ML20127G616
| ML20127G616 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/07/1985 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127G612 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-246 NUDOCS 8506250501 | |
| Download: ML20127G616 (36) | |
Text
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
c.
PREPARED TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY NUNZIO J. PALLADINO, CHAIRMAN U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR REGULATION COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS t
UNITED STATES SENATE CONCERNING THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR FY 1986 AND FY 1987 MARCH 7, 1985 850423 PDR 08 -246
O 8
I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FY 1986 BUDGET STATEMENT MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, THE COMMISSION APPEARS BEFORE YOU TODAY TO DISCUSS NRC'S FY 1986 BUDGET REQUEST.
WITH ME TODAY ARE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE PRINCIPAL OFFICES OF THE COMMISSION.
OVERVIEW I Wi-m BEGIN BY SAYING THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE BUDGET REQUEST FOR NRC RESOURCES FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR IS FOR LESS THAN THE AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR.
AS YOU KNOW, WE ASKED OMB TO INCREASE OUR FY 1986 BUDGET.
THE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES WERE FOR PROGRAMS THAT THE COMMISSION BELIEVES ARE IMPORTANT TO OUR REGULATORY MISSION.
WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THERE ARE STRONG FISCAL PRESSURES CREATED BY
THE FEDERAL DEFICIT, WE MUST MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, WITHIN THE OMB APPROVED AMOUNT FOR FY 1986, THE NRC WILL BE ABLE TO CARRY OUT ONLY ITS MOST ESSENTIAL PROGPAMS.
THE TOTAL BUDGET REQUEST IS FOR $429 MILLION, THIS IS APPROXIMATELY $20 MILLION BELOW OUR FY 1985 PROGRAM.
THIS REDUCED AMOUNT ANTICIPATES THAT THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED 5% PAY CUT WILL BE ENACTED BY CONGRESS; IF IT IS NOT, WE WILL BE SHORT $8.6 MILLION.
WITHIN THE $429 MILLION BUDGET REQUEST SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS, A NUMBEP OF PROPOSED PROJECTS HAVE TO BE DELETED OR DEFERRED.
THE REQUEST REPRESENTS A MINIMUM PROGRAM.
IT WILL IMPAIR THE COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO TAKE A NUMBER OF FORWARD-LOOKING ACTIONS NECESSARY TO MOVE BEYOND TODAY'S PROBLEMS AND IMPROVE THE PROCESS FOR DEALING WITH TOMORROW'S ISSUES.
_3 9
I AMONG THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEMS WE WILL FACE IS KEEPING PACE WITH SOME ASPECTS OF DOE'S NATIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.
IF THE PRESENT DOE SCHEDULE IS MAINTAINED, OUP BUDGET LIMITATIONS COULD DELAY DOE'S INITIATION OF SHAFT CONSTRUCTION AND AT-DEPTH SITE CHARACTERIZATION WORK BY AS PUCH AS SIX MONTHS.
BEFORE TURNING TO THE SPECIFICS OF THE BUDGET, WE WILL HIGHLIGHT SOME OF NRC'S MOST SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS OVER THE PAST FISCAL YEAR AND THE FIRST SEVERAL MONTHS OF FY 1985 AS WELL AS SOME SPECIAL OBJECTIVES WE PLAN TO PURSUE.
PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS PROBLEMS FACED IN OPERATING PLANTS HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH
'I EFFECTIVELY.
NINE NEW LOW POWER REACTOR OPERATING LICENSES AND EIGHT OTHER FULL POWER AUTHORIZATIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED DURING THE LAST SEVENTEEN MONTHS.
WE HAVE APPROVED A POLICY ON THE
o i
e HANDLING OF LATE-FILED ALLEGATIONS WHICH WILL PRESCRIBE
~
SCREENING CRITERIA SIMILAR TO THOSE USED IN THE DIABLO CANYON CASE.
SEVERAL SIGFIFICANT RULES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED, SUCH AS, THE WASTE CONFIDENCE RULE, THE RULE ON ANTICIPATED TRANSIENTS WITHOUT SCRAM (ATWS), AND THE HYDROGEN CONTROL RULE.
NUMEROUS CHANGES WERE MADE IN REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPORTING GUIDANCE BASED ON THE RESULTS OF OUR RESEARCH PROGRAM.
WE HAVE KEPT PACE WITH DOE'S REPOSITORY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, AND HAVE MET OUR MILESTONES UNDER THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT SO FAR.
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING HARD TO IMPROVE THE STABILITY AND PREDICTABILITY OF OUR REGULATORY PROCESS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE COMMISSION HAS NEARLY COMPLETED WORK ON A FOLICY STATEMENT ON SEVERE ACCIDENTS.
CONSISTENT WITH THAT STATEMENT AND WITH OUR GOAL TO ACHIEVE STABILITY IN THE LICENSING PROCESS, THE NRC i
WILL ALSO ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDIZED PLANT DESIGNS BY INDUSTRY.
THE COMMISSION IS ALSO PREPARING TO ISSUE
9 I
A FINAL BACKFIT RULE WHICH WILL IMPROVE THE METHODS FOR ADMINISTERING THE IMPOSITION OF NEW REQUIREMENTS ON LICENSEES.
WE HAVE PROVIDED THE CONGRESS WITH REVISED LICENSING AND STANDARDIZATION LEGISLATION WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THAT SUBMITTED TWO YEARS AGO, BUT WHICH NOW FOCUSES ON ONLY THREE MAJOR 4
REFORMS:
STANDARDIZATION, EARLY SITE APPROVAL, AND ONE-STEP LICENSING.
WE HOPE THE CHANGES WILL GREATLY ENHANCE ITS CHANCES OF ENACTMENT THIS YEAP.
SPECIAL OBJECTIVES NRC'S PRINCIPAL ATTENTION WILL CONTINUE TO BE DIRECTED AT MAINTAINING THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES.
NEVERTHELESS, THE COMMISSION HAS ESTABLISHED CERTAIM SPECIAL OBJECTIVES TO MAINTAIN THE LONG-TERM VIABILITY OF THE NATION'S NUCLEAR OPTION.
WE WILL TRY TO ACHIEVE THESE OBJECTIVES WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED BY THE BUDGET.
THESE AP~ TO:
IMPLEMENT A SAFETY G0AL WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF DEFINING TO THE INDUSTRY AND THE PUBLIC THE ACCEPTABLE LIMITS FOR NUCLEAR PLANT RISKS; CONTINUE THE REASSESSMENT OF RADIOACTIVE SOURCE TERMS USED IN ANALYZING THE RELEASE AND TRANSPORT OF RADIOACTIVITY DURING A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT, AND, IF APPROPRIATE, IMPLEMENT THEM INTO THE REGULATORY PROCESS; IMPLEMENT THE POLICY STATEMENT ON SEVERE ACCIDENTS; PREPARE CRITEPIA FOR EARLY REVIEW OF ADVANCED PEACTOR CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS; SET FORTH A PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF STANDARD PLANT DESIGNS AND PREAPPROVAL OF PLANT SITES;
7 DETERMINE APPROPRIATE WAYS TO INCORPORATE INDUSTRY SAFETY INITIATIVES IN NUCLEAR REGULATION.
NRC BUDGET WE WOULD LIKE TO TURN NOW TO THE SUBJECT OF THE BUDGET REQUEST FOR NRC.
BEFORE HIGHLIGHTING OUR FOUR MAJOR PROGRAMS, WE WANT TO ADDRESS THREE ASPECTS OF THE BUDGET WORTHY OF SPECIAL EMPHASIS:
RESOURCES FOR OUR OPERATING REACTOR PROGRAMS, RESEARCH FUNDING, AND NRC ORGANIZATION.
3 ADE0tlATE RESOURCES FOR OPERATING PLANTS FIRST WE ARE CONCEPNED THAT NRC BUDGET CUTS ARE BEING CONSIDERED UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF NEW PLANT ORDERS, THE RESOURCES USED TO LICENSE PLANTS NOW IN THE i
PIPELINE WILL NO LONGER BE NEEDED.
THIS IS JUST NOT THE CASE.
NRC RESOURCES ARE REQUIRED FOR A PLANT FROM THE TIME A LICENSE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED UNTIL AFTER IT IS DECOMMISSIONED.
THERE TENDS TO BE A PERCEPTION THAT WE EXPEND MANY MORE RESOURCES TO LICENSE A PLANT THAN TO ASSURE ITS OPERATIONAL SAFETY ONCE LICENSED.
THIS IS NOT CORRECT.
ONCE A PLANT IS LICENSED TO OPERATE, LICENSING ACTIONS CONTINUE TO BE NEEDED TO CORREr7 INADEQUACIES IN PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION THAT ARE IDENTIFIED FROM OPERATING EXPEPIENCE AND FROM THE RESOLUTION OF SAFETY ISSUES.
SAFETY EV/LUATIONS MUST BE PERF0PMED TO ENSURE THAT THESE LICENSING ACTIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH NRC REQUIREMENTS, IN ADDITION, UNANTICIPATED EVENTS MUST BE REVIEWED FOR SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE.
AS A RESULT OF THE INCREASING NUMBER OF OPERATING REACTORS, MORE OPEPATOR EXAMINATIONS MUST BE CONDUCTED.
ALSO, FOR NEW OPERATING PLANTS WE NEED RESOURCES TO CONTINUE TO CONDUCT RESIDENT, REGION-BASED AND PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TEAM
+
!,. u
_g_
't INSPECT!dNS, TO ANALYZE OPERATIONAL DATA, TO SYSTEMATICALLY APPRAlbE LICENSEE PERF'bPNANCE, TOs ISSUE BUL'LETINS AND ORDERS, i
e TO PROCESS ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, TO EVALUATE EMERGENtY
\\
v s
PREPAREDNESS EXERCISES, AND TO PERFORM REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
- r REVIEWSONACONTINUING, BASIS.
WECONSIDERITESSENTIALkHAT'ALLTHEFOREGOINGOPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES CONTT.NUE AT THEIR PRESENT LEVEL OF EFFORT.
IN OUR BUDGET REQUEST, WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THIS BY REALLOCATING 1
RESOURCES BASED ON OUR PROJECTED LICENSING SCHEDULE, I.E. AT THE POINT WHERE PLANTS ARE PROJECTED TO BE LICENSED, THE ASSOCIATED RESOURCES ARE THEN SHIFTED TO MONITOR THE COMMENSUPATE INCREASES IN NEW OPERATING FACILITIES.
IF OUR f
BUDGET WERE TO BE REDUCED FURTHER, TO THE POINT WHERE WE WOULD HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO CUT BACK SOME OF OUR OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE BEEN STRENGTHENED IN RECENT YEARS, SAFETY COULD BE ADVERSELY IMPACTED.
IN ADDITION, I WOULD EMPHASIZE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT THE NRC HAS IMPORTANT REGULATORY FUNCTIONS IN OTHER AREAS AS WELL, SUCH l
AS, SAFEGUARDS, EXPORTS, TRANSPORTATION, MATERIALS LICENSING (THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 9000 ACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSES),
j URANIUM RECOVERY, AND A WIDE SPECTRUM OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.
THESE MANDATORY ACTIVITIES MUST CONTINUE AND REQUIRE NRC RESOURCES APART FROM NRC'S LICENSING RESPONSIBILITIES FOR OPERATING PLANTS.
RESEARCH PROGRAM FUNDING LEVEL OUR SECOND MAJOR CONCERN IS THE EXTENT TO WHICH WE HAVE HAD TO CUT BACK OUP RESEARCH PROGRAM OVER THE YEARS.
IN FY 1986 PESEARCH FUNDING WILL BE DOWN MORE THAN $85 MILLION FROM FY 1981 - ABOUT A 40% REDUCTION.
YOU CAN SEE BY THE CHART AT APPENDIX A THAT IN TERMS OF CONSTANT DOLLARS OUR RESEARCH BUDGET WILL BE SLIGHTLY LOWER IN FY 1986 THAN IT WAS WHEN THE AGENCY WAS FORMED 10 YEARS AGO.
L
WE HAVE HAD TO REDUCE RESEARCH FUNDS BECAUSE THE MAGNITUDE OF l
THE BUDGET CUTS WE HAVE TAKEN, COUPLED WITH THE REQUIREMENT TO ABSORB PAY RAISES AND OTHER INCREASED COSTS, HAS LEFT US ESSENTIALLY NO OTHER CHOICE.
BASICALLY, WE HAVE TWO TYPES OF PROGRAMMATIC FUNDS -- FUNDS USED TO LICENSE FACILITIES AND MONITOR THEIR CURRENT OPERATION AND RESEARCH FUNDS WHICH ARE USED PRIMARILY TO DEAL WITH ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROBLEMS.
WE HAVE LITTLE OR NO FLEX 1BILITY WITHIN THE NON-RESEARCH COMPONENT; THESE FUNDS SUPPORT OUR SAFETY, SAFEGUARDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS OF LICENSE APPLICATIONS, INSPECTIONS, THE RESOLUTION OF SAFETY ISSUES, THE REVIEW OF LICENSING ACTIONS, AND MANY OTHEP NECESSARY ONGOING ACTIVITIES.
THUS, TO STAY CURRENT WITH OUR DAY-TO-DAY REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES, RESEARCH HAS HAD TO ABSORB THE MAJOR PORTION OF OUR CUTBACKS.
A STABLE, CONTINUING PROGRAM OF RESEARCH IS ESSENTIAL F0P THE COMMISSION TO CARRY OUT ITS RESPONSIBILITIES.
OUR RESEARCH PROGRAM PROVIDES US WITH THE KIND OF SOUND TECHNICAL INFORMATION WE NEED TO DEAL EFFECTIVELY WITH EMERGING COMPLEX TECHNICAL ISSUES.
WHEN INFORMATION DEVELOPED BY OUR RESEARCH PROGRAM IS LACKING, WE OFTEN HAVE TO REQUIRE FACTORS OF SAFETY TO COMPENSATE FOR OUP LACK OF KNOWLEDGE.
IF, AS IS OFTEN THE CASE, SUCH FACTORS ARE OVERLY CONSERVATIVE, AN UNNECESSARY BUPDEN MAY BE PLACED ON THE INDUSTRY AND THE PUBLIC, ABSENT NEEDED SAFETY INFORMATION DEVELOPED BY OUR OWN RESEARCH PROGRAM, WE COULD BE FORCED INTO A VERY UNDESIRABLE REGULATORY POSTURE -- ONE THAT COULD REQUIRE THE NRC TO EITHEF. SHUT DOWN SOME OPERATING FACILITIES OR DELAY LICENSING OTHERS UNTIL THE NECESSARY TECHNICAL DATA HAVE BEEN OBTAINED TO RESOLVE IDENTIFIED SAFETY ISSUES.
EITHER ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE MORE COSTLY TO THE PUBLIC THAN THE ADEQUATE FUNDING OF OUR RESEARCH PROGRAM.
_ 13 -
THIS IS NOT A HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENT.
THE FOLLOWING SAFETY ISSUES ARE TWO GOOD EXAMPLES OF RECENT RESEARCH PROGRAM
- BENEFITS, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, THE AVAILABILITY OF NRC RESEARCH IN MATERIALS AND THERMAL HYDRAULICS COUPLED WITH RISK ANALYSIS METHODS FOR PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK CONTRIBUTED TO A DECISION THAT AVOIDED THE UNNECESSARY SHUTDOWN OF SEVERAL REACTORS.
THE SECOND INVOLVED CRACKS IN BOILING WATER REACTOR PIPES.
- AGAIN, AVAILABLE NRC RESEARCH RESULTS MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO MAKE PROMPT TECHNICAL DECISIONS THAT PRECLUDED LONG PLANT SHUTDOWNS.
THE NRC IS REALLY THE ONLY ORGANIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES THAT HAS SUSTAINED THE TECHNICAL BASE NEEDED TO ASSURE THE SAFE
' OPERATION OF LIGHT WATER REACTORS,
~
NRC ORGANIZATION THE THIRD AREA 0F SPECIAL INTEREST IS WITH THE NRC ORGANIZATION, THE COMMISSION IS CONTINUING TO CONSIDER POSSIBLE READJUSTMENTS IN NRC'S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND THE USE OF STAFF IN AN EFFORT TO USE AGENCY RESOURCES MORE EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY, AND POSSIBLY TO REDUCE FURTHER THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE REPORTING DIRECTLY TO THE COMMISSION.
ANY ECONOMIES WE MIGHT ACHIEVE WILL BE APPLIED TO MEET OUR HIGHEST PRIORITY ACTIVITIES THAT CANNOT BE FUNDED TODAY.
ONE OF THE OFFICES THAT CURRENTLY REPORTS TO THE COMMISSION IS THE OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (01).
WHETHER OR NOT THIS OFFICE SHOULD CONTINUE TO REPORT TO THE COMMISSION IS A MATTER STILL UNDER CONSIDERATION.
UNTIL NOW, IT HAS REMAINED AT OR BELOW THE STAFFING LEVEL OF 38 THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BACK IN 1982.
WE HAVE INCLUDED SIX MORE FTE FOR OI IN FY 1986.
1 e -
~
_ 15 _
BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS WE REFER YOU NOW TO APPENDIX B WHICH IS A RESOURCE
SUMMARY
FOR OUR MAJOR BUDGET CATEGORIES.
RESOURCES FOR OUR NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION PROGRAM WILL BE ABOUT THE SAME IN FY 1986 AS THEY ARE IN FY 1985.
WITHIN THE PROGRAM, HOWEVER, THERE WILL BE SOME SIGNIFICANT ADJUSTMENTS.
WHILE PESOURCES DEVOTED TO REACTOR LICENSING WILL DECREASE AS MORE OPERATING LICENSES ARE ISSUED, RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS WILL INCREASE F0P SAFETY RELATED LICENSING ACTION REVIEWS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS COMMENSURATE WITH THE INCREASING NUMBER OF OPERATING REACTORS.
FOR EXAMPLE, MORE LICENSING ACTIONS ARE PLANNED FOR OPERATING PLANTS IN FY 1986 THAN IN FY 1985.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO CONDUCT AN ACTIVE REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATION PROGPAM, COMPLETE THE RESOLUTION OF MORE UNRESOLVED AND HIGH PRIORITY GENERIC SAFETY AND HUMAN FACTORS
ISSUES, AND WORK ON INITIATIVES RELATED TO SEVERE ACCIDENTS AND SAFETY GOALS.
THE RESOURCES PROPOSED FOR OUR INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM IN FY 1986 INCLUDE AN INCREASE IN FTE WHILE FUNDING STAYS ESSENTIALLY LEVEL.
WE ARE EXPANDING THE RESIDENT INSPECTOR PROGRAM TO INCLUDE A SECOND RESIDENT AT CONSTRUCTION SITES, AT REACTORS WHILE IN PRE-OPERATIONAL TESTING AND AT ABOUT ONE-HALF OF THE SINGLE UNIT OPERATING SITES.
THIS ACTION WILL SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE ON-SITE INSPECTION TIME.
SOME OF THE QUALITY ASSUPANCE INITIATIVES PRESENTED TO CONGRESS IN FY 1984 WILL BE DEVELOPED FOR APPLICATION TO OPERATING PLANTS AND TO THOSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, BUT INITIATIVES RELATED ONLY TO FUTURE APPLICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTING NUCLEAR PLANTS WILL NOT BE PURSUED BECAUSE OF RESOURCE LIMITATIONS.
OTHER INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS WILL BE RETAINED AT ESSENTIALLY THEIR FY 1985 LEVELS.
- 17 IN THE NUCLEAR MATERIALS SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS PROGRAM, FUNDING WILL REMAIN ESSENTIALLY LEVEL IN FY 1986 WHILE FTE WILL INCREASE TO ACCOMPLISH NUMEROUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.
FOREMOST AMONG THESE ARE EXTENSIVE PREAPPLICATION REVIEWS OF DOE SITE INVESTIGATIONS, ANALYSES OF DOE'S SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLANS FOR THREE POTENTIAL REPOSITORY SITES, AND RULEMAKING TO AMEND REGULATIONS TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREVENTS OF THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT, ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ALSO ARE REQUESTED TO IDENTIFY AND RESOLVE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH SPENT FUEL SHIPMENT AND STORAGE.
OTHER EFFORTS IN FY 1986 INCLUDE COMPLETION OF THOUSANDS OF FUEL CYCLE AND NUCLEAR MATEPIAL LICENSING CASES AND THE CONDUCT OF A LIMITED NUMBEP OF OPERATING REACTOR SAFEGUARDS REGULATORY EFFECTIVENESS REVIEWS.
THE RESOURCES OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH PROGRAM WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED IN FY 1986.
OUR COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS WITH THE U.S. NUCLEAR INDUSTRY AND FOREIGN PARTNERS
WILL BECOME INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT IN LIGHT OF CURRENT FISCAL CONSTRAINTS.
NRC RESEARCH WILL FOCUS PRIMARILY ON THE FOLLOWING:
AGING: TO CHARACTERIZE THE DEGRADATION OF BOTH EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURES IMPORTANT TO SAFE OPERATION OF REACTORS.
SOURCE TERMS: TO USE ENGINEERED DATA AS THE TECHNICAL BASES FOR REGULATORY ACTIONS REGARDING EMERGENCY PLANN!flG AND SITING GUIDELINES.
SEVEPE ACCIDENTS: TO CONTINUE RESEARCH IN SUCH AREAS AS SEVERE ACCIDENT SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DAMAGED FUEL, AND FISSION PRODUCT RELEASE IN OPDER TO PROVIDE A SOUND TECHNICAL BASIS FOR DECISIONS NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT NRC'S SEVERE ACCIDENT POLICY.
_ 19 -
WASTE MANAGEMENT: TO CONDUCT RESEARCH ON DEVELOFMENT OF TOOLS FOR EVALUATING DOE'S PROPOSED NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY.
THERMAL / HYDRAULICS: TO ASSESS COMPUTER CODES USED BY LICENSING STAFF TO EVALUATE THE SAFETY RESPONSE OF THE VARIOUS U.S. DESIGNED PLANTS TO A WIDE RANGE OF TRANSIENTS AND ACCIDENTS.
AND SEISMIC ANALYSIS: TO DETERMINE THE PREDICTABILITY OF LEVELS OF SEISMIC EVENTS AT REACTOR SITES, TO PREDICT THE RESPONSE OF THE SITE AND THE PLANT TO THESE EVENTS, AND TO DETERMINE THE POSSIBILITY OF COMPONENT FAILURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH FAILURE ON PLANT SAFETY.
TIGHT FISCAL CONSTRAINTS MAKE IT IMPERATIVE THAT DECISIVE ACTION BE TAKEN TO IMPROVE NRC'S EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS.
IN THIS REGAPD, I WANT TO NOW ADDRESS THE CONTINUING FROBLEM OF i
NRC BUILDING CONSOLIDATION AND MY PERSONAL VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE NRC CHAIRMAN'S AUTHORITY.
BUILDING CONSOLIDATION AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE FOR TEN YEARS BEEN HINDEPED BY THE EXPENSIVE AND TIME CONSUMING PROCESS OF TRAVELING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN OUR VARIOUS LOCATIONS.
WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH GSA TO FIND A WAY THAT WOULD PERMIT US TO CONSOLIDATE.
HOWEVER, CONSOLIDATION HAS NOT YET MATERIALIZED.
THUS, WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE MANDATE CONSOLIDATION NOT LATER THAN THE END OF FY 1986 IN A SINGLE LOCATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN BETHESDA, MARYLAND.
THE MANDATE SHOULD INCLUDE WHATEVER FUNDING PROVISIONS ARE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE FULL CONSOLIDATION BY THAT TIME.
CHAIRMAN'S AUTHORITY BEFORE CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT BRIEFLY ON THE SUBJECT OF THE NRC CHAIRMAN'S AUTHORITY.
MY REMARKS ARE PERSONAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE COLLECTIVE VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION.
ON JANUARY 23, 1985 I REPORTED TO THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT ON WHAT I THINK SHOULD BE DONE TO IMPROVE THE CURRENT COMMISSION STPUCTURE.
THAT REPORT ALSO ADDRESSED LIMITATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF COMMISSION BUSINESS AS A RESULT OF THE SUNSHINE ACT AND EX PARTE CONSIDERATIONS.
WITH YOUR PERMISSION, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MY REPORT MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.
I ESPECIALLY URGE YOU TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSED SINGLE ADMINISTRATOR CONCEPT.
I FURTHER URGE YOU TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION ALONG THIS LINE.
IN MY OPINION, IT WOULD BE ONE OF
1 THE MOST IMPORTANT ACTIONS THE CONGRESS COULD TAKE TO MAKE THE AGENCY FUNCTION MORE EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY.
1987 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BIENNIAL AUTHORIZATION PROCEDURES, THE NRC ALSO IS PROVIDING FY 1987 PLANNING ESTIMATES.
THESE PLANNING ESTIMATES WOULD INCREASE AGENCY FUNDING TO $460 MILLION AND HOLD STAFFING TO THE FISCAL YEAR 1986 LEVEL.
OVERALL FUNDS FOR EACH OF OUR MAJOR PROGRAMS WOULD INCREASE MODERATFLY TO MEET EXPANDING PROGRAMMATIC REQUIREMENTS DURING THAT YEAR.
AS OUR DETAILED BUDGET REQUEST INDICATES, THIS AMOUNT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY OMB.
WE WILL NEED TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
. : D.
CONCLUDING REMARKS THE DETAILS OF OUR BUDGET REQUEST ARE CONTAINED IN OUR BUDGET SUBMISSION, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED TO THE SUBCOMMIT'EE.
THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS ENCLOSED IN YOUR LETTER OF INVITATION AP.E ATTACHED.
IN CLOSING, LET US REEMPHASIZE THAT THE BUDGET REQUEST SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS REPRESENTS A MINIMUM PROGRAM IN THE VIEW OF THE COMMISSION.
WE UPGE YOUR STR0flG SUPPORT FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF OUR REQUEST.
1
TOTAL ESEM01 (BLIGATIG6 500 l
P 400 g
i I
I
- 300 E
s
~
3
~
l l*
.,=**' * %%'N.
ACTigt l
200 c
g.................................................,,,,,,,,,,
~
r.,,,,,,o r
IN CDNST M py75
- ..g,
'888....
33g4 i
i I
l i
i i
i i
i o
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 i
FISCAL YEAR i.
APPENDIX B BUDGET RESOURCE SUP. MARY 1/
PROGRAMS FYl%5 EST.
FY1986 FY1987 FTE FTE FTE NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 718 91.2 718 88.9 706 95.5 INSFECTION Abo ENFORCEMENT 1096 93.3 1142 92.9 1158 101.3 NUCLEAR PAT'L SAFETY & SFGDS 350 40.3 370 40.7 370 44.9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH 230 150.1 208 136.0 208 145.8 PPOGRAM TECHNICAL SUPPORT 365 31.3 352 29.3 348 30.0 PROGRAM DIRECTICN 8 ADMIN H2 43.4 701 41.2 701 42.5 3491 449.6 3491 429.0 3491 460.0 1/DOLLARSAREEXPRESSEDINMILLIONS.
p QJESTION 3.
THE COMISSION HAS NOW RECEIVED THE RESULTS OF'WE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY'S PEER REVIEW OF THE SOURCE TERM RESEARCH. 4{AT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE APS CONCLUSIONS?
HOW DO THESE CONCLUSIONS COMPARE TO THE RESULTS OF THE AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY AND "IDCOR" REVIEWS? IN ADDITION, WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP IN OUR EFFCRT TO GAIN A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE POTEfEIAL RADI0 ACTIVE RELEASE IN THE EVEfR OF AN ACCIDENT, AND WHAT IMPACT DO YOU THINK THE APS REPORT WILL HA'E ON THE LEVEL OF RESEARCH FUNDING REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THE REMAINING UNCERTAINTIES?
ANSWER.
THE APS REPCRT CONCLUDED THAT THE NEW SOURCE TEPP CALCULA-TIONS IFOICATE THAT FOR MANY OF THE WAYS IN WHICH A SE'EPE NUCLEAR REACTOR ACCIDENT MIGHT OCCUR, THE QUANTITY OF RADIONUCLIDES THAT WOULD REACH THE ENVIRONMEfC IS MUCH LOWER THAN THAT PREDICTED 10 YEARS AGO IN THE REACTOR SAFETY STUDY (RSS). THEY NOTE, HOWEVEF, E AT FOR SOME SEQUENCES, ONE MECHANISM, THE RELEASE OF NON-VOLATILE RADIONLCLIDES IN THE CORE-CONCRETE INTERACTION, MIGH INCREASE THE RADIONUCLIDE RELEASE AB0VE THOSE CALCULATED IN THE RSS. BECAUSE OF THIS l
QUESTION 3.
(CONTINUED) CONCERN AND SEVERAL OTHERS, THEY NOTED THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE A SWEEPING GENERALIZATION ABOUT THE LOWEPING OF THE SOURCE TERM ESTIMATES.
IhE OVERALL CONCLUSIONS OF THE AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY (ANS) PEVIEW WERE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE APS Wim no IMFORTANT EXCEPTIONS. FIRST, WHEPEAS W E ANS QUOTED A RANGE OF SOURCE TERM REDUCTION FACTORS THAT WOULD APPLY TO MOST SEQUENCES, THE APS FELT THEY COULD NOT ARRIVE AT SUCH FACTOPS AT THIS TIME, AND HENCE, DID NOT INCLUDE SUCH FACTORS Irl THEIR C0f!CLUS10NS. SECOND, THE ANS PEVIEW DID NOT EXPLORE THE DETAILS OF THEIP "FOR MOST SEQUENCES" QUALIFIER. HOWEVER, THE APS REVIEW DISCUSSED IN CONSIDERABLE DETAll THE TECHNICAL REASOf!S FOR THEIR QUALIFYING CONCERNS, TOGETHER WITH AN IDENTIFICATION OF THE RESEARCH INFCFFAT10tl NEEDED TO ADDPESS AND RESrLVE THESE CCNCERNS. IHE CCNCLU-S10NS OF THE IDCOR STUDY POSTULATES ACPOSS-THE-BOARD REDUC-TIONS IN SOURCE TERMS WITHOUT QUALIFICATION FOR THE REFERENCE PLANTS STUDIED. THE IDCOR CONCLUSIONS DO NOT REFLECT THE MAJOR TECHNICAL CONCERNS NOTED BY THE APS REVIEW BECAUSE THE ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE IDCOR ANALYSIS HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED BY NRC CONTRACTORS WHOSE ANALYSIS AND USE OF f:EW DATA HAVE GONE FURTHER THAN IDCOR.
RESTIM 3.
(CONTINUED).
THE NEXT STEP IN OUR EFFORT TO GAIN A BETTER Ut0ERSTAf0!tG OF THE POTENTIAL RADICACTIVE RELEASE IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT WILL BE THE REDUCTION IN THE REPAINING AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY IN MODELING KEY ACCIDENT PHENOMENA BY THE USE OF ADDITIONAL DATA FROM EXPERIPENTS NOW IN PROGRESS AND COMPLE-TION OF THE VALIDATION OF THE SOURCE TERM METHODOLOGY, AS REC 0tPENDED BY THE APS.
THE CURRENT LEVEL OF FUNDING IN FY 85 AND THE LEVEL PROPOSED FOR FY 86 IS IN ABOUT THE RIGHT RANGE TO CARRY OUT THE RESEARCH PROGRAM NOW IN PLACE AND THE RESEARCH PLANNED TO ADDRESS THE REMAINING SOURCE T RM UNCERTAINTIES; POWEVER
~
m !S IS STILL BEING EVALUATED, IT IS NOT EXPECTED THAT LARGE INCREASES IN FUt0 LNG WILL BE REQUIRED. $@E STRETCH OUT CF THE PROGPM MAY BE NECESSARY. ANY FURTHER REDUCTION IN THE PROPOSED FY 86 FUNDING LEVEL WILL NOT PERMIT US TO ADDRESS THE ret %INING UNCERTAINTIES NOTED IN THE APS REPORT.
IN FY 87 A SMALL INCREASE (ABOUT 107.) OVER THE FY 86 LEVEL WILL BE NEEDED TO ACCOMPLISH THESE SOURCE TERM RESEARCH OBJECTIVES.
.~
QlESTION 5:
THE APS STUDY SUGGESTS THAT NRC CONTRACTORS DID NOT ADDRESS CERTAIN TECfNICAL AREAS (E.G., REVAPORIZATION PHENOMENA) IN SUFFI-CIENT DEPTH. OTHER AREAS (E.G., RESUSPENSION PHENOMENA) WERE NOT ADDRESSED AT ALL.
I UNDERSTAND THAT OTHER STUDIES--INCLUDING THE IDCOR STUDY--FOCUSES ON BOTH ISSUES IN SOE DETAIL.
IF CORRECT, WHY DIDN'T THE CHARTER FOR THE APS REVIEW DIRECT THE APS TO EX#11NE A BROADER BASE OF TECFNICAL DATA IN REACHING ITS CONCLUSIONS?
ANSWER.
THE APS REVIEW DID EXAMINE A BROAD BASE OF TECHNICAL DATA ON SOURCE TEPM AND IN FACT INCLUDED A REVIEW OF THE IDCOR STUDY ALONG WITH THE QUESTION OF REVAPORIZATION AND PESUSPENSION.
APS CONCLUDED THAT THE DATA BASE FOR THESE PHEt0MENA WEPE IftADEQUATE TO SUPPORT CONCLUSIONS BASED SOLELY UPON ANALYSIS.
THE NRC CONTRACTORS RECOGNIZE THAT FURTHER WORK VOULD BE NECESSARY IN THIS AREA.
NRC HAS RESEAPCH PROGP#1S PLANNED TO ADDRESS THESE PHENOMEFA.
c *-
QUESTION 4 THE APS STUDY EMPHASIZES CERTAIN AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY (E.G., THE INTERACTION OF MOLTEN CORE AND CONCRETE) ON SOURCE TERM CALCULA-TIONAL METHODOLOGIES.
DID APS GO THE NEXT STEP TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THESE UNCER-TAINTIES ON PUBLIC RISK?
I UNDERSTAND THAT INDUSTRY-SPONSORED STUDIES ADDRESSED THE PUBLIC RISK FOR THIS SCENARIO AND HAVE CONCLUDED:
(1) IT IS A VERY IMPROBABLE SCENARIO AND (2) THE POTENTIAL SCENARIO WOULD OCCUR VERY LATE IN AN ACCIDENT SEQUENCE WITH LITTLE, IF ANY, PUBLIC CONSEQUENCES. PLEASE COMMENT.
ANSWER.
APS DID NOT GO SO FAR AS TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THE UNCERTAINTIES ON PUBLIC RISK.
THEY WERE ASKED TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THE FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE BASE THAT NRC HAD DEVELOPED TO EVALUATE SOURCE TERMS.
PUBLIC RISK INVOLVES THE PROBABILITY OF THE EVENT OCCURRING COMBINED WITH THE ESTIMATED CONSEQUENCES OF THE EVENT.
PROF. WILSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE APS STUDY GROUP, SPECIFICALLY SAID "WE DID NOT LOOK AT THOSE PROBABILITIES EXCEPT INSOFAR AS WE ASKED, HAS THE SELECTION OF SEQUENCES FOR STUDY CHOSEN BY THE NRC STAFF AND
' QUESTION 4,.
CONTRACTORS, WAS THAT A SENSIBLE CHOICE.
AND WE FELT ON THE WHOLE IT WAS A SENSIBLE CHOICE." WHAT APS DID INDICATE AS AN AREA 0F POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WERE THE CORE-CONCRETE INTER-ACTIONS AND THE BEHAVIOR OF FISSION PRODUCTS. HOW MUCH EMPHASIS IS PLACED ON THESE EVENTS BY THE REGULATORY STAFF BECOMES A JUDGMENT THAT REQUIRES A LOOK AT THE QUESTION OF ACCIDENT SEQUENCE AND CONTAINMENT FAILURE PROBABILITIES.
IF A REGULATORY DECISION WERE TO BE MADE TO ASSUME AN ACCIDENT HAPPENS REGARDLESS, THEN THERE WOULD BE A NEED FOR MORE COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THESE PHENOMENA.
HOWEVER, NRC FEELS A RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSIDER IN EACH CASE THE PROBABILITIES OF AN ACCIDENT SEQUENCE COMBINED WITH CONTAINMENT FAILURE.
THE NEED TO DO A RESEARCH PROGRAM TO EVALUATE THE BEHAVIOR IN THAT SEQUENCE SHOULD BE IN PROPORTION TO THE PROBABILITY OF THE SEQUENCE. APS WAS NOT CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSIDER THESE PROBABILITIES.
NFC SPONSORED PROBABILITY ANALYSES HAVE REVEALED THAT IN SOME CASES THESE UNLIKELY EVENTS CAN RESULT IF SUFFICIENTLY SEVERE CONSEQUENCES SUCH THAT PUBLIC RISK COULD BE HIGH.
IN CERTAIN CASES OF LOW PROBABILITY SCENARIOS IN BWR'S THERE IS A SEQUENCE WHICH COULD RESULT IN RADIONUCLIDE RELEASE EARLY IN THE ACCIDENT SEQUENCE.
NRC PLANS TO FOCUS PART OF ITS SAFETY RESEARCH ON THESE AREAS AND WILL RELY ON THE FORTHCOMING L
- QUESTION 4,
s RESULTS TO CLOSE THESE ISSUES AND ESTABLISH REGULATORY POLICY.
c l
l l
i l
l l
l l
L
{
I l
QlESTION 5:
THE APS STUDY SUGGESTS THAT NRC CONTRACTORS I
DID NOT ADDRESS CERTAIN TECm! CAL AREAS l
(E.G., REVAPORIZATION PHENOMENA) IN SUFFI-CIEf,7 DEPTH. OTHER AREAS (E.G., RESUSPENSION PHENOMENA) WERE NOT ADDRESSED AT ALL.
I UNDERSTAND THAT OTHER STUDIES--INCLUDlfJG THE IDCOR STUDY--FOCUSES ON BOTH ISSUES IN SOME I
DETAIL.
IF CORRECT, WHY DIDN'T THE CHARTER FOR THE APS REVIEW DIRECT THE APS TO EXAMINE A BROADER BASE OF TECHNICAL DATA IN REACHING ITS CONCLUSIONS?
ANSWER.
THE APS REVIEW DID EXAMIf1E A BROAD BASE OF TECHNICAL DATA ON SOURCE TEPM AND IN FAC' INCLUDED A PEVIEW OF THE IDCOR STUDY ALONG WITH THE QUESTION OF REVAPORIZATION AND PESUSPENS!0fi.
APS CONCLUDED THAT THE DATA BASE FOR THESE PHEfl0MENA WEPE
!!%DEQUATE TO SUPPORT C0flCLUS!0NS BASED SOLELY UPON ANALYSIS.
l THE NRC CONTRACTORS RECOGNIZE THAT FURTHER WORK WOULD BE NECESSARY IN THIS AREA. NRC HAS RESEAPCH PROGP#1S PLANNED TO ADDRESS THESE PHENOMEFA.
SIMPSON/RES 3/22/85 m
~
QLESTION 13.
(B)
IN YlEW OF NRC'S INTEREST IN CONTINUED 4
TESTS AT PBF, HOW CAN THIS FACILITY BE BEST USED TO ADDRESS THE RESEARCH NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN THE APS STUDY?
ANSWER NRC HAS COMPLETED ITS TEST PROGRM AT PBF CONCLUDING A SUCCESSFUL FOUR TEST SERIES OF SEVERE FUEL DAMAGE TESTS IN FEBRUARY 1985. NRC IS PLANNING TO COMPLETE THE IN-REACTOR PORTION OF ITS SEVERE FUEL DMAGE INFORMATION NEEDS PROGRAM IN THE MORE COST EFFECTIVE ANNULAR CORE RESEARCH REACTOR IN NEW ltXICO AND THE NRU RESEARCH REACTOR IN CANADA. BECAUSE OF RESOURCE LIMITATIONS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY IN THE ANSWERS l
TO QUESTION 3 AND THE A. PORTION OF THIS QUESTION, NRC IS UNABLE TO CONTINUE CARRYING THE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OPERATION OF THE PBF REACTOR.
4 s
QUESTION 43.
(B)
IN VIEW OF NRC'S INTEREST IN CONTINUED TESTS AT PBF, HOW CAN THIS FACILITY BE BEST USED TO ADDRESS THE RESEARCH NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN THE APS STUDY?
ANSWER NRC HAS COMPLETED ITS TEST PROGRAM AT PBF CONCLUDING A SUCCESScVL FOUR TEST SERIES OF SEVERE FUEL DAMAGE TESTS IN FEBRUARY 1985. NRC IS PLANNING TO COMPLETE THE IN-REACTOR PORTION OF ITS SEVERE FUEL D/MGE INFORMATION NEEDS PROGRAM IN THE MORE COST EFFECTIVE ANNULAR CORE RESEARCH REACTOR IN NEW ltXICO AND THE NRU RESEARCH REACTOR IN CANADA. BECAUSE OF RESOURCE LIMITATIONS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY IN THE ANSWERS TO QUESTION 3 AND THE A. PORTION OF THIS QUESTION, NRC IS UNABLE TO CONTINUE CARRYING THE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OPERATION OF THE PBF REACTOR.
.