oai?

the people living near the site will be most significantly affected, but they also recognize that the hazards and impacts of transporting wastes are national in scope. Because the DOE's main goal in transportation is safety, and the guidelines emphasize the role of safety, transportation safety is the most important consideration in evaluating the sites. The transportation of radioactive materials during the past MO years has been accomplished with an exemplary record of safety. Models that are used to estimate the radiological risks of transportation tend to generate extremely low expected-risk values for the public because they rely on historical data. When relative terms like "high" or "moderate" are used in this evaluation, they must be considered in the context of the low overall radiological risk from transportation. The nonradiological risk is calculated under the assumption that the probability of accidents for radioactivewaste shipments can be represented by accident statistics for general co merce. The DOE believes that these accident statistics will overestimate the actual number of deaths and injuries. Other factors being equal, the site with the smallest radiological hazard will also have the smallest nonradiological hazard. Since the principal contributing factor in determining risk is the distance traveled, a better site for this consideration is one that is close to the sources of spent fuel and highlevel waste. Other contributing factors that increase the favorability of sites are access and local routes that avoid population centers, flat local terrain with good visibility, and regional weather conditions that rarely cause hazardous road conditions. It should be noted that, regarding weather conditions, the DOE needs additional information before determining the comparative favorability of the sites. In contrast, less favorable sites are distant from waste sources, must be reached by routes that pass through population centers or rugged terrain, and are located in regions where weather conditions often cause hazardous road conditions. A summary of transportation risk and cost calculations is presented in Table 7l6; the reader is referred to Appendix A for moreextensive analytical results. Table 7-17 presents the factors used to evaluate disruptions of the environment and the cost of infrastructure. A summary of the evaluation for each site follows. Davis Canyon is centrally located in the large region defined by the five nominated sites, but it is more difficult to reach because of its remote and rugged setting. Access from existing highways and railroads is extremely _ difficult, and there is a potential for landslides that could interrupt or jeopardize shipments. A long stretch of noninterstate highway must be traversed before reaching the site. From a national perspective, the relative _ risk of transporting to Davis Canyon is moderate to high, but that risk has to be considered along with the potential hazards near the site that could further reduce the overall level of safety. However, the added risk associated with hazardous local access to the site is somewhat offset by the remoteness of the site and the low population density in the area. The Deaf Smith site is convenient to major national highways. The distance from sources of spent fuel is low to moderate, and, as shown in Table 7-16, the level of relative safety is therefore moderate to high. The terrain surrounding the site is generally flat and poses no safety hazard. The population density around the site is low to moderate. 7-95