ML20057F123

Provides Commission W/Update on Status of DOE Policy Re Receipt of High Enriched U & Low Enriched U Spent Fuels from Foreign Research Reactors

ML20057F123
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/21/1993
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
References
SECY-93-264, NUDOCS 9310140158
Download: ML20057F123 (15)

Text

RELEASED TO THE PDR

,f" " " <>,

/0k h 3 e

n w

en g

.....ae.ee..eeeeeeeeeees i

%,...../

POLICY ISSUE (Information)

September 21, 1993

_SECY-93-264 FOR:

The Commissioners FROM:

James H. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

STATUS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S POLICY CONCERNING FOREIGN RESEARCH REACTOR SPENT FUELS THAT ORIGINATED IN THE UNITED STATES PURPOSE:

1 To provide the Comission with an update on the status of the Department of Energy's (DOE) policy relating to the receipt of high enriched uraniun (HEU) and low enriched uranium (LEU) spent fuels from foreign research reacters.

The staff provided the Commission related information in SECY-91-186 (dated l

June 20, 1991) and SECY-92-073 (dated March 9, 1992).

The following i

discussion is based on reviews of recent correspondence, press coverage, and I

discussions with DOE staff.

l DISCUSSION:

The United States began providing nuclear fuel containing high enriched I

uranium (HEU) to foreign research operators in 1959, under the aegis of the Atoms for Peace Program.

Some of the foreign research reactor operators insist that the early arrangements included implicit obligations on the part of the reactor owners to return all United States origin spent fuel containing 3

HEU to the U.S., and on the U.S. to accept return of this spent nuclear fuel.

l In 1968, the U.S. adopted a policy of accepting return of the spent U.S.-

origin nuclear fuel from foreign reactors for reprocessing, and provided credit for recovered HEU. Officially known now as the Foreign Research

Contact:

Michael Kelly, NMSS 504-2389 NOTE:

TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN 10 WORKI'O ElYS FROM TI:E DATE OF TEIS PAPER 130004 9310140158 930921 PDR SECY 93-264 PDR C~C 3, I

gn j

s The Commissioners 2

Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel Policy, it was more commonly known as the Off-Site Fuels Policy, in reference to the spent fuel coming from "off-site" compared to DOE-generated spent fuels.

The Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) Program was established in 1978 to enhance U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy by encouraging the conversion of foreign research reactors from weapons-grade uranium fuel to low-enriched conventional fuel with no military uses.

Centered at Argonne National Laboratory, the RERTR program developed, tested, and demonstrated high density LEU fuel for use in previously HEU-fueled reactors.

In 1986, DOE extended the return policy to include the acceptance of U.S.-origin spent research reactor LEU fuel, which provided crucial support and became a key complement to the RERTR Program.

Realizing that a ten year extension of the policy would rec;uire review under i

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), DOE began work on an Environmental Assessment (EA) in 1987.

In the meantime, DOE allowed the last extension of the Off-Site Fuels Policy to expire on December 31, 1988.

In May t

1991, DOE issued a Federal Reaister notice in which it stated its intent to issue a proposed Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based on an Environmental Assessment to extend its Off-Site Fuels Policy for an additional ten years for both HEU and LEU fuels. A 60-day comment period resulted in the i

receipt of a large number of comments opposing the proposed FONSI; these comments included responses from approximately twenty members of Congress who 6

wrote to DOE voicing opposition to renewal without first completing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which was estimated to involve a two-year process.

DOE did not follow up on these comments at that time.

Since then, and with the expiration of the policy for acceptance of LEU in 1992, reactor sites have been storing spent fuel on-site, and some facility storage chambers have reached full capacity, which may result in some reactors shutting down if the facilities cannot ship out spent fuel in the near future, according to an 8/6/93 Science article entitled "Research Reactors Abroad Face Shutdown."

Additionally, suspension of the fuel return policy is viewed as creating some weapons proliferation concerns.

In addition to bomb-grade uranium piling up, some research operators who were planning to convert to LEU fuel have threatened to turn back to weapons-grade material. Operators who had made the conversion and found their spent LEU fuel piling up were considering reprocessing, which yields plutonium as a byproduct.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been among a number of agencies expressing concern to DOE over the expiration of the policy. On May 31, 1991, DOE wrote the NRC requesting its views of DOE's plan to extend the spent fuel return policy (Enclosure 1).

NRC responded by letter of July 3,1991, (Enclosure 2) to the Assistant Secretary of Energy in which the NRC position was that DOE should allow the return of spent U.S.-origin HEU fuel to the U.S, for processing and storage, and that this would alleviate the serious lack of spent fuel storage capability at several research facilities (see SECY 186).

The Office of International Programs subsequently sent a letter on January 10, 1992, (Enclosure 3) to DOE's Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, relating concerns expressed by European research reactor operators regarding the suspension of the policy.

The Commissioners 3

i In April 1992, DOE announced a decision to phase-out the reprocessing of spent fuel.

Since a cornerstone of the Off-Site Fuels Policy was the reprocessing i

of U.S.-origin spent fuel, DOE staff indicated that a new environmental review would be necessary in order to reach a decision on proceeding with the l

renewal of the spent fuel return policy.

In October 1992, Acting Secretary of State Eagleburger sent a letter to DOE Secretary Watkins urging DOE to " move quickly to reassure other governments that their spent fuel needs will be fully addressed and that we will continue to honor our commitments to them" (Enclosure 4).

In December 1992, Secretary Watkins proposed to renew the

-l policy, subject to compliance with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. Since future returned spent fuel would be stored and disposed of, instead of being reprocessed, new National Environmental Policy Act documentation (an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact 1

Statement) must be prepared before a decision on adoption and implementation of the proposed new policy can be made.

In a July 2,1993, letter to DOE Secretary O' Leary (Enclosure 5), Secretary of i

State Christopher warned that DOE's delay in accepting the fuel shipments e

might " undermine 15 years of intensive U.S. nonproliferation efforts."

IAEA Director General Hans Blix wrote to O' Leary on July 1,1993, that suspension of the policy "has led to a crisis for the operators of research reactors in many countries."

Secretary O' Leary identified a three-tiered plan to renew DOE's off-site fuels policy in a letter to Secretary Christopher on July 13, 1993 (Enclosure 6).

r Under the first tier, some fuel elements could be sent to the U.S. in the very near future if "we can mutually agree that a bona fide emergency exists" (though the emergency conditions were not defined). To enact the second tier, DOE will conduct an Environmental Assessment (EA) by September 1993 to allow for receipt of up to approximately 550 spent fuel elements which can be stored in existing DOE capacity. Assuming that this review results in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) DOE should be able to complete the required National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1506.11) review process by the end of the rlendar year.

For the long term (tier 3), DOE will undertake preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that addresses the proposed return of all U.S.-origin foreign research reactor spent fuel. A i

Notice of Intent for preparation of the EIS was scheduled to be issued in August 1993.

[ Note: This is now expected in September.] The draft of the EIS should be available for public review by the end of December 1994, with the final EIS published by the end of June 1995.

In outlining this plan, Secretary O' Leary said it " reflect [s] our determina-tion to move forward promptly and our acknowledgement of the need for a new definition of national security - one that includes both nonproliferation and i

environmental concerns." This was reiterated by DOE Assistant Secretary Grumbly, who stated that the Department is " committed to taking back the fuel, consistent with our obligations to foreign partners and consistent with U.S.

environmental law."

The Commissioners 4

According to an 8/16/93 Nuclear Fuel article entitled " House Committee

)

Language Could Complicate Return of HEU Spent Fuel", some members of the South Carolina congressional delegation, piqued that they were not consulted by DOE before 0' Leary's announcement, and concerned that the Savannah River site could end up storing all the returned spent HEU fuel, got the House Armed Services Committee in July to add a section (3137) to its version of the i

fiscal year 1994 defense budget restricting DOE from sending any spent fuel to Savannah River beyond its current capacity (estimated at about 550 fuel i

elements) until completion of an EIS. The section says that before any i

foreign spent fuel can be shipped to the U.S. under emergency circumstances, DOE first has to determine that "an emergency situation exists", then notify Congress of the emergency, then wait 30 days of continuous session before accepting the fuel. There is no definition in the legislation of what constitutes an emergency situation. Though the Armed Services Committee said it "does not currently believe that U.S.-origin HEU abroad poses an immediate proliferation risk," House sources said they recognize that the definition of 7

emergency needs to be clarified so that the intent is clear "to allow shipment of up to 550 fuel elements." The clarification likely will be drafted during i

a House-Senate conference committee.

Both the House and Senate defense authorization bills are scheduled for floor debate around September 8,1993.

CONCLUSlQN:

The staff will monitor developments associated with the proposed three-tiered approach to renewal of the take-back policy, especially regarding possible court challenges and the defense authorization bills, and keep the Commission.

abreast of developments in DOE's efforts to renew its Off-Site Fuels Policy.

NRC staff has expressed its appreciation to DOE staff who were most helpful in i

providing assistance in the preparation of this paper, and requested that DOE F

keep NRC advised of pertinent developments and identify any areas where NRC can be of assistance.

In this regard, staff informed DOE that NRC will try to j

assist them in any way we can in the pursuit of the activities involved in the process for the return of spent research reactor fuel.

COORDINATION:

OGC has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.

/

J#

Ti 6

/Ex9 utive rector pforOperations

Enclosures:

DISTRIBUTION:

1. Ltr, Easton (DOE) to Taylor (NRC)

Commissioners dtd 5/31/91 OGC

2. Ltr, Taylor (NRC) to Easton (DOE) ocAA dtd 7/3/91 OIG

3. Ltr, Denton (NRC) to Grundy (DOE)

OPA did 1/10/92 OCA

4. Ltr, Eagleburger (DOS) to Watkins (DOE)

CPP dtd 10/26/92 EDO

5. Ltr, Christopher (DOS) to O' Leary (DOE)

SECY dtd 7/2/93 i

6. Ltr, O' Leary (DOE) to Christopher (DOS) dtd 7/13/93 w/ attachment i

.i

Department of Energy WasNngton, DC 20$85 MRfft1991 i

i Mr. James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission MS 17 G 21 Washington, D.C.

20555 i

~

Dear Mr. Taylors i

s The Department of Energy's policy for receipt and reprocessing of-U.S.-origin'ppent research reactor highly enriched uranium (MEU) fuel, otherwise known as the Off-Site Tuols Policy, expired on December 31, 1988.

Renewal of the polley for the receipt of NEU spent fuel is being considered by our Department.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),

the Departme: t has prepared an Environmental Assessment _ (EA) and

{

a proposed Finding of No.Significant Impact (TONSI) on the proposed adoption and implementation of the Off-Site Fuels Policy.

The proposed FONSI has been publishad in the Federal Register for a thirty day period for public comment on it-as well as the EA.

t on approving release of the proposed FONSI, the Secretary ordered, prior to a final _ decision, a comprehensive review of the Department of Energy's-appropriate role in the future receipt of both HEU and 1.EU spent research reactor fuels (Enclosure _1).

Deputy Secretary has directed that I solicit views on thess The policies from other pertinent U.S. Government Agencies (Enclosure i

2).

I would appreciate receiving your comments on the issues identified in Admira). Watkins directive.

views on the continuation, modification, or cessation of theIn particular, your Policy relative to its impact on diplomatic requirements and its connection to international civil nuclear cooperation would be most helpful.

Sincerely, John J. Easton, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Energy International Affairs and Energy Emergencies EHCLOSURE 1

+

J Mr. John J. Easton, Jr.

JUL 03 ESI Assistant Secretary of E. ergy International Affairs and Energy Emergencies U.S. Departr.ot of Energy Washington, DC 20585

Dear Mr. Easton:

I am responding to your letter of May 31, 1991, requesting the coments of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission on issues related to the Department of Energy's consideration of rer. ewing the Dff-Site Fuels Policy.

The NRC staff believes that it is in the best interest of the United States to allow spent U.S.-origin high enriched uranium (HEU) fuel from domestic and foreign research reactors to be returned to DOE for processing and storage.

Such a take-back policy reduces certain safeguards, physical security and safety concerns associated with the indefinite, long term storage of irradiated HEU fuel in diverse locations. It would, of course, also alleviate the serious lack of spent fuel storage capacity being experienced by several research facilities, including ones in Japan and several European countries.

In this regard, however, we assume that in implementing a resumption of the DOE policy to accept spent HEU fuel, the U.S. would not diminish its pressure on foreign countries to con inue their best efforts to convert remaining HEU-fueled research reactors 10 low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel.

In the same vein, it would appear useful for DOE also to extend, beyond the

~

expiration date of December 31, 1992, its offer to take back spent U.S.-origin LEU research reactor fuel from domestic and foreign users. DOE's current examination of the Off-Site Fuels Policy will no doubt address the question of whether or not this commitment is essential to U.S. efforts to minimize the use of HEU fuel in research reactors abroad. Your analysis of this and other aspects of the policy will be of great interest to NRC and can be expected to influence our future export licensing activities.

j 1 trust that these general coments are useful.

Sincerely, Driginal Signed By:

Ja:nes IL Taylor James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations i

j l

ENCLOSURE 2

i i

i 3

January 10, 1992 l

Mr. Thad Grundy, Jr.

Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs International Affairs and Energy Emergencies IE-10, 7C-034/Fors U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Washington, DC 20585

Dear Mr. Grundy:

U.S. NRC Comissioner Kenneth Rogers and I, in separate meetings in Europe last month, were informed of significant problems being faced by foreign research reactor operators as a consequence of the suspension of the DOE's policy allowing spent U.S.-origin high enriched uranium (HEU) fuel to be returned to the U.S. for processing and storage. These problems, as you already know, are centered on the lack of proper storage facilities for an ever mounting quantity of spent research reactor fuel. The subject was raised with Comissioner Rogers by Professor Erich Te Kaat, Scientific Director of the Hahn-Meitner Institute in Berlin, and with me by Michel Goppel, Director General of the Euratom Supply Agency.

I am calling this to your attention in view of the non-proliferation benefits of reducing the stock of U.S.-origin HEU in foreign research reactor spent fuel pools. We sent a letter on this general topic to Assistant Secretary John Easton on July 3, 1991 (copy enclosed).

Sincerely, g., - --

Harold R. Denton, Director Office of International Programs

Enclosure:

7/3/91 NRC Letter JMTaylor to JJEaston, DOE cc w/ enclosure:

NRC Comissioner Rogers

)

ENCLOSURE 3 1

Es

}

DEPARTMENT OF STATE WASHINGTON Detober 26, 1992 Does Mr etary:

for Research and Test Reactors 9During the 1992 International Mee voiced very strong concern regar(ding the apparent reluctance ofRE take back spent research reactor fuel from abroad.the De Since 1978, the United States has encouraged countrien to convert from the use of high enriched fuel (MrU) enriched fuel (LEU).

to low This ef fort constitutes a key element of U.S.

with some reluctance by other countries, since it entailsnuc additional effort and expense on their part.

Off Site Fuels policy has been an integral part of theHistorically, the cenversion effort, which is perceived by countries as essential to meet receter operating licensing requiraments for disposition of spent fuel and to assure that their research zeactor spent fuel is disposed of in a safe and reliable manner.

DOE to resolve dif ficult and complex budgetary, envir and te:hnical issues.

believe it However, for a variety of reasons, I pelicy of taking back foreign research reactor fuel.is essential f i

We have worked hard for many years to reestablish the position of the United States as a reliable partner in nuclear coccerce.

We should not forfeit this effort by appearing uncertain about a policy which we have long supported and which is so critical to our non-proliferation objective of eliminating HEU from commercial use.

Clearly, we also do not want to forfeit the significant nuclear non-proliferation gains which have resulted from the RERTR program and our agreement to take back foreign research reactor spent fuel.

Limiting the use and location of NEU abroad serves the security interests of both the United States The Honorable James D. Watkins, Secretary of Energy.

ENCLOSURE 4

J 2

and the international community as a whole.

Mence, it is particularly disturbing to bear thWt some countries are -

considering halting their conversion programs, and even reverting to the use of NEU fuels in the event the United states does not agree to take back U.S.-supplied LEU spent 4

i fuel.

j over the past four years, we have maintained e dialogue with Dor concerning the importance of the spent fuel policy.

Given the urgent need-to resolve this matter, I strongly urge that DOE move quickly to reassure other governments that their spent fuel needs wi33 be fully addressed and that we will continue to honor our commitments to them.

g i

sincer 1,

W t

Lawrence S. Eagleburger Acting Secretat i

e e

1 l

i

-3 TME SSORSTARY OF STATE WASHINGTON July 2, 1993

Dear Madam Secretary:

I am writing to urge your personal. support for renewal by the Department of Energy of the off Site Fuels Pylicy for the.

neceptance of spent research reactor fuel from ibroad.

The Department of State has strongly supported this policy because of its importance in gaining foreign cooperation in converting reactors from highly enriched uranium (MEU) to low enr$ched (LEU) fuel under the aegis of the Reduced Enrichment in Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) Program.

We recall Secretary Watkins confirmed in 1992 that the Department of Energy proposed to renew the Off Site Fuela Policy, but with the caveat that meeting.the requirements of the National Environmental policy Act (NEPA) could take sa long as 2 to 3. years.' We are concerned, however, about reports of substantial delays in the amendment of the existing Environmental Assessment, an essential early step in the NEPA riocuss.

Foreign research reactor operators are reportedly highly concerned about a perceived change in DOE policy and have threatened to withdraw from further RERTR cooperation and to seek resumption of MEU supply from sources such as Russia.

A breakdown of the international consensus on conversio'n of ter,carch and test reactors to LEU and a return to an MEU fue) economy would undermine 15 years of intensive.U.S.

non-proliferation efforts on this metter'and substantially

• • dura tne ability of the U.S. to influence nucles' policy-in hilatera) and international form.

In light of current developments, I urge your support for earJy reaffirmation by DOE to other governments of our continued commitment as a reliable supplier to fully address their spent fuel needs.

Sincerely, M

Warren Christopher The Honotch3e Her.el R. O'Loary, Secretary of Energy.

ENCLOSURE 5

j s

7 The Secretary of Energy 1

Washington, oc 205a5 2

July 13/ 1923 The Honorable Warren Christopher Secretary of State Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Mr. Secretary:

f This is in response to your letter dated July 2,1993, urging my support for renewal of the Department of Energy's policy for the acceptance of spent research reactor fuel from abroad.

The Department of Energy remains comitted to the Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) program, and to the proposal to establish a policy for the return of U.S. origin spent fuel from foreign research reactors.

In response to your letter, and other inquiries we have received on this subject, we have taken a hard look at how we can expedite actions in these areas. We have decided on a three-tiered approach, as follows:

1.

For any foreign research reactor spent fuel returns for which we can mutually agree that a bona fide emergency exists, the Department of Energy will join with you in consulting with the Council on Environmental Quality on the implementation of alternative arrangements for compliance with environmental review requirements pursuant to the emergency provisions ~ of the Council on Environmental Quality"s regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1506.11).

i 2.

In order to be able to respond to any near-term situation in which the l

expiration of the Department's acceptance of foreign research reactor spent fuel may threaten the Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors Program, the Department has begun cn expeditious Environmental Assessment of the proposed return of sufficient spent fuel to eliminate that threat.

It is proposed that any near-term spent fuel returns would be conducted under the terms and conditions of the enclosed proposed policy and be limited to approximately 550 spent fuel, elements which can j

i be stored in existing DOE capacity. This Environmental Assessment is scheduled to be completed by September 1993, and, if appropriate, a proposed Finding of No Significant Impact will be issued for public review by no later than September 30, 1993.

Our goal is to complete the National Environmental Policy Act review process of this proposed limited foreign research reactor spent fuel acceptance by the end of this calendar year.

h 3.

For the longer term, the Department will undertake preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement that addresses the proposed return of all U.S. origin foreign research reactor spent fuel, as specified in the 1

enclosed proposed policy. A notice of intent for preparation of this Environmental Impact Statement is in preparation and should be issued in 1

August 1993. The Department intends to issue the draft of the Environmental Impact Statement for public review by no later than the ENCLOSURE 6 l

t 1

2 end of December 1994, and the final Environmental Impa'ct Statement by the end of June 1995.

i i

We cannot continue to addrcss this issue in a business as usual manner.

The actions outlined above reflect our determination to move forward promptly and our acknowledgement of the need for a new definition of national security -

one that includes both nonproliferation and environmental concerns. To-provi'de added emphasis to the urgency of this effort, the Department r'equests that the Department of State participate as a cooperating agency in preparation of this environmental documentation.

In conclusion, the Department is committed to work with you and representatives of the Council on Environmental Quality at any time that you consider an emergency situation may be developing.

In the meantime, we are proceeding as expeditiously as possible on the actions outlined above.

S'ncer ly,

/

Haze R. O' Leary Enclosure i

l 1

6

. l i

3 DRAFT Proposed Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclebr Fuels Acceptance Policy 13 July 1993 PURPOSE - This proposed Department of Energy policy would support United' States 1

nonproliteration policy, including one of its key elements, the Reduced Enrichment Research and Test Reactors Program. It would provide opportunities and incentives for research reactor operators in foreign countries holding United States origin spent nuclear fuel containing highly enriched uranium to retum that spent nuclear fuel to the United States for storage and eventual geologic disposal. This proposed policy is intended to support the United States nonproliferation objective of eliminating United States origin highly enriched uranium from research reactor use. It is also consistent with Section 903(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which places further restrictions on the export of highly enriched uranium from the United States. This proposed polic would provide incentives to encourage and assist developing countries (defined below in returning their United States origin highly enriched uranium research reactor spent nuclear fuel to the United States for storage and disposal. For developed countries, the policy would allow return of United States origin research reactor spent nuclear fuel to the United States for storage and disposal on a full-cost recovery basis.

PROPOSED POLICY - The United States proposes to adopt a policy under which:

1.

For developina countries (i.e., those eligible for assistance under the United I

Nations Assistance Program), the United States would offer to accept United States origin research reactor spent nuclear fuel containing highly enriched uranium for storage and disposalin the United States. The United States would reimburse the, developing country for costs incurred in transportation of the spent nuclear fuel from the developing country to a receipt facility in the United States. Upon acceptance of the spent nuclear fuelin the United States, the United States would assume all responsibility for the spent nuclear. fuel, including storage of the spent nuclear fuelin the United States, any preparation of the spent nuclear fuel for disposal, all transportation in the United States subsequent to spent nuclear fuel acceptance, and ultimate geologic disposal of the spent nuclear fuelin the United States.

2.

For deveroped countries, the United States would offer to accept all United States origin research reactor spent nuclear fuel containing highly enriched i

uranium for storage, preparation for disposal, and eventual geologic disposal in j

the United States. Such acceptance would be conducted on a full-cost-

)

recovery basis, with the developed country responsible for transportation of the spent nuclear fuel to a designated receipt facility in the United States and paying the United States the full cost of all storage, all transportation within the United States subsequent to spent nuclear fuel acceptance, disposal preparation, and ultimate geologic disposal.

)

3.

To encouraoe the conversion of foreion research reactors cerrentiv usino United States orioin hiobly enriched uranium fuels to low enriched uranium fuels, the United States would offer to accept for storage and ultimate disposal certain United States origin low enriched uranium research reactor spent nuclear fuel.

Specifically, low enriched uranium research reactor spent nuclear fuel of United States origin would be accepted for a ten year period following implementation of this policy from reactors that have already converted, or that were constructed to use and operate with low enriched uranium fuels. United States

_, origin low enriched uranium research reactor spent nuclear fuel exported to research reactors that convert within five years of the effective date of this policy would also be accepted for a ten-year period following their initial order for low enriched uranium fuel.

The acceptance of low enriched uranium research reactor spent nuclear fuel from developed and developing countries would be conducted on the same terms as stated in 1 and 2 above for highly enriched uranium research reactor spent nuclear fuel.

CONDITIONS 1.

This proposed policy would apply only to receipt of spent research reactor nuclear fuel of United States origin.

2.

Ownership of the spent nuclear fuel would be transferred to the United States upon acceptance of the spent nuclear fuel by the United States at a designated receipt and inspection facility in the United States.

3.

All transportation within a developing country and to the United States receipt facility would be the responsibility of the developing country, but would be paid for by the United States (subject to United States approval of the transpm!ation arrangements and costs).

All transportation within a developed country and to the United States receipt facility would be the responsibility of, and would be paid for by, the developed country.

4 Criteria concerning the required condition of the spent nuclear fuel would be published by the United States as part of the announcement of this policy, to clarify conditions for acceptance of the spent nuclear fuel. In general terms, all spent nuclear fuel to be accepted by the United States would be required to be either intact and free of defects or canned to ensure the ability to safely contain and manage the spent nuclear fuel.

5.

For developed countries, the fee to be paid to achieve full cost recovery would j

be established by the Department prior to entering into the agreements to accept the spent nuclear fuel. This fee would be based on estimates of the cost of the storage and disposal activities that would be required. The fee 2-

o ::.

-j.

schedule would be updated annually to account for items such as inflation, and experience with the program.

1 TERMINATION - This policy of accepting low enriched uranium research reactor spent nuclear fuel would expire ten years aher the effective date of this policy (or ten years fo!bwing placement of an order for low enriched uranium research reactor fuel to replace highly eniiched uranium research reactor fuel,if such an order is placed within five years of the effective date of this policy). Therefore, countries and research reactor operators that plan to take advantage of this policy for spent nuclear fuel.

~

coWairiing. low enriched uranium should begin planning for their own national or regional means of storage and disposal of low enriched uranium research reactor spent nuclear fuel for use following termination of this policy.

The proposed policy for accepting research reactor spent nuclear fuel containing highy enriched uranium of United States origin would encourage all countries to return this United States origin research reactor spent nuclear fuel as soon as possible.

6 i

i

?

e i i