EIS-0113_Section_11 - Hanford Site

p
gg
- J k
2
a
^ ^,? 6 k
^
231 231
3 .4.2.11
09))
to the atmosphere, which will be discussed in greater deta il in a subsequent section
Of the report. RADTRAN D will not, bowevm, accommodate the analys is of e
water immersion accident scenario. Since many of We Proposed trarsportntion
routes far high-level nuclear waste shipments pass along maj or waterways and
barge shipments sti ll remain a possib ility, this omied.. in the code must be
considered a major deficiency in teems of theCTUIR program to develop rick
assessment methodologi es for evaluation of hawspultation accident scenarios
Involving bigh-level nuclear waste shipments through tribal lands.
COldenru 8ON APPENDIX J
METHOD FOR CALCULATING REPOSITORY COSTS
USED IN THE HANFORD DEFENSE WASTE EIS
This appendix outlines the method for calculating costs for repository emplacement of
Hanford defe ns e wastes. Total mats are derived from the sum of Po sts for:
Retrieval and Processing;
Transporta tion: and
Repository emplacement.
14
V
In co mputing repository emplacement costs, u is made on the so-ca lled RECUR
computer modem which calculates life-cycl construction and operating costs for e
geologic repository. As stated on page J.2, paragraph 3, the RECON model parameters
describe "fecitifies, emduructwe times, shafts, mine design, emplacement llmitetbml
waste quantiti es available for disposaL waste processing paramete rs (Inner, materials,
utility, and upipmem requirements), facility construction cost and unit lab or , materials,
utility and equipment costa ^ The fo llowing comments refer to Appendix J:
3.3.5.9
1. No mention u made of important paramete rs involved in compu ti ng life-cycle costs
such capitalization and amortization charge rates, costs of ultimate 335 . . 9.
decommissioning of geologic repositories (assuming coming ling of defense. HLIP and
Vent feel from commercial nuclear power plants), and perpetual monitoring
following reposito ry closure.
2. "Total" more are xaleasibly summarized in Appendix L (Tables 46, LAD, Ltd, and
L.18); however, only . the "No Disposal Action" (Table L.18) daseribes specific costs 3.3.5.9
for monitoring, surveillance, vegetation control, and subadence maintenance.
Similar costs for other disposal alternativ es should be provided
3. C os ts of land a lloc ated to repository or other deferee waste d isposal options are not
mentioned. It Is uncle ar whether land values or costs are included in the
calmilatiou. Since such land has definite value for alternative u se s (at least p ri or
to use for wnete d isposal p ur pos es and perhaps fouowirg decommissioning and 3.3.5.9
decontamination), "margin. and "real" Po sts of lend should be included with such
data disaggregated for pprpners of identification and analysis
13
12