ML19339D005
| ML19339D005 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/05/1980 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19339D006 | List: |
| References | |
| ACRS-1793, NUDOCS 8102130086 | |
| Download: ML19339D005 (5) | |
Text
-
EETING DATE: Nov. 5,1980 DATE ISSUED:
Dec. 5, 1980 C
AdB - 17 /3 MINUTES OF ACRS PROCEDURES SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING November 5,1980 Washington, DC
'.y f' --
. m y(m,
' (
'il
- l.
~i
,T l.i
. j D-
.)
_ c.
- - w
Purpose:
This meeting was called to discuss proposed changes in the ACRS role in the regulatory process to strengthen its contribution consistent with the recom-i sendations of the President's Commist:on on the TMI-2 Accident (Rogovin Com-l mission) and additional suggestions by the Comittee in its letter to the l,
Comission dated January 15, 1980.
Background material prepared for use during this meeting is attached as Appendixes A,~B, and C.
Participants:
l M. S. Plesset, Chairman
,g O
D. W. Moeller, Member S. Lawroski, Member J. C. Mark, Member g%
w w
M. Bender, Member k
J42I IO8/h W. Kerr, Member l
M. W. Carbon, Member y
h"A' h%
R. F. Fraley, ACRS Staff
,p 7
M. W. Libarkin, ACRS Staff 4 hgfN M. C. Gaske, ACRS Staff T. G. McCreless, ACRS Staff l
Discussion:
Strengthening of ACRS Staff In connection with proposed strengthening of the ACRS Staff it was suggested by Dr. Moeller that the Comittee reconsider the policy that precludes useUse of N of NRC techeical personnel as ACRS Fellows.
provide a ready supply of engineers and' scientists who are familiar With reacto safety problems and methodology.
I l
81 0 213 008t#
4 p
w
It was noted that this policy was established at the suggestion of the then NRC Chairman (Dr. Hendrie) in order to bring outside engineers and scientists into the nuclear regulatory field as well as to preclude loss of trained per-sonnel from a heavily loaded regulatory staff.
It was agreed that the ACRS Chairman should discuss a change in this policy Dr. Moeller indicated that he would check with an NRC with the NRC Chairman.
Staff engineer who had previously expressed an interest in an ACRS Fellow-ship to determine if he still has an interest.
ACRS Interaction with Speakers Who Appear at ACRS Meetings:
Recent criticism of the Committee's interaction with Mr. Thomas Cochran, National Resources Defense Council, Inc. (see letter from Mr. Cochran to Dr.
M. Plesset, ACRS Chairman, dated October 27, 1980, attached) was noted.
It was noted that criticism of information being presented by Mr. Cochran had to do with the technical merit of his statements and was handled in a pro-fessional manner. Certainly, no more critically than NRC Staff representa-tives and those of applicants / vendors when they appear before the Comittee.
It was agreed that consideration of the technical portion of Mr. Cochran's rebuttal should be taken into account by the ACRS Waste Management Subcom-It was agreed that mittee in its consideration of related technical issues.
a specific reply to his criticism regarding ACRS bias and detachment does not warrant a reply at this time.
A letter from Mr. Robert D. Pollard, UCS, dated October 31, 1980 which criti-cizes the Committee position regarding e proposed NRC rule on fire protec-tion was also noted.
(Copies of these letters are Attachments A and B.)
Strengthening of ACRS Role in the Regulatory Process M. Bender noted that safety related rul( making is implemented at the pleasure of the Comission and is controlled by t *e NRC Staff or a rule making board i
l He suggested that the ACRS should, at least, appointed by the Comission.
i have an opportunity to coment on the disposition of its coments and recom-He objected mendations regarding the need for and nature of proposed rules.
to having an NRC project engineer dispose of ACRS comments /recomendations.
R. Fraley noted that a proposed rule change and Memo of Understanding (Appen-dix 8) being prepared in response to recomendations of the President's Panel on TMI-2 requires a response by the Commission to ACRS recomendations re-garding the need for proposed rules.
In addition, the procedures being
. I proposed will provide an opportunity for more direc.t ACRS participation during the development of the rule depending on its nature and substance.
H. Dlaine suggested that the Committee should commeat In Ndition, he suggested the and/or resolution of its recomendations.
Comittee may need to make more definitive 5tatements regarding the need for NRC rules since Committee concerns /coments are frequently not specific enough in this area (e.g., are included as generic type comments in ACRS reports on specific projects).
M. Bender proposed that more ACRS participation is needed when the need for It was agreed that paragraph 3 of the proposed a rule is being evaluated.
Memo of Understanding (Appendix B) should be revised to provide an oppor-tunity for Committee participation when the need for a rule is being con-sidered.
Support of Independent Work Under Contract to the ACRS_
It was noted that adequate funds (approximately $400,000 for FY 1981) are available for support of consultant type work in direct support of Comittee activities. These funds could also be used to pay for computer time, some limited analytical work, etc. at the National labs or other contractors.
The management of a program by the ACRS of a pro M. Bender suggested that management and justification that is not available.the ACRS mig the NRC does in some cases.
Dr. Plesset proposed, however, that it would be more responsive to the nee the Comittee to have a few additional full-time ACRS Staff engineer who co provide various kinds of direct support of ACRS activities (e.g keep ACR members informed regarding the RSR program).
H. Plaine suggested that a better day-to-day working relationship with DOE would be appropriate on some sort of " regularized basis" (e.g., direct con-tact with an Assistant Secretary).
l recommend to Gov. Babbitt that DOE should have a l
Energy Reorganization Act that NRC must transfer funds to DOE for work d l
in response to NRC (including ACRS) requests for support.
I NRC Safety Research Program There was general agreement to a suggestion from
. Frequently the scope of work has been defined, agreements have been process.
made (e.g., the 3-D Cooperative Program with Japan and Germany), and contracts have already been let before the ACRS gets involved.
It was noted that the planned ACRS review of NRC proposed Long-Range Research Program PT-an should help to some extent.
NRC Budget Process M. Bender proposed that the ACRS should have more control over it: own budget and its staffing / manpower needs. This is now handled as part of thq hRC budgeting process and there is no formalized procedure for direct Ccmmittee participation.
H. Plaine suggested, bewever, that identification of the ACRS budget as a separate item could subject it to criticism / cuts by members of Congress who are not symcathetic to advisory Committee nor aware / appreciative of the con-tributions of the Ccamittee. He proposed that, unless real problems exist, the process bc left a3 is.
M. Bender suggested, however, that the ACRS budget / funds do need to be protected from undue control by the NRC staff (e.g., NRC Controller) once it has been designated for ACRS use.
Liaison with NRC Staff Dr. Plesset reported on a request regarding more active participation by senior NRC Staff members during ACRS letter-writing sessions.
H. Thompson, recently appointed as Acting Director, Planning and Program Analysis Staff, NRR, has expressed an interest in improving the liaison / working relationship He has proposed that having key NRC Staff personnel of NRR with the ACRS.
attend ACRS meetings during letter-writing sessions wou'd improve their To understanding of and ability to follow through on ACRS recommendations.
be practicable and effective, howcVer, it would require more definitive scheduling of ACRS letter-writing 'tisions and a willingness to accept an It was suggested that occasional comment about the conts
- of the letter.
also be provided a copy of the draft I
the cognizant NRC Staff liaison mig letter being discussed to improve his ability to comprehend the related I
discussion and make suggestions.
Several members expressed concern / opposition to such a scheme since it would compromise the independence of ACRS deliberations and could make it diffi-cult to withhold draft ACRS reports from other people interested in seeing them while they are being discussed.
It was agreed, however, that monthly sessions with the ED0 and/or NRC Offica Directors would be useful to keep the Committee informed and to ex-change preliminary views regarding regulatory matters.
~
s a.
i J Conclusion _
l As a result of this discussion Appendix D was prepared as the basis for cussion with Gov. Basbbit, Chaiman of the Nuclear Safety Oversight Com f
6,1980 (247th ACRS meeting).
on November
]
4 1
4 i
4 i
i i
i I