23.04.2013 Views

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

6.79<br />

In each case, only those costs associated with and peculiar to subseabed disposal are ad-<br />

dressed. Facilities common to all disposal options under consideration, such as transporta-<br />

tion and geologic repository facilities, are not specifically addressed.<br />

Capital Costs<br />

The capital costs for the subseabed disposal alternative are categorized as follows.<br />

Seaport Interim Storage Facility. This installation would provide receiving facilities<br />

for 5,000 MTHM/yr <strong>of</strong> spent fuel assemblies in 10,200 canisters. It would also be designed to<br />

provide interim storage for 5,000 canisters (2,500 MTHM). The same facility would receive<br />

the HLW and hulls from a 5,000 MTHM/yr fuel recycling system. Interim storage would be pro-<br />

vided for 3,100 <strong>of</strong> these canisters at the port facility.<br />

The seaport interim storage facility would be similar to a packaged fuel receiving and<br />

interim storage facility (Bechtel 1977) appropriately adjusted for size and waste form. The<br />

capital cost estimates are $240 million for the spent fuel case and $190 million for the HLW<br />

case.<br />

Port Facility. The port facilities for both disposal cases are assumed to be identical<br />

for cost estimating purposes. The capital cost estimate is based on a recent estimate <strong>of</strong> an-<br />

other facility (Bechtel 1979a). The estimate for this port is $24 million.<br />

Disposal Ships. The two disposal ships for the spent fuel case would have a capacity <strong>of</strong><br />

1,275 canisters each, while those for the HLW case would have a capacity <strong>of</strong> 775 canisters<br />

each. Since the canister capacity difference would be <strong>of</strong>fset by the heat load and cooling<br />

requirement difference, the ships are assumed to be identical for estimating purposes.<br />

The capital cost estimate <strong>of</strong> the ships is based on an estimate for a mining ship (Global<br />

Marine Developnent, Inc. 1979) appropriately adjusted. The estimated capital cost <strong>of</strong> the two<br />

disposal ships is $310 million ($155 million each). Note however that sophisticated <strong>of</strong>f-<br />

shore oil well drilling ships have been reported to cost between $50 million and $70 million<br />

each (Compass Publications 1980) or about half the above estimate.<br />

Monitoring Ship. The capital cost for the monitoring ship was estimated from available<br />

data for oceanographic vessels. The estimate is $3.0 million for the ship and an additional<br />

$0.9 million for navigation and control, special electronics, and other surveillance equip-<br />

ment and for owner's costs. This brings the total capital cost to $3.9 million (Treadwell<br />

and Keller 1978).<br />

Operating Costs<br />

Operating costs for the subseabed disposal concept are estimated on a per year basis<br />

based on 5,000 MTHM/yr <strong>of</strong> both waste forms (spent fuel and HLW). This would result in vir-<br />

tually the same sea transportation requirements (number <strong>of</strong> trips per year). However, dif-<br />

ferences would occur for the HLW disposal case in years 1 through 9, when only hulls would be

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!