DOCSLIB.ORG

Decommissioning of the Nuclear Facilities at Risø National Laboratory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Decommissioning of the Nuclear Facilities at Risø National Laboratory Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Oct 03, 2021 Decommissioning of the nuclear facilities at Risø National Laboratory. Descriptions and cost assessment Lauridsen, K. Publication date: 2001 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link back to DTU Orbit Citation (APA): Lauridsen, K. (2001). Decommissioning of the nuclear facilities at Risø National Laboratory. Descriptions and cost assessment. Risø National Laboratory. Denmark. Forskningscenter Risoe. Risoe-R No. 1250(EN) General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Risø-R-1250(EN) Decommissioning of the Nuclear Facilities at Risø National Laboratory Descriptions and Cost Assessment Edited by Kurt Lauridsen Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark February 2001 Abstract The report is the result of a project initiated by Risø National Laboratory in June 2000 on request from the Minister of Research and Information Technology. It describes the nuclear facilities at Risø National Laboratory to be decommissioned and gives an assessment of the work to be done and the costs incurred. Three decommissioning scenarios were consid- ered with decay times of 10, 25 and 40 years for the DR 3 reactor. The assessments conclude, however, that there will not be much to gain by allowing for the longer decay periods; some operations still will need to be performed remotely. Furthermore, the report describes some of the legal and licensing framework for the decommissioning and gives an assessment of the amounts of radioactive waste to be transferred to a Danish repository. ISBN 87-550-2844-6; 87-550-2846-2 (Internet) ISSN 0106-2840 Print: Danka Services International A/S, 2001. Decommissioning of Risø's nuclear facilities. Descriptions and cost assessment. Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 7 2 General aspects of decommissioning................................................................................................ 9 2.1 Phases of decommissioning.......................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Decommissioning strategies......................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Legal aspects in Denmark .......................................................................................................... 10 3 Description of the nuclear facilities at Risø National Laboratory .................................................. 11 3.1 DR 1........................................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.1 General description................................................................................................................ 12 3.1.2 Activity inventory.................................................................................................................. 15 3.2 DR 2........................................................................................................................................... 16 3.2.1 General description................................................................................................................ 16 3.2.2 Activity inventory.................................................................................................................. 24 3.3 DR 3........................................................................................................................................... 27 3.3.1 General description................................................................................................................ 27 3.3.2 Activity inventory.................................................................................................................. 34 3.4 Fuel fabrication facility .............................................................................................................. 39 3.4.1 General description................................................................................................................ 39 3.4.2 Activity inventory.................................................................................................................. 39 3.5 Isotope laboratory....................................................................................................................... 40 3.5.1 General description................................................................................................................ 40 3.5.2 Activity inventory.................................................................................................................. 42 3.6 Hot Cells..................................................................................................................................... 43 3.6.1 General description................................................................................................................ 43 3.6.2 Activity inventory.................................................................................................................. 45 3.7 Waste management plant and storage facilities.......................................................................... 48 3.7.1 General description................................................................................................................ 48 4 Relevant experience from other countries ...................................................................................... 55 4.1 Germany..................................................................................................................................... 55 4.1.1 Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe ............................................................................................... 55 4.2 Switzerland................................................................................................................................. 57 4.2.1 Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI).................................................................................................... 57 4.3 United Kingdom......................................................................................................................... 59 4.3.1 UKAEA Harwell ................................................................................................................... 61 4.4 International organisations ......................................................................................................... 63 5 The approach to cost assessment .................................................................................................... 64 5.1 Scenarios considered .................................................................................................................. 64 5.2 General assumptions................................................................................................................... 66 5.3 Method used for cost assessment ............................................................................................... 66 5.4 Limitations of the study.............................................................................................................. 68 6 Detailed description of the decommissioning work to be done at each facility ............................. 69 6.1 Decommissioning DR 1 ............................................................................................................. 69 6.1.1 Operations to be performed ................................................................................................... 69 6.1.2 Necessary manpower............................................................................................................. 69 6.1.3 Special equipment needed ..................................................................................................... 70 6.1.4 Radiation doses to be expected.............................................................................................. 70 6.1.5 Other safety related aspects ................................................................................................... 70 6.1.6 Amounts of radioactive waste produced and its treatment .................................................... 70 6.1.7 Documentation to be produced.............................................................................................. 70 6.1.8 Assessment of the costs ......................................................................................................... 70 6.1.9 Uncertainties in the assessments............................................................................................ 70 6.2 Decommissioning DR 2 ............................................................................................................. 71 6.2.1 Operations to be
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 3 Description of the Nuclear Facilities at Risø National Laboratory
    Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Oct 04, 2021 Decommissioning of the nuclear facilities at Risø National Laboratory. Descriptions and cost assessment Lauridsen, K. Publication date: 2001 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link back to DTU Orbit Citation (APA): Lauridsen, K. (2001). Decommissioning of the nuclear facilities at Risø National Laboratory. Descriptions and cost assessment. Risø National Laboratory. Denmark. Forskningscenter Risoe. Risoe-R No. 1250(EN) General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Risø-R-1250(EN) Decommissioning of the Nuclear Facilities at Risø National Laboratory Descriptions and Cost Assessment Edited by Kurt Lauridsen Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark February 2001 Abstract The report is the result of a project initiated by Risø National Laboratory in June 2000 on request from the Minister of Research and Information Technology. It describes the nuclear facilities at Risø National Laboratory to be decommissioned and gives an assessment of the work to be done and the costs incurred.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Reactor Core Conversion from the Use Of
    IAEA-TECDOC-324 RESEARCH REACTOR CORE CONVERSION HIGHLF O E YFROUS ENRICHEE MTH D URANIUM TO THE USE OF LOW ENRICHED URANIUM FUELS GUIDEBOOK ADDENDUM: HEAVY WATER MODERATED REACTORS PREPARED BY A CONSULTANTS' GROUP, COORDINATED AND EDITED BY THE PHYSICS SECTION INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY A TECHNICAL DOCUMENT ISSUEE TH Y DB INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, VIENNA, 1985 RESEARCH REACTOR CORE CONVERSION FROM THE USE OF HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM TO THE USE OF LOW ENRICHED URANIUM FUELS GUIDEBOOK ADDENDUM: HEAVY WATER MODERATED REACTORS IAEA, VIENNA, 1985 IAEA-TECDOC-324 Printe IAEe th AustriAn y i d b a January 1985 85-00193 Pleas aware eb Missine th tha l al t g Pages in this document were originally blank pages FOREWORD e proliferatio th n vieI f o w n concern f highlo e yus s e causeth y b d enriched uranium (HEU) and in anticipation that the supply of HEU to research and test reactors wil more b l e restricte e futureth n i dGuidebooa , n o k Research Reactor Core Conversio f Highlo e nyUs froEnrichee th m d Uraniuo t m w EnricheLo f o de thUraniuUs e m Fuel IAEA-TECDOC-233( s e s issueth )wa y b d International Atomic Energy Agency in August 1980. IAEA-TECDOC-233 addressed primarily research and test reactors that are moderated by light water. In consideration of the special features of heavy water moderated researc d tesan ht reactors, this documen s beeha t n prepare Addendun a s a d m to IAEA-TECDOC-233 to assist operators and physicists from these reactors in determining whether conversion to the use of low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel design s technicalli s y feasibl r theifo e r specific reactor assiso t d n i t,an making a smooth transition to the use of LEU fuel designs where appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Decommissioning of the Nuclear Facilities at Rise National Laboratory
    Ris0-R-125O(EN) Decommissioning of the Nuclear Facilities at Rise National Laboratory Descriptions and Cost Assessment Edited by Kurt Lauridsen Riso National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark February 2001 Abstract The report is the result of a project initiated by Riso National Laboratory in June 2000 on request from the Minister of Research and Information Technology. It describes the nuclear facilities at Riso National Laboratory to be decommissioned and gives an assessment of the work to be done and the costs incurred. Three decommissioning scenarios were consid- ered with decay times of 10, 25 and 40 years for the DR 3 reactor. The assessments conclude, however, that there will not be much to gain by allowing for the longer decay periods; some operations still will need to be performed remotely. Furthermore, the report describes some of the legal and licensing framework for the decommissioning and gives an assessment of the amounts of radioactive waste to be transferred to a Danish repository. ISBN 87-550-2844-6; 87-550-2846-2 (Internet) ISSN 0106-2840 Print: Danka Services International A/S, 2001. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ALL OF THE MISSING PAGES IN THIS DOCUMENT WERE ORIGINALLY BLANK Decommissioning of Rise's nuclear facilities. Descriptions and cost assessment. Contents 1 Introduction 7 2 General aspects of decommissioning 9 2.1 Phases of decommissioning 9 2.2 Decommissioning strategies 9 2.3 Legal aspects in Denmark 10 3 Description of the nuclear facilities at Riso National Laboratory 11 3.1 DR1 12 3.1.1 General description 12 3.1.2
    [Show full text]
  • Was to Achieve an Adequate Epithermal Neutron Beam (Energy Range from 0.5 Ev to 10 Kev) with Low Fast and Thermal Neutron Components for Boron Neutron Capture Therapy
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Kanokrat Tiyapun for the degree of Master of Science in Radiation Health Physics presented on March 12, 1997. Title: Epithermal Neutron Beam Design at the Oregon State University TRIGA Mark-II Reactor (OSTR Based on Monte Carlo Methods. Redacted for privacy Abstract approved: Stephen E. Binne Filter and moderator assemblies were designed for the tangential beam port of the Oregon State University TRIGA Mark-II reactor (OSTR). The objective of this design was to achieve an adequate epithermal neutron beam (energy range from 0.5 eV to 10 keV) with low fast and thermal neutron components for boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT). A Monte Carlo neutron calculation was performed with the Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code (MCNP) to simulate a model of the reactor core and neutron irradiation facilities. The two-step calculations performed included criticality and epithermal neutron beam design. Results indicated that the multiplication factor (keff) was 1.032 and an optimized epithermal neutron beam can be obtained by using heavy water as a moderator in beam port 4 (radial piercing beam port), and sulfur and lithium carbonate ( Li2CO3) as fast neutron and thermal neutron filters in beam port 3 (tangential beam port), respectively.Since the beam size is usually larger than a brain tumor, collimation of the epithermal neutron beam was required. By using different diameters of a cone-shaped collimator, a 12 cm diameter had better performance than other diameters. An epithermal flux of 1.28x108 n cm-2s"1, a thermal neutron flux of 1.34x107n crri2s-1 and a fast neutron flux of 1.14x107 n cm-2s-1 was derived for an operating power of 1 MW.
    [Show full text]
  • Lucas Heights Research Laboratories 11 March 1988
    INIS-mf—11446 SYMPOSIUM ON HIFAR- CONSTRUCTION AND INITIAL OPERATION HELD AT LUCAS HEIGHTS RESEARCH LABORATORIES 11 MARCH 1988 (IN OBSERVANCE OF THE 30TH YEAR OF HIFAR OPERATION) SPONSORED BY THE AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION SYMPOSIUM ON HIFAR CONSTRUCTION AND INITIAL OPERATION HELD AT LUCAS HEIGHTS RESEARCH LABORATORIES 11 MARCH 1988 SPONSORED BY THE AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION CO-SPONSORS: THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING THE LUCAS HEIGHTS SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY PRINTING COURTESY OF THE AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION ISBN 0 949188 03 -AGENDA- - Chairman of First Session E.A. Palmer - 9.15 am Opening Remarks, D.G. Walker, C.N. Watson-Munro 9.30 Project Organisation Design and Procurement, F.H. Carr Aspects of Construction, UK and Lucas Heights, K.J. Cooke Some Aspects of HIFAR Design, R.W.S. Carlson and D.R. Ebeling 11.00 Coffee Break (courtesy of LHSS) - Chairman of Second Session A.C. Wood - 11.30 Instrumentation and Control Aspects of HIFAR, J.K. Parry HIFAR Commissioning and Operation, G.A. Tingate Current Operations and Refurbishing, N.A. Parsons and M.R. Allen 1.00 pm Closing 1.15 Lunch - available for purchase in canteen 2.15 HIFAR visit (optional) II1FAR - PROJECT ORGANIZATION DESIGN AND PROCUREMENT F.H.CARR l.O INTRODUCTION Several earlier reports have been written on the subject of the HIFAR reactor (1,2,3), and others covering the period of the formation of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) and the early construction work at the Research Establishment at Lucas Heights (4,5). However, these publications do not report in detail on the construction of the 1HFAR reactor and its early operational history, and it is considered that both of these areas are worthy of further comment.
    [Show full text]