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 From:*
' Robert U. Mulder* < rum @ watt. seas. virginia.edu)
To:
'Mr. Al Adams (NRC Headquarters)' <axa@nrc. gov >
- Date:
12/1/97 2:31pm
~
Q M-
Subject:
Information on Relicensing
=Md Dear Me'. Adams. -
d On October 14,1997, certain U.Va. officials and I placed a
--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 f
Number ?00* for the UVAR.)
3p Pl 1
To clear up the apparent misconception about the comparative costs of relicensing and decommissioning for us, I woncier if you j
(l i
could be so kind as to provide me with a written comment on that question, particularly as to potentially inaccurate
?
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 i j 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 jl built and approved for operation by the Nuclear Regulatory 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 g
Renewing the license will require upgradet M mechanical and 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 I
oecommissioninghecertification of the nuclear reactor.
r A
h0h
~
9712170191 971201 i,d;L, Tic 4
PDR ADOCK 05000062 p
PDR m
M^
y.
e-a-
. 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-
...