The Time is Right for Another Round of LSDP Technology Demonstrations

AUTHORS
Don McGee, Orano Federal Services
Lawrence E. Boing, ANL

PRESENTED
March 2, 2023
Waste Management Symposia

ABSTRACT
The current worldwide challenges of decommissioning nuclear facilities that reach the end of their intended lifespan will continue far into the foreseeable future. Now is the time to evaluate opportunities to perform the technology evaluations that will be used on future fuel cycle facility decommissioning projects. To support the ongoing efforts to plan and execute successful future D&D projects, it is essential that the best available technologies be evaluated, vetted and deployed in real D&D environments and to ensure future projects utilize best practices in implementing their work safely and efficiently. The talk of future advanced nuclear fuel cycle facilities construction/operation requires the D&D community to re-sharpen the decommissioning tool set to convince public and other stakeholders that the industry is optimized.

Considerable success was achieved in previous work of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Large Scale Demonstration Projects (LSDPs) in the 1995-2005 period as well as international projects by non-U.S. organizations. Technologies that were showcased and evaluated in those projects have evolved quickly when deployed, found to be better than the baseline methods planned, and have become common practice and greatly benefited the D&D industry. Advanced technologies of the time such as gamma cameras, robotics, personnel monitoring devices for field deployment, etc., have since become commonplace at many D&D projects worldwide.

Over the past 25 years since the original round of LSDPs, major advances in technology — such as artificial intelligence and virtual reality, UAV (drones), robotics, 3D imaging, gamma mapping, and computing power, to name a few — have resulted in evolutionary improvements in earlier baseline enhanced D&D technologies that were demonstrated and evaluated in the previous LSDPs. The nuclear decommissioning industry could benefit greatly from a new round of LSDP initiatives to showcase the latest advances in the tools and technology focused on improved worker safety, improved efficiencies, and relevant waste minimization and volume reduction. While great advancements in technologies can be achieved in a laboratory or a workshop environment, it is unproven until the concepts are deployed and tested under real-world field working conditions. Simply stated, most things work well under ideal conditions, but the harsh environment of an active D&D project site is where the viability of any specific technology can truly be evaluated.

The suggested vision is that strong consideration should be given to planning and implementing another series of LSDPs modeled after that original round. This would poise the D&D community to be better positioned for future projects going forward. Using a phased approach would be appropriate to systematically develop the best methodology to ensure the maximum benefits are achieved.

The initial phase would involve soliciting/defining the tech community-identified problem areas that need improvements. Lessons Learned and industry feedback would provide the key inputs for this assessment. The next step would be to identify suitable facilities (only DOE?) to host the demonstrations. The attributes of the host sites and the implementing LSDP teams would include common physical layouts of typical D&D projects such as uneven surfaces, embedded piping, limited access spaces, and, of course, radiological and non-radiological hazards that must be addressed. It is important to ensure there is sufficient space and infrastructure available to safely deploy and evaluate the various technologies of interest.

The next phase would have the LSDP technology teams identify and select technologies of interest for deployment/demonstration. The criteria for evaluation should ensure the tech is of mature design and has been used successfully prior to deployment. Another major element needed to ensure a successful LSDP is to develop objective testing methodologies that provide a realistic, challenging, but fair scenario to exercise the tool to determine its strengths and weaknesses for “real world” applications.

The goal of the LSDP should be to challenge the flawed paradigm of “we have an innovative technology in search of a problem” and, instead, define the problem and match a complimentary technology that mitigates the problem to allow cost and schedule reductions and safety improvements in most cases.

Introduction

Historically over the years from the first Decommissioning projects in the US, much of the work has used conventional old fashioned or traditional D&D technologies and methods. Upgrades to the selected methods were few and far in between. Zero funding was provided for any technology advancement. Sites with liabilities saw opportunities, but needed additional resources traditionally not included in program budgets at that time. Technology logic diagrams (TLD) documents were developed to screen technology and identify development needs for several of the larger DOE site with technology needs. That all changed with the ending of the Cold War in the early 1990s and with the transition of the old production weapons complexes to the new sites along with the closure of many older production or research facilities. Then the line formed to have those facilities decommissioned. To attempt to accelerate the decommissioning of those sites and to use smarter working tools, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) implemented Large Scale Demonstration Projects (LSDPs) in the 1995-2003 period as well as international projects by non-U.S. organizations to identify smarter, faster, and more cost-effective ways in the long run to complete the identified scope of work needed by DOE and the commercial industry as well.

Currently, IAEA and OECD/NEA are actively working in the areas of advanced technologies as they relate to breakthroughs for nuclear decommissioning. IAEA has a global initiative underway in this area and OECD/NEA has a task group working on this topic as well as its TAG on Decommissioning working in technology utilization experiences and new technologies experience. IAEA also has a Coordinated Research Program (CRP) underway on fast reactor D&D technology.

New Technologies - or at least new to the D&D technical area in many cases - were sought out for testing and deployment to look for better ways to become more efficient than with the past methods. The technologies were showcased and evaluated in those LSDP projects. In the end, about 20 of the 80 technologies deployed were found to be better than the baseline methods planned and have become common practice, deployed internationally, and greatly benefited the D&D industry. A total of 223 ITSR reports were prepared by LSDP team members for all the total demos conducted. These are available and accessible through the FIU ARC KMIT system. Advanced technologies at that time - gamma cameras, robotics, personnel monitoring devices for field deployment, etc. - have since become very common sights in the D&D workplace at many D&D projects worldwide. The earlier LSDP and tech demo projects and program were wrapped up in the early 2000s after a very successful program.

Some examples of these technologies included field deployment methods to gather field data that previously had to be sampled and sent off-site for analysis, which required much more work and time.

The technology allowed for applying the method in the field and its immediate results were just one example. Other technologies were not frequently used in D&D but performed better once tested and utilized in a real D&D workplace – concrete shavers, plunging pipe cutters, pipe inspection systems, surface contamination monitors, and other soft media cleaning technology. All of these tools are now routinely used at a typical D&D project site.

Current Status

Over the past 20 years (2003-2022) since the original round of LSDPs, major technology advances have taken place — such as artificial intelligence and virtual reality, UAV (drones), robotics, 3D imaging, gamma mapping, and computing power, to name a few — resulting in evolutionary improvements in earlier baseline enhanced D&D technologies demonstrated and evaluated in the previous LSDPs. Many of these have evolved due to advances in modern electronic technology over the years and enhanced capabilities at reasonable prices for all those tools. The nuclear decommissioning industry could benefit greatly from a new round of LSDP initiatives to showcase the latest advances in the last 20 years in the tools and technology focused on improved worker safety, improved efficiencies, and relevant waste minimization and volume reduction advancements plus schedule accelerations and optimization. While great advancements in technologies can be achieved in a laboratory or a workshop environment, it is unproven until the concepts are deployed and tested under real-world field working conditions. Simply stated, most things work well under ideal conditions, but the harsh environment of an active D&D project site is where the viability of any specific technology can truly be evaluated. Is it time to look at the benefits of and timing of conducting some other LSDPs or at the least the demonstration of new technologies to see if the baseline targets have in fact been changed? There have been some technology deployments, but these have been site-driven and ad hoc sorts of arrangements.

To effectively organize such a set of demonstrations, the focus should be on making the demonstrations more accessible to the most interested individuals at proposed the demo sites. Therefore, the emphasis should be focused on the less restrictive sites, meaning those sites without increased security protocols. Sites like ANL, ORNL, LBNL, Paducah, or possibly commercial sites, too, like through NEI or EPRI would more accessible. Of course, the sites must contain the types of problem areas in need of better solutions to address challenges going forward.

GAO, in a recent review of the DOE-EM programs (GAO 22-104490), recommended that DOE again look at this option as a way to help maneuver through many challenges and decrease outyear funding needs - especially in D&D that are not yet as fully known or with better optimized and efficient solutions than utilized on past projects. Future projects will present more challenges than past ones since many new projects require D&D earlier than prior completed projects. The GAO report recommends developing a comprehensive approach prioritizing R&D across the EM Complex and to use it for a risk informed decision-making framework for resolving tech issues for R&D funding.

The National Academy of Sciences, in a review of the EM R&D Science and Technology program in 2019, identified the need to:

• Identify the key remaining technical risks and uncertainties and prioritize them
  
  
• Re-establish the HQ lead role/function to support site and contractor science & technology needs
  
  
• Focus the program – right now it’s too scattered and not coordinated by sites
  
  
• Identify long-term needs and funding to support those needs requested in this program

Both the GAO and NAS reports urged consideration to increase R&D funding that has been diminishing since 2000.

Another important factor is that more work going forward will place the worker less into contaminated spaces than in the past. As an example, the UK’s NDA has said a 50% reduction in human manned interventions in hazardous environments is envisioned as a target by 2030 (NEI magazine October 2021 interview with Rav Chunilal).

Path Forward

The OECD/NEA analyzed D&D R&D needs in 2014 and published their report identifying R&D gaps in existing technology. From 2018-2022, CEA used this data to develop a separate path forward with EU funding to identify and roadmap partnerships tackling areas of various institutes to address these R&D need areas in a forward-looking, 10–15-year roadmap to solve existing data gaps.

The suggested vision is that strong consideration should be given to planning and implementing another series of LSDPs modeled after that original round. This would poise the D&D community to be better positioned for future projects going forward. Using a phased approach would be appropriate to systematically develop the best methodology to ensure the maximum benefits are achieved. The initial phase would involve soliciting/defining the tech community-identified problem facility type groupings and then areas that need improvements. A similar whittling of the possible list of available and useful technologies to evaluate could be considered after the problem area needs from the sites were assembled. Lessons Learned and industry feedback would provide the key inputs for this assessment. The next step would be to identify suitable facilities to host the demonstrations. Example host sites might include gaseous diffusion enrichment facilities, glovebox labs, actinide handling and processing facilities, chemistry facilities, radioisotope production facilities, etc. Non-DOE sites could be possible host sites, but accessibility and openness to receive visitors for demos and visits would be critical. The attributes of the host sites and the implementing LSDP teams would include common physical layouts of typical D&D projects such as uneven surfaces, embedded piping, limited access spaces (high reach and low reach) or complex piping nests, and of course radiological and non-radiological hazards including waste management opportunities and computer tools that could be or must be addressed going forward. It is important to ensure there is sufficient space and infrastructure available to safely deploy and evaluate the various technologies of interest. Also, any waste generated should be able to be readily disposed of at some existing site in the complex.

Deployment Preps and Deployment

The next phase would be to have the LSDP technology teams identify and select pertinent technologies of interest based on site and industry feedback of their needs – better decon methods, faster handheld dismantling tool methods, etc. for deployment/demonstration considerations. Team members set for evaluating relevant technologies could include representatives from a crosscut of industry – utilities, universities, DOE D&D/ER site personnel, commercial industry consultants/experts, and technology developers.

Criterion

The criteria for evaluation should ensure that the technology is of a mature design, meets or exceeds existing baseline methods utilized or planned for utilization, and has been used successfully on a nuclear site prior to the current D&D deployment. Previously deployed and newly upgraded technologies can also be considered as long as new value added is shown for the enhanced technology as it is compared to the current baseline method. Another major element needed to ensure a successful LSDP is to develop objective testing methodologies that provide a realistic, challenging, but fair scenario to exercise the tool to determine its strengths and weaknesses for “real world” applications. The goal of the LSDP should be to challenge the flawed paradigm of “we have an innovative technology in search of a problem” and, instead, define the problem and match a complimentary technology that mitigates the problem to allow cost and schedule reductions and safety improvements.

Technology Evaluation

Independent SME staff would gather the data and perform the analysis to determine if the technology was better for such tasks when compared to the baseline technology. This is comparable to the first wave of LSDPs and was favorably received. The USACE did the evaluation in that program. International technologies should be considered as well as domestic ones. The data and performance evaluation should be conducted independently by a SME on the nuclear field from an independent source. This is an important step to be sure that the data is not being tainted or biased. In the end, if a technology is validated of sorts by being demonstrated and found to be overall a better technology, the vendor can look for an opportunity to do further deployments and sell units perhaps to various suppliers in the industry.

If one looks at some of the past success stories from the previous LSDP demonstration projects, there were probably 20 to 25 key different new technology solutions demonstrated or deployed and demonstrated for the first time. Included among these were mostly not revolutionary concepts, except for a small handful, but instead field-modified tools for using in a real time mode over past applications. Examples of some major LSDP technology success stories include:

• Soft-sided waste bags as a general advancement in waste packaging,
  
  
• Mirion (previously Canberra) In-Situ Object Characterization System (ISOCS) for waste characterization and
  
  
• Niton Heavy Metal Analyzer for heavy metals surface characterization technology

Reporting

At the conclusion of each demo a summary report of the technology would be prepared by the demo project hosting the deployment. This would be based upon the evaluators collected date and review. The Innovative Technology Summary Reports (ITSRs) were first referred to under the first set of LSDPs. This approach was highly successful and was also utilized by the National Homeland Security Research Center among others for demonstrations they conducted in the early 2000s using a similar methodology. Many of the earlier LSDPs ITSRs are still utilized in planning and are regularly downloaded from the FIU D&D KMIT website where a set of the ITSR documents is maintained.

Technology Deployment Successes

Communication between the various D&D project sites utilizing new or innovative technologies has been handled on an informal basis and less along the funding lines as in the past with the national D&D/ER programs. Better opportunities to showcase and demo technologies being utilized at projects is necessary. As is better means by which to share the results of the same events.

Technology Needs

A first priority is to canvas the technical community and identify the needs of industry in more effectively conducting decommissioning at DOE and even non-DOE sites. The DOE-EM recently undertook such a needs assessment in the form of a Research and Technology Roadmap for the Robotics and Remote Systems study for the nuclear cleanup it did in 2018. Also, a similar study for the entire DOE Complex was compiled earlier in the technology development days of EM-50. This was nearly 25 years ago, but with thousands more facilities yet to come into the D&D area for handling, the workload will only grow.

Envisioned Technologies for Demonstration

The cost to demonstrate the interested technology would be cost-shared between the technology provider, the demo site, and DOE.

Technologies that are examples of better methods where field demonstrations could be useful include the following and would be evaluated and grouped to fit into one of the categories:

• Robotics and remote systems,
  
  
• Decontamination,
  
  
• Dismantling,
  
  
• Computer based tools / software
  
  
• Materials management, and
  
  
• Worker health and safety.

Specific technology examples that might be deployed include:

• MANUELA technology
  
  
• Laser systems for decontamination and dismantling
  
  
• Drones or UAVs and their applicability for site data and characterization
  
  
• Modeling software/imaging software/simulation software, including data analysis and plotting tools
  
  
• Field-deployable characterization technologies
  
  
• Robotic user-friendly tools – Portsmouth GDP did some encouraging reviews and demos of technologies for possible use in the closure of PGDP back in 2016-2018.

Industry at government sites and commercial sites is slowly moving toward more integration of better technology in its working plans. An example of this evolution among factors at a D&D site is the work planned by TMI-2 Solutions in their proposed D&D approach. In this work TMI-2 NPP D&D is integrating more advanced methods including ELIOS drone technology, a Building Information Modeling (BIM) tool, robotic methods, and advanced radiologic detection methods to undertake the D&D of the TMI-2 facilities. Another example of an advanced commercial technology with immediate usefulness that Orano developed is their ‘MANUELA’ technology, which enables portable, real-time data collection and mapping in the work environment all in one motion and intervention.

Summary

The current worldwide challenges in decommissioning the large inventory of nuclear facilities that have reached the end of their useful or intended lifespan will continue far into the future. Now is the time to evaluate opportunities to perform the technology evaluations that will be used on future fuel cycle facility decommissioning projects. To support the ongoing efforts to safely and efficiently plan and execute successful future D&D projects, it is essential that the best available technologies be evaluated, vetted, and deployed in real D&D environments and to ensure future projects utilize best practices in implementing their work in a timely manner. The talk of future advanced nuclear fuel cycle facilities construction/operation requires the D&D community to re-sharpen the decommissioning tool set to convince public and other stakeholders that the industry is optimized. Better coordination and information and technology deployment success would help the industry. This is consistent with the theme of this year’s WM23 Symposia.

There is an opportunity presented here to advance the state-of-the-art tools and equipment with better technologies that may facilitate accelerating D&D and ER of various sites and facilities. This opportunity should not be allowed to fade away without taking advantage of the opportunity to enhance the tools we have available as we move forward.

References

‘DOE-EM Research and Technology Roadmap – Robotics and Remote Systems for Nuclear Cleanup’, 2018, USDOE-EM.

DND KMIT website – FIU reference

Fact Sheet by Four Rivers Nuclear Partnership (FRNP), “Paducah Tests its First Robot to Support Cleanup Mission”, retrieved 10-27-22 from FRNP website.

IAEA article “IAEA Launches Initiative to Advance Tech Breakthroughs in Nuclear Decommissioning”, P O’Sullivan and N. Watson, IASEA web posted article, 11-2-22.

>> Return to Orano White Papers