ML24059A206

1998 Annual Report - Review of Federal Advisory Committee

ML24059A206
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/01/1998
From:	NRC/SECY
To:
References
Download: ML24059A206 (1)

Text

SF 820 I of2 http://cm.policyworks.gov/cms/RptAnnualReport.asp 1998 Annual Report: Review of Federal Advisory Committee 12/11/98 8:55: 13 AM I. Depart111ent or Agency Nuclear Regulatory Commission

3. Com mittee or SubCommittee Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes

4. Is thi s New During Fiscal Year?

5. Current Charter No 4/4/98

6. Expected Renewal Date 4/4/2000 8a. Was Tenninated During FY?

No

9. Agency Reco111111endation for Next FY Continue 11 Establishment Authority Sb. Specific Tennination Authority 42 u.s.c. 2201 I Ga.Legislation Req to Tenninate?

No Agency Authority

12. Specific Establishment Authority 42 u.s.c. 2201

13. Effective Date 7/1/58 Scientific Technical Program Advisory Board

14. Committee Type Continuing

15. Description ofCom111ittee 16a. Total Nu111 ber of Repo11s 16b. Repo11 Titles and Dates Minutes of ACMUI Meeting on March 1-2, 1998 17a Open:

4 17b. Closed:

0 17c. Partially Closed:

Sub-committee meeting of the ACMUI to disucss 10 CFR Part 35 revisions 2/9/98 2/10/98 Sub-committee meeting of ACMUI to discuss 10 CFR Part 35 revisions 2/12/98 2/13/98 Full ACMUI meeting 3/1/98 3/2/98 Commission Briefing 6/17/98 6/17/98 0

Current Fiscal Year I Sa( I) Personnel Pmts to Non-Federal Me111bers I 8a(2) Personnel Pmts to Federal Members I 8a(3) Personnel Pmts to Federai Staff I 8a(4) Personnel P111ts to Non-member Consultants 18b(I) Travel and Per Diem to Non-Federal Me111bers I 8b(2) Travel and Per Diem to Federal Members I 8b(3) Travel and Per Diem to Federal Staff I 8b(4) Travel and Per Diem to Non-Member Consultants 18c.Other(rents,user charges,graphics,printing,111ail etc.)

18d Total

19. Federal StaffSuppo11 Years 20a. How does the Com111ittee acco111plish its purpose?

$23,187

$0

$92,000

$0

$7,783

$988

$0

$0

$0

$123,958 L3 Committee Menu

2. Fiscal Year 1998 3b. GSA Committee No.

ll02

7. Expected Tenn Date 4/5/2004 Sc.Actual Tennination Date I Ob.Legislation Pending?

14c. Presidential?

No 3/10/98 17d. Total 4 Next Fiscal Year

$35,667

$0

$94,000

$0

$11,000

$1,200

$0

$0

$0

$141,867 0.0 The NRC Staff believes that both licensees and the general public benefit when recognized experts provide advice to the staff on medical issues in which NRC's standards may be unclear or inapplicable and when these experts can provide advice on rulemaking and other initives at critical stages throughout their development. The ACMUI generally meets semi-annually. The staff provides a summary of the issues to be addressed during the meeting. The ACMUI discusses the issues and makes recommendations to the Staff. In addition, working groups and subcommittees are formed to discuss certain issues in more depth than can be accomplished during a regular meeting.

20b. How does the Committee balance its 111embership?

As of October I, 1998, the ACMUI membership consists of four practicing physicians; a physician representing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration; a nuclear pharmacist; a medical physicist with expertise in nuclear medicine; a certified medical dosimetrist; and a health care administrator. Presently, the specalities of the physicians on the ACMUI arc; nuclear medicine (one),

therapeutic radiology, with expertise in teletherapy and brachytheropy (two); and nuclear medicine research (one). The staff is in the process of selecting a nuclear medicine physician specalizing in cardiology, an individual with a State or local government perspective and a patient's right's advocate. These three positions are currently authorized for the ACMUI resulting in a total of 13 members. An additional position for a radiation safety officer with health physics exper-tise has been approved. It is anticipated that this position will be filled in FY-99.

20c. How frequent and relevant are the Committee meetings?

The Committee generally meets semi-annually. The Commission may request the Committee to come in annually to brief the Commission.

There is a need for subcommittee meetings periodically.

20d. Why can't the advice or infonnation this com111ittee provides be obtained elsewhere?

The Committee is composed of individuals with specalized degrees in the medical field such as physicians, medical physicists, and nuclear pharmacists. The necessary advice provided by the ACMUI cannot be obtained from other sources within the NRC. To develop and maintain an in-house capability to match the quality and quantity of expert advice embodied in the advisory committee would be difficult, if not impossible. There appear to be no other sources within the NRC or elsewhere which have the individual expertise capable of providing the in-depth advice needed.

20e. Why is it necessary to close and/or partially close com111ittee meetings?

Annual ethics briefings are conducted. During these meetings private information is available for committee members, but is not available to the public. The ethics briefing portion of the meeting is closed to the general public.

12/1 1/98 8:55 AM

SF 820 2 of2 21 Remarks None Designated Federal Official: Mrs. Catherine Haney DFO Committee Members Alazraki, Dr. Naomi Flynn M.D., Dr. Daniel F.

Graham, Mr. John Jones M.D., Dr. A. Eric Nelp M.D., Dr. Wil B.

Stitt M.D., Dr. Judith Anne Swanson M.S.,BCNP, Mr. Dennis P.

Wagner Ph.D., Dr. Louis K.

Walkup, Ms. Theresa Total Count of Committee Members http://cm.policyworks.gov/cms/RptAnnualReport.asp Occupation Nuclear Medicine Physician Radiation Oncologist Hospital Administrator Food and Drug Administration Representative Nuclear Medicine Physician - Research Radiation Oncologist Nuclear Pharmacist Medical Physicist - Nuclear Medicine Certified Medical Dosimetrist 9

12/11/98 8:55 AM

SF 820 I of 4 http://cm.policyworks.gov/cms/RptAnnualReport.asp 1998 Annual Report: Review of Federal Advisory Committee 12/11/98 8:54:41 AM

[

Committee Menu I. Department or Agency Nuclear Regulatory Commission

3. Committee or SubCommittee Advisory Committee 1i'n Reactor Safeguards

4. Is this New During Fiscal Year?

5. Cun-ent Cha,ter 12/23/96

6. Expected Renewal Date 12/23/98

2. Fiscal Year 1998 3b. GSA Committee No.

207

7. Expected Tenn Date No 8a. Was Tenninated During FY?

Sb. Specific Tennination Authority 42 U.S.C. Sect. 2039 & 2232 I0a.Legislation Req to Tenninate?

Sc.Actual Tennination Date No

9. Agency Recommendation for Next FY Continue I I. Establishment Authority I Ob.Legislation Pending?

No Statutory(Congrcss Created)

I 2. Specific Establishment Authority I 3. Effective Date 1/1/57 I 4. Committee Type Continuing I 4c. Presidential?

42 U.S.C. Sect. 2039 & 2232

15. Description of Committee Scientific Technical Program Advisory Board I 6a. Total Number of Repo,ts 34 I 6b. Repo,t Titles and Dates Human Performance and Human Reliability Implementation Plan Resolution of the Differing Professional Opinion Related to Steam Generator Tube Integrity Proposed Final Generic Letter, Loss of Reactor Coolant Inventory & Associated Potential for Loss of Emergency Mitigation Functions While in a Shutdown Condition Proposed Final Revision I to NUREG-1022, Event Reporting Guidelines, 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 No Proposed Final Regulatory Guide l.1 74 and Standard Review Plan Chapter 19 for Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Regulation Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR 50.59 (Changes, Tests and Experiments)

Credit for Containment Overpressure to Provide Assurance of Sufficient Net Positive Suction Head for Emergency Core Cooling and Containment Heat Removal Pumps Treatment of Uncertainties Versus Point Values in the PRA-Related Decision making Process Interim Letter on the Safety Aspects of the Westinghouse Electric Company Application for Certification of the AP600 Plant Design ACRS Report to Congress on NRC's Safety Research Program 10/8/97 10/10/97 11/13/97 12/10/97 12/11/97 12/12/97 12/12/97 12/16/97 2/19/98 2/24/98 ACRS Comments on Draft Paper on Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Regulation 3/11/98 Proposed Final Standard Review Plan Sections & Regulatory Guides for Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Regulation for Inservice 3112198 Testing, Graded Quality Assurance Risk-Ranking Approach for Motor-Operated Valves 3/12/98 Proposed Improvements to the Senior Management Meeting Process 3/13/98 SECY-98-00 I, Mechanism for Addressing Generic Safety Issues 3/16/98 The Safety Aspects of the Westinghouse Electric Company Application for Certification of the AP600 Plant Design - Interim Letter 2 4/9/98 Plans to Increase Performance-Based Approaches in Regulatory Activities Proposed Final Amendment to 10 CFR Part 55, Initial Licensed Operator Examination Requirements Elevation of CDF to a Fundamental Safety Goal and Possible Revision of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement NUREG-1635, Vol. I, Review and Evaluation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Safety Research Program NRC Participation in the CABRI Reactor Fuels Research Program Proposed Final Draft of the NRC's Human Performance Plan Proposed Final Standard Review Plan Section 3.9.8 and Regulatory Guide 1.178 for Risk-Informed lnservice Inspection of Piping NRC Reactor Fuels Research Program 4/9/98 5/8/98 5/11/98 6/1/98 6/9/98 6/12/98 6/12/98 6/15/98 The Safety Aspects of the Westinghouse Electric Company Application for Certification of the AP600 Plant Design - Interim Letter 3 6/15/98 Review of SECY-98-076, Core Research Capabilities 6/16/98 Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR 50.59 (Changes, Tests and Experiments)

Draft Supplement I to NUREG 1552, Fire Barrier Penetration Seals in Nuclear Power Plants Proposed Final Safety Evaluation of the BWR Vessel and Internals Project, BWR Pressure Vessel Shell Weld Inspection Recommendations (BWRVIP-05) Report 7/16/98 7/20/98 7/21/98 Report on the Safety Aspects of the Westinghouse Electric Company Application for Certification of the AP600 Passive Plant Design 7/23/98 General Electric Nuclear Energy Extended Power Uprate Program and Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Power Level Increase Request Emergency Core Cooling System Strainer Blockage Application for Power Level Increase for Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant Units I and 2 Impact of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results and Insights on the Regulatory System 17a Open:

49 I 7b. Closed:

0 I 7c. Partially Closed:

5 I 7d. Total 54 7/24/98 9/14/98 9/15/98 9/30/98 12/ 11/98 8:54 AM

SF 820 2 of 4 PLANNING & PROCEDURES 445TH FULL COMMITTEE MEETING RELIABILITY & PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM PLANNING & PROCEDURES 446TH FULL COMMITTEE MEETING RELIABILITY & PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT PLANT OPERATIONS PLANNING & PROCEDURES 447TH FULL COMMITTEE MEETING THERMAL-HYDRAULIC & SEVERE ACCIDENT PHENOMENA HUMAN FACTORS FIRE PROTECTION PLANT LICENSE RENEW AL PLANNING & PROCEDURES PLANT OPERATIONS ADVANCED REACTOR DESIGNS PLANNING & PROCEDURES 448TH FULL COMMITTEE MEETING THERMAL-HYDRAULIC & SEVERE ACCIDENT PHENOMENA RELIABILITY & PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT PLANNING & PROCEDURES 449TH FULL COMMITTEE MEETING 450TH FULL COMMITTEE MEETING ADVANCED REACTOR DESIGNS PLANNING & PROCDURES 451ST FULL COMMITTEE MEETING RELIABILITY & PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT http://cm.policyworks.gov/cms/RptAnnualReport.asp 10/1/97 10/1/97 10/2/97 10/3/97 10/21/97 10/22/97 11/4/97 11/5/97 11/5/97 11/5/97 11/6/97 1117/97 11/12/97 11/13/97 12/2/97 12/2/97 12/3/97 12/3/97 I 2/3/97 12/6/97 12/9/97 12/12/97 1/21/98 l/21/98 I /22/98 1/22/98 I /23/98 I /23/98 1/30/98 1/31/98 2/3/98 2/3/98 2/3/98 2/4/98 2/4/98 2/4/98 2/5/98 2/7/98 2/ 18/98 2/18/98 2/19/98 2/20/98 3/2/98 3/2/98 3/2/98 3/4/98 3/5/98 3/7/98 3/31 /98 4/1/98 4/ I /98 4/1 /98 4/2/98 4/4/98 4/16/98 4/16/98 REACTOR FUELS, ONSITE FUEL STORAGE, AND DECOMMISSIONING 4/23/98 4/24/98 PLANNING & PROCEDURES 452ND FULL COMMITTEE MEETING THERMAL-HYDRAULIC PHENOMENA ADVANCED REACTOR DESIGNS SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM MATERIALS & METALLURGY THERMAL-HYDRAULIC PHENOMENA PLANNING & PROCEDURES 453RD FULL COMMITTEE MEETING THERMAL-HYDRAULIC PHENOMENA ADVANCED REACTOR DESIGNS PLANT OPERATIONS ADVANCED REACTOR DESIGNS PLANNING & PROCEDURES 454TH FULL COMMITTEE MEETING PLANT LICENSE RENEWAL SAFETY RESEARCH PROGRAM JOINT PLANT OPERATIONS & FIRE PROTECTION RELIABILITY & PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT THERMAL-HYDRAULIC PHENOMENA PLANNING & PROCEDURES 455TH FULL COMMITTEE MEETING RELIABILITY & PROBILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT PLANNING & PROCEDURES 456TH FULL COMMITTEE MEETING 4/29/98 4/29/98 4/30/98 5/2/98 5/ 11/98 5/12/98 5/13/98 5/15/98 6/1/98 6/1/98 6/1/98 6/1/98 6/1/98 6/1/98 6/2/98 6/2/98 6/3/98 6/5/98 6/11/98 6/12/98 6/17 /98 6/18/98 6/19/98 6/19/98 7/7/98 7/7/98 7/7/98 7/7/98 7/8/98 7/10/98 7/16/98 7/16/98 7/17/98 7/17/98 7 /28/98 7 /29/98 8/26/98 8/26/98 8/27 /98 8/27 /98 9/1/98 9/1/98 9/2/98 9/4/98 9/24/98 9/24/98 9/29/98 9/29/98 9/30/98 10/2/98 12/11/98 8:54 AM

SF 820 18a( I) Personnel Pmts to Non-Federal Members I 8a(2) Personnel Pmts to Federal Members I 8a(3) Personnel Pmts to Federal Staff I 8a(4) Personnel Pmts to Non-member Consultants 18b( I) Travel and Per Diem to Non-Federal Members I 8b(2) Travel and Per Diem to Federal Members I 8b(3) Travel and Per Diem to Federal Staff I 8b(4) Travel and Per Diem to Non-Member Consultants I 8c.Other(rents,user charges,graphics,printing,mail etc.)

18d Total

19. Federal Staff Support Years 20a. How does the Committee accomplish its purpose?

http://cm.policyworks.gov/cms/RptAnnualReport.asp Current Fiscal Year Next Fiscal Year

$489,007

$506,611

$0

$0

$2,025,279

$2,098,189

$20,966

$16,646

$225,978

$225,000

$0

$0

$19,354

$21,289

$13,947

$5,186

$147,484

$56,132

$2,942,015

$2,929,053 22.3 21.8 As required by statute, the ACRS performs independent reviews of safety issues associated with the operating nuclear power plants, adequacy of new reactor designs, and safety-related technical and policy issues associated with new designs and provides valuable and timely advice to the NRC on these matters. During FY 1998, the ACRS completed 34,*epor.ts, which included its annual report to Congress on the NRC Safety Research Program and held 11 Full Committee meetings and 43 Subcommittee meetings. In conducting its reviews, the ACRS meets regularly with the NRC staff, industry, other government agencies, public interest groups, and interested members of the public. The ACRS and NRC staff interact under procedures established by a Memorandum of Understanding, which gives the ACRS the opportunity to review a broad rnngc ofNRC regulatory actions. In addition, the ACRS has periodic meetings with the NRC Commissioners and with individual NRC office directors to discuss issues of mutual interest. The ACRS was particularly effective in providing timely advice to the Commission on several important issues, including: development of regulatory guidance documents for risk-informed regulation; NRC Chairman's draft paper on risk-informed, performance-based regulation; safety aspects of the Westinghouse Electric Company application for certification of the AP-600 design; General Electric Nuclear Energy Extended Power Uprate Program and Monticello/Hatch Nuclear Nuclear Power Plants Power Level Increase requests; treatment of uncertainties and point values in the PRA-related decision making process; impact of PRA results and insights on the regulatory system; elevation of CDF to a fundamental Safety Goal and possible revisions of the Safety Goal Policy Statement, and the NRC safety research program. Other issues reviewed by the ACRS in FY 1998 included the proposed revisions to 10 CFR 50.59 (Changes, Tests and Experiments); risk-ranking approach for motor-operated valves; proposed improvements to the Senior Management Meeting Process; mechanism for addressing generic safety issues and the adequacy of the generic safety issue process; plans to increase performance-based approaches in regulatory activities; NRC participation in the CABRI Reactor Fuels Research Program; human performance program plan; core research capabilities; BWR pressure vessel shell weld inspection; fire barrier penetration seals in nuclear power plants; and emergency core cooling system strainer blockage. The Committee's work has had a significant impact on the NRC regulatory process.

20b. How does the Committee balance its membership?

The NRC appoints ACRS members from the scientific and engineering disciplines with three prerequisites in mind: outstanding scientific and technical ability, balanced and mature judgment, and willingness to devote the time required to the demanding work involved. There has been a conscious effort to obtain members trained in both nuclear and nonnuclear disciplines who have had considerable experience in various fields needed to evaluate design, construction, and operation of nuclear power plants and related facilities. During FY 1998, the membership included those experienced in the areas of reactor operations; probabilistic risk assessment; analysis of severe reactor accident phenomena; design of nuclear power plant structures, systems, and components; mechanical, civil, and electrical engineering; materials and metallurgy; thermal-hydraulics and computational fluid dynamics; and digital instrumentation and control systems. The diversity of viewpoints represented by current members is broadly based from the standpoint of special fields of interest, employment experience, and scientific or technical specialty. These membership characteristics provide the Committee with a balance of highly qualified technical experts in the nuclear and nonnuclear fields necessary to carry out the Committee's statutory requirements.

20c. How frequent and relevant are the Committee meetings?

The ACRS and its Subcommittees held 54 meetings during FY 1998 of which II were Full Committee meetings. The number of meetings held is directly related to the number of nuclear safety matters reviewed by the Committee that were referred to it by the NRC or required by statute; the number of generic issues that arose during the year; the number* of rules, policy matters, and regulatory guidance referred to the Committee for review and comment; the number of special reviews requested by the NRC Commissioners and Congress; and areas of particular interest/concern to the Committee. The Full Committee normally meets ten times a year for three or four days to consider various safety-related nuclear issues, generic and special reviews, rules, policy matters, and regulatory guidance. ACRS Subcommittees meet as necessary with licensees, NRC staff, nuclear industry groups, other government agencies, and other interested parties to develop information for the Committee on the particular matters under review and to identify those matters warranting particular attention by the Full Committee.

There is a continuing need for the technical advice provided by the ACRS to the Commission particularly in its transition from prescriptive to risk-informed and performance-based regulation and its need to review new reactor designs.

20d. Why can't the advice or infonnation this committee provides be obtained elsewhere?

The ACRS is unique in that there exists no comparable body composed of acknowledged experts in the field of nuclear reactor safety whose Congressional mandate is to provide the Commission with independent advice in this area. Upon request, the ACRS also provides advice to the U.S. Navy, the Department of Energy, and the Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. This further demonstrates the unique qualifications of the ACRS within the Federal government. The Commission necessarily has its own expert staff on whom it relics in the day-to-day regulation of nuclear power facilities. However, no other advisory committee, either within the Commission or in other agencies, has the current, broadly based knowledge of the ACRS that can provide independent assessments of reactor safety issues. In addition, since ACRS members are primarily part-time advisors with other full-time interests and activities in related fields, they provide a breadth of experience, an independent perspective on issues, and state-of-the-art technical knowledge that would be difficult to duplicate with full-time government employees. A continuing committee such as the ACRS also remains current with respect to nuclear safety issues, including related reactor operating experience and safety research, and provides a collegial judgment regarding these issues that part-time consultants could not provide. Through the ACRS, the public and the Congress arc assured of an independent technical review and evaluation of nuclear reactor projects and safety issues and of an opportunity for public input.

20e. Why is it necessary to close and/or partially close committee meetings?

During this period, the Committee held I l full Committee meetings during which Committee business of the usual nature was conducted.

Portions of these meetings were closed and time spent in closed sessions occupied approximately 30 minutes. This session was closed to discuss:

Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person as privileged or confidential IS lJ.S.C. SS2b(c)(4)].

2 1. Remarks None Designated Federal Official:

Michele S Kelton DFO 3 of 4 12/11/98 8:54 AM

SF 820 4 of 4 Committee Members Apostolakis, Dr. George E.

Barton, Mr. John J.

Fontana, Dr. Mario H.

Kress, Dr. Thomas S.

Miller, Dr. Don W.

Powers, DL Dana A.

Seale, Dr. Robert L.

Shack, Dr. William J.

Uhrig, Dr. Robert E.

Wallis, Dr. Graham B.

Total Count of Committee Members http://crn.policyworks.gov/crns/RptAnnualReport.asp Occupation Professor, Nuclear Engineering Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Retired Exec. General Public Utilities Corp Resea,*ch Professor, University of Tennessee Retired Manager, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Professor and Chair, Nuclear Engineering Department, Ohio State University Manager, Nuclear Facilities Safety Department, Sandia National Laboratories Professor of Nuclear & Energy Engineering, University of Arizona Associate Director, Energy Technology Division, Argonne National Laboratory Distinguished Professor, Nuclear Engineering Department, University of Tennessee Professor, Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College 10 12/11/98 8:54 AM

SF 820 I of2 http://cm.policyworks.gov/cms/RptAnnualReport.asp 1998 Annual Report: Review of Federal Advisory Committee 12/ 11/98 8:53:41 AM I Departmelll or Agency Nuclear Regulatory Commission

3. Committee or SubCommittee Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

4. Is this New During Fiscal Year?

No 8a. Was Tenninated During FY?

No

9. Agency Recommendation for Next FY Continue 11. Establishment Authority

12. Specific Establishment Authority 42 u.s.c. 2201

15. Description of Committee 16a. Total Number of Reports 16b. Repo11 Titles and Dates

5. Current Chai1er 5/29/98

6. Expected Renewal Date 5/29/2000 8b. Specific Tennination Authority 42 u.s.c. 2201 I 0a.Legislation Req to Tenninate?

No Agency Authority

13. Effective Date l/6/88 Scientific Technical Program Advisory Board 13

14. Comm ittee Type Continuing Comments on Performance Assessment Capability in the NRC High-Level Radioactive Waste Program Committee Menu

2. Fiscal Year 1998 3b. GSA Committee No.

llOO

7. Expected Tenn Date Sc.Actual Tennination Date I Ob.Legislation Pending?

14c. Presidential?

No Recommendations Regarding the Implementation of the Defense-In-Depth Concept in the Revised IO CFR Part 60 Application of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods to Performance Assessment in the NRC High-Level Waste Program 1998 Strategic Plan & Priority Issues for the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste 10/8/97 10/31/97 10/31/97 12/23/97 3/6/98 3/6/98 3/26/98 ACNW's Support for the NRC Staffs Approach to Assessing the Performance of Multiple Barriers NRC High-Level Waste Issue-Resolution Process and Issue Resolution Status Reports Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Regulation in Nuclear Waste Management Comments and Recommendations on Interim Guidance in Support of the Final Rule on Radiological Criteria for License Termination ACNW Comments on NRC's Review of the DOE Viability Assessment 4/29/98 6/19/98 Comments on NRC's Total System Sensitivity Studies for the Proposed High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, 7129198 Nevada NRC Staff Research on Generic Post-Disposal Criticality at Low-Level Radioactive Waste Facilities 7/30/98 Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Comments on NRC's Draft IO CFR Part 63 and Revision O of the Total System Performance 913198 Assessment Issue Resolution Status Rep Issues and Recommendations Concerning Near-Field Environment and the Performance of Engineered Barriers at Yucca Mountain 9/9/98 17a Open:

9 17b. Closed:

0 17c. Partially Closed:

0 17d. Total 9 95TH FULL COMMITTEE MEETING 96TH FULL COMMITTEE MEETING 97TH FULL COMMITTEE MEETING 98TH FULL COMMITTEE MEETING 99TH FULL COMMITTEE MEETING 100TH FULL COMMITTEE MEETING 101ST FULL COMMITTEE MEETING 102ND FULL COMMITTEE MEETING 103RD FULL COMMITTEE MEETING I 8a( I) Personnel Pmts to Non-Federal Members I 8a(2) Personnel Pmts to Federal Members I 8a(3) Personnel Pmts to Federal Staff I 8a(4) Personnel Pmts to Non-member Consultants I 8b( I) Travel and Per Diem to Non-Federal Members I 8b(2) Travel and Per Diem to Federal Members I 8b(3) Travel and Per Diem to Federal Staff I 8b(4) Travel and Per Diem to Non-Member Consultants I Sc.Other(rents,user charges,graphics,printing,mail etc.)

18d Total I 9. Federal Staff Suppo,1 Years 10/21/97 10/23/97 l l/20/97 11/22/97 12/ 16/97 12/17/97 2/24/98 2/26/98 3/23/98 3/25/98 4/21 /98 4/23/98 6/10/98 6/12/98 7 /20/98 7 /21 /98 8/27 /98 8/28/98 Current Fiscal Year

$99,697

$0

$357,376

$5,306

$48,823

$0

$20,893

$3,013

$80,375

$615,483 4.0 Next Fiscal Year

$103,286

$0

$370,000

$7,488

$53,705

$0

$22,982

$18,078

$52,211

$627,750 4.0 12/ 11/98 8:54 AM

SF 820 2 of2 http://cm.policyworks.gov/cms/RptAnnualReport.asp 20a. How does the Committee accomplish its purpose?

During FY 1998, the ACNW held nine meetings and wrote 13 reports. In conducting its reviews, the ACNW meets regularly with the NRC staff, the industry, other government agencies, and interested members of the public and public interest groups. In addition, the Committee has periodic meetings with the NRC Commissioners to discuss issues of mutual interest. The Committee's work has had a significant impact on the NRC regulatory process including risk-informed, performance-based regulation in nuclear waste management; interim guidance in support of the final rule on radiological criteria for license termination; the implementation of the defense-in-depth concept in the revised I 0 CFR Part 60. In the field of low-level waste, the ACNW advised the Commission concerning NRC Staff research on generic post-disposal criticality at low-level radioactive waste facilities. In the high-level waste area, the ACNW advised the NRC on performance assessment capability in the NRC high-level radioactive waste program; the application of probabilistic risk assessment methods to performance assessment in the NRC high-level waste program; ACNW's support for the NRC staffs approach to assessing the performance of multiple barriers; NRC high-level waste issue-resolution process and issue resolution status reports; NRC's review of the DOE viability assessment; NRC's total system sensitivity studies for the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada; NRC's draft 10 CFR Pa,*t 63; Revision O of the total system performance assessment issue resolution status report; and issues and recommendations on near-field environment and the performance of engineered barriers at Yucca Mountain. The ACNW also provided its 1998 priority issues to the NRC.

20b. How does the Committee balance its membership?

The NRC appoints ACNW members from scientific and cngincer-ing disciplines with three prerequisites in mind: outstanding scientific and technical ability, balanced and mature judgment, and willingness to devote the time required to the demanding work involved. The pool of persons so qualified is limited. At the end of FY 1998, the Committee included two members from academia and two members from private industry. There has been a conscious effort to obtain members with backgrounds that can address the difficult and diverse questions associated with radioactive waste disposal. This permits and fosters a concentration of scientific proficiency within the Committee, together with a diversity of viewpoints and perspectives, that provides assurance that adequate, independent, and open discussion and analysis of the potential hazards of nuclear waste can take place. During FY 1998, the ACNW included engineers and scientists experienced in radioactive waste management, chemistry, nuclear engineering, risk assessment, environmental engineering, performance assessment, hydrology, mining engineering, research, and technical management. The diversity of viewpoints represented by current members is broadly based from the standpoint of special fields of interest, employment experience, and scientific or technical specialty. These characteristics provide the ACNW with a balance of highly qualified technical experts.

20c. How frequent and relevant are the Committee meetings?

The ACNW held nine Full Committee meetings during FY 1998. The number of meetings held is directly related to the review schedule and scope of efforts on the high-level waste geologic repository, issues involving low-level waste disposal, the number of criteria, guides, and technical positions referred for review and comment, the number of special reviews requested by the NRC, and topics of particular concern/interest to the Committee. The Full Committee plans to meet approximately eight times during FY 1998. Full Committee meetings generally run two to three days and cover a variety of topics (review of the site characterization plan and related NRC staff analysis, technical positions on high-level and low-level waste issues, briefings and reviews of rulemakings, etc.). For particularly complex issues, the ACNW holds working group meetings where additional time and expertise can be brought to bear on an issue and the subject developed prior to Full Committee considerations. If the ACNW is to continue to meet the requirements of its charter, it needs to meet with at least a similar frequency in the future. There is a continuing need for the technical advice provided by the ACNW to the Commission, particularly in the following areas: (a) the viability assessment for the Yucca Mountain repository, (b) interim surface storage facilities, to the extent that programs arc directed toward such facilities, (c) reassessment of regulatory standards for Yucca Mountain, (d) use of risk assessment communication in the regulatory process, and (c) site decommissioning. The ACNW will provide advice to the Commission on issues related to NRC's oversight of DOE facilities.

20d. Why can't the advice or infonnation this committee provides be obtained elsewhere?

The AC Wis unique in that there exists no comparable body of acknowledged experts in the field of nuclear waste management whose mandate is to provide the Commission with independent advice in this area. The Commission necessarily has its own expert staff on whom it relies in its day-to-day operations. However, the Commission has no other advisory committee with the current, broadly based knowledge of the ACNW that could be called upon for independent assessment of safety issues,*elated to high-and low-level waste management and disposal.

In addition, since members arc part-time advisors with other full-time interests and activities in related fields, they generate an organized synergistic approach to provide a breadth of experience, an independent perspective on issues, and state-of-the-art technical knowledge that would be difficult to duplicate with full-time government employees. A continuing committee such as the ACNW also remains current with respect to nuclear waste issues, including related safety research, and provides a collegial judgment regarding these issues that would be impossible to duplicate by use of individual, part-time consultants on a case-by-case basis. Through the ACNW, the public is provided assurance that an independent technical review and evaluation of nuclear waste safety issues is accomplished and an opportunity for public input is assured.

20e. Why is it necessaiy to close and/or partially close committee meetings?

During this period, the Committee held nine Full Committee meetings. All portions of these meetings were open to public attendance.

21. Remarks NOE Designated Federal Official: Michele Kelton DFO Committee Members Fairhurst, Dr. Charles Garrick, Dr. B. John Hornberger, Dr. George W.

Wymer, Dr. Raymond G.

Total Count of Committee Members Occupation Professor Emeritus of Civil Enginecring,Univcrsity of Minnesota and Senior Engineer/Chairman of the Board, Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.

Consultant Professor, Dept. of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (Sabbatical 1997-98 -- Univ. of Colorado)

Retired, Distinguished Scientist in the International Technology Programs Division of Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.

4 12/ 11/98 8:54 AM

SF 820 I of2 http://cm.policyworks.gov/cms/RptAnnualReport.asp 1998 Annual Report: Review of Federal Advisory Committee 11/24/98 10:16:38 AM I. Department or Agency Nuclear Regulatory Commission

3. Committee or SubCommittee Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel

4. Is this New During Fiscal Year?

5. CmTent Charter No 12/19/96

6. Expected Renewal Date 12/19/98 8a. Was Terminated During FY?

No

9. Agency Recommendation for Next FY Continue 11 Establishment Authority

12. Specific Establishment Authority 42 u.s.c. 2201

15. Description of Committee 16a. Total Number of Reports 16b. Rcpo11 Titles and Dates 8b. Specific Tennination Authority 42 u.s.c. 2201 I 0a.Legislation Req to Tenninate?

No Agency Authority

13. Effective Date 1/19/75 Non Scientific Program Advisory Board

14. Committee Type Continuing 17a Open:

17b. Closed:

0 17c. Partially Closed:

0 Review of Proposed Changes to 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J 18a(l) Personnel Pmts to Non-Federal Members I 8a(2) Personnel Pmts to Federal Members I 8a(3) Personnel Pmts to Federal Staff I 8a(4) Personnel Pmts to Non-member Consultants I 8b( I) Travel and Per Diem to Non-Federal Members I 8b(2) Travel and Per Diem to Federal Members I 8b(3) Travel and Per Diem to Federal Staff I 8b(4) Travel and Per Diem to Non-Member Consultants I 8c.Other(rents,user charges,graphics,printing,mail etc.)

18d Total

19. Federal Staff Support Years 20a. How does the Committee accomplish its purpose?

2/24/98 2/24/98 Current Fiscal Year

$0

$2,500

$1,500

$0

$0

$900

$0

$0

$1,000

$5,900 0.0 Committee Menu

2. Fiscal Year 1998 3b. GSA Committee No.

1104

7. Expected Tem1 Date 12/20/2005 Sc.Actual Tennination Date I Ob.Legislation Pending?

14c. Presidential?

No 17d. Total I Next Fiscal Year

$0

$2,500

$1,500

$0

$0

$1,000

$0

$0

$1,000

$6,000 0.0 The Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission continue to rely heavily upon the LSSARP for advice and recommendations on a searchable electronic database for documents that will be pertinent to the licensing of a geologic repository for the storage of high level nuclear waste in 2002. During this reporting period, the panel's efforts were concentrated primarily on review of proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J, of NRC's regulations to permit better utilization of technology advances which allow use of the Internet to search and retrieve appropriate documents in dispersed locations rather than in a centralized database.

20b. How does the Comm ittee balance its membership?

The membership of the LSSARP is balanced by being drawn from among the full spectrum of potential parties to NRC's anticipated licensing proceeding for the burial of high level radioactive waste. Since the burial site under review is in Nevada, the membership includes the State of Nevada, local county governments of both Nevada and California, Indian tribes, represented by the National Congress of American Indians and the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task force. It also includes the nuclear industry, the potential licensee (DOE) and the licensing agency (NRC).

Input by these representatives is essential to the success of the LSS project.

20c. How frequent and relevant are the Committee meetings?

In 1997, the NRC established three electronic forum sessions on the Internet for panel participation in discussions concerning advances in computer technology in the 1989-1997 time period and the impacts of the advances on the technical description of the LSS in Part 2 of the Commission's regulations. These interactive sessions were successful in allowing the NRC to frame proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 2 at the start of this reporting period. The proposed amendments were then discussed with the Panel in a key face-to-face day-long meeting in February, 1998. This single substantive meeting, together with the Panel Members subsequent written comments on the proposed rule changes, were sufficient to provide the necessary input to the NRC staff to propose a final rule to the Commission at the close of FY 1998. Commission approval of the final rule is anticipated during the first quarter of FY 1999. The level of LSSARP activity is expected to remain at a moderate level during FY 1999 and FY 2000 in order to provide advice on the establishment of Internet sites and access protocols for each of the participants database of materials relevant to the anticipated licensing proceeding.

20d. Why can't the advice or infonnation this committee provides be obtained elsewhere?

The advice provided by the state, county and tribal governmental units, together with other potential users of the LSS, is unique to this particular computer application. It is not available from other existing committees or from NRC itself. NRC considers it essential that such advice should come from these entities which will be hands-on users of LSS. The NRC sought, during this reporting period, public comment on establishing an informal users group as an alternative to this committee. Since public comment favored retention of this committee, however, the Commission has determined to retain it. During the next reporting period, the Commissin plans to rename the Panel as the Licensing Support Network Advisory Review Panel.

20e. Why is it necessa,y to close and/or partially close committee meetings?

The LSSARP did not hold any closed meetings in FY 1998.

11 /24/9810:16AM

SF 820 I

2 of2

21. Remarks NONE Designated Federal Official:

Co111111ittee Members Bechtel, Dennis Bradshaw, Les Ca meron, \Vayne Copenhafer, David Culverwell, Eve Cummings, Peter Elquist, Bill Funk, Ario Goichoechca, Pete J Henkel, C hristopher Hoffman, Juanita Hoyle, John C Kraft, Steven Metoxen, Loretta Mcttam, Brad Murphy, Malachy Newbury, Claudia Regan, James Silberg, Jay Swai nston, Harry Treichel, Judy John C. Hoyle DFO Total Count of Committee Members http://cm.policyworks.gov/cms/RptAnnualReport.asp Occupation Clark County, Nevada Nye County, Nevada White Pinc County, Nevada U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Lincoln County, Nevada City of Los Vegas, Nevada Lander County, Nevada Mineral County, Nevada Eureka County, Nevada Nuclear Energy Institute - Energy Coalition Esmeralda County, cvada US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Energy Institute - Energy Coalition National Congress of American Indians Inyo County, Nevada Nye County, Nevada US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Churchill County, 'cvada Attorney - Industry Coalition State of cvada Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force 21 11 /24/98 10:16 AM