ML20054E609
| ML20054E609 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/22/1982 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Zablocki C HOUSE OF REP., FOREIGN AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054E610 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206130060 | |
| Download: ML20054E609 (5) | |
Text
-
c
pm ato e=-
6 o,,
UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsmucrou, o. c. 2osss n
g
\\...../
cdmu June 22, 1982
\\
The Honorable Clement J. Zablocki, Chairman Comittee on Foreign Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This responds to your letter of April 22, 1982 in which you requested
[
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) views on H.R. 6032. The L
purpose of the bill is to promote the nuclear nonproliferation policies of the United States. Titles I, III, and IV of the bill do not directly affect NRC's activities and therefore the Commission has no comments on those provisions.
Title II directly affects the NRC because, among other things, it would j
require the Commission to make certain findings before it issues a license authorizing the export of highly enriched uranium (HEU). The Commission has long supported the basic intent of Title II, which is to minimize the use abroad of HEU as a research reactvr fuel.
Several aspects of the proposed statutory requirements have, in effect, already i
I been implemented by the Executive Branch and the Commission.
For example, the U.S. Department of Energy has prepared analyses on which foreign research reactors can be converted so that they use a lower enriched fuel, and several countries have committed to use lower er.. iched fuel in their research reactors.
As a result of foreign cooperation in this effort to minimize use of l
HEU, there is expected to be a dramatic reduction in the number of U.S.
exports of HEU in the coming years. Consequently, the Commission does not believe at this time that any additional significant l
nonproliferation benefits would be gained if Title II is enacted into law. Moreover, by imposing additional new specific controls on HEU exports, many of which require subjective judgments, Title II could l
cause additional uncertainties in the export licensing process which could be counterproductive from a nonproliferation perspective and undermine U.S. efforts to be a more reliable supplier.
Commissioner Gilinsky believes that this bill would help ensure that HEU i
is treated as a nuclear explosive material whose misuse could seriously affect our national security. All civilian reactors, both foreign and
[
domestic, fueled with this material, should be encouraged to convert' to LEU as rapidly as possible, as addressed in the provisions of Title II.
Since the driving concern is national security, the-Secretary of Defense should have a central role in the decision-making process addressed by l
t this bill, and should concur in the new Agreements for Cooperation, as
-o sed in Title IV.
g206130060
The Honorable Clement J. Zablocki 2
Comissioner Ahearne notes the NRC staff prepared the enclosed comments.
He would add that the provisions of Section 136(1) may be both difficult and controversial to implement. Whether a fuel can be used in a reactor may depend on the research needs of the reactor as well as the degree of proof testing required by the recipient country.
This provision essentiallf makes the NRC the judge of both.
He also has no objection to the provisions in Section 138 that the Comission and Executive Branch shall support efforts to improve physical security arrangements for the export of HEU provided it is recognized that such support can have no resource implications -- i.e., we can only fund for items authorized and appropriated.
Because Comissioner Ahearne has chosen to enclose the NRC staff comments as part of his separate views, I want to clarify that the coments do not have the support of a majority of the Comissioners.
Commissioner Roberts and I do not support the comments, while Comissioners Ahearne and Gilinsky do support them.
For our part, Commissioner Roberts and I do not agree with the statement in the comments that Section 136 " essentially codifies existing Executive Branch and Comission policy review requirements regarding HEU exports...." We believe Section 136 requires significant and potentially difficult Comission determinations which we are not now alled upon to make.
Sincerely, V
Nunzio J. Palladino
Enclosure:
NRC Staff Coments S
G G
4 ATTACHMENT Section 136 would require the Commission before authorizing the export of HEU to determine that:
(1) there is no t ie-alternative nuclear rsactor fuel available which could be used, and the reactor could not use a lower enrichment than that proposed; (2) the proposed recipient has provided assurances that when alternative reactor fuel becomes available, it will use that fuel in lieu of HEU; and (3) that the Executive Branch is taking the necessary steps to develop an alternative fuel.
Because this section essentially codifies existing Executive Branch and Commission policy review requirements regarding HEU exports, the Commission has no objection to adding this section to the Atomic Energy Act.
The NRC staff wishes to point out, however, that in view of past sensitivities abroad regarding the unilateral imposition of U.S. nonproliferation requirements, some foreign governments are likely to be concerned about possible delays resulting from implementation of the proposed requirements, and may resist providing the U.S. with the formal assurances that the section would require.
Section 137 would require the Commission, after consulting with the Se'cretary of State, to determine a kilogram limit on the amount of HEU of U.S.
origin, in-the form of fresh or spent fuel, that will be allowed in each foreign country and
~
2 at each reactor site within each country.
These limitations would be applied in acting upon applications covering proposed exports of HEU.
This provision is apparently designed to provide the Commission with pre-determined, easily understood guidelines for reviewing each HEU export application.
Currently, DOE's Argonne National Laboratory prepares a comprehensive analysis of each significant HEU export license application, which among other things, analyzes the need for the requested quantity of material.
This case-by-case approach is necessary, since the quantity of U.S.-supplied HEU that is actually justified in a particular country can vary widely due to such factors as:
(1) fuel fabrication requirements; (2) fuel loading schedules; (3) spent fuel storage capacity; (4) changing reactor operating characteristics; and (5) spent fuel reprocessing arrangements.
Accordingly, a kilogram limit approval is a rather crude means for determining appropriate i
l export quantity limits to specific countries in widely l
differing circumstances.
In addition, because of the complex calculations involved and the large number of recipient facilities, determining kilogram limits would impose a significant administrative burden on the NRC staff and would p'robably require time-consuming negotiation's with the State Department.
i
3
~
Section 138 provides that the Commission and the Executive Branch shall support efforts to improve physical security arrangements for the export of HEU.
The NRIC staff has no objection to this provision.
Section 139 provides that within three months after the enactment of H.R.
6032, the Secretary of Energy, after consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to Congress a plan with respect to the development and the use of foreign reactors of alternative nuclear reactor fuels.
The NRC staff has no objection to this provision.
The NRC staff understands that ACDA will probably assume responsibility in the next fiscal year for funding the Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) program.
Accordingly, it may be more appropriate for ACDA to be the lead agency for preparing the plan that would be required by this section.
As a related matter, Section 139 fails to mention any parallel U.S. policy to require U.S.
research reactors to convert to low enriched uranium, where possible.
Without this parallel commitment, H.R.
6032 may be viewed abroad as unfair and discriminatory.
Section 140' defines terms used in Title II.
Those definitions are satisfactory.
- - - - -