Executive Summary - Background DOE HAS MORE THAN 7,0001 SURPLUS CONTAMINATED FACILITIES THAT MAY REQUIRE DECOMMISSIONING, COSTING THE DEPARTMENT MORE THAN $20 BILLION, OR ABOUT 10% OF ITS TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP LIABILITY. Life Cycle Cost $227 Billion NV OH OK $3.6B $8.8B $4.5B 1.6% 3.9% 2% CH $3.1B 1.4% ID Remedial $18.6B SR Action, Waste 8.2% $48.8B Management, 21.5% and Stabilization AL $193.4B $18B Decommissioning 7.9% Life Cycle Cost Other2 OR $1.3B RL RL 6.1% $53.9B $2.3B $50.2B 23.8% 22.1% S&M and 11.2% Deactivation RF $13B $17.3B Facility OR 7.6% Life Cycle $6.2B RF 30.1% Cost Decommissioning $3.6B $20.6B 17.5% SR $7.2B 35.1% Source: 1996 BEMR Report, Volumes II and III. The term "life cycle cost" refers to the cost to complete the mission of the Environmental Management program. The Ten Year Plan was not finalized at the time of report publication. 1 DOE EM-40 "Decommissioning of Facilities" Web Page (http://www.em.doe.gov/dd/), October 4, 1996. 2 Fernald and Weldon Spring decommissioning cost estimates are included under remedial actions. ES-1 Executive Summary - Background THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY IS TO ANALYZE PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES IN FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING AND TO DETERMINE APPROACHES TO IMPROVE THE DECOMMISSIONING PROCESS IN DOE'S ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM. Facility Life Cycle Facility Construction Operations Shutdown Deactivation Decommissioning End State Planning Processing Operations cease Decontamination Decontamination Site release Siting Manufacturing System shutdown De-energization Dismantlement Facility reuse Designing Testing Process shutdown Stabilization Demolition Permitting Storage STUDY FOCUS DOE's Office of Environmental Restoration is currently responsible for more than 1,000 facilities and accepts deactivated facilities for decommissioning. Note: DOE decommissioning normally excludes: high level waste tanks, spent nuclear fuel, soil and groundwater remediation, and waste transportation and disposal. ES-2 Executive Summary - Analysis Approach THE STUDY FOCUSED ON QUANTIFYING PRODUCTIVITY OF DECOMMISSIONING PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES AND IDENTIFYING HOW PRODUCTIVITY IS AFFECTED BY SPECIFIC WORKING CONDITIONS. Physical Functions Unit of Measure Discriminators: Assuring Meaningful Analyses Concrete Surface Decontamination manhours/ft2 Concrete Demolition manhours/ft3 Steel Surface Decontamiantion technology hours/ft2 Structural Steel Demolition manhours/ton Contaminants/ Labor/Contract Steel Component Cutting/Sizing manhours/ton Dose Arrangement Consideration ACM Tile and Siding Removal manhours/ft2 Regulatory Technologies ACM Pipe Insulation Removal manhours/ft3 Framework Deployed Equipment Removal manhours/ton or item Pipe Removal manhours/ft Personnel General Demolition manhours/ft3 Project End- Point Protective Equipment Administrative Functions Unit of Measure Material Secondary Waste Project Management %total hours or cost Composition Generation Engineering/Planning/Design %total hours or cost Facility Type/Size Obstructions Support Services %total hours or cost Health and Safety Documentation %total hours or cost Security Surveillance & Maint. %total hours or cost Since the study focused primarily on hourly productivity as opposed to costs, the data was collected at the task level (e.g., manhours to decontaminate "x" ft2 of floor space in building "y"). ES-3 Executive Summary - Analysis Approach THE DECOMMISSIONING BENCHMARKING TEAM FOLLOWED A SEVEN STEP BENCHMARKING PROCESS. Step 4 Measure performance of external partners Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 6 Step 7 Determine which Identify Develop benchmarks Formulate and decommissioning Determine the key implement performance variables benchmark and compare functions to partners performance to recommendations/ benchmark to measure benchmarks measure results Step 5 Measure performance of internal partners Note: An Implementation Plan was developed in late 1995 to initiate the Decommissioning Benchmarking Study Steps 1 and 2 were conducted as part of the Implementation Plan development. ES-4 Executive Summary - Products of the Study THE DECOMMISSIONING BENCHMARKING RESULTS ARE THE FOUNDATION FOR SEVERAL DISTINCT PRODUCTS. Benchmarked Developed unit cost productivity ranges factors to improve cost for physical activities estimating capabilities Decommissioning Benchmarking Study Supported refinement of a Decommissioning Served as integral part Technologies Preferred of Process Alternatives Matrix (PAM) Improvement Goals ES-5 Executive Summary - Conclusion AT THE TASK LEVEL AVAILABLE DATA SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO PRODUCTIVITY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FEDERAL AND NON-FEDERAL DECOMMISSIONING PROJECTS. Concrete Decontamination Productivity for Federal and Non-Federal Projects 3,200 2.4 2,800 ) 2.0 2,400 2 2,000 1.6 Manhours 1,600 1.2 (manhours/ft 1,200 Productivity Rate 0.8 800 0.4 0.4 0.4 400 0 0.0 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 Federal Projects Non-Federal Projects Area (ft2) Range of Productivity Federal Non-Federal Weighted Average Productivity Rate ES-6 Executive Summary - Recommendations SINCE EXISTING DECOMMISSIONING TECHNOLOGIES ARE WELL SUITED FOR MOST DECOMMISSIONING TASKS NOT REQUIRING REMOTE OPERATION, THE AVAILABILITY OF TECHNOLOGIES SHOULD NOT IMPEDE PROGRESS OF DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES. Comparison of Productivities for Concrete Decontamination Technologies Established Technologies Emerging Technologies 1.6 1.5 ) 1.4 2 (Assorted 0.6 Scabblers) 0.4 Productivity 0.4 (manhours/ft (Large 0.2 Scabblers) 0.06 0.03 0.05 0 Vacuum Mechanical Chemical Wall Flashlamp Laser Microwave Blasting Scabbling Treatment Shaver Ablation Ablation Scabbling Range of Productivity Rates Based on Machine Speed Alone (from Vendor Literature and Journals) Range of Productivity Rates Accounting for Crew Size, Setup, etc. Weighted Average Productivity Rate Single Data Point ES-7 Executive Summary - Recommendations PRODUCTIVITY RATES AND RELATED UNIT COST FACTORS CAN BE USED BY DECOMMISSIONING MANAGERS IN DEVELOPING ESTIMATES TO SUPPORT BUDGETS AND PROPOSAL REQUESTS AND IN EVALUATING COST TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN DECOMMISSIONING END STATES. MEANS® productivity rates for concrete removal, structural steel removal, and piping removal tasks are consistently lower than study productivity rates. MEANS® productivity rates are based on tasks conducted in a non-contaminated environment. ES-8 Executive Summary - Recommendations DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAM MANAGERS MAY USE THE DECOMMISSIONING PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES MATRIX TO ASSIST IN THE DETERMINATION OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR USE ON A DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT. Sample Matrix Rating Demolition Technologies Concrete Brick/Cinder Block Reinforced Structure Lightly Reinforced Non-reinforced (>2' thick) Structure (<2' thick) Structure (<2' thick) Stack Structure Stack HEAVY EQUIPMENT Backhoe Mounted Pulverizer k k k k p k Backhoe Mounted Ram p p u k p p Backhoe Mounted Shears k p k X k X Wrecking Ball/Slab e p p k u u TOOLS Jackhammer k k k X p X Rock Splitter k p p k X X Wall and Floor Saws e k k X X X MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT/METHODS Controlled Blasting/Explosive Cutting k k k k k k Diamond Wire k p p X X X Expansive Grout/Demolition Compounds e p p p p p Grapple k p p X u X PAM Legend u Preferred Alternative p Probable Alternative (low k Potential Alternative e Possible Alternative y Unlikely X Not Applicable (lowest cost, best performance, cost, good performance, and (acceptable performance, but (high cost or high risk) (limited performance or high cost and low risk) low risk) medium cost or risk) or risk) ES-9 the 1996BEMRprojectsalife cyclecostof$14.3billionforsurveillanceandmaintenance. Graphs abovearenottoscale. TheDOEOfficeofEnvironmentalManagementwillspend approximately$750millionforsurveillanceandmaintenance inFY1997; DEACTIVATION ASPOSSIBLE. FACILITY LIFECYCLECOSTSCANBEREDUCEDBYPERFORMINGDECOMMISSIONINGASSOONAFTER Executive Summary-Recommendations Relative Cost ($) Relative Cost ($) ES-10 Executive Summary - Recommendations FOR RADIOACTIVE DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES, DOE SHOULD CONSIDER WASTE DISPOSAL COSTS INCURRED IN DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN LABOR COSTS (DECONTAMINATION ACTIVITIES) AND DISPOSAL COSTS (VOLUME OF MATERIAL DISPOSED). Total Costs No Decontamination All Contamination Removed All Material Disposed of as Small Portion of Material Disposed of Radioactive Waste as Radioactive Waste Total Labor Costs Total Waste Disposal Costs Material Release Costs Graphs above are not to scale. ES-11 Executive Summary - Recommendations DOE SHOULD CONTINUE THE DECOMMISSIONING COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES AND INCREASE EMPHASIS ON COLLECTING DATA, MEASURING PROGRESS, AND SHARING DECOMMISSIONING RESULTS WITH DOD, EPA, AND INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS. Decommissioning projects should be planned with measurement objectives in mind to achieve the ability to measure performance. DOE should establish a data collection and reporting protocol for DOE and contractors similar to the functions covered in the benchmark, periodically update average and "best-in-class" productivity rates, and continue to seek input from external partners. ES-12 Executive Summary For more information, please contact: Telephone: Stephen Warren, DOE (301) 903-7673 Internet: [email protected] The Final Report will be available February 1997 on the DOE Decommissioning Home Page on the World Wide Web: http://www.em.doe.gov/dd D ST ITE AT N ES U E • • Y N C V N I R E O G N A M E N N O T I A CT L PROTE ES-13 Background THE U.S. DOE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FACES A LIABILITY OF APPROXIMATELY $20.6 BILLION1 TO DECOMMISSION