p. 20752). The publication of the final rules came after OCRWM had ceased its public activities on route identification, therefore OCRWM did not work with its stakeholders to assess the impact the new rules might have on the selection of routes for the NWPA shipments. The selection of routes will affect the implementation of Section 180(c), as well as state plans for training emergency responders and for inspecting and escorting shipments. The Midwest demonstrated that a preliminary analysis of possible routes can be accomplished in as little as 18 months. To reach final agreement among affected states, however, could take an additional two years or more. TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS The transportation infrastructure near utilities and other shipping sites is the jurisdiction of state and local governments. Upgrades to this infrastructure might be necessary to make it possible for OCRWM to ship heavy spent fuel casks from the sites. It is not clear whether OCRWM will use the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for infrastructure upgrades. OCRWM’s Transportation Institutional Plan identified the issue of transportation infrastructure improvements as an institutional issue that was added to the original list of nine issues as a result of public comments. The document defined transportation “infrastructure” as referring to “physical transportation structures, including highways, bridges, rail-lines and rail-beds, and elements associated with navigable waterways” (DOE 1986c, p. A-94). The discussion paper in the Transportation Institutional Plan noted that questions had been raised about whether OCRWM would fund any improvements to transportation infrastructure and, if so, under what circumstances. Stakeholders had also raised concern about the need to establish “adequacy” standards for evaluating the quality of the infrastructure so as to maintain an appropriate level of quality to support shipments under the NWPA (ibid.). 18 In the discussion paper, OCRWM explained that the NWPA did not provide “statutory direction” regarding infrastructure in non- host states. Moreover, “waste shipments through non-host States are not expected to create any unique needs for infrastructure improvements, nor require maintenance in addition to that normally required for general transportation” (ibid., p. A-96). The discussion paper went on to state that “specific needs…for infrastructure improvements will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis” (ibid., p. A-95). OCRWM’s approach could be summed up as recognizing a potential need for funding near-site infrastructure improvements in
order to make it possible to ship waste from sites to a national repository. In fact, the discussion paper indicated that OCRWM would issue a statement on the extent of such improvements in“mid-1991, when a repository site is selected” (ibid., p. A-96). OCRWM appears to have had no intention, however, of paying for infrastructure improvements along major routes for which the repository shipments would create a negligible additional impact. To assist in gathering information on the condition of transportation infrastructure near reactor sites, CSG Midwest began publishing a Highway Infrastructure Report . The first report was issued in 1990, with editions following in 1992 and 1994. The reports identified the state- or county-sponsored road work that had recently been completed, as well as plans for future repairs or improvements (CSG Midwest 1992, p. 1). It is unknown whether other regions were tasked with producing similar reports, or whether (and, if so, how) OCRWM used the information contained in the reports. In February 1992, Nuclear Assurance Corporation released the final report of the OCRWM-sponsored NSTI Project. The project assessed the “capabilities of the existing near-site transportation networks to accommodate spent fuel shipments and to assess modal upgrade potential” (Viebrock and Mote 1992, p. 1-1). A total of 76 sites were surveyed from October 1989 to March 1991, with the project looking at the condition of the infrastructure within a 25-mile radius of the site (ibid., p. 3-1). The information collected during individual site assessments was stored in a database. According to the final report, two main conclusions resulted from the project: • All sites had the capability to ship casks on legal-weight trucks (i.e., up to 80,000 lbs.). • All sites were capable of supporting heavier casks – weighing at least 100 tons – by either rail or barge. Upgrades or extension of the existing infrastructure might be needed to support rail or barge shipments (ibid., p. 1-2). In 2008, the FRA began a study of the short-line railroads that currently or formerly provided rail access to utility sites (Massaro 2008b). The FRA initiated the project in the Northeast on a pilot basis, with plans to expand to other regions and eventually to all sites (for more information, see the section on Rail Access). Funding for the project was terminated in 2009 as a result of the redirection of the Yucca Mountain project. If the FRA had been allowed to continue its work, the project would have produced invaluable information on the transportation infrastructure near the utility sites studied. Looking ahead, the selection of highway and rail routes and infrastructure improvements are inextricably linked. If OCRWM or its successor bases route selection on the existing condition of near-site infrastructure, it is possible that some routes will be ruled out due to the poor condition of roads, rails, and barge facilities that provide access to the site. It will likely be the case that, where infrastructure is in need of repair to support shipments, OCRWMwill need to fund infrastructure improvements. Otherwise, it would be unlikely for the states to take on the burden of improving roadways – or rail companies to invest in rail upgrades – unless the infrastructure has other uses that make upgrades a worthwhile investment.
90
Made with FlippingBook Annual report