6.0 Alternative Scenarios

 Home
 BEMR Contents
 U.S. Map

A number of significant assumptions regarding factors affecting costs underlie the Base Case estimate. Varying these assumptions can often influence the overall life-cycle cost estimate. To help inform national policymaking and local decisionmaking processes, the 1996 Baseline Report provides a more rigorous analysis of alternative program scenarios. By changing certain key assumptions we are able to examine the influence of each factor on the life-cycle cost and schedule of the Environmental Management program (see box). The analyses varied assumptions regarding the following factors expected to influence program costs:

• Land Use - What effect do future land-use decisions have on the overall scope, cost, and schedule of cleanup for Environmental Management sites? What factors limit consideration of land uses?
• Program and Project Scheduling - What are the cost consequences of delaying and accelerating programs and projects? What is the relationship between program pace, funding levels, and life-cycle cost?
• A "Minimal Action" Scenario - What is the minimum funding required for preventing risks to human health and the environment from increasing for 75 years without the constraints of current legal requirements?

The approach for estimating life-cycle costs for the alternative scenarios mirrors the basic methodology employed for the Base Case estimate. Site estimates and assumptions provided the basis for these analyses. The land-use analysis varies from the Base Case in that the analysis assumes different site end states suitable for various uses, and measures the cost and waste volume consequences of cleaning up to these alternative end states. The program and project scheduling analysis assumes the same actions and subsequent end states for programs and projects as described in the Base Case, but applies funding and scheduling constraints to better analyze the cost consequences of accelerating or delaying programs and projects. The minimal action scenario uses methods developed by site personnel to re-scope projects and activities to meet a set of minimal action assumptions and thus diverges dramatically from the Base Case. Although implementation of particular scenarios may require regulatory relief, no scenario specifically examines the impact of changing regulatory requirements.

SCENARIOS ARE NOT DECISIONS Scenario analyses attempt to identify a set of possible futures, each of which is plausible, but not assured. These analyses are intended to foster and help inform local and national discussions regarding potential policy strategies for the Environmental Management program. Each scenario provides an explicit framework for further discussions and reaction. The analyses were developed using hypothetical assumptions that do not represent plans or decisions endorsed by the Department of Energy or the Environmental Management program.

The three analyses focus on the five sites in the Environmental Management program estimated to have the highest life-cycle costs - Hanford Site, Washington; Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho; Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee; Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado; and, Savannah River Site, South Carolina. Together, these sites account for approximately 70 percent of the Environmental Management total program cost estimate and comprise over one million acres of federal land. By focusing on the five highest-cost sites rather than on the other 145 sites in the program, the analysis is able to account for the majority of program costs and establishes a reliable basis for evaluating the impacts of alternative assumptions. Figure 6.1 shows the distribution of costs for the five sites in relation to the entire Environmental Management program.

Figure 6.1. Distribution of Life-Cycle Costs for the Five Highest-Cost Sites

In developing the scenarios, the Department assumed that intersite funding could generally not occur. That is, one site could not accelerate work by "borrowing" funding from another site. It was assumed that intrasite funding could take place. For example, funding for waste management activities could be used to fund stabilization and deactivation activities within a site. (The exception to this convention was for a single land-use case that addressed extreme clean-up).

One of the primary difficulties in estimating the total cost of the Environmental Management program is that future land use (i.e., the ultimate disposition of lands currently managed by the Department) generally has not been determined. The Department continues to work with local stakeholders and regulators to determine future uses of land and facilities. This process has identified initial future use preferences at a number of sites (Charting the Course: The Future Use Report , April 1996), but final decisions are still pending. Until these decisions are made, there will be considerable uncertainty regarding the nature and extent of required environmental restoration activities. This, in turn, adds uncertainty to estimates of total program cost. For example, analyses presented in the 1995 Baseline Environmental Management Report indicated that future-use decisions could change the total cost of the Environmental Management program by hundreds of billions of dollars. It was a broad analysis, without site-specific data. The land-use analysis presented here provides site-specific data and is a more limited evaluation of how a range of potential future land-use decisions could affect environmental restoration activities, and how these changes would affect the total cost of the Environmental Management program. A key feature of this analysis is the consideration of site-specific constraints on future land use.

SIGNIFICANT FINDING OF THE LAND-USE ANALYSIS The Department conducted a land-use analysis to examine how future decisions will affect cost and end-state conditions. Four scenarios, preserving infrastructure for ongoing missions and ecologically sensitive areas, were developed ranging from Iron Fence to Modified Green Fields. An additional scenario, Maximum Feasible Green Fields eliminated Department missions from the end state and completed cleanup to the fullest extent of available technologies regardless of the impact on the ecology. Consideration of site-specific constraints in preserving missions and habitats significantly restricts the range of land uses possible at sites; the resulting variation in estimated program cost was, at most, six percent from the Base Case. Implementation of a Maximum Feasible Green Fields scenario is expected to cost 77 percent more than the Base Case. This scenario yields an additional 65,450 hectares (162,000 acres) clean enough for Residential or Agricultural uses compared to the Base Case. Under this scenario, the Department's industrial infrastructure would be largely eliminated, and the more extensive remedial actions would result in considerable disturbance of ecologically sensitive areas. Assumptions regarding future missions did not consider long-term storage of special nuclear materials. This storage would significantly affect the number of acres that would be held as buffer zones to provide security and protect offsite populations.

This section includes a description of the general assumptions for this analysis; a description of the five alternative scenarios developed for the land-use analysis; an overview of how the alternative scenarios were developed and analyzed; the results in terms of estimated cost, the schedule of remediation activities, and end states in acres of land attaining specific cleanup levels; and the implications of this analysis. Appendix C provides a more detailed discussion of the land use analysis methodology, and Appendix D presents site-specific results for each of the alternative scenarios.

The alternative scenarios evaluated in this section are based on changes to the Base Case assumptions for environmental management activities. The primary assumptions and bounds for this analysis are as follows:

• The primary focus of this analysis is the estimated cost for environmental restoration and associated support activities. Waste management activities and cost estimates are affected only to the extent that changes in environmental restoration activities result in changes in the volume of waste that is treated and/or disposed at waste management facilities. A number of Environmental Management program activities are not affected by this analysis, including (1) decommissioning of waste management facilities; (2) high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel management, and (3) nuclear material and facility transition activities.
• The alternative scenarios incorporate land-use standards developed for this analysis that provide a consistent basis for comparing land use assumptions and evaluating alternatives across sites. Land-use standards are provided for six land use categories: Disposal/Storage Areas, Open Space, Industrial, Recreational, Residential, and Agricultural. The land-use standards include both operational definitions as well as assumed technology strategies for each category.
• The alternative scenarios also incorporate site-specific constraints on future use (i.e., real-world limitations on the future uses that can be achieved). These constraints include ongoing program missions (including waste disposal/storage); legal commitments (e.g., Records of Decision); the presence of unique or sensitive ecological systems (e.g., endangered species habitat), and the limits of current technology (e.g., the inability to remove contaminants such as tritium from ground water).
• All alternative scenarios assume a level of annual funding for the Environmental Management program equal to that for the Base Case. If estimated costs increased above this amount (e.g., because of more extensive remedial actions), projects and activities were delayed until sufficient funding was available. The scenarios generally assumed no transfer of funds from one site to another.

The Department used the underlying land-use assumptions in the Base Case as the point of reference to evaluate the effect of the following five alternative land-use scenarios on the estimated life-cycle costs of the Environmental Management program: Maximum Feasible Green Fields, Modified Green Fields, Recreational, Industrial, and Iron Fence. These five scenarios were chosen to represent varying land use outcomes (and differing levels of environmental restoration activity). The Maximum Feasible Green Fields and Iron Fence scenarios represent the two endpoints of the land-use continuum attained at the five highest-cost sites. The Recreational scenario represents an intermediate land-use end state without access restrictions, while the Industrial scenario represents an intermediate land-use end state with access restrictions. The Modified Green Fields scenario illustrates how an aggressive clean up strategy might be tempered when considering continued Departmental missions at these five large sites.

Maximum Feasible Green Fields - To illustrate a maximum cleanup scenario, the land-use analysis assumed that continued Department of Energy missions and stewardship facilitated by a continued government presence would end at some future time. This scenario removes site-specific constraints, except for technology challenges and assumes a limited number of disposal areas. To support the Residential or Agricultural land uses required by this scenario, the most aggressive cleanup goals are used in removing all contaminated media or materials at the five sites.

Modified Green Fields - This scenario, like the Maximum Feasible Green Fields scenario, has as its goal Residential or Agricultural standards, but it considers all applicable site-specific constraints. It represents the most stringent remediation strategy possible while continuing Departmental missions and presence at the site.

Recreational - Contaminated areas at each site are assumed to be remediated to a level that supports Recreational uses, while considering site-specific constraints. This scenario combines removal and containment remediation strategies.

Industrial - Contaminated areas at each site are assumed to be remediated to a level that supports Industrial uses, while considering site-specific constraints. This scenario places more emphasis on containment strategies than does the Recreational scenario because Industrial use encompasses more institutional controls.

Iron Fence - Contaminated areas at each site are assumed to be remediated to a level that supports the Disposal/Storage land uses (also termed Controlled Access). Generally, contamination will be monitored or contained in place. The Iron Fence scenario is intended as the alternative with the least cost. Therefore, in a small number of instances where removal actions are less costly than containment actions, this scenario selects the least-cost alternative.

Three variables were identified that significantly affect environmental restoration activities: (1) level of existing contamination, (2) future-use assumptions, and (3) site-specific constraints. Data for these variables were collected for the Base Case. The five highest-cost sites verified the Base Case data and defined the parameters for developing new cost and schedule data for the alternative scenarios described above. These variables, and how they were combined to develop the alternative land-use scenarios, are described briefly below.

6.1.3.1 FUTURE-USE ASSUMPTIONS

The starting point for any land-use analysis is an assumed future-use goal. These goals determine the types of activities that are assumed to occur in the future, the likely exposure pathways, and whether contaminated media may be remediated with in situ remediation strategies, such as capping in place. These, in turn, determine the type and extent of environmental restoration activities that are likely to be required. For example, containment of surface and subsurface contamination (e.g., capping and monitoring) is sufficient for an Industrial future-use goal because adequate controls are maintained (e.g., capped areas can be fenced off), the types of exposures are limited, and assumed exposure levels are relatively low. In contrast, a Residential future-use goal requires extensive removal of surface and subsurface contamination because the types of activities associated with this use (e.g., gardening, excavating foundations, playing in dirt) can breach containment structures, more types of exposures are possible, and assumed exposure levels are relatively higher.

Table 6.1. Land-Use Categories Defined for this Analysis

Land-Use Category	Operational Definition
Disposal/Storage Area	The Department maintains restricted access areas for secure storage or disposal of nuclear materials or waste. Barriers and security fences prevent access by unauthorized persons. Wildlife and plants are controlled or removed. This category also is known as "Controlled Access".
Industrial	Active industrial facility where ground water may be restricted.
Open Space	Posted areas are reserved generally as buffer or wildlife management zones. Native Americans or other authorized parties may be allowed permits for occasional surface area use. Access to or use of certain areas may be prevented by passive barriers (e.g., where soil is capped). Limited hunting or livestock grazing may be allowed.
Recreational	Unfenced areas where daytime use for recreational activities (e.g., hiking, biking, sports), hunting, and some overnight camping is allowed. Fishing may be limited to catch-and-release.
Residential	Unfenced areas where permanent Residential use predominates. There is no restriction on surface water, but ground-water use may be restricted.
Agricultural	Unfenced areas where subsistence or commercial agriculture predominates without restriction on surface or ground-water use.

This analysis required a consistent basis for comparing land-use assumptions and evaluating alternative scenarios across the five highest-cost sites. Therefore, a set of land-use standards was developed for six land-use categories that includes both operational definitions and assumed technology strategies for each category (Table 6.1).

The standards were used to describe uses and relative cleanup level of acreage consistently. For instance, land on which grazing is permitted has been referred to by individual sites as Agricultural use, but according to the standards, it is categorized as an Open Space use. If the land has not been contaminated, it would meet the cleanup levels for all uses and could be described as suitable for Agricultural use. (Appendix D presents Base Case application of standards for uses and cleanup levels.) These standards were developed solely for this analysis and are not intended to replace specific land-use definitions at any site nor usurp the authority of that site to tailor land-use to conditions present. Using these standards, the Base Case future-use assumptions were compared and, to the extent possible, reconciled with the future land-use preferences identified by the Future Use Working Groups.

6.1.3.2 SITE-SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS

In general, any desired land-use goal is achievable with current environmental restoration technologies. Notable exceptions include instances where there is no effective removal technology (e.g., tritium in ground water) or where risks to remediation workers using conventional removal technologies are unacceptably high. These and other site-specific constraints place limits on the land-use goals that are likely to be achieved. For example, all of the five highest-cost sites have assumed that some Department of Energy missions (e.g., industrial activities, monitoring of waste disposal areas) will continue through the end of the Environmental Management program. In addition, the Department has entered into legal commitments that incorporate specified land-use goals. Finally, the presence of unique or sensitive ecological systems may limit future human uses of these areas. Because it is unrealistic to assume certain future uses in the face of these site-specific constraints (e.g., Residential use within a waste disposal area), the Department incorporated these constraints into this analysis.

6.1.3.3 LEVEL OF EXISTING CONTAMINATION

At the five highest-cost sites, the majority of the land area (approximately 400,000 hectares [one million acres] or 87 percent) is essentially uncontaminated and already meets the requirements for the Open Space, Residential, or Agricultural land-use categories. This includes approximately 80,000 hectares (200,000 acres) at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory that had unexploded ordnance (removal of unexploded ordnance is essentially complete) and approximately 60,000 hectares (150,000 acres) at the Savannah River Site where stream beds are contaminated. Both these areas meet the requirements of the Open Space land-use category. This analysis focuses on the remaining 63,000 hectares (155,000 acres) (13 percent). These areas are contaminated to varying degrees. In most cases some remedial action will be required, even to meet Disposal/Storage Area standards. In some areas, however, existing contamination is sufficiently low that remedial action may be required under some future use assumptions (e.g., Residential), but not others (e.g., Open Space). This information is incorporated into the analysis.

6.1.3.4 DEVELOPING THE LAND-USE SCENARIOS

Using the six standard land-use categories, a nominal future-use assumption was assigned to each land-use scenario. These uses ranged from Disposal/Storage Area for the Iron Fence scenario to Residential/Agricultural for the two Green Fields scenarios (Table 6.2).

For each land-use scenario, remedial strategies were assigned to all contaminated areas at the five highest-cost sites. Cost and waste volume data were calculated to remediate the site to the nominal land use category for that scenario, except where site-specific constraints or level of existing contamination indicated otherwise. For areas with no site-specific constraints, remedial actions were used where existing contamination did not already meet or exceed the nominal land-use standard. In the Industrial scenario, for example, areas were remediated unless existing contamination was low enough to meet Industrial or Recreational standards. As a consequence, the remedial strategy for a given area of contaminated soil might be containment (capping) under the Iron Fence, Industrial, and Recreational scenarios, but removal under the two Green Fields scenarios.

Table 6.2. Assumed Remedial Strategies for Alternative Land-Use Scenarios

Scenario	Future-Use Assumption	Assumed Remedial Strategy for Contaminated Areas1
		Areas With No Site-specific Constraints2	Areas With Site-specific Constraints3
Iron Fence	Disposal/Storage Area	If area currently meets any land use standards, no actions required; otherwise, remediate to meet disposal/storage area standards	Maintain Base Case remedial strategies: Do not vary areas with disposal/ storage missions Remediate areas with other ongoing missions to meet Industrial standards Avoid active removal for ecologically sensitive areas (remain mostly open space) Generally do not vary areas with existing Records of Decision
Industrial	Industrial	If area currently meets industrial or recreational standards, no actions required; otherwise remediate to meet industrial standards
Recreational	Recreational	If area currently meets recreational standards, no actions required; otherwise remediate to recreational standards
Modified Green Fields	Residential or Agricultural	Remediate all areas to meet residential or agricultural standards
Maximum Feasible Green Fields			Remediate most areas to meet Residential or Agricultural standards3

¹No actions are required for uncontaminated areas because they already meet Residential or Agricultural standards
²For some areas, technical constraints limited remedial strategies under some scenarios but not others (e.g., some areas can be remediated to meet Open Space, Industrial, and Recreational standards but not Residential or Agricultural)
³ All site-specific constraints are lifted except for technology limitations and certain disposal areas at the Hanford Site, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, and Savannah River Site

For areas with site-specific constraints, the Base Case remedial strategy was generally left unchanged across all scenarios. For example, contaminated areas in portions of the sites with an assumed ongoing Industrial mission were assumed to be remediated to meet Industrial standards, whether the nominal future-use assumption was Disposal/Storage Area or Residential/Agricultural. The only exception was the Maximum Feasible Green Fields scenario, in which all site-specific constraints were lifted except for technology constraints and constraints regarding certain waste disposal areas at the Hanford Site, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, and the Savannah River Site.

Parametric models were used to estimate environmental restoration costs and volumes of waste generated for each contaminated area under each alternative scenario. The Baseline Environmental Management Report Integration Tool (See Methodology in Appendix C) was then used to estimate waste management costs associated with the changing waste volumes, as well as changes in program duration under each alternative scenario.

This section presents the results of the land-use analysis in terms of cost and schedule estimates and end-state conditions.

6.1.4.1 COST AND SCHEDULE ESTIMATES

Estimated costs for the Environmental Management program at the five highest-cost sites range from $150 billion for the Iron Fence scenario to $284 billion for the Maximum Feasible Green Fields scenario (Figure 6.2). These estimated costs are respectively six percent lower and 77 percent greater than the Base Case estimate of $160 billion for these five sites. When site-specific constraints are considered (i.e., Iron Fence through Modified Green Fields), there is little difference in estimated cost among the alternative scenarios. The estimate for the Modified Green Fields scenario ($166 billion) is only 10 percent greater than the estimate for the Iron Fence scenario and six percent greater than the Base Case estimate. The Base Case estimate is between that of the Industrial scenario ($155 billion) and the Recreational scenario ($162 billion). It is important to remember that these are generalized findings, and that actual land use will likely vary significantly among different sites.

Figure 6.2. Costs for Environmental Restoration, Waste Management, and Nuclear Material and Facility Stabilization By Land-Use Case

When site-specific constraints are considered, environmental restoration activities account for most of the variation in estimated cost. Waste management cost estimates change slightly because of variation in estimated waste volumes, but few changes in overall waste management strategy are required, given that most waste management and nuclear material and facility stabilization activities were held constant across the scenarios. When site-specific constraints are lifted (i.e., for the Maximum Feasible Green Fields scenario), cost estimates increased more steeply for both environmental restoration and waste management activities. These large increases are due to the more extensive removal strategies used during environmental restoration activities as well as the greater volumes of waste expected to be generated by these activities. They also reflect a major change in waste management strategy at Oak Ridge Reservation and the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. Under the other land-use scenarios (including the Base Case), the waste management strategy included onsite disposal of some waste at these sites. Under the Maximum Feasible Green Fields scenario, however, all waste was assumed to be shipped offsite for disposal.

The average duration of the Environmental Management program at the five highest-cost sites is estimated to change as the scope of environmental restoration activities changes under the alternative scenarios (Table 6.3). The reduced scope of activities under the Industrial and Iron Fence scenarios reduced the average program duration estimate from 75 years (Base Case) to 73 years (Industrial) and 72 years (Iron Fence). When site-specific constraints were considered, the small increase in the scope of environmental restoration activities under the Recreational and Modified Green Fields scenarios did not increase estimated program duration. Under the Maximum Feasible Green Fields scenario, however, average program duration increased to 78 years.

Table 6.3. Schedule Impacts of Alternate Land-Use Cases

	Iron Fence	Industrial	Base Case	Recreational	Modified Green Fields	Maximum Feasible Green Fields
Average Program Duration (years)	72	73	75	75	75	78

These program duration estimates do not include long-term surveillance and monitoring required to safeguard residual contamination at sites that is expected to decay naturally or is contained within engineered structures. Such activities may be required for decades. Although it was not possible to quantify the duration of surveillance and monitoring, it is likely that it would be longer for scenarios that emphasized containment over removal strategies (i.e., Iron Fence and Industrial) than for the Green Fields scenarios.

6.1.4.2 END STATE CONDITIONS

Table 6.4 illustrates the differences in end-state conditions among the Base Case and each alternative land-use scenario. Using the land-use standards discussed above, the acreage of the five highest-cost sites has been depicted according to the most stringent standard met by the assumed end-state condition, yielding a measure of cleanup level and referred to as maximum allowable use.

As noted earlier, the majority of the land area at the five highest-cost sites (approximately 400,000 hectares [one million acres]) is relatively uncontaminated and currently meets the requirements for Open Space, Residential or Agricultural land-use categories. Of these, the smaller number of acres meeting the Agricultural land-use standard is due to the large number of acres for which use of ground water is prohibited (in this analysis, ground water use is required to meet the Agricultural land use standard but not the Residential land-use standard). In addition, a relatively limited number of acres meet the standards for Storage/Disposal or Industrial uses across all cases. For the currently contaminated land areas, most of the variation in land use assumptions involves shifting from an emphasis on open space in the Iron Fence scenario to residential in the Modified Green Fields. Recreational use, although a small percentage of overall use, is most frequent in the Recreational and Modified Green Fields scenarios. When site-specific constraints are lifted (i.e., in the Maximum Green Fields scenario), all land areas except Storage/Disposal Areas are assumed to be remediated to meet a Residential or Agricultural standard.

Table 6.4. Acreages of Maximum Allowable Use*

Land-Use Standards	Iron Fence	Industrial	Base Case	Recreational	Modified Green Fields	Maximum Feasible Green Fields
Agricultural	132,500	132,500	132,500	132,500	132,500	133,000
Residential	653,000	844,000	861,000	844,000	863,000	1,022,500
Recreational	17,500	19,500	3,000	67,500	153,000	0
Open Space	341,000	147,500	147,500	103,500	0	0
Industrial	10,000	14,000	14,000	10,000	9,500	5,000
Disposal/ Storage	13,500	10,000	9,500	10,000	9,500	7,000
Total	1,167,500	1,167,500	1,167,500	1,167,500	1,167,500	1,167,500

* Acre numbers have been rounded for presentation

The Maximum Feasible Green Fields scenario yields an additional 65,500 hectares (162,000 acres) of Residential and Agricultural use over that achieved in the Base Case, at an increased cost of approximately $124 billion.

The land-use analysis demonstrates that when site-specific constraints are considered, land-use options are limited, and thus land-use decisions are likely to have only a small effect on environmental restoration costs. In the absence of such constraints, however, a greater range of land-use options is available, and therefore land-use decisions may have a greater effect on costs. This result is vividly illustrated by comparing the Maximum Feasible Green Fields and Modified Green Fields scenarios. Both assume the same aggressive clean up strategies but yet yield dramatically different results. The reason is that when site-specific constraints other than technology limits are lifted, cost estimates increase by $124 billion. This additional cost highlights the critical importance of site-specific constraints in land-use planning.

Many of the site-specific constraints examined in this analysis are manifestations of federal and local policies or priorities. For example, legal commitments and local laws limit future-use options for approximately 295,000 hectares (730,000 acres) (63 percent) of the uncontaminated land at the five highest-cost sites. In addition, the presence of endangered species and ecologically unique habitats may limit future use for approximately 57,000 hectares (140,000 acres) (12 percent) of uncontaminated land and some contaminated land at these sites. It will be necessary to consider these constraints, along with stakeholder and regulator preferences, to make ultimate decisions regarding future use. Near-term resolution of these issues is important, because the decisionmaking processes that govern environmental restoration activities will continue in the absence of coherent integrated site planning. Land-use options may become limited after deployment of certain remedial strategies, or remedies designed to meet Residential standards may be applied inappropriately, resulting in higher than necessary costs.

The siting of Disposal/Storage Areas and continuing Department missions have implications beyond the acres directly around these structures. The implications of these future missions on land-use alternatives underscores the importance clarifying overall goals and developing an integrated, complex-wide, multimission facilities plan. In fact, the site missions considered in this analysis did not include long-term storage of plutonium and other nuclear materials at any of these large sites. Such storage could preclude releasing any land because of security and public safety concerns. Other missions will require safety analyses to determine their specific buffer requirements.

Technology challenges relating to ground water and surface water will continue to limit land use alternatives in the near term. Information relating to technology limits and costs of aggressive remediation strategies should be integral to all decisionmaking activities regarding land use and remedial strategies.

EFFECTS OF LAND-USE DECISIONS ON RISK

Future land-use decisions will have implications beyond the cost and duration of the Environmental Management program. Future land-use decisions can also influence the risks incurred by members of the public, workers involved in remediation, site personnel (not involved in remediation), and the environment. Because land-use decisions affect the remedial strategy and, hence, the remedial technologies selected to accomplish remediation, the choice of land use will affect the type of work performed by remedial workers, the volume of waste requiring subsequent management, and the types of accidents that could injure workers, expose them to radioactive or hazardous materials, or release such materials into the environment. All of these factors influence the risks to the public, remedial workers, and the environment.

A comprehensive evaluation of risks associated with the five land-use scenarios discussed above was beyond the scope of this analysis. However, to provide some indication of these effects, several sites evaluated how risks to human health and the environment might change with land-use goals. The sites used their own methods to assess changes in risk for selected projects. An example of these analyses is presented in the box on the following page. This evaluation is not based on an engineering study, but is a qualitative examination of potential risk consequences.

EFFECT OF LAND USE ON RISK - AN EXAMPLE FROM THE OAK RIDGE RESERVATION The Oak Ridge Reservation evaluated the risk impacts of land-use decisions using five environmental restoration projects for which it was feasible to achieve alternative future uses ranging from Iron Fence to Green Fields. This evaluation assumed that protection of public health and onsite personnel is maintained during the activities required to achieve each of the alternative land-use scenarios, and the only potential risk implications evaluated that could be significant would be those to the involved remedial worker. Risks to waste management workers from waste generated during remediation were not evaluated. The evaluation indicated that moving from a highly restrictive future land-use scenario (Iron Fence) to an unrestrictive future land-use scenario (Green Fields) would significantly increase risks to remedial workers. This potential increase in risk is primarily due to the greater number of worker-hours required to reach a less restrictive land use.M Typically, the longer the duration of the remediation, construction, or operation and maintenance activities, the greater the chance of injury from physical hazards (e.g., construction accidents) and the greater the exposure to radiological and chemical hazards. General construction accidents also are more likely as strategies move toward more removal activities because some tasks such as earth moving or demolition activities have greater inherent physical risks based upon the nature of the work and the equipment involved.

Many observers have speculated that the pacing of the Environmental Management program has a significant impact on life-cycle cost. The 1995 Baseline Report confirmed the premise that life-cycle costs will increase if the program is extended and decrease if direct mission activities are completed more rapidly. Given the scale of the projects undertaken in the Environmental Management program, their cost, and the long-term commitment required, the relationship between cost and schedule is important. A clear understanding of how scheduling may influence cost will provide the basis for effective long-term planning and greater integration of the various components of the program. This section provides an analysis of the likely impact of changes in the schedule of direct mission activities on the life-cycle cost of the Environmental Management program in a series of alternative scheduling cases.

The following discussion on program and project scheduling is divided into six sections: General Assumptions; Description of the Alternative Cases; Analytical Approach; Results; Overall Implications of the Analysis; and Limitations of the Analysis. As with the other alternative scenarios, this analysis focuses on the five highest-cost sites in the Environmental Management program: Hanford Site, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Oak Ridge Reservation, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, and Savannah River Site.

SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS OF THE PROGRAM AND PROJECT SCHEDULING ANALYSIS Key assumptions in the area of program and project scheduling were modified to develop three scenarios. These scenarios examined the life-cycle cost effects of reducing program funding, delaying high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel disposal, and accelerating facility stabilization and deactivation activities. Significant findings are: A $49 billion increase in life-cycle cost for the Funding Reduction Scenario is largely due to increased pre-treatment storage for high-level waste, increased surveillance and maintenance for plutonium-holding buildings and chemical separations facilities, and support costs. Support costs account for approximately forty-five percent of the life-cycle cost increase. Due to the fixed nature of support costs, as Environmental Management funding is reduced, there are fewer resources available to address direct mission activities. In the Funding Reduction scenario, direct mission activities are delayed, thereby postponing program completion and increasing support costs. Vitrified high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel will be stored for an additional 30 years in the Delayed Waste Disposal Scenario until shipments to a national geologic repository begin. Additional storage costs will increase life-cycle cost by less than one percent. The Accelerating Stabilization and Deactivation Scenario reduces the amount of annual surveillance and maintenance required to keep facilities in a safe, secure, and stable condition until final disposition is determined. Accelerating these activities reduces life-cycle cost by less than one percent.

The alternative schedules in this section are based on changes to the Base Case assumptions. The primary assumption driving schedules in the Base Case is that funding is available to fulfill negotiated compliance agreements and to meet legal requirements. The scheduling analysis does not assume that funding will be available to meet all of these requirements. End states, however, are assumed to be the same as in the Base Case. The assumptions varied in this analysis include:

• the level of funding available;
• commencement of shipments of Department of Energy high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel to a geologic depository; and
• the priority of programs and projects to be completed.

While continuing to address urgent risks and minimize costs, this analysis varies these assumptions in a series of scheduling scenarios. Each scenario changes one or more of the assumptions and demonstrates the likely impact on life-cycle cost. (Note: all scenarios were developed independent of compliance agreements and potential fines and penalties.)

The Department developed three alternative scheduling scenarios for the analysis.

• Funding Reduction - The current Base Case projects annual funding requirements of $7.5 billion in FY 2000. This assumption complies with the FY 1995 National Defense Authorization Act mandate that requires the Department to provide cost estimates associated with complying with existing compliance agreements regardless of budget targets. Because this Base Case estimate clearly exceeds expected funding availability, it is prudent to analyze the long-term impacts of reduced funding using a scenario that constrains the overall program spending. This is exactly what is analyzed through the funding reduction case that constrains the Environmental Management program's annual budget to $4.9 billion ($5.5 billion in current dollars).
• Accelerating Stabilization and Deactivation - The Environmental Management program performs surveillance and maintenance on all of its facilities to maintain them in a safe, secure condition until final disposition has been achieved. Stabilization and deactivation of facilities can help to lower these non-discretionary costs through the removal of fissile and other dangerous materials. However, because of the additional cost required to perform stabilization or deactivation, sites are often forced to limit the pace at which these activities are performed and incur high-cost surveillance and maintenance activities. This case examines how life-cycle cost is affected if stabilization and deactivation of facilities was accelerated to reduce the amount of costly surveillance and maintenance required.
• Delaying Waste Disposal - Base Case costs are based on the availability, beginning in 2016, of a geologic repository for the disposal of Department of Energy high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel. This scenario analyzes the impact of a 30-year delay in waste shipments on the life-cycle cost of the Environmental Management program.

Projects were rescheduled and life-cycle costs were recalculated for each alternative scenario using a general analytical approach.

The program and project scheduling analysis relies upon data collected in the Base Case. Additional information was gathered from the sites to assist in the analysis.

Three scheduling variables, duration scope growth, physical scope growth, and support costs, were identified as posing a probable impact on life-cycle cost. The Department evaluated the impact of these variables on projects accounting for approximately 80 percent of the costs at each of the five highest-cost sites. This provided a manageable and representative sample of the activities in the Environmental Management program.

6.2.3.1 DURATION SCOPE GROWTH

Scope growth refers to the increase or decrease in the cost of a project due to a delay or acceleration in the current Base Case schedule. Duration scope growth refers to increases in cost due to additional years of nondiscretionary activities performed at the site, including surveillance, monitoring, and maintaining contaminated areas and facilities, and the storage of waste awaiting treatment or disposal. These activities must be performed each year that a project is in operation or awaiting clean up to keep a waste, an area, or a facility in a safe, secure