Case Study

Prince Sattam Bin Abdul Aziz University
College of Engineering
Project Management
Case Study :
Project Selection for Spent Nuclear Fuel Cleanup
Presented By :
Mahmood Kodimy
Fawzy Radwan
Monther al Qassab
Wassem Ramadan
Nasser Al-Dawood
Instructor: Dr. Yehya Rashid
1
Agenda:
 Brief summary of the case.
 Answering the following Questions :
o Why it takes 5 moths to explain the problem to the stakeholders.?
o Why do you think the stakeholders no longer trusted the

authorities?.
o What might have been the problem with options 1,2 and 4 ?
o How is option 3 a solution ?
2
Hanford Nuclear Fuel Site
 Reactors
 Cooling towers
 Nuclear fuel
3
 Located in Washington DC ,USA

 Near to Columbia Rever
4
In 1994
Westinghouse Hanford Co., on contract to the
Department of Energy’s Hanford Nuclear Fuel Site
, reorganized for “projectization” to help Hanford with facility
shutdown, and site cleanup.
 Removing a facility from service
 The major project in this overall task was

the site cleanup
5
Challenges
spent nuclear fuel (SNF) : Fuel that has been withdrawn
from a nuclear reactor and it has been irradiated in a nuclear
reactor and no longer useful ((Consumed))
6
Challenges
Made of unlined concrete
7
Challenges
2,100 metric tons of SNF are stored
SNF is principally metallic uranium

but also it include:
- 5 metric tons of Plutonium
- 1 ton of Radio active Fission
products .
Some of SNF is corroded and
became sludge .
The 40-year old basins
original 20-year design life

Major leaks in 1970s and 1993
Operating and attempting to maintain these “accidents waiting to happen”

cost $100,000 a day 8
Addressing the problem
 To determine Acceptable Options Hanford went To:

Site’s stakeholders:
- The media
- Activists regulators
- Oversight group
- Three Indian tribes
- Government Leader
- Congress
- Hanford Employees
It required five months of public discussion for the stakeholders to

understand the issues and regain their trust in Hanford
9
Options
Another two months were required to develop four

project options as follows:
1. Better Encapsulate the fuel and leave it in the basin
10
Options

2. Place the fuel in wet storage elsewhere at Hanford.
11
Options

3. Place the fuel in dry storage elsewhere at Hanford.
12
Options

4. Ship the fuel overseas for reprocessing
13
 After 3 month of evaluation:
- Option 3 was selected

- The project was completed December 1999,“ three years
ahead of the original schedule”.
- saving taxpayers $350 million.
- the cost of maintaining the fuel is expected to drop to only
$3,000 per day.
14
Question -1: Why did it take five months to explain

the problem to the stakeholders?
15
Question -1: Why did it take five months to explain

the problem to the stakeholders?
 stakeholders :
 Stakeholders: are persons who either care
about or have a vested interest in your project
(owners, employees, government …).
16
1)
 We are faced here a immense problem ,we are
talking about nuclear fuel, because that we need to
explain the problem carefully and clearly to the
stakeholders.
17
2)
 Because the stakeholders are many and from different
aspects of society:
(the media, activists, regulators, oversight groups, three Indian
tribes, government leaders, Congress, and Hanford employees),
and each one has their own way of thinking :
-some stakeholders simply did not believe the problem existed.
-Others probably were worried that the suggested solutions
would only worsen the situation.
18
3)
 Is Take time to prepare for meetings with
stakeholders for Discussion and negotiation .
19
 NOTE:
Key stakeholders can make or break the

success of a project.
20
Question 2: Why do you think the stakeholders

no longer trusted the authorities ?
21
1- The basins located only 400 yards (366m) from
Washington State’s pristine Columbia River,
2- They had an original 20-year design life and

were in very poor condition.
3- They were experiencing major leaks in the

late 1970s and again in 1993.
4- Operating and attempting to maintain these

“accidents waiting to happen ”cost $100,000 a
day
22
23
Question 3: What might have been the problems with

options 1, 2, and 4?
24
Option one
 Encapsulate the fuel
 Definition
Encapsulate the fuel : enclose in shielded
a capsule or other small container horizontally in
tunnels at a depth of about 300 m
25
Option one
Advantage
By put extra shield Over the waste packages will be drip
shields to limit water contact ,This design allows a high
degree of flexibility for adjusting such things as waste
packages and package spacing.
Disadvantage
It just give more time not a solution of problem. so, the

stakeholder doesn't find this option as an alternative
solution
26
Option two
 Wet storage
Definition :
Storage of spent nuclear fuel in a pool of water or in canisters
filled with water
27
Option two
Advantage :
Doing some maintenance to reduce SNF from the Basins and provide for
up to 40 years of new wet storage in a new facility that meets current
design criteria. That's mean it would be accelerated reduce the SNF from
aging facilities near the Columbia River
Disadvantage :
it would require construction expense and continued
maintenance, would reduce but not prevent the continuation of
SNF degradation so, the stakeholder recognize that, we doing
the same thing over again and expecting a different result , but
the result will be the same of present problem
28
Option four
Ship the fuel overseas
Definition :
To transport the Snf to another location for
processing
29
Option four
 Advantage :
it converts uranium (the major constituent of SNF) into uranium
trioxide that is storable in dry form and for which future use
(constituent of power reactor fuel) might be found; converts
plutonium to a stable oxide for which a future use (constituent
of power reactor fuel) might be found
 Disadvantage :
uncertainties about the feasibility of shipping the degraded fuel
overseas. Also, costs of new shipping casks, and construction of a
new head-end facility at the processing plant
30
Question 4: How is option 3 a solution?
31
Question 4: How is option 3 a solution?
The option 3 was “place the fuel in dry storage at

Hanford” .
Why dry storage is the best…?
Dry storage managing is less expensive since it provides

all safety characteristics, doesn’t need electrical
systems (necessary only in vault storage), periodic
maintenance and a constant fuel monitoring,
increasing the system reliability for longer periods.
Another important characteristic is that the radiation
shield is made by thick concrete, cast iron, steel, lead
walls or a combination of them.
32
Summary
1- Dry storage is the most safer .

2- It can not react with the dry place while it is was
happening with wet place .
3- It does not need the expensive cooling and purification
systems as there are in wet storages "pools".
4- It has less risk in an accident than a spent fuel pool.
5- It is more difficult to crack or fail in an earthquake.
33
Conclusion
After all these considerations it can be concluded

that dry storage for spent nuclear fuel is more
advantageous for long time
34
Thank you
References:
1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT A Managerial Approach by Jack R. Meredith
2. Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel from the K Basins at Hanford Site,
Columbia ... By Richland County
3. Wikipedia
35

Case Study

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case Study

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Prince Sattam Bin Abdul Aziz University

 Answering the following Questions :

o Why it takes 5 moths to explain the problem to the stakeholders.?

o Why do you think the stakeholders no longer trusted the

 Located in Washington DC ,USA

 Removing a facility from service

 The major project in this overall task was

Made of unlined concrete

2,100 metric tons of SNF are stored

SNF is principally metallic uranium

The 40-year old basins

original 20-year design life

Operating and attempting to maintain these “accidents waiting to happen”

 To determine Acceptable Options Hanford went To:

It required five months of public discussion for the stakeholders to

Another two months were required to develop four

1. Better Encapsulate the fuel and leave it in the basin

Another two months were required to develop four

2. Place the fuel in wet storage elsewhere at Hanford.

Another two months were required to develop four

3. Place the fuel in dry storage elsewhere at Hanford.

Another two months were required to develop four

4. Ship the fuel overseas for reprocessing

 After 3 month of evaluation:

- Option 3 was selected

Question -1: Why did it take five months to explain

Question -1: Why did it take five months to explain

Key stakeholders can make or break the

Question 2: Why do you think the stakeholders

2- They had an original 20-year design life and

3- They were experiencing major leaks in the

4- Operating and attempting to maintain these

Question 3: What might have been the problems with

It just give more time not a solution of problem. so, the

Question 4: How is option 3 a solution?

Question 4: How is option 3 a solution?

The option 3 was “place the fuel in dry storage at

Dry storage managing is less expensive since it provides

1- Dry storage is the most safer .

After all these considerations it can be concluded

Potrebbero piacerti anche