)CLS I16}

ate of Mating: 1/9/80 Date Issurd:

. 8-c0 F. 5 /

r I8005070 7[ 3 Minutes of ACRS Procedores Subcommittee Meeting January 9, 1980

..T Washington, D.C.

{~~'

li 2

I

(.,.._...

Jd

Purpose:

This meeting was held to discuss:

1.

Proposed Changes to Strengthen the Role of the ACRS 2.

Proposed Guidelines for Conduct of the ACRS Fellowship Progran 3.

ACRS Policy / Practice Regarding Performance Awards for ACRS Staff Members 4.

ACRS Participation in the NRC Rulemaking on Interim Waste Storage and Ultimate Disposal 5.

Procedures for ACRS Review of Proposed Power Level Increases at Nuclear Plants 6.

Proposed Procedures for ACRS Handling of Dissenting Professional Opinions 7.

Activities of ACRS Members (Background material related to items noted above is attached)

Attendees:

ACRS

". Plesset, Chairman C. P. Siess (part time)

M. Carbon P. Shewmon (part time)

S. Lawroski M. C. Gaske J. C. Mark R. F. Fraley D. W. Moeller M. W. Libarkin D. Okrent (part time)

H. H. E. Plaine Discussion l

Item 1 - Proposed Chances to Strengthen the Role of the ACES Changes pro' posed by the President's Commission (PC) on the TMI Accident were discussed as follows:

"The ACRS Staff snould be strengthened to provide increased capacity for independent analysis."

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS

)

POOR QUALITY PAGES

. j We members generally agreed with a suggestion by M. Bender that the ACRS staf' needs to be expanded by permanent, senior staff personnel so that the assignments of cognizant ACRS Staff engineers can be limited to a reduced number of assignments.

h is would permit each staff member to keep himself and the Committee members better informed regarding related activites, tis would research results, analytical developments, etc.

also expand the analytical base provided by the Fellowship 1

Ten - fifteen additional permanent staff positions program.

It were proposed as necessary to accomplish this function.

was agreed that, although some conversion of Fellowship posi-tions to full-time permanent positions would be acceptable, a number (5-10 Fellowship positions should be retained to provide for participation by outside engineers and scientists in ACRS activities).

"special consideration should be given to improving ACRS capa-

. bilities in the field of public health."

he members agreed that the specific training and experience provided by Dr. Moeller and ACRS expert consultants in this area as well as the general knowledge aceutalated by other nenbers is adequate for current Committer. needs.

Dr. Moeller suggested that an ACRS Fellow or a permanent staff engineer with knowledge in this area might be he:.pful to supplement the existing capability.

. "The ACRS should not be required to review each license ap-plication. "

%e Committee endorsed implementation of this nonmandatory pro-vision although several members agreed that the decrease in licensing worlooad does not make it as necessary as it was It was agreed that the ACRS should previously thought to cc.

be required to review any application specifically requested by the Commission and that any application the Committee elects not to review should require a positive finding by the Committee that review is not warranted.

"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 licensing proceedings, to given reasons and argtsnents for its views, and to require fonnal response by the agency to any submission it makes."

Several reservations were expressed about such participation by the Committee because of the time involved, the nontechnical

. nature of the proceedings, and loss of Committee independence resulting from participation as a party in licensing hearings.

H. Plaine stated that Committee recommendations could be used to identify substantive issues to be considered at a hearing without the requirement that the Committee be a party or subject to sub-poena/ interrogations. An appropriate rule could/should address this limitation regarding ACRS participation as well as the need for more considered treatment of ACRS recommendations during the hearing process.

Dr. Carbon noted that, according to discussions with R. Lazo, AS&LB Chairman, AS&LB menbers do normally insure that ACRS recom-mendations are addressed in the NRC Staff Supplemental SER but this is not done formally on the record.

Dr. Siess observed that some PCRS recommendations are getting adequate attention while others A process that requires the ACRS explain / defend its are not.

recommendations does not appear needed or approprlate. He con-cluded that since the NRC Licensing hearings do not contribute directly to safety, the ACRS should not be involved in them.

Dr. Okrent suggested however that the ACRS role does need strength-ening and proposed that the option to participate in hearings should be retained along with whatever other additional changes might be considered appropriate.

H. Plaine agreed that, although rules and regulations are important, it is the case-by-case appli-cation of these rules that really decides whether a facility is safe or not. He reaffirmed his belief that ACRS recommendations can be given increased status in hearings without the need for direct participation by members.

R. Fraley noted that H. Lewis has suggested that a negative ACRS letter should preclude issuance of a license. Although the NRC has in the past endorsed ACRS recormendations to limit power, withhold a license, etc., they are not obliged to comply with such recommendations. Several membars felt that a requirement to make ACRS recommendations mandatory was not consistent with its advisory role and that emphasis should be placed on due consideration of its recommendations.

. "Any member of the ACRS should be authorized to appear and testify in hearings, but should be exempt from subpoena in any proceed-ings in which he has not previously appeared voluntarily or made an individual written subnission."

Members suggested that this would compromise the collegial nature of ACRS activities. It was agreed, however, that a member should

. not be prohibited from exercising his right of intervention in a specific proceeding as a private citizen if he feels strongly enough to do so.

It was suggestd that, if a member does elect to particioate in a licensing proceeding as a pri-vate citizen, he should abstain from participation as an ACRS member in the Committee's review, etc. of the matter.

"ACRS should have similar rights in rulemaking proceedings.

. In particular, it should have the power to initiate a rule-making before the agency to resolve any generic safety issue it identifies."

The members generally agreed with the intent of this recommen-dation to strengthen the ACRS role in rui.emaking but felt that the Commission, rather than the Committee, should initiate and conduct the rulemaking in areas identified / recommended by the Committee.

Based on discussions by members of the ACRS Working Group (Carbon, Lewis, Plaine and Fraley) with " representatives" of the White House (F. Press),

AS&LB (R. Lazo), NRR (H. Denton), Commission (J. Ahearne), and Congres-sional oversight committees (H. Myers/P. Leventhal), Dr. Carbon identified a number of additional suggestions which were discussed as noted below:

List priorities for those safety related items on which the Comission should concentrate its efforts. An annual listing and indication of pri-orities for the most important items as well as an annual report on the status of reactor safety would be useful to the Comission.

More attention to broader areas of safety rather than details of reactor safety would be helpful to the Commission.

ACRS par _t_icipation in all phases of the fuel cycle would be helpful to, the Comission and consistent with the proposal to strengthen the ACRS role.

Better methods of comunication are needed to "close the loop" on ACRS recor:nendations - Meetings of the ACRS with the Commissioners as now structured are often too formal to be useful.

Better identification of issues considered important bv the Comittee would be useful to the AS&LB's. The Boards have difficulty in deciding the degree to which ACRS comments on generic issues arrant attention in case-by-base proceedings.

R. Fraley explained the Committee's prac-tice of calling out in each letter those generic itens which need special consideration in connection with the case ac hand. (A copy of the attached letter to the EDO regarding this practice has been provided to Mr. Lazo).

I

' A suogestion was discussed with Mr. Lazo that it might be aporopriate for the ACRS to comment on the adequacy of staf f action regarding ACRS recomendations as described in the Supplementary SER ard pssibly on the AS&LB initial decision before it becomes ' final (30-45 days) - Mr.

j Iazo agreed that such actions might be helpful to the Boards and the Commission in knowing if follow-through regarding ACRS recommendations has been adequate.

H. Denton indicated that a better indication of priorities regarding areas of ACRS concern, taking into account the other_ high priority i

assignments _ and the capa_b_ilities of the staf f, would assist the staff in dealing effectively with ACRS recommendations.

More definitive and critical ACRS reports would be helpful to the Con-gress in its oversight function.

In addition, a mechanism to obtain soecific ACRS com_ents on particular issues, grticularly some of_ the proposed changes resulting from the TMI-2 accident would provide an ocportunity for direct ACRS input recarding pending Congressional j

action.

j Item 5 - Procedures for_ Review of Proposed Power Level Increases at Nuclear Plants In a May 12, 1978 memo to Lee Gossick, the ACRS informed the EDO that:

"This memo is to confirm the discussion during the May 4,1978 meeting between the Commission and the ACRS concerning ACRS re-views of proposals to increase power levels at operating reac-tors. Se Committee expressed its desire for the opportunity to review propcsed power level increases at operating facilities including those that involve an increase from a reduced power level to the design power level. Such proposals will be rou-tinely reviewed by the Committee's Subcommittee on Operating Beactors, with a case-by-case decision as to the need for full Committee review.

It is our understanding that proposals to extend operating power levels beyond that originally established as the design power leviel will normally involve a formal ACRS r(..iew and report."

A question has been raised regarding clarification of this assignment to the Operating Feactors Subcommittee in view of a question raised during the review of a proposed power level increase (230th ACRS meeting) from 25C wt to 2700 MWt for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2.

tis 3wer level increase was based on a reduction of the minimte alicwable :NBR for this class of CE unit from 1.3 to 1.19.

Se operating Reactors Subcommittee felt that its review of this matter indica ed that a more detailed review of this' reduced limit and the re;ated model enanges us needed by a generic subcom-mittee specialised :. this area.

. It was agreed that the Operating Reactors Subcommittee should continue to screen proposed power level increases as indicated in the May 1978 memo to the EDO. Any substantive changes in limits, methodolog.r. etc.

which are identified by this screening will be referred for furtter re-view by a specialized subcommittee.

It was further agreed that the changes in DNBR for CE plants noted above will be reviewed by an ad hoc ACRS Subcommittee set up for this purpose.

(Note: During the 237th ACRS meeting. the following members were as-signed to this ad hoc Subcomittee:

P. Shewmon, Chairman M.

Ca rbon,

M.

Plesset, D. Okrent.

H. Ether'ington Item 7 - Activities of Members M. Bender has infonned the Executive Director that because of pressing work assignments at ORNL he will be able to devote only about 1/3 the normal time to ACRS activities for the next year or so.

He has requested gu'. dance regarding continued service as an ACRS member.

'Ihe members unanimously agreed to recommend that Mr. Bender's assignments be adjusted so that he can continue as a member on this "part time" basis.

Item 4 - ACRS Participation in NRC Rulemaking, on Interim Storag~e and

~ ~ ~ ~ -

" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '

~~

U_ltima_t.e.DJs @ l if'Ra'd'ioactive Wastes 7he Subcommittee endorsed the procedures for ACRS participation in this rulemaking as outlined in the attached letter from the NRC Chairman dated January 9,1980. Dr. Lawroski requested, however. that the Committee be provided an additional 15 days (total of 60 days vs. 45 days proposed) to develop ACRS comments after cross-testimony has been filed. 'Ihe ACRS Executive Director was asked to draft an appropriate response to the NRC Chairman.

Item 2 - Propo,s_ed, Guid_elines_,for, Conduct; of AQS_ Fellowship, P_rogram Proposed Guidelines were distributed to the members with a request that they provide comments to the Executive Director by January 31, 1980.

Item 3 - ACRS Policy _/Prac,t_ ice,_R,ecar, ding Perfo_rmanc,e Awa,r,ds. f,o,r,,ACRS Awards for superior performance to ACRS Staff members during CY 1979 were reviewed and compared to the recent NRC WARDS MR Distinguished and Meri-torous service.

It was agreed that additional ernphasis should be given l

l

, in the ACRS Office to recognition of the full-time permanent staff en-gineers who have provided sustained high quality support of the Commit-tee's activities for an extended period of time. Die possibility of a group award for ACRS Staf f engineers was proposed.

In addition, the Subcommittee requested that members of the Procedures -

Subcommittee be kept informed of proposed awards to ACRS Staff members so they are aware of activities in this area.

Conclusion Discussion of items 2, and 6 were deferred to a future date.

oOo i

I I

1

~~

~ ~ ~

NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMISSION

.f g

l ADVISORY COMMITTEE'ON REACTOR SAFE 2UARDS e

WASHueGTON, D. C. 38086 g

g% *

/

January 2, 1980 Members, Procedures Subcomittee '

Members, Working Group on Strengthening the ACRS PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION, ACRS PROCEDURES SUBCO I

MEETING, JANUARY 9, 1980 Attached is the Schedule and Outline for. Discussion during the subject meeting Attachment C along with those attachments which are available at this time.

will be provided when it is available.

R.F. Fraley Executive Direct r Attachments:

Schedule and Outline for Discussion, ACRS Procedures Subcommittee 1)

Meeting on January 9,1980, Washington, D.C. with attachments.

Addressees:

M.W. Carbon with attachments M. Sender with attachments W. Kerr with attachments S. Lawreski with attachments D.W. Moeller with attachments D. Ctrent with attachments M. Plesset with attachments C.P. Siess with attachments H. Lewis with attachments H.H.E. Plaine with attachments J.C. Mark with attachments cc:

J. Ebersole with attachments H. Etherington with attachments W.M. Mathis with attachments J.J. Ray with attachments P.G. Shewnan with attachments

SCHEDULE AND QUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 4

ACRS PROCEDURES SUSCOP9tITTEE EETING JANUARY 9, 1980 1:30 p.m.

5:15 p.m. Procedures Subcovernittee Meeting Proposed Changes to Strengthen the ACRS Role

1) 1:30 - 2:30 p.m.

The President's Comission on TMI has recommen that the role of the ACRS should be strengthened by:

The staff of ACRS should be strengthened to provide increased capacity for independent a.

Special co-sideration should be analysis.

given to itgraving ACRS' capabilities in the field of public health.

The ACRS should not be required to review each When ACRS chooses to review b.

license application.

a license application, it should have the statutory In right to intervene in hearings as a party.

particular, ACRS should be authorized to reasons and arguments for its views, and to require any formal response by the agency to any su to appear and testify in hearings, but should be it makes.

i 1

exempt from subpoena in any proceed an individual written submission.

ACRS should have similar rights in rulemaking In particular, it should have the c.

proceedings. power to initiate a.rulemaking proceed the agency to resolve any generic safety issue it identifies.

The Carnissioners have supported a strengthened role for the Cmimittee but has indicated in its Novem 9,1979 letter to Dr. Press (Attachment A) that before taking any specific action to strengthen As indicated in the attached interim response to Dr.

' Press, the Comission does not endorse a major increase This was confirmed during in the ACRS Staff strength.

discussion with Chairman Ahearne for the rea in Attachment S.

Subsequent discussions by menbers of the ACRS Werk f

Group with representatives of Congress, the NRC Staf j

2-o t C.

Alternate and the AS&LB are reflected in Attachmen suggestions are included (Attachment D

~

S Fellowship Proposed Guidelines for Conduct of ACR

/

/

mplishments

2) 2:30 - 3:30 p.m.

Program Ehaluation.of program objectives and accofor clari

/

PJ to date have identified the need f the ACRS

/

several items associated with cond ision 3

fication of work. assignments and their pr in these areas and guidance Attachment E provides proposed guid ittee.

Awards ACRS Polic [ Practice Regarding Performance ff Mencers_

d discussion

3) 3:00 - 3:30 p.m.

for ACR5 5 Or. Lawreski and Dr. Carbon hahe proposet to pe of ACRS policy and practice with respecI suggest th awards for members of the ACRS Staff.

should also members of the Comittee and the Fellow considered in this discussion.

t r :*, included be Background information regarding this mat e as attachment G.

Disposal ACRS Participation in Rulemaking on Waste i ion's The NRC Chairman has expressed the Comm ss

4) 3:30 4:00 p.m.

l aking interest in ACRS participation in the NRC ru on the interim storamthat ultimate disposal of rad d ACRS partic-safely.

Proposed procedures for this proceedin,p an ipation are included in attachment H. d Power Procedures for ACRS Rehiew of Pnopose

5) 4:00 4:30 p.m.

Increases at Nudear Plants the

)O rating Duringthe217thACRSmeeting(May1978 Committee assigned ACRS Sub responsibility for review of proposed power leve if full i

Clarification Comittee review is warranteed.

to whether has been requested by*Mr. Etherington as l increases l

this applies only to stretch" powe design / stretch power level originally considered b j ct.

4

.'3-Background materia 1 regarding this matter is included as attachment I.

Proposed Procedures for ACRS Handling of Dissenting

6) 4:30 - 5:00 p.m.

Frofessional opinions During the 235th ACRS meeting the Conrn1ttee approv Attachment F and instructed the ACRS Staff to pre-hl pare specific procedures for ACRS handling of Disse The ACRS Chaiman suggested Professional Opinions.

that procedures for handling recommenda prepared.

Attachment J presents proposed procedures for con,

sideration by the Procedures Subcomittee.

1 Activities of ACRS Members

7) 5:00 - 5:30 p.m.

-Mike Bender has indicated that he will have lim time available to devote to ACRS activities the Committee regarding his continued service as a member.

e

~

(Excerpt fran NRC Letter to Dr. F. Press dated November 9,1979) h ' Wake c.dL4,g,, M wpwww w&e M i,A a i

m 4u j

"A.3 Strengthen the Role of the ACRS Secomendation A.3 proposes strengthening (ACRS) to continup pro-t Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards viding an independent technical check on safety matters./The ACRS staff would have enhanced capabilities in independent, analysis and l

public health. Unlike its present mandate to revijw each appli-l sation, the ACRS would choose when it wishes tottand; rd Md d: n =

-ty te t M g x xdic.;..

It would have simi-lar rights in rulemaking proceedings, including the right to initiate such proceedings.

MRC also endorses a strengthened role for the ACRS. The recently initiated ACRS Fellows Program should assist in augmenting the analytical capability of the Comittee. It should be noted.

however, that the strength e.nd high value of independent ACRS reviews lie in the members and in their collegial interaction, and the addition of staff beyond some reasonable supporting level will not contribute much to that strength. Concerning the President's Comission recomendation that the ACRS not be required to review each license application, MRC has fully supported the proposal in pending licensing refom legislation that would obviate this requittment.

The desirability of conferring on the ACRS the statutory right to intervene in hearings, as recommended by the President's Com-mission, is much less clear. While doubt exists as to whether such ACRS interventions are permitted 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 Connittee and severely compromise the collegial nature of its advice and recomendations.

With respect to the President's Connission recomendation that would allow the ACRS the right to initiate rulemaking, it should be stated that the ACRS can now recomend rulemaking to the MC.

The issue is whether and to what extent such an ACR$ recomendation should be " compelling" in naturet for example, whether it should be-treated as a mandate to the MC staff to proceed unless other-wise directed by the Commission. RC intends to address this i

is:ve in connection with its consideration of proposals which As would delegate substantial rulemaking authority to the staff.

a general proposition, MC fully concurs in the isolicit thrust of the President's Commission regarding the ACRS; namely, that the views and recomendations of the ACAS be addressed promptly end substantively by the MC staff.

Attachment A

Time did not permit consultation with the ACRS on the foregofng Before taking final positions,15tC will wish" preliminary views.to consider the connents of the ACRS, whi In accordance with a question raised during the November XCEI neeting, I checked the third sentence in the first paragraph.

Note:

It proved to be " sloppy" wording rather than a difference inI have pen interpretation as suggested.

which I believe correctly reflects the proposal of the Kemeny report.

This can be corrected when the NRC forwards their final position regarding this section.

1F

FINAL DRAFT -

RFF/HP/M C/HL 1/2/80 ACRS Members FROM: Carbon, Fraley, Lewis, Plaine STRENGTHENING THE ACRS ROLE J

i The President, the Kemeny Commission, and the NRC Comissioners have all recomended that the ACRS be strengthened. We met with Carnissioner Ahearne on December 17, 1979 to seek his views on how this could best be accceplished.

k Earlier, Hal Lewis had called Frank Press to explore the White House views on this subject. Dr. Press suggested that the ACRS should work with the NRC

(~

Comissioners to come up with specific recomendations.

Chairman Ahearne offered two major suggestions as well as a nunber of additional coments.

1.

Identify Ma.ior Safety Issues and Priorities It would be useful tu the Commission if the ACRS could identify those For major safety problems on which the Comission should concentrate.

example, it would be useful if the ACRS could annually identify the 10-15 Such a list would cer-most important safety issues needing resolution.

tainly get the attention of the Comissioners, the Congress, and the NRC, Staff.

Comittee recomendations for action in areas needin; sctention should take into account the resources of the NRC, and reL gnize the need for reallocation of manpower from lower priority items. Therefore indications of priority are important.

To the question of whether ACRS recomendations ought to address NRC j

organizational and procedural matters (e.g. should proposals for research j

require approval by line offices), Chairman Ahearne emphasized the fact j

that such opinions are of little help, unless they are the result of sufficient study to make them meaningful.

The ACRS devotes most of its time to detailed issues of rea'ctor safety, and not enough time is spent on the so-called cosmic issues. For exagle, Dr. Ahearne expressed surprise on having found, as a Comissioner, that so little effort had been devoted to the establishment of quantitative safety goals.

To the question of whether an annual overall assessment of the stctus of reactor safety by ACRS would be useful, Dr. Ahearne said that it would be invaluable.

2.

Scope of ACRS Activities The stC needs a senior advisory group to assist in consideration of problems covering all aspects of the fuel cycle, rather than just reactors.

The recormendations of the Kemeny Comission and the President to strengthen the ACRS role suggest that this should be the ACRS..Particular Attactunent 8 arrncHMEM b

4.

2-For areas needing attention are waste management and waste disposal.

exagle, the Comission is planning a fomal 1 ?ct-finding and detemination by the Camissioners regarding the potential for satisf actory ultimate A mechanism is needed by which the ACRS can contribute waste disposal.

to this detemination.

In order for the ACRS to deal with a broader range of issues it may have to make use of techniques used by the NAS; for example, set-up ad-hoc review groups making use of additional experts in the field.

It was noted that some change in the make-up of the ACRS may be needed to accomplish this broadening.

3.

Other C mments, (a) The ACRS Staff needs to be increased if the role of the Cemittee is to be expanded. It should not be increased to a point, however, where it " overwhelms" the Comittee members or becomes a cepeting staff within NRC.

The generally friendly tone of ACRS reports is surprising, reports (b) of most Committees with the function of the ACRS are usually more critical in tone.

A mechanism is needed to "close-the-loop".on ACRS recommendations, (c) particularly those in its project reports which igact on standards and the RSR program. Monthly meetings with the Comissioners to discuss ACRS reports is a questionable mechanism. A positive respo".se fra the NRC Staff, or possibly improved liaison with the Chairman in his strengthened role as Executive Director, were mentioned as alternates. Intervention by.the ACRS in the hearing J

process does not appear to be an appropriate way to strengthen the Comittee's role. If ACRS views regarding the need for rulemaking or other matters are made.strongly enough they are not likely to be ignored by the Commission.

(d) It is likely that the Comissioners wO1 gradually become more directly involved in the licensing procesa. For example, they will specifically consider all near-tem OL's.after the hearing process is complete. However, no major changes are anticipated in the hear-ing process itself.

??

^

^

l l

l

~

\\

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C. 30555 April 8, 1975 1

i Honorable William A. Anders I

Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 1

Dear Mr. Anders:

d This letter is in response to your request for comments and recommen a-f its activi-tions regarding the future role of the ACRS and the scope o ties in providias advice to the NRC.

i ted The ACRS has dealt primarily with problems of rcdiological safety assoc with the operation of power reactors, test and researcIt has revi reprocessing plants.

the request of the AEC Regulatory Staff.

f

/~.RS has indicated that new problems continue to arise in its review o actors at have ariser.

production and utilization facilities, and as these new problems i

to deal with the Committee has adapted its procedures and responsibilit e g

facet of plant secur-w many of them.

recognized as an important the Co=mittee, but is no::

l ity.

d The responsibilities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission exten e

d its the past purview of the ACRS.upon request of the Commission, it would i i areas of activity to others which are of concern to the Comu ss on.

that, i

its role can be expanded in scope to cover The Committee believes thatsome or all of the items noted below, prov 1975, are mandatory review as recommended in its letter of January 21, f

The Committee is already concerned with many of the items listed, but believes additional ef fort should be given to some of them.

implecented.

Some of the items are not now being given Committee accention.

that the Committee continue to devote a portion of its d

activities to the review of specific project applications in accor ance It in important in order that it keep current with Section 29 of the Atemic Energy Act d

its knowledge and retain its competence in reactor tec of safety standards, problem arecs.

for its advice in connection with the developmentsafety res I

i

/CL / /

L-s t

, April 8, 1975 j

Honorable Willien A. Anders Workin; from this basis the ACRS believes it should continu part as they apply to nuclear reactors and fuel processing plants.

Additions 1 aress where the Committee believes it can and should c are r:.; following:

Sab.essrdinc So rcial Nuclear Material.- This is an area that is already seme attentien in considering the provisions for safeguards against gi"c:

indu-trial sabetege at nuclear plants and fuel processing plants.

lisyj,?rtation of Seent Fuel - The Committee has in the past provided to the cc.nission with respect to the design and testing of spent fcc1 shipping centainers and the shipment of plutonium in liquid form.

adei. c Thin role could be expanded to include the safeguards considerations dur-and other matters affecting the public health and safety.

ing fuct shipment Tuel Traricattan Plants - The Co=mittee could review fuel fabrication plants.

Sterr ced Discosal of Hich level Radwas?r, - Siting and deaign of such fccilitice is an appropriate area for ACRS review.

Use c' Nuclear Centers (parks) - The pros and cons of nuclear parks with regard to public safety could be reviewed by the Committee.

is an Acceptable Risk for Nuclear Power - A step toward Deter:.ining Whet establishing existing risks has been made by the publication of the draft Additional work is needed to determine if the risks indicated of R/41;-1400.

are representative of various nuclear plant designs proposed by this report and if these risks are acceptable. The Co=mittee believes it can contribute to this question.

Evaluation of Regulatorv Review Practices - Safety considerations pertaining to nuclear energy require continuing attention to the safety assessment methodology with respect to technological developments and new safety cir-The Committee could provide assistance by evaluating the ap-cumstances.

preaches used by the NRC Staff for safety assessment and by offering recom-mandations for modification of the review practices.

Review of Operating Experience - As the number of nuclear installations increases and more operating experience is gained there will be a need for independent examination and assessment of cumulative operatin5 experience The Committee could serve in this capacity.

and u.nusual operational events.

f

O I

Honorable William A. Anders April 8,1975

(

The ACRS suggests that, during a trial period of at leest a year or so, efforts be made to extend its area of responsibility by specific request of the Commission. This procedure would provide an opportunity for both the Commission and the ACRS to see if the arrangement can work. Specific requests for advice would be handled by the Committee as now constituted.

Some areas would probably require the Committee to obtain appropriate consulting assistance in areas not now covered by Committee expertise.

The Committee does not believs that the scope of activities noted above would require any abrupt or substantiv4 change in the membership of the Committee.

The Committee is willing to undertake responsibilities outside its areas It is the belief of of previous activity if the Co= mission so requests.

tSc Coc;mittee, however, that a significant porcion of its efforts should continue to be applied to detailed technical consideration of safety re-laced problems in order that its advice come from a base of competence that would be of greatest assistance to the Commission.

Sincerely yours,

{

W. Kerr Chairman G

(

~

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFECUARDS

(

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 January 21, 1975 I

Honorable William A. Anders Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Andcrs:

In considering the future role of the Advisory Committee on Reac' tor Safeguards in support of NRC activities, the ACRS has reaffirmed the need for expeditious passage and implementation of the nonmandatory This change review requirement of Section 29 of the Atomic Energy Act.

in the Committee's Charter has been proposed by the Committee on several occasions, most recently in a letter to the Honorable John A. Pastore, dat'ed April 14,1972 (copy attached), and the testimony of.Dr. William R. Stratton, ACRS Chairman, during the JCAE Hearings on Nuclear Power g

K Plant Siting and Licensing, on April 24,1974 (copy attached).

The Atomic Energy Commission endorsed this change in the Aet and this proposed change in the legislation was last forwarded.to the Congress for sction during 1974.

The ACRS reaffir=s the need for this legislative change for the reasons noted in Dr. Stratton's testimony and requests that this change be for-warded for Congressional action as soon as practical.

In addition to this. change, it is suggested that, as soon as practical, i

the Congress also be requested to amend Section 201(g)(1) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (P.L.93-438) by inserting, "Ihe Advisory Committee on Reactor Gafeguards." This section would then read as j

follows:

Sec. 201(g)

(1) The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguart s; (2) The functions of the Atomic Safety and Liceasing Board Panel...."

e

l

(

Ronorable William A. Anders

-2 January 21, 1975 i

TLe statement by Senator Ribicoff (Congressional Record S19016, dated l

October 11, 1974) indicates that, "... this transfer was agreed to by the conferees, but because of an oversight it was omitted from Subsection 201(g)(1) of the act."

Sincerely yours, t

W. Kerr Chairman 1

Attach.ments Copy, Ltr from Dr. C. P. Siess, ACRS, to Hon.. hohn A. Pastore, 1.

JCAE, dated April 14, 1972, Subj:

"AEC Proposed ' Discretionary ACRS Review' Legislation..

'2.

Copy, Testimony of Dr. William R. Stratton, ACRS, before the JCAE on April 24, 1974

~

(

1

~

e 1

(

N,.---.

O l

l}

APR141an.

i Bonorsble John 0. Fastore Otairman Joint Coanittee on Atomic Energy Congress of the United States Washington, D. C.

20510 AEC PROPOSED " DISCRETIONARY ACR$ REVIEW" LEGISIA RE:

E. R. 9285 AND S. 2151 (IDDITICAL BII.LS)

Dear Senator Fastore:

The position of the ACRS regarding this proposed cha has previously been given to the Joint Coanittee on Atomic

{

Energy in the testimony by Dr. Spencer R. Bush, then Chairmen.

and Dr. Joseph M. Hendrie, past Chairman, at the hearings be-22, 1971 fore the Subcoanittee on Legislatioe on June 118,120, and 124).

The ACRS continues to support this proposed legisistion which prov' ides, "That, unless the Commission specifically re Committee may dispense with such review and report by notifying the Commission in writing that review by the Committee is not warranted."

The ACRS believes that asking aspects of its work nonmandatory The effect on the would, in the long run, be beneficial.

operations of the ACRS, and on its workloed, during the nextBecause chan year or two would probably be small.

gradually, the ACRS believes that early enactment of the pro-posed legislation would provide the lead time for gradual j

I

(

i e

U

. Eon. John 0. pastore transition and would prepare for the time when a substantial increase in the number of caies and standardization of reactor design would justify the A33 waiving its review in an appreci-able number of cases.

The AGS believes that it should have the authority to aske a review when it considers that a review is sppropriate, as This provision would provided in the proposed legislation.

preclude any appearance of lessening the independence di the ACRS in its role of protecting the public health and safety.

We believe that the present wording of the proposed revision will permit the AGS to change its procedures in an orderly and gradual fashion and will lead eventually to new procedures

~

that are entirely consistent with its role as envisaged in the origins 1 leaislation establishing the AGS.

' ~

Sincerely yours, Original Sisned tr l

g C.P.51sss l

C. p. Siess 1lhairman

}

I r

I 0

}

l

1/o/ou TO:

R. F. Fraley FROM:

M. Bender

SUBJECT:

S'JGGESTIONS TO STRENGWftN ACRS ROLE C_o,nn!an.s, on A_CRS,1,mprov,ements s.

I favor addition of ataff people with ability to analyze problems and s31utions identif1=d by NRC Staff, ACRS or the public..

These should be s2nior positions.

They should not be assigned to individual Members because the Members do not have the time to work with them effectively.

Assigning full time staff members to some subc.omittees could be an

.Gffective way of helping the ACRS, e.g., a staff member who could ccncentrate on systems interaction problems would be able to develop o good knowledge base for the ACR$,

The ACRS desperately needs a professional editor to edit the ACRS reports and letters for readership as well as style, granrnar, punctuation, s

cnd spelling.

.b.

I think the ACR5 should insist that it be given the prerogative to

~.

decide,which license applications it will review and wht n.

I think the timeliness of review is a more important issue than the selection.

The Staff sometimes will not bring a license application forward for review because of internal differences that the ACRS should help resolve and in other cases, it asks for review before it has done Gnough work en its own.

The ACMS has in the past had difficulty in l

getting the staff to be responsive to ACRS review intere.ts.

I think we i

chould press the timeliness issue.

c.

The ACRS should reject the statutory privilege of intervention in ASLB Hearings.

A good alternative would be to have the privilege of requiring Commission Review of matters of concern to the ACRS withih a specified period of time.

This would avoid the problem of making the Comittee subartinate to the views of the ASLB while leaving an

- Y. g f.... f.$

e

- g av:nue for obtaining authoritative action when important to the ACRS.

Formal response should be required only if the full committec ast.s for l

such response.

The adequacy of Staff response is a nore important issue and needs further attention.

I believe members should be restrained from participating in hearings.

If members feel the need to participate, they should disqualify them-solves from ACRS deliberations concernino the matters in question.

The Committee must maintain its collegial posture.

'. The review of NRC rules by ACR5 should be mandatory and a report should be required in licensing actions.

This report should be provided to the NRC and be a required consideration in the Connission's evaluation

of proposed rules.

3 The ACRS should have the option to initiate rulemaking action when the ACRS collegial view supports the need for such action.

h.

A periodic report on major safety issues nmy have some merit, but it is essentially similar to the generic items report.

The Committee night be more effective-if it required the NRC Staff to submit an active list of safety issues needing attention with the ACRS establishing criteria as a basis for judging the need for attention.

1, The present ACRS should not solicit participation in all. phases

, of the fuel cycle unless it is prepared to expand its membership.

The Committee's. breadth of interest is already near to overwhciming I

its membership.

j. ACRS reports should be more specific in stating its concerns and more explicit in stating how to attack the matters needing attention.

o

-T 4

.3; Meatings with the Commissioners and the high level NRC Staff should The present meeting style is tuo sttited cnd

,~contain more substance.

The meeting

. does littic more than provide a record of discussions.

(

t issuc

'should be chaired by someone who will bring forth the points a and perhaps develop a path of action.

e P e.m_ent_al. Suggestions l

ACR$ should designate the Precedures. Subt.onenittee or the Reg. AUnirs' Consnittee to meet with the EDO and the Directors of the Statutory Offices on a regular basis to discuss substantive regulatory problems.

We should not have to call Quarterly meetings might be appropriate.

H. Denton or someone on ar. ad hoc basis to come to the m i

]

meetings to explain what is happening.

A The ACRS should have more direct contact with the legal process.

meeting with the Executive Legal Director and the NRC General Counsel We once had such a relation with

" en a regular basis would be useful.

the NRC General Counsele Th2 ACRS should have scwncone to analyze the Hearing Board interpreta

).

These are influencing the NRC Safety positions of safety matters.

materially, and it is only incidental if we find out about thrm.

The deinerting of containments is a case in point.

There might be some merit / allowing the ACRS access to technical in 4.

assistance funds so we can obtain help in larger blocs than That is a way in which the accessible through consultant contractr..

ACRS could get substantial assistance when it is needed.

I

~e*

O e

G e

e 9

I

• *eeggggeses a e o * # 99 9 am e e 6 4 9 4 43e sse de s e e ee e e e e e eee e g g g g g g g e g g g g g e te e i

888800fedediffegeetedgesd8*se e

'8' I

Prooosed Changes to Strengthen the ACRS Role ide increased caoacity for indeoendent lic nea ith_.

• Strenothen the ACRS Staff to orovTnalysis and tieroved Ack5 c ao ed that During the Dece der ACRS meeting members seemed genera h lth are adequate the Committee's capabilities in the field of public ea be appropriate.

although an ACRS Fellow with expertise in this field may B

i ove I believe a reasonable degree of staff stmngthening is neede Although the ACRS Fellowship in this field the the analytical capability of the ACRS.

program has certainly strengthened the ACRS capability l

alytical fellows are not familiar enough with the NRC and other applicab h t considerable models to do independent analysis in related areas wit ou Office Staff.

technical guidance and supervision by the pemanent ACRSThese a Two additional professionals would be useful.

do analytical would also provide a continuing in-house capability to lities of the work in areas of. interest as the make-up and capab i

nts.

f ACRS In addition, several restrictions on hiring and cepensat6 o f high-Fellws should be relaxed so we can attract a full co quality individuals.

I understand that OMB has already " authorized" two addition i

positions for the ACRS Staff for FY-1981 based on the recom (Note:

of the president's Commission.)

In addition to the above, Dr. Carbon has identified a need for aFive su senior technical assistant for each ACRS member.have b i

l

support, lication but

• The ACRS should not be required to review each license too pould select the ones it efiooses to review.

d and supported b.

This is in effect the non-mandatory rehiew provision proposeAlth the provision by the Committee for a nuder of years.

is not expected to increase as rapidly as anticipated when tion although was first proposed, it is probably still a desirable op kload will be it will probably be several years before the licensing wor overwhelming.

be One problem with this option is the fact that t t with

'real" reactor problems.

A64.0JP_

2

• Statutory right of the Comittee to intervene in hearings as a party c.

Although this does provide the Ccrnmittee with an opportunity to I

debate and defend its recomendations before the hearing board.

believe it will be seldom used and will actually reduce the stature E

of the Caittee by putting it on the same level as the NRC staff,In addit the applicant and.other intervenors.

hearings could involve large blocks of Comittee 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 Committee recomendations in hearings would be to require that:

"All recomendations by the ACRS will be treated as sub-stantive issues during the hearing and the board will require compliance with these recomendations unless good cause is shcun to the contrary."

Such a requirement would strengt, hen the consideration of Comittee reemendations as part of the hearing process.but the option provided With by the last phrase would still maintain its advisory status. current of the Caittee are not considered issues and need not be addressed in the hearing itself unless specifically introduced by one of the The only thing necessary to proceed with a hearing is a parties.

showing that the law has been complied with by obtaining an ACRS report. Its content is legally irrelevant.

Another alternate would be to open an effective line of direct emunication between the Comittee and the Hearing Boards, who are in effect, taking the place of the Comissioners in the licensing At present the only real method of comunication is via Since the NRC staff, particularly at the process.

the regulatory staff.

level involved.in the hearings, no longer pursues Comittee recom-mandations as vigorously as it used to, a more direct method of communication may be needed. The restrictions interposed by the quasi-legal nature of the process, particularly the "ex-parte" rule may limit this usefulness of this option however.

With current legal and procedural precedents the particular recom-mendations of the Comittee are not considered issues and need not be addressed in the hearing itself unless specifically introduced The only thing necessary to proctNtd with a by one of the parties. hearing is a showing that the law has been camelied w an ACRS report. Its content is legally irrelevant.

l

l l

l Another alternate would be to open an effective line of comunication between the Comittee and the Hearing Boards, who are in effect, taking At present the place of the Comissioners in the licensing process.

the only mal method of comunication is via the re[ulatory s

,ved in the hearings, i

no longer pursues Comittee meaunendations as vigorously as it used to, a more direct method of comunication appears appropriate.

A second alternate, which I do not believe is very practical, is to The ACRS Subcomittee Chaiman on the project being c 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.) and let In many respects the ACRS be the final judge of technical adequacy.

this was the situation which existed when single hearing examiners conducted licensing hearings before the AS&LB's were established.

Based on discussion with Chairman Ahearne this does not appear to have a high probability of acceptance.

• Formal response by the agency to any submission made by the Comittee d.

This is an item which the Comittee and the Comission also has The details for the follow-up regarding recognized as important. response to ACRS recomendations are current to

• Individual r, embers should be authorized to appear and te e.

voluntarily.

This has the same disadvantages as (c) above.with the added problem that A less disruptive it weakens the collegial nature of ACRS activities.

mechanism for dissent is already provided to merrbers who disagree with the Comittee's collegial opinion by the incorporation of minority Improved follow-up re ACRS recomendations ctunents in ACRS reports.

including those of minority members might also satisfy individuals who dissent without the need to take their case directly to the Hearing i

Boards.

~

• Item C of the Kemeny recommendations requires some interpretation but f.

appears to:

- Give the ACRS the right to review proposed rules when it chooses to do so, and to c1ve the comittee or its individual members, the riant to appear and testify in rulemaking proceedings.

~

I

INSERT - Page 3 - 4th Paragraph )

ATTACHMENT D A fourth alternate would be to have the ACRS rev tw the proposed decision of the AS&LB and/or Appeals Board (s) and advise the Comission This with respect to their proposed findings regarding safety matters.

would be consistent with the Comissioners intent to become more in-volved in the licensing process and the Comittee's role as advisors to the Comission rather than their designees.

l I

I

iew The ACRS already has the authority under the Atomic Energy This change would the adequacy of proposed reactor safety standard ts of any rule or rule change proposed by the NRC.

has the same dis-The right to participate in the rulemaking hearin esser degree when rulemaking g

advantages as (c) and (e) above but perhaps to ajdicialnature.

E proceedings are of a legislative rather than a quas lities conferences (sometimes more than one) to de as a party to the proceedings.

participation in " discovery" activities which pemits enhanced access by a testimony to other parties' files and records; the filing of written th and cross-filing of testimony regarding testimony submitted by o e parties; submittal of proposed findings by all parties; etc.

b ducted The attached notice of a rulemaking on waste managemement detail.

by the Commissioners themselves describes this procedure in b it A more appropriate procedure would appear to be for the ACRS its recomendations regarding substantive technical issues to th the Comission after filings and cross-filings have been submitted b

)

This parties as noted in the attached notice of rulemaking (3rd pag in the ongoing rulemaking on Storage and Disposal of Nuclear is actually the procedure the ACRS the

• In addition. Item C of the Kemeny recomenda l e an_y safety g.

Tssue it identifies.

it Although the specific intent of this recommendation is not clea appears to suggest that the NRC is. obliged upon the reque fies.

ACRS to initiate a rulemaking on safety issues the Comittee The degree to which the Comdttee would actually participate in such rulemaking is not clear.

desires, as noted above, or it might be expected, or even requ to participate in those proceedings which are initiated to act as a technical advisor to the Commissio recomendation.

Nuclear Wastes (See Item f above).

The requirement that the Comission must initiate a the Canission be more responsive to the recomendatio implement the specific desires of the Committee wi Comittee.

of the Connittee's relationship with the Comission.

+ jdentify Ma,ior Safety Issues and Priorities h.

identification of these aahr (perhaps 10-15) safety

5-result in more attention being given to these matters by the Comissioners, the NRC Staff, Congress, etc. and the allocation of resources to deal with I

them.

off" ACRS recomendations as a result The present practice of "spinningicult to reassign personnel and re-of monthly meetings makes it diff This is particularly sources once they have been comitted to other tasks.

true if the Corraittee fails to provide an indication of priority which takes into account the limited resources of NRC.

Such an annual report would also provide a more effective opportunity for the Comittee to clarify, explain, support its recommendations before the Comission and the Congress than would its. participation, or participa-tion by members, in individual licensing or even rulemaking proceedings,

i. + Expanded scope of ACRS Activities Participation by the ACRS in all phases of the fuel cycle as well as those related to reactor and spent fuel reprocessing plant siting design, and operation.

This may require some change in the ACRS method of operation to bring sufficient technical competence to bear on a broad range of issues (e.g., use of ad-hoc groups comprised of ACRS menkrs/chaiman and other outside technical experts).

j. + Nature of ACRS Reports ACRS reports should be more specific and, where appropriate, more critical in their conclusions and recomendations.

A more specific indication of priorities would also assist the Comission ar.d NRC Staff in dealing with ACRS recomendations on an appropriate time scale,

+ More Frequent Meetings with the Comissioners and Principal Staff Members k.

to discuss ACR5 recomendations

?

A meeting Ah the Comissioners and princip16taf$ members (e.g. Office and Divison Directors) to discuss "esch" ACRS report, would provide an opportunity to "close-the-loop" on ACRS recomendations which may impact on more than one NRC Office. This would be particultrly useful for ACRS reports on specific projects which impact on standards development, reactor safety nesearch, etc. In addition, a routine meeting on each ACRS report would encourage a discipline that is needed.by the Comittee, the Comissioners, and the NRC Staff in formulating, evaluating, and iglementing ACRS recommendations. A one-month lag time between.the ACRS report and the meeting would permit the Comissioners and NRC Staff an oppertunity to develop questions, tentative positions, etc. to discuss wits th2 Comittee.

. An alternate to a periodic meeting of the Comittee with the Comissioners would be to authorize the ACRS Chaiman and/or the responsible Subcomittee Chaiman to discuss the intent, basis, etc. of AC'5. reports with key NRC Staff men 6ers (e.g. Office and Division Directors) and/or the E00/NRC Chaiman. This would be a radical departure from the collegial nature of ACRS activities and may require some revision or at least modified interpretation of the Federal Advisory Comittee Act and the Comission's "ex-parti" rules.

D 1

1 1

Footnotes

• Recomended by the President's Commission on TMI

+ Based on discussion with NRC Chaiman Ahearne

• • Recomended by the ACRS Ad-hoc Working Group i

)

rrPJi'iridid 40fiess

,, J GVE ENCNEERMG sufLDfMG USSANA, ILLIMOIS 41001 l

10 November 1979 l

l To:

Max W. Carbon, Chairman, ACRS FRW:

C. F. Siess RE:

RECG0(ENDATI WS OF KIMENY CQef1SSI M REGARDING THE ACRS Following are my comments regarding the recommendations of the Eemeny Commission and the responses thereto by the NBC in its report to the Presidents i

Strengthened Staff I believe some additional staff is desirable and may even be necessary. The Fellows are a big help but we have no assurance that the provision for them will continue forever. In my experience, the Fellows do a fine job on the assignments given them. On the other hand, permanent staff members of the caliber of those we now have could do many things better than the Fellows, at least partly l

because they will have a better background in the activities, history, and mode of operation of the ACRS.

I ap'preciate the Commission's point that the strength of the ACRS lies in the members. What is ignored, however, is that 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, who I do not neied 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 recnetied, at least in part, if our experienced and knowledgeable staff members had more time to summarize important or essential infcrmation. To do this well requires both judgement and erienceatalevelwecannote$cttoseeinourFellows.

g y-orth noting that a true collegirl opinion based an informal It 5 debare can result only if a substar.tial portion of the

==ra'oership is reasonably well informed. Otherwise ve are simply deferring to the expert opinion of a knowledgeable members not

_. accessarily bad in itself, but clearly not a col b gial approach.

Improvinc,ACRS Capability in the Fiele of Public Health The NRC did not address this recommendation. In nry opinion.

it is not needed. We have one exceedingly conMtent and fully informed member in this area. Although this makes a true collegial opinion on public healta questions difficult, adding another expert l

in this area would not help much.

A@

OK%Meda P.

S-"

+

m -+/rfn-

{L8 v-

,r.

=E-to I believe that the grantcst contribution the ACRS can mak3 inst "1:rge' ip the area of reactor safety, and particularly safety.,aga To do this, we probably could function without a==mhat In fact, without this expertise we couldhave occupied accidents.

espert in public health.

avoid taking on assignments in some of the areas that i

ider to be a large proportion of Dade Moe11er's time and wha i

I am happy to have Dade on the Committee and his contributio re have been major, but I cannot agree to adding one or two or mo We might even want to recommend to the Comission g

Cose:ittee to deal

-..n.

members in that area.that they consider establishing another Advisory.I realize th e.

with radiological effects on public health.

" but members will object to any reduction in our role an l

for our reduced though important, matters has been one reasoneffectivenes f ty.

j Non-Nandatory Review of License Applications _

I still do. However, as I have always favored this strongly.if the law is to be changed, it should AEC-NRC. Draft the form we worked out several years ago with theword Ocrent pointed out, i

Note also that this change was resisted by the former Jo nt

r.., ;..

Committee on Atomic Energy, presumably becaus f

respectability or credibility to the process.

Kemeny recocnendation, that our review would f

,/

participation in the ASLB proceedings.

ACRS Participation in ASLB Hearings I have no objection to the ACRS as a body having the r_ight, i

it being a to intervene in hearings, but I could not tolerate requirement for ACRS review of license applications.

I believe that this right would be exercised only rarely.

fl The threat of possible intervention by the ACRS would be a powe h wise incentive for the Staff (or the Commission) to accept or ot er be responsive to ACRS recommendations.

Strent suggested a panel approach if we should intervene as a This probably will work, but it would still place a is major additional burden on the ACRS if the right to intervene committee.

hear ASL3 or AIAB, would accept the panel approach and ma exercised very often.

h ld be

'from all members.the law is written to permit us to decide how we s ou represented.

l l

e no

,,y

• r he to intervene without the necessity

• ~" "

~

If we are granted the r i

of intervening, I have no as or problem with th s.

ACES Member Participation in ASLR Nearings_

i for ACES participation (that is, letting us delegat r members As I read the Kameny to represent the ACRS), I cannot accept it.Camaission tion but

~

refers to member participation.

in parentheses above.

i t I agree with Lewis that members should be free to partic pa e but not as as intervenors in their capacity as private citizens, d by the Cansittee to represent the ACRS as an intervenor.

ACRS Right to Initiate Rulemaking The reccaunendation is that the ACRS have the same rights t

,,f, dings.

intervene in rule:naking proceedings as in ASLB p rulemaking proceeding before the agency.

i provided part and have no serious objection to having the r ingly, as I think we will.

I as not sure what is involved in initiating rulema the if such a Does " initiate" mean that, proceedings.

i d by the Camaission for rulemaking.

petition was made by the ACRS, it could not be den eor doe ACRS would rulemaking petition from some party outside the NRC, the Commission.

Or further, could an have the power to initiate the proceeding.

i proceeding outside party petition the ACRS to initiate a rule i

I suggest that Herzl Plaine be consulted on this.

Procedura and Timing I doubt if the Kemeny Commission recomm a

g ACRS l

r no attention.

will be viewed as a major issue and will receive litt e o s

S The Congress, however, is more knowledgeable about the A h

and what it does and it is the Congress that will have to c ange before As a result, getting our consents and preferencesimportant the law.

.the Congress is probably much more to the Fresident.

i fine.

But it had better be wil thought out, since we live a long time with what we say we want-l

Co mENTS AND QUESTIONS ON NRC COM ENTS TO DR. PRESS ON ACRS ROLE D. Okrent.

1.

The Comissioners' recomendations 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 conrients at that time.

3.

The ACRS could use some funds (~$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.

5.

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 cart 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 Comission indicates it may delegate much of its rulemaking authority to the Staff, the ACRS role must be considered dif-ferently than in the past.

i 6.

Perhaps the ACRS should have the right to intervene in a case.

Furthermore, perhaps some formal requirement should be placed on the ASLB to respond to the ACRS recomendations.

7.

The NRC letter to Press says that ACRS views should be ad-dressed promptly by the Staff. Where does the Comission fit in? Are there not some ACRS recomendations that the Comission itself should address?

n o

N oTA..

tw- ~

w D OMp V(1/ro Ptf8

e I

1 l

i

a. et.:no;v'd II k, h f*li'5 M i

.J s

i n;N s

.a t= :

..c

. A o. t...

l l

((

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

c g

g E

W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20S$$

nY..M/

January 9,1980 CH AIR M A N MEMORANDUM FOR:

Milton Plessett, Chairman Advisory Committee on React r S.e uards,

cQ FROM:

John F. Ahearne, Chaiman

SUBJECT:

ACRS PARTICIPATION IN PR ED RULEMAKING ON THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE As you know, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has initiated a rulemaking to reassess its degree of confidence that radioactive wastes produced by nuclear facilities will be safely disposed of, to determine when such disposal will be available, and whether such wastes can be safely stored untM they are safely dispossd of.

See 44 Fed. Reg. 61372 (October 25, 1979).

As part of this determination the Commission will consider what degree of assurance exists that radioactive wastes from nuclear facilities will be safely stored or disposed of off-site prior to the expiration of the license for the facility.

If reasonable assurance is not forthcoming, the Commission will issue a proposed rule addressing the need for on-site storage after the facility license has expired.

The Co=ission believes that the ACRS's participation in this proceeding would be of great value. We propose that the ACRS enter the proceeding on a special basis in the role of commenter and 6dviser after statements and crou-statements have been filed by the parties.

Following this opening stage of the proceeding, the Commission would receive the ACRS's views and recommendations with respect to the issues noted above and other substantive issues raised by the parties which the ACRS sees as important.

It would be particularly helpful for the ACRS to identify tnose issues which need further attention by the parties, either at oral hearings or other appropriate proceedings.

The ACRS will be provided with copies of the statements and cross-statements, together with technical J

background material being assembled by the NRC staff.

Assuming that the proceeding more or less follows the tentative schedule prooosed in the notice of rulemaking, participants' cross-statements will be filed probably late in April,1980.

The ACRS comments will be needed 30 to 45 days later.

We do not expect that the ACRS would participate in oral hearings or be subject to interrogatories.

The Commission would appreciate receiving by January 14, 1980 the Committee's respense to this proposal for its participation in the waste disposal rulemaking.

If the Committee believes that procedures for ACRS participation other than those described acove m1gnt be cetter suited to ACRS capabilities, j

taking into account antdcipated workload and need for collegiality, the Commission would welcome alternative suggestions.

1 nrTF M !*'I $

8 g

t Y

o' i

I k

I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Pstts 50 and 51 Storage and Disposalof Nuclear W este aeswer.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Casunission.

actwnc Notice of Proposed Rulensidag.

svisesame.The United Stales Nuclear Regulatory Coeumlesian is conducting a g(eneric proceeding to resseems its doyee 1, -

e senfidense that radiosctive wastes pro 6eed by inerJear IneGities,wlB be A77WCMEYT M

,..=

6Df 4 '._*

Fed;tal Register / Vgl. 44. No. 208 / Thursday. October 25. 1979 / Prcposed Rules y

participants but w he wish to file demonstrated. An alterrative proposal presentations will be efficient arid

.nmments on the issues addressed in which is also under consideration w ould useful. Unfesa different procedures ere

~ rulemalms should file their be to apply to this proceeding the set out in the second prehearing order.

discovery y ocedures set forth in to CTR the hearing wi!! begin with dehrery of a

'.cmments The ic6udvals or gro:rps who has e Part 2 anP s have any discovery prepared statementa from the chosen to participate as full participants supervised by the presiding officer.

representatives, both technica! and

> aha!! be supe used by a

• presiding Parucipants or other sner.bers of the legal, of the groups into which the efficer'* to be named by the Commissien public who wish to express news on participants have been consolidated.

at a later date That officer's princ. pal this matter should fde those siews with These statements shoufd succintly respons.bibf 3 wd! be to monitor the their notices ofinte:t or comments summariae the participants' views ear 1 stages f the proceed.ng for the which are due November 28.19 9 In previously set ferth to their statements 3

Comm:ssion and to assist the particular participanta should discuss and cross. state =ents. Participants Comm:ssien in conductmg the later

'whether impositen of the discovery should ensure that their representatives portio. s Te those ends he or she wi;l provisions of Par 12 or their absence will be able to address the ments of the hase euhe :t3 to order censchdatac cf would be likely to alter their m!!ingness legal. technical and mititutionalissues indiu6.aP or gre.p. m the same to pa t:cipate in this rulemaking er to that has e been raised in this proceedMg.

fashie ;rcod:d in 10 CFR U15a The effect the quahty of thei centnbutien to After the prepared remarks the speakers presid.rg eftcer may take a;; c;tiate the record The presidmg efficer will will be questioned by the members of action to aie d deia).ine!admg !

then umman:e the news expressed the Commission. Furthermore. other necessar> he'deg ; e. hearing and present his or her recommendatiens participants wi!! be given the conferences er cert.!) mg matters to the to the Commission. The Comm!ssien opponunity to schmit w;itten questions Commas:en willissue a prompt decision on this to the Commission for it. in its The Cemmission's staff wl!! compile a matter io that the participants' discretion.to ask of participants.

full b.bher sph on the subjects preparatica of their statements will not The Commission reserves the option 3

r les a-t to the proceedes wh:ch wiH be be ads ersely affected by uncerta:n?> as of providing a fmal stage at which made as sif abie to the pubhc at an early to the extent of data that ma) be representatives of the participants may stage cf th:s procreing in aditien to available to them..

be cross. examined by other that ba!.e;ra;h3 the Cemm:ssien win Appreximately 30 days after the paracipants The Commission will defer rnamtam a p.bbc!y asadable data bank netices of intent are fi!ri the efficer wi!! deci&ng whether to permit any cross.

w hich wil! melude relevant mfer-atien issue a preheanns order rese!ving all examMat:en untd after the hearing is en weste sterage and ispesal The data prehminary issues 1 icludmg oser.To cbtain cross examination a bank w dl mciude the IRG Re;c-t. the conschdatien. Fo!:cwing the ;tehes-i: g participant wiH be required to identify backgrcund matenal the IRC cenected order the pa-tiepants wdl has e the issue er issues as to which cross.

...... ore;anns the repert. the Generic approximately 60 ad6tional days (the examination is sought. and the

".T vircnmentallmpact Statement en exact time to be set in the prehearing representath e or participant involved.

Waste Management being prepared by order) to prepare and fde their and to demonstrate that cross-the Department of Eurgy, and a staternents of position.The statements examinatic.t is necessary to prepare a collecticn of other pt:ne: pal norks that w dl be the participants' ptmei;al record adequate fcr a sound decision.

the Ccem:ssien s'aii w dl ecm;2e en the centributien to the waste cen!!dence Based en the materia! received in this subject of raicactae waste storage and proceedmg. and participants sheuld proceedir.g and en any other relevant disposal Turthermore. the Cemmissien focus their preparation en them.The informatics pre;erly available to it, the wdl scheit the viens cf a number ci statements should set forth the Commission will pubhsh a prepesed or federa! agencies en the quest.cns partic:; ants' views on the issues final rule in the Federal Register. Any intch ed m th:s procee6ng and en the 6scussed above. and en the u. der! fng such fmal rule will be e!Iective thirty 3

cenclusions cf the IRC Report and make assumptions and scenarios. bcth days after publication.

the responses of those agencies technical and institutional upcn which Comments. notices ofintent to asai able m the data bank so that the those views are based After the participate and any other documem participants can address them in their statements are filed, the partic pants filed in this proceeding should be fued papers The Cc= mission expects that I be given approximately 60 da3 s (to by serving a copy on the Secretary of full particmants wd! s o!untaril m et by the order) to prepare cross.

the Commission. U.S. Nuclear 3

relevant documents in their posses ementa discussing statementa f1!ed

- Regu!atory Com=ission. Washmaton, as adtble to other full participants to the by' other participants. The cross.

D.C 20353, Attention:Docketmg and exient practical and will reference and atatements should be limited to material Service Branch. All filings will be produce on request the documents on discussed in the statements and should available for public inspection in the which they rely.

not be used to introduce new material Commission's Public Document Room at The Commission is considering After the statements and cross.

1717 H Street NW., Washington. D.C.

whether ad6henal procedures shou!d statementa have been receivei the Dated. 0ctober ta.19 s.

be emple)ei One proposalis to strictly Commission with the assistance of the For the Commission.

I contre!:nter participant discovery and presiding officergwillissue a second Sairm!I N to picride that requesta for preheanns order.qThis order will set out gygg interrega'eries. depesitions or other, the procedures to be fellowed for the fermcl discovery wdl not be entertamed remainder of the Socing and may un'ess the Commission finda compelhng provide for f-er wTitten submissions lusdfication therefor. If this proposal from the full -tacipants. or for the were aric;tei the Commission expects scheduling an oral heanns. !f the

-

• there would be at most only a few Commissi des.rse oral prmntations.

.aptional c:rt.umstances in which the ps - paats may be further aarn.ust.fication could De consol' sted ta snaure that the ora!

H

(-

)

o. o R&dI-W

.3me 21,1979 i

E. Etherington, Operating Reactors Subcomittee Chaiman REVID6 & PROPOSALS '!O DOEASE FOWER In view of the acertainty expressed &aring the last Acts meeting concerning the role of the operating Reactors subommaittee in the review of future pro-posals to increase reactor power level, I would like to indicate my current I have attached, understanding of the Cannittee's desires on this matter.emmo d ich I wrote to Mr. Gos as background, the May 12, 1978 the Comunittee's view at that time. As indicated, the Committee espressed its desire for an opportmity to rwiew all proposals for power level increases The Committee indicated that all such proposals, in-at operating reactors.

cluding those that involve an increase fran a reduced power level to the de-sign power level, would routinely be reviewed by the Operating Ranctors Sutr-onnaittee with a caseesse decision as to the need for full cuenittee re-view.

I believe that the Caumittee had the following in mind and propose the fol-lowing guidelines for future activities in this area:

Increase from re- +$ g= r to ' stretch

• mr originally noted as the 1) design basis by the applicant and used for the safety evaluation of the facility - Acts need not review een the stretch powgr is t -j en heat transfer correlations, transient codes, etc. approved by the Osmaittee in connection with other review except in those cases dere the oper-sting record of the utility is questionable.

Increase frerr. a red g r (=q=d by the MC Staff below that

~

2) originally requested tw the applicant - ACRS need not review.

Increase from a reduced power below that originally requested by the 3) clicant resulting from a limit r+-_ x.-+$ by the Acts - ACRS 2,.a.nld review mless it is obvion that the increase is within limits an heat transfer, etc., approved B; the Acts for other cases, the operating record is antisfactory, and the site is a good one.

Increase to a g ar level not previously reviewed by the Acts - Acts 4) will normally review (this is consistent with the 2nd paragraph of my May 12, 1978 esmo to L, V. Gossick).

I believe the comunittee intended that the 9hittee make some of the judg-ment decisions indicated above and provide a degree of consistency to thane dd be lagking if each case were handled by a separate project decisions that

.~..il..e.: R0 1...

..Y,.yp.....

F 7..." '

S......,

RS

, iB.10.2..-

~......

e m,,,,, a m u

/4TT/9CH MiENT I

(- f*e g 1 b

.t L 9 s.

,y l

l E. Etherington J me 21, 1979 If you disegree with the above and desire further discussion of this metter with the Caenittee, I will achedule it at an appropriate Acts meeting so it een be resolved in advance of any anticipated review.

In this connection it should be noted that " stretch" power increase requests are still pending for Palisades, Crystal River, Indian Point 2, Port Calhoun and St.

Lucie 1.

1hese all appear to fall within the limits of 1, above but as the review proceeds you any find some of the some problems that surfaced &aring the M111stond review (e.g., part of the analysis based on a undel, etc., not previously approved by the ccumittee).

tristan1 Sissed by B.'F.Da2ag y R. F. Fraley Executive Director

Attachment:

R.F.Fraley mano to L.V.Gossick dated May 12, 1978 cc:

M. W. Carbon t

h N

i i

l i

N*

I a.

===>

sec anus ne mm aman see t_

i

-.. i

(

• I 1

Ney 12,1978 1

Ime V. Gessick Executive Director for operations REVIDE OF PICFOSMS TO DOEASE PQbER

~

1his memo is to confirm the discussion &aring the May 4,1978 l

meeting between the Camission and the Acts concerning ACRS re-views of proposals to increase power levels at operating reac-She cannittee espressed its desire for the opportunity to tors.

review proposed power level increases at operating facilities in-cluding those that involve an increase from a reduced power level t.o the design power level. exh proposalc will be routinely re-viewed by the Canittee's Subcomittee en Operating Reactors, with a case-by-<:ase decision as to the need for full Committee review.

i It is our understanding that proposals to estand operating power levels beyond that originally established as the design power level will normally involve a formal ACRS review and report.

\\F/

R. F. Fraley Emacutive Director

._ y h

I

i

^ /

'g UNITED STATES l

[

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c

E ADVISO3Y COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS l

'3 wasmwaron, o. c.ssssa November 9, 1979 N. Haller, Director j

Office of Management and Progran Analysis

Subject:

PROPOSED POLICY AND PROCEDURES FCR DIFFIRING PRTESSIQuL OPINICNS, NtREG-0567 In accordance with the memorandum frcun Chairman Hendrie requestirg com-ments on the subject doctanent, the following are provided regarding the participation of the ACRS in this process.

These consnents are based cn discussion with the Cessnittee.

Revise paragraph 6.b. to read as follows:

b.

The ACRS If the differing professional opinion relates to a poten-tial safety issue within the purview of the Advisory Com-mittee on Reactor Safeguards, an RC employee may eczemi-cate orally or in writing directly with the Chairman or any member of the ACRS. Such consnunication may be anony-mous. S e ACRS will append ccsunents, as appropriate, to j

all written statements of differing professional opinion and will forward these statements for resolution to the appropriate NRC office director.

An NRC employee may also appear before the AGS or an ACRS Subconunittee as dW appropriate by the Cessnittee.

Se ACRS will assure that all auch statements that do not constitute a differing professional opinion are forwarded to the appropriate NRC office director for information.

R. F. Fraley Executive Director ec: ACRS Members B. B. E. Plaine I

prnecH MENT

'o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P

g ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 5

k%...

• J[

wAsMINGTON. D. C. 20s55 s

January 8,1980 ACRS MEMBERS DRAFT ACRS PROCEDURES FOR DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS The following are draft ACP.S procedures for handling dissenting professional opinions among NRC Staff Members and among ACRS Consultants.

BACKGROUND NUREG-0567, Proposed Policy and Procedures for Of ffering Professional opinions, dated October,1979, was published by NRC with a request for The Committee recommended that paragraph 6.b of the document comments.

be revised to read as noted below. The NRC is considering the comments which have been received, and it is assumed for purposes of this memo that paragraph 6.b will be changed to the form suggested by the Committee, viz.

"If the differing professional opinion relates to a potential safety issue within the purview of the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards, an NRC employee may communicate orally or in writing directly with the Chairm&n or any member of the Such comunication may be anonymous. The ACRS will ACRS.

append comments, as appropriate, to all written statements of differing professional opinion and will forward these state-ments for resolution to the appropriate NRC office director.

An NRC employee may also appear before the ACRS or an ACRS Sub-committee as deemed appropriate by the Committee. The ACRS will assure that all such statements that do not constitute a differ-ing professional opinion are forwarded to the appropriate NRC office director for information."

Proposed Procedures for ACRS Handling Differing Professional Opinions Among NRC Staff Members and ACRS Consultants A.

Handling Dissenting Professional Opinions Among Members of NRC Staff Ciffering professional opinions among NRC Staff Members (concerning matters within the purview of the Comittee) which are brought to the attention of ACRS Members by NRC Staff Members will be handled as follows:

I i

i l

f T7A (H "" '

l

~

2.

1. Written statements of differing professional opinions provided to the Committee or its members for consideration in accordance with NUREG-0567 should be provided to the ACRS Executive Director who will forward copies to all members with an apprcpriate cover memorandum.

2. The Executive Director will consult with the ACRS Chairman and Sub-comittee Chairmen as appropriate to determine whether the mt.tter should be assigned to a subcommittee for initial review, brought directly to the full Committee, or whether it is an item of a type that does not warrant Committee consideration.

3. The NRC employee who provided the differing opinion will be advised of the initial disposition at this stage by the ACRS Executive Director.

4. The NRC employee involved may appear before the Committee or an ACRS Subcommittee as deemed appropriate by the Subcommittee / Committee.

5. If a Member receives an oral communication, which represents a differ-ing professional opinion by a Member of the NRC Staff, it should be reduced to writing and provided to the ACRS Executive Director for distribution to all members.

It will then receive the same handling as a written communication of this type received from an NRC Staff Member.

6. The ACRS Executive Director will, in accordance with the second paragraph of 6.b above, assure that statements received which do not constitute a differing professional opinion are forwarded to the appropriate NRC Office director by the ACRS Executive Director for information in accordance with NUREG-0567.

The NRC Staff Pember involved will be kept informed of the action taken in response to his communication.

B.

Dissenting professional Opinions Among ACRS Consultants In regard to ACRS Consultants, it will be the responsibility of the ACRS Subcommittee Chairman, to whom consultants are providing advice, to try to resolve any differing professional opinions by consultants which arise at Subcomittee meetings or are expressed in ACRS consultant reports prepared in support of the Subcomittee activities.

In the event this resolution is not practicable at the Subcommittee level, the differing opinions of consultants should be brought to the attention of the full Comittee so an appropriate Comittee position can be established.

If consultant reports, containing differing professionJ opinions, are received regarding matters where there is not an obvious Subcommittee Chairman, the Engineer receiving the action copy of the report should The bring the matter to the attention of the ACRS Executi se Director.

j 3.

ACRS Executive Director will then consult with the Comittee Chaiman an Subcommittee Chairmen as appropriate and, when considered appropriate, the Chairman will designate a Subcommittee to resolve the matter.

Since copies of all ACRS consultants' reports are provided to all members by the designated ACRS Project Engineer, no change in distribution pro-cedures/ practices are needed.

E b

./

R. F. Fraley

.a

/

Executive Director

pgye_

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

UNITED STATES p

NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISS'ON -

p g

W ASHINCTON, D.C. 20555 g

.g November 6,1979

\\....

,o#

e OFFICE OF THE COMMi$$lON E R MEMORANDUM FOR:

Chairman Hencrie Commissioner lilinsky Comissioner l'.ennedy Comissioner Ahearne R S.

Peter A. Bradford FROM:

It seems to me that one of the Kemeny Comission recomendations that we should seriously consider is the chartering of a Citizen's I would think that a group of about a dozen members, Advisory Committee.

drawn from the various interests affected by nuclear regulation, might While such a group should have a substantial hand be of real use to us.

in shaping their own agenda, it seems to me that they could usefully advise us in areas such as necessary licensing reforms and rulemaking initiations, as well as other particular concerns that might not be reaching us effectively.

The Secretary is requested to poll other Comission offices to see if this idea is of sufficient interest for a short meeting to be scheduled, after which OPE and OGC might go to work on a possible charter.

cc:

L. Bickwit, OGC A. Kenneke, OPE '

S. Chilk, SECY

)

j b

F5 Q C.

fGl

\\

c PS C

_I C C M L& 8 l

I& b si C-eum i

(

UNITED STATES

(

)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j' '

o WASHINCTcN,0.C.20555 g,.;.

.y December 13, 1979 j'

1 r

cFFICE OF THE COMP.1155t ON E R 1

MEMORANDUM FOR CHAIR'*dW AHEARNE COMMISSIONER KENNEDY COMMISSIONER HENDRIE COMMISSIONER BRADFORD

^

QUALIFICATIONS OF REACTOR OPERATORS

SUBJECT:

The Lessons Learned Task Force has concluded that the need for improved operations reliability at nuclear power plants is the most important lesson learned from the accident at

)

TMI-2.

An important element of operations reliability is J

qualification of plant personnel.

The Task Force wrote on the subject of improving personnel qualification:

"Most of these efforts are directed toward areas in

)

which weaknesses can be readily identified and for i

We which corrective action is easily agreed upon.

believe that all of these efforts are appropriate, but the activities are not well coordinated and there is no The generally accepted goal to bind them together.

Commission should assure that the NRC has an effective plan to take the lead in articulating a coordinated approach and a generally accepted goal for technical qualifications for both onsite and offsite personnel and for both normal and accident conditions."

We have recently approved an action plan for improving the Operator Licensing Program (SECY-79-330E and 330F, and the Chilk memo of November 27, 1979).

Nonetheless, it is not clear to me that the eight pages of approved recommendations and assorted Commissioner comments in the Chilk memo taken together provide for the necessary improvements.

1 I am concerned moreover that this area is so specialized that we may not have sufficient in-house expertise.

I propose that we set up an ad hoc committee made up of specialists within other Federal agencies (DOE / Navy, DOD, FAA, NASA) that have dealt with the training and qualifications of operators of sophisticated and dangerous equipment more than we have to review the upgraded program and to develop a h-recommended overall plan and goal for technical qualifications alled for in NUREG-0585.

l l

't'

\\..

. I recommend that OPE be asked to identify specialists that would be able and willing to serve on such a Committee, to develop a charter and action plan that would lead to a 1980.

report to the Commission by June 30,

~

b.

'f);'/

g*

p

~

Victor Gilinsky cc:

E. Hanrahan, OPE 1

e l

l l

l

..--n

UNITED S TATES x

( UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI 1 p

f N

g

,/j c:AsmucTcx.o.c.20sss g g,, f Deccmber 5, 1979

. c.n;pj g

e, ;-Z.L' /

.,' p '4

%us*

03FicaO'THE cm.:wssiosta MEMORANDUM FOR C'HAIRM N HENDRIE COMMISSIONER KENNEDY COMMISSIONER BRADFORD 5

COtD1ISSIONER AHEARNE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF OPERATIONAL DATA:

SUBJECT:

HAVE UE DCSE ENOUGH?

for OMB has not yet approved staffing for the new Office This Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD).

hold-up presents an occasion to reconsider the question:

job Will the new office be staffed sufficiently to do the that needs doing and will its place in the organizationa f

improvements will receive sufficient attention?

i The notion of such a function came before the Commiss on almost two years ago in letters from Congressman Udall and Hal Lewis which drew an analogy between aviation safety and Hal Lewis suggested formation of an independent National Transportation Safety Board-like ageticy nuclear power safety.

directed toward enhancement of reactor safety through While I have analysis of precursors to major accidents. supported pur cu I

have decided it does net go far enough.

rate of progress toward attaining even our more modest current goal is too slow, but that is a separate matter.)

I believe the AEOD office should be increased beyond theFurther, while that presently planned level of 20 persons.

( office should have a single director, it would be a good idea

) to have a part-time oversicht Board composed of se_nior technical persons-seleEted by the Commission which would submit reports

1. recommendations directly to the Commission.

I would like to have this question discussed at a Commission meeting.

.l

,. lj. *

y. $ (.

y

~

Victor Gilinsky 3

S. Chilk, SECY cc:

WEB l

l

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

I wasmucTow.c. c. zosos o

j D, CE#,

Decenber 20, 1979 a...*

RECDVED cMainuAu MEMORANDUM FOR:

Commissioner Gilinsky D M ? 410 09 Comissioner Kennedy Comissioner Hendrie U.s "

A0vish$Y$:%yjg Comissioner radf rd

,9,, /,

REACTOR S:.r50uggc3 e'

r( h; w FROM:

John Ahearne m

NUCLEARADVI5bRYBOARD

SUBJECT:

Over the past several months, there have been many suggestions that the NRC establish review groups to study one facet or another of our j

work.

The latest that I have seen are those suggested by Comissioner 1

Gilinsky, one to review the work of the Operational Data Analysis Office and another to review and recomend on NRC operator training requirements.

I believe we should develop a set of advisory groups, both for these suggestions, and also for the others I am sure will arise in the fu,tu re.

I see three major possibilities:

1.

Set up separate group's for each suggestion that we accept.

2.

Fold these groups into the'ACRS. This could be as part of the expanded ACRS role recomended by the Presidential Comission and under review by the ACRS.

3.

Develop a Nuclear Advisory Board which could form subpanels to address issues at our request. This would be similar to the Defense Science Board in the Department of Defense.

I recommend we ask OPE to examine these alternatives, including discussing them with the ACRS, examine the experience both in the DO and DOE, and report back to us in January, j

May I have your coments?

cc:

Mr. Chilk OPE OGC ACRS l.

s

-w

r..,

UNITED ST ATES

( [4,(g

)

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 3

f

.O j m m = aron. o.c. ness.

October 11, 1977 l

i l

Mr. Lee V. Gossick Execative Director for Operations U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 SUBJECI: SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PIANT, IN2UIRY REGARDDG RESOWTION OF ACRS GEN. ERIC ITEMS

Dear Mr. Gossick:

The ACRS has been inforned by the NBC Staff that, during the Shearon Barris pre-hearing conference on June 19, 1977, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Me:=er Dr. J. V. Leeds, Jr. requested guidance from the ACPS regarding which items in the Comittee list of Generic Items for Light-Water Reactors must be resolved prior to the issuance of a construction permit, and which must be resolved after construction f

permit issuance, but prior to issuance of an operating license.

The Unresolved Generic Items listed by the ACRS have the following characteristics:

a) They are items of concern to the ACRS for which neither the ultimate solution nor its i::plementation for reactors in various stages of licensing, construction or operation aave yet been determined.

j b) They are applicable not only to a given plant or license application but also to a class of plants or, in some cases, to all light-water reactors.

In the ACRS review of a particular application, it may be decided that certain of the Generic Items should be resolved prior to issuance of a construction permit or, more likely, prior to operation of the plant.

In such cases, a recomendation to this effect is made specifically in the body of the ACRS letter.

~

g o

I

as.w

(

Mr. Lee V. Gossick

- 2'-

October 11, 1977 Those Generic Items referred to, and now listed explicitly, in the penultimate paragraph of the ACRS letter, are intended to be considered generically, outside the secpe of the particular licensing action.

It is the intent that, when solutions are found, a determination will be made by the NPC Staff and the ACRS as to their implementation on all plants for which they are applicable and necessary.

Sincerely yours,

-7,,

M. Sender Chairman l

l I

a

.