Mode and Route Analysis

WGA Resolution 99-014:

DOE must commit to:

a) prepare a comprehensive transportation plan that includes the analysis of all needed transport-safety activities in a single document;

b) develop responsible criteria for selecting shipping routes; and

c) develop a sound methodology for evaluating optional mixes of routes and transportation modes.

(back to top of page)

The Highway Paper considered only time, distance, total population, and urban populations while failing to address important safety issues including: minimizing truck accident rates, minimizing emergency response time, avoiding difficult to evacuate populations, minimizing transit through inclement weather, avoiding "high hazards", and imposing time-of-day travel restrictions.

The Committee found that "the proposed rail routing methodology itself is little more than an effort to simulate current private railroad practices; it does not evaluate the safety of such practices compared with other route selection methodologies." For example, the paper provided no guidance on how DOE will determine when to use general freight, dedicated trains, or special train service, and how that choice may affect routes selected.
OCRWM has currently shelved any further work on routing issues.

Financial and Technical Assistance to States/Tribes [NWPA Section 180(c)]

WGA Resolution 99-014:

Critical steps need to be taken to prepare states and tribes for shipments:

a. Appropriate funding for technical assistance and training programs for corridor states/tribes;

b. Implement policies and procedures for Section 180(c) to assure that states are fully compensated for all training, preparedness, and response costs.
Section 180(c) funding formulae must not be based on arbitrarily established DOE criteria, but on state-specific need assessments funded under Section 180(c);

c. Adopt in regulations a mutually acceptable assistance program that would:

1) Prohibit shipments if 180(c) funds/assistance have not been made available to states/tribes at least three years prior to the start of shipments, notwithstanding whether such facilities are publicly or privately owned or whether there are any sudden changes in DOE's shipping schedule;

2) Provide for the development and funding of state/tribal plans that identify: the minimum elements necessary to ensure safe routine transportation and procedures for dealing with emergency response situations, the current capabilities along each corridor, the activities needed to achieve minimum elements, and performance measures to evaluate programs implemented under the plan;

3) Provide annual implementation grants to states/tribes with 75 percent of the funds allocated by the number of projected shipment miles in the jurisdiction and 25 percent allocated to ensure minimum funding levels and program capabilities;

4) Provide flexibility in the expenditure of Section 180(c) funds pursuant to the state or tribal plans;

5) Establish Regional Training Advisory Teams of states and tribes to review and coordinate plans along shipment corridors and a National Training Advisory Committee to report to DOE on progress and needed additional actions.

(back to top of page)

For instance, the latest Notice discarded a rigid and unworkable funding "formula" which had been advocated by the previous Notice of Proposed Policy and Procedures. The Committee noted that "Allowing states and tribes to determine their needs in preparing for NWPA shipments as part of the grant application process represents a step in the right direction."

However, the Committee found the 180(c) policy outlined in the July 1998 Notice unacceptable because it ignored numerous key policy decisions made by Western Governors, including: 1) failure to provide for the development by DOE, in cooperation with states and tribes of a methodology and criteria for cooperatively identifying modes and routes to be used to transport SNF/HLW; 2) failure to guarantee that no shipments will occur unless Section 180(c) funds and assistance have been made available to states and tribes at least three years prior to the commencement of shipments; 3) failure to provide an acceptable contingency plan in the event adequate funding and assistance has not been provided to states and tribes; 4) failure to provide that Section 180(c) funds will be available regardless of whether shipments are made to a facility operated by the Department of Energy or another entity; and 5) failure to commit to establishing the Section 180(c) grant program in regulations.

DOE is continuing work through its National Transportation Program to coordinate possible consolidated transportation grants for states and tribes. However, OCRWM has currently shelved any further work on 180(c) issues.

WGA Resolution 99-014:

Early coordination and effective communications with state, tribal, and local governments is essential to the ultimate success of any nuclear waste transportation safety program. DOE should look to the WIPP program as a model in developing:

a) a safety and public information program;

b) a framework for transportation
planning similar to the WIPP Program Implementation Guide;

c) a proposed set of primary and secondary shipping routes by working through its regional cooperative-agreement groups. DOE should require the use of these routes through mandatory contract provisions with any private contractors;

d) flexible funding resources and cooperative agreements between their civilian, power and defense agencies as a means for supporting WGA and DOE application of lessons learned through the WIPP safety program.

(back to top of page)

In fact, in its latest RFP for privatizing transportation services, OCRWM made no provision for a DOE analysis of routes. Instead, the RFP calls on the contractor to prepare a Transportation Plan that "sets forth" proposed transportation routes. The RFP provided no requirements for the methodology by which the contractor is to set forth its proposed routes.

As the Committee has previously stated, a private contractor, motivated primarily by profit and cost-efficiency, will be most likely to choose routes based solely on minimizing miles traveled, time in transit, and rail tariffs. Other risk factors such as accident rates, potential property exposure, transit through sensitive areas, emergency response times, difficult to evacuate populations, dangers posed by bridges and tunnels, inclement weather, high-hazards, and time-of-day transit restrictions are not likely to be adequately addressed, if they are considered at all. Designating routes in this fashion is unacceptable to western states.

OCRWM has taken no steps towards modeling other aspects of the WIPP program, such as developing a document similar to the WIPP Program Implementation Guide. In addition, OCRWM has terminated funding of work with its regional cooperative agreement groups on high-level radioactive waste transportation issues.

The Committee is encouraged by DOE's current efforts to develop and revise its transportation protocols. This effort could result in some of the WIPP protocols being adopted for OCRWM shipments.

WGA Resolution 99-014:
DOE must commit to conducting full-scale testing of casks to be used to transport SNF/HLW.

(back to top of page)

WGA Resolution 99-014:

In any NWPA shipping campaign, DOE cannot privatize or delegate to a contractor key transportation responsibilities, including but not limited to:

a. Interaction with states and tribes;

  
b. Selection of transportation modes/routes;

c. Preparation of EIS' addressing transportation concerns;

d. Selection of transportation casks;

e. Working with states/tribes to develop acceptable transportation communication, training and security plans; and

f. Decisions regarding the provision of adequate technical assistance and
funding to states/tribes.

(back to top of page)

The Committee was especially pleased with DOE"s general statement in the current RFP that it will retain responsibility for policy decisions, stakeholder relations, and implementing Section 180(c) of the NWPA. However, the Committee was highly concerned that many critical policy decisions would be improperly delegated to the contractor, such as the responsibility for selecting modes, routes and casks as well as the development of institutional plans and the preparation of an environmental impact statement addressing transportation concerns.

The Committee stated that a transportation system designed in this fashion would undermine public confidence and could jeopardize the safety of citizens along transportation corridors. The Committee requested that OCRWM release another draft of the RFP clarifying these points.

OCRWM has shelved further work on the RFP.

WGA Resolution 98-008:

DOE should incorporate terrorism/sabotage risk management and countermeasures in all DOE transportation plans relating to operation of a repository, interim storage facility, and/or intermodal transfer facility, including liability for costs and damages resulting from terrorism/sabotage against nuclear waste shipments.

(back to top of page)