ML20127N658
| ML20127N658 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/19/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8507020064 | |
| Download: ML20127N658 (73) | |
Text
2 No
?
I S
'" E O
AM RICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
COMMISSION MEETING Staff Briefing on Final Rule on HEU Regulations for Domestic Non-Power Reactors
~
(Public Meeting)
Docket No.
l l
Location: Washington, D. C.
DateuWednesday, June 19, 1985 Pages:
1 - 63 8507020064 850619 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 pyg ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES
~ ~ ~
Court Reporters
,(
1625 I St., N.W.
Suite 921 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
/
1 D i SCLA I M ER 2
3 4
5 6
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Wednesday, s
June 19, 1985 in the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9
N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not b e e,n 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain i
4 12 inaccuracies.
13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 infdrmational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the Formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.
Expressions of cpinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Cemmission may 21 authorire.
l 22 23 I
25
O 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8
4 STAFF BRIEFING ON FINAL RULE ON HEU REGULATIONS 5
FOR DOMESTIC NON-POWER REACTORS 6
7 PUBLIC MEETING 8
9 Room 1130 10 1717 H Street, Northwest 11 Washington, D.C.
12 Wednesday, June 19, 1985
~
18 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:08 14 o' clock, p.m.,
the Honorable Nunzio J.
Palladino, Chairman of 15 the Commission, presiding.
16 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
17 NUNZIO J.
PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 18 JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner 19 THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner 20 FREDERICK BERNTHAL, Commissioner 21 LANDO ZECH, Commissioner 22 PRESENTERS AND STAFF SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
28 SHELDON TRUBATCH l
l 24 JOHN DAVIS j
25 WILLIAM J.
DIRCKS l
O 2
c 1
PRESENTERS AND STAFF SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE ~
2 (Continued).
3 FRANK GILLESPIE 4
ROBERT MiNOGUE 5
SAMUEL CHILK 6
ROBERT BURNETT 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 l
is 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3 s
I p ROC EED 1 NGS 2
(2:08 p.m.)
S CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Good afternoon, ladies and 4
gentlemen.
5
- The NRC Staff is here to brief us on a proposed rule 6
to limit the use of highly-enriched uranium in research and 7
test reactors.
The briefing will focus on a recent Staff G
paper, SECY-85-213, which lays out the Staff's proposals.
9 Conversion from highly-enriched uranium to 10 low-enriched uranium in non-power reactors has been the topic 11 of a number of discussions over the past year, including 12 expressions of Congressional interest.
I am sure the 18 Commission will want to consider the Staff's information i
14 presented at this meeting and carefully review the Staff's 15 proposal before it votes on a course of action.
16 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any 17 additional opening remarks at this time.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
No.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
No.
20 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
No.
21 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
No.
22 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Let me turn the meeting over to 23 Mr. Dircks.
24 MR. DIRCKS:
I don't want to steal any of Frank 25 Gillespie's thunder, but let me just say where we are on this
4 5
1 difficult issue, so we make the record somewhat clear.
I 2
We are in support of the notion that you should 3
reduce the levels of HEU at these university and research 4
reactors.
That is the position of the Staff 5
When we came to analyze the comments that came in on 6
the proposed rule, particularly the comments dealing with the 7
international aspects and the comments dealing with the level 8
of HEU at the various facilities, we thought that you would 9
have a very difficult time making a case for an effective 10 rule, a rule in this matter, so we did suggest that you've got 11 a couple of options.
12 One, you can say, in view of the noble purpose of 18 the mission you had here, you can say, "Well, let's try and 14 push through the rule as it was sent out, proposed, and wo 15 will grind out that rule."
16 Secondly, you can try to deal with the issue through 17 the policy statement provisions that you have in effect and 18 keep the movement going to reduce levels of HEU.
I think we 19 could report on the progress being made in that area.
20 Three, I think you have got to deal with the issue 21 of the benefits and costs.
In order to achieve the objective 22 here, you are imposing costs on facilities.
There should be 23 some way to assure that these costs will not fall inequitably 24 upon the universities and the research reactors.
25 So we think perhaps legislation in this area would
9 s
1 be appropriate.
2 There is a concern, though, as you go through 8
the conversion process, there would be litigation through the 4
hearing process on the conversions.
We also recommend in 5
the legislation that those facilities converting from HEU to 6
LEU, there le some exemption from the hearing process to cover 7
that fear.
8 The bottom line is, we are supporting the purposes 9
that the Commission originally set out to achieve.
We had 10 some difficulty with justifying the rule.
But given those 11 parameters, we will go into the discussion now.
12 I think what we would like to do is to give you some 13 background as to the levels of HEU that we're talking about at 14 these various facilities.
I think an analysis of the actual 15 statistics and numbers out there would show you that the rule 16 itself is designed to achieve conversion at a very few 17 facilities and dealing with very low amounts of HEU.
18 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Could I ask you one question?
19 You are asking for legislation in your proposal One of the 20 options asks for legislation to exempt these reactors from 21 litigation on relicensing for the conversion.
22 Could that be done by rulemaking?
l 23 MR. DIRCKS:
18 ll have to ask the lawyers about 24 that.
I'm not sure.
25 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Well, maybe they might want to
r 6
s 1
think about that.
We'll take that up 2
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I think that's a good 3
question, because as I recall the advice of our General 4
Counsel's Office, it was, in fact, that rulemaking could be 5
used, which raises a question in my mind, why are we looking 6
for legislation, unless that's just a delaying tactic to stall 7
doing anything on the rule?
I 8
MR. DIRCKS:
I don't think we're in the process of 9
stalling.
I inink we've given you a proposal here.
We are 10 perfectly willing to move ahead with the final rule, if the 11 Commission says so.
12 You might ask the General Counsel, because I don't 13 know whether he's agreeing with you fully on that point.
for the record, it was 14 MR. TRUBATCH:
Let me just 15 not the advice of the Office of General Counsel, it was advice 16 from a member of the Office of General Counsel The General
~
17 Counsel's Office, if you so instruct us, will provide an 18 official memorandum on the subject 19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
But the advice from one 20 member of the General Counsel's Office was, in fact, that this 21 could be done by rulemaking, correct?
22 MR. TRUBATCH:
That's correct.
23 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Is that going to be the same 24 position from the Office of the General Counsel?
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
It isn't fully considered.
7 s
1 MR. TRUBATCH:
The General Counsel would devote more '
2 time and effort to researching the issue.
It may, or it may 8
not 4
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
If I would have had a little 5
more time, I would have raised it with you earlier, but this 6
is the first chance I had.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
There are a couple of 8
other questions about the litigation part I don't know 9
whether the Staff wants to go through its presentation first, 10 but as I understand it, we've got a number of letters and 11 comments from the people involved in the litigation on some of 12 these research reactors, which I don't think has been very --
18 there haven't been very many cases that have involved 14 interventions, and where there have, those people seem to be 15 saying,r *The reason we're intervening is because we want these 16 reactors converted to LEU.
That's our objective."
17 If you do that, you're not going to get the 18 Interventions; whereas if you don't do it, we're going to be 19 intervening in all of these cases and opposing license 20 renewals or opposing amendments for these facilities, because 21 we want to get them converted.
22 Am I wrong on that, that that has been the crux of 23 these letters?
24 MR. MINOGUE:
We did receive a letter of that type 25 from the Committee to Bridge the Gap.
That's one
8 1
organization, one possible intervention.
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
There's a letter also from 3
the guy who is intervening in the case of the Lowell reactor 4
in Massachusetts, who says, "That's what I'm concerned about, 5
and that's why I'm intervening.
If they won't ccnvert and you 6
guys back off on your rule, I'm going to continue to 7
intervene."
8 There's another one from one of these organizations 9
providing technical support for these intervenors.
10 MR. GILLESPIE:
I think in the course of the 11 presentation we're going to give, one of the problems with 12 putting out a rule immediately comes with the fact that we are 13 depending solely on the rest of the Federal Government, being 14 the Executive Branch and DOE and Congress, to appropriate the 15 money on the implementation of that.
16 A good example is Lowell You picked that, Lowell 17 has been talking with DOE.
They are dependent upon the 10 completion of the experiment of the full-load core in Michigan 19 in the Ford reactor, if that full-load core proves out, and 20 then we have proved that LEU can pass all the various hurdles 21 technically, then, as I understand it, it is the intention for 22 both Lowell and the Rhode Island AEC reactor to start talking 23 to DOE about conversion.
24 That was the point that I was going to cover as i 25 went through this.
O 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I just want to raise the other 2
one, because it seems sort of general, and since it came up in 3
the general comments.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It did seem to me from 5
what Bill said and a l s o f r om the analysis of the alternatives 6
in the paper that the crux of the Staff's concerns really seem 7
to go to the economic costs of conversion and assuring that G
there would be federal funding for that.
We got some letters 9
on that subject.
10 Second, this potential for litigation.
I think wo 11 need to focus on both of those, 12 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
As a matter of fact, one of my 13 other questions is, could you review what the status of 14 financing is with regard to conversion that exists at the 15 present time?
16 MR. DIRCKS We will get to that.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
On the economic costs, my 18 recollection was that the proposed rule dealt quite 19 specifically with that very issue, the cost of the new fuel, 20 and provided for a schedule for federal funding of that 21 expenditure.
That, in essence, was part of the 22 MR. DIRCKSt That called into question the 23 effectiveness of the rule as we proposed it.
24 MR. GILLEsplE:
That's why, in the presentation, i 25 want to talk about it, it's the timing of the rule that may
10 1
actually present a problem, as far as the implementation being 2
dependent upon DOE.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
As a matter of fact, this 4
question of economics was in the letter from Mr. Markey.
I 5
don't seem to have it.
It basically said, "Look, if you go 6
ahead with the rule, there is funding available."
It was on 7
the top of page 2, but I'll find it while you go ahead.
8 MR. GILLEsplEr I think I will cover Commissioner 9
Asselstine's points, and maybe in the context it would be-10 easier than to discuss it further as I go along.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Fine.
Also, I want to 12 talk about some benefits later on.
It doesn't l * 'ok like, to 13 me, that they have been appropriately considered in the 14 Staff's value impact analysis.
15 MR. GILLEsplE That's one of the criteria on the 16 third page of the paper, because we're trying to read minds at 17 that point, and we could use some further insights.
18 I was going to start off by giving just a general 19 overview of the population we're dealing with.
I think it's 20 Important to understand exactly what we're dealing with.
21 We were dealing with 31 reactors when the rule was 22 proposed.
There is a potential now that we are only dealing 23 with 26 reactors.
Five reactors have opened discussions or 24 communications with the NRC, as I understand it, for 25 position-only licenses and as a first step to either
11 1
mothballing or decommissioning.
2 So we now actually have a smaller population, and, 3
in fact, they don't blame the indecision they see here in the 4
potential costs, but it's an element in the decision.
5 Eo clearly, I'm not saying this is the cause, but it 6
is an element in their decisions.
Of the basically 26 7
reactors that are left that this rule would confront, 16 are 8
what are called lifetime cores; 16 reactors have enough fuel 9
in the rector to keep going for the rest of their useful 10 lives.
Of the approximately ten remaining, at least four, 11 from our appraisal of what they do and how they do it and why 12 they need the various neutron spectra, and when uranium fuel 13 with the high uranium density, if you use low-enriched fuel, 14 will be available, will have the opportunity to come in and 15 ask for a unique purpose exemption to keep doing what they're doing.
i it's the sole 17 Union Carbide, which generates 18 commercial reactor for the generation of medical isotopes in 19 the U.S.,
the University of Missouri, the Massachusetts 20 institute of Technology, and the National Bureau of 21 Standards.
It's not that we grant it, but those appear to us 22 to have, based on their operations, an opportunity to come in i
23 and ask for unique 24 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Are they the only ones involved 25 in medical materials?
i
12 1
MR. GILLESplE:
They cro tho only onos that d pond 2
on the spectrum necessary.
Carbide is, in fact, the only one, S
commercial, dealing with medical isotopes.
Yes, they are the 4
prime supplier to the U.S.
for that.
5 Other considerations that deal with Carbide is that 6
their target material is also very highly-enriched uranium.
7 They have other material onsite also that they are dealing 8
with.
9 So of the population, we've got a population and i
10 this becomes a concern when i discuss the State Department's j
11 concern on lifetime cores and what the international policy is 12
-- we have about ten reactors which were equivalent to 13 European counterparts that the State Department is addressing 14 in their policy and how they are working the HEU/ LEU supply 15 process.
16 With this, my first slide is intended to start on l
17 the question of when the litigations would occur and when they 18 would not occur.
19 CSilde.3 20 What we have done here is shown when the relicensing 21 hearings would be held, if they were held, when these reactorn 22 come up for relicensing, just to give you an idea of numbers 23 and timeframe.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
On your first point, 25 Frank, before you leave that, so out of the 26 reactors, what l
. - - = -. - - -
13 1
you're saying is that 22 of them do not nood high-enriched 2
8 MR. GILLESplE:
Twenty-two of them technically could 4
use, as we appraise it right now, could use low-enriched 5
6 CHAIRMAN pALLHDINO:
How do you get the 227 You 7
have 16 with lifetime cores 8
MR. GILLESplE:
Of a total of 26, which appear that 9
would be active, there are four that reasonably could ask for 10 an exemption.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
May be able to make a 12 case.
13 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Are those the medical ones?
14 MR. GILLEsplE:
Union Carbide is the medical one.
15 MIT is a problem.
They have such high flex levels necessary 16 for the experimentation they do, that packing enough 17 low-enriched uranium into the core to make up for the high 18 enrichment might, in fact, not be possible with the existing 19 technology, it is unique to them.
20 The University of Missouri is a neutron spectrum 21 problem, the energy spectrum they are going to get from the 22 neutrons they are using.
23 So each of the unique purposes is unique unto 24 itself.
It's not all for the same purpose.
25 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
There are only four that are
14 1
unique?
2 MR. GILLEsplE:
Yes, right now, that appear to us to S
have a strong case for uniqueness.
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I have a feeling of deja vu 5
here.
That's what happens when we meet on these things once a 6
year.
7 1 thought we wen t through this flux thing.
Weren't 8
we told that at MIT. the flux difference was ten percent 9
between HEU and LEU 7 10 MR. GILLEsplE I wasn't 11 MR. MINOGUE:
I recollect some discussion regarding 12 the specific activity that can be produced and there being a 18 difference of something like ten percent.
But I don't think 14 it was on the MIT reactor.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I want to see the experiment 16 that hinges on a ten-percent flux difference.
17 MR. GILLESplEr The question that came up is fuel 18 density.
19 MR. MINOGUE:
I believe it was the medical 20
- isotopes, it was a question of production costs _and costs to 21 the patient We'll go back and look at the transcript, if you 22 want.
23 MR. GILLESplEt I'm not asking you to grant these 24 four.
I'm saying there's a possibility that a case could be 25 made for four, as we appraised it
15 1
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It's clear that for 22 2
there's no value to them?
3 MR. GILLEsplE:
Right now, the Staff's appraisal 4
would be that there is no technical problem that cannot be 5
overcome right now with the 22.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Fine.
7 MR. GILLEsplE In further going through, I think 8
an important element in this on the next table i presented is 9
that the NRC Licensees represent only two to three percent of 10 the international traffic in high-enriched uranium which is 11 supplied from Western sources.
That is chiefly the United 12 States.
This is the export licenses all of which come through 13 the Commission for license.
14 So we're dealing with a relatively very small 15 fraction of the total inventory.
And the State Department has 16 expressed, both in writing to us and iterating back and forth 17 and asking them for comments on the proposed rule and in the 18 hearing that was held with Mrs. Lloyd and Representative 19 Fuqua, what their rapinion is.
20 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Which is what?
21 MR. GILLESplE:
I was going to get to it, but I can 22 go through it now, if you'd like.
23 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Go ahead.
24 CHAIRMAN pALLAOlNO:
I don't understand this slide 25 yet.
Could you tell me what I'm supposed to see?
I didn't
10 1
got o chcnco to coo it.
2 MR. GILLESPIE:
There's one objective to this slide, 3
and that is only to display, if you look at the " Total" line 4
for NRC licensed research reactors, which is the bottom two 5
numbers, you will find the inventory totals 300 kilograms,
~
6 versus foreign research and test reactors, which we are up 7
Into the thousands, and the DOE research reactors whose 8
inventory of high-enriched uranium, the closest we can come on 9
an estimate is several thousand, because DOE doesn't release 10 those clear figures.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEr if you look at the number 12 of facilities, it looks like, if you go with your 26 number, 13 we've got 46 facilities.in this country, as opposed to 90 14 overseas.
So in terms of number of facilities 15 MR. GILLEsplE:
Clearly, the majority are overseas.
16 In the types of reactors, if we're going to look at the types 17 of reactors that State l's dealing with overseas, it's the 18 greater-than-1-megawatt reactors, which is the first line, 19 which is the 50.
Those are the non-lifetime cores.
20 Generally, the 1-megawatt line is the lifetime reload 21 requirement 22 I have taken the 300 kilograms in the next table and 23 tried to break it down by category of unirradiated, slightly 24 irradiated -- which means it doesn't fit the definition of 100 and highly radiated, which 25 rem per hour for three meters
17 1
does moot tho dofinition.
2' The 70 percent enriched uranium, which is an odd 3
categorization, is the TRIGA reactors.
General Atomic is only 4
making low-enriched fuel for TRIGA reactors, so the process 5
for conversion as these cores get burned up will be to 6
low-enriched.
I believe there is one TRIGA reactor now which 7
has a mixed core.
But the TRIGAs run at such a low power 8
level that quite frankly they are very close to lifetime
- 9
- cores, in fact, the inventory you see here is the inventory to they're probably going to have for their entire life, but 11 their HEU supply has effectively, from the commercial sector, 12 been cut off.
13 CH,4IRMAN PALLADINO:
Which one is that?
,14 MR. GILLESPIE*
70-poicent enriched, the last few I
15 lines.
It's an odd enrichment.
There's only the TRIGA 10 reactors that are around right now.
17 Also, as you can see, of the highly-enriched uranium 18 that l's unieradiated, the first line, the 20 k'i l o g r a m s, there 19 are 15 facilities involved.
But I have noted that there are 20 three to four facilities that account for 50 percent of that 21 20 kilograms.
22 And that gives you, I hope, kind of a feel for 23 the distribution of the fuel I'm still dealing with the 31 I
24 number, because the five facilities that have talked to us 25 have so far only talked to us and submitted paper, and there's
18 1
been no official action.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
To make sure i understand, 3
it looks like the top two categories here are, in practice, 4
the ones that ought to capture our attention.
5 MR. GILLESPIE:
Yes.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I want to make sure my 7
understanding is correct.
You are saying, I gather, that at i
8 best, 20 percent of this 15 kilograms for sure, if not the 15 I
9 and 17, but I guess really that top enriched unieradiated 15 10 kilograms at best 11 MR. GILLESPIE:
That's 20.
One column over.
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Sorry.
Right.
20 13 kilograms.
That at best, 20 percent of that could be 14 eliminated if those facilities are to maintain normal 15 operations.
Is that and we did this with 16
, MR. GILLESPIE:
Our estimate 17 NMSS -- is approximately 15 kilograms could be removed.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Fifteen of the 207 19 MR. GILLEsplEi Fifteen.
That's the best that could 20 be done.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Where do I get the --
22 there's a table in here somewhere that tells me the arguments 23 against an immediately effective rule say that removal of 24 excess HEU would improve the current situation for, at most, 25 20 percent of fuel irradiated to less than 100 rem per hour.
4
-._ =__ ___
'. : '- t
(
3g
/I
(
(
1 MR.'GILLESPIE:
That's difforent.
Now combine my r
i I've actually 2
first two lines.
100 rem per hour, is the
/
5 3
trJ~ed to separate ou t./ because there is a big gray area in fl
\\
j r
4 there.
The 70 -- yo'u have to add the 70 l
on it, I think we're t
. /
nIJmber as in the other paper.
5 right there at about the same
!a' s.
s 6
COMMISSf0NER BERNTHAL:
Let me ask the question that
= -
7 still is an important question, I think, S
How much oftthe bnsite unirradiated fuel could be 9
removed without disrupting normal' operating procedures?
~
+
10 MR. GILLESPIE:
Our estimate is approximately 15
,?
t s
11 kilograms.
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
' Fifteen of the 20.
i 18 MR. GILLESPIE:
Fifteen of the 20.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
What's the argument against 15 doing that?
16 MF GILLESPIE:
There is -- I believe the safeguards t
17 paper daals with that And one of our recommendations here is
~
18 that we fully support going forward with that.
19 cot 1MISSIONER BERNTHAL:
It seems to me~like the 20 argument against the order is a straw man, because l'n the 21 first place, I don't think~we start out talking about incere.
22 MR. DIRCKS:
The argument against and immediately 23 effective order or the argument against the rule?
\\
COMMIS$10NER BERNTHAL:
The immediately effective 24 05 deder.
That issue, the Commission voted in favor of last I
+,
I,"
g,[
}
20 1
cummer by a majority voto.
2 MR. DIRCKS:
That's the one that we were sent, the 3
Staff requirements memo, back in March, March or April, that 4
said, " Consider whether an immediately effective order should i
5 be issued."
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I realize you didn't get an 4
7~
SRM in the spring.
But the question had nothing to do with 8
incore.
It was a question of what as sitting at the sites, 9
unieradiated, external to the core.
And it sounds to me like 10 getting those 15 kilograms out of there, if you're not going 11 to disrupt normal operations, is just a sensible thing to do.
12 Now maybe I'm missing something.
18 MR. DAVIS:
Really, Commissioner, you moved into 14 another Staff paper,84-216.
As the Staff was asked to 15 consider this, we did consider it, and laid out why we thought 16 we could not establish the rationale.
OGC thinks the 17 rationale for an immediately effective order perhaps can be 18 established; however, anticipating that the Commission may 19 desire to disagree with the Staff, we do have attached to the 20 same paper an order to go forward.
But the paper, I think, is 21 fairly self-explanatory as to the basis for why the Staff 22 thinks we cannot make the finding for immediate effectiveness.
28 We do propose that we move forward promptly with an 24 expedited rulemaking which, of course, would lower, we think, 25 the risk of hearings which may be associated with orders of
21 1
this typo, and wn would hopo to accomplieh that.
2-COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I must confess, I looked 8
at that paper very hurriedly, since we just got it.
But 1 4
thought when you said, " Move forward hurriedly with an 5
expedited rulemaking," I thought there was like a two year 6
schedule.
7 MR. DAVIS:
It's somewhat less than two years, and 8
it would be as expedited as we could make it But as we laid 9
it out, I think it's 16 months.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Let me pursue this slide one 11 more step here.
12 Then of the 20 percent of the 70 kilograms, which I 18 guess is 14 kilograms that is slightly irradiated, why is that 14 not in the core?
Why is that stored externally?
15 MR. GILLESPIE:
I can give you a specific example.
16 RPI, for example, has what used to be a former Army reactor 2
17 which has a set amount of fuel that they inherited from the 18 Army with it, and they've got a vault right there on the 19 site.
And in fact, they rotate that fuel in and out of the 20 reactor.
It's a very low-usage reactor, and they, in fact, 21 take slightly irradiated fuel and either leave it in the pool, 22 or after it dies off a little bit, they actually take it out 23 and put it in the vault.
And it's because it was designed for 24 that reactor, and they are rotating it through.
And that's 25 the reason.
22 1
Now that's tho one exemple.
I cen't give you other 2
examples of it.
S COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
What is the self protecting 4
level, then?
It's under 100 R, but what is it?
10 R?
5 MR. GILLESPIE:
Self-protection is 100.
6-COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It's not 100 everywhere.
7 That point is also made in that paper-8 MR. GILLESplE:
Yes.
Some reactors -- at RPI, the 9
example I'm trying to give is one that does not operate for a 10 sufficient time at a sufficient high enough power level to 11 maintain that self-protecting characteristic, t
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
So some of those elements IS that assertedly are self-protecting are going to be at 14 substantially lower exposure levels than 100 R per hour.
15 MR. GILLEsplE:
There's that possibility, yes.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Which means they're 17 probably not self-protecting.
18 MR. GILLESplE:
Yes.
That's why I broke out this 19 category.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That even goes to the 160 21 kilograms that is claimed to be heavily irradiated.
22 MR. GILLEspIE:
Let me try not to split hairs.
The 23 160, for the most part, is in reactors like MIT, the 24 University of Missouri, and Union Carbide, which, in fact, run 25 at high power levels for long periods, and there is little
23 1
doubt in anyone's mind that the matorial is solf-protecting.
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
3 MR. GILLESPIE:
There's very little I know of, and 4
having reviewed all this material, I came up with no reactor
-5 that's kind of on the borderline where I would be splitting 6
hairs between 99 and 100, it really appeared that the reactor 7
either operated at a very aggrassive pace, or it was something 8
that was in intermediate operation in an academic environment, 9
where it clearly only is slightly irradiated, and we really 10 just cull it out as slightly irradiated.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Are all seven of those 12 facilities for the 93 percent heavily irradiated?
All seven 13 of those are the ones that operate almost continuously at very 14 high levels?
15 MR. GILLESPIE:
Yes.
Those are the ones that 16 operate almost continuously at very high levels.
17 Actually it was kind of nice to find it come out 18 that way, because then we didn't have to slip hairs about tho -
19 self-protection question.
It became a non-question for our 20 eyes in this rulemaking.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It's the other 82 that 22 we're concerned with.
23 MR. GILLESPIE:
Yes.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Could you help me keep my 25 numbers straight?
I 1
l l
{
24 1
Beforo, we spoko of 26 rocctors, end hero it looke 2
like we add up to 52 or some number like that.
3 What is the relationship of 26 4
MR. GILLEsplE:
These are not mutually exclusive.
5 Some facilities which have lifetime cores also have 6
unirradiated fuel I was classing it here by the fuel type, 7
because I wanted -- there was such a clear demarcation from 8
the 100 rem line, that indeed when I get to going through the 9
rule, the slightly irradiated material that's in lifetime 10 cores are the reactors that are not used significantly, which 11 is the point of departure between us and the State Department 12 on the rule, so it becomes important to understand that that's 18 a substantial amount and also a significant number of 14 facilities, that 17.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Supposing I wanted to take 16 these 26, and I wanted to put a portion of them among these 17 various categories on this slide.
Where would they go?
18 MR. GILLESPIE:
Let me take a try at it.
The 19 enriched unirradiated, for the most part, would be at the 20 facilities that require periodic fuel loads, where they are 21 reloading fuel, so they have a certain backlog of material 22 there.
Those would be the higher power ones, the 23 greater-than-1-megawatt for the most part And unless I go 24 back and work up a whole set of numbers, I'm not going to be 25 exact i
25 1
Tho en~richcd slightly irradicted, thoca 17 ganarolly 2
represent the lifetime cores.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So put 16 there 4
MR. GILLESPIE:
Yes, because we've got the five 5
facilities, and one of them is a lifetime core that is 6
proposing now to close.
7 Okay.
The 99 percent heavily irradiated, again is 8
closely allied with the three to four heavy usage facilities 9
from the first line.
10 1 could offer to have another chart made.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That's all right.
I've gotten 12 enough right now.
I would say I would put 10 under the first 13 MR. GILLESPIE:
Yes.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Sixteen under the second, and 15 four under the third item, and that four is also part of the 16 ten.
17 MR. GILLESPIE:
The 70 percent enriched represents, 18 I believe it's five TRIGA reactors.
Off the top of my head, 19 that's as close as I can come without sitting down and 20 ccmparing the two charts.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
l'd like a breakdown of 22 something here still, though.
That's the 20 kilogram enriched 23 unirradiated, and 14 kilograms which we'll assume is slightly 24 irradiated out-of-core.
25 What is the maximum quantity now in either of those
26 1
categories present in cny cingio institution?
2 MR. GILLESPIE:
l'Il try to give you what I think on 3
the first one is the maximum quantity.
4 MR. BURNETT:
4.9 unieradiated.
5 MR. GILLESPIE:
Something less than five kilograms 6
for one facility unieradiated.
Slightly irradiated, I'm not 7
sure.
I'd have to look back at the inventories, because a lot 8
of the slightly irradiated is hanging on pool walls.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Maybe Bob should address 10 this question.
11 MR. BURNETT:
It has to be less than five, because 12 If it's five, it goes into Category 1.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Right.
14 MR. BURNETT:
There are several facilities that have 15 authorization licenses for 4.9 of unirradiated.
And as 16 Mr. Gillespie said, generally they are the same three to four 17 high-powered, high-fuel turnover facilities.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
To what level would we be 19 able to drop those quantities, if we adhere to the criterion 20 that there be no disruption of normal operations?
21 MR. BURNETT:
At least one of those four, okay, 22 which has the 4.9, has initiated dealings with the DOE to 23 remove about three of those 4.9 offsite, leaving 1.9.
So if 24 you say there's approximately 20 kilograms out there that is I really want to use the approximate sign 25 unieradiated
.~
27 1
thoro, becauso it varios botwoon 20 and 29, according to our about 15 of that or three-fourths of it could be 2
analysis 3
moved offsite with no damage to the community.
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
You mean with no damage to 5
the program?
~
6 MR. BURNETT:
The p r o g'r a m.
That's what I meant.
7 The proarams beina pursued by the community.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Generally speaking, I don't 9
know how the distribution then would be, but you'd be talking 10 about sub-kilogram quantitles, then, distributed among the 11 rest?
Or are there a few extraordinary cases that are still 12 two or three kilograms?
How does that work out?
13 MR. BURNETT:
Generally, the 20 to 28 kilograms 14 exist at about ten sites.
That's a good way to think about 15 it.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
17 MR. BURNETT:
Three to four of those sites account 18 for half of the 20 kilograms.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
What about the same we'll call it slightly irradiated 20 question, then, for the 21 fuels, the 14 kilograms that are out of the core and then fall 22 in that category?
23 MR. BURNETT:
I must admit that I'm not prepared to 24 talk about the ones that are out of the core.
They are, as they are typically in a rotational format 25 Mr. Gillespie says e
28 1
COMMISSIONER CERNTHAL:
It just scems to m3 that we 2
are so close here, aside from the policy issue of symbolism, 3
we are so close here to having no practical problem that we 4
just ought to figure out a way to get ahead with it.
And that 5
was the reason that this whole issue of -- I don't care if 6
it's an immediately effective order or what it is, or an that we just get on with 7
immediately effective arm-twist 8
it.
There would be no practical problem.
If we just take 9
care of some of these things, then we can get down to the 10 issue of the symbolic importance here.
That's really the 11 reason for my questions on that subject.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Go on.
13 MR. GILLESplE:
The next slide is a scheduling from 14 the RERTR program, which the Commission has strongly endorsed 15 in the past, 16 CSlide.]
17
-- which forms the technological base for advanced 18 LEU fuels to replace the HEU ones.
I emphasize, as you can 19 see from this, most of the U.S.
facilities will have the 20 technology in place by DOE, and i emphasize just the 21 technology.
They will not have commercial availability of 22 fuel 23 When the U-S SI-2 fuels are finished at the end of 24
'85, the U-aluminum fuels and the MTR type plates and the 25 higher density fuels are going to require the first silicide
29 1
fuolo.
So that*c ctrictly tochnology.
2 Now there is going to be some time period where DCE 3
will be working with the commercial vendors who are its 4
partners and its partners overseas to try to come up with 5
commercial availability, and commercial availability will pace 6
not only the people in Europe that DOE supplies, but it's also 7
going to pace our Licensees.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
How many reactors in the U.S.,
9 non-power reactors, need the U-S SI-27 10 MR. GILLESPIE:
It's in general the ones that are 11 above 1 megawatts, it would generally be eight, eight to ten 12 that would need the higher density silicide fuels.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Again, the proposed rule 14 would have required that NRR develop a schedule, depending 15 upon the fuel availability and the funding for that, for the 16 fuel.
17 MR. GILLESPIE:
Yes, and that possibly might be one that's one of the problems of strengths, which 1 18 of the 19 want to discuss now as I get into the rulemaking and how we 20 went from the policy statement to the rule.
21 COMMISSIGNER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
22 MR. GILLESPIE:
Briefly, as you know, in 1982 a 23 policy statement was issued by the Commission which was 24 commented on by the State Department, which they, at that 25 t ilme, said the policy statement would be very useful in their
30 1
non proliferation offorto.
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
it would help enc.ourage 3
other countries to 4
MR. GILLEsplE:
it would help encourage other 5
countries, and they were very supportive of the policy 6
statement.
7 LJe went from the policy statement to some iterations 8
with OPE and suggestions on how do we implement the statement, 9
the policy statement itself, which was how do we strongly 10 encourage the domestic reactors to move forward?
11 This moved us up to some Commission meetings in 12 December of
'83, January and February, where the requirement 13 came out to the Staff-Okay, go forward with the proposed 14 rule, which in July of 1984 was published.
The comment period 15 was extended to allow for extra comments, and in November of 16
'84, the comment period closed.
The next milestone is coming e
17 here.
18 in addition, back in the December / January / February 19 timeframe, the decision or the discussion led to the 20 safeguards issue basically being separated from the 21 proliferation issue, with proliferation being the main 22 emphasis, I believe 23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I have to tell you, Frank, 24 I think that's your problem.
That's the impression I got when 25 you read your paper.
But if you look at the proposed rule, I
31 I
think when tho Commicolon considered tho proposcd rulo, it put 2
both issues together, and if anything, the proposed rule put 8
the greater emphasis on the domestic safeguards issue than it 4
did on the international effort.
5 All you have to do is read the statement of 6
considerations where we say the proposed rule is intended to 7
reduce the risk of theft or diversion of HEU fuels used in 8
non power reactors and the consequences to public health and 9
safety and the environment from such theft or diversion, and 10 reduction in domestic use of HEU fuels may encourage similar 11 action by foreign research reactor operators.
12 It looks to me like the rule that we issued and 13 that's certainly the way I remembered it, too -- put the 14 principal emphasis on the domestic safeguards benefits and not 15 on the foreign benefits, although I think the foreign benefits 16 are there as well
~
17 MR. GILLESPIE:
That's how we had interpreted it, 18 and if our paper read that way, that's why the paper read that 19 way.
We were looking at this rule as a proposed rule, it l
20 definitely has safeguards implications.
If in fact you can 21 remove all the LEU, you've solved a significant safeguards 22 problem.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's all a big part of 24 my problem with the value impact analysis, because it's 25 heavily slanted that way, and in essence it rests almost
i S2 1
entiroly on tho Stato Dcpcrtm:nt lottor.
2 MR. GILLEsplE:
We were, in fact, looking at the 3
proposed rule as the implementation tool for the sentence in 4
the policy statement, which said, "How do we strongly 5
encourage the domestic people to go forward?"
6 Let me go on to the proposed rule itself and the 7
differences between the proposed rule and the policy statement 8
and discuss the State Department's view in light of that, 9
because this is where the crux of what might appear to people, 10 I think, to be a different State Department view now than 11 before, and I think it is not.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
We had the State 13 Department view before we issued the proposed rule, did we 14 not?
15 MR. GILLEsplE:
We had the State Department view 10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Dick Kennedy's letter.
17 MR. GILLEsplE:
Yes.
Yes, we did, on the proposed 18 rule.
We had the initial letter.
19 MR. MINOGUE:
We've received several letters from 20 them since then and comments that are identified as
.arifying 21 their position.
They certainly do define something that is 22 reflected in this paper.
23 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Has their position changed?
24 MR. MINOGUE:
They would argue it has not changed, 25 that it has been clarified.
33 1
1 MR. GILLEsplE:
If I can, lot me go into tho i
2 differences between the policy statement 3.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I have a hard time with 4
that, frankly.
5 MR. MINOGUE:
You think it's changed?
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes, I think it's 7
changed.
1 find it somewhat incomprehensible, their present 3
position.
9 MR. GILLESplE:
The transition from the policy 10 statement to the rule and making that transition, the Staff and we put out as a proposed rule a paragraph 11 proposed 12 which went one step beyond the policy statement.
18 in the policy statement, it discussed a singular, 14 coherent policy, one which would cause the reload of cores, 15 when fuel became available to be reloaded, with LEU.
What was 16 missing from the policy' statement, but was in the proposed lifeti e cores, it not 17 rule, is a paragraph that captures the m
18 only captures the lifetime cores, but it causes the HEU which 19 is at reload type facilities to be prematurely removed before 20 it is fully expanded, and replaced with LEU.
21 in effect, the State Department, as I understand it, 22 having read their letters and listened and read their 23 testimony, is very strongly looking at the economic aspects, 24 because they are dealing with other nations.
And their view 25 was that economic and technical penalties should not be paid
34 1
by p oplo for convceting.
2 Now our rule departs from the policy in that we went 3
one step beyond by roping in, if you would, the lifetime cores 4
and the premature, then, disposition of HEU fuel That 5
paragraph had a significant impact on the cost side of our 6
cost / benefit analysis.
I think you will see that something in 7
the range of 50 percent of the cost is driven by replacing 8
lifetime cores that are considered by most people as perfectly 9
good for the rest of the life of that reactor.
10 To a smaller extent, the premature retirement of 11 refueling was another driving cost.
and we have, I think, 12 Now also in the rule itself 13 had agreement on this position -- we did propose in the rule 14 that a schedule be submitted by Licensees.
The schedule 15 would, in fact, be dependent upon a whole list of things.
It 16 really came down to the commercial availability through DOE of 17 the fuel.
the availability 18 There were other things in there 19 of shipping casks, which are minor compared to the 20 availability of the fuel 21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
And the funding.
22 MR. GILLEsplE:
And the funding for the fuel, that 23 that be federally supplied.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Right.
25 MR. GILLEsplEr The other point we did not cover in
35 1
the rulo -- cnd I'll got to aftcr we dicpGnco with thic ~~ ic 2
the litigation problem, or potential problem.
I won't even 3
call it right now a firm problem.
4 Okay.
Where we depart from the State Department is, 5
the State Department is pursuing a policy where having 6
guaranteed foreign reactors that they will be a faithful 7
supplier of highly-enriched uranium, for that guarantee from 3
the U.S.'s part, they have elicited agreement from these other 9
nations that they will convert on a timely basis as fuel 10 becomes available.
11 That is a voluntary program.
It's a program that'.s 12 only about the ten reactors or so, whatever I had on the list, 13 which are equivalent to our high-power reactors.
So I think 14 you can see where we had departed from the State Department's 15 policy on the international basis.
16 There are, in fact, lifetime cores in Europe which 17 are not being touched.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
In essence, what we have 19 done is go beyond what State is willing to do.
We have said 20 this stuff is an attractive target.
It's a bad idea to have 21 it out there if it's not necessary, and if it's not necessary, 22 we want it out of those reactors, and we want LEU put in thoso 23 reactors.
State is not willing to go that far.
24 MR. GILLESPIE:
The reason we picked the alternative 25 we did in our recommendations is that we're not disagreeing
36 1
with that.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But are we causing these 3
lifetime cores in the U.S.
to be converted, where comparable 4
cores in Europe, for example, are not being converted?
5 MR. GILLEsplE:
Yes.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Why are we doing that?
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
From a safeguards O
standpoint, we think it makes sense.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
If it makes sense for us, why 10 doesn't It make sense for them?
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEr it probably makes sense 12 for them, too.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
They don't pay attention t o' 14 NRC regulations.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
By regulations, I was talking 16 about the sense that 17 MR. GILLEsplEr l*ll try to give you the sense of 18 it.
In the emphasis, you always see the word " commerce" 19 thrown in.
I think it is generally believed that once you 20 have the material at a fixed site, you have the ability, if an 21 adversary's going after it, to respond.
22 Indeed, our safeguards rules on research reactors 23 are based not so much on prevention as response time.
24 The question comes up, the State Department, 1 25 believe, as I understand it, their goal la to reduce the
37 I
commerco in high-cnriched uranium.
Lifotima coroc do not add 2
to the commerce, it's not material.on trucks 3 it's not 3
material in shipments where it could be believed to be more 4
vulnerable.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
In fairness, when we first 6
initiated our policy in the international area, it was aimed 7
at conmarca a4 well But that's largely because that's the 8
only thing we have any control over.
We have export licensing 9
authority.
We have got a control over it before it leaves 10 this country.
So i think that is why our policy was written 11 the way it was.
12 MR. GILLESplEt Our policy also had the word 13 "ccomerce" in it.
4 14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Right, because that's all 15 we control is the commerce, the export.
16 MR. GILLESplE I'm not disagreeing with you.
I'm 17 trying to bring out and amplify why it would appear that the 18 Executive Branch of the Government is pursuing the avenue i t ' re 19 pursuing.
And indeed, its span of control is very important.
20 They have a limited span of control, and they have to do it 21 voluntarily.
They have to provide incentives, and the supply 22 side of things is providing incentives.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHALt I've got to say, this is the 24 biggest non-argument that has ever been concocted, and I think 25 it's being overplayed on all sides.
If there are practical,
38 1
cimplo, otraightforwced etcpc that can be takcn to reduce, if 2
not totally eliminate, the practical risk of significant 3
quantities of largely unieradiated or completely unirradiated 4
fuel at these sites, then we get down to the point of 5
symbolism and whether or not this country should take the lead 6
in something that everybody agrees is desirable over the long 7
term from a prolifaratinn standpoint G
lt just seems to me that there ought to be some 9
sensible course here that gets rid of this screwy idea that it's all 10 universities are all full of bomb-grade material 11 sitting there and waiting to be used -- because it isn't true.
12 I would like to see some sensible compromise here, 13 where we do something about those quantitles that do provide 14 some target, and get on with the business, then, of policy 15 that is contained in a sensible rule, 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You are pressing to get rid of 17 the excess material 1G COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That's the very point that 19 we talked about last summer.
20 MR. DIRCKS:
You are talking about fresh fuels.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Fresh fuel is not going to 22 disrupt operations.
There's no reason to have it there, and 23 it largely eliminates a credible threat, it seems to me.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Here we are one year 25 later, and we're not one step closer to doing that,
30 1
COMMISGIONER EERNTHAL:
I don't dinogree with that.
2 MR. DIRCKS:
Now there's about two or three 3
different rules mixed together here.
I think you're talking 4
about one 5
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I understand that, Bill 6
MR. DIRCKS:
You're trying to separate out, get to 7
that fresh fuel.
That is the one paper Jnhn 8
COMMISSIONER SERNTHAL:
I understand that.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I also think that if you 10 could easily, at a reasonable economic cost, get the HEU out 11 of these facilities, why not do that?
i 12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHALt I think there's more or less 18 agreement, provided we don't cause wholesale shutdown of 14 research facilities for lack of funding.
I think the Congress 15 seems to be of a mind to provide the funding.
As I recall 16 seeing timetables and summaries of reactors, there was a 17 reasonable timetable.
There may have had to be one or two 18 exceptions.
I don't think there's anything to argue about, 19 fellows.
20 MR. DIRCKS:
We're not arguing.
21 MR. GILLESPIE:
Let ma skip maybe the analysis of l
l 22 comments that I had.
Let me go right to the three 23 alternatives.
l 24 CSlide.1 l
25 What we are talking about is a mix or a blend of I
t
40 1
what do we do to get on with what wa'vo 011 ogrood upon.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That's where I am.
S MR. GILLEsplE:
But let me go right to that, then.
4 Alternative 1 is to issue the rule right new, just 5
put it out In fact, the way the rule was put out 6
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Redo the value impact 7
assessment, and then put it out Do it right, now.
8 M9. GILLEsplEt in the rule itself, we have, in 9
fact, conceded that the Federal Government, that we would 10 believe or you would believe, because it was the Commission 11 who put the rule out, should assume the costs of conversion.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
There is no question about 13 that.
14 MR. GILLEsplE:
The vehicle right now is not, in 15 fact, in place to do that.
Not having the vehicle in place 16 and just putting out a rule where we have no implementation, in that rule, we ask 17 we are asking the colleges to come in 18 the colleges to come in with schedules based on a whole number availability of casks, commercial availability of 19 of things everything which, right 20 technology, availability of fuel 21 now from a policy point of view, is under the centrol of the 22 Executive Branch of the Government and maintained under the 23 Executive Branch of the Government, which is DOE.
24 in fact, as they are going forward with the RERTR 25 program, the ten highest power reactors that are convertible,
41 1
it chould bo fully cupcctcd that they will bo convcetCd, cinco 2
DOE is their source of fuel, for the same reason DOE has a S
hold on foreign reactors as it becomes available.
4 So now we're dealing with a rule which really is 5
focusing only on the lifetime cores.
In reality, LEU -- it's 6
going to happen, the reload problem is going to happen at 7
those particular high facilities, unless they have a unique 8
purpose.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You're saying we don't need our to rule?
11 MR. GILLEsplE:
I'm saying for those facilities, 12 it's going to happen whether we have a rule or not.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Which are six of them, 14 right?
Take out the four 15 MR. MINOGUE:
For the lifetime cores, it will not 16 happen unless funds are appropriated to pay for the 17 replacement fuel, because the provisos in the proposed rule 18 are basically open-ended, lacking funding, So unless there is 19 some kind of legislation to appropriate the money, and I'm not 20 aware of any such legislation that is now before Congress.
21 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Why do we have to abandon that 22 rule in order to get legislation?
23 MR. MINOGUE:
I think what we're trying to say is, l
24 without scoe source of funding, the way the rule is worded, it 25 in effect does not achieve anything with the lifetime cores.
42 1
COMMIC310NER BERNTHAL:
That's with a consistent 2
Commission position.
As a matter of fact, unless I'm 3
forgetting the contents of the hearing we had with Senator and it would surprise me if I 4
Hatfleid not so long ago, l
I believe there's a commitment on the Hill to 5
forgot 6
provide the funding for this, if there's not, then the 5
j 7
Commission la very clear in its positinn, it <eams t o me,
8 MR. MINOGUE:
I know of no proposed legislation that l
9 contains such funding.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
It's just a matter of 11 appropriation, isn't it, Bob?
12 CHAIRMAN PALLAOlNO:
Let me pursue my point just a 18 little bit.
I'd like to pursue this question of the funding, 14 because Mr. Markey makes the statement in his letter of June 15 17th, he says, "The Congress has demonstrated its commitment 16 in this area by funding the first stages of conversion.
We 17 are confident the Congress will fund subsequent stages, if the 18 Commission does not waver in its commitment and goes forward 19 with the conversion rule."
20 Now why shouldn't we go forward with the conversion 21 rule and separately make a request for the legislation, to say 22 we need it to implement our rule?
23 COMMl?SIONER ASSELSTINE:
Exactly.
24 MR. GILLEsplE That's 25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That is not Alternative S.
t I
i
o og 1
MR. GILLES'lE:
Alternative 3 says, " Withhold it at p
2 this time."
We're not recommending to withdraw it, and then 3
have to start over again.
We're recommending to withhold it.
4 The way the final rule might look might, in fact, be 5
dependent on what the implementation is that is provided by 6
the Government.
7 COHH I SS IONER ASSELST i t4C.
Wh.t's ti.e drawback of thu 8
Chairman's proposal?
9 CHAIRMAN pALLAOlNO:
What worries me, if we don't 10 pursue this rule, the Congress may get fainthearted about 11 providing the funds.
12 MR. DIRCKS:
Then you go back and say that these 16 you've got to make the case that there is 13 lifetime cores i
14 the safeguards risk.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLAOlNO:
All I'm trying to do is wed 16 two things.
17 One, we have a rule that's dependent upon the 18 Government providing funds, and I say, what's wrong with that 19 rule, except the fact that we need to approach Congress and 20 say, " provide the funds."
21 Now why can't those two go on in parallel, so we l
22 don't have to give up one to get the other?
the 23 MR. GILLEsplE:
it may at that point, then 24 way the rule would look, if we went out final, may have to not 25 be the way it exactly looks right now.
I
f g4 1
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
What would be the l
2 difference?
We've said that the implementation schedule is 3
something that has to be developed by NRR in cooperation with 4
the Licensee and based upon whatever arrangements are made for 5
funding.
I think the rule is flexible enough to take into 6
account whatever happens.
7 MR. MINOGUE:
What would be done if the rule was 8
issued as an effective rule and no funds were appropriated?
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Then the Licensee comes in 10 and says, "We don't have the fuel.
We don't have the money."
11 MR. MINOGUE:
So this is a one-line submission.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's right.
Until fuel 13 Is available.
14 MR. MI,NOGUE:
I guess I have a mental block that 15 regulatory submissions tend to go to many volumes.
16 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
What's your one-line 17 submission?
"We cannot proceed, we can't give you a schedule, 18 because we don't have the money?
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
When the money becomes 20 available and the fuel is developed, then it's all automatic.
21 Then it goes forward.
22 MR. GILLEsplEs I think that's what we were trying l
2S to recommend in S.
There's something, to me, about being a 24 regulator and putting out a rule that I know is meaningless.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I don't think it would bc
45 1
meaningless at all it puts tho ball bock in tho Executivo 2
Branch, in DOE's court and the Congress to come up with the 3
money to fund the program.
4 1 think as history indicates, that's what they're 5
working for.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
One sounds like we have set 7
forth what we want to do, and it clearly defines it and says 8
that we expect money from the Government, and then we go ask 9
for the money.
10 CCommissioner Roberts leaves the room.3 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
The other ano says, well, we're 12 not going to do anything until we get the money, and I think 13 there's a difference.
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I agree with you, Joe.
It 15 could very well send a wrong signal, if the Commission backs
/
16 down now in terms of making sure that the money is available.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I would do one other thing.
I 1G would have to defer to' legal counsel on this.
I propose that 19 by rulemaking we take advantage -- we address the question and 20 hopefully get rid of the litigation risk associated with the 21 conversion.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Exactly.
t i 23 CHAIRMAN pHLLADINO:
I don't know if that's already I don't think that's in our present proposal.
24 25 MR. MINOGUE:
That was attempted in the proposed
(
e 40 1
rulo.
Thero is o form of gencric llecnoing.
As the Staff has 2
assessed that in the months since then, it is not that 3
clearcut that it's that straightforward.
So I think there's a 4
certain element of concern that that may not be practical.
5 There's a real context of having to process any applications 6
that might be related to replacing the fuel 7
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, that's an Interesting J
8 challenge for our legal staff, to figure out the right way to 9
do it, so that it sticks.
- l 10 MR. MINOGUE:
There is wording in the proposed rule 11 that was intended to provide a framework of generic action by 12 groups, by types of reactors, rather than do it case-by-case.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
In terms of the comments 14 that we received, one of the questions that we had flagged 15 specifically for comment was, how about this approach of 16 handling the licensing on a generic basis, so that you don't 17 have this potential for litigation and delay on a case +by-case 1G basis.
19 Did anybody who support'ed the rule in their 20 comments, the two-thirds of the commenters who supported the 21 rule, raise serious objections to that approach?
22 MR. OlLLESplEr No, in general, the information 1
23 went the other way.
Much as you alluded to earlier, they 24 said, "By God, this a good thing to do, and if you're going to 25 do it, the last thing we want tc do is get in the way of it.'
f L
1 F
r
r
'g 47 e
t L
i i
1 COMMISSIONER ASSELLTINE:
Great.
So people!were s*
2 supportive of the concept, of generic licensing.
3 MR. GILLEsplE:
There was some support for that, 4
yes.
5
, COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I think that's the right 6
way to go.
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I want to make again a point f
8 and my position very clear here on this. question of litigative t
s 9
risk, because we went through this b year ago, and I want to 10_
also support the Chairman's request.
11 I look to my left here and ask that we get 4'
t 12 hardnosed, airtight methodology.
IS MR. TRUBATCH:
If you want airtight, you might have
+
/
14 to wait a long t ilm e.
You know lawyers'can't promise,that, ja t
i 15.
j COMMISSIONER EERNTHAL:
We may even need to write 16 something into the rule that addresses this question of
~
17 ',
litigation, that there are two contingencies here that my vote f
18 is based on.
19
One is the availability of funds, full funding for 20 the conversion of these reactors, and secondly, that there be 1
21 assurance that they d>n't get tripped up somehow in endless I
s 22 litigation, because that will have,tde same effect as if there 28 weren't funds available for the conversion.
And those are the 24 two important elements here that we absolutely have to --
4 25 CCommissioner Roberts returns to the hearing room.]
a
&L-_____.__.--_--__. _. - -
e 49 1
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
And I think we've all been 2
in agreement on that right from the very beginning.
I mean, 3
we discussed this before we developed the proposed rule, and 4
that was part of our decision in favor of it.
5 MR. GILLEsplE:
Let me add one element, because you 6
have addressed fresh fuel several times.
7 This rule does not address the removal of fresh S
fuel.
What the paper says is, we support the other paper, and 9
as part of the consolidated action, we fully support that 10 going forward --
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
We're talking about that, 12 too.
1S CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We'd like to get that done 14 within the next week.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
We're talking about 16 symbolism.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
How do we get new legislation?
18 Do we send a legislative package?
We don't have to have a 19 rule.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
On the financing?
21 MR. DIRCKS:
No, on the exemption from licensing.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
We don't need legislation, 23 i don't think.
24 CHAIRMAN PLM.ADINO:
Excuse me.
For the financing.
25 For the financing, what do we do?
Write a letter saying to
I 49 I
the Congreso, "Wa requoct thic"?
2 MR. GILLESplE-DOE has the same committees as we do 3
for appropriations.
4 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
I just want to know.
I suggest 5
that we do it.
6 Commissioner Zach had a question.
7 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I wanted to make a comment, 8
because if I recall, all the discussions that you had were 9
last year just before I came on the Commission.
I think i 10 have thought a lot about this myself, and it seem to me, the 11 non-proliferation and safeguards issue is a very real one, and 12 anything we can do to support non-proliferation and improve 18 our safeguards position, we should do.
and the 14 It seems to me, as I understand it 15 discussion today, too, seems to point to the problem of as a problem, it's a very real problem, as i 16 funding 17 understood, for at least some of our facilities.
18 And I think that my view is that some way or other, should provide the necessary 19 the Government should fund from HEU to LEU.
But to me, that is --
20 funds to convert to 21 with the provision and also with the things we have discussed 22 as far as the litigation is concerned, I think we should 28 continue to support conversion to LEU.
24 Now I would suggest, Mr. Cha,irman, perhaps we don't 25 quite have the option that we want, and perhaps the Staff
50 1
could givo un cnother option that would includ3 the things 2
that we have talked about today.
But I would support that.
3 it seems t o me, that's the right way to go.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It sounds like a 5
combination of Option 1,
which is proceed with the final rule, 6
coupled with a request for the funding, part of Option S.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
There is one other thing with 8
regard to Option 1.
I would like to make sure that the 9
litigation aspects are properly covered.
I'm not sure if they 10 are or not.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
And the discussion of the 12 rulemaking approach to dealing with the litigation problem.
13 MR. DIRCKS:
The litigation, how did you want to 14 handle that?
Try to handle it in a final rule?
15 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Can we do that?
16 MR. DIRCKS:
Can we use another approach?
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Can we do that?
18 MR. GILLEsplE:
If I can take a guess at it, the 19 regulatory approach to avoiding litigation is going to be in 20 50-59 under the tech specs, because the real litigation comes 21 in because you're going to have to change tech specs, which 22 happen to have written in them what the fuel load is.
23 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
But we can do whatever is
)
24 necessary.
25 MR. GILLESplE:
Now if we could write a generic l
t
51 1
oxcmption to that, that in a possiblo avenuo, given that no 2
reduction in safety margin can be shown.
But that is a 3
definite exemption.
4 l'm not sure, and that's the kind of thing 1 guess 5
6 MR. MINOGUE:
The big problem here is, there's no 7
clear section of the regulations that lays out the groundrules S
for licensing research reactors, so there's a very high degree 9
of vulnerability for -- the UCLA hearing is a perfect example 10 of this, where hearings can be generated and get back to basic 11 fundamental scientific principles, just because there is no 12 well-defined body of regulations to work with here.
And I 13 think this fact is the source of much of the nervousness of 14 the people in NRR who were concerned with whether generic 15 licensing could be made to work, absent a well-defined 16 regulatory base.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
it sounds like we need an 18 OGC paper on that.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I think so.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
How long would it take to get a 21 paper on how to avoid litigative risk by rulemaking for this 22 conversion?
23 MR. DIRCKS:
Three days.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
It takes three days after you 25 write it to get it out of the office.
And that's all right.
,~
~
-n
- - - = -
--.n.,,-
~.. - - -
52 1
It takes that much to review, and it tekos longer for us to 2
review.
But I'd like to keep on this LEU /HEU now and finish 3
it off on all its points.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Me, too.
5 MR. TRUBATCH:
I hate to make any estimate at all, 6
but it seems to me, given the need to coordinate with the 7
Staff, to get the thinking from ELD and from the Licensing 8
people and Research people that have a technical grasp of 9
these problems, it would take at least a month.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
How about three weeks or 11 two weeks?
12 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Maybe we can shorten this 13 meeting.
14 I have a three, perhaps four-part proposal
- One, 15 let's issue this order on getting rid of the excess fuel, and 16 try to get every Commissioner to revote that, so we get it out 17 by the middle of next week.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
And make it immediately 19 effective?
20 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
l*ve forgotten now the 21 arguments on immediate effective.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
The Staff says we can't --
23 they don't think we can do it.
24 MR. DAVIS:
We didn't say you can't.
We said we 25 don't think you can justify it.
We don't think we can justify
58 1
it.
2 There is a test that was set up in previous cases, 3
and we don't think it meets that test.
Now, of course, if the 4
Commission wants to go forward and OGC says maybe with 5
difficulty they could do it 6
MR. DIRCKS:
OGC said it was difficult but not 7
impossible.
You can go with that and try to run.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
To do the difficult but not 9
impossible.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
If we want to get it out next 11 week, I don't think we could probably get the immediately 12 effective.
But we've been dilly-dallying on this.
I would 18 just as soon get it out, even if it has to go for comment and 14 take 60 days, tJe at least get it done in 60 days.
Otherwise, 15 60 days from now, we'll still be looking at the wording.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I would suggest, issue it and 18 not make it immediately effectiva but do it as expedited as c
19 20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Cut the schedule in half 21 maybe.
22 MR. DAVIS:
Let me make sure.
Are you talking about 23 expedited rulemaking?
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
No.
The first part of my 25 proposal is, issue the order that says, "Get rid of the excess
i 54 e
I 1
motsrial," mako it not immedictoly offective.
2 MR. DIRCKS:
You're talking about issuing a proposed 3
rule?
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
A proposed rule, 5
expedited.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I guess if I say an order, then 7
that's immediately effective.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Right, right.
9 MR. DIRCKS:
An order goes to individual Licensees.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
We'll have to look and see il if we can justify immediately effective.
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
The fact is, I think, Joe, 18 if the Commission indicates its clear intent, I would hope we 14 could work well enough with DOE that they would understand the 15 intent and take steps that could begin immediately just to 16 remove that quant,ity of material from various sites.
It 17 doesn't have to wait for the last i to be dotted, I would 18 think.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I guess there's no circumstance 20 in which the Commission says, "We plan to issue an order like 21
- this, please give me your comments," and then we issue it 22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Why don't we reserve on 28 how we're going to do it.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I want to get the order out.
25 That's part I
55 1
- Two, I would 'like to proceed with the present rule, 4
2 including any generic statement with regard to rulemaking on S
litigation.
4 But as a separate matter, if it takes a separate 5
rulemaking to get the litigation, I would say, let's get OGC 6
to proceed on that.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And third, we take the 9
appropriate steps to request the federal funding to accomplish 10 what our rule says we want to accomplish.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Sounds good.
12 MR. DIRCKS:
Okay.
We'll try it.
Now the business 13 of litigation, we did not have in the proposed rule.
We will 14 have to find out whether we need to go back 15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
There is something in the 16 proposed rule already.
We can add some more stuff to the 17 statement of consideration about what we plan to do on the 18 litigation risk question and deal with that as a separate 19 proposition, so we don't have to renotice the rule and get 20 through --
21 MR. GILLESPIE:
What you're saying is to have 22 separate rule on the details of how we would avoid the 28 litigation process?
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
We'll see the OGC paper.
25 MR. TRUBATCH:
Could we go back to the first point,
)
~
56 1
which was that this is the ordce that would ask the Licnnsoos i
2 to take stock of their fuel, and then to present plans for S
removing the excess?
4 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Yes.
5 MR. TRUBATCH:
That could be done by order.
That 6
doesn't have to be done by an immediately effective order.
It 7
can be done by an order which has a limitation date.
As long 8
as no one asks for a hearing. --
9 MR. DAVIS:
As long as no one asks for a hearing.
10 MR. TRUBATCH:
Then your assessment has to be gained 11 as to will someone ask for a hearing on this.
LJ i l l they find 12 this particular request so onerous that they will want to 13 prolong it?
tJill they want to go to the expense of a hearing 14 to delay it?
15 MR. DAVIS:
That's one of the litigative questions.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
You mean, would the Licensee 17 want to delay it?
18 MR. TRUBATCH:
That's right.
But if they find this 19 particular request not burdensome, then why would anyone ask 20 for a hearing?
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's right.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
My concept of this order, 23 whatever we're calling it, Joe is that --
24 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
I'd like to call it an order, a
25 if we can.
57 1
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That there be some wording 2
in there that specifies that the amounts removed not be 9
disruptive to normal operations.
Under those circumstances, I 4
can't imagine why any Licensee would want to sue for a delay.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Especially if one of the 6
big concerns is litigation.
7
[ Laughter.]
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That's right.
I think we 9
can all agree on that kind of wording.
10 MR. DAVIS:
We are grouping these into two groups.
11 There may be a third group out there, just against nuclear 12 power in general And any time there's an opportunity that 18 comes about for a hearing that they can build a case on it, 14 they take it.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
If the order is to remove 16 the excess fuel, doesn't the only opportunity for a hearing 17 arise on the part of the Licensee?
And if the Licensee 18 doesn't exercise that opportunity, then we don't have to cross 19 this bridge about immediate effectiveness or not immediate l
20 effectiveness, it goes into effect l
i 21 MR. DAVIS:
I could imagine people being concerned 22 about the increased traffic of material I can sit here and l
28 think of all sorts of things, if I really want to disrupt the all I'm saying 24 process.
But here again, this is something 25 is, I'm' not sure it's as simple, as perhaps any order gives
58 I
the opportunity for a hearing.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But the alternative is a long S
process of rulemaking.
4 MR. DAVIS:
If we'd started a year ago, we'd be --
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I agree.
6 MR. DIRCKS:
I think what you want us to do is go 7
back and take a look at the type of order we should issue and 8
how we would issue it, and make sure we have enough in there 9
to allow arrangements to be made with DOE for shipping and 10 receipt and so on.
So you want that sort of order developed?
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I don't understand why 12 other people, though, would have standing to come in and 1S challenge the order.
(
14 MR. DAVIS:
There may not be, but I've seen some 15 things done in the business.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That would be a consideration.
17 MR. DIRCKS:
You want us to develop that order?
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
With OGC.
19 MR. DIRCKS:
Let us come bAck to the Commission, 20 show you the order, and describe it to you.
21 That's the fresh fuel issue.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's right.
2S MR. DIRCKS:
The second thing is, let's work on the 24 issuance of this final rule, modified in any respect to take 25 care of this litigation issue, and we'll come back with a f
l
59 9
1 final rulo for the Commiccion's revicw.
2 CHAIRMAN p4LLADINO:
And there may also be another 3
rule needed to handle the litigation issues, whatever 4
combination --
5 MR. DIRCKS:
If we can't fold it in here, we'll come 6
back with another, and we'll work with OGC.
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
The other element of the 8
proposed order that we voted on last summer was requiring some 9
certification that the 100 R per hour self-safeguarding 10 radiation limit was being maintained.
11 Now from what you've s a l'd today, do I understand, 12 then, that these things separate clearly into two categories, 18 the ones that make it easily and the ones that are i
14 substantially below?
15 MR. GILLESPIE:
Yes.
That's not a great problem.
4 16 MR. DAVIS:
Let me interject here, with regard to 17 this order, as part of the memo you got on SECY-84-216, there l
18 is attached to it an order in case the Commission decided to i
19 go in that direction.
20 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Before we leave it, there was
(
21 another item, and that is the document requesting federal i
l i
22 funds.
l 23 MR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
That was the third item.
So we the order, the final i
24 have three items we're working on l
l 25 rule, modified in one way or another with this litigation l
l
60 1
iscuo, and thic roquost for funding.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I think those are the three.
8 And the one on the rule may make take two parts.
We leave 4
that to you and OGC.
5 MR. GILLESPIE:
I would expect, if we are to act in 6
a timely manner, a second rule would be needed to address the 7-litigation.
8 MR. DIRCKS:
I think we'll look at it both ways.
9 it would be convenient, I think, to move it in one package.
10 MR. MINOGUE:
The objective might be that some 11 sharpening of the wording of this'could be done within the 12 framework of the rule that's already been proposed.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
If it can.
14 MR. MINOGUE:
I wouldn't automatically assume we 15 need a new rule, because we did try to adoress this before.
16 MR. DIRCKS:
We will try that as the preferred
~
17 route.
If we can't do it, we'll come back with something 18 else.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
How about a target 20 deadline of a month.
21 MR. DIRCKS:
That requires working with OGC.
We can 22 shoot for a month.
If we can't make it, we'll come back and 28 tell you why we can't do it.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Sounds good.
25 MR. GILLESPIE:
On the value impact analysis --
61 1
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yoc?
2 MR. GILLESPIE:
In what we did, it was obvious we 3
put a lot of weight on what the State Department thought, and 4
we put a lot of weight on the fact that we had no finding of 5
an immediate threat that we knew of from the safeguards point 6
of you, and therefore we're saying that the reactors appear to 7
be, by our standards of adequacy, adequate right now.
And 8
therefore, if we were going to go through with a rulemaking 9
.I believe we try to say this in the paper -- it definitely is 10 for a little broader purpose than finding an adequacy, and 11 it's for the longer-term policy goal of remov i ng,aus much HEU 12 as possible, going back to the words of the policy statement, 18 "to the maximum extent possible" from the private sector, if 14 you would.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
16 MR. GILLESPIE:
And clearly, then, that overrides, 17 you know -- I don't want to say it nullifies the value impact 18 analysis, but you've introduced a new element which we gave 19 essentially no value, as a Staff working working on a 20 traditional rulemaking, following the guidance that if it's if I 21 not necessary as a safety issue right now, immediately 22 go back to the PPG, it says I have to justify it on a 28 cost / benefit basis.
That's why the cost / benefit came out the 24 way it did.
25 But you're giving me a new reason.
g
62 1
MR. DIRCKS:
Alco you'vo dono comothing olso.
You 2
have allowed this consideration of the litigation to be 3
treated.
That had not -- we figured that as a cost.
4 COMMISSICNER ASSELSTINE:
I think you can do two 5
things on the cost.
One, the economic cost, you can make it 6
clear, the way we are dealing with that is, we're making sure 7
that the economic -- the funding has to be there, the federal 8
funding.
9 The litigation, we're trying to deal with that 10 issue, deal with it generically, so that should not be a 11 problem, and I think the way your' balance came out, you said 12 that's a big area of uncertainty and you couldn't quantify 18 what the cost was, but it was a big area of uncertainty, and i
14 that helped tip the scales.
15 l also think on the benefit side, you can look at 16 some of the other benefits that were not described in there.
17 At least my own view is, we've talked a lot about preserving 18 this resource, the valuable resource that these facilities 19 re esent.
And I think if you run the potential risk of 20 It ng some of this material or having a safeguards event at 21 one of these facilities, that, in itself, has serious 22 repercussions in terms of a potential loss of these s
28 facilities, this national resource that we have.
I think you 24 can emphasize that aspect of it as well 25 1 think that's not reflected in there quite as much
o 68 1
as it could be.
So I think you can revise the value impact 2
statement, based upon what we discussed today, and have it 8
fairly reflect the information we have received and the 4
comments, but also reflect the positive benefits of going 5
forward with the rule at this time.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I think the greatest risk is 7
a misguided attempt, based on lack of knowledge, creating a 8
mess that would seriously jeopardize a lot of these 9
facilities.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Exactly.
I think so, too.
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
One of the greatest values 12 of getting this rule out, with all we've been talking about, 13 that would eliminate 95 percent of the threat there.
i 14
[ Laughter.3 15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is there general agreement 16 among the Commissioners to proceed this way.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Yes.
19 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Yes.
20 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Maybe we've done as much 22 as we can today on this subject, so we will stand adjourned.
28 EWhereupon, at 8:25 o' clock, p.m.,
the Commission 24 meeting was adjourned.]
i g 25
~
1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2
3 4
5 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 6
before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 7
matter of:
Commission Meeting (Public Meeting) s 9
Name of Proceeding: Staff Briefing on Final Rule on HEU Regulations for Domestic Non-Power Reactors 10 11 Occket No.
\\
12 Place:
Washington, D. C.
13 Date:
Wednesday, Uune 19, 1985 14 15 wur3 held as herein appears and that this is the original 16 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission.
13
]
//
/Q[
g (Signature)
..,(
y (Typed Name of Reporter)
Mimie Mel-dzer 20 21 22 23 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
24 25 1
3-J COMMISSION BRIEFING JUNE 19,i985 ACTION ON PROPOSED RULE TO LIMIT THE USE OF HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM IN RESEARCH AND TEST REACTORS
h S
5 i 0 a
i i
i
)r0 i
0 2
i i
R i
O TCA 9
i ER 5
G j9 N
I N
IA i
RT S E
N D T a
E N A Y
A D H L e
C A R U A E l E
lE S
i E R R
E Y S 0
T N i 9 e I E
S C R
I E L i
V I
NU i
i i
i 5
8 1
6 5
4 3
2 1
0 0
9 8
7 5$E
HEU INVENTORIES AND ANNUAL TRAFFIC
- o NRC LICENSEES REPRESENT ONLY 2-3% OF INTERNATIONAL INVENTORY AND TRAFFIC AVERAGE NUMBER INVENTORY (KG)
ANNUAL TRAFFIC (KG) 0F LOCATIONS FOREIGN RESEARCH
& TEST REACTORS LARGE (>l MW) 2000-15,000 500 50 SMALL (<1 MW)
FEW HUNDRED 0
40 DOE RESEARCH SEVERAL THOUSAND 500 20
& TEST REACTORS (NATIONAL LABS)
NRC LICENSED RESEARCH
& TEST REACTORS LARGE (21 MW) 250 40**
14 COMMERCIAL (2), UNIV. (11),
NBS SMALL (<1 MW) 50 0
16 UNIV, (14), COMMERCIAL (2)
- BEST ESTIMATES TO ONE SIGNIFICANT FIGURE
- 4 FACILITIES ACCOUNT FOR ALMOST ALL OF THIS TRAFFIC--ALL COULD REQUEST EXEMPTION FROM CONVERSION BASED ON UNIQUE PURPOSE PROVISIONS,
1 TABLE 1 ESTIMATED HEU INVENTORIES AT NRC LICENSEES ESTIMATED HEU FUEL DESCRIPTION TOIAL INVENIORY N0, OF FACILITIES 89-93% ENRICHED UNIRRADIATED
~ 20 KG /0 15 ( 1 a 3-4 FAC) 89-93% ENRICHED SLIGHTLY IRRADIATED
~ 70 KG
- 17
(~80% IN-CORE) 93% HEAVILY IRRADIATED *
~ 160 KG 4 7
70% ENRICHED UNIRRADIATED
~ 4 KG 4
70% ENRICHED SLIGHTLY IRRADIATED
~ 3 KG 4
70% HEAVILY IRRADIATED
~ 60 KG 5
TOTAL (SUM HAS BEEN ROUNDED TO INDICATE APPR0XIMATE NATURE OF TABULATED VALUES)
- MUCH OF THIS FUEL WOULD EXIST AT LOWER THAN 93% ENRICHMENT DUE TO BURNUP.
t
8.0.-
(U Si) &
3 7.0 6.0 5.0
~
(U Si 3
2
^
5
~
5
- 4. 0 l-s 1
Q r
(U 0 ) '"
38 3.0 (UA1,) G 2.0 i
(UAl ) e 1.0 1
1 1
1 1
1 I
I I
i 1
7 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
-85 86 87 88 89
,, o Fiscal Year I
U-DENSITY PROGRESS FOR PLATE-TYPE FUEL QUALIFICATION 5
6 g
.m
..y y-
i
SUMMARY
OF COMMENTS o
OVER 150 COMMENT LETTERS o
ABOUT 2/3 SUPPORT RULE o
AS EXAMPLE TO FOREIGN OPERATORS o
TO ELIMINATE A DOMESTIC SECURITY RISK o
ACTIONS SUGGESTED l
0 ALLOW NO EXEMPTIONS o
CONVERT FACILITIES AS S00N AS POSSIBLE o
ABOUT 1/3 AGAINST RULE l
0 NOT A MEANINGFUL EXAMPLE ON TECHNICAL G0UNDS o
DOMESTIC SECURITY RISK SMALL FROM BOTH ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE STANDPOINT o
VALUE/ IMPACT DOES NOT SUPPORT CONVERSION RULE o
ACTIONS SUGGESTED IF RULE IMPLEMENTED o
N0 NEED TO REPLACE EXISTING HEU INVENTORIES o
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD PAY ALL COSTS o
POTENTIAL LICENSING PROBLEMS INVOLVED WITH CONVERSION REQUIRE SOLUTION f
i I
k i
i G
i iii if
(
[hGh(hgh[hphphghf[thphfffff[pl 12/82
/
TRANSMI' ITAL 'IO:
/
Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips ADVANCED COPY 'IO: /
/
~
% e Public Document Focm l::ip IP 5
DATE:
[o /A 4 / b h
g cc: OPS File
'p j
OM N C&R (Natalie)
Attached are copies of a Omanission meeting transcript (s) and related Imeting 3l docment(s). W ey are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List il and placanent in the Public Document Bocm. No other distribution is requested j:
or requiral. Existing DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual gl documents wherever known.
M:!eting
Title:
[M, [bsh_ N v 6-se Mt//
~
hav M t-W[
bh Mee Date:
[o // </ ///'
Open [
Closed 3
DCS Copies 3
(1 of each checked)
Itan
Description:
Copies Advanced Original May Duplicate
~
To PDR Document be Dup
- Copy
- 1.
TRANSCRIPT 1
1 Nhen checked, DCS should send a g
copy of this transcript to the D DR fo :
5 b] f/ k W C 2.
. -[
f /3 d
/
3 l
E 3
'g 3.
I 5
dip 4-g g
bD P'
(PDR is advanced one copy of each document,
- Verify if in DCS, and g
tw of each SECY paper.)
Change to "PDR Available."
p
- n k
$