[Main Page] [Resumé] [Profile] [Articles] [Artwork]

Articles:
 The Case of the Radioactive Pillow

The Reactor Facility that was Built at Columbia University but Never Used

The Decay-in-Storage Room at the Einstein College of Medicine

Freeze-Drying as a Potential Mean for Waste Handling of Animal Carcasses Containing Radioactive Material

Operational Topic

The Reactor Facility that was Built at Columbia University but Never Used

George Hamawy
Abstract: A large and heavy experimental plasma vessel is located on the second floor of the Engineering Building at Columbia University.  It sits atop the concrete shell of the old nuclear reactor facility. The reactor facility was built many years ago but no nuclear fuel was ever loaded into it. It was designed to contain a 250 kW reactor core. However, due to certain circumstances, it was never fueled or operated. This paper describes the events leading to the decision to not put the reactor into operation. Health Phys. 82 (supplement 2):S82-S83; 2002

Key words: operational topic; nuclear reactor; nuclear fuel cycle; radiation protection

HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY
The story of the university's nuclear reactor facility began in 1960 when the project was launched with a grant a quarter of a million dollars from the National Science Foundation. The grant was for the purchase and installation of a TRIGA Mark II reactor for education and research purposes. In May of 1963 the university submitted an application for construction of the facility to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC).The application was accepted.

The construction of the reactor building began early in 1964 and the installation of the reactor facility (Fig. 1) followed shortly thereafter.  The building project was completed in April of 1967.  (At a total cost of approximately one million (1967) dollars). In January 1968, the University applied to the AEC for an operating license. In March of 1968, the AEC filed notice in the Federal Register of its intention to issue the license and it immediately received petitions for intervention from activists and concerned area residents.

Because of the. prevailing climate in 1968 (student unrest and community opposition) the University asked the AEC to defer further action on the application for an operating license.

In June of 1969, the University reactivated its license application. Shortly thereafter the AEC announced that a hearing would be held before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB).At a pre-hearing conference, the ASLB asked the University to prepare an updated Safety Analysis Report. This Report was completed in August 1969.  Hearings were held before the ASLB on November 18, 1969, and the ASLB issued its decision the following April.

The ASLB denied the University's application based on (1) lack of site criteria specific to research reactors and (2) conflicting estimates of the amount of radioactive material that would be released in a postulated accident.

The University appealed the ASLB decision, and during the summer of 1971 the radioactive material release estimates were remeasured in the laboratory of the reactor manufacturer, General Atomic. The Appeal Board examined the new data, overturned the original ASLB decision, and recommended issuance of a license.

Interveners filed petition in the U.S.Court of Appeals for a review of the decision. The Court denied the petition on July 5, 1972. The interveners then petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the Appeals Court decision. This was denied in a decision of June 10, 1974.

With the legal matters concluded, the University needed only to apply to the AEC to obtain the license.		 reactor diagram

CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES

At the time, the University was re-evaluating its Nuclear Science and Engineering program and the need for a nuclear reactor.  With changes in top management and financial considerations, it was decided to put the project on indefinite hold.

CONCLUSION

In New York City there remains a nuclear reactor facility. It is still standing; its metal parts are aging and collecting rust. It serves as a reminder of another era when scientific dreams were placed on hold because of the social and financial realities of the time.

REFERENCES
LaMarsh, J. Unpublished letter from the Polytechnic's Nuclear Engineering Department Head to the Chairman of Columbia University's Division of Nuclear Science and Engineering. New York, N.Y. Dated 7 February 1977.

Technical Foundations of TRIGA.General Dynamics Corp.; San Diego, CA; 1958.

Columbia University, 500 W 12Oth Street, 389 Engineering Terrace, New York, NY 10027. 
For correspondence or reprints contact G. Hamaway at the above address, or email at gh81@columbia.edu.

[Main Page] [Columbia University] [Go to EH&RS Home Page]