|
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).
6.1 LAND USE
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.
6.1.1 General Assumptions for the Land-Use Analysis
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.
6.1.2 Alternative Land-Use Scenarios
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.
6.1.3 How the Land-Use Scenarios Were Developed and Analyzed
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
| 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
| 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.
6.1.4 Results
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.
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*
| 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.
6.1.5 Implications of the Results
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.
|
6.2 PROGRAM AND PROJECT SCHEDULING
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.
|
6.2.1 General Assumptions for the Scheduling Analysis
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.)
6.2.2 Alternative Scheduling Scenarios
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.
6.2.3 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 |