ML19347D558
| ML19347D558 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/17/1981 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Whitten J HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347D550 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103260599 | |
| Download: ML19347D558 (33) | |
Text
pn maco p
7-UNITED STATES d [.3PX..j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 f
%...../
OFFICE OF THE March 17, 1981 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Jamie Ilhitten Chairman, Comittee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As required by Section 236 of Public Law 91-510, the " Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970", enclosed is a sumary of actions taken by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (flRC) in response to recomendations concerning the NRC which were included in reports issued by the Comptroller General in 1980.
Sincerely, h
M s4 loieph M. Hendrie Chairman
Enclosure:
Sumary of Action cc:
Representative Silvio Conte 0326n W
O f
I I
SUMMARY
OF GAO REPORTS i
A.
REPORTS INCLUDED IN THE 1980 ANNUAL COMPILATION Page 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
More Aggressive Leadership Needed..........................................................
1 2.
The Problem of Disposing of Nuclear Low-Level Waste:
Where Do We Go From Here?................................................
6 3.
Existing Nuclear Sites Can Be Used for New Power Plants and Nuclear Waste Storage...........................................
12 4.
Do Nuclear Regulatory Commission Plans Adequately Address Regulatory Deficiencies Highlighted by the TMI Accident?........
14 5.
Three Mile Island:
The Financial Fa11out.........................
15 6.
Analysis of the Price-Anderson Act................................
17 Electricity Planning -- Today's Improvements Can Alter 7.
Tomorrow's Investment Decisions.................................
18 s
o B.
UPDATE 3 ON ACTIONS TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS IN REPORTS ISSUED IN PRIOR YEARS REPORT TITtc REPORT DATE 60 DAY LTR ISSUED PAGE Automated Systems Security--
1/23/79 4/12/79 Federal Agencies Should Strengthen Safeguards Over i
Personnel and Other Sensitive Data Reporting Unscheduled Events 1/26/79 5/15/79 at Commercial Nuclear Facilities:
Opportunities to Improve Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oversight Areas Around Nuclear 3/30/79 6/26/79 Facilities Should be Better Prepared for Radiological Emergencies GAO Letter Report to 5/15/79 None Required Senator Schweiker on Licensing of Nuclear Power Plant Operators l
l 1
l l
l l
i A.
NRC ACTIONS IN CY 1980 IN RESPONSE TO COMPTROLLER GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Report - January 15, 1980 j
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
More Aagressive Leadership Needed Recommendation No. 1 Take the initiative in formalizing a relationship between NRC and DOE which permits the agencies to coordinate their high-level waste programs without compromising NRC's ability to independently license and regulate future DOE high-level waste storage and/or disposal facilities.
NRC Response NRC agrees that there should be a continuing relationship between NRC and DOE for the purpose of coordinating the high-level waste programs.
The NRC staff i
initiated such a relationship with DOE during the early part of 1975.
Regularly scheduled joint meetings are convened to discuss major high-level waste manage-ment issues.
The meeting schedules are published in the Federal Register and the public is invited to attend.
Any material and substaiitive comments presented i
at these meetings are placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Based on the i
GA0 recommendation described above, the NRC will take the initiative to formalize the procedures presently being used with DOE by developing a Procedural Agreement.
This Procedural Agreement will be a bilateral written agreement between the two agencies that defines the conduct of their activities and deliverables.
The agreement will assure that each party is knowledgeable of the other's requirements and that each agency will govern itself and act in a way to meet the other's needs.
The Procedural Agreement is in its final drafting stage and should be executed during the second quarter of FY 1981.
The Waste Management Program Area Manager has been assigned lead responsibility for this action and the Commissior. will actively oversee it.
Recommendation No. 2 l
Decide whether or not, and if so how much, NRC should rely on DOE high-level nuclear waste programmatic environmental statements in diccharging NRC's responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
NRC Response In its decision to publish the Policy Statement on Licensing Procedures for Geologic Repositories for High Level Waste (11/17/78), the Commission explicitly decided to prepare its own environmental statements for site-specific applica-tions.
The proposed regulation on licensing procedures for geologic reposi-tories, 10 CFR Part 60, published on December 6, 1979 (44 FR 70408), set forth NRC's intent to prepare the EIS prior to granting construction authorization.
The Commission agrees tnat it must decide whether and to what extent NRC
I 2
should rely on DOE's programmatic statement.
The Waste Management Program Area Manager has been assigned lead responsibility for this action and the Commission will actively oversee it.
Recommendation No. 3 Track research projects from inception through incorporation into licensing and related regulatory processes to insure that research results are incor-porated to the fullest possible extent into nuclear regulation.
NRC Response Improvement is necessary both in the means of linking research programs into the licensing programs and in developing a long-range research program.
There l
are currently several tracking systems in the' agency which monitor the progress of research programs.
These include a Reactor Project Control System (RPCS);
Research Information Letters (RILs); Research Results Utilization and Research Request Log Statu; Summary Reports; contractor reports (NUREG/CRs); and minutes of Research Review Group meetings.
Beginning in FY 1982, a Long-Range Research Plan will also be implemented.
In addition, the Office of Management and Program Analysis has developed the Decision Unit Tracking System which tracks j
selected research programs.
Research Project Control System (RPCS) l The RPCS is a computer based system which tracks all major research projects.
l Funds obligated to support the projects and costs incurred thus far are also l
included in the RPCS.
This system allows RES to control funds and budget resources against actual accomplishment of major milestones.
(
A report will be issued several times during the year for each of the RES l
divisions.
The reports will give listing of project scope, objectives, and general project status costs and budgeting information.
Majormilestone scheduling data will also be given.
Research Information Letters (RIls) 1 A RIL is a formal method for transmitting research results to other NRC offices who either requested the research or who expect to use the results.
It is prepared by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research after a substantial, coherent and reasonably complete body of research has been completed.
During I
1980, 28 RILS were issued.
The RIL provides a technical description of the l
project and identifies the user's needs.
It also summarizes the major results I
of the research and recommends how these results could be used in the regula-l tory process.
In some instances, research results are already being used in l
the regulatory process before the RIL is issued.
3 Research Results Utilization Report The Research Results Utilization Report includes a summary of all RILs issued, comments from the user offices on previously issued RILs on the applicability of research results to the regulatory process, and a projection of when RES expects to issue new RIls.
User Request Log This log lists requests for research received from other NRC offices and projects initiated by RES.
It provides an identification of the request, the basis for need, and the status of processing the request.
It also lists RES and user office contacts and the contractor for the project.
The log does not provide any milestone data since this is given in detail in the RES RPCS.
NUREG/CRs Numerous research reports are prepared by contractors conducting NRC research.
Upon publication, these reports are distributed to the appropriate NRC offices and others associated with the project.
These reports transmit detailed information on how the research was conducted and what knowledge was gained.
l These reports often form the basis for preparing RILs.
i Research Review Groups (RRGs)
RRGs were established to provide a broad technical base to aid RES management in reviewing research in specific technical areas.
Although RRGs are composed only of NRC staff members, consultants are often used to provide additional peer review of the research project.
These groups meet to review and comment on:
(a) research plans and predicted results of major experiments; (b) the validity and applicability of research results; (c) possible redirection of l
research projects; (d) new research projects; and (e) priorities within the technical area of that RRG.
Long-Range Research Plan (LRRP)
The Long-Range Research Plan is a document being formulated to provide a 5 year framework to coordinate the planning of research projects with the agency's budget cycle.
The Plan will be updated annually.
A draft LRRP was issued in November 1980 and circulated to staff and program offices for review.
RES is now reviewing those comments and will consider them in preparing the final LRRP.
RES expects to issue the first LRRP in February 1981, and the l
document will be the basis for planning research projects for FY 1983 through l
FY 1987.
I The Plan will present background of current research projects, regulatory l
objectives, proposed research plan for meeting these regulatory objectives, and projection of research results and their expected application to the regulatory objective.
1 I
l 4
The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards will review the LRRP annually before the Commission approves the Plan.
Monitoring Research In 1979 the NRC established an upper management tracking system to monitor major or significant program areas based upon decision units.
This Decision Unit Tracking System (DUTS) covered RES's 15 dacision units and monitored research results (research information letters, major test completions, computer code releases) and provided management with resource (obligation of funds, manpower utilization, etc.) information.
Although DUTS did not cover research programs from inception, almost all of our programs are endorsed by a user prior to contract initiation.
This requirement, combined with the two tracking systems, has improved control over NRC's research activities.
Additionally, both the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation'and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards review work performed by RES for them at Research Review Group meetings and through review of RES publications.
l The Decision Unit Tracking System was recently modified to focus management attention on those selected program areas that are presently of greatest interest.
NRC's Office Directors will be held accountable in their SES per-formance appraisals for these major programs tracked in the modified system.
Current plans call for the tracking of two program areas, Reactor Safety Research and Risk Assessment, for which Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) has lead.
The Reactor Safety Research Program Area will cover key accomplishments /
l milestones and resources for research in Loss-of-Coolant Accidents (LOCA),
Loss-of-Fluid-Test Facility (LOFT), plant operating safety and severe accidents.
Status of milestones for the Risk Assessment and Reactor Safety Research Programs will be monitored annually with data as of June 30, 1981.
In addition, other RES efforts relating to the Fire Protection, Operating Reactor Assessment, l
Interim Reliability Evaluation, Qualification of Safety-Related Equipment, Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, Waste Management, and Operating Data Programs will be included in the system.
l Recommendation No. 4 i
Develop measurable NRC goals, objectives, and systems for evaluating NRC's performance in meeting goals and objectives.
NRC Response The Commissioners developed the policy, planning, and program guidance (PPPG) system in April 1980.
The guidance provides the staff with explicit statements of the Commission's policies, plans, and priorities for major programs.
The establishment of explicit goals has permitted more effective continuous measure-ment of Commission performance.
The PPPG sets and measures overall Commission policies while progress on specific programs is monitored through the Decision Unit Tracking System (DUTS) which complements the PPPG and measures accomplishments and resource needs of NRC programs.
5 The PPPG is currently being revised to reflect the FY 1983 to 1987 Commission guidance. The revised PPPG will be issued prior to the budget call for the FY 1982 budget.
At the request of the Commission, the Office of Inspector and Auditor conducted an audit during the latter part of 1980 of the agency's followup on the PPPG.
The first report of the audit indicated general staff agreement as to the value of the Commission's providing, on a systematic basis, guidance to the staff on major programs and issues facing NRC. The audit also disclosed some concerns, inconsistencies, and problem areas that will be addressed in develop-ing and implementing the FY 1983-1987 PPPG.
Recommendation No. 5 Increase the Commissioners' use of the Office of Inspector and Auditor in evaluating the NRC staff's performance in meeting NRC goals and objectives.
NRC Response We concur fully in this recommendation.
As an initial step, the Commission will take a more active role in the development of OIA's audit plan and in establishing priorities for areas in which evaluations are to be carried out.
On March 19, 1980, the Commission was briefed by the Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) on its annual and long range audit plans and its audit priorities.
The Commission unanimously approved the audit plan and priorities, and requested that DIA consider methods for auditing agency follow-up on the Policy, Planning and Program Guidance (PPPG).
On May 9, 1980, OIA advised the Commission of its plans to conduct three audits to assess the Agency's implementation of the PPPG.
The Chairman sanctioned these audits and on December 12, 1980, 0IA issued its first audit report on the PPPG to the Commission.
Recommendation No. 6 Elevate policy-making activitics to the Commissioner level.
A logical place for these activities would be the Commissioners' present Office of Policy l
Evaluation.
NRC Resoonse The Commission agrees that it must take a more direct role in the formulation of regulatory policy than it has in the past and has already taken a number of steps to do so.
lhe policy, planning, and program guidance will develop a stronger role for the Commissioners in policy-making by focusing their atten-tion on the major issues facing NRC.
The early and continuing involvement of Commission-level offices in major policy development activities will also draw the Commissioners into a closer working relationship with the staff.
The staff of the Office of the Ceneral Counsel has been increased and both the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of Policy Evaluation have been given increased responsibilities for policy development.
6 An important policy formulating project being undertaken by the Commission is the development of an NRC safety goal for nuclear power plants -- essentially a response to the question, "How safe is safe enough?" A preliminary policy statement and supporting information will be published for public comment by mid-1981. Several regional workshops will be conducted with primary focus on the draft statement.
Recommendation No. 7 Define the NRC Chairman's authority and duties as NRC's principal executive officer and place the Executive Director for Operations in charge of all NRC staff-level day-to-day operations.
If necessary to implement this recommenda-l tion, the Commissioners should seek appropriate legislation from the Congress.
NRC Response The Commission has delineated the respective authorities and duties of the Commission, the Chairman, and the Executive Director and suggested legislative language to confirm its position in the attached January 7 letter to James McIntyre of the Office of Management and Budget.
(Chairman Ahearne's differing opinion on these matters is also set forth in that letter.) Further, the Commission has spelled out to the staff the responsibilities and authorities of the Executive Director and his relationship to the Commission, the Chairman, and staff offices.
This guidance is in the process of being translated into specific chapters in the appropriate NRC manual.
The President's Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980 (copy attached) provides a general description of the relative responsibilities of the Commission, Chairman, and EDO.
NRC actions to implement the Plan have included new delegations of Commission authority with respect to the hiring and suspen-sion of personnel, review of existing Commission delegations concerning other matters affected by the Plan, amendment of Con;ission procedures for assigning business within the agency, new delegations of authority from the Chairman to the EDO, and new procedures implementing the Chairman's central role in NRC emergency response activities.
Additional actions may be considered when a new Chairman is designated and Commission member-l ship returns to full strength.
i l
Report - March 31, 1980 The Problem of Disposing of Nuclear Low-Level Waste:
Where Do We Go From Here?
l Recommendation No. 1 Give top priority to defining low-level waste by establishing categories based upon requirements for safe disposal.
O e
7 NRC Response The NRC has been aware of this need and will use a waste classification methodology in developing its planned rulemaking (10 CFR Part 61) on licensing f
and regu'ation of the disposal of low-level radiosctive wastes (LLW).
The NRC earlier ;ommissioned a study by Ford, Bacon, Davis Utah, Inc., to characterize and classify disposal systems for low-level wastes, and the results of this study were published as NUREG-0456 in mid-1978.
Dames and Moore, Inc., has been contracted to further develop this methodology and to characterize and classify waste streams from a variety of sources and incorporate this work into the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) being prepared to accompany the proposed low-level waste regulation.
This will allow different types of wastes to be examined against different types of disposal techniques, and permit interested members of the public to evaluate and recommend alternatives.
The Commission anticipates that the proposed low-level waste regulation l
(10 CFR 61) and its accompanying draft EIS will be published for public comment in 1981.
l
405G1 rdaia+'a Presidential Documents f
Vol. 4s. No.117 Monday, June to.198o Title 3-REORGANIZATION PLAN NO.-1 OF 1930 Tile President Prepared by the President and submitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives in Congrsss assembled March 27.1980,8 pursuant to the provi-sions of Chapter 9 of Title 5 of the United States Code, Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Section 1. (a) Those functions of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, hercin-after referred to as the " Commission". concerned with:
(1) policy formulation; (2) rulemaking, as defined in section 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code, except that those matters set forth in 533(a)(2) and (b) which do not pertain to policy formulation orders or adjudications shall be reserved to the Chairman of the Commission-
~
(3) orders and adjudications, as defined in section 551 (6) and (7) of Title 5 of the United, States Code:
shall remain vested in the Commission. The Ccamission may determine by majority vote, in an area of doubt, whether any matter, action, question o.r t
" area of inquiry pertains to one of these functions. The performance of any i
i portion of these functions may be delegated by the Commission to a mernb'er of the Commission, including the Chairman of the Nuclect Regulatory Com-mission, hereinafter referred to as the " Chairman", and to the staff through the i
Chairman.
~
i (b)(1) With.rcspect to the following officers or successor officers duly estab-lished by statute or by the Commission, the Chairmnn shall initiate the appointment, subject to the approval cf the Commission, ond the Chairman or a member of the Commission may initiate an action for removal, subject to the l
approval of the Commission:
1 l
(i) Executive Director for Operations.
(ii) General Counsel, l
(iii) Secretary of the Commissien, (iv) Director of the Office of Policy Evaluation, (v) Director of the Office of Inspector and Auditor, (vi) Chairman, Vice Chairman, Executive Secretary, and Members of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, (vii) Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members of the Atomic Safety and I
Licensing Appeal Panel.
l (2) With respect to the fol!cwing officers or successor officers duly established by statute or by the Conunission, the Chcirman, after consultation with the Executive Director for Operations, shall initiate the appointment, subject to the approval of the Comm!ssion, and the Chairman, or a racmber of the Commission may initiate an action for removal, subject to the approval of the Commission:
l l
t (i) Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
(ii) Director of Nuclear Material Safet and Safeguards, 8 As amended May s.1G30.
6-a
o
/
40'!G2 Fed:.ra! Re:;ist:: / Vol. 45. No.117 / Monday. June 16.1980 / Presidential Decuments (iii) Director of Nuc! car Regulatory Research.
(iv) Director ofInspection and Enforcement. '
f (v) Di:ector of Standards Development.
(3) The Chairman c: a member of the Commission shall initiate the a;. point-ment of the. Members of the Advisory Committee on Reacter Safeguerds.
subject to the approval of the Commission. The provisicas for appointment of the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and the tern:
of the members shall not be affected by the provisions of this Reorganization Plan.
(4) The Commission shall delegate the function of appointing, removing and supervising the staff of the following offices or successor offices to the respective heads of such offices: Ceneral Counsel Secretary of the Commis-l sion. Office of Policy Evaluation. Office of Inspector and Auditor. The Com-mission shall delegate the functions of appointing, removing and supervising the staff cf the following panels and committee to the respective Chairmen thereef: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. Atomic Safety and Licens-ing Appeal Panel and Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
(c) Each member of the Commission shall continue to appoint, remove and supervise the personnel employed in his c he:immediate office.
(d) The Commission shall act as provided by subsection 201(a)(1) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5341(a)(1}) in the performance of its functions as described in subsections (a) and (b) of this section.
Section 2. (a) All other functicas of the Commission, not specified by Section 1 of this Reorgani:iation Plan, are hereby transferred to the Chairman. The Chairman shall be the official spokesman Ic: the Commission, and shall appoint. supervise, and remove, without further action by the Commission, the Directors and staff of the Office of Public Affairs and the Office of Congres-
{
sional Relations. The Chairman may censult with the Commission as he l
deems appropri' ate in exercising this appointment function.
(b) The Chairman shall also be the principal executive officer of the Commis-l l
sion, and shall be responsible to the Commission fer deve:opick policy planning and guidance for censideration by the Commission; shall be respon-i sible to the Commission for assurin; that the Executive Director 10: Oper-ations and the staff of the Cc= mission (oder than the. officers and staff referred to in sections (1)(b)(4), (1)(c) and (2)(a) of this Reorganization Plan) are responsive to the requirements of the Commission in the performance of its functions: shall dele.mine the use and expenditura of funds of the Commis-sion,in accc: dance with the distribution of appropriated funds according to l
- major programs and purposes approved by the Commission: shall present to the Commission for its consideration the proposals and estimates set forth in l
subsection (3) of this paragraph: and shall be responsible for the following functions. which he shall delegste, subject to his direction and supervision. to the Executive Director for Operations un! css oderwise provided by this i
Reorgani:ation Plan:
(1) administrative functiens of the Commission:
(2) dis:ribution ci business among such personnel and among administrative units cad offices of the Commissica:
(3) preparatien of (i)'prepo..:s ic: the reorganizatica of the major offices within the Commission:
(ii) the budget estimate for the Commission: and 1
(iii) the preposed distribution of a; prop-iated funds according to major pro-(
l grams and purposes.
(4) appointing and removing widout any further action by the Commission, all officers en:' c=ployees under the Cc= mission other thcn iliose whose ap-F-b
r Federal Rstist:r / Vol. 45. No.117 / Monday. June 15.19M / Presidential Docu=cnts 40363 pointment end removal are spe:!ii: ally provided for by subsections 1 (b). (c) and 2(a) of this Reorganization p;an.
(c) The Chairman as principal executive officer and the Executive Director for Operations shall be governed by the general policies of the Commissien and by such regulatory decisions, findings, and determinations, including the,se for recrganization. proposals. budget revisions and distribution of appropriated funds, as the Commission may by law. including this Plan, be author.:ed to make. The Chairman and the Exe=tive Director for Operations thro 2gh the Chairmen, shall be responsible for insuring that the Commission is fully and curren!!y informed about matters within its functions.
Section 3. (a) Notwithstanding sections I and 2 of this Reorganization Plan, there are hereby transferred to the Chairman all the functions vested in the L
Commission pertaining to an emergency cencerning a particular facility or s
materials !!:ensed or regu!ated by the Commission. including the functions of declaring, respending. Issuing orders, determining specific po!!cies, advising the civil authorities and the public, directing, and coordinating actions relative to such emergencyincident.
(b) The Chairman may delegate the authority to perform such emergency functions,in whole or in part, to any of the other members of the Commission.
Such authority may also be delegated or redelegated, in whole or in part, to the staff of the Commission.
(c) In acting under this section, the Chairman, or other member of the Commission delegated authority under subsection (b). sha'll conform to the policy guidelines of the Commission. To the maximum extent possible under
. the emergency conditions, the Chairman or other member of the Commission delegated authority under subsection (b). shall inform the Commission of actions taken relative to the emergency.
(d) Following the conclusion of the emergency, the Chairman, or the member of the Commission delegated the emergency functions under subsection (b).
shall render a complete and timely report to the Commission on the actions i
taken during the eme.gency.
Section 4. (c) The Chairman may make such delegations and provide for such l
reporting as the Chairman deems necessary, subject to provisions of law and this Reorganization Plan. Any officer or employee under the Commiss!on may i
communicate directly to the Commission. or to any member of the Commis-l sion. whenever in the view of such officer or employee a critical problem or public health and safety or common defense and security is not being properly addressed.
(b) The Executive Dircetor for Operaticas shall report for all matters to the l
Chairman.
s j
(c) The function of the Directors of Nuclear Reactor Regulations. Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and Nuclear Regulatory Research of reperting directly to the Commission is hereby transferred so that such officers report to ii ii the Executh e Director for Operati:ns.The function cf receiving such reports l
l is hereby transferred from the Cc=missien to the Execu*ive Director for Operations.
I' (di The heads of the Cc= mission level offices or successor offices. of General I
Counsel. Secretary to the Commission. Office of Policy Evaluation. Office of Inspector and Auditor, the Atom!: Safety and Licensing Board Panel and Appeal Pane!. and Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards : hall con!!nue to report directly to the Commission snd the Commission shall continue to l
receive such reports.
l Se: tion 5.The provisions of this Kearg:nizatic: Plan shall take efic t October i
1.1930. or at such earlier time or times as the President shall spe:ify but no l
[
l 1
6-C L
e 4C;S4 Fgderal Register / Vol. 43. No.117 / Menday. June 15.19c0 / Presidentiel Docum:nts sooner than the earliest time allowable undar See: ion 905 of Title 5 of the United S:ates Code, h
LEGIS!ATIVE HISTORY:
MTEKLY COMPILATION OF FAESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS-Vol.15. No.13: Mar. 31. Presidential enessage trar.smitting Feorganization F;an No. I cf 1960 to Cong ess.
Vol.16. No.19: May 12. Pres! dent,a1 message tr:nsm!!!!::3 ar endments to Re:rganization Plan No.1 cf 1930. (Also printed as Haase D:cu=ent No. S6-307.)
HOUSL PIPORT No. 95-10t3 (Con rn, en Covernstent 0;erations).
SENATL REPORT No.96-793 (Coc on Covernmental Affairs).
CONGRISSIONAL RECORD. Vci.1:$ (1530):
Mar. 27. H. Res. 6:4. reschtien el disa;;rova!. introduced in House and referred t: Cem.
mittee on Covern. tent Operations.
Mar. :1. S. Res. 337. resobtica of disa;;reval. introdu:ed In Senate and r:fe. ed to Com.
rnittee on Covern= ental 0;erations.
May 30. H. Res. 624, rejected by House.
[FR Doc's>15:12 Filed 5-13-ci 10:15 a=J B:*.ti 4 code 3125.C1-M e
o e
l l
(
l
. d
7 Recommendation No. 2 Determine who the generators of low-level waste are in both the Agreement and non-Agreement States and how much waste each licensee is generating.
NRC Response The Commission does not believe that the benefit resulting from a license-by-license determination of waste generation by thousands of licensees would offset the cost to the Commission and to the licensees to accumulate this information.
This GA0 recommendation will not result in meaningful additional data on LLW volumes and characteris' tics.
There are approximately 8,000 NRC licensees and 12,000 Agreement State licensees ranging from individual physi-cians to fuel plants and reactors.
As part of the staff's ongoing efforts to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the LLW disposal regula-tion (10 CFR Part 61) the staff is analyzing the volumes and characteristics of different waste streams from different types of licensees.
However, pre-liminary data indicates that the majority of the radioactivity (in excess of 90 percent) contained in LLW is generated by a relatively small number of NRC and Agreement State licensees (approximately 100 licensees).
The NRC is presently in the process of identifying major individual generators and classes of major generators (e.g., the pharmaceutical industry), as well as the type and amounts of wastes that they generate.
The Commission does agree, however, that additional detailed information is needed on the characteristics of certain waste streams.
The specific waste streams of concern are being identified by NRC staff as part of preparation of the LLW EIS.
Short and longer term efforts to obtain the needed information l
are planned and in some cases, ongoing.
We believe these efforts plus ongoing l
work in analyzing the records at burial grounds will provide r adequate basis for NRC actions and will produce information which is much more useful for our regulatory program than the approach recommended by GAO.
The draft LLW EIS will be published for public comment early in 1981.
Recommendation No. 3 Establish a volume reduction policy for all commercial generators of radio-active wastes that addresses both administrative and technological methods that have been proven as viable alternatives.
This policy should apply to Agreement States licensees as well since this is a national issue.
NRC Resoonse t
To the extent that volume reduction yields a better systems performance, NRC is in favor of it.
The NRC staff also strongly supports the use of adminis-trative controls to minimize the unnecessary generation of wastes.
Tne staff is currently developing a policy statement on volume. reduction and intends to submit it for Commission consideration in March 1981.
Agreement States generally are cooperative in adopting regulatory standards needed to assure uniform regulatory programs.
This has been accomplished l
l
8 through mutual commitments made in each Agreement with the States to make our best efforts to maintain compatible regulatory programs and to consult with each other in the development of regulatory standards.
Nonetheless, NRC recognizes the precedent and value of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 which established certain technical and procedural re:tuire-ments for Agreement States wishing to retain regulatory authority over uranium mills and mill tailings.
Similarly, value would accrue from legislation which would establish minimum technical and procedural requirements to be followed by Agreement States in the regulation of LLW disposal operations.
NRC supports such legislation.
A policy statement on volume reduction is being prepared by the staff for consideration by the. Commission.
Recommendation No. 4 Establish a method to track waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal.
In addition, encourage the Agreement States to adopt a comparable method to increase regulatory oversight on a national basis.
NRC Response The staff has devoted careful consideration to the need for a manifest system for tracking the wastes from the waste generators to the licensed LLW disposal sites and is considering this requirement for the proposed regulation (10 CFR 61) on the licensing and regulations of LLW facilities.
It is anticipated that the proposed LLW regulation will be published for public comment in 1981.
For such a system to be useful on a national basis, it would have to be identical in every state and for it to be identical, it would have to be required.
For this and other reasons, the Commission supports legislation that would assure uniform minimum national standards for LLW disposal.
See our comments on Recommendation 3.
Recommendation No. 5 Evaluate how large or how small the packaging and transportation problem is l
and adjust the inspection and enforcement program accordingly to insure compliance.
NRC Responte In the recent reexamination of the regulations on packaging and transportation of radioactive materials, documented in the " Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes" (December 1977) NUREG-0170, it was concluded that the environmental impact of normal
' transportation in the United States, which involves approximately 2.5 million packages of radioactive material per year, and the risk attendant to accidents involving radioactive material shipments are sufficiently small to allow i
continued shipments by all modes.
Because transportation conducted under present regulations provides adequate safety to the public, it was concluded that no immediate changes to the regulations 0were needed at that time.
l i
9 The NRC is conducting a detailed study on the shipment of low specific activity (LSA) materials.
Most of the total volume of LLW in the United States is LSA materials.
The objective is to evaluate the effectiveness and practicability of various measures to improve the safety of LSA shipments.
Information will be gathered on the types and forms of LSA materials being transported, the l
number of shipments, the types of containers being used, and the operating and shipping procedures that are employed.
Potential health consequences and environmental contamination that could result from accidental spillage of various types of LSA materialc will also be addressed.
Emphasis will be placed upon the type of shipments that require substantial amounts of shield-ing in transport or which could potentially be difficult to recover if spilled.
The study is to identify and evaluate a range of possible improvements that would increase the integrity and safety of LSA shipping containers (e.g.,
improved closures and seals).
Possible improvements in operating and shipping l
practices will also be evaluated (e.g., pre-shipment checks, package labeling, tie-down requirements, etc.).
Finally, the practicability, costs, and benefits l
implementing the improvements developed will be evaluated.
It is anticipated l
that this study will be completed by March 1981.
A number of instances occurred in which certain packages of LLW were not in compliance with regulatory requirements.
These instances involved a fire on a truck ir.volving combustible wastes, leaking packages, truck contamination from improperly closed and arranged packages within the truck, free liquid in packages of supposedly dry solid material, inadequately labeled packages, and improperly documented shipments.
While none of these items of noncompliance by itself represents a significant health concern, collectively they show a lack of proper attention to Federal requirements for packaging and shipping of radioactive waste materials.
In response to this situation, the NRC has made a concerted effort to educate the shippers of LLW on the regulations and to effectively increase the Federal inspection capability by changing its rules to require its licensees to meet Department of Transportation (DOT) regula-tions as well as NRC regulations in transport of tliese materials.
As the discussion above indicates, the generic issue of packaging and transportation of LSA materials is being systematically reexamined.
The other major issue of the transportation " problem" involves t'w transporta-tion of low-level radioactive wastes.
It is important to summarize the actions that have been taken in the past year to alleviate this problem.
On July 10, 1979, the Governors of the Agreement States of Washington, Nevada, I
and South Carolina expressed their concern to the NRC and DOT over the serious and repeated disregard for the rules governing the shipment of low-level radioactive wastes to the burial sites in their states.
The problems causing these concerns generally involved repeated occurrences of improper packaging as well as improper condition of vehicles used to transport wastes.
They l
cited a need for substantial improvement in adherence to the waste packaging i
and transportation rules and regulations.
i l
t I
(
i
10 In its response to the Governors, the NRC agreed that the issues raised were valid and set into motion a plan of action to effect an improvement in the compliance of waste shipments by its licensees.
The actions taken include:
Issuance of bulletins to all NRC licensees requiring specific management control actions for improving the packaging of wastes.
Agreement States also forwarded these bulletins to their licensees.
In the case of major NRC licensees, written responses were requested, detailing their plan of action in response to the bulletin.
An information notice was sent to all NRC and Agreement State licensees, calling their attention to the problem, enclosing guid-ance information on transport regulations, and requirements of the burial sites.
Additional staff positions were requested in the FY 1980 Supplemental Budget request.
Followup inspections were performed to verify the actions taken by NRC licensees in response to the bulletin requiring management control actions on radioactive waste transportation.
Agreement States also have been requested to verify during their inspections that the required management control actions have been taken.
NRC implemented a temporary program for stationing inspectors at the three burial sites to inspect incoming shipments.
Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington have a similar program for State inspections.
A training program has been implemented to train NRC inspectors on transporation regulations.
In conjunction with this, inspection instructions and procedures have been developed and implemented.
These procedures have been distributed to the Agreement States.
NRC enforcement criteria for penalties for noncompliance with trans-port regulations were developed and published.
Violation of transportation regulations are now being processed l
routinely as civil penalties in those cases where it is appropriate.
l Several such actions have already been completed.
South Carolina now has authority to apply civil penalties resulting from I
l improper shipments of radioactive waste to the Barnwell, South Carolina burial site.
Nevada has instituted a third party inspection system to be applied to l
its Beatty, Nevada burial site.
As this discussion indicates, the "probie.:s" in nuclear transportation have been well defined and significant progress has been made already in their resolution.
In particular, no major adjustments appear necessary in the inspection and enforcement program at the present time, in view of the significant actions and progress which have been made in the past year, and the anticipated further progress in the programs already initiated.
c
11 Recommendation No. 6 Encourage the Agreement States to adopt civil penalty authority.
NRC Response The NRC is encouraging Agreement States to seek authority to impose civil penalties.
Letters to the Agreement States on this issue were sent on October 23, 1979, and March 25, 1980.
This matter was also discussed at the All Agreement States meeting in Atlanta, Georgia in October 1980.
All Agreement States have authority to seek convictions and obtain criminal penalties and to suspend licenses.
Although most of the Agreement States do not have civil penalty authority, we believe they have adequate recourses available to assure compliance with regulatory requirements. We have encouraged civil penalty authority to provide a wide range of enforcement options to the states.
Recommendation No. 7 Reevaluate the current practice of burial on-site and incineration to determine if these are safe methods for disposing of low-level waste and whether or not these practices are in compliante with radiation safety rules and regulatory requirements.
This should apply to Agreement States as wn'.l.
NRC Response The Commission agrees that the subject on-sit (burial should be reviewed more closely. The Commission has already proposed deletion of 10 CFR 20.304, which allows certain on-site burials without prior NRC review.
Public ccmments received on the proposed rule did not identify any issues which were not considered by the NRC, when it issued the proposed rule.
The final rule, l
deleting 10 CFR 20.304, effective January 28, 1981, was issued October 30, l
1980.
The NRC has been and remains receptive to applications for incineration, since this is a major volume reduction technique.
Several applications for incinera-tion have been submitted, and will be reviewed during the licensing process to j
assure the adequacy of the system design in protecting the public's health and safety and the environment.
Some NRC licensees are authorized currently to incinerate LLW.
As noted earlier, the Commission supports legislation that would assure uniform minimum national standards for both technical and procedural aspects of LLW disposal for both Agreement and non-Agreemen:. States.
Recommendation No. 8 NRC should not license any new shallow-land burial sites while DOE is develop-ing a national low-level waste plan.
This plan, according to the President, must be completed by 1981.
l 12 l
NRC Response The NRC believes that the option for licensing new LLW disposal capacity is a necessary contingency for alleviating problems of fulfilling present LLW disposal needs.
The NRC staff does not feel that any potential future benefits i
l of a near term licensing moratorium would outweigh the need for preserving the option for licensing.
Furthermore, the NRC believes that States, not the Federal government, should assume the lead in establishing adeo nte capacity for LLW if private industry inititive is inadequate.
Consequently, ;t is our opinion that this GA0 recom-mendation of establishing a licensing moratiorium for non-Agreement States would be counter productive.
We believe that if regions of the nation are to benefit from services ranging from nuclear medicine to nuclear power, it is imperative that additional LLW disposal capacity be established on a regional basis.
This will require cooperation not only among the States but between the States and the Federal government on siting and licensing matters.
The l
NRC is prepared to extend assistance to States in response to State requests for assistance on evaluating LLW disposal license submittals.
Also, the NRC is prepared to process any application received, under its jurisdiction, for LLW disposal.
NRC has no new low-level waste license applications under review.
Under our normal review procedure, a license review for a new low-level l
waste facility site would take over a year to complete.
Thus, it is not l
anticipated that any new licenses will be issued prior to 1981.
t l
Report - April 1, 1980 Existing Nuclear Sites Can Be Used for New Power Plants and Nuclear Waste Storage Recommendation No. 1 The Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission should specify in NRC's alternative site evaluation regulation that utilities must include available existing l
sites among their alternative sites for new nuclear power plants.
1 The Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission should also:
determine if there are inherent advantages to limiting the number of nuclear power plant sites by locating new power plants at existing
- sites, l
determine the weight any such advantages should receive in environ-mental cost / benefit balancing, and in conjunction, develop a policy on the use of existing sites for new nuclear power plants which recognizes environmental advantages and potential constraints on practical implementation.
l I
i 13 NRC Response Siting of nuclear power plants requires consideration of a number of concerns and objectives many of which are competing.
There are advantages to locating new nuclear power plants on sites already hosting another nuclear unit; there are also disadvantages to that action.
The NRC staff has provided guidance to applicants concerning specific considerations when proposing to add a nuclear unit to an existing generating station.
Most of the advantages relate to limiting the number of sites and land area committed to nuclear generation and confining the associated impacts to those fewer locations.
Among the most frequently mentioned potential advantages are:
easing of the problem of decommissioning, reduction of the number and length of transmission lines, reduction of visual, ecological and socioeconomic i
impact, easier licensing process and higher quality of operation as a result j
of concentration of operation within fewer more experienced utilities.
l The most commonly identified potential disadvantages are:
inequitable distri-bution of social risks, negative effects on national security of concentration of generating capacity, overload of water bodies, negative effect on grid stability and system reliability, conflicts with local and state regulations, I
antitrust laws, and the concept of remote siting.
The technical and non-technical merits in each case are different, very site specific, and only upon a careful examination of case specific facts can the i
NRC staff draw conclusions as to which course of action to take.
NRC is committed to exploration of site attributes through an impartial comparison of alternatives conducted as part of a NEPA process.
The NRC regulations provide an opportunity for a thorough review of the relative l
merits of alternative sites in each case, including the determination of all inherent advantages existing sites might have and the weight such advantages should receive.
The NRC has received and is presently analyzing public comments on the proposed revision to 10 CFR Part 51 rule providing " Licensing and Regulatory Policy'and Procedures for Environmental Protection; Alternative Site Reviews," published in the Federal Register on April 9, 1980.
The pro-posed rule would not require specific consideration of existing nuclear sites, j
although it would not' prevent it.
The GA0 report and the recommendation that the rule specify that utilities must include available existing sites among their alternative sites is being considered by the NRC in the context of this rulemaking activity.
In addition, the NRC is engaged in a major rulemaking effort to review its i
basic siting policy.
The effort is broad in scope anti will emphasize the goal of siting new nuclear power plants away from densely populated areas and the capability for.taking effective emergency actions.
It will consider the colocation of nuclear facilities.
The GA0 report also will be considered by NRC in this rulemaking activity.
l i
14 Recommendation No. 2 Before permitting utilities to store low-level waste at nuclear power plant sites the Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, should require the utilities to provide specific plans for aventually disposing of these wastes, including assurances that funds will be available for disposal costs.
NRC Response l
The NRC supports this GA0 recommendation.
This recommendation is consistent with current NRC efforts toward requiring NRC licensees to have plans for eventually disposing of these wastes in disposal facilities.
Several policy papers are presently in preparation addressing issues such as the waste volume minimization, waste volume reduction, and licensing require-ments for long-term (defined as life of-the plant) onsite storage.
The papers explore the major available options.
The NRC staff is also undertaking a review of the broad question of decommis-sioning nuclear power plants which includes the question of obtaining from licensees the assurance that funds will be available to carry out the pre-scribed methods of decommissioning in the future.
Plans to decommission nuclear reactor sites must include plans for ultimate disposal of related
~
low-level nuclear wastes.
Similarly, the method of providing assurance of funding for decommissioning must include the necessary funding for disposing of nuclear wastes from the sites.
The staff's efforts will result in rule-making proceedings related to decommissioning in general, and the funding of decommissioning specifically.
Present schedule calls for the publication of a generic environmental impact statement for public comment in February 1981 (published schedule), a deccmmissioning policy statement in July 1981 and a proposed rule in November 1981.
Additionally, we wish to point out the President's message of February 12, l
l 1980, on radioactive waste management.
In that message the President stated that by Executive Order he was establishing a State Planning Council.
The Council will advise the Executive Branch and work with the Congress to address radioactive waste management issues, such as planning and siting, construction, and operation of facilities.
He also stated that the Department of Energy is preparing a detailed National Plan for Nuclear Waste Management.
The Plan will include specific program goals and milestones for all aspects of nuclear waste management.
Report - May 27, 1980
- Do Nuclear Regulatory Commission Plans Adeouately Address Regulatory Deficiencies Highlighted by the Three Mile Island Accident?
GA0 Observation "The Commission's estimated resources and time frames do not leave much margin for error."
15 i
NRC Comment The observation is valid.
However, since completion of the development of the i
Action Plan, the NRC has taken action that will lessen the staff resource l
impact of the plan.
First, many items that were initially envisioned as l
requiring pre-implementation review and approval by the NRC have been changed l
to require post-implementation review.
This removes the NRC from the critical path of implementing the needed improvements.
Second, for a number of reasons, the scheduled implementation dates have been extended.
This allows more flexibility in completing the needed staff effort.
Both of the factors were the subject of industry meetings conducted in September (see attachment) on l
the Action Plan.
l GA0 Observation l
f "The Commission is relying heavily on the nuclear industry for the development of most corrective actions."
NRC Comment The NRC is establishing new requirements based on the analysis of the accident that occurred at Three Mile Island.
The NRC is responsible for setting the guidelines and criteria for corrective action.
Nevertheless, in many cases j
the method used by the industry to meet assigned requirements will be plant-specific, and it should be expected that industry personnel are more able to analyze and develop plant-specific modifications.
However, the Congress can be assured that NRC intends to oversee vigorously the process of implementing the requirements to make certain that the action items are completed properly.
Report - July 7,1980 l
Three Mile Island:
The Financial Fallout - Updated i
Recommendation i
The GA0 report, "Three Mile Island:
The Financial Fallout," recommended l
"...that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission move as quickly as possible, while taking all necessary steps to protect the public health and safety, to consider and act on the question of restarting Three Mile Island Unit 1.
In addition, GA0 recommends that the Chairman cooperate fully with the Secretary of Energy l
in the study of the General Public Utilities system and its needs and provide all possible assistance in fully developing the Regulatory responsibilities of the Commission as they relate to the restart, clean-up, and recommissioning of the nuclear units."
i NRC Response The Commission Order of July 2,1979 directed that TMI-1 remain shutdown until further order of the NRC, and determined that a hearing precede restart of the l
facility in order to allow public participation in the pi, :eeding.
By Order l
on August 9, 1979 as supplemented on March 6, 1980, the Commission specified l
16 the bases for their concern, the issues to be considered in the hearing, and the procedures to be applied.
An NRC Safety Evaluation Report, (NUREG-0680) issued in June 1980, provided an evaluation of the licensee's compliance with items covered in the August 9 Order.
A supplement to the evaluation was issued in November 1980 addressing the management issues in the March 6 Order.
The assigned Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) conducted a final prehearing conference on August 12 and 13, 1980 and subsequently issued a Memorandum and Order on August 15, 1980, in which the hearing was set to begin on October 15, 1980.
The hearing commenced on October 15, 1980 and is ongoing in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
The NRC staff continues to be involved in the on-going review of technical information and hearing preparation concerning the restart of Unit No. 1.
We have placed a high priority, considering other efforts required of the staff, on completing all of the staff required to support an expedited hearing schedule.
On December 1, 1980, Herman Dieckamp, President of General Public Utilities Commission, sent a letter to the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission asking that the Commission Orders of July 2, 1979 and August 9, 1979 be modified in order to allow Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1) to restart prior to the completion of the THI-1 adjudicatory proceeding which is in progress.
The Dieckamp letter did not propose that the TMI-1 hearing be cancelled, but, instead, that the hearing be allowed to proceed on its course until the Commission's review of and final action on the ASLB's recommended decision.
The Commission, in an Order dated December 9, 1980, invited other parties to the TMI-1 proceeding to submit any comments they might have on the issues raised by the letter by January 6, 1981.
The staff response examined the Dieckamp proposal to amend the Commission's Orders of July 2 and August 9, 1979 from both legal and technical standpoints.
I From a legal standpoint, the staff concluded that the Commission has very l
broad discretion in directing its activities under the Atomic Energy Act and that it may, if it so chooses, modify its previous Orders and allow restart prior to the completion of the TMI-1 proceeding.
The staff also determined, from a health and safety standpoint, what steps it believes the licensee should take before Unit 1 can be restarted and operated.
Having considered the Dieckamp proposal, the staff interposed no legal or technical objection to permitting operation of TMI-1 once (1) the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has been satisfied that the licensee has implemented the required items (which the staff considers necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that TMI-1 can be safety operated) and (2) the Commission has agreed.
Notwithstanding this conclusion, the staff noted that the issue of whether the public interest considerations referred to by the tommission in its Orders are better served by permitting operation of the facility prior to completion of the hearing, is best left to the Commission for resolution.
The Commission and staff will cooperate fully with any further Department of Energy study undertaken regarding the financial aspects of the GPU system, if it is determined that an additional study is required.
The Commission is continuing to independently evaluate information in the financial area as part L
17 of the TMI-1 restart review.
An NRC Task Force issued a report (NUREG-0689) in November 1980 on the subject of " Potential Impact of Licensee Default on Cleanup of TMI-2."
This report evaluated the possibility and consequences of bankruptcy by the TMI licensees.
Due to the uniqueness of the TMI-2 cleanup activities, the staff prepared and issued on August 14, 1980, a Oraft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) related to decontamination and disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from the March 28, 1979 accident at TMI-2.
This draft PEIS presents an overall study of the activities necessary for decontamination of tht: facility, defueling and dispositions of the radioactive wastes which resulted from tha TMI-2 accident.
Since the precise condition of the reactor core or reactor building is not known, the staff has described and assessed probable or bounding situations.
A discussion of the ultimate disposition of THI-2 is beyond the scope of the draft PEIS, though the staff concludes at this time that all of the clean-up operations must be performed whether TMI-2 is ultimately decommissioned or restored to a condition acceptable for licensed operation.
The public comment period for " Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Related to Decontamination and Disposal of Radioactive Wastes Resulting from March 28, 1979, Accident Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2" (NUREG-0683) expired on November 20, 1980.
During the public comment period, the NRC staff participated in 31 public meetings with the public and local officials and organizations to receive comments on the PEIS.
Verbatim transcipts were made of the major meeting and 151 relevant comments were received during the public meetings.
In addition, 121 letters containing approximately 765 additional comments were received.
The NRC staff is presently preparing the final PEIS which is scheduled for submittal to the Commission on February 28, 1981.
The final PEIS should be available to the general public in late March 1981.
The Commission's newly established (October 1980) Advisory Panel for the l
Decontamination of TMI Unit 2 held its first three meetings November 12, December 18 and December 30, 1980.
The Panel will consult with and provide advice to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on major activities required to accomplish expeditious and safe cleanup of the TMI-2 facility.
Regulatory requirements-related to the TMI site are continuously being evaluated and revised as deemed appropriate in response to new information developed in the course of recovery from the accident, which, of course, represents a unique set of regulatory circumstances.
l Report - August 18, 1980 l
Analysis of the Price-Anderson Act Recommendation The accident at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, provides NRC an excellent i
opportunity to test the adequacy of major provisions of the Price-Anderson Act.
We recommend that the Chairman, NRC use that accident, plus various
18 scenarios similar to the accident, to define for the Congress a more realistic limit on public liability, and reassess for the Congress the premium charged utilities in the event of a nuclear accident and the Federal Government indem-nity.
If at the conclusion of this work it is determined that some revisions to the act are in order, the Chairman should also submit a legislative proposal to the Congress outlining these revisions.
NRC Response There are probabilistic risk analysis models which can be used to calculate the off-site consequences in the event of a nuclear plant accident.
The Calculations of Reactor Accident Consequences (CRAC) code, from the 1975 Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400), is used by the NRC staff to calculate reactor accident consequences, including early fatalities, early illnesses, latent cancers, and property damage.
This code has been improved in some respects since 1975 and is continually being revised to incorporate improvements.
For example, several computer codes, including CRAC, will be revised to reflect the lessons learned from the Three Mile Island accident and to incorporate recent research results.
For a recent study, NUREG-0715, " Task Force Report on Interim Operation of Indian Point," the CRAC code was used to make risk comparisons of various reactor sites, reactor designs, and public protective measures.
In that comparison, off-site risks for six different reactor sites were estimated (see NUREG-0715, p. 17).
The sites considered ranged from the Indian Point site, located in the most densely populated area, to the Diablo Canyon site, which is quite remote.
The property damage estimates indicate that any accident which is serious enough to require evacuation of members of the general public is likely to cost $10 million to $100 million.
Accidents of this type have a calculated probability of about one in ten thousand per reactor year.
For lower probability accidents, the numbers are larger.
As you kn'ow, these probabilistic estimates have wide ranges, depending on protective measures, design, sites, and uncertainties in the estimates (see NUREG-0715, p. 39).
Thus, for a probability of 10 s per reactor year, the estimates for early fatalities range from none to 5,000.
For a probability of 10 9, estimates of early fatalities range from 700 to 50,000.
Similarly, the estimates for early illness range from 10 to 10,000 for a probability of 7 x 10 7 per reactor year and from 6,000 to 800,000 for a probability of 10 8 Latent cancer estimates range from none to 200 for a 10 8 probability and from 200 to 2,000 for a 10 9 probability.
Property damage estimates range from $2 million to $2 billion for a probability of 10 8 per reactor year, and from $8 billion to $100 billion for a probability of 10 8 (in 1974 dollars).
We have not estimated the monetary
' costs associated with early fatalities, early illnesses or latent cancers.
In addition to the substantial uncertainties inherent in this type of calcula-tion, there is a suspected bias in the model for the property damage analyses which the staff believes tend, i, underestimate the potential costs.. The model uses criteria for interdicing the use of contaminated property and assumptions for cleanup of contaminated property which may be optimistic with respect to costs.
19 The GA0 report recommended that the Commission realistically define a limit of liability for the Price-Anderson Act.
Since a decision to increase the liability limit must be made by Congress and not the Commission, the Commission believes it may be more appropriate for Congress to determine whether to increase the liability limit based on full consideration of the types of consequences which may occur following an accident (i.e., early fatalities, early illness, latent cancer, and property damage).
However, the Commission believes that the statutorily prescribed limits of liability should be adjusted to account for inflation.
The GA0 report also recommended that the Commission reassess the Federal government indemnity.
The Commission believes that there is no objective source of information available to reassess this indemnity and that this is an area for the exercise of Congressional judgment.
Finally, in response to the recommendation that tha Commission reassess the financial impact of increasing the present $5 million retrospective premium, a financial impact study was completed by the staff last year which updated earlier information contained in a 1976 report (NR-AIG-003) prepared for the Commission by Dr. Ronald Melicher of the University of Colorado and entitled,
" Financial Implications of Retrospective Premium Assessments on Electric Utilities." This report assessed the financial impact of various retrospective premiums on representative utilities.
The staff study provides additional information in this area, as well as a sensitivity analysis of the impact of increasing the retrospective premium to $20 million per reactor.
This type of review should be useful to Congress in assessing the trade-off between the l
costs of requiring additional protection through increased premiums and the l
costs of providing power.
We do not present this study as definitive, since
(
we are not experts in the financial management of utilities.
I Report - September 30, 1980 Electricity Planning -- Today's Improvements C'an Alter Tomorrow's Investment l
Decisions Recommendation No. 1 The GA0 report recommended that "...the Secretary of Energy establish in the Economic Regulatory Administration a responsibility center to coordinate all DOE efforts relating to improving electric power planning..." and that " Federal agencies with electricity responsibility...should be provided the opportunity to supply input to such a program."
Recommendation No. 2 The GAO report recommended "...that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, prior l
j to issuing a construction permit for a nuclear generating facility, review and l
use as a guide the information developed by ERA's electricity program.
NRC l
should periodically explain to ERA in writing its use of the information and ways,'if any, in wSich the data could be made more useful to NRC."
l l
l
O og 9
20 NRC Response NRC endorses the recommendation of the Secretary of Energy to establish in the Economic Regulatory Administration (ERA) a responsibility center to coordinate all DOE efforts relating to improving electric power planning and to develop a comprehensive electricity program at the Federal level.
We further endorse the recommendation that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) "use as a guide the information developed by ERA's electricity program" and that we keep ERA informed of our agency's needs for analysis in this area.
In this regard, the Commission occasionally reviews staff treatment of issues such as the need for power and, as a result, the level and type of review that the staff conducts could be modified in the future.
The GA0 recommendation is generally in keeping with the NRC staff's current practice in determining the need for power.
We use electricity demand fore-casts from recognized sources and compare these with our own forecasts to arrive at an estimate of when new facilities are needed to ensure a reliable supply of electric energy. We expect that the program envisioned for ERA will be a major information source for our need for power assessments, provided that it takes into account, where appropriate, the beneficial aspects of replacing old high operating cost units.
4 e
B.
NRC ACTIONS IN CY 1980 IN RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN GA0 REPORTS ISSUED IN PRIOR YEARS Report - January 23, 1979 Automated Systems Security - Federal Agencies Should Strengthen Safeguards Over Personnel and Other Sensitive Data Recommendation No. 3 Assign to a specific group in the agency the task of ensuring that comprehen-I sive computer data security plans and programs as developed will be documented, written, and disseminated to all activities and locations involved with the subject data, and that responsibilities for all provisions be clearly delineated.
This definition of responsibility should encompass provision for implementing plans and programs further required of subordinate activities.
NRC Response On January 10, 1980, a Bulletin was issued to provide guidance on automated systems security.
This Bulletin is an intermediate step in developing revisions to the NRC security plan contained in NRC Hanual Chapter 2101 in response to OMB Circular A-71, TM-1.
A draft of the automated system security plan has been circulated to the staff for comment and is to be issued by June 30, 1981.
Report - January 26, 1979 Reporting Unscheduled Events at Commercial Nuclear Facilities:
Opportunities to Improve Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oversight Recom'mendation No. 1
"... extend its event and incident reporting requirements to require... uniform surveillance and reporting requirements on safety systems and components l
common to all nuclear power plants."
Recommendation No. 2 l
... resolve the issue of NRC mandating full nuclear industry participation in l
the reliability report system [ Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System] by using rulemaking procedures."
l NRC Response After reviewing comments concerning amendments to NRC regulations that would require power reactor licensees to submit data to the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS), the NRC has decided to defer rulemaking that would make NPRDS mandatory in its present fonn.
The NRC plans instead to develop a single reporting system by combining and restructuring the NPRDS and the NRC's
2 own reporting system, the Licensee Event Reports (LERs).
The new reporting system will be called the " Integrated Operational Experience Reporting (I0ER)
System."
Conceptually, the Integrated Operational Experience Reporting (IOER) System would:
1.
Reduce LER reporting by eliminating the requirement for LER reports for most component failures or malfunctions covered by the NPRDS.
The NRC would require LERs only for those component failures or malfunctions that are of major safety significance.
However, the technical content of each report would be substantially improved by requesting a technically detailed and comprehensive report suitable for engineering review.
Thus, the LER system, which was not designed to produce reliability data, would no longer attempt to provide a basis for equipment reliability studies; the NPRDS, which is designed to produce such reliability data, would perform this service.
2.
Require the reporting of less significant component failures or minor incident events by means of an LER-type computer-oriented form.
The reportable scope, however, would be extanded to include all systems and components that are important to safety including selected support and service systems and components.
The reporting form would be simplified for ease of data entry by nonengineering personnel and would allow failure rates to be determined to support NRC and industry statistical /probabilistic studies.
The revised reporting requirements would be implemented through rulemaking to assure uniform requirements, efficient use of staff resources, and adequate review and comment.
The regulation would contain the principles or criteria licensees would use in deciding whether an LER or a failure report is required.
l Additional details on acceptable methods of implementation would be presented in a revised Regulatory Guide covering LERs and the NPRDS-type failure reports.
l The NRC estimates that the proposed rule will be available for public comment in July 1981.
Report - March 30, 1979 Areas Around Nuclear Facilities Should be Better Prepared for Radiological Emergencies Recommendation No. 1 The Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, should allow nuclear power plants to begin operation only where State and local emergency response plans contain all the Commission's essential planning element,
In addition, the Commission should require license applicants to make agres.ents with State and local agencies assuring their full participation in annual emergency drills over the life of the facility.
1 l
3 l
l NRC Response A final rule on emergency planning was published in the Federal Register on August 19, 1980 (45 FR 55402) and became effective on November 3, 1980.
It provides that no operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued i
unless a finding is made by the NRC that the state of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
In the case of an operating reactor, if after April 1,1981 the NRC finds that the state of emergency preparedness does not provide reasonable assurance that appropriate protection measures can and will be taken in the event of a radio-logical emergency and if the deficiencies are not corrected within four months of that finding, the Commission will determine whether the reactor shall be shut down until such deficiencies are remedied or whether other enforcement action is appropriate.
With regard to emergency drills, the final rule on emergency planning provides that exercises shall test the adequacy of timing and content of implementing procedures and methods, test emergency equipment and communication networks, test the public notification system, and ensure that emergency organization personnel are familiar with their duties.
Each licensee shall exercise at least annually the emergency plan for each site at which it has one or more l
power reactors licensed for operation.
Each State and local government within the plume exposure pathway EPZ shall be enabled to participate in at least one full-scale exercise per year.
A report (NUREG-0654 and FEMA-REP-1) was published jointly by NRC and FEMA in January 1980 for interim use and comment and Revision 1 was published in November 1980 as final guidance by the two agencies on the subject of " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants."
It provides common references and guidance for State and local agencies, licensees, NRC, FEMA, and other Federal agencies in developing and improving State and local government and licensee emergency plans and preparedness.
1 Recommendation No. 2 The Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, should establish an emergency planning zone of about 10 miles around all nuclear power plants as. recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency / Nuclear Regulatory Commission Task Force and require licensees to modify their emergency plans accordingly.
NRC Response The final rule on emergency planning referred to in the above NRC Response to Recommendation No. 1 established that emergency planning considerations must be extended to two zones, one consisting of an area of about 10 miles in radius for exposure to the radioactive plume that might result from a nuclear power reactor accident and the other consisting of an area of about 50 miles
4 in radius for food that might become contaminated.
The exact size and configuration of the emergency planning zones for a particular nuclear power reactor shall be determined in relation to local emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such conditions as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries.
The size of the zones also may be determined on a case-by-case basis for gas-cooled nuclear reactors and for reactors with an authorized power level less than 250 MW thermal.
Recommendation No. 3 l
The Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Secretaries of Defense and Energy should, to the extent that national security is not jeopardized, require that people living near facilities be periodically provided with information about the potential hazard, emergency actions planned, and what to do in the event of an accidental radiological release.
NRC Response The final rule on emergency planning referred to in the above NRC Response to Recommendation No. 1 provides that the applicant's emergency plans shall include provisions for yearly dissemination to the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ of basic emergency planning information, such as the methods and times required for public notification and the protective actions planned if an accident occurs, general information as to the nature and effects of radiation, and a listing of local broadcast stations that will be used for dissemination of information during an emergency.
Signs or other measures t
shall also be used to disseminate to any transient population within the plume exposure pathway EPZ appropriate information that would be helpful if an accident occurs.
Recommendation No. 4 The GA0 report recommends that the Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), assume the responsibility for making policy and coordinating radiological emergency response planning around nuclear facilities.
NRC Response l
l On December 7, 1979, the President assigned FEMA lead responsibility for assisting State and local governments in developing emergency response plans in support of nuclear power plants.
During 1980, the NRC and FEMA negotiated two Memoranda of Understanding laying out the agencies' roles, one covering emergency plans and preparedness and the other covering incident response.
The first, which became effective on January 15, 1980, gives responsibilities to FEMA for determining the adequacy of State and local emergency plans, verifi-cation that these plans are capable of being implemented, training of State and i
i t
1
.e
... e 5
local officials, and development of interagency assignments.
The responsibilities of NRC are to assess the adequacy of emergency plans of NRC licensees, verify that these plans are adequately implemented, review FEMA determinations of the adequacy of related State and local plans, and decide on the overall state of emet ~ cy preparedness for facilities licensed by NRC.
The second memorandum of e ' standing becamc effective on October 22, 1980, and defines the relation-shi,__ oetween FEMA and NRC in responding to a potential or actual radiological emergency.
Report - May 15, 1979 l
GAO Letter Report to Senator Schweiker on Licensina of Nuclear Power Plant Operators GA0 Conclusion Based upon our limited review of the Commission's operator licensing program and upon the number of human / operator error-related accidents in the past, we believe that the operator licensing program should be completely reevaluated.
Commission officials have agreed that a complete reevaluation of the operator licensing program is needed, and have acknowledged that such an evaluation will be made.
NRC Response A report (NUREG-0660) was published by the NRC in May 1980 entitled, "NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident." The actions in the plan directed toward increasing operational safety have two objectives.
The first objective, preventing the causes of accidents, is addressed through improvements in the selection and training of not only the operators, but all the plant staff, and improvements in utility management techniques and capa-bilities.
Specific improvements are required to the content and level of l
training courses, in the use of plant simulators, in operating procedures, and I
in the design of the controls and instrument displays in the control room.
l These specific improvements both reduce the incidence of accident situations and increase the ability of the operating staff to arrest an accident before l
any serious consequences result.
Improvements in the evaluation of operating experience and the auditing of day-to-day plant operations are also to be instituted to help the plant technical support staff and management in prevent-ing accidents.
1 Following extensive and detailed Commission consideration of the Action Plan and staff discussions with the Commission, a report (NUREG-0737, " Clarification i
(
of TMI Action Plan Requirements") was issued to licensees on October 31.
This report specifies the implementation schedules, applicability, method of implementation review, submittal dates and clarification of technical positions for those items of the Action Plan which have been approved by the Comission.
A report (NUREG/CR-1750) was published by the NRC in December 1980 on the subject of " Requirements for Operator Licensing." This describes an independent study conducted by Analysis & Technology, Inc., of requirements and practices
'regarding selection, screening, training, licensing, requalification, and performance of nuclear power plant control room operators and the training and qualification of other nonlicensed personnel.
Commission is also initiating rulemaking to further improve reactor operator performance.
-.