Optimization of Costs Versus Radiation Exposures in Decommissioning
When considering decommissioning activities, it is desirable to achieve a balance between the cost of doing the work and the cost of minimizing the radiation dose to the workers. Ideally, one would like to minimize both of these costs, but, unfortunately, the conditions for achieving these minima rarely coincide in practice. One must make trade-offs to hold both costs and radiation doses to reasonable limits. In this paper I will discuss the opportunities available during a reference light water reactor’s (LWR) lifetime to optimize its eventual decomissioning. I will present an optimization methodology that could easily be applied to other decommissioning projects, regardless of size. For each specific phase of the reactor’s life cycle, different considerations and alternatives are used to formulate an empirical methodology to optimize costs and reduce occupational radiation exposure. This methodology, when fully developed, could be used as the data base for the Master Decommissioning Plan (MDP) of the power plant, which ultimately will guide the actual decommissioning.
KeywordsRadiation Exposure Nuclear Power Plant Optimization Methodology Nuclear Facility Reduce Radiation Exposure
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.R. I. Smith, G. J. Konzek, and W. E. Kennedy, Jr., Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station NUREG/CR-0130, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, June 1978.Google Scholar
- 3.C. E. Jenkins, E. S. Murphy, and K. J. Schneider, Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Small Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Plant NUREG/CR-0129, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, February 1979.Google Scholar
- 4.A. Martin, D. T. Read, R. W. Milligan, T. F. Kempe, and D. A. Briaris, A Preliminary Study of the Decommissioning of Nuclear Reactor Installations ANS Report No. 155, p. 63, Associated Nuclear Services, 123 High Street, Epsom, Surray, KT19 8EB, July 1977.Google Scholar
- 5.G. F. Stone, “Control of Occupational Radiation Exposures in TVA Nuclear Power. Plants Design and Operating Philosophy,” ANS-SD-15, Proceedings on the Special Session on Plant and Equipment Design Features for Radiation Protection CONF-750661, New Orleans, LA, June 8–13, 1975.Google Scholar
- 6.R. Bardtenschlager, D. Bottger, A. Gasch, and N. Majohr, Decommissioning of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 45, pp. 1–51, Copyright North-Holland Publishing Company, 1978.Google Scholar
- 7.The Shallow Land Burial of Low-Level Radioactively Contaminated Solid Waste National Academy of Sciences, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 76–56928, Washington, DC, 1976.Google Scholar
- 8.K. M. Harmon, “Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities,” Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Management of Wastes from the LWR Fuel Cycle Denver, CO, July 11–16, 1976.Google Scholar
- 9.R. C. Anderson and S. W. W. Shor, “Coordinated Design Reviews To Improve Access and Reduce Radiation Exposure, ” Nuclear Engineering International p. 45, March 1978.Google Scholar
- 10.G. A. Beitel and Max P. Schlienger, Arc Saw Testing ARH-LD-147, Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company, Richland, WA, and Schlienger, Inc., San Rafael, CA, July 1976.Google Scholar
- 11.G. G. Legg, Reducing Radiation Exposure in CANDU Power Plants (Technical paper 5/22 at Nuclex ‘75, Basle, October 1975), Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Chalk River, 1976, report No. 5388.Google Scholar