ML20137E003

Summary of 970225 Public Meeting on DOE Program to Produce Tritium in Commercial light-water Reactors in Rockville,Md

ML20137E003
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/28/1997
From:	Joshua Wilson NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Matthews D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
Shared Package
ML20137E014	List: ML20137E003 ML20137E040
References
PROJECT-697 NUDOCS 9703270043
Download: ML20137E003 (87)

Text

y

[N & UNITED STATES ]Y g

o

,j 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2006&40M g

v

• • • • • / .

February 28, 1997 l

MEMORANDUM TO: David B. Matthews, Chief Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management, NRR FROM: James H. Wilson, Senior Project Manager Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Bra bM Division of Reactor Program Management, NRR

SUMMARY

OF FEBRUARY 25, 1997, PUBLIC MEETING ON DOE'S

PROGRAM TO PRODUCE TRITIUM IN COMMERCIAL LIGHT-WATER REACTORS On February 25, 1997, the staff held a public meeting on the Department of Energy's (DOE's) program to produce tritium in comercial' light-water reactors in the Two White Flint auditorium at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, to provide the opportunity for public coment on the technical issues and make the public aware of the staff's review activities early in the evaluation process. This meeting was noticed in the Federal Register of January 27, 1997 1 and interested members of the public were invited to present coments relative I to DOE's tritium program. As announced in the Federal Register, this was a

, transcribed public meeting. The transcript is provided as Attachment I to this sumary.

After the staff opened the meeting, announced the agenda (provided as Attachment 2), and described the meeting format, it requested that those individuals in attendance who wished to have a sumary of the meeting sent to them provide their name and mailing address on one of the sign up sheets in the lobSy o !tside the auditorium. Another sign up sheet was avai' ble for those who wished to provide comments on a first-come, first-to-speak basis.

DOE then provided an overview of its tritium program. The slides used in DOE's presentation are provided as Attachment 3. DOE described its dual-path strategy for the production of tritium to maintain the strategic stockpile using a high-energy proton accelerator and commercial light-water reactors (CLWRs). DOE provided details of the lead test assembly (LTA) and production cp3 v 3 phases of the CLWR program.

DOE's contractor, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), then described the ce alls of the design for a tritium-producing burnable absorber rod (TPBAR) that uses 11thium-6 in place of the boron-10 comonly used in burnable poison rods in pressurized water reactors (PWRs). The slides used in PNNL's presentation are provided as Attachment 4. PNNL sumarized the nearly nine years of experience with this TPBAR design and stressed that the planned insertion of four LTAs at Watts Bar was a confirmatory test of a component that DOE had spent nearly $70 million to develop. PNNL then described the DOE report, PNNL-11419, that was submitted in December 1996. That report sought i to establish that the use of a CLWR to irradiate a limited number of TPBARs in gI gg9703270043 pgfogM 970228 na l(' -/

PDR PROJ F

Vy! 697 PDR

LTAs does not raise generic issues involving an unreviewed safety question.

Therefore, a licensee could corduct such irradiation, without NRC licensing action, after it had conducted hn evaluation in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59.

t Following the presentations by DOE and PNNL, the staff sumarized the joint DOE /NRC memorandum of understanding that serves as the operating interface between the two agencies for this project. The staff also sumarized its review approach, as described in SECY-96-212, and noted that the Comission's staff requirements memorandum (SRM) dated December 10, 1996, approved the staff's review approach in its entirety. The staff also noted that the SRM required that a series of meetings be held to provide an opportunity for public coment on the technical issues regarding the DOE pro)osal to produce tritium in CLWRs and to assure that the public is aware of tie staff's activities. The staff described the review process, gave current status, and provided a schedule of important milestones. The slides used in the staff's presentation are provided in Attachment 5.

Alibugh approximately 70 individuals attended the meeting and more than 50 requested that meeting sumaries be mailed to them, none presented any coments. One question was asked, by a staff member from the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, about Advisory Comittee for Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) review of this program. The staff responded that DOE, on its own initiative, was briefing the ACRS full comittee on the afternoon of March 7, 1997.

Project No. 697 Attachments: As stated cc: w/o transcript See next page

i 1

1 i

i d

{ LTAs does not raise generic issues involving an unreviewed safety question. '

. Therefore, a licensee could conduct such irradiation, without NRC licensing action, after it had conducted an evaluation in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59.

l Following the presentations by DOE and PNNL, the staff summarized the joint

DOE /NRC memorandum of understanding that serves as the operating interface i between the two agencies for this project. Ti.e staff also summarized its

review approach, as described in SECY-96-212, and noted that the Commission's i staff requirements memorandum (SRM) dated December 10, 1996, approved the

] staff's review approach in its entirety. The staff also noted that the SRM required that a series of meetings be held to provide an opportunity for i public comment on the technical issues regarding the DOE proposal to produce  ;

tritium in CLWRs and to assure that the public is aware of the staff's i activities. The staff described the review process, gave current status, and

provided a schedule of important milestones. The slides used in the staff's

! presentation are provided in Attachment 5.

Although approximately 70 individuals attended the meeting and more than 50 requested that meeting summaries be mailed to them, none presented any.

j comments. One question was asked, by a staff member from the Defense Nuclear

Facilities Safety Board, about Advisory Committee for Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) review of this program. The staff responded that DOE, on its own

initiative, was briefing the ACRS full committee on the afternoon of March 7,

1997.

i Project No. 697

Attachments

As stated l

1 i

l

DISTRIBUTION

See next mage 1 Document Name: MEETSUM.225 0FC PGEB N SC:PGEB / V C:PGEB &

l NAME JHWilson:sw RArchitzel DMatthews N

! DATE 2/4 /97 2/M/97 2/2897

/

! 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY I

Project No. 697 DOE Tritium Program  !

cc: '

Steve Sohinki I Office of Commercial Light-Water Reactor Production, DP-62 Tritium Project Office U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW  ;

Washington, DC 20585 '

Max Clausen Office of Commercial Light-Water Reactor Production, DP-62  :

Tritium Project Office U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 DP-60 Records Management Office of Commercial Light-Water Reactor Production Tritium Project Office U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Jerry L. Ethridge, Sr. Program Manager Environmental Technology Division Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Battelle Blvd. P.O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352

DISTRIBUTION: Mtg Suinmary Re Tritium Dated February 28, 1997 w/ transcript:

Central File Docket File -

Project No. 697 PUBLIC LOCAL - Docket No. 50-390 w/o transcript:

Docket File -

Docket No. 50-390 PGEB r/f ACRS SCollins FMiraglia TMartin AThadani RZimmerman GHolahan BSheron BBoger FHebdon RMartin JMitchell VMcCree BHolian JSharkey )

PFrederickson, R 11 '

KRapp, R II i LPhillips l KKavanagh HRichings SLWu SMatthews LCampbell CWillis DTerao JDavis CECarpenter RBrady LTelford GMcPeek KEverly RGramm RLatta STurk

v Commercial Light Water Reactor Tritium Production Project.

~

l OVERVIEW

~

February 25,1997 .

Stephen M. Sohinki Director, CLWR Project Office Defenss Programs U.S. Department of Energy  !

, +;

Requirement for New- Tritium

!

• All warheads in the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile depend upon tritium to function as designed. ,

e Tritium decays at a rat'e of 5.5% per year (12.3 year halflife).

• Tritium is rare on earth. It must be man-made with reactors or accelerators.

• Tritium production stopped in 1988 when the last of the Savannah River reactors shut down. -

• Current stockpile being supported with tritium recycled from dismantled units. .

e The 1996 Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan and accompanying Presidential Decision Directive require DOE to establish a new tritium supply by 2005, if commercial reactors are to be used, and/or by 2007, ifit is to be a new accelerator. -

All Current U.S. Nuclear Weapons Require Tritium to Function as Designed

• Most of the energy '# PRIMARY STAGE SECONDARY STAGE released or yielded'by { ,, , ,

a warhead comes from --

the secondary stage m, _ 4 _ j g

• The primary, or trigger, 7 pg" 37I stage's output ignites 7" "

the secondary stage s

% ,,,, ,3 ,c,3,

• The primary stage output .

comes from fission of Pu ,, Knee,,.

and fusion of tritium and deuterium. m -

R Exchange Fill

• Sufficient tritium is needed $ Weight Weight for the primary output to @

drive the secondary lii Decreases tu 5.5% per year

• Tritium in the primary ,

stage decays and must be replaced periodically Amount of Tritium No scale or proportion 1 4 ;

l a. Tritium Supply and Recycling

• Programmatic EnvironmentalImpact Statement (PEIS) e DOE began looking at alternatives in 1988 e Draft PEIS published in March 1995 l

i e Final PEIS Published in November 1995

.. 7 e Five reasonable alternative considered: . l New Heavy Water Reactor New Modular, High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor New Advanced Light Water Reactors (large and small) 'l New Accelerator for Production of Tritium (APT)

Use of Commercial Light Water Reactors (CLWR)

@- DOE's Dual-Path Strategy

1. Based on Secretary of Energy's December 1995 Record of Decision for the Tritium Supply and Recycling Programmatic EnvironmentalImpact Statement. .. ~

Design, build, and test critical components of an Accelerator for Production of Tritium (APT)

Initiate purchase of a Commercial Light Water Reactor (CLWR) or irradiation services -

e By late 1998 the Secretary will select CLWR or APT as the primary tritium supply. The other alternative, if feasible,.will be developed as a

! backup. -

• In any case, the CLWR option will be used to establish a contingency capability that can deliver new tritium on short notice.

Complete qualification activities with the Nuclear Regulatory Commbsion Fabricate initial inventory of tritium-producing materia'Is i -

Construct Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF)'

Establish options contracts with utilities i

~

Dual-Path Strategy for Tritium Production FY 1996 l 1997 l 1998 l 1999 l 200012001 ! 20021 2003 l 2004 l 2005 l 2006 l 2007 l 2006 l 2009 l Of M M. M T M6um-P Ing Bu r Rod Testing & Certtrication ClWR Extraction Process developrnent & design g e Commercial Light Construct SRS Extraction Facihty Water Reactor l l . . . . l Tritium Project Proc 0reet"Pess'& Condkional Purchase 5f Reactor or irra'fiation S'ervices l l l I I I Fabricate First' Core Lo'ad of Ab'sorber R'ods l u , . . , o l

l PLANNED l l ACTIVITIES l l g g Maintain options contracts for reactor and/or irtaus%n services purchase g APT NEPA Review. Permitting. and Safety Apsdoval l l 1

=of Tritium

==

-Aw l I I I APT Engineering Developrnent I l l l l Project i i i 8 I  !  ! I I APT EnginanW Desyn g g g g g

_ i - - -

l l l l l l l. l l l l l DECISION l l secr4teriel Selection of Prirne'ry Tectitiology l l l l l l

. i  ! i e i i i i  ! i APT Site Preparation j l l l l l and constmetion l

, , , i i g l l ACCELERATOR EquWent W -

g g

""d l l l '

SELE'CTED ' '

'*I * " " I ' ' ' ' '

I I I I I

I APT Commissioning and Startup l i e i . i llI I l l i

g l l l l l Continuing Tritium Production Operations l /

i I i i i I l l l i i l l CLWR l l ll

.  :  :  :  : Transfer NRC

License : Finalize

CLWR Purchase l PURCHASE I I irradiate First Batch of Absorber Assemblies l First Extraction of Tritium Gas I i

SELECTED l l I I I '

I I I I I I I .

I I l Conun@g Prqu Operations /

I I I i i ll I i 1 i l l I  !

CLWR l l l Amend NRC Licenses Execute options contracts.  ;

IRRADIATION . .  ; . 1 . I  :  :  :

I I SERVICES Irradiate First Batch of Absortar Assemblies lFirst Extraction of Tritium Gas. t I i i e  : -

e i i e i i SELECTED Continuing Tritium Production Operations t

l- l /

{,

t/2W97 M7.c4

l

-Four Major Milestones of CLWR Project 20/FY98 Conditional Selection of Production Reactor (s)

- RFP issued and utility proposals received

- Best-and-final offers evaluated

- Funding in place for option contracts

~

40/FY98 Proof of Feasibility of CLWR Prior to Secretary's Selection Decision

- Tritium-producing Burnable Absorber Rod Topical ~ Report submitted to NRC

- Lead Test Assembly being irradiated in an operating reactor

- Institutional issues resolved ., ,  :

- Multi-site environmental impact statement completed ,

40/FY03 Begin Production-Scale Irradiation ofTPBARs in a Commer~cial Reactor

- Regulatory approvals obtained '

- Absorber rods on hand 40/FY05 Benin Extraction of First Tritium Gas , t l - Extraction facility operational  !

- Transportation systems in operation , _

- i s

~

. )!

Sy. stem for Preducing Tritium 9 in Commercial Reactors 0)l ice ofDcknsc I'mgnenu Tritium-Producing j Bumable Absorber Rod Manufacturer . Tritium-producing rods are irradiated in one .

or more reactors e for 1-2 years y

"' o k ff.

gg}* Afterirradiation, rods

.. }lp are sh,ipped to DOE's n- Savannah River Site f .

j .

f5 Tritium-Producing

• ' " "*d i

fj

. [nta"c'io fe*i fn 'l

1. r-- W S '@ n%

assemblies [J N Savannah River Site New tritium

!. j j .

gif Tritium Extraction is sent to the Facility removes tritium recycle facility i

.h , from the rods to support the' AssEIBLY stockpile .

1 l

Reactor Acquisition -

e Two Variations:

DOE purchases irradiation services from one or more commercial reactors (with at least one option to buy) -

DOE purchases operating reactor

• Acquisition Milestones:

Jan 96 Received and reviewed expressions ofinterest .

Jan 97 Issued Draft Request for Proposals (www.ch. doe. gov)

Jun 97 Receive proposals .

Dec 97 Selection decision & conditional contract i e Contract Periods:  !

Phase 1 Preparation for license application (prior to Secy decision)

Phase.2 Option Period & defense oflicense application Phase 3 Actual tritium production

,l

Policy Considerations e Tritium is not a "special fissile material" (as defined under the Nonproliferation Treaty). or a "special nuclear material" (as defined in the Atomic Energy Act).

Tritium is sold commercially.

Separation of civilian and military uses of nuclear power t

~

i e No international agreements prohibit the production of tritium in an NRC-licensed reactor Commercial reactors would not have to withdraw from IAEA Safeguards List.

e Certain bilateral agreements prevent the use of mateiials transferred under the agreements from being used for military purposes. US has agreements '

with:

Canada Australia EURATOM L

e The conservative view of these bilateral agreements is that reactors engaged in tritium production must use unencumbered reactor fuel.

i

=

I I

e 4

@"W PAST TARGET DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING e LWR target development and testing was conducted under the New Production Reactor Program, from 1988 through 1992. $69M spent.  ;

• Technical feasibility was well demonstrated:

~

i Eleven rods were irradiated in.the Advanced Test Reactor at the Idaho '

National Engineering Laboratory. One rod underwent post-irradiation

- examination. Examination is underway with the remaining rods. -No differenses in examination results found so far.

Fabrication of barrier-coated rods was demonstrated for 12-foot lengths. Superior tritium retention capability was demonstrated.

- Vacuum-thermal extraction was demonstrated on a laboratory scale Safety issues were evaluated. No open items

- Commercial vendors for target components were identified. j Fabrication process specifications were developed l e Eight major comprehensive technical reports were prepared i

@* Plans for TPBAR Confirmatory Testing e Three general. areas:

Examination of target rods previously irradiated in the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR)

Laboratory testing of prototypical rods Irradiation oflead test assemblies (LTA) in an operating CLWR and post-irradiation examinations e Examination of previously irradiated ATR rods in progress.

• Laboratory testing activities: -

Mechanical tests '

Tritium retention tests f

e Begin irradiation of Lead Test Assemblies in the Watts Bar reactor in fall 1997. -

1

i 1;

The Lead Test Assembly (LTA) ,

Purpose:

I To corifirm the excellent results from prior testing of TPBARs; to~ provide added confidence to utilities and the NRC that tritium can be produced in light water reactors in a safe, technically .

straightforward, and. cost-effective manner. .

(

The Lead Test Assembly e The Plan: -

- Place four Lead Test Assemblies, each containing eight

~

Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber Rods in the Watts Bar reactor for a single, normal operating cycle of about 18 months. Remove them at the end of the cycle and deliver them to a DOE laboratory for subsequent examination. '

m - Only 32 of-the over 1000 burnable absorber rods typically

found in a fuel reload would be replaced for a s' ingle cycle.

Irradiation of the LTAs in the Watts Bar reactor is not an experiment. It is a test, using a commercial ~ reactor, to confirm the results of DOE's successful 10-year development and testing effort. ,

4 Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber Rod Technical Discussion Dr. Jerry L. Ethridge Pacific Northwest National Laboratory .

i

i l

Production of Tritium From h_ Lithium in a Reactor l

Helium-4 Neutron ,

M 1sec Lithium-6 Lithium-7 itium (H')

e h

Half Life (tm) of Tritium = 12.3 years i

Helium-3 e

,e

Tritium-Producing Burnable' Absorber Rod for Commercial Light Water Reactors (TPBAR)

En: , T

% p$

lis c b

y d-Zircaloy i Liner je Lithium

+ g Aluminate -

i e 2t Pellets - *

, a Nickel M$fd 2 r-  ? .

, Plate #jf *: Zircaloy  : "-

f, tte -

s.

Aluminide 3 3,,[ . iy,-

s Coating on ReactorGrade '

!iss$ g s Inner Surface of Cladding 3:. T Stainless Steel - M ',

Cladding

q s -

H -

% f

3 iQ, j

p. g '

<- n  !

t. si 7e ,

[(f. h s i 1<: . ., ,g s i w% gg m

! ,y h ;fii 2; 9 s  ; * '

3J %sid 7s ,

hs f M y ' -

.4 (3 7

gg i

! ;pn 9 Not to Scale -

^

' Functions of Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber Rod Components

@~Y -

• Stainless Steel Cladding - Similar to reactor fuel elements. Contains all ,

components.

e Aluminide Coating - Prevents diffusion of tritium through the steel cladifing into the reactor coolant. Also prevents hydrogen in the coolant from entering the rod.

Zircalov (zirconium allow) Tritium Getter - Absorbs free tritium gas. )

~

e Nickel Plate - Protects the tritium getter. -

4 e Lithium Aluminate Pellets - High-temperature ceramic material containing ,

Lithium-6, the material that transmutes to tritium when a neutron is absorbed.

1 e Zircaloy Liner - Removes free oxygen to improve tritium gettering. l e During and after. irradiation, tritium is tightly held in the ceramic, the tritium i getter, and the liner until released by the extraction process. j

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

y h 6 Li + jn Basic Concepts 4He + 3H + 4.8 MeV e Production: -

e Retention: 2(3H2 O) + Zr - ZrO 2 + 2(3H2) [ Liner]

3 H2 + Zr - Zr 3H 2 [ Getter]

PRF* ~ 10 5 [ Barrier]

3 e Distribution: H in pellets .

~36%

3 H in Zr liner IC% -

3 H in NPZ getter 54 %

• PRF (permeation reduction factor) = Ratio of tritium permeability in bare stainless steel to that of a coated tube, i.e.,

high PRF means low tritium release.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . __..____.__.__.__________-___2.__-.m. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______-m_ . _ . _

m' cv Lead Test Assembly s

O .

- d  : HOLD-DOWN l T ~id kASSEMBLY L THIMBLE l

PLUG ,  ;

, - i J  ;.

d i

l C" ._

L t .

t t j l

l t!

[

b EIGHT  !

l g]  !, , TRITIUM i

!  !,: , ii i PRODUCING l i' !!!  !!! BURNABLE l l

l fi !Jl-j! ABSORBER a  ;  :

12 FT LONG RODS I J

3/8" DIAM (TPBAR) l 1

L l I

(

! L t  !

c- i i

r

---.,,,-,-e a-v.,,,,-,,,----,-r r-.,. . , - - -.ra, ,,r- .n,.-..,--.~,,,n,- . , , - - - - , , , , , , - , , ~ - - . - - . - - . .

Lead Test Assembly Cycle i 5 rradiated I LTAs are retumed to PNNL I Parts are purchased and for post-irradiation examinations assembled by PNNL ~

b~ g b,,yar. . ,

7 ,% i ff 1 f "$. -

$3%

• YE{g 4 LTAs to N t irradiated for X;jf one operating  ;;.

cycle in the f .l

. Watts Bar M. ,._s

1. ~-

j'l Reactor Lgf -

. 1,7 "

$Q Lead Test Assembly (LTA)

Tritium Producing Bumable .

Absorber Rods (TPBAR) are sent to Westinghouse,. Columbia, SC f

~

i to be inserted in four fuel assemblies rua Fuel assemblies with LTAs

^* *E" are sent to Watts Bar s ,

f

Burnable Absorbers

• The Watts Bar reactor, like most pressurized. water reactors, uses rods containing " burnable absorber" material to control local power levels I

within the reactor for the purpose of extending the fuel cycle. L t

(

The most commonly used burnable absorber is Boron-10 in a l borosilicate glass form.

Boron-10 is an " absorber" because it absorbs free neutrons that are present due to the fissioning of Urarcium-235 in the reactor.

t Rods containing borosilicate glass are " burnable" because the more j

~

neutrons they absorb, the less boron remains available to function as an absorber. Thus, the Boron-10 is " burned" up. '

Burnable absorbers are contained in rods, similar in size to fuel rods, that are inserted into reactor fuel assemblies where needed to balance power and fuel consumption among the reactor's fuel assemblies.

l

.i

l g4 DOE's Tritium-Producing

'4 Burnable Absorber Rod (TPBAR) e The TPBARs perform the same function as the burnable absorber rods normally found in a commercial reactor.

i e The TPBAR has the same dimensions as burnable absorber rods. .

e The TPBAR substitutes Lithium-6 as the neutron-absorbing material in place of the usual Boron-10.

The Lithium-6 is in a ceramic form (lithium aluminate).

When Lithium-6 absorbs a neutron, it transmittes into tritium.

- l

• .The TPBAR's neutron-absorbing characteristics are very similar to j those of rods containing Boron-10.

e TPBARs contain no fissile material, i.e., no uranium or l

plutonium.

t I

. a l

W h a&- ,

y o .0 m

l $ Y N .g m l l

C Q

g M h h bM o 1 I

2 %o oC a i V*g 2 I

I

i h Two Types of Reactor Tests

• Three Capsule Test Rods (S-1, B-1, WC-1)

- Permeation measured by periodic capsule Flush / Sampling / Analysis ,

• Loop-1 Test (8 rods in a bundle)

- Permeation measured by daily sampling and analysis .

i

~

\

h Free Gas Analysis Predicted Measured Gas Distribution Volume '

(percent of total) 4 He .

90 to 99% 99.1 %

t 10 4 3

H 10-5 3

HO2 10-2 < 10 4 Tritium Activity in Gas, mci 60 3'3 3

Results confirm H was produced during irradiation, and that the getter and lithium aluminate retained most of the tritium produced. .

i

__.._________.._________m_ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ . , . _- - - -,.--,._-,------r..

B

(), Performance of TPBARs During Normal Operations o TPBARs perform essentially the same as standard burnable absorber rods

o Essentially all tritium produced is captured in a solid matrix and can be released 'only under extremely high temperature. -

e From a reactor operations perspective, the TPBARs are ~" transparent."

t

i

.l

().

Performance of TPBARs During Accidents e Like standard burnable absorber rods, the TPBARs have a benign impact on accident scenarios.

i e TPBAR cladding structural performance is bounded by Zircaloy fuel cladding during normal operation and abnormal occurrences Under nominal coolant conditions present during normal operation

~

and anticipated occurrences, there is no identified means by which TPBAR internal heat generation can compromise its integrity  !

~

i e Bounding accident was determined to be a Large-Break Loss of Coolant Accident Introduces potential for fuel and TPBAR rupture

~ Initial Safety Analysis Conclusions l @)

e In the unlikely event of a Large-Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident:

i Ruptured TPBARs do not challenge coolability of adjacent fuel pins or the full core. '

Ruptured TPBARs do not impair the effectiveness of the control rod shutdown system Radiological consequences are essentially the same with and without the TPBARs.

LTA Report Overview

)

• Describes the design and fabrication requirements for TPBAR LTAs.

• Evaluates the impacts of four LTAs on the l operation of a commercial light water reactor.

• Addresses applicable areas of review from.

XLREG-0800, the " Standard Review Plan" i

h

%YV Report on the Evaluation of the Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber Rod Lead Test Assembly (LTA Report)

• CONTENT (Standard Review Plan Section):

4.2 TPBAR Design 4.3 Nuclear Design 4.4 Thermal Hydraulic Design .

4.5.2, 6.1.1 ' Materials ,

Various Impacts ofIrradiation i 17.1 Quality Assurance

~

n/a Safeguards and Security Various .. Regulatory Issues  :

'I l

. f 6 '

LTA Report Conclusions e LTAs are coYnpatible with existing fuel assemblies and l conventional handling tools, equipment, and procedures.

L

• The LTAs use materials with known and predictable performance characteristics and are compatible with PWR coolant. '

e TPBARs operate within established thermal-hydrauhc criteria and will not fail during normal operation or ~

abnormal operating occurrences.

e The LTAs do not adversely affect reactor neutronic or thermal-hydraulic performance I

_____ _j

LTA Report Conclusions (cont'd) t e Off-site doses due to release of tritium from TPBARs over the operating cycle are within applicable regulatory limits.

e TPBARs will not fail during analyzed accidents, with the exception of a Large Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LBLOCA) e Off-site dose consequences of non-LBLOCA accidents are within a small fraction of 10 CFR Part 100 regulatory guidehnes.

) LTA Report Conclusions (cont'd) _

e The LTAs will not cause a difference in the analyzed behavior of the reactor during a LOCA. ,

e Off-site dose consequences of LBLOCA are within t

10 CFR Part 100 regulatory guidelines .

I,

e No impact on host facility Technical Specifications.

• Evaluation ofirradiation at a commercial light water -

i reactor is within the criteria of 10 CFR 50.59 4

w s

W,3 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission PUBLIC MEETING ON TRITIUM PRODUCTION IN COMMERCIAL LIGHT-WATER REACTORS February 25,1997 Jim Wilson '

Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office Of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

~

Joint DOE /NRC Memorandum of Understanding j i

e approved in SRM on SECY-96-058 r

, e signed by Chairman and Secretary of Energy on May 22,1996 i

e provides for " review and consultation by NRC with respect to j DOE's possible acquisition of CLWRs, or acquisition of irradiation services from CLWRs, for the production of tritium." i

• acknowledges issue of use of civilian commercial reactors for purposes that support military requirements - MOU assigns  !

' responsibility for resolution to DOE ("The manner in which '

these concerns are resolved and a final determination on the  !

mode of tritium production chosen will not involve NRC  ;

technical or policy review and is not a subject of this agreement.")

• provides for reimbursement of costs through specific interagency agreement  !

1 ,

i

i \

i

~

! SECY-96-212 i

3 Describes staff's proposed review approach  ;

l 4

• DOE submits LTA Report l

l e staff issues FR Notice of Receipt of DOE l Report l e staff prepares safety evaluation for LTA l j report and consults with Commission prior

{ to issuance

e staff conducts inspection of any licensee

) 50.59 evaluations for LTAs '

• DOE submits production report i

j e staff prepares safety evaluation for j production report and provides results to l Commission prior to issuarice j e licensee submits application for j amendment to facility operating license l e staff conducts safety and environmental j review of license amendment request 3

8 e if a hearing is requested, the Commission will be notified if the staff intends to make a "no significant hazards consideration" finding which would allow the amendment to become effective before the conclusion of a hearing 2

SRM on SECY-96-212 Approves staff's review approach given in SECY-96-212 and requires a series of public meetings e to provide for public comment regarding the technical issues associated with LTA irradiation to ensure the public is aware of the staff's review activities early in the evaluation process e hold public meeting in the vicinity of the host facility prior to loading LTAs into the reactor core t

e hold similar public meetings prior to the insertion of the target assemblies in any particular NRC licensed facility i

3

Proposed LTA Review Schedule '

12/3/96 DOE submits LTA report  :

12/13/96 Staff issues FR Notice of Receipt of TPBAR LTA Report 1/3/97 Staff issues Request for Additional information (RAl).

1/13/97 Staff issues Supplemental RAI 1/22/97 Public meeting with DOE to discuss response to RAls '

1/27/97 Staff issues FR Notice of Public Meeting

, 2/7/97 DOE submits response to staff RAls - includes:

e written response to 1/3 and 1/13 RAls e

revised text for inclusion in Rev.1 of TPBAR LTA report '

e commitment to advise staff of subsequent changes to text 2/25/97 Public Meeting to provide opportunity for public comment on the technical i issues regarding DOE's proposal and to ensure the public is aware of the staff's review activities early in evaluation process ,

3/3/97 DOE submits revised LTA report' 3/17/97 Staff prepares safety evaluation / transmits to Commission-t 3/31/97 Staff issues safety evaluation on DOE LTA report 4

r

Post-SE LTA Activities (Tentative)*

6/2/97 NRR and Region 11 staff conduct inspection of Watts Bar 50.59 LTA evaluation 7/7/97 Commission Meeting on status of staff's review '

7/14/97 FR Notice of Public Meeting in vicinity of Watts Bar 8/7/97 Media brief prior to public meeting in vicinity of Watts Bar .

8/11/97 Public Meeting in vicinity of Watts Bar prior to loading LTAs into core 9/1/97 Watts Bar begins Fall outage i

10/6/97 Watts Bar begins irradiation activity This schedule is tentative only, and is subject to change if the 10 CFR 50.59 s

evaluation revewis any unreviewed safety questions or if the licensee does not

, receive authorization to proceed in accordance with this schedule.

5 ,

t

TENTATIVE AGENDA l

2

. Public Meeting on DOE's Proposal to Produce Tritium in Commercial Light-Water Reactors

Two White Flint North Auditorium

, 11555 Rockville Pike

Rockville, Maryland 20585 -

Tuesday, February 25,1997

1

00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. .

1:00 - 1:15 Welcome, Introduction, and Explanation of Meeting Format David B. Matthews, Acting Deputy Division Director, Division of Reactor Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1:15 - 1:45 Overview of DOE's Tritium Program Stephen M. Sohinki, Director, CLWR Project Office U.S. Department of Energy 1:45 - 2:00 Questions on DOE presentation 2:00 - 2:45 Technical Discussion of TPBARs Jerry L. Ethridge, Senior Program Manager, Bate 11e Pacific 3 Northwest National Laboratory ,

l 2:45 - 3:00 Questions on PNNL presentation  ;

3:00 - 3:15 Status of NRC Staff's Review James H. Wilson, Senior Project Manager, C?fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3:15 - 3:30 Questions on NRC staff's review 3:30 - 3:45 Break i 3:45 - 4:45 Public comments and presentations 4:45 - 5:00 Closing remarks i l

l Project No. 697 4

Attachment 2 l

~

Commercial Light Water Reactor .

Tritium Production Project

~

~

OVERVIEW -

l 1

February 25,1997 l Stephen M. Sohinki .

Director, CLWR Project Office Defense Programs U.S. Department of Energy l n++, r . + ,

i .-

Requirement for lVew Tritium -

e All warheads in the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile depend upon tritium to function as designed.

• Tritium decays at a rate of 5.5% per year (12.3 year halflife).

• Tritium is rare on earth. It must be man-made with reactors or _

l accelerators.

l

• Tritium production stopped in 1988 when the last of the Savannah i

River reactors shut down. .

o Current stockpile being supported with tritium recycled from dismantled units. .

l .

!

• The 1996 Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan and accompanying l ~

Presidential Decision Directive require DOE to establish a:ne~w tritium supply by 2005, if commercial reactors are to be used, and/or by 2007,

~

l ifit is to be a new accelerator. -

l l

. All Current U.S. Nuclear Weapons Require Tritium to Function as Designed  !'

• U.ost of the energy ' PRIMARY STAGE

~ SECONDAfY STAGE released or yielded by g~,7 y 4 a warhead comes from n .

F ===

the secondary stage .

- h;.iAir '+---

i 4p, --,. .t , ~

7 #

• The primary, or trigger, # A -

stage's output ignites 7" / " i the secondary stage  % Raoiation CASE

• The primary stage output I comes from fission of Pu

] " Knee" and fusion of tritium and deuterium. -

E j Exchange Fill

• Sufficient tritium is needed tr Weight Weight for the primary output to drive the secondary s i

$ Decreases

, uJ 5.5% per year

• Trit,ium in the pn, mary stage decays and must be replaced periodically Amount of Tritium No scale or proportion

Tritium Supply and Recycling Programmatic EnvironmentalImpact Statement (PEIS) e DOE began looking at alternatives in 1988 e Draft PEIS publishes in March 1995

• Final PEIS Published ~in November 1995

. i

. I e Five reasonable alternative considered:

~

New Heavy Water Reactor New Modular, High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor New Advanced Light Water Reactors (large and small)

New Accelerator for Production of Tritium (APT)

Use of Commercial Light Water Reactors (CLWR) l

DOE's Dual-Path Strategy Based on Secretary of Energy's December 1995 Record of Decision for i

l the Tritium Supply and Recycling Programmatic EnvironmentalImpact -

Statement.

Design, build, and test critical components of an Accelerator for i

Production of Tritium (APT)

Initiate purchase of a Commercial Light Water Reactor (CLWR) or lrradiation services  !

t

• By late 1998 the Secretary will select CLWR or APT as the primary t.-itium supply. The other alternative, if feasible,,will be developed as a

backup.

e la any case, the CLWR option will be used to establish a contingency capability that can deliver new tritium on short notice.

Complete qualification activities with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~

Fabricate initial inventory of tritium-producing materials Construct Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF)

Establish options contracts with utilities

, .. i Dual-Path Strategy for Tritiuni Production FY 1996 l 1997 l 1998 l 1999 l 2000 l 2001 ! 2002 l 2003 l 2004 l 2005 l 2006 l 2007 l 2005 l 2009 l As of Dec31,1996 7hhnn.b' Abso wr Rod Teenng & Cert

' :stkm l Ct.WR Extraction Proceso developr1Iwnt & design g l g CommercialUght Construct SRS Extraction Facinty i' water neoctor l l 3 Mum Profoct M Proc 0rement' Process'& Condtional Purchase 5f React 6r or I I l l Fabriciste First Core Lo'ad of At$sorber Fiods I

, . . u g g PLANNED l l ACTIVITIES l l l l ,

Maintain options contracts for reactor and/or irradiation services purchase ;

APT NEPA Fk, view. Perrnitting, and Safety Applovel l l l M of Trttlum M APT Concesstuel Dwign l l  !

APT Engheering Development l l l l l l l propei i e i i I I I I

. I APT E;4-q.v Dnipn g g g g g i ,

i i i i i i i i i i i i DEctsON l l seeseeries selection b Primary TM l l l l l l t I i e t I e e I t i i

^

. . a. .

FT Slee Proporstlan l l l l l l

and construenon  ;

, , , i g i i ACCELERATOR EM M'8

""d

^

l l l l l SELECTED - ' - - -

I I "*" " I I Apr commiseloning and startupl lli 1 l l l l l i -

i . . i i I i l l l l g l Continuing Tritium F.h Operations l _ _ _

/

' i a i i l CLWR l

l l

l lI l . .

TransferNRC License, FinaNre CLM h l y

PURCHASE l l Irradiate First Betch of Absorber Assemblies l First Extracnon of'Trtoum Gas I SELECTED l l l 8 I '

I i i I I I I ConHnuing PmducGon Opera #ons /

l l l

' ' ' ' I i i i Il e t 1 1 CLWR y l l Amend NRC Licenses Exeaste op6ons contracts.

IRRADIATION . . . . I  ;  :  :  :

g SERVICES trradiate First Batch of Abeber AssembHes l First Extraction of Tritium Gas .

'.g ' ' ' ' '

,y p r' 3.. SELECTED l TE ProducHon '. ,. , g, o a..

unworwr.ee

3

(

Four Major Milestones of CLWR Project 20/FY98 Conditional Selection of Production Reactor (s)

- RFP issued and utility proposals received

~

- Best-and-final offers evaluated .

- Funding in place for option contracts 40/FY98 Proof of Feasibility of CLWR Prior to Secretary's Selection Decision I

- Tritium-producini, Burnable Absorber Rod Topical Report submitted to NRC l - Lead Test Assembly being irradiated in an operating reactor

- Institutional issues resolved .

- Multi-site environmental impact statement completed 40/FY03 Begin Production-Scale Irradiation of TPBARs in a Commercial Reactor

- Regulatory approvals obtained ,

- Absorber rods on hand 40/FY05 Benin Extraction of First Tritium Gas

- Extraction facility operational

- Transportation systems in operation

~

System for Preducing Tritium

^ '

~

in Commercial Reactors i

ojpeeofvetynsc ngram Tritium-Producing !i Bumable Absorber Rod 4

' Manufacturer - dtium-producing rods '

are irradiated in one or more reactors 1

for 1-2 years r~ ";

\@!:55 N kf Afterirradiation, rods d!kk are shipped to DOE's

'?hk Savannah River Site

,w 4

Tritium-Producing 'I ,

rods are installed '

d g g-- @ ! @' N in reactor fuel R

^ _____,

assemblies y q_________j _____--->

4 Savannah River Site New tritium kt N($lkM '

Tritium Extraction is sent to the Facility removes tritium recycle facility

. from the rods to support the run , ,

ASSEMBLY stockpile

@' Reactor Acquisition e Two Variations:

DOE purchases irradiation services from one or more commercial reactors (with at least one option to buy)

DOE purchases operating reactor -l

• Aconisition Milestones:

Jan % Received and reviewed expressions ofinterest

- Jan 97 Issued Draft Request for Proposals (www.ch. doe. gov)

- Jun 97 Receive proposals

- Dec 97 Selection decision & conditional contract

e Contract Periods

t Phase 1 Preparation for license application (prior to Secy decision) .

Phase 2 Option Period & defense oflicense application Phase 3 Actual tritium production -

i i i

Policy Considerations e Tritium is not a "special fissile material" (as defined under the Nonproliferation Treaty) or a "special nuclear material" (as defined in the Atomic Energy Act).

Tritium is sold commercially.

. Separation of civilian and militan' uses of nuclear power e No international agreements prohibit the production of tritium in an NRC-licensed reactor

- Commercial reactors would not have to withdraw from IAEA Safeguards List.

e Certain bilateral agreements prevent the use of materials transferred under the agreements from being used for military purposes. US has agreements with: ~

Canada Australia .

EURATOM e The conservative view of these bilateral agreements is that reactors engaged in tritium production must use unencumbered reactor fuel.

O e PAST TARGET DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING LWR target development and testing was conducted under the New Production Reactor Program, from 1988 through 1992. $69M spent.

t e Technical feasibility was well demonstrated: .l

~

Eleven rods were irradiated in the Advanced Test Reactor at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. One rod underwent post-irradiation '

examination. Examination is underway with the remaining rods. No differenses in examination results found so far.

Fabrication of barrier-coated rods was demonstrated for 12-foot lengths. Superior tritium retention capability was demonstrated. .

Vacuum-thermal extraction was demonstrated on a laboratory scale Safety issues were evahiated. No open items Commercial vendors for target components were identified.

Fabrication process specific aions were developed e Eight major comprehensive technical reports were prepared

@ Plans for TPBAR Confirmatory Testing e Three general areas Examination of target rods previously irradiated in the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) -

Laboratory testing of prototypical rods -

Irradiation oflead test assemblies (LTA) in an operating CLWR and post-irradiation examinations .

o Examination of previously irradiated ATR rods in progress.

e Laboratory t'esting activities: .

Mechanical tests Tritium retention tests e Begin irradiation of Lead Test Assemblies in the Watts Bar reactor in fall 1997.

i

.,9,- 1

The Lead Test Assembly (LTA) '

Purpose:

To confirm the excellent results from prior testing of TPBARs; to provide added confidence to utilities and the NRC that tritium can be produced '

in light-water reactors in a safe, techhically straightforward, and cost-effective manner.

l . .

The Lead Test Assembly l

e The Plan:

Place four Lead Test Assemblies, each contammg eight Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber Rods. in the Watts Bar reactor.for a single, normal operating cycle of about 18 months. Remove them at the end of the cycle and deliver them to a DOE laboratory for. subsequent examination.

Only 32 of-the over 1000 burnable absorber rods typically found in a fuel reload would be replaced for a single cycle.

Irradiation of the LTAs in the Watts Bar reactor is not an

~

experiment. It is a test, using a commercial reactor, to confirm the results of DOE's successful 10-year development and testing effort.

I

Tritium Producing Burnable Absorber Rod I

Technical Discussion Dr. Jerry L. Ethridge Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Attachment 4

k Production of Tritium From 9 '

Helium-4 Neutron 0 k <1 sec Lithium-6 Lithium-7 itium (H*)

f~

Half Life (t.,,) of Tritium = 12.3 years Helium-3 .

l ducing Burnable'Abssrbar Red for C mere al Light Water Reactors (TPBAR) 1

' Ei bI_

t

!Ni ti Zircaloy t

.,z Lithium  ;

Liner %. . g;) Aluminate '

y e

~l Pellets  ;

s x

,, a Nickel.

d Zircaloy

~

., /  ;

Plate OM*gt!

Tritium j

~

. Getter  ; - .

,; ,7

., 4 Aluminide coating on jf! b g ;ds Reactor Grade 1% 7 Stainless Steel

., . oYcladd ng k

+..

hk,

m. ,.

g ci e \

s i

{

8

% i s '3 m

ng m

D .N.n

!5 -  ; -

)[ jf

.. s 'O '

y ?pj  ; b  !

g,y -3 %r de- y l@[ :^ ;47 g:[

}c i fi ][  ;

, g. [  !

Not to Sale  !

t

l Functions of Tritium Producing Burnable j

'. Absorber Rod Components i e Stainless Steel Cladding - Similar to reactor fuel elements. Contains all components.

e Aluminide Coating - Prevents diffusion of tritium through the steel cladding into the reactor coolant. Also prevents hydrogen in the coolant from entering the rod.

e Zircalov (zirconium allov) Tritium Getter - Absorbs free tritium gas.

s e Nickel Plate - Protects the tritium getter.

i i e Lithium Aluminate Pellets - High-temperature ceramic material containing Lithium-6, the material that transmutes to tritium when a neutron is absorbed. i e ZircaloY Liner - Removes free oxygen to improve tritium gettering.

-e During and after irradiation, tritium is tightly held in the ceramic, the tritium

, getter, and the liner until released by the extraction process. '

...e ,.e ti.  !

. ; .;,,. , , . a n ,,,,g,q j , , i

,,... ,,r .

s,,.. c . , . ., i ; , ,

,; g. .,,. c;g , ,

- - - - _ _ a w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ w- - -e w -.e. --e-

g Basic Concepts

~

6 e Production: Li + [n -

4He + 3H + 4.8 MeV e Retention: 2(3H2 O) + Zr - ZrO 2 + 2(3H2) [ Liner]

3 H2 + Zr - Zr 3H2 [ Getter]

PRF* ~ 10 5 [ Barrier]

e Distribution: 3 H in pellets 36 % .

3 l H in Zr liner 10 %

3 H in NPZ getter 54%

• PRF (permeation reduction factor) = Ratio of tritium permeability in bare stainless steel to that of a coated tube, i.e.,

high PRF means low tritium release.

e

i h ~

Lead Test Assembly .

O

- - ;d ; 4 HOLO-DOWN  !

.g m -

(ASSEMBLY F  !

THIMBLE l PLUG l

. , a -

)

J j.

• l

!J l 0 -

i C C l t  ;

i i

~

s EIGHT l y  !, H. TRITIUM

: s ii  : PRODUCING i lll j l BURNABLE l l

idi ABSORBER i

12 FT LONG

. J RODS i 4  !

3/8" DIAM (TPBAR) l I

c C -

) (

Y l

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

~

Lead Test Assembly Cycle 5 Irradiated LTAs are returned'to PNNL 1

Parts are purchased and for post-irradiation examinations assembled by PNNL _, . l

\ an. . . ~

+1(.

' 4 $a y ,'  ;

kpa,y

.V -+#g9., j JM;(% ,[g 4 LTAs to be

~-

( irradiated for t ,

%f one operating cycle in the

,e 3 .

1. 1 Watts Bar -

$s Reactor d .

e6sa ks i 9$ss$ jy t

2 Lead Test Assembly (LTA)

Tritium Producing Bumable -

. Absorber Rods.(TPBAR) are -._

sent to Westinghouse,. Columbia, SC m _f

"~

r to be inserted in four fuel assemblies ,

3 rha Fuel assemblies with LTAs i

^"E" are sent to Watts Bar i

(

Burnable Absorbers

• The Watts Bar reactor, like most pressurized.waterreactors, uses rods l' containing " burnable absorber" material to control local power levels within the reactor for the purpose of extending the fuel cycle.

,j i

The most commonly used burnable absorber ~is Boron-10 in a borosilicate glass form.

Boron-10 is an " absorber" because it absorbs free neutrons that are present due to the fissioning of Uranium-235 in the reactor.

Rods containing borosilicate glass are " burnable" because the more -

neutrons they absorb, the less boron remains available to function as an absorber. Thus, the Boron-10 is " burned" up.

Burnable absorbers are contained in rods, similar in size to fuel rods, that are inserted into reactor fuel assemblies where needed to balance power and fuel consumption among the reactor's fuel assembhes. J

i . .

e 4

DOE's Tritium-Producing

~W Burnable Absorber Rod (TPBAR) e The TPBARs perform the same function as the burnable absorber ~

rods normally found in a commercial reactor.

e .The TPBAR has the same dimensions as burnable absorber rods.

e The TPBAR substitutes Lithium-6 as the neutron-absorbing material l in place of the usual Boron-10.

The Lithium-6 is in a ceramic form (lithium aluminate).

~

When Lithium-6 absorbs a neutron, it transmbtes into tritium.

e 'The TPBAR's neutron-absorbing characteristics are very similar to those of rods containing Boron-10.

e TPBARs contain no fissile material, i.e., no uranium or plutonium.

[

_._________________________________________________________.________________._________m

f._._-,_ - _ - _ , - --- _ - - - - - - - - - --____,,-.....-m.. u,1_m _.. ,m.,_m.,,imm,.+.c_ .

4

. .E l 23 i +

j -v .

J j .-

l l Y' f n  :#

• O.

I i

r.

.y-

> s, v

C .C A .

N W N -

A g .g j

e .

! h 9 k k ,.

l bw C c  :

i

\ C% q a

? O C l QM g .

j t

m z .

6 e

h Two Types of Reactor Tests

• Three Capsule Test Rods (S-1, B-1, WC-1)

- Permeation measured by periodic capsule Flush / Sampling / Analysis ,

• Loop-1 Test (8 rods in a bundle)

- Permeation measured by daily sampling and .

analysis

{

l

()

Free Gas Analysis

. Predicted Measured Gas DistributionVolume ,

(percent of total) 4 '

He ~

90 to 99%

~

99.1 %

< 10 4

~

3 H 10-5 3

HO2 10-2 < 10 4 Tritium Activity in Gas, mci 60 33 3

Results confirm H was produced during irradiation, and that the getter and lithium aluminate retained most of the tritium produced. .

Performance of TPBARs

- () During Normal Operations l

e TPBARs perform essentially the same as standard burnable absorber rods

• Essentially all tritium produced is captured in a solid matrix and can be released only under '

extremely high temperature.

• From a reactor operations perspective,~the TPBARs are ~" transparent."

e

e h

Performance of TPBARs During Accidents l i 1

l e Like standard burnable absorber rods, the TPBARs have a benign impact on accident scenarios.

l l

• TPBAR cladding structural performance is bounded by Zircaloy fuel l' cladding during normal operation and abnormal occurrences Under nominal coolant conditions present during normal operation and anticipated occurrences, there is no identified means by which TPBAR internal heat generation can compromise its integrity i

l e Bounding accident was determined to be a Large-Break Loss of Coolant Accident i Introduces potential for fuel and TPBAR rupture i

I

h ~ Initial Safety Analysis Conclusions l

• In the unlikely event of a Large-Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident: ,

l l -

Ruptured TPBARs do not challenge coolability of adjacent L fuel pins or the full core.

Ruptured TPBARs do not impair the effectiveness of the control rod shutdown system Radiological consequences are essentially the same with and without the TPBARs.

) LTA Report Overview e Describes the design and fabrication requirements for TPBAR LTAs.

1

• Evaluates the impacts of four LTAs on the operation of a commercial light water reactor. -

• Addresses applicable areas of review from l XLREG-0800, the " Standard Review Plan"

, Report on the Evaluation of the Tritium Producing  !

) Burnable Absorber Rod Lead Test Assembly (LTA Report) e CONTENT (Standard Review Plan Section):

4.2 TPBAR Design 4.3 Nuclear Design 4.4 Thermal Hydraulic Design .

4.5.2, 6.1.1 Materials

. I Various Impacts ofIrradiation 17.1 Quality Assurance n/a Safeguards and Security Various Regulatory Issues 9

LTA Report Conclus~ ions e LTAs are compatible with existing fuel assemblies and

~

conventional handling tools, equipment, and procedures.

e The LTAs use materials with known and predictable performance characteristics and are compatible with PWR coolant.

I

.. )

e TPBARs operate within established thermal-hydraulic ~

t criteria and will not fail during normal operation or abnormal operatmg occurrences.

i

• The LTAs do not adversely affect reactor neutronic or thermal-hydraulic performance  :

Y L

LTA Report Conclusions (cont'd) o Off-site doses due to release of tritium from TPBARs over the operating cycle are within applicable regulatory limits.

e TPBARs will not fail during analyzed accidents, with the exception of a Large Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LBLOCA) ,

.* Off-site dose consequences of non-LBLOCA accidents are within a small fraction of 10 CFR Part 100 regulatory guidelines.

k

) LTA Report Conclusions (cont'd) e The LTAs will not cause a difference in the analyzed behavior of the reactor during a LOCA.

e Off-site dose consequences of LBLOCA are within .

10 CFR Part 100 regulatory guidelines

^

e No impact on host facility Technical Specifications.

e Evaluation ofirradiation at a commercial light water reactor is within the criteria of 10 CFR 50.59 e

. s f s.

W,, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission PUBLIC MEETING ON TRITIUM PRODUCTION -

IN COMMERCIAL LIGHT-WATER REACTORS t

February 25,1997 j

Jim Wilson Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office Of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I

i Attachment 5

Joint DOE /NRC Memorandum of Understanding e approved in SRM on SECY-96-058 e signed by Chairman and Secretary of Energy on May 22,1996 e provides for " review and consultation by NRC with respect to DOE's possible acquisition of CLWRs, or acquisition of irradiation services from CLWRs, for the production of tritium."

e acknowledges issue of use of civilian commercial reactors for purposes that support milita,ry requirements - MOU assigns responsibility for resolution to DOE ("The manner in which .

these concerns are resolved and a final determination on the  ;

mode of tritium production chosen will not involve NRC technical or policy review and is not a subject of this agreement.")

l e provides for reimbursement of costs through specific interagency agreement -

I

SECY-96-212 Describes staff's proposed review approach '

o DOE submits LTA Report e staff issues FR Notice of Receipt of DOE Report 1

e staff prepares safety evaluation for LTA report and consults with Commission prior to issuance e staff conducts inspection of any licensee 50.59 evaluations for LTAs e DOE submits production report e staff prepares safety evaluation for production report and provides results to Commission prior to issuarice e licensee submits application for amendment to facility operating license e staff conducts safety and environmental review of license amendment request e if a hearing is requested, the Commission will be notified if the staff intends to make a "no significant hazards consideration" finding which would allow the amendment to become effective before the conclusion of a hearing 2

j i

SRM on SECY-96-212 Approves staff's review approach given in SECY-96-212 and 1 requires a series of public meetings i

e to provide for public comment regarding the technical issues '

associated with LTA irradiation to ensure the public is aware of the staff's review activities early in the evaluation process

• hold public meeting in the vicinity of the host facility prior to loading LTAs into the reactor core i e hold similar public meetings prior to the insertion of the target assemblies in any particular NRC licensed facility t

i t

3

________________________j

Proposed LTA Review Schedule

12/3/96 DOE submits LTA report .

12/13/96 Staff issues FR Notice of Receipt of TPBAR LTA Report '

1/3/97 Staff issues Request for Additional information (RAI)

! 1/13/97 Staff Issues Supplemental RAI  :

1/22/97 Public meeting with DOE to, discuss response to RAls 1/27/97 Staff issues FR Notice of.Public Meeting '

2/7/97 DOE submits response to staff RAls - includes:

o written response to 1/3 and 1/13 RAls  !

e revised text for inclusion in Rev.1 of TPBAR LTA report  ;

e commitment to advise staff of subsequent changes to text j 2/25/97 Public Meeting to provide opportunity for public comment on the technical I issues regarding DOE's proposal and to ensure the public is aware of the staff's review activities early in evaluation process i

3/3/97 DOE submits revised LTA report 3/17/97 Staff prepares safety evaluation / transmits to Commission  !

3/31/97 Staff issues safety evaluation on DOE LTA report 4 ,

t I

Post-SE LTA Activities (Tentative)*

6/2/97 NRR and Region Il staff conduct inspection of Watts Bar 50.59 LTA evaluation 7/7/97 Commission Meeting on status of staff's review 7/14/97 FR Notice of Public Meeting in vicinity of Watts Bar 8/7/97 Media brief prior to public meeting in vicinity of Watts Bar 8/11/97 Public Meeting in vicinity of Watts Bar prior to loading

! LTAs into core 9/1/97 Watts Bar begins Fall outage 10/6/97 Watts Bar begins irradiation activity This schedule is tentative only, and is subject to change if the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation revewis any unreviewed safety questions or if the licensee does not '

receive authorization to proceed in accordance with this schedule. ,

i

i

.c 2A

^

4 i

! MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE NUCLEAR  !

! REGULATORY COMMISSION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

1. Introduction The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in recognition of a mutual commitment to the effective and efficient protection of the i

public health and safety and the environment, have rieveloped this Memorandum of j

Understanding (hereinafter referred to as agreement) in order to establish a basic

)

j framework within which DOE and NRC will endeavor to resolve issres of concern to either agency that relate to the regulation of nuclear facilities, projects, and activities, involved in the production of tritium, as described in this agreement.

Tritium, an essential material in U.S. nuclear weapons, decays at a rate of l

approximately five percent per year (a 12.3-year half-life). The U.S. is not currently producing tritium. Resumption of tritium production will be essential for j maintaining the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

=

! DOE distributed its " Tritium Supply and Recycling Programmatic Environmental i

impact Statement" in October 1995 in which it announced its preferred " dual path" i

strategy for acquiring a.new supply of tritium. That strategy is to begin work on j

two production alternatives: (1) to procure an option or options to purchase or lease existing commercial light water reactors (CLWRs) or procure CLWR irradiation i

' services for tritium production and (2) to design, build, and test critical components of an accelerator-produced tritium (APT) system for tritium production. A decision j

to implement the DOE's preferred dual path strategy for tritium production, based upon the Programmatic Environmental impact Statement and related cost, j schedule, and technical analyses, was announced in a Record of Decision issued on 5

December 5,1995. '

1 During the next three years, DOE will be undertaking the research and analyses 4

necessary to provide the technical, economic, and regulatory bases for the

j selection of the primary and backup technology approaches by 1998. However, regardless of whether the commercial reactor option is selected as the primary I approach for tritium production, DOE intends to complete confirmatory testing, i

fabricate the first core load of targets, and develop a new extraction capability as a contingency to meet netional defense requirements.

1 4

l

.-967ao70Vor gja. _

i i

The production of tritium in CLWRs presents a range of technical, regulatory, and policy issues. DOE is pursuing resolution of many of the technical issues in its e

design and testing of a target assembly for tritium production. The use of this

! target in CLWRs for tritium production willlikely require NRC's approval. Issues j-concerning the NRC's licensing and related regulatory authority over DOE and its l

contractors must be addressed if DOE opts to purchase.an existing or a partially

! completed commercial reactor. Selection by DOE of this option, or of other i options, may require amendment of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the

implementing NRC regulations. '

i The use of existing CLWRs is subject to an additional set of issues concerning the

, use of civilian commercial reactors for purposes that support military requirements.

j The manner in which these concerns are resolved and a final determination on the

{ mode of tritium production chosen will not involve NRC technical or policy review l and is not a subject of this agreement. Commercial arrangements with prospective

{ CLWRs are also not-a subject of this agreement. National strategic policy j considerations may involve matters beyond the scope of this agreement; nothing in this agreement is intended to preclude such considerations. Matters beyond the j

scope of this agreerr.ent that affect the NRC will require the Commission's i approval.

i j 11. Authority Section 91 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, an amended, Sections 102(g) and i

104(d) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and Section 301(a) of the l Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, authorize DOE to engage in the j

development of atomic weapons and the production of nuclear materials needed for i such weapons. Sections 53, 57, 63, 81,103,104, and 161b. of the Atomic 4

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, authorize NRC to regulate by rules, orders,

! standards, and instructions any persons possessing and using production or utilization facilities, special nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material for the purpose of promoting the common defense and security and j

protecting health or minimizing danger to life or property. The DOE-NRC Memorandum of Understanding of February 24,1978, establishes an overall j management policy with regard to interagency relationships in the conduct of I

research programs and related areas and includes within its scope those guidelines j

governing DOE work performed by NRC. This agreement is entered into pursuant I

to these and other applicable authorities, including the Economy Act of 1932.

! I lit. Purpose 4

i The purpose of this agreement is to establish the basis for review and consultation j by NRC with respect to DOE's possible acquisition of CLWRs, or acquisition of irradiation services from CLWRs, for the production of tritium.

k I

2

i l

IV. Agreements Between the Parties A. General

1. NRC'and DOE will promote the timely and orderly completion of projects undertaken pursuant to this memorandum with due regard for the public health and safety, protection of the environment, and the common defense and security.

Essential to this timely and orderly completion is a relationship between the agencies marked by open and. candid communications at all levels and prompt resolution of any issues that may arise.

2. NRC agrees to use available DOE information and reports and to comply with DOE administrative requirements for handling such information to the maximum extent practicable. DOE will, however, provide NRC such additional information as NRC may require to identify issues related to the public health and safety and protection of the en 'ironment that may be presented by the project. Project information or reports submitted under this agreement by DOE to NRC for review, comments provided by NRC to DOE in response thereto, and other information that is part of the official record generally shall be available for public inspection, with exceptions as specified in NRC regulations.

3. NRC and DOE recognize the importance of providing timely and accurate information to the public regarding projects, activities, and regulatory decisions that may affect the public health and safety and protection of the environment.

Meetings between NRC and DOE staff in connection with project activities that pertain to specific regulatory decisions or actions shall be governed by the NRC's policy on open meetings (59 FR 48340; September 20,1994).

4. Each agency also recognizes that it will be responsible for the safeguarding, control of, and accounting for classified, proprietary, and procurement-sensitive {

information used or otherwise furnished in connection with projects in accordance '

with its established procedures.

5. Committees such as the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and the j Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste for NRC and the Defense. Nuclear Facilities '

Safety Board for DOE provide independent review of their respective agency's -

facilities, safety studies, and related matters. If necessary, NRC and DOE agree to support these independent reviews by providing information or briefings related to their respective areas of responsibilities.  !

3 l

i aw ,,-- - -

uw- -w m- i---,- - -i ,-r.-- -- + . -:v- u- e9----.-

i l l l b *

. l a

v

l 2

6. The principal senior management contacts for this agreement will be the Director, Division of Reactor Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, and the Director of the Commercial Light Water Reactors Project, DOE. These individuals may designate appropriate staff representatives for the i

purpose of administering this agreement. Identification of these contacts is not j intended to restrict communication between DOE and NRC staff members on routine technical consultation and other day-to-day activities. I 4

B. Plannino and Reimbursement of Costs

1. NRC and DOE will cooperate in long-range planning so as to ensure that both l

agencies anticipate the magnitude of funding, the allocation of resources, and the timing of events necessary to conduct interagency projects. -Consultations and

' information exchanges between NRC and DOE on long-range planning activities and other normal functions are generally not subject to reimbursement. {

i j j i

2. Specific project activities in which DOE requests that NRC review, consult on,  !

or comment upon to identify issues related to public health and safety, j

occupational safety, and protection of the environment are generally subject to j

reimbursement at full agency costs from DOE in accordance with established NRC regulations, policies, and procedures on reimbursement for work performed for other Federal agencies.

3. The details of the levels of support to be furnished to one organization by the l

other with respect to funding will be developed in specific interagency agreements

] or other agreements, subject to the availability of funds. This agreement shall not j-be used to obligate or commit funds or as the basis for the transfer of funds. DOE

! and NRC will provide each other mutual support in budget justification to the Office l

of Management and Budget and hearings before the Congress with respect to l programs on which the organizations collaborate. '

! C. Preliminary Phase Activities f

l 1. NRC will assist DOE in assessing and resolving technical and licensing issues Uncluding physical security, security clearance, and environmental issues) in order ,

to support a Secretarial decision on the primary and backup tritium production approaches within three years. ,

2

2. The production of tritium under an existing commerciallicense will require DOE 3

and NRC to develop mechanisms to ensure that national defense production i

requirements will not affect the regulation, including plant shutdown for safety j reasons, of the facilities.

4 4

1 i

a

, ,. ..r _ . , _ . _ . -

.p .- - ._ ,.m. - . , .. - _. , p .--- - -

l i

i I

3. NRC and DOE will work together to develop a reimbursable agreement for the

! full agency cost for NRC to conduct this work in accordanc~e with NRC administrative procedures. Reimbursement will be required to the extent that such

resources are not appropriated to the NRC for this work. Additionally, a project level schedule will be jointly developed to implement required preapplication phase

! activities.

D. Taroet Toolcal Report Phase Activities

1. As the project continues and .more precise information is developed, DOE may submit for the NRC staff's review and approval a topical report describing detailed technical and licendng requirements for the use of a target tritium production assembly in a CLWR. A revised or new reimbursable agreement, as well as a project level schedule, wili bs jointly developed at that time. Reimbursement will be required to the extent that such resources are not appropriated to the NRC for this work.

2. DOE acknowledges that the NRC staff's approval of any topical report is not binding on an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board or the Commission in the event any aspect of the topical report is challenged in an administrative adjudication.

E. Acouisition Phase Activities Tritium production in CLWRs is likely to require licensing action by NAC, including safety analysis and environmental review. As specific options are chosen, NRC and DOE will cooperate in planning and completing these activities in accordance with applicable licensing procedures.

V.- Other Provisions >

1. Nothing in this agreement shalllimit the authority of either agency to independently exercise its authority with regard to matters that are the subject of this agreement. _ '

2. Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed to establish any right or provide a basis for any action, either legal or equitable, by any person or class of persons challenging a Government action or a failure to act.

t 5

4 .

i ,

5 i

1 1

f J

3. This agreement shall be effective upon signature of both parties and will remain l in effect until terminated by mutual agreement or by the written notice of either e

i party submitted six months in advance of termination. Amendments or I

modifications to this agreement may be made upon the written agreement of the parties.

4 i

! l 1

f DOE 4 prov : NRC Approved:

& //

Hafel @'4 '

V ' __34 /.9c

! c. Secretary Shirleyf. Jacidon Chairman Department of E ergy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission a[ # Y41 M . fif b

Dit'e I ( Date

6

52, ,

[ .\ UNITED STATES  ;

/  % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Action: ..Miraglia, NRR

• wasuncrow.o.c. mas Cys: Taylor ,

Milhoan i December 10, 1996 P50"

..... )

opresorTea Paperiello NMSS i ssensTAny James Wilson, NR '

i MEMORANDUM TO: James M. Taylor i Ex .ti e Director for Operations '

FROM: Jo 'C . oy e, acretary l

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-96-212 - REVIEW OF t DEPAR'INENT OF ENERGY'S PROPOSAL FOR TRITIUM PRODUCTION.IN CO>NERCIAL LIGHT-WATER REACTORS The Conunission has approved the staff's plan for review of DOE's proposal for production of tritium in consnercial light water reactors. (NRR) . 9600044 The. staff should hold public meetings and provide for public consnent regarding the technical issues during Phase I to ensure the public is made aware of its review activities early in the evaluation process. A public meeting should be held in the vicinity of the host facility prior to loading lead test assemblies into the reactor. Similar meetings should be held prior to the insertion of the target assemblies in any particular NRC licensed facility. (NRR) 9600188 The staff should ensure that DOE is aware of their responsibility for any legislative action that may be required regarding separation of commercial nuclear reactors from the nuclear weapons program. The staff should also consider now what must done to address Price-Anderson issues attendant to tritium production in commmercial light water reactors and inform the Consnission. (NRR) 9600189  !

cc: Chairman Jackson l Consnissioner Rogers Consnissioner Dieus Conunissioner Diaz Consnisniioner McGaffigan OGC _ i OCA i OIG Office Directors,. Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail) l SECY NOTE: THIS SRM, SECY-96-212, AND THE COMMISSION VOTING RECORD CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COlWISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.

i . ..s 4g j

i

, .s ...,\.

i  ;

i

\...../

POLICY ISSUE

! (Notation Vote)

October 3, 1996 l SECY-96-212-IDR: The Commissioners s

?

i fgg: ' James M. Taylor ~

] Executive Director for Operations

) .

SUBJECT:

REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S PROPOSAL FOR TRITIUM i PRODUCTION IN C0ffiERCIAL LIGHT-WATER REACTORS 1

PURPOSE:

i

! This paper requests Commission approval of the process by which the NRC staff f intends to conduct its review of DOE's proposal for production of tritium in commercial light-water reactors (CLWRs) under the provisions of the Memorandum i

cf Understanding (MOU) between the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear, l Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated May 22, 1996.

a j BACKGROUND:

i In SECY-96-058, " Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Energy i and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission," dated March 15, 1996, the staff j provided an MOU between the DOE and the NRC, establishing the basis for NRC review and consultation of DOE's possible use of CLWRs for the production of i tritium. Tritium is an essential material in U.S. nuclear weapons that decays

at a rate of approximately 5 percent per year (a 12.3-year half-life).

The subject MOU supplements an earlier more general MOU between DOE and NRC (February 24,1978) and relates solely to NRC's review of and consultation i concerning DOE's possible use of CLWRs for producing tritium needed to

! maintain the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

The MOU recognizes that the use of commercial reactors is subject to 1

j l i _.

i .

. CONTACT:

l J. H. Wilson, NRR t 415-1108 i

b j SECT NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE WHEN THE FINAL SRM IS MADE AVAILABLE.

l l . A Ll % Pf (a.

s, i

2 l

t i an additional set of issues concerning the use of civilian commercial reactors for purposes that support military requirements. The MOU states that: "The manner in which these concerns are resolved and a final detamination on the 4 mode of tritium production chosen will not involve NRC technical or policy

[

review and is not a subject of this memorandum".

j In a Staff Requirements Memorandum dated April 19, 1996, the Commission 1

approved the new MOU with DOE, subject to three comments. The first comment added a clarifying phrase to the first paragraph of the MOU. The second i comment directed the staff to include a mechanism in the separate reimbursable i i

agreement to resolve reimbursement disagreements if they develop. The reimbursabit agreement contains a provision for resolving billing disagree-i ments, should they occur. This agreement was signed on September 30, 1996.

l Finally, the Commission inquired as to "the extent of NRC's obligations with regard to protection of the public health and safety if DDE adopts the accelerator production method." This comment, as well as an update on the status of DOE's proposal for tritium production in CLWRs, is discussed below.

DOE is responsible for establishing the capability to produce tritium by the t

[ end of 2005, in accordance with a presidential decision directive. DOE has

selected a dual-path strategy to meet the schedule. One path is the i

accelerator production of tritium. If DOE adopts an accelerator design utilizing a tungsten target (as is currently contemplated), the Commission

! does not have statutory authority to regulate this option. The NRC is

! responsible for regulating production and utilization facilities (as defined by the Atomic Energy Act, as amended) and possession and use of byproduct and special nuclear material.

i The other path is one that would require NRC oversight. DOE proposes to i produce tritium in CLWRs, either through acquisition of reactor (s) under government ownership or by contracting for target irradiation services under j private ownership. Should DOE choose to purchase (acquire) a reactor out-j right, additional license transfer issues may be involved in the staff's

! review. The staff will inform the Commission and provide additional informa-l tion regarding any licensing and staff resource implications if DOE chooses l~ this option.

Regardless of whether the commercial reactor option or the accelerator option

' is selected as the primary approach for tritium production DDE intends to complete confirmatory testing and fabricate the first core load of targets during the years 2002 and 2003. Irradiation, cooling, and shipment of the irradiated targets is scheduled during the years 2004 and 2005 to support the i

presidential decision directive that calls for extraction operations to begin (probably at Savannah River) by the end of 2005. Extraction would take place at Savannah River and would not involve oversight by NRC.

.i Under the terms of the MOU, NRC will provide review and consultation to assist

! DOE in assessing and resolving technical and licensing issues associated with 5

CLWR production of tritium (including physical security, security clearance, and environmental issues) in order to support a Secretarial decision on the primary and backup tritium production approaches in late 1998.

i

i

~

i l

l 3 I l

DISCUSSION.

On April 11, 1996. DDE staff met with NRC staff to discuss the tritium i production program and presented a schedule for LWR production of tritium.

i

! 00E has developed a design for burnable poison rods using lithium, rather than i

! boron, in pWR fuel assemblies. As a result of irradiation by neutrons in the

! reactor core, the lithium in the target rods is converted to tritium. The l irradiated burnable poison rods can then be removed from the fuel assemblies i and shipped to another location (Savannah River) for tritium extraction. DOE

! h:s prepared a program for tritium production that would proceed in three phases.

l ,

i The first phase of the tritfue program requires a lead test assembly (LTA)

! demonstration. 00E will develop, and submit for NRC staff review and approv-l al, a report that is expected to contain sufficient information to demonstrate that the use of a CLWR to irradiate a limited number of lithium burnable i poison rods in LTAs does not raise generic issues involving an unreviewed j safety question. The staff will prepare a safety evaluation on the DOE report

! to address, on a preliminary basis, the acceptability of licensees undertaking l the irradiation of the LTAs under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 without NRC

licensing action. Upon completion of its evaluation, the staff will present j its conclusions to the Commissior prior to issuance. Licensees participating

{ in the LTA demonstration would be. allowed to proceed under 50.59 without NRC i licensing action, subject to plant-specific evaluations confirming that no.

j unreviewed safety question exists and that no change in a technical specifica-tion is needed. Licensees would be required to maintain documentation to j demonstrate that plant- and site-specific considerations fall within the l bounds established in the DDE analysis and otherwise meet the criteria in

! 50.59 on a facility-specific basis. The staff intends to issue Federal ,

Register Notices announcing receipt of the topical report and, later, issuance  !

of the staff's safety evaluation.

DOE expects that LTAs will be available for irradiation in the core of a CLWR in late 1997 or early 1998. At each of the one or more reactors involved in the LTA demonstration, 32 target rods (8 each in 4 LTAs, one LTA in each quadrant of the core) would be irradiated for one fuel cycle. The staff intends to conduct an inspection of licensee's 50.59 evaluations to assure that they are within the bounds established in the 00E LTA report and meet the criteria of 50.59 for installing LTAs without an amendment. This inspection would be conducted before the licensee begins irradiation of the LTAs.

Independent of the topical report review, the staff also expects to conduct vendor-related activities with respect to QA plans and fabrication inspec-tions. This will give DOE insights on the NRC overview to_.be expected for the production phase.

The second phase of DOE's tritium program would require review by NRC of DOE's submittal of a topical report for production irradiation in mid-1998. The staff would review the production topical report concurrently with the irradiation of the LTAs and would document its review in a safety evaluation report to be issued in early 1999. DOE has stated that because the primary purpose of the LTA demonstration is to build confidence among prospective

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

.. t 4 r licensees, completion of the LTA demonstration is not an essential precursor '

to submittal of the topical report. The NRC staff agrees that it could initiate the topical report review independent of the LTA demonstration.

However, information from the LTA demonstration may be required before the ,

staff can complete its review of the production topical report. The results of the NRC staff review of the production phase topical report will be i provided to the Commission prior to issuance of the staff's safety 'evaluatim.

i

! The third and final phase of DOE's tritium program requiring NRC review is the i actual production of tritium. Under one of the DOE options being considered, i

' this review would be conducted, not at the request of DOE,'but as a result of a request by a licensee for amendment of its facility operating license. A l 1 license amendment would likely be required in order to make changes to the i plant technical specifications on to address any unreviewed safety questions 4

involving use of about three thousand lithium burnable poison rods. A request j

for a license amendment authorizing irradiation of burnable poison rods for production of tritium would be expected at the beginning of the year 2000.

Requests for a license amendment would be subject to an opportunity for hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will be notified if the stuff intends to make a "no significant hazards consideration" finding which 2

would allow the amendment to become effective before the conclusion of a 1

hearing.

In summary, the staff will take the following actions regarding DOE's proposed production of tritium in CLWRs:

4

1) Upon completion of its evaluation of DOE's LTA report, the staff will consult with the Commission regarding its finding with respect to

whether any generic issues involving unreviewed safety questions are

raised which would prevent licensees from using the provtsions of 10 CFR 50.59 to accomplish irradiation of LTAs without NRC licensing action.

2) The staff will provide the Commission with the results of its review of DOE's topical report for production irradiation of lithium burnable poison targets to produce tritium in a CLWR prior to issuance.

3) Should a public hearing be requested concerning amendment of an operating license to permit production irradiation of lithium burnable poison targets to produce tritium, the Commission will be notified if the staff intends to issue the amendment upon a finding of "no signifi-cant hazards consideration" prior to conclusion of any hearing that may be required.

d 4

4

~ -

-,n - - , - - - - -

t.

4 5

C00RDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.

1 REC 0ft1ENDATION:

l 2

That the Commission approve the staff's proposed course of action, as de-

! scribed above.

/

J sM ecutive Director for Operations Comunissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to SECY by c.o.b. Monday, October 21, 1996. Comunission staff office comunents, if any, should be submitted to the Comissioners NLT October 11, 1996, with an information copy to SECY. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review and coment, the Comunissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.

\ DISTRIBUTION:

Comunissioners I

1 OGC OCAA

~

OIG OPA OCA REGION IV EDO SECY l

e

.