ML20247E254
| ML20247E254 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000047 |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1975 |
| From: | Norrholm L NRC |
| To: | Caphton D NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20244A667 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-89-315 NUDOCS 8909150241 | |
| Download: ML20247E254 (9) | |
Text
_
se =._n e,.__,_.-....
m._,.-........_....,._._.,...._
>i DEC 121975 D. L. Caphton, Section leader 2 RO&NS Branch
- 0fRC DN 50-47 LIC R-65 INSPECTION 50-47/75-01 INSPECTOR'S EVALUATION 1.
On November 25, 1975, I conducted an inspection of the licensed AMMRC reactor facility at Watertown, Massachusetts which has been in " Standby" status since 1970. Pindings are included in the Inspectior. Report.
2.
There are no current plans to change the facility status due pri-marily to a lack of funding for dismantling. One unsolicited pro-6 poaal to dismantle, set the price at approximately $1x10,
3.
The principals responsible for administration' of the license are assigned primary functions.in other areas and, as a result, appear to devote minimal attention to the reactor. Surveillance activ-ities have been delegated to the Post Engineer and are receiving little supervisory attention. The RSC had not met for 18 months and has conducted no Technical Specification required audits.
4.
Due primarily to the above indications of lack of attention and, in keeping with a previous evaluation made by the Project Inspector in July 1974, I plan to continue at least annual inspections for this facility.
(
l 7._
(
y. Norrholm J
L Reactor Inspector
(
)
8909150241 890907
]
( QROSSMAB9-315 PDR n
.m _.
.s..
x mm
~
f.
- ":[
~
l.J{
L:
0v,gs Cdmads l
DHS!?OSWQOB5 IF@[ GEN F................ a m 5 4....
......,i. n. w.
.,c.....i.
0,,,...
ttNct on ottact svanoL svanct DRXMR-XO-SUSG Nuclear Reactor To F20E DATE cut 1 Chairman, Reactor Chief, SUSG 18 April 1978 Safeguards Cortmittee I
1.
Reference is made to Memorandum for Record, dated 13 April 1978, subject as above, i
i l
2.
In accordance with the discussion summarized in the reference, request that the Reactor Safeguards Committee, per instruction of the Director, convene for the purpose of determining the disposition of the reactor.
3.
In addition to the information contained in the reference, several other telephone conversations which have a bearing on the reactor are summarized and furnished for your information and consideration.
If the undersigned f
can be of any further assistance to the committee regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to call upon him.
Y$
e 6 Incl I IAM C. ' HARRISON g
t as LTC, Cml C
- Chief, Space Utilization Study Group CF:
I Director wo incl ~
Cdr/DD Wo inC1 l
4 l
y ;
i D A l FCs 62 K. At G Q FORM OAoc REPLACE 5 DD FORM 98. EXISTING $UPPLIES OF WHICH WILL SE issugD AND USED UNTIL 8 FEB S3 UNLESS SoCNER EXHAUSTED.
gg ggg 1
J
-._.n--
_. ~ _....
i.
A aa o
l
/ g \\
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY g
[
ARMY MATERI ALS AND MECH ANICS RESE ARCH CENTER J
j WATERTOWN. M ASS ACH'JS.ETTs o2172 DRXMR-XO-SUSG 13 April 1978 E
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT:
Nuclear Reactor L
L 1.
On 13 April 1978, the undersigned met with Dr. Wright, COL Benoit and Dr. Burke to discuss the status of the Nuclear Reactor and get some preliminary l
guidance as to the Director's wishes regarding what should be done to correct the difficiency noted during the last IG Incpection (re-maintaining utilities for an inactive reactor not required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) according to the IG report).
It was pointed out that while the IG indicated that utilities should be turned off, the AMMRC license for this facility infers that utilities must be maintained.
In a conversation with an NRC representative, it was indicated that AMMRC had to comply with the license, however, since the NRC did not require that inactivated nuclear reactor facilities be maintained, AMMRC could apply to have this restriction deleted.
2.
Much of the discussion centered around whether or not the reactor should be dismantled, in which case all of the radioactive parts would be removed, leaving only the shells or if the contaminated parts should be sealed off, for example, caping the reactor core and controlling access to the other potentially contaminated pipes, tanks and parts.
It was noted that Mr. Taras from DARCOM had indicated to the undersigned that he would support whichever position AMMRC decided to go with.
The Director's guidance was that we should go for dismantling of the reactor and recycling the building for some other use.
3.
In order to dismantle the reactor an MCA program woul'd have to be submitted to DARCOM HQ, approved at that level and eventually funded by congress.
The cost of such an MCA program is not known, but tentative indications are that it would range from $200,000 to $1,000,000.
In discussing our problem with COL Winfield of the office of the PM for Chemical Demilitarirstion and Installation Restoration, it was indicated that a team could be sent down from that office to take a look at the reactor and perhaps provide AMMRC with some helpful guidance.
COL Winfield indicated that his office would have to be turned on by DARCOM HQ (point of contact is Mr. Taras' office).
In order to get a better feel for the cost to dismantle the reactor it was felt that a COL Winfield type team should come to AMMRC to make such an assessment.
4.
A discussion ensued concerning whether AMMRC should submit the MCA program or have the PM, Chemical Demilitarization & Installation Restoration submit it.
In general, the discussion tended to suggest that the PM office would l
L,
J.v j, DRXMR-XO-SUSG 13 April 1978
SUBJECT:
Nuclear Reactor stand a better chance of getting the MCA program approved than AMMRC.
The exact mechanics of getting this done is not known at this point, howo'er, it was thought that a teletype or letter to DARCOM would turn on the process and a determination could be made at a later date as to what office would actually submit the MCA program.
5.
In summary, guidance to the undersigned was that a request should be submitted
^
to the Reactor Safeguards Committee to have it convene a meeting for the purpose of detennining the disposition of the nuclear reactor.
The guidance to the undersigned as reported above is to be relayed to the Safeguards Committee for further deliberation and study with the outcome being an'AMMRC position and/or a series of actions to be taken to accomplish.the AMMRC position.
M AM C. HARRISON LTC, Cml C Chief, Space Utilization Study Group 9
I
}
i d'
4 A
,5 y
1
7,.
e i
(
Data TELEPliO;IE OR VERDAL CONVERSATION RECORD L
r,..,..ti. e..
..., n an. i s;,,,
,,,y......., s. v.. w..... c....i., D e n...
I7 MARCH I978
.in, o, c va....a i.o
'AMMRC Nuclear Reactor l
twcoutwo CALL E a me dc a u eu e uon ses eno a av=e am aeo s a t a we.o=
i Ens ce< c a EsY, o P r tC a PMons wwwtan aNO sat aNSIQN OUT00lHOCALL T'TisM11.~LTuo op tic a puce s wwwsun awo saTswocu F
j LTC William C. Harris *n AMMRC Vatertown Mass 955-3419 o
eensow cAhso aconase enous www.a= ano s a v auseou g
Mr. Stan Fried Di rg inst'l T. Svs (Eng Div)
Jir.,.. $a Vos s _.. _
DARCOM H0 7816-9012 f uese.a R V D P C o NW a a s a TIOst 1.
The undersigned discussed with Mr. Fried and Mr. Voss the various alternatives available to AMMRC for either use of the AMMRC Nuclear Reactor or disposal of it.
Mr. Fried and Mr. Voss felt that both options (use or disposal) were available to AMMRC - each would have its price tag, however.
They expressed an Interest in being helpful whichever way AMMRC decided to go.
2.
Mr. Fried is in charge of the Real Estate Office in the Directorate and his office would act on any proposed solution to the AMMRC, Nuclear Reactor problem.
LAM C. HARRISON LTC, Cml C Chief.
Space Utilization Study Group f I l
D A4 APR 44 #7qq ronm REPLActs E0lfl0W OF 1 FES S4 WHICH WILL BE USED.
e............./.,
we o__a_
.,g,
[t7~,
{
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
.a
.u s
[.;3*
TELEPHONE OR YERBAL CONVERSATION RECORD DATE r.....u. l..... u w. i s,
..r i. n. g... o...
- i. o,n...
I7 March I978
.....P..M........N AMMRC Nuclear Reactor P E A60M C AL ste$
INCOMING CALL 4 DOA R$$
P M O te g h h/M B E A A k 0 E A T E N.8 0 se -
t PEkeO4 C AL LED.
OP PIC E PMON g MyNe gm AND E RT EN0404 CV,00lMSCALL FLA50N CALLieve OP P4C E Fe4 0HE N UMB EM A ho ER T E n. sip N LTC William C. Harrison AMMRC Watertown Mass 955-3419 PERSON C ALLED ADDAESS
- MONE NWug g 4 AN9 3 RT E N.604 Project Manager's Office, COL Winfield Chemical Demilitarization s 534-3434 eu-anyerCoNvE=0*vica Installation Res toration.
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 1.
COL Winfield was contacted in response to a sug t ion made tiy Mr. Fried, DARCOM HQ.
He was querried concerning his Interest nuclear reactors and asked about the possibility of a visit to AMMRC for the purpose of providing expert advice to AMMRC personnel on the use and disposal of the AHMRC nuclear reactor.
2.
COL Vinfield Indicated that the PM had done some work for DARCOM assisting in the deactivation of nuclear reactors and Indicated that he would be happy to send a team down to advise AMMRC personnel on possible disposal of its nuclear He suggested that a task order from DARCOM is all that would be reactor.
necessary to get a team down.
He also stated that Mr. Taras in the Safety Of fice is the individual that he normally coordinates with on this type of requirement, j
WILLIAM C. HARiiI30N LTC, Cml C
- Chlef, Space Utilization Study Group D Ai APn ed afg1 roam e.r s REPLACES EDITION OF I FES H WHICH WILL SE USED.
o............./..
l f,
_____1___.-
~
' g'
- L;w i
i, 1
t-e oats
^
TELEPHONE OR YERBAL CONVERSATION RECORD Fee ses el ek,e leem, ese AR 34015 A, peePeneas eyeasy,e The Adive n, Cenomi's ofnee.
1 I7 March 1978 e
east or convaasAf som -
l i
AMMRC Nuclear Reactor
- tmecescaL.sas sucovineo cau n oom s ee PMoev a mu=se an a ko s a f theso*e._
enneou c46 6se, orrecs a
i noNE MWWe 8 A AND E RY EN8 tom OutoonMeCALL PEA 5oM CALLiedG OP ett g PH oN E NWWB E R A ND Eh T E N51D M LTC William C. Harrison AMMRC Watertown Mass 955-3419 Pensom C ALLE9 ADDRE88
- mom & WWWS EM m odo S N T E N$loM LTC Richard Stephens DA IG Office, Wash DC 225-1540 evias44v er convansation Made an Inquiry of LTC Stephens as to whether or not he was compiling a list of inactive nuclear reactors for the purpose of submitting a funding request congress to dismantle them.
to He Indicated that he was compiling a list of inactive nuclear reactors, but stated that the IG Office had no intention of submitting a funding requirement to congress to dismantle them or to do anything else to them.
He suggested that the Facilities Engineering Support Activity at Fort Belvoir
, would know of any requirement to dismantle Inactive nuclear reactors and gave the undersigned a contact point.
- - - ~ ~ ~ ~.
^-
Vl'LLIAMd.,sHARRISON LTCe Cm1 C
- Chief, Space Utillration Study Group l
1 D A 'a*/," 7 51
.. uc s...1,
, e, f,e.
,c,,,,u.
u....
- - """" -/ -'
g s'
_.,_n_._ _ _.. _ - -. - - - -
y - - - - -
M..
-"~
PC
"---~~~ -
~
~*
- j...,
ou
= -
DA1E I
TELEPHONE OR YERBAL CONVERSATION RECORD r.,....:,u. s
... A n 9o is, A.,,.,...... u r,. n. Ac... c...
se. oin..
I7 March 1978 TW.
.,oPco......o.
AMMRC Nuclear Reactor swcoutwo c Au.
- t A.oM t a bsseet
. con s to Paows hv eSan As o an T ahtices anson c4L6So, orraca
- Mown wwwenn Amo satsussow -
OuToolNo CALL PERSON C ALb4h5 oPPeCg PMoNE Nkius sn Aho Ea r zwsipu LTC Villiam C. Harrison AMMRC Vatertown Mass 955-3419 PEAtoMCALL89 A oo A E88 PMow s NUMS g4 A ND E 3 7 3=330g Mr. D. N. Taras Health Physics, Safety Ofc 284-8864 DARCOM HQ zu-i.,oeco.
....v l.
Discussed the AMMRC nuclear reactor situation with Mr. Taras.
He was very familiar with the AMMRC problem.
Mr. Taras In general Indicated that he would upport the AMMRC position whether it was for converting the reactor to
' aboratory use or for completely dismantling it.
He Indicated that once AMMRC
' decided what It wanted to dojlt should send its request to the Directorate for installation & Services, DARCOM with a copy to him.
Another consideration he Indicated was whether or not AMMRC wouli! want to go in for funds to dismantle the nuclear reactor or have the PM, Chemical Demilitarization & Installation Restoration to request the funding.
Obviously, if AMMRC requested the funding it would be able to control the dismantling, the timing. etc.
Whether or not a request from AMMRC would be received equally as well as one from the PM is questionable.
If the PM requested the funding it would exercise the controls.
Such control could put the PM in a position to delay letting a contract for dis-mantilng (to possibly prolong the life of the PM).
A determination would also have to%de as to whether or not the PM would have its own NRC license or depend on AMMRC for radlation safeguards.
2.
Mr. Taras Indicated that he had received information to the effect that the DA IG was compiling a list of Inactive nuclear reactors and he thought he had heard that DA was going to submit a request for funding for dismantling all inactive nuclear reactors which had no future potential.
He suggested that the undersigned speak with a LTC Richard Stephens in the IG office at DA.
m 1[li.LI AM C. HARRISON LTC, Cml C
- Chief, Space Utilization Study Group DAdAt751
,m.c., e e s t,e., e,,,..
.,,,c,,,,u... u,, e.
" ~ " " " ' - ' - '
L 4
s
- s
- ...
~.
6-
, p',
o_e-onta TELEPHONE OR VERBAL CONVERSATION RECORD rw ee. oiskie twm, see AR HO lk Ao pene** eat openey f. The Adivenne Ceaeml's Offlee.
I7 March I378 cvorconvaasavion AMMRC Nuclear Reactor INCOMlWO CALL
- s as o= c.6 s.a.
.oonies
..o~.Nos.a.ro..r.~,,oM P$aeoM C AL be9 OFFSCS PHONE NWNBEa &ND R AJ EN$4oM 1
OuTOOING CALL
' M CabbWe o# F#C E PHO6eE NVW5 Ka A ho E h T E Nc 6cas LTC William C. Haro sol AMMRC, Watertown Mass 955-3419 esason cattoo acoasefact 11 tles Engineering
- """""***^"*""""'"
Mr. Henry Gignllliat Support Activity, 354-6463 or 6464 Fort Belvoir evansany or cowvaasations The undersigned had a lengthy discussion with Mr. Gignilliat concerning the use of inactive nuclear reactors and dismantling of them.
He Indicated that the Facilities Engineering Support Activity (FESA) had done some work on deactivating the reactors but did not get too involved in dismantling them.
He suggested that dismantilng of the reactors was usually done by commercial contract and this was usually done after the radiation level was down to a safe level.
It was his opinion that the type of reactor AMMRC had would take about 50 years before the radiation level would be down to a harmless level.
Action to dismantl e the nuclear reactor prior to this tl,me would perhaps be rather costly.
He was aware that by waiting to dismantle the nuclear reactor could result In higher costs due to inflation thus nullifying the effect of the long waltIng period.
He made reference to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission Guide 1-86 and Indicated thi s 9ulde provided helpful hints on the maintenance of Inactive nuclear reactors (the undersigned contacted Mr. Sid Levin to determine if he had this guide and he stated that he did have the guide and was foll Ing-It).
m 6%
~
WILLIAM C. HARRISON LTC, Cml C
- Chlef, Space Utilization Study Group i
4 D Ai APR to I *J e1C1 F C Eat REPLACEB EDITION OF 1 PES 58 WHICH WILL st USED.
O eco se o ase. coo /eoet
___-_..h__-
. _ _ _ _ _. _ _