0

Decommissioning Handbook

Description | Details

This comprehensive and authoritative volume to decommissioning of nuclear facilities will serve as a complete introduction to those new to the field, as well as an up-to-date desk reference on regulations and resources for experienced practitioners.

The handbook will provide a forum building a network of consistent approaches, practices, and results. Covering both NRC and DOE approaches, this book applies not only to decommissioning existing facilities, but by crossing the traditional lines between operations and reuse, this will also allow us to rethink the construction of new ones.

The expert team of authors provides valuable lessons from their collective experiences in nuclear decommissioning. They represent areas pertaining to policy, engineering, and science. The handbook focuses primarily on time-tested and proven technologies.

The text is supplemented by a CD-ROM, which provide readers with a living resource through links to Internet-based updates containing latest information.

CD Supplement is available to purchasers upon request to ASME Publishing.

  • Copyright:
    All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. ©  2004  ASME
  • ISBN:
    0791802248
  • No. of Pages:
    476
  • Order No.:
    802248
Front Matter PUBLIC ACCESS
PDF
  • Part 1: Introduction

    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      Decommissioning brings to closure, or terminates, the mission or useful life of a radiological or nuclear facility. The owner or licensee normally decides when a facility is to permanently cease operations. It must then show that a proposed decommissioning project plan can be conducted safely, and that at completion the facility will comply with regulatory requirements. This chapter presents a road map of the decommissioning process, highlighting the major issues to address in planning, implementing, and completing a project, and including references for further detail.
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      During the more than half-century history of the U.S. weapons programs, a vast research, production, and testing network was developed that came to be known as the “nuclear weapons complex..” The DOE and its predecessor agencies have been responsible for most of these facilities. DOE-owned plants and equipment include:- Facilities for uranium milling and refining- Gaseous diffusion plants for producing weapons-grade uranium- Facilities for fabricating and testing weapons- Nuclear reactors for testing materials and equipment components- Nuclear reactor prototypes- Cyclotrons- Hot Cells- Research laboratoriesThey also included reactors for making tritium, plutonium, and radioactive and stable isotopes of many elements; and chemical separation facilities for extracting uranium, plutonium, and other radionuclides.
  • Part 2: Regulatory Requirements and Policy Issues

    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      This chapter focuses on decontamination activities at nuclear and radiological facilities regulated by the NRC. If a state is an NRC Agreement State, certain nuclear-related facilities (excluding federal facilities and nuclear power reactors) may be regulated through the relevant individual state agency.The NRC normally accomplishes its regulatory function by issuing and then enforcing the provisions of a license. It licenses and regulates nuclear reactors (both power and nonpower generating) and over 6,000 radioactive material licensees (NRC 2003a). The NRC also regulates several DOE facilities, either by mutual agreement or by specific statute. A relevant example of statute regulation is the licensing of the permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain for the disposal of spent nuclear reactor fuel and high-level waste (HLW).
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      This chapter summarizes the major environmental laws relevant to decommissioning. Whereas the Atomic Energy Act (AEA 1954) is the primary law governing the management of radionuclides, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is the primary law governing hazardous waste. Other statutes also address the release and disposal of radioactive and hazardous materials. Although the DOE, the NRC, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the primary agencies implementing these requirements, much of the authority to develop environmental regulations and enforce them has been delegated to the states. It is not practical to address the individual state environmental requirements in this handbook, many of which are similar to the federal requirements.
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      In general, environmental laws, regulations, and other requirements for decommissioning of facilities under DOE management are interpreted and communicated through a directives system and are imposed on specific projects through contracts. The internal focus is on the final phases of the life cycle, including deactivation, decommissioning, surveillance and maintenance, and any potential transfer of ownership. The management system includes mandatory requirements, such as policy notices, orders, notices, and manuals, and guidance with some implementation flexibility, including the graded application of certain technical standards and guides. In addition, the management system is supported by optional handbooks, voluntary standards, and other documents illustrating established practices for meeting requirements. A thorough understanding of this system requires acceptance that the DOE is a mission-oriented federal agency with its share of statutory intricacies, diverse sites, and a diverse set of contractors.
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      Decommissioning of nuclear facilities requires attention not only to radiation safety but also to other safety requirements collectively referred to as occupational safety and health (OSH). As a general rule, a safety assessment is the initial phase of both radiation safety and OSH. The safety assessment identifies significant hazards during the decommissioning phase of a nuclear facility that are not normally encountered during the operational phase. Hazardous materials are major factors in the decommissioning of old nuclear facilities and represent a risk to the operators undertaking the work. Examples of common hazardous materials are lead, asbestos, PCBs, mercury, and beryllium. All require special disposal. The handling and disposal of mixed (hazardous and radioactive) wastes can pose special problems since, unlike radioactive materials with a relatively short half life, hazardous chemicals may pose a health hazard for a much longer (if not indefinite) time. If decommissioning will be long deferred, due regard should be given to the gradual deterioration of structures, systems, and components.Upon permanent shutdown, a facility should undertake a critical review of all site records (paper, microfilm, and electronic formats) and should resist the initial urge to eliminate records used “for operations only.” Records are critical assets for decommissioning planning; their maintenance and accessibility should preclude any decision as to reductions in related site staffing.Decommissioning normally follows deactivation, and often is followed by long-term storage with S&M. A long time may pass between facility operation, deactivation, and final decommissioning. The S&M activities focus on monitoring and controlling any remaining hazardous substances or contamination and maintaining the facility's structural integrity. In some cases, facility operations may be temporarily suspended, then indefinitely shut down, establishing an S&M phase by default.
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      Decommissioning a nuclear facility requires a multitude of decisions that may have wide ranging effects. One critical aspect to consider in making decisions is the risk of potential adverse impacts on the facility workforce, the public, and the ecosystem. According to the American Association of Engineering Societies, risk analysis may be considered to include three essential modules: assessment, management, and communication. These modules are interrelated, as shown in Figure 7.1 (AAES 1998).
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      The end of a nuclear facility's mission and its transition into decommissioning can create substantial hardship on nearby communities, particularly in the case of major facilities built at a distance from large metropolitan areas. A rural setting often promotes the establishment or growth of smaller communities around the nuclear facility that come to rely heavily on the facility for their economic well-being, either directly through taxes, or more indirectly, by services and support functions to the facility and its employees. Eliminating permanent staff during plant closing can result in significant negative economic effects, although a temporary local economic upturn is possible as specialized contractors, managers, and laborers move to the area for lengthy decommissioning activities. Because of these financial impacts, local community opinion could be anywhere from neutral to negative initially, even if shutdown were announced well in advance. The reaction can be more dramatic in the event of swift or unannounced plant closures.This chapter gives a general overview of public and stakeholder participation. In the past, many agencies and organizations responsible for decommissioning made no distinction among various segments of the public. In effect, they identified stakeholders as anyone wishing to be involved. That approach fails to distinguish the general public from people clearly and unambiguously impacted by decommissioning decisions. Furthermore, such an approach makes it virtually impossible to reach the stakeholders of primary concern. The process described here is based on new developments in stakeholder participation and was used by the Peer Review Committee of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the Institute for Regulatory Science (ASME/RSI) and has since been applied in several peer reviews (ASME/RSI 2001 and 2002).
  • Part 3: Planning and Implementation

    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      Initial decommissioning planning occurs, whether intended or not, before the decision is made to permanently cease operations. The initial planning assessments completed by the facility owner are defined to generate specific and sufficient information, including costs related to continuing operation for specific time periods, ceasing operation by a specific date, and determining the type of decommissioning to pursue and a start date for preliminary activities. Key decisions finalized early in the planning process to make for a safe and cost effective project.There are many examples of nuclear facilities where a determination was made to cease operations for an indeterminate time period, while assessments regarding the facility's future use were completed. Examples include the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Fast Flux Test Facility remaining in hot standby until early 2003 (Lanais 1993), and Millstone Unit 1, a commercial nuclear reactor now in safe storage. In some cases, initial decommissioning studies are performed while a facility is in this shutdown pre-decision mode, A commercial power reactor facility in hot standby requires considerable expenditures to satisfy the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements so that the facility might be returned to operation at a reasonable cost without re-testing equipment. This approach is costly since no operational benefits are derived but costs near operating level continue. The costs may be significantly less for small DOE reactors, and may be much less than normal operating costs for non-reactor facilities.Though not required before starting decommissioning activities, determining the ultimate end-state of the facility and the site is a critical decision. Substantially different approaches may be implemented for a facility that will be remediated for potential residential use (greenfield) than for one that is to be partially demolished for potential industrial reuse (brownfield). In the greenfield approach, almost everything with discernible radioactive contamination would likely be removed and shipped off site for disposal. In the brownfield approach there are more options. For example, only some of the high radioactive content structures and components may be dismantled for off site disposal. Only a portion of the above- and below-grade structures might also be removed, along with some of the contaminated soil beneath. While above-grade portions of buildings on a brownfield site may be demolished, their foundations may remain in place with little or no decontamination. Structures intended for reuse might have their internal radioactive components removed and the remaining interior surfaces decontaminated to sufficiently suitable limits to allow unrestricted reuse of the remaining space.
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      This chapter describes the collection of information needed to plan the decommissioning of a nuclear facility. Characterization is frequently thought of as synonymous to radiation measurement, but the term has a broader meaning. Characterization is the collection of all information needed to describe, in adequate detail, the following:- The hazards present at/in the facility- The condition of the facility structure as it may affect worker health and safety- The extent, nature, and concentration of radiological and hazardous chemical contamination- The institutional, legal, and technical restraints on decommissioning alternativesCharacterization is an iterative process that precedes and parallels actual decommissioning. The characterization program discussed here is in support of decontaminating structures to protect workers and future site occupants, but this effort is intimately related to the consideration of ground contaminants, beneath and around the structure, and their potential travel to off-site environs.
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      Performing site and facility characterisation assessments is often complex Chapter 10 presented the needs for a facility undergoing decommissioning. As discussed in Chapter 7, a key aspect to risk assessment is the evaluation of radiological exposures to hypothetic My maximum exposed individuals.. Computer-based tools have been developed to help address these challenges. This chapter specifically discusses three computer-based aids developed by government agencies for the conduct of decommissioning, namely RESRAD, DandD, and Compass, together with MARSSIM, and the adaptive characterization approach they support. RESRAD and DandD are used to conservatively calculate exposures to the maximum exposed individual through multiple pathways, based on measured values of residual radioactive contamination, These two codes are the primary dose modeling approaches considered acceptable by the NRC and DOE. Compass is a code used to automate some processes from the MARSSIM characterization protocols.The MARSSIM methodology provides information on planning, conducting, evaluating, and documenting the final status radiological surveys of building surface and surface soils for demonstrating compliance with dose- or risk-based regulations or standards. MARSSIM is a multi-agency consensus document that was developed collaboratively by four federal agencies having authority and control over radioactive materials: the Department of Defense (DOD), the DOE, the EPA, and the NRC. The manual was originally issued in December 1997 as NUREG-1575 (NRC 1997a) and then as NUREG 1575, Rev.1 (NRC 2000a) in August 2000 to incorporate comments received on the 1997 version. Errata and modifications that were included in Revision 1 are shown on page xxviii of that document. In general, the two versions are quite similar; the former is part of the documentation of completed projects and the latter is used for future and on-going projects.This chapter also addresses two approaches to characterization in decommissioning, MARSSIM is widely used to optimize a characterization program while helping ensure statistical validity of the results. The program is focused toward field radiological characterization. The second approach is an adaptive sampling and analysis program that has been demonstrated to improve cost and time performance objectives for characterization (DOE 2001c).
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      The decommissioning cost estimate and schedule do not stand-alone; they are an integral part of the planning for a project from the concept to the final implementation. The cost estimate and schedule are linked inseparably, as changes to the cost affect the schedule, and vice versa. Only with an accurate cost estimate and schedule can management usefully track costs and project trends.Reliable cost estimating is one of the most important elements of decommissioning planning. Alternative technologies may be evaluated and compared based on efficiency and effectiveness, and measured against a baseline cost as to the feasibility and benefits derived. When the plan is complete, those cost considerations ensure that it is economically sound and practical for funding.Estimates of decommissioning costs have been performed and published by many organizations. The results of an estimate may differ because of different work scopes, different labor force costs, different money values because of inflation, different oversight costs, the specific contaminated materials involved, the waste stream and peripheral costs associated with that type of waste, or applicable environmental compliance requirements. Some of the divergence in costs, however, cannot be easily explained, and this lack of consistency prohibits direct estimating by measuring standard quantities, such as initial capital east, facility size (megawatts), square footage of facilities, or volumes of waste streams. At some point, it may be possible to multiply one or more of these measurements by some predetermined number to arrive at a cost estimate. But until such a system is proven to be reliable, a reasonable degree of reliability and accuracy can only be achieved by developing decommissioning cost estimates on a case-by-case basis.
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      The decisions and process for decommissioning nuclear facilities play a key role in controlling radiation exposures. The immediate goals of such projects are to reduce or eliminate occupational and public radiation exposures, primarily by isolating contaminants from surfaces and subsurfaces, and to enable cost effective radioactive waste management and disposal. Decisions that define the applicability of various processes and techniques arc at the heart of decommissioning. Potential techniques include washing, heating, chemical or electrochemical action, mechanical cleaning, and others. For large facilities and equipment, applicable methods are mostly chemical or mechanical. For components that have a role in a facility with a continuing operation mission, dilute chemical agents are typically used to nondestructively dissolve just the outermost surface film bearing most of the contamination. Conversely, if there is no potential for reuse, the base metal can also be dissolved. The process for a small contaminated metal shack may he brief, as compaction may be obviously the most viable option, while a large highly radioactive facility may require more complex processes, including options, such as the wide use of robotics. Intermediate project objectives on the path to restoring the facility to a defined end state include:- Removing loose radioactive contaminants and fixing the remaining contamination- Minimizing residual radioactive contamination requiring protective storage- Maximizing recycle and salvage of equipment and materials- Minimizing volume requiring disposal as radioactive waste- Segregating waste for shipping and disposal in the least restrictive acceptable form (e.g., unrestricted, clean rubble, sanitary, special class, surface contamination only, hazardous, radioactive low-level, mixed hazardous and radioactive, remote handled, and transuranic waste)- Minimizing any period requiring protective storage or long-term monitoringWhen chemical decontamination is indicated, it may be necessary to temporarily dedicate appropriate facilities for precipitation, filtration, evaporation, demineralization, stabilization, recycling, and or reclamation. Residual concentrates may represent a significant source of radiation before transportation for treatment and/or disposal. Each step is an expense to the budgeted occupational dose and increases the risk of an unplanned release, such as the uptake of radioactive material that results in higher doses than those from handling the contaminated system without extensive decontamination. Planning is therefore the process of selecting options based on a continual and iterative cost-benefit analysis.
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      This chapter presents information related to spent fuel acceptance, management, storage options, and the operational and financial considerations faced before and during decommissioning. The generation of electricity by nuclear fission creates highly radioactive waste in the form of spent fuel. As each reactor is refueled, one-fourth to one-third of the fuel is removed and placed in the plant's storage pool, which shields and cools the spent assemblies.Since these fuel pools were initially designed for provisional storage, most plants cannot store all the assemblies generated over the expected reactor operating life. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, assemblies could be transferred off site for reprocessing, freeing up additional space in the storage pools. It was anticipated that the DOE would provide interim storage at centralized sites. In the meantime, sites took measures to extend their own storage capacity, often by replacing the storage racks in the pools with denser ones to extend capacity as. much as practical. When that was no longer sufficient, supplemental storage was acquired, typically as an independent facility, With additional delays in the development of the government's waste management system, plants shut down over the next ten years will have a full compliment of fuel in on-site storage and will need to address its disposition in planning for decommissioning.The NRC gives no specific guidance on managing or funding such storage. It does, however, refer a licensee to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(bb) (NRC 2001b), which require the licensee to submit for NRC approval the program by which it intends to manage and fund the management of all irradiated nuclear fuel at the reactor until possession transfers to the DOE. Whether funding is available as government reimbursements, damage claims, or through rate relief, the owner must determine the magnitude of potential financial liability.
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      Many activities must be performed just before or soon after a nuclear facility concludes its mission and enters the transition from operations to decommissioning. These activities include assurance of immediate and long-term safety for the facility systems, human resources challenges, systems configuration changes, regulatory changes, and stakeholder relations. Long-term stewardship and eventual site closure activities must also be considered and addressed.
  • Part 4: Technologies

    • Chapter 16

      Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      Characterization is an essential and substantial part of decommissioning. An initial scoping survey must be done to identify personnel hazards and to develop a decommissioning plan. Detailed characterization data must be collected to determine the type and extent of contaminants before any actual decontamination or dismantling. Surveys must be done during decontamination to test the effectiveness of the efforts; they may be either the in-process type or post-decontamination, or both. A final status survey is required, and a confirmatory survey may also be required to document the facility end-state, In addition, should the facility be placed in some form of long-term or interim storage, it will be necessary to characterize the remaining radioactive material and hazardous chemical waste to support long-term stewardship requirements. Such extensive characterization efforts contribute substantially to the overall cost of a decommissioning project.No single technology can address the full spectrum of requirements for facility and material characterization. Decommissioning managers must identify the appropriate suite of characterization methods needed to thoroughly characterize the facility throughout the life of the project. Often, characterization methods are used in combination with one another to take advantage of the strengths and compensate for the limitations of each method. State-of-the-art characterization technologies show one or more of the following competitive discriminators:- Reduced labor to conduct the characterization activities- Improved data management, including automated generation of data reports- Practical application of standard laboratory practices in the field- Improved data accuracy, precision, and detection limits- Deployment of survey devices into inaccessible locations- Reduced radiation/chemical dose by using remotely deployed instruments- Improved operation- Reduced training and education requirements- Real-time or near real-time generation of data- The easily read data, and interpretation thereof- Acceptance of results by regulators
    • Chapter 17

      Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      Decontamination is the removal of material from areas where it is not wanted. This chapter will deal with the removal of radionuclides, but the same or similar technology could be used for the removal of hazardous chemical material. The technology is similar to the cleaning of dirt, oil. or corrosion products except that radionuclides are associated with the material, Both cleaning and decontamination require similar technologies, methods, equipment, and procedures but the degree of cleaning may be different. The degree of cleaning is defined by certain cleanliness standards. Decontamination is based on cleanliness standards that typically revolve around a personal dose rate or contamination level associated with the component or surface being cleaned. For disposal of the cleaning material, the chemical composition of both the waste and the radionuclide content must be understood. The disposal method and packaging will depend on all of these items.Decontamination is used to reduce the dose that workers may receive from a component or surface, to reduce the potential for airborne radionuclides, or to reduce the associated disposal cost. Some decontamination can allow for the reuse or recycle of the material, although this approach is currently less common. An example of reuse of material is the melting of slightly contaminated steels to be manufactured into shield blocks for a particle cyclotron. The shield blocks keep natural radiation sources from interfering with the acceleration of particles. Many tons of materials have been recycled for use in nonradioactive environments. In order to accomplish a use for “free-release,” the material must not only be cleaned but also surveyed and found to be below the releasable level of the facility. The facilities that perform “free-release” are licensed by the federal government or the state in which they operate. The license and regulations specify the release limits of the facility.This document is meant as an introduction to decontamination, both chemical and mechanical, with references to direct the reader to greater detail. The listing of any commercial companies should not be construed as a recommendation for the offerings of products or services.
    • Chapter 18

      Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      Most U.S. power reactors were built with one concept in mind: to produce electricity as efficiently, economically, and safely as possible. Plants were not designed to facilitate simple and efficient deconstruction. Since decommissioning was not planned by the original construction team, dismantling is a completely new process that must be learned for each unique facility. Fortunately, the process is becoming more predictable and manageable because of experience gained to date. Dismantling is probably the phase of decommissioning with the strongest visual impact. A major portion of the project involves dismantling, removal, and size reduction of concrete structures and metal components, such as vessels, pipes, conduit, and structural steel. Generally, the metal and concrete components have radioactive, organic, chemical, or heavy metal contamination, thereby presenting potential exposure hazards. The site and facility characterization data will show which and how much of those materials must be dismantled and removed.Dismantling involves decontamination, removal of components and structures, packaging of wastes, transport of packages, and disposal in a controlled burial facility. But the planning should be performed in reverse order. Once characterization has identified the waste streams, the next step is to contact the waste disposal facility to learn and understand its waste acceptance criteria, including permissible package/container radioactive inventory (curies and dose), package size and weight requirements, and documentation. If the facility will not accept the waste form or content, alternative measures must be taken. When the package sizes, weights, and radioactivity limits are selected, the mode of transport and number of shipments may be determined — truck, rail, or barge. The planner may then select the most cost-effective technology to segment piping, equipment, and structures to fit into the selected packages. The segmentation/removal production rates (tons/day) for each potential technique evaluated will determine the number of shipments per day or week and thereby set the overall schedule. Adjustments might be made as experience demonstrates improved productivity with other technologies.This chapter will help the decommissioning planner choose appropriate technology for specific applications. Current dismantling, removal, and size reduction technologies include mechanical saws, circular cutters, abrasive cutters, diamond wire, explosive cutting, plasma arc torch, oxyacetylene torch, arc saw, abrasive water jet, and hydraulic shears. Backhoe hydraulic rams, conventional wrecking techniques, and explosives are used to dismantle large, thick concrete structures. The use of explosives requires a certified blasting expert for safety.
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      Decommissioning and remediation projects demand an integrated, life-cycle approach from planning through waste management. Concepts that must be clearly understood in developing a comprehensive waste management program include the various categories of waste, waste minimization, regulatory issues, and differing management approaches. As with most aspects of decommissioning, waste management provides opportunities for optimization. No one solution works in all situations and facilities, but understanding the differing approaches will let the manager make prudent and efficient decisions to best support stakeholder needs. Management of tritium waste is sufficiently unique that it is discussed separately in Section 19.7
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      Many U.S. nuclear power plants have permanently shut down and are in some phase of decommissioning. They include research reactors, other research facilities, and a small number of other commercial nuclear facilities, such as three commercial spent fuel reprocessing plants. There are hundreds of DOE nuclear facilities, i.e., reactors, fuel reprocessing plants, research facilities, and laboratories that supported a wide variety of operations using hazardous substances in the production of nuclear weapons. The DOE has restored many of its nuclear sites and cleaned up many hazardous waste sites. The decommissioning of commercial, private, and DOE-owned sites has resulted in the development of effective cleanup technologies and practices.Radioactive and hazardous waste constituents found in the soil and groundwater during decommissioning got there because of spills, system upsets, maintenance activities, and outdated work practices. Only a few chemical processes support electricity production at commercial power reactors, but nevertheless, activities at these sites released contaminants to the environment. An example of such an activity is work performed in on-site analytical laboratories. These laboratories were often the source of radioactive and chemical agents that reached the environment via sink and floor drains. At some of the older facilities, both radioactive and chemical contaminants were found in leach fields where the contaminants tended to accumulate.The primary radioactive contaminants in the soil or groundwater at a commercial site are 137Cs, 90Sr, 60Co, and 3H. The source of tritium in the groundwater is. generally water leakage from the spent fuel storage pool that tends to occur over many years of operation, Insoluble radioactive contaminants tend to be trapped in the soil and are not easily transported by groundwater movement, therefore tend to remain in localized areas.
  • Part 5: Decommissioning Project Experience

    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      The Maine Yankee nuclear electrical generation plant is located on an 820-acre site in Lincoln County in the Town of Wiscasset, within the mid-coast region of the State of Maine, about 27 miles northeast of Portland. The plant is owned by a consortium of ten New England electric utilities and was operated by the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (MYAPCO). During its 24-year operating lifetime, Maine Yankee generated and distributed more than 125 million MW-hours of electrical power.The construction permit for Maine Yankee was issued on October 21, 1968. The operating license, issued on September 15, 1972, authorized operation of the pressurized water reactor (PWR) facility until October 21, 2008, with power levels up to 75% rated thermal power. Commercial operation began on December 28, 1972. The license granted in June 1973 allowed for operation at 100% rated thermal and at power levels up to and including 2440 MWt.
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      Rancho Seco was a single unit, 913-MW electrical, Babcock & Wilcox design, nuclear power plant owned by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). The plant is 25 miles southeast of Sacramento, California on 2,480 acres of ralling terrain. Commercial operation of this PWR began in 1975 and ceased in 1989, The NSSS, housed within a hardened containment building, consisted of two independent primary coolant loops (each containing two reactor coolant pumps and a steam generator), an electrically heated pressurizer, and connecting piping. Major structures included two cooling towers, reactor building, administration building, auxiliary building, training and records building, nuclear service electrical building, interim onsite (waste) storage building, and support buildings (security, warehouses, and an unfinished technical center). An ISFSI was added in 1995.
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      The Trojan Nuclear Plant is located in Columbia County, Oregon, about 42 miles north of Portland. The 634-acre site includes a recreational area/park, various office buildings, and an industrial area enclosed by a security fence. Portland General Electric (PGE) is the majority owner and has responsibility for operating and maintaining Trojan. The Bonneville Power Administration, a power marketing agency under the DOE, is obligated through net billing agreements to pay costs associated with Eugene Water and Electric Board's share of Trojan, including decommissioning and spent fuel management costs.
    • Chapter 24

      Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      Big Rock Point, constructed on the shores of Lake Michigan near the resort town of Charlevoix, Michigan, began operation as a research and development reactor. In January 1960, Consumers Power (later Consumers Energy) submitted its formal proposal for a construction permit and operating license. The permit was granted four months later. Ground breaking for the plant took place July 20, 1960, and the plant was officially completed by September 1962.Big Rock Point was a relatively small plant (67 MWe) that made large contributions to the nuclear industry. As the world's first high power-density boiling water reactor (BWR), one goal was to demonstrate that nuclear plants could generate electricity economically. In 1977, Big Rock Point set a world record for BWRs by operating for 343 consecutive days.
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      The Haddam Neck Plant is located in Middlesex County on the east bank of the Connecticut River, about 21 miles south of Hartford, in Haddam Neck, Connecticut. The Connecticut Yankee property consists of 563 acres, of which 4.5 acres are fenced-in power plant structures. Most of the property remains open forest.
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Unit 1 is located on the coast of Southern California, in San Diego County, next to operating Units 2 and 3, The SONGS site is located entirely within the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base under an easement granted by the U.S. Government. Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) are joint owners.
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      The UTR-10 was an Argonaut-type reactor using uranium enriched to 19,75% in 235U in a graphite-reflected, water-moderated core. It was designed and built in 1959 by the Advanced Technology Laboratories division of the American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corporation. Initial reactor criticality came on December 31, 1959; operations officially ceased on May 15, 1998. The reactor was housed in the Nuclear Engineering Laboratory located on the west edge of the main campus of Iowa State University (ISU) in Ames, Iowa. The facility is a two-story, three-level, brick building built in 1934 by the Department of Agriculture. It was deeded to the University in 1946. The reactor room housed the reactor (enclosed in a concrete biological shield), the process pit, the fuel storage pit, and a five-ton bridge crane.
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      The Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant (BNFP), located in Barnwell, South Carolina, on a 1622 acre property about five miles southeast of the Savannah River site, was built in the early 1970s to reprocess spent nuclear fuel from commercial power reactors but was never used for this purpose. However, extensive testing used natural uranium as a surrogate material, and research and development work in the laboratories used plutonium and other transuranics (TRU).
    • Show Sections

      Hide Sections

      In 1942, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers chose Hanford as the location for reactor, chemical separation, and related facilities for producing and purifying plutonium. A small farming and ranching community along the Columbia river, covering the towns of Richland, Hanford, and White Bluffs, was designated as site W of the Manhattan Project, the code name for the government's development of atomic and the nuclear weapons.. The land known as the Hanford Engineering Works was located in a sparsely populated area close to the Bonneville and Grand Coulee dams.
Back Matter Public Access
PDF

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In