skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Cost benefit analysis of waste compaction alternatives at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Abstract

This report presents a cost benefit analysis of the potential procurement and operation of various solid waste compactors, or, of the use of commercial compaction services, for compaction of solid transuranic (TRU), low-level radioactive, hazardous, and mixed wastes at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Hazardous Waste Management (HWM) facilities. The cost benefit analysis was conducted to determine if increased compaction capacity at HWM might afford the potential for significant waste volume reduction and annual savings in material, shipping, labor, and disposal costs. In the following cost benefit analysis, capital costs and recurring costs of increased HWM compaction capabilities are considered. Recurring costs such as operating and maintenance costs are estimated based upon detailed knowledge of system parameters. When analyzing the economic benefits of enhancing compaction capabilities, continued use of the existing HWM compaction units is included for comparative purposes. In addition, the benefits of using commercial compaction services instead of procuring a new compactor system are evaluated. 31 refs., 1 fig., 6 tabs.

Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States); Science Applications International Corp., Pleasanton, CA (USA)
Sponsoring Org.:
DOE/DP
OSTI Identifier:
6291296
Report Number(s):
UCRL-CR-105453
ON: DE91005434
DOE Contract Number:  
W-7405-ENG-48
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES; 11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS; ALPHA-BEARING WASTES; COMPACTING; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HAZARDOUS MATERIALS; LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES; COMPACTORS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; LAWRENCE LIVERMORE LABORATORY; MINIMIZATION; PROGRESS REPORT; RECOMMENDATIONS; TRANSPORT; DOCUMENT TYPES; MATERIALS; NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS; RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS; RADIOACTIVE WASTES; US AEC; US DOE; US ERDA; US ORGANIZATIONS; WASTES; 052000* - Nuclear Fuels- Waste Management; 051000 - Nuclear Fuels- Economic, Industrial, & Business Aspects

Citation Formats

. Cost benefit analysis of waste compaction alternatives at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. United States: N. p., 1990. Web. doi:10.2172/6291296.
. Cost benefit analysis of waste compaction alternatives at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. United States. https://doi.org/10.2172/6291296
. 1990. "Cost benefit analysis of waste compaction alternatives at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory". United States. https://doi.org/10.2172/6291296. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6291296.
@article{osti_6291296,
title = {Cost benefit analysis of waste compaction alternatives at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory},
author = {},
abstractNote = {This report presents a cost benefit analysis of the potential procurement and operation of various solid waste compactors, or, of the use of commercial compaction services, for compaction of solid transuranic (TRU), low-level radioactive, hazardous, and mixed wastes at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Hazardous Waste Management (HWM) facilities. The cost benefit analysis was conducted to determine if increased compaction capacity at HWM might afford the potential for significant waste volume reduction and annual savings in material, shipping, labor, and disposal costs. In the following cost benefit analysis, capital costs and recurring costs of increased HWM compaction capabilities are considered. Recurring costs such as operating and maintenance costs are estimated based upon detailed knowledge of system parameters. When analyzing the economic benefits of enhancing compaction capabilities, continued use of the existing HWM compaction units is included for comparative purposes. In addition, the benefits of using commercial compaction services instead of procuring a new compactor system are evaluated. 31 refs., 1 fig., 6 tabs.},
doi = {10.2172/6291296},
url = {https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6291296}, journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Nov 01 00:00:00 EST 1990},
month = {Thu Nov 01 00:00:00 EST 1990}
}