18563
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 68 / Thursday, April 8, 2004 / Notices
among the rail corridor alternatives also would be very small. For these reasons, DOE does not consider the differences among the corridor alternatives to be sufficient to make any of them clearly environmentally preferable. Finally, although the potential impacts of any of the five potential rail corridors would be small, they would be greater than the potential transportation- related impacts of the No-Action Alternatives. Nevertheless, as explained above, the impacts of proceeding with construction and operation of a repository at Yucca Mountain, including transportation, are relatively small and less than either of the No-Action Alternative scenarios. Part I (of this ROD) provides further comparison of the proposed action and the No-Action Alternative scenarios. In any event, given DOE’s responsibilities under the Yucca Mountain Development Act and the NWPA, DOE believes it is obligated to proceed with appropriate transportation planning, including, given its selection of the mostly rail scenario in Nevada, the selection of a corridor in which to study possible alignments for the Nevada rail line, in preference to either No-Action Alternative scenario. Comments on Preferred Rail Corridor DOE noticed its preference for the Caliente corridor in the Federal Register (December 29, 2003; 68 FR 74951). The Carlin corridor was identified as a secondary preference. The Department has received comments on the preference announcement. Concerns expressed in these comments included the need for a comprehensive programmatic EIS covering all aspects of nuclear waste transportation to Yucca Mountain, avoidance of all major population centers with transportation routes, and provision of documentation supporting the preference decision. Other comments addressed the need for adequate opportunities for public participation and comment on the corridor preference announcement, including a request for cooperating agency status for any future rail alignment EIS. Selection of a corridor preference prior to having a mode of transportation decision was raised as a concern. In addition, there was confusion regarding the designation of the Carlin corridor as a secondary preference and its relationship to the upcoming rail alignment EIS process. Furthermore, commenters indicated that a rail line in the Caliente corridor would have significant negative impacts on cultural, socioeconomic, and wildlife resources, as well as a massive modern
although variations are available that would avoid these lands. The Caliente corridor crosses two wilderness study areas, and the Valley Modified corridor passes through the Desert National Wildlife Range, although variations may be available to avoid these lands. The Caliente-Chalk Mountain corridor crosses land dedicated to testing and training activities of the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense on the Nevada Test and Training Range; no variations are available that would avoid the Range under this corridor alternative. Under any rail corridor alternative, water would be used for compaction of the rail bed and dust suppression, and by workers during construction. Water consumption would vary, primarily because of the length of the corridor, ranging from 320 acre-feet for the Valley Modified corridor to 710 acre-feet for the Caliente corridor. During the 24-year shipping period, assuming standard nationwide rail routing practices, the incident-free (routine) collective dose to members of the public from the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste by rail would result in less than one latent cancer fatality regardless of which corridor is selected. The difference in impacts among the corridors is minimal. Similarly, less than one latent cancer fatality would occur in the exposed worker population, and that is not affected by the Nevada corridor selection. DOE also estimated the potential health effects to the general public that could result from a severe transportation accident during shipments to the repository (referred to in the Final EIS as a maximum reasonably foreseeable accident). If such an accident were to occur in a rural population setting, the collective radiological dose to members of the public would result in less than one latent cancer fatality. The probability that this accident could occur is extremely unlikely—about 2 chances in 1 million per year. The environmental impacts identified in the Final EIS do not provide a clear basis for discriminating among alternative rail corridors in Nevada. Each of these alternatives would result in some impact to the environment and public health and safety. Construction of a rail line within any rail corridor would involve certain land use conflicts, and land disturbance with attendant impacts (although small, the impacts tend to increase with increasing corridor length). Radiation exposure to workers and the public in Nevada would be small, and the differences
D. Jean Rail Corridor The Jean corridor originates at the existing mainline railroad near Jean, Nevada. The corridor ranges between 112 miles (181 kilometers) and 127 miles (204 kilometers) long from the tie- in with the mainline to the Yucca Mountain site. Construction of a rail line within the Jean corridor would take about 43 months. The total life-cycle cost for construction and operation of the rail line is estimated to be $462 million (2001 dollars). E. Valley Modified Rail Corridor The Valley Modified corridor originates at an existing rail siding off the mainline railroad northeast of Las Vegas. Depending on the variations, the corridor is between 98 miles (157 kilometers) and 101 miles (163 kilometers) long from the tie-in with the mainline to the Yucca Mountain site. Construction of a rail line within the Valley Modified corridor would take about 40 months. The total life-cycle cost for construction and operation of the rail line is estimated to be $283 million (2001 dollars). Environmentally Preferable Rail Corridor Alternative DOE considered human health and environmental impacts that could occur from the construction of a rail line, as well as from shipping spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in Nevada. Construction of a rail line, regardless of the rail corridor selected, would involve the disturbance of land and associated impacts, although low, to natural resources such as biological and cultural resources. For example, construction of a rail line in the Valley Modified corridor (shortest) would result in the disturbance of about 1,240 acres; rail line construction in the Carlin corridor (longest) would disturb about 4,900 acres. Construction of any rail line in Nevada also would conflict with existing land uses. Depending on the variations considered, privately-owned lands occur on less than one percent of the lands analyzed under the Caliente (ranges from 222 to 618 acres), Caliente- Chalk Mountain (ranges from 198 to 272 acres) and Valley Modified (ranges from 0 to 44 acres) corridors, but up to about five and seven percent of the lands analyzed under the Jean (ranges from 32 to 865 acres) and Carlin (ranges from 1,804 to 3,756 acres) corridors, respectively. The Caliente and Carlin corridors cross Timbisha-Shoshone trust lands, and a relatively short distance on the Nevada Test and Training Range,
VerDate mar<24>2004 16:47 Apr 07, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08APN1.SGM 08APN1
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker