The five programmatic management alternatives considered for spent nuclear fuel include: Alternative 1, No Action -- perform minimum activities required for safe and secure management at or close to the generation site or current storage location; Alternative 2, Decentralization -- storage and stabilization of most spent nuclear at or near the generation site with limited shipments from university and non-Departmental facilities; Alternative 3, the 1992/1993 Planning Basis -- transport to and store newly generated spent nuclear fuel at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory or the Savannah River Site and consolidate some existing spent nuclear fuel at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory; Alternative 4, Regionalization -- distribute existing and projected spent nuclear fuel among alternative Department of Energy sites based on fuel type or geographic location (an eastern regional site and a western regional site); and Alternative 5, Centralization -- manage existing and projected spent nuclear fuel at one site.
For all of the alternatives, the impacts of spent nuclear fuel management activities were analyzed for each of five sites: (1) the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; (2) the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, in southeastern Idaho; (3) the Savannah River Site, near Aiken, South Carolina; (4) the Oak Ridge Reservation, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and (5) the Nevada Test Site, near Mercury, Nevada. In addition, four naval shipyards and one naval prototype site, the Kesselring Site (near West Milton, New York), were considered for management of naval spent fuel only. The four naval shipyards are: (1) Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia; (2) Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine; (3) Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Honolulu, Hawaii; and (4) Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington.
The preferred alternative, Regionalization by Fuel Type, would distribute existing and projected inventories of spent nuclear fuel among Departmental sites based primarily on fuel type. Regionalization by Fuel Type would involve the use of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and Savannah River Site for storage of most newly generated spent fuel. Aluminum-clad fuel would be transported to the Savannah River Site; and non-aluminum clad fuel (including Fort St. Vrain and naval spent fuel) would be transported to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory; Hanford production reactor spent fuel would remain at the Hanford Site. The timing of transportation of fuel between sites would be prioritized and time-phased depending on fuel condition, facility availability, safety, budget and cost, transport logistics, and activities necessary to meet repository acceptance criteria. Navy nuclear ships and prototypes would continue to be refueled and defueled as needed. Naval spent fuel would be transported to the Expended Core Facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for examination. Following examination, naval spent fuel would be stored at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Spent nuclear fuel facility upgrades, replacements, and additions will be undertaken, as will research and development activities to resolve safety vulnerabilities and assure safe spent nuclear fuel interim storage in preparation for ultimate disposition.
The Department of Energy arrived at its preferred alternative through a formal screening process, which included developing screening and performance criteria. Since environmental impacts are substantially the same, they did not offer a strong basis for selection among the alternatives, as the environmental impacts of implementing any of the alternatives were evaluated in detail and determined to be small. The No Action, Decentralization A and B (no examination and limited examination of naval fuel respectively) and Centralization alternatives did not satisfy all of the screening criteria (regulatory compliance; accomplishment of Department and Navy missions; provision of technology development for stabilization and ultimate disposition) identified as necessary for alternatives to qualify for further consideration as candidates for the preferred alternative. Specifically, these alternatives would not have allowed the Department of Energy or the Navy to meet their mission needs, comply with applicable state and Federal laws and regulations, or provide for the necessary research and development of appropriate storage, treatment and disposal technologies. The No Action alternative would not provide the capability for full examination of naval fuel. Similarly, Decentralization A and B (no examination and limited examination of naval fuel, respectively) would not provide capability for full examination of naval spent fuel. The Department did not prefer the Centralization alternative because it did not maintain backup capabilities for spent fuel management in order to accomplish vital spent fuel program activities. The remaining alternatives, Decentralization C (with full examination of naval fuel), the 1992/1993 Planning Basis, and Regionalization met all of the screening criteria.
The Department applied performance criteria (i.e., environmental impact; public concerns; cost; support of the spent fuel management mission; the need to honor contractual commitments and compliance agreements) to the four candidates that survived the screening process. Two of the four candidates, the 1992/1993 Planning Basis, and Regionalization by Fuel Type, rated the highest. These two candidate alternatives were then evaluated against a number of technical and nontechnical considerations, including environmental impact perception, indicated stakeholder preferences, implementation factors, regulatory risk, spent fuel processing potential, environmental justice, and fairness. As a result of this final evaluation, Regionalization by Fuel Type was identified as the preferred alternative.
4.1.2 Environmentally Preferable Alternatives for
Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management
As indicated in the Environmental Impact Statement, the environmental consequences of the Decentralization, the 1992/1993 Planning Basis, Regionalization, and Centralization alternatives are small, including risks from normal operations, transportation, and potential accidents. While factors such as water quality, air quality, and land use for each alternative showed variations, these aggregated differences by themselves are not sufficient to identify one clearly environmentally preferable alternative. Accordingly, the Department regards all of these alternatives as environmentally preferable, based solely on the evaluation of environmental impacts. The selected alternative, Regionalization by Fuel Type, is among the environmentally preferred alternatives.
However, the No Action alternative would adversely affect the Department's mission to ensure safe and secure management of spent nuclear fuel. Future deterioration of fuels and facilities may increase accident risks over current risk estimates. The Department would initially suffer from a loss of margin in storage capacity. In time, there would be little or no flexibility for repairs to existing facilities under the No Action alternative. Additionally, by limiting research and development to activities already approved, the Department's ability to safely store spent nuclear fuel would be adversely affected by the inability to conduct new research and development. For all of these reasons, compared to each of the action alternatives, the No Action alternative is environmentally nonpreferred.
Go to Supplementary Information Contents
Chris Jensen <njc@inel.gov>