ML20217G686
| ML20217G686 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/21/1997 |
| From: | Joseph Holonich NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804290187 | |
| Download: ML20217G686 (6) | |
Text
I Riverton, New York, March 21,1997 REGULATORY STREAMLINING - FUTURE PERSPECTIVE FOR THE U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Presented to the United States Uranium and Nuclear Conference by Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 1. INTRODUCTION Over the past several years, there was a recognition in the uranium recovery industry that a large amount of work faced the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
Commission (NRC).
In addition, the recent increase in uranium prices has caused renewed interest in operating uranium recovery facilities. This involves renewed interest not only in obtaining licenses for new facilities, l
but also in restarting facilities -- both in situ leach (ISL) and mills, that have been in stand by status for some time.
Because of this renewed interest, the NRC has seen a large increase in the volume of work it currently has, as well as that which it expects to have over the next several years. Through early 1996, however, NRC viewed its uranium recovery program as one where the major effort would involve completing reclamation of mills.
It was envisioned that some support would be needed for a few operating facilities that remained, but that the work load would be reduced significantly, by the 1997-l 98 time frame.
The recent change in events coupled with the large amount of existing work has caused the NRC to rethink and restructure its uranium recovery program to accommodate the applications for restart of existing facilities and licensing of new facilities as well as to continue to support reclamation of mills.
This restructuring was needed for both licensing activities and inspections.
Since June 1996, NRC has undertaken a number of steps to increase the efficiency of its regulatory program.
The benefits from many of these initiatives are just starting to be realized, whereas the benefits from others will not be realized for several more years. NRC's effort has been essentially two-pronged: one dealing with looking for ways to make the NRC process more efficient, and the other dealing with providing additional resources to accommodate the increased workload.
In looking for ways to streamline its process, and complete more work, NRC must ensure its primary mission of protecting public health and safety is still achieved. Therefore, all NRC's efforts to date have helped it achieve a more streamlined program, while still fulfilling its regulatory mission.
- 2. BACKGROUND ON NRC STREAMLING EFFORTS TO DATE l
The NRC streamlining process is not something that just recently started.
In l
fact, it has been ongoing for several years, now.
Work in this area was l
initiated with the regulatory reduction effort that was undertaken in 1993, in response to commitments from Chairman Selin to the uranium recovery industry.
In conducting its regulatory reduction review, the staff considered five major g) 90042901 7 970321 PDR ORG NOMA PDR
areas in which regulatory impacts might be reduced.
These were: 1) more flexible license conditions; 2) performance-based licenses; 3) NRC's regulatory role over ISL well fields; 4) archeological surveys, and
- 5) streamlining surety reviews and revisions. With the exception of surety reviews and revisions, NRC identified ways in which it could make the Federal regulatory process more efficient. The most significant area that the NRC staff identified in its regulatory reduction effort was the development and implementation of performance-based licensing. This type of licensing provides more flexible license conditions that allow licensees to undertake operations outlined in their license applications without the need to have prior NRC review.
In addition, it provides a performance-based license condition that allows changes to facilities, under certain conditions without prior NRC approval.
To date, NRC has issued three performance-based licenses, j
and is currently completing the review of five active applications that will, if appropriate, receive performance-based licenses.
In the area of archeological surveys, the NRC concluded that it could rely on reviews conducted by State Historic Preservation Officers -- thus eliminating this additional review burden from the licensed community.
NRC's regulatory role over ISL wellfields will be discussed in detail later.
A second licensing area where NRC has identified ways to become more efficient is the issuance of ten-year licenses.
The Commission approved this concept in June 199, and it will be applied to new and renewed licenses where established criteria have been met.
Other licensees who are not currently in the renewal process can request a ten-year license if they can demonstrate that those criteria outlined in an NRC letter issued July 1996 have been met.
The letter went to all operating uranium recovery facilities, and outlined the types of l
demonstrations needed for NRC to conclude that a ten-year license should be l
granted.
l Anoth'ir action NRC has taken to improve the timeliness of reviews in its regulatory program is to implement a number of staffing changes to reflect the l
priority assigned to the uranium recovery activities.
First, NRC completed a l
reorganization, in February 1996, where it developed a single branch devoted i
solely to uranium recovery work.
This allows for focused management as well as a dedicated staff..
In addition, NRC has increased the staff working on, j
and contractor support to, uranium recovery activities.
Essentially five l
additional staff members have been recently transferred or hired into NRC's uranium recovery program.
These new staff members are a health physicist, two groundwater hydrologists, and two project managers -- essential areas of expertise for reviewing new and restart applications.
In addition, NRC is l
also using contractor support to help it meet its regulatory mission. The contractor selected was the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (hereafter the Center).
The Center has begun reviews of backlogged submittals, and is supporting the staff in reviews of new submittals to ensure timely completion of application reviews.
As discussed later, one of the l
major actions the Center is undertaking is the development of a Standard Review Plan.
i It should be noted that the cost of Center staff is equivalent to the NRC staff. A staff year at the Center cost $250,000, which is $120/ hour based on a 2,080 hour9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> year. This rate is exactly the amount currently charged by NRC for a staff hour. Our experience to date is that the Center is providing high quality and timely products at greater efficiency than we expected when we
1 3
began development of the contract.
In fact, one licensee has told us that its experience in working with the Center has been excellent.
As a result of these actions, NRC believes that it is developing a strong, efficient, regulatory program. However, there has been some concern in the industry that the NRC program is in fact still overly bureaucratic. To address this concern, I want to highlight NRC's increased productivity regarding uranium recovery over the past several years.
In Fiscal Year 1995, which ran from October 1, 1994, through September 30, 1995, the NRC completed a total of 131 different actions.
In the first quarter of Fiscal Year 1996, NRC completed 38 items.
If a constant rate of production were maintained, i
this would have resulted in a completion of 152 actions in Fiscal Year 1996.
l However, in January 1996, the Uranium Recovery Branch was created, and the production rate for the last three quarters of Fiscal Year 1996 resulted in 183 actions being completed. This was approximately 61 actions per quarter, or nearly double that of the first quarter. The total production for Fiscal Year 1996 was 221 actions. This was more than a 50 percent increase from Fiscal Year 1995.
In addition, the production rate for Fiscal Year 1997, the current Fiscal Year, is projected to be 215 actions versus 176 budgeted. As can be seen from these numbers, the streamlining initiatives discussed above have not only allowed NRC to focus resources on licensing areas where attention is needed, but to complete work in a more efficient and timely l
manner.
It should be noted that the benefits from some activities, such as l
performance-based licenses, are just starting to be realized. Others, such as ten-year licenses, will be realized five years from now, when new renewals are l
not needed. Therefore, I am optimistic that NRC will continue to enhance the efficiency of its regulatory program.
In fact, there are several new initiatives NRC is undertaking that should help achieve this. These initiatives are discussed below.
- 3. NEW NRC INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF REVIEWS i
One of the best initiatives currently being developed by the NRC is the preparation of a Standard Review Plan for the review of ISL applications. The Center is working on the Standard Review Plan, as part of its support to the staff. This document will provide guidance to staff on the level of review l
that needs to be conducted, and will identify review methods and acceptance 4
criteria that the staff will use to determine compliance with NRC regulations.
l
.Having this type of information available will help NRC ensure consistency in I
the breath and depth of its reviews.
Input that will be considered in the l
Standard Review Plan is being developed from a number of sources including: 1) l past NRC experience: 2) Agreement States; 3) non-agreement States with similar responsibilities and programs; 4) NRC's inspection effort; and 5) the licensed community.
The last area is particularly important because the facility operators can provide a perspective that NRC as a regulatory agency does not have. Although the Standard Review Plan is issued as guidance to the staff in its review, licensees and applicants should use it, along with Regulatory Guide 3.46, " Standard Format and Content of License Applications, Including Environmental Reports, for In Situ Uranium Solution Mining," as tools in preparing applications.
Using these two documents will help licensees and
4 apalicants to prepare complete, high-quality applications.
In addition, NRC is hoping that having a Standard Review Plan will help develop more
- tandardized review times for licensing actions since the scope of the review will be clearly defined.
A second area where the NRC is working to improve the efficiency of its regulatory program through coordination with States to reduce areas of dual regulation.
Industry raised the concern about dual regulation because of the oversight of ISL we11 fields by both NRC and States. Although NRC cannot completely relinquish its authority over the we11 fields, NRC is committed to looting into ways to help eliminate dual regulation. Where possible, a NRC licensing reviews can be reduced by relying on state reviews.
If NRC relies on a state evaluation, State reviewers may need to testify in any NRC hearings. This may make some States hesitant to fully participate in this approach.
In addition, NRC will still need to continue its inspection and enforcement actions, but will need to develop licenses and license conditions based on State reviews. NRC does not expect that States will need to expand their current review effort. Rather, NRC is looking for ways to use the existing state reviews to eliminate any NRC that is duplicative.
To date, NRC has already relied on States for some reviews.
For at least one site in Wyoming, NRC has not independently evaluated whether an aquifer is acceptable for deep-well injection of ISL process bleed.
Rather, NRC has relied on the State of Wyoming determination, and has reviewed only the radiological effluent discharge aspects of the application.
In addition, NRC has recently agreed to rely on the State of Utah, Division of Water Quality, review of groundwater protective actions for the Shootaring Canyon mill.
These are the first two examples of where NRC has begun to work with States to look st ways to eliminate dual regulation of uranium recovery facilities.
NRC plans to continues its dialogue with States to identify other ways to eliminate dual regulation.
Acceptance reviews of applications is a third action NRC is taking to help streamline its licensing process. An acceptance review is an initial evaluation to determine if all the information needed to conduct a detailed technical review is in the application. Through the better use of acceptance reviews, NRC is returning incomplete submittals to the licensee or applicant.
The use of acceptance reviews has been NRC policy for about a year, but only recently has the staff begun full implementation in the uranium recovery program. Two benefits to NRC and industry are being gained by returning incomplete submittals.
First, NRC is placing the responsibility of submitting high quality, complete applications on the facility owner where it belongs.
NRC must avoid any situation where licensees and applicants use the staff as a de facto consulting service to provide input and information on how to design acceptable facilities.
Ensuring that all applications are complete before reviews are started will help eliminate the unnecessary expenditure of staff resources in areas beyond NRC's regulatory mission. Avoiding the unnecessary expenditure of resources allows NRC to have more staff available to evaluate submittals that have received an acceptance review, and were found complete enough to warrant a detailed technical evaluation.
Thus, those licensees and applicants providing high quality submittals will also benefit in more timely reviews. The second benefit is that applications will begin to be better
5 prepared, thus allowing NRC to complete reviews in a more timely manner.
Again, licensees will also get a benefit from more timely reviews because NRC will be able to issue licenses quicker, and fees will be less.
Finally, NRC is working on developing a more formalized and broad inspection program for operating ISLs and mills. At present, NRC has Manual Chapter 2801, "11e.(2) Byproduct Material Disposal Site and Facility Inspection i
Program," which covers the inspection of mills, and is being updated to reflect new information.
In addition, NRC is completing a Manual Chapter and procedure to help identify what ISL areas require inspection, and how those inspections should be conducted. Use of these formal documents will help ensure NRC inspections are focused on areas related to safe operation of the facility and compliance with applicable regulations.
Inspections will include both regional staff (mainly health physics) and Headquarters staff (groundwater issues and impoundment design). The frequency of inspections l
will be once per year at facilities undergoing decommissioning and twice a year at operating facilities. This will allow a complete look at the facility, and how well it is operating.
- 4. INDUSTRY SHARES RESPONSIBILITY FOR HELPING ENSURE AN EFFICIENT PROCESS Although NRC is constantly working to identify ways that can improve the efficiency of its licensing process, there are several ways that the industry can also help in this process. Obviously, the first and foremost is that I
applicants and licensees provide complete, high-quality submittals. This eliminates the need for NRC to return incomplete applications for revision, thus saving time.
In addition, where possible and to the extent practical, licensees and applicants should follow regulatory guidance. This guidance defines one acceptable way for demonstrating compliance with NRC regulations.
Although proposals different from those contained in guidance are acceptable, reviewing new or unique situations results in delays in NRC's ability to provide timely reviews.
Regulatory Guide 3.46, the standard format and content guide, and the Standard Review Plan are parallel documents. As such, having an application that is consistent with these documents will allow the staff to know where the necessary information is, and thus help ensure more timely reviews.
Where possible, licensees and applicants should use conservative analyses that bound the expected operation, making the licensing review less complicated.
Plus, in renewal applications, licensees should provide information on the operational history of the facility since the last renewal, and describe any
' changes that have been made or are proposed. There is not, however, a need to regenerate a completely new application each time a renewal application is submitted. Demonstrating a sound operating history as well as focusing on the differences from the last renewal application will reduce the preparation and review time of future renewals.
Licensees need to make more timely submittals.
In other words avoid tying new or unique situations to amendments that need an expedited review.
- Also, submit applications to allow for enough time for NRC reviews.
Submitting an application for a new facility or restart three months before the proposed start of operation is not practical, and probably will not be completed on
6 that schedule. The last thing to do is ensure that records needed by inspectors are complete, objective, and available at the facility during the inspection. This will help the inspection go smoothly and in some instances in less time, and also could avoid violations.
StM1ARY Over the past several years, the NRC has been working to make its regulatory program more efficient. The benefits from initiatives begun several years ago are just being realized, or will be realized in the future.
In addition, NRC continues to look for ways to streamline its licensing actions, and has identified several other initiatives to help achieve this.
Licensees and I
applicants must also share responsibility for helping make the
)rocess more efficient by providing timely, high quality submittals. As wit 1 all of its work, including undertaking any streamlining efforts, NRC must ensure that it maintains a focus on the primary mission of the agency which is the protection of public health and safety 1
- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _