m (Scipediacontent moved page Draft Content 464067934 to Vo Epperson 1995a) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
This document examines high-/low-level radioactive liquid waste transport alternatives. Radioactive liquid waste will be transported from the 200 West Area to the 200 East Area and within the 200 East Areas for safe storage and disposal. The radioactive waste transport alternatives are the Aboveground Transport System (French LR-56 Cask System [3,800 L (1,000 gal)]), 19,000-L (5,000-gal) trailer tanker system, 75,700-L (20,000-gal) rail tanker system and Underground Transport System (buried pipe [unlimited transfer volume capability]). The evaluation focused on the following areas: initial project cost, operational cost, secondary waste generation, radiation exposure, and final decommissioning. The evaluation was based on the near term (1995 to 2005) estimated volume of 49.509 million L (13.063 million gal) and long term (1995 to 2028) estimated volume of 757.1 million L (200 million gal). The conclusion showed that the buried pipe (Underground Transport System) resulted in the lowest overall total cost for near and long term, the trailer container resulted in the highest total cost for near and long term, and the French truck was operationally impractical and cost prohibitive. | This document examines high-/low-level radioactive liquid waste transport alternatives. Radioactive liquid waste will be transported from the 200 West Area to the 200 East Area and within the 200 East Areas for safe storage and disposal. The radioactive waste transport alternatives are the Aboveground Transport System (French LR-56 Cask System [3,800 L (1,000 gal)]), 19,000-L (5,000-gal) trailer tanker system, 75,700-L (20,000-gal) rail tanker system and Underground Transport System (buried pipe [unlimited transfer volume capability]). The evaluation focused on the following areas: initial project cost, operational cost, secondary waste generation, radiation exposure, and final decommissioning. The evaluation was based on the near term (1995 to 2005) estimated volume of 49.509 million L (13.063 million gal) and long term (1995 to 2028) estimated volume of 757.1 million L (200 million gal). The conclusion showed that the buried pipe (Underground Transport System) resulted in the lowest overall total cost for near and long term, the trailer container resulted in the highest total cost for near and long term, and the French truck was operationally impractical and cost prohibitive. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| Line 18: | Line 13: | ||
* [https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc708816/m2/1/high_res_d/74135.pdf https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc708816/m2/1/high_res_d/74135.pdf] | * [https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc708816/m2/1/high_res_d/74135.pdf https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc708816/m2/1/high_res_d/74135.pdf] | ||
| − | * [https://core.ac.uk/display/71192108 https://core.ac.uk/display/71192108],[https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc708816 https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc708816],[https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc708816/m2/1/high_res_d/74135.pdf https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc708816/m2/1/high_res_d/74135.pdf],[https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/653987928 https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/653987928] | + | * [https://core.ac.uk/display/71192108 https://core.ac.uk/display/71192108], |
| + | : [https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc708816 https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc708816], | ||
| + | : [https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc708816/m2/1/high_res_d/74135.pdf https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc708816/m2/1/high_res_d/74135.pdf], | ||
| + | : [https://trid.trb.org/view/630815 https://trid.trb.org/view/630815], | ||
| + | : [https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/653987928 https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/653987928] | ||
Latest revision as of 12:50, 22 January 2021
Abstract
This document examines high-/low-level radioactive liquid waste transport alternatives. Radioactive liquid waste will be transported from the 200 West Area to the 200 East Area and within the 200 East Areas for safe storage and disposal. The radioactive waste transport alternatives are the Aboveground Transport System (French LR-56 Cask System [3,800 L (1,000 gal)]), 19,000-L (5,000-gal) trailer tanker system, 75,700-L (20,000-gal) rail tanker system and Underground Transport System (buried pipe [unlimited transfer volume capability]). The evaluation focused on the following areas: initial project cost, operational cost, secondary waste generation, radiation exposure, and final decommissioning. The evaluation was based on the near term (1995 to 2005) estimated volume of 49.509 million L (13.063 million gal) and long term (1995 to 2028) estimated volume of 757.1 million L (200 million gal). The conclusion showed that the buried pipe (Underground Transport System) resulted in the lowest overall total cost for near and long term, the trailer container resulted in the highest total cost for near and long term, and the French truck was operationally impractical and cost prohibitive.
Original document
The different versions of the original document can be found in:
Document information
Published on 01/01/1995
Volume 1995, 1995
DOI: 10.2172/74135
Licence: CC BY-NC-SA license
Share this document
Keywords
claim authorship
Are you one of the authors of this document?