National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: I: WASTE TREATMENT
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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):

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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).

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
  • 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.
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
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.
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
  • 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

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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).

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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."

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

TABLE J-3 Comparison of SAIC and Ebasco Cost Estimates (in millions of 1992 dollars)

Cost Category

Ebasco (September)

SAIC

D&D (WBS 1.4)

Direct

$3,412

$3,931

Indirect percentage

43%

14%

Total

$4,879

$4,481

Support Facilities (WBS 1.6)

Direct

$2,436

$359

Indirect percentage

43%

14%

Total

$3,483

$409

Waste Management (WBS 1.2)

Direct

$689

$446

Indirect percentage

43%

14%

Total

$985

$508

Program Integration (WBS 1.1)

Direct

$1,796

$2,251

Indirect percentage

43%

0%

Total

$2,568

$2,251

Subtotal Direct+Indirect

$11,915

$7,649

Construction Management (5% on all but WBS 1.1)

$468

$269

M&O or Environmental Remediation Management Contractor (ERMC) Fees

$491

$339

 

5%

6%

Contingency (w/o WBS 1.1)

$3,229

$1,185

Subtotal Rollup

$4,188

$1,794

Total

$16,103

$9,443

NOTE: WBS, Work Breakdown Structure; M&O, Management and Operations.

SOURCE: DOE (1991a, 1992a).

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

Sensitivity Analysis In The Cost Estimates

How have the earlier cost estimates analyzed the inherent uncertainties in the cost estimating procedure? The Ebasco estimate of 1991 includes an analysis of risk and uncertainty; the TLG 1991 cost estimate includes a discussion of uncertainty,; and the SAIC analysis of 1992 includes a discussion of risk (DOE, 1991a,b, 1992a,b). Each estimate contributes to the general discussion of risk and uncertainty, but none of them provides a sensitivity analysis.

Ebasco focused on the effect of changes in key assumptions on estimated cost, including the following:

  • constructing and operating LADFs at Paducah and Portsmouth, which increases costs by 17.2 percent;
  • refurbishing buildings undergoing D&D, which increases costs by 3.3 percent;
  • constructing new administration buildings at Paducah and Portsmouth instead of refurbishing existing buildings, which increases costs by 0.3 percent;
  • incorporating electrorefining capabilities at Oak Ridge, which decreases costs by 1.8 percent;
  • providing HADFs at Oak Ridge and Portsmouth and LADFs at all sites, which increases costs by 21.6 percent;
  • transporting Portsmouth X-326 equipment (processed highly enriched uranium) to Oak Ridge for processing, which increases costs by 1.8 percent;
  • eliminating de minimis waste streams, which increases costs by 0.7 percent;
  • transporting all waste to Hanford for disposal, which decreases costs by 2 percent; and
  • decontaminating the LADF, HADF, and the assay facilities, which increases costs by 2 percent.

Also, for each of these alternatives, Ebasco examined the effect of increasing the Construction Manager's fee from 5 to 15 percent and the M&O contractor overheads to 42 percent during preconstruction and to 49.5 percent during construction at Oak Ridge, to 60 percent at Portsmouth, and to 70 percent at Paducah. The increase in the Construction Manager's fee to 15 percent reflects Ebasco's assumptions in its May and June 1991 estimates. There was no explanation of why the alternative overhead rates were selected.

Although Ebasco analyzed how its cost estimate changed with changes in these assumptions, it focused on assumptions within the scope of DOE decision making. The analysis

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

did not discuss uncertainty or how it determined a confidence level of from +50 percent to -30 percent for the cost estimate.

TLG was much more explicit in quantifying uncertainty in its analysis. TLG focused on four types of uncertainty:

  • pricing uncertainty, which addresses uncertainties in predicting the costs of goods and services before their actual purchase;
  • scope omission and error, which is intended to cover miscommunications, miscalculations, and scope mistakes;
  • schedule uncertainty, to cover changes in the project schedule duration; and
  • expansion of scope, which provides for expansions in the projected scope, owing to unrecognized elements of the work at the time of the estimate.

TLG recognized, but did not incorporate, two other types of uncertainty:

  • escalation in the price of materials, equipment, and labor over the life of the project; and
  • acts of nature, such as tornadoes, floods, or earthquakes.

TLG performed a Monte Carlo simulation assuming triangular probability distributions for each uncertainty: pricing uncertainty varied between -26 percent and +25 percent for a single line item; scope omission and error varied from -15 percent to +15 percent; schedule uncertainty ranged from -10 percent to +15 percent; and expansion of scope ranged from -15 percent to +15 percent. In the 2,500 Monte Carlo samples, values for these uncertainties were randomly selected from the probability distributions. Levels of confidence were calculated from the resulting cost estimates. Using this approach, under these probability distributions, TLG determined that there was a 50 percent chance that the cost of the project would be below $16.2 billion and a 100 percent chance that the cost would be below $28.7 billion (in 1992 dollars). These figures can be compared to a base estimate of $13.9 billion.

The SAIC estimate contains an interesting discussion of the difference between uncertainty and contingency but does not provide a case analysis, as does Ebasco, or a probability analysis, as does TLG. The SAIC report identifies four key institutional risks:

  • lack of Below Regulatory Concern standards;
  • lack of declassification of the converters before decommissioning;
  • lack of final disposal sites for the wastes generated by the D&D process; and
  • lack of a transportation plan from the GDPs to the waste sites.
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

SAIC does not calculate potential changes in its cost estimate owing to these uncertainties.

Although these estimates hint at an analysis of how uncertainty would influence the cost of the project, none addresses uncertainty in a rigorous way.

Schedule And Funding Profiles

Schedule and funding profiles can be derived from the cost estimation process. Calculating a funding profile involves assigning time length to each task, organizing tasks in a logical schedule and determining a critical path, assigning costs to each task in each period, and summing the costs for each period and for the length of the project. A more complete analysis also includes discounting to the present or calculating costs using escalated dollars. Only the SAIC estimate included escalating dollar figures.

In this section, the schedule assumptions in Ebasco's September estimate and in the TLG and SAIC estimates are discussed. The MMES estimate (1988) does not discuss scheduling or funding profiles. The Ebasco estimate gives the most complete discussion of the assumptions and methodology underlying its schedule and funding profiles (DOE, 1991a). TLG provides a brief description of the schedule, but does not give a funding profile (DOE, 1991b). SAIC presents detailed figures for the schedule and detailed tables of the funding profile, but the underlying assumptions are scattered throughout the analysis (DOE, 1992a,b). Therefore, the focus is on Ebasco's cost estimate and a comparison of the other estimates with that of Ebasco.

The Ebasco approach is detailed under "Schedule/Resource Cost" (Sec. 5.3) in its cost estimate and is summarized under "Schedule" (Sec. 3.3) of the estimate. To summarize, the Ebasco schedule assumes expenditures of $16 billion (unescalated 1992 dollars) over 37 years, with a peak 9 years into the program at just over $600 million. This peak coincides with the construction of the support facilities at Oak Ridge (HADF and LADF). D&D operations at the three sites are sequential: Oak Ridge is decontaminated between years 9 and 19; Paducah is decontaminated between years 20 and 27; and Portsmouth is decontaminated between years 28 and 37 (year 1 is equal to 1994; year 37 is equal to 2031). These periods are primarily determined by the time required to decontaminate a converter, which is discussed below.

For scheduling purposes, the major phases of the project include the following activities: (1) engineering/design and permitting, including mobilization, site characterization, environmental assessment, environmental impact statements, permits and approvals, and design and engineering; (2) procurement; (3) construction of the support facilities, including design and construction of administration and certification facilities, construction of the HADF, and construction of the LADF; (4) D&D operations; and (5) site preparation and construction of storage facilities, including design and construction of waste disposal facilities and transportation and final disposal of waste.

The schedule was generated:

Using the cost estimate of workhours developed for the D&D program, durations were developed for each sub-element activity, with each activity then tied to one

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

another in their logical sequence of progression to develop logic networks for the program. This logic data was then loaded into a micro-computer based scheduling program (Primavera project planner), which generated the schedule, determined overall project duration and identified critical path. (p. 5-199)

The critical path flows from years 1 to 5 with engineering/design and permitting at Oak Ridge (assumed to be completed in 54 months at Oak Ridge and later, in 48 months, at Paducah and Portsmouth), from years 6 to 9 with the construction of the LADF and HADF (assumed to be constructed only at Oak Ridge), from years 9 to 19 with the D&D of Oak Ridge, from years 20 to 27 with the D&D of Paducah, and from years 28 to 37 with the D&D of Portsmouth.

In the Ebasco cost estimate (DOE, 1991a), the gaseous decontamination of converters is on the critical path for determining the length of the project:

The overall duration for the D&D effort at Oak Ridge is driven by the gaseous decontamination of the K-25 building converters. The 2,928 converters in K-25 will be decontaminated in the HADF with each requiring an assumed four days (small converter) for sufficient gaseous decontamination given that operations are conducted seven days a week on a continuous basis. This represents a total operations time for the gaseous decontamination in the HADF of 32 years. Utilizing three gaseous decontamination stands simultaneously in the HADF reduces the operating time to roughly 10.7 years. The 2,080 remaining converters at other locations throughout the Oak Ridge Site will be processed through the three gaseous decontamination stands in the LADF. The assumed five days (large converter) decontamination time results in 9.5 years of operation for the LADF. The HADF and LADF will be operated concurrently, therefore, the total schedule for Oak Ridge decontamination process is 11 years. (p. 5-200)

Similar calculations are made for Paducah for its 1,820 large, low-assay converters. With three gaseous decontamination stands in the Oak Ridge LADF, Paducah's converters could be decontaminated in 8 years. At Portsmouth, the 2,880 small, high-assay converters would require 10.5 years in the Oak Ridge HADF, and the 1,140 large, low-assay converters would require 5.2 years to decontaminate in the Oak Ridge LADF. Therefore, the length of the project is driven by the assumption of gaseous decontamination. The Ebasco cost estimate does not consider other decontamination technologies.

The Ebasco cost estimate also includes the cost in each period by determining the work-hours, necessary materials and equipment, and associated indirect costs for each activity. The calculation of labor, materials, and equipment costs is a straightforward multiplication of costs per unit multiplied by the number of units. The calculation of indirect costs was more complicated:

Direct workhours only represent one component of the total workhours against a given WBS cost account. The other component is the workhours associated with indirect costs which represent management and administrative personnel to oversee contract work. The cost estimate uses a 26% mark-up on top of direct costs to cover indirect costs. The values associated with 18% of the indirects'

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

26% mark-up have been used to project the contractor's staffing costs. Eight percent of the total represents non-staffing overheads (i.e., office space, telephone, reproduction costs, etc.). The estimating team also felt that a unit rate of forty dollars per hour ($40/hour) would be the appropriate factor for establishing the indirect workhours from any dollar estimates. Based on this, the total direct cost associated with a cost account was multiplied by eighteen percent and then divided by the forty dollar per workhour unit rate to establish the indirect workhours against any given cost account (Indirect Hours = Direct Cost X 18% / $40 per hour). It is noted that this was not done for Program Integration, as indirect costs/workhours were considered in the original estimate basis and therefore no additional mark-up was necessary. (DOE, 1991a, p. 5-202)

Therefore, there was no determination of the types of management or administrative personnel required. Implicitly, if materials and equipment are one-third of direct cost (see DOE, 1992a) and unit labor rates are $40 per hour, the cost estimate assumes one indirect manager or administrator for every four direct laborers and supervisors (100 percent-33 percent)/18 percent).

Finally, the Ebasco cost estimate includes calculations of resource requirements during the project and converts there into cost curves. Total personnel is calculated over time to show the maximum personnel requirements. The resulting figures are approximately 6,800 people at Oak Ridge, 4,600 people at Paducah, and 5,700 at Portsmouth (DOE, 1991a, p. 5-202). These figures compare to current employment at Paducah and Portsmouth of 1,758 and 2,581, respectively.2 Total dollars are plotted to show cash flows in Figure 5.3-17 in the Ebasco cost estimate (DOE, 1991a). However, the axes in the figure appear to be mislabeled. If the right border represents billions of 1992 dollars (not thousands of full-time equivalents), there is a linear cumulative expenditure curve from year 7 to 37 with a $16 billion total. This implies nearly constant annual expenditures of approximately $530 million per year for 30 years. Unfortunately, the Ebasco cost estimate does not detail annual expenditures, so escalated dollars or present value cannot be calculated easily (DOE, 1991a).

The "Schedule Estimate" of the TLG cost estimate (Sec. 5, pp. 38-45) presents a schedule (calculated with Microsoft Project for Windows 1.0, 1990) assuming: (1) all work is performed during an 8-hour workday, 5 days per week with no overtime, (2) "manhour estimates allow for a crew morning and afternoon break of 15 minutes duration each, and time for the crew to transit for lunch and end-of-shift clothing changes," and (3) crews work parallel activities to the maximum extent possible. Because TLG assumes minimal decontamination of the gaseous diffusion equipment (e.g., "the DOE gaseous decontamination process will remove sufficient residual high- and low-enriched uranium from the process systems at all tree sites to render them free of criticality concerns, free of safeguard concerns, and transportable in standard shipping containers for disposal," p. 33), decontamination is completed in 8 years at Oak Ridge from December 1993 to February 2002, in 4 years at Paducah from January 2005 to November

2  

Based on a fact sheet distributed at the committee's meeting in Paducah, October 20, 1994, and at the Portsmouth plant, August 22, 1994.

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

2008, and in 4.5 years at Portsmouth from January 2005 to May 2009. No cash flow curves are presented.

The SAIC estimate assumes that the technical approach and the National Environmental Protection Act Record of Decision will be completed in 1995 for Oak Ridge, in 2001 for Paducah, and in 2003 for Portsmouth (DOE, 1992a, b). The estimate also assumes that D&D will begin in 1998 at Oak Ridge, in 2005 at Paducah, and in 2007 at Portsmouth and that documentation and verification will be completed in 2010 at Oak Ridge, in 2014 at Paducah, and in 2016 at Portsmouth. Funding profiles are given in detailed tables for each year, including federal and contractor full-time equivalents (person years), cost of materials, and total costs.

The three estimated schedules discussed in this section project very different end dates and total costs. TLG forecasts a project start in January 1992 and project completion in August 2009; that is, 17.5 years, at a total cost of about $14 billion (in 1992 dollars), or an average spending rate of $800 million per year. SAIC forecasts a project start in 1991 and project completion in 2016; that is, 26 years, at a total cost of about $9.5 billion (in 1992 dollars), or an average spending rate of $365 million per year. Ebasco forecasts a project start in 1994 and project completion in 2031; that is, 38 years, at a total cost of about $16 billion (in 1992 dollars), or an average spending rate of $420 million per year. Without access to the models that generated these projections, the differences between these estimates cannot be reconciled.

Waste Management

The expected waste volumes and waste management costs estimated by Ebasco and TLG for the gaseous diffusion plants are summarized in Table J-4. Because of different assumptions used for the site characterization, the waste volume of the TLG estimate is approximately 2.9 times higher than that of Ebasco. The total waste management cost (excluding contingency) estimated by Ebasco and TLG amount to roughly $1 and $1.5 billion, respectively (DOE, 1991a,b).

The major elements of waste management costs include the costs for packaging, transportation, and disposal. A fourth element, storage, was assumed by Ebasco to accommodate the temporary storage of packaged waste materials for segregation and staging for disposal.

According to the Ebasco study, the estimated direct costs for packaging and line-haul transportation were primarily based on price quotations from commercial organizations. Estimated direct costs for disposal and storage relied on construction and operations of the waste disposal and storage facilities at each GDP site. Other associated costs include indirect costs, home office overhead costs, and profit, amounting to a total of 43.17 percent, which were added to the direct cost. Under the category of Program Integration in the Ebasco cost estimate, a certain amount of personnel time was also allocated to waste management activities. These program integration costs related to Waste Management (PI-WM) for the three GDP sites are shown in Table J-5 (DOE, 1991a). Considering this cost element, the total waste management cost estimate for the three GDPs is over $1 billion in 1992 dollars. The waste management cost structure is shown in Tables J-6 to J-10. No detailed TLG waste management cost structure by waste type is available at this time for comparison.

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

TABLE J-4 Ebasco and TLG Waste Volume and Waste Management Cost Comparison

 

Volume (thousands ft3)

Cost (thousands 1992$)

 

Ebasco

TLG

Ebasco

TLG

Oak Ridge

10,599

32,140

383,395

633,850

Paducah

7,102

23,393

285,846

436,572

Portsmouth

9,060

22,252

370,679

434,837

Total

26,761

77,785

1,039,920

1,505,259

 

SOURCE: DOE (1991a,b).

TABLE J-5 Ebasco Program Integration (PI) Costs Related to Waste Management (WM) (in 1992 dollars)

GDP Site

Cost

Oak Ridge

31,143,840a

Paducah

7,784,180b

Portsmouth

15,133,681c

Total

54,061,701

a Includes 13 full-time equivalents (FTEs) for 14 years plus overhead

b Includes 5.69 FTEs for 8 years plus overhead

c Includes 8.84 FTEs for 10 years plus overhead

SOURCE: Based on DOE (1991a).

Packaging Cost

Both the Ebasco and TLG estimates relied on the price quotations from U.S. commercial manufacturers and suppliers of currently available drums and containers. To accommodate approximately 26.7 million cubic feet of wastes, Ebasco estimated the types of packaging required as shown in Table J-11.

The purchasing cost of this packaging is estimated at $176.4 million; however, with indirect and overhead costs, the overall packaging cost increases to $267 million (see Table J-10). Packaging unit cost by waste type is shown in Table J-12.

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

TABLE J-6 Ebasco Waste Management (WM) Cost Summary for the three GDPs (in thousands of 1992 dollars)

 

Oak Ridge

Paducah

Portsmouth

Total

WM direct cost

246,030

194,213

248,331

688,574

WM indirect cost (at 43.17%)

106,221

83,849

107,214

297,284

PI-WM cost

31,144

7,784

15,134

54,062

Total indirect costa

137,365

91,633

122,348

351,346

Total WM cost

383,395

285,846

370,679

1,039,920

"Real" indirect rate applied to WM direct costb

55.83%

47.18%

49.27%

51.03%

a WM indirect costs + PI-WM cost

b Total indirect cost/WM direct cost × 100

SOURCE: Based on DOE (1991a).

Transportation Cost

The Ebasco cost estimate assumes that two types of transportation will be required: local transportation to local disposal sites; and, for some wastes for the Paducah and Portsmouth GDPs, interstate transportation to decontamination facilities for processing at Oak Ridge and return to originating localities for final disposal. As indicated earlier, transportation costs represent two components: (1) labor and equipment costs associated with loading at each GDP site; and (2) line-haul transportation costs determined by information obtained from commercial motor carriers.

Local Transportation to Disposal Facilities (within 10 miles from each GDP)

All of the waste generated at the Oak Ridge GDP is assumed to be moved directly to local disposal facilities, and approximately two-thirds of the Paducah and Portsmouth wastes will also be shipped as local transportation. A total of 309,909 drums, 111,054 containers, and loose volume of 113,400 tons of waste materials will be transported to local disposal facilities. Table J-13 describes the local transportation cost summary for each GDP site.

Interstate Transportation to the Oak Ridge LADF for Processing

Appropriate Paducah and Portsmouth waste materials will be transported to the Oak Ridge GDP LADF for processing, and the processed wastes will be returned to their originating

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

TABLE J-7 Ebasco Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (WM) Cost Summary for the Oak Ridge GDP (in 1992 dollars)

Waste Type

Volume (ft3)

Packaging ($)

Transport ($)

Disposal ($)

Storage ($)

Total ($)

Level III

2,068,350

32,885,996

1,386,561

66,573,215

761,052

101,606,824

Level I

4,964,068

35,400,489

3,393,745

71,176,769

1,826,534

111,797,537

Hazardous materials

2,039,452

1,085,370

365,855

29,242,469

750,419

31,444,113

Clean

1,527,168

578,000

42,194

0

561,923

1,182,117

Total waste volume

10,599,038

 

 

 

 

 

Direct cost

 

69,949,855

5,188,355

166,992,453

3,899,928

246,030,591

Indirect cost (26%)

 

18,186,962

1,348,972

43,418,038

1,013,981

63,967,953

Direct + indirect

 

88,136,817

6,537,327

210,410,491

4,913,909

309,998,544

Overhead (3.3%)

 

2,908,515

215,732

6,943,546

162,159

10,229,952

Overhead + direct + indirect

 

91,045,332

6,753,059

217,354,037

5,076,068

320,228,496

Profit (10%)

 

9,104,533

675,306

21,735,404

507,606

32,022,849

WM cost

 

100,149,865

7,428,365

239,089,441

5,583,674

352,251,345

Program integration (PI-WM)

 

8,854,194

657,135

21,137,324

495,187

31,143,840

Total WM cost

 

109,004,059

8,085,500

260,226,765

6,078,861

383,395,185

Percentage of total WM cost

 

28.43%

2.11%

67.87%

1.59%

 

 

SOURCE: Based on DOE (1991a).

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

TABLE J-8 Ebasco Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (WM) Cost Summary for the Paducah GDP (in 1992 dollars)

Waste Type

Volume (ft3)

Packaging ($)

Transport ($)

Disposal ($)

Storage ($)

Total ($)

Level III

1,383,898

212,361,484

9,267,987

45,271,988

582,592

77,484,051

Level I

3,283,208

23,436,673

13,766,297

47,508,455

1,382,161

86,093,586

Hazardous materials

1,345,558

707,050

4,286,176

19,470,403

566,451

25,030,080

Clean

1,089,734

389,000

4,757,299

0

458,755

5,605,054

Total waste volume

7,102,398

 

 

 

 

 

Direct cost

 

46,894,207

32,077,759

112,250,846

2,989,959

194,212,771

Indirect cost (26%)

 

12,192,494

8,340,217

29,185,220

777,389

50,495,320

Direct + indirect

 

59,086,701

40,417,976

141,436,066

3,767,348

244,708,091

Overhead (3.3%)

 

1,949,861

1,333,793

4,667,390

124,323

8,075,367

Overhead + direct + indirect

 

61,036,562

41,751,769

146,103,456

3,891,671

252,783,458

Profit (10%)

 

6,103,656

4,175,177

14,610,345

389,167

25,278,345

WM cost

 

67,140,218

45,926,946

160,713,801

4,280,838

278,061,803

Program integration (PI-WM)

 

1,879,879

1,285,947

4,499,256

119,098

7,784,180

Total WM cost

 

69,020,097

47,212,893

165,213,057

4,399,936

285,845,983

Percent of total WM cost

 

24.14%

16.52%

57.80%

1.54%

 

 

SOURCE: Based on DOE (1991a).

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

TABLE J-9 Ebasco Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (WM) Cost Summary for the Portsmouth GDP (in 1992 dollars)

Waste Type

Volume (ft3)

Packaging ($)

Transport ($)

Disposal ($)

Storage ($)

Total ($)

Level III

1,729,636

28,109,849

11,634,013

56,574,985

618,463

96,937,310

Level I

4,216,618

30,067,771

18,553,589

60,855,960

1,507,729

110,985,049

Hazardous material

1,734,506

924,650

5,959,994

25,033,102

620,204

32,537,950

Clean

1,378,852

492,000

6,885,740

0

493,034

7,870,774

Total waste volume

9,059,612

 

 

 

 

 

Direct cost

 

59,594,270

43,033,336

142,464,047

3,239,430

248,331,083

Indirect cost (26%)

 

15,494,510

11,188,667

37,040,652

842,252

64,566,081

Direct + indirect

 

75,088,780

54,222,003

179,504,699

4,081,682

312,897,164

Overhead (3.3%)

 

2,477,930

1,789,326

5,923,655

134,695

10,325,606

Overhead + direct + indirect

 

77,566,709

56,011,329

185,428,354

4,216,378

323,222,770

Profit (10%)

 

7,756,671

5,601,133

18,542,835

421,638

32,322,277

WM cost

 

85,323,380

61,612,462

203,971,189

4,638,016

355,545,047

Program integration (PI-WM)

 

3,632,083

2,622,667

8,682,193

196,738

15,133,681

Total WM cost

 

88,955,463

64,235,129

212,653,382

4,834,754

370,678,728

Percentage of total WM cost

 

24.00%

17.33%

57.37%

1.30%

 

 

SOURCE: Based on DOE (1991a).

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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).

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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).

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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).

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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).

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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).

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 262
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 263
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 264
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 265
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 266
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 267
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 268
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 269
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 270
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 271
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 272
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 273
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 274
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 275
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 276
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 277
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 278
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 279
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 280
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 281
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 282
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 283
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 284
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 285
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 286
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 287
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 288
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 289
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 290
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 291
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 292
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 293
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 294
Suggested Citation:"J: REVIEW OF EXISTING COST ESTIMATES." National Research Council. 1996. Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5114.
×
Page 295
Next: GLOSSARY »
Affordable Cleanup?: Opportunities for Cost Reduction in the Decontamination and Decommissioning of the Nation's Uranium Enrichment Facilities Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $85.00 Buy Ebook | $69.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 called on the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study and provide recommendations for reducing the costs of decontaminating and decommissioning (D&D) the nation's uranium enrichment facilities located at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Raducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio. This volume examines the existing plans and cost estimates for the D&D of these facilities, including such elements as technologies, planning and management, and identifies approaches that could reduce D&D costs. It also assesses options for disposition of the large quantities of depleted uranium hexafluoride that are stored at these sites.

  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!