ML20148N943

Submits Estimated Resource Requirements for Completing Gesmo Proceeding.Differences in Estimates for Original Gesmo Project & Estimates to Complete Proceeding Noted

ML20148N943
Person / Time
Site:	West Valley Demonstration Project, 07000821, 07001327, 07001462, 07001821, Barnwell
Issue date:	09/15/1980
From:	Cunningham R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
Shared Package
ML19295C149	List: ML19295C148 ML20148N943
References
RULE-RM-50-5-45FR3933 NUDOCS 8101090796
Download: ML20148N943 (3)

Text

-

l Onucep yje

.+.

~ UN!TED STATES g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -

n -

-j,,

I WAsmucTon, c. c. 20sss y'

j SEP.151980 MEMORANDUM FOR:

John G. Davis, Deputy Director Office of Huclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM:

Richard E. Cunningham, Director Division of Fuel Cycle'and Material Safety

SUBJECT:

GESMO RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS My August 28 memorandum to you concerning "Information on GESMO Status" included a summary of the resources applied in the original GESMO proceeding.

3 An earlier memorandum of Augt.: t 5 dealt with " Estimated Resource.Recuirements for Completing the GESMO Proce ading."

Further information on these estimates is given below.

The estimate of resources applied in the original GESMO effort covered only the technical staff assigned to the GESMO project., While tne records of time charged to the GESMO effort in 19.74 through 1977 are not readily available, we have estimated the supporting staff effert " r the original study on the same basis as the estimate of resource requii... ints for completing the GESMO proceeding in the future.

The estimates are summarized below.

Original New New GESMO GESMO GESMO Project LWR Only w/ Breeder (1974-1977).

(3 years)

(3 years)

Scientific and Technical Staff (man years) 34 71 90 Support (man years)'

ELD 6

9 9

(estimated--data not OPE 2

3 3

available for original SECY Z

2 2

GESMOsupportgroups)

IP 0

3 3

RES.

0 0

12' ADM-Security 6;

8 8

-Word Proc.

6 18 18 FC non-technical 12 12 19 Total GESMO (man years) 68 126 157 Contractual Support

$2,700,000

$5,830,000 549,180,000 810f e 907%

1, '

SE? 151380 John G. Davis,

The principal differences i,n estimates for the original. GESMD project ad estimates of resource requirements to complete the proceeding are the in11owing:

o. Greater staff effort on waste management (+10 man years).

This work was i

peformed by ORm. under contract for the first GESMO, but is assumed to be

-l done by the Waste Management staff with contractual support if the project

' is reopened.

The effect of proposed new waste management regulations would require a more detailed analysis.

For the original GESMO, the data from the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant (which o

was new at that time) were used with a minimum of staff analysis.

In a new GESMO study, it is assumed that changes to achieve non: proliferation objectives will require madification of the reprocessing plant design and i

this will necessitate more detailed analysis of the environmental impacts

(+7 man years).

For the original study DOE provided the nuclear power growth projections o

and assisted with the analyse.s of material flows in the fuel cycle for the various reprocessing and recycle alternatives.

It is assumed that the staff would perform these analyses in future studies (+6 man years).

Safeguards requirements to perform a comple e environmental impact analysis o

would be greater than for the limited study performed the first time, especially considering the effects of the upgraded safeguards regulations

(+11manyears).

Support groups, which often were forced to work overtime in the original o

GESMO project, estimated higher staff requirements for a new GESMO proceeding (+20 man years).

Some who were not involved originally plan to assign personnel to support a new procee:'ing (Research, International Programs).

Contractual support is estimated at higher levels, especially in Safeguard's o

( +S7SO,000) and Waste Management (+S650,000), where the effects of new regulations must be analyzed, and in Administration, where the magnitude

_ 'of the word process.ing and printing requirements are better known now than

...they were for the original GESMO project.

Thc estimate of contractual

-~ : support for,the originaliGESMO did not include administrative support

~

• ppntracts, which for the;new proceeding were estimated at $1,g00,000.

i

~

.. ~

g

• ~....

l i

FC a

~~

i

,-- ~--

John G. Davis SEP 15 930 If GESMO is to inclucie consideration of the breeder, which we recornend, all technical groups would require greater stafY effort to analyze the more complex involved'in a breeder economy (+19 man years).

In addition, a

' fuel cycle:

major increase would be required for research on matters related to breeder fuel cycle regulations concerning new aspects of health, sa#ety and safeguards requirements (+12 man years, + $42,000,000).

9

~P" Richard E. Cunningham, Director D+ivision of Fuel Cy'cle and.

Material Safety R.S. Brown,Jr.<f.

cc:

O sSe e

S g '.

o 4

e 0

y S

e t

e ti

f

.. =

~

Ei

}

j-h I

E 1930

,AUG B

)

MEMO *.ANDUM FOR:. Carlton C. Kamerer, Director Office of. Congressional Affairs 5

FROM:

John G. Davis, Deputy Director H

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards g

~

SLGJECT:

POSSIBLE,REINSTI111 TION OF GESHO HEARINGS

.=

The July 14, 1980 letter to Chairman Ahearne from Stuart E. Ei:enstat, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs and Policy, reiterated the Administration's view that reprocessing of cocmarcial reactor fuel should be deferred indefinitely and that the GESMO proceeding should remain s

teminated.

If the Congress should mandate a reinstitution of the GESMO i

hearing, we would urge that first the 1976 GESn3 study and report be

~

thoroughly revised to provide a complete.and up-to-date basis for the new 4

proceeding.

Recent studies indicate that the reprocessing of comercial LWR fuel for

?

U the recycle of uranium only will not be economically attractive.

European natione and Japan are planning to, recycle both uranium and plutonic:

q following the reprocessing of spent fuel from co=nercial power plants.

One of the benefits they expect from reprocessing and recycle of coscercial

}

s power plant fuel is the builcup of a plutonium inventory for the breeder 4

If the U.S. re-evaluates the reprocessing and recycle option's',

economy.

the breeder economy should be included in the consideration.

The 1976 GESH3 reperc and the record of the GESMO hearing up to t's tm.ination in December 1977 are based on infomation which is n~w out of date, especially in the areas of costs, nuclear power growth pnHections, and plans for radioactive waste management.

We consider the changes in

- these aree-to be of such magnitude and ir:oortance as to affect the outco:3e

.2 of the GESM] study.

We, therefore, believe t. hat it is essential to revise and update the GESPA study before reinstituting the public hearing process.

0 77-

-%=2i+ We estimate that 6 to 9 renths would be required to assec61e the needed staff and from 18 conths to'2 years,to perfom thE study and to davalop and publish 1

h-~+.W the updated report which.wouTd serve as the? basis for the public. bearing... We

~

~"

- f

. f. 'telieve that a year would be required to re'ceive 'pub

_ =

report, publish the final document and conduct the public hearing. g3h

?.

~s$ =

=

x;.4.- -

h

<h'6p\\ Q f'

~

?-

[ = 3 @: P } Q

}

).:

-. 7 9

p

. : a.w.g:..

3. :.=...

_..... 3 y_ _

j,

.. = =

. = -. m.

na

=.

n

. n.-

e

=

..I Carlton C. Kamerer T s

• .-=

Factors affecting the scheduling of a reinstituted SESM3 effort are the E.

following:

i..:

. New wasta management regulations for both high-level and low-leve1 ~

~ f wastes are nov being developed but will not be finalized until. about

a the end of 1981.

.?

Contracts to support the new GESMO study will require 12 to 18 months

,d for obtaining prope;als, selecting a contractor, and completing the

+

1 work.

The performance of the study and the writing of the report will require l

aMut 18 nonths, with additional time for NRC internal reviews and revisions.

' If GESMO is completely redone, including consid ration of breeders, the un::ertainties are such that an additional year's effort for both staff and contractors may be required at apprcximately the level shown for the third year.

q I

((

..,f

d

.t

..: :.~ - -

y

.::,g.:.:r;

..=.. :-.

..:=

u

. u ;< :

+

,,...; d'.i n..

.-h

~r -

E;.;.FiTI::~{:E5I :7..4~'-

f_.:f.f. -M.D.:.949/ "" '

" 2.i. ;-p.E E: ; / - - ^

- +#. ' t -.

9- : ".-

~n.-.='.i:E5F.M--Q..;

d.;EiEj,:;"::,p". ".,l:3Ejid=_f: : ~

...:.i:".?.r:5 l,-= '522: ~

.y _.:

rr ~ :r_. ; }"

=..

.:.=..-

..r:.. ;._: :.- ; -.. : :

.:. -..,.:=.-?;=".[~,,.q;...= V:.=~_...;9 '"

g'-~'..-j :d:.c:.d...;.-i :.-p.EEs-E/ia.r:,:..

1

,y. 9E:== -~-".. ?. 7._;T:

. a cy.

3,..

..,,..,:y=.....

y c.- g.

=;

.=, - -f.;

". ' =~;

,_.a..:..5 u

=..=.:---

........:...=....

=... _... :.: ;. -

. =5

..=

=

"*.... -.f

.? ;..

,. ;=..:::- -

.A: 4 -

' 2.

W. _

7.:2.:. ~?. -

c 2.gi...

..r:.. :

.c....: q

__^ Y ? =,..i'. V.'".h.... ;;"it.::.:~=. =$.'.9 ::%T?.~.'-i =

g;

.:. j- - -

'.== E*N@@:- =.. 4~....

U dd~:J.:h:5=:.t-ihi== ;::.~ * -l -

d:

.g.

=...

3

EE S.

C,t.rltori C. Kamerer,

Ew

=.

=

We have estimated the resource requirements for a comp 1 apdating of'the n

)Q GESMO study as shown in the tabulation belttt.

It mus '

acted that these estimated. resource requirements are incremental to Y oposed budget levels.

If NRC is directed to accomplish this work

, cut a corresponding b

increase in budget levels, some present on-going an-

@cted programs j

will-be sharply curtailed as resources are diverte/

GESRO assignments.

g q

No effort has been made to develop the details of GESMO resource requirements, as the scope and content of work to.

required or us are not known.

The ' resource estimates given below should be regarded as first g

apprcximations only, intended to giYe an idea of the magnitude of resource q

requirements and the approximate length of time required to update the GESHO report and conduct a new public hearing proceeding.

a LVR Fuel Cycle Only 1.WR & Breeder Fuel Cycles l st._Yr 2nd Yr 3rc Yr ist Yr 2nd Yr 3rd Yr O

Staff Reouirements NMSS 20 24 22 24 30 29 24 i

25 Other 1 _8 20 22 24 Total 3R 44 44 48 56 53 Contractual Sutwort (thousandsofdoliars) 10'.5 5 1,350 1,800 750 1,800 2,600 850 ADM 925 455 550 925 4E3 550

' RES 0

0 0

12.000 20,000 10,000

.g Total 2,275 2,255 1,300 14,725 23,055 11,400

..: 4

'J (Eig; :ed) Jcb G. 38.~iS

~

1

~

" '.I l

.7 John G. Davis, Deputy Director

~'

~

.c - :r' if-L f.'

..?

. -" M N Office of fiu: lear Mat.erf al Safety

?[$S..YSNUb.

~

= W T 5.==9.-

. 7 :.- m ' and 5afeguards

.==.:f.;&=:-

. ~...

= = = = = = - -

_.:. _ :=........ - -.

.,...:.=.....,.=..... = " = = ~ ~ ~ ~ ' = " = = " =

" " = * = =

h. :==.:2~d..:.n.h ~~ -i='.Mr* Dircks?':.D+8N.Y" t..bcc : FC C i- --

HMSS 80-0991.=.=l h=~

. = ~ e' ='-

W 5 SQ;5 A

. - =.:

c n

....u...._.._.=.._:

.. __._=. _. Mr. H w* o9ue._=. =:.=_........_.. --==. -

M.E.3=.e# ML=:s.Mr. Dente,ges.2 ff=WL = =..RMSS.r/f.._Mr. Stel1o;p.geg..:g

".s'-Ti: Carter ~ s.i=U ABe GATerry. _3._...g... BACl ausser g(

r..c.=.. eyg.gg5 Mr. Budnitz.--.;. -: F w.r WET r/f:

RECunningham

.._.qf.

..:=.

JGDPvis

- U.- I

['.. 3 Mr. Martin $:-::

S*r WEThomph;on

... i._~. 5.$7.,, it. Burnett -. :

.:.c :::re :

....u.

=..u..:

u.......:...:..-

-a.~

+

-~ gf -- ; - _ -= =

2.

.= -

l

~~~

.i.- H 7 Mr. Cunningham

.. FCTA:.

,.C04 FC FC 104SS r

....... _=.==._..=._ Mr. Brown

. _ /.'..

% _.d h

..c..'l...

WEThompson':mpm GATerry...-

TFCarter RECunningham JGDavis

.=...:.....

..R. ".~.~.=i,.'....c. :==. gf.. ".. :Ca.'Z. _. 8/7.180.:_:.:,...

8/7/80f. _ 8/.../80.

8/.. /80 8/..:, /E0

_:t.

,...-...g.3.._...-

g

....:....:.....=.

3,

.::.; _.a.. g,... y ;

--m u

- =. :

... y..x

..-.m=m.m

.. m

ADD 2TIONAL 1NFORMATION FOR THE TMNSITION TEAM Minimum Number of Sites to be Characterized for a Geologic High Level Waste Repository The rule 10 CFR 60, " Disposal c f High-Level Radioactive Wastes in' Geologic Repositories--Licensing Procedures," currently is being considered by the Commission'for publication in final form.

As a part of this regulation action the st".ff is preparing to amend 10 CFR 51.40 by adding a new subsection (d) which will state, in part:

"The Commission considers the characterization of three sites representing two geologic media to be the minimum necessary to satisfy the requirements of NEPA.

However, in light of the significance of the decision selecting a site for a repository, the Commission fully expects the DOE to submit a wider range of alternatives than the minimum suggested here."

The proposed final rule does not categorically require in, situ testing

~

at depth in the rule, since it is conceivable that in some instances at a particular site the data needed to establish that the site is suitable to host a repository may be obtained without,in situ testing at depth.

DOE, like any applicant for an NRC license, has the burden of establishing that NRC require-ments have been met, and the regulations equire DOE to undertake any testing needed to determine the ^uitability of the site for a geolagic repository.

Thus, if DOE chose not to explore at depth it would not be relieved in any way of the burden of obtaining and supplying to the Commission information needed to establish the suitability of the s'te.

s Under the proposed nal rule, 00E may submit its app'iication for a con-struction permit prior to the completion of site characterization of the proposed site or alternatives.

However, before the beginning of the public

hearing concernir.g issuance of the construction permit the characterization of

~

the proposed site.and the alternatives must be completed.

" Pat Down" Search Rule The proposed search procedures for power reactor (revision to 10 CFR 73.55) were published on December 1,1980, for' public comment. The proposed rule reqttires:

searches, using explosivu and metal detection equipment, of e

everyone entering a protec'ted area; and, in addition, a " pat down" search for all visi: ors.

e In the event that detection equipment is not operable at a portal, a

" pat d'own" search will be made of everyone using that portal.

If there is cause to suspect that an employee is carrjing contraband, a " pat down" search is required of that employee.

Until the new requirements become effective, currcetly ongoing interim measures will continue.

These '1terim measures consist of an equipnient search of all persons entering the protected area plus a pat down search of all visitors of a sample of licensee non-site employees.

The final date for comment on the proposed rule is January 15, 1981.

The staff anticipates a finai rule approximately 60 to 90 days following the close of the comment period.

4 I