ML20212E357
| ML20212E357 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/02/1977 |
| From: | Casey Smith NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212E343 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-62FR40975, RULE-PR-35, RULE-PR-40, RULE-PR-70 AF77-1-002, AF77-1-2, SECY-77-475, SECY-77-475-R, NUDOCS 9711030167 | |
| Download: ML20212E357 (11) | |
Text
,
_ -._~ - - ___ -...
l 1
,f f,,
UlHTED 8TATES xtm=== -
6 F71- /
- r
... c. -
stcr.n.us_.
s...
- s., 2, i, n PDR-INFORMATION REPORT The Ceretssioners Fo. :
Clif ford V. Set ta. Jr.. Director Office of Maclear Material Safety and Safeguards Frtm:
Lee V. Gosstct i
Thrv:
becutive Otrector for Operattor.s ANA.TS!S Of DESIRABILITY OF CHANGIMO THE LICDtsE TU:M tmDGt PARTS 30, 40. AND 70 subject:
To provice the Comn.tssion informatiois it recuested stat Parts 30, 40. and 7f> license renewals including:
Purpose:
(1) rationale for the prosent five year Itcen views as to whether a five year Itcense term is appropetate, and (4) staff evaluation of alternativ<
measures to expedite Parts 40 and 70 renewat reviews currectly underway.
This brief informAt5cn report is divided into five The first four address the information requested Ol5Cvssion:
The pa rts.
by the Conusission concerning 11 cense re The becutive Legal Director has no legal objection.
Coordinetton:
/
Ilff
. Set th Jr.. Di rte Office f nuclear Material sty and 54feguartis OlSTRIBUTION cons Issfiners Enclosurt:
ReneweI of Fwe1 Cycle and MaterIaI Licentet camission Staff Offic!
bec Otr for Operation:
Contact:
Regional Offices R. Dale Smith. FCOP Secrttar1at 427 4211 I i 9711030167 971030 PDR PR 30 62FR40975 PDR
- ,x s
REXEVAL OF TVEL CYCLE AND MTERIAL LICDGES Ratstnale for the Five Year License Tern 1.
wntle tnere art provisions in the licensing rtw,vlations (Parts 30.
- 4. and 70) with respect te license renewals, there are no provisions which specify the teria of the licenses.
In 1%? the Cenission amended Part 4 to eliminate a three-year restriction on t.he tern of sourte material licenses [there (Part 30) and were no restrictions on the tern of byproduct The Countssion spectal nuclear material Itcenses (Part 70)].
stated in the nottCe of proposed rulemaking regarding this action id be that tf the proposed amendment were adopted. Iteenses wov five year tems, escept in cases where the nature issued f or of the applicant's proposed activities indicates a need for a This procedure has been followed since shorter Itcense period.
the statement was issued.
The reason f or the Canissioe's 1967 statner t to the best of our kncwledge, est to make the renewal timt more orderly.
Petor to 196/. licenses and renewals for materials and fuel cycle tactlities were written for different tin? periods (terns)
The tern ranged an>w ere dependent upon the type of Itcense.
The Corntiston felt at that time froti one year to five years.
that there was 11Ltie juttif1catton for granting Parts 10, 40, and Page i
5 70 licenses for terms of less than five years in view of (a) cumulative experience up to that time, and (b) means available Itcenses to the Ccenission to suspend, revoke, or taodify such if the public health and safety or environment so requires.
The decision on the length of the Itcense tern (five years)
However, experience has shown that appears rather subjective.
i f changes the five year Itcense tern was not unreasonable in l ght o This in licensee programs, NRC regulations, and the like.
does not preclude us from modifying the license renewal term in the future.
Resources Required to Process Renewals _
2.
fall
_ Material license renews 1s and fuel cycle license renewals into two categories each of which requires different resources.
Material Itcen.e renewals (Parts 30, 40, and 70) consist of an overall licensing review taking into account changes in licensee i
programs, changes in NRC requirements, and inspection h story These reviews are since license issuance or last renewal.
The following data illustrate the workload performed !n-house.
and associated resources estimated to be requircJ to process these renewals over the period FY 1978 through FY 1483.
Page 2
_ _ _ - ~. _ _ _ _ _
4 Katerial License Renewal Applications & Required Aesources_'
FY 78_
FY *s '
FY 80_
FY 81_
FY 81 FY 83_
l Renewal Applications 850 1450 100 100 100
-100 l
'2600 2000 1100 1200 1800 3000 Backlog Compteted 2000 3350 1100 1200 1800 2600 Received New Backlog 1450 100 100 100 100 500 l
Estimt.ted NRC Professional 5.4 9.1 3.1 3.1 4.9 7.0
- Effort, Kanyears 0
0 0.
0 0
0 Contractual f
Support (5) l Fuel cycle facility license renewals (Parts 40 and 70) consist of an environmental review and a safety review taking into I
account changes in licensee programs, changes in NRC requirem l l and inspection history since license issuance or '.ast renewal.
is to determine, in accordance with l
The environmental review Section 51.5(b) of 10 CF9 51, whether an environmental impact As directed by the statement should or shouldn't be prepared, Cocnission, environmental impact statements are prepared for uranium.at11 license renewals unless an impact statement has been previously issued for a specific uranium mill.
Other fuel cycle facility Itcense renewals are judged on an The safety review is perfonned mostly independent basis.
in-houso, wheree-the environmental review can be perfonned in In some cases, a safeguards j
or with outside technical assistance.
i review is required (e.g., a plant that processes enriched uran um History indicates that or plutonium under a Part 70 license).
A.ssumes Funding at Requested Level.
- From FY 1979 Budget Request.
Page 3
~
The hearings nomally have not been needed for renewals.
following data illustrate the safety and environmental resources estimated to be required to process these renewals over the period FY 1978 through FY 1983.
hel Cycle Facility License Renewal Resource Requirementsy FY 78 FY 79_
FY 80 FY 81 FY 82 FY 83_
Estimated NRC Professional 6.1 2.8 0
4.1 6.5 7.5 Elfort. Han-y years Support (Sr) 610 230 0
330 450 475 Contractual J
As can be seca from the data, the required resources are projecR The actual resources expended will not to be cyclical in nature.
be known with precision until completion of a given fiscal year.
Resource requirements to review any given application are a function of the complexity of the licensed operation, operating l
ality history, changes in these operations since last renewa, qu of the application, changes in regulatory requirements since the last review, and the need for preparation of environmental impac statements which may require loput from outside experts (fuct Staf f Views on the Adequacy of the Five Year Tern 3.
The staff feels that there may be certain categorie of material licenses (Parts 30, 40, and 70) where a itcense term greater Assumes Funding at Requested level.
A From FY 1979 Budget Request.
Page 4
~
than five years may be justified.
On the other hand, the staff feels that the present licensing renewal term for fuel cycle facilities is appropriate mainly because of the changing nature of our regulatory requirements.
(e.g., ALARA, decomnissioning, protection against natural phenomena, etc.), and those of other agencies with which we However, the staff also feels that the must assure compliance.
conditions that presently support a five year term may not exist in the future.
The staf f is undertaking a study of the feasibility of changing license terms which will be addressed in detail in a future Ccenission paper.
40 Staff Evaluation of Alternative Measures to Expedite Part 4
and 70 Fuel Cycle Reviews Currently Underway _
Starting in FY 1976 and FY 1977. NHSS budgeted increased contractual support and manpower for reducing the backlog of renewal applications for Parts 40 and 70 fuel cycle licenses The office objective is to clean up the (See SECY-77-166).
So far, this objective is being backlog by the end of CY 1978.
Twelve completions out of thirty three pending renewals met.
Five more have been completed were reported in SECY-77-166.
since that time (General Electric San Jose United Nuclear Montville. Kerr-McGee Cimarron U Fuct Plant, Kerr-McGee Cimarron This leaves a balance Pu Plant, and Allied Chemical UFs Plant).
of sixteen renewal applications pending.
Page 5
It is expected that nine renewals will be completed the remainder of this calendar year and seven in CY 1978.
One could consider addf ng extra manpower to these renewal tasks to accelerate the scheduler..
Because the time involved is sho-t, adding manpower would not result in earlier completions due to In addition, the time it would take to train this extra manpower.
outside constraints, such in input from the licensee or use of outside technical assistance, inhibit eariier completicn.
At tnis time, it is the staff's opinion that the present schedule is essentially the most efficient and effective way of clearing It should be noted that these license renewals this backlog.
are not on the critical path for facility operation due to This permits the " timely renewal" provision in the regulations.
'=
the licensee to continue to operate his facility if he applies for a renewal thirty days prior tn the license's expiration, i
=
SECY-77-166 explained the reason for the large backlog in renewal applications.
This backlog was allowed to build because of higher priorities on available resources needed to do the work.
When an applicant desires to construct and operate a new plant or modify an existing one, the agency must act as promptly as possible in order to avoid undue hardship on the applicant with 2
page 6
a As a resul't.
regard *.o cocinitments. on capital and land etc.
a license renewal is usually given a lower priority since our backlogging of this work would not adversely affect the In addition, due to limited resources, licensee's opert.tions.
unanticipated demands for resourt.es (e.g., GESMO) have been met at the expense of timely processing of license renewals.
Another factor contributing to the backlog of certain fuel cycle f acility renewals has been the need to detemine technically sound
- olutions to the problem of backfitting new regulatory require-ments (e.g., natural phenomena design criteria) to older The staf f is presently addressing this problem.
factitties.
l HM55 Study of Parts 30, 40, and 70 ticense Renewal Periods 5.
l' As a par t of the NM55 overall program to make licensing more I
l efficient and ef fective the staff is reviewin') the matter of license renewals with specific emphasis on the renewal period.
The determination of a suitable Itcense term for materials and fuel cycle facilities is dependent on many variables, which include (a) the need for application update or consolidation of documentation based on the status of plant modifications, etc.; (b) the need for impiementation of new generic requirements based on technological or governmental requirements (federal, state, or local); and (c) the need for upgraded licensing conditions based on operat4ng performance.
Page 7
%--_.m.
=
s :
Ihe currency and completeness of documentation supporting the in some cases, license is a factor in the renewal process.
a license may be amended many times resulting in a cumbersome A range of possible ways of and sometimes confusing record.
l addressing this is evident and has a bearing on the license,renewa
(
One ciethod for updating the record is to require a term.
Other completely new application at the time of renewal.
methods could be employed that are independent of the expiration of the license, such as requiring an update on a fixed time period or after a given n w.ber of amendments were submitted.
The process by which new generic reoutrements are imposed on existing licensees also affects the need for a license It is standard practice renewal and the term of a license.
to impose new generic requirements on all new license applicants.
A variety of ways have developed for applying new general requirements to existing licenses.
One procedure is to use the license ranewal process to incorporate new requirements.
Alternatives 'o this practice will be studied, e.g.,
to immediately require implementation through backfitting provisions in the regulations, imposition of licensing conditions, or to make the necessary rule changes and have the licensee submit an implementation plan for approval.
The renewal of a license is an opportunity to review the licensee's past performance to determine whether continued or modified operations are warranted.
Operations can be modified
= by upgri. ding licensing conditions at the time of renewal.
Page B 3
I dther alternatives, which are independent of the renewal ld process. such as greater reliance on inspection and fie dify evaluation coupled w$th the use of Commission orders to mo r
license conditions, will be examined.
ll The staff feels that these variables are interrelate should be considered in defining the ifcense renewal term.
It is the staff's intention to categorize fuel cycle facilities d 70 and each type of material license under Parts 30, 40, an f
For each category of fuel facility license and each type o f the caterial license, a review will be made in light o As a result of this review, a list of possible variables.
f fuel renewal terms will be developed for each category o facility licer.se and type of raterial license and resource 1
The staff intends to depend requirements will be f actored in.
4 i
d heavily on its experience and also apply experience ga ne in the ifcensing of nuclear reactors where licenses are iss d
for forty years and are subject to the same variables mentio above.
One important factor af fecting re:ource requirements for l application renewals is the scope or level of review of the renewa h
necessary to reach findings of adequacy as required by t e The scope of review is also a function of the regulations.
There can be many levels of review.
variables described above.
The staff could review the renewal application as if it were Page 9 "5-
"~^w
This would be done if many changes
- a new license application.
On the other-hand, occurred since the last licensing action.
if only a moderate amount of change occurred, NRC could p Similarly, if ilttle a selective review of just those aspects.
ffice.
change occurred, a brief review of the plants status might su The cocpilation of this infomation should enable the staff to m an optiral choice as to license terms for each facility category l
and material license type with due consideration to all variab es i
The optimal choices may result in different license tems for different facility and materials license types.
study as described above will be followed by the The mendations.
preparation of a Comission paper with appropriate reco i
by 10tSS plans on forwarding this paper to the Comiss on l
the end of the year.
)
f
' Page 10
~~
mu
^^'~^ma-*,
_