Results for “Radioisotope Power Systems Program” — Page 10

DOE OSTI1991

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 32, No. 1, January-March 1991]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 1 The Safety Review and Approval Process for Space Nuclear Power Sources, G. L. Bennett; 19 Report on the American Nuclear Society International Topical Meeting: "The Safety, Status, and Future of Non-Commercial Reactors and Irradiation Facilities", E. G. Silver; 35 Book Review: Fission Product Transport Processes in Reactor Accidents, Proceedings to the International Centre tor Heat and Mass Processes T. S. Kress; 38 Fast Reactor Technology in the 1990s: A Summary of the 1990 International Fast Reactor Safety Meeting, A. E. Levin; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 56 Effects of Chemical Phenomena on LWR Severe Accident Fission Product Behavior, A. P. Malinauskas and T. S. Kress; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 65 Technical Note: Safety Parameter Display Systems—10 Years Later, R. J. Eckenrode; 68 Potential Application of Neural Networks to the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants, R. E. Uhrig; DESIGN FEATURES: 80 Twenty-First DOE/NRC Nuclear Air-Cleaning Conference, R. R. Bellamy, D. W. Moeller, and M. W. First; 91 Impact of an Apparent Radiation Embrittlement Rate on the Life Expectancy of PWR Vessel Supports, R. D. Cheverton, G. C. Robinson, W. E. Pennell, and R. K. Nanstad; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 103 Technical Note: The Impact of Offsite Factors on the Safety Performance of Small Nuclear Power Plants, Yu. D. Baranaev and A. N. Viktorov; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 109 Activities Related to Waste Management, Compiled by E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 118 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; 121 Selected Safety-Related Events, Compiled by G. A. Murphy; 123 Operating U.S. Power Reactors, Compiled by E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 140 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by E. G. Silver; 150 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 155 Status of Power-Reactor Licensing Activities, Compiled by E. G. Silver; 157 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30, 1990; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 79 MIT Offers Summer Program on Nuclear Power Reactor Safety; 108 Harvard School of Public Health Offers Several Short Courses; 139 Short Course and Workshop on Nuclear Criticality Safety at University of New Mexico; 160 SCK/CEN Announces Training Course on Emergency Planning and Response; 161 The Authors; 164 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 31

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Potential Advantages to Employing an Onsite Laboratory at FUSRAP Sites Contaminated with Radionuclides and Metals - 20353

Various factors that support an evaluation of the relative costs, advantages and disadvantages of utilizing an onsite laboratory or an offsite laboratory for remediation of Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) sites contaminated with radionuclides and metals are presented. In terms of how much more quickly an onsite laboratory provides results versus an offsite laboratory, the results of this study provide tools for calculating the amount of cost savings per day for excavation of contaminated soils for various scenarios including: - State, municipal or local property remediation where the remediation schedule becomes time-critical due to the extra cost and inconvenience to the town or municipality caused by the need for increased security and safety personnel, possible road closures and detours, and the inconvenience to the public due to modified or decreased services of State or municipal facilities; - Residential property where the remediation schedule becomes time-critical due to the inconvenience to the homeowner as well as the importance of maintaining good community relations; - Commercial property where the remediation schedule becomes time-critical due to the hardship and potential loss of revenue endured by the property owner; - Open area where treatment of excavation water is required, and - Open area where treatment of excavation water is not required. For every scenario, the number of matrices, radionuclide and metal contaminants of concern and the project duration are important factors. The costs for the onsite laboratory included the capital costs associated with setting up the lab such as trailer(s) or building(s), power and water hookup, analytical testing equipment, balances, computers, desks and bookcases; support equipment such as hot plates, filtration assemblies, safety equipment, ovens, etc.; and supplies such as glassware, pipettes, filters, etc. and ongoing costs such as labor, chemicals and reagents, standards, cost of the laboratory obtaining certification and maintenance. Offsite laboratory sample testing costs are generally very competitive and typically substantially lower than onsite laboratory costs if only the sample testing costs are considered. The great disadvantage of using an offsite laboratory is that they often cannot guarantee rapid turnaround times for results which creates project delays associated with the remediation process including delays determining the completeness of the characterization and remediation processes, delays in backfilling a property and additional costs for treating wastewater (excavation water, stormwater or both). These costs will vary greatly depending upon the area of the country in which the project is located due to the wide range of labor costs for the onsite laboratory and field workers, as well as the contaminants of interest, matrices and most importantly the size of the impacted area and the number of properties located in that area. This paper provides guidelines for calculating the cost savings that may be realized if an onsite laboratory can generate results more quickly than an offsite laboratory by estimating the costs associated with the remediation process for the various scenarios noted above such as work crew labor costs, excavator and dump truck equipment rentals, wastewater treatment costs (if applicable) and the additional costs incurred by homeowners, commercial property owners and towns/municipalities that are reimbursed by the potentially responsible parties. Key assumptions involve the typical quickest turnaround time provided by the onsite and offsite laboratories. Costs for the operation of a wastewater treatment system and the remediation of a site area or property were provided by personnel who have been involved in the operation of a large FUSRAP site in New Jersey for many years. This study provides valuable information for determining the most cost-effective approach for analysis of project samples and therefore may be used on upcoming FUSRAP projects. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗