A Review of Decontamination and Decommissioning Technology Development Programs at the Department of Energy (1998)

Trip Report by Linda Wennerberg and Alfred Schneider for the NRC Committee on Decontamination and Decommissioning Submitted July 20, 1997

The Fernald LSDP was one of the first three LSDPs selected by the DDFA of the DOE's OST. The direction of this project was through the FETC in Morgantown, West Virginia.

The Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP) is an inactive DOE facility near Cincinnati, Ohio, formerly used in the production of uranium and thorium metal and other compounds. It is a Superfund site currently undergoing environmental restoration. The contractor is Fluor Daniels Fernald (FDF).

The LSDP was to be integrated into the Plant 1 D&D Project, which was already in progress under a fixed-price contract awarded to B&W Nuclear Environmental Services, Inc. The total cost was estimated at $10.9 million and the project was to last 18 months.

The completion state of the Plant 1 D&D Project was removal of all structures down to their concrete pads, with the transite panels palletized and wrapped and the structural steel segmented and stacked on the Plant 1 pad. Debris was to have been boxed for disposal on site, along with the transite and structural steel. Debris not meeting the FEMP waste acceptance criteria was to be sent to the Nevada Test Site (NTS).

The technologies selected for demonstration were to be judged for their values in:

• a)	Reducing the size of the labor force required (major cost factor);

• b)	Improving safety and reducing the probability for work-related injuries or accidents; and

• c)	Reducing the volume of waste requiring off-site disposal.

FETC issued a Request for Letter Proposals on July 21, 1995, and a proposal was submitted by the DOE Fernald Office on August 17, 1995. The proposal was accepted in October 1995 for an estimated cost of $3.1 million. The period for implementing the LSDP was to be October 2, 1995, to July 20, 1997. The award made it mandatory that at least 40 percent of the funding go to technology vendors in the private sector.

Because of the existing organization for the Plant 1 D&D Project, the LSDP consisted of two parallel organizations as shown in Figure 1. Important organizational objectives were to avoid critical path interference and to secure the necessary support of the ongoing D&D project. An important feature of the organization was the formation of the Integrating Core Team which included the FDF Plant 1 Project Manager and the Plant 1 D&D Contractor. This team provided direction for the LSDP and approval of all the technology demonstrations.

The LSDP developed a D&D ''Needs Statement" specifically for the FEMP D&D tasks with inputs from all parties involved in D&D activities at the site. The technologies identified included:

• Pipe shearing equipment for remote removal of pipes and conduits;
• Personal protection equipment;
• Improved methods for power washing of structures;
• Improved concrete scabbling methods;
• Equipment for inspection and cleaning of process piping;
• Enhanced removal of insulation, transite panels, and concrete/masonry walls; and
• Instruments for in-situ characterization of surface contamination.

Detailed criteria were used during the evaluation process. Of the 184 technologies that were screened, 32 passed, 17 were proposed, and 12 were approved for demonstration. Subsequently, two approved demonstrations were canceled: a passive aerosol generator for the removal of loose surface contamination because of incompatibility of the wall coatings available, and a transite pulverizer/transfer system because of scheduling conflicts.

The following results were reported:

• Vacuum removal of insulation—superior to the baseline method (manual removal and bagging) by lowering airborne contamination, waste volumes, number of bags, and man-hours required; removal rate was about 25 percent faster than the manual method.
• Washing of D&D debris—the steam/air spray vacuum technique (Kelly Decon System) was found unsuitable for small debris segments and did not offer any advantage over the baseline method (high-pressure water).

• Sponge cleaning of equipment—generally found adequate for cleaning contaminated process equipment, especially if it contained enriched uranium. System was found to have potential benefits. No baseline method was available for comparison.
• Raman spectroscopy—method for the radiological characterization of swipes, including isotopic information, was found to be unsuitable.
• Laser induced fluorescence—for rapid determination of uranium surface contamination. The principle was successfully demonstrated, but there is a need for additional development work.
• Passive aerosol generator—for the removal of surface contamination. Demonstration was canceled.
• Void filling with polyurethane foam—demonstration was successful, but the use of low-density cellular concrete was deemed preferable.
• Void filling with grout foam—for the specific application in which subsidence is to be avoided, this method and material was found to have benefits over the baseline method, which requires the segmenting of metal equipment having voids greater than 1 cubic foot.
• Cool suit for worker protection—demonstration postponed for seasonal reasons.
• Oxy-gasoline torch—significant advantages found over the baseline equipment (acetylene cutting torch).
• Pipe inspection—an inspection system using a miniature video camera showed cost benefits for this particular project by qualifying the removed process piping for on-site burial rather than shipment to the NTS.
• Transite pulverizer and transfer system—demonstration was canceled.

Efforts were made by DOE and the site contractor to disseminate the demonstration results through reports, the Internet, D&D contractor briefings, presentations at conferences and topical meetings, and specific references in bids for D&D proposals.

An elaborate system was established for the development of cost estimates for the demonstrated technologies for comparison with the actual costs incurred when the baseline technologies were used. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was given the prime responsibility. Since many assumptions and corrections have to be made, the resulting uncertainties may either mask or exaggerate any real differences in the costs of these technologies. Unless there are very substantial differences in man hours, waste volumes, and equipment costs, which was not

the case for any technologies of the Fernald LSDPs, purported benefits will be difficult to justify on a cost-saving basis.

1. The Fernald LSDP was well planned, the organizational structure met its objectives, and a dedicated and well-qualified staff performed efficiently.
2. The fundamental problem in selecting technologies deserving of an LSDP is shown by the fact that of 184 technologies screened, only 12 were found to conform with the acceptance criteria, and for the majority of the 10 technologies actually demonstrated, the results could have been predicted quite reliably without the elaborate procedures employed in the course of the demonstrations.
3. It will be difficult to accept these cost comparisons, since many assumptions and corrections had to be made during their development.
4. It is not known how effective the dissemination of the results was.
5. The cost effectiveness of the Fernald LSDP is probably low, considering that for an investment of $3–4 million the actual savings resulting from the use of the demonstrated technologies are likely to be small.
6. The Fernald LSDP showed that the usefulness of a particular method depends greatly on local conditions (types of equipment, nature and extent of contamination, applicable regulations, etc.).
7. The most obvious benefit of the Fernald LSDP was in showing that a disciplined search and review of existing technologies by contractors for specific applications can be beneficial and should be encouraged by the DOE.