related to the number of potential barge shipments. The Dilger/ Halstead paper assumes that only one cask would be transported on a barge. OCRWM countered that “a typical cask that has been loaded and prepared for shipment might weigh 200 tons on its transporter. A typical river barge can transport over 1,000 tons providing capacity for 5 or more loaded SNF casks” (ibid., p. 2). Finally, OCRWM said that it was premature to speculate about the shipping queue, as that was something that OCRWM would negotiate with the utilities. OCRWM dealt generally with intermodal shipments in the “Transportation System Concept of Operations,”which states that intermodal shipments using heavy haul truck or barge would be utilized to carry rail casks to a point at which they could be transferred to a train (DOE 2006d, p. 14). The pre-decisional draft and Rev. 0 of the “National Transportation Plan” also dealt with intermodal transport in a fairly cursory manner, stating that the details of intermodal transfers would be included in the site campaign plans to be developed two years prior to shipments from a site. According to the pre-decisional draft, “OCRWM will develop a transportation operations plan that will outline the waste acceptance schedule, modal mix, cask usage, operational features of the system, and transportation services” (DOE 2007a, p. 42). This statement was omitted from Rev. 0 of the plan. OCRWM took a more detailed look at intermodal transportation in the “TEC/WGWhite Paper: Intermodal Transportation of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel,” drafted in 2008 by OCRWM’s Office of Logistics Management and its contractors (Thrower et al. 2008). The paper focused on the general process for and equipment needed to lift, transfer, and move loaded casks of spent fuel. While the authors of the paper did not disagree with most of the factual information in the Dilger/Halstead paper, OCRWM expressed a different opinion on the feasibility of intermodal transport of spent fuel. According to the paper, there are challenges to intermodal transportation, but these challenges can be and have been managed by commercial shipping companies. The OCRWM paper took a preliminary look at how intermodal shipments of spent fuel could be carried out. OCRWM planned to develop a concept of operations document that would detail how intermodal shipments would be carried out and describe the equipment needed for heavy haul transport, barge movements, and intermodal transfers of spent fuel casks. OCRWM recognized that the number of shipping sites lacking direct rail access could grow over time if rail service to reactor sites fell into disuse and rail infrastructure degraded. The program believed the money from the Nuclear Waste Fund could not be used to pay for infrastructure improvements, therefore the program would have to plan its shipments relying on public and private infrastructure in its present condition (ibid., p. 4). OCRWM acknowledged that, “from a logistics planning standpoint, there will be complexities regarding lifting, transferring and moving weight-concentrated loads of commercial SNF from 72 different commercial nuclear sites located in 34 states” (ibid., p. 9). Citing what was then the earliest possible start of operations for
Yucca Mountain, OCRWM stated, “Because the repository will not begin operations before 2017, there is ample time to resolve these technical issues” (ibid., p. 10). The authors of the OCRWM paper cited the extensive experience utilities have moving large, heavy equipment, including reactor vessels, transformers and steam turbines, using multiple modes as evidence that intermodal shipments could be carried out safely. These operations utilized specialized equipment and frequently required more than one mode of transport. Utilities also utilized intermodal transportation to transfer spent fuel casks to, from, and around reactor sites as required for storage purposes (ibid., p.4). OCRWM planned to identify the locations for intermodal transfer operations through consultation with the utilities, local railroads, local officials, and contracted specialized carriers and riggers. According to the OCRWM paper, consultation would begin at least one year prior to the initial shipments from a site, with a final agreement on specific intermodal transfer locations being made as soon as the route was selected. Finally, OCRWM pointed to the numerous “specialized carriers and riggers” in this country that have extensive experience conducting intermodal shipments. According to OCRWM, these shippers were capable of carrying out intermodal transportation “safely, securely, efficiently, and at reasonable cost” (ibid., p. 11). OCRWM concluded its intermodal paper by stating that the institutional, equipment, operational, and coordination challenges were “fully manageable” (DOE 2008a, p. 11). Both the OCRWM and the Dilger/Halstead papers were still in draft form at the time that the Yucca Mountain repository program was cancelled. The Intermodal Subgroup had developed a list of state concerns regarding intermodal shipments of spent fuel, but the program was terminated before OCRWM began to work with stakeholders to develop strategies for addressing those concerns.
81
Made with FlippingBook Annual report