Comparison of SRP high-level waste disposal costs for borosilicate glass and crystalline ceramic waste forms

Abstract

An evaluation of costs for the immobilization and repository disposal of SRP high-level wastes indicates that the borosilicate glass waste form is less costly than the crystalline ceramic waste form. The wastes were assumed immobilized as glass with 28% waste loading in 10,300 reference 24-in.-diameter canisters or as crystalline ceramic with 65% waste loading in either 3400 24-in.-diameter canisters or 5900 18-in.-diameter canisters. After an interim period of onsite storage, the canisters would be transported to the federal repository for burial. Total costs in undiscounted 1981 dollars of the waste disposal operations, excluding salt processing for which costs are not yet well defined, were about $2500 million for the borosilicate glass form in reference 24-in.-diameter canisters, compared to about $2900 million for the crystalline ceramic form in 24-in.-diameter canisters and about $3100 million for the crystalline ceramic form in 18-in.-diameter canisters. No large differences in salt processing costs for the borosilicate glass and crystalline ceramic forms are expected. Discounting to present values, because of a projected 2-year delay in startup of the DWPF for the crystalline ceramic form, preserved the overall cost advantage of the borosilicate glass form. The waste immobilization operations for the glass form were much less costlymore » than for the crystalline ceramic form. The waste disposal operations, in contrast, were less costly for the crystalline ceramic form, due to fewer canisters requiring disposal; however, this advantage was not sufficient to offset the higher development and processing costs of the crystalline ceramic form. Changes in proposed Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations to permit lower cost repository packages for defense high-level wastes would decrease the waste disposal costs of the more numerous borosilicate glass forms relative to the crystalline ceramic forms.« less