Katherine L. Yuracko
ORNL

Pete Yerace
USDOE

Bob Lehrter
FDF

Michael Gresalfi
ORNL

A life cycle analysis (LCA) framework and template have been developed and used to help decision-makers to make and subsequently defend their decisions. As we define it, life cycle analysis is the process of identifying and assessing all of the impacts (benefits and costs) that result from a course of action over the entire period of time affected by the action, and presenting the results in a form that aids communication and makes decision-making transparent. The purpose of LCA is to assist decision-makers in comparing and selecting among competing proposals, and explaining the basis for their decisions. Our approach to LCA differs from other approaches in that it takes into consideration all of the factors important to stakeholders. That is, in addition to life cycle cost, we consider health and safety impacts, environmental impacts, institutional and regulatory issues, stakeholder acceptance, schedule impacts, and other factors. This paper presents two applications of the LCA methodology: disposition of radioactively contaminated structural steel and comparison of wooden, steel, and recycled plastic lumber pallets. The approach is shown to be robust and applicable to a broad range of pollution prevention decisions. 

A decision methodology based on life cycle analysis has been developed and applied by the DOE Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP) to aid in pollution prevention decision-making. The methodology provides a generic framework for assessing and summarizing all of the information important to a decision, including information on health and safety impacts, environmental impacts, life-cycle cost (LCC), schedule impacts, local economic impacts, institutional and regulatory issues, and stakeholder acceptance. The methodology approach is quite general, and can be tailored to apply to D&D and pollution prevention projects throughout the DOE complex. Key to the success of the methodology is the fact that it represents a consensual agreement among DOE, contractors, regulators, and other stakeholders. 

Two applications are discussed which illustrate the strength and broad applicability of the approach. In the first application, FEMP worked with stakeholders to tailor the methodology to answer the specific question: should radioactive scrap metal be recycled or disposed of in an approved burial site? FEMP then used the methodology to evaluate disposition of scrap structural steel from demolition of FEMP OU3 facilities. In the second application, the life-cycle methodology was used to evaluate competing pallet alternatives: wooden pallets, galvanized steel pallets, and pallets fabricated from recycled plastic lumber (RPL). Several other applications are underway and FEMP has committed to apply this approach for all future D&D projects to decide whether materials will be recycled or disposed. 

FEMP and Oak Ridge National Laboratory have developed a methodology to assist decision-makers in comparing and selecting among competing proposals, and explaining the basis for their decisions. The approach described here is the culmination of a year-long negotiation involving DOE, Fluor Daniel Fernald, regulators, and other stakeholders, and represents a consensual agreement as to the approach to be used to address pollution prevention issues. The general approach is summarized here; a detailed description of the methodology appears in References 1 and 2. The methodology consists of three phases: the Screening Phase, the Life Cycle Analysis Phase, and the Decision Phase. Although described here as a linear process, in practice the entire process is iterative, and new alternatives are defined and the analysis is refined as new information develops and understanding of the decision problem deepens. 

In the first phase (Screening Phase), alternatives are defined and then screened on project-specific "threshold criteria" to identify those alternatives which warrant more detailed analysis. These threshold criteria typically include protection of human health and the environment and compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). Alternatives which fail to meet minimum standards in these areas are eliminated from further consideration.  

Alternatives which survive the initial screening undergo more detailed evaluation in the Life Cycle Analysis Phase. In this second phase, the alternatives are evaluated on a comprehensive set of performance measures and the results are summarized in a Decision Summary Matrix. This phase is founded on life cycle analysis, the process of identifying and assessing all of the impacts (benefits and costs) that result from a course of action over the entire period of time affected by the action, and presenting the results in a form that aids communication and makes decision-making transparent. 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 public and worker health and safety impacts, environmental impacts, LCC, local economic impacts, institutional and regulatory impacts, and stakeholder acceptance. The LCA Framework is depicted in Figure 1 and Table I provides an example of a Decision Summary Matrix. 

In the third phase (Decision Phase), the alternatives are ranked using multiattribute decision analysis, in which the results of the Life Cycle Analysis Phase are combined with weighting factors (in this case, provided by FEMP) to produce an aggregate total score for each alternative. The weighting factors established by FEMP describe the relative worth of the performance measures, and reflect the input received from stakeholders through public workshops, meetings, and correspondence. Sensitivity analyses are also performed as part of this phase to identify conditions under which the rank order of the alternatives would change. Sensitivity analyses investigate the implications of alternative value judgments (weighting factors) or alternative performance measure scores on the ranking of alternatives. Weights or scores may be changed individually or simultaneously to examine the following: What are the critical assumptions and value judgments? Under what conditions do specific alternatives reverse positions in ordering? 

The first case study evaluated disposition of radioactively contaminated structural steel from the FEMP Plant 4 D&D project, specifically 1,500 tons of the Category A - Accessible Metals (i.e., structural steel) from the demolition of Building 4A/Plant 4. The approach presented here represents a negotiated solution in which DOE, Fluor Daniel Fernald, regulators, and other stakeholders collaborated in the development of the detailed approach and its implementation. Numerous public workshops and meetings were conducted, and the final methodology described here reflects the public and regulator comments received on earlier versions of the methodology. 

Five alternatives for disposition of the scrap metal were defined: on-site disposal facility (OSDF), FEMP material release facility (FEMP MRF), off-site vendor material release facility (Vendor MRF), off-site metal-melt and restricted reuse (Recycle 2000), and vendor-operated FEMP material release facility (Privatized FEMP MRF). The OSDF is the FEMP permanent on-site disposal facility, which will be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation Control Act. In the FEMP MRF alternative, the scrap metal would be decontaminated by FEMP work crews in an on-site facility to meet the unrestricted release guidelines of DOE Order 5400.5. The decontaminated scrap metal would be sold to scrap metal dealers or recyclers with no restrictions on end use. In the Vendor MRF alternative, the scrap metal would be containerized at the FEMP and shipped to an off-site vendor's MRF for decontamination and unrestricted release. In the Recycle 2000 alternative, the scrap metal would be containerized at the FEMP and shipped to an off-site vendor's facility where the scrap metal would be melted and fabricated into restricted-use products, such as metal boxes for radioactive waste storage and disposal. These restricted-use products would remain under DOE control. In the Privatized FEMP MRF alternative, a vendor would lease space on the FEMP site to set up vendor-owned equipment for the decontamination of the scrap metal to meet unrestricted release criteria. All of these alternatives meet the threshold criteria of protection of human health and the environment and compliance with ARARs. 

The FEMP life cycle decision methodology includes an additional cost screening criterion, as follows. The LCC is estimated for each of the alternatives and the lowest-cost alternative is identified. Competing alternatives which are not within 25 percent of the LCC of the lowest-cost alternative are eliminated. (If only the lowest-cost alternative survives this phase, then the second and third phases become unnecessary and this alternative becomes the preferred alternative.) Using this procedure, it was found that the lowest-cost alternative is disposal in the OSDF and none of the other alternatives come within 25 percent of the cost of this alternative. Thus, disposal in the OSDF is the preferred alternative for disposition of this scrap metal. 

For the purpose of conducting sensitivity analysis, a full LCA was performed. The five alternatives were evaluated on the following performance measures: total cost, schedule impacts, local economic impacts, institutional preference, local social preference, environmental impacts, and public and worker health and safety impacts. Total cost was measured as the LCC in dollars and schedule impacts was measured in years from present until project completion. The health and safety impacts of the alternatives were found to be so low as to not discriminate among the alternatives. For the remaining performance measures, the alternatives were evaluated on a five-point scale. These performance measures, and the methods used to score the disposition alternatives on each performance measure, are defined in Reference 1. The Decision Summary Matrix (Table I) presents the results of the life cycle analysis of the five alternatives for disposition of 1,500 tons of scrap structural steel. 

Using the weighting factors provided by FEMP, the overall score for each of the alternatives was developed to investigate the conditions under which the preferred alternative would change. Sensitivity analyses indicate that the FEMP MRF would become the preferred alternative if its cost were reduced and/or the cost of the OSDF were increased to the point that the FEMP MRF was within 25 percent of the cost of the OSDF. For example, if the FEMP MRF cost estimate remains unchanged, FEMP MRF would be the preferred alternative when the cost of the OSDF alternative increases to $640k. 

The Decision Summary Matrix represents the best information available at the time of this analysis. Much of the information used in the analysis is based on best estimates rather than data generated from completed projects and activities. As the physical work of remediation and recycle projects is undertaken and better information becomes available, the Decision Summary Matrix will be updated to reflect changes which could impact the comparison of alternatives. Additionally, as new technologies become available in the future, they will be evaluated and included in the Decision Summary Matrix as appropriate.  

A second application of the FEMP life cycle decision methodology involved an evaluation of competing pallet alternatives. DOE sites have extensive use for pallets to ship and store materials. During this use the pallets may become contaminated, and they may require extensive cleaning before authorized release is possible. Since cleaning of traditional pallets is difficult, these pallets are often disposed of as contaminated waste. Recently, RPL pallets have attracted interest because they are made of recycled plastic and can be readily disassembled, decontaminated, and free-released. This evaluation was conducted to compare the use of RPL pallets with other pallets in use at the FEMP site. A complete discussion of this evaluation appears in Reference 3. 

All of the alternatives for pallets at FEMP (wooden pallets, galvanized steel pallets, and RPL pallets) meet the threshold criteria of protection of human health and the environment and compliance with ARARs. The FEMP life cycle decision methodology also includes a LCC screening criterion, in which alternatives which exceed 125 percent of the LCC of the lowest-cost alternative are eliminated. To perform the LCC screening comparison of the pallet alternatives, a number of assumptions were made. Since FEMP is on a 10-year shutdown plan, the time duration during which pallets are needed at the site is assumed to be 10 years. The useful lives of the pallets are assumed to be as follows: wooden pallets, 2 years; steel pallets, 10 years; and RPL pallets, 5 years. Financial costs for the pallets fall into three major categories: acquisition (initial) cost, maintenance and repair cost, and end-of-life cost. The costs for purchase of a new pallet are assumed to be as follows: wooden, $20; steel, $160; and RPL, $275. It is assumed that the wooden pallets with a design life of 2 years are not repaired and are simply disposed of at their end-of-life. The metal pallets are assumed to be repaired once, half-way through their design life, at a cost of $25. Some of the boards on the RPL pallet may need to be replaced once during its design life; repair of RPL pallets is assumed to cost $14. At the end-of-life, both the wooden and the galvanized steel pallets are assumed to be disposed of at the Nevada Test Site in ISO containers. The RPL pallets are assumed to be disassembled, cleaned, and released for recycle at a net cost of $50. Because this is a comparative cost analysis, costs common to all alternatives, such as the salaries of the workers using the pallets, were not included because they do not discriminate among alternatives. 

The LCCs for the three alternatives for a 10-year project life are presented below. Because the results are extremely sensitive to the cost of disposal, results are presented for two different disposal cost assumptions: $17.65/cf and $45/cf. 

Galvanized steel pallets are seen to be the lowest-cost alternative, at both a $17.65/cf disposal cost and a $45/cf disposal cost. Under the FEMP life cycle decision methodology, alternatives which exceed 125 percent of the LCC of the lowest cost alternative are eliminated from further consideration. For a disposal cost of $17.65, wood and RPL pallets exceed 125 percent of the LCC of the galvanized steel pallet. Thus, if the cost of disposal is $17.65/cf, galvanized steel pallets would be the preferred alternative. At the $45/cf disposal cost level, the LCC of RPL pallets does fall within 25 percent of the LCC of galvanized steel pallets. Thus, at the $45/cf disposal cost level, two alternatives (galvanized steel and RPL) survive the initial screening phase. 

An LCA was then performed in which the alternatives were evaluated on a comprehensive set of performance measures: schedule impacts, local economic impacts, institutional and regulatory impacts, local public acceptance, environmental impacts, and public and worker health and safety impacts. The alternatives were not expected to have any appreciable impact on the schedule, local economy, or public health and safety. A five-point scale was used to evaluate the alternatives on the institutional preference, local public acceptance, environmental impact, and worker safety performance measures. Table 2 shows the resulting Decision Summary Matrix for the pallet alternatives at the FEMP. 

Using the weighting factors provided by FEMP, a multiattribute analysis was performed to determine the overall score for each alternative and thus the preferred alternative. The results of the multiattribute analysis indicate that, for a disposal cost of $45/cf, RPL pallets are the preferred alternative. 

Sensitivity analyses demonstrate that the pallet LCC is sensitive to three key assumptions: (1) the length of time pallets are needed; (2) the expected useful life of a pallet; and (3) the end-of-life cost (e.g., disposal cost; decontamination and authorized-release cost; recovery value, if any). For example, Figure 2 shows the strong dependence of LCC on disposal cost. Varying only the disposal cost, it is seen that RPL pallets cost less than wooden pallets for any disposal cost greater than $7/cf and RPL pallets cost less than galvanized steel pallets for any disposal cost greater than $56/cf. Under the FEMP decision methodology, RPL pallets would be the preferred alternative any time it passes the 25 percent cost threshold requirement. Based on the assumptions described above, the LCC of RPL pallets falls within 25 percent of the LCC of galvanized steel pallets for any disposal cost greater than $38/cf. Thus, RPL pallets would be the preferred alternative when the cost of disposal exceeds $38/cf. 

This analysis suggests that RPL pallets are viable alternatives to existing pallets used in the DOE complex. Because the actual costs of use are dependent on a number of variables, sites are advised to consider RPL pallets for their own use and to perform their own evaluation using site-specific data.

The life cycle decision methodology is a robust approach that is quite general, and can be tailored to meet site and project needs and applied throughout the DOE complex. Two case studies demonstrating the use of the methodology have been presented here. Several other applications are currently underway and FEMP has committed to apply this approach for all future D&D projects to decide whether to recycle or dispose of materials.  

This publication has been authored by a contractor of the US Government under contract number DE-AC05-96OR22464. 

"Decision Methodology for Fernald Material Disposition Alternatives," Fluor Daniel Fernald and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1997).

K.L. YURACKO, B. LEHRTER, P. YERACE, M.J. GRESALFI, and I. KOMARIKOV, "Fernald's Life Cycle Analysis of Recycle of Radioactively Contaminated Structural Metal," Proceedings of Waste Management >97, Tucson, AZ (1997).

P. KRISHNASWAMY, C.R. MIELE, R.B. FRANCINI, K.L. YURACKO, and P. YERACE, "Field Evaluation of Recycled Plastic Lumber (RPL) Pallets," Battelle, Columbus, OH (1997).  

BACK