ML20211F643
| ML20211F643 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/29/1999 |
| From: | Garick B NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) |
| To: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211F640 | List: |
| References | |
| NACNUCLE, NUDOCS 9908310042 | |
| Download: ML20211F643 (29) | |
Text
f. p uag jog UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
[4}-
g g
t ADVISORY COMMITTEE oN NUCLEAR WASTE
, Q WASHINGTON. D.C. 20666
....+
~
April 29,1999 The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Chairman Jackson:
1
SUBJECT:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE METRICS AND SELF-ASSESSMENT EVALUATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 Executive Summary The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) has developed a three-tiered system to measure its performance against its desired outcomes, goals, and process improvements described previously in its 1998 Strategic Plan. Although several areas for improvement remain, i the Committee has concluded that significant progress has been made in achieving the desired effectiveness and timeliness of its activities. Appendix A provides a detailed examination of the relation between the Committee's reports and the various metrics of overall performance.
Introduction in 1998, the ACNW developed a Strategic Plan (subsequently renamed an Action Plan in 1999) as a guide for providing independent and timely technical advice to the NRC on nuclear waste disposai and nuclear waste management issues (NUREG/BR-0050). The plan was anchored to the NRC's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 1997-2002. This report gives the results of an assessment of the performance of the ACNWin FY 1998.
The goals of the ACNW identified in its Strategic Plan were to assist the NRC in (1) positioning itself to respond to challenges and uncertainties as it enters the 21st century, (2) bringing to bear the best science and technology in resolving key issues, (3) bringing a risk-informed approach to the forefront of decisionmaking, (4) improving public involvement, and (5) improving the effectiveness and efficiency of ACNWs operational processes.
The ACNW used a three-tiered system to measure its performance relative to the mission, vision, desired outcomes, commitments, objectives, and planned process improvements identified in its Strategic Plan. , ,
o 9908310042 990816 m S PDR COP 918 NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR o w
'o N l' e
c I
l~ Tier-One Metrics, which are aimed at measuring overall outcomes from individual Committee ,
reports, include timeliness, effectiveness, efficiency, quality, and use of a risk-informed, performance-based regulatory (RIPBR) approach. The definitions of the five metrice are derived from the vision, desired outcomes, and commitments sections in the Strategic Plan. Tier-Two l Metrics are designed to measure the extent to which the Committee achieved its first four goals by tracking recurring themes from Committee reports. Tier-Three Metrics are aimed at tracking the specific process improvements identified in the plan under Goal 5, which focuses on improving Committee efficiency and effectiveness. Thus, the three-tier system provides a means for evaluating the Committee's performance relative to all aspects of its Strategic Plan.
Baals for Evaluation in conducting its evaluation, the ACNW compared its FY 1998 reports and activities to the performance metrics. In evaluating its performance, the Committee relied on (1) direct evidence of whether the advice was accepted or adopted by the NRC staff; (2) customer feedback, based on formal surveys, staff requirements memoranda (SRMs), response from the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) and other correspondence; and (3) indirect evidence based on verbal feedback from the NRC staff, the Commission, the Department of Energy (DOE), the nuclear industry, and the public, or observed modifications in NRC's, DOE's, or industry's programs or approaches.
I To facilitate conducting the self-assessment, the Committee developed a tracking system for {
each of its letters to document the rnajor recommendations, the essence of the ED,O's response, any solicited or unsolicited feedback (verbal comments, correspondence, SRMs, etc.), and an evaluation of each letter's timeliness, effectiveness, efficiency, quality, and risk significance.
Table 1 of Appendix A summarizes the results of the tracking system. The detailed self-assessment is provided in Appendix A; an overview is presented herein.
General Observations and Conclusions With respect to the Tier-One Metrics (timeliness, effectiveness, efficiency, quality, and use of an RIPBR approach), a letter that best exemplifies the Committee's overall effectiveness is letter 7',
which commented on the agency's RIPBR white paper. The ACNW recommended in this letter that NRC adopt an RIPBR framework and the triplet definition of risk 8throughout the agency's programs. The recommendations were incorporated into the white paper during its revision.
Other exemplary letters in terms of overall effectiveness include letter 3, concerning defense in depth, and letter 6, conceming multiple barriers, both of which included recommendations to show the effectiveness of individual barriers and to drop the subsystem requirements. The staff adopted these recommendations in its proposed draft high-level waste rule,10 CFR Part 63.
' Letters are numbered in Table 1 of appendix A.
'The triplet definition of risk considers what can go wrong, what is the likelihood, and what are the consequences.
2 4
i
Regarding its Tier-Two Metrics (Table 2 of Appendix A), the Committee met all of its first four
. goals by making recommendations related to Goals 1-4 throughout the majority of its letters.
Many of these recommendations appear in more than one letter and are referred to as key themes in Table 2.
With respect to Goal 4, improving public involvement, the Committee took only passive approaches to encouraging greater stakeholder participation in developing NRC regulations and programs. The ACNW plans to be more active in this area in 1999, as indicated in its January 22,1999 Action Plan.
In several instances, the advice offered by the ACNW did not result in any action by the staff.
For example, the Committee recommended that performance assessment be used to reprioritize key technicalissues (Goal 3); that a systems engineering approach be taken and a systems engineering analysis be developed for the high-level program (Goal 3); that the NRC Research and Technical Assistance programs adopt an RIPBR approach; that a more formal and transparent process of identifying the most important areas for research and technical assistance be implemented (Goal 3); and that the NRC staff involve outside senior, recognized experts in its work to avoid problems at the time of licensing (Goals 1 and 2). The ACNW plans to pursue further discussions with the staff in these areas in 1999.
Finally, with respect to the Tier-Three Metrics related to Goal 5, improving the effectiveness and efficiency of ACNWs operational processes, the Committee did a good job of meeting its first metric of gaining earlier access to predecisional material, thereby providing more timely advice (see Tier-Three Metrics in Appendix A). The Committee sees opportunities for improvements in some of the remaining process-oriented metrics, including spending more time during Committee meetings on strategic planning and future agenda planning; spending more time meeting with individual Commissioners to follow up on letters; ensuring that letters are clear and concise; and increasing the number of interactions with program office directors during Committee meetings. In part, these processes were not improved because of the heavy workload and time constraints on the Committee. The Committee has since reevaluated the need for these selected process improvements and has decided to select other targets in its 1999 Action Plan.
Sincerely,
- 0 Mk 1
~ L.
B. J. Garrick Chairman Attachments:
- 1. Appendix A: The Three-Tier Self-Assessment Measurement System, including Tables 1 "ACNW Summary Matrix of FY 98 Letters and Outcomes," and Table 2 ' Key Themes of FY 98 ACNW Letters."
- 2. Appendix B: ACNW Goals and Objectives From NUREG/BR-0050.
3
3
[~ . Appendix A The Three-Tier Self-Assessment Measurement System Tier One Outcome Metrics
- 1. Timeliness -Timeliness is based on whether the ACNW's advice is provided to the ,
Commission before a Commission decision or before the NRC staff develops a final Commission paper or position. Timeliness also includes advice that alerts the ,
Commission in advance to issues that could interfere with NRC's mission or that may j require action or attention.
]
The ACNW developed several letters that it considers timely because they were provided before the Commission voted on whether to approve the issue, or before the staff developed a position paper on the topic. An excellent example of timeliness is letter 3 conceming defense in depth (DID) (October 31,1997). The ACNW engaged the NMSS staff in discussions on DID approximately 1 1/2 years before it issued the proposed draft high-level waste (HLW) rule,10 CFR Part 63, and the ACNW advice was provided in ample time to influence development of the rule. In its DID letter, the ACNW recommended adopting a risk-informed, performance-based regulation (RIPBR) approach that relies on the use of performance assessment (PA) to quantify the contribution of individual barriers. Similarly, in letter 6, concerning support for the multiple barrier approach (March 6,1998), the ACNW provided advice when the staff's proposed strategy 6 draft 10 CFR 63 was still a predecisional document and before the Commission voted to approve a proposed strategy.
The ACNW considers severalletters timely because they were provided to meet a stringent deadline established by the Commission. Examples include letter 7, concerning comments on the RIPBR white paper (March 98), and letter 8, concerning comments on the decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) interim guidance (April 29,1998), on which the Commission requested the ACNW's advice before voting to approve the guidance for a 2-year trial period.
Finally, several letters were timely because they alerted the Commission to forthcoming issues, including letter 1, concerning comments on PA capability in the HLW program; letter 9, l l
conceming the NRC staff's plans to review viability assessment (VA) (June 19,1998); letter 10, conceming total systems sensitivity (July 29,1998); and letter 13, concerning the engineered l barrier system (EBS) (September 9,1998). In each of these letters, the ACNW advised the )
Commission of the increasing emphasis on EBSs in the Department of Energy's (DOE's) approach to complying with the HLW standard, and letters 1,10, and 13 warned the Commission of the need to increase staff capability in engineering analysis. We also alerted the Commission in NUREG-1635 to the need for more involvement of outside experts in NRC's HLW program before licensing.
- 2. Effectiveness - Effectiveness is based on whether the advice is incorporated into NRC policies, approaches, and regulations; whether the advice is forward looking, proactive, or challenges the status quo; and whether the advice is responsive to the Commission's needs or requests, or triggers Commission action.
A-1
. . , mn . . i s . .- ,
p q-
/- ' The ACNW considers one of its most effective letters to have been letter 3, concoming DID (October 1997), because its advice was incorporated into the draft 10 CFR Part 63 approved by the Commission for public comment. In addition, the advice was cited in the Commission paper transmitting the proposed strategy to develop the draft HLW rule and was quoted in the Statements of Consideration (SOC) of the draft rule. Another important letter in this regard was letter 6, support for multiple barrier approach (March 98). The advice was effective in that the draft rule does not contain subsystem requirements but does require demonstration of multiple barriers and quantification of uncertainty, as recommended by the ACNW. Also, the staff indicated in the SOC of the rule that implementing guidance would contain requirements for quantification of individual barriers. The ACNW intends to follow the development of the Yucca Mountain review plan guidance to ensure that its advice is implemented.
Other examples that demonstrate the effectiveness of ACNW letters are letters 7 and 8. In letter 7, concoming the (RIPBR) white paper (March 98), the ACNWs recommendations on risk assessment for radioactive waste management were substantially adopted by the Commission and incorporated directly into the agency white peper. Similarly, the Committee's recommendations in letter 8 conceming interim guidance for the final radiological criteria rule
- (April 98) were factored directly into the Commission's staff requirements memorandum (SRM) for staff action. The Committee recognizes that incorporation of its recommendations into the SRM is not direct evidence that the advice will be incorporated into the D&D guidance.
i Finally, other letters that the ACNW considers effective include letters 1 and 2. In letter 1, i concoming PA capability (October 97), the ACNW recommended the need for verifying the total system performance assessment (TPA) 3 code and exposing it to extensive peer review and the need to acquire more engineering capability to evaluate the EBS design options. These recommendations resulted in the staff's setting up of a peer review of the code at the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis (CNWRA) beginning in early 1999, as well as the staff's acquiring additional engineering expertise. In letter 2, conceming probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and PA (October 97), the Committee recommended development of a post-processor to i
rank order contributors to risk. This recommendation resulted in ACNWs providing a small amount of funding to NMSS for the CNWRA to conduct a feasibility study for development of a post-processing tool. The NRC and CNWRA staffs have met with an ACNW member and consultants to discuss the details, of the project.
- 3. Efficiency - Efficiency is a measure of whether the advice was produced in a cost-effective manner, based on the efficiency of Committee processes and effective use of resources. Examples include focusing the Committee's efforts through development and use of strategic planning, measuring outcomes, carrying out specific process improvements, and collaborating with the ACRS or others. Another aspect of this metric is whether the advice, if implemented, will result in greater efficiency in NRC's regulatory program.
The most significant example for this metric is letter 4, conceming the ACNW 1998 Strategic Plan (December 97), which, when followed, enabled the ACNW to nearly double its output frc.m the previous year. In addition, the plan enabled the Committee to address all five of its Tier-One priorities and two of its Tier-Two priorities, which included responding to four requests from the Commission. - The Committee's tracking system, self assessment, and other tools (see Table 1)
A-2
- i. have contributed to greater efficiency, as have increased use of videoconferences between I ACNW, the NRC staff, the CNWRA, and the DOE. The Committee also made '
recommendations in letters 2,6, and 12 that, if implemented, should lead to greater efficiency.
In these letters, the Committee recommended the use of techniques for making pas more transparent and useful, such as a post-processor to rank order contributors. In addition, in letters 7,8, and 10, the Committee conveyed the need for the agency to adopt a flexible framework for risk-informed decisionmaking in the waste and materials arena, which should lead to greatly improved efficiency and consistency in carrying out its regulatory responsibilities.
- 4. Quality - Quality is based on whether the advice is technically sound, is clear and concise, and reflects the Committee's independence; whether advice incorporates state-of-the art science and technology and can be readily incorporated into regulatory practicos; whether the advice reflects international trends or developments; and whether the advice is perceived by the Commission or the staff as adding value.
The Committee believes that all of its Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 letters met the first criterion and also reflected the ACNWs independence. Several of the letters also met this metric because the Committee recommended use of state-of-the-art PRA risk assessment techniques for waste disposal. These letters include 1, PA capability; 2, PRA/PA; 3, DID; 7, RIPBR: and 10, total sensitivity studies. Letter 13, on the HLW EBS, exemplifies the quality metric because it reflected international perspectives, and letters 5, Issue Resolution Status Reports (IRSRs), and 9, NRC proposed review of viability assessment VA, exemplify the quality metric because the format used was particularly clear and concise.
- 5. Use of a Risk-Informed. Performance-Based Reaulation (RIPBR) Anoroach -This measure of performance is based on whether the advice reflects consideration of the risk significance of an issue and is aimed at understanding the risk, the contributors to risk, and the uncertainties. The measure may also be based on whether the advice, if implemented, reflects a balance between risk, benefit, and costs to society, or whether the advice reflects a bottom line rather than a prescriptive approach.
The Committee considers that all of its letters met the RIPB metric because each letter actively reflected the Committee's fundamental approach that risk should be used as the basis for decisionmakmg.
Tier-One Observations l One letter met all five of the Tier-One Metrics: letter 7, on the RIPBR white paper. Letters j meeting four of the five Tier-One Metrics include 2, PRA/PA; 3, DID; and 6, multiple barriers.
I Letters meeting at least three metrics include 1, PA Capability; 8, D&D; and #10, total sensitivity analysis. Allletters met at least one of the Tier-one Metrics.
Tier Two Metrics for Measuring Progress Toward Meeting ACNW's Goals 14 i The approach used to evaluate compliance with the Tier-Two Metrics involved first identifying recurring themes throughout the letters and then determining which of ACNWs first four goals and associated objectives were supported by each of the themes. Goal 5 is evaluated A-3
. . .- .. - ~ m ,. s .
j separately under the three-tier metrics. The themes and the number of the corresponding goals and objectives are incorporated in Table 2. Finally, the disposition or outcome of each of the recurring themes is documented in Table 2. Appendix B contains a complete list of the ACNW goals and objectives from its 1998 Strategic Plan. The ACNW believes that this comparison of goals, themes, and outcomes is a useful method for demonstrating how it achieved its 1998 goals.
Tier-Two Observations The Committee addressed each of its goals on the basis of recurring themes from the FY 1998 letters. The goal most often addressed in the Committee's letters related to risk (Goal 3),
followed by Goals 2,1, and 4, in decreasing order of mention. The most effective themes were related to Goals 2 and 3, that is, verify the TPA code and expose it to extensive peer review (related to Goal 2) and use PA to show the effectiveness of individual barriers in 10 CFR Part 63 and drop the subsystem requirements (related to Goal 3).
Some of the themes are considered to have been less effective because they did not result in any action by the staff. These themes recommended use of PA to reprioritize key technical issues (KTis) (Goal 3), take a systems engineering approach and develop systems engineering analysis (Goal 3), adopt an RIPBR approach for the NRC RES and Technical Assistant (TA) programs and a more formal and transparent process for identifying the most important areas for research (Goal 3), and finally, involve outside senior, recognized experts in NRC staff work to avoid problems at the time of licensing (Goals 1 and 2).
Tier-Three Metrica for improving Operational Procedures - Goal 5 Tier-Three Metrics are designed to measure whether ACNW improved its efficiency and effectiveness, including modifying specified procedures, in its Strategic Plan, the ACNW addressed improvement in its current processes for the following activities: letter writing, scope and duration of meetings, interactions with the Commissioners and the program offices, and use of ACNW staff and consultants. The following specific actions were measured Metric 1: Consider options for gaining early access to predecisional material to assist the Committee in providing more timely advice.
Action: The Committee raised the issue with OGC, the Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs, Commissioner McGaffigan, and other Commissioners and their technical assistants and initiated a routine database search for newly issued SECY documents. Some letters (e.g.,3, DID; 7, RIPBR White Paper; 6, Multiple Barriers; 8, D&D Guidance; and 12, draft 10 CFR Part 63) were prepared on the basis of early receipt of predecisional material, in all five examples, the advice was provided before s Commission vote was cast.
A-4 I
\
Metric 2: Spend more time during Committee meetings on strategic planning and future agenda planning.
Action: The Committee spent no more time this year on strategic planning or future agenda planning than it did in the previous year.
Metric 3: Spend more Committee time meeting one-on-one with Commissioners to followup on letters and works in progress, alert Commissioners to potential problem issues, and discuss topics of interest to Commissioners.
Action: Individual Committee members met at least once with every Commissioner but the Committee did not increase this effort in comparison to the previous year.
Metric 4: Ensure all letters are clear, concise, and consistent.
Action: The letter that best met this criterion was letter 5, IRSR process, principally because it explicitly identified an observation and a recommendation for every major point. The Committee will strive to use this format in future letters.
Metric 5: Increase the number of interactions with program office directors during Committee meetings.
I Action: The intention of the Committee was to establish a closer relationship with the Directors of the offices the ACNWinteracts with most often, including RES, Spent Fuel, and NMSS. During FY 1998, the Committee met once with Carl Paperiello, j Director of NMSS, and once with Hugh Thompson, Deputy EDO. It is not clear l whether there was improvement over the previous year.
Tier Three Observations The ACNW was most effective in implementing Metric 1, related to increasing the number of reviews on predecisionalissues. There was less measurable activity in the other metrics. The l Committee has revised most of its process improvements in its 1999 Action Plan. l l
Overall
Conclusions:
Accomplishments and Areas for improvement The Committee's most effective letter was letter 7 on the agency's RIPB white paper, which met all five of the Tier-One Metrics. The NRC Chairman incorporated most of the Committee's letter directly into the revised white paper. In addition, other letters meeting most of the Tier-One Metrics included letters 3 and 6, which recommended the need to show the effectiveness of individual barriers (letter 6) and to drop the subsystem requirements in the proposed draft HLW rule,10 CFR Part 63 (letter 3). Both of these recommendations relate to Goal 3. The staff incorporated this idea into its draft rule and is working on supporting guidance to better describe how the transparency of individual barriers might be achieved. The Committee will continue to follow and guide the development of the regulation and regulatory guidance.
A-5
1
The Committee plans to increase its efforts in encouraging greater stakeholder participation in
- NRC regulations and programs, which is related to Goal 4. Examples in which the Committee's ,
advice resulted in no action by the staff include recommendations to use PA to reprioritize KTis (relates to Goal 3); to take a systems engineering approach and develop systems engineering analysis (relates to Goal 3); to adopt an RIPBR approach for the NRC RES program for developing a more formal and transparent process of identifying the most important areas for research (relates to Goal 3); and to involve outside senior, recognized experts in the NRC staff's work to avoid problems at the time of licensing (relates to Goals 1 and 2). When appropriate, the ACNW plans to pursue further discussion with the staff in these areas in 1999 (see the Action Plan January 22,1999).
Finally, with respect to Goal 5, the Committee was effective in reviewing more predecisional material before a Commission vote, thereby contributing its advice to the outcomes. The Committee sees opportunities for improvements in other targeted process areas including spending more time during Committee meetings on strategic planning and future agenda planning, spending more Committee time meeting one-on-one with Commissioners to followup on letters, ensuring that all letters are clear and concise, and increasing the number of interactions with program office directors during Committee meetings. The Committee has since reevaluated the need for these selected process improvements and has selected new targets in its 1999 Action Plan that it believes will bring about greater efficiency and effectiveness.
i A-6
l lf j lIl ll!!!!I, i ,,
g I II l
I!!illilll!
illlIll!!!
I !!W!!!!!,
llllli11i i l! !l!!
l l!!llI!Oli li j
l, I!!I!!i!!It
' fI kl l
! 1 lllll
' lij[hds l!lllill i 111,1 1
ii l I lil,I3!
l l111 1 111lli fl!lli
>!p!
~
l lj!
la, i ldlili .
e i !
~I di
!a!!jl!!p1b mlli, l
ll 1111!Il Ilil 'O!r Il
~
b
!!!! ll lhl amp
! illmlalli ellIIlil s: l m
1 i M l! ..
if ! !
jj!ll
% l
_m
) , ilillIl!
p 4
} dili ili!
I
! I !!! !!!
i _
r11 lir11 .
l } II 1 lli!!i .
l i
l!!! !IIII!II 1 f Ii
!! $ ll!!l
e , . ,% v u* V e U% 1 i e " =~ f 4, e , e to l lillilIlit ll!!!lill g ,,
E l
s' l
I !I !I g _
11 li!
l 1 a itih i bil
!k -
, 9; y- -
l_
I sh hh. bl oI 9
l !IO !Slllll i 1 !l lllll}
i o I ,ll !!I t l 11~ idi i _ .
B 1. 1 *
, j11}
,! g: II! g
!! !!l!llI Olli!!Il,lN!!
!!I!!N lh!I!!
or31 s i iL ,lj}
i:!!il! L .
j I ~
j! lhy I l l!
i!llll1 !!ll!!!
i] . .
lI !. ! _
l' ! !!!lIllOlll lllI!!Ili
~
in 93ligik li !I!IdnwilIlli e j illihm! ;
i
. l
} h p
i i lifillt
~
i si ~
i i 11 i l I l
ll j .i l[ -
b
!!! f!!h i
IB ll1
! $ll$$1 ui i 1
H!l
!_ nl l in i e
R 8 e e P
d n u v S d -
R I
R ae n i
t a y ,
I y s cl ag dnla u v ds i 3
c oie ar gin d r e aT e
rK o
- i _
6En e g g hl t pvisns vt an s l af ROg9 n n emotce 3 ah oc o _
FDa n n moduc ins _
Cot 0t n o $n ci o e e
e e
n s cndo i f so anr op 6
R F
t ot sy dnle i l so yit a a 1 i l i t u m y y icts -
eat etniar _
t ad ;b c g i
g l a c ;e gnpos C nlu _
f a
t ee d i. n n nn 0 nip aav _
t e e f a ye _
dl rd o n pR c a a
A au i d
e d
e ae o a b u gi f r sii od 1
t f
omr sf p o t i
ve a -
rWr l
sf p i r t
not o d e
d e ysl peciy e n pi nc, :; d r eaa t ir so .
i i cNier e e t
o ntse s n eg did n nai edi nCr n .
t a at r u e;s e l t n uh b snt c t
aasd e e o gd sAa i
anb v emid v i r r ciul s ou r ip o
pde w af w i i aruhcr t y d t i
i o h
o h
o gsieol t nnwjf bi yb t
i t e
a nho ol c a,es t h t
aim .
i o
c oo r
rh vnfahs s
t t
s e
t s
e i
n eo n oda r o
hes t
i vu _
S i npa o u u i
mt o eup a p
r dmlo e
st o elaiv s o d r; t n i
o R xer nctsc asa sisr t
at nes i
i c i t y veb o er E weepe au s
ay t . i .
ay eut sayg n aar r vo i
e s o encmpq l
it b e t i i
uli T i ei i l
sqnmlin i i e er t dn cam en cb cb l T i i i no oie r b c c ela E f a f a f i i su f us ac eersd hmf vng f vdot h i
i f
ap f ap f ao v alcu du d Agr ch e ce i
L wt t a t a t Ste d pfem A d Acr o e t Sitnh Sc Sc W _
N ; ; , ; 1 C 22 22 2 1 e
2 s e
A S 4 ee vv ee vv e
v v m v i i ii ii i t t t 8 d n
t t cc t t cc c c c e
9 Y
F C 3 a ee jj bb OO ee bb OO jj O
b e
j O
b e
j W
G O b
j I
J 2 F 1 2 1 2 23 1 2 3 B s l 2 a
l l l l O
l l O
l a
l l aa aa aa a ad _
o oo oo oo o o on -
E M
E H S T R Y
E 3 3 K 1 3 3 2 2 6 1 U 7 1 1 1 1
N 0 0 6, 2, 0 6 6, 1, 1, , ,
1, 9 2 3 1 5
3 1 s
s s e e e z s ,s u
n y S e o s is e B ut r At e l
a E qr of Tb i
w n mo s Pa Ku t
a s c
fe s o n
o hsr cso i nre g e
zd f r ee t
y s eetuos t c s in t
na i
s e o deos o wm oe i
t J,
1 h a spaier'ir u-t iur s
r hu ni s pT p t d hb sl p m dsno ab c s e ma n eK r
a e apr el to ne ed to u R Ag 2 e e psdar u S n d
Amde i
E Aiw v o
s a l o aod S Pim Ples Pae L P d e ehk vi p
e edl s exn i
B ein rS p r c v e cnd i
o soa A
T Uo s f i mE B I
n Dsri u an D r
Umre Ure sa
~
t d e s i n B w ae P I
sg d
o c
Wc Nl i h
o s ct ag R b dnla ar gin mn A Cu r o
oie C ei r P Ap hl t pvis ns R ts e yen T h a ht emotce N si f
o t
i wgn iw.
moduc o eg skr s cndo ep i anr t
n t n w eo i f so op i ae u
r e
ie eo rl ew l
y yr s cts- d e qs p v e ge r ge acego nni np r t
a de em a p
r r t av e am it a f
aeri oabu r adg m
r o
p at s sy as t
ih e e e
p da od nn rf e
r yslpecp l
r o e dg e i h PB e n pin,le hyn d t t
o c w v el n o is eb hR r ai i t rl s e v i
da sf . w n at u e s ay t
n n nf 9 v a i e ota9 sa aruhcr ity .
emvd et ri t w l d x psY st gsieoli jf i t n
l i ab e e s ,F en r
t o t a p
t a g en oi n d e r
dm i n n en nod w b yb it i
sa r
o n . -
o o eup a a r c p i Oi n t ae e tc 9 Da i
S mt asait nct sca l
d r r n e dg o u9 dla t p o
R ep i n . c d Y Enp nm E xer ayg ma sih nr n nF hgmc eh i T eut s sqnmi it mp oec cea i
e oy do i
T i i
no r oie b l
in l
oe f f i r no c f cl a
r uma o e dt f s E f fach ee mfr sd ao cit agp np i
d v f ae h t ct oru f n aa L eh t l t Si n Aer o t t l St edpfem Rw Sea A Sp W
N 2 2
2 C S e e e A E v i v i t
v it t c
8 V c c e 9 I T e j j e j b b 2 Y C b O O O _
F , .
3 3 2 4 3 F 34 34 l _
a l l l l a
O O l l aa l l aa a a a oo oo o o o o o -
M E
H S T R Y E r e
E t t
K U 2 8 L e
1 ,
N , 0 3 S 9 1 1 E
5, 7 9
7 1 5 R wyeu f
oo e t r r n g i s
s k
s e s
eec cin usnn foik a o pl y i r o na vr eeie kmr hl o t
n a r o pw x n o y t
p rt an y o n cea av f
n ee i it r
o potoc n wo oeg o dv a t
's S eMsc se ei rdn it na rr e ri p
laCm u
cYn as u a ms ec E c ,er p ir in i
gR a a ec p ,e ee t i M a/rstr eq p r aAe ie m f at r eNr g de ea r E f d dr a t
H sRer i is n na ed s/iLn mag op r p g Bor r o uSr r l t g ce r P k P f
T bRuahsbcr oI nl et be imy x eVn e y l
eor ip p Ps Ai v ee gd I
rh 2
r pin e upn at g erfo en c t sf yosi r alo Roc l
f sw mb t
l t W Tn e r nwra uh ae e i
E oaod lol e i ng t yt oe eet e ems t
l it pL f x L er i ved pi - a a oH r ck e e i
B veniv ok kivsp a eya na sae Deiade do m Aio t
ds r d o Ai n t
A crl pi n rf Tr sc Vt Es UfrR T
'm sh d st .
y n
nitge i
,a asa nm hnu l f o ci e a f is aitt v t der mde e sdp gd e Aa x ineb n el l Rne N n niw WIN aes. s O l as p is Ct r s hm dpeer I
T ec vri s nx ae v I
S ian t o O cea P eshed.
jec Cd d Re e S br ei s Ni ziz I
o v l
D ni tymd ni t ygu aroe r a no ac sa t
h a
i rhW pt oN merh S t e sef f R sh dC er vat a
et nA E eya rf p ie s s _
leer . rA _
i gi A et _
anPe 1
e bb t
- f f
aiml d k f f mWse L
StorW SmCi t
f oi l
taeNm t W
N 21 C' S ee A E vv it it 8 V 4 cc 9 I T d jjee Y C n bb 3 -
F a OO 3 , ,
F B s 1 2 O
! l O
l a aa o oo S G GG E
M E
H S T R Y E r r E t e t e
K M U
t e
t e
L L N S S E E R R t s n m d a Ce n t r
Rb l
a r po ,No r g l
aom mf i r
oinpn i S r st i nsids E o eo ssh etr on e orcmrca se ve f
M epac E r i l
H opee dxof iet o T mtn h s t e s k a gr t u dr e e 2 en r o iz om E
praio o pf yfs en wi t L
l i v g 's e vn est n a l
B oof fh A ea Dtrda e er vcat netr sa t
T i I
l Appendix B ACNW Goals and Objectives From NUREG/BR-0050 Goal 1: Assist the NRC in positioning itself to respond to external change and uncertainty in the management of nuclear waste. This goal l supports the NRC mission, vision, and selected strategies or i substrategies under NRC Goals 2 through 7.
Objective 1: Advise the Commission in a timely fashion on issues of a technical nature that may require changes in the regulations.
Objective 2: Inform the Commission about issues that could cause problems for the NRC or society if not given adequate attention and recommend solutions.
Goal 2: Strive to ensure that NRC is employing the best science in resolving )
key safety issues. This goal supports the NRC mission, vision, and l select strategies or substrategies under NRC Goals 2 through 7. (
Objective 1: Keep abreast of cutting-edge methods and technologies being developed and utilized worldwide that are applicable for assessing and managing risks i associated with cleanup, disposal, and storage of nuclear waste. i Objective 2: Advise the Commission on projected or perceived technical shortcomings in NRC ,
staff capabilities that could adversely impact the agency's ability to address i safetyissues.
i Goal 3: Advise the NRC on how to increase its reliance on risk as a basis for decisionmaking, including using risk assessment methods for waste management that (1) implement a risk informed approach; (2) are consistent across programs, where possible; and (3) quantify and reveal uncertainties. This goal supports the NRC mission, vision, ,
and select strategies and substrategies under NRC Goals 2 through 7.
Objective 1: Propose approaches and encourage the staff to gain a better understanding of the inherent risks oflicensed activities in nuclear waste and materials, and the relationship between regulations, cost, and safety.
Objective 2: Examine risk assessment approaches being utilized within the NRC's waste and materials programs and recommend improvements for making more transparent the underlying assumptions and associated uncertainties, incorporating greater realism where appropriate, and identifying apparent inconsistencies in approach.
B-1
r
?
Goal 4: Support the NRC in improving public involvement in its waste i programs and gaining increased public confidence and respect.
This goal supports the NRC mission, vision, and select strategies or ,
substrategies under NRC Goal 6.
Objective 1: Provide opportunities through the Federal Advisory Committee Act process for more public involvement in the regulatory process.
Objective 2: Recommend ways for the NRC to gain more meaningful public involvement in the regulatory process.
Objective 3: Assist the NRC in making more transparent the agency's decisionmaking process and ensuring that agency documentation is thorough, clear, and readily understandable.
Goal 5: Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of ACNW operations. This goal supports the NRC mission, vision, and select strategies or substrategies under NRC Goal 7.
Objective 1: Increase the value of ACNWadvice to the Commission and staff. 1 Objective 2: Improve and modify existing operationalprocedures to accomplish "more with less."
I i
B-2
. .-. x ,
1 l
?
s Appendix B ACNW Goals and Objectives From NUREGIBR-0050 Goal 1: Assist the NRC in positioning itself to respond to external change and uncertainty in the management of nuclear waste. This goal supports the NRC mission, vision, and selected strategies or substrategies under NRC Goals 2 through 7.
Objective 1: Advise the Commission in a timely fashion on issues of a technical nature that may require changes in the regulations.
Objective 2: Inform the Commission about issues that could cause problems for the NRC or society if not given adequate attention and recommend solutions.
Goal 2: Strive to ensure that NRC is employing the best science in resolving key safety issues. This goal supports the NRC mission, vision, and select strategies or substrategies under NRC Goals 2 through 7.
Objective 1: Keep abreast of cutting-edge methods and technologies being developed and utilized worldwide that are applicable for assessing and managing risks associated with cleanup, disposal, and storage of nuclear waste.
Objective 2: Advise the Commission on projected or perceived technical shortcomings in NRC staff capabilities that could adversely impact the agency's ability to address safetyissues.
Goal 3: Advise the NRC on.how to increase its reliance on risk as a basis for decisionmaking, including using risk assessment methods for waste management that (1) implement a risk informed approach; (2) are consistent across programs, where possible; and (3) quantify and reveal uncertainties. This goal supports the NRC mission, vision, and select strategies and substrategies under NRC Goals 2 through 7.
Objective 1: Propose approaches and encourage the staff to gain a better understanding of the inherent risks oflicensed activities in nuclear waste and materials, and the relationship between regulations, cost, and safety.
Objective 2: Examine risk assessment approaches being utilized within the NRC's waste and matorials programs and recommend improvements for making more transparent the underlying assumptions and associated uncertainties, incorporating greater realism where appropriate, and identifying apparent inconsistencies in approach.
B-1
o 1 Y
,' Goal 4: Support the NRC in improving public involvement in its waste
' programs and gaining increased public confidence and respect.
This goal supports the NRC mission, vision, and select strategies or substrategies under NRC Goal 6.
Objective 1: Provide opportunities through the Federal Advisory Committee Act process for more public involvement in the regulatory process.
Objective 2: Recommend ways for the NRC to gain more meaningfulpublic involvement in the regulatoryprocess.
Objective 3: Assist the NRC in making more transparent the agency's decisionmaking process and ensuring that agency documentation is thorough, clear, and readily understandable.
Goal 5: Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of ACNW operations. This goal supports the NRC mission, vision, and select strategies or substrategies under NRC Goal 7.
Objective 1: Increase the value of ACNWadvice to the Commission and staff.
Objective 2: Improve and modify existing operationalprocedures to accomplish "more with less."
i I
1 B-2 l
l I