Project 1: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF NICKEL RELEASE
Steve Hampson, Assistant Director, Kentucky Research Consortium for Energy and Environment, University of Kentucky
David Silverstein, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of Kentucky Paducah Engineering Program
There is an estimated 5,600 tons of radioactively contaminated nickel in the form of ingots stored at the current and former uranium enrichment plants in Paducah, KY, Portsmouth, OH, and Oak Ridge, TN. Nickel has a particularly high scrap value, but a moratorium by the DOE on commercial reuse of any radioactively contaminated metals prevents its sale. Disposal costs would be quite high, and result in the loss of the material as a valuable resource. This project would lead to the establishment and validation of a process whereby the nickel can be made as clean as or cleaner than conventional commercial nickel relative to radioactive contaminants. There are two portions of this proposal.
1. Develop a technology to remove radionuclide contaminants from existing U.S.
Department of Energy stockpiles of nickel ingots.
2. Apply the developed technology to purify the contaminated nickel inventory in Paducah.
OBJECTIVES
1. Provide a summary (and timeline) of the history of the issues with regard to the release of the nickel. Information in this summary and timeline should include:
a. Amount of nickel
b. Use
c. Types of contamination
d. Release standards
e. Moratorium
f. Efforts by PACRO
g. Claims and efforts by CVDR
h. other
2. PI will report on the possible economic paths forward for the nickel at Paducah (what is the potential economic benefit to Paducah with each of these scenarios)? This analysis will be incorporated into a course in engineering economics (CME455 Process Design 1) where the students will develop tools to perform this analysis based on variable assumptions. The result of incorporating this analysis into this course and its contribution to meeting educational objectives for the course will be reported at the ASEE Annual Meeting in 2006.
Expected Scenarios:
a. No release
b. DOD comes in and takes the nickel and uses it in their complex
c. DOD comes in and cleans it up some (e.g. CVDR) and uses it with DOD
d. DOD allows the nickel to be cleaned by a third party and released to the public
e. other
3. Perform an analysis of the following issues and constraints surrounding the
nickel release.
a. Technical (How clean does it have to be? What are the technical challenges with that level? What type of verification process would be required to "prove" the nickel could be cleaned to that level? How many samples would be necessary to demonstrate the feasibility of the process, etc.)
b. Regulatory (What current regulations are relevant to the clean up of the nickel and
the facilities required to clean the nickel, e.g. facility permitting, etc.)
c. Political (Why was the moratorium imposed, what would be required for it to be lifted, what is the position of the nickel industry, the nickel industry unions, the general public? What specific barriers exist with each group? What would be necessary to eliminate those barriers?)
4. Provide recommendations for dealing with the above barriers. A report will be delivered at the end of the project, approximately June 30, 2006. Interim progress reports will be delivered as requested.
TIME FRAME
One Year
TEAM MEMBERS
Steve Hampson
Dr. David Silverstein
REPORTS
Disposition of Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Nickel
KRCEE is a collaborative effort of Kentucky universities and is administered by the University of Kentucky.
