Fernald's dilemma: Recycle the radioactively contaminated scrap metal, or bury it?
Post on 04-Jul-2016
Embed Size (px)
ELSEVIER Resources, Conservation and Recycling 19 (1997) 187-198 drecycllng
Fernalds dilemma: recycle the radioactively contaminated scrap metal, or bury it? _
Katherine L. Yuracko, Stanton W. Hadley, Robert Rafael G. Rivera, T. Randall Curlee
Oak Ridge National Laboratory , 1060 Commerce Park Drive, MS-6480, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, USA
During the past 5 years, a number of US Department of Energy (DOE) funded efforts have demonstrated the technical efficacy of converting various forms of radioactive scrap metal (RSM) into useable products. From the development of accelerator shielding blocks, to the construction of low level waste containers, technology has been applied to this fabrication process in a safe and stakeholder supported manner. The potential health and safety risks to both workers and the public have been addressed. The question remains: do the benefits of fabricating products from RSM outweigh the costs? This paper presents a decision methodology for use within DOE to evaluate the costs and benefits of recycling and reusing some RSM, rather than disposing of this RSM in an approved burial site. The methodology is being applied to a decision on whether the DOE Fernald site should recycle its radioactively contaminated metals. Copyright 0 1997 Elsevier Science B.V.
Keywords: Life cycle analysis; Metals recycle; Industrial ecology
* Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 423 2412290; fax: + 1 423 2412593; e-mail: email@example.com. This publication has been authored by a contractor of the US Government under contract
No.DE-AC05-960R22464. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corp. for the US
Department of Energy under contract number DE-AC05-960R22464.
0921-3449/97/$17.00 Copyright 0 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
188 K.L. Yuraeko et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 19 (1997) 187-198
A goal of the emerging field of industrial ecology is to plug leaks in materials cycles, so that materials are not permanently disposed of and thus unavailable for future reuse. This is viewed by many as essential for achieving sustainable develop- ment [l-3]. However while the closing of materials cycles is often considered the environmentally preferred thing to do, such claims are often not accompanied by a rigorous evaluation of the costs and benefits of the recycle activities. Often the full life cycle economic, environmental, and other impacts of materials recycle are not assessed. A life cycle analysis approach to evaluating the closure of materials cycles will examine the full economic, environmental, and other impacts of linear vs. cyclical materials flows and will ensure adequate consideration of costs and benefits in decision-making .
During the past 5 years, a number of US Department of Energy (DOE) funded efforts have demonstrated the technical efficacy of converting various forms of radioactive scrap metal (RSM) into useable products. From the development of large accelerator shielding blocks, to the construction of low level waste containers, technology has been applied to this fabrication process in a safe and stakeholder supported manner. The potential health and safety risks to both workers and the public have been addressed. The question remains: do the benefits of fabrication of products from RSM outweigh the costs? To answer this question, a life cycle analysis approach was developed to provide a full perspective on the life cycle costs and benefits of RSM recycle.
This paper summarizes a methodology that was developed to help decision-mak- ers to compare and select among competing proposals for the disposition of RSM at the Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP) . As part of the DOEs asset management initiative, a recycle alternative has been proposed for the FEMP cleanup program in which metals present at the site would be melted and fabricated into containers that would be used for transport and disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW). Currently, LLW is placed in purchased boxes made from virgin or recycled steel, which represent a leak in the steel cycle. Purchasing the boxes also represents an appreciable cost to DOE. Manufacturing boxes from RSM would plug the leak in this cycle [2,6].
The methodology developed takes into consideration both quantitative and qualitative factors in three general categories: direct financial costs and benefits; socio-economic and institutional impacts including regional economic impacts; and environmental, safety and health impacts (including externalities where possible). An important component of the decision methodology is the proposed life cycle analysis approach for environmental decision-making. The life cycle analysis ap- proach proposed here differs from traditional life cycle assessments in its breadth, because it considers the environmental, economic and other impacts of concern to stakeholders, and addresses secondary and indirect impacts that may occur up- stream or downstream of the decision [4,7].
This methodology has been presented at a public meeting in Fernald, Ohio, to solicit public input, and at a DOE pollution prevention conference, and is sched- uled to be applied across the FEMP complex.
K.L. Yuracko et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 19 (1997) 187-198 189
2. Decision methodology
A decision on RSM disposition alternatives should be based on two categories of information: (1) the potential impacts of choosing each of the candidate alterna- tives; and (2) the value judgments used in evaluating these impacts. Correspond- ingly, the methodology is divided into two phases: the life cycle analysis phase, in which the possible impacts of each of the candidate alternatives are assessed; and the decision phase. In the first phase, the objectives and program scope are defined, the RSM disposition alternatives are identified, performance measures are specified, and the impacts of the alternatives are described in terms of the performance measures. In the second phase, the decision phase, the methodology will aid the decision-maker(s) in the comparison of alternatives and the selection of the preferred alternative.
2.1. Life cycle analysis phase
Life cycle analysis is the process of identifying and assessing all benefits and costs that result from a course of action over the entire period of time affected by the action and providing results in a form that will promote sound decision-making. A life cycle analysis provides a logical approach to the comprehensive assessment of alternatives which is mandated by the uncertain, hidden, and at times counterintu- itive costs and benefits of alternative proposals. The elements of a life cycle analysis depend on the purpose of the analysis and the availability of specific data. In general, however, elements of a life cycle analysis consist of direct costs and benefits, which derive from the outlays that DOE would expend; socio-economic and institutional impacts; and environmental, safety, and health impacts.
The proposed life cycle analysis framework is illustrated in Fig. 1. The first stage of the life cycle analysis approach is the definition of decision parameters. This stage consists of three steps: define nature of decision and program scope, specify objectives and performance measures, and identify alternatives. The second stage of the life cycle analysis phase is the evaluation of the impacts of the alternatives. In this stage, the analytical approach is defined for each of the performance measures, their value is estimated for each alternative, and the results are summarized for use by the decision-maker(s). These six steps that make up the life cycle analysis are inter-linked and are described below. Although the entire methodology is an iterative process at every step, a feedback mechanism is indicated at the end of the second stage to emphasize that performance measures may be further refined, the system definition and process flow model revised, new strategic alternatives iden- tified, and additional analyses performed.
2.1.1. Define nature of decision and program scope A clear statement is needed of the current system and the nature of the decision
that is required. This establishes the boundaries for which viable alternatives can be defined. It also defines the scope for which impact analysis is required. Finally, it helps in identification of possible decision-aiding approaches for use in the decision
190 K.L. Yuracko et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 19 (1997) 187-198
phase. This step also includes a preliminary assessment of the quality of the information available to perform the analysis; identification of the criteria for the quality and efficacy of the analysis; and a preliminary identification and inventory of assets and resources.
In defining the problem scope, the general rule for deciding whether or not a consideration should be included in evaluating metal disposition alternatives is whether or not that inclusion could have a significant impact on the evaluation of alternatives. As an example, if all alternatives being considered fully comply with all laws and regulations, then regulatory compliance could be eliminated from the comparative analysis of metal disposition alternatives. However, regulatory compli- ance would be relevant in deciding whether or not to include an alternative in the analysis. Similarly, if the aesthetic impacts were considered to be equivalent for all alternatives, this could be omitted in a comparative consideration. This general rule allows us to eliminate many considerations from the study.
Some of the key assumptions of the Fernald study follow.