ML20198A968
| ML20198A968 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, University of Wisconsin |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1983 |
| From: | Cashwell R WISCONSIN, UNIV. OF, MADISON, WI |
| To: | Gilinsky V NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155J110 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-49FR27769, RULE-PR-50 AB60-2-078, AB60-2-78, AB61-2-78, NUDOCS 8605210372 | |
| Download: ML20198A968 (2) | |
Text
!j e
m-
.c..%
Univ.ersity, o f Wisconsin f.
1
~
i.Id.b.=,w-"---
EE!?.i.iifinilil.?.'
October 18, 1983 V c1 I
g YG-Victor Gilinsky Commiss.ioner
- United States Nuclear L
Regulatory Commission Vashington, D. C.
20555
Dear Commissioner Gilinsky:
Your letter of October 7,1983, indicated that you desired comments and suggestions concerning the report by Dr. Gerald Pollack which was enclosed with your letter.
This letter constitutes my reactions to your letter and to Dr. Pollack's report.
Since your lette,r was addressed to me (although a copy was sent to the president of our university), the comments are my own and they have not been approved by the university administration.
My first poirtt concerns the characterization of research reactor fuels as " nuclear While I am aware that hl'ghly enriched uranium.has the potential explosive fuels".
to be used for nuclear weapons production, the fuel in use at wr facility.was Sub-specifically designed and f abricated to be incapable of a nuclear explosion.
stantial physical and chemical processing would be required to change the charac-teristics of the fuel to make it capable of a nuclear emplosion.
Further, the technology and equipment to perform such processing would present far f. rom trivial difficulty to any group that desired to undertake such a task.
Dr." Pollack's report correctly identifies the major problem in conversion of our facility to low enrichment uranium -- that of funding to procure new fuel and to i
return the present fuel to the Department of Energy. Tne reason that we pres-ently operate with HEU fuel stems from the difficulty in securing dependable When we switched from MTR fuel to TRIGA onooing fuel support for our facility.
fuel for our facility, we used 20% enriched fuel, but when the higher enrichment, i
longer' lived, TRIGA-FLIP fuel became available we switched to it because of the funding problem. The additional benefits of maintaining 's constant core geometry and no need for biannual refuellings have saved us a substantial amount of effort, while allowing us to offer research, teaching and training support to our campus and a nun 6er of other universities. To switch to a LE!! fuel that does not af ford an extended fuel lifetime would be a serious handicap to our teaching and research Should we desire to use a 'special LEU fuel that has the capability for i
mission.
~
s a fuel lifetime comparable to our present HEU core, relicensing would be neces-sary.
8605210372 8$0514 j
- 9W
-...... _. _..a,_ w--
- -m J'g Victer Gilinsky
- Pcg3 2 Octtber',18, ISS) l S.'e Finally, due to 10 CFR Fart 73 requirements, a considerable time would be required In order to to convert to LEU fuel once funding and licensing have been resolved.
assure that non-execpt SNM holdings do not exceed a formula quantity, the ref uelling I estimate this would take three years even would have to be done in three steps.
If a licensed shipping cask is available.
Thank you for khe opportunity to comment on your letter.
Very truly yours,
/p
. J. Cashwell Reactor Director RJC:mid XC: President Robert M. O'Neil Dr. Max W. Carbon I
m.
O 9
e,
4 O
e e
l G
I O
e p
~~'
~. ___ _ _
_