ML20215E158
| ML20215E158 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | MIT Nuclear Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1986 |
| From: | Lisa Clark, Harling O MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CAMBRIDGE |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8612170357 | |
| Download: ML20215E158 (2) | |
Text
b opWQ4 77 NUCLEAR REACTOR LABORATORY AN INTERDEPARTMENTAL CENTER OF
%$g&#
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY O.K. HARLING 138 Albany Street Cambridge, Mass. 02139 L. CLARK, JR.
Dir:ctor (617) 253-4202 Dnect r f Reactor Operatons December 11, 1986 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Withdrawal of Unique Purpose Request License No. R-37, Docket No. 50-20
Dear Mr. Denton:
In its letter of September 25, 1986, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology applied for a determination by the U.S. Nuclear Regula-tory Commission that the MIT Research Reactor (MITR-II) has a unique purpose and, therefore, qualifies for exemption from conversion of its reactor fuel to low enriched uranium (LEU).
MIT hereby withdraws its application for such a determination, subject to the correctness of our understanding of several aspects of the new regulation (10CFR50.64).
Recent telephone conversations with staff members in the NRC Standardization and Special Projects Directorate have indicated that unique purpose exemptions are intended to be permanent and probably would not be granted in MIT's case because of the potential availabil-ity several years from now of LEU fuel that is presently being inves-tigated by the Reduced Enrichment Research and Test Reactor (RERTR)
Program at Argonne National Laboratory and that might prove suitable for use in the MITR.
It was further indicated by the NRC staff that, if the RERTR program should cease its development work on the highest density fuel (7 g U/cc) or fails to achieve that objective, MIT may then resubmit its application for a unique purpose exemption.
Other developments may arise where it would become necessary for MIT to continue the use of HEU fuel or revert to its use, in which case it would be necessary to resubmit the unique purpose exemption, e.g.,
the undertaking of a particular research project which could be done only with HEU or a reactor upgrade.
It is our understanding that, pending the availability of suit-able LEU fuel, MIT should annually seek an exemption from conversion based on either lack of Federal Government funding for conversion or lack of a suitable fuel.
While the LEU fuel to be used must, according to the new rule, be acceptable to the Commission, it is a condition of MIT's withdrawal that any fuel to which the MITR is required under the rule to convert must also be acceptable to MIT.
This means that it should be capable of at least the same fuel cycle length (same reactivity that our HEU fuel now has at the end of the 8612170357 861211
/
PDR ADOCK 05000020 IIQ P
(.
.--v.
i I,
.Mr. Harold R. Denton Dictrber 11, 1986 Q;}1-c.
cycle).
It must.. produce thermal and fast neutron ' fluxes in the MITR-II experimental facilities that are not significantly lower than those now existidg.in the reactor.
The cost must ~be no more than for comparable HEU elements.
5 This withdrawal ie not to be construed as precluding MIT from applying to utilize Extended Life Aluminide Fuel (ELAF) in the interim before a suitable LEU fuel becomes available.
M N
Based on our current understanding regarding the anticipated non-availability next, year of Federal Government funding for conversion and of a suitable LEU fuel, it is our intent to submit a statement regarding the non-availability of funding and fuel to your office by 34 March 27, 1987 and annually thereafter for as long as one or both con-tinue to be unavailable.
y 14 We would appreciate confirmation in writing from the Standardiza-tion and Special Projects Directorate that our understanding of the new regulation and its planned administration, as set forth above, is I
substantially correct.
The withdrawal of our application for deter-mination of unique purpos'e is contingent on our understanding of the 7
rule and our future options as outlined above.
Thank you for your assistance in this n.itter.
s my-Sincerely, L e Ga ~ 4 Lincoln Clark, Jr.
Director of Reactor Operations
[
A W'
Otto K. Harling Director I
MIT Nuclear Reactor Laboratory LC/crh i
ec:.MITRSC g
t s
2 r5 l
M.
i
'\\
i t
i
_ _ _