ML24059A207

1999 Annual Report - Review of Federal Advisory Committee

ML24059A207
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/01/1999
From:	NRC/SECY
To:
References
Download: ML24059A207 (1)

Text

SF 820 I of2 http://204.254. l l 2.5/cms/RptAnnualReport.asp 1999 Annual Report: Review of Federal Advisory Committee 12/16/ 1999 2:59:47 PM I. Department or Agency Nuclear Regulatory Commission

3. Co111 111ittee or SubCommittee Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

4. Is this New During Fiscal Year?

No Sa. Was Tcnninated During FY?

No

9. Agency Reco111mendation for Next FY Continue 11. Establishment Authority

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

15. Description of Committee 16a. Total Number of Reports 16b. Rcpo11 Ti tles and Dates

5. Current Chat1er 5/29/ 1998

6. Expected Renewal Date 5/29/2000 Sb. Specific Tennination Authority 42 U.S.C. 220 I I0a.Legislation Req to Tenninate?

No Agency Authority

13. Effective Date 1/6/1988 Scientific Technical Program Advisory Board 8

14. Committee Type Continuing Development of a Standard Review Plan for Decommissioning 1

committee Menu

2. Fiscal Year 1999 3b. GSA Co111111 ittee No.

1100

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

14c. Presidential?

No Comments on Regulatory Uses of Importance Measures for Waste Management & Possible Application to Prop. High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository at Yucca Mtn.,NV 1/ 11 /1999 1/12/1999 1/22/1999 1/27/1999 Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste 1999 Action Plan and Priority Issues ACNW Visit to German Waste Isolation Authorities and Facilities, September 14-18, 1998, General Observations and Impressions Comme~1ts on the Department of Energy's Viability Assessment for the Proposed High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository at Yucca 41811999 Mountatn, Nevada Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Metrics and Self-Assessment Evaluation for Fiscal Year 1998 Linear No Threshold Hypothesis Co mments on DOE'S License Application Design Selection Process (LADS) and Recommended Repository Design 17a Open:

Meeting Purposes and Dates 104th Full Committee Meeting 105th Full Committee Meeting 106th Full Committee Meeting 107th Full Committee Meeting 108th Full Committee Meeting 109th Full Committee Meeting 1101h Full Committee Meeting 111 lh Full Committee Meeting I 12th Full Committee Meeting I 8a( I) Personnel Pmts to Non-Federal Members I 8a(2) Personnel P111ts to Federal Members 18a(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 18b(2) Travel and Per Diem to Federal Me111bers 18b(3) Travel and Per Die111 to Federal Stnff 9

I 8b(4) Travel and Per Die111 to Non-Member Consultants I Sc.Other(rents,user charges,graphics,printing,mai l etc.)

18d Total I 9. Federal Staff Suppo,1 Years 17b. Closed:

0 17c. Pa11ially Closed:

10/ 19/ 1998 10/21 / 1998 12/ 15/ 1998 12/ 17/1998 2/23/ 1999 2/25/ 1999 3/ 16/ 1999 3/ 17/1999 3/23/ 1999 3/25/ 1999 5/ 11 / 1999 5/13/ 1999 6/28/1999 6/30/1999 7/19/ 1999 7/21 / 1999 9/14/1999 9/ 15/ 1999 CuJTent Fiscal Year

$84,698

$0

$474,966

$7,075

$35,019

$0

$ 16,476

$ 11,716

$57,617

$687,567 4.0 0

4/29/1999 6/4/1999 8/9/1999 17d. Total Meetings 9 Next Fiscal Year

$88,764

$0

$577,406 SI 9,968

$47,000 so

$22,000

$13,040

$44,147

$812,325 4.0 12/16/1999 2:57 PM

SF 820 2 of2 http:l/204.254.112.5/cms/RptAnnualReport.asp 20a. How does the Committee accomplish its purµose?

During FY 1999, the ACNW held nine meetings and wrote eight reports. To conduct its reviews, the ACNW meets regularly with the NRC staff, the industry, other government agencies, and interested members of the public and public inter*cst groups. In addition, the Committee meets periodically with the NRC Commissioners to discuss issues of mutual interest. The Committee's work has impacted the NRC,*cgulatory process significantly, including the Department of Energy's (DOE's) License Application Design Selection Process (LADS) and Recommended Repository Design; linear no threshold hypothesis; a review and evaluation of the NRC Safety Research Program, NUREG-1635, Vol. 2; DO E's viability assessment for the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada; the regulatory uses of importance measures for waste management and possible application to the proposed high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada; the development of a standard review plan for decommissioning, NRC's Draft 10 CFR Part 63 and Revision O of the Total System Performance Assessment Issue Resolution Status Repm*t; issues and recommendations concerning the near-field environment, and the performance of engineered barriers at Yucca Mountain. The ACNW also provided to the NRC its 1999 action plan and priority issues and its metrics and selt~asscssment evaluation for FY 1998. The ACNW visited German Waste Isolation Authorities and Facilities on September 14-18, 1998, and prnvidcd its general observations and impressions on this visit.

20b. How does the Committee balance its membership?

The NRC appoints ACl\\"V members from 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. The pool of persons so qualified is limited. At the end of FY 1999, 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 1999, the ACNW included engineers and scientists experienced in radioactive waste management, chemistry, nuclear engineering,.-isk 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 1999. 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 2000. Full Committee meetings generally run two to three days and cover a variety of topics (review of the Yucca Mountain review plan and related 'RC 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 ACN\\V 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 site suitability 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 (e) site decommissioning. The ACNW will provide advice to the Commission on issues related to NRC's oversight of DOE facilities.

20d. Why cc1 11't the ndvicc or in form ati on this committee provides be obtained elsewhere'?

The ACN\\V is 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 relics 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 related to high-and low-level w,rste 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 br-cadth of experience, an independent perspective on issues, and statc-of~thc-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 necessary to close and/or pm1ially 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 NONE Designated Federal Official: Michele Kelton DFO Committee Members Fairhurst, Dr. Charles Garrick, Dr. B. John Hornberger, Dr. George M.

Wymer, Dr. Raymond G.

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

Consultant Professor, Dept. of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia Retired, Distinguished Scientist in the International Technology Programs Division of Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.

4 12/ 16/19992:57 PM

SF 820 I of 4 http:1/204.254.1 12.5/cms/RptAnnual Report.asp 1999 Annual Report: Review of Federal Advisory Committee 12/16/1999 3:00:35 PM Committee Menu I. Depai1ment or Agency Nuclear Regulatory Commission

3. Committee or SubCommittee Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

4. Is this New During Fiscal Year?

5. Cu1Tent Cha11er 12/23/1996

6. Expected Renewal Date 12/23/2000

2. Fiscal Year 1999 3b. GSA Committee No.

207

7. Expected Tenn Date No Sa. Was Tem1inated During FY?

Sb. Speci fic Termination Authority 42 U.S.C. Sect. 2039 & 2232 I Oa.Legislation Req to Tenninate?

Sc.Actual Tennination Date No

9. Agency Recommendation for Next FY Continue

11. Establishment Authority I Ob.Legislation Pending?

No Statutory(Congress Created)

12. Specific Establishment Authority I 3. Effective Date 1/1/1957

14. Committee Type Continuing 14c. Presidential?

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

15. Description of Committee Scientific Technical Program Advisory Board 16a. Total Number of Repor1s 54 16b. Report Titles and Dates Risk-Informed Pilot Application for Hydrogen Monitoring at Arkansas Nuclear One, Units l and 2 Proposed Priority Rankings of Generic Safety Issues: Tenth Group The Nuclear Energy lnstitute's Petition for Rulemaking to Amend Paragraph (a) of 10 CFR 50.54, Conditions of Licenses Proposed Inspection Procedure 35XXX, "Graded Quality Assurance" Proposed Revision to the Enforcement Policy Proposed Rule on Use of Alternative Source Term at Operating Reactors No I0/14/ 1998 I 0/16/ 1998 10/20/ 1998 11/13/1998 11 /17/1998 11 /19/1998 Safety Evaluation Rpt. Rel to Westinghouse Owners Grp. Application of Risk-Informed Methods to lnservice Inspection of Piping, I l/20/ l998 Topical Rpt. (WCAP-14572, Rev. l)

Reprioritization and Proposed Resolution of Generic Safety Issue 171, "Engineered Safety Features Failure from Loss-of-Offsite-Power Subsequent to a LOCA" Options for Incorporating Risk Insights Into the IO CFR 50.59 Process Proposed Commission Paper Concerning Options for Risk-Informed Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities" Proposed lr_nprovcmcnts to the NRC Inspection and Assessment Programs - Interim Report List of Questions to be Addressed for Possible Resolution of Key Issues Associated with the Proposed Revision to IO CFR 50.59 (Changes, Tests and Experiments)

NFPA 805, "Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants" Resolution of Generic Safety Issue B-61, "Allowable ECCS Equipment Outage Periods" SECY-98-244, " NRC Human Performance Plan" Proposed Improvements to the NRC Inspection and Assessment Programs SEC\\'-99-054, "Plans for Final Ruic - Revisions to 10 CFR Parts SO, 52, and 72: Requirements Concerning Changes, Tests and Experiments" Core Research Capabilities Lessons Learned from the ACRS Review of the APG00 Design Proposed Amendment to 10 CFR 50.72, Immediate Notification and 50.73, Licensee Event Reporting System Guidance Memorandum for Implementation of the Revised Enforcement Policy Application of Westinghouse Best-Estimate Loss-of-Coolant Accident Analysis Methodology to Upper Plenum Injection Plants High Burnup Fuel Phenomena Identification and Ranking Proposed ASME Standard for Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Pinnt Applications (Phase l)

Proposed Final Revision to IO CFR 50.65, "Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants" SECY-99-017, "Proposed Amendment to IO CFR S0.55a" Reevaluation of Generic Safety Issue Process Status of Efforts on Revising the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement Status of Resolution of Steam Generator Tube Integrity Issues Proposed Revisions to the NRC Generic Communications Process Modified Proposed Final Revision to 10 CFR 50.65, "Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants" Proposed Resolution of Generic Safety Issue-158, "Performance of Safety-Related Power-Operated Valves Under Design Basis Conditions" Use of Mixed Oxide Fuel in Commercial Nuclear Power Plants Proposed Final Rule - Revisions to 10 CFR Parts SO and 72 Concerning Changes, Tests, and Experiments The Role of Defense in Depth in a Risk-Informed Regulatory System 11 /23/ 1998 12/ 11 / 1998 12/14/1998 I 2/16/1998 2/18/ 1999 2/18/1999 2/19/1999 2/19/1999 2/23/1999 3/22/ 1999 3/22/1999 3/22/1999 3/23/1999 3/24/1999 3/24/1999 3/24/1999 3/25/1999 4/14/1999 4/19/1999 4/19/1999 4/19/1999 4/22/1999 4/23/1999 5/ 11 / 1999 5/14/1999 5/17/1999 5/17/1999 5/19/1999 12/1 6/ 1999 2:58 PM

SF 820 2 of 4 http:1/204.254.112.5/cms/RptAnnualReport.asp Interim Letter on the Safety Aspects of the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's License Renewal Application for Calvert Cliffs 511911999 Nuclear Power Plant, Units I & 2 Modifications Proposed by the Westinghouse Owners Group to the Core Damage Assessment Guidelines and Post Accident Sampling System Requirements Proposed Resolution of Generic Safety Issue-165, "Spring-Actuated Safety and Relief Valve Reliability" Exemption Request to the Hydrogen Control Requirements for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 Pilot Application of Rev. Inspection and Assmnt. Programs, Risk-Based Performance Indicators, and Performance-Based Regulatory Initiatives and Related Matters Development of a Low-Power and Shutdown Risk Assessment Program Pniposed Options for Using Averted Onsite Costs and Voluntary Initiatives in Regulatory Analyses SECY-99-148, "Credit for Existing Programs for License Renewal" Proposed Final Regulatory Guide 1.181, "Content of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Repo1*t in Accordance with IO CFR 50.71(e)"

Proposed Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide 1.160 (DG-1072), "Assessing and Managing Risk Before Maintenance Activities at Nuclear Power Plants" Revision of Appendix K, "ECCS Evaluation Models," to IO CFR Part 50 Proposed Final Amendment to 10 CFR 50.55a, "Codes and Standards" Interim Letter-Related to the License Renewal of Oconee Nuclear Station 5/19/1999 6/9/1999 6/9/1999 6/10/1999 6/11/1999 6/ 11 /1999 7/19/1999 7/21 / 1999 7/21/1999 7/22/1999 7/23/1999 9/13/1999 Proposed Final Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide 1.105, "Setpoints for Safety-Related Instrumentation" 9/13/1999 Safety Evaluation Report Rel. to Electric Power Research Institute Risk-Informed Methods to Inservice Inspection of Piping (EPRI 911511999 TR-I 12657, Rev. B, July 1999)

Prop. Rev. I to Reg. Guide 1.78 (DG-1087), "Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control Room During a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release" Proposed Resolution of Generic Safety lssue-145, "Actions to Reduce Common Cause Failures" Modifications Proposed by the Westinghouse Owners Group to the Core Damage Assessment Guidelines and Post Accident Sampling System (PASS) Requirements 9/16/ 1999 9/17/1999 9/17/1999 Proposed Final Rule on Use of Alternative Source Term at Operating Reactors, Associated Draft Regulatory Guide, and Standard 911711999 Review Plan 17a Open:

42 17b. Closed:

0 Meeting Purposes and Dates 456th Full Committee Meeting Joint Reliability & Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Regulatory Policies

& Practices 457th Full Committee Meeting Planning & Procedures Plant License Renewal Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena Jt. Reliability & Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Plant Operations Planning & Procedures 458th Full Committee Meeting Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena Fir*e Protection Reliability & Probabilistic Risk Asessment JI. Reliability & Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Plant Operations Planning & Procedures 459th Full Committee Meeting Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena Planning & Procedures 460th Full Committee Meeting Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena Materials & Metallurgy Planning & Procedrues Jt. Reliability & Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Regulatory Policies &

Practices 461st Full Committee Meeting Jt. Reliability & Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Regulatory Policies &

Practices Plant License Renewal Severe Accident Management 17c. Partially Closed:

9/30/1998 I 0/2/1998 I0/29/1998 I 0/29/1998 11/4/1998 11/7/1998 I 1/4/1998 I I /4/1998 11/18/ 1998 11/18/1998 11 /19/1998 11/19/1998 11/19/1998 11 /20/ 1998 12/2/1998 12/2/1998 12/3/1998 12/5/1998 12/16/1998 12/17 /I 998 1/20/1999 1/20/1999 1/25/1999 1/25/1999 1/26/1999 1/26/1999 2/2/1999 2/2/1999 2/3/1999 2/6/1999 2/23/1999 2/23/1999 3/9/1999 3/9/1999 3/10/1999 3/13/1999 3/23/1999 3/23/1999 3/24/1999 3/25/1999 4/6/1999 4/6/1999 4/7/1999 4/7/1999 4/7/1999 4/10/1999 4/21 /1999 4/21/1999 4/28/1999 4/29/1999 4/30/1999 4/30/1999 Safety Research Program 5/4/1999 5/4/1999 Jt. Reliability & Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Materials~~ Metallurgy 5/5/1999 5/5/1999 Planning & Procedures 5/5/1999 5/5/1999 462nd Full Committee Meeting Jt. Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Working Grp.

Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena Severe Accident Management 5/5/1999 5/8/1999 5/11 /1999 5/11/1999 5/26/1999 5/2711999 5/27/1999 5/27/1999 5

17d. Total Meetings 47 12/16/1999 2:58 PM

SF 820 3 of 4 Severe Accident Management 463rd Full Committee Meeting Jt. Plant Operations and Fire Protection Plant License Renewal Jt. Reliability & Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Regulatory Policies and Practices Planning & Procedures 464th Full Committee Meeting Severe Accident Management Planning & Procedures 465th Full Committee Meeting Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena Severe Accident Management Plant License Renewal Jt. Reliability & Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Regulatory Policies &

Practices Planning & Procedures 18a( I) Personnel Pmts lo Non-Federal Members I 8a(2) Personnel Pmts to Federal Members I 8a(3) Personnel Pmts lo Federal Staff I 8a(4) Personnel Pmts to Non-member Consultants I Sb( 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 lo Federal Staff I 8b(4) Travel and Per Diem lo Non-Member Consultants l 8c.Other(rents,user charges,graphics,printing,mai l etc.)

18d Total

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

http:1/204.254.112.5/cms/RptAnnualReport.asp 5/27/1999 5/27/1999 6/2/ 1999 6/4/1999 6/23/1999 6/23/1999 6/30/1999 7/1/1999 7/13/1999 7/13/1999 7/13/1999 7/13/1999 7/14/1999 7/16/1999 8/9/ 1999 8/10/1999 8/31 / 1999 8/31 /1999 9/1/1999 9/3/1999 9/15/1999 9/16/1999 9/16/1999 9/17/1999 9/23/1999 9/23/1999 9/23/1999 9/24/1999 9/29/1999 9/29/1999 Current Fiscal Year

$554,082

$0

$1,880,825

$14,618

$228,018

$0

$22,767

$6,491

$94,540

$2,801,341 21.8 Next Fiscal Year

$580,678

$0

$1,973,554

$29,120

$164,900

$0

$17,460

$7,000 S70,604

$2,843,316 20.8 As required by statute, the ACRS performs independent reviews of safety issues associated with the operating nuclear power plants, adequacy of new reactor designs, license renewal applications, and safety-related technical issues associated with new designs and provides valuable and timely advice to the NRC on these matters. During FY 1999, the ACRS completed 54 reports, which included its annual report to the Commission on the NRC Safety Research Program (NUREG-1635, Volume 2) and held 10 Full Committee meetings and 37 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 range ofNRC regulatory actions. In addition, the ACRS has periodic meetings with the NRC Commissioners and wit h 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: safety aspects of the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's License Renewal Application for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2; license renewal of Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; credit for existing progra ms for license renewal; proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50.SSa, "Codes and Standards;" proposed final revision to 10 CFR 50.65, "Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants;" proposed final revision to 10 CFR 50.59 (Changes, Tests and Experiments); proposed options for risk-informed revisions to 10 CFR Part SO, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities;" options for incorporating risk insights into the 10 CFR 50.59 process; list of questions to be addressed for possible resolution of key issues associated with the proposed revision to 10 CFR 50.59; the role of defense in depth in a.-isk-informed regulatory system ; status of efforts on revising the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement; proposed ASME Standard for probabilistic risk assessment for nuclear power plant applications; use of mixed oxide fuel in commercial nuclear power plants; high burnup fuel phenomena identification and ranking; and proposed rule on use of alternative source term at operating reactors. Other issues reviewed by the ACRS in FY 1999 included: a safety evaluation report related to Westinghouse Owners Group application ofrisk-informed methods to inservice inspection of piping; modifications proposed by Westinghouse Owners Group to the Core Damage Assessment Guidelines and Post Accident Sa mpling System Requirements; proposed prioritization of generic safety issues; reevaluation of the generic safety issue process; revision of Ap pendix K, "ECCS Evaluation Models;" proposed resolution of Generic Safety Issue-158, "Performance of Sa fety-Related Power-Operated Va lves Under Design Basis Conditions:" low-power and shutdown risk assessment progrnm ; proposed final Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide 1.105, "Setpoints for Safety-Related Instrumentation;" proposed revision to NRC Generic Communications process; proposed revision to the Enforcement Policy; proposed revision to NRC Inspection and Assessment programs; and NFPA 805, "Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants." The Committee's work has had a significant impact on the NRC regulatory process.

20b. How does the Commillee balance its membership?

The NRC appoints ACRS membe,*s 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 membe,*s 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 1999, the membership included those experienced in the areas of nuclear power plant 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.

12/16/1999 2:58 PM

SF 820 4 of 4 http://204.254.112.5/cms/RptAnnualRcport.asp 20c. How frequent and rel evant are the Committee meetings?

The ACRS and its Subcommittees held 47 meetings during FY 1999 of which 10 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 num her of generic issues that arose during the year; the number of rules, 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 nor*mally meets ten times a year for three 01* four days to consider various safety-related nuclear issues, generic and special reviews, rules, 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 advisor*y 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 those related to 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 are 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 10 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 I hour 30 minutes. This session was closed to discuss: information provided in confidence by a foreign source 15 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4)1.

21. Remarks None Designated Federal Official:

Michele S Kelton DFO Committee Members Apostolakis, Dr. George E.

Barton, Mr. John J.

Bonaca, Dr. Mario V.

Fontana, Dr. Mario 1-1.

Kress, Dr. Thomas S.

Miller, Dr. Don W.

Powers, Dr. Dana A.

Scale, Dr. Robert L.

Shack, Dr. William J.

Sieber, Mr. John D.

Uhrig, Dr. Robert E.

Wallis, Dr. Graham B.

Total Count of Committee Members Occupation Professor, Nuclear Engineering Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Retired Vice-President, GPU Nuclear Cor*poration Retired Director, Nuclear Engineering Department, Nor*theast Utilities Adjunct Professor, Nuclear Engineering Department,University ofTenncssee Retired Head of Applied Systems Technology Section, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Professor and Chair, Nuclear Engineering Department, Ohio State University Senior Scientist, Nuclear Facilities Safety Department, Sandia National Laboratories Professor Emeritus of Nuclear & Energy Engineering, University of Arizona Associate Director, Energy Technology Division, Argonne National Laboratory Retired Senior Vice-President, Nuclear Power Division, Duquesne Light Company Distinguished Professor, Nuclear* Engineering Department, University of Tennessee Professor, Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College 12 12/16/1999 2:58 PM

SF 820 http://204.254. l l 2.5/cms/RptAnnualReport.asp 1999 Annual Report: Review of Federal Advisory Committee 12/15/19994:06:12 PM I. Depa11ment or A gency Nuclear Regulatory Commission

3. Committee or SubCommittee Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel

4. Is this New During Fiscal Year?

5. Cu1Tent Cha11er No 12/19/1996

6. Expected Renewal Date 12/17/2000 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 Sb. Specifi c Tennination Authority 42 u.s.c. 2201 1 Ga.Legislation Req to Terminate?

Agency Authority

13. Effective Date 1/19/1975 Non Scientific Program Advisory Board

14. Committee Type Continuing 16a. Total Number of Reports 17d. Total Meetings No Reports for this Fiscal Year.

18a( I) Personnel Pmts to Non-Federal Members I 8a(2) Personnel Pmts to Federal Members I 8a(3) Personnel Pmts to Federal Staff 18a(4) Personnel Pmts to Non-member Consultants I Sb( 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 18b(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 purpose9 No Meetings for this Fiscal Year.

Cun*e,11 Fiscal Year

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0 0.0 Committee Menu

2. Fiscal Year 1999 3b. GSA Committee No.

1104

7. Expected Tem1 Date 12/20/2005 Sc.Actual Te,miuation Date I Ob. Legislation Pending9 14c. Prcsidential9 No Next Fiscal Year

$0

$0

$0

$2,140

$0

$7,090

$7,200

$0

$1,820

$18,250 0.0 The Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission continue to rely heavily upon the Licensing Support Network Advisory Review Panel (LSNARP) 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 LSNARP's efforts were concentrated primarily on refocusing technology designs to reflect changes to 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J. The revisions to the Rule 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 Committee balai,ce 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?

The Ruic was revised in early part of FY99 (Jan.). Panel was renamed from Licensing Support System (LSS) to Licensing Support Network (LSN) to.-eflect the inherent use of the internet for accessing the relevant documents used in the discovery process. The Commission reassigned responsibility to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) and staffed the LSN Administrator position and reconvened the LSNARP. Preparations were made for resuming LSNARP meetings in October 1999. The level of LSNARP activity is expected to remain at a moderate level during FYOO.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 necessaiy to close and/or pa11ially close committee meetings?

The LSSARP did not hold any closed meetings in FY 1999.

21. Remarks NONE Designated Federal Official:

John C. Hoyle DFO l of 2 12/ 15/1 999 4:04 PM

SF 820 2 of2 Committee Members Bechtel, Dennis Bradshaw, Les Cain, Tony Cameron, \\Vayne Clark, Ray Copenlrnfcr, David Culvcnvell, Eve Cummings, Peter Elquist, Bill Fiorenzi, Leonard Frishman, Steve Funk, Ario Goichoechea, Pete J Henkel, Christopher Hoffman, Juanita Holden, Robert Hoyle, John C Kall, Alan Kolkman, Debra Kraft, Steven Manzini, Tammy Metoxen, Loretta Mcttam, Brad Murphy, Malachy Newbury, Claudia Regan, James Remus, Andrew Silberg, Jay Swainston, Harry Treichel, Judy Wallace, Jackie Total Count of Committee Members bttp://204.254.112.5/cms/RptAnnualReport.asp Occupation Clark County, Nevada Nye County, Nevada Esmeralda County, Nevada White Pinc County, Nevada US EPA U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Lincoln County, Nevada City of Los Vegas, Nevada Lander County, Nevada Eureka County, Nevada State Of Nevada Mineral County, Nevada Eureka County, Nevada Nuclear Energy Institute - Energy Coalition Esmeralda County, Nevada National Congress of American Indians US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Churchill County, Nevada White Plan County, Nevada Nuclear Energy Institute - Energy Coalition Lander County Nevada National Congress of American Indians Inyo County, Nevada Nye County, Nevada US Department of Energy Churchill County, Nevada Inyo County, Nevada Attorney - Industry Coalition State of Nevada Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force Mineral County, Nevada 31 12/ 15/1 999 4:04 PM

SF 820 http://204.254. I l 2.5/cms/RptAnnualkeport.asp 1999 Annual Report: Review of Federal Advisory Committee 12/15/1999 4:01 :45 PM I. Department or Agency Nuclear Regulatory Commission

3. Committee or SubCommittee Pilot Program Evaluation Panel

4. Is this New During Fiscal Year?

Yes S. Current Charter 6/30/1999

6. Expected Renewal Date 6/29/2001 Sa. 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 Sb. Specific Termination Authority 42 u.s.c. 2201

!0a.Legislation Req to Tenninate?

Agency Authority

13. Effective Date 1/19/1975 Scientific Technical Program Advisory Board

14. Committee Type Ad Hoc 16a. Total Number of Repo11s 17a Open :

2 17b. Closed:

0 No Reports for this Fiscal Year.

17c. Partially Closed:

0 Meeting Purposes and Dates Organizing Meeting and Discussion of Pilot Program Evaluation Process 7/28/1999 7/28/1999 Discussion on Initial Results of Pilot Plant Inspections and Need for Data Analysis

!Sa(!) Personnel Pmts to Non-Federal Members I 8a(2) Personnel Pmts to Federal Members I 8a(3) Personnel Pmts to Federal Staff

!8a(4) Personnel Pmts to Non-member Consultants I Sb( 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 18b(4) Travel and Per Diem to Non-Member Consultants

\\ Sc.Other(rents,user charges,graphics,printing,mail etc.)

18d Total I 9. Federal Staff Support Years 20a. How does the Committee accomplish its purpose?

8/17/1999 8/17/1999 Current Fiscal Year

$0

$0

$30,000

$0

$1,712

$0

$520

$0

$0

$32,232 0.3 Committee Menu

2. Fiscal Year 1999 3b. GSA Committee No.

5287

7. Expected Tenn Date 6/30/2001 Sc.Actual Te1111i11ation Date I Ob.Legislation Pending?

14c. Presidential?

No 17d. Total Meetings 2 Next Fiscal Year

$0

$0

$60,000

$0

$6,400

$0

$0

$0

$0

$66,400 0.5 The NRC has developed a revised regulatory oversight process for commercial nuclear power plants. The new risk-informed baseline inspection program, a new streamlined assessment process, and a new enforcement policy form the basis for this oversight program. The Commission instituted a pilot program that would be performed at two sites per region to exercise these new oversight processes prior to full implementation. The PPEP functions as a management-level, cross-disciplinary oversight group to independently monitor and evaluate the results of the pilot effort. The PPEP meets periodically during the pilot program to review the implementation of the oversight processes and the results generated by the Pl reporting, baseline inspection, assessment, and enforcement activities. These meetings ar-e publically announced in advance, open to the public, and all material reviewed is placed in the public document room. A meeting summary will be prepared following each meeting to document the results of the meeting. The PPEP will evaluate the pilot program results against established success criteria. For those success criteria that are intended to measure the effectiveness of the processes, and that generally do not have a quantifiHble performance measure, the PPEP will serve as an "expert panel" to review the results and evaluate how well the success criteria were met. At the end of the pilot program, the PPEP members will provide an evaluation as to whether each of the success criteria have been met. This report will include both the consensus view of the panel, along with the dissenting views of any of the panel members. The staff will use the PPEP evaluation to determine the need for any additional process development or improvements prior to full implementation.

20b. How does the Committee balance its membership?

The PPEP is balanced by including participants from NRC headquarters and regional management, a representative from the Nuclear Energy Institute, pilot plant licensee management representatives, a representative from the Union Of Concerned Scientists, and a representative from the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety.

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

Meetings are held bi-monthly. A Final report is expected in April 2000.

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

The cross section of representatives from NRC, Licensee, and Public Interest Groups provides an excellent overview for the NRC revisions to its regulatory process.

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

Not applicable.

21. Remarks None Designated Federal Official:

TBD I of2 12/ 15/1999 3:59 PM

SF 820 2 of2 Committee Members Bajestani, Masoud Barnes, George Brockman, Kenneth Chase, James Floyd, Steve Gaarchow, David Gillespie, Frank Grant, Geoffrey Hahn, Heidi Lieberman, James Lochbaum, David Mallet, Bruce Thadani, Mohan Wiggins, James Wright, Gary Total Count of Committee Members Occupation Tennessee Valley Authority Commonwealth Edison Company USNRC Omaha Public Power District Nuclear Energy Institute Public Service Electric and Gas USNRC USNRC Los Alamos National Laboratory USNRC Union Of Concerned Scientists USNRC USNRC USNRC Illinois Department Of Nuclear Safety 15 http:1/204.254.1 12.5/cms/RptAnnualReport.asp 12/15/ 1999 3:59 PM

SF 820 I of2 http://204.254.112.5/cms/RptAnnualReport.asp 1999 Annual Report: Review of Federal Advisory Committee 12/15/1999 4:35:52 PM I. Department or Agency Nuclear Regulatory Commission

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

4. Is this New During Fiscal Year?

5. Current Chai1er No 4/4/1998

6. Expected Renewal Date 4/4/2000 8a. Was Ten11inated During FY?

No Sb. Speci11c Te1111 ination Authority 42 U.S.C. 220 I

9. Agency Reco111111endation for Next FY Continue I 0a. Legislation Req to Te1111inate?

11. Establ ishment Authority No Agency Authority I 2. Speci11c Establishment Authority 42 u.s.c. 2201

15. Description of Committee I 3. Effective Date 7/1/1958 Scientific Technical Program Advisory Board

14. Commillee Type Continuing 16a. Total ~ umber of Reports 16b. Report Titles and Dates 3

SUMMARY

of DISCUSSION: Public Meeting of ACMUI Diagnostic Subcommittee held 2/23-24/1999 Summary of Discussion : Public Meeting of ACMUI Therapy Subcommittee held 2/25-26/1999 Minutes of ACMUI Meeting held 3/24-25/1999 17a Open:

Meeting Purposes and Dates Diagnostic Subcommittee Meeting Meeting of Therapy Subcommittee Full Committee Meeting 3

I 7b. Closed:

0 Meeting with NRC Commissioners to provide Advice on Medical Ruic I Sa( I) Personnel Pmts to Non-Federal Members I 8a(2) Personnel Pmts to Federal Members I 8a(3) Personnel Pmts to Federal Staff 18a(4) Personnel Pmts to Non-member Consultants

!Sb( !) 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 18c.Other(rents,user charges,graphics,printing,mail etc.)

18d Total

19. Federal Staff Supp011 Years 20a. How does the Committee acco111plish its purpose?

I 7c. Pa11ially Closed:

2/23/1999 2/24/1999 2/25/1999 2/26/1999 3/24/1999 3/25/1999 3/25/1999 3/25/1999 Cu1Tent Fiscal Year

$ 13,382

$0

$96,000

$ 12,365

$8,753

$0

$0

$4,92 1

$0

$135,42 1 1.5 I. Committee Menu

2. Fiscal Year 1999 3b. GSA Comm illee No.

1102

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

14c. Presidential?

No 3/1/1999 3/1/1999 4/1/1999 17d. Total Meetings 4 Next Fiscal Year

$30,000

$0

$101,000

$ 15,000

$ 10,000

$0

$0

$5,000

$0

$ 161,000 1.5 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 rulcmaking and other initiatives at critical stages throughout their development. 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 Comminee balance its me111bership?

As of October I, 1999, the ACMUI consists of the following: a physician representing nuclear cardiology, one physician practicing nuclear medicine, one medical physicist in diagnostics, one health care administrator, one patients' rights and care advocate, a food and Drug Administration representative, and a State representative. Currently five more positions are authorized and being selected. These positions will represent radiation oncology (two positions), medical physics in radiation therapy, nuclear pharmacy, and a radiation safety officer.

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 also may be a need for subcommittee meetings periodically.

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

The Committee is composed of individuals with specialized degrees and who are actively involved in the medical field, i.e., physicians, medical physicists, and nuclear pharmacists. The necessary advice provided by the ACMUI cannot be obtained from other som*ces 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 commillee 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.

12/15/19994:33 PM

SF 820 2 of2 2 1. Remarks None Designated Federal Official : Betty Ann Torres DFO Committee Members Alazraki, Dr. Naomi Cerqueira M.D., Manuel Flyn n M.D., Dr. Daniel F.

Graham, Mr. John Hobson, Nekita Jones M.D., Dr. A. Eric McBurney, Ruth Nelp M.D., Dr. Wil B.

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

Wagner Ph.D., Dr. Louis K.

Walkup, Ms. Theresa Total Count of Committee Members http:1/204.254.112.5/crns/RptAnnualReport.asp Occupation Nuclear Medicine Physician Nuclear Ca rdiologist Radiation Oncologist Hospital Administrator Patient Advocate Food and Drug Ad ministration Representative State Representative Nuclear Medicine Physician - Research Radiation Oncologist Nuclear Pharmacist Medical Physicist - Nuclear Medicine Certified Medical Dosimetrist 12 12/ 15/19994:33 PM