Evaluation of alternative configurations for shipping low-level radioactive waste to the Nevada Test Site

The Nevada Test Site (NTS) is a major receiver of United States Department of Energy (DOE)-owned low-level radioactive waste (LLW) for disposal. This paper evaluates the life-cycle costs and risks of alternative configurations for transporting LLW generated throughout the DOE complex to the NTS. Currently, much of the LLW being transported to the NTS is done by truck via highway routes which traverse the Hoover Dam and the Las Vegas Valley. This is a concern of local citizen's groups in the State of Nevada. Since the NTS and some DOE LLW generator sites are not served with direct rail service, this paper identifies and evaluates intermodal alternatives, i.e., both truck and rail components, along with historical truck scenarios to transport LLW from generator sites to NTS. Public and worker life-cycle (70 yr.) risk and cost impacts are estimated. Key observations about the risk and cost tradeoffs associated with the alternative configurations include: Nonradiological accident risks (i.e., physical injuries) are significantly higher than the other risk measures examined in this study. The nonradiological accident risks are slightly higher in the all-truck options than in the intermodal options. Radiological risk estimates are small. Radiological incident-free (or routine) risks were shown to be highest in the all-truck options and lowest in the intermodal options. For truck alternatives, worker, public, or accident radiological risks are similar (within a factor of 2) to nonradiological risk from routine vehicle emissions (e.g., diesel exhaust, fugitive dust, brake and tire particulates). Routing trucks around the Las Vegas Valley and bypassing the Hoover Dam results in higher radiological and non-radiological risks than using routes that travel through Las Vegas. This is consistent with the increased total shipping distance. However, based on the national scope of this study, differences are small. The life-cycle costs for intermodal alternatives are significantly lower than the all-truck alternatives.