ML20129G482

Summary of 430th ACRS Meeting on 960411-13 Re Continued Need for Us Membership in Nuclear Energy Agency & Recommendations for Appointment of ACRS Members

ML20129G482
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/09/1996
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-3011, SECY-94-194-C, NUDOCS 9610070197
Download: ML20129G482 (36)

Text

_

! o' t , _, .-q79m-  %

Issue Date: 8/9/96 h ~&ff l

)

~

CihJ L 3 b, b, ik d ba L. d d [PM /#/#(([

i .i l

1 . TABLE OF CONTENTS I l MINUTES OF THE 430TH ACRS MEETING a

l APRIL 11-13, 1996 i EASA I. Chairman's Report (Open) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. Proposed Final Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, and 10 CFR Part 100, " Reactor Site Criteria" (Open) . . 1 3

] III. Severe Accident Research (Open) . . . . . . . . . . 4

, IV. Graded Quality Assurance Program (Open) . . . . . . 6 o V. Westinghouse COBRA / TRAC Best-Estimate ECCS i

Thermal Hydraulic Code (Open/ Closed)' . . . . . . .. 10 VI. Meeting with the Director of the NRC Office for

Analysis-and Evaluation of Operational Data

(AEOD) (Open) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'll j VII. Spent Fuel Project Office Activities (Open) . . . . 14

<- . i

3. VIII. Use of RuleNet in the Rulemaking Process (Open) . . 15 i X. Executive Session (Open) . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A. Reports, Letters, and Memoranda Continued Need for United States Membershin in the Nuclear Enerav Acency (Report to Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman; NRC, f rom T. S . Kress, Chairman, ACRS, dated April 17, 1996.)

Recommendations for Accointment of ACRS Members (Report to Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman, NRC, from T.S. Kress, ,

Chairman, ACRS, dated April 19,.1996.) l Westinchouse Best-Estimate Loss-of-Coolant -Accident Analysis Methodoloav (Report to Shirley Ann Jackson, j Chairman, NRC, f rom T . S . Kress, Chairman, ACRS, dated i April 19, 1996.)- I Prooosed Revisions to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 100 and Procosed Reculatorv Guides Relatina to Reactor Site

' Criteria (Report to Shirley-Ann Jackson, Chairman, NRC, ,

from T.S. Kress, Chairman,'ACRS, dated April 22, 1996.)

i Probabilistic Risk Assessment Framework. Pilot Aeolica-tions, and Next Steos to Excand the Use of PRA in the Reculatorv Decision-Makina Process (Report to Srirley Ann j

DESICnID ORICIRD 9610070197 960809 g, -ee ,,, ,

-m fpsa

,o ? *1

.- 1

.' .* i Jackson, Chairman, NRC, from T.S. Kress, Chairman, ACRS' I dated April 23, 1996.) .

Procosed Standard Review Plan for Drv Cask Storace Systems (Memorandum to James M. Taylor, Execu- !

tive Director for Operations, from John T. Larkins,  !

Executive Director, ACRS, cated April 22, 1996) - Consis-tent with the ACRS/ACNW decision, Dr. Larkins informed l Mr. Taylor that the ACRS/ACNW decided not to review the  !

proposed Standard Review Plan at this time. '

Draft Resoonse to Ouestions on the Procosed Revisions to 10 CFR Part 100 and Part 50 (SECY-94-194) (Memorandum to Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman, NRC, from John T. Larkins, Executive Director, ACRS, dated April 24, 1996) i B. Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommen-  ;

dations C. Report on the Meeting of the Planning and Proce-dures Subcommittee Held on March 10, 1996 (Open)

D. Future Meeting Agenda l

l h

l l

l l

l

}

ii

APPENDICES l I. Federal Register Notice II. Meeting Schedule and Outline i III. Attendees  !

IV. Future Agenda and Subcommittee Activities l V. List of Documents Provide. 0 the Committee l VI. Minutes for Closed Sessior. 1

[ .- PENDIX VI REMOVED - FOIA EX (b) (4)]

l T

l l

I

..- 1 MINUTES OF THE 430TH MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS APRIL 11-13, 1996 1 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND The 430th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards was held at Conference Room 2B3, Two White Flint North Building, Rockville, Maryland, on April 11-13, 1996. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss and take appropriate action on the items listed in the attached agenda. The meeting was open to public j attendance, but portions of the meeting were closed to discuss I proprietary material and personnel issues. There was one written statement and two requests for time to make oral statements from members of the public regarding the meeting.

A transcript of selected portions of the meeting was kept and is available in the NRC Public Document Room at the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Wast'.ngton, D.C. [ Copies of the transcript are available for purchase from Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc., 1323 l Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.]

ATTENDEES ACRS Members: Dr. Thomas S. Kress (Chairman), Dr. Robert L. Seale l

(Vice-Chairman) , Dr. George Apostolakis, Mr. James C. Carroll, Dr.  !

Ivan Catton, Dr. Mario H. Fontana. Mr. William J. Lindblad, Dr. Don '

W. Miller (absent April lith), Dr. Dana A. Powers, Dr. William J.

Shack, and Mr. Charles J. Wylie. [For a list of other attendees, see Appendix III.]

I. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT (Open)

(Note: Dr. John T. Larkins was the Designated Federal Official for

~

{

this portion of the meeting.]

Dr. Thomas S. Kress, Committee Chairman, convened the meeting at 8:30 a.m. and reviewed the schedule for the meeting. He announced that a list of items of interest had been provided to the members.

Particular attention was drawn to items on the Millstone and Palo Verde nuclear plants, and to the schedule for interviewing applicants for ACRS membership.

II. PROPOSED FINAL REVISIONS TO 10 CFR PART 50, AND 10 CFR PART 100, " REACTOR SITE CRITERIA" (Open)

(Note: Dr. John T. Larkins was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Introduction Mr. William Lindblad, Chairman of the Extreme External Phenomena subcommittee, stated that the material for this meeting is divided

l 430th ACRS Meeting 2 l April 11-13, 1996 into two parts: (1) geology and earthquake engineering and (2) the I evaluation of radiological ' releases. He also stated that two representatives of the industry had asked to make statements at the conclusions of these discussions. 4

, NRC Staff Presentation (Seismic)

Mr. Leonard Soffer, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES),

presented a very brief chronology and overview of the current rule.

He stated that 10 CFR Part 100 was issued in 1962. This is one of the oldest of the Commission's Regulations. Appendix A to Part 100 was issued in November 1973. ACRS was briefed on the first proposed revision to Appendix A in February 1992. The proposed rule was published in October 1992 for public comment. It was subsequently withdrawn in March 1994 in its entirety and the revised proposed rule was reissued in October 1994. The proposed revised final rule is in two subparts. Subpart A consists of the l existing regulations which remain in effect for the current operating plants. Subpart B applies for the future plants.

Dr. Joseph Murphy, RES, presented the background and the technical l aspects of the proposed revisions to Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants. He indicated that the current regulations are too detailed and inflexible, lack clarity, and lead to conflicting interpretations of the operating basis earthquake (OBE). The principal purpose of this effort was to provide stability in license reviews for future plants. One of the staff's proposed actions is to decouple siting criteria from plant design.

He indicated where substantive change had been made in the regulatory requirements or guidance, especially in the definition of the safe shutdown earthquake ground motion and OBE.

Dr. Murphy discussed the significant revisions made to Appendix A (10 CFR 100.23), Geological Siting Criteria; specifically, the definition of OBE was removed from Part 100, and guidance is

.provided for the uncertainty analysis. Dr. Murphy indicated that the role of probabilistic analysis is to ensure that all of the uncertainties have been included in the assessment of the seismic hazard, and the role of the deterministic analysis is to ensure that the resultant design provides protection against the most likely worst case that should be considered in the design of the plant. He concluded by providing the tabulation of the regulatory guidance assembled. for the earth science portion of earthquake engineering in the Regulatory Guide.

Nonseismic Mr. Soffer discussed briefly the proposed rule and stated that it would retain the use of source term and dose calculations to

.=

430th ACRS Meeting 3 April 11-13, 1996 determine the distance to the exclusion area boundary (EAB) and the size of the outer radius of the low population zone (LPZ). The proposed dose criteria would require that an individual located at any point on the boundary of the exclusion area for any two-hour period following the onset of the postulated fission product release not receive a dose in excess of 25 rem total effective dose equivalent (TEDE). Similarly, an individual located at the outer boundary of the LPZ for the entire period of the cloud passage (taken to be 30 days) must not receive a dose in excess of 25 rem TEDE. The source term dose criteria is relocated to Part 50.34.

The proposed Section 100.21 contains basic site criteria without any numerical values.

With regard to population density, the proposed rule stated that reactor sites should be located away from very densely populated centers. Areas of low population density are generally preferred.

However, in determining the acceptability of a particular site located away from a very densely populated center but not in an area of low density, consideration will be given to safety, environmental, economic, or other factors, which may result in sites being found acceptable. The guidance for preferred popula-tion density is provided in Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.7.

Mr. Soffer also stated the reasons for revising Part 100 were to facilitate the considerations that went into Part . 52 where the staff was to facilitate the licensing of standardized designs without a site, or certified sites without a set design. Mr.

Soffer concluded that the' elements of the final revised rule, the source and dose criteria, are being relocated to Part 50.34. The dose criteria is revised from 25 rem whole body and 300 rem thyroid to 25 rem TEDE. The dose to an individual at the EAB is not to exceed 25 TEDE for any two-hour period following the fission product release.

Mr.-Soffer stated that RES had a differing opinion with regard to the time period over which the dose to an individual at the EAB is to be evaluated and is providing it to the Commission for consider-ation. RES recommends that the final rule be modified from any two-hour period after release of fission products (referred to as the " worst" two hours) to a period of two hours commencing with fuel failure plus the time period from accident initiation until fuel failure begins (referred to as the "firsta two hours).

Mr. Barry Zaleman,.NRR, provided its differing view of the first two hours and worst two hours. NRR believes that (1) the proposed licensing framework would provide a relaxation of engineered safety feature (ESF) performance requirements commensurate with updated

. source term and radiological insights, (2) the regulatory require-ments for determination of in-containment radioactive material during the two-hour dose evaluation period should be consistent and capable of handling designs substantially different from those

430th ACP.S Meeting 4 April 11 13, 1996 analyzed in NUREG-1465, (3) the analysis should be easy to perform and reproducible with confidence, and (4) the technical bases and analytical methods should be defensible. For these reasons, NRR J-recommends the worst two-hours for the dose evaluation period.

~

Mr. William Russell, Director,- NRR, provided his brief views of the different opinions of NRR and RES. He stated that he agrees with y,

the NRR decision to recommend the " worst two-hour" approach, Nuclear Enerov Institute Presentation Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gmyrek, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI),

provided brief comments on the proposed final rt .nd stated that the industry is very interested in the proposed n 's, particularly the adoption of the TEDE value. Mr. Gmyrek stated that, at this i

point, NEI has not taken a position for or against either the first

.. two-hour or worst two-hour period. ,

Westinchouse Presentation Mr. Grover, Westinghouse, had a prepared statement in which he a disagreed with the-staff on the proposed final rule. He briefly provided the alternative upproaches to the proposed rule: (1) replace the 25-rem TEDE limit with a total dose limit of'35 rem TEDE and specify that no more than 20 rem could come from acute dose, which has the advantage of maintaining consistency with 10 CFR 20 regarding the definition of TEDE doses and with the goal of having risk of latent cancer fatality at less than 2.71x10-2, (2) keep the 25-rem limit but redefine the dose basis as other than TEDE and call it TEDE-Latent Cancer Fatality Risk Basis, or (3) eliminate dose limits from the rule and instead specify a limit en the calculated risk of latent cancer fatality (the appropriate value currently identified by staff is 2.71x10).

Committee Action The Committee issued a report to Chairman Jackson, dated April 22, 3996, on this matter.

III. SEVERE ACCIDENT RESEARCH (Open)

[ Note: Mr. N. Dudley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)

Introduction Dr. Mario Fontana, Chairman of the Severe Accidents Subcommittee, introduced the presentation by noting that significant fission 1

1 f

430th ACRS Meeting 5 April 25-13, 1996 products can only reach the environment as a result of a severe accident. He stated that in order to support risk-informed j regulations, the NRC staff needs to know more about the inherent I risks associated with severe accidents.

1 NRC Staff Presentation 1 Mr. Charles Ader, RES, provided an overview of the origins and evolution of the NRC severe accident research program. He described the objectives and status of research efforts in the areas of direct containment heating (DCH), lower head integrity, fuel-coolant interaction, debris coolability, hydrogen combustion, fission product behavior, and core melt progression. Mr. Ader l explained the interrelationship between, and uses of, the NRC severe accident codes. He concluded his presentation by explaining l the considerations that are used to determine whether to continue or to terminate research projects.

During his presentation, Mr. Ader made several observations. The l

staff considers the two major early containment failure issues, i Mark I liner failure and DCH, to be resolved or nearing resolution. '

Research efforts have resolved the issues associated with signifi-cant risk threats. Uncertainties exist concerning severe accident management issues and the understanding of the progress of severe accidents. Severe accident research should continue in order to maintain staff capabilities, to reduce uncertainties, and to  !

leverage resources by participating in international research groups.

The Committee and the RES staff discussed the following items:

• DCH resolution criteria e neglecting DCH in Level Il probabilistic risk assessments

• containment fragility curves associated with DCH e triggering mechanisms for steam explosions e

the decision-making process for terminating research projects NRC participation in and knowledge of international research efforts e

use of codes to support risk-informed regulatory decisions knowledge of fission product behavior for supporting regula-tory decisions Members of the Committee expressed the opinion that additional research is needed to determine the probability of steam generator tube failures during severe accidents. Members of the Committee noted that additional research would be required in the areas of fission product release and transport, and in the physics of severe accident progression to reduce the uncertainties in probabilistic risk assessments.

. 1 1

1 430th ACRS Meeting 6 April 11-13, 1996 i

l Conclusion The Committee decided to prepare a report for Chairman Jackson during the May 1996 ACRS meeting on this matter.

IV. GRADED OUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (Open)

[ Note: Dr. M. El-Zeftawy was the Designated Federal Official for l this portion of the meeting.] I Mr. Charles Wylie stated that the NRC staff and other representa-tives will inform the Committee regarding the current status of the i Graded Quality Assurance (GQA) program. He noted that the GQA initiative is jointly undertaken by the industry and the NRC and is intended to provide a safety benefit by allowing the licensees and l NRC to preferentially allocate resources to items of higher safety i significance.

Ms. Suzanne Black, NRR, summtrized the GQA program.

In 1993, the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) established l the Regulatory Review Group (RRG). The RRG reviewed the power '

reactor regulations and related processes and emphasized the potential application of performance-based regulations and the use l of risk insights.

In the area of quality assurance (QA), the RRG determined that the existing regulations were performance-based and that 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, contains provisions for the graded application of QA controls over activities affecting the quality of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to an extent commensurate with their importance to safety.

Although both Appendix B and the associated industry standards allow a large degree of flexibility, the licensees and the NRC staff have been reluctant to make major changes in established QA practices.

The primary objectives of NRC ef forts related to the GQA initiative are to:

• Provide a safety benefit by allowing licensees and NRC to preferentially allocate resources to items of higher safety significance and provide cost savings by reducing the resourc-es expended on items of lesser safety significance.

e Gain lessons learned from volunteer utilities and prepare internal staff and regulatory guidance for wider industry implementation.

. .=

430th ACRS Meeting 7 April 11-13, 1996 To facilitate meeting these objectives, the NRC staff envisions the following process:

e The NRC staff issues the NRR Draft Evaluation Guide for the Development of Graded Quality Assurance Programs.

e Licensees submit program changes, if required by 10 CFR 50.54 (a) , and NRC staff issues plant-specific responses.

e NRC staff and volunteer licensees conduct pilot interac-tions.

e NRC staff documents lessons learned.

e NRC develops draf t regulatory guidance (e.g. , Regulatory Guide, inspection procedures),

e NRC issues regulatory guidance (close-out of NRR Action Plan).

e NRC staff and industry gain additional insights through use of the regulatory guidance and through follow-on site visits and reviews. Regulatory guidance revised, as necessary, based on additional experience and planned evaluation of regulatory guidance effectiveness.

In June 1995, NEI issued a draft " Guideline for Implementing a Graded Approach to Quality" document. The NRC staff prepared a draft evaluation guide, " Development of Graded Quality Assurance Programs," dated January 1996. Licensees developing GQA programs will consider various methods to adjust their QA programs to accommodate their individual needs. Irrespective of a licensee's specific approach, the NRC envisions a GQA program to have four essential elements as follows:

e I a process that determines the safety significance of SSCs )

in a reasonable and consistent manner l e the implementation of appropriate QA controls for SSCs, '

or groups of SSCs, according to safety function and  ;

safety significance 1 e an effective root-cause analysis and corrective action program

]

e a means for reassessing SSC safety significance and QA )

controls when new information becomes available l

In recognition of the programs being implemented at Grand Gulf, as well as the grading of quality assurance controls being initiated,

• =

430th ACRS Meeting 8 April 11-13, 1996 proposed, or implemented at other utilities, the staff has developed draft' guidance to clarify its expectations regarding GQA programs.

For the first essential element, determination of risk significance, repeatable, the staff will confirm that the process is scrutable, and provides reasonable .results related to the

' categorization of SSCs based on safety significance. For the second essential element,' establishing QA controls, the staff expects that QA requirements for low-safety-significant safety-related SSCs will continue to satisfy the applicable criteria of

, Appendix B. It is recognized, however, that the inherent flexibil-ity of the regulations will be utilized and that deviations from past commitments, industry standards, and regulatory guides will be part of GQA programs.

' To ensure that a program adequately addresses the third element,

• corrective actions, the ability to identify and address degraded equipment performance resulting from application of GQA controls should be apparent. To address the fourth element, operational feedback, existing or modified licensee programs should evaluate 1 - additional information as it becomes available (e .g. , plant modifications or changes in operating procedures and practices such

as rolling on-line maintenance schedules, system / component reliability data, identification of new risk vulnerabilities) and assess its potential implications in regard to the GQA program.

This initial guidance, combined with lessons learned from the pilot plants and early follow-on plants, is expected to form the basis for the staff's final review guidance (e.g., Regulatory Guide and inspection procedures).

The staff is planning to continue interactions with the. industry

, regarding the GQA program. For example, in order to gain insights into the placement of SSCs into safety significance categories, the -

staff needs information to assess the impact of the following

' issues on the process:

- scope of the PRA analysis -

- level of detail

! - use of risk metrics

- PRA quality

- process for assuring PRA quality

, - role of expert panel and its decision criteria

- deterministic considerations

- integration.of PRA insights with deterministic considerations

, Licensees would provide such information as detailed descriptions of the PRA model; sensitivity studies regarding the impact of operating practices such as rolling on-line maintenance schedules and plant configurations, failures of combinations of SSCs, and choice of importance measures used in safety significance classifi-4

l 430th ACRS Meeting 9 April 11-13, 1996 cations; expert panel charter and procedures; interviews with expert panel members; and final documentation regarding the classification of SSCs into categories of safety significance.

Mr. Carter Rogers, Palo Verde, briefly summarized the informed-risk /GQA initiatives at Palo Verde, which is a volunteer plant.

The process consists of the following four elements:

e Identification of= safety significance of SSCs. There is a broad-based expert panel in place.

e Implementation of appropriate QA controls. The grading provisions are already in QA.

e Effective root cause and corrective action program. The maintenance rule and condition reporting are implemented.

e Means of reassessing the significance of SSCs. There is a commitment for continuing expert panel and PRA updates.

Currently the items that have been implemented under the graded business processes are the Maintenance Rule, GQA procurement, maintenance plan, emergent work risk-indicator matrix, inspec-tions/ audits / reviews, and warehouse inventory stocking levels.

Future items are in-service-inspection and frequency, Appendix J valve testing, motor-operated valve (MOV) testing, safety operating valve testing, QA audit and evaluation frequency, and fire ,

protection testing. Other future items are outage times allowed by '

technical specifications, and in-service testing scope and frequency. The Palo Verde representatives are cooperating and interacting with the NRC staff regarding the GQA program.

Mr. Mike Meisner, Grand Gulf, briefly summarized the GQA initia-tives at Grand Gulf, another volunteer plant. He noted that the GQA program is part of an integrated risk management program. The focus is to develop the tools to understand what is important to safety (beyond the traditional definition of safety-related) to better allocate resources. Grand Gulf representatives identified a number of nonsafety-related systems and components that were safety significant, especially in the fire protection arena. Grand Gulf examined approximately 80,000 components and found 22,000 that are related to safety. The individual determination of safety significance will result in either high-safety significance or low-safety significance. Members of the expert panel for QA have experience beyond the Maintenance Rule.

Mr. Roy Rehkugler, South Texas, briefly summarized the GQA initiatives at South Texas, the third volunteer plant. He noted that the PRA risk ranking categories at South Texas are high, r-dium, or low. The results of the PRA risk ranking will be

I 430th ACRS Meeting 10 '

April 11-13, 1996 i

provided to the GQA working group (W.G.) to analyze performance  ;

data, consider risk ranking, inject deterministic knowledge and  !

insights, and develop recommendations regarding levels of program- ,

matic control and activity oversight. The recommendation of the  !

GQA W . G . will be submitted to the expert panel for review and analysis. The expert panel will decide whether to establish or modify the program controls. South Texas applied the GQA program to MOVs, pressure locking and thermal binding, seismic evaluations, and others such as molded case circuit breakers. ,

Mr. Adrian Heymer, NEI, summarized NEI activities regarding the GQA initiatives. He stated that NEI has prepared a document, "NEI 96-02/ Guideline For Implementing a Graded Approach to Quality", dated March 1996. This document provides the general framework for '

implementing a graded approach to quality. 'The industry will base its decision to enhance its current methods for implementing quality on cost-benefit considerations and the additional safety benefits of such activities. NEI recommends the use of probabilis-tic and deterministic insights and analyses to categorize SSCs following a review by an expert panel.

The methodology for the SSC categorization involves assessments and evaluations of safety functional failures, and deviations in the '

pertinent work functions that could impact a safety function. It is broader than that used in the maintenance rule. It incl.udes the potential impacts of such aspects as different plant operating l modes, human factors, seismic, fire, and design considerations.  ;

Mr. Heymer emphasized that the NEI guideline document should not i result in the development of an alternative quality assurance program. The intent is to refine and optimize current quality implementation practices and to build on industry experiences. It is anticipated that each licensee will develop additional detailed implementation procedures, building on the guidance contained in the NEI document.

Conclusion i This briefing was for information only.

V. WESTINGHOUSE COBRA / TRAC BEST-ESTIMATE ECCS THERMAL HYDRAULIC CODE (Open/ Closed)

[No'ce: Mr. P. Boehnert was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.]

Introduction (Open)

Dr. Catton, Chairman, Thermal Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee, introduced this topic to the Committee. He noted that, in its

i

. l l

430th ACRS Meeting 11 i April 11-13, 1996

! February 23, 1996 letter documenting the results of its initial l review of this matter, the Committee identified several technical details of the Westinghouse best-estimate, large-break, loss-of-i coolant accident (LBLOCA) methodology that needed further attention i and also commented on the adequacy of the' associated documentation.

i Westinghouse has provided both the Committee and NRR with addition-and Dr. Catton participated in a telephone al information, 1

conference with Westinghouse representatives to discuss the details of this information. He reviewed the technical concerns that remained from the initial ACRS review for the Committee and i indicated that, in general, he was satisfied with the modifications made by Westinghouse to address these concerns.

! Westinchouse Presentation (Closed - Proprietary Information) i Minutes for the closed Session are in Appendix VI.

(APPENDIX VI REMOVED - FOIA EK(b) (4)]

NRR Presentation (Open) )

Mr. Robert Jones made a brief presenta*. ion that summarized the NRR l staff's review of the Westinghouse actions noted above as well as 1 the staff's proposed actions relative to the Committee's concerns i with the adequacy of the documentation of the Westinghouse LBLOCA methodology. NRR finds the Westinghouse actions acceptable for resolution of the ACRS concerns. Regarding the issue of documenta-tion, NRR committed to performing a review of the final Westing-house submittal, which is due within six months following the ,

staff's approval of the LBLOCA methodology. l 1

Regarding the Committee's recommendation that NRR issue guidance I for ensuring that future best-estimate LBLOCA submittals are  !

adequate, .the staff plans, instead, to require that all future 4 submittals be in the form of a "living document" that will maintain its currency.

CONCLUSION The committee issued a report to Chairman Jackson dated April 19, j 1936,.on this matter. '

VI. MEETING WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) (Open)

[ Note: Dr. M. El-Zeftawy was the Designated Federal Official for i this portion of the meeting.] l r

Dr. Kress welcomed Mr. Edward Jordan, Director, AEOD, and his staff and stated that the purpose of this session is to discuss items of mutual interest.  ;

1 l

l 430th ACRS Meeting 12 l April 11-13, 1996 Mr. Jordan appreciated the opportunity to speak before the Committee. He noted that the main charter of AEOD is to:

o Provide an independent capability to analyze operational data e Review, analyze, and evaluate reactor plant and nuclear materials safety experience o Manage the agency's incident response and incident investiga-tion programs e Manage the agency's technical training program e Manage the agency's Committee for the Review of Generic Requirements (CRGR)

The general mission of the technical training division is to coordinate, with NRC offices and regions, policy development and implementation of formal NRC staff qualifications and training programs; and to provide technical assistance in areas of expertise and advice and limited technical training to foreign regulatory counterparts. Practical applications of risk management are being added to reactor simulator courses. Some of the examples of risk-informed regulation are risk-informed Technical Specifications and the effects of the Maintenance Rule on plant operations. AEOD is l continuing to integrate the PRA implementation plan deliverables '

into the curriculum. Other updates to the reactor technology curriculum are digital instrumentation and control, steam generator issues, and the use of simulators.

The mission of the incident response division is to provide direction and develop policies and guidelines to the NRC programs for the investigation of operational incidents, and to provide immediate response to radiological incidents. The mission of other programs such as the safety programs is to communicate the important safety lessons drawn from the indepe'ndent analysis and evaluation of experience. There were eight generic NRC communica-tions related to AEOD studies in 1993 through 1995. These are related to items such as MOVs, common-cause failures, and the Wolf Creek blowdown event.

AEOD analyzes reactor operating experience by utilizing risk-based information. This involves assessing and trending risk indicators, comparing reactor operator experience with PRA and individual plant

examinations (IPEs), identifying technical insights related to risk contributors, and providing insights related to risk to industry and regulators.

Other current AEOD studies include the human performance program plan (a system for describing and monitoring the status of all

430th ACRS Meeting 13 April 11-13, 1996 agency progr .as related to human performance); the accident sequence precursor program (to determine the conditional probabili-ty of subsequent severe core damage / conditional core damage probability, given the failures during an operational event); and system reliability studies (to evaluate reliability and provide insights on risk-important systems based on operating experience) .

Currently, a proposed rule to 10 CFR 50.76 was issued for public comment on February 12, 1996 on reporting reliability and avail-ability data for risk-significant equipment. The proposed rule will provide a consolidated source of PRA quality equipment performance data for industry-wide sharing of reliability and availability experience and to support PRA applications. AEOD is interacting with the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) and NEI to better understand the data to be provided.

Mr. Jordan described the Wolf Creek emergency service water (ESW) event that occurred on January 30, 1996. He noted that the decreasing water level in the intake structure was caused by formation of ice on travelling screens. The reactor was manually tripped due to cavitation of circulating water pumps. Five control rods did not fully insert. The atmospheric relief valves were used to remove decay heat. The availability of the turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump was jeopardized by failure of the inboard packing due to inadequate previous maintenance practices. Ice formation on the trash racks of the ESW system resulted in a loss of one train of the ultimate heat sink and jeopardized the other.

One of the generic implications of this event is the failure of control rods to fully insert into the core because of high burnup fuel. Other recent control rod insertion problems have occurred at South Texas Unit 1 and North Anna Unit 1.

Another event was the loss of offsite power (LOOP) and reactor trip while two emergency diesel generators were unavailable at Catawba Unit 2. The safety significance of this event is that the LOOP with one emergency diesel generator out of servi'ce is a significant precursor to a station blackout.

Mr. Jordan briefly summarized the charter and the functional duties of the CRGR. The CRGR provides independent oversight of potential backfitting and adds valuable technical quality assurance and regulatory coherence. CRGR reviews special matters for the COO.

Currently, the demand is for risk-informed and performance-based rules.

AEOD has data bases that include accident sequence precursors, common-cause failures, sequence coding and search systems, perfor-mance indicators, monthly operating reports, nuclear plant reliability, preliminary notifications, emergency notifications,

~ -

I 430th ACRS Meeting 14 April 11-13, 1996 and morning reports. In addition, AEOD is pres,ently available on the Internet.

Conclusion This briefing was for information only, i

VII. SPENT FUEL PROJECT OFFICE ACTIVITIES (Open) '

l

[ Note: Mr. N. Dudley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] .{

Dr. Kress summarized the matters discussed during the March 26, .

1996 Joint ACRS/ACNW Subcommittee meeting. The NRC staff presented information regarding Spent Fuel Project Office (SFPO) activities J and decommissioning. A panel of invited experts presented opinions on and discussed the health effects of low levels of ionizing radiation. Dr. John Garrick, ACNW, was the Chairman for the first meeting of the Joint Subcommittee. The chairmanship will alternate j between the ACRS and ACNW annually. l l

Dr. Kress stated that the SFPO is doing a gc.,od job of identifying I and resolving issues. In his opinion, the review' plans, review criteria, and analyses prepared by the SFPO are strictly determin-istic. The staff had explained that, even though the risk associated with def cask storage is small, there may be higher risk

~

implications with s.orage of recently irradiated fuel. Brookhaven National Laboratories is performing a study to determine how long it takes after a full core off-load fer the risk of fuel damage due to loss of spent fuel pool cooling to become negligible. The Joint Subconmitt ' plans to review the completed study. The ACRS members discussed tne Department of Energy's move toward evaluating risk in relationship to waste handling.

Dr. Kress noted that during the discussion of tn'e health effects of low levels of ionizing radiation, the panel participants exhibited ~

a wide polarization of opinion. Dr. Garrick plans to draft a letter on the subject for approval by both committees.

The Joint Subcommittee plans to discuss decommissioning, the agency safety philosophy, and expert opinion at the next Joint Subcommit-tee meeting.

Conclusion The Committee agreed with the Joint ACRS/ACNW Subcommittee recommendation that the proposed Standard Review Plan for Dry Cask Storage Systems not be reviewed at this time.

430th ACRS Meeting 15  ;

April 11-13, 1996 VIII.USE OF RULENET IN THE RULEMAKING PROCESS (Open)

[ Note: Mr. N. Dudley was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.)

Dr. Robert Seale, Chairman of the Regulatory Policies and Practices Subcommittee, introduced the session by noting that Commissioner Rogers had asked the Committee to comment on the use of RuleNet, which is an NRC-sponsored pilot project that developed an interac- l tive internet site for reading and commenting on a rulemaking concerning fire p 7tection requirements.

Nuclear Power Institute (NEI) Presentation I l

Mr. George Wu, NEI, explained how to use RuleNet. He concluded !

that RuleNet has merit and can improve communications between the NRC and the public if it is properly managed, is cost effective, and adde value to the regulatory process. The Committee and Mr. Wu discussed whether participants in RuleNet represented themselves or their organizations, how a participant's affiliation was identi-fied, how the voting and weighing of comments was accomplished, and the effect of RuleNet on public health and safety. i Mr. Alexander Marion, NEI, stated that the RuleNet project was broadly advertised and that NEI had represented the industry. He roMed that RuleNet enhanced communications, but could be more affective in discussing specific focused areas such as draft generic letters and NRC bulletins, or as an alternative to public  ;

meetings. Mr. Marion concluded that, to the extent more effective l communications relate to properly informed decisions, which link to safety, RuleNet is a safety improvement.

NRC Presentation Mr. William Olmstead, Office of the General Counsel, explained that the RuleNet initiative originated as a result of NRC participation in the National Performance Review's RegNet process. He noted that the use of electronic commnication in licensing poses problems because the information t.5.mt used to consist of hard copies, which became part of the public record, is now transmitted between computers. Mr. Olmstead stated that the NRC used RuleNet to reach agreement with the public on the statement of the issues associated with the fire protection rulemaking. Phase I of RuleNet identified issues. Phase II reached agreement on the statement of the issues.

Phase III asked for public comments on proposed resolutions of the issues. Mr. Olmstead explained that the NRC did not use scoring or weighing of participant responses, but attempted to develop a consensus on the issues.

\;l ..

U. .

l 430th ACRS Meeting 16 t -April 11-13,.1996

.1 Conclusion l_ ~ The~ Committee took_no action based on this information-briefing, i-i

X. EXECUTIVE SESSION ~(Open) 4

[ Note: Dr. John T. Larkins was the Designated Federal Official for y this portion.of the meeting.]

0 A. Reports, Letters and Memoranda i

Continued Need for United States Membershin in the l

Nuclear Enerav Aaency (Report to Shirley Ann Jackson, j

~ Chairman, NRC, f rom T. S . Kress, Chairmen, ACRS, dated ~'

. April 17,J1996.)'

l .

j Recommendations for Annointment of ACRS Members (Report to Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman, NRC, from T.S. Kress, Chairman, ACRS, dated. April-19, 1996.)

j Westinahouse Best-Estimate Loss-of-Coolant Accident

!' Analysis Methodoloav (Report to Shirley Ann Jackson,-

P Chairman, NRC, f rom T. S . Kress, Chairman, ACRS,: dated April 19, 1996.)

" .Pronosed Revh.i.ons to ' 10 CFR Parts 50 and 100 and .

, Pronomed' Reaulatorv Guides Relatina - to Reactor Site j

.J. -Criteria (Report to Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman, NRC,.

from T.S. Kress, Chdirman, ACRS, dated, April 22, 1996.)

Probabilistic Risk Assessment Framework, Pilot Aeolica--

5- .tions, and Next Steos - to Emand the Use of PRA in the C

Reaulatorv Decision-Makina Process (Report to Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman, NRC, from T.S. Kress, Chairman, ACRS,

[ dated April 23, 1996.)

Pronomed Standard Review Plan for ' Dry Cask Storagg Systems (Memorandum. to James M. Taylor, Execu-tive Director for Operations, from John T. Larkins, I Executive Director, ACRS, dated April 22,1996) - Consis- l tent with the'ACRS/ACNW decision, Dr. Larkins informed. 1 Mr. Taylor that the ACRS/ACNW~ decided not to review the _

l proposed Standard Review Plan'at this time. .j 1

Draft Resoonse to Questions on the Pronosed Revisions to 10 CFR Part 100 and Part 50 (SECY-94-194) (Memorandum to  !

= Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman, NRC, from John T. Larkins, i Executive' Director, ACRS,' dated April 24, 1996) i 1

, i

. o. j 430th ACRS Meeting 17 April 11-13, 1996 B. Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommendations ,

[ Note: Mr. Sam Duraiswamy was the Designated Federal Official for this portion of the meeting.] '

The Committee discussed the response from the NRC Executive Director for Operations to ACRS comments and recommendations ,

1 included in recent ACRS reports:

EDO letter dated March 15, 1996, responding to the ACRS '

report dated February 23, 1996, concerning the Westing- i house best-estimate loss-of-coolant accident analysis methodology.

l i The Committee decided that it was satisfied with the EDO response.

f EDO letter dated March 21, 1996, responding to the ACRS letter dated February 22, 1996, concerning Revision 2 to i Regulatory Guide 1.149, " Nuclear Power Plant Simulation I 1

Facilities for Use in Operator License Examinations."

The Committee decided that it was satisfied with the EDO response.

EDO letter dated March 22, 1996, responding to the ACRS letter dated February 26, 1996, concerning the proposed final NRC Bulletin 96-XX, " Potential Plugging of Emergen- _ l j

cy Core Cooling Suction Strainers by Debris in BWR," and  ;

an associated draft revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.82,  !

, " Water Sources for Long-term Recirculation Cooling j Following a Loss-of-Coolant Accident."

The Committee decided that it was satisfied with the EDO response.

EDO letter dated April 4, 1996, responding to the ACRS letter dated March 14, 1996, concerning the resolution of Generic Safety Issue 78.

The Committee decided that it was satisfied with the EDO response.

EDO letter dated Apr31 10, 1996, responding to the ACRS letter dated March 8, 1996, concerning the use of Individual Plant Examinations in the regulatory process.

The Committee decided to continue its discussion of thic matter during its review of the IPE Insights Report.

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

4 430th ACRS Meeting' 18

April 11-13, 1996  :

C. Report on the Meeting of the Planning and Procedures  !

i Subcommittee (Open) ,

l

[ The Committee heard a report from.Dr. Kress on the Planning I and Procedures Subcommittee meeting, held on April 10, 1996.  !

The following items were discussed:  ?

1. CANDIDATES FOR ACRS MEMBERSHIP '

~

s An- interview schedule was established to screen five I

! applicants for ACRS membership. During the Full Commit- i i tee meeting,-a decision was to be made regarding which  !

applicants should be recommended to the Commission. '

RECOMMENDATION s .:

The Subcommittee referred this matter to the full .

Committee.

1

2. INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS Dr. Hicken, RSK Reactor Safety . Committee, was given-possible meeting dates from June until November 1996. He said he~ ~ would consult with his Committee (GRS) and suggest.a meeting date, probably in the fall.

A message from Canada . suggested a meeting in late September or early October. -A draft reply would suggest i October 9, 1996, the day preceding the October meeting.

RECOMMENDATION l

The Subcommittee recommends that a meeting with the Canadian ACNS be proposed for October 9, 1996.

3. JOINT ACRS/ACNN SUBCOMMITTEE

^

Minutes of the first meeting have been prepared and I approved by Dr. Garrick. Proposed topics for the next meeting, to be held on August 1-2,'1996, are the agency's safety philosophy, use of expert judgment, the Brookhaven l National Laboratory risk analysis,.and decommissioning.  !

RECOMMENDATION The Subcommittee notes the following Joint Subcommittee recommendations:

e that the Standard Review Plan for Dry Cask Storage Systems not be reviewed at this time; a

m

.~_ - - - -

, c ,

430th ACRS Meeting 19  :

. April-11-13, 1996

e that decommissioning be reviewed after.the Brook-

- hoven National Laboratory risk analysis has' been completed and the proposed final rule on'decommis-sioning has been prepared by the staff after recon-ciliation of public comments; and e that a' letter on.the health effects of low levels of ionizing radiation be drafted by Dis. Garrick and Steindler for approval by both Full Committees.

The Subcommittee recommended that risk harmonization be added to the agenda for the next Joint Subcommittee-meeting.

4. RESEARCH The Commission met with Dr.-Boulette, Chairman of the NSRRC, Dr. Morrison, and Mr. Milhoan on March 27, 1996, to discuss recent NSRRC activities. . During - Dr. Mor-rison's opening-remarks, he stated-that the ACRS review of the RES programs had been limited and infrequent since the formation of the NSRRC. He further stated that the ACRS had "more or less turned all of the responsibilitles over to the NSRRC. " These comments were discussed by the Subcommittee'. -j RECOMMENDATION The Subcommittee recommended that a procedure be~estab- ]

lished for a routine exchange of reports between the ACRS '

and the NSRRC and that the-Full Committee discuss this matter further.

5. -INTERNET CONNECTION i

.A contract has been approved to give all' ACRS/ACNW l members access to the Internet. The first nine hours are free and some additional time can be provided. Members .

should indicate to R. Summers whether they want this  !

connection or not. ,

RECOMMENDATION j The Subcommittee recommended that all members contact .R.

Summers during ~ the Full Committee meeting concerning their need for an Internet connection.'

6. Fee Billinc

~ ~

I , .'

430th ACRS Meeting 20 April 11-13, 1996 To support fees billed to industry for plant-specific activities, an "Other" category will be added to the Compensation Worksheet. The new category will provide space for members to specify each plant activity for which preparation time was spent.

RECOMMENDATION The Subcommittee recommended that for each Subcommittee meeting, members be told the category to which time should be charged for preparation, travel and meeting time for that meeting.

7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Dr. Miller was invited to attend the National Academy of Sciences /N&cional Research Council May 21-23, 1996 Digital I&C Committee meeting. Because the ACRS may later review the information discussed at the NAS/NRC Committee meeting, Dr. Miller's participation raises the question of a potential conflict of interest.

RECOMMENDATION The Gubcommittee recommended that Dr. Miller establish at the beginning of the meeting chat he was there as an observer only and not to participate substantially in the deliberations of the NAS/NRC on behalf of the ACRS, because the ACRS would be providing comments to the Commission on the NAS/NRC study.

8. TRAVEL The following travel requests have been received:

• Dr. Miller to attend the 1996 ^ ANS International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Plant Instrumentation, Control, and Human Machine Interface Technologies i (May 6-9, 1996), State College, PA.

l e Dr. Cattoa to attend the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency '

Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations Workshop on Transient Thermal-Hydraulic and Neu- j tronic Codes Requirements (Nov. 5-8, 1996), Annapo- 4 lis, Maryland.  !

e Dr. Fontana to attend the 1996 ANS Annual Meeting and the Technical Program Committee Meeting for the 1997 ANS Advanced Reactor Systems Topical Meeting.

,t t

'430th ACRS Meeting 21 April 11-13, 1996

• Dr. Kress to attend the ANS Annual Meeting in Reno, NV.

RECOMMENDATION i The Subcommittee approves the above travel requests. .The Subcommittee recommended that, as a matter of principle, ACRS members attend only one me'eting a year that can be

' categorized as being strictly for professional-develop-ment or for maintaining professional credentials.

. 10. MEMBERS' ISSUES I e A memorandum from Dr. Powers asked whether the ACRS L or _ a _ subcommittee should examine the issue of a 1 design basis terrorist attack on nuclear installa-4 tions.

l e Mr. Carroll provided a draft memorandum for-signa-ture by Ms. Pat Norry, Director, Office of Adminis-tration, concerning the change of policy regarding use of an office in the home. This draft was pro-vided to Ms. Norry. No reply-has been received as yet.

• A memorandum from Dr. Powers to Dr. Seale informed the Committee of the decision.by the Department of State to withdraw from OECD/NEA.

RECQMMENDATIONS e The Subcommittee recommended that the issue of terrorist attacks be referred to the Safeguards and Security Subcommittee, and that the Subcommittee Chairman propose a course of action.

e The Subcommittee recommended that Dr. Seale draf t a 3 etter to the Commission on the possible withdrawal of the U.S. from the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency.

D. Future Meeting Agenda ,

)

Appendix IV summarizes the proposed items endorsed by the Committee for the 431st ACRS Meeting, May 23-25, 1996.  ;

i The 430th ACRS meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. on Saturday, April 13, 1996.

, . JYff :wn5y &^aRR (" ' '+~W

• s=*-

y ~~- - .. y fem MM ht. No. 58 / Monday. March 25. 1996 / Nodcas 12113 that the pmposed aedom wiH act how Representatives of the nuclear e Risk-Based Performanr= Indicators a signi8 mat eSect on the gaskty of the industry will participate, as appropriate.

• AEOD study on spent fuel pools human environment. AW, the 12 a.m.-12:30 p.M.: Severe Acadent e Recent interaction with INPO

Commission has deterudned'ast to Research (Open)-b Committee will ( event analysis, etc.)

prepare an environmentalimpact heer prenantations by and hold ** U to on Technical Training f statement for the proposed action discussions with representatives of 6 Center s. e.g.. Digital !&C. and For further details with respect to this NRC sta5 regarding the domestic and speciali training ofinspection l'

action, see h application for limnas foreign research activities in the severe elin support of cunent risk.

' amendment dated September 6.1995, acddent area. NRC severs accident methods applications:

I Copies are available for public codes (e g. MELCOR. SCDAP/RELAP5 -Implementation of Maintenance Rule 4

inspection at the r=mia= ion's Public CONTAIN. and VICTORIA), and related -Inservice inspection Mnservice Testing

. Document Room, the Gelman Building, matters. 20:25 a.m.-!2:25 a.m.: Spent Puel 2120 L Street. NW. Washington. DC Representatives of b nuclear I 20555, and at the local public document industry will participate, as appropnate. Project Committee Office willActivities (OpenHThe hear a repon by the i room located at the Callaway County 12:30 pm.-J pm.:Gmded QuaHty Assurance (OpenHN Sub-mittee Chairman concoming the i Public Library. 710 Coun Street. Fulton. matters discussed during the March 26.

Committee hear presentations by Missouri 65251. 1996 joint ACRS/ACNW Subcomnuttee

and hold discussions with De et Rockville. Maryland, thie 18th day representatives of the NRC stag meeting. Including the Spent Fuel a = ,ogn, din.h c,aded oustity A.surance PmieciOinceactivities.

For the Nuclear Reguletory en== Won. darn-mf anioning, and health effects of and related matters.

< K'i*d** MM*****- Reprmentatives of b nuclear low-level radiation. N Committee will Propet Manager. Presser Directorote lV-2. Industry will participate, as appropriate. also hear presentations by and hold Drmon of Reactor Propens Elv. Ofsce of J:25 pm.-4 p.m.: Report ofthe discussions with representatives of the N"*I**' 3*****' B*6UI*t'**- Planning and Procedures Subcommittee NRC sta5reganiing activities of the

[FR Doc. 96 '144 Filed 3-22-06; 8:45 aml (Open/ Closed)-The Committee will Spent Fuel Project Offim including the j j

susse coes name$-e hear a repon of the Planning and proposed Cand=>d Review Plan for dry l

! Procedures Sub=mittee on matters cask storage systems related to the conduct of ACRS  !!:25 am.-!f:45 am.: Future ACMS Advisory Committee ce Reactor businaam, and or=ni=*4an=1 and Activities (Open)-N Committee will Meguertis, Meeting personnel matters relating to the ACRS discuss rec =nmandations of the l Planning and Pmoedures Subcommittee staH.

i In accordance with h urposes of ^ Pordon of this session may be regarding items propcmd for 3 Sections 29 and 182b. of t e Atomic closed to discuss qualifications of censideration by the full Committee Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039,2232b), the durir g future meetings

] candidates

Advisory Committee on Reactor to the ACRS.nomtnated organhationsfor afandpointment 2 2

45 cm.-12 Noon: Reconciliation of

Safeguards will hold a meeting on April personnel matters that relate solely to ACRS Comments and the internal personnel rules and Recommer.dations (OpenHN 2 3 115 vi e Pi Rockvi

• practices of this Advisory Committee, e-mittee will discuss the responses Maryland. The date of this meeting was and matters the roleene of which would from the NRC Executive Director for previously published in the Federal constitute a clearly unwarranted Operations (EDO) to rnmmants and Register on Monday. November 27 invasion of personal privacy. m=andations included in remot ins (60 FR 58393L 4 p.m.-7 p.m.:Prepamtion of ACRS ACRS . N EDO responses are Reports (Open)-N Committee will to be provided to the ACRS Thursday. April 11,1996 discuss proposed ACRS reports on prior to the meeting.

8:30 a.m.-8.45 a.m.: Operu.n8 matters considered duttog this meeting 1 pm.-2:15 p.m.: Weetinghouse Hemarks by the ACRS Chairman as well ac pnopoeed AcRS reports on COBRA / TRAC Beet-Estimate ECCS (Open)--Tha ACRS Chainnan wiH maka PR A Framework Document and Ues of Thermal Hydraube Code ( n/

Pening remarks regarding condu.::t of PRA in the Regulato Process, and CloemdHN r-mittee hear the meeting and comment briefly Resolution of the MuTtiple System Presseestians by and hold discussions regarding items of current interest. Responses Pro 5 ram (MSRP) lasues. with representatives of the Dunng this session, the r ==ittee will Westinghouse Electric Corporation and discuss priorities for pstyeesson of Friday April 12.1996 h NRC stas r ACRS reports. -

8:30 cm.-8:35 a.m.: Opening ACRS conoems@relatea to theresponse to 8:45 a.m.-20:45 AM.:Propoeed Final Remarks by the ACRS Charman Waaringhouse COBRAITRAC Best.

Revisions to 20 CFR part 30 and 10 CFR (Open)-Tire ACRS Chairman will make Estimate ECCS Nrmal Hydraulic part 200. " Reactor Site Criteria" opening remarks regarding conduct of Code.

(Open)--The Committee will hear the meeting. A portion of this session may be presentations by and hold discussions 8:35 a.m.-10 a.m.: Meeting with the closed to discuss Westinghuse with representatives of the NRC staf Director of the NRC Office for Analysis proprietary information applicable to regarding the proposed final revisions to and Evaluation of Operational Data this metter.

10 CFR part 50 and to CFR part 100. (AEOD)(OpenHThe Committee will 2:25 p.m.-2:45 pm.: Use of RuleNet m new appendix S to pan 50. and hear presentations by and hold the Rulemaking Process (Open)--N associated Regulatory Guides and discussions with Mr. Edward Jordan. Committee will hear presentations by Standard Review Plan sections. These AEOD Director, on items of mutual and held discussions with

( proposed revisions include relocation of interest. including representatives of the Nuclear Energy plant design cnteria, and source term . AEOD activtues associated with the Institute regardmg the expenence and dose calculcions from 10 CFR part development of risk informed and gainet, through the use of RuleNet in the 100 to 10 CFR part 50. performance-based regulations rulemahng process.

w

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

12114 Federal Eagister / Vcl. 61 No. 58 / M:nday, March 25, 1996 / Noticos Representatives of the NRC ska5 will 552b(c)(4), and to discuss matters the j participets, as op te. at approximately 9:00 AM. for a general 3 pmA pm.: release of which would constitute a discussion among Committee members ofACRS clearly unwarranted invasion of

! Reparts [Open)-- Counittee will and other Executive OfEcs staff about discuss propoemd ACRS reports on personal privacy per 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(e). future PCAST activities. This session Further information regarding topics will end at approximately 12:00 Noon.

l matters considered d this meetias I

to be discuneed, whethw the meeting Any of the morning or afternoon '

l as well as proposed A reports on has been cancelled or reacheduled, the PRA Fremework n--.ne and Use of sessions may be interrupted for the Chairman's ruling on requests for the PCAST to gather at the White House to PRA in the Process, and opportunity to present oral statements i .

Resolution of the M S be introduced to the President and/or I l Responam Program (M and the tisce allotted therefor can be Vice President of the United States. I

) obtained by contacting Mr. Sam I Duraiswamy. Chief, Nuclear Reactors Fon PuntNan asPomb4ADON: For Setenlay, April 13, teos 2

' Branch (telephone 301/415-7364). information regarding time, place, and 8:30 a.m.-J 2:30 cm.:Properation of agenda, please call Evelyn Diaz. at (202)

ACRS Reports (Open)-m enmmittee between 7:30 A.M. and 4:15 P.M. EST.

ACRS meeting notims, meeting 456-6100, prior to 3:00 PM on Friday.

will continue discussion of ACRS mports on matters canal transcripts, and letter reports are now April Crochd 12.1996.

to AngelaOther 1uestions Phi 11ps Diaz. ' may be

during this meeting as well as the available on FedWorld from the "NRC Execudve Secretary of PCAST. or

{

i g

P Posed sports on other matters nomd MAIN MENU." Direct Dial Access F%ahath M. Gunn Senior Policy number to FedWorld is (800) 303-4672; Analyst for PCAST, at (2021456-6100 2 45 o m.-! p m.:Stra 'e Plantilag the local disset dial sunber is 703-321- Please note that ublic seating for this (Open).- he Counmittee focuss 432nd ACRS meeting date has items that are of signiacant importance [first-come* first$e i' i been changed to June 12-15,1996- ed '

to NRC. including rebaselining of the supFLamsf7Any sePonaAADON: The

! Committee acdvities for FY 96-97. Date: March 19.1996-i Procedures for the maduct of and AndrewI Setes.

President'senmmittee of Advisors on j Science and Technology was participation in ACRS meetings were Adnsory Comaustee Management Offiosr established on November 23,1993, b

published in the Federal Register on (FR Doc. 96-7143 Filed 3-22-es; a 45 mm) Executive Order 12882, as amended,y

September 27,1996 (60 FR 49925). In 1 sums ones aussw and continued through September 30, accordatwa with these procedures, oral l 1997, by Executive Order 12974. The or written statements may be presented purpose of PCASTis to advise the

by members of the public, electronic i recordings willbe permitted only OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND President on matters of national TEC6960U)GY POUCY importance that have significant science l during the open portions of the ===eing and technology content, and to assist '

and questions may be asked only by ' lesoung of tw President's Committee the President's National Science and members of ther ammittee,its of Adyteors on Science end i

consultants. and rtaft Persons desiring Technology Councilin securing private Technology sector participation in its activities. De 1 4

to make oral statements should notify j Mr. Sam Duraiswamy ', 'tief. Nuclear Acncer: Notice of meeting. Committee members are distinguished

individuals oppointed by the President Reactors Bmnch, at Isa t five days

< before the snesdag, if ; assible, so that cuensur* This nodos sets fore 6e from non-Federal sectors. no PCAST is schedule and summary agenda for a co-chaired by John H. Gibbons.

! *PPropriate arranger

• mts can be made

to allow the neesere time during the meeting of the President's e nemittee of Assistet to the President for Science 1 mee'.ing for such sk ,ments. Use of still. Advisors on Sdence and Technology sad Technology, and by John Young, j motion picture, and television cameros (PCAST), ud hba 6e funedons of former President and CEO of Hewlett-the ra==tttee. Notice of this meeting is Packard Company. (

, during this meeting may be !!mited to l selected portions of the meeting as required under the Federal Advisory Deted: March 4. tees.

Commitus Am. h Ana Farpmeen, i deennined h 6e N-Infonnada mgar&ng 6e une te set DATs3 AND Pt. ACE: April 15-19,1996. AssJssantDirectorfor Audget and l uide for this N White House Conference Coater, Admind8tretion. Offic' */Sc"ac' 8ad Truman Room, nird Floor,726 Jackson TechadagyPdicy ranch to the m In Place NW, Washington, DC 20500. (FR Doc. 96-6569 Filed 3-22-96; a:45 am) i view of the that the ule Tyn or esseTus0* Ope. ""8""""

} for ACRS meetings anay be adjusted by PnopossD SCHEDULE AND AGBIDA: b the Chairman as -ry to fedlitate PCAST will meet in open session on i the conduct of the meeting, nursday, April 16,1996,at PEACE N plann'.ng to attend should with apprmimately 9:00 AM on curmnt the Chief of the Nuclear Reactors Branch activities of the Office of Sdence and Informenon Conecton Pat

• Under if such reacheduling would result in Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Ohm h ma!or inconvenience. National Science and Technol Amescv: Peace Corps.

In accordance with subeection 10(d) Council (NSTC). This seeston end Pub. l 92-463,I have dotarmined that Acnoes: Notice of public use form at apprnvimately 12:00 Noun. Yne mytow request to the Office of i

it is a-==='y to close portions of this Committee will reconvene in open meeting noted above to discuss == rears y.n.g.manr and Budist.

session at approximately 1:30 PM to that relate solely to the internal discuss adence and technology policies suomauf: Pursuant to the Paperwork personnel rules and practices of this of nationalimportancs. nis session Redudion Act (44 U.S.C chapter 35)

Advisory rammittee per 5 U.S.C. will and at approximately 5:00 PM. this nettos ====== that the 552b(c)(2), to diama= Westinghouse m en=mittee will meet again in information colledian mquests proprietary information per 5 U.S.C. open session on Friday, April 19,1996, abstracted below have been forwerded I

, , . , , v .' A

v APPENDIX II

.- g*pe na [og

. UNITED $TATES

o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{ ,U ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS O, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665  ;

%, *' l Revised l March 25, 1996 l SCHEDULE AND OUTLINE FOR DISCUSSION 430th ACRS MEETING l APRIL 11-13, 1996 l Thursday. Anril 11. 1996. Conference Room 253. Two White Flint North.

Rockville. Maryland

1) 8:30 -

8:hkA.M. ODenina Remarks by the ACRS Chairman (Open) 1.1) Opening Statement (TSK/SD) 1.2) Items of Current Interest (TSK/JTL/SD) 1.3) Priorities for Preparation of ACRS Reports (TSK/SD)

2) 8:kd -

Of45 A.M. ProDosed Final Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, and 10 CFR Part 100. " Reactor Site Criteria" (Open) (WJL/AS) l 2.1) Remarks by the Subcommittee Chairman l 2.2) Briefing by and discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the proposed final  ;

i revisions to 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 100, new Appendix S to Part 50 and associated Regulatory Guides and Standard Review Plan sections.

These proposed revisions include <

relocation of plant design criteria,  !

and source term and dose calculations from 10 CFR Part 100 to 10 CFR Part 50.

Representatives of the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate.

T ll- 12 00 M:45 - 21:00 A.M. BREAK

/

t 2: oo I: or Severe Accident Research (Open) (MHF/NFD)

3) 21: 00 2T30 P . M .

3.1) Remarks by the Subcommittee Chairman 3.2) Briefing by and discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the domestic and foreign research activities in the severe accident area, NRC severe accident codes (e.g., MELCOR, SCDAP/RELAP5, CONTAIN, and VICTORIA), and related matters.

N

• • S *I #

7AAu5c M 80 YO

ey 4

4 2

Representatives of the nuclear industry will parcicipate, as appropriate.

J:oy 4f 1:h40 -

1:34 P.M. LUNCH  ;

4) 1:hk -

3:be P.M. Graded Ouality Assurance Procram (Open)

(CJW/MME) 4.1) Remarks by the Subcommittee Chairman 4.2) Briefing by and discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the Graded Quality Assur-  ;

ance Program and related matters.

Representatives of the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate.

s IS 30 3:00 -

3: 55 P.M. BREAK

/ 1

5) 3: h h $d P.M. Westinohouse COBRA / TRAC Best-Estimate ECCS l

Thermal Hydraulic Code (Open/ Closed)

Closed: (IC/PAB) 5.1) Remarks by the Subcommittee Chairman 3:37 -

4: 40 f. H. 5.2) Briefing by and discussions with representatives of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation and the NRC  !

staff regarding response to ACRS i concerns related to the Westinghouse COBRA / TRAC Best-Estimate ECCS Thermal i Hydraulic Code.

i

[ Note: A portion of this session may be closed to discuss Westinghouse proprietary i information applicable to this matter] l

6) h $$ -

7:00 P.M. Precaration of ACRS Reoorts (Open)

Discussion of proposed ACRS reports on:

6.1) Proposed Final Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, and 10 CFR Part 100, Reactor Site Criteria (WJL/AS) 6.2) Severe Accident Research (MHF/NFD) 6.3) PRA Framework Document and next step to expand the Use of PRA in the Regulatory Process (GA/MTM) 6.4) Resolution of the Multiple System Responses Program (MSRP) Issues (CJW/MME/AWC)

l e' ? ,

, e . .

3 6.5) Westinghouse COBRA / TRAC Best-Estimate ECCS Thermal Hydraulic Code (IC/PAB)

Friday, April 12, 1996, Conference Room 2B3. Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland

7) 8:30 -

8:35 A.M. Ocenino Remarks by the ACRS Chairman (Open)

(TSK/SD)

8) 8:35 -

10:hhA.M. Meetina with the Director of the NRC Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Ooerational Data (AEOD) (Open) (TSK/MME) 8.1) Remarks by the ACRS Chairman 8.2) Briefing by and discussions with Mr. Edward Jordan, AEOD Director, on items of mutual interest, including:

e AEOD activities associated with the development of risk-informed and performance-based regulations e Risk-Based Performance Indicators e AEOD study on spent fuel pools e Recent interaction with INPO (training, event analysis, etc.)

e Update on Technical Training Center programs, e.g., Digital I&C, and specialized training of inspection personnel in support of current risk-based methods applications:

- Implementation of Maintenance Rule

- In-service Inspection

- In-service Testing 2,5 40 10:@0 -

10:H A.M. BREAK

9) 10:$k - 11:15 A.M. Scent Fuel Proiect Office Activities (Open) (TSK/NFD/RS) 9.1) Report by the Subcommittee Chairman concerning the matters discussed during the March 26, 1996 Joint ACRS/ACNW Subcommittee meeting, including the Spent Fuel Project Office activities, decommissioning, and health effects of low-level radiation.

.. .~ , \

s

• Te a l

5 4  !

9.2). Briefing by and discussions with  !

representatives of the NRC staff j regarding activities of the Spent  !

Fuel Project Office, including the l proposed Standard Review Plan for ,

dry cask stcrage systems.

T  !

10) 11:15 - 12: k-P.M. Recort of the Plannina and Procedures Subcommittee (Open/ Closed) (TSK/JTL) pLosch :- Report of the Planning and Procedures i Subcommittee on matters related to the ,

11: 3o- s1:so AH. conduct of ACRS business, and organizational l and personnel matters relating to the ACRS l staff. t i

(Note: A portion of this session may  ;

be closed to discuss qualifications of .

candidates nominated for appointment to i the ACRS, organizational and personnel  !

. matters that' relate solely to the internal  :

personnel rules and practices of this  ;

Advisory Committee, and matters the release i of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.] j 1

t So 30 1 12:13 -

1:56 P.M. LUNCH I 30 2:25

11) 1: 25 -

MS P .M. Use of RuleNet in the Rulemakina Process (Open) (RLS/NFD) j 11.1) Remarks by the Subcommittee Chairman 11.2) Briefing by and discussions with j representatives of the Nuclear Energy Institute regarding the experience gained through the use of RuleNet in the rulemaking process.

Representatives of the NRC staff will participate, as appropriate.

12) 9945 -

3F35 P.M. Future ACRS Activities (Open) (TSK/SD)

Discussion of the recommendations of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee regard-ing items proposed for consideration by the full Committee during future meetings.

i

4 5 ?

(

1 5  !

3 3 :f o

13) 2hk$ E?90 P.M. Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and

Recommendations (Open) (TSK, et.al./SD, j et.al.) i

. Discussion of the responses from the NRC Executive Director for Operations to comments and recommendations included in l recent ACRS reports.

3 :io 3: 2r 2490 -

2=.95 P.M. BREAK

14) hkk - h 0 P.M. Preoaration of ACRS Renorts (Open)

Discussion of proposed ACRS reports on:

14.1) Proposed Final Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, and 10 CFR Part 100, Reactor Site Criteria (WJL/AS) 14.2) Severe Accident Research (MHF/NFD) 14.3) PRA Framework Document and next step to expand the Use of PRA in the Regulatory Process (GA/MTM) 14.4) Resolution of the Multiple System Responses Program (MSRP) Issues 1 (CJW/MME/AWC)  ;

14.5) Westinghouse COBRA / TRAC Best-Estimate  !

Thermal Hydraulic Code (IC/PAB) 14.6) Standard Review Plan for Dry Cask Storage Systems (tentative)

(TSK/NFD/RS)

Saturday. Anril 13. 1996. Conference Roan 2B3. Two White Flint North.

Rockville. Maryland

15) 8:3h -

11:30 A.M. Prenaration of ACRS Recorts (Open)

Continue discussion of proposed ACRS reports identified under Item 14.

11:30 -

11:45 A.M. BREAK 2:fo

16) 11:45 -

in@9 P.M. Stratecic Plannino (Cpen) (TSK/JTL)

Discussion of items of significant importance to NRC, including rebaselining of the Committee activities for FY 96-97.

NOTE: e Presentation time should not exceed 50 percent of the total time allocated for a specific item. The remaining 50 percent of the tLas is reserved for discussion.

e Number of copies of the presentation materials to be provided to the ACRS - 35.

APPENDIX IV: FUTURE AGENDA The Committee agreed to consider the following during the 431st ACRS Meeting, May 23-25, 1996:

IPE Insichts Reoort - The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and its consultants regarding the IPE Insights Report, with emphasis on issues pertaining to safety goals. Representatives of the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate.

Proposed Rule on Shutdown operations - The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the proposed rule on shutdown operations, the associated Regulatory Guide, and results of the NRC staf f study of shutdown risk at Surry and Grand Gulf nuclear plants. Representa-tives of the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate.

Dicital Instrumentation and Control Systems - The Committee will

~

hear present 1tions by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC stuff and its consultants regarding proposed Standard Review Plan Sections, Regulatory Guides, and Branch Technical Positions associated with digital instrumentation and control systems. Representatives of the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate.

Reculatory Review Group Recommendations - The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding the status of resolution and implementation of the Regulatory Review Group Recommendations. Representatives of the nuclear industry will participate, as appropriate.

l Meetina with the NRC Commissioners - The Committee will meet with the NRC Commissioners to discuss items of mutual interest, l l

including the following:

e Use of IPEs in the regulatory process, PRA framework document, pilot applications and next step to expand the use of PRA in the regulatory process e Fire protection issues, including fire PRA models and PRA-based scoping analysis of degraded fire barriers e Proposed final revisions to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 100 e e Status of ACRS review of Regulatory Guidance documents related to digital instrumentation and control systema e Status of ACRS review of standard plant designs:

- ABWR and system ou+ design certification rules

- AP600 design

- Test and analysis programs associated with the AP600 and SBWR designs

a d5l APPENDIX V LIST OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE COMMITTEE

[ Note: Some documents listed below may have been provided or prepared for Committee use only. These documents must be reviewed l I

prior to release to the public.]

MEETING HANDOUTS AGENDA DOCUMENTS ITEM NO.

1 Openina Remarks by the ACRS Chairman

1. Items of Interest, dated April 11-13, 1996.

2 Procosed Final Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, and 10 CFR Part 100. " Reactor Site Criteria"

2. Draft Final Rule, Revision of 10 CFR Parts 50, 100, dated April 11, 1996, Presented by Leonard Soffer and Andrew Murphy (Viewgraphc]

3. Staff Presentation on the Part 50 and Part 100 Rulemaking, DBA Dose Calculations Sensitivity Scaling Analyses, dated April 11, 1996, Presented By Barry Zalcman [Viewgraphs]

4. Revision of 10 CFR Parts 50, 52 and 100, dated April 11, 1996, Presented by M.W. Gmyrek and R.L. Andersen, NEI

[Viewgraphs)

5. Westinghouse Electric Comments on Proposed Change to 10 CFR 50, dated April 11, 1996, by James L. Grover (Handout]

3 Severe Accident Research

6. Status of the Severe Accident Research Program, dated April 11, 1006, Presented by Charles Ader [Viewgraphs]

4 Graded Ouality Assurance Procram

7. Graded Quality Assurance Initiative, dated April 11, 1996, Presented by Suzanne Black [Viewgraphs]

5 Westinchouse COBRA / TRAC Best-Estimate ECCS Thermal Hydraulic Code

8. Westinghouse Best-Estimate LOCA Methodology: Blowdown Heat Transfer Distributions and Minimum Film Boiling Temperature, dated April 11, 1996, Presented by M . Y .

o / '$ ' /

Appendix V 2 ACRS Meeting Young [Viewgraphs]

9. NRR Review of Westinghouse Best-Estimate ECCS Code, dated April 11, 1996, Presented by Robert C. Jones [Viewgraphs) 8 Meetina with the Director of the NRC Office for Analysis and '

Evaluation of ODerational Data (AEOD) i

10. ACRS Briefing, dated April 12, 1996, Presented by Edward L. Jordan, Director, AEOD [Viewgraphs]

10 Reoort of the Planninc and Procedures Subcommittee

11. Final Draft Minutes of Planning and Procedures Subcommittee Meeting - April 10, 1996 [ Handout #10.1]

12. Memorandum from Howard <T. Larson, ACNW staff, to ACNW Members, dated March 27, 1996: Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee Presentation to Commission March 27, 1996 11 Use of RuleNet in the Rulemakino Process

13. NEI Views on NRC RuleNet Pilot Project, dated April 12, 1996, Presented by George Wu [Viewgraphs]

14. Sample pages of the NRC Home Page [ Handout].

12 Future ACRS Activities

15. Future ACRS Activities - 431st ACRS Meeting, May 23-25, 1996 [ Handout #12.1]

13 Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommendations

16. Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommendations

[ Handout #13.1]

t

a$I?

Appendix V 3

-+1-8th ~ACRS Meeting 430th MEETING NOTEBOOK CONTENTS T.BR DOCUMENTS 2 Procosed Final Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, and 10 CFR Part 100. " Reactor Site Criteria"

1. Table of Contents

2. Proposed Schedule

3. Status Report, dated April 11, 1995 1

4. Memorandum from T. Speis, Office of Nuclear Regulatory  ;

Research, to J. Larkins, ACRS, dated March 6, 1996:  ;

Revisions ' of 10 CFR Part 100< Reactor Site Criteria,  !

Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, New Appendix S to Part 50 I (Final Rules) and Associated Regulatory Guides and 1 Standard Review Plan Sections, and Attachments 3 Severe Accident Research

5. Table of Contents

6. Agenda

{

7. Status Report, dated April 11, 1995

8. Letter from D. Ward, Chairman, ACRS, to Ivan Selin, Chairman, NRC, dated August 18, 1992: Severe Accident Research Program Plan

9. Minutes from the ACRS Severe Accidents Subcommittee  !

Meeting, March 1, 1996 l

4 Graded Ouality Assurance Procram

10. Table of Contents

12. Tentative Agenda

13. Status Report, dated April 11, 1995

14. SECY-95-059, dated March 10, 1995: Development of Graded Quality Assurance Methodology

15. Draft Guideline for Implementing a Graded Approach to Quality, Nuclear Energy Institute, dated June 1995.

16. NRR Draf t Evaluation Guide, Development of Graded Quality Assurance Program, Revision 5, dated January 1996 5 Westinchouse COBRA / TRAC Best-Estimate ECCS Thermal Hydraulic '

.Q2d.e

17. Table of Contents

18. Presentation Schedule

19. Project Status Report, dated April 11, 1995

20. Report from T. Kress, Chairman, ACRS to S. Jackson, Chairman, NRC, dated February 23, 1996: Westinghouse Best-Estimate Loss-of-Coolant Accident Analysis Methodology

. NVf l

Appendix V 4 4t8th ACRS Meeting .

l 950t4 ,

21. Letter from J. Taylor, EDO, to T. Kress, Chairman, ACRS, I i

dated March 15, 1996 i

, 22. Letter to R. Jones, NRR, from N. Liparulo, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), dated March 25, 1996: Resolution of Issues Related to Review of WCAP-12945-P [Contains j~ Proprietary Material -

Do Not Release Without Prior Authorization) 8 Meetina with the Director of the NRC Office for Analysis and

Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD) ,

l

23. Table of Contents l 24. Tentative Agenda

25. Status Report, dated April 12, 1995 i

26. Memorandum from J. Larkins, ACRS, to E. Jordan, AEOD,  !

' dated March 21, 1996: ACRS Meeting with the Director of l the NRC Office for Analysis and Evaluat ion of Operational l Data - April 12, 1996, Rockville, Maryland l

11 Use of RuleNet in the Rulemakina Process J 27. Table of Contents j

28. Agenda

29. Status Report, dated April 12, 1995  !

i 30. SRM from J. Hoyle, SECY, to J. Larkins, ACRS, dated i December 22. 1995: Meeting with the ACRS, Friday, December 8, 1995 j i

31. Memorandum from J. Larkins, ACRS, to ACRS Members, dated January 23, 1996: SRM on the NRC RuleNet Program

32. RuleNet Pages printed from the Internet, March 29, 1996 ,

33. Letter from W. Rasin, NEI, to NEI Nuclear Strategic Issues Advisory Committee, dated December 1, 1995: NRC RuleNet Program