ML20197E234

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Planning Projections for FY83-87
ML20197E234
Person / Time
Issue date: 04/30/1981
From: Abramson L, Barnett L, Boyd S
NRC OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS (MPA), NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER
To:
Shared Package
ML20197E179 List:
References
FOIA-86-172 NUDOCS 8605150203
Download: ML20197E234 (30)
v • d • e


Text

. . - - _ . . - . - _ _ _ ____

., r, -

NRC CASELOAD PLANNING PROJECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1983-87 NRC Caseload Panel Sybil M. Boyd, Chairman, MPA Lee R. Abramson, MPA Leslie W. Barnett, CON Robert J. Dube, NMSS Mark F. Haisfield, NMSS William H. Lovelace, MPA

, Peter Loysen, NMSS George Mathews, III, IE Jack W. Roe, NRR f

4 April 1981 8605150203 860429 (Data as of March 1981)

PDR FOIA '

BREADYS6-172 PDR

i. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . __ _ _ . _ . . _ . . . _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ . . . _ , _ . . , _ , . . . _ . _._ _ ,

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.

1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Power Reactors Casework Program 1 3.0 Fuel Cycle and Materials Safety Program 3 4.0 Waste Management Program 11 5.0 Safeguards Program 18 6.0 International Program 24 LIST OF TABLES 1 Power Reactor Caseload 2 2 Uranium Fuel Fabrication Facilities 4 3 Advanced Fuel R&D and Pilot Facilities 5 4 UF; Production Facilities 6 5(a) Spent Fuel Storage Facilities 7 5(b) Low Level Waste Storage Facilities 8 6 Radioisotopes Licensing 9 7 Transportation Reviews 10 8(a) Licensed LLW Disposal Sites 13 8(b) Assistance to Agreement States (LLW Disposal Sites) 13 9 Uranium Millin 9 14 10 Other Uranium Ore Processing 15 11 Solution Mining (Commercial Scale) 16 12 Other Solution Recovery 17 13 Physical Security Reviews 19 14 Material Control & Accounting Reviews 22 15 Export / Import Licensing 25 l

l l

NRC CASELOAD PLANNING PROJECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1983-87 1.0 Introduction The Caseload Panel was formed in late 1975 to assist the NRC staff and the j Executive Director for Operations in budget preparation and review. The Panel is chaired by a representative from the Office of Management and Program Analysis. Membership on the Panel is designated by the Office Directors for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Inspection and Enforcement, Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, the Controller, and Management and Program Analysis, q This report, which is issued annually by the Panel, provides a single agency i

source for planning future licensing activities. Specific workload and manpower loadings based on these projections are developed by individual offices. The

projections herein are based primarily on surveys conducted by NRR and NMSS of j industry plans over the next three years. Additional workload is also generated j on a continuous basis as a result of NRC's post-licensing activities and inspection purview of all operational facilities.

Detailed caseload projections are provided in the following sections.

j 2.0 power Reactors Casework Program

  • d

! Casework consists of effort associated with (1) the safety, environmental, and

' antitrust reviews of applications for a construction permit (CP), operating i

license (OL), Preliminary or Final Design Approval (PDA or FDA) of a standard plant design, early site approval and (2) post-construction pennit activities.

This effort also includes the safety review of DOE facilities.

No projections are being made for new CP applications since no new orders are 4

expected beyond those already announced. (The only plants currently on order for

! which a CP application has not been tendered are Connonwealth Edison's proposed j

Carroll County 1 and 2 plants.) An application for Carroll County is not anticipated before early 1984 and consequently, no projections are made for new CP applications. Puget Sound Power & Light Company is expected to submit

! a revised application to relocate the site for its proposed Skagit plant.

Projections for new applications for operating licenses are derived from the estimates indicated in licensee responses to the NRR survey letter except for the five projected in FY 1987. For these five, the Panel assumed that the plants involved would not have construction complete until 1990 or later and thus would not be filling an OL application before FY 1987.

I Licenses to be issued are based on applicant's estimates of construction complete, ;

j except for those plants in FY 1981-82 where the licensing review will be completed

! after construction is completed. A profile of the status by year of the 163  !

reactors in the " pipeline" is shown in Appendix A. Detailed projections for the
FY 1983-87 planning period are given in Table 1.
  • As of the end of 1980, seventy-one (71) nonpower reactors were licensed.

The number is expected to remain fairly constant throughout the planning period.

l i

Table 1 POWER REACTOR CASELOAD FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 FY1987 New Applications CP's OL's 15 4 15 5 New Issuances Construction Permits 4 7 Licenses (FullU Power) 4 13 17 7 9 9 7 Licenses (Low / '

Zero Power)2_/ 2 1 TotalReactorsE Licensed (Full Power) 72 85 102 109 118 127 134 Licensed (Low /

Zero Power) 1 Total Reactors UnderConstr.$/ 80 71 61 54 45 36 29 New Applications NSSS/ BOP 5 2 2 Site Reviews 1 Reviews for DOE 2 2 2 2 2 NOTES: y Projections are based on applicant's estimates of construction complete or licensing mvfew complete, whichever is later. (Licensing review is controlling only for FY 1981-82 plants .)

2_/ Projections are based on applicant's estimates of when construction is estimated to be complete enough to pennit issuance of an initial fuel load and/or low power testing license.

3] Excludes 3 which have operating licenses but are shut down indefinitely--

Three Mile Island 2. Humboldt Bay, and Dresden 1. The operating authority for the Indian Point 1 license has been revoked.

4j The number of plants at the end of FY80 also included two units (Black Fox 1 & 2) already being constructed under an LWA but which are not projected for CP's issued until FY 1982. These, themfore, are excluded from this total until FY 1982.

A

3.0 Fuel Cycle and Materials Safety Program This program area covers licensing of byproduct material, source material, and special nuclear material. It includes the facilities that process and fabricate fuel for reactors, and independent spent fuel storage facilities, as well as other types of materials licenses. NRC exercises licensing authority over uranium fuel fabrication plants, advanced fuel R&D facilities, and UFs production facilities. (See Tables 2-4.) Enrichment plants are government-owned and are not subject to licensing.

Table 5(a) depicts projections for spent fuel storage facilities. These projections do not assume any government-owned (00E) away-from-reactor storage. At present only those requests for independent spent fuel storage at reactor sites which have been specifically identified during the planning period are included. If there should be some change in the current DOE policy, or additional industry effort, to build away-from-reactor storage facilities, these projections as well as those envisio...d for Transportation Reviews (Table 7) and shipments (Table 13) will likely change. Unless the current projections change, the projected on-site spent fuel storage at reactor sites indicates insufficient storage capacity by the mid 1980's. Some inter-site transfers may be possible with the expected increase in manufacture of shipping casks which are already approved by NRC.

Materials licenses are also issued for Intermediate Onsite Contingency Storage Facilities to store low-level waste at reactor sites for several years. Three such requests for FY 1981'have been identified and for planning purposes, the NRC assumes about three (3) requests per year will be received during the planning period. (See Table 5(b).)

Certificates of Compliance are issued by NRC for packaging designs for radioactive materials on the basis of their satisfying the requirements of 10 CFR 71.

) Certificates are also issued for licensees quality assurance (QA) programs which satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR Part 71. Reviews of package designs are shown in Table 7.

The fuel cycle program area also includes safety reviews of DOE-owned waste processing facilities, such as the Savannah River High Level Waste Treatment i Facility. One review of this type per year is anticipated.

I l

J

' i l

l Table 2 i

- 6 URANIUM FUEL FABRICATION ]

FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 FYl987 I

New Facilities

! 2/

Received 0 0 0 0 1- 0 0 1/ 2/

Completed 0 1-- 0 0 0 .0 l'~

4.]

Major Amendments 3/

Received 16-3/ 18 9 9 9 9 9 I

4/

Renewals-I Received 4 6 1 2 0 3 3

{ 5/

Total Licensed-End FY 17 18 17 16 16 16 17 i

NOTES:

jf Application (received FY 80) for Westinghouse - Prattville, Alabama 2_/ New facility (Exxon - Richland, Washington) 3/ Includes Emergency Plan Reviews for-licensed facilities (8 expected FY 81 and 9 expected FY 82) 4/ flajor amendments are estimated based on reported and historical data and renewals are identified based on facilities licensed, which are

expected to remain in operation Sj The following facilities are expected to be decomissioned:

FY 83 - Texas Instruments l FY 84 - UNC-Wood River Jct.

6/ Six (6) of these facilities possess and oracess Category I material;

! three other facilities have authority to possess Categnry I material.

although their operations are restricted or the facility is in the process of being decommissioned.

, The remainino 8 facilities (9 by FY 1982) have authority to possess and use Category II/III material.

(See Tables 13 and 14 for related physical security and MC&A reviews.)

i

~

Table 3 ADVANCED FUEL R&D AND PILOT FACILITIES 3_/

i FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 FY1987 4

i New Facilities

Received 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Completed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s

Major Amendments i

1/ 2)

Received- 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 .

1 Renewals Received 1 1 0 1 0 2 2 U

Total Licensed j End FY 8 7 5 4 4 4 3 i

i

! NOTES:

1 y Includes decomissioning actions, expected to occur as follows:

i FY 82 - Battelle-Columbus

^

i FY 83 - Kerr-McGee; Exxon FY 84 - Westinghouse FY 87 - GE-Valleci tos i~

'; (Note that licensees have adequate authority to conduct decontamination activities leading to decomissioning. However, assessment of facility i status prior to release for unrestricted use requires staff effort

! comparable to that of a major amendment. Ultimate termination of i

the license may be delayed, however, pending suitable arrangements

} for storage of the transuranic wastes.)

1 1

y All identified; based on facilities expected to remain licensed.

-3/ Two (2) of these facilities have authority to possess Category I i

material, but are in the process of being decomissioned. Six ,

! (6) of these facilities have authority to possess Category II/III material, but four (4) are in the process of being decomissioned.

1 l  :

l f

Table 4 i

UF6 PRODUCTION FACILITIES I FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 FY1987 j

New Facilities i

i Received 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

i Completed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major Amendments-2/

1/

1 Received 4- 1 1 1 1 1 1 2/

j Renewals-

)

Received 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 l

Total Licensed l End FY 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 l

I NOTES:

If Includes Emergency Plan Reviews for two licensed facilities, plus 2 amendments already received in FY 81.

2/ Historically, each facility requires an amendment about every other

)

year and is up for renewal every five years.

l l

1 l

t I

i I l

.. -,---------,-_..,,--,--,n,

Table 5(a)

SPENT FUEL STORAGE FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 FY1987 New Facilities Received V F F F F F 1 1 -

1 1 1 1 Completed IS/ 1 1 -

1 1 1 i

Major Amendments

, Received 1 3 1 - - - - <

Renewals i

Received - - - - - - -

Total Licensed-~5/ ,

End FY 2 2 2 2 3 4 5

! NOTES:

, 1/ Standardized Design Review, which is not added to " Total Licensed" 2/ TVA applications anticipated, as follows:

FY 82 - R&D type i

FY 85 - Sequoyah site FY 86 - Watts Bar site FY 87 - Browns Ferry site l'

(These may or may not be combined into a single request for a facility at one of the sites, capable of storing spent fuel from all TVA reactors.)

3/ Application from VEPC0 at unidentified site.

-4/ Duke Power Co. transhipment review received in 1979 but does not result in a new licensed facility.

-5/ Includes Morris facility (still accepting fuel on a limited basis) and NFS-West Valley (not accepting fuel) both of which are expected -

to retain NRC licenses during the planning period.

I k

4 4

i

. ~ - . , - . . ._..-- . -.-__..- ._ _,._ .__-.___ .__. . . . _ . - _ _ _ _ . . _ _ - - . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ , . _ _ - . _ . . . . _

l Table 5(b)

LOW LEVEL WASTE STORAGE AT REACTORS l
FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FYl984 FY1985 FY1986 FY1987 New Facilities

^ 1/

Received 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Completed -

3 3 3 3 3 3 Major Amendments t

I Received - - - - - - -

I Renewals Received ,- - - - - - -

2 Total Licensed

! End FY 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 i

! NOTES:

J/ All identified in FY 81; three per year thereafter, assumed for planning purposes only; therefore,15 of the 18 to be licensed

by the end of FY 1987 are unidentified.

}

i s

6 s

. . ~. . .. - - . . - - _ - - - . - - . _ _ . -.

i i

t i

4 Table 6 i

) RADI0 ISOTOPES LICENSING i

f FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FYl984 FY1985 FY1986 FY1987 '

Appis. Received: '

i

! New Licenses 650 700 850 850 1000 1050 1100 I

l 3600 Amendments 3600 3600 3600 3600 3600 3600 i j Renewals 750 1100 1700 1500 1500 1100 1400 Total Licenses 8800 9050 9230 9420 9610 9800 10,000 NOTES: New Licenses - Based on historical data for new licenses; includes

, about 10% of expired licenses which are not renewed, l but are issued as new licenses.

J Amendments - Based on historical data, but expected to remain constant.

! Renewals - Based on FY-80 data it is estimated that 80% of licenses up

for renewal are actually renewed.

i Licenses due to expire: FY 950 FY 1720 FY 1368 FY 2000 '

i FY 2142 (FY-81 thru FY-85 projections are l FY 1869 derived from data base of licenses .

] FY 1847 outstanding as of FY-80. FY-86 and 1

FY-87 are estimates.)

i

. Total Licenses - About a 2% net increase per year.

i l

t 1

t i

i Table 7 TRANSPORTATION REVIEWS Applications Received FY 81 FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85 FY 86 FY 87 1

Category I Reviews New 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i

Amendments 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Renewals 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

! Category II Reviews New 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Anendments 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Renewals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5

Category III Reviews i New 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Amendments 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

{ Renewals 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Category IV Reviews New 12 12 12 i 12 12 12 12 Amendments 24 24 24 24 i 24 24 24 Renewals 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 Category V QA Reviews 45 45 45 45 3451/ 1451/ 601/

NOTES: Review Categories encompass the following:

I - Spent Fuel /HLW/Pu Air Transport II - Dispersible High Biological Risk Material (Normal Form

Type B)

)

III - Non-Dispersible High Biological Risk Material (Special Form Type B) f IV - Low Specific Activity / Low Biological Risk Fissile Material (LSA/ Type A Fissile) l V - Quality Assurance Programs 1/ Cyclical repeat of a new program initiated in 1980, which requires periodic renewals every five years; expected to even out eventually.

I

{

4.0 Waste Management Program I

NRC's Waste Management Pmgram is composed of three parts: high-level waste (including transuranic wastes and spent fuel to be placed in deep geologic repositories for permanent disposal), low-level waste, and uranium recovery.

NRC's authority to license and regulate the disposal of both high-level and 1

low-level radioactive waste is derived fmm three statutes: the Atomic Energy l Act of 1954, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. In addition to these statutes, the Uranium Mill Tailings 1

Radiation Control Act of 1978 delineates NRC's responsibilities in the regula-tion of uranium recovery operations.

3 4.1 High-Level Waste DOE has been given sole authority to dispose of consnercially generated high-level

. waste. In anticipation of the first DOE Application, NRC will concentrate on regulations, guidance, and succorting data. A specific DOE application to NRC is not expected before FY 1987. During FY 1981 - 1986, NRC will be involved in pre-licensing activities for five sites involving a variety of geologic medi a . This pre-licensing activity will consist of a series of reviews as .

DOE investigations ensue. (See Appendix "B" for details.)

1 4.2 Low-Level Waste The low-level waste management pmgram is divided into two major areas:

regulatory development and licensing casework. A regulation is in preparation on the disposal of low-level waste (10 CFR 61). Regulatory guides and review I procedures are also included. NRC licenses low-level waste disposal sites in

! non-Agreement States and provides technical assistance, as resources permit, to Agreement States in the licensing of disposal sites within State jurisdiction.

The low-level waste management program requires input and coordination from other NRC offices and other Federal agencies.

4.2.1. New Applications There are presently three operating conenercial LLW disposal sites in the country, and all of them are located in Agreement States (Barnwell, Beatty, and Hanford).

The Barnwell site has been decreasing the amounts of waste that they will accept. The Governor of the State of Nevada wishes to close the.Beatty site.

The State of Washington passed an initiative in late 1980 to pmhibit the disposal of non-medical mean that thereradioactive is less place waste at the for the Hanford waste sit to be d$s.

4 posed.

All ofNationa thew $cti LLOns projections show tne amount of LLW being generated in the future increasing.

With the passage of the " Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980," it is the policy of the Federal Government that each State is responsible for pmviding the availability of capacity either within or outside the State for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated within its borders. The Act also pennitted States to enter into compacts with other States but only i

with the approval of Congress. Thus, the number of new sites can range from i

l j , _ _ _ . . --__ _ _ .. _ _ -. _ _ _ _._ _ _ . _ .- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

l l

l the present three all the way up to 50, assuming that each State goes its own way. For planning purposes, NRC has forecast 6 applications each to NRC and Agreement States in the time period FY82 to FY84 although the specific sites are not yet identified. [See Tables 8(a) and 8(b).]

4.3 Uranium Recovery The uranium recovery licensing program consists of the licensing and regulation of such operations as uranium mills, heap leaching facilities, are buying stations, connercial solution mining (in-situ) operations, and research and development uranium extraction projects. Projections for these licensing actions are shown in Tables 9-12.

Table 8(a) ~

NRC LICENSED LLW DISPOSAL SITES (Non-Agreement States)

FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 FY1987 New SitesW Received 2 2 2 Completed 2 2 2 Amendments Received 2 2 2 2 6 10 14 Renewals (SMO Received 1 1 1 Total Sites Licensed 3U 3 U 3 U 3 4_/ 6 8 8 Table 8(b)

ASSISTANCE TO AGREEMENT STATES LLW Disposal Sites FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 FY1987 NewSitesW Assistance Requests 2 2 2 Existing Sites AssistanceM Requests 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 >

Reassessment?

Requests 1 ,

1 - NOTES: MAll unidentified.

-2/ Includes Barnwell, Hanford (which have NRC licenses for SNM) olus Sheffield (not coeratina). Excludes Beatty, which is not licensed by NRC.

3]Sheffield decomissioning is scheduled for FY 1984 4f For amendments , renewals , e tc.

I 5]Barnwell (FY 1981) and Hanford (FY 1984) 9 Table 9 URANIUM MILLING FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 Ft1986 FY1987 New Facilities Received 1 2 2 2 2 2 Completed , 2 2 2 2 2 Major Amendments Received 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 3

Renewals Received 1 3 1 5 3 4 Total Licensed End FY 15 4 17 17 19 21 22 24 NOTES: 1 New Facilities - Identified companies in FY83. Four of the remaining eight in FY84-87 are also identified companies.

2 Major Amendments - Estimates based on experience and number of licensed mills; does not include amendments which will be required as a result of revisions to 10 CFR Part 40 (implementing GEIS on uranium milling) and 40 CFR 190 (EPA standards).

3 Renewals - All renewals based on identified companies.

4 TVA mill expected to be decommissioned in FY86.

1 l

l l

l Table 10 4

1 OTHER URANIUM ORE PROCESSING FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 FY1987 2

New Facilities Received 1 2 2 2 2 2

, Completed 1 1 '2 2 2 2 3

Ma.for Amendments Received 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4

Renewals Received 1 3 1 1 Total Licensed i End FY 6 7 7 9 11 13 15 1

NOTES: Includes are buying stations and various above ground leaching operations.

2 New Facilities - Identified companies in FY 83. Two of the remaining

, eight in FY84-87 are also identified companies.

Major Amendments - Based on number of licenses outstanding.

Renewals - Based on identified companies FY81-87.

1

Table 11 SOLUTICN MINING (COMMERCIAL SCALF.)

FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FI1986 FY1987 New Facilities 1 Received 1 7 5 5 5 5 5 Completed 1 3 7 5 5 5 5 Major Amendments Received 2 3 4 4 5 5 3

Renewals Received 1' 1 1 3 i Total Licensed End FY 3 6 13 18 23 , 28 33 1

/

1 NOTES: New Facilities - Eight of the twenty-five p

' identified, but unidentified applications aremjected based for FY83-87 are on expected

conversion of R&D facilities to commercial scale operations.

2 Major Amendments - Based on expected increased number of licensed facilities.

3 Renewals - Based on identified companies. -

i t

l 1

l 1

9 .

i t .

i 4

I

Table 12 1

OTHER SOLUTION RECOVERY t

FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 Fi1986 FY1987 New Facilities 2 Received 4 -

2 3 4 4 4 5 Completed 3 2 4 3 4 4 4 Major Amendments 3 Received 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 Renewais#

Received 2 1 5 2 5 3 4 Total Licensed End FY 5 6 20 20 23 26 30 34 38 i

4 1

NOTES:

Includes R&D solution mining and recovery of uranium as a byproduct from solutions.

2 New Facilities - Estimates for FY83-87 based on anticipated increased interest in solution mining, as evidenced by actuals in FY80 and those identified for FY81-82.

Major Amendments - Estimates based on number of licensed facilities.

4 Renewals - All renewals based on identified companies.

5 Cleveland Cliffs (Collins Draw, Campbell County, Wyoming site) and Minerals Exploration to be deconnissioned.

6 Cleveland Cliffs (North Rolling Pin Site) to be decommissioned.

i 2

' . . . Safeguards Program Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Reorganization Act

' of 1974, the NRC is responsible for the regulation of safeguards provided by certain of its licensees. NRC currently has safeguards regulatory.

control over (1) eleven fuel cycle facilities that are authorized to possess formula quantities of highly enriched uranium or plutonium; .

(2) transportation activities involving spent fuel or formula quantities of highly enriched uranium or plutonium; and (3) 69 licensed power reactors and 71 non-power reactors. NRC also has safeguards responsibilities for other facilities which possess significant quantities of low enriched uranium as well as numerous small facilities that possess and ship SNM.

Other workload performed under the Safeguards Program Area consists of reviews of applications for (including Country analyses) certain materials designated for export. Also, such items as resolution of generic issues, value-impact analyses, policy guidance, etc., which serve as the basis for NRC safeguards rulemaking activities are performed by NMSS rather than in RES.

The NRC Domestic Safeguards Licensing Program is composed of two parts:

(1) Material Control and Accounting (MC&A), and (2) Physical Security.

Under the physical security portion (see Table 13), NRC reviews physical protection plans, guard training plans, contingency plans and revisions to existing plans and institutes remedial licensing actions based on results of inspections and evaluation. Under the MC&A portion (see Table 14), NRC reviews new MC&A licensee plans and revisions to existing plans and institutes remedial licensing actions based on the results of inspections and evaluations.

~

The projections shown.in Tables 13 and 14 are numbers of reviews for each category,' depending'on the types and numbers of facilities involved and whether one or more of the above noted plans is required.

During the planning period, plan reviews _will be conducted to implement various new or revised regulatory requirements. For example, the Physical Security Upgrade Rule, which became effective in 1980, required guard training and contingency plans for power reactors and Catego,ry I licensees, and security plans for certain non-power reactors. It also required MC&A plans for the Category I licensees. Revised rules contemplated for 1982 will require new plans for other Category II/III licensees, as well as

, transportation routes. These activities are " driving" many of the pro-jections in FY 1981 and FY 1982.

Comparable upgrade activities are anticipated in the the material control and accounting regulations, such as: (1) MC&A' Upgrade, to be effective 1982; (2) Category II/III Restructured Rule, to be Effective 1983; (3) Statistical Treatment (Inventory Discrepancies) Rule .to be effective 1984; and (4).the Integrated Safeguards Rule, to be effective 1985. These, in turn, " drive" the projections for FY 1983-86, respectively. ~

Table 13

PHYSICAL SECURITY REVIEWS l
Tyoe of Review FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 j Power Reactor OL Applications
l/

New Security Plans 15 4 15 0 0 0 5 New Contingency & 30 8 30 0, 0 0 10 Guard Plans Licensed Power Reactors:M Plan Amendments 215 255 310 330 350 380 400 (Security)

Plan Maintenance (Guard 4 6 8 10 10 10 10 Training / Contingency)

, Vital Area Analysis 25 22 11 11 11 10 10 Non-Power Reactors:8 New Plans 8 20 2 2 0 0 0 Plan Maintenance 10 '20 20 20 20 20 20 Catzgory I Materials Licensees:3/

New Plans 12 Plan Maintenance 36 26 0 0 21/ 21/ 20 3Y 24 24 24 24 24 i

Category II/III Materials Licensees:

N w Plans (Fuel 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Facilities)1/

Re NewStorage)_ Plans {/ actor Fuel 4 13 17 7 9 9 7 1

Plan Maintenance 24 24 24 24 24 24 24  :

Transportation:# 1 4

Plan Reviews 26 60 12 8 4 2 0 Plan Maintenance 10 10 10 10 10 10 Shipments 1/ 10 300 300 300 400 500 600 700 Othar Safeguards Workload Export Licenses H/ 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 Country Analysesll/ 3 1 0 0 ' 0 0 0 l Regulatory Issues:M/

Generic 21 20 20 20 20 20 20 Amendments to Rules 26 21 20 20 20 20 Policy Guidance 20 44 42 40 40 40 40 V-I Analyses 40 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 Testimony 0 2 1 1

, 1 1 1 NOTES: See next page.

_ __ . . _ . - - - - - - 191- --- - - - - - - - -'- ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Tablo 13 Notes

-1/

Each pending power reactor license application requires three reviews:

contingency plan, guard training plan, and security plan (pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55). (See Table 1 for projected power reactor OL applications.)

1/ Each licensed power reactor averages about three amendments per year to its security plan. Separate reviews are conducted to maintain the guard training and contingency plans. The vital area analysis is conducted once during the . effective time of the license. (The vital area analysis is a contract effort and is phased according to funds available so that by FY 1987 all reactors licensed by FY 1983 will have submitted plans that include a vital area analysis.) (See Table 1 for projections of licensed power reactors.)

3/ The FY 81 projections are for the remaining plan reviews of licensed non-power reactors security plans in accordance with 10 CFR 73.60.

The FY 82 projections are for the 20 non-power reactors that will require additional revised plans based on proposed rules to be effective FY 1982.

The FY 83 and FY 84 projections are for renewals of existing non-power licenses (where the security plan is expected to be contested in the renewal hearing).

1/

Of the eleven Category I fuel fabrication facilities (sce Tables 2 and 3),

five are undergoing decomissioning or have restricted operations such that only a security plan is required. Pursuant to new rules adopted in 1980, however, the six active Category I. facilities require an additional guard training and contingency plan.

s/

These are for the four new independent spent fuel storage facilities (see Table 5(a)) which will require a security plan and a contingency plan.

The FY 87 projection also includes a security plan for the HLW repository (see discussion in Section 4.0).

1/

This covers the revised security plans to be submitted by Category II/III licenses assuming proposed rules are adopted in 1982. The rules would affect the 16 Category II/III fuel facilities (see Tables 2 and 3) and 4 other materials licensees possessing quantities or types of material covered by Category II/III. '

1/

Assumes each reactor to be licensed (see Table 1) will require review of a

yearsecurity plan the Part 50for a partis70 license license to store fuel during the same issued.

1/

This Category covers plan reviews for shippers and/or revisions to previously approved routes or plans; some of the FY 82 reviews include those reviews anticipated as a result of proposed revisions to 10 CFR Part 73 relating to transportation of Category II material.

1/ Estimate is based on spent fuel casks available, approved routes, and security plans.

Additional casks are expected to be manufactured by 1984 which storage siteswill permit some or between sites. additional shipping to existing spent fuel However, unless the current projections (see Section 3.0) change, the projected capacity of on-site spent fuel storage at reactor sites indicates insufficient storage capacity by the mid 1980's and thus the shipments become more numerous than those projected here.

Table 13 Notes (Continued) 12/ Each HEU and reactor export and about one-fourth of the LEU cases require two reviews (before and after the Executive Branch review).

The remainder of the LEU cases and about 50% of the source and 20%

of the special materials cases require a single review. In addition, some retransfers of material and Agreements for Cooperation require NMSS review.

ll/ 10 CFR 110.43 requires in-country analyses of the Safeguards systems in place of those countries receiving certain U.S.-supplied material.

Subsequently, a second round of evaluations was required to verify that tne results of the first evaluations were implemented. These projections complete the second round of evaluations. All will be complete by 1982.

12/ Throughout the course of the year, issues regarding the adequacy and appropriateness of regulations arise from the Commission, Congress, the public, NRC inspections and evaluations, and safeguards incidents.

These result in various staff activities, known as regulatory issues. -

L Table 14 MATERIAL CONTROL AND ACCOUNTING REVIEWS Type of Review FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 Plan Changes:

Majorl/ 7 5 8 7 8 2 2 Minorl/ 80 80 85 85 85 85 85

Other2/ 6 0 6 13 19 19 0 Remedial Actions
2/

, Major 5 7 7 7 7 7 '7 Minor 30 30 35 35 35 35 35 Other Safeguards Workload Review of Facility Attachments U.S./IAEA Agreement 12 15 15 15 15 15 15 Export Licensesh/ 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 Country Analysess / 12 20 25 25 25 -25 25 Regulatory Issues:6/

Generic 22 20 20 20 20 20 20 Amendments to Rules 8 22 20 20 20 20 Policy Guidance. 20 13 44 40 40 40 40 40

V-I Analyses 5 13 12 12 12 12 12 Testimony 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 NOTES

l/ Except for 3 reviews in FY84 and 2 reviews in FY85 all reviews are identified -

and related to specific facilities.

2/ Specific reviews are not identified, but are based on previous experience f

and anticipated as a result of new rules.

2/ These are reviews of NRC initiated plan changes as a result of projected new rules:

FY81 - Physical Security Upgrade (Effective late 1980 and applicable to 6 Category I facilities for MC&A)

FY83 - MC&A Upgrade (Applicable to 6 Category I facilities)

FY84 - Category II/III Restructuring (Will be applicable to 13 CategoryII/III licensees)

FY85 - Statistical Treatment (Applicable to both 6 Category I ano 13 Category II/III above)

(Inventory Discrepancies) i FY86 - Integrated Safeguards Rule (Applicable to both 6 Category I and 13 Category II/III above)

- 22.

Table 14 Notes (Continued) 3/ Each HEU and reactor export and about one-fourth of the LEU cases require two reviews (before and after the Executive Branch review). The '

remainder of the LEU cases and about 50% of the source and 20% of the special materials cases require a single review. In addition, some retransfers of material and Agreements for Cooperation require NMSS review.

5/ The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 required NRC analyses of the MC&A control systems in 25 countries (receiving U.S. supplied material). Each country review is updated annually.

f/ Throughout the course of the year issues regarding the adequacy and appropriateness of regulations arise from the Commission, Congress, the public, NRC inspections and evaluations and safeguards incidents. These result in various staff positions or regulatory issues.

l 4

6.0 International Programs The NRC has the responsibility for licensing the export and import of nuclear materials and equipment, including SNM, source material , byproduct material, special reactor materials (such as heavy water and graphite),

reactors and reactor components. Recent experience indicates that between 150 and 180 applications for export licenses are pending approval at any given time, although this is expected to change markedly downward as a result of additional changes to NRC rules and regulations being proposed for adoption in FY 1981. These changes would grant general licensing authority to certain types of SNM, source, and byproduct material (minor

cases), as well as special materials which currently require a specific individual license. Major cases are exports of large quantities of source material, reactors, more than 1 kilogram of SNM and those of an unusual nature with policy implications. Except for certain license applications involving routine power reactor reloads of low-enriched uranium, which may be approved at the staff level, major cases require Comission approval.

Minor cases are processed at the staff level without referral to the Comission.

Reactor exports are projected at a constant level through the 1982-1987 time period; however, the erratic circumstances governing foreign reactor sales make yearly projections somewhat unreliable. Certain export I

licensing activities rose sharply in the 1978-1980 period because of new NRC responsibilities resulting from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, but with the institution of a new general export licensing authority (applicable to minor cases) now under consideration the numbers of specific licenses are expected to decline beginning in FY 1982. The general licensing authority is not expected to apply until mid-1981; thus for certain categories, the FY 1981 projections are still at a higher level than those expected in FY 1982 and beyond.

Several offices participate in NRC's international program. While IP has lead responsibility for processing applications, certain cases require NMSS review as well. International safeguards reviews are required on most of the major cases and about 20% of the special materials cases.

(See Tables 13 and 14 for the planning projections of safeguards reviews.) 3 l _

Table 15 EXPORT / IMPORT LICENSING Export FY1981 FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 FY1985 FY1986 FY1987 Licenses Issued:

Major Cases HEU 40 30 30 30 30 30 30 LEU 75 90 90 90 90 90 90 Source 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Reactor 5 2 3 3 3 3 3

  • Minor Cases SNM 70 50 50 50 50 50 50 Source 25 15 15 15 15 15 15 Byproduct 50 25 25 25 25 25 25
  • Special Materials 100 75 75 75 75 75 75 Import
  • Major Cases 10 1 1 1 1 1 1
  • Minor Cases 10 0 0 0 0 0 0-NOTE: The above figures do not include amendments which number about 150 total per year.
  • Areas where anticipated new general licensing authority has reduced previous projections.

2

.l PROJECTED STATUS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS .

DATA AS OF 3/27/81 REACTORS FL WER 168 148--

~'

t 0 OW m

=

VE --

sw -

] , ,

POST CP 6, - -

~~

'/// <,

Ey 20 f 3

/,/ /,/ /,/ // // // // //

EM) 0F FISCAL YEAR ,

k

i APPENDIX 8

, MLW CASELOAD FORECAST PRE-LICENSING ACTIVITIES The schedules for che HLW casework is based on the schedules provided in the DOE testimony in the Waste Confidence Proceeding [00E/NE-0007; 15 April 1980],

j which have also recently appeared in Working Draft #4 of the National Plan for Radioactive Waste Management (January, 1981).

1. REVIEW SITE SCREENING PLANS When DOE's site screening investigations have progressed to a point where locations within an area are identified as potential sites for further sutdy, a Site Screening Plan will be prepared and submitted to the NRC.

This plan will describe, for a given area, the site screening activities that have occurred up to this point, and include plans for the detailed study of the recommended locations. The schedule for submittal and

, review of these plans is as follows.

AREA UNDER INVESTIGATION BEGIN NRC REVIEW COMPLETE NRC REVIEW Domed Salt January 1981 July 1981 Hanford (basalt) May 1981 November 1981 Nevada Test Site (volcanic tuff) June 1982 March 1983 Bedded Salt August 1982 March 1984 Hard Rock May 1983 November 1984

2. REVIEW SITE SCREENING INVESTIGATIONS 3 The NRC staff will review the DOE programs for selecting potential repository sites early-on. As DOE begins significant screening activity in any area, the NRC is beginning an onsite review of their investigations.

Once initiated, these reviews will continue until a site has been selected for full characterization and a Site Characterization Report is submitted.

The activities included under NRC's review of DOE's site screening investigation are: an evaluation of the technical information on the j

geologic and hydrologic characteristics of an area; and a series of visits to the sites by the technical staff. The schedule for ths activity is as follows:

AREAS UNDER INVESTIGATION BEGIN NRC ONSITE REVIEW COMPLETE NRC REVIEW Hanford FY80 FY83 Domed Salt FY80 FY84 Nevada Test Site FY81 FY85 Bedded Salt FY82 FY85 Hard Rock FY83 FY86

3. REVIEW SITE CHARACTERIZATION REPORTS When DOE's site screening investigation has progressed to where a site has been selected fo- detailed characterization and prior to such characteriza-tion (which requires the construction of a shaft and the establishment of

a test facility at-depth), a Site Characterization Report will be prepared by DOE and submitted to NRC for review. This report will include a description of the site to be characterizaed, a description of the characterization program, etc. The schedule for submittal of Site Characterization Reports is as follows:

PLANNED COMPLETION AREA UNDER INVESTIGATION SUBMITTED TO NRC OF NRC REVIEW Hanford (basalt) March 1982 May 1983 Domed Salt October 1982 May 1983 Bedded Salt December 1983 June 1984 Nevada Test Site (volcanic tuff) February 1984 September 1984 Hard Rock September 1984 March 1985

4. REVIEW 0F SITE CHARACTERIZATION ACTIVITIES During the period wh'en DOE is characterizing a particular site (which

' begins with the submittal of a Site Characterization Report and ends when sufficient data has been gathered to support a license application), the NRC staff will be conducting a review of DOE's exploration activities, their construction of the test facility, and the progress and results of the in-situ testing. This activity includes the staff review of the semiannual report by DOE on the progress of site characterization, and waste package research and development, including appropraite schedules.

NRC staff activity is assumed to begin on the following schedule, and will continue until characterization is completed.

BEGIN NRC REVIEW OF DOE AREA UNDER INVESTIGATION SITE CHARACTERIZATION ACTIVITIES Hanford (basalt) February 1983 Salt Dome February 1984  ;

Nevada Test Site (volcanic tuff) March 1985 Bedded Salt March 1985 Hard Rock December 1985 l

~ ..

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20197E234&oldid=3341890"