RAIL SERVICE ANALYSIS OCRWM identified early on the question of what kind of contracting mechanism it would use to procure rail services and whether to use dedicated trains or general freight. In a 2005 policy statement, OCRWM declared its intent to have rail shipments occur via dedicated train, meaning that trains shipping waste to the repository would not be shipping any other commodity. Benefits of using dedicated train service included lower costs, shorter transit times, less time in rail yards, and greater scheduling flexibility. OCRWM explored the issue of whether to ship spent fuel and high-level waste via general freight or dedicated train in its 1986 Transportation Institutional Plan . On general freight or “regular-train service, trains typically carry a mixture of commodities for many customers and from several origins to several destinations” (DOE 1986c, p. A-83). Conversely, “dedicated train service generally involves the shipment of a single commodity for a single customer, from a single point of shipping origin to a single destination” (ibid.). A decision regarding shipping mode had not yet been made, and OCRWMwas considering all modes of transportation and shipment configurations in its planning efforts to maintain flexibility. The program expected to make a decision regarding mode and type of rail service once a cost-benefit analysis had been completed. OCRWM envisioned a transportation system in which general freight service would likely be used to transport spent fuel and high-level waste to a monitored retrievable storage facility, where spent fuel would be consolidated into larger casks and shipped to a repository. Some stakeholders had urged OCRWM not to ship in general freight, but instead use dedicated train service and implement measures such as maximum speeds for trains to promote safety, minimize exposure, and maximize OCRWM control over shipments. In 1990, the FRA was directed by Congress to undertake a study “comparing the safety of using trains operated exclusively for transporting high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel …with the safety of using other methods of rail transportation for such purposes” (FRA 2005, p. 1). This “dedicated train” study was to be completed“in consultation with the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, potentially affected States and Indian Tribes, representatives of the railroad transportation industry, and shippers of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel” (ibid.). The FRA also coordinated closely with PHMSA, which regulates the transportation of hazardous materials. The study was initiated in 1992, with a final report issued 13 years later in March 2005. The FRA’s study entitled “Use of Dedicated Trains for Transportation of High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel” examined the potential reduction in risk that could be achieved by utilizing dedicated train service for shipments and considered the cost implications of doing so. In carrying out this study, the FRA looked at risks related to incident-free transportation as well as the risk posed by potential accidents. The study was conducted using worst-case scenarios. The dedicated train study concluded that the non-incident risk of transporting spent fuel and high-level waste by rail is low regardless
of which type of train is used. Exposure from potential shipments is benign in comparison to lifetime background exposure to radiation (ibid., p. 3). Regarding accident risk, the FRA study found that the risk of an accident that released radioactivity was extremely low due to NRC package requirements, the FRA’s inspection program, and railroad industry guidelines. However, the study concluded that the “use of dedicated trains would reduce both the probability of a cask being involved in a train accident and the possibility that other hazardous materials might be involved that could subject a cask to a fire environment with possible loss of shielding” (ibid., p. 4). Additional training for crews operating dedicated trains and enhanced operating procedures for these trains have the potential to further reduce the accident risk of shipments. Additionally, this study concluded that the cost of utilizing dedicated train service for shipments is only marginally higher than that of general freight, and this cost can be partially offset by shorter transit times. The FRA notes that, historically, shippers have elected to use dedicated train service when transporting spent fuel and high-level waste by rail (FRA 2005, p. 3). In July 2005, OCRWM announced its intent to“use dedicated trains for its usual shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain repository site in Nevada, when the repository is operational” (DOE 2005, p. 1). In its Policy Statement for the Use of Dedicated Trains for Waste Shipments to Yucca Mountain, OCRWMmade note of several significant safety, security, cost, and operational benefits of using dedicated train service: • Decreased transit time that may reduce radiological risk • Better monitoring from the locomotive and escort cars due to shorter train configurations • Avoidance of time spent sitting in rail yards • Reduced fleet size leading to lower costs for equipment and maintenance • Better efficiency and flexibility in operations • More predictable routing and scheduling than with general freight service • Simplified transportation planning and operations (ibid.). In its dedicated train policy statement, OCRWM maintained that shipments could be carried out safely and securely on general freight as well as dedicated train service. While the policy stated that OCRWM would use dedicated trains for its “usual rail transport” of spent fuel and high-level waste, it did not define what “usual rail transport”was, nor did it explain the circumstances under which general freight service might be used. The OCRWM policy statement further said that “DOE shipments have been and will continue to be made securely using both [dedicated train service] and general freight service” (ibid.). In the 2006 report Going the Distance , the NAS recommended that OCRWM“fully implement its dedicated train decision before commencing the large-quantity shipment of spent fuel and high-level waste to a federal repository to avoid the need for a stopgap shipping program using general trains” (NAS 2006, p.
86
Made with FlippingBook Annual report