This document compiles information on the transportation-related issues that The Council of State Governments Midwestern Office (CSG Midwest) have encountered during almost 30 years of working with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to plan future shipments of commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF) as part of the Civilian Waste Management System.
Transportation Institutional Issues Involving the U.S. Department of Energy’s Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program
THE POST YUCCA MOUNTAIN YEARS
By Lisa R. Janairo, Program Director Mitch Arvidson, Policy Analyst Melissa Bailey, Consultant December 2020
The Council of State Governments The Council of State Governments (CSG) is our nation’s only organization serving all three branches of state government. CSG is a region-based forum that fosters the exchange of insights and ideas to help state officials shape public policy. This offers unparalleled regional, national, and international opportunities to network, develop leaders, collaborate, and create problem-solving partnerships. Through its national office in Lexington, Kentucky, a state-federal office in Washington, D.C., and regional offices in New York, Atlanta, Chicago (Lombard), and Sacramento, CSG is dedicated to preserving the role of the states in America’s federal system. The role of CSG’s Midwestern Office (CSG Midwest) is to foster intergovernmental cooperation through the promotion of regional — as well as individual — state responses to common issues and challenges. Transportation Institutional Issues Involving the U.S. Department of Energy’s Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program: The Post Yucca Mountain Years This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-NE0008604. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. An online version of this document, including links to references, can be found at https://online.flippingbook.com/view/39715/ . For more information, contact: The Council of State Governments Midwestern Office 701 E. 22nd Street, Suite 110 | Lombard, IL 60148 | (630) 925-1922 | csgm@csg.org
2
Table of Contents Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Consent-Based Siting (CBS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Deep Borehole Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Stakeholder Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Transportation Core Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 State and Tribal Transportation Consultation Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 National Transportation Stakeholders Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Charter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Annual Meetings 24 Webinars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 NTSF Wiki 25 Ad Hoc Working Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 DOE-NE’s Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Section 180(c) AHWG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Transportation Planning AHWG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Spent Nuclear Fuel Rail/Routing AHWG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Spent Fuel Transportation Materials AHWG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Tribal Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Route Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Rail Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Atlas Railcar Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Reciprocal Rail Inspections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Safety Compliance Oversight Plan (SCOP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 System Analysis Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Stakeholder Tool for Assessing Radioactive Transport (START) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Execution Strategy Analysis (ESA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Used Nuclear Fuel — Storage, Transportation & Disposal Analysis and Resource Data System (UNF-ST&DARDS). . . . . . . . 40 Shutdown Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Industry Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3
ORIGINAL TEXT | Transportation Institutional Issues Involving the U S Department of Energy’s Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Acronyms (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Openness and Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Public Information and Outreach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Stakeholder Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Programmatic Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Database/Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Federal Regulation of Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Liability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Oldest Fuel First. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Shipment Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 State Regulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Transportation of High-Level Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Transportation Safety Program Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Transportation Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Operational Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Pilot Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Program Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Seasonal Scheduling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Transportation Operational Contingencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Transportation Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Transportation Planning Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Modes, Packages, and Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Full-Scale Cask Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Intermodal Shipments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Mix of Transportation Modes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Overweight Trucks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Rail Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4
Rail Service Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Route Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Transportation Infrastructure Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Safety and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Carrier/Driver Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Inspection and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Safe Parking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Security Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Terrorism and Sabotage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Shipment Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Long-Term Planning Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Prenotification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Tracking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Emergency Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Emergency Notification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Emergency Planning and Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Emergency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Emergency Response Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Emergency Response Training Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Medical Preparedness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Section 180(c) Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 High-Level/Cross-Cutting Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Human Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 System Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Top-Level System Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Transportation After Very Long-Term Storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Transportation Implications of Storage Solutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Transportation Management Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Transportation Risk Management Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 References (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
5
ACRONYMS
AAR • Association of American Railroads AHWG • Ad Hoc Working Groups BRC • Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future CBFO • DOE Carlsbad Field Office CBS • Consent-Based Siting CFR • Code of Federal Regulations CISF • Consolidated Interim Storage Facility CSG • The Council of State Governments CSG Midwest • The Council of State Governments, Midwestern Office CURIE • Centralized Used Fuel Resource for Information Exchange CVSA • Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
DBD • Deep Borehole Disposal DBFT • Deep Borehole Field Test DGR • Deep Geologic Repository DOE • U.S. Department of Energy
DOT • U.S. Department of Transportation EIS • Environmental Impact Statement ELEA • Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance EM • DOE Office of Environmental Management ESA • Execution Strategy Analysis Tool FACA • Federal Advisory Committee Act FRA • Federal Railroad Administration FY • Fiscal Year
GC • DOE Office of General Counsel GTCC • Greater-Than-Class C Waste HLW • High-Level Radioactive Waste
6
PHMSA • Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PSR • Projected Shipment Report RCRMS • Rail Corridor Risk Management System R&D • Research and Development RD&D • Research, Development, and Demonstration R/R AHWG • Rail/Routing Ad Hoc Working Group RTE • Regional Tribal Engagement SCOP • Safety Compliance Oversight Plan SMS • Safety Monitoring System
IRG • Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management IRT • Interregional Team ISFSI • Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation ISP • Interim Storage Partners IWM • DOE Office of Integrated Waste Management LLW • Low-Level Radioactive Waste MOA • Memorandum of Agreement MRMTC • Midwestern Radioactive Materials Transportation Committee MRS • Monitored Retrievable Storage MTU • Metric Tons of Uranium NE • DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy NEI • Nuclear Energy Institute NEPA • National Environmental Policy Act NFST • Nuclear Fuels Storage and Transportation Planning Project NRC • Nuclear Regulatory Commission NTSF • National Transportation Stakeholders Forum NWMO • Nuclear Waste Management Organization NWPA • Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 NWPAA • Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 NWTRB • Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board OCRWM • DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management ONWN • Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator ORNL • Oak Ridge National Laboratory PFS • Private Fuel Storage
SNF • Spent Nuclear Fuel SRG • State Regional Group
SRSPP • State Rail Safety Participation Program START • Stakeholder Tool for Assessing Radioactive Transportation STTC WG • State and Tribal Transportation Consultation Working Group TEC/WG • Transportation External Coordination Working Group TRANSCOM • Transportation Tracking and Communications System TRMTC • Tribal Radioactive Materials Transportation Committee TRU • Transuranic Waste TTCI • Transportation Technology Center Inc. UNF-ST&DARDS • Used Nuclear Fuel — Storage, Transportation & Disposal Analysis and Resource Data System
WCS • Waste Control Specialists WIPP • Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
7
INTRODUCTION
This document compiles information on the transportation-related issues that The Council of State Governments Midwestern Office (CSG Midwest) and the Midwestern states have encountered during almost 30 years of working with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to plan future shipments of commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF) as part of the Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management System. Covering the years from 2010-2020, this archive supplements our original archive, “Transportation Institutional Issues Involving the U.S. Department of Energy’s Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management Program,”published in 2010, which covered the years 1991–2009. The supplement contains a great deal of factual information that was checked, as needed (and required), by personnel within DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE). It is important to acknowledge that the document reflects the opinion of the authors — especially the commentary that makes up much of this introduction. Both the supplement and the original archive are included in this document. Because it is the most recent “snapshot” of where things stand with the federal radioactive waste management program, the supplemental content comes first, followed by the original. 1 This sequencing may seem unorthodox; however, it allows the reader to begin with the more recent material and dig deeper into the past if they so desire. The introduction to the 2010 edition observed that the Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management System“would benefit by returning to its roots” (Janairo and Bailey 2010, p. 5). The rationale for this advice was that, during its earliest years, the program (managed by the Office of Civilian RadioactiveWaste Management, or OCRWM) produced a “Transportation Institutional Plan” that was based on a clear understanding of OCRWM’s charge and the challenges it faced: The Department of Energy recognizes that the success of its program to develop and implement a national system for nuclear waste management and disposal…depends not only on safety, but on broad-based public understanding of and confidence in program activities and objectives. While each program element has its particular sensitivity, the transportation of the waste to facilities developed under the NWPA [Nuclear Waste Policy Act] may be the most visible element nationwide (DOE 1986, p. i). During the most recent decade, there was little evidence of the federal program embracing the concepts of transportation being “most visible” or the importance of “broad-based public understanding of and confidence in program activities and objectives” (ibid.). To be fair, since the turn of the century, DOE has moved gradually and steadily away from the path it started down
with such promise in 1986. It is almost as if success has proven to be so elusive that the program has given up on the “gold standard” of public understanding and acceptance and instead redefined “success” in different terms. Nevertheless, we continue to advocate for the federal program—whenever it operates and whoever is in charge — to commit to this early vision of success. When we published the original archive, we did so to make it “easier for new personnel to learn about what came before,”hoping that “armed with an understanding of what was done, what worked, what did not, and why, the people charged with carrying a new program forward may have a greater chance of success” (ibid., p. 6). This purpose is more important now than it was 10 years ago. As documented in the pages that follow, over the decades, a number of incredibly talented, insightful, smart people worked together and independently to create a sizable body of high-quality work. This work is at risk of being lost because the number of people who hold this institutional knowledge is dwindling. They’re retiring or taking new positions in other programs; sadly, more than a few have died. While a document cannot replace conversation with or direct input from knowledgeable people, the original archive and this supplement will nevertheless be useful to people who understand that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” A second lesson learned from the original archive was the “negative impact of shutting down and attempting to restart program activities” (ibid., p. 5). A program that is on again, off again cannot maintain momentum— it will lose ground. In 2010, we documented the impact of a temporary shutdown from 1998 to 2003, noting that, after work resumed in 2004, “few tangible accomplishments” resulted in the period from 2004-2009. In the most recent decade, there have been three periods during which DOE temporarily scaled back on its activities related to transportation—or, at least, scaled back on engaging states and Tribes in those activities. Once again, it is our opinion that these periods of hiatus set the program back. On the positive side, there have been some notable accomplishments over the decades, including these past 10 years, thanks to many skilled, knowledgeable people who gave this work their best (and, for many of us, their last ) shot. Collectively, with exceptional leadership from frontline DOE personnel and their contractors, and through the voluntary efforts of states and Tribes, real progress was made on the possible future implementation of grants to states and Tribes affected by shipments (see Section 180(c) Ad HocWorking Group, or AHWG ). CSG Midwest and the other state regional groups (SRGs) produced a trio of statements
8
Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future
After the Obama Administration abandoned the proposed deep geologic repository (DGR) at Yucca Mountain in 2009, it formed the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC). The BRC spent two years researching the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, considering storage, disposal, and transportation alternatives, and collecting testimony and comments from stakeholders, including the Midwestern Radioactive Materials Transportation Committee (MRMTC). The BRC delivered eight recommendations to the administration in 2012, and by 2013, DOE had developed a preliminary strategy on how to accomplish these recommendations. After a strong initial implementation push, the BRC’s recommendations were largely pushed to the side in 2017 as the new Trump Administration focused on research and development (R&D) and restarting the Yucca Mountain DGR. In 2009, the Obama Administration decided to cancel work on the proposed national repository for SNF and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. One year later, on January 29, 2010, the 15-member BRC was formed, co-chaired by former U.S Representative Lee H. Hamilton and former U.S. National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. According to DOE, the commission was established “to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including all alternatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel, high-level waste, and materials derived from nuclear activities” (Matthews 2010). In order to address these various issues, the commission formed several subcommittees that focused on specific areas. Of the greatest interest to the MRMTC was the Transportation and Storage Subcommittee. The question facing the Transportation and Storage Subcommittee was whether the United States should change its approach to storing and transporting [SNF and HLW] while one or more permanent disposal facilities are established” (BRC 2011a, p. ii). The Subcommittee heard testimony from stakeholders across the country, held several meetings, and visited many SNF and HLW storage sites. Tim Runyon, MRMTC member and Section Manager at the Illinois Emergency Management Agency’s Division of Nuclear
and recommendations on the states’ shared priorities and expectations for shipments under the NWPA. 2 In addition, DOE, states, and Tribes advanced their understanding of route identification and reciprocal inspections specifically as they apply to rail shipments. DOE also achieved success with its compendium of information on shutdown sites (and, later, operating sites). The impressive, almost scholarly “Preliminary Evaluation of Removing Used Nuclear Fuel from Shutdown Sites” (Maheras et al. 2017) acts as an inventory of spent fuel and greater-than-Class-C (GTCC) waste, documentation of on- site and near-site infrastructure and site capabilities, and evaluation of the actions needed to move SNF and GTCC waste from the sites examined. The “shutdown sites” report is a rare example of a product that will (or should) be useful to future program staff when a storage site or repository is finally available and shipment planning begins in earnest. As such, the report belongs to a small group of must-read works (including the aforementioned SRG-produced documents) whose ideas and lessons will stand the test of time because they are valid regardless of whether the destination for SNF shipments is storage or disposal, operated by the federal government or the private sector, located at Yucca Mountain, Texas, or NewMexico. Other notable works on the must-read list include the “Transportation Institutional Plan” (OCRWM 1986), “Earning Public Trust and Confidence: Requisites for Managing RadioactiveWaste” (SEAB 1993), and“Why DOE’s Messages on Transportation Don’t Resonate with the Public (andWhat DOE Can Do to Fix the Problem)” (Janairo and Niles 2008). We believe our archive belongs in this select group, as well. 1 The original archive was not subject to DOE review prior to publication because such a requirement did not exist when we wrote the archive in 2010. As a result, CSG Midwest was permitted to include the original text in this document without subjecting it to review. The authors remain confident in the accuracy of our original work; however, we acknowledge that it also reflects our opinion 2 See “The States’ Expectations for Consultation and Cooperation in Developing and Operating a Transportation System to Move Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste” (CSG Midwest et al. 2013), “Principles of Agreement among States on Expectations Regarding Preparations for NWPA Shipments” (CSG Midwest et al. 2014), and “State Recommenda- tions on Section 180(c)” (IRT 2014).
9
Safety, was invited to provide testimony on November 2, 2010, in Chicago, Illinois. A question the subcommittee explored on this particular day was the feasibility, steps, and timelines of planning and executing a large-scale SNF shipment in three to five years. Speaking from the state of Illinois’ experience with conducting safety inspections and providing security escorts for about 1,000 SNF shipments, Mr. Runyon did not think this would be feasible: There has not been a major rail campaign across the U.S. in nearly two decades and with the changes in security requirements in the post 9-11 world along with the routing, inspection and general transportation planning and coordination, we would estimate it could take 7 to 9 years to develop a viable nationwide transportation program that would have widespread public acceptance and confidence (Runyon 2010). Additionally, Lisa Janairo (CSG Midwest), lead staffer to the MRMTC, also testified at the Chicago meeting. In her testimony, Ms. Janairo made two key points to the subcommittee: 1. Transportation of radioactive materials is an activity in its own right with a technical side, an institutional side, and a political side. As such, transportation needs to be given the same attention and care as any other part of the nuclear fuel cycle; and 2. States absolutely must be involved in planning, preparing for, and executing radioactive materials shipments (Janairo 2010). Based on her experiences with several DOE shipping campaigns to move SNF, Ms. Janairo believed the subcommittee’s three- to five- year timeline was far too optimistic, especially given the prior pace of progress within DOE’s Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System. Taking into account route identification, financial and technical assistance, public information campaigns, security planning, staffing federal and state programs, and other activities, Ms. Janairo testified that it would take nine to 12 years to properly plan for a safe, secure, and efficient SNF shipping campaign that would merit public confidence (ibid.).
The subcommittee released its draft report to the full commission on May 31, 2011. The report centered around seven recommendations, paraphrased as follows: 1. The United States should proceed expeditiously to establish one or more consolidated interim storage facilities as part of an integrated, comprehensive plan for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. 2. To ensure that all near-term forms of storage meet high standards of safety and security for the multi-decade-long time periods that they are likely to be in use, active research should continue on issues such as degradation phenomena, vulnerability to sabotage and terrorism, full-scale cask testing, and other matters. 3. Spent fuel currently being stored at decommissioned reactor sites should be “first in line” for transfer to a consolidated interim storage facility as soon as such a facility is available. 4. A new organization charged with developing one or more permanent disposal facilities should also lead the development of consolidated storage and transportation capabilities. 5. Processes used to develop and implement all aspects of the spent fuel and waste management system should be science- based, consent-based, transparent, phased, and adaptive. They should also include a properly designed and substantial incentive program. 6. Planning and coordination for the transport of spent fuel and high-level waste is complex and should commence at the very start of a project to develop consolidated storage capacity. 7. The Subcommittee recommends that the Administration and Congress take action to provide full access to the Nuclear Waste Fund for the purposes for which it was intended, including funding consolidated interim storage and transportation as an integral part of broader waste management efforts (BRC 2011a, p. 64-69). After publishing this report, the BRC allowed some time for public comment. The MRMTC provided their comments on June 30, 2011. Many of these comments expressed appreciation that the subcommittee’s findings and recommendations reflected the region’s provided testimony — for example, the recommendation to fully involve state and other government officials in developing storage and transportation solutions. The MRMTC encouraged the subcommittee to look to current and past successful shipping campaigns for inspiration: It will also be important for DOE or a successor organization to commit to establishing and maintaining the type of productive working relationships that the states have had with programs such as DOE’s Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) (for shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, or WIPP) and, before it was eliminated, the former Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM)” (Schmidt and Runyon 2011a, p. 2). The comments also requested that the subcommittee address the limitations of Section 180(c) of the NWPA. For example, DOE interprets its obligation under Section 180(c) as strictly limited to training,
10
therefore the department has not worked with the states and Tribes to develop an acceptable approach to funding transportation safety programs like those in place for WIPP shipments. In addition, because Section 180(c) applies only to shipments conducted under the NWPA, states and Tribes would not be eligible for assistance in connection with SNF shipments to private storage facilities. The BRC as a whole combined the reports of the Subcommittees on Transportation and Storage, Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technology, and Disposal with information gathered from meetings and comments from groups like the MRMTC to release its draft report on July 29, 2011. This draft report laid out a strategy with seven key elements: 1. A new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities. 2. A new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program and empowered with the authority and resources to succeed. 3. Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers are providing for the purpose of nuclear waste management. 4. Prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facilities. 5. Prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated interim storage facilities. 6. Support for continued U.S. innovation in nuclear energy technology and for workforce development. 7. Active U.S. leadership in international efforts to address safety, waste management, non-proliferation, and security concerns (BRC 2011b, p. iv). Since the release of the BRC draft report represented the largest development in SNF policy since 1987, when the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act was passed, it was imperative that state legislators and executive agency officials, nuclear utility representatives, citizen and tribal organizations, and the general public were well informed of the implications. For this reason, the MRMTC, the BRC, and the Midwestern Legislative Conference’s Energy Committee hosted a public meeting on October 28, 2011, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The meeting agenda featured presentations and panels in the morning and breakout sessions and public comments in the afternoon. Indiana State Sen. Beverly Gard was one of several state officials to speak at the meeting. She praised the BRC for its work and highlighted areas of major concern for Indiana and other Midwestern states, including route selection: “Route selection must give the state ample lead time to deal with highway or rail construction and maintenance projects and to assess the suitability of infrastructure along the route” (Gard 2011). MRMTC Co-Chair Paul Schmidt of Wisconsin also spoke at the meeting and asked the commission to more extensively capture the role for states in transportation. He specifically recommended that DOE work with states to finalize the NWPA Section 180(c) policy and procedures and create a reciprocal rail inspection program that mirrors the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) Level VI inspection program.
The MRMTC submitted comments on the draft report on November 1, 2011. The committee requested that the final report “adopt the language of the Transportation and Storage Subcommittee draft report: ‘State, tribal, and local officials need to be extensively involved in transportation planning and be provided the resources necessary to conduct their vital function in this arena’” (Schmidt and Runyon 2011b, p. 2). These final comments also contained the previously stated requests for consent-based siting, reciprocal rail inspections, and for DOE to finalize its policy for implementing Section 180(c). Nearly three months later, on January 26, 2012, the BRC submitted its final report to then Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu. The final report contained the seven-point strategy from the original draft report but also added an eighth element, “Prompt efforts to prepare for the eventual large-scale transport of spent nuclear fuel and high- level waste to consolidated storage and disposal facilities when such facilities become available” (BRC 2012, p. vii). Thanks in large part to the efforts of the MRMTC, other regional entities, and state-level stakeholders, the BRC’s final recommendation included the prompt preparation for large-scale shipments. These testimonies, comments, and advocacy convinced the commission that transportation was not so far off in the future to warrant delaying these critical activities until storage and/or disposal sites were decided upon. Furthermore, another big priority of the states made it into the final report: “…DOE should (1) finalize procedures and regulations for providing technical assistance and funds for training to local governments and tribes pursuant to Section 180(c) of the NWPA and (2) begin to provide such funding, independent from progress on facility siting” (ibid., p. xiii). With its final report submitted, the BRC disbanded, and DOE and the Obama Administration were left with the task of implementing the commission’s recommendations. In January 2013, DOE outlined how it planned to implement the BRC’s recommendations in its “Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level RadioactiveWaste.”As outlined in the introduction, the “Strategy” aimed to accomplish three tasks: First, it serves as a statement of Administration policy regarding the importance of addressing the disposition of [spent] nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste…Second, it presents the Administration’s response to the final report and recommendations made by the [BRC]…Third, this strategy represents an initial basis for discussions among the Administration, Congress and other stakeholders on a sustainable path forward for disposal of nuclear waste (DOE 2013, p. 1). The “Strategy” elaborated on DOE’s planned actions to accomplish said tasks. According to the “Strategy,”DOE’s waste management system would include a pilot interim storage facility, a larger interim storage facility, and a DGR. The department would prioritize taking SNF from shut-down reactors first and site all facilities in a consent-based manner. DOE aimed to begin operations at the pilot interim facility by 2021, the larger interim facility by 2025, and the DGR by 2048 (ibid., p. 2). Perhaps most important to the MRMTC, “The Department … established cooperative agreements with state and regional groups and engaged tribal representatives to begin discussions on
11
transportation planning and emergency response training consistent with NWPA Section 180(c)” (ibid., p. 13). The “Strategy”went on to acknowledge the work these groups had already done to plan and oversee radioactive waste shipments toWIPP. These cooperative agreements have allowed varying levels of direct engagement among DOE, states, and Tribes (see Stakeholder Involvement ). DOE acknowledged the importance of consent-based facilities siting in several sections of the “Strategy.” In fact, four years later, DOE released the “Draft Consent-Based Siting Process for Consolidated Storage and Disposal Facilities for Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level RadioactiveWaste.”The draft report even listed a five-phase, 17-step siting process and a rough schedule that the proposed consent- based siting process would follow (see Consent-Based Siting ). As part of DOE’s actions to meet the BRC’s recommendation of “prompt efforts” to prepare for transportation, the department began a series of site visits to the country’s shutdown nuclear power plants. These visits by DOE staff and representatives from the state regional groups, Tribes, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) evaluate transportation infrastructure on, and around, the shutdown sites to help DOE to determine how, when, and at what cost SNF could be moved from the sites. These visits, led by Steve Maheras of Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, continue to this day, and have expanded to include operating facilities, as well (see Shutdown Sites ). The BRC’s large-scale transport recommendation, as well as OCRWM’s 2004 decision that SNF shipments would occur by “mostly rail” (OCRWM 2004, p. 18558), gave rise to a great deal of departmental focus on rail shipments in the years following the BRC and the release of DOE’s “Strategy.” In 2015, DOE-NE established the National Transportation Stakeholders Forum (NTSF) Spent Nuclear Fuel Rail/Routing Ad Hoc Working Group (R/R AHWG). Among other activities, this group, made up of DOE and FRA staff as well as state and tribal representatives, has spent the last five years identifying potential rail routes for SNF shipments and monitoring the design of the Atlas railcar, which will eventually carry SNF casks (see Rail Transportation ). Computational modeling represents another DOE action in its pursuit to prepare for the eventual large-scale shipment of SNF and HLW. Three specific modeling tools have been developed to use systems engineering, systems analysis, and decision analysis principles to evaluate routes and integrated waste management systems. (See System Analysis Tools for more information.) With these planned, and continuing, DOE activities in mind, how has the implementation of the BRC’s recommendations gone when fast forwarding to the end of the decade? While the second term of the Obama Administration saw a good amount of progress toward implementing the BRC’s recommendations, the Trump Administration greatly reduced these efforts and shifted a lot of the focus to R&D. Meaningful engagement with states and Tribes has also ground nearly to a halt under the Trump Administration. Digging into the BRC’s recommendations themselves, no new government-owned and operated nuclear waste management facilities have opened, so the BRC’s recommendation of a consent-
based siting approach has not been tested. Organizationally, no new federal government agency has been formed for the sole purpose of implementing a nuclear waste management program. On the funding front, the Nuclear Waste Fund remains inaccessible to DOE except through Congressional appropriations — one of the main factors in the extremely slow pace of progress of the former Yucca Mountain project. Additionally, there have been little to no prompt efforts to develop a geologic disposal facility. While Congressional bills have been brought to advance the Yucca Mountain site, or restart the siting process, there has not been enough political will to move forward with either option. The BRC recommended developing one or more consolidated storage facilities; but without a siting process, DOE has had to focus on R&D. The delay has prompted private industry to take it upon themselves to try to develop such facilities. Two companies, Holtec International and Interim Storage Partners, have submitted license applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for SNF consolidated interim storage facilities (CISF) in southeastern New Mexico and west Texas, respectively. As of August 2020, both applications were still under consideration (see Industry Interest ). Perhaps of most importance to the MRMTC, preparing for the eventual large-scale transport of SNF has proceeded very slowly and has been characterized by starts and stops that hinder real progress. The states and Tribes have limited ability to engage with private industry to prepare for possible shipments to the proposed CISFs; the timeline for these shipments, however, is significantly more compressed than the nine to 12 years estimated for a federal program. Regarding support for innovation in energy technologies, Assistant Secretary for Office of Nuclear Energy Rita Baranwal has spoken in Congressional testimony about DOE-NE’s Advanced Reactor Technologies and Advanced Small Modular Reactor R&D subprograms (Baranwal 2020, p. 3). However, it will be difficult to deploy more nuclear power generation when there is no apparent solution to the nuclear waste issue. Nuclear power plants across the country are decommissioning early because of cheaper energy alternatives and this intractable waste question. Finally, the U.S. has had a mixed record on the eighth recommendation to be an active leader in international efforts to address nuclear concerns like non-proliferation and waste management. Despite the promise of the BRC’s recommendations and DOE’s early implementation, in 2020 there was little of long-lasting value to show for that work. It is unclear whether even a change in administrations would prompt a return to ideas developed by the Obama Administration.
12
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124Made with FlippingBook Annual report