ML20059N809

Summary of ACRS 356th Meeting on 891214-15 in Bethesda,Md Re Access Authorization at Nuclear Power Plants,Evaluation of Operational data,fitness-for-duty & Coherence in Regulatory Process

ML20059N809
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/11/1990
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-2684, NUDOCS 9010170312
Download: ML20059N809 (33)

Text

..

,w

,g.-

= ggM[

- t

'i fDn)6////fv

. TABLELOF CONTENTS MINUTES OF THE 356Thi ACRS MEETING DECEMBER 14-15, 1989 lt I..

Chairman's Report (Open).................................-

1 j

h II.. Access. Authorization at Nuclear Power Plants - (Open)......-

1 t--

=

t III. Evaluation of Operational. Data (Open)....................: !

IV.

Fitness for-Duty'(Open)........'..........................

-8 L

~t J

,V. c

-Coherence in the Regulatory Process (Open)...............

10 t

.VI.

Subcommittee Reports-Ji A.- Thermal-Hydraulic-Phenomena-Subcommittee........'.....L14 B.

Regulatory Policy andLPracti'ces......................

17

'VII. Executive Session--(Open).

3

'A.

Reports,-Letters and~ Memoranda 17 i '.

B.-

Other Actions, Agreements,= Assignments and Requests..'18'.

1 1

s

-t s

4 5

i 1

}

g.y pp 9,q. ].. O

~

4 e

t

~h DESIGNATEDORIGIIAL 01 2 901011 Cortified By A -

> j 2684 PDC j

o h,

?

.A

,uw-wm--e r-ce*

' ~ -

w

"'****"^N**-*

~

' " ^ '

n.,

.4 i

a.

11

.tc APPENDICES

~

, MINUTES OF THE 356TH ACRS MEETING l

DECEMBER 14-15, 1989

-)

i I.-

Attendees II.

Future 3.genda III.

Future Subcommittee Activities

~

IV.

Other Documents Received 6

l

,.(

l:

l4-'

i:

l-3 i

\\

P L-x s

... ~

b.,-

p etog-t

'o UNITED STATES -

^,,..

8

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION :

n

)$'

ADVis0RY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55

%,....+

t Revised:

December 6, 1989 SCHEDULE'AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 356TH ACRS MEETING-

i DECEMBER-14-15, 1989 BETHESDA, MARYLAND I.

h Thursday, December 14, 1989, Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Md._

l ss J

8:45 A.M.

Chairman's; Remarks (0 pen) 1)

8:30 1.1 Opening remarks (CM/RKM) 4 1.2' Items'of.currentinterest(CM/RFF).

3r 20 1

2)

-8:45

. 11: M A.M.

Access Authorization at Nuclect Power j

(10:40-1Grt$ - BREAK)

Plants (0 pen / Closed)--

40 '04 2.1)-

Comments by ACRS subcommittee chair-

. man.(DAW /HA) i 2.2)

Meeting with NRC staff representatives!

(Note: ' Portions ofrthis session will be-

- (J closed as.necessary to discuss' Safeguards

- j 3

Information. applicable-to specific nuclear.

i plants.):

so

3) 11:M A.M. - 12:00 Noon ACRS Future Activities'(0 pen)L

- 3.1)-. Anticipated ACRS' subcommittee 3.2) =

activities:(RPS/RFF)-

Items proposed for ACRS: consideration

.(CM/RFF) e s-12:00 Noon - 1:96 P.M.

LUNCH-4) 1:9h P.M.

N P.M.

Evaluatiionof'OperationalDatai(0 pen) 4.1);

Comments by AGR5 Subcolunittee' chair-.

' man regarding:use of:SALP ratings

..beyond their,. intended-.use's1(HWL/PAB).

J 4.2)> ' Briefing by representatives of;the t

NRC-. Staff

.l 3 *do a: 15' 24 0 P.M. - aff!iP.M.

BREAK ft I '

hQhh[\\

i t

e e

.~..._,-m

~.- -

~

l 356th ACRI Meeting Agenda

- 2:-~ -

j i

r 3: 6 45 5)' '2e45 P.M. - ~3:yJ P.M.-

ACRS St.bcomittee Activities-(0 pen)

l 5.1)

Report of-Thermal-Hydrua lic Phenomena i

. Subcommittee Chairman regarding December 7,1989 subcomittee meeting'

'on interfacing systems LOCA,.

application:of CSAU methodology to

- small-break LOCAs,: and:the status of-

the Westinghouse best-estimate' ECCS/.-

3 LOCA model (IC/PAB)s

+5 45 6) 3: M P.M. --

4:06 P.M.

ACRSPracticesandProcedures(Open)-,

6.1)

Proposed; revision of MOV between ACRS and NRC staff:(CPS /SD)"

6.2)-

Proposed revision to ACRS Bylaws--

(HWL/RFF)t 6.3)

Report / recommendations of ACRS subcomittee on Regulatory Policies;

- and: Practices regarding Easton, Md.

meeting on December 1 &-2,!1989.

(Tentative)(HWL/GRQ)

I 4s*

5:IS i

7)-

4:00 P.M. -

Afft P.M.

i

{.

Selection / Appointment of ACRS Members /,

-Officers (0 pen / Closed)

V 7.1)

Status of appointment of'new membersJ (CM/MFL)-

7.2)

Election of ACRS officers for CY 1990.

1 (CN/RFF) j (Note:' Portions.of.this session will'be-closed as necessary to discuss'information the release of which would represent a

. clearly. unwarranted' invasion of, personal

' privacy.)~

f t Is' 35 8)

A.rf0 P.M. -

5:M P.M. _

.PreparationofACRSReports(0 pen / Closed)~

8.1)_

Discuss proposed report on Access

l Authorization at-Nuclear Power

' Plants (DAW /HA):

(Note: Portions of this-session will bet

'l closed as necessary to discuss: Safeguards'-

R Information applicable to specific nuclear 1

plants.).

W Friday December 15, 1989. Room P-110, 7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethes'da Md.-

j e5

9) 8:30 A.M. -

9:36 A.M.

FitnessforDuty(0 pen).

9.1). coments by ACRS subcommittee-chair-man'regarding proposed modification.

to 10 CFR Part 55 to require compli ' c

.ance.with NRC's Fitness-for-Duty programs and. conforming nodifications~-

ll J-

.__-.___-_.._,,a..

.1.- -., _.,

- Q_

j i

-356th ACRS Meeting Agenda,

.g to the Comission's enforcement ol policy (DAW /HA) i 9.2)MeetingwithNRCstaffrepresenta-l tives' of.

30

\\

10) 9:M A.M. -

10:M A.M.

- Preparation of ' ACRS; Reports. (0 pen / Closed)..

j 10.1) D.iscuss proposed report on Access' _

' Authorization-at Nuclear Power

.)

Plants'(DAW /HA)^

(Nots:

Portions of this' session'will be A

closed as necessary to discuss. Safeguards Information applicable to' specific. nuclear plants.)

a 9:45 no

,is WfT5 A.M. -

10:M A.M..

BREAK-1

-11).10:30 A M. -

12:00 Noon

'CoherenceintheRegulatoryProcess(0 pen).

11.1)

Comments by ACR5.subcomittee'-

a chairman-(HWL/GRQ)-

.11.2)

Meeting with.NRC Acting Executive Director for Operations'

?

l 12:00 Noon -

1:30 P.M.'

LUNCH-1 2.: so 4

(

13) 1:30 P.M. -

Je00 P.M.;

.PreparationofACRS: Reports'(Open/ Closed) l V

l_

12.1)-

Discuss = proposed ACRS reports to NRC regarding:-

o L

12.1-1)'.' Access ~Authorizationat-Nuclear. Plants (DAW /HA)/

12.1-2): Fitness for Duty and-enforcement modifications S

12.1-3) -(10.CFR 55):(DAW /HA);

. Coherence in the Regulatory

. Process'(HWL/GRQ) i i

t b

Il

.U g

.. 1

-. ~....

E O

0.cRS. &

'50032 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 231 / Monday, December 4,1989 / Notices d

/

fiduciary or other party in interest or the Conunittee Management Secretariat, Deted et Bethesda, MD this asth de disquahlied person from certain other General Services Administration.

November, tees.

provisions of the Act and/or the Cod *,

Deted.Jovember 38,1088.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory including any prohibited transaction Cathertae Wolbows,

b"'

provisions to which the exemption does not a and the general fiduciary Advisory r'a==tassa --

Ofm Elans ). Wiggles, of section 404

[FR Doc, as-masoFud 1dat k46 em)

Crane Officer, Conewcf Nspoooos &saab of

Act, among other things eusse coce mm.a

& 2. Arisionof Conosce andpaparry Manapment. Offim ofAdewusdrocon require a Aduciary to char 4 marge his duties res. pecting the plan solely in the

[FR Doc. eD-38277 yued W1-8R kes aml laterest or the tsand Canoensuon W teseOng of Humanidos a u me coes ree m m p,,g beneSciariesof the andin a prudent 8anhar= to accordance with h meeting of the H=mantriaa Panel y/AdvisoryComunittee on Reestor j

eection opt (s)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does scheduled fcr Dan =nher 1.1980, and SologuardeiRBeeting Agende it aBect the requirement ofsection publishedin the FederalRegleteron 40tte)of the Code that the plan amst November 17.1980, at pages 27848-44.

Ih e

.- with the purposes of operate for the =rahvalve beneBt of the has been cancelled,h meeting was to section 39 and 182b. of the Atosnic employeesof the maintaining review applications forHumanities Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2030, SIsab), the the plan and their Projects in IJbraries and Ardives, Advisory Committee 6n Reactor (2)"!bese exemptions are submitted to the Divialen of General Safeguards wiB hold a meeting on supplemental to end not in derogation Programs.

,m December 14-18,1900 in Room PL110, of, any other provielens of the Act and/

Cathertre Welbowe, a s e v, c..

7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, ortheCode 6ar4=#=>statn or administrativeexemptions Adrisory rLw==m== as,may=ma=#@foer.,

Maryland. Notice of this meeting was publishedin the Federal Register on.

transitional rules. Parthertnore, the fact

[FR Dec. so-assa F0ed is.s et eies am) {October 18.1989, t

8"'"** " "

that a troosectionle s,ablect to an

,g,g,g,,,,q,,,,g y,, g,

-Orateddy, Decesober JC!stE Jioom t

not dispositive of whether the pg,g,g yygny,7jogg 3,,,,,b gogge,gg,

(

transactionis in fact a pechibited NUC N REOULATORY m ; m Md.

tra===*ina.

COtStHSSION

. s.s, ec A30a.m-ads om.:Commanarby n.

r ACRSChairman(Open)-TheACRS >-

,-~o v

(3)h avauabGityof tl see exemptions is subject to the express Proposed Avanahany of FY 90Punds Chairinan will amamant onitems of condition that the mehrlat facts and for Ptnancial Aeoletence M To current interest.

Support Research at Educellonel acom.-Jf:JKom.tAccesar 9

mpresentenons containadin each 7

application accuretely describes an institutions and the Exchenes of Authorisotton of NuclearPbwerPiante '

4 l

maurial4erms of the trannantin which

;.3 M- =2 Anpaunnasnentof (Open/ Closed) hCommitteewiD is the subject of the exemption.

Revised Funding AvellebEltF review and report on the proposed final i

Signed at W=ahangw DC, this noth day of Aomecv: Nuclear Regulatory; rule.to CPR part 73, Accese November,19 EEL Conunission.

Authorization Program at Nuclear Power Plants. Representatives of the NRC staff IvenRh=as.ht ACTtost Notice, wlB participate, as appropriate.

Direc8aro/n Desarme=='""

7 8"# g" 8',",#8'dd"#"d**888-sucessAnV:In the Federal of Portions of this seselon wiB be closed ofg,g, June 30,1986(54FR 27778),

Nnalaa, as necessary to discuss Safeguards oc. m Hlo 3-4R mes am)

Regulatory Comminalon annmuv.nd the Information for specific nuclear plants, eaamse coce me.ews evallability of FY90 funds to support Jf!J5om.-22aoon:IbtureACRS research grants to educatinnal Act/rities (Open)--The Conunittee wiD J

institutions. That annon=cament stated discuss anticipated ACRS subcnmmittee that the ceiling forsuch grants was activities and items proposed for ~

p l

NATIONAR.POUICATION ON THE approximately 31,200,000, with about '

consideration by the full r'ammittee.

i ARTS AND THE HUISANITIES 3annnnn f thatamountavailablefor sp=mpm.:Eroleot/on of o

i FederalCouneg on the Artsand the new grants to FYDO, Unnvpartad budget Operet/osto/Doto (Open)-b reductions have now reduced these rinemittee willhold a briefing and t

Humenhiee Artsandgory -_--- -

respectiviey. b ramm*ndar of the Jane use of Systematic Analysis of Licensing i

Indemnny Penel Advis figures to $1,000,000 and ernnrm discoesion regarding the basis for and Renewal 30,1989 announaamant. with the Performance (sal.P) ratings.

& Arts and Artifacts Indemnity exception of the mvloed Wng figures, Panel Advisory Committee is being mmains in effect. AH other element of Asspm 4tdspa.: Technical i

Dolnirgr and Qualificotton Progrom for V

renewed for en additional two years.

the program mmain unahangad e4.

NRCEmployese (Open)-b

-[

N Chatrain, National Endowment appucation procedures, daadlinaa. and '

for the Hninanities, a member of the technical topic areas.

Committee will be briefed by NRC staff I

re]iresentatives regarding technical t

rsoeral Council on the Arts and the Aconsse: Nuclear Regulatory twining facilities and programs for NRC Humanities has deterrnined that the Commission. Atta: Grants Officer, employees.

renewal of this committee le necessary Division of Contracts and Property and in the public interest in connection Management OfBee of Adxninistration.

3:4spm 4: Jap.m.: ACAS with the performance of duties imposed Washingte. DC 20655.

Subcomm/ttee Actirities (Open).--h Committee will hear and discuse reports 4

upon the Federal Council en the Arts Pon PURTHen edroneAATioes coff7ACT:

of ACRS subcommittee activities in and Humanities by law.'this Ms. Kimberly Malone, (301) 492-4297 or designated areas, including thermal-

,5 determination follows coneuttation with Ms. Yvonne Terry (301) 493-4210.

hydraulic pheno.mena.

O

$Vol. f 4, No. 231/ Mond:y, DIcember C1989 / Notices 50033 Fed:ral Rsglot:r d 25p.m.-8p.m. ACns practices and may be asked only by members of the of the Licensing Support System (l.SS).

' hocedures (Open)--%e Committee will Committee, its consultants, and Staff.

He LSS le an electronic Information 3'

discuss proposed changes in ACRS Persons duiring to make oral management system containing practices and procedures regarding the statements should notify the ACRS laformation relevant to the ACRS Bylaws and the Mernorandum of Executive Director as far in ads ance as Commission's high level waste licensing Understanding between thu NRC staff practicable so that appropriate proceeding.

and the Committee, arrangements can be made to allow the The purpose of the Panelis to provide --

Sp.m.-8:#p.m. Select /,m/

necessary time during the meeting for advice end recommendations on topics, Appointment ofACAS Members /

such statements. Use of sti!!, motion lasues, and activities related to the.

Officere-40 pen / Closed)-The picture and television cameras during design, development, and operation of Committee will discuss the status of

, this theeting may be limited to selected the LSS. Panel membership will be candidates proposed for appointment to portions of the meeting as determined primarily drawn from those interests I

the Committee and the qualifications of by the Chairman. Information regarding eaWillbe aNW b es un d me I

nominees for ACRS officers during the time to be set aside for this purpose LSS, including the Department of be obtained by a prepaid telephone e

Calendar Year 1se0.

mafto the ACRS Executive Director, Mr.

Energy, the NRC, the State of Nevada, portions of this session will be closed cal Triballatwats, aNected units Wocal as necessary to discuss information the Raymond F. Freley, prior to the meeting. governments in Nevada, the nuclear -

release of which would represent a in view of the possibility that the industry, and environmental groups, clearly unwarranted invasion of

' schedule for ACRS meetings may be

%ese interests will provide a balanced personal privacy, adjusted by the Chairman as necessary representation of the diffment to facilitate the conduct of the meeting,k viewpoints, concerns, and needs related Friday, December 25,289 persons planning to attend should chec 2 a.m-M o.n: Containment with the ACRS Executive Director if to the siting andlicensing of the HLW ArrformanceInqprovement Program such rescheduling would result in major repository, and the use of the ISS in that JOpen)-De Committee will review and inconvenience, process.De Patent and Wademark report on a proposed NRC program to I have determined in accordance with Office and the National Archives, evaluate the potential for containment subsection 10(d) Public Law 92463 that Federal agencies with expertise and improvements to deal with severe it is necessary to close portions of this experience in electronic information accidents at nuclear power plants; meeting as noted above to discuss management systems,will also Representatives of the NRC staff will-safeguards and wcurity information at -

participate on the Panel.%e participate, as appropriate.

nuclear plants (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3)) and Commission has appolated the NRC m25 a.m-u noon: Coherence /n the information the release of which would sentative on the Panel. John C.

re NRCRegulatoryProcess (Open)-The represent a clearly unwarranted HoY e' as Chairman' Committee will meet with NRC's Acting invasion of personal privacy (5 U.S.C.

%e first meeting of the Panelis..

Executive Director for Operations.to i 552b(c)(6))

scheduled for December 19 and 30,1989 Further informationi-Mg topics discuss the ACRS report of November to be discussed, whethelre meeting in Reno, Nevada at the Peppermill Hotel.

24.1989, Coherence in the Regulatory '

Process and related matters.

has been cancelled or rescheduled, the ne meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and 21,10p.n-a.30p.m.:Fitnessfor Duty Chairman's ruling on requests for the conclude at 5 p.m. each day,The agenda (Open)-%e Committee will review and opportunity to present oral statements for the first meeting willinclude a q

i report on the proposed revision to to and the time allotted can be obtained by discussion of the status of LSS activities, CPR part 55 to require compliance with a prepaid telephone callot the ACRS establishment of the protocols for Panel l

NRC's fitness-for. duty programs and Executive Dhector, Mr.Raymond F.

activities, an overview of how the LS8 f

conforming modification to the Fraley (telephone 301/492-4049).

capture stations will operata, and future O

Commission's enforcement policy, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m-agenda items, his meeting will be open

I N5 p.m.-&30p.m

Preparation of Deted: November a,1ese, to the public.

ACASReports to the NRC(Open)-ne John C. Hoyle.

%e establishment of the Panelwillbe Committee will discuss proposed ACRS Advisory Committee Management Officer.

effective upon the filing ofits charter.

[ rtsgardingitems considered FR Doc.so-aave sMed 12-14 a:4 sam) with the Commission and with the meeting.

standing committees of Congress having eum,a e

,.e.e, Saturday, December Ja, sea legislative jurisdiction over the NRC.

For further information on the IAS A 30 a.m.-2A10Nn.: Preparation of ACRSReports to the NRC(Open)-D'e Woeneing Support System AdWoofY Advisory Review Panel, including '

""'I details related to its first meeting.-

Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports to the NRC regarding items '

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory contact Francis X. Cameron. Deputy LSS considered during this meeting..

Committee Act of October 6,1972(Pub.

Administrator. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Procedures for the conduct of and 14 94-463,86 Stal 770-776) the U.S.

Commission, Washington, DC 20585.

participation in ACRS meetings were Nuclear Regulatory CommissionjNRC)

Telephone: 301-492-4030.

F^

i L

l published in the Federal Register on announces the establishment of the Dated at Rockville, hieryland this aeth Dey September 27,1989 (54 FR 39594). In Licensing Support System Advisory of November 19s0.

i i

accordance with these procedures, oral Review Panel (" Panel").De For the Nuclear Reguletory Commleston.'

or written statements may be presented Commission has determined that the by members of the public. recordings establishment of this Panelis necessary John C. Hoyle, will be permitted only during those and in the public interest in order to Advisory Committee Management, Officer.

portions of the meeting when a obtain advice and recommendations on (FR Doc. es-2av5 Filed 12-1-est,8:48 em) transcript is being kept, and questions the design, development, and operation auseo coes rees.es-a

L.7

. ; c~r - = ~ m 9

MINUTES OF THE 356TH ACES MEETING j

- DECEMBER 14-15,n1989

t

' The 356th meeting of ' the Advisory: Committee _ on Reactor, Safeguards -

j was. held at 7920 Norfolk Avenue,t.Bethesda,.Md.,' December 14-15, J

1989.- The purpose of this meeting was;to conduct the-discussions; i

and to perfora the~ actions described-in the' attached agenda'.

The meeting was chaired-by Mr. Carlyle Michelson..

All of-the discussions were held'in open' session except for short sessions during which the Committee discussed tho' qualifications of candidates: proposed - for, consideration as ACRS memberse and 1

safeguards and security measures.;.

The chairman ~ saidV that L the H

agenda for the meeting _ had been ; published. -

He. stated'that4the Laeeting was being held in conformance'withLthe FederalLAdvisory

. l Committee ' Act and the Governmenti in ' the : Sunshine Act,- Public' t

Laws'92-463 and'94-409, respectively.

A, transcripti of' selected;

)

portions of the meeting was kept and is available in the NRC Public:

Document. Room. -

(Copies of the' transcript are j available '.for '

purchase' from the Ann Riley E C Associates, Ltd.,11612 K : Street, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C.

2000f.)

I.

Chairman's Reoort (Open)-

(NOTE:

Mr. Raymond.F. Fraley-was the Designated Federal. Officer.

for this. portion of the' meeting.).

l Mr.~Carlyle Michelson, Acting l Committee Chairman, announced that-Mr.

James Taylor lwas named the; new : Executive 1-Director ifor Operations, Mr.' Victor Stellolhas permanently joined'the U.S..

Department of Energy (DOE) as Mche? principal Deputy f Assistant Secretary'for Defense Programs, and Dr. - Forrest J. Remick was sworn in as an NRC Commissioner on December 1,L1989..Mrs-Michelson.also

~

~

announced that Mr. David L C; Williams'was sworn E in 4 as.- the ? new.

Inspector General.-

II.

Access Authorization at Nuclear Power Plants (Open)

J

[ Note:

Mr. Herman Alderman was the~ Designated Federal. Officer for this portion of.the Meeting.)

l Mr.. David Wa' d,. Chairman of the Human Factors Subcommitteei was;the r

J cognizant ACRS member for this topic.

Mr.. Ward noted!that the i.

subject ~ of access authorization concerns al proposed rule and regulatory guide that the staff; has ', developed to; define 1 the requirements under which utilities can-authorize individuals to.

. Y, er

= - -

i..-o e

n a

.e

.m

-. m e

i.em

= -.

.e ee>*

m

t.

• l '

356TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES.

2 have unescorted; access to vital areas within their: plants.

He -

stated that--these requirements -are=-intended. to assure that individuals granted such access are trustworthy-and the whole idea' is,.of course,-to' reduce the' likelihood of radiologicalxsabotage which might-be. committed by untrustworthy individuals. He said his

]

interpretation of the proposed rule is.that it is quite general and defines _ some basic..' requirements J and. will be accompanied by " a regulatory guide to flesh it out.

- Dr. ' 'Zoltan-Rosztoc y,-

RES, made the - - introductory.

staff

'l presentation.

'He - discussed-the prior-history.of = accesu 1

authorization.-

o

.The Commission issued a proposed rule for public' comment in 1984.

I o

Following ipublic. comment and ' development of -industry.

guidelines.by'NUMARC, the Commission decided-to proceed-with a policy: statement that ' endorses the-industry guidelines.

o The Commission issued a proposed policy statement and the proposed industry guidelines for public comment in 1988..

a o

Following:the,public comment' period and the evaluation of public comments, the commission asked the4 staff for i

an-options paper to see what options were-available for.

access' authorization.

l I

o The commission. elected-the; option of a. general rule-'and a regulatory. guide that' endorses-the: industry guidelines' i

Mr. Sher Bahadur, RES, discusseduthe rule and the regulatory guide.-

Mr. Ward noted that the committee letter on"the:fitnessifor duty

.l

~

U program-had commented on;the overlap of-requirements between the-fitness for duty _ program and the_ access authorization program.- He asked if the overlap had been resolved?-

Dr.' Rosztoczy replied' that l.

the staff was aware of - i the ' ; overlap. of; requirements and :' had

1 minimized.the overlap.as auch.as possible.

1 4

l Mr. Bahadur said -the access authorization -' rule supplements the-existing reg,ulatory frameworkt which consists of 10 CFR Part 26,1 Fitness ; fore. Duty : Programs,.10 CFR ' Part 73.55, ' Requirements? for 7

Physical. Protection.of Licensees ' Activities :in Nuclear Power i

l

- Reactor - Against ' Radiological ' Sabotage _ and,10 - CFR: Part J73.57)

Requirements;for Criminal History Checks.

The intent of the rule is to provide a high'er assurance against

- radiological sabotage by an insider. The rule will establish basic requirements for the program.

The_ utilities that do not.have a-6.

c...-.-.

. -. -. ~ - -..

~. -..

.,.a.--,~.-

>,p o

.~

u=

356TH ACRS: MEETING MINUTES 3

)

definite' program.will establish requirements-for the program,.and thosenutilities that-have well? defined program will continue to i

maintain-their - program throughout the life of their plants.-

Dr. Ros'ztoczy pointed out that there are no legal requirements ~for licensees to have an access authorization program because there is 4

not a rule' at.the present time.

He also noted that any enforcement b

action by the NRC is limited to the-commitments'in their physical-I security-plan.

s Dr. Kerr : noted the existence = of a rule - may or may not-improve

-things.. -He said.it will permit the NRC staff to inspect"and'to

. penalize if whatever.is being done does not. conform to the. ruler-

.{

'Mr. Loren Bush, NRR, noted'that the thrust of.the' rule.'is not'to-I

.have something_to enforce. _ He said - tho' emphasis' is ~ to-develop '

standards lby which the staff can judge if the utility programs are i

adequate.-

He also notodithat!if..the. utilities: have standardized programs, then'.the-utilities'can' exchange information-and'effect cost savings.

Mr. Bahadur'discussedithe objective of-the ruler, o

To provide high assurance, that individuals that get access authority:to vital and protected-areas are:-

~l (1) trustworthy.and reliable

?

l (2) they do not pose any unreasonable risk to the public l

health and safety.

t o

The rule is very= general.

o The rule relies on the regulatory guide which provides an-acceptable manner..in<which.to: meet;theirequirements of.the rule.

.o The regulatory guideiendorses the-industry L guidelines.-

with some exceptions.

o The three major. elements 'of '.the access authorization program are:

l (1) background investigation-(2). psychological assessment' l

(3) behavior observation done by the supervisor and the management Mr. Bahadur noted that one of the provisions'of)the guidelines is that if Lan employee is -on a leave:of, absence of 'less that-365 days, the access authorization couldLbe reins _tated without>a background checkup, psychological assessment, and behavior monitoring program.'

l i

-l i

'Le;

.356TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 4

O

)

The subcommittee raised objections to this provisioninoting:that-an individual could change his. attitude and: beliefs-during that' time.

~

.Mr.- Richard Enkeboll,- NUMARC,. pointed' out. that, NUMARC has ~ av document called guidance on the ' guidelines.

-This document i

recommends a background check if anyone'is-gone for more than 30 day _s. -

Mr. - Bahadur.= noted that if a - person has been employed in; the

. military service ofia foreign; country;than that employment:would-be-checked.

-1 Some committee members commented on' the i"grandfathering" : clause

~

where a person having unescorted access authorization for at least six months.would be " grandfathered"~when the! rule'is promulgated.

.One of the. concerns;was that:a person employed by.a. utility with 1

a " weak"- program could -transfers to another utility.' without al background: check.

j Mr. Enkeboll-pointed out' that this would only be truC.for a utility's own employees..

If an. employee-assumed a new position-with a different utility then the employee would have to meet the-requirements for-the-fitness' for duty; rule' andthe-access authorization rule.

Mr. Michelson asked ifLune'scorted access is granted (on a. site by.

site or.on a utility basis.

Mr. Bush responded: that. granting the.'

i determination as to who.shall be-provided-unescorted: access is:up l

to the individual licensee =for each site.-

Mr. Bahadur-discussed the exception that the regulatory guidelines takes to the-industry guidelines.

(1)- The industry guidelines provides for a review process: for -

4 permanent employees of the licensee.. The regulatory I

guidelines-extends the review process toLall employees.

p (2)

The guidelines provides a blanket on relaxation of access L authorization in the cold' shutdown period..

t L

(3)

The industry guidelines provide that if - a'. person was adthorized'on the' day-the rule'is. published,'then.he or she could be grandfathered... The regulatory guidelines-specify that a personLshould have at-least-six months.of

~

i.

c l

uninterrupted access authorization before he or she could-be " grandfathered" on the_ day the-rule.got published;;

f 4

.Te.--,

+r w

, - =.

t _, -,.

h a..

w, I

a' 356TH ACRS MEETING' MINUTES-5 j

,(4) :The regulatory guide states that those programs where the licensee has sus' contracted a portion of their program to a contractor, a tt en those porti'ons would also be audited' once a year..

Mr.. Wylie pointed out that. the NUMARC program states that an.

objective is the? detection of. alcohol and drug abuse and other i

behavior.- Mr. Wylie suggested dropping the words "other behavior" j

because it would'be open to misinterpretation.

<III.

Evaluation'of Doerational Data.(Open)

.(Note:: Mt.-Paul Boehnert was the Designated Federal. Officer.for this portion of..the meeting.)

d t

'Mr. Michelson,' introduced this. topic-to-the committee.- _He noted 1

that representatives of the NRR staff were present;to:brief.thei Committee. regarding f concerns with " the = misuse; of the ~ systematic l

1 assessmentLof licensee performance (SALP)-process..

Mr. Frank Gillespie, NRR, noted that the NRC staff has two relevant studies underway.

The first. involves an investigation of the impact of. state public utility' commission -(PUC) rate ' incentive -

plans on licensee plant. safety.. The-second study:is examining the SALP. process and its resulting influence' on the -. licensees. -The first study will~be submitted to-~the commission in January 1990.

Submittal of the~second' report.will:be in-February.

l L

Dr. Lewis. asked the staff to discussLthe problem-of;how the'SALP

'i

. process -is ~ impacting the. interaction ~of - theiRegion -' Offices with their cognizant; licensees..'He also= asked the' staff to discuss how they.. intend to address L the= other. NRC rating factors in their,

f studies.-

Mr. Darrel Nash, NRR, reviewed the status of the ~ PUC incentive i

programs - impacting Licensees.-

He noted J the 'various types, of.

incentive-programs.now in effect.. lThese include:

rewards or

-i penalties 1 based : on ; plant capacity 1 factor,.. incentives based ' on o

construction disallowances,- )and~ with the sole case : (to L date),.

incentives / penalties based on. SALP" and performance ~ indicators.

About' thirty licensees an. affected ' by? some. type.of PUC ; incentive program.

NRC does'not:have any data on'thel influence of these programs vis-a-vis: plant < safety.

At this time,i tha t impact! is: believed to be.

minor.

However,l the potential long-range ^ impact is L considered significant.

4 y

=

-. a.

l:..~:...'

3

=

l

l 356TH:ACRS MEETING' MINUTES 6-

In response = to Dr. Siess, Mr. Gillespie notod i that-the ~ usual

.PUC/ Licensee: incentive settlement based on capacity' factor results

^

in a " dead. band" figure that is equivalent'to the overall nuclear

-industry average-(60-75%).,

1 Mr. Nash reviewed theLdetails-of specific' cases of!PUC'incentihe plans _for three NPP nuclear power plant licensees.

He categorized these cases asilow, moderate, and high_. impact plans.- In response' 1

to Dr.

Siess,- the NRC staff indicated that they' had' not.-

investigated thel ' impact of the 4 potential penalty-schemes - on the i

financial health of the affected licensees.' Mr. Carroll noted that 1

a lengthy-~ plant shutdown, followed by its removal -_ from the rate base by the cognizantt PUC,_-is.far.more' financially damaging than-

,the penalties discussed here.

The details of the Pilgrim Nuclear-Power' Plant l incentive; plan: were : noted.

-This plan includes

. reward / penalty - schemes L that are based on: capacity-factor, SALP

]

score average, and a' set oftfive NRC/INPO performance indicators.

j Mr. GillespieLsaid that atNUREG: report, to-be issued in January 1990, will provide details of all the PUC incentive plans and their!

impact on the affected licensees ~.<

Mr. Jack Roe, NRR, ' discussed the - on-going NRC. staff study to evaluate the SALP process;and its impact 1 on licensees.- This:studyJ was initiated at the behest of the-Commission.

The ~. objectives and process of the SALP program were reviewed.

There 'was : dJscussion of ? the SALP report preparation ; process, <

including the composition:of the SALPLBoard.that: assigns'the.SALP scores.

It was E noted that~ the Region Office: Administrator c has' q

ultimate authority over the report's issuance'of the)SALP report.

In-response to Committee questions,LMr.'RoeLnoted.thatlthe report is-drafted by various:. individuals,.-depending :on the'!'given-circumstances'at that time.z d

There wasodiscussion,of the" rating. process.. ;It f was f noted 6 that-there have been cases where=a'SALP board was. reconstituted by the cognizant; Region' Office Director.to address"a suspected. anomalous rating (s).

g In.. June 1988, NRCn revised-the, SALP. Manual-. Chapter.

revisions,were:

~

Among the o

._Specifieds length of evaluation period >wasLchangedLto;a E

m range of 12-18 months,! depending on current performance.

L o

Functional 1 rating -areas were ; consolidated and two new l

ones were added '(safety, assessment / quality verificationi

'~

and engineering / technical support).

.o Performance rating Categories (1,2,3)_were' clarified.

~

f 4

i

a 356TH'ACRS MEETING MINUTES:

7,

)

o.

Mandatory post-SALP meeting with licensees =

were l

established.

Purther. minor. revisions were:also made to the. Manual Chapter in August.1989.-

i Dr. Kerr noted that he has seen instances where a licensee has been told in m L SALP report that > it must " improve its performance t to maintain a (given)- rating".

He asked' for the staff rationale in this regard.. Mr. Roe. indicated ~ that there is a belief.that performance standards are continually rising, so one may feel that:

there is~a need to improve just to;" stay in place".

Dr. Kerr asked-

-if a licensee' must. improve to - maintain ; a "3"

rating.

Mr. Roe-indicated that one does not have'to improve to maintain:atgiven SALP rating.. Dr. Kerr said that this11s the first tire he has been told by NRC staff.that one~does,not'have to continually' improve--

-]

performance to' hold a:giveniSALP, rating.

Dr. Kerr referredito.a particular' case where it was perceived (by' some NRC staff representatives) that a plant would not be " allowed" to conduct its initial fuel; loading'if it was-given a " poor" SALP-rating.

Mr.: Roe indicated that SALP results~are used byLsome forJ purposes beyond those intended"by NRC.. LIn response to further discussion, Mr. Roe indicated that -in some cases there are " robust" debates ~ during the SALP rating L sessions: also,. there is much "back-and-forth" between the Region'and Headquarters:on some:SALP reviews.

Revisions planned to the'.SALP process: include:

I o

Implement a clarification of-theLbasis~for not-rating'a functional' area:in the SALP; report, o

Incorporate. staff policy 1for performance of SALPs ' on '

.I plants in an extended ~ shutdown condition.

Mr. Roe outlined the items to be reviewed-as.part of:the on-going reevaluation of the SALP proc'ess as requested'by the Commission.-

Areas / issues to be explored include::

u o-The-role SALP-plays =in the regulatory process.

)

o Definitions of, and. need ' for, - numerical' performanceo ratings.-

o SALP functional' areas'and evaluation criteria.

I=

s o

SALP cycle frequency, report format. and content,-and procedures for the-meetings with licensees.

.c..

g

[,

e s 356TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES:

8 In response to Dr.

Catton,. Mr. - Roe ~ said ~ that there are ~ no l

discussions with licensees-regarding the content of the' draft SALP report prior to the-Board meeting to assign ratings.

The licensee is' allowed to see the report and comment before it is issued ~ final by the Regional Administrator.

Mr. Carroll cited an instance he was familiar with where a licensee was given a down-rating ("1" to "2") in the " Security" functional area for a reason that was outside their control (State-Supreme Court decision).

IV.

Pronosed 10 CFR Part 55. Fitness 'for Duty Recruirements for the Licensee Onerators and Senior Onerators at Nuclear Power Facilities (Open) l (Note:

Mr. Herman Alderman was the Designated Federal l Officer for this portion of the meeting..

Mr. Ward wasi the ' cognizant ACRS-member for this presentation.]

Mr. Ward noted that a comprehensive Fitness-for-Duty regulation (10 CFR Part 26) f is in place.

-He-noted that~the: presentation will discuss.relatively small rule changes'in:10 CFR Part 55, that will

~

establish penalties for operators holding licenses who individually fail to-comply with the requirements of the: Fitness-for-Duty rule.

l-Mr. Kenneth Perkins, NRR, briefed the Committee'on 10 CFR Part 55.

f He noted that the Commission asked the staff to prepare a proposed i

L rulemaking that would make clear. to the-operators = their-I responsibilities for Fitness-for-Duty, 'and? the impact of;10 ' CFR Part 26-upon the operators.

3 Mr. Perkins stated'that the rulemaking package is presently with the Executive Director - for Operations (EDO) L and he expected the package to be sent. to-the : Commission very: soon.,

. Following Commission' review, the' proposedu rule. will bec released: for : public review and comment.

Following public' review, ithe staff will review j

the public. comments.

L

'Mr.. David Lange,.NRR, discussed the chronology'of:the proposed 10.

CFR Part 55. :. March:1989.In April:1989, the staff-was requested T h e. f i t n e s s'. f o r duty rule was approved by; the Commission'in to draft.a r'evision to 10 CFR Part 55.

The, revision'was, completed-l in July.1989.and sent to the EDO.;

The Staff Requirements Memorandum requestied : the. staff to amend <

Part 55, to establish 10 CFR Part 26. cutoff limits as'an operator license condition, and to clearly state the' penalties that would c

inform operators of the gravity;for exceeding.those cutoff limits.

4 The staff was also requested to amend 10 CFR Part 2,1 Appendix C,.

t to reflect the individual operator enforcement sanctions.

.. ~.

. -. =

...:,..A 4

j m.__

m

.c Ht 356TH ACRS-MEETING' MINUTES 9-p i

Mr. Lange noted that the rule states an operator shall not perform

. licensed duties while under =the influence of any medical 2

prescription, over the-counter, or illegal 1 substance which could.

adversely affact performance.

The: - adverse. performance _. is determined by a confirmed positive test.

l j

1 The rule states that-the licensee shall not use.(consume): alcohol within_ the power reactor protected area or the non-power controlled l

. access area.

The licensee shall : not use,- possess or sell: any -

illegal drugs o/i or off site.. The licensee shall participate in.

L and comply with the. facility drug.and alcohol testing program.

He-noted that for power reactors,fthe program is the:10 CFR Part 26, Fitness-for-Dut-( program.

For non-power.rea: tors, the program is-c whatever progra alis. established-for that facility.

Mr. Lange' discussed-10 CFR Part'61, Modification and Revocat on of q

Licenses.

He ncted the changes to Part 61.

The NRC can revoke,

l modify'or suspend the license for;-

(1) sale, use or possession of illegal-drugs =on or off_ site,- (2) refusal-to participate. in the!

facilities drug and alcohol testing - program, _ (3). a confirmed positive test rea' alt for-drugs as determined by.the <

J facility testing program-as app or alcohol licable to_thet facility, (4 )- - the use and consumption of-alcohol within;the power reactor protected areas and non-power controlled access areas, or-(5)'the. licensee' t

was determined unfit for. scheduled work due to the consumption'of alcohol.

1 Mr. Lange noted that the operator has the obligation to inform the

~

~

i t

l-facility licensee of;being. unfit for work"if he or she is unfit when called in-for unscheduled work.- He also noted that'the-Part 55 licensee has the responsibility.under the-license not to perform licensee duties.when not fit for' duty, when unfit atjany time.

The facility licensee isirequired -under Part -26 to have written

'[

policies.and procedures and supervisor trainingsto determine the-operator's fitness for duty during non-scheduled. working : hours.

ThisJalso includes scheduledLworking hours.

Mr. Lange discussed the enforcement-sanctions.

These are proposed changes to Part 2 of Appendix C.

For: the first. offense, the Commission ~ may issue - a notice' of l

violation, 5civilE ' penalty.

or.. other as-warranted!

by the

. circumstances.

For a.second offense',1the Commission will,iat a-minimum, issue an-order to suspend.the license for three-years, t

- i U

r

'I'

.,5--

.,emc

..-_,,,..m

.,u.._.._.-.

r,.m E.[ _,.

,+

-__ _ - - - ~ _ _ _

q i

4*

356TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES

'10 For a' third offense, the Commission will' issue'an; order to? revoke j

the. operator's '. license.

For refusal. to' ' participate.in the:

I L

substance testing program,-the Commission'may suspend,. revoke or li deny a license application;or.an, application for renewal-.of the J

license..

L Mr.-Michelson' asked what kind'of civil penalties are provided for o

a licensed operator.

Mr. : James Lieberman,. Office of Enforcement i

(OE), responded that OE does - not have specific; amounts set forth in the-enforcement policy.

In the; past, civil penalties' have l

He notod that the' violation is issued ranged from $500 to $1'000.

i to an individual and not'to the licensed site.

Mr. Lange summarized this rule.: The rule extends the requirements-beyond 10 CFR Part 26 to include ~alcoholzabuse'.as well'as illegal drugs.:

Performance'of licensed duties is prohibited.while under

- l the influence of illegal and legal: substances.. The rule prohibits.

the operator from the sale, use or possession of illegal-substances on'or offLsite. :Part 26:only. addresses the-issue of on-site' sale, i

use and possession.

l

.Mr.

Carroll'noted-that off site use'ofLillegal drugs wasinot a

. fitness _for' duty' issue.

Mr.

Lange: noted that' it was an-issue - of reliability-and trustworthiness.

He noted that the7 staff:believ,es that operators.

~

are the last defense and they-need'to be told what their, fitness for duty requirements are.

V.

Coherence-in the Reaulatory Process (Open).

~

\\

[ Note:

Mr. Gary Quittschreiber was the Designated; Federal Officer.

for'this portion of the meeting.).

E

~

Dr. Lewis briefed:the Committ'ee'on the perceived lack of coherence:

'in' the regulatory process, = notingL that there. is an enormous 1 body:

ofyregulation that.is virtually impossibleotol point in the same direction.

He noted.that in some' cases,Edifforent-offices' pursue.

, i I

parallel approaches to closelyirelated problemsland'that they may conly find out-(after' expending considerable' effort);after'it goes-

' to the Committee-to Review Generic Requirements. (CRGR)L or~ the ACRS.

He als'o-men'tioned. _ a-possiblei problem' with regard to -' an 1 ancient problem of_ " tragedy of.the commons," in which each: individual _doing.

good can'. add = up ' to the communityidoing: bad.

Dr..-Lewis noted thatL the Committee": wrote e a letter :during the previous ACRS meeting _ advising the. Commission it wished to talk to the. Executive ' Director for Operations (EDO)'. before making Tany c

constructive recommendations.

TheLpurpose:of,this session waslto discuss.this issue with the'EDO.

i

,-u a

--+-ar..----<.-,-w,--,-~

-.. ~ -.... -, - -

--c-

R l ;.;

,. +

.)

356TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES

'11-Mr. James Taylor, Exsout'ive Director for Operations, said that'he.

3 recognizes the need for all~ offices of the agency:to pull together J

in the same direction and the need for a common safety philosophy-

~

and for'this to be understood by the entire staff.- He recognized the need to have.a defensible regulatory practice.and that he was central to trying to have a responsible regulatory. oversight.

j Mr. Taylor ~noted that a regulatory impact survey isLin progress, Senior office-directors-from- = Headquarters and regional-J administrators, not in their own regions,, visited: thirteen major E

utilities over the past. several months.. HeJsaid that'there is preliminary feedback indicating that certain NRC activities deserve'.

attention.

'Mr. Taylor noted that he has' intentionally-stayed out-of this matter. since he. wanted - the survey completed without interference.

He. expects that Mr. ; Bert Davis, - Region III, and.-

Dr. Thomas Murley will complete the survey.within the next. couple of months and will brief the Commission on problems that.have been:

uncovered as well,as.what is.being done about them..

Mr. Taylor-

?

express his concern that the - impact of NRC actions might. drag licensees. away from doing the more important actions whichi contribute to the safe operation of the-plants.

E Mr. Taylor noted the. situation where the staff comes to this-L Committee.with preliminary positions that have not had exhaustive review by the EDO's staff.

He~ suggested that'when the Committee finds a lack of coherence in these preliminary positions, the Committee should bring it to the staff's attention..

Dr., Lewis t

i suggested that the Committee is more effective when it gets11n l

early.

Mr. Taylor agreed to. support early review by the Committee.

s Dr. Siess questioned whether there is.any mechanism within.the' office of the EDO to determine:whether separate NRC; groups might be working on the same issue or problem.

Mr.

Taylor said that he-has deliberately >kept a small' EDO staff,.. sof that~ these-problems are hard to find.

Mr. Taylor stated that he did not wish to expand the size of the EDO office staff'at this time, however, he t

will make it more of a principal to find such : problems in - the future.

?

Mr. Taylor believed that the coherence issue is' timely and that the.

j c

staff will.put time and work on this matter.

The commission has a

taken a : special interest in.this xissue and the ? EDO staff will-O ensure that ' he staff appropriately' responds to the recommendations 1

t and; positions of the committee when presented-to the Commission.

He notsid that the staff will ensure that the. commission understands both sides even if the staff may not ~always agree with the position; of the Committee.

~

~

p o

~

t

)

356TH ACRS' MEETING MINUTES

~2-1 1

Mr. Taylor stated that with regard to budget cuts, some of the work j

that is needed:to be done will be' severely" impacted, not only in h

research but also license renewalland the review and certification.

of future plants.

Mr. Taylor said that almost-two-thirds,ofithe 1

total NRC budget _is directly' fixed'to people costs.

He believed

- that:it is.important-to have a strong research program,'but that in order to do so, the.research must be conducted'where it'can do the most good in the regulatory safety process.

He did.not see :any -

j increase in research funding.inethe foreseeable future and noted

- that.it is always easier to_ make cuts in the research ' discretionary funds when overall funds are reduced..

Dr. Eric Beckjord, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory.Research-(RES), said that substantial-research budget _ cuts have occurred during the last threeLyears, resulting in a deferral:of projects.

1 He observed:that.a substantial part of:the reductions'have been=

recovered,through efficiency, however.there is a real threat ford Fiscal Year'1991.

It --is not known whether-RES will, be able 'to'.

recover, j

y With-regard to the importance of communication-between. offices, Dr. ; Beckjord said that there = are Very few. REST activities that do

' i not. require. concurrences ' and discussion with other" offices. -

He-requested to be. notified if any evidence. is~'foundf on a : lack iof '

communication..

In response to a question.from Dr. Siess,'concerning-how=nuch'the' staff reviews of : the : IPEsHare going ' to -improveE planti safety, A

Dr. Murley-said the staff has:not concluded the scope'and~ depth of.

l its reviews at. this time... Dr. - Murley believed' the main -be'nefit '

from.IPEs is that the utilitiesj are_ doing ? the?IPEs themselves..-

t Most-of the plants will' complete r Probabilistic Risk. Assessments.

J (PRA) as part of tne.IPE : and. the. review proces_s'.1 ' Dr. Beckjord added thattthe staff's effort with regard to theDIPE-should focus-on a determination of whether/an adequate job has_been.done,:and,'

if not,-should send it back to the-utility.

d

~

1 Mr. Taylor said-that the he intendsLto takeia1lookeat;the; safety' goals.and-the many other! policies:and' direction' coming'through;the commission,. to ensure the$ staff ;-isL producing <a product ! that cis coherently _ beingi executedL :iniitheL fis1d. operations not just something that'looks goodLon paper.-

)

With regard,to performance; indicators, Mr. Taylor..noted thatEthe; staff meets twice each year,with senior line management,! including the office directors,: ini a E senioriaana eg ment 1 meeting.

These o

meetings are principally for the purpose'cf understanding problems 1

in licensee safety and regulatory performance.

/

a,

--w

. - - ~,..

.n-4,

..n,,,--,,,,rw ww,

.-.-e.

&e.,.,.ev-e.

c.

A._ s ;

s

~

356TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES

.13 '

i

~

Mr. Taylor said_that the consolidation of the NRC' offices.has been-

)

a. great help with regard to providing_ coherence.in.the-regulatory process.

Hef also believed that-combining ' the Inspection - and Enforcement functions _into NRR provided for more cooperation and coherence as well as more discussions between headquarters and the field staff.

Dr. Siess asked whether.the staff still-has a_" regulatory agenda,"-

where the staff writes a few lines describing their activities for others-to see.

'Mr. Taylor said he would look into-such a-~ method.

He noted the staff has shifted its focus-toward operational safety and is now more coherent than ever in most areas;_however, he sees a lack of coherence in the advanced reactor area.

He.noted that H

this-lack of coherence'in the, advanced-reactor _ area is largely due-to the way the' staff has been-organized within RES~and-NRR.

)

Dr. Murley stated that he is most personally concerned'in the area mentioned by Dr. Lewis,." Tragedy of-the Commons", where individual.

1

- activities. have merit-by - themselves J - but there is not'.- a good '

mechanism to review the cumulative' actions.. < He said the regulatory impact survey was meant to deal with.this aspect of the problem.

Dr. Murley said that the(NRC 'staffihasJtried to integrate 'all~

activities in 'the Agency with regard to closure - of. the severe accident-issue for operating l

MARK-I recommendations, were. plants.

Some activities,fsuch as the i

pulled out-since-.it was believed.that it had to be' dealt with on an earlier--time' scale.. In_ general,.he believes that it'is aLcoherent thought process-of what,is being-done to close the severe accident issue.:

In response-to a comment from Mr. Ward that: RES 'has. obtained functions not related to research,.Dr. Beckjord said that he'has never been totally. comfortable-with these functionsland that the research issues really' deserve:all the attention they cnn get.

.He-described'some pluses and minuses.with! regard to this_ arrangement..

Mr.

Edward

Jordan, Director, AEOD',..noted -that. the: 'AEOD q

independently reviews-operating experience which contrib:1tes to the -

S coherence of the agency.'s activities by both deriving the benefits from experience and then communicating them to;others.b 1:e believed that the Technical Training Center provides-.aireal opportunityc f or.).

the agency to communicate - to.the ' technical" staff, ~ since many; positions have specific training programs that. must be: met.: -He-alsoientioned the CRGR reviews with the chance of getting:into theJ review cycle early.

~

q Incresponse to-a-comment from Mr.. Carroll concerning the_ impact-l, that -INPO has on the _ industry,. Mr. Taylor observed that the-Commission ' has a Memorandum of: Understanding.with.~ INPO which..is,

d meant to avoid-needless conflict.

He said:that the staff tries'to coordinate: activities so as not to overburden the utilities.

.9

. l f

mm.

...w-.

....--,...mg.4.,

su,m.

4

,.g.,_

,,..,,,,m.m..--

.4

1

.e-4 356TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 14

.]

Dr. Murley-stated that.there was=a concern that the utilities may 1

have to do things twice, once for the NRC and a second. time for-INPO. However,. this has not turned out to be a significant problem.

= In-response to-a question from'Mr. Michelson, concerning ~ what g

process assures with reasonable assurance that the regulations and 1

licensing commitments are properly interpreted and, enforced, Mr. Taylor said.that the inspection manual-is meant to govern andL i

control.

This'is being looked'at'as part_of the regulatory impact.

l

-survey.-

The survey is expected ' to be in draft form by mid-

)

. January.

i Dr.. Lewis suggested that the staff look into whether'there is any

]

- established promulgated channel through which a licensee ' can -

complain about the region without fear of retaliation.-

Mr. Taylor agreed to provide ; the Committee with a copy of the O'Reilly Report,: written in-the early 1980s, reporting the results

[

- of an NRC regulatory survey team.

The survey team met with utility managers. seeking the licensee's. assessment of: the, impact of NRC <

activities on-the operation of nuclear power plants.-

.t Dr 'Murley agreed to provide.theLCommittee with_a copy of a' report i

on-regulatory requirements,Jissued in the early 1980s, that led to the formation of the-Committee to Review' Generic Requirements.

The Committee sent a report to the Commission Chairman concerning SALP ratings and their use, expressing ^ concerns <thatcin using the i

present'SALP, a regional: administrator could_ enforce:his personal 1 a

views, effectively free of:-constraint.

It? suggested that the 1

problem. is sufficiently-important' to -justify : consideration of :

suspension of the program' and issuance of no.new SALP-ratings until enough' reform measures are-instituted ~to lend credibility to=the process.

T VI.

Subcommittee Reports (Open).

A.

AGES _ Subcommittee Activities Renort on the Thermal Hydraulic-4 (T/H1 Phenomena Subcommittee Meetino of December 7.1989-'

' (Note:- Mr. Paul Boehnert was the. Designated FederalEOfficer for:

' this portion of the meeting.);

}

. Dr. - Ivan

Catton, acting as-Chairman.of the T/H ' Phenomenal f

I-Subcommittee, read from'a prepared'. written report on the subject' meeting. The Subcommittee saet on December 7, '1989, to review three-topics: (1) NRC program to-addressnthe issue of theiInterfacing-Systems (IS) LOCA; (2) the-NRC-RES TPGs_ effort:toLapply the: Code

-Scaling, Applicability, 'and Uncertainty' (CSAU)E methodology 'to I

. 1.

es.. ---.m... -

p j,..f..:

.z p.

y

~356TH ACRS MEETING MINUTES 15 establish the uncertainty'in'SBLOCA simulation; Land (3);the status.

of. the. Westinghouse development' of

.a Best ; Estimate = LBLOCA evaluation model in accordance with the new ECCS rule.

Comments by Dr. Catton on these items are noted:below:-

J r

1.

Thestaffwouldliketosee.theprobabiligyofan-Interfacing-System IDCA leading to core damage be 10" with a high degree' of: confidence.

It-was' interesting that'no one.could define-l what high confidence meant.

It was~noted by Mr.. Ward that, in the spirit-of the-safety goal, nothing is;1 eft for other releases.: Further discussion seemed to indicate that NRC may-l:

be developingcdifferent_CDF goals.for each contributor that-j surfaces.

It was noted by the staff that'NUREG-1150 produced'a-10'C CDF for Surry Nuclear Power Plant.

This'is without-incorporating; a

either our-current understanding of check, valve and isolation valve performance, or proper. treatment of human: factors. This makes'a new study of questionable value. ;This-' leads:one to-t ask (as phrased by Dr. Kerr):-

r

-(a): Whether the hypothesized sequences are-significant

f contributors to risk?

(b)

What, if anything, can be : done to reduce = risk' to an i

' acceptable ~ level?-

.(c) 'What criteria..will be used to' determine'if "significant"

-improvements in safety can be achieved?.

l There were inconsistencies-in the staff view-of the problem.

The: staff' does not believe

. important to the ISLOCA is;in. that the. operational: experience q

NUREG-1150.n The' staff was: asked why AEOD:had'not prepared a report on this important topic.-

The response =was that;the proper precursors'were:not looked at.-

Either.the.ISLOCA1is not'a_ precursor orathere.are few h

precursors to'it, or the precursor evaluation progre.m:by AEOD J"

needs a.new definitionfof-a precursor.-

.The RES staff, described aistudy=that is alre-visit'to the l

Battelle National Laboratory (BNL) study.

They=will-look.at six'PWRs.

For whatever-reason,- the-staff does;not accept the-conclusions arrived at by the BNL study. 3They indicated-that' I

there would have to;be more.PRAHaethods developmentfintthe humanJfactors (HF) areas.

'It was interesting that the' staff-was not aware of the LISPRA study: of HF error rates.

This lack of' background preparation is: unsettling.

l u-

.c.

i;.,g.,a x

~

356TH.ACRS MEETING MINUTES 16 At the outset, the' staff was proposing something'outside of

-)

the1IPE.-lAs_the meeting: progressed, the staff began to give~

some' thought to using the IPE as the vehicle for ISIOCA issue resolution.; The staff concluded by indicating that they would give serious: consideration to" including the ISLOCA ~in the IPE.

In Mr. Catton's view, the BNL study'is enough.to point out_ the level of. detail needed for proper incorporation of the ISLOCA into the IPE, and they ought to give serious consideration to concluding the'RES study.

The consensus:of the Subcommittee members and consultants is-1 I that the:ISLOCA be incorporated into.the IPE.-

The? basis,of l

this view!is.the plant specific nature of the issue.

l Mr. Michelson asked if the, staff had addressed the specific case I

of a ISLOCA' at high= pressure combined with failure of the pressure-isolation valves to close against the- (full) flow.

Dr. Cattonlsaid that he was not:sure NRC was investigating this' issue.

^

There was. discussion regarding the7need for Committee action on-this issue.at thisEtime.

.Dr. KerrLsuggested-that:the Committee consider drafting L a letter, the thrust of1which would be. that :if a

NRC believes the>ISLOCA program a to bee necessary, they should incorporate:the results of the-program into theEIPE affort.

Atter, l

further discussion,tthe committee requested that the staff provide a briefing on.thisitopic.during the January.1990 meeting, and that

+

Dr. Catton draft a letter for. consideration at that< time as well..

2.

LThe RES staff discussed 1the status of the' Technical Program-L Group's (TPG), effort to apply >the code Scaling,! Applicability and-Uncertainty _'(CSAU) method to evaluate the small-break (SB) '

,j LOCA simulations using the RELAPS/ MOD 3. code. To do this~,' they -

l ll

, chose a ~ Babcock &' Wilcox. (B&W)" plant; (Oconee) _- and.aJ cold 41eg-r leak.

- The. TPG ' selected. an immature D code. without-proper-documentation.'

. They 5 seem to be ignoring 1 somel of lessons.

learned' from the LBLOCALeffort. JAlthough arguments'were given -

to. rationalize..thes code; choice, lit"lis not iclearl that conclusive'results willibe obtainedfin3aLtimely manner.

On1 the other hand; the:exerciseL mayJhelp RES?and-NRR staff in their futurefevaluation< of ithe ibest ' estimatebefforts ;of i

Westinghouse andLothers.

l

~

j '.

.3.

Representatives of Westinghouse -(H)E reviewed ' the4 statusiof their. developmentDof aE best Eestimate ECCS/LOCAx evaluation model..

.This effort follows the idevelopment :of-such. an evaluation model (EM); for the Westinghouse 2-Loop upper plenum injaction-(UPI); plants.

(The i ACRS reviewed' and - approved; this '

EM-for limited use in LBLOCA evaluation'oftUPI plants"by the affected licensees ~in 1988.) LFor their. new-best estimate :(BE) 4 code, H is using an)almost identical approach tofthatstaken-

-for their UPI-BE EM.

More importantly, H has' incorporated, r

.i a

6 m

..i-.d.....[...---...J.,.

1 J~ L,.., - -

iffas-s-

o 7

e

..,c

[

T 356TH-ACRS MEETING MINUTES 17 I-h' the " lessons-learned" from the first review process...It.was

. evident from the M-presentation that they.had"taken account L

'ofsthe Committee-concerns.that surfaced.during the earlier.

review noted above.

I' With the' exception of some minor. concerns noted during'the H e

presentation,ethe-Subcommittee.was: favorably impressed'with the-H offort.

Subcommittee - review of this matter will~-

)

continue. --Another Subcommittee meeting will be held.inLthe May-June 1990 ' time - frame,. upon M's submittal of, its 3-Loop j

lead plant application.

j B.

Renort/Reco==andations-of ACRB Bubchmalttee on ' ReaulAtorv

= Policies and Practices reaardina Easton. MD meetina held on December 1 and 2.

1989.

L Dr. Lewis gave-a report on the; Regulatory Policies ~.and Practices Subcommittee meeting held in Easton,: Md. on December 1 and:2,1989. -

The Committee had no objections.to the recommendations proposed in the minutes of the' Subcommittee meeting.

With' regard to en item-concerning ACRS reviewing the IPEs for all j.

the plants, 'it was agreedithat the.. Severe Accident Subcommittee would continue.to review the IPEs for the timeebeing.

I E

With regard to the issuance of an ACRS~ annual report on thec"StEta of Nuclear Power," Dr. Lewis agreed-to ' provide:.al draft report to l

the Committee:for review-at an upcoming meeting'..

y 1

VII.

Executive'Sa'asion[(Open)

^

A.

Reports, Letters, and Memoranda f

s p

1 ^.

Pronosed Rule on Access Authorization'atlNuclear-Power, Plants (Letter. to Chairman. Carr dated ' December 19, 19 8 9.- ) -

n

.,p 2.,

Pronosed Amendment to 10 CFR' Part' 55.

Ooerators..

L Licenses.

to-Include

" Fitness-For-Duty"' 'Penaltles (Lettersto Chairman Carr dated December 20, 1989.)j 3.

Coherence in the Reaulatory Process '(Letter tol Chairman:

L

.Carr dated. December 21,- 1989.)

1 HQTE: - o Dr.

Seiss' - wa s.. not prese'nt-during

'the :

Committee 's L deliberations ~ ~ and - preparation, - ofI the ACRS Report to the Commission on " Coherence a

in the Regulatory Process,'" dated Decemberj21, 1989..

\\

q y.

,:e.

-=

_.. -g o, i -

1 q

g l*

,s 356TH:ACRS-MEETING MINUTES 18 I

j L

~ o ~.Mrt Michelson voted against = sending the ACRS

.)

= Report to.the Commission;on " Coherence-in the-q Regulatory Process," dated December'21, 1989.

t l

4.-

casas in which it annaars the NRC staff has overatsoned l) its authoritv.- =The Committee decided not to write an i

~

,additionalsletter.on'this matter.

Dr. Lewis propred a;

/ letter-as an individual membersof-the Committee.t The

.i

' Committee offered no objection to the transmittal of--tho'

<1etter to Chairman Carr from Dr. Lewis on the activities-i I

ofLtho' Region V Director related to management direction of C operations at the Palos Verde L Nucleari Plant. :

The

.i letter'was.'sentitc Chairman'Carr~on December-19',

1989.-

B.-

other Actions, Agreements, Assignments'and Requests =

j

1. -

Pronomad - Revision of" the -Memorandum ' of Understandina " (MOU)

Between ACRS and NRC Staff L(Mr. - Sam 'Duraiswamy was the ? Designated Federal. officerf for this portion of the meeting.)'

Dr. JSiess, Chairman of the Regulatory Activities Subcommittee,

.f stated that although the existing MoU:between the ACRS and the j

' EDO : provides. guidance 'and : procedures, with regard c to ACRS 4

review of nuclear safety. ' related' matters, it ' is 'somewhat cumbersome 'to follow.-

- There still: Jseems..to be some uncertainties among the;-NRC staff'.as to which safety-related issues the ACRS desires to review. -Consequently, the existing MoU has.been; revised' completely:to make it clear to. follow. '

Dr. Siess stated that although the-main _ thrust of the existing-and revised MOUs is essentially the same, the' revised MOU isi organized.in a different manner. _The revisedLMOU:--

o'

' Places"majorfemphasis on earlyLinteraction between

' the i staff and ? the i ACRS. on ; matters dealing. with.

safety, i

.o'

.Requiredithat the ACRS~ inform thejstaff within'30 LdaysLwhether it wants'to review a specific safety,-!

'related-issue..

~

q l

o.-

Eliminates the.. timing. of. the' ACRS review with i

reference to CRGR review.

,q LRequires that theLACRS'be'given';aniopportunityito o-

~ review.and comment on Generic Letters and Bulletins.

s

~

J w.'

c.

..a w i

e.

-356TH ACRS' MEETING MINUTEST

-19 Dr./ Siess solicited comments from the Committee members on the

- contents and accuracy ~ of the revised MOU.- He recommended that

.the revised MOU:be sentito.the'EDO for review,~ comment, and for possible~ signature.

The Commission agree.

2.

ACNS~(Canada) and ACRS-Joint Maatina Thai Committee : requested: that: a summary report of the L ACNS-9 ACRS joint meeting, held'on November 1-2.-1989,; be prepared j

and. distributed' to = the Committee - and. to the : Commission by January 4, 1990.. It-is' anticipated that the meeting with the-Canadians will be~-discussed during the January meeting with-the; Commission.

r

.3.

New ACRS Officers The Committee elected _Mr. Carlyle Michelson to bE Chairmani during CY "1990.... Mr. Charles-J.

Wylie was. ' elected Vice--

Chairman, and Mr. James C. ' Carroll was elected ' Member-at-~

y Large to the Planning and Procedures ? Subcommittee 1for - this same period, t

4.

Selection of New ACRS'Namhers-The committee authorized Acting. Chairman i Michelson ! to " call chairman Carr for the3 purpose of discussing the Committee's a

concern with the delay-;in the appointment ofLan"ACRS member g

from the nominees proposed-by the Committee., Mr. Michelson agreed to discuss this-' issue-with:the NRC Chairman..

L 5.

Periodic Meetinas with the NRC chairman' The Committee ' agreed; that-it would' be. useful' for' the : ACRS j

Chairman to reestablish the practice of periodic meetings with -

the NRC Chairman.and the other Commissioners to discuss items 1

of mutual interest.. Further,. the ' Committee D indicated ~ that disc tssions'with individual Commissioners during ACRS meetings on matters of mutual' interest would benefit-the. Committee.:

6.

Future Aaenda The~ Committee agreed to-the* tentative schedule for-the January'11-13, 1990, ACRS meeting as_shown in Appendix II.

3 A: schedule of future ACRS subcommitteeimeetings.was distrib,

uted to the Committee members -(Appendix III).

l The meeting was adjourned on Friday, December 15, 1989, at-4:00 p.m.

7 i

i i

. =,.

--,-w

---,._w,-.-..,m w

,-,,-,,,o,-

,.,,,,.,.,y-.-,.,-,epy..y e.g

APPENDIX'I ATTENDEES 356TH ACRS MEETING l

DECEMBER 14-15, 1989 i

Dec. 14 Dec. 15 i

ACRS MEMBERS; Mr. David'A. Ward-X X-Dr. Harold W.' Lewis-X X'

t Mr. James C. Carroll.-

- X-X

.I Dr.-Ivan Catton X

X

.Mr. Charles J..Wylie

' X'

X Dr. William Kerr Xt X

Dr. Paul G.

Shewmon X'

X Dr. Chester P. Siess' X

X l

i Mr. Carlyle Michelson X

X

. (.

L

\\

k e

t i

s

.f

.i i

1 1

,(

c

,ee

q

)

l l

i THURSDAY DECEMBER 14. 1989 l

.Public Attendees NRC Attendees t

Brent Sdauskos, SERCH Licensing /Bechtel

'S.

Frattali L

R. E..Enkeboll, NUMARC Sher Bahadur, RES P. F. Riehm, CERTREC Sid.Feld, RES.

[

l.

E. F. Rice, NUS/LIS-Helen Pastic, NRR 1

Gabrielle~Willians, STS.DAC-

' Don Hopkins, RES.

-i Zoltan Rosztoczy,. RES

. Nancy Ervin, NRR'

-l Loren. Bush,iNRR Bill' Morris,-RES:

l.

Myron Karman,-OCM i

Frank'Gillespie, NRR--

l

= Tony Gody, --- NRR '

)

Jack' Roe, HRR i

Bill Borchardt,'OEDOl FRIDAY. DECEMBER' 15. 1989 Public Attendees

.NRC Attendees Suren Singh, N.J. State Dept.

Ralph Cooley, NRR j

of Env. Prot.

Loren Bush, NRR-Eric Hale,.SERCH/Bechtel David-Lange, NRR~

Robert N. Whitesel,-NUMARC--

' Jim Lieberman,.OE.

4 P. F. Riehm, CERTREC Ted Szymanski',,NRR' E. F. Rice,.NUS/LIS llelen:Pastis, NRR' D. PocolLynn Connor, The;NRC Calendar

-E. Beckjord, RES1 Mike Simpson',-Grove Engineering Tom Murley, NRR J. Taylor, OEDO.

.i

.M.

Taylor, OEDO, d

J.-.Scinto, OGC Ri W. Houston, RES, 1

i s

t i

i' l-I.

2

'I

e.s'

)

i

^

i

(

Appendix II.

356th 7. ORS Meeting Handouts i

Agenda Item 2

1.

Access Authorization ~ Program for Nuclear l

Power Plants by Rosatoczy, Bahadur, and 4

Frattali,. NRR, dated December 14, 1989 (viewgraphs)

I 3.2 2.

Memorandum for-ACRS' Members from Savio, dated December 13, 1989, re Future ACRS

' Activities 357th.. ACRS Meeting January 11-13, 1990, with attachments.

4 3.

Evaluation of Operational Data a.

Table of contents b.

Project Status

. Report, dated December-14, 1989 c.

Memorandum for Kerr from Boehnert, dated November 1, 1989, re Pilgrim Plant Proposed Rate Settlement - Use of SALP Scores and Performance Indicators to Establish Financial Incentives, with attachment d.

BBS message for Fraley from Boehnert, dated November 20,

1989, re.SALP Boards e.

Excerpt from Transcript of October 31, 1989' Commission Meeting

" Items of Commissioner Interest" s

4.

Systematic Assessment.

of Licensee Performance (SALP),iundated (viewgraphs) 5.

Types. of Incentive

Programs, undated (viewgraphs)-

L 5

6.

Memorandum for ACRS Members'from Boehnert,-

dated December' 14,. 1989,-cre I.

Catton's Report of the Thermal: Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee Meeting of December 7,' 1989, with attachment-7.

Memorandum for Catton from Boehnert, dated December 11, 1989,. re -ACRS Meeting Summary / Minutes of the Thermal: Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee, December 7,.1989, Bethesda,- ' Maryland,-.with attachment (Proprietary Information)-

1

Agenda Item

)

6 8.

ACRS Practices and Procedures a.-

Memorandum for ACRS Members and Staff from Duraiswamy, dated December 13, 1

1989, re Status Report - Discussion 1

of the Revised Memorandum of

')

Understanding (MOU) Between the ACRS' j

and the EDO - 356th ACRS Meeting, l

December 14-15, 1989, with attachment b.

Memorandum for Stello and Fraley from -

a Chilk, dated April 19, 1988, re ACRS i

Participation in the Development of l

NRC Rules and Policy Statements-.

j c.

Memorandum for Taylor from Chilk, dated August 9,1989, re ACRS Letter Concerning the Proposed - Resolution l

of Generic Issue 128,

" Electrical Power Reliability" i

9.

-Memorandum for Lewis from Quittschreiber, dated December 7, 1989,.re ACRS Meeting i

Summary / Minutes of the Regulatory Policies I

- and Practices Subcommittee, December.1-2, l

1989, Easton,' Maryland, with attachment (OUO) 10.

Draft ACRS Bylaws, Proposed Revision,Section IV, dated December 14, 1989 i

9 11.

Proposed Revision

.of l.

10CFR55

[

Fitness-for-Duty Requirements for Licensed Operators and Senior Operators,' undated' i

(viewgraphs) h 10 12.

Memorandum for ACRS Members from Boehnert,.

dated November 15,11989, re I.

Catton's l

Report on " Plant Operations and the ACRS",

j with attachment i

11 13.

Memorandum for Michelson from Carr, dated

{

l December 11,

1989, re

-NRC Senior Management survey'of the Impact of. NRC l

Activities.on -the Safe operation of Nuclear Power. Plants, with attachments:

J 14.

Coherence-in the Regulatory Process a.

Table of Contents-b.

Tentative Agenda

)

c.

Status-Report i

i 2

e.e-6 D

Agenda Item d.

ACRS Report on Coherence in the Regulatory.

Process, dated-November 24, 1989 e.

Memorandum for Fraley from Chilk, i

dated May 11,

1989, re Staff f

Requirements - Periodic Briefing by ACRS on May 3, 1989 f.

Memorandum for. Chairman Carr from Taylor, - dated October 18, 1989, re Integrated Approach on Regulatory I

Matters, with attachment g.

Minutes of the ' November - 15, 1989,.

Regulatory Policies and Practices-.

Subcommittee

Meeting, without i

attachment (working copy)

15..Viewgraphs Provided by James Taylor,'EDO, entitled Atomic Energy-Act Principles and Quality

.i

{

i t

I t

6 h

l I

t

-l

[

i 3

e t

i I

..o

a. o ~

l i

i

)

Appendix III.

356th ACRS Meeting Notebook Contents j

Agenda Item Contents i

2 Access Authorization at Nuclear Power-Plants l

1.

Table of Contents 2.

Tentative-Agenda, undated l

1-3.

Status Report, undated l

4.

Note for Alderman from Frattali, undated, list of changes j

5.

Draft SECY paper ' for the Commissioners from i

Taylor, dated November 6,

1989, re Access Authorization Program for Nuclear Power Plants,-

l with enclosures 3.1 ACRS Future Activities 6.

ACES /ACNW committee and subcommittee Meetings, undated 3.2 ACRS' Future Activities (no entries) 9 Fitness for Duty e

7.

Table of Contents 8.,

Tentative Agenda, undated 9.

Status Report, undated 10.

Draft SECY paper for the Commissioners from Taylor, dated November 20,.1989, re Proposed Revision of 10.CFR. Part 55 " to Require compliance with Fitness-for-Duty Programs and Conforming Modification to Commission's i

Enforcement Policy i

l r

1 f

1.

d

--.,-.-,v-

-w

+,-.

,,y,-

.-e.v

-s

sei,

f

.o y o

]

l i

o i

e APPENDIX IV ITEMS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR THE 357TH ACRS MEETING, JANUARY 11-13, 1990 i

i Containment Performance Imorovement Proaram (Open)

. Review and f

report on the proposed containment performance improvement program for all containment types except the BWR Mark I which is being handled separately.

Generic Issue B-56. " Diesel Reliability" and Associated Reaulatorv

.i Guide 1.9 Revision 3 (Open)

Review and comment on the proposed l

final resolution of Generic Issue B-56 and Regulatory Guide 1.9, Revision 3.

t Meetina w' th the NRC Commissioners (Open) i Discussion of the following topics-I c

- Containment Performance Criteria for Future Plants

- containment Requirements.for Advanced Reactors

- Definition of Adequate Protection relating to Quantitative Safety Goals

- Coherence in the Regulatory Process

- ACRS Reevaluation of its Role Regarding Operating Reactors

- Feedback from the Meeting with AECB Advisory Committee' Mgetina with the AEOD Director (Open)

Discussion of. items of i

mutual interest such as the allocation of AEOD resources.

s Reactor Operatina Exnerience (Open)

Briefing and discussion on four-recent significant reactor operating events / incidents consisting of:

5 l

- Braidwood Station Unit'l - RCS leakage.

- Dresden Nuclear Station - Inoperable HPCI System

- Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 - Potential' interfacing systems i

LOCA

- South Texas Station Unit 1 - Diesel generator failure Modified Enforcement Policy for " Hot Particles" (Open)

Briefing and discussion of NRC staff plans to implement.

Annual Safety Research Report to'Conaress (Open)

Discussion of:

proposed report to Congress on safety research, i

l 1

. ~.

,. -. ~ _,,,.,,,,.,..

-c d