ML20050C152
| ML20050C152 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna, 05000000, Crane |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1982 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050C153 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-CR-1681, RTR-NUREG-CR-1682 SECY-82-058, SECY-82-58, NUDOCS 8204080212 | |
| Download: ML20050C152 (17) | |
Text
e y'
TESTIMONY OF t
NUNZIO J.
PALLADINO FD
-B CHAIRMAN
'82w U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D0s ON d~
- s NRC FY 1983 BUDGET REQUEST BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MARCH 22, 1982 O
e a
P204000212 820322 PDR ADOCK 05000244 T
1
^
d Mr. Cha i rma n.
I appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 1983 budget request.
This is my first opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee as Chairman of the NRC and I am most pleased to be here.
I know that this Subcommittee has had a continuing interest in the activities of the Commission and that your confidence and support are vital to our efforts to assure the licensing and safe operation of nuclear power plants.
In my view, the budget is simply the agency's financial plan for implementing a given set of objectives.
Recently, the Commission adopted such a set of major objectives, which have been approved as part of its Policy and Planning Guidance document -- commonly known as the PPG within the agency.
While not intended to be all-encompassing, this document provides guidance to the staff for establishing priorities and for improving the regulatory process.
Goals are stated as policy statements and are supplemented by ' specific planning guidance for their achievement.
Programming and budgeting are to be based on the PPG' unless it is specifically superseded or amended.
Copies of the PPG have already been provided the Subcommittee.
Before summarizing our FY 1983 budge t req ues t, I would like to take a few moment's to c
discuss some of the major concerns and goals of the Commission, pa rticula rly those identified in the PPG.
1
Safe Ope ra tions First and foremost in our priorities is the fundamental task of assuring that existing nuclear power plants and those coming on line are and will be operated safely.
A number of new approaches to this task have evolved in recent yea rs, particularly since the accident at Three Mile Island.
I have in mind such developments as the use of resident inspectors at operating facilities and construction sites; the new focus on human factors, exploring and deepening our understanding rf the man-machine interface in nuclear operations; the strengthened emphasis on quality control; the formulation of an agency safety goal; and the use of probabilistic risk assessment.
We will continue to pursue these approaches and to search diligently for others as the safe operation of nuclear power plants is, and must always be, our h ighes t priori ty.
In this contex t, I believe that the safe operation of nuclear power plants has also been enhanced by the determined effort, involving both the NRC and the nuclear industry, to search out the full significance of operating experience.
In an important and respons ible move af ter the accident at TMI, the ' nuclear industry established tne Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INP0) to carry on its own analysis of operational data.
The NRC entered into an agreement for cooperation with INP0 for the exchange of operational i n f o rma t i on.
Together we intend to learn well the lessons that only actual operating experience can teach and to communicate wha t has been learned in a timely fashion to all concerned'.
2
Qu a l i ty As su r6I ce Quality of construction ranks alongside quality of design in assuring the safe operation of a nuclear power plant.
In vi.ew of the relatively large number of construction-related deficiencies that have come to light recently, it is apparent that both
' industry's and NRC's performance in the area of quality assurance can stand im pr ov i n g,
The Commission has given an improved quality assurance program high priority for the yea rs ahead.
The Commission's inspection and enforcement activities have been strengthened by an increased use of resident inspections, an enhanced role for the Regional Administrators and adoption of a firm but f air enforcement policy.
The staff has undertaken a comprehensive review of its own QA ef forts and will propose an ageacy-wide plan for improvements.
NRC inspectors inspect only a small fractiun of total cons truction ac tivity.
Primary reliance for proper ~ inspection and cons truction mus t be on the licensees themselves. In my rema rks to the nuclea r indus try, I have tried to emphasize that all utilities who own or are building reactors must identify deficiencies ea rly 'so tha t they don't creep into the-final product or cause extensive and costly cons truction delays.
Near-Term Licensing Problems and Responses
~
Last year at this time there was widespread concern.about the delays likely to be experienced by utilities in ob ta in i n g ope ra t ing licenses for physically completed nuclear power plants.
3
These estimates of potential delay have been greatly reduced i n the past year.
Revisions in applicant construction completion schedules were a major factor in reducing the projected delays.
However, Commission actions played a role in reducing these estima tes and in preventing unnecessary delays.
We have kept the Subcommittee informed of the status of licensing actions in our monthly reports to you.
Our most recent estimate is a total delay of two months affecting two plants.
Let it suffice to say that the Commission believes that the measures it has taken to date have improved the efficiency of the licensing process without being detrimental to sa fe ty or impairing the right of effective public participation. We will continue to seek ways to eliminate all unwarranted delay in reaching licensing decisions.
At the same time, pressure to issue new licenses will not be allowed to compromise safety.
Long-Term Licensing Re f c rm s In addition to taking actions to address near-term problems in the licensing process, the Commission has been looking for long-term improvements which could be made.
A great deal of study and attention has already been given to proposals for,
stream-lining and improving the licensing process for nuclear power plants.
Last November, I announced the formation of an NRC Regula tory Reform Task Force to make a detailed evaluation of these proposals and to submit recommendations to the Commission 4
2
.L s
4
4 s
f or both legisla tive and administrakive changes.
We will keep you apprised of our ef forts in this area.
Coordinating Reg u l a t ory Requirements The Commission is sensitive to the criticism that there has been
' a large volume of new requirements imposed on licensees, that frequently these requirements have not been adequately coordinated, and that sufficient time has not always been allowed for their proper implementation.
In order to instill needed discipline into the regulatory process, the Commission has created a high-level Committee to Review Generic Requirements, chaired by a new Deputy Execu.ive Director for Regional Operatiqns and Generic Requirements.
Strong measures will be taken to control the issuance of new requirements so as to assure that priority is given to those with the greatest safety significance and that licensees are not burdened with unwarranted requirements. Conflicting priorities will be resolved' in favor of those which of fer the greater potential for reducing overall ris k.
Requirements wh'ich offer only the possibility of incremental reductions in residual risk' will be judged on a cos t-benefit basis.
New Regula tory Tool s To assist in evaluating new and existin'g regulatory requirements, the Commission has undertaken to develop a safety goal and 5
rela ted safe ty guida nce.
We have focused initial emphasis on the individual and societal risks that might arise from reactor accidents, with a view to developing a general approach to risk acceptabili ty and sa fety-cos t trade-of fs.
To the extent possible, we seek to identify specific qualititative safety goals and quantitative guidance and s tandards to apply in the review of rules and practices.
This is a difficult task, but one which the majority of the Commission feels is worth attempting.
On Feb rua ry 17, 1982, the Commission published in the Federal Reaister a proposed safety goal for public comment.
Probabilistic risk assessment techniques can provide a means for determining that the safety goal is met.
The Commission has directed that special attention should De given to using probabilistic assessment techniques where the data warrants such use.
For example, such techniques may be especially useful in licensing reviews, addressing generic safety issues, formulating new regula tory requirements, assessing and revalidating or eliminating existing regulatory requirements, evaluating new designs, and in formula ting reactor safety research and inspection priorities.
l l
Recent research has indicated that the radioactive source term, now being used to assess the types and amounts of radioactivity which might be dispersed in various nuclear accident scenarios, L
may be unduly conserva tive.
A more realistic source term could, among other things, lessen the demands on site emergency plans.
A 6
b reassessment of the source term is c' derway and should be completed by ea rly 1983.
Reassessment of the source term and formulation of a safety goal will assist the Commission in establishing better siting criteria for nuclear power plants and other major nuclear facilities.
The Commission believes that these criteria need to be improved.
However, we do not wish to promulgate comprehensive, new siting, regulations until we have finally defined our safety goal and until a better characterization of the radioactive source term
-can be made.
Nuclear Waste Management Beyond the regulation of nuclear power plants, the NRC must play a critical supporting role in the urgent national effort to solve the problem of nuclear waste.
The Commission intends to plan and o rg a n ize its waste management regulatory activities so as to be consistent with the program of the Executive Branch as approved by Congress and so as not to delay implementation of that program in the absence of unresolved safety concerns.
Our efforts will focus on the review of Department of Energy (DOE) site characterization activities and the development of methods to implement licensing criteria for high-level waste repositories.
We expect to publish a final rule covering the technical criteria for licensing 'hi h-level repositories before January 1983.
5 7
l
)
3 To provide additional storage space for spent fuel collecting at operating reactor sites, many NRC licensees have, with NRC approval, altered the deployment of spent fuel elements in their onsite storage pcols to make space for future deposits.
Some elements have had to be stored away from their site of origin.
Present indications are that existing storage pools can be modified to accommodate spent fuel until about the mid-19 80's.
Af ter that time, new storage capacity may be needed, involving new poo,ls or the use of dry storage technology.
We are preparing to review industry or government proposals for new stora.ge capacity, whatever its form.
In order to license nuclear power plants, the Commission must make a judgment as to the safety and environmental soundness of the rest of the nuclear fuel cycle, including waste management.
In October 197.1, the Commission initiated a rulemaking to (1) assess generically the degree of Commission confidence that radioactive wastes can be disposed of safely, (2) determine when disposal or offsite storage facilities would be available, and (3) determine whether or not wastes can be safely stored onsite beyond the expiration cf existing licenses until offsite storage or disposal is available.
The Commission is moving expeditiously to complete this waste confidence proceeding.
i TMI-2 Cleanup
~
One of our highest priorities is. the prompt cleanup of Three Mile l
Island Unit
_2.
The content of the containment at TMI-2 remains a l
l 8
l
potential public heal th and sa fety 4.aza rd.
That fact was underscored a few weekends ago when false readings indicating a hydrogen buildup in the containment activated emergency response' measures and captured nationwide media attention.
' Although the primary responsibility for cleanup is the utility's, we intend to assure the thorough decontamination of the plant and the timely and safe removal of radioactive waste products from the site.
In this regard, the Commission believes that the Department of Energy (DOE) should take custody of the radioactive waste which is unsuitable for commercial shallow land disposal --
including the entire damaged core.
Uncertain furding is still an obstacle to cleanu'p.
Some
. combination of sources for funding the cleanup is probably the most viable and equitable approach to take. The Commission endorses no specific funding plan.
However, I do wish to stress our deep-seated concern that cleanup be conducted in the most expeditious manner.
IAEA Safeauards One final subject merits special mention -- international sa feg ua rds.
l
~
l In recent months, the Commission has conveyed to Congress our l
concerns about the adequacy of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards sys tem to detect in a timely fashion at
(
9 1
least some types of diversion.
We believe that IAEA safeguards have improved in recent years, and that efforts should be made to continue this improvement as rapidly as possible. To the extent tha t our resources permit, we are prepared to as'sist the Executive Branch in strengthening the IAEA safeguards program.
I would like now to summarize briefly the most significant aspects of our FY 1983 budget.
The Budget Request As the table at the end of my testimony indicates, our requests total $479.5 million and 3,303 full-time employees which amounts to $4.7 million more than our FY 1982 funding and 22 fewer staff.
Although the total proposed funding is slightly increased, when the impact of inflation is accounted for, this request represents a net decline in overall agency funding.
We have tried to achieve efficiencies in our operation wherever possible to offset this decline.
Mr. C ha i rma n, recognizing that there are always activities that could be accomplished faster and better with increased support, our budget request represents a level of funding that will enable us to meet our highest priority. commitments in a timely and effective manner.
On balance, we have a. reasonable allocation of resources to each of..the major NRC programs.
~
\\
i 10
^
I will summarize the most significa. activities within each major program in order to provide a rationale for our budget and to give you an overview of program expansions and reduction's.
Table 1 shows the staffing and funds needed for each of our major pr og rams.
Nuclear Reactor Regulation The table shows that the largest increase in our budget request.
is for the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR).
We propose to increase the resources in NRR devoted to resolution of sa fety issues and processing amendments to operating reacto.r licenses.
We also propose to increase resources devoted to reactor operator examinations and to c:eveloping better operator
, qualifications standards.
Timely attention to these areas will help assure the safe operation of nuclear power plants.
NRR is also responsible for the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) and the National Reliability Evaluation Program (NREP) which have been developed to reassess the design and operation of opera ting reactors.
Following the successful completion of SEP l
Phase II, the systematic review of the ten oldest nuclear plants, l
SEP Phase III would begin in FY,19 83 a sys tema tic review of.the remaining plants.
We propose to initiate the complementary NREP risk assessment studies in FY 1983.
A major function of NRR involves the technical review of reactor license applications.
Our budget is ba sed on the plar ning.
11
s assumption that by 1983 we will be able to reduce the NRR resources devoted to processing applications and still complete reviews without impacting the scheduled fuel loading and operation of new plants.
While I am hopeful this assumption will prove correct, there is always the possibility that slippages of plants scheduled for completion in 1982 could cause an increase in our assumed 1983 workload.
In FY 1983, NRR would continue the licensing review of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor initiated several months ago.
The resources requested would allow us to keep pace with the DOE cons truction schedule.
Inspection and Enforcement As the attached table indicates, we have providea the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) with increased resources.
This increase would provide inspection coverage of the new operating reactors coming on line and contractual assistance to perform initial one-time inspections to evaluate compliance with the new fire protection and facility safeguards rules.
Our budget for IE also contains funds to initiate construction of an inspector training center at the Tennessee Valley Authority site near Cha ttanooga, Tennessee.
This facility will enhance our ab il i ty to maintain a-well trained inspection force.
Nuclear Ma terial Sa fe ty and Safeguards The budget submission shows a decl.ine in resources allocated to 12
the Office of Nuclear Materials Saf[ty and Safeguards (NMSS).
This decline includes reductions in funding for the safeguards and was te management programs. Some of the reduction in N'4S S 's waste management program is matched by an increase in funding for waste management research conducted by the Office of Nuclear
' Regula tory Resea rch.
Overall, the agency resources devoted to waste management in FY 1983 would remain at about the current level.
Our FY 83 program would continue the development of a computerized Licensing Management System so that NMSS can eliminate much of the inefficient manual processing in some 6,000 material licenses annually.
Nuclea r Regula tory Research While the magnitude of the funding reduction between FY 1982 and FY 1983 in our research program is rela tively small, we propose significant changes in the goals of the research activities.
Major activities that would increase are those associated with prevention and mitigation of certain accidents, application of risk analysis, and human factors.
Our focus in FY 1983 would be on the prevention and mitigation of accidents which could lead to severe core damass as occurred at TMI.
l We believe risk assessment techniques can significantly improve l
our analysis of reactor safety questions.
We propose to dedicate 13
increased resources in FY 1983 to the development of a user's guide for the application of risk assessment methodologies in the licensing process.
One of the lessons learned from TMI is the importance of human factors to the safe operation of nuclear reactors.
The FY 1983 human factors research program would increase over the FY 1982 l
budget.
The expanded effort would be directed toward gaining a be tter understanding of the man-machine interface and developing ways to lessen the potential for the human factor to degrade s a fe ty.
We have looked carefully at our research program to be sure we were devoting sufficient effort to support of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR) license application. We are coordinating with DOE to avoid duplicative activities.
Our research program would allow the completion of the scheduled Loss of Fluid Test (LUFT) tests in FY 1983.
In FY 1982 and FY 1933 the LOFT testing would include the testing program required by Congress.
Program Technical Support Program Technical Support (PTS) includes.those offices that support our licensing. hearings, interface with state and foreign governments, and perform analyses of operating reactor data.
The increased funding would provide for an automated system for 14
o trac ki ng, identifying, and correla t ' g operating reactor experience data.
\\
Program Direction and Administration The Program Direction and Administration (PDA) offices collectively provide overall policy direction, resources management, administra tion, and logistic support for the agen~cy.
l There would be a net reduction of forty-one staff in the PDA offices.
In addition, we propose to make greater efforts to coordinate our programs with those of other government agencies and the i n du s try.
For example, our funding for high-level waste management reflects increased reliance on DOE's high-level waste management efforts.
We are working closely with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to develop and implement effective emergency planning requirements for licensed facilities.
We are evaluating and will use work done by the INP0 for the development of standards in the human factors area.
At this point, I should note that -- despite repeated efforts on i
our part to obtain a solution -- the agency is still widely l
dispersed around the Metropolitan Washington area.
There is.now a strong probability that we will not be allowed to consolidate in the near future.
_ Consolidation of NRC headquarters would greatly improve the efficiency of the organization in th2 day-to-day operations as well as our effectiveness in responding 15
to emergencies such as the recent Ginna incident.
As a final point, I see the next few years as a period of budget stabiliza tion for the Nuclear Regulatary Commission.
While our license application caseload activities may start to decline, our caseload of operating reactors to be monitored will increase.
This completes my statement, Mr. Chairman.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
w e
4 4
16
. --- - - - - +-
..-----.,-r,
I TABLE 1 FY 198'3 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET OFFICE LEVEL BREAK 0UT Estimate Estimate Change Summa ry Da ta FY 1982 FY 1983
~+
NRR (People)
(702)
(738)
(+3 6)
Dolla rs 87,015 93,120
+ 6,105 I&E (People)
(985)
(995)
(+10)
Dolla rs 66,234 69,850
+3,616 NMSS (People)
(320)
(308)
(' 12')
Dolla rs 38,917 37,385
-1,532 RES (People)
(29 5)
( 283-)
(-12)
Dolla rs 222,663 219,725
-2,938 PTS (People)
(308)
(305)
(-03)
Dolla rs 22,612 23,400
+788 PDA (People)
(71 5)
(674)
(-41)
Dol la rs 37,359 36,020
-1,339 TOTAL PEOPLE (3,325)
(3,303)
(-22)
Total Dolla rs 474,300 479,500
+4,700
[
r h
=
4 M
as IN ta fbam
- =a