ML24059A208

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
2000 Annual Report - Review of Federal Advisory Committee
ML24059A208
Person / Time
Issue date: 12/01/2000
From:
NRC/SECY
To:
References
Download: ML24059A208 (1)
v • d • e


Text

Annual Report http://204.254.112.5/cms/rptannualreport.as 1

Committee Menu 2000 Annual Report: Review of Federal Advisory Committee

11/30/2000 2:49:17 PM I. Department or Agency 2. Fiscal Year Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2000

3. Committee or SubCommittee 3b. GSA Committee No.

Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes 1102

4. Is this New During Fiscal Year ? 5. Current Charter 6. Expected Renew al Date 7. Expected Term Date No 4/4/2000 4/4/2002 4/4/2002 8a. W as Terminated During FY? 8b. Specific Termination Authority Sc.Actual Termination Date No 42 u.s.c. 2201 9. Agency Re co mmendation for Next FY !0a.Legislation Reg to Terminate? I Ob.Legislation Pending ?

Continue No

11. Establishment Authority Agency Authority I 2. Specific Establishment Authority I 3. Effective Date 14. Committee Type 14c. Presidential?

42 u.s.c. 2201 7/1/1958 Continuing No

15. Description of Committee Scientific Technical Program Advisory Board 16a. Total Number of Report s 1 I 6b. Report Titles and Dates Summary Minutes Advisory Committee On The Medical Isotopes 10/20/1999 17 a Open: 0 17b. Closed: 0 17c. Partially Closed: 1 17d. Total Meeti ng s 1 Mee tin g Purposes and Date s Full Committee Meeting to discuss Presentation to Commission 10/20/1999 10/20/1999 Current Fiscal Year Next Fiscal Year 18a( I ) Perso nn el Pmts to Non-Fed era l Member s $3,329 $17,100 I 8a(2) Personnel Pmts to Federal Members $0 $0 I 8a(3) Personnel Pmts to Federal Staff $101,000 $107,000 18a(4) Per sonnel Pmts to Non-m e mber Con sultants $1,318 $1,300 I Sb(!) Travel and Per Diem to Non-Federal Members $1,495 $15,000 18b(2) Travel and Per Diem to Federa l Me mb ers $0 $0 I 8b(3) Travel a nd Per Diem to Federal Staff $0 $0 18b(4) Travel an d Per Diem to Non-Member Consultants $553 $600 I 8c.O ther (rent s, use r charges,graphics,printing,mail etc.) $0 $0 18d Total $107,695 $141,000 I 9. Federal Staff Suppo rt Years 1.5 1.5 20a. How doe s the Committee accomplish its purpose ?

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 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 Committee balance its membership?

Membership on the Committee is made up of a range of specalists within the "Nuclear Medicine" community in order to provide the Commission with as broad experience and perspective as possible. As of October 1, 200, the ACMUI consists of the following: a physician representing nuclear cardiology, a physician practicing nuclear medicine, two radiation oncologists, a radiation therapy physisist, a nuclear pharmacist, a state representative and a food and Drug Administration representative. Currently, the postilion of medical physicist in diagnostics is authorizzed and being selected.

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 ca n ' t the advice or information this commi ttee 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 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. During this period the Committee provided reconnendations to the Commission on the qualifications and experience necessary for membership on licensee Radiation Safety Committees, training requirements and experience for the use of Iodine-131, exposure and reporting requirements for radiation exposure to the developing embryo/fetus, and implementation of the Commissions medical use regulations in IO CFR Part 35.

1 of 2 11/30/2000 2:38 PM Annual Report http ://204.254. l l2.5 /cms/rptannualreport.as1

20e. Why is it ne cessary to close and/or panially close committee meeting s?

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.

21. Remark s None

Designated Fe dera l Official: Catherine Haney DFO Committee Members Occupation Alazraki, Dr. Naomi Nuclear Medicine Physician Cerqueira M.D., Manuel Nuclear Cardiologist Graham, Mr. John Health Care Administrator Hobson, Nekita Patients' Rights and Care Advocate Jones M.D., Dr. A. Eric Food and Drug Administration Representative McBurney, Ruth State Representative Swanson M.S.,BCNP, Mr. Dennis P. Nuclear Pharmacist Wagner Ph.D., Dr. Louis K. Medical Physicist - (Diagnostics)

Total Count of Committee Members 8

2 of2 11/30/2000 2:38 PM Annual Report http://204.254.112.5/cms/rptannualreport.as1

2000 Annual Report: Review of Federal Advisory Committee Committee Menu

11/20/2000 4:37:07 PM I. Department or Agency 2. Fiscal Year Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2000

3. Committee or Subcommittee 3b. GSA Committee No.

Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel 1104 4. Is this New During Fiscal Year? 5. Current Charter 6. Expected Renewal Date 7. Expected Term Date No 12/17/1998 12/17/2000 12/17/2000 8a. Was Terminated During FY? 8b. Specific Termination Authority Sc.Actual Termination Date No 42 u.s.c. 2201 9. Agency Recommendation for Next FY l0a.Legislation Req to Terminate? 1 Ob.Legislation Pending?

Continue

11. Establishment Authority Agency Authority I 2. Specific Establishment Authority 13. Effective Date 14. Committee Type 14c. Presidential ?

42 u.s.c. 2201 1/19/1975 Continuing No 15. Description of Committee Non Scientific Program Advisory Board

16a. Total Number of Reports 3 16b. Report Titles and Dates Transcript of 10/13/1999 Meeting 10/13/1999 Transcript of 2/23/2000 Meeting 2/23/2000 Letter Report of 2/23/2000 Meeting 4/3/2000 17a Open: 2 17b. Closed : 0 17c. Partially Closed: 0 17d. Total Meetings 2 Meeting Purposes and Dates LSNARP Meeting - Review of LSN Functional Requirements 10/13/1999 10/13/1999 Review of Alternate Designs for LSN 2/23/2000 2/23/2000 Current Fiscal Year Next Fiscal Year 18a(l) Personnel Pmts to Non-Federal Members $0 $0 18a(2) Personnel Pmts to Federal Members $0 $0 I 8a(3) Personnel Pmts to Federal Staff $1,000 $1,000 l 8a(4) Personnel Pmts to Non-member Con s ultants $0 $0 18b(l) Travel and Per Diem to Non-Federal Members $0 $0 l 8b(2) Travel and Per Diem to Federal Members $10,367 $10,000 18b(3) Travel and Per Diem to Federal Staff $0 $0 l 8b (4) Travel and Per Diem to Non-Member Consultants $0 $0 18c.Other(rents,user charges,graphics,printing,mail etc.) $3,532 $4,500 18d Total $14,899 $15,500

19. Federal Staff Support Years 0.0 0.0 20a. How does the Committee accomplish its purpose?

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 focused on developing a set offuctional requirements for the Licensing Support Network. In meetings in October, 1999 and February, 2000, the Panel worked with a the LSN Administrator to complete a list of Functional Requiremants that were used for a contract solicitation in August, 2000 to design and build the Licensing Suport Network. As a result of the solicitation, the NRC was able to award a multi-million dollar contract on September 29, 2000 to design, implement, and host the LSN. During the coming year, the Committee will be working closly with the LSN Administrator and contractor to assure that the LSN will meet the needs of users represented by the Committee. As of Oct 2000, the NRC is working toward a deadline of July 2001 to have the LSN ready to begin loading documents. This anticipates that DOE will be submitting a Report to the President on the Yucca Mountain Waste Repository at that time.

20b. How does the Committee balance its membership?

The membership of the LSNARP 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 LSN project.

I of2 11/20/2000 4:26 PM Annual Report http://204.254. I 12.5/cms/rptannualreport.as1

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

LSNARP meetings were held in October 1999 and February, 2000. In order to conserve resources, the internet was used to provide Committee members periodic status reports and to get members comments. During FY2001, LSNARP activity is expected to remain at 2 to 3 meetings per year in order to provide advice to the NRC's contractor on the establishment of Internet sites and access protocols for each of the participants database of materials relevant to the anticipated licensing proceeding. The LSNARP will be providing feedback on the results of testing the LSN at the end of this FY.

20d. Why can't the advice or information this committee provide s be obtained elsewhere?

The advice provided by the state, county and tribal governmental units, together with other potential users of the LSN, 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 LSN.

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

The LSNARP did not hold any closed meetings in FY 2000.

21. Remarks NONE

Designated Federal Official: Andrew L. Bates DFO Committee Members Occupation Bates, Andrew US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bechtel, Dennis Clark County, Nevada Bradshaw, Les Nye County, Nevada Cain, Tony Esmeralda County, Nevada Clark,Ray US EPA Culverwell, Eve Lincoln County, Nevada Fiorenzi, Leonard Eureka County, Nevada Frishman, Steve State Of Nevada Holden, Robert National Congress of American Indians Hoyle, John C US Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Retired Kall,Alan Churchill County, Nevada Kolkman, Debra White Plan County, Nevada Kraft, Steven Nuclear Energy Institute - Energy Coalition Manzini, Tammy Lander County Nevada Metoxen, Loretta National Congress of American Indians Murphy, Malachy Nye County, Nevada Newbury, Claudia US Department of Energy Remus, Andrew Inyo County, Nevada Treichel, Judy Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force Wallace, Jackie Mineral County, Nevada Total Count of Committee Members 20

2 of2 11/20/2000 4:26 PM Annual Report http ://204.2 54. 112.5/cms/rptannua1report.as1

2000 Annual Report: Review of Federal Advisory Committee Committee Menu

11/20/2000 2:39:13 PM I. Department o r Agency 2. Fiscal Year Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2000

3. Committee or SubCommittee 3b. GSA Committee No.

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 207

4. Is thi s New During Fiscal Year ? 5. Current Charter 6. Expected Renewal Date 7. Expected Term Date No 12/23/1998 12/23/2000 8a. Was Terminated During FY? 8b. Specific Tennination Authority Sc.Actual Tennination Date No 42 U.S.C. Sect. 2039 & 2232
9. Agenc y Recommendation for Next FY !Oa.1..egislation ReqJo Termin ate? I Ob.Legi s lation Pending?

Continue No, __ L

11. Establishment Authority Statutory(Congress Created) **
12. Specific Establishment Authority 13. Effective Date 14. Committee Type 14c. Pre side nti a l?

42 U.S.C. Sect. 2039 & 2232 1/1/1957 Continuing No

15. Description of Committee Scientific Technical Program Advisory Board 16a. Total Numberof Report s 42 16b. Repo rt Titles and Date s Draft Commission Paper Regarding Proposed Guidelines for Applying Risk-Informed Decisionmaking in License Amendment 10/8/1999 Reviews Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG) Application to Eliminate the Post-Accident Sampling System from the Plant 10/8/1999 Design Bases for CEOG Utilities Proposed Resolution of Generic Safety Issue 23 (GSI-23), Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failure 10/8/1999 Proposed Resolution of Generic Safety Issue B-55, Improved Reliability of Target Rock Safety Relief Valves 10/8/1999 Proposed Plans for Developing Risk-Informed Revisions to 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization 10/12/1999 Facilities Proposed Final Design Certi(tcation Rule and Changes to the Design Control Document Associated with AP600 Design 11/12/1999 Proposed Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide 1.160 (DG-1082), Assessing and Managing Risk Before Maintenance Activities at Nuclear 11/12/1999 Power Plants Spent Fuel Fires Associated with Decommissioning 11/12/1999 Proposed Resolution of Generic Safety Issue (GSO-148, Smoke Control and Manual Fire-Fighting Effectiveness 11/12/1999 Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1093, Guidance and Examples for Identifying 10 CFR 50.2 Design Bases 11/12/1999 Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1093, Guidance and Examples for Identifying 10 CFR 50.2 Design Bases 11/17/1999 Draft Commission Paper Regarding the 120-Month Update Requirement for Inservice Inspection and Inservice Testing Programs 12/8/1999 Proposed Resolution of Generic Safety Issue-190, Fatigue Evaluation of Metal Components for 60-Y ear Plant Life 12/10/1999 Report on the Safety Aspects of the License Renewal Application for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 12/10/1999 NUREG-1624, Revision 1, "Technical Basis and Implementation Guidelines for a Technique for Human Event Analysis (ATHEANA) 12/15/1999 SECY-00-0011, Evaluation of the Requirement for Licensees to Update Their Inservice Inspection and Inservice Testing Programs 2/8/2000 Every 120 Months Importance Measures Derived from Probabilistic Risk Assessments 2/11/2000 Revision of Appendix K, "ECCS Evaluation Models," to 10 CFR Part 50 2/11/2000 Impediments to the Increased Use of Risk-Informed Regulation 2/14/2000 Proposed Final Regulatory Guide 1.XXX, Assessing and Managing Risk Before Maintenance Activities at Nuclear Power Plants 3/10/2000 SECY-00-0007, Proposed Staff Plan for Low Power and Shutdown Risk Analysis Research to Support Risk-Informed Regulatory 3/13/2000 Decision Making Proposed Resolution of Generic Issue B-17, Criteria for Safety-Related Operator Actions, and Generic Issue 27, Manual vs. 3/13/2000 Automated Actions Report on the Safety Aspects of the License Renewal Application for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 3/13/2000 Revised Reactor Oversight Process 3/15/2000 Draft Final Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants 4/13/2000 NRC Program for Risk-Based Analysis of Reactor Operating Experience 4/13/2000 Reactor Safety Goal Policy Statement 4/17/2000 Proposed NRC Research Plan for Digital Instrumentation and Control 4/18/2000 SECY-00-0053, NRC Program on Human Performance in Nuclear Power Plant Safety 5/23/2000 Use of Defense In Depth in Risk-Informing NMSS Activities 5/25/2000 Draft Regulatory Guides 6/14/2000 Proposed Resolution of Generic Safety Issue-173A, Spent Fuel Storage Pool for Operating Facilities 6/20/2000

I of 4 11/20/2000 2:28 PM Annual Report http://204.254.112.5/cms/rptannualreport.as1

Proposed Final Regulatory Guide and Standard Review Plan Section Associated with the Alternative Source Term Rule 6/20/2000 Draft Report, Regulatory Effectiveness of the Station Blackout Rule 6/22/2000 Nuclear Energy Institute Letter Dated January 19, 2000, Addressing NRC Plans for Risk-Informing the Technical Requirements in 7/20/2000 10 CFR Part 50 Proposed Final ASME Standard for Probabilistic Risk As.sessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications 7/20/2000 Assessment of the Quality of Probabilistic Risk Assessments 9nt2000 Proposed High-Level Guidelines for Performance-Based Activities 9/8/2000 Causes and Significance of Design Basis Issues at U.S. Nuclear Power Plants 9/8/2000 Proposed Final Regulatory Guide DG-1093, Guidance and Examples for Identifying 10 CFR 50.2 Design Bases 9/12/2000 Proposed Risk-Informed Revisions to 10 CFR 50.44, Standards for Combustible Gas Control System in Light-Water-Cooled Power 9/13/2000 Reactors Pre-Application Review of the APlO00 Standard Plant Design - Phase I, September 14 9/14/2000 17a Open : 40 17b. Closed: 2 17 c. Partially Closed: 3 17d. Total Meeting s 45 Meeting Purp os es and Dates 466th Full Committee Meeting 9/30/1999 10/2/1999 Planning & Procedures Subcommittee Meeting 11/3/1999 11/3/1999 467th Full Committee Meeting 11/4/1999 11/6/1999 Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee Meeting 11/17/1999 11/17/1999 Reliability & Probabilistic Risk Assessment Subcommittee Meeting 11/18/1999 11/18/1999 Plant License Renewal Subcommittee Meeting 11/18/1999 11/18/1999 Human Factors Subcommittee Meeting 11/19/1999 11/19/1999 Materials & Metallurgy Subcommittee Meeting 12/1/1999 12/1/1999 Planning & Procedures Subcommittee Meeting 12/1/1999 12/1/1999 Safety Research Program Subcommittee Meeting 12/1/1999 12/1/1999 468th Full Committee Meeting 12/2/1999 12/4/1999 Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment Subcommittee Meeting 12/15/1999 12/16/1999 Joint ACRS/ACNW Subcommittee Subcommittee Meeting 1/13/2000 1/14/2000 Plant Operations Subcommittee Meeting 1/20/2000 1/20/2000 Planning and Procedures Subcommmittee Meeting and Retreat l/27 /2000 1/29/2000 Planning & Procedures Subcommittee Meeting 2/2/2000 2/2/2000 469th Full Committee Meeting 2/3/2000 2/5/2000 Oconee Site Visit and Plant License Renewal Subcommittee Meeting 2/23/2000 2/23/2000 Plant License Renewal Subcommittee Meeting 2/24/2000 2/24/2000 Planning & Procedures Subcommittee Meeting 2/29/2000 2/29/2000 470th Full Committee Meeting 3/1/2000 3/4/2000 Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee Meeting 3/15/2000 3/15/2000 Human Factors Subcommittee Meeting 3/15/2000 3/15/2000 Materials & Metallurgy Subcommittee Meeting 3/16/2000 3/16/2000 Naval Reactos Subcomittee Meeting 4/4/2000 4/4/2000 Planning & Procedures Subcommittee Meeting 4/4/2000 4/4/2000 471st Full Committee Meeting 4/5/2000 4nt2000 Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee Meeting 4/27/2000 4/27/2000 Jt. Materials & Metallurgy and Reliability & Probabilistic Subcommittees 4/27/2000 4/27/2000 Meeting Jt. Plant Operations and Reliability & Probabilistic Risk Assessment 4/28/2000 4/28/2000 Subcommittees Meeting Joint ACRS/ACNW Subcommittee Subcommittee Meeting 5/4/2000 5/4/2000 Planning & Procedures Subcommittee Meeting 5/10/2000 5/10/2000 472nd Full Committee Meeting 5/11/2000 5/13/2000 Planning & Procedures Subcommittee Meeting 6/6/2000 6/6/2000 473rd Full Committee Meeting 6nt2000 6/9/2000 Jt. Plant Operations and Fire Protection Subcommittees Meeting 6/13/2000 6/14/2000 Reliability & Probabilistic Risk As.sessment Subcommittee Meeting 6/28/2000 6/28/2000 Planning & Procedures Subcommittee Meeting 7/11/2000 7/11/2000 Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment Subcommittee Meeting 7/11/2000 7/11/2000 474th Full Committee Meeting 7/12/2000 7/14/2000 Naval Reactors Subcommittee Meeting 8n 12000 8nt2000 Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee Meeting 8/8/2000 8/9/2000 Planning & Procedures Subcommittee Meeting 8/28/2000 8/28/2000

2 of 4 11/20/2000 2 :28 PM Annual Report http://204.254. l 12.5/cms/rptannualreport.as1

47~th Jfllll Lommittee Meetmg !Sf.LW:.I.UUU,,11:.1.uuu Materials & Metallurgy Subcommittee Meeting 9/21/2000 9/21/2000

Current Fiscal Year Next Fiscal Year I Sa( I) Person nel Pmts to Non-Fed era l Members $520,681 $538,900 l 8a(2) Personnel Pmts to Federal Me mber s $0 $0 l 8a(3) Perso nnel Pm ts to Federal Staff $1,980,580 $2,049,902 I Sa( 4) Personnel Pmts to Non-member Consultants $6,276 $6,412 l 8b(l) Travel and Per Diem to Non-Federal Members $191,944 $202,000 l 8b(2) Travel and Per Diem to Federal Members $0 $0 l 8b(3) Travel and Per Diem to Federal Staff $18,862 $20,000 18b(4) Travel and Per Diem to Non-Member Consultants $2,006 $2,006 18c.Other(rents,use r charges,graphics,printing,mail etc.) $66,589 $67,000 18d Total $2,786,938 $2,886,220

19. Federal Staff Support Years 20.8 18.8 20a. How doe s th e Committee acco mpli sh its purpo se?

The ACRS reports to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and provides the Commission reviews of, and advice on, the safety of proposed or existing NRC licensed reactor facilities and the adequacy of applicable safety standards. The ACRS was established as a statutory committee by a 1957 amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. With the enactment of the Energy Reorganization of 1974, the licensing functions of the AEC were transferred intact from the Atomic Energy Commission to the NRC. The ACRS has continued in the same advisory role to the NRC with its work changing with the needs of the Commission. Some of the ACRS's tasks are mandated by statute or regulation, some are in response to direction by the Commission or requests from the NRC staff or other stakeholders, and some are self initiated in response to ACRS concerns on important regulatory matters. The A CRS, upon request from the Department of Energy (DOE), provides advice on the safety of U.S. naval reactor designs. Upon request, and with the Commission ' s consent, the ACRS also provides technical advice to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The A CRS and its subcommittees meet regularly in public, FA CA-regulated meetings to work on matters within the scope of the ACRS' responsibilities. The ACRS and its subcommittees held 45 meetings during FY 2000, of which 10 meetings were Full Committee meetings (meetings attended by all of the ACRS members). ACRS members are chosen for their technical expertise relevant to the safety issues important to the Commission. Consultants are used on occasion to augment the ACRS members' expertise. The Committee has a full-time staff that provides technical support and administrative services in compliance with FACA requirements. ACRS subcommittees are normally composed of three to six ACRS members with the expertise needed to address the regulatory matter under review in detail and to report to the Full Committee. Stakeholder participation in ACRS meetings is encouraged and routinely occurs. Committee advice, in the form of letters or written reports, is only produced by the Full Committee and is discussed with the Commission in public meetings. The ACRS conducts an ongoing review of its plans and schedules to assure that regulatory matters within its scope of responsibility are being properly addressed and, within its resources, on schedules that are consistent with the needs of its stakeholders. Input from the Commission, the NRC staff, and affected stakeholders is used in this process. A Memorandum of Understanding with the NRC staff provides a framework for NRC staff interaction with the ACRS. The ACRS conducts formal annual self assessments to improve its effectiveness and efficiency. A report is provided to the Commission on the outcome of this process. The focus of the ACRS' work during FY 2000 was on risk-informed regulatory reform initiatives, reactor license renewal applications, resolution of generic safety issues, decommissioning technical policy issues, and the NRC's safety research program.

20b. How does the Committee balance its membership ?

The Commission appoints ACRS members with the scientific and engineering expertise needed to address the safety issues of importance to the Commission. Members are sought who can provide an independent perspective on nuclear safety issues, outstanding scientific and technical ability, balanced and mature judgment, and a willingness to devote the time required to the demanding work involved. Members are appointed for 4-year terms and, absent unusual circumstances, do not serve for more than three terms. Members are reappointed at the end of a 4-year term only if there is a compelling continuing need for their expertise. Vacancies in the A CRS membership are filled from the pool of applicants which exists after solicitations of interest are published in the Federal Register, trade and professional society publications, and the press.

Recommendations to the Commission as to the selection of qualified candidates from this pool are made by the ACRS and by a separate selection panel. During FY 2000, the membership was composed of individuals with diverse employment backgrounds and 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; 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 technical expertise. These member attributes provide the Committee with the balance of highly qualified technical expertise and diverse safety perspectives necessary to carry out the Committee's statutory requirements effectively.

20c. How frequent and relevant are the Committee meeting s?

The ACRS and its Subcommittees held 45 meetings during FY 2000, of which 10 were Full Committee meetings. The number of meetings held in a reporting period is directly related to the number of nuclear safety matters that were referred to the Committee by the NRC or required by statute; 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 or other Federal Government organizations; and other safety issues of particular concern to the Committee and its stakeholders. All of the Committee members normally meet ten times a year for 3 or 4 days in Full Committee meetings, to consider important safety-related nuclear issues, generic and special reviews, rules and regulatory guidance. ACRS Subcommittees, which normally are composed of three to six members with the relevant expertise, meet as necessary with stakeholders to conduct in-depth reviews of particular matters for later consideration by the full membership during Full Committee meetings. Subcommittee meetings are conducted under the same FACA procedures as are the Full Committee meetings and are utilized to make efficient use of Committee resources. Reviews are conducted during each Full Committee to assess the relevance of proposed meetings and review topics, resource needs, and the priority of each activity. These assessments have the benefit of input from the Commission, NRC's Executive Director for Operations (EDO), and other stakeholders. The self assessment conducted by the ACRS for its CY 2000 activities involved collection of input from a variety of stakeholders.

This informaiton was used to assess the relevance of ACRS activities. All ACRS meetings for this reporting period addressed either matters for which ACRS review was required by statue or regulation, specific requests from either the Commission or the EDO, risk-informed regulatory reform initiatives, or other important regulatory matters within the ACRS scope of responsibility.

3 of 4 11/20/2000 2 :28 PM Annual Report http ://204.254. 112.5/cms/rptannualreport.as1

20d. Why can't the advice or inform a tion thi s co mmittee provide s be obtain ed el sewhere ?

The ACRS is an independent body of recognized experts in the field of nuclear reactor safety whose Congressional mandate is to provide the Commission with independent advice. Particular duties of the ACRS are dictated by statute or regulation. (Examples are the review of reactor operating license renewal applications, standard design applications, and construction permit and operating license applications for nuclear power plants.) In addition, functional arrangements exist wherein, upon request, the ACRS also provides advice to the U.S. Navy, the Department of Energy, and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The Commission necessarily has its own expert staff on whom it relies in the day-to-day regulation of nuclear power facilities. The ACRS provides the Commission and the NRC staff with both an independent,

critical review of high-level regulatory issues under consideration by the NRC and independent technical insights as to important matters needing Commission attention. ACRS members are primarily part-time advisors with other full-time interests and activities in related fields, and provide a breadth of experience, an independent perspective on issues, and technical knowledge that is not duplicated by the NRC's full-time government employees. A standing committee such as the ACRS remains current with respect to nuclear safety issues of importance to the NRC, including those related to reactor operating experience, regulatory reform, and NRC's needs for safety research, and provides an independent, collegial judgment regarding these issues that part-time consultants could not provide. ACRS meetings provide an important forum in which safety issues and stakeholder concerns can be freely discussed and examined in FA CA-regulated meetings. A number of important safety initiatives have had their origins in the ACRS's deliberations. 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 ne ces sary to clo se and/or parti ally clo se committee meeting s?

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 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 45 minutes. This session was closed to discuss: information provided in confidence by a foreign source (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4)].

21. Remark s None

Des i g nated Fe deral Official : Michele S Kelton DFO Co mmittee Members Occupation Apostolakis, Dr. George E. Professor, Nuclear Engineering Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Barton, Mr. John J. Retired Vice-President, GPU Nuclear Corporation Bonaca, Dr. Mario V. Retired Director, Nuclear Engineering Department, Northeast Utilities Kress, Dr. Thomas S. Retired Head of Applied Systems Technology Section, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Retired Vice-President, Limerick Generating Station, PEPCO Energy; Retired Leitch, Dr. Graham B. Vice-President, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co., Member, Offisite Safety Review Committee, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Powers, Dr. Dana A. Senior Scientist, Nuclear Facilities Safety Department, Sandia National Laboratories Seale, Dr. Robert L. Professor Emeritus of Nuclear & Energy Engineering, University of Arizona Shack, Dr. William J. Associate Director, Energy Technology Division, Argonne National Laboratory Sieber, Mr. John D. Retired Senior Vice-President, Nuclear Power Division, Duquesne Light Company Uhrig, Dr. Robert E. Distinguished Professor, Nuclear Engineering Department, University of Tennessee Wallis, Dr. Graham B. Professor, Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College To ta l C ount of Committee Member s 11

4 o f 4 11/20/2000 2 :28 PM Annual Report http://204.254.112.5/cms/rptannualreport.as 1

2000 Annual Report: Review of Federal Advisory Committee Committee Menu

11/20/2000 2:35:47 PM I. Department or Agency 2. Fiscal Year Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2000

3. Committee or SubCommittee 3b. GSA Committee No.

Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste 1100

4. Is this New During Fiscal Year? 5. Current Charter 6. Expected Renewal Date 7. Expected Term Date No 5/24/2000 5/24/2002 5/24/2002 8a. Was Terminated During FY? 8b. Specific Termination Authority Sc.Actual Termination Date No 42 u.s.c. 2201
9. Agency Recommendation for Next FY !Oa.Legislation Req to Terminate? I Ob.Legislation Pending?

Continue No

11. Establishment Authority Agency Authority
12. Specific Establishment Authority 13. Effective Date 14. Committee Type 14c. Presidential?

42 u.s.c. 2201 1/6/1988 Continuing No

15. Description of Committee Scientific Technical Program Advisory Board 16a. Total Number of Reports 12 16b. Report Titles and Dates Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Round-Table Discussion with Yucca Mountain Stakeholders on the Role of Safety Assessment in Regulatory Decision-Making - Obs 12/23/1999 Comments on the Importance of Chemistry in the Near Field to DOE's Yucca Mountain Repository License Application 1/11/2000 Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Yucca Mountain 1/20/2000 Rubblization - A Decommissioning Option 1/24/2000 Regulatory Approaches for Control of Solid Materials (Clearance Rule) 3/21/2000 Comments and Recommendations on the Draft Final Rule, 10 CFR Part 63, Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste in a Proposed 3/31/2000 Geologic Repository at Yucca Mount Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste 2000 Action Plan and Priority Issues 4/18/2000 NRC Evaluation of DO E's Site Recommendation Considerations Report 6/29/2000 Development of Risk-Informed Regulation in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 7/27/2000 Branch Technical Position on a Performance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities 8/2/2000 Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste 2000 Action Plan 8/2/2000 ACNW Visits to Nuclear Sites and Information Exchanges in the United Kingdom and France, May 15-19, 2000 8/18/2000 17a Open : 17b. Closed: 0 17c. Partially Closed: 0 17d. Total Meetings 10 Meeting Purposes and Dates 113th Full Committee Meeting 10/12/1999 10/13/1999 114th Full Committee Meeting 11/17/1999 11/19/1999 115th Full Committee Meeting 12/14/199912/16/1999 116th Full Committee Meeting 1/13/2000 1/14/2000 117th Full Committee Meeting 2/23/2000 2/25/2000 118th Full Committee Meeting 3/27/2000 3/29/2000 ACNW European Exchange 5/15/2000 5/20/2000 119th Full Committee Meeting 6/13/2000 6/15/2000 120th Full Committee Meeting 7/25/2000 7/27/2000 121st Full Committee Meeting and Yucca Mountain Tour 9/19/2000 9/21/2000

1 of 3 11/20/2000 2:25 PM Annual Report http ://204.254. l l2.5/cms/rptannualreport.a s1

Current Fiscal Year Next Fiscal Year 18a(J) Personnel Pmts to Non-Federal Members $111,870 $151,025 J 8a(2) Perso nnel Pmts to Federal Member s $0 $0 l 8a(3) Perso nnel Pmts to Federal Staff $330,804 $342,382 J 8a(4) Person ne l Pmts to Non-member Consultants $12,289 $10,272 l 8b(l) Travel and Per Diem to Non-Federal Member s $48,418 $52,000 18b(2) Travel and Per Diem to Federal Members $0 $0 J 8b(3) Travel and Per Diem to Federal Staff $39,680 $41,000 18b(4) Travel and Per Diem to Non-Member Con s ultants $6,907 $4,731 18c.Other (r e nts, user charges,graphics,printing,mail etc.) $76,646 $76,646 18d Total $626,614 $678,056

19. Federal Staff Support Years 4.0 6.0 20a. How doe s the Committee accomplish its purpo se?

The ACNW reports to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and provides the Commission with independent reviews of, and advice on, nuclear waste management, including applications of 10 CFR Parts 60 and 61, the proposed IO CFR Part 63, and legislative mandates such as the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, and the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act. At the request of the Commission, the ACNW continues to provide advice on decommissioning issues related to nuclear facilities. To conduct its reviews, the ACNW meets regularly with the NRC staff, the Department of Energy, the industry, other government agencies, members of the public, and other stakeholders. The Committee issues letters and written reports, providing advice on matters within its scope of responsibility 2000 has been on the proposed waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and on decommissioning of nuclear facilities. ACNW members are and meets periodically with the Commissioners in public meetings to discuss issues of mutual interest. The focus of the ACNW's work during FY

chosen for their technical expertise relevant to waste management issues important to the Commission. Consultants are used on occasion to augment the ACNW members' expertise in specific areas. The Committee has a full-time staff that provides technical support, administrative services, and assures compliance with FACA requirements. ACNW working groups, composed of the ACNW members and consultants with the appropriate expertise are used on occasion to address specific technical issues in depth. These working groups meet in public meetings and their activities are conducted under FACA requirements. Stakeholder participation in ACNW meetings is encouraged and routinely occurs. The ACNW issues an annual Action Plan for Commission approval and conducts an annual self assessment which includes the use of extensive stakeholder input. The A CNW conducts ongoing reviews of its plans and schedules to assure that it properly addresses regulatory matters within its scope of responsibility, within its resources, and on schedules that are consistent with the needs of its stakeholders. Input from the Commission, the NRC staff, and affected stakeholders is used in this process. A Memorandum of Understanding with the NRC staff provides a framework for interactions between the ACNW and the staff.

20b. How does the Committee balance its membership?

The Commission appoints ACNW members with the scientific and engineering expertise needed to address the waste management issues of importance to the Commission. Members are sought who can provide an independent perspective on waste management issues, outstanding scientific and technical ability, balanced and mature judgment, and a willingness to devote the time required to carry out the timely completion of the Committee's work. Members are appointed for 4-year terms and, absent unusual circumstances, do not serve more than two terms.

Members are reappointed at the end of a 4-year term only if there is a compelling continuing need for their expertise. Vacancies in the ACNW membership are filled from the pool of applicants which exists after solicitations of interest are published in the Federal Register, trade and professional society publications, and the press. Recommendations to the Commission as to the selection of qualified candidates from this pool are made by the ACNW and by a separate selection panel. The diversity of viewpoints represented by current members is broadly based from the standpoint of special fields of interest, professional experience, and technical expertise. These member attributes provide the Committee with the balance of highly qualified technical expertise and diverse perspectives necessary to carry out the Committee's statutory requirements effectively. At the end of FY 2000, the Committee included one member from academia, one member from a national laboratory, and two members from private industry. During FY 2000, the ACNW included members experienced in radioactive waste management, chemistry, nuclear engineering, risk assessment, environmental engineering, performance assessment, hydrology, research, and technical management.

There has been a systematic effort to obtain members with backgrounds that can address the difficult and diverse questions associated with radioactive waste management. This fosters a concentration of the relevant 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.

20c. How frequent and relevant are the Committee meeting s?

In FY 2000, the ACNW held 8 Full Committee meetings. Normally, all ACNW members attend the Full Committee meetings. The number of meetings held is directly related to the scope ofNRC's efforts on the high-level waste geologic repository and other issues involving waste management, the number of criteria, guides, and technical positions referred to the ACNW for review and comment, the number of special reviews requested by the NRC, and the number of important topics of concern to the Committee and its stakeholders. The ACNW Action Plans for CY 1999 and CY 2000 formed the basis for the selection of issues to be addressed during its FY 2000 meetings. The Committee meets once each year in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain to provide an opportunity for local stakeholders to participate in the meetings. Full Committee meetings generally run 2 to 3 days and cover a variety of topics. The letters and written reports that contain the ACNW's advice are issued during Full Committee meetings. When resources are available, the ACNW holds working group meetings for particularly complex issues. At these meetings, additional time and expertise can be brought to bear on an issue and the subject developed for Full Committee considerations.

Reviews are conducted during each Full Committee meeting to assess the relevance of proposed meetings and review topics, resource needs, and the priority of each activity. These assessments have the benefit of input from the Commission, NRC's Executive Director for Operations (EDO),

and other stakeholders. The self assessment conducted by the ACNW for its CY 2000 activities involved collection of input from a variety of stakeholders. This information was used to assess the relevance of ACNW activities. All ACNW meetings for this reporting period addressed either matters delineated in the ACNW's Action Plan, specific requests from either the Commission or the EDO, or other important regulatory matters within the ACNW's scope of responsibility.

2 of 3 11/20/2000 2 :25 PM Annual Report http ://204.254. l l2.5/cms/rptannualreport.as1

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

The ACNW is an independent body of recognized experts in the field of nuclear waste management whose mandate is to provide the Commission with independent advice. Decisions relating to waste management that are expected to be before the Commission include the licensing of the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level waste repository, West Valley Demonstration Project and West Valley Site and other site decommissionings, nuclear reactor decommissioning, and low-level waste management. The Commission has its own expert staff of NRC employees on whom it relies in its day-to-day operations. However, the Commission has no other advisory committee with the broadly based expertise of the A CNW that could be called upon for independent and informed assessment of safety issues related to high-and low-level waste management. In addition, since members are part-time advisors with other interests and activities in related fields, they provide a breadth of experience, an independent perspective on issues, and technical knowledge that is not duplicated by the NRC staff. The ACNW provides the Commission with both an independent, critical review of high-level regulatory issues under consideration by the NRC and independent technical insights as to important matters needing Commission attention. In addition, a standing committee such as the ACNW, supported by a technical staff, remains currently informed with respect to nuclear waste issues of importance to the Commission, including NRC-sponsored safety research, and provides an informed, collegial judgment regarding these issues that would not be obtained by use of individual part-time consultants on a case-by-case basis. The ACNW provides the public 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 partially close committee meetings?

During this period, the Committee held 8 Full Committee meetings. All portions of these meetings were open to public attendance.

21. Remarks NONE

Designated Federal Official: Michele Kelton DFO Committee Members Occupation Garrick, Dr. B. John Consultant Hornberger, Dr. George M. Professor, Dept. of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia Levenson, Dr. Milton Consultant Wymer, Dr. Raymond G. Retired, Distinguished Scientist in the International Technology Programs Division of Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.

Total Count of Committee Member s 4

3 of 3 11/20/2000 2:25 PM Annual Report http://204.254. l l2.5/cms/rptannualreport.as 1

2000 Annual Report: Review of Federal Advisory Committee Committee Menu

11/13/2000 3:56:20 PM I. Department or Agency 2. Fiscal Year Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2000

3. Committee or Subcommittee 3b. GSA Committee No.

Pilot Program Evaluation Panel 5287

4. Is this New During Fiscal Year? 5. Current Charter 6. Expected Renewal Date 7. Expected Term Date Yes 6/30/1999 8a. Was Terminated During FY? 8b. Specific Termination Authority Sc.Actual Termination Date Yes 42 u.s.c. 2201 3/31/2000
9. Agency Recommendation for Next FY !Oa.Legislation Req to Terminate? I Ob.Legislation Pending?

Terminate No

11. Establishment Authority Agency Authority
12. Specific Establishment Authority 13. Effective Date 14. Committee Type 14c. Presidential?

42 u.s.c. 2201 1/19/1975 Ad Hoc No

15. Description of Committee Scientific Technical Program Advisory Board 16a. Total Number of Reports 1 I 6b. Repon Titles and Dates Final Report of The Pilot Program Evaluation Panel 12/17/1999 17a Open : 3 17b. Closed: 0 17c. Partially Closed: 0 17d. Total Meetings 3 Meeting Purposes and Dates Review of Performance Indicators and Risk Informed Baseline 11/16/199911/17/1999 Inspections Develop Consensus On Panel's Final Report 12/8/1999 12/9/1999 Identify any Additional Issues for Consideration Following Issuance of 1/14/2000 1/14/2000 Final Report in December 1999 Current Fiscal Year Next Fiscal Year 18a(l) Personnel Pmts to Non-Federal Members $0 $0 l 8a(2) Personnel Pmts to Federal Members $0 $0 l 8a(3) Personnel Pmts to Federal Staff $80,000 $0 18a(4) Personnel Pmts to Non-member Consultants $0 $0 18b(l) Travel and Per Diem to Non-Federal Members $3,779 $0 18b(2) Travel and Per Diem to Federal Members $0 $0 18b(3) Travel and Per Diem to Federal Staff $0 $0 18b(4) Travel and Per Diem to Non-Member Consultants $0 $0 l 8c.Other(rents,user charges,graphics,printing,mail etc.) $0 $0 18d Total $83,779 $0
19. Federal Staff Suppon Years 0.7 0.0 20a. How does the Committee accomplish its purpose?

The NRC developed a revised regulatory oversight process for commercial nuclear power plants. A new risk-informed inspection process, industry performance indicators, a new streamlined assessment process, and a new enforcement policy form the basis of the revised oversight program. The revised oversight program is expected to; (1) improve the objectivity of the oversight so subjective decisions and judgments are not central features; (2)improve the transparency of the oversight so NRC actions have a clear tie to licensee performance; and (3) risk-inform the oversight process to focus NRC and licensee resources on performance having the greatest impact on plant safety. The Commission instituted a pilot program that was tested at two sites per each region. To evaluate whether the NRC can effectively carry out the new oversight program, the NRC established the Pilot Program Evaluation Panel (PPEP) as an independent advisory committee. The NRC chartered the PPEP to evaluate the pilot program results against the staff evaluation criteria. For those criteria that measure the effectiveness of the oversight, but do not have quantifiable performance measures, the PPEP depended on its member's expertise to review the results of the pilot effort and evaluate how well the pilot effort meets underlying objectives. The PPEP worked as a management level cross-disciplinary oversight group of experts to evaluate whether the new regulatory oversight can be successfully and effectively carried out and how the pilot program compares in its execution to its overall objectives. The PPEP met periodically during the implementation of the pilot program to review the pilot results and program status. All meetings were publicly announced and open to the public. All meeting material was made available to public The results of the PPEP evaluations were summarized in December 17, 1999 final report, which provided the consensus views of the members. Where minority views remained, the report documented them. The conclusions and recommendations documented by the panel highlighted issues for the NRC staff to consider. Overall, the panel concluded that the revised oversight processes: "framework provides a more objective, scrutable, and risk-informed approach to the oversight of nuclear reactors. The program should proceed to industry-wide implementation. The panel has identified several areas that need refinement before industry-wide implementation. In addition, industry-wide implementation will be needed to gather data to judge the effectiveness of the program and to allow for further improvements." The Panel discussed its final report with the staff during the Staff's workshop of January 14, 2000. The Panel was terminated following the January 14, 2000 meeting.

1 of2 11/13/2000 3:46 PM Annual Report http ://204.254. l 12.5/cms/rptannualreport.as1

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?

Five meetings were held between July 1999 and January,2000 (3 in FY 2000). A Final Report of the Committee was issued in December 2000. A final meeting was held in Jan 2000 and it was determined that no new issues had arisen following the Dec Report.

20d. Why can't the advice or information 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 Committee held final meeting on Jan 14, 2000.

Designated Federal Official: Mohan Thadani Committee Members Occupation Bajestani, Masoud Tennessee Valley Authority Barnes, George Commonwealth Edison Company Brockman, Kenneth USNRC Chase, James Omaha Public Power District Floyd, Steve Nuclear Energy Institute Gaarchow, David Public Service Electric and Gas Gillespie, Frank USNRC Grant, Geoffrey USNRC Hahn,Heidi Los Alamos National Laboratory Lieberman, James USNRC Lochbaum, David Union Of Concerned Scientists Mallet,Bruce USNRC Thadani, Mohan USNRC Wiggins, James USNRC Wright, Gary Illinois Department Of Nuclear Safety Total Count of Committee Members 15

2 of2 11/13/2000 3:46 PM

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML24059A208&oldid=3679941"