APPENDIX J. TRANSPORTATION
This appendix provides additional information for readers who wish to gain a better understanding of the methods and analyses the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) used to determine the human health impacts of transportation for the Proposed Action and Inventory Modules 1 and 2 discussed in this environmental impact statement (EIS). The materials included in Module 1 are the 70,000 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) for the Proposed Action and additional quantities of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste that DOE could dispose of in the repository as part of a reasonably foreseeable future action. The materials included in Module 2 include the materials in Module 1 and other highly radioactive materials. Appendix A describes materials included in Modules 1 and 2. This appendix also provides the information DOE used to estimate traffic fatalities that would be associated with the long-term maintenance of storage facilities at 72 commercial sites and 5 DOE sites. The appendix describes the key data and assumptions DOE used in the analyses and the analysis tools and methods the Department used to estimate impacts of loading operations at 72 commercial and 5 DOE sites; incident-free transportation by highway, rail and barge; intermodal transfer; and transportation accidents. The references listed at the end of this appendix contain additional information. This appendix presents information on analyses of the impacts of national transportation and on analyses of the impacts that could occur in Nevada. Section J.1 presents information on the analysis of occupational and public health and safety impacts for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from the 77 sites to the repository. Section J.2 presents information on the analysis of rail and intermodal transportation alternatives. Section J.3 presents information on the analysis of transportation in Nevada. Section J.4 presents state-specific transportation impacts and maps of analyzed state-specific transportation routes.J.1 Methods Used To Estimate Potential Impacts of Transportation
This section provides information on the methods and data DOE used to estimate impacts from shipping spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from 72 commercial sites and 5 DOE sites throughout the United States to the Yucca Mountain Repository.[MOSTLY LEGAL-WEIGHT TRUCK AND MOSTLY RAIL SCENARIOS]J.1.1 Analysis Approach and Methods
Three types of impacts could occur to the public and workers from transportation activities associated with the Proposed Action. These would be a result of the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste and of the personnel, equipment, materials, and supplies needed to construct, operate and monitor, and close the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository. The first type, radiological impacts, would be measured by radiological dose to populations and individuals and the resulting estimated number of latent cancer fatalities that would be caused by radiation from shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from the 77 sites under normal and accident transport conditions. The second and third types would be nonradiological impacts—potential fatalities resulting from vehicle emissions and caused by vehicle accidents. The analysis also estimated impacts due to the characteristics of hazardous cargoes from accidents during the transportation of nonradioactive hazardous materials to support repository construction, operation and monitoring, and closure. For perspective, about 11 fatalities resulting from hazardous material occur each year during the transportation of more than 300 million shipments of hazardous materials in the United States (DIRS 156755-BLS 2001, Table A-8). Therefore, DOE expects that the risks from exposure to hazardous materials that could be released during shipments to and from the repository sites would be very small (see Section J.1.4.2.4). The analysis evaluated the impacts of traffic accidents and vehicle emissions arising from these shipments. The analysis used a step-wise process to estimate impacts to the public and workers. The process used the best available information from various sources and computer programs and associated data to accomplish the steps. Figures J-1 and J-2 show the steps followed in using data and computer programs. DOE has determined that the computer programs identified in the figure are suitable, and provide results in the appropriate measures, for the analysis of impacts performed for this EIS. The CALVIN computer program (DIRS 155644-CRWMS M&O 1999, all) was used to estimate the numbers of shipments of spent nuclear fuel from commercial sites. This program used information on spent nuclear fuel stored at each site and an assumed scenario for picking up the spent fuel from each site. The program also used information on the capacity of shipping casks that could be used. The HIGHWAY computer program (DIRS 104780-Johnson et al. 1993, all) is a routing tool used to select existing highway routes that would satisfy U.S. Department of Transportation route selection regulations and that DOE could use to ship spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from the 77 sites to the repository. The INTERLINE computer program (DIRS 104781-Johnson et al. 1993, all) is a routing tool used to select existing rail routes that railroads would be likely to use to ship spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from the 77 sites to the repository. The RADTRAN 5 computer program (DIRS 150898-Neuhauser and Kanipe 2000, all; DIRS 155430-Neuhauser, Kanipe, and Weiner 2000, all) was used in estimating the radiological doses and dose risks to populations and transportation workers resulting from incident-free transportation and to the general population from accident scenarios. For the analysis of incident-free transportation risks, the code used scenarios for persons who would share transportation routes with shipments—called onlink populations, persons who live along the route of travel—offlink populations, and persons exposed at stops. For accident risks, the code evaluated the range of possible accident scenarios from high probability and low consequence to low probability and high consequence. The RISKIND computer program (DIRS 101483-Yuan et al. 1995, all) was used to estimate radiological doses to maximally exposed individuals for incident-free transportation and to populations and maximally exposed individuals for accident scenarios. To estimate incident-free doses to maximally exposed individuals, RISKIND used geometry to calculate the dose rate at specified locations that would arise from a source of radiation. RISKIND was also used to calculate the radiation dose to a population and hypothetical maximally exposed individuals from releases of radioactive materials postulated to occur in maximum reasonably foreseeable accident scenarios.[DOSE RISK] The following sections describe these programs in detail.J.1.1.1 CALVIN
The Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Analysis and Logistics Visually Interactive (CALVIN) model (DIRS 155644-CRWMS M&O 1999, all) was developed to be a planning tool to estimate the logistic and cost impacts of various operational assumptions for accepting radioactive wastes. CALVIN was used in transportation modeling to determine the number of shipments of commercial spent nuclear fuel from each reactor site. The parameters that the CALVIN model used to determine commercial spent nuclear fuel movement include the shipping cask specifications including heat limits, kinfinity (measure of criticality) limits for the contents of the casks, capacity (assemblies or canisters/cask), burnup/enrichment curves, and cooling time for the fuel being shipped. The source data used by CALVIN for commercial spent nuclear fuel projections include the RW-859 historic data collected by the Energy Information Administration, and the corresponding projection produced based on current industry trends for commercial fuel (see Appendix A). This EIS used CALVIN to estimate commercial spent nuclear fuel shipment numbers based on the cask capacity (see Section J.1.2) and the shipping cask handling capabilities at each site. For the mostly rail national transportation scenario, CALVIN assumed that shipments would use the largest cask a site would be capable of handling. In some cases the analysis, using CALVIN, estimated that the characteristics of the spent nuclear fuel that would be picked up at a site (principally the estimated heat generation rate) would limit the number of fuel assemblies that could be transported to fewer than the full capacity of the cask. In such cases, to provide a realistic estimate of the number of shipments that would be made, CALVIN assumed the cask would contain the smaller number of assemblies. The reduction in capacity was sufficient to accommodate the characteristics of the spent nuclear fuel the program estimated for pickup at the site. In addition, the analysis assumed that sites without sufficient crane capacity to handle a rail cask while operational would be upgraded after reactor shutdown such that the sites could handle rail casks.J.1.1.2 HIGHWAY
The HIGHWAY computer program (DIRS 104780-Johnson et al. 1993, all) was used to select highway routes for the analysis of impacts presented in this EIS. Using data for actual highways and rules that apply to carriers of Highway Route-Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials (49 CFR 397.101), HIGHWAY selected highway routes for legal-weight truck shipments from each commercial and DOE site to the Yucca Mountain site. In addition, DOE used this program to estimate the populations within 800 meters (0.5 mile) of the routes it selected. These population densities were used in calculating incident-free radiological risks to the public along the routes. One of the features of the HIGHWAY model is its ability to estimate routes for the transport of Highway Route-Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials. The U.S. Department of Transportation has established a set of routing regulations for the transport of these materials (49 CFR 397.101). Routes following these regulations are frequently called HM-164 routes. The regulations require the transportation of these shipments on preferred highways, which include:J.1.1.3 INTERLINE
Shipments of radioactive materials by rail are not subject to route restrictions imposed by regulations. For general freight rail service, DOE anticipates that railroads would route shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to provide expeditious travel and the minimum practical number of interchanges between railroads. The selection of a route determines the potentially exposed population along the route as well as the expected frequency of transportation-related accidents. The analysis used the INTERLINE computer program (DIRS 104781-Johnson et al. 1993, all) to project the railroad routes that DOE would use to ship spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from the sites to the Yucca Mountain site. Specific routes were projected for each originating generator with the exception of six that do not have capability to handle or load a rail transportation cask (see Section J.1.2.1.1). INTERLINE computes rail routes based on rules that simulate historic routing practices of U.S. railroads. The INTERLINE database consists of 94 separate subnetworks and represents various competing rail companies in the United States. The database, which was originally based on data from the Federal Railroad Administration and reflected the U.S. railroad system in 1974, has been expanded and modified extensively over the past two decades. The program is updated periodically to reflect current track conditions and has been benchmarked against reported mileages and observations of commercial rail firms. The program also provides an estimate of the population within 800 meters (0.5 mile) of the routes it selected. This population estimate was used to calculate incident-free radiological risk to the public along the routes selected for analysis. In general, rail routes are calculated by minimizing the value of a factor called impedance between the origin and the destination. The impedance is determined by considering trip distance along a route, the mainline classification of the rail lines that would be used, and the number of interchanges that would occur between different railroad companies involved. In general, impedance determined by the INTERLINE program:J.1.1.4 RADTRAN 5
DOE used the RADTRAN 5 computer program (DIRS 150898-Neuhauser and Kanipe 2000, all; DIRS 155430-Neuhauser, Kanipe, and Weiner 2000, all) in conjunction with a Microsoft Access database for the routine and accident cargo-related risk assessment to estimate radiological impacts to collective populations. The Department used RADTRAN 5 to generate risk factors such as transportation impacts per kilometer of travel. The database was used to manage the large amount of data and results for the analysis. Sandia National Laboratories developed RADTRAN 5 to calculate population risks associated with the transportation of radioactive materials by a variety of modes, including truck, rail, air, ship, and barge. The RADTRAN codes, which have been reviewed and updated periodically, have been used extensively by DOE for transportation risk assessment since the late 1970s. In 1995, DIRS 101845-Maheras and Pippen (1995, p. iii) conducted an analysis "to validate the estimates made by" selection of computer codes used to estimate radiation doses from the transportation of radioactive materials. The RADTRAN 4 computer code was included in the analysis. The analysis demonstrated that the RADTRAN 4 code, an earlier version of RADTRAN 5 yielded acceptable results. In the context of this analysis, "acceptable results" means that the differences between the estimates generated by the RADTRAN 4 code and hand calculations were small [that is, less than 5 percent (DIRS 101845-Maheras and Pippen 1995, p. 3-1)]. DIRS 153967-Steinman and Kearfott (2000, all) compared RADTRAN 5 results to measured radiation doses from moving sources, and found that RADTRAN 5 overpredicts the measured radiation dose to the receptor. The RADTRAN 5/database calculations for routine (or incident-free) dose are based on expressing the dose rate as a function of distance from a point source. Associated with the calculation of routine doses for each exposed population group are parameters such as the radiation field strength, the source-receptor distance, the duration of the exposure, vehicle speed, stopping time, traffic density, and route characteristics such as population density and route segment length. The radiation dose to the exposed population decreases as the source-receptor distance and the vehicle speed increase. The radiation dose to the exposed population increases as the other parameters mentioned above increase. In calculating population doses from incident-free transportation, RADTRAN 5 and the database used population density data provided by the HIGHWAY and INTERLINE computer programs. These data are based on the 1990 Census. The results of the RADTRAN 5/database analyses were escalated to account for population growth to 2035. In addition to routine doses, the RADTRAN 5/database combination was used to estimate dose risk from a spectrum of accident scenarios. This spectrum encompasses the range of possible accidents, including low-probability accident scenarios that have high consequences, and high-probability accident scenarios that have low consequences (fender benders). The RADTRAN 5/database calculation of collective accident risks for populations along routes employed models that quantified the range of potential accident severities and the responses of the shipping casks to those scenarios. The spectrum of accident severity was divided into categories. Each category of severity has a conditional probability of occurrence; that is, the probability that an accident will be of a particular severity if it occurs. A release fraction, which is the fraction of the material in a shipping cask that could be released in an accident, is assigned to each accident scenario severity category on the basis of the physical and chemical form of the material being transported. The analysis also considered accidents that would lose lead radiation shielding but with no release of radioactive material. The model also considers the mode of transportation, the state-specific accident rates, and population densities for rural, suburban, and urban population zones through which shipments would pass to estimate accident risks for this analysis. The RADTRAN 5/database calculation used actual population densities within 800 meters (0.5 mile) of the transportation routes based on 1990 Census data to estimate populations within 80 kilometers (50 miles). For accident scenarios involving releases of radioactive material, RADTRAN 5 assumes that the material is dispersed in the environment (as described by a Gaussian dispersion model). The dispersion analysis assumed that meteorological conditions are national averages for wind speed and atmospheric stability. For the risk assessment, the analysis used these meteorological conditions and assumed an instantaneous ground-level release and a small-diameter source cloud (DIRS 155430-Neuhauser, Kanipe, and Weiner 2000, Section 4.1.1). The calculation of the collective population dose following the release and the dispersal of radioactive material includes the following exposure pathways:J.1.1.5 RISKIND
The RISKIND computer program (DIRS 101483-Yuan et al. 1995, all) was used as a complement to the RADTRAN 5 calculations to estimate scenario-specific doses to maximally exposed individuals for both routine operations and accident conditions and to estimate population impacts for the assessment of accident scenario consequences. The RISKIND code was originally developed for the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management specifically to analyze radiological consequences to individuals and population subgroups from the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and is used now to analyze the transport of other radioactive materials, as well as spent nuclear fuel. The RISKIND external dose model considers direct external exposure and exposure from radiation scattered from the ground and air. RISKIND was used to calculate the dose as a function of distance from a shipment on the basis of the dimensions of the shipment (millirem per hour for stationary exposures and millirem per event for moving shipments). The code approximates the shipment as a cylindrical volume source, and the calculated dose includes contributions from secondary radiation scatter from buildup (scattering by material contents), cloudshine (scattering by air), and groundshine (scattering by the ground). Credit for potential shielding between the shipment and the receptor was not considered. The RISKIND code was also used to provide a scenario-specific assessment of radiological consequences of severe transportation-related accidents. Whereas the RADTRAN 5 risk assessment considers the entire range of accident severities and their related probabilities, the RISKIND consequence assessment focuses on accident scenarios that result in the largest releases of radioactive material to the environment that are reasonably foreseeable. The consequence assessment was intended to provide an estimate of the potential impacts posed by a severe, but highly unlikely, transportation-related accident scenario. The dose to each maximally exposed individual considered was calculated with RISKIND for an exposure scenario defined by a given distance, duration, and frequency of exposure specific to that receptor. The distances and durations were similar to those given in previous transportation risk assessments. The scenarios were not meant to be exhaustive but were selected to provide a range of potential exposure situations.J.1.2 Number and Routing of Shipments
This section discusses the number of shipments and routing information used to analyze potential impacts that would result from preparation for and conduct of transportation operations to ship spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain site. Table J-1 summarizes the estimated numbers of shipments for the various inventory and national shipment scenario combinations.J.1.2.1 Number of Shipments
DOE used two analysis scenarios—mostly legal-weight truck and mostly train (rail)—as bases for estimating the number of shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from 72 commercial and 5 DOE sites. The number of shipments for the scenarios was used in analyzing transportation impacts for the Proposed Action and Inventory Modules 1 and 2. DOE selected the scenarios because, more than 10 years before the projected start of operations at the repository, it cannot accurately predict the actual mix of rail and legal-weight truck transportation that would occur from the 77 sites to the repository. Therefore, the selected scenarios enable the analysis to bound (or bracket) the ranges of legal-weight truck and rail shipments that could occur. The analysis estimated the number of shipments from commercial sites where spent nuclear fuel would be loaded and shipped and from DOE sites where spent nuclear fuel, naval spent nuclear fuel, and high-level radioactive waste would be loaded and shipped. For the mostly legal-weight truck scenario, with one exception, shipments were assumed to use legal-weight trucks. Overweight, overdimensional trucks weighing between about 36,300 and 52,200 kilograms (80,000 and 115,000 pounds) but otherwise similar to legal-weight trucks could be used for some spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (for example, spent nuclear fuel from the South Texas reactors). The exception that gives the scenario its name—mostly legal-weight truck—was for shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel. Under this scenario, naval spent nuclear fuel would be shipped by rail, as decided in the Record of Decision for a Dry Storage Container System for the Management of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel (62 FR 1095; January 8, 1997). For the mostly rail scenario, the analysis assumed that all sites would ship by rail, with the exception of those with physical limitations that would make rail shipment impractical. The exception would be for shipments by legal-weight trucks from six commercial sites that do not have the capability to load rail casks. However, the analysis also assumed that these six sites would be upgraded to handle a rail cask after the reactors were shut down and would ship either by direct rail or by heavy-haul truck or barge to nearby railheads. Of these six sites, two are direct rail sites and four are indirect rail sites. Of the four indirect rail sites, three are adjacent to navigable waterways and could ship by barge. In addition, under this scenario, the analysis assumed that 24 commercial sites that do not have direct rail service but that could handle large casks would ship by barge or heavy-haul truck to nearby railheads with intermodal capability. For commercial spent nuclear fuel, the CALVIN code was used to compute the number of shipments. The number of shipments of DOE spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste was estimated based on the data in Appendix A and information provided by the DOE sites. The numbers of shipments were estimated based on the characteristics of the materials shipped, mode interface capability (for example, the lift capacity of the cask-handling crane) of each shipping facility, and the modal-mix case analyzed. Table J-2 summarizes the basis for the national and Nevada transportation impact analysis. Detailed descriptions of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste that would be shipped to the Yucca Mountain site are presented in Appendix A.J.1.2.1.1 Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel
For the analysis, the CALVIN model used 31 shipping cask configurations: 9 for legal-weight truck casks (Figure J-3) and 22 for rail casks (Figure J-4). Table J-3 lists the legal-weight truck and rail cask configurations used in the analysis and their capacities. The analysis assumed that all shipments would use one of the 31 configurations. If the characteristics of the spent nuclear fuel projected for shipment exceeded the capabilities of one of the casks, the model reduced the cask’s capacity for the affected shipments. The reduction, which is sometimes referred to as cask derating, was needed to satisfy nuclear criticality, shielding, and thermal constraints. For shipments that DOE would make using specific casks, derating would be accomplished by partially filling the assigned casks in compliance with provisions of applicable Nuclear Regulatory Commission certificates of compliance. An example of derating is discussed in Section 5 of the GA-4 legal-weight truck shipping cask design report (DIRS 101831-General Atomics 1993, p. 5.5-1). The analysis addresses transport of two high-burnup or short cooling time pressurized-water reactor assemblies rather than four design basis assemblies.[RAIL SHIPMENTS] For the mostly rail scenario, six sites without sufficient crane capacity to lift a rail cask or without other factors such as sufficient floor loading capacity or ceiling height were assumed to ship by legal-weight truck. However, the analysis assumed that these sites would be upgraded to handle rail casks once the reactors were shut down, and all remaining spent nuclear fuel would ship by rail. Of these six sites, two are direct rail and four are indirect rail sites. Of the four with indirect rail access, three have access to a navigable waterway. The 24 sites with sufficient crane capacity but without direct rail access were assumed to ship by heavy-haul truck to the nearest railhead. Of these 24 sites, 17 with access to navigable waterways were analyzed for shipping by barge to a railhead (see Section J.2.4). The number of rail shipments (direct or indirect) was estimated based on each site using the largest cask size feasible based on the load capacity of its cask handling crane. In calculating the number of shipments from the sites, the model used the Acceptance, Priority Ranking & Annual Capacity Report (DIRS 104382-DOE 1995, all). Using CALVIN, the number of shipments of legal-weight truck casks (Figure J-3) of commercial spent nuclear fuel estimated for the Proposed Action (63,000 MTHM of commercial spent nuclear fuel) for the mostly legal-weight truck scenario, would be about 15,000 containing boiling-water reactor assemblies and 26,000 containing pressurized-water reactor assemblies. Under Inventory Modules 1 and 2, for which approximately 105,000 MTHM of commercial spent nuclear fuel would be shipped to the repository (see Appendix A), the estimated number of shipments for the mostly legal-weight truck scenario would be 29,000 for boiling-water reactor spent nuclear fuel and 51,000 for pressurized-water reactor spent nuclear fuel. Table J-4 lists the number of shipments of commercial spent nuclear fuel for the mostly legal-weight truck scenario. Specifically, it lists the site, plant, and state where shipments would originate, the total number of shipments from each site, and the type of spent nuclear fuel that would be shipped. A total of 72 commercial sites with 104 plants (or facilities) are listed in the table. The number of shipments of truck and rail casks (Figure J-4) of commercial spent nuclear fuel estimated for the Proposed Action for the mostly rail scenario would be approximately 2,700 for boiling-water reactor spent nuclear fuel and 5,600 for pressurized-water reactor spent nuclear fuel. Under Modules 1 and 2, the estimated number of shipments for the mostly rail scenario would be approximately 5,400 containing boiling-water reactor spent nuclear fuel and 10,700 containing pressurized-water reactor spent nuclear fuel. Table J-5 lists the number of shipments for the mostly rail scenario. It also lists the site and state where shipments would originate, the total number of shipments from each site, the size of rail cask assumed for each site, and the type of spent nuclear fuel that would be shipped. In addition, it lists the 24 sites not served by a railroad that would ship rail casks by barge or heavy-haul trucks to a nearby railhead and the 6 commercial sites without capability to load a rail cask.J.1.2.1.2 DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste
To estimate the number of DOE spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste shipments, the analysis used the number of handling units or number of canisters and the number of canisters per shipment reported by the DOE sites in 1998 (see Appendix A, p. A-34; DIRS 104778-Jensen 1998, all). To determine the number of shipments of DOE spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, the analysis assumed one canister would be shipped in a legal-weight truck cask. For rail shipments, the analysis assumed that five 61-centimeter (24-inch)-diameter high-level radioactive waste canisters would be shipped in a rail cask. For rail shipments of DOE spent nuclear fuel, the analysis assumed that rail casks would contain nine approximately 46-centimeter (18-inch) canisters or four approximately 61-centimeter canisters. The number of DOE spent nuclear fuel canisters of each size is presented in Appendix A. Under the mostly legal-weight truck scenario for the Proposed Action, DOE would transport a total of 11,785 truck shipments of DOE spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (one high-level waste canister per shipment) to the repository. In addition, DOE would transport 300 shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel by rail from the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory to the repository (one naval spent nuclear fuel canister per rail cask). For Modules 1 and 2 under the mostly legal-weight truck scenario, the analysis estimated 26,001 DOE spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste truck shipments, as well as the 300 naval spent nuclear fuel shipments by rail. Under the mostly rail scenario for the Proposed Action, the analysis estimated that DOE would transport 2,128 railcar shipments of DOE spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (five high-level waste canisters per shipment), as well as the 300 shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel. For Modules 1 and 2 under this scenario, DOE would transport 4,954 railcar shipments of DOE spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, as well as the 300 shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel. Table J-6 lists the estimated number of shipments of DOE and naval spent nuclear fuel from each of the sites for both the Proposed Action and Modules 1 and 2. Table J-7 lists the number of shipments of high-level radioactive waste for the Proposed Action and for Modules 1 and 2.J.1.2.1.3 Greater-Than-Class-C and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required Waste Shipments
Reasonably foreseeable future actions could include shipment of Greater-Than-Class-C and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required waste to the Yucca Mountain Repository (Appendix A describes Greater-Than-Class-C and Special-Performance-Assessment-Required wastes). Commercial nuclear powerplants, research reactors, radioisotope manufacturers, and other manufacturing and research institutions generate low-level radioactive waste that exceeds the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Class C shallow-land-burial disposal limits. In addition to DOE-held material, there are three other sources or categories of Greater-Than-Class-C low-level radioactive waste:J.1.2.1.4 Sensitivity of Transportation Impacts to Number of Shipments
As discussed in Section J.1.2.1, the number of shipments from commercial and DOE sites to the repository would depend on the mix of legal-weight truck and rail shipments. At this time, many years before shipments could begin, it is impossible to predict the mix with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Therefore, the analysis used two scenarios to provide results that bound the range of anticipated impacts. Thus, for a mix of legal-weight truck and rail shipments within the range of the mostly legal-weight truck and mostly rail scenarios, the impacts would be likely to lie within the bounds of the impacts predicted by the analysis. For example, a mix that is different from the scenarios analyzed could consist of 10,000 legal-weight truck shipments and 8,000 rail shipments over 24 years (compared to approximately 1,100 and 9,600, respectively, for the mostly rail scenario). In this example, the number of traffic fatalities would be between 3.1 (estimated for the Proposed Action under the mostly rail scenario) and 4.5 (estimated for the mostly legal-weight truck scenario). Other examples that have different mixes within the ranges bounded by the scenarios would lead to results that would be within the range of the evaluated impacts. In addition to mixes within the brackets, the number of shipments could fall outside the ranges used for the mostly legal-weight truck and rail transportation scenarios. If, for example, the mostly rail scenario used smaller rail casks than the analysis assumed, the number of shipments would be greater. If spent nuclear fuel was placed in the canisters before they were shipped, the added weight and size of the canisters would reduce the number of fuel assemblies that a given cask could accommodate; this would increase the number of shipments. However, for the mostly rail scenario, even if the capacity of the casks was half that used in the analysis, the impacts would remain below those forecast for the mostly legal-weight truck scenario. Although impacts would be related to the number of shipments, because the number of rail shipments would be very small in comparison to the total railcar traffic on the Nation’s railroads, increases or decreases would be small for impacts to biological resources, air quality, hydrology, noise, and other environmental resource areas. Thus, the impacts of using smaller rail casks would be covered by the values estimated in this EIS. For legal-weight truck shipments, the use of casks carrying smaller payloads than those used in the analysis (assuming the shipment of the same spent nuclear fuel) would lead to larger impacts for incident-free transportation and traffic fatalities and about the same level of radiological accident risk. The relationship is approximately linear; if the payloads of truck shipping casks in the mostly legal-weight truck scenario were less by one-half, the incident-free impacts would increase by approximately a factor of 2. Conversely, because the amount of radioactive material in a cask would be less (assuming shipment of the same spent nuclear fuel), the radiological consequences of maximum reasonably foreseeable accident scenarios would be less with the use of smaller casks. If smaller casks were used to accommodate shipments of spent nuclear fuel with shorter cooling time and higher burnup, the radiological consequences of maximum reasonably foreseeable accident scenarios would be about the same.J.1.2.2 Transportation Routes
At this time, about 10 years before shipments could begin, DOE has not determined the specific routes it would use to ship spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the proposed repository. Nonetheless, this analysis used current regulations governing highway shipments and historic rail industry practices to select existing highway and rail routes to estimate potential environmental impacts of national transportation. Routing for shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the proposed repository would comply with applicable regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in effect at the time the shipments occurred, as stated in the proposed DOE revised policy and procedures (DIRS 104741-DOE 1998, all) for implementing Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended (NWPA). Approximately 4 years before shipments to the proposed repository began, the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management plans to identify the preliminary routes that DOE anticipates using in state and tribal jurisdictions so it can notify governors and tribal leaders of their eligibility for assistance under the provisions of Section 180(c) of the NWPA. DOE has published a revised proposed policy statement that sets forth its revised plan for implementing a program of technical and financial assistance to states and Native American tribes for training public safety officials of appropriate units of local government and tribes through whose jurisdictions the Department plans to transport spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste (63 FR 23756, January 2, 1998) (see Appendix M, Section M.8). The analysis of impacts of the Proposed Action and Modules 1 and 2 used characteristics of routes that shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste could travel from the originating sites listed in Tables J-4 through J-7 [J-4, J-5, J-6, J-7]. Existing routes that could be used were identified for the mostly legal-weight truck and mostly rail transportation scenarios and included the 10 rail and heavy-haul truck implementing alternatives evaluated in the EIS for transportation in Nevada. The route characteristics used were the transportation mode (highway, railroad, or navigable waterway) and, for each of the modes, the total distance between an originating site and the repository. In addition, the analysis estimated the fraction of travel that would occur in rural, suburban, and urban areas for each route. The fraction of travel in each population zone was determined using 1990 Census data (see Section J.1.1.2 and J.1.1.3) to identify population-zone impacts for route segments. The highway routes were selected for the analysis using the HIGHWAY computer program and routing requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation for shipments of Highway Route-Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials (49 CFR 397.101). Shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would contain Highway Route-Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials.J.1.2.2.1 Routes Used in the Analysis
Routes used in the analysis of transportation impacts of the Proposed Action and Inventory Modules 1 and 2 are highways and rail lines that DOE anticipates it could use for legal-weight truck or rail shipments from each origin to Nevada. For rail shipments that would originate at sites not served by railroads, routes used for analysis include highway routes for heavy-haul trucks or barge routes from the sites to railheads. Figures J-5 and J-6 show the truck and rail routes, respectively, analyzed for the Proposed Action and Inventory Modules 1 and 2. Tables J-10 and J-11 list the lengths of trips and the distances of the highway and rail routes, respectively, in rural, suburban, and urban population zones. Sites that would be capable of loading rail casks, but that do not have direct rail access, are listed in Table J-11. The analysis used six ending rail nodes in Nevada (Beowawe, Caliente, Dry Lake, Eccles, Jean, and Apex) to select rail routes from the 77 sites. These rail nodes would be starting points for the rail and heavy-haul truck implementing alternatives analyzed for transportation in Nevada. Selection of Highway Routes. The analysis of national transportation impacts used route characteristics of existing highways, such as distances, population densities, and state-level accident statistics. The analysis of highway shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste used the HIGHWAY computer model (DIRS 104780-Johnson et al. 1993, all) to determine highway routes using regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation (49 CFR 397.101) that specify how routes are selected. The selection of "preferred routes" is required for shipment of these materials. DOE has determined that the HIGHWAY program is appropriate for calculating highway routes and related information (DIRS 101845-Maheras and Pippen 1995, pp. 2 to 5). HIGHWAY is a routing tool that DOE has used in previous EISs [for example, the programmatic EIS on spent nuclear fuel (DIRS 101802-DOE 1995, Volume 1, p. I-6) and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Supplement II EIS (DIRS 101814-DOE 1997, pp. 5 to 13)] to determine highway routes for impact analysis. Because the regulations require that the preferred routes result in reduced time in transit, changing conditions, weather, and other factors could result in the use of more than one route at different times for shipments between the same origin and destination. However, for this analysis the program selected only one route for travel from each site to the Yucca Mountain site. Section J.4 describes the highway routes used in the analysis along with estimated impacts of legal-weight truck shipments for each state. Although shipments could use more than one preferred route in national highway transportation to comply with U.S. Department of Transportation regulations (49 CFR 397.101), under current U.S. Department of Transportation regulations all preferred routes would ultimately enter Nevada on Interstate 15 and travel to the repository on U.S. Highway 95. States or tribes can designate alternative or additional preferred routes for highway shipments (49 CFR 397.103). At this time the State of Nevada has not identified any alternative or additional preferred routes that DOE could use for shipments to the repository.[STATE-DESIGNATED PREFERRED ROUTES] Selection of Rail Routes. Rail transportation routing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste shipments is not regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation. As a consequence, the routing rules used by the INTERLINE computer program (DIRS 104781-Johnson et al. 1993, all) assumed that railroads would select routes using historic practices. DOE has determined that the INTERLINE program is appropriate for calculating routes and related information for use in transportation analyses (DIRS 101845-Maheras and Pippen 1995, pp. 2 to 5). Because the routing of rail shipments would be subject to future, possibly different practices of the involved railroads, DOE could use other rail routes. Section J.4 contains maps of the rail routes used in the analysis along with estimated impacts of rail shipments for each state. For the 24 commercial sites that have the capability to handle and load rail casks but do not have direct rail service, DOE used the HIGHWAY computer program to identify routes for heavy-haul transportation to nearby railheads. For such routes, routing agencies in affected states would need to approve the transport and routing of overweight and overdimensional shipments.J.1.2.2.2 Routes for Shipping Rail Casks from Sites Not Served by a Railroad
In addition to routes for legal-weight trucks and rail shipments, 24 commercial sites that are not served by a railroad, but that have the capability to load rail casks, could ship spent nuclear fuel to nearby railheads using heavy-haul trucks (see Table J-11). In addition, four of the sites that initially are legal-weight truck sites would be indirect rail sites after plant shutdown.J.1.2.2.3 Sensitivity of Analysis Results to Routing Assumptions
Routing for shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the proposed repository would comply with regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in effect at the time shipments would occur. Unless the State of Nevada designates alternative or additional preferred routes, to comply with U.S. Department of Transportation regulations all preferred routes would ultimately enter Nevada on Interstate 15 and travel to the repository on U.S. Highway 95. States can designate alternative or additional preferred routes for highway shipments. At this time the State of Nevada has not identified any alternative or additional preferred routes DOE could use for shipments to the repository. Section J.3.1.3 examines the sensitivity of transportation impacts both nationally and regionally (within Nevada) to changes in routing assumption within Nevada.J.1.3 Analysis of Impacts from Incident-Free Transportation
DOE analyzed the impacts of incident-free transportation for shipments of commercial and DOE spent nuclear fuel and DOE high-level radioactive waste that would be shipped under the Proposed Action and Inventory Modules 1 and 2 from 77 sites to the repository. The analysis estimated impacts to the public and workers and included impacts of loading shipping casks at commercial and DOE sites and other preparations for shipment as well as intermodal transfers of casks from heavy-haul trucks or barges to rail cars.J.1.3.1 Methods and Approach for Analysis of Impacts for Loading Operations
The analysis used methods and assessments developed for spent nuclear fuel loading operations at commercial sites to estimate radiological impacts to involved workers at commercial and DOE sites. Previously developed conceptual radiation shield designs for shipping casks (DIRS 101747-Schneider et al. 1987, Sections 4 and 5), rail and truck shipping cask dimensions, and estimated radiation dose rates at locations where workers would load and prepare casks (DIRS 104791-DOE 1992, p. 4.2) for shipment were the analysis bases for loading operations. In addition, tasks and time-motion evaluations from these studies were used to describe spent nuclear fuel handling and loading. These earlier evaluations were based on normal, incident-free operations that would be conducted according to Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations that establish radiation protection criteria for workers. The analysis assumed that noninvolved workers would not have tasks that would result in radiation exposure. In a similar manner, the analysis projected that the dose to the public from loading operations would be extremely small, resulting in no or small impacts. A separate evaluation of the potential radiation dose to members of the public from loading operations at commercial nuclear reactor facilities showed that the dose would be very low, less than 0.001 person-rem per metric ton uranium of spent nuclear fuel loaded (DIRS 104731-DOE 1986, p. 2.42, Figure 2.9). Public doses from activities at commercial and DOE sites generally come from exposure to airborne emissions and, in some cases, waterborne effluents containing low levels of radionuclides. However, direct radiation at publicly accessible locations near these sites typically is not measurable and contributes negligibly to public dose and radiological impacts. Though DOE expects no releases from loading operations, this analysis estimated that the dose to the public would be 0.001 person-rem per metric ton uranium, and metric ton equivalents, for DOE spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Noninvolved workers could also be exposed to low levels of radioactive materials and radioactivity from loadout operations. However, because these workers would not work in radiation areas they would receive a very small fraction of the dose received by involved workers. DOE anticipates that noninvolved workers would receive individual doses similar to those received by members of the public. Because the population of noninvolved workers would be small compared to the population of the general public near the 77 sites, the dose to these workers would be a small fraction of the public dose. The analysis used several basic assumptions to evaluate impacts from loading operations at DOE sites:J.1.3.1.1 Radiological Impacts of Loading Operations at Commercial Sites
In 1987, DOE published a study of the estimated radiation doses to the public and workers resulting from the transport of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power reactors to a hypothetical deep geologic repository (DIRS 101747-Schneider et al. 1987, all). This study was based on a single set of spent nuclear fuel characteristics and a single split [30 percent/70 percent by weight; 900 metric tons uranium/2,100 metric tons uranium per year] between truck and rail conveyances. DOE published its findings on additional radiological impacts on monitored retrievable storage workers in an addendum to the 1987 report (DIRS 104791-DOE 1992, all). The technical approaches and impacts summarized in these DOE reports were used to project involved worker impacts that would result from commercial at-reactor spent nuclear fuel loading operations. DOE did not provide a separate analysis of noninvolved worker impacts in these reports. For the analysis in this EIS, DOE assumed that noninvolved workers would not receive radiation exposures from loading operations. This assumption is appropriate because noninvolved workers would be personnel with managerial or administrative support functions directly related to the loading tasks but at locations, typically in offices, away from areas where loading activities took place. In the DOE study, worker impacts from loading operations were estimated for a light-water reactor with pool storage of spent nuclear fuel. The radiological characteristics of the spent nuclear fuel in the analysis was 10-year-old, pressurized-water reactor fuel with an exposure history (burnup) of 35,000 megawatt-days per metric ton. In addition, the reference pressurized-water reactor and boiling-water reactor fuel assemblies were assumed to contain 0.46 and 0.19 MTU, respectively, prior to reactor irradiation. The term MTU (metric ton of uranium) is from the DOE study. An MTU is approximately the same quantity of spent nuclear fuel as a metric ton of heavy metal, or MTHM, as described in this EIS. In this section, the terms are used interchangeably to allow the information reported in prior DOE studies to be used without modification. These parameters for spent nuclear fuel are similar to those presented in Appendix A of this EIS. The use of the parameters for spent nuclear fuel presented in Appendix A would be likely to lead to similar results. In the 1987 study, radiation shielding analyses were done to provide information on (1) the conceptual configuration of postulated reference rail and truck transportation casks, and (2) the direct radiation levels at accessible locations near loaded transportation casks. The study also presented the results of a detailed time-motion analysis of work tasks that used a loading concept of operations. This task analysis was coupled with cask and at-reactor direct radiation exposure rates to estimate radiation doses to involved workers (that is, those who would participate directly in the handling and loading of the transportation casks and conveyances). Impacts to members of the public from loading operations had been shown to be small [fraction of a person-millirem population dose; (DIRS 101747-Schneider et al. 1987, p. 2.9)] and were eliminated from further analysis in the 1987 report. The at-reactor-loading concept of operations included the following activities:Collective dose (person-rem) = A × B × C × D × E
where: | number of pressurized-water or boiling-water reactor spent nuclear fuel shipments being analyzed under each transportation scenario (from Tables J-4 and J-5) | |
number of transportation casks included in a shipment (set at 1 for both transportation scenarios) | ||
number of pressurized-water or boiling-water reactor spent nuclear fuel assemblies in a transportation cask (from Table J-3) | ||
amount of uranium in the spent nuclear fuel assembly prior to reactor irradiation, expressed as metric tons uranium per assembly (from Table J-13) | ||
involved worker-specific collective dose in person-rem/metric ton uranium for each fuel type (from Table J-13) |
Average individual dose (rem per involved worker) = (A × B × C × D × E) ÷ F
where: | largest value for the number of shipments from a site under each transportation scenario (from Tables J-4 and J-5) | |
number of transportation casks included in a shipment (set at 1 for both transportation scenarios) | ||
number of spent nuclear fuel assemblies in a transportation cask (from Table J-3) | ||
amount of uranium in the spent nuclear fuel assembly prior to reactor irradiation in metric tons uranium per assembly (from Table J-13) | ||
involved worker-specific collective dose in person-rem per metric ton uranium for each fuel type (from Table J-13) | ||
involved worker crew size (set at 13 persons for both transportation scenarios; from Table J-14) |
J.1.3.1.2 Radiological Impacts of DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste Loading Operations
The methodology used to estimate impacts to workers during loading operations for commercial spent nuclear fuel was also used to estimate impacts of loading operations for DOE spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The exposure factor (person-rem per MTU) for loading boiling-water reactor spent nuclear fuel in truck casks at commercial facilities was used (see Table J-14). The exposure factor for truck shipments of boiling-water reactor spent nuclear fuel was based on a cask capacity of five boiling-water reactor spent nuclear fuel assemblies (about 0.9 MTU or 0.9 MTHM). The analysis used this factor because it would result in the largest estimates for dose per operation.J.1.3.2 Methods and Approach for Analysis of Impacts from Incident-Free Transportation
The potential exists for human health impacts to workers and members of the public from incident-free transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste. Incident-free transportation means normal accident-free shipment operations during which traffic accidents and accidents in which radioactive materials could be released do not occur (Section J.1.4. discusses accidents). Incident-free impacts could occur from exposure to (1) external radiation in the vicinity of the transportation casks, or (2) transportation vehicle emissions, both during normal transportation.J.1.3.2.1 Incident-Free Radiation Dose to Populations
The analysis used the RADTRAN 5 computer model and program (DIRS 150898-Neuhauser and Kanipe 2000, all; DIRS 155430-Neuhauser, Kanipe, and Weiner 2000, all) to evaluate incident-free impacts for populations. The RADTRAN 5 input parameters used to estimate incident-free impacts are listed in Table J-15. Through extensive review (DIRS 101845-Maheras and Pippen 1995, Section 3 and 4), DOE has determined that this program provides reasonable, but conservative, estimates of population doses for use in the evaluation of risks of transporting radioactive materials, including spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. DOE used the previous version, RADTRAN 4, to analyze transportation impacts for other environmental impact statements (for example, DIRS 101802-DOE 1995, Volume 1, Appendix E; DIRS 101816-DOE 1997, Appendixes F and G). RADTRAN 4 was subjected to extensive review (DIRS 101845-Maheras and Pippen 1995, Sections 3 and 4). RADTRAN 5 is an upgrade to RADTRAN 4, and has been validated by comparison with dose measurements (DIRS 153967-Steinman and Kearfott 2000, all). RADTRAN 5 consistently overestimates doses from transported radioactive materials when the results are compared to measured doses. The program and associated database, using population densities from 1990 Census data escalated to 2035, calculated the collective dose to populations that live along transportation routes [within 800 meters (0.5 mile) of either side of the route]. Table J-16 lists the estimated number of people who live within 800 meters of national routes. RADTRAN 5 uses the following information to estimate collective incident-free doses to the public:J.1.3.2.2 Methods Used To Evaluate Incident-Free Impacts to Maximally Exposed Individuals
To estimate impacts to maximally exposed individuals, the same kinds of information as those used for population doses (except for population size) were needed. The analysis of doses to maximally exposed individuals used projected exposure times, the distance a hypothetical individual would be from a shipment, the number of times an exposure event could occur, and the assumed external radiation dose rate 2 meters (6.6 feet) from a shipment (10 millirem per hour). These analyses used the RISKIND computer program (DIRS 101483-Yuan et al. 1995, all). DOE has used RISKIND for analyses of transportation impacts in other environmental impact statements (DIRS 104382-DOE 1995, Appendix J; DIRS 101812-DOE 1996, Appendix E; DIRS 101816-DOE 1997, Appendix E). RISKIND provides appropriate results for analyses of incident-free transportation and transportation accidents involving radioactive materials (DIRS 101845-Maheras and Pippen 1995, Sections 5.2 and 6.2; DIRS 102060-Biwer et al. 1997, all). The maximally exposed individual is a hypothetical person who would receive the highest dose. Because different maximally exposed individuals can be postulated for different exposure scenarios, the analysis evaluated the following exposure scenarios.J.1.3.2.2.1 Estimation of Incident-Free Maximally Exposed Individuals in Nevada.
This section presents the assumptions used to estimate incident-free exposures to maximally exposed individuals in Nevada. Transporting spent nuclear fuel to the Yucca Mountain site by legal-weight or heavy-haul trucks would require transport through Nevada on existing roads and highways. The proximity of existing structures that could house a maximally exposed individual have been determined and the maximally exposed individual identified and potential dose calculated as discussed in Section J.1.3.2.2. DOE considered a number of different sources of information concerning the proximity of the maximally exposed individual to a passing truck carrying spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste.J.1.3.2.2.2 Incident-Free Radiation Doses to Inspectors.
DOE estimated radiation doses to the state inspectors who would inspect shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste originating in, passing through, or entering a state. For legal-weight truck and railcar shipments, the analysis assumed that:J.1.3.2.2.3 Incident-Free Radiation Doses to Escorts.
This section has been moved to Volume IV of this EIS.J.1.3.2.3 Vehicle Emission Impacts
Human health impacts from exposures to vehicle exhaust depend principally on the distance traveled and on the impact factors for fugitive dust and exhaust particulates from truck (including escort vehicles) or rail emissions (DIRS 151198-Biwer and Butler 1999, all; DIRS 155786-EPA 1997, all; DIRS 155780-EPA 1993, all). The analysis estimated incident-free impacts using unit risk factors that account for fatalities associated with emissions of pollution in urban, suburban, and rural areas by transportation vehicles, including escort vehicles. Because the impacts would occur equally for trucks and railcars transporting loaded or unloaded shipping casks, the analysis used round-trip distances. Escort vehicle impacts were included only for loaded truck shipment miles, but were included for round trips for rail escort cars. The analysis used risk factors to estimate impacts. The factors considered the effects of population density near highways and railroads. For urban areas, the value used for truck transportation was about 5 latent fatalities per 100 million kilometers traveled (8 latent fatalities per 100 million miles) by trucks and 2 latent fatalities per 10 million kilometers traveled by railcars (3 latent fatalities per 10 million miles). For trucks traveling in suburban and rural areas, the respective risk factors used are about 3 latent fatalities in 100 million kilometers (5 in 100 million miles) and 3 in 10 billion kilometers (5 in 10 billion miles). For railcars traveling in suburban and rural areas, the respective risk factors used are about 9 latent fatalities in 100 million kilometers (1.5 in 10 million miles) and about 8 in 10 billion kilometers (1.5 in 1 billion miles). Although the analysis estimated human health and safety impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, exhaust and other pollutants emitted by transport vehicles into the air would not measurably affect national air quality. National transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, which would use existing highways and railroads, would average 14.2 million truck kilometers per year for the mostly truck case and 3.5 million railcar kilometers per year from the mostly rail case. The national yearly average for total highway and railroad traffic is 186 billion truck kilometers and 49 billion railcar kilometers (DIRS 148081-BTS 1999, Table 3-22). Spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste transportation would represent a very small fraction of the total national highway and railroad traffic (0.008 percent of truck kilometers and 0.007 percent of rail car kilometers). In addition, the contributions to vehicle emissions in the Las Vegas air basin, where all truck shipments (an average of five per day) would travel under the mostly legal-weight truck scenario, would be small in comparison to those from other vehicle traffic in the area. The annual average daily traffic on I-15 0.3 kilometer (0.2 mile) north of the Sahara Avenue interchange is almost 200,000 vehicles (DIRS 103405-NDOT 1997, p. 7), about 20 percent of which are trucks (DIRS 104727-Cerocke 1998, all). For these reasons, national transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste by truck and rail would not constitute a meaningful source of air pollution along the nation’s highways and railroads.J.1.3.2.4 Sensitivity of Dose Rate to Characteristics of Spent Nuclear Fuel
For this analysis, DOE assumed that the dose rate external to all shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would be the maximum value allowed by regulations (49 CFR 173.441). However, the dose rate for actual shipments would not be the maximum value of 10 millirem per hour at 2 meters (6.6 feet) from the sides of vehicles. Administrative margins of safety that are established to compensate for limits of accuracy in instruments and methods used to measure dose rates at the time shipments are made would result in lower dose rates. In addition, the characteristics of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste that would be loaded into casks would always be within the limit values allowed by the cask’s design and its Nuclear Regulatory Commission certificate of compliance. For example, DOE used data provided in the GA-4 Legal-Weight Truck Cask Design Report (DIRS 101831-General Atomics 1993, pp. 5.5-18 and 5.5-19) to estimate dose rates 2 meters (6.6 feet) from transport vehicles for various characteristics of spent nuclear fuel payloads. Figure J-7 shows ranges of burnup and cooling times for spent nuclear fuel payloads for the GA-4 cask. The figure indicates the characteristics of a typical pressurized-water reactor spent nuclear fuel assembly (see Appendix A). Based on the design data for the GA-4 cask, a shipment of typical pressurized-water reactor spent nuclear fuel would result in a dose rate of about 6 millirem per hour at 2 meters from the side of the transport vehicle, or about 60 percent of the limit established by U.S. Department of Transportation regulations (49 CFR 173.441). Therefore, DOE estimates that, on average, dose rates at locations 2 meters (6.6 feet) from the sides of transport vehicles would be about 50 to 70 percent of the regulatory limits. As a result, DOE expects radiological risks to workers and the public from incident-free transportation to be no more than 50 to 70 percent of the values presented in this EIS.J.1.4 Methods and Approach to Analysis of Accident Scenarios
J.1.4.1 Accidents in Loading Operations
J.1.4.1.1 Radiological Impacts of Loading Accidents
The analysis used information in existing reports to consider the potential for radiological impacts from accidents during spent nuclear fuel loading operations at the commercial and DOE sites. These included a report that evaluated health and safety impacts of multipurpose canister systems (DIRS 104794-CRWMS M&O 1994, all) and two safety analysis reports for onsite dry storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel at independent spent fuel storage installations (DIRS 103449-PGE 1996, all; DIRS 103177-CP&L 1989, all). The latter reports address the handling and loading of spent nuclear fuel assemblies in large casks similar to large transportation casks. In addition, DOE environmental impact statements on the management of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (DIRS 101802-DOE 1995, all; DIRS 101816-DOE 1997, all) provided information on radiological impacts from loading accidents. DIRS 104794-CRWMS M&O (1994, Sections 3.2 and 4.2) discusses potential accident scenario impacts of four cask management systems at electric utility and other spent nuclear fuel storage sites. This report concentrated on unplanned contact (bumping) during lift-handling of casks, canisters, or fuel assemblies. The two safety analysis reports for independent spent fuel storage installations for commercial spent nuclear fuel (DIRS 103449-PGE 1996, all; DIRS 103177-CP&L 1989, all) evaluated a comprehensive spectrum of accident-initiating events. These events included fires, chemical explosions, seismic events, nuclear criticality, tornado strikes and tornado-generated missile impacts, lightning strikes, volcanism, canister and basket drop, loaded shipping cask drop, and interference (bumping, binding) between the transfer cask and storage module. The DOE environmental impact statements for the interim management of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (DIRS 101802-DOE 1995, Volume 1, Appendix E; DIRS 101816-DOE 1997, Appendixes F and G) included radiological impacts from potential accident scenarios associated with preparing, storing, and shipping these materials. These EISs do not discuss quantitative radiological impacts for accident scenarios associated with material loading, but do contain estimates of radiological impacts from accident scenarios for the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste management activities considered. As discussed for routine loading operations, this analysis converted radiation doses to estimates of radiological impacts using dose-to-risk conversion factors of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.J.1.4.1.2 Industrial Safety Impacts of Loading Operations at Commercial Facilities
The principal industrial safety impact parameters of importance to commercial industry and the Federal Government are (1) total recordable (injury and illness) cases, (2) lost workday cases associated with workplace injuries and illnesses, and (3) workplace fatalities. The frequency of these impacts under the Proposed Action and the inventory modules (Modules 1 and 2) was projected using the involved worker level of effort, expressed as the number of full-time equivalent worker multiples, that would be needed to conduct shipment tasks. The workplace loss incidence rate for each impact parameter [as shown in a Bureau of Labor Statistics summary (DIRS 148091-BLS 1998, all)] was used as a multiplier to convert the level of effort to expected industrial safety losses. DOE did not explicitly analyze impacts to noninvolved workers in its earlier reports (DIRS 101747-Schneider et al. 1987, all; DIRS 104791-DOE 1992, all). However, for purposes of analysis in this EIS, DOE estimated that impacts to noninvolved workers would be 25 percent of the impacts to the involved workforce. This assumption is based on (1) the DOE estimate that about one of five workers assigned to a specific task would perform administrative or managerial duties, and (2) the fact that noninvolved worker loss incidence rates are generally less than those for involved workers (see Appendix F, Section F.2.2.2). The estimated involved worker full-time equivalent multiples for each shipment scenario were estimated using the following formula:where: | number of shipments (from Tables J-5 and J-6) | |
average loading duration for each shipment by fuel type and conveyance mode (workdays; from Table J-13) | ||
workday conversion factor = 8 hours per workday | ||
involved worker crew size (13 workers; from Table J-14) | ||
full-time equivalent conversion factor = 2,000 worker hours per full-time equivalent |
J.1.4.1.3 Industrial Safety Impacts of DOE Loading Operations
The technical approach and loss multipliers discussed in Section J.1.4.1.2 for commercial power reactor sites analysis were used for the analysis of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste loading impacts at DOE sites. Because no information existed on the high-level radioactive waste loading duration for the truck and rail transportation modes, DOE assumed that the number of full-time equivalent involved workers for the two transportation modes would be the same as that for the DOE sites shipping spent nuclear fuel. For those sites, the average number of full-time equivalent workers would be about 0.07 and 0.12 per shipment for the truck and rail transportation modes, respectively.J.1.4.2 Transportation Accident Scenarios
J.1.4.2.1 Radiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents
Potential consequences and risks of transportation would result from three possible types of accidents: (1) accidents in which there is no effect on the cargo and the safe containment by transportation packages is maintained, (2) accidents in which there is no breach of containment, but there is loss of shielding because of lead shield displacement, and (3) accidents that release and disperse radioactive material from safe containment in transportation packages. Such accidents, if they occurred, would lead to impacts to human health and the environment. The following sections describe the methods for analyzing the risks and consequences of accidents that could occur in the course of transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to a nuclear waste repository at the Yucca Mountain site. They discuss the bases for, and methods for, determining rates at which accidents are assumed to occur, the severity of these accidents, and the amounts of materials that could be released. Accident rates, severities, and the corresponding quantities of radioactive materials that could be released are essential data used in the analyses. Appendix A presents the quantities of radioactive materials in a typical pressurized-water reactor spent nuclear fuel assembly used in the analysis of accident consequences and risks. Legal-weight truck casks would usually contain four pressurized-water reactor spent nuclear fuel assemblies, and rail casks would usually contain 24 (see Table J-3). In addition to accident rates and severities, an important variable in assessing impacts from transportation accident scenarios is the type of material that would be shipped. Accordingly, this appendix presents information used in the analyses of impacts of accidents that could occur in the course of transporting commercial pressurized- and boiling-water reactor fuels, DOE spent nuclear fuels, and DOE high-level radioactive waste. For exposures to ionizing radiation and radioactive materials following accidents, risks were analyzed in terms of dose and latent cancer fatalities to the public and workers. The analyses of risk also addressed the potential for fatalities that would be the direct result of mechanical forces and other nonradiological effects that occur in everyday vehicle and industrial accidents. The transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from the 77 sites to the Yucca Mountain site would be conducted in a manner that complied fully with regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. These regulations specify requirements that promote safety and security in transportation. The requirements apply to carrier operations; in-transit security; vehicles; shipment preparations; documentation; emergency response; quality assurance; and the design, certification, manufacture, inspection, use, and maintenance of packages (casks) that would contain the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.[POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF HUMAN ERROR ON ACCIDENT IMPACTS] Because of the high level of performance required by regulations for transportation casks (49 CFR Part 173 and 10 CFR Part 71), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that in more than 99.99 percent of rail and truck accidents no cask contents would be released (DIRS 152476-Sprung et al. 2000, pp. 7-73 to 7-76). The 0.007 percent of accidents, including those for which there is no release and those that could cause a release of radioactive materials, can be described by a spectrum of accident severity. In general, as the severity of an accident increases, the fraction of radioactive material contents that could be released from transportation casks also increases. However, as the severity of an accident increases it is generally less likely to occur. DIRS 152476-Sprung et al. (2000, all) developed an accident analysis methodology that uses this concept of a spectrum of severe accidents to calculate the probabilities and consequences of accidents that could occur in transporting highly radioactive materials. The analysis in DIRS 152476-Sprung et al. (2000, pp. 7-74 and 7-76), which DOE adopted for the analysis in the EIS, estimates that 0.01 percent of accidents to steel-lead-steel casks could result in some lead displacement and consequent loss of shielding. The analysis evaluated the radiological impacts (population dose risk) of shielding loss and the impacts of potential releases of radioactive material. The loss-of-shielding analysis included estimates of radiological impacts for the percentage of accidents in which there would be neither loss of shielding nor release of radioactive material. In such accidents, the vehicle carrying the spent nuclear fuel would be stopped along the route for an extended period and nearby residents would not be evacuated. Although the approach of DIRS 152476-Sprung et al. (2000, pp. 7-7 to 7-12), which is used in this EIS, provides a method for determining the frequency with which severe accidents can be expected to occur, their severity, and their consequences, a method does not exist for predicting where along routes accidents would occur. Therefore, the analyses of impacts presented here used the approach used in RADTRAN 5 (DIRS 155430-Neuhauser, Kanipe, and Weiner 2000, all). This method assumes that accidents could occur at any location along routes, with their frequency of occurrence being determined by the accident rate characteristic of the states through which the route passes, the length of the route, and the number of shipments that travel the route. The transportation accident scenario analysis evaluated radiological impacts to populations and to hypothetical maximally exposed individuals and estimated fatalities that could occur from traffic accidents. It included both rail and legal-weight truck transportation. The analysis used the RADTRAN 5 (DIRS 150898-Neuhauser and Kanipe 2000, all; DIRS 155430-Neuhauser, Kanipe, and Weiner 2000, all) and RISKIND (DIRS 101483-Yuan et al. 1995, all) models and computer programs to determine accident consequences and risks. DOE has used both codes in recent DOE environmental impact statements (DIRS 101802-DOE 1995, Volume 1, Appendix J; DIRS 101812-DOE 1996, Appendix E; DIRS 101816-DOE 1997, Appendixes F and G) that address impacts of transporting radioactive materials. The analyses used the following information to determine the consequences and risks of accidents for populations:Rail Accident Descriptions
Truck Accident Descriptions
J.1.4.2.2 Methods and Approach for Analysis of Nonradiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents
Nonradiological accident risks are risks of traffic fatalities. Traffic fatality rates are reported by state and Federal transportation departments as fatalities per highway vehicle- or train-kilometer traveled. The fatalities are caused by physical trauma in accidents. For nonradiological accident risks estimated in this EIS for legal-weight truck transportation, accident fatality risks were based on state-level fatality rates for Interstate Highways (DIRS 103455-Saricks and Tompkins 1999, all). Accident fatality risks for rail transportation were also calculated using state-specific rates (DIRS 103455-Saricks and Tompkins 1999, all). Section J.2.2 discusses methods and data used to analyze accidents for barge transportation. For truck transportation, the rates in DIRS 103455-Saricks and Tompkins (1999, Table 4) are specifically for heavy combination trucks involved in interstate commerce. Heavy combination trucks are multiaxle tractor-trailer trucks having a tractor and one to three freight trailers connected to each other. This kind of truck with a single trailer would be used to ship spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Truck accident rates were determined for each state based on statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Motor Carriers for 1994 through 1996. The report presents accident involvement and fatality counts, estimated kilometers of travel by state, and the corresponding average accident involvement, fatality, and injury rates for the 3 years investigated. Fatalities include crew members and all others attributed to accidents. Although escort vehicles would not be heavy combination trucks, the fatality rate data used for truck shipments of loaded and empty spent fuel casks were also used to estimate fatalities from accidents that would involve escort vehicles. Rail accident rates were computed and presented similarly to truck accident rates, but a railcar is the unit of haulage. The state-specific rail accident involvement and fatality rates are based on statistics compiled by the Federal Railroad Administration for 1994 through 1996. Rail accident rates include both mainline accidents and those occurring in railyards. The per-railcar rate in DIRS 103455-Saricks and Tompkins (1999, Table 6) was multiplied by 4.2, the average number of railcars involved in an accident. The accident rates used to estimate traffic fatalities were computed using data for all interstate shipments, independent of the cargoes. Shippers and carriers of radioactive material generally have a higher-than-average awareness of transport risk and prepare cargoes and drivers accordingly (DIRS 101920-Saricks and Kvitek 1994, all). These effects were not given credit in the assessment.J.1.4.2.3 Data Used To Estimate Incident Rates for Rail and Motor Carrier Accidents
In analyzing potential impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, DOE considered both incident-free transportation and transportation accidents. Potential incident-free transportation impacts would include those caused by exposing the public and workers to low levels of radiation and other hazards associated with the normal movement of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste by truck, rail, or barge. Impacts from accidents would be those that could result from exposing the public and workers to radiation, as well as vehicle-related fatalities. In its analysis of impacts from transportation accidents, DOE relied on data collected by the U.S. Department of Transportation and others (for example, the American Petroleum Institute) to develop estimates of accident likelihood and their ranges of severity (DIRS 101828-Fischer et al. 1987, pp. 7-25 and 7-26). Using these data, the analysis estimated that as many as 66 accidents could occur over 24 years in the course of shipping spent nuclear fuel to the repository by legal-weight trucks; 8 rail accidents that involved a railcar carrying a cask could occur if most shipments were by rail; and no accidents would be likely for the limited use of barges. Furthermore, in using data collected by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the analysis considered the range of accidents, from slightly more than "fender benders" to high-speed crashes, that the DOE carrier would have to report in accordance with the requirements of U.S. Department of Transportation regulations. The accidents that could occur would be unlikely to be severe enough to affect the integrity of the shipping casks. The following paragraphs discuss reporting and definitions for transportation accidents and the relationships of these to data used in analyzing transportation impacts in this EIS.J.1.4.2.3.1 Transportation Accident Reporting and Definitions.
In the United States, the reporting of transportation accidents and incidents involving trucks, railroads, and barges follows requirements specified in various Federal and state regulations. Motor Carrier Accident Reporting and DefinitionsJ.1.4.2.3.2 Accident Rates for Transportation by Heavy-Combination Truck, Railcar, and Barge in the United States.
DIRS 103455-Saricks and Tompkins (1999, all) developed estimates of accident rates for heavy-combination trucks, railcars, and barges based on data available for 1994 through 1996. The estimates provide an update for accident rates published in 1994 (DIRS 101920-Saricks and Kvitek 1994, all) that reflected rates from almost a decade earlier. Rates for Accidents in Interstate Commerce for Heavy-Combination TrucksJ.1.4.2.3.3 Accident Data Provided by the States of Nevada, California, South Carolina, Illinois, and Nebraska.
In May 1998, DOE requested the 48 contiguous states to provide truck and rail transportation accident data for use in this EIS. Five states responded – Nevada, California, Illinois, Nebraska, and South Carolina (DIRS 104728-Denison 1998, all; DIRS 103709-Caltrans 1997, all; DIRS 104801-Wort 1998, all; DIRS 104783-Kohles 1998, all; DIRS 103725-SCDPS 1997, all). No states provided rail information.J.1.4.2.4 Transportation Accidents Involving Nonradioactive Hazardous Materials
The analysis of impacts of transportation accidents involving the transport of nonradioactive hazardous materials to and from Yucca Mountain used information presented in two U.S. Department of Transportation reports (DIRS 103718-DOT 1998, Table 1; DIRS 103708-BTS 1996, p. 43) on the annual number of hazardous materials shipments in the United States and the number of deaths caused by hazardous cargoes in 1995. In total, there are about 300 million annual shipments of hazardous materials; only a small fraction involve radioactive materials. In 1995, 6 fatalities occurred because of hazardous cargoes. These data suggest a rate of 2 fatalities per 100 million shipments of hazardous materials. DOE anticipates about 40,000 shipments of nonradioactive hazardous materials (including diesel fuel and laboratory and industrial chemicals) to and from the Yucca Mountain site during construction, operation and monitoring, and closure of the repository. Assuming that the rate for fatalities applies to the transportation of nonradioactive hazardous materials to and from Yucca Mountain, DOE does not expect fatalities from 40,000 shipments of these materials.J.1.4.2.5 Cost of Cleanup and Ecological Restoration Following a Transportation Accident
Cost of Cleanup. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission report Reexamination of Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates (DIRS 152476-Sprung et al. 2000, pp. 7-73 to 7-76), in more than 99.99 percent of accidents radioactive material would not be released from the cask. After initial safety precautions had been taken, the cask would be recovered and removed from the accident scene. Because no radioactive material would be released, based on reported experience with two previous accidents (DIRS 156110-FEMA 2000, Appendix G, Case 4 and Case 5), the economic costs of these accidents would be minimal. For the 0.01 percent of accidents severe enough to cause a release of radioactive material from a cask, a number of interrelated factors would affect costs of cleaning up resulting radioactive contamination after the accident. Included are: the severity of the accident and the initial level of contamination; the weather at the time and following; the location and size of the affected land area and how the land is used; the standard established for the allowable level of residual contamination following cleanup and the decontamination method used; and the technical requirements for and location for disposal of contaminated materials. Because it would be necessary to specify each of the factors to estimate clean up costs, any estimate for a single accident would be highly uncertain and speculative. Nonetheless, to provide a gauge of the costs that could be incurred DOE examined past studies of costs of cleanup following hypothetical accidents that would involve uncontrolled releases of radioactive materials. A study of the impacts of transporting radioactive materials conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1977 estimated that costs could range from about $1 million to $100 million for a transportation accident that involved a 600-curie release of a long-lived radionuclide (DIRS 101892-NRC 1977, Table 5-11). These estimates would be about 3 times higher if escalated for inflation from 1977 to the present. In 1980 DIRS 155054-Finley et al. (1980, Table 6-9) estimated that costs could range from about $90 million to $2 billion for a severe spent nuclear fuel transportation accident in an urban area. DIRS 154814-Sandquist et al. (1985, Table 3-7) estimated that costs could range from about $200,000 to $620 million. In this study, Sandquist estimated that contamination would affect between 0.063 to 4.3 square kilometers (16 to 1,100 acres). A study by DIRS 152083-Chanin and Murfin (1996, Chapter 6) estimated the costs of cleanup following a transportation accident in which plutonium would be dispersed. This study developed cost estimates for cleaning up and remediating farmland, urban areas, rangeland, and forests. The estimates ranged from $38 million to $400 million per square kilometer that would need to be cleaned up. The study also evaluated the costs of expedited cleanups in urban areas for light, moderate, and heavy contamination levels. These estimates ranged from $89 million to $400 million per square kilometer. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration studied potential accidents for the Cassini mission, which used a plutonium powered electricity generator. The Agency estimated that costs of cleaning up radioactive material contamination on land following potential launch and reentry accidents. The estimate for the cost following a launch accident ranged from $7 million to $70 million (DIRS 155551-NASA 1995, Chapter 4) with an estimated contaminated land area of about 1.4 square kilometers (350 acres). The Agency assumed cleanup costs would be $5 million per square kilometer if removal and disposal of contaminated soil were not required and $50 million per square kilometer if those activities were required. For a reentry accident that would occur over land, the study estimated that the contaminated land area could range from about 1,500 to 5,700 square kilometers (370,000 to 1.4 million acres) (DIRS 155551-NASA 1995, Chapter 4) with cleanup costs possibly exceeding a total of $10 billion. In a more recent study of potential consequences of accidents that could involve the Cassini mission, NASA estimated that costs could range from $7.5 million to $1 billion (DIRS 155550-NASA 1997, Chapter 4). The contaminated land area associated with these costs ranged from 1.5 to 20 square kilometers (370 to 4,900 acres). As in the 1995 study, these estimates were based on cleanup costs in the range of $5 million to $50 million per square kilometer. Using only the estimates provided by these studies, the costs of cleanup following a severe transportation accident involving spent nuclear fuel where radioactive material was released could be in the range from $300,000 (after adjusting for inflation from 1985 to the present) to $10 billion. Among the reasons for this wide range are different assumptions made regarding the factors that must be considered: 1) the severity of the assumed accident and resulting contamination levels, 2) accident location and use of affected land areas, 3) meteorological conditions, 4) cleanup levels and decontamination methods, and 5) disposal of contaminated materials. However, the extreme high estimates of costs are based on assumptions that all factors combine in the most disadvantageous way to create a "worst case." Such worst cases are not reasonably foreseeable. Conversely, estimates as low as $300,000 may also not be realistic for all of the direct and indirect costs of cleaning up following an accident severe enough to cause a release of radioactive materials. To gauge the range of costs that it could expect for severe accidents in transporting spent nuclear fuel to a Yucca Mountain repository, DOE considered the spectrum of accidents that are reasonably foreseeable (see Section J.1.4.2.1) and the amount of radioactive material that could be released in each such accident and compared this to the estimates of releases used by the various studies discussed above. Based on 2 million curies of radioactive material in a rail casks loaded with spent nuclear fuel, about 13 curies (mostly cesium) would be released in a maximum reasonably foreseeable accident. This is about 100 times less than used by Sandquist in his study (1,630 curies) and 50 times less than the release used in the estimates provided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1977 (600 curies). The estimated frequency for an accident this severe to occur is about 3 times in 10 million years. Based on the prior studies (where estimated releases exceeded those estimated in this appendix for a maximum reasonably foreseeable accident) and the amount of radioactive material that could be released in a maximum reasonably foreseeable accident, the Department believes that the cost of cleaning up following such an accident could be a few million dollars. Nonetheless, as stated above, the Department also believes that estimates of such costs contain great uncertainty and are speculative; they could be less or 10 times greater depending on the contributing factors. For perspective, the current insured limit of responsibility for an accident involving releases of radioactive materials to the environment is $9.43 billion (see Appendix M). The annual cost of transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain would be about $200 million. Ecological Restoration. Following a severe transportation accident, it might be necessary to restore the ecology of an area after the area was remediated. DIRS 152083-Chanin and Murfin (1996, all) present a review of the scope of ecological restoration that can be accomplished and the requirements that would apply in the event of an accident where environmental damage resulting from cleaning up radioactive material contamination would in turn result in a need for environmental restoration. The restoration that would be necessary following an accident cannot be predicted. It would depend on the environmental factors involved—1) the levels of contamination from the accident, 2) cleanup levels and decontamination methods used, and 3) location and ecology of the affected land areas—and the restoration goal that was used. DIRS 152083-Chanin and Murfin (1996, Chapter 6) observe"[a] long-standing definition of the preferred goal of site restoration is to establish an ecological community as similar as possible to that which existed before an accident. Alternative goals are to establish a similar, but not identical, community; to establish an entirely different but valued community; or, if none of the foregoing is feasible, to establish some less-valued community."The costs discussed above include costs for environmental restoration. DIRS 152083-Chanin and Murfin (1996, all) provide the following assessments of environmental restoration that could be accomplished following clean up of contamination from an accident.
J.2 Evaluation of Rail and Intermodal Transportation
DOE could use several modes of transportation to ship spent nuclear fuel from the 72 commercial and 5 DOE sites. Legal-weight trucks could transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in truck casks that would weigh approximately 22,500 kilograms (25 tons) when loaded. For sites served by railroads, railcars could be used to ship rail casks directly to the Yucca Mountain site, if a branch rail line was built in Nevada, or to an intermodal transfer station in Nevada if heavy-haul trucks were used. Rail casks would weigh as much as 136,000 kilograms (150 tons). For sites that have the capability to load rail casks but are not served by a railroad, DOE could use heavy-haul trucks or, for sites on navigable waterways, barges to transport casks to nearby railheads. For rail shipments, DOE could request the railroads to provide dedicated trains to transport casks from the sites to a destination in Nevada or could deliver railcars with loaded casks to the railroads as general freight for delivery in Nevada. In addition, DOE evaluated the potential for including two other scenarios: (1) a different mostly rail scenario in which railcars would transport legal-weight truck casks and (2) a large-scale barge scenario.J.2.1 Legal-weight truck casks on railcars scenario
DOE assessed the sensitivity of transportation impacts to assumptions related to transportation scenarios. The analysis evaluated a variation of the mostly rail scenario in which shipments would be made using casks much smaller than rail casks—legal-weight truck casks—shipped to Nevada on railcars then transported on legal-weight trucks from a rail siding to Yucca Mountain. Under this scenario, because all shipments (except shipments of naval spent nuclear fuel) would use legal-weight truck casks, the number of railcar shipments would be about 53,000 over the 24 years of the Proposed Action. This would be the same as the number of legal-weight truck plus naval spent nuclear fuel shipments in the mostly legal-weight truck scenario. DOE estimated impacts of this variation of the mostly rail transportation scenario by scaling from the impacts estimated for the mostly rail scenario. The analysis used the ratio of the number of railcars that would be shipped to the number of railcar shipments estimated for the mostly rail scenario and assumed each shipment would include an escort car and five railcars carrying legal-weight truck casks. The estimated number of public incident-free latent cancer fatalities would be approximately 4, and the estimated number of traffic fatalities would be 8. The total of these estimates, 12, is about 1.5 times the DOE revised estimate of a total of 7 fatalities (2.5 latent cancer fatalities plus 4.5 traffic fatalities) for the legal-weight truck scenario. DOE determined that while this scenario would be feasible, it would not be practical. The number of shipping casks and railcar shipments would be greater by a factor of 5 than for the mostly rail scenario and the additional cost to the Program would be more than $1 billion. In addition, the truck-casks-on-railcars scenario would lead to the highest estimates of occupational health and public health and safety impacts, most coming from rail-traffic related facilities.J.2.2 Large-scale barge scenario
In response to public comments on the 1986 Environmental Assessment for the Yucca Mountain Site, Research and Development Area, Nevada (DIRS 104731-DOE 1986, p. C.2-40), DOE described barge transportation as a feasible alternative that could play a secondary or supplementary role in the transportation of radioactive wastes to a repository. In the Final Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste (DIRS 104832-DOE 1980, Volume A, pp. 4.64 and 4.65), DOE concluded that barge transport is an alternative when both the nuclear powerplant and the encapsulation or storage facility are on navigable waterways. That EIS observed that barge transport suggests high payloads and low tariffs, but cost gains in these two areas could be offset by the longer estimated transit times for barge shipments. The EIS also observed that casks for barge shipment of spent nuclear fuel probably would be similar, if not identical, to those used for rail transport. The most likely way in which DOE would use barge transportation to make shipments to a repository would be to complete a leg of the trip that also involved two land legs. Even though many generator sites are adjacent to or near navigable waterways, shipping casks cannot be loaded directly onto barges in all cases. It would be necessary to use heavy-haul trucks or railcars to transport the casks from the generator site’s cask loading facilities to a barge slip or dock. The casks would then either be rolled onto the barge using the land vehicle and a loading ramp and secured to the barge deck or hoisted from the land vehicle to the barge and secured. At the destination end of the barge leg of the trip, the cask would either be rolled off the barge using a ramp and a heavy-haul truck or hoisted from the barge deck onto a railcar or heavy-haul truck. The cask probably would then be transported from the destination port to Nevada by rail and not by heavy-haul truck. Thus, if casks were rolled off barges to heavy-haul trucks, they would need to be transferred to railcars. The maximum use of barge transportation would require transport through the Panama Canal for shipments from generator sites in the middle and eastern part of the United States. Such use could result in 70 percent fewer land travel kilometers than the mostly rail or mostly legal-weight truck scenario. Analyses in the 1986 Environmental Assessment (DIRS 104731-DOE 1986, p. A-69) showed that the use of barge transportation would generally increase occupational exposure for normal shipment operations and could increase exposure of the public because of intermodal transfers. From the analyses, reactor-specific results suggest that under several circumstances the barge mode could reduce risk. The analyses concluded that the consequences of accidents from barges would be of the same magnitude as those for other modes. Because, as discussed above, DOE could use barge transportation only in conjunction with land modes, DOE did not evaluate barge as an alternative major modal scenario as it did for the mostly rail and mostly legal-weight truck modal scenarios. Rather, for the 17 commercial generator sites not served by railroads but situated near or adjacent to navigable waterways, DOE evaluated and compared the potential use of barges and heavy-haul trucks to transport casks containing spent nuclear fuel from these sites to nearby railheads. The analysis assumed barges or heavy-haul trucks would be offloaded at the railheads and the casks would be transferred to railcars for shipment to Nevada. DOE eliminated the large-scale barge scenario from further consideration in the EIS because it would be overly complex, requiring greater logistical complexity than either rail or legal-weight truck transportation; a much greater number of large rail casks than rail transport; much greater cost than either rail or legal-weight truck transportation; long transport distances potentially requiring the transit of the Panama Canal outside U.S. territorial waters; transport on intercoastal and coastal waterways of coastal states and on major rivers through and bordering states; extended transportation times; intermodal transfer operations at ports; and land transport from a western port to Yucca Mountain. If in the future DOE concluded that barge transportation was reasonable and proposed to make use of it, the Department would conduct additional National Environmental Policy Act evaluations to assess potential impacts of the greater use.J.2.3 Effects of Using Dedicated Trains or General Freight Service
The Association of American Railroads recommends that only special (dedicated) trains move spent nuclear fuel and certain other forms of radioactive materials (DIRS 103718-DOT 1998, p. 2-6). In developing its recommendation, the Association concluded that the use of special trains would provide operational (for railroads and shippers) and safety advantages over shipments that used general freight service. Notwithstanding this recommendation, the U.S. Department of Transportation study (DIRS 103718-DOT 1998, all) compared dedicated and regular freight service using factors that measure impacts to overall public safety. The results of this study indicated that dedicated trains could provide advantages over regular trains for incident-free transportation but could be less advantageous for accident risks. However, available information does not indicate a clear advantage for the use of either dedicated trains or general freight service. Thus, DOE has not determined the commercial arrangements it would request from railroads for shipment of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Table J-25 compares the dedicated and general freight modes. These comparisons are based on the findings of the U.S. Department of Transportation study and the Association of American Railroads.J.2.4 Impacts of the Shipment of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel by Barge and Heavy-Haul Truck from 24 Sites Not Served by a Railroad
The mostly rail scenario includes 24 sites that do not have direct rail access. For those sites, heavy-haul trucks would be used to haul the spent nuclear fuel casks to the nearest railhead. As shown in Figure J-9 (a multipage figure), 17 of the 24 sites are on navigable waterways, so barge transport could be a feasible way to move spent nuclear fuel to the closest railhead with barge access. This section estimates the changes in impacts to the mostly rail scenario if barge transport replaced heavy-haul truck transport for these 17 sites.J.2.4.1 Routes for Barges and Heavy-Haul Trucks
The distances from the 24 sites to railheads range from about 6 to 75 kilometers (4 to 47 miles). DOE used the HIGHWAY computer code to estimate routing for heavy-haul trucks (DIRS 104780-Johnson et al. 1993, all). The INTERLINE computer code (DIRS 104781-Johnson et al. 1993, all) was used to generate route-specific distances that would be traveled by barges. Table J-26 lists estimates for route lengths for barges and heavy-haul trucks. Table J-27 lists the number of shipments from each site.J.2.4.2 Analysis of Incident-Free Impacts for Barge and Heavy-Haul Truck Transportation
J.2.4.2.1 Radiological Impacts of Incident-Free Transportation
This section compares radiological and nonradiological impacts to populations, workers, and maximally exposed individuals for the mostly rail case when casks from heavy-haul truck transport would be switched to barge for 17 of the 24 heavy haul truck sites. To make the comparison, the analysis retained any assumptions not affected by the mode change for the 17 sites. Thus:J.2.4.2.2 Nonradiological Impacts of Incident-Free Transportation (Vehicle Emissions)
Table J-30 compares the estimated number of fatalities from vehicle emissions from shipments, assuming the use of heavy-haul trucks or barges to ship to nearby railheads.J.2.4.3 Analysis of Impacts of Accidents for Barge and Heavy-Haul Truck Transportation
J.2.4.3.1 Radiological Impacts of Accidents
The analysis of risks from accidents during heavy-haul truck, rail, and legal-weight truck transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste used the RADTRAN 5 computer code (DIRS 150898-Neuhauser and Kanipe 2000, all; DIRS 155430-Neuhauser, Kanipe, and Weiner 2000, all) in conjunction with an Access database and the analysis approach discussed in Section J.1.4.2. The analysis of risks due to barging used the same methodology with the exception of conditional probabilities. For barge shipments, the conditional accident probabilities and release fractions (Table J-31) for each cask response category were based on a review of other barge accident analyses. The definitions of the accident severities listed in Table J-31 are based on the analyses reported in DIRS 152476-Sprung et al. (2000, pp. 7-75 to 7-76). DOE used the same accident severity category definitions as those used in the rail analysis described in Section J.1.4.2. If radioactive material was shipped by barge, both water and land contamination would be possible. DIRS 104784-Ostmeyer (1986, all) analyzed the potential importance of water pathway contamination for a spent nuclear fuel transportation accident risk using a "worst-case" water contamination scenario. The analysis showed that the impacts of the water contamination scenario would be about one-fiftieth of the impacts of a comparable accident on land. Therefore, the analysis assumed that deposition would occur over land, not water. DOE used population distributions developed from 1990 Census data to calculate route-specific collective doses. Table J-32 lists the total accident risk for mostly rail case heavy-haul truck scenario, the mostly rail case barge scenario, and the mostly truck scenario. Additional information is in Volume IV.J.2.4.3.2 Nonradiological Accident Risks
As listed in Table J-32, the estimated total fatalities for the mostly rail heavy-haul truck scenario, the mostly rail barge scenario, and the mostly truck scenario would be 2.7, 2.7, and 4.5, respectively. There is essentially no difference between the two mostly rail scenarios. The only significant differences are between those scenarios, and the mostly truck case.J.2.4.3.3 Maximum Reasonably Foreseeable Accidents
From a consequence standpoint, because DOE used the same accident severity bins for rail, heavy-haul truck, and barge transport, the consequences of a release would be the same if the accident occurred in a zone having the same population density. The population densities for barge and heavy-haul truck transport are similar to those for rail. Because the total shipping distance traveled by barge or heavy-haul truck would be a small fraction of the total distance traveled, the maximum reasonably foreseeable accident would be a rail accident. Only minor barge or heavy-haul truck transport accidents would meet the 1 × 10-7 criterion used to identify reasonably foreseeable accidents.J.3 Nevada Transportation
With the exceptions of the possible construction of a branch rail line or upgrade of highways for use by heavy-haul trucks and the construction of an intermodal transfer station, the characteristics of the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in Nevada would be similar to those for transportation in other states across the nation. Unless the State of Nevada designated alternative or additional preferred routes as prescribed under regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation (49 CFR 397.103), Interstate System Highways (I-15) would be the preferred routes used by legal-weight trucks carrying spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Unless alternative or non-Interstate System routes have been designated by states, Interstate System highways would also be the preferred routes used by legal-weight trucks in other states during transit to Nevada. In Nevada as in other states, rail shipments would, for the most part, be transported on mainline tracks of major railroads. Operations over a branch rail line in Nevada would be similar to those on a mainline railroad, except the frequency of train travel would be much lower. Shipments in Nevada that used heavy-haul trucks would use Nevada highways in much the same way that other overdimensional, overweight trucks use the highways along with other commercial vehicle traffic. Some State- and county-specific assumptions were used to analyze human health and safety impacts in Nevada. A major difference would be that much of the travel in the State would be in rural areas where population densities are much lower than those of many other states. Another difference would be for travel in an urban area in the state. The most populous urban area in Nevada is the Las Vegas metropolitan area, which is also a major resort area with a high percentage of nonresidents. The analysis also addressed the channeling of shipments from the commercial and DOE sites into the transportation arteries in the southern part of the State. Finally, the analysis addressed the commuter and commercial travel that would occur on highways in the southern part of the State as a consequence of the construction, operation and monitoring, and closure of the proposed repository. This section presents information specific to Nevada that DOE used to estimate impacts for transportation activities that would take place in the State. It includes results for cumulative impacts that would occur in Nevada for transportation associated with Inventory Modules 1 and 2.J.3.1 Transportation modes, routes, and number of shipments
J.3.1.1 Routes in Nevada for Legal-Weight Trucks
The analysis of impacts that would occur in Nevada used the characteristics of highways in Nevada that would be used for shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste by legal-weight trucks. Specifically, the base case for the analysis used routing for the Las Vegas Northern and Western Beltway to transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The distance and population density by county was obtained from Geographical Information System data for the State of Nevada using 1990 Census data. The population density data was escalated to 2035. Figure J-10 shows the routes in Nevada that legal-weight trucks would use unless the State designated alternative or additional preferred routes. The figure shows estimates for the number of legal-weight truck shipments that would travel on each route segment for the mostly legal-weight truck and mostly rail transportation scenarios. The inset on Figure J-10 shows the Las Vegas Beltway and the routes DOE anticipates legal-weight trucks traveling to the repository would use.J.3.1.2 Highway and Rail Routes in Nevada for Transporting Rail Casks
The rail and heavy-haul truck implementing alternatives for transportation in Nevada include five possible rail corridors and five possible routes for heavy-haul trucks; the corridors and routes for these implementing alternatives are shown in Figures J-11 and J-12. These figures also show the estimated number of rail shipments that would enter the State on mainline railroads. These numbers indicate shipments that would arrive from the direction of the bordering state for each of the implementing alternatives for the mostly rail transportation scenario. Table J-33 lists the total length and cumulative distance in rural, suburban, and urban population zones and the population density in each population zone in the State of Nevada used to analyze impacts of the implementing alternatives. Table J-34 lists the cumulative distance in rural, suburban, and urban population zones and the population density in each population zone for existing commercial rail lines in Nevada. DOE based the estimated population that would live along each branch rail line on population densities in census blocks along the candidate rail corridors in Nevada. The populations are based on 1990 Census data escalated to 2035. For this analysis, the ending rail nodes in Nevada for commercial rail lines would be origins for the rail and heavy-haul truck alternatives listed in Table J-33. Table J-35 lists the total population that lives within 800 meters (0.5 mile) of rail lines in Nevada. Nevada Heavy-Haul Truck ScenarioJ.3.1.3 Sensitivity of Analysis Results to Routing Assumptions
In addition to analyzing the impacts of using highway routes that would meet U.S. Department of Transportation requirements for transporting spent nuclear fuel, DOE evaluated how the estimated impacts would differ if legal-weight trucks used other routes in Nevada. Six other routes identified in a 1989 study by the Nevada Department of Transportation (DIRS 103072-Ardila-Coulson 1989, pp. 36 and 45) were selected for this analysis. The Nevada Department of Transportation study described the routes as follows: Route A. Minimum distance and minimum accident rate.Route D. From Baker without California 127.
North on I-15, west on Nevada 160, south on U.S. 95
J.3.2 Analysis of Incident-Free Transportation in Nevada
The analysis of incident-free impacts to populations in Nevada addressed transportation through urban, suburban, and rural population zones. The population densities used in the analysis were determined using Geographic Information System methods, population data from the 1990 Census, and projected populations along the Las Vegas Beltway (DIRS 155112-Berger 2000, pp. 59 to 64). The analysis extrapolated impacts to account for population growth to 2035. The populations within the 800-meter (0.5-mile) regions of influence used to evaluate the impacts of incident-free transportation for legal-weight truck, heavy-haul truck, and rail shipments are listed in Table J-35. The table lists the estimated 2035 populations. Average highway vehicle densities for Nevada were calculated from vehicle traffic counts on Interstate and primary U.S. highways in Nevada counties that would be used for transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (DIRS 156930-NDOT 2001, all). The analysis used the average speed of trains on a branch rail line in Nevada from (DIRS 101214-CRWMS M&O 1996, Volume 1, Section 4, Branch Line Operations Plan). Heavy-haul trucks in Nevada would be escorted. The analysis assumed that heavy-haul truck shipments would originate in Caliente, Nevada, and would stop overnight en route to the repository. Input parameters for analysis of incident-free transportation in Nevada that differ from, or are additional to, values used to analyze impacts outside the State, are listed in Table J-49. Parameters not listed in this table are the same as those listed in Tables J-15 and J-17. Unit risk factors for incident-free transportation in Nevada are listed in Table J-50. Results for incident-free transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste for Inventory Modules 1 and 2 are presented in Section J.3.4.J.3.3 Analysis of Transportation Accident Scenarios in Nevada
Section J.1.4 discusses the methodology for estimating the risks of accidents that could occur during rail and truck transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Section J.3.5 describes the results of the accident risk analysis for Inventory Modules 1 and 2.J.3.3.1 Intermodal Transfer Station Accident Methodology
Shipping casks would arrive at an intermodal transfer station in Nevada by rail, and a gantry crane would transfer them from the railcars to heavy-haul trucks for transportation to the repository. The casks, which would not be opened or altered in any way at the intermodal transfer station, would be certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and would be designed for accident conditions specified in 10 CFR Part 71. Impact limiters, which would protect casks against collisions during transportation, would remain in place during transfer operations at the intermodal transfer station. DOE performed an accident screening process to identify credible accidents that could occur at an intermodal transfer station with the potential for compromising the integrity of the casks and releasing radioactive material. The external events listed in Table J-51 were considered, along with an evaluation of their potential applicability. As indicated from Table J-51, the only accident-initiating event identified from among the feasible external events was the aircraft crash. Such events would be credible only for casks being handled or on transport vehicles at an intermodal transfer station in the Las Vegas area (Apex/Dry Lake or Sloan/Jean). For a station in the Las Vegas area, an aircraft crash would be from either commercial aircraft operations at McCarran airport or military operations from Nellis Air Force Base. Among the internal events, the only potential accident identified was a drop of the cask during transfer operations. This accident would bound the other events considered, including drops from the railcar or truck (less fall height would be involved than during the transfer operations). Collisions, derailments, and other accidents involving the transport vehicles at the intermodal transfer station would not damage the casks due to the requirement that they be able to withstand high-speed impacts and the low velocities of the transport vehicles at the intermodal transfer station.Accident Analysis
J.3.4 Impacts in Nevada from Incident-Free Transportation for Inventory Modules 1 and 2
This section presents the analysis of impacts to occupational and public health and safety in Nevada from incident-free transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in Inventory Modules 1 and 2. The analysis assumed that the routes, population densities, and shipment characteristics (for example, radiation from shipping casks) for shipments under the Proposed Action and Inventory Modules 1 and 2 would be the same. The only difference was the projected number of shipments that would travel to the repository. The following sections provide detailed information on the range of potential impacts to occupational and public safety and health from incident-free transportation of Modules 1 and 2 that result from legal-weight trucks and the 10 alternative transportation routes considered in Nevada. National impacts of incident-free transportation of Modules 1 and 2 incorporating Nevada impacts are discussed together with other cumulative impacts in Chapter 8.J.3.4.1 Mostly Legal-Weight Truck Scenario
Tables J-54 and J-55 list estimated incident-free impacts in Nevada for the mostly legal-weight truck scenario for shipments of materials included in Inventory Modules 1 and 2.J.3.4.2 Nevada Rail Implementing Alternatives
Table J-56 lists the range of estimated incident-free impacts in Nevada for the operation of a branch rail line to ship the materials included in Inventory Modules 1 and 2. It lists impacts that would result from operations for a branch line in each of the five possible rail corridors DOE is evaluating. These include the impacts of about 3,100 legal-weight truck shipments from commercial sites that could not use rail casks to ship spent nuclear fuel.J.3.4.3 Nevada Heavy-Haul Truck Implementing Alternatives
Radiological ImpactsJ.3.5 Impacts in Nevada from Transportation Accidents for Inventory Modules 1 and 2
The analysis assumed that the routes, population densities, and shipment characteristics (for example, assumed radioactive material contents of shipping casks) for the Proposed Action and Inventory Modules 1 and 2 would be the same. The only difference would be the projected number of shipments that would travel to the repository. As listed in Table J-1, Module 2 would include about 3 percent more shipments than Module 1.J.3.5.1 Mostly Legal-Weight Truck Scenario
Radiological ImpactsJ.3.5.2 Nevada Rail Implementing Alternatives
Industrial Safety ImpactsJ.3.5.3 Nevada Heavy-Haul Truck Implementing Alternatives
Industrial Safety ImpactsJ.3.6 Impacts from Transportation of Other Materials
Other types of transportation activities associated with the Proposed Action would involve shipments of materials other than the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste discussed in previous sections. These activities would include the transportation of people (commuter transportation). This section evaluates occupational and public health and safety and air quality impacts from the shipment of:J.3.6.1 Transportation of Personnel and Materials to Repository
The following paragraphs describe impacts that would result from the transportation of construction materials, consumables, repository components, supplies, mail, laboratory samples, and personnel to the repository site during the construction, operation and monitoring, and closure phases of the Proposed Action. Human Health and SafetyJ.3.6.2 Impacts of Transporting Wastes from the Repository
During repository construction and operations, DOE would ship waste and sample material from the repository. The waste would include hazardous, mixed, and low-level radioactive waste. Samples would include radioactive and nonradioactive hazardous materials shipped to laboratories for analysis. In addition, nonhazardous solid waste could be shipped from the repository site to the Nevada Test Site for disposal. However, as noted in Chapter 2, DOE proposes to include an industrial landfill on the repository site. Table J-69 summarizes the health impacts from wastes that DOE would ship from the repository. Occupational and Public Health and SafetyJ.3.6.3 Impacts from Transporting Other Materials and People in Nevada for Inventory Modules 1 and 2
The analysis evaluated impacts to occupational and public health and safety in Nevada from the transport of materials, wastes, and workers (including repository-related commuter travel) for construction, operation and monitoring, and closure of the repository that would occur for the receipt and emplacement of materials in Inventory Modules 1 and 2. The analysis assumed that the routes and transportation characteristics (for example, accident rates) for transportation associated with the Proposed Action and Inventory Modules 1 and 2 would be the same. The only difference would be the projected number of trips for materials, wastes, and workers traveling to the repository. Table J-70 lists estimated incident-free (vehicle emissions) impacts and traffic (accident) fatality impacts in Nevada for the transportation of materials, wastes, and workers (including repository-related commuter travel) for the construction, operation and monitoring, and closure of the repository that would occur for the receipt and emplacement of the materials in Inventory Modules 1 and 2. The range includes all lower-temperature repository operating mode scenarios. Even with the increased transportation of the other materials included in Module 1 or 2, DOE expects that the transportation of materials, consumables, personnel, and waste to and from the repository would be minor contributors to all transportation on a local, state, and national level. Public and worker health impacts would be small from transportation accidents involving nonradioactive hazardous materials. On average, in the United States there is about 1 fatality caused by the hazardous material being transported for each 30 million shipments by all modes (DIRS 103717-DOT 1998, p. 1; DIRS 103720-DOT Undated, Exhibit 2b).J.4 State-Specific Impacts and Route Maps
This section contains maps and tables that illustrate the estimated impacts to 45 states and the District of Columbia (Alaska and Hawaii are not included; estimated impacts in Montana, North Dakota, and Rhode Island would be zero). As discussed previously in this appendix, DOE used state- and route-specific data to estimate transportation impacts. At this time, about 10 years before shipments could begin, DOE has not determined the specific routes it would use to ship spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the proposed repository. Therefore, the transportation routes discussed in this section might not be the exact routes actually used for shipments to Yucca Mountain. Nevertheless, because the analysis is based primarily on the existing Interstate Highway System and rail rolling stock, the analysis presents a representative estimate of what the actual transportation impacts would likely be. In addition, under the national mostly rail transportation scenario, potential impacts in each state vary according to the ending node in Nevada. There are six different points of transfer from national to Nevada transportation (Caliente, Dry Lake, Jean, Beowawe, Eccles, and Apex). The routes used in the national analysis depend on the transfer point through which the shipments would pass. Tables J-71 through J-92 [J-71, J-72, J-73, J-74, J-75, J-76, J-77, J-78, J-79, J-80, J-81, J-82, J-83, J-84, J-85, J-86, J-87, J-88, J-89, J-90, J-91, J-92] list the transportation impacts for 47 of the states and the District of Colombia, and Figures J-31 through J-52 [J-31, J-32, J-33, J-34, J-35, J-36, J-37, J-38, J-39, J-40, J-41, J-42, J-43, J-44, J-45, J-46, J-47, J-48, J-49, J-50, J-51, J-52] are maps of the routes analyzed for each region. In Nevada, the impacts vary according to the rail or heavy-haul implementing alternative. Figure J-53 shows the potential routes in the State of Nevada, and Table J-93 lists the impacts in Nevada for each of the eight implementing alternatives.References
Note: In an effort to ensure consistency among Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project documents, DOE has altered the format of the references and some of the citations in the text in this Final EIS from those in the Draft EIS. The following list contains notes where applicable for references cited differently in the Draft EIS.103072 | Ardila-Coulson 1989 | Ardila-Coulson, M.V. 1989. The Statewide Radioactive Materials Transportation Plan. Phase II. Reno, Nevada: University of Nevada, Reno. TIC: 222209. | ||
104597 | Battelle 1998 | Battelle Pacific Northwest Division 1998. Analytical Approach for Estimating Releases of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste for the Yucca Mountain Environmental Impact Statement No-Action Alternative. Las Vegas, Nevada: Jason Technologies. ACC: MOL.19990513.0039. | ||
155112 | Berger 2000 | The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2000. Assessment of the Hazards of Transporting Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Radioactive Waste to the Proposed Yucca Mountain Repository using the Proposed Northern Las Vegas Beltway. Las Vegas, Nevada: The Louis Berger Group. TIC: 250165. | ||
104725 | Best 1998 | Best, R. 1998. "Contact Report - Meeting with McCarran Airport Officials re: Flight Track Data." Memo from R. Best (Jason Technologies) to W. Dixon and K. Skipper (CRWMS M&O), April 17, 1998, JYM-99-018. ACC: MOL.19990511.0373. | ||
151198 | Biwer and Butler 1999 | Biwer, B.M. and Butler, J.P. 1999. "Vehicle Emission Unit Risk Factors for Transportation Risk Assessments." Risk Analysis, 19, (6), 1157-1171. [Norwell, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers]. TIC: 248506. | ||
102060 | Biwer et al. 1997 | Biwer, B.M.; Arnish, J.J.; Kamboj, S.; and Chen, S.Y. 1997. RISKIND Verification and Benchmark Comparisons. ANL/EAD/TM-74. Argonne, Illinois: Argonne National Laboratory. TIC: 243692. | ||
148091 | BLS 1998 | BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) 1998. "Safety of Health Statistics, Table 1. Incidence Rates of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Selected Industries and Case Types, 1997." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. Accessed December 18, 1998. TIC: 243569. http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/osh/t01.htm | ||
156755 | BLS 2001 | BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) 2001. Fatal Workplace Injuries in 1998 and 1999: A Collection of Data and Analysis. Report 954. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. TIC: 251280. | ||
157210 | BSC 2001 | BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC) 2001. Consequence of an Aircraft Crash into a Transportation Cask. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. | ||
103708 | BTS 1996 | BTS (Bureau of Transportation Statistics) 1996. Freight Transportation in Nevada, Selected Data from Federal Sources. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. TIC: 244068. | ||
148080 | BTS 1998 | BTS (Bureau of Transportation Statistics) 1998. "Automobile Profile - 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 1994." National Transportation Statistics 1998 (NTS), Appendix A. Modal Profiles. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. Accessed October 9, 1998. TIC: 244071. http://www.bts.gov/btsprod/nts/apxa/auto98.html | ||
148081 | BTS 1999 | BTS (Bureau of Transportation Statistics) 1999. "National Transportation Statistics 1998 (NTS)." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. Accessed March 29, 1999. TIC: 243149. http://www.bts.gov/btsprod/nts/index.html | ||
103156 | Bureau of the Census 1997 | Bureau of the Census 1997. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1997. 117th Edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. TIC: 8657. | ||
103160 | Bury and Germano 1994 | Bury, R.B. and Germano, D.J., eds. 1994. Biology of North American Tortoises. Fish and Wildlife Research Report 13. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior. TIC: 225209. | ||
103709 | Caltrans 1997 | Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) 1997. State Highway Inventory Data on California State Highway Route Segments. Sacramento, California: Caltrans Publications Unit. TIC: 241860. | ||
104727 | Cerocke 1998 | Cerocke, C. 1998. Truck Percents. Facsimile from C. Cerocke (Nevada Department of Transportation) to R. Best (Jason Technologies), July 8, 1998. ACC: MOL.19990511.0291. | ||
152083 | Chanin and Murfin 1996 | Chanin, D.I. and Murfin, W.B. 1996. Site Restoration: Estimation of Attributable Costs From Plutonium-Dispersal Accidents. SAND96-0957. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. TIC: 248778. | ||
103710 | Clark County 1997 | Clark County 1997. Environmental Study for the Northern and Western Las Vegas Beltway Transportation Facilities and Right-of-Way Footprint. Las Vegas, Nevada: Clark County Department of Public Works. TIC: 244001. | ||
156706 | Clark County 2000 | Clark County 2000. Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan Las Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area. Las Vegas, NV: Department of Comprehensive Planning, Clark County Board of Commissioners. | ||
155557 | Clark County 2001 | Clark County 2001. "Particulate Matter (PM10) State Implementation Plan." [Las Vegas, Nevada]: Clark County. Accessed April 10, 2001. ACC: MOL.20010802.0201. http://www.co.clark.nv.us/compplan/Environ/Aqteam/Pm10/pm10_Chpt1.htm | ||
104786 | Cook 1994 | Cook, G.N. 1994. Raytheon Services Nevada Study on High-Speed Rail Transportation Between Las Vegas and the Nevada Test Site (NTS). Letter from G.N. Cook (DOE/YMSCO) to R.R. Loux (State of Nevada), October 31, 1994, with enclosure. ACC: MOL.19950721.0006; MOL.19950721.0007. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Raytheon 1994 in Appendix J. | ||
103177 | CP&L 1989 | CP&L (Carolina Power and Light Company) 1989. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Safety Analysis Report. Raleigh, North Carolina: Carolina Power and Light Company. TIC: 3933. | ||
104794 | CRWMS M&O 1994 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating Contractor) 1994. Health and Safety Impacts Analysis for the Multi-Purpose Canister System and Alternatives. A00000000-01717-0200-00006 REV 02. Vienna, Virginia: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOV.19950217.0043. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1994 in Appendix J. | ||
104795 | CRWMS M&O 1995 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating Contractor) 1995. Nevada Potential Repository Preliminary Transportation Strategy Study 1. B00000000-01717-4600-00023 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19960729.0195. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1995 in Appendix J. | ||
101214 | CRWMS M&O 1996 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating Contractor) 1996. Nevada Potential Repository Preliminary Transportation Strategy Study 2. B00000000-01717-4600-00050 REV 01. Two volumes. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19960724.0199; MOL.19960724.0200. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1996 in Appendix J. | ||
100265 | CRWMS M&O 1997 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating Contractor) 1997. Waste Quantity, Mix and Throughput Study Report. B00000000-01717-5705-00059 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19971210.0628. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1997 in Appendix J. | ||
131242 | CRWMS M&O 1997 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating Contractor) 1997. Rail Alignments Analysis. BCBI00000-01717-0200-00002 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19971212.0486. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999b in Appendix J. | ||
104849 | CRWMS M&O 1997 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating Contractor) 1997. Intermodal Transfer Station Preliminary Design. BCBI00000-01717-0200-00007 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19980303.0029. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999b in Appendix J. | ||
155436 | CRWMS M&O 1997 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating Contractor) 1997. Nevada Potential Repository Preliminary Assessment of the Caliente-Chalk Mountain Heavy-Haul Truck Route. B00000000-01717-4600-00084 REV 00. Predecisional Working Draft. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19970507.0140. | ||
155628 | CRWMS M&O 1997 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating Contractor) 1997. Fifth Corridor Boundary Evaluation. BCBI00000-01717-0200-0001 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19981207.0253. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999b in Appendix J. | ||
154448 | CRWMS M&O 1998 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating Contractor) 1998. Road Upgrades for Heavy Haul Truck Routes. BCBI00000-01717-0200-00008 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19981207.0254. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999b in Appendix J. | ||
155644 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating Contractor) 1999. User Manual for the CRWMS Analysis and Logistics Visually Interactive Model Version 2.0. 10074-UM-2.0-00, Rev. 00 Vienna, Virginia: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOV.19990322.0001. | ||
104800 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating Contractor) 1999. Environmental Baseline File for National Transportation. B00000000-01717-5705-00116 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990608.0033. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999a in Appendix J. | ||
155347 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating Contractor) 1999. Nevada Transportation Engineering File, Data Needs Request Log. [Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O]. ACC: MOL.19990324.0278. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999b in Appendix J. | ||
157206 | CRWMS M&O 2000 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating Contractor) 2000. Truck and Rail Shipments of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel for the Final EIS. Input Transmittal 00135.T. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20000516.0014. | ||
156422 | CVSA 2001 | CVSA (Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance) 2001. Appendix A North American Uniform Standard Out-of-Service Criteria. Bethesda, Maryland: Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. | ||
104728 | Denison 1998 | Denison, D.L. 1998. Crash Rate for the State of Nevada for Interstate Truck Carriers. Letter from D.L. Denison (Nevada Highway Patrol) to K.J. Skipper (DOE/YMSCO), May 20, 1998. ACC: MOL.19990630.0369. | ||
104832 | DOE 1980 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1980. Final Environmental Impact Statement Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste. DOE/EIS-0046F. Three volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Waste Management. ACC: HQZ.19870302.0183; HQZ.19870302.0184; HQZ.19870302.0185.
|
||
104731 | DOE 1986 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1986. Environmental Assessment for a Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility. Volume II of Monitored Retrievable Storage Submission to Congress. DOE/RW-0035/1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: HQO.19950815.0019. | ||
104791 | DOE 1992 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1992. "Analysis of a System Containing a Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility." Addendum I of Analysis of Radiation Doses from Operation of Postulated Commercial Spent Fuel Transportation Systems. DOE-CH/TPO-001. Chicago, Illinois: U.S. Department of Energy. ACC: HQX.19920604.0012. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Smith, Daling, and Faletti 1992 in Appendix J. | ||
104601 | DOE 1993 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1993. Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Oversight. ACC: HQX.19930623.0005. | ||
104382 | DOE 1995 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1995. Acceptance Priority Ranking & Annual Capacity Report. DOE/RW-0457. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOV.19960910.0021. | ||
101802 | DOE 1995 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1995. Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0203-F. Idaho Falls, Idaho: U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office. TIC: 216020. | ||
101810 | DOE 1996 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1996. DOE Standard, Accident Analysis for Aircraft Crash into Hazardous Facilities. DOE-STD-3014-96. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 231519. | ||
101811 | DOE 1996 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada. DOE/EIS-0243. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office. TIC: 239895. | ||
101812 | DOE 1996 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement on a Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel. DOE/EIS-0218F. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 223998. | ||
101814 | DOE 1997 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1997. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Three volumes. DOE/EIS-0026-S-2. Carlsbad, New Mexico: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 238195. | ||
101816 | DOE 1997 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1997. Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste. DOE/EIS-0200-F. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 232988. | ||
104741 | DOE 1998 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1998. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management; Safe Routine Transportation and Emergency Response Training; Technical Assistance and Funding - Notice of Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. ACC: HQO.19980603.0023. | ||
101779 | DOE 1998 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1998. Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain. DOE/RW-0508. Overview and five volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.19981007.0027; MOL.19981007.0028; MOL.19981007.0029; MOL.19981007.0030; MOL.19981007.0031; MOL.19981007.0032. | ||
156764 | DOE 1999 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. DOE Standard - Radiological Control. DOE-STD-1098-99. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. | ||
155779 | DOE 1999 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. Intermodal and Highway Transportation of Low-level Radioactive Waste to the Nevada Test Site. DOE/NV-544-VOL I. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy. ACC: MOL.20011009.0006. | ||
155566 | DOE 2000 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2000. Clean Air Act General Conformity Requirements and the National Environmental Policy Act Process. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Environment, Safety and Health Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance. ACC: MOL.20010802.0219. | ||
103718 | DOT 1998 | DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation) 1998. Final Report, Identification of Factors for Selecting Modes and Routes for Shipping High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. TIC: 243882. | ||
103717 | DOT 1998 | DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation) 1998. Hazardous Materials Shipments. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. TIC: 243499. | ||
103720 | DOT Undated | DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation) Undated. Biennial Report on Hazardous Materials Transportation Calendar Years 1992-1993. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. TIC: 243847. | ||
155780 | EPA 1993 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1993. Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study. EPA 420-R-93-005. Ann Arbor, Michigan: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. | ||
155786 | EPA 1997 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1997. "Chapter 13.2.1, Paved Roads." AP42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Supplements A through G, U.S. EPA Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emission Factors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed August 2, 2001. ACC: MOL.20011009.0009. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/index.html | ||
156753 | Ettlin 2001 | Ettlin, D.M. 2001. "Burning Cars in Rail Tunnel Resist Control; Crews Use Manhole to Approach Blaze with Cooling Water ‘Like Walking into an Oven’ 5 of 60 Cars Removed." Baltimore, Maryland: The Baltimore Sun. Accessed October 30, 2001. http://www.sunspot.net/tunnel fire/sunspot_net - archive2.htm | ||
156110 | FEMA 2000 | FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 2000. Guidance for Developing State, Tribal, and Local Radiological Emergency Response Planning and Preparedness for Transportation Accidents. FEMA REP-5, Rev .02 Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Submit to RPC | ||
101826 | FHWA 1996 | FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) 1996. Northern & Western Las Vegas Beltway, Clark County, Nevada: Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Corridor Location Study. FHWA-NV-EIS-95-01-F. Carson City, Nevada: U.S. Department of Transportation. TIC: 242309. | ||
103721 | FHWA 1997 | FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) 1997. Truck Crash Profile: The National Picture 1996. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration. TIC: 244136. | ||
102231 | FHWA 1998 | FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) 1998. Large Truck Crash Profile: The 1997 National Picture. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration. TIC: 243788. | ||
102064 | FHWA 1999 | FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) 1999. "Technical Appendix, Our Nation’s Travel: 1995 NPTS Early Results Report." Oak Ridge, Tennessee: U.S. Department of Transportation. Accessed April 5, 1999. TIC: 244043. http://www-cta.ornl.gov/npts/1995/Doc/index.shtml. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as ORNL 1999 in Appendix J. | ||
155054 | Finley et al. 1980 | Finley, N.C.; Aldrich, D.C.; Daniel, S.L.; Ericson, D.M.; Henning-Sachs, C.; Kaestner, P.C.; Ortiz, N.R.; Sheldon, D.D.; and Taylor, J.M. 1980. Transportation of Radionuclides in Urban Environs: Draft Environmental Assessment. NUREG/CR-0743. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TIC: 221621. | ||
101828 | Fischer et al. 1987 | Fischer, L.E.; Chou, C.K.; Gerhard, M.A.; Kimura, C.Y.; Martin, R.W.; Mensing, R.W.; Mount, M.E.; and Witte, M.C. 1987. Shipping Container Response to Severe Highway and Railway Accident Conditions. NUREG/CR-4829. Two volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACC: NNA.19900827.0230; NNA.19900827.0231. | ||
101831 | General Atomics 1993 | General Atomics 1993. GA–4 Legal Weight Truck From-Reactor Spent Fuel Shipping Cask, Final Design Report. 910353/0. San Diego, California: General Atomics. ACC: NNA.19940513.0215. | ||
152084 | Griego, Smith, and Neuhauser 1996 | Griego, N.R.; Smith, J.D.; and Neuhauser, K.S. 1996. Investigation of Radtran Stop Model Input Parameters for Truck Stops. [SAND96-0714C]. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. TIC: 240366. | ||
104777 | Holmes & Narver 1962 | Holmes & Narver 1962. Feasibility Study for Transportation Facilities to Nevada Test Site. [Orange, California]: Holmes & Narver. ACC: MOL.19950509.0039. | ||
101836 | ICRP 1991 | ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) 1991. "1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection." Volume 21, No. 1-3 of Annals of the ICRP. ICRP Publication 60. New York, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 235864. | ||
101837 | JAI 1996 | JAI 1996. Shipping and Storage Cask Data for Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel. JAI-421. Fairfax, Virginia: JAI Corporation. TIC: 232956. | ||
104778 | Jensen 1998 | Jensen 1998. "Radionuclide Data for DOE SNF Decayed to the Year 2030." E-mail from C. Jensen (INEEL) to S. Ross, J. Rivers, J.H. Boyd (INEEL), DFF (INEEL), R. McCormack (RL), and K. Skipper, February 27, 1998, with attachment. ACC: MOL.19990526.0028. | ||
104780 | Johnson et al. 1993 | Johnson, P.E.; Joy, D.S.; Clarke, D.B.; and Jacobi, J.M. 1993. HIGHWAY 3.1—An Enhanced Highway Routing Model: Program Description, Methodology, and Revised User’s Manual. ORNL/TM-12124. D00000000-02268-2003-20012 REV 1. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ACC: MOV.19960711.0024. | ||
104781 | Johnson et al. 1993 | Johnson, P.E.; Joy, D.S.; Clarke, D.B.; and Jacobi, J.M. 1993. INTERLINE 5.0—An Expanded Railroad Routing Model: Program Description, Methodology, and Revised User’s Manual. ORNL/TM-12090. D00000000-02268-2002-20015 REV 1. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ACC: MOV.19960711.0014. | ||
104782 | Kelderhouse 1999 | Kelderhouse, S. 1999. "LWT, HH and Rail Transportation Graphics." E-mail from S. Kelderhouse to R. Best (CRWMS M&O), April 27, 1999, with attachment. ACC: MOL.19990526.0027. | ||
155931 | Knop 2001 | Knop, M. 2001. "Transportation Issue.Eps Files." E-mail from M. Knop (BSC) to L. Hall (Jason Technologies), August 2, 2001. ACC: MOL.20011009.0057. | ||
104783 | Kohles 1998 | Kohles, D.S. 1998. Accident Rate for the State of Nebraska for Interstate Truck Carriers was 2.36E-7 Accidents per Truck-Km for the Year 1997. Letter from D.S. Kohles (State of Nebraska) to J. Booth and R. Smith (DOE/YMSCO), July 17, 1998. ACC: MOL.19990610.0296. | ||
148083 | Luedke 1997 | Luedke, D.D. 1997. "Requested Air Traffic Activity Information for Nellis AFB, NV." Memorandum from D. Luedke (USAF) to L. Devine (HQ ACC/CEVP), November 10, 1997. TIC: 244064. | ||
101845 | Maheras and Pippen 1995 | Maheras, S.J. and Pippen, H.K. 1995. Validation of the Transportation Computer Codes HIGHWAY, INTERLINE, RADTRAN 4, and RISKIND. DOE/ID-10511. [Idaho Falls], Idaho: U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office. TIC: 222831. | ||
102172 | McClure and Fagan 1998 | McClure, J.D. and Fagan, H.F. 1998. Transportation Accidents/Incidents Involving Radioactive Materials (1971-1977). Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. TIC: 243740. | ||
156757 | Morissette 2001 | Morissette, R. 2001. Commercial Engine Shaft Info E-mail from R. Morissette (BSC) to P. Davis (Jason Technologies), October 23, 2001. ACC: MOL.20011029.0021. | ||
153066 | Murphy 2000 | Murphy, S.L. 2000. Deaths: Final Data for 1998. National Vital Statistics Reports. Vol. 48, No. 11. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. TIC: 249111. | ||
155551 | NASA 1995 | NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassini Mission. Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ACC: MOL.20010802.0223. | ||
155550 | NASA 1997 | NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) 1997. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassini Mission. Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ACC: MOL.20010802.0218. | ||
103405 | NDOT 1997 | NDOT (Nevada Department of Transportation) 1997. The Annual Traffic Report. Carson City, Nevada: Nevada Department of Transportation. TIC: 242973. | ||
156930 | NDOT 2001 | NDOT (Nevada Department of Transportation) 2001. | ||
150898 | Neuhauser and Kanipe 2000 | Neuhauser, K.S. and Kanipe, F.L. 2000. RADTRAN 5, User Guide. SAND2000-1257. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. TIC: 249356. | ||
155430 | Neuhauser, Kanipe, and Weiner 2000 | Neuhauser, K.S.; Kanipe, F.L.; and Weiner, R.F. 2000. RADTRAN 5, Technical Manual. SAND2000-1256. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. TIC: 249356. | ||
101892 | NRC 1977 | NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 1977. Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Materials by Air and Other Modes. NUREG-0170. Two volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TIC: 221616. | ||
104784 | Ostmeyer 1986 | Ostmeyer, R.M. 1986. A Revised Rail-Stop Exposure Model for Incident-Free Transport of Nuclear Waste. SAND85-2149. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: HQZ.19870615.6381. | ||
103449 | PGE 1996 | PGE (Portland General Electric) 1996. Trojan Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Safety Analysis Report. PGE-1069. Portland, Oregon: Portland General Electric. TIC: 243815. | ||
155825 | Poston 2001 | Poston, T. M. 2001. Screening and Reconnaissance-Level Methods Used to Assess Potential Noise and Ground Vibration Impacts Associated with the Construction and Operation of a Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Richland, Washington: Battelle Pacific Northwest Division. ACC: MOL.20011009.0019. | ||
156754 | Rascovar 2001 | Rascovar, B. 2001. "Region Needs Rail Lines." Baltimore, Maryland: The Baltimore Sun. http://www.sunspot.net/tunnelfire/sunspot_ net - archive9.htm | ||
154814 | Sandquist et al. 1985 | Sandquist, G.M.; Rogers, V.C.; Sutherland, A.A.; and Merrell, G.B. 1985. Exposures and Health Effects from Spent Fuel Transportation. RAE-8339/12-1. Salt Lake City, Utah: Rogers and Associates Engineering. TIC: 200593. | ||
101920 | Saricks and Kvitek 1994 | Saricks, C.L. and Kvitek, T. 1994. Longitudinal Review of State-Level Accident Statistics for Carriers of Interstate Freight. ANL/ESD/TM-68. Argonne, Illinois: Argonne National Laboratory. TIC: 236747. | ||
103455 | Saricks and Tompkins 1999 | Saricks, C.L. and Tompkins, M.M. 1999. State-Level Accident Rates of Surface Freight Transportation: A Reexamination. ANL/ESD/TM-150. Argonne, Illinois: Argonne National Laboratory. TIC: 243751. | ||
103725 | SCDPS 1997 | SCDPS (South Carolina Department of Public Safety) 1997. 1996 South Carolina Traffic Collision Fact Book. Columbia, South Carolina: South Carolina Department of Public Safety. TIC: 243552. | ||
101747 | Schneider et al. 1987 | Schneider, K.J.; Ross, W.A.; Smith, R.I.; Daling, P.M.; Grinde, R.B.; Hostick, C.J.; Peterson, R.W.; Stiles, D.L.; Weakley, S.A.; and Young, J.R. 1987. Analysis of Radiation Doses from Operation of Postulated Commercial Spent Fuel Transportation Systems. DOE-CH/TPO-001. Chicago, Illinois: U.S. Department of Energy Chicago Operations Office. TIC: 208877. | ||
152476 | Sprung et al. 2000 | Sprung, J.L.; Ammerman, D.J.; Breivik, N.L.; Dukart, R.J.; Kanipe, F.L.; Koski, J.A.; Mills, G.S.; Neuhauser, K.S.; Radloff, H.D.; Weiner, R.F.; and Yoshimura, H.R. 2000. Reexamination of Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates. NUREG/CR-6672. Two volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACC: MOL.2001010.0217. | ||
153967 | Steinman and Kearfott 2000 | Steinman, R.L. and Kearfott, K.J. 2000. "A Comparison of the RADTRAN 5 and RISKIND 1.11 Incident-Free Dose Models." Waste Management 2000. HLW, LLW, Mixed Wastes and Environmental Restoration — Working Towards a Cleaner Environment, Proceedings of the Symposium on Waste Management, Tucson, Arizona, February 27 - March 2, 2000. Tucson, Arizona: WM Symposia. TIC: 249684. | ||
103472 | USAF 1999 | USAF (U.S. Air Force) 1999. Renewal of the Nellis Air Force Range Land Withdrawal: Legislative Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Air Force. TIC: 243264. | ||
156760 | Westcamp 2001 | Westcamp, M. 2001. Potential Rail Files Email from M. Westcamp (BSC) to L. Hall (Jason Technologies) dated November 3, 2001. | ||
156761 | Westcamp 2001 | Westcamp, M. 2001. Heavy Haul Email from M. Westcamp (BSC) to L. Hall (Jason Technologies) dated November 3, 2001. | ||
104801 | Wort 1998 | Wort, L.F. 1998. "Request for Crash Statistics Interstate Motor Carriers." Letter from L.F. Wort (Illinois DOT) to K.J. Skipper (DOE/YMSCO), June 2, 1998, with enclosure. ACC: MOL.19990511.0390. | ||
104737 | YMP 1997 | YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1997. Location of Alternative Heavy-Haul Routes and Future Las Vegas Beltway. YMP-97-262.0. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.19990610.0306. | ||
104743 | YMP 1998 | YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1998. Nevada Routes for Legal-Weight Truck Shipments of SNF and HLW to Yucca Mountain. YMP/97-310.3. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.19990526.0033. | ||
104560 | YMP 1998 | YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1998. Potential Rail Alignments. YMP/98-104.0. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.19990526.0034. | ||
104792 | YMP 1990 | YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1990. Preliminary Rail Access Study. YMP/89-16. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.19980817.0094. | ||
104735 | YMP 1991 | YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1991. The Nevada Railroad System: Physical, Operational and Accident Characteristics. YMP 91-19. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: NNA.19920608.0151. | ||
101483 | Yuan et al. 1995 | Yuan, Y.C.; Chen, S.Y.; Biwer, B.M.; and LePoire, D.J. 1995. RISKIND –A Computer Program for Calculating Radiological Consequences and Health Risks from Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel. ANL/EAD-1. Argonne, Illinois: Argonne National Laboratory. TIC: 241380. |