ML20138Q832
Text
- ,$*
- C v c
[ *,.,, *,gg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES
, -) ^ '.
W ASHINGTON. O C. 20555 a,%.
May 23, 1984 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
].~j MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary
-)..
SUBJECT:
SECY-84-198 - SUNSHINE REV"EW OF SHOREHAM TRANSCRIPTS
't N
on May 17, 1984, subsequent to issuance of this paper, the House Cormittoo on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittoo on Energy and the Environment, voted to rolcase the trans-cripts of the April 23, April 24, April 25, and April 27, 1984 Shoreham transcripts in their entirety.
Accordingly, SECY placed copios of the complete transcripts in the PDR on May 21, 1984.
No further action is required on 3ECY-84-198.
cc Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissionar Roberts Coraissioner Ausolstino Commissionar Bernthal OGC OPE W. Magoo A. Tipton, 0S11100275 0$1017 PI)H F t)1 A CILINGMOS-437 PDR (g
{.;C.
le, UNITED STATES
. ! "T. s. f,(~ %,
.NUCLEAft REGULATORY CO.MMISSION' A* tac.zent E
$ f,t/Q**.',v>/ j WasmlNO TO.'i. 0. C. 2C1!!
g $i..1
\\.
.b*
SI: 1 I 1533 P.EMORACUM FOR:
Hareld R. Denton, Director, NRR R:bert 5. Minegde, Direc,.:r, RES FR;M:
William J. Circks Executive Director for Operations SUEJECI::
REVIEW OF NRC REQUIREMENTS FOR NUCLEAR FCWER :LANT FIP:NG In my memorandum of August 1,1983, I approved for im?iementatien y:ur preposal for reviewing NRC requiremants for nuclear ;cwer plant piping.
Mcwever, since that time, even s have led ma,to conclude that the scope of one of the areas in your program, i.e., pipe cracks should be expanded.
In the minutes of meeting 45, issued en August 22,1953, CRGR re::mmended the following:
NEC should deveico an integrated program pian :: deal with the entirety
, ' cf -he stress cerrosien cracking problem in EWR piping in order to avcid c
a piecaceal ap;rcach to the problem.
Su:h a program sh:vid enlist tr,e,
aid of rec:gni:ed experts in the tres and result in a c::rdinated resolution that takes. into censideratien the enlire spac rum cf EWR g
plants.
I endorse that recc=endation and request that you $cdify your program and resource requirements to implement the CRGR recc=endatien.
The m:dified pr: gram sh uld include, but net necessarily be limited to, th:se bread areas and c:nsiderations identified in the enclosure.
In constructing the schedule for the. revised program to address BWR pipe cracks, it is im;criant that pricrities be based en the anticipated needs for. licensing decisions.
~
value. impact analyses should also be used to the' extent practical in the decisienmaking process.
(Sip, 0'tMiam L O!!d:
William J. Dircks Executive Dire'etor for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
V. Stello R. OcYoung Regicnal Administrators
(
'J. Snie:ek
. W. Kane a
L. Shao y/ollme '
g/nn n ? h wv, m V V # )
r
[Id)hIa55I Luut En:::sure i ' t ;. i.. ". m.. :::tte
.. te.
...o Establish ne technical basis fer the s::3'e~efins:e::i:ns;e.g.,
A5"E class, pipe si:e, systams, sample si:e, etc.
. Evaluate tne a::e::abili v Of ins:ec-ion technicues in:1utin:
'inspe:-icr cf pip' ng with' weit overlay.
~
i Devel : the technical basis for a::eptan:e of inspe::i:n results.
Determine the availability of qualified inspection personnel.
Reassess the qualifica icn-criteria fer-inspection pers:nnel..
Review all past inspe::icn techniques, persennel qualifications and results.
Cavel:: the rati nale f:r establishing piant inspe:tien pricrities.
Devel:s the technical basis for timing Of the next inspa:-icn and subsepuen ins;e::icas.
Develep technical basis for continued operatien, repair and repla:ement.
Develcp the technical basis for. reinspection of reptired and un-re; aired defe::s uncovered as a result of inspe: i ns perforde'd*
under IEE SE-03 and IEE 53-02.
Ccerdinate with industry.
Selicit and assess input ft: pther, countries.
2.
EV'LUATION OF CURRENT STRESS IM:ROVEMENT TECH"IOUES Evaluate and establish the licensing basis for use of indu:tien heating stress improvement (IHSI) technicues on flawed and unflawed piping.
Establish the basis for future insoectien programs for flawed and unflawed piping that has been subjected to IMSI.
Evaluate the relative effectiveness of cther current stress improvepen techniques.
Evaluate the relative effe::iveness af IHSI as ccmpared to other current sh:rt-term r'epair te:hnique.s
.0
.f
-4
/1,Ui
, *b "eveiO; resear:r nr.: testing re;;
e Caticr.s.
CO:rtinate 4.'i n in:es*.ry.
50 licit an asiels ir.;u f*: C:he'r :cun :j es.
r u.,. c. -. C.. n - -,,;.;....., S C s.. :
.v 3
c...p t.. c
...i
.L
.a
- r....
...m.
...u...
, Evaluate and establish lice.:in; basis for use cf vel: :verlay re:iirs.
Es ablish te:hni:ai basis fer crack arrest /miti;a-icn ::sitien.
Assess the uncertainties in crack depth in establishing re; air Criteria.
Establish criteria for service life of piping repairs. -
Assess ;: ten-ial for :ra:k growth in weld metal.
Esta:iish ins;e: ability and ins;e::i:n criteria.
Assess the s'.gnificance of fabrica icn uncertainties.
T' Ceveit; resear:h and tesiing re::mmendati'eni.
~
Ccerdinate with industry.
5clicit and assess input fr:m cther countries.
4 EVILL* ION OF LONG-TERM IXE5 Evaluate the value-impact c:nsideratiens of leng-ter fixes and
- 1re t
- the varices alternatives involving shcr:-term fixes and increased inspection.
L-Evaluate the ac:eptability Of. candidate re;iacemen; material:...
Evalua e the everail effectiveness of water chemistry changes; e.g., hydregen aedition.
Evaluate the effectiveness of IMSI.
Evaluate the effectiveness of ether impr:vement technicces; e.g.,
c rresien resistant cladding, heat sink welding.
Assess the need for changes to current ASME C:de,Section XI inspection frecuencies.
Evaluate value-impac.c cf the varicus candidate long-ter: fixes, P
p
.o.
.v 3
m p.
4p et
[.
- b. J !$ L g.y g... s. 3... C r i '. *.
- i r. # ^ *. ". a
- l.8 " *. *. * *. * '.. '..,.
......4
.......... e. 4...
...., i. n a...
- 4......... h. 4.. n
- 4.... $..y.
w....
A
.e )j.-i..
.s p. s..n $.e s. g g i r.. " *
- . r.* "... * *..* e.. C a. U n *. t.'..a. s.
r..
w L
s
'ic &
e, 7
d' d
,k..rf
\\
- Q.-
v s
\\
~
l w ( [f ^
hj/.Q.
y Q
For:
The Comissioners Fecm:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
-FRcp,^a5 ^4a"-f0aFElstTDIO}iO51-ePhisi-lNp N
Purcose:
To respond to the Comission's request for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for limitino the usa of HEU in non-cower reactors.
Cateocry:
This paper covers a ma.ior colicy cuestion.
Issue:
What, regulatory requirements should be imposed to implement the C_ omission's policy of encouraging reduction in use of HEU in dorestic and foreign research and test reactors.
Discussien:
By memorandum from SECY to the EDO dated February 23, 1984 (attached as Enclosure F), the Comission requested the staff to precare a proposed rule on the use of HEU and a plan and schedule for development of steps to improve security measures at domestic non power reactors using HEU fuel.
In order to avoid possible delay in responding to the reouest, two papers have been prepared, This paper concerns the proposed rule (Cnclosure A).
A separate paper addresses irnproved security measures.
Contact:
William R. '.shs, RES 44-37874 M/
r v
i
%e Comissioners 2
Background:
In August 1932 the Comission issued a Policy Statement on the use of HEU in research reactors. As stated "...NRC has licensing responsibility for domestic use and for export abroad of Special Nuclear Material, including HEU and is interested in reducing, to the maximum extent possible, the use of HEU in domestic and foreign research reactors." The Policy Statement noted that the U.S. research reactor oper-ators have shown little interest in converting to lower enrichment fuel, and that as part of a policy to strongly enceurage conversion by foreign operators, the Comission would take steps to encourage similar action by U.S. re-search reactor operators.
In follow-up, the Comission requested OPE to propose options for encouraging domest.ic research and test reactors to convert to LEU.
OPE reported by memorandyr:LoLf_11ardl.
1983, recommending that NRC pursue two options, i.e., with
~
certain exceptions, (1) license no new research reactors for HEU, and (2) require existing licensees, when refuel-ing, to replace spent HEU fuel with LEU fuel.
That rec-cmmendation was included in a memorandum of June 21, 1983, that asked the staff to prepare a proposed rule on the sub-ject, but suggested that the staff brief the Comission on the matter before extensive efforts were expended in,devel-oping the proposed rule.
TheED0'sinformationpaperofAugust19(SECY83-349) outlined the staff's plans for developing the proposed rule, noting that attention would be focused on the class of university-ope,qted resear,ch and test reactors.
This class represents the largest number (25) of the 31 NRC li-censed research reactors that use HEU.* The university re-actors are traditionally supported, in part, by 00E.
- The total of 31 u sumes that the General Electric Nuclear Test Reactor will be licensed for future operations.
f Th"'a Comissionars 3
let a short-tem contract to Rensselear Polytechnic Insti-tute both to identify and classify the affected university reactors and to address the impacts of converting from HEU to LEU.
The contractor's report," Assessment of the Implications of Conversion of University,,Research and Training Reactors to Low Enrichment Uranium Fuel" (NUREG/CR-3666), has been furnished to the Commission and,
ogehir with other independent bases generated by DOE and t
t NRC, has been used to develop the regulatory impact of the proposed rule.
A copy of the contractor's report is available in the Public Document Room.
Comission meetings on this subject were held December 19, 1983, January 27 and February 6,1984 At the February 6 meeting, the Comission provided guidance to the staff on the expected content of a proposed rule.
A particularly significant point made at that meeting was that the proposed rule should require conversion both by reactors
~
that routinely repl Ace their fuel and by reactors with
" life-time cores." Twenty of the 31 licensed non-power reactors have " life-time core,s".an A un,less required to do so by i rule change, would not need to acquire additional Tt[el.
Thase 20 are authorized to possess a total of about
~
4_~.
130 Kg U-235. The other 11 are authorized to possess a total of over 200 Kg U-235.
Procosed Rule:
The proposed rule contained in Enclosure A is consistent with the Comission guidance provided in SECY's memorandum of February 23, 1984 The proposed rule, if made effective l
(n_d if Federal funds are provided for costs _of converting _
would lead to conversion of the HEU fuel in.,nearly al,l 31 non-power reactors.
Target material, special instrumentation or experimental devices using HEU are not included in the conversion requirements of the proposed rule.
The schedule for conversion wili be detennined by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Me Comissioners 4
The proposed rule provides for automatic extension of li-censes to cover LEU fuel if certain conditions are met.
This provision is expected to help avoid the ecsts in time and manpower that might otherwise be associated with license amendments.
'An" estimate of the number of licensees that will qualify for automatic extension of their license will be developed during the coment period for the proposed rule.
Recomendations:
That the Comission:
1.
Consider publication of the proposed amendments and authorize publication of Enclosure A in the Federal Register with a 60-day coment period.
2.
Certify, in order to satisfy the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is included in the enclosed Federal Register notice.
3.
Note:
a.
That the Environmental Assessment shows that the action proposed will not have a significant environmental impact (Enclosure C).
b.
The Regulatory Analysis (Enclosure B) and the Environmental Assessment (Enclosure C) will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Tim Comission::rs 5
9 c.
That the proposed rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the information collection requirements.
d.
That the appropriate Congressional Comittees will be infomed of the Comission's action (Enclosure D).
e.
That a public announcement will be issued (Enclosure E).
f.
That copies of the notice will be distributed by TIDC, ADM to affected licensees and other interested parties.
g.
That the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will be informed of the certification and the reason for it as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Schedulinc:
It is recomended that this paper be considered at an open session and that this paper be placed in'the Public Document Room on the day of the Commission meeting.
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
A - Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking B - Regulatory Analysis C - Environmental Assessment D - Draft Congressional Letter E - Draft Public Announcement F - SECY memo to EDO 2/23/84
s ENCLOSURE "A" Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 Limiting the Use of Highly Enriched Uranium in Domestic Research and Test Reactors AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
The Comission is considering amending its regulations to limit the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel in domestic research and test reactors (non-pcwer nuclear reactors).
Tiepopoa.edamrindmeRtgenerallywould require tnat new non-power nuclear reactors use low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel and that existing reactors replace HEU fuel with LEU fuel when available.
The Comission considers that currently licens'ed non-power reactors using HEU fuel are operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
The proposed rule is intended only to reduce the risk of theft or di-version of HEU fuel used in nor-power reactors.
The reduction in domestic use of HEU fuel may encourage similar action by foreign research reactor operators, and thereby reduce the amount of HEU fuel in international use.
DATES:
Coment period expires (60 days af ter publication).
Coments received after this date will be considered if practical to do so, but only those com-ments received on or before this date can be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES:
Coments should be submitted in writing to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comissicn, Washington, DC 20555, Atten-tion:
Docketing and Service Branch.
All coments received will be available for public inspection in the Comission's Public Document Room at 1717 !!
Street, NW., Washington, DC.
v 2
[7590-01]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Lahs, Jr., Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Telephone (301)443-7874 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
h A Comission policy statement published August 24,1982(47FR37007),
explains NRC's interest in reducing the use of high enriched uranium (HEU) in research reactors. This interest stems from NRC's licensing responstbility for both domestic use and for export abroad of HEU and concern about risks of theft or d' version of this material.
The policy stategent also describes a cont' g program to develop and demonstrate the technology that will facilitate the Wae of reduced enrichment fuels. TheReducedEnrichmentforResearchandTestReactors(RERTR) program was initiated by the Department of Energy (DOE) and is managed by the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL).
Its objective is to prove the ability of new low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuels to replace existing HEU fuel without significant changes to existing reactor cores or facilities, or significant decrease in performance characteristics of the reactors.
Detailed information on tne RERTR program was presented by Dr. A.
Travelli, ANL, at the International Symposium on the Use and Development of Low and Medium Flux Research Reactors, held October 17-19, 1983, at the i
fg'.
Massachusetts Institute of Technolog/. A copy of Dr. Travelli's paper, "RERTR t
i Program Activities Related to the Development and Applications of New LEU Fuels", is available for public inspection in NRC's Public Document Room at
.6' 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Y The RERTR program's progress and anticipated continued success over the next five years have encouraged NRC to undertake a rulemaking proceeding which would cause reduction in the use of HEU fuel in domestic research and test reactors.
In initiating this proceeding, the Comission recognizes that licensed non-power reactors now using HEU fuel are operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the general public and improved reactor safety is nottheobjective.
The proceeding is intended only to cause replacement of HEU humummu a -
v o
3
[7590-01]
fuel.
(Target material, special instrumentation or experi ental devices using HEU,arenotincluded.) This reduction is desirable because HEU, tn ap-
~
propriate form and quantity, can be used to make an explosive device.
LEU has relatively little value for this purpose.
About 31 NRC licensed reactors could be affected by the proposed amend-ment. Of these, 25 are owned and operated by universities 5 are owned by private business entities, and one 1s owned by an agency of the Federal Govern-ment.
One source of information which identifies and classifies the affected university reactors and addresses the range of impacts of converting from HEU to LEU is a contractor's report, " Assessment of the Implications of Conversion of University Research and Training Reactors to Low Enrichment Uranium fuel,"
NUREG/CR-3666. The report is available for public inspection and copying for a fee in NRC's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, OC.
As part of the development of the proposed amendment, Cennission briefings, open to the public, were held December 19, 1983, and January 27, 1984.
At the briefings, infomation was presented by the 00E, Department of State, Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization (NEDHO), NRC staff and other interested persons.
Information considerad to date indicates that conversion of several non-power reactors frem HEU fuel to LEU fuel is technically feasible and, if the goals of tne RERTR program are successfully acnteved over the next five years, will be technically feasible for almost all the remaining reactors.
The information also shcws that a major consideration to operators is the cost of conversion which hinges on the availability of vendor supplied hel. 3C shares the H e = = =- r egresseo view that conversion costs should largely or
[entirelvhafinancedbytheFederalGovernment.
Historically, the DOE and M,
I predecessor agena.ies have provided significant support to research and test reactor programs.
The availability of Federal support will be a key factor gensidered in determining the availability of LEU fuel and senedules for conversio n Under the proposed rule, non power reactors with certain exceptions would be required to use LEU fuel.
Licensees now authorized to use HEU fuel would be required to develop and submit to the NRC's Director of the Office of Nuclear J
(. '
4
[7590-01]
o Reactor Regulation a proposed schedule for conversion to LEU fuel.
In preparing the proposed schedule, account will be taken of factors such as the availability of shipping casks, financial support, and reactor usaje.
Determination that the conversion fuel is available is dependent upon the successful accomplishment of the tasks set out in DOE's RERTR program and the development of comercially available replacement fuel. A final w w ile will_
then be detem4'"A hy the Director.
This schedule will depend upon the availability of LEU fuel readily adapted to use-in the licensee's reactor with minimum modifications or ~auvene impacts nn the licensee's Dr00 ram.
A matter of interest to the Commission in requiring conversion and estab-lishing the schedule will be financial considerations.
Interested persons are invited to coment on the extent that they believe the economics of conversion should influence Comission actions.
Technically, in its simplest fom, conversion from HEU fuel to LEU fuel consists of replacing relatively low density HEU by relatively high density g By using a higher density of uranium in the fuel matrix, the same amount of U-235 can be present in a fuel element without changing the external di-mensions of the element or significantly changing the themal-hydraulic charac-l 2 eristics of the reactor.
Under these conditions it _is possible that exi_ sting
%echnical specifications will remain unchanged and no unreviews Esafety ouestion will be involved.
NRC is evaluatino the reactor performance and safety aspects of conversion and expects to publish a report prior to reaching a determination on issuance of a final rule.
To facilitate conversion safety reviews, the NRC is considering the devel-opment of aeneric envelopes of safety limits for the several types of non-power reactors._ An affected licensee would then submit an analysis showing that both
'the normal operating and postulated accident conditions of the reactor fall cithin the limits.
These safety limits would be used in estatlishing limiting conditions of operation (such as coolant flow, coolant pressure, reactivity conditions).
Current developments by the RERTR program indicate that these limitina conditions of operation with LEU fuel may not differ significantly from limiting conditions of operation now used with HEU fuel; however, a_
definitive conclue4^ qn this matter, applicable to all the conversion candidates will depend on the continued success of the RERTR proyNer the
]iext several years._ Comments are invited on this approach of using generic -,
envelopes of safety limits and limiting conditions of operation, t
5
[7590-01]
In cases where conyersion from HEU fuel to LEU fuel _ would neither conflict with the technical specification incorporated in the license nor involve an
- ~
_unreviewed safety question _, the conversion could proceed without amendment of
~
the license._ In other cases, a,1jcieng amendment would be required.,
In view of the significance of this proposed rule to the national interest, the Commission, when implementing the rule, intends to waive any licensing fees that would normally be assessed for amending licerises issued to production and utilization facilities.
' National Environmental Policy Act Consideration The Commission has determined, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Coninission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, that promulgation of this proposed rule will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment and that, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.
(The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for pub-lic inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street', NW., Washington, DC.)
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement The proposed rule amends infonnation collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.
Regulatory Analysis The Ccmmission has prepared a regulatory analysis for the proposed amend-ment. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the amendment and the s
AN
6
[7590-01]
o o
decision criteria considered by the Comission. A copy of the regulatory anal-ysis is available for inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC Public Docu-ment Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5. U.S.C.
605(b), the Commission hereby certifies that this proposed regulation will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed regulation affects non-power reactor licensees that own and operate nuclear utilization facilities licensed under sections 103 and 104 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. These licensees do not fall within the definition of small businesses set forth in section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, or within the Small Business Size Standards set forth in 13 CFR Part 121.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Fire prevention, Incorporation by ref-erence, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting requirements.
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, notice is hereby given that adoption of the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 50 is contemplated.
[7590-01]
- PART SO - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1.
The Authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authori ty:
Secs.103,104,161,182,183,186,189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat.1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282);
secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat.1242,1244,1246, as amended (42 U.S.C.
5841,5842,5846), unless otherwise noted.
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec.10, 92 Stat. 2952 (42 U.S.C. 5851).
Sections 50.57(d), 50.58, 50.91 and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2701, 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2239).
Section 50.78 also issued under sec.122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).
Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec.184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2234).
Sections 50.100-50.102 also issued under sec.186, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273),
~
5550.10(e), (b), and (c), 50.44, 50.46, 50.48, 50.54 and 50.80(a) are issued under sec.161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b));
5550.10(b) and (c) and 50.54 are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(1)); and s550.55(e), 50.59(b), 50.70, 50.71, 50.72, and 50.78 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
[7590-01]
8 2.
A new 550.64 is added to read as follows:
950.64 Limitations on the Use of High Enriched Uranium in lO Non-power Reactors.
gg a) Applicability. The requirements of this section y to all nuclear non-power reactors licensed under 5550.21(a),50.21(c),
or 50.22 of this part.
L Cla n (03 (b) Definitions.
For purposes of this section:
(1)
"High enriched uranium" (HEU) fuel means fuel in which the weight percent of U-235 in the uranium is 20% or greater.
Target material, special instrumentation or experimental devices using HEU are not included.
(2)
" Low enriched uranium" (LEU) fuel means fuel in which the weight percent of U-235 in the uranium is less than 20%.
(3)
" Unique purpose" means that the project or program cannot reasonably be accomplished without the use of HEU fuel, and may include:
(i) A specific experiment or program, (ii) Reactor physics or reactor development based explicitly on use of HEU fuel, (iii) Research projects based on the neutron flux levels or spectra only attainable with HEU fuel, or (iv) A reactor core of special design that could not perform its intended function without using HEU fuel.
(c) Recuirements.
(1) The Commission will not issue a construction permit for a new non-power reactor that would use HEU fuel unless the applicant demonstrates that the proposed reactor will have a unique purpose as definedin(b)(3).
(2) Unless the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has determined, based on a request submitted in accorrfance with
[7590-01]
9 4
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, that the reactor has a unique purpose, each licensee currently authorized to possess and use HEU fuel in connection with the operation of a non-power reactor shall:
(i) Acquire no additional HEU fuel if LEU fuel acceptable to the Comission for that reactor is available at the time of the proposed acquisition of the HEU fuel by the licensee; and (ii) Replace all HEU fuel in the licensee's possession with available LEU fuel acceptable to the Comission in accordance with a schedule determined pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(3)
If not required by paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section to use LEU fuel, the applicant or licensee must use HEU fuel of enrich-ment as close to 20". as is available and acceptable to the Comission.
(d)
Imolementation.
(1) Any request by a licensee for a determination that a reactor has a unique purpose as defined in paragraph (b)3, should be submitted with supporting documentation to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, by (insert a date 6 months after the effective date).
(2) By (insert a date 12 months after the effective date) each non-power reactor licensee authorized to possess and use HEU fuel shall develop and submit to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation a proposed schedule for meeting the requirements of para-graphs (c)(2) or (3) of this section.
The proposed schedule shall be based upon availability of replacement fuel acceptable to the Commission and consideration of other factors such as the availability of shipping casks, financial support, and reactor usage.
A final schedule will then be determined by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
I r
10
[7590-01]
o (3)
If the replacement of HEU fuel with LEU fuel does not change the technical specifications incorporated in the license or involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 950.59(a)(2), the licensee shall maintain records and furnish reports as defined in 550.59(b).
If replacement of HEU fuel with LEU fuel changes the technical specifications incorporated in the license or involves an unreviewed safety question, the licensee shall file an application for an amendment in accordance with 550.59(c).
Dated at this day of
, 1984 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I Samuel J. Chilk, l
Secretary of the Commission.
1
Enclosure B REGULATORY ANALYSIS OF LIMITING THE USE OF HIGH-ENRICHED URANIUM (HEU)
IN NON-POWER REACTORS
REGULATORY ANALYSIS 0F LIMITING THE USE OF HIGH-ENRICHED-URANIUM (HEU)
IN DOMESTIC NON-POWER REACTORS (10 CFR PART 50)
A.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM I
The proposed rule implements a stated Commission policy to limit the use of high-enriched-uranium (HEU) in non-power reactors.
This policy stems from con-4 cern about the risks of theft or diversion of this material.
This regulatory analysis assesses the imoacts of implementing the proposed rulemaking action requested by the Commission.2 3.
OBJECTIVE The objective of this regulatory action is to define the acceptable orogram 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-power reactors, includes the following summarized features:
(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.
Federal Register notice published August 24, 1982 (47 FR 37007)
I 2 Memorandum to W. Dircks from S. Chilk, Develooment of a Proposed Rule on the Use of HEU and Steps to Imorove Security Measures, February 23, 1984.
(2) Each current non-power reactor licensee authorized to possess and use HEU fuel, if unable to demonstrate a unique purpose for the reactor, shall (i) Acquire no additional HEU fuel if acceptable LEU fuel for that reactor is available at the time of acquisition of the fuel by the licensee; and (ii) Replace all HEU fuel in the licensee's possession with available acceptable LEU fuel on a determined schedule.
(3) For those facilities demonstrating a u,nique purpose, the applicant or licensee must use HEU fuel of enrichment as close to 20". as practical.
As proposed, a process is provided by which the applicant or licensee can submit alternative courses of action based on defined considerations, which, if deter-mined to meet the intent of the rule, will minimize functional, licensing and The cost and benefits of the proposed action, assessed in the monetary impacts.
following section, reflect consideration of this implementation policy.
j j
D.
CONSEOUENCE OF PROPOSED ACTION Costs and Benefits About 31 NRC licensed non-power reactors (including the General Electric Nuclear Of these, 25 are owned Test Reactor) could be affected by the proposed rule.
and operated by universities, 5 are owned by private business entities, and 1 The HEU fuel for the university is owned by an agency of the Federal Government.
The reactors is owned by, supplied by and returned to the Federal Government.
privately owned facilities receive HEU from the Federal Government, a
\\
for its use, and return the expended HEU to the Federal Govarnment. The conse-quences of the proposed rule include societal costs and benefits, direct costs and benefits, and public 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-The direct costs and benefits are generally quantifiable if certain progran:-
ess.
matic assumptions are made. These costs and benefits are associated with facilii3 conversion to the use of reduced enrichment fuels and with the actions necessary to support the licensing process.
Public and occupational health impacts are ex-pected to be minor but are speculative because of their dependence on specific con version procedures and transportation requirements.
The assumptions which form 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, is or will be available within the next several years.
The above technoiogy will allow HEU to LEU (or reduced enrichment HEU)
(2) 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 performance (reactor characteristics, reliability, and operating costs) will not cause significant adverse impacts.
Replacement of HEU fuel will take place as rapidly as acceptable re-(4) placement fuel can be delivered.
_.. -. _.. ~.. _, _ _ _. _. _ _,, _
. The reasonableness of assumptions (1), (2) and (3) hinges largely on the presumed ability of the RERTR program to successfully attain its goals over the next severai years. Assumption (3) also presumes a substantial level of Federal Government fi-nancial and technical support. Assumption (4) oresumes the cooperation of fuel element manufacturers in providing comercially available LEU replacement fuel.
A variety of opinions on the significance and reasonableness of these assumptions is available in additional published documents.3 Societal Costs and Benefits The major societal benefit of limiting the use of highly-enriched-uranium fuel in research and test reactors is a reduction in the global risks of theft or diversica i
of this material. Widespread use of HEU fuel, both domestically and internationali;,
4 increases the risks of theft or diversion of this material.
In comparison with HEU, the use of fuel with lower enrichments reduces theft or diversion risks.
As a part of the national effort to allay these concerns, DOE's Reduced Enrichment for 4
i Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) program was established to develop and demon-strate the technology that facilitates the use of reduced enrichment fuels in re-i search and test reactors. The proposed rule carries out the Comission's comit-ment to act expeditiously to review the use of LEU fuels in domestic research and test reactors licensed by the NRC.
In so doing, the Comission encourages conver-3 Assessment of the Imolications of Conversf or: of University Research and 15, 1983; Training Reactors to Low Enrichment Uranium Fuel, NUREG/CR-3666, November Pesearch Testimony Before the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, January 27,1984; Tse of Reactor Core Conversion from the Use of Hiably Enriched Uranium to the Low Enriched Uranium Fuels Guidebook, IAEA-TEC00C-233, 1980.
RERTR Program Activities Related to The Development and Acolication j
4 of New LEW Fuels, Dr. A. Travelli, October 1983.
s
,n-,
-w
,n-.
a.
y,,n
-,-y
,_,.,-,n-.y~.--n np--,,c,,,..n
,,--,.,.,,-,-m--nnn---
sion by foreign operators and establishes a basis for carrying out its responsi-bilities to make findings tnat 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.
Two societal costs can be identified with imposition of the proposed rule.
The first is tne one-time differential safeguards and radiological risk associated witn tne HEU to LEU fuel replacement operations, including transportation.
Tne second is tne loss-in-capabilities cost brougnt about by potential decisions to curtail specific reactor operations.
The one-time differential safeguards and radiological risk can be identified witn tne 20 facilities naving " lifetime cores." The proposed HEU to LEU conversion process will require tnese facilities to undergo a single refueling cycle during
~
wnicn HEU fuel will be removed from tne facility.
Since similar operations with HEU would otnerwise occur only at tne end of tne facilities'ncmal life, some additional societal risk would occur because of tne early scheduling of these HEU fuel nandling and snipping operations. No significant additional societal risk can be identified wnica can be attributed to tne early scheduling of these HEU nandling and snipping operations.
For tnose reactors with routi..e tenzeling cycles, tne proposed rule provides implementation provisions wnicn minimize or eliminate tne need for non-routine HEU fuel nandling operations althougn, if the seneduling for tnese operations is accelerated, some incremental societal risk will also be accelerated.
Tne second societal cost could be tne loss-in-capabilities cost brougnt about by potential decisions tnat would curtail specific reactor operations.
The implemen-tation provision of tne proposed rule attempts to minimize tne financial, function-al, administrative and licensing costs of tne conversion process.
For some of tne
. facilities, arguments are made that the conversion process provides expanded op-portunities to further the facility's educational goal.
However, the current reduced interest in nuclear programs could lead to facility shutdown decisions which could impact on longer term, broader, national goals in research and educa-tion.
For the facilities above 1-2MW in power, conversion could have an impact on the source of neutrons and gamma radiation necessary for specific research or pro-duction processes. Of most concern is the capability to produce short-lived iso-l topes for medical research and diagnosis which could be affected by temporary or i
l permanent facility shutdowns or competitive market forces.
Again, however, the implementation provisions of the rule are intended to provide reasonable oppor-tunity for minimizing any potential losses in facility capabilities and availa-bility.
Direct Costs / Benefits of Conversion The direct cost / benefits of limiting the use of HEU in research and test reactors can include:
(1) fuel replacement costs, (2) transportation costs, (3) any facil-l ity modification costs necessary to accornodate fuel changeover, (4) lost revenue costs, (5) administration and licensing costs, and (6) reduced safeguards costs.
For the most part, the assessments in this analysis are based either directly or l
indirectly on information provided in NUREG/CR-3666, which includes an as-
)
sessment of the implications of LEU conversion for the 25 university reactors which use HEU fuel.5 The assessment, in turn, relies heavily on information from the LEU demonstration program at the Ford Nuclear Reactor (FNR) at the University of Mich-igan and a LEU Conversion Survey including all 25 university reactors usin 1
5NUREG/CR-3666, page 4
. Fuel Replacement Costs The assessment of fuel replacement costs is facilitated by dividing the 31 NRC li-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 normal refueling by either LEU or reduced enrichment HEU fuel as rapidly as this fuel can be delivered, and 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 useable i
I HEU fuel elements ( 2300 plates) would be scrapped.
If the average usage of these elements is assumed to be 50% of normal life, lost fabrication costs are es-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, lost fabrication costs are estimated at about $700,000.
In general, fabrication charges cer core are assumed to be similar for LEU and HEU fuel and changes fuel use charges, where applicable, are assumed to be small with respect to these The fabrication cost assumption is especially critical and is fabrication costs.
Ir dependent on the development of commercially competitive LEU replaceme addition, fuel cycle times are assumed to be similar for LEU and HEU fueled cor Therefore, no direct costs, after the initial changeover, are assigned.
For the 20 facilities with " lifetime cores", 16 would require the replaceme between 3000 and 4000 fuel plates in over 300 fuel elements plus repla Assuming no change in the facilities' useful life, lost over 400 TRIGA elements.
fabrication costs are not discounted and are estimated
.. - - - _. _ - _ =
The University of California-Santa Barbara has a uranyl sulfate solution reactor.
The present fuel should last to 1995.
Conversion to LEU would thus require un-4 J
j loading the reloading fuel solution at a very minor cost.
The three remaining reactors contain concentric tube-type fuel elements.
Because of the unusual fuel design, lost fabrication and fuel design costs could not be quantitatively assignc6.
If a supplier for this fuel type is not available, a large change in reactor de-I sign may be required to use available fuel, i
i f
Transportation Costs The differential transportation costs inherent to the proposed rule are those as-sociated with the return of the replaced HEU elements to DOE.
Variations of this cost between facilities would be expected as a result of the varying shipment dis-tances and the number of shipments required.
Physical protection requirements in effect at the time of shipment could also dramatically affect transportation costs, j
Assuming these costs currently range from $30,000 to $80,000 per facility (entire i
core), a total transportation cost from $1-$2.5 million dollars is estimated.
6 l
?
Facility Modification Costs The three previously mentioned concentric tube reactors and the RPI reactor which contains unusual fuel may require modifications whose eqsts currently cannot be i
The only other potential facility modification cost which can be iden-l quantified.
tified, given the previously mentioned conversion scenario assumptions, is associ-ated with upgrading the fuel handling capabilities (shipping cask handling crane
)
6Ibid i
l l
-9 7
at those facilities with " lifetime cores." Assuming a $25,000 cost at half of the 20 facilities would yield an additional facility modification cost estimated at $250,000 dollars.
1 Lost Revenue Costs t
Lost revenue costs cannot be quantitatively identified.
Detrimental impacts, if i
l 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 paragraph 50.64(b)(3), from those in which conversion t
causes a penalty in lost revenue costs.
Under the regulatory analyses assumptions, l
a'high likelihood of successful development of high density low enriched uranium i
j fuel is presumed which would minimize the potential for lost revenue impacts.
4 1
)
Administration and Licensino Costs i
j 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 con-If the RERTR program succeeds in attaining its goals over the version processes.
next several years, the likelihood of successfully applying a generic approach is For the 25 to 26 low to medium power facilities costs would l
presumed to increase.
include program planning and the preparation of information documerIting th conversion does not result in a conflict with existing technical specifications or involve an unreviewed safety question.
If the generic licensing approach is In either case, the gathering of core feasible, these costs would be minimized.
7Ibid
_ 10 physics and thermal hydraulic information (most likely limited to information needed for potential accident evaluations) would most likely be encompassed by typical training or educational tasks within the capabilities of many of the uni-versity nuclear programs.
The licensing and administration costs for these facil-ities are estimated to range from $25,000 (assuming generic licensing) to $75,000 if a case by case review is required.
For these facilities over 2MW, administretion and licensing costs may be more extensive.
For these facilities, assessment of normal operation as well as accidents will be required to document the absence of conflicts with existing technical specifications as well as the non-existence of any unreviewed safety question.
For these facilities, licensing costs could range from a total of $50,000 to $75,000 assuming generic licensing to the $250,000 per reactor estimate made in NUREG/CR-3666.
Therefore, the total administration and licensing costs of the assumed conversion process is estimated between $1.5 million (with generic licensing) and $3 million dollars.
Reduced Safecuard Costs For most reactors, conversion from HEU to LEU fuel would oermit a facility to em-ploy a lower classification of safeguards requirements.
This lower classifica-tion could lead to a small savings in safeguards costs based on existing require-The savings, however, would be further increased after implementation ments.
of additional safeguards measures being pursued by staff in response to the OIbid
11 -
February 23, 1984 memorandum from the Commission.9 The financial benefit of this reclassification has not been quantified.
In addition 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 Imoacts Limiting the use of high-enriched-urtnfum 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.
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 normally occur over the facilities lifetime.
For the " lifetime core" facil-ities, an estimated 50 shipments would be required to dispose of the HEU fuel.
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.
Memorandum to W. Dircks from S. Chilk, page 4
- Impacts on Other Requirements The proposed rule has significant impacts on DOE programs and, based on the con-version scenaric assumetions, a lesser, but still significant impact on NRC.
The assumptions on the availability of acceptable fuel to replace existing HEU implies continued funding and success of the RERTR program over at least the next 5 years (the RERTR Program costs (estimated at 4-5 million dollars per year) have not beenincludedintheconversioncostestimates).
The proposed rule also in,:lfes Federal assistance in providing the replacement fuel and, for facilities present!'
1 supported by the Federal Government, financially supporting the supplementary dnalytiCal/ design / planning activities of the Conversion candidates. The magnitude of this Federal assistance is dependent both on the success of the RERTR Program and the extent to which generic licensing can be prudently used in the conversion i
i
- process, i
Requirements imposed on NRC include the staff time necessary to review the licen-see's " unique purpose" submittals or conversion schedules, to determine a final acceptable conversion schedule, to determine the extent to which generic or lead facility licensing concepts can be used, and to review the licensee findings re-garding conflicts with existing technical scecifications and unreviewed safety questiers.
Early coordination with both the DOE funded programs and the licensees to develop the criteria for submitting acceptable replacement procedures and sched-ules would minimize the impact on all parties involved in the conversion orocess.
Constraints The major constraints that affect the implementation of the proposed rule are av ability of acceptable commercially available replacement fuel, availability of i
1
shipping casks, financial support, and development of an acceptable LEU fuel cycle for the affected non-power reactors.
These constraints have been addressed i
in the previous section.
l 1
E.
DECISION RATIONALE The proposed rule has been prepared in response to the Commission'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 minimfie l
impacts by providing a flexible process through which the licensee can accomplish 3
l the required conversion.
The societal benefit, although intangible, involves reducing the undefined possi-
)
bility of an event whose costs might be extremely high.
The major costs of con-4 version are the identified financial impact of 9 to 12 million dollars (excluding RERTR Program costs) and the other non-quantifiable costs discussed in the analy-i Most of these costs will be borne by the taxpayers of the United States.
I sis.
1 F.
IMPLEMENTATION i
50.64(d) requires licensees to submit a Implementation, as defined in proposed 5 proposed schedule for fuel conversion within 12 months of the effective date of For licensees attempting to demonstrate facilities with unique purpose, the rule.
a request for determination is required within 6 months of the effective date of l
the rule.
I l
i
(
ENCLOSURE "C" Environmental Assessment 4
I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT l
For Proposed Amendment to 10 CFR 50 co Limit the Use of High-Enriched Uranium in Non-Power Reactors The Commission has determined, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, that promulgation of the proposed amendment of 10 CFR Part 50 to limit the use of high-enriched uranium (HEU) fuel in non-power reactors will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment and that.,therefore, i
an environmental impact statement is not required.
This determination is based i
on an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact performed in accordance with the procedures and criteria in Part 51, " Environmental 4
Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory i
Functions," as published in the Federal Register, March 12, 1984 Parr 51 is the NRC's regulation for assuring appropriate environmental consideration of licensing and regulatory actions. Generally, under Part 51 any licensing or regulatory action will fall within 1 of 3 classes.
The first class of actions consists of those actions which require an environmental impact statement.
The criteria for and identification of such actions are given in $51.20.
This class of actions includes matters such as issuance of a 1
construction permit or operating license for a nuclear power plant.
The third j
class of actions consists of those actions eligible for categorical exclusion
'following a Commission declaration that the category of actions does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
The criteria for and identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion are given in 551.22.
Amendments to t
3
--4
-.--w
-., - =
,,._,v,,
. - -,--e,
--,w--
m-p.
...,.-r
.,w,,m
.,em-%,r,.
--.----..+..,--,+,.w,-3.---e,
.--.s.
Commission regulations which are corrective or of a minor or nonpolicy nature and do not substantially modify existing regulations, fall within this third class of actions.
The second class of licensing and regulatory actions, for purposes of environmental considerations, are those actions which are neither identified in 551.20 as requiring an environmental impact statement nor identified in $51.22 as qualifying for categorical exclusion from preparation of an environmental impact statement or assessment.
The criteria for and identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments are given in 551.21.
The proposed amendment of 10 CFR Part 50 to limit the use of HEU fuel satisfies the requirements of 551.21 and accordingly the below assessment has been prepared.
The required contents of an environmental assessment are set out in $51.30 as follows:
551.30 Environmental assessment.
(a) An environmental assessment shall identify the proposed action and include:
(1) A brief discussion of:
(i)
The need for the proposed action:
(ii) Alternatives as required by section 102(2)(E) of NEPA.
(iii) The environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives as appropriate; and (2) A list of agencies and persons consulted, and identification of sources used.
The following comments respond to the specific requirements of $51.30.
The proposed action is to amend Part 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," of the Commission's regulations to limit the use of high-enriched uranium (HEU) fuel in non-power reactors.
As proposed, with certain exceptions, no new non-power reactors will be approved for use of HEU
fuel and, also with certain exceptions, all of those non-power reactors now cuthorized to use HEU fuel will be required to replace that fuel with low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel.
The change to LEU fuel will reduce the risk of theft or diversion of the HEU. This reduction is desirable because HEU, in cppropriate form and quantity, can be used to make an explosive device.
LEU has relatively little value for making an explosive device.
The proposed amendment of Part 50 directly affects only NRC non-power reactor licensees and applicants for non-power reactor licenses. However, this action with respect to NRC regulated non-power reactors may serve as a model for foreign non-power reactors, thus reducing international traffic in HEU.
j Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA provides that agencies of the Federal Government shall
" study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended i
courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources." The objective of the proposed amendment is to reduce, preferably to zero, the risk of theft or diversion of HEU.
The preferred objective can be achieved by replacement of HEU fuel by LEU fuel. Now or within the next few years, the conversion to LEU fuel will be technologically feasible for nearly all non-power reactors.
Until a non-power reactor does convert to LEU fuel, an interim action is increased security measures.
This interim action, although valuable over the short term to reduce the risk, does not eliminate the risk of diversion of HEU at non-power reactors as does the proposed action of required conversion to LEU fuel.
The proposed ~ amendment will affect neither the safety of operation nor the i
}
routine release of radioactivity from non-power reactors.
The amendment will i
l 1
,..-.__,_-.,._.,r--.._.,
, _ _. ~. _ -.
only cause replacement of HEU fuel by LEU fuel and thus reduce the risks of theft or diversion. The exposure of the public to radiation will remain essentially unchanged.
Some additional radiation exposures, principally to occupationa[ workers,mayoccurasaresultofconvertingnon-powerreactors that have " life-time" cores. The proposed amendment will cause these reactors (about 20) to undergo an additional reactor core removal and transport. These activities will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR Part
- 20. " Standards for Protection Against Radiation," and 10 CFR Part 71,
" Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material" and will not cause significant individual or collective radiation doses.
A financial cost is associated with converting the non-power reactors to LEU fuel. The total cost for all the reactors to be converted is estimated to be on the order of 9-12 million dollars. This cost would be spread out over a several year period.
Financial support by the Federal Covernment is expected to cover economic expenditures by the licensees.
During development of the proposed amendment, the Commission consulted with the Department of Energy and Department of State.
Comission briefings, open to the public, were held. At the briefings, information was presented by the DOE, Department of State, Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Ort,anization (NEDHO) and other interested persons.
A contractor's report, " Assessment of the Implications of Conversion of University Research and Training Reactors to Low Enrichment Uranium Fuel," is on file in the NRC's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Section 51.31 provides that upon completion of an environmental assessment, the appropriate NRC staff director will determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact
on the proposed action.
The Executive Director for Operations has determined that the environmental assessment adequately supports a finding that the proposed amendment will have no significant environmental impact. Accordingly, the Cemission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
The proposed amendment will not significantly affect safe operation of the reactors nor the routine release of radioactivity from the reactors. Some additional radiation exposures will be small and spread out over several years.
The economic costs of converting non-power reactors to LEU fuel will be borne by the Federal Government and society, as a whole, will be the beneficiary of the reduced risk of theft or diversion of high enriched uranium.
I s
.. n.
i 1
Y ENCLOSURE "D" p**
1
'Oraft Congressional Letter I
m a
er a
1 o'
e 6
g i
0 a
- 4*
g A e a
O
+#
I 4
s s'
4a yW pn 9 e N
N s
e-a D
W hv
.a e
t e
e
t N
e I
P j
v DRAFT TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES c
?
I
Dear Mr. -Chairman:
^
Enclosed, f'of your information is a copy of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking j
to be publis,hed in the Federal Register.
The proposed amendment would reduer j
the use of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) in research reactors and accordingly
^reduce the r'sk of theft or diversion of this material, i
i 1
I' i i In August,1982, the Commission issued a policy statement stating an interest
)
i j
in reducing;-to the maximum extent possible, the use of HEU in domestic and
)
- foreign research ' reactors.
The proposed amendment would implement that policy with respect to research reactors licensed by the NRC. With certain excepcion:.
the proposed amenc$re.nt would require that HEU fuel be replaced by low enriched uranium feel (LEU).
Thirty-one domestid ' reactors would be affected by the proposed rule. Twenty-i five of these are university reactors used for research and training. One is' i
l at the National Bureau of Standards and five are private reactors.
1 1
The academic /ccmnunity has showed considerable interest in this rulemaking.
/
Comments have ob' served that if the universities were required to pay the i
?
l costs of iobverting from HEU to LEU fuel, many of the university reactors l
wouls have to close. Historically, the Department of Energy has provided 4
i significant financial assistance to the university reactors.
If the budget i
l permits, DOE is expected to continue this financial support.
1
},
l 7,.
\\
c
The notice of proposed rulemaking allows 60 days for public comment after which time the Commission will further consider the need for a final rule.
Also enclosed is a copy of a public announcement that will be released by the Commission in the next few days.
Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research i
\\
Enclosures :
1.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 2.
Draft Public Announcement p
m
- - - -,~ - - ---..
--m.
,c---v,---.
r
ENCLOSURE "E" Draft Public Announcement O
\\
a 1
-t NRC PROPOSES TO REQUIRE USE OF LOW-ENRICHED URANIUM FUEL IN NON-POWER REACTORS The-Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations to require owners of non-power reactors (research and test) to use low-enriched uranium fuel.
Low-enriched uranium is uranium enriched to less than 20 percent in the fissionable 235 isotope.
The Commission believes that the 31 non-power reactors (25 owned by universities, five by private businesses and one by the government) presently licensed to use high-enriched uranium fuel are operated without undue risk to the public health and safety.
- However, as proposed, the new rule could reduce the risk of theft or diversion of high-enriched uranium, could encourage similar actions by foreign operators of non-ocoer ' reactors and, thereby, could reduce the amount of high-enriched uranium in international use.
Under the terms of the proposed rule:
--the Commission would not issue a construction permit for a new non-power reactor designed to use high-enriched uranium fuel unless the applicant could demonstrate that it would serve a " unique purpose" under limitations defined in the proposed rule.
--each licensee currently authorized to possess and use high-enriched uranium fuel in a non-power reactor that does not serve a " unique purpose" would be:
(a) prohibited from acquiring additional high-enriched uranium fuel in a non-power reactor that does not serve a " unique purpose" if low-enriched fuel, acceptable to the Commission, were available at the time of the proposed acquisition and (b) required to replace all high-enriched fuel with low-enriched fuel on an NRC-approved schedule.
i
k s-l i
--a few licensees operating non-power reactors for which conversion to 2
f use low enriched uranium fuel would not be technically feasible would be required to use high-enriched fuel enriched as close to 20 percent in uranium-235-as possibie.
_ _.. _. }
d As proposed, the rule also would require, among other things, that:
l l
--a licensee request for a determination that a presently-licensed non-power reactor has an " unique purpose" would have to be submitted within six months of the effective date of the new rule; 1
i
--each licensee authorized to possess and use high-enriched uranium
)
fuel would have to submit a proposed conversion schedule to the NRC I
within 12 months of the effective 'date of the new rule.
t I
1 One of the factors that would be considered by the NRC staff in reviewing l
proposed conversion schedules would be the economics of conversion.and the Ccmission particularly is interested in public coments on the extent to 1'
which this factor should influence agency actions.
Other factors which l
would be considered would be the availability of suitable low-enriched fuel, the' availability of shipping casks and~ reactor usage.
t J
Written coments on the proposed amendment to Part 50 of the NRC's regulations should be received by (date).
They should be addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, i
D.C. 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
(A list of non-power reactors currently using high-enriched uranium fuel is attached.)
i l
I i
'J
,,_.--~-...,w---,--,...,---_.--n,%,._w,-,.
-c-,,
,,..,-,,,-gmm,e%-
,.,---e,m.
m-----,-y--.--,.-,--.emm.r,,,w,.,
--m,,
UNIVERSITY-0WNED, NON-POWER REACTORS 177l',) t, L L _.
LICENSED TO USE HIGH-ENRICHED URANIUM FUEL l.
University of Missouri, Columbia 2.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 3.
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta 4.
Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center, Narragansett (s. r
- 5.
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 6.
University of Virginia, (UVAR), Charlottesville 7.
University of Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts 8.
University of Missouri, Rolla 9.
Ohio State University, Columbus 10.
University of Kansas, Lawrence
- 11. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts 12.
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 13.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York 14 University of Virginia (Cavalier), Charlottesville 15.
Manhattan College, Riverdale, New York 16.
Oregon State University, Corvallis 17.
Texas A&M University, College Station 18.
University of Wisconsin, Madison
+.
19.
Washington State University, Pullman
--- 2 0.
University of California, Los Angeles 21.
University of Florida, Gainesville 22.
University of Washington, Seattle
- 23. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg 24 Iowa State University, Ames 25.
University of California, Santa Barbara GOVERNMENT-0WNED, NON-POWER REACTORS LICENSED TO USE HIGH ENRICHED URANIUM FUEL National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, Maryland INDUSTRY-0WNED, NON-POWER REACTORS LICENSED TO USE HIGH-ENRICHED URANIUM FUEL l.
General Atomic Company, San Diego 2.
General Electric Company (GEP-NTR), Pleasanton, California 3.
General Electric Company (GETR), Pleasanton, California 4
Union Carbide Corporation, Tuxedo, New York 5.
Westinghouse Nuclear Training Center, Zion, Illinois
-, - ~,,..,.
.---._g
ENCLOSURE "F" SECY Memo to EDO 2/23/84 a
-[{'
M o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
CIASHlN GTON, D.C. 20555 h
\\,-
/
February 23, 1984 CFFICE OF THE SECR ET ARY MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operati D
FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk Secretary for the Comission
SUBJECT:
DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPOSED RUtd 0 THE USE OF HEU AND STEPS TO IMPROVE SECURITY MEMUR25 The Comission was briefed on current physical security measures at domestic nonpower reactors and on the potential for conversion of these reactors from high enriched uranium to Icw enriched uranium fuel in meetings held on December 19, 1983, January 27 and February 6,1984 As a result of these briefings the Comission requests that the staff prepare expeditiously (by March 30, 1984) fer Corrission consideration a proposea rule on tre use ot TiEU, and a clan and schedule for develooment of staos to improve security measures at correstic nonpower reactors usina HEU fuel.
RES A.
Proposed Rule on HEU at Domestic Research Reactors The croposed rule should contain the following provisions:
1.
No new nonpcwer reactors would be licensed for use of HEU fuel unless the applicant shows the unique purposes of the project cannot be achieved without using HEU fuel.
2.
Existing nonpower reactors would be required to convert to LEU fuel if it is technically feasible for them to do so.
Reactors that refeel would be required to replace such fuel with low enrichment fuel as the replacement fuel becomes available. The schedule of such replacements would be devel-oped by the Director, NRR, who will coordinate such actions with DOE.
If a suitable replacement fuel is not expected to be available within the overall schedule of DOE's RERTR program, the rule should provide for replacement of HEU fuel with fuel of enrichment as close to 20 percent as practical.
For reactors that would not otherwise expect to require the acquisition of new fuel during the tenn of their license, a schedule should be developed by the Director, NRR, to provide for as prompt conversion to LEU as is reasonable.
.i Rec'd 081. ca;
\\
Ts.....I %..vi 1~
o m... w +
l William J. Dircks 2
i Schedules for conversion should take into account such f actors as:
scheduling of shipping casks, replacement fuel fabrica-tion, financial support, and reactor usage.
These schedules should be coordinated with DOE.
3.
Exemptions frcm this rule would be based on a determination that the particular reactor serves a unique purpose.
Unique purpose should account for such characteristics as neutron flux levels and energy spectrum specifically designed to facilitate research on irradiations not performed elsewhere in the U.S.
The Director, NRR would determine whether a reactor has a unique purpose.
Commissioner Gilinsky would prefer that the Commission itself make this deterrination.
4 In order to minimize costs to licensees of obtaining permission to use low enriched uranium, consideration will be given to including l
in the rule provisions which would permit existing licensees automatically to convert their facilities to LEU if prescribed conditions are met. These conditions should assure that present safety margins are not significantly reduced.
To this end the staff should act promptly to develop the technical basis needed to support generic finoings which would permit conversion to LEU.
5.
The rulemaking should request comments on the question of how much the issue of economic feasibility should influence the conversion of facilities to LEU.
6.
This rulemaking is based upon Congress funding DOE to provide the appreciably lower enrichment and LEU fuel for university reactors. -
t jyjg gg B.
Proposed Steps to Improve Physical Protection at Domestic Research Reactors The proposed steps shculd consider, for the period preceding the comple-l tion of conversion to LEU fuel, alternative strengthened security measures at licensed NPRs, including any available estimates of the benefits and impacts of the following possible improvements:
1.
Augmented Minimal Protection for Both Category I and II Facilities
]
Reduce holdings of fresh HEU fuel at nonpower reactors t
Provide tamper-proof detection systens and line-supervision Assure presence of two-persons during access to material s
t
--.m_,--_-
William J. Dircks 3
Improve ccmunications capability Provide access barriers over the reactor core.
2.
Additional Protection for Cateoory I Facilities Require submittal for NRC review and approval of the specific measures that the licensee would apply to meet the require-ments of 10 CFR 973.60; and Require licensees who, under the 100 rem / hour at 3 feet exemption, meet only Category II requirements to demonstrate how they determine that radiation levels are maintained above the level stipulated in the exemption; and Require licensees to notify the NRC at least 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> before they expect a change in requirement category.
3.
Transoortation The staff should recommend options for strengthening present Category II HEU transportation safeguards requirements for consis-tency with upgraded protection at nonpower reactors.
The staff should report back_ to the Cormission by March 30, 1984 with recorrencanons on (1) which of the above improvements or otners should be implemented, (2) when they should be in place, and (3) the method of implementing them (e.g., license condition, rulemaking).
The goal should be assurance that upgrades needed to strengthen security will be put in place expeditiously, but with due consideratier. given to relevant safety considerations.
Werk on the final rule for theft at Category I nonpower reactors (the permanent rule replacement to 10 CFR 973.60) shall be deferred, but should include a reexamination of the technical basis for the present irradiation exemption and whether irradiation provides a sufficiently effective inherent safeguards protection for fannula quantities of SNM to justify the significantly lcwer level of physical protection associ-ated with Category II.
fA65I"~ 'In developing the proposed rule and steps (A an should provide answers to the following questions:
(1) whether the conversion to LEU fuel can be done strictly by rule, without license arcendments, or whether license amendments will be required; (2) if license amendments are required, whether and under what circumstances
William J. Dircks 4
hearings would need to be held on those amendments; and (3) whether a negative declaration, environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement is required for either the rule or, if required, the license amendments.
cc:
H. Plaine J. Zerbe C. Kamerer f
l
. -. _ _. _ _ _ _..., _ _ _ _ _ _.