ML19184A164

Enclosure 3 - Er Changed Pages

ML19184A164
Person / Time
Site:	Consolidated Interim Storage Facility
Issue date:	06/28/2019
From:	Consolidated Interim Storage Facility
To:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Shared Package
ML19184A159	List: ML19184A160 ML19184A161 ML19184A163 ML19184A164
References
CAC 001028, E-54423, EPID: L-2017-NEW-0002
Download: ML19184A164 (44)

Text

Enclosure 3 to E-54423 ER Changed Pages (Non-Proprietary)

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-12 Revision 3 4.2.6 Radiological Impacts of Transportation ISP evaluated the radiological impacts associated with the transport of SNF to the proposed CISF site from both operating and decommissioned sites. The evaluation used three sample rail routes to estimate bounding doses for normal (incident-free) transportation and potential accidents for both proposed rail shipments to the CISF, and for those from the CISF to a proposed repository. Dose estimates were computed using RADTRAN 6, a computer code originally developed by Sandia National Laboratories under contract to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The doses were also calculated for a representative number of barge and heavy haul highway shipments for several decommissioned sites. Barge and heavy haul shipments may be required to move SNF from the decommissioned site to existing rail connections. The heavy haul and barge shipments were evaluated to see what effect they had on a route's overall dose.

The evaluation determined that the radiological impacts for both incident-free transportation and accidents for shipments to and from the CISF were small and well below background doses. It further showed that barge and heavy haul shipments were not major contributors to overall collective dose.

The population, occupational, and accident doses were also found to be consistent with previous studies conducted by the NRC, namely:

Spent Nuclear Fuel Transportation Risk, NUREG-2125 (NRC, 2014)

Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation on the Reservation for the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Indians and the Related Transportation Facility in Tooele County, Utah (NRC, 2001)

Reexamination of Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates, NUREG/CR-6672 (NRC, 2000)

Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes, NUREG-0170 (NRC, 1977) 4.2.6.1 Scope and Methodology of the ISP Evaluation Radiological impacts of transporting SNF to and from the proposed CISF were estimated using RADTRAN 6 (Weiner, et al, 2014). RADTRAN 6 models both risks of routine, incident-free transportation and transportation accidents. RADTRAN was developed by SNL for the NRC to Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-13 Revision 3 calculate the radiological impacts of transporting radioactive materials in NUREG-0170. Since publication of NUREG-0170, RADTRAN has been updated and used to estimate the risk of radioactive material transportation for environmental impact statements and risk assessments published by NRC, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and other U.S. Federal and state agencies.

The methodology used for ISP's evaluation is similar to those used in NUREG-2125 to address radiological impacts. The population densities were computed using the WebTRAGIS software. The incident-free transportation doses were calculated for populations located within 800 meters (one-half mile) along both sides of the transportation routes using the RADTRAN software. Incident-free doses were calculated using a Transport Index of 14, which is consistent with the maximum dose rate allowed for exclusive use shipments under NRC regulations (10 CFR 71.47 (b) (3)). WebTRAGIS was used in this study to determine the route length and population density along each route segment. Table 4.2-2 lists specific routing parameters used in the evaluation. A more detailed list of parameters can be found in Table 4.1-1 of Attachment 4-1.

Table 4.2-2, Route Parameters for Unit Risk Calculations PARAMETER VALUE SOURCE Unit Risk Factor - Rural 6.11E-08 Calculated by RADTRAN Unit Risk Factor - Suburban 5.32E-08 Calculated by RADTRAN Unit Risk Factor -Urban 1.85E-09 Calculated by RADTRAN Rural Train Speed (km/hr.)

40.4 Maximum speed limit is 80 km/hr. per Association of American Railroads Circular OT-55-P Suburban Train Speed (km/hr.)

40.4 Assumed Lower Speed for Suburban Areas Urban Train Speed (km/hr.)

24.0 Assumed Lower Speed for Suburban Areas Barge Speed (km/hr.)

12.8 Used in NUREG-2125 Heavy Haul speed (km/hr.)

32.2 Used in FEIS for Yucca Mountain Residential Shielding Factor 1.0 RADTRAN Default Suburban Shielding Factor 0.87 RADTRAN Default Urban Shielding Factor 0.018 RADTRAN Default A more detailed description of the methodology used to assess the radiological impacts for transporting SNF to the CISF is presented in Attachment 4-1.

Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-14 Revision 3 4.2.6.2 Comparable NRC Analyses The radiological impacts of transporting SNF have been extensively studied for nearly 40 years.

Several Transportation risk studies have been published by NRC during this period of time; the most recent is Spent Nuclear Fuel Risk Transportation, NUREG-2125 (NRC, 2014). This study was preceded by Sprung, J.L., et al., Reexamination of Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates, NUREG/CR-6672 (NRC,2000), which in turn was preceded by the Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes, NUREG-0170.(NRC, 1977).

All of the NRCs studies mentioned above have concluded that the risk from radiation emitted from a transportation cask during routine, incident-free transportation is a small fraction of the radiation dose received from the natural background.

NUREG 2125, Spent Fuel Transportation Risk Assessment, that (NRC, 2014) concluded that:

1. The collective dose risks from routine transportation are very small. These doses are approximately four to five orders of magnitude less than the collective background radiation dose.

2. Radioactive material would not be released in an accident if the fuel is contained in an inner welded canister inside the cask.

3. Rail casks without inner welded canisters could release radioactive material, and only then in exceptionally severe accidents.

4. If there were an accident during a spent fuel shipment, there is only about one-in-a billion chance that the accident would result in a release of radioactive material.

5. If there were a release of radioactive material in a spent fuel shipment accident, the dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) would be less than 2 Sv (200 rem) and would not result in an acute lethality.

6. The collective dose risks for the two types of extremely severe accidents (accidents involving a release of radioactive material and loss of lead shielding (LOS) accidents) are negligible compared to the risk from a no-release, no-loss of shielding accident.

7. The risk of gamma shielding loss from a fire is negligible.

8. None of the fire accidents investigated in this study resulted in a release of radioactive material.

Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-15 Revision 3 The NRC has also analyzed the radiological impacts from transporting SNF in several EISs supporting other licensing actions and found the radiological impacts to be small.

In licensing the PFS SNF Storage facility, the NRC analyzed the radiological impacts associated with transporting 40,000 MTUs of SNF from Maine Yankee to Goshute Indian Reservation near Salt Lake City, Utah. The radiological impacts attributable to transportation were not significant and served as a basis for issuance of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation on the Reservation for the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Indians and the Related Transportation Facility in Tooele County, Utah (NRC, 2001).

In addition, the NRC relied upon the analysis done for the PFS facility in its Generic Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-2157) to support its recent rulemaking titled, Continued Storage of SNF (NRC, 2014a).

The NRC also analyzed the environmental impacts associated with transporting SNF from Maine Yankee to Deaf Smith County, TX, and found that the radiological impacts were not significant (NRC, 2014b, Table 2-6). As described in Section 4.2.7.1, the doses from shipments from Maine Yankee to the CISF were the largest doses calculated for shipments to the CISF and are of the same magnitude as doses from Maine Yankee to Deaf Smith.

4.2.7 Transportation Routes Radiological impacts associated with transporting SNF from 12 decommissioned reactor sites to the CISF were analyzed. ISP also analyzed shipments from the CISF to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain in Nye County, Nevada.

Since SNF could be required to be transported short distances by heavy haul trucks or barge to a rail transfer facility, ISP analyzed a representative number of shipments to evaluate the dose effect of heavy haul and barge transport. The transportation modes that were analyzed for the shutdown reactor sites are shown in Table 4.2-3. The routes represented in Table 4.2-3 are a representative sample of routes that could be used and are not intended to include all routes that could be used for shipments to the CISF.

Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-16 Revision 3 Table 4.2-3, Transportation Modes from Shutdown Reactor Sites.

Site Transportation Modes Maine Yankee Direct Rail Barge to Rail Yankee Rowe Heavy Haul to Rail Connecticut Yankee Barge to Rail Heavy Haul to Rail Humboldt Bay Barge to Rail Big Rock Point Heavy Haul to Rail Rancho Seco Direct Rail Trojan Direct Rail Barge to Rail La Crosse Direct Rail Barge to Rail Zion Direct Rail Barge to Rail Crystal River Direct Rail Kewaunee Heavy Haul to Rail San Onofre Direct Rail 4.2.7.1 Incident Free Transportation Doses Radiation dose calculations were performed for each of the 12 sites listed in Table 4.2-3.

The methodology used to calculate population doses is explained in Attachment 4-1. The annual collective doses for the Maine Yankee to the CISF, San Onofre to the CISF, and CISF to Yucca Mountain shipments are shown in Table 4.2-4. The annual dose represents the exposure from shipping 200 casks over a one year period. The annual doses for shipment of 200 and 655 casks per year calculated in NUREG-0170 are shown for comparison.

The total collective dose representing the environmental impact attributable to transporting 200 casks of SNF from Maine Yankee and San Onofre to the CISF are shown in Table 4.25 and Table 4.2-6. The dose for shipping a single cask from the CISF to Yucca Mountain is shown in Table 4.2-7. The difference between Table 4.2-4 and Table 4.25/

Table 4.2-6/Table 4.2-7 are that the doses in the latter tables are broken out by state.

The radiological impacts are 0.0873 person-Sv (8.73 person-rem) for transporting 200 canisters of SNF each year from the Maine Yankee NPP to the CISF. The collective radiation dose for transporting 200 canisters of SNF from SONGS to the CISF each year was estimated at 0.0184 person-Sv (1.84 person-rem). Similarly, the impacts of transporting 200 canisters from the CISF to Yucca Mountain were estimated at 0.0157 person-Sv (1.57 person-rem). Conclusions from these transportation analyses demonstrated that the estimated annual collective doses along each of the three Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-17 Revision 3 transportation routes were small and comparable to those estimated in NUREG-0170 for the same number of shipments (200).

Table 4.2-4, Comparison of Annual Incident-free Transportation Impacts Description Number of Rail Casks Shipped per Year Collective Dose person-Sv person-rem Maine Yankee to WCS CISF 200 0.0873 8.73 San Onofre to WCS CISF 200 0.0184 1.84 WCS CISF to Yucca Mountain 200 0.0157 1.57 NUREG-0170 655 2.90 290 NUREG-0170 200 0.31 31 The doses calculated for San Onofre and Maine Yankee in Tables 4.2-5 and 4.2-6 assumed that all of the casks shipped in a year (200) originated at either the Maine Yankee or San Onofre site. In reality, casks shipped to the CISF in a year may originate from multiple sites; the two sites were chosen to illustrate doses that would be representative of the annual number of casks shipped to the CISF.

Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-18 Revision 3 Table 4.2-5, Incident-Free Radiological Transportation Impacts Maine Yankee to the CISF (200 Casks per Year)

State Rural Suburban Urban Total person-rem person-Sv person-rem person-Sv person-rem person-Sv person-rem person-Sv ME 1.72E-02 1.72E-04 3.78E-01 3.78E-03 9.60E-03 9.60E-05 4.05E-01 4.05E-03 NH 4.09E-03 4.09E-05 1.48E-01 1.48E-03 4.45E-0 4.45E-05 1.56E-01 1.56E-03 MA 5.77E-03 5.77E-05 4.59E-01 4.59E-03 3.43E-02 3.43E-04 4.99E-01 4.99E-03 CT 7.43E-03 7.43E-05 9.99E-01 9.99E-03 6.81E-02 6.81E-04 1.07E+00 1.07E-02 NY 3.96E-02 3.96E-04 5.04E-01 5.04E-03 1.56E-01 1.56E-03 7.00E-01 7.00E-03 NJ 9.21E-03 9.21E-05 4.20E-01 4.20E-03 5.16E-02 5.16E-04 4.81E-01 4.81E-03 PA 1.03E-01 1.03E-03 1.14E+00 1.14E-02 3.14E-02 3.14E-04 1.28E+00 1.28E-02 WV 1.65E-03 1.65E-05 7.11E-03 7.11E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 8.76E-03 8.76E-05 OH 6.29E-02 6.29E-04 2.87E-01 2.87E-03 5.17E-03 5.17E-05 3.55E-01 3.55E-03 IN 2.96E-02 2.96E-04 5.75E-01 5.75E-03 1.02E-02 1.02E-04 6.15E-01 6.15E-03 IL 2.90E-02 2.90E-04 4.43E-01 4.43E-03 1.12E-02 1.12E-04 4.83E-01 4.83E-03 MO 5.99E-02 5.99E-04 9.00E-01 9.00E-03 7.15E-03 7.15E-05 9.67E-01 9.67E-03 KS 1.15E-02 1.15E-04 1.15E-01 1.15E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.27E-01 1.27E-03 OK 5.92E-02 5.92E-04 8.04E-01 8.04E-03 5.17E-03 5.17E-05 8.68E-01 8.68E-03 TX 8.30E-02 8.30E-04 6.09E-01 6.09E-03 1.94E-02 1.94E-04 7.11E-01 7.11E-03 Total 8.73E+00 8.73E-02 Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-19 Revision 3 Table 4.2-6, Incident-Free Radiological Transportation Impacts San Onofre to WCS CISF (200 Casks per Year)

State Rural Suburban Urban Total person-rem person-Sv person-rem person-Sv person-rem person-Sv person-rem person-Sv CA 2.47E-02 2.47E-04 8.73E-01 8.73E-03 9.65E-02 9.65E-04 9.94E-01 9.94E-03 AZ 4.44E-02 4.44E-04 4.88E-01 4.88E-03 5.10E-03 5.10E-05 5.38E-01 5.38E-03 NM 8.48E-03 8.48E-05 6.59E-02 6.59E-04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 7.44E-02 7.44E-04 TX 1.42E-02 1.42E-04 2.00E-01 2.00E-03 2.11E-02 2.11E-04 2.36E-01 2.36E-03 Total 1.84E+00 1.84E-02 Table 4.2-7, Incident-Free Radiological Transportation Impacts WCS to Yucca Mountain (200 Casks per Year)

State Rural Suburban Urban Total person-rem person-Sv person-rem person-Sv person-rem person-Sv person-rem person-Sv TX 1.85E-02 1.85E-04 4.14E-01 4.14E-03 2.22E-02 2.22E-04 4.55E-01 4.55E-03 NM 1.68E-02 1.68E-04 1.98E-01 1.98E-03 2.54E-03 2.54E-05 2.17E-01 2.17E-03 AZ 5.00E-02 5.00E-04 7.78E-01 7.78E-03 6.10E-02 6.10E-04 8.89E-01 8.89E-03 CA 7.02E-03 7.02E-05 4.16E-03 4.16E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.12E-02 1.12E-04 NV 3.09E-04 3.09E-06 7.41E-04 7.41E-06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 Total 1.57E+00 1.57E-02 Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-20 Revision 3 The doses for shipping a single cask from Maine Yankee to the WCS CISF is shown in Table 4.28. Maine Yankee represents the longest route that would be used during shipments to WCS CISF. Shipment of a single cask would result in a collective dose of 4.36E-4 person-Sv. This dose is small when compared to the normal background dose of 7.56 person-Sv and is consistent with the doses calculated in NUREG-2125 calculated for similar routes (e.g., the collective doses for a shipment from Maine Yankee to Deaf Smith County, Texas, NUREG-2125 in Table B-13).

Table 4.2-8, Incident-Free Radiological Transportation Impacts Maine Yankee NPP to the CISF (person-Sv)

State Rural Suburban Urban Total CT 3.71E-07 4.99E-05 3.40E-06 5.37E-05 IL 1.45E-06 2.22E-05 5.59E-07 2.42E-05 IN 1.48E-06 2.87E-05 5.11E-07 3.07E-05 KS 5.73E-07 5.75E-06 0.00E+00 6.33E-06 MA 2.88E-07 2.29E-05 1.72E-06 2.49E-05 ME 8.59E-07 1.89E-05 4.80E-07 2.02E-05 MO 3.00E-06 4.50E-05 3.58E-07 4.83E-05 NH 2.05E-07 7.39E-06 2.22E-07 7.82E-06 NJ 4.60E-07 2.10E-05 2.58E-06 2.40E-05 NY 1.98E-06 2.52E-05 7.82E-06 3.50E-05 OH 3.15E-06 1.43E-05 2.58E-07 1.77E-05 OK 2.96E-06 4.02E-05 4.52E-07 4.36E-05 PA 5.14E-06 5.71E-05 1.57E-06 6.39E-05 TX 4.15E-06 3.04E-05 9.68E-07 3.56E-05 WV 8.27E-08 3.56E-07 0.00E+00 4.38E-07 Total 4.36E-04 An additional population dose could result from the need to transport SNF over short distances by heavy haul truck or barge to a rail transfer facility. The effects of using heavy haul or barge transport were determined to be small. The results are summarized in Table 4.2-9 for the various shipment modes for the 12 shutdown reactor sites. The estimates are based on three casks being transported per shipment. This over estimates the doses from heavy haul as only one cask is moved at a time.

While all of the doses are of the same order of magnitude, the largest collective dose results for shipments from Maine Yankee. In summary, the collective doses for shipment from the sites shown in Table 4.2-9 are small. The use of barge or heavy haul transport for short segments of Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-21 Revision 3 the route do not significantly increase doses. The doses calculated for the twelve sites are on the same order of magnitude calculated in NUREG-2125 for similar routes.

Table 4.2-9, Radiological Impacts from Transportation Transportation Impacts from 12 Shutdown Reactor Sites (Based on a single shipment of three casks)

ORIGIN Population Dose (person-Sv)

Population Dose (person-rem)

Rail Barge and Rail Heavy Haul and Rail Rail Barge and Rail Heavy Haul and Rail Maine Yankee 1.32E-03 1.29E-03 1.32E-01 1.29E-01 Yankee Rowe 8.85E-04 8.85E-02 Connecticut Yankee 1.09E-03 1.03E-03 1.09E-01 1.03E-01 Humbolt Bay 4.47E-04 4.47E-02 Big Rock Point 6.74E-04 6.74E-02 Rancho Seco 4.04E-04 4.04E-02 Trojan 6.27E-04 6.27E-04 6.27E-02 6.27E-02 La Crosse 3.62E-04 8.28E-04 3.62E-02 8.28E-02 Zion 4.96E-04 8.42E-04 4.96E-02 8.42E-02 Crystal River 6.15E-04 6.15E-02 Kewaunee 7.22E-04 7.22E-02 San Onofre 2.78E-04 2.78E-02 Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-22 Revision 3 4.2.7.2 Incident Free Occupational Doses The doses for the train crew, escorts, rail yard workers, cargo handlers, inspectors, and emergency personnel responding to an accident in which no release occurs are small and shown in Table 4.2-10.

Table 4.2-10, Occupational Doses per Shipment from Routine Incident-Free Transportation TRAIN CREW IN TRANSIT DISTANCE km TRIP DOSE Person-rem 3 PEOPLE Rural 7.78E-07 2984.18 2.32E-03 Suburban 7.78E-07 1712.18 1.33E-03 Urban 1.31E-06 346.54 4.54E-04 TOTAL 4.11E-03 RAIL YARD WORKERS Hours Dose person-rem Classification Stop 27 1.65E-02 Railroad Transfer 4

2.44E-03 HANDLERS Hours Dose person-rem 5 PEOPLE 5

4.01E-01 ESCORTS Hours Dose person-rem 2 PEOPLE Escorts assumed to have 25% greater dose than crew NUREG 2125 (page B-52)

NA 3.42E-03 INSPECTORS Hours Dose person-rem rem/inspection 2 meters for 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> 9.55E-02 FIRST RESPONDERS Hours Dose person-rem person-rem/responder 3 meters for 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> 1.60E-01 The doses that train crews accrue during transit are determined by multiplying the unit risk factor (URF) for the crew link calculated RADTRAN by the route distance. Escorts are assumed Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-23 Revision 3 to receive 25% greater dose than crews because that have to be in line of sight to the SNF casks and have less shielding.

Doses to inspectors and first responders depend on the distance from the cask, exposure time, and number of inspectors or responders. The exposure scenarios are modelled in RADTRAN as stationary sources (train stops).

4.2.8 Impacts from Transportation Accidents The radiological transportation impacts that could potentially occur during off-normal events were analyzed. Type B transportation casks licensed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 71 are constructed to withstand severe accidents so that most transport accidents would not result in damage to the cask body or seals that would result in a release. The evaluation looked at three types of potential accidents involving the transportation of SNF by rail, accidents involving no release, accidents involving a release and accidents resulting in a loss of shielding. The dose risk was found to be small for all three types of accidents, and is described in more detail in Attachment 4.1. The conclusion that the accident dose risk is small is consistent with previous studies conducted by the NRC.

4.2.8.1 No-Release Accident The first type, which is the most common type of accident and typically comprises more than 99.99% of all accidents involving transportation of SNF, is an accident in which no release of radioactive material occurs. For this type of accident, the transportation cask remains intact, but members of the public along a segment of the transportation route may be exposed externally to radiation similar to exposure during routine transport of SNF. Based on experience with transporters of radioactive materials, when such an accident happens, the vehicle remains in place until either the entire vehicle or the cask can be moved. For modeling purposes, it is assumed that the transportation vehicle and cask remain in place for 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.

4.2.8.2 Accident Involving the Release of Radioactive Materials ISP evaluated severe transportation accidents that could result in the release of radioactive materials. In undertaking its evaluation, ISP assumed that the rail cask (MP197) that it modeled in RADTRAN was similar to the NAC-STC rail cask modelled in NUREG-2125. The casks have similar dimensions and are both lead shielded. ISP used the accident probabilities and release Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-24 Revision 3 fractions developed for the NAC-STC cask rail (NUREG-2125, Table E-16) in its RADTRAN analysis of potential releases from the MP197 cask. It is important to note that the probability and release fractions in NUREG-2125 were developed for SNF that is not contained in canisters that are welded shut. This approach is conservative for canisterized fuel because a major conclusion from NUREG-2125 is that no radioactive material would be released in an accident if the SNF is contained in an inner welded canister.

As shown in Section 5.2 of NUREG-2125, the probability of these type accidents is very small.

The average accident rate for freight rail (between 1996 through 2007) was reported to be 1.10E-4 accidents per thousand rail-km (3.1E-3 accidents per thousand railcar miles) based on data from the U.S. Department of Transportations Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Of the accidents that occur, only a small fraction could result in an impact so severe that the cask could release radioactive material. The fraction of accidents that could result in an accidental release was estimated in NUREG-2125 (Table E-16) to range from 1.13E-10 to 5.96E-12. This results in the overall probability of a release from a cask during rail transportation being of the order of 2.0E-17 (1.10E-4 x 1.13E-10).

The radioactive inventory that was used in the accident analysis is shown in Table 4.1-2 of -1. The radionuclides and values are based on a NUHOMS 61BT canister containing sixty-one 7x7 BWR assemblies in the NUHOMS MP197 shipping cask. The SNF has a burnup of 40,000 MWd/MTU, an initial average bundle enrichment of 3.3 weight percent, and is 10 year cooled. The source for this data is Table 4-1, Radionuclide Inventory, in NUHOMS MP197 Transportation Package Safety Analysis Report, Revision 17 (TN Americas, April 2014).

ISP used RADTRAN 6 to calculate the internal and external doses to an MEI for the seven accident scenarios that NUREG-2125 determined could lead to an accidental release from a rail cask. Details on how the calculations were performed are given in Calculation Package WCS01-0506. The MEI doses are shown in Table 4.2-11.

Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-25 Revision 3 Table 4.2-11, MEI Doses from Accidents that Involve a Release Cask Orientation Seal Type Impact Speed kph Conditional Probability Inhalation Sv Re-suspension Sv Cloud-Shine Sv Ground-shine Sv Total Sv End metal 193 5.96E-12 7.49E-02 4.10E-04 9.94E-05 1.70E-03 7.71E-02 Corner metal 193 3.57E-11 7.49E-02 4.10E-04 9.94E-05 1.70E-03 7.71E-02 Side elastomer 193 1.79E-11 7.49E-02 4.10E-04 9.94E-05 1.70E-03 7.71E-02 Side metal 193 1.79E-11 7.49E-02 4.10E-04 9.94E-05 1.70E-03 7.71E-02 Side elastomer 145 3.40E-10 7.49E-02 4.10E-04 9.94E-05 1.70E-03 7.71E-02 Side metal 145 3.40E-10 7.49E-02 4.10E-04 9.94E-05 1.70E-03 7.71E-02 Corner metal 145 1.13E-10 3.40E-02 1.86E-04 4.58E-05 7.67E-04 3.50E-02 The internal dose consists of the inhalation and re-suspension doses. The external dose consists of the cloud shine and ground shine doses. The doses listed in Table 4.2-11 are consequences not risks. The dose to an MEI is not the sum of the doses as each only represents one accident can happen at a time.

The conditional dose risk to the MEI, shown in Table 4.2-12, is determined by multiplying the doses by the conditional probability of the accident scenario.

Table 4.2-12, MEI Conditional Dose Risks from Accidents that Involve a Release.

Cask Orientation Seal Type Impact Speed kph Conditional Probability Inhalation Sv Re-suspension Sv Cloud-Shine Sv Ground-shine Sv Total Sv End metal 193 5.96E-12 4.46E-13 2.44E-15 5.92E-16 1.01E-14 4.60E-13 Corner metal 193 3.57E-11 2.67E-12 1.46E-14 3.55E-15 6.07E-14 2.75E-12 Side elastomer 193 1.79E-11 1.34E-12 7.34E-15 1.78E-15 3.04E-14 1.38E-12 Side metal 193 1.79E-11 1.34E-12 7.34E-15 1.78E-15 3.04E-14 1.38E-12 Side elastomer 145 3.40E-10 2.55E-11 1.39E-13 3.38E-14 5.78E-13 2.62E-11 Side metal 145 3.40E-10 2.55E-11 1.39E-13 3.38E-14 5.78E-13 2.62E-11 Corner metal 145 1.13E-10 3.84E-12 2.10E-14 5.18E-15 8.67E-14 3.95E-12 The conditional dose risk to an individual is on the order of 1E-11. It represents the risk to an individual given that an accident has already occurred. When considering the probability that an accident has occurred (1.1E-4 accidents per thousand rail-km) the overall dose risk is on the order of 1.1E-18 per km.

Collective internal and external dose risks were also calculated for a Maine Yankee to WCS Shipment. The results are shown in Tables 4.2-13 and 4.2-14.

Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-26 Revision 3 Table 4.2-13, Maine Yankee to the CISF Collective Internal Dose Risk (person-Sv)

Population End 193 kpm metal Corner 193 kpm metal Side 193 kpm elastomer Side 193 kpm metal Side 145 kpm elastomer Side 145 kpm metal Corner 145 kpm metal Rural 2.97E-12 1.78E-11 8.93E-12 8.93E-12 1.70E-10 1.70E-10 2.56E-11 Suburban 5.09E-11 3.05E-10 1.53E-10 1.53E-10 2.90E-09 2.90E-09 4.38E-10 Urban 7.85E-11 4.71E-10 2.36E-10 2.36E-10 4.48E-09 4.48E-09 6.76E-10 Table 4.2-14 Maine Yankee to the CISF Collective External Dose Risk (person-Sv)

Population End 193 kpm metal Corner 193 kpm metal Side 193 kpm elastomer Side 193 kpm metal Side 145 kpm elastomer Side 145 kpm metal Corner 145 kpm metal Rural 7.11E-14 4.26E-13 2.13E-13 2.13E-13 4.05E-12 4.05E-12 6.09E-13 Suburban 1.22E-12 7.28E-12 3.65E-12 3.65E-12 6.94E-11 6.94E-11 1.04E-11 Urban 1.12E-11 1.12E-11 5.64E-12 5.64E-12 1.07E-10 1.07E-10 1.61E-11 The total collective dose risk for the Maine Yankee to WCS CISF is shown in Table 4.2-15.

Table 4.2-15 is the sum of the internal and external dose risks in Tables 4.2-13 and 4.2-14.

Table 4.2-15, Maine Yankee to the CISF Total Collective Dose Risk (person-Sv)

Population End 193 kpm metal Corner 193 kpm metal Side 193 kpm elastomer Side 193 kpm metal Side 145 kpm elastomer Side 145 kpm metal Corner 145 kpm metal Rural 3.05E-12 1.82E-11 9.15E-12 9.15E-12 1.70E-10 1.74E-10 2.62E-11 Suburban 5.21E-11 3.12E-10 1.57E-10 1.57E-10 2.97E-09 2.97E-09 4.48E-10 Urban 8.98E-11 4.82E-10 2.42E-10 2.42E-10 4.59E-09 4.59E-09 6.92E-10 In summary, the radiological impacts of an accident that could release radioactive material are small. These accidents occur at a very low frequency. The doses to a maximum exposed individual ranged from 3.5E-2 to 7.71E-2 Sv. The conditional dose risk to an individual is on the order of 1E-11. The collective dose risk along the longest shipping route, Maine Yankee to WCS CISF, is on the order of 1E-9 to 1E-10.

4.2.8.3 Loss-of-Shielding (LOS) Accidents ISP evaluated accidents that could result in a loss of lead shielding (LOS). The methodology that ISP used to evaluate the LOS accidents is the same as that used by the NRC in NUREG2125, Appendix E. Two types of accidents that could cause a lead shielded cask to lose part of its shielding were analyzed. The first type of LOS accident is where a cask is involved in an accident where the cask is either in or near a hot pool fire for over three hours. At Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-27 Revision 3 that point the temperature of the lead exceeds its melting point and the lead begins to liquefy.

When the liquid lead cools and solidifies, it occupies the same volume, but the volume available between the inner and outer cask walls is larger because of the buckling of the inner cask wall leaving a gap. The second type of accident involves severe impact where the lead shield slumps. ISP analyzed twelve accident scenarios involving LOS from severe impact.

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 4.2-16 and Table 4.2-17. The first two columns in the table represent the reduction in lead shielding and the conditional accident probability for the accident scenario analyzed. The 12 different impact scenarios represent different cask speeds and orientation during impact. A more detailed description of the accident scenarios evaluated can be found in Section E.3.1 of NUREG 2125. The conditional accident probabilities and lead lost fractions that ISP used are found in Table E-2 for impact accidents and Section E.3.1.2 for fire accidents.

Table 4.2-16 provides the estimated one hour dose to a maximum exposed individual (MEI) at specified distance for each of the LOS accidents evaluated. The dose to the MEI at 5 meters from the cask is estimated to be 8.09E-3 Sv (0.809 rem). While LOS accidents involving a fire result in the highest doses to the MEI, LOS accidents involving a severe impact have an increased probability of occurrence which result in a higher dose risk for impact accidents. The dose risks for the MEI are shown in Table 4.2-17. As an example, the largest dose risk for the MEI for a severe impact scenario is estimated to be 4.21E-13 Sv (4.21E-11 rem) for a distance of 5 meters from the cask.

NUREG-2125 calculates dose and dose risk estimates for the MEI for transportation accidents.

The doses and dose risks calculated above for the MEI are small and of the same order of magnitude as those presented in NUREG-2125 in Tables E-4 and E-5 for impact accidents and Table E-8 for fire accidents.

Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-28 Revision 3 Table 4.2-16, Estimated Dose for Loss of Shielding Accidents Dose (Sv) to MEI at Various Distances from a Cask that lost Gamma Shielding due to Fire Reduction of Lead Shielding Conditional Probability 1m 2m 5m 10m 20m 50m 100m 2.01E-02 3.70E-07 1.04E-02 4.68E-03 1.62E-03 1.62E-05 3.87E-06 5.86E-07 1.41E-07 8.14E-02 8.70E-15 5.23E-02 2.34E-02 8.09E-03 1.68E-04 3.85E-05 5.50E-06 1.26E-06 Dose (Sv) to MEI at Various Distances from a Cask that lost Gamma Shielding due to Impact Reduction of Lead Shielding Conditional Probability 1m 2m 5m 10m 20m 50m 100m 1.84E-05 6.34E-06 1.43E-04 7.14E-05 2.85E-05 8.06E-06 2.02E-06 3.23E-07 8.06E-08 2.80E-04 1.44EE-06 2.12E-04 1.02E-04 3.92E-05 8.06E-06 2.02E-06 3.23E-07 8.06E-08 3.37E-04 6.34E-06 2.30E-04 1.10E-04 4.19E-05 8.07E-06 2.02E-06 3.23E-07 8.06E-08 1.31E-03 6.34E-06 5.73E-04 2.64E-04 9.50E-05 8.09E-06 2.02E-06 3.23E-07 8.08E-08 3.16E-03 5.96E-11 1.34E-03 6.08E-04 2.14E-04 8.22E-06 2.05E-06 3.28E-07 8.18E-08 3.73E-03 1.44E-06 1.60E-03 7.23E-04 2.53E-04 8.29E-06 2.07E-06 3.30E-07 8.23E-08 4.26E-03 1.13E-09 1.84E-03 8.31E-04 2.91E-04 8.36E-06 2.08E-06 3.32E-07 8.28E-08 5.12E-03 1.44E-06 2.25E-03 1.01E-03 3.54E-04 8.50E-06 2.12E-06 3.37E-07 8.39E-08 1.70E-02 1.13E-09 8.61E-03 3.86E-03 1.34E-03 1.37E-05 3.31E-06 5.07E-07 1.23E-07 2.34E-02 1.13E-09 1.24E-02 5.56E-03 1.93E-03 1.93E-05 4.58E-06 6.86E-07 1.64E-07 6.34E-02 5.96E-11 3.90E-02 1.75E-02 6.06E-03 1.02E-04 2.34E-05 3.36E-06 7.75E-07 7.25E-02 5.96E-11 4.57E-02 2.05E-02 7.07E-03 1.33E-04 3.05E-05 4.37E-06 1.00E-06 Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-29 Revision 3 Table 4.2-17, Estimated Dose Risk for Loss of Shielding Accidents Conditional Dose Risk (person-Sv) to MEI at Various Distances from a Cask that lost Gamma Shielding due to Fire Reduction of Lead Shielding Conditional Probability 1m 2m 5m 10m 20m 50m 100m 0.0201 3.70E-07 3.85E-09 1.73E-09 5.99E-10 5.99E-12 1.43E-12 2.17E-13 5.22E-14 0.0814 8.70E-15 4.55E-16 2.04E-16 7.04E-17 1.46E-18 3.35E-19 4.79E-20 1.10E-20 Conditional Dose Risk (person-Sv) to MEI at Various Distances from a Cask that lost Gamma Shielding due to Impact Reduction of Lead Shielding Conditional Probability 1m 2m 5m 10m 20m 50m 100m 1.84E-05 6.34E-06 9.07E-10 4.53E-10 1.81E-10 5.11E-11 1.28E-11 2.05E-12 5.11E-13 2.80E-04 1.44EE-06 3.05E-10 1.47E-10 5.64E-11 1.16E-11 2.91E-12 4.65E-13 1.16E-13 3.37E-04 6.34E-06 1.46E-09 6.97E-10 2.66E-10 5.12E-11 1.28E-11 2.05E-12 5.11E-13 1.31E-03 6.34E-06 3.63E-09 1.67E-09 6.02E-10 5.13E-11 1.28E-11 2.05E-12 5.12E-13 3.16E-03 5.96E-11 7.99E-14 3.62E-14 1.28E-14 4.90E-16 1.22E-16 1.95E-17 4.88E-18 3.73E-03 1.44E-06 2.30E-09 1.04E-09 3.64E-10 1.19E-11 2.98E-12 4.75E-13 1.19E-13 4.26E-03 1.13E-09 2.08E-12 9.39E-13 3.29E-13 9.45E-15 2.35E-15 3.75E-16 9.36E-17 5.12E-03 1.44E-06 3.24E-09 1.45E-09 5.10E-10 1.22E-11 3.05E-12 4.85E-13 1.21E-13 1.70E-02 1.13E-09 9.73E-12 4.36E-12 1.51E-12 1.55E-14 3.74E-15 5.73E-16 1.39E-16 2.34E-02 1.13E-09 1.40E-11 6.28E-12 2.18E-12 2.18E-14 5.18E-15 7.75E-16 1.85E-16 6.34E-02 5.96E-11 2.32E-12 1.04E-12 3.61E-13 6.08E-15 1.39E-15 2.00E-16 4.62E-17 7.25E-02 5.96E-11 2.72E-12 1.22E-12 4.21E-13 7.93E-15 1.82E-15 2.60E-16 5.96E-17 4.2.9 Nonradiological Impacts ISP evaluated the nonradiological impacts of rail accidents that may occur during the transport of SNF to the WCS CISF. A nonradiological impact results from a rail accident in which the property damage, injuries, or fatalities are caused by the force of the impact; no release of or exposure to radiological materials occurs as a result of the rail accident. Based on the 2013 accident rate data compiled for freight rail by the Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis, the average rate of injury for freight rail was 7.1E-5 per mile (4.4E-5 per km) and the average rate of fatality was 6.0E-6 per mile (3.7E-6 per km).

On the basis of this data, along with the WebTRAGIS computer code route data, the projected number of nonradiological injuries and fatalities for rail transport was calculated for the routes from Maine Yankee and San Onofre to the CISF and from the CISF to Yucca Mountain. The results are given in Table 4.2.18 for a single shipment, annual shipment of 200 casks in 80 shipments, and for the 40 year licensing period (3200 shipments).

Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 4-30 Revision 3 Table 4.2.18, Nonradiological Impacts of Transportation Route Distance km Fatalities per km Injuries per km Fatalities per shipment Injuries per shipment Fatalities per year Injuries per year Fatalities 40 year Injuries 40 years 80 shipments 3200 shipments Maine Yankee to WCS CISF 5042.91 3.73E-07 4.41E-05 0.002 0.22 0.15 17.80 6.02 711.93 Rancho Seco to WCS CISF 1752.35 3.73E-07 4.41E-05 0.001 0.08 0.05 6.18 2.09 247.39 WCS CISF to Yucca Mountain 1474.69 3.73E-07 4.41E-05 0.001 0.07 0.04 5.20 1.76 208.19 ISP also estimated the potential human health effects of vehicle emissions from locomotives during rail transport of radioactive materials.

The Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Management, Storage and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste, DOE/EIS-0200-F (page E-32) developed risk factors to estimate the excess latent mortality from pollution inhalation for rail shipment. The risk factor for rail shipments was 1.3E-7 per km (2.1E-7 per mile). ISP estimated the excess latent mortality based on each shipment to the CISF and later to Yucca Mountain being about 6500 km (4040 miles). This is the combined distance between Maine Yankee and the CISF and the CISF and Yucca Mountain. Assuming 3200 shipments are made during the 40 year licensing period; this would result in a distance traveled of 20.8 million km (12 million miles) and a latent mortality of 2.7. The excess latent mortality for a single shipment would be 8.45E-4.

Indicated changes are in response to multiple RAIs

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC CHAPTER 9 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page 9-12 Revision 3 The Recorder. (2015, June 19). Retrieved from Entergy Allowed to Dip into Decommissioning Fund:

http://www.recorder.com/readerservices/businessxml/17394635-95/entergy-allowed-to-dip-into-decommissioning-fund TN Americas (April 2014), NUHOMS-MP197 Transport Packaging Safety Analysis Report, Revision 17, USNRC Docket Number 71-9302.

TPWD. (2016). Retrieved March 3, 2016, from (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department).

Annotated County Lists of Rare Species. Andrews County. (last revision 1/5/2015).:

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/gis/ris/es/

TRAB. (2014). (Texas Radiation Advisory Board). Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Program Report. Report for September 19, 2014.

TRAGIS.

(n.d.).

Transportation Routing Analysis GIS.

Retrieved from https://webTRAGIS.ornl.gov TXDOT (Texas Department of Transportation), 2009, TXDOT Statewide Planning Map, 2007 Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts, accessed through http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html, July 21.

UNSCEAR. (2008). (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). Report Vol. 1 Sources of Ionizing Radiation. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes.

USDA. (2015). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Web Soil Survey Website Application (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Western Ecology Division, Ecoregion of New Mexico 2006, ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/nm/nm_front.pdf UNSCEAR. (2013). (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). Sources, Effects, and Risks of Ionizing Radiation. Volume 1. Report to the General Assembly, Scientific Annex A..

USFWS. (2016a, January). (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). Conserving the Nature of America. Retrieved from U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: http://www.fws.gov/.

USFWS. (2016b). (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Species by Project Area Report.

Retrieved from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.

USGS. (1999). (U.S. Geological Survey). Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) in Produced Water and Oil-Field Equipment-An Issue for the Energy Industry.

All indicated changes are in response to RAI TR-7

INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS LLC ATTACHMENT 4-1 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Page A4-1-1 Revision 3 ATTACHMENT 4-1 EXPLANATION OF TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Page 1 of 22 Explanation of Transportation Analysis Collective and occupational doses were calculated for incident-free shipments between twelve shutdown reactor sites and the WCS Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) in Andrews County, Texas, and between the CISF and Yucca Mountain using risk factor output from RADTRAN 6 together with routing and population density output from WebTRAGIS. Doses were also calculated for shipments where an accident occurs.

RADTRAN is a computer code that allows the calculation of unit risk factors (URF) for the shipment of one SNF transport cask over one kilometer through a population density of one person per square kilometer. User input parameters are used to define the characteristics of the cask, route and source terms for a shipment. The URF differs for rural, suburban and urban route segments due to differences in environmental shielding. The URF values are output in RADTRAN 6 as values for rural, suburban or urban route segments and have the units of person-rem per kilometer per person-per-square-kilometer.

WebTRAGIS is a computer code that allows determination of route length and state-level population density for rural, suburban, and urban route segments. ISP used the RADTRAN 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) transport corridor width (0.5 miles on each side of the vehicle). To calculate collective dose, the URF calculated by RADTRAN was multiplied by the length of the transport route and the population density from WebTRAGIS for rural, suburban, and urban route segments in an Excel spreadsheet. Collective doses calculated for routes between the twelve sites and the CISF and between Yucca Mountain and the CSIF were all of the same order of magnitude. The bounding collective dose was for the longest transport route, Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant to the WCS CISF, at approximately 4.36E-02 person-rem per shipment (8.73 person-rem for an annual shipment of 200 casks).

RADTRAN was also used to calculate occupational dose. Doses to inspectors, rail yard workers, and first responders were determined by inputting appropriate values into transport stops in the RADTRAN code. The main inputs for stops are distance from the source, exposure time, and number of persons exposed. Occupational dose to transport crews and escorts are determined by multiplying the URF for the crews by the route distance and number of persons. Escorts are assumed to have a 25% higher dose than crew because they have to be in line of sight to the SNF and have less shielding. Occupational doses calculated during incident-free shipment for the twelve sites to Yucca Mountain are small and remain bounded by the collective dose for the longest transport route, Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant to the WCS CISF.

Accidents with no release resulted in doses that are small, with first responders being the maximally-exposed individual (MEI) receiving an occupational dose of 1.60E-01 rem after 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> at 3 meters (see Table 4.2-10 of Section 4.2.7.2). Accidents with loss of shielding (LOS) resulted in a dose to the MEI of 8.1E-3 Sv (0.81 rem) per hour at 5 meters (LOS due to fire), or 7.1E-3 Sv (0.71 rem) per hour at 5 meters (LOS due to impact). Accidents with release result in an occupational dose to the MEI of 7.71 rem after 1 day within 33 meters. LOS Accident doses are included in Table 4.2-16 of Section 4.2.8.3.

For accidents with release, collective doses were also calculated. The internal collective dose was calculated by multiplying the transport accident rate, cask damage conditional probability, route length, population density, plume area of release and the sum of the internal doses (inhalation and re-suspension). The external collective dose was calculated by multiplying the This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 2 of 22 transport accident rate, cask damage conditional probability, route length, population density, plume area of release and the sum of the external doses (cloud-shine and ground-shine).

Release parameters were taken for casks sealed with elastomeric or metal O-rings with uncanisterized SNF, which is a very conservative approach for shipments of canisterized SNF since NUREG-2125 concluded that there would be no release from such casks.

The RADTRAN input parameters used in calculating the URF are shown in Table 4.1-1 with the exception of the radionuclide inventory values used in transportation accident release calculations which are included in Table 4.1-2. As described in Section 4.2.8.2 the radionuclides and values are based on a NUHOMS 61BT canister containing sixty-one 7x7 BWR assemblies in the NUHOMS MP197 shipping cask. The SNF has a burnup of 40,000 MWd/MTU, an initial average bundle enrichment of 3.3 weight percent and is 10 year cooled.

The pertinent portions of the spreadsheets for calculating collective doses for a single shipment are included in Table 4.1-3. The spreadsheets, and results in Table 4.1-3 include the following representative routes and modes of transport:

1. Maine Yankee

a. Maine Yankee to Portland ME (Barge)

b. Portland ME to Monahans TX (Rail)

c. Maine Yankee to Monahans TX (Rail)

2. Yankee Rowe

a. Yankee Rowe to Albany NY (Heavy Haul Truck)

b. Albany NY to Monahans TX (Rail)

c. Yankee Rowe to Monahans TX (Rail)

3. Connecticut Yankee

a. Haddam Neck to Middletown Junction (Heavy Haul Truck)

b. Middletown Junction to Monahans TX (Rail)

c. Haddam Neck to New Haven CT (Barge)

d. New Haven CT to Monahans TX (Rail)

4. Humboldt Bay

a. Humboldt Bay to San Francisco, CA (Barge)

b. San Francisco, CA to Monahans TX (Rail)

5. Big Rock Point

a. Big Rock Point to Cadillac MI (Heavy Haul Truck)

b. Cadillac MI to Monahans TX (Rail)

6. Rancho Seco

a. Rancho Seco to Monahans TX (Rail)

7. Trojan

a. Trojan to Monahans TX (Rail)

All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 3 of 22

b. Trojan to Willamette River, Portland OR (Barge)

c. Willamette River, Portland OR to Monahans TX (Rail)

8. LaCrosse

a. LaCrosse to Monahans TX (Rail)

b. LaCrosse to Genoa WI (Barge)

c. Genoa WI to Monahans TX (Rail)

9. Zion

a. Zion to Monahans TX (Rail)

b. Zion to Rock Island-Davenport (Barge)

c. Rock Island-Davenport to Monahans TX (Rail)

10. Crystal River

a. Crystal River to Monahans TX (Rail)

11. Kewaunee

a. Kewaunee to Green Bay, WI (Heavy Haul Truck)

b. Green Bay, WI to Monahans TX (Rail)

12. San Onofre

a. San Onofre to Monahans TX (Rail)

13. WCS to Yucca Mountain Occupational dose for accidents during SNF transport for the twelve shutdown reactor sites plus Yucca Mountain were also calculated using RADTRAN and WebTRAGIS, with the MEI being the bounding individual for occupational dose. Accidents with no releases, accidents with loss of shielding (LOS, resulting from impact or fire), and accidents with releases were considered.

Table 4.1-4 is a copy of the pertinent portion of the spreadsheet used to assess occupational doses from routine, incident-free transportation of SNF on a per shipment basis.

All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 4 of 22 Table 4.1-1 Input Parameters for RADTRAN 6 (2 pages)

Package-Specific Parameters PARAMETER VALUE SOURCE Dose Rate at 1 meter (mrem/hr.)

14.00 Estimate based on dose limit of two meters from package surface of 10 mrem/hr.

Gamma fraction 0.41 Table A.5-1, MP197 Transportation Safety Analysis Report, Rev.14.

Neutron Fraction 0.59 MP197 Transportation Safety Analysis Report, Rev.14.

Length (Longest Dimension in meters) 5.28 NRC Certificate of Compliance No.

9302; Cask Length Vehicle-Specific Parameters PARAMETER VALUE SOURCE Exclusive Use Yes NRC Certificate of Compliance No.

9302 Transportation Mode Rail NRC Certificate of Compliance No.

9302 Dose Rate at 1 meter (mrem/hr.)

14.00 Estimate based on dose limit of two meters from vehicle (package) surface of 10 mrem/hr.

Gamma fraction 0.41 See above Neutron Fraction 0.59 See above Length 5.28 NRC Certificate of Compliance No.

9302; Same as Cask Length Number of shipments 1

Unit Risk Factor (one shipment travelling one kilometer past a population density of one person per square kilometer)

Number of crew 3

NUREG-2125, Page B-38 Distance of crew to cask (m) 150 Data Entry for RADTRAN in NUREG-2125, Figure B-6 Crew Shielding Factor 1

Data Entry for RADTRAN in NUREG-2125, Figure B-6; accounts for shielding in rail cars.

Crew View Dimension (m) 2.30 NRC Certificate of Compliance No.

9302; Cask Diameter Number of casks per railcar 1

Unit Risk Factor (one shipment travelling one kilometer past a population density of one person per square kilometer)

All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 5 of 22 Table 4.1-1 Input Parameters for RADTRAN 6 (Continued)

Route Parameters for Unit Risk Calculations PARAMETER VALUE SOURCE Rural vehicle speed (km/hr.)

40.4 Maximum speed limit is 80 km/hr. per Association of American Railroads Circular OT-55-P Suburban vehicle speed (km/hr.)

40.4 Assumed Lower Speed for Suburban Areas Urban vehicle speed (km/hr.)

24.0 Assumed Lower Speed for Urban Areas Barge Speed (km/hr.)

12.8 Used in NUREG-2125 Heavy Haul speed (km/hr.)

32.2 Used in FEIS for Yucca Mountain Rural vehicle density (railcars/hr.)

17 NUREG-2125, Table B-2 Suburban vehicle density (railcars/hr.)

17 NUREG-2125, Table B-2 Urban vehicle density (railcars/hr.)

17 NUREG-2125, Table B-2 Persons (Crew) per vehicle 3

NUREG-2125, Page B-38 Farm Fraction (rural) 0.5 NUREG-2125, Table B-2 Farm Fraction (suburban) 0.0 Data Entry for RADTRAN in NUREG-2125, Figure B-6 Farm Fraction (urban) 0.0 Data Entry for RADTRAN in NUREG-2125, Figure B-6 Minimum distance of stop from nearby residents (m) 200 NUREG-2125, Table 2-10 Maximum distance of stop from nearby residents (m) 800 NUREG-2125, Table 2-10 Stop time for classification (hours) 27 NUREG-2125, Table 2-10 Stop time in transit for railroad change (hours) 4 NUREG-2125, Table 2-10 Escort Distance from Cask (m) 16 NUREG-2125, Table B-2 Accident Parameters used in RADTRAN Train Accident Rate (accidents/km) 1.1E-07 NUREG-2125, Section 5.2 Accident Severities (Conditional Probabilities) and Release Fractions Various NUREG-2125, Table E-16 Note: Release fractions equal rod to cask release fraction times cask to environment release fraction.

Loss of Shielding Parameters Various NUREG-2125, Table E-2 All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 6 of 22 Table 4.1-2 Radionuclide Inventory used in Transportation Accident release Calculations Radionuclide Curies TBq Physical Group H-3 3.90E+03 1.44E+02 GAS KR-85 1.03E+03 3.81E+01 GAS I-129 7.62E-03 2.82E-04 GAS CO-60 1.22E-02 4.51E-04 CRUD SR-90 8.30E+05 3.07E+04 PARTICULATE CS-134 7.93E+04 2.93E+03 VOLATILE CS-137 1.23E+06 4.56E+04 VOLATILE PU-241 1.10E+06 4.09E+04 VOLATILE Y-90 8.30E+05 3.07E+04 PARTICULATE RU-106 7.02E+03 2.60E+02 PARTICULATE SB-125 8.05E+03 2.98E+02 PARTICULATE PM-147 1.28E+05 4.74E+03 PARTICULATE SM-151 4.62E+03 1.71E+02 PARTICULATE EU-154 8.05E+04 2.98E+03 PARTICULATE EU-155 2.81E+04 1.04E+03 PARTICULATE PU-238 5.00E+04 1.85E+03 PARTICULATE PU-239 3.86E+03 1.43E+02 PARTICULATE PU-240 6.65E+03 2.46E+02 PARTICULATE AM-241 2.48E+04 9.16E+02 PARTICULATE All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 7 of 22 Table 4.1-3 Pertinent Portions Of The Spreadsheets For Calculating Collective Doses For A Single Shipment (15 pages)

Maine Yankee Maine Yankee to the WCS CISF by Rail Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile CT 95.90 10.2 978 1447.70 104.35 151067 8130.70 36.41 296039 IL 21.10 181.18 3823 1235.00 54.28 67036 4687.80 10.38 48659 IN 43.90 88.83 3900 1075.80 80.8 86925 4598.40 9.66 44421 KS 20.40 74 1510 1028.00 16.93 17404 0.00 0.00 0

MA 73.50 10.33 759 1215.40 57.07 69363 7653.00 19.52 149387 ME 79.30 28.54 2263 1049.30 54.45 57134 5644.70 7.40 41771 MO 30.50 258.84 7895 1164.20 116.9 136095 3785.10 8.22 31114 NH 91.40 5.9 539 873.10 25.62 22369 5916.10 3.27 19346 NJ 66.90 18.13 1213 1268.10 50.1 63532 7756.20 28.96 224620 NY 47.50 109.67 5209 1236.10 61.63 76181 16710.70 40.71 680293 OH 40.10 206.65 8287 734.80 59.03 43375 4486.10 5.01 22475 OK 35.40 220.1 7792 1130.60 107.56 121607 6666.10 5.90 39330 PA 54.30 249.26 13535 1030.00 167.84 172875 5758.30 23.71 136529 TX 28.10 389.22 10937 868.90 105.97 92077 5205.70 16.18 84228 WV 63.50 3.43 218 785.00 1.37 1075 0.00 0.00 0

total dist 1854.28 1063.9 215.33 km 2984.18 1712.18 346.54 population 68857 1178116 1818210 PD (per/sq km 14.42 430.05 3279.21 person-rem 2.63E-03 3.92E-02 2.10E-03 All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 8 of 22 Table 4.1-3 Pertinent Portions Of The Spreadsheets For Calculating Collective Doses For A Single Shipment (Continued)

Maine Yankee Maine Yankeee to Portland by Barge Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile ME 13 26.64 346 414.1 1.73 716 3912.1 0.38 1487 total dist 26.64 1.73 0.38 km 42.87 2.78 0.61 population 346 716 1487 PD (per/sq km) 5.05 160.83 1519.29 person-rem 8.27E-05 1.49E-04 1.07E-05 Portland to the WCS CISF by Rail Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile CT 95.9 10.2 978 1447.7 104.35 151067 8130.7 36.41 296039 IL 21.1 181.18 3823 1235 54.28 67036 4687.8 10.38 48659 IN 43.9 88.83 3900 1075.8 80.8 86925 4598.4 9.66 44421 KS 20.4 74 1510 1028 16.93 17404 0

0 0

MA 73.5 10.33 759 1215.4 57.07 69363 7653 19.52 149387 ME 79.3 12.89 1022 1049.3 28.06 29443 5644.7 2.15 12136 MO 30.5 258.84 7895 1164.2 116.9 136095 3785.1 8.22 31114 NH 91.4 5.9 539 873.1 25.62 22369 5916.1 3.27 19346 NJ 66.9 18.13 1213 1268.1 50.1 63532 7756.2 28.96 224620 NY 47.5 109.67 5209 1236.1 61.63 76181 16710.7 40.71 680293 OH 40.1 206.65 8287 734.8 59.03 43375 4486.1 5.01 22475 OK 35.4 220.1 7792 1130.6 107.56 121607 6666.1 5.9 39330 PA 54.3 249.26 13535 1030 167.84 172875 5758.3 23.71 136529 TX 28.1 389.22 10937 868.9 105.97 92077 5205.7 16.18 84228 WV 63.5 3.43 218 785 1.37 1075 0

0 0

total dist 1838.63 1037.51 210.08 km 2958.99 1669.71 338.09 population 67616 1150425 1788576 PD (per/sq km 14.28 430.62 3306.38 person-rem 2.58E-03 3.83E-02 2.07E-03 All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 9 of 22 Table 4.1-3 Pertinent Portions Of The Spreadsheets For Calculating Collective Doses For A Single Shipment (Continued)

Yankee Rowe Yankee Rowe to Albany by Heavy Haul Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile MA 3.5 1.55 5

0 0

0 0

0 0

NY 55.1 16.02 883 1814.7 11.23 20379 6491.2 7.24 46996 VT 14 18.13 254 645.7 2.17 1401 5161.4 0.83 4284 total dist 35.7 13.4 8.07 km 57.45 21.57 12.99 population 1142 21780 51280 PD (per/sq km) 12.42 631.23 2467.78 person-rem 1.09E-04 1.81E-03 1.48E-04 Albany to the WCS CISF by Rail Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile IA 57.3 14.28 818 478.6 5.51 2637 0

0 0

IL 21.5 162.85 3501 1398.4 62.55 87470 4854.4 14.51 70437 IN 41.9 90.88 3808 985.4 50.42 49684 4686.5 2.84 13310 KS 28.5 124.58 3551 1194.3 30.92 36928 3876.6 5.26 20391 MO 28.1 176.88 4970 1133.3 20.39 23108 9425.9 5.7 53728 NY 62.5 174.07 10879 1152 160.33 184700 5571.8 25.88 144198 OH 50.4 128.34 6468 1348.7 99.12 133683 4332.3 19.54 84653 OK 29.6 187.56 5552 1107.5 54.46 60314 3532.1 1.87 6605 PA 61.2 18.89 1156 1760 19.45 34232 5934.1 5.51 32697 TX 31.5 314.73 9914 1033.2 131.95 136331 5142.5 17.2 88451 total dist 1393.06 635.1 98.31 km 2241.92 1022.10 158.21 population 50618 749087 514470 PD (per/sq km) 14.11 458.06 2032.32 person-rem 1.93E-03 2.49E-02 5.95E-04 All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 10 of 22 Table 4.1-3 Pertinent Portions Of The Spreadsheets For Calculating Collective Doses For A Single Shipment (Continued)

Connecticut Yankee Haddam Neck to New Haven by Barge Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile CT 20.6 56.53 1165 1665.6 7.17 11942.352 6749.1 0.82 5534.262 total dist 56.53 7.17 0.82 km 90.98 11.54 1.32 population 1165 11942 5534 PD (per/sq km) 8.00 646.85 2621.06 person-rem 2.78E-04 2.48E-03 4.00E-05 New Haven to the WCS CISF by Rail Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile AR 37.5 204.70 7676 953.3 96.22 91727 5509.4 4.02 22148 CT 99.8 1.00 100 1182.7 48.83 57751 5494.3 7.74 42526 IL 28.2 183.15 5165 721.8 44.9 32409 3785.7 0.69 2612 IN 46.3 64.76 2998 1361.1 87.14 118606 10054.7 10.6 106580 MA 34.6 35.67 1234 1116.1 26.77 29878 6586 6.68 43994 MO 28.2 76.03 2144 774.2 17.92 13874 0

0 0

NY 61.9 210.68 13041 1056.2 166.21 175551 5671.9 22.95 130170 OH 46.4 139.61 6478 1400.2 109.2 152902 4135.9 20.48 84703 PA 61.2 18.89 1156 1760 19.45 34232 5934.1 5.51 32697 TX 34.3 401.83 13783 1192.8 185.53 221300 6694.6 25.77 172520 total dist 1336.32 802.17 1336.32 km 2150.60 1290.97 2150.60 population 13783 928230 637950 PD (per/sq km) 4.01 449.39 185.40 person-rem 5.26E-04 3.09E-02 7.38E-04 All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 11 of 22 Table 4.1-3 Pertinent Portions Of The Spreadsheets For Calculating Collective Doses For A Single Shipment (Continued)

Connecticut Yankee Haddam Neck to Middletown Junction by Heavy Haul Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile CT 72.1 8.03 579 584.7 5.14 3005 4028 0.12 483 total dist 8.03 5.14 0.12 km 12.92 8.27 0.19 population 579 3005 483 PD (per/sq km) 28.00 227.07 1564.30 person-rem 5.53E-05 2.50E-04 1.40E-06 Middletown Junction to the WCS CISF by Rail Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile AR 37.5 204.7 7676 953.3 96.22 91727 5509.4 4.02 22148 CT 134 0.19 25 1469.2 48.83 71741 5494.3 7.74 42526 IL 28.2 183.15 5165 721.8 44.9 32409 3785.7 0.69 2612 IN 46.3 64.76 2998 1361.1 87.14 118606 10054.7 10.6 106580 MA 34.6 35.67 1234 1116.1 26.77 29878 6586 6.68 43994 MO 28.2 76.03 2144 774.2 17.92 13874 0

0 0

NY 61.9 210.68 13041 1056.2 166.21 175551 5671.9 22.95 130170 OH 46.4 139.61 6478 1400.2 109.2 152902 4135.9 20.48 84703 PA 61.2 18.89 1156 1760 19.45 34232 5934.1 5.51 32697 TX 34.3 401.83 13783 1192.8 185.53 221300 6694.6 25.77 172520 total dist 1335.51 802.17 104.44 km 2149.30 1290.97 168.08 population 53701 942219 637950 PD (per/sq km) 15.62 456.16 2372.19 person-rem 2.05E-03 3.13E-02 7.38E-04 All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 12 of 22 Table 4.1-3 Pertinent Portions Of The Spreadsheets For Calculating Collective Doses For A Single Shipment (Continued)

Humboldt Bay Humboldt Bay To San Franisco by Barge Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile CA 1.4 10.1 14 8552 0.17 1454 Ocean 0

324.92 0

0 0

0 total dist 335.02 0.17 0

km 539.16 0.27 0.00 population 14 1454 0

PD (per/sq km) 0.02 3321.22 person-rem 3.37E-06 3.02E-04 0

San Francisco to the WSC CISF by Rail Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban to wcs rail Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile AZ 18.6 314.42 5848 1046.6 70.53 73817 4273.7 5.19 22181 CA 35.4 422.09 14942 1318.9 201.64 265943 6675.9 119.68 798972 NM 7.1 156.66 1112 917.5 10.86 9964 0

0 0

TX 9

207.14 1864 1058 28.63 30291 6508.8 14.08 91644 total dist 1100.31 311.66 138.95 km 1770.78 501.57 223.62 population 23767 380014 912796 PD (per/sq km) 8.39 473.53 2551.21 person-rem 9.08E-04 1.26E-02 1.06E-03 All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 13 of 22 Table 4.1-3 Pertinent Portions Of The Spreadsheets For Calculating Collective Doses For A Single Shipment (Continued)

Big Rock Point Big Rock Point to Cadillac by Heavy Haul Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile MI 21.8 358.37 7812.466 774.8 33.22 25739 0

0 0

total dist 358.37 33.22 0

km 576.74 53.46 0.00 population 7812.466 25739 0

PD (per/sq km) 8.47 300.90 person-rem 7.46E-04 2.14E-03 0.00E+00 Cadillac to the WCS CISF by Rail Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile IL 26.2 205.63 5388 1094 64.97 71103 4030.1 7.08 28533 IN 57.7 41.27 2381 1283 31.35 40225 4022.5 7.97 32059 KS 28.5 124.58 3551 1194 30.92 36928 3876.6 5.26 20391 MI 45.7 174.43 7971 1155 89.09 102890 5064.2 10.69 54136 MO 32.4 212.71 6892 1314 61.8 81193 7196.5 15.62 112409 OK 29.6 187.56 5552 1108 54.46 60314 3532.1 1.87 6605 TX 31.5 314.73 9914 1033 131.95 136331 5142.5 17.2 88451 total dist 1260.91 464.54 65.69 km 2029.24 747.61 105.72 population 41648 528984 342585 PD (per/sq km) 12.83 442.23 2025.35 person-rem 1.59E-03 1.76E-02 3.96E-04 All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 14 of 22 Table 4.1-3 Pertinent Portions Of The Spreadsheets For Calculating Collective Doses For A Single Shipment (Continued)

Rancho Seco Trojan Ranch Seco to the WCS CISF by Rail Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile AZ 18.6 314.42 5848 1046.6 70.53 73817 4273.7 5.19 22181 CA 36 407.21 14660 1300.5 189.83 246874 5223.9 73.43 383591 NM 7.1 156.66 1112 917.5 10.86 9964 0

0 0

TX 9

207.14 1864 1058 28.63 30291 6508.8 14.08 91644 total dist 1085.43 299.85 92.7 km 1746.83 482.56 149.19 population 23484 360945 497415 PD (per/sq 8.40 467.48 2083.87 person-rem 8.97E-04 1.20E-02 5.75E-04 Trojan to the WCS CISF by Rail Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile AZ 18.6 314.42 5848 1046.6 70.53 73817 4273.7 5.19 22181 CA 35.6 612.1 21791 1245.4 278.52 346869 5102.3 94.7 483188 NM 7.1 156.66 1112 917.5 10.86 9964 0

0 0

OR 29.9 254.54 7611 1044.9 91.89 96016 6650.1 31.22 207616 TX 9

207.14 1864 1058 28.63 30291 6508.8 14.08 91644 total dist 1544.86 480.43 145.19 km 2486.22 773.18 233.66 population 38226 556956 804628 PD (per/sq km 9.61 450.22 2152.23 person-rem 1.46E-03 1.85E-02 9.30E-04 All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 15 of 22 Table 4.1-3 Pertinent Portions Of The Spreadsheets For Calculating Collective Doses For A Single Shipment (Continued)

Trojan Trojan to Portland By Barge Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile OR 11 27.98 308 282.7 3.3 933 0

0 total dist 27.98 3.3 0

km 45.03 5.31 population 308 933 PD (per/sq km 4

110 person-rem 7.35E-05 1.94E-04 Portland to the WCS CISF by Rail Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile AZ 18.6 314.42 5848 1046.6 70.53 73817 4273.7 5.19 22,181 CA 35.6 612.1 21791 1245.4 278.52 346869 5102.3 94.7 483,188 NM 7.1 156.66 1112 917.5 10.86 9964 0

0 0

OR 28.1 234.88 6600 1110.3 79.88 88691 6629.5 30.97 205,316 TX 9

207.14 1864 1058 28.63 30291 6508.8 14.08 91,644 total dist 1525.2 468.42 144.94 km 2454.58 753.85 233.26 population 37216 549631 802,328 PD (per/sq km 9.48 455.69 2149.78 person-rem 1.42E-03 1.83E-02 9.28E-04 All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 16 of 22 Table 4.1-3 Pertinent Portions Of The Spreadsheets For Calculating Collective Doses For A Single Shipment (Continued)

LaCrosse LaCrosse to the WCS CISF by Rail Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile IA 57.3 14.28 818 478.6 5.51 2637 0

0 0

IL 24 165.61 3975 675.9 27.81 18797 4469.4 1.46 6525 KS 23.8 169.24 4028 1209.1 52.29 63224 4157.9 6.81 28315 MO 28.1 176.88 4970 783.3 18.12 14193 8523.2 3.96 33752 OK 38.8 168.52 6539 1240.4 62.87 77984 4791 16.2 77614 TX 32.2 305.57 9839 1034.1 119.34 123409 6083.7 12.96 78845 WI 27.9 95.43 2662 1057.2 16.14 17063 3621.9 2.14 7751 total dist 1095.53 302.08 43.53 km 1763.09 486.15 70.05 population 32832 317308 232802 PD (per/sq km) 11.64 407.93 2076.96 person-rem 1.25E-03 1.06E-02 2.69E-04 La Crosse to Genoa by Barge Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile IL 0

27.2 0

0 0

0 0

IN 64 0.91 58 0

0 0

MI 627.18 3.2 2007 3869.3 19.2 74291 total dist 31.31 19.2 0

km 50.39 30.90 0.00 population 2065 74291 0

PD (per/sq km 25.62 1502.67 person-rem 4.93E-04 1.54E-02 0

All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 17 of 22 Table 4.1-3 Pertinent Portions Of The Spreadsheets For Calculating Collective Doses For A Single Shipment (Continued)

LaCrosse Zion Genoa to the WCS CISF by Rail Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile IA 57.3 14.28 818 478.6 5.51 2637 0

0 0

IL 24 165.61 3975 675.9 27.81 18797 4469.4 3.12 13945 KS 23.8 169.24 4028 1209.1 52.29 63224 4157.9 6.81 28315 MO 28.1 176.88 4970 783.3 18.12 14193 8523.2 3.96 33752 OK 38.8 168.52 6539 1240.4 62.87 77984 4791 16.2 77614 TX 32.2 305.57 9839 1034.1 119.34 123409 6083.7 12.96 78845 WI 19.2 84.85 1629 691.2 8.22 5682 0

0 0

total dist 1084.95 294.16 43.05 km 1746.06 473.41 69.28 population 31798 305926 232471 PD (per/sq km) 11.38 403.89 2097.13 person-rem 1.21E-03 1.02E-02 2.69E-04 Zion to the WCS CISF by Rail Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile IA 45.2 204.71 9253 863.8 90.19 77906 3794.6 3.33 12636 IL 42.4 65.96 2797 1498.1 71.02 106395 4892.8 28.62 140032 KS 28.5 124.58 3551 1194.3 30.92 36928 3876.6 5.26 20391 MO 28.9 108.12 3125 1447 20.75 30025 8156.5 2.38 19412 OK 29.6 187.56 5552 1107.5 54.46 60314 3532.1 1.87 6605 TX 31.5 314.73 9914 1033.2 131.95 136331 5142.5 17.2 88451 total dist 1005.66 399.29 58.66 km 1618.46 642.60 94.40 population 34191 447899 287527 PD (per/sq km) 13.20 435.63 1903.56 person-rem 1.31E-03 1.49E-02 3.32E-04 All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 18 of 22 Table 4.1-3 Pertinent Portions Of The Spreadsheets For Calculating Collective Doses For A Single Shipment (Continued)

Zion Zion to Rock Island (Davenport) by Barge Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile IL 0

27.2 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

IN 64 0.91 58 0

0 0

0 0

0 MI 3.2 627.18 2007 19.82 3869.3 76690 0

0 0

total dist 655.29 3869.3 0

km 1054.59 6227.05 0

population 2065 76690 0

PD (per/sq km) 1.22 7.70 person-rem 4.93E-04 1.59E-02 0.00E+00 Rock Island (Davenport) to the WCS CISF by Rail Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile IA 57.3 14.28 818 478.6 5.51 2637 0

0 0

IL 23 81.87 1883 1164.8 24.07 28037 3979.7 3.12 12417 KS 23.8 169.24 4028 1209.1 52.29 63224 4157.9 6.81 28315 MO 28.1 176.88 4970 783.3 18.12 14193 8523.2 3.96 33752 OK 38.8 168.52 6539 1240.4 62.87 77984 4791 16.2 77614 TX 32.2 305.57 9839 1034.1 119.34 123409 6083.7 12.96 78845 total dist 916.36 282.2 43.05 km 1474.74 454.16 69.28 population 28077 309484 230943 PD (per/sq km) 11.90 425.90 2083.35 person-rem 1.07E-03 1.03E-02 2.67E-04 All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 19 of 22 Table 4.1-3 Pertinent Portions Of The Spreadsheets For Calculating Collective Doses For A Single Shipment (Continued)

Crystal River Kewaunee Crystal River to the WCS CISF by Rail Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile AL 48.9 191.5 9364 1088.1 104.49 113696 6476.7 7.32 47409 AR 32.9 191.23 6291 970.8 95.38 92595 5509.4 4.02 22148 FL 42.8 127.9 5474 717.6 39.82 28575 0

0 0

GA 30.7 219.06 6725 842.8 62.1 52338 3442.6 0.3 1033 MS 45 22.65 1019 989.2 11.42 11297 3403.9 0.02 68 TN 38.2 56.03 2140 1674.3 20.92 35026 5018.5 10.92 54802 TX 34.3 401.83 13783 1192.8 185.53 221300 6694.6 25.77 172520 total dist 1210.2 519.66 48.35 km 1947.63 836.31 77.81 population 44797 554826 297980 PD (per/sq km) 14.38 414.64 2393.43 person-rem 1.71E-03 1.84E-02 3.45E-04 Kewaunee to Green Bay by Heavy Haul Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile WI 34.7 21.17 735 1258.6 11.94 15028 3634.4 1.48 5379 total dist 21.17 11.94 1.48 km 34.07 19.22 2.38 population 735 15028 5379 PD (per/sq k 13.48 488.79 1411.44 person-rem 7.01E-05 1.25E-03 1.55E-05 All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 20 of 22 Table 4.1-3 Pertinent Portions Of The Spreadsheets For Calculating Collective Doses For A Single Shipment (Continued)

Kewaunee San Onofre Green Bay to the WCS CISF by Rail Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile AR 37.5 204.7 7676 953.3 96.22 91727 5509.4 4.02 22148 IL 36.1 233.58 8432 1328.4 130.28 173064 4962.6 50.68 251505 MO 28.2 76.03 2144 774.2 17.92 13874 0

0 0

TX 34.3 401.83 13783 1192.8 185.53 221300 6694.6 25.77 172520 WI 60.8 70.34 4277 1506.3 82.39 124104 4820.2 13.94 67194 total dist 986.48 512.34 94.41 km 1587.59 824.53 151.94 population 36312 624068 513366 PD (per/sq k 14.30 473.05 2111.73 person-rem 1.39E-03 2.08E-02 5.94E-04 San Onofre to the WCS CISF by Rail Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile AZ 18.6 314.42 5848 1046.6 70.53 73817 4273.7 5.19 22181 CA 23.3 139.13 3242 1723.7 76.58 132001 6396.8 65.64 419886 NM 7.1 156.66 1112 917.5 10.86 9964 0

0 0

TX 9

207.14 1864 1058 28.63 30291 6508.8 14.08 91644 total dist 817.35 186.6 84.91 km 1315.40 300.30 136.65 population 12066 246072 533710 PD (per/sq km 5.73 512.13 2441.05 person-rem 4.61E-04 8.18E-03 6.17E-04 All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 21 of 22 Table 4.1-3 Pertinent Portions Of The Spreadsheets For Calculating Collective Doses For A Single Shipment (Concluded)

WCS CISF to Yucca Mountain WCS CISF to Yucca Mountain by Rail Rural Pop Rural Rural Suburban Suburban Suburban Urban Urban Urban Density Distance Population Density Distance Population Density Distance Population State per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile per/sq mi mile AZ 21.9 299.28 6554 1338.1 87.95 117686 7165.7 37.01 265203 CA 3.1 296.94 921 266.4 2.36 629 0

0 0

NM 13.7 161.02 2206 1030.7 29.01 29901 4004.3 2.76 11052 NV 3.2 12.65 40 178 0.63 112 0

0 0

TX 11.7 207.95 2433 1349.7 46.37 62586 5180 18.64 96555 total dist 977.84 166.32 58.41 km 1573.68 267.67 94.00 population 12154 210913 372810 PD (per/sq km) 4.83 492.48 2478.74 person-rem 4.64E-04 7.01E-03 4.31E-04 All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs

Explanation of Transportation Analysis Page 22 of 22 Table 4.1-4 Calculation Spreadsheet Used to Assess Occupational Doses per Shipment from Routine, Incident-Free Transportation of SNF OCCUPATIONAL DOSES PER SHIPMENT FROM ROUTINE, INCIDENT-FREE TRANSPORTARTIONSHIPMENT Maine Yankee to WCS TRAIN CREW IN TRANSIT DISTANCE TRIP DOSE 3 PEOPLE RADTRAN OUTPUT person-rem/km km person-rem Link CREW Rural 7.78E-07 2984.18 2.32E-03 GENR 7.78E-07 Suburan 7.78E-07 1712.18 1.33E-03 GENS 7.78E-07 Urban 1.31E-06 346.54 4.54E-04 GENU 1.31E-06 TOTAL 4.11E-03 CLASSIFICATION-NONLINK RAIL YARD WORKERS Hours Dose 1.65E-02 person-rem Classification Stop 27 1.65E-02 Railorad Tranfer 4

2.44E-03 HANDLING HANDLERS LINE-SOURCE 5 PEOPLE person-rem 5

4.01E-01 ESCORTS 2 PEOPLE Escorts assumed to have 25% greater dose than crew 3.42E-03 NUREG 2125 (page B-52)

STOP DISTANCE DOSE m

person-rem INSPECTOR 2

9.55E-02 INSPECTORS DOSE rem/inspection person-rem 2 meters for 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> 9.55E-02 STOP DISTANCE DOSE FIRST RESPONDERS DOSE m

person-rem PERSON-REM/RESPONDER person-rem RESPONDER 3

1.60E-01 3 meters for 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> 1.60E-01 All changes are in response to RAI TR-X This attachment has been completely replaced in response to multiple RAIs