(now the Carlsbad Field Office) proposing“a preliminary set of routes to the affected states,”with the routes being“modified…based on state suggestions” (ibid.). As a final step, the “routes DOE selected in consultation with the carrier, states, tribes and other stakeholders were included as mandatory provisions within the carrier contracts” (ibid., p. 11). The paper concluded with two recommendations from the TEC/WG regarding routing. First, “DOE should develop a standardized, cooperative approach to route-selection for all unclassified shipping campaigns involving radioactive materials” (ibid., p. 15). This approach would be characterized by “timely initiation of the route-selection process;”proposals of preliminary and secondary routes; “full use of the regional, tribal, and local cooperative-agreement groups” in working with their members throughout the review and comment process; and inclusion of the “primary and secondary routes as a specific, enforceable provision in contracts with carriers” (ibid.). The topic group’s second recommendation was for the route selection process to“be aimed at achieving” the three goals identified by the states (ibid.). A subsequent paper on rail routing, produced by the TEC/WG Rail Topic Group in 2004, compiled detailed information on current regulations and practices and“compare[d] aspects of the highway routing regulations as they might apply to rail routing,”but the paper did not achieve the same widespread status as the original 1998 routing paper (TEC Rail TG 2004, p. 2). Following the paper’s release, the Midwest initiated a project to identify, on a regional basis, a set of preliminary routes for shipping fromMidwestern reactors. The Midwest conceived of the idea in November 2003, during a stakeholder meeting with then-Undersecretary Robert Card (MRMTC 2005, p. 1). According to the report, the Midwest’s rationale “was that, since states are in a better position than the federal government to judge the quality of potential highway and rail routes through their jurisdictions, route selection for shipments under the NWPA should begin with a regional review of available routes” (ibid.). The Midwest spent 18 months on the project, which involved a work group of five states. The group held 10 conference calls and one meeting, and most work group members attended training on DOE’s routing model TRAGIS. The Midwest completed the project in December 2005 with a presentation to the OCRWM staff at a meeting with the Midwest’s work group. The Midwest’s routing work group chose to use DOT’s HRCQ routing guidelines for evaluating both highway and rail routes. The primary route-selection criteria were the three DOT criteria: • Radiation exposure to the general public from normal transport; • Public health risk from accidental release of radioactive materials; and • Economic risk from accidental release of radioactive materials (ibid., p. 32). To further winnow the routes to a smaller set, the Midwest also formulated a set of secondary factors: urban centers transited, accident rate, track/road quality, and traffic density (ibid.).
Before the region presented its final report to OCRWM, the CSG Midwest staff informed the other regional committees about the possible impact the Midwest’s preliminary routes could have on their states (see, e.g., Sattler 2005). In addition, the committee presented the resulting route maps to the governors of each of the affected Midwestern states, describing them not as “proposed”or “acceptable” routes, but rather as a “starting point for discussions at the national level” (MRMTC 2005, p. 47). The final report from the project contains a very detailed summary of the methodology, data sources, and the timeline for the benefit of OCRWM and other groups that might undertake similar projects. 17 In a letter commending the Midwest for its work, OCRWM staff expressed the hope that the region’s effort would“allow initiation of the national dialogue on route identification and, with input from [various stakeholder] groups, DOE will be able to fulfill its responsibility for identification of a national suite of routes that could be used for shipments to Yucca Mountain” (Lanthrum 2005, p. 1). In 2006, OCRWM prepared a draft “process plan” on route identification and sought feedback from stakeholders. The purpose of the plan was to present OCRWM’s approach for conducting the route identification process (DOE 2006c, p. 1). According to the document, OCRWM planned to identify a “preliminary suite of routes by the end of 2007” (ibid.) and included a schedule for achieving this goal (ibid., p. 9). Much of the work was to be conducted through a new TEC/WG Routing Topic Group, which OCRWM formed in November 2006. After nine conference calls and three meetings, the group managed to produce very little, including a task plan (from which the timeline for activities was removed), a draft definition of “suite of routes,” and a set of draft routing principles (which were never officially adopted). At its last meeting, in February 2008, the group was to begin working on a proposed“research activity” called the “Standard Problem” (TEC Routing TG 2008, p. 2). The idea was for topic group members to form small “analytical groups to look at possible ways for routing shipments from a small number (12) of regionally diffuse sites to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain” (ibid.). The topic group members decided instead to defer work on the standard problem until “the rail carriers [could] perform the initial routing exercises for the 12 origin sites” (TEC 2008, p. 9). The rail carriers in attendance at the February 2008 meeting expressed their hope about doing this initial work but said that first they would have to assess “whether their involvement would present any potential antitrust issues” (ibid.). The topic group disbanded shortly after the meeting, therefore it is not known what work, if any, the railroads performed. The most recent development involving route identification was the publication in 2008 of new DOT/PHMSA final rules on rail safety, which included requirements for rail carriers to compile annual data on shipments of various hazardous materials, including radioactive materials. Carriers must then “use the data to analyze safety and security risks along rail routes where those materials are transported, assess alternative routing options, and make routing decisions based on those assessments” (DOT 2008,
17 The CSG Northeast High-Level Radioactive Waste Transportation Task Force undertook a route identification project using a different methodology than the Midwest. The staff presented the project’s preliminary findings at the fall 2006 TEC/WG meeting in Green Bay, Wisconsin, however no final report was issued.
89
Made with FlippingBook Annual report