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
Date: 1997-04-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Joint Research Centre, Netherlands, committee report, nuclear reactor, radioactive waste, storage of waste

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 
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. 

the  Commission  will  make  provision 

that 

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 : 
-  Preparation and execution of the actual work (needs to 
retain the capacity under the present ECN operation 
contract for roughly  1.5 years) : 

- Waste disposal to COVRA 

- Total (rough estimate) 

III. 

Sequencing of decommissioning  activities 

2 MECU 

14 MECU 
9 MECU 

25 MECU 

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.  « 2 0 .. 

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 

HFR  decommissioning 

Preparation 

Stage  1 and 2 

Stage3 

-J 

Period  : 2031 to 2065 

Year  20. 

31(0 61 

Preparation 

Unrestricted site use 

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 

Period  : 2031 to 2065 

Preparation 

Year : 20.. 

31  to 43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

SO 

SI to 61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

cw 

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 

Waste category 

High/medium-level  waste 

Low level waste 

Vessel and auxiliary equipment 
around the vessel 

Activated  concrete 

Contaminated  auxiliary equipment 

\D 

TOTAL 

Standard  waste boxes (25 1) containing 

Drums of 

Aluminium 

Stainless Steel 

180 

-

-

180 

20 

-

-

20 

kCi 

1,0 

-

-

1,0 

2001 

200 

220 

130 

550 

6001 

Ci 

20 

-

-

20 

12 

2 

2 

16 

Table 4 

Estimated amounts of waste to be stored at C()\ 114 

Container volume 

Dose equivalent/h 

Number of concrete containers 

2001 

6001 

<  2 mSv/h 

> .2 mSv/h 
<2.0 mSv/h 

< .2 mSv/h 

> .2 mSv/h 
<2.0 mSv/h 

J 

Vessel and auxiliary equipment  around  the 
vessel 

P 

Activated  concrete 

Contaminated auxiliary equipment 

TOTAL 

200 

150 

150 

500 

-

-

-

-

100 

-

-

100 

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 
DN 

ùbergeordnetes  Dotaiment 

DETEC 

15 

6?  V > £^ 

Projekt-Nr 

UVST 

ACK 

1 5 4 0 09 

DE140 

:*""irCInge 

DNR  0 0 0 6 2 6 10  - 00 

Funkhon 

Komponente 

Baugtuppe 

Bau 

EB 

Lfd.Nr. 

AG 

UA 

Interne Kennzeicftnung: 

; - n er 

r.umoer:;  3025005 

u 

BE 

BtBtS 

1 

Schutzvermerk  nsch  DIN 34 beachten 

Formblatt DE110.DOT / QM / 09.9< 

/ lo 

Revisionsubersicht 

Blatt 

Beschreibung der Ànderung 

a ll 

F i r st 

i s s ue 

R1X / Datum 

00/29.08.96 

DETEC 

Expert  Review 
of  the  Draft  JRC  Petten  Document  on 
Decommissioning  of  HFR  Petten 

DNR 

00062610 

RIX 

00 

Blatt 

Formbtstt DE 102. DOT / QM / 09 & 

Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten 

"J 

1 

Contents 

Abstract 

1 

Scope 

2 

Assumptions 

3 

4 

Review  of 

t e c h n i c al 

c o n c e pt 

Review  of  c o s ts 

4 .1  P l a u s i b i l i ty  check 
4 .2  D e t a i l ed  e v a l u a t i on 

page 

4 

6 

10 

10 
13 

DETEC 

ExDert  Review 
of  the  Draft  JRC  Petten Document  on 
Decommissioning  of  HFR  Petten 

Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten 

i£ 

DNR 

00062610 

R1X 
00 

Blatt 

Formbtatt DE103.DOT / QM / 09.& 

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 
n me  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 

FomtNatt DE103.DOT / QM / 09.9-

Schusrvermerk nach DIN 34 beacfsten 

^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. 

D FT F  ft  °f nhS Draft.JRC P e"e2 ° ° = ^nt °n  00062610 - 00 

Decommissioning of HFR Petten 
m 

L  I C l| 
, 
Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten 

1 
Formbtatt DE103.DOT / QM / 09 

Blatt 

5 

I 

Expert Review 

DNR 

RIX 

^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 

Schutzvermetk nach DIN 34 beachten 

DNR 

RIX 
00062610  - 00 

Blatt 

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 

Schutzvermerk nach  DIN 34 beachten 

1£ 

DNR 

RIX 
00062610  - 00 

Blatt 

Formbiatt DE103.DOT / QM / 09.94 

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 
Decommissioning  of HFR Petten 
. 

j 
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 

Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten 

DNR 

RIX 
00062610  - 00 

Blatt 

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 

Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten 

DNR 

RIX 

0 0 0 6 2 6 10 

-  00 

Blatt 

10 

Formbtatt DE103.DOT / QM / 09.9-

^3 

Table  1 :  Drawing  up  of  relevant  data of research  reactors 

(DM/ECU =  1.85) 

name/site/country: 

AVR  Julien  (Germany) 

electric power  (at operation) : 

15 MWe 

residual  radioactivity: 

2.6  E15 Bq 

(after  removal  of nuclear  fuel) 

estimated  waste  arisings  for dispo 

668 Mg  steel 

sal: 

2000 Mg  concrete 

1015 Mg  other  materials 

estimated  decommissioning  costs  to 

193 MECU 

stage  3: 

estimated  temporary  supervision 

11 MECU/year 

costs  in stage  1: 

name/site/country: 

FR-2 Karlsruhe  (Germany) 

electric  power  (at  operation): 

44 MWe 

residual  radioactivity: 

6.5  E15  Bq 

(after  removal  of  nuclear  fuel) 

estimated  waste  arisings  for  dispo 

1200 Mg  total 

sal  -'without thermal  column) : 

estimated  decommissioning  costs  to 

132 MECU 

stage  3: 

estimated  temporary  supervision 

2.4  MECU/year 

costs  in stage  2: 

DETEC 

Expert  Review 
of  the  Draft  JRC  Petten  Document  on 
Decommissioning  of HFR  Petten 

Schutzvenmerk nach DIN 34 beachten 

^o 

DNR 

00062610 

Blatt 

RIX 

00 

11 

FormWatt DE103.DOT / QM / 09.94 

Table  2:  Drawing  up  of  relevant  data  of  research  reactors 

(DM/ECU =  1.85) 

name/site/country: 

MZFR  Karlsruhe  (Germany) 

electric  power  (at  operation): 

58 MWe 

residual  radioactivity: 

1 E17 Bq 

(after  removal  of nuclear  fuel) 

estimated  waste  arisings  for  dispo 

1580 Mg  steel 

sal: 

1080 Mg  concrete 

100 Mg  other  materials 

estimated  decommissioning  costs  to 

237 MECU 

stage  3: 

estimated  temporary  supervision 

4.2  MECU/year 

costs  in  stage 2: 

name/site/country: 

HFR  Petten  (The Nether 

electric  power  (at  operation): 

lands) 

45 MWe 

residual  radioactivity: 

3.7  E13 Bq  . 

(after  removal  of nuclear  fuel) 

estimated  waste  arisings  for  dispo 

4 Mg  MAW 

sal  (without  thermal  column): 

121 Mg  LAW 

estimated  decommissioning  costs  to 

22 MECU  (according  4.2) 

stage  3  (without  demolition  of  the 

buildings  and  other  conventional 

systems;: 

estimated  temporary  supervision 

0 .5  MECU/year 

costs  in  stage  2: 

DETEC 

Expert  Review 
cf  the  Draft  JRC  Petten  Document  on 
Decommissioning  of HFR  Petten 

Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten 

DNR 

00062610 

Blatt 

RIX 

00 

12 

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 

Schutzvermerk nacn DIN 34 beachten 

DNR 
00062610 

RIX 
-  00 

Blatt 

13 

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 

System  and  single  component  decontamination 

Decontamination  and  release measurements  of 

buildings 

MECU 

2.0 

1.6 

Dismantling  of medium  activated/contaminated 

1.4 

components  and  systems 

Dismantling  of  low-contaminated  components  and 

3.9 

systems 

Operational  costs  and management 

Planning  and  licensing 

. 

Disposal  of waste 

Total 

4.1 

2.0 

7.0 

22.0 

DETEC 

Expert  Review 
of  the  Draft  JRC  Petten  Document  on 
Decommissioning  of HFR  Petten 

Schutzvermerk nacn  DIN 34 beachten 

2j 

DNR 

00062610 

Blatt 

RIX 

00 

14 

Formbtett DE103.DOT / QM / 09.9» 

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 

Schutzvermerk nacn DIN 34 beachten 

DNR 

RIX 
00062610  - 00 

Blatt 

15 

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