ML20138F584

Responds to Transmitting Gw Nelson Ltr Re Proposed Rule to Limit Use of High Enriched U in Research & Test Reactors.Comments on Proposed Rule or Encl Regulatory Analysis Welcome

ML20138F584
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/21/1984
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Goldwater B SENATE
Shared Package
ML20138F577	List: ML20138F571 ML20138F584 ML20138F635 ML20138F651 ML20138F677 ML20138F683
References
FOIA-85-379 NUDOCS 8512160127
Download: ML20138F584 (8)

Text

~- --- . . - - - . . . --.- - - - -- -__ _ _

DISTRIBUTION:

((1 P 9B r/f JDavis C..c/chron JShea RES Central Files GCunningham 39 21 W Ngue T 84-0857

CKelber EDO 14755 i

FGillespie '

The Honorable Barry Goldwater JMalaro United States Senate WLahs

, Washington, DC 20510 JHenry 1

DManson 4

Dear Senator Goldwater:

This is in response to your letter of August 22, 1984 transmitting a letter from Mr. George W. Nelson re j

high-enriched uranium (HEU) garding and in research the proposed rule to limit the use of test reactors.

As Mr. Nelson correctly indicates, the NRC has initiated a rulemaking proceeding on this subject--a major step of which is the publication of a proposed rule with the objective of soliciting public coment. In this case, j the preamble to the proposed rule identified areas of Comission concern regarding certain value/ impacts and implementation provisions of the suggested proposal and specifically requested connents. Mr. Nelson's letters to you and the Comission address several of these concerns and, therefore, should be i especially pertinent. Following the connent period, which has been extended j to November 2,1984 to optimize this public feedback process, the Connission will seriously evaluate all coments that have been made. Through this

. rulemaking process, it is the Comission's intent to determine if promulgation i of the proposed rule, retention of the status quo, or the development of other-l alternatives is the proper course of action.

Any further connents on the proposed rule or the enclosed regulatory analysis are welcome and NRC will attempt to, justify its responses in a reasonable and prudent manner.

1 j Sincerely, l

[ (Simd) T. A, Rdum ll l i

William J. Dircks 1 Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

Regulatory Analysis Revised in EDO 9/20 to address letter to Senator Goldwater IN RESPONSE TO EDO 14755 & RES 841924 1

0512160127 851204 \

. PDR FOIA l

AFTERGOB5-379 PDR 1

OFC :RE5:RAMRB :RE5:RAMRB* :RE5:DRA0* :RE5 * :RE5*

D

EDO

. . . . . : _ _ _ :CBelote NAME :WLahs:ded

_ _ _ . . _:MErnst

Gillespie :RMinogue :WJDircks

.....:....__......:___..__.....:.....__.....:............:____........:............:..........k DATE :9/7/84 :9/17/84 :9/18/84 :9/18/84 :9/19/84 :9/14/84 of 184  %

~

REGULATORY ANALYSIS

~

0F LIMITING THE USE OF HIGH-ENRICHED-URANIUM (HEU)

IN DOMESTIC NON-POWER REACTORS (10 CFR PART 50)

A. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM l

The proposed rule implements a stated Connission policy to limit the use of high-enriched-uranium (HEU) in non-power reactors. This policy stems from con-cern about the risks of theft or diversion of this material. This regulatory analysis assesses the impacts of implementing the proposed rulemaking action requested by the Connission.2 B. OBJECTIVE The objective of this regulatory action'is to define the acceptable program for limiting the use of high-enriched-uranium in domestic non-power reactors.

~ '

C. ALTERNATIVES The program, acceptable to the Commission for limiting the use of HEU fuel in non- l l

power reactors, includes the following sunnarized features:

I (1) Construction pennits for new non-power reactors that use HEU fuel will not be issued unless the applicant demonstrates that the proposed reactor has a unique purpose.

I Federal Register notice published August 24,1982 (47 FR 37007).

2 Memorandum to W. Dircks from S. Chilk, Develooment of a Proposed Rule on the Use of HEU and Steps to Improve Security Measures. February 23, 19'84.

for its use, and return the expended HEU to the Federal Government. The conse-quences of the proposed rule include societal costs and benefits, direct costs and benefits, and pubite and occupational health impacts. The societal cost and benefits are intangible and difficult to assess quantitatively, yet the reduction in theft or diversion risks is the overriding consideration in the decision proc-ess. The direct costs and benefits are generally quantifiable if certain program-matic assumptions are made. These costs and benefits are associated with facility conversion to the use of reduced enrichment fuels and with the actions necessary to support the licensing process. Public and occ~upational health impacts are ex-pected to be minor but are speculative because of their depende,nce on specific con-version procedures and transportation requirements.

The assumptions which fom the basis of this regulatory analysis are as follows:

(1) The technology to replace the HEU fuel in non-power reactors with LEU fuel or, in one or two cases with HEU fuel of reduced enrichment, i

I is or will be available within the next several years.

(2)

The above techn~ ology will allow HEU to LEU (or reduced enrichment HEU, conversion to take place without any significant decrease in safety margins or requiring major reactor modifications.

Factors such as availability of shipping casks, financial support to (3) the converting facility and changes in overall reactor perfomance (reactorcharacteristics, reliability,andoperatingcosts)willnot cause significant adverse impacts.

(4)

Replacement of HEU fuel will take place as rapidly as acceptable placement fuel can be delivered.

l L - - _ _ _ - - - - - . - ._.- - - - _ -

sion by foreign operators and establishes a basis for carrying out its responsi-bilities to make findings that exports of HEU would not be inimical to tne comon

defense and security of the United States. Tne net result, therefore, responds to tne national policy to reduce global risks of HEU theft or diversion.

t

! Two societal costs can be identified with imposition of the proposed rule. The

first is tne one-time differential safeguards and radiological risk associated I

i witn tne HEU to LEU fuel replacement operations, including transportation. Tne l . second is the loss-in-capabilities cost brougnt about by potential decisions to 4

curtail specific reactor operations. ,

, i i The one-time differential safeguards and radiological risk can be identified with 1 the 20 facilities having " lifetime cores." The proposed HEU to LEU conversion process will require tnese facilities to undergo a single refueling cycle during wnien HEU fuel will be removed from the facility. Since similar operations with HEU would otherwise occur only at tne end of the facilities # nonnal life, some additional societal risk would occur because of the early scheduling of these HEU I fuel nandling and shipping operations. No significant additional societal risk -

can be identified wnica can be attributed to the early scheduling of these HEU 1 handling and snipping operations. For tnose reactors with routine refueling cycles, tiie proposed rule provides implementation provisions wnich minimize or eliminate tne need for non-routine HEU fuel handling operations althougn, if the scheduling for these operations is accelerated, some incremental societal risk will also be accelerated. l l

The second societal cost could be tne loss-in-capabilities cost brought about by l potential decisions tnat would curtail specific reactor operations. The implemen-i tation provision of the proposed rule attempts to minimize the financial, function-al administrative and licensing costs of tne conversion process. For some of tne

! l l

i Fuel Replacement Costs .

The assessment of fuel replacement costs is facilitated by dividing the 31 NRC 11-censed non-power reactors using HEU into two categories: (1) those 11 which cur-rently have routine refueling cycles and (2) those 20 which do not refuel frequen-tly (designated as having " lifetime cores"). In the first category, the assump-tion is made that HEU fuel is replaced at the time of a nomal refueling by either LEU or reduced enrichment HEU fuel as rapidly as this fuel can be delivered, and i

i unused HEU is returned to DOE for disposal. For the 6 university reactors, as-sumed to be in this first category it is estimated that about 130 still usuble If the average usage of HEU fuel elements (~ 2300 plates) would be scrapped.

these elements is assumed to be 50% of nomal life, lost fabrication costs are es-I timated at about $500,000. For the 4 privately owned and the NBS reactors about 170 HEU fuel elements would be scrapped. Under the same assumptions as above.

In general, fabrication j

lost fabrication costs are estimated at about $700,000. '

charges per core are assumed to be similar for LEU and HEU fuel and chan fuel use charges, where a_pplicable, are assumed to te small with respect to the '

The fabrication cost assumption is especially critical and is fabrication costs.

In dependent on the development of connercially competitive LEU replace I

addition, fuel cycle tiines are assumed to be similar for LEU and HEU fuele Therefore, no direct costs, after the initial changeover, are assigned.

l For the 20 facilities with " lifetime cores",16 would require the replace between 3000 and 4000 fuel plates in over 300 fuel elements plus r i

Assuming no change in the facilities' useful life, lost over 400 TRIGA elements.

' fabrication costs are not discounted and are estimat I

i L _.- . -.- - - - - . - - - -

7 at those facilities with " lifetime cores." Assuming a $25,000 cost at half of 4

the 20 facilities would yield an additional facility modification cost estimated at $250,000 dollars. l l

Lost Revenue Costs )

l Lost revenue costs cannot be quantitatively identified. Detrimental impacts, if any, would most likely be limited to high power facilities and their magnitude would be largely influenced by the line which divides facilities with " unique purposes," as defined in 50.64(b.)(3), from those in which conversion causes a penalty in lost revenue costs. Under the regulatory analyses assumptions, i

a high likelihood of successful development of high density low enriched uranium fuel is presumed which would minimize the potential for lost revenue impacts.

Administration and Licensino Costs Administration and licensing costs, even under the conversion scenario assumptions,

' are likely to exhibit significant variations. The major variable involves the degree to which a generic licensing approach can be used to accomodate the cone version processes. If the RERTR program succeeds in attaining its goals over the next several years, the likelihood of successfully applying a generic approach

' For the 25 to 26 low to medium power facilities costs would pressumed to increase.

include program planning and the preparation of infonnation documenting conversion does not result in a conflict with existing technical specifications If the generic licensing approach is or involve an unreviewed safety question.

In either case, the gathering of core feasible, these costs would be minimized.

l I

I 7 Ibid.

1

February 23, 1984 memorandum from the Connission.9 The financial benefit of this reclassification has not been quantified. In additior, to this cost savings, an argument can be made that the educational value of university facilities is enhanced as the requirements imposed by safeguards regulations are removed.

(3) Public and Occupational Health Impacts

! Limiting the use of high-enriched-uranium in non-power reactors is not expected to result in any significant public or occupational health impacts. Under the presumed conversion scenario assumptions, the only identifiable public and oc-cupational health impacts would result from defueling and transportation opera-tions involving the displaced HEU fuel, i

At the facilities with routine refueling cycles, the changeover to reduced enrich-ment fuel will cause only a minor increase in the number of fuel shipments which would nonna11y occur over the facilities lifetime. For the " lifetime core" facil-ities, an estimated 50 shipments would be required to dispose of the HEU fuel.

i The limited scope of these operations together with the continued applicability

• of the transportation and radiation protection standards of 10 CFR 71 and 10 CFR 20 assure that the public and occupational health impacts will be extremely small.

1 I

IMemorandum to W. Dircks from S. Chilk, page 4.

t

-._,-n vn,-=,_. . - - - - , .,-m n, .- 3m,v.-n n.nm, -

_,.-7,p g, ,mm_ n_ , . , -_

.s shipping casks, financial support, and development of an acceptable LEU fuel cycle for the affected non-power reactors. These constraints have been addressed in the previous section.

E. OECISION RATIONALE i

The proposed rule has been prepared in response to the Consnission's request of February 23, 1984. The decision to limit the use of HEU fuel in non-power re-actors involves a weighing of the societal benefits of reducing global risks of HEU theft or diversion against the conversion costs to the 31 NRC licensees and to the Federal Government.

As indicated in this regulatory analysis, the proposed rule attempts to minimize impacts by providing a flexible process through which the licensee can accomplish the required conversion.

l the undefined possi-4

. The societal benefit, although intangible, involves reduc ing The major costs of con-bility of an event whose costs might be extremely high.

l version are the identified financial impact of 9 to 12 million dollars (excluding RERTRProgramcosts)andtheothernon-quantifiablecostsdiscussedintheanaly-l sis. Most of these costs will be borne by the taxpayers of the United States.

i I

F. IMPLEMENTATION Implementation, as defined in proposed 350.64(d)requireslicenseestosubmita l

I proposed schedule for fuel conversion within 12 months of the effective d the rule. For licensees attempting to demonstrate facilities with unique purpose, I

a request for detennination is required within 6 months of the effective d 1

the rule.

4

- , _ _ - - , , , . - , - - --_---_-,-_--,-,--,..m,.--,__ - _.,m m, _ _ _ _ . _ , , . . . ~ . _ . , , , _ ,

' ~

g.g"'%jq

• UNITED STATES

,. g g

!" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM. 3SION . ,_ l 3*, ,"f ? E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 -o* l b '['[;/

! SECPET j

AI R,o,. re.. .-U l

• %,[,,,/ September 24, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Zech FROM: Carlton Kamerer, Di o Office of Congressi a fairs

SUBJECT:

TESTIMONY FOR LLOYD/FUQ A HEARING ON HEU CONVERSION Attached is the testirony to be given by Comissioner Bernthal before the House Science and Technology Subcomittees on September 25 concerning the proposed conversion of HEU/ LEU fuel for research and test reactors.

The Hearing is now scheduled to be held at 1:00 p.m. in room 2325 Rayburn House Office Building.

cc: EDO OGC OPE A8tCY ACRS o

O  %

P D

.-c

-yStr71703 * *~ ,

f* ,