ML20148M799
| ML20148M799 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/26/1978 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF POLICY EVALUATIONS (OPE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148M724 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012240056 | |
| Download: ML20148M799 (82) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ ama 4 y g(
~
eg '
\
=; 7_- -
ig 4i imm"* "h, miu k M .
&l k .
i 9 gg! @M 9 - iww b M{ EiW"A
.i N hb Hjj_
i " 1 4 --
)I =
l-g f fi 0FFICE OF POLICY EVALVATI0ti If N U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- l BRIEFING BOOK h
May 26, 1978 Volume I g.. . I NRC General lh Nuclear Economics / Environmental Effects N-Licensing Process
, i k
Reactor Safety Domestic Safeguards [ THIS DOCULiENT CONTAINS P OR QUALITY PAGES 't 80.12eoo05b ,
. 6 b.0
.. .. h ,rr > NRC BRIEFING BOOK -- TABLE OF CONTENTS i n 'E il Volume I -
- e. .
l. I. NRC GENERAL
- 1. Legislative mandate H
- 2. Regulatory Overview
- 3. General Organizational Information -
- 4. Budget H
- 5. NRC License Fees
- 6. Regulatioa of Nuclear Medicine ij
- 7. Transportation of Nuclear Fuel and Waste R
- 8. Abnormal Occurrences
- 9. Equal Opportunity Employment at NRC
- 10. NRC Essential Uninterruptible Functions
- 11. Dissent and Internal Cont.unications ?
II. NUCLEAR EC)S0MICS AND EN\'IRONMENTAL EFFECTS j
- 1. Relative Costs of E1cetrical Energy Generation
- 2. Relative Mealth Effects of Coal and Nuclear Fuel Cycles
- 3. Uranium Reserves / Resources
- 4. The Price-Anderson Act III. REACTOR LICENSING PROCESS
- 1. Background and Nature of the Nuclear Power Reactor Licensing Process
- 2. Improvements in Place and in Progress '
- 3. Opportunities for Further Improvement
- 4. Standardi zation
- 5. Early Site Review
- 6. Status of Nucicar Power Plants IV. REACTOR SAFETY .-
l
- 1. Siting d 2 Design, Construction, and Operation )
- 3. Safety Issues
- 4. Feedback
- 5. Clinch River Breeder Reactor l
V. DOMESTIC SAFEGUARDS .I l
- 1. Domestic Safeguards 1
- 2. Major Safeguards Accomplishments since November 1976
- 3. Major Safeguards Objectives for FY 1978 4 Special Nuclear Material -- Public Reporting of Inventory Differer.:es
<2 q
, .m. , - +
i- 4 NRC GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS t- b s {. . s .=__
- 1. Legislative Mandate ,
- a. Summary of the Energy Reorgani:ation Act, as amended .
- 2. Regulatory Overview .
- 3. General Organizational-Information
- 4. Budget' g a Budget Summary and distribution of resources 5
- b. Zero-based budgeting at'NRC. .;
- c. Management by objectives, and the Five Year Plan a
- 5. NFC License Fees .
- 6. Regulation of Nuclear Medicine p.,
- 7. Transportation of Nuclear Fuel and Waste
.y .
- 8. Abnormal Occurrences ,
- 9. Equal Opportunity Employement at NRC )
- 10. NRC Essential IJninterruptible Functions .:
- 11. Dissent and Internal Communications j
?
von n f i
' if
- . j d
J.) s-
- d N
+..
l i l . . _ . . . -_ _
l - l 3
SUMMARY
OF THE ENERGY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED
- m. q Y
Title I es+.ablishes the Energy Research and Development Administration. (Under Section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, the functions of ERDA and its Administrator were transferred to the new Department of Energy.) Title II establishes the NRC, and is sumarized below. - Title II establishes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as an independent agency, headed by five Comissioners appointed by the President, con-firmed by the Senate, and serving staggered five year terms. 3
~
The licensing and regulatory functions of the former Atomic Energy . Comission are transferred to the NRC, including the Atomic Safety and p" Licensing Board and its Appeal Panel, the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards, and all other research and assessment functions relating to licensing and regulation. The NRC is granted licensing and regulatory jurisdiction over demon- . stration liquid metal fast breeder reactors, other demonstration com-mercial reactors, and facilities for the storage of high-level wastes. ; There is established an Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation with t_ jurisdiction over facilities, materials, and activities associated with F nuclear reactors. Specific tasks of NRR include licensing; review, h monitoring, and testing of safety and safeguards systems; evaluating the transportation and storage of high-level wastes. There is established an Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to regulate and license all facilities and materials associated with the - processing, transport, and handling of nuclear materials, to assure the safety of these facilities and materials, and to protect against threats, thefts, and sabotage. - There is established an Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research to engage in research activities necessary for the Commission's perfomance of its regulatory functions, and if necessary, contract for such research with qualified outside organization. ERDA (now doe) is required to cooperate with NRC in regulatory research and to furnish facilities and services. , There is established an Executive Director of Operations, who shall be appointed by the Commission; he shall not limit the ability of the o directors of component offices to communicate directly with the Commission. There are specified civil penalties for noncompliance with regulations ~':: ., and licenses (as per Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act). Regulations and requirements are to be posted at each licensed facility. l' i
i i . ERA Summary - 2 is .j
,=
k . The Commission was directed to conduct a national survey on possible nuclear energy center sites. The study was completed and a report (hUREG-0001) was submitted to Congress on January 19, 1976. NRC was directed to report quarterly to Congress on the date, location, h::
~
causes, consequences, and remedial actions taken with regard to abnormal occurrences. An abnormal occurrence is defined as an unscheduled event which is "significant from the standpoint of public health and safety." 71
=h The Commission was directed to present a report for submission to the Congress "as soon as possible after the end of each fiscal year." The general scope of the annual report is described. l I
Amendments i In the FY 1978 hRC Authorization Act, the ERA was amended to require a report on the NRC plan for action on the unresolved safety issues g relating to nuclear power plants, with subsequent annual progress reports to be included in each annual report. (The plan was published as NUREG-0410 on January 1, 1978.) ;
~
The FY 1978 Authorization Act added three additional statutory reporting requirements:
-- an annual report by the ACRS on the reactor safety research program (first report published in December 1977 as NUREG-0392);
-- a long-term plan for the developnent of improved safety systems for nuclear power plants (published April 22, 1978 as .
NUREG-0438);
-- a quarterly report on certain NRC personnel matters relating to hiring and promotion of women and minorities.
~
Congress is presently considering further amending the ERA to require an annual report on domestic safeguards -- the first year as a separate ' report and subsequent reports to be contained in the NRC annual report.
/
e
+e44p** e4 = M 4 5
I
, . m h
- REGULATORY OVERVIEW EU
~
0 ([- Utili:ation of nuclear energy -- or any other energy source -- involves ' both benefits and costs for the public. The benefits of nuclear energy include:
~
-- a considerable resource for generating electrical energy;
-- less environmental impact than other electrical energy resources (particularly with regard to mining, transport, ..-
land use, and air pollution); (s,
-- energy generation costs generally less than alternative pr .
resources (although initial capital costs are greater). [ "; c Unique costs of nuclear entergy include: [.
!v .
-- potential exposure of the public and the environment [.
to radioactive materials released by nuclear facilities - > or transport systems; L.
-- possible theft or diversion of nuclear materials for use '
in explosive or terrorist devices;
-- potential exposure of the public and the environment to long-lived radioactive wastes. . . . .
I': Sixty-eight nuclear power plants are now in operation in the United States, generating close to 12 percent of our electricity. Another 90 plants are under construction, and 41 are under construction permit , review. The increasing scale of nuclear power activities has been accompanied by a corresponding increase in public concern about risks. NRC's regu-latory process is intiended to reduce risks to the lowest levels reason-ably achievable. . NRC's regulatory process seeks to prevent the release of radioactive materials from nuclear facilities and transport systems by:
-- requiring nuclear facilities to be designed utilizing a
" defense-in-depth" approach, to ensure that radioactive releases will be prevented under all potential accident conditions - e.g. failure of materials, operator errors, natural or man-made disasters, and malevolent acts.
-- requiring nuclear facilities to limit radioactive effluents to levels "as low as reasonably achievable." ,
-- requiring nuclear facilities to control all radioactive
' wastes, and to dispose of them by shipment to storage facilities for which NRC sets and enforces safety standards. ,
l l ..
Regulatory Overview - 2 D o
-- requiring the containers for transporting nuclear materials )
to be designed to prevent release of radioactivity under the most severe accident conditions;
-- conducting inspection and enforcement activities which assure safe construction, installation, and operation of nuclear facilities and transport systems, e
Regulation of nuclear power plants assures protection of public health , and safety by requiring:
-- careful design, construction, and operation;
-- incorporation of systems to prevent or control malfunctions which would lead to accidents;
-- inclusion of systems to mitigate consequences of accidents;
-- appropriate siting with respect to population distribution.
Residual public risk appears to be comparable to or l'ss e than many other commonly-experienced risks, as estimated in the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400) . The record of hundreds of reactor-years of nuclear power plant operation supports (but does not prove) WASH-1400 estimates of the effectiveness of NRC's regulatory approach in protecting the public health and the environment. An extensive research effort, expanding inspection activities, and the application of risk assessment techniques continue to increase the level of confidence in reactor safety. Public concerns over nuclear risks have changed over the years, and the relative concern over regulatory issues has changed accordingly. Reactor safety is still an important issue, but has been overtaken by public concern about waste management and about safeguards against malevolent actions. Public concerns about waste management are being met through a greatly expanded NRC program to prepare for licensing and regulation of long-tem radioactive waste storage facilities. NRC staff is working closely with doe staff to assure that our standards and requirements will be appropriate for the facilities being developed by the doe. In addition, NRC has completed environmental impact studies on spent fuel storage and on uranium mill tailings, and is in the midst of a long-range program to examine options on the disposal of low-level waste. NRC's regulatory program to deter, protect, promptly detect, and respond to theft or diversion of nuclear materials or to malevolent acts in- . cludes the following: ?
. u
-- expanded personnel clearance program; i
-- upgraded physical security measures; 1
-- materials control and accountability; ;
-- export controls. l 1 l 1
1
.:.., Regulatory Overview - 3 Continuing efforts to increase regulatory efficiency and decrease the .~..;.
effect of the licensing process on nuclear facility lead times include: - l -- earlier and more effective public, State, and local participation in the regulatory review process; E:
-- improved internal procedures and comunications;
-- greater emphasis on resolving generic issues;
-- support of legislation to streamline the reactor licensing -
process. ;- 8 9 I i
- b. '
Y e.. e 4 9 s : t 3 p:, a- [,23
..)
e 9
.1 6
.j 4
~,
i 4 l a
..'I
- 1
.b
!!! !!i ,l l iti l I ,11111 r-
!I i
>i,! i, !" i, j
= l!11 .1
-l > !!i }UJ i1!Ill 3,31
- - ;;p.j or .
i .
= 111_- - 3 .,
c I!g !'j
' i!!
=n,..i
!!,l Illl !!!lll i ) i i !.! i
- iIji
- i. 1!11 .. ...!
Ji -
iiiii i!31 I! i _ . . .
- s
'l I !!!
13!lll ::!!: i;l
. _ sssss i:
!! l ! 8EEE5
~
r- lill -
,*]i
!l ,1 1ll ! {jj j!! - -!Il
!! PjlJ ..
i si !" ! ; i _ i!!j i
!!!nj -
i!I i!IaI i !j sa. I' 's . - i i i-I in 1 1 i , . l . .i is i ti! l} !! j-h1; ril fl !!ijil r
'j
~
! !!!jij 'l I g .... .
- i. .
s i,;.ij!ji li1 1 , 1 g m a ijiilill !!!!!] '. . E! !!i{j',1] !!1111 F el ritj v.1.1.1 r ,]. o i 3 i .= jj> is li
.i
- ilai r, ,
11111 ijji 3I _ !!!pl !! 3 il li1211 ri.1.11 r .
!i ! l.
,i.l.]
!=1 a i
!a= 1
[j] ! iij !! 3 is la s. teI j ii ji:} E I 5 -
.! p z.t it 31
, i
!!I.I i Oi i - !jj,ifi
=w -
m:
==!
~
5:tj,l rilI}i LA
'l ] j1
~
!!p!!}
lli! i . _ !!1.!! 3 9 I~ i il
!= Jih li]3!1 & I .
!!l'p ii I.
1-j
<O wU
~y d
s . a l
; h 2 7' l
!!!Il t's
~D O ..
i Z }-- d l
; L !!.Ill j - .= < H
- !!/>}1
!: -i. !!j11 ! d -i
'lljj 1 J -a i
sij, O l li.i
*i J w
M
-i I ~ .N i
i
1!< - I
.s li,I lllfiiigi i=
#~ 'IIIII rilIJ 3 -
yfi jj'!fp
'!!!tI. i E,p
. [I 1!jrjI '
i ji I
!. ' ~i 1:
- !llirri l
i,!j!!! =i "se ' iL nn ~ lllll l lI - i =1 s ffff l' I!
!! I i
ij;y r --- jj . 1; g ,II .
!;f i t I f [I
!II ( .f II fif fI 9 jt II lf ji [ I }
l flf - jjj _ g( ,
.lll l,i][ )(, )I
,li t gf II
#] j l', I] I!,
N I I I I ,
- i. 1 ,
i m r a s' i,uinu eilil a ;6!!i n rni a g' l l l lh l JIl ' l - II!
!f 3 I I f ! ! !<
,ia
->!!!'lI l!I[!l,!! lllli!I! l!!}fI!
I
!Il )IIIlfI!
hII !!l'!I r .in,pu > < i i i 'n i lll! j
.~
I
' f lI "
i l I I I I I i
!!H i!ijilj !!!)!,f!' l!!
I
-lll!!I _
'lrfj-
!i g l
- q. -
j
s uam 2D, UNITED STATES E(' s, a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 i.};y. Af ADVISORY COMMITTEE oN REACTOR SAFEGUARDS d f, , y # WASHINGTON, c. C. 20555
.]
ACRS MEMBERSHIP - May 21, 1978
'Ihe Advfsory Ccxmittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) is a statutory commit-tee established to advise the Ccrnmission on the safety aspects of proposed and existing nuclear facilities and the adequacy of proposed reactor safety standards, and to perform such other duties as the Ccruission may request. "..
f ?, CHAIPPAN: Dr. Stephen Lawroski, Senior Engineer, Chemical Engineerirg . Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois ,= VICE-CHAIRMAN: Dr. Max W. Carbon, Professor and Chairman of Nuclear ~ Engineering Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin Mr. Myer Bender, Director, Engineering Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee Mr. Jesse Ebersole, Head Nuclear Engineer, Division of Engineering Design, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee (retired) Mr. Harold Etherington, Consulting Engineer (Mechanical Reactor Engineer- i. ing), Jupiter, Florida
.~
Dr. Herbert S. Isbin, Profess.or, Chemical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota Prof. William Kerr, Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Director, Michi- t. gan Memorial-Phoenix Proj'ect, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan "" Dr. J. Carson Mark, Division Leader, Ics Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico (retired) E Dr. Dade W. Moeller, Professor of Engineering in Environmental Health, Chairman of Envirorrnental Health Sciences Dept. and Associate Director, the Kresge Center for Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts a Dr. David Okrent, Professor, School of Engineering and Applied Science, l University of California, Ics Angeles, California 0 Dr. Milton S. Plesset, Professor, Department of Engineering , Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California i 1 Dr. Paul G. Shewmon, Professor and Chairman of Metallurgical Engineerire q Department, Ohio State University, Colixbus, Ohio 1 l
]-l Dr. Chester P. Siess, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering, j University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois -l l
o00 l
l c;; i. 1: i!.} IC'BEPS OF THE A'IOMIC SAJETI AND LIQ!SD:G APPF'4 BOAPD 1 The persons listed belcu are all located at 529 E/M: . Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq. Dr. John H. Buck Michael Farrar, Esq. Richard S. Salzman, Esq. [.. Dr. W. Reed Johnson Jerome E. SharfIran, Esq. m-j I ! e i
. . . . , . . , ~.- . . ~ . . . .. . . .
.. . w
#ws"'c ;'o.,3 . UNt'TED STATES
'! V: .- - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .
k-[*d['[' j. Ef ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING, BOARD PANEL- {j 5.,. *Yb,(,p f
. . ,9 WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 d
*w,e* . ...
.d
.v .!
=
=
May 1,.1978 .
. . .c Mr. James R. Yore $
Chairman, ASLB Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission s Washington, D. C. 20555 ,'.l.,
?;
Tel: FTS 8-301/492-7814 . ' , .,N. M" Dr. George C.-Anderson
~
Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum- - Department of Oceanography Rte.'#3, Bnx 350A . 2 University of Washington Wckinsvill i, Georgia 30N7,7 Seattle, Washington 98195 Tel: FTS off-net' 8-404/769,-7097 : FTS off-not 8-206/543-5037 Tel: . FTS 5-392-648- , . Mr. Eugh K. Clark s< P. O. Box 127A ._ H Mrs. Elizabeth S. Bowers Kennedyville, Mary lar. i 21645 il Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Panel Tel: FTS off-net 8-301/348-5737 ' [.] F, U..-9. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Was Fingtori, D. C. 20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole - : Tel: FTS 8 301/492-7796 Atomic Safety & Licens2.ng Bd ' Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. John H. Brebbia Was'11ugton, D. C. 20555 Alston, Miller & Gr.ines Tel: FTS 8-301/492-7086 ; 15.00 M St.,,N. W., Suita 't000 a" ' nashington,. D. C.. 20036 M1, Frederic J. Covfal Tel: FTS off-net 8 ..M/::23-1300
. Atomic Safety & Licensing 2d. Pa'el n :
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co: mission :) 12 . R. Beecher Briggs TM.shington, D. C. 0555 - ri 110 Evans Lano Tel: iTS 8-301/492-7600 - , el Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 [,
"rel: FTS off-net 8-615/4S3-0436 Dr. Frechrick P. Cowan i 6152 N. Verde Trail, Apt. B-127 h1 "r. Glenn O. Bright Boca Raton, F1.czida 33433 ::
M omi c S a f e ty .7.- Licesing Bd. Panel Tel: F?3 of +' pet 305/302-2289 :j U. S. Nuc1?ar Regulatory Commission U
.Vas hing;,t o n , D. C. 20555 Dr. Franklin C. Dr.iber '
Tel: FI'S S-30./492 "774 Oc11ege of ih.rir.e Studies . University of Delaware Dr. A. Dixon Cal?.ihan Ne </ ark , De'.o. ware 19711 Union Carbi.ie Corporation Tel: FTS off-net 8-302/738-1212 . . P. O. Box Y , 3 Oak Ridge, Tennetee 37830 Mr. Val;ntine B. Deale - Tc. - RAS F-3 0-5470 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.' 9 FTS ofi-net 615/483-8611, Washirgton, D. C. 20036 i Extension 35470 Tel: FTS off-net 202/331-1590 l
..+
AA*, - --nEp-~L+,9 b ,S.-&, *S m - Eun- - 1&A4 L- y .Ea- - so- ,
, . =
s=
- ~
2- . . _
=
Mt'* Ealph S. Decker Mr. Andrew C.. Goodhope l Route 4, Box 190D 3320 Estelle Terrace - Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Wheaton, Maryland $0906' - rel:- FTS off-net 8-301/228-7921 Tel: FTS off-net 8-301/94G-9416- y. 5::: 7 Dr. Donald P. deSylva Dr. David B. Hall prof, of Biology & Living Resources 400' Circle Drive School of Marine L. Atmospheric Science Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 University of_ Miami Tel: 8-505/983-5813 Miami, Florida. 33149 , Tel: FTS off-net 8-305/350-7334 ' Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. r ~ Director, Bodega Marine LaboratoryE ' Mr. Michael A. Duggan University of California College of Business Administration P. O. Box 247 , University of Texas Bodega Bay, California 94923 ~. Austin, Texas 78712 Tel: FTS off-net 8-707/875-3511 Tel: FTS off-net E-512/471-3326 L; Dr. David L. Hetrick : . Dr. .Kenneth G. Elzinga Professor of Nuclear. Engineering- - , Department of Economics University of Arizona . University of Virginia Tucson, Arizona 85721 . Charlottesville, Va. 22901 Tel: FTS off-net 8-602/884-2514 Tel: FTS off-net 8-804/924-3179 " " " 8-602/884-2551 : 8-602/296-3419 D- George A.Ferguson . Sl ?>ol of Engineering Mr. Ernest E. Hill Howard University Lawrence Livermore Laboratory 2300-6th St., N. W. University of California Washington, D. C. 20001 P. O. Box 808, L-123-Tel: FTS off-net 8-202/636-6605 Livermore, California 94550 FTS 8-532-6750 Tel:
*Dr. Harry Foreman, Director FTS off-net 8-415/422-6750 ~
Center for Population Studies University of Minnesota Dr. Robert L. Holton . Minneapolis, Minnesota 55812 School of Oceanography Tel: FTS off-net 8-612/373-9656 Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331 MAILING ADDRESS: Tel: FTS off-net. 8-503/754-4172 Box 395, Mayo University of Minnesota Dr. Frank F. Hooper Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 School of Natural Resources
. Un' versity of Michigan Mr. Michael L. Glaser Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 1150-17th St., N. W. Tel: FTS off-net 8-313/764-6286 20036 Washington, D. C.
Tel: FTS off-net 8-202/872-0200 Mr. Samuel W. Jensch Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Panel $ U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissios Washington, D. C. 20555 Tel: FTS 8-301/492-7449
i '
- m;.
,5 :!j
}
=:-
F Mrs. Elizabeth B. Johnson *Dr. J. Venn Leeds. . O Union Carbide-Corporation Rice University Nuclear Division P. O. Box'1892 P. O. Box X Houston, Texas 77001 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Tel: FTS off-net 8-713/527-8101, Tel: FTS 8-850-0279 Extension 3575
.FTS off-net 8-615/483-8611 .
Extension 30279
- MAILING ADDRESS:
10807 Atwell ; Dr. Walter H. Jordan Houston, Texas 77096 7 881 W. Outer Drive Tel: FTS off-net 8-713/723-4485 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Tel: FTS off-net 8-615/483-1149 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Panel Mr. Lester Kornblith, Jr. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Panel Washington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tel: FTS 8 301/492-7838 Washington, D. C. 20555 Tol: FTS-8-301/492-7948 Dr. Linda W..Little Research Triangle Institute p
*Dr. James C. Lmnb, III P. O. Box 12194 ""
Dept. of Environmental Sciences Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27709[ and Engineering Tel: FTS off-net 919/541-6503 E U-;yersity of North Carolina ' C;i@el Hill, North Carolina 27514 Dr. M. Stanley Livingston Tel: FTS off-net 8-919/966-2488 1005 Calle Largo Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 _ $/
- MAILING ADDRESS: Tel: FTSoff-net 8-505/983-1482 313 Woodhaven Road .
Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Panel Mrs. Margaret M. Laurence U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Laurence, Stokes & Neilan Washington, D. C. 20555 2001 Jefferson Davis Highway Tel: FTS 8-301/492-7936 Arlington, Virginia 22202 Tel: FTS off-net 8-703/892-4221 Mr. Edward Luton Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Panel Mr. Robert M. Lazo U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 Executive Secretary Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Panel Tel: FTS 8-301/492-7975 m U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Washington,-D. C. 20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom - Tel: FTS 8-301/492-7842 Dean, Division of Engineering, l Architecture & Technology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Tel: FTS off-net 8-405/624-5140 -
Dn Marvin M. Mann *Dr. Forrest J. Remick TG 7nical Adviser 207 Old Ma?.n Building Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Panel Pennsylvania State University U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission University Park, PA 16802 - Washington, D. C. 20555 Tel: FTS off-net 8-814/865-6331 Tel: FTS 8-301/492-7271
- MAILING ADDRESS:
Dr. William E. Martin 305 E. Hamilton Avenue Battelle-Columbus Laboratories State College, PA 16801 505 King Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201 Dr. Ernest O. Salo . Tel: FTS off-net 8-614/424-7583 Fisheries Research Institute, WH-10! College of Fisheries
- Mr. Gary L. M11ho111n University of Washington University of Wisconsin Law School Seattle, Washington 98195 h Madison, Wisconsin 53706 Tel: FTS off-net 8-206/543-9041 E Tel: FTS off-net 8-608/262-3093 Dr. David R. Schink
- MAILING ADDRESS: Department of Oceanography . . .
1815 Jefferson St. Texas A&M University N College Station, Texas 77840- b Madison, Wisconsin 53711 Tel: FTS off-net 8-608/256-1913 Tel: FTS off-net 8-713/845-7031 Mr. Marshall E. Miller Mr. Carl W. Schwarz .. Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Panel Metzger, Noble, Schwarz & Kempler I U J. Nu clear Regulatory Commission One Farragut Square South W. Qington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20006 Tel: FTS 8-301/492-7659 Tel: FTS off-net 8-202/347-1631 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety & Licensing,Bd. Panel Atomic Safety & Licensir2 Bd. Panell ' U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nu clear Regulatory Commission?/:? Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 6g FTS 8-301/492-7993
~
Tel: FTS 8-301/492-7439 Tel: Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Mr. Ivan W. Smith 1229-41st Street Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. Panel =1 l Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tel: FTS off-net 8-505/662-4506 Washington, D. C. 20555 Tel: FTS 8-301/492-7332 0
- Dr. Paul W. Purdom ?:
Director, Environmental Studies Inst. Dr. Martin J. Steindler d Drexel University Argonne National Laboratory Philadelphia, Pa. 19104 9700 South Cass Avenue Tel: FTS off-net 8-215/895-2265 Argonne, Illinois 60439 ..j Tel: FTS 8-972-4383 i MAI1ING AE )RESS: FTS off-net 8-312/972-4383 245 Gulph Hills Road Radnor, PA 19087
,, ,e* rt-g DF"..Quentin J.-Stober
- Fisherie's Research Institute University of Washington- '
Seattle, Washington 98195 _, Tel: FTS off-net 8-206/543-9041' m; Mr. Joseph F. Tubridy .
~
4100 Cathedral Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20016 Tel: FTS off-net 8-202/362-0424 Mr. John F. Wolf 3409 Shepherd Street Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 Tel: FTS off-net 8-202/654-8053 Mr. Sheldon J. Wolfe . Atomic ~ Safety & Licensing Bd. Panel , U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~ Washington, D. C. 20555 Tel: FTS 8-301/492-7898 il [. y:: m i5 i e' r* V i 44 I e 9
.. . .. um
~
.L.,
1 Chairman to the Panel . 9 Mr. James R. Yore Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel E= U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ;.m. . . Washington, D. C. 20555 Tel: FTS 8-301/492-7814 , r: 1xecutive Secretary to the Panel p:, c Mr. Robert M. Lazo Y Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel p U. . S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Tel: FTS 8-301/492-7842 Technical Adviser to the Panel - Dr. Marvin M. Mann Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Washington, D. C. 20555 Tel: FTS 8-301/492-7271 Legal Assistant to the Panel Mr. John H Frye, III - Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel . U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P-Washington, D. C. 20555 ' Tel: FTS 8-301/492-7861 - Assistant Executive Secretary to the Panel ' Mr. Charles J. Fitti Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 - Tel: FTS 8-301/492-7814 Administrative Assistant to the Panel l Mrs. Rosemary E. Berrett . Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Tel: FTS 8-301/492-7803 l
l
, ..~
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL Environmental and-Lawyers Engineers Physicists Public Health Scientisti ij Bowers Briggs Callihan Anderson M Br,ebbia Bright Hall Cheatum - Cole Clark Decker Jordan .=:q , Coufal Ferguson Linenberger Cowan j Deale Hetrick Livingston 'Daiber llj Hill Luebke deSylva ] Glaser Johnson Mann Foreman i~ U Goodhope Kornblith Paxton Hand Jensch Leeds Holton P g.. Laurence McCollom Hooper Lazo Remick Lamb Luton Shon Economists Little M.i l..h ollin Martin
?difier Duggan Paris ,
Schwarz Elzinga Purdom Schink
~
Smith Chemists Tubridy Salo Wolf, J. Steindler Stober Wolfe, S. Yore 1 l e
- l b
w- - - - r y r-w - wv.- %rv-d
1
'i
-l i:
THE NRC BUDET PROCESS By directive of President Carter, all Federal agencies began utili::ing the "Zero-Based Budget" concept for the W 1979 budget process. Agencies were required to subntit to the Office of Management and Budget both a "Zero-Base" budget for W 1979. Congress is continuing under the G
" traditional" budget format. .,.,
5: 058 guidance (circular 78-7) now requires formulation (using the ZBB E ... format) of a three-year budget plan. The NRC W 1980-82 Budget Plan is p"d to be submitted to the OMB in September 1978. 5
$:?
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Section 603) and OSB Circular A-11 (Section 23) require submission of NRC five-year estimates (budget year plus four). q As. additional information, the following papers are appended: :
- 1. W 77 and FY 78 rescurces (graphed) and financial statements (tab- h=
ulation).
- 2. FY 78 budget.
. 3. Zero-Based btdgeting at NRC.
- 4. Management by Objectives and the NRC Five-Year Plan.
d 4 e 5 rs
,j
.: (,
l'
. ** i 212 .
- y NRC RESOURCES .
FY 1977 Standards Stand.wds Development Developawnt 4,3 w, inspection & Enforcement 6.0Y. ' 11.0% Inspection & - Powee Plant Material powe, Enf orceme it . Program Lic'aS'"9 8.3% Sif'tY & Plant 23.$4 Direction & Licensing p Administration . 16.G" 2' 10.4% * * "#I Safegua ds ACRS, Research Proryam Boards & 47'gg Direc, tion & SJ L* 981 4.0% Administration 8.8%
- 21.6% Research ACRS, '
Doards & Legal '
,L.:..
F PERSONNEL - 2499 FUNDS - $254 MILLION , y L: i' .
..)
NRC RESOURCES : FY 1978 Standards Standards - Developmere Developnmit inspection & . Enforcement 6.6% 4.7 p,[ % 12.1% Material po g,, I"'NC08 &
# " "I L;een3;ng SafHY & 'i f Plant Program 14.6 % 8.5Y. Meguaid s f Licensing 20.3% Direction & 7 22.4 % Admitu stra tion , s .% .
J 10.5% Mateeial
'3 Proryam Safety & Rm m -
Direction & 5,4 Safeguards ACRS, 47.5% Administratson *4 Boards & 21.4'4 8.4". Legal Research ACRS, Boards & , Legal *I-l PERSONNEL - 2723 FUNDS - $295 MILLION ' l
.I
- 213 m I
i Fiscal Year 1977.-NRC 9 Financial Statements I Balance Sheet (in thousands) Septe mber 30. September 30, , . A$ggpg 1977 1976 Cash: Appropriated Funds in U.S. Treasury 5110.003 5 91,782 P Other' ' 6.204 5.482 I 5116,207 5 97.264 Accounts Receivable: , I Federal Agencies $ 39 $ 42 Other 16 71 - Miscellanesus Receipts" '
. 367 602 ,
5 422 5 715 I . Plant: - i Completed Plant and Equipment"* $ 7.022 5 11.663 Less-Accumulated Depreciation 1.663 1.161 5 5.359 5 10.507 Advances and Prepayments: Federal Agencies 5 230 5 50 Other 6M 486 5 S64 5 536 - Total Assets 5122.852 1109.022 ! p September 30, September 30, ):-
, LIABILITIES AND NRC EQUITY 1977 197, r Liabilities: , Funds held for Others' S 6,204 5 5,483 1
Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses:
! Federal Agencies 31.638 26,215 i Other 11,253 8,464 j Accrued annualleave of NRC employees 4.843 4.005 Totalliabilities 5 53.933 5 44.167 i NRC Equity: October 1,1976, Balance 64.855 26,507
! Additions: ;
, Funds Appropriated-net 248,780 269,548 i Non reimbursable transfers from ERDA l.233 99
$314.568 1296.154 Deductions:
Net Cost of Operations'" $233.220 $211.512 Funds returned io U.S. Treasury" 12.734 19,787
$245.954 231.299 Total NRC Equity 5 68.914 5 64.855 Total Liabilities and N RC Equity 5122.852 $109.022
- Includes $4,954.692.$2 of funds received under cooperatise research agreements w vising NRC ERDA. the Dderal Republic of Octmany,the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute,and Austria.
" These funds are not as ailable for NRC use.
'" On March II,1977 NRC and ERDA (DOEl sieneo a policy aercement which stated that for all equipment purchased by NRC for ,
use at ERDA/ DOE facilities on N RC requested proieets, title would rest with ER DA DOE. Thn agreement =as considered to be [.;; retroactis e to January 19.19*S. ~l herethre.57.21.4.512.77 in I'lant and I qug. aent e i t at September .10.1976 a wiated with N RC proicets being perfer.~cd at i RIM:Dul t.isilities u.n transferred from LI.c eempleteJ l't. int A l.quipment accounts ar'd sharpeJ to Net Cmt of Ol vr .'nuli.r "g i iscal Year 1977. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N. _ -_ - ,_ _ _- . _ _ _ a
. _ _ . . . . 1
"-y y
_.4 y 14 .
. p W_ - - - -
-EdE".~-U."-- - ~=1.h _ '. '=n. . :. :. . __
)
Fiscal Year 1976/1977 Statement of Operations (in thousands) 1 e i
~~
Fiscal Year 1977 Fiscal Year IM6 i ::: _. (October 1,1976, thru - (July 3,1975,thru ' September 30,1977) September 30, Inc, , 5 68,430 5 70,177 % Personnel Compensation ' M 6,375 6.226 l cewnnel Benefits 133.808 132.243 E l ropram Support Administrative Support 14,(M5 14.205 f 4.854 4.641 ~f -W itcet of Persons 724 429 c .i 1 raining (Technicall 6,016 - - , i quipment (Technical)' 2,205 - . runstruction* 7 - Tases and indemnities ' l 473' - 2,754 Refunds to Licensecs ,] 10 7 . kerresentational funds Reimbursable Work 170 120 I
'j '
- - 838 - 850 Ineresse in Annual Leave Accrust !
521 J98
!)erreeistion Etpense 1.quipment Write. offs and Adjustments 200 155 1 Total Cost of Operations $ 238.676 ,5j31g j j as-.
j .;j I ess Revenues: 1J Reimbursable work for Other Federal Agencies 5 170 5 119 1 9 Fees (to be deposited in U.S. Treasury as Miscellaneous Receipts)" 2,8 05 4,752 Indemnity ' 159 209 Material Licenses Facility Licenses 9.321 15.149 } ~ 213 64 ; Other s . Total Revenue 5 12,670- 5 20.293 ?
' Net CosTo'f Op'cratin~s'bifore prior Year Adjustinent
~
-- - 3226,006 ' - - 1211.512 Prior Year Adjustment"* 7,214 .-
.5233.220 5211.512 !
Net Cost of Operations U.S. Gosernment Investment in The Nuclear Regulatory Commission - (From J anuary 19,1975,Through September 30,1977-in thousands) Arrropriation F.spenditures: 5 52,792
~~
Fiscal Year 197,4 (January 19,1975, through June 30.1975) Fiscal Year 1976 (July 1,1975, through September 30,1976) 226,243 Fheal Year 1977 (Octaber I,1976 through September 30,1977) 230,559 5509,599 - Unespended Balance of Appropriated Funds in U.S. Treasury, September 30,1977 . _ _ . _ .
$11.q,003 Transfer of Refunds Receivable from Atomic Energy Commission, January 19, t975 -
429 Total Funds Appropriated 5620.031 Less: Funds returned to U.S. Treasury" 5 33,759 Assets and Liabilities transferred from Other Federal Agencies without Reimbursement 2,018 No. Cost of Operations from January 19.1975, through September 30,1977 J15.340 5551,117 Total Deductions . . . 5 68,914 0 NRC Equity at September 30,1977, as shown on Balance Sheet ,
- Represents current year cost of plant and equiprnent acquisitions for use at ER DA/ DOE facilities. .
" These funds are not available for N RC use.
'" On March II,1977 NRC and ERDA (DOE)si rned i a policy agreement which stated that for all equipment purchased by NRC fe't use et ERDA/DCE facilities on NRC requested projects, title would rest s Ah ERDA/ DOE, This agreement was considered to b' retroactive to January 19,1975.Therefore,57.21J.512.77 in Plant and Equipment cost at September 30,1976 associated with N RC progets being perforrned at ERD \/ DOE facilities was transferred from the completed Plant & Equipment accounts and charged t?
Net Cost of Operations during Fneal Year 1977. __m,,- m-__ - C
-e .
is
. .- 8 . . .
l .. FY 1978 DDptCf HIST 0ftY . t (Doll'ars in Thousands) , Authorfration Appropriation . l Con fer. - Confer. P.L. ! P.L. y
. Pay Pres. y 95-209 I y 95-96 Compar. Sub- Raise Other Revised
; _ Budget House Senate 17*31/77' ._ House Senate 08/07/77 Adjust. 3/ _ Total Supple. Supple. Areunt
!!!uclear Reactor Regulation ~ $ 39.990 $ 39.390 $ 41.480 $ 41.400 $ 39.390 $ 39.990 $ 39.040 $ +1.890 $ 41.730 $ +1.230 $ ,$ 42.960 Standards Develop ent 12.130 10.630 12.130 12.130 10.630 12.130 12.110 l < .
+1.420 13.530 +305. 13.835
; Ins 9ection & Enforcement 30.050 34.759 05.050' 33.050 30.050 29.785 * +2.045 31.830 +1.295 +2.650 35.775 f8.759
!!uclear 144terial Safety &
Safeguards 22.090 17.245 '22.090$ '22.090 7.246 22.090 21.260 +372 , 21.632 +565 +2.700 - 24.897 Nuclear Regulatory Research , 148.400 121.226 140.400 148.900 116.699 143.400 139.145 +589 139.734 +295 140.029. , Program Technical Support 10.180 17.204 10.180 10.180' 13.280 10.180 10.015 +855 10.870 +485 11.355 t Progran Direction & Admin. ' 29.310 29.310 29.310 " 29.910 29.234 ,29.310 29.268 -4.706 24.562 +1.175 25.737
-Sareguards 15.000 .
15.000 Adeanced Reactor Safety 17.185 , 17.185 [Less: Unob. Balance. ! - End of Year.' . ,1,139 - -2.000 i . 9
.Less: General Reduct. -8,583 ITOTfL PEOPLE (2.695) y y y -(2.629) ;-(2.695)
(2.02)l1 (2.662) (61) (2.723)
} TOTAL DOLLARS $292.150 $301,.950 $299.640 $297.740g $277.696 $285.150 $281.423 ,$l+2.465 $283.888 $ +5.350 $ +5.350 3 $294.588 I
[ ' : - s, i . l . I . l, .. OFootnotes on next page.. l
.\
i.,l l ;: [s . e
'! , i e
. a lii! b, c . . .. . s
- - , {c, 7........ .. '. .
.A..:
~
r , , .
~
- s. . ' -
FOOT @TC$ / (=, . . !
,1] Not specifically authorized 'or appropriate'd by prdgran. We are showing it this way.for comparison only.
[ l 2f Did not specify an amount for full-time permanent positions. - i 3f At the time the FY 1979 budget was formulated. (Summer 1977), it was necessary to make comparability adjustments to FY 1978 and FY 1977 so that these years were on a comparable basis to FY 1979. These yj adjustments are detailed in the following chart: $
-I ..
Revised Centralization Allocate. of - Compensation of ADP to Unobligated
- Office Rates & AMY ADM Support Balance Rounding Other Total $Hmf)
HRR $ -370 $ +2,107 $ +150 $' +3 $ $+1.890 i d SD -3 4431
+40 +2 4950 .+1.420 b~
IE - 317 +1.756 +605 +1 +2.045 NMSS -65 +409 +70 +11 -53' +372 ; RES -135 +345 +1,404 -1,025 +589 O PTS -47 4866 +55 +11 -30 +855 P
.. \
PDA 4937 -5.914 +141 +158 -4,706 , TOTAL $ 0 $ 0 $ +2.465 $ 0 $ 0 $ +2,465 The revised personnel ccmpensation rates were due to more current historical data and were the same rates used for FY 1979. The average :sn years (AMY) changed fren the FY 1978 President's Budget due to FY 1977 citches in persennel at:ng off ces. Administrative Support is spreas to the offices on the basis of AMY, ;r arefore, the amount allecated was revised. { Effective 10/01/78 all ADP activities were centralized in the Office of Administration as Administrative Support. Also the items previously identified as Program Support for the Office of Administration were reclassified to Administrative Suoport because these were activities that were applicable to the total
' agency, i.e., document retrieval system, translations. Oak Ridge technical information center, etc. .
Because Administrative Support costs are allocated to each office on the basis of ANY, all offices received
.,a larger share of Administrative Support costs and the decrease to PCA is for the reduction to Program Support. .
The FY 1978 column of the FY 1979 budget must show total obligations which are comprised of our appropriation and our unob11 gated balance carryover. The funds that have not been reallocated to cover FY 1977 connitments were allocated to each office on the basis of AMY. The "Other" cdjustments censist of the following: (a) a $35CK transfer from RES to 50 for the NBS material d accountability contract. (b) transfer of one position from !W.55 tc ACM, $40K, and transfers to ACM and PTS for administrative matters. S13K, (c) transfer of $75K to ADM for administration of telecomunications,
- and (d) transfer of one person. $40K. frem PTS (ASLSP) to ADM.
(
.s
. fi
,,1 g ..I
{ '., 9
m ZERO-BASED IUDGETING AT NRC rd
,=
r 9 Introduction to Zero-Based Budgeting :) The Administration has directed that all Federal agencies prepare their budgets in accordance with the concepts of ZBB as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
=
Many managers have suggested that ZBB be renamed "Zero-Base Planning" or "Zero-Base Planning and Budgeting" because the process requires effec-tive planning and immediately shows up any lack of planning. The planning and budgeting processes can be contrasted as follows: N
-- planning defines the output desired;
-- hudgeting defines the inout desired.
E
~
Planning is more general than budgeting, for it establishes programs, sets goals and objectives, and makes basic policy decisions for the - organization as a whole. Budgeting analyzes in detail the many functions or activities that the in organization might perform to supplement each program, analy:es the - alternatives within each activity to achieve the end product desired, and identifies the tradeoff between partial and complete achievement of the established goals and associated costs. ZBB Process
~
The process requires each manager to justify his entire budget in detail, and puts the burden of proof on him to justify why he should spend any money. Each manager must prepare a " decision unit" for each activity or operation, and this unit includes an analysis of cost, ' purpose, alternative courses of action, measures of performance, con-sequences of not performing the activity, and benefits. In addition, for each decision unit, managers must identify different levels of effort for performing each activity. Each level is a "deci-sion package." One decision package must identify a minimum level of '! spending, which can be much less thsn the current operating level. Additional decision packages are then prepared to identify the added costs and benefits of additional levels of spending for that activity. Thus, the first decision package describes a complete but minimum program, while all other decision packages address only incremental : changes from that first minimum package. This analysis forces every manager to consider and evaluate a level of spending lower than his - current operating IcVels; gives management the alternative of limiting an activity or choosing from several levels of effort; allows trade-offs and shifts in expenditure levels among organizational units. 9 4 e e
1 W ZBB at NRC -.2 " E:f! Once the decision packages have been developed, they must be ranked or listed in order of importance. This ranking allows each manager to k_ explicitly identify his own priorities, merges decision packages for ongoing and new programs from various managers into a consolidated ranking, and allows top management to evaluate and compare the relative needs and priorities of different programs and organizations to make . funding decisions for the agency as a whole. , To understand ZBB there are a few critical definitions that must be kept in mind: - Decision Units: A decision unit is a discrete function or operation. It is a program or organization for which budgets are prepared and for which a manager makes significant decisions on the amount of spending and the scope or quality of work to be performed. , Decision Package: A brief justification document that includes the infomation necessary for managers to make judgements on program or - activity levels and resource requirements. A series of decision pack-ages (one at each funding level) is prepared for each decision unit, and cumulatively represents the total budget request for that unit. Funding Levels: 058 has established two mandatory funding levels -- minimum level and current level -- and any additional levels that the agency may wish to present. If there is a significant increase in incremental funding from one level to another (possibly a 5 percent increase or $3.0 million, whichever is greater) then an additional funding level decision package would be prepared.
?
OMB has defined minimum level to mean "... level below which it is not feasible to continue the program activity or entity because no con-structive contribution can be made toward fulfilling its objective. The - minimum level may not be a fully acceptable level from the program s managers perspective, and may not completely achieve the objectives of the decision unit." For the current multi-year budgeting, the definitions of minimum and current level are augmented:
-- new initiatives are precluded from these levels for FY 80 through FY 82, although these levels can increase or decrease to reflect " throughput" forecasts (caseload changes, project terminations, etc.);
-- the current level for FY 80 can reflect inflation from $
the FY 79 level; p
-- new initiatives for FY 80 will be included only in the levels above current.
In addition, levels for new initiatives in FY 81 and FY 82 will be separately identified only in decision packages above the out-year projection of the previous year's highest level.
f , , ,= n
!m g .
ZBB at NRC - 3 Ranking: Each office ranks its decision packages in order of highest to lowest priority. The office rankins will be merged into a single rank-ordered priority list of all NRC decision packages. I [m 9
I
=l MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES AND THE FIVE YEAR PIAN -l q
Two key elements in NRC's overall planning, budgeting and management -H system are the Agency-Wide Objectives and the Annual Five Year Plan. T The Agency-Wide Objectives system utili::es the " management by object-ives" approach and currently addresses 11 distinct areas of major Commission-level interest. Each objective is assigned a schedule listing specific milestones to be accomplished, and the projected dates for their completion. The purpose of the Agency-Wide Objectives system is to give the Com-mission a means of maintaining an effective management overview of staff activities that the Commission has determined to be of particular significance. Each objective and its associated milestones and com-pletion dates represents an integrated statement on how NRC proposes to accomplish the stated objective. The role of the various offices in the accomplishment of each objective is delineated, and the necessary coordination points among offices are identified. The Executive Director for Operations (EDO) provides the Commission with a status report on each of the objectives as part of the " Performance Appraisal Report" (PAR) . The PAR, which is updated each month, high-lights actual or potential slippages in schedules, as well as accom-plishments. In addition, the Commission is regularly briefed by the staff on the
. objectives. Each briefing addresses one or two of the objectives. This is done on a rotating basis over the course of the year so that the Commission is kept up to date on each of the objectives.
The eleven current Agency-Wide Objectives are as follows:
- 1. Develop a program'for the licensing and regulatory control of high
.and low level nuclear waste facilities.
- 2. Develop and implement a more effective program for the systematic evaluation of operating nuclear power plants.
- 3. Decommissioning: scope of objective being developed at present.
- 4. Conduct a comprehensive study to determine how much and what type of inspection and enforcement activity is enough to properly assist NRC in completing its mission.
- 5. Develop safeguards contingency plans for dealing with threats, thefts, and sabotage relating to nuclear materials, high-level radio-t active waste, and nucirar facilities.
l l l . l l
..l
i
- .y5
;. .; :=
i= MB0 - 2
- 6. Implement selected programs to improve the quality and efficiency of NRC management and decisionmaking.
a
~
- 7. Further clarify and stabilize the procedures and criteria for export licensing.
- 8. Implement on a timely basis the recommendations formulated in the report on the Brown's Ferry fire.
- 9. Develop and implement a comprehensive long-range training policy.
- 10. Implement a program to resolve outstanding generic safety issues.
- 11. Develop realistic models for safety margin prediction and risk assessment methodologies to improve regulatory decisions.
In addition to the Agency-Wide Objectives system, office-level objectives
~
have been established. The NRC also produces annually a Five Year Plan which spells out in p more detail than the Agency-Wide Objectives the program objectives r which the agency desires to accomplish during the upcoming five year [.: period, together with resource and policy implications. p. The latest updated Five Year Plan (FY 1979-1983) was issued Februaq 10, ! 1978. g A major purpose of the Five Year Plan is to bring out key issues for resolution by the Commission in advance of the budget cycle. Therefore, the Five Year Plan is published in the spring, so that its contents ' can be factored into the budget cycle beginning in March. The Plan considers NRC activities in six major program areas: power 6 . facility licensing, fuel facilities and materials licensing, facilities and materials protection, facility operation and material utilization, regulatory coordination and liaison, and management and D support. Within each of these areas, objectives and planned accomplishments ? are described in detail. ~l d m
- l r
1 [
G.'.'.
$5 p4
..... NRC LICENSE FEES h
In the late spring of 1977, the h7C published a Federal Register notice , announcing proposed revisions to its licensing fee schedule, which had q been in effect since 1973. On January 12, 1978, the Commission adopted .. 3~ ~ ' a revised license fee schedule, and it became effective for NRC ap-plicants and licensees on March 23, 1978. Three groups have petitioned in Federal court for judicial review of the new schedule. The NRC charges license fees for applications for construction pennits, operating licenses, and amendments to operating licenses for reactors and fuel cycle facilities. It also charges fees for radioisotope and other special-use licenses. In the three years of NRC experience, less than 10 percent of the overall agency budget has been recovered through license fees. For example, in fiscal year 1978 NRC expects to recover less than 7 percent of budget from license fees. Decisions by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court were instru-mental in stimulating the development of a new license fee schedule. These decisions essentially charged Federal agencies to impose fees in relation to "value received by the applicant." In contrast, other judicial decisions have disallowed the imposition of license fees when
" identification of the ultimate beneficiary is obscure" and when "the ~
service can be primarily considered as benefitting broadly the general _ public." The new fee schedule is estimated to produce revenues which would cover o approximately one-quarter of the sum of the budgets for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Inspection and Enforcement, and Nuclear Material Safety and L Safeguards (based upon work projections as of May,1978). E Tha key to development of NRC's new fee schedule was performance of services to an identifiable recipient -- i.e. the applicant. Examples of NRC services for which there are identifiable recipients of special - benefits include: * -
-- processing of license applications and amendments;
-- routine health, safety, and safeguards inspections;
-- quality assurance inspections;
-- review of topical reports of vendors;
-- hearings costs (based upon non-contested cases);
-- antitrust review.
Examples of NRC services which are not regarded as conferred upon specific recipients and which were therefore excluded from the new fee =. . base include: :
-- standards development;
-- confirmatory research; ;
-- generic activities;
-- nonroutine inspection effort, such as incident inspection;
, -- enforcement and management audit.
u.
- * .:u. ..
- s:p::
g b REGULATION OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
- t. -
Section 104 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,' specifies minimal regulation of medical usage of radioactive materials, so as to-protect the public health and safety. . (The Food and Drug Administration has the responsibility of assessing ... - E the biological effects of medical uses of nuclear materials, and ap-
=*=
proving such uses in medical practice.) . L The NRC and the Agreement States regulate the manufacture, distri-bution, and clinical use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear material for medical purposes. NRC regulates virtually all aspects of the radiation safety of the workers and the general public and certain _ aspects of the safety and efficacy with respect to the patients. E
- r. ,
For medical uses of radioisotcpes, licenses are issued to' manufacturers, , phamacies, medical institutions, and individual physicians. NRC licensees are inspected on a scheduled sampling basis for compliance , with NRC regulations and license conditions. The Commission directed the staff to undertake a comprehensive review of NRC's policy for the regulation of nuclear medicine. The staff ad- a ~ dressed such issues as:
?
-- Whatchanges
-- What should be NRC's policy / standards are necessary to to regulations implement policy?
-- What are other Federal agencies / professional organizations /
States doing in the regulation of nuclear medicine? h_
-- How do the activities of these other crganizations complement p the role of the NRC, and what roles should they play in ;
the future? :. .
- To what extent should NRC regulate the practice of nue, tr b' medicine? -
After studying the staff review, in March 1978 the Commission published fr public comment a proposed statement of medical policy. The proposed policy has as its objectives protection of the public, workers, and - patients from radiation hazards, and minimization of intrusion into the physician-patient relationship, consistent with the radiation safety obj ective. The Commission is also considering publication for comment of a proposed i rule on misadministration reporting. The staff's recommended rule would - require the reporting of potentially dangerous misadministration to NRC, .,,
~
referring physicians, and usually, the patient. Some controversy surrounds the latter requirement, since it does intrude into the physician-patient relationship. , W.~ se e'
- - . .._ . . . . , ..,,.m.
i.: . . . Regulation of Nuclear Medicine - 2 !.Eiq a E In addition, the NRC issued for public comment last year proposed amendments to its regulations which would require its licensees to have a qualified expert perfom both full calibration and spot-check measure-ments of teletherapy units which use radiation to treat patients with t cancer. The amendments stipulated the qualifications of the expert who would perfom the periodic full calibration and spot-check measurements. ..,. NRC has also acted to improve regulatory efficiency in the area of [a nuclear medicine by amending its regulations to require the licensing of !!f institutions where individual physicians are using byproduct material, j;;. rather than the licensing of the individual physicians themselves. j. .. g E
!? .
(:- ee s h e 3
, , I= ABNOR EL OCCURRENCES f" Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 requires NRC to R prepare a quarterly report to Congress on any "abnomal occurrence" at y facilities licensed by NRC. :S Recently NRC has begun issuing Federal Register notices on each ab-nomal occurrence as it occurs, providing infomation on the date and location of the event, type of occurrence, causes, consequences, and - actions taken to avoid recurrences. The same procedures will soon be implemented for occurrences monitored by Agreement States. , i= [ An abnomal occurrence is defined as "an unscheduled incident or event which the Commission determines is significant from the stand-F- point of public health or safety." Final criteria defining such events E were published on February 24, 1977, in the Federal Register and consist .. .; of three main categories of events:
-- release of radiation or excessive exposure to it;
-- deficiencies in safety-related equipment;
-- deficiencies in design, construction, operation, or ~
management. The criteria were broadly worded in order to account for any additional - major health and safety impacts that do not fit into the categories or examples cited. . Appendix A of the Report to Congress on Abnomal Occurrences contains y examples of specific and general abnormal occurrences. Some incidents F that " technically met the iterim criteria for overexposure .... Judged ,.. to be borderline" were excluded from early reports. Later reports if included a series of recurring incidents where each incident alone was F:: not of major importance. . The NRC's responsibility to keep the public infomed regarding nuclear safety does not begin and end with its reporting requirement to the . ongress. Currently, Licensee Event Reports, containing every reportable occurrence, as well as press releases from NRC regional offices and by licensees are placed in many NRC local Public Document Rooms every two weeks, as well as in the Washington, D.C. PDR. , NRC also issues each month a " Grey Book" which includes all Licensee Event Reports and shutdown infomation.
{p.= TRANSPORTATION OF NUCLEAR FUEL AND WASTE Tne transportation of nuclear fuel and waste is regulated principally by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. DOT and NRC regulations are applicable both to persons who ship - radioactive materials as they package and offer such materials for transportation, and to carriers of radioactive material as they ' ' load and transport such materials in their vehicles. The regulations provide protection to transport workers and the general public from the hazards of radiation, and to undeveloped film from damage. 6 Primary reliance is placed on packaging for safety in transportation c
.of nuclear materials. The DGr regulations prescribe general standards -
and requirements for all packages of radioactive material, and for handling and storage of those packages by carriers. . For packages which contain no significant fissile radioactive material , and only small quantities of other radioactive materials, the DOT -- standards and requirements provide adequate assurance of containment and shielding of the radioactive material. hhile these small-quantity packages, known as Type A packages, may fail in an accident situation, the radiological consequences would be limited because : of the limited package contents, kg' r: ifnen the radioactive content of a packap exceeds the small Type A @ quantity, it may only be transported in a Type ,B package, one which - g will survive transportation accidents. A Type B package design must be independently reviewed by the NRC engineering staff to verify the accident resistance of the design, and NRC must issue -
~
a certificate before a Type B package can be used to transport radioactive material, j:j
, tn DOT and NRC regulations set standards which provide that the packaging i=
shall: {
-- prevent the loss or di,spersion of the radioactive contents; i
-- provide adequate shielding and heat dissipation; 'g i -- prevent nuclear criticality '
j i a under both normal and accident conditions of transport, including safety factors to account for potential human error. 'q 5 P.j
.q
(. o
. r a
Nuclear Materials Transportation - 2 h
==
The normal conditions of transport which must be considered are specified in the regulations in terms. of: Eh
;e it;
-- hot and cold environments; r. :.
-- pressure differential; i'=
F , 9.
-- vibration; 5
-- water spray;
-- impact; y p.; I
-- puncture and compression tests.
- H Accident conditions are specified in terms of impact, puncture, and fire conditions. -
Packages containing radioactive material must be labeled with a unique radiactive materials label. .9 ' ' ' In transport, the carrier is required to exercise control over radioactive material packages including loading and storage in areas separated from persons ,and to limit the aggregation of g packages to limit the exposur,e of persons. ;H 4 In case of an accident, the carrier must follow specified proceduras, b including segregation of damaged and leaking packages and notification b of the shipper and the Department of Transportation. If necessary, radiological assistance teams are available through an intergovernmental
- program to provide equipment and trained personnel.
According to the Department of Transportation, the record of ' safety in the transportation of radioactive materials is superior to that for any other type of hazardous co=.odity. Recent studies indicate that approximately 2.5 million packages of radioactive i materials are currently being shipped in the U.S. each year. To date, J there have been no known serious injuries-to the public or to R transport workers due to radiation from a radioactive material shipment. ~ M [ Transportation safeguards are treated separately in the Domestic Safeguards section of the briefing book.] - l
y EQUAL EMPLOWM OPPORTUNITY IN THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.\ MISSION ({ w The NRC was established in January 1975 with a pemanent work force in place of about 1,800 employees. Since that time, the number of employees has grown to over 2,300, with an annual turnover of about 7 percent, a remarkably low figure. NRC's growth period took place during a generally soft employment f} market because of the slowdown in nuclear plant . licensing. This k allowed NRC to review substantial numbers of highly qualified O applicants with appropriate nuclear industy experience, and to t. concentrate our efforts on minority and women candidates. F It became evident very early that there was, and still is, , a severe scarcity of minority candidates for both mid-level and senior-level positions. There are a very limited number of minorities and women whose education and training are in the . engineering and scientific fields related to the nuclear industry. (The scarcity is now slowly improving because there are increasing . numbers of minority and women graduates in the engineering and h scientific disciplines who qualify for the professional entry- i level grades.) : p hhen the scarcity of qualified candidates for senior-level [ positions was discovered, NRC's recruitment policy was ((= deliberately modified so that we could concentrate on building p; a strong, talented base of young professional minorities and women to staff the agency management ladder in years to come.
- To this end, NRC has developed and executed a vigorous intern staffing program which decents the recmitment of minoritiec ,
and women. [ NRC's Office of Equal Opportunity Employment was established with the organization of the Comission in 1975, and the Office has continued to expand its vigorous efforts to recruit minorities and women through such means as: -
-- sending recruiters to technical society meetings;
-- local and national advertising;
-- college recruitment; ,
-- colleague referral.
As of December 31, 1976, minorities constituted 11 percent of the total NRC staff and women made up 2S percent of the total. i t ( l i I _ __ _ _ _ ___.______ ___.____________.._ l . _
1 "l Equal Oppertunity - 2 5... " By September 30, 1977, the minority percentile was 11.7 percent, three-tenths of one. percent short of the 1977 objective. At senior $2
- executive grades (GS-13 and higher), only 6.4 percent (97 -Lovces in a total of 1,509) were minority personnel. This was s' higher ...
than the Government average of 5.7 percent. y;i
;.a Congressional interest in equal opportunity employment remains high. is NRC's FY 1978 authorization bill contained a provision which amended il the Energy Reorganization Act to require a quarterly status report Ef documenting for Grades GS-11 and above, the number of minority and women -
candidates hired, employees promotdd, and other actions attendant to - EE0 goals and accomplishments. [::' n e N 4-4 e 9 9
?
L . NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.'. MISSION ESSENTIAL UNINTERRUFrIBT.E FUNCTIONS i , g; b.., During a national emergency.steming from a nuclear attack, or ;.mM threat of an iminent attack, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission . s will be prepared to perform or administer the following essential i .. uninterruptible functions. These functions are limited to the W: 4 preattack, attack, and immediate postattack periods, and will f' 'l be carried out only as authorized by statutory or constitutional 5 ::{ authority. $ ![ kii d
- 1. Maintain increased surveillance of the operatiora of licensed i nuclear reactors and fuel cycle facilities to assure minimum [ff e hazard to health and safety consistent with national security [.? ,
needs, and as necessary and appropriate: F
-- order shutdown or curtailment of operations; '
-- order continued operation; ,
-- order entry to assume operational control of essential i facilities; .
-- stop or curtail the use or transportation of special nuclear material, or order recall of such material.
- 2. Assess the damage to licensed nuclear facilities to: . .
r
-- identify useable facilities; E~
i:.
-- estimate the time required for restarting inoperative facilities; [!.
i.':.
-- detemine all hazardous conditions at these facilities and -
h any hazardous releases from the facilities; ~~
-- assure that appropriate actions are taken to correct the ' :
hazardous conditions and infom and irstruct the public . to minimize injury and damage to property.
- 3. Assess the threats to special nuclear materials, high-level g.
radioactive wastes, and nuclear facilities, and increase security i., L-measures as requied to counter threats, thefts, and sabotage. .
- 4. Order the recapture or order entry into a facility to recapture special nuclear material. '
- 5. Authorize revised safety criteria for licensed nuclear facilities ;
- and specir nuclear material handling applicable to the changed operating i environmental conditions brought on by the emergency.
e 1
, -' D 0' :
- . . . . _ i
=- - -
i [ " essential Functions - 2 6.
- 6. Provide support to and mintain liaison with:
-- the office designated by the President to receive reports on functions listed above, advice on the content of public instructions and information, and recomendations pj; concerning the NRC role in achieving national objectives. .,
g W
-- other Federal agencies which have related functio:s
;g
-- State agencies concerning emergency conditions and actions related to licensed nuclear facilities and m terials.
=.t To aid in carrying out the NRC mission functions, the NRC staff "
will also be prepared to perfom essential administrative and support tasks. A I e e a f e a w
.7.
{
.=
P
e DISSENT AND LNTERNAL COMUNICATIONS ($" It is the Commission's conviction that the free flow of information and viewpoints is the foundation of sound ngulation. Three successive ' Chairmen have spearheaded efforts to establish and maintain a climate conducive to this, including an "open door" policy extending up through the management chain to the Commissioners' offices. It has continually been stressed that, whether or not an individual " judgement on a safety matter prevails -- as it cannot always be expected to do -- it is not only a staff member's right, but his duty to apprise appropriate management of any situation he deems unacceptable from the ': e standpoint of protecting the public. B In November 1976, the Director of NRR wrote Office Letter #11 to his k Division Directors, establishing formal procedures for considering L dissenting technical viewpoints and making them public. The procedures included the following elements:
-- An opportunity for staff members to pursue significant differences of opinion at successively higher levels of management within NRR;
-- Involvement of top management after all other attempts at resolution have failed;
-- Permanent documentation of both sides of an issue, and the basis for final determination;
.e
- -- Distribution of documentation to the ACRS, Public Document Rooms, hearing boards, and parties to the proceedings. i.-
The a:portance of treating disagreements in a routine, rational, and professional way was strongly stressed by Chairman Hendrie in remarks to NRC management in September 1977. These remarks were sumarized and distributed to each member of the staff. Noting that dissent on regulatory matters personalshould context,not thebeChaiman taken asstated: disloyalty to the organization, or in any "I think we have to be able to live easily, comfortably, and routinely with disagreements and letring people have their say." - While the need for additional appearances by staff at ACRS meetings or hearings to discuss individual views may create an ;iditional workload, the Chairman added:
"It is an overhead burden that is, I believe, unavoidable in our affairs.... We must accomodate all this in a very routine [
way. It means that on both sides, from the staff member who feels strongly enough about his point of view that he would like to have it go forward and be reflected in the papers of the case, to his supervisor and on up the management chain, there must be a very professional approach. The key word is - professional behavior in trying to deal reasonably with a set : of procecures like this. I will expect staff members to act (~ = professionally, and I will expect all the managers, above and below, to act professionally." s
\
ae esee a
l
. l Dissent 6 Internal Cacmunications - 2
(# After extensive informal communications with staff members, the Chairman believes that still me?ce could be done to increase the free flow of internal communications. Therefore, the staff is preparing a more comprehensive egency policy and agency-wide procedures, which will be ... incorporated as a chapter in the NRC Manual. Before the chapter is l:i: incorporated, however, there will be extensive opportunity for outside input and public comment, as well as employee recommendations, on the draft chapter. g . E (2: r.:.:
.;u;; :-""-
.f.l 1:1 22 I
i
;\
.4
.i i
1 NbN.
"$.:::: ~:'!"!. :.::.." ,ll.lll
.~. . -. .. - -
_ . . . - = .
. l 9
(ff NUCLEAR ECONOMICS AND ENVIROSENTAL EFFECTS TABLE OF CONTENIS
- 1. Relative Costs of Electrical Energy Generation
- 2. Relative Health Effects of Coal and Nuclear Fuel Cycles i:;g
- 3. Uranium Reserves / Resources
- 4. The Price-Anderson Act I.
c-
^ ^ -
1 , . ,. ., , :%i i
$b Q._
, z eg ..:
. m p"~
" RELATIVE COSTS OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY GENERATION p9 3'.g NRC must consider costs in connection with the NEPA requirement '
+i' for an analysis of the costs and benefits of each licensing action. O Nuclear power costs have increased, but not to such an extent that %
.L E NRC cost / benefit analyses are substantially affected. j,', '
3,; . In making cost comparisons, assumptions about escalation, 3. - contingency, interest, inclusion of environmenta'l controls. .z.. (scrubbers in fossil plants), etc., must be considered. i
-h q:_
Costs are an issue mainly because cost calculations.are complex. ' i,,. and there is substantial public confusion. The facts are:' . 3
-- the capital costs of nuclear plants are greater than 9 +".
N fossil-fired plants : coal-fired plants with scrubbers (.: cost about 10-20 percent less (would be 35 percent loss p without scrubbers). Ho. wever .it appears that all new coal ' plants will require scrubbers. i-
. y;g:
-- Type of Plant 1977 Cost
- 1985 Cos t* L*F..
p-Nucl ear 5560-5720/kWe $900-$1150/kWe Y
- f. :
Coal (scrubbers) $450-$540/kWe $700-$850/kWe .1.
. ..
- Cost are for a two unit (1200 MWe each) station beginning I operation in 1977 and 1985. '
14"
-- nuclear plants take longer to build with the result that !
.i escalatiod and interest components are greater tSan for - g, fossil plants (assuming same construction starting date). h ft..
p
~
APPROXIMATE AVERAGE COSTS FOR _0PERATION 1977/85*' . (mills /kw-hour, cur. rent doll ars)** M t' Type of Plant To tal _Ca pi tal Fuel ** O&M
~
N y Nuclear 29/41 22/30 5/8 2/3 , f Coal 33/50 16/24 13/20 4/6 . 5-Oil is not a significant baseload fuel for new plants. j(
.e
- 1985 Costs are based on nuclear capital costs 0 $970/kWe and . ..i f coal 0.$750/kWe; 65% capacity factor; 18% capital charge rate. g
** Data from UE&C Report on Commercial Electric Power Cost Studies;" fl... .
RUREG-0241 thru 0248. -}F q 4 f..
***As s ump tio ns : coal .$17/ ton at mine and $13/ ton transportation-900 mi. 7 Coal cost escalated at 5% to 1985. . Construction schedule for two ,
I unit station - Nuclear 75 months - Coal 54 months plus 2 to 4 years "
.h[/
3 lead time prior to construetion, fy
- ti t
-- both fossil and nuclear power costs are increasing, but nuclear is still cheaper in most locations. Mine ceuth.
p i. coal-fired. Plants may be competitive to nuclear plants. . @
~"'
., , i 1
-2* '. : ] .:
.%w.. i
-p.
il. Because of the SO coal plants have $he highest O&M cost. removal and sludge disposal$N syste g. T.
.j-:,: ,. .
a. J .. .r l m:
-J. --
f:l
, . .- :d
Y' - ' '
.t :. -
l
#4
,g
') <. . .
.M !. ..,
Ik;'l .~. .. l 3i:4 :-,i . .
='
lg-i,s 4 -- : Y
@r.,~ *e' .;a !
4*
- v:*
4
.d.ic.t ,
I
- F1. ...
Y,h ;'
$.r.
-t1:.
3s.
,-t.::. ..
. 44-
%* .:5. *
,' \i.
we. _}? . - k:. I, j
',;3,-'J. ,
I-ff. a.*8
#),
' r.
y.... i e l J4' '. t .y % ..'
- 4 q ...f ff p"-
' 'J,y;N- '
- v. .,
d.I \
.4
, ?./
I... % RELATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS OF COAL AND NUCLEAR FUEL CfrTRS ^ hied . (l. ' Mh t . Early in 1976, while developing Environmental Standard Review EA Plans for nuclear power plants, the Office of Nuclear Reactor " dj= Regulation decided that it needed a better data base for comparing the relative health effects of nuclear versus coal. The subject had previously been covered in.a gross fashion -- discussion of particulates and radiological effluents,_ for example - but the a data available had not been translated into direct health effects. NRR conducted a survey'of the literature and made its initial '; generic evaluations in mid-1976, and completed an improved ;;;, analysis 'in March of 1977. The comparison focused on [ll accidental death, premature death, sickness and injum and " genetic effects. No comparisons were undertaken in the areas of flora and fauna damage, property damage, noise, or aesthetic factors. i The fuel cycle activities considered in the comparison'were mining, processing, transportation, storage, power generation, p^ reprocessing, and waste disposal. d F Among the outside consultants utilized were experts from the University of ifisconsin, ERDA, Battelle National Laboratory, the Electric Power Research Institute, the National Coal ,
-{'
. Association, the Atomic Industrial Forum, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical iforkers.
The following two tables su=marize the preliminary findings:
- i:-
CUPAENT ENERGY SOURCE EXCESS FDRTALITY SLBMW OCCUPATIONAL GENERAL PUBLIC TOTALS : Accident Disease Accident Disease COAL FUEL CYCLE 0.35-0.65 0-7 1.2 13-110 15-120 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE All-nuclear grid 0.22 ' O.14 0.05 0.05 , 0. 47 Nuclear / coal grid 0.24-0.25 0.14-0.46 0,.10 0.64-46 " 1.1-5,4 A Figures in thi.s and following table are drawn from hUREG-0332 and are per 800 We-year. .
.:. . R
- D
I e.. Coal vs. Nuclear Health Effects - 2 r.= .. . (.7 CURRENT ENERGY SOURCE SthMARY OF EXCESS MORBIDITY AND INJURY OCCUPATIONAL GENFSAL PUBLIC TOTALS bbrbidity Injury Morbidity Injury COAL FUEL CYCLE 20-70 17-34 10-100 10 57-210' NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE All-nuclear grid 0.84 12 O.78 0.1 14 - Nuclear / coal grid 1.7-4.1 13-14 1.3-5.3 0.55 17-24 The Ford Foundation Study developed a comparison on mortality as follows: - FDRTALITY
-r.s:
Maximum Best Estimate I.owest COAL 2-100 2-25
. . . .- 0.04-1 0 NUCLEAR 10 0.6-1.0 --
Staff has indicated that the Ford Study was very optimistic regarding coal particulates and effluents, but very pessimistic in, the assumptions regarding nuclear. . In general, there appea'rs to be comparable degees of uncertainty associated with generic health evaluations for both the coal cycle and the ,. nuclear fuel cycle. This is due to the relatively sparse and [1 . equivocal data regarding cause-effect relationships for most of the principal pollutants in the coal fuel cycle, and the effect of recent Federal laws on coal-fired power plants, mine safety, and coal waste bank stabilir.ation. . The Commission was briefed on NRR's preliminary findings on April 25, 1977 and subsequently directed the staff to: e
- prepare an action plan' for generic nilemaking to remove this matter from plant-by-plant consideration.
f (t.=y l [ 1 y..;;; a ,
Coal vs. Nuc1 car Health Effects - 3 d
-- give expanded distribution and ask for fomal coments on the staff assessnent of the comparative health effects.
In June 1977 the staff submitted its action plan, and the Comission concurred. The plan is as follows:
-- revise and expand the staff assessment to include additional materials so as to reflect areas of interest raised in proceedings at which relevant testimony has been presented, and redesignate the docunent as a draft NUREG - 0332 (issued 8/77) -
-- distribute the draft NUREG With a forcal request for coments to interested Federsi agencies, environmental groups, professional societies, research organizations, and other interested parties ,
II
-- review the report of the National Research Council
- Coretittee on Nuclear and Altemative Energy Systems i
gi -- evaluate coments received on draft hUREG and report -
\' of National Research Council, and prepare final NUREG ,
-- detemine advisability of proceeding with rule ating l
and infom the Comission - -
.. l u
1
.l
.7
!S.
((.,
g. t v::. , '(( URANIUM RESERVES / RESOURCES $j i.':.
..l I
The amount and availability of uranium reserves and resources is q a highly controversial topic, and very sensitive to the assumptions ' n made in any analysis, as well as dependent on projections of both . supply and demand. Y s , Current projections of the number of nuclear reactors operating in the year 2000 are substantially lower than those made two or three years ago. . 2
, _ :3 For the short run, doe has a stockpile of 5 million kilograms ' : ]
of enriched uranium, enough to fuel enrichment plants for four 9 years. doe plans to acquire up to 14 million kilograms by 1985. ; In the long run, domestic supply can be augmented in four ways: 1
-- identification of additional deposits in the current price range; :
.a. ...
-- discovery and use of more expensive deposits; .
, :1
-- utilization of imported uranium; =,
-- greater efficiencies in mining, milling, and use.' ~
'Ihere is presently no complete assessment of U.S. uranium reserves because, as doe re orts, "much of the U.S. is essentially unexplored."
doe's NURE proga n is undertaking an extensive. survey of the - location, nature, and extent of U.S. and worldwide reserves. ' doe estimates of reserves and potential resources have been made - independently by. staff on the basis of industry-supplied data. But little is known about high-cost deposits because until . recently there was no economic interest in developing them, a and no pressing incentives for firms to develop reserves before 9 they are needed. Now that incentives exist, the close correlation B between drilling effort and discovery may spur additional efforts, [ and the discovery technology itself may improve. . e * Pessimistically speaking, the most favorable areas for uranium d deposits have already been explored. 98 percent of U.S. production p comes from three major sandstone deposits -- the Colorado Plateau,
.d Wyoming Basin, and the Gulf Coastal Plain of Texas. -
~ '
Other problems include possible shortages of capital, technical personnel, and material, and the uncertainties of the nining j q s . 3
= -
. . . .. . .==m . . . .z.= - . . - - -- --- -- .- ' ' " J.. .T. . . .:. -
L
- Uranitm - 2 .
q .. l and nuclear power industries. Overall annual expenditures for
- uranium exploration are small compared to other cost components ,
of the fuel cycle. : Geologically, there is a large stock of uranium reserves in the world which might be tapped for U.S. use. However, other countries typically place substantial constraints on urmium exports. dos limits the use of foreign raw material in its enrichment plants; currently, a customer's feed may contain only 10% foreign uranita.' These limits are to be gradually raised until they are eliminated by 1984.- 1 doe projects domestic production of uranium at enrichment toll feed facilities as follows: - m
-- 12,300 short tons per year in 1977;
-- 39,900 short tons per year in 1985,
-- 45,100 short tons per year in 1990..
-- cumulative quantities are 270,200 short tons in 1985 and 485,600 by 1990.
doe DG.'ESTIC URANIlN SUPPLY ESTIMATES Forward Cost Category Reserves Probable Possible Speculative
$10 ' '250 275 115 100
$10-$15 160 310 375 90 Total $15 410 585 490 190 2
$15 30 270 505 630 290 Total $30 680 1,090 -
1,120 480
$30-$50 160 280 300 60 Total $50 840 1,370 1,420 540 I
- Costs are per pound of U33 0 ; quantities are thousands of short tons. :j An additional 140,000 tons from byproduct sources will be available through the rest of the century (mostly $15/$16 U 03 8. ) *
!!i
- 1 h
- d
~
M q4 r
. . . . . . . ....... ::::'::. "~.._,,,_
. _ T.T _ ""_ __.. ._, _ . . . , - - . . ,
Uranium - 3 i:7 1 :- hoe. FCREIGN URANIUM SUPPLY ESTE%TES* (thousands of snort tons) Reasonably Assured Estimated Additional-Forward Cost Category (Reserves +~ Probable) (Possible + Speculative) .
$15 1,100 630
$30 1,800 1,400
- Foreign excludes U.S. and Co m Inist nations.
Basis of 'DcE. Estimates (in foregoing tables)
- 1. Reserves: quantities already discovered that can be profitably extracted.
- 2. Resources: quantities potentially availtble in the future (through the year 2000), further classified as:
-- Known resources: deposits that have been explored and are
.. low-grade, small, or difficult to extract.
(: -- Potential Undiscovered Resources: deposits not yet found, but wnich are expected on the oasis of geological evidence. .
-- Probable Potential: deposits in known uranium areas or new areas ideiitified by exploration. .
-- Possible Potential: new deposits or locations * '
similar to existing ones.
-- Speculative: new deposits, formations, or areas not previously productive.
- 3. Fo ward Costs: this is the concept behind doe's cost categories. Forward costs do not include exploration costs, land acquisition, interest. costs, taxes, or profit. A rough .
- rule of thumb is that market price is twice the foward cost. s.
l . l l FOREIGN CUMULATIVE NON-C0bfUNIST REQUIRBENTS (thousands of short tons) - Tails Enrich tent Assay 1980 1985 1990 2000
.02 110 315 670 1660 i F L
.025 115 125 340 370 720 1805
.03 790 1980 l
. . . . . .a
l . =::: WE PRICE-ANDERSON ACT L In the mid-1950's, as the civilian nuclear energy industry was de-- veloping the first electric power reactors, Congress passed the Price- ' Anderson Act:
-- to assure the availability of funds to protect the public =
in the event of a catastrophic nuclear accident; and
-- to remove the threat of unlimited liability as a deterrent to the emerging nuclear industry. =_
The Price-Anderson Act provided financial protection for the public - in two layers _..
-- $140 million through a private insurance pool to which all utilities operating nuclear power reactors were required -
to subscribe; and
-- an additional $420 million of Federal indemnification for '
which the utilities pay the government a premium. Legislation approved by the 94th Congress modified and extended for an additional ten years (to August, 1987), the Act. This legislation ^ also provided for:
-- eventual phasecut of government indemnity;
-- potentially increased limits of liability beyond the present
$560 million, through a retrospective premium plan; *
-- the costs of investigation, settlement, and defense of claims will not be paid from the indemnity funds.
{ The present government indemnity layer of $420 million will gradually be reduced over the next several years as a fund to be financed by retrospective premiums grows. The Price-Anderson amendments required - NRC to determine the amount of the retrospective premium, within the : range of $2 to $5 million per reactor. On January 3, 1977 the NRC established that the retrospective premium - will be $5 million per reactor. Thus, the government will be phased , out of the government indemnification layer when approximately 84 ! reactors are licensed to operate -- projected to be in the mid-1980's. '; q The liability limit will continue to increase past the $560 million i point as more reactors go into operation. For example, if the Admin-istration's goal of 300 reactors in operation by the year 2000 is met, the liability fund will have increased to $1.5 billion. NRC believes that Price-Anderson coverage plays no significant role ... 5 in motivating safe design and operation of a nuclear power plant. ""; But in the case of sabotage or theft, NRC believes this question should be handled separately, pending completion of safeguards studies # and hearings. 1 E 0
F1 O g Price-Anderson - 2 h Present coverage under the Act is only at a licensed facility or along h normal transportation routes. "- On March 31, 1977, Federal District Court Judge James McMillan de-clared the limitation of liability provisions of the Price-Anderson Act to be unconstitutional and unenforceable. (Carolina Environmental Study Group. v. NRC) The Court's cpinion stated that the liability limitation constituted a "taking without just compensation," because of the possibility that damage from a nuclear accident might exceed $560 million. In addition, the Court felt that such a limitation tends to i#."~ . encourage irresponsibility by licensees in safety matters. i The District Court's decision is presently under review by the Supreme Court.
.j
- j l
.(
r f l
l.' , .
- z:.:
(5:. REAcr0R LICENSING FROCESS TABLE OF CONTEhTS ' ',
={,
'. ~ .
ni ! 1. Background and nature of the nuclear power reactor licensing process ,
- 2. Improvements'in place and in progress 4: .
- 3. Opportunities for further improvement .
- 4. Standardization .
- a. Summary table on use of standardized designs 2
- 5. Early site review
- 6. Status of nuclear power plants
- a. Basic charts .
- b. Projections and forecasts -
..l
- b
.d a
..{
- b
..s
?
l f f I q 9.W
- y .
e
- 1 g .. ;
'.Y
~/
.1 t
-l
.. j
. . -_ - - ,__ _ ~-- .__ - .. _ - - _ _ -_ .. .I
.~ .
0 BACKGROUND AND KUURE OF THE NUCLEAR POWER ~RFACTOR LICENSING PROCESS *'
~. -
The Nuclear Regulatory Corc:tissions basic statutory authority derives
- y fro t the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, which completely reorganized ;
the Federal government's activities relating to nuclear energy, ~ and pennitted a greatly expanded private role for the comercial 9sR development 'of this energy source. Tne AEA directed the Atomic Energy Comission (AEC) -- created eight years earlier by the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 -- to adopt rules and standards to implement a system for licensing the use of certain classes of nuclear materials and for the construction and operation of production and utilization facilities (narP,y, reactors and fuel cycle facilities). 4 Tne Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA) abolished the Atomic 1 Energy Comission and created two new agencies to take its place. Tne Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) and the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) were created because Congress ' fotmd "that it is in the public interest that the licensing and related regulatory functions of the AEC be separated from the performance of the other functions of the Comission. Following is a brief outline of the procedures employed by the NRC in considering and acting upon an application for the construction and operation of nuclear facilities. Tne Atomic Energy Act established a two-stage licensing process for nuclear power plants. An applicant must first obtain a construction permit (CP) authorizing the plant to be built. The CP phase of an application is the cmcial stage from an . environmental point of view. ' After the plant is constructed, an applicant obtains an . operating license (0L), permitting the applicant to load " q nuclear fuel in the reactor core and to generate electric power. : An application for a nuc1 car power plant is volu stous -- thousands of pages and many volumes in length. Tne fom and contents of such applications are codified at 10 CFR part 50. l 4 6.
'I.h
(] a 1 bs T1
~
=~. ..r; :?l
_y w-v.--- ,7-- - -. ,y. . , - - - - , . m + 7-. -., m , ymg- --
,,,,,y, .
, , Reactor Licensing Process - 2 -
l g... [ ' The basic feature of the application is the PSAR -- Preliminary ' Safety Analysis Report. Among other things, the report must F include the following: ~
-- description and assessment of the proposed site in [
terms of geologic, hydrologic, demographic, and e meteorological characteristics;
-- stamary of principal safety considerations and unusual design features;
-- identification of features requiring research and development (R S D), and a description of the applicant's R 5 D program;
-- the applicant's technical and financial qualifications;
-- the procedures for coping with emergencies; -
-- description of. equipment to control radioactive materials (liquid, gas, and solid) and effluents produced in normal operations of the facility;
,7 -- a discussion of various " design basis" accidents i t=. (including the maximum credible accident) and their -
potential consequences; and
-- description of provisions for off-site ship:nent of radioactive waste.
The NRC staff reviews the application, asking questions of the applicant, requesting additional infomation, incorporating ' answers and amendments into the application, and establishing a schedule for the consideration of the application. then satisfied, the staff issues a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) explaining n y it has concluded that the facility can be safely constructed and operated. Concurrently wi'n the NRC staff review, the 15-member Advisory - Connittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) also reviews the " application, holding hearings and exchanging documentation with the applicant and other experts. Tne ACRS issues a report, also discussing health and safety issues surrounding the facility. If the NRC staff and the ACRS conclude that a CP should be issued, a public hearing on the application is required. bw h.
;- Reactor Licensing Process - 3 m j q;;:-
- The hearing is conducted by a three-member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) -- two.of the members must have technical
.or scientific credentials, with one member qualified to conduct administrative proceedings. a:
[lf p e The notice of hearing must be announced at least 30 days urior to ' ij the date of hearing and include a time within which petitions for intervention must be filed -- persons who have "an interest which _
- ?
- nay be affected by the proceeding" are entitled to intervene --
with the same right to participate in the hearing as the applicant. Questions ty hearing are:pically considered under NRC regulations at the ASLB .
- g: i:\
-- whether applicant has adequately described the design "
and health / safety features of the reactor;
-- whether additional infomation is necessary for the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR); 7 y
-- whether pending safety questions have been identifisd ::}
a and applicant's R 5 D program is reasonably designed to ' resolve them; E -- whether there is reasonable assurance that:
- pending safety questions will be resolved by the time '
stated in the application for completion of construction; and
-- the facility can be operated without. undue risk to the -
public henith and safety.
-- whether applicant is technically and financially qualified to construct the facility; and .
-- whether issuance of the Cp would be inid. cal to the i
comon defense and security of the public health and safety. 1 ASLB decision is subject to exceptions which may be appealed to an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. (ASLAB). ASLO
. considers exceptions and may hear oral arguments. Its decision '
is final, tutless the Comission itself directs that the record be certified to it for review. ! Any final order of the Comission is subject to judicial review before the U.S. courts of appeal. After the CP is issued, the application is amer.ded and supplemented during the course of constmetion -- the PSAR is converted by this
. =i process,into the FSAR and the NRC staff and ACRS again render reports.
[
.m..6
_ , _ . _ _ , . - - ~ _ . . _ ,
. 0 p Reactor Licensing Process - 4 (g;
On completion of the facility in accordance with the construction pennit, the Comatission will issue an operation license "in absence of good cause shown to the contrary." . Each license is issued for a fixed time, but in no case to exceed 1 40 years. If objections to the OL are filed, the ASLB may hold another hearing to consider the matters in controversy between the parties. ,
=
Following issuance of the OL, the license remains subject to NRC jurisdiction and amendmem:, revision or nodification as new standards or regulations are promulgtted. NEPA Issues Consideration of environmental issues under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) occurs at every stage of the process outlined above, since a nuclear reactor license constitutes a " major Federal action - affecting the environment." With a CP application, a document entitled Applicant's Environmental Report is submitted. - h. At the OL stage, another Applicant's Environmental Report is also . submitted. The hRC staff analyzes these reports, preparing its own Draft . Environmental Statement -(DES) which is circulated to appropriate - Federal agencies as designated by the Council on Environmental ' Quality, state and local agencies, and noticed for public comnent. ; After receiving coments, the NRC staff prepares a Final Environmental Statecent (FES) including all comments received in the draft phase. The statement contains the staff's conclusion on license issuance after weighing the costs and benefits. , Environmental issues are considered at the CP hearing. The ASLB s. must consider whether there has been compliance with NEPA. Tne ' ASLB may modify the FES, which is then transmitted to the Council on Environnental Quality and made available to the public. - l s
- -: ^:::::. '::::. L ^ ::::.
u
't
. =..- ..;
m ao l (9 ... 3
,.1a r
, _~ D l
' ' .l I!j i!
i ; ljd -: q l v jp-, al! li 1 . g, i i b p ,m. ; 5,ms s
-~
jai ' P su M !) m
-O u
! m. I U p.f.-).i . k ip - ' e.o ,i -
~*
I,I II I.5. ' .I . u g .' .f. .I i. ll j . r!7h-it) I -j V isssselisid -: E l__l -
-O g ji--
no W il (9 - : = w n, < Al n l,i in r - _J . j i . g l{ i_._ _,
- v ;83 f U
[a- a f$j! _= 3 o i 1,li.__ h* 1 - 5 ""ji -%}'; p,1;Iy-ji. 1 J, _~ ig D. ri f
;l r%
1(jp 1 v I _
e 2- m vi j"! -,. 1I'1- n 11 --
i=
^
11 - ji--~iji W $5 : .,,. 11' A -~
}{. h'o,2 .- f - .
0 EE v*; u-i' ;a! .-j ij o v
--=,_n t .i
,,i },ll i w v!'"!! yv n-n 33
_J c. tj . n .i p= '.i -- n ,
' n k) --
4 ._, e i-- v
,, pl L-d, l,;v Q .. cW a ls 1 -~
(O o H 1
< -__,; v Jj_ _.
J f5 o_ m c('}i j
-iit io {i
--d, e-litynyv 3 ni o -~
= , ,3 i ca t:-
u m eo p i;i n 4 -- 4
,, it . .l ,! } -* '
w S v ,- "--H i d h . ji -
.m *! 1 4 o
O_
~
_f-"
~
Ih- l.I j;3 , qi C ' J: a q O _:_,I ,. _~ w -
^ r J
i
^
Ii} O
.,,i.! '
-!j2ij!! -*
D d;___!i . n El u C'! lilii - , _ . - S , u 2 d,j', i. . v iin M 10 0 _- s I!di o,. (v~;i -- E 5 u s s l,s.; m 3"li!! - p; =
- o: 9 .. . -
e
,lil i v <>
__ a ii -- 1
% ::?
~I 5
,Io.j g..{,
m ... fj) ." !.
~ '
e.
*-{ b > mI!I.5 $
h : g
!!M{ -.
t o.i t Iin$ 5 s ;; mn-n
IMPROVEMENTS IN PLACE AND IN PROCESS h NRC has taken several steps to improve its regulato: processes in a l manner which will improve efficiency and effectiveness of regulation while at the same time aid in reducing licensing lead time. Actions taken have included: Establishment of a Regulatory Requirements Review Committee (RRRC) composed of senior management, whose function is to assure that proposed - regulatory changes, or new regulations or guides, are justified. Justification of new regulations, guides, or changes by an impact / value assessnent. Publication of Standard Review Plans which define methods and criteria used by staff in safety and environmental evaluations of proposed nuclear power plants. Revision of Standard Format (instructions to applicants on in-formation needed in applications) to define more accurately what NRC requires in support of license applications. Issuance of regulations, guides, and policy statements encouraging standardization of nuclear facilities. Early site reviews by staff in advance of construction permit applications. Approval of standardi:ed plant designs for reference, manufacture, duplication, or replication. Limited Work Authorizations to expedite initiation of constmction on suitable sites. Upgrading of inspection and enforcement activities relating to construction, quality assurance programs, operating reactors, and other areas. Development and implementation of Memoranda of Understanding with the States, EPA, Corps of Engineers, Department of Transportation to facilitate regulation in areas of overlapping jurisdiction. Steps being taken by the NRC to continue improvement of its regulatory processes include:
-- implementation of " Lessons Learned" recommendations (see next section, " Opportunities for Improvement") . . . . .
-- utilization of confimatory research program results in safety evaluations.
-- soliciting earlier and increased public comment on proposed rules and guides.
* "2S_1'_
4 ' a:.: 6: Improvements - 2 i::.
-- continued work with the Administration and the Congress on legislation to streamline the licensing process.
-- improved procedure for notifying licensing boards of relevant and material information.
-- coordinating a seminar to find ways of improving the reactor 3...
license hearing process. p NRC's primary responsibility is to regulate in a manner which protects f5 the public health and safety, the environment, and the common defense. and security, consistent with antitnist laws. Through constant efforts at improving our regulatory processes, we hope to remove NRC as much as possible from the " critical path" of reactor construction. , (.' {::
. . !E OPPOR'IUNITIES FOR FURTHER I?EROVBIENT R h h In April 1977 the Commission directed the staff to undertake a com-prehensive review of cases completed since the formation of the .
.1 Comission, and to draft recomendations for alternative actions that 'l would improve efficiency and effectiveness in NRC's licensing activities.- .
y w The staff report, " Nuclear Power Plant Licensing: Opportunities for pd Improvement"-(popularly known as " Lessons Learned") was presented to the Comission on June 9,1977 and published as NUREG-0292. -
!S At Comission direction, the staff developed action plans for imple- ;
menting the report's principal recomendations. The _ Comission decided a that the staff should: e m
-- Reassess the Standard Review Plan in the light of past exper- .
ience, revise the Standard Fornat guide as appropriate, and j=.i '. revise criteria for acceptance of applications to confom ' to the guide.
-- Undertake an impact /value study of the desirability of periodic ,
review and evaluation of Safety Analysis and Environmental Reports to identify requirements for unnecessary information.
-- Experiment with expanded coordination of activities with applicant prior to tendering of an application.
-- Experiment with an expanded Acceptance Review, to change the ' s time for acceptance review from 30 to 60 days, and to identify '
deficiencies in applications.
-- Experiment with a modified review procedure which limits questions to applicants in the pre-docketing stage and provides staff safety evaluation within 6 months after docketing.
-- Increase opportunities for public participation during the staff review. -
-- Develop improved procedures relating to discovery and contentions at.the hearing process.
-- Defer a long-range standardi:ation policy study until current policy update is complete.
-- Develop modified rules pertaining to limited work authorizations to provide improved guidance on site preparation and construction activities, d, O'
~ "
, . - - a.e. - -,- - - - -.-----_u-
c 3 Opportunities - 2 [. 0-(.g ..
;.q
-- Develop specific proposals.for increased use of rulemaking $
to resolve major generic issues which are routinely litigated in individual licensing proceedings,.
-- Defer the effort to separate from present licensing bill the effort to amend the Atomic Energy Act to remove the present -
statutory requirement for mandatory review by the ACRS of every application for construction and operating licenses. e
~
^
m ...= =\ .
- n. . . - .
. l STANDARDIZATION G
I In April 1972 AEC issued its initial policy statement encouraging industry to develop standardized plans for nuclear power plants. Such standardized plans, once accepted after safety review, could then be y referenced in future applications, and hence would help to expedite the 0 licensing process. p h In March 1973 AEC announced its readiness to implement the standard- .. 5 i:ation concept, offering three options. NRC added a fourth option in : August 1974. The four options are:
- 1. Reference Design Concept: an entire nuclear power plant or portions of it can be reviewed as a standard design, to be referenced in more than one application. y
- 2. Duplicate Plant Concept: an application to build a limited -
number of duplicate plants within a limited time span. NRC staff , would simultaneously review the safety-related aspects of all the .,. plants under one application.
- 3. License to Manufacture: a standardized reactor design and envelope of assumed site conditions for a specified number of plants to be manufactured at a location other than where the plants would eventually be operated.
- 4. Replication: replication of plants for which the NRC completed initial safety reviews after January 1, 1974. (This option was p developed to serve as a means of transition to fully standardized J Jesigns.)
In June 1977 NRC issued a Federal Register notice affirming its support for the standardization concept. NRC's firm commitment to standard- - i:ation is based on the advantages stemming from its utilization. Standardization enhances the safety of nuclear power plants because it allows for a concentration of design and review efforts. It also allows potential reductions in licensing lead times, as well as improvements in the reliability of plants. Present status of standardi:ation program: Reference Design: NSSS: 9 applications - one withdrawn, five approved, thres pending, (2 approvals expected 1978) BOP: 12 applications - six approved, six pending (2 approvals expected 1978) CP: 10 applications for 25 units: six approved for 16 units, four pending for nine units, (2 approvals expected 1978) y p License to Manufacture: A 1978 decision is expected on the one l application for a license to manufacture eight floating , nuclear power plants. The one applicant for cps to use the ! floating plant has deferred construction plans. l I:: l I l
. . . .- .. - - - - . . .=. _ ^*
- E,
.m. ,
{;; b C::'
-Standardization ~g.7 {
Duplicate Plant -- eight applications for 15 units using three designs have been received; cps have been issued $;
~ i.x for all but one (expected shortly). ,
Replication -- cps have been issued on two of three applications :... for six units (third expected to be issued shortly). [.] gl n Thus, since adoption of the. standardization policy, about half of the d applications for construction permits have utilized one or more of the standardization options. a _ q Based on public comments received on the June 1977 Federal Register : notice, the staff has proposed, and the Commission is considering, a L revised staff policy statement which would provide the basis for !" moving to the final design phase of the standardization program. The : policy would provide for: . Reference Designs:
-- a two-year extension of present PDAs upon review of an application; .
-- a three-year term for the first final design approval;
-- a five-year term for future PDAs and for final design
+: approvals. beyond the first one.
License to Manufacture:
-- an updated design after five years; Duplicate Plants: .
-- a five-year preliminary (or final) duplicate design .
, approval (PDDA or FDDA) for future designs. - Replicate Plants:
-- a three-year term for qualified plants.
- P f
-)
2 5 b eu.
. - nj n y., -g--- .rog -
3
SUMMARY
OF STANDARDIZATION APPLICATIONS AS OF APRIL 10,1978 Rf FERENCE SYSTEM' S 19 Applicatons C ocket 'j..C Pro!ect Applicant Date _ Comments Nuclear Steam Supply Sys'em Nuclear Islands & Turb,no Isisads General Electric 07/30/73 Nuclear istind. Prelimmary Design CESSAR.238 (NI) C. F. Breun SSAR C. F. Braun 12/21n4 Turbine Island matched to CESSAR 238 (NI). CESSAR C4mbustion Engineering 12/19/73 NSSS. , RESAR41 Westinghouse 03/11h4 NSSS. ESAR.241 m m & Wilaos 05/14 # 4 NSS$ (Withdrawn). NSSS (replaces 8SAR 241). : J SSAR 205 Babcock & Wilcom 03/01# 6 .. D GASSAR Generei Atomie 02/05/75 NSSS General Electris 02/1445 NSSS. j GE$$AR.211 R t.SAR.33 Westinghousa 07/3105 NSSS. NSSS. . GESSAR.238 (NS$3) Generet Electnc 10/16/75 RESAR414 Westinghoum 12/30/76 NSSS. Standard balance 4f-elant (BOP) ESSAR/CESSAR ESASCO 02/02D8 BOP matched to CESSAR ESSAR/RESAR414 EBASCO 03 13 75 g g g pyg SWELSAR: Stone & Webster . 06/2C/74 BOP design matched to RESAR41. RESAR41 CESSAR 10/21 # 4 BOP me. died to CESSAR. RESAR.3S 10/02/75 BOP rnatched to RESAR 33. B4AR'.205 12/22/75 BOP matched to B.SAR 205. } ( CISBSSAR 05/09/77 BOP matched toRESAR414. Cibbs & Hal t$0P $$AR Fluor Peneer , , R f SA,R41 01/27//6 BOP Matched to RESAR.41 B.SAR.205 10/31//7 BOP Matched to 8.SAR 205 j7 Gilber Associates, Inc. 02/24/78* BOP Matched CESSAR, RESAR414,8 SAR.205 GAISSAR (* . Tender Dete) i, LITitrTY APPLICATIONS USING REPEPENCE SYSTEMS 10 Applicatioris .. I'l 4f; .,.. Doctet .$ Apolicant De's Comments ; Proieet Cherokee 13 Duke Pomr 05/24U4 Refmaces CESSAR. Parkms 13 Duke Power 05/2A/74 Reineces CESSAR. References RESAR41. . l South Tenas 1 & 2 Houston Light & Power 07/0$n4
'l .
Washmeten Public Power 0812U4 References CES$AR. , WPPSS 3 & 5 Supply System .l Palo verde 13 Arizona Public Service tv17/74 References CESSAR. Hertsville 14 Tennessee Valley Authority 11/22U4 Refmnces CESSAR.238 (NI). Stack Fox 1 & 2 Pubis Service of Oklahoma 12/23n5 Refences CESSAR 233 (NSSS). ..
%pps Band 1 & 2 Tennessee Valney Authonfy 11/07/75 References CESSAR.238 (NI).
Tentwo.se Vaney Authority 07/16/76 References CESSAR. v ellow Creek 1 & 2 Eng 1 & 2 Chao Edison 03'01/77 References 8SAR 2h5. m 1-17
~
S'JMMARY OF STANDARDlZATION APPLICATIONS . Continued From Prwious Pays
}
f..
. .l
- l DUPLICATE Pt ANTS S Applicateore Docket Applant Dets _ Comments Proiect 09/2003 Two uncts at each of two sites.
Byron 1 & 2 Commonweenh Edison Bssedwood i & 2 Five units at four sites. SNUPPS Kanses Gas & Electnc and 05/17 # 4 { Wolf .; reek Kannes City Power & Light Caltawey 1 & 2 Union Electria 06/21 # 4 f,j Tyrone 1 Northen State Power 06/2154 :1 Sterling Rochester Gas & Electris 06/2104
'::.i ll ,
Duplicace plants are plants of the same desegn with the possabilities of multiple sates and multip6e applications. Applications vnust be f aed m a close ome frame to eeds other. REPI.tCATION 4 Applicsoons Docket A pplicent Defe _ Comments Proiect 09/0604 Replicates Millstone 3. Jamesport 1 & 2 Long Island Lighting i 09/17C5 Rephcstes Byron /Breidwood, Marble Hill 1 & 2 Public Service of Indone New England Power a Light 09/09/76 Replicates Seabrook. New England 1 & 2 12/22/77 Replicates Koshkonong 1 & 2 {' Haven 1 & 2 Wnconun Electria Power 03/01/78 Replicates Palo Verde 1.2 & 3 PJLo Verda 4 & S Anrona Public Service 1 A replaten is the duplicaten of a plant verth a prior approved, by the NRC, prelimmary deugn. d 1 Applecation LICENSE TO M ANUF ACTURE FLOATING NUCLE AR PLANTS l Docket - Apolicant Date _ Comnwats gy 07/05/73 Entire plant desegn. Fleeting Nuclear Plant Offst ore Pc . v Systems (FNP) 14 Ft,O ATING NUCLE AR PL ANTS 1 Applicataan
- j Date _ Coonwats Pro,ect Applicant 03/01/74 References FNP, l Atlante 1 & 2 Pub 6 c Service Electric & Cas I
i (.. 1-18 ?ll*,'!.
ft. EARLY SITE REVIEN A On June 6,1977, the hSC amended its regulations to provide procedures which will encourage and simplify early consideration of site suitability issues associated with the construction of nuclear power plants. Early decisions on siting of power plants are a key element in reducing the time required to bring needed facilities into 9 operation, and in assuring more effective public participation in the licensing process. m " Under the new regulations, applicants for permits to build nuclear y plants may request an early review, public hearing, and a partial ' decision on site suitability issues as much as five years in advance of submitting the remainder of their application. :) The regulations also establish procedures for State Governments interested in advance planning for plants to request hRC review of site suitability matters. Assuming the partial decision on site suitability is favorable, and unless the Cocaission, Licensing Board, or Appeal Board determines that there is significant new infomation affecting the decision and that the hearing must be reopened -- the { partial decision will. remain in effect for five years.
- If the applicant has submitted a complete application, the partial decision will be effective until the construction .
pemit proceeding has been concluded. If good cause is shown,,the Commission may extehd the five-year effectiveness period for a reasonable period of time, not to exceed one year. The amended regulations take into account the fact that, 5 within the last year or more, a number of utilities have found it necessary for financial reasons to cancel or postpone plans to build nuclear power plants. De new procedures will allow such utilities to request a site suitability review on a postponed plant, without cercaiting themselves to construction. 'l h. The staff's site suitability report prepared under the new regulations does not constitute an h2C corsaitment to issue a construction pemit or operating license, but it may be referenced in future construction permit applications. In order to provide additional guidance on early site review, the hSC staff has prepared a report entitled "Early Site p Reviews for Nuclear Power Facilities" (hUREG-0180) .
g.. . STATUS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS - APRIL 30,1978 Number Rated Capacity Of Units (MWe)
- 68 Li C E N S E D TO O P ER ATE .................. .................... ............ ... 49,000
*
- 90 CO NSTRU CTIO N PERMIT GRANTED ................................ 98,000 26 Under Operating License Review................................:... 27,000 64 Operating License Not Yet Applied For .......................... 71,000 41 U N DER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REVIEW ..................... 46,000
*
- 4 Site Work Authorized, Safety Review in Process............ 4,000 37 Other Units Under CP Review........................................ 42,000 11 O R D E R E D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,000 9 P U B LI C LY AN N O U N C ED ..................................................... 11,000 219 TOTA L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217,000
'To date there have been 387 reactor years of operation. Not included are two operable DOE-owned reactors with a combined capacity of 940 MWe.
" Total of units authorized construction (Construction Permit Granted plus Site Work Authorized): 94 units,102.000 MWe.
NP158
**9F"**' y* =w+=
l 7'.
1 g 4 e e , , 8 . # L . (-_. .
+
1
. g .
. '
- O g . 8 .
. e . , ,
- g .
, m .
. .J .J cg c: * * <
Q fIl e e .. __, a a .
- u) u) .
tt ) U) . = e.V". m .
- e 2"
s 6 - 8
~
( @ m
~
g . . g . .
.. 't b : ::.
g r d . a m
- a .
- C M .
sQ g$ 6
- n e-(..
(. . 1 l J e-
- i
' l
"."lEs'.' **
mm ~ . _ _ _ . . . . . on - SCHEDULE SLIPS IN APRIL 1978 .
~
~ . .
UlA'S 1tbNm DECISIM AdA m NG S-3 CONSIDERATION - BLACK iox 1 & 2 ^ ERIE 1-8 2 1tbNm . EPA CMMENTS LATE _ [P'S. . JNESPORT 1 & 2 1 ItNm DECISIONPENDINGS-3 RECONSIDERATION PERKINS1-3 'l ItNTH lhY15HEARINSONS-3 RECONSIDERATION .
~
D,wlS BESSE 2 & 3 1 PbNm Rese . TION OF OtrTSTANDING ISSUES . to
.0L's. '
ARKMSAs 2 ' 1 tbNm . CONSTRUCTIONDELAY 1 EbtHH - PREPARATION FOR SEISMI,C HEARING . DIABLO CANYON 1
~
gg
~
libmi . STAFF IMPACT - RSB, #3 . .. . BSAR-205 .
. e
....t .,
c . l .- i d , _. MAY, ' 978 UCENSlit G PROJECT 0 MS - CP ft LWA . l.WNS: CP'S: PLANT ;;p =g:g"g
~
g- a,=g :g:l g /pgAg/g/p/p/pg/$fpg/ REMARKS, JAMESP0 lit 1 & 2 p/ 3g g,7 , 24.9 Sf cpicp g oxisapcxrma S.3reconsilmtina. PERKli!S 1-3 2n3 283 g May 15 herin9 en S-3 reconhtian. 43y ;p_ ., ll W LWA-llSSUE002/09R8 . 8- 255 6. 6 g3 g g, AppEcatandstaffdclay. PEDOLE / Ens 25.9
+0 2
[5.9 y,* ij*
/
E . l ' '- Comticedheasg schedu!ad Mar 81. SPRiflGS 1 & 2 / 19.6 0 - -- 25.8/ E
~~
sn3 ceart:tdhea&g tireccnnneJana 20. SKAGiT 1 & 2 Bns 11 3.5/ 25.6 w _ ,. U 12.8 +? /75 19.6 +0 /0 lla* jl. I Patential:ci:enicimpct. BDS 313 / g* ContinuationsIhesi.hexpected PILGillM 2 LWA REQUESTED 10/15n6 MA 19.7 7
+7 / 31) 1 -
CP 8 J m June. BLACK FOX 1h2 an7 l 33.2+12.1 53 / ani m +155 12.5 / as* NA Decisa awdting S-3 19 l 1.1 / 6.4 133 0 /3 LWh (WA CP li .' ccar. cratra. DAVIS LWA-1 ISSUED 12 Dins 4nG 32.4 / t$tiend tin te re:*e omtrf:ig 52.0 +31.5 " N3 DESSE 2 & 3 19.6 .9 /0 ! h i:snes. - ~'_.. FijP 1-8 / SDS 353 35.V 114 I ML~ ll DES reddan 05/05R8.
/0
/ 235 +0 as , . . SER Suppl.in preparation.
ALLEllS CREEK 1 8/5 gg 39 0 3
,, gp Peactinted redew.
EDIE 10 2 07n8 24.6 3
.i f7 2O 23.9
#g 38 g,* ms
[ CP j., EPA ccmments30 dayslate.
/ -
/
l !
,/ _
* ---.; e ?. _ ~.. qg . . . , . . . . . .
4
o . _ . e, - qi :
~
ViAY, 9781. C EMSING PROJECT ONS - C3 &l.WA Lcont.) LWA'S CP'S PLAfR jy- ,=g "g;', g .g- g , ,
- g".
]a /g/ggggg/gg/ REMARKS .
GREENE COUNTY
/
/ sm 3I4
+0 u.6 6.4/
E! 4 i k,* + Nacpartefistig.ceccraf ts stia 19.0 / 11.2 - 00n8.(Adilma.My.)P0003n3. ATLANTIC 1 ft 2
/
/ 12ns 213 7
31.4
+7 31.V
/0 ;
3-yr.ccmaim e . rStaff reew susprdcd. - - - - - i/ CLINCil RIVER 11n6 113 7m , 11.8 11./8 Envirum. ctsi h=bg sqccdal I +7 / 2.3 24.9 24.8 +7 /0 Revico states cictrts. ' ~ . ~ l / ^
/ /
/ /
AD0m0NAl.CP APPLICAT10NS:
/ / -
FY 78
SUMMARY
CY 78
SUMMARY
KEY cu.. . TM" ."lo ./."L f^o 7,"o' #"',To coo ;,7f ::=,; ,=, a n. gf gg, ,g, ...
~ " " ~ " " ' ' ~ ' " " "" "'""'"""*""""" Hs
-- - SCHEDULED SAFETY SUllDESmI 1 & 2 B1/n 09n8 -
HEEING ' NEW ENGLAND 1 &'2 03n6 10n8 11n8 - 07n8 10n8 09n9 CP'S: 17(34) 12(26) 12(26) 7(15) CP'S: 16(31) 14(26) 14(29)5(11) He ~
- SCitEOLILED PALDVEDE 4 h5 03n8 N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING HAVENih2 05D8 N/S N/S N/S 07D910n3 06/80 LWNS: 7(li) 6(11) 6(11) 2(4) LWA'S: 6(12) 6(12) 6(12) 1(2) H - SCHEDULED COMBINED HEARING GilEDAV000 2 v WS3 11#4 N/S -
08n4 N/S N/S DL'S: 10 5 5' 3 Ol'S: 10 1 1 HEeys - HEAmNGS NOT YET 8 *
'M0!RAGUE 1 & 2 07i1402/fl N/S -
09BS N/S N/S SCHEDULED BY ASLB PDNS: 3 3 3 0 PDNS: 3 3 3 O
* - CONTESTED HEARING v Ernw to u mcmma - uns . v - REACTIVATIG REVIEW
~
;g 7 !: ' *9
- 7 7 !*** 3 - 8 ' T '* T~
.i.
- L___ ; : _ _ _ D ;_: '_ a
2 . . . . o VAY,1978 LICENSIRG PROJECTI0BS - OL'S PM g s ~{ {f Jg }( g ,
/ /p/g/g/p/gp/g/p/p/p/g/p/ REMARKS . ,
88 8 IMIDI ~ 2 38 8 88U7 85U8 8 Ul f^ n + .~5 __ 5.9 jdy cautruction competion anticipated. DBns AMdSAS 2 275 i85 +0 22/ s.3 88N8 88N8 ~5 Uh" '~ l likGl G 1 y 52.4 ,10 12n2 " 12ns 2 g* ot in cans 275 a - NO3111 Aisilli 2 g 03ns 12ns ~13 ot 'jc-34.5 +0 27.5 S@lE'fd{ 1 12n5 223 58.4 353
+B /0 35]
12n5 Oln9 1.5 as OL 9L
~
Mna as ll* g/ D'd -'IU8-0 ZP.?!,81 1 43,7 }4na 07ns 1 303 +s.4 8.s 15.0 ' U4 11n4 osm - 15.7 g* ss si,* ot--ot "* N # d'* A D!AELOCANYON1 "13 63.o
+ill 1 [31 ,I ~55'8-SALET.12 8
89.2 32 uns 02n9 1 m OL m 8[7 5 g 07ED UMDN 2 nm 25 g3g 34
+1 [25.s 11ns c3nS 2 l[ as E lis 0'- g 02n6 0 CanrJetiaeofconstratiu09n9.
SEQUDYAll 2 cans 09n9 95 55 1 :.. 30.5 58.4
+353 O SJ _
L
-'- =' = =P =& #== --
c0a
=' Mm =ral~,= M M ,,
AD _._ D m 0 N_AL...D L .A.P. PL_I.C_A.T10_N.S..: _... ani .. .w. wn m, . Mxi m. M_ M M 'M OS/II
!!nl 84/11 IM8 IFB3 881EF0ftg!
i! U140 h h" 'd's" b'" yAIIIP.'4i W76 Ey 5
.i'Jf D20FRE1 WATIS BAR2
-INI lint 1285 -
Hal Ult 3 M BWIS M:SIRRE 2_ 3504~ 8tDI 11D8 1808 lHI 12RI 1485 tUat Mt 82B1 . 8305 M- YlPFSS 2 M8 N/3 M M O"UEE3 LYH M SL" Ell IW M3 8883 M8 JA SMLE'2 85/H N/S N/3 lus EUEl . susn,Emin2 6508 N/5 M. lWL 85/ 5 URS tt18 11!Il MIIMI M. _M M .R/S 11Rt- $}i01:03) 3 IIDE. 9368 IIRS 8601 IFIO MIDlAN0lfr2 llRI !i D.21EY 2 DER) M5 - CSSI E $USOU[HA'iNA1 05D3 M E/5 N/$ B5.M . CDP.1ANO;E FOU(2 StDI M M N!5 RlI! .
---. n . 4. -
--.,.r.-,..,m. y . ., . 7._
.. . . . o . , . , . .s .-
. . . - . , , _ , . , , _ _ . , . .,, , ,, ,, _ _ , g.
L
. . t
. . . w e.
L. :
~
E m
. . . i e -e .e -
__, c., . m
. e.. ,
i:Eg<: 2= c e4s;g;m mC d a == R m=m m 522 5wo c1 -
< =CA U*) C') ,s g=3 C/3 tJJ ca LAJ c:a w t/3 - ldl
- ;;;c cl =3 cz: ::::3 E c2. ca <=: co .p:;;; C/D
=c" c: hC4 c/3
.;c=> jDl:E2 ::E E2 :5, c:2 -: a a m g :vs3!! _ ia L
c=, c_3 ._a m . 1 2=: ,
- Iag _ _C E t:-
mg ..
.g m
~
= m .
i a-y c.
, *CC C"3 "c
c I Q. l5 . .C 5 6*5 I gE*E c: M c $- b llt . ._ _. =. . . _ . a "E5glh'h@ ggy.d.. e l hj := j . . _. . . - . -. -
~ . D E. g ..
8 d 'j M a c:::
= .e g - @Ig g g -
i a
.a .. .. . . .
y- m
~ ey n3.q% ,
=>,I cz: a.
H .!ll m .*! _
;: s . ... { ! $e U
u_i N a $ w i'E 8 b c:: 3 . = > = 3: ca u
- :3 C""3 .
C- e tI- d =s o = ".l CC d
. CL. G . . . .
==C g L.,3 :. m en
(. . . . . . rrs E o-en ! -- e! ESSE .
- cn cm
- t a
L.t.J B m v== . :. c C "1 8 = '
....g;{@g@@= =- a Cc3 acc E ce .I
& .@ .- y .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ -. . -l cru e -. E 3 cm w na q
a EE . . .
% e ._ . . . . . . . . . cu
\ h
$$2s3 E S i6 =.5 ~= == E. = m iqa + ++ w+ =+= gagEar=e
- q. _ m _ m
.i! "
h$hh$ Im a "" j C: e==__q CC !{ @ Z s {:.. d e' M e ;fE d e m . c=; = nae E ' e s as a onasm E C8 co ~ c $ SB cza c=
$lM008 N .
4 -!Q b REACTOR MFETY TABLE OF CONTERTS ik
- 1. Siti ig X
- a. Locating nuclear power plant sites
- b. Reactor siting milestone
- c. Siting policy and practice
- d. Nuclear power plant design - site-related criteria
- e. Emergency planning
.. =::
- 2. Design, Construction, and Operation
- a. Design and construction criteria for nuclear power plants
- b. Quality assurance
- c. NRC inspection philosophy
- d. Emergency Core Cooling System
- e. Routine emissions of radioactivity - ALARA
- f. Training and qualifications of nuclear power plant personnel
- 3. Safety Issues M
- a. Resolution of generic safety issues
- b. Generic issues:
(1) PWR steam generator tube integrity (2) Overpressurization (3) Kater hu mer (4) D.c. battery failure
- 4. Feedback
- a. Inspection and enforcement activities to improve reactor safety
- b. Systematic evaluation program for operating reactors
- c. NRC research programs (including descriptions) .
- d. Risk assessment in the regulatory process I -
- 5. Clinch River Breeder Reactor I g
9 We ss e,
, , m-LOCATING NUCLEAR POWER PLAhT SITES - [x.. .
p e. Q:: ?? NRC regulations governing reactor site criteria are given in the +=- Comission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 100. An application to construct a nuclear power plant, either land-based or offshore, must demonr* rate that the proposed site is in confomance with these criteria. The exclusion area required for a nuclear power plant is ' determined f in part by the potential radiation dose to an individual located at the exclusion area boundary during a release of radioactivity during $ an accident. Experience indicates that an exclusion area radius ~of A about 0.4 miles will usually provide reasonable assurance that the s dose guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100 can be met. This is because current' engineered safety features can assure that doses are within {" the guidelines even under extremely poor meteorological conditions. In addition, for a designated exclusion area to be acceptable, an .; applicant for a construction pemit must'also demonstrate that he has authority to detemine all activities within the area, including the , exclusion and removal of personnel and property from the area. .: * -
, Ownership of all land within the designated area is generally how this authority is obtained; however, other arrangements, such as leasing, are acceptable.
10 CFR Part 100 also requires designation of a low population zone (j4 around the site. Acceptability of the applicant's designated low population zone is based on radiation exposure computations and a detemination that there is reasonable assurance that appropriate - protective measures can be taken on behalf of the population within the zone in the event of a serious accident. Experience indicates that a low population 2one radius of two miles is usually acceptable. - The regulations also require that the closest boundary of the nearest
, population center of more than about 25,000 residents be at least --
1-1/3 times the distance to the outer boundary of the low population zone. hhere large cities are involved, a greater distance may be required a because of integrated population dose considerations. The boundary of the nearest population center is detemined upon consideration of population distribution. l' e n M ,s,- ,
- SITING POLICY AND PRACTICE p A complete reexamination'of NRC siting policy and practice has been in progress since June 1975, and staff analyses have been discussed with the Commission at approximately six-month intervals since then.
Key policy considerations in NRC siting activities include:
-- treatment of radiological risks resulting from severe external natural and man-made events.
-- compensation for site / region characteristics through safety design features.
-- reasonable assurance of no undue risks from routine operations and from potential reactor accidents.
-- overall site suitability evaluation combining facility design features and site / region characteristics.
-- cost / benefit considerations in the environmental review.
-- interdisciplinary approach in the environmental review.
-- treatment of public interests early in the siting review.
-- balancing environmental, social, and economic factors.
-- analyses and issues addressed in the EIS.
-- role of other Federal agencies in the siting review.
-- public hearings and staff reviews in the siting process and procedures.
-- coordination of State / Federal activities.
Activities in progress include:
-- development of alternative policy statements expressing present and possible future practices;
-- preparation of policy analyses on specific siting issuns, including emergency planning, accident evaluations, and seismic requirenents.
-- the Federal / State Siting Study issued for public comment (see Section on NRC and the States).
-- consideration by the Commission of a staff policy analysis and proposed policy statement on alternative sites.
-- preparation of a proposed response to a petition from PIRG to establish firm numerical guidelines on population density around reactor sites.
Current licensing cases involving controversial siting issues include:
-- Seabrook (New Hampshire) and Charlestown (Massachusetts):
Appeal Board reversed the Licensing Board and denied inter-venors motion to require consideration of possibility of emergency action putside the Low Population Zone as part of the site review. Tne Appeal Board urged the Ccamission to take up the issue in a rulemaking proceeding, and in June 1977 the Commission announced it would undertake such a proceeding. A staff paper proposing a rulemaking action is currently under revision by the staff in response to Commission comments.
-- Seabrook alternative sites issue (see Seabrook under Current Issues).
L .. . ,' REACTOR SITING MILESTONES i (. 1953 SHIPPINGPORT REACTOR ANNOUNCED 1954 ATOMIC EERGY ACT SIGNED '
. 1955 ldCFRPART50 PROPOSED 1956 10 CFR PART 50 ISSUED '
1957-60 GENERAL SITING CRITERIA DRAFTED
.1961 10 CFR PART 100 PROPOSED .
1962'
.10. CFR PART 100 AND ITS SUPPORT (TID-14844) ISSUED 1963 DETAILED GUIDANCE ON CGPENSATION ALLOWED ESF'S 1967 GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA (APPENDIX A TO PART 50) PROPOSED 1968 INTERNAL STAFF GUIDANCE RdPORTS ISSUED 1969 METROPOLITAN SITING QUESTION CONSIDERED 1970 NEPA EFFECTIVE AND IMPISEVIED (APPENDIX D TO PART 50); ALAP REQUIRBENTS ISSUED AND SAFETY GUIDES ISSUED PUBLICLY, f; 1971 '
CALVERT CLIFFS DECISION (NEPA), GENEPAL DESIGN CRITERIA ISSUED; ALAP GUIDANCE (APPENDIX I TO PART 50) ISSUED AND SEISMIC AND , GEOLOGIC SITING CRITERIA (APPENDIX A 10 PART 100) PROPOSED 1972 GUIDANCE ON EVALUATING SIIES (RG 4.2) ISSUED AND . ENVIR0bMENTAL HEARINGS INITIATED t 1973 NEh' BOLD ISLAND POSITION (NEPA) AND SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC - . SITING CRITERIA (APPENDIX A TO PART 100) ISSUED 1974 NEPA LICENSING REGULATION (10 CFR 51) ISSUED; GEGRAL SITE ' SUITABILIIY CRITERIA (RG 4.7) ISSUED: AND STANDAPD PLAV. f DESIGN REGULATION (APPENDIX M TO PART 50) ISSUED. 1975 REACTOR SAFEIY S'IUDY (!fASH-1400) ISSUED; STANDARD REVIE1 PLAN AND SAFEIY REVIEG ISSUED: STAFF REVIEf 0F SITING POLICY AND. PRACTICE INITIATED. 1976 STANDARD REVIEf PLAN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE S INITIATED; FEDERAL / STATE COOPSINATION STUDY INITIATED; STAFF REVIEf PAPER (SECY-76-286) CG9LETED. . 1977 SEABROOK DECISION; EARLY SITE REVIE!1 REGULATIONS ISSUED: FEDERAL / STATE COORDINATION STUDY COMPLEIED. '
~
(i.
.gy..
~.
- e- v WCLEAR POWER PLAhT DESIGN - SITE-RELATED CRITERIA fl0CFRPart50,AppendixA, " General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants"] W
- RITERION 2: DESIGN BASES FOR PROTECTION AGAINST NATURAL PHENOMENA Stnictures, systems, and components important to safety shall be -
designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as . carthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, tsunami, and seiches without es= loss of capability to perform their safety functions. The design
- bases for these structures, systems, and components shall reflect:
E
-- appropriate consideration of the most severe of the natural phenomena that have been historically reported . (?)
for the site and surrounding area, with sufficient margin for the limited accuracy, quantity, and period of time in which the historical data have been accumulated. _
-- appropriate combinations of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effects of the natural phenomena;
-- the importance of the safety functions to be performed.
CRITERION 3: FIRE PROTECTION . Structures, systems, and components important to safety shall be designed and located to minimize, consistent with other safety requirements, the probability and effect of fires and explosions. The criterion does not specify that the fires or explosions referred to are only those associated with in-plant events. Consequently, fires and explosions of external origin may be considered in applying this criterion.
~
CRITERION 4: ENVIROMIEEAL AND MISSILE DESIGN BASES - Structures, systems, and components important to safety shall be appropriately protected against dynamic effects, including the sffects of missiles, pipe whipping, and discharging fluids, that may result from equipment failures and from events and conditions sutside the nuclear unit. [ CRITERION 60: CONTROL OF RELEASES OF RADICACTIVE MATERIALS TO 7HE EhVIROSEff There must be provided sufficient holdup capacity for retention of gaseous and liquid effluents containing radioactive materials, particularly where unfavorable site environmental conditions can be expected to impose unusual operational limitations upon the releases of such effluents to the environment.
. . . .}}