NUREG-0761, Certified Minutes of ACRS Subcommittees on Site Evaluation & on Reactor Radiological Effects 810430 & 0501 Joint Meeting in Washington,Dc Re 10CFR100,10CFR20,radiation Protection Plan (NUREG-0761) & Health Physics Appraisal Plan
| ML20004F749 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/03/1981 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0761, RTR-NUREG-761 ACRS-1853, NUDOCS 8106220274 | |
| Download: ML20004F749 (33) | |
Text
,
i' O
~
f,7df5. /yf3 N
J 9
NEll 8181 w
']
{ 84 wn"'owen,8, d
'.1
,.[
[f
- [ ]
L CERTIFIED:
6-3-81 u
.rrrT MINUTES OF THE ACRS JOINT MEETING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SITE EVALUATION AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS APRIL 30 AND MAY 1,1981, WASHINGTON, D.C.
The ACRS Subcommittees on Site Evaluation and Reactor Radiological Effects held a meeting on April 30 and May 1,1981 in Room 1046,1717 H St., N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
The purpose of the meeting was to review and comment on the NRC Staff activities in preparing a siting rule (10 CFR 100) and to dis-cuss the NRC activities concerning setting dose limits for radiation workers (10 CFR 20), the NRC Radiativn Protection Plan (NUREG-0761), and the Health Physics Appraisal Program. The entire meeting was open to the public.
Notice of this meeting was published in the Federal Register on Monday, april 20,1981. A copy.of this notice is included as Attachment A.
A list of attendees for this meeting is included as Attachment B, the schedule for the meeting is included as Attachment C, and a list of reference material is included as Attachment D.
A complete set of handouts has been included in the ACRS files. There were no written or oral statements from the public.
1 The Designated Federal Employee for the April 30 meeting was Mr. Richard K.
Major and for the May 1 meeting was Mr. John C. McKinley.
Opening Statement by Subcommittee Chairman D. Moeller opened the meeting and stated that the purpose of the meeting was to i* view the draft proposed rule on siting, the proposed changes to 10 CFR 20 on radiation dose limits, and the NRC Radiation Protection Plan (NUREG-0761) which is out for pubife comment. He indicated that following the presentations, spend time preparing comments on these subjects.
]
(1 3
L3 818 d2
2-NRC Staff Presentation on the Siting Rule E. Conti of the NRC Staff presented an overview of the draft proposed Siting Rule. He indicated that the major item of controversy is over the demographic criteria. Presently. the topics under consideration for rulemaking on siting are:
Demographic criteria (population density and distribution).
Minimum standoff distance frcm external hazards.
Interdiction of contaminated groundwater.
Consideration of post-licensing changes in off-site activities.
Site approval at the earliest decision point.
NRC review termination upon state agency disapproval.
Prohibition of sites requiring unique or unusual design to compensate for site inadequacies.
E. Conti also discussed some of the public comments which included:
Wait for an overall safety goal before changing the Siting Rule.
Compare the risks from other energy sources in formulating the Siting Rule.
Wait for the Degraded Core Cooling Rule before chat.ging the Siting Rul e.
E. Conti indicated that the NRC has been directed by Congress to include in the Siting Rule the following:
. Specific demographic criteria including the maximum population density and the population distribution.
e l
1 i
1 L-1
.. I.
1 M
3-The criteria must be, "without regard to any design, engineering or other differences among.such facilities."
Tr.ke into. account the feasibility of protective ections (e.g., evacu-ation) in the event of accidental releases.
Apply the rule only to plants applying for a Construction Permit after October 1,1979.
i Also the Congressional Conference Report directed the NRC to write the Siting Rule such that it did not prevent the siting of a nuclear power plant in any region of the U.S.
D. Muller of the NRC Staff discussed the history of siting criteria and then went into the basis for the proposed demographic criteria.
He in-di;ated that the goal of the new siting criteria is to strengthen siting as a factor in the defense-in-depth concept, to include Class 9 accident risks in site consideration, and to require that sites selected will minimize the risk from energy generation.
To establish the demographic crittria, the NRC Staff used the CRAC consequence model for major core melt a.cident considerations, they studied site availability information, and they compared the probability of major accidents with the risk using the WASH-1400 methodology and the infonnation in NUREG-0739, "An Approach to Quantitative Safety Goals for Nucle.ar Power Plants", which was prepared by the ACRS.
J. Ray asked if the risk comparison work done by One NRC in preparirig the Siting Rule had been published.
D. Muller indicated that it had not, but that it would be published in time for evaluation during the public comment period for the proposed Rule.
~
4r
. ' D. Muller stated that the objective of the new nule was to provide a techni-cal basis for an exclusion zone, for a population density and distribution limit in the vicinity of future nuclear power plants, and for a standoff distance for offsite hazards.
Based on the work done by the NRC, a judgment was made'on the proposed demographic criteria as follows:
Distance (Miles)
Northeast U.S.
- Elsewhere in U.S.
0-2 500 people /sq. mile 250 people /sq. mile
~
2 - 30 750 people /sq. mile 500 people /sq. mile East of 90th meridian and north of 39th parallel.
The proposed exclusion zone is 0.5 mile.
It was pointed out that the demo-graphic criteria were primarily limited by the mandate from Congress not to restrict nuclear power plant siting from any region of the country.
D. Muller, in response to several questions, indicated that variations in meteorology, hydrology, seismology, etc., for a particular site, did not cause significant changes in risk to the public and they were not included in the technical basis for the demographic criteria.
In response to a question by J. Healy, D. Muller indicated that Alaska and Hawaii were not considered in the development of the Siting Rule.
D. Moeller requested that G. Young send the information on the draft Siting Rule to the ACRS Consultants specializing in meteorology. He requested this since, according to the NRC Staff, the draft Rule has not previously been reviewed by a meteorologist.
. F. Parker asked how the NRC could justify having different demographic criteria for different regions of the U.S.
D. Muller stated that the basis is primarily that the West and Southeast of the U.S. can live with the 250/500 limit, while the Northeast can only be limited to 500/750 and still have sites available for nuclear power plants. Thus, the different limits are an attempt by the NRC Staff to include ALARA in the Siting Rule.
L. Soffer of the NRC Staff discussed the consequence calculations used in determining the demographic criteria.
He stated that, based on risk studies, the population density around a nuclear power plant could be 1500 people per square mile and still be accep' table. However, the 250/500 and 500/750 limits can be met and so they were chosen rather than the 1500 limit.
L. Soffer explained the accident scenarios used in the consequence cal-culations and the sensitivity calculations for various reactor power levels, various meteorologies, and various evacuation measures. He concluded that on a risk basis:
Early fatalities are dominated by the core melt scenario with early containment rupture, but they are largely confined to within 5 miles of the plant or 2 to 3 miles if evacuation is used.
Injuries occur at significantly greater distances but are largely precluded beyond about 30 miles.
Latent cancer fatalities may occur out to very large distances (i.e., beyond 100 miles). However, the individual risk reaches 10-5 at about 30 miles and 10-6 at about 100 miles for the "avorage" core melt accident.
-e,
,_,.,e-----
na
,. Land interdiction is not likely to be required beyond distances of 30 to 40 miles.
Differences in evacuation and protective measures have a strong influence on the number of injuries and early fatalities.
Differences in reactor power level affect early fatalities and land interdi: tion distances, since lower power levels yield lower source terms.
Differences in regional meteorology are.not significant.
R. Foster asked what the basis was for calculating early fatalities. The answer given was that the WASH-1400 tables _were used which assume a fatality at 300 Rem whole body dose.
H. Parker noted that the NRC used the tenn "Best" evacuation for a scenario witn a one hour delay followed by steady evacuation at 10 mph.
He requested that the NRC refer to that type of evacuation as a " good" evacuation, since, in fact, better evacuations are possible.
L. Soffer indicated that the Staff did not intend to imply that the one hour /10 mph evacuation was the best possible; only that it was the best one assumed in the analysis.
He agreed to change the title of that evacuation scenario.
W. Regan of the NRC Staff discussed the work done by Dames and Moorb for the NRC on site availability. The study included consideration of:
Population (i.e., population density per each 5 by 5 kilometer section of the U.S.)
Restricted areas (e.g., national forests, national parks, state parks, etc.)
l,'
i Slope (i.e., areas that are too steep to site a plant, such as mountains)
Seismicity Water Availability He noted that based on the population studies, sites such as Indian Point, Limerick, Zion, and Fermi would not be acceptable for future expansion.
How-ever, other existing sites in the Northeast would be acceptable.
Not all the site evaluation work by Dames and Moore is complete, but it is scheduled for completion prior to the issuance of the Siting Rule for public comment.
J. Norris of the NRC Staff discussed a comparison done by the NRC of published safety goal numbers in NUREG-0739 and the Siting Rule risk calculations.
He indicated that the proposed Rule shows relatively close agreement with the published ACRS safety goals.
D. Moeller pointed out that the numbers in NUREG-0739 were published as a starting point in setting a safety goal and they do not necessarily repre-sent ACRS recommended valuer, for specific safety goals.
D. Moeller suggested that the wording in the draft rule be changed to state that dose calculations are used in establishing an acceptable site. The draft rule presently states that dose calculations will not be used and then it goes on-to discuss the use of dose calculations.
D. Moeller and other members of the Subcommittee questioned the statement in the Congressional Conference Report that the siting criteria established by the NRC should not eliminate any region of the U.S. for possible f1ture nuclear power plant s'<tes, the thought being that the NRC should only be concerned with estab-11shing standards for safe sites.
A question was raised about when a minimum set of Engineered Safety Features (ESF) will be established since this work is supposed to be done in parallel with the Siting Rule. The NRC Staff indicated that work has stopped on the ESF Rulemaking and that it is not currently expected to be done in parallel with the Siting Rule.
J. Ray asked what requirements are currently in place for monitoring pcpulation growth around existing sites. The NRC Staff said that this is not required for existing sites, only for new sites.
NRC Staff Presentation on the Health Physics Appraisal Program J. Cunningham Of the NRC Staff discussed tNe status of the Health Physics Appraisal Program.
He indicated that all onsite review work is complete and that all utility programs were found acceptable for continued operation of the plants. However, many changes were needed and those are being fol-lowed up by the I&E Regional Offices. The immediate benefits of the program were:
All operating plants I. ave been evaluated.
Action has been initiated to correct existing problems.
Utility upper management was made aware of the problems and the need for continued improvement of health physics programs.
When asked if INPO had participated in the NRC Health Physics Appraisal Pro -
gram, J. Cunningham replied that they had not, primarily because they did not have enough manpower to support such an endeavor at the time of the NRC program.
I Health Physics ma ;ower was and still is a problem for the utility industry.
4
U i
NRC Staff Presentation on 10 CFR 20 Rulemaking Changes R. Baker of the NRC Staff presented the status of NRC activities in regard to setting radiation dose limits for workers. He indicated that the NRC currently plans to adopt ICRP Publication #26 in updating 10 CFR 20.
The proposed revision to 10 CFR 20 is about 60% complete and should be ready for internal review in June 1981.
H. Parker noted that NCRP is currently working on a guide that should be better than ICRP #26 and he asked if the NRC were going to consider that guide.
R. Baker indicated that he was aware of the NCRP work but that it is several years away from completion and the NRC does not plan to wait that long befo're revising 10 CFR 20.
J. Healy noted that ICRP #26 includes a technique for combining internal and external dose which, when used with long-lived radionuclides, could make the standard unworkable.
J. Healy and H. Parker stated that ICRP #26 is not based on a risk system of setting standards as the NRC seems to believe, but is based on a pseudo-rbk system. The work underway within the NCRP is based purely on a risk system of setting radiation exposure limits.
NRC Staff Presentation on the Radiation Protection Plan, NUREG-0761 W. Kreger of the NRC Staff briefly discussed the "Fadiation Protection Plan for Nuclear Power Reactor Licensees", NUREG-0/61, which was issued for public comment in March 1981. He indicated that it is an attempt to establish a better :.nd more complete set of standards for licensee programs.
He requested ACRS comments on the NUREG by June 30, 1931.
D. Moeller suggested that, due to the limited time for comments, the ACRS Consultants provide individual comments on the NUREG which then can be forwarded to the NRC Staff.
aj 6
10 -
Subcommittee Discussion Session The meeting then went into a discussion session. The ACRS Members and con;ultants discussed the Siting Rule and worked on developing comments on the draft Rule. Comments were reviewed, rewritten, and prepared for a report to the full Committee scheduled for the May 7-9, 1981 ACRS meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 1:00 p.m. on May 1,1981.
For additional details, a complete transcript of the meeting is available in the NRC Public Document Room,1,717 H St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 or from Alderson Reporters, 300 7th St., S)W., Washington, D.C.
(202) 554-2345.
O e
,w
22703 Federd Registar / V;1. 46. N2. 75 / M
/ j..
=.
the cogninnt Feder:1 Employee.Mr.
Dated AprCIL test.
Addsory Co'um!! tee M;ner:m:nt David Bessuie (t:1ephone 202/634-3267)
John C. Nes te.
between 4.15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m EST.He s
i Ofhcer Mr. Stephen ] McCleary.'J06 Ad isory Commirraemanyement o$oer, Designated Tederal Employee for this i
15th StreeL N.W., Washington. TcC.8 30506. or caU area code 202-72H367.
p o. ei.,s.,eeu. m, e
,q meeting is Mr. Cary Quittschreiber.
espo coat nue w I have determined. In accordance with siephen J.McCinary, Adrisory Casunittee Muuaement Offscer.
Subsection 10(d)of theFederal ye p. ei.uas r a.4 ut.at e o e.r, Ady'so y Committee on Reactor Advisory Committee Act, that it may be
, e,,, m m Safeguards; Subcommittees on necessary to close porUons of this Reactor Fuels a.d Emergency Core meeting to public attendance to protect
~ - ~ - ~
Coo 3ng Systems;Weeting proprietary information.The authority for such r.losure is Exemption (4) to the NUCLEAR REGULATO'AY De ACRS Subcommittees on Reactor Sunshine Act.5 U.S.C 552b(c)(4).
COMMtS$10N Feels and Emergency Core Cooling
- visory Committee on Reactor Syatems will bolti a meeting at 9.00 am Dated Apri!15.1981.
- Ad Safeguards; Subcommittee on Decay on May 5.19811n Room 1046 at 1717 H John C. Ho>te Heat Remova! Systems; Meeung Stree'. N W Washington. D.C. ne aj,.f,,77 c,,,',.,,irtee Mongement officer.
The ACRS Subcommittee on De.sy Subcommittee will review the Departure
'"**I Heat Removal Systems will hold a from Nucleate Boilma Ratio (DNBR) b meeting at 8.30 a m. on May S.1981 in correlataons for pressurized water Room 1167 st 1717 H Street. N.W.
reactors.
f.n accordance with the procedures
[ Docket Noa. 50-361 Ot.; 50-362-OL1 Washingtoft. DC.The Subcommittee will outlined in the Federal Register on Southem Cattfortna Edison Company, dsscuss the adequrcy of the decay heat October 7.1980. (45 FR 66535). oral or et al. (San Onofra Nuclear Generating esmoval systems of the North Arma written statements may be presented by Statiort. Units 2 and 3r. Time and Place In accordance with the procedures members cf the public. recordings will of Prehearing Conference Type.
outlined in the Federal Register on be permitted only during those portions October 7.1980. (45 FR 66535). oral or of the meeting when a transcript is being April 13. tool.
written statements msy be presented by kept, and questions may be asked ca!yHe Board a Memorandum and Order members of the public. recordmgs will by members of the Subcommittee. its of March 31.1981 stated that the exact consultants and Staff. Persons desiring time and piece of the prehearing be permited only during those portaons to make oral statements should notify conference of April 29.1tk31 would be of the meeting when a transcript is being the cognaant Federal Employee as far in specified at a later date.The Board w kept. and questions may be ask ed only advance as practicable so that unabled to obtain a suitable place for b) members of the Subcommittee.its appropriate anangements can be made the heating in San Clemente. California.
consultants and Staff. Persons desiring to aHow the necessary time during the ne ;onference willbe held instead in r
to make oral statements should notify the cognl ent Federal Employee as far in meeting for such etstements.
San Diego at the United States Tax The entire meeting will be open to Cr:urt. located at 880 Front Street. 4-S-advance as practicable so that appropriate anangements can be made public attendance except for those 19 Federal Bulling. San Diego.
i, to allow the necessary time during the sessions which will be closed to protect Califomia. it will begin promptly at 9.00 proprietary information(Sunshine Act a.m. on the 29th.
meeting for such statements.
Exe:nption 4) One or more closed It is so ordered The entire meeting will be open to sessions may be necessary to discuss Dated at Bethesda. Maryland this 13th day public attendence.
The agenda for subject meeting absD such information.To the extent of Aprilinst.,
recticable, these closed sessions will b McW Mcen4 l
be as follows:
held so as to minimize inemenience g,
f Tuesday.May L last to members of the publicin attendance.
I*"I I*II 'F AJO a.m Untilthe Conclusion of#.asInana The agenda for subject meeting shall Chairman. Adatinistrativefu4e.
Dusing the initial portion of the meetmg.
be as fouows:
- g ys t>,. ai.une ra.s us.at sas )
j*
the Subcommittee. alang Mth any ofits Tuesday.May E.19e1 consultants who a:o) be present wiH 9D0 a.m. Until the Conclusion ofBasinese a.nchanse prehminart views regereng
{
matters to be considered daring the balance 6e I portiu d6e m%
, Adviso'y Committee on Reactor the SubcommLttee stong with any ofits e Su mittee wit! then hear consultar.ta who may be present.will Safeguards; Joint Subcommittees on presentations by and hold discussions with enchange preliminary views regard ng Site Eva'uation and Reactor npresentatives of the NRC Staff. their matters to be considered Juring the bef ane*
RadiologicalElfects; Meeting; eonsultents and other interested persons "8*"8O!' " * *-
e Su mmittee will then heat ne following additionshave been Further Information regarding topics presentations by sad hold discussions with i
to be discussed, whether the met '
eepresentathes of the NRC Staff. their snade regarding the ACRS Subcommittee g
consultants. and other intereste/ persons on Site Evaluation:
Chairman's ruling on requests for the
- resstding this nview.
(1)nie will now be a two-day I
has been cancelled or reschedule e
Further information regardi.1 topics meeting. to be held on April 30. and May 1.1981 at 8:30 a.m Room 1046.1717 H opportunity to present oral etstements to be dircussed, whether the meeting s
and the time allotted therefor can be l
l obtained by a prepaid telephone callto has been cancelled or rescheduled, the Street.NW, Washington. DC.
r (2} %Is will now be a joint meeting of the cognisant Designated Tederal Chaltman's rulitig on' requests for the the ACRS Subcommittees on Site
,g Ernployee. Dr. Richard Savio (telephone opportunity to present oral statements Evaluatioc and Reactor Radiological 4
lt 202/636-3287) between 8.15 a.m. and and the time allotted the efor can be l.
obtained by a prepaid telephone call to Effects.
8.00 p m. EST.
t nE P00R ORIGINAL
- u. n.
m,,
p, y
h,*22h0 Fed;r:1 Regisler / V;1. 46. Ni 75 / M:nday, April 20. 1981 / N:tices (3)The Subcommitteea wf!!cle3 nc:iv:d fzr review since the last list you need in re:s:nable time, plisse discuss sitmg r*m: king and hear w:s pubbshed. The list has au the advise the OMB reviewer t) whim the presentations from the NRC Staff on entries for one agency together and wport is assigned. Comments and current status of todiation protection grouped into new forma, revisions, questions about the items on this list atendards for workers.
extensions (burden change), extensions abould be directed to the OMB reviewer AU other items regard;ng this meeting (no change). or nInstatements.The or of6ce listed at the end of each entry mmeln the inme as announced in the agency clearancs officer can teU you the If you anticipate commenting on a Federal Register pubbshed Wednesday, nature of any particular revision yo-are form but find that time to prepare will Apn! 15, interested in. Each entry centains the prevent you from submitting comments Further informa' ion may be obtained foUowing trJormation:
promptly, yo : should advise the by a prepaid telephone can to the The name and telephone number of reviewer of your intent as early as cogninnt Federal Employee for this the agency clearance ofhcer (from possible.
meeting Mr.Garry Young (telephone whom a cop) of the form and supporting The timing and format of this notice 202/634-1414) between 315 a.m. and documents is available).
have been changed to make the 500 p m EST.
The office of the agency lasuing this publication of the notice predictable and I0fM to S ve a clearer explanation of this i
Dated April 17,19et.
The title of the form; process to the pubbc. If you have John C Hoyle,
' Advisory Committee Management Officer.
. The agency form number,if comments and suggestions for further a hcable, improvements to this notice, please send Ira om ei.saus rw w.ei iria cat ow often the form must be filled out them Io Jim J.Torri, Deputy ae.c com tse**'*
Who will be required or asked to Administrator. OfDee of Information and n rt Regulatory Affairs. Office of Standard Industrial Classification YAdvisory Committee on Reactor Management and Budget,726 Jackson IS IC ""
8I 8P" Place. Northwest. Washington D.C.
I Safeguards,5ubcommittee on resp ndent grou s that are affected; 30503.
Susquehanna stea n Electric Station, Units 1 and 2; Meeting; Postponement ore r 2 t s are a ted sepAstrutert or Aonecuuvat I
The ACRS Subcommittee on A description of the Federal budget Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
functional category that covers the Agucy Clearance Officer-Richard J.
j Units 1 and 2 scheduled for April 23.
Information collection; P'
- I i'
1981 has been postponed indefinitely.
An estimate of the number of New Notice of this meeting was published on responees;
- Forest Wee Tuesday April 7.1981 (40 FR 20609).
An estimate of the totalnumber of hours needed to fiU out the form:
Survey of Trends in Use Pattems and Dated AN1r.m2.
An estimate of the cost to the Federal Visitor Characteristics in the Bob John C Hople.
Govemment; Marshau Wilderness Adruory Comm/rtee Management Offger.
An estiamate of the cost to the public; Nonrecurring lTu Du si.tav FM W e1 sait pm)
De number of forms in the request for Individuals or households a LLn.c coce in**'*
approvah leaders of vis. grps. entering the Bob An indication of whether Section Marshall Wildemess 3504(h) of Pub.1.96-511 applies; Conservation and land management. 384 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND The name and telephone number of responses 127 hours0.00147 days <br />0.0353 hours <br />2.099868e-4 weeks <br />4.83235e-5 months <br />; $35.500 Federal M GET the person or office responsible for OMB cost.1 form not applicable under Agency Forms Under Revlew bstract describing the need for Ch e A. EUett,202-395-7340 LOM8 No. 31100t}
and uses of the information collection.
Information will be directly used in R
Backsmund
,,gu$e ents t$t w:iting the National Fo:est Plana rt alae no concemed with the Bob Marshall April 15. tset.
algnificantissues are approved When executive de artments and promptly. Our usual practice is not to Wilderness, as required by the National egencies propose pub ic use forms, take any acid. on proposed reporung Torest Management Act.Tbe NDdA reporting or recordkeep requirements until at least ten working nquirn that informadon on nenaton use and characteristics be used in requirements the Off ce o Management days after notice in the Federal Register, dI P "jdr eUnUvuen.the forest plans and to j I
cnd Budget (OMB) reviews and acts on but occasionaUy the public interest evalute those requirements under the Paperwork requires mcre rapid action.
j Reduction Act (44 U.S C. Chapter 35).
Cmuh ud WHus II#I"#'###*'#d' Departments and agencies use a number e Toint Service I
cf techniques including public hearings Copies of the proposed forms and 1-to consult with the pubke on significant supporting documents may be obtained YCC Long. Term Benefita Evaluation--
reporting regatrements before seeking from the a cy clearance officer whose Evaluation of Benefita of the YCC to EnroUees l
OMD sp roval OMB in carry out its name and ephone number appear responsi ihty under the Act a so under the agency name.ne agency Bimn!aUy considers comments on the forms and clearance officer wiU send you a copy of Individuais or householda recordleeping reautrements that wiU the proposed forrn, the request for YCC applicants and their parenta effect the public.
clearance (SF83), supporting statement, Conservation and land management.
Instructions, transmittal le!!ers, and 1.350 responses. 675 hours0.00781 days <br />0.188 hours <br />0.00112 weeks <br />2.568375e-4 months <br />; $20,000 IJst of Forms Under Redew other documents that are submitted to Federal Cost. 4 forms. not applicable Es ery Monday and Dursday OMB OMB for review. lf you experience under 3504(H) publishes a lht of the agency forma difficulty in obtaining the information Charles A.Ellett.202-395-7340 l
P00R ORIGINAL
VEETING DATE: __N ACRS JOINT MTG. ON SITE EVALUATION AND REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS i
! ' SSs"M.ITTEE MEETING:
WCAT10N: _ ROOM 1046.1717 H St. NW, WASHINGTON. D.C.
(hb l
f ATTENDANCE LIST _
l P<uEASE TPl NT Ar r i L l_M 10li
-~
l'A1 R.Mn7cf A ca.3
$7spr 3,
G. 4cunc, 4ces memrt FR s.
T;. 91cen et I.
RM AcAs
<enut%+Jr R. Fes7v1C s,
I' 6
T.
RCA LV i
7.
B.
PA ec I
s, F.
PM.geT i,
04.
Fdu r t
N. PA1CK D1 10.
MEL -2E 11.
7.7. C,'. ll k6c-2Es 17 Lo. O f 4- _
b (2.t 1Et J3.
f. (. J; NdC - /G3 F. fr.se,~$
,1
_ _3 a _
it 'i, Q. s. h.
15.
- Ey \\.
\\
\\
29A
[
1s.
F. Srvet-MS.la DA ad 17.
p.%W_
B e c.t. + o- ]
38,
_ N 6 C.:, u m m
.19.
f. t' ck vrc o
,1. h. u, ( s D L N ) N p e e. O P L C Nrued., R EERED Jted/.g3 l
30.
NC E -GSR _ _
=
PG DA 1%
iW_ _ kJG 6 / t; 2 R.
t1.
- 2. /.. f. m <
37.
lAfr b! Nri6 AM -Ire _
_ # R C J N R tt 1L P~../p. Wh ///
/VRnGldMannnnu n n ts.-
TUUR UnitIIIntL t
M IM Unit.
ACRS JOINT MTG. ON SITE EVALUATION AND REACTOR RADIOLOG lhh@,titEfMEETING:
R00*.1046, 1717 H St. NW, WASHINGT0_N, D.C.
' g.tATION-1 c
[.
l 3
1 l
ATTENDANCE LIST _
PlASE
~
_ pu nt. <
m,, m-.
i,1.
t
-,>. s w ~ ' e -
,_ a,t e T) m C' all m_ s y' 2 L - 2nd,2 1-
?
(? $
ht'
?
,,; g WD-g
,,1 g, /6 u M 5
NGbc
- 1. c Mw v 6.
4(L 1.
ID ' SEf *
^
. QL,C wt ban W
10.
I 11.
j?.
33.
14.
~
35 16.
]
g 17.
-l r.
.1,.
'20.
ri._
~
^
't.
\\
Jb
^
~
'P00R.0RW M
g_
April 30 - May 1,1981
.WVISOF.Y COWt:TTEE 0'l REACTOR SAFEGUARD 3 ME ON JOINT MTG. ON SITE EVALUATION AND REACTOR RADIO
=
,. m
.. = -
1717 H St. NW, Washinoton, D.C.
ema-==_ -
- _w_
$(k
[
. ATTENDIES PLEASE $1C?! BELC '
~
"* N
==.
i W G.R.T ATTILIATIO?;
]
BADCE NO.
j
] E - c, f -7Lk c< _~ s v r n ~ =_
NAst!
?
-lL
- M - o165 L MgwrMA _uy
],. h Y I rl 40 f tc
- uh M Ft1%f7 0.1E.
- - %d.i-
< am% t Y
1
& _%(wLt w l>
{E-C/L;~3 h
(c...s v lis., f LQ
- 73. _M l _ASL_
1 6##Y t'
=
A m
Fm._* #4 t
- i...-. _ _ _ m ccL4 ULT ~d/JT LN j
5 Y IEC/WC d I U N Y. _&
j E-C)e Y--,1 m
-f,.
a.
1
- W)
-__ =
6 M
1
-~
~ wm m m.
1.
. _, n --
m
-. ~ ~._,
-m_
/,
, _ - - - ~
F
=.
_ =
L=m - =-
k n.,.,,,,,,.,_____
.. _ _E__
N...
,n a
4___J n,. _ __. _
4 1
. x c _ _ __ '.__ __
1
=_.
Ji-n
_; w...-.-.1.-
i l
_1
<w -
w 4
_.. g w ____
c,n..( _.__ _,.__. _ _. ____. _
. - - -. _._,w-
--.~. ~ _ _: _ _ _ _
I 3
a-.m.,____.,__%s. :__
m
.n._ ___ __*___TUUR BRIGINAl-
--,.--e
+-
-.-.e,.---.--r.~----,--..-n
I
-s /
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE-ACRS JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON SITE EVA*UATION AND REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS APRIL 30 AND MAY.1,1981, WASHINGTON D.C.
Anril 30,1981 8:30 a.m.
Opening Statement - D. Moeller Status of Site Rulemaking - NRC Staff 8:45 a.m.
Presentation on Draft Proposed Rule and Technical 9:00 a.m.
Bases for Rule - NRC Staff BREAK 10:30 a.m.
Continuation of Staff Presentation 10:45 a.m.
LUNCH 12:30 p.m.
Subcommittee Discussion on Site Rulemaking 1:30 p.m.
Status of Health Physics Appraisal Program at 2:30 p.m.
Operating Reactors - J. Cunningham I&E Status of 10 CFR 20 Rulemaking and Discussion of 3:00 p.m.
NRC Endorsement of ICRP #26 - NRC Staff BREAK 3:45 p.m.
Status of Radiation Protection Plan for Nuclear 4:00 p.m.
Power Reactor Licensees (NUREG-0761) - NRC Staff 4:30 p.m.
Subcommittee Discussion 5:30 p.m.
Adjourn May 1, 1981 P:30 a.:n. - 2:00 p.m.
Subcommittee Discussion
~
i
~
l-TT A lt4 M QJT D
' ~ '
osq Pupnul W Go CFA Ix), VmLm V, muck losl, I. M n ec H.
- 2. p.t w g q eMy w 6 M uu % u % P " PkJ p
s9 ( st surka o %), % 4 &, mu L 30,
($Bl.
3, Q g g le, l981 4CA3 N d N Id
'M s<gPAh f,w % 4 W.
l cho e acJA~b.
s.
s evt - e l - 231, %mk em & EvA pupw) 9sJ ll &.PaLtra luku. jn Cecupa % id q m ",
Ata opAtio,is u.
6 N u REG - c'i 39, " A @ci t gum Sa/R kado 3
y %hu. pm Phh ", htJ oddu, uso.
if P00R ORIQlNAL