ML103050492

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Attachment C (resubmitted)-Economic Consequences of a Rad/Nuc Attack: Cleanup Standards Significantly Affect Cost
ML103050492
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 11/01/2010
From: Reichmuth B, Short S, Wood T
Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
To:
NRC/SECY
SECY RAS
Shared Package
ML103050487 List:
References
RAS 19044, 50-443-LR, ASLBP 10-906-02-LR-BD01
Download: ML103050492 (24)
v • d • e


Text

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston , Massachusetts Economic Con equence of a RadlNuc Attack:

CI.anup Standard. Significantly Aff.ct Coat Barbara Reichmuth Steve Short Tom Wood Pacific NorthwHt National Laboratory Working Together: Re.earch & Development (R&D)

Partnership. In Homeland Security Conference April 28, 2005, Boston, MA IOverview

  • Importance of Economic Consequence Evaluation
  • Evaluation Taxonomy
  • Cleanup Standards
  • Economic Consequences
  • Conclusion Pacific Northwest ationallaboratory Banene U -~. OepMllnen( 01 Energy 2

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security 1April 20051 Boston, Massachusetts Why Evaluate EconomicConsequenc

  • Loss of life, property destruction, and loss of economic activity have significant consequences
  • Loss of use of productive assets can extend for long periods and generate considerable economic loss
  • Economic impacts need to be addressed in sequential order:
  • Detonation,
  • Atmospheric dispersion and deposition,
  • Fallout from the weapon .

I. Weapon characteristics provide the boundary conditions for the response:

  • How large is the affected area?
  • \1\Ih~t ~r.tinn~ np.p.rI tn hp. t~kp.n tn nrntp.r.t thp. nnnlll~tinn?

IEconomic Evaluation Taxonomy The decision to invest in countermeasures can be viewed as a tradeoff between investment cost and the economic consequences of an event.

Paciilc Norlhweu ahnnolllaboratory BanelJe U S, Dep,rhnenl of £n"II, 4 2

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston, Massachusetts Economic Consequence Calculation Methodology Literature review yields numerous methodologies for economic evaluation . Data used in this analysis:

  • Federal Reserve Bank of New York Study 1
  • Sandia National Lab RadTran V Economic Model
  • Focus on five broad categories of cost ($2005) :
  • Loss of productivity from earnings forgone
  • Indirect economic effects or multiplier
  • Loss and damage to building structures
  • Decontamination and decommissioning (0&0) cost (including disposal)
  • Evacuation Cost
  • Analysis does not cover the universe of all possible economic impacts
  • Diversity of meteorological conditions not evaluated
  • Same physical consequence plume evaluated for different locations
  • Focus on sensitivity analysis of cleanup standards
1. Jason , Bram , James, Orr, and Carol Rapaport, "Measuring the Effects of the September 11 Attack on New York C;ty', FRBNY Economic Policy Review, November 2002.

Pilnfk Northwest lil110IIil i L.moroltory Battelle U S. DepJrllnC OI of Energy 5 Economic Consequence Criteria

  • Selected five locations from isolated rural to high density urban areas:
  • Lukeville , AZ
  • Charleston, SC
  • Detroit , M I
  • San Ysidro , CA
  • Evaluated consequences for 4 weapon types:
  • 0.7kT nuclear weapon
  • 13kT nuclear weapon
  • 100kT nuclear weapon
  • Evaluated five potential cleanup levels Pacific Norlhweu aliona l Laboratory Bane/Ie U .~. Deportment of Enetgy 63

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston , Massachusetts IPotential Range of Cleanup Guidance for a IRad/Nuc Event - Which One Do We Use?

15 mremlyr EPA, "Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites With Radioactive Contamination" (e.g., Hanford Site) 25 mremlyr NRC, Final Rule on Radiological Criteria for License Termination (10 CFR Part 20 Subpart E) 100 mremlyr Health Physics Society Position Statement, "Guidance for Protective Actions Following a Radiological Terrorist Event" 500 mremlyr EPA, "Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents," 400-R-92-001, ... "doses in any single year after the first will not exceed 0.5 rem" 2 remlyr EPA, "Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents," 400-R-92-001, ... "doses in first year will not exceed 2 rem" 5 remlyr NRC, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation,"

recommendation and established dose limit for workers of 5 rem/yr (10 CFR 20 Subpart C)

Pacific Northwest Nil tl on ~ 1 L.ilior.ltory Ba!lelle U S. DepJrllnCnl of Energy 7 IRadioactivity Decays Over Time 13-kT Surface Blast 1,000,000 I j~~;:::;~.J:=-____t---____~ . O-1 yr dose N 100,000 r- _ 1-53 wk dose

~

j 10,666 ~~~~~

'uence Summary By Cleanup Level for Hypothetical Weapon Events

~ooo ,-----------------------------------------

$30,000 r--- - - ------:;;;;: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----=-- ---,----

!$~ooo ~--~~:----------------------------1 _

o

§ $20,000 r.---~~f______r_--____::::__------------------1 .

i $15,000 ~--___1I-1f____J.--___1I___------------------~==~

u $10,000 ::::::==;~~:=::::::':==::====i:====:;::=====!

$5,000

$0 15mrem/yr 100mrem/yr 2.0rem/yr Cleanup Standard Pacific Norlhwest alional Laboralory Battelle U.5. O<!pMlme nl of fnetgy 10 5

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston, Massachusetts IConsequence Summary - 0.7 kT

$2,500 ...

l5'e\r'o'r\VY ONI..UIevIe

  • c $2,000 ~Wston

.2

~ $1 ,500 ---

~ ~ewYOrk ery.igh S

U $1 ,000

$500

$0

'1 5 mrem/yr 100 mrem/yr 500 mrem/yr 2 .0 rem/yr 5.0 rem/yr Cleanup Standard O.7kT Cleanu Area km2 Lukeville, AZ.

Charleston , SC 557 97 29 6 3 Detroit,MI 90 42 25 10 4 San Ysidro, CA 1,430 179 45 10 4 New York, NY 600 179 45 10 4 Pacific Northwest Nil1lon~1 L.lbor.ltory Bane/Ie U S. Dep Jrllnenl of Energy 11 IConsequence Summary -13 kT

$10,000

-.- S'lt Lo.W

  • c $8,000 ~

~IU~on

~

iii $6,000 ---

-!If-igh New York ery High 1 $4,000 U

San Ysidro

$2,000

$0 15 mrem/yr 100 mrem/yr 500 mrem/yr 2.0 rem/yr 5.0 rem/yr Cleanup Standard 13kT Cleanuo Area km2 Lukeville, AZ. 587 449 950 38 95 Charleston , SC 679 630 275 117 52 Detroit,MI 502 134 57 40 28 San Ysidro , CA 28 555 4239 950 2 3 8 9 5 New-York, NY 9,753 2,594 474 237 95 Pad'I e Norlhwest National Laboralo Banelle U.5. ~Mlonenl oi En",~ 12 6

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston, Massachusetts IConsequence Summary - 100 kT Charleston Lukeville

$20,000 Detroit San Ysidro

! ~

~ $15,000

~

~ $10,000

$5,000

$0 15 mremlyr 100 mre mlyr 500 mre mlyr 2.0 remlyr 5.0 rem/yr Cleanup Standard 100kT Cleanu Area Lukeville, AZ.

Char1eston, SC 7337 2212 703 41 2 283 Detroi\MI 85669 7551 122 89 69 San Ysidro, CA 235,636 37,381 7,269 1,944 799 NewY<lI1<.NY 17,745 10,197 5,233 923 504 Pacific Northwest lil1l0n.ll L.wor.ltory Baf!elle U S. DepJrllnenl of Energy 13 IConsequence Summary -10 kCi Cs-137

$25,000

$20,000

~ $15,000 i $10,000

$5,000

$0

'1 5 mrem/yr 100 mrem/yr 500 mrem/yr 2.0 rem/yr 5.0 rem/yr Cleanup Standard Pacific Norlhwest ational Laboralory Bane/Ie U ..5. DepM lmenl of Enetgy 14 7

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston, Massachusetts tConclusions

  • Economic consequences of a Rad/Nuc event are highly dependent on cleanup standards

, Cleanup costs generally increase dramatically for standards more stringent than 500 mrem/yr

  • Cleanup to the most conservative current standards (no matter what the class of target or weapon event) magnifies the consequences of the event
  • Because such an event could potentially spread contamination very widely, even an event in a "remote" location could have huge economic consequences
  • A risk-based approach to the development and application of cleanup standards is needed
  • Policy implications of such a cleanup need to be fully evaluated
  • Cleanup after a weapon event will be vastly different from cleanup of a contaminated industrial facility or former weapons production facility Pacific Northwest lil110IIili L.moroltory Battelle U 5. DepJrllnCnl of Energy 15 IBack-up Slides Pacific Norlhweu alional laboralory Banelle U .~. Deportment oi Enetgy 16 8

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston, Massachusetts 240,000 6.7 73,884 74,909 Economic Consequence Calculation Methodology

  • Focus on four broad categories of cost ($2005):
  • Loss of productivity from earnings forgone
  • Net present value (NPV) of lost life assumed to be $2 .8M
  • OMB discount rate of 7%
  • Loss and damage to building structures and building damage:
  • Utilized}3adTran V for farm and urban areas ($29M to $220M per km )
  • Utilized I2rojected ~C rebuild cost for high density urban areas

($6B to $19B per km )

  • Decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) cost:
  • Sandia National Lab Ra~Tran V Model for farm and urban areas

($90M to $270M per km )

  • Utilized WT9zcleanup cost for high density urban areas ($3B to

$24B per km)

  • Evacuation Cost ($3K to $5K per (people/km 2) per km 2)
  • Indirect economic effects or multiplier effects (46% low impact; 82%

high impact)

PacifiC' Norlhwesl aIH'H'ol l laboralOt)'

BanelJe U S Dep,lrllnenl of En ..~y 18 9

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston, Massachusetts IROO Yield -10 kCi Cs-137

$5,000 IIJ $4,500 Cleanup/D&D C $4,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1. Lost Earnings (Loss of Life)

.!! $3,500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 ln Rebuild/Content Replacement iii $3,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1. Evacuation

_ $2,500

'0- Indirect Economic Losses o $2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0 15mrem/yr 100 mremlyr 5OOmrem/yr 2.0rem/yr 5.0 rem/yr Cleanup Standard Pacific Northwest l il 1 lO n~1 L.ilioroltory BaDeJ/e U S. DepJrllnCnl of Energy 19 IConsequence Summary -0.7 kT

$3.000

$2,500

  • Cleanup/D&D -
  • Lost Earnings (Loss of Life)

! $2.000 [J Rebuild/Content Replacement -

g $1,500

  • Evacuation -
  • Indirect Economic Losses j! $1.000 0

$500 - - - " " "

$0

~

1I Iii  ! II Iii  ! II Iii I J Iii I J Iii j u j u j 15mrenVyr '1 00 nvem'yr 500nnmIyr 2.0rem/yr 5.0remlyr Cleanup - Evacuation Criteria Pacific Norlhwest aliona l Laboratory sanelle U.5. Deportment oi Enetgy Xl 10

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston, Massachusetts IConsequence Summary -13 kT

$12,000

$10,000

  • Cleanup/D&D l-CD
  • Lost Earnings (Loss of Life) j $8,000 o Rebuild/Content Replacement l-
  • Evacuation iii

~

$6,000

  • Indirect Economic Losses l

o

$4,000

$2,000

$0 e i! .. i e i! .. i e i! e i! .. i e *

. 1 i!

i Ji ij I U

g Jii!

~

! I 15mremlyr 0

>- i::0

..I J

1U g

Jii!

~

! I 100mremlyr 0

>- i::0

..I J

1U g

Jii!

~

! I 500 mrem/yr 0

>- ij 1U g

2.0remlyr Jii!

~

! I 0

>- i::0

..I J

1U g

5.0 rem/yr Jii!

~

! I 0

Cleanup - Evacuation Criteria Pacific Northwest l il1lOn~1 L.rnorol.tory BaDeI!e U S. DepJrllnCnl of Energy 21 IConsequence Summary - 100 kT

$25,000

  • Cleanup/D&D

! $20,000

  • Lost Earnings (Loss of Life) I-D Rebuild/Content Replacement

~ $15,000

  • Evacuation l-

~

oS

$10,000

$6,000 .,.* ..

  • I I

..I't

  • Indirect Economic Losses

.JIll . .* 1 1IB I j ~ I.. IB 1IB I j ~ 1IB1j ~ I. IB

$0

!Ie" I i >-  ! i>-e ">-I j z .:l i j j z j z .3 j Z

'15mremlyr '100 mremlyr 500mremlyr 2.0remlyr 5.0remlyr Cleanup - Evacuation Criteria Pa cific Norlhwest alional LaboralOry Bane/Ie U .5. [)(!pMlme nl oi Enetgy 22 11

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston, Massachusetts PNNL-SA-45256 ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF A RAD/NUC ATTACK: CLEANUP STANDARDSSIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT COST Barbara Reichmuth, Steve Short, Tom Wood, Fred Rutz, Debbie Schwartz Pacific Northwest National Laboratoryl 902 Battelle Boulevard Richland, WA 99354 barbara.reichmuth@pnl.gov, steve.short@pnl.gov, thomas. wood@pnl.gov, frederick.rutz@pnl.gov, debbie.schwartz@pnl.gov ABSTRACT Property destruction, loss of life, and injuries sustained from a nuclear or radiological attack have significant economic consequences. The loss of productive assets can extend for long periods and generate significant economic loss. Economic impacts caused by an event need to be addressed in sequential order beginning with the detonation, atmospheric dispersion, and deposition of the fallout from the weapon. Weapon characteristics provide the boundary conditions for the response, including defming how large the response area is and what specific actions need to be taken to protect the population in the target area. These economic consequences are highly dependent on the magnitude of the weapon event and do not scale in a linear fashion.

The cost to clean up or remediate the affected area will depend on the cleanup standard applied to the event and is highly sensitive to this standard. Currently, there are no cleanup standards specifically designed for Rad/Nuc terrorist events, but it is likely that the existing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) standards would apply defacto. The Department of Energy (DOE) has spent billions of dollars on superfund cleanup, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) guidance, at former weapons production sites, and the cleanup is expected to continue through 2035. This paper offers an economic perspective on the magnitude ofthe consequences for a selected class of targets in the United States, with an emphasis on cost sensitivity as the cleanup standard changes.

INTRODUCTION The prospect of a nuclear attack on the United States was long thought to be restricted to the domain of state actors. Following the terrorist events of September 11, 2001 , and other more recent terrorist activities around the world, concerns about all types of terror attacks, including potential radiological and nuclear attacks, have been magnified. The spotlight has shifted to countermeasures that will either reduce the likelihood or reduce the consequences of a radiological or nuclear (Rad/Nuc) terrorist attack.

The decision to invest in RadlNuc countermeasures can be viewed as a tradeoff between investment cost of the countermeasure and the consequences of the event. There are both physical consequences and economic consequences that would result from a RadlNuc event.

Economic impacts caused by an event, and the subsequent response to the event, need to be addressed in sequential order and begin with the physical impacts of the detonation, atmospheric 1 The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated by Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy.

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston, Massachusetts PNNL-SA-45256 dispersion, and deposition of the fallout from the weapon. Physical consequences dictate the response function including the long-term cleanup and site restoration actions taken. One of the recurring themes regarding event response is that there are currently no federal standards that cover the long-term site restoration and cleanup following a radiological or improvised nuclear device (IND) terrorist attack.

The cost to clean up or remediate the affected area is highly sensitive to the cleanup standard applied to the event. There are currently no cleanup standards specifically designed for RadlNuc terrorist events, but it is likely that the existing EPA and NRC standards would apply defacto [1].

The General Accounting Office (GAO) reports that the current EPA and NRC cleanup standards differ and these differences have implications for both the pace and ultimate cost of cleanup [2].

The Department of Energy (DOE) has spent billions of dollars on superfund cleanup at former weapons production sites and the cleanup is expected to continue through 2035 [3]. In 2003 recognizing the importance of this issue, the Department of Romeland Security (DRS) tasked an interagency working group to address the issue of Protective Action Guidelines (PAGs) for radiological dispersal devices (RDDs) and improvised nuclear device (IND) incidents. DRS anticipates a draft of that guidance to be issued in the Federal Register in June of2005.

This paper offers an economic perspective on the magnitude of the consequences for selected targets with an emphasis on cost sensitivity as the cleanup standard changes. The work described provides a framework within which the physical consequences of a RadlNuc attack can be translated into the economic consequences in U.S. dollars. These effects need to be understood in order to prescribe appropriate countermeasures and policy remedies.

A METHODOLOGY FOR ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCE CALCULATIONS For this study, "RadlNuc" spans a range of possible nuclear weapons and one large radiological dispersion device:

  • 0.7 kT nuclear weapon c 100 kT nuclear weapon
  • 13 kT nuclear weapon c 10 kCi Cs-137 RDD Five potential targets were selected ranging from an isolated rural area to very high density urban areas. All of the following targets are located on U.S. Borders and/or Ports of Entry into the United States:
  • Lukeville, AZ c San Ysidro , CA
  • Detroit, MI The taxonomy oflocation, weapon yield, and contamination contours was parameterized and fed into the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center (NARAC) Model to generate the physical consequences. Consequences vary based upon assumptions about where the population is at the time of the attack (home vs. work, indoors vs. outdoors), on what meteorological conditions are assumed, and on the prompt versus fallout effects of the weapon. Those assumptions are classified and not discussed in this paper.

2

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston, Massachusetts PNNL-SA-45256 Our focus here was primarily on the economic consequences of a nuclear weapon attack; the impacts of an RDD are still under investigation and will merit further research.

Weapon characteristics, including the type of weapon, the quantity of material, and how the dispersion is achieved, provide the boundary conditions for the response including how much area is impacted and what actions need to be taken to protect human health and the environment.

The physical consequences derived from weapon characteristics were then used to calculate economic consequences in five broad categories of cost:

1. Loss of productivity from earnings forgone
2. Indirect economic effects or "multiplier"
3. Loss and damage to building structures and building contents
4. Decontamination and decommissioning referred to as cleanup cost
5. Evacuation cost These economic consequences, including the cost and time to clean up from the event, are highly dependent on the magnitude of the weapon event and do not scale in a linear fashion.

The consequences of a nuclear weapon detonation are estimated to have both significant loss of human life and substantial cleanup and reconstruction costs. A high degree of outright destruction of property (buildings, public infrastructure, and productive capital equipment of all sorts) will occur due to the detonation. In general, the economic cost of this type of loss is just the lost productivity of the capital (including human capital) destroyed. In a market economy, it is a reasonable approximation to use market values as a surrogate for the value of this production.

The economic and psychosocial effects of an RDD attack are expected to be more significant than the potential loss of human life and building destruction [4]. In the event ofa radiological dispersion event, there is a set of economic consequences generated as a result of the event and a set of economic consequences that is independent of the magnitude of a radiological event because of public perception about the dangers associated with RDDs.

In order to derive consequence estimates, an economic evaluation taxonomy was established to determine what potential targets and cleanup levels should be evaluated for the five broad categories of economic consequences.

The responses to nuclear weapon events can be thought of as phases: 1) the initial emergency response and evacuation, 2) the intermediate response where most emergencies have been handled and the focus shifts to cleanup, and 3) the cleanup phase where recovery and cleanup actions are designed to reduce radiation levels in order for land/buildings to be re-used or re-inhabited.

Our primary focus is on phase 3. The cleanup cost for an area is highly dependent on the cleanup standard used, the cleanup technology employed, and the radiological (and other safety) conditions under which cleanup is conducted. Decontamination efforts will include cleaning or sandblasting the exterior or completely demolishing affected buildings, safely disposing of generated radioactive waste, decontaminating the emergency vehicles used in the response and 3

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston , Massachusetts PNNL-SA-45256 recovery process, and many other activities. These efforts alone could cost billions of dollars and take decades to accomplish, depending on the magnitude of the radiological event and the cleanup level employed.

Because of our interest in the impacts of cleanup levels on the cost, we considered a range of potential cleanup levels from existing standards and protective action guidelines that might ultimately apply to a terrorist attack (Figure 1). This taxonomy was applied to all five potential targets for the purpose of providing a consequence valuation methodology. On a scale of most conservative to least conservative, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard governing cleanup at sites with radioactive contamination represents the most conservative level that we evaluated. The intent of this paper was to assess the sensitivity, not to determine which cleanup standard is best.

15 mrem/yr EPA, "Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites With Radioactive Contamination" (e.g., Hanford Site) 25 mrem/yr NRC, Final Rule on Radiological Criteria for License Term ination (10 CFR Part 20 Subpart E) 100 mrem/yr Health Physics Society Position Statement, "Guidance for Protective Actions Following a Radiological Terrorist Event" 500 mrem/yr EPA, "Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear InCidents," 40D-R-92-001 , ... "doses in any single year after the first will not exceed 0.5 rem "

2 rem/yr EPA, "Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear InCidents," 40D-R-92-001 , ... "doses in first year will not exceed 2 rem "

5 rem/yr NRC, "standards for Protection Against Radiation ,"

recommendation and established dose limit for workers of 5 rem/yr (10 CFR 20 Subpart C)

Figure 1. Cleanup Levels Evaluated for Economic Consequences There are a large number of economic variables that could potentially be included in the calculation of impacts. These include psychological impacts and long-term societal impacts of living under enduring heightened security conditions. Our intent was to quantifY those elements we believed were most representative of this type of terrorist attack. A discussion of those five variables follows.

Loss of Productivity from Earnings Forgone To calculate the loss of human capital due to death from a weapon event, we used a "lifetime-earnings loss" method outlined in a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York [5]. This method estimates individual economic losses by estimating a worker' s annual earnings over his or her remaining working lifetime. The estimated earnings are then discounted to the current time period (net present value) using a discount factor of7%, which is the OMB rate to discount lifetime earnings lost and includes a "social factor" to account for the other societal losses that result from premature death. Ex ante, the number of affected workers is tied to the geographic size of the event.

PNNL-SA-45256 4

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston, Massachusetts Indirect Economic Effects or "Multiplier" There will be "indirect" economic impacts associated with the consequences of a nuclear or radiological attack. For example, during the decontamination process, buildings in the affected area would not be functionaL Residents would have to be relocated. Businesses would have to do the same or simply halt their activities until completion of the decontamination. Depending on the nature of business conducted inside those buildings, the regional and national economy could be negatively impacted. A resulting decrease in the area's real estate prices, tourism, and commercial transactions could have long-term negative effects on the area's economy.

There are several economic methods whereby "multipliers" are applied to the estimated direct costs (lost income) to estimate the indirect economic impacts. These values may be estimated on the basis of information about the nature of the affected businesses in the response area. The indirect impacts will be larger if the markets for directly affected sectors are beyond the local economic area. In essence, these sectors are "export" driven. If these sectors are no longer allowed to operate, then the impacts will be severe because supporting businesses in the local area will be forced to scale back. We derived multipliers from the FRBNY 9/11 study [5] as follows:

  • Low impact scenario (10 kCi Cs-137 RDD, and 0.7 kT nuclear weapon) - 46% oflost earnmgs
  • High impact scenario (13 kT and 100 kT nuclear weapon) - 82% oflost earnings Decontamination and Decommissioning or Cleanup Cost Cleanup and restoration of buildings and land after a Rad/Nuc event will be complicated by the need to decontaminate and, potentially, demolish radiologically contaminated buildings and land.

The cost of this cleanup will be highly dependent on the areal extent of cleanup, which, in turn, is highly dependent on the level of cleanup required. The cost of cleanup of any given area will be dependent on the relative level of economic development or financial investment that has been made in the area of concern. The approach taken in this study was to develop unit cost factors ($/km2) for the cleanup of areas having different levels of population density; population density being used as a surrogate for economic activity. Cleanup cost data primarily came from two sources:

  • The economic model provided as a companion to the RADTRAN 5 computer program developed for analysis of the consequences and risks of radioactive material transportation (see http://ttd.sandia.gov/risklradtran.htm). [6] This economic model was initially developed to estimate the economic consequences of plutonium-dispersal accidents.
  • The FRBNY study of the economic effects of the 9/11 terrorist attack on New York City, "Measuring the Efficts a/the September 11 Attack on New York City" [5].

RADTRAN 5's companion economic model includes estimated unit costs ($/km2 ) for:

emergency actions (e.g., applying fixatives) following the event; access control (e.g., guards) to prevent unauthorized access to the contaminated areas; radiological characterization; decontamination/demolition operations; and disposal of radiologically contaminated waste.

These elements were summed together to obtain the total cost of cleanup and site restoration.

PNNL-SA-45256 5

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston, Massachusetts RADTRAN 5 varies these costs depending on whether the area is an urban area that is lightly contaminated, moderately contaminated, or heavily contaminated or whether the area is farm or range land. The unit costs from the economic model, assuming offsite disposal of radioactive waste, are summarized in Table 1.

Ta ble 1 Summaryo fU mt . Costs £4or D&D, B U1'ld'mg R eplIacement, andEvacuatlOn VI a uatlOn D&D Unit Cost Replacement Evacuation Per km 2 U nit Cost Per Cost Per Area Description (2005$) km2(2005$) Person Comments Fann or Range Land $93 million $l.2 miUion $4,500 Applied to contaminated areas having a population density ofless than 50 people/k:m2.

Lightly $130 million $29 million $2,600 Applied to urban areas having a population density Contaminated Urban greater than 50 people/k:m2 and less than 3,000 people/k:m2 and requiring a decontamination factor (DF) of 1-2 to remediate to the required cleanup standard.

Moderately $182 million $45 million $3 ,300 Applied to urban areas having a population density Contaminated Urban greater than 50 people!k:m2 and less than 3,000 people/km2 and requiring a DF of2-10 to remediate to the required cleanup standard.

Heavily $275 million $220 million $4,500 Applied to urban areas having a population density Contaminated Urban greater than 50 people/k:m2 and less than 3,000 people/k:m2 and requiring a DF greater than 10 to remediate to the required cleanup standard. This level of decontamination is difficult to achieve and cost may exceed the property value. RADTRAN 5 assumes that heavily contaminated buildings and structures are demolished rather than decontaminated.

High Density Urban $2.7 billion $6.6 billion $4,500 Applied to urban areas having a population density greater than 3,000 people/k:m2 but less than 10,000 people/k:m2 and requiring a DF greater than 10 to remediate to the required cleanup standard.

Very High Density $24 billion $19 billion $4,500 Applied to urban areas having a population density Urban greater than 10,000 people/k:m2 and requiring a DF greater than 10 to remediate to the required cleanup standard.

The urban area upon which the RADTRAN 5 economic model derives its unit cleanup costs is assumed to have an average population density of 1,344 people/km2 . This is significantly lower than high density metropolitan areas such as New York City, which has an average population density of over 20,000 people/km2 . For this reason, the unit costs derived from RADTRAN 5 were not considered to be a good estimate for the cleanup of higher density population areas.

To estimate the impacts on New York City, a proxy for high density urban areas was derived from the FRBNY study, [5] which reported a value of $1.5 billion to clean up and restore the 16-acre World Trade Center site after the terrorist attack. This equates to $24 billionlkm2 in 2005 dollars. This is almost two orders of magnitude greater than the RADTRAN 5 economic model unit cost for cleanup of a heavily contaminated urban area. Furthermore, the cost of cleanup of the WTC site would undoubtedly have been much higher had it been destroyed by a RadlNuc event. On the other hand, the WTC site is not representative of New York City in general or any other major population center in the United States because ofthe unique and very high value buildings that stood on this site. Taking these important points into consideration, this FRBNY data was used to derive the unit cleanup costs for the high and very high density urban areas reported in Table 1.

PNNL-SA-45256 6

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston , Massachusetts Loss and Damage to Building Structures The costs to replace and/or rebuild property damaged or destroyed as the result of a RadlNuc event, or to compensate owners for the loss of use of this property (including business income loss), were also calculated using unit costs derived from the RADTRAN 5 companion economic model and the FRBNY 9/11 study. As with site cleanup and restoration, these costs are highly dependent on the areal extent and level of contamination. These unit costs are also presented in Table 1.

The unit costs for lightly, moderately, and heavily contaminated urban areas and for farm and range land were derived from the RADTRAN 5 economic model. Again, for the reasons presented previously, the unit costs derived from the RADTRAN 5 economic model were not considered to be a good estimate of the cost to rebuild high population density areas after a RadlNuc event. The unit costs for these areas were derived from the FRBNY 9/ 11 study.

The FRBNY 9/11 study reported a value of$11.9 billion to replace the buildings and contents of the WTC complex, equating to $193 billionlkm2 in 2005 dollars (and which does not include business income loss). This is almost three orders of magnitude greater than the RADTRAN 5 economic model unit cost for replacement of destroyed property in a heavily contaminated urban area having an average population density of 1,344 people/km2 . As discussed previously, how-ever, the WTC site is not representative of New York City in general or any other major popula-tion center in the United States because of the unique and very high value buildings that stood on this site and which will be replaced with equally high value buildings. The replacement value reported in the FRBNY study is therefore likely to be much higher than would be expected for the average high density urban area. Taking this important point into consideration, the FRBNY data were used to derive the unit cleanup costs for high and very high density urban areas reported in Table 1.

Evacuation Cost The cost to evacuate and relocate the population living within areas contaminated as a result of the RadlNuc event was calculated using unit costs derived from the RADTRAN 5 economic model. This cost is assumed to depend on the level of contamination; at higher contamination levels, the population is denied access for longer periods of time. RADTRAN 5 varies these costs in the same major categories as the D&D and Replacement Costs. Unit costs used for evacuation are presented in Table 1.

OBSERVATIONS FROM APPLICATION OF TIDS METHODOLOGY The effects of nuclear weapons have been studied and documented intensively. Fallout will decay based on the individual isotopic half-lives, the most energetic (and most dangerous) decaying in hours or days while longer-lived isotopes persist for months and years. The dose rate from fallout drops by a factor of 1,000 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> after detonation, and over 90% of the dose is received in the fIrst year after a nuclear weapon event [7]. This dose response time after detonation is important when estimating the cost of cleanup, site restoration, and rebuild after a RadlNuc event. Figure 2 illustrates this by showing the land area requiring cleanup for different cleanup criteria (residual dose rates) for different time periods following detonation of a 13 -kT nuclear weapon. As shown, the surface area requiring cleanup decreases by a factor of 10 to 100 during the second year following detonation as compared with the fIrst year following PNNL-SA-45256 7

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston, Massachusetts 13-kT Su rface Blast 1,000,000

. 0-1 yr dose N 100,000 ~C::::~~~b----I--------1 . 1-53 wk dose E

~

<Il 10,000 r-~~~~~~~~~

. 1-1 3mo dose

~ 1,000 100 iii 15 10 I-0.0 1 0 .1 10 100 Cleanup Criteria Figure 2. Area Requiring Remediation for Different Cleanup Criteria detonation. Since cleanup would likely not be completed during the ftrst year following detonation, this analysis estimated the cost of cleanup of that land area remaining contaminated above the cleanup criteria 1 year after detonation.

In the case of the RDD event, however, little radioactive decay will occur during the time period of remediation (ftrst year or two). For this reason, the cost of cleanup of an RDD event was based on the land contaminated by fallout over the ftrst year following the event.

We then took the physical plume contours for each of the three nuclear weapon yields and the ftve cleanup levels and plotted those in the ftve target locations. Figure 3 illustrates this concept with the plume 1-2 yr contour for the 1 OO-kT nuclear weapon in New York City, NY, and San Ysidro, CA.

Figure 3. Hypothetical Plume Contours for 100-kT and 5 Cleanup Levels The plume contours used represent a generic "wind condition." Clearly, wind conditions impact the radioactive fallout after a nuclear weapon event and the ability to value damage depends on where the damage occurs. The plume in New York City blows into the Atlantic Ocean; although not depicted here, the plume for Detroit goes into Canada and Lake Erie. For this high-level PNNL-SA-45256 analysis, our damage assessment is limited to the continental United States and represents surface area cleanup excluding groundwater contamination.

8

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston, Massachusetts The results of our analysis are shown in Figure 4. As anticipated, the economic consequences are highest for the largest nuclear weapon yield and the most conservative cleanup level. New York City nets the highest economic damage across the cleanup spectrum, because of its dense population and high value real estate. Note that the economic consequences for New York City across almost every cleanup level meet or exceed $10 trillion, which is roughly equivalent to the annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the U.S. economy.

$35,aaa

$3a,aaa Annu<!I 1 GOP

~ $25,aOO o $10 Trillion S $2D,aOO m

=i $15,aaO ij $1D,aOO S5,aoo

$0 c ~ c ~ .!! c ~ c ~

~ ~ ~

!
;!:  ;!: 0  ;!:

0 0

0 E! 0 0 E!  :;

E! ~ E! E! i E!

1 'Ii ii

~c:

0

> 1 iii ii

-0

~c:

0

> 1.w 'Ii ii 0

> l.w 'Ii OJ

-0

~c: >:.

. z.

. ~

oW .! c oW .!! c .!! c .!! c

...." iii ...." iii ...." iii c: ...." iii z; z z; .c: Z .c: Z U III U III U III U III 15 mremlyr 100 mlem/yr 500 mlemlyr 2.0 remlyr 5.0 remlyr Cleanup Standard Figure 4. Consequence Summary for Hypothetical Weapon Events and Cleanup Levels Figures 5, 6, and 7 represent the consequence summaries for each nuclear weapon event. The area impacted and requiring long-term cleanup is a function of the standard selected as represented in the data table under the graph. Individually and collectively, the economic consequences are highest for the most conservative standard evaluated.

Figure 8 provides a summary of the economic consequences by the five broad categories evaluated. This representation demonstrates that it is the cleanup cost (or D&D cost) that is the largest individual contributor to economic consequences across the cleanup level spectrum until we reach the least conservative cleanup level, at which point the loss of life is the largest cleanup cost.

In the case of an RDD, the type of contamination depends only on the source material(s) (no nuclear process is involved), and the extent of contamination depends on the physical form ofthe source and the effectiveness of the dispersal mechanisms. The ultimate fate of the contamination (and thus long-term consequences) is dependent on a complex chain of transport, uptake, exposure, and remediation processes. Fallout from an RDD explosion would be very different from that of a nuclear weapon detonation because there would be no large thermal cloud to inject the radioactive material into the atmosphere, and the amount of radioactive material would be much less than that generated in a nuclear weapon event. A preliminary assessment of the economic consequences ofa 10 kCi Cs-137 RDD in New York City is presented in Figure 9.

9

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston, Massachusetts PNNL-SA-45256

$3,000

\.

1/1

~

$2,500

$2,000 '\ ---

~

Detroit Luke ville r-----

r--

m 0

$1,500 '\ ~

~

Charleston New York r-----

~

0 0 $1 ,000

'\ ~ SanYsidro ,

... ~

$500

$0 15 mremJyr 100 mrem/yr 500 mrem/yr 2. 0 remJyr 5. 0 remJyr Cleanup Standard

!P kT Cleanup Area (km2)

Luke'<ille, Al. 1,430 179 45 10 4 Charleston, SC ~/ ':;/ ~ b ,j Detroit, MI !ll 42 25 10 4 Sa n YSIdro, CA 1430 179 45 10 4 New York, NY 60J 179 45 10 4 Figure 5. The O.7-kT Weapon Event

$12, 000

$10,000 Detroit 1/1 $8,000 Lukeville

~

0 Charleston iii $6, 000 New York

t::l 1/1 0

San Ysidro 0 $4, 000

$2,000

$0 15 mrem/yr 100 mrem/yr 500 mrem/yr 2.0 remlyr 5.0 remlyr Cleanup Standard l::!K I.;,eanup Area lKITILJ Luk e'<ille , AI 28,587 4,249 950 233 95 C h a~eston. SC 2.fi19 631 275 117 52 Detrort, MI 502 1:34 57 4(J 26 San YSidro , CA 28;:65 4 239 950 233 95 New York, NY 9,753 2 ,594 474 237 95 Figure 6. The 13-kT Weapon Event 10

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston , Massachusetts PNNL-SA-45256

$25,000

........ Charle sto f-_ _4~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____l ~ Lukeville

$20,000

~ Detrolt III "'*- San Ysidr

~ $15,000 f------l--==~k-----------------____l ...... New York I $10,000

$5,000

$0 15 mremlyr 100 mremlyr 500 mremlyr 2.0 remlyr 5.0 remlyr Cleanup Standard 1100 kT Cleanup Area (km2)

Lukeville , AZ Z35 ,tlB7 37 ,427 7,275 1,951 602 Charl eston, SC 7,337 2,212 703 412 283 Detroit. MI tl:> _b~ ,tltl l 1£, I:I~ b~

San Ysidro, CA 235 636 37 381 7 269 1 944 799 New York, NY 17745 10 197 5 233 923 504 Figure 7. The lOO-kT Weapon Event 526,000

  • CleanuplD&D If) 520,000
  • Lost Earnings (L oss of life) -

c: o Rebui IdiContent Replacement

,S! 515,000 -

-m 510,000 *

  • Evacuation I f) 0 $5,000 I II-
  • Indirect Economic Losses I

U

  • ... 11 '"'" '..:0;\1... ; .-... " ** q.,. .- IL "" _~:~!~

-* - ... - = -a ... ...

j ** '1 .... .

SO

  • 1' *i1!

c::

a '0 b

0 "g

~

~ .l£

=

c::

a 1ii

'0 b

0 "g

~

~ .l£ ">

c::

a 1ii b 0

"g

~

Q ":;

c::

a 1ii b

a ... ...

0 "g

~

~

=

c::

a 1ii b

Q 0

"g

~

Q

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i U U U D D

.l£ D

~ i U

~ i U

~ i ~

U 0: ~ it ~

U 0:

J 1i  ;!
J 1i  ;!
J 0:

If c::  ;!

J If c::  ;!
J If c::  ;!

.c::

~ .c::

~ .c:: .c:: .c::

...I ...I ...I ...I ...I u u U tZ tJ tZ u tZ 15 mrem/yr 100 mremlyr SOO mrem/yr 2.0 rem/yr 5.0 remlyr Cleanup Standard Figure 8. Summary by Five Categories Evaluated There is virtually no loss oflife with the Cs-l 37 event, but the cleanup cost and the cost to rebuild and/or replace buildings is once again significant, particularly for the most conservative standard (one-half of the annual U.S. GDP).

11

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston, Massachusetts PNNL-SA-45256

$5,000

$4,500

  • Cleanup/D&D III t: 54,000 ---------------1. lost Earnings flOSS of llfet

.S! $3,500 ---------------10 Rebuild/Content RelPlalcenlenc In 0

III 0

$3,000

$2,500

$2,000

1.

- - - -- -- - - - - - - - - 1 .

Ev acuation Indirect Economic losses

$1 ,500

$1 ,000

$500

$0 15 mremlyr 100 mremlyr 500 mrem/yr 2.0 remlyr 5.0 remlyr Cleanup Standard Figure 9. 10-kCi Cs-137 Detonation in New York City CONCLUSIONS The methodology described in this paper provides a framework for evaluating the major cost components following a nuclear weapon event. There are several observations that can be made from the results thus far:

  • The economic consequences of a Rad/Nuc event are highly dependent on and closely coupled to the cleanup level selected.
  • Cleanup costs generally increase dramatically for standards more stringent than 500 mremlyr.
  • Cleanup to the most conservative standard evaluated (15 mremlyr) magnifies the economic consequences of the event irrespective of the class of target or weapon yield.
  • Because such an event could potentially spread contamination very widely, even an event in a "remote" location could have huge economic consequences.
  • A risk-based approach to the development and application of standards is needed.

There are no national standards for acceptable decontamination of a radiological weapon event, and the EPA standards used under CERCLA were enacted to address growing concerns about the need to clean up uncontrolled, abandoned hazardous waste sites and to address future releases of hazardous substances into the environment. Cleanup after a weapon event such as one of those described in this paper will be vastly different from the cleanup of a contaminated industrial facility or former weapons production facility. The standard selected will impact both the cost and the pace of the cleanup. Policy level attention to cleanup standards is warranted.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the close cooperation and the valuable comments and suggestions provided by the other members of the Radiological Countermeasures Systems Analysis Working Group, as well as similarly valuable input from other staff and management at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). The Radiological Countermeasures Systems Analysis Working Group includes Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL),

12

Working Together: R&D Partnerships in Homeland Security I April 2005 I Boston, Massachusetts PNNL-SA-45256 Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Sandia National Laboratory (SNL), and PNNL. The authors would like to acknowledge the Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security for sponsoring the study.

REFERENCES

[1] Deborah Elcock, Gladys A. Klemic, and Anibal L. Tobias. "Establishing Remediation Levels in Response to a Radiological Event (or "Dirty Bomb")." Environmental Sciences & Technology, Vol. 38, No.9, 2004.

[2] United States General Accounting Office, "Radiation Standards Scientific Basis Inconclusive, and EPA and NRC Disagreement Continues," June 2004.

[3] Statement of Robert G. Card, Under Secretary, and Jessie H. Roberson, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy, House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Committee on Armed Services.

http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?PUBLIC ID=13609&BT CODE=PR CONGRESSTEST&TT CODE=PRESSSPEECH

[4] Peter D. Zimmerman with Cheryl Loeb, "Dirty Bombs: The Threat Revisited,"

Defense Horizons Number 38, January 2004.

[5] Jason Bram, James Orr, and Carol Rapaport, "Measuring the Effects of the September 11 Attack on New York City," FRBNY Economic Policy Review, November 2002.

http: //www.geo.arizona.edU/~ldix/g256Ihurricanes.html

[6] Chanin, David I. and Walter B. Murfm, "Site Restoration: Estimation of Attributable Costs from Plutonium-Dispersal Accidents," SAND96-0957, Sandia National Laboratories, 1996.

[7] Glasstone, Samuel and Philip J. Dolan, "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons," United States Department of Defense and the Energy Research and Development Administration, 1977.

13

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML103050492&oldid=2553973"