ML20203E817
| ML20203E817 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Virginia |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1997 |
| From: | Mulder R NRC |
| To: | Alexander Adams NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9712170191 | |
| Download: ML20203E817 (2) | |
Text
_ __ _ . . . , , , . . , , , , , - _ , , _ , , . _ , - . , . . . , _ ,
< ~
- 41
\
43 eg
- ' Robert U. Mulder* < rum @ watt. seas. virginia.edu)
From:*
To: 'Mr. Al Adams (NRC ~Headquarters)' <axa@nrc. gov >
- Date:
Subject:
12/1/97 2:31pm Information on Relicensing Q M- $
=
M d
Dear Me'. Adams. -
On October 14,1997, certain U.Va. officials and I placed a d
--l]
conferer.ce call to your office to obtain information about bon UVAR relicensing and decommissioning requirements, in
-?
parttubr as regards the impact of federal (NRC) regulatians, y L While I understood you to have stated that UVAR relicenshg 9I costs would be significantly below decommissioning costs, and ~h presented various justifications for your response, it appears i that some confusion still exists regarding this issue at our l crganization. (Please refer to U.Va.'s web page at h .
http:// minerva.acc. virginia.edu/~ budget / and ande.' the header
'19J8 2000 Bienrlal Budget Submittal." the " Decision Package Number ?00* for the UVAR.)
f3p To clear up the apparent misconception about the comparative Pl 1
costs of relicensing and decommissioning for us, I woncier if you j could be so kind as to provide me with a written comment on that question, particularly as to potentially inaccurate i
(l
?
statements contaned in the justification to Package 700 of 2 i
U.VA.'s budget ooquest to the state. For your convenience, I l have inchdod the University's wording for Package 700 below, i l t !
Best regards, ]
! i
[ Robert U. Mulder Director U.Va. Reactor Facility
& Assoc. Prof. Nuclear Engineering (804) 982-5440 z l rum @ Virginia.EDU ij l
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++
Universit/ of Virginia Academic Division l Reactor Decommissioning /Recertification Decision Package Number 700 Justification l The Nuclear Reactor Facility at the University of Virginia was built and approved for operation by the Nuclear Regulatory jl Commission in 1962. :t is a 2 megawatt pool rescer used for i research and training: the only one remaining at art institution i of higher education in the Commonwealth. The reactor is used to j 7 train engineering students and supply services to the hospital J*
l and industry in the Commonwealth.
-The reactor's license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission /
expires in 2002. The University must decide to either renew the license or shut down the reactor,in either case this will be l
-1 an expensive undertaking governed by federal regulations.
,U [
Renewing the license will require upgradet M mechanical and g electdcal components required by the Nucleae Regulatory (
- Commission of a facility that by 2002 will be forty years old. h Decommissioning the reacMr requires disposal of spent fuel and 3 2
contaminated equipment along with other possible cleanup which 8
could cost more than two milhon dollars.
~
Resource Narrative
= The University requests 6250.000 in general funds each year of -
the biennium to hire consultants to evaluate tN oecommissioninghecertification of the nuclear reactor. I r
A 4
9712170191 971201 ADOCK 05000062
~
h0h i,d;L, Tic >
y..
a- e-
.C j
i.IthoWh thwse' planning and evaluation expenses are of a onetime nature it must be noted that there will be additional expenditures required after FY 2000.
Performance Measure :
Since this le a two year process to determine whether the .
Ordversity should decommission or recortify the reactor, the
- only measure of performance is whether or not we have a )
decision and action plan at the end of the biennium.
CC: ' Robert U. Mulder* < rum @ watt. seas. virginia.edu>
W t
I-
"'