Thoughts on Transportation of used fuel to the Revell site.

Used Nuclear Fuel Transportation

I would like to take this opportunity to reflect upon one particular challenge within the long term plan for Canada’s used nuclear fuel.  In particular, the transportation question.

I will start by saying, once again, I support the NWMO plan to store Canada’s used nuclear fuel in a Deep Geological Repository.  I am keenly interested in how the transportation question will be handled.

With the DGR site being located a great distance from where the used fuel is currently housed, transportation becomes an important issue.  As I see it, there are two 3 options:  1.  Transport via provincial highways.  2.  Transportation via railroad.  3.  A combination thereof.

I would like to express that I believe that rail transport is by far the best option for moving this large amount of material safely.  Prior to laying out my thoughts, I will reflect briefly on highway transport and outline what I believe the challenges of road transportation are.  

1. Highway winter conditions:  Roughly 80% of the roadway that the used fuel will travel is in Northern Ontario.  Roads are consistently closed in the winter, or feature dangerous driving conditions.  This either slows the loads down, or they are only transported during summer and spring weather. 
2. Environmental factors:  Multiple semi-trucks create a great deal more pollution than one train.
3. Due to the geography of the southern route (highway 17) highway 11 is the best route.  While the route is flatter it is already the preferred route for large truck travel and adding the number of trucks needed for the DGR transport will clog these roads even further, causing huge bottlenecks.  Not only will this slow traffic, it will encourage unsafe passing practices and will potentially affect the ability of emergency services to get to places they need to get to.  Unless the province twins highway 11 from Barrie to Ignace, congestion will be a big issue.  This will be a huge safety concern, requiring significantly increased OPP and MTO presence.  
4. Mechanical failure of semi trucks will be much more likely.  A train with two or three locomotives, will transport dozens, or even hundreds of cars.  One truck, one container.  Breakdowns that are just going to happen, will slow down the process.  If a vehicle is stopped for mechanical reasons, there will be security issues while it waits to be repaired, or transfer the load to a new vehicle.
5. Transport by truck will be more expensive.  In order to keep the vehicles moving 24 hours, keeping mind the regulations pertaining to driver times, two drivers will have to be in the truck.  On a train, the same two person crew, will be able to transport potentially a hundred containers, as opposed to one.  
6. Protests.  It can only be certain that there will be protests along the route.  There can be no doubt that those who are opposed to the DGR in general, will have the ability and the right to protest the transportation.  With truck transport, there are multiple spots for protestors to gather.  There are multiple small towns where vehicles have to slow down, not to mention stop for meals and breaks, and this will give the protestors ample opportunity to slow and even block the deliveries.  

Benefits of rail transport using CN Rail

1. Rail transport is more efficient.  A KM long train, with as many as a 100 cars can carry a large number of used fuel transport containers, with 2 employees for roughly 700 km.  The turnaround at the crew change spot is quick and seamless.  This would happen in Capreol, Hornepayne, Armstrong and Sioux Lookout.
2. Isolation.  Large sections of CN track are through isolated areas.  This makes it safer in case of a derailment and provides far less challenge as far as transport through more populated areas.  It does create more of a challenge with potential derailments, however CN’s safety record has improved in the last decade with few derailments.  
3. Security:  If it was determined that a high level of security was required for transport, such a police or even military presence, it would be much simpler to have the required security on the train (security cars could be placed at the front, middle and back of the train) than to to have escort vehicles accompanying a convoy of trucks.  Previously stated traffic challenges would also apply to escort vehicles.
4. Geography.  Much of the route is flat, running though the Cambrian shield, ensuring that the movement of the train is efficient on primarily low and flat ground.
5. CN Rail does not go to Ignace, however two options can be considered

1.  Build a spur line from the CN track, somewhere near to Sioux Lookout, directly to the Revell site.
2. Transfer the train to CP tracks where the two rails cross each other, in Manitoba.  I lay this one out in a bit more detail below.

6.  Empty containers could conceivably return to the current storage site via CP rail.

CP Rail

1. CP Rail has the advantage of going directly to Ignace, much closer to the Revell site.
2. A large portion of CP rail travels along, or near Lake Superior.  The terrain is more challenging and in the event of a derailment, containers falling into the lake would be possible.  While they are built to withstand that, the political fallout would be huge.
3. Retrieval of any containers that fell into the lake would be challenging.
4. CP rail also goes through larger cities, including Thunder Bay, which currently is an area of increasing opposition to the NWMO plan.  The required slowing of trains through town would be an ideal opportunity for protest as well as possible sabotage.
5. Once in Ignace, there would still need to be a spur built to the site, or an offload site to transport the material the final steps.

CN and CP Rail solution.

One solution to the rail questions is to use both CN and CP rail.  The used fuel can be loaded in the GTA and put on the main CN line.  The train can travel into Manitoba and then where CN and CP cross, at approximately 49.870241 95.608952,  (Photo attached, courtesy of Jaro Franta) the train can be transferred to the CP track and brought very close to the Revell site west of Ignace. There would need to be some infrastructure done to make the switching of tracks as efficient as possible, but there would also need to be some infrastructure, in the form of a spur line from the main CP line to the Revell site.  It would seem inefficient to me to have an offloading facility then truck the used fuel the remaining 50 or so kilometres.  

In conclusion, it is my opinion that transportation by rail is more efficient, more environmentally friendly and less risky on several fronts. I would urge those who have been tasked with the job of determining the best transportation options, to begin planning and early discussions with CN Rail in order to be able to hit the ground running when the time arrives.