DOE IG releases report on strategy for waste disposal

Recovery act goals for shipping uranium stored at the Savannah River Site to an intermediate site, after they were rejected by Utah legislators, could be wasteful of taxpayer money and unnecessary, according to the Department of Energy's Inspector General (IG).

A "Management Alert" released Tuesday examined possible solutions for the disposition of the waste that was contracted to be shipped by train to Utah, before the shipments were turned back by Utah's governor.

The waste, about 15,600 drums of depleted uranium oxide, was generated as a byproduct of the nuclear weapons production process and has been stored at SRS for decades.

The IG's alert cites an unnamed DOE source who it "deem(s) reliable and credible" as coming forward recently, expressing concern that actions planned "may not provide for the most cost-effective disposition of these materials."

Shipments of the waste material were to be disposed of at an EnergySolutions site in Clive, Utah; however, after the first shipment of more than 5,000 drums reached the site, located about an hour West of Salt Lake City, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert demanded further shipments be stopped.

DOE halted shipment, leaving shipments at SRS until an agreeable solution could be reached.

An interim solution was postulated in moving the trains to a Waste Control Specialists site in Andrews, Texas, according to the report.

"This choice carries with it a number of significant logistical burdens, including substantial additional costs for, among several items, repackaging at SRS, transportation to Texas, storage at the interim site and repackaging and transportation to the yet-to-be determined final disposition point," the IG writes.

There is currently no solution for this final disposition of the SRS waste, and there's also no word on an interim solution.

While cost is a major factor, there are many other factors DOE is considering, none of which can be finalized until "these requirements are fully defined," Ines Triay, assistant secretary for DOE Environmental Management (EM), wrote earlier this month.

"EM is aware of the concerns that a decision to pursue interim storage at WCS may result in increased costs to (DOE), and has subsequently requested a cost assessment analysis of various storage alternatives." Triay wrote. "While project cost is an important factor (in) EM's project plans and decisions, it is only one of multiple criteria that must be considered... (such as) potential impacts to other site efforts, community input, leveraging existing resource investments and future Environmental Management liabilities."

At SRS, $1.4 billion was allocated to accelerate site cleanup and footprint reduction through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The removal of this waste was a specific announced goal of EM through that investment.

Contact Mike Gellatly at mgellatly@aikenstandard.com.