• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

E.16.0 VITRIFIED HLW TRANSPORT TO THE POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY

Under the ex situ treatment alternatives the HLW streams would be vitrified or calcined and eventually shipped to a geologic repository assumed to be located 2,140 km (1,330 mi) offsite by a dedicated train of 10 railcars per train. The nonradiological and radiological transportation impacts associated with this activity are evaluated in this section.

E.16.1 NONRADIOLOGICAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS

The nonradiololgical impacts are injuries and fatalities resulting from rail accidents. The number of injuries and fatalities were calculated by multiplying the total distance traveled in each zone shown in Table E.16.1.1 by the appropriate unit risk factors shown in Table E.1.3.1. The expected injuries and fatalities resulting from transportation accidents associated with each ex situ stabilization alternative are summarized in Table E.16.1.2.

Table E.16.1.1 Distance Traveled in Population Zones

Table E.16.1.2 Injuries and Fatalities from Rail Transportation Accidents

E.16.2 RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES

Radiological exposures resulting from routine exposures and accidents while the waste is in transit were analyzed using RADTRAN 4 (Neuhauser-Kanipe 1992).

Travel fractions and population densities for the offsite rail shipments were determined using a computer code (Peterson 1985, Green 1995). For shipments to the geologic repository in the western United States, the following travel fractions were used:

• Rural population zones - The population density was assumed to be 3.4 persons/km² (8.8 persons/mi²). The fraction of the route spent in rural zones was 0.936 (i.e., nearly 94 percent of the route would be rural);
• Suburban population zone - The population density was assumed to be 406 person/km² (1,051 persons/mi²). The fraction of the route spent in suburban zones was 0.055; and
• Urban population zone - The population density was assumed to be 1,959 persons/km² (5,074 persons/mi²). The fraction of the route spent in urban zones was 0.009.

For routine risk, the key variable in the code was the dose rate from the vehicle package. The radioactive shipments in this analysis were assumed to be less than the regulatory maximum dose rate of 10 mrem per hour at 1 m (3.3 FT) (Jacobs 1996).

For accidents, the population doses calculated by RADTRAN 4 were dependent on the accident probability, release quantities, atmospheric dispersion parameters, population distribution parameters, human uptake, and dosimetry models (Jacobs 1996).

The routine exposures were addressed as onsite population LCF risk and offsite population LCF risk. The analysis addressed radiological accident impacts as both integrated population LCF risk (i.e., accident frequencies times consequences integrated over the entire shipping campaign) and urban population LCF risk. The routine and accident LCF risks resulting from transporting vitrified or calcined HLW to a potential geologic repository are presented in Table E.16.2.1 for each of the ex situ treatment alternatives.

A main uncertainty associated with calculating the radiological doses resulting from transporting HLW to a potential geologic repository is the location of the repository. The analysis was based on the assumption that the waste would be transported to Yucca Mountain, should that site be shown to be acceptable and approved as a potential geologic repository. If Yucca Mountain should not be approved, the LCF risks could increase or decrease depending on the distance and population pathways of the alternative site.

Other uncertainties that would impact the LCF risk is the percent of the waste by weight that could be mixed with the glass matrix. To demonstrate these uncertainties, a sample scenario for the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative is presented in Table E.16.2.2. The baseline analysis used in the EIS assumed a 20 weight percent waste loading. A range from the base line from as little as 15 weight percent to as much as 40 weight percent are used in the uncertainty evaluation (Jacobs 1996).

Table E.16.2.1 LCF Risk from Routine and Accident Radiological Exposures While Shipping Vitrified or Calcined HLW By Rail To A Proposed Geologic Repository

Table E.16.2.2 Uncertainty Evaluation for HLW Glass Transport - Ex Situ Intermediate Separations Alternative

REFERENCES

56 FR 23363. Preamble to Standard for Protection Against Radiation. Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington D.C. May 21, 1991.

Dentler 1995. Dentler, M.E. Toxicological Evaluation of Tank Waste Chemicals. Hanford Environmental Health Foundation Industrial Hygiene Assessments. Richland, Washington. January 13, 1995.

DOE 1994a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Wastes. DOE/EIS-0212. U.S. Department of Energy. Richland, Washington. July 1994.

DOE 1994j. Occupational Injury and Property Damage Summary, January - December 1993. DOE/EH/01570-H5. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, D.C. 1994.

Fox-Stepnewski 1994. Fox, G.L., Jr., and D.D. Stepnewski. Hazard Assessments of Double-Shell Flammable Gas Tanks. WHC-SD-WM-SAR-064. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. 1994.

Golberg 1994. Golberg, C.E. Final Environmental Impact Statement and 1994 Integrated Database Tank Inventory Tables. 71220-94-041. Internal Memorandum to G.K. Allen et al. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. December 13, 1994.

Green 1995. Green, J.R. Transportation Impact Analysis for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Alternatives. WHC-SD-RPT-016, Rev. B. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. January 1995.

ICRP 1975. Report of the Task Group on Reference Man, Report No. 23. International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1975.

ICRP 1991. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Pergamon Press. 1991.

Jacobs 1996. Engineering Calculations for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Kennwwick, Washington. August 1996.

Julyk 1994. Julyk, L.J. Static Internal Pressure Capacity of Hanford Single-Shell Waste Tanks. WHC-SD-WM-TI-623, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. 1994

LANL 1995. A Safety Assessment for Proposed Pump Mixing to Mitigate Episodic Gas Releases in Tank 241-SY-101: Hanford Site, Richland, Washington. LA-UR-92-3196, Rev. 14. Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los Alamos, New Mexico. 1995.

Lipke et al. 1995. Lipke, E.J., H. Babad, G.R. Franz, J.E. Meacham, L.D. Muhlestein. TWRS Safety Basis. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. June 1995.

Napier et al. 1988. Napier, B.A., R.E. Peloquin, D.L. Strenge, and J.V. Ramsdall. GENII - The Hanford Environmental Radiation Dosimetry Software System. PNL-6584. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington. 1988.

Neuhauser-Kanipe 1992. Neuhauser, K.S. and F. L. Kanipe. RADTRAN 4: Volume 3 - User Guide SAND89-2370. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 1992.

NRC 1982. Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequences Assessment at Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1.145. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington D.C. November 1982.

NRC 1977. Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes. NUREG-0170. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, D.C. 1977.

Rao et al. 1982. Rao, R. K., et al. Non-Radiological Impacts of Transporting Radioactive Material. SAND81-1703. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 1982.

Rockwell 1983. Preliminary Interpretation of the Tectonic Stability of the Reference Repository Location, Cold Creek Syncline, Hanford Site. Rockwell International. Richland, Washington. March 1993.

Schreckhise 1993. Schreckhise, R.G. Recommended Environmental Dose Calculation Methods and Hanford-Specific Parameters. PNL-3777, Rev. 2. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washington. April 1993.

Shire et al. 1995. Shire, P.R., W.L. Cowely, B.H. Gilbert, D.A. Smith, and G.L. Smith. Potential Accidents with Radiological and Toxicological Source-terms for Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-WM-ANAL-041, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. May 1995.

Sutton 1996. Sutton, L. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Personal Communication. Richland, Washington. February 12, 1996.

WHC 1996a. Emergency Management Procedures. WHC-CM-4-43. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. 1996.

WHC 1996b. Probabalistic Hazard Analysis, DOE Hanford Site, Washington. WHC-SD-W236A-TI-002, Rev. 1. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. 1996.

WHC 1995c. No Separations Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-WM-EV-103, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.

WHC 1995e. Extensive Separations Pretreatment Alternative Engineering Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-EV-100, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. September 1995.

WHC 1995f. In Situ Treatment and Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Hanford Site Underground Storage Tanks Engineering Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-WM-EV-101, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.

WHC 1995g. No Disposal Action Engineering Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement. WHC-SD-WM-EV-099, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.

WHC 1995j. Tri-Party Agreement Alternative Engineering Data Package for the Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement WHC-SD-WM-EV-104, Rev. 0. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. July 1995.

WHC 1995k. Potential Accidents for Storage and Disposition of Cesium and Strontium Capsules for the Tank Waste Remediation System. Westinghouse Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. 1995.

WHC 1996c. Development of Radiological Concentrations and Unit Liter Doses for TWRS FSAR Radiological Consequence Calculations. WHC-50-SARR-037, Rev. 0. Westinghosue Hanford Company. Richland, Washington. 1996.

WSDT 1993. Washington State Highway Accident Report 1993. Washington State Department of Transportation. Planning and Programming, Service Center Transportation Data Office. Olympia, Washington. 1993.