United States Office of EPA 520/1-84-026
Environmental Protection Radiation Programs December 1984
Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
Radiation
<&EPA Identification of Cost Factors
for the Ocean Disposal
Alternative for Low-Level
Radioactive Waste
-------
This report was produced under the sponsorship of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of any
commercial product or processes does not indicate endorse-
ment or approval by EPA.
-------
EPA 520/1-84-026
IDENTIFICATION OF COST FACTORS FOR THE OCEAN DISPOSAL
ALTERNATIVE FOR LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
Douglas Hill and Vance L. Sailor
Nuclear Waste Research Group
Department of Nuclear Energy
Brookhaven National Laboratory
December 1984
Prepared under DOE/EPA Interagency Agreement
No. AD-89-F-00080
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
A set of economic ground rules is proposed for making cost
comparisons between various alternative options for disposing of low-
level radioactive wastes. Included are procedures for converting all
costs to a common basis and a description of the types of costs that
should be included.
The major cost factors are identified for several alternatives for
the disposal of contaminated soils and neutron activated metallic
structures.
A program for the actual cost analysis is outlined, and manpower
estimates for the studies are presented.
-11-
-------
FOREWORD
In response to the mandate of Public Law 92-532, the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a program to
promulgate regulations and criteria to control the ocean disposal of
low-level radioactive wastes.
In the permit review and evaluation process, a well-designed
economic analysis is essential to complement environmental fate and
effects considerations. This report provides a useful first step in
developing a basis for conducting any economic evaluations required for
a permitting decision, and also sets the economic framework for eventual
comparison of the land and ocean disposal options.
Major economic costing factors are identified in this report and
include waste preparation, conformance with established siting criteria,
transportation, safety assurance, monitoring requirements, accident
scenarios, and compliance with typical Federal, State, and local
ordinances.
Economic ground rules are established in Section 1 of the report.
Major cost factors are then presented for both land and ocean options for
disposal of soils contaminated with low levels of naturally-occurring
radioactivity, and disposal of radioactive metal structures, in Sections 2
and 3, respectively. These two examples were selected as being repre-
sentative of the types of materials which have been under consideration by
potential permittees. The economic framework which this report estab-
lishes is applicable to any type of low-level radioactive waste. However,
detailed cost comparisons between various disposal options should be
conducted in response to an actual permit request. Section 4 of this
report provides a brief outline of a program for actual cost analysis.
The Agency invites all readers of this report to send any comments or
suggestions to Mr. David E. Janes, Director, Analysis and Support Division,
Office of Radiation Programs (ANR-461), Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Sheldon Meyers, Acting Director
Office of Radiation Programs
-111-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ii
FOREWORD ill
LIST OF TABLES vii
1. ECONOMIC GROUND RULES FOR COST COMPARISONS 1
1.1 Constant Dollars 1
1.2 Cost Changes Due to Changing Circumstances. 2
1.3 Present Value 2
1.4 Cost Factors 3
1.4.1 Capital Investments 3
1.4.2 Sunk Costs 4
1.4.3 Operating Costs 4
1.4.4 Externalities 5
1.4.5 Decommissioning of Facilities 5
1.4.6 Long-Term Monitoring and Surveillance 5
1.4.7 Opportunity Costs 5
2. IDENTIFICATION OF COST FACTORS IN THE DISPOSAL OF CONTAMINATED
SOILS 6
2.1 Background Information 6
2.2 FUSRAP Disposal Alternatives 6
2.3 Cost Factors 7
2.4 Discussion of Cost Factors for Each Option 9
2.4.1 Ocean Disposal: Dispersion of Loose Soil 9
2.4.2 Ocean Disposal: Containment to Seabottom 10
-v-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
2.4.3 Land Disposal: Burial of Loose Soil at a Shallow
Land Burial Site 10
2.4.4. Land Disposal: Burial of Packaged Soil at a
Shallow Land Burial Site 10
2.4.5 Land Disposal: Stabilization in Place 11
2.5 Accident Regimes 12
2.6 Compliance with State and Local Regulations 12
3. IDENTIFICATION OF COST FACTORS IN THE DISPOSAL OF
RADIOACTIVE METAL STRUCTURES 14
3.1 Background Information 14
3.1.1 Fission Product Contamination 14
3.1.2 Activation Product Contamination 15
3.2 Disposal Options for Reactor Components of Decommissioned
Nuclear-Powered Ships 17
3.3 Cost Factors 17
3.3.1 Ocean Disposal Cost Factors 18
3.3.2 Land Disposal Cost Factors 20
3.3.3 Mothballing Cost Factors 21
3.4 Accident Regimes 22
3.4.1 Ocean Disposal 22
3.4.2 Land Disposal 22
3.4.3 Mothballing 22
3.5 Compliance with State and Local Regulations 22
4. OUTLINE OF A PROGRAM FOR ACTUAL COST ANALYSIS 23
-Vl-
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 implicit Price Deflators for Gross National Product
(1980=100) 1
Table 2.1 Comparison of Cost Factors: Contaminated Soils 8
Table 3.1 Typical Radionuclides Found in Neutron Irradiated Carbon
and Stainless Steels 16
Table 3.2 Comparison of Cost Factors: Submarine Disposal 19
Table 4.1 Estimated Professional Manpower to Complete Detailed Cost
Analysis of Disposal Alternatives 23
-vii-
-------
1. ECONOMIC GROUND RULES FOR COST COMPARISONS
The comparison of the economic costs of various alternatives for
disposing of low-level radioactive wastes is an important element in the
evaluation of environmental impact statements (EIS). To be valid, such
cost comparisons must be based on a standard set of economic rules. Cost
estimates appearing in numerous technical and engineering reports must be
reduced to a common basis before the comparisons can be made. The pur-
pose of this section is to set forth a proposed set of economic rules
that will allow the raw cost data to be converted to a common basis.
1.1 Constant Dollars;
All cost comparisons shall be made in terms of 1980 constant
dollars. Cost estimates made in prior years shall be escalated to 1980
constant dollars from the effective cost-basis-date by means of the infla-
tion factors given in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Implicit Price Deflators for Gross National Product (1980=100)
(Source: Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis)
Period Deflator Period Deflator
1971 53.7 1977 78.4
1972 56.0 1978 84.2
1973 59.2 1979 91.5
1974 64.4 1980 100.0
1975 70.4 1981 109.4
1976 74.1 1982 116.0
-1-
-------
Sane reports on disposal alternatives may contain estimates of
future costs. If so, the data must be converted to 1980 constant dollars
using the economic assumptions contained in that particular report. If
such assumptions are not stated explicitly, an investigation must be
conducted to ascertain the procedures used by the authors in arriving at
an estimate for future costs.
Often it is impossible to determine the economic basis for cost
estimates cited in reports, e.g., whether the costs are given in current
dollars as of the date of the report or on some other basis. Every
effort must be made to eliminate such uncertainties, e.g., by contacting
the authors of the reports.
1.2 Cost Changes Due to Changing Circumstances;
Often the cost estimates made in prior years are based on assump-
tions that are no longer valid. For example, changing regulations,
revised disposal price schedules at shallow land burial sites, and in-
creased transportation costs have resulted in disposal cost increments
which have greatly exceeded general inflation rates. All cost estimates
must be examined to determine the present and near-future validity of the
underlying assumptions. Whenever possible the original cost estimates
must be revised to account for changing circumstances. Cost data which
cannot be so corrected should not be used for cost comparisons.
1.3 Present Value;
Cost that will be incurred in future years shall be reduced to
present value for comparison purposes. Unfortunately, there is no con-
sensus among economists about an appropriate discount rate to use for
present value calculations of government investments. Therefore, we
recommend that two present value calculations be made so as to bracket
the range of possible discount rates. One calculation should be made
using a rate of 0%, the other using a 10% rate. In the event these two
extremes have serious impact on cost comparisons, intermediate discount
rates can be used to determine the crossover point in the cost of two
options.
-2-
-------
Note that the present value calculations are additional steps to the
normalization to 1980 constant dollars. The rationale is that monies to
be spent in the future can be used to earn interest from the present
until the point in time when they must actually be spent. The formula
for calculating present value is:
c0 = cyu + R)n ,
where C is the present value, C. is the cost in calendar year i, R is
the discount rate, and n is the number of years between now and the year
i. C and C. are both expressed in 1980 constant dollars.
1.4 Cost Factors:
Cost factors to be considered in making cost comparisons between
various disposal options fall under the general categories described in
the following sections. All costs are to be normalized to 1980 constant
dollars and future costs are to be expressed in the two units of present
value (0% and 10% discount rates).
1.4.1 Capital Investments;
Facilities which have to be constructed and major equipment
which must be purchased represent capital investments. Capital invest-
ment costs shall include the costs of:
administration
land acquisition
facility licensing
engineering and design
equipment purchased
construction labor
construction materials
interest on funds spent during construction
profit margin for contractors
-3-
-------
The summation of all costs expressed as present value in 1980
constant dollars equals the capital investment.
The useful life of the capital equipment must be estimated to
assure its availability throughout the time it is needed. If the facili-
ty is shared by several disposal operations, the capital cost should be
allocated appropriately.
1.4.2 Sunk Costs;
Facilities that already exist and can be used in the disposal
operation represent sunk costs. The capital investments made in the
past to construct such facilities should not be included in the cost
analyses.
Any modification to existing facilities that might be required
for the disposal operation represent new investment and must be included
in the cost analysis either as a capital investment or as an operational
cost.
1.4.3 Operating Costs;
Operating Costs shall include;
administration
labor
supplies
transportation
abatement and restoration
monitoring and surveillance
profit (for private contractors)
insurance
1.4.4 Externalities:
The costs of externalities shall not be included in the cost
analyses. By externalities is meant the impact of air or water pollu-
tion, degradation of amenities, population health effects etc. Such
-4-
-------
externalities are presumably taken into account in other sections of the
environmental impact statement. However, all abatement operations that
are required shall be included as part of the operating costs. These
might include dust suppression, water effluent clean-up, land restora-
tion, and protection measures to avert public health impacts.
1.4.5 Decommissioning of Facilities:
The cost of decommissioning process facilities and equipment,
and of disposing of contaminated items shall be included in the cost
estimates.
1.4.6 Long-Term Monitoring and Surveillance;
The cost of long-term monitoring and surveillance of the dis-
posal site shall be included.
1.4.7 Opportunity Costs;
Land areas used for shallow land burial disposal must be
withdrawn from public use for prolonged periods of time. The economic
loss suffered by not having the land available for other purposes (e.g.,
agriculture, recreation, forest products) constitutes the opportunity
cost which shall be included in the cost comparisons.
-5-
-------
2. IDENTIFICATION OF COST FACTORS IN THE DISPOSAL OF CONTAMINATED SOILS
2.1 Background Information;
During and immediately following World War II, various contractors
of the federal government processed domestic and imported ores to extract
uranium and thorium needed for the developing nuclear weapons programs.
This work was carried out at several sites in the continental United
States under the auspices of the Army Corps of Engineers, Manhattan
Engineer District (MED) and later under the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC). The residues from these operations contain several radioactive
and stable toxic elements in concentrations that are small but neverthe-
less exceed the present public health standards for unrestricted use of
the sites. At the present time the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) bears
the responsibility for corrective actions at these sites. The work is
being conducted under the DOE's Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program (FUSRAP).
The peculiar nature of the FUSRAP wastes have a major impact on the
costs of alternative disposal options. These wastes are composed of
materials in which the radioactivity and chemically-toxic elements are:
very dilute (mixed with soil, rubble, etc.)
of natural origin (not man-made) isotopes or chemicals, and
normally present in most regions of the world (but in lesser
concentration).
2.2 FUSRAP Disposal Alternatives:
Five disposal options will be considered:
1). Ocean disposal: dispersion of loose soil at a deepwater
dumping site (e.g., at DWD-106)
-6-
-------
2). Ocean disposal: containment to sea bottom at a deepwater
dumping site (e.g., at a 5200 meter depth site southwest of
Cape Hatteras)
3). Land disposal: burial of loose soil at a shallow land
burial site (SLB)
4). Land disposal: burial of packaged soil at a shallow land
burial site.
5). Land disposal: stabilization in place.
2.3 Cost Factors;
The cost factors associated with each disposal option are listed
below. Detailed cost factors will differ for each option, as shown by
the comparison in Table 2.1.
1. Administration and Planning
a. Administrative staff
b. Engineering and planning
c. Legal actions to obtain permits
d. Preparation of environmental impact statement
e. Supervision of operations
2. Operations
a. Residue retrieval
b. Packaging of wastes (if required by option)
c. Loading for transport
d. Transportation to disposal site
e. Unloading at disposal site
f. Monitoring of disposal operation
-7-
-------
Table 2.1 COMPARISON OF COST FACTORSCONTAMINATED SOILS
NO ACTION
LAND DISPOSAL
SEA DISPOSAL
Quantities of contaminated residues
Sources : number and location
Opportunity cost of
restricted land and
property
Measures for stabiliza-
tion in place
initial
continuing
recurring
Long-term site monitoring
and surveillance
Location of disposal
sites
Disposal site extension or
new site studies &
licensing
Land transportation permit
Interim storage sites
location
ownership
maintenance
NRC licensing
Opportunity cost of land
used for disposal
Residue retrieval
Container! zation
drums
bulk transporters
Overland transporters
loadings
unloadings
Disposal
Original site restoration
Long-term site monitoring
and surveillance
Location of embarkation
ports
Land transportation permit
Interim storage site
location
ownership
maintenance
NRC licensing
EPA permit for sea
disposal
Specific international
consultatons as required
Possible EIS
Additional oceanographic
services for site select 'n
Residue retrieval
Container! zation
for dispersion
for containment to
sea bottom
Overland transportation
loadings
unloadings
Sea transportation
loadings
disposal
Original site restoration
ACCIDENT REGIMES
Normal use
Restricted use
Retrieval of contaminated
soil
Container! zation
Loadings
Transportation
Unloadings
Disposal
Retrieval of contaminated
soil
Container! zation
Loadings
Overland transportation
Unloadings
Sea transportation
Disposal
-------
3. Site Restoration and Survey (of original FUSRAP site)
a. Radiological survey of site
b. Backfill of excavated areas
c. Restoration of vegetation
d. Final approval for unrestricted use of site.
4. Disposal Site Long-Term Costs
a. Long-term monitoring and surveillance of disposal
site
b. Opportunity cost of land used for disposal
(land disposal options only).
2.4 Discussion of Cost Factors for Each Option;
2.4.1 Ocean Disposal; Dispersion of Loose Soil;
For this option, engineering and planning efforts are minimal.
Legal permits are required to move the waste material from the site to
the nearest seaport via truck or rail. These must be obtained from the
Department of Transportation and the Coast Guard. A permit to use an
existing Deep Water Dumping site must be obtained from the EPA. An
environmental impact statement (EIS) will probably be required.
Since packaging is not used, the material can be loaded direct-
ly into dump trucks which transfer the material directly to the seaport.
For some sites more distant from the coast, the material must be trans-
ferred from trucks into covered rail hopper cars for transport to the
seaport. Since specific radioactivity (curies/cubic meter) is very low,
trucks covered by a tarpaulin would adequately retain the loose soil. At
the seaport the soil is loaded on dump scows which are towed to the
disposal site by tugs.
-9-
-------
Monitoring in the vicinity of the dump site will be required to
verify that the spoil sinks and does not get carried by currents to some
unexpected locations. Long term monitoring and surveillance requirements
would be minimal.
As in all options the original site must be restored for unre-
stricted use by conducting a radiological survey to verify that the
residual radiation levels are acceptable, by backfilling excavations, and
by restoring vegetation.
2.4.2 Ocean Disposal; Containment to Seabottom;
This option requires several extra steps over the dispersion-of-
loose-soil option. Permits for land and sea transportation must be
obtained. In addition, a permit must be obtained from EPA to open a new
deepwater disposal site. An EIS would be required.
Practical containers must be selected and provisions made for
filling and handling the loaded containers. Transfer from land to sea
transporters would require more complicated handling equipment. Disposal
site monitoring and surveillance would be necessary.
Restoration of the original site would require the same steps
as the dispersion-of-loose-soil option.
2.4.3 Land Disposal; Burial of Loose Soil at a Shallow Land
Burial Site;
Existing shallow land burial (SIB) sites have limited available
capacity. Therefore, it must be assumed that an existing SLB would have
to be extended or a new site licensed. Either alternative would require
extensive studies to characterize the geological and hydrological proper-
ties of candidate sites and verify that the buried material would be
permanently contained (because of the long half-lives of the radioactiv-
ity) . This implies a site located in an arid climate in the western
U.S., which in turn implies overland transport for long distances. The
-10-
-------
disposal site would not be available for unrestricted use, and, there-
fore, an opportunity cost for the dedicated land must be considered.
Long-term monitoring and surveillance of the site would probably be
necessary for political reasons, although the radioactivity in the dis-
posal site would be comparable or less than natural uranium ore out-
croppings found in many locations in the country.
Restoration of the original site would be the same as in the
other options.
2.4.4. Land Disposal; Burial of Packaged Soil at a Shallow
Land Burial Site;
This option would require the several extra cost items cited in
Section 2.4.2 above related to packaging the material. The packaging
would probably simplify the obtaining of permits for overland transport,
but would provide no long-term benefits after burial over the SLB-burial-
of-loose-soil option (Section 2.4.3). This is because the containers
would fail after a few years (by rotting or corrosion) and the buried
material would become equivalent to loose soil. Thus, a SLB site in a
humid location would still be precluded.
2.4.5 Land Disposal; Stabilization in Place:
The stabilization-in-place of FUSRAP residues must be viewed as
a temporary measure, because the radioactivity would long outlast any
stabilization measures. Eventually the base pads, the covering material
and the water recycling measures would fail and the residue would be once
again subject to water and wind erosion. Thus, in addition to the oppor-
tunity costs of the land dedicated to stabilization in place, the cost of
long-term maintenance of the "stabilized" waste pile must be included.
For this option the cost of land restoration would be included
as a part of the long-term maintenance program.
-11-
-------
2.5 Accident Regimes;
Industrial-type accidents would be associated with the retrieval,
packaging, loading, and unloading of the contaminated soil. These can be
estimated from national statistics for similar operations, based on the
volume and/or tonnage of material handled and the number of handlings.
Accidents would also be expected during highway, rail or sea trans-
port. The probabilities of such accidents can be assumed to be propor-
tional to ton-miles which can be estimated from national transportation
statistics, and to the number of handlings. Because of the very dilute
nature of the radioactivity contained in the soils, there would be no
significant radiological risk associated with a transportation accident.
2.6 Compliance with State and Local Regulations;
The impact of state and local regulations on the various disposal
options, if any, is a clouded legal issue at the present time.
In the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Congress granted
broad powers to the Department of Transportation to regulate overland
transportation of radioactive materials. These powers are under chal-
lenge in the Courts and might not be finally decided for many years. For
example, in February 1982 a Federal District Court judge upheld the right
of the City of New York to promulgate regulations that are more restric-
tive than the DOT regulations. This case, now under appeal, could set a
precedent for other local entities in the event that federal preemption
of transportation is not upheld.
The nature of local and state restrictions on the movement of high-
way shipments of radioactive materials include:
prohibition of movement through certain localities;
specification of routes shipments must follow;
times of day or week shipments can pass through certain
localities, and
advance notification of specific public officials.
-12-
-------
Commercial carriers of waste are meeting these restrictions, al-
though often at greatly increased costs due to en route delays and in-
creased mileage due to long detours.
In addition, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980
(Public Law 96-573) empowers the States (or regional compacts of States)
to restrict the use of state or regional disposal sites to radioactive
waste generated within the boundaries of the State (or compact region).
It appears that FUSRAP wastes would be excluded from these restrictions
under Sections 3(a) and (b) of PL 96-573; however, some court tests might
be expected, since many of the FQSRAP sites are owned by private compa-
nies. Litigation in this area might seriously delay the implementation
of the land disposal options.
-13-
-------
3. IDENTIFICATION OF COST FACTORS IN THE DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE
METAL STRUCTURES
It is assumed that the terminology "radioactive metal structures"
refers to the reactor compartments of government-owned nuclear powered
ships and submarines and land-based prototypes (if any).
3.1 Background Information;
Nuclear reactors produce radioactive isotopes in two significant
ways:
1). The fission products of the uranium and plutonium in the
fuel; and
2). From neutron-induced nuclear reactions in the coolant and
reactor structures (conmonly referred to as "activation
products").
3.1.1 Fission Product Contamination;
The fission products constitute the overwhelming bulk of the
radioactive inventory of a reactor. Most of the fission products remain
trapped in the fuel elements and are discharged when the spent fuel is
removed from the reactor. However, a small fraction of the fission
products escape from defective fuel elements and contaminate the surface
layers of the reactor internal components and the interior of the pipes
in the primary coolant loops. When the reactor is decommissioned, most
surface contamination can be removed by routine decontamination proce-
dures; although some "crud" deposits build up which defy practical clean-
ing methods. Thus some residue of fission product contamination would be
the normal expectation, unless "heroic" decontamination procedures are
used.
-14-
-------
3.1.2 Activation Product Contamination;
Because of the fact that neutrons have no electric charge, they
can penetrate through relatively large thickness (e.g., several centime-
ters) of most materials before being absorbed. The absorption process
occurs by means of some type of nuclear reaction which usually results in
a product atom that is radioactive. Thus in a heavy metal section ex-
posed to a flux of neutrons, the resultant radioactivity will be distrib-
uted through the body of the material (as opposed to surface contami-
nation) . The concentration of radioactivity will decrease with the depth
of penetration.
The variety of isotopes produced by neutron-induced reactions
depends not only on the elements exposed to the neutron flux, and the
total neutron exposure over all operating time, but also on the neutron
energy spectrum. The inventory of neutron activation products in the
reactor structure at the time of decommissioning and at all later times
can be calculated using existing computer programs. Such calculations
must take into account the geometrical arrangement of each reactor compo-
nent, their composition or alloy, and the operational history of the
reactor. The results of such a calculation for a commercial reactor are
shown in Table 3.1.
For components which have been intensely irradiated, for exam-
ple, the reactor shroud at the core center plane, total specific activi-
ties as high as 360 Ci/kg have been calculated for a typical commercial
reactor. This inventory includes 117 Ci/kg of Fe, 42.6 Ci/kg of Co
and 11 Ci/kg of Ni. The specific activity of other components is far
less.
The estimated total neutron-induced radioactivity for a nominal
conmercial reactor after operating for 30 years is in the range of
6.6 xlO6 Ci at time of shutdown. After 100 years of decay time this
inventory has decreased to 9.7 x 10 Ci. The bulk of the 100 years resid-
ual activity consists of 9.6 x 104 Ci of 63Ni and 1.47 x 10 Ci of 59Ni.
-15-
-------
Table 3.1 Typical Radionuclides Found in Neutron Irradiated Carbon
and Stainless Steels.
Several of the isotopes are produced from trace elements present in the
alloys. Isotopes of less than 0.5 years half-life have been omitted.
50TOPE
14c
54Mn
55Fe
6°CO
59Ni
63Ni
93V
94Nb
93MO
HALF-
LIEE
(years)
5730
0.85
2.7
5.27
7.5xl04
100
13.6
2xl04
3xl03
FRACTION OF TOTAL
SHUTDOWN
3.68xlO~5
2.98xlO~3
3. 24x1 O"1
l.lSxlO"1
2.23xlO~4
3.07xlO~2
4.74xlO~8
5.26xlO~7
1.14xlO~7
ORIGINAL RADIOACTIVITY AT:
100 YEARS DECAY
3.64xlO~5
a)
2.20xlO~7
2.23xlO~4
1.45xlO~2
9.61X10-8 b)
5.26xlO~7
1.13xlO~7
Note: Other isotopes remaining after 100 years of decay in fractions of less
than 10~7 of the original total radioactivity include 99Tc, 108mAf 108Agf
151Sm, 154Eu and 166mHo.
a)
less than 1 x 10~10.
b)
Nb grows-in from decay of parent Mo.
-16-
-------
Thus, the two isotopes of nickel, Ni and Ni constitute the main long
term activity of these, Ni decays with a soft beta emission (0.067 MeV)
and will decay to negligble levels in about 1000 years. The half-life of
59
Ni is 75,000 years so its decay will not be significant in the time
scale of human history. It decays by electron capture yielding internal
bremsstrahlung of maximum energy of 1.07 MeV.
For deep ocean disposal, the material itself serves as a bar-
rier against disposal of the radioactivity. The ultimate release of
radioactivity into the ocean environment will depend on the corrosion
rates of the surrounding materials (e.g., the hull of a ship) that must
be breached before exposing the radioactive components to seawater, and
the corrosion rate of the radioactive components themselves.
3.2 Disposal Options for Reactor Components of Decommissioned Nuclear-
Powered Ships;
Three disposal options will be considered:
1). Ocean Disposal: Scuttle ships at deep ocean disposal site,
2). Land Disposal: Remove radioactive sections of ship for
disposal at a DOE burial site, and
3). Permanent mothballing of ships.
3.3 Cost Factors;
The general cost factors common to the three options are:
1). Administration and Planning
Administration
Engineering Planning
Legal Actions to Obtain Permits
-17-
-------
2). Operations
3). Long-Term Monitoring and Surveillance.
Of course, the actual costs associated with each option will differ.
More detailed lists of cost factors are given in the following sections,
and are compared in Table 3.2. In each case it is assumed that during
decommissioning the reactor core has been removed and that most of the
surface contamination has been removed from the reactor interior and the
primary coolant loops by standard decontamination procedures.
3.3.1 Ocean Disposal Cost Factors;
In this option, it is assumed that, following decommissioning,
the vessel is made seaworthy, prepared for scuttling, towed to the dis-
posal site and sunk. The special cost factors identified for ocean
disposal are:
1). Legal actions required to obtain a dumping permit from
EPA.
2). Oceanographic research to select and characterize the
disposal site, including collection of data required for
permit and EIS.
3). Preparation of an EIS.
4). Long-term monitoring and surveillance of disposal site.
5). Loss of salvage value of vessel hull.
Local and state regulations would not affect this option.
-18-
-------
Table 3.2 COMPARISON OF COST FACTORSSUBMARINE DISPOSAL
NO ACTION
(Indefinite protective
storage)
LAND DISPOSAL
SEA DISPOSAL
Number, sizes, and estimated timing of nuclear submarines to be decommissioned.
Mothballing
Towing to storage site
Direct maintenance in
storage
Opportunity cost of ship-
yard space used for
storage
Long-term site monitoring
and surveillance
Postponed recoupment of
salvage value
Design, licensing,
construction, operation
and decommissioning of
dismantling facility
Removal of reactor
compartment
Barge or overland
transport
rate
preparation for ship-
ment
distance
loading & unloading
Disposal operations
Opportunity cost of land
used for disposal
Long-term site monitoring
and surveillance
Protective storage of
existing decommissioned
submarines (« 3-5 years)
Loss of scrap value
EPA permit for specific
site
International consulta-
tions under London Ocean
Dumping Convention, etc.
Restoring hull integrity
Preparation for towing &
flooding
Towing : distance & rate
Additional oceanographic
measurements for site
selection
Additional corrosion
studies specific to sea
disposal
Long-terra site monitoring '
and surveillance
Protective storage of
existing decommissioned
submarines (~5-8 years)
Sinking
ACCIDENT REGIMES
Protective storage
Towing (if necessary)
(plus ultimate disposal)
Protective storage
Reactor removal
Preparation for shipment
Loadings
Transport
Unloading s
Protective storage
Preparation for towing &
and shipping
Towing
Sinking
-19-
-------
3.3.2 Land Disposal Cost Factors:
For the land disposal option it is assumed that following
decotimissioning the vessel would be made seaworthy, and towed to a
graving dock for dismantling. Noncontaminated parts of the hull
would be sold as scrap. The contaminated section of the power
plant would be removed for transport. This section would be
moved by a combination of barge and overland shipment to a
federally-owned burial site.
The special cost factors associated with the land disposal
option are:
1). Legal actions to obtain transport permits.
2). Capital construction and equipment costs of
drydock facility augmentation.
3). Specialized labor for hull sectioning,
4). Eadiation protection during hull sectioning.
5). Barge and overland transport costs .
6). Disposal site labor.
-20-
-------
7). Long-term maintenance, monitoring and surveillance of
disposal site.
8). Decommissioning and restoration of the dismantling
facility.
9). Opportunity costs of the land dedicated to the burial
site(s).
3.3.3 Mothballing Cost Factors;
The mothballing of decommissioned nuclear ships is not
actually a disposaj. procedure but merely a postponement of one of the
other disposal alternatives. A long delay (e.g. 100 years) in disposal
through mothballing would offer some advantage to the land disposal
option because a large part of the troublesome radioactivity would decay
away, particularly the Co. The special costs associated with this
option would include:
1). Engineering design of mothballing procedures.
2). Materials and labor for mothballing.
3). Towing the vessel to a harbor with adequate storage space.
4). Maintenance of mothballing and moorings.
5). Monitoring and surveillance.
6). Opportunity costs of occupied harbor space.
7). Ultimate disposal.
-21-
-------
3.4 Accident Regimes;
3.4.1 Ocean Disposal;
Accident scenarios associated with ocean disposal would all be
involved with the towing operation. These would include grounding,
collision, and premature sinking.
3.4.2 Land Disposal;
The accident regimes associated with land disposal are somewhat
broader and would include mishaps in towing from decommissioning location
to the dismantlement site, perhaps involving two harbors and a coastal
passage. At the dismantling facility in addition to conventional indus-
trial-type accidents, there would be the risk of excessive radiation
exposures to workmen. The barge and overland transportation would be
subject to various obvious potential accidents.
3.4.3 Mothballing;
The accident regimes associated with mothballing would be
related to the towing operation in moving the vessel from the decommis-
sioning harbor to the storage harbor (if necessary) and at the long term
storage moorings (e.g., sinking at the mooring, going adrift in foul
weather). Also, account should be taken of accident regimes associated
with the ultimate disposal.
3.5 Compliance with State and Local Regulations;
It is unlikely that any of the three disposal options would involve
steps that come under local or state jurisdiction. An exception might
occur in the land disposal alternative during overland transport of
radioactive materials. However, it is likely that the material would
travel by barge from the coastal dismantling facility, on the high seas
to the Pacific coast, then up the Columbia River to the federal Hanford
reservation. If this were the case, overland transportation would be
limited to the Hanford site itself, from the land to the burial site.
-22-
-------
4. OUTLINE OF A PROGRAM FOR ACTUAL COST ANALYSIS
The detailed cost comparisons between various disposal options will
require the following steps:
1). Assemble and document detailed cost data from various
engineering studies.
2). Reduce all cost factors to a common cost basis, applying the
economic ground rules presented in Section 1.
3). Prepare a documented report showing the procedures used and the
original and normalized cost data.
Estimated manpower required for carrying out the work cited in the
above steps is given in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Estimated Professional Manpower to Complete Detailed Cost
Analysis of Disposal Alternatives.
Contaminated Submarine
Task Soils Disposal
(man-months)
1. Assemble Data for
Engineering Studies 1.0 2.0
2. Cost Analysis 1.0 1.5
3. Report Preparation 1.5 1.5
Total 3.5 5.0
-23-
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 520/1-84-026
2,
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Identification of Cost Factors for the Ocean Disposal
Alternative for Low-Level Radioactive Waste
5. REPORT DATE
December 1984
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Douglas Hill
Vance L. Sailor
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, New York 11973
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA-AD 89 F00080
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
ANR-461
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A set of economic ground rules is proposed for making cost comparisons
between various alternative options for disposing of low-level radioactive
wastes. Included are procedures for converting all costs to a common basis
and a description of the types of costs which should be included.
The major cost factors are identified for several alternatives for the
disposal of contaminated soils and neutron activated metallic structures.
A program for the actual cost analysis is outlined, and manpower estimates
for the studies are presented.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited Release
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
U- U.S. Government Printing Office 1985 -461-221/24032
------- |