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