accessible by rail, OCRWM proposed constructing a rail line from Caliente, NV, to the site (DOE 2004). OCRWM also faced the potential problem of inadequate or non-existent rail infrastructure near commercial reactor sites to make rail shipments possible. According to OCRWM, 25 commercial reactor sites did not have direct rail access (Thrower et al. 2008, p. 5). OCRWM recognized that the number of shipping sites that lacked direct rail access could grow over time if rail service to reactor sites degraded. States and other stakeholders have expressed concern about rail access to commercial reactor sites. Mel Massaro of the FRA undertook a study of near-site rail infrastructure to determine the feasibility of utilizing track near reactor sites for spent fuel shipments. The study noted that 45 of the 73 nuclear power plants with rail access on site or nearby are served by Class One Railroads, which are the large freight railroads that account for most rail traffic in North America; the remaining 28 sites are served by non-Class One railroads. Track that serves these 28 reactor sites is instead owned and operated by shortline railroads, which are independent railroad companies that operate over relatively short distances. Shortline railroads are typically small in terms of both size and revenue (CSG-NE 2007, p.1). Massaro began this project by surveying shortline railroads for information on track class, ownership, rail weight, restrictions, grade crossings, method of operation, and hazmat registration. The initial survey was to be followed up by a site visit by the FRA, OCRWM, railroad officials, and state personnel to evaluate track quality. Among the objectives of the Shortline Railroad Study, Massaro hoped to “Qualify each railroad’s present operational status against a safe acceptable standard” (Massaro 2008, p.2.) The shortline study was funded in part by OCRWM, but funding for the project was pulled as a result of the drastic budget cuts suffered by OCRWM in 2009. The study was in the process of collecting information on track quality through a “physical and operational infrastructure survey.” Specifically, the study sought to obtain information on track ownership, nearest connection with a Class One Railroad, class of track, rail weight, grade crossings, and any equipment or track restrictions for that portion of track. Rail weight dictates how heavy a load can travel on that track. Track restrictions include clearance for tunnels and bridges, as well as sharp curves. Additionally, the survey inquired about hazardous materials registration or training. Track is classified on the basis of track condition, and the track class dictates how quickly trains can travel on that section of track. Track classes range from class one track, with a maximum speed of 10 miles/hour, to class five track, on which trains can travel up to 100 miles/hour. Higher classes of track are subjected to more frequent inspections (CSG-NE 2007). Track owners can also designate certain segments of track as “excepted track,”which allows them to avoid complying with certain FRA standards. Excepted track is generally the lowest- quality track, and the maximum speed for travelling on this track is 10 mph. Additionally, no trains carrying passengers can travel on excepted track, which could have implications for inspectors travelling with spent fuel shipments.
Massaro undertook this project with the recognition that, while a reactor may have rail access “on paper,” the condition of the tracks near nuclear facilities may be poor, making their use for shipping radioactive materials undesirable. OCRWM has stated that “rail shipments will be the mode of choice for sites with rail access” (DOE 2009, p. 5). Preliminary findings fromMassaro’s shortline railroad study indicate that some track may not be suitable for spent fuel shipments. This raises concerns that there may be more intermodal or truck shipments to a federal repository than currently anticipated. Massaro also began to explore the idea of setting standards for minimum track class (i.e. class two track) for shipping spent fuel. Because the NWPA prohibits OCRWM from using money from the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for upgrades of public or private infrastructure, another funding source would need to be identified if upgrades are needed. It is important to consider the time necessary to complete upgrades on rail track. Improvements would need to be identified and undertaken well in advance of the proposed shipments. The cost and time required to complete rail infrastructure improvements raises the question of whether alternative modes of transportation (truck or barge) should be explored even from some sites that have rail access. As of 2009, Massaro had conducted three site visits to nuclear power plants served by shortline railroads in the Northeast. A site visit to a Midwestern plant was tentatively planned when the funding for this project was eliminated. To resolve the issue of rail access, OCRWM or its successor will need to complete the analysis begun in the shortline study. In addition, it will be important for OCRWM, the FRA, the states, and other stakeholders to determine whether to establish standards for track quality on which spent fuel will be shipped. If standards are set and the rail track along shipping routes from nuclear reactors does not meet those standards, the options will be to upgrade the track or find another mode of transport from that shipping site. Upgrades to rail infrastructure will be both costly and time-consuming.
85
Made with FlippingBook Annual report