7.0 Comparison of Alternative Cases

Previous chapters of the Baseline Report present ten scenarios and life-cycle cost estimates for performing the Environmental Management program. The Base Case is presented in Chapter 4. Nine alternative cases are presented in Chapter 6: five land-use cases (Section 6.1); three scheduling cases (Section 6.2); and one minimal action case (Section 6.3 ). These cases provide a basis for comparing the effect of varying assumptions underlying the Environmental Management program.

The analysis of these alternative cases (also referred to as "scenario analysis"), provides a tool for understanding possible long-term consequences of particular policy options. The goal of scenario analysis is to produce a set of possible outcomes from which a future path can be developed. By developing and evaluating different scenarios, organizations can be more comprehensive in their planning process. For the Environmental Management program, these scenario analyses serve as analytical tools to evaluate the influence of different funding and activity decisions on costs, program scope and end states. By using scenario analyses, overall planning can be improved and the long-term cost of the program can potentially be reduced.

Each of the nine alternative cases presented in Chapter 6 was developed using case-specific methodologies and assumptions. The alternative cases, however, do have common elements that can be used to compare across cases. This chapter looks at the specific elements of 75-year cost and end states found in each alternative case and provides a comparison of these cases to each other and to the Base Case.

7.1 FRAMEWORK FOR COMPARING ALTERNATIVES

The Base Case is compared to the alternative cases using the following measures:

• 75-Year Cost Estimate - All cost estimates are presented for the 75-year Base Case life-cycle period unless otherwise stated. All costs are evaluated and compared in constant 1996 dollars. (For a discussion of discounting and its effect on the cost estimate for each alternative see Appendix E.2.)
• Program End State - This measure evaluates the state of the program at the end of the Base Case life-cycle period (2070). End states are described in several ways: program completion date, type of waste stored onsite, amount of land potentially available for alternate uses, and whether compliance with existing agreements and regulatory requirements is assumed in reaching the end state.

Using these measures, a summary is presented of the nine alternative cases as compared to the Base Case. The implications of these results also are discussed.

75-YEAR COSTS ARE NOT LIFE-CYCLE COSTS To accurately compare costs for all the cases, the cost estimates presented are only for the 75-year Base Case life-cycle period (1996-2070). In three of the alternative cases (Maximum Feasible Green Fields, Funding Reduction, Minimal Action), the change in scope and schedule require the program to extend beyond 2070. Both the Maximum Feasible Green Fields and the Funding Reduction cases estimate the program to complete around 2080. In the Minimal Action case, the length of time required to complete the program is not determined. The Minimal Action case assumes that the program will continue past 2070.

Each of the nine alternative cases was developed using different assumptions for scope and schedule that deviate from the Base Case and from each other. (For more detail on these assumptions, refer to Chapter 6. ) Upon completion of each of the alternative case analyses, the life-cycle period for some cases extends beyond that of the Base Case, while other cases do not fully address the effects of scope changes on activity scheduling. Because of differences, there are limitations in comparing the alternative cases. Through the use of the measures discussed above, however, this chapter attempts to provide a general understanding of how these nine alternative cases compare to each other and to the Base Case.

To be consistent with information presented in Chapter 6 , the comparison of alternative cases focuses on the five highest-cost Environmental Management sites: Hanford Site, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Oak Ridge Reservation, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, and Savannah River Site.

7.2 75-YEAR COST ESTIMATE

The total Base Case cost for the five highest-cost sites is estimated at $160 billion for the 75-year life-cycle period. The alternative cases present 75-year cost estimates that range from less than $90 billion (Minimal Action) to more than $270 billion (Maximum Feasible Green Fields). Figure 7.1 presents the 75-year costs for the Base Case and each alternative case.

Figure 7.1 75-Year Cost Estimates for the Five Highest-Cost Sites (Constant 1996 Dollars in Billions)

Although each of the alternative cases differs from the Base Case in its assumptions for scope and/or schedule, the 75-year costs for six of the alternative cases fall near the Base Case. Cost deviations from the Base Case are apparent, however, with the Maximum Feasible Green Fields, Funding Reduction, and Minimal Action cases.

In the 75-year time period, the highest cost alternative is the Maximum Feasible Green Fields case. In this land-use case, an aggressive cleanup strategy is pursued, requiring extensive removal of contaminated media and/or material. The change in scope increases the overall cost of the Maximum Feasible Green Fields case by 70 percent over the Base Case. The activities for this case, however, are not completed by 2070. Ten additional years are required to complete the program, leading to a total life-cycle cost of $284 billion.

The second most expensive alternative is the Funding Reduction scheduling case - $39 billion greater than the Base Case for the 75-year period. In this case, the scope performed in the first 20 years is limited, leading to higher costs further in the future (see Figure 7.2). As with the Maximum Feasible Green Fields case, the Funding Reduction case is not complete at the end of the 75-year period. By 2082, the life-cycle cost for the Funding Reduction case is $209 billion, $49 billion more than the Base Case.

The Minimal Action case is, by far, the least costly alternative (approximately 47 percent less expensive than the Base Case). The Minimal Action case is less expensive than the other case because the case specifically assumes noncompliance with agreements and regulatory requirements. The Minimal Action case cost estimate also reflects the elimination of offsite waste disposal activities and the limitation of remediation activities to address only urgent human health and environmental risks during the 75-year period (1996-2070). In the minimal action case, activities are not completed, however, by 2070. Although there are no projections of the additional program costs, they are assumed to be substantial.

7.2.1 Distribution of Cost Across Functional Areas

Figure 7.2 presents the distribution of costs across functional areas for the alternative cases. When the nine alternative cases are compared to the Base Case it is apparent that the distribution of costs across functional areas is fairly consistent with the Base Case. A major exception is found, however, in the cost difference of waste management activities for the Maximum Feasible Green Fields and Minimal Action cases.

The changes in waste management costs reflect changes to waste storage, treatment, and disposal activities. In the Maximum Feasible Green Fields case, all waste (including waste from demolished buildings) is treated and shipped to offsite disposal facilities, thus increasing the 75-year cost of the Waste Management program. In the Minimal Action case, waste management cost estimates are reduced as sites do not incur the cost of shipping waste to offsite disposal facilities or the costs for managing waste from building demolition activities.

Figure 7.2. Distribution of Costs Over Functional Areas for the Five Highest-Cost Sites.

There is some difference in environmental restoration activities across the alternative cases reflecting changes in assumptions for remediation and decommissioning activities. The Maximum Feasible Green Fields case remediates over 95 percent of contaminated acreage to Residential or Agricultural uses and demolishes almost all buildings. This case exceeds the level of Base Case environmental restoration activities and surpasses most environmental regulation and compliance agreement requirements. In this case, two of the five sites (Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site and Oak Ridge Reservation) are completely remediated to a level that would safely support Residential and Agricultural uses.

The Minimal Action case performs only remediation activities that do not increase risk to offsite populations over 75 years. Cleanup activities are undertaken only in these circumstances and, therefore, many compliance or regulatory agreements are not met. Decommissioning activities, in the Minimal Action case, leave vacant buildings standing, which require continual surveillance and maintenance.

The functional area least influenced by the various alternative cases is nuclear material and facility stabilization. The only major difference is found in the Funding Reduction case. Nuclear material and facility stabilization cost increases in the Funding Reduction case due to the postponing of future activities. The delay in deactivation and stabilization activities increases the need for long-term pre-stabilization surveillance and maintenance activities.

7.2.2 Distribution of Cost Over Time

Another approach to examining the differences in the alternative cases is to present a time profile of cost estimates (Figure 7.3). The analysis reveals that changes in scope presented by the Maximum Feasible Green Fields and Funding Reduction cases as well as in the Minimal Action case have a substantial effect on the time profile of costs.

Figure 7.3. Time Profile of Life-Cycle Cost Estimates for the Five Highest-Cost Sites

The increase in scope found in the Maximum Feasible Green Fields dramatically affects the life-cycle time profile. This case requires funding for extensive remediation and waste management activities during the early life-cycle period. These costs drop dramatically after 2020, however, reflecting a shift to long-term surveillance and monitoring activities.

The Funding Reduction and Minimal Action cases also show deviations from the Base Case time profile. In both cases, cost estimates are well below the Base Case early in the analysis period, driven by reduced remediation and waste management activities. However, over time, annual costs for both cases surpass the Base Case cost estimate.

When presented over time, the 75-year cost estimate for the Iron Fence, Industrial, and Recreational land-use cases and the Accelerating Stabilization and Deactivation scheduling case are relatively similar to the Base Case life-cycle profile. The Delaying Waste Disposal scheduling case follows the Base Case time profile for most of the 75-year period. The delay in disposal activities, however, does increase the cost estimate in the later years.

7.3 PROGRAM END STATE

The Maximum Feasible Green Fields and the Minimal Action cases result in program end states that are dramatically different from those in the Base Case. In 2070, with the Maximum Feasible Green Fields case, all waste is expected to be in offsite storage or disposal facilities, almost all contaminated areas are projected to be removed, and over 99 percent of the land is clean enough for Residential or Agricultural use. In sharp contrast, the Minimal Action case has an end state with high-level waste, spent nuclear fuel and transuranic waste stored in onsite facilities, nonurgent contaminated areas left without remediation, and vacant buildings remaining standing. Table 7.1 presents each end state in four areas: program completion date, type of waste stored onsite, amount of land potentially available for alternate uses, and whether compliance with existing agreements and regulatory requirements is assumed in reaching the end state.

Table 7.1. Description of Program End State in 2070

	Base Case	Land Use					Scheduling			Minimal Action
		Iron Fence	Industrial	Recreational	Modified Green Fields	Maximum Feasible Green Fields	Accelerating Stabilization and Deactivation	Delaying Waste Disposal	Funding Reduction
Program Completion Date	2070	2070	2070	2070	2070	2080	2070	2070	2082	> 2070
Waste Onsite High-Level Waste	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes
Spent Nuclear Fuel	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes
Transuranic Waste	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes
Land Potentially Available for Alternate Uses	480,000 acres	315,000 acres	460,000 acres	485,000 acres	630,000 acres	980,000 acres	480,000 acres	480,000 acres	480,000 acres	<315,000 acres
Sites Meet Existing Compliance and Regulatory Requirements	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Exceed	Exceed	Yes	No	No	No

The program completion date reflects when all cleanup activities have concluded except for long-term surveillance and monitoring activities and ongoing waste management of non-Environmental Management mission waste streams. By 2070, the Environmental Management program is complete for six alternative cases. In the Maximum Feasible Green Fields case, the program must continue for 10 years beyond the Base Case in order to complete all waste management and remediation activities. In the Funding Reduction and Minimal Action cases, the program end date is also extended due to the delay of cleanup and waste disposal activities.

Another measure of the end-state differences is the amount and type of waste remaining onsite. In the Base Case, all high-level waste, spent nuclear fuel, and transuranic waste is disposed of at offsite geologic repositories. By 2070, two of the cases have waste remaining in onsite storage facilities. In the 75-year cost estimates for both the Funding Reduction and Minimal Action cases, the sites do not incur the high costs associated with disposing high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel at a geologic repository. Instead, this waste remains in onsite storage facilities, requiring long term surveillance and monitoring activities and eventual offsite disposal. In the Minimal Action case, transuranic waste also remains onsite, eliminating the costs associated with waste characterization and shipment activities.

In assessing land use at the end of 2070, the contrast between the Maximum Feasible Green Fields and the Iron Fence alternatives clearly illustrates the effect of these different cases. In the Maximum Feasible Green Fields case, only a small amount of land at the Savannah River Site, the Hanford Site and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory must be retained for storage/disposal activities. All other land is clean enough to be released for uses ranging from Industrial to Agricultural. Under the Iron Fence case, the current site boundaries are maintained and the potential for reuse of buffer areas within sites is reduced significantly. In addition, under all land-use scenarios, the amount of land released from federal control can only be determined by individual sites and their stakeholders.

The last measure of end-state difference is whether each case followed existing compliance and regulatory agreements in reaching the end state. For the Modified and Maximum Feasible Green Fields cases, the scope of cleanup activities exceeds current environmental and compliance agreement requirements. In the Delaying Waste Disposal and Funding Reduction cases, however, the postponement of offsite waste disposal violates current compliance agreement requirements. The Minimal Action case does not necessarily meet any compliance or regulatory requirements unless it leads to minimal cost without affecting risk.

7.4 IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE CASES

As discussed above, these alternative cases provide a framework of analysis to help regulators, stakeholders, and other interested parties understand the effects of expected programmatic decisions. When these alternative cases were developed, it was hypothesized that each case would most likely result in large variations in cost from the Base Case. As presented in Figure 7.1, the cost estimates for a majority of the alternative cases (Industrial, Recreational, Modified Green Fields, Accelerating Stabilization and Deactivation, and Delaying Waste Disposal) fall in the range of +/-$6 billion from the Base Case estimate. The remainder of the cases, however, provide the bounding cases that help to understand the influences of extreme changes on scope, schedule, and budget.

Each of these cases has both positive and negative implications. Table 7.2 provides a summary of the benefits and losses and the 75-year cost estimates associated with each alternative case when compared to the Base Case.

Table 7.2. Benefits and Losses of the Alternative Cases

Alternative (75-Year Cost Difference from Base Case)		Benefits	Losses
Land Use	Iron Fence (-$10 billion)	Less cost over period of analysis Maintains minimum protection of public and site workers	More land retained as controlled access for waste disposal
	Industrial (-$5 billion)	Similar cost over period of analysis	Reduces potential Recreational and Residential use of land outside controlled areas
	Recreational (+$2 billion)	Similar cost over period of analysis Increase in land clean enough for Recreational uses	Reduces potential Residential use of land outside controlled areas
	Modified Green Fields (+$6 billion)	Small increases in land clean enough to support Residential and Agricultural uses Maintain potential for continued federal activities with reuse of site facilities	More expensive over period of analysis
	Maximum Feasible Green Fields (+$112 billion)	Significant increase in land clean enough to support Residential and Agricultural uses All land at Rocky Flats and Oak Ridge is cleaned to Residential use standards Minimal long-term surveillance and monitoring Activities exceed compliance and regulatory requirements	Significantly more expensive over period of analysis Extensive cleanup activities may damage sensitive habitat Reduces potential for reuse of site facilities Program duration exceeds Base Case
Scheduling	Accelerating Stabilization and Deactivation (-$1 billion)	Similar cost over period of analysis Complete high mortgage projects faster	Requires additional resources for Nuclear Material and Facility Stabilization program in early years
	Delaying Waste Disposal (+$1 billion)	Similar cost over period of analysis Little future risk as cleanup is complete	Additional funding required for Waste Management program Violates compliance agreements
	Funding Reduction (+$39 billion)	Less cost in early years	More expensive over period of analysis Program duration exceeds Base Case Violates compliance agreements Limits flexibility to accomplish efficient scheduling
Minimal Action (-$70 billion)		Less cost over period of analysis	Program duration exceeds Base Case Violates compliance agreements and regulatory requirements Increase risk after period of analysis Delays cleanup problems and increases the scope of contamination

The set of alternative cases presented in this scenario analysis provides a broad spectrum of potential outcomes resulting from changes to scope and schedule. Based on the benefits and losses presented above, none of the nine alternative cases should be viewed as "more likely" than another. These alternative cases merely provide boundaries of analysis from which to compare different scope and schedule options.

The Environmental Management program is at the early stages of its life cycle, a point at which many key decisions can dramatically influence the direction of the program. The results of the alternative cases provide an understanding of how changes in scope and schedule can influence program costs and end states - a first step toward assessing program options. By evaluating these alternative cases, Department of Energy personnel, regulators, stakeholders, and other interested parties have the opportunity to expand their understanding of potential outcomes from policy decisions and enhance the policy decisionmaking process.

Plutonium Button and Rubber Glove, Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado, 1974. Virtually everything involved in plutonium processing, such as this rubber glove, becomes contaminated and must be contained and monitored indefinitely. This waste is called "transuranic" waste, which includes any material containing significant quantities of plutonium, americium, or other elements whose atomic weights exceed those of uranium. Transuranic waste can include everything from chemicals used in plutonium metallurgy to used air filters, gloves (see photo), clothing, tools, piping, and contaminated soils.

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Schematic. This simplified layout shows the surface facilities, the four shafts, the underground areas in which experiments are conducted, and the underground rooms in which transuranic waste will be disposed of if disposal is approved. The WIPP is intended for use in disposing of plutonium contaminated materials, such as the glove (above photo), but is not intended for use in disposing of bulk plutonium, such as the button in the above photograph. A life-cycle cost analysis for plutonium production requires consideration of the cost, strategies, and issues involved with all elements (including "externalities) of that production -- including the final disposition of both plutonium and transuranic waste.

Chapter -1- / -2- / -3- / -4- / -5- / -6- / -7- / -8-

Appendix -A2- / -B- / -C- / -D- / -E1- / -E2- / -F- / -G- / -H- / Glossary