ML12340A650

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Official Exhibit - NYS000429-00-BD01 - Scheiber and Benhamou, Draft Report, Estimation of the Unit Costs of Decontamination Techniques, RODOS(WG3)-TN(99)-32 (July 1999)
ML12340A650
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 07/02/2012
From:
- No Known Affiliation
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 22882, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML12340A650 (47)
v • d • e


Text

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit NYS000429 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Submitted: June 29, 2012 In the Matter of:

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)

ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Docket #: 05000247 l 05000286 Exhibit #: NYS000429-00-BD01 Identified: 10/15/2012 Admitted: 10/15/2012 Withdrawn:

Rejected: Stricken:

Other:

Estimation oi the unit costs oi decontamination techniques nRl~~ FT --- ---

RODOS(WG3)-TN (99)-32 OAGI0001550_00001

04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00002

Estimation of the unit cost of decontamination techniqnes RODOS(WG3)-TN(99)-32 Cm'oline SCHIEBER, Corinne BENHAl\fOU CEPN B.P.48 F-92 263 FONTENA Y -ALJX-ROSES CEDEX Email: schieber(a)cepn.asso.fr DraH, J ul y 1999 Management Summary This report presents an evaluation of the unit costs of the 13 decontamination techniques considered \Cvithin the LCi'vIT T',,1odule of RODOS. 11 presents into details the esti.mation of the various costs obtained using a RiS0 (1995) and an NRPB (1996) report concerning decontamination techniques. It also presents the values obtained by NRPB in 1999, which will be inserted in ECONOM data base as default values.

The unit costs of decontillT..ination techniques obtained by these three reports are S0111etinles very different. Huwever, it appeared to be lIIlpurtanl [UI RODOS users tu be (l\vare thal, uepenwng UIl the hypothesis or on the countries, the data could vary a lot Tne aim of this report is to give as much details as possible on the different assumptions made in the evaluation of costs, so as to provide a guide for users to adapt the default data base to their own data.

04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00003

RO!)()S(lF(;3J-Tili (99)-32  ;,~:\,timation ofthe unit cost o/decontamination tech niques Contents Management Summary ... .................................................. . ........ 1 COlltellts .......... ,.. ,............. ,........ . .. .............................. .***.***. L, 1 Introduction .......................... . . ......................................... 3 2 Tne nmin hypoLhesis ............................... . .............. ....... 4 3 Skim and hurial ploughing 6 4 Standard Ploughing .......................................... 8 5 Plant and Shrllb Removal ........... ... . . .............................. 10 G Grass Cutting ............................... . . .... 11 7 Soil Removal ... ............................................... . ....... 15 8 Double Digging Gardens........ ................ 20 9 Rotovating / Digging Gardens ~o

.. , ............ " ............ , .......... L J 10 Road Planing ..................... 24 11 Fire Hosing .................................. . ........................ 25 12 Vacuum Sweeping Roads .............................................. . ....... 28 i3 Sandblasting External WaHs ................ 3 i 14 Roof Brushing ...................................... . ....... 34 15 Vacuuming Indoors ................................... . ........ 37 16 DeconLa."'11ination costs provided by NRPB in 1999 ............... ....... 39 17 Synthesis or data ................................................. 41 18 References ........................................ 44 Document History ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 45 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00004

1 Introduction This report presents &"1 evaluation of the unit costs of the 13 decontaminaLion tedmiques considered within the LCiviT iviodule of RODOS.

Two major sources of information have been used for this evaluation and \vi!! be described in detail:

  • A RIS0 report of 1995 describing the "Practical Means for Decontamination 9 Years after a Nuclear Accident" r11.
  • A NRPB report or 199() concenling a "Review* or Decontamination and Clean-up Techniques Cor Use in Ihe UK Coiiowing Accident Releases oCRadioaclivily 10 Ihe Environment" L2j.

Moreover, a table of data from NRPB ~.;:tracted from a 1999 report on "Revie't'Y of data on decontamination and remediation techniques for Plutonium and application ror CONDO" l3J, is also presented in the synthesis section.

The unit costs ot aecontammatlOn techmques obtamea by these three reports are sometimes very different It has then been proposed to use the last table provided by NRPB L3J to full" the data base lor the ECONOM module. However, it appeared to be important for RODOS users to be aware that, depending on the hypothesis or on the countries, the data could vary a lot The aim of this report is to give as much details as possihle on the different a.';;sumptions made in the evaluation of costs, so as to provide a guide for users 10 adapt the default data base to their ovm data.

04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00005

2 The main hypothesis The RIS0 Report [11 presents the main features of around 60 decontamination techniques. The main elements presented for each technique and used for the cost evaluation are:

  • Name of Too!
  • Target surface
  • Design (productivity)
  • rvlode of operation
  • Costs Manpower (days/unit area). tool investment cost (EURO),

disCOLLf'lt cost (EURO/year), consumab!es (unit), scale of application.

The l'\TR~PB repOit or 1996 l2 J presents the total cost of several decontamination techniques to be used in urban areas. As pointed out in this report, "the COSTS include: lahour COSTS. COSTS TO hire or depreCIatiOn costs for plant and vehicles. cost of consumahles, runnmg cosfs including maintenance, and cosfs [0 reinstate huildings, roads, elc. ajier deconlamlnallOn. Cosls fiJI' replacemenl of planl are nol tnciuded 111 Ihe overall cos Is. The cosls o(wasle disposal, II1ciudll1g Ihe rransporr or waste, have nor been included". Moreover. in the Appendix of this report. the detailed cost of some techniques are presented, 1.:vith the scale of application, the labour cost, the consumables and cost of plal1L hire per day. These daLa have been used

'when available.

For the evaluations, the folloiving assumption ha\'e been uwde:

  • Daily working time: 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />
  • Weight ofpetro-diesei: 1 kg = 11976 litre The costs parameters used for the evaluation are:

~ Average Hourly Cost of manpo\ver in industry-: 21.59 EURO/h [4, p.300, France, 1995J

  • Purchase Price of Diesel oil: 0.2952 EURO/I [5, p.2X L Germany, 1995J
  • Purchase price of water: 15.5 FF/m' = 2.36 EURO/nf [6]

~ Purchase price ofsa.."'1d: 0.16 FF/k.g - 0.024 EURO/k.g l7J

  • Purchase Price of electricity: 0.2 FF/kWh = 0.03 EURO/kWh rSl 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00006

For the values given in the NRPB report, the conversion in EURO v/as made using the average value per calendar year of the ECD published in h1.e EUROSTAT report on Agricultural price lSJ for 1996:

1 EURO = 0.813798 UK£ For the discount price of tools given in the RIS0 report in ECU the only "conversion" made was to change Eeu to EURO This document presents the detailed calculation in EURO/ha.

HO'wever, for all the technique, LCMT provides the surface which is assumed to be decontaminated in knf. \Vithin the data base, the unit cost of the various techniques \'viH be given in EURO/kn-f to tit \vith the LC~vfT uni 1s.

The total cost of each technique is evaluated on the basis of the followlng five parameters ,vhlch ",ill he lntegrated separately ln the data base, in order to facilitate its update:

  • Unit cos! or manpower (EURO/man-hour)

=- Manpower (man-hour/krrf)

  • Unit cost of consumable (EURO/km')
  • Unit cost of equipment (or investment) (EURO/knt) 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00007

3 Skim and burial ploughing 3.1 Available Data The RIS0 report presents 2 techniques r1, p.50, 511:

  • Skin1 and burial plough and tractor: this technique allows to bury only a very thin layer (5 em) of topsoil at 45 em, and to have the 5-45 cm layer not inverted.
  • Skim and burial ploughing a!!mving an upper 5 em layer eut off and put w,dei ploughed hoii/.on oC soil.

The following data are provided vvhich will be used lor the cost evaluauon:

Table 3.1. Unit parameters for skim and burial ploughing techniques Skim rmd burial plough and Skim and burial ploughing I II tractor Daily Maiipmyer 4.16 10- 5 -,,~-, ..:l~ _ L' I.,;}.

JJJQJJ-Ua)C>/IlJ 0.6 man-dav/ha iI iI = II J."I h 1YH111_,-1"v,'[h" v **

  • v ... ,~.

~";~ .....

Discount Inycstmcnt Cost 10 000 EUKO/year (tractor) 2500 l',UKO/year ii ii 825 EURO/year (plough) 2 O()() nrlh x 720 h/ycar I Scale of application (su ..face

\yhich can be decontaminated I 3 000 nfJh x 720 h/vear

= 216 haiycar = 144 haiycar I n"ith une tuui) I I Consumables I 101/h oCpelro1 20 kg/h oJ'pdro-Jiese1 3.2 Cost Calculatiou The IOlIowlllg Table provides the detailed calculation of manpower, investment, consumable and total cost for the two techniques. These costs are given in EUROlha.

04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00008

Table 3.2. Unit cost of skim and buriai ploughing techniques Skim and burial plough and tractor Skim and burial ploughing I Manpower cost: I 0.416 mml-day/ha x 8 h/day 0.6 man-day/ha x 8 h/day I

I Daily manpo,-ver x Daily

\vorking time x 1\ ycragc I I x 21.59 EURO/h

= 71.85 EURO/ha x 21.59 EURO/h

= 103.63 EURO/ha I

I homly cost of manpo\ver I I

!I Investment cost: I (10 825 EURO/year) I (216 ha/year) (2500 EURO/year) I (l44lm/year) !I Tool discount cost I I = 50.12 EURO/ha = 17.36 EURO/ha I Scale of application I Consumable cost: I (IOJ/h/O] ha/h) x 0 29521'URO/\ ((20 hJh x 1.1976 l/h") I 0.2 ha/h'1 x I I ((Petro-diesel x \veight I = 9.84 EUROlha * - 0.2952 EuRO/l . I I of petro-diesel) I scal~ of I = 35.35 EURO/ha I application) x pun:hase I I price of diesel oil I I Total cost: I 131.81 EUROlha 156.34 EURO/ha ManpO\:ver + investment I

+ consumable: I 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00009

4 Standard Ploughing 4.1 Available data

4. 1.1 RIS0 Report The RISa report [1, pA7l gives the following data for an ordinary ploughing to a depth of 25 em with tractor-driven Bovlund single-fllffO\V 24" plough:
  • Daily Manpower: lA 10-' man-day/m' = 0 14 man-daylha

~ Discount Investment Cost: 400 EURO/year (plough) and 10 000 EURO/year (tractor) = 10400 BURO/year

  • Scale of aoolication (surface which can be decontaminated with one tool) 9066 rri'/h x 720 hJye8I = 09 halh x 720 h/year = 648 ha/year
  • Consumables (pelro-diesel): (, IIh of petrol 4.1.2 NRPB Report The NRPB report [2, p.19] provides the cost of ploughing for large areas The total cost is evaluated at 0004 £/m' The detailed data con~eming the p18?t ~re cos~, ~.o~sumables or lab,?llf costs are not avmlable. The applIcatIOn rate IS IndIcated at 7 000 nt/h.

4.2 Cost Calculation 4.2. J lUSO Report The lOlluwmg Table provides the delailed calculaLiun uf manpuwer, Investment, conswnabie and t01m cost. These costs are gIven III BURO/ha.

04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00010

Table 4.1 : Unit cost of ordinary ploughing (RIS0 Report)

Ordinary ploughing (RISO)

I Manpower cost, I 0.14 man-daylha x 8 h/day x 21.59 EURO/h I Daily manpower x Daily worklllg time I = 24.18 EURO/ha I x Average homly cost ofmanpo\ver I I Investment cost I (10400 mJRO/vear) J (64:><: ha/year)

I Tool discount cost I Scale of I = 16.05 EURO/ha

! applIcation  !

!I Cnmmm2b!e !:O!;t: !I (61/h ! 0.9 !la/h) x 0.2952 HURO!1 (Petro-diesel! scale of application) x = 1.97 EUROfha I purchase price of diesel oil I

! Tota! cost:  ! 24.1X+ 16,()S + 1.97 I Malll--)()"\yer + illyestment + consumable I = 42,20 E.URO!h~

4.2.2 NRPB Reporr Totai cost of jJioughing.

0004 £/rri' = 40 £/ha = 49.15 EIJRO/ha 4.2.3 Comparison (~lthe N'(J results Tn this case. the costs do not differ a lot irom RTS0 or NRPB reports.

Table 4.2. Comparison be-p,veen RlS0 3...l1d NRPB cost for stan.dard ploughing i Labour cost Investmcnt cost Consumable Total cost I (EURO/ha) (EURO/ha) (EURO/ha) (EURO/ha)

IRIS0 2418 1605 197 42 .20 I NRP13 - Large areas I I

I I

49.15 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00011

5 Plant and Shrub Remova!

5.1 Available Data The cost of this technique is described in the NRPB report [2, p.19] for decontaminating a unit area of urban surface with the plant/shrub removal technique. The total cost is the same for 'large areas' and

'small area',;( The detailed costs of manpoweL investment or consumable are not indicated:

  • Large and small areas: 0.4 £/nt Cost calculation Total cost of plant and shrub removal:

0.4 £/nl = 4000 £/ha = 4 915.22 EURO/ha (fol" ia ..ge and smaii areas) 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00012

6 Grass Cutting 6.1 A vaHablc Data

6. I. I R1S0 report The RISe report ll, p.38J gives the follow-ing data for grass cutting wiLh a mlU1icipal pelrol driven lawn ffiO\ver wiib. seal, collecting grass in a vessel. Ii seems men to be applied to small areas:
  • D8jly Ma.l1pO\Ver: 1.3 10- 4 man-day/nr = 1.3 ma.n-day/ha
  • Discount Investment Cost: 3 000 EURO/year
  • Scale of application (surface vvhich cail be decontaminated \\ith one loo1): 1 000 nl/h x 720 h/year = 0.1 ha/h x 720 h/year = 72 halyear
  • Consumables (petro-diesel)* 6 IIh of petrol
6. J. 2 /VRPH report The NRPB report L2, p.19 J gives the total cost for grass cutting and collection technique applied to a unit o[ urban area surface [or small and large areas. The total costs summarised in the main table [2, Table
8. p.19] are the following:
  • Large areas: O.OOg £/m' gO £/ha for grass cutting with grass collection box.

~ Small areas: 0.4 £/nt - 4 000 £/11a for grass cutting \\*rit1. grass collection box.

Some other indications concerning the scale of application are b>:iven in the Appendix orthe report [2, p.74, 78]

Table 6,i. Unit parameters for grass cutting technique (NRPB)

Large areas Small areas (gardens)

Scale of application up to 10 000 ni Ih - 50 nr/h

- 4 gardens per day Labour cost £128 per 8 11 day £32 per garden

=> 1.6 10- 3 £In?

Other costs (plant hire per 5.9 10- 3 f/nr Plant hirc pcr day* f1 0 pcr day day plus consumable services, ConsLllTItlhlc:f5 per dny maintenance, spare)

Total cost 0.0075 £Inr 0.36 f/m 2 : 36 f/gardcn (this implicitly mcans ml average size of 100 Ht per garden)

F or the small areas, if we assume that 4 gardens can be decontaminated per day. and that the average size of a garden is 100 rrf. we obtain an 11 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00013

average of 400 m' per day. The cost can then be expressed in £ per m' (or per hal:

  • Cost oCpla."'1t hire: £10 per day => 0.025 £inr = 250 £/ha
  • Consumable: £5 per day => 0.0125 £/m' = 125 £lha 2
  • Labour per garden: £32 per garden => 0.32 £/m = 3200 £/na (note: Summing all these costs gives approximately the same total cost per ~ thal1 the one presented in the main table, I.e., 0.4 £!~).

6.2 Cost calculation

6. 2. / RL\'(j report Table 6.2: Unit costs of grass culling technique (RIS0)

Grass cutting (RIS0)

M~np~.Hrc:r cost 1.3 man-day/1m x 8 bJday x 21.59 EUROlh Daily mmrpO'ver x Daily 'vorhng tUlle = 224.54 EURO/h.

x Average hourly cost of manpower Investment cost: (3 O()() ElJ[(()jycar) / (72 lta/year)

Tool discount cost / Scale of = 41.67 EURO!h~

application Consulilable cost: (6 Vh! 0.1 ha/11) x 0.2952 EURO!1 (Petro diesel/scale of application) x = 17.71 EUROfha purchase price of diesel oil Totai cost: 224.54 + 41.67 + 17.71

Manpo\ycr + iIlVcstmcnt + consumable: = 283.92 EURO/ha 622 NR.PB report
1. Direct conversion of th.e total cost:
  • ror large areas: 0.008 f/nt = 80 £lha = 98.30 EUROlha
  • for snlall areas: 0.4 £/n]2 = 4000 £/11a = 4915.22 EURO/11a The assumption is made that for 'gra'ls cutting' the cost is an average betvveen s111al1 and 1arge areas (50~1o-50~/o). So the total cost is:

(98.30 x 0,5 + 4915.22 x 0.5) = 2506.76 EURO/ha

2. Est.imation of the total cost using the detailed data a.l-ld assum;ng a labour cost of 21.59 EUaO per hour (instead of the assunlption uf 16 £In, Le. 19.66 EURO/n)

Table 6.3: Unit cost of grass cutting technique (NRPB) 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00014

Large areas Small areas (gardens)

Labour cost O.125man-daylha x 8 h/day x 25 man-day/ha x 8 h/day x 21.59 I I 21.59 EUROfll E:UROfll I I ~ 21.59 EURO/h. ~ 4 318 EUROIh.

Other costs (plant hire per I 5.9 10- 3 f/nr = 59 £fha Plant hire per day: 250 f/ha I day plus consumable services, I I

~ 72.50 EURO/h. ~ 307.2 EUROIh.

I maintenance, spare) Commmablc: 125 £!ha I I ~ 153.6 EUROIh.

ii Total (ost ii 21.59 + 72.S()

=94.09 EURO/ha 4 31~ + 3()7.2() + I..).).\JI!

4 778.8 EURO/ha The assumption is made that for Igrass cutting' the cost is ai'1 average bel\veen Sll1all and large areas (50(}0-50%). So the lolal cosl is:

(94.09xO,5 + 47788xO.5) ~ 2436.45 EUROiha

6. 2. 3 Comparison he/ween RfS0 and NRPR There is a very large difference be1'Neen the th.ree estimated cost as sho\'vn in the Table belo\'v.

Table 6.4: Comparison between RTS0 and NRPB l'or grass cutting technique I I Labour cost Investment cost I Consumable I Total cost I (EURO!ha) (EUROlha) (EUROlha) ... -,

fllTTIU)/h!l1 I I I I ~--~--

I I RIS0 I 22454 4107 I 1771 I 2X3 n I INHPB - Luge ,md 4 318 307.2 153.60 2436.45 I ~mall I 21.59 72.50 I -

I I I I I I

a. Costs eslllnated LLsmg the daL<:l pro\*lded III Ule AppendIx ollhe report (Table E7, p.74, 78) (\'\"ILh labour cosl updated).
b. Costs estimated using the 'total cost' data (Table 8, p.19)

The nmjor dilTerence C0111eS [rol11 the esti111ated nlanpO\Ver.

  • Tn RTS0 report, the manpower is estimated to 1.3 man-day per ha.

., In the NRPB repmi, it is nlentioned that the labour costs are calcuiated using a value of £16 per hour (i.e. 19.66 BURO/n, "vhich is a iittle less than our assumption of 21.5'1 EURO/h). Using this value and an estlmatlOn of 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of work per day, we obtam the following amOlll1t of manpower:

., [or large areas :

labour cost: 16 £iha => (I 611 6)i8 = 0.125 man-dayiha 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00015

  • for small areas:

Labour cost: £32 per garden

=> if we retain the implicit assumption made in the report to calculate the total cost i.e. 100 nt per garden, we have a total cost of3 200 £iha

=> 25 man-day/ua Other remarks:

!n ar'lOther note of the report concerning the same detailed data it is mentioned that garden are assessed as 340 rtf p, Table B7~ p.77l \Vith this hypothesis, it \",:ould n1e311 that the mai1pO\\ei is equal to 7.35 man-dayt1la.

The total cost of the technique would be, assuming that 5 gardens can be decontaminated per day_ and that the average size of a garden IS 340 m" (ie 1700 m2 per day)

  • Cos! orplant hire: £10 per day =>0.005882 £/nt = 58.82 £iha

~ Consumable: £5 per day -> 0.002£)411 £/rrf - 20.41 £/ha

  • Labour per garden: £32 per garden => 0.0941176 £/nt 94118

£iha Summing an these costs gives a total cost equal to 1029.38 £/ha

=> I 264.94 EURO/ha 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00016

7 SoH Removal 7.1 Available data

7. I. I R1S0 report The RISe report presents three types of soil reilloval techniques i1, p.32,34j
  • Scrapping off the top soil with a front loader' cutting of contaminated soil layer
  • Scrapping olT the top soil with a Bulldozer (10-30 ern)
  • SCiapping off the top soil vi.:ith a grader The foiiowing data are provided in the report:

Table 7.1: Unit parameters for soil removal techniques (RIS0)

Front Loader Bulldozer Grader i Duil.Y IVluflpu'Wcr 0.0002 llH.Ill-JaY/lll 4 llH.lu-Jay/lH.l 0.00036 llH.lu-Jay/m I = 2 man-Jay/ha = 3.6 mun-Jay/ha Dbwunt i 2 000 EURO/y'cal" i 2 000 [URO/;,'car i rcnt cost: 100 ElJRO/da;,'

ii rost inve,tment i i i Scale of application 700 nt/h x 900h/ycar I 300 nr III x 800 h/ycar I 1000 nt/l1 x 720 h/ycar I I = 630 000 mL Ivear I = 240 000 m= {'lear I = 720 000 m':' /vear I I = 63 hrJycor I = 24 ha/ycar I = 72 hO/VCOf I 12 kglll ofpdro-diesel I 24 kg/h I Consumable 0.03 kg/ni' oCdiesei oil 7.1. 2 NRPR repori The report on decontamination and dean.-up techniques [2, p.19]

presents lhe lolai cosl associated with the 'lurf removal and lop soil removai (50 nun)' technique for large and smail areas.

  • Total cost for large areas: 0.8 £./nf
  • Total cost for small areas: 2 £fnf Some detailed data can be found in the Appendix r2, p.74, 781:

F or large arew-;:

  • Scale of application: 100 nflh (if we assume g hfday, we obtain an average or ROO n-r/day) \-vith 3 \vorkers.
  • Plant hire per day: £100 (=> WIth 800 nf per day: 0.125 £fnf) 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00017
  • Consumable per day: £l1~ (=> with ~oo nf per day: O.14~ £/nf)
  • Labour per 8h day: £384 (=> \'lith 800 n-r per day: 0.48 £/nr)
  • Total per m': £0.75 (Which corresponds to the sum of above estimates per nf).

For small areas:

  • Scale of applicatlOn: between 5 m'/h (or ~ days per garden of 340 m') and 10 nfih (or 4 days per garden of340 nf) ;vith I worker
  • Plailt hiie per day: £40 (part-time uSe)
  • Consumable per day: £32 (part-time use)
  • Laha UT per garden: £51 2
  • Total per rtf: £l.Y5 - Total per garden: £5X4 (This corresponds to a garden or 300 m 2 !).

Given the fact that the tools are used only paIL-LJIne, it is not possible to express the various costs of plant hire and consumable. into £ per ni. We wiil then only consider the total cost.

7.2 Cost calculation 7.2. J ,lUSe report

  • Manpower cost (EURO/ha):

Daily manpower x Daii:y working tlme x Average hourly COST of manpower:

Table 7.2. Unit cost oCmanpower Cor soil removal techniques (RTS0)

Front Loader Bulldozer Grader 2 man-day/ha x 8 hiday x 21.59 - 4 mml-dayiha x 8 h/day x 21.59- 3.6 mml-dayiha x 8 h/day x 21.59 345.44 EIJRO/ha 690.88 EIJRO/ha = 621.79 EURO/ha

  • investment cust (EURO/ha):

Tool discount cost! Scale or application:

Tabie 7.3. Unit investment cost [or soil removal techniques (RIS0)

Front Loader Hulidozer Grader 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00018

(2000 ElJ1ZU/year) / (241w/year) -I.

II~2 ~O~)_~:-r!<-5)!.year) / (63 lIa/year) -II 83.33

,jl."j~ 1'.:UKUtna EUROiha I.

720 h/year => 90 days/year I

rent eostl 00 FURO per day => I I 9 000 EURO per year 1 I. (9 000 ElJROfyedT) ( 72 1 I I I ha/yciir) = 125 EURO/Ii;;;

1

  • Consumable cost (EURO/ha):

<<Petro-diesel x weight of petro-diesel) I scale of application) x purcha"e price of diesel oil:

Table 7.4. Unit cost of consumables for soil removal techniques (RIS0)

Front Loader I Bulldo;,o:er Grader I 1003 k!;dnf x , _1976 llkQ x 0_29521 ((12 kg/h x 1_1976 lIkg) ((24 h/h x, _197611k2i/ D_I haih) I 1 EIJRoh = 0.0106059 EUROInr = 1 110111) x 0.2952 EUROIl ~. 02952 EURO/I c. *1 1106.06 EURO/ha 1

= 141.41 EURO/lia = S4.S5 EURO/ha 1 1 1

  • Total cost (EtJRO/ha):

Manpower + investment + consumahle:

Tabie 7.5. Total cost of soil removal techniques (RiS0)

J:lront Loader Buiidozer Grader 345.44 + 31.75 + 106.06 - 690.88 + 83.33 + 141.41 - 621.79 + 125 + 84.85 -

483.25 EURO/ha 915.62 EURO/ha 831.64 EURO/ha 7.2.2 l'{RFB report

1. Direci conversion oi ihe ioiai cosi:
  • large areas: 08 £/ni' ~ 8000 £/ha ~ 9 830.45 EURO/ha
  • small areas: 2 £/ni' ~ 20 000 £/ha~ 24 570.12 EURO/ha The assumption is nlade that for 'soil removal the cost is an average l

between Sl11all and large areas (50%)-50(%). So the total cost is:

(9830.45 x 0.5 + 24576.12 x 0.5) = 1i203.29 EURO/ha

2. Estimation of the total cost using the detailed data and assnming a labour cost of 21.59 EURO pel' hour (instead of the assumption of 16 £/h; i.e. 19.66 ElJRO!h); only for large areas:

04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00019

Table 7.6. Unit cost of soil removal for large areas (NRPB) soil removal (large arcas)

Manpower cost: 37.5 mall-day/ha x 8 h/day x 21.59EURO/h Manpower x Average hourly cost of manpower = 6 477 EURO/ha Plant hire cost 0.125 £Jnr = 1250 £111a

~ 1536.01 EUROlha Consumable cost 0.148 £/1If- 1480 £/ha

= 1 818.63 EURO/ha Total cust 6477 + 1 536.01 + 1 818.63

= 9 831.64 EURO/hu 7.2.3 Cumparlsun beiween IU)'fj and lvl?JT)B The next Tahle presents the different costs obtained for the decontamination by soil remov[ll. Here ag8jn, there is a very large difference cowing mnillly from the estimated labour cost.

Table 7.7. Comparison between RTS0 and NRPB costs lor soil removal techniques Labour cost Im'estment cost Consumable Total cost (EURO/ha) (EURO!h~) (RURO/ha) (RUROlha)

I RlS0 - Front Loader 34),44 31.7) 106.U6 483.2)

I RIS0 - Bulldozer (i9().RR R111 14141 91SJi2 I RlS0 - (j-rader 621.79 12) 84.8) 831.04 NRPB - Small and 17203.29 I large areas (average)

NRPH large areas 6477 1 536 IXIR 9 H31.64 The labour cost in the NRPB report is estimated with a value of 16 £/h.

For large areas. as the given cost is 0,48 £/n,'. we can calculate the global ~l1anpower requi;ed: 0.03 man-hour/nr "= 300 man-hour/ha =

37.5 man-day/ha. This value is much dilTeren! from the values given in the RIS0 report between 2 a.."'1d 4 rrmn-day/hu. The tecl1niques defer also by the l1u111ber of \vorkers needed. In the NRPB report, it is mentioned that the turf and top soil removal requires 3 workers. In the RlS0 report, the 3 techniques (Front loader, bulldozer or grader) require only one worker.

04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00020

For smali areas, it is mentioned in the NRPB report that the process allows to perform between Sm2 /h and 10 ntlb and requires 1 worker This implicitly means that the global manpower required is between 125 man-daylba and 250 man-daylba (on a basis of Xhours per day).

04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00021

8 Double Digging Gardens 8.1 Available data Ii. 1. I RIS(lJ report The data provided in the RIS0 report concen1 the technique of triple diggIng uf gardens suil usmg an urdinary shuvd iI, p.39j.

  • Daily Manpower: 006X man-day/m' = 6XO man-day!ha
  • DIscount Investment Cost: 24 HURO/vear

~ Scale or application (surface which ca.-'l be decontaminated with one tool): wllimited

  • Productivity: 2 m'/h
  • Consumables (petro-diesel): none
8. 1. 2 IVRPH report The total cost of double digging is provided for small areas r2, p 191 2

1.6 £/m The detaiied data provided in appendix are the foiio\ving f2, p./7, 7Xl

  • Personnel' -I yvorker
  • Scale 01" application: between 2.5 ni'/h (by owner) and 10 m'/h (by professional) (this gives a total manpower between 125 man-day!ha and 500 man-day!ha).
  • Cusl uf planl hile . 10 £/day
  • Consumable: none
  • Labour per garden: £320 (assuming a labour cost of 16 £/h. 200 111' of garden and a professional cleaning-up of the garden) (note: the total cost of 1.6 £fm' does not take into account the plant hire cost).

04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00022

8.2 Cost calculatiou 8.2. 1 RIS'(} report Table 8.1. Unit costs of triple digging garden (RJS0)

Triple digging garden (RIS0)

Manpower cost I tiRO man-day/ha x g h x 21.59 rUROJh I Dailv mall1)()\ver x Dailv working I ~ 117 449.6 EURO/ha tin~e x A ~'erage houri).' cost of -" II I manpm,ver Investment cost The report notes that there is an unlimited scale of application.

I Tool discount cost I Scale of application I that means that there is no restriction on the use of the tool per year. The investment cost is equal to 24 EURO/year. Assuming I I 240 \...*orking days per ye,u, cUld 680 man-day per ha, we have a glohal cost orin vestment cquullo 6XO/240 x 24 I I = (,8 EURO/ha Total cost: 117449.(, + (,7.2 Manpo\vcr + invcstmL'11L I ~ 117517.60 EURO/h" 8.2.2 NRFH repan

1. Direct conversion of the total cost for small areas:

Tota! cost: 1.6 £/m2 = 16 000 £lha = 19 660.90 EURO/ha

2. Estimation of the total cost using the detailed data and assuming a labour cost of 21.59 EURO per hour (instead of the assumption ui 16 f/h, i.e. 19.66 EURO/h)

Table 8.2. Unit cost for double digging small areas (NRPB)

Small arcas

~'IallPOWCi' cost: 500 man-day/lia x 8 li x 21.59 EURO/li l'kmpower x ./\~ver<lge hourly cost of ~ 86 360 EURO/ha Plant hire cost 0.5 £Jnf = 5000 £/na

~ 6144.03 EURO/h.

Total cost 86360 + 6 144.03 8.2. 3 COtniXlrison be/ween lUSk.) and l'lI?. . PB Table 8.3 Comparison between NRPB and RIS0 costs for digging technique 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00023

Labour cost Investment cost Total cost I I I (EURO/ha) (EURO/ha) (EURO/ha)

I I I G8 I RlS0 -mpie Ulgglllg NRPI3 - Small areas 117449.GO So 3611 I

6 144113 i 117517.GO 92504.03 The cost of this technique relies only on the assumption made for the global manpower needed to its implementation Three hypotheses are provided by RIS0 or NRPB:

  • SOO man-dav/ha => cost of ~6 360 EURO/ha (NRPB) => small areas
  • GRO man-day'/ha => cost or 117 449.G EUROlha (RIS0) 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00024

9 Rotovating! Digging Gardens 9.1 Available data The only data available concerning this technique come from the NRPB report which~>ives the total cost of 'rotovatiug cultivated areas'.

f2, p.191 : £0.2 per rJ The detailed data provided in the Appendix are the following f2, p.77, 7Rl*

  • "I"
  • Personnel: I worker
  • Rate or application: 100 rrf pei hOUi ~ 4 gmdens pei day
  • Plant hire per day: £7 (ie 0.009 f/m2 assunung 100 ni/h and 8 h per day)
  • Consumable per day: f8 (estimate) (i.e. 0.01 fin," assummg 100 m21b and 8 h per day)
  • Labour per garden: £64 (using a hourly salar:v rate of £ 16, =>

impiicitiy around 400 m2 per garden)

  • Total cost: £0.18 per rrr; £36 per garden (=> implicitly 200 rrr per garden) 9.2 Cost calculation
1. Direct conversion of the total cost:

0.2 £/nr ~ 2 000 £lba ~ 2 457.61 EUROlba

2. Estimation of the total cost using the detailed data and assuming a labour cost of 21.59 EURO pel' hour (instead of the assumptiou of 16 £/h; i.e. 19.66 :EURO/h)

Table 9.1. Unit costs of rotovating cultivated areas (NRPB)

Rotovating cultivated areas (NRPB)

Manpower cost: lOOh/ha x 21.59 EURO/h Manpower x Average hourly cost of manpower = 2 159 EURO/ha Investment cost 0.009 £hIT - 90 £Iha

= 110.59 EUR0l11a Consumable cost 0.01 £/m"" = 100 £/ha

= 122.88 EUROlha Total t:O!;t 21.'09 -I- 110 ..'09 -I- 122.XX

= 2 392.47 ElJRO/h~

04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00025

! 0 Road Planing 10.1 A"rulable Data The RIS0 report rl, p.2ll gives the fOllowing data for large areas, using a rotating 'drum' which grinds off the asphalt top layer which mnst be removed:

  • Daily Manpower: 0.0019 man-daY/nT = 19 man-daY/ha
  • Discount Investment Cost: 12 SOO ELI RO/year
  • Scale of application (surface which can be decontaminated with one tool) 500 nTih x 720 h/year = 360 000 nT/year = 36 haiyear
  • Consumables: 8 Vh of pelro-diesel 10.2 Cost calculation Table 10.1. Unit costs oj' road planning (RTS0)

Road planning (RISO)

I Manpower cost 19 man-day/ha x R h/day x 21 _59 rURO/h I Daily manpower x Daily working time x Average = 3291.68 EURO/ha I I hourly cosL o[mclllpO\Ver I Invrstmcnt ('"ost: (12 500 EUROlyear)! (36 ha/year)

I Tool discount cost I Scale of application = 347.22 EURO/ha II COll:mmablc cost: (8 litrc!h / 0.05 lln/h) x 0.2952 EURO/l i CPetro-diesel! scale of application) x purchase = 47.23 EURO/ha i I price of diesel oil I i Total cost: 3 291.(i8 + 347.22 + 47.23 iI I lvh1npower + investment + consumable: = 3686.13 EURO/ha 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00026

11 Fire Hosing 11.1 A ",rulable data I ll. I RIS0 report The RIS0 report ll, p.llJ gives the following data for fire hosing usmg a pump and 2 jet pipes:

  • Daily Manpower: 00013 man-day/m' = 13 man-daylha
  • Discount Investment Cost 600 bURO/year

= Productivity: 100 nrlh

  • Scale of application (surface which can be decontaminated with one tool): 72 000 m2 /year = 72 halyear
  • Consumables (petro-diesel): 10 lih of petro-diesel + 24 11,0 of water per hour 11.1.2 NRFB reporl The NRPB report presents the cost of firehoslng at lo,v pressure using fire-engines, pwnping wuts 1.1nd \vater coming directly [rOitl hydrants.

The totai cost is the same for iarge and smaii areas: flU)] per nT f2.

p.19j.

Some detailed data are also provided in the Appendix or the report L2, p.71,72J

., Personnel: 2,vorkers

  • Application rate: 32 000 m' per 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />s-day
  • piant hire per day: Fire-engines: lAX; Pumps: flO; Hosing from hydrants: £4 (=> total 01'£62 per day, equivalent to 19.38 £/ha using the application rate of 32 000 m' per day)

., Consunmbles, per day: Fire-en,6Tines: £32: PUll1pS. £20: Hand Hosing: £4 (=> total of £56 per day equivalent to 17.5 £/ha using the application rate of 32 000 m' per day)

  • Labour: £256 per 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> day (using a labour cost of £16 per hour)

. .. ~

(=> 80 L'ha usmg the applIcatIOn rate of32 000 m~ per day)

  • Total per m': £0.01 (or 100 £/ha) 11.2 Cost caicuiation 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00027

h2J RlS0 report Table 11.1. Unit costs of fire hosing (RIS0)

I Fi re HO!ii!1g (R ISO) I Manpower cost 13 man-day!lw x 8 hiday x 21.59 rURO/l1

= 2245.36 EURO/ha i InYestment cost: (600 EURO/year) I (7.21w/year) i I Tool discount cos1 i Scale of application = 83.33 EUROfha i

Consumable cost:

(petro-diesel! scale or application) x purchase (1lIlfll I 11.111 hulh). ,11.2952 ElJlWfl price of diesel oil = 295.20 EURO/ha I I

(\Valer I sl:ale of applicaLion) x pun..:hase pril:e of (24 m'!11f 0.01 ha/h) x 2.36 EURO/nt I waler = 5 (j(j4 EURO/ha I

Total cost: 2 245.36 + 83.33 + 295.20 + 5 GG4 l'vfanpower + investment + consumable: = 8287.89 EURO/ha 11.2.2 NRPR report I. Direct conversion of the total cost:

0.01 £/nf = 100 £/hn = 122.88 EURO/ha

2. Estiil1ation of the total cost using the detailed data and assiiiuing a iabuur COSt ui 21.59 EURO per hour (instead uf tite assUlllpliull of i6 £ih, i.e. i9.66 EUROih)

Table 11.2: Unit costs or fire hosing (NRPB)

I Fire Ho~ing (NRPB) I Manpower cos( 5 man-houriha x 21.59 i'.uKOih II Daily manp0\Yer x Daily \-yorking tllne x AYerage = 107.95 EURO/ha i I hourly cost ofmallpO\Ver I Inyestment cost 19.37) £lIla i

I = 23.80 EUROiha i Consumable cost 17.5 £llla I = 21.50 EURO/ha I Total cost: 107.95 + 23.8 + 21.5 Manpower + investment + consmuable: = 153.25 EURO/ha J 1.2.3 CompaYlSon hetween RIS0 and NRPH There is a very large difference between the t\\'o estimated costs as shown in the Tabie beiow.

04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00028

Table 11.3. Comparison of NRPB and RIS0 estimated costs for fire hosing technique Labour cost Inyestment cost I Consumable Total cost (EUROlha) (EURO/ba) I (EURO/ba) (EUROlha) mso 2 245.36 83.33 I 5959.2 8287.89 I

NRPI3 107.95 23.80 II 21.50 153.25 The major differences come from:

- the estimated manpower:

  • in RIS0 report, the maf'lpov.*'er is estimated to 13 maf'l-day/ha,
  • in NRPB report. the manpower is estimated to 5 man-hourlha.

- the use of water:

  • in RiS0 report, the use of water represents the major part of the total cost.

04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00029

12 Vacuum Sweeping Roads 12.1 A,'ailable data

12. I. I RIS(/} report The RIS0 report ll, p.27J gives the follo\ving data for a vacuuni sweeping with a municipal seated SchOling slreel machine with a water nozzle to spray a fine mist of water onto me road prior to brushing wim 3 rotating brushes and finally apphcation of a vacuuming attachment:

5

  • Daily M,Ll1pmver: 3.6 10- man-day/nr = 0.36 man-day/ha
  • Discount Investment Cost: 18 000 EURO/year
  • Scale or application (surrace which can be decontaminated with one tool): 3500 !Tr/h x 720 hiy ~ 2 520 000 nTiyear ~ 252 haiyear
  • Consmnables: 5 l/h of petrol 12.1.2 IVRPfJ report The NRPB report presents the cost of a mechanical road sweeping (dry or wet) and a cost of mechanical sweeping of pavements [2, p,l9), In order to compare to the same technique as the RIS0 report we will here consider only the ",ret mech;;mical road s\veeping. The total cost is equal to: 0.003 f/n?

Some detailed data are also provided in the .LA..ppendix of the report [2,

.~ '71 '701*

l--'. I 1, I":' J.

  • Personnel: 1 worker
  • Application rate: 27 000 nr' per g h. day per vehicle

(~> 0.37 man-day/ha)

  • Depreciation cost per day: £48
  • Consumables, per day: £40 - £48
  • Labour per 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> day (hourly saiary cost: £16): £128
  • Total per lTr: £.0.003 (or 30 fJha) 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00030

Remark:

If v/e consider the application rate of 27 nOD nr per g hours day, the labour cost or £128 per day, as ,veE as the consumable (£40/day) 3Jld

. , costs \,I"."-tolua}',

depreCIatlOn IC 101.-1\

Cati 1-.lie expresse d'In,r..(' per nt,

') \'\'111e11 t..,' 1. .

gl\:'es:

- Labour cost: £128 for 27000 ll-r => 0.005 £/n-r

- Consumables £40 for 27000 ni' => 0.002 £/ni'

- Depreciaiion cost: £48 per 27000 ni' => 0.002 £fni' The total is then equal to 0.009 £/nf (and not 0.003 £/nf as indicated) 12.2 Cost calculation

12. 2.1 RIS(l) report Table 12.1. Unit costs of vacuurn s\veeping road (RlS0)

Vacuum s'wccping road (KISG)

Manpower cost 0.36 man-Jay/ha x H h/uay x 21.5Y ElJRO/h I)aily manp0\\'L'r x I)aily \-vorking time x Average =62.18 EURO/h" hourly cost of manpower Investment cost (18000 EURO/year)/ (252 ha/year)

Tool di,;count ';;0,;1 I Scale or application =71.43 EURO/h" Consumable cost: (5 In,/ 0.35 halh) x 0.2952 EURon (Petro-diesel j st:ale of applit:aLion) x purd"mse prit:e = 4.22 EUROlha or diesel oil Total cost: 62.IX + 71.43 + 4.22 l\.1anpo\\*er + investment + t:onsumable = 137.83 EURO/ha 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00031

n.2.2 NRl'B Report

1. Direct conversion of the total cost:

0.003 £/n-r - 30 £/ha - 36.86 EIJRO/ha

2. Estimation of the total cost using the detailed data (i.e. total cost of 0.009 £ina as mentioned above) and assuming a iabour cost of 21.59 EURO per hour (instead oi the assumption oi i6 £fh~ i.e.

19.66 IWROlh)

Table 12.2. Unit costs of vacuum sweeping road (NRPB)

I VnCllum ~weeping ro~d (NRPB) I Manpower cost 0.j7 man-day/lm x X 11 x 11.Y) ElJKO/l1

=63.90 EUROiha i i I nvestment cost 211 £lha= 24.58 EURO/ha i Consumable cost 20 £/1" = 24.58 EURO/ha Total cost: 63.9 + 24.58 + 24.58 = 113.06 EUROlha

]\tfanpower + investment + consumable:

12.2. 3 Comparison between RlSO and l.fRPB Those two estimations are quite similar.

Table 12.3. COlllparisol1 bel\\*'eel1 unit costs of NRPB and RIS0 for vacuum sweeping technique Labour cost Investment cost Consumabic Jomi cost I I I I I I I (EURO/ha)

I (EURO/ha) I (EURO/ha) (EURO/ha)

I

(;2.18 71.43 4.22 137.83 i RlS0 i i i i I NRPH -lar<t!c I 63.90 I 24.5X I 24.5X 113.06 I I areas I I I I 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00032

13 Sandblasting External Walls 13.1 A ",rulable data

13. I. 1 RIS0 report The RIS0 report ll, p.14, 15J presents the cost o[1\vo techniques:
  • Dry sandblasting (using a high-pressure aIr compressor with sandblasting equipment Emd sand container)
  • Wet sandblastmg (using a hIgh-pressure water cleaning equipment supplied with a sandblasting device which injects sand in the water jet stream)

The detailed data of each technique are the following:

Tabie 13.i. Unit parameters for sandblasting techniques (RiS0) i i Dry sandblasting Wet sandblasting I Daily I',Ianpowcr I 0.012 man-day per Ili I 0.0083 man-day per m?

I I (120 man-day/ha) I (83 man-day/1w)

IDiscount Investment Cost I 900 E1JRO/year I 480 E1JRO/year I Scale ofannlication (surface I 2() nr/h x 720 venf = 14 4nn nf /venr I .10 m2 !h x no yenf I which can~be deconta~l1inated I = 1.44 ha/vear . = 21600 mL/year = 2.16 haJvear I\\,iUl one Loo1) I I Consumablcs I 51. petro-dIesel III i 4 1 petro-diesel/h I I 2 kg sand Der m:l I 2.25 kg: sand per m:;:

I I ' ,

551 water per lll~

i i I 131.2 NRPR Report Tne NRPB report provides the unit cost of wail sandblasting technique r2, p.llJl 15 £ per nf. It is mentioned that the wet sandblasting may be worthwhile if the waste can be contained. The detailed costs data are not presented in the report 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00033

D.2 Cost calculatiou

13. 2.1 RlS0 report Tab!e 13.2. Unit costs of sandblasting techniques (RTS0)

Dry 1miidblastiiig \Vet ;miHlblastiiig Manpower cost: 120 man-day/ha x 8 h/day x 83 man-day/ha x 8 h/day x Daily manpower x Dally 21.59 EURO/h 21.59 EUROIh

\vorking lime x Average houriy = 20 726.4 EUROiha = 14 335.76 EURO/ha cost of manpo\\cr Investment cost: 900 ETJROlyear I 1.44 halyear = 480 ETJROlyear I 2 .16 halyear Tool discounL t;Osli Scale of 625 EURO'ha applicatlOl1 222.22 EUROfha Consumahle cost:

(petro-diesel J scale or (4 Ilh I 1i.1I11] halh) appiication) x purchase price of (51111; (l.002 11a/l1) x 0.2952 x 0.2952 i.:lJROi1 diesel oil HURO!l. = 738 EURO/ha = 393.6 EURO/hit Salld!1w x purchase price of 20000 kgllm x 0.024 ETJROlkg 22 500 kgllm x 0.024 EtllOlkg sand = 4S11 EUROlha = 5411 EUROlha 550 m'/ha x 2.36 EURO/n{

= 1 298 EUROlha Vv' aterllm x purchase price of water Total cost: 22 569.4 EUROfha 16789.58 EUROfha

r..13npO\ver + investment +

consumable 13.2.2 lv'RFB Repuri Conversion of the total cost:

15 £/n1' ~ 150000 £/ha ~ 184 320.92 EUROfha 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00034

13.2.3 Comparison he[1,A)een RlS'(/) and N RPH There is a very large difference between the estimated costs as shown in the Table below. The fact that the calculation is not detailed in the NRPB report makes difficult the identification of the reasons of this difference.

Tabie 13.3. Con1panson belween RIS0 and NRPB cosLs for sandbiasl1ng lecltl11ques Labour cost Investment cost Consumable Total cost I I (EUROlha) (EURO/ha) (EUROlha) (EURO/ha) I I RIS0 -dry sandhlasting 20726.40 625 1 21X 22569.4(J II RIS0 -wet sandblasting 14335.76 222.22 2231.60 16789.58 INRPH lX4320.92 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00035

! 4 Roof Brushing 14.1 A,'ailable data

14. I. I RIS(/} report The RIS0 report ll, p.18 J provides the costs of roof cleaning using roLaling brush mounted on exLendible rod (to allow operaLion from ground). An air compressor provides pressure for rotating the brush and tap water at ordmary pressure IS needed for rinsmg. A filter system can enable recycling. The following data are presented:

~ Daily T\1anpmver: 0.014 ma.."'1-daY/nf - 140 man-day/1m

  • Discount Investment Cost: 1 200 EURO!year
  • Scale of applicaiion (surface which can be decontaminated with one (001): 18 n,';h x 72()h!y . ~ 12 960 ni'/year~. 1.296 ha/year
  • Consumab!es: 5 !/h of petro! and 13 lint of ,vater.

14.1.2 lVRPlJ repan The report gives some cost indications for l) different teclmiques to be applied for decontaminating the roofs [2. p.83, 84]. We will here select the technique \vhich is closed to the one presented in the R1S0 report, i.e. a mech,mlc(ll ,vet brushing arld (I.ste collection/filtering. Tv.*'o costs are pro*vided:

- For a roof originally clean: £3.70 per m'

- For a roof covered vvit1. moss, algae, etc: £8.93 per rri The delaiieu uata are Lilt: [oHowing:

Table 14.1. Unit parameters for roof brushing technique (NRPB)

Rooforiginally clean Roof covered with moss, etc.

I I I Application rate (m"" per S h day) i 137 nf per SliJday \""'ith:; G7 m~ per S h! day ,,*vith :; operators I operators I Cos! of plallL hire per day £80 £140 i => O."X Unf => 2.09 Ffnf ConsumHhlc co"L, pl.~ dety £AO incl bru"h tmd compressor :I).(()

I I =>0.29 Unt => 1.19 lInt I.abour per roof (132 tIr) £372.7 £739

=> 2.82 £f nt =>5.6 £/nt Total cost £3.69 per nt £8.88 per m~

I I £492.7 per roof £1 69G per roof i i (=> 134 nt per roof) (=> 190 m2 per roof) 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00036

14.2 Cost calculation

! 4. 2. J RIS'(/j report Table 14.2. Unit costs ofroofcleamng (IUSO)

Roof cleaning (RIS0)

Manpower cost I 140 man-davlha x :><: h/dav x 21.59 rURO/h I Daily manpower x Daily \vorking time x Average I I

= 24 180.8 EURO/ha I hourly cost of manpower Investment (ost (1200 IURO/ycm")! (1.296 ha/ycElI)

II Tool discount cost I Scale of application I = 925.93 EURO/ha i (petro-diesel j sc~t~r~t~;~~~:~~:~~ x purchase price II (5 litrc/h I (l,001 g h3/11) x 0.2052 f-<:lJRO/l of diesel oil I = 820 EURO/hf!

I \vater/1m x purchase price of \vater I 130 nfiha x 2.36 hlJROitTt I I =306.8 EUROiha Tutal cost: 24 I XII.X + 923.93 + X211 + 3116.X I ManpOWL'r + investment + consLlmahk I = 26233.53 EURO/ha

14. 2. 2 l'viRPB repurt
1. Direct conversion of the total cost:

Tabie 14.3. Tutal cust uf rouf brushing ledlIll4ues (NRPB)

Ruof originall,Y dean Roof covereu 'It'jth moss, etc.

n .riC) per nl = .% 900£/hfl 2

'£R.RR per m = RR ROO £11m

~ 45 342.95 EUROlha ~ 109 117.99 EURO/ha

2. Estimation of the total cost using the detailed data and assuming a labour cost of 21.59 EURO pel' hour (instead of the assumption of 16 £/h, i.e. 19.66 EURO/h)

Tabie 14.4. Unit costs of roof brushing teclmiques (NRPB) i NKP" i Kooi ongmaiiv dean i Kooi covered with moss, etc.

II Manpower cost: I 1 7)2 m~l~~~l:ri;~ ':T:~*~9n EURO/h i 3 )82 m~~l~~~/!l~ ':U:~:.?,.EURO/h I lvfanpower x Average =Jfl'i"'::~.Ol'iJ'.,UKVfnu I = ffJJf.JIJ'., Kv/nu I hourly cost of manpmvcr: I 0.58 £1m2 =

iI Investment cost i = 7 127.08 5 800 £/ha.

EUROJha iI 2.1 £/m:: = 21000 £/ha.

= 25 804.93 EUROJha 0.29 £hi = 2 900 fllla. 1.2 f/nt = 12 000 f/lla.

i Consumable co"t i = 3563.54 RURnfha i = 14 745.67 EURn!ha

ig R62 + 7 127.0R + 156:i.54 75565 + 25 R04.9:i + 14745.7 =

i i 48516,30 EIJRO/ha

= II 117887 . ~)1 ELJRO/ha 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00037

j 4. 2. 3 Comparison DeMeen R1S0 and NR.PB Here again, the cost evaluations ofRIS0 and NRPB are quite different:

Table 14.5. Companson between NRPB and IUS0 costs for roof brushing techniques I I Labour cost Investment cost I Consumable I Total cost I (EDRO/ha) (EDRO/ha) (EDROfha) (EDROfha)

[USO 24180.8 92).93 306.8 26233.53 I I I I NRPB clean! 37 S25.6R 71270R  !  :; 563.54 ! 48516.30 II roof I I I II NRFH - non clean i 77337.3 i 25 X()4.93 i i474':;.67 ii78S7.9i ii I roof i i I II' \ve compare the RIS0 technique \\i-jih the NRPB one ror clean rooe it appears that the rr1t~ior difference comes from the investrnent and consumable costs. it is difficuit to know the explanation of this diiTerence. as the NRPB report does not provide the detailed investment and consumable costs.

04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00038

15 Vacuuming Indoors 15.1 A ",rulable data

15. I. I RIS0 report The RIS0 report presents one indoor decontanlination technique consisling in replacing wallpapers, uSIng vacuum cleilller, razors, manual scrapper and brush [1, p.24j The follo\ving data are presented:
  • Omly Manpower: 0.03 man-day/m" = 300 man-day/ha

=- Discount Investment Cost: 18 EURO/year

  • Scale of application (surface which can be decontaminated with one tool): 75 m2 /h x g h/day x 200 davs/year = 12 000 m2 /year

= 1.2 h8Jyear

  • Consumables: 0.0005 kWh/ m'=> 5 kWh/ha.

15.1.2 NRPBreporl This report presents in Appendix the costs of 9 techniques to be used

[or decontamination of internal swJace r2, p.89-901. In a first approach (before determining exactly which decontmnination technique is used in RODOS). we propose here to evaluate the cost fonowing techniques (the latest one consists in removing the son furnishings - its cost can only be given per house, and therefore does not seem relevant for RODOS)

  • VacuwIliug - h'UH.i. £0.88 per Ill*
  • Washing: £1.67 per nl 2
  • Vigorous washing/scrubbing: £3.33 per 01

.. ChelTdcal c1elliling - degreasing, paint removal: 14.08 per rrt

  • Strippable coating: £9.15 per m"
  • Surface removal induding scabbiing, water jetting: £12.13 per m"
  • Surface covering - painting: £6.5 per ni
  • Stemn cleaning and vacuwning: £9.15 per m" 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00039

is.2 Cost evaluatiou

15. 2. I RIS(J report Table 15.1. Unit costs of mdoor decontammation (RJS0) fudoor decontamination (RISO)

ManpOlrcr cost 30n man-dav/ha x R h/dav x 21.59 r:UROfh Daily mm1lx)\ver x Daily \vorkillg time x Average = 51816 EURO/h.

hourly cost of manpower Inyestment cost: (18 IUFJJ/ycm")! 0.2 ha/ycar)

Tool discount cost / Scale of application = 15 EURO/h.

Comi.imable \:O;ot: 5 k\Vhlha x 0.03 FlJROI1,;,\Vh

! *:lcctricity pcr n1 x purcha~c price of electricity = 0.15 EURO/!'!:!.

Totai cost: 51816+ 15+0.15 ManpO\\ CT + invcsLmcnl + consumable =51831.15 EURO/ha 15.2.2 lVRPlJ report Table 15.2. Unit cost or 8 indoor decontamination techniques CNRPB)

Technique Unit cost Unit cost 2 (EURO/ha)

(£ per m )

Vacuuming - hand 0.88 10813.49 Washing 1.67 20521.06 Vigorous \viishing/scrubbing 3.33 40919.25 Chemical cJenning - degrensing, pnint removal 411R ~O 13='_29 Strippable coating ""'.L)

"' "" 112435.76 Surface removal including scahhling, \vatcr jetting 12.13 149054.19 SurlClce covenllg - pamLmg G.5 79872.40 S team cleaning and vac LLuming 9.15 112435.76 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00040

16 Decontamination costs provided by NRPB in 1999 As Inentioned in the introduction, the NRPB has nlade, "viiith the UK lVllllistry of Defenl:e, a recent reVIew of decunlarninaLion and remediation techniques for Plutonium [3].

The follo\\1ng assumptIOns are made:

  • Conversion into EURO: 1 EURO = O.66g76 UK£ (1 S>99 rate)
  • Cost oflabour [or all countermeasures: 25 f/man.hour

= 38 EURG/man.hour This cost is for personnel \vorking in active areas. It is taken as a factor of 3 higher than commercial rates in non-radioactive areas

  • Costs or equipment include capital costs, depreciation, interest, (axes, insurance, storage and maintenance & repair.
  • Consumable costs do not include fuel and "\vatei costs. Ho\vever, where relevant, the qUEUltilies of water required per Hil are indicated.

Table 16.1. Decontamination costs (NRPB, 1999)

TECHNTQUE Cmt of con)iumahlc)i Cod of cquipment (EURO/kd) (EURO/kd) h

_. * * * *** ** 0 SkIIll and burwl piougillng "". v o 2 Slandard ploughing a o 3 Phml cmd smub remo\'al" o 182 W' 4 Grass cutting a o 11. 7 l(~'

5 Soil rcmoval a o R96 1Ii 6 Double digging .gardens" r21 o 2.0 103 7 Rolovaling I digging gardens C o 8 Road planing ~ 123 lCl I) Fire hosing a d o 24. 310J (V.... atcr: 2.0 lint)

10. VacLlum sweeping roads a, ~
11. Sandblasting. extemal \valls 501.5 10' 501.5 10' (Wnrer: 9.0 11m')

12 Roof brushing c, ,II.

(\JiJaLer: 13.0 lInt)

13. Vacuuming: indoors c:
14. Tree fellinglbush removal a b o 304 uP Notes of Table 16.1.'

04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00041

a. Costs for decontaminating large areas
b. Equipment cost estimated at 30~1o of total cost based on supporting infonllation II J.
c. Techniques only applicable for small areas.
d. Assumes use or rife tender wid hoses.
e. Costs for vacuum syveeping a wet surface. \vith Yvaste water collection and filtration prior to disposal of water drains.
1. Costs [or sandblasting with waste water collection and filiration prior to disposal of water drains. Assumes use of a fire tender and hydrauhc platform
g. ,A~ssumes cleaning of moss covered roofs
h. Does not include replacement of trees.

04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00042

17 Synthesis of data The data base [or evaluating costs o[ decontamination techniques conLains three parameLers per Lechniqu(;:

  • Unit cost of manpower (EURO/man-hour)
  • Unit cost of consumable (b URO/km')

.. Unit cost of equipment (EURO/kn-f)

The default data are those provided by NRPB in 1999 l3 J (see section 16).

Table 17.1 presents an the data coHected in RIS0 and NRPB reports (rounded values). The manpower required lor each technique is indicated lor infommtion, but it will not be included in ECONOM. It will be provided directly by LCMf. The default data for f nmnpower is 38 EURO/man.hour for each technique.

Table 172 presents the total cost of each technique (ElJROlkm'),

cEilculated from R1S0 !lnd NRPB (1996) reports. This cost is obt8ined by adding the ll.flit cost of m[mpmver (obt~ined '.vith a cost of ll1anpov,*'er of 21.6 EUROlma...'1.hr). th.e unit cost of consuIT'..ables and the unit cost of equipment.

OAGI0001550_00043

Table 17.1. Synlhesis of the unil cosl of decontaminatIOn techniques 1--TI~C~IQUE--JJmp01~~Wn-hou~m~ T-1Jni~~Ofj:onsummabl~-~-UnitcostofCqUipmcnt(EUROfk~:~

(EURO/km')

1---------- -RISO [J]-I}!RPB {2] RlSO [llTi'IRPD [2]1NRPB [3] -RISO [I]II'lRm [2]INRPBl31

1. Skim and burial ploughing 330.0**480.0 990 - :::.5 10 3 o 5.0 10 3

7.3 10"

_ 1.7 1()1 FStandord plouglun~__

3. Plant and shrub removal

--~~--t--=----t-~~-t--=----t-~-jt

.. - ., - ()

](;](1'] .

]-1.5 IS.2 IIf 1O~

o

~, ~,-

4. Grass cmtmg 1.010* 100.0 1.8 ]03 15.3 10' 4.2 1(13 7:~ 10 3 11.7 HI' 20.010 3 **30.710' tS01I"~~I----1-3. 2103~-r301o'T10Glo'T~~IO'r-o-l-3;~0i153~o'I89.~~

I I 214.8 j(j .14.:) H;

- S.) 10

.8.3.10d

- 12.) 1 3

I .

rz:- Double digging garde~-I-5.44.,~r-r-:(OoJjj'if T-()-T-O-I-O-lr-(0;U~-r-~)14:4i_0' 1-2.0 1()J'

~

7. Rorovating/digginggardens BO.OIo-' 12JICi' 0 11.0 Ill' L.81O:~

S. Road planing /5.2 ]()" 4_710 3 123.0 Iff 34_71 ()3 3.5 Hl:~

9. Firehosil1g _ _ _ _ _ _ .....!...().4.!.!.~_ 50()J~ _~.?6.(~~ 2.:~~ _~~ _ x.:~~ _ 2."~~ .......:.4.3~.

1(1. Vacuum s\veeping roads 290.0 300.0 422.0 2.510 3 1.210 3 7.1 1(13 2.5 1(13 4.310.l

11. Sandblasting extemal walls. 96.0 ifl- 121.8 10 1

- 501.5 Hf ,S2.5 III -*22.2 501.5 Hi

()-6.4103 223 lC? l03

~~oofhmshing----I-l~~j3""""- I 75.0l(f - ~~7i().l J5631('f- 1.9106 -92_61(i31712:7ld-=-;~:3.5 W;-*

':5H.O iff 1.,0111' lOG ru-.

I '~aCL~ling inJOI~_ _J_..!.IOo"!'}'~_[_-=---_+/-_..25 -+/---=---r-~-~-":::~~J---=----J~*() ~~

Tree fellinglbush removal

~--------- ------

0

- 304.0 Iff OAGI0001550_00044 Cil*c ~'- - c: - 04.08.C(I

Table 17.2. Synthesis of the total cost of decontamination techniques TECHNIQUE RIse [I] NRPB [2]

1

1. Skim and burial ploughing 13.210-' _15.610
2. Standard ploughing 4.2 10:"1 4.910:"1

.3 Plant and slnub removal 491.5 103

    • 3 ** 3 ** 3
4. Grass CUlling 283.4 Hr 9.4 llr - 477.8 w-
15. Soil removal 48.3103 .91.510 3
  • I 983.2103
  • I

! X3.1 l(f  ! 2.5 lOG  !

16. DOLLble digging g,miens 11.71cf I 9.3 10'"

I

7. RotoYa.ting ! digging gardens 239.2103 Ix. Road planmg 36S.6 1(1' i i
9. fire hosing 828.7 W' 15.3 lO' I

,~ ~ ~

iO. VUt.:LlUl11 Ol\VCcpmg roads I .J. I II} i i.3 i 0-'

Ill. Sandblasting external walls 2.3 W' . 1.7 10' 18.4 W'

12. Roof brushing 2.6 1()6 4.X 1()6 . 11.X 1()6 113. Vacuuming indoor,; 0.2 lOt.>

114. Tree felling/bush removal OAGI0001550_00045

! 8 References

[1] J. Roed et a1.. "Practical Means fro Decontamination 9 Years after a Nuclear Accident", RISO-R-828(EN), RISO Natiolk11 Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, December 1995.

[2] J. Dro\\11 et aI., "Review of DecontD.minatlOn and Clean-up Techniques for Use in the UK following Accident Releases of Radioactivity to the Environment".

NRPD-R288, National Radiological Protection Doard, Chilton, May 1996.

[3] J. T3rm,\"ll et aI, " Review of Decontamination and Clean-up Techniques for Use in the UK following Accident Releases of Radioactivity to the EnvirolUllent".

NRPB Report (to be published).

l4J "EurDslal /\nnuuire 1997, Vue SlllListiqnc sur I'Furope 19S6-1996" EurostaL, Office Statistique des Connnummtes Emo1-~en!le, Luxembourg, 1997.

i51 "Agric:uliural prices, Price indices ami absoluie prices, 1986-1995' EUIOSla!,

OiTice SlalisLique ues C0111111unauies i-<:uropeennes, Luxemhourg. i 9%.

r61 Bulletin Mensuel de Slatistiq ues INSEE, Fevrier 1998, n02

[7] Private finn 'Tout L"1ire' p~ J t-<:lcctricitc Dc France, l\)SI\).

4- 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00046

Document History Document

Title:

Estimation of the unit cost of decontamination techniques RODOSlllunber: RODOS(WGJ)- TN (99)-32 Version and status: Version 1.0 (dw rY)

Authors/Editors: Cmoline SCHIEBER, Cormne BENHAMOU Address: C[-<TN, HP4X, F 92263 Vonlenay-ALlx-Roscs Cedex - Vran(;e Issued hy:

! Iiston" Date ofIssue <date ofIssue>

Circulation:

File Name: RODOS NT.dot Dale of print: Augusl4,2000 04.08.00 OAGI0001550_00047

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML12340A650&oldid=2459191"