operating plants would likely wish to remove spent fuel from sites where pools are reaching their capacities, thereby reducing the need for dry storage (ibid., p. 21). The National Academies’ Committee on Transportation of Radioactive Waste (NAS), in 2006, published Going the Distance? The Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste in the United States . Among the report’s findings, the NAS stated that there “are clear transportation operations and safety advantages to be gained from shipping older (i.e., radiologically and thermally cooler) spent fuel first” (NAS 2006, 19). Among the advantages, the NAS cited the ability to “optimize routing, scheduling, and emergency responder planning and training, especially during the early phases of the program” (ibid.). In Going the Distance , the NAS recommended that OCRWM“negotiate with commercial spent fuel owners to ship older fuel first to a federal repository or federal interim storage, except in cases (if any) where spent fuel storage risks at specific plants dictate the need for more immediate shipments of younger fuel” (ibid., p. 20). Recognizing that negotiations toward that end might fail, the NAS recommended OCRWM work with Congress to devise “legislative remedies” to the problem. If OCRWM were to adopt a policy of shipping oldest fuel first, it must make such a decision within a timeframe that could support the implementation of Section 180(c) (see the section on Section 180(c) Implementation ). Routes for shipments must be known at least four years prior to the start of shipments in order for states to be informed of their eligibility to receive 180(c) assistance. SHIPMENT SCHEDULING The terms of the Standard Disposal Contract give spent fuel owners great latitude over decisions regarding where shipments will originate and when. Following the contract- specified shipping queue would result in a highly inefficient transportation system. OCRWM will need to negotiate with utilities to produce a more manageable shipping queue. In the early days of developing an approach to implementing Section 180(c), a significant topic of discussion was the need for states to have advance information on the number of shipments that would impact them and the routes those shipments would use. This information is critical for the assessment of state needs in connection with shipment preparations. Without specific information, all potentially affected states would need to conduct training and other preparedness activities along every route that could possibly be used for shipments. Such an approach would result in scarce dollars available for training assistance being spread unnecessarily thin among the states. A related issue is OCRWM’s goal of conducting the transportation system in a manner that is not only safe, secure, and merits public confidence, but is also efficient. The OCRWM program never came close enough to shipping spent fuel to require the development of a proposed shipping schedule. Had the program reached this point, the process would have revealed a serious impediment to creating an efficient shipping
arising out of or resulting from the radioactive, toxic, explosive, or other hazardous properties of source, special nuclear, or byproduct material” (ibid.). States, tribes, and local governments are included among the parties that are indemnified for any liability in the event of a nuclear incident. Events that do not involve the release of radioactive material are not covered under the Price-Anderson Act, and for these incidents, liability would be determined under state law. Motor carriers are required, under the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, to carry $5 million insurance for each vehicle that carries spent fuel or high-level waste (DOE 1986c, p. A-62). Many rail carriers carry similar levels of insurance coverage. States have expressed the concern that they would be burdened with the costs of recovery and cleanup from incidents involving spent fuel or high-level waste shipments. According to OCRWM’s 1986 Transportation Institutional Plan , “The DOE views cleanup activities and cleanup costs associated with a transportation accident (e.g., the removal of accident debris, decontamination, and radiation monitoring) to be an element of property damage appropriately reimbursable by the DOE” (ibid., p. A-68). Thus, states should not have to bear these costs. OLDEST FUEL FIRST Various groups have advocated for OCRWM to ship the oldest fuel first to take advantage of cooler, easier-to-handle spent fuel. The Standard Disposal Contract into which OCRWM has entered with utilities, however, does not require such an approach. Furthermore, utilities may not have ready access to their oldest fuel in storage because of pool or dry storage configurations. The state of Nevada has long recommended that OCRWM ship oldest fuel first, claiming that doing so could reduce radiological hazards to workers and the public by 65-85 percent (Halstead et al. 2008, p. 3). If a policy of oldest fuel first is not feasible, then Nevada advocates for shipping “older fuel first.” In 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on spent fuel transport. Among the report’s findings, the GAO noted that security could be enhanced by attending to the order in which spent fuel is shipped. The GAO identified three instances in which the order of shipping could achieve the goal of enhanced security: shipping fuel from shutdown reactor sites first, shipping oldest fuel first, and shipping fuel first from“densely packed pools” (GAO 2003, pp. 19-21). Citing cobalt and cesium as examples, the GAO reported that “[r]adioactivity emitted by some components of spent fuel declines significantly over comparatively short periods of time,” such as 25-30 years (GAO 2003, p. 20). While “a deliberate or accidental release” from a shipment involving 30-year old spent fuel would still be “significant,” the GAO asserted that the “threat to public health” in such an instance would be less than if the spent fuel had aged for only 5-10 years (ibid.). The GAO report noted that a significant obstacle OCRWM faced in implementing a policy of oldest fuel first would be the fact that spent fuel owners would select the spent fuel for shipping based solely on their operational needs. Spent fuel owners from
64
Made with FlippingBook Annual report