ML20140H672

Summary ACRS Subcommittee on Planning & Procedures Meeting on 970205 in Rockville,Md Re Matters Related to Conduct of ACRS Business

ML20140H672
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/07/1997
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
Shared Package
ML20140H678	List: ML20140H672 ML20140H722 ML20140H808 ML20140H831 ML20140H901 ML20140H947 ML20140H977 ML20140J043 ML20141M628
References
ACRS-3047, NUDOCS 9705130221
Download: ML20140H672 (5)

Text

- _,

s V-o CERTIFig9 R. S. Seale, Chmn.

February 8, 1997 ppggf/gp y February 7, 1997 -

SUMMARY

/ MINUTES OF THE ACRS PLANNING AND PROCEDURES SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING  !

FEBRUARY 5, 1997  ;

The ACRS Subcomittee on Planning and Procedures held a meeting on February 5, 1997, in Room 2B1, Two White Flint North Building, Rockville, Maryland. The i purpose of the meeting was to discuss matters related to the conduct of ACRS business. 1he meeting was convened at 1:00 P.M. and adjourned at 3:15 P.M.

ATTENDEES l

R. L. Seale, Chairman T. S. Kress W. J. Shack ACRS Staff J. T. Larkins, ACRS Executive' Director S. Duraiswamy R. Sumers

1) REPORTING OF FOREIGN GIFTS Agencies are now required to compile a list of statements filed during the year by employees who receive gifts given by foreign governments costing more than $245 retail value at time of acceptance. This includes travel taking place entirely out'; .dr. the United States, under certain circumstances. The announcenud is attached (p.1).

RECOMMENDATION The Subcomittee recomer is that all Members read the attached j;13o(

announcement. '

2) MEMORANDUM 0F UNDE!SIANDING WITH DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 0 A supplement to the broad umbrella Memorandum of Understanding (H00) between NRC and the Department of Energy is attached (pp. 2-7). It provides the basis for DOE and NRC to cooperate on significant projects and activities of mutual interest. It specifically mentions the ACRS in

^ Item D.4.

RECOMMENDATION 9705130221 970207 g7 ACRS

} hM 120 0 9 9The Subcomittee recomends that a meeting with the Executive Director for Operations be arranged at an appropriate time to discuss Items B.1 and D.4

DE316 M ED ORIGINAL

] ce ctin ed 37__

\

n, ,

b ,6 [ ~

l j'

of this MOU. Dr. Powers will work with the ACRS staff in arranging this meeting.

3) CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE ACRS A schedule has been created for Members to interview 4 candidates for appointment to the ACRS during the February meeting. This schedule, along l with each candidate's r4 sus 4, was cade available to the Members at the i beginning of the meeting.

RECOMENDATION ,

The Subcomittee recomends that after interviewing the candidates, the l Members provide their views on each candidate.

l

4) STAFF REOUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM FROM THE COMMISSION The Commission issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum (p. 8) that requests ACRS views on the relationship between the concept of " adequate protection" and the NRC safety goals, from the standpoint of levels of i risk. The schedule for completing the ACRS response on this matter is  !

July 31, 1997. j RECOMMENDATION The Subcomittee recomends that Dr. Kress taxe the lead in developing an ACRS response, with an outline to be distributed at the March meeting and ,

a first draft to be distributed at the April meeting. l

5) INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES An email message was transmitted to Mr. Yamada (p. 9) identifying ACRS preferences for the next Quadripartite Meeting. No further information has been received concerning this meeting.

6) MEMORANDUM ON THE STEAM GENERATOR INTEGRITY RULEMAKING As instructed by Dr. Seale, ACRS Chairman, Dr. Larkins issued a memorandum to Ashok Thadani on January 31, 1997 (pp. 10-12) requesting that, at the next joint meeting of the Subcomittees on Materials & Metallurgy and Severe Accidents, the staff respond to the ACRS conw.i s and recommendations included in the November 20, 1996 letter tc *.he EDO regarding the Steam Generator Integrity Rule, as well as the comments raised by individual Members.

7) ASSESSMENT OF ACRS TECHNICAL EXPERTISE In response to a request from Chairman Jackson, a review has been made of the types of technical expertise that should be represented on the ACRS (pp. 13-22).

e

]

g 9 9 l

l l

i

8) OUESTIONS FOR PRESCREENING ACRS CANDIDATES  ;

The ACRS staff and OGC have drafted a number of questions for prescreening candidates' eligibility (principally ex-utility officials) for ACRS membership (pp. 23-25).

RECOMENDATION j 1

Members are requested to provide coments by Saturday, February 8,1997. <

1 1

9) 00ESTIONS AND REQUESTED ACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL SYSTEMS l

. Dr. Miller, Chairman of the ACRS Subcomittee on Instrumentation and .

Control (I&C) Systems and Computers provided a list of issues to the NRC l staff requesting that the staff address these issues when the ACRS reviews I

. the proposed final Standard Review Plan sections, Branch Technical

. Positions, and Regulatory Guides associated with digital I&C systems (pp.

26-31).

10) BRIEFING TO TM ACRS ON THE NAS PHASE 2 STUDY REPORT Two email messages have been received from Tracy Wilson, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), regarding the availability of NAS Comittee members to j participate in the ACRS meeting on March 7, 1997 to discuss the NAS Phase 2 Study report on digital I&C systems (pp. 32-33). Dr. Chapin will be available to brief the Comittee, but Nancy Leveson will not be available.

11) CHANGES TO TRAVEL REGULATIONS '

Travel Regulations have recently been revised (pp. 34-35). For example, ,

under the new regulations, receipts are not required for individual travel i expenses under $75.

RECOMMENDATION The Subcomittee recomends that Members read the attached NRC Announcement.

12) POSSIBLE LOSS OF UNESCORTED ACCESS FOR MEMBERS 1 Recently, a member of the NSRRC who works for a utility used his NRC badge to attend a meeting with the NRC Chairman at One White Flint North concerning utility business. This incident prompted the Chairman to reconsider the NRC practice of providing advisory comittee members with unescorted access to headquarters buildings. The ACRS staff provided information to the Chairman's office in support of the need for ACRS and ACNW Members to retain their unescorted access (pp. 36-37).

13) SITE VISIT It has been suggested that a visit to a nuclear power plant should be arranged for interested ACRS Members within the next 3-4 months.

.. s RECOMMENDATION The Subcomittee recommends that Dr. Powers and Mr. Barton recommend a site.

14) ACRS/NSRRC COORDINATION The NSRRC meeting sumary for the November 14-15, 1996 NSRRC meeting is attached (pp. 38-47). NSRRC views on the role of the NSRRC, the ACRS, and coordination between the two Comittees are incidoed.

15) ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY POLICIES AND PRACTICES The draft meeting sumary from the ACRS Subcomittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices, held on October 17-19, 1996, is attached (pp. 48-55).

16) MEMBER ISSUES

+ A memorandum from Dr. Powers (p. 56) suggests that the ACRS review the plan for NRC to assume responsibility for the safety oversight of DOE nuclear facilities and its potential impact on the ACRS i workload and its report to Congress.

• Dr. Powers suggested that ACRS consider the need for NRC to reexamine regulations that are overly specific to the point that they do not provide adequate protection of the public when new or innovative nuclear activities are undertaken. In his memorandum (p.

57), Dr. Powers provides several potential examples.

17) FUTURE ACTIVITIES

[See separate handout]

o

• t ) b 4

/

/ \

/

From: Network Announcement i To: CC List for Announcements, Headquarters Distributi... l Date 1/8/97 3:56pm l

Subject:

REPORTING OF FOREIGN GIFTS ABOVE MINIMAL VALUE o l Please direct all replies to CRS l

TO: All NRC Employees j

SUBJECT:

REPORTING OF FOREIGN GIFTS ABOVE MINIMAL VALUE Section 515, Public Law 95-105, 91 Stat. 862, the amended statute governing the receipt and disposition of gifts and decorations given by foreign governments to Federal employees, their spouses, or dependents, requires employing agencies to compile and send to ,

the Secretary of State each year a listing of all statements i filed during the year by employees of that agency concerning  !

gifts received from foreign governments valued at more than minimal value ($245 retail value at time of acceptance).

Compilations must include, in addition to tangible gifts of ,

prescribed value, all foreign gifts of, or expenses for, travel  !

taking place entirelv outside the United States and valued at i more than $245, the acceotance of which had not been authorized in accordance with soecific instructions of the recioient's  ;

emolovina acencv.  :

NRC employees are requested to inform the Office of International l Programs (OIP) by Monday, January 13, 1997 (Contact: Carlotta l Ccates, 415-1771) of any reportable foreign gifts or services I valued at more than $245 for calendar year 1996. If there are any questions about reportability of particular items, please contact John Szabo, Office of General Counsel (415-1610).

/J /

Carlton R. Stoiber, Director

, Office of International Programs

/

4

, t.

)

I i .

)

1- 1 i

l

-December 20. 1996 SECY-96-261 4

! FAB: The Commissioners faQti: James M. Taylor /s/  !

Executive Director for Operations i

< 1 l

SUBJECT:

j MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BENEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOR COOPERATION IN SUPPORT OF i i SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES 1 PURPOSE:

{

I To transmit the attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOV) between the

Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to the l

Commission for review and approval.

s  !

! DISCUSSION:

! ~The staff has prepared for the Chairman's signature the attached MOU between i DOE and NRC. This MOU, which is the result of a cooperative effort between l DOE and NRC technical staffs, establishes the basic framework for carrying out

significant projects and activities where joint cooperation between DOE and j NRC is desirable.

Examples of such projects. and activities can be found in an attachment to the l April 18, 1996, letter from Raymond P. Berube, DOE, Deputy Assistant Secretary

, for Environment, to Dr. Carl J. Paperiello, NRC, Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

! l i

i CONTACT: E. Ten Eyck, NMSS/FCSS j (301) 415-7212

NOTE

TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 1

WHEN THE FINAL SRM IS MADE AVAILABLE 3 1 I,.0 1 3 n /!- M -1 d

...h3: n-<> (, y

f f The Comissioners .

This MOU supplements the MOU between DOE and NRC dated February 24, 1978.

Within the framework of this broad, umbrella MOU, NRC and DOE staff anticipate that specific MOUs will be developed to guide the DOE /NRC interactions on facility / activity specific matters. (Examples of such include the recently ,

i approved DOE /NRC MOU on the production of tritium in commercial LWRs and the stiff's current efforts with DOE to develop an EU on the Cooperation and i Support for Demonstration Phase (Phase I) of DOE Hanford Tank Waste '

l Remediation System Privatization Activities.) Source for authority for reimbursement could vary from project to project. NRC generally will not participate in projects and activities pertaining to DOE's responsibilities unless Congress appropriates resources to NRC for such activities. Exceptions i 4

i will be considered by NRC on a case-by-case basis and only if DOE reimburses i NRC for its full agency cost.

i COORDINATION:

The Office of the Gensral Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal i objection. ,

)

, RECOMMENDATION:

l That the Comission:

j Approve and issue the attached MOV between the DOE and NRC.

James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

Attachment:

MOU 1

l 3

, e

]

i

~

The Commissioners  :

4 MEMORAMUM OF LSWERSTAWING

BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOR COOPERATION IN SUPPORT OF SIGNIFICHT PROJECTS Als ACTIVITIES l

i

I. Introduction l The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) in i

recognition of a mutual comitment to protect public health and safety, comon

defense and security, and the environment have developed this Memorandum of i

Understanding (MOU) to establish a framework for carrying out significant projects and activities where joint cooperation between DOE and NRC is i desirable.

II. Authority l The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, including but not limited to Sections 31, 33, 91, and 161; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, including Sections 104, and Section 301(a) of the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 authorize DOE to engage in various activities involving nuclear materials and facilities. Sections 53, 57, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104, and 161b, of i

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Section 201(f) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 authorize NRC to license and establish by rule, regulation, or order, standards, and instructions to govern the possession and j use of special nuclear material, source material, or byproduct material and i

the construction and operation of certain facilities to protect health or to i minimize danger to life or property, or to promote the comon defense and security. This agreement is designed to supplement the February 24, 1978 f

DOE /NRC MOU. The DOE /NRC MOU of February 24, 1978, establishes an overall management policy regarding interagency relationships in the conduct of i research programs and related areas and includes within its scope those i guidelines governing DOE work performed by NRC.

I i III. Purpose '

The purpose of this MOU is to provide the basis for DOE and NRC to cooperate l on significant projects and activities of mutual interest.

1

This MOU does not address DOE /NRC interaction with respect to these DOE

facilities which by statute are required to be licensed or otherwise regulated 4 by NRC under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the Nuclear Waste Policy

Act or other applicable law, or with respect to material and facilities within the responsibility of the DOE Office of Naval Reactors.

l 4

, e I

) The Cossiissioners -

1 IV. Agreements between Parties

! A. General i '1. DOE and NRC will cooperate in the timely and orderly completion of i projects and sctivities undertaken pursuant to this MOU with due i regard for public health and safety, protection of the enviri.nment, j- and common defense and security. Essential to complying with the spirit of this MOU is maintaining a relationship between the l agencies marked by open and candid communications at all levels.

i 2. Toward these goals, DOE and NRC will explore together the i

development of specific MOUs to support NRC involvement in projects and activities in areas where joint cooperation is desirable, such j as the efforts covered by the DOE /NRC MOU on tritium production j dated May 22, 1996.

B. Plannina

) 1. DOE and NRC will cooperate in long-range planning to ensure that i both agencies are cognizant of the funding, resource, and timing

requirements for these special projects and activities.  ;

j Consultations and information exchanges between the DOE and NRC on long-range planning activities, operating experience or research results, briefings of advisory comittees, and other normal functions are generally not subject to reimbursement.

!- 2. DOE and NRC will inform each other and the Office of Management and

Budget of activities that will require significant participation of both. Specific activities related to public health and safety, protection of the environment, and common defense and security for i which DOE requests NRC involvement will require significant advance notification to allow NRC to seek appropriate resources in NRC's budget requests. DOE will provide NRC the necessary information required to support such budget requests. NRC generally will not participate in projects and activities pertaining to DOE's responsibilities unless Congress a>propriates resources to NRC for such activities. Exceptions will a considered by NRC on a case-by- -

case basis and only if DOE reimburses NRC for its full agency cost.

3. This MOU shall not be used to obligate or comit funds or be used as i the basis for the transfer of funds. l C. Interaaency Interfaces

1. Matters of policy coordination, interpretation of established policy and implementation oversight are the responsibility of the Under  !

Secretary for DOE and the Executive Director for Operations of the '

NRC. Functional responsibilities shall be assigned by each agency

l l

! l e

i l The Consiissioners  !

4 as necessary to fulfill the provisions of this MOU and any specific

MOUs entered into by DOE and NRC. The DOE Assistant Secretary for 1

Environment Safety and Health and the Executive Director for

, Operations of the NRC will be the initial points of contact for communicstion relating to carrying out the provisions of this MOU.

j 2. The day-to-day activities performed in accordance with this MOU are

the responsibility of the designated DDE representative, in j coordination with the designated NRC representative. Every attempt i shall be made to address topics and issues at the project level. If they cannot be resolved at the project level, they will be raised i through each agency's' management chain, as necessary and

appropriate.

D. Information Manaaement and Indenadent Technical Oversicht I 1. Each agency recognizes that it is responsible for the

identification, protection, control, and accounting of information i- used or otherwise furnished in connection with this MOU in i

accordance with its established procedures. This information consists of classified, proprietary, and procurement-sensitive information; Safeguards Information; and Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information (UCNI) as described by Section 148 of the Atomic j Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

I 2. NRC agrees to use available DOE information and reports and to i comply with DOE administrative requirements for handling such

! information. DOE will provide NRC such additional information as

NRC may require to identify issues related to public health and i safety, protection of the environment, and common defense and l security which may be necessitated by the project or activity. NRC till determine whether to establish a public docket for particular l

l loint projects on a case-by-case basis.

l

3. COE and NRC recognize the importance of.providing timely and i accurate information to the public regarding projects, activities,  ;

and regulatory decisions that may affect public health and safety, '

and protection of the environment. Meetings between DOE and NRC i staff in connection with project activities that pertain to specific i

i regulatory decisions or actions shall be governed by NRC's policy on open meetings (59 FR 48340, September 20,1994).

I

4. Committees, such as the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and l l the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste for NRC and the Defense  ;

i Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for DOE, provide independent

technical advice concerning facilities, safety studies, and related ,

matters. As appropriate, IX)E and NRC agree to support these types I of independent reviews by providing readily available information or i designating representatives to attend briefings related to their l

respective areas of responsibilities. l 1

i t The Commissioners .

V. Other Provisions

, 1. Nothing in this MOU shall limit the rights or ability of either i

agency to exercise its authority independently with regard to

, matters that are the subject of this MOU.

2. Nothing in this M00 shall be deemed to establish any right nor provide a basis for any action, either legal or equitable, by any person or class of persons challenging a government action or a failure to act.

3. This MOU is not entered into for purposes of addressing issues related to possible changes in the scope of either party's authority ,

to regulate nuclear materials and facilities.

l

4. This MOU may be further implemented by supplementary agreements in l which authorized representatives of DOE and NRC may amplify or -

modify the policy or provisions in this MOU or any of its )

supplements, provided that any material modifications of the provisions or any of its supplements shall be subject to the approval of the authorized signatories of this MOU or their designated representatives.

5. This MOU shall be effective upon signature of the Secretary of Energy and the Chairman of the NRC and will remain in effect until terminated by mutual agreement or by the written notice of either party submitted six months in advance of termination. Amendments or modifications to this MOU may be made upon the written agreement of the parties.

6. In developing specific MOUs for particular projects and activities, the parties shall consider what provisions should be made for the handling of whistleblower issues or other citizen complaints. l Hazel R. O' Leary Shirley A. Jackson Secretary Chairman Department of Energy Nuclear Regulatory Commission Date Date

r I IN RESPONSE, PLEASE REFER TO: M961206A January 14, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: John T. Larkins, Executive Director Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards FROM: John C. Hoyle, Secretary /s/

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - MEETING WITH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS (ACRS) , 9:30 A.M., FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1996, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

The Commission was briefed by the ACRS on the following topics:

1. Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems

2. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) Plan for Upgrading Thermal-Hydraulic Codes

3. Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Regulation and Related Matters

4. Potential Use of IPE/IPEEE Results to Compare the Risk of the Current Population of Plans with the Safety Goals

5. Use of Safety Goals on a Plant-Specific Basis

6. Use of RuleNet in the Regulatory Process.

ACRS should continue to be forward-looking to bring developing concerns to the Commission's attention and continue follow up on issues such as digital I&C and use of Safety Goals for regulatory purposes. In this regard, the Commission would be interested in ,

the ACRS views on the relationship between the concept of

" adequate protection," as used in the NRC regulations, and the NRC safety goals, from the standpoint of levels of risk.

On the issue of I&C design process and acceptable product performance, the staf; was asked to reduce the use of standards referenced and to c nsider how a process and product specific QA could track requirements and ensure the acceptability criteria is pertinent and suff:..cient.

gN ~'