issues. The process promotes the communication between DOE and the states that has been essential to theWIPP transportation program’s success. Like other elements of theWIPP transportation program, the program evaluation developed byWGA with input from DOE is an excellent model for the OCRWM program. SEASONAL SCHEDULING The Midwest has been an advocate for OCRWM considering a seasonal schedule to take advantage of good weather conditions in the North and the South. OCRWM’s transportation program never advanced to the point of working with states on long-term schedules for shipments, therefore no work has been done on this issue. The CSG Midwest Planning Guide for Shipments of Radioactive Materials through the Midwestern States specifically calls for DOE and other shippers to avoid winter shipments in the Midwest: “Because of the likelihood of severe winter weather resulting in shipment delays, as a general rule, shipments of spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, transuranic waste, and HRCQ material should not take place in the Midwest in December or January” (MRMTC 2008b, p. 23). This provision reflects the states’ experiences with shipment rescheduling and delays requiring safe parking in connection with winter shipping campaigns. Shipments of transuranic waste in the West are often subject to weather-related delays during the winter months because DOE, the drivers, and the states have legitimate concerns about hazardous driving conditions. Shipment safety must be paramount, so diverting shipments to safe parking is the right decision when bad weather occurs. Such weather conditions are often predictable, however, in the northern reaches of the nation. As a result, it would behoove OCRWM to work with its shipping sites and the affected states to assess the feasibility
Specifically, the House Appropriations Committee requested that OCRWM“…develop a plan to take custody of spent fuel currently stored at decommissioned reactor sites to both reduce costs that are ultimately borne by the taxpayer and demonstrate that DOE can move forward in the near-term with at least some element of nuclear waste policy” (U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee 2007, pp. 87-88). The resulting OCRWM report consisted largely of documenting the cost and legal constraints that would prevent the program from carrying out such a demonstration project. A short section on transportation addressed the four-year shipping schedule that would move a total of 294 shipments from the nine decommissioned sites. The report noted that the schedule was “based on an approach that focuses on efficiency in transporting the SNF to the interim storage facility and does not follow the notification and scheduling requirements contained in the Standard Contracts” (DOE 2008g, p. 13). OCRWM also provided a cost estimate for transportation equipment acquisition and operations, amounting to $320 million over two years of acquisition and four of operation (ibid., p. 14). PROGRAM EVALUATION How OCRWM would evaluate the repository transportation program remains undecided. The Western states conduct a thorough review of the WIPP transportation safety program every two years. The states believe it would be appropriate for OCRWM to implement a comparable evaluation program for the repository shipments. The WIPP Transportation Safety Program Implementation Guide (WIPP PIG) calls for a rigorous evaluation of theWIPP Transportation Safety Program to be carried out every two years. The evaluation measures the program’s effectiveness and identifies areas in which improvements are needed. Each component of theWIPP Transportation Safety Program is evaluated, and the overall program is evaluated according to criteria developed by the states. The evaluation relies on quantitative, qualitative, and anecdotal information. Each state along theWesternWIPP transportation routes responds to a detailed survey that is about 30 pages long. Surveys are distributed to states in December every two years, and responses are collected in January. ThreeWestern states take the lead on conducting the evaluation and compiling results. Program evaluations have been conducted since 2000, and the overall results have been that theWIPP transportation program is working well. The biennial evaluation process allows DOE and the states to work together continuously to make improvements in the safety program and resolve open issues. The results of past evaluations have led to improvements in shipment scheduling, the TRANSCOM system for tracking shipments, and emergency response training. The most recent evaluation covered 2007 and 2008 and was finalized in 2009. That evaluation identified that carrier audits were not being conducted as required by theWIPP PIG (Niles 2009, p. 6). DOE and the states have worked together to remedy this issue. TheWestern states generally support the transportation safety program, and the evaluation process is an important tool for identifying and resolving
73
Made with FlippingBook Annual report