Summary of Final Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis (1)/67531/metadc840199/m2/1/high_re… ·...
Transcript of Summary of Final Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis (1)/67531/metadc840199/m2/1/high_re… ·...
The INL is a U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory operated by Battelle Energy Alliance
INL/EXT-13-28846
Summary of Plutonium-238 Production Alternatives Analysis Final Report
March 2013
INL/EXT-13-28846
Summary of Plutonium-238 Production Alternatives Analysis Final Report
Prepared by the Plutonium-238 Production Alternatives Analysis Team
March 2013
Idaho National Laboratory Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415
http://www.inl.gov
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy
Under DOE Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis v Technical Integration Office
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report contains an unclassified summary of the opinions and recommendations of the plutonium-238 (Pu-238) Supply Program Alternatives Analysis Team related to the current plan for production of Pu-238 in the United States. The Team was chartered in June 2012 to provide an experienced and independent comparative evaluation of the various potential options the Department of Energy (DOE) could consider for resuming production of Pu-238.
The time available for the review was limited, and the information from which to draw conclusions was not of a homogeneous nature. As a consequence, cost and schedule data for evaluation on a one to one basis were limited. Because of the lack of uniform information, the Team opinions and recommendations expressed are based on evaluations that were more qualitative and subjective than quantitative.
During the course of this review, the Team visited and reviewed facilities under consideration at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Savannah River Site (SRS), and Babcock and Wilcox (B&W). At each site, discussions were held with the operating staff and management. The purpose of these visits was to form a first-hand opinion of the operational status, the condition, the adaptability, and the long-range operability of those facilities.
The Team implemented a two-phase evaluation process. During the first phase, a wide variety of past and new candidate facilities and processing methods were assessed against the criteria established by DOE for this assessment. Any system or system element selected for consideration as an alternative within the project to reestablish domestic production of Pu-238 must meet the following minimum criteria:
Any required source material must be readily available in the United States, without requiring the development of reprocessing technologies or investments in systems to separate material from identified sources.
It must be cost, schedule, and risk competitive with existing baseline technology.
Any identified facilities required to support the concept must be available to the program for the entire project life cycle (notionally 35 years, unless the concept is so novel as to require a shorter duration).
It must present a solution that can generate at least 1.5 Kg of Pu-238 oxide per year, for at least 35 years.
It must present a low-risk, near-term solution to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s urgent mission need. DOE has implemented this requirement by eliminating from project consideration any alternative with key technologies at less than Technology Readiness Level 5.
The Team evaluated the options meeting these criteria using a more detailed assessment of the reasonable facility variations and compared them to the preferred option, which consists of target irradiation at the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) and the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR), target fabrication and chemical separations processing at the ORNL Radiochemical Engineering Development Center, and neptunium-237 storage at the Materials and Fuels Complex at INL. This preferred option is consistent with the Records of Decision from the earlier National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation.
The Team considered the following options:
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis vi Technical Integration Office
Option 1a: Target fabrication and target processing at ORNL, irradiation at HFIR at ORNL and ATR at INL, neptunium storage at INL
Option 1b: Target fabrication at B&W facility, target processing at ORNL, irradiation at HFIR and ATR, neptunium storage at INL
Option 2a: Target fabrication and target processing at INL, irradiation at HFIR and ATR, neptunium storage at INL
Option 2b: Target fabrication at B&W facility, target processing at INL, irradiation at HFIR and ATR, neptunium storage at INL
Option 3a: Target fabrication at ORNL and target processing at SRS, irradiation at HFIR and ATR, neptunium storage at INL
Option 3b: Target fabrication at B&W facility, target processing at SRS, irradiation at HFIR and ATR, neptunium storage at INL
The evaluation factors addressed in this second phase, listed in random order, are:
Cost
Schedule
Risk to all project objectives, including initial startup, long-term availability, product quality, and future operating costs
Environmental impact
Worker and public safety
Scalability
Ability to function within a system evaluated according to the above criteria, if the alternative consists of system element(s).
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis vii Technical Integration Office
Table ES-1 (and Table 6-3 in Section 6) summarizes the final comparative rankings of options against Option 2 (base case). Table ES-2 (and Table 6-4 in Section 6) summarizes the projected initial project, operations, total project, and total life-cycle costs for the various options.
Table ES-1. Summary Pu-238 production options evaluation.
Evaluation Factors Options
1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b Cost Schedule 1 1 Risk to all Project Objectives 2 2 3 2 Environmental Impact 4 4 Worker and Public Safety Scalability Transportation/System Elements 5 Notes: 1. Start of SRS will be dependent on completion of NEPA activities. However, target fabrication and irradiation in HFIR and
ATR in a production mode could begin 2018. Because of the capacity of the SRS H-B Line, any initial delay in production schedule could be quickly regained within a short operational period.
2. Installing target fabrication and processing at B&W is judged to increase the risk to the project in each case due to the facility upgrades needs and associated training for operational staff relative to the expertise at the national laboratories being considered.
3. All operations and procedures have been established and demonstrated. Sufficient capacity exists so that most normal or unplanned operational downtime events would be able to be handled without affecting long-term production quantities
4. Facilities provide excellent containment and isolation of processes. INL and SRS sites have larger boundary areas to general public.
5. INL would have a reduced transportation link because the neptunium and ATR are all on one site.
Substantially Better Marginally Better Comparable Marginally Worse Substantially Worse
Table ES-2. Cost evaluation comparison for Pu-238.
Cost Categories 1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b
Initial Project Funding $92,000
Operations Cost $25,000
Total Project Cost $1,540,000
Total Life-Cycle Cost Discounted $674,000
Substantially Better Marginally Better Comparable Marginally Worse Substantially Worse
The Team observes that any of the six options can be made to work. However, there are more cost, schedule, and project risk uncertainties associated with the various options as compared to the preferred option (1a). It is the collective opinion of the Team that continuing with Option 1a: “Target fabrication and target processing at ORNL, irradiation at HFIR and ATR, neptunium storage at INL” provides the lowest cost and lowest risk to the DOE. It also reestablishes Pu-238 production in the shortest time.
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis viii Technical Integration Office
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis ix Technical Integration Office
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. xiii
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Previous Analyses ................................................................................................................. 1-2
1.2 Alternatives Analysis Screening Criteria .............................................................................. 1-4
2. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS PROCESS DESCRIPTION ......................................................... 2-1
2.1 Team Selection and Capabilities ........................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Problem Statement Formulation ........................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Identify Technologies and Process Steps .............................................................................. 2-1
2.3.1 Neptunium Storage ........................................................................................... 2-2 2.3.2 Precursor (Np-237 Oxide) Cleanup .................................................................. 2-2 2.3.3 Target Fabrication ............................................................................................ 2-2 2.3.4 Irradiation ......................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3.5 Separation of Pu-238 ........................................................................................ 2-2 2.3.6 Waste Processing and Handling ....................................................................... 2-3 2.3.7 Storage and Shipment of Special Nuclear Material ......................................... 2-3
2.4 Approach ............................................................................................................................... 2-3
3. PREFERRED OPTION DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Advanced Test Reactor and High Flux Isotope Reactor Irradiation ..................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Advanced Test Reactor .................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 High Flux Isotope Reactor ............................................................................... 3-2
3.2 ORNL Radiochemical Engineering Development Center for Combined
Target Fabrication and Processing ........................................................................................ 3-3
3.3 Neptunium-237 Oxide Stored at the Materials and Fuels Complex ..................................... 3-5
3.4 Preferred Option Cost and Schedule ..................................................................................... 3-5
4. CANDIDATE OPTION FACILITY IDENTIFICATION .............................................................. 4-1
4.1 Babcock and Wilcox Facility, Mt. Athos, Virginia ............................................................... 4-1
4.2 SRS H-Canyon Facilities ...................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.1 HB-Line Facility .............................................................................................. 4-3
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis x Technical Integration Office
4.3 INL Remote Analytical Laboratory ...................................................................................... 4-4
5. CANDIDATE FACILITIES DISMISSED ..................................................................................... 5-1
6. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION .................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Proposed Pu-238 Production Options for Evaluation ........................................................... 6-1
6.2 Team Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 6-21
6.2.1 Summary Pu-238 Production Options Cost Evaluation ................................. 6-22
7. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 7-1
8. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 8-1
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Cross-section view of the ATR. .............................................................................................. 3-1
Figure 3-2. Cross-section view of the HFIR illustrating the small (lower left) and large (upper left) VXF target arrays. ................................................................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-3. First floor layout of REDC showing areas to support Pu-238 production. ............................. 3-4
Figure 4-1. B&W project schedule. ........................................................................................................... 4-2
TABLES
Table ES-1. Summary Pu-238 production options evaluation. ................................................................... vii
Table ES-2. Cost evaluation comparison for Pu-238. ................................................................................. vii
Table 1-1. NI-PEIS alternatives and options. ............................................................................................ 1-2
Table 1-2. Irradiation facilities considered but dismissed from further evaluation in the NI-PEIS. .......... 1-3
Table 2-1. Voting members of the Team. .................................................................................................. 2-1
Table 3-3. High-level spending profile for the preferred option ($M)....................................................... 3-6
Table 3-4. High-level project schedule for the preferred option. ............................................................... 3-7
Table 5-1. Candidate facilities dismissed. ................................................................................................. 5-1
Table 6-1. Proposed Pu-238 production options for evaluation. ............................................................... 6-3
Table 6-2. Proposed Pu-238 production options for evaluation. ............................................................. 6-21
Table 6-3. Summary Pu-238 production options evaluation. .................................................................. 6-21
Table 6-4. Cost evaluation comparison for Pu-238. ................................................................................ 6-22
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis xi Technical Integration Office
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Team Makeup and Qualifications
Appendix B: Dismissed Alternatives
Appendix D Alternative Evaluation Factors and Questions for Candidate Sites
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis xii Technical Integration Office
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis xiii Technical Integration Office
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ANL-W Argonne National Laboratory-West
ATR Advanced Test Reactor
B&W Babcock and Wilcox
CDE-1 Critical Decision Equivalent-1
CLWR Commercial Light Water Reactor
DOE Department of Energy
DOE-NE Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy
EBR Experimental Breeder Reactor
FDPF Fluorinel Dissolution Process Facility
FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility
FMEF Fuels and Materials Examination Facility
FMF Fuel Manufacturing Facility
FY fiscal year
GPHS general purpose heat source
HFIR High Flux Isotope Reactor
INL Idaho National Laboratory
LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory
LTC Lynchburg Technology Center
LWR light water reactor
MFC Materials and Fuels Complex
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NI-PEIS Nuclear Infrastructure Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
NOG-L Nuclear Operations Group – Lynchburg
Np-237 neptunium-237
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis xiv Technical Integration Office
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Pa-233 protactinium-233
PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Pu-238 plutonium-238
R&D research and development
RAL Remote Analytical Laboratory
REDC Radiochemical Engineering Development Center
ROD Record of Decision
RPS Radioisotope Power System
RTG radioisotope thermoelectric generator
SNM special nuclear material
SRS Savannah River Site
TRU transuranic
U-233 uranium
VXF vertical experiment facility
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 1-1 Technical Integration Office
Summary of Final Plutonium-238 Production
Alternatives Analysis Report 1. INTRODUCTION The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is currently evaluating options for future production of the isotope plutonium-238 (Pu-238). In accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to consider potential environmental effects before taking major federal actions, DOE began this effort in the late 1990s. The NEPA process culminated in 2000 with publication of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility (DOE 2000a), or Nuclear Infrastructure Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (NI-PEIS). A subsequent Record of Decision (ROD) in January 2001 (66 FR 7877) identified a preferred alternative, including a decision regarding resumption of producing Pu-238.
A number of years have passed since DOE completed this NEPA documentation. Therefore, DOE assembled an Alternatives Analysis Team – a group of subject matter experts – to consider any additional options, facilities, or sites that would be better-suited or more cost-effective alternatives to implement the preferred approach as described in the project execution plan Critical Decision Event-1 (CDE-1) review. The facilities must be capable of annually producing and processing at least 1.5 Kg of Pu-238 oxide. DOE also considered the ability to scale up to larger quantities (up to 5 Kg of Pu-238 oxide).
DOE is responsible for maintaining the necessary nuclear material and infrastructure required to deliver Pu-238 fueled radioisotope power systems to various federal users, primarily the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for space exploration, and to other federal users for terrestrial applications. Radioisotope Power Systems (RPSs) are used when conventional power systems (e.g., chemical or solar) cannot reliably provide electric power to support mission requirements. The properties of the Pu-238 isotope make it ideal for use in applications requiring a long-term, reliable heat source.
The shutdown of the last Savannah River Site (SRS) plutonium production reactor in 1992 eliminated the capability of the United States to produce Pu-238. Since then, the source of Pu-238 for heat sources has been recovering it from purchased foreign-produced material, recycled heat sources, and processing equipment residues. However, available existing domestic sources and foreign supplies of Pu-238 are no longer sufficient to meet future national needs. Furthermore, only domestically produced material may be used for national security missions.
The Pu-238 production technology and process steps are as follows:
A sufficient quantity of target material that can be irradiated to produce Pu-238
Facilities to build target rods
Nuclear reactors or neutron irradiation sources to irradiate the target rods
Process facilities to treat the irradiated target rods to separate the Pu-238 product from the remaining target material
The following components of Pu-238 production currently exist in the United States:
The neptunium-237 (Np-237) storage facility housing the target material, located at the Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL)
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 1-2 Technical Integration Office
Two reactors – the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) at INL – for irradiating targets. (Note: These reactors are not currently being used for this purpose.
Facilities for the production of targets for irradiation and postirradiation processing. (New equipment or processing capabilities will have to be established within the existing facilities)
1.1 Previous Analyses
Tables 1-1 and 1-2 summarize the environmental analyses provided in the NI-PEIS to support the ROD. DOE evaluated three existing nuclear reactors as irradiation facility candidates: (1) ATR at INL (formerly Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory); (2) HFIR at ORNL; and (3) Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) at Hanford. Environmental impacts were also estimated for a generic Commercial Light Water Reactor (CLWR), as well as a new research reactor and one or two new accelerators at unspecified DOE sites. DOE also evaluated three facilities as candidates for Pu-238 production: (1) the Radiochemical Engineering Development Center (REDC) at ORNL, (2) Fluorinel Dissolution Process Facility (FDPF) at INL, and (3) the Fuels and Materials Examination Facility (FMEF) at Hanford.
Table 1-1. NI-PEIS alternatives and options.
Alternative*
Pu-238 Production Mission
Option Number
Irradiation Facility Storage Facility
Target Fabrication and Processing Facility
Alternative 2: Use Only Existing Operational Facilities
1 ATR REDC REDC 2 ATR CPP-651 CPP-651 3 ATR FMEF FMEF 4 CLWR REDC REDC 5 CLWR CPP-651 CPP-651 6 CLWR FMEF FMEF
7 HFIR and ATR REDC REDC
8 HFIR and ATR CPP-651 CPP-651
9 HFIR and ATR FMEF FMEF
Alternative 3: Construct New Accelerator(s)**
1 New REDC REDC 2 New CPP-651 CPP-651 3 New FMEF FMEF
Alternative 4: Construct New Research Reactor***
1 New REDC REDC 2 New CPP-651 CPP-651 3 New FMEF FMEF
Notes: Alternative 1 in the NE-PEIS was the “No Action Alternative” (i.e., no new production occurs).
** For target irradiation for an evaluation period of 35 years. Also includes decontamination and decommissioning of accelerator(s) and the processing facility when missions are over, as well as deactivation of FFTF. *** To be constructed at an existing DOE site to irradiate all isotope production targets for an evaluation period of 35 years. Target material (Np-237) would be processed and transported from SRS to the fabrication facility for storage pending fabrication; irradiated targets would be transported back to the fabricating facilities for postirradiation processing. This scenario was later modified to describe storage at MFC at INL and shipment of Np-237 to a target fabrication facility.
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 1-3 Technical Integration Office
Table 1-2. Irradiation facilities considered but dismissed from further evaluation in the NI-PEIS. Why Dismissed? Facility
Facilities lacking sufficient neutron production capacity to support the proposed action without impacting existing missions
Neutron Radiographic Reactor Argonne National Laboratory-West (ANL-W) (now part of INL) Brookhaven Medical Research Reactor Brookhaven National Laboratory National Bureau of Standards Reactor National Institute of Standards and Technology General Atomics Training, Research, and Isotope Production Reactors University Small Research Reactors University Large Research Reactors (i.e., Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of Missouri) ATLAS Heavy Ion Facility Argonne National Laboratory Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam Facility ORNL Heavy Ion Linear Accelerator Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Alternating Gradient Synchrotron Heavy Ion Facility Brookhaven National Laboratory Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Electron Linear Accelerator Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory University Linear Accelerators
Facilities with capacity fully dedicated to existing missions
Annular Core Research Reactor Sandia National Laboratories Brookhaven LIN AC Isotope Producer Brookhaven National Laboratory
Facilities not capable of steady-state neutron production
Sandia Pulse Reactor II and III Sandia National Laboratories Transient Reactor Test Facility ANL-W (now part of INL) Zero Power Physics Reactor Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (now INL) Power Burst Facility Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (now INL) Intense Pulsed Neutron Source Argonne National Laboratory Flash X-Ray Facility Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Facilities with insufficient power to sustain adequate steady-state neutron production
Brookhaven Medical Research Reactor Brookhaven National Laboratory Los Alamos Critical Assembly Facility Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) General Atomics Training, Research and Isotope Production Reactors University Small Research Reactors Booster Applications Facility Brookhaven National Laboratory Cyclotron Facility Brookhaven National Laboratory
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 1-4 Technical Integration Office
The NI-PEIS considered multiple facility options under each alternative for irradiation, storage, and target fabrication/processing. Scenarios for various options evaluated transportation of nonirradiated targets, irradiated targets, and processed materials between the locations selected for storage, target fabrication, target irradiation, postirradiation processing, and final destination of the Pu-238.
Other facilities were also considered but dismissed from further evaluation (Table 1-2). In developing a range of reasonable alternatives, DOE examined the capabilities and available capacities of 30 facilities at existing and planned nuclear research facilities that could potentially support one or all of the isotope production and research missions. Numerous existing U.S. processing hot cell facilities have the capabilities and capacity to support the nuclear infrastructure, but the NI-PEIS considered only those collocated at the three candidate irradiation-facility sites (and only those most suitable in terms of capability, capacity, and availability).
After considering the environmental impacts, costs, public comments, nonproliferation issues, and programmatic factors, DOE decided to implement the Preferred Alternative identified in Section 2.8 of the NI-PEIS (Alternative 2, Option 7). Under the Preferred Alternative, domestic production of Pu-238 will be reestablished to support U.S. space exploration. For this purpose, the ATR at INL and HFIR at ORNL in Tennessee will be used to irradiate Np-237 targets. Pu-238 production will not interfere with existing primary missions at ATR and HFIR. The REDC at ORNL will be used for fabricating targets and isolating Pu-238 from the irradiated targets.
On August 13, 2004, DOE amended the ROD for the Nuclear Infrastructure PEIS, identifying a decision to transport Np-237 oxide from SRS to the ANL-W site, now known as the MFC at INL. This amendment, which enabled DOE to meet the security requirements for storage of special nuclear material (SNM), followed heightened security concerns following the attacks of September 11, 2001.
In support of this decision, DOE prepared a Supplemental Analysis for the PEIS (DOE 2000b) for the change of storage location of Np-237 oxide from REDC to MFC to determine whether further NEPA review was required. DOE determined that no additional NEPA review was necessary because the relocation and change in storage location did not constitute a substantial change in the original proposed action, and the impacts analyzed in the NI-PEIS bounded the impacts of transfer to and storage at the new proposed storage location.
1.2 Alternatives Analysis Screening Criteria Any system or system element selected for consideration as an alternative within the project to re-establish domestic production of Pu-238 must meet the following minimum criteria:
Any required source material must be readily available in the United States, without requiring the development of reprocessing technologies or investments in systems to separate material from identified sources.
It must be cost, schedule, and risk competitive with existing baseline technology.
Any identified facilities required to support the concept must be available to the program for the entire project life cycle (notionally 35 years, unless the concept is so novel as to require a shorter duration).
It must present a solution that can generate at least 1.5 Kg of Pu-238 oxide per year, for at least 35 years.
It must present a low-risk, near-term solution to NASA's urgent mission need. DOE has implemented this requirement by eliminating from project consideration any alternative with key technologies at less than Technology Readiness Level 5 (DOE Guide 413.3-4A).
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 2-1 Technical Integration Office
2. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS PROCESS DESCRIPTION To conduct the Alternatives Analysis, the Team developed a clear problem statement. Based on the problem statement, the team identified the necessary process steps for producing Pu-238 and potential technologies, and evaluated the alternatives against the established criteria.
2.1 Team Selection and Capabilities The first step in the alternative evaluation process was to select a Team that would ensure broad and technically competent representation of all aspects of the process. Team members brought extensive experience from a variety of backgrounds. Table 2-1 presents the Team members selected with their affiliation and area of expertise. Appendix A contains detailed descriptions of their qualifications.
Table 2-1. Voting members of the Team.
Name Affiliation Expertise
Wade E. Bickford Savannah River National Laboratory Reactor analysis and isotope production planning
Chadwick D. Barklay University of Dayton Senior Research Scientist
David B. Lord INL Project Construction Management
James E. Werner INL Isotope and Nuclear Material Technology
2.2 Problem Statement Formulation The Team, with input from DOE personnel, developed the following problem statement:
The Alternatives Analysis Team will identify known Pu-238 production alternatives that have a reasonably mature technical basis and provide a sound discussion, including technical and cost factors, as to whether the alternatives will produce a satisfactory amount of Pu-238 for the program, as well as why or why not. The group will include an analysis of alternative technologies and innovations that may provide cost and quality benefits for future Pu-238 production. Those identified as being worthy of engineering trade studies will be identified. The Team will identify and assess the necessary infrastructure to accomplish the Pu-238 isotope production mission with the following goals:
- Provide 1.5 - 2 Kg of Pu-238 per year by 2018
- The capability to produce larger quantities for a limited period (surge capacity).
2.3 Identify Technologies and Process Steps The first action of the Team was to identify the production steps for producing the Pu-238 isotope to be used ultimately in the production of heat sources, as follows. The steps described below assume Pu-238 production from neutron irradiation of Np-237 and subsequent chemical separation of the plutonium and neptunium.
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 2-2 Technical Integration Office
2.3.1 Neptunium Storage
The neptunium feedstock material to be used to fabricate targets for irradiation and production of Pu-238 came from SRS to INL, where it is currently stored at the Fuel Manufacturing Facility (FMF). It will be removed from storage as needed and transferred to the target fabrication facility. 2.3.2 Precursor (Np-237 Oxide) Cleanup
Np-237 undergoes decay to produce protactinium-233 (Pa-233); protactinium further beta decays to uranium-233 (U-233), emitting an energetic gamma ray that is a radiological concern.
The decay process in the Np-237 decay chain is interesting because the parent and subsequent daughter products, in this case Np-237 and U-233, have very long half-lives, as well as a very short-lived intermediate product, Pa-233. This results in secular equilibrium between Np-237 and its short-lived Pa-233 decay product. This equilibrium develops quickly (within months). The associated gamma-ray field resulting from Pa-233 decay becomes a radiological concern within weeks. Depending on the capabilities of the target fabrication facility, it may or may not be economically justifiable for the neptunium to be decontaminated by separating out the Pa-233 before target fabrication. The base case assumption is that it will be cleaned up; however, this issue requires further analysis.
2.3.3 Target Fabrication
Neptunium targets must be manufactured to survive the irradiation environment without the release of fission products. They must also be clad, and the cladding should not fail during irradiation.
The baseline target design is pressed pellet rod targets manufactured by pressing individual Np-237 oxide and aluminum pellets, inserting them in a cladding tube, welding the tube closed, and swaging or hydrostatically pressing the tube to achieve a mechanical bond with the pellets.
2.3.4 Irradiation
The target elements are neutron irradiated in a nuclear reactor where the reaction shown below takes place:
Exposures of neptunium targets in a reactor are optimized to limit the production of other isotopes of plutonium.
2.3.5 Separation of Pu-238
Pu-238 heat source production requires the efficient and reliable recovery of Pu-238 and unconverted Np-237 from irradiated targets. For irradiated target processing, SRS developed and operated a Pu-238 and unconverted Np-237 recovery program based on anion exchange separation. In this process, irradiated Np-237 oxide targets are dissolved. The dissolved solution undergoes a process where the actinides are separated from fission products and other impurities. The Pu-238 is then separated from Np-237 using additional separation cycles effect a clean separation.
237Np (n,γ)
238Np 238Pu 2.1 day
β-
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 2-3 Technical Integration Office
Once the plutonium is extracted from irradiated targets, several processing steps are required before the plutonium is suitable for heat source fabrication. The purified plutonium must be converted to the thermodynamically stable oxide form.
2.3.6 Waste Processing and Handling
Systems for waste stream processing will be able to provide complete management of all waste generated. These wastes include sanitary and industrial, hazardous, radioactive (both low-level and transuranic [TRU]), and mixed (radioactive and hazardous). Sanitary, industrial, low-level, and hazardous quantities are anticipated to be minimal and will be managed with existing host site waste streams. Radioactive gaseous emissions will be filtered and monitored by building exhaust systems. The predominant waste streams will be radioactive liquid waste (primarily remote-handled TRU and contact-handled TRU) from processing and radioactive solid waste (contact-handled TRU, remote-handled TRU, and solid low-level waste) from repair, decontamination, and maintenance.
Tanks will collect effluent from the irradiated neptunium target dissolution and protactinium waste (as decayed to U-233 after several months) from the neptunium separation. The liquid waste will be neutralized, concentrated, and stabilized to meet appropriate disposal requirements.
Solid radioactive waste will be segregated to the extent possible as determined by operational constraints. The majority of solid radioactive waste will be classified as TRU and disposed of at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico.
2.3.7 Storage and Shipment of Special Nuclear Material
Storage, packaging, and shipment preparation facilities are needed to prepare for shipment of the Pu-238 material to LANL. Areas and equipment used for packaging, preparation, and receipt operations are needed. Equipment and tools used for handling and storage operations will be kept in this area.
2.4 Approach
The Team determined that, first, a general assessment including as wide a set of options and processes as possible would be generated. From this set of options, the Team then culled the number of options down to a more reasonable set for a more detailed assessment development and analysis of variations. Based on the initial screening criteria, the Team quickly developed a short list of facility/option combinations for analysis, as detailed in the following sections. The DOE Oak Ridge Operations provided the criteria by which to judge options and a prioritization of the evaluation factors, but not specific weighting factors.
The Team noted that quantitative data on all options and criteria were not available. Costs, in particular, were missing for pairings of facility options such as target fabrication at Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) facilities paired with the processing at SRS facilities. The Team noted that subjective engineering judgment and expert opinion would have to be used in some cases, resulting in the expectation that the final matrix comparison of options would contain largely subjective, qualitative opinions. The Team agreed to document the basis for such subjective expert judgment whenever possible. In discussions with the DOE Oak Ridge lead, the objective of the Team was defined to rank the options against the stated screening criteria, and then evaluate the remaining options according to their merits against a set of evaluation factors and documenting the basis for the Team’s judgment.
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 2-4 Technical Integration Office
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 3-1 Technical Integration Office
3. PREFERRED OPTION DESCRIPTION
The Program Management Plan for the Pu-238 Restart Program identified the preferred option as conducting the target irradiation at ATR and HFIR, target fabrication and chemical separations processing at ORNL REDC, and Np-237 storage at MFC (DOE 2011). This is consistent with the ROD from the earlier NEPA documentation, as described above.
3.1 Advanced Test Reactor and High Flux Isotope Reactor Irradiation
3.1.1 Advanced Test Reactor (ATR)
The ATR at INL was designed to optimize fuel and material testing for the Navy’s nuclear propulsion program. It began operation in 1967 and has operated continuously since, averaging approximately 250 operating days per year. Irradiation of material and fuel in ATR can simulate many years of prototypical operation in a few months or years of testing. This capability is valuable for testing materials and fuels to support light water reactor (LWR) and more advanced reactor designs. Unlike U.S. commercial LWRs, ATR has no established lifetime or shutdown date. All core internal components are removed and replaced every 8 to 10 years during a core-internals change-out outage, typically of about 6 months.
The ATR is a pressurized, light-water moderated and cooled, beryllium-reflected, enriched-uranium-fueled reactor with a maximum operating power of 250 megawatts. The ATR core cross-section (Figure 3-1) consists of 40 curved aluminum-plate fuel elements in a serpentine configuration around a three-by-three array of large irradiation locations in the core or flux traps. The peak thermal flux can reach 1.0 × 1015 n/cm2-sec, and peak fast flux (E>1.0 MeV) 5 1014 n/cm2-sec.
Figure 3-1. Cross-section view of the ATR.
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 3-2 Technical Integration Office
This core configuration creates five main reactor power lobes (regions) that can be operated at different powers during the same operating cycle. Along with the nine flux traps, there are 68 irradiation test positions ranging in diameter from 1.27 to 12.7 cm and all 122 cm long, and the irradiation tanks outside the core reflector tank have 34 low-flux irradiation positions.
There are three primary experiment configurations in ATR: (1) static capsule, (2) instrumented lead, and (3) pressurized water loop. Experiments must remain in ATR for the duration of the operating cycle (average 49 days).
3.1.2 High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR)
The HFIR at ORNL is a versatile 85-megawatt, pressurized, light-water-cooled and -moderated flux trap type research reactor. The primary function of HFIR is cold and thermal neutron scattering, but other capabilities include materials irradiation, materials production, and neutron activation analysis.
The core consists of two fuel elements, an inner fuel element and an outer fuel element, each constructed of involute fuel plates. An over-moderated flux trap is located in the center of the core, a large beryllium reflector is located on the outside of the core, and two control elements are located between the fuel and the reflector. The flux trap and reflector house numerous experimental facilities used for isotope production, material irradiation, and cold/thermal neutron scattering. The active fuel height is 20 in., and the outer diameter of the outer fuel element is approximately 16.5 in.
At HFIR, Pu-238 production could occur in the vertical experiment facilities (VXFs) in the HFIR permanent beryllium reflector. Sixteen small-radius (2.012 cm) and six large-radius (3.599 cm) VXFs are located within the reflector. Conceptually, both small and large VXF Np-237 target rod bundles are to be assembled, as illustrated in Figure 3-2. The figure shows an example of where they could be located in the HFIR reflector.
Figure 3-2. Cross-section view of the HFIR illustrating the small (lower left) and large (upper left) VXF target arrays.
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 3-3 Technical Integration Office
3.2 ORNL Radiochemical Engineering Development Center (REDC) for Combined Target Fabrication and Processing
The REDC is a hot cell facility that currently operates as a Safety Category 2, Nonreactor Nuclear Facility. The following sections describe the facility (ORNL 2011).
Figure 3-3 depicts the anticipated use of REDC for target fabrication and irradiated target processing. Neptunium purification will be performed in an existing glovebox laboratory in REDC, and a method for target fabrication will be developed in REDC as well when full-scale targets must be produced to support regular operations. Full-scale target fabrication and inspection will be performed in a new target fabrication glovebox that will be procured and installed in the REDC. The target irradiation to produce the radioisotope will be performed in both ATR and HFIR. The processes to dissolve and separate the irradiated targets, as well as to recover the neptunium and plutonium, will be performed in the ORNL REDC hot cells.
After chemical separations, the solutions are transferred to separate neptunium and plutonium lines for precipitation, calcination, and packaging. The neptunium line will be located in an existing space in REDC.
Numerous facility support systems, including utilities, safeguards and security, ventilation, and environmental monitoring, are already in place at participating work sites to ensure safe and secure operation. The project will leverage existing infrastructure at participating sites.
A design study was performed to assess the REDC to fabricate neptunium targets for irradiation in the ATR and HFIR and recover the Pu-238 from irradiated targets. The facility has hot cell processing equipment used for similar radioisotope recovery missions. Expansion from the pilot scale to a production scale would require facility modifications. Testing and validating process flow sheets would also be required.
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
3-4
Tech
nica
l Int
egra
tion
Offi
ce
Figu
re 3
-3. F
irst f
loor
layo
ut o
f RED
C sh
owin
g ar
eas t
o su
ppor
t Pu-
238
prod
uctio
n.
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 3-5 Technical Integration Office
3.3 Neptunium-237 Oxide Stored at the Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC)
The majority of the DOE supply of Np-237 oxide was shipped from SRS to INL between 2005 and 2008 to support future production of Pu-238. The Np-237 was converted from liquid to a solid Np-237 oxide form, packaged into primary and secondary containment vessels at SRS, and then shipped to INL in 9975 Type B casks. The containers of Np-237 oxide were removed from the casks and placed in storage racks for secure storage in the FMF vault at MFC. The storage configuration was designed to meet requirements for structural integrity, criticality safety, radiation safety, safeguards and security, and shielding effectiveness.
The FMF was constructed in 1986 for the purpose of housing binary (i.e., uranium and zirconium) fuel and its associated manufacturing equipment to sustain a fuel manufacturing operation for Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR)-II (INL 2011a). EBR-II fuel is no longer manufactured in FMF. Activities conducted as part of the FMF mission include:
Processing fuel currently stored at MFC for use elsewhere in the DOE complex.
Research and development (R&D) on new fabrication methods for high-density, low-enrichment fuel forms.
Fuel fabrication for the advanced fuel cycle initiative to investigate options for actinide transmutation fuels and targets.
Storage of uranium and TRU elements, including plutonium and neptunium.
FMF operations associated with these activities include receipt, storage, handling, inspection, and processing of uranium, plutonium, and other TRU materials. There are several gloveboxes and operational hoods in FMF. Processing of plutonium-bearing materials and other TRU materials is performed in these gloveboxes and hoods, depending on quantity.
FMF is currently a DOE Hazard-Category 2 Nonreactor Nuclear Facility. A storage rack specifically designed for Np-237 oxide storage is located in the FMF vault.
3.4 Preferred Option Cost and Schedule
The notional high-level spending profile for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 through FY 2017 for the Preferred Option is included in Table 3-3. This profile is based on the midpoint of the preliminary project cost range, which will be refined and reviewed at formal points throughout the project. Table 3-4 summarizes the schedule for the preferred option.
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 3-6 Technical Integration Office
Table 3-3. High-level spending profile for the preferred option ($M).
Project FY
2012 FY
2013 FY
2014 FY
2015 FY
2016 FY
2017 Totals 1.1 Project Management 2.0 2.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 11.4
1.2 Pu-238 Technology Demonstration 8.1 10.0 1.3 19.5
1.3 Np-237 Oxide Transfer 0.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 5.3
1.4 ATR Target Development 0.5 2.8 1.6 0.9 5.8
1.5 Neptunium Target Fabrication Laboratory 1.4 1.3 8.0 2.6 13.3
1.6 Integrated Pu-238 Production Demonstration 0.2 5.5 3.5 5.3 6.6 21.1
1.7 Facility/Equipment Improvements 1.1 1.1 4.2 3.2 9.7
1.8 Pu-238 Transfer 1.2 2.2 1.6 0.9 5.8
Totals 10.5 14.2 14.5 14.5 22.3 15.9 91.9
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
3-7
Tech
nica
l Int
egra
tion
Offi
ce
Tabl
e 3-
4. H
igh-
leve
l pro
ject
sche
dule
for t
he p
refe
rred
opt
ion.
FY 2
012
FY 2
013
FY 2
014
FY 2
015
FY 2
016
FY 2
017
FY 2
018
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Gate
1Ga
te2
Gate
31.
1 Pr
ojec
t Man
agem
ent
1.1.
1 Pr
ojec
t Sys
tem
s En
gine
erin
g1.
1.2
Envi
ronm
ent,
Safe
ty, a
nd H
ealth
1.1.
3 N
EPA
1.1.
4O
ptio
ns S
tudi
es1.
1.5
Proj
ect E
xecu
tion
Plan
s an
d Pr
ojec
t Int
egra
tion
1.1.
6Pr
elim
inar
ySc
ale-
up O
ptim
izatio
n Pl
anni
ng1.
2 Pu
-238
Tec
hnol
ogy
Dem
onst
ratio
n1.
2.1
Faci
lity
Prep
arat
ions
1.2.
2Pe
llet P
repa
ratio
n1.
2.3
Targ
et A
ssem
bly,
Irra
diat
ion,
PIE
, and
Q
ualif
icat
ion
1.2.
4Ch
emic
al P
roce
ssin
g1.
2.5
Logi
stic
s an
d M
echa
nica
lEng
inee
ring
1.3
NpO
2Tr
ansf
er1.
3.1
Desig
n an
d Sa
fety
Anal
yses
1.3.
2Fa
cilit
y Pr
epar
atio
ns1.
3.3
Tran
spor
t NpO
2to
ORN
L1.
4 AT
R Ta
rget
Dev
elop
men
t1.
4.1
INL
ATR
Deve
lopm
ent
1.4.
2 O
RNL
Targ
et F
abric
atio
n (A
TR T
arge
ts)
1.4.
3 Ta
rget
Ass
embl
y, Ir
radi
atio
n, a
nd P
IE1.
5 N
p Ta
rget
Fab
ricat
ion
Labo
rato
ry1.
5.1
Safe
ty B
asis
1.5.
2 De
sign
1.5.
3 Ac
quisi
tion
1.5.
4 Sy
stem
Inte
grat
ion
and
Test
ing –
cold
moc
kup
1.5.
5 In
stal
latio
n1.
5.6
Proc
edur
e De
velo
pmen
t1.
5.7
Com
miss
ioni
ng1.
5.8
Prod
uctio
n Ex
pans
ion
Stud
ies
1.6
Inte
grat
ed P
u-23
8 Pr
oduc
tion
Dem
onst
ratio
n1.
6.1
Firs
t Dem
onst
ratio
n Ru
n1.
6.2
Faci
lity/
Equi
pmen
t Im
prov
emen
ts1.
6.3
Seco
nd D
emon
stra
tion
Run
1.7
Faci
lity/
Equi
pmen
tM
odifi
catio
ns1.
7.1
ATR
Mod
ifica
tions
1.7.
2 HF
IR M
odifi
catio
ns1.
7.3
REDC
Mod
ifica
tions
1.8
Pu-2
38Tr
ansp
ort
1.8.
1 De
sign
and
Safe
tyAn
alys
es1.
8.2
Pu-2
38Lo
ad O
ut C
ell
1.8.
3 Tr
anslo
adin
gSt
atio
n,Ca
sk 9
516
Inte
grat
ion
1.8.
4 M
odify
GE
2000
to C
arry
Irra
diat
ed N
pTa
rget
s
B E G I N R E G U L A R O P E R A T I O N S
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 4-1 Technical Integration Office
4. CANDIDATE OPTION FACILITY IDENTIFICATION
The facilities discussed in this section have been identified for further consideration because they met the initial Alternatives Analysis screening criteria identified in Section 1.1.
4.1 Babcock and Wilcox Facility, Mt. Athos, Virginia
At the request of DOE, B&W performed a study assessing the capability of setting up a production line at the Mt. Athos Site to fabricate Np-237 oxide targets. The study included assessments of the receipt of the material, facilities and processes, licensing, safeguards and security, radiation safety/health physics, quality assurance, and transportation to reactors (Babcock & Wilcox, 2012). Both the Lynchburg Technology Center (LTC), an R&D laboratory Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed Category 3 facility, and the Nuclear Operations Group-Lynchburg (NOG-L), a high security NRC-licensed Category 1 manufacturing facility, are located at the Mt. Athos Site.
B&W proposed that this project be performed using existing facilities and processes that are well within the site experience base. The project would not require any new construction. The material procurement and nonradioactive fabrication would be performed within the existing NOG-L facility that is currently set up for research and test reactor fuel fabrication. The target fabrication would be performed at the LTC, which would require upgrades, including laboratory renovation and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system improvements to accommodate the process line. An assessment of the security and safeguards requirements indicated that the Mt. Athos site has the necessary accounting systems and security programs in place to store and process the Np-237 oxide material.
Waste management is an important component of the NEPA process. A major concern identified in the study is disposal of the greater-than-Class-A TRU waste that would be generated; handling and disposing of greater-than-Class-A TRU waste is an issue that requires DOE guidance as to the preferred disposal route. According to B&W, the environmental impact of this project would be minimal, and it is expected that any assessment would result in a Finding of No Significant Impact.
B&W also provided an estimate of the annual production costs for a 5 Kg/year rate to be $2.25 million per year (in current-year dollars) in the study. Four phases were identified in setting up a production line for this project:
Phase 1 consists of performing the design/installation/construction, which will take place over a 1-year period. This phase includes all costs for facility upgrade and production line design and equipment.
Phase 2 consists of the preoperational actions, which are expected to take place over a 6-month period. The goal of this phase is to develop and qualify operational procedures for all of the process lines, train the line operators, and demonstrate the final product.
Phase 3 is the initial production phase. Initial operations to approach an annual production rate of 2 Kg/year are expected to take place over a period of 18 months. The operations phase consists of the production of deliverable targets. The 18-month initial production period anticipates potential start up inefficiencies. Subsequent production campaigns could be performed over 1-year periods.
Phase 4 is transportation of the targets to the reactor.
The project schedule identifying the four phases is included as Figure 4-1.
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 4-2 Technical Integration Office
Figure 4-1. B&W project schedule.
Implementation of this option would require construction of additional facilities (as well as associated costs) to build the capability at ORNL to ship the recovered Np-237 oxide target material to B&W to continue the target manufacture. Initial estimates for setting up this operation are assumed to be similar to the estimates for transferring the Np-237 oxide from INL: $5.7 million within the first 3 years before shipment as well as $350,000 per year to cover packaging and shipping charges. In addition, DOE would have to secure a disposal pathway for the greater-than-Class-C TRU waste.
It is anticipated that greater-than-Class-C TRU waste would be generated if B&W fabricated the targets, and that the Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE) would have to identify a pathway to dispose of the waste. Additional investigations and analysis would be needed to identify disposal options.
From a NEPA perspective, the additional mileage in shipping the neptunium from INL to B&W rather than to ORNL could be addressed in a supplemental assessment to the existing NEPA record. However, current NEPA documentation does not address transport of TRUs from B&W or shipments of neptunium from ORNL. These issues would require further investigation to determine an appropriate level of additional NEPA documentation.
4.2 SRS H-Canyon Facilities
The SRS produced all the Pu-238 used in radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) for deep space missions up to the Cassini Mission and, in the 1980s, had full Pu-238 production cycle capabilities, including:
Neptunium recovery from irradiated uranium fuel rods (H-Canyon)
Fabrication of Np-237 targets
Irradiation of Np-237 targets (SRS reactors)
Dissolution of irradiated Np-237 target material, separation and purification of Np-237 and Pu-238 product streams (H-Canyon frames process)
Conversion of Np-237 and Pu-238 to oxide
Recovery of primary Frames and HB-Line losses (H-Canyon frames waste recovery process)
Pressing of Pu-238 oxide into general purpose heat source (GPHS) pellets and encapsulation into iridium metal claddings (235-F Facility)
Recovery and purification of off-specification Pu-238/Np-237 or broken GPHS pellets (HB-Line scrap recovery, frame waste recovery).
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 4-3 Technical Integration Office
SRS has since shut down or dismantled a number of these capabilities; however, the following capabilities and equipment still exist and could be put back into service if needed:
Recovery and purification of off-specification Pu-238/Np-237 or broken GPHS pellets (HB-Line scrap recovery, frame waste recovery)
Conversion of Np-237 and Pu-238 to oxide
Dissolution of irradiated Np-237 target material, separation, and purification of Np-237 and Pu-238 product streams (H-Canyon frames process).
4.2.1 HB-Line Facility
The HB-Line Facility consists of three distinct processes: (1) the scrap recovery process, (2) the Np-237 oxide conversion process, and (3) the Pu-238 oxide process. These operations are located in Building 221-H at SRS. A brief description of each process is provided below.
Scrap Recovery Process
Scrap recovery process operations include opening, screening, size-reducing, and dissolving scrap. The initial scrap recovery process mission was to dissolve off-specification Pu-238 oxide or broken GPHS pellets and transfer to H-Canyon for recovery of the plutonium. The HB-Line Facility also contains a waste handling line that prepares contaminated items for TRU waste disposal and an analytical laboratory for analyzing samples.
Np-237 Oxide Process
The HB-Line Np-237 oxide process was designed to produce Np-237 oxide powder. Neptunium in solution was received from H-Canyon. The solution was then processed and rinsed with a decontamination wash to remove contaminants. Once washed, the neptunium was eluted as a concentrate. The neptunium concentrate was then precipitated, filtered, and washed. It was then converted to a dioxide. The neptunium dioxide product was then packaged for storage or shipment.
Pu-238 Oxide Process
The HB-Line Pu-238 oxide process was designed to produce Pu-238 oxide powder. The original mission for the Pu-238 oxide process was to receive purified Pu-238 solution from H-Canyon, precipitate the plutonium, and calcine the plutonium to form an oxide powder.
HB-Line Historical Process Production Rates
Scrap Pu-238 was dissolved at a rate of ~3 Kg/month
Np-237 was recovered, purified, precipitated, and calcined at a rate of ~20 Kg/month
Pu-238 oxide was produced at a rate of ~ 2 Kg/month.
HB-Line Needed Modifications
Use of the HB-Line Facility for Pu-238 recovery would require the following modifications and upgrades:
Documented safety analysis modifications
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 4-4 Technical Integration Office
Replace dissolvers
Checkout/repair/replace chiller
Upgrade distributed control systems
Cleanout/decontaminate gloveboxes
Replace glovebox glass panels as needed
Replace instruments/probes
Replace pumps, manual valves, and auto-valves
Replace furnaces
Procure product calorimeters and electrical standards
Procure filter boats and screens
Procure and install equipment for opening and sealing nuclear materials shipping containers
Other preparations (e.g., training, procedures, emergency preparedness hazards assessment, fire hazards analysis, etc.).
4.3 INL Remote Analytical Laboratory
A preconceptual design study was performed to assess the Remote Analytical Lab (RAL), Building CPP-684, to fabricate neptunium targets for irradiation in ATR and HFIR and recover the Pu-238 from irradiated targets (INL 2011b). Applicable performance, design, documentation, project risks, and quality assurance requirements were identified within this assessment, and designs and layouts were prepared to determine the viability and cost of reconfiguring RAL to support this mission. Because RAL has been operating in support of other missions for the past 20 years, it would be necessary to remove existing equipment and modify or reconfigure the facility to meet target fabrication and Pu-238 production goals.
The RAL is a two story, metal-clad, steel-framed building constructed in 1984. It houses an analytical laboratory that contains a conventional chemical analysis laboratory, an analytical hot-cell, and a waste handling hot-cell. The first and second floors have approximately 7,600 ft2 and 3,500 ft2, respectively. The facility would have to be reconfigured to support processing of Np-237 oxide targets and Pu-238 oxide. The facility also contains approximately 1,400 ft2 of warm laboratory space and 1,500 ft2 of cold laboratory and office space.
One advantage of using RAL is that it is collocated with CPP-651, a facility certified for storage of Special Nuclear Material (SNM). No modifications to CPP-651 would be needed to support Np-237 oxide target and Pu-238 oxide storage needs.
The RAL functioned as a facility that processed radioisotopes and, as such, has regions that are radioactively contaminated. Efforts must be undertaken to decontaminate the facility, remove existing equipment no longer needed, and remove existing structures inside the facility to make room for new structures and equipment that would be installed once the facility interior decontamination and demolition
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 4-5 Technical Integration Office
are complete. The facility must also be reconfigured to support the identified neptunium target and Pu-238 oxide processing objectives.
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 5-1 Technical Integration Office
5. CANDIDATE FACILITIES DISMISSED
The Team reviewed the various facility options identified in Tables 1-1 and 1-2 against the screening criteria identified in Section 1.1. The Team concluded that the decisions and rationale made at the time of the EIS remain valid for these facilities and was dismissed for further analysis in this report.
A number of other facilities or concepts not addressed in the EIS assessment (Table 1-2) were identified by the Team. Some of these facilities were not considered to be viable at the time of the EIS ROD and others have had some development work or studies completed since the ROD was published. These facilities are identified in Table 5-1. The facilities were dismissed from the more detailed assessment because they did not meet one or more of the screening criteria identified in Section 1.1. However, a more detailed description of the facility or concept and a Team assessment is provided in Appendix B for completeness.
Table 5-1. Candidate facilities dismissed.
Irradiation Facilities Dismissed from Further Consideration
Alternative Target Fabrication and Processing Facilities Dismissed from Further Consideration
High Temperature Gas Reactor Liquid Target Loop and Online Processing
Molten Salt Reactor Universal Target Design
Small Modular Reactor
Commercial Light Water Reactor
National Reactor Universal, Canada
Annular Core Research Reactor, Sandia National Laboratories
Accelerators
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 6-1 Technical Integration Office
6. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
The project alternatives that passed the screening process described previously were evaluated according to their relative merits in the following areas. The evaluation factors are listed in random order:
Cost
Schedule
Risk to all project objectives, including initial startup, long-term availability, product quality, and future operating costs
Environmental impact
Worker and public safety
Scalability
Ability to function within a system evaluated according to the above criteria, if the alternative consists of system element(s).
Appendix D provides a more detailed list of items that were considered under the basic evaluation factors. Also provided in the appendix is a list of specific questions the Team developed to aid in understanding and evaluating the options as they pertain to the evaluation factors.
6.1 Proposed Pu-238 Production Options for Evaluation
The guidance provided to the Team led to considering a matrix of options (see Table 6-1). The Team toured specific facilities at INL, SRS, B&W, and ORNL, and held discussions with representatives from the various sites to understand better the options available and the sites’ responses to the evaluation factors provided above. The following options are being considered:
Option 1a: Target fabrication and target processing at ORNL, irradiation at HFIR and ATR, neptunium storage at INL
Option 1b: Target fabrication at B&W facility, target processing at ORNL, irradiation at HFIR and ATR, neptunium storage at INL
Option 2a: Target fabrication and target processing at INL, irradiation at HFIR and ATR, neptunium storage at INL
Option 2b: Target fabrication at B&W facility, target processing at INL, irradiation at HFIR and ATR, neptunium storage at INL
Option 3a: Target fabrication at ORNL and target processing at SRS, irradiation at HFIR and ATR, neptunium storage at INL
Option 3b: Target fabrication at B&W facility, target processing at SRS, irradiation at HFIR and ATR, neptunium storage at INL
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 6-2 Technical Integration Office
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
6-3
Tech
nica
l Int
egra
tion
Offi
ce
Tabl
e 6-
1. P
ropo
sed
Pu-2
38 p
rodu
ctio
n op
tions
for e
valu
atio
n.
Opt
ion
1a:
Tar
get F
abri
catio
n an
d Ta
rget
Pro
cess
ing
at O
RN
L, I
rrad
iatio
n at
HFI
R a
nd A
TR
, Nep
tuni
um S
tora
ge a
t IN
L
Sum
mar
y Th
e Te
am c
onsi
ders
the
base
cas
e, w
hich
col
loca
tes t
he ta
rget
fabr
icat
ion
and
proc
essi
ng fu
nctio
n at
OR
NL,
to h
ave
the
low
est i
nsta
llatio
n co
sts,
earli
est s
ched
ule
for a
chie
ving
pro
duct
ion
stat
us (b
y 20
18),
and
low
est p
roje
ct ri
sk o
f all
the
optio
ns c
onsi
dere
d. C
ollo
catio
n of
thes
e fu
nctio
ns is
ver
y co
mpa
tible
with
the
TRU
act
inid
e m
issi
on o
ngoi
ng a
t the
OR
NL
RED
C. T
here
fore
, the
pro
gram
cou
ld b
e be
nefic
ial i
n m
aint
aini
ng a
nd e
xpan
ding
cor
e te
chni
cal c
apab
ilitie
s in
this
are
a, a
s wel
l as r
etai
ning
and
attr
actin
g ne
w st
aff f
or c
aree
rs in
act
inid
e re
sear
ch, b
oth
of w
hich
will
be
criti
cal t
o th
e fu
ture
succ
ess o
f the
pro
gram
. C
ost
Team
Com
men
ts
B
ecau
se o
f the
OR
NL
Team
’s w
ork
to d
evel
op a
nd u
nder
stan
d th
e co
st b
asis
and
app
ly th
e ap
prop
riate
leve
ls o
f con
tinge
ncy
to th
eir
estim
ates
, the
risk
and
unc
erta
inty
leve
ls a
re w
ell d
efin
ed.
Fe
w m
odifi
catio
ns o
r equ
ipm
ent d
esig
n ar
e ne
eded
in th
is o
ptio
n.
Th
e Te
am e
xpec
ts th
e pr
ogra
m to
be
able
to re
spon
d to
and
ada
pt to
cha
nges
in fa
cilit
ies o
r pro
cess
tech
nolo
gy fo
r the
dur
atio
n of
the
proj
ect.
Cha
nges
may
be
nece
ssar
y to
the
targ
et d
esig
n an
d or
pro
duct
requ
irem
ents
dep
endi
ng o
n un
know
n fu
ture
eve
nts (
i.e.,
a ch
ange
in
the
reac
tor d
river
fuel
at A
TR o
r HFI
R).
The
Team
con
side
rs th
at h
avin
g a
cent
ral l
ocat
ion
resp
onsi
ble
for d
evel
opin
g an
d im
plem
entin
g m
odifi
catio
ns is
mor
e co
st e
ffic
ient
in e
xecu
ting
prog
ram
goa
ls in
a ti
mel
y fa
shio
n th
an p
arsi
ng o
ut re
quire
men
ts to
se
para
te fa
cilit
ies.
Supp
ortin
g th
e lo
ng-te
rm v
iabi
lity
of th
e pr
ogra
m w
ill re
quire
a c
ohes
ive,
crit
ical
cor
e of
exp
ertis
e. G
iven
the
limite
d sc
ope
of th
e pr
ogra
m, i
t is u
nlik
ely
that
this
crit
ical
mas
s of e
xper
tise
can
be m
aint
aine
d at
mor
e th
an o
ne lo
catio
n. P
oolin
g lim
ited
prog
ram
re
sour
ces a
lso
offe
rs m
ore
dive
rse
tech
nica
l ass
ignm
ents
and
cha
lleng
es, w
hich
is c
ritic
al to
attr
actin
g ne
w ta
lent
.
Adv
anta
ges
O
RN
L is
alre
ady
the
natio
nal r
esou
rce
for h
ighe
r act
inid
e re
sear
ch, d
evel
opm
ent,
and
prod
uctio
n. C
ollo
catin
g th
e Pu
-238
pro
duct
ion
mis
sion
at O
RN
L of
fers
the
pote
ntia
l for
cos
t sav
ings
and
syne
rgy
with
rela
ted
prog
ram
s.
OR
NL
has e
xper
ienc
e in
TR
U ta
rget
dev
elop
men
t.
OR
NL
has e
xist
ing
proc
essi
ng e
quip
men
t.
INL
has s
tora
ge fa
cilit
ies o
pera
tiona
l.
OR
NL
has b
egun
dev
elop
ing
targ
ets f
or ir
radi
atio
n qu
alifi
catio
n an
d th
us ta
rget
pro
duct
ion
spec
ifica
tions
and
pro
cedu
res.
O
RN
L ha
s dev
elop
ed d
etai
led
info
rmat
ion
rega
rdin
g fa
cilit
y m
odifi
catio
ns a
nd p
roce
ss e
quip
men
t. O
RN
L ha
s ide
ntifi
ed a
reas
of
pote
ntia
l ris
k an
d ha
s dev
elop
ed p
lans
and
test
ing
to re
duce
dev
elop
men
t or i
mpl
emen
tatio
n ris
k.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
O
RN
L is
a la
bora
tory
env
ironm
ent a
nd m
ay b
e ch
alle
nged
to tr
ansi
tion
to a
pro
duct
ion
mis
sion
for a
nnua
l pro
duct
ion.
Oth
er fa
cilit
ies
may
be
mor
e co
st-e
ffect
ive
for m
ass p
rodu
ctio
n of
targ
ets.
How
ever
, the
low
er p
rodu
ct d
eman
d fo
r the
bas
e ca
se re
duce
s the
pot
entia
l im
pact
of t
his c
once
rn.
In a
ny e
vent
, the
HFI
R a
t OR
NL
or A
TR a
t IN
L w
ill b
e pe
rfor
min
g irr
adia
tions
; thu
s, th
e la
bora
torie
s will
be
invo
lved
in a
t lea
st o
ne o
r mor
e of
the
proc
ess s
teps
.
RED
C is
an
esta
blis
hed
oper
atio
nal f
acili
ty th
at d
oes n
ot e
asily
acc
omm
odat
e ch
ange
s to
the
proc
ess o
r fac
ility
layo
ut.
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0 Ta
ble
6-1.
(con
tinue
d).
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
6-4
Tech
nica
l Int
egra
tion
Offi
ce
Opt
ion
1a:
Tar
get F
abri
catio
n an
d Ta
rget
Pro
cess
ing
at O
RN
L, I
rrad
iatio
n at
HFI
R a
nd A
TR
, Nep
tuni
um S
tora
ge a
t IN
L
Sche
dule
Team
Com
men
ts
OR
NL
has b
een
supp
ortin
g th
e pl
anni
ng o
f thi
s pro
gram
for m
ost o
f a d
ecad
e. T
he te
st ir
radi
atio
n an
d pr
oces
sing
pla
n cu
rren
tly b
eing
im
plem
ente
d w
ill p
rovi
de th
e te
chni
cal b
asis
for d
efin
ing
even
tual
pro
duct
ion
targ
et re
quire
men
ts. P
rovi
ded
min
imal
“un
know
n-un
know
ns”
are
enco
unte
red,
the
Team
has
hig
h co
nfid
ence
in th
e pr
ojec
t bas
elin
e.
Adv
anta
ges
Th
e O
RN
L sc
hedu
le su
ppor
ts th
e irr
adia
tion
of p
rodu
ctio
n ta
rget
s by
FY 2
018
and
initi
al p
roce
ssin
g of
the
targ
ets t
o m
ake
Pu-2
38
oxid
e.
O
RN
L ha
s dev
elop
ed a
det
aile
d sc
hedu
le a
nd id
entif
ied
deve
lopm
ent a
nd te
stin
g ne
eds.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
It
is u
nlik
ely
that
the
OR
NL
coul
d ac
cele
rate
pro
duct
ion
of P
u-23
8 pr
oduc
t ear
lier t
han
FY 2
018.
The
Team
is n
ot c
onfid
ent t
hat O
RN
L w
ould
be
able
to su
cces
sful
ly sc
ale-
up p
rodu
ctio
n if
requ
ired
or re
cove
r the
pro
duct
ion
sche
dule
if
a te
chni
cal i
ssue
forc
ed a
n op
erat
ion
shut
dow
n.
Ris
k to
All
Proj
ect O
bjec
tives
Team
Com
men
ts
Th
e pr
ogra
m a
s cur
rent
ly d
efin
ed a
ssum
es u
se o
f the
irra
diat
ion
serv
ices
of H
FIR
and
ATR
, whi
ch re
quire
s tha
t OR
NL
deve
lop
and
qual
ify a
com
patib
le ta
rget
.
This
app
roac
h im
pose
s a p
rodu
ctio
n m
issi
on o
nto
agin
g (e
.g.,
~50
year
s old
) res
earc
h re
acto
rs, w
hich
hav
e hi
stor
ical
ly h
ad a
var
iety
of
cust
omer
s with
var
ying
requ
irem
ents
. The
re is
no
guar
ante
e th
at th
e ne
eds o
f new
pro
duct
ion
mis
sion
wou
ld re
ceiv
e pr
iori
ty o
ver t
hose
of
an
exis
ting
clie
nt.
Adv
anta
ges
O
RN
L ha
s beg
un lo
okin
g at
pro
cess
and
faci
lity
risks
and
has
iden
tifie
d a
wel
l tho
ught
-out
met
hodo
logy
to re
duce
pro
ject
cos
t and
sc
hedu
le ri
sks.
O
RN
L is
the
cent
er fo
r TR
U is
otop
e pr
oduc
tion,
with
exp
erie
nce
in ta
rget
dev
elop
men
t, pr
oces
sing
, and
isot
ope
reco
very
. Loc
atin
g th
e m
issi
on a
t OR
NL
give
s a h
igh
conf
iden
ce in
succ
ess a
t the
2 K
g/ye
ar p
rodu
ct le
vel.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
O
RN
L in
dica
ted
conf
iden
ce in
pro
cess
cap
acity
at t
he d
efin
ed 2
Kg/
year
pro
duct
leve
l. H
owev
er, f
or q
uant
ities
hig
her t
han
2 K
g/ye
ar,
OR
NL
indi
cate
d th
at u
ncer
tain
ty in
crea
sed.
Thu
s, th
e ba
se c
ase
cons
train
s DO
E an
d N
ASA
to a
2 K
g/ye
ar le
vel.
O
ne c
once
rn is
the
proc
ess r
epre
sent
s a p
oten
tial s
ingl
e po
int f
ailu
re. T
he o
nly
mea
ns o
f miti
gatin
g th
is is
to p
rocu
re re
plac
emen
t ha
rdw
are
in a
dvan
ce, r
athe
r tha
n w
aitin
g un
til a
failu
re o
ccur
s. O
RN
L do
es h
ave
plan
s to
proc
ure
repl
acem
ent h
ardw
are,
but
this
cou
ld
be in
suff
icie
nt if
a la
rger
pro
blem
shou
ld o
ccur
in th
e ce
ll. O
vera
ll, O
RN
L is
a la
bora
tory
and
not
a p
rodu
ctio
n fa
cilit
y, w
hich
repr
esen
ts
an in
here
nt ri
sk.
B
ecau
se o
f the
lack
of e
xces
s cap
acity
in R
EDC
, a te
chni
cal i
ssue
that
hal
ts p
rodu
ctio
n co
uld
com
prom
ise
the
abili
ty to
mee
t sch
edul
e at
th
e 2
Kg/
year
pro
duct
leve
l.
Env
iron
men
tal I
mpa
ct
Team
Com
men
ts
OR
NL
is th
e ce
nter
for T
RU
isot
ope
prod
uctio
n fo
r DO
E. T
his m
issi
on w
ould
repr
esen
t a si
gnifi
cant
jum
p in
ann
ual m
ass t
hrou
ghpu
t. H
owev
er, O
RN
L in
dica
tes t
hat p
ast t
arge
t pro
cess
ing
(e.g
., cu
rium
targ
ets f
rom
SR
S) d
id in
volv
e co
mpa
rabl
e qu
antit
ies o
f byp
rodu
cts
requ
iring
trea
tmen
t and
dis
posa
l.
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0 Ta
ble
6-1.
(con
tinue
d).
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
6-5
Tech
nica
l Int
egra
tion
Offi
ce
Opt
ion
1a:
Tar
get F
abri
catio
n an
d Ta
rget
Pro
cess
ing
at O
RN
L, I
rrad
iatio
n at
HFI
R a
nd A
TR
, Nep
tuni
um S
tora
ge a
t IN
L
Adv
anta
ges
OR
NL
has a
wel
l-def
ined
was
te d
ispo
sitio
n pa
thw
ay fo
r all
was
te st
ream
s.
OR
NL
has,
thro
ugh
past
ope
ratio
n, id
entif
ied
the
disp
ositi
on p
athw
ay fo
r all
prod
ucts
and
byp
rodu
cts
expe
cted
with
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
th
is m
issi
on. W
aste
dis
posa
l pat
hway
s are
in p
lace
and
per
mitt
ed. C
ollo
catin
g th
e ta
rget
fabr
icat
ion
and
proc
essi
ng fu
nctio
ns a
t OR
NL
will
re
duce
tran
spor
tatio
n of
reje
cted
targ
ets a
nd re
cycl
ed n
eptu
nium
reco
vere
d fr
om re
proc
esse
d ta
rget
s.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
The
OR
NL
site
has
a sm
all b
ound
ary
area
com
pare
d to
Idah
o or
SR
S. H
owev
er, t
he p
hysi
cal s
epar
atio
n ha
s bee
n an
alyz
ed a
nd d
eem
ed
adeq
uate
for t
he p
ropo
sed
activ
ities
.
Wor
ker
and
Publ
ic S
afet
y
Team
Com
men
ts
Purif
icat
ion
of th
e ne
ptun
ium
wou
ld b
e w
ithin
the
capa
bilit
ies d
emon
stra
ted
in th
e pa
st a
t OR
NL
in a
ssoc
iatio
n w
ith th
e TR
U a
ctin
ide
prog
ram
. Fab
ricat
ion
of th
e ne
ptun
ium
targ
ets w
ould
be
func
tiona
lly si
mila
r to
past
act
iviti
es, b
ut w
ould
requ
ire a
scal
e up
in v
olum
e pr
oduc
ed. H
ow th
is p
rodu
ctio
n ac
tivity
wou
ld b
e in
tegr
ated
into
a la
bora
tory
env
ironm
ent i
s unk
now
n.
Adv
anta
ges
O
RN
L ha
s est
ablis
hed
oper
atio
n an
d pr
oces
sing
pro
cedu
res,
oper
atio
ns, a
nd e
mer
genc
y re
spon
se su
ppor
t.
OR
NL
has a
n es
tabl
ishe
d re
view
pro
cess
for a
ll st
ages
of d
evel
opm
ent (
targ
et fa
bric
atio
n, ir
radi
atio
n, a
nd p
roce
ssin
g).
O
RN
L ha
s pro
fess
iona
l sta
ff e
xper
ienc
ed in
the
fabr
icat
ion
of a
lum
inum
-bas
ed a
ctin
ide
targ
ets.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
OR
NL
is a
labo
rato
ry e
nviro
nmen
t, bu
t will
hav
e to
mai
ntai
n in
dust
rial a
nd ra
diol
ogic
al sa
fety
succ
essf
ully
in a
pro
duct
ion
envi
ronm
ent.
Scal
abili
ty
Team
Com
men
ts
Th
e Te
am’s
impr
essi
on is
that
the
base
cas
e its
elf i
s inf
lexi
ble
to c
hang
e. T
he a
vaila
ble
spac
e in
the
RED
C is
allo
cate
d to
the
base
targ
et
prod
uctio
n ra
te; t
here
is li
ttle
or n
o ro
om fo
r exp
ansi
on in
pro
cess
ing
capa
bilit
y.
A
ny si
gnifi
cant
cha
nges
to p
rodu
ctio
n ca
pabi
lity
wou
ld re
quire
the
use
of n
ew fl
oor s
pace
and
pro
cess
es.
Adv
anta
ges
Non
e sp
ecifi
cally
iden
tifie
d.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
Th
e av
aila
ble
spac
e in
the
RED
C is
allo
cate
d to
the
base
targ
et p
rodu
ctio
n ra
te; t
here
is li
ttle
or n
o ro
om fo
r exp
ansi
on in
pro
cess
ing
capa
bilit
y.
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion/
Syst
em E
lem
ents
Team
Com
men
ts
Col
loca
tion
of th
e ta
rget
fabr
icat
ion
and
proc
essi
ng fu
nctio
ns a
t OR
NL
wou
ld e
limin
ate
the
trans
porta
tion
link
for r
ecyc
le o
f tar
get r
ejec
ts,
and
recy
cle
of n
eptu
nium
reco
vere
d fr
om re
proc
essi
ng.
Adv
anta
ges
Col
loca
tion
of th
e ta
rget
fabr
icat
ion
and
proc
essi
ng fu
nctio
ns a
t OR
NL
wou
ld e
limin
ate
the
trans
porta
tion
link
for r
ecyc
le o
f tar
get r
ejec
ts,
and
recy
cle
of n
eptu
nium
reco
vere
d fr
om re
proc
essi
ng.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
The
base
cas
e as
sum
es th
at n
eptu
nium
stor
age
will
rem
ain
at IN
L; th
us, a
ll op
tions
hav
e th
is d
isad
vant
age
of a
long
tran
spor
tatio
n lin
k.
How
ever
, the
def
ined
pro
duct
dem
and
is lo
w e
noug
h th
at se
vera
l com
mer
cial
ship
men
ts p
er y
ear w
ill su
ffic
e to
pro
vide
the
nece
ssar
y ne
ptun
ium
feed
stoc
k fo
r tar
get p
rodu
ctio
n.
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0 Ta
ble
6-1.
(con
tinue
d).
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
6-6
Tech
nica
l Int
egra
tion
Offi
ce
Opt
ion
1b:
Tar
get F
abri
catio
n at
B&
W F
acili
ty, T
arge
t Pro
cess
ing
at O
RN
L, I
rrad
iatio
n at
HFI
R a
nd A
TR
, Nep
tuni
um S
tora
ge a
t IN
L
Sum
mar
y
The
com
mer
cial
and
regu
lato
ry e
nviro
nmen
t in
whi
ch B
&W
ope
rate
s may
off
er th
e po
tent
ial f
or o
ptio
ns th
at tr
ansl
ate
into
pro
gram
cos
t sa
ving
s and
no
sche
dule
impa
ct. H
owev
er, h
ighe
r unc
erta
intie
s in
the
cost
est
imat
e an
d un
know
n co
ntin
genc
y as
sess
men
ts e
xist
in th
e B
&W
est
imat
e. F
urth
er st
udy
and
anal
ysis
are
nee
ded
to g
ain
a be
tter c
onfid
ence
in th
e co
st, s
ched
ule,
and
ass
ocia
ted
risk
estim
ates
. W
ith re
spec
t to
life-
cycl
e pr
ojec
t cos
ts, t
he o
vera
ll sa
ving
s of t
his a
ltern
ativ
e w
ere
judg
ed b
y th
e Te
am to
be
min
imal
, with
in th
e un
certa
inty
in th
e pr
ojec
t cos
ts.
B
&W
has
pro
pose
d th
e el
imin
atio
n of
the
nept
uniu
m c
lean
up st
ep p
rior t
o pe
llet f
abric
atio
n. T
his s
tep
has t
he p
ositi
ve a
spec
ts o
f el
imin
atin
g a
wet
che
mis
try w
aste
stre
am. H
owev
er, i
t can
als
o re
sult
in th
e in
crea
se in
radi
atio
n ex
posu
re to
line
wor
kers
in p
elle
t fa
bric
atio
n. B
&W
ope
rate
s to
high
er a
llow
able
wor
ker e
xpos
ure
limits
than
OR
NL,
whi
ch m
akes
this
opt
ion
poss
ible
. B&
W is
not
pe
naliz
ed in
the
com
para
tive
rank
ing
of o
ptio
ns fo
r pro
posi
ng th
is o
ptio
n. H
owev
er, d
irect
con
sequ
ence
s of e
ach
appr
oach
mus
t be
reco
gniz
ed.
Th
e pr
esen
t sta
ff h
as li
ttle
expe
rienc
e w
ith n
eptu
nium
or n
eptu
nium
con
tam
inat
ed w
ith P
u-23
8; th
eref
ore,
add
ition
al e
ffort
wou
ld b
e ne
eded
to tr
ain
and
qual
ify a
Tea
m th
at c
ould
ent
er in
to a
safe
, suc
cess
ful t
arge
t pro
duct
ion
oper
atio
n.
A
dditi
onal
stud
ies w
ould
be
need
ed to
pro
vide
a b
ette
r und
erst
andi
ng o
f the
cos
t bas
is a
nd to
det
erm
ine
if th
ere
are
acce
ptab
le d
ispo
sal
path
way
s for
all
was
te st
ream
s. C
erta
in m
ater
ial s
tream
s mig
ht n
eed
to b
e re
turn
ed to
OR
NL.
Thi
s cou
ld in
clud
e w
aste
from
nep
tuni
um
purif
icat
ion
and
targ
et re
ject
s pro
duce
d in
the
cour
se o
f tar
get f
abric
atio
n. A
cle
arer
und
erst
andi
ng w
ould
als
o he
lp to
ens
ure
disp
osal
of
cont
amin
ated
equ
ipm
ent a
nd to
avo
id g
ener
atio
n of
lega
cy w
aste
s.
Fi
nally
, Np-
237
is c
urre
ntly
trea
ted
as a
byp
rodu
ct m
ater
ial p
er th
e B
&W
NR
C li
cens
e; h
owev
er, D
OE
treat
s the
mat
eria
l as S
NM
. Thi
s w
ould
nec
essi
tate
the
esta
blis
hmen
t of s
peci
al p
rovi
sion
s req
uirin
g au
gmen
tatio
n of
the
B&
W a
ccou
ntab
ility
sys
tem
to in
terf
ace
prop
erly
w
ith th
e le
vel o
f mat
eria
l acc
ount
abili
ty e
xpec
ted
by D
OE
for r
ecei
pt o
f the
nep
tuni
um.
Cos
t
Team
Com
men
ts
O
RN
L m
ust d
evel
op ta
rget
spec
ifica
tions
bef
ore
B&
W c
an o
rder
equ
ipm
ent a
nd d
evel
op p
roce
ssin
g te
chni
ques
.
B&
W o
ffers
two
optio
ns: (
1) w
ith n
eptu
nium
pur
ifica
tion
wet
che
mis
try a
nd (2
) no
nept
uniu
m p
urifi
catio
n w
ith d
ry b
lend
ing
of o
xide
s in
targ
ets.
The
elim
inat
ion
of th
e w
et c
hem
istry
step
off
ers t
he p
oten
tial f
or so
me
shor
t-ter
m sa
ving
s. H
owev
er, w
ith re
spec
t to
life-
cycl
e pr
ojec
t cos
ts, t
he o
vera
ll sa
ving
s pro
ject
ed fo
r elim
inat
ing
purif
icat
ion
wer
e ju
dged
min
imal
, with
in th
e un
certa
inty
in p
roje
ct c
osts
.
The
regu
lato
ry e
nviro
nmen
t in
whi
ch B
&W
ope
rate
s may
off
er th
e po
tent
ial f
or p
rogr
am c
ost s
avin
gs w
ithou
t an
impa
ct o
n th
e ov
eral
l pr
ojec
t sch
edul
e. H
owev
er, h
ighe
r unc
erta
intie
s in
the
cost
est
imat
e an
d ne
eded
con
tinge
ncy
exis
t in
the
B&
W e
stim
ate.
Fur
ther
stud
y an
d an
alys
is a
re n
eede
d to
gai
n a
bette
r con
fiden
ce in
the
cost
and
sche
dule
est
imat
es.
Adv
anta
ges
O
RN
L ha
s ins
talle
d pr
oces
sing
equ
ipm
ent.
IN
L ha
s ope
ratio
nal s
tora
ge fa
cilit
ies.
The
optio
n fo
r elim
inat
ing
the
nept
uniu
m p
urifi
catio
n st
ep o
ffer
s the
pot
entia
l for
a sh
ort-t
erm
redu
ctio
n in
cos
ts a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith
esta
blis
hing
the
targ
et fa
bric
atio
n lin
e.
Th
e fa
cilit
y m
odifi
catio
ns re
quire
d to
loca
te th
e pr
ojec
t at t
he B
&W
faci
lity
appe
ar to
be
min
imal
.
The
B&
W fa
cilit
y an
d m
anag
emen
t is t
ailo
red
to p
rodu
ctio
n ru
ns. O
pera
ting
unde
r a c
omm
erci
al N
RC
lice
nse
prov
ides
gre
ater
flex
ibili
ty
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0 Ta
ble
6-1.
(con
tinue
d).
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
6-7
Tech
nica
l Int
egra
tion
Offi
ce
Opt
ion
1b:
Tar
get F
abri
catio
n at
B&
W F
acili
ty, T
arge
t Pro
cess
ing
at O
RN
L, I
rrad
iatio
n at
HFI
R a
nd A
TR
, Nep
tuni
um S
tora
ge a
t IN
L
and
abili
ty to
low
er u
nit c
osts
than
ope
ratin
g un
der D
OE
regu
latio
ns.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
B&
W h
ad e
xper
ienc
e in
the
past
with
TR
Us (
e.g.
, fab
ricat
ion
of F
FTF
fuel
); ho
wev
er, t
he c
urre
nt st
aff e
xper
tise
appe
ared
to c
ente
r on
mat
eria
ls e
xam
inat
ion
and
met
allu
rgy.
Cos
ts w
ould
hav
e to
refle
ct th
e ef
fort
to h
ire a
nd tr
ain
a ca
dre
of st
aff f
amili
ar w
ith h
andl
ing
and
proc
essi
ng T
RU
s.
Sche
dule
Te
am C
omm
ents
B&
W p
rese
nted
a p
roje
ct sc
hedu
le re
spon
sive
to th
e pr
ojec
t, in
dica
ting
that
a ta
rget
fabr
icat
ion
line
coul
d be
inst
alle
d an
d op
erat
iona
l in
the
requ
ired
time.
Early
targ
et p
rodu
ctio
n us
ing
B&
W is
unl
ikel
y.
Adv
anta
ges
O
pera
tion
unde
r NR
C li
cens
e pr
ovid
es m
ore
flexi
bilit
y to
mee
t sch
edul
e ch
alle
nges
.
The
faci
lity
mod
ifica
tions
requ
ired
to lo
cate
the
proj
ect a
t the
B&
W fa
cilit
y ap
pear
to b
e m
inim
al, a
nd c
ould
like
ly b
e pe
rfor
med
with
in
the
sche
dule
. B&
W in
dica
ted
that
mod
ifica
tions
to o
pera
tiona
l per
mits
for b
ypro
duct
mat
eria
ls w
ould
be
requ
ired,
but
cou
ld b
e ha
ndle
d at
the
stat
e le
vel a
nd w
ould
be
com
plet
ed w
ithin
the
sche
dule
con
stra
ints
. D
isad
vant
ages
Im
plem
enta
tion
wou
ld re
quire
targ
et d
evel
opm
ent b
y O
RN
L, a
nd th
en c
hara
cter
izat
ion
and
spec
ifica
tion
of ta
rget
requ
irem
ents
for t
he
purp
ose
of d
efin
ing
cont
ract
ual t
erm
s for
an
outs
ide
party
. A se
cond
set o
f val
idat
ion
test
ing
wou
ld li
kely
be
requ
ired
at b
oth
HFI
R a
nd A
TR
for t
arge
ts m
anuf
actu
red
at th
e B
&W
fac i
lity
befo
re st
artin
g pr
oduc
tion
cam
paig
ns. E
stab
lishi
ng c
ontra
ctua
l req
uire
men
ts w
ith a
seco
nd
orga
niza
tion
for t
arge
t pro
duct
ion
wou
ld re
quire
add
ition
al ti
me
in th
e sc
hedu
le.
Ris
k to
All
Proj
ect O
bjec
tives
Te
am C
omm
ents
B&
W h
as T
RU
s exp
erie
nce
(e.g
., FF
TF fu
el p
rodu
ctio
n), b
ut th
ese
faci
litie
s and
mis
sion
s are
in th
e pa
st. B
&W
hea
lth p
hysi
cs su
ppor
t ex
pres
sed
som
e co
ncer
ns, i
ndic
atin
g th
at B
&W
did
not
real
ly u
nder
stan
d th
e ha
zard
s ass
ocia
ted
with
nep
tuni
um c
onta
min
ated
with
Pu-
238.
The
staf
f tha
t dev
elop
ed th
e pr
opos
al a
ppea
rs to
hav
e te
chni
cal e
xper
ienc
e pr
imar
ily in
mat
eria
ls-r
elat
ed re
sear
ch (f
uel e
xam
inat
ion,
m
etal
lurg
y). T
he in
volv
emen
t of t
echn
ical
staf
f with
exp
erie
nce
in fu
el fa
bric
atio
n (H
FIR
and
ATR
fuel
) app
eare
d m
inim
al. T
he fu
el
prod
uctio
n st
aff a
ppea
red
to h
ave
min
imal
invo
lvem
ent i
n th
e pr
opos
al. B
&W
indi
cate
d th
at a
dditi
onal
DO
E su
ppor
t wou
ld b
e re
quire
d to
brin
g th
e pr
opos
al u
p to
a st
anda
rd th
at B
&W
man
agem
ent w
ould
stan
d be
hind
.
Ther
e w
as so
me
indi
catio
n th
at fu
el fa
bric
atio
n st
aff h
ad a
firm
relu
ctan
ce to
intro
duce
nep
tuni
um in
to th
e fu
el fa
bric
atio
n ar
eas;
thus
, the
ne
ptun
ium
targ
et li
ne w
as p
ropo
sed
to g
o in
to a
cor
ner o
f the
LTC
bui
ldin
g. T
he c
once
rn is
that
intro
duct
ion
of a
nep
tuni
um p
roce
ssin
g lin
e in
to a
por
tion
of th
e LT
C m
ay n
ot b
e co
mpa
tible
with
its h
isto
ric m
issi
on, a
nd m
ay im
pact
his
toric
al c
usto
mer
s.
Adv
anta
ges
B&
W o
ffers
the
pote
ntia
l to
brin
g its
reso
urce
s in
fuel
fabr
icat
ion
to th
e pr
ogra
m, w
ith e
xper
ienc
e in
a v
arie
ty o
f fue
l for
ms,
and
in
prod
ucin
g pr
oduc
tion -
leve
l qua
ntiti
es o
f ite
ms t
o sp
ecifi
ed le
vels
of q
ualit
y.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
B
&W
faci
lity
wou
ld re
quire
mod
ifica
tions
to re
mov
e eq
uipm
ent a
nd a
dd v
entil
atio
n.
B
&W
wou
ld b
e in
trodu
cing
TR
Us i
nto
a fa
cilit
y no
t acc
usto
med
to su
ch a
ctiv
ity. T
he g
roup
bel
ieve
s thi
s w
ould
add
sche
dule
risk
to th
e pr
ojec
t.
Intro
duci
ng T
RU
s und
er N
RC
lice
nse
may
adv
erse
ly im
pact
oth
er si
te o
pera
tions
if a
n ev
ent o
ccur
red,
thus
add
ing
addi
tiona
l ris
k to
the
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0 Ta
ble
6-1.
(con
tinue
d).
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
6-8
Tech
nica
l Int
egra
tion
Offi
ce
Opt
ion
1b:
Tar
get F
abri
catio
n at
B&
W F
acili
ty, T
arge
t Pro
cess
ing
at O
RN
L, I
rrad
iatio
n at
HFI
R a
nd A
TR
, Nep
tuni
um S
tora
ge a
t IN
L
bala
nce
of o
ther
B&
W p
lant
ope
ratio
ns.
B
&W
did
not
dem
onst
rate
any
tech
nica
l cap
abili
ty w
ith re
spec
t to
TRU
s or t
o w
et c
hem
istry
sepa
ratio
n pr
oces
ses.
B&
W li
nk to
ope
ratio
nal s
uppo
rt ap
pear
ed m
inim
al.
Th
e di
scus
sion
s with
B&
W p
erso
nnel
lead
the
Team
to q
uest
ion
whe
ther
the
nept
uniu
m p
roje
ct w
ould
be
fully
cap
able
of t
appi
ng in
to th
e co
nsid
erab
le B
&W
exp
erie
nce
in fu
el fa
bric
atio
n. T
he p
ropo
sed
targ
et fa
bric
atio
n lin
e w
ould
be
phys
ical
ly is
olat
ed in
an
area
that
ap
pear
s mor
e re
late
d to
met
allu
rgy
and
mat
eria
l exa
min
atio
n, w
hich
may
impa
ct th
e hi
stor
ical
func
tion
and
cust
omer
s. C
once
rns
wer
e ex
pres
sed
at B
&W
that
the
pres
ent s
taff
had
littl
e ex
perie
nce
with
nep
tuni
um o
r nep
tuni
um-c
onta
min
ated
with
Pu-
238.
The
Np-
237
is c
urre
ntly
trea
ted
as a
byp
rodu
ct m
ater
ial p
er th
e B
&W
NR
C li
cens
e. H
owev
er, D
OE
treat
s the
mat
eria
l as S
NM
co
mpa
rabl
e to
U- 2
33. S
peci
al p
rovi
sion
s wou
ld h
ave
to b
e pu
t in
plac
e to
requ
ire th
e au
gmen
tatio
n of
the
B&
W a
ccou
ntab
ility
syst
em to
in
terf
ace
prop
erly
with
the
leve
l of m
ater
ial a
ccou
ntab
ility
exp
ecte
d by
DO
E fo
r rec
eipt
of t
he n
eptu
nium
.
Env
iron
men
tal I
mpa
ct
Team
Com
men
ts
B
&W
is u
ncer
tain
if th
e w
aste
from
wet
che
mis
try p
roce
ssin
g of
the
nept
uniu
m c
ould
fit w
ithin
its c
urre
nt o
pera
tiona
l env
elop
e fo
r was
te
disp
osal
. The
opt
ion
for r
etur
n of
pro
cess
was
tes (
solu
tions
, spe
nt re
sin)
nee
ds fu
rther
ass
essm
ent t
o de
term
ine
viab
ility
or t
he n
eed
for
B&
W to
stor
e th
e w
aste
unt
il a
disp
osal
pat
hway
is e
stab
lishe
d.
If
B&
W p
erfo
rmed
onl
y th
e dr
y ta
rget
fabr
icat
ion
optio
n, it
wou
ld n
ot b
e in
a p
ositi
on to
dea
l with
targ
et re
ject
s. Th
e al
umin
um-
nept
uniu
m o
xide
pel
lets
wou
ld th
us re
quire
a tr
ansp
orta
tion
rout
e ba
ck to
OR
NL
for d
ispo
sitio
n. O
RN
L flo
w sh
eets
wou
ld h
ave
to b
e m
odifi
ed. T
he c
ontra
ctua
l arr
ange
men
ts b
etw
een
OR
NL
and
B&
W w
ould
hav
e to
add
ress
a re
turn
stre
am o
f tar
get m
ater
ial t
hat h
as n
ot
yet b
een
quan
tifie
d.
Adv
anta
ges
Non
e w
ere
iden
tifie
d ov
er th
e ba
se c
ase.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
B
&W
may
requ
ire th
e re
turn
of w
aste
stre
ams a
nd c
onta
min
ated
equ
ipm
ent,
whi
ch w
ould
be
diffi
cult
to a
utho
rize.
B&
W m
ay g
ener
ate
was
te th
at m
ay h
ave
to b
e st
ored
at f
acili
ty u
ntil
a di
spos
al p
athw
ay is
dev
elop
ed.
Th
e di
spos
al o
f pro
cess
was
tes f
rom
B&
W m
ay re
quire
alte
rnat
ions
to th
e si
te o
pera
ting
perm
it. C
lean
up o
f the
pro
ject
upo
n co
mpl
etio
n (a
ll bo
xes,
etc.
) and
was
te d
ispo
sitio
n w
ould
hav
e to
be
dete
rmin
ed.
Th
ere
has b
een
no p
ublic
dis
cuss
ion
of in
trodu
cing
TR
Us b
ack
into
the
B&
W fa
cilit
y.
Wor
ker
and
Publ
ic S
afet
y Te
am C
omm
ents
Th
e re
gula
tory
env
ironm
ent i
n w
hich
B&
W o
pera
tes m
ay o
ffer
the
pote
ntia
l for
pro
gram
cos
t sav
ings
with
out a
n im
pact
on
the
over
all
proj
ect s
ched
ule.
Spe
cific
ally
, B&
W h
as p
ropo
sed
the
elim
inat
ion
of th
e ne
ptun
ium
cle
anup
step
prio
r to
pelle
t fab
ricat
ion.
Thi
s ste
p m
ay
elim
inat
e w
et c
hem
istry
was
te st
ream
s. H
owev
er, i
t can
als
o re
sult
in th
e in
crea
se in
radi
atio
n ex
posu
re to
line
wor
kers
in p
elle
t fab
ricat
ion.
B
&W
ope
rate
s to
high
er a
llow
able
wor
ker e
xpos
ure
limits
than
com
pare
d to
OR
NL,
thus
mak
ing
this
opt
ion
poss
ible
. B&
W is
not
pen
aliz
ed
in th
e co
mpa
rativ
e ra
nkin
g of
opt
ions
for p
ropo
sing
this
opt
ion.
How
ever
, the
re a
re d
irect
con
sequ
ence
s of e
ach
appr
oach
that
mus
t be
reco
gniz
ed.
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0 Ta
ble
6-1.
(con
tinue
d).
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
6-9
Tech
nica
l Int
egra
tion
Offi
ce
Opt
ion
1b:
Tar
get F
abri
catio
n at
B&
W F
acili
ty, T
arge
t Pro
cess
ing
at O
RN
L, I
rrad
iatio
n at
HFI
R a
nd A
TR
, Nep
tuni
um S
tora
ge a
t IN
L
Adv
anta
ges
The
B&
W o
ptio
n of
fers
the
pote
ntia
l to
brin
g ex
perie
nce
rela
ted
to o
pera
ting
a fu
el p
rodu
ctio
n lin
e to
the
prog
ram
.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
Th
e pr
opos
ed B
&W
bui
ldin
g w
as ju
dged
by
the
Team
to b
e le
ss ro
bust
than
OR
NL
base
cas
e.
Im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e dr
y op
tion
(i.e.
, no
nept
uniu
m p
urifi
catio
n) w
ould
like
ly tr
ansl
ate
into
hig
her w
orke
r exp
osur
e fo
r B&
W w
orke
rs
whe
n co
mpa
red
to D
OE
labo
rato
ries.
B&
W w
ould
still
hav
e th
e op
portu
nity
to im
prov
e on
shie
ldin
g ba
sed
on o
pera
tiona
l exp
erie
nce.
H
owev
er, m
odifi
catio
ns su
bseq
uent
to st
artu
p w
ould
be
refle
cted
in h
ighe
r cos
ts. A
ny w
orke
r exp
osur
e at
B&
W w
ould
still
be
with
in it
s op
erat
iona
l lim
its.
Th
ere
is a
shor
ter/s
mal
ler b
ound
ary
to p
ublic
than
the
DO
E la
bora
tory
opt
ions
.
Add
ition
al tr
ansp
orta
tion
of re
ject
s wou
ld b
e re
aliz
ed b
etw
een
B&
W a
nd O
RN
L.
Scal
abili
ty
Team
Com
men
ts
If si
ted
at B
&W
, the
targ
et fa
bric
atio
n fu
nctio
n w
ould
be
high
ly sp
ecifi
ed, i
n te
rms o
f pro
duct
spe
cific
atio
n, q
ualit
y, a
nd q
uant
ity. T
he
pres
umpt
ion
is th
at th
e lin
e w
ould
inco
rpor
ate
only
such
add
ition
al c
apac
ity th
at D
OE
was
will
ing
to c
ontra
ct fo
r up
fron
t.
Adv
anta
ges
Non
e id
entif
ied
over
the
base
line.
D
isad
vant
ages
Th
e pr
esum
ptio
n is
that
the
targ
et fa
bric
atio
n pr
oces
s at B
&W
wou
ld b
e hi
ghly
spec
ified
with
resp
ect t
o qu
ality
and
qua
ntity
. The
initi
al
perc
eptio
n of
the
eval
uatio
n pa
nel i
s tha
t thi
s situ
atio
n is
mor
e lik
ely
to in
trodu
ce a
pro
duct
ion
line
with
less
flex
ibili
ty th
an c
ompa
red
to
cent
raliz
ing
activ
ities
at O
RN
L, e
spec
ially
if a
cha
nge
to th
e ta
rget
spec
ifica
tion
was
requ
ired.
T
rans
port
atio
n/Sy
stem
Ele
men
ts
Team
Com
men
ts
A
s not
ed a
bove
, B&
W m
ay w
ant t
o ex
plor
e op
tions
to re
turn
cer
tain
mat
eria
l stre
ams t
o O
RN
L. T
his c
ould
incl
ude
was
te fr
om
nept
uniu
m p
urifi
catio
n, a
nd ta
rget
reje
cts p
rodu
ced
in th
e co
urse
of t
arge
t fab
ricat
ion.
B&
W w
ill re
quire
mod
ifica
tion
to th
e st
ate
licen
se fo
r byp
rodu
ct m
ater
ials
; how
ever
, tha
t is c
onsi
dere
d st
raig
htfo
rwar
d.
Adv
anta
ges
The
B&
W fa
cilit
y is
loca
ted
rela
tivel
y cl
ose
to O
RN
L, w
hen
com
pare
d to
the
OR
NL-
to-I
NL
link
or O
RN
L-to
-SR
S lin
k. In
eith
er c
ase
the
volu
me
of sh
ipm
ents
is a
ssum
ed to
be
with
in th
e us
e of
com
mer
cial
serv
ices
. D
isad
vant
ages
Th
ere
may
be
the
need
to re
turn
cer
tain
mat
eria
l stre
ams t
o O
RN
L. T
his c
ould
incl
ude
was
te fr
om n
eptu
nium
pur
ifica
tion
and
targ
et re
ject
s pr
oduc
ed in
the
cour
se o
f tar
get f
abric
atio
n.
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0 Ta
ble
6-1.
(con
tinue
d).
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
6-10
Te
chni
cal I
nteg
ratio
n O
ffice
Opt
ion
2a:
Tar
get F
abri
catio
n an
d T
arge
t Pro
cess
ing
at IN
L, I
rrad
iatio
n at
HFI
R a
nd A
TR
, Nep
tuni
um S
tora
ge a
t IN
L
Sum
mar
y R
econ
figur
ing
an e
xist
ing
INL
faci
lity
for P
u-23
8 pr
oduc
tion
offe
rs a
via
ble
optio
n of
cos
t-eff
ectiv
e de
liver
y pe
r Kg
of p
rodu
ct in
add
ition
to
est
ablis
hing
a n
ew fa
cilit
y de
dica
ted
to th
e Pu
-238
pro
ject
. Per
form
ing
Pu-2
38 p
rodu
ctio
n at
INL
wou
ld c
ombi
ne e
xist
ing
faci
litie
s, se
curit
y sy
stem
s, an
d op
erat
ions
whi
le su
ppor
ting
DO
E’s e
mph
asis
on
cons
olid
atin
g nu
clea
r mat
eria
l, in
crea
sing
the
secu
rity
of n
ucle
ar
mat
eria
l, re
duci
ng n
ucle
ar ri
sks,
and
addr
essi
ng is
sues
surr
ound
ing
the
secu
re tr
ansp
orta
tion
of n
ucle
ar m
ater
ial.
An
all-
INL
optio
n w
ould
re
duce
the
num
ber o
f tim
es th
at m
ater
ial w
ould
hav
e to
be
trans
porte
d fr
om o
ne D
OE
site
to a
noth
er D
OE
site
; how
ever
, it h
as h
ighe
r cos
ts
and
a lo
nger
sche
dule
than
the
OR
NL
base
cas
e. T
hese
resu
lt pr
imar
ily fr
om (1
) the
nee
d to
cle
an u
p th
e pr
opos
ed fa
cilit
y (R
AL)
, and
(2) t
he
need
to in
stal
l new
pro
ces s
ing
equi
pmen
t. A
lso,
the
INL
optio
n w
ould
not
allo
w p
rodu
ctio
n of
Pu-
238
by 2
018.
The
rem
ote
loca
tion
of th
e pr
opos
ed IN
L si
te (R
AL)
off
ers b
ette
r sep
arat
ion
of th
e pr
opos
ed a
ctiv
ities
from
the
publ
ic th
an o
ther
opt
ions
. Fur
ther
, the
RA
L ho
t cel
l en
viro
nmen
t sho
uld
prov
ide
a hi
gh a
ssur
ance
of c
onta
inm
ent o
ver t
he p
roje
ct li
fe. T
he a
ll-IN
L op
tion
elim
inat
es th
e sh
ipm
ent o
f Np-
237
oxid
e to
an
off-
site
loca
tion
for p
roce
ssin
g in
to ta
rget
s. O
n-si
te sh
ipm
ents
wou
ld o
nly
be su
bjec
t to
on-s
ite tr
ansp
orta
tion
requ
irem
ents
. C
ost
Team
Com
men
ts
The
all-I
NL
optio
n ha
s hig
her c
osts
and
a lo
nger
sche
dule
than
the
OR
NL
base
cas
e. T
his r
esul
ts p
rimar
ily fr
om (1
) the
nee
d to
cle
an u
p th
e pr
opos
ed fa
cilit
y (R
AL)
, and
(2) t
he n
eed
to in
stal
l new
pro
cess
ing
equi
pmen
t. (T
he b
ase
case
pro
gram
dem
and
curr
ently
fits
with
in th
e ca
paci
ty o
f exi
stin
g O
RN
L pr
oces
sing
equ
ipm
ent.)
Adv
anta
ges
Th
e pr
ogra
m w
ould
acq
uire
a d
edic
ated
faci
lity
for t
he a
ctiv
ity p
ropo
sed.
The
annu
al p
rodu
ctio
n th
roug
hput
cou
ld b
e hi
gher
, pot
entia
lly re
duci
ng p
er-u
nit c
osts
.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
Sign
ifica
nt c
ost w
ould
go
into
faci
lity
prep
arat
ion
(i.e.
, cle
anup
from
pre
viou
s use
).
Sche
dule
Team
Com
men
ts
INL
has l
aid
out a
sche
dule
that
wou
ld a
llow
for s
tart
of ta
rget
fabr
icat
ion
in m
id-F
Y 2
018.
Tar
gets
cou
ld b
e re
ady
for i
rrad
iatio
n in
FY
20
18, w
ith ir
radi
atio
n co
mpl
ete
at so
me
poin
t in
FY 2
019.
Act
ual s
epar
atio
n an
d re
cove
ry o
f Pu-
238
wou
ld b
e pr
esum
ed to
beg
in fo
llow
ing
a co
olin
g pe
riod
of se
vera
l mon
ths.
Proc
essi
ng o
f the
targ
ets w
ould
beg
in n
o so
oner
than
FY
202
0.
Adv
anta
ges
Non
e id
entif
ied
over
the
base
line.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
IN
L re
pres
enta
tives
indi
cate
that
it w
ould
be
unlik
ely
that
the
INL
optio
n co
uld
supp
ort a
n ac
cele
rate
d ca
se (i
.e.,
prod
uctio
n 1
or 2
yea
rs
earli
er).
This
is d
riven
prim
arily
by
the
time
curr
ently
est
imat
ed to
cle
an u
p of
RA
L.
Th
e IN
L sc
hedu
le a
nd a
vaila
bilit
y to
beg
in p
rodu
ctio
n w
ould
take
long
er th
an th
e ba
se c
ase.
Som
e fo
rm o
f a D
OE
Ord
er 4
13.3
B p
roce
ss
wou
ld b
e re
quire
d fo
r the
mod
ifica
tions
nee
ded
to e
stab
lish
targ
et p
rodu
ctio
n an
d pr
oces
sing
faci
litie
s at R
AL.
INL
optio
ns w
ould
not
allo
w p
rodu
ctio
n of
Pu-
238
by 2
018.
OR
NL
wou
ld h
ave
to d
evel
op ta
rget
s and
fabr
icat
ion
spec
ifica
tion,
and
tran
sfer
tech
nolo
gy to
an
alte
rnat
e si
te.
Ris
k to
All
Proj
ect O
bjec
tives
Team
Com
men
ts
INL
has e
xper
ienc
e in
the
sepa
ratio
n an
d ha
ndlin
g of
TR
Us,
prim
arily
from
fuel
cyc
le w
ork
in su
ppor
t of r
esea
rch
reac
tor o
pera
tions
. IN
L al
so h
as e
xten
sive
exp
erie
nce
in c
hem
ical
sepa
ratio
ns, p
rimar
ily a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith re
proc
essi
ng o
f nav
al fu
els.
How
ever
, IN
L ha
s lim
ited
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0 Ta
ble
6-1.
(con
tinue
d).
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
6-11
Te
chni
cal I
nteg
ratio
n O
ffice
Opt
ion
2a:
Tar
get F
abri
catio
n an
d T
arge
t Pro
cess
ing
at IN
L, I
rrad
iatio
n at
HFI
R a
nd A
TR
, Nep
tuni
um S
tora
ge a
t IN
L
expe
rienc
e in
the
prep
arat
ion
of T
RU
targ
ets t
o su
ppor
t irr
adia
tion
and
oper
atio
n of
a re
sear
ch re
acto
r in
a m
ater
ials
pro
duct
ion
mod
e.
Adv
anta
ges
INL
has e
xten
sive
exp
erie
nce
in ra
dioc
hem
istry
, rep
roce
ssin
g of
irra
diat
ed fu
els,
and
sepa
ratio
n of
pro
duct
s. IN
L is
pro
posi
ng th
e us
e of
a
shie
lded
rem
ote
hot c
ell f
acili
ty fo
r pro
cess
ing,
whi
ch w
ould
pro
vide
hig
h as
sura
nce
of c
onta
inm
ent.
The
faci
lity
prop
osed
for u
se c
urre
ntly
ha
s no
dire
ct c
usto
mer
s and
wou
ld b
e de
dica
ted
to th
is p
rogr
am.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
Th
e fa
cilit
y pr
opos
ed fo
r use
(RA
L) h
as e
xten
sive
con
tam
inat
ion
and
will
requ
ire c
lean
up fo
r use
. An
unre
solv
ed q
uest
ion
is w
heth
er
unfo
rese
en c
onta
min
atio
n co
uld
dera
il th
e pr
opos
ed sc
hedu
le fo
r cle
anup
and
refu
rbis
hmen
t with
new
equ
ipm
ent.
RA
L is
loca
ted
in a
n ar
ea o
f the
site
slat
ed fo
r dec
omm
issi
onin
g. T
he c
ost o
f pro
vidi
ng a
rea
infr
astru
ctur
e (s
ecur
ity, u
tiliti
es, e
tc.)
may
go
up in
the
futu
re.
Th
e m
issi
on w
ould
not
be
dire
ctly
rela
ted
to h
isto
rical
site
mis
sion
s. Th
is m
ay te
nd to
isol
ate
the
func
tion
with
in th
e la
bora
tory
or
gani
zatio
nal s
truct
ure,
and
rest
rict o
ppor
tuni
ties f
or p
erso
nnel
adv
ance
men
t or a
ttrac
tion
of n
ew ta
lent
.
INL
wou
ld b
e in
stal
ling
the
fabr
icat
ion
and
proc
essi
ng li
nes i
n a
smal
l foo
tprin
t, lim
iting
flex
ibili
ty o
r exp
ansi
on o
f the
pro
cess
if n
eede
d.
IN
L te
chni
cal c
apab
ility
with
resp
ect t
o TR
Us l
imite
d.
Env
iron
men
tal I
mpa
ct
Team
Com
men
ts
The
INL
optio
n w
ould
gen
erat
e ra
dioa
ctiv
e w
aste
s for
dis
posa
l ass
ocia
ted
with
cle
anup
of t
he R
AL
faci
lity.
Adv
anta
ges
Th
e re
mot
e lo
catio
n of
the
prop
osed
INL
site
(RA
L) o
ffer
s bet
ter s
epar
atio
n of
the
prop
osed
act
iviti
es fr
om th
e pu
blic
than
oth
er o
ptio
ns.
(All
optio
ns, h
owev
er, a
re p
resu
med
to b
e w
ithin
pro
scrib
ed e
nviro
nmen
tal r
equi
rem
ents
.) Fu
rther
, the
RA
L ho
t cel
l env
ironm
ent s
houl
d pr
ovid
e a
high
ass
uran
ce o
f con
tain
men
t ove
r the
pro
ject
life
.
Col
loca
tion
of m
ajor
ope
ratio
ns w
ould
like
ly le
ad to
redu
ced
trans
porta
tion
need
s.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
The
clea
nup
of R
AL
will
pro
duce
was
te st
ream
s not
ass
ocia
ted
with
oth
er o
ptio
ns. T
he w
aste
shou
ld b
e lo
w le
vel,
how
ever
, with
in th
e re
ceip
t lim
its o
f cur
rent
ly o
pera
tiona
l bur
ial s
ites.
W
orke
r an
d Pu
blic
Saf
ety
Team
Com
men
ts
If
targ
et p
rodu
ctio
n an
d pr
oces
sing
wer
e im
plem
ente
d in
RA
L, th
e po
tent
ial e
xist
s for
a h
igh
degr
ee o
f iso
latio
n fr
om th
e pu
blic
.
The
dow
n-si
de to
con
cent
ratin
g al
l act
iviti
es in
one
bui
ldin
g is
that
con
tam
inat
ion
even
ts o
r fac
ility
ups
ets c
ould
impa
ct a
ll fa
cilit
y op
erat
ions
.
Adv
anta
ges
The
use
of th
e re
mot
e ho
t cel
l env
ironm
ent i
n R
AL
for t
arge
t pro
cess
ing
offe
rs th
e po
tent
ial f
or e
xcel
lent
isol
atio
n an
d w
orke
r shi
eldi
ng.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
Porti
ons o
f RA
L hi
gh ra
diat
ion
leve
ls. W
orke
rs w
ill ta
ke o
ccup
atio
nal e
xpos
ure
to c
lean
up
the
RA
L fa
cilit
y pr
ior t
o m
odifi
catio
ns.
A n
umbe
r of p
oten
tial w
aste
stre
ams h
ave
been
iden
tifie
d by
INL
that
will
be
gene
rate
d in
the
clea
nup
of R
AL.
Sc
alab
ility
Team
Com
men
ts
The
Team
’s im
pres
sion
from
INL
Team
mem
bers
is th
at th
e R
AL
conc
ept i
s lim
ited
to th
e ~2
Kg/
year
pro
duct
ion
scen
ario
.
Adv
anta
ges
Non
e id
entif
ied
over
the
base
line.
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0 Ta
ble
6-1.
(con
tinue
d).
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
6-12
Te
chni
cal I
nteg
ratio
n O
ffice
Opt
ion
2a:
Tar
get F
abri
catio
n an
d T
arge
t Pro
cess
ing
at IN
L, I
rrad
iatio
n at
HFI
R a
nd A
TR
, Nep
tuni
um S
tora
ge a
t IN
L
Dis
adva
ntag
es
The
spac
e in
RA
L ap
pear
s to
be h
ighl
y co
nstra
ined
. The
ass
umpt
ion
here
is th
at it
con
stra
ins I
NL
to th
e ~2
Kg/
year
opt
ion.
Th
e sp
ace
with
in R
AL
for f
abric
atin
g ta
rget
s is a
lso
cons
train
ed. L
ittle
spac
e w
ould
be
avai
labl
e to
exp
lore
alte
rnat
e ta
rget
s des
igns
or
fabr
icat
ion.
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion/
Syst
em E
lem
ents
Te
am C
omm
ents
Th
e al
l-IN
L op
tion
elim
inat
es th
e sh
ipm
ent o
f Np-
237
oxid
e fr
om IN
L to
any
off
-site
loca
tion.
On-
site
ship
men
ts w
ould
onl
y be
subj
ect t
o on
-site
tran
spor
tatio
n re
quire
men
ts.
Adv
anta
ges
Con
solid
atin
g ac
tiviti
es a
t IN
L, w
ith n
eptu
nium
stor
age
also
at I
NL,
wou
ld re
duce
the
impa
ct o
f the
tran
spor
tatio
n lin
k.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
This
opt
ion
wou
ld h
ave
a lo
nger
rout
e to
HFI
R fo
r uni
rrad
iate
d an
d irr
adia
ted
targ
ets.
How
ever
, the
rout
e to
ATR
cou
ld b
e pr
opos
ed a
s the
pr
imar
y pa
th o
ver u
se o
f HFI
R, r
educ
ing
the
trans
porta
tion
impa
ct.
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0 Ta
ble
6-1.
(con
tinue
d).
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
6-13
Te
chni
cal I
nteg
ratio
n O
ffice
Opt
ion
2b:
Tar
get F
abri
catio
n at
B&
W F
acili
ty, T
arge
t Pro
cess
ing
at IN
L, I
rrad
iatio
n at
HFI
R a
nd A
TR
, Nep
tuni
um S
tora
ge a
t IN
L
Sum
mar
y Th
is o
ptio
n ha
s hig
her c
osts
and
the
sche
dule
is lo
nger
than
the
OR
NL
base
line.
The
com
mer
cial
and
regu
lato
ry e
nviro
nmen
t in
whi
ch
B&
W o
pera
tes m
ay o
ffer
the
pote
ntia
l for
opt
ions
that
tran
slat
e in
to p
rogr
am c
ost s
avin
gs a
nd n
o sc
hedu
le im
pact
. How
ever
, hig
her
unce
rtain
ties i
n th
e co
st e
stim
ate
and
unkn
own
cont
inge
ncy
asse
ssm
ents
exi
st in
the
B&
W e
stim
ate.
Whi
le so
me
adva
ntag
es fo
r add
ition
al
spac
e av
aila
bilit
y in
RA
L co
uld
be re
aliz
ed to
offe
r add
ition
al fl
exib
ility
or a
n in
crea
se in
the
avai
labl
e pr
oces
sing
thro
ughp
ut, i
t doe
s not
si
gnifi
cant
ly e
nhan
ce o
ptio
n 2a
. The
sam
e is
sues
and
con
cern
s ide
ntifi
ed in
opt
ion
1b w
ould
nee
d to
be
addr
esse
d to
und
erst
and
the
pote
ntia
l sav
ings
and
ass
ocia
ted
prog
ram
risk
s.
Cos
t Te
am C
omm
ents
Th
is o
ptio
n co
mbi
nes t
he p
oten
tial o
r red
uced
targ
et fa
bric
atio
n co
sts a
t B&
W w
ith th
e pr
ojec
ted
high
er u
p-fr
ont c
osts
to re
ady
RA
L at
IN
L. T
he c
osts
wou
ld b
e dr
iven
by
the
cost
s to
prep
are
and
oper
ate
RA
L. T
he c
osts
wou
ld st
ill b
e hi
gher
than
the
base
line
optio
n.
Adv
anta
ges
Non
e id
entif
ied
over
the
base
line.
D
isad
vant
ages
If
INL
only
per
form
s pro
cess
ing,
the
RA
L w
ill st
ill re
quire
cle
anup
and
rem
oval
of e
quip
men
t for
reus
e. T
he to
tal c
osts
wou
ld st
ill b
e hi
gher
than
the
base
line
optio
n.
Sche
dule
Te
am C
omm
ents
Th
e su
bjec
tive
conc
lusi
on o
f sub
ject
mat
ter e
xper
ts is
that
it w
ould
take
long
er to
est
ablis
h ta
rget
fabr
icat
ion
oper
atio
ns a
t B&
W. T
his
optio
n w
ould
be
limite
d by
the
sche
dule
at I
NL
to re
ady
RA
L.
Adv
anta
ges
Spac
e ut
iliza
tion
at IN
L m
ay im
prov
e w
ith th
e el
imin
atio
n of
targ
et fa
bric
atio
n.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
Ea
rly sc
hedu
le u
nlik
ely
due
to re
fit o
f RA
L.
O
RN
L w
ould
hav
e to
dev
elop
targ
et th
en tr
ansf
er te
chno
logy
to a
ltern
ate
site
.
INL
wou
ld h
ave
to d
evel
op n
ew p
roce
ss fl
ow sh
eet a
nd e
quip
men
t.
B&
W w
ould
requ
ire fa
cilit
y m
odifi
catio
ns, a
nd R
AL
wou
ld re
quire
dec
onta
min
atio
n an
d co
ntam
inat
ed e
quip
men
t rem
oval
. R
isk
to A
ll Pr
ojec
t Obj
ectiv
es
Team
Com
men
ts
Th
is o
ptio
n co
mbi
nes t
he p
rogr
amm
atic
risk
ass
ocia
ted
with
B&
W w
ith a
dditi
onal
risk
ass
ocia
ted
with
cle
anup
and
new
con
stru
ctio
n at
R
AL.
B&
W h
as e
xper
ienc
e in
the
past
with
TR
Us (
e.g.
, FFT
F fu
el p
rodu
ctio
n). H
owev
er, t
hese
faci
litie
s and
mis
sion
s are
the
past
. B&
W
heal
th p
hysi
cs su
ppor
t exp
ress
ed so
me
conc
erns
, ind
icat
ing
that
B&
W d
id n
ot re
ally
und
erst
a nd
the
haza
rds a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith n
eptu
nium
co
ntam
inat
ed w
ith P
u-23
8. T
he st
aff t
hat d
evel
oped
the
prop
osal
app
ears
to h
ave
tech
nica
l exp
erie
nce
prim
arily
in m
ater
ials
-rel
ated
re
sear
ch (e
.g.,
fuel
exa
min
atio
n, m
etal
lurg
y, e
tc.).
The
invo
lvem
ent o
f tec
hnic
al s
taff
with
exp
erie
nce
in fu
el fa
bric
atio
n (H
FIR
and
ATR
fu
el) a
ppea
red
min
imal
. The
fuel
pro
duct
ion
staf
f app
eare
d to
hav
e m
inim
al in
volv
emen
t in
the
prop
osal
. B&
W in
dica
ted
that
add
ition
al
DO
E su
ppor
t wou
ld b
e re
quire
d to
brin
g th
e pr
opos
al u
p to
a st
anda
rd th
at B
&W
man
agem
ent w
ould
stan
d be
hind
. A
dvan
tage
s
Proc
ess f
acili
ty a
t IN
L w
ould
be
dedi
cate
d to
the
Pu-2
38 p
rogr
am. S
pace
at B
&W
app
ears
to b
e di
vorc
ed fr
om sp
ecifi
c pr
ogra
m u
ses.
The
base
cas
e ap
pear
s to
use
up th
e pr
oces
s cap
acity
of t
he e
xist
ing
equi
pmen
t at O
RN
L; u
se o
f RA
L fa
cilit
ies m
ay p
rovi
de m
ore
avai
labi
lity
to p
luto
nium
pro
duct
ion
and
not h
ave
to c
ompe
te fo
r tim
e fr
om o
ther
com
mitt
ed p
roje
ct c
ampa
igns
.
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0 Ta
ble
6-1.
(con
tinue
d).
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
6-14
Te
chni
cal I
nteg
ratio
n O
ffice
Opt
ion
2b:
Tar
get F
abri
catio
n at
B&
W F
acili
ty, T
arge
t Pro
cess
ing
at IN
L, I
rrad
iatio
n at
HFI
R a
nd A
TR
, Nep
tuni
um S
tora
ge a
t IN
L
Dis
adva
ntag
es
B
&W
wou
ld b
e in
trodu
cing
TR
Us i
nto
a fa
cilit
y th
at c
urre
ntly
doe
s not
hav
e an
y.
B
&W
link
to o
pera
tiona
l sup
port
appe
ared
min
imal
.
Targ
et fa
bric
atio
n op
erat
ions
at B
&W
may
cau
se u
nint
ende
d co
nstra
ints
or i
mpa
cts o
n ot
her p
lant
ope
ratio
ns th
at a
re in
clo
se p
roxi
mity
to
the
prop
osed
faci
lity.
E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Te
am C
omm
ents
Th
e sa
me
aspe
cts a
nd c
omm
ents
iden
tifie
d in
opt
ions
2a
and
1b w
ould
app
ly fo
r thi
s opt
ion.
A
dvan
tage
s Th
e R
AL
faci
lity
is o
pen
for r
euse
with
no
impa
ct o
n ot
her p
rogr
ams.
D
isad
vant
ages
B&
W w
ould
be
intro
duci
ng T
RU
s int
o a
faci
lity
not a
ccus
tom
ed to
such
act
ivity
.
B&
W m
ay re
quire
the
retu
rn o
f was
te st
ream
s, w
hich
wou
ld b
e di
fficu
lt to
aut
horiz
e.
Wor
ker
and
Publ
ic S
afet
y Te
am C
omm
ents
This
opt
ion
com
bine
s the
env
ironm
enta
l im
pact
of r
adio
activ
e w
aste
retu
rns f
rom
B&
W w
ith th
e w
aste
s ass
ocia
ted
with
cle
anup
of
RA
L.
Th
e re
gula
tory
env
ironm
ent i
n w
hich
B&
W o
pera
tes m
ay o
ffer
the
pote
ntia
l for
opt
ions
that
tran
slat
e in
to p
rogr
am c
ost s
avin
gs.
Spec
ifica
lly, B
&W
has
pro
pose
d th
e el
imin
atio
n of
the
nept
uniu
m c
lean
up st
ep p
rior t
o pe
llet f
abric
atio
n. T
his s
t ep
may
elim
inat
e w
et
chem
istry
was
te st
ream
s. H
owev
er, i
t can
als
o re
sult
in th
e in
crea
se in
radi
atio
n ex
posu
re to
line
wor
kers
in p
elle
t fab
ricat
ion.
B&
W
oper
ates
to h
ighe
r allo
wab
le w
orke
r exp
osur
e lim
its th
an c
ompa
red
to O
RN
L, m
akin
g th
is o
ptio
n po
ssib
l e. B
&W
is n
ot p
enal
ized
in th
e co
mpa
rativ
e ra
nkin
g of
opt
ions
for p
ropo
sing
this
opt
ion.
How
ever
, dire
ct c
onse
quen
ces o
f eac
h ap
proa
ch m
ust b
e re
cogn
ized
. A
dvan
tage
s N
one
iden
tifie
d ov
er th
e ba
selin
e.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
Th
ere
has b
een
no p
ublic
dis
cuss
ion
of in
trodu
cing
TR
Us b
ack
into
the
B&
W fa
cilit
y.
Sm
alle
r bou
ndar
y to
pub
lic.
A
dditi
onal
tran
spor
tatio
n of
reje
cts b
etw
een
B&
W a
nd IN
L.
Pr
opos
ed B
&W
bui
ldin
g ju
dged
less
robu
st th
an O
RN
L ba
se.
Scal
abili
ty
Team
Com
men
ts
Th
is o
ptio
n co
mbi
nes t
he li
mite
d sc
alab
ility
of B
&W
with
the
limite
d sc
alab
ility
of t
he sp
ace
limita
tions
with
in R
AL.
Add
ition
al e
ffor
t is n
eede
d to
bet
ter d
efin
e th
e sc
ope,
sche
dule
, and
cos
t for
the
B&
W p
ropo
sal e
spec
ially
look
ing
at in
crea
sing
pr
oduc
tion
or fa
bric
atin
g lo
nger
targ
et ro
ds.
Adv
anta
ges
Non
e id
entif
ied
over
the
base
line.
D
isad
vant
ages
B&
W w
ould
acc
ept t
he ta
rget
des
ign
from
OR
NL,
with
littl
e ap
pare
nt fl
exib
ility
for s
ubse
quen
t dev
elop
men
t.
The
spac
e sh
own
for I
NL
and
B&
W a
ppea
red
very
lim
ited,
with
littl
e ro
om fo
r exp
ansi
on.
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion/
Syst
em E
lem
ents
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0 Ta
ble
6-1.
(con
tinue
d).
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
6-15
Te
chni
cal I
nteg
ratio
n O
ffice
Opt
ion
2b:
Tar
get F
abri
catio
n at
B&
W F
acili
ty, T
arge
t Pro
cess
ing
at IN
L, I
rrad
iatio
n at
HFI
R a
nd A
TR
, Nep
tuni
um S
tora
ge a
t IN
L
Team
Com
men
ts
Th
ere
is a
slig
ht in
crea
se in
tran
spor
tatio
n fo
r rej
ects
bac
k to
INL,
but
nor
mal
com
mer
cial
tran
spor
t is s
uffic
ient
and
no
spec
ial v
ehic
les
are
requ
ired.
B&
W w
ill re
quire
mod
ifica
tion
to th
e st
ate
licen
se fo
r byp
rodu
ct m
ater
ials
; how
ever
, tha
t is s
een
as s
traig
htfo
rwar
d.
Adv
anta
ges
Non
e id
entif
ied
over
the
base
line.
D
isad
vant
ages
B&
W h
as h
andl
ed T
RU
s at t
his l
ocat
ion
in th
e pa
st, b
ut it
has
bee
n se
vera
l dec
ades
and
the
proj
ect r
equi
red
exte
nsiv
e re
med
iatio
n.
C
ompa
red
to th
e ba
selin
e, th
ere
are
inhe
rent
risk
s whe
n sh
ippi
ng d
ue to
sche
dule
del
ays o
r pro
blem
s with
ship
ping
. Giv
en th
e fa
ct th
at
the
Nuc
lear
Mat
eria
ls &
Insp
ectio
n Se
rvic
e gr
oup
in th
e LT
C h
as n
o ex
perie
nce
in h
andl
ing
Np-
237
or re
sidu
al q
uant
ities
of P
u-23
8 in
th
e re
proc
esse
d N
p-23
7 ad
ditio
nal r
isk
to th
e co
st, s
ched
ule,
and
inst
alla
tion
wou
ld b
e ex
pect
ed.
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0 Ta
ble
6-1.
(con
tinue
d).
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
6-16
Te
chni
cal I
nteg
ratio
n O
ffice
Opt
ion
3a:
Tar
get F
abri
catio
n at
OR
NL
and
Tar
get P
roce
ssin
g at
SR
S, Ir
radi
atio
n at
HFI
R a
nd A
TR
, Nep
tuni
um S
tora
ge a
t IN
L
Sum
mar
y
The
SRS
optio
n ha
s a p
rove
n hi
stor
ical
reco
rd o
f pro
cess
ing
Pu-2
38. A
ll of
the
equi
pmen
t and
faci
litie
s rem
ain
in so
me
form
on
the
site
. Th
e SR
S Te
am h
as h
igh
conf
iden
ce th
at th
e se
para
tion
func
tion
coul
d be
bro
ught
on
line
to o
pera
te w
ithin
the
cost
and
sche
dule
tim
efra
mes
pro
vide
d to
DO
E. H
owev
er, t
he c
osts
are
hig
her a
nd th
e sc
hedu
le w
ould
be
long
er re
lativ
e to
OR
NL
base
line
optio
n. T
he
SRS
cost
is p
rimar
ily th
e co
sts t
o re
-est
ablis
h th
e fr
ames
ope
ratio
n. T
he fr
ames
are
alre
ady
proc
ured
and
on
site
. Pre
dom
inat
e co
st is
as
soci
ated
with
fabr
icat
ing
the
jum
pers
nee
ded
to m
ake
the
fram
es o
pera
tiona
l. Si
nce
H-C
anyo
n is
cur
rent
ly in
ope
ratio
n, th
e pr
ogra
m
does
not
hav
e to
be
burd
ened
with
the
tota
l cos
t of f
acili
ty o
pera
tion
or w
aste
dis
posa
l.
The
H-C
anyo
n an
d H
B-L
ine
have
a li
mite
d pr
ojec
ted
lifet
ime.
Cur
rent
pro
ject
s ext
end
oper
atio
ns 7
-8 y
ears
. Bey
ond
that
, pro
ject
ing
cany
on li
fetim
e an
d co
sts b
ecom
e m
ore
unce
rtain
.
The
capa
city
of t
he S
RS
equi
pmen
t is l
arge
per
the
Pu-2
38 p
roje
ct n
eeds
(i.e
., 2
Kg/
mon
th v
s. 2
Kg/
year
). Th
e ca
paci
ty w
ould
be
idle
m
ost o
f the
yea
r, w
ith q
ualif
icat
ion
runs
requ
ired.
The
SR
S op
tion
wou
ld b
e m
uch
bette
r sui
ted
to a
n op
tion
with
20
Kg/
year
pro
duct
ion
rate
or m
ore.
All
othe
r eva
luat
ion
fact
ors a
re c
onsi
dere
d by
the
Team
to b
e be
tter o
r the
sam
e as
the
OR
NL
base
line
optio
n.
Cos
t Te
am C
omm
ents
Th
is c
ost w
ould
be
prim
arily
the
cost
s at S
RS
to re
-est
ablis
h th
e fr
ames
ope
ratio
n. H
owev
er, s
ince
the
fram
es a
re a
lread
y pr
ocur
ed a
nd o
n si
te, t
he p
redo
min
ant c
ost i
s ass
ocia
ted
with
fabr
icat
ing
the
jum
pers
nee
ded
to m
ake
the
fram
es o
pera
tiona
l. Si
nce
H-C
anyo
n is
cur
rent
ly in
op
erat
ion,
the
prog
ram
doe
s not
hav
e to
be
burd
ened
with
the
tota
l cos
t of f
acili
ty o
pera
tion
or w
aste
dis
posa
l. A
dvan
tage
s N
one
iden
tifie
d ov
er th
e ba
selin
e.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
H
igh
cost
s rel
ativ
e to
OR
NL.
The
H-C
anyo
n an
d H
B-L
ine
have
a li
mite
d pr
ojec
ted
lifet
ime.
Cur
rent
pro
ject
s ext
end
oper
atio
ns 7
-8
year
s. B
eyon
d th
at, p
roje
ctin
g ca
nyon
life
time
and
cost
s bec
omes
mor
e un
certa
in.
Th
e ca
paci
ty o
f the
SR
S eq
uipm
ent i
s lar
ge p
er p
rogr
am n
eeds
(i.e
., 2
Kg/
mon
th v
s. 2
Kg/
year
). Th
e ca
paci
ty w
ould
be
idle
mos
t of t
he
year
, with
qua
lific
atio
n ru
ns re
quire
d.
Sche
dule
Te
am C
omm
ents
A li
miti
ng fa
ctor
is ta
rget
dev
elop
men
t to
get a
pro
duct
ion
run
of ta
rget
s int
o th
e re
acto
r by
2018
. If t
arge
t pro
duct
ion
occu
rs in
201
8,
the
scor
e is
the
sam
e as
the
base
cas
e. T
he e
xces
s cap
acity
repr
esen
ted
by th
e SR
S ca
nyon
wou
ld o
nly
be a
n ad
vant
age
if ta
rget
pr
oces
sing
wer
e de
laye
d an
d la
rger
bat
ches
of t
arge
ts a
ccum
ulat
ed. O
nce
initi
ated
, the
cap
acity
of t
he c
anyo
n co
uld
rapi
dly
c ons
ume
any
back
log,
min
imiz
ing
the
pote
ntia
l for
add
ition
al p
rogr
am d
elay
s in
rece
ivin
g pr
oduc
t.
SRS
has h
ad th
e eq
uipm
ent i
n st
orag
e fo
r yea
rs. T
he is
sues
wou
ld b
e ve
rifyi
ng th
at th
e fr
ames
are
read
y fo
r ins
talla
tion,
and
that
they
ca
n op
erat
e ef
ficie
ntly
at t
he m
ater
ial l
evel
s pro
pose
d fo
r the
pro
gram
. The
re is
a re
lativ
ely
high
leve
l of c
onfid
ence
that
SR
S co
uld
com
plet
e re
-inst
alla
tion
of e
quip
men
t in
supp
ort o
f the
pro
pose
d sc
hedu
le.
Adv
anta
ges
If
OR
NL
focu
sed
on ta
rget
dev
elop
men
t and
qua
lific
atio
n, S
RS
coul
d su
ppor
t ear
lier p
roce
ssin
g.
SR
S ha
s hig
h co
nfid
ence
that
the
func
tion
coul
d be
bro
ught
on
line
with
in th
e pr
opos
ed sc
hedu
le.
Po
ssib
ly b
ette
r, if
redu
ced
OR
NL
mis
sion
acc
eler
ated
targ
et d
evel
opm
ent.
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0 Ta
ble
6-1.
(con
tinue
d).
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
6-17
Te
chni
cal I
nteg
ratio
n O
ffice
Opt
ion
3a:
Tar
get F
abri
catio
n at
OR
NL
and
Tar
get P
roce
ssin
g at
SR
S, Ir
radi
atio
n at
HFI
R a
nd A
TR
, Nep
tuni
um S
tora
ge a
t IN
L
Dis
adva
ntag
es
The
H-C
anyo
n an
d H
B-L
ine
have
a li
mite
d pr
ojec
ted
lifet
ime.
Cur
rent
pro
ject
s ext
end
oper
atio
ns 7
-8 y
ears
. Bey
ond
that
, pro
ject
ing
cany
on
lifet
ime
and
cost
s bec
omes
mor
e un
certa
in.
Ris
k to
All
Proj
ect O
bjec
tives
Team
Com
men
ts
SRS
has h
igh
conf
iden
ce th
at th
e se
para
tion
func
tion
coul
d be
bro
ught
on
line
and
oper
ate
as a
dver
tised
.
Adv
anta
ges
Se
para
tion
fact
ors a
nd re
cove
ry fr
actio
ns a
re w
ell d
efin
ed fo
r SR
S pr
oces
s.
SR
S ha
s a h
igh
degr
ee o
f tec
hnic
al a
ssur
ance
in p
rogr
am su
cces
s for
repr
oces
sing
and
reco
very
of p
rodu
ct a
nd re
cycl
e of
nep
tuni
um
with
the
SRS
tech
nolo
gy.
SR
S ha
s a h
igh
degr
ee o
f tec
hnic
al a
ssur
ance
that
nep
tuni
um re
cycl
e an
d pl
uton
ium
pro
duct
will
mee
t pro
gram
mat
ic e
xpec
tatio
ns fo
r pu
rity,
trac
e co
nstit
uent
s, an
d m
inim
al lo
ss to
was
te.
SR
S ha
s equ
ipm
ent i
n st
orag
e th
at w
ould
requ
ire re
inst
alla
tion
and
inst
rum
enta
tion.
SRS
has h
igh
tech
nica
l com
pete
nce
at S
RS
in T
RU
s.
This
opt
ion
wou
ld fr
ee O
RN
L pr
oces
s for
hig
her-
actin
ide
prog
ram
, and
SR
S pr
oces
s has
dem
onst
rate
d hi
stor
y of
mee
ting
Pu-2
38 n
eeds
.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
Lim
ited
proj
ecte
d lif
e an
d la
rge
scal
e ca
pabi
lity
of th
e ca
nyon
mak
es a
n ill
-fit
with
the
prop
osed
smal
l ann
ual p
rodu
ctio
n ra
te. S
RS
optio
n w
ould
be
muc
h be
tter s
uite
d to
an
optio
n w
ith 2
0 K
g/ye
ar p
rodu
ctio
n or
mor
e (e
.g.,
with
qua
lific
atio
n of
a ta
rget
for c
omm
erci
al ir
radi
atio
n,
and
irrad
iatio
n of
100
Kg/
year
or m
ore
of n
eptu
nium
targ
ets)
.
Env
iron
men
tal I
mpa
ct
Team
Com
men
ts
The
disp
ositi
on p
aths
for w
aste
stre
ams f
rom
pro
cess
ing
at S
RS
are
high
ly d
efin
ed a
nd o
pera
tiona
l. SR
S ha
s the
onl
y hi
gh-le
vel w
aste
sy
stem
inte
grat
ed w
ith a
was
te v
itrifi
catio
n sy
stem
.
Adv
anta
ges
Was
tes f
rom
pro
cess
ing
at S
RS
wou
ld b
e di
rect
ed to
the
high
-leve
l was
te sy
stem
, with
subs
eque
nt v
itrifi
catio
n in
the
Def
ense
Was
te
Proc
essi
ng F
acili
ty. T
he v
olum
e of
was
tes t
hat w
ould
be
gene
rate
d is
incr
emen
tally
sm
all c
ompa
red
to th
e w
aste
vol
ume
alre
ady
awai
ting
vitri
ficat
ion
at S
RS.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
Non
e id
entif
ied
over
the
base
line.
Wor
ker
and
Publ
ic S
afet
y
Team
Com
men
ts
H-C
anyo
n ha
s ope
rate
d fo
r ove
r 50
year
s with
hig
h as
sura
nce
of sa
fety
to w
orke
rs a
nd th
e pu
blic
.
Adv
anta
ges
The
H-C
anyo
n en
viro
nmen
t pro
vide
s a h
igh
degr
ee o
f ass
uran
ce th
at p
roce
ss m
ater
ials
will
be
mai
ntai
ned
with
in th
e bo
unda
ries o
f the
ca
nyon
, and
that
rele
ases
and
exp
osur
e to
wor
kers
and
the
publ
ic w
ill b
e he
ld to
his
toric
ally
low
leve
ls.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
Non
e id
entif
ied
over
the
base
line.
Scal
abili
ty
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0 Ta
ble
6-1.
(con
tinue
d).
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
6-18
Te
chni
cal I
nteg
ratio
n O
ffice
Opt
ion
3a:
Tar
get F
abri
catio
n at
OR
NL
and
Tar
get P
roce
ssin
g at
SR
S, Ir
radi
atio
n at
HFI
R a
nd A
TR
, Nep
tuni
um S
tora
ge a
t IN
L
Team
Com
men
ts
The
scal
e di
sadv
anta
ge o
f H-C
anyo
n fo
r the
bas
e ca
se b
ecom
es a
n ad
vant
age
whe
n co
nsid
erin
g sc
alab
ility
. H-C
anyo
n an
d H
B-L
ine
coul
d ac
cept
mat
eria
l flo
ws p
rodu
cing
2 K
g/m
onth
.
Adv
anta
ges
SRS
capa
city
in H
-Can
yon
and
HB
-Lin
e co
uld
read
ily a
ccep
t sca
le-u
p of
pro
gram
dem
ands
by
a fa
ctor
of 1
0 or
mor
e (in
exc
ess o
f 2
Kg/
mon
th).
This
, how
ever
, wou
ld re
quire
con
side
ratio
n of
nep
tuni
um ta
rget
flow
s on
the
orde
r of 1
00 K
g/ye
ar, w
hich
wou
ld e
xcee
d th
e ca
paci
ty o
f DO
E irr
adia
tion
faci
litie
s ass
umed
for t
he b
ase
case
(HFI
R a
nd A
TR).
This
wou
ld im
ply
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f a su
itabl
e ta
rget
fo
r com
mer
cial
irra
diat
ion
(i.e.
, Np -
237
oxid
e cl
ad in
zirc
oniu
m o
r sta
inle
ss st
eel)
and
larg
e-sc
ale
use
of c
omm
erci
al re
acto
rs fo
r tar
get
irrad
iatio
n.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
Up-
fron
t pro
gram
cos
ts w
ould
be
incr
ease
d. H
owev
er, s
uch
a pr
ogra
m c
ould
pro
vide
DO
E an
d N
ASA
with
an
orde
r of m
agni
tude
mor
e pl
uton
ium
ove
r the
nex
t 5 y
ears
(i.e
., 25
Kg
vs. 7
.5 K
g). W
hile
the
initi
al c
osts
wou
ld b
e hi
gher
, the
Tea
m th
inks
that
this
opt
ion
shou
ld st
ill
be a
ble
to g
ener
ate
the
prod
uct o
n a
com
para
ble
or lo
wer
$/K
g ba
sis.
Furth
er a
naly
sis i
s nee
ded
to v
erify
this
ass
umpt
ion.
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion/
Syst
em E
lem
ents
Te
am C
omm
ents
Tr
ansp
orta
tion
wou
ld b
e co
mpa
rabl
e to
the
base
cas
e. S
RS,
how
ever
, is e
xper
ienc
ed in
the
pack
agin
g an
d sh
ippi
ng o
f the
Pu-
238
prod
uct i
n ox
ide
form
. A
dvan
tage
s N
one
iden
tifie
d ov
er th
e ba
selin
e.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
Non
e id
entif
ied
over
the
base
line.
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0 Ta
ble
6-1.
(con
tinue
d).
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
6-19
Te
chni
cal I
nteg
ratio
n O
ffice
Opt
ion
3b:
Tar
get F
abri
catio
n at
B&
W F
acili
ty, T
arge
t Pro
cess
ing
at S
RS,
Irra
diat
ion
at H
FIR
and
AT
R, N
eptu
nium
Sto
rage
at I
NL
Sum
mar
y
The
SRS
optio
n ha
s a p
rove
n hi
stor
ical
reco
rd o
f pro
cess
ing
Pu-2
38. T
he c
omm
erci
al a
nd re
gula
tory
env
ironm
ent i
n w
hich
B&
W
oper
ates
may
off
er th
e po
tent
ial f
or o
ptio
ns w
hich
tran
slat
e in
to p
rogr
am c
ost s
avin
gs a
nd n
o sc
hedu
le im
pact
. How
ever
, the
cos
ts fo
r th
is o
ptio
n ar
e hi
gher
and
the
sche
dule
wou
ld b
e lo
nger
rela
tive
to O
RN
L ba
selin
e op
tion.
The
SR
S co
st is
prim
arily
the
cost
s to
re-
esta
blis
h th
e fr
ames
ope
ratio
n.
H
ighe
r unc
erta
intie
s rem
ain
in th
e co
st e
stim
ate
and
unkn
own
cont
inge
ncy
asse
ssm
ents
exi
st in
the
B&
W e
stim
ate.
Fur
ther
stud
y an
d an
alys
is a
re n
eede
d to
gai
n a
bette
r con
fiden
ce in
the
cost
, sch
edul
e, a
nd a
ssoc
iate
d ris
k es
timat
es. W
ith re
spec
t to
life-
cycl
e pr
ojec
t co
sts,
the
over
all s
avin
gs o
f thi
s alte
rnat
ive
wer
e ju
dged
by
the
Team
to b
e m
inim
al, w
ithin
the
nois
e of
the
unce
rtain
ty in
the
proj
ect
cost
s.
The
H-C
anyo
n an
d H
B-L
ine
have
a li
mite
d pr
ojec
ted
lifet
ime.
Cur
rent
pro
ject
s ext
end
oper
atio
ns 7
-8 y
ears
. Bey
ond
that
, pro
ject
ing
cany
on li
fetim
e an
d co
sts b
ecom
e m
ore
unce
rtain
.
The
capa
city
of t
he S
RS
equi
pmen
t is l
arge
per
the
Pu-2
38 p
roje
ct n
eeds
(i.e
., 2
Kg/
mon
th v
s. 2
Kg/
year
). Th
e ca
paci
ty w
ould
be
idle
m
ost o
f the
yea
r, w
ith q
ualif
icat
ion
runs
requ
ired.
The
SR
S op
tion
wou
ld b
e m
uch
bette
r sui
ted
to a
n op
tion
with
20
Kg/
year
pro
duct
ion
rate
or m
ore.
Fina
lly, t
he N
p-23
7 is
cur
rent
ly tr
eate
d as
a b
ypro
duct
mat
eria
l per
the
B&
W N
RC
lice
nse.
How
ever
, DO
E tre
ats t
he m
ater
ial a
s a S
NM
co
mpa
rabl
e to
U-2
33. S
peci
al p
rovi
sion
s wou
ld h
ave
to b
e pu
t in
plac
e to
requ
ire th
e au
gmen
tatio
n of
the
B&
W a
ccou
ntab
ility
syst
em to
pr
oper
ly in
terf
ace
with
the
leve
l of m
ater
ial a
ccou
ntab
ility
exp
ecte
d by
DO
E fo
r rec
eipt
of t
he n
eptu
nium
.
Cos
t
Team
Com
men
ts
This
opt
ion
is th
e sa
me
as o
ptio
n 3a
with
the
exce
ptio
n th
at th
e ta
rget
fabr
icat
ion
wou
ld b
e do
ne a
t the
B&
W fa
cilit
y. T
he sa
me
findi
ngs
and
disc
ussi
ons f
ound
in o
ptio
ns 1
b, 2
b, re
lativ
e to
util
izin
g th
e B
&W
faci
litie
s, an
d th
e 3a
opt
ions
rem
ain
valid
for t
his o
ptio
n.
Adv
anta
ges
The
regu
lato
ry e
nviro
nmen
t in
whi
ch B
&W
ope
rate
s may
off
er th
e po
tent
ial f
or p
rogr
am c
ost s
avin
gs w
ithou
t an
impa
ct o
n th
e ov
eral
l pr
ojec
t sch
edul
e.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
SRS
will
requ
ire si
gnifi
cant
up-
fron
t cos
ts to
re-e
stab
lish
the
fram
es. N
ote
that
cap
acity
of e
quip
men
t is l
arge
per
pro
gram
nee
ds (i
.e.,
2 K
g/m
onth
). Th
e ca
paci
ty w
ould
be
idle
mos
t of t
he y
ear,
with
qua
lific
atio
n ru
ns re
quire
d. H
owev
er, h
ighe
r unc
erta
intie
s in
the
cost
est
imat
e an
d ne
eded
con
tinge
ncy
exis
t in
the
B&
W e
stim
ate.
Fur
ther
stud
y an
d an
alys
is is
nee
ded
to g
ain
a be
tter c
onfid
ence
in th
e co
s t a
nd
sche
dule
est
imat
es.
Sche
dule
Te
am C
omm
ents
Th
e lim
iting
fact
or is
targ
et d
evel
opm
ent t
o ge
t a p
rodu
ctio
n in
to th
e re
acto
r by
2018
. As w
ith o
ptio
n 3a
, the
exc
ess c
apac
ity re
pres
ente
d by
th
e SR
S ca
nyon
wou
ld o
nly
be a
n ad
vant
age
if ta
rget
pro
cess
ing
wer
e de
laye
d an
d la
rger
bat
ches
of t
arge
ts a
ccum
ulat
ed. O
nce
initi
ated
, the
ca
paci
ty o
f the
can
yon
coul
d ra
pidl
y co
nsum
e an
y ba
cklo
g, m
inim
izin
g th
e po
tent
ial f
or a
dditi
onal
pro
gram
del
ays i
n re
ceiv
ing
prod
uct.
Adv
anta
ges
SRS
coul
d su
ppor
t ear
lier p
roce
ssin
g, p
rovi
ded
a ta
rget
cou
ld b
e qu
alifi
ed a
nd su
ffici
ent m
ater
ial i
rrad
iate
d. T
he c
onfid
ence
that
targ
et
fabr
icat
ion
coul
d be
initi
ated
ear
ly a
t B&
W is
low
er. T
he fa
cilit
y m
odifi
catio
ns re
quire
d to
loca
te th
e pr
ojec
t at t
he B
&W
faci
lity
appe
ared
to
be
min
imal
, and
cou
ld li
kely
be
perf
orm
ed w
ithin
the
sche
dule
. B&
W in
dica
ted
that
mod
ifica
tions
to o
pera
tiona
l per
mits
for b
ypro
duct
m
ater
ials
wou
ld b
e re
quire
d, b
ut c
ould
be
hand
led
at th
e st
ate
leve
l and
wou
ld b
e co
mpl
eted
with
in th
e sc
hedu
le c
onst
rain
ts.
INL/
EXT-
13-2
8846
R
ev:
0 Ta
ble
6-1.
(con
tinue
d).
Pu-2
38 P
rodu
ctio
n Al
tern
ativ
es A
naly
sis
6-20
Te
chni
cal I
nteg
ratio
n O
ffice
Opt
ion
3b:
Tar
get F
abri
catio
n at
B&
W F
acili
ty, T
arge
t Pro
cess
ing
at S
RS,
Irra
diat
ion
at H
FIR
and
AT
R, N
eptu
nium
Sto
rage
at I
NL
D
isad
vant
ages
Th
e di
sadv
anta
ges w
ould
be
com
para
ble
to o
ptio
n 1b
with
resp
ect t
o ta
rget
fabr
icat
ion.
R
isk
to A
ll Pr
ojec
t Obj
ectiv
es
Team
Com
men
ts
Ris
ks w
ould
be
the
sam
e as
iden
tifie
d in
opt
ions
1b
and
3a.
Adv
anta
ges
O
ptio
n m
ay p
ossi
bly
be b
ette
r tha
n ba
selin
e op
tion,
in th
at s
epar
atio
n fa
ctor
s and
reco
very
frac
tions
are
wel
l def
ined
for S
RS
proc
ess.
SR
S ha
s equ
ipm
ent i
n st
orag
e th
at w
ould
requ
ire re
inst
alla
tion
and
inst
rum
enta
tion.
Hig
h te
chni
cal c
ompe
tenc
e at
SR
S in
TR
Us.
SRS
proc
ess h
as d
emon
stra
ted
hist
ory
of m
eetin
g Pu
-238
nee
ds.
Dis
adva
ntag
es
B&
W fa
cilit
y w
ould
requ
ire m
odifi
catio
ns to
rem
ove
equi
pmen
t, ad
d ve
ntila
tion.
B
&W
wou
ld b
e in
trodu
cing
TR
Us i
nto
a fa
cilit
y no
t acc
usto
med
to su
ch a
ctiv
ity.
Env
iron
men
tal I
mpa
cts
Team
Com
men
ts
Envi
ronm
enta
l ass
essm
ent w
ould
be
the
sam
e as
iden
tifie
d in
opt
ions
1b
and
3a.
Wor
ker
and
Publ
ic S
afet
y Te
am C
omm
ents
W
orke
r and
pub
lic sa
fety
ass
essm
ent w
ould
be
the
sam
e as
iden
tifie
d in
opt
ions
1b
and
3a.
Scal
abili
ty
Team
Com
men
ts
Scal
abili
ty a
sses
smen
t wou
ld b
e th
e sa
me
as id
entif
ied
in o
ptio
ns 1
b an
d 3a
. T
rans
port
atio
n/Sy
stem
Ele
men
ts
Team
Com
men
ts
Th
ere
is a
slig
ht in
crea
se in
tran
spor
tatio
n fo
r rej
ects
bac
k to
SR
S, b
ut n
orm
al c
omm
erci
al tr
ansp
ort i
s suf
ficie
nt a
nd n
o sp
ecia
l veh
icle
s ar
e re
quire
d.
B
&W
will
requ
ire m
odifi
catio
n to
the
stat
e lic
ense
for b
ypro
duct
mat
eria
ls; h
owev
er, t
hat i
s con
side
red
stra
ight
forw
ard.
The
dist
ance
bet
wee
n th
e B
&W
faci
lity
and
SRS
is c
onsi
dere
d a
negl
igib
le fa
ctor
com
pare
d to
oth
er o
ptio
n.
O
ther
tran
spor
tatio
n/sy
stem
ass
essm
ent w
ould
be
the
sam
e as
iden
tifie
d in
opt
ions
1b
and
3a.
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 6-21 Technical Integration Office
The site facilities and function associated with each option are identified in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2. Proposed Pu-238 production options for evaluation.
Function / Location Options
1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b Neptunium Target Fabrication/Modified ORNL Facility Irradiated Target Processing/ORNL REDC Facility Neptunium Target Fabrication/B&W Facility Irradiated Target Processing/SRS Facility Neptunium Target Fabrication/Modified INL Facility Irradiated Target Processing/Modified INL Facility Neptunium Storage/INL* Target Irradiation/HFIR and ATR *Cost analysis performed by INL for the storage and transport of Np-237 Oxide (INL 0211a) has shown that the most economical pathway for the project is to utilize the storage facilities at INL and ship neptunium to the designated fabrication site in a “just-in-time” or “as needed” manner. Therefore, the assessment did not address alternate storage options such as complete transfer of the Np-237 oxide to ORNL or SRS as no alternative indicated that cost savings would result.
6.2 Team Evaluation
Table 6-3 summarizes the Team’s assessment. Each option was compared to the Baseline Option 1a using the evaluation factors discussed above. Detailed comments from the Team are captured in Table 6-1, where the option’s advantages and disadvantages are identified as compared to the base option as well as the Team overall assessment of the option.
Table 6-3. Summary Pu-238 production options evaluation.
Evaluation Factors Options
1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b Cost Schedule 1 1 Risk to all Project Objectives 2 2 3 2 Environmental Impact 4 4 Worker and Public Safety Scalability Transportation/System Elements 5 1. Start of SRS will be dependent on completion of NEPA activities. However, target fabrication and irradiation in HFIR and
ATR in a production mode could begin 2018. Because of the capacity of the SRS H-B Line, any initial delay in production schedule could be quickly regained within a short operational period.
2. Installing target fabrication and processing at B&W is judged to increase project risk in each case due to the facility upgrades needs and associated training for operational staff relative to the expertise at the national laboratories being considered.
3. All operations and procedures have been established and demonstrated. Sufficient capacity exists so that most normal or unplanned operational downtime events would be able to be handled without affecting long term production quantities
4. Facilities provide excellent containment and isolation of processes. INL and SRS sites have larger boundary areas to general public.
5. INL would have a reduced transportation link because the neptunium and ATR are all on one site.
Substantially Better Marginally Better Comparable Marginally Worse Substantially Worse
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 6-22 Technical Integration Office
6.2.1 Summary Pu-238 Production Options Cost Evaluation
The Team developed life-cycle cost elements of the various options to provide some information for cost comparisons. The Team did not adjust any of the cost figures provided by the various candidate facilities, but are presented as provided by the facility option sponsor. The Team did provide some estimates on values when they were not provided by the facility estimate. It should be noted that options 1a and 2a do provide contingency in their cost estimates. The others do not include any contingency factors or costs in their estimate.
Comments were provided by the Team in the individual cost assessment sections for the option to provide some additional perspective regarding the cost evaluation.
Table 6-4 is a summary table showing a relative comparison of the initial project costs, operations cost, total project costs, and total life-cycle cost for the various options.
Table 6-4. Cost evaluation comparison for Pu-238.
Cost Categories 1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b
Initial Project Funding $92,000
Operations Cost $25,000
Total Project Cost $1,540,000
Total Life-Cycle Cost Discounted $674,000
Substantially Better Marginally Better Comparable Marginally Worse Substantially Worse
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 7-1 Technical Integration Office
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
After reviewing the data and analyzing the options, the Team developed the following recommendation: The Team recommends continuing with Option 1a: “Target fabrication and target processing at ORNL, irradiation at HFIR and ATR, neptunium storage at INL.” This option provides the lowest cost and lowest risk to the DOE. It also re-establishes Pu-238 production in the shortest time.
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 8-1 Technical Integration Office
8. REFERENCES
Space Defense Power Systems Technical Integration Office, 2012, “Plutonium-238 Production Alternatives Analysis Final Report” September, 2012.
66 FR 7877, Federal Register, “Record of Decision for the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility.”
Babcock & Wilcox, 2012, “NpO2 Target Production Feasibility Study for B&W’s Mt. Athos Site,” Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services Group, January 2012.
DOE, 2000a, Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility, DOE/EIS-0310, U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, Washington, DC, December.
DOE, 2000b, Supplemental Analysis, Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility, DOE/EIS-0310-SA-01, U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
DOE, 2011, Draft “Program Management Plan for the Pu-238 Supply Program,” March, 2011.
DOE G 413.3-4A, 2011, “Technology Readiness Assessment Guide,” U.S. Department of Energy, September 15, 2011.
INL, 2011a, “Neptunium-237 Oxide (NpO2) Management Plan,” INL/LTD-11-21462, Idaho National Laboratory, March, 31, 2011.
INL, 2011b, “INL Option at RAL (CPP-684) for Heat Source 238Pu Fuel Pre-conceptual Design Study,” INL/LTD –10-20522, Idaho National Laboratory, March 2011.
ORNL, 2011, “Conceptual Design Report for the Neptunium Target Fabrication Laboratory, ORNL/TM-2011/111, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, March 2011.
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis 8-2 Technical Integration Office
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis A-1 Technical Integration Office
Appendix A
Team Makeup and Qualifications
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis A-2 Technical Integration Office
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis A-3 Technical Integration Office
Wade E. Bickford (803) 725-7346
Savannah River National Laboratory, Aiken, SC 29803
Summary Mr. Bickford has over 35 years of experience in nuclear reactor safety, design, and nuclear materials stewardship. He entered the Reactor Physics Group at the Savannah River Laboratory in 1988, coming from an Advanced Reactor Concepts Group at the Pacific Northwest Laboratory at Hanford. His career has spanned topics ranging from reactor analysis and isotope production, to safety, thermal hydraulics, and materials disposition. Highlights are summarized below by position.
2005 – Present Principal Technical Advisor, National Security Studies. Mr. Bickford provides intelligence analysis to DOE Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence. The emphasis is on analyzing reactor technology for plutonium and tritium production capabilities. Support has also been provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency in safeguards analysis of heavy water research reactors.
1992 – 2005 Advanced Planning and Analysis.
Pu-238 Program – Mr. Bickford has been the technical lead to coordinate exchanges with the Idaho National Laboratory on proposed Pu-238 options at INL. He has participated in the program design and options reviews at INL’s request. Mr. Bickford was the principal author for complex-wide material management plans for highly enriched uranium, Np-237 and Pu-238, Pu-242, and Am-241. He coordinated input from experts at ORNL, LANL, Y-12, and INEEL. At LLNL request, he has examined options for large scale production of Pu-238, and use in denaturing weapons grade plutonium.
Legacy Special Target Materials – Mr. Bickford provided leadership to define physical characteristics and radiation histories for legacy special materials, including the Mk-18A, US1, and US2 targets. Information on disposition options has been coordinated with Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium – Mr. Bickford was the co-technical leader with Y-12 of a DOE complex-wide study for NNSA (NA-26) David Huizinga to determine options for ~40 metric tons of surplus highly enriched uranium (HEU) that does not meet commercial specifications (i.e., off-spec). Technical analysis demonstrating feasibility supported the successful program to down-blend off-spec HEU for use in commercial power reactors. Mr. Bickford has been a member of the monitoring teams which make on-site visits to Russia to verify the blend down of HEU.
1988 – 1992 Reactor Physics and Thermal Hydraulics – Mr. Bickford supported initial conceptual work on the proposed heavy water new production reactor, and co-authored the SRL System Requirements Document for the new reactor. He also participated in thermal hydraulics code development and qualification while on assignment at Babcock and Wilcox in Lynchburg, VA.
1974 – 1988 Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Senior Research Scientist, Advanced Nuclear Concepts Group – Mr. Bickford advanced through a number of positions from 1974 to 1988, with time off for graduate studies. This included an initial assignment in Fusion Systems, and a Nuclear Safety and Risk Analysis Section performing studies for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Education/Professional 1973 B.A. Mathematics, Washington State University
1973 Phi Beta Kappa honorary
1977 M.S. Nuclear Engineering, University of Washington
1987 Licensed Professional Engineer (Mechanical)
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis A-4 Technical Integration Office
David B. Lord (208) 526-0706
Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID 83415
Summary Mr. Lord has over 38 years of varied industrial experience primarily in project management, with special skills in long distance driving and copying and pasting from various documents. He came to the Idaho National Laboratory in 1990 after previously working in the electric utility, petroleum refining, and petro chemical industries. His career has ranged from maintenance of large chemical processing equipment, large construction projects to increase the efficiency of petroleum refining equipment, construction and planning of electric utility generating plants, and varied nuclear and non-nuclear infrastructure projects to support the research work at INL. Highlights are summarized below by position.
1990 – Present Idaho National Laboratory, Project Manager, Infrastructure Projects. Mr. Lord provides project management support from initial planning studies through construction and final testing and turnover for a wide variety of projects to support the Nuclear Energy mission of INL.
Pu-238 Program – Mr. Lord has been involved intermittently with the Pu-238 program since 2005 when the Argonne National Laboratory - West was merged into INL. At that time, Mr. Lord was named as the project manager for the proposed project to consolidate all of the Pu-238 production functions at INL.
Land Mobile Radio Project – Mr. Lord is the project manager for a managed service contract to provide a P-25 compliant emergency radio system to INL’s emergency response organizations as well as providing interface with cooperating outside agencies.
Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory – Mr. Lord is the project manager for the construction of a new RESL building. The RESL building is designed to meet LEED gold requirements. The facilities include radiochemistry, organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, and instrumentation laboratories. The facility also houses shielded “iron rooms” made of pre-World War II steel for the low background required for radiological counting operations.
EROB Data Center – Mr. Lord was the project manager to provide a modern data center capable of supporting current and near-term, INL high-performance computing (HPC) equipment. The data center includes the complex electrical power and HVAC systems to support the HPC equipment.
1980 – 1990 Alabama Electric Cooperative, Generation Projects and System Planning – Mr. Lord was the project manager for projects to rebuild the coal handling system at a major generating station, to rebuild a 1920s vintage hydroelectric plant, and numerous other generation facility projects. He was later in charge of the System Planning Department that included load forecasting, transmission planning, and generation planning. This included the planning, justification, and sizing for the only utility Compressed Air Energy Storage facility in the United States.
1978 – 1980 Exxon Company, USA, Refinery Projects and Support Operations – Mr. Lord was the project manager for a major upgrade to the refinery pipestills to increase the energy efficiency by recovering waste heat from the stack exhaust systems. He was also the mechanical support engineer for the refinery utility systems including upgrades to the refinery air and wastewater systems.
1974 – 1978 Dow Chemical Company, Technical Maintenance Group – Mr. Lord worked a s a mechanical engineer to provide technical services to analyze and correct problems with complex chemical plant processing equipment.
Education/Professional
1974 B.S. Mechanical Engineering, Auburn University
1974 Pi Tau Sigma, Tau Beta PI honoraries
1993 M.S. Mechanical Engineering, University of Idaho
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis A-5 Technical Integration Office
1979 Licensed Professional Engineer (Mechanical)
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis A-6 Technical Integration Office
James E. Werner (208) 526-8378
Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID 83415
Summary
James Werner is a staff nuclear engineer with 24 years of experience in the Space Nuclear Systems and Technology development and advanced reactor design activities. He serves as Idaho National Laboratory program manager for the labs efforts in support of developing and testing space nuclear reactor technology for NASA and DOE. His current research interests include development and testing of high temperature fuels and materials, evaluation and design of high temperature liquid metal pumps and design and construction of test capabilities to support testing of reactor components and systems for the Fission Surface Power (FSP) project.
2004 – Present Serves as program manager for the In the Space Nuclear Systems and Technology Division for projects involved in developing and testing space nuclear reactor technology for NASA and DOE-NE. His current research interests include development and testing of high temperature fuels and materials, evaluation and design of high temperature liquid metal pumps and design and construction of test capabilities to support testing of reactor components and systems for the FSP project and production of Pu-238 material.
40 Kwe Fission Surface Power – Mr. Werner participation in the design and development on the 40 Kwe Fission Surface Power system. Tasks included design and fabrication of prototypic electro magnet pumps and test planning for fuels development and zero power critical testing. Mr. Werner also participated in the conceptual design of a 1-2 Kw Fission Power System.
Nuclear Thermal Propulsion – Mr. Werner lead the INL technology effort to recapture fabrication of high temperature CERMET fuel for NTR systems.
1988 – 2004 Director, Energy R&D Division, Office of Research and Development U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Mr. Werner has been actively involved in nuclear space system development. In the past he has served as the DOE Nuclear Engineer Division Manager, Energy R&D Division at the Idaho Operations Office during that time he served as:
Deputy Manager for the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO) project. Tasks included planning and coordinating DOE laboratory support for the government trade studies as well as support NASA’s procurement activities for an industry system design team. Supported DOE-NE 34 in development of JIMO design reference missions and coordinated DOE laboratory input into trade studies for a Nuclear Electric Propulsion systems.
DOE-ID lead for coordinating and providing input into Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion. Activities included development and assessment of environmental impacts from doing ground tests on a Nuclear Thermal Reactor (NTR) system as well as contributing to development of a conceptual design of a ground test facility for NTR systems. Managed INEEL involvement and activities associated with the Space Exploration Initiative and Multi Megawatt Program.
Project Manager, NPR-MHTGR. Managed DOE laboratory and industry contract effort to design and test HTGR UCO fuel and tritium target using SiC – Triso-Carbide-coating technology.
Education/Professional
1978 Bachelor of Science, Nuclear Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
1979 System Safety Certificate DARCOM Training Center Texarkana, TX
1982 Licensed Professional Engineer (Mechanical)
Member, American Nuclear Society and Idaho Section of the American Nuclear Society
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis A-7 Technical Integration Office
Chadwick D. Barklay (937) 229-3167
University of Dayton Research Institute, Dayton, OH 45469
Summary Dr. Barklay has 20 years of experience in conducting research for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Defense (DOD), and NASA on metallic and ceramic materials. As an employee of Argonne National Laboratory-West, Idaho National Laboratory, and Mound Laboratories, Dr. Barklay was responsible for the assembly of encapsulated Plutonium heat sources into Fine Weave Pierced Fabric (FWPF) modules, which were further assembled into various types of Radioisotope Power Systems RPS units. Currently Dr. Barklay is responsible for leading the Advanced High Temperature Materials Group at the University of Dayton Research Institute. In this position he performs research, development, and testing on a number of materials based projects for various sponsors including DOE, DOD, NASA, and industrial partners. Highlights are summarized below by position.
2004 – Present University of Dayton Research Institute – Dr. Barklay is a Senior Research Scientist and Group Leader for the Advance High Temperature Materials Group. Dr. Barklay and his group provide technical expertise to DOE-NE Space and Defense Power Systems regarding technical materials related issues associated with the fabrication, testing, assembly, and disassembly of RPSs.
Pu-238 Program – Dr. Barklay has extensive experience in the determination of low-level neutron radiation effects on refractory materials. His research and development activities have supported many materials based technologies including 238Plutonium dioxide fueled RPSs employed on various missions (i.e., Cassini, New Horizons, and the future Mars Science Laboratory mission); and identifying replacement materials for FWPF currently being used in the GPHS. Dr. Barklay also has extensive experience in the development, production, and shipment of radioisotope thermoelectric generators. In this capacity he has participated in multi-disciplined technical efforts with LANL, ORNL, ANL-West, INL, NASA-KSC, the Russian Mayak Productions Association, and various program contractors. He has consulted with DOE in a number of areas including the effect of radiation on the mechanical and physical properties of materials and the high-temperature interfacial reactions between materials.
Radioisotope Power Systems – Dr. Barklay served as the Chairman of the Preliminary and Final Design Review (FDR) Board for the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG) program, which were multi-disciplined process assessments to demonstrate that the maturity of the design of the system under review is ready for full-scale fabrication, assembly, integration, and testing.
2002 – 2004 Argonne National Laboratory – West/Idaho National Laboratory – Dr. Barklay was responsible for the relocation of critical Radioisotope Power Systems assembly equipment and processes from the DOE Mound Laboratory in Ohio to Argonne National Laboratory in Idaho. Additionally, Dr. Barklay had an instrumental role in the oversight of the procurement, packaging, and transportation of Russian plutonium procured by the Department of Energy (DOE), which was critical to the execution of future deep space exploration programs.
1988 – 2002 Mound Laboratory – Babcock & Wilcox, Lead Engineer, Isotope Power Systems Program – Dr. Barklay advanced through a number of positions from 1988 to 2002, which culminated with the responsibility for the assembly of encapsulated Plutonium heat sources into graphite modules that were further assembled into various Radioisotope Power Systems.
Education/Professional 1987 B.S. Materials Science Engineering, Wright State University
2004 M.S. Materials Science Engineering, University of Dayton
2007 Ph. D. Materials Science Engineering, University of Dayton
2008 M.A. National Security and Strategic Studies, Naval War College
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis A-8 Technical Integration Office
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis B-1 Technical Integration Office
Appendix B
Dismissed Alternatives
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis B-2 Technical Integration Office
B.1 Irradiation Facilities
The following facilities were dismissed for further consideration because they did not meet one or more of the screening criteria identified in Section 1.2.
B.1.1 High Temperature Gas Reactor
DOE is currently developing the technology and design and analysis tools for a High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR). Some of the distinguishing features of the HTGR are the coated fuel particle, helium coolant, graphite moderator, and high temperatures compared to other reactor concepts. These unique traits give the HTGR both advantages and disadvantages over other nuclear plant designs. In terms of advantages, the high temperatures enable the generation of high-quality process heat that has a number of industrial uses beyond electricity generation. HTGR designs use passive heat removal systems, protecting the reactor from accidents even in the event of prolonged station blackout. Many HTGR technologies and materials have been developed. Technologies such as helium coolant and coated fuel particles have been used extensively in HTGRs (i.e., Fort St. Vrain) in the past and are still being employed in HTGRs (i.e., HTR-10) today.
A full system design and an approved licensing process for the HTGR do not currently exist. As with many fuel cycles, reprocessing and long-term waste disposal do not have the same operational track record as fuel fabrication and reactor operation, and an initial demonstration unit or licensed reactor remains many years away. Also, significant investment and testing of an acceptable neptunium target would be required before any determination of cycle times, production rates, and quality of product could be ascertained – none of which would be compatible with current target designs.
Conclusion: While the HTGR system has received extensive development funding, it is years away from the demonstration stage. In addition, a completely new target design and target fabrication and processing facilities would have to be researched, designed, and developed, requiring both additional time and funding. Based on technical maturity, stage of development, availability, timeliness, and cost considerations, this alternative does not represent a credible option.
B-1.2 Molten Salt Reactor
Molten-salt reactors (MSRs), both fast and thermal spectrum, have been the subject of periodic investigations since the early 1960s. An experimental MSR operated at ORNL to research this technology through the 1960s; constructed by 1964, it went critical in 1965 and operated until 1969. Further investigations have not proceeded beyond high-level material balance, heat transfer, and chemistry exploration. While the principal concepts underlying MSRs have not changed over the years, much of the underlying technology base has evolved. Fast spectrum MSRs can be employed to consume actinides from LWR fuel or, alternatively, to extend fissile resource availability through uranium-to-plutonium breeding. MSRs can operate with salt processing and fuel addition taking place in either continuous or batch operations. For thermal-spectrum systems, it is important to remove the fission products from the salt to minimize the parasitic neutron capture that results from fission products with large capture cross sections. In a fast-spectrum system, these parasitic losses are lower because the fission-product capture cross sections are lower in fast-spectrum energy range.
MSRs have the potential for incorporating excellent passive safety characteristics. They have a negative salt-void coefficient (expanded fuel is pushed out of the core) and a negative thermal-reactivity feedback that avoids a set of major design constraints in solid-fuel fast reactors. Thus, a fast spectrum MSR can provide a high-power density while maintaining passive safety. The liquid state of the core also enables a passive, thermally triggered (melt plug) core draining into geometrically subcritical tanks that are
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis B-3 Technical Integration Office
passively thermally coupled to the environment. Fast spectrum MSRs have a low operating pressure even at high temperatures, and fast spectrum MSR salts are chemically inert, thermodynamically lacking the energetic reactions with environmental materials seen in other reactor types (e.g., hot zirconium or sodium with water). MSR technology with a thorium fuel cycle also offers attractive characteristics to destroy or transmute long-lived radionuclides, particularly TRU actinides, into short-lived isotopes. It also offers the capability during fuel processing of extracting the isotopes Pu-238 and Np-237 for further enhancement of the production of Pu-238 material.
This concept remains in the in the early proof-of-concept and conceptual stages. A full system design or approved licensing process does not currently exist. An initial demonstration unit or a licensed reactor remains many years away. Extensive research and demonstration efforts are also needed on the fuel processing technology – not only to meet acceptable design aspects but also to ensure acceptable proliferation resistance requirements. Also, significant investment, development, and testing of a Pu-238 production process would be required before any determination as to cycle times, production rates, and quality of product could be ascertained – none of which would be compatible with current target designs.
Conclusion: While MSR technology offers some potential advantages in producing Pu-238 to acceptable properties at a potentially cheaper unit cost, it is years away from the demonstration stage. In addition, a completely new approach to production design, irradiation calculations, and target fabrication processing facilities would have to be researched, tested, designed, and developed, requiring both additional time and funding. Based its technical maturity, stage of development, availability, timeliness, and cost considerations, this alternative does not represent a credible alternative to the 2001 through 2004 decision.
B-1.3 Small Modular Reactor
The DOE is currently investigating the technology and design and analysis tools for a small modular reactor (SMR). Nearer term SMR designs are variants of Generation III CLWRs. Distinguishing features of SMRs are the smaller size of the plant, which makes it possible to manufacture most of the vessels and systems in a factory and ship them to the operating site. Most near-term designs utilize the same or similar fuel types as existing LWRs.
Modification of SMRs to enable online insertion and retrieval of targets for Pu-238 production would require significant facility modifications to existing designs and would necessarily include penetrations into the reactor vessel. Additional facility modifications would be required to enable loading of the targets into a shielded cask for transport to a processing facility. Performing these facility modifications could require an extended refueling outage (with a resulting loss of power generation revenue to the SMR owner) and could potentially extend subsequent maintenance or refueling outages to inspect, test, and maintain the insertion and retrieval system, reactor vessel penetrations, and potential containment vessel penetrations.
Although some companies have begun early discussions with the NRC on the licensing process, no SMRs are currently being built. Significant investment and testing of an acceptable neptunium target would be required before any determination as to cycle times, production rates, and quality of product could be ascertained – none of which would be compatible with current target designs.
Conclusion: While SMR systems have received extensive development funding, construction of a demonstration plant is years away. In addition, new target designs for SMR reactors and new target fabrication and processing facilities would have to be researched, designed, and developed, requiring both additional time and funding. Based its technical maturity, stage of development, availability, timeliness, and cost considerations this alternative does not provide a credible alternative to the 2001 through 2004 decision.
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis B-4 Technical Integration Office
B-1.4 Existing Commercial Light Water Reactors
Most pressurized water reactors operating in the United States are licensed to operate at thermal power levels of 2,500 to 3,500 megawatts for net station electric outputs of 800 to 1,200 megawatts electric. Since the primary mission of a CLWR is the production of electric power, Pu-238 production would have to be conducted on a noninterference basis. While no specific LWR was selected, irradiation tests of Np-237 targets were conducted at Connecticut Yankee Reactor owned by Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company in the 1970s1. The results of this study demonstrated that a stable neptunia containing target material could be fabricated and irradiated in commercial nuclear power reactors with no perturbation of reactor operation other than neutron consumption. Pu-238 is produced in these targets in sufficient concentration to project a reasonable cost for the recovered product.
The time and costs to develop and qualify a target design, demonstrate the process for plutonium and neptunium separation and the time to prepare and submit a license modification to the NRC would be significantly more than the project costs for the preferred option. In addition, some significant facility modifications would be required to enable loading of the targets into a shielded cask for transport to a processing facility.
Some additional supportive development effort would be required for the above program. This would entail further delineation of the fabrication parameters and a firming up of the conditions for the reprocessing. Development of an alternative target material that would be soluble in nitric acid is also needed. Existence of such an alternative would permit greater leeway in choice of reprocessing technology, and open up potential participation in the reprocessing operation to a large number of operators.
Conclusion: While CLWRs are available, a new target design would have to be developed. This would have to be consistent with existing processing capabilities in the DOE complex. Extensive license modifications and NRC review and approval would also be required. Based its technical maturity, availability, timeliness, and cost considerations this alternative does not provide a credible alternative to the 2001 through 2004 decision.
B-1.5 National Reactor Universal, Canada
The Canadian National Reactor Universal (NRU) is a large heterogeneous, high-flux, thermal-neutron research reactor that is heavy-water- moderated and cooled. It has many irradiation sites, including light-water cooled loops. The reactor is a large tank filled with heavy water contained in a vertical orientation along the driver fuel assemblies, various assemblies for isotope production, experimental sites, and control assemblies. There are 109 fuel assembly locations in the core (Figure B-1): 92 fuel rods generate 116 megawatts, six Mark 4 Fast neutron rods generate 5 megawatts, one Mark 7 Fast neutron rod generates 2 megawatts, and 10 Mo-99 production rods generate 2 megawatts. This represents a total of 125 megawatts. Eleven of these positions are reserved to isotope production assemblies; one of these assemblies is dedicated to I-125 production.
Past studies have indicated that the NRU could produce quantities of Pu-238 in the 1 to 5 Kg range, but it was not clear how many of the available irradiation positions would be needed. Because it is a low temperature system with a large thermal flux, it would appear that current target designs could be incorporated into the reactor with limited additional testing to validate the target. The facility must meet DOE safeguard and security requirements. However, information about additional safeguard and security requirements and additional facility improvements required to handle the receipt, storage, and shipment of unirradiated and irradiated neptunium targets is unknown.
1 BMI-X-656, 1975, “Final Report Production of Pu-238 in Commercial Power Reactors Target Fabrication, Postirradiation Examination, and Plutonium and Neptunium Recovery,” July 31, 1975.
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis B-5 Technical Integration Office
Notation Color Significance Red Fuel rod DM Green Dummy rod U-1, U-2, PT Black Loop sites 1 to 18 Tan Control rods AR-1, AR-2, AR-4 Tan Cobalt adjuster rods AR-3 Orange Aluminum nitride adjuster rod FN Purple Fast neutron rod FND Green Fast neutron dummy rod PCF White Pneumatic capsule facility HCF White Hydraulic capsule facility FDR Grey Flux detector rod TFDR Grey Traveling flux detector rod RV White Reserve vacant PV White Permanent vacant CPRS White Part of calandria pressure relief system
Figure B-1. NRU core configuration as documented in 2001, in the open literature.
It is known that NRU can receive highly enriched uranium (HEU). Factors such as mass and attractiveness levels of the physical and chemical form of the neptunium would need to be considered in the safeguard and security assessment. An analysis and determination must be made regarding any unreviewed safety questions (USQs) resulting from the introduction of the targets into the reactor.
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis B-6 Technical Integration Office
Assessments of the reactors operating safety basis as well as any adverse environmental impacts from the larger quantities of neptunium and plutonium would also have to be performed and approved.
Transporting the unirradiated and irradiated neptunium targets into Canada would also require that DOE obtain an export license. The NRU produces a significant amount of medical and commercial radioisotopes, and initial estimates indicate that introduction of the neptunium targets in the NRU would adversely affect the reactor’s current mission and production rates of other isotopes. The extent of the impact or the quantity of neptunium targets that could be added to the reactor without compromising existing commitments would have to be assessed. The NRU is licensed to operate only to the end of October 2016. The Canadian government would have to take action to extend its operating license beyond that point.
Conclusion: The NRU offers an alternative irradiation facility for potential Pu-238 production; however, it has a number of disadvantages as discussed above. Additional NEPA documentation, potentially including a new Environmental Impact Statement, could be required to address and bound potential environmental impacts. Considering factors such as timeliness and unknown additional risk factors associated with availability, impact to other missions, existing security, material handling capability, and potentially adverse costs, this alternative does not provide a credible enhancement over the 2001-04 decision.
B-1.6 Annular Core Research Reactor, Sandia National Laboratories
The Annular Core Research Reactor (ACRR) at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) is a water-moderated, pool-type research reactor capable of steady-state, pulsed, and tailored transient operations. In the past, it has been configured for medical isotope production. Other duties for ACRR include reactor-driven laser experiments, space reactor fuels development, pulse reactor kinetics, reactor heat transfer and fluid flow, electronic component hardening, and explosive component testing. It is also routinely used for education and training programs.
Factors such as mass and attractiveness levels of the physical and chemical form of the neptunium would need to be considered in the safeguard and security assessment. An analysis and determination must also be made regarding any USQs as a result of the introduction of the targets into the reactor. Assessments of the reactor’s operating safety basis as well as any adverse environmental impacts from the larger quantities of neptunium and plutonium would also have to be performed and approved.
Conclusion: Significant investments would be needed to make the ACRR a viable candidate for use in Pu-238 production. There are several other options that appear to be more economically viable and would produce more flexibility in providing irradiation services. Based on, cost, availability, timeliness, and limited production estimates this alternative does not provide a viable alternative to the 2001 through 2004 decision
B-1.7 Accelerators
The previous NEPA documents considered the use of both low-energy and high-energy accelerators in detail; no substantial changes to their status, availability, or assessment have since taken place.
Conclusion: No perceived improvements or enhancements would alter previous DOE decisions. In addition, a complete new target design and target fabrication and processing facilities would have to be researched, designed, and developed, requiring both additional time and funding. Based on technical maturity, stage of development, availability, timeliness, and cost considerations this alternative does not provide a credible enhancement over the 2001-04 decision.
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis B-7 Technical Integration Office
B.2 Alternative Target Fabrication and Processing Facilities Dismissed
B-2.1 Liquid Target Loop and Online Processing
An alternative irradiation target option of flowing neptunium dissolved in liquid through a nuclear reactor, then separating the plutonium from other components in small, quantified batches using resin columns or some other separations technique has been proposed since the time of the NEPA studies. While some of these concepts show some promise of providing a higher quality product or potentially reducing infrastructure and operational costs, there are no test data to support their viability. All proposed concepts lack the technical maturity required for consideration as viable alternatives; significant R&D time would be needed to conduct to determine viability and associated construction and operational costs. Other factors such as impacts on reactor operating and safety basis, safeguards and security requirements, classification concerns, and other facility or support needs would also have to be understood.
Conclusion: While this novel irradiation target option offers some potential advantages, it is years away from a being demonstration as a viable alternative. A significant effort would be needed to understand both the irradiation characteristics and the separation process before a demonstration plant could be built to determine scaling factors. In addition, a complete new approach to production design, irradiation calculations, and target fabrication processing facilities would have to be researched, tested, designed, and developed. Finally either a new reactor or a complete redesign of an existing reactor would be needed to support a liquid target loop. Based on technical maturity, stage of development, timeliness, and cost considerations, this alternative does not provide a credible enhancement over the 2001-04 decision.
B-2.2 Universal Target Design
This option would include a target design suitable for a variety of irradiation environments (i.e., stainless steel versus aluminum clad). The irradiation source could be an existing or new DOE reactor, and/or access to commercial irradiation (e.g., thiobarbituric acid reactive substances [TBARS]). The target would need to be qualified for a variety of reactor options and be able to be incorporated into an NRC license. Techniques and head-end processes would need to be explored and developed to allow the use of existing processing and separation techniques.
Conclusion: While this alternative could be used in a variety of reactor systems, some basic research would be needed to comprehend the entire irradiation and processing sequence. This would include not only where the target could be placed within a reactor system, but also what processing facilities would be needed to dissolve and recover both the plutonium and the neptunium from the irradiated target rods. Target rods tested in commercial pressurized water reactors in the past have proven to be a viable method of producing Pu-238. However, very high concentrations of Pu-236 were in the recovered product material. Whether this can be reduced by placing the target in a different location in the reactor core or modifying the target design is unknown at this time.
Demonstration of a viable production alternative appears to be years away. Based on technical maturity, stage of development, timeliness, and cost considerations this alternative does not provide a credible enhancement over the 2001 through 2004 decision.
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis D-1 Technical Integration Office
Appendix D
Alternative Evaluation Factors and Questions for Candidate Sites
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis D-2 Technical Integration Office
D.1 Alternative Evaluation Factors
D.1.1 Cost
1. Total Project Cost Estimates: What is the estimated funding needed for engineering, construction, and start-up of a project?
2. Life-Cycle Cost Estimates: What is the estimated funding needed to support the project from start to completion, including construction, maintenance, and employees etc., calculated over 35 years?
D.1.2 Schedule
1. How much time is needed to establish production capability and then transition to a production mode generating Pu-238 fuel forms?
2. Is there an option to achieve an early production start (staying within existing NEPA coverage)?
D.1.3 Risk to all project objectives, including initial startup, long-term availability, product quality, and future operating costs
1. Process Technical Maturity: How developed is the process step for the production of Pu-238 fuel forms?
2. Uncertainty of Redevelopment: Are there unknown problems with reestablishing use of existing buildings, such as residual contamination, deviation from record drawings, undiscovered inadequate construction, and other undocumented conditions?
3. Complexity: What would be the ease of (re)establishing use of a building or buildings for Pu-238 production, and the degree of difficulty in performing a particular evolution?
4. Technical Staff: Are there adequate skills of staff in working with nuclear materials of similar high specific activity?
5. Dependence on Other Programs: Will the operations of other programs affect the implementation of Pu-238 production?
6. Production Flexibility: can the facility be used for other programs during or after use, or is the facility amenable to process improvements during the life of the program?
7. Negative Impact on Other Programs: Will the placement in a retrofitted facility impact existing programs, such as increased risk of contamination, displacement from facilities, or limited time in shared facilities?
8. Robustness of facilities: Is there any single point failure points; are the processes / systems fault tolerant; is there adequate operational support? Are there significant differences in the reliability factors of the processes / systems being proposed?
D.1.4 Environmental Impact
1. Waste (cost/schedule, stakeholder): Can waste be stored and processed on site, are existing facilities available to quantify, package, or treat all wastes generated?
2. Available Disposal Paths: Will there be legacy waste at the end of the program? 3. Stakeholder Acceptance: What is the likelihood that outside parties will be amenable to the
production of Pu-238 at the facility (regulatory, public, DOE)?
INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0
Pu-238 Production Alternatives Analysis D-3 Technical Integration Office
D.1.5 Worker and Public Safety
1. Off-site Safety: Public safety
Containment
Transportation safety.
It should be noted that for these key considerations, we will not attempt to quantify the actual on-site or off-site safety risks, but represent relative differences in risk inferred from the differences in consequences or probabilities between the various alternatives. All of the alternatives in this study have acceptable risks or they would not be included in the alternatives evaluation.
2. On-site safety: Containment
Worker safety
Fire safety
As low as reasonable achievable (ALARA).
D.1.6 Scalability
1. Are the facilities flexible to accept changing program requirements?
2. What are the major limitations to the flexibility of the facility?
Equipment
Facility floor space
Transportation
Staff.
3. Is there flexibility among the facilities to allow for significant changes in production or processing?
4. Would there be any security considerations for SNM if the production were scaled up?
5. Are there waste processing limits if the production were scaled up?
D.1.7 If the alternative consists of system element(s), is its ability to function within a system evaluated according to the above criteria?
1. Transportation: Logistics of transportation, transportation safety is included in off-site safety?
2. Coordination of product / process?
3. If facility is dual use, what are risks of cross contamination?