National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 3. Waste-Package Performance Criteria
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×

4
Cost and Schedule

The third and final charge of the statement of task directs the National Research Council to provide, to the extent possible given the accelerated schedule for this project, an assessment of the cost and timing aspects associated with implementation of each aluminum spent fuel treatment option. The four-month schedule for information gathering and report development did not permit an in-depth review of cost and schedule estimates for the alternative treatment options. Instead, the review has been focused on the methodologies used to estimate costs to see if they follow generally accepted practices, are applied consistently, and result in estimates that are useful for comparative and programmatic purposes. Many of the comments in this chapter are focused on the primary treatment options identified by the Task Team (direct co-disposal treatment and melt and dilute treatment), the baseline treatment option (conventional reprocessing), and hybrids of these options, because these appear to be superior to other treatment options identified by the Task Team as noted in Chapter 2.

The main sources of information used in this assessment are the presentations made at the two information-gathering meetings and the following documents:

  • Technical Strategy for the Treatment, Packaging, and Disposal of Aluminum-Based Spent Nuclear Fuel, Volumes 1 and 2 (Task Team, 1996).
  • Savannah River Site Aluminum-Clad Spent Nuclear Fuel Alternative Cost Study (WSRC, 1997b).
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×

The first part of this chapter describes the cost and schedule estimates made by the Task Team and by Westinghouse Savannah River staff in the above-referenced reports. The last part of the chapter provides comments on the completeness of this work and its usefulness for comparative and programmatic purposes.

Task Team Report Cost and Schedule Estimates

Cost was one of the four ranking criteria used by the Task Team to compare the nine alternative treatment options discussed in Chapter 2. The Task Team referred to the cost estimates that it developed as "conceptual" and useful for comparative purposes only.1 The basis for the cost estimates included Task Team and third-party judgments, the latter primarily from "advocates" for each of the treatment options, costs for comparable applications, and simple calculations. The Task Team estimated the major cost components of an aluminum spent fuel handling, treatment, storage, and disposal system and, for each of these components, the Task Team developed a consistent set of methodologies for estimating costs. The objective was to achieve consistency in cost estimates for the various treatment options rather than to provide absolute estimates of system costs.

To develop comparable cost estimates, the Task Team made several assumptions about the design and implementation of the treatment technologies, the most important of which are given below.

1  

The estimates developed by the Task Team did not include factors such as indirect costs and contingencies, nor did they provide detailed breakdowns of facility and human resource costs.

Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
  1. Schedule. The Task Team assumed that aluminum spent fuel would be received and treated at Savannah River until the year 2035. The cost estimates covered the handling, treatment and interim storage, and disposal of all of the aluminum spent fuel received by Savannah River during this period.
  2. Facility Use. The Task Team assumed that the existing infrastructure at the Savannah River site, including existing buildings and secondary waste treatment facilities, would be used in the treatment and storage program whenever practical. For example, the Task Team assumed that the aluminum spent fuel would be received and stored in two existing wet storage facilities, the L-Basin and the Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuels (RBOF; see Figure 1.2). The Task Team also assumed that liquid high-level waste (HLW) streams from conventional reprocessing would be disposed of in the HLW tanks at Savannah River and eventually vitrified in the existing Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF). The Task Team noted that the use of existing facilities reduced the estimated costs of implementing most of the treatment technologies. Nevertheless, the Task Team determined that existing facilities were inadequate for all steps in the treatment and storage program and that a new spent fuel transfer facility (for receipt, handling, and packaging of spent fuel) was required for all of the treatment options.
  3. Spent Nuclear Fuel Receipt Schedule. The Task Team assumed that aluminum spent nuclear fuel receipts at Savannah River would follow the schedule shown in Figure 4.1. This schedule was based in large part on the capacity of existing facilities at SRS to receive and store the spent fuel under existing operating conditions.
  4. Schedules for Implementation of Treatment Options. The Task Team noted that the cost of each alternative treatment option would depend to a great extent on how quickly the option could be implemented. The Task Team assumed the following startup dates based on subjective judgments of the relative "maturity" of each treatment option:
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×

Figure 4.1

Projected receipt schedule at Savannah River for aluminum spent fuel. NOTE: HFIR = High Flux Isotope Reactor spent fuel; FRR = Foreign Research Reactor spent fuel; INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory aluminum spent fuel.

SOURCE: Task Team (1996), Figure 4.2-1.

  • 2001 startup date for direct disposal or direct co-disposal treatments.
  • 2003 startup date for press and dilute and melt and dilute treatment.
  • 2005 startup date for electrometallurgical treatment.
  • 2006 startup date for plasma arc, dissolve and vitrify, or glass material oxidation and dissolution treatment.
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
  • The Task Team noted that these dates were "aggressive" and would require acceleration of budgeting, appropriations, and management practices.
  1. Other Assumptions. The Task Team made a variety of other assumptions in its cost estimates, two of which are worth noting here. First, the Task Team assumed that the wet basins would be deinventoried as soon as possible after the spent fuel transfer facility was opened to reduce operating costs. Second, the Task Team assumed that the treated fuel would be shipped to the repository beginning in 2020.
  2. The Task Team's conceptual cost estimates are shown in Table 4.1, and a brief explanation of the major cost factors is given in Table 4.2. The last column in Table 4.1, the "cost comparison point," was used by the Task Team as the comparative cost estimate for each treatment option. The cost comparison point was calculated by summing the conceptual costs for each of the cost factors (i.e., the first five cost columns of Table 4.1) and adjusting these for two factors. The first factor, cost "adjustments," involves additional costs or credits associated with each treatment option. For example, the $60 million cost adjustments (i.e., a $60 million expense) for the first four treatment options in Table 4.1 reflect the costs of an additional drying step to condition the fuel for interim storage.2 For electrometallurgical treatment, the minus $220 million cost adjustment (i.e., a credit of $220 million) reflects the estimated value of the recovered uranium in the commercial fuel market.

    The second factor, "relative cost uncertainty," is a measure of the uncertainty of the cost estimates for each treatment technology. The cost uncertainty was estimated by aggregating the uncertainties for each of the major cost factors shown in Table 4.2. These uncertainties were based on

2  

The Task Team determined that some of the fuel would have to be hot vacuum-dried to reduce the water available to drive corrosion reactions during interim storage.

Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×

TABLE 4.1 Task Team Estimate of Treatment Option Costs

Treatment Option

Conceptual Costs by Categorya

 

Storage and Handling

Transfer and Packaging

Treatment

Interim Storage

Disposalb

Adjustments

Relative Cost Uncertaintyc

Cost Comparison Point

Direct disposal

280

440

0

120

440

60d

20

1,400

Direct co-disposal

280

430

0

130

210

60d

70

1,200

Press and dilute (20%)

350

420

230

100

90

60d

150

1,400

Press and dilute (2%)

350

440

230

120

200

60d

160

1,600

Melt and dilute

350

390

270

100

90

0

150

1,300

Plasma arc

460

380

450

90

90

0

440

1,900

GMODSe

460

390

410

110

140

0

410

1,900

Dissolve and vitrify

460

390

720

110

140

0

180

2,000

Electrometallurgical

440

360

600

0

50

-220f

400

1,600

Processing and co-disposal

430

170

640

50

90

-180f

10

1,200

a Cost estimates are shown in millions of dollars and are rounded to the nearest $10 million.

b Includes transportation and disposal operations and a prorated share of repository development costs.

c Adjustment for relative uncertainty among technology options as discussed in the text.

d Estimated costs for a hot vacuum drying facility for fuels that will be direct disposed.

e Glass material oxidation and dissolution.

f Credit for sale of Uranium-235 on the commercial market.

SOURCE: Task Team (1996), Table 4.2-2.

Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×

synoptic judgments by the Task Team of the reliability of the cost data and differences in the technical maturities of the treatment options. In general, the treatment options that are more complex or less mature in a technical sense tend to be associated with higher cost uncertainties. Thus,

TABLE 4.2 Significant Cost Factors in the Aluminum Spent Fuel Dispositioning Program

Cost Factor

Description

Wet storage and handling

Primarily the cost of operating and maintaining existing wet storage facilities at Savannah River (L-Basin and RBOF)

Transfer and packaging

Pre- and post-treatment handling costs, including the cost of spent fuel transfer facility

Treatment

Actual costs associated with treating the waste to put it into a form acceptable for interim storage and repository disposal

Interim storage

The cost of constructing and maintaining an interim storage facility (a modular dry vault) of a size scaled for the number of waste canisters produced by each treatment option

Disposal

Costs for transportation of waste to the repository from Savannah River, placement of wastes in disposal canisters, and emplacement in the repository

 

SOURCE: Task Team (199 6).

Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×

for example, direct co-disposal treatment has a lower uncertainty because the technology is relatively mature. Plasma arc treatment is less technically mature and is therefore associated with a significantly greater uncertainty.

A conceptual cost estimate for processing and co-disposal treatment (last row in Table 4.1; see Chapter 2 for a description of this treatment option) was included in the analysis for comparative purposes. The Task Team assumed that aluminum spent fuel at Savannah River would be reprocessed in the H Canyon at Savannah River until 2008, and the aluminum spent fuel received after that date would be treated using direct co-disposal treatment.

Alternative Cost Study

In December 1997, Westinghouse Savannah River Company released a report (WSRC, 1997b, hereafter referred to as the "alternative cost study") that provided life-cycle cost estimates for the period 19982037 for the aluminum spent fuel treatment program at Savannah River. This alternative cost study builds on the work in the Task Team report and attempts to provide more realistic cost estimates that can be used for program planning and decision purposes.

In this study, life-cycle costs for each of the treatment technologies were estimated using a "bottoms-up" approach. Estimates for wet -storage and handling costs were made using the current operational costs of the L-Basin and RBOF facilities. Estimates for treatment, handling and packaging, and interim storage were made by costing out the required equipment and facility space and by estimating the number of staff and shifts needed to complete the work. Transportation and disposal cost estimates were based on the latest data available from DOE-Yucca Mountain. The cost estimates included indirect costs and contingencies, some financing costs for privatization (see the following paragraph), the costs for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×

Commission [USNRC] licensing3 and International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] safeguards and security controls,4 and adjustments for inflation.

The cost estimates also reflected several changes in management plans, schedules, and other programmatic assumptions since the Task Team report was published. A detailed discussion of these changes is beyond the scope of the present report, but three significant changes are worth noting. First, the alternative cost study estimates were based on privatization of the aluminum spent fuel treatment program at Savannah River. Costs were adjusted for financing and a five-year capital recovery period to be consistent with Westinghouse Savannah River methods for estimating costs. Second, the estimates were based on a more realistic schedule for implementing the various treatment options. An implementation date of 2006 was assumed for direct co-disposal, press and dilute, and melt and dilute treatment, and a 2011 implementation date was assumed for the other treatment options.

Third, the alternative cost study also considered the use of conventional reprocessing to treat part of the aluminum spent fuel inventory and assumed that shipments of some of the aluminum spent fuel now being stored at the Idaho Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) could be accelerated. The alternative cost study provides cost estimates for conventional reprocessing of aluminum spent fuel until about 2010, followed by either direct co-disposal treatment, melt and dilute treatment, or continued reprocessing in a new dedicated facility.

3  

DOE is self-regulating and is not required to obtain USNRC licenses for its facilities. If DOE decides to privatize the aluminum spent fuel treatment program, however, the contractor selected to run the program will have to obtain USNRC licenses for its facilities (under 10 CFR 72), even if they are constructed on the Savannah River site.

4  

This involves verification of facility designs, records management, inspections, and containment and surveillance activities carried out in accordance with 10 CFR parts 73, 74, and 75.

Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×

From the information made available to the P.I. it was not possible to separate the technical, economic, and policy reasons for proposing the latter plan in which a dedicated facility would be built to continue reprocessing.

The estimates of life-cycle costs adjusted to 1998 dollars are listed in Table 4.3, and the results of a sensitivity analysis of the cost estimates are shown in Figure 4.2. The sensitivity analysis was performed by assuming a +30 percent uncertainty in capital costs, +20 percent on new facility operating costs, +40 percent on repository costs, and +20 percent on uranium values (for resale of recovered uranium to the commercial market). Not surprisingly, the less complex or more mature treatment options (e.g., conventional reprocessing and direct co-disposal treatment) tend to have the lowest estimated costs and smallest cost uncertainties, whereas the more advanced treatment technologies (e.g., plasma arc treatment) are associated with the highest cost estimates and largest uncertainties.

Comparison of Task Team and Alternative Cost Study Estimates

The cost estimates provided by the Task Team and the alternative cost study are not in a strict sense directly comparable because they are based on different sets of planning assumptions and are indexed to different budget periods.5 Nevertheless, three general observations that can be made about these estimates for the purpose of a subsequent discussion of the final charge in the statement of task.

The first observation is that the cost estimates provided in the alternative cost study are significantly higher than the estimates in the Task Team report. These differences range from $830 million for processing and direct co-disposal treatment to about $1.8 billion for

5  

The periods are 1996-2035 for the Task Team report and 1998-2037 for the alternative cost study.

Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×

TABLE 4.3 Life-Cycle Costsa for Aluminum Spent Fuel Treatment Program from Alternative Cost Study

 

Wet Storage and Handling

Transfer, Storage, and Treatment

Fuel and Waste Processing

Repository Disposal

Uranium Credits

Total

Alternative

Co-disposal

730

1,370

0

170

0

2,270

Melt and dilute

730

1,430

0

50

0

2,210

Press and dilute

730

1,670

0

80

0

2,480

Electrometallurgy

730

2,690

0

30

-270

3,180

Dissolve and vitrify

730

2,840

0

200

0

3,770

GMODS

730

2,470

0

200

0

3,400

Plasma arc

730

2,560

0

80

0

3,370

Reprocess and co-disposalb

750

740

670

70

-200

2,030

Reprocess and melt and dilutec

750

880

670

30

-200

2,130

Reprocessd

750

1,180

670

30

-270

2,360

a Cost estimates are shown in millions of 1998 dollars and are rounded to the nearest $10 million.

b Reprocessing in the Canyons to last until 2010, followed by direct co-disposal treatment of remaining fuel.

c Reprocessing in the Canyons to last until 2010, followed by melt and dilute treatment of remaining fuel.

d Reprocessing in the Canyons to last until 2010, followed by reprocessing of the remaining fuel in a new dedicated facility.

SOURCE: WSRC (1997b).

Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×

Figure 4.2

Sensitivity analyses of the life-cycle cost estimates for the various spent fuel treatment options. Open circle represents the estimated cost, and vertical bars indicate the uncertainty range. NOTE: GMODS = glass material oxidation and dissolution treatment; M&D = melt and dilute treatment. SOURCE: WSRC (1997b).

Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×

dissolve and vitrify treatment. The alternative cost study estimates are of total system costs based on more realistic schedules and system requirements.

The second observation is that although the cost estimates in the two studies are significantly different, the relative rankings of the various classes of alternative treatment options are not. In both sets of estimates, the less complex and more mature treatment options are less costly than the more complex treatment options. The least expensive options (processing and direct co-disposal and processing and melt and dilute treatment) are those that rely to the greatest extent on proven treatment technologies (i.e., conventional reprocessing).

A third observation is that there is a relatively small range of estimated costs for the various treatment options, particularly the more mature treatment options. In the Task Team estimate, for example, total system costs for the various treatment options range from $1,200 million to $2,000 million, and costs for the more mature treatment options (direct disposal, direct co-disposal, melt and dilute, press and dilute, and processing and direct co-disposal) range from $1,200 million to $1,600 million. In the alternative cost study, the estimated life-cycle costs of these mature treatment options range from $2,030 million to $2,480 million.

At least three hypotheses can be offered to explain the similarity in costs for the mature treatment options: (1) the cost estimates are incomplete; (2) the costs of the mature treatment options are similar; or (3) the costs of the mature treatment options are different but comprise only a small part of the overall treatment and storage costs. The cost breakdown in the Task Team report (Table 4.1) suggests that the third hypothesis probably is most nearly correct. The estimated treatment costs for the mature technologies are significantly different—they range from zero for direct co-disposal to $270 million for melt and dilute—but account for only a small part of the total system costs for these treatment options. In other words, most of the costs are for handling, storage,

Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×

packaging, and disposal, not for treatment itself. In the alternative cost study, the distinction between treatment costs and storage and handling costs cannot be made because all of these costs are grouped into a single estimate.

Response to Third Charge in Statement of Task

The final charge of the statement of task involves the assessment of the cost and timing aspects associated with implementation of each spent nuclear fuel treatment option. This charge is addressed through a discussion of the following three questions:

  1. Do the cost estimates account for all of the major cost factors in the aluminum spent fuel treatment program?
  2. Are the cost and schedule estimates suitable for comparison of the options and selection of one or more preferred alternatives?
  3. Are the cost and schedule estimates suitable for budget planning purposes?
  4. Several of the consultants provided comments that were helpful in responding to these questions, most notably Maurice Angvall, Brian Estes, and Richard Smith. Their reports are provided in Appendix D.

    The answer to the first question—do the cost estimates account for all of the major cost factors in the aluminum spent fuel treatment program?—is ''yes." The major cost factors of the system for receiving, treating, handling, storing, and disposing of aluminum spent fuel for each of the treatment options were identified in the Task Team report, and systematic cost estimates for these major cost factors were developed in the alternative cost study report. The cost estimates were reasonably transparent in both reports: that is, both reports provided reasonably complete cost breakdowns, a list of the programmatic assumptions used in

Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×

the cost estimates, and an explanation of the methodologies used to estimate uncertainties in total system costs.

Of the two cost studies, the alternative cost study is a more complete estimate of total system costs. This study includes detailed breakdowns of equipment, facilities, and manpower requirements for each treatment option. The cost estimates were constructed using reasonable scaling factors, contingencies, and inflation factors, and they account for IAEA security and safeguard costs and USNRC licensing costs.

The answer to the second question—are cost and schedule estimates suitable for comparison of options and selection of one or more preferred alternatives?—is a qualified "yes." The cost estimates in both the Task Team report and the alternative cost study appear to be sufficiently complete for comparative purposes and for selecting a small number of alternative treatment options for further consideration. The observation noted above that the relative costs among the options in the two reports suggests that the major cost factors have been identified and costs have been estimated adequately in a relative sense.

The schedules laid out in the Task Team report were clearly unrealistic, but this does not appear to have had a significant effect on the selection of treatment options. The schedules laid out in the alternative cost study report are more realistic but still appear to be somewhat ambitious, and there is no provision in the cost estimates for additional program delays. Additional significant program delays could add substantially to the costs for this program.

The answer to the question is qualified because costs did not turn out to be a particularly effective discriminator of the various treatment options, mainly because the treatment options themselves comprised a relatively small part of overall systems costs. There was not much consideration given in either the Task Team report or the alternative cost study reducing overall systems costs by considering alternatives in the fuel receipt schedule shown in Figure 4.1. As noted previously, the fuel receipt schedule used in the Task Team report was based largely on

Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×

current handling and storage capabilities at Savannah River, and no consideration was given to how changes to this schedule could affect system costs or the selection of alternative treatment technologies. The alternative cost study did examine the impact of accelerating the receipt of aluminum spent fuel from INEEL on processing treatment options, but did not consider other potential flexibilities in the schedule. Additional comments on this point are offered in the next chapter

The answer to the final question—are the cost and schedule estimates suitable for budget planning purposes?—is "no." Although the cost and schedule estimates in the alternative cost study are clearly more realistic than those in the Task Team report, the schedules are still very ambitious and depend to a great extent on the timely completion of work by other parts of DOE. For example, DOE-Savannah River will not be able to select the direct co-disposal treatment option until the acceptability of aluminum spent fuel for direct disposal is established by DOE-Yucca Mountain and the proliferation policy issue (Chapter 5) is resolved. The repository and engineered barrier designs at Yucca Mountain are changing and will continue to do so for at least the next two years, and a definitive PA may not be available until after the environmental impact statement (EIS) and record of decision (ROD) for the aluminum spent fuel program are released.6 The nonproliferation study currently under way in another part of DOE (Chapter 5) also could significantly impact schedules, budgets, and the selection of treatment options, especially conventional reprocessing.

The cost and schedule estimates also are limited by the lack of conceptual designs for some of the treatment facilities and because some of the process steps have not yet been demonstrated to work for aluminum spent fuel. This affects not only construction and operating costs, but also the decontamination and decommissioning costs of any such facility. Additionally, the alternative cost study assumes privatization of the

6  

As noted in Chapter 1, DOE-Savannah River plans to issue the EIS-ROD in 1999.

Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×

treatment program, but DOE experiences with cost estimates for privatization have not been very reliable in the past.

The cost estimates also do not consider the impacts of program delays on costs and schedules. Some amount of delay seems inevitable even under the best of circumstances and could come from several quarters. DOE must decide, for example, whether to pursue the project under the privatization program, and if so, it must prepare a solicitation, review bids, and negotiate a contract. A budget for the program must be developed and submitted to the office of Management and Budget (OMB) and to Congress, and funds must be authorized and appropriated. Facilities must be designed and constructed and must pass environmental, health, and safety reviews, including USNRC reviews. Treatment equipment will have to be constructed and tested, and unanticipated problems will have to be addressed.

The program has been unable to meet the schedules outlined in the Task Team report, which was published only two years ago, and a number of additional delays of varying significance will no doubt be encountered as the program moves forward. There is no allowance for such delays in either the Task Team report or the alternative cost study, although DOE-Savannah River staff did express sensitivity to these issues at the information-gathering sessions. DOE-Savannah River will have to incorporate sufficient budgeting and scheduling flexibility into its planning to deal with such delays.

Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"4. Cost and Schedule." National Research Council. 1998. Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6099.
×
Page 93
Next: 5. Concluding Observations »
Research Reactor Aluminum Spent Fuel: Treatment Options for Disposal Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $53.00 Buy Ebook | $42.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for management of aluminum spent fuel from foreign and domestic research reactors, much of which is highly enriched in uranium-235. This EIS will assess the need for additional treatment and storage facilities at the Savannah River Site to accommodate the receipt of this fuel, and it also will assess and select a treatment technology to prepare this fuel for interim storage and eventual shipment to a repository for disposal.

This National Research Council book, which was prepared at the request of DOE's Savannah River Office, provides a technical assessment of the technologies, costs, and schedules developed by DOE for eight alternative treatment options and the baseline reprocessing option. It also provides comments on DOE's aluminum spent fuel disposal program, a program that is slated to last for about 40 years and cost in excess of $2 billion.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!