ML20198B004
| ML20198B004 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, 05000357 |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1983 |
| From: | Profio A CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, SANTA BARBARA, CA |
| To: | Gilinsky V NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155J110 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-49FR27769, RULE-PR-50 AB60-2-082, AB60-2-82, AB61-2-82, NUDOCS 8605210382 | |
| Download: ML20198B004 (2) | |
Text
,
.N'
" c'
~
NIVERSITY OF CALIFONX1A. SANT'A BARBARA ~
_...,_._A SANTA BARSARA. CALIFOIUCIA pale 6 DEPARTMENT OF CHD[lCAL AND NWCLEAR ENCNEERDOC b
October 20,1983 Mr.- Victor Gilinsky, Comissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Comissioner Gilinsky:
Thank you for the copy of the report by Dr. Gerald Pollack concerning conver-sion of 23 university (research and training reactors from HEU low enrichment uranium, presumably about 20% U-235) and uranium) fuel to LEU for inviting coments.
We certainly want to cooperate and are in favor of your objective to'iiiinimize Perhaps it the possibility of unlawful diversion of highly enriched uraniu and that fairly sophisticated chemical and metallurgical processing would be required to convert any research or training reactor fuel into nuclear explosive Iriour installation, also, we have only 1.35 kg on hand, less than material.
l.7
'A
. the formula quantity.
I agree with Dr. Pollack's assessment in general, but it s Cost and relicensing are*of particular concern ing and timing are not trivial.
for training or educational reactors like ours at UCSB which operate on very small staff and budget.
opened to other questions besides the safety of the HEU.to LEU fuel convers may well sink many of us because of the well organized antinuclear moveme climate of public and political opinion in the United States at the-present Although shutdown of small.research.or educatior.a1 reactors would have absolutely no effect on nuclear weapons inventory or production in the U.S.,
time.
much less in the Soviet Union, the vocal antinuclear sinority is always happy
/
to find a forum and a symbol.
l Our reactor, like many others, has a lifetime supply' of fuel, at least until l
All but a few grams expiration of the current license (1994 in our case).
are already in the reactor core. and the present fuel loading definitely.
The by the NRC including motion and other intrusion alaras and barriers.
core vessel in our reactor is very well protected by multiple layers of shielding and welded tanks with only a single small diameter fuel line (pipe and a vent line available for transfer of the fuel solution into or ou It would be simple, inexpensive, and highly protective to the core vessel.
g52g382860514 50 49FR27769 PDR l
n-
- u w_.:-.:.__u;.__.___...,.-_ _,. - -- _ _ _-- ___ ___ _,-_ _ _ _
.c..
_=a-
- f.
2 seal shut the fuel line and if necessary the vent by locking the valves and
~
Similar additional protective welding or cementing shut the cover panels.
measures, safe even against insider efforts, might be provided for other reactors with closed shields or vessels and little or no need t Has the IRC cdnsidered allowing for alternative solutions such as this, in-stead of imediate conversion to LEU fuel, where appropriate'l Sincerely,
- k. Ow h A. Edward Profio -
Professor of Nuclear Engineering Reactor Director AEP:cjs R.A. Buttenback, Chancellor cc:
9 M
S 4
.=-
a 2
1 i
e S
e i
i i
- e I
}
j I
o
.