23 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Revised analyses of decommissioning for the reference boiling water reactor power station. Effects of current regulatory and other considerations on the financial assurance requirements of the decommissioning rule and on estimates of occupational radiation exposure: Main report, draft report for comment. Volume 1
On June 27, 1988, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published in the Federal Register (53 FR 24018) the final rule for the General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities. With the issuance of the final rule, owners and operators of licensed nuclear power plants are required to prepare, and submit to the NRC for review, decommissioning plans and cost estimates. The NRC staff is in need of updated bases documentation that will assist them in assessing the adequacy of the licensee submittals, from the viewpoint of both the planned actions, including occupational radiation exposure, and the probable costs. The purpose of this reevaluation study is to update the needed bases documentation. This report presents the results of a review and reevaluation of the PNL 1980 decommissioning study of the Washington Public Power Supply System`s Washington Nuclear Plant Two (WNP-2), including all identifiable factors and cost assumptions which contribute significantly to the total cost of decommissioning the plant for the DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB alternatives, which now include an initial 5-7 year period during which time the spent fuel is stored in the spent fuel pool prior to beginning major disassembly or extended safe storage of the plant. This report also includes consideration of the NRC requirement that decontamination and decommissioning activities leading to termination of the nuclear license be completed within 60 years of final reactor shutdown, consideration of packaging and disposal requirements for materials whose radionuclide concentrations exceed the limits for Class C low-level waste. Costs for labor, transport, and disposal activities are given in 1993 dollars. Sensitivities of the total license termination cost to the disposal costs at different low-level radioactive waste disposal sites, to different depths of contaminated concrete surface removal within the facilities, and to different transport distances are also examined
Recommended from our members
Revised analyses of decommissioning for the reference boiling water reactor power station. Effects of current regulatory and other considerations on the financial assurance requirements of the decommissioning rule and on estimates of occupational radiation exposure - main report. Final report
The NRC staff is in need of updated bases documentation that will assist them in assessing the adequacy of the licensee submittals, from the viewpoint of both the planned actions, including occupational radiation exposure, and the probable costs. The purpose of this reevaluation study is to update the needed bases documentation. This report presents the results of a review and reevaluation of the PNL 1980 decommissioning study of the Washington Public Power Supply System`s Washington Nuclear Plant Two (WNP-2), which is a boiling water reactor (BWR), located at Richland, Washington, including all identifiable factors and cost assumptions which contribute significantly to the total cost of decommissioning the plant for the DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB decommissioning alternatives. These alternatives now include an initial 5-7 year period during which time the spent fuel is stored in the spent fuel pool prior to beginning major disassembly or extended safe storage of the plant. Included for information (but not part of the license termination cost) is an estimate of the cost to demolish the decontaminated and clean structures on the site and to restore the site to a {open_quotes}green field{close_quotes} condition. This report also includes consideration of the NRC requirement that decontamination and decommissioning activities leading to termination of the nuclear license be completed within 60 years of final reactor shutdown, consideration of packaging and disposal requirements for materials whose radionuclide concentrations exceed the limits for Class C low- level waste (i.e., Greater-Than-Class C), and reflects 1993 costs for labor, materials, transport, and disposal activities. Sensitivity of the total license termination cost to the disposal costs at different low-level radioactive waste disposal sites, to different depths of contaminated concrete surface removal within the facilities, and to different transport distances is also examined
Preliminary analysis of the postulated changes needed to achieve rail cask handling capabilities at selected light water reactors
Reactor-specific railroad and crane information for all LWRs in the US was extracted from current sources of information. Based on this information, reactors were separated into two basic groups consisting of reactors with existing, usable rail cask capabilities and those without these capabilities. The latter group is the main focus of this study. The group of reactors without present rail cask handling capabilities was further separated into two subgroups consisting of reactors considered essentially incapable of handling a large rail cask of about 100 tons and reactors where postulated facility changes could result in rail cask handling capabilities. Based on a selected population of 127 reactors, the results of this assessment indicate that usable rail cask capabilities exist at 83 (65%) of the reactors. Twelve (27%) of the remaining 44 reactors are deemed incapable of handling a large rail cask without major changes, and 32 reactors are considered likely candidates for potentially achieving rail cask handling capabilities. In the latter group, facility changes were postulated that would conceptually enable these reactors to handle large rail casks. The estimated cost per plant of required facility changes varied widely from a high of about 0.3 million. Only 11 of the 32 plants would require crane upgrades. Spur track and right-of-way costs would apparently vary widely among sites. These results are based on preliminary analyses using available generic cost data. They represent lower bound values that are useful for developing an initial assessment of the viability of the postulated changes on a system-wide basis, but are not intended to be absolute values for specific reactors or sites
Recommended from our members
Optimization of costs versus radiation exposures in decommissioning
The estimated worth of decommissioning optimization planning during each phase of the reactor's life cycle is dependent on many variables. The major variables are tabulated and relatively ranked. For each phase, optimization qualitative values (i.e., cost, safety, maintainability, ALARA, and decommissioning considerations) are estimated and ranked according to their short-term and long-term potential benefits. These estimates depend on the quality of the input data, interpretation of that data, and engineering judgment. Once identified and ranked, these considerations form an integral part of the information data base from which estimates, decisions, and alternatives are derived. The optimization of costs and the amount of occupational radiation exposure reductions are strongly interrelated during decommissioning. Realizing that building the necessary infrastructure for decommissioning will take time is an important first step in any decommissioning plan. In addition, the following conclusions are established to achieve optimization of costs and reduced occupational radiation exposures: the assignment of cost versus man-rem is item-specific and sensitive to the expertise of many interrelated disciplines; a commitment to long-term decommissioning planning by management will provide the conditions needed to achieve optimization; and, to be most effective, costs and exposure reduction are sensitive to the nearness of the decommissioning operation. For a new plant, it is best to start at the beginning of the cycle, update continually, consider innovations, and realize full potential and benefits of this concept. For an older plant, the life cycle methodology permits a comprehensive review of the plant history and the formulation of an orderly decommissioning program based on planning, organization, and effort
Recommended from our members
Technology, safety and costs of decommissioning a reference boiling water reactor power station: Technical support for decommissioning matters related to preparation of the final decommissioning rule
Preparation of the final Decommissioning Rule by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has been assisted by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) staff familiar with decommissioning matters. These efforts have included updating previous cost estimates developed during the series of studies of conceptually decommissioning reference licensed nuclear facilities for inclusion in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) on decommissioning; documenting the cost updates; evaluating the cost and dose impacts of post-TMI-2 backfits on decommissioning; developing a revised scaling formula for estimating decommissioning costs for reactor plants different in size from the reference boiling water reactor (BWR) described in the earlier study; and defining a formula for adjusting current cost estimates to reflect future escalation in labor, materials, and waste disposal costs. This report presents the results of recent PNL studies to provide supporting information in three areas concerning decommissioning of the reference BWR: updating the previous cost estimates to January 1986 dollars; assessing the cost and dose impacts of post-TMI-2 backfits; and developing a scaling formula for plants different in size than the reference plant and an escalation formula for adjusting current cost estimates for future escalation
Recommended from our members
Revised analyses of decommissioning for the reference boiling water reactor power station. Effects of current regulatory and other considerations on the financial assurance requirements of the decommissioning rule and on estimates of occupational radiation exposure: Appendices, draft report for comment. Volume 2
On June 27, 1988, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published in the Federal Register (53 FR 24018) the final rule for the General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities. With the issuance of the final rule, owners and operators of licensed nuclear power plants are required to prepare, and submit to the NRC for review, decommissioning plans and cost estimates. The NRC staff is in need of updated bases documentation that will assist them in assessing the adequacy of the licensee submittals, from the viewpoint of both the planned actions, including occupational radiation exposure, and the probable costs. The purpose of this reevaluation study is to update the needed bases documentation. This report presents the results of a review and reevaluation of the PNL 1980 decommissioning study of the Washington Public Power Supply System`s WNP-2, including all identifiable factors and cost assumptions which contribute significantly to the total cost of decommissioning the plant for the DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB decommissioning alternatives, which now include an initial 5-7 year period during which time the spent fuel is stored in the spent fuel pool prior to beginning major disassembly or extended safe storage of the plant. This report also includes consideration of the NRC requirement that decontamination and decommissioning activities leading to termination of the nuclear license be completed within 60 years of final reactor shutdown, consideration of packaging and disposal requirements for materials whose radionuclide concentrations exceed the limits for Class C low-level waste. Costs for labor, materials, transport, and disposal activities are given in 1993 dollars. Sensitivities of the total license termination cost to the disposal costs at different low-level radioactive waste disposal sites, to different depths of contaminated concrete surface removal within the facilities, and to different transport distances are also examined
LNG fire and vapor control system technologies
This report provides a review of fire and vapor control practices used in the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry. Specific objectives of this effort were to summarize the state-of-the-art of LNG fire and vapor control; define representative LNG facilities and their associated fire and vapor control systems; and develop an approach for a quantitative effectiveness evaluation of LNG fire and vapor control systems. In this report a brief summary of LNG physical properties is given. This is followed by a discussion of basic fire and vapor control design philosophy and detailed reviews of fire and vapor control practices. The operating characteristics and typical applications and application limitations of leak detectors, fire detectors, dikes, coatings, closed circuit television, communication systems, dry chemicals, water, high expansion foam, carbon dioxide and halogenated hydrocarbons are described. Summary descriptions of a representative LNG peakshaving facility and import terminal are included in this report together with typical fire and vapor control systems and their locations in these types of facilities. This state-of-the-art review identifies large differences in the application of fire and vapor control systems throughout the LNG industry
Guidelines for nuclear-power-plant safety-issue prioritization information development
This is the second in a series of reports to document the use of a methodology developed by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory to calculate, for prioritization purposes, the risk, dose and cost impacts of implementing resolutions to reactor safety issues. This report contains results of issue-specific analyses for 15 issues. Each issue was considered within the contraints of available information as of September 1982 and two staff-weeks of labor. The results will be referenced, as one consideration in setting priorities for reactor safety issues, in an NRC prioritization report to be published at a future date
Recommended from our members
Revised analyses of decommissioning for the reference pressurized Water Reactor Power Station. Effects of current regulatory and other considerations on the financial assurance requirements of the decommissioning rule and on estimates of occupational radiation exposure, Volume 1, Final report
With the issuance of the final Decommissioning Rule (July 27, 1988), owners and operators of licensed nuclear power plants are required to prepare, and submit to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for review, decommissioning plans and cost estimates. The NRC staff is in need of bases documentation that will assist them in assessing the adequacy of the licensee submittals, from the viewpoint of both the planned actions, including occupational radiation exposure, and the probable costs. The purpose of this reevaluation study is to provide some of the needed bases documentation. This report contains the results of a review and reevaluation of the {prime}978 PNL decommissioning study of the Trojan nuclear power plant (NUREG/CR-0130), including all identifiable factors and cost assumptions which contribute significantly to the total cost of decommissioning the nuclear power plant for the DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB decommissioning alternatives. These alternatives now include an initial 5--7 year period during which time the spent fuel is stored in the spent fuel pool, prior to beginning major disassembly or extended safe storage of the plant. Included for information (but not presently part of the license termination cost) is an estimate of the cost to demolish the decontaminated and clean structures on the site and to restore the site to a ``green field`` condition. This report also includes consideration of the NRC requirement that decontamination and decommissioning activities leading to termination of the nuclear license be completed within 60 years of final reactor shutdown, consideration of packaging and disposal requirements for materials whose radionuclide concentrations exceed the limits for Class C low-level waste (i.e., Greater-Than-Class C), and reflects 1993 costs for labor, materials, transport, and disposal activities