ML20140H635
| ML20140H635 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/11/1996 |
| From: | Savio R NRC |
| To: | Donna Anderson, Gaskins L, Rowe C NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140H556 | List: |
| References | |
| ACRS-3042, NUDOCS 9705130204 | |
| Download: ML20140H635 (2) | |
Text
- - - - -. - _. -. -..
t l$< ', h I
i From:
Rich:rd Savio j
To':.
cari,das,lmg2 Date:
7/11/9611:59am l
Subject:
res coordination CAROL / DONNA / LILLIE-By way of our Omce's coordination with Jose Cortez and the RES's NSRRC l would like you to continue to do/ start to do the following:
- 1) Send (hard copy, regular mail) all publicly available (not classified, relating to perso, nel matters, etc) ACRS and ACNW repor3 to the NSRRC chairman and Jose Cortez. They should already be on your distribution lists.
l
- 2) Send (via e-mail) all subcommittee, working group, and full committee agenda to Jose.
j
- 3) Send Jose copies of our current member and staff subcommittoe/ working group i
' assignment lists and the revisions as they are issued so he can be currently informed i
as to who is responsible for what.
- 4) Send Jose,as they are issued, the annual lists of the scheduling of full committee meetings and the mocthly lists of the scheduling of antipicated ACRS subcommittee l
meetings.
l Our old (1991) agreement only provides for informing NSRRC of meetings and reports I
which involve research topics whereas this provides information on all of our activities.
l The effort (particularly with electronic distribution) and amount of material under this j
new arrangment should not be excessive and will avoid having a staff engineer or a manager having to flag individual documents before the documents are sent to Jose, i
which invites ommissions. Jose is also likely to find the additional information useful.
j Let me know if this needs further explaination. Thanks Dick Savio l
CC:
rkm1,hjl sxd1 1
1 i
i i
i l
i l
l i
1 1
i i
9705130204 961206 PDR ACRS 3042 PDR 4
t*
Attachments:
Subject:
Request for Review of Generic Letter 95-03, "Circumferential Cracking of Steam Generator Tubes" 2.
Memorandum dated May 15, 1995, from Mr. F. Miraglia, NRR, to i
Mr.
E.
Jordan, CRGR,
Subject:
Request for Review and Endorsement of Proposed Generic Letter Supplement Titled l
" Reactor Vessel Structuri.1 Integrity" 3.
Selected slides from the staff presentation on Generic Letter 92-01 cc w/o att:
J. Larkins R. Savio S. Duraiswamy R. Sherry j
ACRS Technical Staff a
i 1
a 4
1 4
Patty Disk: Travel Frm 6@ %
ACRS SPECIAL TRAVEL ENDORSEMENT FORM THIS FORM IS TO BE USED TO REQUEST ACRS ENDORSEMENT OF SPECIAL TRAVEL REQUESTS BY MEMB WHEN NRC SUPPORT FOR PARTIAL OR FULL REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND/0R TIME IS DESIRED.
THIS PROCEDURE IN NO WAY LIMITS THE FREEDOM OF A MEMBER TO PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING AS AN INDIVIDUAL AT PERSONAL EXPENSE.
PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE PLANNING AND PROCEDURES SUBCOMMITTEE AT LEAST 60 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEETING IF POSSIBLE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION MAY BE ADDED AS DETAILS DEVELOP.
Member Name:
kO6gv[ [.
2.</fg e4 Date Submitted:
//
//2-7[97 Dates of Planned Trip:
/ /42 /9 7 to Destination:
AA-eu- [
Mae e-Meeting or Facility to be Visited:
C c[m e[e #wb 8eJM Eci$k C$, R uce.
Purpose / Relevance to ACRS Business: '3 w b a ~ re w //s c/ d [u_r on w,werf vca. h
& j d r ~
'i s l3
/
W.,o ls t/aa b h
//i ~ Swwy Se/s cow, m E Participation (Invited Speaker, paper presented, etc.):
L 44Me/ d abd e.5 kCU atwfx.
Justification (Foreign Travel Only):
Je mYe /
ACf] w[d-aJ G ma :Yn iin'S cms lb+ $ ' - A<,-/s 0l 7.ssu e.s -
d s,,t;j C
77"n
- nedl, NRC SUPPORT REQUESTED Daysf Air Fare: Yes No Per Diem: Yes No Registration:
7 Compensation:
Yes
/
No Days k
g NUCLEAR CEOU CORAtelSSION casumsves.ccames Cys: Taylor i
Milhoan l
...g.
Angmat 21. 1986 Thompson 81aha j
orres or was i
secastaar l
MEMORANDUM TO:
James L. Nilboan'
~
Co-chairpersos, Strategic Assessment and l
Rebaselining steering committee i
James N. Johnson Co-chairperson, Strategic Assessment and j
Rebaselining steering Committee i
1 j
James M. Taylor l
Executive Director for Operations l
John T. Larkins e utive Director /ACRS/ACNW I
b FROM:
ohn oyle, Secretary l
l
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - CDMSECY-96-028 -
i STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT ISSUE PAPER:
INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT (DSI 19) i
{
The Commission does not beliews that this issue is direction j
catting and believes that.it should not be included in the set of j
issue papers for public comment.
In addition to the Strategic t
Assessment and Rebaselining Steering Committee, the Advisory Ccmmittee on Reactor Safeguards, Advisory Committee on Nuclear Weste, and the EDO are requested to respond to the actions dsscribed below.
Furthermore, this issue paper should be given l
normal distribution associated with SECY papers.
The issue paper does not require revision prior to release.
l l
The Commission continues to believe that independent technical cversight is essential in order to ensure that NRC's products are of the highest technical quality and the Commission's decisions l
hcve the public's confidence.
But considering the changing i
onvironment, the reduction of workloads in a number of areas i
under the purview of several of the referenced independent oversight committees, the duplication of the activities between committees in some areas, and the cost in funds and FTE's i
associated with all the agency's committees, the Commission's
{
dacasion on this DSI is modified versions of options 2 (Continue i
Current Independent Technical Oversight; conduct comprehensive, i
Paraodie Review of Committee Charters) and 1 (Establish Criteria to Articulate the Threshold for the Need and Type of Independent Tochnical Oversight) as summarised below:
4 1.
(Modified option 2) The ACRS should remain as the i
!/2 1
17 i.
l l
Q409TT00k
- 0..
.... ~ -
n r/*
\\
2-i Commission's primary independent technical oversight i
committee.
The coussission believes that the coasnittee's charter should be given a comprehensive review to evaluate what adjustments in the scope end depth of the committee's charter are needed in ' light of clie changing external and j
internal factors discussed in the DSI paper.
Even though the AQnt is experiencing a decrease an its activities and there are also many uncertainties about the agency's future activities associated with HIM and LLW programs, the Commission continues to believe that issues presently being addressed by the AQnt will continue to exist in one form or anothers therefore, the Commission believes that some form of independent technical oversight should be retained for the areas under the purview of the ACNW.
The Commission requests that ACNN retain its current foria in the j
interim but the staff should examine the pros and cons of having ACNW remain in its current form or as a stand alon*e 1
i subcommittee of ACRS.
Either option would allow the
{
Ccmmission to retain independent technical oversight of both
- areas, i.e., reactors and waste.
This also preserves the i
i eption of having an active body of expertise available
{
should the activities under the purview of both the ACRS and j
the ACNW increase in the future.
l tACRS/ACNW)
(SECY Suspense:
1/2/97) i.
2.
Che Commission believes that the role of the ACMUI should be re-examined and addressed after the determination is made on ene NRC's role in the materials / medical program area.
(&GG/ACMUI)
(SECY Suspense:
100 days after final j
NMSS Commission decision on medical program).
9600117 i
l 3.
(Modified Option 1)
The Commission believes that the j
activities of the NSRRC should be revisited.
This committee j
played an important role in its first few years of existence 2n ensuring the effectiveness of the research program in j
addressing the evolving regulatory needs.
l (EOG/NSRRC)
(SECY Suspense:
9/30/96) i RES 9600118 i
4.
The Commission believes that CRGR should be retained but its l
scope should be revisited.
While the Commission continues j
to believe the scope should be expanded to include HMSS 1
activity, it also believes consideration should be given to
{
- ncluding reactor inspection guidance within the scope of I
CRGR.
l MOG/CRGR)
(SECY Suspense:
11/29/96) j AE00 9600119
)
- n general, for the independent oversight committees that remain, on well as the CRGR, the Commission supports Option 2 but 1
beheves that the periodic reviews should not be limited to only
}
- ..e c:9mittee charters.
Each committee should be evaluated to j
- ner :ne what value it is contributing to achieving the agency's i
\\'
'f-
.g.
mission, but the committes should also be directly involved in t'his s' valuation,.
That is a set of criteria, for com, mission consideration _. under which the j f performance of the committee would be evaluated in the future f
Each committee should then periodically review itself against these criteria and provide the results of this evaluation to th Commission.
e (ACRS/ACNW) 30220 RE3 (ED0/MSRRC)
(SECT Suspense:
1/2/97)
)0121 AE00 (EB0/CRGR)
(SECY Suspense:
6/30/97) 10122 Ist35 (Eco/ACMUI)
(SECY Suspense:
11/29/96)
(SECY Suspense:
one year after final decision on medical program)
E ec:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dieus K. Cyr (OCC)
D.
Rathbun (OCA)
H. Bell (OIG) i i
1 11 6