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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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.


INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0


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


INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0


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


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



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



INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0


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


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



INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0


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


Member, American Nuclear Society and Idaho Section of the American Nuclear Society

INL/EXT-13-28846 Rev: 0


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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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?

summary of final pu-238 production alternatives analysis (1)/67531/metadc840199/m2/1/high_re… ·...

Documents