REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the conditions under which the decommissioning of the High-Flux Reactor (HFR) at Petten should be envisaged
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 14. 04. 1997 COM(97) 150 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the conditions under which the decommissioning of the High-Flux Reactor (HFR) at Petten should be envisaged On 27 June 1996, the Council adopted the Supplementary Research Programme to be implemented by the Joint Research Centre for the European Atomic Energy Community (1996-99), in accordance with Article 7 of the Euratom Treaty. During its adoption, the following statement was entered in the Council minutes: "The Council notes for decommissioning, as it did in previous years, when fixing the tariffs for irradiation services. Such provision will be added to that already settled and be used at the appropriate time. the Commission will make provision that In addition, the Commission will examine the question of the decommissioning of the HFR and make a report to the Council on this matter before the end of 1996. " The Commission hereby requests the Council and Parliament to take note of the enclosed report. REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the conditions under which the decommissioning of the High-Flux Reactor (HFR) at Petten should be envisaged Intoductory remarks Decommisioning is not an acute practical issue for the HFR. The reactor is in a very good technical condition. This has been achieved through constant upgradings and in-time renewal of its main components. The residual life time of the present reactor vessel - which was exchanged in 1984/85 and has a total design life time of 30 years - will allow HFR operation until 2015 and even longer, the all-three-years performed in-service inspections are aimed at confirming this. Moreover, another fully licenced reactor vessel - identical to the present HFR vessel - is in stock and could be employed in another vessel replacement operation. Therefore around the year 2015, the Commission will have the choice between three options: - to stop the operation of the HFR and propose its decommissioning; - to evaluate the exact situation of the vessel and to decide on a prolongation of the life of the reactor with its present vessel; - following the evaluation of the situation of the vessel, to decide to replace it. Long term HFR operational schedules corresponding to the first and the third options are given in Tables 1 & 2 The choice between these options will necessitate an in-depth concertation with the Dutch licencing authorities, the Member States which will support the HFR at that time, and the customers. The decision will be taken in particular on the basis of an economic assessment of the viability of the reactor at that time Therefore, the question whether the HFR will be decommissioned should be relevant only after 2015 and might not arise before the middle of the next century. Nevertheless, independently of the time of the decision, the characteristics of the HFR allow for a description of the decommissioning process and an evaluation of its cost This document addresses this question and has been subject to expert review [i. e. DETEC, Germany] which confirmed the feasibility of this proposal and the estimates on waste volumes as originally assumed by (DETEC is a recognised and experienced company in the field of decommissioning and a joint daughter company of SIEMENS and NUKEM). The comments of the experts have been included in the Commission report. Nevertheless, it seemed worthwhile to attach to it the DETEC report. L Scope This preliminary study defines the main stages of decommissioning the HFR at Petten site, based on International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safety Series no. 74 "Safety in Decommissioning of Research Reactors", Safety Guide, 1986. It also gives the contemplated steps for dismantling and decommissioning the HFR, and the rough estimate of associated waste quantities and cost. IL Stages in decommissioning The process of decommissioning is considered to begin with the final shutdown of the HFR reactor and to end with the release of the reactor site for unrestricted use. Three stages are specified within this process : Stage J - Storage with surveillance During and subsequent to this stage, continuing surveillance of the reactor is necessary. The main activities include : - the removal of fuel. - the removal of coolants and other readily removable activated or slightly radioactive material. It is easily possible with existent on-site facilities at reasonable low cost. Stage 2 - Restricted site use As a consequence of the decommissioning activities, on completion of this stage, parts of the site may be released for use with constraints and remaining parts of the reactor and site will be subject to a storage with surveillance. The main activities include : - decontamination of all areas which are readily decontaminated - physically sealing of the remaining areas containing radioactivity. This would comprise removal of the vessel and all activated or highly contaminated components around the vessel, in the pool (beam tubes), of the primary circuit, and removal of activated or contaminated parts of the pool liner and the concrete walls, as well as sealing all the parts which may still contain activity All necessary actions can be executed with in-house (including Energy Centrum Nederland - ECN) manpower and expertise The waste would go to the Dutch disposal facility COVRA (Centrale Organisatie Voor Radioactief Afval), even if a small amount would have to be stored temporarely in the medium active waste facility of ECN prior to shipment to the COVRA facility. 1 Stage 3 - Unrestricted site use At this stage, decommissioning of the reactor is completed. All radioactive materials, equipment and structures are either decontaminated or removed to the Dutch disposal facility COVRA. A final radiation survey is then conducted to ensure that no residual radioactivity remains on site. The site is then released for unrestricted use and no further surveillance inspections or tests are required. The buildings and site is released from the obligations of the nuclear laws. After release from the nuclear laws, employment of the site and buildings for any other purpose may be considered and give rise to income, if not, the cost arisen from stage 3 will be linked to the normal management of ordinary buildings. It is proposed to proceed with the execution of stage 3 directly after completion of the stage 2. Following expert advice, the advantages from a continuoued decommissioning operation until completion of stage 3 are substantial in comparision to a scenario where stage 3 is performed after a waiting period. Decommissioning Costs : - preparation and contacts to licensing authorities : - Preparation and execution of the actual work (needs to retain the capacity under the present ECN operation contract for roughly 1. 5 years) : - Waste disposal to COVRA - Total (rough estimate) III. Sequencing of decommissioning activities 2 MECU 14 MECU 9 MECU 25 MECU The HFR decommissioning activities are based on the experiences gained during the vessel replacement in 1984/85 At that time, the total operation was carried out with the normal operation and maintenance crew, with additional help of the HFR users and site workshop. Based on the amounts of waste handled during vessel replacement in 1984, the general step-by-step approach is the following 0. Removal of fuel elements The fuel elements are stored safely elsewhere or shipped to a reprocessing facility. / Removal of all auxiliary equipment and mechanisms from inside and around the vessel Same amount of waste is anticipated from very similar auxiliary equipment. 2. Destructive removal of beam tubes and other "fixed" connections to the vessel (viz. restraint structures, etc. ) Equal amounts will originate from the beam tubes and other "fixed" structures with some more middle active parts due to increased use of stainless steel bolts and rings. The amount of stainless steel material is very low due to the absence of bellows. However more material is now present with a thickness exceeding 3 cm requiring special handling as waste. 3. Vessel removal Amounts of material from the vessel itself will be less, however of an increased thickness. 4. Removal of active parts of beam tubes 11 and 12 and parts of the pool liner with radioactive spots The amount of waste from beam tubes 11 and 12 is reduced due to a simplified construction; pool liner material is set at 10 % of total. 5. Activated concrete of the pcx)l walls around the beam tube openings to be removed For the activated concrete around the beam tube openings the assumption is made that the "penetration depth" is average some 30 cm around the openings. 6. Contaminated concrete under the pool bottom liner to be removed For the contaminated concrete under the pool bottom liner due to the existing leakage also a thickness of 30 cm is assumed. For the vertical walls only the concrete in the neighbourhood of the pool gates is suspected. 7. Intensive decontamination of all system piping of the primary and pool cooling systems Decontamination of the primary and pool system piping will result in radioactive decontamination fluids only The material itself is not activated. The same is valid for auxiliary systems like hot and warm drain systems S. Removal of activated and or contaminated auxiliary equipment (resins of ion exchangers, tools, etc. ) and standard experimental facilities The amounts of ion exchanger resins are well known, after thorough regeneration the resins can be handled as low active waste Tools, storage racks, etc. will offer only minor amounts of slightly activated material after decontamination. For the removal of standard experimental facilities estimates are based on the 1991 situation. 9. General radiological control of remaining system parts The final radiological control of the plant is expected to result in minor amounts of low level waste only. 10. Standard demolition to the required levels for further plant use Non-activated material is concerned by this operation. r Table 3 gives the estimated amounts of waste subdivided per category. The high and medium active waste can be temporarily stored in the ECN Waste facility. In case of transport to and storage at COVRA Borsele, Table 3 can be translated into Table 4. On the whole, it is anticipated to get high-medium-level waste of 5 m3 and 370 TBq (1000 Ci), and low-level waste of 120 m3 and 5,9 TBq (16 Ci). Tab. 1 : Longterm HFR Operational Schedule (lrst OPTION) Period: 1996 to 2030 Year. 19. « 2 0. 96(0 09 10 12 14 15 16 18 to 30 Lease contract CEC / NL Remaining rime of present CEC / NL lease agreement on (he HFR and Petten Site Life time HFR vtssel Remaining anticipated life time of the HFR pressure vessel rib. 2 HFR decommissioning Preparation Stage 1 and 2 Stage3 -J Period : 2031 to 2065 Year 20. 31(0 61 Preparation Unrestricted site use 62 | 63 I 64 | 65 Lease contract CEC I NL Continuation of remaining date of present CEC / NL lease agreetnem on the HFR and Petten Site HFR decommissioning Stage 3 Unrestricted she use continued Tab. 2: Longterm HFR Operational Schedule (3rd OPTION) Period : 1996 to 2030 Ye»r : 19. or 20 96 m 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 to 30 Lease contract CEC / NL Rerruining time of pre«nt CEC / NL lease agreement on the HFR and Petten Site Life time HFR vessel Remaining anbcipited life time of the HFR pressure vessel nb. 2 Anticipated life time of the HFR pressure vessel ab. 3 [existent] HFR vessel replacement Pre pa radon Replacement Period : 2031 to 2065 Preparation Year : 20. 31 to 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 SO SI to 61 62 63 64 65 cw Lease contract CEC / NL Continuation of remaining rime of present CEC / NL lease agreement on the HFR and Petten Site Life time HFR vessel Anticipated life time of the HFR pressure vessel nb. 3 continued HFR decommissioning Preparation Stage I and 2 Stage 3 Preparation Unrestricted site use Table 3 Estimated amounts of waste subdivided per category and or destination Waste category High/medium-level waste Low level waste Vessel and auxiliary equipment around the vessel Activated concrete Contaminated auxiliary equipment \D TOTAL Standard waste boxes (25 1) containing Drums of Aluminium Stainless Steel 180 - - 180 20 - - 20 kCi 1,0 - - 1,0 2001 200 220 130 550 6001 Ci 20 - - 20 12 2 2 16 Table 4 Estimated amounts of waste to be stored at C()\ 114 Container volume Dose equivalent/h Number of concrete containers 2001 6001 < 2 mSv/h >. 2 mSv/h <2. 0 mSv/h <. 2 mSv/h >. 2 mSv/h <2. 0 mSv/h J Vessel and auxiliary equipment around the vessel P Activated concrete Contaminated auxiliary equipment TOTAL 200 150 150 500 - - - - 100 - - 100 100 - - 100 DETEC Bericht Empfânger siehe Verteiler Titel: Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten (Summarizing Report) Revision stelre Revisionsubersicht ULS Blattzahl ErsteJter Datum Prufer Datum Fretgabe ProjekOerter , T. Datum RIX Erstausgabe r DN ùbergeordnetes Dotaiment DETEC 15 6? V > £^ Projekt-Nr UVST ACK 1 5 4 0 09 DE140 :*""irCInge DNR 0 0 0 6 2 6 10 - 00 Funkhon Komponente Baugtuppe Bau EB Lfd. Nr. AG UA Interne Kennzeicftnung: ; - n er r. umoer:; 3025005 u BE BtBtS 1 Schutzvermerk nsch DIN 34 beachten Formblatt DE110. DOT / QM / 09. 9< / lo Revisionsubersicht Blatt Beschreibung der Ànderung a ll F i r st i s s ue R1X / Datum 00/29. 08. 96 DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR 00062610 RIX 00 Blatt Formbtstt DE 102. DOT / QM / 09 & Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten "J 1 Contents Abstract 1 Scope 2 Assumptions 3 4 Review of t e c h n i c al c o n c e pt Review of c o s ts 4. 1 P l a u s i b i l i ty check 4. 2 D e t a i l ed e v a l u a t i on page 4 6 10 10 13 DETEC ExDert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten i£ DNR 00062610 R1X 00 Blatt Formbtatt DE103. DOT / QM / 09. & Abstract The intention of the expert review is to check the feasibility of the technical concept and the plausibility of the estimated costs. A comparison of HFR with 3 German research reactors actually in the state of decommissioning leads to the result that the cal culated amounts of waste and costs seem to be in a reasonable order of magnitude if one takes into account: the comparatively low residual radioactivity of the HFR the comparatively low estimated waste arisings low estimated decommissioning and temporary supervision costs. The results obtained by a plausibility check were subsequently confirmed by an independent detailed calculation. Total costs for decommissioning to free release (directly following stage 2) should therefore not exceed 25 MECU. Weighing the pros and cons for decommissioning as planned, it becomes apparent that there are hardly any pros left for a long n me phase of supervision following stage 2. radioactive decay, the argument often used in favour of defer ring stage 3, is of no significant importance. A dormancy peri od cf several decades will not improve the contamination situa tion substantially and will therefore not lighten the dismant ling work decisively. Conversely, the advantages of immediate decommissioning to un restricted release of the controlled areas are obvious: • Auxiliary systems that will be needed for decommissioning are either still in operating condition or can be kept ope rational. Deferred dismantling would require new installa tions with all implications (such as licensing). DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten DNR RIX 00062610 - 00 Blatt FomtNatt DE103. DOT / QM / 09. 9- Schusrvermerk nach DIN 34 beacfsten ^3 Costs for sampling and waste management (decontamination, waste conditioning) can be kept low as long as neighbouring JRC still has appropriate facilities at its disposal. This might not be the case several decades after decommissioning to stage 2. The availability of experienced HFB^ staff and of personnel with specific HFR knowledge at authorities and in industry. That knowledge is about to disappear gradually. D FT F ft °f nhS Draft. JRC P e"e2 ° ° = ^nt °n 00062610 - 00 Decommissioning of HFR Petten m Blatt L I C l| , Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten 1 Formbtatt DE103. DOT / QM / 09 5 I Expert Review DNR RIX ^V 1 Scope The Institute for Advanced Materials, HFR Unit, at Petten has prepared a preliminary study about the decommissioning of the High Flux Reactor (HFR) at Petten. The study is based on IAEA Safety Series no. 74 „Safety in De commissioning of Research Reactors", Safety Guide, 1986. It estimates expected costs for reactor dismantling including amounts of waste and costs of waste disposal. It is the intention of the expert review to check the feasibi lity of the technical concept and the plausibility of the esti mated costs. 2 Assumptions The expert review is based upon the following assumptions: decommissioning of HFR will be performed in accordance with IAEA Safety Series no. 74. after decontamination and dismantling of contaminated and activated areas and components the buildings will be re turned to the former owner for unrestricted site use. -ost dismantling work will be performed by the HFR operating staff. ail costs are calculated on 1996 price level. DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermetk nach DIN 34 beachten DNR RIX 00062610 - 00 Blatt FormbWt DE103. DOT / QM / 09. 94 1 J 3 Review of technical concept The IAEA Safety Series no. 74 recommends decommissioning by three stages: stage 1 includes the removal of fuel and all other removable contaminated and activated material like for example cooling water. stage 2 comprises decontamination and disassembly of such areas and components which can be quite easily trea ted and removed like the reactor vessel. In stage 2 it is intended to remove the main part of activity and to achieve unrestricted release conditi ons for large building areas. Those areas which can not easily be cleaned from activity will be sealed and will remain as restricted use areas for perhaps a long period of time. stage 3 finally will consist in removing all the remaining contamination and activation and will terminate the decommissioning by unrestricted release of the com plete facility. Tne HFR preliminary study strictly follows these recommendati ons. It must be mentioned that the IAEA Safety Series no. 74 is no binding regulation but a guide which explicitely admits depar tures from the recommended strategy. 3y the experience of decommissioning German research reactors e. g. AVR, FR-2 and MZFR) a 3-stage strategy guided by the gra- ne of technical complexity and by the radiological demands is a very reasonable approach to decommissioning. But we do not fol low the idea to keep the facility within stage 2 for perhaps DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten 1£ DNR RIX 00062610 - 00 Blatt Formbiatt DE103. DOT / QM / 09. 94 some ten years, an idea which at least is implicitely included in this concept. By nearly all actual decommissioning projects it can be learned that direct and immediate dismantling is the most effective way. This can be supported by mainly two arguments: until completion of stage 3 at least some auxiliary systems like ventilation and off-gas systems must be kept working. This will cause costs. - practical experience demonstrates the need for operating staff availability during all stages of decommissioning. Se veral decades after shut down it cannot be expected that ex perienced operating personnel from the facility will still be at hand. This situation will then also give rise to addi tional costs. Taking into account the development of waste disposal costs it must be an additional argument to complete the work as soon as possible - once the decision for final shut down has been ta ken. :. Je therefore strongly recommend to perform the decommissioning stage-wise but without long interruptions between different stages. The decommissioning sequence described in chapter III of the HFR preliminary study seems to be reasonable but with one exception: decontamination of the primary system and pool coo ling system (item 7) should be performed right at the beginning of the decommissioning work. To be precise: decontamination should be foreseen directly after item 1. Decontamination of the primary and pool coolant loop system should be performed with Full System Chemical Decontamination (FSD). Highly efficient closed loop processes of this kind also DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten. j i Schutivenmerk nach DiN 34 beachten FocmbSatt DE103. DOT / QM / 09. 94 -n for aluminum are available. Such a process will decontaminate large system areas fairly down below the limit values for mate rial free release. Appropriate processes are available which are strongly waste minimizing. Ion exchange resins which contain the total amount of activity and of kations will be the only secondary waste re sulting from such processes. Decontamination chemicals are com pletely decomposed within the process and will not contribute to the waste volume. FSD will not only help to save dose rate during system dismant ling but will also help to save costs because the complete sy stem will be decontaminated in one single working operation and most of the material can afterwards be reused unrestrictedly. The application of FSD presupposes an intact system to be de contaminated which is an additional demand for performing this process at an early stage of decommissioning. After FSD of primary system and pool cooling loops the pool it self should be decontaminated by standard chemical spraying. We nave based our cost review on a decontamination strategy just outlined above. DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten DNR RIX 00062610 - 00 Blatt Formbtatt DE103. DOT / QM / 09. 9* •1 % 4 Review of costs 4. 1 Plausibility check The preliminary study gives a rough estimate for HFR waste arisings and decommissioning costs. For an overall plausibility check it is helpful to compare data of HFR with corresponding data of other research reactors. For this comparison German re search reactors of different types were chosen. Their electric power is of the same order of magnitude like HFR and actually they are in the state of decommissioning. For these comparative reactors the decomissioning will also be terminated by unre stricted release of the controlled areas. Details are shown in the following Tables 1 and 2. The cost data of the reactors •status: January 1995) are based upon a BMBF publication. In our opinion the data of waste amount and costs given in the Tables for HFR fit together with the 3 other projects in a reasonable manner if one takes into account: the comparatively low residual radioactivity of the HFR, which is due to the very compact design of the high flux reactor and the material aluminum (already experienced during the reac tor vessel dismantling campaign in 1984), the comparatively low estimated waste arising with decom- ' missioning of HFR, which is a direct consequence of the low residual radioactivity, the low estimated decommissioning costs, which are directly depending upon the low waste arisings, the assumed availability of the operating staff and again the low residual radioactivity which both contribute to low temporary supervision costs. DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten DNR RIX 0 0 0 6 2 6 10 - 00 Blatt 10 Formbtatt DE103. DOT / QM / 09. 9- ^3 Table 1 : Drawing up of relevant data of research reactors (DM/ECU = 1. 85) name/site/country: AVR Julien (Germany) electric power (at operation) : 15 MWe residual radioactivity: 2. 6 E15 Bq (after removal of nuclear fuel) estimated waste arisings for dispo 668 Mg steel sal: 2000 Mg concrete 1015 Mg other materials estimated decommissioning costs to 193 MECU stage 3: estimated temporary supervision 11 MECU/year costs in stage 1: name/site/country: FR-2 Karlsruhe (Germany) electric power (at operation): 44 MWe residual radioactivity: 6. 5 E15 Bq (after removal of nuclear fuel) estimated waste arisings for dispo 1200 Mg total sal -'without thermal column) : estimated decommissioning costs to 132 MECU stage 3: estimated temporary supervision 2. 4 MECU/year costs in stage 2: DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvenmerk nach DIN 34 beachten ^o DNR 00062610 Blatt RIX 00 11 FormWatt DE103. DOT / QM / 09. 94 Table 2: Drawing up of relevant data of research reactors (DM/ECU = 1. 85) name/site/country: MZFR Karlsruhe (Germany) electric power (at operation): 58 MWe residual radioactivity: 1 E17 Bq (after removal of nuclear fuel) estimated waste arisings for dispo 1580 Mg steel sal: 1080 Mg concrete 100 Mg other materials estimated decommissioning costs to 237 MECU stage 3: estimated temporary supervision 4. 2 MECU/year costs in stage 2: name/site/country: HFR Petten (The Nether electric power (at operation): lands) 45 MWe residual radioactivity: 3. 7 E13 Bq. (after removal of nuclear fuel) estimated waste arisings for dispo 4 Mg MAW sal (without thermal column): 121 Mg LAW estimated decommissioning costs to 22 MECU (according 4. 2) stage 3 (without demolition of the buildings and other conventional systems;: estimated temporary supervision 0. 5 MECU/year costs in stage 2: DETEC Expert Review cf the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nach DIN 34 beachten DNR 00062610 Blatt RIX 00 12 Formbtatt DE 103. DOT / QM / 091 2-7 Therefore on this basis of direct comparison with other decom missioning projects the costs for HFR decommissioning given in the preliminary study seem to be quite plausible. 4. 2 Detailed evaluation Beside checking the costs by plausibility and comparison with other decommissioning projects costs can be proved by an inde pendent and more direct approach. This must include the consi deration of: extent of dismantling work duration of work amount of masses to be dismantled amount of waste arising material and mass specific dismantling costs planning and licensing extent of and techniques for decontamination handling and disposal of waste plant supervision, auxiliary systems standby, amount of personnel and operating staff. All these aspects were taken into consideration and were eva luated. Corresponding costs were then calculated on basis of existing knowledge and experience. Costs for the following activities are not considered here: Removal of fuel from the reactor site Removal of contaminated coolants and other readily remo vable contaminated and activated materials. As already pointed cut above we assume that extensive use will oe made of chemical system decontamination and that such compo nents which are not decontaminated during system decontaminati- :n will be treated after dismantling. In our opinion a conse- DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nacn DIN 34 beachten DNR 00062610 RIX - 00 Blatt 13 Fonnbtatt DE103. DOT / QM / 09. 94 quent decontamination strategy can reduce the amount of waste expected in the preliminary study. In addition we presuppose that stage 3 will immediately follow stage 2 so that within a period of 5 years the reactor building will completely be cleared from all components and structures with residual radioactivity above authorized limits. At the end of this time the building will be released from atomic law. The costs thus derived are presented in Table 3. Table 3: Breakdown of costs (status: 01. 01. 1996) Activities System and single component decontamination Decontamination and release measurements of buildings MECU 2. 0 1. 6 Dismantling of medium activated/contaminated 1. 4 components and systems Dismantling of low-contaminated components and 3. 9 systems Operational costs and management Planning and licensing. Disposal of waste Total 4. 1 2. 0 7. 0 22. 0 DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nacn DIN 34 beachten 2j DNR 00062610 Blatt RIX 00 14 Formbtett DE103. DOT / QM / 09. 9» Costs for planning and licensing were calculated on the basis of German conditions. With respect to HFR this assumption could therefore be a conservative one. We tried to recalculate the amount of waste, and we concluded that about 300 m3 of waste must be expected. Included in these 300 m3 are 1 - 2% of high/medium level waste, mostly arising from activated material. The 300 m3 of low level waste were evaluated on the basis of enhanced decontamination work apply ing advanced decontamination technologies. Assuming that the complete waste volume will finally be dispo sed off at COVRA about 3. 5 MECU must be set aside for a direct disposal of waste. Based upon information we received from HFR most likely the me dium/high level waste will need preconditioning prior to be sent to COVRA. Preconditioning costs seem to be somewhat uncer tain and not well established for the time being. We expect to be on the safe side by assuming once again 3. 5 MECU for precon ditioning and intermediate storage. In sum 7. 0 MECU should therefore be sufficient to cover the waste disposal costs. Vp tc the end of extended stage 2 (as defined above) overall costs of 22. 0 MECU must therefore be expected. Following our recommendation no temporary supervision costs will arise during stage 3. The assumptions of the preliminary study therefore seem to be formulated on a sound and solid basis. DETEC Expert Review of the Draft JRC Petten Document on Decommissioning of HFR Petten Schutzvermerk nacn DIN 34 beachten DNR RIX 00062610 - 00 Blatt 15 Formbtatt DE103. DOT/QM/ 09. 94 2 Y ISSN 0254-1475 ÇOM(97) 150 final DOCUMENTS EN 12 15 14 05 Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-141-EN-C ISBN 92-78-18088-2 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg zs