|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
-->
Affordable Cleanup?
Opportunities for cost reduction in the decontamination and decommissioning of the nation's uranium enrichment facilities
Committee on Decontamination and Decommissioning of Uranium Enrichment Facilities
Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
OCR for page R2
-->
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Harold Liebowitz is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Harold Liebowitz are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
This report and the study on which it is based were supported by Grant No. DE-FC01-94EW54069 from the U.S. Department of Energy.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 96-67092
International Standard Book Number: 0-309-05438-9
Limited copies of this report are available from the Board on Energy and Environmental Systems, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20418.
Additional copies are available for sale from the:
National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Box 285 Washington, DC 20055 800-624-6242 or 202-334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area)
Copyright 1996 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
-->
Committee On Decontamination And Decommissioning Of Uranium Enrichment Facilities
DALE F. STEIN, Chair,
NAE, Michigan Technological University, Tucson, Arizona
GREGORY R. CHOPPIN, Vice Chair,
Department of Chemistry, Florida State University, Tallahassee
EULA BINGHAM,
IOM, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
JOSEPH S. BYRD,
University of South Carolina, Columbia
JOEL I. CEHN,
Applied Sciences Company, Oakland, California
PHILIP R. CLARK, SR.,
NAE, GPU Nuclear Corporation, Parsippany, New Jersey
ROBERT E. CONNICK,
NAS, University of California at Berkeley
FRANK P. CRIMI,
Lockheed Martin Environmental Systems & Technologies, Houston, Texas
WOLTER J. FABRYCKY,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg
ROBERT A. FJELD,
Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina
BERND KAHN,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
CHARLES KIMM,
Pacific International Center for High Technology Research, Honolulu, Hawaii
PETER B. LEDERMAN,
New Jersey Institute of Technology, University Heights, Newark
WALTER G. MAY,
NAE, University of Illinois, Urbana
ALVIN H. MUSHKATEL,
Arizona State University, Tempe
M. ELISABETH PATE-CORNELL,
NAE, Stanford University, Stanford, California
WILLIAM R. PRINDLE,
NAE, (retired), Corning, Santa Barbara, California
CAROLYN RAFFENSPERGER,
Science Environmental & Health Network, Washington, D.C.
GEOFFREY S. ROTHWELL,
Stanford University, Stanford, California
RAY O. SANDBERG,
Bechtel National, San Francisco, California
ALFRED SCHNEIDER,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Dunwoody
RICHARD I. SMITH,
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington
Liaison from the Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
RICHARD MESERVE,
Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C.
Project Staff
Board on Energy & Environmental Systems
MAHADEVAN MANI, director (January 1991-January 1996)
JAMES ZUCCHETTO, study director and board director
TRACY WILSON, senior program officer
JILL WILSON, senior program officer
SUSANNA CLARENDON, senior project assistant
ANN COVALT, editor
OCR for page R4
-->
Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology
DOUGLAS RABER, director
SCOTT WEIDMAN, senior program officer
MARIA JONES, senior project assistant
Board on Radioactive Waste Management
KARYANIL T. (K. T.) THOMAS, senior program officer
VERNA BOWEN, administrative assistant
OCR for page R5
-->
Board On Energy And Environmental Systems
H. M. (HUB) HUBBARD, Chair, (retired),
Pacific International Center for High Technology Research, Honolulu, Hawaii
RICHARD A. MESERVE, Vice Chair,
Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C.
ROBERT D. BANKS,
World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
ALLEN J. BARD,
NAS, University of Texas at Austin
JAN BEYEA,
National Audubon Society, New York, New York
DAVID E. DANIEL,
University of Texas at Austin
LINDA C. DOLAN,
Martin Marietta, Electronics and Missiles, Orlando, Florida
FRANCOIS HEUZE,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California
ROBERT L. HIRSCH,
Energy Technology Collaborative, Inc., Washington, D.C.
THOMAS D. O'ROURKE,
NAE, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
LARRY T. PAPAY,
NAE, Bechtel Group, San Francisco, California
RUTH A. RECK,
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois
JOEL SPIRA,
NAE, Lutron Electronics Company, Coopersburg, Pennsylvania
Former Members Active during Reporting Period:
STEPHEN D. BAN,
Gas Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois
BARBARA R. BARKOVICH,
Barkovich and Yap, Consultants, San Rafael, California
CHARLES D. KOLSTAD,
University of California at Santa Barbara
JANE C. S. LONG,
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California
S. L. (CY) MEISEL,
NAE, (retired), Mobil R&D Corporation, Princeton, New Jersey
SHLOMO NEUMAN,
NAE, University of Arizona, Tucson
MARC H. ROSS,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
HAROLD H. SCHOBERT,
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park
JON M. VEIGEL,
Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Liaisons for the Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
RICHARD A. CONWAY,
NAE, Union Carbide Corporation, South Charleston, West Virginia
TREVOR O. JONES,
NAE, (retired), Libbey-Owens-Ford Company, Cleveland, Ohio
Board on Energy and Environmental Systems Staff
MAHADEVAN MANI, director (January 1991–January 1996)
JAMES ZUCCHETTO, director
SUSANNA CLARENDON, project and administrative assistant
HELEN JOHNSON, administrative associate
WENDY LEWALLEN, project assistant
AMELIA MATHIS, project assistant
JILL WILSON, senior program officer
TRACY WILSON, senior program officer
OCR for page R6
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R7
-->
Preface
This report was prepared in response to a request by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) following on the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which calls for the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study and provide recommendations for reducing costs associated with the decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the nation's uranium enrichment facilities located at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio. The committee was also asked to assess options for the disposition of the large inventory of depleted uranium hexafluoride that is stored in steel cylinders at these three sites (see Appendix A for the committee's full statement of task).
The D&D of these large facilities will occur following the closure of the plants. The Oak Ridge plant has already been shut down; the Paducah and Portsmouth plants are being leased by the United States Enrichment Corporation from the federal government to produce enriched uranium for the electric utility sector. Cost estimates have been made for the D&D of the three plants, and DOE is currently engaged in planning for the effort. This large effort, with a projected cost of billions of dollars, will entail cleanup of radioactive and hazardous materials within a complex regulatory environment and will face numerous uncertainties before it is complete.
Given the multifaceted nature of the subject, the committee at its first meeting in February 1994, divided itself into three panels: the Cost Analysis Panel, which analyzed existing cost estimates and the costs of previous D&D experiences; the Decision and Process Analysis Panel, which focused on such issues as risk, end states of the sites, stakeholder involvement, and the management approach; and, finally, the Technology Panel, which considered the host of technologies needed for D&D (see Appendix B for more on the committee's panel structure). In addition to participating in full committee meetings, the panels met separately through January 1995, producing analyses that were used by the committee in its report (see Appendix C for a description of all the committee and panel meetings and activities).
The committee was large, with widely varying backgrounds and expertise (see Appendix D for biographies), yet the members worked effectively and harmoniously to find ways to substantially reduce the cost of the D&D safely and securely. I express my appreciation to the committee members for their time, dedication, and above all, frank and professional discussion. This group of highly able people devoted themselves to an important national problem and worked together to achieve an objective. It was a privilege to work with them.
OCR for page R8
-->
The interdisciplinary nature of the study required a cooperative effort by several boards at the National Research Council (NRC). The Board on Energy and Environmental Systems (BEES), Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, led the effort with staff in support of the committee as follows: Dev Mani, Director, BEES; James Zucchetto, Study Director; Jill Wilson, who worked with the Technology Panel and on the problem of options for disposition of uranium hexafluoride; and Tracy Wilson, who worked with the Decision and Process Analysis Panel. Susanna Clarendon, Administrative and Project Assistant, provided invaluable assistance in the logistical arrangements for the meetings and site visits and in preparing the many drafts of the committee's report. The BEES staff worked with the committee throughout the study effort, including the completion of the committee's report. NRC staff Douglas Raber, Director, Chemical Sciences and Technology Board (BCST), Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications, and Scott Weidman, BCST, with the assistance of Maria Jones, Senior Project Assistant, worked with the Technology Panel from February 1994 to January 1995; and NRC staff K. T. (Karyanil) Thomas, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, with the assistance of Verna Bowen, Administrative Assistant, provided support to the Cost Analysis Panel from March 1994 to January 1995. My compliments to the NRC cooperative staff effort in this study.
I also appreciate contributions by Roger Shaw, GPU Nuclear Corporation, who worked with committee member Philip R. Clark, Sr., on the committee's behalf, and Keith Compton, graduate student at Clemson University, who worked with committee member Robert Fjeld and other committee members in collecting information and addressing selected tasks.
I wish to express my sincere thanks to the many people at DOE/EM-40, the Oak Ridge Operations Office, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems (formerly Martin Marietta Energy Systems), and Lockheed Martin Utility Systems who arranged the informative visits to the three plant sites. I would also like to thank the numerous people from government, the private sector, universities, local groups at the sites, the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, and others for the time they contributed to presentations and discussions at the committee meetings, as well as at the committee's June 1994 workshop. These were all important inputs to the committee's work.
DALE F. STEIN, chair
Committee on Decontamination and Decommissioning of Uranium Enrichment Facilities
OCR for page R9
-->
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
The GDPs
2
D&D Cost Estimates
4
The Uncertain Context
4
Recommendations
6
1
INTRODUCTION
15
Study Background and Objectives
15
The U.S. Uranium Enrichment Enterprise
16
The United States Enrichment Corporation
17
The D&D Fund
19
The Challenges of a D&D Effort
20
D&D Costs
22
Organization of the Report
23
References
25
2
THE GDP SITES: PROCESS, FACILITIES, INVENTORIES, AND RISKS
27
The Gaseous Diffusion Process
27
Site Descriptions
30
Buildings and Equipment
33
Contamination
35
Storage of DUF6
41
Site Differences
42
Risks Subsequent to GDP Closure
43
Conclusions
46
References
47
3
DECONTAMINATION PROCESSES
49
Introduction
49
Nuclear Criticality
51
Uranium Deposit Removal
52
Decontamination of Cascade Equipment
56
Decontamination of Support Systems and Buildings
59
Waste Management
60
Characterization
61
Automation and Robotics
62
OCR for page R10
-->
Capenhurst Technologies
64
CIP/CUP Technologies
69
Conclusions and Recommendations
69
References
74
4
ANALYSES OF THE D&D COST ESTIMATES FOR THE GDPs
79
Previous Cost Estimates
79
Identification of Major Cost Elements
86
Time Profile of Income and Expenditures for the D&D Fund
88
Estimating U.S. GDP D&D Costs from Capenhurst D&D Costs
89
The Shippingport Reactor D&D Project
96
Conclusions and Recommendations
97
References
100
5
PLANNING THE D&D PROGRAM
103
Public and Stakeholder Involvement
103
End-State Alternatives
105
Development of an Integrated Regulatory Program
109
Coordinated Planning
114
Management Issues
120
Recommendations
121
References
125
6
OPPORTUNITIES FOR D&D COST REDUCTION
127
Program Integration
128
Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management
133
Decontamination and Decommissioning
136
Support Facilities
144
Cost Estimate Assumptions
146
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
150
References
154
7
DISPOSITION OF THE DUF6
157
DUF6 Inventory
157
Uses for Depleted Uranium
158
Depleted Uranium Management Options
163
Analysis of Cost Estimates for Conversion
170
Opportunities for Cost Saving
173
Conclusions and Recommendations
177
References
179
8
MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS
183
Coordinated Planning
184
Contracting and Management
185
Prioritized Cost and Risk Reduction
185
Regulatory Coordination
187
OCR for page R11
-->
Stakeholder Involvement
187
Waste Management
187
Need for New Facilities
189
D&D Technology Issues
190
Safeguards and Security
191
DUF6
191
APPENDICES
A Statement of Task
195
B The Committee's Panel Structure and Panel Statement of Tasks
197
C Committee Meetings and Activities
200
D Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff
210
E Radionuclide Characterization and Detection
220
F Automation and Robotics
233
G Nuclear Criticality
236
H Previous Decontamination and Decommissioning Efforts
244
I Waste Treatment
256
J Review of Existing Cost Estimates
262
GLOSSARY
296
ACRONYMS
306
OCR for page R12
-->
List of Tables
1-1
Estimated Costs for Prompt Dismantlement of the Gaseous Diffusion Plants
23
2-1
Characteristics of the Uranium Enrichment Facilities
32
2-2
Expenditures on Surveillance and Maintenance at the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant
34
2-3
Estimated Radioactive Scrap Metal Streams from the D&D of the GDPs
34
2-4
Radionuclide Decay Characteristics
36
2-5
Estimated Percentages of Surface Areas at the Oak Ridge GDP Contaminated with Radioactive Materials
37
2-6
Estimated Uranium Deposits at the Oak Ridge GDP
39
2-7
Estimates of Key Hazardous Contaminants at the Uranium Enrichment Facilities
40
2-8
Cascades and Stages in the Process Buildings at the Three GDP Sites
43
4-1
Summary of Previous GDP D&D Cost Estimates
80
4-2
Comparison of Major Parameters in the Ebasco and TLG Cost Estimates
83
4-3
Comparison of Selected Unit Cost Factors for Equipment Removal Used in the Oak Ridge GDP Cost Estimates
83
4-4
Ebasco and SAIC Estimated D&D Costs for the GDPs
85
4-5
Principal Cost Drivers for the Oak Ridge GDP
87
4-6
Comparison of Estimated Costs for Equipment Removal and Decontamination Activities at the Oak Ridge GDP
87
4-7
Scaling of Capenhurst Costs to Estimate D&D Costs for the Oak Ridge GDP
93
4-8
Weight of Process Equipment at the Oak Ridge GDP
94
5-1
End-State Alternatives for the D&D of the GDPs
106
5-2
Suggested Approach for Managing the D&D Process
122
6-1
Cost Reduction Opportunities
129
6-2
Person Hours and Duration for Converter Removal During Operations and During Decontamination and Decommissioning
141
7-1
DOE DUF6 Inventory at the Three GDPs
158
7-2
Breached DUF6 Cylinders
165
7-3
Comparison of Management Options for DUF6
171
7-4
Conversion and Waste Management Costs
174
7-5
Cost Comparison for the Conversion of DUF6 to Oxide
175
7-6
Comparison of Unit Conversion Costs Including Annual Private Capital Costs
175
B-1
Committee Panels and Membership
197
E-1
Estimated Radioactive Contaminants Received by Paducah GDP
221
E-2
Conventional Radionuclide Characterization Instruments and Techniques
224
E-3
Recent Characterization Developments
227
E-4
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Acceptable Surface Contamination Levels
228
OCR for page R13
-->
E-5
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Default Radionuclide Concentration Values for Various Exposure Scenarios
229
E-6
EPA Review Draft Generic Site Concentration Values for Various Exposure Scenarios
229
E-7
IAEA Recommended Unconditional Clearance Levels
230
G-1
Single-Parameter Limits for Uniform Aqueous Solution of 235U
239
G-2
Subcritical Limits for Aqueous Solution of 235UO2F2 with a Water Reflector
239
G-3
Subcritical Limits for Uniform Aqueous Solution of Low-Enriched Uranium for Different 235U Enrichment Levels
240
G-4
Critical Parameters for Solid UO2 Dispersal in Water with 300-mm-Thick Water Reflector
241
H-1
Comparison of Capenhurst and Oak Ride GDP Design Characteristics
252
H-2
Comparison of Capenhurst and U.S. GDP Material Quantities
253
H-3
Quantity Ratios of the Oak Ridge GDP to Capenhurst GDP
253
J-1
Ebasco's 1991 Cost Estimates
264
J-2
Comparison of MMES and Ebasco Cost Estimates
270
J-3
Comparison of SAIC and Ebasco Cost Estimates
273
J-4
Ebasco and TLG Waste Volume and Waste Management Cost Comparison
280
J-5
Ebasco Program Integration (PI) Costs Related to Waste Management (WM)
280
J-6
Ebasco Waste Management (WM) Cost Summary for the three GDPs
281
J-7
Ebasco Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (WM) Cost Summary for the Oak Ridge GDP
282
J-8
Ebasco Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (WM) Cost Summary for the Paducah GDP
283
J-9
Ebasco Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (WM) Cost Summary for the Portsmouth GDP
284
J-10
Ebasco Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (WM) Cost Summary for the Three GDP Sites
285
J-11
Types of Packaging Assumed in the Ebasco Cost Estimate
286
J-12
Net Packaging Unit Cost
286
J-13
Local Transportation Cost Summary for Waste Disposal at the Three GDPs
287
J-14
Interstate Transportation Cost Summary for Waste from the Paducah and Portsmouth GDP
287
J-15
Disposal Cost Summary by GDP Site
289
J-16
Storage Cost Summary for the Three GDPs
289
J-17
Waste Management Unit Cost Summary
290
J-18
Waste Management Unit Cost Summary for Level I Waste
290
J-19
Waste Management Unit Cost Summary for Level III Waste
291
J-20
Waste Management Unit Cost Summary for Hazardous Material Waste
291
J-21
Waste Management Unit Cost Summary for Clean/Recycle Material
292
OCR for page R14
-->
List of Figures
1-1
The geographical relationship of the three GDPs
18
1-2
Photograph of the interior of a process building showing the repetitive arrangement of the cascades
20
1-3
The Oak Ridge GDP site
21
2-1
Operating principle of a converter
28
2-2
Gaseous diffusion stage schematic
28
2-3
Photograph of a large converter
29
2-4
Arrangement of large converters showing 2 cells with 10 stages each
30
3-1
Simplified decontamination flow diagram
50
5-1
Organizational framework for D&D of the GDPs
120
6-1
Break-even metal recycling value versus total waste disposal costs
138
7-1
DUF6 cylinder storage yards at Paducah
159
7-2
Cylinders stored at Portsmouth
159
