Text

NRC-2018-000103 - Response 11 - Interim, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed, (Part 2 of 4)
	ML20294A103
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/10/2020
From:	; NRC/OCIO
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20294A094	List: ML20294A096; ML20294A097; ML20294A098; ML20294A099; ML20294A100; ML20294A101; ML20294A102; ML20294A103; ML20294A104; ML20294A105; ML20294A106; ML20294A107; ML20296A416;
References
	FOIA, NRC-2018-000103
	Download: ML20294A103 (115)
	v • d • e

moments take place because of the symmetric loading and end conditions. Even after lhe occurrence of the plastic binges at both ends. the beam will be able to withstand furthcr loading until the cross-section at mid-span yieldc;, leading to the plastic hinge mechanism.

In Figure 2.20, the bending moment along the span may be given by considering the symmetric load condition with regard to mid-span as foUows:

(2.48) where MA = Ma = bending moment at beam endc;.

Since the bending strain energy, V. of the beam with the effective cross-section is calcu-lated from Equation (2.41) and the rotation at fixed end A must be zero, Equation (2.42) is satisfied. By solving Equation (2.42) together with Equation (2.48). M ,._ is determined by (2.49)

Now we get a critical load, qc1 , when both ends just yield: that is, the end moment at x == 0 or L reaches the plastic bending moment, -Mp, namely 12Mr qcl = -i:r- (2.50)

The ma.~imum bending moment. Mnm 1, whkh occurs at mid-span, i.e .. x = L / 2 until both ends just yield, is calculated from Equation (2.48) with Equation (2.49) since q = qc:1 72 ULS DESIGN OF STEEL-PLATED STRUCTURES as follows:

(2.51 )

Even after both ends have yielded. the beam may sustain funher loading until the cross-section at mid-span yields. While the end moment is kept constant at -Mp, the bending moment inside the span will increase. Since the beam can now be considered to be simply supported at both ends, the additional bending moment. 11M, inside the span due to further loading is given by neglecting the membrane stress effects. namely (2.52)

Since the maximum additional bending moment, 6.Mmax, occurs at mid-span. the total (accumulated) maximum bending moment. Mnw,., at mid-span is obtained as follows:

7

2 ) 2 .,

Qc l l (q - qcl L ql'"

MffW, = Mm2, I + AMnu,. = + - - = 2Mv (2.53) where l::i.Mmu = l(q - </d)/8JL 2

Since a plastic hinge mechanism is fonned when the cross-section at mid-span yield,;,

with Mrn:u = Mp. the plastic collapse load, <Jc, of the beam is finally detem1int.-d by 16Mp

<fc:= ~ (2.54)

Using a method similar to that used above. the first cricical or plastic collapse loads of the beams under other load applications, such as those shown in Figures 2.2l(a) and (b).

can be calculated.

=====~---========-==========================================-=====

- - Please note that in Eq (2.53) above, it appears that the last term "- 2Mp" should be corrected to "- Mp".

8

Attachment 3 (Excerpts from "Simplified nonlinear progressive collapse analysis of welded steel moment frames" by Lee et al (2009), Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol 65, 1130-1137)

(bl(4) 9

10 1\Jo+f S hr 1- l, KMs~, 1 l"Yl CL I' (c' ~., A i-r,,I< GV ,

Extraordinary event 4 Th largest recorded earthquake and tsunami 20,000+ killed Cost: $300 B No off-site power . transportation disrupted Bad accident Fukushima accident exacerbated by poor design:

Emergency Diesel location in NSR TB basement Seawall was 30 ft high, tsunami was 45 Tsunamis exceeding 30 feet occur regularly in Japan US nuclear plants protected against external events (hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, earthquakes)

Built into safety analysis, license and design of the plant Revaluation in light ot Fukushima-a rare evnt that did happen Fort Calhoun-PWR just north of Omaha Nebraska on the Missouri river Flooded beyond its design basis in 2012 -protected by a balloon encircling the plant Flooding exceeded design basis, sort of like Fuku PWR vs BWR BWR contains decay heat in reactor and primary containment vessel Must pump water into the containment to remove heat PWR OHR for a PWR is much dif1erent and can be done with no electrical power PWRs use the decay heat energy from the reactor to boil water which is used to drive a turbine driven pump which pumps water into a component that cools the reactor-all with no electrical power Also, PWRs have much more robust containments than BWRs These factors make PW Rs much less susceptible to what happened at Fuku About 39 % of US reactors are BWRs.

Ft. Calhoun Station Normal view of FCS Flooded view of FCS

Cooling a PWR with no Electrical Power AFW Pump 11 AFW D Pump 12 Pump 13 Blocking Valves ETS-ENG-165, Secondary 16 Systems

Understanding the accident of Fukushima Daiichi NPS -

Source IRSN

Major Activities at 1F Unit 5

Flooded by Damaged ~---T-*~

by Tsunami RIB RPV RHR System ry ourc RHR Heat Exchanger r...l!'ll; -- - - Share the electric power supply from DG 68 using temporary RHR Pump cable t l TOICYO ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY

,__ All R1 hts Reserved -12011The Tok, o Electnc Po Ner Compan Inc 22

Impacts for Safety Function r Nuclear fission chain reaction was stopped by automatic shutdown with all control rods inserted at the same time of the earthquake r Off-site power was lost due to the impact of the earthquake, etc. and emergency generator started up.

However emergency power became unavailable due to flooding by the tsunami except for Unit 6.

, Finally the ucooling" function for the reactors and spent fuel pools of Units 1 to 4 were lost due to the loss of AC power supply and seawater systems, etc. caused by the tsunami.

, "Containment" function was impaired with high level contaminated water found in turbine buildings.

Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) Overview Rea ctor Building Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) Shutdown Stop nuclear fission reaction by

/ inserting all control rods that

' absorb neutrons Cooling Cool down reactor Containment coolant & SFP water, and Contain radioactive materials inside keep its temperature low the Reactor Building by five walls Improvised water injection via fire engines

,r_,. - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- --

- 7

[Reference] Core Cooling System under Normal Shutdown

, Nuclear fuels continue to generate decay heat even after stop of fission by control rod insertion

, In order to remove decay heat, "Residual Heat Removal System (RHR)" is installed. RHR pumps circulate reactor coolant and remove heat by sea water through heat exchanger in "Residual Heat Removal Sea water System"

, This will enable fuels in reactors to be kept in stabilized cooling state (under 65°C).

Reactor Building Residual Heat Removal System P mary Loop Reci ulation Pump Residual Heat Removal Sea water pump

1.-

Residual Heat Removal Sea exchanger water system Residual Heat Removal Pump

' note Diagram above depicts RHR system 1J1 Umts 2-5 schematically, however actual system equps multiple pumps aJlcl heat exchaJ'lgers.

ffrm - - - -- -- - - -- -- - -- - -- -- -- -- -- -

- 16

Fukushima-Daiichi Accident response - Main Control Room 10

Japan and the Tsunami Destruction of Infrastructure Human Impact

EXHIBIT ES-1: RETIREMENT RISK FACTORS OF THE NUCLEAR FLEET 1

Reactor Economic factors I

I Operational '

Factors Safety Issues I

Cost Small Old Stand Merchant 20yr<w/o 2Syrw< Broken Reliability Long Multiple Fukushima Alone Ext. w/ E><t. term Safety Retrofit

Outage Issues RETIRED, 2013 '

Kewaunee X X I X X X X Crystal River X 0 X 0 X San Onofre X X X 0 X AT RISK ft. Calhoun )(

X X X )( 0 )( 0 Oyster Creek X X X X X 0 X X Ginna X X X X 0 X Point Beach X X X X 0 Perry X X X X X X Susquehanna X X X X X

Davis-Besse X 0 X X 0 X X X Nine Mile Point X X X 0 X X X Quad Cities X I X X 0 X Dresden I X X X 0 ' X Millstone X 0 X X I X 0 I Pilgrim X X X X X 0 I I X X X 1 Clinton X X X X ' ! i South Texas X X X ! X ! '

I X I

Commanche Peak X X X )(

I Three Mile Island i X X X X 0 X i X Palisades I X X X 0 ' X Fitzpatrick X 0 X X 0 ' X X iv

Sequoyah l X X X \

I X Hope Creek X X X I i X Seabrook X X X I ! X I

Indian Point X X X ) 0 X Duane Arnold X 0 X I 0 X X Calvert Cliff X 0 X l 0 X X

( I I X Vt. Yankee ){ ){ X X I : 0 I \

Browns Ferry X I 0 X X i X Monticello X X X X I

0 X Prairie Island X ){ X 0 X X

Turkey Point X X X X ! 0 X Robinson X X X Wolf Creek X )( X X Fermi X X X X X Diablo Canyon X X X X Cooper X X X 0 X Callaway X X X X Cook X 0 0 I X X LaSalle X X X X Limerick X X X ' X Sources a nd Notes: Credit S uisse, Nuclear... The !,fiddle Age Dilemm:1?, Facing Decb'11i11g Performance, Higher Costs, lne1*it:1b/e !vfo rtali~1; February 19, 2013; UBS lnves rrne nt Res earc h , /11 Se,irch oflfl:,slui1g tot1 ~~ L :lfest Re:tlitie~* (DC Field Trip Takemv:1ys), Febntacy 20, 2013; Pio.u s, janu:u:y '), 2013, "Some M erc hant N uclear Re a c tors Could Face Early Retire ment: UBS," reporting on a UBS report for s hareholders; Moody's, L o w G11s Prices and 111/e:,k D e m.111d ,7rc J',Jaski11g US N uclear P/a11t Rclir1bili1y Issues, Special Com ment, Novem ber 8, 2012.; David Loch baum, lf/:1/king a Nuclc.7r Tig htrope:

[J11le;1med Lesso,,~* of Ye;,r-P/11s Re,icwr Out:1ges, September 2006, " The N RC :wd N 11cle:1r Power Phwt S.if'et_r i11 2011, 2012, and UCS Trac ke r); NRC Re"c to r pages .

Operational F"ctors: Bro ke n / re liability (Moody's for b roken a nd reliability); Lo ng T erm Outages (Loch baum, supplc,nented by Moody's, o -c urrcm, x = past); Near l'vliss ( Loch baum 2012); Fukushima Re trofit (UBS, Field 'Trip, 2013)

Eco no mic Fac\ors: Cosl, Wholes ale markets (Credit Suisse) Age (?vloody's and N RC reacto r pages with oltlest unit X:::as o ld o r older than Kewaunee, i.e.

1974 o r earlier commis s ioning, O= Co mmis s ioned 1975- 1979, i.e. other pre-TM!); SJ11all (:vloo d y's and NRC Reacto r p01gcs, less than 700 MW at commiss ioning); Stand AJo ne (Moodr's and N RC Reacto r pages); Shor t License (C re d it Suisse a nd NRC Reac to r pages).

V

Reactor Concepts OIG Training Part 1 of 2 December 17, 2015

Table of Contents

What is Radiation?

PWR vs BWR

Fukushima Daiichi

Reactor Internals

- 1. Reactor Internal Basics

- 2. Fuel Basics

- 3. Engineering Concerns for Reactor Internals

- 4. NRC Reviewer's Guidance to provide Oversight for Reactor Internals

- 5. Licensing

A. Initial

B. License Renewal

6. Case Study - lndl an Point license Renewal for Reactor Internals

Scenario Exercise

Science Jim Show: What is Radiation

https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=bhVO_T B2GY

NUCLEAR REACTORS

,it NUCLEAR REACTORS Home > Nuclear Reactors :,, Power Reactors Power Reactors Researcn & Test Reactors Power Reactors The NRC regulates commercial nuclear power plants that generate Operating Reactors KEY TOPICS electnc1ty. There are several types of these power reactors. Of these, Operator Licensing only the Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) and Boiling Water Foreign Ownership Control and Domination (FOCD)

New Reactors Reactors (BWRs) are in commercial operation m the United States.

Select a type from the hst below to view a descnpt,on and diagram of Maintenance Effectiveness Mvaoceo React~ aoo Small Moouiar each.

Reactor.; PWR Sump Performance Operator Licensing for New Reactors

Pressurized Water Reactors (PW Rs) Reactor Coolant System Weld

Boiling Water Reactors {BWRs) Issues Technical Spec1f1cat1ons There are currently 100 licensed to operate nuclear power plants in Power Uprates the United States (65 PWRs and 34 BWRs), which generate about 20% of our nation's electrical use. For more information about Digital I&C operating reactors, see the location map, list of power reactors, and NRC Project Managers.

As part of operational experience monitonng, the agency will penodically encounter certain reactor systems or management areas that could be improved. For additional information on areas related to safety that the agency is working to improve and upgrade, see React or Safety Focus Areas.

~

~,, Spotlight Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, November 06, 2015

Typical Pressuriud-water Reactor How Nuclear Reactol'5 Work In a typical design concept of a commercial PWR, the following process occurs:

1. The core inside the reactor vessel creates heat.

2. Pressurized water in the primary coolant loop carries the heat to the steam generat or.

3. Inside the steam generator, heat from the primary coolant loop vaporizes the water in a secondary loop, producing steam.

4. The steamline directs the steam to the main turbine, causing it to tum the turbine generator, which produces electricity.

The unused steam is exhausted to the condenser, where it is condensed into water. The resulting water is pumped out of the condenser with a series of pumps, reheated, and pumped back to t he steam generator. The reactor's core contains fuel assemblies that are cooled by water circulated using electrically powered pumps. These pumps and other operating systems in the plant receive their power from the electrical grid. If offsite power is lost, emergency cooling water is supplied by other pumps, which can be powered by onsite diesel generators. Other safety systems, such as the con tainment cooling system, also need electric power. PWRs contain between 150-200 fue l assemblies.

See also om animated diagram.

Wais made of an,crele and steel 3-5 feet thick (1-1.Smelen) 3 Oenineralizer

Fukushima Daiichi Video

Understanding the accident of Fukushima Daiichi NPS - Source IRSN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMaEjE WL6PU

Inside a nuclear reactor core

Inside a nuclear reactor core - Bang Goes The Theory- BBC

https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=MGj_aJz 7cTs

Skip to Main Page Content Skip to Search Skip to Site Map Navigation Skip to Footer Links

Home

FAQ

Glossary

Facility Locator

What's New

Site Help

Index A-Z

Contact Us

Browse Aloud

Email Undates Search NRC

§.ubmit I Report a Safety Concern L'o1tt:J S1,11c~ Nud,*.ir Hcgul.1tol"} Comn11s11un Protecting People rmd the Etll'iro11me11t

Nuclear Reactors o Power Reactors o Research & Test Reactors o Operating Reactors

> Operator Licensing

i New Reactors

, Advanced Reactors o Operator Licensing for New Reactors

> Nuclear Reactor Quick Links

Nuclear Materials

i Special Nuclear Material

, Source Material o Byproduct Material o Med, Ind, & Academic Uses o Source Materials Facil ities

o Uranium Recovery o Fuel Cycle Facilities o Materials Transportation o Nuclear Materials Quick Links

Radioactive Waste o Low- Level Waste o Waste Incidental to Reprocessing o High-Level Waste o Uranium Mill Tailings o Low-Level Waste Disposal o High-Level Waste Disposal o Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel o Transporation of Spent Nuc lear Fuel o Radioactive Waste Quick Links

Nuclear Securitv o Domestic Safeguards o Information Security o Radioactive Material Security o Contact Us

Public Meetings & Involvement o The NRC Approach to Open Government o About Meetings Open to the Public o Conferences & Symposia o Documents for Comment o racilitating Stakeholder Involvement o NRC Information Quality Guidelines o Subscribe to E-mail Updates o Commission Schedule o Public Meeting Schedule o Adjudications (Hearings)

NRC Library o Basic References o Document Collections o ADAMS Public Documents o Public Document Room o Get Copies of Documents o FOIA & Privacy Act Requests o Photos & Video o Records Management o Withholding of Sensitive Information o FAQ Index o Electronic Hearing Docket

About NRC o The Commission o Governing Legislation o Plans, Budget, & Performance

o Organization & Functions o Locations o History o Values o Direction-Setting & Policymaking o Radiation Protection o Fire Protection o How We Regulate o Emergency Preparedness & Response o Public Affairs o Congressional Affairs o lntemational Programs o State & Tribal Programs o Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs o Employment Opportunities o Contract111g Opportunities o Grant Opportunities o Civil Rights Print Home > NRC Library> Document Co llet.:tions > Generic Com munications> Generic Letters>

1992 > GL92003 Compilation of the Current Licensing Basis:

Request For Voluntary Participation in Pilot Program (Generic Letter 92-03)

March 19 , 1992 TO : ALL NUCLEAR POWER PLANT APPLICANTS AND LICENSEES SUBJECT : COMPILATION OF THE CURRENT LICENSING BASIS : REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION IN PILOT PROGRAM (GENERIC LETTER 92-03)

The U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this letter to solicit the industry ' s participation in a voluntary pilot program to assess the advantages and disadvantages of compiling the current licensing basis (CLB) . We request that only interested applicants and licensees respond to this letter . In issuing this letter , the NRC is imposing no new requirements or staff positions .

BACKGROUND The concept of the CLB was first introduced in the regulations , 10 CFR

50 . 54(f) , as a result of considerations in the development of the NRC ' s backfit rule . The CLB again became an issue in the Commission ' s deliberations on extending the licenses for plants beyond the original contemplated design life . In 1991 , the Commission adopted the plant life extension rule , 10 CFR Part 54 , which became effective on January 13, 1992 .

A definition of CLB was set forth in Section 54 . 3 . Although set out in Part 54 , that definition represents the staff ' s understanding of the scope of the CLB and should be applicable to all reactor licensees .

To further understand the advantages and disadvantages of compiling the CLB ,

the Commission has directed the NRC staff to solicit the industry ' s participation in a pilot program in which a small number of representative l icensees would voluntarily compile their CLB and advise the NRC on the effort . As part of the pilot program , the staff would assess the usefulness of the compilation with respect to the NRC ' s regulatory activities .

The proposed effort also relates to the industry ' s effort to implement design basis reconstitution . Although these programs should include reconstituting that portion of the CLB relating to the design , they do not address a significant portion of the CLB , including programmatic areas such as quality assurance , training , and maintenance .

Although compiling the CLB may require a significanc amount of resources ,

the staff expects that the licensee will thereby reduce the resources it will need to devote in the future to (1) conducting document searches needed to support regulatory oversight , (2) filing license amendment requests , (3) making changes pursuant to Section 50 . 59 , and (4) evaluating backfits pursuant Lo Section 50 . 109 .

1 . A representative sample might include (1) a facility that was licensed in the early 1970s , (2) several facilities that were licensed between 1975 and 1985, and (3) a facility licensed within the last 5 years .

9203190187 GL 92-03 March 19 , 1992 Pilot Program Participation Participation in the pilot program is voluntary . Licensees wishing to participate should respond within 60 days of the date of this letter .

Although the licensees volunteering need not provide details and schedules at this time , the staff desires to complete the pilot program compilation within a reasonable time . The licensee may choose to compile the CLB as a single set of documents in one location or by a system which provides a reference to documents that can be retrieved easily from several locations .

Volunteers should select an approach , scope , and format that will be most useful to them . If the staff finds sufficient interest among licensees on these or other matters , it"will conduct a workshop with those considering participating .

The staff anticipates that licensees will use the CLB during their

participation in the pilot program . During this time , the NRC staff will conduct audits with the participants to determine the usefulness of the compiled CLB . The fees for this audit will not be collected from participants under 10 CFR Part 170 , but will be included in the general base fee under 10 CFR Part 171 . In addition , where the licensee identifies a non-wil lful failure to meet a licensing commitment which could subject the licensee to enforcement action , it is our intent to exercise enforcement discretion , provided the l icensee has taken prompt corrective action consistent with the provisions in the enforcement policy for non-cited violations . More significant violations will be handled on a case - by- case basis .

If there are any questions on this matter or you have an interest in attending or participating in a workshop , please contact the Technical Contact or your NRR licensing project manager . Licensees who wish to participate in the pilot program should address their responses to the attention of the NRC Document Control Desk .

This request is covered by Office of Management and Budget Clearance Number 3150- 0011 , which expires May 31 , 1994 . The estimated average number of burden hours is 10 person hours for each licensee ' s response , including those needed to assess the request and to respond to the generic letter .

This estimate of the average number of burden hours pertains only to the identified response-related matters and does not include the time needed to develop the CLB . Comments on the accuracy of this estimate and suggestions to reduce the burden may be directed to Ronald Mins~ , Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0011) , NEOB- 3019, Office of Management and Budget , Washington , DC 20503 , and to the U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB- 7714) , Division of Information Support Services , Office of Information and Resources Management , Washington , DC 20555 .

GL 92-03 - 3 - March 19 , 1992 Since the generic letter does not contain any new or revised regulatory requirements , the Backfit Rule , 10 CFR 50 . 109 , does not apply .

Sincerely, James G. Partlow , Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Technical Contact :

D. Wigginton , NRR (301) 50 4-1 301 Enclosure :

List of Recently Issued Generic Letters Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, June 28, 2013

Home

cws Releases

Event Reports

ADAMS

Open Gov

Digital Government

Srudcnrs & Teachers

Photos & Video

For Developers About Us

Strategic Plan

Budget & Pcrfonnance

Perr & Accountability Rcpt

llisloryofthcNRC

Employment

NRC Ethics

Agency Status

Contact Us Popular Documents

Info Digest

Factshccts & Brochures

Forms

Electronic Submittals

NRC Reports - NUREG

NRC Regulation~ I0-CFR

Inspection Reports

Plain Writing

Enforcement Actions Stay Connected

Blog

Chat

Twitter

YouTube

rl ickr

GovDelive,y

RSS Regulations.gov USA.gov Rccove1y FOlA No Fear EEO fnspector General 'iZSite Map Accessibility Privacy Policy Site Disclaimer For Employees

Gui dan ce for Det erm inin g The Pub lic Ava ilab ility of NRC Doc ume nts September 25, 2007

Guid ance for Dete rmin ing the Publ ic Avai labil ity of NRC Docu men ts Tabl e of Cont ents Checklist for Staff to Determine If a Document Should or Should Not Be Made Publicly-Available .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ........................... Page 3 NRC Documents Routinely Released to the Public ............ .............. .............. Page 4 NRC Information Not Routinely Released to the Public........ .............. ............. Page 57 NRC Policy and Guidance Regarding Sensitive lnformation .............. ............... . Page 62 2

CHECKLIST FOR NRC STAFF TO DETERMINE IF A DOCUMENT SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE MADE PUBLICLY-AVAILABLE Questions to Ask Decision s the document an official agency record? f no, then make the document non-public. If i:or a definition, see: ves, see the questions below.

1tto://www. internal. nrc. aov/RMB/au idance-

iocuments/faa.html Does the document contain SUNSI? For a 'v1ake it non-public.

isting and definition of each category of tlocuments that fall into the SUNSI handling Jroups, see:

htto://www.internal.nrc.aov/sunsi/

Does the document contain PII? Examples \ilake it non-oublic: If PII has not been of PII can be found at: edacted.

1tt.o://www.internal.nrc.aov/PII/

'v1ake it oublic: If the PII has been redacted and it does not contain any SUNSI or any other categories of information that should

,ot be made publicly available.

Does the document appear in the attached Make it non-public isting of document types routinely NOT made oubliclv available?

Does the document contain safeguards These documents are not processed in material? IA.DAMS.

Does the document contain classified These documents are not processed in nformation? A.DAMS Does the document contain pre~decisional Make it non-public. See MD 3.4, p.4 nformation?

s the document a draft audit report from the Make it non-public. See MD 3.4, p.8 G?

>oes the document appear in the attached \llake it public after a SUNSI review. Verify isting of document types routinely made he document type in the attached listing.

publiclv available?

3

NRC Documents Routinely Released to the Public The following documents are routinely released to the public when they do not contain classified, safeguards, or Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI):

allegation, investigation, security-related, proprietary, personal privacy, Federal-, State-,

and international-controlled information, and sensitive internal information, or other SUNSI set forth in Part IV of Handbook 3.4.

ITEM Document Type Responsible #

Office A. Documents relating to the issuance and use of a A construction permit and operating license for nuclear facilities: existing and new power reactors, research and test reactors, and fuel fabrication facilities (10 CFR Parts 50 and 52);

and the relicensing activities related to these activities (10 CFR Part 54)

1. Documents relating to the review of a NRR/NRO/NMSS A1 tendered or an accepted application for and issuance of a construction permit

a. Review of the applicant's preliminary NRR/NRO/NMSS A1a safety analysis report (PSAR)

(1) PSAR NRRJNRO/NMSS A1a1 (2) Amendments to the PSAR NRR/NRO/NMSS A1a2 (3) Correspondence sent to the NRRJNRO/NMSS A1a3 applicant regarding the PSAR, including questions sent to the applicant for response (4) Correspondence from the NRR/NRO/NMSS A1a4 applicant regarding the PSAR (5) Safety evaluation report (SER) NRR/NRO/NMSS A1a5 (6) Supplements to the SER NRR/NRO/NMSS A1a6 4

b. Other documents relating to the review A1b of radiological safety (1) Quality assurance program plan NRR/NRO/NMSS A1b1 and related correspondence with the applicant (2) Fire protection plan and related NRR/NRO/NMSS A1b2 correspondence with the applicant (3) lnservice inspection and testing NRR/NRO/NMSS A1b3 program plan and related correspondence with the applicant (4) Environmental qualifications NRR/NRO/NMSS A1b4 program plan and related correspondence with the applicant (5) Other documents and NRR/NRO/NMSS A1b5 correspondence relating to implementation of multiplant requirements in NUREG~0748, "Operating Reactors licensing Actions Summary."

c. Review of the applicant's environmental A1c report (1) Environmental report NRR/NRO/NMSS A1c1 (2) Amendments and supplements to NRR/NRO/NMSS A1c2 the environmental report (3) Site suitability information and NRR/NRO/NMSS A1c3 early site review information (4) Correspondence from NRG to the NRR/NRO/NMSS A1c4 applicant regarding the environmental report, its supplements, and site suitability information, including questions sent to the applicant for response .

5

(5) Correspondence from the NRR/NRO/NMSS A1c5 applicant to NRC regarding the environmental report and site suitability information, including answers to questions submitted by NRC (6) Report on site visits NRR/NRO/NMSS A1c6 (7) Draft environmental impact NRR/NRO/NMSS A1c7 statement (DEIS) and supplements (8) Meeting notices and meeting NRR/NRO/NMSS A1c8 summaries of public meetings with applicants, and other notices and meeting summaries (9) Comments on the DEIS from NRR/NRO/NMSS A1c9 individuals, States, local government agencies, Federal agencies, and other groups and organizations (10) Final environmental impact NRR/NRO/NMSS A1c10 statement (FEIS) and supplements (11) Federal Register notices for items NRR/NRO/NMSS A1c11 (1) and (2) above

d. Documents relating to a limited work A1d authorization (LWA)

(1) LWA NRR/NRO/NMSS A1d1 (2) Amendments to the LWA and NRR/NRO/NMSS A1d2 related correspondence with the applicant (3) Correspondence with the NRR/NRO/NMSS A1d3 applicant pertaining to work performed under the LWA 6

e. General information provided in the NRR/NRO/NMSS A1e tendered or accepted application for a construction permit and related correspondence with the applicant

f. Documents relating to the issuance of NRR/NRO/NMSS A1f an amendment to a construction permit (1) Proposed amendment to a NRR/NRO/NMSS A1f1 construction permit (2) Correspondence from NRC to the NRR/NRO/NMSS A1f2 applicant regarding the proposed amendment to a construction permit, including questions submitted for the applicant's response (3) Correspondence from the NRR/NRO/NMSS A1f3 applicant to NRC regarding proposed amendment to a construction permit, including answers to questions submitted by NRC (4) SER on the proposed amendment NRR/NRO/NMSS A1f4 (5) Amendment to the construction NRR/NRO/NMSS A1f5 permit

2. Documents relating to the review of a A2 tendered or an accepted application for and issuance of an operating license

a. Review of the applicant's final safety A2a analysis report (FSAR)

(1) Correspondence to the applicant NRR/NRO/NMSS A2a1 regarding the FSAR, including questions sent to the applicant for response 7

(2) Correspondence from the NRR/NRO/NMSS A2a2 applicant regarding the FSAR, including answers to questions submitted by NRC for response (3) Draft safety evaluation report NRR/NRO/NMSS A2a3 (OSER), supplements, and related correspondence with the applicant and other parties (4) SER and supplements NRR/NRO/NMSS A2a4

b. Documents relating to emergency plans A2b and amendments to emergency plans (1) Correspondence from NRC to the NRR/NRO/NMSS A2b1 applicant/licensee regarding the /NSIR plan or amendment, including questions submitted for response (2) Health Physics Program NRR/NRO/NMSS A2b2

/NSIR (3} Emergency implementation NRR/NRO/NMSS A2b3 procedures /NSIR (4) Correspondence related to NRR/NRO/NMSS A2b4 safeguards plans / NSIR (5) Correspondence from the NRR/NRO/NMSS A2b5 applicant/ licensee to NRC / NSIR regarding the plan or amendment, including answers to questions submitted by NRC for response (6) Correspondence to and from NRR/NRO/NMSS A2b6 State and local governments / NSIR relating to the plan or amendment (7) Documents received from the NRR/NRO/NMSS A2b7 Federal Emergency Management / NSIR Agency (FEMA) that relate to a specific nuclear power plant or nuclear power plant site 8

(8) Emergency preparedness NRR/NRO/NMSS A2b8 exercise objective and scenarios, / NSIR including NRC and Federal Emergency Management Agency comments and reviews. (Release to the public after conduct of the exercise.)

C. Other documents relating to the A2c radiological safety review (1} Quality assurance program plan, NRR/NRO/NMSS A2c1 related correspondence with the applicant, and related meeting notices and minutes of meetings with the applicant (2) Fire protection plan, related NRR/NRO/NMSS A2c2 correspondence with the applicant, and related meeting notices and minutes of meetings with the applicant (3) lnservice inspection and testing NRR/NRO/NMSS A2c3 program plan, related correspondence with the applicant, and related meeting notices and minutes of meetings with the applicant (4) Environmental qualification NRR/NRO/NMSS A2c4 program plan, related correspondence with the applicant, related meeting notices, and minutes of meetings with the applicant 9

(5) Other documents and NRR/NRO/NMSS A2c4 correspondence relating to implementation of multiplant requirements described in NUREG-0748, "Operating Reactors Licensing Actions Summary"

d. Documents relating to the review of the A2d applicant's environmental report (1) Environmental report and NRR/NRO/NMSS A2d1 supporting documents (2) Amendments to the environmental NRR/NRO/NMSS A2d2 report (3) Correspondence from NRC to the NRR/NRO/NMSS A2d3 applicant regarding the environmental report, its supplements, and other supporting information, including questions sent to the applicant for response (4) Correspondence from the NRR/NRO/NMSS A2d4 applicant to NRC regarding the environmental report, its supplements, and other supporting information, including answers to questions submitted by NRC (5) Report of site visits NRR/NRO/NMSS A2d5 (6) Meeting notices and summaries of NRR/NRO/NMSS A2d6 public meetings and other meeting notices and summaries with applicants and licensees (if applicable)

(7) DEIS NRR/NRO/NMSS A2d7 10

(8) Comments on the DEIS from NRR/NRO/NMSS A2d8 individuals; State, local, and Federal agencies; industry; and other organizations (9) FEIS NRR/NRO/NMSS A2d9

e. General information provided on the NRR/NRO/NMSS A2e tendered or accepted application

3. Other documents associated with the review A3 and issuance of a construction permit and operating license

a. Documents relating to the review of the NRR/NRO/NMSS A3a applicant's antitrust information (1) Antitrust information submitted as NRR/NRO/NMSS A3a1 pa rt of the application for a construction permit and an operating license (2) Staff analyses of the applicant NRR/NRO/NMSS A3a2 antitrust information (3) Correspondence with the NRR/NRO/NMSS A3a3 applicant regarding antitrust matters (4) Findings and conclusions of NRR/NRO/NMSS A3a4 attorney advice letters and correspondence between NRC and the Attorney General regarding applicant antitrust information (5) Hearing transcripts, testimony, NRR/NRO/NMSS A3a5 submittals, and briefings on antitrust matters

b. Insurance and indemnity information A3b (1) Licensee indemnity agreement NRR A3b1 and amendments 11

(2) Endorsement of licensee's NRR A3b2 insurance policies (3) Other correspondence regarding NRR A3b3 indemnity and insurance matters

4. Documents involved in proceedings, A4 including hearings, before the Atomic Safety Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) and the Commission review of board decisions.

a. Request for a hearing SECY A4a

b. Board notifications SECY A4b C. Motions, petitions, interrogatories, SECY A4c answers, discovery requests, requests for admission, and requests to make a limited appearance

d. Briefs, testimony, and statements of the SECY A4d applicant, NRC staff, and other parties

e. Transcripts of hearings ASLBP A4e

f. Orders, opinions, and decisions of the boards SECY A4f and Commission, including those directing the issuance of a construction permit, an operating license, and amendments to the construction permit and the operating license

g. Other filings and documentation SECY A4g submitted by parties to the proceedings to the boards

5. Documents relating to the issuance of an A5 amendment to a license

a. Proposed amendment to a license NRR/NRO/NMSS A5a

b. Correspondence from NRC to the NRR/NRO/NMSS A5b licensee regarding the proposed amendments to a license, including questions submitted for the licensee's response 12

C. Correspondence from the licensee to NRR/NRO/NMSS A5c NRC regarding proposed amendments to a license, including answers to questions submitted by NRC

d. SER on the proposed amendment NRR/NRO/NMSS A5d

e. Amendment to the license NRR/NRO/NMSS A5e

6. Documents relating to the NRC Inspection NRR/NRO/NMSS A6 and Enforcement Program /RGN

a. Inspection Reports NRR/NRO/NMSS A6a

/RGN

b. Preliminary notification (PN) of event RGN A6b C. Notice of violation/nonconformance (may OE/RGN A6c include proposed imposition of a civil penalty)

(released to the public through the ADAMS Public Library 5 working days after the enforcement action has been taken)

d. Licensee or vendor response to the notice of OE/RGN A6d violation

e. NRC acknowledgment of receipt of the OE/RGN A6e licensee response to the notice of violation/

non conformance

f. Orders NRR/NRO/NMSS A6f

/OE

g. Licensee response to an order RGN A6g

h. Bulletins NRR/NRO/NMSS A6h

i. Licensee response to a bulletin RGN A6i

j. Information notices NRR/NRO/NMSS A6j 13

k. Notification of significant enforcement action OE A6k (to be released to the public through the ADAMS Public Library after the enforcement action has been taken)

I. Confirmatory action prepared NRR/NRO/NMSS A61

m. Systematic assessment of licensee NRR A6m performance (SALP) reports

n. International Atomic Energy Agency N RR/NRO/NMSS A6n (IAEA) inspection reports

0. Meeting notices and summaries NRRJNRO/NMSS A6o

/RGN

7. Reports submitted by applicants and A?

licensees pursuant to a construction permit and a nuclear facility operating license

a. Effluent releases report required by 10 RGN A?a CFR 50.36a(a)(2)

b. Construction deficiency notice required RGN A?b by 10 CFR 50.55(e)(2)

C. Construction deficiency report required NRR A?c by 10 CFR 50.55(e)(3)

d. Facility changes, tests, and experiments NRR A?d conducted without prior approval required by 10 CFR 50.59(b)

e. Annual financial report required by 10 RGN A?e CFR 50.71(b)

f. Licensee event reports required by 10 RGN A?f CFR 50.73

g. Report on fracture toughness required NRR A?g by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, Sec.

V.E 14

h. Report on test results of specimens NRR A?h withdrawn from capsules (fracture toughness tests) requ ired by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix H, Section Ill.A

i. Report on effluents released in excess RGN A?i of design objectives required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Section Ill.A

j. Report on reactor containment building NRR A?j integrated leak rate test required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Section V.B

k. Reports on startup of reactor required by RGN A7k technical specifications I. Monthly operating report required by NRR A?I technical specifications

m. Reportable occurrence required by RGN A7m technical specifications

n. Source leakage reports required by RGN A?n technical specifications

0. Annual environmental operation reports RGN

A?o required by technical specifications

p. Nonroutine environmental operating RGN A?p reports required by technical specifications

q. Radiation exposure by functions report RGN A?q required by technical specifications

8. Documents relating to decommissioning AB

a. Review of the application to dismantle A8a or decommission a nuclear facility (1) Application and supporting documents, NRR A8a1 including the decommissioning/

dismantling plan (2) Supplements to the applications NRR A8a2 15

(3) Correspondence from NRC to the NRR A8a3 applicant regarding the application and its suppl,ements, including questions submitted for the applicant's response (4) Correspondence from the applicant to NRR A8a4 NRC regarding the application and its supplements, including answers submitted by NRC for response (5) Correspondence to and from State and NRR A8a5 local governments relating to the applicant {if applicable)

(6) Decommissioning approval NRR/NRO/NMSS A8a6

b. Review of the applicant's environmental A8b report (1) Environmental report and supporting NRR A8b1 documents (2) Supplements to the environmental NRR A8b2 report (3) Correspondence from NRC to the NRR A8b3 applicant regarding the environmental report, its supplements, and other supporting information, including questions sent to the applicant for response (4) Correspondence from the applicant to NRR A8b4 NRC regarding the environmental report, its supplements, and other supporting information, including answers to questions submitted by NRC (5) Report of site visits NRR A8b5 (6) Summaries of public meetings {if NRR A8b6 applicable)

(7) DEIS NRR A8b7 16

(8) Comments on the DEIS from NRR A8b8 individuals; State, local, and Federal agencies; industry; and other organizations (9) FEIS NRR A8b9 (10) Environmental impact appraisal and NRR A8b10 negative declaration (when applicable)

C. Licensee reports during NRR/NRO/NMSS A8c decommissioning and dismantling

9. Other documents relating to the licensing A9 process for nuclear facilities s a. Generic letters N RR/NRO/NMSS A9a

b. Regulatory Issuances NRR/NRO/NMSS A9b B. Documents relating to licensed reactor operators 8

1. List of reactor operator licensees (quarterly NRR 81 computer printout)

2. Operator and senfor operator licensing NRR B2 examinations

3. Requalification examination reports NRR B3

4. Notification and cancellation of operator NRR 84 licenses

5. Orders and modifications to revoke or NRR 85 suspend operator licenses

6. Operator evaluation reports NRR B6

7. Meeting summaries and related NRR 87 correspondence

8. Fitness-for-duty reports NRR B8

9. Facility-submitted operator licensing written NRR B9 examinations 17

10. Operator licensing operating written NRR B10 examinations, as given (release to the public through the ADAMS Public Library after conduct of the examination)

C. Documents relating to the issuance of licenses to C use, process, and store byproduct material ( 10 CFR Parts 30 through 39). The documents are released to the public through the ADAMS Public Library after the license is issued or other licensing action is completed. {The documents are placed under the docket number for all licenses.)

1. Applications for licenses and for renewal or NMSS/RGN C1 amendment of licenses

2. Licenses and amendments to licenses NMSS/RGN C2

3. Correspondence with licensees or NMSS/RGN C3 prospective licensees regarding additional information

4. Internal memoranda regarding license NMSS/RGN C4 applications

5. Enforcement letters and related NMSS/RGN C5 correspondence

6. Licensee reports NMSS/RGN C6

7. Documents relating to NRC C7 Inspection and Enforcement Program

a. Inspection reports NRR/NRO/NMSS C7a

/RGN

b. PN of event RGN C?b C. Notice of violation/nonconformance (may OE/RGN C?c include proposed imposition of civil penalty)

(Release to the public through the ADAMS Public Library 5 working days after the enforcement action has been taken.)

18

d. Licensee or vendor response to NRR/NRO/NMSS C7d the notice of violation

e. NRC acknowledgement of receipt of the OE/RGN C7e licensee response to the notice of violation/nonconformance

f. Orders NRR/NRO/N MSS C7f

/OE

g. Licensee response to an order RGN C7f

h. Bulletins NRR/NRO/NMSS C7h

i. Licensee response to a bulletin RGN C7i

j. Information notices NRR/NRO/NMSS C7j

k. Notification of significant enforcement OE C7k action (to be released to the public through the ADAMS Public Library after the enforcement action has been taken)

I. Confirmatory action prepared NRR/NRO/NMSS C7:I

m. Meeting notices and summaries NRR/NRO/NMSS C7m

/RGN D. Documents relating to the issuance of a license D to possess and process uranium source material in uranium milling or production of uranium hexafluoride (10 CFR Part 40)

1. Review of the application D1

a. Application and supporting documents NMSS D1a

b. Supplements to the application NMSS D1b C. Correspondence from NRC to the NMSS D1c applicant regarding the application and its supplements, including questions submitted for the applicant's response 19

d. Correspondence from the applicant to NMSS O1d NRC regarding the application and its supplements, including answers submitted by NRC for response

e. Correspondence to and from State and local NMSS D1e governments relating to the application {if applicable)

f. Documents related to hearings to obtain O1f a construction permit, including the construction permit. Documents involved in proceedings, including hearings before the ASLBP and the Commission review of board decisions (1) Request for a hearing SECY D1f1 (2) Board notifications SECY D1f2 (3) Motions, petitions, interrogatories, answers, SECY D1f3 discovery requests, requests for admission, and requests to make a limited appearance (4) Briefs, testimony, and statement of the SECY D1f4 applicant, NRC staff, and other parties (5) Transcripts of hearings ASLBP D1f5 (6) Orders, opinions, and decisions of the boards SECY D1f6 and Commission, including those directing the issuance of a construction permit, an operating license, and amendments to the construction permit and the operating license (7) Other filings and documentat'lon submitted by SECY D1f7 parties to the proceedings to the boards (8) License SECY D1f8

2. Review of the applicant's environmental D2 report

a. Environmental report and supporting NMSS D2a documents 20

b. Supplements to the environmental NMSS D2b report C. Correspondence from NRC to the NMSS D2c applicant regarding the environmental report, its supplements, and other supporting information, including questions sent to the applicant for response

d. Correspondence from the applicant to NMSS D2d NRC regarding the environmental report, its supplements, and other supporting information, including answers to questions submitted by NRC

e. Report of site visits NMSS D2e

f. Summaries of public meetings (if NMSS D2f applicable)

g. DEIS NMSS 02g

h. Comments on the DEIS from NMSS 02h individuals; State, local, and Federal agencies; industry; and other organizations

i. FEIS NMSS D2i

j. Environmental assessment and negative NMSS D2j declaration (when applicable)

3. Review of proposed amendments to a 03 license

a. Proposed statement NMSS D3a

b. Correspondence from NRC to the licensee NMSS D3b regarding the proposed amendment, including questions submitted for the applicant's response 21

C. Correspondence from the licensee to NRC NMSS O3c regarding the proposed amendment, including answers to questions submitted by NRC

d. SER NMSS 0 3d

e. Amendment to a license NMSS O3e

4. Reports submitted by the licensee 04

a. Environmental monitoring report for air NMSS O4a quality and water quality required by 10 CFR 40.65

b. Semiannual land use survey NMSS D4b C. Financial security documents NMSS O4c

5. Documents relating to the NRC Inspection 05 and Enforcement Program

a. Inspection reports NMSS/RGN D5a

b. PN of event RGN O5b C. Notice of violation/nonconformance (may OE/NMSS/ RGN O5c include proposed imposition of civil penalty)

(Release to the public through the ADAMS Public Library 5 working days after the enforcement action has been taken.)

d. Licensee or vendor response to the notice of OE/NMSS/ RGN O5d violation

e. NRC acknowledgement of receipt of the OE/NMSS/ RGN D5e licensee response to the notice of violation/nonconformance

f. Orders NMSS/OE D5f

g. Licensee response to an order NMSS/RGN D5g

h. Bulletins NMSS D5h

i. Licensee response to a bulletin NMSS/RGN D5i 22

j. Information notices NMSS D5j

k. Notification of significant enforcement action OE D5k (to be released to the public through the ADAMS Public Library after the enforcement action has been taken)

I. Confirmatory action prepared NMSS D5k

m. Meeting notices and summaries NMSS/RGN D5m E. Documents relating to the issuance of a license E to possess source material involving natural and depleted uranium or thorium (10 CFR Part 40) and documents to possess and use or possess only special nuclear material, enriched uranium U-235, enriched uranium U-233, and plutonium (10 CFR Part 70). (The documents are placed under the docket number for all licensees.)

1. Review of the application E1

a. Application and supporting documents NMSS E1a

b. Supplements to the application NMSS E1b C. Correspondence from NRC to the applicant NMSS E1c regarding the application and its supplements, including questions submitted for the applicant's response

d. Correspondence from the applicant to NRC NMSS E1d regarding the application and its supplements, including answers submitted by NRC for response

e. Correspondence to and from State and local NMSS E1e governments relating to the application (if applicable)

f. Documents relating to safety evaluations NMSS E1f

2. Review of the applicant's environmental E2 report 23

a. Environmental report and supporting NMSS E2a documents

b. Supplements to the environmental report NMSS E2b C. Correspondence from NRC to the applicant NMSS E2c regarding the environmental reports, amendments, and other supporting information, including questions sent to the applicant for response

d. Correspondence from the applicant to NMSS E2d NRC regarding the environmental report, its supplements, and other supporting information, including answers to questions submitted by NRC

e. Report of site visits NMSS E2e

f. Meeting announcements and NMSS E2f summaries of public meetings (if applicable)

g. DEIS and supplements NMSS E2g

h. Comments on the DEIS from individuals; NMSS/ADM E2h State, local, and Federal agencies; industry; and other organizations

i. FEIS and supplements NMSS E2i

j. Environmental assessment and finding of no NMSS E2j significant impact (when applicable)

3. Documents related to hearings to obtain a E3 construction permit, including the construction permit. Documents involved in proceedings, including hearings before the ASLBP and the Commission review of board decisions

a. Request for a hearing SECY E3a

b. Board notifications SECY E3b 24

C. Motions, petitions, interrogatories, answers, SECY E3c discovery requests, request for admission, and request to make a limited appearance

d. Briefs, testimony, and statements of the SECY E3d applicant, NRC staff, and other parties

e. Transcripts of hearings ASLBP E3e

f. Orders, opinions, and decisions of the boards SECY E3f and the Commission, including those directing the issuance of a construction permit, an operating license, and amendments to the construction permit and the operating license

g. Other filings and documentation submitted by SECY E3g parties to the proceedings of the boards

h. License NMSS E3h

4. Review of proposed amendments to a E4 license

a. Proposed amendment NMSS E4a

b. Correspondence from NRC to the licensee NMSS E4b regarding the proposed amendment, including questions submitted for the applicant's response C. Correspondence from the licensee to NRC NMSS E4c regarding the proposed amendment, including answers to questions submitted by NRC

d. SER NMSS E4d

e. Amendment to a license NMSS E4e

5. Reports submitted by the licensee NMSS E5

6. Documents relating to the NRC E6 Inspection and Enforcement Program 25

a. Inspection reports NMSS/RGN E6a

b. PN of event RGN E6b C. Notice of violation/nonconformance (may OE/NMSS/ RGN E6c include proposed imposition of a civil penalty)

(Release to the public through the ADAMS Public Library 5 working days after the enforcement action has been taken.)

d. Licensee or vendor response to the OE/NMSS/ RGN E6d notice of violation

e. NRC acknowledgement of receipt of the OE/NMSS/ RGN E6e licensee response to the notice of violation/nonconformance

f. Orders NMSS/OE E6f

g. Licensee response to an order RGN E6g

h. Bulletins NMSS E6h

i. Licensee response to a bulletin RGN E6i

j. Information notices NMSS E6j

k. Notification of significant enforcement action OE E6k (to be released to the public through the ADAMS Public Library after the enforcement action has been taken)

I. Confirmatory action prepared NMSS E6I

m. Meeting notices and summaries NMSS/RGN E6m F. Documents relating to the issuance of a license F to receive and dispose of low-level radioactive waste (10 CFR Part 61 ); includes existing documents placed in the PDR under Docket 27.

(Documents are placed under the docket number for all licensees.)

1. Review of the application F1 26

a. Application and supporting FSME F1a documents

b. Supplements to the FSME F1b application C. Correspondence from NRC to FSME F1 c the applicant regarding the application and Its supplements, including questions submitted for the applicant's response

d. Correspondence from the FSME F1d applicant to NRC regarding the application and its supplements, including answers submitted by NRC for response

e. Correspondence to and from FSME F1e State and local governments relating to the application (if applicable)

f. Documents relating to safety FSME F1f evaluations

2. Review of the applicant's environmental F2 report

a. Environmental report and FSME F2a supporting documents b.Supplements to the FSME F2b environmental report C. Correspondence from NRC to the FSME F2c applicant regarding the environmental report, its supplements, and other supporting information, including questions sent to the applicant for response 27

d. Correspondence from the FSME F2d applicant to NRC regarding the environmental report, its supplements, and other supporting information, including answers to questions submitted by NRC

e. Report of site visits NMSS FSME F2e

f. Meeting notices and summaries of FSME F2f public meetings (if applicable)

g. DEIS and supplements FSME F2g

h. Comments on the DEIS from FSME F2h individuals; State, local, and Federal agencies; industry; and other organizations

i. FEIS and supplements FSME F2i

j. Environmental assessment and FSME F2j finding of no significant impact (when applicable)

3. Documents related to hearings to obtain a F3 construction permit, including the construction permit. Documents involved in proceedings, including hearings before the ASLBP and the Commission review of board decisions.

a. Request for a hearing SECY F3a

b. Board notifications SECY F3b C. Motions, petitions, interrogatories, answers, SECY F3c discovery requests, requests for admission, and requests to make a limited appearance

d. Briefs, testimony, and statements of the SECY F3d applicant, NRC staff, and other parties 28

e. Transcripts of hearings ASLBP F3e

f. Orders, opinions, and decisions of the boards SECY F3f and the Commission, including those directing the issuance of a construction permit, an operating license, and amendments to the construction permit and the operating license g, Other filings and documentation submiUed by SECY F3g parties to the proceedings to the boards

h. License NMSS F3h

4. Review of proposed amendments to a F4 license

a. Proposed amendment NMSS F4a

b. Correspondence from NRC to the NMSS F4b licensee regarding the proposed amendment, including questions submitted for the applicant's response C. Correspondence from the licensee to NRC NMSS F4c regarding the proposed amendment, including answers to questions submitted by NRC

d. Safety evaluations and related records NMSS F4d

e. Amendment to a license NMSS F4e

5. Reports submitted by the licensee NMSS FS

6. Documents relating to NRC Inspection and F6 Enforcement Program

a. Inspection reports NRR/NRO/NMSS F6a

/RGN

b. PN of event RGN F6b 29

c. Notice of violation/nonconformance (may OE/RGN F6c include proposed imposition of a civil penalty)

(Release to the public through the ADAMS Public library 5 working days after the enforcement action has been taken.)

d. Licensee or vendor response to the notice of OE/RGN F6d violation

e. NRC acknowledgement of receipt of the OE/RGN F6e licensee response to the notice of violation/nonconformance

f. Orders NRR/NRO/NMSS F6f

/OE

g. Licensee response to an order RGN F6g

h. Bulletins NRR/NRO/NMSS F6h

i. Licensee response to a bulletin RGN F6i

j. Information notices NRR/NRO/NMSS F6j

k. Notification of significant enforcement OE F6k action (to be released to the public through the ADAMS Public Library after the enforcement action has been taken)

I. Confirmatory action prepared NMSS F6I

m. Meeting notices and summaries NMSS F6m

7. Documents relating to other general waste F7 management activities, and so forth (low-level waste [LLW] and uranium recovery) a.LLW land disposal licenses FSME F7a (Dockets 27 and 61 ),

amendments, and related correspondence

b. Meeting notices and summaries NMSS F?b C. Topical reports and related correspondence NMSS F?c 30

8. All correspondence related to the F8 Department of Energy (DOE) Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program (UMTRAP) that is not of a proprietary nature, as designated in writing by DOE

a. Correspondence between NRC and NMSS F8a DOE related to UMTRAP

b. DOE cooperative agreements NMSS F8b G. Documents relating to the issuance of an G approval of the design of a package for use in delivering licensed nuclear material to a carrier for transportation ( 10 CFR Part 71)

1. Review of the design application G1

a. Application and supporting documents NMSS G1a

b. Supplements to the application NMSS G1b C. Correspondence from NRC to the NMSS G1c applicant regarding the application and its supplements, including questions submitted for the applicant's response

d. Correspondence from the applicant to NMSS G1d NRC regarding the application and its supplements, including answers submitted by NRC for response

e. Correspondence to and from State and NMSS G1e local governments relating to the application (if applicable)

f. Certificate of compliance NMSS G1f

2. Review of the quality assurance program G2

a. Application and supporting NMSS/FSME G2a do-cuments

b. Supplements to the application NMSS/FSME G2b 31

C. Correspondence from NRC to the NMSS/FSME G2c applicant regarding the application and its supplements, including questions submitted for the applicant's response

d. Correspondence from the G2d applicant to NRC regarding the NMSS/FSME appl"lcation and its supplements, including answers submitted by NRC for response

e. Correspondence to and from G2e State and local governments NMSS/FSME relating to the application (if applicable)

f. Quality assurance program approval NMSS/FSME G2f

3. Registration for use of an approved package NMSS/FSME G3

4. Documents relating to NRC Inspection and G4 Enforcement Program

a. Inspection reports NRR/NRO/NMSS G4a

/RGN

b. PN of event RGN G4b C. Notice of violation/nonconformance (may OE/RGN G4c include proposed imposition of civil penalty)

(released to the public through the ADAMS Public Library 5 working days after the enforcement action has been taken)

d. Licensee or vendor response to the notice of OE/RGN G4d violation

e. NRC acknowledgement of receipt of the OE/RGN G4e licensee response to the notice of violation/nonconformance

f. Orders NRR/NRO/NMSS G4f

/OE 32

g. Licensee (certificate holder, vendor, RGN G4g fabricator) response to an order

h. Bulletins NRR/NRO/NMSS G4h

i. Licensee (certificate holder, vendor, RGN G4i fabricator) response to a bulletin

j. Information notices NRR/NRO/NMSS G4j

k. Notification of significant enforcement action OE G4k (to be released to the public through the ADAMS Public Library after the enforcement action has been taken)

I. Confirmatory action prepared NRR/NRO/NMSS G4I

m. Meeting notices and summaries NRR/NRO/NMSS G4m

/RGN

5. Licensee (certificate holqer, vendor, NRR/NRO/NMSS G5 fabricator) reports /RGN H. Documents relating to the review of the H application for issuance of a license to operate a spent fuel storage facility (10 CFR Part 72).

(Documents are placed under the docket number for all licensees.)

1. Review of the safety analysis report and H1 other technical information

a. Application and supporting documents NMSS H1a

b. Supplements to the application NMSS H1 b C. Correspondence from NRC to the applicant NMSS H1c regarding the application and its supplements, including questions submitted for the applicant's response

d. Correspondence from the applicant to NRC NMSS H1 d regarding the application and its supplements, including answers submitted by NRC for application response 33

e. Correspondence to and from State and NMSS H1e local governments relating to the application (if applicable)

f. SER NMSS H1f

g. License/certificate of compliance NMSS H1g

2. Review of the applicant's environmental H2 report

a. Environmental report and supporting NMSS H2a documents

b. Supplements to the environmental NMSS H2b report C. Correspondence from NRC to the NMSS H2c applicant regarding the environmental report, its supplements, and other supporting information, including questions sent to the applicant for response

d. Correspondence from the applicant to NRC NMSS H2d regarding the environmental report, its supplements, and other supporting information, including answers to questions submitted by NRC

e. Report of site visits NMSS H2e

f. Meeting notices and summaries of public NMSS H2f meetings (if applicable)

g. DEIS and supplements NMSS H2g

h. Comments on the DEIS from individuals; NMSS H2h State, local, and Federal agencies; industry; and other organizations

i. FEIS and supplements NMSS H2i

j. Environmental assessment and finding of no NMSS H2jsignificant impact (when applicable) 34

3. Review of proposed amendments to a H3 license/certificate of compliance

a. Proposed amendment NMSS H3a

b. Correspondence from NRG to the NMSS H3b licensee regarding the proposed amendment, including questions submitted for the applicant's response C. Correspondence from the licensee to NMSS H3c NRG regarding the proposed amendment, including answers to questions submitted by NRG

d. SER NMSS H3d

e. Amendment to a license/certificate of NMSS H3e compliance

4. Documents relating to four plans and H4 amendments to emergency plans

a. Correspondence from NRG to the NMSS H4a applicant/licensee/certificate holder regarding the plan or amendment, including questions submitted for response

b. Correspondence from the applicant/licensee/ NMSS H4b certificate holder to NRG regarding the plan or amendment, including answers to questions submitted by NRG for response C. Correspondence to and from State and local NMSS H4c governments relating to the plan or amendment

d. Documents received from the Federal NMSS H4d Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that relate to a specific nuclear power plant or nuclear power plant site

5. Documents relating to the review of the H5 decommissioning plan 35

a. Application and supporting documents NMSS H5a

b. Supplements to the application NMSS H5b C. Correspondence from NRC to the applicant NMSS H5c regarding the application and its supplements, including questions submitted for the applicant's response

d. Correspondence from the applicant to NRC NMSS H5d regarding the application and its supplements, including answers submitted by NRC for response

e. Correspondence to and from State and local NMSS HSe governments relating to the application {if applicable)

f. Periodic reports submitted by the NMSS H5f licensee/certificate holder

6. Documents related to hearings to obtain a H6 construction permit, including the construction permit. Documents involved in proceedings, including hearings before the ASLBP and the Commission review of board decisions

a. Request for a hearing SECY H6a

b. Board notifications SECY H6b C. Motions, petitions, interrogatories, answers, SECY H6c discovery requests, requests for admission, and requests to make a limited appearance

d. Briefs, testimony, and statements of the SECY H6d applicant, NRC staff, and other parties

e. Transcripts of hearings ASLBP H6e 36

f. Orders, opinions, and decisions of the boards SECY H6f and the Commission, including those directing the issuance of a construction permit, an operating license, and amendments to the construction permit and the operating license

g. Other filings and documentation submitted by SECY H6g parties to the proceedings of the boards

h. License NMSS H6h

7. Documents relating to the NRC Inspection H7 and Enforcement Program

a. Inspection reports NRR/NRO/NMSS H?a

/RGN

b. PN of event RGN H?b C. Notice of violation/nonconformance (may OE/RGN H?c include proposed imposition of civil penalty)

d. Licensee/certificate holder (vendor or OE/RGN H7d fabricator) or vendor response to the notice of violation (Release to the public through the ADAMS Public Library 5 working days after the enforcement action has been taken.)

e. NRC acknowledgement of receipt of the OEJRGN H7e licensee/certificate holder response to the notice of violation/nonconformance

f. Orders NRR/NRO/NMSS H7f

/OE

g. Licensee/certificate holder response to an RGN H?g order

h. Bulletins NRR/NRO/NMSS H7h

i. Licensee/certificate holder response to a RGN H7i bulletin

j. Information notices NRR/NRO/NMSS H?j 37

OE k. Notification of significant enforcement OE H7k action (to be released to the public through the ADAMS Public Library after the enforcement action has been taken)

I. Confirmatory action prepared NRR/NRO/NMSS H7I

m. Meeting notices and summaries NRR/NRO/NMSS H7m

/RGN I. Documents relating to the approval of routes for I the transport of spent fuel (filed under 10 CFR Part 71 but considered a 10 CFR Part 73 approval)

1. Route approval letter to licensee with NMSS 11 accompanying strip charts (only after 10 days of the last of a series of shipments in a shipping campaign)

J. Documents relating to the prelicensing activities J involving the high-level waste repository (10 CFR Parts 60 and 63)

1. Technical high-level waste site/project- J1 specific prelicensing documentation, including, but not limited to, the following:

a. Nuclear Regulatory Commission/Department NMSS J1a of Energy (NRC/DOE) meeting minutes and trip reports related to public meetings, workshops, and site visits

b. State and Indian Tribe comments and NMSS J1b correspondence C. Technical positions and review plans NMSS J1c d . NRC/OOE memoranda of understanding and NMSS J1d interagency agreements

e. DOE environmental assessments, both draft NMSS J1e and final 38

f. DOE site characterization plans, study plans, NMSS J1f and site characterization program plans

g. NRC site characterization analyses and NMSS J1g comments on study plans

2. DOE siting guidelines J2

a. NRC comments sent to DOE on the NMSS J2a guidelines

b. Comments received by NRC on the NMSS J2b guidelines C. Meeting minutes and trip reports related to NMSS J2c the guidelines

3. DOE mission plan and program plan J3

a. NRC comments sent to DOE on the mission NMSS J3a plan

b. Comments received by NRC on the mission NMSS J3b plan C. Meeting minutes and trip reports related to NMSS J3c the mission plan

4. DOE project decision schedule (PDS) J4

a. NRC comments sent to DOE on the PDS NMSS J4a

b. Comments received by NRC on the PDS NMSS J4b C. Meeting minutes and trip reports related to NMSS J4c the PDS

5. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) J5 high-level waste (HLW) standard

a. NRC comments sent to EPA regarding NMSS J5a proposed or final EPA HLW standard

6. NRC HLW technical contractor documents J6 39

a. Incoming and outgoing technical contractor NMSS J6a correspondence and reports related to the HLW prelicensing program

7. Generic HLW technical positions and review NMSS J7 plans released for public comment

8. Other HLW documents between NRC and J8 DOE or other Federal agencies, including but not limited to, the following:

a. NRC comments on major Federal NMSS J8a agency documents, such as the EPA HLW standard, the DOE Viability Assessment, Draft License Application, and Environmental Impact Statement

b. NRC/DOE procedural agreements NMSS J8b C. NRC/DOE communications related to NMSS J8c the HLW prelicensing process K. Documents relating to the issuance of licenses to K export or import nuclear materials or components for nuclear facilities {10 CFR Part 110)

1. Application for a license or proposed OIP K1 amendments to a license

2. Federal Register notice of application (when OIP K2 required for major application)

3. Correspondence from NRC to OIP K3 applicant/licensee regarding the application or proposed amendment, including questions submitted for response

4. Correspondence from the applicant/licensee OIP K4 regarding the application or proposed amendment, including answers to questions submitted by NRC for response

5. Correspondence from NRC to the OIP KS Department of State for executive branch views or to DOE as an assurance letter 40

6. Correspondence to NRC from the OIP K6 Department of State containing executive branch views or from DOE as an assurance letter

7. Any correspondence from a member of the OIP K?

public, foreign governments, or international organizations regarding the application or proposed amendment

8. Staff papers (SECY series) prepared for the SECY K8 Commission's review of an export or import application for a license or proposed amendment to a license (Release to the public through the ADAMS Public Library 3 days after receipt by the Commissioners.)

9. Commission decision memorandum on SECY K9 issuance of an application for a license or proposed amendment to a license transm itted by the Office of the Secretary to the Executive Director for Operations

10. Documents relating to proceedings before SECY K10 the ASLBP

a. Request for a hearing SECY K10a

b. Board notifications SECY K10b C. Motions, petitions, interrogatories, SECY K10c answers, discovery requests, requests for admission, and requests to make a limited appearance

d. Briefs, testimony, and statements of the SECY K10d applicant, NRC staff, and other parties

e. Transcripts of hearings ASLBP K10e 41

f. Orders, opinions, and decisions of the SECY K10f boards and the Commission, including those directing the issuance of a construction permit, the operating license, and amendments to the construction permit and the operating license

g. Other filings and documentation SECY K10g submitted by parties to the proceedings to the boards

11. License or amendment to a license OIP K11 L. Documents relating to the Agreement State L Program, State liaison activities, and State and local government radiological emergency response planning (Memoranda of Understanding and lnteragency Agreements with Federal Agencies [e.g., Department of Transportation (DOT), DOE, EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), FEMA, and Department of Defense (DOD])

1. Agreement State Program documents L1

a. Agreements between NRC and States to FSME L1a license source, byproduct, and special nuclear material (pursuant to Sec. 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended)

b. Letters to States reporting NRC's reviews of FSME L1b the Agreement State Program, State responses, and other documents related to NRC's reviews C. "Licensing Statistics and Other Datatt reports FSME L1c

2. State liaison activities L2

a. Memoranda of understanding FSME L2a

b. Other State communications FSME L2b 42

3. State and local government radiological L3 emergency response planning

a. NUREG reports and supplements NRR L3a

b. Other reports and studies NRR L3b C. Analyses of State radiological NRR L3c emergency response planning capabilities M. Records relating to the activities of the M Commissioners

1. Commission papers (If the document M1 contains withholdable or sensitive material, a statement must be included on the front page and all applicable pages stating that the document must not be released.)

a. All SECY papers including those subject SECY M1a to FOIA (a}(1} or (a}(2)" that do not contain withholdable (adjudicatory, enforcement or investigatory, attorney-client or legal work product, classified or proprietary, and personal privacy) or particularly sensitive material will normally be made publicly available 10 working days after receipt by the Commission For SECY papers subject to FOIA (a}(1) or (a}(2), redacted versions must be made publicly available.

b. Information papers that do not contain SECY M1b sensitive or withholdable information as noted above will be made publicly available 10 working days after issuance of the paper 43

2. Staff Requirements Memoranda (SRMs) and SECY M2 Commission voting records on the releasable SECY papers including those subject to FOIA (a)(1) or (a)(2)" (see item 1 above) will be released immediately after final Commission action. For SRMs and Commission voting records subject to FOIA(a)(1) or (a)(2), redacted versions must be made publicly available.

3. Commission Action Memoranda (COMs) SECY M3 including those subject to FOIA (a)(1) or (a){2)"

that do not contain withholdable (adjudicatory, enforcement or investigatory, attorney-client or legal work product, classified or proprietary, and personal privacy) or particularly sensitive material will be released immediately after final Commission action For COMs subject to FOIA(a)(1) or (a)(2), redacted versions must be made publicly available.

4. Documents relating to Commission meetings SECY M4 that must be disclosed under the Government in the Sunshine Act including those subject to FOIA (a)(1) or (a)(2)" between the words "(COMs)" and "that".

a. Federal Register Sunshine Meeting SECY M4a Announcements

b. General Counsel's certification of closed SECY M4b Commission meetings C. Full written explanations of closed SECY M4c Commission meetings, including Commissioner votes on closing of meeting

d. Transcripts of open Commission SECY M4d meetings

5. Staff requirements memorandum issued as a SECY M5 result of an open Commission meeting 44

6. Staff documents disclosed at open SECY M6 Commission meetings, such as meeting slides, background documents, and so forth

7. Documents, including vote sheets of SECY M7 individual Commissioners, released publicly at the Commissioner's direction

8. Correspondence to and from congressional SECY MB committees having oversight responsibil ities for NRC operations (to be released to the public through the ADAMS Public library 5 working days after the NRC reply is sent to the committee)

9. Other correspondence sent from the SECY M9 Commission's Chairman to members of the Congress regarding public health, safety of nuclear facil\t\es, safeguards of nuclear facilities and materials, or export/import of nuclear commodities, and license fee (to be released to the public through the ADAMS Public Library 5 working days after material is sent to a member of Congress)

10. Other executive correspondence and replies SECY M10 signed by the Chairman to be released to the public through the ADAMS Public Library 5 working days after material is sent to the recipient.

11 . Commissioner speeches OPA M11 N. Documents relating to the Commission Federal N Advisory Committees (FACs) 1* 1. Open committee minutes and transcripts 1* N1 1* 2. Open subcommittee and working group 1* N2 minutes and transcripts 45

1* 3. Committee reports and letters (Reports that 1* N3 contain classified, safeguards, or other sensitive unclassified information will not be released to the public through the ADAMS Public Library unless information is redacted from the reports.)

a. ACRS reports and letters ACRS N3a

b. ACNW reports and letters ACNW N3b 1* 4. Consultant reports (Reports that contain 1* N4 classified, safeguards, or other sensitive unclassified information will not be released to the public through the ADAMS Public Library unless information is redacted from the reports.)

5. Federal Register notices relating to SECY N5 committee meetings 1* 6. Meeting agen1da 1* N6 1* 7. Advisory committee charters 1* N7 1* 8. Documents provided to committees 1* N8 11 9. Documents considered by committees at 1

... N9 meetings

0. Documents relating to the issuance of NRC 0 regulations, regulatory guides, and generic requirements

1. Documents relating to the issuance of NRC SECY 01 regulations 1* Documents are generated from any of the following advisory committees: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW), Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes, Advisory Committee for the Decontamination of Three Mile Island (Unit 2), and Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel.

1* Documents are generated from any of the following advisory committees: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW), Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes, Advisory Committee for the Decontamination of Three Mile Island (Unit 2), and Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel.

46

SECY/ADM O1a

a. Proposed rule and associated documents, including the regulatory analysis and the Federal Register notice of its issuance and availability

b. Comments on the proposed rule SECY O1b submitted by members of the public; State, local, and Federal agencies; industry; and other organizations C. Requests for written interpretation of the SECY O1c proposed rule

d. Final rule as issued and SECY/ADM O1d associated documents, including the regulatory analysis and history, and Federal Register notice of its issuance

e. Title 10 of the Code of Federal ADM/OIS O1e Regulations

2. Documents relating to petitions for 02 rulemaking

a. Petition to NRC to issue, amend, SECY/ADM O2a or rescind an NRC regulation

b. Federal Register notice of the SECY/ADM O2b filing of the petition C. Correspondence with the petitioner ADM O2c regarding the status and content of the petition

d. Comments on the petition for SECY 02d rulemaking submitted by members of the public; State, local, and Federal agencies; industry; and other organizations

3. Documents relating to Policy Statements 03 47

a. Proposed Policy Statement published SECY 03a for comment in the Federal Register

b. Comments on the proposed Policy Statement SECY 03b submitted by members of the public; State, local, and Federal agencies; industry; and other organizations on the proposed regulatory guide.

C. Policy Statement published in the SECY 03c Federal .Register

4. Documents relating to issuance of regulatory 04 guides RES/NMSS 04a

a. Proposed regulatory guides and associated documents, including the regulatory analysis and the Federal Register notice of its issuance and availability (Release 1 working day after congressional committees have received printed copies.)

b. Comments on the proposed guide RES/NMSS 04b submitted by members of the public; State, local, and Federal agencies; industry; and other organizations on the proposed regulatory guide.

c. Summaries of public meetings RES/NMSS 04c held by NRC regarding the proposed regulatory guide

d. Regulatory guide (as issued) RES/NMSS 04d (Release 1 working day after congressional committees have received printed copies.)

5. Documents relating to the activities of the 05 Committee To Review Generic Requirements 48

a. Meeting notice transmittal memorandum CRGR 05a without attached proposed generic requirements (attached proposed generic requirements are released to the public through the ADAMS Public Library after NRG has considered the proposed requirements in a public forum or has decided the matter addressed in the proposed requirements)

b. Meeting minutes transmittal memorandum CRGR 05b without attached minutes (attached meeting minutes released to the public through the ADAMS Publi1c Library after NRC has decided the matter addressed in the minutes)

P. NRC solicitation and contract award documents p and contractor-developed reports

1. Documents relating to the award of a P1 contract

a. Solicitation documents (requests for ADM P1a proposals) (are maintained in the PDR until solicitation closing date)

b. Contract and contract modifications ADM P1b

2. Documents received under NRG research P2 and technical assistance contracts or interagency agreements

a. Final contractor reports published RES/NMSS P2a in the NUREG series

b. Research information letters RES/NMSS P2b Q. Documents relating to vendor activities Q

1. Vendor quality assurance program Q1

a. Inspection reports by NRG NRR/NRO/NMSS Q1a

b. Notices of deviation NRR/NRO/NMSS Q1b 49

C. Correspondence with the vendor NRR/NRO/NMSS Q1c associated with inspection findings, including corrective actions to be taken by the vendor

2. Documents relating to vendor topical reports Q2

a. Topical reports submitted by vendors NRR/NRO/NMSS Q2a

b. Revisions and modifications to topical NRR/NRO/NMSS Q2b reports C. Correspondence from NRC to vendors NRR/NRO/NMSS Q2c regarding topical reports, including questions submitted by NRC for response

d. Correspondence from vendors to NRC NRR/NRO/NMSS 02d regarding topical reports, including answers to questions submitted by NRC for response

e. Meeting agenda, summaries, and NRR/NRO/NMSS Q2e minutes of meeting regarding the content of topical reports R. Freedom of Information Act documents R

1. Freedom of Information Act requests, 0IS R1 appeals, and responses, and records disclosed in response to Freedom of Information Act requests relating to public health, safety, and safeguards of nuclear facilities and material (Release to the public 5 days after requester is sent response.)

2. Freedom of Information Act Annual Report 0IS R2

s. lnforrnatlon Quality documents s

1. Information Quality Requests 01S S1

2. NRC responses to Information Quality 0IS S2 Requests

3. Information Quality Annual Report 0IS S3 50

T. NRC reports, publications, and directives T

1. NRC administrative documents T1

a. NRC management directives and handbooks ADM T1a

b. "NRC Staff Practice and Procedure OGC T1b Digest" (NUREG-0386)

C. NRC organizational charts HR T1 c

d. Press releases OPA T1d

e. Plant status reports NRR T1e

f. Inspection manual NRR T 1f

g. Enforcement manual OE T1g

h. Roster of utilities NRR T1h

i. Weekly Information Report (version EDO T1i released for public dissemination)

j. Media Monitor (only available at the 01S T1j PDR)

2. Published rules, regulations, orders, branch T2 technical positions, and regulatory guides

a. NRC Rules and Regulations ADM T2a

b. "NRC Issuances" (NUREG-0750 series) 01S T2b C. Branch technical positions ADM T2c

d. NRC regulatory guides (Release 1 RES/ADM T2d working day after congressional committees have received printed copies.)

3. Other NRC final reports (NUREG reports) T3

a. Draft reports on which public comments 01S T3a are solicited Sl

b. Comments on draft reports that are 015 T3b submitted by members of the public, by State, local and Federal agencies, by industry, and by other organizations C. Final published reports 01S T3c

4. Other NRC Reports to Congress T4

a. "Report to Congress on Abnormal RES T4a Occurrences" (NUREG-0090 series)

b. Annual Report on Administration of SECY T4b Government in the Sunshine Act

5. Indexes and Lists TS

a. ACRS index through 10/92 ( only ACRS TSa available at the PDR)

b. Lists of Civil Penalties (only available at OE TSb the PDR)

C. Lists of General Licensees (only NMSS T5c available at the PDR)

d. List of Docket 30, 40, and 70 Licensees NMSS T5d (only available at the PDR)

e. List of Operators (only available at the NRR T5e PDR)

CFO u

u. Correspondence between NRC and the applicant or licensee regarding license fees (to be placed in the docket file pertaining to the relevant application or license)

V. Documents relating to 10 CFR 2.206 petitions V s 1. The 2.206 petition submitted to NRC under NRR/N RO/N MSS V1 10 CFR 2.206 SECY 2. NRC responses to 2.206 petitions SECY V2 W. Budget-related documents w 52

1. NRC Budget {Release to the public after the CFO W1 President has submitted the budget to Congress.)

2. Privacy Impact Assessments Accompanying 01S W2 Budget Exhibit 300 (Release to the public after the President has submitted the budget to Congress.}

53

NRC Information Not Routinely Released to the Public The information listed below is not routinely released to the public. (See a separate document entitled NRC Documents Routinely Released to the Public found at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html for the types of information the NRG staff routinely makes available to the public.)

A. Classified Information

1. Records containing classified information withheld in the interest of national securi1ty or foreign relations, pursuant to Executive Order 12958, "Classified National Security Information."

2. Records prohibited from public disclosure under Sections 141 through 148 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

B. Safeguards Information Records containing unclassified Safeguards Information that are protected from public disclosure by Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended.

C. Sensitive Unclassified Non~Safeguards Information (SUNSI)

1. Allegation Information Allegation information that would reveal the identity of an alleger.

2. Investigation Information (a) Records relating to investigations or inquiries by the Office of Investigations.

(b) Records relating to investigations or inquiries by the Office of the Inspector General.

3. Security-Related Information 54

(a) 10 CFR 2.390(d)(1) Information:

Correspondence and reports to or from NRC that contain information or records concerning a licensee's or an applicant's physical protection or material control and accounting program for special nuclear material not otherwise designated as Safeguards Information (10 CFR 73.21) or classified as National Security Information or Restricted Data pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390, "Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding."

(b) Sensitive Homeland Security Information protected from public disclosure by Section 892 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

(c) Voluntarily provided critical infrastructure information protected from public disclosure by Section 204 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

(d) Other information that could be useful, or could reasonably be expected to be useful, to a terrorist in a potential attack. (Follow SUNSI Guidance at httQ://www.internal.nrc.gov/NRC/ Guidance/.)

4. Proprietary Information (a) Trade secrets or commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.

(b) Information designated "INPO PRIVATE" submitted by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO).

(c) Records permitted to be withheld from disclosure under provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, including source evaluation proprietary information.

(d) 10 CFR 2.390(d)(2) Information Information submitted in confidence to the Commission by a foreign government not covered under Item 5 below.

55

5. Privacy Act information and other personal information Records pertaining to individuals that are protected from public disclosure by the Privacy Act of 1974 and other personnel, financial, medical, and personal privacy information that would be exempt from disclosure if requested under the Freedom of Information Act because disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

6. Federal, State, and foreign government and International Agency Information-Controlled Information (a) Information marked "NOFORN" (b) Information marked "Not For Public Disclosure Under Terms of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel and on the Safety of Radioactive Management" (c) Information marked "Law Enforcement Sensitive" (Federal and State law enforcement agencies)

(d) Department of Defense (DOD) information marked "For Official Use Only" (FOUO)

(e) Department of Energy (DOE) information marked for "Official Use Only" (OUO)

(f) DOE information marked Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information (UCNI)

(g) DOE information marked "Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information" (NNPI)

(h) Department of State information marked "Sensitive but Unclassified" (SBU)

(i) Government-controlled information U) Foreign government controlled information (k} State agency controlled information

7. Sensitive Internal Information (a) Drafts and predecisional information Drafts and other predecisional interagency or intragency memoranda or letters where the information has not been released in final form that would be exempt from public disclosure under 10 CFR Part 9, "Public Records," or is subject to the provisions of Part II of this handbook. Note: Predecisional information refers to advice, opinions, and recommendations considered as part of the agency's deliberative process before a final decision is made.

56

(b) Records covered by the lawyer-client privilege (c) Legal work products (d) Predecisional enforcement information (e) Drafts or other documents prepared in adjudicatory proceedings involving the deliberative process privilege of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board members that protects the judicial decisionmaking process from scrutiny outside the appellate process [includes adjudicatory records marked "Sensitive - Not for Distribution (Except to Commission Adjudicatory Employees in accordance with 10 CFR 2.248)."]

(f) Records concerning in-camera licensing proceedings (g) Records considered during a closed meeting under the Government in the Sunshine Act (h) Financial information relating to the administration of NRC contractors (i) Records relating to the formulation of the NRC budget, including the Five-Year Plan, and those relating to proposed budgetary levels for specific projects U) Memoranda to or from the Commissioners, their staffs, and offices reporting directly to the Commission, except as indicated in Section M of the table in Exhibit 1 of this handbook.

(k) Other correspondence_with other Federal agencies, except for that required to be disclosed in licensing or rulemaking proceedings, including-(1) Correspondence received from other Federal agencies not covered under Section C.6 of this part.

(2) Correspondence originated by NRC that deals with the deliberative process of another agency (I) Other records sent to or from foreign sources other than those submitted in confidence by foreign governments covered by Section C.4.d of this part or foreign government controlled information covered by Section C.6 of this part, including those whose public disclosure is prohibited in agreements, except those records that deal with export-import licensing (m) Any other information not included above submitted to the Commission marked "sensitive" 57

D. Routine Administrative Records Routine administrative records (e.g., routing slips; ADAMS submission forms; internal meeting information; requests between staff for information; internal requests for services; internal formal notices, such as network announcements and bulletins; and office, division, or branch notification of events, due dates, assignments; etc.)

because of insufficient public interest and because their release would constitute an unwarranted administrative burden.

58

NRC Policy and Guidance Regarding Sensitive Information NUREG/BR-0168, "Policy for Describes policy for processing Processing Unclassified Safeguards unclassified Safeguards Information (SGI)

Information (SGI) on NRC on NRC computers.

Computers" Management Directive (MD) 3.1, Defines responsibilities/authorities for "Freedom of Information Act" (FOIA) processing FOIA requests and informs staff of the types of records that can be released or are exempt (FOIA exemptions included).

MD 3.2, "Privacy Act" Ensures lawful use of identifiable personal information.

MD 3.4, "Release of Information to Provides policy guidance on the public the Public" release of information.

MD 3.7, "NUREG-Series Ensures that sensitive unclassified Publications" information is not compromised by NRC release or publication of the information.

MD 3.9, "NRC Staff'and Contractor Ensures that sensitive unclassified Speeches, Papers, and Journal information is not compromised by NRC Articles on Regulatory and release or publ'lcation of the information.

Technical Subjects" MD 3.11, "Conferences and Ensures that sensitive unclassified Conference Proceedings" information is not released at public conferences or in publicly released conference proceedings.

MD 3.12, "Handling and Disposition Assigns responsibilities and establishes of Foreign Documents and procedures for handling of unclassified, Translations" sensitive unclassified, and classified foreign documents and their translations.

MD 3.23, "Mail Management" Ensures that classified and unclassified sensitive information is not compromised by handling, marking, preparing, and transmitting such information.

59

MD 3.50, "Document Management" Includes information on NUDOCS and ADAMS and guidelines protecting proprietary and copyrighted information.

MD 3.53, "NRC Records Fosters effective and efficient filing and Management Program" records management practices, including the protection of sensitive unclassified information.

MD 7.4, "Reporting Suspected Describes N RC management Wrongdoing and Processing [Office responsibilities in handling OIG of the Inspector General] OIG investigative referrals and reports.

Referrals" MD 8.8, "Management of Provides gui,dance for the allegations Allegations" program, including the protection of allegers' identities.

MD 8.9, "Accident Investigation" Specifies that the Director of the Accident Review Group is charged with preparing and reviewing all data for classified or sensitive unclassified information and distributing the investigation report and related documents.

MD 10.122, "Employee Assistance Addresses the confidentiality of health and and Wellness Services Program" medical records.

(Manual Chapter 4161)

MD 10.159, "The NRC Differing Includes guidance for determining which Professional Opinions Program" DP/DPO documents or portions of documents should or should not be released to the public.

I MD 11 .1, "NRC Acquisition of Includes guidance for ensuring that, when Supplies and Services" necessary, contractors are approved for access to sensitive unclassified information.

I MD 12, "Glossary" Defines sensitive information.

MD 12.1, NRC Facility Security Ensures that classified and sensitive Program" unclassified information is protected from unauthorized disclosure.

60

MD 12.3, "NRC Personnel Security Provides effective controls to further Program" protect classified and sensitive unclassified information.

MD 12.4, NRC Safeguards ,classified or sensitive Telecommunications Systems unclassified information communicated Security Program" over telecommunications systems (e.g.,

telephones, facsimiles, networks).

MD 12.5, "NRC Automated Safeguards AIS facilities and classified Information Security Program" Safeguards Information (SGI) and sensitive unclassified information that is processed, stored, or produced on AISs.

MD 12.6, "NRC Sensitive Includes guidance concerning required Unclassified Information Security markings on proprietary and other Program" documents.

Memorandum: "FOIA Disclosure Advises that "foreseeable harm" must be Policy," Office of the.Executive shown when withholding information from Director for Operations, December release (per Department of Justice and 17, 1993 Presidential FOIA guidance.)

NRC Enforcement Manual Includes guidance on the proper handling and marking of predecisional enforcement information.

NRC Inspection Manual Covers draft inspection reports, FOIA requests, and PDR releases.

NRC Yellow Announcement 21, Provides interim guidance concerning the "Staff Internet Use," March 19, 1997 use of Internet and sensitive information.

Operating Reactor Project Includes guidance on how project Manager's Handbook managers should handle and process sensitive information and FOIA requests and allegations.

Commission Policy Statement on Provides the distinction between allegers Protecting Identity of Allegers and and confidential sources and how the Confidential Sources agency "protects" these two groups.

Code of Federal Regulations, Title Provides guidance on public inspections, 10, "Energy" exemptions, requests for witholding official records, and public records provisions.

61

NUREG/BR-0027, "NRC Security: Provides general information regarding Your Responsibilities" sensitive unclassified information at NRC.

Staff Instructions: "Personal Describes personal information normal\y Information Withheld From Third not released to third parties.

Parties" http://www.internal.nrc.gov/OIS/

foia/ML040430629. pdf Staff Instructions: "How to Respond Describes steps and considerations in to an Initial FOIA Request" proc~ssing an initial Freedom of http://www.intemal.nrc.gov/01S/ Information Act (FOIA) request.

foia/ML031890712.pdf NUREG-0794, "Protection of Assists licensees and other persons who Unclassified Safeguards possess Safeguards Information in Information" establishing an information protection system that satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR 73.21.

62

Offieial ~:l9e Ol'lly &el'l9itin IAl&l'nel IA#e,~atien March 20, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Janice Dunn Lee, Director Office of International Programs THRU: Elizabeth Doroshuk, Section Chief IRA by Jack Ramsey/

International Cooperation and Assistance Office of International Programs FROM: Jeffrey Jacobson, Senior International Relations Officer IRA/

Office of International Programs

SUBJECT:

FOREIGN TRAVEL TRIP REPORT Attached is the trip report for my travel to Helsinki, Finland, during the period January 29 through February 1, 2006, and to Paris, France, during the period February 1 through 4, 2006.

The purpose of the trip was to begin preliminary discussions with the NRC's Finnish and French regulatory counterparts regarding potential cooperation opportunities associated with the regulatory design reviews of the AREVA EPR reactor, as part of the NRC's Multinational Design Approval Program (MDAP).

Attachment:

Trip Report cc w/attachment: C. Harris, NSIR J. Williams, NRR G. Holahan, NRR W . Dean, OEDO M. Cullingford, NRR P. Kang, RES T. Sherr, NMSS D. Reddick, OGC

ML060800257 (Memo) ML060810150 (Overview, Slides)

ML060810167 (200 Slides) ML060810134(Package)

"'see previous concurrence I Ava1a 9 Pu bllCIV 'I ble X Non-Pu bllc1y I Ava1a

'I ble X Sensitive 9 Non-Sensitive OFFICE OIP OIP NAME JJacobson* EDoroshuk*

DATE 3/16/06 3/20/06 Attachment Officia l l::lse Only Se,.siti.e l" te, "al l"fermatiefl TRIP REPORT TRIP TO HELSINKI, FINLAND, JANUARY 29 - FEBRUARY 1, 2006 AND TO PARIS , FRANCE. FEBRUARY 1 -4, 2006

Subject:

Trip Report for Travel to Helsinki, Finland, and to Paris, France.

Dates of Travel and Countries/Organizations Visited: January 29 - February 1, 2006: Finland, STUK/U .S. Embassy. February 1 - 4, 2006: France, ASN/IRSN .

Travelers Jeffrey Jacobson, OIP Joseph Williams, NRR Sensitivity: Sensitive, limited to NRC.

Background/Purpose: The purpose of this trip was to begin discussions with the NRC's Finnish and French regulatory counterparts regarding potential cooperation opportunities associated with the regulatory design reviews of the AREVA EPR reactor, as part of Stage 1 of the NRC's Multinational Design Approval Program (MDAP). The EPR reactor is currently under construction in Finland and has been proposed for construction in France. AREVA has also indicated its plans to submit the EPR reactor design to the NRC in late 2007 for a U.S. design certification. Constellation Energy has indicated plans to bui ld four or more EPR units in the U.S.

The main objectives of the trip were to:

(1) obtain insights regarding the Finnish and French licensing processes as applied to the EPR reactor including schedules and outputs; (2) obtain preliminary information regarding the breadth and depth of French and Finnish regulatory design reviews of the EPR; (3) provide an overview of the MDAP and the U.S. licensing process to the French and Finnish regulators; and (4) discuss logistical issues relative to the implementation of Stage 1 of the MDAP.

Abstract: Summary of Pertinent Points/Issues On January 31, 2006, NRC staff met with the Finnish radiation safety authority (STUK) at their offices in Helsinki, Finland. The meeting began with a presentation (attached) from the NRC on the MDAP, focusing on the Stage 1 application to the EPR reactor. STUK then provided a orrtcia l tJse 0 ,,1, SeMoiti,se ln&esRal lnfocmatioo

Attachment Qffieial I.Isa QRly ioR&itiuo IAlornal lotocrna*ioo general overview of their licensing process as applied to the EPR, followed by more detailed discussions regarding specific portions of the their ongoing design review. Specific topics covered included the development of overall safety goals and requirements for protection against severe accidents, protection against external threats (security), system design, and fire protection. Of particular interest was STUK's development of safety goals using a risk-informed approach that appears to have effectively Integrated both risk based and deterministic criteria.

The NRC staff concluded that STUK's reactor licensing process is somewhat analogous to the NRC's previous Part 50 approach. The breadth and depth of STUK's completed and planned review of the reactor design appears, at least initially, to be comparable to that of an NRC effort. STUK has also incorporated the expertise of a number of external organizations into their review process. Based on STUK's planned schedule for completing its design reviews of the EPR, much of their work should be available to the NRC to use during the staff's planned design certification review.

On February 1, 2006, the NRC staff provided Nick Killenberger of the U.S. Embassy with a brief overview of the MDAP program and discussed the results of the previous day's meeting with STUK. The staff also discussed possible future interactions and mentioned a pending Commissioner vislt to Finland later this year. Mr. Killenberger indicated that the embassy would welcome such a visit and would be happy to assist and participate in a visit to the Olkiiluoto site.

On February 3, 2006, NRC staff met in Paris, France with representatives of the French nuclear safety authority (ASN) and the French radio-protection research institute (IRSN). The French provided an overview of their licensing process as being applied to the EPR, followed by presentations by the NRC staff on the MDAP and the U.S. reactor licensing process. Overall, the French approach to licensing the EPR appears to be much more collaborative in nature than the U.S. process, involving early discussions between the regulator and the reactor designer regarding the acceptability of aspects of the proposed design. It also appears that the French approach to licensing is much less prescriptive in nature. Rather than a detailed template analogous to the NRC's Standard Review Plan, the topical areas receiving an in-depth review in France are decided primarily by the IRSN and the French ACRS equivalent on an ad-hoc basis.

ASN plans to receive a Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) from AREVA in May of 2006, after which detailed design reviews will follow. Operation for the first EPR reactor, currently being planned for the site in Flamanville is scheduled for 2012. During the meeting, ASN indicated their desire for future discussions with the NRC on: safety goals for new reactors; personnel exchanges; and the NRC's construction inspection program.

Overall, based upon the preliminary information gathered during this trip, it appears that a meaningful opportunity exists to leverage the technical work of the Finnish and French regulators in the NRC's review of the EPR design, both from a safety and an efficiency perspective. The level of cooperation achievable will depend in large part on the relative standardization of the U.S., Finnish, and French EPRs, as well as on the actual content of the AREVA design certification application to be submitted to the NRC.

Discussion:

Attachment Official I.Jse 011ly Se11sitioe lute, tial l11fo1111atiou Helsinki, Finland On January 31 , 2006, NRC staff met with the Finnish radiation safety authority (STUK) at their offices in Helsinki, Finland. The meeting began with a presentation (attached) from the NRC on the MDAP, focusing on the Stage 1 application to the EPR reactor. As part of its presentation, the staff explained that Stage 1 of the MDAP was a first step towards developing programs to capitalize on new opportunities for cooperation between our two cou ntries in the nuclear regulatory area. STUK then provided a general overview of their licensing process as applied to the EPR, followed by more detailed discussions regarding specific portions of the their design review. Specific topics covered included the development of overall safety goals and requirements for protection against severe accidents, for protection against external threats (security), for system design, and for fire protection.

Of particular Interest was STUK's development of safety goals using a risk-informed approach that appears to have effectively integrated both risk based and deterministic criteria. STUK indicated that the safety goals developed for the EPR reactor were specifically design to enhance the safety of the reactor by incorporating design features to prevent certain initiating events, by improving mitigation features, and by incorporating increased design safety margins.

Also of interest is the work that STUK has done with regard to developing regulatory criteria associated with "break preclusion" of the main coolant piping, including their requirements for pipe whip restraints and the treatment of leak-before-break into the reactor's design basis.

STUK has also conducted extensive reviews of the EPR's probablistic safety assessment (PSA) which was used by AREVA as a design aid, and by STUK as a means of measuring the resultant safety of the comp leted design.

Based upon the discussions held during this visit, it appears that STUK's reactor licensing process is somewhat analogous to the NRC's previous Part 50 approach. The breadth and depth of STUK's completed and planned review of the reactor design also appears to be comparable to that of an NRC effort. Of interest is STU K's use of the same individuals to do both construction ins ection and design review activities and their extensive vendor oversight activities. t >i.11 lb)\4J as a so incorpora e organizations into t e1r review process and has been working with their French counterparts ASN, albeit on a somewhat less formal basis than what Is envisioned for the MDAP.

Considering STU K's planned schedule for completing its design reviews of the EPR, much of their work should be available to the NRC to use during our planned design certification review.

It is also worth noting that most, if not all, of the technical documents associated with the Finnish EPR are in English.

The NRC staff also discussed in what ways the NRC could reciprocate in facilitating the ongoing EPR review in Finland. STUK indicated the potential for selected NRC staff to come to Finland to become familiar with the STUK reviews and possibly participate in ongoing review activities. It is likely that the resultant regulatory products and knowledge gained through this work could also be used to facilitate a U.S. EPR review. Such cooperation would likely negate the necessity for U.S. payments to STUK, as had been mentioned in previous correspondence, although the option was left open to pay STUK for certain extended personnel exchanges, if deemed beneficial to the project. Among the initial areas where STUK expressed a desire to interface with NRC staff were security issues associated with aircraft and other potential threats E>ffieiol Wee ORiy 5eA&itive Internal lotacroatioo

Attachment 9ffieipl ~9c Q,.I:, 6c119itive h1te1 mil h1fo, 111ation and severe accident research. STUK also indicated the potential for the NRC to provide assistance on other regulatory matters, not specifically tied to the EPR review.

Following the meetings at STUK, on February 1, 2006, the NRC staff provided Nick Killenberger of the U.S. Embassy with a brief overview of the MDAP prog ram and the results of the previous days discussions. The staff also discussed possible future interactions and mentioned a pending Commissioner visit to Finland later this year. Mr. Killenberger indicated that the embassy would welcome such a visit and would be happy to assist and participate in a visit to the Olkiluoto site.

Paris, France On February 3, 2006, NRG staff met in Paris, France with representatives of the French nuclear safety authority (ASN) and the French radio-protection research institute (IRSN). The French provided an overview of their licensing process as being applied to the EPR, followed by presentations by the NRC staff on the MDAP and the U.S. reactor licensing process. The French explained that the EPR design emanated from a multi-year collaborative French/German effort to develop safety guidelines for the next generation of reactors. This collaborative effort resulted in the issuance of a document in October 2000, entitled, "Technical Guidelines for the Design and Construction of the next Generation of Pressurized Water Reactors. Overall, the the French approach to licensing the EPR appears to be much more collaborative in nature than the U,S. process, involVlng early discussions between the regulator and the reactor designer regarding the acceptability of aspects of the proposed design. It also appears that the French approach to licensing is less prescriptive in nature. Rather than a detailed template analogous to the NRC's Standard Review Plan, the topical areas receiving an in-depth review in France are decided primarily by the IRSN and the French ACRS equivalent.

Many topical reviews of the EPR have already been completed and are available in English.

ASN indicated that they would make these topical reports available for NRC review as part of the MDAP. ASN plans to receive a PSAR from AREVA in May of 2006, after which detailed design reviews will follow. These reviews would also be made available to the NRC staff.

Operation for the first EPR reactor, currently being planned for the site in Flamanville is 2012.

ASN indicated their desire for future discussions on the topics of safety goals for new reactors, personnel exchanges, and the NRC's construction inspection program. ASN also indicated the desire to consider personnel exchanges involving technical experts, as well as exchanges of more general project management staff. It is believed that such personnel exchanges would facilitate the future exchanges of technical information.

During the meeting, a discussion was also held concerning France's possible participation in Stage 2 of the MDAP. Originally, France had been hesitant to endorse Stage 2 of the MDAP, due to their view that the NRC would use the MDAP to try and impose the U.S. way of licensing on all participating parties. After explaining in detail the current vision of Stage 2 of the MDAP, as described in SECY 0029, the ASN representatives stated they would likely be more supportive of the Stage 2 effort and indicated that they would reconsider their willingness to participate in the program. Subsequent discussions with ASN representatives indicate they are now supportive of the MDAP Stage 2 initiative.

Preliminary Conclusions Regarding Cooperation Opportunities With French and Finnish Regulators o rrtcial tJse *6r1ly =Se;;sitiuc t11te1nal h1fo1111ntio11

Attachment O#i&ial I l&o 9Aly i0A&ili¥ 0 IAtOFAal lAf8FA'IBli8fl Based upon the preliminary information obtained during this visit, it appears that a meaningful opportunity exists to leverage the planned and completed technical work of STUK and ASN into the NRC's EPR design review, both from a safety and an efficiency perspective, as part of the MDAP Stage 1 initiative. The ability to utilize the work of ASN may be more challenging than that with STUK, primarily due to differences in regulatory philosophies and the relative schedules of the planned ASN and NRC reviews. With both STUK and ASN, the degree to which the foreign regulator work products could ultimately be utilized by the NRC will depend in large part on the relative standardization of the U.S., French, and Finnish EPR designs, as well as on the actual content of the AREVA design certification application to be submitted to the NRC.

Pending Actions/Planned Next Steps for NRC:

NRC staff visit to AREVA (Lynchburg) to discuss relative standardization of EPR and other topics

Receipt from STUK of a prioritized list of ongoing technical reviews where NRC support would be beneficial Development of a Stage 1 cooperation matrix that includes each technical review area, references to relevant regulator technical reviews (planned and completed), review schedules, and desired cooperation opportunities

Plc1nning for trilateral meeting to discuss Stage 1 matrix and additional logistics Points for Commission Consideration/Items of Interest:

No additional items at this time.

List of Contacts STUK Jukka Laaksonen, Director General Keijo Vlatonen, Head, Reactor and Safety Systems Lasse Reiman , Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation orflcial tJse er11y

Se11sitiuc l11tc111at h1fo1111ntien

Attachment Offlclal tJse 0111y - Seusitive l11ter ual l11fo1111aliou Matti Ojanen, Section Head, Mechanical Engineering Ari Julin, Senior Adviser, Risk Assessment Petteri Tiippana, Head, Plant Projects Rauli Keskinen , Senior Adviser, Mechanical Engineering Juhani Hyvarinen , Head, Power Plant Technology U.S. Embassy - Helsinki Nick Killenberger, Economic Section Mikael Cleverley, Second Secretary ASN Olivier Gupta, Head, Sub-directorate for Power Reactors Olivier Deschildre, Project Manager, Sub-directorate for Power Reactors Pierre Charpentier, Senior Executive, Sub-directorate for Power Reactors IRSN Jean-Michel Evrard, EPR Project Manager, Division of Reactor Safety 8ffieiul l:lse ORiy $0Rei&i1C2 lofecoai Joformatjon

01-FISIAL USE OHL¥ SENSITP.<<E INTERP~ilcl INFORMMION NRC INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL TRIP REPORT Traveler, Office, Division, Phone Number:

Jack Ramsey, Senior Level Advisor, Office of International Programs (OIP), 301-415-2744 Jennifer Schwartzman, International Relations Officer, OIP, 301-415-2317 Tammy Way, Deputy Project Manager for Power Reactors (International Regulatory Development Partnership [IRDP]), Advanced Systems Technology and Management (AdSTM)

Subject:

Travel to Brussels, Belgium to participate in the Seventh Steering Committee Meeting and Fifth Support Meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (,IAEA) Regulatory Cooperation Forum (RCF).

Dates of Travel and Countries/Organizations Visited:

Dates of Travel: May 17-22, 2015 May 18: RCF Steering Committee Meeting May 19-21 : RCF Support Meeting Desired Outcomes:

To provide a presentation and related insights about U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) assistance program activities in countries seeking to establish nuclear power programs; hear from other provider countries about their recent assistance activities; receive status updates from the four RCF recipient countries (Belarus, Jordan, Poland, and Vietnam) about progress in their nuclear power program development; and discuss methods to enhance coordination among provider countries to avoid duplication of effort and ensure maximum benefit for recipient countries.

Results Achieved:

The travelers shared information about the NRC's assistance activities, gained valuable insights about other provider countries' activities and recipient countries' efforts to leverage these activities to develop their nuclear power programs, and engaged in beneficial sidebar discussions with regulatory counterparts.

Summary of Trip:

On Monday, May 18, 2015, the travelers participated in the Seventh RCF Steering Committee.

Mr. Jean-Luc Lachaume, Deputy Director General of the French Nuclear Safety Authority and Chairman of the RCF, chaired the meeting. Mr. Bismark Tyobeka, Chief Executive Officer of the National Nuclear Regulator of South Africa, who serves as Vice Chairman of the RCF, provided an update of the most recent RCF Working Group meeting. Ms. Adriana Nicic, Acting Section Head of the Regulatory Activities Section at the IAEA; Pascal Daures, Head of the Nuclear Safety Preventative and Corrective Actions Sector in the European Commission's (EC)

Directorate General for Development and Cooperation; and Kazuo Shimomura, Acting Deputy Director General and Chief Nuclear Officer at the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) also provided remarks. Representatives from the RCF recipient countri,es provided a brief overview of the status of their current work with various provider countries and organizations, a preview of the more detailed presentations they would each provide during the Support Meeting later in the week.

The focus of the second half of the Steering Committee meeting was on enhancing coordination among the provider countries, more effectively tracking current assistance activities, and identifying possible common training needs. The IAEA's new RCF Program Coordinator, Mr.

Ol'l'ICl)ll(L U~! Ol*Li S!NSITIV! ll'JT~ftN1<L INF'OftlVl1<IION

OFFICIAL us~ ONL't' SENSITPIE INTER~*AL INFQAM,O.:S:101\1 2

Mamoru Maeoka of Japan, introduced for the group's consideration a new SharePoint "mapping system" to track support activities. Ms. Nicic also proposed three potential training areas: (1) inspection and walkdown training at the Zwentendorf Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) in Austria; (2) a course on regulatory control for NPPs; and (3) a course on integrated management systems.

Mr. Ramsey mentioned that the IAEA may wish to consider working with the NRC's Technical Training Center (TIC) to offer a similar inspector training at the Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station in Alabama in the future, so that boiling-water reactor (Zwentendorf) and pressurized-water reactor (Bellefonte) training could both be offered. Mr. Tyobeka suggested that ideally, training on a Russian VVER reactor could round out the available options for emerging countries.

T he group agreed that the IAEA's SharePoint system had merit, but questioned the countries' ability to keep the information up-to-date in a timely fashion. Several participants also expressed concern that between the IAEA's self-assessment programs, the RCF's separate self-assessment requirement for selecting support countries, and any additional self-assessment activities these countries may be undertaking for their own benefit, the self-assessments may be becoming too onerous. At the conclusion of the first day, the group approved a rough outline of the proposed agenda for the next RCF plenary meeting, to be held on the margins of the IAEA General Conference in September 2015, and agreed to hold the next Steering Committee meeting in the spring of 2016.

On May 19, a larger group of provider and recipient countries and representatives of multinational organizations gathered to share information about current support activities. The IAEA, NEA, EC, and a variety of RCF member countries (Iran, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United States) provided overviews of current activities to support emerging nuclear power countries. Mr. Ramsey provided the NRC's presentation, which focused on IRDP activities and emphasized the importance of design experience, rather than program size. He noted that IRDP provides technology-neutral advice and support and highlighted in particular the IRDP's Nuclear Executive Workshop, the material for which complements the IAEA's focus on integrated management systems.

Ms. Nicic focused on the IAEA's organizational evolution from facilitating regulatory assistance, by making connections between countries, to actually providing multilateral assistance through a series of standardized tools. She emphasized the Agency's efforts to "train the trainers" and ensure the most effective use of Agency and country resources. Mr. Shimomura shared information about NEA nuclear safety and other regulatory publications that could benefit new nuclear power countries. Iran opined that more emphasis should be placed on RCF member countries that could potentially be recipients and providers, based on experience gained from running a small nuclear power program.

As each presenter discussed his or her organization's current work with the RCF support countries, it was clear that the highest degree of duplication exists relative to work with Vietnam .

The participants acknowledged that while every effort can be made to avoid duplicative activities in principle, some support countries are requesting the same information and training from everyone. One participant expressed concern that this will unnecessarily confuse the recipients.

The final two days were devoted to detailed presentations and discussions about each RCF recipient country's work with the provider countries, progress in implementing outstanding actions, and plans for future engagement. During these discussions, the EC representatives 9FFISIAL U&li ONI..¥ iliiMilll>lE lf>ITEliUIAI INEORMAIION

01-1-IGIAL Uii 0Nb¥ ilii lilTl>LE INTERNAL INEORMAIION 3

met concurrently with the other recipient countries specifically on activities under the EC's Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC). Representatives from Poland and Belarus provided their presentations on the first day, and Jordan and Vietnam presented on the second day.

Poland During his presentation, Mr. Michal Koc, Head of the Planning and Coordination Unit in the Office of the President of the Polish National Atomic Energy Agency (PAA) indicated that PAA expects a decision on NPP technology soon and noted that the country still plans to launch its first reactor unit in 2024. PAA has increased its staff by 50 percent in the past two years and is emphasizing a strong internal safety culture. The organization is using the results of its 2013 IAEA Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission as the basis of its action plan and seeking support from provider countries according to the specific actions. One of the most beneficial means of support for PAA is sending experts on assignment at foreign regulatory bodies for on-the-job training. The NRG will support an assignee from PAA in Region II later this year.

Following the presentation, the provider countries discussed upcoming assistance activities in Poland. Canada offered training on licensing basis and riisk-informed decision making, and Korea offered on-the-job training for a PAA staff member. In addition to confirming that plans are still moving forward for a foreign assignment for PAA in Region II, Mr. Ramsey offered an IRDP construction and inspection workshop in Warsaw. PAA will consider this and respond to NRG in the near future.

Belarus Mr. Oleg Sobolev, Head of the Division of Communication and Public Information at the Belarusian nuclear regulatory authority, Gosatomnadzor (GAN), began his presentation with an update on the NPP construction in Belarus, now 20 percent complete. The Government still plans to bring the first reactor unit online in 2018 and the second in 2020. Mr. Sobolev explained the complex Government structure for regulatory oversight of NPPs in Belarus.

Interestingly, GAN does not make the final operating license decision; this is done instead by a ministerial board. In addition, the Ministry for Emergency Situations has primary responsibility for emergency preparedness as well as siting and construction oversight. This prompted a number of questions from the group in terms of GAN's authority and effectiveness.

GAN has an ambitious schedule for IAEA peer review missions, with five scheduled between now and the middle of 2018 including a planned IRRS mission in October 2016. Mr. Sobolev indicated that the majority of issues in Belarus's RCF action plan focus on regulatory development. GAN's staff has more than doubled in size since 2013, from 39 to 82 staff, so they are specifically seeking best practices on how to grow and develop regulatory staff. GAN would also like to observe public hearings on nuclear safety issues, with which both Canada and the United States indicated they could potentially assist, and to learn more about appropriate interactions between the regulator and technical support organizations (TSOs). Mr.

Sobolev and the Russian representative also noted that Russia will hold a nuclear security workshop in Minsk in July 2015 as well as a reactor-focused workshop at the Novovoronezh NPP in Russia. GAN and Rostekhnadzor are also developing a joint program on nuclear and radiation safety research and development. Under INSC auspices, the EC is spending approximately 6 million Euros on projects to improve the Belarusian regulatory framework, develop a spent fuel and radioactive waste management strategy, develop an emergency preparedness roadmap, and enhance mobile radiation monitoring.

QFFISIAL U&li ONL¥ iiMilll'lE l ITERIAI INEORMAIION

eFFlelilcl USE eNLY SENSl'flYE IPnERNilll IPffORMA-"FION 4

Jordan Tamer Kasht, Director of Communication and International Cooperation at the Energy and Minerals Regulatory Commission (EMRC) in Jordan, began by noting that Jordan is facing an escalating energy crisis, owing in part to the large influx of refugees who have joined the country's population in the past several years. Based on current calculations, 6.8 gigawatts of new power generating capacity will be needed to satisfy projected electricity demand in Jordan by 2030. He explained the infrastructure put in place between Jordan and the Russian Federation to take the actions necessary to build two 1200 megawatt (MW) VVER reactors in Jordan. A project company has been established with 51 % ownership from the Jordan Nuclear Power Company and 49% from Rosatom Overseas.

Regarding EMRC's legal framework, Mr. Kasht explained that radiation and nuclear safety, previously covered under individual laws, are now chapte rs in the new Energy and Minerals Law passed in 2014. Based on the results of the IRRS mission to Jordan in 2014, EMRC has suggested language to strengthen the law to include a public engagement strategy, emphasis on the operator's primary responsibility for safety, and emergency preparedness. He also noted that a proposed law would be submitted to the Prime Minister before the end of May expanding EMRC's oversight to include oil, natural gas, and coal. Mr. Kasht indicated that developing staff competency was still the highest priority for EMRC; compounding this problem, a current hiring freeze is preventing the organization from bringing new experts on board.

Like Poland, EMRC was using the results of its IRRS mission to shape its action plan. The IRRS mission identified substantial areas for improvement, and it is clear that significant work lies ahead for EMRC even as the Government of Jordan moves ahead with plans for NPP construction. EMRC appears to be proceeding in a logical, structured approach, but its ability to accomplish these ambitious tasks will depend on the capacity and capability of its staff.

Jordan has been working with the Republic of Korea to construct a 5 MW research and test reactor at the Jordan University for Science and Technology, approximately 70 kilometers north of Amman. Construction has roceeded on schedule and lans are in lace to load fuel in October 2015. (tJJ '

(b)14, The IAEA is sending two technical cooperation missions to Jordan on an "urgent" basis to assist with this, and EMRC has also reached out to the NRC for assistance in this area on numerous occasions.

Vietnam Ms. Dang Anh Thu represented the Vietnamese Agency for Radiation and Nuclear Safety (VARANS). Due to a scheduling conflict with a major nuclear safety conference in Vietnam, the majority of VARANS staff was unavailable to participate in the RCF meeting, and Ms. Dang, though well-informed, did not have the authority to make any decisions on behalf of her organization. This hampered the group's ability to update Vietnam's action plan and discuss next steps for providing targeted assistance.

Ms. Dang provided an overview of plans for nuclear power in Vietnam, culminating with the recent approval for the Ninh Thuan Unit 1 NPP site and Vietnam's cooperation with the Russian Federation. She explained that plans are underway to restructure VARANS to incorporate its TSO under the VARANS umbrella, and discussed a number of laws and "circulars" under development on various NPP safety areas including siting, construction, and licensing.

OFFIOlilll USE 8NL¥ SEtmn=,,.~c INTERNAL INFORMAfl9~,

OFFICIAL USE ONLt SENSITIV!! INTl!"NAL INl'O"M~ION 5

Ms. Dang then discussed the 2014 IRRS follow-up mission at VARANS, which concluded that 53 recommendations and 30 su estions remain o en from 2009. (oJt4l 1 H4 Ms. Dang explained that a 2008 Atomic Energy Law was drafted to establish an independent regulatory body, (bH4 l Of all the RCF recipient countries, Vietnam has likely requested and received the most assistance with the highest level of duplication. It appears that VARANS continues to request nearly identical workshops, documents and on-the-iob trainina assianments from all the provider countries and orqanizations.1<01141 (b)l4)

Pending Actions/Planned Next Steps for NRC:

Through the IRDP, NRC staff will continue to engage in the four recipient countries in the form of workshops and training activities. OIP will work with the IAEA and the TTC on the feasibility of establishing a walkdown and inspection training program at the Bellefonte site. OIP will also continue facilitating foreign assignee placement for PAA and potentially VARANS representatives in the next fiscal year. OIP will continue to report regularly on its assistance activities.

Points for Commission Consideration/Interest:

Jordan: While the new Jordanian law, if enacted, would give EMRC more comprehensive oversight of all sources of energy in that country, it would almost certain! deflect necessar attention away from the country's burgeoning nuclear program. (bl( 4>

EC Engagement: It is clear that the EC's international assistance engagement, through the INSC and other vehicles, is expanding and that the Commission has sizeable resources to devote to these activities. As both differences and similarities between the NRC and EC approaches to nuclear safety continue to play out in the multilateral environment at the same time that the NRC continues to engage the EC more closely on assistance-related activities, it is becoming more important for the NRC to understand EC issues as well as possible and engage our counterparts at the Commission on a regular basis.

Enclosures:

Note: These enclosures were not among the material

1. Presentations from Poland compiled by the OIG during its investigation, C13-027,

2. Presentations from Belarus 3 _ Presentations from Jordan "Spe.cial Project: NRC Regulatory Oversight. "

4 . Presentations from Vietnam

~------------------~

OFFIOlitcL l:JSE OHL¥ SEN91'fl't'E IH'fEftNAL INl'O"MATIOl'II

6FFlelAL U~I! ONLY - ~OPU!!ION OO'O!"NMENT INFORM~ITON NRC INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL TRIP REPORT Traveler(s), Office, Division, Phone Number:

Jack Ramsey, Senior Level Advisor for International Nuclear Safety Assistance, Office of International Programs (OIP), 301-415-2744

Mugeh Afshar-Tous, Chief, International Cooperation and Assistance Branch, OIP, 301-415-6899

Subject:

OIP participation in an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Interregional Meeting on the Coordination of Project INT/9/176 and on the Technical Options for Disposal of Radioactive Sources, and in meettng with the regulators in the Republic of Moldova and in the Republic of Georgia.

Dates of Travel and Countries/Organizations Visited :

April 11 - 21, 2015; Morocco (IAEA meeting); Moldova's National Agency for Regulation of Nuclear and Radiological Activity; and Georgia's Nuclear Regulatory and Safety Department.

Desired Outcome:

Decide on the program scope and activities for IAEA's 2015 radioactive sources project in the Mediterranean region;

Discuss the Radiation Sources Regulatory Partnership (RSRP) project in Moldova;

Discuss the RSRP project in Georgia.

Results Achieved:

Presented and participated in the IAEA Project Coordination Meeting - Marrakesh, Morocco "Strengthening cradle to grave control of radioactive sources in the Mediterranean Region";

Discussed the status of the RSRP in Moldova;

Met with the new regulator in Georgia and discussed the status of the ongoing RSRP project in Georgia.

Summary of Trip:

During April 13-14, Mr. Ramsey and Ms. Afshar-Tous participated in the IAEA's Interregional Meeting on the Coordination of Project INT/9/176 and on the Technical Options for Disposal of Radioactive Sources. The Meeting was the last coordination meeting for the Phase I of this four-year project, which will end in December 2015. The Meeting was held in Marrakech with representatives from 18 Mediterranean countries. Mr. Ramsey provided a presentation on the status of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Assistance Program. NRC's Assistance funds has contributed ta this Project.

This IAEA meeting provided an opportunity for the travelers to become familiar with the IAEA's "Mediterranean Project to improve the cradle to grave management of disused sealed radioactive sources (DSRS). " It was an opportunity to engage with representatives from many

countries to which NRC provides assistance, either bilaterally or through the IAEA projects including, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Egypt, Ghana, Jordan, Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia, Malta, Montenegro, Morocco, Nigeria, Serbia, Slovenia, Tunisia, Turkey and the United Republic of Tanzania. Phase II of this IAEA Project will begin in January 2016 to conUnue for another 4 years, and will be open to any IAEA Member State.

Of significance was that Malaysia attended this meeting as a guest because Malaysia may be the first country in the world to license and implement the IAEA's system for intermediate-depth borehole disposal of DSRS. The travelers met with the representatives from Nuclear Malaysia and Malaysia's regulator, the Atomic Energy Licensing Board.

On April 16 -17, the travelers had meetings in Chisinau, Moldova. On Thursday, April 16th, upon arrival in Chisinau, the travelers met with the Mr. Lilian Darii, Head of the General Direction Multilateral Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Integration with Europe; and on Friday, April 17'\ they met with Dr. Chirica Lazarthe, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Environment. Both asked for the NRC to continue Its assistance to the regulator in Moldova, the National Agency for Regulation of Nuclear and Radiological Activities (ANRANR), to enable it to continue with its work. Mr. Ramsey stressed that the regulator must now contribute to the international community by continuing to share its knowledge with other regulators. For example, the Moldovan regulator has shared the Russian version of its legislation with Kazakhstan's regulator for its consideration. NRC is also hopeful that the ANRANR staff will be available to provide technical training to other countries in the region.

The travelers spent most of Friday, April 1i11, with ANRANR, which with its limited resources is progressing very well with maintaining and updating its radioactive sources directory. The value of NRC's Assistance investment is tangible in the form of IT equipment, licensing and iinspection files both in electronic and paper formats per Moldova's legislation, as well as the registry database of sources. In addition to the assistance funds from the NRC, the ANRANR also gets some financial help from the IAEA and European Commission, and has been receiving technical training and equipment from Sweden's Radiation Safety Authority (SSM.)

Currently, ANRANR has 14 staff (including the director and 3 non-technical staff) and needs to have at least 20 (ideally 24) personnel to do the work under its purview. The ANRANR has requested additional funding from Moldova's Ministry of Finance, but is not hopeful that the request will be approved. 11bl(4 i (l:ll(41 I*

On April 20, the travelers met the Republic of Georgia's regulator, the Nuclear Regulatory and Safety Department (NRSD), which reports to the Ministry of Environment. During the meeting, the Head of the NRSD, Vasil Gedevanishvili, shared plans to bureaucratically elevate the NRSD to the status of a Legal Entity of Public Law (LEPL), which, in the Georgian system, has more autonomy and decision-making authority than a department. This planned future LEPL will have three divisions: inspections, licensinq, and radioloqical waste manaqement. J(til( 4l (b)(4l (0)(4)

I* He thanked NRC

OFFIGhtcl USE ONLY FOREIGN G0¥1iRNMliN+ l~U*QRM.Al:rQN attorneys for previously reviewing the draft laws and offering suggestions about how to strengthen the firewalls between the soon-to-be-established LEPL's regulatory and waste management functions, and said that the laws should be approved by Parliament in this summer's session.

As part of NRSD's reorganization, the future LEPL will take over control of Georgia's two radiological waste sites at Saakadze and Mtskheta, both of which have been under control of Tbilisi State University's Institute of Physics. On April 20, NRSD official Jumber Mamasakhlisi, gave the NRC visitors a tour of the two sites. The Saakadze site is a Soviet-era radiolo ical waste facilit that was ori inall owned and mana ed b the cit of Tbilisi. (bl(4 l lb I )

<0 H4l he Mtskheta site is located at one of the decommissioned nuclear research reac ors, ana it houses radiological sources collected throughout the country over the past two decades in a storage facility largely finan '

National Nuclear Safet Administration. (bil4 ,

(t,)(lll In the afternoon of April 201h,, the travelers met with Georgia' Deputy Minister of Heath, Maia Bitadze, who told the NRC experts that the Government has come to better understand the importance of regulating and managing radiological materials, a shift in approach that is reflected in the Government's strong support for increasing funding to and the status of the new organization. She said that Georgia's Association Agreement (AA) and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) with the European Union, signed in June 2014, had further helped change Government attitudes towards environmental and regulatory issues, as these are emphasized in both documents as areas for improvement. However, she added that U.S. support will continue to be critical into the future.

Attachment:

Note: The attachment was not among Agenda for the IAEA meeting the material compiled by the OIG during its investigation, C13-027, "Special Project: NRC Regulatory Oversight."

OFFIGlilcl USE ONLY FOREIC~* COVliR IMlii*:r l U;QAM.O.ITQN

OFFIGhlcL USE 8NLV FOREIGN C0¥1!RNMliiillil+ l~U*Q~HAl+ON NRC INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL TRIP REPORT Traveler(s), Office, Division, Phone Number:

Jack Ramsey, Senior Level Advisor for International Nuclear Safety Assistance, Office of International Programs (OIP), 301-415-2744

Danielle Emche, International Relations Specialist, International Cooperation and Assistance Branch, OIP, 301-415-2644

Sergey Katsenelendbogen, Advanced Systems Technology and Management, Inc.

(NRC contractor)

Subject:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) international assistance travel in support of the International Regulatory Development Partnership (IRDP) activities in Romania and Radiation Sources Regulatory Partnership (RSRP) activities in Moldova.

Dates of Travel and Countries/Organizations Visited:

September 5 - 12, 2015; Bucharest, Romania; National Commission for Nuclear Activities Control (CNCAN); and Chisinau, Moldova; National Agency for Regulation of Nuclear and Radiological Activity (NRNRA).

Desired Outcome:

In Romania, to attend the NRC IRDP Construction Permit Application Review Workshop and decide on a path forward for future cooperation and assistance activities with CNCAN.

In Moldova, to participate in the RSRP 5th Regional Meeting, and receive program updates from country representatives attending the meeting.

Results Achieved:

In Romania , NRC discussed cooperation and assistance requests with CNCAN, and decided on a path forward for future assistance activities.

In Moldova, NRC received country updates from the meeting attendees; and discussed country assistance requests, RSRP database software topics, and future RSRP activities.

Summary of Trip:

On September 6, 2015, Mr. Ramsey and Ms. Emche visited Romania and participated in the NRC IRDP Construction Permit Application Review Workshop. Romanian attendees included participants from CNCAN, NuclearElectrica S.A., Universi.ty of Bucharest, and the Institute for Nuclear Research Pitesti. Romanian participants discussed the challenge of implanting the European Council Revised Nuclear Safety Directive and the need to demonstrate that new reactors constructed in a country cannot produce a severe accident. Romania is constructing two Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) reactors at Cernavoda, the existing site of two operating CANDU 6 reactors, Cernavoda Units 1 and 2. Cernavoda Units 3 and 4 will be updated versions of the CAN DU 6 design. Unit 3 is roughly 53 percent complete and Unit 4 is roughly 30 percent complete; and are expected to operate in 2019 and 2020, respectively.

Following the workshop, Madalina Tronea, Nuclear Safety Advisor, CNCAN, met with NRC representatives. Ms. Tronea said that CNCAN has roughly 100 staff and that her main challenge is hiring and training staff. In 2009, CNCAN's total staff was reduced by 15, and in its 2016 budget CNCAN proposed to regain 15 full0time equivalents.

OFFIGIAL U6E OHL¥ l'aORlil<.N <.O>JliiR~IIIEMT INfOPMAITON

OFFiCIAL USE ONLY f"OREl8t* 68'/ERNMliil'IT IN~ORDOAIION Ms. Tronea discussed CNCAN requests for assistance. NRC representatives agreed to work with CNCAN on its top assistance priority to enhance and formalize an inspector training program. CNCAN will provide NRC with an English version of its existing inspector training program documents for review and comparison with NRC's program. After NRC reviews the documents, CNCAN experts In this area Will visit the United States for engaging In technical exchange. CNCAN is also interested in developing a training course similar to the NRC's R-800, "Perspectives in Reactor Safety." NRC representatives said that they would look into whether NRC could share the course material with CNCAN, and whether NRC instructors could teach a session of the course in Romania. In addition, the CNCAN Director for Ionizing Radiation is interested in visiting an advanced laser installation in the United States. CNCAN staff committed to send further information for this request. The NRC Knowledge Management Portal is also of interest to CNCAN staff and they are interested in viewing a demonstration of the site.

CNCAN requested assistance related to a finding from its 2011 International Atomic Energy Agency {IAEA) Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission, that there is no process in Romania for incident investigations, nor a process for analyzing lessons learned from events.

CNCAN staff expressed that one of their priority requests for assistance is to develop incident investigation procedures. CNCAN requested information on NRC's process for performing incident investigations, and NRC committed to provide this information.

During September 8 - 11, 2015, NRC representatives visited Chisinau, Moldova, and participated in the RSRP 5th Regional Meeting. Representatives from Armenia , Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan attended. Meeting participants provided national presentations. In addition, RSRP software updates were presented by NRC contractors and all meeting attendees engaged in discussions related to future RSRP activities.

Moldova was the first country to present, and Mr. Artur Buzdugan, Director, NRNRA, b,egan with an overview of NRNRA's regulatory authority for the safety and security of radioactive sources.

Mr. Buzdugan reported that NRNRA has the ability to conduct announced and unannounced inspections. NRNRA's radioactive sources datab3/4I~

w;l.l.l.JlJfilfill.lWl.ID.lllelta.iW.CLLL~m;i.ru:.a.._,

Mr. Buzdugan stated that RNRA s chal enges include pu lie engagement, properly maintaining and using radiation detection equipment, the Transnistrla region, and relations with border police and coordinating movement of radioactive material. NRNRA is located within the Ministry of Environment, which can be challenging because the Ministry does not fully appreciate the mission and priorities of NRNRA.

Mr. Grigol Basilia, Main Specialist, Nuclear and Radiation Safety Department, Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, presented for Georgia. Mr. Basilia introduced the ongoing activities in Georgia to create an independent regulatory authority outside of the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, which will take effect January 1, 2016. The name of the new regulatory authority has not been decided. Currently, his organization is focused on developing the structure and responsibilities of the different offices within the new regulator. Mr. Basilia referenced the visit of Commissioner Ostendorff in 2013, and he said that a subsequent visit by 01-lalCIAL Y&& 9HL¥ FOREIGN GOYERr~MEr~, ll~l'OflltMJl(ITON 3

OFFl61ilcl USE 6NLY - f-6~El61" ~OVl!!P""Ml!!NT ll"P'OFUlll~ITON a Commissioner to speak to the same officials and reiterate the same points related to creating the regulatory body would be useful. One issue moving forward is that the new regulator will subsume the Department for Waste Management, which operates the radioactive waste facility.

The new regulator will be responsible for regulating and operating this facility.

Mr. Jabor Salomov, Deputy Director, Nuclear and Radiation Safety Agency (NRSA), under the Academy of Sciences, presented on the activities in Tajikistan. Mr. Salomov explained that NRSA has been working with the NRC to develop Tajikistan's radioactive sources database since 2006. NRSA is updating its regulatory framework and developing new regulations to support the framework. He said that NRSA is focused on activities related to finding a solution for storing radioactive waste , addressing mill tailings, and conditioning sites where uranium was previously extracted. NRSA is developing guidance documents for remediation of uranium mills and Mr. Salomov requested NRC support for this effort.

Ms. lryna Tkachonak, Deputy Head of the Section for Supervision of Radioactive Sources, Gosatomnadzor, Department for Nuclear and Radiation Safety, Ministry for Emergency Situations presented for Belarus. Ms. Tkachonak explained that there are roughly 100 staff working for Gosatomnadzor. She said that Gosatomnadzor's main challenge is preparing for its IAEA IRRS mission in 2016, and completing the self-assessment. She said that her section is focused on processing and reviewing radioactive sources licensing documents, and enhancing the management of radioactive sources.

Mr. Yakubekovd Sardorbek, Deputy Head of the Nuclear Unit, State Inspectorate on Safety, Industry, and Mining (SISIM), presented on the activities iin Uzbekistan. Mr. Sardorbek explained that Uzbekistan began using the Radioactive Sources Database (RASOD) software in 2009, with the support of NRC. SISIM headquarters is in Tashkent, where its seven staff are based, and it is responsible for activities related to nuclear safety, radiation safety, and radioactive waste licensing and inspection. Mr. Sardorbek added that there are three other entities with responsibilities related to regulating nuclear material in Uzbekistan.

Additional RSRP discussions were focused on the database software technology, and were led by Armenia which, as the first users of the original system, takes the lead for its enhancement.

The latest upgrade for the system will be available to users in the coming months. The new system, known as Advanced Regulatory Information System (ARIS) is an umbrella suite that offers an upgrade to the orig inal RASOD system, and includes additional modules for licensing, inspections, and import/export tracking. Key features of ARIS are its hardened backup capability and ability to restrict user rights. The system also has a feature for translation into any language. User manuals for ARIS will be available in the near future with the system roll-out to occur at the end of 2015.

Future needs of the RSRP were discussed. There is significant interest from African countries in the program, but lacking Internet infrastructure in African countries creates a challenge for downloading the software. There was discussion of whether Belarus will officially join the program and use the ARIS technology, and Belarus confirmed that the Government has not made a decision. Meeting participants agreed that creating a new ARIS module for radioactive waste would be useful. At the close of the meeting, all participants agreed about the need for an RSRP database training seminar in the next few months.

OFFl61ilcl UOE ONLY FOREl6N 66:VERP~MENT 11"1'6"Ml<IT6N 3

Ol'l'ICIJllCL USI!! ONL t - l'OPU!!!h~N GOVl!!"l~Ml!!NT INl'OFUIIIJllCITON Next Steps:

OIP will pursue offering the, R-800 Perspectives in Reactor Safety," to CNCAN staff.

OIP will work with NRC contractors to ensure the review of CNCAN inspector training program documents and comparison with NRC's inspector training program. and coordinate with the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation as necessary.

CNCAN wi ll send to NRG information related to a potential visit to the United States by the CNCAN Director for Ionizing Radiation, and visit to an advanced laser installation.

OIP will coordinate with CNCAN for an opportunity to demonstrate the NRC Knowledge Management Portal.

OIP and NRR will address the CNCAN request event investigation information.

OIP will explore the potential for a Commission visit to Georgia for mid-2016, to engage once the regulator is established.

OIP will work with NRSA for uranium recovery assistance, and NSRA's effort to develop related NRSA guidance documents.

OIP will consider the possibility of holding a regional RSRP training seminar.

Attachments:

1. Agenda for the meeting in Bucharest, Romania Note: These attachments were not among the

2. Agenda for the meeting in Chisinau, Moldova material compiled by the OIG during its investigation, C13-027, "Special Project: NRC Regulatory Oversight."

OFFICl)lltt USI!! ONLt FORl!!ltll~ CSO~l!!P'tNMl!!NT INP'OlltMJlCITON 4

OFFIGIAL USE ONLY 6DJSITl1JE l~JTe~t>l,0,L lf:>jj;Q~~40TIOt>J NRC INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL TRIP REPORT Traveler, Office, Division, Phone Number:

Jack Ramsey, Office of International Programs (OIP) , 301-415-2744

Brett Rini, OIP, 301-415-1948

C. Eugene Carpenter, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), 301-41 5-2983

Subject:

EUROSAFE Conference and European Commission Coordination Dates of Travel and Countries/Organizations Visited :

October 30 - November 5, 2015; Brussels, Belgium; European Commission Headquarters Desired Outcome:

Gain insight into the implementation of the European Commission's Nuclear Safety Directive and coordinate provision of assistance with the European Commission (EC)

Results Achieved:

All the outcomes described above were achieved.

Summary of Trip:

EUROSAFE Forum 2015 On November 2 and 3, the travelers participated in the EUROSAFE Forum, which is an annual global and European initiative aimed at promoting the convergence of technical nuclear safety practices in Europe. It is formed and managed primarily by technical safety organizations

{TSOs) and regulatory authorities in the following countries: Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Russia , Slovenia, Spain, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Some of these organizations are also members of ETSON, the European Technical Safety Organization Network. This year's Forum was hosted by Bel V of Belgium. The Forum is similar to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Regulatory Information Conference, but it occurs in a shorter time period and on a smaller scale. The theme of the 2015 Forum was "Implementing the 2014 European Directive: Nuclear Safety and Security Challenges Ahead."

The opening plenary sessions focused on the theme of the conference with multiple presentations related to achi,eving the highest nuclear safety standards and obtaining technical convergence on nuclear safety and radiation protection throughout Europe. The plenary session of the conference included presentations from Jacques Repussard of the lnstitut de Radioprotection et de S0rete Nucleaire (IRSN) of France and ETSON, Gerassimos Thomas of the EC, Antonio Munuera of the Spanish Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, and Pierre Doumont of Electrabel in Belgium.

Mr. Repussard, IRSN Director General, discussed the importance of technical convergence in nuclear safety and radiation protection. He discussed several important requirements for nuclear safety including: the adequacy of the regulatory process, the competency of the TSO to evaluate risks and its implementation of science, and the need for nuclear safety oversight to be viewed as legitimate by society through transparency and the involvement of stakeholders.

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - SENSI I IVE iN I ERNAL INFORIVIA I 101\1 Given that the theme of the conference was implementation of the European safety directive, he proclaimed that, "nuclear safety is a national responsibility but a European problem .. . given that reactors don't cross borders, but accidents do." He also mentioned that since operators and vendors are now multinational, a European framework and oversight is required.

Of the items listed above, Mr. Repussard felt that Europe has some room for improvement.

Specifically, he highlighted that there are multiple different approaches to safety, and there is little harmony in regards to emergency management in Europe. In addition, transparency from the regulators and TSOs is inconsistent. However, he did mention that the United States is much better at Including stakeholders than most countries, and he referred to Commission meetings, votes, and other public meetings as examples. Mr. Repussard commented that European o rganizations are willing to support developing nuclear countries but not willing to support other European countries that may need nuclear expertise. While there are legitimate concerns about commercial competition, nuclear safety is not competition-based.

Mr. Thomas, Deputy Director General in the Directorate-General for Energy at the EC discussed the European nuclear safety directive and how nuclear safety is a global matter. He commented that many member states are delayed in their efforts to implement the directive, and that the EC plans to pursue assurance that the member states implement the directive and will perform peer reviews to confirm. He discussed several challenges that the member states face including long-term operations and the need for replacement capacity for older plants. With new construction being considered, he stated that more standardization and cooperation is needed throughout Europe. He also declared that nuclear utilities need to replace their senior managers, as the current mangers have been in place for several years and may not have the experience needed for managing the change that is required. Lastly, he discussed how high safety standards and continuous improvement are needed at the global level and that Europe needs to "export" its high standards to the rest of the world.

Mr. Munuera, Nuclear Safety Director of the Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, discussed the safety improvements implemented post-Fukushima. He explained the differences between the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group, which he referred to as the policy group, and the Western European Nuclear Regulators Association, which he referred to as a club of regulators.

He provided an overview of the stress tests that utilities performed post-Fukushima and discussed commendable practices including the NRC's efforts to implement extensive damage mitigating guidelines, commonly referred to as B.5.b. He discussed several ongoing safety improvements in Europe post-Fukushima including mobile equipment, containment integrity, improvements to severe accident mitigation guidelines, emergency management centers, and response teams.

The final plenary speaker was Pierre Doumont of Electrabel, a Belgium-based energy corporation . His main message was the need for more focus on security. Mr. Doumont explained how nuclear safety and security have the same objectives - mainly to protect the local population, plant workers, and the environment. However, the design basis threat for security is evolving much faster than any design basis accident. He discussed the need for defense-in-depth and continuous improvement in the security arena. He also mentioned that some security rules will not align smoothly with safety principles, specifically the conflict between a desire for transparency with the public and a need for confidentiality.

Immediately following the plenary session, the speakers participated in a question-and-answer session. Many of the questions focused on nuclear security and safety/security interface. Mr.

Thomas responded that the EC does not have any near-term plans to address nuclear security, OFFICIAL UGE ONLY eli~JelTl),(Ji l~ITE!~~IAL lf>iJE=OR~4AIIOt>i OFFICIAL USE Oi<JLV SEi'JSITIV!! ll(JT!!~i<l:A:L ii<JfiO~lol:t('f'IOl<J and a nuclear security directive has not been considered, as security is a national concern. The other panelists also acknowledged that they are not committing significant effort into addressing safety/security interface issues.

Following the plenary session , the conference divided into multiple technical tracks: Nuclear Installation Safety - Assessment; Nuclear installation Safety - Research; Radiation Protection, Environment, and Emergency Preparedness; Waste Management and Decommissioning and Dismantling; and Security of Nuclear Installations and Materials. The travelers attended multiple pr,esentations in the various tracks to obtain the most relevant information to ongoing European activities. The list of speakers and the presentation materials for ail the sessions are available on line at http://www.eurosafe-forum .orq/eurosafe2015.

Meeting with European Commission Representatives On November 4, the travelers met with two individuals from the EC: Mr. Pascal Daures, Team Leader, Instrument for Stability, Nuclear Safety in the Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development; and Mr. Janos Vegh , Scientific and Technical Project Officer for Nuclear Reactor Safety Assessment in the Joint Research Centre. The purpose of the meeting was to share the status of assistance activities at the NRC and at the EC to ensure mutual awareness of what both organizations are carrying out.

Mr. Ramse shared that he lnad *ust traveled to Armenia durin the week of October 26 2015.

lb/14/

b)I )

to ensure safety during the review of the plants life extension application.

a IcIpan s ow expertise on e diminishing in the coming years.

The participants discussed both organizations' plans regarding support for Iran given the recent multinational nuclear deal with Iran. The EC is offering a technical mission to Iran for December 2015, to provide support to tlhe Iran Nuclear Regulatory Authority (INRA). The EC is willing to support INRA, but this support is limited to the operator of Bushehr, the Iranian NPP, through evaluation of stress tests. Mr. Ramsey discussed that currently there are no plans for the United States Government (USG) to be involved in providling any regulatory support.

The participants also discussed ongoing assistance activities in Ukraine. Mr. Ramsey discussed plans for the NRC's upcoming bilateral meeting with the State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate of Ukraine (SNRIU) in December 2015. He mentioned that the USG is gettin_g more involved in providing assistance in the security arena in addition to safety, given recent concerns about insider threats. The topics for the December meeting will also include grid stability, power uprates, license renewal, and restart of construction activities from halted plants.

Mr. Daures explained that the EC has significant funding for support to Ukraine but that member states are concerned about SNRIU's independence. Ukraine has plans to pass legislation in 2015 to fix the law to ensure SNRIU's independence. The EC is also disappointed that SNRIU and Ukraine are not augmenting their technical capacity. Ukraine had asked the EC to take over maintenance and operation of the Chernobyl shelter, but the EC declined.

9FFIGIAL UOE ONL'f OEPJGITl>v'E IPHERrqiSIL lrq f 0RM:A.Tl0rq OFFICIAL U6E m 4LY SEPJGIT l'o'E IPHEFm~t 11~1-0 fil!loli<TIOI~

i: :lv.lbe ~ rticioants discussed AJucha Units 1 and 2 NPP in Awenlina fblt*I At the end of the meeting, both organizations briefly touched on ongoing work in Jordan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and the Kyrgyz Republic.

Pending Actions/Planned Next Steps for NRC:

NRC travelers will share relevant presentation materials with staff in the program offices that may be interested.

NRC will continue to hold periodic bilateral meetings with the EC to discuss the organizations' assistance activities.

Points for Commission Consideration/Interest:

None "On the Margins":

The NRC delegation met separately during EUROSAFE with representatives from Armenia, France, Germany, Jordan, and others to discuss ongoing cooperative activities .

OFF ICIAL U~I! Ol~L'I' SENSIT l'o'E IPffEm4AL l~WO~MATIOl)I

ML20294A103

Text

SUBJECT:

Attachment:

Subject:

Subject:

Enclosures:

Subject:

Attachment:

Subject:

Subject:

Navigation menu

Search