The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Appendix JReview of Existing Cost Estimates
Several cost estimates have been developed for decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the U.S. gaseous diffusion enrichment plants (GDPs). In 1988, Martin Marietta Energy Systems (MMES) prepared an estimate for inclusion in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Complex Modernization Study (MMES, 1988). Subsequently, between May and September of 1991, Ebasco Environmental (Ebasco) produced a series of estimates of the cost of D&D of the GDPs, with the final version, "Preliminary Cost Estimate for the D&D of GDPs," completed in September (DOE, 1991a). This estimate has been adopted by DOE as its baseline for the D&D of the GDPs.
Following the Ebasco estimate, DOE contracted with TLG Engineering (TLG) to prepare another bottom-up estimate of the GDP D&D costs (DOE, 1991b). Finally, DOE contracted with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to perform a top-down review of the final Ebasco estimate and to identify areas where cost reductions could be made (DOE 1992a; Murray, 1991a,b,c, 1992a,b).
The committee reviewed various aspects of these cost estimates through presentations at its meetings (see, for example, Davis, 1994; Faulkner, 1994a,b; Fulner, 1994, Guasco, 1994a; Lemmon, 1994; Murray, 1994b). The committee also sent questions to appropriate representatives of Ebasco, TLG and SAIC. The answers to these questions were used to help the committee to clarify the analyses embodied in the cost estimates (Ebasco, 1994; Lenyk, 1994; Murray, 1994a; Guasco, 1994b). These estimates are summarized and compared in this appendix.
MMES Estimate
In July 1988, MMES produced the "Modernization Study D&D Review" at the request of DOE's Energy Projects Branch as a part of the weapons complex Modernization Task Force. This review projected the costs for the D&D of the shutdown facilities at the Oak Ridge GDP. This estimate was made by applying the "Hanford Cost Estimating Formula" to the Oak Ridge GDP. This method applies a labor-cost formula to the cubic feet of waste in the Oak Ridge GDP facilities for three scenarios: protective (safe) storage, entombment, and return to greenfield status. Under the protective storage assumption, MMES (1988) projected an initial cost of $166 million (in 1990 dollars) with annual costs of $22 million. Under the entombment scenario, costs rise to $2.3 billion. Under the greenfield scenario, the costs rise to $8.1 billion.
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole. Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 262
-->
Appendix J Review of Existing Cost Estimates
Several cost estimates have been developed for decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the U.S. gaseous diffusion enrichment plants (GDPs). In 1988, Martin Marietta Energy Systems (MMES) prepared an estimate for inclusion in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Complex Modernization Study (MMES, 1988). Subsequently, between May and September of 1991, Ebasco Environmental (Ebasco) produced a series of estimates of the cost of D&D of the GDPs, with the final version, "Preliminary Cost Estimate for the D&D of GDPs," completed in September (DOE, 1991a). This estimate has been adopted by DOE as its baseline for the D&D of the GDPs.
Following the Ebasco estimate, DOE contracted with TLG Engineering (TLG) to prepare another bottom-up estimate of the GDP D&D costs (DOE, 1991b). Finally, DOE contracted with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to perform a top-down review of the final Ebasco estimate and to identify areas where cost reductions could be made (DOE 1992a; Murray, 1991a,b,c, 1992a,b).
The committee reviewed various aspects of these cost estimates through presentations at its meetings (see, for example, Davis, 1994; Faulkner, 1994a,b; Fulner, 1994, Guasco, 1994a; Lemmon, 1994; Murray, 1994b). The committee also sent questions to appropriate representatives of Ebasco, TLG and SAIC. The answers to these questions were used to help the committee to clarify the analyses embodied in the cost estimates (Ebasco, 1994; Lenyk, 1994; Murray, 1994a; Guasco, 1994b). These estimates are summarized and compared in this appendix.
MMES Estimate
In July 1988, MMES produced the "Modernization Study D&D Review" at the request of DOE's Energy Projects Branch as a part of the weapons complex Modernization Task Force. This review projected the costs for the D&D of the shutdown facilities at the Oak Ridge GDP. This estimate was made by applying the "Hanford Cost Estimating Formula" to the Oak Ridge GDP. This method applies a labor-cost formula to the cubic feet of waste in the Oak Ridge GDP facilities for three scenarios: protective (safe) storage, entombment, and return to greenfield status. Under the protective storage assumption, MMES (1988) projected an initial cost of $166 million (in 1990 dollars) with annual costs of $22 million. Under the entombment scenario, costs rise to $2.3 billion. Under the greenfield scenario, the costs rise to $8.1 billion.
OCR for page 263
-->
The Hanford formula applies (1) a labor factor, defined as crew years/ft 3 of waste, and (2) waste disposal costs to waste volumes. The labor cost formula was modified by MMES, as described in its 1988 report:
Since ORGDP [Oak Ridge gaseous diffusion plant] D&D activities deal with uranium, PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls], and chromates and have little, if any work with hard penetrating radiation, fission products, (except Tc [technetium]), activation products or transuranics, the labor crew-years/CF [cubic foot] should be less than that experienced by Hanford. Additionally, the magnitude of the ORGDP facilities and the labor campaigns either to Greenfield or Entomb and one of the Gaseous Diffusion Cascade Buildings would logically dictate the development of site-specific cost-effective methodologies, equipments and techniques. Cost reductions due to learning curve experiences (since many of the operations would be of a repetitive nature) and the benefit of economies of scale also dictate the lowering of the Hanford Cost Formula for ORGDP use.
MMES also modified the calculation of waste disposal costs. For example, the Hanford formula assumes $13/ft3 for low-level radioactive waste (LLW), but this was increased slightly to $15/ft3 for Oak Ridge, assuming that massive quantities of LLW could not be shipped off site. Also, the cost of disposing of hazardous and mixed waste at Oak Ridge was assumed to be $60/ft3, $25/ft3 lower than the Hanford estimate.
Ebasco Estimate
Three environmental restoration (ER) activities should be distinguished: (1) D&D of the GDPs, (2) remedial action, and (3) depleted uranium hexafluoride (DU6) management and conversion. Most of the cost of ER is for D&D. For example, Ebasco estimates the costs for the D&D to be $16.1 billion, for remedial action to be $3 billion, and for DUF6 management and conversion to be $1.9 billion (in 1992 dollars). (The costs for remedial action and DUF6 management were originally estimated by MMES and incorporated without review into the Ebasco cost estimate [DOE, 1991a].) The specified D&D activities and the cost estimates do not include environmental restoration of the soils, that is, the cost of decontaminating soil beneath or between buildings.
The Ebasco-estimated cost of D&D of the GDPs was based on two types of major D&D assumptions: DOE-directed assumptions and Ebasco assumptions (see Section 3.1.3 of the Ebasco cost estimate [DOE, 1991a]). As Table J-1 shows, between the May and September forecasts, the cost estimates were decreased by nearly $30 billion, from $45.6 to $16.1 billion.
Assumptions
DOE-Directed Assumptions
The following summarizes the DOE assumptions given in the Summary Document of Ebasco's final cost estimate (DOE, 1991a; see Subsec. 5.1.2.1, vol. 1):
OCR for page 264
-->
TABLE J-1 Ebasco's 1991 Cost Estimates (millions of 1992 dollars)
Cost Category
May
June
July
August
September
D&D (WBS 1.4)
Direct
$4,141
$3,819
$3,318
$3,303
$3,412
Indirect percentage
50%
50%
50%
50%
43%
Total
$6,212
$5,729
$4,977
$4,955
$4,879
Support facilities (WBS 1.6)
Direct
$10,050
$9,293
$3,446
$3,547
$2,436
Indirect percentage
50%
50%
50%
50%
43%
Total
$15,075
$13,940
$5,169
$5,321
$3,483
Waste management (WBS 1.2)
Direct
$1,118
$808
$903
$757
$689
Indirect percentage
50%
50%
50%
50%
43%
Total
$1,677
$1,212
$1,355
$1,136
$985
Program integration (WBS 1.1)
Direct
$5,844
$2,773
$2,334
$2,201
$1,796
Indirect percentage
50%
50%
50%
50%
43%
Total
$8,766
$4,160
$3,501
$3,302
$2,568
Subtotal direct + indirect
$31,730
$25,041
$15,002
$14,714
$11,915
Contingency (w/o WBS 1.1)
$7,467
$6,842
$3,596
$3,572
$3,229
Construction Management
$4,574
$4,167
$756
$751
$468
on all but WBS 1.1
15%
15%
5%
5%
5%
M&O fees (5% on all but WBS 1.1)
$1,753
$1,597
$794
$788
$491
Subtotal rollup
$13,794
$12,607
$5,147
$5,110
$4,188
Total
$45,524
$37,648
$20,149
$19,824
$16,103
NOTE: WBS, Work Breakdown Structure; M&O, Management and Operations. Some error is introduced because of rounding calculations.
SOURCE: Prompt cost summary table, Case 1, initial estimate, in Ebasco Environmental (1991a); pp. 20, 29 in Murray (1991a); D&D of Gaseous Diffusion Plants, prompt cost summary, all case studies table in Ebasco Environmental (1991b); DOE (1991a).
OCR for page 265
-->
The plants will be promptly decontaminated and decommissioned following cessation of operations.
Where technically and economically feasible, equipment, materials, and structures will be decontaminated for unrestricted release.
The products of D&D will comply with the criteria referenced in DOE Order 5400.5.
Standards governing acceptable levels of radioactivity for unrestricted release will be established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency in time for use in the D&D effort.
New decontamination facilities will be constructed only at the K-25 site, thus requiring transport of contaminated equipment and materials from the Portsmouth and Paducah sites to the K-25 site for decontamination. The residually contaminated materials will be returned to the originating site for disposal. The decontamination facilities will not be decontaminated or decommissioned at the conclusion of the GDP facilities D&D effort.
The decontaminated facilities will not be restored to minimum safety standards.
Existing facilities will be used for administration functions to the extent possible.
Contaminated solids will be incinerated in the Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA) incinerator at the K-25 site, with the ashes returned to the originating site for final disposal.
The presently classified portions of the GDP facilities will be declassified before commencing D&D of those facilities.
The Portsmouth and Paducah plants will have any uranium deposits within the process systems removed as part of the plant shutdown process to avoid any criticality problems during D&D and to relax special nuclear materials security requirements.
All non-D&D related wastes presently stored within the GDP buildings will be returned to the waste generator at no cost to the D&D program.
Appropriate factors for contractor overhead and profit will be applied to all direct costs.
A factor of 5 percent for contract management will be applied to all cost elements except Program Integration.
No restoration of soils near and under the buildings will be included as part of D&D.
OCR for page 266
-->
Ebasco Assumptions
Additional assumptions were made by Ebasco:
Assumed uranium concentrations in waste streams will be based on process knowledge because characterization data is not available.
All uranium waste streams will be sent to the Y-12 plant for uranium recovery.
A mobile gaseous decontamination unit will be used to remove uranium deposits from within the process systems before disassembly.
The gaseous decontamination process will remove at least 90 percent of residual uranium in the process equipment, reducing the content to below the special nuclear materials security control limit.
Construction and operation of two decontamination facilities—the high-assay decontamination facility (HADF) and the low-assay decontamination facility (LADF)—will be required for decontamination and volume-reduction of contaminated components.
The operational availability of the HADF and LADF will be 65 percent.
Residual Freon™ will be destroyed using a catalytic burner system.
Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination on duct surfaces will be removed by rinsing.
All building floors are contaminated with uranium.
All paint is lead-based and, when removed, will be solidified and disposed as Class I LLW.
All asbestos-containing materials will be classified as Class I LLW.
All asbestos-bearing transite siding will be considered nonfriable.
Selected materials and equipment will be classified as Class III LLW.
Appropriate criteria will be available for on-site disposal of uranium-contaminated and/or hazardous materials in Class I or Class III disposal facilities at Oak Ridge, Portsmouth, and Paducah.
Transformers and capacitors are contaminated with PCBs and will require two volume changes of oil to remove the PCBs. The oils will be incinerated in the TSCA incinerator.
OCR for page 267
-->
Cooling water and cooling tower sludges will contain uranium contamination but no hexavalent chromium.
No high-energy sources of gamma radiation are present in the facilities.
Standard commercial waste containers will be used for waste packaging (i.e. 55-gallon drums and B-25 containers).
Reduction and expansion of waste volumes will result from the different processes applied to the various waste streams arising from the D&D operations. Detailed assumptions are given in Table 5.1-1 of the Ebasco cost estimate (DOE, 1991a).
Transportation between GDP sites and to disposal sites will be by truck.
Disposal locations are within 10 miles of each GDP site.
Storage costs include a 20-acre paved pad at each GDP site.
The Assumption of New High- and Low-Assay Decontamination Facilities
The assumption of constructing and operating two large new facilities for equipment decontamination, volume-reduction, and packaging and for assaying the uranium content of the resulting waste packages before shipment to a disposal site has major cost implications. The postulated HADF, which is intended to handle equipment and materials contaminated with uranium enriched to 20 percent uranium-235 (235U) or greater, contains 192,000 gross square feet of floor space. The facility is designated as a Special Nuclear Materials Security area, requiring the appropriate security and accountability capabilities. The postulated LADF, which is intended to handle equipment and materials contaminated with uranium enriched to less than 20 percent 235U, contains 1,241,600 gross square feet of floor space, comparable in size to the K-27 or K-31 gaseous diffusion buildings.
Each facility contains equipment for decontamination and size-reduction of GDP components and waste materials and equipment for assaying packaged wastes to ensure that the residual uranium content of the packages meets disposal site acceptance criteria for uranium contamination before shipment. The postulated decontamination equipment includes gaseous decontamination, high-pressure, water-spray decontamination, and incinerators for liquids and combustibles. Treatment capabilities are provided for stabilization and solidification of sludges, powders, and ashes and for wastewater cleanup. Capabilities for process equipment segmentation and size-reduction before packaging are also provided, including plasma-arc cutting systems and supercompaction. Rinsing capability for components contaminated with PCBs is also provided. The assay systems are postulated to include passive-active neutron interrogation, segmented gamma scanners, and real-time radiography.
The HADF and LADF were assumed to be constructed only at the Oak Ridge GDP. Contaminated materials and equipment from Portsmouth and Paducah are postulated to be transported to Oak Ridge for final decontamination and packaging. However, both Portsmouth
OCR for page 268
-->
and Paducah are postulated to construct a certification facility containing packaging and assay equipment similar to that described previously for the LADF at Oak Ridge.
Estimated construction costs for the HADF and LADF at Oak Ridge are $269 million and $926 million, respectively; the operating costs for 11 years are $228 million and $677 million, respectively (all costs are in 1992 dollars and do not include contingency). The capital costs for the certification facilities at Portsmouth and Paducah are estimated to be $62 million and $59 million, respectively, without contingency. The operating costs for these facilities are estimated to be $740 million (10 years) and $476 million (8 years), respectively, without contingency. Thus, the construction and operation of these facilities contribute nearly $3.437 billion to the total D&D cost, without contingency.
Analysis of the Ebasco Estimate
There are five cost categories in the Ebasco estimate: (1) Decommissioning and Decontamination (D&D), Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) item 1.4; (2) Support Facilities, WBS 1.6; (3) Radioactive-Hazardous Waste Management, WBS 1.2; (4) Program Integration, WBS 1.1; and (5) Rollups (including contingency and construction management on all but WBS 1.1 and M&O on all but WBS 1.1). The first three cost categories include decontaminating the GDPs and disposing of the resulting waste. The Program Integration and Rollups categories require explanation (see DOE, 1991a, Sec. 3.2.1.1):
Program Integration includes the costs associated with the project oversight by the M&O Contractor, the Construction Manager, the Remedial Design Engineer, and the costs of an environmental impact study for each of the three sites. The markups for the Construction Manager include subcontract management, field indirects, overhead profit, and contingency. The M&O Contractor markups include surveillance and maintenance, additional security, contractor design and review, contractor construction engineering, health physicists, overhead adders and markups on construction management.
In interpreting these cost estimates, care should be taken to distinguish between "indirects" and rollups. In Table J-1, indirects are represented as a percentage of the direct costs for each WBS category. For estimates May through August, the indirect rate is equal to 50 percent, a value equal to a 30 percent add-on for field indirects, a 3.3 percent add-on for home office overhead (3.3 percent of both direct and field indirects), and a contractor's profit of 12 percent (12 percent of direct and indirect costs and overhead). (A 50 percent addition, or a total of 1.5 times direct cost, is equal to 1.3 × 1.033 × 1.12.) The indirect rate was reduced to 43 percent in the September estimate by lowering the field indirect rate to 26 percent and the contractors profit to 10 percent (1.43 is equal to 1.26 × 1.033 × 1.10).
Other rollups include contingency, construction management (on all but program integration), and the M&O fee (on all but program integration). Contingency, an allowance for unanticipated costs, varied across the three GDPs: for Oak Ridge the contingency rate in the September estimate was 24 percent, for Paducah it was 36 percent, and for Portsmouth it was 39 percent. In the May through August estimates, the contingency allowance was added before calculating construction management and M&O fees. The September estimate adds a contingency
OCR for page 269
-->
allowance after these fees are calculated. The construction management fee on all but program integration, which is in addition to all of the indirects, declined from 15 percent in the May and June estimates to 5 percent in all later estimates. The M&O fees on all but program integration, which is in addition to the construction management fee, is 5 percent in all estimates.
At the bottom of Table J-1, the calculated relationships between direct costs, indirect costs, program integration costs, rollups, and the total cost are presented. Direct costs, not including direct program integration costs, increased as a percent of total costs from 34 to 41 percent from the May estimate to the September estimate. Indirect costs plus program integration costs as a percent of total costs declined from 36 percent to 33 percent from the first to last estimate. Rollups as a percent of total costs declined from 30 to 26 percent. Again, total costs declined from $45.6 to $16.1 billion. Where were cost cuts made?
Much of the change between the May and September estimates resulted from the elimination of the Support Facilities category. The May and June estimates assume that LADFs will be built at each GDP and a single HADF will be built at Oak Ridge. The estimated direct cost for one LADF is $3 billion and for the HADF is $823 million. In the July estimate, full-scale LADFs were eliminated at Paducah and Portsmouth, and metal smelting and refining were eliminated at the HADF. (Note that there is no similarly dramatic decline in the costs of program integration between June and July.) Direct costs decline for these facilities at Oak Ridge in the September estimate to $1.6 billion for the LADF and $497 million for the HADF. Also, the costs of new administration facilities (office buildings) at each site change from the May estimate to the September estimate. At Oak Ridge, the cost of the new office building decreased from $29.7 to $25.4 million. At Paducah and Portsmouth, the cost of the new office buildings decreased from $29.7 to $12.4 million at each site.
Other changes between the estimates include a decline in engineering costs (included in the direct cost estimates) between the May and June estimates; a compression in the time for D&D at Paducah and Portsmouth from 12 years to 6 and 7.5 years, respectively, between May and June; the elimination of soil handling and the decontamination of support facilities between the July and August estimates; and a reduction in the size and operating costs for the support facilities between August and September. Minor changes between the estimates are documented in Murray (1991a).
To summarize, in the 1991 Ebasco cost estimates, the direct cost of D&D and waste management changes little from May to September, remaining in the $4.1 to $5.3 billion range. The direct costs for support facilities decline from $10 to $2.5 billion. Program integration, indirect costs and rollups, including overheads, fees, profits, and contingencies, declined from $30 billion (66 percent of the May total) to $9.5 billion (59 percent of the September total). Although further cost reductions in the direct cost of D&D and waste management would reduce total costs, changes in project management are likely to have a larger impact on these costs.
Comparison Of The 1988 MMES And 1991 Ebasco Studies
Table J-2 compares the MMES greenfield cost estimate (the MMES cost estimate based on assumptions most like those of the Ebasco estimates) with the Ebasco estimates of May and
OCR for page 270
-->
TABLE J-2 Comparison of MMES and Ebasco Cost Estimates (millions of dollars)
Ebasco 1991 (1992 dollars)
May
September
Cost Category
MMES (1990 dollars) Oak Ridge GDP
Oak Ridge GDP
All GDPs
Oak Ridge GDP
All GDPs
D&D (WBS 1.4)
Direct
$1,869
$4,141
$1,356
$3,412
Indirect percentage
50%
50%
43%
43%
Total
$2,804
$6,212
$1,939
$4,879
Support Facilities (WBS 1.6)
Direct
$3,899
$10,050
$1,484
$2,436
Indirect percentage
50%
50%
43%
43%
Total
$5,849
$15,075
$2,122
$3,483
Waste Management (WBS 1.2)
Direct
$472
$1,118
$246
$689
Indirect percentage
50%
50%
43%
43%
Total
$708
$1,677
$352
$985
Program Integration (WBS 1.1)
Direct
$2,312
$5,844
$1,009
$1,796
Indirect percentage
50%
50%
43%
43%
Total
$3,468
$8,766
$1,443
$2,568
Subtotal direct + indirect
$5,788
$12,829
$31,730
$5,856
$11,915
Contingency (w/o WBS 1.1)
$2,315
$2,828
$7,467
$1,169
$3,229
Construction Management
$1,832
$4,574
$221
$468
On all but WBS 1.1
15%
15%
5%
5%
M&O Fees (5% on all but WBS 1.1)
$702
$1,753
$232
$491
Subtotal Rollup
$5,363
$13,794
$1,622
$4,188
Total
$8,103
$18,192
$45,524
$7,478
$16,103
Ratio of Oak Ridge to Total
40%
46%
NOTE: WBS, Work Breakdown Structure; M&O, Management and Operations.
SOURCE: MMES (1988); Prompt Cost Summary Table, Case 1, Initial Estimate, in Ebasco Environmental (1991a); tables 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 in DOE (1991a).
OCR for page 271
-->
September of 1991. However, direct comparison of the MMES and Ebasco estimates is not possible. First, the MMES estimate does not identify direct and indirect costs or specify construction management or M&O contractor fees. The MMES estimate does include a contingency of 40 percent for all large facilities. To compare the estimates, indirect costs and rollups are assumed to be included in the MMES labor cost and waste disposal formulas.
Second, $2.751 billion of remedial action activities have been included in the MMES greenfield cost estimate.1 Remediation costs are not included in the Ebasco D&D cost estimate and should be removed from the MMES estimate for purposes of comparison. Subtracting the cost of such remedial action from the MMES total cost estimate reduces its value from $8.103 to $5.352 billion.
Third, this resulting $5.352 billion estimate was adjusted to 1992 dollars with the GNP implicit price deflator: 1.039 for 1991, and 1.029 for 1992 (see Clinton, 1994, p. 276.) This calculation increases the estimate to $5.722 billion.
Fourth, it must be stressed that these MMES estimates are for Oak Ridge GDP only. The MMES estimate for Oak Ridge GDP has been extrapolated by the committee to arrive at an estimate for all three GDPs. This was done by dividing the MMES cost estimate for D&D of the Oak Ridge GDP by the ratio of the Oak Ridge GDP cost to the total cost for D&D of all sites given in Ebasco's May and September estimates. Those ratios are about 40 percent in the May estimate, and 46 percent in the September estimate (see Table J-2). This increased the MMES estimate to $14.319 billion for a ratio of 40 percent, and to $12.322 billion for a ratio of 46 percent. Of course, this scaling analysis assumes that the MMES-Hanford approach would anticipate a distribution of support facilities and other resources among the sites similar to that assumed by Ebasco.
Although the modified MMES cost projection is much lower than Ebasco's May 1991 estimate, it is similar to Ebasco's September 1991 estimate. These estimates are much larger than MMES's estimate of safe storage: $166 million to implement and $22 million per year, which sum to less than $1 billion for 40 years (assuming a discount rate of zero). The cover letter to the Modernization Study D&D Review concludes:
In summary, we believe that the estimates for implementing safe storage and maintenance and surveillance of the shutdown facilities are reasonable and form our recommended action over the next decade. The actions implied by "entombment" and "greenfield" [scenarios] require a great deal of further study. Our current feelings are that other strategies will be adopted for the ORGDP [Oak Ridge GDP] facilities. Due to the limited time to prepare these estimates and the need for self-consistent documentation establishing the regulatory position and engineering feasibility, the cost projections should be considered rough order of magnitude only.
1
The MMES estimate notes "the following costs for Cr+6 [hexavalent chromium] and PCB contaminated soils and foundations have been included for the facilities as listed," but the "inventory of TSCA wastes, sludge fixation, stored wastes in the K-25 Building, and UF6 tails are not in any of these MTF [Modernization Task Force] D&D summaries."
OCR for page 272
-->
Therefore, the MMES estimate should not be given as much consideration as later estimates. However, it does provide another approach (i.e., the application of the Hanford formula) to the problem of forecasting D&D costs for the GDPs.
TLG Cost Estimate
Following completion of the Ebasco cost estimate, DOE contracted with TLG to perform another bottom-up estimate for the GDPs (DOE, 1991b). The TLG estimate used most of the same assumptions and the same inventory of structures and equipment as did the Ebasco estimate.
Several assumptions were made by TLG that are different from or are in addition to the assumptions made by Ebasco:
Internally contaminated process equipment will be packaged and shipped to the Nevada Test Site (NTS) for disposal after only the required external decontamination. Little or no volume-reduction of the equipment will be done.
Disposal charge rates at NTS are $8/ft3.
Floors, walls, and ceilings are assumed to be contaminated to varying degrees.
The empty structures will be decontaminated to unrestricted release levels and demolished. No site restoration will be done.
Nuclear liability insurance and property taxes are included in the cost estimate.
One of the principal differences in these two sets of estimates was that TLG assumed the converters and associated equipment would not be decontaminated internally but would be sealed and externally decontaminated and shipped intact to the NTS for disposal, at a disposal rate of $8/ft3. Another major difference was the duration of the assumed D&D effort: 8 years for TLG, and 11 years for Ebasco. Overall, the cost of D&D for the U.S. GDP complex as estimated by TLG was $13.9 billion. The many smaller differences are discussed in some detail in Chapter 4.
Saic Review
DOE contracted with SAIC to perform a top-down review of the Ebasco estimate, with a focus on reducing costs (DOE, 1992a,b). The estimate resulting from this review (SAIC's Working Draft Cost Estimate) is compared with the Ebasco September estimate in Table J-3.
OCR for page 285
-->
TABLE J-10 Ebasco Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (WM) Cost Summary for the Three GDP Sites (in 1992 dollars)
Waste Type
Volume (ft3)
Packaging ($)
Transport ($)
Disposal ($)
Storage ($)
Total ($)
Level III
5,181,884
83,367,329
22,288,561
168,420,188
1,962,107
276,028,185
Level I
12,463,894
88,904,933
35,713,631
179,541,184
4,716,424
308,876,172
Hazardous materials
5,119,516
2,717,070
10,612,025
73,745,974
1,937,074
89,012,143
Clean
3,995,754
1,459,000
11,685,233
0
1,513,712
14,657,945
Total waste volume
26,761,048
Direct cost
176,438,332
80,299,450
421,707,346
10,129,317
688,574,445
Indirect cost (26%)
45,873,967
20,877,857
109,643,910
2,633,622
179,029,356
Direct + indirect
222,312,299
101,177,307
531,351,256
12,762,939
867,603,801
Overhead (3.3%)
7,336,306
3,338,851
17,534,591
421,177
28,630,925
Overhead + direct + indirect
229,648,605
104,516,158
548,885,847
13,184,116
896,234,726
Profit (10%)
22,964,860
10,451,616
54,888,585
1,318,412
89,628,473
WM cost
252,613,465
114,967,774
603,774,432
14,502,528
985,863,199
Program integration (PI-WM) (Prorated)
14,366,156
4,565,749
34,318,773
811,023
54,061,701
Total WM cost
266,979,621
119,533,523
638,093,205
15,313,551
1,039,919,900
Percent of total WM cost
25.67%
11.50%
61.36%
1.47%
SOURCE: Based on DOE (1991a).
OCR for page 286
-->
TABLE J-11 Types of Packaging Assumed in the Ebasco Cost Estimate
Type of Packaging
Number of Units
Purchasing Cost (1992$)
Drums
321,396
22,497,720
Process containers
98,502
45,310,920
B-25 containers
90,171
59,603,031
1/4-inch-thick steel containers
49,026
49,026,000
Total
176,437,671
SOURCE: Based on DOE (1991a).
TABLE J-12 Net Packaging Unit Cost (1992$/ft3)
Waste Type
Oak Ridge GDP
Paducah GDP
Portsmouth GDP
Low Level I
7.13
7.14
7.13
Low Level III
15.90
16.16
16.25
RCRA hazardous material
0.53
0.53
0.53
Clean/recycle
0.38
0.35
0.36
SOURCE: Based on DOE (1991a).
cities' disposal facilities for final burial. Transportation costs include loading and line-haul costs. Table J-14 summarizes the round-trip transportation costs between the Paducah and Portsmouth GDPs and the Oak Ridge GDP LADF.
Disposal Costs
According to the Ebasco estimate, two types of waste disposal facilities will be built at each of the three GDP sites. The first disposal facility will be for LLW I and hazardous materials/RCRA wastes placement, and the second facility will be constructed for LLW III waste disposal, an operation with a higher degree of security and protection needs that must be designed to meet DOE requirements. The waste disposal cost estimate includes site characterization, construction, placement, and operation costs. It is assumed that Oak Ridge
OCR for page 287
-->
TABLE J-13 Local Transportation Cost Summary for Waste Disposal at the Three GDPs
Oak Ridge
Paducah
Portsmouth
Waste volume (1,000 ft3)
9,133,000
4,672,000
6,017,000
LLW I waste ($/ft3)
0.68
0.68
0.68
LLW III waste ($/ft3)
0.67
0.64
0.64
Hazardous material/RCRA waste ($/ft3)
0.69
0.69
0.69
Clean/recyclable material ($/ft3)
0.69
0.69
0.69
Average unit cost ($/ft3)
0.57
0.53
0.53
Direct cost ($)
5,188,000
2,498,000
3,212,000
SOURCE: Based on DOE (1991a).
TABLE J-14 Interstate Transportation Cost Summary for Waste from the Paducah and Portsmouth GDPs
Paducah (Direct Cost)
Portsmouth (Direct Cost)
Waste volume (ft3)
2,430,662
3,042,672
LLW I waste ($/ft3)
13.72
14.37
LLW III waste ($/ft3)
13.93
14.58
Hazardous material/RCRA Waste ($/ft3)
13.86
14.51
Clean/recyclable material ($/ft3)
9.93
11.24
Average unit cost ($/ft3)
12.17
13.09
Cost to Oak Ridge GDP ($)
20,468,232
28,431,262
Cost from Oak Ridge GDP ($)
9,111,556
11,389,804
Total ($)
29,579,788
39,821,066
SOURCE: Based on DOE (1991a).
OCR for page 288
-->
disposal facilities will operate for 11 years; Paducah operations for 8 years, and Portsmouth operations for 10 years. Clean and recyclable wastes will not be placed in the disposal facility. Disposal costs by GDP site are summarized in Table J-15.
Storage Costs
The Ebasco cost estimate assumed a 20-acre paved site would be constructed at each GDP site for holding, staging, and scheduling of the packaged wastes to be locally transported for final disposal. Construction costs includes the costs for excavation, subgrade, and pavement for the 20-acre site. The handling cost of drums and containers is also included in the storage cost. Table J-16 summarizes the storage cost for the three GDPs.
Waste Management Unit Cost Summary
Based on the unit cost component developed by Ebasco, the total direct unit cost by waste type is presented in Table J-17. Tables J-18 to J-21 summarize waste management unit costs by type.
Summary on Waste Management
In summary, the cost estimates for packaging, transportation, disposal, and storage appear to be high and offer opportunities for cost reduction. Among the waste management cost elements, disposal cost is the major driver, followed by packaging and transportation. Disposal costs and disposal facility locations will dictate the total waste management cost. Packaging, transportation, and disposal elements should be viewed as a single system. Volume-reduction and the recycling of waste material offer the greatest opportunity to affect cost and also to minimize institutional and social risks in transportation of waste material.
OCR for page 289
-->
TABLE J-15 Disposal Cost Summary by GDP Site
Waste Type
Oak Ridge
Paducah
Portsmouth
LLW I and Hazardous materials waste
Volume (ft3)
7,004,000
4,629,000
5,951,000
Unit cost ($/ft3)
14.34
14.47
14.43
Direct cost ($)
100,437,000
66,981,000
85,873,000
LLW III waste
Volume (ft3)
2,068,000
1,384,000
1,730,000
Unit cost ($/ft3)
32.19
32.71
32.70
Direct cost ($)
66,567,000
45,271,00
56,571
SOURCE: Based on DOE (1991a).
TABLE J-16 Storage Cost Summary for the Three GDPs
Oak Ridge
Paducah
Portsmouth
Volume (ft3)
7,161,000
3,370,000
4,340,000
Unit cost ($/ft3)
0.54
0.89
0.75
Direct cost ($)
3,867,000
2,999,000
3,255,000
OCR for page 290
-->
TABLE J-17 Waste Management Unit Cost Summary ($/ft3)
Waste Type
Oak Ridgea
Paducahb
Portsmouthb
LLW I waste
22.69
23.18; 36.22
22.99; 36.68
LLW III
49.30
50.40; 63.69
50.35; 64.29
Hazardous Materials/RCRA Waste
16.10
16.58; 29.75
16.40; 30.22
Clean/recyclable materials
1.61
1.93; 11.17
1.80; 12.35
a For the Oak Ridge GDP wastes, only local transportation is required.
b For Paducah and Portsmouth, upper figures represent local transportation cost to the disposal facility, and lower figures wastes requiring round-trip transportation to the Oak Ridge LADF for processing.
TABLE J-18 Waste Management Unit Cost Summary for Level I Waste (1992$/ft3)
Packaging
Transporta
Disposal
Storage
Total
GDP Site
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Oak Ridge
7.13
11.11
0.68
1.06
14.34
22.35
0.64
0.84
22.69
35.36
Paducah
7.14
10.51
0.68
1.00
14.47
21.30
0.89
1.31
23.18
34.12
7.14
10.51
13.72
20.19
14.47
21.30
0.89
1.31
36.22
53.31
Portsmouth
7.13
10.64
0.68
1.02
14.43
21.54
0.75
1.12
22.99
34.32
7.13
10.64
14.37
21.45
14.43
21.54
0.75
1.12
36.68
54.75
NOTE: Net, direct cost only; gross, including all indirect costs, except contingency.
a For the Oak Ridge GDP, local transportation costs to disposal site only. For Paducah and Portsmouth GDPs, upper figures indicate local transportation cost for disposal site and lower figures cover round-trip transportation cost to the Oak Ridge LADF for processing.
SOURCE: Based on DOE (1991a).
OCR for page 291
-->
TABLE J-19 Waste Management Unit Cost Summary for Level III Waste (1992$/ft3)
Packaging
Transporta
Disposal
Storage
Total
GDP Site
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Oak Ridge
15.90
24.78
0.67
1.04
32.19
50.16
0.54
0.84
49.30
76.82
Paducah
16.16
23.78
0.64
0.94
32.71
48.14
0.89
1.31
50.40
74.17
16.16
23.78
13.93
20.50
32.71
48.14
0.89
1.31
63.69
93.73
Portsmouth
16.25
24.26
0.64
0.96
32.71
48.83
0.75
1.12
50.35
75.17
16.25
24.26
14.58
21.76
32.71
48.83
0.75
1.12
64.29
95.97
NOTE: Net, direct cost only; gross, including all indirect costs, except contingency.
a For the Oak Ridge GDP, local transportation costs to disposal site only. For Paducah and Portsmouth GDPs, upper figures indicate local transportation cost for disposal site and lower figures cover round-trip transportation cost to the Oak Ridge LADF for processing.
SOURCE: Based on DOE (1991a).
TABLE J-20 Waste Management Unit Cost Summary for Hazardous Material Waste (1992$/ft3)
Packaging
Transporta
Disposal
Storage
Total
GDP Site
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Oak Ridge
0.53
0.83
0.69b
1.08
14.34
22.35
0.54
0.84
16.20
25.10
Paducah
0.53
0.78
0.69b
1.02
14.47
21.30
0.89
1.31
16.58
24.41
0.53
0.78
13.86
20.40
14.47
21.30
0.89
1.31
29.75
43.79
Portsmouth
0.53
0.79
0.69b
1.03
14.43
21.54
0.75
1.12
16.40
24.48
0.53
0.79
14.51
21.66
14.43
21.54
0.75
1.12
30.22
45.11
NOTE: Net, direct cost only; gross, including all indirect costs, except contingency.
a For the Oak Ridge GDP, local transportation costs to disposal site only. For Paducah and Portsmouth GDPs, upper figures indicate local transportation cost for disposal site and lower figures cover round-trip transportation cost to the Oak Ridge LADF for processing.
b Packaged waste only (unit cost for loose pack waste = $0.16/ft3)
SOURCE: Based on DOE (1991a).
OCR for page 292
-->
TABLE J-21 Waste Management Unit Cost Summary for Clean/Recycle Material (1992$/ft3)
Packaging
Transporta
Disposal
Storage
Total
GDP Site
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Net
Gross
Oak Ridge
0.38
0.59
0.69
1.08
0.00
0.00
0.54
0.84
1.61
2.51
Paducah
0.35
0.52
0.69
1.02
0.00
0.00
0.89
1.31
1.93
2.58
0.35
0.52
9.93
14.61
0.00
0.00
0.89
1.31
11.17
16.44
Portsmouth
0.36
0.54
0.69
1.03
0.00
0.00
0.75
1.12
1.80
2.69
0.36
0.54
11.24
16.78
0.00
0.00
0.75
1.12
12.35
18.44
NOTE: Net, direct cost only; gross, including all indirect costs, except contingency.
a For the Oak Ridge GDP, local transportation costs to disposal site only. For Paducah and Portsmouth GDPs, upper figures indicate local transportation cost for disposal site and lower figures cover round-trip transportation cost to the Oak Ridge LADF for processing.
SOURCE: Based on DOE (1991a).
OCR for page 293
-->
References
Davis, S.J. 1994. Considerations Affecting D&D: Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Presentation to the Decision & Process Panel of the Committee on Decontamination and Decommissioning of Uranium Enrichment Facilities, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., June 15, 1994.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1991a. Environmental Restoration of the Gaseous Diffusion Plants. Technical Summary Document, vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: Ebasco Environmental and Main-1893 for the DOE. October.
DOE. 1991b. Preliminary Cost Estimate for D&D of the Gaseous Diffusion Plants. Document S14-25-002. Bridgewater, Connecticut: TLG Engineering, Inc. for Systematic Management Services, Inc. for the DOE. September.
DOE. 1992a. Working Decommissioning Cost Estimate (WDCE) for the Gaseous Diffusion Plants. Washington, D.C.: SAIC (Scientific Applications International Corporation) for DOE. July 10.
DOE. 1992b. Decommissioning the Gaseous Diffusion Plants: Project Plan. Washington, D.C.: SAIC for DOE. July 28.
Ebasco Environmental. 1991a. Design Services in Support of the Oak Ridge Operations Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program. Initial Estimate in Cost Estimate Details, Case 1—Initial Estimate, All Sites. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Ebasco Environmental. May 17.
Ebasco Environmental. 1991b. Design Services in Support of the Oak Ridge Operations Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program. Cost Estimate Details, All Scenarios, All Sites. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Ebasco Environmental. July 15.
Ebasco Environmental. 1994. Responses to Questions on GDP Cost Estimates. Submitted to the Committee on Decontamination and Decommissioning of Uranium Enrichment Facilities, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., June 10, 1994.
Clinton, W.J. 1994. Economic Report of the President. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Faulkner, R. 1994a. D&D of the Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Presented to the Technology Panel of the Committee on Decontamination and Decommissioning of Uranium Enrichment Facilities, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., March 28, 1994.
Faulkner, R. 1994b. Hazard Summary for K-25 Site D&D Facilities. Presented to the Committee on Decontamination and Decommissioning of Uranium Enrichment Facilities, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., June 15, 1994.
OCR for page 294
-->
Fulner, J.C. 1994. Status of the D&D Fund. Presented to the Committee on Decontamination and Decommissioning of Uranium Enrichment Facilities at Portsmouth, Ohio, August 23, 1994.
Guasco, G. 1994a. TLG's Preliminary Cost Estimate. Presented to the Committee on Decontamination and Decommissioning of Uranium Enrichment Facilities, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., June 15, 1994.
Guasco, G.J. 1994b. Personal communication (letter) pertaining to responses to questions on GDP (Gaseous Diffusion Plant) cost estimates to J. Zucchetto, National Research Council. June 14, 1994.
Lemmon, W. 1994. Overview of Contamination Status: Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant . Presented to the Decision and Process Analysis Panel of the Committee on Decontamination and Decommissioning of Uranium Enrichment Facilities, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., June 15, 1994.
Lenyk, R. 1994. Written Responses to Committee on Decontamination and Decommissioning of Uranium Enrichment Facilities' Questions. Presented to the Decision and Process Analysis Panel of the Committee on Decontamination and Decommissioning of Uranium Enrichment Facilities, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., June 15-16, 1994.
MMES (Martin Marietta Energy Systems). 1988. Costs for Decontamination and Decommission of Shutdown Surplus Buildings at ORGDP [Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant]. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: MMES for DOE. July 29.
Murray, A. 1991a. Specific Analysis of GDP Decommissioning Estimates. Presented to DOE, EM-40, Germantown, Maryland, August 30, 1991.
Murray, A. 1991b. Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Gaseous Diffusion Plants. Presented to DOE, EM-40, Germantown, Maryland, August 30, 1991.
Murray, A. 1991c. Analysis and Review of Detailed Background Information: Ebasco October 16, 1991 Submittal for Decommissioning the Gaseous Diffusion Plants. Washington, D.C.: SAIC for DOE. December 19.
Murray, A. 1992a. Overview of GDP Site Clean-Up: Activities and Estimates. Presented to DOE, EM-40, Germantown, Maryland, February 1992.
Murray, A. 1992b. Overview of GDP Decommissioning Support Activities for EM-40. Presented to DOE, EM-40, Germantown, Maryland, April 30, 1992.
Murray, A. 1994a. Responses to Specific Questions on GDP Decommissioning Cost Estimates and the DOE Draft Program Planning . Handed out to the Committee on the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Uranium Enrichment Facilities, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., June 15, 1994.
OCR for page 295
-->
Murray, A. 1994b. DOE EM-40 Analysis of Gaseous Diffusion Plant Decontamination and Decommissioning Estimates and Draft Program Planning. Presented to the Committee on Decontamination and Decommissioning of Uranium Enrichment Facilities, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., June 15, 1994.
Items in cart [0]
