Social and Economic Aspects of Radioactive Waste Disposal Considerations for Institutional Management (1984) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3. The Waste Management Network: The Role of Transportation and Repository Location
3. The Waste Management Network: The Role of Transportation and Repository Location
Pages 48-82
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 48... ...
Chapter 1 noted that the assessment of socioeconomic effects at individual sites requires an understanding of the entire management network, not simply the repository site. The panel examined the socioeconomic effects of the above-ground radioactive waste management system from three perspectives: the number and location of repositories, the type of transport used (rail or truck)
|
From page 49... ...
The siting of nuclear waste repositories will require the transportation of spent fuel across many states. Shipments through local jurisdictions at the outer fringes of the transportation network would be relatively infrequent, but, within the main transportation corridors, the closer a community is to a repository site, the more frequently shipments pass by.
|
From page 51... ...
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) was asked by the panel to use its computer program and planning , assumptions to provide detail on rail and truck access to reactors, transportation routes, transportation cask inventories, system costs, and transport speeds to several hypothetical sites stipulated by the panel.
|
From page 52... ...
Table 3.1 shows a set of radioactive waste management systems and the one chosen by the panel as its reference The Waste Funnel The transport of spent reactor fuel entails a variety of activities: loading on trucks or rail cars, or both; possible collection at depots or transfer points (for rail shipments) ; monitoring passage along highways or rail lines; and offloading at the storage facilities.
|
From page 54... ...
would require a few more truck shipments because BWR truck casks used in these calculations hold slightly less spent fuel. Rail casks for the two reactor types have roughly equivalent capacity.
|
From page 55... ...
System Characteristics By the year 2004, there would be, in our reference system, 113 reactors shipping spent fuel, a combined truck/rail transportation system with average transport speeds of 6 mph for rail cars and 35 mph for trucks*
|
From page 56... ...
Implications of differences in the design of an aboveground predisposal system, especially in the distribution of socioeconomic and institutional effects, have not been specifically addressed in previous analyses (such as the Generic Environmental Impact Statement, DOE's National Plan, DOE's National Siting Plan, or the Proposed General Guidelines for Recommendations of Sites for Nuclear Waste Repositories)
|
From page 57... ...
Because truck shipment is more cost-effective for short hauls than is rail shipment, the choice of regional repositories would tend to favor trucks, whereas a western repository would favor greater use of rail transport. Costs In capital cost, the largest element of the transportation system is in the casks themselves (estimated at $1 million for a truck cask and $5 million per rail cask, cf.
|
From page 58... ...
58 off ;:: ~ _·.
|
From page 59... ...
s9 ~-7 1 to to Al o ~ u]
|
From page 60... ...
60 so o .,' _ U]
|
From page 61... ...
Total capital cost of above-ground operations Number of workers per cask for transport operations (5 trip tenders 10-15 loaders and handlers)
|
From page 62... ...
These conclusions are generally consistent with the findings of a 1979 Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation (ONWI) study, which found that optimal regional siting of two to three repositories would decrease transportation costs and risks relative to those for a single site by as much as a factor of 2 (Kirby et al.
|
From page 69... ...
Later in this chapter a variety of obstacles to a predominantly rail transportation system are noted. Since extensive use of truck transportation appears quite possible, the panel requested ORNL to use its model to project some of the characteristics of truck-only transportation.
|
From page 71... ...
71 A to ~1 to to Ny ~ flu ~ ·r1 in .
|
From page 73... ...
.* Given the level of public concern, the movement of waste through communities could be a source of anxiety to local citizens and could lead to demands for greater local and state influence over nuclear waste transportation policy.
|
From page 74... ...
The institutional effects of facility location and transport should be carefully appraised by DOE in formulating its Mission Plan. State and local regulatory, monitoring, and emergency response capabilities and responsibilities, in particular, will need to be considered (Church and Norton 1981, Norton 1981)
|
From page 75... ...
The panel considers regional equity, with its potential for co-location of costs, risks, and benefits (whatever they are and however they may be defined) , as an important and possibly necessary ingredient in achieving social consensus on a nuclear waste management program.
|
From page 76... ...
If it is possible to defer the AFR decision through expanded on-site storage capacity until potential repository locations become clearer, transportation costs and risks might be reduced through co-location of interim storage and final disposal. Costs Costs involved in the interim storage option would probably be distributed quite differently from costs for alternatives involving direct shipment to either regional or national repositories.
|
From page 77... ...
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides little guidance to the DOE on criteria for accepting fuel into a federally operated AFR or for scheduling shipments from reactors and AFRs to permanent repositories. The logistical and institutional issues involved therein require careful attention and should be studied by DOE in its preparation of a Mission Plan.
|
From page 78... ...
One means for reducing this differential, however, would be to utilize a larger number of casks in a single shipment. For example, 10 casks in one train would reduce by 70 percent the unit cost associated with shipping a single cask by special train (private communication from Jon Cashwell, Transportation Technology Center, Sandia National Laboratories)
|
From page 79... ...
Nevertheless, the railroad industry lacks a strong financial incentive to become heavily involved in spent-fuel transportation, and, in the face of that, the extent to which an incentive to manufacture or use rail casks exists in the United States is unclear. In general, it appears to the panel that the lack of rail access to a number of reactors, unresolved institutional difficulties, and the reluctance of the railroad industry to transport spent fuel makes the achievement of DOE's 90 percent rail/10 percent truck planning hypothesis questionable.
|
From page 80... ...
Specifically, the socioeconomic and institutional issues associated with facility location and transport modes, routes, distances, and scheduling require greater attention than they have received to date. While the panel believes that the logistical and institutional challenges can be met, it finds substantial tasks ahead that merit attention in a formulation and implementation of a national radioactive waste management strategy.
|
From page 81... ...
The panel has identified a variety of obstacles to a predominantly rail transportation system. The rail industry appears to have few economic incentives and a stated reluctance to take on radioactive waste transport.
|
From page 82... ...
1984. Assessing the Estimated Cost and Risk of Nuclear Waste Transportation to Potential Commercial Nuclear Repository Sites.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.