Transportation of transuranic nuclear waste to WIPP: A reconsideration of truck versus rail for two sites

Natural Resources Journal

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 92-120

  Neill, Helen R ^a   Neill, Robert H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b Environmental Evaluation Group

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 32144457490     PISSN: 00280739     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (157)

1. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act, Pub. L. No. 102-579, § 16(f), 106 Stat. 4777, 4793-94 (1992), amended by Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Amendment Act, Pub. L. No. 104-201, §§ 3181-91, 110 Stat. 2422, 2851-54 (1996).
2. Dedicated trains are used solely to transport radioactive waste.
3. See Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act, § 16(f), 106 Stat. at 4793-94.
4. Id. § at 4793.
5. See U.S. DEP'T OF ENERGY, DOC. NO. DOE/WIPP 93-058, COMPARATIVE STUDY OF WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT (WIPP) TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES (1994) [hereinafter COMPARATIVE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES];
6. U.S. DEP'T OF ENERGY, DOC. NO. DOE/WIPP 95-2135 REV. 0, ENGINEERED ALTERNATIVES COST/BENEFIT STUDY FINAL REPORT (1995) [hereinafter ENGINEERED ALTERNATIVES];
7. U.S. DEP'T OF ENERGY, DOC NO. DOE/CAO-95-1121 REV. 3, TRANSURANIC WASTE BASELINE INVENTORY REPORT (1996) [hereinafter TRU BASELINE INVENTORY REPORT];
8. U.S. DEP'T OF ENERGY, DOC. NO. DOE/NTP 96-1204 REV. 1, THE NATIONAL TRU WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (1997) [hereinafter NATIONAL TRU PLAN];
9. U.S. DEP'T OF ENERGY, DOC. NO. DOE/EIS-0200-F, FINAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR MANAGING TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE AND HAZARDOUS WASTE (1997) [hereinafter PROGRAMMATIC EIS TREATMENT, STORAGE, DISPOSAL WASTE];
10. U.S. DEP'T OF ENERGY, DOC. NO. DOE/EIS-0026-S-2, WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (1997) [hereinafter DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS].
11. See Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase, 63 Fed. Reg. 3624, 3624-26 (1998);
12. Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Management Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic Waste, 63 Fed. Reg. 3629, 3632 (1998).
13. See Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase, 63 Fed. Reg. at 3625.
14. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, D-9 tbl.D-11.
15. See id.
16. See telephone Interview with Philip Gregory, TRUPACT-II Cognizant Engineer, Westinghouse Inc., Carlsbad, N.M. (Mar. 3, 1999) ($900,000 equals three TRUPACTS and a trailer; $900,000=3 ($285,000)+$45,000).
17. See I DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at 5-10 tbl.5-2.
18. See Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase, 63 Fed. Reg. 3624, 3628 (1998).
19. INEEL is 43 miles west of Idaho Falls, Idaho.
20. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at E-15 tbl.E-1 (estimated by number of shipments where (13,666+5782)/29,766=65.3%).
21. See id. at E-17 tbl.E-2 (estimated by number of shipments where (3178+3136)/7957=79%).
22. See NATIONAL TRU PLAN, supra note 5, at 26.
23. See I DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at 2-3.
24. See id.
25. Each drum is a 55-gallon (208-liter) container.
26. See I DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at 2-3.
27. See TRU BASELINE INVENTORY REPORT, supra note 5, at 3-7 to 3-9 tbl.3-1.
28. See I DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at 2-3.
29. This is called a "72-B shipping cask." See id.
30. See id. at 2-4.
31. See U.S. DEP'T OF ENERGY, DOC. NO. DOE/CAO 98-3103 REV. 0, WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2 (1998).
32. See TRU BASELINE INVENTORY REPORT, supra note 5, at 3-3 to 3-9 tbl.3-1.
33. Contrary to public perception, TRU waste is not low-level waste.
34. See I DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at 2-3.
35. See Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase, 63 Fed. Reg. 3624, 3624 (1998).
36. See Record of Decision for the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, 64 Fed. Reg. 16,948; 16, 949; 16,952 (1999) [hereinafter INEEL ROD Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project].
37. See I DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at 3-3 tbl.3-1.
38. See id. at 1-3.
39. See Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes, 40 C.F.R. § 191 app.A (1999).
40. See PROGRAMMATIC EIS TREATMENT, STORAGE, DISPOSAL WASTE, supra note 5, at 118 (Summary).
41. The waste acceptance criteria for waste (WAC) to be received at WIPP were developed to have knowledge of the characteristics of the waste, (radioactivity, absence of free liquids, etc.) to be able to predict the long-term disposal performance of the repository, and evaluate operational and transportation risks. See I DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at 2-5.
42. See I DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at 3-4.
43. See NATIONAL TRU PLAN, supra note 5, at 12 (approximately 36.7 drums per shipment times 17 shipments per week equal 620 drums per week).
44. See Western Governors' Ass'n Technical Advisory Group for WIPP Transp., Report to the Western Governors' and Secretary of Energy: Safe Transport of Transuranic Wastes to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 10 (1991).
45. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at E-7 fig.E-1.
46. See generally Hazardous Waste Act, N.M. Stat Ann. § 74-4-1 to 74-4-14 (Michie Repl. Pamp. 1993).
47. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at E-28 tbl.E-9.
48. See id. at D-9 tbl.D-11.
49. This includes 5462 truck shipments from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and the Nevada Test Site (NTS). See infra Tables B-1 & B-2.
50. See COMPARATIVE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES, supra note 5, at ES-1.
51. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at D-8 to D-9, E-28 tbl.E-9, E-68 tbl.E-29.
52. High Level Waste is considerably more radioactive and has a greater thermal loading than TRU waste.
53. NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEP'T, EPA NO. NM4890139088, I HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY FINAL PERMIT: ISSUED TO WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT III-1 tbl.III.A.1, III-3 tbl.III.A.2 (Oct. 27, 1999).
54. Calculation by authors ((122m3)/(14 drums X 0.2m3/drum) = 43 containers).
55. See id. at III-2.
56. See NATIONAL TRU PLAN, supra note 5, at 12.
57. See I DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at 3-7 (Transportation Tracking and Communications System).
58. See Movements to be Expedited, 49 C.F.R. § 174.14 (1998).
59. See I DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at 5-13 to 5-14.
60. See COMPARATIVE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES, supra note 5, at 7-8.
61. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at D-9 tbl.D-11.
62. See Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase, 63 Fed. Reg. 3624, 3624-26 (1998).
63. DOE reports include Estimates in 1993 and 1994 dollars. See COMPARATIVE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES, supra note 5, at ES-6 (in 1993 dollars);
64. II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at D-6 (in 1994 dollars).
65. These values are 4.4% of the CH-shipment miles and 1.2% of the RH-shipment miles. See infra Tables B-I & B-2.
66. See COMPARATIVE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES, supra note 5, at 7-3, 7-7.
67. See NATIONAL TRU PLAN, supra note 5, at 53.
68. See Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material, Package Approval Standards, 10 C.F.R. § 71.41(b) (1999).
69. See WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP., SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT FOR THE TRUPACT-II SHIPPING PACKAGE (Rev. 17 1999).
70. See Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation, 49 C.F.R. § 393 (1998).
71. See I DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at 2-3;
72. II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at E-13.
73. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act, Pub. L. No. 102-579, § 16(c), 106 Stat. 4777, 4791 (1992), amended by Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Amendment Act, Pub. L. No. 104-201, §§ 3181-91, 110 Stat. 2422, 2851-54 (1996).
74. Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.120 (1999).
75. Routing and Training Requirements for Radioactive Materials, 49 C.F.R. §§ 397.101, 397.103 (1998).
76. See COMPARATIVE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES, supra note 5, at 1-6;
77. I DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at 5-14 to 5-15.
78. See Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act, Pub. L. No. 102-579, §1 5, 106 Stat. 4777, 4793 (1992), amended by Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Amendment Act, Pub. L. No. 104-201, §§ 3181-91, 110 Stat. 2422, 2851-54 (1996); NEW MEXICO STATE HIGHWAY & TRANSP. DEP'T, WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STATUS REPORT 1 (1996).
79. See Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase, 63 Fed. Reg. 3624, 3628 (1998).
80. See C. SARICKS & T. KVITEK, LONGITUDINAL REVIEW OF STATE LEVEL ACCIDENT STATISTICS FOR CARRIERS OF INTERSTATE FREIGHT 20 (Argonne National Laboratory Doc. No. ANL/ESD/TM-68, 1994). Foster and Jordan acknowledge that radioactive materials have a better transportation record than any other type of hazardous material.
81. See BARBARA FOSTER & JULIE JORDAN, A GUIDE TO RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION 50 (Sandia National Laboratories No. SAND84-7143, Sharon Bjorkman ed., 1984).
82. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at E-26 to E-29 tbl.E-8, E-55, E-66.
83. See id. at E-68 to E-71, tbls.E-29 to E-32.
84. See Tammy O. Tengs et al., Five-Hundred Life-Saving Interventions and Their Cost-Effectiveness, 15 RISK ANALYSIS 369, 371 tbl.1 (1995).
85. See NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, IMPROVING RISK COMMUNICATION 172, 175 fig.7.1 (1989).
86. -8 accidents per mile for rail).
87. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at D-9 tbl.D-11.
88. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at E-28 tbl.E-9.
89. See id. at E-68 to E-71 tbls.E-29 to E-32 (predictions of health effects from rail transport were all prorated from the number of shipments of rail alternatives).
90. See id. at E-28 tbl.E-9.
91. Latent cancer fatalities.
92. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at E-28 tbl.E-9.
93. Radiation induced latent cancer fatalities in workers resulting from normal transportation.
94. See II DISPOSAL PHASE SEIS, supra note 5, at E-38 tbl.E-14.
95. Radiation induced latent cancer fatalities in the general population resulting from normal transportation.
96. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at E-38 tbl.E-14.
97. Radiation induced latent cancer fatalities resulting from severe accidents.
98. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at E-53 rbl.E-22.
99. This calculation is only for CH-TRU TRUPACT shipping containers.
100. See ENGINEERED ALTERNATIVES, supra note 5, at P-89 tbl.P-53, P-110 tbl.P-74.
101. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at D-9 tbl.D-11.
102. See PROGRAMMATIC EIS TREATMENT, STORAGE, DISPOSAL WASTE, supra note 5, at 119 (Summary).
103. See I DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at 3-2.
104. See id. at 3-3 tbl.3-1.
105. See Agreement for Consultation and Cooperation, July 1, 1981, State of N.M.-U.S. Dep't of Energy, at art. VI, c & c-5.
106. See id.
107. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act, Pub. L. No. 102-579, 106 Stat. 4777 (1992), amended by Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Amendment Act, Pub. L. No. 104-201, §§ 3181-91, 110 Stat. 2422, 2851-54 (1996).
108. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at D-9 tbl.D-11.
109. Each report considers different time periods as well as different assumptions.
110. See IV PROGRAMMATIC EIS TREATMEMT, STORAGE, DISPOSAL WASTE, supra note 5, at E-24 tbl.E-2.
111. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at E-22 tbl.E-5.
112. See U.S. DEP'T OF ENERGY, DOC. NO. DOE/CAO-95-1121 REV. 2, TRANSURANIC WASTE BASELINE INVENTORY REPORT, 4-10 tbl.4-9 (1995).
113. See K.J. TEMPLETON ET AL., HANFORD'S REMOTE-HANDLED TRANSURANIC AND TRANSURANIC MIXED WASTE VOLUME ASSESSMENT: MARCH 1996 1.4 tbl.1.2 (U.S. Dep't of Energy, Doc. No. PNNL-11206 1996).
114. See TRU BASELINE INVENTORY REPORT, supra note 5, at ES-7 tbl.ES-4.
115. See U.S. DEP'T OF ENERGY, DOC. NO. DOE/NTP 96-1204 REV. 0, THE NATIONAL TRANSURANIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 tbl.1-1 (1996).
116. See I DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at 2-6, tbl.2-2.
117. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at J-3 tbl.J-2.
118. Only 2,800 cubic meters will be shipped to WIPP. See I DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at 3-3 n.i.
119. See U.S. DEP'T OF ENERGY, DOC. NO. DOE/RW-006 REV. 13, INTEGRATED DATA BASE REPORT-1996: U.S. SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE INVENTORIES, PROJECTIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS 3-7 tbl.3.1 (1997).
120. NATIONAL TRU PLAN, supra note 5, at 3 tbl.1-1.
121. See COMPARATIVE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES, supra note 5, at 7-3 tbl.7-1, ES-2.
122. See ENGINEERED ALTERNATIVES, supra note 5, at P-89 tbl. P-53, P-110 tbl.P-74.
123. See IV PROGRAMMATIC EIS TREATMENT, STORAGE DISPOSAL WASTE, supra note 5, at E-74 tbl.E-21 (only includes 20 years of TRU waste generation).
124. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at E-15 tbl.E-1, E-17 tbl.E-2. Consolidation requires 27 additional CH and 958 RH shipments. See id. at E-19 tbl.E-3.
125. See COMPARATIVE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES, supra note 5, at ES-6 (contract rate).
126. See id.
127. See id at ES-6 (commercial rate).
128. See id. at ES-6, 7-8 tbl.7-7 (class rate).
129. Calculated based on Feizollahi's equations for 1500 miles. See FRED FEIZOLLAHI ET AL., WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES COST INFORMATION FOR TRANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 11-12 (Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Doc. No. EGG-WM-10877, Rev. 1 1994).
130. See ENGINEERED ALTERNATIVES, supra note 5, at P-89 tbl.P-53, P-110 tbl. P-74 (value is sum of totals on these two tables).
131. See I PROGRAMMATIC EIS TREATMENT, STORAGE, DISPOSAL WASTE, supra note 5, at 8-73 tbl.8.14-2 (Life Cycle Costs billions of 1994 dollars).
132. See id.
133. See I DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at 5-10 tbl.5.2.
134. Calculated. See tables B-3 through B-5.
135. See INEEL ROD Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project, 64 Fed. Reg. 16948, 16949 (1999). DOE was required to begin shipping 3,100 cubic meters of waste from INEEL by April 30, 1999, under terms of a Settlement Agreement/Consent Order. See id.
136. See id. at 16948.
137. See COMPARATIVE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES, supra note 5, at 1-5.
138. See id. at 7-10.
139. The authors assumed this would be a fair salary for technically trained couriers and an equal amount for overhead was reasonable.
140. See id.
141. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at D-9 tbl.D-11.
142. See ENGINEERED ALTERNATIVES, supra note 5, at P-28.
143. See id. at P-27; FEIZOLLAHI ET AL., supra note 119, at 11.
144. See III PROGRAMMATIC EIS TREATMENT, STORAGE, DISPOSAL WASTE, supra note 5, at C-36.
145. See id.; FRED FEIZOLLAHI ET AL., WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES COST INFORMATION FOR TRANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Doc. No. INEL-95/0300 Rev. 1, 1995)
146. (formerly FRED FEIZOLLAHI ET AL., WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES COST INFORMATION FOR TRANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Doc. No. EGG-WM-10877 Rev. 1, 1994)).
147. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at D-8.
148. See COMPARATIVE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES, supra note 5, at 7-8 tbl.7-7.
149. See id. at ES-4.
150. See FEIZOLLAHI ET AL., supra note 135, at 11-12.
151. See ENGINEERED ALTERNATIVES, supra note 5, at P-89 tbl.P-53, P-110 tbl.P-74.
152. See COMPARATIVE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES, supra note 5, at 7-4 tbl.7-2.
153. See id. at 7-5 tbl.7-4.
154. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at D-9. The $0.12 per mile given in this reference is an error and should be $12.00 per mile.
155. See Letter from Harold Johnson, NEPA Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, to Christa Hazlett, Editor, Natural Resources Journal (Feb. 4, 2000) (on file with the Natural Resources Journal).
156. See COMPARATIVE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE, supra note 5, at 7-8 tbl.7-7.
157. See II DISPOSAL PHASE FINAL SEIS, supra note 5, at D-8.