ML20197G138
| ML20197G138 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Virginia |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1997 |
| From: | Alexander Adams NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Mulder R VIRGINIA, UNIV. OF, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9712300383 | |
| Download: ML20197G138 (2) | |
Text
- _
f
.c Decenber 11, 1997 Dr. Robert U.' Mulder Director University of Virginia Reactor Facility Charlettesville, Virginia 22901 h
SUBJECT:
INFORMATION ON REl. CENSING I
Dear Dr. Mulder:
~ This is in response to your_ electronic mail message of December 1,1997, asking about the comparativo costs of relicensing and decommissioning non power reactors, in particular
. statements made in the justification of University of Virginia Academic Division, Reactor Decommissioning /Recertification, Decision Package Number 700, which was included in your message.
We would like to comment on the statement in the justification that " renewing the license will require upgrades in mechanical and electrical components required by the Nuclear
. Regulatory Commission of a facility that by 2002 will be forty years old." This statement is mcorrect in that the NRC does not require component upgrades as a precondition of the license renewal proce a for non-power reactors. Components should be repaired or
. replaced as needed during the term of the license. The license renewal safety analysis report should show that the reactor can be operated safely for the term of the requested license renewal. As part of the license renewal, the applicant must submit information that shows that the applicant possesses, or has reasonable assurance of obtaining, the funds necessary to cover estimated operating costs for the duration of the license.
To respond to your general question of the cost of license renewel compared with decommissioning, our experience is that the cost to a licensce for non-power reactor license o
renewal can be significantly less than the cost of de,:ommissioning. Because the University of Virginia is a nonprofit educational institution, there would be no charge from NRC for processing either action.
~
l hope that this has addressed your questions, if you need any further information, please call me at 301-415 1127.
Sincerely, hh f3 h MEITfJ] ppe rfder A a s 3., Senior Project Manager y
Ale GMud P
r Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-62 y
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File 50-62 DMatthews OGC (015-B 18)
)
1 PUBLIC AAdams AAdams a
l)g PDND r/f' EHylton "
Region 11 U
JRoe a
)
.?
&ff PONyM P,q
- LA PDND:D F
d' Ah 194 on SWeiss I
11/% / '
$/ll/97 m/11/97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SECY\\ ADAMS \\UVADECOM.LTR 9712300303 971211
' H.~ H. l;H. ll.lil.I I.,II Yll' at
- til' Hil lil I"I ll' PDR ADGCK 05000062 II II-p pm
"--"""Ti'm2EIENWfMhtilfRTEE33EnlL 'l~ f 1.L. - WN aME E
,7 m, f me4\\
UNITED STATES y
jg NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION
,=
1 l WAeHINeToN, D.C. seet&eept v
December 11, 1997 s
Dr. Rot;stt U. Mulder Director <
University of Virginia Reactor Facility Charlottesville, Virginia 22901:
SUBJECT:
'NFORMATION ON REUCENSING 4
Dear Dr. Mulder:
This is in response to your electronic mall message of December 1,1997, asking about the
- comparative costs of re!'consing and decommissioning non-power reactors, in particular
- statem*1ts made in the justification of University of Virginia Academic Division, Reactor Decommissionmg/Recertification, Decialan Packaga Number 700, which was included in your message.
= Ww would like to comment on the statement in the justification that " renewing the license will require upgrades in mechanical and electrical components required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of a facility that by 2002 will be forty years old." This statement is incorrect in that the NRC does not require component upgrades as c. precondition of the license renewal process for non power reactors. Components should be repaired or replaced as needed tjuring the term of the license. The license reaewal safety analysis s
report should show that the reacto.' can be operated safely for the term of the requested b
license renewal. As part of the license renewal, the applicar t must submit information that shows that the applicant possesses, or has reasonable assurance of obtalning, the funds necessary to cover estimated operating costs for the duration of the license.
To respond to your general questian of the cost of license renewal compared with decommissioning, our experience is that the cost to a licensee for non-power reactor license renewal can be significantly less than the cost of decommissioning. Because the University of Virginia is a nonprofit educationalinstitution, there would be no charge from NRC for processing either action.
I hope that this has addressed your questions, if you need any further information, please 1 call me at 301 415-1127.
Sincerely, 434h
(
3 Alexander Adams, Jr., Si lor Pr ect anager Non Power Reactors and! Dec missioning Project Directorate -
Division of Reactor Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No,j50-62 y
'A
-->-w-er
-wn