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
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
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
This page in the original is blank. |
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.
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
List of Tables
1-1 |
Estimated Costs for Prompt Dismantlement of the Gaseous Diffusion Plants |
|||
2-1 |
Characteristics of the Uranium Enrichment Facilities |
|||
2-2 |
Expenditures on Surveillance and Maintenance at the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant |
|||
2-3 |
Estimated Radioactive Scrap Metal Streams from the D&D of the GDPs |
|||
2-4 |
Radionuclide Decay Characteristics |
|||
2-5 |
Estimated Percentages of Surface Areas at the Oak Ridge GDP Contaminated with Radioactive Materials |
|||
2-6 |
Estimated Uranium Deposits at the Oak Ridge GDP |
|||
2-7 |
Estimates of Key Hazardous Contaminants at the Uranium Enrichment Facilities |
|||
2-8 |
Cascades and Stages in the Process Buildings at the Three GDP Sites |
|||
4-1 |
Summary of Previous GDP D&D Cost Estimates |
|||
4-2 |
Comparison of Major Parameters in the Ebasco and TLG Cost Estimates |
|||
4-3 |
Comparison of Selected Unit Cost Factors for Equipment Removal Used in the Oak Ridge GDP Cost Estimates |
|||
4-4 |
Ebasco and SAIC Estimated D&D Costs for the GDPs |
|||
4-5 |
Principal Cost Drivers for the Oak Ridge GDP |
|||
4-6 |
Comparison of Estimated Costs for Equipment Removal and Decontamination Activities at the Oak Ridge GDP |
|||
4-7 |
Scaling of Capenhurst Costs to Estimate D&D Costs for the Oak Ridge GDP |
|||
4-8 |
Weight of Process Equipment at the Oak Ridge GDP |
|||
5-1 |
End-State Alternatives for the D&D of the GDPs |
|||
5-2 |
Suggested Approach for Managing the D&D Process |
|||
6-1 |
Cost Reduction Opportunities |
|||
6-2 |
Person Hours and Duration for Converter Removal During Operations and During Decontamination and Decommissioning |
|||
7-1 |
DOE DUF6 Inventory at the Three GDPs |
|||
7-2 |
Breached DUF6 Cylinders |
|||
7-3 |
Comparison of Management Options for DUF6 |
|||
7-4 |
Conversion and Waste Management Costs |
|||
7-5 |
Cost Comparison for the Conversion of DUF6 to Oxide |
|||
7-6 |
Comparison of Unit Conversion Costs Including Annual Private Capital Costs |
|||
B-1 |
Committee Panels and Membership |
|||
E-1 |
Estimated Radioactive Contaminants Received by Paducah GDP |
|||
E-2 |
Conventional Radionuclide Characterization Instruments and Techniques |
|||
E-3 |
Recent Characterization Developments |
|||
E-4 |
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Acceptable Surface Contamination Levels |
E-5 |
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Default Radionuclide Concentration Values for Various Exposure Scenarios |
|||
E-6 |
EPA Review Draft Generic Site Concentration Values for Various Exposure Scenarios |
|||
E-7 |
IAEA Recommended Unconditional Clearance Levels |
|||
G-1 |
Single-Parameter Limits for Uniform Aqueous Solution of 235U |
|||
G-2 |
Subcritical Limits for Aqueous Solution of 235UO2F2 with a Water Reflector |
|||
G-3 |
Subcritical Limits for Uniform Aqueous Solution of Low-Enriched Uranium for Different 235U Enrichment Levels |
|||
G-4 |
Critical Parameters for Solid UO2 Dispersal in Water with 300-mm-Thick Water Reflector |
|||
H-1 |
Comparison of Capenhurst and Oak Ride GDP Design Characteristics |
|||
H-2 |
Comparison of Capenhurst and U.S. GDP Material Quantities |
|||
H-3 |
Quantity Ratios of the Oak Ridge GDP to Capenhurst GDP |
|||
J-1 |
Ebasco's 1991 Cost Estimates |
|||
J-2 |
Comparison of MMES and Ebasco Cost Estimates |
|||
J-3 |
Comparison of SAIC and Ebasco Cost Estimates |
|||
J-4 |
Ebasco and TLG Waste Volume and Waste Management Cost Comparison |
|||
J-5 |
Ebasco Program Integration (PI) Costs Related to Waste Management (WM) |
|||
J-6 |
Ebasco Waste Management (WM) Cost Summary for the three GDPs |
|||
J-7 |
Ebasco Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (WM) Cost Summary for the Oak Ridge GDP |
|||
J-8 |
Ebasco Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (WM) Cost Summary for the Paducah GDP |
|||
J-9 |
Ebasco Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (WM) Cost Summary for the Portsmouth GDP |
|||
J-10 |
Ebasco Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (WM) Cost Summary for the Three GDP Sites |
|||
J-11 |
Types of Packaging Assumed in the Ebasco Cost Estimate |
|||
J-12 |
Net Packaging Unit Cost |
|||
J-13 |
Local Transportation Cost Summary for Waste Disposal at the Three GDPs |
|||
J-14 |
Interstate Transportation Cost Summary for Waste from the Paducah and Portsmouth GDP |
|||
J-15 |
Disposal Cost Summary by GDP Site |
|||
J-16 |
Storage Cost Summary for the Three GDPs |
|||
J-17 |
Waste Management Unit Cost Summary |
|||
J-18 |
Waste Management Unit Cost Summary for Level I Waste |
|||
J-19 |
Waste Management Unit Cost Summary for Level III Waste |
|||
J-20 |
Waste Management Unit Cost Summary for Hazardous Material Waste |
|||
J-21 |
Waste Management Unit Cost Summary for Clean/Recycle Material |
List of Figures
1-1 |
The geographical relationship of the three GDPs |
|||
1-2 |
Photograph of the interior of a process building showing the repetitive arrangement of the cascades |
|||
1-3 |
The Oak Ridge GDP site |
|||
2-1 |
Operating principle of a converter |
|||
2-2 |
Gaseous diffusion stage schematic |
|||
2-3 |
Photograph of a large converter |
|||
2-4 |
Arrangement of large converters showing 2 cells with 10 stages each |
|||
3-1 |
Simplified decontamination flow diagram |
|||
5-1 |
Organizational framework for D&D of the GDPs |
|||
6-1 |
Break-even metal recycling value versus total waste disposal costs |
|||
7-1 |
DUF6 cylinder storage yards at Paducah |
|||
7-2 |
Cylinders stored at Portsmouth |