IA-84-784, Discusses NRC Efforts to Restrict Use of Highly Enriched U Fuel in Univ Research Reactors.Requests Funds from Research Budget as Initial Allocation for Funding Programs Essential to Successful Conversion.Supporting Documentation Encl
| ML20132D941 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/02/1984 |
| From: | Gilinsky V NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132D921 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-784 AB60-2-314, NUDOCS 8507170584 | |
| Download: ML20132D941 (45) | |
Text
m ' 'ymy'e- ,c i UNITED STATES
\
Q , ,fh-M.r
.gg -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMt'.!Sd.JN W2.S HIN GTO N. 0.0. 2::n1 f;'2n(P E ,
- Y
, %- ~. c.x$
e
./ 1,r Qj c . ss March 2, 1% g '2.2 ]
The Honorable Tom Sevill, Chairman Subco mittee en Energy and Water Development '
) Cc=ittee en Appropriations E ted States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I.am writing in a personal capacity to bring to your attention the Nuclear Regulatory Co=ission's ef forts to restrict the use of highly-enriched uranium fuel in university research reactors and the need for funds to help the effort succeed. There are 25 universitv reactors in 16 states which use highly-enriched uranium.
- j The difficulty is that highly-enriched uranium is a nuclear r.. explosive. Although some protective measures have been '
' prescribed by the NRC to protect this material, there are 13-4ts to the protection available on a campus. The'most effective protection would be to use low-enriched uranium --
fuel, which is not an explosive.
The NRC has directed its staff to prepare a rule that would recuire universities to convert to a., lower enriched fuel if it is technically feasible. The Department of Energy, which provides the fuel for university research reactors, is sponsoring a program for developing lower enriched fuel, and
. conversion is feasible for almost all reactors today.
However, no funds have been provided for coverine the cost ~
to the universities 0: cor.vertine t'neir reac*ers These costs include the engineering calculations ,and measurements needed before conversion, as well as a testing N.: 'O C:Z:::- program after conversion. I think these can reasonab1v be !
cens'e'a-M u --em>- arb4+<=e <> ' ' < " ~ v 4 - M n NRC ' s
' ..q g4 a, , ,',
charter. Tne results would be useful in'provding
- .n:ormation for our efforts to gain support for similar conversions abroad. The total non 'uel en-+e e n- tba universities -"h j a -- h n- p-^-ne=A -C a de ae' Mated at
( '
S6millionoveraseveralyear$)eriod. These costs are a I major costacAe to conversion c: university reactors, and in s
s many cases cannot be met by the universities themselves, g 71 g 4 850509 HIRSCHS4-784 PDR c--_-_.------_---_--.--
< s 1: ' .
Tharofera, ! rrerose that Sl.5 millien be set aside next t vear frc= cur researen cuccet as the niti_al aliccation for 1
funding those university pro. crams which are essential to the . .
. . success:us conversion of r e s e a_r c'- -aw- ers av2v _f_r_c_r_ _u.eml e ~ --- -
inat use explosive fer.s of w3. h. It woulc be an . . . . . .
excep;1onaAly gooc investment. in ccmestic anc international security.
e S4n relv,
- s Fictor 1 .SKV-e 3
. Commissioner 2
1
Attachment:
. List of University Reactors 1 -
i ec: Rep.' John Myers I
e e t
e l
I i
4 1
f 44 i
) O i
t
. D J
- 1 1
0 h
t
(
's v
- e
+
N UNITED STATES 8 ,gj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g y. j ,_ j h ASHIN GTON, D.C.,20555
'+ #
g OFFICE OF THE comis510NER March 2, 1984 Q '
A The Honorable Mark Hatfield, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate -
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing in a personal capacity to bring to your attention the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's efforts to restrict the use of highly-enriched uranium fuel in university research reactors and the need for funds to help the effort succeed. There are 25 university reactors in 18 states which use highly-enriched uranium.
(
The difficulty is that highly-enriched uranium is a nuclear explosive. Although some protective measures have been prescribed by the NRC to protect this material, there are limits to the protection available on a campus. The most effective protection would be to use low-enriched uranium fuel, which is not an explosive.
The NRC has directed its staff to prepare a rule that would require u~niversities to convert to a lower enriched fuel if it is technically feasible. The Department of Energy, which provides the fuel for university.research reactors, is sponsoring a program for developing lower enriched fuel, and conversion is feasible for almost all reactors today.
However, no funds have been provided for covering the cost to the universities of converting their reactors.
These costs include the engineering calculations and measurements needed before conversion, as well as a testing program after conversion. I think these can reasonably be considered as research activities falling within NRC's charter. The results would be useful in provding information for our efforts to gain support for similar conversions abroad. The total non-fuel costs for those universities subject to our proposed rule is estimated at
! $6 million over a several year period. These costs are a major obstacle to conversion of university reacters, and in many cases cannot be met by the universities themselves.
r-_..-__.
ro- -
N
- ej.
Entimated Authorized Available ~
Date for I.icenne .
Type of Power Amount *
" 1 P*
Reactor Level U 235 9*I I'"U 1985 2006 TRIGA 1 MW 16.3 ,
- 2. Washington State University 2003 1 MW ' 17.2 1985 TRIGA Texas A. F. It. University
- 5. Virginia Polytechnic Institute 1984 cxp. 19no 5
University of California (h.A.) Argonaut 100 kW hearJngs (6.
Deing 1905 I PtTR 2 f tw 16.11 University of Michigan converted 7.
4.0 tiow 1905 MTR 'l HW
,8.
University of Lowell 1994 1.35 flow 10 W I
! 9. University of California (S.B.) .
llomo-geneoun 1986 Pending tc 200 kW 4.3 MTR 2003 i 10. University of Missouri (Rolla) 4.6 tiow
! MTR . 10 kW 11.
~
Ohio State University 2003 4.99 tiny require Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute Critical 100 W redenign
- 12. -
facility t
c -
f* ., %
f~' O t- .- y,g -
- 13. Iowa State University Argonaut 10 kW 4.6 1905 l'en<litief.*l.o l 2003 l
- 14. University of Washington Argonaut 100 kW 7.5 1904 19H9 15.
~
University of Elor.ida nrgonaut 100 kW 4.02 1984 2002
- 16. Worcester Polytechnic University MTR 10 kW 4 Now ,
2002-
~
- 18. Purdue University MTR 1 kW 3 Now 19 fl6
- 19. Gectrgia Institute of Technology PtTR 5 MW 13.5 -
19fl6 1994
- 20. Manhattan College critical .1 W 3.2 flay require Heimwa l to facility redesign 2003
1 2003 l 22. University o,C Missouri (Columbia) ATR .10 MW 45 Teclinology not 200I yet available
- 24. University of Virginia (Cavalier) Cavalier 100 W 17.6 1906 7
- 25. Rhode Island -
.- 2 MW 10.4 Now
~
r
- Material taken from I.EU Study Group Report of November 15, 190.3 9
1 l
- EflAL M @(A4ML W C A-u n asm
~
( ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS t l
TAB A University Research and Training Reactors TAB B Feasibility of Conversion TAB C Comission's 1982 Statement of Policy TAB D Proposed Conversion Rule TAB E Security Measures and Nonpower Reactors TAB F Foreign Research & Test Reactors
(,
TAB G DOE Facilities Using HEU TAB H Total Exports of HEU and Plutonium (1954-1982)
TAB I Costs Associated with Conversion of Domestic Research Reactors TAB J DOE Testimony N
o - - - .
,i 9 .
4 *
. t e
(.-
Table 1.1 University Research and Training Reacters with HEU Fuel License Reactor NRC Exp.
Universitv/Laeoraterv . Location Aeronvm Docket Date .
Plate Type Fuel, 93% Enriened Ura nium -
Hiew Pa.ee
- 1. University of Missouri-Columeia Columota, M0 FURR 50-186 2001
- 2. Massacnusetts Inst. of Tecnnology Camoridge, MA MITR 50-20 1996
- 3. Georgia Inst. of Technology Atlanta, GA GTRR 50-276 1994 Medium Power 4 Rhoce Island Nuclear Science Center Marragansett, RI RINSC 50-193 2002
- 5. University of Micnigan Ann Arbor, MI FNR 50-2 1985
- 6. University of Virginta-UVAR Charlottesville, VA UVAR 50-62 2002 7 University of Lomell Lowell, MA ULR 50-223 1985 Low power
- 8. University of Missouri-Rolla Rolla, MO UMRR 50-123 2004*
- 9. Onio State University Columous, OH OSURR 50-150 2000
( s.
- 11. Worcester Polytechnic Institute
- 12. 'Purcue University Worcester, MA West Laf ayette, IN WPI 50-134 2002 PUR-1 50-182 1986 13, 2ensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY RPI 50-225 2003' 14 University of Virginta-Cavalier Charlottesville, VA Cavalier 50-196 2002
- 15. Mannattan Co11e9e Riverdale, NY MCZPR 50-199 1984 TRIGA, U2rd Rod Fuel 70% Enriened Uranium 16 Oregon State University Corvallis, OR OSTR 50-243 2002
- 17. Texas A&M University College station, TI MSCR 50-59
- 18. University of Wisconsin 2002 Madison, WI UWNR 50-156 2000
- 19. Washington State University Pullman, WA WsuR 50-27 2002 AiGONAUT, Plate Fuel *
, 93% Enriened Uranium
- 20. University of California-Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA UCLA-R1 50-142 198d"
- 21. University of Florida Gainesville, FL UFTR 50-83 2002
- 22. University of Washington Seattle, WA UWNR 50-139 1989
- 23. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA VTAR 50-124 2002 24 Iowa State University Ames, IA UTR-10 50-116 2003" Atomics International L-77, Acueous Homogeneous.
90% Enrienec Uranium
- 25. University of California- Santa Baroara, CA UCSB 50-433 1994*"
Santa Barbara
- License renewal pending. Projected expiration cate assuming license is renewed in 1983 or 1984 "In hearing. License renewal-date is not specified.
'" Fuel possession only license.
. 11
' L- y'<
- . P V t hi i i t 2.4 University Reactor Characteristics Related to Feasibility - ---
There is a great range in the characteristics of university research reactors presently using HEU fuels. Certain features of the 25 NRC-licensed university reactors are given in Table 2.1. It is seen that power levels range from 0.1 watts to 10,000,000 watts, that uranium densities in the core
" meat"'of fuel plates vary from 0.25 g U/cc to 1.6 g U/ce, and that there are several types of materials used for fuel and for control purposes. -
There are technical limitations on converting from HEU to LEU if the latter is to be accommodated in the fuel plates or rods without any change in fuel plate geometr If there is no change in fuel plate outer dimensions, the operating and'y. transient thermal-hydraulic characteristics are changed -
little, if at all, fand so no major modifications should be required, other than in the fuel.
- It would be necessary to revise the Safety Analysis Report,
' showing that control worths are adequate, etc., but the revisions would be
. minor (See Section 4). In order to convert from HEU to LEU fuel and maintain the same fuel plate outer dimensions, the uranium density can be increased in the fuel meat.
An alternative to increasing uranium density is to change fuel plate geometry, for example to increase fuel meat thickness. This could result in
/(, significant changes in core fluid flow and heat transfer characteristics if the plates nust also be made thicker. Alternatives that produce core thermal-hydraulic modification are undesirable because they increase the scope of the facility's license change from a minor amendment to a major revision and because of potential expenses associated with engineering modifications to the facility.
Uranium density limits on current fuel meat technology that have been -
- proven and operationally tested in research reactor fuels are given in Table 2.2.
Test programs sponsored by the Department of Energy through Argonne
. National Laboratory are designed to demonstrate by the dates indicated that l uranium densities can be increased to the values also listed in Table 2.2 for the various types of fuels. The values are taken from infornation provided by the RERTR program.
l 4
16 ,
j
. ~
,n r 1 I
Table 2.1 Reactor Paraneter?
No. of Element Plate- Clad / Core Power Elements U-235 No. of Thick.
' Reactee / clad Control (MW1 Norm /Ma r (crams 1 . Plates (ad ls ) (mils) Poison -
Plate-Tvpe Fuel - 93 Enriened --
Hien Pomee --
- 1. Missouri- 10 8/8 780 24 50 15/20/15
- Columeia
' Boral
- 2. MIT 5 24/27 510 15 70 av. 20/30/20 av B-55
- 3. Geoesta Tech 5 17/19 190 16 50 15/20/15 Cd Medium Pcwer . -
- 4. Rhode Island 2 30/35 120 18 60
- 5. Micn1 9an 2 24/12/24 Boral 35/45 157 18 50 15/20/15 B-53
- 5. Virg1nta- 2 20/64 190 18 50 UVAR 15/20/15 B-13
- 7. Lowell 1 26/30 140 18 60
, 24/12/24 Boral
- --t.o= P oner -
- 8. Missouri- 0.2 27/51 170 10 60 Rolla 20/20/20 3-33
{
- 9. Ohio State' O.01 24/30 140 10 108 36/36/36
- 10. Kansas 0.01 B-53 -
16/20 170 10 60 20/20/20 local
- 11. p 1 0.01 140 25/51 10 99 30/40/30 -
Boral
- 12. Purdue 0.001 -
170 10 100
- 13. RPI 0.0001 20/60/20 -
25/49 - - 30 5/20/5 -
- 14. Va.-Cavalier 0.00Q1 0 165 12 50
- 15. Mannattan 10-r 15/20/f5 -
18/31 - - -
15/ - /15 Cd. 53 TRISA U2 H Fuel "
70% w/o En riened
'16. Oregon State 1 89/126 126 n.a. 1.47 0
- 17. Texas A&M 1.43/.020 5-graphite 1 90/202 122 n.a. 1.41 0 1.17/.020 5-graphite
- 18. Wisconsin 1 91/236 -
122 n.a. 1,41 0
- 19. Wash. State 1.37/.C20 Boral 1 110/196 122 n.a. 1,41 0 1.37/.020 Boral Argonaut
- H2 O 4 Graonite 1
94 w/o enriened
- 20. U. Cal. - LA 0.1 24/24 140 11 70 15/40/15 Cd
- 21. Florida 0.1 24/24 140 11 70 15/40/15 Cd
- 22. U. Wasnington 0.1 24/24 143 70 -
- 23. YP1 11 15/40/15 Cd 0.1 12/12 266 12 80 20/40/20
- 24. Iowa state 0.1 Boral l 12/12 266 12 80 20/40/20 Boral Aqueous Ho*CCtntous
- 15. U. Cal. - 15 10-5 Aqueous solution,1.3 ft, diameter sphere cd 9
e 17 . _
2 Table 2.2 Current and Planned Fuel Technoleqy
[
uranium Density in Fuel Meat (c/cc) _
Fuel Meat Cl ad Current Planned Planned Qualification Dates ,
UAlx -Al Al 1.60 2.3 January 1984 U38 0 -Al Al 1.30 3.2 June 1985 ,
UZrH x Stainless 0.35 3.7 January 1985 -
Steel U3Si2-Al Al 4.8 January 1986 Uysi-Al AL 7.0 June 1989 _.
The increase in uranium density necessitated by conversion from 93% HEU to LEU fuel can be , fairly accurately calculated as follows:
Uranium Density = Uranium Density (g/cc)
X 5 (g U/g U235 in LEU)
- j'[ X 1.15
=~ 5.35 Uranium Density HEU (2.1)
., The factor,1.15, accounts for extra uranium 235 necessary in LEU fuel to overcome increased uranium 238 resonance absorption and produces approximately the. same end-of-cycle core reactivity as existed with HEU fuel.
For TRIGA reactors with 70% rather than 93% enriched fuel, the uranium
, density is approximately:
Uranium Density = 4.03 Uranium Density .
Using equations (2.1) and (2.2), LEU uranium densities have been calculated for the 25 universities being considered. The values are listed in Table 2.3 along with the fuel type proposed for use by each reactor assuning tiirect LEU ,
substitution for HEU with no plate or element dimension changes.
2.5 Reactors for which LEU Conversion is Technically Feesible ;
r .. It is instructive to consider reactors using the extremes in uraniun
, loading (refer to Table 2.3). Purdue at 0.25 g U/cc, WPI at 0.35 g U/cc, l
, Ohio State at 0.41 gU/cc, and Michigan at 0.33 g U/cc have the lowest HEU loadings. The last reactor has been converted to LEU fuel with no technical problems, becaisse it was possible to utilize a current state-of-the-art fuel technology, UAl x with a density of 1.6 g U/ce, plus a thicker plate to accommodate the necessary extra uranium (0.060 in., a thickness previously
, used for Michigan fuel and, hence, easily licensed). . , _. _
's_
Table 2.3 Estimate of Core Chan9es Required to Use LEU
' If No Dimensional Changes If Present Fuel Technoleav1,2,3 Must Cnance Parameter, Fretfio Present Required . Fuel Date Fuel P ower Density Density 7ech Qual- Meat Plate No of No of R es etea (wWl fe U/ce) (c U/ec) Rec'd ified (mils) (mils) Plates Elants Plate-Tvee Fuel - 93t Enriched - -
Hinn power - ,
- 1. Missouri- 10 ' 1.6 8.6 - 1989+ Not Feasible Columbia
- 2. MIT 5 1.6 8.6 - 1989+
- 3. Georgia Teca Not Feasible 5 0.66 3.5 U3512 1986 20/3 94 50/69 n.c. 17/19 Medius Po ee
- 4. Rhode Island 2 0.72 3.9 1966 12/30 n.c. . n.c.
- 5. Michigan 2 0.33 1.8 W512 M1 x n.c.
{- 6. Virginia-1984 20/30 50/50 n.c. n.c.
2 0.61 3.3 03512 1986 20/30 50/60 n.c.
UVAA 20/28
- 7. Lowell 1 0.78 4.; 1986 12/30 n.c.
U3512 n.c. 26/27 Lo= Po.er
- 8. Missouri- 0.2 0.94 5.0 U3512 1986 20/334 n.c. n.c.
Rolla .
27/51
- 9. Ohio state 0.01 0.41 2.2
- U A1, 1984 33/50 n.c. n.c.
- 10. Kansas 0.01 1.03 n.c.
5.5 U351 1989 20/30 n.c. 10/18
- 11. WP! 0.01 0.35 16/20 1.9 U A1 x 1984 40/47 n.c. n.c. n.c.
- 12. Purdue . 0.001 0.25 1.3 U Ai x now n.c. n.:. n.c.
- 13. RPI 0.0001 Redesign n.c.
- 14. Va.-Cavalier 0.0001 0.61 3.3 U3512 1986
- 20/30 50/60 n.c. -
15.~ Ma nnattan 10-7 - - - - - - - -
TRIGA U2 H Feel - 70s w/o Enriened p
- 16. Ore 9en State 1 0.47 1.9 UlrH
- 17. Texas A&M 1 0.a9 2.0 1985 No chan9es, t short ente life UZrH 1985 No chan9es, but short Core life
- 18. Wisconsin 1 0.a6 1.9 U2rH 1985 ho chan9es, but short core 1tfe
- 19. Wash. State 1 0.50 2.0 UZrH 1985 No changes, but short core life 4
.s e
0
- ]
( 9 k
Table 2.3 Estimate of Core thanges Required to use LEU (Continued)
If he Dimensional Chances If Present Fuel Technoloqv1,2,3 must chanoe rarameter, rrom/6o
- P resent Requi red Fuel Date Fuel Po er Density Density Tech Qual- Meat Reacter (MW) :(e U/cc) Plate No of No of (c U/ec) Reo'd ified (mils ) _(mi l s ) Plates
- _Elmnts Plate-Tvee Fuel - 93% Enriched -
Areenant . H,0 & Grachtte - 93 w/o Enriched "- - --
- 20. U. Cal. - LA 0.1 0.44 2.4
- 21. Florica S.1 0.38 UA1 x 1964 40/60 70/90 n.c. n.c.
2.0 UA1 x 19B4 40/51
- 22. U. Washington 0.1 0.45 2.4 70/81 n.c. n.c.
- 23. VPI 0.1 0.58 UA1 x 1984 40/60 70/90 n.c. n.c.
3.1 U3 0g 1985 40/70 80/100
- 24. Iowa State 0.01 0.58 3.1 U30g 12/14 n.c
- 1985 40/70 80/100 12/14 n.c.*
Acueous Homooenous Now
- 25. U. Cal. - 58 le-5 0.044 0.24 Hi gher - - - -
Concentration
-/7- Notes: .
(1) Present technology means 1.6 g U/cc for UA1x ; 0.35 for UZrH.
(2)
Increasing plate thickness or number of plates may cause significant change in hydraulics.
(3) Increasing number of elements means lar criterion of no penalty in performance ger core, hence lo-er fluxes, which may fall to meet (4)
Plates rea with cores thicker than 30 mils may not be considered qualified for use in these ctors.
- n.c. seans no change O O I D e
V
. 20
, o
( It appears that Purdue's 0.25 g U/cc for HEU could be converted to about 1.34 g U/cc for LEU without any geometry change. WPI's 0.35 g U/cc for HEU l would require 1.87 g U/cc for LEU (expected to be demonstrated by 1984) or the '
existing 1.6 g U/cc if the clad-meat-clad in mils dimensions are changed from' I 30/40/30 to 26.5/47/26.5. Ohio State's 0.41 gU/cc for HEU would require 2.2 gU/cc for LEU or the existing 1.6 gU/cc if the clad-meat-clad dimensions are changed from 36/36/36 to 29/50/29. Presumably there will be no licensing problems for 1 KW and 10 KW reactors changing to LEU in 0.100 in. thick plates having fuel meat cores of these projected thicknesses.
The University of California-Santa Barbara has a uranyl sulfate solution reactor. The potential for increasing density in this aqueous homogeneous '
core is presumed to be possible since a similar reactor at Brigham Young University is now operating with 20". enriched uranium.
2.6 Reactors for 'w hich LEU Conversions Is Not Technically Feasible _. , , , ,
At the other: extreme are Missouri-Columbia and MIT. Both of these reactors have been designed to operate with HEU at a density of 1.6 g U/cc, the highest loading that has been demonstrated for plate-type fuel to date, although it is. expected that somewhat higher loadings will be proven by the RERTR Program within the next year or so. Information furnished by the program, indicates that densities of 2.3 g U/cc should be qualified in FY 1984
,~ (UAl ),xand 3.2 g U/cc in FY 1985 (U 38 0 ). The highest loading that RERTR
(( currently is planning to investigate is 7.0 g U/cc, using the new, still unproven U 3 Si technology, the qualification date for which RERTR estimates to be about 1989. This loading is still less than the 8.6 g U/cc density that it is estimated will be necessary for Missouri-Columbia and MIT if these reactors are to convert to LEU with no change in the fuel geometry.
- The Missouri and MIT core designs provide practically no flexibility for changing the core geometry, e.g. increasing the core size, to accommodate more u ranium. Both cores are contained in structures that cannot be expanded without major modifications, a requirement that IAEA did not contemplate as being technically feasible. The fuel meat in the MIT design is already 0.030 in. thick, and the fuel plate surfaces are finned to increase the heat .
transfer by a factor of almost two. Missouri already uses a high primary )
coolant velocity, 23 ft/sec, so that thicker plates and narrower channels would quickly lead to excessive pressure drops across the core. Only minimal increases in element loadings could be achieved by geometry changes in the l fuel itself, and even for these increases detailed thermal-hydraulic studies l would be required to determine what higher loadings, if any, are possible. 1 2.7 Reactors for Which LEU Conversion May Be Technically Feasible After Fur ner Stuoy In between the above extremes are 18 reactors with varying characteristics. The Rhode Island (2 MW) and Lowell (1 MW) reactors have characteristics that may minimize the impact of conversion relative to other
- reactors. Specifically, the clad-core-clad dimensions are 24-12-24 mils , l respectively, suggesting that a 1.6 g U/cc density in a 15-30-15 mil plate i might permit LEU fuel to be fabricated with current technology and no overall plate or element dimensional change... In these, as in other reactors, it will i -
~
n .
.z
- \( be necessary to demonstrate that safety is not compromised, (e.g. control blade worths are adequate, pcwer excursions will be limited prior to core damage, etc).
The University of Virginia-UVAR Reactor (2 MW) uses 20 mil meat in its fuel, and hence cannot gain as much by going to 30 mils. It appears that a larger core (more elements) is possible; one-third larger would appear to be ,
required, but this would decrease the flux in inverse proportion, in addition 4
to the decrease that would result directly from the LEU conversion. This does not meet the criterion of no penalty in performance, and so it would be
! necessary to await the development of U 351 2 fuel, estimated by RERTR for FY
! 1986, or to investigate the effects on other parameters of approximately ,
doubling the core fuel meat thickness. In all of these cases it is understood
- that the estimates are only approximate and that detailed analyses are
=
necessary to predict the expected change.
Georgia Inst [tute of Technology, the only other reactor in the megawatt range, appears to be more restricted in that the core size can be only slightly increased, from 17 to 19 elements.
j At the University of Missouri-Rolla (0.2 MW), the situation' is similar i
to that at Virginia, with the added option of increasing the number of plates
, above 10 per element.
i /
L' All of tIhe last three reactors above probably can convert to LEU without I \ any geometry change when the3 U Si2 fuel is demonstrated at 4.8 g U/ce, estimated by the RERTR program for FY 1986.
j There are seven reactors in the " Low Power" category, with power levels up to 10 KW. These are among the f acilities with life-time cores. There is i- only limited information available in Reference 4, but it appears technically feasible for Purdue, Ohio State, and WPI to convert, as mentioned earlier. On the other hand, the University of Kansas reactor uses HEU at 1.03 g U/cc and will have to await the demonstration of U 3Si (about FY 1989) unless the core
- meat thickness, the number of plates and the number of elements are all increased. .
The class of reactors known as ARGONAUTS, four reactors at 100 KW and
- one at 10 KW, have relatively low density HEU fuel, 0.38 - 0.58 g U/ce, and l probably can be converted to LEU when the 2.3 g U/cc UA1 x is qualified, l estimated to be in FY 1984 Conversion with today's technology may be l feasible if increasing the number of plates per element above 11 and l decreasing the water gap is possible. This, presunably, would increase the i
1 depth of analysis required in the SAR.
.TRIGA reactor groups have found from experience that 70% enriched fuel
, provides a longer fuel life in the core than 20% enriched fuel and, hence,
' reversion to the lower enrichment will increase fuel cycle costs. However, it appears that conversion to LEU without ecenomic penalty may be possible l
following the demonstration of higher UZrH x fuels, expected by RERTR for FY l
1985.
I i.
L-
- e __.
, n. ,
\
2.8 Conclusion Based on our assessment, conversions can be divided into three categories: those that appear to be technically feasible with today's fuel .
technology, those that are not feasible even with advanced technologies now under development or projected, and those that require further study before a prediction of technical feasibility can be made with confidence. The reactors at Michigan (already demonstrated), Purdue, WPI, and Ohio State University pool reactors which now have fuels with the lowest uranium densities, fall in the first category, along with the liquid fueled reactor at UCSB.
Missouri-Columbia and MIT, with the highest uranium densities, fall in the second, and all other reactors are in the third category pending further evaluation.
- y "
O J
1 l
I l
4 1 1
a
. Rdir:1 Registir / Vol. 47. No.164 / Tuesd:y August 24,1tJ82 / Notic;s 37007
- FEoERR REGISTER (Exponr/lupoRTF-Contsnued .
Maional m howram tosi nuncer M*
- Taal M of m
~re .Teemi.
aico 3.2s sei er.,ce.u.non._ is.no saa n d w o, era - .w.
una A.,sws .. iss2.
ein cas=o m_ u,s ee.ri. issa.
Go wrsl E.sce,c cc, A4 s. its2. 3 88 sci e inctmed weemsm '3.r34 '82 vosase owenmy et masenal er cacreo reactor, eviend nasy.
este. and sitemseste sore.gnme4ed lor Caorso. a 3 A4 s.1962. Kswo0a63(06A ,
Teams irs.sas : 3.05s
' Aa== . ,. ~
0 in ooc. >:me r:. :S c ao ==l being exploited to produce nuclsar NRC has issued several export licenses sweso cooc neo.e+.*' weapons.particular concerns were for reduced enrichment uranium to be expressed with respect to the fabricated into test elements for foreign -
proliferation risks associated with and domestic research reactors.
Use of High. Enriched Uranium (HEU)in invent rin HEU fonesearch and test Assuming RERTR program suc, cess. I Research Reactors; Policy Str.tement . reactors abroad. De widespread use of most of the performance testing of LEU !
4GENCv:U.S. Nuclear Regulatory HEU fuel.which involved a larse alnminide and oxide fuels with high Commission. number of domestic and international uranium densities for use in plate-type I Action: Statement of policy. fuel shipments, increases the risks of reactors will be completed by the end of '~
proliferation through theft or diversion
- 1964.The irradiation ofpin-type- '
- sumuAny:De Nuclear Regulatory ~ of this material. In contrast to HEU. the zirconium hydride fuel'with highI- i
^ '
Commission (NRC) has 11censin8 use of fuel with lower enrichments responsibility for domesuc use and for reduces prohferation risks. uranium and possiblydensityplate. type,for use in reactors willTriga.6 export abroad of Special Nuclear In an effort to allay concerns of map 1eted in N Anuming Ucensing u-Material. including High. Enriched proliferation risks. efforts were made to reduce HEU inventories, on the approvals these fuels could then enter. .-
Uranium (HEU). and is interested in reducing, to the maximum extent assumption that any reduction in the into full scale use in appropriate u.a.(. 7 react rs. Silicide fuels with very high. ,-
possible, the use of HEU in domestic potential for access to these inventories and foreign research reactors.The NRC uranium densities are also being . -
j~
would constitute a reduction in the developed and tested by the RERTR is pleased to note that the current U.S- proliferation risk.These concerns Ar'nimstration continues to support the program. nese fuels may be needed for u .,
eventually led to the establishment 'of Reduced Enrichment for Research and the reduced enrichment for research and conversion of high power reactors.- . ,.
Test Reactors program and that to date test reactors (RERTR) program.This As part of the overal! RERTR -
the U.S. Congress has approved progr'am was established to develop and program. Argonne conducts for DOE a adequate funding for this program. In ~ demonstrate the technology that wul technical and economic evaluation of this connection, the NRC has prepared facilitate the use of reduced-enrichment each significant HEU export license . .
the foUowing policy statement. uranium fuels in research and test application including the potential of the m Funmen esponuariou coWrACT: reactors. If successful, this Could lead to reactor for conversion to reduced-James V.Zimmerman. Assistant a significant reduction of HEU enrichment fuel within the planned Director. Office of International inventories abroad, and thereby availabilities of appropriate reduced- -
Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory increase the prohferation resistance of enrichment fuels. Nearly all potential Commission. Washington. DC 20555, related fuel cydes. conversion candidates have been (301) 492-7866. The objective of the RERTR program evaluated. Technical conversion surei.awawTany swronMATioec is to develop rutarch and test reactor schedules are being planned by reactor In the 1950's the U.S. entered into ' fuels which will allow substitution of operators based on demonstration and
- several short-term agree'nents for uranium oflow enric unent 5 (LEU. less limosability of the fuel Based on the .
cooperation (Mo years) allowing for th'e than 20%) for HEU and which will not technical and economic evaluation by '
export of research reactors and fuel significantly affect reactor performance ANI. a cordinated Executive Branch under the " Atoms for Peace" program. characteristics or fuel cycle costs. On an recommendation on the license In subsequent years the U.S. has been a interim basis, some reactors may utilize application la developed by the major supplier of high-enriched uranium intermediate enrichment fuels (45%). Department of State and is submitted to (HEU) for use abroad, primaruy in while the 1.EU fuel development the NRC.
research and test reactors. Such reactors program is in progress. It should be ne objectives of the RERTR program produce radioisotopes for use in such noted. however, that no U.S. effort will bave been fuDy supported by NRC since areas as medicine agriculture, be made to develop fuels with its inception.The Commission has aisc
~
ciesalination. research in biological enrichments significantly below 20%. utilized Argonne's analyses in support effects of radiation, etc. Materials test because of the increasing magnitude of ofits reviews of proposed interim reactors are also used to train future plutonium production in fuels with very exports of HEU, particularly with operators of commercial power reactors low or'no enrichment. respect to determining the dates when and to test new materials and faels. To date. DOE has initiated a conversion to lower-enriched fuels can in the mid 1970's particularly development and test program managed be anticipated. The Commission is
(
by the Argonne National Laboratory pidased to note that the current (ANI.) to prove the feasibility of the new Administration continues to support the
, . following India's detonation of a nuclear explosive device in 1974. nuclear
' proliferation concerns began to increase. lower enrichment fuels.Many foreign RERTR program and that Congress has Expanded efforts were undertaken to countries are cooperating with the U.S. approved adequate funding for the prevent nuclear power programs from in this effort, and, within the past year, program.
- D
. s 37008 Fed:ral Regist:r / V:L 47. N3. IM / Tu;sd;y August 24, 1982 / Notices m Cc=;nission'also e notes that reduction in the degree of protection power levels not in excess of166 I types of LEU fuel are currently against radioactve properties of source, megswatts thermal (5 percent power) in l s .ested in DOE's RERTR program. special nuclear, and byproduct materials accordance with the provisions of the As soon r.s all the necessary tests are are abnormal occurrences. license, the Technical Specifications and ,
cempktzd. the Commission is prepared This report to Congress is for the first the Environmental Protection Plan.
to cet expeditiously to review the use of calendar quarter of 1982.ne report The Commission has now issued '
the new fuelin domestic research and identines the occurrences or events that Amendment No. 4 to Facility Operating test rectors licensed by NRC. the Commission determined to be License No. NPF-11 which authorizes '
With respect to future export license significant and reportable: the remedial operation of the La Salle County Station. a cpplications for HEU.beanng in mind actions that were undertaken are also Unit i, at reactor core power levels not the Commission's responsibihty to make described. ne report states that there in excess of 3323 megawatts thermal an over*l! finding that each export were four abnormal occurrences at the '(200 perrent power)in accordance with ,
would not be inimical to the common nuclear power plants licensed to - the provisions of the amended license.
difense and security of the U.S., the operate.The first involved diesel In addition. the Amendment makes -
Co= mission intends to continue its generator engine cooling system failures. administrative modifications dealing current practice of careful scrutiny to The second involved pressure transients with omissions, an addition and changes v;rify th:t additionalinterun HEU during shutdown. The third in.volved in the areas of exemption, reporting to y exports are justified.He Commission major defic'encies in management the Commission and completion date of '
plans to continue to monitor the controls. The fourth involved a steam equipment qualification: requires ,I prog ess of the RERTR program so that generator tube rupture. Dere were no confirmation of vacuum breakers to it canunderstand what would be abnormal occurrences for the other NRC . withstand pool swell forces: and a . -
cpprepriate conversion schedules, and licensees during the report period.De license condition regardmg HVAC '. . - U to encourage that actions be taken to Agreement States reported no abnormal systems with respect to operation above' ~
k chmim t) U.S.-supplied inventories of occurrences to the NRC. - 5% and 50% power. - ,
. - I HEU t) the maximum degree possible. La Salle County Station. Unit 1is a - d
- He report to Congress also contains '
d De Commission notes that U.S. 1nformation updating some previously boiling water nuclear reactor located in '
research reactor operators have shown reported abnormal occurrences. Brookfield Township. La Salle County.
- little interest in converting to lower Interested persons may review the . Illinois. He amendment is effective as ^
(nrichment fuel. As part of a policy to report at the NRC's Public Document '. - of the date ofissuance. . '
strongly encourage conversion by Room.1717 H Street.NW Washington ne application for the amendment.
- foreign c.perators, the Commission will D.C. or at any of the nuclear power plant complies with the standards and ,
take st:ps 8to encourage similar action Local Public Document Rooms requirements of the AtomicEnergy Act
- 5 % research reaeta operatas. throughout the country. Single copies of of 1954. as amended (the Act). and the i J at Washington. D.C. this 17th day of the report, designatad h6 Commission'sregulations ne
<.st.198:. Vol. 5. No.1.may be purchased from the Commission has made appropriate ^ l e
For the Commission.
' r mth.
National Technical Information Service.
Springfield. Virginia 22161.
findings as requiredby the Act and the Commission's regulations in to CFR .
j n
secrewy ofoe commasion. A year's subseiption to the NUREG- ChapterL which are set forth in the p 3,,, o.mn rm.m. g 0090 series publication, which consists amended license. Prior public notice of -
sus coos neo.e, , of four issues.is available.from the the overall action involving the NRC.CPO Sales Program. Division of ' reposed issuance of an o rating s TechnicalInformation and Document cense was published in e Federal , I Abnormal Occurrence Report; Section Control. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ' Register on June 9.1977 (42 ER 29576- ~
H 208 Report Submitted To the Congresa Commission. Washington, D.C. 20555. 29577).He increase h power level f Nctica is hereby given that pursuant Microfiche of single copies of the authorized by this Amendment is to the requirements of Section 208 of the publication are also available from this encompassed by that prior public notice. [
En2rgy Reorganization Act of 1974, as source. Prior public notice of the administrative ,
amended, the Nuclear Regulatory Dated at Washington D.C. this 16th day of changes authorized by this Amendment ,
Co==ission (NRC) has published and August 1982. . was not required since these changes do F issued the periodic report to Congress For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. not involve a significant hazards L cn cbs:rmal occurrences (NUREG-0090. Samuel 1. Chilk, consideration. ;
Vcl. 5. No.1).
Seciewy ofde commission. The Commission has determined that i-Under the Energy Reorganization Act u ,, the issuance of this amendment will not
- of 1974. which created the NRC, an , ,,,enog result in any significant environmental abnorm-1 occurrence is defined as an impacts other than those evaluated in unscheduled incident or event which the the Final Environmental Statement. its 1 Cc==ission (NRC) determines is [ Docket No. 50-3731 Addendum, and assessment of the effect ~
sigeant from the standpoint of public 40 year license from issuance of this Commonwealth Edison Co.; issuance amendment since the activity authorized health or safety." The NRC has made a detcr: .ination, based on criteria of Amendment to Facility Operating by the license is encompassed by the published in the Federal Register (42 FR License overall action evaluated in the Final 10950) en February 24.1977. that events On April 17.1982, the U.S. Nuclear Environmental Statement, its involving an actual loss or significant Regulatory Commission (the Addendum, and assessment of license
. Commission) issued Facility Operating duration. Further, with respect to the m ihe siepc niemd to in the above License No. NPF-11. to Commonwealth administrative changes in the
, ho e coi been detaJed or d>scussed- Edison Company (licensee) authortzing Amendment. the Commission has Iere$ e e hai e e e rue of operation of the La Salle County Station. determined that the issuance of this ae.c, m al tw foliomed to the NRC. Unit 1 (the facility), at reactor core Amendment will not result in any L
l
- -~
.e -
r (
7590-Z
( NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 Limiting the Use of Highly Enriched Uranium in Domestic Research and Test Reactors AGENCY: huclear Regulatory Comission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
- The Comission is considering amending its regulations to limit the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel in domestic research and test re-actors (non-power nuclear reactors). The proposed amendment generally would require that new non-power nuclear reactors .use low enriched uraniu: (LEU) fuel and that existing reactors replace HEU fuel with LEU fuel when available.
The Corrnission considers that currently licensed non-power reactors using
( HEU fuel are operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the pub-lic. The proposed rule is intended to reduce the risk of theft or diversion of HEU fu'el used in non-power reactors and the consequences to public health, safety and the environment from such theft or diversion. The reduction in .
domestic use of HEU fuel may encourage similar action by foreign research reactor operators, and thereby reduce the amount of HEU fuel in international use.
~
DATES: Coment period expires- SEP 4 1984 . Coments received ~
after this date will be considered if practical to do so, but only those com-ments received on or before this date can be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSEES: Coernents should be submitted in writing to the Secretary of the Comission,' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. All coments received will be ava'il-able for public inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC.
o i .
e
- [7590-01]
f (
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Lahs, Jr., Office of Nuclear Regu-latory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555.
- Telephone (301) 443-7874.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1
Background
On August 17, 1982, The Comission issued a Policy Statement on the use of HEU in research reactors. The Policy Stitement indicated that NRC has licens-1 ing responsibility for domestic use and for export abroad of Special Nuclear i
i Material, including HEU, and is interested in reducing, to the maximum extent j possible, the use of HEU in domestic and foreign research reactors. The Policy
! Statement also noted that as part of a. policy to encourage conversion by foreign operators, the Comission would take steps to encou, rage similar action j by U.S. research reactors operators.
f Public Comission meetings on this subject were held December 19, 1983, j January 27 and February 6,1984. As discussed at the meetings, the Comission l believes that the 31 non-power reactors (25 owned by universities, five by l" private businesses and one by the Government) presently licensed to use HEU 1
fuel are operated without undue risk to the public health and safety. The pro-
, ceeding is intended only to cause replacement of HEU fuel. (Target material.
- special instrumentation or experimental devices using HEU, are not included.)
This reduction is desirable because HEU, in appropriate form and quantity, can be used to make an explosive device which can have severe adverse consequences on public health, safety and the environment. LEU has relatively little value j for this purpose. The Comission believes that a new rule could reduce the j risk of' theft or diversion of HEU, could encourage similar actions by foreign f operators of non-power reactors, and thereby, could reduce the amount of HEU in international use.
The Policy Statement also describes a continuing program to develop and demonstrate the technology that will facilitate the use of reduced enrichment l fuels. The Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors' (RERTR) program I a =
)
- , - - --- . - . , --. , , - - , - , - - - - - , - - - _n,.,--- .n--- , - - - - ,
-3'
( { [7590-00
(
tas initiated by the Department of Energy (DOE) and is managed by the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). Its objective is to prove the cility of new low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuels to replace existing HEU fuel without signifi- )
cant changes to existing reactor cores or facilities, or significant decrease ,
in perfomance characteristics of the reactors. The RERTR prog ac's progress and anticipated continued success over the next five years have encouraged NRC to undertake a rulemaking proceeding which would cause reductior. in the use of HEU fuel in domestic research and test reactors. >
Detailed infomation on the RERTR program was presented by Dr. A.
Trave 111. ANL, at the International Symposium on the Use and Development of Low and Medium Flux 'Research Reactors, held October 17-19, 1983, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A copy of Dr. Travel 11's paper, "RERTR Program Activities Related to the Development and Applicatic:s of New LEU Fuels", is available for public inspection in NRC's Public Do:ument Room at
. 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC.
~ ~
(- One source of information which identifies and classifies the affected
' university reactors and addresses the range of impacts of converting from HEU to LEU is a contractor's report, " Assessment of the Implications of Conversion of University Research and Training Reactors to Low Enrichment Uranium Fuel,"
, NUREG/CR-3666. The report is avail,able for public inspection anc copying for a fee in NRC's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW., Washi:gton, DC. As part of ~ the development of the proposed amendment, Comission briefings, open
., to the public, were held December 19, 1983, and January 27, 1984. At the briefings, information was . presented by the DOE, Department of State, Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization (NEDHO), NRC staff ard other inter-ested persons. -
Information considered to date indicates that conversi:n of several non-power reactors from HEU fuel to LEU fuel is technically fetsible and, if the goals of the RERTR program are successfully achieved over the next five years, will be technically feasible for almost all the remaining reactors. The
,information also shows that a major consideration to operators is the cost of conversion which hinges on the availability of vendor supplied fuel. NRC o shares the licensees' expressed view that conversion costs sho;14 largely3r y .
h @
[7590-01]
{
entirely be financed by the Federal Government3 Historicelly, the DOE and its predecessor agencies have provided significant support to research and test reactor programs. The availability of Federal support will be a key factor considered in determinino the_tyA133.kility-_oLLEU_heL.andachedu_1_es fonc.on- ~ -
ver,sion.
Under the proposed rule, non-power reactors would be required to use LEU fuel unless there is a demonstration that the facility's unique purpose cannot be accomplished without the use of HEU. Licensees now authorized to use HEU fuel would be required to develop and submit to the NRC's Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation a proposed schedule for conversion to LEU fuel . In preparing the progosed_s.chedule, account will be taken of factors such as the availability of shipping casks, financial support, and reactor
- u. sage. Determination that the conversion fuel is available is dependent upon the successful accomplishment of thelkT~ sit"out in~ DOE's'RERTR~ program and
. the development of comercially available.
- ~ ~ ~ -
replacement fE A final schedule
--=- - -
, will then be determined by the Director. This schedule will depend upon the availability of LEU fuel readily adapted to use in the licensee's reactor with -
minimum modifications or adverse impacts on the licensee's program.
A matter of interest to the Comission in req'uiring conversion and estab-
- lishing the schedule will be financial considerations. Interested persons are invited to coment on the extent that they believe the economics of conversion should influence Comission actions. Any economic analysis should include es-timates of the aversion of risk to the public health, safety and the environ-ment. -
Technically, in its simplest form, conversion from HEU fuel to LEU fuel consists of replacing relatively low density HEU by relatively high density LEU. By using a higher density of uranium in the fuel matrix, it is expected that the same amount of U-235 can be present in a fuel element.without changing the external dimensions of the element or significantly changing the ther-mal-hydraulic characteristics of the reactor. Under these conditions it is possible that existing technical specifications will remain unchanged and no unreviewed safety question will be involved. NRC is evaluating the reactor _
e O
( ( [7590-01]
.(
performance and safety aspects of conversion and expects to publish a report prior to. reaching a determination on issuance of a final rule.
To facilitate conversion safety reviews, the NRC is considering the devel-opment of generic envelopes of safety, limits, for the several tWE~of non-power ,
l reactors. An affected li' ensee c would then submit an analysis showing that both the normal operating and postulated accident conditions of the reactor fall
. within the limits. These safety limits would be used in establishing limiting conditions of operation (such as coolant flow, coolant pressure, reactivity l conditions). Current developments by the RERTR program _ indicate thatthese limiting conditions of operation with LEU fuel may not differ significantly 4 'from limiting conditions of operation now used with li50 fuel; however, a defin-4 l itive conclusion on this matter.,applicab)* to all the ionversion__can(.id3as I will depend on the continued success of the RERTR program over the next several
[ years. Comments are invited on this approach of using generic envelopes of ,
j {
' safety limits and limiting conditions of operation. -
E s In cases where conversion from HEU fesl to LEU fuel would neither conflict i with the technical specification incorporated in the license nor involve an unreviewed safety quest' ion, the conversion could proceed without amendment of ,
, the license. In other cases, a license amendment would be required. In view ,
' of the significance of this proposed ' rule to the national interest, the Connis-l sion, when implementing the rule, intends to waive any licensing' fees that i would normally be assessed for amending licenses issued to production and uti-lization facilities. Interested persons are invited to comment on the l possibility that a license amendment will not be required or that an amendment l would not present an unreviewed safety question or e conflict with technical specifications.
i In sunnary, the Commission recognizes that succes_sfqL. imp 1,ementation of ,
t the. proposed _ rule.,_while. maintaining the. nuclear _research and_trai.ning capabil-l '
ity which these reactors provjde, d.epends on (I) the continued success of the l
DOE funded RERTR program (2)_the_dev.elopmen.t_of acceptable, and availa61e,' re- , - - . _
i
- placement
- fueland (3)_the_gxtent,_pf fi.nancia_1 3_ _ operational d support ~provideid i to affected licensees .by._the_ federal Government - . - -
through DOE. The Conniision 4 o -
l also recognizes that the degree of RERTR program success directly impacts the .
9 I, - -
l
( ( [7590-01]
l costs attributed to attendant NRC safety reviews. The Comission therefore, is -
especially interested in public coments on these aspects of the proposed rule. )
National Environmental Policy Act Consideration .
The Comission 'has determined, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, that j promulgation of this proposed rule will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment and that, therefore, an environmental impact j statement is not fequired. (The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for pub-l lic inspection at the NRC Public Document Document Room,1717 H Street, NW.,
! Washington,DC.)
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement .
( :
! The proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are sub-4 gect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and m approval of the paperwork requirements.
Regulatory Analysis The Comission has prepared a regulatory analysis for the proposed amend-ment. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the amendment and the decision criteria considered by the Commission. A copy of the regulatory anal-ysis is available for inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC Public Docu-ment Room,1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Reculatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5. ,
U.S.C.
605(b), the Comission hereby certifies that this proposedur'le will not, if O G
~7- [7590-01]
(" (
( -
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation affects non-power reactor licensees that own' and operate nuclear utilization facilities licensed under section 103 and 104 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. These licensees do not :
fall within the definition of small businesses set forth in section 3 of the Small Business Act,15 U.S.C. 632, or within the Small Business Size Standards set forth.in 13 CFR Part 121.
- List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, C1kssified information Fire prevention, Incorporation by ref-stence, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
j' Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization i Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, notice is hereby given that adoption of the-following amendment to 10 CFR Part'50 is contemplated.
1 PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION. AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES
- 1. The Authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
l Authority: Secs. 103, 104, ~ 161, 182, 163, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat.1244, as amended l .(42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846),unlessotherwisenoted.
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec.10, 92 Stat. 2951'(42
- U.S.C. 5851). Sections 50.57(d), 50.58, 50.9 and 50.92 also issued under
., Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2071, 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2239). Section 50.78
~. ~
f
(~ f ,
[7590-01]
also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. S39 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under se'c. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Sections 50.100-50.102 also issued under sec.186, 68 Stat.
955(42U.S.C.2236).
For the' purpose's of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273),
fl50.10(a), (b), and (c) 50.44, 50.46, 50.48, 50.54 and 50.80(a) are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2201(b)) ;il50.10(b) and (c) and 50.54 are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and fl50.55(e), 50.59(b),
50.70, 50.71, 50.72, 50.73, and 50.78 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat.
950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
- 2. A new $50.64 is added to read as follows:
u 550.64 Linitations on the Use of High Enriched Uranium in Non-Power Reac-tors.
(a) Aeolicability. The requirements of this iection apply to all nuclear non-power reactors licen' sed ~under il50.21(a), 50.21(c), or 50.22 of this part.
(b) Definitions. For purposes of this section: -
(1) "High enriched uranium" (HEU) fuel means fuel in which the weight' percent of U-235 in the uranium is 20% or greater. Target material, special instrumentation or experimental devices using HEU are not included.
(2) " Low enriched Uranium" (LEU) fuel means fuel in which the weight I percent of U-235 in the uranium is less that 20%. l (3) " Unique purpose" means that the pro. ject or program cannot rea-sonably be accomplished without the use of HEU fuel, and may include:
- l l ,
l j * .
\
i ( 9,
{ [7590-01]
d (i) A specific experiment or program, (ii) Reactor physics on reactor development based explicitly on use of HEU fuel, (iii) Research projects based on the neutron flux levels or spectra only attainable with HEU fuel, or (iv) J A reactor core of special design that could not perform its intended function without using HEU fuel.
(c) Recuirements.
(1) The Comission will not issue a construction permit for a new non-power reactor that would use HEU fuel unless the applicant demon-strates that the proposed reactor will have a unique purpose as defined in (b)(3).
.- - (2) Unless the Director of the Office of Nuclear, Reactor Regulation has determined, based on a request submitted in accordance with para-graph (d)(1) of this section, that the reactor has a unique purpose, each licensee currently authorized to possess and use HEU fuel in connection with the operation of a non-po'wer reactor shall:
(i) Acquire no additional HEU fuel if LEU fuel acceptable to the Comission for that reactor is available at the time of the -
. , proposed acquisition of the HEU fuel by the licensee; and (ii) Replace all.HEU-fuel in the licensee's possession with available LEU fuel acceptable to the Comission in accordance with a schedule determined pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
l (3) If not required by paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section to l use LEU fuel, the applicant or licensee must use HEU fuel of enrich-ment as close to 20% as is available and acceptable to the Comis-sion.
. . i
~ -
l
~ ~
[7590-01)
(d) Implementation.
(1) Any request by a licensee for a determination that a reactor has a unique purpose as defined in paragraph (b)(3), should be submitted
~
with supporting ~ documentation to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, by (insert a date 6 months after the effective date).
(2) By (insert a date 12 months after the effective date) each non-power, reactor licensee authorized to possess and use HEU fuel shall develop and submit to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation a proposed schedule for meeting the requirements ,
of paragraphs (c)(2) or (3) of this section. The proposed schedule shall be based upon availability of replacement fuel acceptable to the Comission and consideration of other factors such as the availability of shipping casks, financial support, and reactor usage.
A . final schedule will then be determined by the Director of the
' Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
(3) If the replacement of HEU fuel with LEU fuel does not change the technical specifications incorporated in the license or involve an unreviewed safety questi'on as defined in 150.59(a)(2), the holder of a non-power reactor license may replace HEU fuel with LEU fuel with-out amendment to the license and shall maintain records and furnish reports as defined in 650.59(b). If replacement of HEU fuel with. LEU !
fuel changes the technical specifications incorporated in the license or involves an unreviewed safety question, the licensee shall file an !
application for an amendment in accordance with 150.59(c).
/ !
Jm Dated at Washington, DC this day of 27 , 1984, For the Nuclear R latory Comission.
& u, Samuelh..Chilk, i Secretary of the Comission.
I ~.
l l 1
.e a mw~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,- ,. , Tcbla 1 Pegs.1 of 1 Ssptcmbar 1982
, Table 1 Su==ary , ,
Foreign Research and Test Reactors Using HEU (>70%)of Western origin '
Annual Origin Fuel No. of Power, 235g.Regt.,
of EEU Type Reactors W kg Foreign Reactors > 1 MW US Plate 44 684.5 429.7 TRIGA 3 17 11.6 Oth'er 2 l'50 27.9 U M 529.2 UK Plaee .2 30.5 14 .3 France Plate 1 20 ?-
3 50.5 -14.3 '
TOTAL FOREIGN > 1 MW 52 902 543.5 Foreign Reactors < 1 MW '
US Plate -
27 0.64 *
. TRICA . 2 0.50 Other 8 0.12 Y 1.26 1.0-1.5 UK' Flate 6 1.0 ,, ~1.0 TOTAL FOREIGN < 1 MW , 43 2.26 2.0-2.5 t
CRAND TOTAL FOREIGN 95 904 54 6 9
4 h
E e
e 0
. Tabla 3'
, ,' lI Table 3 Fcg2 1 of 3 Saptonbar 1982 Foreign Research and Test Reactors > 1 W Using HEU (> 701) of U.S. Origin
{
Min.' LEU Is or Plans to Annual Density, g/cm3 Power, 235U , No. Geom. Test MEU and/or
, Reactor Country W Re g t. , kg Geon. 'i.EU. Prototypes Change Change (U Density, g/cm3)
Plate-Type Resetors > 1 W ~
t
- 1. RA 3a Argentina 3.5 4.0 3.1 -
- 2. EIFARb . Australia 10 LEU (t) 9.2 2.3 -
- 3. ASTRA Austria 8 1.8
.4 . BR-2 2.9 HEU(1.6), LEU (2.9)
Belgium 100 55.0 7.0 7
- 5. IEA-11 . Brazil ' 2 ~1.0
Canada 2(5) 1.9 3.7
- 7. 3.1 '
La Reinad Chile 5 1.0 3.7 2.8
- 9. REF. France 57 55.8 6.1 7
- 10. SILoE Trance 35 22.5 4.5 7
- 11. SCARAEE Trance 20 HEU(2.2),i.EU(4.5) .
t t 1
- 12. ORPRIE France 14' 14 .7 6.4 ?
- . MELUSINE France 8 5.5 1 7
( FIJ-18 FRG 10 8.6 3.6 7 '
'15. FRJ-2~ FRG 23 17.9 2.6 -
~
'MEU(1.4).
16 FRG-1 FRG MEU(1.1),LIU(3.0).
- 5 2.3 2.4 -
- 17. FRG-2 . FRG 15 10.7 2.4 -
- 18. BEE-2
- FRG 10 MEU(1.4),tIU(t) 4.8 -
2.0
- 19. FRM FRG 4 2.6 LEU (2.0) 3.0 -
- 20. FMER FRG 1 1.0 ~2.3 -
EU(1.4)
- 21. GRR-1 Graeca 5 2.7 ^
2.2 -
- 22. UTRR 1ran 5 7 LEU (2.2) 7 7
- 23. IRR Israal 10 . . t t
- 24. ESSOR Italy 40 4.0 t
3.6 7
- 25. = 1 i. 1, 7 C.;
- 26. ETS-1 -Italy 1.' jJ M :
~0.6 1.5
- 27. JMIR Japan 50 34 .5 6
, 4.0 t
- 28. KUETRf Japan 30 39.2 HEU(1.6) -
- 3.7 ?
- 29. JRR-2 Japan 10 <9.9 MEU(1.6) ;
3.5 1
- 30. KUR8 Jayan 5 MEU(1.6) ,
2.5 -
1.3
- 31. JRR-4 .Tapan 3.5 0.9 TRICA LEU (1.3) 1.8
?~ BOR Neth.
- i LEU (2.1), leu (?)
2 1.7 3.1 -
F1RR Pakisean 5 J.6 7
- 7 3'5 . FRA-lh Philip. 1 0.4 1.3
7 o
4
.e-- - - -
Pcgg 2 of 3 !
- Septsub2r 1982 -
I Min. LEU Is or Plans to !
Annual Density, g/cm3 Test NEU and/or t Power, 23 % N o . G e o m'. ' Geos. LEU Prototypes Reactor Country MW Reg t. , kg Change Change (U Density, 3/cm3)
- 37. JEN-11 Spain 3 ~1.0 0.0 -
LEU (f) j l
- 38. SAFARI 3 S. Africa 20 11.7 3.1 -
MEU (1.3), LEU (7)
- 39. 12 Sweden 50 32.7 3.7 0.2 LEU (7') ,
- 40. 12-0 Sweden 1 -0.3 3.7 0.2 '
- 41. SAPHIR Switz. 10 5.6 3.7 7 NEU (1.6)
- 42. TR-1 Turkey 3 ~1.6 3.7 3.0 4 3.' TR-2 Turkey 5 -2.6 3.7 3.0
- ' 44 PLUTob UK 25.5 11.3 2.7 -
MEU(1.1), LEU (~2.7) i
'684~. 5- T2T.T
,' TRICA-Type Reactors > 1 MW *
- 45. TRICA Korea 2 ~1.0 1.3 - -
- 46. TRICA Mexico 1 -0.7 1.3 -
) 47.
- TRICA Romania 14, -4.9 3.7 -
LEU (3.7)'
17 11.6 .
i Other-Type Resetors > 1 MW
%.. NRU Canada 125 62.8 '3. 2 %
LEU ('3.2) j 49. NRI Canada 25 25.1 4.5 -
LEU (4'.5) 150 87.9 i . ,
l TOTAL U.S. ORIGIN 851.5 529.2 -
~
k Foreign Research and Test Reactors > 1 MW Using HEU (> 70%) of Other Western Origin (All Plate-Type Reactors) i l
U.K. OriEin
- 1. DIDO UK 25.5 11.3 2.7 -
- 2. dERALD UK 5 ~3.0 ? ? l 30.5 14.3 - I t
French OriEin .
- 3. Lo, Aguirre k Chile 20 7 1.7 -
l "*40 OTHER, WESTERN ORICIN 50.5 14.3 l
\. .' .
i CRAND TOTAL 902 ~543.5 . I
U Table 3
.- Page 3 of 3 Septenber 1982 aRecently received 100 kg LEU (~20 kg 235g) fron Soviet Union.
bEas utilized fuel of both U.S. and U.K. origin. ,
cNormal power is 2 W. operates at 5 W from time to time.
dAttempting to obtain ~7.5 kg 45% enriched U from U.K.
- Scheduled to be shutdown in 1984.
W f Construction of KUHFR has not yet begun.
8 Scheduled for conversion to TRICA LED fuel af ter KUHFR begins operation.
hScheduled for conversion to TRICA LEU fuel. .
i Has procured 51.2 kg LEU in 1980 for conversion as new fuel is needed.
(s. .iAs of February 1982, SAFARI was operated intermittently at 5 W with about 13 EEU (93%) elemer.ts (2.6 kg 235U ) with U of U.S. origin.and about 13 MEU .
4
-(45%) elements (2.9 kg 2350 ) with U of South African origin. Desires core conversion to LEU fuel produced indigenously.
, kUnder construction. Cooling system not yet complete. Has about 4.6 kg French REU (90%). contained in 31 fuel elements fabricated by JEN Spain. Critical experiments with natural convection cooling were completed in February 1977.
e , e
- e 9
- e 4
9
~ Table 4
.,' k
- Pege 1 of 1
' Tobis 4 -
Ssptember 1982
~ Foreign Recearch cnd Test Reactors < 1 W '
Using EU (> 70%) of U.S. Origin
' Power, - -
Reactor Country W Power, Reactor Country W Plate-Type < 1 W TRICA-Type < 1 W .
- 1. RA-2 Argentina 10 7 28. TRICA Yugo. 0.25
- 2. MDATA Australia 0.01 ,
- 29. TRIGA Austria 0.25
- 3. SAR-GRAZ Austria 0.01 0.50
- 4. BR-02 Belgium 0.0005 -
- 5. PTR Canada 0.01
, 6. IAN-R1 Columbia 0.03 Other Type < 1 W
- 7. ULYSEE- France 0.1 Strasbourg
- 8. ULYSEE- France 0.1 30. Slowpoke Canada 0:02 Saclay . Ottava .
- 9. SILDETTE France 0.1 31.
Slovpoke Canada 0.02
- 10. EOLE Trance 0.01 Toronto *
, 11. MIERVE France 10 4 32. Slowpoke Canada 0.02-
- 12. RANA Italy 0.008 *****1 -
- 13. RB-3 Italy 10 4 33* Slowpoke Canada 0.02 l14. RIMTO Italy 10 4 Halifax
- 15. ROSPO Italy -
Negl. 34 . Slowpoke . Canada d.02 <
- 16. EUCA Japan 10 4 * ****' ~
- 17. JMIRC Japan 10 5 35. Slovpoke Canada 0.02
- 18. UIR-10 Japan 10 7 Koeln -
gIggI 36. RB-1
- Italy 10-5
- 19. LFR Neth. 0.01- -
- 37. DCA
- 20. RP-0 Japan 10-3' Peru Negl.
21.- ACN211? 0.12 0.02 Switz.
- 22. LIDO UK 0.2
- 23. ESTOR UK .0.03
- 24. LAPENE UK 10 4 Total
- 25. 1.26 ECTOR UK 10 4
- 26. HORACE UK 10 5
- 27. RUD1 Uraguay- Negl.
0.64 * '
Foreign Research and Test Reactors < 1 W
- l
. Using EU (> 70%) of UK Origin (All Plate-Type) I Power, Power, Reactor Country W Reactor
~
Country W 1.
ASPARA India O.4 4.
~ QHC-UTR-B U.K. 0.1
- 2. Sf.RC-UTE U.K. O.3 5. URR
. U.K. O'.1
- 3. CONSORT U.K. 0.1 6. JASON U.K. 0.01 Total -
1.0 These 43 reactors with power < 1 W have a total powerofabout2.3blandan
D:partment of Encrgy R: sea' 'i nd Test R acters -
Using ilEU Greater Thi J Perc nt 9
. Reactor location Power (MW) Comment ,
Plate-type DOE Reactors Greater Than 1 MW:
- 1. Advanced Test Reactor Idaho 250 Primarily used by naval reactors
- 2. liigh Flux Isotope Reactor ORNL 100 Will require silicide fuel if development is successful.
- 3. liigh Flux Beam Reactor Brookhaven 60 Will require silicide fuel if development is successful.
- 4. Oak Ridge Reactor ORNL 30 Presently used to test fuels for RERTR Program.
- 5. Omega West Reactor Los Alamos 8
- 6. Brookhaven Medical Research Reactor 'Brookhaven 3 Low utilization. Will probably not need to be refueled during lifetime.
- 7. Bulk Shielding Reactor ORNL , 2 Using fuel elements intended for Safari reactor. Will probably never need additional fuel.
- 8. Tower Shielding Reactor #2 ORNL 1 SUBT0TAL T!If
. Plate-type Reactors Less Than 1 MW:
- 1. JANUS Argonne 0.2
- 2. CFRMF Idaho 0.1
- 3. Standard Pile Savannah R. 0.01
- 4. ARMF Idaho 0.01
- 5. ATSR Argonne 0.01 Low usage (100 hrs /yr)
- 6. Pool Critical Assembly ORNL 0.01
- 7. ATRC ,
. Idaho 0.005 SUBTOTAL 0.35 TRIGA-Type:
- 1. NRAD Idaho 0.25 e
de
- : ~ . , .*
l TOTAL EXPORTS OF HEU AND PLUTONIUM FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1954 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1982 Country REU % U-235 Plutonium %Pu-239 -
(grams) (average) (grams) (average)
\
Argentina 94,106 63% 9 100%
Austria 9,751 75% 162 93%
Australia 10,191 90% 6,:577 92%
Belgium 186,548 85% 57,644 81%
Bolivia 1 100% - -
Brazil 7,701 93%
84 93%
Canada 1,861,491 93% 5,017 87%
Columbia 3,113 91% 80 93%
Czechoslavakia 8 50% 29 86%
Denmark 26,213 90% 81 93%
Finland 3,863 , 20% 3
, 67%
France 6,268,415 74% 41,507 92%
' Germany (West) 9,990,460 66% 754,072 89%
Greece 6,608 93% 192 93%
IAEA 308 81% 38 91%
Ireland 2 100% 16 94%
Indonesia 18 72%. - -
India 98 83% 82 91%
Israel 18,730. 91% 606 93%
Iran 5,546 93% 112 92%
, Iraq - -
16 94%
Italy 382,068 80% -129,103 79%
-1 Figures represent shipments by U.S. to foreign countries. Returns to U.S. and' retransfers to'other foreign countries are not reflected in the data.
2
. 2 ."
(' i )
'. _(gram 3) (cvarc39) _( grams)
%Pu-239 (cvsrega)
- bapan 1,995,306 47% 159,145 88%
a l Rep. of Korea 29,610 62% 8 88%
Malaysia 7 86% - -
l Mexico 29,629 42% 164 91%
Netherlands 63,220 89% 835 90%
Norway 10 80% 1,083 86%
New Zealand - -
80 93%
Pakistan 5,764 90% 117 93%
Philippines -
3,294 93% 32 94%
Portugal 7,661 93% 1 100%
Romania 39,245 93% < - -
South Africa 32,700 92% 159 93%
Spain 9,412 88% 6 83%
,{,
x Sweden 148,070 90% 9,702 91%
Switzerland 8,787 9]?. 1,502 93%
Taiwan 9,912 93% 708 87%
Thailand 5,302
~ 90%~ 80 80%
Turkey 5,324 90% 368 92%
United Kingdom 2,301,016 93% .54,378 84%
Uruguay 5' 100% 80 93%
Venezuela 11 82% 10 90%
Rep. of Vietnam 386 21% 80 93%
Yugoslavia 17,051 35% - -
Zaire 1,354 20% - -
( __
Total 23,588,000 72% 1,224,000 87%
Source: Department of Energy, Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System
COSTS ASSOCIATED NITH COWERSION OF RESEARCH REACTDRS Thousands COST CATES 3RY of $ C0!mENTS
- 1. FUEL REPLACEMENT COSTS ASSUMES REPLACEMENT OF ALL CORES IS REQUIR D Lost fabrication costs This is the cost associated with replacement of cores a1routinerefueling which have not been fully utilized.
university $500.0 private $700.0 b) lifetime cores university $5,000.0 TOTAL $6,200.0 LEU /HEU Fah. Cost Difference 80.0 This is the cost dlHerential between LEU and HEU cores
- 2. TRANSPORTAT!DN COSTS $2,500.0 This is the cost associated with the return of the replaced HEU elements to DOE. This could be as los as $i.5 elllion.
- 3. FACILITY R001FICATICNS COSTS $250.0 This assuses a $25,000 cost at half of the'20 university reacters.
- 4. ADRIN. & LICENSINS COSTS $3,000.0 This could range free $1.5 to $3.0 sillion depending os whether licensing is generic or not.
IL n To L D
e e
, \
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES S. KANE DEFITIY DIRECTOR OFFICE OF ENERGY RESEARCH U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BEFORE THE f'
( .. . COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHN014CY ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE AND ENERGY RESEARCH AND PRODUCTION SUBCOMMITTEE U.S. BOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SEFIEMBER 25, 1984 O
9 e
.I e
hr.ChairmanandMembersoftheSubcom=ittees:
It is a pleasure to appear before you today to review the Department's goals for the University Reactor Fuel Assistance Program and present our position on the proposed NRC rule for the conversion of university researdh reactors t'o the use of low-enriched uranium. I will cover in my testimony the origin of the university reactor program, the role these reactors play in science and engineering education, and our response to the proposed refueling of these reactors with low-enriched uranium (LEU).
By way of background, the University Reactor Fuel Assistance Program was initiated by the Atomic Energy Commission under authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section 31. Following World War II, the science and technological base for nuclear research essentially resided at a few contractor and national laboratory facilities. It was clear, however, that the university community had to be involved if progress were to be made in developing the many potential applications of nuclear energy. During the next decade, the Atomic Energy Commission encouraged and supported the establishment of a wide range of university-based nuclear and radiation safety training programs in reactor and radioisotope technology, and in
~
j biology and medicine. Graduate research fellowships were established in nuclear science and engineering, health physics and industrial medicine.
Grants were provided to universities to build or purchase training and research reactors. Research equipment and instrumentation were also provided to universities for nuclear research and teaching the fundamentals I of radioactive materials.
The goal in establishing and supporting these university facilities was not only to train future nuclear scientists and engineers in the design and 0
h
D 2
operation of nuclear reactors but also to provide the research tools essential for the application of nuclear and radiation technology to i medicine, agriculture, materials and the geosciences. These same needs i
continue today.
At the present time there are 46 university research and training reactors, ranging in power levels from zero to 10 megawatts. The three general classes are: 1). those that use the Materials Test Reactor (MTR), plate-type fuel; 2) those that use the TRIGA cylindrical fuel rod and 3) the seven small facilities that use a homogeneous type uranium oxide fuel either in a
polyethylene discs or solution form. (See Table 1 for selected characteristics of these facilities.)
r Currently, there are 25 university nuclear engineering departments offering BS, MS or PhD programs and 37 other nuclear engineering programs combined
, with other departments. In 1983, the.se programs produced 674 BS degrees, about 1% of the total BS engineering degrees that year. There were more than 1500 graduate students enrolled in nuclear engineering programs in the f all of 1983, including some.250 who were working in industry or government jobs and taking graduate degree programs part-time. Recent manpower studies forecast continuing increased demand by industry for nuclear engineering graduates, particularly for operational and quality assurance positions.
We believe that continued direct access by students to university-based nuclear research reactors is very important in their preparation for future professional careers in nuclear R&D and operations.
9 6
4 ,
3 1 -
l Many university scientists and engineers use university research and N
training reactors and their associated analytical facilities. As a source of thermal neutrons for -a wide variety of research, a reactor is still one of the more effective research tools available. The range of research
' condu:ted on university reactors was illustrated in the results of a recent International Symposium hosted by the MIT Nuclear Reactor laboratory. This i
4 Symposium on the Use and Development of low and Medium Flux Research i Reactors, brought together over 200 participants from research reac'.c r 1 centers in twenty-one different countries. The discussions in this Symposium i i
clearly underlined the broad range of applications of research reactors on a worldwide basis and the continuing interest in the use of these research tools.
f The main use of the smaller reactors is for instruction, usually for classes
- - in nuclear engineering and radiation protection, at both the graduate and t
undergraduate levels to demonstrate various principles of nuclear reactor
.i physics. Many demonstrations and experiments are also carrien out for undergraduate students in physics, chemistry and biology classes. A number
, of universities also use their facility to provida basic training for I
i reactor operators and operations managers for utilities installing power reactors. This is possible because basic neutron behavior is the same in I
small reactors as it is in large power reactors. These services would not be as easily and economically provided if university reactors were not available.
! . I i
l r i
m .
i 4
(
Regarding the fuel used in university reactors, currently, there 'are only two fabricators of research reactor fuel in the United States. C. A.
Technolegies in San Diego, Ca. produces a rod-type uranium-zirconium / hydride fuel for the TRIGA reactors. Babcock and Wilcox in Lynchburg, Va. produces the MTR plate type fuels for reactors using MTR-type assemblies. Of the seventeen university TRIGA reactors, thirteen use a 20% enriched uranium fuel and four use a 70% enriched fuel developed in the late sixties by General Atomics in the fuel-life-improvement program (FLIP) to reduce the costs of fuel procurement and shipment. Each of these four facilities has an estimated fuel supply of about twenty years.
( This fuel is loaned by DOE to the universities with title remaining with the ,
gove rnment. Our support covers the fabrication costs of the fuel elements and shipment to the universities. Spent fuel is returned to DOE for
, reprocessing or storage. The MTR plate fuel is sent to Savannah River and the TRIGA fuel to the Idaho processing facility. It should be noted that due to its chemical composition and cladding material, the TRIGA fuel must 1 -
be reprocessed separately from the plate type fuel.
We also support a small activity called " Reactor Sharing", which assists universities with the additional costs incurred when they make their reactor and laboratory facilities available to scientists and students from other colleges and universities for research and training. Seventeen sharing grants averaging $15,735 were made in FY-1984. For the last complete grant a year 173 schools, involving 1900 students and 198 f aculty, participated in P
I O
1 j.
5
] the program. Such a program makes more efficient use of the existing
~
i
- reactor facilities, reduces the need for new reactors and allows faculty at .
(
i .
colleges and universities without reactors to both offer courses of study in the nuclear sciences and to conduct research.
Let me now . turn to the Department's position on the proposed NRC rule
} calling for all licensed research and training reactors using high
- enriched fuel to convert to low enriched fuel. We understand that the j primary reason for NRC's proposed action is to discourage nuclear weapons f proliferation by encouraging foreign research reactors to change to the use
- f I
- " of LEU. Since our objective is pr,inarily to set an example for other
- kb countries, then careful consideration must be given to the cost-benefit aspects and the overall effect such a requirement will have upon the l I universities.
4
! 'last December, in testimony before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the :
1 i j Department supported the conversion to LEU for university reactors refueled l
on an annual basis, provided that acceptable LEU fuel uns available. We i
j also . volunteered to store unirradiated HEU fuel at secure DOE sites, if 1
t i needed, to further reduce on-campus inventory. Our support of these ;
1 I
l conversion activities assumed that the LEU fuel will be phased in as I existing fuels are used up and that conversion would not result in any i
j significant economic or technical penalty to the individual university.
1 i .'
1 i
k i
9 0
\
Our position was based in part on the fact that if the small amount of unirradiated fuel a reactor might have is adequately stored, either on :
campus or at a DOE facility, the diversion or thef t of unirradiated fuel ceases to be an issue. We have never considered the diversion or theft of irradiated fuel to be a credible issue. The difficulties in surreptitiously handling highly radioactive elements plus the technical and financial resources needed'to separate the uranium in sufficient amount for a nuclear device make such a threat, if any, extremely remote.
Our main disagreement with the proposed NRC rule centers on its treatment of
- " reactors that have essentially a life time supply of fuel. It is worth I '
noting that the U.S. government is not seeking the conversion to LEU of foreign reactors with lifetime cores. With the exception of the four, i
one-megawatt TRIGA re. actors which use a different type of fuel, these are small, low powered reactors with*in-core inventories of less than five kilograms of U-235. We believe that thef t or diversion of fuel from these small facilities is unattractive, and therefore extremely improbable. In fact, the total amount of KEd currently in storage at all of these low power J
reactors is less than 15 kg's.
If conversion of all U.S. university reactors is mandated, some are almost*
certain to cease operation. For negligible benefit, we will have lost a valuable nuclear training and research capability.
- , .. We are further concerned with the effect relicensing may have on a e
university. It should be pointed out that the NRC's licensing criteria b , , , _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ ,
A 7
contained in (Part 50, Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations) are primarily for large power reactors operated by utilities and are used in various modified forms for the low power research and training reactors that differ widely in design, operation and use. We suggest that NRC look closely at their licensing procedures for these low power reactors to see what revisions are possible to lessen the risk to universities faced with relicensing.
In summary, we recommend that the small research reactors with a life-time fuel supply, and the four TRIGA reactors with FLIP type fuel, be exempted from the proposed NRC rule and that conversion of other MEU fueled reactors s
proceed only af ter existing stocks of HEU fuel elements are used, and when conversion can be done without a serious technical or economic penalty. ,
The Department of Energy strongly supports U.S. initiative, to prevent v4 nuclear weapons proliferation, but seriously questions whether broadly imposing LEU conversion on domestic university reactors would have any positive and measurable impact on the proliferation issue.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony and I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.
O r
u
,, a 4
o a
'S a
. :. 8 ". .8 7. ". c. -= * *.a..= = = = = = A. * * * *
. **7 - * * ". :. * * * * * * :.= = * * * * * * * *
- a u - - -
a m u
" 2 3 s. S. 8 0 8. :. 3 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8. 8 8 8 8 o .-
- - 8.*. 2 0 8 8 8 2 8 3. . 8 8 8. s. .8 8 8 8 o.oooo-oooo-ooooooo oooooonoooooooooooooooooo a
W ~*-
. o-o-oo-~-.- **" **"*-*"*
~. -og".~ ** * ***8*** "
o8 --."--."-----------
1*" - -
, 8. "" *" ** s. *.
- 7 *. O . * "
- 8 8.....
n..-------o~~~~---
- *7 t. t. ". 3 3
, mg 3
- u. e.-.no . .~.. on..-..- . .. .on..-~ ... ooooooooooooooo.oooR~ooo..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~ ~~
-x N
3 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 3. 8 8. g 8. 8 8 8 So888888388888888o-88 o o .
.i. 3 g, l,g8gggg88o.s8 sa o a
- assaas - afffflEsssssasS 88*****- f 8
o---------- -
W -
3:. =.
L :
- 1 ,. ,. -.
, . .. 1-(:st
- 3 1: t 1:. ,,x3.
3 :::::e:
s..11.11 ....s n
e 1:= =. : 2. : :
,1 5:: .
i
.se. s ,e .s , :a.:;:.1:.-
d :
c s
e 52.-::.n.....
- . . i.. . .: ::.....:-
.- . m .. s.).
.s .
. t_
3 .=
. 1221;; ;;; . 20-3 y
- 1i22i2335555533
.===== ....
- 334-; t ,
o r . .s .s ,
.s .s 1 s*v rrn.s v .s 3 ~:
> .i3,3. a da 3 ss:s:3.,i.3:. " d d ...............3 g- -
o
.......8..!8 .. . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ R. :. ~g g t :
................~
~. ... -.
- :* : ". f3 322 2..
- . .----- -- .-~. . * --
"E *!*! 8 .t .i .g . t .?3? .r .f .e .t .t .! I.! "S o :w : : : : : : : : : :*: *: :*
E B:
E.
55 m *
? .
.F m .1 .
- - . * * .3-F: u 24 :
o .-
3 :. .= . r..
O "
- y ". i. T. J 3 *: ". 2
. .1.. .- . . . . . - m.
b*- m-Y: .# ?:3
..~.8 a .r 2
- g. 3. .m.- .m 22 & **
.IA 3 *8 2 3*213:3:j
- 313.! ::.? # ' 2.:r:: 3 3e 1:323 !2. t::1 1*
- . , ; % =. *.* a -....-- ,e s.t=:v.e:
- : ::: :s a: ::r .. r),8.,r.2
- . ] .c . . . e. .m..-...
o.. . .. m
- : ::= 3 " =53u=*a-u*a:<*- 4 c- :
7 . ; ;. . g . . . q . . . g m.gg . - . . . ...g g 1 " a .r. : v
.m 3. gm.m. g.. gi .= g 8g-f
.d.3..._g.
. A..3...3 .
mmtg.r. o
.m;
.....m.... ..
t 1 :"3 :::.:. ::::sts ::t *-- " 1
- G a m : . g : ::: := :: "l "
"1
- : ."* 3
- u
- 7.o
- : ~ 4"r: .
- 2. .r.r.::.
5 "
- .: e :-
- : * : *
- r* s 1. :..:..:r.r
.a..:.r.. t1 -
g : : : d 1. 2. r. ..r- ... ..r .r. r. .s t .r.
2 2
.t.blitiBitiaig
.. r 1 .r..r..r
. . r.r.
6LR88838 C 8:338583833188838a3&&& G& .4 e
__-_____________.-__-___----__----.___-_--__---__-_---__-___--___._-___.-_________.__.---_-___._J