ML20141N279
| ML20141N279 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Iowa, University of Missouri-Rolla, Pennsylvania State University |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1986 |
| From: | Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Aftergood S COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141N280 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-738 NUDOCS 8603060040 | |
| Download: ML20141N279 (3) | |
Text
-_
/' ~.m'g UNITO STATSS ]kO I -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W wasuemorow, p. c. acas JAN 10 1986 Mr. Steven Aftergood Committee to Bridge the Gap 1637 Butler Avenue #203 IN RESPONSE REFER Los Angeles, CA 90025 TO F0!A-85-738
Dear Mr. Aftergood:
This is in partial response to your letter dated November 2,1985, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, copies of licensees' responses to NRC's Show Cause Orders concerning removal of excess HEU to secure facilities.
The documents listed on the enclosed Appendix A are being placed in the NRC Public Document Room (POR),1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC and are enclosed.
The review of one document is continuing. As soon as our review is completed, we will notify you.
Sincerely, tuk $ <r e69 Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosures:
As stated g30ll 0 060110 nFTER0005-730 PDR
Re: FOIA-85-738 APPENDIX A
- 1. 10/04/85 Letter to Secretary of the Comission from L. C. Wilbur re: Facility Operating License R-61. (1page)
- 2. 10/04/85 Letter to John C. Hoyle from Robert C. Bearse re: Removing HEU from University of Kansas Reactor. (1 page)
- 3. 10/07/85 Letter to Secretary of the Commission from Robert J. Kroes re:
Removal of spare HEU to a more secure storage environraent w/ enclosed Order to Show Cause. (4 pages) i 4. 10/08/85 Letter to Secretary of the Comission from Bruce R. Poulton re: Order to Show Cause concerning on-site HEU w/ attached Amendment No. 9 to the NCSU PULSTAR Facility R-120 License i
dated September 9, 1985. (6 pages)
- 5. 10/08/85 Letter to Secretary of the Comission from Don L. Warner re:
Order to Show Cause dated September 27, 1985, Docket No. 50-123.
(1 page)
- 6. 10/08/85 Letter to John C. Hoyle from A. Keith Furr re: Removal of linirradiated liighly Enriched Fuel. (1 page)
- 7. 10/10/85 Letter to Secretary of the Comission from William G. Ruzicka re: Research Reactor HEU Fuel Inventories. (1 page)
- 8. 10/10/85 Letter to Secretary of the Comission from Robert M. Brunger re: Order to Show Cause dated September 27, 1985. (? pages)
- 9. 10/10/85 Letter to Secretary of the Comission from R. J. Cashwell re:
Return of Unirradiated High-Enriched Urantun. (2 pages)
- 10. 10/11/85 Letter to Secretary of the Comission from Clifford V.
Smith, Jr. re: Oregon State University TRIGA Peactor (OSTR),
License Number R-106, Docket Number 50-743, Order to Show Cause dated September 27, 1985. (2 pages)
- 11. 10/14/85 Letter to John C. Hoyle from Maurice A. Robkin re: Disposition of Unirradiated Highly Enriched Nuclear Reactor Fuel (HEU).
(2 pages)
- 12. 10/17/85 Letter to John C. Hoyle from Robert F. Redmond re: Removal of Excess Unirradiated liigh Enriched Uranium Fuel from Ohio State University Research Reactor. (2 pages)
- 13. 10/18/85 Answer to Order to Show Cause - Docket No. 50 Pennsylvania State University. (3 pages)
- 14. 10/18/85 Letter to Secretary of the Comission from Donald R. Harris re: 1 Answer and Consent of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute to the NRC's Order to Show Cause w/enclos'are. (2 pages)
RQ: F0!A-85-738 APPENDIX A !
(Continued)
I
- 15. 10/21/85 Letter to Robert F. Burnett from D. J. Zaffarano and B. I.
j Spinrad re: Order to Show Cause w/ attached Memo to
- 8. I. Spinrad from R. A. Hendrickson re: Plan to Comply with NRC Order to Show Cause dated 10/14/85. (4 pages) i
- 16. 10/22/85 Letter to Secretary of the Comission from A. Francis DiMeglio re: Removal of Excess High Enriched Uranium Fuel from Non-Power i Reactor Facilities. (2 pages) !
- 17. 10/22/85 Letter to Secretary of the Comission from W. E. Wilson re:
Unirradiated Highly Enriched Uranium Funi (HEU). (1page) l
- 18. 10/23/85 Letter to Secretary of the Commission from William G. Vernetson re: University of Florida Training Reactor. (2pages) [
- 19. 10/25/85 Letter to Secretary of the Comission from Lincoln Clark, Jr., l re: Show Cause Order of September 27, 1985, Docket No. 50/20. t (2pages)
- 20. 10/30/85 Letter to John C. Hoyle from A. J. Nardi re: Order to Show Cause, License Number R-119 (Docket No. 50-87). (1 page) i 1
l I
L _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-
- /a.
Worcest:r WORCESTER
._ POLYTECHNIC Massachusetts 01609 l
- - INSTITUTE October 4,1985 (6 m m e l
Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ;
Washington, DC 20555 Re: Fact 11ty Operating License R-61
\
Dear Sir:
This is written in response to your Order to Show Cause dated September 27, 1985. The Worcester Polytechnic Institute Open pool Reactor has a normal core [
loading of 24 elements and is authorized to use two different types of '
elements,10 plate and 18 plate. We have stored outside the core one standard 10 plate element for a replacement spare, one 10 plate element with 8 individually removable plates for use in critical experiments, and two 18 plate elements. The present core is composed entirely of 10 plate elements.
The WPI reactor is used primarily as a teaching aid, and student laboratory and project work varies with student interest. Our two eighteen plate elements are usqd on demand in the core to demonstrate how their nuclear characteristics differ from the 10 plate elements, and the removable plate element is used to approach critical plate by plate in loading to other than
" standard" core configurations. Such experiments have been performed with students in recent years. Thus both of the 18 plate elements and the removable plate element have been in the reactor at power and have been irradiated.
In summary, our understanding is that our standard 10 plate element may be retained as a spare, and the other three elements, used sporadically in critical experiments, constitute irradiated fuel. If this interpretation of the Order is correct, we are already in compliance with it and no fuel ship-ments are necessary. If we are incorrect in these assumptions, please notify us.
I Sincerely, ;
x#c.u/di~
L. C. Wilbur, professor of Mechanical Engineering and Ofrector, LCW:ama Nuclear Reactor Facility cc: Executive t.cgal Director, USNRC Mr. John DOSA, USNRC i Dean R. Gallagher, Mr. T. Newton Professors D. N. Zwicp, and J. A. Mayer COMMONWEAlill 0F MASSAcilVSETTS Worcester SS Signed and sworn before me by Leslie C. Wilbur this 4th day of Octot'er 1985 T'$heg f tb'ry+l5 llelen L. Dugdenovic , Notary Pubite
,uv -ww /\
L --
l l
l TIIE UNIVERSITY Ol' KANSAS on6. .. nr iho vi. n ch.in. ..u.., n., u.se. n h. cra.hi.iir sin.u.m. .in.I enhii.: see viro.
october ti, 1985 " '" ' '3 " "h S' d 2 2 n si n."'g n n'.'n".'
i "Ln,n "'.n. "n.
L.""
in ..' .". ."o n 2.n io en.ii ena uni Hr. John C. Hoy le Acting Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission
! Washington D.C. 20555 i
Dear. Mr. Hoyle:
The University of Kansas has been working for approximately six months to remove a t i HEU from its reactor. We have been
{ encumbered by a lack or detailed information available at the NRC l
and the Department of Energy on how to accomplish this. On l September 27th we were able to determine that Mr. Booker Evans of the Chicago Operations Office of the Department of Energy was the contact person. Therefore, on September 30th I wrote a letter to Mr. Evans requesting that all the nuclear fuel at KU be removed from our premises.
Subsequent to sending that letter, we roccived your order to show cause requesting us to remove at least one of our unirradiated, l high-enriched Uranium fuel rods.
I nave communicated this matter to Mr. Evans and he is working to facilitate the removal of all our fuel from the campus in time to meet the deadline, j The University of Kansas respectfully requests that in light of I cur intention to proceed, with all deliberate speed, to remove l all the fuel fron our reactor that this process not be confused i and possibly delayed by the need to deal with only one of the 18
( elements.
If this course is unacceptable to the Commission, please inform us as to whom we are to ship our unirradiated fuel elements and the procedures for so doing.
Sincerely, m.7 Hobert C. Dearse Associate Vice Chancellor HCBikh cci Mr. Dooker Evans
,4 q da s a u
("' W 7 # M in C.uusnei. Liwroni o
~
S.
t' UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. SANTA HARBARA Nastry
- onvis
- insswt Los ANcatts e sevensiot
- s AN Diff.O
- SAN FRANCISCO $ANTA BADSARA
- SANTA CS* 1 Dutn PirarONT OARDNER IVesi<lreit q/the Uniwreity OFFICE OF Tile Cil ANCE!.lDR SANTA DARRARA. cat.troRNI A 93104 Ih>nEnf A. IlUTTEN p4Ch Chanallw nt Sante llartura October 7, 1985 l
l j Secretary of the Commission O.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Docket No. 50-433 l
Dear Sir:
l This is in reply to the Order to Show Cause dated September 27, 1985, regarding removal of spare llEU to a more secure storage environment.
The UCSB 1.-77 nuclear training reactor is scheduled to be decomnissioned in the next few months. In .iny event, there is less than twenty (20) grams of spare fuel solution outside the reactor core. Therefore, we request that the spare fuel solution be kept within the locked storage cabinet in the facility until the entire llEU fuel inventory is retumed to DOE as part of the decommissioning process, l
Sincerely, Robert J. Kroes Vice Chancellor '
Administ rative Services Enclosure
$Yh --
T 1 3 7.s.y i [l
. o ,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of Docket No. 50-433 UNIVERSITY OF CAL!FORNIA, SANTA BARBARA (Research Reactor)
O_RDER TO SHOW CAUSE l
l The University of California, Santa Barbara ("the licensee") is the holder l of Facility Operating License No. R-124 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-l sion ("the Commission"). The license authorizes the operation of a research l reactor at Santa Barbara, California.
II.
l Recogni: Ing that many nonpower reactor facilities' have on hand unirradi-l ated high enriched uranium (HEU) fuel that is not needed for current operations, the Commission believes that prudence dictates the taking of reaso4able steps to decrease the potential for any adverse consequences from possession of HEU in excess of operational needs by suspending the right to Dossess HEJ invento-ries in excess of quantities sufficient for the maintenance of normal operations l or for the replacment of depleted f uel and f ailed elements. Therefore, the t
l Commission has found it de,trable to protect the public health and safety and 1
common defer.se and security by requiring all excess HEU fuel to be removed to a secure facility away from the reactor site.
l 1
W cludes research, to',t and critical experiment facilities.
, ,- i m .. ,-A n m
'5LP =AA F M F y y QF
III.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 104, 161b, and 1611 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Section 2.202 of 10 CFR Part 2 and Section 50.54(h) of 10 CFR Part 50, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the licensee shall show cause why the licensee's authority to possess HEU fuel should not be suspended in accor-dance with the following oco.isions:
(1) The licensee shall within 120 days from the effective date of this Order move to a secure facility all unirradiated high enriched ura-nium fuel presently on-site except for that needed to replace one failed element for each different type element in the core. There-after, the licensee may possess unirradiated high enriched uranium fuel on-site only in that quantity necessary to replace one failed element for each different type element in the core. For purposes of this conditice, a secure facility is a Department of Energy facility or a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensed fuel cycle facility that is protecting formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material.
(2) Facilities that require replacement elements for refueling may also maintain an inventory of not more than the amount of fuel depleted in a 90-day period of normal operation.
(3) The Commission may relax the above requirements in writing for good cause shown.
IV.
Within 30 days of the date of this Order, the licensee may show cause why the provisions specified in Section III should not be ordered, by filing a written answer under oath or affirmation that sets forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee relies. The licensee may answer this Order, as provided in 10 CFR 2.202(d), by consenting to the entry of an order in sub-stantially the form proposed in this Order to Show Cause. Upon the licensee's consent to the provisions set forth in Section 111 of this Order or failure to l
2 1
s . .
answer or request a hearing on this Order within the specified time period, the provisions set forth in Section III shall become effective without further I order. If the licensee files an answer opposing the Order proposed in Se tion l III or if a hearing is requested, the provisions set forth in Section III shall become effective on the date specified in an order issued following further proceedings on this Order.
The licensee or any other person whose interest is adversely affected by this Order may request a hearing on this Order. Any answer to this Order or request for hearing shall be sent within 30 days of the date of this Order to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, ,
DC 20555. A copy shall also be sent to the Executive Legal Director at the same address.
If a hearing is to be held, the Commission will issue an order designating the time and place of any such hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue for hearing shall be whether the provisions set forth in Section III of this Order should be sustained.
).
- FOR THE COMMISSION 1
[4L__
$ El C. 30YIS '
t-ting Secretary of the Ccrinission i l
Dateci at i.'ashIngton, T l
this 27th day of Septeber,19C3 l
3 i l
j' 4 1 l
,h
. . . 15 s
s 1
Gh, a. {
n North Carolina State University on v..Idc au..rm October 8, 1985 l),7,,'].]:[,',#' ""
Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
SUBJECT:
Order to Show Cause concerning on-site HEU Facility No. R-120 Docket No. 50-297
Dear Sir:
In regards to the ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE issued to our facility on the 27th of September 1985, concerning possession of HEU on-site, please be advised that the North Carolina State University PULSTAR Facility is presently not licensed to possess HEU.
Specifically, the North Carolina State University Facility R-120 License was amended on September 9, 1985 to delete authorization to possess HEU. A copy of this Amendment No. 9 to the license is attached for your information.
If additional information/ clarification is required concerning this show cause order, please contact Mr. Garry Miller, our Associate Director of the NCSU PULSTAR Facility, at (919) 737-2321.
Sincerely, s
/wca. w Bruce R. Poulton Chancellor Attachments: Amendment No. 9 to the NCSU PULSTAR Facility R-120 License dated September 9, 1985 cc: Executive Legal Director, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Robert Carter, Project Manager, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ;
Mr. Garry Miller, Associate Director, Nuclear Reactor Program, NCSU !
Dr. Bernard Wehring, Director, Nuclear Reactor Program, NCSU {
Dr. Paul Turinsky, Head, Department of Nuclear Engineering, NCSU l i
1 aj # AL Y g / = /d N Sue 11. West, Notary Public /
My commission expires 7/8/86
- x. .us, ca..a.,u state unavo.a ,, a Land-Grant Unsvo av a>ud a . .es.tase. *,t non> tau ts.,*e <>t Ilue Unsero ay avl N<>< tle Car sluona s {
\
+ *,, UNITED STATES
'8 g NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION 1; 'j W ASHINGTON,0. C. 20655
- s, ...../ September 9, 1985 .;
Docket No.: 50-297 Dr. Bruce R. Poulton, Chancellor Room A. Holladay Hall North Carolina State University P. O. Box 7001 Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7001
Dear Dr. Poulton:
SUBJECT:
AMENDMENT N0. 9 TO OPERATING LICENSE No. R-120, NORTH CAROLINA
._ STATE UNIVERSITY The Commission has issued Amendment No. 9 to facility Operating License No. R-120 for the North Carolina State University PULSTAR research reactor.
The amendment, in response to your submittal dated July 19, 1985, deletes from your license the authorization to possess high enriched uranium fuel in connection with operation of your reactor.
According to your letter, you have shipped all high enriched uranium (HEU) fuel from your reactor site to Departnent of Energy facilities at Savannah River, in Aiken, South Carolina. This shipment was accomplished in accordance with applicable transportation and radiation control regulations, and in .
accordance with Operating License No. R-120. Receipt at the Savannah River Plant was acknowledged in writing, a copy of which was enclosed with your July 19, 1985 letter.
The shipped fuel was not used in a reactor at any time, so it was unirradiated.
Furthermore, the fuel had been retained at your site in acceptable storage facilities.
This license amendment does not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, this amendment does not involve any significant hazards considerations.
Because of the above considerations, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has concluded that the removal of the HEU fuel from your facility has been accomplished with no significant impact on the environment or the health and safety of the public, and is consistent with current NRC practice to encourage non-power reactor licensees to decrease, to the maximum extent practicable, their inventory of unirradiated HEU fuel.
era = = / A 96 L Os ty].L w v i-
. s .
4 Dr. Bruce R. Poulton . '
This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of facility compenents located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration (as discussed above), there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, this amendment meets-the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(cl(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in' connection with the issuance of this amendment.
The license is amended in paragraph 2.B(2) to reflect the removal of the HEU fuel from your reactor site, and to delete the authorization to possess such fuel. For purposes of clarification'we have added the statement about the enrichment of your authorized fuel. This change has been discussed with and concurred in by your staff. A copy of the amendment is enclosed. If you have questions or comments, please contact R. E. Carter, our Pro.iect Manager for your facility, at (301)a92-9795.
Sincerely,
/
b . &
- ecil 0. Thomas, Chief Standardization & Special '
Projects Branch Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
- 1. Amendment No. 9 cc w/ enclosures:
See next page i
r- , .
., s .
North Carolina State University Docket No. 50-297 cc: Office of Intergovernmental Relations 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, Ncrth Carolina 27603 Dr. Paul J. Turinsky, Head Department of Nuclear Engineering North Carolina State University Box 7909 Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7909 Mr. Garry D. Miller Nuclear Reactor Procram Department of Nuclear Engineering
^~
North Carolina State University P. O. Box 7909 Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7909 e
., 4 .
,f'j atuqk, UNITED STATES 3 p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- -l W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 k, . . . . # .
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY DOCKET NO. 50-297 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 9 License No. R-120 l 1. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A. The application for amendment to Facility Operating License No.
R-120, filed by North Carolina State University (the licensee),
dated July 19, 1985, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's Regulations as set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I:
B. The facility will operate in conformity with the amended license, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C. There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this anendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; D. The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; E. The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied; and F. Publication of notice of this amendment is not required since it does ,
not involve a significant hazards consideration nor amendment of a i license of the type described in 10 CFR Section 2.106(a)(2). l
.,.2 .x
]F dah l
- 2. Accordingly, the license is amended by changing license condition 2.B(2) to reflect the shipment of the HEU offsite. License No. R-120 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(?) Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Part 70, " Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material," to receive, possess, and use in connection with operation of the reactor up to d?S kilograns of uranium enriched to less than 20% and up to 200 grams of plutonium-239 in the form of plutonium-beryllium neutron sources.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0KMISSION Cecil 0. Thomas, Chief Standardication & Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing Date o' Issuance: September 9, 1985 ;
1 i
- _ _ _ _ - _ _