crossings; • single versus double track territory; • frequency and location of track turnouts; • proximity to iconic targets; • environmentally sensitive or significant areas; • population density along the route; • venues along the route (stations, events, places of congregation); • emergency response capability along the route; • areas of high consequence along the route; including high consequence targets as defined by 49 CFR 172.820(c); • presence of passenger traffic along the route (shared track);
• speed of train operations; • proximity to en-route storage or repair facilities; • known threats, including any non-public threat scenarios provided by the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Transportation for carrier use in the development of the route assessment; • measures in place to address apparent safety and security risks; • availability of practicable alternative routes; • past incidents; • overall times in transit; • training and skill level of crews; and • impact on rail network traffic and congestion.
For shipping campaigns involving spent nuclear fuel, high- level radioactive waste, or transuranic waste, the shipper should present proposed route or routes to the states for their consideration at least one year prior to the first shipment. 3 If a state proposes an alternative route that would change the proposed route through one or more other states, both 3 For shipments conducted under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), the states must know the anticipated routes five years prior to the start of shipments, consistent with the DOE’s 2008 proposed policy for implementing Section 180(c) of the NWPA.”
— 10 —
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs