The R/R AHWG workshop on rail routing was held in Colorado Springs in conjunction with the Summer 2017 meeting of the Transportation Core Group. Attendees of the two separate meetings participated together in a tour of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) Transportation Technology Center Inc. (TTCI) testing facility near Pueblo, CO. There were attendees from DOE, the R/R AHWG, the AAR, and the following Class 1 railroads: CSXT, BNSF, Union Pacific, and Kansas City Southern (ibid.). Workshop goals included developing a better understanding of respective responsibilities and challenges of the participating entities; building common ground based on shared interests; and starting an ongoing dialogue among the DOE, rail carriers, and states and Tribes. Specifically, stakeholders hoped to increase understanding of how railroads implement the PHMSA rule and where opportunities for state and tribal input in routing decisions exist. There was an overall interest in fostering a productive and consultative relationship among DOE, railroads, states, and Tribes (Helvey and Rodman 2017). Much of the workshop was spent discussing routes between the origin/destination pairs selected by state and Tribal participants. In most cases, there was substantial overlap between the shipping routes identified by stakeholders and those routes identified by the railroads; in some cases, the routes selected were identical. Most participants elected to minimize population exposure and transit time in selecting routes. Training and emergency response capabilities along the routes and locations of cultural significance also influenced route selection. Attendees noted that there was greater risk of negative public perception resulting from an incident involving a shipment of SNF than actual risk of exposure. Minimizing social risk and negative public perception was identified as critical in ensuring successful shipments. There was discussion about conducting additional routing exercises with more destination sites and exploring data discrepancies between START and RCRMS. The railroads do not explore multi- modal routes, which sometimes leads to circuitous routes being identified from certain origins. DOE noted that it still felt constrained from selecting a specific destination, such as a prospective interim storage facility, because this could be interpreted as prejudicing planning efforts before official policy decisions had been made (ibid.). DOE staff noted that a challenge for DOE with selecting private centralized interim storage facilities or Yucca Mountain as destinations for further routing analyses was ensuring that such analysis was not seen as moving ahead with site-specific planning efforts before official policy decisions had been made (ibid.). The R/R AHWG developed a better understanding of how railroads make routing decisions and considers this topic to be closed for the time being. The R/R AHWG continues to meet on roughly a quarterly basis and has turned its attention to the development of a reciprocal inspection program for rail shipments of SNF and HLW. Currently, route identification work through the R/R AHWG is on hiatus. Future routing work will commence once one or more destination sites have been chosen (Bickford et al. 2019). The states have maintained the position that the early identification of routes will be critical to a successful shipping campaign. Timely
identification of routes will allow states to assess training needs along shipping corridors and ensure that first responders receive appropriate training in advance of shipments. The states have also recognized that public acceptance of radioactive waste shipments will be enhanced by state and local involvement, specifically in corridor communities (CSG Midwest et al. 2013). Rail Transportation ATLAS RAILCAR DEVELOPMENT As part of its planning for the transport of SNF and HLW, DOE has undertaken the design and development of a custom railcar to accommodate shipments. Railcar development is a long lead-time activity and one that can be carried out absent the identification of a storage or disposal site. DOE expects to receive conditional approval of the Atlas railcar, buffer railcars, and rail escort vehicle from AAR in 2022. DOE is exploring how data from the required Safety Monitoring System on the Atlas railcar could be shared and who should be granted access to this information, which is intended to increase safety and security of SNF shipments. Railcars used for shipments of SNF and HLW, including the cask car, buffer car, and escort car, are required to meet AAR “Standard S-2043, Performance Specifications for Trains Used to Carry High- level Radioactive Material.”The guidelines contained in S-2043 are intended to optimize vehicle performance and minimize the chances of derailment by incorporating the best available technology (Orano Federal Services 2018). All Class I railroads have agreed to adopt the S-2043 performance specifications for shipments on their networks. No railcars meeting the S-2043 requirements were in existence at the time the standard was developed, so the need to develop compliant railcars emerged. To comply with S-2043, the Navy developed the M-290 railcar for its SNF shipments. Because the M-290 railcar was designed specifically to carry the M-290 cask and DOE would need to ship 17 different types of casks, the Navy’s railcar did not suit DOE’s shipping needs. As such, DOE has moved ahead with the design and fabrication of the Atlas railcar because it is a long-lead time activity independent of the destination ultimately selected for HLW and SNF storage or disposal (Schwab 2018). S-2043 is the most comprehensive railcar standard published by the AAR, defining restrictive performance requirements intended to increase safety by reducing the risk of derailment. The standard requires thorough analysis during the design phase and extensive testing. The analytical results from the design phase must match the actual testing results for a railcar to receive AAR approval under S-2043 (ibid.). In August 2015, DOE awarded a contract for the “Design and Prototype Fabrication of Railcars for Transport of High-Level
33
Made with FlippingBook Annual report