| |
|||
| Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us | |
|
|
|
POLICY ISSUE SECY-07-0081 May 15, 2007
To provide regulatory options for developing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conceptual framework for licensing major Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) facilities and associated Special Nuclear Material (SNM). The staff seeks approval of its recommendation for a conceptual licensing process for GNEP that focuses on developing technical bases documents to support rulemaking in the near term and developing a single GNEP regulation in the long term. The staff is also updating the Commission on recent activities that impact the staff's GNEP activities. A major element of GNEP is the development and eventual commercial deployment of advanced nuclear fuel recycling technologies. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has proposed three types of interrelated project-specific GNEP facilities to close the fuel cycle: a nuclear fuel recycling center or Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center (CFTC); an advanced recycling reactor or Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR); and an advanced fuel cycle research facility, also referred to as the Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility (AFCF). DOE shifted its approach to GNEP in August 2006 by moving away from a small-scale demonstration and turning, instead, to a large-scale industry-focused approach. An industry-focused approach consists of DOE partnering with industry to demonstrate GNEP technologies, on a commercial-scale, in facilities that meet NRC requirements. This paper presents four options for developing the NRC's regulatory framework for the GNEP
program. A summary table of the options is found in the discussion section of this paper. A
detailed description of each option with the pros and cons are found in Enclosure 1 The staff recommends first developing the technical basis documentation to support rulemaking for 10 CFR Part 70 and conducting a gap analysis on 10 CFR Part 50 with respect to licensing a reprocessing facility and an advanced recycling reactor. Next, when uncertainties due to budget, preferred technologies, and commercialization are better understood, staff would then begin rulemaking to develop one integrated GNEP regulation. In SECY-06-0066, "Regulatory and Resource Implications of a Department of Energy Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Program," the staff described the processes that would likely be involved in DOE's GNEP program and the potential regulatory and resource implications for NRC, assuming the eventual licensing of spent fuel recycling facilities and advanced recycling reactors. At that time, DOE's plans involved engineering and operating demonstration-scale testing facilities. Since then, DOE has announced plans to accelerate GNEP and invite earlier commercial entity participation. The emphasis is now on providing to industry only general parameters for the CFTC and the ABR so as not to constrain industry's design flexibility. In August 2006, DOE solicited industry expressions of interest (EOIs), to design and build facilities utilizing advanced technologies that are either proven or nearly mature, either domestically or internationally (i.e., spent fuel reprocessing and advanced fast burner reactors). DOE is still evaluating the responses. The NRC staff understands that: 1) DOE hopes to partner with industry to build industry-led, commercial-scale fuel reprocessing/fuel fabrication plants (referred to as CFTCs) and fast burner reactors (referred to as ABRs); 2) DOE plans to engage industry again before the end of fiscal year (FY) 2007; 3) DOE plans to retain the lead on research and development in the less proven technical areas of the GNEP program at the AFCF (e.g., (a) recycling technologies; (b) remote fuel fabrication; (c) fast reactor fuel reprocessing; and (d) studying fission product waste forms); and 4) a DOE Secretarial decision on the scope of GNEP for the immediate future (commercial versus research and development) is to be made in June 2008. DOE's current schedule indicates that they believe that at least one CFTC commercial facility and one ABR commercial facility will be operational as soon as 2020. In DOE's GNEP Strategic Plan, published in January 2007, DOE states that it is reasonable to expect in a decade or more that design, approval, and construction of GNEP "base technology" facilities would take place. Therefore, assuming that construction and startup can be completed in a 6- to 7-year timeframe, and that NRC staff can review an application and complete the hearing process in a 3-year timeframe, the staff estimates that the private entity(ies) would need to submit an application as soon as FY 2010 to meet DOE's schedule. The following discussion covers two main topics: (1) the staff's progress in addressing certain commitments in SRM-SECY-06-0066; and (2) the options to develop a regulatory framework for commercial GNEP facilities and associated SNM. SRM Activities The Commission directed the staff to ensure that NRC resource commitments are appropriately tied to DOE's GNEP program decisions. The shift in DOE's GNEP strategy impacts the NRC's decisions regarding whether rulemaking is warranted, and if so, when it should be developed. It also impacts NRC's decisions regarding the staff's path forward with regard to establishing the correct scope of a reimbursable agreement with DOE for NRC non-regulatory GNEP activities and the need to prepare draft legislation, for Commission approval, that would give NRC licensing authority for demonstration-scale DOE reprocessing, fuel fabrication, vitrification, and interim waste storage facilities. The staff is working on a reimbursable agreement to recoup costs associated with non-regulatory activities, such as training, workshops, developing knowledge of GNEP technologies and appropriate activities associated with the AFCF, which would not be regulated by NRC. However, the majority of the resources associated with the accelerated GNEP program are needed to develop the regulatory infrastructure for the CFTC and ABR, for which costs cannot be recouped from DOE (1). Therefore, the staff will continue its work related to developing a reimbursable agreement and memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DOE, but these agreements will only address the AFCF-related activities and overall technology familiarization for all GNEP facilities, processes, and materials, unless otherwise directed by the Commission. The staff expects prompt establishment of the reimbursable agreement and MOU. Efforts have been delayed, in part, because FY 2007 funds could not be allotted under the continuing resolution, but the staff is poised to move promptly once an agreement is signed. Legislation is not required, if DOE is successful in partnering with industry for the CFTC and the ABR, as NRC has authority to license commercially operated facilities under Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act. Due to the current DOE efforts in preparing for an industry-focused GNEP program, at this point in time, the staff does not plan to proceed with drafting such legislation. Specific Options for CFTC/ABR The staff has developed four options, for Commission consideration, regarding how the CFTC
and the ABR could be licensed. The options are presented below. A detailed discussion of
each option, followed by pros and cons, is presented in Enclosure 1 Table: Regulatory Options for GNEP
The staff will update resource estimates contained in this paper as the information becomes available. Also, the staff will keep the Commission informed about significant developments in DOE's GNEP activities and associated impacts on NRC oversight. The staff recommends the Commission proceed with Option 1, specifically developing the regulatory framework by preparing the technical basis documentation to support rulemaking for Part 70 and the potential rulemaking for the ABR. Also, the staff would explore whether Part 52 could be suitably modified to address sodium-cooled fast reactor technology. This approach takes into account the DOE GNEP programmatic uncertainties related to selection and commercialization of new technologies. Based on DOE's responses during its August 2006 briefing to industry on GNEP and subsequent discussions with DOE, the staff estimates that a license application for a GNEP facility might be received by NRC as soon as 2010. In addition, licensee presentations at the March 2007 Regulatory Information Conference indicated amendment requests could be submitted as early as 2007 for demonstration and pilot facilities. Nevertheless, the uncertainties in budget and commercialization/maturity of the industry-focused approach, diminishes the staff's confidence in this estimate. Therefore, the staff recommends a phased-approach to developing the regulatory infrastructure for GNEP. In Phase I, staff would focus on preparing technical bases documents for the CFTC and in Phase II, staff would focus on both the CFTC, see Option 1 in the above Table, and the ABR. The staff does not expect DOE to select technologies or make a decision about whether it is ready to partner with industry to commercialize these facilities until June 2008. Until this date, efficiencies can be gained from developing the technical basis for rulemaking for the CFTC and starting the preliminary work that could be used in the future for ABR rulemaking. The staff believes that the current production facility regulation (Part 50) is not viable for GNEP, particularly the CFTC. This is based on the unique technical requirements needed for the new technology and the unique issues specific to the interrelationship among GNEP closed fuel cycle technologies/facilities. In Phase I, the staff would conduct a gap analysis on Part 50 to identify what changes in regulatory requirements would be necessary to license a reprocessing facility and advanced recycling reactor. Next, in Phase II, provided there are adequate Congressional appropriations for GNEP activities and DOE's industry-focused approach matures over the next year (June 2008), the staff would then shift from Option 1 to Option 3 and develop a GNEP regulation covering GNEP facilities and associated SNM. With regulatory gap analyses for Part 50 underway or completed, and Part 70 technical basis for rulemaking completed, this approach would then allow the staff to evaluate efficiently and effectively whether there are unique programmatic or technical interrelationships among all closed fuel cycle technologies at a time where there would be more certainty about what technologies will be used, whether it can be commercialized, and when. In addition, this approach would be more efficient and less burdensome with regards to making conforming changes to existing regulations. In light of budget, technological, and commercialization uncertainties, the staff believes that a measured regulatory approach to GNEP now will increase regulatory clarity, understanding of licensing requirements and expectations, and regulatory reliability for future applicants. If adopted and implemented as planned, GNEP will be a long-lived project. Only FY 2007 - 2009 resources are addressed in this paper. Enclosure 3 contains four tables which reflect GNEP proposed resources. Table 1 reflects immediate proposed resource needs to implement the staff's recommendation, none of which have been yet approved for GNEP. Table 2 reflects the current status of budget progress, as related for GNEP. The resources originally proposed by the NRC staff to support GNEP in the FY 2008 budget process were eliminated during the Office of Management and Budget passback, whereas the FY 2008 President's Budget includes over $400 million for DOE support of GNEP. Without resources in FY 2008 obtained through supplemental appropriations or some other means, the staff would not be able to provide a proposed regulatory infrastructure to DOE and industry in time to support the Secretary of Energy's decision in June 2008 and would not be ready to review a license application in FY 2010. Without NRC progress in establishing the proposed changes to the applicable regulations and accompanying guidance documents it would be difficult for DOE to make programmatic decisions about GNEP. Furthermore, it will be difficult for potential applicants to make informed decisions concerning deployment of GNEP technologies without a stable and reliable regulatory framework in place. Table 3 reflects the proposed resources, by office, that are needed now in order to prepare for rulemaking should the Commission agree that rulemaking should start in FY 2009. Table 4 reflects the projected FY 2009 resource needs, by office, for the start of rulemaking. Several offices have staff available and ready to implement the staff's GNEP recommendation. The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection concerning this paper. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objections.
1 “Assessment of Potassium Iodide (KI) Distribution Program Among Communities Within the Emergency Planning Zones of Two Nuclear Power Plants”, James Blando et al, The Radiation Safety Journal Vol 92, suppl 1 February 2007, Operational Radiation Safety |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Privacy Policy |
Site Disclaimer |
