ML20138F635

Testimony of Fm Bernthal Before Subcommittee on Energy Research & Production & Subcommittee on Energy Development & Applications of House Committee on Science & Technology

ML20138F635
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/25/1984
From:	Bernthal F NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138F577	List: ML20138F571 ML20138F584 ML20138F635 ML20138F651 ML20138F677 ML20138F683
References
FOIA-85-379 NUDOCS 8512160143
Download: ML20138F635 (6)

Text

.

TESTIMONY OF COMMISSIONER FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND PRODUCTION AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATIONS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SEPTEMBER 25, 1984 i

My name is Frederick Bernthal. I.am .a Consnissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory ,

Comission. With me today is Comissioner Asselstine. Chaiman Palladino and Comissioners Roberts and Zech regret that previous comitments preclude them

.:- - - from attending., I am pleased-to appear before you in response to your request -

to testify concerning the conversion of domestic research and test reactors to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel.

As you know, the Comission is considering amending its regulations to limit the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) in domestic research and ter.

reactors. The proposed rule has been published in the Federal Register to

~

obtain public coments. For the purpose of this proceeding, we define' highly 0512160143 851204 "NER A 5-379 PDR

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

!' enriched uranium as fuel in which the weight percent of the U-235 isotope in the uranium fuel is 20 percent or greater. The significance of this type of fuel is that, in appropriate form and quantity, it can in principle be employed to construct a nuclear explosive device. While there is no fim dividing line between uranium enrichments that can be utilized in an explosive device and enrichments that cannot, 20 percent has been considered a reasonable dividing line between low enriched uranium and high enriched uranium. The rule would require reactor operators to use fuel that is less than 20 percent, or to come as close to that line as possible. It also reflects the fact that technological advances in fuels are making it possible to produce lower enrichment fuels for many reactors without significant ~ reduction in performance. .

The proposed rule is a consequence of a number of events that have occurred in I

the last several decades. Originally, only LEU fuel was meant to be exported for use in research reactors. In the late 1960's HEU became available and the fuel of choice in order to meet specific experimental needs. In the 1970's j certain events heightened concern about nuclear proliferation, and U. S.

j c nuclear export policy turned toward encouraging the reduction of U. S. supplied HEU inventories'for fueling rbearch and test reactors abroad. Against this background the Reduced Enrichment Research and Test Reactor (RERTR) program was

< established in 1978 by the Department of Energy.

In August,1982, the Comission issued a policy statement related to its

! licensing responsibilities for the export of special nuclear material, including high enriched uranium. In this statement the Comission noted that

)

1

.,._._,__,__.y . - . , _.--,-.._.__--.,.,_-~..,,_m_ __...,y ---,__--.-_..---,-,_,_-,,-,__._m.-__m-_---___,.m.

the widespread use of HEU fuel, which at that time involved a large number of domestic and international fuel shipments, increases the risks of proliferation through theft and diversion, and therefore efforts should be made to reduce HEU inventories. The assumption was that any reduction in the potentia 1 for access to these inventories would constitute a reduction in the proliferation risk.

Based on the progress of the RERTR program, and as part of the policy to strongly encourage conversion by foreign operators, the Commission promised to take steps to encourage similar action by U. S. research reactor operators.

The present proposal represents a step in that direction. Needless to say, one can never be certain that actions taken by us domestically will have the desired positive influence abroad, but the Comission continues to believe that the policy contained in the proposed rule is sound.

. Another; reason for considering this proposal is that as long as high enriched uranium exists at non-power reactors, some residual risk of malevolent use, or misguided attempt at such use, exists. Our pursuit of security improvements at

~ ~

non-power reactor facilities,over*the'-last several years has attempted to balance costs ar.d risks. Currently available information contains no indication

- of a specific threat aimed at a domestic facility. However, acts by international terrorists havevepeatedly shown that a threat can materialize without sufficient warning from intelligence sources. Therefore, it may be prudent to consider additional domestic security measures to increase protection of the HEU material still under NRC license. So, in conjunction with our consideration of the conversion issue, we are also considering increased security measures at non-power reactors. For example, the Comission has been considering for the past several months a proposal which would require

_4 all fresh HEU fuel to be removed from those few sites which still .have some small quantities stored on-site, and would tighten the accountability procedures for maintaining the required 100 rad / hour deterrence level of all

~

stored fuel, as required by NRC regulations.

As to the potential impact of the proposed rule on operators of research and test reactors, let me address the issue in two parts. For those seeking a construction pemit for a reactor requiring HEU fuel, the proposed rule would require that applicants demonstrate that the reactor would have a " unique purpose" . Unique purpose is defined as a pmject or program which cannot reasonably be accomplished without the use of HEU fuel'in the reactor.

i As you can see, the rule does not prohibit the use of HEU fuel in new reactors,

. but is . intended to pemit only those activities which are well justified.

Practically speaking, we do not see this aspect of the proposed rule affecting researchers since we do not anticipate any construction pemit applications for l'

~

non-power reactors at this time. *Should there be any, we believe there is sufficient flexibility in the proposed rule to pemit legitimate research using

., HEU fuel. .,.

. . +

i The other part of the proposed rule could have a greater impact on li'censees.

For existing reactors, unless the licensee can meet the " unique purpose" test, i the proposed rule would prohibit the licensee from acquiring additional HEU

, fuel if LEU fuel is available and such fuel meets the Comission's health and safety criteria. In addition, the licensee would be required to replace all HEU fuel in his possession with available LEU fuel, in accordance with a t

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

__ . _ . . _ _ _ _ = - __ . _ _ _ _ _ . __ .-. _

schedule based on availability of replacement fuel and consideration of other i factors. These other factors include the availability of shipping casks, r reactor usage, and financial support. A final schedule would be established by i

discussion with our licensing staff. -

t c

The process we envision for accomplishing conversion of existing reactors is

! that if the replacement of HEU fuel with LEU fuel does not change the technical specifications incorporated in the license or involve an unreviewed safety l

! question as defined in our regulations, the licensee may replace HEU with LEU i

fuel without amendment to the license. Obviously, if there are changes to the technical specifications, the conversion would require the usual careful safety j reviews. Information available to date indicates that conversion of a number 2

i of non-power reactors from HEU to LEU fuel is technically feasible, and if the

. goals of the RERTR program are successfully schieved over the next five years, conversion will be technically feasible for nearly all the remaining reactors.

i

!- Comnents we have received indicate that academic institutions which operate

~

(

rest of the research reactors are particularly concerned about the cost of conversion. They are on tight budgets and naintain that they cannot afford to

3. _.

pay the costs of conversion. 'They are concerned about the cost of the new LEU fuel as well as the costs of removing, transporting, and reprocessing their present HEU cores. They are also concerned that it would be expensive and time

! consuming to meet NRC requirements for relicensing the reactors once they becone subject to conversion, especially if the relicensing process were f

l subject to public hearings.

i I

I

The Comission intends to consider carefully public comments on its proposed rule, to proceed judiciously toward adopting whatever final rule is appropriate, and to implement any final rule in a careful manner. We believe that requiring new research reactors to use LEU fuel is desirable. provided f

that DOE funding for replacement fuel for current licensees is made available and our assumptions regarding the administration and licensing costs of conversion are correct. Should we decide to proceed with conversion, we will attempt to apply a generic licensing approach to conversion in order to minimize or eliminate licensee administrative costs and avoid disruption of I

ongoing research and educational programs. If the RERTR program succeeds in l

attaining its goals over the next few years, the likelihood of applying a generic approach for most reactors will no doubt increase and thus help reduce costs, and minimize the procedural steps that would be required to achieve conversion.

i r

~

Only if the Federal Government, titrough the Department of Energy, continues to j develop advanced fuel types and to fund fully the replacement of fuel will this l

l _

program be able to progress. We continue to believe that such conversion is a j f .

! worthwhile and significant loffg-term objective for all non-power reac'tor facilities. Continued support by the Congress of DOE's RERTR and university fuel assistance programs is essential, therefore, to achieving the goal of reducing HEU inventories at NRC-licensed facilities.

l l

i, >t se ntec

), UNITED STATES SECRETAjWm -

• '  ! T 3 .,-q [} NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

. g j; WASHINGTON,0. C. 20555 p September 28, 1984

\[ '.u....o MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino Comissioner Roberts '

Comissioner' Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal '

Cornissioner Zech FROM: Carlton Kamerer, Dirc or Office of Congressiona irs ~

SUBJECT:

LLOYD/fuQUA HEARING ON HEU/ LEU FUEL CONVERSION On Tuesday, September 25, 1984, the Subcomittees on Energy Research and

< Development (Lloyd) and Energy Development and Applications (Fuqua) of the House Comittee on Science and Technology held a hearing to examine the need for and the impact of requiring research and test reactors to convert to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. A list of attendees is attached.

In her opening statement, Chairman Lloyd questioned the necessity of requiring fuel conversinn. She noted a previous attempt to set a nonproliferation example by halting the development of domestic fuel reprocessing capability While the rest of the world simply forged ahead using alternate supply source,s.

Following NRC's prepare'd testimony, Ccmissioners Asselstine and Bernthal responded to questions conceriiin9 security during transport, security at the fac.ilities, and the amount of e terial that would pose a credible threat. The members generally agreid that NRC's goal is laudable and that the proposed rule is comundable as a progressive action; however, there was disagreement in the area of cost and impact vs. benefit.

Testimony from the ACRS', other federal agencies, and reactor operators then followed. Noteworthy coments include:

• NRC's proposed rule is based upon zero'. risk whereas less restrictive

precautions would lead to accettable risk. These precautions include use of 40-50% enriched fuel, storage uf.unirradiated fuel offsite at 00F facilities, and increasert ss

curity precautions. (Dr.Markof i ACXS, DOE,EPRI,TRTR)

,a

~

b w

f56wM4h 4o 4

>i S2 v AD ~

• The diversion of irradiated fuel is not considered a credible event.

(DOE)

• NRC may have the best intentions of simplifying the licensing process for fuel conversion; however, history has shown that simplifying the licensirg process is beyond the capability of the agency as it currently exists. (NEDHO)

• The Federal Government should fund all costs of conversion including licensing and litigation. (EPRI,NEDHO,TRTR)

• If fuel conversion is forced upon domestic research reactors, some of them will most certainly shut down even if the costs are funded by the government. (DOE,NEDHO,TRTR)

• Congress should consider exempting NRC from conducting public hearings on licensing issues related to fuel conversion so as to avoid uncertainty over litigation and court action. (Dr. Remick of ACRS)

• Reactors with lifetime cores should not be required to convert because of their small fuel inventory, the impracticality, and the fact that there is no similar requirement on foreign reactors of this design.

(State Dept., DOE, EPRI)

• Advanced nuclear R&D capabilities are already gravitating abroad and forced conversion of domestic reactors will further that trend.

(EPRI,TRTR)

Copies of written testimony are available from the Office of Congressional Af fai rs.

Attachment:

As stated cc: EDO OPE OGC SECY RES ACRS L -

1

4 ATTENDEES HEARING ON HEU/ LEU FUEL CONVERSION -

i SEPTEMBER 25, 1984 SUBCOMMITTEES: Rep. Marilyn Lloyd (D-TN)

Rep. Don Fuqua (D-FL)

Rep. Robert Walker (R-PA)

Rep. Rodney Chandler (R-WA)

Rep. Robert Young (D-MI)

Rep. Claudine Schneider (R-RI)

WITNESSES: (SEE ATTACHED SHEET)

O

- . . . . _ , . _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ ~ . _ . _ . _ , , , . , _ _ . ,

Hoaring on Conversion of Rascarch and 'est Recctors to Low-Enriched Urcnium (LEU) asl Tuesday, September 25, 1984 1:00 - 5:00 P.M.

Room 2325 Rayburn House Office Building Witness Lisi E)lLngi it h NucIear ReguI storv Comt ssion M Honorable Frederick Bernthal Acting Chainnan Accanpanied by:

Honorable James Asselstine Commissioner Panei 21 t!EC Adviserv Cecetttee an Reactor Saf eguards ( ACRS) and Others Jesse Ebersole, Chairman Edwin L. Zebrosky NRC ACRS Electric Power Research Institute Accanpanied by:

J. Carson Mark, Chairman Subcom. on Saf eguards and Security Forrest J. Remick, Member Panel it Agencies Carlton R. Stolber, Director James S. Kane, Deputy Director Office of Export and import Office of Energy Research Control U.S. Department of Energy Bureau of Oceans and Interne-tional and Scientific Affairs U.S. Department of State Armando Travelli, Manager Reduced Enrichment for Res.

and Test Reactor (RERTR) Program Argonne National Laboratory Enng1 fl Research and Inst Reactor Ooerators and Users Robert S. Carter, Chief A. Francis DIMeglio Reactor Radiation Div. National Organization of Test, National Bureau of Standards Research and Training Reactors U.S. Dept. of Commerce Center Rhode Island Nuclear Science James J. McGovern Paul J. Turinsky, Chairman Union Carbide Corporation Nuclear Engineering Dept. Heads l Medical Products Division Organization

! Depart, of Nuclear Engineering l North Carolina State University