ML20116J993

Re-affirms Intention of Ks State Univ to Apply for Extension of Operating License for 250-kW Pulsing Triga Reactor

ML20116J993
Person / Time
Site:	Kansas State University
Issue date:	08/06/1996
From:	Faw R KANSAS STATE UNIV., MANHATTAN, KS
To:	Michaels T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
RTR-NUREG-1537 NUDOCS 9608140174
Download: ML20116J993 (1)

Text

- _ - . -

l '

Department of Nuclear Engineering 137 Ward Hall Manhattan, Kansas 66506--2503 NW 913-532-5624 l

l l 6 August,1996 Mr. Theodore Michaels Non-Power Reactors, Decommissioning and Environmental Projects Directorate Division of Advanced Reactors ,

and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re: License R-88, Docket 50-188

Dear Mr. Michaels:

This is to re-affirm the intention of Kansas State University to apply for an extension of the operating license for the 250-kW pulsing TRIGA reactor. The current license expires in August,2001.  !

! We have received NUREG-1537 guidelines for preparing and reviewing license applications. We also have a copy of the Safety Analysis Report for the University of Arizona TRIGA reactor l

(NUREG-1390). Could you please let us know if there are other re-licensing applications and safety analysis reports that follow the new format and that we might study as we prepare our l documentation?  ;

l' Three questions have arisen during our planning for the renewal application:

I 1. Paragraph 1.7, p.1-3 of the guidelines for preparing licensing applications requires that we disclose a contract with DOE for return of spent nuclear fuel. Our fuel is owned by DOE, and of that there is no doubt. In the past, DOE has accepted spent fuel from ur, but I have never seen a I written contract for future return of fuel. Can you recommend someone in DOE I could contact to clear up this matter.

! 2. The KSU TRIGA reactor operates as a Class 104c research reactor. Our reading of page xvi of the guidelines and 10CFR50.30(f) leads us to understand that an environmental report and an environmental impact statement will not be required. Are we correct in this interpretation?

3. We fmd no requirements for timely submission of the renewal application other than that given l

in 10CFR2.109. Is it to our advantage to submit a renewal application earlier than thirty days f prior to expiration of the current license? If so, can you suggest a schedule for us to follow?

Thank you very much for your help.

Sincerely, h

Richard E. Faw pp ProfnuY608140174 960806 l t (h PDR p

ADOCK 05000188 PDR

\ gQ

' elephone: 913-532-5963 T Fax: 913-532-6952 E-Mail: faw@ ksuvm.ksu.edu