ML25261A249

SECY-78-134: Pending Retransfer from Spain to the United Kingdom (Uk) for Reprocessing (Secy 77-634)

ML25261A249
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/07/1978
From:	James Shea NRC/OIP
To:	Commissioners NRC/OCM
References
SECY-78-134
Download: ML25261A249 (1)

Text

March 7, l 9i8 SECY-78-134 COMMISSIONER ACTION For:

From:

Thru:

Subject :

Discussion:

Coritact :

The Commissioners James R. Shea, Director Office of International Programs Executive Director for Operation~~

PENDING RETRANSFER FROM SPAIN TO~ UN~ED KINGDOM (UK)

FOR REPROCESSING (SECY 77-634)

SECY 77-634 informed the Commission of four proposed retransfers to the UK for reprocessing and request ed Corrmission guidance for providing NRC views to the DOE under established interagency consultative procedures.

The four cases were :

l.

Beznau (Switzerland) - 27 assemblies

2. Zorita (Spain) - 22 assemblies

3.

Garona (Spain) - 128 assemblies

4.

OskarshamA (Sweden) - 97 assemblies The Commission expressed no objection to the Zorita and Beznau retransfers ; did not provide its views on the Swedish retransfer since the Executive Branch is obtaining further information; and did not provide its views on the Garona retransfer pending the development of further infor-mation. Specifically, Commissioners Gilinsky and Bradford requested further information concerning (1) Spanish regulatory requirements for a full core discharge capability and (2) the need to completely empty the spent fuel storage pool before undertaking any reracking program.

Partly ir.

response to Commissioner requests, the Department of Energy has received additional information from the Spanish Embassy (Appendix C). The letter from the Spanish Embassy notes t hat:

l.

"It has been the operation procedure recommended by the Spanish nuclear regulatory agency for the utilities to have enough space in the pools for t he react or's core... "

M.A. Guh in (492 -7866 )

M.R. Peterson (492-3155)

NA7:

,1,u.L SEC'JR!T'f INF :.' tATiON Ur-.!utt>orr: P

-~... * -;ure :O 'JO,e-:t -:- -

~*lrn'*n1 Scli1C t o-s.

XECU r:v::: ORC E~ 1155-'

I D liO Y~R !i'HER' '...S ;.;1 1984 (insert y~~r)

't;-

w

~

-u..

"'"!::°"'..

,....... )'--,._

i

Discuss ion:

(continued) 2

2.

11 In order to accomplish (the reracking) operation

~ with the maximum of safety assurance, it would be very desirable to have the pool empty.

Otherwise, it would be required to move the elements around in the pool, increasing the possibility of damage and subsequent radioactivity release."

As noted in the State Department's memorandum of December 1977 (Appendix B), which was attached to SECY 77-634, the Executive Branch's favorable recommendation concerning the Garona retransfer was also contingent upon receipt of a firm commitment for the early augmentation of Garona's spent fuel storage capabilities. The letter from the Spanish Embassy notes that the operator of the Garona plant has decided to increase the spent fuel pool capacity and estimates 23-36 month~

for completion of this reracking.

In view of the above developments, I believe our position should be that we have no objection to the proposed retransfer subject to the conditions stated in the Executive Bran_c__h 1 s December 19 memorandum, particularly that concerning US control over the disposition of any recovered plutonium.

Because of the urgency expressed by the Spanish (deriving from the availability of shipping casks) and the imminent signing of the Nonproliferation Act by the President (which will require the implementation of new MB-10 review procedures as discussed in my memorandum of March 6 concerning the Tsuruga retransfer), DOE has requested expeditious NRC review of this retransfer request.

Recommendation: That the Commission approve the proposed response to DOE at Appendix A.

Coordination:

OELD has no legal objection.

NMSS wishes to inform the Commission that it has not received country-specific informa-tion which permits it to make an independent conclusion as to the effectiveness of EURATOM and IAEA material control and accounting safeguards to deter and detect diversion in the UK.

Programs

Enclosures:

1.

Appendix A - Proposed letter to DOE 3

2.

Appendix B - State Department 1s memorandum dtd December 19, 1977

3.

Appendix C - Letter to H. Bengelsdorf from M. Gallego dtd February 8, 1978

(

NOTE:

Commission comments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b.

Friday, March 10, 1978 Commission staff office comments, if any, should be submitted to the CoITrnissioners NLT Thursday, March 9, 1978 with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.

If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.

DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations Secretariat

u

• • u

• t..

. ~,

~;

i Mr. Nelson F. Sievering Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs - Rm. 8104 U.S. Department of Energy 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20545

Dear Mr. Sievering:

This letter will inform you that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has no objection to the proposed retransfer from Spain (Garona) to the UK for reprocessing of 128 irradiated fuel assemblies (AG/1162/2).

It is our understanding that this retransfer will be subject to all the conditions associated with it as detailed in Mr. Nosenzo's memorandum of December 19, 1977.

Sincerely, James R. Shea, Director Office of International Programs APPENDIX

.A.

ll DD~ NnTY Ci

MEMORANDUM TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

u DEPARTMENT OF STAT~ ( )

Was hi n;iton, o C.

2os2n BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS December 19, 1977 ACDA -

C. Van Dore n PM/NPP -

G. Oplinger L/OES -

R. Bettauer EUR/RPE -

W. Salis bury DOE/IA -

N. Sieve ri ng DOE/ISA - V. Hudo i ns NSC - J. Tuch~an -

, i OES/NET -

Louis V. Nosenzo Pending Retransfe r s to the UK or France for Reprocessing Based on co:rmnents recei l1ed, the general a;;,proach to reprocessing retransfer requests proposed in my memorandum of December 5 on the above subject appears to be acceptable.

The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify certain de-tails and to describe our action plan for proceeding.

It is the consensus that U. S. willingness to approve retransfers for reprocessing sho uld not only be based on a showing of clear need but also upon a demonstrated and serious effort by the requestor a~ d/ or his Government to implement relatively near-term s r *.:mt fuel disposition

• plans which are dependent neithe r on reprocessing nor return of fuel to the United Sta ~~ s.

Such plans may include (a) reracking of storage basins with high-density, neutron-absorbing racks, (b) move ment of fuel among storage basins of various reactors to op t Lrnize overall utilization, or (c) provision of new fuel sto rage capaci ty, including away-from-reactor central sto rage.

Generally, these plans cannot be implemented immediately, but we s hould e xpect to obtain some sort of commi~men t t o proc eed a nd steady pro-gress toward completion er an e xp lanation which is accept-able to us as to why this is not possible.

1nr-11,1n T,,

n

u u Further, it appears to be the overall feeling that having obtained such a commitment er acceptable explana-tion, it would be preferable for us to give such approvals as may be required prior to the time that alternative

. spent fuel ~isposition plans can be implemented in a manner which minimizes the appeara~ce of continued U.S.

acquiescence in requests - for reprocessing retransfers.

This will be done by having the approvals cover justified retransfer requirements within the framework of the mutually agreed upon spent fuel disposition plan and in a way which minimizes the possible need for extensions or reapprovals in the event that chanqes in fuel discharge or transport plans make it impossible to make the actual spent fuel retransfer at the time originally contemplated.

With respect to the question of increasing capabilities for spent fuel disposition, the following situation exists with regard to MB-10 retransfer requests presently under consideration:

Beznau -- In order to perform work on the emergency core cooling system, the entire core must be dis-charged, which requires the transfer of 27 elements to BNFL in order to provide sufficient space.

Following this work, the Swiss have indicated that new racks would be installed provided that the licens-ing authorities issued the nGcessary permit.

However, a thorough evaluation of sei ~mic risks must be under-taken before authorization c a n be considered.

Zorita -- Studies are being carried out to install a new high-density storage system; however, it will be necessary to have the pool c ompletely empty (22 assemblies presently in pool plus 20 to be discharged from reactor in February 197 8) before the installation of these new racks could begin.

Garona -- The reactor operator has gone out for inter-national tenders for reracking the pool, which would increase its capacity (over and above a full-core discharge ca9ability) by over 200 percent.

However, there is no indication of the time required to accom-plish such reracking.

Oskarshamn-I -- There appears to be no need to authorize spent fuel retransfers froill this reactor until ~t least mid-1978.

In fact, although we have recei ved no MB-10 request to date, the s pent f ue l storage situation at Oskarshamn-II (which has a s m3 l! basin) probably will

u u become critical first -- perhaps by the spring of 1978.

We have been informally advised that pool reracking is planned at bot h Oskarsharnn reactors, although the schedule for s uch reracking presently is not clear.

Further, the utility's management is participating in a group preparing and submitting for Swedish Goverr.rne-n t

• appr'.)val plans for a large, central spent fuel storage facility which would be completed by late 1983, at :he earliest.

At the same time, we have been informed that transfers between the two Oskarsharnn reactor storage basins are not feasible, since the~e are no casks available to the utility for such tra nsfers.

With this background in mind, we plan to take the following actions in each of th P. present cases:

Beznau -- Approve the prese;1t retransfer request for 27 assemblies upon obta i ning a cQr:uTiitrnent that the reactor operator will ~coceed expeditiously with pool reracking upon obtaining the necessary Swiss licensing authorizati 0n.

Hopefully, we could agree upon a tentativ~ schedule to complete this reracking following th ~ time that such autho-rization is granted.

Zorita -- Approve the prese :'. t request for retransfer of 22 assemblies, with the clear understanding that subsequent approvals will b~ contingent upon specific steps being taken by the ut i. lity to rerack its storage basin.

If the utility is able and prep~red to do so at the time of the scheduled February 1978 discharge, we would be willing to approve now re-transfer of the additional '0 assemblies to be dis-charged so that firm arrangements can be made in the near future for clearing the pool to permit reracking to begin as soon as these assemblies have been adequately cooled for shipment.

Garona -- As indicated in my memorandum of December 5, we do not actually have at present a specific request for retransfer; however, si nce the prior request was only approved in part, we expect such a request for the unapproved balance momentarily.

In this situation, we would advise the utility, through the Spanish Government, that our fa vo rab le consideration of the anticipated request is continge!"lt upon receiving firm plans for early irn9lementati~~ of a program to augment existing spent fuel storage caµabilities.

If such a plan is received, ~e would b~ prepared to approve re-transfer of the number of spent fuel assemblies which 1

• I

are essential to successful completion of the program (presumably if plans f o ~ rerasking could be implemented in early 1978, this could va r y between 68 assemblies, if only full core discharge capability is needed following the April 1978 di s charge, and 288 if the pool must be completely emptied for reracking).

Oskarsharnn-I -- We have inf ormally advised a senior official of the Swedish Emb,:tssy that we plan no immedi-ate action on this retransf c r since there appears to be no urgent need, but will consider it on the same basis as Zorita and Beznau when such need arises.

We also asked whether this pos j_ tion would pose any serious politic al problems for the : ;we<iish Government.

The Swedish official has promis ~d ta solicit his Govern-ment's reactions.

In the i r1 te:cirn, we will try to obtain additional information art plans for reracking the Oskarsharr,n reastors' s t **,rage pools.

In each case any approvals ~-*ill, of course, be con-tingent upon meeting all other '. *. s. criteria for reprocess-ing retransfers, including the U.S. right of approval over transfers of recovered enriched uranium and plutonium.

As requests for reprocessing retra :1sfers are received in the future, they will be analyzed wi thin the context of both need and the requester's l onger-term plans for spent fuel disposition and a reconu--nendatio 'l will be made for appro-priate action, subject to the c 0ncurrence of your agency.

In view of the urgency of t h~ Zorita and Beznau requests, would you pl8ase pro vi de any comments on the action plan to Dixon Hoyle (63 2-4101) by December 22.

cc:

T/D -

L. Scheinman S/AS -

G. Smith NRC - J. Shea Drafted:

OES/ NET/ EIC:DHoyle:pab

-- *;.**~.--~.. **.~

u

~ :~.\\~:?

1875 CONNECTICUT AVE. NW -

II 1020 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20009 Tel (202) 332-9060 Telex 440047 SP!O U!

EMBAJAOA DE ESPANA WASHINGTON Ref. No.

046 FICINA DE INOUSTRIA Y ENERGIA February 8, 1978 Mr. Harold D. Bengelsdorf Director For Nuclear Affairs International Programs Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20545

Dear Mr. Bengelsford:

I am writing you in relation with the spent fuel transfers pending authorization, one of which \\-Jas reques Lcd almost si..-< month ago, and especially regarding the one for GaroR ~ for it is the most urgent due to the circumstances surrounding the reactor's operation.

As you know, in June 1977 the EEC requested authorization to transfer 191 fuel elements, and my letter of A.u111st 22 explained the situation of the pool and the urgent need to obt 2 in the authorization.

Four months later, on October 28, the trans fe r of only 63 fuel elements was authorized (as an extension of a previously approved transfer of 81 fuel elements, of which only i8 had actually beer, sent).

Therefore, since the urgency conditions continued, a new authorization for the transfer of the remaining 128 (191-63) was requested last November 22, 1977.

The reasons for the urgency of this approval are the fol iowing:

1. If the current program of spent fue l transfer is carried out, there will be 203 fuel elements in the st o r~ge pool before the next reload in April 1978, when 48 elements will be added.

This will mean a total of 256, exceeding the safety l ir.ii t of storage by 36. It has been the operation procedu~e recom~ended by the spanish nuclear regulatory agency for the utilities to have enough space in the pools for the reactors core, because ~eing impossible to transfer spent fuel e lements within Sp<Jin fr or,, one plant to another, in case of a reactor breakdown the plant would have to be shutdown due to lack of stora9e capacity.

'i.

\\

./..

u u

046/2 Garona had operated under this recommendation since the startup in 1971, except for a four-month period between July and November 1976, and continuosly since last April, wh en it lost that capacity owing to the difficulties in obtaining retrJnsfer approvals.

In the country's present energi situa tion, shutdown of the Garona reactor would seriously affect the el~ctricity supply, strongly damaging the reliability of the United States as a nuclear supplier.

2. The operator of the Garona plant has decided to increase the pool's capacity by replacing the current rac~ by more dense ones, and a period bet,.,.,een 23 a!"ld 36 months has b~en estimated for the job to be completed.

In order to accomplish that operati on ',Jith the maximum safety assu-rance, it would be very desirable to f1ave the pool empy.

Otherwise, it would be required to move the ele::o~nt:; around in the pool, increas-ing the possfbil ity of damage and s ~bsequent radioactivity release.

3. Reducing the number of fuel elements in the Garona storage pool will also favourably ~ffect its radiation level, increased in the past by leakage experimented by some of the Fuel elements.

4. In relation with the necessary transportation arrangements, a* prompt authorization of the requested transfer is essential in order for BNFL to be able to use a new kind of larget flasks that can, however, only be assigned to Garona for a short period of time.

It is for all these reasons that my country ' s authorities are very concernec about the problems and difficulties that a further delay could cause to the reactor's operation.

I, therefore, ask yo u to ple;3se give the maxirnum priority to the transfer authorizations now pending. and especially the above mentioned one for Garona, so that the situation can be alleviated and its operation continued under safe and proper conditions.

Mart in Ga 1 l ego Industry and Energy Counselor c.c. Hr. Nelson Sieverino

-* \\D AG/1162/2 lB lliO

~umber g TD/fAis riJ-R I-APPROVAL :OR RETRA;:fS:E R :J~ SP:=:CLU...

~TCC!..2AR i,LA..TERIAL OF UNITED STATSS ORIGIN Che a?proval of t~e Uniced States Deparr:nenc r:o the transfer J.E.N. FOR of E~ergy is hereby requested 2ENTRALES NUCLEARES DEL ~ORTE S.A. CF (Transfero r) r:o EU~ATOM SUPPLY A~E~~CY FCR 8r:FL ** 1;;::'S >\\LE

( T r a:i. s f e re e )

, Jf United States supplied special nuclear ~a:erial in the quantity and "1eeting the specifications described belo~-1 ( '1ereinafter called "specified

'"!late rial") ;.hich the transferor obtained pur,uant to ics Agreement for Cooperation for Civil Uses with the Unir:ed Scates Go v er~~ent.

Material

?as originally obtained by transfe;o/r froc under Contract or Order Number _S_P_;_S_3 ____________ _

Identificatio!l.

Fuel Tyoe lrrcidi ated f *Je I,,

~.

Marking, No., etc.

128 SPECIFIED ~AI E~I A~

(Fill in where a??l~~able)

Total cr (In Grams) 24,475,264 U-235, U-233 o r

? 'J.

( In Gr a."Js )

• U-235

,., 1 0 9,~, I t.. *-

I v.:.r

( Ti L,rt..,

t t ~I

~ I 1\\s lis-ted-vattucnere!'2'. nc 81,67..:,

Isotopic Percent U-235, U-ZJJ, or Pu ( F) 132,599

~ tl

......L..

! 'i:1 Ihe specified material, which is no~ located at 1_J_*_*_* __

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

~_a_r_o_n_a_, will upon approval hereby b v tj~e United States D~?a=t~ent of energy be transferc on or about February to uly 1.977 for use at

~ indscale ~umoerland ~ng,ancl

______ and will be accepte d for the following specified ?Urpose:

Reprocessi ng Che transferor, with the concurrence of the cransferee, will notify within 30 days after the aforesaid date the United States De?art~ent of Energy of the actual date and quantity of material transferred.

It is agreed b:~ the transferor and transferee that J.s of that date the specified

~aterial will cease to be subject to the A;=eement for Cooperation and co n t r a c t i n d i c a t: e d a b ot.v"' a n d w i l 1 b a s t.: b j e c ':.

c c t n e t r an s E e r e e ' s Ag r e e me c t for Cooperation for Ci'5~

• 1 Uses w'ith ch e Uni,~eci States Governmer:t.

1.;.L. f:odrrguez L I ~

SU~A';:C ! 9U.?PI.:t *-'-*?~;cy JE S-S?..\\ l M i4c.kJ. ber 22~ 9 i7 U 11,, *,, : 1 *I 1 j, X ;\\. 1~77

(,/[

~I

• t..

/

1

,,1

• c:::: ---f r ::..:. :1 s~ :-1; d

//

( D ~ : e )

i: :

" ~ ~ ~ : 2 -r- ~ -2 )

( D a :. e )

1

..J -J *:. ii -

> i.,n d f>:* J.3. >:::i:-;~;:::~:~:;*, ~~~ ~<:;:0r-3",~na:-;.l A~ 07 !

reques:et t=ansfe: ~nie: Arti cl e c: ::a=s:2:e~ s Agree~e~: