Defense Remote Handled Transuranic Waste Cost/Schedule Optimization Study

Technical Report · Sat Nov 01 04:00:00 EST 1986

DOI:https://doi.org/10.2172/5114735· OSTI ID:5114735

Pierce, G D ^[1]; Beaulieu, D H ^[2]; Wolaver, R W; Carson, P H ^[3]

---

1. Rockwell International Corp., Albuquerque, NM (United States). Joint Integration Office
2. USDOE Joint Integration Office, Albuquerque, NM (United States)
3. Stoller (S.M.) Corp., Boulder, CO (United States)

The purpose of this study is to provide the DOE information with which it can establish the most efficient program for the long management and disposal, in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), of remote handled (RH) transuranic (TRU) waste. To fulfill this purpose, a comprehensive review of waste characteristics, existing and projected waste inventories, processing and transportation options, and WIPP requirements was made. Cost differences between waste management alternatives were analyzed and compared to an established baseline. The result of this study is an information package that DOE can use as the basis for policy decisions. As part of this study, a comprehensive list of alternatives for each element of the baseline was developed and reviewed with the sites. The principle conclusions of the study follow. A single processing facility for RH TRU waste is both necessary and sufficient. The RH TRU processing facility should be located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Shielding of RH TRU to contact handled levels is not an economic alternative in general, but is an acceptable alternative for specific waste streams. Compaction is only cost effective at the ORNL processing facility, with a possible exception at Hanford for small compaction of paint cans of newly generated glovebox waste. It is more cost effective to ship certified waste to WIPP in 55-gal drums than in canisters, assuming a suitable drum cask becomes available. Some waste forms cannot be packaged in drums, a canister/shielded cask capability is also required. To achieve the desired disposal rate, the ORNL processing facility must be operational by 1996. Implementing the conclusions of this study can save approximately $110 million, compared to the baseline, in facility, transportation, and interim storage costs through the year 2013. 10 figs., 28 tabs.

• Research Organization: USDOE Joint Integration Office, Albuquerque, NM (United States); Rockwell International Corp., Albuquerque, NM (United States). Joint Integration Office; Westinghouse Electric Corp., Albuquerque, NM (United States). Joint Integration Office
• Sponsoring Organization: DOE; USDOE, Washington, DC (United States)
• DOE Contract Number: AC04-86AL31950
• OSTI ID: 5114735
• Report Number(s): DOE/JIO-017; ON: DE92000870
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

052002* -- Nuclear Fuels-- Waste Disposal & Storage
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES
ANL
COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS
COST ESTIMATION
EVALUATION
FUNCTIONAL MODELS
HANFORD RESERVATION
LANL
MANAGEMENT
MATERIALS
NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
NUCLEAR FACILITIES
OPTIMIZATION
ORNL
PILOT PLANTS
PROCESSING
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL
RADIOACTIVE WASTE FACILITIES
RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROCESSING
RADIOACTIVE WASTES
REMOTE HANDLING
SHIELDING
SPECIFICATIONS
TRANSURANIUM COMPOUNDS
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES
US AEC
US DOE
US ERDA
US ORGANIZATIONS
WASTE DISPOSAL
WASTE MANAGEMENT
WASTE PROCESSING
WASTES
WIPP