COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 14.04.1997 
COM(97) 150 final 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
on the conditions under which the decommissioning of the 
High-Flux Reactor (HFR) at Petten should be envisaged 

On 27 June 1996, the Council adopted the Supplementary Research Programme to be 
implemented by the Joint Research Centre for the European Atomic Energy Community 
(1996-99), in accordance with Article 7 of the Euratom Treaty. 
During its adoption, the following statement was entered in the Council minutes: 
"The Council notes that the Commission will make provision for 
decommissioning, as it did in previous years, when fixing the tariffs for irradiation 
services. Such provision will be added to that already settled and be used at the 
appropriate time. 
In addition, the Commission will examine the question of the decommissioning of 
the HFR and make a report to the Council on this matter before the end of 1996." 
The Commission hereby requests the Council and Parliament to take note of the enclosed 
report. 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
on the conditions under which the decommissioning of the 
High-Flux Reactor (HFR) at Petten should be envisaged 
Intoductory remarks 
Decommisioning is not an acute practical issue for the HFR. The reactor is in a very good technical 
condition. This has been achieved through constant upgradings and in-time renewal of its main 
components. The residual life time of the present reactor vessel - which was exchanged in 1984/85 
and has a total design life time of 30 years - will allow HFR operation until 2015 and even longer, 
the all-three-years performed in-service inspections are aimed at confirming this. Moreover, another 
fully licenced reactor vessel - identical to the present HFR vessel - is in stock and could be 
employed in another vessel replacement operation. 
Therefore around the year 2015, the Commission will have the choice between three options: 
- to stop the operation of the HFR and propose its decommissioning; 
- to evaluate the exact situation of the vessel and to decide on a prolongation of the life of 
the reactor with its present vessel; 
- following the evaluation of the situation of the vessel, to decide to replace it. 
Long term HFR operational schedules corresponding to the first and the third options are given in 
Tables 1 & 2 
The choice between these options will necessitate an in-depth concertation with the Dutch licencing 
authorities, the Member States which will support the HFR at that time, and the customers. The 
decision will be taken in particular on the basis of an economic assessment of the viability of the 
reactor at that time 
Therefore, the question whether the HFR will be decommissioned should be relevant only after 
2015 and might not arise before the middle of the next century. Nevertheless, independently of the 
time of the decision, the characteristics of the HFR allow for a description of the decommissioning 
process and an evaluation of its cost 
This document addresses this question and has been subject to expert review [i.e. DETEC, 
Germany] which confirmed the feasibility of this proposal and the estimates on waste volumes as 
originally assumed by (DETEC is a recognised and experienced company in the field of 
decommissioning and a joint daughter company of SIEMENS and NUKEM). 
The comments of the experts have been included in the Commission report. Nevertheless, it seemed 
worthwhile to attach to it the DETEC report. 
L Scope 
This preliminary study defines the main stages of decommissioning the HFR at Petten site, based on 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safety Series no. 74 "Safety in Decommissioning of 
Research Reactors", Safety Guide, 1986. It also gives the contemplated steps for dismantling and 
decommissioning the HFR, and the rough estimate of associated waste quantities and cost. 
IL Stages in decommissioning 
The process of decommissioning is considered to begin with the final shutdown of the HFR reactor 
and to end with the release of the reactor site for unrestricted use. 
Three stages are specified within this process : 
Stage J - Storage with surveillance 
During and subsequent to this stage, continuing surveillance of the reactor is necessary. 
The main activities include : 
- the removal of fuel. 
- the removal of coolants and other readily removable activated or slightly radioactive material. 
It is easily possible with existent on-site facilities at reasonable low cost. 
Stage 2 - Restricted site use 
As a consequence of the decommissioning activities, on completion of this stage, parts of the site 
may be released for use with constraints and remaining parts of the reactor and site will be subject 
to a storage with surveillance. 
The main activities include : 
- decontamination of all areas which are readily decontaminated 
- physically sealing of the remaining areas containing radioactivity. 
This would comprise removal of the vessel and all activated or highly contaminated components 
around the vessel, in the pool (beam tubes), of the primary circuit, and removal of activated or 
contaminated parts of the pool liner and the concrete walls, as well as sealing all the parts which 
may still contain activity 
All necessary actions can be executed with in-house (including Energy Centrum Nederland - ECN) 
manpower and expertise The waste would go to the Dutch disposal facility COVRA (Centrale 
Organisatie Voor Radioactief Afval), even if a small amount would have to be stored temporarely 
in the medium active waste facility of ECN prior to shipment to the COVRA facility. 
1 
Stage 3 - Unrestricted site use 
At this stage, decommissioning of the reactor is completed. All radioactive materials, equipment 
and structures are either decontaminated or removed to the Dutch disposal facility COVRA. A final 
radiation survey is then conducted to ensure that no residual radioactivity remains on site. The site 
is then released for unrestricted use and no further surveillance inspections or tests are required. 
The buildings and site is released from the obligations of the nuclear laws. 
After release from the nuclear laws, employment of the site and buildings for any other purpose 
may be considered and give rise to income, if not, the cost arisen from stage 3 will be linked to the 
normal management of ordinary buildings. 
It is proposed to proceed with the execution of stage 3 directly after completion of the stage 2. 
Following expert advice, the advantages from a continuoued decommissioning operation until 
completion of stage 3 are substantial in comparision to a scenario where stage 3 is performed after 
a waiting period. 
Decommissioning Costs : 
- preparation and contacts to licensing authorities : 2 MECU 
- Preparation and execution of the actual work (needs to 
retain the capacity under the present ECN operation 
contract for roughly 1.5 years) : 14 MECU 
- Waste disposal to COVRA 9 MECU 
- Total (rough estimate) 25 MECU 
III. Sequencing of decommissioning activities 
The HFR decommissioning activities are based on the experiences gained during the vessel 
replacement in 1984/85 At that time, the total operation was carried out with the normal operation 
and maintenance crew, with additional help of the HFR users and site workshop. 
Based on the amounts of waste handled during vessel replacement in 1984, the general step-by-step 
approach is the following 
0. Removal of fuel elements 
The fuel elements are stored safely elsewhere or shipped to a reprocessing facility. 
/ Removal of all auxiliary equipment and mechanisms from inside and around 
the vessel 
Same amount of waste is anticipated from very similar auxiliary equipment. 
2. Destructive removal of beam tubes and other "fixed" connections to the vessel (viz. restraint 
structures, etc.) 
Equal amounts will originate from the beam tubes and other "fixed" structures with some 
more middle active parts due to increased use of stainless steel bolts and rings. The amount of 
stainless steel material is very low due to the absence of bellows. However more material is now 
present with a thickness exceeding 3 cm requiring special handling as waste. 
3. Vessel removal 
Amounts of material from the vessel itself will be less, however of an increased thickness. 
4. Removal of active parts of beam tubes 11 and 12 and parts of the pool liner with radioactive 
spots 
The amount of waste from beam tubes 11 and 12 is reduced due to a simplified construction; 
pool liner material is set at 10 % of total. 
5. Activated concrete of the pcx)l walls around the beam tube openings to be removed 
For the activated concrete around the beam tube openings the assumption is made that the 
"penetration depth" is average some 30 cm around the openings. 
6. Contaminated concrete under the pool bottom liner to be removed 
For the contaminated concrete under the pool bottom liner due to the existing leakage also a 
thickness of 30 cm is assumed. For the vertical walls only the concrete in the neighbourhood of the 
pool gates is suspected. 
7. Intensive decontamination of all system piping of the primary and pool cooling systems 
Decontamination of the primary and pool system piping will result in radioactive 
decontamination fluids only The material itself is not activated. The same is valid for auxiliary 
systems like hot and warm drain systems 
S. Removal of activated and or contaminated auxiliary equipment (resins of ion exchangers, 
tools, etc.) and standard experimental facilities 
The amounts of ion exchanger resins are well known, after thorough regeneration the resins 
can be handled as low active waste Tools, storage racks, etc. will offer only minor amounts of 
slightly activated material after decontamination. For the removal of standard experimental facilities 
estimates are based on the 1991 situation. 
9. General radiological control of remaining system parts 
The final radiological control of the plant is expected to result in minor amounts of low level 
waste only. 
10. Standard demolition to the required levels for further plant use 
Non-activated material is concerned by this operation. 
r 
Table 3 gives the estimated amounts of waste subdivided per category. The high and medium active 
waste can be temporarily stored in the ECN Waste facility. In case of transport to and storage at 
COVRA Borsele, Table 3 can be translated into Table 4. 
On the whole, it is anticipated to get high-medium-level waste of 5 m3 and 
370 TBq (1000 Ci), and low-level waste of 120 m3 and 5,9 TBq (16 Ci). 
Tab. 1 : Longterm HFR Operational Schedule (lrst OPTION) 
Period: 1996 to 2030 
Year. 19. «20.. 96(0 09 10 12 14 15 16 18 to 30 
Lease contract CEC / NL Remaining rime of present CEC / NL lease agreement on (he HFR and Petten Site 
Life time HFR vtssel Remaining anticipated life time of the HFR pressure vessel rib. 2 
-J HFR decommissioning 
Preparation 
Stage 1 and 2 
Stage3 Preparation 
Unrestricted site use 
Period : 2031 to 2065 
Year 20. 31(0 61 62 | 63 I 64 | 65 
Lease contract CEC I NL Continuation of remaining date of present CEC / NL lease agreetnem on the HFR and Petten Site 
HFR decommissioning 
Stage 3 Unrestricted she use continued 
Tab. 2: Longterm HFR Operational Schedule (3rd OPTION) 
Period : 1996 to 2030 
Ye»r : 19. or 20 96 m 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 to 30 
Lease contract CEC / NL Rerruining time of pre«nt CEC / NL lease agreement on the HFR and Petten Site 
Life time HFR vessel Remaining anbcipited life time of the HFR pressure vessel nb. 2 Anticipated life time of the HFR pressure vessel ab. 
3 [existent] 
HFR vessel replacement 
Pre pa radon 
Replacement Preparation 
cw Period : 2031 to 2065 
Year : 20.. 31 to 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 SO SI to 61 62 63 64 65 
Lease contract CEC / NL Continuation of remaining rime of present CEC / NL lease agreement on the HFR and Petten Site 
Life time HFR vessel Anticipated life time of the HFR pressure vessel nb. 3 continued 
HFR decommissioning 
Preparation 
Stage I and 2 
Stage 3 Preparation 
Unrestricted site use 
Table 3 Estimated amounts of waste subdivided per category and or destination 
\D Waste category 
Vessel and auxiliary equipment 
around the vessel 
Activated concrete 
Contaminated auxiliary equipment 
TOTAL High/medium-level waste 
Standard waste boxes (25 1) containing 
Aluminium 
180 
-
-
180 Stainless Steel 
20 
-
-
20 kCi 
1,0 
-
-
1,0 Low level waste 
Drums of 
2001 
200 
220 
130 
550 6001 
20 
-
-
20 Ci 
12 
2 
2 
16 
Table 4 Estimated amounts of waste to be stored at C()\ 114 
P Container volume 
Dose equivalent/h 
Vessel and auxiliary equipment around the 
vessel 
Activated concrete 
Contaminated auxiliary equipment 
TOTAL Number of concrete containers 
2001 
< 2 mSv/h 
200 
150 
150 
500 > .2 mSv/h 
<2.0 mSv/h 
-
-
-
-6001 
< .2 mSv/h 
100 
-
-
100 > .2 mSv/h 
<2.0 mSv/h J 
100 
-
-
100 
DETEC Bericht Empfânger siehe 
Verteiler 
Titel: Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document 
on Decommissioning of HFR Petten 
(Summarizing Report) 
Revision stelre 
Revisionsubersicht ULS Blattzahl ErsteJter 
Datum Prufer 
Datum Fretgabe ProjekOerter 
, T. Datum RIX 
Erstausgabe 
r 15 6? V>£^ :*""irCInge 
ùbergeordnetes Dotaiment 
DN Projekt-Nr 
154009 
Funkhon 
DETEC UVST 
DE140 ACK 
Komponente DNR 00062610 -00 
Baugtuppe Bau EB Lfd.Nr. 
Interne Kennzeicftnung: ; - ner r.umoer:; 3025005 AG 
u UA 
BE 
BtBtS 1 
Schutzvermerk nsch DIN 34 beachten Formblatt DE110.DOT / QM / 09.9< 
/lo 
Revisionsubersicht 
Blatt Beschreibung der Ànderung R1X / Datum 
all First issue 00/29.08.96 
DETEC Expert Review 
of the Draft JRC Petten Document on 
Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR 
00062610 RIX 
00 
Blatt 
Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten Formbtstt DE 102. DOT / QM / 09 & 
"J 1 
Contents 
Abstract 
1 Scope 
2 Assumptions 
3 Review of technical concept 
4 Review of costs 
4.1 Plausibility check 
4.2 Detailed evaluation page 
4 
6 
10 
10 
13 
DETEC ExDert Review 
of the Draft JRC Petten Document on 
Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR 
00062610 R1X 
00 
Blatt 
Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten Formbtatt DE103.DOT / QM / 09.& 
i£ 
Abstract 
The intention of the expert review is to check the feasibility 
of the technical concept and the plausibility of the estimated 
costs. 
A comparison of HFR with 3 German research reactors actually in 
the state of decommissioning leads to the result that the cal­
culated amounts of waste and costs seem to be in a reasonable 
order of magnitude if one takes into account: 
the comparatively low residual radioactivity of the HFR 
the comparatively low estimated waste arisings 
low estimated decommissioning and temporary supervision 
costs. 
The results obtained by a plausibility check were subsequently 
confirmed by an independent detailed calculation. Total costs 
for decommissioning to free release (directly following stage 
2) should therefore not exceed 25 MECU. 
Weighing the pros and cons for decommissioning as planned, it 
becomes apparent that there are hardly any pros left for a long 
nme phase of supervision following stage 2. 
radioactive decay, the argument often used in favour of defer­
ring stage 3, is of no significant importance. A dormancy peri­
od cf several decades will not improve the contamination situa­
tion substantially and will therefore not lighten the dismant­
ling work decisively. 
Conversely, the advantages of immediate decommissioning to un­
restricted release of the controlled areas are obvious: 
• Auxiliary systems that will be needed for decommissioning 
are either still in operating condition or can be kept ope­
rational. Deferred dismantling would require new installa­
tions with all implications (such as licensing). 
DETEC Expert Review 
of the Draft JRC Petten Document on 
Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR RIX 
00062610 - 00 
Blatt 
Schusrvermerk nach DIN 34 beacfsten FomtNatt DE103.DOT / QM / 09.9-
^3 
Costs for sampling and waste management (decontamination, 
waste conditioning) can be kept low as long as neighbouring 
JRC still has appropriate facilities at its disposal. This 
might not be the case several decades after decommissioning 
to stage 2. 
The availability of experienced HFB^ staff and of personnel 
with specific HFR knowledge at authorities and in industry. 
That knowledge is about to disappear gradually. 
Expert Review DNR RIX 
DFT F ft °f nhS Draft.JRC Pe"e2 °°=^nt °n 00062610 - 00 L I Cl| Decommissioning of HFR Petten 
, I m 1 Blatt 5 
Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten Formbtatt DE103.DOT / QM / 09 
^V 
1 Scope 
The Institute for Advanced Materials, HFR Unit, at Petten has 
prepared a preliminary study about the decommissioning of the 
High Flux Reactor (HFR) at Petten. 
The study is based on IAEA Safety Series no. 74 „Safety in De­
commissioning of Research Reactors", Safety Guide, 1986. It 
estimates expected costs for reactor dismantling including 
amounts of waste and costs of waste disposal. 
It is the intention of the expert review to check the feasibi­
lity of the technical concept and the plausibility of the esti­
mated costs. 
2 Assumptions 
The expert review is based upon the following assumptions: 
decommissioning of HFR will be performed in accordance with 
IAEA Safety Series no. 74. 
after decontamination and dismantling of contaminated and 
activated areas and components the buildings will be re­
turned to the former owner for unrestricted site use. 
-ost dismantling work will be performed by the HFR operating 
staff. 
ail costs are calculated on 1996 price level. 
DETEC Expert Review 
of the Draft JRC Petten Document on 
Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR RIX 
00062610 - 00 
Blatt 
Schutzvermetk nach DIN 34 beachten FormbWt DE103.DOT / QM / 09.94 
1 J 
3 Review of technical concept 
The IAEA Safety Series no. 74 recommends decommissioning by 
three stages: 
stage 1 includes the removal of fuel and all other removable 
contaminated and activated material like for example 
cooling water. 
stage 2 comprises decontamination and disassembly of such 
areas and components which can be quite easily trea­
ted and removed like the reactor vessel. 
In stage 2 it is intended to remove the main part of 
activity and to achieve unrestricted release conditi­
ons for large building areas. Those areas which can­
not easily be cleaned from activity will be sealed 
and will remain as restricted use areas for perhaps a 
long period of time. 
stage 3 finally will consist in removing all the remaining 
contamination and activation and will terminate the 
decommissioning by unrestricted release of the com­
plete facility. 
Tne HFR preliminary study strictly follows these recommendati­
ons . 
It must be mentioned that the IAEA Safety Series no. 74 is no 
binding regulation but a guide which explicitely admits depar­
tures from the recommended strategy. 
3y the experience of decommissioning German research reactors 
e.g. AVR, FR-2 and MZFR) a 3-stage strategy guided by the gra-
ne of technical complexity and by the radiological demands is a 
very reasonable approach to decommissioning. But we do not fol­
low the idea to keep the facility within stage 2 for perhaps 
DETEC Expert Review 
of the Draft JRC Petten Document on 
Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR RIX 
00062610 - 00 
Blatt 
Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten Formbiatt DE103.DOT / QM / 09.94 
1£ 
some ten years, an idea which at least is implicitely included 
in this concept. 
By nearly all actual decommissioning projects it can be learned 
that direct and immediate dismantling is the most effective 
way. 
This can be supported by mainly two arguments: 
until completion of stage 3 at least some auxiliary systems 
like ventilation and off-gas systems must be kept working. 
This will cause costs. 
- practical experience demonstrates the need for operating 
staff availability during all stages of decommissioning. Se­
veral decades after shut down it cannot be expected that ex­
perienced operating personnel from the facility will still 
be at hand. This situation will then also give rise to addi­
tional costs. 
Taking into account the development of waste disposal costs it 
must be an additional argument to complete the work as soon as 
possible - once the decision for final shut down has been ta­
ken. 
:.Je therefore strongly recommend to perform the decommissioning 
stage-wise but without long interruptions between different 
stages. 
The decommissioning sequence described in chapter III of the 
HFR preliminary study seems to be reasonable but with one 
exception: decontamination of the primary system and pool coo­
ling system (item 7) should be performed right at the beginning 
of the decommissioning work. To be precise: decontamination 
should be foreseen directly after item 1. 
Decontamination of the primary and pool coolant loop system 
should be performed with Full System Chemical Decontamination 
(FSD). Highly efficient closed loop processes of this kind also 
DETEC Expert Review 
of the Draft JRC Petten Document on 
j Decommissioning of HFR Petten 
i . 
Schutivenmerk nach DiN 34 beachten FocmbSatt DE103.DOT / QM / 09.94 
-n 
for aluminum are available. Such a process will decontaminate 
large system areas fairly down below the limit values for mate­
rial free release. 
Appropriate processes are available which are strongly waste 
minimizing. Ion exchange resins which contain the total amount 
of activity and of kations will be the only secondary waste re­
sulting from such processes. Decontamination chemicals are com­
pletely decomposed within the process and will not contribute 
to the waste volume. 
FSD will not only help to save dose rate during system dismant­
ling but will also help to save costs because the complete sy­
stem will be decontaminated in one single working operation and 
most of the material can afterwards be reused unrestrictedly. 
The application of FSD presupposes an intact system to be de­
contaminated which is an additional demand for performing this 
process at an early stage of decommissioning. 
After FSD of primary system and pool cooling loops the pool it­
self should be decontaminated by standard chemical spraying. We 
nave based our cost review on a decontamination strategy just 
outlined above. 
DETEC Expert Review 
of the Draft JRC Petten Document on 
Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR RIX 
00062610 - 00 
Blatt 
Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten Formbtatt DE103.DOT / QM / 09.9* 
•1 % 
4 Review of costs 
4.1 Plausibility check 
The preliminary study gives a rough estimate for HFR waste 
arisings and decommissioning costs. For an overall plausibility 
check it is helpful to compare data of HFR with corresponding 
data of other research reactors. For this comparison German re­
search reactors of different types were chosen. Their electric 
power is of the same order of magnitude like HFR and actually 
they are in the state of decommissioning. For these comparative 
reactors the decomissioning will also be terminated by unre­
stricted release of the controlled areas. Details are shown in 
the following Tables 1 and 2. The cost data of the reactors 
•status: January 1995) are based upon a BMBF publication. 
In our opinion the data of waste amount and costs given in the 
Tables for HFR fit together with the 3 other projects in a 
reasonable manner if one takes into account: 
the comparatively low residual radioactivity of the HFR, 
which is due to 
the very compact design of the high flux reactor and 
the material aluminum (already experienced during the reac­
tor vessel dismantling campaign in 1984), 
the comparatively low estimated waste arising with decom- ' 
missioning of HFR, 
which is a direct consequence of 
the low residual radioactivity, 
the low estimated decommissioning costs, 
which are directly depending upon 
the low waste arisings, 
the assumed availability of the operating staff and again 
the low residual radioactivity which both contribute to low 
temporary supervision costs. 
DETEC Expert Review 
of the Draft JRC Petten Document on 
Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR RIX 
00062610 - 00 
Blatt 10 
Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten Formbtatt DE103.DOT / QM / 09.9-
^3 
Table 1 : Drawing up of relevant data of research reactors 
(DM/ECU = 1.85) 
name/site/country: 
electric power (at operation) : 
residual radioactivity: 
(after removal of nuclear fuel) 
estimated waste arisings for dispo­
sal: 
estimated decommissioning costs to 
stage 3: 
estimated temporary supervision 
costs in stage 1: 
name/site/country: 
electric power (at operation): 
residual radioactivity: 
(after removal of nuclear fuel) 
estimated waste arisings for dispo­
sal -'without thermal column) : 
estimated decommissioning costs to 
stage 3: 
estimated temporary supervision 
costs in stage 2: AVR Julien (Germany) 
15 MWe 
2.6 E15 Bq 
668 Mg steel 
2000 Mg concrete 
1015 Mg other materials 
193 MECU 
11 MECU/year 
FR-2 Karlsruhe (Germany) 
44 MWe 
6.5 E15 Bq 
1200 Mg total 
132 MECU 
2.4 MECU/year 
DETEC Expert Review 
of the Draft JRC Petten Document on 
Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR 
00062610 RIX 
00 
Blatt 11 
Schutzvenmerk nach DIN 34 beachten FormWatt DE103.DOT / QM / 09.94 
^o 
Table 2: Drawing up of relevant data of research reactors 
(DM/ECU = 1.85) 
name/site/country: 
electric power (at operation): 
residual radioactivity: 
(after removal of nuclear fuel) 
estimated waste arisings for dispo­
sal: 
estimated decommissioning costs to 
stage 3: 
estimated temporary supervision 
costs in stage 2: MZFR Karlsruhe (Germany) 
58 MWe 
1 E17 Bq 
1580 Mg steel 
1080 Mg concrete 
100 Mg other materials 
237 MECU 
4.2 MECU/year 
name/site/country: 
electric power (at operation): 
residual radioactivity: 
(after removal of nuclear fuel) 
estimated waste arisings for dispo­
sal (without thermal column): 
estimated decommissioning costs to 
stage 3 (without demolition of the 
buildings and other conventional 
systems;: 
estimated temporary supervision 
costs in stage 2: HFR Petten (The Nether­
lands) 
45 MWe 
3.7 E13 Bq . 
4 Mg MAW 
121 Mg LAW 
22 MECU (according 4.2) 
0.5 MECU/year 
DETEC Expert Review 
cf the Draft JRC Petten Document on 
Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR 
00062610 RIX 
00 
Blatt 12 
Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten Formbtatt DE 103. DOT / QM / 091 
2-7 
Therefore on this basis of direct comparison with other decom­
missioning projects the costs for HFR decommissioning given in 
the preliminary study seem to be quite plausible. 
4.2 Detailed evaluation 
Beside checking the costs by plausibility and comparison with 
other decommissioning projects costs can be proved by an inde­
pendent and more direct approach. This must include the consi­
deration of: 
extent of dismantling work 
duration of work 
amount of masses to be dismantled 
amount of waste arising 
material and mass specific dismantling costs 
planning and licensing 
extent of and techniques for decontamination 
handling and disposal of waste 
plant supervision, auxiliary systems standby, amount of 
personnel and operating staff. 
All these aspects were taken into consideration and were eva­
luated. Corresponding costs were then calculated on basis of 
existing knowledge and experience. 
Costs for the following activities are not considered here: 
Removal of fuel from the reactor site 
Removal of contaminated coolants and other readily remo­
vable contaminated and activated materials. 
As already pointed cut above we assume that extensive use will 
oe made of chemical system decontamination and that such compo­
nents which are not decontaminated during system decontaminati-
:n will be treated after dismantling. In our opinion a conse-
DETEC Expert Review 
of the Draft JRC Petten Document on 
Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR RIX 
00062610 - 00 
Blatt 13 
Schutzvermerk nacn DIN 34 beachten Fonnbtatt DE103.DOT / QM / 09.94 
quent decontamination strategy can reduce the amount of waste 
expected in the preliminary study. 
In addition we presuppose that stage 3 will immediately follow 
stage 2 so that within a period of 5 years the reactor building 
will completely be cleared from all components and structures 
with residual radioactivity above authorized limits. At the end 
of this time the building will be released from atomic law. 
The costs thus derived are presented in Table 3. 
Table 3: Breakdown of costs (status: 01.01.1996) 
Activities MECU 
System and single component decontamination 2.0 
Decontamination and release measurements of 1.6 
buildings 
Dismantling of medium activated/contaminated 1.4 
components and systems 
Dismantling of low-contaminated components and 3.9 
systems 
Operational costs and management 4.1 
Planning and licensing . 2.0 
Disposal of waste 7.0 
Total 22.0 
DETEC Expert Review 
of the Draft JRC Petten Document on 
Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR 
00062610 RIX 
00 
Blatt 14 
Schutzvermerk nacn DIN 34 beachten Formbtett DE103.DOT / QM / 09.9» 
2j 
Costs for planning and licensing were calculated on the basis 
of German conditions. With respect to HFR this assumption could 
therefore be a conservative one. 
We tried to recalculate the amount of waste, and we concluded 
that about 300 m3 of waste must be expected. Included in these 
300 m3 are 1 - 2% of high/medium level waste, mostly arising 
from activated material. The 300 m3 of low level waste were 
evaluated on the basis of enhanced decontamination work apply­
ing advanced decontamination technologies. 
Assuming that the complete waste volume will finally be dispo­
sed off at COVRA about 3.5 MECU must be set aside for a direct 
disposal of waste. 
Based upon information we received from HFR most likely the me­
dium/high level waste will need preconditioning prior to be 
sent to COVRA. Preconditioning costs seem to be somewhat uncer­
tain and not well established for the time being. We expect to 
be on the safe side by assuming once again 3.5 MECU for precon­
ditioning and intermediate storage. 
In sum 7.0 MECU should therefore be sufficient to cover the 
waste disposal costs. 
Vp tc the end of extended stage 2 (as defined above) overall 
costs of 22.0 MECU must therefore be expected. 
Following our recommendation no temporary supervision costs 
will arise during stage 3. 
The assumptions of the preliminary study therefore seem to be 
formulated on a sound and solid basis. 
DETEC Expert Review 
of the Draft JRC Petten Document on 
Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR RIX 
00062610 - 00 
Blatt 15 
Schutzvermerk nacn DIN 34 beachten Formbtatt DE103.DOT/QM/ 09.94 
2 Y 
ISSN 0254-1475 
ÇOM(97) 150 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 12 15 14 05 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-141-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-18088-2 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
zs